THE PRIMITIVE SAINTS AND THE SEE OF ROME THE PRIMITIVE SAINTS AND THE SEE OF ROME BY F. W. PULLER OF THE SOCIETY OF S. JOHN THE EVANGELIST, COWLEY WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY EDWARD, LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK AND BOMBAY 1900 All rights reserved TO MY MOST HOLY MOTHER THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND "IN SPITE OF DISASTERS AND MENACING TROUBLES THE MOST GLORIOUS CHURCH IN CHRISTENDOM" 1 1 R, W. Church, D.D., Dean of S. Paul's. * 2066871 CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION (1900), BY THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN xiii INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EDITION (1893), BY THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN xvii AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION (1900) xxvii AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1893) xxxi PART I. THE POPES HAVE NO DIVINELY GIVEN PRIMACY OF JURISDICTION. LECTURE I. THE SEE OF ROME IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. I. Introductory Primitive organization and precedence The Paschal Controversy The Irenaean Passage. The controversy with Rome a necessity I The points to be discussed 3 The Roman claims, as defined at the Vatican Council ib, The essential equality of all bishops in early times 5 Two modifying cross-principles (i.) Metropolitical authority and civil precedence 6 (ii.) The influence of the apostolic sees IO The order of reputed civil precedence governed the situation 1 1 The position of the Bishop of Rome in ante-Nicene times 13 The Paschal controversy in the time of Victor 14 The witness of S. Irenaeus in regard to the see of Rome 19 LECTURE II. THE SEE OF ROME IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. II. The Theory that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome The Clementine Romance S. Cypriads Witness. The question of S. Peter's Roman episcopate 36 The Clementine romance and the Petrine legend 41 " The most blessed Pope Cyprian " of Carthage 49 S. Cyprian on the " ecclesia principalis " 5 S. Cyprian denounces appeals to Rome 5 2 The episode of Marcianus of Aries 55 The episode of Basilides and Martialis 59 CONTENTS. The dispute about the baptism of heretics ........ 61 " The harsh obstinacy of our brother Stephen ".. ....... 4 The excommunication of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian ....... 7 The Roman Church makes amends ..... ....... 7 Appendix A. The excommunication of S. Cyprian- ...... 72 Appendix B .Concerning passages from S. Cyprian s works, -which are quoted by Ultramontanes in support of their contention that S. Cyprian held the papal theory ..... 77 Addendum to Appendix B ............. 9 1 LECTURE III. THE RELATION OF S. PETER TO THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE AND TO THE CHURCH. Summary of the two previous lectures ........... 9 6 " Thou art Peter " ................. 97 The varying patristic interpretations of " the rock " ....... 92 S. Augustine s anti-Donatist ballad ............ 100 S. Augustine's change of view ............. IOI The true interpretation of " the rock " ........... 105 Leadership not jurisdiction ............... 108 The witness of Scripture against the Roman theory The mission to Samaria .............. HO James, Cephas, and John recognized as pillars ....... HI The president of the Council of Jerusalem ......... 113 Scripture nowhere clearly connects S. Peter with Rome ..... 116 Appendix C. On our Lord's words to S. Peter (S. John xxi. 15-17), " Feed My lambs ; " " Tend My sheep ;" " Feed My sheep" .............. 117 LECTURE IV. THE GROWTH OF THE PAPAL POWER FROM THE PEACE OF THE CHURCH TO THE END OF THE PONTIFICATE OF DAMASUS. Summary of the previous lectures 129 The world admitted within the enclosure of the Church 131 The lowering of the spiritual tone of the clergy 133 This lowering process traced at Rome during the pontificates of ? J ul . ius 135 Libenus ^ Damasus 136 The Council of Nicaea and the Roman see 137 The Council of Sardica and the Roman see 140 The Emperors make Damasus Patriarch of the West 144 Damasus creates a papal vicariate at Thessalonica 156 The Eustathian schism at Antioch 158 S. Jerome's letter to Damasus 161 S. Basil's letters about Damasus !6^ S. Meletius presides over the second Ecumenical Council 165 He dies out of communion with Rome during the session of the council. . 166 Appendix D. Did the Council of Chalcedon blame Dioscorus for pre- siding over the Latrocinium without papal authoriza' tion ? Did Hosius preside at Nicaea as a fatal legate? P f , ib . Appendix E. The canons of Sardica and the Eastern Church . . . 172 CONTENTS. IX LECTURE V. THE GROWTH OF THE PAPAL POWER DURING THE SIXTY YEARS WHICH FOLLOWED THE DEATH OF DAMASUS. PAGE The effects of the rescripts of Valentinian I. and Gratian 178 Legislative authority exercised through decretal epistles ib. " Blessed Peter lives and judges in his successors " 181 Resistance in the West to the new State-created patriarchal yoke . . . 183 The case of Apiarius of Sicca ib. The Councils of Carthage in 418 and 419 184 The African letter (Quoniam Domino) to Pope Boniface 186 Pope Celestine receives Apiarius to communion after his second condemna- tion 190 The African letter (Oplaremus) to Pope Celestine ib. The case of Anthony of Fussala 194 The case of S. Hilary of Aries 196 The rescript of Valentinian III 200 Concluding remarks on the later developments of the papal power . . . 202 Appendix F. On the gettuineness of the Letter Optaremus, addressed by a Carthaginian council (circa 426) to Pope Celestine . 204 PART II. COMMUNION WITH THE ROMAN SEE IS NOT A NECESSARY CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. LECTURE VI. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. Summary of the preceding lectures 215 Cardinal Wiseman's statement 216 The Roman theory of unity ib. Contrast between the Catholic doctrine and the Roman theory .... 217 The testimony of Holy Scripture in favour of the Catholic doctrine The analogy between Israel and the Church 219 Our Lord's prayer for unity at the Last Supper 222 Transition to the testimony of the Fathers 224 The action of the Catholic episcopate in the time of Pope Victor . . . ib. The witness of S. Cyprian and of S. Firmilian 225 LECTURE VII. THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. I. The thirty years of promiscuous communion in the East. A.D. 331 TO A.D. 361. The Antiochene Catholics remain in communion with their Arianizing bishops 227 The Eustathians break away 228 The East and the West cease to communicate together after the Council of Sardica 229 Two attempts to restore peace (1) in A.D. 345 232 (2) in A.D. 352 233 X CONTENTS. PAGE Promiscuous communion between the orthodox and the Arians in the East . 235 The middle party in the Eastern ^Church - ib> Some of the Saints who belonged to that party S. Cyril of Jerusalem 2 37 S. Basil the Great 2 3 S. Eusebius of Samosata 2 4 S. Meletius of Antioch 2 4* S. Meletius' consecration to the see of Sebaste in 357 *. His election to the see of Antioch in 361 2 45 His orthodoxy 2 47 His sermon preached in the presence of the Emperor 254 The Arian, Euzoius, is intruded into his see 255 LECTURE VIII. THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. II. The Council of Alexandria, held in 362. The accession of Julian the Apostate brings relief to the Church . . . 258 The proceedings of the Council of Alexandria 259 The programme of the council for the healing of the Antiochene schism . 261 Lucifer consecrates Paulinus 264 The general pacification of the Church in 362, the work of S. Athanasius rather than of Liberius .... 265 S. Athanasius reconciles the penitent Liberius 272 Liberius after his reconciliation helps forward the work of pacification initiated by S. Athanasius ib. The leadership of Rome is not a vital element in the Church's constitution . 274 Appendix G. On Sozowen's account of Liberius' fall 275 Addendum to Appendix G, 287 LECTURE IX. THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. III. From the death of Julian to the death of Valens (363-378). S. Meletius refuses to communicate with S. Athanasius 288 S. Athanasius then re-admits the Eustathians to his communion .... 289 S. Meletius at the Council of Antioch accepts the Nicene terminology . . 291 Liberius admits the Semi-Arians to his communion 293 Dorotheus' first mission to the West 297 The Council of Rome (December, 371) 299 The Easterns send a second letter to the West by Sabinus 301 Damasus returns this letter, unanswered, by the hands of Evagrius . . . 303 The Easterns send a third letter to the West by Dorotheus and Sanctissimus 305 The Council of Rome, held in the summer of 374 307 Vitalis joins the Apollinarians 308 S. Jerome writes to Damasus in 375 from the desert of Chalcis . . . . 311 Vitahs goes to Rome, and tries to get himself recognized 314 Damasus sends letters of communion to Paulinus 315 S. Basil holds that Damasus "has defrauded of his due the bishop of the true Church of God, Meletius " 321 Tru BaS i! continues to communicate with S. Meletius, and to reject Paulinus 322 I he Easterns send a fourth letter to the West by Dorotheus and Sanctissimus ^24 The Council of Rome, held in 376 or 377 ! \ '. '. .' '. '. \ \ \ 326 The end of the Arian persecution in the East ......... 328 CONTENTS. XI LECTURE X. THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. IV. The Compact between S. Mdetius and Paulimts. PAGE The Council of Antioch in 379 sends letters to Rome 329 The Council of Rome in 380 implies that S. Meletius is still outside the communion of the West 330 The Emperor Theodosius' laws in favour of the Nicene faith 334 Sapor decides that the churches at Antioch shall be handed over to S. Meletius, and not to either Paulinus or Vitalis 336 S. Meletius and Paulinus make a compact in February or March, 381 . . 339 The nature of the compact 340 S. Meletius' embassy to the West 342 The compact is provisionally ratified by the bishops of the province of Milan 344 But S. Meletius still remains outside the communion of the West . . . 347 S. Meletius dies outside the Roman communion 350 Summary account of S. Meletius' history and status it. Appendix H. On the way in which it came to pass that the Constanti- nopolitan Council of 381 was finally recognized by the whole Church as an Ecumenical Council . . . . 353 LECTURE XI. THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. V. The Episcopate of S. Flavian. The Eastern bishops refuse to ratify the compact 362 S. Flavian succeeds to the throne of Antioch : 364 S. Flavian's consecrators excommunicated by Damasus 365 S. Chrysostom out of communion with Rome till he was fifty-one or perhaps fifty-four years old ib. S. Chrysostom' s veneration for S. Flavian 366 The uncanonical consecration of Evagrius 367 S. Chrysostom warns those who go over to the Roman communion of the wickedness of that proceeding 368 S. Chrysostom and S. Flavian enter into communion with Rome on their own terms 371 Appendix I. S. Chrysostom's view of S. Peter's position in connexion with the election of S. Matthias to the apostolate . . 372 LECTURE XII. THE ACACIAN TROUBLES The growth of the power of the Roman see after the rescript of Valentinian III 376 The quarrel with Acacius 377 Felix III. deposes and excommunicates Acacius 379 The invalidity of this act *&. The spurious clause alleged, as from a Nicene canon, in its defence . . . 381 The completeness of the breach between Rome and the East 383 Felix refuses to communicate with Euphemius 3^4 The description of the situation by Cyril of Scythopolis 386 xii CONTENTS. The Eastern saints during the schism S. Elias of Jerusalem . 3 8 7 S. Macedonius of Constantinople ib. Catalogue of other Eastern saints who lived during the schism . . . 388 Notes on these saints 39 The importance of their testimony 396 How the Acacian troubles came to an end Justin succeeds to Anastasius ib. The day of the great acclamations 397 The libellus of Pope Hormisdas 398 The Patriarch John's preamble to the libellus 400 The majority of the Eastern bishops refuse to sign 401 Pope Hormisdas waives his libellus, and peace ensues 402 Father Bottalla's extraordinary account of this episode ib. The witness of the East against the papal theory 403. The African Church excommunicates Pope Vigilius 404 S. Mennas of Constantinople also excommunicates him ib. S. Eutychius and the Fifth Ecumenical Council act in defiance of his wishes ib. The pope confesses that the devil had deceived him, and retracts . . . 405 The saints of Como, who were never in communion with Rome . . . ib. S. Columbanus justifies the bishops who refused to communicate with Rome ib . The true conditions of Catholic communion 406 Christ the only Head of the Church ib. The certainty of the Church's ultimate re-union 408 Appendix y. On the completeness of the breach of .communion between the East and the West during the period of the Acacian troubles 409 Addendum to Appendix J. 414 Appendix K. The 350 Martyrs of Syria Secunda ...... 418 Appendix L. On the fact that many of the Oriental bishops were admitted to the communion of Hormisdas -without signing his libellus 421 Appendix M. On the Principle of Development 424 ADDITIONAL NOTES 434 EXCURSUS I. On the date of the Roman Council -which petitioned Gratian on the subject of the trial of bishops in the letter ~E.i hoc Gloriae Vestrae 510 EXCURSUS II. On certain facts and dales connected with the proceedings of Maximus the Cynic in North Italy, which corroborate the conclusion that a council 'of 'the province of Milan was held in May, or thereabouts ; in the year 381 529 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF ECCLESIASTICAL EVENTS BELONGING TO THE YEARS 381 AND 382 54I CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE COUNCILS TO WHICH REFERENCE is ' MADE IN THIS VOLUME ,43 CATALOGUE OF THE NAMES OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME "DURING THE FIRST Six CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST . r 4C INDEX . . . 547 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION (1900) BY THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN I HAVE been asked by my dear and learned friend, Father Puller, to write a short letter by way of Introduction to the new edition of his excellent book, the Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. I am very glad to know that the book has been so much approved that a third edition is asked for. There is no real need for any commendatory letter from me. Father Puller's accurate learning and his fearless honesty in argument are sufficient to commend all that he writes. Nevertheless, as I wrote a short Preface to the first edition, and some considerable additions have been made to the book, it was desired that I should see what the additions are, in order that the original Preface, if possible, might stand. The additions in the new edition are considerable, and show a great amount of careful work, including replies to such criticisms on the two earlier editions as had naturally come from Roman sources. But there is no change in the line of argument, or in the conclusion. The additions consist principally of certain new Lectures with Appendices, and a large number of explanatory notes. Attention may be specially called to Appendix M, which deals with "The Principle of Development." The new Lectures are the /th, 8th, 9th, loth, and nth, with their Appendices. Some few portions of the other Lectures have been re- written. Thus the book remains substantially the same in its incontrovertible excellence. x iv INTRODUCTION (1900). It is sad to dwell upon any period of controversy, in which the Church has been engaged ; but one can hardly look back again on the condition of Christendom in the fourth century without a feeling of thankfulness and re- newed confidence, when one considers the divisions and suspicions and almost hopeless confusion, through which the Holy Spirit has led the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and has preserved her amongst us to the present time. The dangers arising from the teaching of Arius, Marcellus, Macedonius, and Apollinarius were vital ; and even the new word O,UOOV(T' h * wri * s ' to [the plfriarch ite Af' T K C ^ un how Tertullian, arguing with heretics, speaks about 1 See Additional Note 3, p. 435. 2 Tertullian, De Praescr. Haer. xxxii. I.] THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. I I the Apostolic Churches : " Come, now," he says, " thou that wilt exercise thy curiosity to better purpose in the business of thy salvation, go through the Apostolic Churches, in which the very seats of the apostles, at this very day, preside over their own places ; in which their own authentic writings are read, speaking with the voice of each, and making the face of each present to the eye. Is Achaia near to thee ? thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi, thou hast the Thessalonians. If thou canst travel into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. But if thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also (i.e. we in Africa) have an authority close at hand." l No one ever suggested that the special influence which attached to the apostolic sees, and the reverence which was yielded to them, was a matter of positive divine appointment. It was the natural reverence of Christians for the holy apostles, and for everything which seemed in a special way to have come in contact with the apostles. So, to sum up this part of our subject, by divine right all bishops were inherently equal, but by custom and ecclesias- tical legislation the bishops of the metropolitical sees acquired certain rights which were delegated to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most important churches a certain order of precedence grew up, which corresponded with what may be called the civil dignity of the cities in which those churches existed ; and, finally, the churches which were founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence. If we now confine our attention to the more powerful churches which took the lead in ecclesiastical matters, it will be worth while to ask the question whether their influence mainly rested on what I have called the civil dignity of the city, or on the apostolic character of the see. I think that there can be no doubt that their influence mainly resulted from the civil dignity of the city. For example, during the greater part of the first three centuries the see of Jerusalem, which in the apostolic days had been the most influential of all sees, exerted very little influence on the general course of Church affairs. The city had been destroyed by Hadrian, and the new city was comparatively feeble and uninfluential. So, again, Philippi and Corinth, which were apostolical, had much less influence than Carthage, the capital of Africa, which made no pretence to an apostolic foundation. If we compare Antioch with Alexandria, we find that both S. Peter and S. Paul had spent some time in Antioch, whereas Alexandria could only trace back to S. Mark the Evangelist, and through him indirectly to S. Peter. Judged by apostolic pretensions, Antioch ought to have ranked before Alexandria ; but 1 De Praescr. Haer. xxxvi. 1 2 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [L Alexandria was commonly regarded as the second city of the empire, and Antioch as the third, 1 and the order of reputed civil dignity governed the situation. 2 The Church of Alex- andria, though only quasi-apostolical, ranked second, and "the truly Apostolical Church" of Antioch ranked third. And doubtless as it was with all the other churches, so it was with Rome. If we ask why the Church of Rome ranked first, the true answer undoubtedly is that Rome was the imperial city, the capital of the civilized world. The primacy hinged on that. The fact that S. Peter and S. Paul had been the apostolic founders of the Roman Church, and had been martyred there, would never by itself have resulted in the primacy of that Church, any more than the fact of Jerusalem being the place where the Saviour died and rose again, and where the Church had come fully into existence on the day of Pentecost, availed in default of civil dignity to secure any commanding position for the Church of the holy city. The apostolicity of the Roman Church immensely added to its influence and helped to attract to it the reverence of Chris- tians all over the world ; but the imperial position of the city of Rome was the determining factor which secured for it the primacy. 3 Undoubtedly the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was historically right, when in its twenty-eighth canon it defined that "the Fathers properly gave the privileges to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city"* The position could not be more accurately stated. 1 Tillemont (ii. 92) speaks of Alexandria as being " cette grande ville qui estoit la premiere de 1'Empire apres Rome." Dion Chrysostom, who flourished during the reigns of Nerva and Trajan, addressing the citizens of Alexandria, says (Orat. xxii. ad Alexandrinos, ed. Arnim, 1893, vol. i. p. 277), "Your city excels most exceedingly in size and situation, and is notoriously considered as the second among the cities under the sun." Josephus (De Bella Jud., iii. 2, Opp., ed. Havercamp, 1726, ii. 221, 222), speaking of Antioch, says that "in size and other advantages it indisputably held the third place in the Roman world." Compare Aube, L'Eglise et FEtat, pp. 451, 452, ed. 1886. * See Additional Note 4, p. 435. * Dr. Bright (Church Quarterly, vol. xlix. p. 14, note I) says, " No doubt the connexion of both Peter and Paul with the Roman Church, did much to build up her ' primacy of honour and influence ; ' but its original basis was the grandeur of the 'Urbs' itself, as the centre of the Roman world." This statement seems to me to express the exact truth. 1 The truth of the statement in the text does not in any way depend on the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon being a canon of ecumenical authority. S . Leo, and the West following S. Leo, rejected the canon. But it still remains the fact that the council as a whole passed it, and that the East in practice obeyed it ; and there can be no doubt that, whether the decree was or was not ecumenically binding, its statement about the origin of the privileges of the Roman see is historically correct. The divine origin of the jurisdiction claimed by the popes is a fundamental dogma among modern Roman Catholics, or rather it is, in their view, the fundamental dogma. One would think that Roman Catholic students of the canons must be somewhat puzzled to find a great Ecumenical Council, in which all manner of circumstances combined to give a most commanding position to the pope, passing a canon which lays down as an obvious undeniable truth that L] THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 13 The primatial privileges of the Roman see were not of divine institution ; they were "given by tJie Fathers" and they were given on the ground of the imperial authority and dignity of the city. To sum up what has been said in regard to the Roman Church. 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 con- stituted in the great cities of the empire took the lead in the order of the civil precedence commonly attributed to them, with the Church of imperial Rome necessarily in the first place. The mere fact of holding the first place was a cause of growing influence. One result of the pre-eminent influence of the Roman see was that the ecclesiastical province over which it acquired metropolitical jurisdiction was much larger than any other province in the Church, except that over which the see of Alexandria, ranking next to Rome in honour, presided. 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 of the city, 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 half 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 the privileges of the Roman see were given to it " by the Fathers," because Rome "was the imperial city." For a good account of the enacting of the twenty- eighth canon, and of the way in which, notwithstanding the pope's protests, the canon practically held its ground, see a powerful article in the Church Quarterly for October, 1889, entitled, A Roman Proselyte on Ancient Church History, pp. 131-133. Mgr. Duchesne, one of the most learned, if not the most learned, of living French ecclesiastics, and who, in everything that he writes, is refreshingly fair and straightforward, describes (Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 24) how the popes refused to accept the canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon, which regulated the precedence and jurisdiction of the see of Constantinople ; but he candidly adds, "mais leur voix fut pen ecoutee ; on leur accorda sans doute des satisfactions, mais de pure ceremonie" In ante-Nicene times even ceremonial satisfactions would have been refused, as the histories of Popes Victor and Stephen show. Mr. Richardson ( What are the CatJiolic Claims ? p. 93) attempts to reply to the Fathers of Chalcedon by asking the question, " Can any one point to a human grant of the primacy to Rome ? " The inconclusiveness of the argument implied in that question may be shown by asking another, ' ' Can any one point to a human grant of the primacy over Africa to Carthage ? or of the primacy over Palestine to Caesarea ? " Yet who supposes that the jurisdiction of those sees was secured to them by the jus divinum ? Compare the remarks of Mohler and of Father de Smedt, to which reference is made in the note on p. 7. It ought to be observed that, when the Fathers of Chalcedon attributed the privileges of the Roman see to the fact that it was the imperial city, they were merely repeating what the second Ecumenical Council had implied in its third canon, seventy years before (see Dr. Bright's Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Coitncils, p. 93, 1st edit.). I 4 THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. [I. 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 affecting 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 inherent jurisdiction of the Roman see was exactly the same as the inherent jurisdiction of every other see in Christendom. Its acquired or delegated jurisdiction was limited first to the whole of Italy, and then later, from about the middle of the fourth century, to the suburbicarian provinces of Central and Southern Italy with the adjacent islands. Outside those provinces, throughout the Church, but especially in the West, Rome had influence, but no actual jurisdiction, 1 whether patriarchal or papal. Similarly the Bishop of Alexandria's acquired jurisdiction was limited to Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, but his influence ex- tended over the whole Church, and especially over the East. In the preceding statement I have tried to set before you a true view of the relations of the various sees to one another, and especially of the relation of the Bishop of Rome to his brothers and colleagues in the episcopate during the first three centuries. The justification of that statement will be perceived if the facts of early Church history and the writings of the early Fathers are studied. As I am giving a lecture, and not writing an exhaustive treatise, I can only discuss a small selection of facts and passages, but I honestly think that the selection which I shall make will be a fair selection. I propose, then, to consider 1. The Paschal controversy in the time of Pope Victor : 2. The famous passage of S. Irenaeus about the Roman Church : 3. The history of S. Cyprian of Carthage. The Paschal Controversy. The bishops of Proconsular Asia, the metropolis of which was Ephesus, had been accustomed ever since the time of the apostles to keep the feast of Easter on the day of the Paschal full moon, whether that day fell on a Sunday or on any other day of the week. The bishops in all, or almost all the other provinces of the Church, both in the East and in the West, kept Easter on the Sunday following the Paschal full moon. The bishops of the province of Ephesus asserted that they had received their custom by tradition from S. John and one can hardly doubt that that assertion of theirs was 1 See Additional Note 5, p. 436. I.] THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 15 true, because S. Polycarp assured the Roman pope, Anicetus, that he had always so kept the feast " with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had lived." l However, the churches which kept Easter on Sunday also claimed that they had received their custom by tradition from the apostles. During the greater part of the second century the two customs went on side by side, and yet the Church was not disturbed by any serious dissension in connexion with this matter. On the contrary, when the Christians from Asia came to Rome, they were allowed to keep the feast on their own Asiatic day, although the Roman Church itself kept the feast always on the Sunday. This large-hearted tolerance was exhibited by the five Roman bishops, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, 2 whose pontificates lasted from about A.D. 118 to about A.D. 165. It seems pro- bable that Pope Soter, the successor of Anicetus, forbade the Asian Christians, who came to Rome, to keep their Asiatic Easter in Rome itself. He appears to have required all Catholic Christians living in Rome to keep the feast together on the Sunday after the full moon ; but he remained in peace and fellowship with the bishops of Asia, who in their own province of Asia went on celebrating the festival on the day of the full moon. Soter's successor, Eleutherus, followed on the same lines. But Victor, who succeeded Eleutherus, and who governed the Roman Church from about A.D. 188 to A.D. 198, determined to make an effort to establish uniformity and to suppress altogether the Asiatic custom. He appears to have written letters in the name of his church to the several metropolitans, begging them to summon their provincial synods, and to discuss in them the question of the proper day for the celebration of the Easter festival. It is important to notice exactly what the pope's action was at this initial stage. He was the first bishop in the Church, and it was most fitting that he should take the initiative. There is no reason to suppose that by any authoritative act he commanded his brother-metropolitans to summon their synods. What he did was to ask them to do so. Polycrates, the Bishop of Ephesus, writing later on to Victor and the Roman Church, says : " I could also mention the bishops that were present [at the synod in Ephesus], whom you requested (j^twtrarf) me to summon." 3 Though the word atoo> may be used in the sense of " to require," yet this is not its only meaning. It seems to be the right word to express requests made by one 1 Euseb., H. ., v. 24. 3 Tillemont, iii. 103. 3 Euseb., H. ., v. 24. Tillemont (iii. 633) expresses Polycrates' meaning thus: " Polycrate dit que Victor 'lavait/ra'd'assembler les Eveques de 1'Asie." 1 6 THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. [I. church to another church. Thus, after the death of S. Poly- carp the Church of Smyrna wrote a short account of his martyrdom to the little Church of Philomelium in Phrygia. Towards the conclusion of the letter the Smyrnaeans say, " Ye indeed requested (hZtuaaTt) that the things which hap- pened should be shown unto you at greater length." ] S. Clement of Rome uses the word a>w three times of entreat- ing or beseeching God. 2 So Pope Victor, who had no jurisdic- tion in the province of Asia, requested Polycrates the metro- politan to exercise the authority which he possessed, and to convoke (/jtraicaAav) the bishops of his province. In com- pliance with the request of the Roman Church, synods were held in many provinces, as, for example, in Palestine, in Asia, in Pontus, in Gaul, 8 in Osrhoene, and elsewhere. There was a unanimous determination throughout the Church, except in Asia and the neighbouring region, that Easter should be cele- brated on Sunday. Victor held his own local synod in Rome ; and in communicating its decision to Polycrates he appears to have threatened that if the Asians persisted in their custom, they would be cut off from the communion of the Roman Church. Polycrates, with the consent of the Asian bishops, replied in a letter full of interesting details, addressed, not to Victor only, but to the whole Roman Church, in which he says, " I am not scared by those who intimidate us [with threats], for they, who are greater than I, have said, 4 We ought to obey God rather than men.' " 4 " Upon this," Eusebius says, "Victor, the Bishop of the Church of the Romans, forthwith endeavours to cut off the churches of all Asia, together with the neighbouring churches, as heterodox, from the common unity ; and he denounces them by letters, and proclaims that all the brethren there are titterly (a/oStji/) separated from communion:' However, these measures did not please all the bishops. They exhort him, therefore, on the other side to pursue peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. Their writings too are extant, somewhat sharply upbraiding (Tr\r)KTiKu)repov KadairTOfjifvwv) Victor. Among these also was Irenaeus, who, in the name of those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintains indeed that the 1 Mart. Pol. t xx. 8 S. Clem. Rom. ad Cor., li., liii. and Iv. Perhaps in Gaul the synod was diocesan rather than provincial. It seems probable that in the time of Victor there was only one bishopric in Gaul, the seat of which was at Lyons. See an article by Mgr. Duchesne, entitled L'origine des dioceses episcopaux dans Faneitnne Gaule, which appeared in the Bulletin et Memoires de la Societe Nationals des Antiquaires de France, tome 1 pp 187-100 (Paris : 1889). See also Duchesne's Origines ChrMennes, p. 450. 1 Euseb., H. ., v. 21. S. Jerome (De Illustribus Viris, cap. xlv., Migne's Patrol. Lat., xxin. 659) translates Polycrates' words as follows: "Non formidabo eos qui nobis minantur." s See Additional Note 6, p. 436. L] THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. IJ mystery of the Lord's resurrection should be celebrated only on the Lord's day ; but he also becomingly exhorts Victor * not to cut off whole churches of God, which preserve the tradition of an ancient custom. . . . And this same Irenaeus, bearing out his name, and a peacemaker in temper, exhorted and mediated in ways like these for the peace of the churches. He also wrote, not to Victor alone, but to very many other rulers of churches respecting the question which was agitated." 2 One would certainly conclude from the account given by Eusebius that the Asian churches persevered in the practice which they inherited from S. John. Sixty years after their dispute with Victor we seem to be able to gather from S. Firmilian that the Churches of Rome and Caesarea differed in regard to the days on which Easter was to be celebrated. 3 Cappadocia and Asia were neighbouring provinces, and, if in S. Firmilian's time the former was quartodeciman, it is probable that the latter was so also. Later on, before the time of the Council of Nicaea, quartodecimanism seems to have come to an end within the communion of the Catholic Church. There are various points in this narrative to which it may be well to call your attention. Polycrates was a man whose orthodoxy, as Eusebius tells us, 4 was notorious, and he is described in the Synodicon as a very holy person ; 5 and yet when Pope Victor required him to alter his day for keeping Easter, and threatened him with excommunication if he refused, he replied that he was not scared by Victor's threats. He evidently had not been brought up in the teaching which was so clearly set forth by the Vatican Council. Polycrates, though he must have been educated among those who knew S. John, had not been taught that all the pastors and all the faithful are bound to the authority of the pope "by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the dis- cipline and government of the Church." Still less did he know that " none can deviate from this teaching without the loss of his faith, and salvation." From the point of view of the Vatican Council, Polycrates' letter was a wicked act of rebellion, and all the bishops of Asia, by consenting to that act of rebellion, became partakers in their metropolitan's guilt. But the Fathers of the Church were wholly uncon- 1 The historian Socrates (//. ., v. 22, 16, ed. Hussey, 1853, 11.626) says that S. Irenaeus " chivalrously inveighed against (ftvva.ia>s KareSpa^sf) Victor" on this occasion. 2 Euseb., ff..,v.24. 3 Ep. S. Firmil. inter Cyprianicas, Ixxv. 6, Ofp. t ii. 813. See Additional Note 7, p. 438. * //. ., v. 22. 5 Tillemont, iii. 107. C ! 8 THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY, [I. scious of that view of the matter. When S. Jerome writes a short life of Polycrates, he says nothing about rebellion or any other wrong-doing, but quotes the most important part of Polycrates' letter, including his refusal to conform himself to Victor's decision, as a proof of the ability and weight of the man. 1 Moreover, S. Irenaeus, and numbers of other Catholic bishops, took the same view. No doubt they thought that there had been wrong-doing; but in their view, not Polycrates, but Victor was the culprit. They "upbraided" Victor "somewhat sharply." As far as we know, they said nothing to Polycrates. But perhaps for our purpose the most important point to notice is that nobody seems to have supposed that communion with the Catholic Church depended on communion with the Roman see. Victor wrote letters, in which he announced that all the Asian brethren were " utterly separated from communion." It was, of course, in the Roman bishop's power to exclude them from the communion of the Roman Church. In those days it was in the power of every bishop to decide who was to be in the communion of his church, and who was to be excluded. But exclusion from the communion of the Roman Church, though it might lead to exclusion from the communion of the Catholic Church, did not necessarily involve such exclusion. Therefore Eusebius tells us that, while Victor (speaking, no doubt, for his own church) announced that the Asians were " utterly separated from communion," he at the same time "endeavoured to cut them off, as heterodox, /;w;/ tJie common unity" He endeavoured, but he failed in his endeavour. The other bishops objected to Victor's pro- ceeding. They refused to withdraw their communion from Polycrates. He therefore remained united to the common unity of the Catholic Church, although cut off from the communion of the Roman Church. A very important prin- ciple underlies this fact. Evidently, in the second century the Church was in no way the born handmaid of the Roman pontiff. The theory set forth in the Vatican decrees was unknown. The Roman Church was not held to be the necessary centre of unity. We may also gather from this whole history that it is a very dangerous thing to attempt to learn the rightful authority of the Roman popes from the claims which they make. The Roman popes, with very few exceptions, have been much too fond of putting forth base- less claims. But the right way of dealing with such claims, if we may judge by the example of S. Irenaeus and other holy bishops of his time, is to inveigh against the claimant fearlessly, and to upbraid him sharply, and to refuse to submit 1 S. Hieron., De Viris Illustribus, cap. xlv. I.] THE WITNESS OF S. IRENAEUS. 1 9 to his claims. That was how Catholic bishops dealt with Pope Victor in the closing decade of the second century. Evidently either he or his successor learnt a salutary lesson ; the abortive excommunication was withdrawn, and after that everything went on as if nothing had happened. The Witness of S. Irenaeus. I now pass from the Paschal controversy, in which S. Irenaeus took such a prominent part by opposing the un- christian action of the Roman bishop ; and I proceed to consider the famous passage in that same Father's treatise, Against all heretics, which Roman Catholics are very fond of quoting, whereas, as I hope to show, it is in reality wholly irreconcilable with the papal claims. S. Irenaeus is exposing the fallaciousness of the arguments used by the Gnostics. They said that their heretical doctrines were derived from the apostles, who delivered them " not in writing but in speech." 1 S. Irenaeus, in reply, appealed " to that tradition which comes from the apostles, and which is guarded by the successions of the presbyters in the churches." 2 " It is," he says, " within the power of all, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the world in every church (in omni ecclesia) : and we are able to enumerate those whom the apostles appointed to be bishops in the churches, and their successors, quite down to our own time ; who neither taught nor knew anything like what these [heretics] rave about. Yet surely, if the apostles had known any hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of teaching to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have taken special care to deliver them to those, to whom they were also committing the churches themselves ; . . . but because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches (omnium ecclesiarum), we point 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, and so we put to confusion all those who, in whatever sort, either on account of self-pleasing, or of vain glory, or of blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings. For to this church, on account of 1 S. Irenaeus, III. ii. I. " Ibid., III. ii. 2. 20 THE WITNESS OF S. IRENAEUS. its more influential pre-eminence (propter potentiorem prin- cipalitatem), it is necessary that every church (omnem ecclesiam) should resort that is to say, the faithful who are from all quarters; and in this church (in qua) the tradition, which comes from the apostles, has ever been pre- served by those who are from all quarters." l Unfortunately, the original Greek of this last sentence has not been pre- served, but only an ancient Latin translation, which I here subjoin : " Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem * (a!, potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio." Before we proceed to investigate the exact meaning of this last sentence and of the various expressions which occur therein, it will be well to consider what is the pith and ^sub- stance and scope of S. Irenaeus' argument. What he wishes to enforce is, that the teaching of the apostles may be learnt from the public witness of the various apostolic churches, among which there was, at the time when S. Irenaeus wrote (circa 180), complete doctrinal agreement in regard to all the great fundamental points which had to be discussed in the controversy with the Gnostics. He gives reasons for supposing that the first bishops of the apostolic churches were fully instructed by the apostles, who appointed them, in the complete system of apostolic teaching. He further asserts that the catalogues of the names of the various bishops who had succeeded each other in the different apostolic sees, existed in his time, and that it was well known that no one of those bishops had ever taught the heresies maintained by the Gnostics. He argues from these premises that the original teaching, which the apostles were commissioned to promulgate, was not the teaching propagated by the Gnostic bodies. As the apostolic churches were many in number, he thinks it sufficient to make a selection from among them, because an exhaustive investigation of the episcopal catalogues in all of them would take too long. He chooses as his first specimen the primatial Church of Rome, which not only ranked first among all the apostolic churches, but was also the nearest apostolic see to Lyons, and was the church in which in all probability S. Irenaeus 1 S. Irenaeus, III. iii. i, 2. 2 All the MSS. except one read "potentiorem." The Cheltenham MS., formerly known as the Codex Claromontamts, reads "potiorem," or rather, if we may trust Dom Massuet, " pontiorem." It seems better to suppose that two letters have dropped out of the word in one codex, than that three letters have been inserted into the word in all the other codices. Stieren calls " potentiorem " the " lectio maxime probata." L] THE WITNESS OF S. IRENAEUS. 21 had himself received his consecration to the episcopate. We shall see further on that S. Irenaeus points out that the Roman Church, on account of its special pre-eminence, was continually visited by representatives of other churches all over the world, and that this fact constituted an additional guarantee of the purity of its faith. In the section which follows that important statement, he proceeds to give the catalogue of the Roman bishops, from Linus, who received the episcopate from S. Peter and S. Paul, the apostolic founders of the Roman Church, to Eleutherus, who held the bishop's office in Rome at the time when he (S. Irenaeus) was writing. He dwells specially on the witness of S. Clement, because it was manifest from his Epistle to the Corinthians, which was older than the rise of the various Gnostic sects, that the earlier teaching of the Roman Church agreed, not with the Gnostics, but with the teaching of S. Irenaeus' contemporary, Eleutherus ; and, since S. Clement had personally known S. Peter and S. Paul, and was surrounded, when he wrote his epistle, by many Christians who had been instructed by them, there was every reason to believe that his teaching, which was, in fact, identical with the teaching of his successors, was also a faithful representation of the teaching of the apostles. Thus the argument against the Gnostics, derivable from the witness of the Roman Church, was very strong, and S. Irenaeus might well say in regard to it, "This is a very full proof (pstensio) of the unity and sameness of the life- giving faith, which from the apostles even until now hath been preserved in the Church, and handed down in truth." l Having begun with the witness of the apostolic Church of Rome, S. Irenaeus refers next to the witness of the apostolic Church of Smyrna. 2 He points out that its first bishop, S. Polycarp, had special opportunities of ascertaining the true apostolic tradition of the faith. He had been made a disciple by apostles, and had conversed with many who had seen Christ. It was by the apostles who were in Asia that he was appointed in due time bishop of the Church in Smyrna. All through his long life he had taught the things which he had learnt from the apostles, " which things alone are true." He had finally sealed his faithful teaching by his glorious martyrdom in extreme old age. He had learnt from S. John to have a special horror of holding any communica- tions with heresiarchs. S. Polycarp's teaching may be studied 1 S. Irenaeus, III. iii. 3. 2 Duchesne (Origines Chrttiennes, pp. 455, 456) says, " Saint Irenee, dans ses controverses avec les gnostiques, donne une grande importance a 1'argument de tradition. La vraie doctrine est pour lui celle qu'enseignent les eglises npostoliques ; parmi celles-ci la premiere est 1'eglise de Rome ; mais Irenee cite egalement 1'eglise de Smyrne et la tradition de saint Polycarpe." 22 THE WITNESS OF S. IRENAEUS. [L in his Epistle to the Philippians ; and that same teaching is attested by his successors at Smyrna and by all the other churches in Asia. Such is, in brief, the substance of what S. Irenaeus says about the testimony of the Church in Smyrna. 1 Finally, he refers to the witness of the apostolic Church of Ephesus. That church had also two apostles to found it, viz. S. Paul and S. John. The latter remained at Ephesus until the times of Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117. As a consequence, the privilege of being instructed by an apostle lasted on in Ephesus much longer than in any other church ; and S. Irenaeus assures us that in his own time the Church of Ephesus was a true witness of the apostles' tradition. 2 Having referred to the testimony of the three important apostolic churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus, S. Irenaeus goes on to say, "Since, therefore, we have proofs of such cogency (tantae ostensiones), we ought not to seek the truth among others, which it is easy to obtain from the Church." 8 It is important to notice that S. Irenaeus' appeal is primarily to the witness of all the apostolic churches. At the beginning of the whole argument, he speaks of " the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the world in every church," and he declares that he is " able to enumerate those whom the apostles appointed to be bishops in the churches, and their successors, quite down to his own time." And at the end of the argument he says, " For how stands the case ? Even though the dispute were but about some ordinary question, would it not be right to recur to the most ancient churches, in which the apostles lived, and to receive from those churches what is certain and clear in regard to the question in hand ? " The chief reason which he gives for referring to the testimony of the Roman Church, is that it would take too long to enumerate the successions of the bishops in all the churches. His appeal to Rome is prompted by convenience rather than by any dogmatic reason. At any rate, the motive of convenience drives him to make a selection, and ultimately he in fact selects the churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus. It is also very noticeable that in regard to all these three churches, S. Irenaeus takes care to point out all the circum- stances of their early history, which would make it probable that the tradition of the faith had been transmitted pure and unaltered from the time of the apostles to the time in which J was writing. The apostolic training of S. Clement of 1 Cf. S. Irenaeus, III. \\\. 4. - Ibid., HI. iii. 4 . L] THE WITNESS OF S. IRENAEUS. 2$ Rome, and of S. Polycarp of Smyrna; the anti-Gnostic teach- ing of S. Clement's Epistle, which preceded the rise of the great Gnostic leaders ; the extreme old age to which S. Polycarp lived, and his hatred of heresy ; the length of S. John's sojourn at Ephesus ; these and many other similar details are used by S. Irenaeus to show how probable it is that the apostolic tradition has been faithfully transmitted in the three churches to whose witness he appeals. He knew well that the fact that a church could trace its succession of bishops back to the apostles would not be an absolute guarantee of the purity of its faith, 1 although in the latter part of the second century it would imply a strong presumption of such purity. He therefore takes care to bring forward every corroborative circumstance, which could add strength to his argument. But is it possible to suppose that S. Irenaeus would have patiently enumerated all these corrobo- rative circumstances in the history of the three churches to which he appeals nay, is it possible to suppose that he would have included in any way the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus in his appeal, if he had supposed that all churches were bound of necessity to agree in doctrine with the Church of Rome, on the ground that the Bishops of Rome had been endowed with the gift of infallibility ? Yet this is the theory which is attributed to S. Irenaeus by Ultramontane contro- versialists, and in proof of their thesis they triumphantly bring forward the celebrated sentence, beginning with the words, "ad hanc enim ecclesiam," which I have quoted on p. 20, and the meaning of which we must now proceed to investigate. I will begin by giving the translation of the passage which, Dr. Rivington tells us, is " ordinarily adopted by [Roman] Catholic writers " 2 : " It is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree 1 The Church holds that every bishop receives at his consecration, not only the gift of the episcopate, but also a certain enlargement of the presence of the Holy Spirit of Truth, to help him to secure the transmission of the faith without addition and without diminution. S. Paul seems to allude to this gift, when he says to S. Timothy, " That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Ghost ivhich dwdlcth in us " (2 Tim. i. 14). S. Irenaeus does not dwell in this passage on that supernatural side of the maintenance of the purity of the faith in the various local churches, but he does appear to refer to it in IV. xxvi. 2, where he speaks of those presbyters "who with the succession of the episcopate have received according to the good pleasure of the Father the charisma veritatis certum" To prevent misapprehension, it may be well to add that the Church has never supposed that this gift renders each bishop who receives it infallible. It is a gift which requires at times to be stirred up, if it is to produce its full results. Every bishop needs to take to heart that other admonition of S. Paul to S. Timothy, "I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands " (2 Tim. i. 6). 2 The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, p. 34. 24 THE WITNESS OF S. IRENAEUS. with this church ; in which that tradition which is from the apostles has been preserved by those who are everywhere. Dr. Rivington himself evidently regards this translation as being substantially accurate ; for he says, " The ^ plain and simple meaning, therefore, of S. Irenaeus remains in possession. All churches must agree with the Church of Rome, so.that if you know the faith of the Church of Rome you know the faith of the whole Christian Church." : He also says, "If all orthodox churches are necessarily found to be in agreement with the Church of Rome, what is this but ascribing infallibility to that Church ? This, indeed, is what S. Irenaeus does ascribe to Rome." 2 We are not expressly told in the passages quoted above what is the ordinary Roman Catholic translation of the words "propter potentiorem principalitatem ; " but it is clear from the head- ing which Dr. Rivington has prefixed to his third chapter, and from other passages of his book, that he regards " princi- palitatem " as equivalent to " sovereignty." 3 I quite agree with Dr. Rivington that, if S. Irenaeus taught that all Christian churches must necessarily agree with the Church of Rome, then S. Irenaeus certainly by implication ascribed to that church the gift of infallibility. But I ask again, How is it possible to suppose that, if that had been his belief, he would have framed his argument against the Gnostics in the way in which he did actually frame it? Could he possibly, on that hypothesis, have mentioned con- venience as his principal reason for appealing to the witness of the Roman Church? Is it conceivable that after appealing to the infallible Roman Church he could go on to appeal in a similar way, first to the fallible Church of Smyrna, and then to the fallible Church of Ephesus ? In fact, why should he begin and end by a general appeal to all the apostolic churches ? The difference between an apostolic church and a non-apostolic church practically disappears, when it is compared with the great gulf which separates an infallible sovereign church from a fallible subject church. And if the faith taught by the Bishops of Rome was always infallibly orthodox, why take the trouble to enumerate corroborative details in the history of the transmission of the apostolic tradition not only in the Church of Rome, but in the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus ? Indeed, it may not too much to say that, apart from any investigation of the neanmg of the particular expressions used by S. Irenaeus, we may set aside as absolutely out of the question any interpreta- f the passage, which plainly implies that the Church of 1 Prim. Church p. 38. 7fcV., p. 37. Ibid., p. 32 ; compare pp. 58, 59. I.] THE WITNESS OF S. IRENAEUS. 25 Rome or the Bishops of Rome were endowed with the gift of infallibility. And when we come to investigate the meaning of the particular expressions used, we find, as we should expect to find, a very complete confirmation of the conclusion at which we have arrived. Let us begin by considering what is the true meaning of the phrase " convenire ad." Does S. Irenaeus mean to say that it is necessary that every church should agree with the Church of Rome ? or that every church should resort to the Church of Rome ? The Italian Jesuit Perrone, quoting and adopting the comment of Dom Massuet, rejects the second of these two interpretations as absurdissimum ; * and with Perrone and Massuet in their rejection of that interpretation agree the greater number of Ultramontane writers, and some Gallicans. However, I am thankful to see that Messrs. Wilhelm and Scannell, in their Manual of Catholic Tlieology, which is based on Scheeben's Dogmatik, and to which is prefixed a commenda- tory preface by the late Cardinal Manning, adopt the render- ing "resort to." 2 And the very learned Roman Catholic historian, Dr. F. X. Funk, writing in 1882, tells us that " within the last few years," the translation " resort to " has begun "to meet with more acceptance, even in [Roman] Catholic circles." 3 Dr. Funk himself, after elaborately dis- cussing the ordinary Roman Catholic translation of the whole sentence, and showing to what absurdity it leads, 4 says, ' Under these circumstances there remains no other course than to abandon the traditional translation of ' convenire,' which is the sole cause of the above-cited absurdity." 5 He ends up by accepting the rendering " resort to." 6 But the fact is that the translation " agree with " not only involves the whole sentence in absurdity, as Dr. Funk points 1 Praelectiones Theologicae, ed. 1841, ii. 425. 2 Manual of Catholic Theology, ed. 1890, i. 28. 3 Historisch-politische Blatter, vol. Ixxxix. p. 738. 1 Op. tit., pp. 738-743. 5 Up. cit., p. 743. Op. cit., p. 744. There have been earlier writers of the Roman communion who have seen that convenire ad in this passage means " resort to." Among those that might be mentioned, I will name only the illustrious Thomassinus (Traite des Edits, et des auires moiens pour maintenir F Unite" de FEglise Catholique, ed. 1703, torn. i. p. 37), and Waterworth (Faith of Catholics, ed. 1846, vol. i. p. 253), and R. J. Wilberforce (Principles of Church Authority, p. 134, written when the author was passing from the Anglican into the Roman communion), and even Bishop Bonner (Homilies, ed. 1555, p. 50). I owe this last reference to a kind communication from the Rev. S. Phillips, the Honorary Secretary of the Church Historical Society. Finally, Newman, in his essay on Development (ed. 1885, p. I57) mentions both interpretations, viz. resort to and agree with, but gives pre- cedence to the former of the two. 26 THE WITNESS OF S. IRENAEUS. Cl- out but it is itself, as a translation, and apart from the con- text, most improbable. I find that the word convemre is used in the Vulgate one hundred and eleven times. In ninety-seven places it means resort to " or " assemble ; " and in ten places it is translated in the Douay Version, " agree with," usually in the sense of making a bargain or agreement with another person. It is clear, therefore, that the more common meaning of convenire is to " resort to." But the point can be pressed more closely home. I find that in twenty-six passages the verb convenire is followed by the preposition ad, and in every one of these passages "convenire ad " means " to resort to? or, more accurately, "come together to" l It would perhaps be rash to lay down a universal negative, and to say that " convenire ad " never means " agree with ; " but, as far as I am aware, no such passage has ever yet been produced. The normal meaning of the expression is undoubtedly "to resort to," and the onus probandi lies on those who teach that in this passage of S. Irenaeus it ought to be understood in an abnormal way. Passages can, no doubt, be found in the works of Latin authors in which " convenire cum " is to be understood in the sense of " agree with ; " but we have to do here with the expression " convenire ad," and not with the expression "convenire cum" It is amusing and instructive to notice that Perrone, on one occasion, makes a slip in quoting the passage with which we are dealing, and substitutes cum for ad? There are several touches in the wording of the passage which we are considering, which corroborate the view of the meaning of " convenire ad " which I am urging. When S. Irenaeus says that it is necessary that every church should resort to the Church of Rome, he feels that some explanation is needed, because it is physically impossible that every church in the world should assemble in one city, however great. He, therefore, glosses the expression " omnem eccle- siam," and adds, "hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles." This gloss would have been quite superfluous if " convenire ad " had meant " agree with." It is easy to see how every church can agree with another church ; there is need of an 1 It has been suggested that the original Greek expression used by S. Irenaeus, which has been translated convenire ad, was ffv^atvav Trpos. But can any instance be cited from ancient Latin translations of Greek authors in which convenire ad is given as the translation of v KaOeSpav. 3 .? ee _P' t"& f Clement to James (prefixed to The Clementine Homilies}, cap. 11., Clem. Rom. Homiliae, ed. Dressel, p. n. 4 Cf. cap. iii. p. 12. 4 Eis r^v ainov KaO&pav. Cf. cap. xix. p. 23. / tr SeC i T ^ Epi , Stle f Peter to 7 ames > prefixed to The Clementine Homilies (Mom., ed. Dressel, p. 4). Compare also very specially Horn. xvii. 19 (Of at., PP; 35 1 . 35 2 ) where tn/rvyr**f&tn> evidently refers to Gal. ii. 11 : see also Dr. balmon s article on Clementine Literature, in Smith and Wace, D C B , i S76, Bishop Lightfoot's preface to his commentary on S. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (ninth edit., pp. 61, 62); also his notes on Gal. ii. n, 13, i v IO , 16, 24, and in the same volume his excursus on S. Paul and the Three (pp. 327-330). Epistle of Clement to James, cap. i. p. 10. II.] THE CLEMENTINE ROMANCE. 43 It naturally results from this anti-Pauline tendency that when S. Peter is represented as consecrating Clement to be his successor, he makes him " sit in his own chair." From the nature of the case, the author being an Ebionite, S. Paul's relation to the Church of Rome is passed over in silence. The episcopal chair at Rome is described as the chair of Peter. It is obvious that this spurious letter of Clement to James would, wherever it was received as authentic, tend to bring about that " isolation " of the great name of Peter in connexion with the see of Rome, to which Dr. Bright alludes in a passage which I have already quoted. The impression produced by the Clementine letter in regard to the apostolic foundation and organization of the Roman Church is very different from that which results from a consideration of the real historical facts. What really happened was that the Church of Rome was first brought into relation with S. Paul, who prepared the way for his apostolic visit by addressing to it the greatest of his Epistles ; and afterwards spent at least two whole years in Rome, living in his own hired dwell- ing, receiving there all that went in unto him, and preaching to them the Kingdom of God ; and later on, after the absence of unknown duration which followed his first acquittal, returned once more to Rome, and there took up again his work of preaching and organizing, and finally in Rome under- went his last trial and martyrdom. There seems to be no good reason for supposing that S. Peter was ever at Rome until after his brother apostle's first acquittal. 1 Bishop Lightfoot thinks that S. Peter was only a few months in Rome, and that he was put to death during the Neronian persecution. If we accept Harnack's revised chronology, S. Peter's stay in Rome may have extended to the length of four or five years. 2 It seems highly probable that S. Paul returned to Rome the second time before S. Peter's martyrdom, for S. Irenaeus tells us that S. Matthew's Gospel was published " while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome," 3 and he also tells us that, "having founded and built up the Church, they committed the ministry of the episcopate to Linus." 4 As we have seen, this consecration of Linus may have taken place some time 1 Compare Bishop Lightfoot's 6". Clement of Rome, ii. 497; and see Ad- ditional Note 14, p. 444. 2 The chronology of the later portion of S. Paul's life depends very largely on the date which may be assigned for the commencement of the Judaean procurator- ship of Porcius Festus. Formerly it was generally supposed that Festus arrived at Caesarea in the year 60. But of late some critics of great name have been led to think that the true date is 56. See Harnack's Chronologic der Altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, pp. 239, 718; and compare Mgr. Batiffol in the Revue Biblique for July, 1897, pp. 423, 424. 3 III. i. i. 4 III. ii. 3- 44 THE CLEMENTINE ROMANCE. [II. before the death of the two apostles. Nor Is it by any means certain that their deaths were contemporaneous. Many learned writers suppose that S. Peter's martyrdom preceded S. Paul's by at least one year. From all this it follows that S. Paul was equally with S. Peter a founder of the Roman Church ; that, in fact, S. Paul was in close relations with the Roman Church before S. Peter came to the city ; that S. Paul very possibly prolonged his residence in Rome some time after the death of his brother apostle ; and that, before that event had taken place, the two apostles had joined in consecrating Linus to be the first Roman bishop. But according to the Clementine letter to James, Peter was the sole apostolic founder of the Roman Church, and the sole consecrator of his successor, Clement. Thus we may fairly say that authentic history puts S. Peter and S. Paul on a level in the matter of the foundation of the Roman Church, whereas the Clementine romance suppresses S. Paul and isolates S. Peter. Belief in the historical truth of the Clementine romance would tend to substitute the idea of the see of Peter in lieu of the older and truer idea, which would think of the episcopal chair at Rome as being the see founded by S. Peter and S. Paul. And when once men had become familiarized with the expression " the see of Peter," it would be very easy to conclude that, as S. James was the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, so S. Peter was not merely the founder, but also the first bishop of the Church of Rome. 1 Thus, if it could be shown that the Clementine romance had any influence in Rome between the time of S. Irenaeus and the close of the first quarter of the third century, we should be able to account very easily for the fact that, whereas the writers of the first two centuries knew nothing of S. Peter's Roman episcopate, some Western writers of the middle of the third century seem to imply that they believed that S. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Have we, then, any reason to suppose that the Clementine romance, in one or other of its various forms, did circulate among and influence the members of the Roman Church during the last two decades of the second century and during 1 The process of transforming an apostolic founder into a local bishop would be facilitated by the fact that the apostolic churches were accustomed to draw up catalogues of their bishops, and it was usual for the list of names to be headed by the name of the apostolic founder (cf. Tertull., de Prescript. Haerct., cap. ?t XX ;UT, T PP- 39 ' 4 u } ' PJ S practke was ori ginally adopted in order that LSS y aPPCar r l u at the first bish F" "had for his ordainer and T C ne f thC ap StleS r f the a P stolic men '" B "t it is not aSy ^ r- Uld - be t0 assimilate 'he first name on the list with m 1 6 thC ap Stle W uld be accepted as the first II.] THE CLEMENTINE ROMANCE. 45 the first twenty-five years of the century which followed ? I think that cogent reasons for such a supposition are not far to seek, and I will do what I can to set them forth. It will, I think, be admitted on all hands that according to the original tradition of the Roman Church the sequence of the names of its earliest bishops ran as follows: (i) Linus, (2) Anencletus (alias Cletus), (3) Clement. Some would, of course, head the whole list with the name of S. Peter, but for the purposes of my present argument I am considering only the names of those who came after the apostles. The sequence of names, as I have given it above, is found in the Roman Canon of the Mass. It is found also in S. Irenaeus ; J and finally it is found in S. Epiphanius, 2 and Bishop Lightfoot has given very strong reasons 3 for believing that S. Epiphanius' list is based on a list compiled by Hegesippus, a writer who is slightly anterior to Irenaeus. As both Hegesippus and Irenaeus spent some time in Rome, they are very good witnesses in regard to the tradition of the Church of Rome. But soon after the time of Hegesippus and S. Irenaeus a new view seems to have become more or less popular among the Christians at Rome. Tertullian, in a passage which I have already quoted, 4 and which was written about the year 200, is describing how the apostolic churches, when they give an account of their beginnings, are accustomed to show by the catalogue of their bishops " that their much- venerated first bishop had for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of the apostolic men." Tertullian goes on to give examples of this practice, and he says, " As, for instance, the Church of Smyrna relates that Polycarp was placed there by John, and the Church of Rome that Clement was in like manner ordained by Peter." It appears, therefore, that during the years immediately preceding the year 200 an alteration had taken place in the ideas of the members of the Roman Church or of some of them. Linus was no longer regarded as " the first bishop," but that honourable position was assigned to Clement, whose true place on the list was the third, and not the first. There can be no doubt that the Linus tradition is right, and that the Clement tradition is wrong. 5 But the question remains to be answered, How was the change of belief at Rome between 180 and 200 brought about ? 1 III. ii. 3. z Haer., xxvii. 6. 3 S. Clement of Rome, i. 327-333. It may be worth noting that Dr. Rivington (Prim. Church^ pp. 21, 22) expresses the opinion that Bishop Lightfoot has estab- lished his case in regard to this point. 4 See pp. 39, 40. 5 Yet we learn from S. Jerome that in his time "plerique Latinorum sup- posed that S. Clement was the immediate successor of S. Peter (cf. De Viris Illustribus, cap. xv., P. L., xxiii. 631). The De Viris was written in 392. 46 THE CLEMENTINE ROMANCE. [II. Bishop Lightfoot l and Dr. Salmon reply that the change was probably brought about through the influence of the Clemen- tine romance. It is noteworthy that the Ultramontane Dr. Jungmann, professor of ecclesiastical history in the University of Louvain, suggests the same explanation. 2 It is surely more likely that the author of the Clementine romance, who had selected S. Clement to be the hero of his story, and who makes him out to have been S. Peter's companion in his missionary journeys, should have devised the fable of his being S. Peter's immediate successor, rather than that that story should have been concocted at Rome, where an earlier and truer account had been handed down in the church from the beginning. The choice appears to lie between Rome and the Clementines as the origin of the fable, for we find no trace of it elsewhere until long afterwards. Under these circumstances, I think that most persons of discrimination will come to the conclusion that this legend, which had such far-reaching effects, was invented by the Ebionite author of the spurious letter of Clement to James, or by some earlier romancer belonging to the same school. There seems to have been a copious Ebionite literature in the second century, and the writers appear to have had a predilection for fictitious accounts of the doings of the apostles. Bishop Lightfoot speaks of " a vast number of works which, though no longer extant, have yet moulded the traditions of the early Church," and which " emanated from these Christian Essenes : " " Hence, doubt- less, are derived the ascetic portraits of James the Lord's brother in Hegesippus, and of Matthew the apostle in Clement of Alexandria, to which the account of S. Peter in the extant Clementines presents a close parallel." 3 If it be admitted that the story of S. Clement being S. Peter's immediate successor is more likely to have origin- ated in one of the earlier forms of the Clementine romance than among the Catholics of Rome, then in all probability that form of the romance preceded Tertullian's De Praescrip- tione by at least fifteen or twenty years. Though the story is 1 See Additional Note 15, p. 444. * Jungmann says, " Animadvertendum venit hoc loco, aliquos antiques res, ut Tertullianum, existimasse, Petri primum successorem fuisse r i 6m> u ' ; , autem ob p. 98. 2 Canon vi. (Coleti, iv. 717, 718). 3 Lib. Font., ed. Duchesne, i. 123. * Decretaks Pseudo-Isidor., ed. Hinsch., pp. 30-46. s Greg. VII., Registr., lib. iv. ep. ii., P.L., cxlviii. 454. 8 Harnack apparently holds that the whole of the Pseudo-Clementine literature belongs to the third century. The reason which he gives for this determination is not convincing, and will hardly commend itself either to Anglicans or to Romanists. Harnack says (Outlines of the History of Dogma, p. 79, English translation), " The polemic and the means made use of [in the Clementines] prove that the Catholic Church was already in existence. Therefore the Pseudo- II.] S. CYPRIAWS WITNESS. 49 At present we cannot say for certain that the letter to James is earlier than the De Praescriptione of Tertullian, though probably it is so. Bishop Lightfoot (S. Clement of Rome, i. 414) says, " Its date can hardly be earlier than the middle of the second century, or much later than the beginning of the third." If we accept the latest possible date for the letter, then it was an earlier form of the story which circulated in Rome between 180 and 200. Before taking leave of this subject, it may be worth while to recall once more to the reader's mind the fact that my argument against the soundness of the theory that S. Peter was at one time Bishop of Rome does not depend in any way on what I have written about the Clementine romance ; it depends on the fact that the language of the writers of the first two centuries is inconsistent with the assignment of the Roman Episcopate to the great apostle. I myself believe that the Clementine romance had a great deal to do with that change of view at Rome which resulted in the adoption of the theory of S. Peter having been the first Roman bishop ; but whether the romance had or had not the effect which I attribute to it, in any case the view of the Roman Church was changed, and the later theory cannot claim the weight which would attach to an original tradition of that church. 6". Cyprian's Witness. I now invite your attention to the history of S. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and I hope to make clear to you how, from beginning to end, his whole action is absolutely incon- sistent with the teaching about the papacy set forth in the Vatican decrees. I have already pointed out the way in which S. Cyprian Clementine writings belong to the third century." Orthodox Christians hold that the Catholic Church came into existence on the day of Pentecost ; and it is not easy to understand how even Harnack could deny that it existed in the time of S. Irenaeus. Harnack, however, adds that " it is probable that the compilers had before them earlier anti-Pauline writings." Thus even according to Harnack's hypothesis, the germ of the Clementines would seem to date from the second century. Mgr. Batiffol follows Harnack closely, and comes to much the same conclusion. Speaking of the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, he says {Anciennes Literatures Chretiennes Litterature Grecque, pp. 48, 49, ed. 1897), " A prendre les deux textes ensemble et dans leur forme actuelle, ils representent une production de la premiere moitie du iii e siecle (Lagarde, Harnack, Zahn). Ils doivent leur forme actuelle a des catholiques, qui n'y ont vu qu'une matiere a s'edifier et un roman didactique pouvant servir a la refutation du paganisme (Harnack). . . . Les themes fondamentaux (monarchic de Dieu, prophetic^ stoicisme) fait penser qm la source de cette litterature doit ttre cherchee dans le syncretisms judeo-chrttien du ii' siecle." (The italics are mine.) Compare the Additional Note 16, p. 444. E 50 S. CYPAIAN'S WITNESS. [II. corresponds with the various popes with whom he was con- temporary, on terms of complete equality. He speaks of them and addresses them as his brothers and his colleagues. And it must not be supposed that this familiar style of address was due to the primitive simplicity of the Christians of that age. On the contrary, when the priests and deacons of Rome have occasion to write to S. Cyprian, they conclude their letter thus : " Most blessed and most glorious Pope, we bid you ever heartily farewell in the Lord." l And again, when the same priests and deacons of Rome, writing to the clergy of Carthage, have occasion to refer to S. Cyprian, they say, " We have learnt . . . that the blessed Pope Cyprian has, for a cer- tain reason, retired." 2 It is clear, therefore, that, whatever may have been the simplicity of Christians in the third century, it did not preclude the use of respectful titles in letters to per- sons in authority ; and we may safely draw the conclusion that when S. Cyprian, writing to the Roman bishop, calls him his dear brother and colleague, he so writes because he naturally thinks of the Roman pope as an equal ; whereas the priests and deacons of Rome, the body of officials which is now known as the College of cardinals, realized that S. Cyprian, as a bishop and primate, was exceedingly superior to themselves in rank, and that it was their duty to address him with words of reverential respect, such as " most blessed Pope," " most glorious Pope," and the like. The episode in S. Cyprian's life which throws most light on his view of the relation of the Roman see to the rest of the Church, is undoubtedly his controversy with Pope Stephen about the validity of heretical baptism. But it will be well to refer first of all to some other incidents in his career, which took place at an earlier stage, and were unconnected with the heat of controversy, so that we may be in a position to judge whether his action in regard to Stephen was a new departure, or whether it was not rather the carrying out of his normal principles. We will take first a passage from one of his letters to Pope Cornelius, part of which is usually quoted by Roman Catholics as decidedly in their favour. Their view proceeds from a misconception as to the meaning of certain words which S. Cyprian uses. The passage, taken as a whole, is irreconcilable with the papal system. S. Cyprian is writing to the pope to warn him against a ringleader of schism named Fortunatus, who had been consecrated to be an opposition 1 " Beatissime et gloriosissime Papa." Ep. cler. Roman! ad Cyprianttm, inter Cyprianicas xxx. 8, Of p., ii. 556. 2 " Benedictum Papam Cyprianum." Ep. cler. Rom. ad cler. Carthag., inter Cyprianicas viii., Opp., ii. 485. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 51 Bishop of Carthage by an excommunicated heretic bishop named Privatus. The party, which had started this schism, had already been condemned by a large council of Catholic bishops held at Carthage under S. Cyprian's presidency. But now, having secured the consecration of one of their leaders, they sent legates to Rome to try and induce Cornelius to recog- nize them as the true Church of North Africa. A short time before, a similar schism had broken out in Rome. Cornelius had been consecrated pope, and the schismatics had consecrated Novatian to be opposition pope ; and both pope and anti-pope had sent legates to Carthage to induce Cyprian to declare him- self on their side, and to grant them his communion. Now the parts were reversed, and Carthage was the scene of the schism. As soon as Cyprian heard that the schismatics of Carthage had sent legates to Rome, he wrote to Cornelius, his "dearest brother," to put him on his guard. He says, " Having had a pseudo-bishop ordained for them by heretics, they dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, adque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est." x I need say nothing about the expression, " chair of Peter," as applied to the see of Rome. By the time of S. Cyprian, Western Christians, influenced directly or indirectly by the Clementine romance, had learnt to apply the title to the Roman see. But what does S. Cyprian exactly mean, when he describes the Roman Church as the "ecclesia principalis, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est " ? I have no doubt that he means that the Roman Church is the mother-church of Italy and Africa, whence the whole episcopate of those countries is derived. The word " principalis " is used by African writers in the sense of ancient or primaeval. So Tertullian, wishing to state that truth comes first and falsehood afterwards, contrasts the " princi- palitas veritatis " with the " posteritas mendacitatis ; " 2 in other words, the " antiquity of truth " with the " lateness of falsehood." 3 The "ecclesia principalis" is the primaeval church, the mother-church ; in the words of S. Irenaeus, " that very ancient church, founded at Rome." 4 Not, of course, that S. Cyprian thought that the Church of Rome was the mother-church of the world. Obviously that would 1 " And to the mother-church [of the West], whence the united body of {Western] bishops sprang." Ep. lix. ad Cornclitnn, 14, Opp., ii. 683. 2 Tert. De Jraescr. t xx\i. Cf. Tert. adv. Valent., cap. v. 3 Compare S. Augustine's use of the word principals in a passage quoted on p. 102, and see the ancient Latin translation of S. Irenaeus, Contra omnes Haereticos, IV. xxvi. 2 ; V. xiv. I, 2 ; V. xxi. I. Du Cange, in his Glossariiim, s.v. " Princi- palis," interprets the word to mean, "Primus, pnmaevus, antiquior" (torn. v. p. 447, edit. 1845). 4 Contra omnes Haereticos, III. iii. 2. j2 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [IL not be true. The Church of Jerusalem is necessarily the mother-church of the whole world. To use the words of S. Irenaeus, 1 the Church of Jerusalem is " that church from which every church had its origin : " it is " the metropolis, the mother-city of the citizens of the new covenant." But, though the Church of Rome is not the mother-church of the world, yet it is the mother-church of Italy and of Africa and of the greater part of the West. The original bishops who evan- gelized Africa were no doubt consecrated at Rome. 2 The episcopate of Italy and Africa issued out from Rome. S. Cyprian often calls the united episcopate, either of the whole Church or of some notable part of it, by such terms as these, "collegium sacerdotale," "collegium sacerdotum;" here he uses the expression, " unitas sacerdotalis." 8 He means by all these expressions the episcopal body, considered as forming a unity. Some Roman Catholic writers have supposed that S. Cyprian is intending to teach that the Roman see is the perennial fountain of unity. But the Latin will not bear that interpretation. S. Cyprian does not say, " unde unitas sacerdotalis exoritur" but "unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est'' He is referring to a historical event which took place long before, namely, the original derivation of the true canonical episcopate of North Africa from the mother-church of the West. 4 But to return to S. Cyprian's letter to Cornelius. After referring to S. Paul's commendation (in his Epistle to the 1 III. xii. 5. * Cf. S. Greg. Magn., Registr. Efistt. lib. viii. ep. xxxiii. ad Dominicum, P.L., Ixxvii. 935. * Cf. Ep. Iv. ad Antonianum, Opp., ii. 624 sq. Compare Hincmar (De divortio HI. et Theut.), quoted by Milman (Latin Christianity, ii. 292, note, 2nd edit., 1857) : " Nostra aetate Hludovicum Augustum a regno dejectum, post satisfactionem, episcopalis unanimitas, saniore concilio, cum populi consensu, et ecclesiae et regno restituit." Compare also the letter of the bishops of (Northern) Italy to the bishops of Illyricum, preserved in the I2th Hilarian Fragment (P.Z,., * 7*7) > they say, "Quicumque igitur nostrae unanimitatis optat habere consor- tium. . . quae sunt nostrae sententiae comprobare festinet." I am not aware that the genuineness of this letter has been questioned ; but, whether genuine or not, it illustrates S. Cyprian's expression, "unitas sacerdotalis." A still better illustration may perhaps be found in S. Augustine's statement about the promise of the keys to S. Peter. In his 295th Sermon (Opp., ed. Ben., 1683, v. 1194) he says, " lias enim claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclesiae." Here "unitas Ecclesiae" evidently means, not the unity of the Church in the abstract, but the united society or body of the Church. It was the society which received the keys, not an attribute of the society. Similarly, S. Cyprian's "unitas sacerdolalis " means the united body of the bishops. 4 Mr. Gore (The Church and the Ministry, 1st edit. p. 169, n.), speaking of the words " unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est," says, " These last words mean, I suppose, simply that Peter's priesthood was the first given." Such an, interpretation harmonizes thoroughly with S. Cyprian's general teaching, but I feel a difficulty about referring the word "unde" to "Petri;" it seems more natural to refer it to the whole phrase, " Petri cathedram atque . . . ecclesiam principalem." See also Additional Note 17, p. 445. II] S. CYPRIAWS WITNESS. 53 Romans) J of the faith of the Roman Christians, he goes on, " But what is the occasion of the schismatics going to you, and of their announcing that a pseudo-bishop has been set up against the true bishops ? for either they are well pleased with \vhat they have done, and persevere in their wickedness ; or, if it displeases them and they desist [from their schism], they know whither they should return." 2 He meant to say, " What is the good of their going to Rome ? If they want to be restored to the unity of the Church, they ought to know that they must come to me and my colleagues here in Africa." He shows that this is his meaning by the words which follow. He says, " For since it has been decreed by our whole body, and is alike equitable and just, that every cause should be there heard where the offence has been committed ; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to the several shep- herds, which each is to rule and govern, having hereafter to give account of his administration to the Lord ; it therefore behoves those over whom we are set, not to run about from place to place, nor, by their crafty and deceitful boldness, break the harmonious concord of the bishops, but there to plead their cause, where they will have both accusers and witnesses of their crime ; unless perhaps some few desperate and abandoned men count as inferior the authority of the bishops established in Africa, who have already given judgement concerning them, and have lately, by the weight of their decision, condemned those persons' consciences, entangled in the bonds of many sins. Already has their cause been heard ; already has sentence been given concerning them." In this passage S. Cyprian says that African Christians have no right "to run about from place to place," and appeal from the judge- ment of the African bishops to the Roman pope. He thus flatly contradicts the decree of the Vatican Council, which declares that " in all causes which appertain to the jurisdiction of the Church," u recourse may be had to the judgement of the Roman pontiff; " and we must observe that the council bases this declaration on the fact that the pope " presides over the universal Church" "by the divine right of the apostolic primacy." 3 If the theory about the papacy set forth by the Vatican Council is right, S. Cyprian was guilty of repudiating one of the prerogatives of " the true vicar of Christ," which flows immediately from his divinely given primacy of juris- diction. Nay, S. Cyprian goes further ; he implies that no Christians are likely to consider the Roman pope to have a better right than the African bishops to deal finally with the case of these African schismatics, except " some few desperate 1 Rom. i. 8. 2 Ep. lix. ad Cornelium, 14, Opp., ii. 683. 3 See p. 4. 54 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [H- and abandoned men." 1 It is for Ultramontanes, who profess to venerate S. Cyprian and the early Church, to consider whether they are prepared to accept his teaching on this point ; and if not, why not. From the Ultramontane point of view, S. Cyprian is dealing with no minor matter, but with the fundamental question of the relation of the divinely appointed head of the Church to the subordinate members. And then consider, To whom did S. Cyprian write these clear statements of truth ? He wrote them to S. Cornelius, the pope ; and he begs the pope to read this letter of his to the clergy and people of the local Church of Rome. He says, " Though I am aware, dearest brother, that by reason of the mutual love which we owe and manifest towards each other, you always read my epistles to the very eminent clergy who there preside with you, and to your most holy and flourishing people ; yet now I both exhort and beg of you, to do at my request, what on other occasions you do of your own accord and of courtesy, and read this my epistle." 2 Evidently S. Cyprian knew perfectly well that there was nothing in his letter which would give pain to S. Cornelius. The Catholic teaching concerning the true method of the Church's govern- ment was held at Rome in those days, no less clearly than at Carthage. 8 The whole Church would have agreed in 1 See Additional Note 18, p. 446. The principle laid down by S. Cyprian in the passage discussed in the text was still in full force in the African Church 175 years later, in the time of S. Aurelius and S. Augustine. Compare the letter of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine, quoted on p. 192. * Ep. at., 19, Of p., ii. 689. If S. Cyprian had thought that he was bound to the authority of the pope " by the obligation of true obedience," why does he speak only of " the mutual love which we owe and manifest towards each Bother " ? It would seem more natural for a fallible subordinate, writing to his infallible superior, to allude in some way to the great condescension shown by that superior in making a practice of reading publicly the subordinate's letters in the assemblies of his local church. S. Cyprian's words are perfectly appropriate, if he was writing to an equal ; they seem very inappropriate, if he was writing to the vicar of Christ, the monarch of the militant Church. 1 An incidental proof of the fact that the Cyprianic principles of Church government were held at Rome in that age, is supplied by a letter addressed by the Roman clergy to S. Cyprian during a vacancy of the Roman see. S. Cyprian had written to them, giving an account of his resolutions about the treatment of the lapsed. In their reply they say, " To Pope Cyprian, the priests and deacons abiding at Rome send greeting. Although a mind conscious to itself of upright- ness, and relying on the vigour of evangelical discipline, and made a true witness to itself in regard to fits fulfilment of] the divine commandments, is accustomed to be satisfied with God as its only Judge, and neither seeks the praises nor fears the charges of any other ; yet they are worthy of double praise, who, knowing that their conscience is subject to God as its only Judge, do yet desire that their acts should have their brethren's approval " (Ep. cleri Romani ad Cypriatium, inter Cyprianicas xxx. r, Opp., ii. 549). If the Archbishop of Paris were to write to the authorities at Rome in the present day during a vacancy in the papal see, reporting the arrangements made by him in regard to an important question of discipline, they would hardly return the answer which their predecessors in the third century returned to S. Cyprian. There would probably be some reference to the fact that a pope would soon be elected, who would be able to ratify what the H.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 55 repudiating the false theories set forth by the Vatican Council. I am not professing to write an exhaustive monograph on S. Cyprian's teaching about the government of the Church ; and it is impossible for me, within the limits assigned to me, to attempt to deal with the various misrepresentations of his sentiments which have been from time to time devised by Roman Catholic controversialists. 1 A careful consideration of the context, or of parallel passages in other writings of his, will generally suffice to make his meaning clear. Any one who wishes to go more fully into the subject will find much to help him in Archbishop Laud's Conference with Fisher, and also in a review of Wilberforce on the Supremacy, which appeared in the Christian Remembrancer for April, 1855. I proceed to give an account of an incident in S. Cyprian's life, which has been represented as bearing witness to the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman see. 2 The facts of the case are these : Marcianus, Bishop of Aries, had joined him- self to the Novatian schism, but still retained his position as chief pastor of the Church in Aries. Thereupon, the bishops of Gaul, and amongst them Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote to Pope Stephen, the second successor of S. Cornelius, asking him, apparently, to give them advice and guidance in their difficulty. The question naturally arises Why did the Gallican bishops apply for advice to Rome? In order to answer this question it will be necessary to set forth a few facts concerning the state of the Church in Gaul at that time. Mgr. Duchesne 3 has given strong reasons for believing that until towards the middle of the third century there was only one bishop in Celtic Gaul, having his see at Lyons. But it would seem that shortly before the year 250 several churches were founded in Gaul by missionaries who came from Rome. S. Gregory of Tours 4 speaks of seven missionary bishops sent from Rome in the middle of the third century. Tille- mont (iv. 132) has argued that this mission took place during the reign of the Emperor Philip 5 (A.D. 244-249). It would archbishop had done ; and there would assuredly be no stress laid on the principle that the judgement of the archbishop is subject to God only, nor surprise expressed at his having reported to Rome the determinations at which he had arrived. 1 In Appendix B, with its Addendum (pp. 77-95), I have dealt with those Cyprianic passages which have been twisted into a Roman sense. 2 Our knowledge of this incident is entirely derived from S. Cyprian's Ep. Ixviii. ad Stephanum, Opp., ii. 744-749. * Duchesne, Pastes Episcopaux de fAncienne Cattle, tome i. pp. 30, 31, 32, 38-42, 59, 74, 101. 4 S. Greg. Turon., Histcria Francorum, lib. i. cap. 28 ; compare Duchesne, Pastes, tome i. pp. 47, 48. 4 See Additional Note 19, p. 450. 56 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [II. thus appear that in the time of S. Cyprian the churches of Gaul, with the exception of the Church of Lyons (and perhaps that of Marseilles), were struggling infant missions planted in a heathen country. It appears also that there were no metropolitans in Gaul * until the end of the fourth century; so that these scattered missions, having no hier- archical organization of their own, would naturally look for help in difficulties to Rome, as being the mother-church, which had sent forth their missionary bishops. Doubtless if Gaul had been evangelized from Egypt, the bishops of Gaul would, under similar circumstances, have applied for help and counsel to the Bishop of Alexandria. 2 Or if it had been evangelized from Syria, they would have gone to the Bishop of Antioch. It would seem as if Stephen had been somewhat remiss in giving the advice for which he had been asked. The Bishop of Lyons, therefore, wrote more than one letter to S. Cyprian at Carthage, who was the second great metropolitan in the Latin-speaking portion of the Church ; and S. Cyprian came to the conclusion that he would write to Stephen to urge him to help the afflicted Church of Gaul. No doubt S. Cyprian held that he had a perfect right to help that Church himself. But as he was living far away, and had no special connexion with the bishops in Gaul, and had only heard from Faustinus, whereas Stephen was near at hand, and was bishop of the church from which the missionary bishops in Gaul had been sent forth, and had had an application from all the Gallican bishops, it was more fitting that the answer should come from Stephen. In his letter to Stephen, S. Cyprian begins by laying down the principle that it is the duty of the bishops generally to give their help in such a case : " It is ours, dearest brother, to look to this affair and to remedy it. ... Wherefore it behoves you to write a very full letter to our fellow-bishops established in Gaul, that they no longer suffer the froward and proud Marcianus ... to insult over our college (i.e. the Catholic episcopate), because he seemeth as yet not to be excommuni- cated by us, who this long while boasts and publishes that ... he has separated himself from our communion. . . . How idle were it, dearest brother, when Novatian has been lately repulsed and cast back and excommunicated by the priests of God throughout the world, were we now to suffer his flatterers still to mock us, and to judge respecting the majesty and dignity of the Church ! Let letters be addressed from thee to the Province [i.e. the region of Gaul in which Aries is situated], and to the people dwelling at Aries, such letters as 1 See Additional Note 20, p. 450. ! See note on p 8. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 57 that, in consequence of them, when Marcianus shall have been excommunicated [by the bishops of Gaul], another may be sub- stituted in his room, and the flock of Christ, ... be gathered together." 1 Thus S. Cyprian presses on Stephen the duty of writing a letter of counsel and help to those who had begged to be advised and helped. It was not the case of a new heresy or schism arising ; that could hardly have been settled without a council of bishops. Nor was it a case in which the facts were doubtful. Marcianus himself boasted that he had separated himself from the Catholic communion. All that was needed was that the bishops of Gaul should be en- couraged to do their duty and excommunicate their erring brother, and that then a new bishop should be elected, and consecrated, and be peaceably accepted by the church people of Aries. But again I must point out that, while S. Cyprian thought that, under the circumstances, Stephen was the appropriate person to convey the counsel of the Church at large to the Gallican brethren, he takes good care to make it clear that essentially the duty was one which might have been discharged by any other bishop, whose advice might have been asked. He does not write to Stephen in the style of the Vatican decrees. He does not say, "You have the ' full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church,' and this your ' power is ordinary and immediate over all and each of the churches, and over all and each of the pastors and of the faithful ; ' " 2 but he says, " For there- fore, dearest brother, is the body of bishops so large, united together by the glue of mutual concord and the bond of unity, that if any of our college should attempt to introduce heresy . . . the rest may come in aid, and as good and merciful shepherds gather the Lord's sheep into the fold. . . . For what greater or better office have bishops, than by dili- gent solicitude and wholesome remedies to provide for cherish- ing and preserving the sheep ? . . . For although we are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock, and ought to gather together and cherish all the sheep which Christ has acquired by His own Blood and Passion. . . . Signify plainly to us who has been substituted at Aries in the room of Marcianus, that we may know to whom we should direct our brethren, and to whom write. I bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily fare- well." 8 It seems almost incredible that any one should have discovered in this letter of S. Cyprian an argument for the modern Roman claims. Every sentence in it, almost, is a 1 Ep. cit. 2, 3, Opp., ii. 745. On the construction of the sentence see the Additional Note 21, p. 450. 2 Colkctio Laceiisis, vii. 485. 3 Ep. cit. 3-5, Opp., ii. 746-749- 58 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [II. contradiction of the papal theory. 1 The pope is urged, no doubt, to write and give his advice ; but it is carefully pressed upon him, that he is to write as one of the college of bishops, to all of whom it belongs to provide for the cherishing and preserving of the sheep. He is to write, because application has been specially made to him. If the application had been made to S. Cyprian by the bishops of Gaul, undoubtedly he would have felt that he was fully entitled to do all that was. necessary. About the same time he did receive a similar application from some of the churches in Spain, and he wrote very vigorously to them, bidding them abide by the action of the bishops of their province, and pay no attention to a mis- taken dictum of Pope Stephen. But in the present instance the application of the Gallican episcopate had been made to- Stephen, and therefore S. Cyprian had no locus standi for directly interfering. Rather more than a hundred years afterwards, in A.D, 390, we find the bishops of Gaul again in need of external help and counsel. They were still without the full metro- political system. But by that time Milan had become the metropolitical see of North Italy, and Milan was nearer to Gaul than Rome. The Gallican bishops, therefore, applied for advice and help to S. Ambrose of Milan, as well as to Siricius of Rome ; and they got what they needed from the two great prelates to whom they wrote. The trouble which was then disturbing them was very similar to the trouble about Marcianus. It had to do with the schism of the Ithacians. Eight years later the Ithacian question came again to the front, and the Gallican bishops applied this time to S. Simplicianus, the immediate successor of S. Ambrose, and to him only. The council of the bishops of the province of Milan was held at Turin, 2 and in its sixth canon it decreed as follows : "If any should wish to separate themselves from the communion of Felix [the friend of the Ithacians], they shall be received into the fellowship of our peace, in accord- ance with the former letters of Ambrose of blessed memory, and of the bishop of the Roman Church." 3 Here we notice that Milan is put first, and Rome second. Doubtless this order would have been unusual outside the province of Milan ; but in that province it was the natural order to use, so long as the Catholic system of Church government prevailed. The bishops of Milan and Rome were brother-metropolitans, and the Milanese prelate was more to the bishops of the 1 See Additional Note 22, p. 451. * The Jesuit, Padre Savio, has proved (Gli antichi vescovi cF Italia // Piemoiite, 1899, pp. 564-566) that the Council of Turin was held in the year 398, It was undoubtedly a provincial council of the province of Milan. 3 Concilia, ii. 1383, ed. Coleti. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 59 Milanese province than the Bishop of Rome was. They therefore naturally gave him precedence in their own province. Of course, if the Fathers of the council had supposed that the Bishop of Rome was the infallible vicar of Christ, having immediate episcopal jurisdiction in Milan, Turin, and every- where else, they would certainly have given a different turn to the wording of their canon. But those dreams had not then been invented. Let us now return to S. Cyprian. We have a letter written by him in the name of a council of African bishops to certain churches in Spain, which needed comfort and help. 1 Two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, had in the course of the Decian persecution become what was technically called " libellatics ; " in other words, they had made an unworthy and sinful compromise with idolatry. S. Cyprian tells us that in the public proceedings before the ducenary procurator Martialis had appeared, and had put in a declaration that he had denied Christ and had conformed to idolatrous worship. Basilides must have made some compromise of a similar kind, for they had both " been contaminated with the profane libellus of idolatry." Martialis had also joined himself to one of the heathen collegia or guilds, and had in connection with this guild frequented for a long while " the foul and filthy feasts of the Gentiles ; " while Basilides, when lying sick, had blasphemed against God ; and there were many other heinous sins in which both had become implicated. Basilides, pricked by his conscience, had confessed his blasphemy, and had voluntarily laid down his bishopric, and had betaken himself to do penance, accounting himself most happy if he might hope to be admitted some day to lay communion. It appears that Basilides' resignation was accepted by the bishops of the province, and that Martialis was by them deposed and ex- communicated ; and the vacant sees were soon filled by the consecration of Sabinus as successor to Basilides, and of Felix as successor to Martialis. Afterwards Basilides went to Rome and deceived Pope Stephen, who was ignorant of the true state of the case, and admitted him to communion as a bishop of the Church ; 2 and Basilides, furnished with 1 Ep. Ixvii. ad derum et pleles in HispaniA consislentes, Opp., ii. 735-743. 3 A question may be raised as to the precise character of the pope's action in this case ; whether, that is, he simply admitted the deposed bishops to his com- munion, notwithstanding the sentence of the Spanish bishops, which would be bad enough ; or whether he attempted in any way to declare authoritatively that they were restored to their bishoprics, which would be far worse. The learned French Roman Catholic critic, Dupin, in the appendix to the 5th (al. 6th) volume of the Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Aitteurs Ecclesiastiques (pp. 185-188), argues in favour of the first of these explanations. Whatever it was that the pope did, S. Cyprian and the African bishops held that it was wrong, and advised the Spanish bishops to ignore it. In the text I have preferred to take the more 60 . CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [H. letters of communion from the pope, returned to Spain and canvassed to be restored to the see which he had resigned. Martialis seems to have followed the same course. At any rate, in some way, not fully described, he tried by " deceit " to get put back into his bishopric. Certain bishops, follow- ing the pope's bad example, admitted both Basilides and Martialis to their communion. The result of all this was that the churches in Spain were thrown into confusion ; and in their trouble they wrote to S. Cyprian for his advice and aid. Their application was discussed in a synod, consisting of thirty-seven African bishops, over whom S. Cyprian presided. It is interesting to observe what action S. Cyprian and the African synod took. Did they say with the Vatican Council that "the judgement of the apostolic see cannot be revised by any one, and that no one may pass judgement on its decisions"? Did they say that "all the pastors and all the faithful are bound to the pope by the obligation of true obedience " ? Did they therefore exhort the Spanish Catholics to restore the deposed bishops to communion, and to take counsel with the pope as to their being reinstated in their sees ? or, if that seemed impossible, did they suggest that a humble petition should be sent to Rome, begging that the case might be reheard? .They say nothing of the kind. They say that Felix and Sabinus are in full canonical possession of their sees ; and that the mistaken action of the pope " cannot rescind an ordination rightly performed." They say that the effect of what took place at Rome was not to efface but to increase the crimes of Basilides. They say that, although some of the bishops (and the pope was one of them) think that the heavenly discipline of the Church is to be neglected, and rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis, this ought not to disturb our faith, since the Holy Spirit threatens such bishops in the Psalms, saying, " But thou hatest to be reformed, and hast cast My words behind thee : when thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst unto him, and hast been partaker with the adulterers." They express their belief that these bishops, who are mingled in unlawful communion with sinners who abstain from doing penance, are polluted with the commerce of the guilty, and being joined in the guilt are not separate in the punishment. Finally, they exhort the Spanish Catholics to pay no heed to the action of the pope, and to refuse to communicate with the two profane and polluted bishops, who had been deposed. The whole incident illustrates admirably the Catholic charitable view of Stephen's action. On p. 61, n. I, will be found a short account of a similar application made by the " Tall Brothers " to S. Chrysostom, whose action was much more in accordance with the canons than was that of Stephen. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 6 1 system of Church government. The sentence of the synod of the province is held to be final. The pope's decision in regard to a matter which had taken place outside his juris- diction, is considered to have no force in itself. It is neither able to reverse nor suspend the decision of the province. The Spanish churches are exhorted to ignore it ; and all who act upon it are warned that they will share in the guilt and in the punishment of the miserable men whose actions had caused all the trouble. We learn also from this incident that when any church was in trouble, it could apply for help to any foreign church which it might select. 1 It might apply to Rome, if it chose, as the bishops of Gaul did in the case of Marcianus ; but it might apply also to Carthage, if it preferred that course, as the Catholics of Spain did in the present instance. The African bishops had normally no right to exercise jurisdiction in Spain, any more than the Bishop of Rome had either in Spain or in Gaul ; but they could give advice and comfort, and could help to strengthen the Spanish churches in maintaining the wholesome discipline of the gospel. 2 S. Cyprian's action in this Spanish dispute is an admirable illustration of what S. Gregory Nazianzen meant, when he said that 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 of the South and of the North." 3 It is scarcely necessary to add that this presidency which S. Cyprian exercised was not (outside of Africa) a presidency of jurisdiction, but a presidency of love and honour, and, as a consequence, of influence. Hitherto I have been speaking about acts and words of S. Cyprian, which are generally held to have preceded the breaking out of the quarrel between Carthage and Rome on the subject of the validity of heretical baptism. 4 Let us now proceed to consider the light which that quarrel throws on 1 Church history is full of the records of such applications, made either by churches or by individuals. To name one celebrated case, which occurred about a century and a half later. When the " Tall Brothers " had been most unjustly excommunicated by Theophilus of Alexandria, they took refuge with S. Chrysostom at Constantinople, who very rightly refused to admit them to the participation of the Mysteries, until their case had been judicially investigated ; but he permitted them to be present at the Holy Sacrifice among the consistentes ; and he wrote to Theophilus, "desiring him to receive them back into communion, as their sentiments concerning the Divine Nature were orthodox" (cf. Sozomen, H. ., viii. 13). It need hardly be said that S. Chrysostom had no jurisdiction over Theophilus. 2 See Additional Note 23, p. 451. 3 Orat. xxiv. 12, Opp., ed. Ben., i. 445. * Possibly, however, the case of the Spanish bishops may have occurred during the baptismal controversy. 62 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [II. the position of the see of Rome in the Cyprianic age. I shall not attempt to go fully into the controversy, but shall confine myself strictly to that which has a bearing on our general subject. The rough outline of the dispute must be familiar to every one here. S. Cyprian, and the African bishops generally, rebaptized converts from the sects, whether they had been previously baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or not. The Africans considered that all baptism administered by persons living in heresy or schism was invalid. With the Africans agreed the bishops of Asia Minor, under which term I include Phrygia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, and other neighbouring provinces. 1 The Roman Church accepted the baptism of heretics and schismatics as valid when the right form had been used, and refused in such cases to rebaptize converts from heresy or schism, but admitted them into the Church, after proof of repentance and faith, by confirmation. Both sides appealed confidently to ancient tradition and custom. S. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, says that the custom of rebaptizing heretics, which was maintained in Asia Minor, was based on that which had been " delivered by Christ and His apostles." 2 " Nor do we," he says, " remember that this ever had a beginning among us, since it has ever been observed here." On the other hand, the very able author of the treatise De Rebaptismate speaks of the usage upheld by Stephen as agreeing with " most ancient custom, and with the tradition of the Church," and as being " an old and memorable and most established observance of all the veteran saints and believers," and which has in its favour "the authority of all the churches." 8 Both sides had a great deal to say for them- selves. We in England at the present day follow the practice which was upheld by Stephen, but we have no right to say that it is the only allowable practice. The controversy has never been decided by an authority which binds the whole Church. It is very commonly supposed that the Council of Nicaea settled the matter in favour of the custom of Pope Stephen, but that is a mistake. S. Athanasius, who must have known if any such action had been taken, says, " How should not the baptism which the Arians administer be wholly vain and profitless, having a semblance but nothing real as an aid to holiness ? " 4 and the post-Nicene Eastern 1 See Additional Note 24, p. 453. 2 Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., 19, Opp., ii. 822. * Lib. de Rebapt., ap. S. Cyprian. Opp., iii. 69-92. Dr. Mason, speaking of the authorship of this treatise, says, "It seems safe to consider" it "as the production of one of the prelates in the entourage of Stephen" (Relation of Confirmation to Baptism, p. 124). See Additional Note 25, p. 453. 4 Cf. Orat, ii., contr. Ariann., 42, 43. See Dr. Pusey's Note G on II.] .S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 63 Fathers for the most part teach that baptism administered by heretics is invalid, even though the right formula be used ; but they also hold that the Church can, by a high exercise of its authority, validate that which of itself would be invalid. This seems to be the view of the Eastern Church up to the present time. 1 However, our business is with the controversy between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen. The question had been discussed for more than a year in Africa before it was brought to the knowledge of Stephen. But in A.D. 256 a council was held at Carthage, at which seventy-one bishops were present. S. Cyprian presided ; and in the name of the council he wrote to Stephen, reporting the decision at which the assembled bishops had arrived. 2 He informs the pope that the council had determined that those " who have been baptized without the Church, and have among heretics and schismatics been tainted by the defilement of profane water, when they come ... to the Church . . . ought to be baptized ; " and he concludes his letter thus : " These things, dearest brother, by reason of the office which we share and our single-hearted affection, we have brought to thy know- ledge, believing that what is alike religious and true will, according to the truth of thy religion and faith, be approved by thee also." We must observe that S. Cyprian hardly seems to realize that he is writing to one on whom had "been divinely conferred the gift of never-failing truth and faith," 3 as was the case if the Vatican decrees are true. He does not submit the decision of his province to the pope's infallible correction. He tells his correspondent that the African decision is "alike religious and true," and he ex- presses his belief that, as the pope is also a religious man, he will agree with what has been decided. No doubt he had a shrewd suspicion that the pope would disagree, and he there- fore adds, " But we know that some will not lay aside what they have once imbibed, nor easily change their resolves, but, without interruption to the bonds of peace and concord with their colleagues, retain certain peculiarities which have once grown into usage among themselves." * He then proceeds to add that he does not propose to enforce the African view Tertullian (Lib. Path, /;-., pp. 286, 287), and Dr. Bright's Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, pp. 67, 68 (Nicaea, xix.), and compare the authorities mentioned in the Additional Note 26 on p. 453. On the whole subject see The Minister of 'Baptism , by the Rev. W. El win, a very learned and thorough book ; but Mr. Elwin hardly does justice, as it seems to me, to the strength of the argument in favour of the validity of heretical baptism. 1 See Elwin, pp. 80, 86, 132, 267, 268; compare Gore's Church and the Ministry (ist edit., p. 194, n. 2). 2 Ep. Ixxii. ad Stephanu/n, Opp,, ii. 775-778. * Collectio Lacensis, vii. 486, 487. * See Additional Note 27, p. 454. 64 S> CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [II. by cutting off the pope from his communion if he disagrees ; he considers that this is a matter in which the two views may co-exist side by side in the Church. His words are : ''In this matter we neither do violence nor give the law to any one, since each bishop hath, in the administration of the Church, his own choice and will free, hereafter to give an account of his conduct to the Lord. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell." How is it possible to suppose that S. Cyprian could have written in this strain, if he had believed the pope to be the infallible monarch of the Church ? His words breathe throughout the spirit of brotherly equality. To this letter Pope Stephen wrote a harsh reply, which unfortunately has not been preserved, although small frag- ments of it may be found embedded in the letters of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian. S. Cyprian, when referring to it, speaks of the " proud," " impertinent," " inconsistent remarks," which Stephen had written " rashly and improvidently." Ha refers to the bursting forth of "the harsh obstinacy of our brother-Stephen." He asks, "Does he [Stephen] give honour to God, who, the friend of heretics and the enemy of Christians, deems the priests of God, maintaining the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, worthy of excommunication ? " l It is evident from these words that the pope had threatened to excommunicate the African Church if the bishops of that church continued to maintain their practice in regard to the rebaptism of heretics. Stephen was therefore attempting to issue a command, and to enforce it by every weapon that he had at his disposal. If it be indeed true, as the Vatican Council teaches, that " all the pastors and all the faithful . . . are bound to the authority of the pope by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world," 2 now was the time for S. Cyprian and the African bishops to show that they realized their obligation. What actually happened was this : S. Cyprian convoked another council, at which eighty- five bishops were present. 3 At its first meeting, in his 1 Ep. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium contra epistolam Stephani, Opp., ii. 799-805. S. Augustine was referring to S. Cyprian's indignant remarks about Stephen in this letter to Pompeius, when he said (Dc Bapt., v. 25, Opp., ed. Ben., ix. 158), "I will not review what he poured out against Stephen under irritation, because there is no need to do so." S. Augustine, who was arguing against the Donatists, had been reviewing the principal points in this letter of S. Cyprian, but the latter's personal remarks about Stephen had no bearing on S. Augustine's controversy with the Donatists, though they have a bearing on our controversy with Rome. S. Augustine adds that "although S. Cyprian was somewhat moved by his indignation, yet it was in a brotherly way" (quamvis commotius, sed tamen fraterne indignaretur). 1 See p. 4. * See Additional Note 28, p. 454. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 65 opening speech, he said, " It remains for us each to deliver our sentiments on this matter, judging no one, nor removing any one, if he be of a different opinion, from the right of com- munion. For no one of us sets himself up to be a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop, according to the absolute independence of his liberty and power, 1 possesses a free choice, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all await the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has the power both of setting us up in the government of His Church, and of judging our proceedings." 2 Obviously, when S. Cyprian says, " No one of us sets himself up to be a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to the necessity of obedience," he is alluding to St. Stephen's haughty attitude and to his threats of excommunication. So plain is the reference, that even Cardinal Baronius admits it. 3 But if the pope be by divine appointment all that the Vatican Council has declared him to be, what words could be too strong to denounce S. Cyprian's attitude towards Stephen ? On that hypothesis he was an insolent rebel ; and his eighty-four colleagues, who made no protest, were sharers in his sin. Now, it so happens that S. Augustine has quoted these very words of S. Cyprian, and it is interesting to observe the im- pression which they made on him. Does he reprobate them as being rebellious ? or does he try and excuse them by some charitable interpretation only half concealing his dis- approval ? He does neither of these things. He expresses his unqualified admiration. 4 He says, " Quid mansuetius ? 1 " Pro licentid libertatis et potestatis suae." On the meaning of the word licentia, as an attribute of the episcopal authority, see Bishop Sage's Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, chap, v., sections xl.-xliv. {Works, vol. iii. pp. 244-250, edit. 1846). It should be observed that "S. Cyprian uses the singular throughout. No one can judge or be judged by any other one. He does not say, no one can be judged by all, as though he were independent of the college collectively as well as individually, but the only One (unus et solus) who can judge a bishop is Christ Himself" (see an article on Jurisdiction, by John Walter Lea, Union Review for 1866, p. 363, n.) 2 Sententiae Episcoporum, Opp., i. 435, 436. * Cf. Baron. Annall., s.a. 258, 42, ed. Antverp., 1617, ii. 521. In his own Italian province the pope was practically a bishop of bishops, as his brother of Alexandria was in Egypt and Libya (see note on p. 14). There is, however, no reason to suppose that either of these prelates ever called himself by that proud title. Tertullian, after he had become a rigid Montanist, applied the title "bishop of bishops" in bitter irony to Callistus (A.D. 217-222), who had been modifying the antique rigour of the penitential discipline of the Roman and of the Italian churches (see Tertull., De Pudicit., cap. i., and compare S. Hippol. Philosophum., ix. 7). S. Cyprian implies that Stephen, by his arrogant threats, "constituted himself (se constituit) a bishop of bishops " outside his own province. But the Africans would not give place in the least degree to these threats, or to the base- less claim which, either consciously or unconsciously, was implied in them. 4 S. Aug., De Bapt., lib. iii. cap 3 (Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, torn. ix. col. no). F I 66 S. CYPRIAWS WITNESS. [II. quid humilius ? " " What can be more gentle ? What more humble ? " What fills him with admiration is that S. Cyprian 1 does not retort on Stephen the threats of anathema which the latter had so lavishly poured forth. 2 S. Augustine quotes S. Cyprian's words again further on, and he there remarks that they prove that S. Cyprian's "soul was peace-making and overflowing with the milk of charity." 3 S. Augustine makes these laudatory remarks because he is absolutely un- conscious of any taint of rebellion or of impropriety in S. Cyprian's attitude when he uttered these words. S. Augus- tine equally with S. Cyprian accepted the Catholic system of Church government, and knew nothing of the theories which the Vatican Council afterwards formulated and imposed under pain of anathema. S. Cyprian's words produced the same impression on him as they do on us, because his view and our view, in regard to the government of the Church, are sub- stantially the same ; whereas his view and the Ultramontane view are separated by an impassable gulf. S. Augustine's favourable judgement of S. Cyprian's general attitude is the more remarkable, because on the particular point in dispute he agreed absolutely with Stephen, and was therefore in dis- agreement with S. Cyprian. But he agreed with Stephen, not because he thought that Stephen was infallible, but because he considered that the doctrine and practice which Stephen maintained had been afterwards accepted by the Church. He never once suggests that S. Cyprian was wrong in having held to his own opinion in defiance of the pope's definition. He says that " without doubt holy Cyprian would have yielded, if the truth of this question had been thoroughly sifted, and declared, and established by a plenary council." 4 But why should Cyprian need to wait for a plenary council, when the infallible pope had spoken, and had threatened to excommunicate those who differed from him ? The answer, of course, is that nobody dreamed that obedience was due to the pope. 5 Assuredly the eighty-five bishops who sat in council at Carthage took his view. They unanimously up- held the invalidity of heretical baptism, and repudiated the 1 S. Jerome also dwells on the fact that S. Cyprian had put forth his views on the rebaptizing of heretics, without anathematizing those who disagreed with him ; and he specially quotes S. Cyprian's letters to Stephen and Jubaianus, to show that he did not propose to enforce his views either on the pope or on other bishops, by separating them from his communion (cf. Dial. adv. Luciff., 25, P.L., xxiii. 179, 180). 2 Cf. S. Aug., De Bapt., v. 25, >//., Ix. 158. See Additional Note 29, p. 458. 3 Ibid., vi. 6, Opp.t torn. ix. col. 164. 4 Ibid., ii. 4, Opp. , torn. ix. col. 98. 5 Archbishop Benson says (Smith and Wace, D.C.B., i. 755), "Cyprian is totally unconscious of any claims made by the [Roman] see, and resists Stephen purely as an arrogant individual." II.] S. CYPRIAWS WITNESS. 67 view put forth by Stephen, disregarding his threat of ex- communication. Having come to this decision, the council sent certain bishops * of their number as legates to the pope, to announce to him what they had decided. When these legates reached Rome, Stephen "would not admit them even to the common intercourse of speech ; " 2 and " he commanded the whole brotherhood, that no one should admit them into his house ; so that not only peace and communion, but shelter and hospitality were denied them." 3 These facts we learn from S. Firmilian's letter to S. Cyprian ; a letter written in Greek, but translated into Latin in part by S. Cyprian, and published under his authority, 4 and forming part of the Cyprianic correspondence, which happily still remains. S. Firmilian also tells us that Stephen carried out what he had threatened, and cut off the Church of North Africa from his communion. 5 Moreover, the pope had shortly before excommunicated the Churches of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia, and the neighbouring provinces, because they, like the Church of North Africa, were accustomed to re-baptize heretics. 6 The excommunication of the Easterns is mentioned not only by S. Firmilian, but also by S. Denys the Great of Alexandria, 7 who, though agreeing with Stephen on the disputed question of heretical baptism, strongly disapproved of the high-handed way in which he was trying to enforce his views. The ex- communication of the Africans is not only distinctly mentioned by S. Firmilian, but is implied in the way in which the pope treated the African bishops who came to Rome as legates from the Carthaginian council. 8 It must have been after 1 "Legates episcopos" (Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., 25, Opp., ii. 826). * Ep. S. Firmil., ut supra. 3 Loc. cit. 4 Bossuet (Gallia Orthodoxa, cap. Ixx.) says, " Consensit ei [sc. Firmiliano] Cyprianus, ejusque epistolam Latinam fecit, et ad ecclesias edidit." Compare Tillemont, iv. 158. The Bollandist Father Bossue (Ada SS., torn. xii. Octobr., p. 491), after mentioning that Rigault and Dom Maran were of opinion that S. Firmilian's letter was translated into Latin by S. Cyprian, says, " Similiter sentiunt Tillemontius aliique passim." Compare Archbishop Benson's note x., in Smith and Wace, D.C.B., i. 751 ; and see Additional Note 30, p. 458. 4 " Te a tot gregibus scidisti. Excidisti enim te ipsum." "Quid enim humilius aut lenius quam cum tot episcopis per totum mundum dissensisse, pacem cum singulis vario discordiae genere rumpentem, modo cum Orientalibus . . . modo vobiscum, qui in meridie estis " (Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., 24, 25, Opp., ii. 825, 826). See Additional Note 31, p. 458. 7 Euseb., H. E., vii. 7. To avoid confusion between S. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria and his contemporary, S. Dionysius of Rome, I use the English form, Denys, when speaking of the Alexandrine saint. 8 According to primitive practice, even ordinary Christian laymen, when travelling, if they brought letters of communion from their own bishop, were received in hospitality, and diligently cared for, as well-known and dear friends 68 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [H. Stephen had separated S. Cyprian from his communion l that the latter sent a letter to S. Firmilian of Caesarea. This prelate was himself a saint, and was the friend of saints. S. Denys the Great speaks of him as one of the most illustrious bishops of his time. 2 He was closely united in brotherly love with S. Gregory the Wonder-worker. The great Council of Antioch, 3 which condemned Paul of Samosata, and which was held shortly after the deaths of S. Denys and of S. Firmilian, couples them together, describ- ing them as " men of blessed memory " (roue fiaKapira^). S. Basil quotes S. Firmilian as an authority on doctrine. 4 S. Gregory of Nyssa, preaching a panegyric on S. Gregory the Wonder-worker, compares the virtue of S. Firmilian to the virtue of S. Gregory. The Church has been accustomed to celebrate his festival on the 28th of October. Even Cardinal Baronius, who for very obvious reasons excluded his name from the Roman Martyrology, is obliged to admit that "scarcely any of his contemporaries appeared to surpass him in learning and sanctity." 5 It was natural that the glorious S. Cyprian, when in trouble, should write to his brother saint of Cappadocia. I have already referred to S. Firmilian's reply ; but it will be well to make one or two quotations from it, as illustrating the view which great saints of the third century took of Stephen's action. S. Firmilian says that, though in past times there has been in different provinces much variety in the way in which the sacramental ordinances have been celebrated, yet hitherto there had not been on that account any "departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. This Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace with you [Cyprian], which his predecessors ever maintained with you in mutual affection (cf. Sozom., v. 16). This was the eontesseratio hospitalitatis spoken of by Tertullian as a mark of communion between different churches (De Praescript. Aaeret., xx.). When the pope forbade hospitality to be shown to the bishops sent as legates by the North African Church, he was manifesting in the most public fashion that the Roman see had completely separated herself from the communion of that church. Tillemont (iv. 155) rightly says, " Cette action paroist une rupture entiere." The whole of Tillemont's 49th article on S. Cyprian should be studied. 1 For further proof that Stephen not merely wrote threats, but actually separated S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian from his communion, see Appendix A, PP- 72-77- * Euseb., H, E., vii. 5. 3 "Le plus celebre Concile qui ait etc tenu dans 1'F.glise avant celui de Nicee " (Tillemont, iv. 308). Cardinal Newman, in an article which appeared in the Atlantis in July, 1858, and which its author republished in 1871, as note iv., appended to the third edition of the History of the Arians (p. 443), speaks of the Fathers of this council as being "bishops of the highest authority " 4 Tillemont, loc. tit. * Baron. Annall., s.a. 258, 47. See also Duchesne (Origines Chretiennes, P- 437)- II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 69 and respect." l From another passage we learn that Stephen had laid stress on the fact that he was the successor of S. Peter in S. Peter's own chair. Firmilian says, " I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen, that he who so boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the founda- tions of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildeth anew many churches. . . ." "Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics." 2 Further on S. Firmilian apostrophizes Stephen indignantly. He says, " What strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up through the churches of the whole world ! And how great a sin hast thou heaped up against thyself, when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks ! For thou didst cut thyself off; deceive not thyself; for he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all. . . ." 3 " This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of chanty, and in all things to make himself an alien to the brethren, and with the fury of contumacious discord to rebel against the sacrament and the faith ! " 4 These are doubtless strong words. They are the fervent utterances of a saint indignant at the schismatic course which was being taken by the bishop of the first see in the Church. 5 Stephen had no right to complain. He had dared to call the blessed S. Cyprian a " false Christ," a " false apostle," a "deceitful worker," 6 and it was quite time that the prelates of the Church should speak out in no faltering terms of his arrogant attitude and action. This task S. Firmilian undertook ; and we may be sure that S. Cyprian approved, because there can be no doubt that he edited the Latin translation of S. Firmilian's letter, and authorized its 1 Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., 6, Opp. , ii. 813. 2 Ep. at., 17, p. 821. 3 Ibid., 24, p. 825. 4 Ibid., 25, p. 826. 5 Dom Maran, the Benedictine editor of S. Cyprian's works, rightly says that ' ' the love of unity breathes through the whole of Firmilian's Epistle " ( Vit. S. Cypr., cap. xxxii., Opp. S. Cypr., ed. Ben., col. cxx.). Baluze makes a similar observation (Opp., S. Cypr. ed. Ben., p. 513). 6 S. Firmilian, in his letter to S. Cyprian, quotes these reviling words of Stephen (p. 827) ; Dom Maran points out that we have also S. Cyprian's own witness that the words were actually used by Stephen, because Cyprian ' ' trans- lated Firmilian's epistle into Latin, or at least authorized its publication " ( Vita S. Cypr., cap. xxx., Opp. S. Cypr., ed. Ben., col. cxii.). It is obvious that Stephen would never have used, in a public document, such words about a great prelate like the Bishop of Carthage, if he had been still in communion with him. ;o S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [II. publication, that it might edify and instruct the Western portion of the Church. 1 Shortly afterwards, under the Emperor Valerian, the persecution broke out afresh, and Stephen is said to have died a martyr's death. If he did so die, we may hope that he purged away in that second baptism whatever was amiss in his life. 2 The dispute about baptism still went on in the time of his successor, S. Xystus ; 8 but Xystus was " a good and peace-making bishop," 4 and he seems to have undone the harsh acts of his predecessor, and thus to have brought back the Roman Church into full unity with the churches of the East and of the South. 5 As it was in the Paschal 1 See note 4 on p. 67. 18 The Roman Church invokes him as a saint. But it must be observed that Bishop Pearson throws doubt on the alleged martyrdom of Stephen. He says (Annal. Cypr., s.a. 257, v., p. 60), " Pontii tamen verba praetereunda nonsunt : ' Jam de Xysto bono et pacifico sacerdote, ac propterea beatissimo martyre, ab urbe nuntius venerat,' quibus Stephanum videtur perstringere, eumque negare, aut omnino martyrium subiisse, aut si subierit, verum et beatum martyrem fuisse." Mgr. Duchesne evidently takes the same view as Pearson. He says (Liber Pontificalis, p. 154, note i), " II semble done que 1'ancienne tradition liturgique, anterieure a la Passio Stephani ait etc muette sur son martyre. Et ceci s'explique d'autant mieux que Saint Augustin ne parait en avoir rien su (vide Tillemont, Hist. Eccl., iv. 594), et que le diacre Pontius, biographe de S. Cyprien, se sert en parlant de Xystus II., d'une expression qui semble exclure le martyre de son pre"decesseur (c. 14, p. cv., Hartel)." Compare also Lib. Pont., p. xcvii., and Origines Chrttiames, p. 438, n. 3. See Additional Note 32, p. 459. 3 This is clear from the letters of S. Denys the Great, parts of which are pre- served by Eusebius (H. E., vii. 5, 7, 9). 4 " Bonus et pacificus sacerdos." As has been already pointed out, they are the words which are used concerning Xystus by S. Cyprian's deacon and biographer, S. Pontius (Vita S. Cypr. per Pont. Diac., 14, ap. Opp. S. Cypr., iii. cv.). 8 There is clear proof that S. Dionysius, the successor of S. Xystus, was in full communion with S. Firmilian (cf. S. Basil. Ep. Ixx. ad Damasum, Opp., ed. Ben., 1730, iii. 164). I am inclined to think that " the good and peace-making " Xystus may have annulled the acts of his predecessor, or, at any rate, may have receded from them, in consequence of the letters of S. Denys of Alexandria (cf. Tillemont, iv. 160, 161). S. Denys wrote first to Stephen on the very grave difficulties which would arise out of his harsh action, and " entreated him " to follow a gentler course ; but on Stephen he seems to have produced no effect. If Stephen had yielded, the controversy would have come to an end. S. Denys then wrote twice to two Roman priests, namely, Dionysius, afterwards pope, and Philemon, and he seems to have led them to change their views, so that they were more inclined to peace. Speaking of the way in which Stephen had thrown the churches of Asia Minor " into strife and contention," he says in one of his letters of Philemon, " I cannot endure " it. Then he wrote two letters, still on the same subject, to Pope S. Xystus, in one of which he recounts his previous efforts on behalf of peace. We may well believe that the "peace-making" propensities of the " good " Xystus prompted him to accede to the entreaties of his brother- saint of Alexandria, and to recede from the separatist position which Stephen had taken up. There was a final letter on baptism addressed by S. Denys and the whole Church of Alexandria to S. Xystus and the whole Church of Rome. This may well have been a letter of congratulation on the restoration of peace to the Church. Eusebius implies that in this final letter the whole subject of the rebaptism of heretics and of the toleration of variations of discipline in connexion with that matter was reviewed at length. The preceding summary of S. Denys' action is based on Euseb. H. E., vii. 5, 7, 9. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. Jl controversy, so it was in the Baptismal controversy ; it was Rome that was compelled to give way, as it was Rome that had advanced unjustifiable claims. Africa and Asia Minor retained their baptismal discipline unchanged, 1 and had the joy of welcoming back the Roman Church after its wander- ings into the straight path of Catholic peace and charity. This happened before the martyrdom of S. Cyprian. Perhaps it was to make some atonement for the out- rageous way in which he had been treated by Stephen, that the Roman Church has paid such special honour to S. Cyprian ever since his glorious death. His name is apparently the name of the only man, neither martyred at Rome nor belonging to the local Church of Rome, which finds a place in the canon of the Mass, as used to this day in the Roman Church. 2 It seems to me probable that his name was inserted in the canon by Pope S. Dionysius, the successor of S. Xystus. This latter died five or six weeks before S. Cyprian, and S. Dionysius was consecrated to the Roman see a few months after S. Cyprian's martyrdom, that see having remained vacant during the interval ; so that, if S. Cyprian's name was inserted at the time when his death was still fresh in the minds of all Catholics, the insertion would have taken place by S. Dionysius' authority. It is interesting to notice that S. Denys the Great speaks in one of his letters of his namesake of Rome, as having "formerly held the same opinion as Stephen " 3 in regard to that pope's high-handed policy of excommunication. The words seem to imply that S. Dionysius had changed his mind, and had been led to favour a more Christian mode of action. Follow- ing up this clue, it is worthy of observation that S. Dionysius, during his pontificate, wrote to the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 4 while S. Firmilian was still its bishop, to console it for the sufferings inflicted on it by the barbarians. He even sent agents into Cappadocia to ransom Christians of S. Firmilian's diocese, who had been carried away into captivity. I like to think of this great pope making some reparation for the treatment which S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian had received at the hands of his predecessor Stephen. On the whole, I submit that, whether we look at the 1 See Additional Note 33, p. 460. 2 The names of the apostles and of other saints mentioned in Holy Scripture must of course be excepted. 3 Euseb., H. E,, vii. 5. 4 S. Basil. Ep. Ixx. ad Damasum, Opp., ed. Ben., 1730, iii. 164. S. Firmilian was Bishop of Caesarea during the whole of the pontificate of Dionysius, with the exception of the last two months. They both died in the year 268 ; S. Firmilian in October, and S. Dionysius in December. The news of S. Firmilian's death would hardly have reached Rome during the two months that remained of S. Dionysius' lifetime. 72 APPENDIX A. history of the Paschal controversy in the time of Pope Victor, or to the celebrated passage about the Roman Church in the great treatise of S. Irenaeus, or to the line of action which S. Cyprian pursued in his dealings with the popes of his day, we find that the witness of the first three centuries is entirely adverse to the papal theory set forth in the Vatican decrees, and that it bears out that view of the position of the Roman see which I attempted to sketch in my first lecture. APPENDIX A. The Excommunication of S. Cyprian (see p. 68). SOME Roman Catholic writers have done their best to make out that Pope Stephen, in his dealings with S. Cyprian, never proceeded beyond threats of excommunication, and that no actual rupture took place. It is difficult to understand how such a view could ever have been seriously taken ; but it is easy to see that Ultramontanes would naturally shrink from admitting that so illustrious a saint as Cyprian persisted in uphold- ing the opinion concerning baptism which he had inherited from his predecessors, if the retaining of that opinion had resulted in his being separated from the communion of the Roman Church. If S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were really excommunicated, and if they nevertheless refused to alter either the teaching or the practice condemned by Rome, then it is clear that neither of these saints nor their colleagues in Africa and Asia Minor could have considered that communion with the pope was an essential matter. It would follow from this conclusion that their witness would have to be reckoned as adverse to the truth of the Ultramontane theory concerning the papacy. Having thus pointed out the importance of the question, I proceed to discuss it. I have quoted in my second lecture the clear statements of S. Firmilian on the subject of the excommunication, but it will be worth while to repeat them in this place. Writing to S. Cyprian, after mentioning the fact that there had been in various matters a diversity of practice in the different provinces of the Church, he says, " And yet there has not been on that account at any time any departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. This, Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace with you [Cyprian], which his predecessors ^ I have discussed certain passages in S. Cyprian's writings, which are quoted by Ultramontanes as if they favoured the papal claims, in Appendix B, with its Addendum, pp. 77-95, to which the reader is referred. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S EXCOMMUNICATION. 73 ever maintained with you in mutual affection and respect." l And further on in the same letter S. Firmilian apostrophizes Stephen, and says, "How great a sin hast thou heaped up against thyself, when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks ! For thou didst cut thyself off. Deceive not thyself. For he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all." 2 Then he goes into particulars about the way in which Stephen had treated the bishops sent to Rome as envoys or legates by the synod of the North African Church ; how Stephen " would not admit them even to the common intercourse of a conference," and how " he commanded the whole brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house ; so that not only peace and communion, but shelter and hospitality, were denied them on their arrival." 3 Yet in the face of all this, Dr. Rivington says, "There is no evidence that S. Cyprian was ever under excommunication." * It seems incredible that such a statement should be made. Evidence there clearly is, and more of the same kind might have been quoted. Later on Dr. Rivington reveals to us the theory by which he gets rid of the plain evidence of S. Firmilian. He says that, as the sentence, in which the statement concerning S. Cyprian's excommunication occurs, " contains a most exaggerated account of the situation, we may feel ourselves at liberty to regard this statement also as exaggerated." 5 Apparently Dr. Rivington bases his accusation of exaggeration on the words in S. Firmilian's letter to S. Cyprian, in which the holy Bishop of Caesarea, rhetorically addressing Stephen, says, "While thou thinkest that all may be ex- communicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all." Concerning this sentence Dr. Rivington says, "Firmilian's assertion was, indeed, flagrantly false, for it is notorious that Stephen did not stand alone." 6 Assuredly Dr. Rivington's comment is a much more serious exaggeration than is the Saint's very innocent remark. Obviously S. Firmilian writes with the assurance that his correspondent, S. Cyprian, who knew all the facts, would interpret his words in a reasonable way. By the words " omnes " and " omnibus " S. Firmilian does not mean all the churches of Christendom, but all those many flocks (tot greges), probably a majority of all the Catholic churches then in existence, 7 which had been excommunicated by Stephen. From all these flocks Stephen had cut himself off by an excommunication, which was apparently not the outcome of a synod, but his own personal act. We have no reason to suppose that any other bishops had approved his proceeding or had made themselves parties to it. We know that S. Denys of Alexandria, who agreed with him in regard to the main point in dispute, strongly disapproved of his harsh method of enforcing the view which they held in common. 8 But even if, for the sake of argument, it were conceded that 1 Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., 6, Opp., ii. 813. 2 Ep. cit., 24, p. 825. 3 Ibid., 25, p. 826. * Authority, p. 103, 2nd ed. 5 Ibid., p. 105. 6 Loc. cit. 7 See Additional Note 34, p. 460. 8 See p. 70, n. 5. 74 APPENDIX A. [II. the use of the words " omnes " and " solum " was a serious exaggeration, it would not follow that one could rightly treat as an exaggeration S. Firmilian's repeated statement that a breach of communion really took place, corroborated as that statement is by the details given in regard to the treatment of the legates, details which Firmilian must have learnt from S. Cyprian, and still further corroborated, as we shall see in the sequel, by the words of S. Denys, and by the share which S. Cyprian must have had in the translation and publication of S. Firmilian's letter. Anyhow, it is absurd to say that "there is no evidence that he [Stephen] ever proceeded to execute his threat." I am aware that other Roman Catholic writers have taken the same line as Dr. Rivington. The fact is that they are driven into a corner, and that the simplest way of escape is to deny the truth of the evidence, however well attested it may be. But, in justice to our brethren of the Roman communion, it must not be supposed that their best writers follow such a hopeless course. Such a course would be impossible to a historian like Tillemont ; but I prefer to quote an authority fro.m the south side of the Alps. I know of no greater name among Ultramontane historians of the last century than that of Archbishop Mansi of Lucca, best known by his great edition of the Councils. 1 Mansi, in his animadversion on Natalis Alexander's dissertation concerning the subject which we are discussing, says, " So openly does Firmilian write to S. Cyprian that Pope Stephen broke the peace, and that he accordingly deprived them of his communion, that it seems that it cannot be doubted that he went beyond threats and at length pronounced sentence of excom- munication against them." Mansi proceeds to quote S. Firmilian's words, and to show that they are decisive in favour of his position. Then he adds, " But the answer of Natalis appears to be altogether futile. He says that Firmilian has described a mere threat of excommunication in the same terms as if it had really been fulminated, because he took up his pen when he was somewhat angry with Stephen. I say again that such an answer appears to me to be altogether futile, because it would necessarily follow that Firmilian had forgotten all the rules of Christian behaviour and of honesty, if, in order that he might excite odium against Stephen, he had lied in so serious a matter. 2 . . . And who, I ask, could conceive that, if Stephen had done no more than threaten, Firmilian would have compared him to the traitor Judas, and would have charged him with insolence, wickedness, and folly? Assuredly these are the words of one who is impatiently bearing a wound which he has received, and who is kindled with wrath against the man who has inflicted on him a deadly wound. ... It is clear that Stephen broke the peace and refused communion, because he did not refrain from excommunicating Firmilian, Cyprian, and the others." 3 Mansi goes on to quote the letter of S. Denys of Alexandria to Pope S. Xystus II., a fragment of which 1 The Jesuit professor of theology in the university of Innsbruck, Father Hurter, in his useful Nomenclator Literarins (iii. 101), speaking of Mansi, says, "De illo jam agemus, qui tota hac epocha omnium fuit celeberrimus deque Ecclesia atque re literaria optime nieritus." 2 " In re tarn gravi mentitus esset." 3 Animadvert, in Dissert, xii. Art. i., ap. Natal. Alexanctr. Hist. Ecd. t ed. 1786, Bing. ad Rhenum, torn. vi. pp. 222, 223. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S EXCOMMUNICATION. 75 has been preserved by Eusebius. In that letter S. Denys, speaking of Stephen, says, " Indeed, he had previously (vp^rtpov) written concerning Helenus [of Tarsus] and concerning Firmilian, and concerning all [the bishops] of Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia, and of all the neigh- bouring nations, saying that he would not communicate with them either (us ovSf eneivois Koivuv^awv}, for this same cause, namely, that they rebaptize heretics." 1 S. Denys, in his letter, so far as it has been preserved to us, deals entirely with Stephen's relations with the Eastern bishops, and says nothing of his relations with the Church of North Africa ; 2 but Mansi points out that if the pope excommunicated the Easterns he must have excommunicated also the Africans, since the latter entirely agreed with the former in their teaching and practice. 3 Thus the witness of S. Denys corroborates the witness of S. Firmilian and of S. Cyprian. Here we have a threefold cord, which will not easily be broken by any amount of a priori Ultramontane reasoning. When it is once admitted that three contemporary writers of such high character, and of such esteem in the Church, as the three saints mentioned above, agree in their witness that an excommunication was not merely threatened but also pronounced and promulgated, 4 and when it is also admitted that there is no shred of contemporary evidence on the other side, the discussion might fairly be brought to an end ; but Natalis Alexander and others lay stress on the fact that S. Augustine, writing a century and a half later, seems to have thought that the estrangement between Rome and Carthage never amounted to a breach of communion. 5 It is true that Tillemont does not so understand S. 1 Euseb. H. E., vii. 5. I have appended the original Greek of S. Denys' summary of the operative part of Stephen's letter, the English translation of which is italicized in the text. Mansi rightly translates these words as follows : "quod neque cum illis communicare vellet ;" and Baronius renders the passage in the same way. I mention this, because De Valois has seriously altered the sense by translating S. Denys' words thus: "sese ab illorum communione dis- cessurum." There is a difference between announcing that in the future you will not communicate with certain people, and announcing that in the future you will separate from their communion. The first formula implies that separation has already been effected, or is being effected by the document in which the formula occurs. The second formula threatens a separation in the future. S. Denys represents Stephen as having effected the separation, and not as having merely threatened it. See Additional Note 35, p. 462. 2 See Additional Note 36, p. 462. 3 On this point Natalis Alexander would have agreed with Mansi. His words are express : " Una erat causa Firmiliani et Cypriani ; . . . non est igitur verisimile quod Firmilianum communione privaverit Stephanus cum Orientalibus suis, et Cyprianum cum Africanis pace et communione frui permiserit " (Hist. Eccl., ed. 1786, torn. vi. p. 2 1 8). 4 The objection might be raised that, if Eusebius had supposed that Stephen had actually excommunicated the Easterns, he would have given an exact account of how the breach was healed. If Eusebius had lived some centuries later, when a papal excommunication was the direst thing that could happen to any Christian community, he would no doubt have done so ; but Eusebius would not think of the matter quite in that light. In H, E., v. 24, he gives an account of the excommunication of the Asians by Pope Victor, and he describes S. Irenaeus' mediation, as here he describes S. Denys' peace-making efforts, but neither there does he make mention of the close of the dispute. 4 Cf. S. Aug., De Baptismo contra Donat., v. 25, Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 158, et Detinic. Bapt. contra Petil., cap. xiv., Opp., ix. 538. 7 6 APPENDIX A. [II. Augustine. He thinks that S. Augustine admits that the pope withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian, but he supposes that S. Augustine holds that, as S. Cyprian did not retort on the pope by a counter-excommunication, but remained united to him by the bond of charity, the breach was not complete. 1 Out of respect for the great name of S. Augustine, I will consider whether his view of the matter can really avail to counterbalance the evidence of the three contemporary saints, whose witness has been discussed above ; and for the sake of conciseness I will take no account of Tillemont's explanation of S. Augustine's meaning, and I will assume that the latter really supposed that Stephen never withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian and from the other African bishops. On that view of the case, I have no hesitation in saying that S. Augustine's representation of the matter cannot possibly avail to counter- balance the direct testimony of S. Firmilian and S. Cyprian, confirmed as it is by the corroborative evidence of S. Denys ; for there is every reason to believe that S. Augustine had not got the full evidence before him. The contemporary evidence of the excommunication of S. Cyprian, which has come down to us, is primarily contained in S. Firmilian's letter, which evidently re-echoed S. Cyprian's own dispatches, and for the translation and publication of which S. Cyprian was responsible. But that letter was not in the collection of the Cyprianic correspondence on the subject of the rebaptizing of heretics, which was in the hands of S. Augustine. The collecting of S. Cyprian's letters was a work of time. We now possess seven letters, either written by or to S. Cyprian on the question of rebaptism ; but S. Augustine had only five of these in his collection. In his controversy with the Donatists he was obliged to go most minutely into the arguments about baptism contained in the Cyprianic documents. He discusses them clause by clause. 2 He actually takes the trouble to reply separately to each of the eighty-six speeches made by the eighty-five bishops who sat in the great Council of Carthage, 3 over which Cyprian presided, and which was the last of the Cyprianic councils on rebaptism. 4 So it comes to pass that we know exactly what documents S. Augustine possessed, and what were missing ; and we find that he never refers either to the synodical letter 5 written to Stephen by S. Cyprian in the name of the second of the three councils on re- baptism, or to the letter 6 addressed to S. Cyprian by S. Firmilian. 7 1 Tillemont, iv. 150, 151. 2 S. Aug., De Baptismo contra Donatistas, libb. ii., iii., iv., v. 3 S. Cyprian, as president, made two speeches, the first and the last. 4 Op. fit., libb. vi., vii. 4 S. Cypr. Ep. Ixxii., Opp., ii. 775. 6 Ep. inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., Opp., ii. 812. 7 S. Augustine's words, in his refutation of the speech of Crescens of Cirta (De Bapt. contra Donat., vi. 15, Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 171), show clearly that S. Cyprian's synodical letter to Stephen, which had been known to Crescens, was not known to him. Compare Mr. C. H. Turner's Note appended to Dr. Sanday's Essay on the Cheltenham List (Studia Biblica et Ecdesiastica, iii. 324, 325). In his third book against Cresconius (Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 435), S. Augustine implies that Cresconius had referred to " the letter of certain Orientals," as witnessing to their approval of S. Cyprian's doctrine about rebaptism. He quotes in the second chapter some words from Cresconius, which seem to me to imply that this letter was a synodical epistle expressing the formal assent of some II.] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 77 S. Augustine was quite aware that documents existed bearing on the controversy about baptism in the time of S. Cyprian, which had not come into his hands. He says in one place, " Not all the things which were transacted among the bishops at that time were committed to memory and to writing, and not all the things which were so committed have come to my knowledge." 1 It is clear from all this that the whole evidence, as we now possess it, was not before S. Augustine ; and in point of fact the last of the Cyprianic documents of which he had knowledge was the summarized report of the proceedings at the final council on rebaptism. But that council preceded the excommunication;'* and it is therefore no matter for wonder that S. Augustine was unaware of the fact that a com- plete rupture finally took place. To put the whole matter briefly. The principal evidence for the excommunication is to be found in S. Firmilian's letter. That letter was not known to S. Augustine. It is perfectly clear from that letter that both S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were excommuni- cated. We thus know of their excommunication from themselves. It seems unreasonable to set aside the best possible contemporary evidence in deference to certain dicta of S. Augustine, who lived a century and a half later, and had never seen the document which constitutes the principal proof. It is plain that the objections raised by Natalis Alexander have no real solidity. I submit that the excommunication of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian and their colleagues by Pope Stephen must be accepted as historically true. 3 APPENDIX B. Concerning passages from S. Cypriarfs works, which are quoted by Ultramontanes in support of their contention that S. Cyprian held the papal theory (see p. 72). S. CYPRIAN'S witness in favour of the Catholic system of Church government and against the papal theory is consistently maintained throughout his acts and writings. But the Ultramontane divines Eastern synod to the conclusions of the third Carthaginian Council on rebaptism. I doubt if S. Augustine had seen the letter ; and the fact that it was written, not by one man, but by several, seems to me to be a proof positive that it was not the letter of S. Firmilian, with which we are acquainted. Tillemont (iv. 158) gives further reasons for concluding that S. Augustine had never seen S. Firmilian's letter to S. Cyprian. 1 De Bapt. cotttr. Donat., ii. 4, Opp., ix. 98. 2 Tillemont, iv. 155 ; and compare the Acta SS., torn. iv. Septembr., pp. 305, 306, where Father Suyskens, S.J., the author of the Bollandist Life of S. Cyprian, replies to Dom Maran's arguments, and shows that the African legates, who were rejected by Stephen, were sent by the third council on rebaptism, and not by the second. Professor Jungmann (Dissertationes Selectaein Hist. Ecd.> torn. i. p. 331) takes the same view as Suyskens ; and Hefele, who in his first edition had followed Maran, changed his mind, and in his second edition supports the view which I have taken in the text (see Hefele, vol. v. p. 434, Eng. trans.). See also the Additional Note 37, p. 463. 3 See Additional Note 38, p. 463. 78 APPENDIX B. [II. naturally do what they can to discover passages which may seem to qualify the crushing force of his testimony against the later claims of Rome. Without attempting to exhaust the subject, I will take the passages from the Cyprianic documents which are quoted by Father Bottalla as supporting his views (Supreme Authority of the Pope, pp. 10-13), and will point out how consistent they are with S. Cyprian's general teaching in regard to the organization of the Church. Father Bottalla says, "The Fathers and all Christian antiquity acknowledge the closest connexion between the unity of the Church as represented by Christ, and the headship of one universal pastor." In proof of this statement Father Bottalla quotes S. Cyprian's letter to Magnus (Ep. Ixix. 5, Opp., ii. 753). S. Cyprian there says, "Where- fore the Lord, intimating to us a unity that cometh from a divine original, declareth and saith, ' I and the Father are one.' To which unity reducing His Church, He further saith, 'And there shall be one flock and one shepherd.'" 1 S. Cyprian is quoting two passages from the tenth chapter of S. John's Gospel. The words of the second passage, as they were spoken by our Lord, referred to the one flock of the Catholic Church, consisting of Jews and Gentiles, under Himself the one Shepherd. S. Cyprian, however, in his application of the passage, somewhat varies from the original meaning. He is showing that each local church forms an organized unity under one head, the bishop. This is a very favourite subject with S. Cyprian. Magnus had asked him whether Novatians, on their conversion to the Church, ought to be rebaptized. S. Cyprian says, Yes, " for the Church is one, and, being one, cannot be both within and without. For if it was with Novatian, it was not with Cornelius. But if it was with Cornelius, who by a legitimate ordination succeeded the Bishop Fabian, . . . Novatian is not in the Church ; nor can he be accounted a bishop, who, despising the evangelic and apostolic tradition, succeeding to nobody, has sprung from himself." The Novatian schism arose out of a dispute in the local Church of Rome. Two bishops, Cornelius and Novatian, claimed each of them to be the legitimate Bishop of Rome. It was not a question of the rights of the pope as against the rights of some other bishop or bishops. The question was, Which of two claimants is the rightful Bishop of Rome ? S. Cyprian held that S. Cornelius was undoubtedly the true bishop. He had been consecrated first, and his election and consecration had been carried out in a thoroughly canonical and orderly way. He was the true successor to the previous bishop, Fabian. Afterwards Novatian was consecrated in an entirely uncanonical manner, when the see was no longer vacant. Novatian succeeded to nobody. It will now be evident that when S. Cyprian quotes our Lord's words, "There shall be one flock and one shepherd," he is referring to the local church at Rome, as it was when the Novatian schism began, and he is showing that the Roman flock had already its one shepherd, Cornelius, and that con- 1 I give my own translation in the text. The Latin runs as follows : " Idcirco Dominus insinuans nobis unitatem de divina auctoritate venientem ponit et dicit : Ego et Pater unum sumus. Ad quam unitatem redigens ecclesiam suam denuo dicit : Et erit unus grex et unus pastor." II.] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 79 sequently Novatian was a schismatical intruder, and that those who communicated with him shared in his guilt, and that those whom they baptized, according to S. Cyprian's notion, ought on their conversion to the Church to be rebaptized. There is not a single word in the whole epistle which deals with " the headship of one universal pastor " over the whole Catholic Church of Christ. So far from that being the case, the letter was written by S. Cyprian in the course of the controversy about rebaptism, which culminated in his excommunication by Stephen ; and the whole letter is intended to prove to Magnus that the theories about the validity of schismatic baptism, which were favoured at Rome, were altogether wrong. Father Bottalla is unfortunate in his first Cyprianic quotation. Let us pass on to his second proof. He says, " The same doctrine was inculcated by those confessors of Christ who returned from the Novatian schism to the unity of the Church." These confessors were members of the local Roman church, who had been imprisoned for the faith after the martyrdom of Pope S. Fabian in January, 250. For a whole year they witnessed a good con- fession for Jesus Christ. However, in the year 251 some of them were beguiled into giving their support to the party of Novatian, who was commencing his schism at Rome. S. Denys of Alexandria and S. Cyprian wrote letters of remonstrance to them, and finally they were led to see their mistake, and to sue for readmission into the Church. On their readmission, they confessed their error and made a profession of allegiance to S. Cornelius, as being their legitimate bishop. The whole dispute turned on the question, Who is the rightful Bishop of Rome ? Both Cornelius and Novatian claimed to be the Bishop of the Catholic Church at Rome, and each one accused his rival of being the head of a schismatic body. The confessors' profession on their readmission was as follows : " We acknowledge that Cornelius is Bishop of the most holy Catholic Church [in this city], chosen by God Almighty and Christ our Lord. We confess our error ; we have suffered from imposture. We were circumvented by crafty and perfidious speeches. For although we seemed, as it were, to have held a kind of communion with a schismatic and heretic, yet our mind was ever sincere in the Church. For we are not ignorant that there is one God, one Christ the Lord, Whom we con- fessed, one Holy Ghost, and that there ought to be one bishop in a Catholic church." 1 I have added in brackets the words " in this city," which express the true meaning. I see that Tillemont does the same. He says (iii. 460), " S. Cornelius reports word for word the act by which the confessors recognized him as the sole bishop of the Catholic Church [in Rome]." The confessors call the body adhering to Cornelius " the most holy Catholic Church," in contrast with the schismatic body adhering to Novatian. Father Bottalla tells us that " the name of Catholic Church is applied "in this passage "to the Church of Rome exclusively that is, to S. Peter's chair on account of its being the centre, the root, the source, and the matrix of Catholic unity." But such an interpretation is obviously very far-fetched. The relation of the 1 Ep. Cornelii ad Cypr. inter Cyprianicas xlix. 2, Opp. y ii. 611. 80 APPENDIX B. [II. Roman see to Catholic unity was not in dispute. The question was, Who is the true occupant of that see? Which is the legitimate Catholic flock in Rome ? Father Bottalla proceeds, " In the same sense Pope Cornelius, in his epistle to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, used the following expression, pointing out the crime of Novatus : l ' This asserter of the gospel did not know that there can be but one bishop in the Catholic Church.'" 2 Un- fortunately, Father Bottalla makes a slip in his translation of this passage. It should be, " that there can be but one bishop in a Catholic church," not " in the Catholic Church." S. Cornelius, who wrote to his brother of Antioch in Greek, 3 used the expression, \v KaSoXMrj \KK\i\ffio., not kv -Hi KaOo\iitri iK/cArjir/ct. When this correction has been made, it will be at once perceived that the passage is useless for Father Bottalla's purpose. On the contrary, it helps to show that I have rightly inter- preted the profession of allegiance made by the penitent confessors, for that profession was doubtless either drawn up or sanctioned by S. Cornelius ; and the plain meaning of his letter to Fabius may be safely used to clear up phrases, if there are any, which may be thought ambiguous in the profession. But let us now go back to Father Bottalla's statement that the Church of Rome is " the centre, the root, the source, and the matrix of Catholic unity." Truly, if that could be solidly proved, I should not care to write this book ; and for the first time in my life I should begin to fear that the faith which God in His great mercy has ever given me in the Catholicity of my mother the Church of England, has been the result of some illusion. Father Bottalla refers in a note to S. Cyprian's forty- eighth letter, addressed to S. Cornelius ; and he quotes S. Cyprian's words, " the womb and root of the Catholic Church," 4 by which words he supposes that S. Cyprian means to describe the Roman Church, as being the centre and source of Catholic unity. We English Churchmen have been taught that the Catholic Church diffused throughout all the world, in her essential unity, is the womb and root and mother and fountain-head of individual Catholics and of particular local churches, wherever they may be, whether at Rome, or at Canterbury, or at Oxford, or elsewhere. The whole Church is organically connected by the joints and bands of the apostolic faith and of the apostolical succession with the apostolic Church which was set up on earth by our Lord ; and the whole Church is also organically connected, through her episcopate and through the Sacraments and through the operation and indwelling of the Holy Ghost, with her ascended Head, our Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the angels of the churches in His right hand. 5 All local churches derive 1 Father Bottalla, following Eusebius, calls the anti-pope Novatus ; but Eusebius is mistaken. The man's real name was Novatian. Novatus was a different person. 2 Cf. Euseb. ff. ., vi. 43. 3 De Valois, the editor of Eusebius, conclusively shows in a note that the letter was written in Greek, as we have it in Eusebius. 4 " Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem et radicem " (Ep. xlviii. ad Corndium, 3, Opp., ii. 607). * Cf. Rev. i. 20. IL] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 8 1 their being, as churches, from the apostolic Church. As Tertullian well expressed the matter, " These churches, so many and so great, are but that one primitive Church from the apostles, whence they all spring. Thus all are primitive, and all apostolical, while all are one." l There- fore the whole Church, in her unity and in her historical succession from the apostles, is the mother and womb and root of the particular local churches ; and each local church, if she is abiding in Catholic unity, is the local representative of the whole, and shares in the attributes of the whole ; so that each local Catholic church becomes, in consequence of her relation to the whole, the mother and womb and root of the individual Catholics who belong to her. This is true of the particular local church of Rome ; but it is true equally of all other local churches. So we English Catholics have been taught, and so S. Cyprian in his day believed. 2 I will refer to a few passages which occur in his letters, so as to illustrate his view. In April, 251, the Council of Carthage, hearing of the dispute at Rome as to the succession to the bishopric of the church in that city, sent two African bishops, Caldonius and Fortunatus, to Rome with instructions to endeavour to pacify the quarrel between the followers of Cornelius and those of Novatian ; and also to ascertain the truth as to whether the election and consecration of Cornelius had been canonical, and whether the charges brought against him by Novatian were supported by any solid evidence. Later on, when the African Church had been fully satisfied that Cornelius was the legitimate Roman Bishop, S. Cyprian wrote to him concerning the recent mission of Caldonius and Fortunatus as follows : " We lately sent, dearest brother, our colleagues Caldonius and Fortunatus ; that not only by the per- suasion of our epistles, but by their presence and the advice of you all, they might endeavour, as far as they could, and labour effectually to bring the members of the divided body to the unity of the Catholic Church and to join them [to it] by the bond of Christian love. But since the self-willed and inflexible obstinacy of the adverse party has not otily refused the bosom and embrace of their root and mother? but has also, with discord increasing and widening worse and worse, appointed a bishop for itself, and, contrary to the mystery of the divine appointment and of Catholic unity once delivered, has set up an adulterous and opposed head without the Church ; ... we have directed our letters to you." 4 Here it is evident that what S. Cyprian calls " the root and mother" is the unity of the Catholic Church, represented no doubt at Rome by the legitimate Bishop Cornelius and his flock of adherents. Cornelius and his party are not " the root and mother " because the pope is the centre of unity to the whole Church, but because they were recog- nized as legitimate by the whole Church, and because they joined in communion with her, and therefore represented her in Rome. In another letter, written about the same time, S. Cyprian urges the con- fessors who had got entangled in Novatian's party to "return to the 1 De Praescr. ffaer., xx. 2 See Additional Note 39, p. 464. 3 "Radicis et matris sinum adque complexum recusavit." See Additional Note 40, p. 464. 4 Bp. xlv. ad Cornetium, i, Opp., ii. 600. G 82 APPENDIX B. [II. Church your mother and to your brotherhood." l They were to return to- the Church their mother by recognizing Cornelius as their true bishop, who was himself recognized by the Catholic episcopate. The question whether Cornelius as pope had a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, did not arise. It was to the motherhood of the Church at large, not to any supposed ecumenical motherhood of the Roman see as such, that they were pressed to return. 2 I pass on to the letter quoted by Father Bottalla, giving first a short explanation of the circumstances under which it was written. While the two African bishops, Caldonius and Fortunatus, were making their investigations in Rome, their colleagues in Africa determined that Cornelius should not be publicly recognized in Africa as the Roman, bishop. The canonicity of his election had been disputed, and it was necessary that all doubts should be removed before the African Church committed herself as championing his side. It was therefore determined that, until a final decision should be given, official letters to the Roman Church should be addressed to the priests and deacons of that church, and not to Cornelius. This rule had been broken at Adrumetum through a mistake, and letters from that colony had been directed to Cornelius himself: but after a visit which S. Cyprian paid to Adrumetum, the mistake was rectified, and all subsequent letters to the Roman Church were for a time directed to the priests and deacons of that church, and not to the bishop. 3 Cornelius noticed the change, and noticed also that the change had come about in consequence of S. Cyprian's visit to Adrumetum, and he not unnaturally supposed that S. Cyprian was inclined to favour the claims of the anti-pope Novatian. Accordingly he wrote to S. Cyprian to expostulate. S. Cyprian, in his reply, gave a full explanation of the whole matter, and animadverts on the way in which the simplest incidents get misreported and misrepresented. Then he goes on to say, " We, who furnish all who sail hence with instructions, 1 " Ad ecclesiam matrem et ad vestram fraternitatem revertamini " (Ep. xlvi. ad Confessores Romanes^ 2, Opp. t ii. 605). * I do not for a moment deny that the local Roman church was in a certain sense the mother-church of large parts of the West, and more especially of the Italian churches ; but there is no allusion to Rome's position as the original spring of evangelization in the West, and as the ecclesiastical metropolis of Italy, in these expressions of Cyprian. He is dealing with a much more vital fact, namely, the motherhood which appertains to the Catholic Church, a society extending all over the known world. So in his seventy-third Epistle to Jubaianus ( 24, Opp., " 797) i n a passage where there is not the remotest allusion to Rome or to the local church of Rome, he says that, when heretics understand that all baptism outside the Church is invalid, " they hasten to us more eagerly and more promptly, and implore the privileges and gifts of Mother Church " (munera ac dona ecclesiae matris implorant). And still more appositely, in his forty- seventh epistle (Opp., ii. 605), which he sent to Cornelius, enclosing it as a covering letter along with his letter to the confessors, he says, referring to his letter to the confessors, "In my letter I would prevail with them, from mutual affection, to return to their mother, that is the Catholic Church " (ad matrem suam, id est ecclesiam catholicam). But the passages in which the whole Church is called our mother are practically innumerable. 3 These letters would, in the great majority of cases, be letters of commen- dation, introducing this or that African Catholic, who might be travelling to Rome, to the authorities of the church in the imperial city, and certifying to the fact that the bearer was in full communion with the Catholic Church. II.] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 83 lest in their voyage they any way offend, know well that we have ex- horted them to acknowledge and hold fast to the womb and root of the Catholic Church? * Evidently S. Cyprian meant by these words to warn his people against attending schismatic worship when away from Africa, and to urge them to find out, in every place where they might sojourn, the legitimate bishop who was recognized by the whole body of Catholic bishops. The church in communion with the legitimate bishop would be the true representative of the Catholic Church at large, and would in a subordinate way share with that Church the prerogative of being " the womb and root " of the children of God. Persons sailing from Africa would more often be on their way to Rome than any other place, because Rome was the capital of the empire, the metropolis of the civilized world. S. Cyprian therefore would certainly intend that his advice should be of help to his people, if they should chance to be in Rome ; and in fact the reference to that advice in this letter to Cornelius shows that in S. Cyprian's mind the advice had a special bearing on the exist- ing circumstances of the Roman Church. This fact will enable us to reject at once Father Bottalla's view that the Roman Church was itself " the womb and root," as being the centre of unity to the whole Catholic Church. For, on account of the schism raging in the local Church of Rome, the difficulty was to decide which was the true Church of Rome. If the Roman Church was itself "the womb and root," then, whether they joined Cornelius or Novatian, they would suppose that they had adhered to " the womb and root." But S. Cyprian's advice was evidently meant to help them to discriminate. He in effect tells them, " You must adhere to that party which shall prove itself to have a right to the communion of the Catholic Church. When you are on the spot, and know the circumstances, you will soon be able to find out which of the two parties has the better right. If you cannot decide, you must wait and see how the matter will be decided by the bishops in Africa and else- where. Whatever you do, take care to adhere to that party only which either is already or immediately will be, in fellowship with the Church at large. You must avoid separatist cliques, and abide in Catholic unity. So my advice is, Acknowledge 2 and hold fast to the womb and root of true Christians I mean, your mother the Catholic Church." 3 I do not doubt 1 " Nos enim singulis navigantibus, ne cum scandalo ullo navigarent, rationem reddentes, scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem agnoscerent ac tenerent " (Ep. xlviii. ad Cornelium, 3, Opp., ii. 607). The word "matrix" sometimes means "stem," which would agree well with " radix" (roof), and would suit the sense as well as the more usual meaning " -womb." But the fact that in Ep. xlv. S. Cyprian had joined radix with mater, seems to me to make the meaning "womb" the more probable. Bossuet, in his Instruction Pastorale sur les Prowesses de fEglise (CEuvres, ed. 1816, xxii. 411, 412), favours the meaning "stem." He understands the matrix et radix, as I do, of the Church's unity: " cette tige, cette racine de 1'unite" (p. 412). See Additional Note 41, p. 464. * See Additional Note 42, p. 465. 3 From what I have said, it will, I hope, be clear to those of my readers who know Latin, that in the expression, " ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem," the words " ecclesiae catholicae " are in the genitive of apposition, so that the whole expression signifies " the womb and root, which is the Catholic Church." See; Additional Note 43, p. 466. 84 APPENDIX B. [II. that S. Cyprian felt sure in his own mind that S. Cornelius was the legitimate bishop ; but he was precluded for the present from openly telling his people to communicate with the party of Cornelius, because, as I have said, the matter was supposed to be in suspense until the return of the two African legates. 1 I will quote one more passage which throws light on S. Cyprian's use of the word "root" (radix). In his epistle to Jubaianus S. Cyprian undertakes to prove that the followers of Novatian ought to be rebaptized on their reconciliation with the Church. In the course of his argument he says, " We, who hold fast (tenemus) to the fountain-head 2 and root of the one Church, know assuredly and are confident that to him [Novatian], being outside the Church, nothing is lawful ; and that baptism, which is one, is with us, where he also himself was formerly baptized, when he was holding fast (tenebat) to both the order and the reality of the divine unity." 3 If S. Cyprian had meant to indicate the pope, when he spoke of " the fountain-head and root of the one Church," he would surely have used some such expression as this : " We, the bishops of Africa and Numidia, 4 who are in communion with the true pope of the city, know assuredly that to Novatian, being outside the Church, nothing is lawful." The fact that Novatian claimed to be the legitimate Bishop of Rome would necessitate the insertion of the epithet " true " before the word "pope," or before any periphrasis equivalent to the word " pope," in a clause which gives the ground of S. Cyprian's assurance that Novatian's position was schismatical. That assurance was really grounded on the fact that S. Cyprian and his colleagues were in com- munion with the Church in her unity and in her historical succession from the apostles, that is with the united episcopate spread throughout the world. It is the universal Church deriving her authority from the apostles and gathered up into her main organ of government, the college of bishops, which is " the fountain-head and root " of true Catholics. 5 1 Baronius says that the African bishops had " suspended communication " (communicationem suspenderant) both with Cornelius and with Novatian, until the legates' return (Annall., s.a. 254). 2 See Additional Note 44, p. 466. 3 " Nos autem, qui ecclesiae unius caput et radicem tenemus, pro certo scimus et fidimus nihil illi extra ecclesiam licere, et baptisma, quod est unum, apud nos esse, ubi et ipse baptizatus prius fuerat, quando divinae unitatis et rationem et veritatem tenebat " (Ep. Ixxiii. ad Jubaianum, 2, Opp., ii. 779). * See Additional Note 45, p. 467. * So in his treatise on The Unity of the Church ( 5, Opp., i. 214), in a cele- brated passage in which he contrasts the oneness of the whole Church with the multiplicity of the progeny of the Church, S. Cyprian says, " Yet is there one fountain-head, and one source, and one mother prolific in the results of her fruitful- ness " (unum tamen caput est, et origo una, et una mater fecunditatis successibus copiosa). The argument requires us to interpret these expressions of the Church Catholic in her entirety ; but care must be taken to read the treatise in an unin- terpolated edition, such as Hartel's. Father Bottalla (Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 12) has the courage to assert that " unquestionably " these expressions and others like them, occurring in the passage of the De Unit ate t to which I am referring, denote "the primacy and the authority of S. Peter." In the whole treatise there is not a word about any peculiar authority either in S. Peter or in the Roman see. Peter, as the first -chosen apostle, is historically the first bishop, and so the commencement of the episcopate, and consequently he is a fitting II.] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S.CYPRIAN. 85 Moreover, in this particular controversy about rebaptism, S. Cyprian was opposing Pope Stephen. 1 Almost immediately after the letter to Jubaianus was written he must have received an epistle from the pope, threatening him with excommunication, and in the autumn of that same year he actually was excommunicated. It would have been absurd to base his argument in favour of baptizing Novatians on his fellowship with Stephen, who was treating him as a heretic because he baptized Novatians. These various passages, as it seems to me, throw light on each other. If we compare them together, they are seen to teach the same doctrine. In S. Cyprian's view, the Church Catholic is our mother, 2 and she who is our mother is also our root, 3 and she who is the root, out of which we grow, is also the womb 4 in which we were conceived by grace, and the fountain-head from which we issue. There is in them no trace of Father Bottalla's idea, 5 that S. Cyprian held that the Church of Rome is " the centre, the root, the source, and the matrix of Catholic unity." I have treated at length concerning this Cyprianic phrase, " the matrix and root of the Church." I must try and deal in a more summary way with S. Cyprian's statements about S. Peter. As we might expect, S. Cyprian holds the scriptural and Catholic teaching about S. Peter's symbol of the unity of the Church. But in the passage, with which we are dealing, S. Cyprian has passed on from the symbol to that which is symbolized, and from the historically first bishop to " the one and undivided episcopate " which governs " the Church " which " is spread abroad ; " and it is a perversion of his whole argument to interpret " the sun " and "the tree" and "the fountain " of Peter and of Peter's authority. These expressions set forth the relation of the whole Church in her unity to her separate members, that is to her manifold "progeny," to use S. Cyprian's expression. For proof, I can only refer the reader to the treatise itself, where the meaning is so plain that no comments can make it plainer. See, however, Additional Note 46, p. 467. It is evident that Father Bottalla has been deceived by the interpolations. The words which he quotes in the note are taken from one of them. On these interpolations, see note 3 on p. 87. 1 See Additional Note 47, p. 469. 2 See p. 8l. 3 See pp. 83, 84. 4 See p. 83. 8 It must surely have been through forgetfulness of the state of affairs at Rome during the first few months of the Novatian schism, that Father Bottalla has quoted two passages from S. Cyprian's epistles, as if they proved that S. Cyprian held that " to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome is equivalent to being in communion with the whole Catholic Church." The first passage occurs in the forty-eighth epistle ( 3, Opp., ii. 607), which was addressed to Pope Cornelius. Owing to the schism in Rome, the African Church was, as we have seen, refraining from addressing letters to either Cornelius or Novatian, until their respective claims should have been fully investigated. When at length the question was cleared up, and it was made evident that Cornelius was the legitimate Catholic bishop, it was agreed that all the African bishops should send letters to Cornelius, "that so," as S. Cyprian says, "all our colleagues might approve of and uphold thee and thy communion that is, the unity and charity of the Catholic Church." The second passage occurs in the fifty-fifth letter, which is addressed to Antonianus ( I, Opp., ii. 624), and is practically to the same effect as the other. To uphold Cornelius and his flock and to reject Novatian and his followers, when once it had been proved that Cornelius was the legitimate bishop, was in fact to support the unity of the Catholic Church as against schism, and the charity of the Catholic Church as against factiousness. The words could have been written concerning the legitimate bishop of any see. They have nothing to do with any special Roman privilege. Such arguments as these of Father Bottalla's seriously damage the cause on behalf of which they are used. 86 APPENDIX B. [II. leadership among the apostles, which resulted from the fact that to him first the apostolic office was promised (or given), 1 and showed itself by the initiative which he so largely took in the first founding of the Church. I shall deal with this subject in my third lecture, to which I must refer my readers. 2 The point, which is characteristic of S. Cyprian, is the stress laid by him on the symbolical character which he assigns to S. Peter. That apostle, as primus inter pares, is the symbol of the Church Militant ; 3 just as, according to the teaching of S. Augustine, S. John, the beloved disciple, who reclined on the Lord's bosom at the supper, is the symbol of the Church Triumphant. 4 This teaching of S. Cyprian about the symbolical character of S. Peter was thoroughly assimilated and reproduced by S. Augustine. Take one passage as a sample. In his 295th sermon, preached on the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, S. Augustine says, " Among these [the apostles] almost every- where it was granted to Peter alone to represent the Church (gestare personam Ecclesiae). On account of this character, which he alone bore of representing the whole Church, was it granted him to hear the words, ' To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For these keys not one man, but the unity of the Church received. Hereby then is the excellence of Peter set forth, that he was an emblem (figuram gessit) of the whole body and of the unity of the Church, when it was said to him, ' I give to thee,' what in fact was given to all." 5 It was not that S. Peter possessed the power of the keys in some supereminent sense. The other apostles possessed that power equally with him. But he, as the first- called apostle, was fitted to symbolize the Church in her unity, so that it should be understood that the power of the keys was given to the unity of the Church that is, to the united body or society of the Church. This was exactly S. Cyprian's view. I will quote in illustration the opening passage of the argument of S. Cyprian's treatise on the Unity of the Church. S. Cyprian says, " The Lord speaketh unto Peter ; ' I say unto thee' (saith He), 'that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one he 1 See note 3 on p. 88. 2 See pp. 107-109. 3 Dr. Rivington says (Authority, pp. 96, 97), " How could Peter be a symbol of unity, unless he bore a special relationship to the other apostles ? " He did bear a special relationship to them. He was the first-called apostle, and so he naturally became the leader of the band ; but he was not their ruler or king, and his leadership ended with himself. It was a leadership in founding, and it involved no jurisdiction over the other apostles for himself, nor any jurisdiction over the universal episcopate for his local successors at Rome. S. Peter's pre- cedence in designation was no doubt the reward of his personal faith and loyalty and courage. 4 Compare p. 101. 5 St. August. Sermo ccxcv. cap. 2, Opp., ed. Ben., 1683, v. 1194. It should be noted that S. Augustine, when he has occasion in another place (De Bapt., lib. Hi. cap. xviii., Opp., ed. Ben., ix. 117) to treat of the commission to remit and retain sins, given to the ten apostles on Easter day, says that they all " represented the Church " (gerebant personam Ecclesiae). II.] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 87 builds His Church ; and although to all His apostles after His resurrec- tion He gives an equal power, 1 and says, ' As My Father sent Me, even so send I you ; receive ye the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet in order to manifest unity, He by His authoritative utterance [to S. Peter] arranged for that same unity a commencement (originem) beginning from one. Certainly the other apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power ; but the beginning (exordium) starts from unity, that the Church may be set before us as one. 2 Which one Church in the Song of songs, the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Person of our Lord, designates, and says, ' My dove, My undefiled is but one ; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her.' He who holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith ? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he assured that he is in the Church ? " 3 Now, I put it to any candid Roman Catholic, Is this the way in which he would write on the great subject of the Church's unity ? Perhaps such a one rejoiced when he perceived that S. Cyprian starts his argument with the Petrine text about " the Rock." But the very fact that he begins by quoting that text, makes his subsequent comment on it the more significant. Why, when he is dealing at length with such an important subject as the Church's unity, does he say nothing about that institution which Roman Catholics consider to be the divinely ordained source and guarantee of unity ? Why is there nothing about Peter's jurisdiction over the Church ? Why is there nothing about the infallible popes, the successors of S. Peter, who are supposed to be the 1 " Super unum aedificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat," etc. 2 " Tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur." It seems to me that the word " auctoritas " in this passage should, according to a well-known use of the word, be taken in a concrete rather than in an abstract sense ; but, if any one should think otherwise, my argument will not be affected, as it in no way depends on my suggestion being adopted. The passage quoted in this note is a good illustration of the meaning of another passage, which occurs in the synodal epistle of S. Cyprian's first council on rebaptism. This epistle was no doubt written by S. Cyprian, and is numbered as the seventieth. The council says, " Et baptisma unum sit et Spiritus Sanctus unus et una ecclesia a Christo Domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata ; " of which passage the sense may be thus expressed, "There is both one baptism, and one Holy Ghost, and one Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, for an origin and (personified) rule of unity " ( 3, Of p., ii. 769). The ablatives seem to be without construction, and to have a general reference to the sentence. 3 " Qui ecclesiae renititur et resistit in ecclesia se esse confidit? " (Of p., i. 212, 213). Cardinal de Fleury, the Prime Minister of France under Louis XV., forced the Benedictines to insert the interpolated passages, which had been expunged from every critical edition, and had been erased by Baluze who prepared the edition, which after his death was brought out and fathered by them (see Chiniac de la Bastide Duclaux' Histoire des Capitulaires des Rois Francois, 'pp. 226-228, ed. 1779). The evidence against the interpolations is overwhelming. For a most ample and interesting account of these interpolations and of their history the reader is referred to Archbishop Benson's Cyprian, his Life, his Times, his Work, pp. 200-221, and 544-552. 88 APPENDIX B. [II. principle and centre of unity ? You may read the whole treatise on Unity from beginning to end, and you will not find one single word about Rome, or about the pope, or about any papal jurisdiction derived from S. Peter. 1 S. Cyprian sees in S. Peter, not the guarantee of unity, but, as being the first-designated apostle, the symbol, or, to use S. Augustine's word, the figure (figura) of unity. 2 The apostolate was promised, or, as S. Cyprian would perhaps have said, given* to S. Peter first, in order that, a beginning being made from one, unity might be manifested, and the Church be set before us as one. To a Romanist all this must seem very poor and thin. To an English Catholic it is meat and drink ; for it sets forth, both in what is said and in what is not said, the very central truth about the polity of the Church, which he has received to hold. Notice how twice over in this short passage S. Cyprian insists that S. Peter received no peculiar power, that "the other apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power." Can 1 See Additional Note 48, p. 469. * See Additional Note 49, p. 470. 8 It is curious that some of the Fathers seem not to have noticed that our Lord's words to S. Peter, recorded in S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, convey a promise, not a gift. S. Chrysostom (Horn. liv. in Matt., Opp., ed. Ben., 1741, vii. 548) does indeed speak of the words as containing " two promises " (inroffx^ e but the Fathers speak at times as if the apostolical authority were then and there given. And yet the Lord's words are quite unmistakable: "I -will give (Scaffw) unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc. Later on, the promissive nature of the words was generally acknowledged. Theophylact (torn. vii. p. 647, in Matt. Horn. Ixv. 4, quoted by Mr. Gore, Rom. Cath. Claims, 4th ed., p. 87) acknowledges it very explicitly. In a treatise addressed to Ladislas, King of Poland and Hungary, in 1441, the University of Cracow speaks of our Lord's " verba promissiva, Tu es Petrus, et tibi dabo," etc. (cf. Launoi., lib. i. ep. x., ad Christoph. Fauvaeum, Opp., ed. 1731, torn. v. pars i. p. 105). Baluze, the writer of the notes to the Benedictine S. Cyprian, says (.Opp. S. Cypr. ed. Ben., p. 414), speaking of the words Tibi dabo cloves, " Quamvis istic claves non dentur Petro, sed promittantur," etc. And even Father Bottalla (Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 30), says, ' ' Although Peter by a prophetic name, and by an explicit promise of an eminent office, had been designated by Christ to be the head and the ruler of His Church, yet Christ, as long as He remained on earth, did not invest him with the high dignity of oecumenical pastor." The Gospel record makes it clear that the apostolate was promised to S. Peter first (S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19) ; afterwards it was promised to all the twelve (S. Matt, xviii. 18) j finally it was conferred on the whole body simultaneously on the evening of the day of our Lord's resurrection (S. John xx. 21-23). This was the actual order of events ; but I am inclined to think that S. Cyprian thought that, while all the twelve received precisely the same commission, and were invested with precisely the same ecumenical jurisdiction, S. Peter was actually made an apostle some little time before the others. This, S. Cyprian thinks, was done for symbolical reasons, to show forth the unity of the Church, that the commencement of the Church might start from unity. The symbolism is equally preserved if the truer view be accepted. Unity may be conceived to be set forth by the promise of the apostolical office being made to one first, and later on to the others; while the equality of the apostles is brought out by the simultaneous conferring of the apostolate on Easter day. I might refer, in confirmation of my view of S. Cyprian's meaning, to various passages of h'is writings. It will perhaps be enough if I call attention to his frequent assertion that the Church was founded by the voice of the Lord upon Peter (cf. S.Cyprian, ad Fortunatum, II, Opp., i. 338 ; Ep. xliii. ad plebem universam, 5, Opp., ii. 594 ; Ep. Ixxiii. adjubaianum, n, Opp., ii. 786). S. Cyprian thinks that our Lord, by his words to S. Peter, actually founded His Church upon that apostle, whereas in fact the words were promissive, not effective. II] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 89 anything be more frigid, I had almost said senseless, than the Ultra- montane reply that S. Cyprian is speaking of the power of order and not of the power of jurisdiction ? that the apostles were all equally with S. Peter bishops, but that S. Peter, though no more than a bishop in order, was a bishop of bishops yea, was the monarch of the Church in jurisdiction ? Why does not S. Cyprian say that ? The subject of the Church's unity required some treatment of the central jurisdiction. So S. Cyprian felt ; but he knew of no more central jurisdiction than the jurisdiction of the apostolic college ; and when he passes on to later times, he knows of no more central jurisdiction than " the one and undivided episcopate " (episcopatum unum atque indivisum). When in after-ages the papal idea began to grow up in the Roman Church, it was felt how unsatisfactory from the papal point of view S. Cyprian's teaching was, and a remedy for the supposed mischief was sought. It is generally supposed that Pope Gelasius proscribed his writings, as well he might, for night and day are not in more direct contrast than Gelasius and Cyprian. In a decree ascribed to that pope, lists of books recommended and books proscribed are given, and the works of Thascius Cyprianus occur as an item in the prohibitory index. Afterwards some person or persons unknown forged certain sentences about the grievous consequences of deserting the see of Peter, and in- serted them into S. Cyprian's treatise. 1 This just supplied the lacking papal element ; and a few lines were enough to give a different turn to the whole argument. Some have supposed that it was after these inter- polations had been forged that another clause, irreconcilable with the above-mentioned item, crept into the copies of the Gelasian decree. 2 According to this other clause, S. Cyprian's writings, instead of being rejected, were placed first on the list of works commended to the faithful for study. 3 But let us pass to another Cyprianic passage about S. Peter. In his thirty-third epistle, which is addressed to the lapsed, S. Cyprian writes as follows : " Our Lord, whose precepts we ought to reverence and observe, determining the honour of a bishop and the ordering (rationem) of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, ' I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaVen ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence the ordination of bishops and the ordering (ratio) of the Church runs down through the changes of times and successions, so that the Church is settled ^^pon the bishops^ and every act 1 Ultramontane writers suggest that the interpolations were marginal notes, which crept into the text by the carelessness of copyists. With every wish to be charitable, I feel no doubt myself that the forgery was deliberate. Anyhow, whether forged or not, they very conveniently got into the text, and entirely changed the impression produced by the whole argument. 2 It may be worth noticing that the Church History of Eusebius is placed both among the prohibited books and also among the commended books (see Hefele, iv. 46, E. tr.). 3 The decree, with its two irreconcilable clauses, is given in Coleti (v. 387, 390). 9 o APPENDIX B. [II. of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." 1 Notice, again, how the great Petrine passage suggests to S. Cyprian, as it suggests to us, not the government of the Church by popes, but the government of the Church by bishops. 2 S. Peter was not the pope over the apostles, but one among them; the first called, 3 and therefore the natural leader and spokesman and representative, but with no larger jurisdiction than the others. What he was, they all were, namely, founders and foundations and rulers of the Church of God. Their suc- cessors in their ruling office, and therefore his successors, were the bishops. S. Peter might or might not have special diocesan successors in particular sees, such as Antioch or Rome. S. Cyprian says nothing here about such 1 ocal successions. Even if there were such local suc- cessions, they would be, from S. Cyprian's point of view, accidental, not essential or vital. The vital point was and is that the bishops every- where inherit the whole ordinary jurisdiction of the apostolic college. They are all the successors of the apostles, and as of the others, so specially of the representative apostle, Peter. " The Church is settled upon the bishops." This is good Catholic teaching, which it has been the glory of the English Church to treasure up, and hand down, and con- solidate, as the basis of her whole system of polity. We are grateful to the Latin communion for some precious things, which she has guarded more faithfully than we have guarded them ; but in regard to other matters, and specially in regard to the divinely ordered constitution of the Church, it is for her to learn from us. I think that the teaching of S. Cyprian about the relation of S. Peter to the Church's unity and to the episcopate, which I have gathered from these two passages, will suggest the true interpretation of several other passages in the holy martyr's writings, and will make it unnecessary for me to treat them at length. I subjoin them to this appendix in an Addendum* so that the reader may be in possession of all the Cyprianic passages which have been quoted in favour of the papal theory. I have now fulfilled my promise 5 to deal with the various passages from the Cyprianic documents which are quoted by Father Bottalla in support of his notion that S. Cyprian acknowledges "the closest con- nexion between the unity of the Church, as represented by Christ, and the headship of one universal pastor.' 1 I confidently assert that the meaning of each one of the quoted passages has been misrepresented by Father 1 Ep. xxxiii. ad Lapses , Opp,, ii. 566. 2 See Additional Note 50, p. 471. * The author of the article "Pope,'" in the Catholic Dictionary by Messrs. Addis and Arnold (p. 671), says very strangely, "Peter, of course, was not chosen first in order of time." One can only suppose that the writer has confused the calling of S. Peter to be a disciple, as recorded in S. John i. 41, 42, with his calling to be an apostle, as recorded in S. Matt. x. I, 2. As we have already seen, S. Cyprian held that S. Peter was not only called first, but that he was also consecrated first. This notion is doubtless based on a mistake, but it ought to be kept in mind, if we would understand S. Cyprian aright (see note 3 on p. 88). 4 See pp. 91-95. 5 I have dealt with the passage, in which S. Cyprian calls the see and church at Rome the cathedra Petri et eccksia principalis, in my second lecture (see PP- 5i, 52). II.] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 91 Bottalla. I of course exonerate him from any intentional deceit ; but the fact remains that the meaning of the passages has been misrepresented. I do not believe that the idea of a " headship of one universal pastor " over the whole Church ever entered S. Cyprian's mind, as a thing either to be accepted or rejected. 1 His whole notion of the Church presupposed a college of essentially co-equal bishops owning no divinely appointed personal superior, excepting only our Lord Jesus Christ. In one sense this appendix does injustice to S. Cyprian. The necessity of disproving Father Bottalla's statements has compelled me to dwell on those few sentences in the Cyprianic documents, which might conceivably be twisted into a papal meaning. I hope that I have successfully untwisted them. But S. Cyprian's whole view must be gathered, not from those few passages, but from his writings at large, and still more from his actions. S. Cyprian was the most glorious saint and the most illustrious Church-ruler of his age. The whole Church has venerated him with special honour ever since his martyrdom : we know more about him than about any other post-apostolic saint of the first three centuries : the circumstances of his life led him to deal specially with matters connected with the government of the Church : and both his writings and the story of his life remain as a perpetual witness against the papal, and in favour of the episcopal, constitution of the Church of God. Addendum to Appendix B. In this Addendum I propose to collect such passages from S. Cyprian's writings as have been or might be quoted in favour of the papal theory, and have not been discussed either in the second lecture or in Appendix B. It will not be necessary for me to comment on them at any length, because I trust that what I have written on pp. 85-90 will enable the reader to perceive at once S. Cyprian's meaning. i. In his Epistle to Quintus, S. Cyprian says, " For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything ; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come ; nor did he despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily yielded to the legitimate argument which Paul pressed ; fur- nishing thereby a lesson to us both of concord and patience, that we should not obstinately love our own opinions, but should rather adopt as our own those which at any time are usefully and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful." 2 According 1 Compare Archbishop Benson's words quoted in note 5 on p. 66. If any one supposes that S. Cyprian was conscious of a claim made on the part of Pope Stephen to be the " universal pastor" of the Church, then it will follow that the saint deliberately rejected the papal idea (see the passage quoted on p. 65). Either way his witness is diametrically opposed to the Ultramontane theory set forth in the Vatican decrees. 2 "Nam nee Petrus, quern primum Dominus elegit, et super quern aedificavit 92 APPENDIX B. ADDENDUM. [II. to S. Cyprian's view, which has been discussed in note 3 on p. 88, the apostolate was given to S. Peter before it was given to the other apostles, and to him it was given, when the Lord said to him, " On this rock I will build My Church." S. Peter had no greater powers than the other apostles, but his seniority by consecration made him the symbol of the Church's unity. S. Cyprian holds that for a short time he was the only foundation, the other apostles not having received their powers until some time had elapsed ; and so, on this view, the Church may be said to have been built on S. Peter in a certain pre-eminent way. This is the meaning of the ''super quern aedificavit ecclesiam suam." When S. Peter and S. Paul are compared as regards their apostolic office, there is no question that the former had a priority both in time and order. But S. Cyprian points out that, if in consequence of this priority S. Peter had expected S. Paul to obey him, he would have been guilty of insolence and arrogance. In other words, S. Peter had no primacy of jurisdiction, S. Paul was his " brother and colleague." 2. In his epistle to Jubaianus, S. Cyprian says, "To Peter, in the first place, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and shewed forth the origin of the unity, the Lord gave that power, namely, that whatsoever he should loose should be loosed [on earth]." 1 The comment on the previous passage applies also to the first clause of this one. The appointment and manifesta- tion of the origin of unity through S. Peter's priority of consecration is illustrated by the passage from the De Unitate, quoted and discussed on pp. 86-89.2 3. In one of his epistles to S. Cornelius, S. Cyprian says, 3 " Peter, however, on whom the Church has been built by the same Lord, one speaking for all, and answering m the voice of the Church, says, ' Lord, to whom shall we go ? ' " After what has been said previously, there is no need to make any comment here. 4. In an earlier part of the same letter, S. Cyprian had said, " For ecclesiam suam, . . . vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut roganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius opor- tere . . . quae aliquando a fratribus et collegis nostris utiliter et salubriter sug- geruntur . . ." (Ep. Ixxi. ad Quintum, 3, Opp. , ii. 773). 1 "Nam Petro primum Dominus, supra quern aedificavit ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit ut id solveretur [in terris] quod ille solvisset" (Ep. Ixxiii. ad Jubaianum, 7, Opp., ii. 783). The conclusion, which S. Cyprian draws from this premiss, is not that the pope is the monarch of the Church or its necessary centre of unity, but that "they only, who are set over the Church, and are appointed by the law of the gospel and the ordinance of the Lord, may lawfully baptize and give remission of sins, . . . and that no one can usurp to himself, against bishops and priests, what is not in his own right and power." As usual, S. Cyprian sees in the promise of our Lord to S. Peter the institution of the episcopate. 2 See also the Additional Note 49, p. 470. I have already pointed out (see p. 85) the very strained relations which existed between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen when this letter was written. S. Cyprian was on the verge of being excommunicated by Rome, and would certainly not insert passages at such a time in support of the necessity of union with Rome. 3 " Petrus tamen super quern aedificata ab eodem Domino fuerat ecclesia unus pro omnibus loquens et ecclesiae voce respondens ait : ' Domine ad quern imus ' " (Ep. lix. ad Comelium,^, Opp., ii. 674). TL] MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 93 this has been the very source whence heresies and schisms have taken their rise, when obedience is not paid to God's bishop (sacerdoti), nor do they reflect that there is for the time one bishop (sacerdos) in a church [i.e. in each church], and one judge for the time in Christ's stead ; whom if the whole brotherhood would obey, according to the divine injunctions, no one would stir in anything against the college of bishops (sacer- dotum)." 1 It need hardly be said that in S. Cyprian's writings, as in the writings of many of the other Fathers, the word " sacerdos " almost always means bishop, and hardly ever presbyter. I should not have loaded my pages with this passage if I had not noticed that it is quoted by some Ultramontane writers as if it proved that the pope is the " one judge," who judges the whole Church " in Christ's stead." The wording of the passage and the whole argument of the epistle show that S. Cyprian is speaking of the functions of each bishop in his own church, and not of any supposed ecumenical functions of the pope in regard to the Church universal. 5. In his epistle to Florentius Puppianus, S. Cyprian says, " There (S. John vi. 67-69) speaks Peter, upon whom the Church was to be built ; teaching and showing in the name of the Church that, although a contumacious and proud multitude of such as will not obey may with- draw, yet the Church does not depart from Christ, and they are the Church who are a people united to the bishop (sacerdoti), and a flock adhering to their own pastor." 2 The words about S. Peter will be understood from previous explanations. The definition of the Church at the end of the passage contains no allusion to the pope. It speaks of the flock in each diocese adhering to their own bishop. 6. In the treatise De Bono Patientiae, S. Cyprian says, 3 " Peter like- wise, on whom the Church was founded by the good pleasure of the Lord, lays it down in his Epistle." Comment is needless. 7. In an epistle addressed to his Carthaginian flock, S. Cyprian says, 4 " There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded by the word of the Lord on Peter (super Petrum). 5 Another 1 "Neque enim aliunde haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata quam quando sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nee unus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur . . ." ( 5> Opp., ii. 671, 672). I will insert here a few references to passages, in which bishops are styled " Vicars of Christ," or "Vicars of the Lord." Ambrosiaster says that a bishop " vicarius Domini est " (in I Cor. xi. 10, ap. S. Ambros. Opp., P. L., xvii. 253, 254). Pope Hormisdas, in a letter to the bishops of Spain, describes bishops as "Vicars of Christ" (Coleti, v. 604). The same expression is used of bishops by the Synod of Compiegne in the year 833, by that of Thionville in 844, and by that of Meaux in 845 (Coleti, ix. 801, 942, 961). See also S. Thorn. Summ. Theol., p. iii. q. Ixiv. art. ii. ad 3. 2 "Loquitur illic Petrus, super quem aedificanda fuerat ecclesia . . . et illi sunt ecclesia, plebs sacerdoti adunata et pastori suo grex adhaerens " (Ep. Ixvi. ad Florentium Puppianum, 8, Opp., ii. 732, 733). 3 " Item Petrus, super quem ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata est, in epistola sua ponit" (De Bon. Pat., 9, Opp., i. 403). 4 "Deus unus est, et Christus unus, et una ecclesia, et cathedra una super Petrum (al. petram) Domini voce fundata. Aliud altare constitui aut sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum altare et unum sacerdotium non potest " (Ep. xliii. ad pkbem, 5, Opp., ii. 594). 5 Some manuscripts read "super petram," "on the rock." The sense would 94 APPENDIX B. ADDENDUM. [II. altar cannot be set up, nor a new priesthood made, besides the one altar and the one priesthood." S. Cyprian is warning his people against the schism of Felicissimus, who had set up a separate altar at Carthage and had got five Carthaginian priests to join him. S. Cyprian explains that in each local church there is but one episcopal chair ; one priesthood that is, the one true bishop and the clergy adhering to him ; and one altar. The " one chair" that is, the episcopate of the one canonical bishop is founded on Peter, for according to S. Cyprian and the Fathers generally all legitimate bishops are the successors of Peter. 1 In the words " the one chair " there is not the most remote allusion to the episcopal chair of the bishops of Rome. The see of Rome was at that time vacant, and there had been as yet no Roman condemnation of the Carthaginian schismatics. It was against Cyprian that they were rebel- ling, and it is his own chair of which he is speaking. 2 Any Carthaginian Christian who separates himself from the one Bishop of Carthage "remains without the Church." It is to me most astounding that Dr. Rivington should have quoted the passage about " the chair," as if it referred to " the Church of the Romans." 3 I have now gone through the whole of my collection of Cyprianic passages, which have been quoted by Ultramontanes in proof of their idea that S. Cyprian held the papal theory. I have not intentionally withheld any passage, though of course it may easily happen that I may have failed to notice one or more. I feel morally sure that I have quoted all those on which stress is usually laid. I submit very confidently my case to the candid reader. I do not believe that in any one of these passages there is the smallest ground for supposing that S. Cyprian intended to teach papalism. If this is all that Ultramontanes can discover in his writings, which may seem to favour their cause, they had much better say nothing about him. His real view of the authority of the Bishops of Rome is set forth in numerous passages of his letters and treatises, and above all by his acts. Fully to discuss those be the same. I follow Hartel in the text. The Benedictines read "petram." I will add here references to two other passages in which S. Cyprian speaks of the Church being founded on S. Peter "by the word of the Lord." He says in Ep, Ixxiii. ad Jubaianum, II (Opp., ii. 786), "Ad ecclesiam, quae una est et super unum, qui et claves ejus accepit, Domini voce fundata est." And again he says in his treatise, Ad Fortunatum, n (P. Z., iv. 694, 695), "Cum septem liberis plane copulatur et mater origo et radix, quae ecclesias septem postmodum peperit, ipsa prima et una super Petrum Domini voce fundata." On the reading "Petrum" in this passage, see p. 464, note I. 1 See the passage from S. Cyprian, which I have quoted and discussed on pp. 89, 90. Compare also a passage from S. Chrysostom quoted on p. 123, and see S. Greg. Nyss., De Castigat., Patrol. Graec., xlvi. 312, and Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall., lib. viii. capp. 12, 13, Opp., ed. 1817, xxxii. 602-611. According to the Fathers, the bishops are all successors of the apostles, and therefore of S. Peter, the representative apostle. 2 Sometimes the Fathers describe " the one episcopate " as the apostolic chair ; so S. Basil in his I97th epistle (Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 288) congratulates S. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, on his elevation to the episcopate, and he says, " The Lord Himself translated you from among the judges of the earth to the chair of the apostles" (eTri rrjv Ka8f5pav T&V airoffT6\cai>). 3 Authority, p. 99. II.] MISTAKEN INTERPRETA TIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 95 passages and those acts would require a volume. I have given a short account of some of them in my second lecture l and in Appendix A. 2 The defenders of the English Church may safely stake their case, so far as it relates to the papal claims, on the witness borne by S. Cyprian. May the prayers of that blessed martyr draw down upon the Church of England and upon us her children a full measure of the divine blessing and protection ! 1 See pp. 49-72. * See pp. 72-77. LECTURE III. THE RELATION OF S. PETER TO THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE AND TO THE CHURCH. IN my two previous lectures I adduced various historical facts and various passages from the writings of the Fathers, which seemed to me to prove that the view of the papal authority laid down in the Vatican decrees was not accepted by the Church during the first three centuries of our era. The conditions, under which these lectures are given, prevent my attempting any exhaustive treatment of the question ; but I have not consciously kept back any facts or passages belonging to those centuries, which would in my opinion avail to rebut or qualify the general conclusion at which we arrived. 1 I believe that that conclusion is in complete agreement with the truth. The Church at large, during the ages of persecu- tion, did not recognize in the Roman see any primacy of jurisdiction outside Italy, and still less did it recognize in that see any gift of infallibility. We may, therefore, enter on the consideration of the scriptural evidence with the expectation of finding that the papal claims find no solid support in the Bible. It would be strange, indeed, if the New Testament pointed plainly to the pope as the infallible monarch of the Church, and yet that the great saints and martyrs of the first three centuries should ignore such a fundamentally important principle of Church polity. Such an argument might be inapplicable, if we were dealing with some very abstract question of theology. But if a great body like the Church had been subjected by its Divine Founder to an infallible king, it could hardly exist for three centuries without there being very evident proofs that 1 A friend has suggested that it would be well that I should refer to the genuine epistle of S. Clement of Rome to the Corinthian Church, in which he, suppressing his own name, and writing in the name of his church, uses an urgent tone in remonstrating with the Corinthian Christians on the subject of their impious rebellion against their duly appointed presbyters. I can see no expression in that epistle in any way implying a claim on the part of S. Clement to exercise jurisdiction as pope over the Corinthian Church. As Dr. Salmon observes (Infallibility, p. 379, 2nd edit.), the tone "is only that of the loving remonstrance which any Christian is justified in offering to an erring brother." The reader is referred to Dr. Salmon's treatment of the whole subject of this remonstrance (Infallibility, pp. 377-379, 2nd edit.). See also Additional Note 51, p. 471. III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. 97 the rule of such infallible king was one of the chief factors in its life. Government is not an abstract theory, but a practical fact. Let us, however, approach the study of the scriptural evidence in a teachable and dispassionate spirit, desiring to perceive, and having perceived to accept, whatever our Lord and His apostles intended to teach. I suppose that all will agree that, if the doctrine of the papal monarchy is taught anywhere in Holy Scripture, it is taught in the promise made by our Lord to S. Peter at Caesarea Philippi, as we find that promise recorded in S. Matt. xvi. 17-19. The Vatican decree quotes this passage and also the passage in the last chapter of S. John's Gospel, in which our Lord is recorded to have said to S. Peter, " Feed My lambs," " Feed My sheep," and it deduces, from what it calls " this plain teaching of Holy Scripture," the conclusion that "a primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was promised and given immediately and directly to blessed Peter the apostle by Christ the Lord." Following the guidance of the council, let us proceed to consider the first of these two passages, 1 which, if I am not mistaken, is allowed by every one to be the fundamental passage. It will be well, I think, to quote the whole passage together with the verses which immediately precede it ; and I will read them first of all as they stand in the Revised Version. S. Matthew says, " Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is ? And they said, Some say John the Baptist ; some, Elijah : and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church ; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The Authorized Version and the Douay Version have " the gates of hell " instead of " the gates of hades ; " but of course those two expressions, as used here, are identical in meaning, and in other respects the Authorized Version and the Douay Version agree substantially with the 1 The other passage, contained in S. John xxi. 15-17, is discussed in Appendix C, pp. 117-128. H 98 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [III. Revised Version in their translation of the promise to S. Peter. The question before us is, What does that promise mean ? If the view taken by the Vatican Council is correct, we have here the creation, or at any rate the promise of the creation, of a permanent institution of the most transcendently im- portant kind. Christ is creating, or at any rate is promising to create, an office, the holder of which shall be His sole vicar and representative in the supreme government of His Church. Dr. Murray of Maynooth, referring to this passage, says that " Peter was thus established by our Lord as the means of imparting to the Church indefectibility and unity, and of permanently securing these properties to her. Peter was invested with supreme spiritual authority to legislate for the whole Church ; to teach, to inspect, to judge, to proscribe erroneous doctrine, or whatever would tend to the destruction of the Church ; to appoint to offices or remove therefrom, or limit or extend the jurisdiction thereof, as the safety or welfare of the Church would require : in one word, to exercise as supreme head, and ruler, and teacher, and pastor all spiritual functions whatever that are necessary for the well- being or existence of the Church." 1 This is how a learned professor at Maynooth describes the office which he considers to have been promised to S. Peter by the words recorded in S. Matthew, and afterwards to have been conferred on him, and from time to time, as occasion has arisen, to have been conferred also on his successors in the see of Rome. Now, if this really was our Lord's meaning, this passage is a passage of the most tremendous importance. On that hypothesis, one could not but agree with Cardinal Bellarmine when he first puts the question, 2 " What are we dealing with, when we deal with the papal primacy ? " and then proceeds to answer his own question thus : " We are dealing with the principal matter of Christianity " (de summa rei Christianae). Similarly the Jesuit Perrone says, "When we are treating about the head of the Church, we are treating about the principal point of the matter on which the existence and safety of the Church herself altogether depends." 3 Similarly, M. de Maistre says, " The sovereign pontiff is the necessary, only, and exclusive foundation of Christianity. To him belong the promises, with him disappears unity, that is the Church ; " and again, " The supremacy of the pope is the capital dogma without which Christianity cannot subsist." 4 I say once more, If our 1 Quoted from the Irish Annual Miscellany^ iii. 300, by Dr. Salmon (Infalli- bility of the Church, 2nd edit., p. 333). 2 Quoted by Perrone, Praelectt. Theoll., edit. 1841, torn. ii. pars i. p. 308, n. 1 Perrone, loc. cit. 4 Du Pape, Discours Prelim., i. 13, and iv. 5, quoted by Allies, Church of England cleared from Schism, 2nd edit., p. 358, n. Ill] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. 99 Lord, by His promise to S. Peter, meant to declare that He would create a permanent representative of Himself to be the infallible monarch of His Church on earth, as the Vatican Council teaches, then I think that we should all agree with Bellarmine, Perrone, and De Maistre, and we should hold that in this passage of S. Matthew we have delivered to us a dogma of the most fundamental character. Surely, therefore, if this view be the true view, when we come to examine the comments of the holy Fathers on this passage, we shall find them unanimously agreeing in the interpretation which they give. Even if they differed about some minor points, yet they will be in complete accord as to the substance. But when we proceed to investigate the comments of the Fathers, we do not find that unanimity which on the Romanist hypo- thesis would have been anticipated. The Fathers are by no means agreed in holding that the rock was S. Peter himself. It is true that that is decidedly the more common opinion and the oldest ; but, nevertheless, some hold that the rock is Christ, and others that it is the doctrine of our Lord's God- head, which S. Peter had confessed when he said, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." l But any candid Roman Catholic who looks carefully into the matter will be astonished when he examines those passages in which the " rock " is interpreted of S. Peter himself. He will be amazed to find that hardly any of them connect the building of the Church on S. Peter with any successors to S. Peter in the see of Rome. It is true that a fair number of such passages might probably be found in the writings of the popes or of papal legates and other similar officials, from the time of Pope Damasus (circa A.D. 370) onwards. 2 But, apart 1 In the Liturgy of S. James, at the point in the service where the consecration of the Gifts has just been consummated by the Epiklesis, the priest prays that the Body and Blood of our Lord "may be to those who communicate of them, for remission of sins and for life everlasting, ... for the strengthening of Thy holy Catholic Church, which Thou didst found upon the rock of the faith, that the gates of Hades should not prevail against it." These words occur both in the Greek and in the Syriac forms of the Liturgy, and therefore belong to its more ancient portion (see Hammond's Ancient Liturgies, pp. 43, 72). In the Roman Missal, the collect for the Vigil of S. Peter and S. Paul runs as follows: "Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we whom Thou hast established on the rock of the apostolic confession (quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti) may be shaken by no disturbances." I quote these two liturgical interpretations of " the rock," partly because of their great interest, and partly because I have not noticed them in the ordinary catenas illustrating the patristic interpretation of our Lord's promise to S. Peter. 2 Quotations from such sources will not count for much in a controversy of this kind. Our contention is that the idea of a divinely appointed supremacy over the whole Church, as a prerogative of the Roman see, arose very largely out of the exorbitant claims made by the popes. It follows that exaggerated claims in favour of the papacy, when they occur in the writings of the popes or of other persons living, so to speak, in a papal atmosphere, and when they stand in marked contrast witli the general teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, 100 -S- PETER'S PRIMACY. [IIL from the popes and their entourage, I only know of two such passages anterior to the age of S. Leo (circa A.D. 450). One of these occurs in a certain letter written by S. Jerome, while he was still a layman, and before he was thirty years old, about which letter I hope to be able to say something in my next lecture ; l and the other occurs in a popular controversial ballad written by S. Augustine for the benefit of the Donatists in the early portion of his ecclesiastical career, about two years after he had been ordained priest. In that ballad, the argument of which appears to be mainly taken from the writings of S. Optatus of Mileum, 2 S. Augus- tine says, "Number the bishops even from the very seat of Peter, and see every succession in that line of Fathers i that [seat] is the rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not." 3 At first sight S. Augustine, in this passage, appears to identify the Roman see with the " rock." But it is worthy of notice that S. Augustine does not say, " Number the bishops in the very see of Peter," but " Number them even from the very seat of Peter." The "seat of Peter" seems to be the starting-point of the succession, not the succession itself; and, if so, it would have to be understood as equivalent to the apostolate of Peter (cf. S, Aug., Contr. Epist. Manich., cap. iv., Opp., viii. 153, where there is a very similar passage) ; 4 so that the " rock " would be, not the long succession of Roman bishops, but S. Peter in his apostolical office, and in his primacy of order among the apostles, in consequence of which, as S. Augustine would add, he was the symbol of the whole Church. If this was what S. Augustine meant, the passage in the anti-Donatist ballad will fall into line with a few passages in other early writings of his. Otherwise it stands alone. On this interpretation S. Augustine's argument may be thus paraphrased : You Donatists are a comparatively new body ; we Catholics can trace up the succession of our bishops to the very apostles themselves ; and in particular in the great apostolical see of the West we can give the whole line of names reaching up to the primate apostle, the rock of the Church. This is exactly cannot be quoted, at any rate controversially, on the papal side. We regard them as the proofs of papal ambition. In connexion with this subject, it is surely permissible to refer in all reverence to our Lord's own words, " If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not tiue " (S. John v. 31). 1 See pp. 160-166. * Tillemont, xiii. 197. 3 S. Aug., //., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 8 "Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede, Et in ordine illo patrum quis cui succedit videte : Ipsa est petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae." 4 See also Additional Note 52, p. 472. III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. IOI the argument which S. Augustine does use in his epistle to Generosus (Ep. liii., Opp., ed. Ben., 1688, ii. 120, 121). In that case there was a special reason for dwelling on the succession of names reaching up to the apostles, because the Donatist priest, to whom the saint is replying, had been boasting to Generosus of the succession of Donatist bishops in the Donatist see of Cirta. But S. Augustine, while tracing the line of Roman bishops up to S. Peter, avoids any identification of them with the " rock." S. Peter, he says, was called the " rock " because he symbolized " the whole Church." For reasons, which I have already explained, the notion of S. Peter having been the first local Bishop of Rome is, in my opinion, the direct or indirect outcome of the Clementine romance. It will be inferred from these remarks that I do not myself think that in his ballad S. Augustine intended to identify the Roman see with the " rock ; " but let us give our opponents the benefit of the doubt, if there be a doubt. Then I say, Is it not very remarkable that S. Augustine, who in his later life wrote many anti-Donatist treatises, never once recurs to this argument, and never once brings in the idea of S. Peter's successors in the see of Rome as included in the rock ? S. Augustine often refers to our Lord's promise to S. Peter. In his earlier writings he occasionally interprets * the " rock " as meaning S. Peter ; and, following S. Cyprian, he thinks that S. Peter, as the leading apostle, was the representative and symbol of the whole Church Militant, just as he also thinks that S. John 2 was the symbol of the whole Church Triumphant. But in his later writings he always takes the view that the " rock " was Christ, and not S. Peter, though he still continues to hold that S. Peter is the symbol of the Church. It is important to notice that according to this later view S. Augustine not only affirms that the " rock " meant our Lord, but he at the same time denies that it meant S. Peter. This precludes the notion that he was suggesting a secondary meaning, which might be accepted as true, side by side with the primary meaning. The later interpretation excludes the earlier. I will quote one example of this later method of interpretation. S. Augustine, in a sermon on our Lord walking on the water, and on S. Peter sinking, says, "The gospel just read . . . teaches us to consider . . . the Apostle Peter as the type of the one only Church. For this Peter, first in the order of 1 In Psalm, xxx. Enarr., iii. 5 (Opp., ed. Ben., 1691, iv. 156) ; In Psalm. Ixix. 4 (iv. 714). 2 Injohann, Evang. cap. 21, Tractat, cxxiv. {Opp., ed. Ben., 1690, torn. iii. pars 2, coll. 822-824). 102 5 1 . PETER'S PRIMACY. [IIT. the apostles, most ready in the love of Christ, often answers singly for all. He it was, at the question of the Lord Jesus Christ as to who men said that He was, when the disciples gave in answer the various opinions of men, and the Lord again inquired and said, ' But who say ye that I am ? ' Peter it was who answered, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' One for many he gave the answer, being the oneness in the many. 1 Then the Lord said unto him, ' Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.' Then He added, ' And I also say unto thee ' as if He would say, ' Because thou hast said unto Me, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ' ' I also say unto thee, Thou art Peter.' Simon he was called before ; but this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in figure to signify the Church. For because Christ is the Rock (Petra), Peter (Petrus) is the Christian people. For the Rock (Petra} is the mother-word or root-word (Petra enim principale nomen esi}? Therefore Peter (Petrus) is from Petra, not Petra from Petrus : as Christ is not called from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ' Thou art, therefore,' saith He, 'Peter; and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast recognized, saying, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," I will build My Church. Upon Me I will build thee, not Me tipon thee' " 3 S. Augustine, at the end of his career, when he was seventy- four years old, wrote his two books of Retractations, and in the first of them he calls attention to the fact that in his later writings he had given an interpretation of the " Rock" differing from that which he had given in his earlier years. The passage is interesting, and is very pertinent to our subject, so I will quote it. S. Augustine says, " While I was still a presbyter, I wrote a book against the Epistle of Donatus, 4 ... in which 1 " Unitas in multis ;" that means, I suppose, that S. Peter as leader had a certain uniqueness of position among the many apostles, which qualified him to be the fitting spokesman for the rest ; or perhaps it may more probably mean that S. Peter, being one apostle, gave the answer on behalf of the many apostles, because he symbolized the unity of the Church, which is made up of many members. The great terseness of S. Augustine's phrase makes it difficult to say with certainty what his meaning was ; but one test of a true interpretation must be its harmony with the saint's general line of teaching in regard to S. Peter's position. See Additional Note 53, p. 472. * Notice the word principale as used here. Tt illustrates the meaning of a passage from S. Cyprian, which I discussed in my second lecture (see p. 51). * Serm. Ixxvi. de verbb. Evang. Matth. 14, Opp., ed. Ben. 1683, v. 415. The teaching of this homily was very familiar to our forefathers in the Middle Ages. From it are taken the 7th, 8th, and Qth lessons at Mattins on the Feast of S. Peter's chains (August i), in the Sarum Breviary (Brev. Sar., fasc. iii. coll. 572- 574, ed. Cantab. 1886). 4 The book is, unfortunately, not extant. III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. JOJ I said, in a certain place concerning the Apostle Peter, that the Church is founded on him as on a rock : which meaning is also sung by the mouth of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, where he says of the cock ' Repentance once the crowing cock Brought to the Church's promised rock.' 1 But I know that I have afterwards in very many places so expounded the Lord's saying, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,' as to be understood of Him whom Peter confessed, when he said, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And so Peter, named from this Rock (viz. Christ), would typify the person of the Church, which is built upon this Rock, and hath received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him, ' Thou art the Rock ' (Petra), but ' Thou art Peter ' (Petnts). But Christ was the Rock, whom Simon confessing, as the whole Church confesses Him, was called Peter. But of these two meanings let the reader choose the more probable." 2 There can be no ques- tion which of these two S. Augustine thought the more probable, when he wrote his books of Retractations, and, in fact, during the whole of the latter part of his life. But the important point for us to notice is the fact that S. Augustine appears to be completely unconscious that he is dealing with a dogmatic passage of high importance. In his early days as a priest he put forth a view which might perhaps be twisted into some likeness to the Ultramontane interpretation which now prevails in the Roman communion ; not that S. Augustine had ever really conceived of the Ultramontane theory in its entirety ; but still, so far as words go, he wrote three lines in his anti-Donatist ballad which Ultramontanes are very glad to quote. As far as we know, in all his voluminous writings he never again, even in appearance, identified the " rock " with the Roman see. Two or three 1 S. Ambrose's hymn is, in most Western breviaries, appointed to be sung at Lauds on Sundays after Epiphany and on the three Sundays which precede Lent. In some breviaries it is also appointed to be used on the Sundays after Trinity. 2 Retractt., lib. i. cap. xxi., Opp., ed. Ben., 1689, i. 32. It should be noticed that S. Augustine does not say, "The reader should accept both of these mean- ings, the one as the primary, the other as the secondary interpretation ; especially he should be careful to hold in any case that the ' rock ' means S. Peter, because on that interpretation mainly depends the scriptural proof of ' the principal matter of Christianity.'" But he says, "Let the reader choose the more probable.'' In S. Augustine's view the two meanings are mutually exclusive. As during the whole of S. Augustine's later life he adhered to the view that the " rock " means Christ, it must be said that he gave up his earlier view that the "rock" means Peter. He did implicitly "retract" and "contradict" and " withdraw " what he had said in his anti-Donatist ballad ; although he certainly never intended to express in that ballad the modern papal theory. I make these remarks in reply to Dr. Rivington's words in Authority, p. 33. IO4 PETER'S PRIMACY. [III. times I hardly think more he identified the " rock " with S. Peter. Afterwards he almost always explains the " rock " as meaning Christ. He could not possibly have changed his view on any matter of dogmatic importance without explain- ing the rationale of his change. If he did it nowhere else, he would have done it in his Retractations. The fact that he made the change without making any such explanation, shows conclusively that in his opinion no important dogma depends for its scriptural proof on our Lord's promise to S. Peter ; and he therefore certainly did not hold the view of the Vatican Council, that in that promise of our Lord the Holy Scripture plainly teaches us that Christ promised to S. Peter a primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that that primacy, by Christ's appointment, was to be perpetuated in S. Peter's successors in the Roman see. 1 Even if, for the sake of argument, we granted that he held that view when he was a newly ordained priest, it is quite certain that he must have given it up after he had become a bishop. We may, therefore, set aside the lines from the ballad. Under- stood as Roman Catholic controversialists profess to under- stand them, they do not really represent S. Augustine's mature teaching. As I have already observed, if we except the popes and their belongings from the time of Damasus onwards, the other Fathers, before the time of S. Leo, who interpret the " rock " of S. Peter, in no way connect the passage with the successors of the two great apostles in the Roman see. Some, like Tertullian, 2 think that the promise was fulfilled by S. Peter's having taken the lead in founding the Church on the day of Pentecost Others, like S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian, hold that all bishops inherit the promise made to S. Peter, and that therefore the Church is founded on the bishops. The one view about which, outside Rome and its surroundings, there seems to be a conspiracy of silence among the Fathers anterior to S. Leo, is the view set forth by the Vatican Council. Such a conspiracy of silence is simply inconceivable, if the Vatican teaching truly expresses the doctrine originally delivered to the Church by the apostles. It is what we should naturally expect to find if the Vatican teaching is " a fond thing vainly invented," and foisted into the Church at a later date by ambition and ignorance. I hope that I have made it clear that there is no one authoritative tradition in regard to the true interpretation of the promise to S. Peter. One might, indeed, fairly say that 1 The council anathematizes all who deny that "ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione" S. Peter is to have a perpetual line of successors in his primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is such successor. 2 Cf. Tertull., De Pudicit., xxi. III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. IO5 there is a consensus patrum excluding the Vatican interpreta- tion. But setting the Vatican view aside as out of the question, a Catholic will find himself in good company, whether he interpret the "rock" as meaning the true faith in our Lord's Messiahship and Godhead, or as meaning Christ, or as meaning S. Peter. All these various interpreta- tions are perfectly consonant with the Church's teaching about herself; but, of course, only one of them can be the true meaning which our Lord intended to express when He first uttered the words. 1 Dogmatically they are all admis- sible, but exegetically one of them is right, and the others are wrong. Let us, therefore, now proceed to consider the passage with the view of determining, so far as we can, what our Lord really meant to promise to S. Peter. I shall confine myself for the present to that part of the promise, which is contained in the words, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." To my mind it appears most probable that our Lord intended, when He used the expression "this rock," to signify by it S. Peter. The apostle had been confessing his faith in the Messiahship and in the divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus. It was the first open confession of faith in those great facts, which had been made by any of the apostles since the Lord had gathered the twelve together into one band, and had given them their preliminary mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 2 This confession of the faith by S. Peter was a great moment in the progress of the events which were preparing the way for the manifestation of the kingdom of God. The truth had been inwardly revealed to him, and his loyal heart, enabled by preventing grace, had grasped the great verity which the Father set before him ; and so he answered our Lord's inquiry and said, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." It was fitting that our Lord should reward His servant's faith by some signal token of His approval ; and so the Lord answers, " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I also 1 Though the various interpretations are all dogmatically admissible, they cannot all be held together as the true interpretation of our Lord's words. To build the Church on the ever-living Christ is one thing ; to build on S. Peter's evangelizing labours wrought long ago is another thing ; to build on the universal episcopate is a third thing ; to build on the true faith is a fourth thing. In these different connexions the expression " build upon " is used in varying shades of meaning, and our Lord, when He spoke to S. Peter, cannot have intended us to understand the word "rock," as used by Him, to denote at the same time a living divine Person, a doctrine, the work of a man who died eighteen centuries ago, and an order of men living all over the world and sharing in an office which is perpetuated from generation to generation. 2 S. Matt. x. 5, 6. 106 5. PETER'S PRIMACY. [IIL say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church : and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it," etc. Our Lord's words evidently convey a promise to 5. Peter. One feels that if our Lord had said, " Thou art Peter, and upon Myself I will build My Church," such a promise would hardly seem suitable to the situation. Moreover, Christ is here the Builder, and it seems awkward to have the Builder and the Foundation one. It must also be remembered that our Lord spoke in Aramaic, and that in that language the word for " Peter" and the word for "rock " are identical. Our Lord's words may be represented thus r " Thou art Cepha, and upon this Cepha I will build My Church." If no tolerable sense could be assigned to the passage when Cepha the figurative rock is identified with Cepha the person, it might then seem permissible to search for other interpretations ; but if the primd facie interpretation yields a good meaning, it ought to be given precedence. And surely in this case the primd facie interpretation does yield an excellent meaning, which is borne out by parallel passages in the New Testament. We nowhere read in the New Testament of the Church being built upon the true faith, but we do find that S. Paul, writing to the Gentile Christians at Ephesus, says, "Ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets ; " 1 and we do find that S. John, in the Apocalypse, describing the Church triumphant, the holy city, the new Jerusalem, says that " the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." 2 It is clear, therefore, that the notion of the Church being built upon apostles is a scriptural notion. Let us try and discover what is exactly conveyed by that notion. And, first of all, we must observe that in the passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians prophets are joined with the apostles " Built upon the foundation of the apostles and propJiets" Who are these prophets ? It seems evident, from two other passages in this same Epistle, that S. Paul is alluding, not to the Old Testament prophets, but to the New Testament prophets, who in the earliest days, while the Church was being founded, constituted a degree of the sacred ministry inferior only to that of the apostles ; as it is written, " He gave some to be apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists." 3 And so, in the First Epistle to the Corin- thians, S. Paul says, " God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets." 4 The apostles and prophets,. 1 Eph. ii. 19, 20. Rev. xxi. 14. * Eph. iv. ii ; cf. iii. 5. I Cor. xii. 28. III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. IO7 therefore, on whom the Church is founded, are the leaders and chiefs of those evangelical labourers who, by their preaching and teaching, brought the first generation of Christians to the knowledge of Christ, and gathered them into the Church. They organized and took the lead in the work of foundation, and so to them has been granted the high honour of being called the foundation of the Church. It is thus that the admirable Roman Catholic commentator Estius explains this passage. He says that the apostles and prophets constitute the foundation of the Church, "through their ministry, in so far as they announced to men the doctrine of salvation through Christ only, which they had received from God." 1 With Estius agrees the Jesuit com- mentator, Cornelius a Lapide. 2 And so Bishop Barry, in his note on the passage, says, " The apostles and prophets are the foundation ... as setting forth in word and grace Him who is the Corner-stone." 3 I have not come across any commentators, either ancient or modern, either Romanist, Anglican, or Protestant, who suppose that, either in the passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians or in the passage in the Apocalypse, the bishops, as successors of the apostles, are to be joined with them as sharing in the glory of being the foundation of the Church. To the bishops is committed the duty of building the upper stories of the temple ; the apostles laid the foundation, and by their founding labours have merited to be themselves styled the foundation. As Cornelius a Lapide says, the apostles " are the Church's foundations and founders (for these two expressions come back to the same meaning)." 4 These parallel passages seem to suggest the true inter- pretation of our Lord's promise to S. Peter. We know that S. Peter and the other apostles are the foundations of the Church, because he and they are co-founders of the Church. 5 What is there to make us suppose that he is also a founda- tion of the Church in some totally different sense, of which we have no trace elsewhere in the Bible ? If we look to the last clause of the promise, we shall find a signal confirmation of this view, that what was promised to S. Peter was to be actually conferred on all the apostles equally. The last 1 Estius, In Eph. ii. 19, 20. 2 A Lapide, in he. 3 Bishop Barry, in loc., in the New Testament Commentary for English Readers, edited by Bishop Ellicott. 4 A Lapide, In Apoc. S. Joh., xxi. 14. 5 Father Bottalla, SJ. (Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 60), says very truly,. " The apostleship had only one definite task to perform that of laying the foundations of the Church. Those once laid, the apostleship gave way to the ordinary and regular government." 108 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [HI. clause of our Lord's promise to S. Peter runs thus : " What- soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 1 But shortly afterwards, as is recorded in S. Matt, xviii., our Lord made this very same promise to all the apostles. He said, "Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 2 If all the apostles were intended to share in the power promised to S. Peter in the last clause, there seems no reason why they should not share in the honour promised to him in the first clause. 3 What, then, was the special reward which he received ? Why, this that as he was the first to confess publicly the Messiahship and divine Sonship of the Master, so to him first were promised the honours and labours and powers of the apostolic office. Up to the time of his confession our Lord had revealed nothing plainly concerning His Church. He had never hitherto used the word " Church." Now for the first time He speaks of His Church, and He makes known to S. Peter that he is to be a foundation of it, and a ruler over it. Whether the others are to share with S. Peter, is for the present kept back. Surely this precedence in designation was a fitting reward for S. Peter's promptness in confession. Moreover, other results flowed out of this precedence. It was not the first time that he had been singled out as the leader. When our Lord originally separated the twelve, we are told that " He called unto Him His twelve disciples ; " 4 and the evangelist goes on to say that " the names of the twelve apostles are these ; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew, his brother ; " 5 and then the rest are enumerated. Evidently on that earlier occasion, our Lord named S. Peter's name first. So that not once, but twice, the Lord seemed to sanction the view that S. Peter was to be the leader. All the apostles were peers and equals ; all were to be founders and foundations of the Church ; all were to have the power of binding and loosing ; all after the Resurrection received authority to remit and retain sins ; all were commissioned to go into the world to preach, and to disciple, and to baptize. But among these 1 S. Matt. xvi. 19. 2 S. Matt, xviii. 18. 3 After what has been said in the text about the first and last clauses of the promise to S. Peter, it seems unnecessary to set out at length an elaborate proof that the middle clause of the promise " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven " belongs to all the apostles, and not to S. Peter only. The reader is referred to Dr. Pusey's Note R on The keys given to the Church in the person of S. Peter, in the Oxford translation of Tertullian, pp. 514, 515 ; and to De Launoi's Epistle to Hadrianus Vallantius (Lib. ii., Ep. v., Opp., ed. 1731, torn. v. pars ii. pp. 213-242). Compare also passages from the Fathers, quoted on pp. 86, 471, and 488. 4 S. Matt. x. i. * S. Matt. x. 2. III.] S. PETERS PRIMACY. 1 09 equals S. Peter was singled out by our Lord to be the leader the first. 1 He was primus inter pares. And accordingly in everything connected with the foundation of the Church he took the lead. It was he who proposed that steps should be taken to fill up the gap in the apostolic college caused by the death of the traitor Judas. It was he, standing up with the eleven, who preached the great Pentecostal sermon on the Church's Pentecostal birthday. He took the initiative and was the chief agent in the first miracle that was wrought on the lame man at the beautiful gate of the temple, though here S. John was associated with him. He was the spokesman when the first punishment was inflicted on members of the Church who had sinned, as appears in the history of Ananias and Sapphira. He with S. John went to confirm the newly baptized Samaritans, and so was the principal agent for con- veying the sanction of the apostolic college to the extension of the Church into that border-land between Judaism and heathendom. He with S. John confronted Simon Magus, the first heretic. Above all, as he himself pointed out to the other apostles, " God made choice among them, that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and should believe ; " 2 in other words, he first opened the door of the Church to uncircumcised Gentiles by the instruction and baptism of Cornelius and his friends. Thus were the foundations of the Church laid by the combined action of all the apostles, but in that founding work S. Peter had the leadership, and took the initiative. I do not doubt that this recognized leadership resulted from the precedence in de- signation to the apostolic office, which came to him as a reward for his priority in confessing the truth about our Lord's Person. The reward was most real and most marked, though it did not involve any primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles, nor was it ever intended that either the primacy of honour which S. Peter did enjoy, or the supposed primacy of jurisdiction of which there is no trace in Scripture, 3 should be perpetuated for all time in a divinely instituted monarchy over the Church of God, to be inherited by the long line of bishops, who from the apostles' time onwards have governed the local Church of Rome. Surely it must be allowed to be most significant that the New Testament, which is so clear on the subject of S. Peter's leadersJiip in the foundation of the Church, is so absolutely 1 See Additional Note 54, p. 473, for the teaching of representative Anglican divines on the subject of S. Peter's primacy of order among the apostles. 2 Acts xv. 7. 3 On the meaning of our Lord's words, " Feed My sheep," see Appendix C, pp. 117-128. HO S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [III. silent in regard to any jurisdiction over the other apostles vested in him, or exercised by him. But the papal theory, if it is to establish for itself a scriptural basis, must produce scriptural proofs of the exercise by S. Peter of supreme jurisdiction over the Church. No amount of leadership avails to prove jurisdiction. When S. Paul and S. Barnabas were engaged in their first missionary journey, S. Paul's superior gifts soon established him in the position of leader. He was the " chief speaker." l The members of the expedition, of whom S. Barnabas was one, are described as " Paul and his company." 2 But will any one maintain that S. Paul had any primacy of jurisdiction over S. Barnabas ? The idea is, of course, absurd. Leadership and jurisdiction are two wholly different things. The distinction is quite understood at Rome. The Vatican Council strikes with its anathema any one who says that S. Peter received from our Lord " only a primacy of honour" that is, a leadership, "but not a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction." But we go further in this matter. As we deny that there are any passages of Holy Scripture which prove that supreme jurisdiction over the other apostles was ever exercised by S. Peter, so we are also prepared to assert that the general tenor of Scripture is adverse to the claim which is made on his behalf. If S. Peter possessed a divinely given primacy of jurisdic- tion over the other apostles, it seems very strange that the latter, when they heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, should " send to them Peter and John." 3 One could understand a vassal kingdom, not exactly sending, but petitioning, its king to plead the cause of his kingdom in the court of the suzerain. And if the king consented to under- take such an office, it is inconceivable that other nobles should be joined with him as members of the delegation. They might accompany him as part of his suite ; they would never share with him in the duty which he had undertaken to fulfil. But if even a vassal king would never be sent by his subjects to represent them in the higher court of the suzerain, how much less would a wholly independent sovereign be sent by the subordinate rulers of his people to carry out some plan on which they had decided ! The fact that the apostles sent S. Peter and S. John to confirm the Samaritans, is proof positive that S. Peter was not the supreme ruler of the others. That two equal apostles should be sent by the 1 Acts xiv. 12. * Acts xiii. 13. 3 Acts viii. 14. Mr. Brightman calls my attention to the fact that in this passage S. Luke uses the word aWj8os vo/j.oOfTf't) . In these words 8. Hesychius expresses accurately and tersely the relative positions of S. James and S. Peter at the council, as they are set forth in S. Luke's narra- tive. Nevertheless, though the passage expresses the truth, I should not lay stress on it in controversy, because S. Hesychius was a priest of the Church of Jerusalem. No candid person will press statements about S. Peter written by Roman popes or by Antiochene Fathers ; and, similarly, it is unsafe to go to the Church of Jerusalem to learn about S. James. 4 Bishop Lightfoot (S. Clement of Rome, ed. 1890, ii. 490), contrasting S. Peter's marked primacy in the early days of the Church, as recorded in the first twelve chapters of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, with the silence about him in the later apostolic history, says, "In the first part he is everything : in the subsequent record he is nowhere at all. He is only once again mentioned in the Acts (xv. 7), and even here he does not bear the chief part. Where the Church at large, as an expansive missionary Church, is concerned, Paul, not Peter, is the prominent personage ; where the Church of Jerusalem appears as the visible centre of unity, James, not Peter, is the chief agent (K^s xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18 ; Gal. ii. 9, 12). Peter retains the first place as missionary evangelist to the Hebrew Christians [and to their unconverted Hebrew brethren], but nothing more." * S. Cyprian, as president, had also made an opening speech, in which he III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. 115 the speech of a president. It formulates the decision. It introduces the authoritative word Kpivu. It immediately prepares the way for that unanimous act of the whole council to which they allude in their synodical letter, when they say, " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you (Gentiles) no greater burden than these necessary things;" and then they enumerate the things which S. James had mentioned in his presidential summing up. That final synodical act appears to be based on S. James' speech. 1 Altogether it seems quite clear that S. James presided on this occasion, as we should naturally expect to be the case. No wonder that S. Chrysostom, in his homily on this passage in the Book of Acts, says, " This James was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last ; " and a little further on he adds, " Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but he [James] here more mildly ; for thus it behoves one in high authority to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part." 2 Evidently, in the opinion of S. Chrysostom, S. James, who was an apostle equally with S. Peter, took precedence of him in this council, as being referred to the opinion on rebaptism which he had expressed in his letter to Jubaianus ; but his synodical judgement was reserved to the end, and was delivered after his eighty-four colleagues had spoken. So in the third and fourth sessions of the Vatican Council, the Fathers of the council first of all expressed their judgement on the decrees and canons which had been proposed, and finally Pius IX., who presided, concluded the matter by declaring his own supreme sentence. 1 See Additional Note 55, p. 477. 2 The English rendering is taken from the Oxford translation of S. Chry- sostom's Thirty-third Homily on the Acts (p. 456). That translation agrees accurately with the Greek text in the New College manuscript (torn. ii. fol. 102), except that the Oxford translator has substituted "James" for "he." I have replaced the "he," but have retained the Oxford "James" within brackets. The Greek text has olros. The New College codex is one of the four manuscripts that give what is called " tke old text," which, as the Oxford translators say in their Preface to Part II. (p. ix.), is "incomparably better," as well as "older" than the text given in the Benedictine edition. Dr. Rivington, in Dependence (pp. 24, 25), makes what must be called a desperate attempt to make out that " the antithesis is between James and the Judaizers, not James and Peter." The only answer that need be given is to refer the reader to the Oxford translation of the whole passage, with its context. The interpretation suggested by Dr. Rivington is simply impossible. Mr. Gore has replied to some other remarks of Dr. Rivington, in which the latter deals with an earlier sentence of the same homily, and in which he relies on the unfortunate Benedictine text. See the Preface to the third edition of Mr. Gore's Roman Catholic Claims, which is re- printed in the fourth edition (pp. xiv., xv.). Second thoughts are not always best. Cr. Rivington says that in his controversy with Bishop Meurin he " was misled " by the Oxford translation. The real fact is that the Oxford translators have accurately given the meaning of the genuine text. Afterwards Dr. Rivington was really " misled " by the Benedictine editors. Dr. Rivington "reprehends" the Oxford translators for putting "James " as the translation of fKtwos in that earlier passage. That rendering accurately gives the meaning ; and the translators gave fair warning in their Preface to Part II. (p. xiii.), that they proposed " to give faithfully, though not ahvays literally, the sense." They have certainly, in this case, fulfilled their promise. Il6 S. PETER >S PRIMACY. [HI. bishop of the city where the council was held, and therefore president thereof. Such a view is irreconcilable with the papal theory as set forth in the Vatican decrees. I might go on to refer to other passages of the New Testament, as, for example, to S. Paul's rebuke of S. Peter at Antioch ; to the way in which he deals with the parties at Corinth, who named themselves after himself, and Apollos, and Cephas, and Christ ; to the tone of absolute independ- ence of any superior human authority which pervades S. Paul's writings ; to the whole tone of S. Peter's own Epistles ; but I think that I have said enough to justify the assertion, which I made, that the general tenor of Scripture is adverse to the claim which is made on S. Peter's behalf. I would add that, if S. Peter's connexion with the see of Rome is a fact of such fundamental importance, as would be the case if the theory set forth by the Vatican Council were true, it is most extraordinary that there is no clear allusion in the New Testament to that connexion. Believing, as I do, that the words of S. Peter in I S. Pet. v. 13, "She that is in Babylon, elect together with you," refer to the Church in Rome, 1 I grant that there is in that passage an obscure allusion to a connexion between S. Peter and the Church of Rome. He was evidently at Rome when he wrote his First Epistle, and in friendly relations with the Roman Church, whose salutation he sends to the Christians in various provinces of Asia Minor. But the New Testament nowhere certifies to us that S. Peter shared in the work of founding the Church of Rome, nor that he joined with his brother apostle in the consecration of Linus, its first bishop, however true those facts may be. Still less does it give any sanction to the fable of his having been himself the first Bishop of Rome, nor to the groundless theory that he transmitted to S. Linus and his successors a primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church, which he never claimed for himself. If, as De Maistre thought, " the supremacy of the pope is the capital dogma without which Christianity cannot subsist," why is there nothing about it in the Scriptures of truth ? Addendiim to Lecture ///. In the observations on Gal. ii. 9, which I have made above, on pp. 111-113, I have assumed the correctness of the view which has been traditional among commentators, namely, that S. Paul in Gal. ii. is referring to what is commonly reckoned as his third visit to Jerusalem. Professor Ramsay, in his recently published Historical Commentary on the Galatians, and in other earlier works, has given strong reasons for 1 Dr. Hort takes the same view. See his commentary on I S. Pet., p. 6. III.] " PASCE OVES ME AS" 117 believing that S. Paul is referring to some visit which preceded his reputed third visit to the holy city. It does not, however, appear to me that my argument is affected by this correction, though perhaps, if I had had it in mind when I wrote the observations to which I am referring, I should have made some slight changes in the wording of one or two sentences. APPENDIX C. On our Lords words to S. Peter (S. John xxi. 15-17), " Feed My lambs; " " Tend My sheep; " " Feed My sheep " (see p. 97). I PROPOSE in this appendix to discuss the second great passage, to which reference is made by the Vatican Council in its dogmatic decree concerning " the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter." It will be remembered that the council sets forth, as the scriptural basis of the doctrine declared and defined in that decree, two utterances of our Lord to S. Peter, namely, first, the pi'omise made at Caesarea Philippi, which begins with the words, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church ; " and, secondly, the injunction repeated three times with slight changes in the words used, when our Lord appeared to S. Peter and six other disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias after His resurrection from the dead. On what the council calls " the manifest teaching" of these two passages it builds up its theory that, "when compared with the other apostles, whether taken separately or collectively, Peter alone was invested by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction," 1 and that this primacy "was conferred upon blessed Peter himself immediately and directly." I have dealt with the first of these two passages in the third lecture. I now proceed to quote the second passage together with the whole con- text, as it is translated in the Revised Version : "When they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these ? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord ; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed My lambs. He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord ; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Tend My sheep. 2 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me ? Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me ? And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things ; Thou knowest that I love Thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed My sheep." 3 1 " Solum Petrum prae caeteris Apostolis, sive seorsum singulis sive omnibus simul, vero proprioquejurisdictionisprimatufuisse a Christoinstructum " (Collectio Lcueiisis, vii. 483). 2 In the place of " Tend My Sheep " (iroifj.au>e ra irpJ/Sara pov}, the Douay Version, following the Vulgate, repeats the previous formula, "Feed My Iambs." Apart from this variation, the Douay differs in this passage from the Revised in no point of any importance. 3 S. John xx. 15-17. n8 APPENDIX c. [in. All manner of interesting questions suggest themselves to us in con- nexion with this wonderfully beautiful episode; but for our present purpose the really important problems to be solved are these : Why was this injunction given to S. Peter rather than to the other apostles ? and again, Was any power then and there communicated to S. Peter ? or was it rather that he was authorized and enjoined to use a power previously given ? and once more, Of what sort was the power which our Lord was imparting, or the exercise of which He was enjoining? The Roman reply to these questions is this that our Lord intended to make S. Peter pope, and to give him a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, including the apostolic college ; and that this primatial jurisdiction, which was to be transmitted to his successors in the see of Rome, was communicated to him then and there by our Lord's words, " Feed My lambs," and " Feed My sheep." I am not aware that any of the great Fathers of the first five centuries take this view, though the germ of it could doubtless be found in the writings of the popes of the fifth century and of persons closely connected with them. Setting aside the theories held by what Mr. Gore has called the papal school, 1 there are two views which find favour with the Fathers. They are not necessarily exclusive of each other, and in fact some of the Fathers seem to have held them in combination ; but logically they are quite independent, the one of the other. They agree in this, that they suppose that the right and duty of shepherding and feeding the sheep and the lambs belong to S. Peter as an apostle, rather than as the foreman of the apostles. It is his apostolic jurisdiction which he is enjoined to use, or which is being committed to him ; and the " sheep " which he is to feed are not his brother shepherds and co-apostles, but rather such members of the flock of Christ as are spiritually full-grown, and capable of appreciating "solid food ;" while the "lambs" are the babes in Christ, who need to be fed with " spiritual milk." 2 So far the two views agree, but in other points they diverge. According to the first of these two views, our Lord addresses His injunction to S. Peter because he is the primate-apostle, and therefore the representative or symbol of the whole body of the apostles and of the unity of the Church. The others receive the injunction or the commission, whichever it was, in him, their representative. The Fathers who take this view in no way suppose that any primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles is being given to S. Peter ; it is because he is the first in 1 It is obvious that, if our Lord really intended by the ' ' Pasce oves " to insti- tute a papal monarchy over the Church, in the persons of S. Peter and of his supposed papal successors, then these words are the operative words by which, as De Maistre would say, " the necessary, only, and exclusive foundation of Chris- tianity " was laid. Had that been the case, the great Fathers of the Church would with one voice have dwelt on such a fundamental fact. Unfortunately for the Romanist view, they none of them, when commenting on the text, allude to the supposed fact. They are absolutely unconscious of it. Our Roman friends must not be surprised if, under such circumstances, English Catholics decline altogether to discuss the papal interpretation. It is as much out of court as the Zuinglian interpretation of " Hoc est Corpus Meum," or the Socinian interpreta- tion of " Verbum carofadum est." 2 Compare I Cor. ii. 6; iii. i, 2; Heb. v. 12-14; * S. Pet. i. 2. III.] " PASCE OVES ME AS." 119 order that our Lord addresses him, although what our Lord says applies equally to all the apostles. This is S. Augustine's view. 1 According to the second view, S. Peter is addressed because of his previous fall. In consequence of that fall he had either lost his apostolic commission, or, at any rate, was doubtful whether he ought to use it ; and he needed either to have it restored to him, or to be encouraged and enjoined to act upon it. This is the view of S. Cyril of Alexandria. 2 For myself, if it is not impertinent to say so, I have no sort of dog- matic objection to the first of these views. It harmonizes thoroughly with Catholic principles of faith and discipline. But, exegetically, I venture to think that the second view is by far the more probable. I will try to make this clear. When we look at the context of the passage we see an evident allusion to that boasting of S. Peter which led the way to his fall. Our Lord had said to the apostles on the night of the last supper, " All ye shall be offended in Me this night ; " and Peter had replied, " If all shall be offended in Thee, I will never be offended." 3 The boast had been made publicly, and now our Lord asks publicly the question, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" S. Augustine thinks it probable that the accounts of the boasting, given by S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John, 4 represent three separate occurrences, 5 and, if so, our Lord's thrice-repeated question would correspond with the threefold boasting ; but, however that may be, the fact that the interro- gation by the Sea of Tiberias contains an allusion to the boast in the upper room can hardly be denied ; and this prepares us to see a close connection between the threefold injunction, " Feed My lambs," " Tend My sheep," " Feed My sheep," which follows the three interrogations, and the threefold denial which followed the boasting. It was obviously important, after those terrible denials, that some public utterance should be made by our Lord certifying S. Peter and the Church that those denials were not only forgiven, so far as S. Peter's own condition in the sight of God was concerned, but that he was at liberty to use, and in fact bound to use, that apostolic office, which had been promised to him at Caesarea Philippi, and the fundamental powers of which he had received in common with the other apostles on the evening of Easter day in the upper room. S. Peter had then been made an apostle, but the remembrance of his fall might well have made him doubt whether he ought to exercise the jurisdiction given to him. Every student of Church history knows how S. Jerome, though he was made a 1 See the passage from S. Augustine's 295th sermon, quoted in note 2 on p. 123. 2 See the passage from S. Cyril's commentary on S. John xxi. 15-17, quoted on pp. 127, 128. It may be observed that Bishop Moberly, in his Discourses on the Great Forty Days (2nd edit., 1846, p. 190), seems to hold in combination both S. Cyril's view and S. Augustine's : he says, " Though his [Peter's] fall was great, greater than that of all who forsook their Lord and fled, yet was his restoration great too, for he was again chosen of [i.e. among] them all to be the one to receive, as representing all, the great pastoral commission." 3 S. Matt. xxvi. 31, 33. 4 S. Matt. u.s. ; S. Luke xxii. 33 ; S. John xiii. 37. 4 Cf. S. Aug., De Consens. Evang. t lib. iii. cap. ii. (Opp., ed. Ben., 1690, torn. iii. pars ii. col. 102). 120 APPENDIX C. [HI. priest, never in the whole course of his life ventured to exercise the powers of his office. It was of the utmost importance that, in the case of S. Peter, who was the leader of the apostolic college, all doubt should be removed, and his right to exercise his authority be put beyond the reach of question ; and accordingly our Lord granted to him a special authori- zation, three times repeated, so as to blot out the effects of his threefold fall. I think that it might be held, with some show of probability, that the threefold repetition of the injunction to feed and tend the Lord's flock implied that the three denials were so completely done away, that S. Peter was not only assured of his full and undoubted right to exercise his apostolic office, but was also restored to the leadership which had naturally resulted from his precedence in designation to that office. The threefold repetition made it evident that, notwithstanding his denials, he was not to be considered to have forfeited his primacy of honour. I hope that this investigation of the close connexion which binds the episode of the " Pasce eves" to the events of the night in which our Lord was betrayed, will go far to justify S. Cyril's view, that it was in con- sequence of S. Peter's fall that the "Pasce eves" was addressed to him, rather than to any of the other apostles, or to the apostolic college. When we consider the words which our Lord used, and compare them with a parallel passage in one of S. Peter's own Epistles, we seem to find a confirmation of the view which has already been suggested, that our Lord's words did not, strictly speaking, convey a commission, but were rather an injunction to use the apostolic commission previously bestowed. For, when S. Peter wrote to the presbyters of the churches of Asia Minor, and said, " Tend the flock of God, which is among you," 1 he was not imparting to them the priestly office ; he was enjoining them to exercise the office which they had previously received from the Holy Ghost when they were ordained. Before passing on to the patristic interpretation of our Lord's words, I will make one further observation, suggested by the direct consideration of the words themselves. It seems clear that those words do not of themselves imply any grant of jurisdiction to S. Peter over the other apostles. Our Lord does not say, " Act as a shepherd to thy brethren and co-apostles," but " Feed My lambs," and " Tend " and " Feed My sheep." The words evidently have reference to the pastoral office which S. Peter was going to fulfil towards the sheep and lambs of Christ's flock after the Lord Himself had ascended into heaven. Our Lord was accustomed to speak of the future members of His Church as the sheep of His flock. So, for example, in the Gospel of the Good Shepherd, He says, " Other [Gentile] sheep I have, which are not of this [Jewish] fold ; them also I must bring, and they shall become one flock, one shepherd." 2 Our Lord Himself is "the great Shepherd of the sheep," 3 and He appoints His ministers to be the under- shepherds, to " take heed unto all the flock," and to " tend the Church of God." * That pastoral ministry began with the apostles, who were the first set of under-shepherds, and to each of whom was given pastoral authority over the whole flock. If it 1 i S. Pet. v. 2. 2 S. John x. 16. 3 Heb. xiii. 20. * Acts xx. 28. III.] " PASCE OVES ME AS." 121 were clearly revealed in other parts of Holy Scripture that S. Peter was the supreme under-shepherd, having jurisdiction over the other apostles, then it might be permissible to suppose that such supreme jurisdiction was being communicated to S. Peter by our Lord, when He said, " Feed My sheep," and that consequently on that particular occasion the inferior under-shepherds were numbered among the sheep. 1 But there is no trace in other parts of Holy Scripture of such a supremacy, and therefore there is no reason for numbering the apostolic shepherds among the sheep in the passage which we are considering. The wording of that passage, taken by itself, suggests apostolic, not primatial, jurisdiction. Gathering up the results of our study of S. John xxi. 15-17, it seems probable that our Lord, by the words, " Pasce oves Meas" was not giving a new commission to S. Peter, but was authorizing and enjoining him to use a commission previously bestowed ; and it seems clear that that commission was not a commission to be primate, with a rule over the apostles ; but a commission to be an apostle, with a rule over the sheep and lambs belonging to the Church of God. It also seems clear that the reason why this injunction and authorization were needed by S. Peter and were not needed by the others, is to be found in S. Peter's fall, when he denied the Lord. I proceed now to investigate the interpretations of our Lord's words to S. Peter, which are to be found in the writings of the Fathers. They refer continually to our Lord's injunction to feed the sheep, but when they speak of it in connexion with the apostolic age, they assume that all the apostles shared in the commission ; or, if S. Peter is specially men- tioned, they point out that he is the representative of the Church, or the symbol of her unity, or else they dwell on his fall. They seem to take pains to make it clear that S. Peter had no authority given to him which was peculiar to himself. And again, when the Fathers speak of our Lord's injunction in connexion with post-apostolic times, they dwell on the fact that the bishops, as the successors of the apostles, or as the successors of Peter, have inherited the pastoral commission. A modern Romanist naturally dwells on the papal power as guaranteed by the Pasce oves; the Fathers, ignoring the papacy, 2 consider that our Lord was instructing or empowering the episcopate. I cannot attempt any exhaustive catena, but I will give specimens of the teaching of both Latin and Greek Fathers. S. Cyprian, writing to Pope Stephen, says, " Although we [bishops] 1 During the years of our Lord's ministry in the days of His humiliation, the twelve constituted our Lord's special flock, and He Himself was their visible Shepherd. That was before they received their apostolic commission. That period culminated in the night in which our Lord was betrayed ; and, referring to the events of that night, He applied to them all, including S. Peter, the title of sheep. He said, " All ye shall be offended in Me this night : for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad " (S. Matt. xxvi. 31). But after our Lord's resurrection, in preparation for His departure, He commissioned those disciples to be apostles ; and so, while they all, including S. Peter, remained sheep in relation to our Lord, they became shepherds in relation to the Church. 2 The papal school of the fifth and later centuries must, of course, be excepted (see pp. 99, 100). 122 APPENDIX C. [HL are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock, and ought to gather together and cherish all the sheep which Christ has acquired by His own Blood and Passion." 1 I quote this passage, although it does not explicitly refer to our Lord's words to S. Peter; but they must have been in S. Cyprian's mind when he wrote. He was writing to the pope, and asking him to help the Church in Gaul. That was surely a good opportunity for pressing on him the duty of exercising the supreme pastoral office, which is supposed by Romanists to belong to the Roman successors of S. Peter. But instead of that, S. Cyprian puts all bishops on an equality in their pastoral functions, and urges the pope to interfere in Gaul, not as having primatial jurisdiction there, but as belonging to the college of bishops, who all " feed one flock, and ought to gather together and cherish all the sheep " of Christ. 2 Even the Romanizing interpolator of S. Cyprian's treatise on the Unity of the Church, after inserting a reference to the Pasce oves, proceeds a few lines lower down to say concerning the apostles, " They all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the apostles with one-minded concord." 3 The interpolator evidently held that, though for symbolical reasons the words were spoken to S. Peter only, the injunction or commission applied to all the apostles. It is clear that he considered that our Lord was dealing with apostolic, and not with primatial, jurisdiction. S. Augustine is very clear and express. In his treatise, De Agone Christiana, he is proving, in opposition to the Luciferians, that the Church is right in dealing mercifully with penitents. In the course of his argument he says, " Not without cause among all the apostles doth Peter sustain the person of this Church Catholic ; for unto this Church were the keys of the kingdom of heaven given, when they were given unto Peter ; and when it is said unto him, it is said unto all, ' Lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.'" 4 S. Augustine means that S. Peter, as being the apostle who was the special example of penitence, was fitly chosen to be the representative and first in order among the rulers of the Church, which has ever dealt mercifully with penitents. He represented the Church when the keys were given to him, so that it was the Church which really received them ; and similarly it was to the Church and to "all" her rulers that our Lord was really speaking when He said, " Feed My sheep." It was no solitary papal power that was then communicated, but the pastoral authority which belonged first to the apostles, and afterwards to the bishops. Again, in his forty-seventh homily on S. John's Gospel, S. Augustine says, " Understand, then, how the Lord Jesus Christ is both Door and Shepherd : Door, by opening Himself; Shepherd, by entering in through Himself. And indeed, my brethren, as regards His pastoral office, He 1 S. Cypr. Ep. Ixviii. ad Stephanum, 4, Opp., ii. 747. 2 For a full account of the circumstances under which this letter was written, and for the reason why S. Cyprian asked Pope Stephen to interfere, see pp. 55-58. * S. Cypr., De Unit. Eccl., 4, Opp., i. 212, note. 4 S. Aug., De Agone Christiana, cap. xxx., Opp., ed. Ben., vi. 260. On S. Augustine's teaching about S. Peter as the symbol of the Church, see pp. 101-103. III.] " PASCE OVES ME AS." 123 hath imparted it to His members also : thus Peter too is shepherd, and Paul shepherd, and the other apostles shepherds, and good bishops shepherds. But Door, none of us calleth himself; this He hath kept proper to Himself, the way by which the sheep enter in." x In S. Augustine's view the pastoral authority is common to all the apostles, and to their successors the bishops. 2 It does not occur to him to refer to the popes as having a pastoral authority of a higher sort. It need hardly be added that when, in his homilies on S. John's Gospel, S. Augustine reaches the last chapter, and comments on the Pasce oves, he says not a word about any authority in S. Peter over the other apostles, nor about any primatial jurisdiction in the Roman see. Strange, that when treating expressly of what is supposed by many Ultramontanes to be the fundamental proof-text of the papal power, he should so completely ignore an institution which, from their point of view, is " the principal matter of Christianity " ! 3 Passing to the Greek Fathers, I begin with S. Chrysostom. There are two passages in the treatise which has ever been considered S. Chrysostom's masterpiece, 4 the De Sacerdotio, in which he makes clear how he understood the Pasce o-ves. In the first chapter of the second book the saint is showing that the undertaking of the burden of the episcopal office is the greatest evidence of love to Christ. He naturally bases his argument on S. John xxi. 15-17, and he says, "It was not Christ's intention [by the words, ' Feed My sheep '] to show how much Peter loved Him, because this already appeared in many ways, but how much He Himself loves His Church ; and He desired that we should all learn it, that we also may be very zealous in the same work. For why did God not spare His Son and Only-begotten, but gave Him up, although he was His Only One ? That He might reconcile to Himself those who were His enemies, and make them a people for His own possession. And why did He pour forth His Blood ? To purchase those sheep whom He committed to Peter and to his successors"** (TO?? /uer' fKewov). I follow Mr. Allnatt in translating rots /uer' fKewov by " to his successors" Those words give the sense very accurately and 1 S. Aug., in Joh. Evang. tract, xlvii., Opp., ed. Ben., torn. iii. pars ii. col. 608. 2 I add in a note two more passages from S. Augustine, which bring out with great clearness the thought that what was enjoined on S. Peter in the Pasce oves was equally enjoined on all the apostles. In his 2g6th sermon, preached on the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, he discusses at some length our Lord's word, by which He commended His sheep to Peter. Then he adds, " That which was commended to Peter, that which was enjoined on him, not Peter only but also the other apostles heard, kept, observed, and chiefly the Apostle Paul, the partner of his death and of his festival (Opp. S. Aug., ed. Ben., v. 4199). And in the previous sermon, the 295th, he says, "The Lord commended to Peter himself His sheep to feed. For not he alone among the disciples merited to feed the Lord's sheep ; but when Christ speaks to one, unity is commended ; and [He speaks] to Peter first (primitus), because among the apostles Peter is first " (Opp., v. 1195). This last passage exactly expresses S. Augustine's view, as I have described it on p. 1 18. 3 See Bellarmine, quoted on p. 98. 4 Compare Tillemont, xi. 14. 5 Opp. S. Chrys., ed. Ben., i. 372. ' Allnatt's Cathedra Petri, 2nd edit., p. 43. Mr. Allnatt's book is a 124 APPENDIX C. [HI. idiomatically. It is amusing to notice how Mr. Allnatt prints these words in capital letters, evidently imagining that of course S. Peter's successors must be the popes. It is needless to say that S. Chrysostom knew nothing of papal successors of S. Peter in his primatial office. According to S. Chrysostom's teaching, the bishops generally were S. Peter's successors, as they were also the successors of the other apostles. The whole argument of the De Sacerdotio requires us so to understand the words ; and if further proof were needed, it would mani- festly appear from the fact that, when S. Chrysostom wrote this treatise, he neither was nor ever had been in communion with the Church of Rome, and in fact he remained outside of that communion for at least seventeen more years, perhaps for as many as twenty-six. 1 S. Chrysostom's object in the De Sacerdotio was to comfort and encourage his friend Basil, who had just been consecrated to the episco- pate. In the second chapter of the second book he says to Basil, " You are going to be set over all that is God's, and to do those things, in doing which [Christ] said that Peter would be able to outdo the other apostles ; for saith He, 'Peter, lovest thou Me more than these? . . . Feed My sheep.' " 2 It is evident from both these passages that S. Chrysostom held that our Lord, in saying, " Feed My sheep," was committing to S. Peter apostolical or episcopal authority. S. Peter's office was the same as Basil's office. Basil, as a bishop, was one of S. Peter's successors. The notion of papal or primatial jurisdiction over the other apostles does not occur to S. Chrysostom. But, though S. Chrysostom attributes no jurisdiction over the other apostles to S. Peter, he fully recognizes his primacy of order, his leader- ship ; and as a loyal son of the Church of Antioch, which was accustomed in the fourth century to look on S. Peter as its founder, he often employs his great rhetorical powers in eloquently setting forth that leadership. But it will be found that he knows well how to magnify the primacy of order without suggesting a primacy of jurisdiction. This comes out markedly in his eighty-eighth homily on S. John's Gospel, which also throws light on his interpretation of the Pasce oves. S. Chrysostom begins that homily thus : " There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to shew us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high is tender care for oitr neighbour. And this, therefore, Christ requireth of painstaking but very unscholarly catena of patristic passages, which, as he supposes, are favourable to the Roman claims. The book may be of great use to any one who has the opportunity of testing the passages by investigating their context and meaning. To other persons such an uncritical performance can only be a snare and a delusion. J The De Sacerdotio may have been written as early as A.D. 372. S. Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome until he became Bishop of Constantinople in A.D. 398. Compare pp. 365, 366. 2 Tiafft fj.f\\cav kirtffT^fffffQm TOV 0eoG TOIS vird.pxov?jv cbroo-roA.coj' vTrtpaKovrdrat roiis \oiirovs. IleVpe yap r]i\tts fj.f ir\f'iov rovrtav ; . . . iro(/j.aivf TO irpdpard fj.ov (S. Chrys., De Sacerd., lib. ii. cap. i. 90, p. 13, ed. Bengel, Lipsiae, 1872). Dr. Rivington (Dependence t p. 1 8) has quoted the passage, but has mistaken its meaning. III.] " PASCE OVES ME AS." 125 Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, ' Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed My sheep.' And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters ? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band ; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than of the others." * So far S. Chrysostom has been speaking of the inculcation of the duty of showing tender care for our neighbour, which our Lord pressed upon S. Peter by His injunction, " Feed My sheep," and perhaps also by His question, " Lovest thou Me more than these ? " S. Chrysostom holds that this lesson was pressed on S. Peter rather than on any of the other apostles, because he was the leader. Notice how all S. Chrysostom's expressions about S. Peter in his relation to the other apostles set forth a primacy of honour, and say nothing about government or jurisdiction. The fervent preacher then passes on from our Lord's inculcation of the lesson of love to another aspect of His words. By them, as he supposes, Christ imparted or rather revived S. Peter's pastoral commission. The homily proceeds thus : " And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, He [our Lord] putteth into his hands the rule over the brethren (TV irpoos. The Dominican Mamachi (Orig. et Antiq. Christ., i. 6, quoted by Mr. Allies in his Throne of the Fisherman, p. 73, note i) says, " Invaluit praeterea apud nostros noraenfratntm, quod est a Christo servatore in Ecclesiam intro- ductum, itaque deinceps propagatum est, ut non modo ab Apostolis sed etiam a Christianis omnibus usurparetur." * S. Cyr. Hierosol. Catech., vi. 15, Opp., ed. Ben., 1720, p. 96. 3 S. Chrys. Horn. i. in Jok. Ev., \, Opp., ed. Ben., viii. 2. 4 Horn. Ixxxviii. 2, Opp., viii. 528. 6 Horn. xxv. in Ep. ii. ad Cor., 2, Opp., x. 614. 8 S. Cyril of Alexandria, in his commentary on Jacob's benediction of the Patriarch Dan, after saying that " the glorious and admirable choir of the holy apostles are set for the government of believers, and have been by Christ Himself appointed to judge," goes on to observe in reference to these same apostles, "We have had for governors, and have received for ecumenical judges (/cptras oiKovfif VIKOVS), the holy disciples " k (S. Cyril. Alex. Glaphyr. in Gen., lib. vii., Opp., ed. Aubert., 1638, torn. i. pars ii. pp. 228, 229). 7 So in his fifth homily, De Poenitentia, S. Chrysostom says, "After that grievous fall (for there is no evil so bad as denial), but yet after so great an evil He again restored him to his former honour and entrusted to him the care of the universal Church (TJJS oiKov^fvinrts eKK\rjff(a.s) ; and (what is greater than all), He showed to us that he had more love to the Master than all the apostles, for, saith He, 'Peter, lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Opp. S. Chrys., ed. Ben., ii. 3 11 )- III.] " PASCE OVES ME AS." if it were admitted, would affect the interpretation of the whole homily. Commenting on the words, " Peter, therefore, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following ; which also leaned back on His breast at the supper ; . . . and saith, Lord, and what shall this man do ? " 1 S. Chrysostom says, " Wherefore hath he reminded us of that leaning back ? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to shew us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, this very man was even entrusted with the rule over the brethren " (that is, as we have seen, was restored to his apostolic office), " and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concern- ing another. John is silent, but Peter speaks." S. Chrysostom is not guilty of the absurdity of attempting to prove that S. Peter had jurisdiction over S. John, because he put a question to our Lord about S. John. If there were any force in such an argument, it would follow that at the last supper, when S. John questioned our Lord at the request of S. Peter, S. John must have had jurisdiction over S. Peter, which no one has ever supposed. S. Chrysostom's point is that, after the complete forgiveness of S. Peter's denial and his full restoration to the apostolic office, he, to use S. Chrysostom's words, was " of good cheer," 2 and was filled with holy " boldness." Euthymius Zigabenus, who follows S. Chrysostom point by point in his commentary on this passage, 3 takes exactly the same view of the matter, and evidently understood S. Chrysostom's argument in the way in which I have tried to set it forth.* But to return to the point of main interest in regard to the Pasce oves, namely, the reason which moved our Lord to speak those words to S. Peter rather than to the other apostles. S. Gregory Nazianzen is very explicit. Speaking of S. Peter, he says, " Jesus received him, and by the triple questioning and confession He healed the triple denial." 5 But of all the Fathers S. Cyril of Alexandria is perhaps the fullest and the most satisfying in his treatment of this aspect of the subject. Commenting on S. John xxi. 15-17, he says, "When he [Peter] comes, Christ asks him more severely than the others, whether he loves more than they, and this took place three times. Peter assents and confesses that he loves, saying that He [Christ] is the Witness of his inward disposition. At each of his confessions separately he hears that he is charged with the care of the rational sheep. . . . Will not some one say with good reason, Wherefore did He ask the question of Simon only, although the other disciples were standing by ? And what is the mean- 1 S. John xxi. 20, 21. 2 See p. 125. 3 Migne's Patrol. Grace., cxxix. 1500. 4 It may be added, in general confirmation of the view which I have taken of S. Chrysostom's meaning in this homily, that the Benedictines decide that it was preached at Antioch, and therefore at a time when S. Chrysostom was out of communion with Rome (see pp. 365, 366). He cannot possibly have drawn from the Pasce oves the deductions which modern Roman Catholics draw from it, or he would not have been content to remain outside the flock, which, on their view, was being tended by the one divinely appointed universal shepherd, the necessary centre of communion. 5 S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxix. xviii., Opp., ed. Ben., i. 689. 128 APPENDIX C. [HI. ing of ' Feed My sheep,' and the like ? We say then that Saint Peter had already been appointed (/c6x e 'P OT< * J ''7 TO ) to the divine apostolate together with the other disciples : for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself named them apostles, as it is written. But when it fell out that the events connected with the plot of the Jews had come to pass, and in the meanwhile he had somewhat stumbled for Saint Peter, overwhelmed with excessive terror, thrice denied the Lord Christ heals the ill effects of what had happened, and demands in various terms the triple confession, setting this, as it were, against that, and providing a correction equivalent to the faults. . . . Therefore by the triple confession of blessed Peter the offence of triple denial was abolished. But by the Lara's saying, ' Feed My sheep] a renewal, as it were, of the apostolate already conferred upon him is understood to have taken place, wiping away the intervening reproach of his falls, and destroying utterly the littleness of sort I arising from human infirmity" J Nothing could be clearer or more consistent with the Gospel narrative, except that for myself I think it more probable that the " Feed My sheep " was rather an injunction to exercise the apostolate, which had already been renewed, than itself the act by which the renewal took place. But that is a minor point. The important matter is that S. Cyril holds that the pastoral office spoken of by our Lord, was not primatial, but apostolical, and that the whole incident was necessitated by S. Peter's fall, which had resulted in S. Peter's apostolate being, so to speak, suspended, on which account it needed to be renewed. Reviewing the whole of this discussion, it appears that, whether we study the passage as it occurs in S. John's Gospel, or whether we consult the comments on it to be found in the writings of the great Fathers of the Church, we find no trace of the papal interpretation. I verily believe that S. Leo invented that interpretation, or rather the germ of it. Whether he did or not, there is a consensus of the great Fathers in favour of the view that S. Peter had authority to feed the sheep and lambs of Christ's flock, because he was an apostle, and not because he had any primatial jurisdiction over the other apostles. In other words, the Anglican view of the passage is the Catholic view, and the Roman view is an un-Catholic view, and is in fact a grievous perversion of our Blessed Lord's meaning. On investigation, it appears that the whole of the supposed scriptural basis for the teaching of the Vatican Council about the pope's jurisdiction 2 collapses. 1 S. Cyril. Alex, in S. Joann., lib. xii. cap. i., ed. Phil. Pusey, 1872, iii. 164-166. * I have not discussed S. Luke xxii. 32, because the Vatican Council makes no reference to that passage in the first chapter of the Constitution De EcclesiA Christi, in which it sets forth what it considers to be the scriptural basis of its doctrine concerning the papal primacy of jurisdiction. Later on, in the fourth chapter of the same Constitution, the Council does quote S. Luke xxii. 32 in connexion with its teaching about papal infallibility ; but that is a subject on which in this book I do not enter. LECTURE IV. THE GROWTH OF THE PAPAL POWER FROM THE PEACE OF THE CHURCH TO THE END OF THE PONTIFICATE OF DAMASUS. IN the last lecture I tried to show how Holy Scripture bears witness against the notion that S. Peter received from our Lord any primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church. We have seen also in previous lectures how the great saints and rulers of the Church during the first three centuries repudiated the idea that the bishops generally were subject to the pope. On the other hand, we have seen how various causes combined to give to the Roman see a leadership in the early ages ; not a divinely instituted leadership, but a leader- ship growing up out of the circumstances of the time, and gladly accepted by the Church, as being for the time a useful arrangement. We have also seen how, by the gradual isolation of S. Peter in the minds of Roman ecclesiastics, as being the supposed first occupant of the see of Rome, or else by the direct effect of the multiplication of copies of the Clementine romance, a link seemed to be provided connecting S. Peter's primacy of honour and influence, which was naturally recognized in him in virtue of his having been the first to be designated by Christ to the apostolic office, with that later primacy of honour and influence which, as the Council of Chalcedon said, was properly given by the Fathers to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. We have seen how, on at least two occasions during the first three centuries, the Roman popes advanced unjustifiable claims, and attempted to meddle authoritatively with churches not subject to their jurisdiction ; and how on the latter of these two occasions, the unhistoric theory that the see of Rome, as being the see of Peter, inherits S. Peter's privileges, whether real or supposed, was pleaded as a justification of the wrongful claim. K 130 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. We went on to notice how the Church, led by its great saints, resisted those attempts, and how in consequence the Roman bishops had to give way, and to content themselves with the primacy of honour which had been conferred upon them. We have also seen to what portentous lengths the popes have advanced, as time has gone on ; and what enormous authority they now claim, as of divine right, over the universal Church. Now, of course the development of this claim has a history; 1 and it will be my object in this lecture and in the next to set before you some of the stages in that development, and some of the historical circumstances in consequence of which the growth in the papal power became possible. I can only deal with the matter in a very imperfect way, owing to the limitations of time which necessarily restrict the length of a lecture ; and I propose to dwell specially on the earlier rather than on the later stages of the growth. I intend to point out from time to time indications of the continuance of 1 It may be well, in a note, to point out that the attempt uncanonically to transform privileges of precedence and honour into a far-reaching jurisdiction is by no means peculiar to the see of Rome. Other sees, which enjoyed from one cause or another a special pre-eminence of honour, did exactly the same thing. Fallen human nature is the same all the world over. Thus the second Ecumenical Council, by its third canon, gave to the Bishop of Constantinople " the prerogative of honour next after the Bishop of Rome." This was a grant of precedence, not of jurisdiction. Seventy years later the fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, gave by its twenty-eighth canon patriarchal jurisdiction to the see of Constantinople in Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. The way had been prepared for this new departure by a series of uncanonical acts of interference on the part of the Constantinopolitan prelates in the Church affairs of those three exarchates. Dr. Bright gives a summary account of these acts in his note on the ninth canon of Chalcedon (Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils , pp. 157- 160). Similarly, the Council of Nicaea, in its seventh canon, gave or rather confirmed to the see of Jerusalem a certain right of precedence, reserving, how- ever, to the Palestinian Caesarea its metropolitical dignity. As time went on, the Bishops of Jerusalem endeavoured to make themselves independent of Caesarea. " Immediately after the Council of Nicaea, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus, convoked, without any reference to the Bishop of Caesarea, a synod of Palestine, . . . and proceeded further to the consecration of bishops " (Hefele, i. 407, E. tr.). There was a "contest about precedency" between Acacius of Caesarea and S. Cyril of Jerusalem. Nevertheless as late as 415 John of Jerusalem obeyed the summons of Eulogius of Caesarea, and attended a provincial council at Diospolis. At the Council of Ephesus, in 431, Juvenal of Jerusalem put forward a monstrous claim, asserting that the Bishop of Antioch, who had patriarchal rights over all the provinces of Palestine, ought himself "to be subject to the apostolic see of Jerusalem " (Bright's Notes, pp. 23, 24). S. Leo tells us that an attempt was made to support this claim by the production of spurious documents (cf. S. Leon. Ep. cxix. cap. iv., P. L., liv. 1044). Some years afterwards a contest about this same claim was waged between the claimant Juvenal and Maximus of Antioch. At last the latter, weary of the controversy, agreed that the three provinces of Palestine should be released from their subjection to his see, and should con- stitute a new patriarchate, of which the Bishop of Jerusalem should be the head ; and this arrangement was finally sanctioned by the Council of Chalcedon. It is only fair to the popes that the uncanonical aggressions of their brother patriarchs should be chronicled. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, 13! the earlier and truer teaching, which has never died out, and which we can have no doubt that God will preserve and guard in His Church unto the end. But, in passing from the Church of the first three centuries to the Church of the fourth and subsequent centuries, we must bear in mind the great change which took place in the whole condition of the Church in consequence of the conver- sion of Constantine to Christianity, and all that followed therefrom. I cannot attempt to describe that change, but its magnitude can hardly be exaggerated. One may say with S. Jerome that "the Church under the Emperors was greater in power and wealth, but she was less in virtues " (potentia et divitiis major, sed virtutibus minor 1 ). Or, perhaps, still more accurately, one may say with the late Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln, " In the ante-Nicene age the world had been arrayed against the Church ; but in the next period the world worked in the Church ; and it caused more injury to the faith [and, one may add, to Christian life] than when arrayed against it." 2 To put plainly what is implied in Bishop Wordsworth's statement, the world broke into the Church and established itself there, and has remained there ever since. No doubt there were all along tares mingled with the wheat The Church of the first three centuries was never, except perhaps on the day of Pentecost, in an absolutely ideal condition. But yet, during the ages of persecution, the Church as a whole was visibly an unworldly institution. It was a spiritual empire in recognized antagonism with the world-empire. But from the time of the conversion of Con- stantine, A.D. 312, and still more completely from the time of Theodosius the Great (A.D. 379-A.D. 395), the Church and the world seemed, in some respects at any rate, to have made terms with each other. The world, without ceasing to be the world, was no longer outside, but had been admitted within the sacred enclosure. And that Roman world of the fourth century, what a detestable world it was ! On this point Christian writers of every school seem to be agreed. The fervent and eloquent Roman Catholic, Montalembert, quotes and adopts the words of the Protestant Guizot, who says, " The sovereigns and the immense majority of the people had embraced Christianity ; but at bottom civil society was pagan ; it retained the institutions, the laws, and the manners of paganism. It was a society which paganism, and not Christianity, had made." 3 Montalembert adds that "this 1 In Vitd Malcki, I, P. L., xxii. 53. 2 Church History, ed. 1882, ii. 3. 3 Guizot, Histoire de la Civilization en France, lect. ii., quoted in Montalem- bert's Monks of the West (English trans., 1861, i. 263). See also Additional Note 56, p. 477. 132 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. paganism . . . was paganism under its most degenerate form. . . . Nothing," he says, " has ever equalled the abject condition of the Romans of the empire. . . . With the ancient freedom, all virtue, all manliness, disappeared. There remained only a society of officials, without strength, without honour, and without rights. . . . We must acknowledge that in this so-called Christian society, the moral poverty is a thousand times greater than the material, and that servitude has crushed souls more than bodies. Everything is enervated, attenuated, and decrepit. Not a single great man nor illustrious individual rises to the surface of that mire. Eunuchs and sophists of the court govern the State without control, experiencing no re- sistance but from the Church." These last words guard Montalembert's meaning. 1 He is speaking of civil society which was now nominally inside the Church ; but, side by side with this Christianized paganism, the Church still handed on the glorious traditions which had been bequeathed to her by the age of the martyrs. Though it may be true that the civil society of the fourth and fifth centuries produced no great men, yet the hierarchy of the Church produced a galaxy of heroes. Let me name only five, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, and S. Augustine. A religious institution which can produce such splendid names is un- doubtedly still full of life ; but nevertheless the Church, which had admitted the world within her precincts, was in a very different condition from the Church during the first three centuries of her existence. Speaking of the great saints of the post-Nicene epoch, Montalembert says, "That long cry of grief, which echoes through all the pages which Christian writers and saints have left to us, strikes us at once with an intensity which has never been surpassed in the succession of time. They felt themselves attacked and swallowed up by pagan corruption. Listen to Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Salvian especially ; listen to them all ! They denounced the precocious decay and disgraceful downfall of the Christian people, who had become a prey to vice. They saw with despair the majority of the faithful precipitate themselves into the voluptuousness of paganism. The frightful taste for bloody or obscene spectacles, for the games of the circus, the combats of the gladiators, all the shameful frivolities, all the prostitutions of persecuting Rome, came to assail the new converts, and to subjugate the sons of the martyrs. . . . However great a margin we may leave for exaggeration in these unanimous complaints, they undoubtedly prove that the political victory of Christianity, far from having assured the definite triumph of Christian principles in the world, had 1 Montalembert, op. cit n pp. 264, 269, 271, 272. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 133 provoked a revival of all the vices which the Christian faith ought to have annihilated." 1 It was impossible for the effects of this decay of Christian life to be confined to the ranks of the laity. That decay necessarily also affected many of the clergy, and even of the bishops. There were, no doubt, in that age many saintly bishops, priests, and deacons. But there were also time- serving bishops, worldly bishops, courtier bishops, heretical bishops, ambitious and haughty bishops. The Emperors set the example of giving immense donations of lands and money to the churches, especially to the great churches in the principal cities of the empire ; and, most of all, these gifts were lavished on the primatial church in Rome, the capital city of the civilized world. And the example of the Emperors was followed by all classes of society. The property of each church, or at any rate the income, was at the disposal of the bishop for the time being ; and so it came to pass that, especially in the more important churches, the office of bishop became an object of ambition for worldly-minded men. A pagan historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, speaks of the great wealth which the Roman bishops owed to the donations of the matrons ; and he says that it ought not to be wondered at, that the candidates for the Roman episcopate were ready to sacrifice everything to obtain it. The popes, he tells us, ride in chariots splendidly attired, and sit at a profuse, more than imperial, table. He goes on to say that it had been happy for them if they had followed the example of many of the bishops in the provinces, who, by their frugal and simple mode of life, commended their pure and modest virtue to the Deity and to all His true worshippers. Ammianus Marcellinus makes these remarks with special reference to the contests, and even bloodshed, which disgraced the Roman Church on the occasion of the election of Pope Damasus in A.D. 366. 2 Another pagan, Vettius Praetextatus, who was generally esteemed for the integrity of his life, and who occupied the high post of prefect of the city, used to say laughingly to Pope Damasus, " Make me Bishop of Rome, and I will become a Christian to-morrow." It is S. Jerome who mentions this fact. 3 We have a startling proof of the worldliness which had crept into the very sanctuary of the Church, in an edict of the Emperor Valentinian I., addressed to Pope Damasus, which was publicly read in the churches of Rome. The Emperor " admonished the ecclesiastics and monks not to frequent the houses of widows and virgins ; 1 Montalembert, op. df., pp. 255, 256. * De Broglie, DEgKtt et F Empire Romain au iv* Sihle, part, iii. i. 40. 3 Lib. contra Joann. Jerosol., 8, P. L., xxiii. 361. 134 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV, and he menaced their disobedience with the animadversion of the civil judge. The director was no longer permitted to receive any gift, or legacy, or inheritance, from the liberality of his spiritual daughter ; every testament contrary to this edict was declared null and void, and the illegal donation was confiscated for the use of the treasury. By a subsequent regulation, it would seem," so Gibbon tells us, "that the same provisions were extended to nuns and bishops ; and that all persons of the ecclesiastical order were rendered incapable of receiving any testamentary gifts, and strictly confined to the natural and legal rights of inheritance." 1 Perhaps it will be said that this was an unfair and tyrannical enactment of the civil power. Let us, then, hear how S. Jerome comments on it. He says, in a letter to the priest Nepotianus, " The priests of idols, players, charioteers of the circus, harlots even, can freely receive legacies and donations, and it has been necessary to make a law excluding clerics and monks from this right. Who has made such a law ? the persecuting Emperors ? No ; but Christian Emperors. I do not complain of it. I do not complain of the law, but I complain bitterly that we should have deserved it. Cautery is good ; it is the wound which requires the cautery which is to be regretted. The prudent severity of the law ought to be a protection, but our avarice has not been restrained by it. We laugh at it, and evade it by setting up trustees." 2 S. Ambrose also refers to the law in terms, which imply that it was needed. 3 I think that I have said enough to show that the nominal conversion of the empire lowered the spiritual tone of the Church at large, and of the clergy no less than of the laity ; and undoubtedly it was in large cities like Rome that the poison of worldliness worked the chief harm. No doubt, in the earlier decades of the fourth century, the bishops, who succeeded one another in the Roman see as in other great sees, had received their training during the ages of persecution ; but as time went on the Church was more and more governed by bishops who had been brought up in the full sunshine of worldly prosperity. The bishops were elected by the clergy and people, and if the tone of the clergy and people gradually deteriorated, such deterioration would be sure in the end to show itself in the character of those who were chosen to fill the episcopal thrones. It is obvious that the process of deterioration would not go on 1 See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap, xxv., Murray's edit., 1862, iii. 253. 2 Ep. Iii., 6, P. Z., xxii. 532. Compare S. Jerome, by the Rev. E. L. Cults, chap. xi. 3 S. Ambros. Ep. xviii. ad Valentinianum, 13. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 135 with the same rapidity in all the leading centres of Church life. Some would be more sheltered from evil influences ; others would be more exposed to them. It will, I think, be well to fix our attention specially on the Church of Rome, and to consider the characters of three popes who succeeded each other in that see, occupying it during the half-century which intervened between A.D. 337 and A.D. 385. These three pontiffs were S. Julius, Liberius, and Damasus. All that we know of Pope S. Julius, his steady support of S. Athanasius, and the friendship of that great man which he enjoyed, his letter to the Arianizing bishops of the East, his letter to the Church of Alexandria, his reputation throughout the Church in the East as well as in the West, the absence of any charges against him, all combine to set him before us as worthy of the high position which he held. Pope Liberius comes before us with a less satisfactory record. There must have been something noble about the man, otherwise he could never have held his ground so heroically when he withstood the Emperor Constantius to the face, and, declining all gifts of money from his persecutor, went into exile at Beroea for two years, remaining firm in the confession of his faith in the Consubstantial, and in his fellow- ship with S. Athanasius. It seems, moreover, quite clear that Liberius was much beloved by his flock in Rome. But afterwards, as we all know, he failed. He yearned to get back to his beloved people. He withdrew his communion from S. Athanasius and put his signature to a document which compromised the faith. 1 Cardinal Baronius, whose opinion may safely be accepted in such a matter, con- jectures that his envy of the fortune of the rival pope Felix, and his longing for the adulation to which he had been used at Rome, were the Delilah that deprived this Samson of his courage and strength. 2 Some time after his return to Rome Liberius recovered himself, and thenceforth stood firm in his profession of the Nicene faith. But I think that Ammianus Marcellinus, who was a contemporary, implies that Liberius 3 must have sanctioned and used the grandeur and luxury which he, the historian, attributes to the Roman bishops, because it was, in his opinion, the desire 1 I have discussed the subject of Liberius' fall in Appendix G, pp. 275-287. 2 Baronii Anna//., s.a. 357, xli., ed. 1624, iii. 761, 762. 8 If we are to believe what S. Jerome tells us in his Chronicon, the clergy of the Roman Church, in the time of Liberius, were in a very unsatisfactory condition. Among the entries in the Chronicon, for the year 352, occurs the following state- ment : "When Liberius was driven into exile on account of the faith, all the members of the Roman clergy swore that they would acknowledge no other bishop. But when Felix was intruded into the episcopate by the Arians, most of the clerici perjured themselves" (P. L., xxvii. 685, 686). These words of S. Jerome are also to be found in S. Prosper's Chronicon (P. L., li. 578, 579). 136 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. for such things which led the two competitors for the Roman see, when it was rendered vacant by the death of Liberius, to proceed to such disgraceful extremities of tumult and blood- shed. The pontificate of Liberius coincided with a very critical time in the history of the Church, and it cannot be said that, taken as a whole, his pontificate was worthy of the exalted position which he occupied. Damasus, the successor of Liberius, began his episcopate most unhappily. In the riots between his partisans and the supporters of his rival Ursinus, 137 persons were killed in one 'day, and others died afterwards of their wounds. We cannot say for certain that Damasus was responsible in whole or in part for this terrible scandal, although, according to the statement of his opponents, he led his followers on to the attack. It seems in any case clear that the slaughter was committed by his supporters, even if he in no way sanctioned it. It was surely a terrible thing to mount an episcopal throne through streams of human blood. One cannot help feeling that a saint, even if personally innocent, would have resigned all claim to the see under the circumstances. Ammianus Marcellinus divides the blame equally between the two competitors. 1 Passing on from this unhappy com- mencement, there can, I think, be no doubt that Damasus was accustomed to use a great deal of worldly pomp and luxury. The words of Ammianus Marcellinus and of Praetextatus have been already quoted, and their witness harmonizes with certain observations of S. Basil. That great saint, writing about a projected visit of his brother, S. Gregory Nyssen, to Rome, says, " For my part, I do not see who are to accom- pany him, and I know that he is entirely without experience in ecclesiastical matters ; and, while he would be sure to meet with respect and to be valued by a considerate person, I know not what advantage could arise to the whole Church from the intercourse of such a one as he, who has no mean adulation in his nature, with one high and lifted up " (he, of course, means Damasus 2 ), " sitting- on I know not how lofty a seat, and so not able to catch the voice of those w/w tell him the truth on the ground" 3 S. Basil here describes Pope Damasus as a haughty, inconsiderate person, who expected to be addressed in a tone of flattery. S. 1 Mr. Barmby (Smith and Wace, D. C. B., iv. 1069), speaking of Ammianus Marcellinus, says that "though not a Christian," he "writes of the Christians in a friendly spirit, and shows no bias on the one side or the other of the contest between Damasus and Ursinus." See also Additional Note 57, p. 477. z Tillemont (ix. 225) says, " C'est & dire visiblement avec le Pape Damase, dont S. Basile parle i9i." 3 Ep. ccxv. ad Dorotheum Presbyterum, Opp. S. Basil., ed. Ben., 1730, torn. iii. p. 323. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, 137 Jerome, speaking of the Roman clergy in the time of Damasus, paints in vivid colours the pride of the deacons, and the foppishness and avarice of some of the priests. 1 Altogether one feels that, however it may have been before, in the time of Damasus a spirit of worldliness had got hold of a large number of the Roman clergy of all orders. It is easy to see that a worldly clergy presiding over a very wealthy church, which, by the consent of all, enjoyed a primacy of honour in relation to the whole Church, which not long before had had its jurisdiction enlarged by the action of the Council of Sardica, 2 and even in ante-Nicene times had made unwarrantable claims, would be likely to exaggerate their own pre-eminence and to initiate a policy of aggression on other churches less favourably situated. This is exactly what happened. But before we proceed to consider that policy and the various ways in which it showed itself, it will be desirable to recall certain events which took place earlier in this fourth century, and throw light on our general subject. In the year of our Lord 325, the first Ecumenical Council was summoned by the Emperor Constantine to meet at Nicaea. It is important that we should realize what were the relations in which S. Silvester, the Bishop of Rome, stood to that great gathering, which represented the whole Catholic Church. If S. Silvester was the infallible monarch of the Church, and was so recognized,- his sovereign position ought to come out clearly in the history of the council. But, as a matter of fact, it does not appear that S. Silvester had any- thing to do with the convoking of the council. It was con- voked by the Emperor, and there is no particle of proof that he consulted S. Silvester before convoking it. 3 Nobody attributes any share in the convocation of the council to the pope until the end of the seventh century three centuries and a half after the event. Neither is there any reason to suppose that S. Silvester presided in the council, either per- sonally or by his legates. Eusebius, speaking of Silvester, says, " The bishop of the imperial city was absent on account of his old age, but presbyters of his were present and filled his place." 4 These presbyters were two in number, Vincentius and Vito (or Victor), but they neither signed first nor were they the chief presidents. To use Cardinal Newman's words, " Hosius, one of the most eminent men of an age of saints, was president" 5 Hosius was Bishop of Cordova, in Spain, and was the prelate who had the greatest influence 1 Cf. S. Hieron. Ep. xxii. ad Eustachium, 28, P. L., xxii. 414. 2 See pp. 140-144. 3 See Additional Note 58, p. 477. * De Vil. Const., iii. 7. 5 The Arians of the Fourth Century, 3rd edit., 1871, p. 257. 138 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. with the Emperor, and he was probably appointed by the Emperor to preside. 1 Some Ultramontanes suppose that he presided as the chief legate of the pope ; but none of the early historians speak of him as holding any such position. 2 Vin- centius and Vito (or Victor) are the only legates whom they mention. Gelasius of Cyzicus, at the end of the fifth century, is the first to suggest the idea that Hosius was also a legate ; but Gelasius' authority is of the weakest. 3 We may safely say that Silvester neither convoked the council, nor presided in it by his legates, 4 and that the council was not confirmed by him in any special way. In one sense, of course, each bishop who was absent from the council, and who accepted its decisions, confirmed it by that acceptance. But the decision of the council was enforced on the Arian heretics without anybody waiting to find out whether the pope agreed or disagreed with what had been done. 5 If Silvester was the infallible monarch of the Church, he certainly adopted the strangest methods of asserting his infallibility and sovereign authority. He simply said nothing about either of them, but behaved just as he ought to have behaved if he was the first bishop in the Church and nothing more. But the Council of Nicaea throws light in other ways on the position of the Roman see. In the sixth canon there is a reference to the Church of Rome. In that canon the council decreed as follows : " Let the ancient customs prevail, namely, those in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis : that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these, since the same is cus- tomary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and other provinces, that the privileges be secured to the churches," 6 etc. This canon ratifies the ancient custom that the Bishop of Alexandria should retain his fulness of jurisdiction over 1 Even the Ultramontane Ballerini consider that it is most probable that it was by the Emperor's orders that Marinus of Aries presided at the Council of Aries in A.D. 314 (cf. Ballerinor. Obss. in Dissert, v. Quesnell., pars ii. cap. v. 4, P. L., Iv. 608). See also Additional Note 59, p. 480. 2 .E.g. Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen. * Cardinal Newman (Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, p. 84) says, "Gelasius est auctoritate tenui." Mr. Venables says that "his work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozo- men, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue " (see Smith and Wace, D. C. B. t s.v. " Gelasius " [13], ii. 622). Compare Mansi, ii. 753 ; Coleti, ii. ill, 112; and Tillemont, vi. 675. * See Appendix D, pp. 166-172. s See Bossuet's Defensio, pars iii. lib. vii. cap. vii. Bossuet says concerning the dogmatic decree of the Nicene Council, " Facto Patrum decreto, adeo res transacta putabatur, ut nulla mora interposita, nullo expectato sedis apostolicae spedali decreto, omnes ubique terrarum episcopi, Christiani omnes, atque ipse imperator, ipsi etiam Ariani, tamquam divinojudicio cederent." 6 On the spurious addition to this canon, in which it is said that the Roman Church always had the primacy, see p. 382, and also the Additional Note 60, p. 480. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 139 the various provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. That jurisdiction was far-reaching, as I observed in a previous lecture. But the canon goes on to cite the case of the Roman see as parallel to the case of the Alexandrine see. It says, " since the same is customary for the Bishop of Rome." Rufinus, explaining this sixth Nicene canon, mentions that Rome had the care of the suburbicarian churches, 1 as Alexan- dria had of the Egyptian and Libyan churches. Rufinus 1 statement about the pope's sphere of jurisdiction no doubt expressed accurately the state of things in his own time (circa 400), but in the time of the Council of Nicaea the metro- political jurisdiction of the see of Rome extended over the whole of Italy. However, the point to be noticed is that the council says not a word about any Roman primacy of juris- diction over the whole Church. It puts side by side the privileges of the second see and the privileges of the first see. The bishops of both sees were powerful bishops powerful metropolitans if you will, powerful patriarchs, though it is practically certain that in the Nicene age the Bishop of Rome was not, strictly speaking, a patriarch with subject metropolitans. 2 But whatever they were, the nature of their authority was substantially the same. The canon perhaps implies a certain primacy in Rome, because it proposes Rome as, in a sort of way, the model ; but if a primacy is implied, it is obviously a primacy of honour, not a universal supremacy of jurisdiction. If that had been thought of, it would have been safeguarded. Moreover, if that had been thought of, Rome would hardly have been mentioned as a precedent for the limited jurisdiction of Alexandria. If you are discussing the privileges of this or that peer, you are hardly likely to illustrate your argument by referring to the prerogative of the king. But again the Council of Nicaea throws light on the question whether the see of Rome had a primacy of jurisdic- tion over all churches, by its decree in regard to appeals. The fifth canon allows persons who think that they have been unjustly excommunicated by their bishop to complain to the provincial synod, and the synod is to determine whether the 1 Cf. Rufin. H. E. t i. 6, P. Z., xxi. 473. In a certain ancient Latin version of the canons of Nicaea, published by Maassen, the first sentence of the sixth canon runs thus: "Antiqua per Aegyptum adque Pentapolim consuetudo servetur, ut Alexandrinus episcopus horum habeat sollicitudinem, quoniam et urbis Romae episcopo similis mos est, ut in suburbicaria loca sollicitudinem gerat " (cf. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des Canonischen Rechts, p. 905). This version was in use at Carthage in the fifth century, and has been attributed to Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage, who was present at Nicaea ; but for my own part I doubt if the version is earlier than the pontificate of Damasus (compare p. 434). 2 Cf. Tillemont, x. 790; and Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 30. 140 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. complaint is a just one, and to make some decree in accord- ance with its determination. Not a word is said about any appeal from the decision of the provincial synod, either to some greater synod, or to a patriarch, or to Rome. The provincial synod is set forth as the final authority for each province. Now, the Vatican Council decrees that because the Roman pontiff presides over the universal Church by the divine right of his apostolic primacy, therefore "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and recourse may be had to his judgement in all causes which pertain to the jurisdiction of the Church." Why did not the Council of Nicaea safeguard this divine right of its infallible monarch ? Is it not marvel- lous that on the very first occasion, when the whole Church has an opportunity of meeting together by representation in an Ecumenical Synod, the one matter, in which it seems to take no interest, is the divinely-given prerogatives of its head ? If it alludes to the Roman see in a casual way in its sixth canon, it is only to speak of its local rights as the metro- political see of Italy. Concerning any general powers belonging to Rome as the court of appeal for the whole Catholic Church, it preserves an absolute and, I must add, a significant silence. It is silent, not because it consciously repudiates the idea of Rome being such a court of appeal, but because the idea had not crossed the minds of the Saints and Fathers who composed the council. I cannot doubt that, if the idea had been presented to the synod, and if any claim on behalf of the pope had been urged as a matter of divine right, a repudiation of such claim would have been made in unmistakable terms. But, as a matter of fact, the claim was not made, and therefore the whole conception which underlies the Vatican decrees was ignored. From whatever point of view we regard that wonderful assembly, the first Ecumenical Council, we find in it a perpetual witness against the theory that modern papalism has any foothold in primitive tradition and practice. The Nicene Council set the seal of its ecu- menical approval on that system of Church government which was in use during the first three centuries, and for which the Church of England contends at the present day. We now pass from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Sardica (the modern Sophia), which was held eighteen years later, in A.D. 343. This council is of very great impor- tance in its bearing on our subject, because it really did give to the pope a certain measure of jurisdiction outside the limits of the churches of Italy. The council was intended to be an Ecumenical Council, and when it passed the canons to which I am alluding, it intended to give to the pope the right of receiving appeals from all parts of the Church, from the East IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 141 no less than from the West, As things turned out, the council was not accepted by the Church as ecumenical, and at the present day no one attributes to it that character. 1 Almost all the Eastern bishops, who had been summoned, withdrew in a body, and the council, as it was actually held, consisted of about ninety-five Western bishops and only six Easterns. Some of its acts were, within a very few years, accepted by a considerable portion of the Church, as, for example, its declaration that S. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza were innocent of the charges brought against them ; and also its deposition and excom- munication of the principal revivers of Arianism ; but the disciplinary canons passed by the council were not received in the East until the end of the seventh century, and even then many of their provisions were considered as applying only to the churches of the West. 2 But even in the West itself the canons were by no means universally received. In Africa, for example, they were not known in the earlier part of the fifth century. However, although these canons were by no means universally accepted, they are of very great importance in the history of the growth of the papal power. During the years which had elapsed since the Council of Nicaea, there had been a great deal of confusion in the Church. As we have seen, the Council of Nicaea decreed that the affairs of each province should be ad- ministered by the synod of that province ; no provision was made for any appeal to a higher authority than the provincial synod. But, as a matter of fact, appeals had from time to time been made to the Emperors, and they had committed the hearing of some of those appeals to such synods as they chose to convoke. Much trouble had arisen in conse- quence. The great S. Athanasius had been condemned on the most frivolous grounds by a Synod of Tyre, which had no sort of jurisdiction over him, except what it got from the Emperor, and twice he had been banished from his see by the imperial authority. He had been supported by Pope S. Julius of Rome, who had recognized the ecclesiastical nullity of the proceedings of his opponents, and the futility of the charges made against him, and had granted to him the communion of the Church of Rome. In fact, during all these eighteen years the Church of Rome had played a very good part. It had maintained loyally the Catholic faith as defined at Nicaea, 3 and it had supported the orthodox bishops who were suffering 1 Natalis Alexander, in the seventeenth century, argued in favour of the ecumenicity of the Sardican Council, but his assertion was condemned by the Roman censors (see Hefele's History of the Church Councils ; vol. ii. p. 176, English trans.). * 2 See the note on pp. 143, 144. * But see Additional Note 61, p. 480. 142 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. persecution at the hands of the Arianizing Emperors and of the Arianizing cabal of Eastern bishops who looked to Eusebius of Nicomedia as their ringleader. When compared with the confusion which reigned in the East, Rome and the West seemed a quiet haven of refuge. We need not wonder that a great Western council, such as the Council of Sardica was, should think that the time had come for providing some canonical method of appeal from the decisions of provincial councils, that should take the place of the uncanonical appeals to the Emperor, which had become frequent. And what could be more natural than to substitute an appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who enjoyed a primacy of honour which was recog- nized by the whole Church ? Not that the Council of Sardica intended that the Bishop of Rome should personally hear the appeal, but they proposed that, if, on being appealed to, he thought that a rehearing ought to be granted, he should have the right to appoint bishops who should hear the appeal. The council only proposed to grant this right of appeal to Rome in the case of a bishop, who should have been deposed by the synod of the province to which he belonged ; and part of their arrangement was that, if the pope chose to grant a rehearing and to appoint judges, he should be bound to nominate bishops from the neighbourhood of the province in which the case had arisen ; although he was also to have the power, if he chose to use it, of sending legates of his own to assist in the proceedings of the court of appeal. There was no thought of giving to the pope any right of evoking the cause to Rome. The appeal was to be heard out in the provinces, in the neighbourhood of the place where the cause had arisen. 1 Such were the main provisions of the famous canons of Sardica, 2 which conferred an appellate jurisdiction of a strictly limited kind on the Roman pope. Before dis- cussing the light which they throw on our general subject, it will be well to quote some of the clauses of one of these canons. In the third canon, " Hosius the bishop said . . . If any of the bishops shall have been condemned in any matter, and thinks that he has right on his side, and wishes that a new council should be convoked ; if it please you, let us honour the memory of S. Peter the apostle, and let the bishops who have judged the case [in the provincial synod] write to Julius, the Roman bishop, and if he shall determine in favour of a new trial, let there be a new trial, and let him appoint judges," etc. It seems most strange that Roman Catholics should refer with any pleasure to these canons of 1 See Additional Note 62, p. 481. 2 According to Hefele's numbering, they are the third, fourth, and fifth IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 143 Sardica. According to the view laid down by the Vatican Council, the supremacy of the pope belongs to him jure divino, and as a consequence of that supremacy every member of the Church, v/hether he belongs to the clergy or to the laity, has an inherent right of appealing to his judgement in any matter appertaining to the jurisdiction of the Church. But here we have the Fathers of the Council of Sardica carrying a resolu- tion, so to speak, in favour of the Roman see, and determining that, in honour of the memory of S. Peter, they will in certain rare cases give to the pope a very restricted right of deter- mining whether there shall be a rehearing, and of appointing bishops who shall form the court of appeal, and of deputing one or more legates to sit with them in that court 1 And all this is proposed by Bishop Hosius tentatively "si vobis placet" "if it please you." On the papalist theory, the whole proceeding must appear insufferably impertinent. It did not so appear to S. Athanasius and to the other Fathers of the synod, because they knew nothing of the theory which underlies the Vatican decrees. They thought that they were conferring an extraordinary privilege on the Roman see, by giving to it a certain measure of jurisdiction outside its own Italian domain, and that they were thus honouring the memory of S. Peter, whose successor Julius was reputed to be, and in some sense was. So they thought, and they were quite right. The new privilege which they then conferred was extraordinary. 2 Their intention was to add to the primacy of honour which the see of Rome already possessed, a primacy of jurisdiction of limited jurisdiction, no doubt, but still a primacy of jurisdiction, and one which should affect the whole Church. They failed in carrying out their full design, because these canons were never received in the East in such sense as to be applicable, without radical modifi- cation, to the East ; 3 and they were only received in certain 1 Papal legates, sent by the pope to take part in a synod held outside the sphere of his metropolitical jurisdiction, would not of necessity preside. At the great Council of Carthage held in May, 419, three papal legates were present, namely, a bishop and two Roman priests. But S. Aurelius of Carthage presided, Faustinus the episcopal legate sitting third, and the two priest-legates sitting last. There were 217 bishops present at the council. 2 Archbishop De Marca of Paris (De Concord. Sac. et Imp., VII. iii. 8) rightly says, "The words of the canon prove that the institution of this right was new. ' If it please you,' says Hosius of Cordova, the president of the council, ' let us honour the memory of S. Peter the apostle." He says not that the ancient tradition was to be confirmed, as was wont to be done in matters which only require the renewal or explanation of an ancient right." Compare also Dr. Bright's Roman See in the Early Church, p. 88, n. i. 3 The Sardican canons were included in the collection of John Scholasticus, the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, who was intruded by Justinian into the place of S. Eutychius ; and they received a certain recognition at the Trullan Council, along with other documents, more or less inconsistent with them, as, for example, the canons and letters of the Councils of Carthage in the time of S. 144 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. parts of the West. But in whatever Western provinces they were received, they had the effect of aggregating those provinces for certain purposes to what may now be called the Roman patriarchate. The ultimate effect of these canons was to revolutionize the whole theory and practice of ecclesiastical government, at any rate within the Latin portion of the Church. For here we have the first beginning of that which, in the course of ages, was enlarged by accretion and successful usurpation into that plenitude of power which, wherever it is acknowledged, makes the Church to be the bond-servant of the pope. Having thus considered the two great Councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Sardica (A.D. 343) in their bearing on our general subject, we are in a position to revert to the pontifi- cate of Damasus, who occupied the Roman chair from A.D. 366 to A.D. 384. I have already implied several times that this pontificate constitutes a fresh starting-point in the history of the growth of the papal claims. It was during the episco- pate of Damasus that a worldly spirit became very marked among many of the members of the clergy of the Roman Church. It was also during his time that, by legislative action on the part of the Emperors, a certain measure of coactive jurisdiction was conferred by the State upon the popes. My limits will not allow me to treat this branch of the subject in much detail, but I propose to illustrate my statement by reference to two imperial constitutions, one spontaneously promulgated by Valentinian I. at some date between 367 and 372, and the other promulgated by Gratian, 1 in response to the petition of a synod of bishops gathered from various parts of Italy, and held at Rome under the Aurelius, which expressly rejected the Sardican system of appeals. The later Greek canonists, finding them in some way sanctioned by the Trullan Council, interpret the canons which deal with the appeal to Rome as applying, in the letter, only to the churches of the West. They hold that, so far as they are applicable to the East, the appeal is to the see of Constantinople, which is new Rome (cf. Beveridge's Synodicon, i. 486, 489). But, when we pass from the theories of canonists to the actual practice of the Church, we find that the Sardican discipline about appeals was never carried out in the East. The Councils of Antioch, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, had worked out a totally different scheme of appeals, in which the pope does not appear at all. And the real fact is that it is very difficult to discover much trace of the actual carrying out of the Sardican system, even in the West, before the ninth century. Compare De Marca's De Concord. Sac. et Imp., lib. vii. capp. iv. et seqq. On the whole subject of the acceptance of the canons of Sardica in the East, see Appendix E, pp. 172-177. 1 Gratian's law is embodied in the rescript to Aquilinus, which begins with the words Ordinariorum sentential. It will be found in Migne's P. L. (xiii. 583, sqq.). Critical editions have been published by Meyer and Giinther. The petition of the synod of 382 begins with the words, Et hoc gloriae vestrae. It will be found in P. L. (xiii. 575, sqq.). IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 145 presidency of Damasus, towards the end of May or in June, 382. 1 Valentinian's constitution has unfortunately not come down to us, but it seems clear that its provisions have been summarized in the petition of the synod of 382. That synod declares over and over again that it is not asking for any- thing new, but only that the old law should be put in force, 2 and it implies that Gratian had in some way had a share in the enacting of that old law. As Gratian was made joint- emperor with his father, Valentinian, in 367, his name no doubt appeared along with his father's in the inscription of the law, so that, although his share in the making of the law was purely nominal, for he was a mere child when it was enacted, yet legally he was as much the author of the law as Valentinian was. The synod of 382, following no doubt the provisions of the earlier law of Valentinian, petitioned Gratian 3 to give 1 Pagi, Tillemont, Mansi, and others assign this Roman synod to the year 378. Merenda, Hefele, and Duchesne assign it to the year 380. In an Excursus on the date of this synod, to be found on pp. 510-528 of this volume, I have given reasons for thinking that the true date is the year 382. So far as my general argument is concerned, I am quite indifferent as to which of these dates is finally adopted. 2 In I of its petition (P. L., xiii. 576, 577) the synod, addressing the two Western Emperors, Gratian and Valentinian II., says, " When we were con- sidering what request it would be desirable to make to you on behalf of the churches, we were not able to hit upon anything better than that which you in your spontaneous forethought have already bestowed. We see that neither ought there to be any shame in asking, nor ought there to be any need for us to obtain by petition, favours which you have already granted. We see also that a series of imperial decrees plead on our behalf. For, as regards the equity of our petition, we succeeded long ago in obtaining the things which we are requesting ; but as regards the need of renewing our prayer, we have so entirely failed in obtaining the effect of the favours granted, that we desire to have them granted afresh." In 4 (col. 579) the synod says, " Idcirco statuti imperialis non novitatem sed firmitudinem postulamus." 3 For the convenience of the reader, I place side by side in this note those portions of the synodical petition and of Gratian's rescript, which deal with the subject of the trial of accused Western bishops, and with their rights of appeal. The text of the extract from the synodical petition is Migne's (P. L., xiii. 581). The text of the quotation from the rescript is taken, with one obvious correction, from Giinther's Vienna edition of the Collectio Avellana (Corp. Script. Eccl. Lat., vol. xxxv. pars i. pp. 57, 58). Extract from the Petition of the Roman Extract from Gratiarfs Rescript. Synod of $>*. "Volumus autem, ut, quicumque " Quaesumus clementiam vestram, ne judicio Damasi, quod ille cum concilio rursus in plurimis causis videamur quinque vel septem habuerit episco- onerosi, ut jubere pietas vestra digne- porum, vel eorum qui catholici sint tur, quicumque vel ejus [sc. Damasi], judicio atque concilio condemnatus erit, vel nostro judicio, qui catholici sumus, si injuste voluerit ecclesiam retentare fuerit condemnatus, atque injuste vel evocatus ad sacerdotale judicium voluerit ecclesiam retinere, vel voca- per contumaciam non esse, seu tus a sacerdotali judicio per con- ab illustribus viris praefectis praetorio tumaciam non adesse, seu ab illustribus Galliae atque Italiae auctoritate adhi- viris praefectis praetorio Italiae vestrae, bita ad episcopale judicium remittatur L 146 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. orders that, if any bishop, after being condemned either by Damasus' judgement or by the judgement of other Catholic bishops, should wish wrongly to keep possession of his bishopric, or if, when cited to be tried by his brethren, he should contumaciously refuse to come, he should be sum- moned to Rome either by the prefects of the praetorium of Italy, or by the vicarius of the city of Rome, and should be compelled to obey the summons ; or, if a case of this sort should arise in the more distant parts, that it should be committed to the examination of the metropolitan by the local courts of justice ; or, if the metropolitan should himself be the accused party, that he should be ordered to go with- out delay to Rome, or to such judges as the Bishop of Rome might appoint. The synod of 382 further asked that, if the condemned bishop should for any reason doubt the fairness of his metropolitan, or of any other of his episcopal judges, he should have the right to appeal to the Bishop of Rome, or to a synod of at least fifteen of the bishops of his neighbour- hood. The petition of the synod of 382 touched on many other matters, but there seems to be no need to confuse the reader by referring to any of them at present. The Emperor Gratian substantially granted the various points, which were thus brought before him by the petition- ing synod, and have been summarized above. He amended, however, the scheme set forth by the synod in two par- ticulars ; or it may perhaps be truer to say that, in regard to one of these points, he elucidated what was in the synod's mind by giving fuller details, and that it was in regard to the sive a vicario accitus ad urbem Romam sive a proconsulibus vel vicariis ad urbem Romam sub prosecu- bus hujusmodi emerserit quaestio, ad tione perveniat, aut si in longinquioribus metropolitani per locorum judicia de- partibus alicujus ferocitas talis emer- ducatur examen : vel si ipse metro- serit, omnis ejus causae dictio ad politanus est, Romam necessario, vel metropolitani in eadem provincia epis- ad eos quos Romanus episcopus ju- copi deducatur examen, vel, si ipse dices dederit, contendere sine dilatione metropolitanus est, Romam necessario jubeatur : ita ut qui depositi fuerint, ab vel ad eos quos Romanus episcopus ejus tantum civitatis finibus segregen- judices dederit, sine dilatione [the tur, in qua gesserint sacerdotium, ne Vienna edition has a misprint rela- rursus impudenter usurpent quod jure tione] contendat, ita tamen ut, qui- sublatum sit. Certe si vel metro- cumque dejecti sunt, ab ejus tantum politani, vel cujusce alterius sacerdotis urbis finibus segregent.ur, in quibus suspecta gratia vel iniquitas fuerit, vel fuerint sacerdotes. Mitius enim gravi- ad Romanum episcopum, vel ad con- ter meritos cohercemus et sacrilegam cilium certe quindecim episcoporum pertinaciam lenius quam merentur finitimorum ei liceat provocare." ulciscimur. Quod si vel metropoli- tani episcopi vel cujuscumque alterius sacerdotis iniquitas suspectatur aut gratia, ad Romanum episcopum vel ad concilium quindecim finitimorum episcoporum arcessito liceat provocare, modo ne post examen habitum, quod definitum fuerit, integretur." IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 147 other point only that he introduced a correction. The synod had spoken of bishops condemned by Damasus' judgement. The Emperor, either correcting or elucidating, 1 requires that five or seven bishops shall have been acting with Damasus, if a condemnation at Rome is to be treated as valid by the imperial authorities. As regards the other point, the synod, when dealing with the case of bishops living in the nearer regions, who should have been condemned, not at Rome, but by the judgement of Catholic bishops away from Rome, asks that if the condemned bishop contumaciously ignores the judgement passed upon him, or refuses to obey the citation of the ecclesiastical court, he shall be compelled to go to Rome. 2 Here the Emperor corrects the scheme proposed by the bishops. He implies very clearly that these recalcitrant bishops are to be compelled to present themselves before the episcopal tribunal, the authority of which they have slighted, wherever that tribunal might hold its sittings. 3 A very slight inspection of the petition of the synod and of Gratian's rescript, which was issued in response to that petition, will show that a great distinction was made both by the synod and by the Emperor between the bishops who lived in the nearer regions, and the bishops who lived in the more distant regions. To me it seems clear that we are to understand, by the nearer regions, the suburbicarian dioceses, which were governed by the comprovincials of the Roman bishop. The more distant regions would include the whole of the rest of the Western empire. 4 Neither in the petition nor in the rescript is any mention made of metropolitans in connexion with the nearer regions. Bishops in those regions are to be tried, in the first instance, either at Rome or by a synod of 1 It seems to me quite probable that the Emperor is merely stating explicitly details about the ecclesiastical tribunal at Rome, which the synod passed over in silence, because it took them for granted. The Emperor himself, when speaking further on of bishops appealing from the sentence of the court of their metro- politan to the Roman bishop, says nothing of any other bishops being conjoined with their Roman brother to form a court ; but it is obvious that, if the Roman patriarch could not act alone as a court of first instance, much less could he act alone in a case of appeal. 2 It was quite natural for the synod to ask that all these recalcitrant bishops should be compelled to go to Rome, because, as will be seen further on, they are dealing at this stage of their petition with bishops who were, all of them, suffragans of the Roman province. 3 Gratian says, " Seu ... ad episcopale judicium remittatur, sive ... ad urbem Romam sub prosecutione perveniat. " (See the quotation from the rescript, printed in note 3 on pp. 145, 146.) 4 In the first two editions of this book I upheld the view that the rules for the trial of bishops, contained in Gratian's rescript, applied to the bishops of the whole Western empire, but that the similar rules in Valentinian's earlier law, which appear also in the Roman petition, applied only to the bishops of Italy and Illyricum. I have explained in the Additional Note 66 (pp. 487, 488) why I have abandoned the opinion which I formerly maintained in regard to the limited scope of Valentinian's law. 148 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [IV. Catholic bishops assembled elsewhere. But in the more distant regions bishops under accusation are to be remitted by the local magistrates to the court of the metropolitan. Now, in the suburbicarian regions, during the fourth and fifth centuries, there do not appear to have been any metro- politans. Throughout those regions the Bishop of Rome, and he alone, exercised metropolitical jurisdiction. 1 Yet in Sicily certainly, 2 and very probably also in Sardinia and Corsica, all of which were suburbicarian, local synods were held. Even as late as the time of S. Gregory the Great (590-604) there was no metropolitan in Sicily, 3 though Sicilian synods were convoked every year. 4 But outside the subur- bicarian regions there were metropolitans in some provinces, and in other provinces the senior bishop acted as quasi- metropolitan. Thus in the province of Proconsular Africa the Bishop of Carthage was metropolitan. In North Italy, during the time when Gratian was the acting Emperor of the West, S. Ambrose of Milan was metropolitan ; and even earlier, when Valentinian I. spontaneously promulgated the constitution, which Gratian revived in 382, there is good reason to think that Auxentius, the predecessor of S. Am- brose, was recognized by the Emperor as metropolitan. 5 In the north-east corner of Italy, that is to say in Eastern Venetia 1 It is true that Ravenna was raised to metropolitical rank, no doubt by the combined action of the Emperor and the Roman pope, either during the epis- copate of John Angeloptes, that is to say, between 430 and 433 a view which seems to be confirmed by a passage in the H2th epistle of Theodoret or during the episcopate of S. Peter Chrysologus, that is to say, between 433 and 449, as seems to be implied in the I75th sermon of Chrysologus. But, although Ravenna was itself a suburbicarian see, the suffragan sees of its newly-formed province were, all of them, outside the northern boundary of the suburbicarian circumscription. Duchesne (Origines du Culte Chrttien, 2' le edit., p. 30) says, " Le pape demeura le seul metropolitan! reel de 1'Italie peninsulaire et desfles." 2 Cf. S. Athan. Ep. ad Afros, i, Opp., ed. Ben., 1777, i. 712 ; and Socrat. H. ., iv. 12. 3 Cf. S. Greg. Magn. Registr., lib. ii. ep. vii., P. L., Ixxvii. 543, 544. * Cf. S. Greg. Magn. Registr., lib. i. ep. i., P. L., Ixxvii. 443. In Sardinia, in S. Gregory's time, Caralis (or Calaris) had already become a metropolitical see (cf. S. Greg. Magn. Registr., lib. i. ep. xlix., and lib. iv. ep. ix., P. L., Ixxvii. 512, 676). In the second of these letters S. Gregory directs the metropolitan, Januarius, to convoke the bishops of his province to a synod twice a year, in accordance with the canons and with the local custom. 5 Bacchinius (De JEccl. Hierarch. Origin. Dissertat., edit. 1703, pars 2 da , pp. 346, 347), after snowing that there is no reason for thinking that S. Dionysius of Milan (352-355) was a metropolitan, says, " Auxentio Ariano Mediolanensi sedi incubante, late haeresis virus per Italiam, dioecesim videlicet Vicarii Italiae, serpit, et circumpositos episcopos a Catholica Romanaque communione avulsos, occasione data, et suos pseudo-conventus celebrasse, et ab Auxentio ordinatos fuisse, verisimillimum, immo pene certum sit." There is no trace of Milan having been erected into a metropolitical see on the accession of S. Ambrose. He seems to have inherited his metropolitical jurisdiction ; and he could not have done this if the metropolitical status of the see had not been previously recognized by the Emperor and by the Bishops of Rome, who had originally been metro- politans over all Italy. Compare p. 434. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 149 and Histria, and perhaps in some of the neighbouring pro- vinces of Western Illyricum, it is highly probable that during the whole of this period the Bishop of Aquileia was exercising metropolitical jurisdiction. 1 In Spain there is positive proof of the existence of metro- politans in the year 38 5, 2 and as no hint is given that the system of metropolitans was of recent introduction, one may well suppose that the establishment of that system preceded the rescript of Gratian, and possibly even the constitution of Valentinian I. Five provinces were included in the European portion of the civil diocese of Spain, namely, Baetica, Cartha- ginensis, Tarraconensis, Lusitania, and Gallaecia. It is probable that in 385, and for some time previously, the bishops of each of these provinces had been headed by a metropolitan. The province of Mauritania Tingitana belonged also to the civil diocese of Spain, but ecclesiastically it seems to have formed part of the African province of Mauritania Caesariensis. Passing from Spain to Gaul, we find that at the time when the Council of Turin was held, that is to say in the year 398 or thereabouts, Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles, was in the habit of consecrating all the bishops of the province of Narbonensis Secunda. Mgr. Duchesne thinks that the metropolitical or quasi-metropolitical status of the see of Marseilles was by no means of recent institution, but that it must be traced back to the fact that the Church of Marseilles was the mother-church of Narbonensian Gaul, and that in particular the churches of Narbonensis Secunda had been founded by missionaries sent forth directly from the mother- church. Outside of Narbonensis Secunda and the immediate surroundings and dependencies of Marseilles, there does not appear to be any trace of metropolitical organization in any part of Gaul until about the year 398. Similarly in Britain 3 and in Western Illyricum 4 there seem to have been no metropolitans. In provinces, which were not subject to any metropolitan, it is probable that a certain right of initiative was vested in the senior bishop of the province. 5 He would convoke 1 For evidence tending to show that the see of Aquileia had metropolitical status during the larger part of the second half of the fourth century, see the Additional Note 63, p. 481. 2 See the Additional Note 64, p. 485. 3 Compare Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Eccl. Documents, i. 142 ; and Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrttien, 2 de edit., p. 31. 4 One must except those parts of Western Illyricum, if there were any, which may have been included in the province of Aquileia. 5 Duchesne (Pastes Episcopaux, i. 115) says, "II faut se rappeler que la preseance du doyen [i.e. the senior bishop] parait bien avoir etc, en Gaule comme 150 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. councils and preside over them ; and in particular cases fuller powers may have been conceded to him. Such was eminently the case in all the North African provinces, except the Proconsularis. That province alone had, as we have seen, a real metropolitan, namely the Primate of Car- thage. In the other provinces, subject to the Carthaginian primacy, the senior bishop had well-defined powers. Thus it would seem that, during the pontificate of Damasus, when the two previously mentioned imperial con- stitutions, regulating the trial of bishops, were enacted, the first by Valentinian and the second by Gratian, there were metropolitans established at Milan, and in all probability also at Aquileia in North Italy, at Marseilles in the south- eastern corner of Gaul, at Carthage in Africa, and at Tarraco and four other cities in Spain. 1 It would therefore appear that, when the Roman synod of 382 in its petition, and the Emperor Gratian in his rescript, spoke of the longinqitiores partes y they certainly included under that category Africa, Spain, North Italy, and that portion of Gaul which borders on North Italy. It follows that the nearer regions must be identified with the suburbicarian provinces, which were immediately subject to the metropolitical jurisdiction of the Roman see. This result is confirmed by the fact that the Roman synod, when dealing with the nearer regions, asks that the law may be enforced either by the Prefects of the praetorium of Italy or by the Vicarius, that is the Vicarius Urbis? If the nearer regions had extended beyond the ailleurs, la plus ancienne forme de 1'autorite au sein du corps episcopal. Les doyens sont anterieurs aux metropolitains." 1 Whether the metropolitical system was established in Spain so early as the date of the publication of the constitution of Valentinian may perhaps be doubted. I cannot prove that it was not established by that time. 2 In order that the reader may be in a position to understand more clearly both the synodical petition and the rescript ot Gratian, I think it well to set forth in this note the g: eater divisions into which, for purposes of civil administration, the Western Empire was apportioned during the reigns of Valentinian I. and Gratian (A.D. 364-383). Strictly speaking, there were in the West, during the greater part of the period with which we are dealing, three praetorian prefectures, namely, (i) the prefecture of Italy, (2) the prefecture of Eastern Illyricum, and (3) the prefecture of the Gauls. But though there were for the most part three prefectures, there were from 364 to the end of 381 only two pre- fects, viz. the praetorian Prefect of Italy and the praetorian Prefect of the Gauls. For from 362 to January 379, the Prefect of the praetorium of Italy administered the two prefectures of Italy and Eastern Illyricum ; and after the division of the empire between Gratian and Theodosius in 379, the prefecture of Eastern Illyricum fell to the share of the Eastern Emperor, and therefore ceased to pertain to the West. Subordinate to the Italian Prefecture were the diocese of Western Illyricum, the vicariate of Italy (that is, of Northern Italy), the vicariate of Rome (that is, in other words, the suburbicarian provinces), and the diocese of Africa. Subordinate to the prefecture of Eastern Illyricum, which, as we have seen, was in fact administered by the Prefect of Italy, were the diocese of Dacia and the diocese of Macedonia. Subordinate to the prefecture of the Gauls were the diocese of Britain, the diocese of the Gauls (that is, Northern Gaul), the diocese IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 151 suburbicarian provinces, it can hardly be doubted that other officials, such as the Vicarius Italiae or the Vicarius Africae, would have been mentioned. The next point which presents itself for consideration relates to the question how far the jurisdiction of the Roman see was enlarged by these legislative acts of Valen- tinian and Gratian. It does not appear that the power of the pope was in any way enlarged in the matter of summon- ing ordinary bishops to Rome to be tried there in a court of first instance. He no doubt possessed that power through- out the suburbicarian vicariate before the time of Valentinian, and the new laws did not extend the area in which that power could be exercised. But these new laws did give to the pope two new powers which he certainly did not possess before. For in the first place, the pope was made master of the judicial process by which all accused metropolitans throughout the West were to be tried. He might either have them summoned to Rome to be tried there, or he might appoint judges before whom they would have to be tried elsewhere. And in the second place, ordinary bishops throughout the Western Empire, who had been tried in the first instance away from Rome by the provincial synod or by some local synod of bishops, might, if they chose, appeal either to the pope or to a synod of fifteen bishops having sees in their neighbourhood. These powers were new ; * for before the erection of Milan into a metropolitical see, which was certainly later than the Council of Sardica, there was only one fully recognized metro- politan in the whole West besides the pope, and that was the Primate of Carthage ; 2 and it is quite certain that the African of the Five Provinces (that is, Southern Gaul), and the diocese of Spain. Some of these divisions were administered directly by the prefects, others were administered by the vicars of the prefects. Thus there was a Vicar of Italy, a Vicar of Rome, a Vicar of Africa, a Vicar of Macedonia, a Vicar of Britain, and a Vicar of the Five Provinces. The province of Proconsular Africa was administered by the Proconsul of Africa, who was directly responsible to the Emperor ; and similarly the diocese of Spain was, as it would seem, administered from about 370 to 383 by the Proconsul of Spain, but previously by a vicar. Thus in the West there were, from about 370 to 379, besides the prefects, six vicars and two proconsuls. From 379 to 383 there were five vicars and two proconsuls. Early in 383 the Spanish proconsulate was abolished, and the diocese of Spain was once more administered by a vicar. After that there were in the West, besides the prefects, six vicars and one proconsul. I have discussed questions connected with the civil administration of Spain in the Additional Note 65, p. 485 ; and I have shown elsewhere (see pp. 525-527) that between 382 and 386, both inclusive, the Italian prefecture was administered by two joint-prefects acting together collegialiter. 1 I except from this statement the right of appeal to the pope from local synods in Sicily and Sardinia, and other places within the suburbicarian vicariate. 2 The authority of Marseilles over its daughter-churches involved a right to consecrate their bishops ; but we have no proof that the Bishop of Marseilles claimed full metropolitical jurisdiction before the end of the fourth century, when 152 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. Church did not recognize any inherent right in the pope of trying the Bishop of Carthage. When in 312 the synod of seventy Numidian bishops, under the presidency of the Primate of Numidia, Secundus of Tigisis, deposed Caecilian of Carthage, and so began the Donatist schism, no one either then or during the whole of the subsequent controversy brought it as a charge against those bishops that they were usurping the functions of the pope, in having taken upon themselves to try to condemn a metropolitan. The pope himself, so far as we know, never made any such claim ; and S. Miltiades must have made the claim, if it had been a just one, when the whole matter was referred by Constantine to himself and eighteen other bishops, who met in council at Rome in the year 313. If the pope had really had an exclusive right of trying Caecilian, either in person or by judges commissioned by him, how could S. Augustine, addressing the Donatists, have written as he does in his letter to Glorius, Eleusius, and others ? In that letter he says, " Perhaps you will say that Miltiades, the Bishop of the Roman Church, along with the other bishops beyond the sea, who acted as his colleagues, had no right to usurp the place of judge in a matter which had been already terminated by seventy African bishops at a council, in which the Primate- bishop of Tigisis presided. But what will you say, if Mil- tiades, in fact, did not usurp this place ? For the Emperor, having been petitioned [by the Donatists], sent bishops to sit with him as judges, with authority to decide the whole matter in the way which seemed to them just." 1 Evidently it had never occurred to S. Augustine that Miltiades, as Bishop of Rome, had an inherent right to try Caecilian, as the metropolitical system was being introduced into Gaul ; nor have we any reason to think that the other provinces of Gaul yielded any precedence to Marseilles as being a metropolitical see. When in the fifth century Pope Zosimus (417-418), acting on the lines of Gratian's rescript, summoned the saintly Proculus of Marseilles to appear before him, that holy man very properly treated the summons with contempt. He neither went to Rome nor excused droits de metropolitan!. saint homme, en relations d'amitie avec tous les promoteurs de la vie religieuse, avec les disciples de saint Martin, avec saint Jerome, qui le considerait comme un miroir de perfection, avec saint Honorat, le fondateur de Lerins, qu'il essaya de retenir a Marseille, avec le celebre Cassien, qu'il parvint a garder aupres de lui. Fort de sa conscience et de ses illustres amities, il laissait passer Forage. Peut- etre eflt-il bien fait de montrer un peu plus de deference a 1'endroit du siege apostolique. Mais il faut dire a sa decharge qu'il ne lui etait pas facile de contre- balancer a Rome et a Ravenne le credit de son collegue d' Aries [this was the detestable simoniac and intriguer, Patroclus], 1'ami, le conseiller du pape Zosime et le favori du vice-empereur Constance. . . . Zosime ne vit done venir de Marseille ni soumission ni explications." One may add that Proculus persevered in his attitude, and that after Zosimus' death, he was left in peace by Zosimus' successors. 1 S. Augustin. Ep. xliii. cap. v. 14, P. L., xxxiii. 166. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 153 being one of his subject metropolitans. He justifies Miltiades' action entirely on the ground that he had received authority from the Emperor, who had himself had the matter put into his hands by the action of the Donatists. In an earlier paragraph S. Augustine sketches the line which Secundus of Tigisis ought to have taken, if he had wished to show that he was a real lover of peace. Instead of hurrying on a con- demnation of Caecilian and his consecrators, he should have urged his more extreme followers to " betake themselves to our brethren and colleagues, the bishops of the churches beyond the sea, and to present to them, in the first place, a complaint concerning the conduct and contumacy of the accused [i.e. of Caecilian and his consecrators], as having, through consciousness of guilt, declined to appear before the tribunal of their colleagues in Africa." l It would, of course, be mockery to put such advice into the mouth of Secundus, if every one knew that Caecilian had a right to be tried in Rome rather than in Africa. Caecilian had refused to appear before the synod of Numidian bishops, not because any law or custom required that he should be tried in Rome, but because, as S. Augustine says, " he perceived or sus- pected" that the Numidian bishops "were biassed by his enemies against the real merits of the case." 2 I am bold to say that there is no reason for supposing that it was an ancient custom for accused metropolitans in the West to be tried by the pope, or by judges nominated and commissioned by him. What evidence there is points in the opposite direction. The two laws of Valentinian and Gratian created a new jurisdiction, and annexed that jurisdiction to the Roman see. There is no trace of any such arrangement, either in the Nicene or in the Sardican canons. 3 So far as the trial of accused metropolitans is concerned, it is not true to say, as Dr. Rivington says, that the imperial legislation " simply supplied legal facilities for executing the judgements of the episcopate, which were arranged in accordance with rules already established by its own action, as, for instance, at Sardica or Nice." 4 As I have already observed, the legislation of Valentinian and Gratian conferred a second new power on the pope. It 1 S. August. Ep. xliii. cap. iii. 8, col. 163. 2 Ep. xliii. cap. iii. 7. 3 There being no generally recognized metropolitans in the Latin-speaking portion of the Church at the time of the Council of Sardica, except the Bishops of Rome and Carthage, metropolitans are not mentioned in the Latin edition of the Sardican canons ; whereas they are mentioned in.the Greek edition of the sixth and fourteenth of those canons ; but those two canons contain no provisions specially subjecting metropolitans to the see of Rome. 4 Prim. Chzirch, p. 237. 154 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. gave to him the right of receiving and hearing the appeals of condemned bishops, appealing to him from the adverse decision of any of the provincial synods of the West. This was new. 1 It is not until the Council of Sardica that we find any Western canons dealing with appeals from the sentence of a provincial synod, As we have already seen, the Council of Sardica allowed a condemned bishop to appeal to Rome, but did not allow his appeal to be heard at Rome. If the Roman Bishop thought that the case ought to be reheard, he might, according to the rule laid down at Sardica, write to the bishops living nearest the province where the condemnation had taken place, and request them " to in- vestigate the matter thoroughly, and to give sentence in accordance with the truth." 2 He might also, if he pleased, send priests of his own, representing himself and clothed with his authority, who would assist at the rehearing, and might in some cases be allowed by the local bishops to preside at it. 3 Hefele, who tries to make out the best possible case for the Roman claims, admits that the canons of Sardica do not allow the pope to hear at Rome appeals from provincial synods. 4 But this further step is taken by the new laws of Valentinian and Gratian, who therefore in this matter also enlarged the powers of the Roman see. I think that one may fairly say that the right of judging the metropolitans of the West, and the right of receiving and hearing episcopal appeals from the sentences of those metropolitans, constitute between them a combination of rights which may be fittingly styled a patriarchal jurisdiction. No doubt it was usual for patriarchs to enjoy other preroga- tives, as for example that of consecrating the metropolitans of their patriarchate ; but it was not until the thirteenth century that this patriarchal privilege was claimed by the popes. 5 Even the minor right of sending the pall to all the metropolitans of the patriarchate did not become generally established in the West until towards the end of the eighth 1 Heretics and schismatics, who had been condemned by churches at a distance, often came to Rome, hoping to persuade the rulers of the Roman church to receive them back into communion. But in earlier times they were told that they were asking for something which could not be granted. Compare the case of Marcion, described on p. 198 ; and see S. Cyprian's strong words repudiating all right of appeal from Africa to Rome, in the case of the schismatic followers of Fortunatus and Felicissimus, quoted on p. 53. 2 See the fifth Sardican Canon (Hefele, E. tr., ii. 119, 120). 3 It should be noted that in 419 the papal legates were not allowed to preside at the Council of Carthage. The bishop-legate sat third, and the two priest- legates sat last, below the 217 African bishops who attended the council. 4 See Hefele, ii. 116-128. * See the glosses on the chapters " Quia igitur," " Qui in aliquo" and "Pudenda" (Gratian. Decret., pars i. dist. Ixiii. c. ix. ; dist. Ii. c. 5; pars ii. causa xxiv. qu. i. c. 33). IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 155 century. 1 As regards the summoning of patriarchal synods, I know of no instance of such a proceeding on the part of the pope during the times anterior to the rescript of Gratian. 2 In those earlier times the Roman see had always been the head of the West. It was the only Western apostolic see. It was being continually consulted, as being for the West the great repository of apostolical traditions. Moreover, the pope was, as a rule, the representative and spokesman of the West in all dealings with the East. But all this honour and influence did not amount to what in later times would be called patriarchal jurisdiction. The germ of such a jurisdiction was created by the Council of Sardica ; and a substantial instal- ment of the fulness of such jurisdiction was conferred on the Roman see by the Emperors Valentinian and Gratian. 3 The Eastern patriarchates were created by the synodical legisla- tion of the Church. 4 The Roman patriarchate was really created by the Emperors. No doubt the provisions of the final rescript of Gratian had been sanctioned by the council cf Italian bishops, which met at Rome in May or June, 382. But an Italian council had no power to speak in the name of the churches of Gaul, or of Africa, or of Britain, or of Ireland, and therefore it is no wonder that the new patriarchal jurisdiction, claimed by Rome, met with a determined re- sistance both in Africa and in Gaul, and that it was ignored in Britain and Ireland. As we shall see, it needed further imperial legislation before this new jurisdiction was really accepted in Gaul. It was repudiated by the African Church in the time of S. Augustine ; and centuries would have to elapse before the Celtic Churches of Great Britain and of Ireland 5 bowed their necks to the Roman yoke. Ecclesiastically, the new legislation, so far as it applied to countries outside of Italy, was null and void. Still, it was 1 See Dom Ruinart's Disquisitio Historica de Pallia Archiepiscopali, cap. xi., in the Ouvrages Posthumes de D. Jean Mabillon el de D. Thierri Ruinart, edit. 1724, torn. ii. pp. 457-460. 2 The Roman council, over which Pope Damasus presided in 371, was attended by 93 bishops from Italy and Gaul; but it was a council held "ex rescripto imperiali" (cf. Coleti, ii. 1043), and therefore it affords no proof that Damasus was accustomed to convoke the bishops of the whole West to assemble in patriarchal synod. 3 On the question whether Gratian enlarged the jurisdiction given to the Roman bishop by Valentinian, see the Additional Note 66, p. 487. 4 Compare the second canon of the second Ecumenical Council (Hefele, ii. 354, 355), and also the sixth canon attributed to the same council (Hefele, ii. 363-365), but really emanating from the Council of Constantinople of the year 382. Com- pare also the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon (Hefele, iii. 410, 411), and the action by which the Council of Chalcedon created the patriarchate of Jerusalem (Hefele, iii. 382). 5 Ireland was outside the limits of the Roman empire, and therefore in that country the new Roman patriarchate had not a basis even in civil legislation. It was not until the twelfth century that the Irish Church became Romanized. 156 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. law, and the powers given to the pope were capable of being enforced by the whole might of the Roman empire. Was I not right in saying that the pontificate of Damasus forms a new point of departure in regard to all matters connected with the growth of the papal jurisdiction? I sometimes think that the Roman pontiffs, having acquired this vast extension of jurisdiction by the act of the civil power without any proper concurrence of the Church, were driven to devise some presentable theory which should constitute a religious basis for the new authority which they had acquired. Their vague claim to be successors of S. Peter would be an obvious basis to put forward. That claim, in the sense in which they made it, being really unhistorical and baseless, there could be no definition of the privileges conferred by it, either in Scripture or tradition. This absence of authoritative definition would leave them free to plead their succession from S. Peter as a religious basis for a jurisdiction derived from the Emperor. Whether Damasus did so plead it I cannot say, but I find in the decretals of Siricius, the successor of Damasus, a new way of speaking about the privileges supposed to be inherited by the Roman see from S. Peter. I must, however, finish what I have to say about Damasus before passing on to Siricius. In January, 379, the Emperor Gratian joined Theodosius to himself as a partner in the government of the empire, and he assigned the East to Theodosius, while he reserved the West as his own immediate share. The empire had been divided in this way on previous occasions, but Gratian's partition did not proceed exactly on the old lines. Hitherto, as a rule, Eastern as well as Western Illyricum had belonged to the West. Now Gratian gave up Eastern Illyricum and united it to that part of the empire, which he was com- mitting to Theodosius. 1 Damasus saw very clearly that there was great danger that Eastern Illyricum would pass away from his sphere of influence, or rather (to use what after the legislation of the Council of Sardica and of the Emperor Valentinian would be the more accurate expression) from his jurisdiction, unless something was done to safeguard his rights. We may be certain that, though eighteen years later the Catholic Council of Sardica seems not to have been known to S. Augustine, 2 and though thirty-nine years later the Sardican canons were unknown to the bishops of the African Church generally, yet both the council and its canons were 1 Tillemont (Hhtoire des Empereurs, ed. 1701, torn. v. pp. 716-718) shows that Gratian gave Eastern Illyricum to Theodosius, when he made him Emperor, i.e. in 379. Compare Duchesne (Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 41). 2 Cf. S. August. P.p. xliv. cap. iii. 6, P. L., xxxiii. 176. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 157 well known in 379 in Eastern Illyricum. Sardica is itself situated in Eastern Illyricum, and three of the Sardican canons x dealt with local matters connected with the Church of Thessalonica, the most powerful see in Eastern Illyricum. Moreover out of 77 bishops present at Sardica, whose sees are known, 42 came from Eastern Illyricum. 2 If the canons of Sardica were in force there, then undoubtedly Damasus had a certain jurisdiction of a limited kind in the Eastern Illyrian provinces. 3 But besides the jurisdiction conferred by the canons of Sardica, there was the newer and much fuller jurisdiction conferred by Valentinian. Damasus would be very loth to lose those fair provinces out of his patriarchate. 4 At the same time, it would not be very easy for him to interfere otherwise than exceptionally in the affairs of provinces which belonged to the Eastern Emperor. He therefore gave a commission to Acholius, Bishop of Thessa- lonica, creating him his vicar in Eastern Illyricum, and authorizing him to exercise the powers which belonged to himself as Patriarch of the West. 5 This was the first instance of the popes attempting anything of this kind. Until the Council of Sardica there would have been no ground for such action, because up to that time the popes had no jurisdiction of any sort or kind outside of Italy. But the legislation of Valentinian L, confirmed later on by that of Gratian, had made Damasus a very great potentate, a sort of spiritual prefect of the praetorium throughout the West ; and as the prefects had their vicars, so the popes would think that it was natural for them to have vicars also. Accordingly Acholius of Thessalonica was empowered by Damasus to exercise whatever jurisdiction he, the pope, possessed in the provinces of Eastern Illyricum. 6 1 Namely, the sixteenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth, according to Hefele's numbering. 2 Compare Gwatkin's Studies in Arianism, p. 121, note I. 3 It is worth mentioning that one of the Sardican canons on appeals to Rome, namely, the fourth, was proposed by a bishop of Eastern Illyricum, Gaudentius of Naissus in Dacia. 4 Cf. Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 41. 5 If Damasus had thought that there was any possibility of making good a claim to universal jurisdiction over the whole East, there would have been as much necessity for him to create vicars in Egypt and Syria and Asia Minor as in Eastern Illyricum. 6 The proof of this statement may be seen in the letters of Pope Innocent I. to Anysius and Rufus, two successive bishops of Thessalonica, in which he confirms to Anysius and imparts to Rufus vicarial powers over Eastern Illyricum, and refers to the similar action taken by his predecessors, Damasus, Siricius, and Anastasius, in favour of Acholius, the predecessor of Anysius, and of Anysius himself (cf. Coleti, Concilia, v. 845, 846). The letters of Damasus to Acholius and Anysius, to which Innocent here refers, are lost ; for the two letters of Damasus to Acholius, which were read at the Roman Council under Boniface II., in A.D. 531, have 158 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. While the see of Rome was thus enlarging the bounds of its jurisdiction in the West by the help of the imperial power, its relations with the East remained unchanged, so far as jurisdiction was concerned. No doubt the East was conscious that a great ecclesiastical power was rising in the West, but it was a power to which it owed no allegiance, but only the debt of Christian brotherhood and charity, and the respect due to the see which had the primacy of honour. The attitude of the East towards Rome comes out very clearly in connexion with the schism of Paulinus at Antioch. The origin of that schism goes as far back as the year 330, or the beginning of 331, when S. Eustathius, the orthodox Bishop of Antioch, was deposed on false charges of Sabellianism and immorality, by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and other bishops, who sympathized in varying degrees with Arianism. The Emperor Constantine banished S. Eustathius from Antioch ; but before departing, Eustathius enjoined on his people the duty of patiently continuing in the Church of Antioch, even though Arianizing bishops might be set over them. They were to remain and strengthen the faith of the poor and uninstructed, and to do what they could to resist the wolves who would otherwise ravage the flock. 1 S. Chrysostom, who tells us this, adds that events showed the wisdom of the saint's counsel, for the great mass of the Catholics refused to set up any separate conventicles, but attended the principal churches of the city, even when the bishops thrust in by the Arianizing Emperors were here- tical ; and so the flock remained Catholic, though it had a succession of heretical chief pastors. 2 At last, by the good providence of God, a saintly and orthodox bishop, Meletius, who had formerly occupied the see of Sebaste in the Lesser Armenia, was appointed Bishop of Antioch. Catholics and nothing to do with this particular subject. The original letter from Siricius to Anysius is also lost, but a second letter referring to some of the contents of the first is extant (cf. Coleti, ubi supr.}. Duchesne, in an article entitled L'lllyricum eccUsiastique (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, erster Band, p. 543, 1892 ; see also his Eglises Separ&s, p. 259, edit. 1896), seems to pass over the action of Damasus in this matter, and to suppose that the vicariate of Thessalonica was created by Siricius. I do not understand how the clear statement of Pope Innocent can be got rid of; but, whichever view is finally adopted, my argument remains unaffected. 1 Cf. S. Chrys. Horn, in S. Eustathiwn, 4, Opp. ^ ed. Ben., ii. 609. 2 Tillemont (x. 524) says that these Arianizing bishops of Antioch "were not visibly separated from the communion of the universal Church, and most of them concealed their heresy somewhat." However, Stephen and Eudoxius were openly heretical. The former was anathematized by name at the Council of Sardica, as being "one of the heads of the Arian heresy." And S. Hilary, in his Lib. contr. Constantium Imp. (cap. xiii., P. Z., x. 591, 592), describes the horrible blasphemies which he heard Eudoxius utter in the church at Antioch, while he was bishop there. Baronius (Annall., ad ann. 362, xlii., edit. 1654, iv. 24) calls Eudoxius " haerelicorum omnium scelestissimus." IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 159 Arians united in electing him, the Arians supposing him to be Arian, and the Catholics having reason to believe that he was Catholic. In a sermon, preached soon after his election, he plainly declared his sentiments, and openly professed the Catholic faith in its fulness in the presence of the Arian Emperor Constantius. Now, it happened that there was a small body of ardent Catholics in Antioch who had, ever since the banishment of S. Eustathius, held aloof from the main body of the Antiochene Church, and had worshipped separately, having as their leader a worthy priest named Paulinus. There was, no doubt, much to be said in justifi- cation of the course which they took, although it was in opposition to the counsel of S. Eustathius, whom they specially professed to follow, and after whose name they were commonly called Eustathians. But now that at length the bishop, accepted by the great majority of the Church people in the city, was thoroughly Catholic, there was a splendid opportunity for healing the schism. However, Paulinus and his party still held aloof. A few months after Meletius had been enthroned in the episcopal chair, the very celebrated and very influential Council of Alexandria was held under the presidency of S. Athanasius. This council carefully considered the position of affairs at Antioch, and it recommended that the whole body of Catholics in that city should unite together. 1 It accordingly appointed a com- mission, headed by S. Eusebius of Vercellae, which was to proceed to Antioch and bring about the much-desired re- union. Unfortunately a hot-headed bishop from Sardinia, named Lucifer, who immediately afterwards broke away from the Church with his followers, reached Antioch before the commission sent by S. Athanasius and by the other Fathers of the Council of Alexandria. Instead of reuniting the two parties of Catholics, and inducing them all to acknowledge S. Meletius as bishop, which was obviously the right thing to do, 2 Lucifer consecrated to the episcopate Paulinus, the priest of the Eustathians. Thus the schism was made ten- fold more difficult to heal. Bishop was now pitted against bishop. But the blame of the accentuated schism, which ensued, must be laid on Lucifer who consecrated, and on Paulinus who allowed himself to be consecrated. This grievous scandal took place in the year 362. The great 1 Dom Montfaucon, the Benedictine editor of S. Chrysostom, in the Monitum to S. Chrysostom's homily De Anathemate (Opp. S. Chrys., ed. Ben., Venet., 1734, torn. i. p. 690), describes the action of S. Athanasius thus : " Athanasius in Synodo Alexandrina anno 362, totis viribus nitebatur, ut Eustathiani Meletianis adjunge- rentur, omnesque Catholici unum Meletium Episcopum agnoscerent." 2 See Cardinal Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century, 3rd edit., 1871, pp. 374, 375- l6o THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. majority of the orthodox Christians of Antioch were in the communion of S. Meletius, while a small minority followed Paulinus. Apparently for some years the Roman Church was undecided as to which side should receive her support ; but in the year 375 Pope Damasus plainly declared himself in favour of Paulinus, and wrote letters to him, treating him as the one Catholic Bishop of Antioch, and ignoring altogether the claims of S. Meletius. About a year later, in the latter half of 376 or early in 377, Pope Damasus went further, and allowed Peter of Alexandria to speak openly in his presence on a public occasion of S. Meletius and of the glorious S. Eusebius of Samosata as if they were Arian heretics. One cannot help seeing a certain analogy between the state of things in Antioch at that time and the state of things in England now. The Church of Antioch under S. Meletius numbered in its fold the great majority of those who held the Catholic faith, as the Church of England does at the present day. The minority of separatists under Paulinus had the support of Damasus and the Roman Church, and thus occupied a position in some way parallel to the Romanist communion in this country, though there can be no question that Paulinus would have rejected with horror the Vatican decrees, if they had been proposed to him for his acceptance. All the great saints of the Eastern Church, and above all S. Basil, supported S. Meletius. They were on the spot, they knew the facts, and they treated S. Meletius with the greatest veneration as a saint, and as the occupant of the apostolic throne of Antioch. 1 They communicated with him, although Rome ignored him ; they rejected the communion of Paulinus, although Rome supported him. Towards the end of the year 374, or thereabouts, before Damasus had entered into direct relations with Paulinus, a fresh complication added to the confusion. Vitalis, who had for many years worked as a priest under S. Meletius, became infected with the heresy of Apollinarius of Laodicea. He seceded from the communion of S. Meletius, and, drawing after him a considerable number of Catholics, he presided over them as their priest and pastor. Later on, in 376, Apollinarius consecrated Vitalis to be the Apollinarian Bishop of Antioch. Thus, from 374 onwards, besides the Arians under their bishop, Euzoi'us, there were three contending parties at Antioch, namely, the Catholics under S. Meletius ; 1 In the year 379 a great council of Eastern bishops was held at Antioch. One hundred and fifty-three prelates attended, amongst whom were S. Eusebius of Samosata, S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Eulogius of Edessa, and S. Gregory of Nyssa. As Tillemont (viii. 367) says, it was one of the most illustrious councils ever held in the Church. S. Meletius presided. The whole East accepted him as the rightful bishop, though he was rejected by the Church of Rome. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. l6l the Eustathians, who also were orthodox, under Paulinus ; and the Apollinarians under Vitalis. About a year before the secession of Vitalis, there had arrived in Antioch a young layman, twenty-seven years old, who was destined to play an important part in the history of the Church. His name was Jerome. He was a Latin, born in Dalmatia, but catechized and baptized at about the age of twenty in Rome. He was a member of the local Roman Church, and had formed his conceptions of the position of the Roman Church in Rome itself, where, as I have said, he received his instruction in Christianity. He came to Syria to practise the ascetic life, and he established himself among the monks of the desert of Chalcis. After he had stayed among these monks for some little time, he began to find his position uncomfortable, on account of the disputes at Antioch. As a member of the Roman Church, he would be naturally drawn to sympathize with Paulinus, who was accustomed to speak of the One Hypostasis in the Trinity, which was the formula then used at Rome. But the monks would for the most part be in communion with S. Meletius, who was the bishop generally recognized at Antioch and in the East. They no doubt used the formula of the Three Hypostases, which prevailed in the East, and which later on was accepted also in the West. S. Jerome therefore wrote a curious letter to the pope, asking for directions as to what he was to do. Any one who is acquainted with S. Jerome's writings knows that he is a writer who never minces his words. He is apt to exaggerate. He throws himself violently into one side of a disputed ques- tion, and perhaps a few years afterwards he throws himself with equal violence into the opposite side of the same ques- tion. God forbid that I should even seem to depreciate the many noble qualities and noble gifts which he possessed ; but no one is faultless, and S. Jerome would have been the last person to claim faultlessness for himself. 1 Certainly, if ever there was a case when a man might be excused for exagge- rating the authority of the Roman see, such an excuse might be pleaded on behalf of S. Jerome. A Latin, living in the East, and suffering continual personal annoyance arising out of the religious divisions of the East, he might well turn to Rome, the church of his baptism, which was living in com- parative quiet, and was basking in the sunshine of the world's 1 Ultramontane writers make no scruple about pointing out S. Jerome's faults, when it suits them to do so. The Jesuit, Father Bottalla, in his treatise on the Infallibility of the Pope (edit. 1870, p. 185), speaking of S. Jerome, says, "This holy Doctor's tendency to give too ready credence to unauthorized rumours is well known. Thus, as is pointed out by Zaccaria, he represents S. Chrysostom as an Origenist, and he adopts the falsehoods spread abroad by the adherents of Paulitius to the prejudice of S. Meletius of Antioch." M 1 62 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. favour, and was supporting faithfully the traditional teaching of the Church, and might seek for direction from the great pontiff who ruled in the capital of the empire and, in S. Jerome's view, had succeeded to S. Peter's own bishopric. Practically, at the time when S. Jerome wrote, the whole West was Catholic, and Rome was the centre of the West ; while the East was suffering persecution from an Arian Emperor, and was split and divided and weakened. Twenty years before, when Pope Liberius had given way, and had surrendered the Nicene formula, 1 and when, shortly after- wards, the Western bishops were deluded into signing an Arian creed at the Council of Ariminum, no one would have looked to the pope or to the West for trustworthy guidance. Then S. Athanasius stood alone against the world. But things were altered now, and S. Jerome wrote in his perplexity to Pope Damasus as follows : " Since the East tears into pieces the Lord's coat, . . . therefore by me is the chair of S. Peter to be consulted, and that faith which is praised by the apostle's mouth ; thence now seeking food for my soul, whence of old I received the robe of Christ. ... I speak with the successor of the fisherman, and the disciple of the Cross. I, who follow none as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with thy blessedness, that is, with the see of Peter. On that rock the Church is built, I know. Whoso shall eat the Lamb outside that house is profane. If any one shall not be in the ark of Noah, he will perish when the flood prevails. ... I know not Vitalis [the Apollinarian] ; I reject Meletius ; I am ignorant of Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with thee scattereth ; that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist." 2 As far as I know, in all the writings of the Fathers during the first four centuries, this passage stands alone. Of course, no Catholic would dream of departing from the general teaching of the Fathers in order to adhere to the exaggerated statements of one young man who was in sore perplexity. 3 We can make excuses for him, we can try and 1 Hefele admits that Liberius " renounced the formula 6/j.oovo-ios," and that he " renounced the letter of the Nicene faith " (History of the Church Councils, vol. ii. pp. 235, 246, Eng. trans.). See also Appendix G, on Sozomen's account of Liberius' fall (pp. 275-287). 2 Ep. xv. ad Damasum, 2, P. L., xxii. 356. This letter was probably written about Easter in the year 375 (see pp. 311-313). 3 That he was a young man appears clearly from his own statements. Three or four months before he wrote the above-quoted letter to Damasus, he had written a letter (Ep. xiv. ) to his friend Heliodorus. Nineteen years afterwards he describes this letter to Heliodorus as having been written " dum essem adolescens, immo pene puer " (cf. Ep. lii. ad Nepotian.^ i, P. Z., xxii. 527). I have followed the Bollandists in assigning to the year 375 the letter to Heliodorus (cf. Acta SS., torn. viii. Septembr., pp. 444, 447). Vallarsi assigns it to the close of the pre- ceding year (cf. P. Z., torn. xxii. coll. li. et 29). It is, moreover, to be noted that in his preface to the Book of Daniel S. Jerome speaks of his early studies in IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 163 see how he ever came to use such words, but we unhesitatingly set them aside as exaggerated and unworthy. If they are taken literally and accepted, we must say that all the glorious Eastern saints of that age were living in deadly sin. They were supporting those who were " profane ; " they were com- municating with those who were " not in the ark," and who were off " the rock." Take S. Basil as an example. He was the great leader of the Catholic army of the East ; fighting a tremendous battle with heresy ; undoubtedly the most heroic man of his time. Not a comparative novice like S. Jerome, who had only been baptized nine years before ; but a man in the maturity of his power, forty-six years old, the metro- politan of the great see of Caesarea in Cappadocia. He also had before him the same question to decide. Should he communicate with Meletius, whom Rome rejected, or with Paulinus, whom Rome supported ? He decided the ques- tion by communicating with Meletius and by rejecting Paulinus. It is doubtful whether the ideas expressed in S. Jerome's fine phrases had ever presented themselves to his mind. If they had, he had seen through their hollow- ness. Moreover, he had had some experience of what Pope Damasus was like, and whether he really was a rock from which the Church in the East might derive solid support. Over and over again he had written to Damasus to ask him, living, as he was, in comparative peace and quiet, to help the Eastern churches which were suffering persecution ; but very little was done, although much might have been done. It was proposed in the year 376 that fresh letters should be written to the West, to be sent by a zealous priest named Dorotheus. S. Basil, writing to S. Eusebius of Samosata, says, " For myself, then, I do not see what one should send by him, or how agree with those who send. ... It occurs to me to use Diomed's language [to Agamemnon in the Iliad about Achilles] : ' Would that thou hadst never sued for aid,' x since, saith he, the man ' is arrogant.' For indeed dis- dainful tempers, treated with attention, are wont to become Hebrew, which commenced in 375, and he describes himself as being at that time an " adolescentulus " (cf. P. L., xxviii. 1291). He was, in fact, about 29 years old, and was still a layman. His serious theological studies can hardly be said to have begun. Even his literary career was only just beginning. He had written a few letters to friends, and also his " highly idealized " Life of S. Paul the Hermit, and perhaps that earlier commentary on Obadiah, of which he was afterwards so ashamed, as having been the offspring of his "puerilis ingenii" (cf. Comment, in Abdiam Prolog., P. L., xxv. 1098), but which was certainly not written earlier than 375 (cf. Acta SS., torn. viii. Septembr., pp. 450, 451). Romanist controversialists can hardly be serious when they quote in grave theological argument the unbalanced expressions of a youthful layman smarting under extreme provocation. 1 Iliad, ix. 694, 695. We may suppose that the whole passage was running 1 64 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [IV. more contemptuous than usual." S. Basil is, of course, speaking of Damasus. He goes on, "And if the Lord should be gracious unto us, what other support do we need ? But if the wrath of God remain upon us, what help can we get from Western superciliousness ? They who neither know nor endure to learn the truth, but, preoccupied with false sus- picions, are doing now just what they did before ;n the case of Marcellus, when they quarrelled with those who reported to them the truth, and by their own action supported heresy. For I myself, without concert with any, was minded to write to their leader [Damasus] : nothing indeed about ecclesiastical matters, except so much as to hint that they neither know the truth of what is going on among us, nor accept the way by which they might learn it ; but generally about the duty of not attacking those who are humbled by trials, and of not taking disdainfulness for dignity, a sin which of itself is suffi- cient to set a man at enmity with God." x It is worth while to quote, by the way, Bossuet's comment on this passage. He says, " It is clear that the confirming of heresy was roundly and flatly, without any excuse, without any attempt to modify, imputed by Basil to two decrees of Roman pontiffs defide" 2 What I gather from the whole passage is that S. Basil had no conception of the Bishop of Rome being the divinely appointed monarch of the Church. 3 He thought of him as a very powerful bishop, as, of course, he was, but still as one who was essentially his equal, to whom he owed no allegiance, with whose help he could dispense, and whose in S. Basil's mind ; I therefore subjoin the late Lord Derby's translation (Homer's Iliad, ix. 805-811) "Would that thou ne'er hadst stooped with costly gifts To sue for aid from Peleus' matchless son ; For he before was over-proud, and now Thine offers will have tenfold swollen his pride. Eut leave we him according to his will, To go or stay : he then will join the fight, "When his own spirit shall prompt, or Heaven inspire." 1 Ep. ccxxxix., Opp., ed. Ben., 1730, iii. 368. 2 Gallia Orthodoxa, cap. Ixv., (Euvres, edit. Versailles, 1817, torn. xxxi. p. 138. 3 One may illustrate S. Basil's conception of the Roman Bishop's position by the salutation prefixed to the letter which S. Meletius, S. Basil, and thirty other Eastern bishops sent to Pope Damasus and other Western bishops by the hands of the Milanese deacon, S. Sabinus, in the year 372. The salutation runs as follows: "To the most God-beloved and holy brethren and fellow- ministers, the like-minded bishops of Italy and Gaul, Meletius, Eusebius, Basil, etc., send greeting in the Lord" (S.Basil. Ep. xcii., Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 183). Tillemont (ix. 668, 669) shows that the term " Italy" in this salutation includes Rome and the suburbicarian churches. S. Basil, in his 243rd Epistle (Opp., iii. 372) addresses Damasus and the Western bishops in similar terms. Mansi (iii. 468), speaking of the sending of the first of these letters, says that the Eastern bishops " synodicam Sabino tradunt Damaso deferendam." Imagine the Anglo- Roman bishops of the present day writing in this fashion to Pope Leo XIII. and to the bishops of Italy and France. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 165 action or inaction he was entitled freely to criticize. If S. Jerome in his younger days thought otherwise, his opinion must be quoted for what it is worth, either as his own personal view, or at most as the theory which he had imbibed at Rome. It was not the general view of the saints or of the Church. It does not represent the tradition received from the apostles. And practically what did S. Jerome gain by following the lead of Damasus ? Why, this ! that he joined himself to the separatist body of which Paulinus was bishop, and rejected the communion of S. Meletius, the true occupant of the apostolic see of Antioch. Six years after his letter to Damasus, he must have had his Romanizing views somewhat rudely shaken. By that time the Eastern Church had got out of its difficulties. The persecuting Emperor Valens was dead. The orthodox Theodosius was on the throne. The second Ecumenical Council was assembled at Constantinople, and S. Jerome himself was residing in that city. The Ultra- montane historian, Cardinal Orsi, tells us that " perhaps there has not been a council in which has been found a greater number of confessors and saints." l There were gathered S. Gregory of Nazianzus, S. Gregory of Nyssa, S. Peter of Sebaste, S. Amphilochius of Iconium, S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Eulogius of Edessa, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, and many more. And who was the prelate who was recognized by all as worthy of presiding over this wonderful assemblage ? Cardinal Orsi shall tell us. " But above all," he says, " S. Meletius was pre-eminent, both for the dignity of his see, and for the excellency of his virtue." 2 We must remember that S. Meletius was still out of communion with Rome. Damasus still supported the separatist body under Paulinus, and still refused letters of communion to Meletius. However, that blessed saint, though rejected by Rome, was accepted with veneration by the Church ; and by the agreement of all he took his seat in the presidential chair of the second Ecumenical Council. 3 According to S. Jerome's youthful view, he was off "the rock," he was "outside the ark," he 1 Orsi, 1st. Ecc. t xviii. 63 (torn. viii. p. 135, ed. Rom. 1751): "Dimodoche non v'e forse concilio, nel quale si sia trovato un maggior numero di confessori e di santi." 2 " Sopra tutti pero risplendeva si per la dignita della sede, si per 1'eccellenza della virtu s. Melezio." 3 Orsi (xviii. 64, torn. viii. p. 137) says, " II capo, il condottiere, il padre, e la guida di questa sacra adunanza finche egli visse, fu s. Melezio, e dopo la sua morte s. Gregorio, e finalmente dopo la sua dimissione Nettario." Orsi here enumerates the three prelates, who in succession presided over the council, viz. S. Meletius, S. Gregory of Nazianzus, and finally Nectarius. Hefele (Councils, Eng. trans., ii. 344) says, "Meletius of Antioch at first presided, and after his death Gregory of Nazianzus." 1 66 APPENDIX D. [IV. was among " the profane." One may fairly suppose that this object-lesson on a large scale must have driven those fancies out of S. Jerome's mind. I do not think that he ever again recurs to them. 1 While the council was still sitting, S. Meletius died, still out of communion with Rome. 2 One may say that he was canonized there and then. The saints vied with each other in preaching his panegyric. We still possess S. Gregory Nyssen's discourse on the occasion. The people flocked to get strips of linen which had touched his body. That body was embalmed and transported with all honour to Antioch ; and five years afterwards, S. Chrysostom, preaching on his festival, tells us of the devotion which the faithful of Antioch felt towards their glorious saint. 3 Even Rome had ultimately to alter her views ; and though the pope repudiated him and allowed him to be insulted as an Arian during his life, the Roman Church invokes him as a saint now that he is dead. His name is entered in the Roman Martyrology on the I2th of February. I think that I was justified in saying that, however much Pope Damasus might have succeeded, with the help of the imperial power, in enlarging his jurisdiction in the West, the East continued firm in her traditional belief and practice, and acknowledged no jurisdiction, but only a primacy of honour, in the occupant of the papal chair. APPENDIX D. Did the Council of Chalcedon blame Dioscorus for presiding over the Latrocinium without papal authorization ? Did Hosius preside at Nicaea as a papal legate f (see p. 138). THERE is a passage in Dr. Rivington's book, in which he is arguing in favour of the notion that Hosius was acting as legate of Pope Silvester when he presided at the Council of Nicaea. In the course of his argument Dr. Rivington says, " Could the Council of Chalcedon have blamed Dioscorus for sitting as president in the presence of papal legates 1 See Additional Note 67, p. 488. 2 Tillemont (xxi. 662) says, "Si tous ceux qui meurent hors de la communion de Rome, ne peuvent meriter le litre de Saints et de Confesseurs, c'estoit a lui [Baronius] a faire effacer du Martyrologe S. Mekce et S. Flavien d'Antioche, S. Elie de Jerusalem, et S. Daniel Stylite." I have discussed more fully the question whether S. Meletius died out of communion with Rome on pp. 346-350. 3 Horn, in S. Melet., Opp., ed. Ben., 1734, ii. 518-523. IV.] PAPAL PRESIDENCY AT GENERAL COUNCILS. 167 by the express order of the Emperor at the Robber-council of Ephesus, and no one have pressed the point that at Nice even a lesser Western bishop had sat above even Rome, not to speak of Alexandria and Antioch ? " * The answer to this argument is very simple. Dioscorus was never blamed by the Council of Chalcedon for presiding in the presence of the papal legates at the Robber-synod. And the fact of this absence of blame is all the more significant, because one of S. Leo's legates at Chalcedon, the Bishop Lucentius, did, in the very first session of the council, bring forward as a special accusation against Dioscorus that he had " held a council [the Latrociniuni\ without the permission of the Apostolic See," a thing, he said, " which never was done, and never was lawful." 2 That point, therefore, was brought clearly before the notice of the council. It is consequently very important to observe that there is not the faintest allusion to this charge in any of the 193 sentences condemning Dioscorus, which have been preserved in the Latin acts of the council. 3 The legates themselves, when they came to formulate their sentence of condemnation, did not venture to make any reference to this point.* Nor is it mentioned in the various letters of the council, announcing the deposition of Dioscorus, and addressed respectively to the culprit himself, to the clergy of Alexandria, to the two Emperors, and to the Empress Pulcheria. 5 The charge had been made in what seems to have been a passing remark of one of the legates, but it led to no result, and it was either tacitly withdrawn, or set aside by the council as inappropriate. The fact is that S. Leo himself did not publicly claim any inherent right to preside at an Ecumenical Council ; and he acted wisely, for he had no such right ; and if he had made any claim of that kind, he would have run a great risk of seeing it disallowed. It is interesting to compare the expressions used by S. Leo about the position to be occupied by the legates whom he was sending to the Robber-synod, with the parallel expressions which he used two years afterwards about the legates whom he was sending to Chalcedon. In the case of the Robber-synod, the Emperor, "following," to use his own words, "the rule of the holy Fathers," 6 had appointed Dioscorus, who was at that time the universally acknowledged Pope of Alexandria, to preside. S. Leo, therefore, carefully avoided saying a word about his legates presiding. In various letters, addressed respectively to the Emperor, to Pulcheria, to Bishop Julian of Cos, and to the Robber-synod itself, he defines the function of his legates to be that of representing his own presence. These are his words : " qui ad vicem praesentiae meae pro negotii qualitate sufficerent ; " T " qui vicem praesentiae meae implere sufficerent ; " 8 " qui praesentiae meae impleant vicem ; " 9 " quos ex latere 1 Prim. Church, p. 163. 2 Coleti, iv. 865. 3 Ibid., iv. 1303-1335. 4 Ibid., iv. 1303-1306. 5 Ibid., iv. 1348-1356. e Ibid., iv. 884. 7 S. Leon. Ep. xxix. ad Theodosium Augustum, P. L., liv. 783. 8 Ep. xxx. ad Pulcheriam Augustam, P. L., liv. 789. 9 Ep. xxxvii. ad Theodosium Augusinm, P. L., liv. 812. Similarly, in the commonitorium of Pope Zosimus, which was read at the Council of Carthage in 1 68 APPENDIX D. [IV. meo vice mea misi ; " l " qui vice mea sancto conventui vestrae fraternitatis intersint." 2 It will be noticed that there is not a word here about presidency. After the conclusion of the Robber-council, amid all S. Leo's complaints about what had taken place there, he never once formulated any protest against Dioscorus having presided. 3 That point had been settled by Theodosius, the convener of the council. But when two years later, in June, 451, S. Leo had received Marcian's edict convoking the council which was ultimately held at Chalcedon, he pointed out to the Emperor that strong reasons existed, which made it desirable that at this new council his chief legate should preside. In his letter (Ep. Ixxxix., P. ., liv. 930) he first names his legates and specially the chief legate, Paschasinus, "qui vicem praesentiae meae possit implere." Then he forecasts what the issue of the council is likely to be. And finally in cautious words he approaches the question of the presidency. He says, " But because certain of the brethren (I mention the matter with sorrow) have failed in maintaining catholic firmness in opposition to the whirl- winds of error, it is convenient (convenit) that my aforesaid brother and fellow-bishop [Paschasinus] should preside in my place over the synod." It was, in fact, the case that at that particular moment the occupants of all the great sees had either been mixed up with the Robber-council, or had been in close relations with those who had been leaders in that disastrous assembly, and it was eminently desirable that S. Leo's legates should May, 419 (Mansi, iv. 403), that pope, addressing his legates, Faustinas, Philip, and Asellus, says, "Vos ita ut nostra, imo quia nostra ibi in vobis praesentia est, cuncta peragite." The legates did not preside, although Zosimus' presence was regarded as being in them (see p. 185). 1 Ep. xxxiv. ad Julianum JEpiscopum Coensem, P. L., liv. 802. 2 Ep. xxxiii. ad Ephesinam Synodum Secundam, P. Z., liv. 799. 3 It may, perhaps, be asked whether any protest was made against Dioscorus presiding, by the pope's legates, at the Latrocinium. It must be stated in reply that the legates were undoubtedly present at and took part in the long proceed- ings of the first session, notwithstanding the fact that they did not preside. They probably did make a protest of some kind against the presidency of Dioscorus, and claimed for themselves that function, as representing the first see. The only question that can be raised is whether they took their seats in the second place, next after the president, Dioscorus, or whether, by way of accentuating their protest against his presidency, they refused to take their seats, and stood during the whole session. Hefele (Councils, iii. 259) appears to favour the latter view. The idea that the legates stood rests mainly on an obscure passage of Liberatus (JBreviar., cap. xii., P. L., Ixviii. 1004), an archdeacon of Carthage, who wrote an historical account of the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, more than a hundred years after the date of the Latrocinium. The obscurity of the passage in Liberatus is admitted by the Jesuit Gamier, who edited his works (cf. P. L., Ixviii. 1008). Liberatus does not seem to have seen the Acts of the Latrocinium, but he undoubtedly had access to good documents ; yet he occasionally makes mistakes. He speaks of Ibas being summoned three times to appear before the council, whereas Ibas was in prison at Antioch, and the Acts make no mention of his being summoned. It seems to me that Liberatus possibly based his statement about the legates on a misunderstanding of an exclamation, which was made by the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, who were present at the Council of Chalcedon, and which is recorded in the acts of that council (Coleti, iv. 896). The matter is of no real consequence, but my own impression is that the legates sat ; and this seems to be Garnier's own view (M.S.), as it certainly is Tillemont's (xv. 904, 905). IV. J PAPAL PRESIDENCY AT GENERAL COUNCILS. 169 preside at the council which was going to reverse the decisions of Dioscorus and his accomplices. There was no great commanding character like Hosius, occupying a lesser see, who could be appropriately raised to the presidency. The interests of Christendom demanded that the Emperor should come to a determination in favour of Paschasinus and his colleagues. But it is important to notice that Leo makes no claim of possessing any inherent right to preside. He does not venture to say that, as the divinely appointed monarch of the Church, he and none but he or his representatives could be thought of for the presidential chair. He argues the matter in a perfectly reasonable way, and his reasoning had its effect. His legates did preside. Accordingly, in his letter to the council he names his legates, and adds, " Let your fraternities consider that in these brethren I am pre- siding over the synod, my presence not being separated from you, since I am with you in my representatives." 1 Previously, when writing to the Robber-council, he had said concerning his legates, " In my place they are present in the holy assembly of your fraternities ; " 2 but he had made no allusion to his presiding in his representatives over the council. The contrast between his language in the one case and in the other is clear. Whatever he may have thought in his heart of hearts about his own right to preside, he knew well that the Church at large was willing to accept a president from the orthodox Emperor, and that the urging of his own claim on the ground of inherent right would be a perfectly futile pro- ceeding which could only end in disaster. If this was the state of opinion in the Church in the time of S. Leo, we can well believe that in the time of the Council of Nicaea, 125 years earlier, Constantine, who convoked the council, would as a matter of course appoint the president. If S. Silvester had himself been present at the council, it seems probable to me that he would have been appointed president ; but in Silvester's absence one would expect that the choice of Constantine would fall upon Hosius. S. Athanasius says that Hosius was " of all men the most illustrious ; " 3 and the same great Father asks, " When was there a council held in which Hosius did not take the lead, and by right counsel convince every one " ? 4 When S. Athanasius is referring to the leading bishops of Christendom, he names Hosius before the pope. He says, "They have conspired against so many other bishops of high character, and have spared neither the great confessor Hosius, nor the Bishop of Rome, nor so many others from the Spains, and the Gauls, and Egypt, and Libya, and other countries." 5 Professor Gwatkin calls Hosius " the patriarch of Christendom." 6 Moreover, he was Constantine's chief adviser in ecclesiastical matters. When the Emperor wished to facilitate the manumission of slaves by Christians, he addressed his edict to Hosius, 7 as being the representative bishop of his time. When the Arian disturbance was first brought before the notice 1 Ep. xciii. ad Synodum, P. L., liv. 937. 2 Cf. Ep. xxxiii., quoted on p. 168. 3 S. Athan. Apol. de Fuga, 5. * Loc. tit. 5 Op. cit., 9. Studies of Arianism, p. 147. 7 Cf. Cod. Theod., iv. 7. i. 1 70 APPENDIX D. [IV. of Constantine, he sent "e latere sue" J his faithful counsellor, Hosius, to do what he could in Egypt to pacify the disputants. A council was thereupon held in Alexandria, at which Hosius appears to have presided, as may be gathered from two letters written by the clergy of the Mareotis. In the first of these letters, dated September 8, 335, the writers, speaking of the pseudo-bishop Colluthus, say, " He was ordered by a whole council, by Hosius and the bishops that were with him, to take the place of a presbyter, as he was before." 2 In the other letter, speaking of the pseudo-presbyter Ischyras, they say, " He was deposed in the presence of our Father Hosius at the council which assembled at Alexandria." 3 This Council of Alexandria was held in 324, the year before the Council of Nicaea. It would seem that Hosius took precedence of S. Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, even in his own city. This reversal of the usual order no doubt resulted from the fact that Hosius held a commis- sion from the Emperor. There is not the smallest reason for supposing that he held any commission from the pope on this occasion. As the Franciscan, Pagi, rightly says, " Hosius was not sent to Alexandria as legate by the Roman pontiff, Silvester, but by Constantine. . . . Nor is it any argument to the contrary that Hosius convoked the Alexandrine Synod and presided over it. For it is probable that he presided over that synod, because all the bishops of Egypt, and at their head Alexander himself, the Patriarch of Alexandria, offered to him the post of honour. For they would make no difficulty about offering this honour to a most celebrated man, sent by the Emperor and very dear to him, who had been constituted by him the arbiter of peace between Alexander and Arius." 4 In writing thus Pagi shows that he has grasped the point of view from which Catholics of the fourth century would regard such a matter. His words are the words of candour and common sense. To any one who realizes Hosius' extraordinary position in the Church, there is no difficulty in supposing that, as he presided at Alexandria in 324 on account of his relation to the Emperor, so he similarly presided in 325 at Nicaea in virtue of an imperial commission. Later on again, in 343, he presided at Sardica, having evidently received his appoint- ment to preside from Constans. Both at Nicaea and at Sardica he took precedence of the papal legates. The signatures at Nicaea run thus in the oldest Latin translations " Osius, episcopus civitatis Cordouensis provinciae Hispaniae dixit : ' Sic credo sicut supra scriptum est.' Victor et Vincentius, presbiteri urbis Romae [pro venerabili viro papa episcopo nostro subscripsimus : ' Ita credentes sicut supra scriptum est '] " 5 1 See De Valois' Latin translation of Sozomen (H. ., i. 16). 2 Cf. S. Athan. Apol. contr. Arian., & 76. ' P. L., Ivi. 121) agree with Tillemont and Coustant. 2 Tillemont (xiii. 865) has accounted satisfactorily for the prolongation of the agreement until 426. 3 Compare Hefele, ii. 463, Eng. trans. 4 Hefele's Councils, Eng. trans., ii. 461 (see also p. 463) ; and compare Ballerinor. Obss. in Dissert, v. Quesnell., pars i. cap. v. n. 21, P. L., Iv. 566. It is to be noted that the Ballerini and Hefele agree that it was the appeal of Apiarius which led to the legislation against such appeals in May, 418. It is worth while quoting the extraordinary explanation of this canon, given by Father Bottalla, S.J., a professor in S. Beuno's College, North Wales. He says {Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 151), "The African Synod, in the above-mentioned canon, forbade nothing but the formal and judicial appeal of the inferior clergy to the see of Rome ; it did not, and it could not, forbid their private recourse to the supreme pastor of the Church ; and if, under any exceptional circumstances, the pope saw fit, he might suspend the effect of the general canon, and enable the condemned priest or deacon to lay a formal and judicial appeal before his court." Assuredly, if the Fathers of the African Church had accepted all this, they would never have ventured to meddle with a matter so completely beyond their control. In their letter to Celestine they expressly call on the pope to reject these private appeals to his see, which they describe as "improba refugia," a very proper title for such scandalous transactions. 190 FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. [V. had succeeded him. Celestine, without any communication with Africa, restored him to communion. It seems most extraordinary that pope after pope should have acted in this scandalous manner. Apparently, in order to assert the papal jurisdiction over Africa, the popes were willing to break the most fundamental canons of the Church, 1 and to run the risk of presenting the Roman Church to the eyes of the world as an accomplice in foul and enormous crimes. Pope Celestine went on to add insult to injury. He wrote to the African Church, expressing his joy at finding Apiarius innocent, although he had never had any opportunity of hearing what the accusers of that wicked priest had to say ; and then, to make things worse, he sent him back to Africa to be readmitted to communion, and with him he sent, as legate, that same Bishop Faustinus who had given such just cause of umbrage to the African Church on the previous occasion. When Faustinus arrived, a universal or plenary council of all Africa 2 was convoked, apparently in the year 426 ; and the bishops, under the presidency of S. Aurelius of Carthage, wrote an admirable letter (Optaremus) to Celestine. It was addressed " to the most beloved lord and honourable brother, Celestine." They begin by expressing the wish that, as Celestine had written to them about Apiarius with joy, so they could make their reply concerning him with similar joy. Then the gladness on both sides would be better founded, and the pope's satisfaction in regard to Apiarius would appear less hasty and precipitate. Then they proceed as follows, and I will give their exact words. They say, " When our holy brother and fellow-bishop Faustinus arrived, we assembled a council ; and we believed that he had been sent with that man, in order that, as by his help Apiarius had formerly been restored to the priesthood, so now by his exertions the same Apiarius might be cleared of the very 1 The first sentence of the fifth canon of Nicaea runs as follows : "Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated by the bishops in each several province, let the sentence hold good, according to the rule which prescribes that persons excommunicated by some bishops are not to be received into communion by others." The fifty-third canon of Elvira lays down that "a man who has been excommunicated for any crime can only be restored to communion by the bishop who excommunicated him. But if another bishop shall have presumed to receive him without the co-operation or consent of him by whom he was excommunicated, he will have to answer for it before his brethren, and will risk removal from his office." Duchesne (Melanges Renier, pp. 159-174) assigns the Council of Elvira to the year 300. Compare also the sixteenth canon of Aries (A.D. 314), the sixth of Antioch (A.D. 341), and the thirteenth (al. sixteenth) of Sardica (A.D. 343) ; and see Dr. Bright's note on the fifth canon of Nicaea. 2 The Ballerini, referring to a general council of the African Church, speak of it as a " concilium plenarium, seu, ut alio nomine promiscue vocabatur, universal*" (cf. Ballerinor. Ol>ss. in Dissert, xiii. Quesnell., vi. n. xxviii., P. Z,., Ivi. 1 020). V.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 19 1 great crimes charged against him by the people of Tabraca. But the course of examination in our council brought to light such great and monstrous crimes, as to overbear Faustinus, who acted rather as an advocate than as a judge, and who manifested rather the zeal of a lawyer engaged for the defence than the impartiality of an umpire. For first he vehemently opposed the whole assembly, inflicting on us many affronts under pretence of asserting the privileges of the Church of Rome, requiring that we should receive Apiarius back into communion, because your holiness, be- lieving him to have appealed, though he was unable to prove that he had appealed, had restored him to communion. But to act in such a way was quite unlawful, as you will also better see by reading the acts of our synod. After a most laborious inquiry carried on for three days, during which, in the greatest affliction, we investigated the various charges against him, God the righteous Judge, strong and patient, put a complete end to the obstacles raised by our brother- bishop Faustinus and to the evasions of Apiarius himself, by which he was trying to conceal his execrably shameful acts. For his foul and disgusting obstinacy was overcome, by which he endeavoured to cover up, through an impudent denial, all this dirty mire ; for our God put pressure upon his conscience, and published even to the eyes of men the secret things which He was already condemning in that man's heart, a very sty of wickedness ; so that, notwithstand- ing his crafty denial, Apiarius suddenly burst forth into a confession of all the crimes with which he was charged, and of his own accord convicted himself of every kind of incre- dible infamy ; and thus he changed to groans even the hope we had entertained, believing and desiring that he might be cleared from such shameful blots ; except, indeed, that he mitigated by one consolation this our sorrow, in that he released us from the labour of a longer inquiry, and by con- fession had applied some sort of remedy to his own wounds, though, sir and brother (domine frater), it was done un- willingly and with a struggling conscience. Premising, there- fore, our due regards to you, 1 we earnestly beg of you, that for the future you do not too easily admit to a hearing persons coming to Rome from Africa, 2 nor consent any more to receive to your communion those who have been excom- municated by us ; because your reverence will readily 1 " Praefato itaque debitae salutationis officio." 8 There might, of course, be cases in which some doctrinal matter might be in dispute, in which it would be allowable to appeal from a decision of an African council to the Catholic episcopate beyond the seas, and pre-eminently to the occupants of the several apostolic thrones. 1 92 FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. [V. perceive that this has also been decreed by the Nicene Council. 1 For, although this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity, how muck more did the council will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who have been suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or precipitately or in some undue sort by your holiness. 2 Let your holiness reject, as is worthy of you, that bad taking shelter with you of priests and of the clergy of lower degree, both because by no ordinance of the Fathers has this right been ivitkdrawn from the African Church, and also because tJte Nicene decrees Jtave most plainly committed the inferior clergy and the bishops themselves to their metropolitans? For they have ordained with great prudence and justice that all matters shall be terminated in tJie places where they arise ; and they did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any province, by which grace the bishops of Christ would discern with prudence and maintain with con- stancy whatever was equitable ; especially since any party, who thinks himself wronged by a judgement, may appeal to the synod of his province, or even to a general council [of all Africa] ; unless it be imagined by any one that our God can inspire a single individual with justice, and re- fuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops assembled in council" I must break off here to point out how faithfully the great African Church had guarded the tradition which she 1 See the first note on p. 190. The Nicene Council makes no provision for any appeal to Rome. The provincial synod is the highest court of appeal which it recognizes. 2 " Vel festinato vel praepropere vel indebite." The pope had no right to receive to his communion African Christians who had been excommunicated by the African Church, until they had been restored by their own church. If he did so, he would be acting hastily and precipitately and in an undue way. The great principle on which the council insists is " that all matters shall be terminated in the places where they arise." Dr. Rivington (Dependence, pp. 226, 227) has failed to realize this. 3 It will hardly be believed that Father Bottalla, speaking of this letter (Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 142), says that the African Fathers "made no objection to appeals of bishops to the Roman pontiff, but only to those of the inferior clergy." He goes on to say (p. 143), "The African Church never denied the right of the pope to receive appeals in the case of bishops and even of priests. Such a denial was impossible, since that church had always looked upon the Roman Bishop, as not only its patriarch, but also the supreme pastor of the universal Church." Father Bottalla's argument may be retorted upon himself. As the African Church clearly did deny the right of the pope to receive appeals in the case of bishops and also of priests, it follows, on Father Bottalla's principles, that that church did not look upon the pope either as its patriarch or as " the supreme pastor of the universal Church." It is fair to add that all Roman Catholic divines are not like Father Bottalla. Tillemont (xiii. 862-866, and 1031-1039) and others candidly admit what ought never to have been denied. The Council of Carthage, under S. Aurelius, was carrying on the old principle laid down by S. Cyprian (see p. 53). V.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO, 1 93 possessed nearly two hundred years before, in the time of S. Cyprian, who, you will remember, implied that no Chris- tian would be likely to think that the authority of the bishops in Africa was inferior to the authority of the pope, except some few " desperate and abandoned men." l I now continue my quotation from the letter of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine. They go on to say, " How shall we be able to trust a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send the necessary wit- nesses, whether on account of the weakness of sex, or of advanced age, or through any other impediment ? 2 For that any legates a latere should be sent by your holiness, we can find ordained by no synod of the Fathers." Next they point out that the Sardican canon, quoted by Faustinus, is not a genuine Nicene canon, as was made apparent by the authentic copies of the canons of Nicaea, which they had received from Alexandria and Constantinople. Finally, they conclude their letter thus. They say, " Moreover, refrain from sending any of your clerks, as executors of your orders, 3 whoever they may be who petition you to send them, refrain from granting this, lest it should seem that we are introducing the smoky arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ, which sets before those who desire to see God the light of simplicity and the splendour of humility. For now that the miserable Apiarius has been removed out of the Church of Christ for his horrible crimes, we feel confident respecting our brother Faustinus, that, through the uprightness and moderation of your holiness, our brotherly charity remaining uninjured will by no means have to endure him any longer in Africa. Sir and brother, may our Lord long preserve your holiness to pray for us." 4 1 I have discussed the meaning of the passage quoted on p. 53, from which the expression, "desperate and abandoned men," is taken, in the Additional Note 18 (pp. 446-450). 2 The whole of this reasoning is just as valid for the case of bishops as for the case of the inferior clergy. It goes to prove that "all mailers" should "be terminated in the places where they arise." There is a passage in S. Augustine's forty-third (al. i62nd) letter, addressed to Glorius and others (Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 91), which is sometimes quoted as if it implied that African bishops could appeal to Rome from the sentences of the regular ecclesiastical tribunals in Africa, but that priests and deacons could not so appeal. Such a view proceeds from a complete misunderstanding of the passage and of the circumstances connected with the origin of the Donatist schism, to which S. Augustine is referring. It would take too long to deal with the matter in a note. The reader may be referred to Archbishop De Marca (De Concord. Sac. el Imp., lib. vii. cap. xvi. vi.-ix., coll. 1053-1056, edit. Bohmer, 1708), and to Tillemont (vi. 15, 16). 3 On the subject of the exseculores of the Roman bishops, see Du Cange (Glossarium Med. el Infim. Lalinital., edit. 1843, torn. iii. p. 144) and Dom Coustant (P. L., 1. 426, 427). 4 Coleti, iii. 532-534, and P. L., 1. 422-427. On the genuineness of this letter, see Appendix F, pp. 204-214. O 194 FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. [V. Such was the celebrated letter 1 of the Church of North Africa to Pope Celestine. I cannot imagine a more complete repudiation of the papal idea. That idea involves the principle that jure divino every member of the Church, whether clerical or lay, has an inherent right to have " recourse to the pope's judgement in all causes which appertain to the jurisdiction of the Church." The African Fathers absolutely deny that right. 2 Because, if they had believed in it, they must have safeguarded it. No Christian man would pass over and ignore a matter of divine revelation. No assembly of Christian subjects could venture to dictate to their divinely appointed sovereign, that he should refrain from using one of his divinely given pre- rogatives. Ultramontane writers ask of us impossibilities when they ask us to believe that. Let them say, if they like, that the African Church was wrong, heretical in fact, in regard to that matter which, in the opinion of De Maistre, is the "necessary, only, and exclusive foundation of Chris- tianity ; " but, as honourable men, let them refrain from pretending that the Church of North Africa, in the time of S. Augustine, believed in the principles laid down by the Vatican Council. Such a pretence is an impertinence and an act of folly, which must alienate every person of good sense and Christian simplicity who is cognizant of it. Let the Church of S. Augustine, S. Aurelius, and S. Alypius be branded as heretical, if the Ultramontanes choose to have it so ; we for our part are quite willing to stand side by side with those great saints, and to share their condemnation. There is the possibility, some may think the probability, that at the awful tribunal of our Lord hereafter the note of heresy may be otherwise assigned. It is hardly worth while to refer to the absurd cavil which some Romanists 3 make, when they set forth, as if it over- threw the whole argument arising out of the synodical letter which has been so largely quoted, the fact that Anthony, Bishop of Fussala, appealed in A.D. 421 (or 422) to Pope Boniface from the decision of a council in Numidia, which 1 Bossuet (Def. Decl. Cler. Gall., xi. 14, CEuvres, xxxiii. 334, edit. 1818) calls this letter "nobilem illam epistolam." The Ultramontane Lupus naturally calls it " infelicissimam, et scatentem erroribus," and the synod, which wrote it, he describes as " erraticam, deviam ac praevaricatoriam." The unfortunate Lupus, with his Ultramontane ideas, continually finds himself completely oat of sympathy with the great saints of the fourth and fifth centuries. They and he lived in two different worlds of thought. Bossuet well describes his pettifogging criticisms on the African Fathers who wrote this letter, as "inepta, ne dicam impia " (Op. cit., P- 337)- For full proof that Bossuet was the author of the Defensio Declarations Cleri Gallicani, the reader is referred to Cardinal de Bausset's Histoire de Bossuet, edit. 1819, torn. ii. pp. 381-429. z For a fuller discussion of the views of the African bishops on the subject of appeals to Rome, see the Additional Note 68, p. 490. * E.g. Father Bottalla, loc. cit. V.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 195 had passed sentence on him ; and that at a later stage, probably in 423, S. Augustine wrote to Pope Celestine (Boniface having died on the 4th of September, 422), im- ploring him not to reinstate Anthony in the see of Fussala, thereby acknowledging his right to do so. 1 Will it be believed that the whole of this transaction happened during that interval of seven years when the African Church, in pur- suance of its temporary compact, allowed bishops to appeal to Rome ? The argument deducible from S. Augustine's action in this matter falls entirely to the ground, and ought never to have been put forward. But there is one point connected with this case of Anthony of Fussala which it may be well to notice. When Pope Boniface sent messengers into Africa with letters ordering that Anthony should be reinstated in his see, if he had made a true statement of his case to the pope, the people of Fussala were threatened with coercion by the secular arm, and they were told that soldiers would be sent to Fussala to force them to obey the sentence of the apostolic see. Here we see the effects of the laws of Valentinian and Gratian. The decisions of the pope in such a case, though they had no canonical force in Africa except under the temporary com- pact, had complete legal validity, and they could be enforced by the whole power of the Roman Empire. No wonder that in places where the bishops did not rise to the height of heroic sanctity which characterized S. Augustine and some of his African brethren, the local churches gave way to the 1 Cf. S. Aug. Ep. ccix., Opp.) ed. Ben., ii. 777-780. It appears from this letter that Anthony argued that he ought either to have been deprived of the episcopate altogether, or to have been left in possession of his see of Fussala. His contention was that a bishop could not be punished with a minor penalty. In his reply to this argument, S. Augustine, writing to the pope, naturally looks about for precedents in proof of the position that minor penalties had been in past times inflicted on bishops in sentences which had been sanctioned by the see of Rome. He says, " There are cases on record, in which the apostolic see, either pronouncing judgement or ratifying the judgement of others, became responsible for decisions, according to which certain bishops, who had been found guilty of certain kinds of wrong-doing, were neither deprived of the honour of the episcopate, nor left altogether unpunished. I will not search out cases very remote from our times, but I will mention recent cases." Then he mentions three cases of bishops, who had been punished recently with minor penalties. All the three cases had arisen in the African province of Mauritania Caesariensis. As Tillemont (xiii. 1036) suggests, they may all have belonged to the period between 418 and 426, during which the African Church allowed appeals to Rome. In some of these cases Rome may have ratified the African sentence ; in others Rome may have softened a more stringent sentence, and may have appointed a minor penalty. As for the " cases very remote from our times," which S. Augustine declines to search out, they may have been cases which arose in the suburbicarian regions, in which the pope was metropolitan, or in Eastern Illyricum, where appeals to Rome were allowed. The explicit statements of the Council of Carthage cannot be overthrown by doubtful hypotheses concerning precedents of which we know nothing. 196 FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. [V. papal pretensions, and accepted law and justice from the pope's mouth. There is nothing more absolutely certain in the history of the Church than that the papal jurisdiction v outside the suburbicarian provinces mainly arose out of the legislation of the State. One may truly say that Erastianism begat it, and forgery developed it. I except, of course, the very restricted jurisdiction given at Sardica by canons which were at first only received in a relatively small portion of the Church, and which were never received in the greater part of the East as applicable to the East. Let us now pass from Africa to Gaul, and inquire how the new papal claims were treated there. I might draw your attention to the case of Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles, a man of saintly life, who was treated very unbecomingly by Pope Zosimus. That pope ventured to summon Proculus to Rome, but to this summons Proculus paid no attention ; and Zosimus took steps to deprive him of his see, no doubt trusting to the aid of the civil power to secure that these uncanonical acts, which constituted an invasion of the jurisdiction of the provinces of Gaul, should practically take effect. But the death of Zosimus put an end to the whole affair. 2 I prefer, however, to dwell on the case of S. Hilary of Aries, because his righteous resistance to the arbitrary inter- ference of Pope S. Leo, though it constitutes an additional reason for honouring his holy memory, was nevertheless the occasion of the issuing of another imperial rescript, which enlarged the papal power, and did much to rivet its chains on the churches of the Western empire. S. Hilary was Metropolitan of Aries, a see which appears to have enjoyed, in the fifth century, a certain pre-eminence among the metro- political sees of Gaul. 3 He was a great friend of S. German of Auxerre, a saint to whom our own island is so greatly indebted, in that he was God's instrument for putting down Pelagianism in the British Church. In the year 444 S. Hilary was visiting S. German at Auxerre. While he was there, various illustrious persons and others came to him and to S. German, bringing complaints against Chelidonius, Bishop of Besancpn. I am bound to say that the complaints would not strike us, in the nineteenth century, as anything very 1 It may be well to call attention to the fact that I am dealing in the text with papal jurisdiction. The primacy of honour and influence enjoyed by the Roman Church, as an apostolic Church planted in the metropolis of the civilized world, can be traced back to sub-apostolic times. 2 For Mgr. Duchesne's treatment of the case of Bishop Proculus, see note 2 on pp. 151, 152. 3 In the fifth century Aries had succeeded Trier as the centre of the imperial administration of the prefecture of the Gauls. In consequence of this civil primacy a certain measure of pre-eminence would inevitably accrue to the bishop. V.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. serious. But S. Hilary and S. German would, of course, look at them according to the ideas of the fifth century, and according to the actual discipline of the Church at that epoch. It appears that Chelidonius had, as a layman, married a widow ; and the canons ordered that such a person should never be consecrated to the episcopate, even after his wife's death. A rule of that kind had been formulated at the Council of Valence, in the year 374, 1 and it appears also in the decretal epistle of Pope Siricius to Himerius of Tarragona. 2 Moreover, it was thoroughly accepted by S. Leo, and by the whole Western Church of that age. It was a sort of extension of S. Paul's rule, that a man who had been the husband of more than one wife was not a proper person to be ordained. 8 Chelidonius had also, before his ordination, held some judicial office, in the fulfilment of which he had been obliged to condemn various people to death ; and according to the ecclesiastical law this fact disqualified him for the episcopate. There was no question that if the allegations were well- founded, then, according to the canons of the Church in that age, Chelidonius ought to be deposed. Accordingly, a council was summoned to meet at Besangon, at which both S. Hilary and S. German were present, and S. Hilary presided. Besangon was not in the province of Aries. Duchesne thinks that the region of Gaul, in which Besangon is situated, had not yet been organized under a metropolitan. If it be asked by what right S. Hilary did what he did in this matter in a place outside his province, the answer is obvious : " Hilaire avait sans doute agi en vertu du droit et meme du devoir moral qui incombe a tout eVeque de veiller autour de lui a ce que la discipline soit respectee." I quote the words of Duchesne. 4 Anyhow, S. Hilary and the council determined that the facts were proved, and that Chelidonius ought to resign his office. This apparently he refused to do, and consequently the council proceeded to depose and excommunicate him, as a rebel against the authority of the Church. 5 Thereupon Chelidonius went to Rome, and complained that he had been unjustly condemned. Tillemont says that Pope S. Leo, apparently without any investigation, admitted Chelidonius at once to communion. Herein, as Tillemont points out, S. Leo seems to have followed the example of his predecessors, Zosimus and Celestine, who, without proper inquiry, admitted the miserable Apiarius to communion when he took refuge with them. The Roman Church seems to have been so 1 Coleti, ii. 1067. 2 Ibid., ii. 1217. 3 I Tim. iii. 2, 12. * Pastes Episcopaux de T Ancienne Gau/e, i. 112, 113. 4 After Chelidonius' deposition Importunus was consecrated to fill the vacant see (see Tillemont, xv. 85). 198 FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. [V. possessed with the desire of domination, that it thought nothing of overthrowing the fundamental rules on which the discipline and unity of the Church rest. 1 When S. Hilary heard what had happened at Rome, he started off on foot in the middle of winter, and, crossing the Alps, he arrived, still on foot, in the eternal city. He visited first the tombs of the two great apostles and the relics of the martyrs, and then he went to pay his respects to the pope. He begged him, very deferentially, to see that the Church's rule was not broken by the admission of persons to communion in Rome, who had been formally excommunicated in Gaul. S. Hilary in no way proposed to accept S. Leo as judge in this matter. 2 The pope had no ground for claiming such a position. All that S. Hilary wished to do was to state clearly the facts of the case, and to beg the pope to maintain in Rome the discipline of the Church. 3 S. Hilary had a great deal to put up with during his sojourn in the city. His biographer, S. Honoratus of Marseilles, tells us that he in no way feared those who threatened him ; that he overcame those who disputed with him ; that he did not yield to the powerful ; that, even though he was in danger of his life, he would in no way admit to his communion a man whom he, in conjunction with such great men as S. German of Auxerre and the other Gallican bishops, had condemned. 4 While he was in Rome he attended a 1 I think that the words used in the text are a not unfair description of the general spirit of the Roman Church, from the time of Damasus onwards ; but I am not prepared to say that, in his admission of Chelidonius to communion, when that excommunicated bishop arrived in Rome, S. Leo was actuated by any wrong motive. In all probability he was firmly persuaded that he had a right to receive an appeal from the decision of a Gallican synod, and to rehear the case in Rome ; and he may also have supposed that the effect of the sentence of the court below was suspended until the appeal had been heard. Holding these ideas, he would seem to himself to be acting rightly when he admitted Chelidonius to communion, although, according to the earlier discipline of the Church, which had never been canonically altered, his action cannot be justified. The primitive discipline is admirably illustrated by an interesting episode in the history of the Roman Church. When the heretic, Marcion, who had been excommunicated by his father, the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus, arrived in Rome about the year 140, and begged to be admitted to communion, the rulers of the Roman Church declared that they were unable to act in the matter contrary to the decision of Marcion's venerated father (cf. S. Epiph. Panar., haer. xlii.). 2 Duchesne (Pastes, i. 113), speaking of S. Hilary, says, " Les explications qu'il donna au pape, dans un langage assez rude, n'allaient a rien moins qu'a decliner la competence du Saint-siege en pareille matiere." The Abbe Malnory (Saint Chair e, p. 42) agrees. 3 It seems evident that the canons of Sardica were not received as binding in Gaul in the time of S. Hilary. If the limited appeal to Rome, allowed by the Council of Sardica, had been accepted by the Gallican Church, S. Hilary could never have told S. Leo " se ad officia non ad causam venisse " ( Vit. Hilar. AreL, cap. xvii.). He would have had to allow that Chelidonius had a right to appeal, though he might have insisted that the appeal should be heard in Gaul, and not in Rome. 4 Cf. S. Honorat. Vit. S. Hilarii Arelatensis, in Quesnel's edition of S. Leo's works, edit. 1700, i. 369, V.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 1 99 synod of bishops, at which Chelidonius also was present, and, apparently, he shocked the delicate Roman ears by the plainness of speech which he used in asserting the indepen- dence of the Church in Gaul. 1 He would not plead his cause before S. Leo, who, as S. Hilary rightly felt, had no jurisdic- tion in the matter. To the Roman mind this was insolence, and accordingly S. Hilary was actually put under arrest. As usual, the Church of Rome, in order to gain its point, fell back on the help of the civil power. However, when things had come to that pass, S. Hilary felt that it was time for him to return to Gaul. He therefore slipped away from his guards, and got back to Aries in the middle of February. S. Leo then acquitted Chelidonius, and issued an order that he should be re-established in his bishopric, on the ground that there was no proof that he had ever married a widow. Chelidonius was apparently re-established in his bishopric by the strong arm of the State. But S. Leo went further in the matter. He seems to have listened to all the tittle-tattle brought to his ears by those who felt aggrieved in any way by S. Hilary's saintly severity and apostolic spirit of discipline, and who were encouraged by what had happened to send their complaints to Rome. Tillemont and Fleury assert that S. Leo actually separated S. Hilary from his communion. 2 1 S. Leo (Ep. x. cap. iii., P. L., liv. 630), speaking of S. Hilary's conduct at this synod, says that he uttered things " which it would be impossible for a layman to say or a bishop to listen to " (quae nullus laicorum dicere, nullus sacerdotum posset audire). In the preceding chapter of his letter, S. Leo had said that S. Hilary " would not suffer himself to be subject to the blessed Apostle Peter " (ut se beato Apostolo Petro non patiatur esse subiectum). 2 See Tillemont, xv. 80, 89, and Fleury, Hist. Eccl., 1. xxvii. 5 (torn. vi. p. 269, edit. 1722). It is quite certain that S. Hilary did not communicate with S. Leo during the whole time that he was in Rome, for S. Leo (Ep. x. cap. vii.) says of him that " he thought it right to withdraw himself by a shameful flight (turpi fuga), having no share in the apostolic communion, of -which he did not deserve to partake ; God, as we believe, bringing this about, Who, in a way unexpected by us, both drew him to our judgement seat, and also brought to pass his secret departure in the midst of the investigation, to prevent his sharing in our com- munion.' 1 ' 1 It seems to me that S. Leo implies that during the process of the investigation S. Hilary could not communicate with the Roman Church, but that he probably would have done so if he had remained to the end. It is to me uncertain whether S. Hilary's inability to communicate with S. Leo during the course of the investigation was the result of S. Leo's action, or of S. Hilary's own unwillingness. If the first view is correct, then S. Hilary must have been authoritatively suspended from communion, and so far Tillemont and Fleury would be justified. If the second view is correct, we have the spectacle of a great saint going to Rome and staying there for some time, but refusing to communicate with the pope. S. Hilary would hardly have acted in that way if he had held the Vatican doctrine of the papacy. Whichever way the question is decided, my argument remains unaffected. S. Hilary's disciple and biographer, S. Honoratus, tells us that while in Rome S. Hilary was threatened, was in peril of his life, and was put under arrest ( Vita S. Hilar. Arelat. t cap. xvii.). The knowledge of these facts may mitigate our view of the " shamefulness " of his flight. Even Ultramon- tane historians have been compelled to acknowledge that S. Leo's conduct towards S. Hilary was, to say the least, unfortunate. Thus Cardinal Baronius, speaking 200 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [V, Whether he did so or not, the pope certainly professed to deprive Hilary of his metropolitical authority, and he made various other arrangements in regard to the churches of Gaul which could not be justified by the canons, and which, as Tillemont observes, were not carried out. 1 It seems to have been because S. Leo feared that the bishops of Gaul would not pay much attention to his revo- lutionary decrees, that he applied again to the civil power ; that so, however much his orders might be lacking in canonical validity, they might, at any rate, be clothed with all the majesty of the imperial authority. The Emperor Valentinian III. was then ruling in the West. He was a feeble and contemptible prince, stained with every vice, who murdered with his own hands Aetius, the only great man in his service. It was to this Valentinian that S. Leo applied for help in his contest with S. Hilary. The Emperor, who was probably governed in the matter by his mother, the Empress Galla Placidia, did all that S. Leo wished, and addressed a rescript, in the year 445, to that same Patrician, Aetius, whom he afterwards killed. In this rescript the Emperor says, among other things, that " the peace of the churches will then only be preserved, when the whole body of them acknowledge their ruler. Hitherto this has been inviolably observed ; but now Hilary of Aries, as we have learnt from the faithful report of the venerable man, Leo, the Roman pope, has, with contumacious daring, attempted cer- tain unlawful things, and thus an abominable confusion has invaded the churches north of the Alps." Towards the end of the rescript the Emperor adds, " We decree, by a perpetual edict, that nothing shall be attempted contrary to ancient custom, either by the Gallican bishops or by the bishops of other provinces, without the authority of the venerable man, the pope of the eternal city ; but whatever the authority of the apostolic see has sanctioned or shall sanction, let that be held by them and by all for a law ; so that if any of the bishops shall neglect, when summoned, to come to the tribunal of the Roman prelate, let him be forced to come of an angry letter written by S. Leo's successor, Pope Hilary, against another great light of the Church of Gaul, S. Mamertus of Vienne, says, "There is no cause for wonder that the Roman pontiff, Hilary, should have so vehemently attacked Mamertus, a man, as events proved, illustrious by his sanctity ; for in these litigious cases it is very easy for any one to be deceived. Something very similar happened to S. Leo, who inveighed most bitterly against S. Hilary for very much the same reason. Who does not know that it often happens that the ears of pontiffs are filled with false accusations, by which they are deceived ; and, when they imagine that they are acting in accordance with justice, they are really harassing the innocent" (Baron., Annal. EccL, s.a. 464). 1 Tillemont, xv. 80, 81, 85, 86 ; compare the remarks of Baluze, in De Marca's De Concord. Sac. et Imp. t v. xxxiii., coll. 631-636, edit. Bohmer, 1708. V.] FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. 2OI by the civil governor of the province." l Thus did the decrepit autocracy of the dying empire plant in the home of freedom, the Church of God, the hateful likeness of itself. This rescript of Valentinian goes far beyond the rescript of Gratian. It makes the pope's word law, and it makes the bishops his humble servants. 2 It is grievous to think that so noble a man as S. Leo really was, should have stained his history by his share in this degrading act of legislation. The Roman Catholic Tillemont justly observes that those who have any love for the liberty of the Church, and any know- ledge of her discipline, will agree that this rescript will redound through all ages as little to the honour of Leo, whom it praises, as it does to the hurt of Hilary, whom it condemns. 3 Succeeding popes knew well how to use such a law in their own interest. In the meanwhile, the blessed Hilary 4 spent the four remaining years of his saintly life working out his own salvation and promoting that of his people. He gave himself to prayer and preaching, and the practice of good works ; he redoubled his austerities ; he helped the poor of his diocese with gifts, and consoled them by his sympathy. 5 At length he died, and, if Tillemont is right, he was at his death still out of communion with Rome. His body was carried to S. Stephen's Church, the people crying out with one accord, " This day has for ever brought to an end the reproaches of an unjust accusation." 6 S. Honoratus, who was present, tells us that the saint's remains were nearly torn to pieces by the crowds who pressed around to touch them. Thus was gathered into the joys of Paradise one more of the long line of saints who have withstood the usurpations of the Roman pontiffs, and who, in many cases, have died out- side their communion. One is thankful to know that after 1 Constitutio Valentiniani III. Augusti, inter Leoninas Ep. xi., P. L., liv. 638. 2 The subsequent history shows what an effect it had in Gaul. The Gallican bishops were much more compliant with the papal claims, after the promulgation of Valentinian's constitution, than they had been previously. * Tillemont, xv. 83, 84. 4 When S. Hilary got home to Aries, he showed the Christian meekness of his spirit by sending first the Priest Ravennius, and afterwards the Bishops Nectarius and Constantius, to pacify S. Leo's wrath. However, he would not yield on the main point ; and his friend Auxiliaris, the Prefect of Rome, who had acted as host to the Bishops Nectarius and Constantius, urged him to use "a certain softness " (quddam tenerituJine) in his messages, which would conciliate " the ears of the Romans " (cures Romanorum). Tillemont (xv. 85), after quoting this letter of Auxiliaris, observes that we are not told that S. Hilary followed the prefect's advice, or that he made any further effort to appease S. Leo. Duchesne (Fastes, i. H7) t speaking of S. Hilary, says, "Quand il mourut, le 5 Mai, 449, la reconciliation n'etait pas faite." * Tillemont, xv. 89. 8 " Haec dies qaerelas injustae imputationis perpetuo resecavit " ( Vit, S. Hilar. l.y ap. Opp, S. Leon., edit. Quesnel, 1700, i. 371). 202 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [V. S. Hilary's death, S. Leo spoke of him l as a man " of holy memory ; " 2 and his commemoration occurs on the 5th of May in the Roman Martyrology. It is well for the Church in all ages to meditate on the example of such saints, and to celebrate their names with honour from generation to generation. It will not be possible for me in these lectures to trace the further development of the papal power, as it shows itself in the authentic records of the history of the Church. The rescript of the Emperor Valentinian III. formed a new start- ing-point, and all manner of causes combined together to help forward the evil growth. The barbarian invasions of the West, the Mohammedan conquest of the East and of Africa, the long succession of successful forgeries which formed a chain of which the forged decretals of the pseudo- Isidore constituted only one link, the final breach between the East and the West, the temporal sovereignty which the popes acquired, the Crusades, the close alliance between the State and the Church, the dependence of the later monastic orders and of the friars on the Roman see, the systematizing labours of the schoolmen and the canonists, working as they did so largely on spurious authorities, all these causes, and many more, helped to develop the papal power from what it was in the time of S. Leo, into what it became in the time of Bellarmine and into what it is now, as set forth in the Vatican decrees. The thing itself is not of God. It is of the earth earthy. It is impossible to exaggerate its weakening effect on those portions of the Church which have accepted it. For a long while its worst excesses were rejected by the noblest provinces of the Roman communion, as, for example, by the illustrious Church of France. Now it seems as if its deadening influence had been bound upon the whole of that communion by the Vatican decrees of 1870. We ought to thank God every day that in His great mercy He has delivered the Church of England from that bondage. We must indeed mingle with our thanksgivings the deepest peni- tence and humiliation, when we think how unfaithful we have been in our use of our freedom ; when we think of our lack of discipline, of our miserable Erastianism, of our worldliness, 1 Ep. xl. ad Episcopos per Arelatensem Galliae Provinciam constitutes, P. L., liv. 815. 2 These words of S. Leo would not of themselves prove that S. Hilary died in the Roman communion. In a letter to Bishop Paschasinus (Ep. Ixxxviii. cap. iv., P. L., liv. 929), and also in a letter to the Emperor Marcian (Ep. cxxi. cap. ii., P. L., liv. 1056), S. Leo calls Theophilus of Alexandria a man "of holy memory." Now, Theophilus had been excommunicated by the Roman Church for what he had done against S. Chrysostom, and he died outside the Roman communion (see Tillemont, xi. 495). V.] FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. 203 of our Laodicene self-satisfaction, of our very imperfect grasp of certain aspects of primitive truth. We may, however, in all humility hope that in some degree we are improving. Thank God ! it is no part of our creed that the Church, which we love, is as yet without spot or wrinkle. 1 We are free to see our faults, and to confess them, and to do what we can to amend them. The more we strive to amend what we see to be wrong, the more will our vision be purged, so that we shall become conscious of evil which we had not before suspected. Let us pray that we may be more and more weaned from trust in all mere earthly supports. It is not enough that we reject the earthliness of the papacy ; we must seek to be freed from all reliance on the earthly accidents of our ecclesiastical position, on our connexion with the State, on our ancient endowments, on our social position. I do not say that we are necessarily to agitate for a revolution in these matters. The time may arrive when such an agitation may become necessary. But what we are bound to do is to wean our hearts from all reliance on these things, and to struggle con- tinually against all that is corrupt and wrong, which may have crept into the Church in consequence of them. Our only real strength is in our true Head, Jesus Christ our Lord. If the Church had kept the eyes of her heart fixed on our Lord in the fourth century, as they had been fixed during the three previous centuries, that inroad of worldliness could never have taken place. It was the inroad of worldliness which in the West resulted in the papacy. We have got rid of the papacy, but we have not got rid of the worldiiness. We need to live in much closer fellowship with our ascended King, not only in our individual life, though that, of course, must form the foundation, but also in our ecclesiastical life. We have to bring home to ourselves the living union which exists between Christ and the Church. No matter what clouds of danger and difficulty are lowering on the horizon, threatening the ship of the Church with an overwhelming storm, we have Christ with us in the ship, and He has pledged His word that He will bring us safely through. People often fly over to Rome, because they are so conscious of the terrible difficulties which threaten the Church on all sides, and they think somehow that a compact organization under an earthly head will give the Church the strength she needs. Alas ! the earthly head, being no part of the institu- tion of Christ, does not reveal the heavenly Head, but hides Him. It is the power of the heavenly Head, which we are to 1 Cf. S. August., De Perfect. Justit. Horn., cap. xv. 35 (Opp., ed. Ben., 1690, x. 183) j see also S. Aug. Retractt., lib. i. cap. vii. 5 (>//., ed. Ben., 1689, i. 10) ; and S. Thorn. Summ. Theol., iii. q. viii. a. iii. ad z m . 204 APPENDIX F. [V. trust. It is His organic connexion with the Church that we are to realize. It is His guidance which is pledged to us. It is His Headship which will reveal itself most marvellously in the hour of greatest need, to those who are looking to Him. If we do not look to Him, we shall certainly be swept away, either into heresy, or into unbelief, or into the false unity of the papal communion. All those things are doomed to an awful ending. But through all the terrors of the last times Christ will purge and protect His own Church, and guard the faith of His people, who are trusting in Him and looking for the day of His glorious appearing. APPENDIX F. On the Genuineness of the Letter Optaremus, addressed by a Carthaginian Council (circa 426) to Pope Celestine (see p. 193). DR. RIVINGTON undertakes the hopeless task of disputing the genuine- ness of the letter Optaremus? addressed in 425 or 426 by a Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine. He says of it, that it " has every possible mark of forgery." 2 His first objection to its genuineness is based on the fact that " it has no date." 3 Well, the synodical letters, Sanctum animum tuum and Fidei tuae* addressed to Theodosius by two provincial councils of North Italy in 381 and 382, have no date. Similarly, the synodical letter Quo- niam Domino? addressed in 419 by the seventeenth Council of Carthage under Aurelius to Pope Boniface, has no date. The synodical letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae? addressed by a Synod of Rome under Damasus to the two Western Emperors, has no date. The synodical letter addressed by the Council of Nicaea to the Church of Alexandria 7 has no date. The three synodical letters, addressed by the Council of Sardica (i) to the Catholic episcopate, (2) to Pope Julius, and (3) to the Church of Alexandria, 8 respectively, have, neither of them, any date. But it would be wearisome to continue the list. The objection is absolutely futile. Dr. Rivington's next proof of the spuriousness of the letter Optaremus, is, if possible, still more absurd. He says, " It conies before us as emanating from a universal synod of Africa the peer of the great 1 P. L., 1. 422. 2 Prim. Church, p. 474. * Ibid. t p. 303. 4 pp. inter Ambrosianas xiii. et xiv., P. Z,., xvi. 990, 994. 5 P. L., xx. 752. ' P. L., xiii. 575. 7 Theodoret. H. ., i. 8 ; Socrat. //. ., i. 9; Coleti, ii. 260. 8 Coleti, ii. 699, 690, 694. V.] THE LETTER OPTAREMUS, GENUINE. 2O5 meeting of 419. Yet we have no record of this synod. This would not be fatal if we had the date, but there is no date." l As if there were not numbers of councils, of which the full acts have perished, or of which no mention is made by the historians or by other writers, but of whose canons or of whose synodical letters some remnants, often undated, remain and are received as authentic by all scholars. In this particular case we have good reason for thinking that, if not the complete acts, at least some of the canons of the council, which wrote the letter about appeals to Celestine, were still in existence in the sixth century, and that one of them was produced at the Council of Carthage, held under Boniface of Carthage at the close of the first quarter of that century. The acts of the council, held in 525, tell us that Boniface said, " Let the venerable ordinances of the ancient Fathers be brought forth out of the archives of this church, and let the things, which antiquity has bequeathed for observance to those who come after, be read out." 2 Then Agileius, the deacon, read out from the book of the canons a number of extracts, almost all of which had been taken from the acts of African councils. At length he read a canon of the sixteenth Council of Carthage under Aurelius (May, 418), prohibiting appeals ; and then finally he passed on to the twentieth Council of Carthage under Aurelius, and read a canon of that synod, thus summarized : " Ut nullus ad transmarina audeat appellare." 3 Now, the first great council at which the controversy about Apiarius was discussed, was the seventeenth council under Aurelius, held in 419. There followed an eighteenth council in 421, and a nineteenth council which, according to the Ballerini, 4 was held between 421 and 425. Lastly, the twentieth council was held, according to the same learned critics, in 425 or 426. 5 We learn from the canon of the twentieth council, quoted in 525, that that council certainly discussed the question of appeals to Rome, and prohibited them. Thus it appears that, about the time when the letter Optaremus, written to protest against appeals from Africa to Rome, must have been drawn up, if it is genuine, a council was held at Carthage, which by canon prohibited such appeals. The exist- ence of the canon corroborates the genuineness of the letter. And we may well come to the conclusion that the letter emanated from the twentieth council under Aurelius. This is the view taken by the Ballerini, 6 by Hefele, 7 and by Maassen, 8 all of them Roman-Catholic scholars of high renown. Dr. Rivington bases a final argument on the episcopal names which 1 Prim. Church, 304. 2 Coleti, v. 778. 3 Ibid. t v. 780. The Ballerini express the opinion that another canon of this twentieth council, dealing with the frequency of provincial synods, has been preserved by Ferrandus, a Carthaginian deacon, who flourished during the first half of the sixth century. * De Antig, Collection, et Collector. Canonum, pars ii. cap. iii. 9, n. 58; P. L., Ivi. 121. The Jesuit, Morcelli, in his Africa Christiana (ii. 24; iii. 113-116, edit. j8i6), decides in favour of 426 as the true date of the council. 8 Ballerin., De Antiq. Collect., pars ii. cap. iii. 9, n. 59, P. L., Ivi. 121. 7 Hefele, ii. 480, E. tr. 8 Maassen, Geschichle der Qitellen, i. 183. 206 APPENDIX F. [V. appear in the inscription of the letter Optaremus. The passage is too long to quote, 1 and the argument is too weak to need any detailed reply. The one point raised by Dr. Rivington which seems worth discussing, is the fact that the names of S. Alypius and S. Augustine are not to be found among the names in the inscription. It seems to me that the solution of the difficulty suggested by Dr. Rivington will be facilitated if we spend some little time in considering these names. In the copies of the letter which have come down to us, fifteen names are given, and the rest are summed up in the formula, " et caeteri." It is the common practice of the copyists to curtail long lists of names by putting down the first few, which head the list, and then adding the words, " et caeteri." Thus in the letter addressed by the Roman council of the year 371 to the Catholic bishops throughout the East, the copyists give ten names out of ninety-three, and sum up the eighty-three, whose names are not given, under the formula, " et caeteri." 2 On the other hand, in the Greek translation of that same letter only two names out of the ninety-three are given, all the others being summed up in the words, nal ol \onro( (et caetert)? In a letter addressed to Pope Innocent, in the year 416, by a provincial council of Africa Proconsularis, held at Carthage, sixty-nine names are given, and the rest are represented by " et caeteri." 4 In Pope Innocent's reply to a similar letter, addressed to him in that same year 416 by the Numidian provincial council of Mileum, only two names are given, followed by the usual formula, " et caeteri," which in this case stands for fifty-nine names of bishops. 5 In the case of the letter Quoniam Domino, addressed from Carthage by the plenary council of all Africa to Pope Boniface in May, 419, only two names are given, followed by the words, " et caeteri qui praesentes adfuimus numero 217 ex omni concilio Africae ; " 6 so that in that case the expression "et caeteri" stands for 215 names. 7 We now come to the case of the letter Optaremus, which was sent from Carthage to Pope Celestine in 425 or 426, by another plenary council of Africa. In the inscription of this letter fifteen names are given, after which follows the clause, " et caeteri qui in universali Africano concilio Carthaginis adfuimus." 8 The councils of 419 and 426 were similar councils, and, so far as we have gone at present, one would be justified in saying that presumably they were of about the same size. Accordingly, until solid reasons are given to the contrary, we may fairly suppose that the " et caeteri " in the inscription of the letter Optaremus stands for at least 200 names. The fifteen names actually given are no doubt the fifteen that stood first on the list, and they are the following : " Aurelius, Palatinus (or, according to another reading, ' Valentinus '), 9 Antonius, Tutus, Servus Dei, 1 It will be found in Prim. Church, p. 304. 8 P. Z., xiii. 347. 3 Theodoret, ff. E., ii. 17. 4 P. L., xx. 564. 4 Compare P. Z., xx. 568, 569 with xx. 589. * P. Z., xx. 752. 7 The formula " et caeteri " stands for 214 names in the inscription of the letter Optimum consuetudinem, addressed by a plenary council of Africa to Pope John II. in the year 535 (Collect. Avellan., edit. Gunther, Ep. Ixxxv., p. 328). 8 P. Z., 1. 422, 423. 9 Coleti (iii. 532) and Mansi (iv. 515) read " Valentinus ; " but Dom Coustant, V.] THE LETTER OPTAREMUS, GENUINE 2OJ Terentius, Fortunatus, Martinus, Januarius, Optatus, Celticius (orCelticus), Donatus, Theasius, Vincentius, Fortunatianus." As Bishop of Carthage and Primate of ail Africa, S. Aurelius, of course, heads the list. And if Valentinus, notwithstanding his old age, was really able to accomplish the journey to Carthage, then he would naturally occupy the second place as Primate of Numidia. But it is hardly likely that Valentinus was able to be present, 1 and, as we have seen, the second name is probably Palatinus. Immediately after S. Aurelius one would expect to find, in the absence of the Numidian primate, the names of the representatives of the Pro- consular province, that is to say, of the province immediately subject to the metropolitical jurisdiction of the see of Carthage. 2 And this is exactly what we do find, so far as we can identify the names. I will go through the list, taking first the names which can be identified (1) PALATINUS was Bishop of Bosa, or Bossa, in the Proconsular province. 3 He was at the Collation of Carthage in 411,* and signed the letter addressed by the Proconsular bishops to Pope Innocent in 4i6. 5 (2) ANTONIUS must have held one of the 133 sees in the Proconsular on apparently better manuscript evidence, reads " Palatinus." This last is the reading both in the Freisingen Collection (Cod. Monac. lat. 6243, olim Cod. Fris. 43, fol. 8$a) and in the Collection of Justel (Cod. Bodl. e Musaeo 100, olim Bodl. 3687, fol. 25b), as well as in others. 1 In 426 S. Augustine was seventy-two years old ; and Valentinus was probably consecrated to the episcopate several years before S. Augustine ; for in the letter of the Council of Mileum to Pope Innocent in 416, the name of Valentinus comes second, that is to say, immediately after the name of Silvanus, who was at that time Primate of Numidia, whereas the name of S. Augustine comes eighth. It is true that we cannot be certain that in any particular list the episcopal names are arranged in the strict order of seniority, but S. Augustine was such a pre-eminently great person, that one would suppose that the tendency would be to give him a higher place on the list than would be strictly due to the length of time which he had spent in the episcopate. Moreover, four years earlier, in 412, we find that Valentinus ranked next to the primate Silvanus at the Council of Zerta. On the whole, it seems to me that in all probability Valentinus, who had been the senior bishop in Numidia since 419, and perhaps since 416, was too old in 426 to under- take the journey from his Numidian home to Carthage. 2 Thus, in the plenary Council of Carthage of the year 390, the acts mention only three names, namely, first Genethlius of Carthage, and then Victor of Abdera and Victor of Pappianum, both of them bishops of the Carthaginian province (cf. P. L., Ixxxiv. 183, 184; and see Morcelli, i. 66, 252). Similarly, in the plenary council of 397 four names are given, namely, S. Aurelius of Carthage, the president, Victor of Pappianum, Tutus of Misgirpa, and Evangelus of Assuras, all of them bishops of the Proconsular province (see the thirty-third canon of the African code in the collection of Dionysius Exiguus, P. Z., Ixvii. 193). Once more, in the second session of the plenary council of 419 there follow, immediately after the names of S. Aurelius of Carthage and of Faustinus the Roman legate, ten names of bishops belonging to the Proconsular province, who are described in the I27th canon of the African code as "legates of the Proconsular province." The three Numidian legates follow next, and then the legates of the other provinces (cf. P. L., Ixvii. 222). It is true that in some African lists of episcopal names the Proconsular names are mentioned after the legates of some or all of the other provinces ; but such an arrangement seems to be abnormal. The natural place for the names of the Proconsular legates is immediately after the names of the presidents. * Cf. Morcelli, i. 1 06. * Cf. P. L., xi. 1290. 5 Cf. Epp' inter Augustinianas clxxv. et clxxxi., P. Z., xxxiii. 758, 780. 2O8 APPENDIX F. [V. province, for he signed the Proconsular letter to Innocent. 1 His name is the sixth on the list of bishops who signed that letter. He does not appear among the bishops present at the Collation. His name may have dropped out of the record of that assembly, which is imperfect, or he may have been ill or otherwise prevented from attending, 2 or finally his eleva- tion to the episcopate may not have taken place at the time when the Collation was held. 3 (3) TUTUS was Bishop of the Ecclesia Melzitana. He belonged to .the Proconsular province, 4 was present at the Collation, 5 and signed the Proconsular letter to Innocent. He cannot be identified with Tutus of Misgirpa, mentioned above. A bishop named Victor filled the see of Misgirpa in 41 1, and was present at the Collation. 6 (4) SERVUS DEI was Bishop of Thubursicum Bure, in the Procon- sular province. 7 In the year 404 both he and his father, an aged priest, were brutally attacked by the Donatists, and his father died a few days afterwards in consequence of the blows which he had received. 8 Servus Dei was present at the Collation. 9 (5) MARTINUS seems to be an early copyist's mistake for MARIANUS or MARINUS. 10 A bishop of that name occupied the see of Utzippara, in the Proconsular province, 11 as early as the year 411. He was at the Collation, 12 and signed the Proconsular letter to Innocent. He is men- 1 It has been suggested by Morcelli (Africa Christiana, i. 121) that the Antoniuswho signed the Proconsular letter to Innocent in 416 was the Antonius of Carpis who was at the Collation of Carthage in the year 411 (cf. Gesta Collat. Carthag., cognit. i. 126, P. Z., xi. 1288). But this view cannot be maintained. The Bishop of Carpis in 419 was Pentadius, who acted in the great synod of that year as one of the ten legates of the Proconsular province (see the I2yth canon of .the African code, P. Z., Ixvii. 222). If his predecessor was alive in the summer .of 416, Pentadius cannot have counted much more than two years of episcopate at the time of the plenary council of 419. It is hardly conceivable that the Proconsular province, with more than a hundred bishops from whom to choose, should have elected as one of its legates so junior a bishop as, on Morcelli's hypo- thesis, Pentadius would have been. Pentadius was, I feel sure, consecrated to Carpis long before 416, and he ought, no doubt, to be identified with the Pen- tadius or Penthadius who signed the letter to Innocent, and who was also one of those to whom Innocent addressed his reply. 2 The fact is that there were no less than 184 African sees unrepresented at :the Collation. S. Alypius certified that 120 bishops "esse absentes, quos aut .jnfirmitas, aut aetas, aut certe necessitas detinuit ; " and Fortunatianus of Sicca added that 64 episcopal sees were vacant (cf. Gesta Collat, Carthag., cognit. i. 217, P. L., xi. 1351). * I say nothing of Dr. Rivington's grotesque theory (see Print. Church, p. 304), that the Antonius who signed the letter to Celestine is to be identified with the scandalous Numidian bishop, Anthony of Fussala. Dr. Rivington uses his theory to disprove the genuineness of the letter (see his Appeal to History, p. 39). * See Morcelli, i. 223, and Tissot's Gtographie comparee de la province Romaine .cTAfrique, ii. 774. 6 Cf. P. L., xi. 1283. 6 Cl.P.L., xi. 1292. 7 Cf. Morcelli, i. 318, 319 ; and Tissot, ii. 342. 8 Cf. S. Aug. contra Cresconittm, iii. 43, P. L., xliii. 521, 522. 8 P.L., xi. 1284. 10 The reading ' ' Marinus " is found in various ancient manuscript copies of the letter Optaremus. Among them may be mentioned the Freisingen Col- lection (fol. 8sa) and the Justel Collection (fol. 25b). 11 Cf. Morcelli, i. 365. Cf. P. Z., xi. 1298. V.] THE LETTER OPTAREMUS, GENUINE. 2CX) tioned in the I27th canon of the African code as having been one of the legates for the Proconsular province at the plenary council of the year 419. x An interesting historical note, appended by some scribe to the letter Quoniam Domino, addressed to Pope Boniface by that council, mentions that the said letter was signed by Marinus or Marianus. 2 (6) JANUARIUS was a bishop of the Proconsular province, for he signed the Proconsular letter to Innocent. It was probably this Januarius who was put on a commission along with nineteen other bishops by the plenary council of the year 401. The commission was directed to proceed to Hippo Diarrhytus, and to set in order the church in that city. 3 He was probably Bishop of Gisipa, a city of the Procon- sular province. 4 Januarius of Gisipa took part in the Collation. 5 ., (7) THEASIUS was Bishop of Memblosa, in the Proconsular province. 6 In 401 he was put on the commission mentioned in the preceding para- graph. In 404 he was sent by the plenary council which met at Carthage in that year, as legate to the Emperor Honorius. We learn this fact from the ninety-second and ninety-third canons of the African code. 7 Theasius is mentioned again in the hundredth canon of the same code. 8 He signed the Proconsular letter to Innocent. (8) VINCENTIUS was Bishop of the Ecclesia Culusitana, in the Procon- sular province. 9 He was sent by the plenary council of 407 as a legate to the Emperor Honorius. 10 He was at the Collation, and was appointed to be one of the seven actor es on the Catholic side along with S. Aurelius and S. Augustine and four others. 11 He signed in 416 the Pro- consular letter to Innocent. In 418 he was sent as a legate by the Proconsular province to the Byzacene Council of Telepte. 12 He was one of the ten legates of the Proconsular province at the plenary council of 419." (9) FORTUNATIANUS was Bishop of Neapolis, in the Proconsular pro- vince. 14 He signed the Proconsular letter to Innocent. He was also one of the ten legates of the Proconsular province in the plenary council of the year 4ig. 75 1 Cf. P. L., Ixvii. 222. 2 Ibid., xx. 756. The authorities vary as to the spelling of the name. 3 See the seventy-eighth canon of the African code, P. L., Ixvii. 206. 4 Cf. Morcelli, i. 174. 5 Cf. P. L., xi. 1311. 6 See Morcell., i. 224, and Tissot, ii. 774. 7 P. L., Ixvii. 211. 8 Ibid., Ixvii. 215. 9 Cf. Tissot, ii. 773. 10 See the ninety-seventh canon of the code, P. L., Ixvii. 214. 11 Cf. P. L., xliii. 827, et Ibid., xi. 1227. 12 Ibid., Ixxxiv. 235. 13 Ibid., Ixvii. 222. 14 Cf. Tissot, ii. 133. 15 If we compare the list of bishops who signed the letter to Innocent in 416 with the list of those who signed the letter to Celestine in 426, we shall find that eight names appear on both lists ; and it is right to call attention to the fact that the order in which these names occur in the one differs from the order in which they occur in the other. It seems to have been the custom in Africa to vary the order of episcopal names in such lists as those with which we are dealing. Thus, P 2IO APPENDIX F. [V. These nine bishops, together with S. Aurelius, constitute two-thirds of the group of fifteen signatories, whose names stood first in the inscription of the letter Optaremus. I think that I have shown that there is good reason for thinking that every one of these nine bishops belonged to the Proconsular province, and that several of them had taken a prominent part in the affairs of the African Church. If we compare these signatories with the Proconsular legates in the plenary council of the year 419, it seems to me that it is the signatories who carry off the palm of distinction. 1 Besides the nine signatories, whose antecedents I have been investi- gating, there remain five others, about whom I have not much to say. Their names are Donatus, Fortunatus, Optatus, Terentius, and Celticius (or Celticus). 2 The first two of these names are among the commonest in Africa. The Bollandists mention thirty-two African saints of the name of Donatus ; and there were thirty-one bishops of that name present at the Collation. As there were 133 sees or thereabouts in the Procon- sular province, there were probably several bishops named Donatus in that province in the year 426 ; and I have no doubt that it was one of these whose name has been preserved in the inscription of the letter Optaremus. The same argument applies to the name Fortunatus, and in a less degree to the name Optatus. There are twenty-two African saints bearing the name of Fortunatus ; and out of fourteen Optati, mentioned in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, eight are connected with Africa. That there were several bishops named Fortunatus, and also one or more named Optatus, in the Proconsular province in the year 426, is highly probable. Terentius was a not uncommon Latin name through- out the Roman Empire ; and in Africa we find a martyr of that name, 3 and also a Numidian bishop who was at the Collation, and who signed the Numidian letter to Innocent. Besides these, the poet Terence (Terentius Afer) should be mentioned, for he was a Carthaginian by birth. We may therefore well believe that there was a Terentius among the Proconsular bishops in 426. It only remains to consider the name Celticius (or Celticus). This is an uncommon name. But it so happens that S. Augustine, writing in 424, mentions that there was then living an African bishop of that name. 4 S. Augustine narrates an event which happened to Celticius, when he was a youthful catechumen, and was residing or sojourning in Mauritania Sitifensis. I have no doubt that his episcopal see was situated in the Proconsular province. He may have been a native of that province, and have been merely sojourning in if we compare the list of the Proconsular legates in the 12 7th canon of the code with the list in the inscription of the letter to Innocent, we shall find that in the former list Marianus precedes Adeodatus, whereas in the latter list Adeodatus precedes Marianus ; and again we shall find that in the former list Pentadius precedes Rufinianus and Praetextatus, whereas in the latter list he comes after them. It follows, therefore, that the change of order in the names cannot be used as an argument against the genuineness of the letter to Celestine. 1 It should be noted that the names of Vincentius Culusitanus and of Fortunatianus Neapolitanus appear in both lists. 2 The Freisingen Collection and the Justel Collection read Cellicus. * Cf. Acta SS., torn. i. April., p. 860. 4 Cf. S. Aug., De Octo Dulritii Quaestt., ad q. vii. 3, P. Z., xl. 165, 166. V.] THE LETTER OPTAREMUS, GENUINE. 211 Mauritania, when the event recorded by S. Augustine occurred. Or, if he was born in Mauritania, he may have moved to Carthage or to some other city of the Carthaginian province in consequence of some circum- stance, the record of which has not been preserved ; or finally, S. Aurelius, who, as Bishop of Carthage, had the right of ordaining priests and of consecrating bishops taken from any part of Africa, may have summoned him from his native province in order to consecrate him bishop of some one or other of the Proconsular churches. He was no doubt the prelate who signed the letter to Pope Celestine. The reason which to my mind makes it highly probable that these five bishops belonged to the Proconsular province, is the fact that in these African lists of episcopal names it is usual for the provincial legates to follow immediately after the presidents, and also for the legates to be grouped according to their provinces, with the legates of the Pro- consular province normally at the head. These five bishops come in the middle of a group of Proconsular bishops, with names belonging to that province both preceding them and following them, and it is therefore only reasonable to suppose that they themselves occupied Proconsular sees. The plenary council which wrote the final letter about appeals to Pope Celestine, and passed a trenchant canon forbidding altogether such appeals in the future, must have been a council of very special impor- tance, and we may well suppose that the number of bishops attending it was unusually large. Moreover, as it met to consider in particular the case of Apiarius, a priest of the Proconsular province, that province had a special interest in the investigation. These considerations would account for there being at least thirteen Proconsular legates in 426, whereas there had been only ten in 419. One cannot help regretting that the copyists did not take the trouble to give us a larger instalment of the names on the list. The Ntimidian legates would normally follow after the Proconsulars, and we should no doubt have found that S. Augustine and S. Alypius figured among them. Dr. Rivington argues that the letter is spurious, because the names of those two Numidian saints do not appear in the inscription. 1 My readers are now, I hope, in a position to recognize the inconclusiveness of such a plea. Hitherto I have been rebutting objections. I proceed to indicate some portion of the evidence, in reliance on which the letter Opta- remus has been treated as genuine by all the great scholars and critics, whether Western or Eastern, whether Anglican, Romanist, or Protestant. There is hardly any ancient document of this sort, which has such an amount of varied attestation. It is contained in no less than eleven collections of canons and other ecclesiastical documents. It is in the Freisingen Collection ; it is in the Dionysian Collection in all its various forms ; it is in the S. Blaise Collection ; in the Collection of the Vatican codex 1342; in theChieti Collection; in the Justel Collection ; in the Paris Collection ; in the Collection of the Deacon Theodosius ; in theWurzburg 1 See Prim. Church, p. 304. 212 APPENDIX F. [V. Collection ; in the Diessen Collection ; and finally it is in \hzHispana. There are at least 112 ancient codices, in which one or other of these various collections has been preserved, in all of which the letter Optaremus is to be found. Fixing our attention on the first two collections that I have named, it is to be noted that the Freisingen Collection was almost certainly formed at Rome, that it seems to have been completed before the end of the fifth century, and was most probably in process of formation during the course of the latter half of that century. It is by no means improbable that the compiler or compilers had access to the archives of the Roman Church. In any case, the greater part of the materials of which he or they made use, must have been either directly copied from the authentic documents laid up in the archives, or at any rate ultimately derived from that source. The letters to and from the popes are arranged in the Freisingen Collection chronologically, as they would be if they were extracted from the pontifical registers ; and the letter Optaremus is found in its right place, at the head of the group of letters belonging to the episcopate of Pope Celestine. 1 As regards the Dionysian Collection, which seems to have been compiled either during the pontificate of Anastasius II. (496- 498) or during that of Symmachus (498-514), it is certain that the com- piler, Dionysius Exiguus, was living in high esteem at Rome, and that he enjoyed the friendship of all manner of highly placed personages. He dedicated one edition of his code to Pope Hormisdas, and mentions that he had undertaken this new edition at that pope's request. He was regarded in Rome as a great authority on the subject of canon law, and there is good reason to suppose that all facilities would be granted to him for consulting the registers and documents contained in the papal scrinia at the Lateran. 2 His collection contains one large section devoted to African documents ; and it is very noteworthy that all these documents must have found a place in the Roman archives. It is true that the collection includes acts and canons of various African councils, which do not appear to have been sent to Rome at the conclusion of those councils by the bishops who presided over them. But on investi- gation it turns out that all these acts and canons were read out at the 1 The letter which follows the letter Optaremus in the Freisingen Collection, is the letter Cuperemus dated July 26, 428. Then follows the letter Nulli sacerdotum of the date July 21, 429 ; and so the series goes on in due order. I notice, however, that the letters Spiritus Sancti and Sufficiat, which are dated respectively May 8 and May 15, 431, appear in the Freisingen Collection in reverse order (cf. Maassen, Que/Ien, p. 485). They were, perhaps, copied into Celestine's register at the same time, and precedence may have been given to the letter Sufficiat^ as being addressed to the Emperor. 2 The learned Prior of Monte Cassino, Dom Ambrogio Amelli, whose hospitality and courtesy it is a great pleasure to me to recall, speaking of the years 530 to 535, says in his interesting work, S. Leone Magno e FOriente (p. 23), " There is, in fact, no one else, who during those five years had a free hand in the apostolic archives, besides Dionysius, and he had already during more than twenty years frequented the archives, collecting similar documents and translating them from Greek into Latin, in obedience to the injunctions of Pope Anastasius and of Hormisdas, and at the request of other illustrious personages, such as were the Cardinals Lawrence, Julian, and Peter, and again such as Felicianus Pastor and Archbishop Stephen." V.] THE LETTER OPTAREMUS, GENUINE. 21$ great Carthaginian Council of 419,* and were copied into the acts of that council ; and those acts were sent to Pope Boniface, as we learn from the synodical letter Quoniam Domino? addressed to that pontiff ; and the pope, when he had received the acts, would of course give orders that they should be preserved in the archives of his church, together with the covering letter addressed to him by the African bishops. The only documents to be found in the African section of the Dionysian code which were not entered in the acts of the council of 419, were (i) the letters and part of the enclosures sent to Carthage in that same year, 419, by S. Cyril of Alexandria and S. Atticus of Constantinople, and (2) the letter Optaremus, addressed to Pope Celestine by the twentieth Car- thaginian Council under Aurelius. 3 But a rubric which precedes the I35th canon of the Dionysian code, and another rubric prefixed to the i37th canon of the same code, 4 inform us that the documents from Alexandria and Constantinople were dispatched to Rome from Carthage on November 26, 419. As to the letter Optaremus, inasmuch as it was addressed to the pope, it must, of course, if it was genuine, have been sent to the city of his residence. It appears therefore that Dionysius Exiguus had under his hand in the Roman archives the whole body of genuine African documents, which he has inserted ,in his code ; and, being an accurate person, he may be presumed to have taken the trouble to assure himself of the genuineness of these documents by an inspection of the authentic copies preserved in the papal scrinia. Whether Dionysius actually undertook this work of verification or not, there can be no doubt, I think, that the collection of African documents, which he has inserted in his code, was formed at Rome, because that collection is limited to documents, copies of which must, on the hypothesis of their genuineness, have been sent to Rome. The collection had probably been made and published before Dionysius set to work to compile his code. That is, I think, implied in a sentence of his prefatory letter addressed to Bishop Stephen (P. L., Ixvii. 142). The person who originally formed this African collection must in any case have derived his materials from the archives of the Roman Church. The Roman provenance of the collection makes it unlikely that an African forgery, whether Catholic or Donatist, should have been inserted ; and assuredly the letter Optaremus is not the sort of document that is likely to have been forged in Rome. That letter possesses a very high degree of importance, as illustrating the relations of the African Church to the Bishops of Rome at the end of the first quarter of the fifth century. Ultramontane writers feel the weight of its testimony against their own theories, which is all the more telling because the African Church was a Western and Latin-speaking 1 See the thirty-third canon of the African code (P. L., Ixvii. 193). z Cf. P. L., Ixvii. 225. * These supplementary documents are obviously added to the acts of the council of 419, because they are closely connected with those acts, and deal with the great question of appeals to Rome, which formed the principal subject of the discussions at the council (cf. Ballerin., De Antiq. Collection, et Collector. Canonum, pars ii. cap. iii. 8, nn. 54 et 56, P. L., Ivi. 118, 120). 4 Cf. P. L., Ixvii. 226, 227. 214 APPENDIX F. [V. church ; and of late some of these writers have taken the line of denying the genuineness of the letter. I have thought it well, therefore, to set forth with some fulness answers to the principal objections which have been raised. A great deal more might be said in proof of the genuine- ness of the document, but I do not think that there is any need to prolong this appendix. The letter is, I believe, accepted as genuine by all the great Roman Catholic scholars, PART II. COMMUNION WITH THE ROMAN SEE IS NOT A NECESSARY CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. LECTURE VI. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. IN the preceding lectures I have spoken of the position of the Roman see during the first four and a half centuries of our era ;- of its primacy of honour and influence, and of the causes which brought about that primacy ; of its metro- political jurisdiction over the suburbicarian churches from the earliest times ; and of the patriarchal jurisdiction over the churches of the Western empire which it gradually acquired during the fourth and fifth centuries, partly through the legislation of the Council of Sardica, but mainly through the action of the civil power. We have noticed the upgrowth in Rome of the conception that S. Peter was bishop of the local Roman Church until his death, and that he bequeathed to his see his supposed primacy of jurisdiction, so that all subsequent popes were, in the sense implied by this theory, successors of S. Peter in S. Peter's own chair ; and attention has been called to the great use which was made of this conception, to give an appearance of apostolic and even of divine sanction to claims whose real origin was partly syno- dical, but mainly secular; and we have observed how the use of these Petrine arguments during the process of the building up of the Western patriarchate prepared the way for the claim to an ecumenical jurisdiction over the whole Church, which was unmistakably put forth in the time of S. Leo. We have had occasion to notice over and over again how the great saints of the Church, especially in the East and in Africa and in Gaul, repudiated the papal jurisdiction, when from time to time an attempt was made to put it in force outside the suburbicarian limits ; and we have seen how entirely the supporters of the definitions of the Vatican 2l6 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [VI. Council concerning the papal primacy fail, when they attempt to prove those definitions by an appeal to Holy Scripture. I propose in these supplementary lectures to drop the discussion of the origin and growth of the papal jurisdiction, and to deal with the cognate subject of the claim of the Roman see to be the necessary centre of communion for the whole Church. The discussion of this claim will, I hope, throw light on the true nature of the Church's unity, a very important point, which is often much misunderstood. In order that we may know precisely what the Roman claim is, I will quote a remarkable passage from a remarkable article by the late Cardinal Wiseman. 1 He says, " 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." 2 Thus, according to the teaching of this distinguished Roman Catholic prelate and divine, who was in every sense a representative man, communion with the Roman see is a test of fellowship with the Catholic Church ; those who are out of communion with the Roman see are in schism ; and this statement is put forth, not as the description of the de facto state of things in this or that age of the Church's history, but as " the doctrine of the ancient Fathers," which is presumably in accordance with the revealed will of God, and therefore obligatory for all time. It is obvious that the theory, which underlies Dr. Wise- man's statement, is based on the notion that the Church's unity is always visibly manifested by the intercommunion of her various parts ; that is to say, that the different dioceses, provinces, and patriarchates, into which the Church militant is divided, are at all times in visible communion with the see of Rome, their divinely appointed centre, and, as a con- sequence, in communion with each other. If at any time any patriarchate or province or diocese ceases to be in com- munion with the pope, on this theory it necessarily ceases for the time to be in fellowship with the Catholic Church ; it has lapsed into schism. Such is the view which is held, I suppose, universally by modern Roman Catholics, which is implied in 1 The article appeared in the Dublin Review for August, 1839. It is the famous article in which occurred a sentence quoted from S. Augustine, which produced the strange effect on Newman so graphically described in the Apologia (pp. 211-213, edit. 1864). 2 Dublin Review, vol. vii. p. 163. The Jesuit Perrone (Praelectt. T/ieoll., Tractat. de Locc, Theoll., part. i. sect. ii. cap. ii. prop. iii. n. 576, edit. 1841, vol. ii. pars i. p. 408) inculcates the same teaching. Speaking of the Fathers, he says, " Opponebant haereticis et schismaticis auctoritatem ecclesiae romanae qudcztm si quivis haud communicaret, frustra speraret sese ad ecclesiam pertinere" VI.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 21 7 the second paragraph of the third chapter of the Vatican dogmatic decree, " de EcclesiA Christi" but to us seems so strange, and, in the face of the facts and writings of the saints, so absolutely untenable. Not that we make light of the importance of visible unity. The fundamental law of the Church is the law of love ; and to whatever degree the main body of the Church is dominated by that law, there will be a proportionate yearning for visible unity, and a readiness to give up a great deal in order to attain it. The several members of the Church, or a majority of them in the various provinces, being inwardly united by love, the provincial or national churches will manifest the love which dwells in the hearts of the faithful, 1 by external fellowship and intercommunion. Moreover, intercommunion is not merely an outcome and expression of love ; it is in itself a sacred duty which cannot be set aside except in obedience to some higher law. But this visible unity, at which the Church is bound to aim, which expresses the supernatural love which dwells in her, is no mechanical unity resulting from an iron necessity ; it is produced by the action of the Holy Ghost, who dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the Church's members, and by the free co-operation of their sanctified wills. On the Roman theory, the external unity of the Church is a mechanical unity ; it is a unity which cannot be broken. Those who are in fellowship with the pope are in the Church, those who are not in fellowship are outside. On this theory, the visible unity of the Church, resulting from the intercommunion of her several parts, is not the outcome of the free co-operation of the members of the Church with the unifying influences of the Spirit of God ; it is the rigidly necessary result of the way in which the Church is defined. It would be hardly conceivable that any one should on this theory pray that, in the sense indicated above, the Church may be visibly one ; 2 the Church must be visibly one at all times, for the Church consists of the pope and those who are in visible communion with him. No amount of sin and unbelief can suspend or mar this Roman 1 Obstacles resulting from past unfaithfulness may hinder at times this manifestation of love, but the spirit of unity and the tendency to unity are inseparable accompaniments of true love. * It is true that in the Baptismal Service we pray that the child may be regenerated, although we are quite certain that it will be regenerated. But there is no analogy between such a prayer and a prayer for the visible unity of the Church offered by one who holds the Ultramontane theory of visible unity. Our certainty concerning the regeneration of the child depends upon our trust in God, and in His faithfulness to His promises ; but on the Ultramontane theory the visible unity of the Church is the necessary consequence of the definition of the Church. It does not depend on the action of God, or on the promise of God. We can no more pray for it than we can pray that two and two may make four. 2l8 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [VI. unity. The area of its fold may be diminished, but the external unity itself cannot be touched or affected. Very different is the primitive idea of visible unity, which is also our own. According to the primitive idea, visible unity is no mere logical deduction from a definition ; it is the outcome of the unifying operation of the Holy Spirit, which may be thwarted, and which often has been thwarted. The faithful, and more especially the rulers of the Church, have to pray and labour continually that this unity may be maintained when it exists, and may be recovered when at any time it is lost. It is the good gift of our ascended Lord, for which we are dependent on Him. No doubt there is an underlying essential unity which never ceases. All true parts of the Church are united by their profession of one faith in essentials, by their possession of the same spiritual powers transmitted from Christ and His apostles through the unbroken succession of the episcopate, by their adherence to the fundamental laws of the Church's polity and discipline, and above all by their organic union with their invisible Head and Centre, Christ our Lord. In this sense the Church is always one. 1 But that essential unity is, to a great extent, perceived by faith rather than by sight. The Church must never be content with the organic unity which never fails. It is her duty to do all she can to manifest to the world, by the visible intercommunion of her various parts, that she is indeed indwelt by the spirit of unity and love. From what has been said, it will have been gathered that, according to the Roman idea, the Church is always visibly one by the external intercommunion of her several parts ; but, according to the primitive teaching, this visible unity of the Church, though a great blessing which is always to be aimed at, is nevertheless not strictly necessary. 2 The essen- tial unity of the Church remains, even though the outward social unity may from time to time be broken. It will be well, before investigating the teaching of the 1 On account of this abiding organic unity, we are always able to confess our faith in " the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church." 2 It must always be remembered that there is a great difference between the visibility of the Church and the visibility of the unity of the Church, in so far as that visibility of unity arises from the intercommunion of the various local divisions of the Church. The Church militant is always a visible body ; it is not always in the sense indicated above a visibly united body. The distinction is sometimes overlooked. It may be worth noticing that the distinction between the two ideas was clearly perceived by the divines and canonists who were appointed to prepare materials for the Vatican Council. In the "Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae de Ecclesid Christi Patrum examini propositum" the fourth chapter has for its title, " Ecclesiam esse Societatem Visibilem," and the fifth chapter has the title, "De Visibili Ecclesiae Unitate" (see the Collectio Lacensis, torn. vii. coll. 568, 569). VI.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 2IQ Fathers, to whom Cardinal Wiseman rightly appeals, to con- sider whether Holy Scripture throws any light on the matter. I shall not attempt to exhaust the scriptural argument, but shall set before you two principal points, one connected with the Old Testament, and the other with a passage in our Lord's great prayer, which He offered just before His entrance on His Passion. It seems to me that some considerable light comes to us, in regard to the matter which we are considering, from the history of God's ancient people, Israel. If we have any true perception of the relation between the old covenant and the new, we shall expect to find some close analogies between the organization and history of Israel and the organization and history of the Church ; and so in fact we do. The Israelite nation was organized in twelve tribes under twelve tribal princes. 1 These princes were co-ordinate one with another. No one of them had jurisdiction over the rest. It may perhaps be allowed that Judah at the first start had a slight pre-eminence in honour. During the journey through the wilderness, they of the camp of Judah "set forth first." 2 But there was no central monarchy. The Lord God was the King of Israel, and the only King ; and when He saw fit He raised up heroes sometimes from one tribe and sometimes from another, 3 to act as His people's leaders in war, and as their supreme judges in peace. The organization seems to have been devised in such a way as to leave the people dependent on God for the preservation of their national unity. There was no permanent supreme controlling power here on earth. The people were not headless, but the Head was invisible. The constitution, to be workable, presupposed a lively faith. In later times the people's faith grew weak. They came to Samuel and said, " Make us a king to judge us like all the nations ;" 4 and so they "rejected " the Lord, that He " should not be King over them." 5 As Samuel said to them some time afterwards, " Ye said unto me, Nay ; but a king shall reign over us : when the Lord your God was your king." 6 So the Lord " gave them a king in His anger ; " 7 and first Saul, and then David, and then Solomon, reigned over them. It is most interesting to notice how, so long as the people were content with their twelve co-ordinate princes, and looked only to their invisible King to keep them one, their unity was preserved. But very soon after they had 1 Numb. i. 4-16. 2 Ibid., ii. 9. 3 E.g. Joshua from Ephraim, Gideon from Manasseh, Jephthah from Gad, Samson from Dan. 4 I Sam. viii. 5. 5 Ibid., viii. 7. 6 Ibid., xii. 12. ' Hos. xiii. II. 220 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [VI. established an earthly monarchy, the germs of a schism began to manifest themselves. When, after the overthrow of Absalom, King David crossed back over the Jordan, "the men of Israel came to the king, and said unto the king, Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away?" 1 And they said to the men of Judah, " We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than ye. . . . And the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel." 2 The whole passage shows clearly that the quarrel between the north and the south had begun. 3 And at last the separation took place ; and Reho- boam reigned in the south, and Jeroboam in the north. The visible unity of the people of God was suspended. 4 But the people remained one. God's people were not limited to the two tribes who followed the house of David. When the prophet, who was Elisha's messenger, poured the oil on Jehu's head, he said unto him, "Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I have anointed thee king over the people of the Lord, even over Israel" 5 Israel had its great saints and prophets as well as Judah. One may almost say that in Elijah and Elisha Israel had greater saints than Judah ; and the prophet expressly tells us that Samaria " did not commit half of Jerusalem's sins." 6 Notwithstanding the suspension of political unity, the essential unity of the nation continued. S. Paul speaks of " the promise made of God unto our fathers ; unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain." 7 I cannot doubt that this history of Israel was a prophecy of the Church of the new covenant. The Church, which is the new Israel, was organized by our Lord under twelve co- ordinate apostles. The apostles and their successors the bishops were the earthly guardians of the Church's unity ; but in some sense the earthly organization was incomplete. There was no one central authority, no one permanent con- trolling power here on earth. The Church's Head was to be on high, within the veil. The constitution of the new Israel, as of the old, presupposed a living faith animating the mili- tant Church and keeping it dependent on its Head. If the Church militant were a merely human creation, it would need, like other human societies, " a head in the same order of life as the rest of the body." 8 But the Church is a divine 1 2 Sam. xix. 41. * Ibid., xix. 43. 3 Compare Blunt's Undesigned Coincidences, pp. 162-175 (8th edit.). 4 On S. Cyprian's interpretation of the typs of the rending of Israel from Judah, see note 9 on pp. 469, 470. 5 2 Kings ix. 6. 6 Ezek. xvi. 51. 7 Acts xxvi. 6, 7 ; cf. S. Jas. i. I. 8 See Dr. Rivington's Authority, p. 5. VI.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 221 creation ; and though it has a human Head, that Head is the Incarnate Son of God enthroned in glory, organically united to the Church on earth, the permanent Source of her essential unity, and perfectly able to secure her visible social unity, whenever He sees that her faith, and love, and humility, and unworldliness make it safe and desirable to grant to her that boon. In the early ages of the Church the Lord Jesus did grant to His Church the complete gift of visible unity. The Church was persecuted and unworldly and full of faith and love, and the Lord took care that her essential unity should be manifested visibly by the intercommunion of her several parts. Afterwards the Church made terms with the world, and the world was admitted within the sacred enclosure, and some leading portions of the Church began to cry out, like Israel of old, " Nay ; but a king shall reign over us." Some were prepared to subject the Church to the Emperor, " the divine head," l as he was called by the imperial commissioners at the Council of Chalcedon. Others were willing to sub- ordinate the whole Church to the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiffs. But the mere fact that the notion of an earthly head 2 should be seriously entertained was a token of how grievously the Church had fallen from her primitive fulness of realization of the things unseen. As the West came more and more under the dominion of the papal head at Rome, it became increasingly evident that the Church would lose, at any rate for a time, her visible social unity. Our Lord would not allow His Church to remain visibly united by intercommunion of her parts under any head but Himself; and so in process of time the East and West became separated, and later on Rome withdrew her com- munion from England. The analogy between Israel and the Church as regards this matter has been singularly complete. 3 1 Tp Oeia. K0pv that the Father would " keep them " and " sanctify them.'' 1 That was the imme- diate intention of His prayer. But our Lord looks forward beyond the immediate intention. He wishes the faithful to be "kept" and "sanctified," in order that (2W) they may be one in the Father and in the Son, and in order that (ivyfi' Kal K rplrov uffavrcas, fcas diaffyjiiv rbv aipfriKbv 6> /J.TI elvai rtf Tlarpl rbv Tibv 6/j.oovcriov. 'EvfKtivro 5e, teal rbv Kparovvra M rovro ftdvovv, irAe/orr/p trap' avr ira ayovrts, ~Baff(\tios al Eixrrclfhoy tta.1 'E\fvffios. Ot Sfy r6re (Is filar aOpolffavres ra SfSoy/jLtva M Tlau\y rtf IK 'SafMOffdrwi', ital Qwreurf rf IK Kal r}]v lKTf9fiffa.v trlffTiv tv TOIS tyicaivtois rrjs 'Avriox^f ^KK\i)ffias, us M irpoipdarfi rov 6/jioovffiov iirixtipo'liVTuiv TIVWV I8lq ff\tviara.v a'lpecriv, irapaffKfva&vfft ffvvaivfffai rabrri Aifitpiov, 'A.6avdffi6v re KO.I 'A\fai/$poi>, teal 2efiripiavbv Kal K.pifftcti'ra, ot iv 'A^pj/cp I4p ^K0fj.(ffavro irapa Atftepiov, airoKripvrrovarav TOI/J fj.i) ffor' ovffiav ttal Kara ir dfiooviriov airtSoKlfJ.ao't, Kal aa>6p.oiov rf Tlarpl rbv Yibv Sod(i. 'Eirei 5e ravra 5e KarapOuro ro7s K rr)s Svcreais irpfa&taiv, aireSaiKti/ 6 &afj.ijv ivavoSov' ypdiA7j/c< r(p fiyovfi.fv

/j.a(uv iKK\i}(r(as, Kal rtf ti'OdSe K\4)p xu i- 425-44 1 )- It seems to have been only during the two years 358 and 359 that George of Laodicea was in alliance with the Semi-Arians. This point fixes the date of the document to which reference is made in this note. Dr. Gwatkin (Studies of Arianism, p. 168) evidently supposes that it was drawn up at Sirmium in May, 359. * Studies of A nanism, p. 159, n. I. 4 Sozomen speaks of "the Western bishops having sent an embassy" to Constantius ; and the Western ambassadors evidently took part in the Sirmian meeting. But the only Western bishops who seem to have been present at that meeting were Liberius, Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and the four African bishops. Of these the first four were not ambassadors. It seems, therefore, necessary that we should identify the ambassadors with the African bishops. They were doubtless sent, not by the whole West, but by the African Church ; just as those whom Sozomen describes as " the legates from the East," were sent, not by the whole East, but by the small Council of Ancyra, which consisted only of bishops from Asia Minor. 278 APPENDIX G. [VIII. evidence of communications concerning dogmatic questions passing at this time between the Emperor and his episcopal counsellors on the one side, and the African Church on the other side ? It is clear that, if such evidence could be produced, it would tend to show that Sozomen was exceedingly well informed in regard to the details of what went on at the Sirmian meeting. And it seems to me that evidence of such intercourse with Africa is forthcoming. There is a remarkable passage in the treatise of Marius Victorinus adversus Arittm, 1 in which he apostrophizes some bishop, whom he describes as the " patron of the dogma " of the ojuoiownoc. 2 In the course of his expostulation with this bishop, Victorinus speaks of him as saying, concerning the fyoioixnov, " It is in this way that the Africans and all the Orientals understand the matter." Victorinus, still addressing the bishop, retorts, "Why, then, do you write to them, requiring them to cast out the buoo-txnov from the holy Church ? They, having received your letter, declare that such a letter ought not to have been written to them ; and that, if a letter was to be written, the effort to persuade them should have been' based on an appeal to reason and Scripture, and not on the mere intimation of a command (non solum jussione) : for it was your duty not only to pull down the &p.oo\>ffiov but to build up the dpoiovffiov." It would seem that the letter to the African Church from the unnamed bishop was backed up by the authority of the Emperor. Under the circumstances existing in the Church during the only period when a letter of command in favour of the bpoiovinov was likely to be sent to the African Church, some exercise of the imperial authority would be needed to give effective force to the jussio. In point of fact, it appears to me to be highly probable that this letter of the unnamed bishop was written from Sirmium in 358 ; 3 for it was only during that year and perhaps the first few months of the following year, that the maintainers of the 6/j.oiov had influence enough with the Emperor to be in a position to induce him to support their measures by the backing of his authority ; and the fact that the four African legates at Sirmium had signed the composite formulary may have suggested the dispatch of a letter to the whole African Church, to be conveyed by the legates, and to be delivered by them on their return to Africa. If the letter to the Africans was written then, it would almost certainly have been written by Basil of Ancyra, who was by far the most influential bishop at Sirmium. I therefore am inclined to identify the unnamed bishop, apostrophized by Victorinus, with Basil of Ancyra. He, more 1 Lib. i. capp. xxviii., xxix., P. L., viii. 1061. This treatise seems to have been written during the reign of Constantius (cf. lib. ii. cap. ix., P. L., viii. 1096), and therefore before November, 361. z The scribes, who copied Victorinus' treatise, have made sad confusion with the Greek words which he uses. Throughout Migne's edition of this treatise no distinction is made between 6(iooi>, were undertaking to frame privately a heresy." l It surely must be admitted by all candid persons that the prima facie meaning of these statements of Sozomen is that the three legates from Ancyra had the practical management of affairs in their hands, and that their great object was to induce Liberius not merely to pass over the 6fwov. There seems to be no doubt that by the expression " the creed which was set forth at the dedication of the church in Antioch " Sozomen means us to understand the Lucianic creed, 2 which was the second of the four creeds commonly attributed to the Council of the Dedication. 3 There seems also to be no doubt that, when Sozomen speaks of the decrees "against Photinus of Sirmium," he is alluding to the creed of the Council of Sirmium of the year 351, with its appended anathemas. 4 The council of 351 was assembled against Photinus of Sirmium, and actually deposed him, and its anathemas deal largely with his heresy. It is to be noted that neither in the creed nor in the anathemas of the Sirmian Council of 351 is there any allusion to the heresy of Paul of Samosata, 5 and that neither in the decrees of Sirmium nor in the Lucianic creed is there any express repudiation of the i>noovfj.oovffiov. Liberius, of course, ought to have answered that a great deal had happened since 268, and that he could not sign a repudiation of the 6fioovffiov understood in the Samosatene sense, without at the same time declaring his adherence to that same formula when understood in the Nicene sense. But Liberius knew well that, if he confessed his adherence to the OHQOVO-IOV in any sense, he had no chance of going back to Rome. He therefore signed and fell. 4 He entered into communion with the Arians, Valens and Ursacius and Germinius, and with the Semi- Arians, Basil and Eustathius and Eleusius, on the basis of an explicit repudiation of the 6/M>ovo-tov. 5 To use Cardinal Newman's words, " The pope " became " a renegade." Before bringing this Appendix to an end, it will be perhaps well to consider some of the objections that have been urged against the con- clusion which has been reached. Newman (Arians, appendix, note iii. 5, edit. 1871, p. 437) take the same view as that which is propounded in the text. 1 Compare pp. 276, 277. 2 Dom Maran (Divinitas Dom. nostr, Jesu Christi, lib. iv. cap. 29, 2) tries to make out that the 6/jLoova-tov was not condemned by the Antiochene Council of 268 ; but his arguments have been satisfactorily answered by the Jesuit Father de Smedt (Dissertationes Selectae, edit. 1876, pp. 288-297). Duchesne, in an article entitled Les Temoins Anteniceens du Dogme de la Trinite (Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques for December, 1882, p. 491, note), speaking of the action of the Council of Antioch of 268, says, "Certains auteurs comme dom Maran et le Card. Franzelin (Trin. t p. 200 [edit. 1869, p. 192]), mettent en doute cette repudiation de l'6/j.oovfftos. Mgr. Hefele 1'admet et le P. de Smedt a public une dissertation pour 1'etablir. Le fait est d'ailleurs atteste par saint Athanase, saint Hilaire et saint Basile." Robertson (Prolegomena, p. xxxi.) holds that the fact of the condemnation "is as certain as any fact in Church history." 3 I think that S. Hilary is probably alluding to the signature of the Antiochene decree against Paul of Samosata at Sirmium in a passage of his Liber de Synodis ( 88, P. L., x. 540). In that passage he is addressing the Ancyrene legates, who managed the meeting at Sirmium, and he says, " Synodo Samosatenae sub- scribendum putas, ne secundum Samosateni intelligentiam quisquam sibi usurpet 6/j.ooijffioi'." S. Hilary evidently means by the "synodus Samosatena" the synod which condemned the Samosatene, that is to say, the Antiochene Council of 268. 4 By his explicit condemnation of the d^ooiiaiov and by his admission of Valens and Ursacius to his communion, Liberius was in effect ratifying the withdrawal of his communion from S. Athanasius, which, as we shall see presently, he had carried out some time during the preceding year (compare p. 283, note 2). 6 The fact that Basil of Ancyra, armed with imperial authority, appears to have written from Sirmium at this time, requiring the African bishops "to cast out the 6fj.oovv).* Nobody says that they anathematized it. 6 The objection therefore falls to the ground. But again it is asked Why does not S. Hilary, in his Liber de Synodis, refer to the repudiation of the 6/j.oovffK>v. But to that objection I reply that, when Eudoxius and his friends spread that report, it was undoubtedly a. false rumour. It referred to what Liberius was supposed to have done at Beroea in 357. 2 It had nothing to do with his action at Sirmium in 358, for the rumour was circulated before Liberius came to Sirmium. What is very noteworthy is that, when, in consequence of Eudoxius' report, Liberius drew up at Sirmium a personal confession of his faith, he dealt with only the second part of the report. He dealt, that is, with the rumour that he had admitted the fofyotov, and with that rumour only. He contradicted it in the most trenchant fashion by excommunicating all those who should declare that the Son is not like (S/j-oiov} to the Father 1 Cf. Sozom. H. E., iv. 15. 2 I have no doubt that Liberius did do something bad at Beroea in 357, although what he did was not the particular crime with which he was charged in the report circulated by Eudoxius. My belief is that in that year he withdrew his communion from S. Athanasius, and perhaps entered into communion with some of the Arianizing court-bishops. S. Athanasius (Hist. Arian., 35), describing events that happened in the year 355, tells us that Constantius sent the eunuch Eusebius to Rome, and that the said eunuch "proposed to Liberius to subscribe against Athanasius, and to hold communion with the Arians." Liberius refused to accede to this proposal, and in that same year, 355, he was banished to Beroea, in Thrace. In 41 S. Athanasius describes Liberius' lapse thus : "But Liberius, having been banished, after a period of two years succumbed, and, frightened by threats of being put to death, subscribed. Yet even this only shows their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice." We cannot put the lapse here described later than 357, and it is evident that at least one element in the catastrophe was the withdrawal of Liberius' support from S. Athanasius. In regard to the meaning of the words, "after a period of two years," one may note that the author of the document entitled " Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos" ( 3, Collect. Avellan., ed. Giinther, p. 2), after describing the banishment of Liberius, says, " Post annos duos venit Romam Constantius imperator." Now, we know from other sources that Constantius' sojourn in Rome lasted from April 28 to May 29 in the year 357. The author of the above-quoted document goes on to say that " tertio anno redit Liberius, cui obviam cum gaudio populus Romanus exivit." This return took place on August 2, 358 (cf. Duchesne, Lib. Pont., torn. i. p. 208, et p. 209). Thus 357 was the second year, and 358 was the third year, of Liberius' banishment. Sozomen, who describes Liberius' action at Sirmium in 358, says nothing about any threats of death or of any withdrawal of communion from S. Athanasius. Those matters have to do with the period when Liberius was at Beroea. It is evident that Duchesne agrees that Liberius yielded in a measure, when he was at Beroea in 357. He says (Lib. Pont., torn. i. p. 208, n. 7), " Independamment des concessions faites a Beree, en 357, sur lesquelles il n'y a pas lieu d'insister ici, Libere, rappele en 358 de son exil et transfere a Sirmium, signa," etc. I see no reason why Liberius' preliminary fall at Beroea may not have taken place early in the year 357, and if so it preceded the death of Leontius of Antioch, and there would be no reason why the 4ist section of S. Athanasius' Historia Arianorum may not have stood, as we have it now, in what may be called the first edition of that work. But neither is there any difficulty in supposing that the sentence about Liberius' fall was added by S. Athanasius later on. Examples of such additions are not wanting. He added a postscript (capp. 30 and 31) to his De Synodis (see Gwatkin's Studies, p. 176, n. 2); and there was also an "added 284 APPENDIX G. [VIIL in essence (/car' ofotcut) and in all respects (KO.TO. irdvra.}. But he said nothing at all in this personal confession about the f>p.oovi>, which had been untrue m 357> had unfortunately become true in 358, and he therefore passed it over in silence. But again, it is argued that Sozomen never says that Liberius signed the composite formulary which repudiated the dfiooixriov, but only that he "consented" (a-waveo-ai) to it. To that quibble I reply that, as the only object of signature in such cases is to attest consent, and as it is admitted that Sozomen asserts that Liberius consented, it is hardly worth while to discuss the particular mode in which the consent was expressed. But one may ask the question What possible reason is there for supposing that Liberius did not express his consent to the new formulary in the usual way, that is to say, by subscribing it ? The Oriental councils of the fourth century were continually producing new creeds, which were afterwards submitted to the bishops for their signature. S. Hilary, after referring to the happiness of those parts of the Church where the creed was written, not on paper, but on the hearts of the faithful, says, " Sed necessitas consuetudinem intulit, exponi fides, et expositis subscribi." * We know for certain that at this very Sirmian meeting, with which we are dealing, perhaps before Liberius' arrival, Valens and Ursacius sub- scribed some formula, 2 probably a selection from among the Ancyrene anathemas. When the composite formulary had been put together, it would be proposed for signature as a matter of course. And S. Jerome tells us that " Liberius, worn out by the tedium of exile, and subscribing to heretical pravity, entered Rome as if he were a conqueror." 3 Once more, it is urged that Sozomen does not expressly say that Liberius communicated with Valens and Ursacius at Sirmium. That is no doubt true j but the whole tenor of Sozomen's narrative implies that he did communicate with them and with all the other bishops present at the meeting. There were only two obstacles which, as things then were, would stand in the way of intercommunion between Liberius and the Easterns, among whom, for the sake of brevity, I include Valens and Ursacius. Those two obstacles would be (i) a difference of belief as to the doctrine of the Trinity, and specially as to the relation of the Son to the Father ; and (2) the adherence of Liberius to the communion of S. Athanasius, whom the Easterns had deposed and excommunicated. But those two obstacles had now been removed. Liberius had repudiated the bpooixnov and had accepted the d^oiovaiov. Valens and Ursacius had also accepted the bp-oiovaiov, probably by affixing their signature to some of the Ancyrene anathemas, and by explaining that they had rejected the 6/j.otovffiov in 357, under the mistaken notion that it meant the same as the hated dpoovo-iov.* Thus there was a general agreement as to faith and creed. As regards Liberius' relations with S. Athanasius, I have already expostulation " to the Apologia ad Constantium (see Robertson's Athanasius, p. 236). 1 Lib. de Synodis, 63, P. L., x. 523. 2 Cf. S. Hilar. Lid. de Synodis, 79, P. Z., x. 532. 3 S. Hieron. Chronic., P. L., xxvii. 685, 686. 4 Cf. S. Hilar. Lib. De Synodis, 79, P. L., x. 532. VIII.] SOZOMEWS ACCOUNT OF LIBERIUS' FALL. 285 given reasons for thinking that the pope had withdrawn his communion from the saint in the course of the preceding year. 1 Under such circumstances, the two parties would naturally communicate together. 2 And the fact that, after united deliberation in synod, they signed the same profession of faith, and that then the whole body of bishops at Sirmium wrote to Felix, the de facto Bishop of Rome, and to the clergy of the Roman Church, directing them to receive Liberius as joint bishop with Felix, 3 all this surely constitutes a sufficient proof of intercommunion. Is it likely that the Easterns would restore Liberius to a position of enormous influence if he was persisting in regarding them as excommuni- cate ? The question answers itself. 4 Another objection which has been raised in the course of the hopeless struggle to discredit the fact of Liberius' fall may be thus formulated : If the faithful at Rome, it is said, rejected with such horror the ministra- tions of Felix II. because he freely communicated with bishops suspected of Arianism, how can it be supposed that they would receive with joy the returning Liberius, if he had equally communicated with men like Valens and Ursacius, and had also repudiated the duoovawv a crime which has never been imputed to Felix ? The answer is that in all probability the ministrations of Felix were rejected by the great mass of the population, not so much because he communicated with Arianizers, 5 as because he had intruded into a see which was not vacant, and of which the legitimate occupant was a persona gratissima to his flock. On this point I cannot do better than quote the admirable remarks of Duchesne. He says, 1 See note 2 on p. 283. 2 It was, perhaps, more difficult for Easil of Ancyra, who was in the first fervour of his revulsion from the supporters of the blasphemous creed put forth by Valens and Ursacius in 357, to communicate with those miscreants, than for Liberius to do so, seeing that he had already got on to the down-grade by his desertion of S. Athanasius. Nevertheless we know from Sozomen (iv. 24) that on this occasion Basil did communicate with Valens and Ursacius. No doubt the bishops assembled at Sirmium, whether Eastern or Western, entered into communion with each other on the basis of the formula put together by Basil. * Mgr. Duchesne points out (Liber Ponttf., i. 209) that Sozomen implies that the arrangement made by the bishops at Sirmium for the joint tenure of the Roman see by Liberius and Felix was made " du consentement de Libere lui- meme." 4 Hefele (E. tr., ii. 235) mentions, as one of the results of the Sirmian meeting, " that Liberius from henceforth held communion with the three bishops, who, like himself, had signed the Sirmian formula." The three bishops on the Eastern side, who are mentioned nominatim by Sozomen as having signed, are Ursacius, Germinius, and Valens. But all the rest also signed, and all were no doubt admitted by Liberius to his communion, and they on their side admitted him to their communion. * I am not intending to deny that the fact that Felix had communicated with Arianizers would, before the fall of his rival, be made much of by his opponents, and would in the eyes of some of them be a very serious addition to the other disabilities under which he laboured ; but as soon as the lapse of Liberius became known in Rome, the Liberian party would cease to bring forward Felix's former communion with Arianizers as an argument against him. Mommsen, following the Liber Pontificals, is of opinion that, before Liberius' return, Felix had cut off Valens and Ursacius from his communion, and had proclaimed in a synod his adherence to the Nicene faith. There must have been many among the Chris- tians at Rome, especially among the clergy, who would regard Nicene orthodoxy as the paramount consideration. Such persons would no doubt, if Mommsen's view is correct, side with Felix rather than with Liberius, when the struggle began. 286 APPENDIX G. [VIII. " La population demeura fidele a Libere, si bien que 1'empereur, auquel, du reste, Libere donna satisfaction sur certains points, se vit obliger de rappeler le pape legitime. ... La tradition populaire sur le pape Libere ne pouvait que lui etre favorable. Saint Jerome et 1'auteur de la preface du Libellus precum, 1 qui dcrivaient sous Damase, tdmoignent tous les deux de 1'enthousiasme qui Paccueillit a son retour de 1'exil. Ces deux dcrivains, Saint Je'rome surtout, ne dissimulent pas les concessions par lesquels ce retour avait e"te achetd ; mais ces questions de formule et de signatures n'e*taient pas de nature a 6tre bien comprises de la masse des fideles romains ; 1'arianisme dogmatique ne les inte'ressait que fort indirectement. Ce qui les avait blessds, c'dtait 1'enlevement brutal de leur intrdpide e've'que ; ce qu'ils voulaient, ce qu'ils re'clamaient en plein cirque a 1'empereur Constance, c'etait son retour, sans compromis avec 1'intrus Fe'lix ; ce qui les combla de joie, ce fut le triomphe de Libere, reprenant possession de son siege malgre Fe'lix et en de"pit du gouverne- ment. Quant a ce qu'il pouvait avoir signe" a Be're'e ou a Sirmium, ils ne s'en inquie'taient guire. Les clercs, il est vrai, accordaient plus d'attention k ces details ; la chronique de saint Jerome et son De viris (c. 97), 2 deux livres fort repandus, meme dans les regions les moins aristocratiques de la litte'rature, en perpdtuerent le souvenir." 3 In concluding this investigation, which does not claim in any way to be exhaustive, 4 I would draw attention to the fact that I have made no use of the three letters, Pro deifico timore, Quia stio vos filios pacts, and Non doceo sed admoneo, which are attributed to Liberius, and which are to be found in the sixth Fragment of S. Hilary. The genuineness of 1 This preface sometimes bears the title, " Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos." It has been referred to under that title in note 2 on p. 283. Its author was evidently an Ursinian, and for that reason would presumably have no grudge against Liberius. Ursinus was elected by the partisans of Liberius, whereas his successful rival, Damasus, had been chosen by the followers of Felix ; at least so we are told by the Ursinian author of the preface. Even if the truth of his assertion is doubted, it still remains the fact that the Ursinians claimed, whether rightly or wrongly, to represent in a special way Liberius, and it is consequently not easy to suppose that they would go out of their way to calumniate him. Yet we read in the preface that Liberius, before Constantius' visit to Rome in 357, " manus perfidiae dederat." The allusion is no doubt to Liberius' preliminary lapse at Beroea in 357. It follows that, if the author of the preface was well informed, that preliminary lapse took place in the early part of the year. 2 Stiltinck, who sticks at nothing in his efforts to whitewash Liberius, treats these Hieronymian passages as spurious interpolations. It is interesting to notice that Duchesne, who as a critic inclines, perhaps, to the side of severity, assumes the genuineness of these passages, without thinking it necessary to make any answer or even allusion to Stiltinck's objections. Hefele also accepts (E. tr., ii. 236) the passages as authentic and truthful. I am glad to see that the Catholic Dictionary, a work which bears the imprimatur of Cardinal Manning and of Cardinal McCloskey, in its article on Liberius (p. 516, 6th edit., New York, 1887), says, "Stilting and his numerous followers, who exculpate Liberius altogether, are driven to expedients which we cannot help regarding as desperate." It need hardly be added that Dr. Rivington does his best (Prim. Church, pp. 186-188) to rehabilitate these "desperate expedients." * Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, Introduction, pp. cxxi., cxxii. 4 I might, for example, have quoted from S. Athanasius' Apology against the Arians (cap. 89), and from S. Hilary's Liber contra Constantium Imperatorem (cap. n). This last passage is, however, quoted in a note on p. 272. VIII.] SOZOMEWS ACCOUNT OF LIBERIUS 1 FALL. 287 these letters was attacked in the last century by Stiltinck and others, and in our own times by Hefele. It is true that several Roman Catholic critics of great learning and acumen have declared that Hefele's arguments do not appear to them to be convincing, but I think that it must be admitted that, as things stand at present, the genuineness of these letters cannot be regarded as above suspicion, and I have therefore thought it fairer to refrain from building anything upon them. Addendum to Appendix G. In a manuscript now in the imperial library at S. Petersburg, there is a collection of epitaphs, mostly Roman, which has been published by De Rossi, under the title of the Sylloge Centulensis, in the second volume of his Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae. Among these epitaphs there is one of great interest and considerable length, which commemorates a pope who is represented as dying in exile for his adherence to the Nicene faith, and who is evidently regarded by the author of the epitaph as a saint and a wonder-worker. Both De Rossi in the Bolletino di Archeologia Cristiana for 1883, and Duchesne in his edition of the Liber Pontificates (torn. i. pp. 209, 210), make great efforts to prove that this epitaph commemorates Liberius. Duchesne, however, admits, in the course of his argument, that the supposition, which he defends, presents great difficulties. Lately Mommsen has applied himself to the solution of the problem, and in a remarkable article, entitled Die Rb'mischen Bischofe Liberius und Felix IL, which was published in the Deutsche Zeitschrift fur GeschichtsTvissenschaft for October to December, 1896, argues in favour of identifying the pope of the epitaph with Felix II., the rival of Liberius. Mommsen continues to adhere to this identification in the prolegomena to his new edition of the Liber Pontificates? published in 1898. His article at first convinced Duchesne, and the latter no longer felt able to defend the thesis which he had maintained in his notes to the Liber Pontificates? Further consideration has, however, led him to recede from his adhesion to Mommsen's con- clusions. He now holds that it is not possible, with our present know- ledge, to identify with any certainty the pope of the epitaph. He says indeed, " Je suis dispose* a laisser Libere en possession provisoire et hypo- the'tique;" but he adds, "je considere comme grandement imprudentes les personnes qui tirent des arguments apologetiques d'un document si difficile a expliquer et d'attribution si incertaine." * It is much to be hoped that the discovery of this epitaph will in time lead to the clearing up of some of the obscurity which hangs over the careers of Liberius and Felix II. 4 Fuller light thrown on their careers will necessarily result in fuller light being thrown on the situation of the Roman Church during the years which intervened between the exile of Liberius in 355 and his readmission to the communion of S. Athanasius in the winter of 362-363. 1 See p. xxix. * See \h& Nuovo Bolletino di Archeologia Cristiana for 1897, pp. 132, 133, 137. * Melanges (farchtologie et d'histoire, annee xviiL p. 397. 4 The Roman Church has canonized Felix II. His name is entered in the Roman Martyrology (edit. Ratisbon., 1846, p. 145) on July 29. LECTURE IX. THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. III. From the death of Julian to the death of Valens (363-378). ON June 26, 363, a Roman army, retreating from Persia, and commanded by Julian the Apostate, was attacked by the Persians at a place named Phrygia, on the eastern bank of the Tigris. Julian received a spear-wound in his right side, and died during the following night. The next day an officer of the imperial body-guard, named Jovian, was proclaimed Emperor by the troops. The new Emperor was a Catholic. He made a somewhat disgraceful peace with the Persians, and led his army by way of Nisibis and Edessa to Antioch. At Edessa he was joined by S. Athanasius, who had rapidly and secretly journeyed thither from Upper Egypt. 1 He accompanied the Emperor to Antioch, which was reached some time in October. Here S. Athanasius spent three months, and he naturally turned his attention to the divided condition of the orthodox in that city. There were the two separate communions the great church ruled by S. Meletius ; and the little body of the Eustathians, who now also had their own bishop, Paulinus. S. Athanasius had in old days been in communion with Paulinus ; but it seems clear that the irregular and most reprehensible consecration of the latter by Lucifer had brought about a cessation of intercourse between the Eustathians and the Church of Alexandria. S. Eusebius of Vercellae, the legate of the Council of Alexandria and the representative of S. Athanasius, had refused to communicate with Paulinus, when he discovered that he had allowed Lucifer to make him .a bishop. As we have seen, S. Eusebius quitted Antioch without communicating with either of the two rival bishops. An expression used by S. Basil in his 2i4th Epistle makes it clear that, during the twelve months which elapsed between S. Eusebius' departure from Antioch and S. Athanasius' 1 S. Athanasius seems to have crossed the Euphrates near Hierapolis on the eighth of Thoth (September 6). Compare Robertson's Prolegomena, p. Ixxxiv. IX.] A.D. 363-378. 289 arrival in that city, the latter had made the action of the former his own, and had refrained from corresponding with Paulinus. We also gather from what S. Basil * says that in October, 363, when S. Athanasius arrived in Antioch, his first impulse was to establish intercommunion between himself and S. Meletius. S. Basil says, " The most blessed Pope Athanasius, when he arrived [at Antioch] from Alexandria, exceedingly desired that communion between him [Meletius] and himself [Athanasius] should be brought about ; but by the incapacity of counsellors their union was deferred to another occasion. And would that this had not happened ! " 2 On this passage the Benedictine editors of S. Basil observe, in a note to the 2i4th Epistle, "This desire of Athanasius to communicate with Meletius shows what he felt about the episcopate of Meletius, and what about the episcopate of Paulinus. . . . Athanasius, before he came to Antioch, clearly did not favour the cause of Paulinus. For at that time he was more inclined to Meletius, and ' exceedingly desired that communion between Meletius and himself should be brought about.' " 3 What the argument in favour of postponement, used by S. Meletius' counsellors, was, we do not know with certainty. Very probably it was connected with the fact that S. Athanasius had not yet publicly separated Mar- cellus from his communion. 4 In another letter, addressed to S. Meletius, S. Basil, referring to this same negotia- tion, says that S. Athanasius " grieved because he had been sent away at that time without being admitted to communion." 5 After having received this rebuff from S. Meletius, S. Athanasius determined to overlook the irregularity of Paulinus' consecration, and to renew his ancient relations with the Eustathians. But first of all it was necessary that Paulinus should make it clear that he did not follow his consecrator, Lucifer, in his schismatic rejection of the decrees of Alexandria, and also that he repudiated the errors of Sabellius and Photinus, and also those afterwards championed by Apolli- narius, with which he was supposed by some of the followers of S. Meletius to sympathize. Accordingly, in self-defence, he signed the synodical tome of the Council of Alexandria, which had been addressed to the Antiochenes, and he also 1 Compare S. Basil. Ep. ccxiv. 2, and see the Benedictine note e in loc. (S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 321). * S. Basil. Ep. cclviii. ad Epiphanium, 3, Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 394. * S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 321, note e. 4 This agrees, I think, with Dom Maran's view (compare Vit. S. Basil. , cap. xxxvii. 6, S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., torn. iii. p. clxviii.). 4 S. Basil. Ep. Ixxxix. ad Melctium, Opp., iii. 181, AuTeTffflaj 5 Sn ical rort u 2 QO ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. signed, by way of further precaution, an additional declaration drawn up by S. Athanasius. 1 Thus Paulinus purged himself of the suspicion of heresy, and was admitted to communion by S. Athanasius. But that great saint, though he was naturally vexed at being refused communion by S. Meletius, retained the desire of seeing the breach between them healed. Only he did not think it right to expose himself to the risk of another refusal, and he therefore made it a sine qua non that the next step should be taken by S. Meletius, and not by himself. However, in the Lent season of 372, about a year before his death, he privately let S. Basil know 2 that he was most anxious to be brought into fellowship with the saint of Antioch. 3 No doubt the fact that he had admitted Paulinus to his communion had very much complicated matters, 4 and had made it exceedingly difficult for S. Meletius to take the initiative in any negotia- tions for reunion. It is not possible for us, who have only a partial know- ledge of the facts, to pass judgement on the actions of these great saints ; but it certainly seems very unfortunate that S. Meletius should have felt himself obliged to refuse S. Athanasius' request to be admitted to his communion in the autumn of 363 ; 5 and it also seems very unfortunate that upon that refusal S. Athanasius should have thought it right to grant his communion to Paulinus. One must add that it seems, perhaps, still more unfortunate that S. Athanasius 1 Cf. S. Epiph. , Haer. Ixxvii. capp. 20,21, P. G., xlii. 672. The declaration signed by Paulinus refers more than once to the tome of the Council of Alexandria, and forms an appendix to it. Any one who signed the declaration committed himself also to the tome. 2 Cf. S. Basil. Ep. Ixxxix. ad Meletium, 2, Opp., iii. 180, 181. The observations of Dom Maran on the expression \4ytrai should be noted (cf. Fit. S. Basil., cap. xxii. 2, S. Basil. Opp. , torn. iii. p. ex.). 8 S. Basil, in a letter to S. Athanasius, written in 371 (S. Basil. Ep. Ixvii. ad Athanasium, Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 160) had sketched out a plan for reunion at Antioch. S. Meletius was to preside over the whole body ; and in virtue of the dispensing power of the Church, some arrangement was to be made which would satisfy and pacify the Eustathians, who were to be joined to the main body of the Church, as lesser streams flow into great rivers. 4 The difficulty arising from S. Athanasius' communion with Marcellus had been overcome. Dom Maran has, I think, successfully shown ( Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxvii. 6, S. Basil. Opp., ed. Ben., torn. iii. pp. clxvii., clxviii.) that in the last years of his life S. Athanasius withdrew his communion from Marcellus. See also p. 325, note 4. 5 S. Basil had not felt that S. Athanasius' communion with Marcellus in 363 was a reason which compelled him to refrain from communicating with that saint. He no doubt greatly regretted S. Athanasius' relations with Ancyra, and he finally succeeded in persuading the Bishop of Alexandria to withdraw his communion from the Galatian heretic. But S. Basil would have wished S. Meletius to adopt his own milder line at the critical moment in 363, when Antioch and Alexandria might have been reunited. Of course S. Basil himself refrained from all relations with Marcellus. IX.] A.D. 363-378. 291 should have allowed Marcellus to remain in his communion for so long a time. 1 During the year 363 a large number of synods were held in both East and West, for the purpose of establishing the Nicene creed in its due place of honour, and for the purpose of extricating the churches from the results of the very general acceptance of the formula of Ariminum, into which they had been coerced or cajoled three years before. S. Athanasius, in a letter to Jovian, has given a list of some of the provinces in which such synods had been held. 2 In accordance with the general trend of opinion, a synod was held at Antioch during Jovian's stay in that city, for the purpose of accepting the Nicene creed as authoritative. The leaders of the synod were S. Meletius of Antioch and S. Eusebius of Samosata, 3 and along with them were associated S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Irenion of Gaza, and other orthodox bishops, and also priests who represented that "bulwark of orthodoxy," Athanasius of Ancyra. These bishops belonged to the extreme right of the middle party of the Eastern Church. They had always accepted the substance of the Nicene faith, and they now proposed to accept the Nicene terminology. But there came also to the synod bishops, who had formerly belonged to the Homoean party, such as Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, Eutychius of Eleutheropolis, Zoilus of Larissa in Syria, and others. If it be asked what place such men had in an assembly of the saints, it may be replied that these Homoean bishops were still in canonical possession of their sees ; they had, moreover, in past times, made a profession of rejecting the full Arian teaching of the Anomoeans ; and they had now come to Antioch for the very admirable purpose of accepting the Nicene creed, and of explicitly repudiating the teaching of Arius as being impious. 4 It might therefore be held that, even according to the principles laid down by the Council of Alexandria, they ought to be welcomed. 5 1 Duchesne (Revue dn Monde Catholiqtie, torn. Ixiv. p. 535), speaking of Marcellus, says, " Les orthodoxes le defendant, et malheureusement le defendant trop longtemps ', ce malencontreux protege nuit etrangement a la bonne cause : il fait croire a beaucoup d'Orientaux que Rome et Alexandrie enseignent au fond la pure doctrine de Sabellius." 2 Cf. S. Athan. Ep. adjovianum, 2, Opp., ed. Ben., 1777, i. 623. 3 The signatures of these two occupy the places of honour in the collection of signatures at the end of the synodical epistle to Jovian (cf. Socrat. H. ., iii. 25) ; and the whole synod is described in one document as ol irtpl MeXtViov S. Athan. Opp. t ed. Ben., 1777, ii. 24). 4 Dr. Hort (Two Dissertations, p. 128) describes the synod as having been " a gathering of scattered bishops, including men like Acacius, assembled to express acquiescence in the terms of communion arranged by Meletius." 5 Whether Acacius and his friends were sincere in their adherence to the 292 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. Hitherto the difficulty, which had been felt in regard to the acceptance of the Nicene terminology by Eastern Catholics, such as were S. Meletius and S. Eusebius, lay in the possible Sabellianizing interpretation which could be put upon the word 6/uoovp.ooiiaiov, given by the two saints and their colleagues, the formula, e'/c TTJS ovjs OTi CK rfjs ovfflas TOV 'O \eyuv 6/j.oovffiov, a.u.tyoTfp cap. viii. 3, P. L., xiii. 160), for that took place in August. 3 S. Basil. Ep. cxxix. ad Meletium, 3, Opp., iii. 221. It is interesting to notice that in this letter, which may have been written in May or June, 373, S. Basil speaks of " the charge which has lately sprung up against the loquacious Apollinarius." 4 Cf. S. Basil. Epp. ccxlii. et ccxliii. X 306 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. urge the point by word of mouth. If so, it was not till 375 that the Westerns paid any attention to their arguments, and then unfortunately they granted their communion to the wrong side at Antioch, and so the confusions of the sorely tried East were intensified rather than assuaged by their intervention. On the 2nd of May in this year 373 S. Athanasius died. Peter, one of his priests, succeeded him, but was driven away from his see by the Arians, who, during the reign of Valens, were backed by the civil power. Peter took refuge at Rome with Damasus ; and he stayed there for five years. He was in communion with S. Basil, and on very friendly terms with him, but he followed his predecessor in recognizing Paulinus at Antioch. As I have already intimated, the Antiochene priests, Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, were sent to the West in 374, 1 with letters from the Eastern bishops. One of these letters has unfortunately lost its inscription, and it has merely a brief heading To?c Aimicote 2 (To the Westerns), perhaps inserted by a scribe. There can, I think, be no doubt that it was a general letter from all the Eastern Catholic bishops who were in communion with S. Meletius and S. Basil. 3 The other letter was a personal one from S. Basil, addressed to the bishops of Gaul and Italy. 4 It is noteworthy that in the inscription S. Basil names Gaul before Italy, although among the bishops of Italy and at their head was numbered Damasus of Rome ; so absolutely unconscious was the great Bishop of Caesarea of that " lordship over the universal Church " which Dr. Rivington attributes to the Roman bishops of that age. 5 In S. Basil's letter to the bishops of Gaul and Italy a new request occurs, which had not been made before. S. Basil says, "One chief object of our desire is that through you the state of confusion in which we are situated should be made known to the ruler of the world in your parts." 6 1 I unhesitatingly assign to the year 374 this mission of Dorotheus and Sanc- tissimus, though Dom Maran ( Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxv. 5, S. Basil. Opp., torn, iii. p. clix.) argues in favour of 376. Tillemont, Merenda, and Hefele agree in favour of 374. The arguments in favour of that date can be best read in Merenda (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Geslt., cap. ix. 3, 4, P. L., xiii. 164, 165). The envoys seem to have started on their journey to Rome early in the year (cf. Merend., u.s.). 1 Ep. ad Occidentals, inter Basilianas ccxlii., S. Basil. Opp., iii. 371. * This is also Dom Maran's view (cf. Vit, S. Basil. , cap. xxxv. 5, S. Basil. Opp.) torn. iii. p. clix.). 4 S. Basil. Ep, ccxliii. ad Episcopos Italos et Gallos, Opp., iii. 372. 4 Prim. CA., p. 222. 8 S. Basil. Ep. ccxliii. ad Episcopos Italos et Gallos, i. Apart from any other argument, this sentence justifies the view that this 243rd letter of S. Basil belongs to the year 374, and not to the year 376. In 376 Valentinian was dead, and Gratian, ix.] A.D. 363-378. 37 S. Basil wished that Valentinian, the senior Emperor, who was a Catholic, should be induced to put pressure on his Arian brother, Valens, with the object of stopping the persecution which was going on in the East in favour of Arianism. He goes on to request that, if this cannot be done, envoys from the West shall be sent to comfort the Easterns in their affliction, and to carry back to the West a report of their sufferings. He says nothing this time about the troubles at Antioch. Of course, he wrote a letter of his own, and did not adopt the formula sent to him from Rome through Evagrius. We may assume, I think, that Dorotheus and Sanctissimus journeyed straight to Rome ; and on their arrival Damasus seems to have convoked a council. The Eastern envoys brought back from Rome, probably in the autumn of 374, a synodical epistle, part of which is still extant. 1 In that epistle the suburbicarian bishops, 2 with Damasus at their head, made a full declaration of their faith ; and in their declaration, though they mention no names of heresiarchs, they condemn very clearly the heresies of Arius, Marcellus, Apollinarius, 3 and Macedonius. Then they say, " This, most beloved brethren, is our belief; and whoever follows a boy of seventeen years, was Emperor in the West. What could he do to help the Eastern Catholics ? On the other hand, Valentinian could and would have done a great deal if he had lived. He spent the summer and autumn of 375 in Western Illyricum, and ordered a council to be held there. The council deposed six Arianizing bishops, and wrote a synodical epistle in favour of the Nicene faith to the bishops of Proconsular Asia and Phrygia, two of the most heretical provinces in the Eastern empire. The council also sent a priest, Elpidius, to instruct the Asian bishops how to teach the true doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This priest carried a letter from Valentinian, addressed to the same Asian and Phrygian bishops. The Emperor warns the Arianizing bishops in his letter not to perse- cute the Catholics (compare Theodoret. H. E. t iv. 7, 8). It was very unusual for the Western Emperor to interfere in this way directly with the Eastern bishops, so that I can hardly doubt that Valentinian's action in 375 was the result of S. Basil's letter of 374. However, Valentinian died in November 375, and the per- secution in the East was resumed. It should be noted that the Fathers of the Roman Council of 374, in their synodical letter to the Easterns (/>. L. t xiii. 352) say, " With respect to the remedying of the wrongs, from which your charities are suffering . . . our efforts, as [Dorotheus] himself can testify, have not been wanting." What were these efforts ? I suggest that, in compliance with S. Basil's request, the council wrote a letter to Valentinian, asking him to intervene in the East in favour of the persecuted Catholics. S. Basil seems to have been very much cheered when he heard that the Western Church had taken such a definite step. See his 253rd, 254th, and 255th letters. 1 It is the fragment Ea gratia, P. L., xiii. 350-352. 2 I say "suburbicarian," because the Roman synods were, after the formation of the province of Milan, normally suburbicarian synods ; and we have no reason to suppose that on this occasion there were any North Italian bishops present. * Although the jnembers of the Roman Council very clearly condemn the errors taught by Apollinarius, yet they did not take account of the subtlety of that heretic and of his followers. The Apollinarians, by putting their own interpreta- tion on the council's words, were able to accept them. Later on, Damasus had to devise another formula, which did not admit of being explained away. 308 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. it is received by us to communion. A party-coloured body disfigures its members. We give our communion to those who approve in all things our definition." In this way Damasus and his brethren made an earnest attempt to prove to the Eastern Catholics that they meant to be very careful as to the belief of such Easterns as they admitted to com- munion. This had been urged upon them, no doubt, by Dorotheus, 1 for it was a matter on which S. Basil felt very strongly. 2 But S. Basil had wished the Westerns to choose a certain number of Eastern bishops, whom they could trust, and then leave it to them to decide as to the qualifications of other Easterns claiming to be orthodox, and to be worthy of being admitted to the communion of the Church. We can hardly doubt that this point was also set before the members of the Roman Council of the year 374, by Dorotheus ; but the time did not seem to those Western bishops to have come for acting on the principle proposed by S. Basil. The result was that a state of great confusion followed, especially at Antioch. In order that the reader may the better understand this state of confusion, it will be necessary to speak of a new cause of discord which was making itself felt in that unfortu- nate city. During the years 373 and 374 the erroneous teaching about our Lord's incarnation, put forth by the " loquacious " Apollinarius, had been coming into prominence. In Antioch a great impulse to the spread of this new teaching was given by the perversion of Vitalis, who had been one of S. Meletius' priests. It seems that Vitalis was jealous of his fellow-priest, S. Flavian. Sozomen tells us that he seceded from com- munion with S. Meletius, joined Apollinarius, and presided over those at Antioch, who had embraced the Apollinarian tenets. 3 Moreover, by the apparent sanctity of his life, he attracted to his party a great number of followers. The evidence seems to me to point to the year 374 as being the date of Vitalis' secession from the Church of Antioch. 4 It was not, however, until 376 that Vitalis was consecrated to the episcopate by Apollinarius ; 5 so that for two years 1 Dorotheas must have told the Roman Council that, so far as heresy was concerned, the East was chiefly troubled by those four special forms of unsound teaching. 2 See the passage from S. Basil's I2gih epistle, quoted on p. 305. 3 Cf. Sozom. H. ., vi. 25. 4 Compare Tillemont (viii. 369). If it were necessary to believe the report which Sozomen had heard, namely, that the immediate cause of Vitalis' secession was that S. Flavian had prevented him from holding his customary interview with S. Meletius, we should have to conclude that Vitalis seceded before Easter, 372. But that date is impossible ; and the report is therefore unworthy of credit. * Cf. Dom Maran (Vit. S.Basil., cap. xxxvi. 6, S. Basil. Opp., torn. iii. p. clxiv.). Merenda takes the same view as Maran (cf. Merend., De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gesit., cap. x. 2, P. Z., xiii. 170). IX.] A.D. 363-378. 39 after his secession from the great church, the head of the Apollinarian party in Antioch remained a presbyter. Simi- larly, the Eustathians had been headed by a presbyter, Paulinus, for thirty-one years, namely, from 331 to 362. Thus it came to pass that those who in Antioch believed in our Lord's true Godhead were now divided into three separate communions : (i) the great church under its bishop, S. Meletius ; (2) the Eustathians under their bishop, Paulinus ; and (3) the Apollinarians under their priest, Vitalis. Neither of these three bodies had been directly recognized by Damasus as having been admitted to the communion of the Roman Church ; but they all of them were able to claim that they accepted the declaration of faith which had been inserted by the Roman Council of the year 374 in the synodical letter brought to the East by Dorotheus and Sanctissimus ; and the Fathers of that council had said in their letter, " We give our communion to those who approve in all things our definition." l Thus it came to pass that, in the beginning of the year 375, all the three parties in Antioch, who were battling with each other in internecine strife, had some show of right on their side when they claimed that they enjoyed the communion of Damasus and of the whole West ; and S. Jerome, writing in the course of the summer of 375 to Damasus, was able to report, " Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess that they adhere to you." 2 This state of con- fusion was exactly what S. Basil had foreseen would result from the method adopted by Damasus of proclaiming that he held communion with those who agreed with the Western dogmatic definitions. The unification of the East and its reunion with the West could never be brought about by declarations of that kind. It was evident that the West would have to change its method ; and it did change its method, and adopted the method recommended by S. Basil. Only Damasus was very unfortunate in his application of that method, in fact, so unfortunate that the unification of the East and the reunion of considerable portions of it with the West were postponed for the space of twenty-three years, this postponement being the result of Damasus' action. I proceed to trace the events which immediately brought about the change of method in Damasus' treatment of the East. Those events are closely connected with two persons, S. Jerome and Vitalis. Let us take S. Jerome first. It will be remembered that, when S. Jerome arrived in Antioch towards the end of the summer of 373, he took up his residence at first in his friend Evagrius' house. He made 1 See pp. 307, 308. * S. Hieron. Ep. xvi. ad Damasum, 2, P. L., xxii. 359. 310 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. that house his head-quarters for rather more than a year, and then carried out his long-cherished plan of retiring to the desert to live for a time the life of a hermit. While he was still at Antioch, two of his companions in travel, Innocent and Hylas, died ; and the others returned to Aquileia, so that S. Jerome was the only one of the band who became a hermit. He chose for his place of retirement the desert of Chalcis, to the east of Antioch, where were a number of hermits, who lived in most respects a solitary life, but who were subject to a chief hermit, named Theodosius, and obeyed him as their superior. The majority of these hermits, if not all of them, must have belonged to the communion of S. Meletius. S. Jerome had, since his arrival in the East, refrained from com- municating with any of the three sections into which the believers in our Lord's true Godhead were divided at Antioch. It is possible that, so long as he remained in the city, he may have been able to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord from Evagrius. 1 We cannot, however, be sure that Evagrius felt himself to be justified in celebrating the Mysteries in his own house, and on the whole, I doubt whether he did so. But whatever S. Jerome may have done, while he was at Antioch, it would seem from the expressions that he uses, that in the desert he received " the Holy Thing of the Lord " from certain Egyptian confessor-bishops 2 who had been banished from Egypt by Valens on account of their ortho- doxy, after the death of S. Athanasius in 373. The place of their exile was Diocaesarea (now Sepphoris) in Palestine, not far from Nazareth, and they must have sent the Blessed Sacrament to S. Jerome, if they did send It, 8 by the hands of 1 As S. Jerome was living in Evagrius' house, it is probable that Evagrius also refrained from communicating with Paulinus, until the West had declared itself on the side of Paulinus. We know from S. Basil (compare p. 304) that Evagrius also refrained from communicating with the great church at Antioch. 2 Cf. S. Hieron. Ep. xv. ad Damasum, 2, P. L., xxii. 356, " Nee possum Sanctum Domini tot interjacentibus spatiis a Sanctimonia tua semper expetere : ideo hie collegas tuos Aegyptios confessores sequor j et sub onerariis navibus parva navicula delitesco." 3 I say, " If they did send It," because it is possible that S. Jerome may have gone without Holy Communion during the whole of the two years which elapsed between his arrival in Antioch in the autumn of 373, and the admission of Paulinus to the communion of the Roman Church in September, 375 ; unless, indeed, he carried the Blessed Sacrament with him when he started from Aquileia, which is by no means impossible. If he had no supply of the reserved Sacrament, he may have contented himself with receiving letters of Communion from the exiled bishops at Diocaesarea. But the mention of " the Holy Thing of the Lord " in the preceding sentence, and the strong desire to communicate, which he must have felt, make me give the preference to the view set forth in the text. It should be noted that S. Basil, in his Ep. xciii. ad Caesariam Patriciam (Opp., iii. 187), says, " All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, reserving the Communion at home, communicate themselves. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the Communion at his own house, and participates in It when he likes." Similarly, S. Ambrose, in his De Excessu IX.] A.D. 363-378. 3 11 some ecclesiastic, for there must be a distance of at least 250 miles between Diocaesarea and the desert of Chalcis. They cannot have done this often, but we may suppose that S. Jerome did all that he could to make it possible for himself to communicate at Easter. It is hardly conceivable that he could have lived for some months in the desert, refusing all the time to communicate with the other hermits, without coming to a dispute with them. Party feeling ran very high in Antioch and its neighbourhood. There were the three rival communions, headed respectively by S. Meletius, Paulinus, and Vitalis. And there was, in addition, the theo- logical dispute as to whether the Catholic verity was best expressed by speaking of Three Hypostases in God or of One Hypostasis. S. Meletius and the East always spoke of Three Hypostases, while Paulinus and the Eustathians followed the Western usage, and spoke of One Hypostasis. There need not have been any disputing about this, but there was ; and I cannot doubt that S. Jerome's first Easter in the desert was made very uncomfortable for him by the accusations of heresy and schism, which must have been freely launched against him. If such disputes did arise soon after S. Jerome's settlement in the desert, then the painful situation in which he found him- self, a solitary Western in the midst of Easterns, who regarded him as a heretic or at least as a schismatic, would be likely to prompt him, during the course of the year 375, to write for advice to Damasus, the leading bishop in his own West, and at the same time the leading bishop in the whole Church, who was also the friend of his own great friend, Evagrius. Now, there are two letters 1 written to Damasus during the time that S. Jerome was in the desert of Chalcis, which set forth the miseries of his position, caused by the Eastern attacks on his reputation for orthodoxy. In these letters he implores the Bishop of Rome to instruct him as to the persons with whom he ought to communicate, and to tell him whether he ought to speak of Three Hypostases in God or of One. So far as I can see, there is nothing in these letters which points to a later date than 375 ; and on the other hand, there are several sentences which could not have been written after the month of September or at latest of October in that year. 2 Fratris sui Satyri, lib. i. 43 (P. L., xvi. 1360), speaks of the Blessed Sacrament being taken with them by lay people going on a long voyage. Possibly Evagrius may have supplied S. Jerome in the desert with the reserved Sacrament. In later times the Church, for good reasons, withdrew from the faithful the privilege of having the reserved Sacrament in their houses and of carrying It with them on their journeys. 1 S. Hieron. Epp. xv. et xvi., P. Z., xxii. 355-359. * See pp. 313, 318. 312 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. In one or other of those months, as we shall see further on, Paulinus received letters of communion from Damasus, recog- nizing him as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, and implying that all those Easterns whom Paulinus should admit to his communion would be regarded as enjoying also the com- munion of the Roman Church. The Eustathians were in high delight at this recognition of themselves by Damasus, and it may be taken for granted that not many days elapsed before the news reached S. Jerome. He would assuredly be informed of them by Evagrius, if by no one else. Of course, S. Jerome must have entered at once into communion with Paulinus. All his sympathies lay with Paulinus before. How, then, can we imagine it possible that, after Rome had given her decision in this unmistakable way, a man like S. Jerome, who had received his Christian training and his baptism in Rome, should have written to Damasus in the way he does ? For example, in his fifteenth epistle (Quoniam vetusto Oriens) he says to the pope, "I know nothing of Vitalis ; I reject Meletius ; I am unacquainted with Paulinus." l And again, further on, he says, " I beg you to let me know with whom I am to communicate at Antioch ; for the Campenses 2 [that is to say, the followers of S. Meletius], together with their allies, the heretics of Tarsus, 3 desire ardently that, being strengthened through the prestige which would come to them from com- munion with you [bishops in the West], 4 they may preach their doctrine of Three Hypostases in its original [Arian] sense." 5 And similarly in his sixteenth epistle, still address- ing Damasus, he says, "The Church is rent into three divisions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. The long-established influence of the monks, who dwell around, is directed against me. I meantime keep crying, 'If anyone is united with the see of Peter, he is mine.' Meletius, 1 S. Hieron. Ep. xv. 2, P. L., xxii. 356. 2 For the highly honourable reason why the followers of S. Meletius were called the Campenses, see p. 256, n. 2. 3 We may be quite sure that in 375 neither S. Meletius nor S. Basil would communicate with notorious heretics. We gather, indeed, from S. Basil's 34th epistle, addressed to S. Eusebius of Samosata (Opp., iii. 113), that an Arian bishop had succeeded Silvanus at Tarsus in 369. But we also learn from his I I3th epistle, addressed to the presbyters of Tarsus (Opp. t iii. 205, 206), that some presbyters in that city remained true to the Catholic cause, and that with them S. Basil communicated. The youthful S. Jerome jumped too quickly to his conclusions. 4 Observe that S. Jerome speaks of " communionis vestrae," not of "com- munionis tuae." All through both letters, when he is addressing the pope as an individual, he uses, in accordance with the custom of his time, the second person singular. Here he has in view the whole Western episcopate, and therefore he uses the plural form. 5 S. Hieron. Ep. xv. 5, P. L., xxii. 358. It is in the first two paragraphs of this letter that the exaggerated language occurs, which has been quoted above on p. 162. A.D. 363-378. 3 J 3 Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess that they adhere to you. 1 I could believe the assertion if it were made by one of them only. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty of falsehood. Therefore I implore your blessedness . . . to tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria. Do not despise a soul for which Christ died." a It is not necessary that I should set to work to prove elaborately that S. Jerome could not have written letters containing the above-quoted passages, after Damasus had openly sided with Paulinus, and had recognized him by name as the rightful Bishop of Antioch. Those passages have only to be read, and it will be perceived at once that, when the letters were .written, neither of the three Antiochene parties had been explicitly recognized at Rome. Both letters must therefore have been written before October, 375, at the latest. On the other hand, there is a passage in the earlier letter, which could only have been written after S. Jerome had heard of the elevation of S. Ambrose to the see of Milan. 3 Now, S. Ambrose was consecrated to that see on December 7, 374 ; and the news of the consecration could hardly have reached S. Jerome before the beginning of March in the following year at the earliest, and it may not have reached him before the end of March. 4 It may, I think, be safely concluded that the two letters to Damasus were written between March and September or October, 375. 5 It is to be noted that in his earlier letter to Damasus, S. Jerome, while professing to wait humbly for the Roman Bishop's decision as to whether he should communicate with S. Meletius, with Paulinus, or with Vitalis, does in fact press on Damasus the claims of Paulinus. He accomplishes this 1 I have explained this claim, made by the three opposing parties at Antioch, on p. 309. 2 S. Hieron. Ep. xvi. 2, P. L. t xxii. 359. 3 S. Hieron. Ep. xv. ad Damasum, 4, P. L., xxii. 357. 4 In making this calculation, I take account of the comparative slowness of travelling in the winter, and especially in such a severe winter as that of 374-375 (cf. S. Basil. Ep. cxcviii. ad Eusebium Samosatens. I, Opp., iii. 289). s I should suppose that S. Jerome wrote the second of his two letters (Ep. xvi.) shortly before Damasus' letter of communion, sent to Paulinus by the hands of Vitalis, arrived in Antioch. It follows that this second letter may well have been written in the middle of September. S. Jerome was evidently getting anxious because his first letter seemed to have produced no effect. There was a third letter written by S. Jerome, while he was still in the desert of Chalcis, on the subject of the dispute about the formulae. It was addressed to Marcus, one of the hermits of S. Jerome's desert, who was also a priest. It was written in the winter, but whether in 375, 376, or 377, I cannot say. At the time when it was written S. Jerome was much annoyed by the perpetual disputes about the formulae, and expressed his readiness to leave the desert when the winter was over. It does not at all follow that he carried out this intention ; and, even if he did, I have no certainty as to the date of his return to Antioch. In Vallarsi's edition the letter to Marcus is numbered as the seventeenth. 314 ROME AND ANTIOCHIII. [IX. by running down the party of S. Meletius. He calls that party by a nickname " the Campenses ; " he describes them as " Arianorum proles ; " he characterizes their formula of the Three Hypostases as " novel ; " he declares that whoever adopts that formula is really trying to assert the theory that there are three natures in God ; : he ends up his letter by a sentence in which he implies that he fervently hopes that Damasus will not tell him to communicate with the followers of S. Meletius. Thus the general upshot of S. Jerome's letter was to set before Damasus as strong a case as was possible against S. Meletius. S. Jerome must have known well that, if he succeeded in inducing Damasus to enter into his views, the success of Paulinus was secured. Paulinus -had been at the head of the Eustathian party at Antioch for forty-four years ; he was a consecrated bishop ; and for the last twelve years he had enjoyed, as reputed Bishop of Antioch, the com- munion of the Church of Alexandria. It was hardly possible that Paulinus should have anything to fear from the competi- tion of Vitalis. At this point it seems desirable, before considering whether Damasus took any action in consequence of S. Jerome's letters, to turn our attention to the proceedings of Vitalis. We have seen that he had broken away from S. Meletius, and had come under the influence of Apollinarius, and that the latter had appointed him to preside over those at Antioch who had embraced the Apollinarian tenets. We have seen also that, in his position as head of this newly-formed party, Vitalis claimed that he enjoyed the communion of Damasus and of the West, no doubt on the ground that he and his followers were able to accept the terms of the declaration of faith put forth by the Roman Council of 374, and that that council had said, in its synodical letter, " We give our communion to those who approve in all things our definition." 2 The Vitalians, as they were called, were the smallest and the newest of the three parties into which the Antiochene believers in our Lord's true Godhead were divided ; and it would obviously be an immense gain to them if they could obtain a definite recognition of their orthodoxy from the Western Church. Vitalis therefore determined to go to 1 In his statements about the formula of the Three Hypostases, S. Jerome was unfortunate. The formula was in no way "novel." It had been used in the East, and especially in Alexandria, from the time when the word " Hypostasis " was first introduced into the vocabulary of theology ; and so far from implying any taint of Arianism, it has completely prevailed in the Catholic Church over the rival Western formula of the One Hypostasis. No doubt Damasus and S. Jerome meant the same as S. Meletius and S. Basil, but fuller experience has induced the Church to canonize the language of S. Meletius and S. Basil, and to reject the language of Damasus and S. Jerome. 2 See p. 308. IX.] A.D. 363-378. Rome and visit Damasus. He probably started from An- tioch not very long after Easter, in the year 375 ; and he may have arrived in Rome during the month of June. We may be quite sure, on a priori grounds, that Damasus was well informed concerning the charge of heresy which was brought against Apollinarius and Vitalis. The partisans of S. Meletius and the partisans of Paulinus would be not less desirous than Vitalis of obtaining the support of Damasus. We may well suppose that Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, who had visited Damasus in Rome, would write letters, in which they would press on the Roman bishop the view about Vitalis which was current among the followers of S. Meletius. Paulinus may, perhaps, have expressed his own views in one or more communications addressed to the pope. And in any case Damasus' friend and agent, Evagrius, the one ecclesiastic in Antioch who undoubtedly enjoyed the communion of the Roman see, could hardly fail to write from time to time to Rome, and he would assuredly set forth in his letters his opinions in regard to the orthodoxy and to the claims of the rival leaders who divided the allegiance of the Antiochene believers. Certain it is that, when Vitalis arrived in Rome, the pope demanded of him a written statement of his belief in regard to those points connected with the doctrine of the Incarnation, about which Apollinarius and his friends were charged with holding heretical views. Vitalis drew up a declaration of his faith, which appeared on the face of it to be Catholic, but was susceptible of an Apollinarian interpretation. 1 Damasus was deceived by this manoeuvre, and recognized the orthodoxy of Vitalis' declaration. However, he appears to have thought it best that the final decision of the question about the orthodoxy of Vitalis and his adherents should be decided at Antioch. It seems to have been in connexion with this matter of the reception of Vitalis into Catholic communion, that Damasus came to the determination that he would grant the com- munion of the Roman Church to Paulinus, and would recognize him as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch. More than one consideration may have moved him to take this step at this time. But there was one which deserves, I think, special mention. The first of the two letters addressed by S. Jerome to Damasus in the year 375, probably arrived in Rome about the same time as Vitalis, or perhaps a little earlier. That 1 S. Gregory Nazianzen (Ep. cii. ad Cledonium, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 96) speaks of Vitalis having by guile taken advantage of the simplicity of Damasus. Merenda (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. x. I, P. L., xiii. 168) thinks that Damasus actually admitted Vitalis to communion during his stay in Rome. This may be so, but I see no absolute proof of it. Anyhow, he remitted the final decision to Paulinus. 316 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. letter contained an eloquent description of themiserably divided state of the believers at Antioch ; and, as we have seen, it also contained a very unfair attack on S. Meletius, and by implica- tion a powerful pleading in favour of Paulinus. 1 One can easily imagine that such a letter would be quite capable of giving the final impulse which would decide Damasus to give the preference to Paulinus, and to enter into communication with him. It certainly is a fact that, during the summer months of 375, Damasus wrote to Paulinus three letters, one after another, with short intervals between, in which letters he fully recognized Paulinus as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, and entered into communion with him. The first two of these letters are no longer extant ; but the third, Per filium meum, has come down to us, many manuscript copies of it having been preserved. In some of the oldest collections of canons and of other documents belonging to the department of ecclesiastical law, this letter of Damasus to Paulinus follows immediately after S. Jerome's first letter to Damasus (Qtioniam vetusto Oriens] ; and I have reason to think that in every case where these two letters occur together, the letter of Damasus is headed in these collections by a most interesting rubric or introductory note, which is worded as follows : " Here begins the rescript of Pope Damasus, addressed to Paulinus, the bishop of the city of Antioch, at the request of Jerome?* There are reasons for believing that this heading is early, and that the words, " ad petitum Hieronymi," preserve for us an authentic tradition, which corroborates the view that Damasus wrote his letters of communion to Paulinus partly in consequence of his having received from S. Jerome the letter, Quoniam vetusto Oriens. In any case, whatever may have been the impelling cause, there can be no doubt that it was in the course of the summer of 375 3 that Damasus wrote the letters to Paulinus, which brought the Eustathians into communion with the West. Damasus, in his third letter to Paulinus, 4 the only one of 1 See pp. 312-314. 2 "Incipit rescriptum Damasi papae ad petitum Hieronymi ad Paulinum episcopum urbis Anthiocenae." For information about the collections in which this rubric occurs, see the Additional Note 73, pp. 499, 50x3. 3 Jerome's letter, Quoniam vetusto Oriens ; which was dispatched from the desert of Chalcis, must have been written before Damasus had admitted Paulinus to his communion, and therefore Damasus' letter, Perfilium meum, cannot be earlier than 375. That same letter of Damasus' must also have been written before the end of 376, during the course of which year Vitalis was consecrated by Apollinarius to the episcopate, a step which must have been posterior to the visit of Vitalis to Rome. Dom Maran ( Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxiii. 6, S. Basil. Off., torn. iii. pp. cli., clii.) and Merenda (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. x. 2, P. L., xiii. 170, 171) argue convincingly in favour of the year 375 as the date of the establishment of intercommunion between Damasus and Paulinus. 4 This is the letter, Perfifaim meum. IX.] A.D. 363-378. 317 the three which we possess, writes as follows : 1 " Damasus to his most beloved brother Paulinus, sends greeting ; I dispatched a letter to you by my son Vitalis, in which I left all things to your will and judgement. I also briefly intimated to you through Petronius, the presbyter, that in the very moment of his starting I was to a certain extent in a state of disturbance. Wherefore, for fear that some 2 scruple should remain in you, and that your laudable circumspection should put off the reception of persons who should wish, it may be, to be joined to the Church, we are sending 3 you a declaration of the faith, not so much for yourself who are joined with us in the communion 4 of the same faith, as for those who should wish, by signing it, 5 to be joined, most beloved brother, to you, or in other words to us through you. Wherefore, if my above-mentioned son Vitalis, and those who are with him 6 should wish to be admitted to your communion, they ought first to subscribe that doctrinal definition 7 which was established by the pious will of our fathers at Nicaea." After these opening sentences there follows a careful statement of the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation, ex- cluding and anathematizing the quibbling glosses of the Apollinarians. Paulinus is then told that he ought to receive without any hesitation those who are willing to subscribe this letter of Damasus, always supposing that such persons have previously subscribed both the Nicene Creed and also certain canons 8 which Paulinus knows well. In the concluding sentence 9 Damasus politely adds in effect that he does not 1 For the most part I use Merenda's text of this letter (M), as reprinted by Migne (P. Z., xiii. 356, 357). Occasionally I correct Merenda's readings, using for that purpose the Freisingen MS., Cod. lat. Monac. 6243 olim Cod. Fris. 43 (F), and Cod. Vallicell. A. 5 (V), and Cod. National. Viet. Emman. 2102, olim Sess. Ixiii. (S), manuscripts of acknowledged importance, which I happen to have had opportunities of consulting. * I read, with F, S, and V, " aliquis," whereas M reads " aut." 3 Misimus is here the epistolary perfect, and must be translated in English by the present tense. The Ballerini are therefore wrong when they infer from the use of the past tense that Damasus had sent a dogmatic formula to Paulinus in a previous letter (see the note f of the Ballerini in P. Z., Ivi. 684). If Damasus had been referring to a previous letter, he would have written miseramus ; just as in the first sentence of this letter he writes dircxeram and indicaveram. One may compare the use of eirt^if a in Acts xxiii. 30 ; 2 Cor. ix. 3 ; Eph. vi. 22 ; and Col. iv. 8. 4 I read, with V, " communione," whereas M reads "communionem." * I read, with F, S, and V, " subscribentes," whereas M reads " subscri- bentem." * "Vitalis et ii qui cum eo sunt." These words are important, as showing that Vitalis was already at the head of a party in Antioch, before he started on his journey to Rome. 7 M and S read, " in ea expositione fidei subscribere ; " F and V omit " fidei." 8 Perhaps these canons may be the canons of Nicaea and Sardica ; and this is the view favoured by the Ballerini (P. L., Ivi. 685, note e). 9 I read the concluding sentence thus : "Non quod [tu F and S] haec ipsa, quae nos scribimus, non potueris [in conversorum F, S, and V] [susceptione 318 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. send this dogmatic statement because he supposes that Paulinus would have any difficulty in putting together an equally good one himself; but he sends it in the hope that the knowledge that the Bishop of Rome is in doctrinal agree- ment with him will remove any hesitation he may have felt, and will enable him to receive converts with a mind freed from anxiety. The three letters to Paulinus about Vitalis must have been written one after another with very short intervals between. Probably the first of the three, which was carried to Antioch by Vitalis, was the letter which announced to Paulinus that Damasus granted to him the communion of the Roman Church, and recognized him as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch. 1 The third letter, Per filium meum, went still further and laid down the principle that those Easterns, whom Paulinus admitted to his communion, would be regarded by Damasus as being in communion with himself. Thus Damasus at length adopted S. Basil's plan ; but by giving his communion and confidence to Paulinus, who in the East was generally regarded as a schismatic, 2 he hindered rather than furthered the re-unification of the Church. It may be regarded as practically certain that Paulinus received Damasus' letter of communion in September or October of the year 37 5. 3 Not unnaturally, the Eustathian leaders were filled with joy at this piece of good fortune. F and V] proponere ; sed quod tibi consensus noster [liberam suscipiendi tribuat facultatem F, S, and V]." In this passage M omits "tu,"and reads in one clause " convertentium susceptioni proponere," and in the other clause "liberum in suscipiendo tribuat exemplum." 1 This is the view taken by Merenda (cf. De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. x. 2, P. L., xiii. 168, 169) ; and Tillemont (ix. 245) regards it as probable. If Damasus sent a separate letter of communion to Paulinus, it must have been written about the same time as the other three, and dispatched just before the first of the three. But for myself, I incline to the view favoured by Tillemont and Merenda. Tillemont (vii. 29) says very truly, " Saint Basile et tout 1'Orient s'unit a Saint Melece, et traita les autres de schismatiques." Dom Maran says much the same (see pp. 321, 322). Compare also Tillemont (viii. 350, 351). * It was after S. Basil's return to Caesarea at the conclusion of a certain journey to Pontus, that he received the letter from Antioch, which informed him that Damasus had granted his communion to Paulinus (cf. S. Basil. Ep. ccxvi. ad Meletium, Opp., iii. 324). Now, he had started on this journey to Pontus after having celebrated at Caesarea the feast of S. Eupsychius on September 7 (cf. Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxiii. 5, S. Basil. Opp., torn. iii. p. cl.). In Pontus he had been to various places, and had stayed with his brother, S. Peter, in his old monastery on the River Iris. In his 213th and 2ith epistles, written immediately after his return to Caesarea, he refers to the fact that winter is close at hand. It seems, therefore, clear that he cannot have got back to Caesarea until October, perhaps not till the middle of the month. That would mean that Damasus' first letter to Paulinus did not reach Antioch till the end of September or the early part of October. Dom Maran ( Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxvi. 6, S. Basil. Opp., torn. iii. p. clxiv.) says, "Damasi litteras accepit Paulinus circa mensem Septembrem." Com- pare also Merenda's statement (De S. Damas. Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. x. 3, P. L., xiii. 171). IX.] A.D, 363-378. 319 Their party at Antioch was relatively very small, and they had been generally repudiated in the East ; but now they were recognized not only by Egypt, but also by the West. They began at once to set forth the terms on which they would be ready to admit to their communion the Catholics who belonged to the great Church, which acknowledged S. Meletius ; l and they used great efforts to bring over to their side Count Terentius, a person of importance in the official world of Antioch, who had hitherto adhered to the Meletian communion. It is important that we should realize exactly what Damasus effected by his letters to Paulinus. There were three persons who claimed to be the head of the Catholic Church in Antioch. Each of them also claimed to be in agreement with the West as to doctrine ; and each of them wished to gain for himself and his cause the strength which would come to him and to it, if his orthodoxy and his canonical status were acknowledged by the Roman see and by the West. Since the time of the Council of Sardica, thirty-two years before, Rome had been out of communion with all the contending parties at Antioch. Now at last, in the summer of 375, Rome makes her choice 2 and grants her communion to Paulinus, recognizing him as the Bishop of Antioch, and, moreover, making him to be in some sense her representative in the East, so that those Easterns who were admitted to his communion were also ipso facto admitted to the communion of the Roman Church. The case of Vitalis is remitted by Damasus entirely to Paulinus' judgement. S. Meletius' claim is evidently rejected. If Damasus had intended to recognize S. Meletius and Paulinus as joint- bishops of Antioch (which is what Dr. Rivington supposes 3 ), he would have said so, and would have suggested some modus vivendi. It is clear that he did nothing of the sort. If he had done so, the Eustathians could not have acted as they did, and S. Basil could not have written as he did. Besides, as Dr. Rivington very truly says, " Rome had her doubts as to his [S. Meletius'] perfect orthodoxy." 4 Damasus, rather more than a year later, allowed Peter of Alexandria 1 Cf. S. Basil. Ep. ccxvi. ad Meletium, Opp., iii. 324. 2 Merenda (De Sancti Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap x. 2, P. Z., xiii. 169), after quoting a passage from S. Basil's 2i4th Epistle, a passage which may be read below on p. 321, says, "Nullas itaque ante hoc tempus a Damaso litteras Pauliniani acceperant, quas circumferrent, adjudicatumque Paulino episcopatum probarent." Compare another passage quoted in note 2, on p. 297, and see also p. 304 and p. 348, note 5. 3 See Dr. Rivington's Appeal to History (pp. 16, 17), and his article in the Dublin Review for July, 1893 (p. 645). 4 Appeal to History , p. 17. 320 ROME AND ANTIOCHIII. [IX. to stigmatize S. Meletius in his presence as an Ario-maniac. 1 Is it conceivable that the pope could have gone out of his way to recognize as joint-bishop of Antioch one whom he regarded as an Arian, or at least as an Arianizer ? His whole history makes it clear that such a supposition is quite incon- ceivable. It is absolutely certain that Damasus in 375 recognized Paulinus as sole Bishop of Antioch. Such a decision involved a repudiation of S. Meletius' claim, and must have been based on the view that S. Meletius' institution to the see of Antioch was in some way illicit, and therefore null and void. There was not the least necessity for this judgement about S. Meletius to be formally expressed and promulgated. Rome had never recognized S. Meletius, and had never communicated with him. There was no change in her attitude towards him in 375. In Rome's view he remained where he always had been, namely, outside her communion, just as he was outside and always had been outside the communion of the Church of Alexandria. From 343 to 362 the whole Eastern Church had been outside the Roman communion. 2 After the Council of Alexandria in 362, those bishops, who were allowed to avail themselves of the terms granted by that council, and wished so to avail themselves, were received into the communion of Rome and Alexandria. S. Meletius had never been so received. 3 He therefore 1 S. Basil. Ep. cclxvi. ad. Petrum, 2, Opp., iii. 412, 413. * An exception must be made in regard to those parts of the Eastern Church, with which Liberius communicated for a time after his fall. I have already pointed out that he never communicated with the Church of Antioch (see p. 232, n. 2). 9 It has been suggested that it can be proved that Damasus admitted S. Meletius to his communion, because Dorotheus, who was one of S. Meletius' clergy, on various occasions carried letters to Rome, some of which were signed by a number of Eastern bishops, of whom S. Meletius was one, and Damasus was willing to receive those letters from Dorotheus. But it is easy to show that there is no force in this argument, which is based on a misconception of the customs of the Church in the fourth century. For in the year 371, before carrying S. Basil's letter to Rome, Dorotheus had carried letters from S. Basil to Athanasius, and S. Athanasius received the letters and replied to them. Yet we know for certain that S. Athanasius was not in communion with S. Meletius (see p. 290). Simi- larly, in the beginning of Pope Liberius' episcopate the Eastern bishops, who had been excommunicated by his predecessor, sent letters to him, inviting him to enter into communion with them, and Liberius received these letters, read them to his own Roman flock, and also to the synod of the Italian bishops, and he further sent replies to the Easterns, but he refused altogether to communicate with them, cf. S. Hilar. Fragm. v. 2 & 4 (P. L., x. 683, 684). If it be replied that the Roman Council of 374, in its synodical letter, speaks of Dorotheus as " frater noster Dorotheus" (P. L., xiii. 352), I answer thatBaronius has long ago shown that the use of the word "frater" does not prove that the person so denominated is in Catholic communion (cf. Baronii Annales, ad ann. 492, IO, torn. vi. pp. 471, 472, edit. 1658). For an obvious example of such a use of the term " frater," reference may be made to S. Ambrose's letter to Theophilus {Ep. Ivi. 3, 5, 6, P. L. t xvi. 1220, 1221), in which S. Ambrose gives the title "frater" both to S. Flavian and to Evagrius, the rival claimants of the see of Antioch, although it is quite certain that he was not in communion with S. Flavian, and it is doubtful whether he was in communion with Evagrius. Theophilus, to whom he writes, IX.] A.D. 363-378. 321 remained where he was before. All that happened in 375, so far as S. Meletius was concerned, was that his non-recognition by Rome was emphasized and published abroad by the overt recognition of his rival, Paulinus. To acknowledge Paulinus was in effect to repudiate Meletius ; because the normal rule of the Church is that there can be only one occupant of an episcopal see at one time. No doubt in some exceedingly rare cases, for the greater good of the Church, this funda- mental rule has been suspended by conciliar (or in later times by papal) authority ; but in 375 it was not suspended. If any one says that it was suspended, it is for him to prove it ; and there is no proof possible. If such an unusual event had happened, specially in regard to such a see as that of Antioch, history would have rung with it ; whereas history is silent, or rather utters her contradiction. Let us hear S. Basil. Writing to Count Terentius, he says, "The report has reached us that the brethren of Paulinus' party are entering on some discussion with your rectitude on the subject of union with us ; and by ' us ' I mean those who are supporters of the man of God, Meletius, the bishop. I hear, moreover, that they [the Paulinians] are at the present time (vvv) carrying about a letter of the Westerns, which while it commits the bishopric of the Church of Antioch to them, 1 defrauds [of his due] the most admirable bishop of the true Church of God, Meletius." 2 Evidently in S. Basil's view, to acknowledge Paulinus was in effect to refuse recognition to Meletius. The Benedictine, Dom Maran, that " most accurate writer of the life of Basil," as Merenda calls him, 3 commenting on this epistle, correctly describes S. Basil's attitude in the following terms : " He [S. Basil] rightly denied that communion should be held with Paulinus, since in fact communion could not be held with was certainly in communion with neither. On the subject of this note reference may also be made to the correspondence between Pope Symmachus and certain Illyrian bishops who were under the anathema of the Roman Church. That correspondence belongs to the year 512. On p. 411 I quote some sentences from the letter of the Illyrians. 1 Rome had the right of deciding which of two contending claimants she would acknowledge as Bishop of Antioch. But her decision was not the decision of the Catholic Church. It did not, for example, bind S. Basil, who went on recognizing the claimant rejected by Damasus. The pope did not in this case exercise any primatial jurisdiction over Antioch. He simply gave the recog- nition and communion of his own Church to Paulinus. No doubt Damasus' decision carried great weight in the West, but it only bound the Church of Rome. Similarly, four years later, when S. Gregory Nazianzen began to act as a missionary bishop in Arian Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria " established " S. Gregory " by his letters " and " honoured him by the tokens of his recognition " (cf. S. Greg. Naz. Carmen de Vilasua, 859, 862, >//., ed. Ben., ii. 718). Of course the Bishop of Alexandria had no jurisdiction in Constantinople, but his recogni- tion carried great weight throughout the Church, and specially in the East. * S. Basil. Ep. ccxiv. ad Terenttum, 2, Opp., Hi. 321. 3 Cf. P. L. y xiii. 170. Y 322 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. him without Meletius being rejected, who was the only legitimate Bishop of Antioch." l In S. Basil's view, S. Meletius was bishop of " the true Church of God " in Antioch, 2 while Paulinus was head of a sect, a substantially orthodox sect, no doubt, but still a sect. Damasus by recognizing Paulinus had " defrauded Meletius " of his due, or, in other words, had rejected him. It is as clear as noon-day that in 375 Damasus had made no suggestion that the two bishops should occupy the see conjointly. Having, I hope, cleared up the question as to what Damasus had tried to effect and what he had not attempted to effect in regard to the status of S. Meletius and Paulinus by his letters to the latter, I proceed next to consider what effect these letters had on the views and actions of S. Basil. According to Dr. Rivington, S. Basil attributed to Damasus the right to exercise "lordship over the universal Church." 3 And according to the Vatican Council, all the pastors and all the faithful are bound to the authority of the pope " by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world," and the council adds that " no one can deviate from this teaching with- out the loss of his faith and salvation." 4 Did, then, S. Basil feel that he was bound to yield true obedience to the pope in a matter so closely connected with the discipline and government of the Church, as was the determination of the question as to who was the true occupant of the apostolic see of Antioch, the primatial seeof the whole East? Let his own words give answer. In his letter to Count Terentius he says, " However, since we accuse no one, but on the contrary wish to be in charity with all men, especially with those who are of the household of the faith, 5 we congratulate those who have received the letter [or 1 Praefat. in S. Basil. Vit., ii. sect. 2, S. Bas. Opp., torn. iii. p. xi. 2 It is necessary to protest against Dr. Rivington's attempt to escape from the crushing force of this expression. In order that his attempt may be understood and its enormity perceived, I must quote the context. Dr. Rivington says (Pritn. Ch., p. 220), " He [Basil] numbers them [the Paulinians] amongst the household of the faith. But he is not prepared on that account ' to ignore Meletius, or to forget for his part the Church under him.' For this also, he says, 'is the true Church of God.'" I have italicized the word "also," by the use of which Dr. Rivington leaves the impression that S. Basil regarded the Paulinians as being, no less than the Meletians, members of the true Church of God. But S. Basil does not use the word "also, 1 " or any word which could be paraphrased by "also," as will be evident to any reader who will study the passage. This is not fair treatment of readers who cannot refer to the original. * Prim Ch., p. 222. 4 Constitut. Dogmatic, de Eccksia Christi, cap. iii., Collect. Lacens., vii. 484. 5 The Eustathians, unlike the Arians, were firm believers in our Lord's true Godhead, they therefore belonged to "the household of the faith," if that expres- sion be taken in its wider sense. IX.] A.D. 363-378. 323 letters] from Rome ; and if, moreover, he [Paulinus] should have some honourable and grand testimony in favour of himself and his followers, we pray that it may prove true and be confirmed by their actions. But not on this account shall we be able to persuade ourselves either to ignore Meletius, or to lose thought of the Church under him, or to consider the questions, about which from the beginning the separation arose, as small matters, 1 or as having little importance in respect of the true aim of religion. As for me, if any one, having received a letter from men, should pride himself on it, not only shall I never suffer myself on this account to draw back [from the position I have taken up], but even if one should have come from heaven itself, 2 but should not walk by the health-giving word of the faith, I cannot regard such a one as sharing in the communion of saints." 3 In other words, S. Basil absolutely declines to allow Damasus' decision to have the smallest effect on his conduct. Damasus had acknow- ledged Paulinus and had rejected Meletius. S. Basil promptly informs Terentius that, as for himself, he will continue as before to acknowledge Meletius and to reject Paulinus. As we shall see, the Eastern Church, whose judgement was final in a matter such as this, which concerned the succession in the see of Antioch, ratified S. Basil's decision. It is clear that S. Basil, S. Meletius, and the whole Eastern Church were either consciously guilty of abominable rebellion against their divinely appointed head, or they did not acknowledge that view of the papacy, which is set forth in the Vatican decrees, and which has been summed up in the assertion that the pope, even in the fourth century, enjoyed a " lordship over the universal Church." The Church by the extraordinary venera- tion, which she has always manifested for the memory of S. Basil, has practically decided in favour of the latter alternative. It should further be noticed that S. Basil and the Eastern Church of his time did not accept the principle laid down by Cardinal Wiseman, when he asserted that "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 1 S. Basil is referring to the question whether it was right to speak of Three Hypostases in God or of One Hypostasis (compare note on p. 314). Dom Maran {Praefat. in S. Basil. Vit., ii. sect. 2, S. Basil. Opp., torn. iii. p. xi.) has care- fully drawn out the reasons which invested this question with grave importance in the East during the episcopate of S. Basil. 2 I am grateful to Dr. Rivington for his criticisms on the translation of this passage, which I adopted in the two earlier editions of this book. I gladly accept his view of S. Basil's meaning, which appears on consideration to be better than the one which I had previously taken, and better also than the view taken by the Benedictine editors of S. Basil's Works. 3 S. Basil. Ep. ccxiv. ad Terentium, 2, Opp., iii. 321. 324 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. the see of Rome, and who are not." S. Basil, on the contrary, regarded the Church which acknowledged S. Meletius for its bishop, and was repudiated by Rome, as " the true Church of God " in Antioch ; and he regarded the Eustathian body, which enjoyed the communion of Rome, as " having no share in the communion of saints," or, in other words, as being a schismatical sect. 1 One can easily understand that S. Basil was exceedingly distressed when he heard of Damasus' action, which seemed to constitute a most serious obstacle in the way of that restoration of unity, for which he so longed. It was in the autumn of 375 and in the early part of 376 that he referred in two different letters to the haughtiness and inconsiderateness of Damasus. I have quoted one of these passages on p. 136, and the other on pp. 163, 164. He felt very doubtful whether it was of the smallest use to write any more to the West. However, the two priests of the great Church of Antioch, Dorotheus and Sanc- tissimus, who had been to Rome as joint-envoys from the East in 374, were preparing to go there again ; and ultimately a letter was written in the name of the Catholic bishops of the East, and addressed to the bishops of the West ; and this letter was carried to Rome by the two envoys. The Eastern bishops urge their Western brethren to denounce by name to the Eastern churches certain men clad in sheep's clothing, who were unsparingly ravaging Christ's flocks. The men thus singled out for mention are the pneumatomachian ring- leader, Eustathius of Sebaste, Apollinarius the heresiarch, and Paulinus the bishop of the Eustathians at Antioch. It is important that we should notice the reasons which led to this request being preferred. No place is found among them for any reference to a supposed papal jurisdiction over the East. 2 The bishops say, " Our own words are suspected by most men, as though on account of some private quarrels we 1 S. Basil in effect argues a fortiori. He would not regard Paulinus as sharing in the communion of saints, so long as he clung to the formula of the One Hypostasis, even if Paulinus were an angel from heaven ; a fortiori S. Basil will not feel under any obligation to draw back from his repudiation of Paulinus merely because he had received an epistle from men, that is to say, a letter of communion from Rome. Similarly S. Basil, some time afterwards, writing to S. Epiphanius (.Ep. cclviii. 3, S. Basil. Opp. , 111.394), expresses his assurance that S. Epiphanius would never have entered into communion with the Eustathians, unless he had made sure that they accepted the formula of the Three Hypostases. In that same letter to S. Epiphanius, after declaring that his Church of Caesarea has communicated with S. Meletius ever since he became Bishop of Antioch, S. Basil goes on to say that he has never entered into communion with any of those who have since been introduced into the see [that is to say, with Paulinus or Vitalis], not because he counts them unworthy, but because he sees no ground for the con- demnation of Meletius. This letter was written to S. Epiphanius more than a year after Paulinus had been recognized by Rome. 2 Dr. Rivington (Prim. CA., p. 224) makes one of his hopeless attempts to show that there is such a reference. IX.] A.D. 363-378. 325 chose to bear them ill will. You, however, have all the more credit with the populations, in proportion to the distance which separates your dwelling-place from theirs, besides the fact that you are helped by God's grace for the bestowal of care on those who are in distress. 1 If more of you concur in uttering the same opinions, it is clear that the large number of those who express them will make it impossible to oppose their acceptance." 2 Why do not the bishops add, " Above all you have for your president the monarch of the Church, whose commands will impose on all loyal men the duty of implicit obedience"? As usual, they mention every reason except the one which would rise first to the lips of a modern ultramontane. The bishops go on to describe the tergiversations of Eustathius and the Judaic follies and damnable heresies of Apollinarius, and finally they deal seriously but in a somewhat less trenchant fashion with the case of Paulinus. In regard to him they say, "As to whether there was anything objection- able about the ordination of Paulinus, you can speak your- selves. 3 What grieves us is that he should show an inclination for the doctrines of Marcellus, and should without discrimi- nation admit his followers to communion. 4 You know, most 1 Dr. Rivington (loc. tit.) detects in these words the expression of a " con- sciousness of a charisma attaching to the Apostolic see which made it the proper caretaker of the troubled East " ! ! 2 Ep. ad Occidentals, inter Bast lianas cclxiii. 2, S. Basil. Opp., iii. 405. 3 The Eastern bishops ingeniously indicate their own dissatisfaction with Paulinus' consecration, without entering into an argument about it, which under the circumstances would have increased the tension between them and the West. 4 Dr. Rivington (Prim. CA., pp. 222, 223), evidently misled by Merenda (De S. Damas. Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. vi. 4, P. L., xiii. 149), thinks that " ultimately " S. Basil changed his view about Marcellus. Merenda bases his theory on a com- plete misconception of the meaning of a passage in S. Basil's 266th epistle, which is addressed to Peter of Alexandria (S. Basil. Opp., iii. 412). Speaking of the Marcellians of Galatia, S. Basil says in that epistle, which was written in 377, " Now, if the Lord so will, and they will be patient with us, we hope to bring the people over to the Church in such a way, as that we may not be reproached for going over to the Marcellians, but that they may become members of the body of the Church of Christ." Merenda paraphrases this sentence in a most astounding fashion. He says that S. Basil desires that the Marcellians may be so received " as to make it clear that they have never departed from the Church." In the next sentence he tries to confirm his view by following Zaccagni in rendering rbv irovnpbv tyoyov by the words "malitiosa calumnia;" whereas the Benedictines rightly translate them, "malum dedecus." As soon as these two mistakes have been corrected, there ensues a complete collapse of the whole of Merenda's theory about S. Basil's final change of view in regard to the heretical nature of Marcellus' teaching. He never retracted the statement which he made somewhat earlier in the year about Marcellus, namely, that " On account of his impious doctrines he went out from the Church" (cf. S. Basil. .p. cclxv. ad Acgypti episcopos exules, 3> Opp., iii. 410). After Marcellus' death a number of his followers gave up his heresies, and were finally reconciled to the Church. It is interesting to notice that the Council of Chalcedon in its Allocution, addressed to the Emperor Marcian, which seems to have been either pronounced in his presence at the sixth session or sent to him in writing just before that session (Hefele, E. tr., vol. iii. P- 35 1 )} expressed itself as follows: " Photinus and Marcellus invented a new 326 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. honourable brethren, that the emptying of all our hope is involved in the doctrine of Marcellus, for it does not confess the Son in His proper Hypostasis, but represents Him as having been uttered, and as returning again to Him, from whom He came forth. Neither does it admit that the Paraclete has His proper Hypostasis. ... Of these things we implore you to take due heed. This will be the case, if you consent to write to all the churches of the East to the effect that those who have perverted these matters are, if they amend, to be admitted to communion ; but that, if they contentiously determine to abide by their innovations, they are to be excommunicated by the churches. We are our- selves well aware that it had been fitting for us to sit in synod with your sagacities, and to settle these points by a common decree. But this the time does not allow." l To me it seems probable that Dorotheus and Sanctissimus started for Rome, carrying with them the letter of the Eastern bishops, soon after Easter in the year 376. Some time after their arrival in the capital of the Empire, there was held, probably in the course of the year 376, but possibly not till 377, a council, at which not only Damasus and his suburbicarian suffragans and, it may be, other Western bishops were present, but also Peter of Alexandria, who was still kept out of his own city by the Arians. At this synod both Apollinarius and his disciple, Timothy, were anathematized by name. 2 The council also sent back to the East a synodical epistle in reply to the letter of the Oriental bishops. Two fragments of this synodical epistle have been preserved, 3 in which the Apollinarian tenets are blasphemy against the Son." The council goes on to describe this blasphemy, which seems to be practically identical with Sabellianism (cf. Coleti, iv. 1760, 1761). The allocution must have been sanctioned by the papal legates, who were presiding. Hefele, following Tillemont and Dom Ceillier, thinks that it was actually drawn up by them (Hefele, E. tr., iii. 352, 353). The legates would certainly not have sanctioned such a treatment of Marcellus' name, if he had died in the communion of the Roman see. 1 Ep. cit., 5, S. Basil. Opp., iii. 407. The opinion of the whole West on the question of how Eustathius, Apollinarius, and Paulinus were to be treated would, of course, have great weight with the various Eastern churches, who could not meet in synod either among themselves or with the West, because of the persecution. In his 265th epistle S. Basil tells the Egyptian confessors in Palestine that they ought to have been slow in admitting the Marcellians to communion, until they knew whether such action would be acceptable to the Eastern churches, with whom they communicated, and to the Western churches, so that their action might be " the more confirmed by the consent of many." Similarly in his 266th epistle S. Basil says that he had not sent his answer to the Marcellians, because he was waiting to know the decision of Peter of Alexandria. In none of these cases was there any question of the exercise of jurisdiction by any bishop or bishops outside his or their proper sphere. 2 See the letter of Damasus to the Easterns, preserved by Theodoret (H. E., v. 10). 3 They are the fragments Illud sane miramur and Non nobis quidquam (P. L., xiii. 352, 353). IX.] A.D. 363-378. 327 repudiated with considerable detail of argument, and the Pneumatomachian and Marcellian heresies are rejected in briefer terms. But no names are mentioned in those fragments of the letter, that have come down to us. In the letter which the Eastern envoys had brought to Rome, the Western bishops had once more been requested to send some of their number to the East to comfort and help the Easterns in their manifold trials. But this request, which had been fruitlessly made so often before, was again refused by Damasus and his colleagues. 1 It appears as if the West had allowed its sympathy for the suffering East to be chilled by listening to the malevolent insinuations which the Eustathians were accustomed to make in the course of their correspondence with Rome. It was during the session of this Roman council of 376 (or 377) that Dorotheus was pained and shocked by hearing S. Meletius and S. Eusebius of Samosata called Ariomaniacs in the very presence of Damasus, who seems to have made no protest and given no reproof. 2 S. Basil, writing in 375, says, "Those persons [the Westerns] are altogether ignorant of affairs here ; and these [the Eustathians], who are supposed to be acquainted with them, relate them to the others in a partisan rather than in a truthful way." 3 Cardinal Baronius alludes to this passage in his notes to the Roman Martyrology, where, speaking of the Roman bishop's dealings with the Church of Antioch, he says, " It is clear from the testimony of S. Basil that, as often happens, S. Damasus was deceived by certain false reports." 4 The Bollandists quote and adopt Baronius' statement. 5 Similarly Dom Maran says that S. Basil's soul "was stirred by the unjust judgements about S. Meletius, which were passed at Rome, after no examination of the affair and on the mere reports of partisans." 6 We have thus traced the history of the long negotiations between the East and Rome, which were carried on under the guidance of S. Basil from 371 to 376 or 377. They ended unsatisfactorily, and left matters rather worse at the conclusion than they had been at the beginning ; for the West was now committed to the wrong side, and the Catholic East, which was enduring a bitter persecution at the hands of the Arians, had the mortification of seeing an intruder in its primatial see enjoying the communion of the West, while its own 1 Seethe first sentence of the fragment, Non nobis quidquam (P. L., xiii. 353)- 2 Cf. S. Basil. Ep. cclxvi. ad Petrum Episc. Alexandriae, 2, Opp., iii. 412, 43- 3 S. Basil. Ep. ccxiv. ad Terentium, 2, Opp., iii. 321. 4 Martyrolog. Rom., edit. Antverp., 1589, p. 80. 5 Cf. Acta SS., torn. ii. Febr., p. 595. 6 Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxiii. 6, S. Basil. Opp., torn. iii. p. clii. 328 ROME AND ANTIOCH ///. [IX. saintly leaders were flouted at Rome as Ariomaniacs. It would appear that S. Basil came to the conclusion that no advantage would be gained by continuing the negotiation, and we hear of no more embassies to the West during his lifetime. He died on January I, 379.* But he lived long enough to see the dawn of the brighter day which was coming. On August 9, 378, was fought the battle of Hadrianople. In that battle Valens fell, and his body was never found. The Catholic Gratian became the master of the whole empire, in the East as well as in the West. The Arian persecution was at an end. 1 For the date of S. Basil's death, see Rauschen's JahrbiicJier der Christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Tlieodosius dem Grossen, pp. 476, 477. LECTURE X. THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH TO THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. IV. The Compact between S. Meletius and Paulinus. WITHIN a very few weeks of the death of Valens, Gratian issued an edict which enabled all exiled Catholic bishops to return to their sees. We may well suppose that S. Meletius would hurry back, as soon as he could, to his beloved flock at Antioch. S. Chrysostom has given an eloquent description of the enthusiastic reception which he received, when " the whole city " x came out to welcome him. In September, 379, he presided at a great synod which was held in Antioch. In consequence of the prolonged persecution under Valens, this was the first Catholic synod which had been able to meet in the East for many years. It was attended by 153 Eastern bishops. The fact that S. Meletius acted as president shows how entirely the Catholic East recognized his claim to be the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, and how completely it repudiated any binding force in Damasus' decision in favour of Paulinus. It was not simply that the Eastern bishops adhered to their primate, notwithstanding the fact that he was not in com- munion with Rome ; but it was more than that : they adhered to him, notwithstanding the fact that a rival bishop, who was in communion with Rome and was supported by her, claimed to be the legitimate Bishop of Antioch and the legitimate Primate of the East. We have already seen 2 that among the bishops who took part in this council were S. Eusebius of Samosata, S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Eulogius of Edessa, and S. Gregory of Nyssa. One great work, which the council had to undertake, was to do what it could to promote a thoroughly friendly intercourse between the East and the West ; and with this object in view, to remove the absolutely unfounded suspicions which were entertained at Rome concerning the orthodoxy of the two great leaders, S. Meletius and S. Eusebius of Samosata. 1 Cf. S. Chrys. Horn, in S. Melet., 2, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 521. 2 See p. 1 60, note. 330 ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. Accordingly, the Fathers of the council put together into one document the synodical letter, which had been sent to the East by the Roman Council of 371, and also portions of the two other synodical letters which had been sent, the one by the Roman Council of 374, the other by the Roman Council of 376 or 377. To this composite formulary the 153 bishops present at the council affixed their signatures, together with an appended clause defining in each case what the signature meant Thus the president, S. Meletius, signed first, and appended to his signature the following clause : " I, Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, consent to all the things which are written above, so believing and holding (sentiens) : and if any one holds (sentit) otherwise, let him be anathema." 1 S. Eusebius and S. Pelagius appended to their signatures a similar formula. The clauses appended to the signatures of the other bishops were shorter. This composite document con- tained the solemn judgements synodically pronounced by the West against all the heresies which had been troubling the East during the time when, owing to the persecution, the Eastern Church could hold no synods of her own. In par- ticular the heresies of Arius, Marcellus, Macedonius, and Apollinarius were condemned. The fact that the document was synodically accepted and signed by the Fathers of Antioch was a demonstrative proof that the East and West were agreed as to the faith, and consequently that the accu- sations of heresy so persistently brought against S. Meletius by the Eustathians were calumnies. There can be no doubt that another subject discussed at the Council of Antioch was the schism which separated the party of Paulinus from the main body of the Catholic flock in the city where the council was holding its meeting. We have no means of knowing whether any overtures were made at that time to Paulinus. If they were made, they were rejected, for no agreement between the parties was brought about during the sitting of the council. 2 When the council was over, embassies from both parties started for Rome, bearing letters dealing with the subject of the schism. These letters were laid before a council of bishops from the whole of Italy, 3 which met at Rome under the presidency of 1 P. L., xiii. 353. 2 The Bollandist, Father Van den Bosche, has some good remarks on the impossibility of supposing that any compact was made between S. Meletius and Paulinus at the Council of Antioch (cf. Acta SS., torn. iv. Jul., p. 60, n. 266). 3 Pope Vigilius, in his Constitutum pro damnatione Trium Capitulorum (cap. xxvi., P. Z., Ixix. 176), implies that S. Ambrose was present at the Roman Council which sent to Paulinus of Antioch the confession of faith containing twenty-four paragraphs with a number of anathemas ; and Merenda has, I think, shown that that council was held in 380 (cf. Merend., De S. Damas. Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xv. 4, P. L., xiii. 197-200). It follows that the Roman Council X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 331 Damasus in the early part of the year 380. This Roman Council determined to send certain of its members to Antioch, as arbiters, to restore peace, if that should be possible. As it turned out, the execution of this charitable project was pre- vented by the arrival of the news that the Goths by a two- fold irruption had invaded Western Illyricum and also the provinces south of the Balkans. 1 It is clear that the news of the Gothic rising reached Rome, certainly after the beginning of the sessions of the council, most probably after its con- clusion, and this fact indicates that the council was held some time during the first four months of the year, most probably before Lent. For the Gothic irruption took place when Theodosius was desperately sick at Thessalonica, and the crisis of his illness appears to have fallen in the month of February, 2 though the effects of his illness were felt for five months afterwards. Theodosius did not leave Thessalonica until the early part of August, and by that time the war with the Goths was over, Gratian having bribed them to agree to a truce. 3 It is evident, from what has been said, that peace had not as yet been made at Antioch when the Roman Council was in session during the early part of 380. The council would never have determined to send several bishops to Antioch to try and restore peace if peace had already been restored. Merenda has, I think, given good reason for believing that the Antiochene Council of 379 sent to Rome as its envoy, or at least as one of its envoys, Acacius, the newly ordained Bishop of Beroea (now Aleppo), in Syria Prima. 4 of 380 was attended by the bishops of North Italy as well as by the bishops of the suburbicarian dioceses. 1 The Fathers of the Council of Aquileia (A.D. 381), in their letter, Quamlibet, addressed to Theodosius (Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. 4, 5, P. Z., xvi. 989), say, " Utriusque partis dudum accepimus litteras, praecipueque illorum, qui in Antiochena Ecclesia dissidebant. Et quidem nisi hostilis impedimento fuisset irruptio, aliquos etiam de nostro numero disposueramus illo dirigere, qui seques- tres et arbitri refundendae, si fieri posset, pads exsisterent." 2 Compare Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders, 2nd edit., vol. i. part i. p. 33- * The Gothic historian, Jordanes (Getica, capp. 27, 28, ed. Mommsen, 1882, P- 95) says, "Theodosio principe pene tune usque ad disperationem egrotanti datur iterum Gothis audacia divisoque exercitu Fritigernus ad Thessaliam prae- dandam, Epiros et Achaiam digressus est, Alatheus vero et Safrac cum residuis copiis Pannoniam petierunt. Quod cum Gratianus imperator, qui tune a Roma in Gallis ob incursione Vandalorum recesserat, conperisset, quia Theodosio fatali desperatione succumbente Gothi majus saevirent, mox ad eos collecto venit exercitu, nee tamen fretus in armis, sed gratia eos muneribusque victurus, pacemque, victualia illis concedens, cum ipsis inito foedere fecit. Ubi vero post haec Theodosius convaluit imperator repperitque cum Gothis et Romanis Gratiano imperatore pepigisse quod ipse optaverat, admodum grato animo fereus et ipse in hac pace consensit." The statements of Jordanes are confirmed by S. Prosper, who in the second part of his Chronicum integrum (P. Z., li. 585), under the year 380, says, " Procurante Gratiano, eo quod Theodosius aegrotaret, pax rirmatur cum Gothis." * Cf. Merend., De S. Damas. Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xv. 2, P. Z., xiii. 195, 196. 33 2 ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. He no doubt carried with him the synodical letter, in which the claims of S. Meletius to the see of Antioch were set forth, and also the composite Western formulary, to which the Antiochene Fathers had appended their signatures. That document was obviously one of the highest importance, and there is proof that it was laid up in the archives of the see of Rome. 1 I have already shown that in the fourth century the reception by the pope of letters from bishops out of com- munion with his see in no way proved that he had admitted them or meant to admit them to his communion. 2 Still less did such reception necessarily restore them to his communion ipso facto. In fact, this practice of receiving letters from persons not in communion was by no means peculiar to the fourth century. History makes it clear that such action was not unknown at Rome fourteen centuries later than the time of Damasus. I give details in a note. 3 I referred just now (see p. 330, n. 3) to a certain confession of faith, divided into twenty-four paragraphs and including a number of anathemas, which was sent by the Roman Council of 380 to Paulinus, the bishop of the Antiochene Eustathians. There is one paragraph in that confession, which remarkably corroborates the conclusion that, whatever may have been the case with other members of the Council of Antioch held in 379, at any rate the president, S. Meletius, was not in communion with the West. I allude to the ninth paragraph, which runs as follows : " Those also, who have migrated from churches to churches, we regard as alien from our communion, until they shall have returned to the cities in which they were first established [as bishops]. But if one bishop has migrated and another has been ordained to fill his place during his lifetime, let him who has deserted his city cease to enjoy the dignity of a bishop until his successor 1 See P, L., xiii. 354. 2 See p. 320, note 3. 3 During the pontificate of Clement XIV., when the Jesuits were straining every nerve to prevent the beatification of Juan de Palafox, a certain letter, bearing date December 15, 1770, and purporting to be signed by Peter John Meindaerts, Archbishop of Utrecht, was fabricated by the Jesuits, or by their allies, and forwarded to Rome. In this letter the archbishop was made to suggest that the beatification of Palafox would be equivalent to a retractation of the bulls against the five propositions of Jansenius. As a matter of fact, Archbishop Meindaerts had died on October 31, 1767, more than three years before the date of the forged letter. His successor, Archbishop Michael van Nieuwenhuisen, and liis suffragans drew up a formal act in which they disavowed this piece, and showed that it could not have emanated from the Church of Utrecht. Clement XI V. was much gratified by the disavowal, and ordered that the original act should be deposited in the archives of the Apostolic Chamber. See Dr. Neale's History of the so-called Jansenist Church of Holland, pp. 334, 335. It will, of course, be remembered that from 1723 to the present time the Archbishops of Utrecht and their suffragans have been out of communion with the see of Rome ; and Arch- bishop van Nieuwenhuisen had been excommunicated nominatim. X.] THE COMPACT AT A NT IOC H. 333 passes to his rest in peace." l Now, when it is remembered that this confession of faith is addressed to S. Meletius' rival, Paulinus, and, further, that S. Meletius had undoubtedly been consecrated to the see of Sebaste, and had afterwards been instituted to the see of Antioch, it is impossible to doubt that the case of S. Meletius was very prominently in the mind of the Fathers of the Roman Council of 380, when they inserted in their confession of faith that ninth paragraph, which publicly notifies the fact that all bishops who have migrated from one church to another are outside the communion of the West. I do not say that the scope of the paragraph is to be restricted to S. Meletius, but I do say that it was aimed very specially at him. Merenda himself expresses the opinion that what he chooses to call S. Meletius' " frequent migration from church to church," a was in all probability one of the reasons which moved Damasus to side with Paulinus. Even if per impossibile the Council of Rome had not had the case of S. Meletius definitely in its mind, its notification that migrating bishops were not in its communion being perfectly general, and no exception being made in favour of S. Meletius, that holy man would necessarily have been included within the sweep of the council's declaration. Merenda, in his note on this paragraph, twice over speaks of it as an "anathematismus," 3 and tries unsuccessfully to exclude S. Meletius from the effect of its operation. Occurring as the paragraph does in the midst of a series of anathemas, it is possible that Merenda is right in his view of the extreme gravity of the penalty pronounced in it against migrating bishops, though I confess that I do not feel sure on that point. What does appear to me to be absolutely certain is, that whatever the penalty may have involved, it was incurred by S. Meletius, and, moreover, was primarily meant to apply to him ; and this is the view which is generally taken by learned Roman Catholics. It is the view taken by Tillemont, 4 by the Benedictines, Dom Maran, 5 and Dom Constant, 6 by the very learned Ultramontanes, the brothers 1 P. L., xiii. 360, 361. " Eos quoque, qui de Ecclesiis ad Ecclesias migraverunt tamdiu a communione nostra habemus alienos, quamdiu ad eas civitates redierint, in quibus primum sunt constituti. Quod si alius alio transmi- grante in locum viventis est ordinatus, tamdiu vacet sacerdotis dignitate, qui suam deseruit civitatem, quamdiu successor ejus quiescat in pace." 2 Merend. De S. Damas Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. x. 2, P. L., xiii. 169. 3 P.L., xiii. 360, 361. 4 Tillemont, vii. 619. 5 Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxxiii. 6, S. Basil., Opp., torn. iii. p. cli. (cf. Op. cit., p. 321, n.d.). 6 Epistolae Rom. Pontt., edit. 1721, col. 514, n. 334 ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. Ballerini, 1 and even by Rohrbacher. 2 It will be enough to quote the Ballerini. Speaking of the paragraph con- taining the condemnation of migrating bishops, they say, " This pope [viz. Damasus], who was in communion with Paulinus of Antioch, inserted this decree against Meletius, who had passed from the Church of Sebaste to that of Antioch." 3 I think that it will be admitted that good reason has been given for believing that in the early part of the year 380 peace had not been established between S. Meletius and Paulinus, nor between S. Meletius and the Roman Church. On the contrary, a fresh condemnation of him had been promulgated at Rome, which made it clear to all the world that he was separated from the communion of the West. At this point in the narrative it seems desirable to speak of some of the laws in favour of the faith of Nicaea, which were enacted about this time by the Emperor Theodosius. In the early part of February, 380, while at Thessalonica, he was attacked, as we have seen, by a dangerous illness, and it was during this illness that he received instruction from S. Acholius, the bishop of that city, and was baptized by him. 4 One may feel morally sure that it was under the influence of S. Acholius that the Emperor published, on the 28th of February, an edict addressed to the people of Constantinople. 5 In that edict he expressed his desire that " all the various nations subject 1 Codex Canonum Eccles. et Constitutorum S. Sedis Apostol., cap. lv., n.g., P. L., Ivi. 688. 2 Histoire Universette de fEglise Catholique, livre 35, 5 icmc edit., 1868, torn. iv. p. 72. * As a matter of fact, S. Meletius was not, strictly speaking, translated from one see to another. He had been consecrated to Sebaste, but he had not been able to remain there. The people did not recognize the deposition of his pre- decessor, Eustathius (see p. 242). He had therefore retired to Beroea, and was in the position of a bishop without a see. Now, the great Antiochene Council of the Dedication (A.D. 341) had decreed in its sixteenth canon as follows : ''If a bishop without a see forces himself into a vacant one, taking possession of it withotit the consent of a regular synod, he shall be deposed, even if he has been elected by the whole diocese into which he has intruded. A regular synod is one held in the presence of the metropolitan" (see Hefele, E. tr., ii. 71). The canons of this Council of Antioch, a "synod of saints," as S. Hilary calls it, were certainly good law at Antioch at the time of S. Meletius' institution to the bishopric of the church in that city. Later on, these canons became the law of the whole Eastern Church, and finally they were admitted into the codes of the West as well as of the East. S. Meletius' election was ratified by a numerously attended council of bishops belonging to the province and the patriarchate, and consequently no objection can be brought against the canonicity of his institution on the score of translation. The requirements of the canons had been fulfilled in his case. 4 Cf. Sozomen., H. E., vii. 4. On the date of the baptism, compare Gwatkin's Studies (p. 259, n. 2) and Rauschen's Jahrbiicher (pp. 6l, 67). 6 Cod, Theod., xvi. I, 2. The edict begins with the words Cunctos populos. X] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 335 to his sway should live in the profession of that religion, which has been preached from apostolic times until now, and which, according to its own tradition, was delivered to the Romans by the divine apostle, Peter, and which is obviously followed by Bishop Damasus (pontificem Damasum) and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria 1 (Alex- andriae episcopum), 2 a man of apostolic holiness. The sum and substance of that religion is that, in accordance with apostolic teaching and evangelical doctrine, we should believe the one Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity." " We order," he says, "that those who follow this law should assume the name of Catholic Christians ; but pronouncing all others to be mad and foolish, we require that they shall bear the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to bestow on their conventicles the title of churches. Such persons will be chastised, first by the divine vengeance, and secondarily by the punishment which the impulse, moving our will in accordance with the decision of heaven, shall inflict." 3 1 Similarly S. Jerome, some three or four years before, when he was in the desert of Chalcis, appealed to the usage of Damasus and Peter in support of his right to use the formula of the One Hypostasis (cf. S. Hieronym. Ep. xvii. ad Marcum, 2, P. Z., xxii. 360). A Western would naturally refer to those two great prelates as pillars of orthodoxy. 2 Some papalist writers have laid stress on the fact that Theodosius styles Damasus "pontifex" and Peter "episcopus." But, as Baronius in his Annals (s.a. 397, torn. v. p. 42, edit. 1658) points out, " Fuit olim vetus ille usus in Ecclesia, ut episcopi omnes non pontifices tantum dicerentur, sed summi pontifices vel summi sacerdotes, eo quod episcopatus summum sacerdotium diceretur." Compare Pope Zosimus' letter to Hesychius of Salona (P. Z., xx. 671), and Pope Gelasius' letter to the bishops of Lucania (S. Gelas. Ep. ix. cap. 6, P. L., lix. 50). In Theodosius' edict the word is probably varied for the sake of euphony. 3 This edict bears on its forefront that Western tinge which was to be expected in a document emanating from men with the antecedents of Theodosius and S. Acholius. Theodosius had spent all his life within the limits of the Western empire ; and S. Acholius, though born in the East, had come to the West in boyhood, and had remained there ever since. Theodosius was soon to come into contact with the Eastern Church, and the short experience of a few months in the East led him to give a very different complexion to his legislation about the tests of orthodoxy. On July 30, 381, he decreed (Cod. Theod., xvi. I, 3), on the advice of the second Ecumenical Council (cf. S.Greg. Nyss. Ep. i. ad Flavianum, P. G., xlvi. 1009), that the churches were to be handed over to the bishops who believed in the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who were manifestly associated in communion with Nectarius of Constantinople, and, if their sees were in Egypt, with Timothy of Alexandria j if they lived in the Oriens, with S. Pelagius of Laodicea and with Diodorus of Tarsus ; if in Asia, with S. Amphilochius of Iconium and with Optimus of the Pisidian Antioch j if in Pontus, with Helladius of Caesarea, Otreius of Melitene, and S. Gregory of Nyssa. Two other bishops, whose dioceses were north of the Balkans, are also mentioned as centres of communion Terentius of Scythia and Martyrius of Marcianopolis. It will be observed that Damasus is conspicuous by his absence, and that Nectarius of Constantinople is given a primatial position at the head of the list. The arrangement seems to have been well devised and suitable for the needs of the Eastern Church. 336 ROME AND ANT IOC H IV. [X. It will be observed that this law contains for the most part a programme of Theodosius' wishes and intentions, rather than an enactment which could of itself take effect. It obviously needed to be supplemented. The Emperor thought it well to interpose a delay of nearly nine months before he took any further action. But after his solemn entry into Constantinople on the 1/j.th of November he sent for the bishop, Demophilus, who was an Arian, and asked him whether he was willing to assent to the Nicene creed. Demophilus honourably refused. Whereupon the Emperor gave orders that the Arians should give up the churches in the city, which had been in their possession for forty years. This order was carried into effect, and the churches were handed over to the Catholics. Thus the work of imperial coercion on behalf of Nicene orthodoxy was begun. In a few weeks' time Theodosius extended to the whole of the Eastern empire the policy which he had inaugurated in the capital. On January 10, 381, he addressed to Eutropius, who was prefect of the praetorium, the law Nullus haereticis?- In that law, speaking of those who repudiate the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as set forth at Nicaea, Theodosius says, " Let them be kept entirely away from even the thresholds of the churches, since we allow no heretics to hold their unlawful assemblies within the towns. If they attempt any outbreak, we order that their rage shall be quelled and that they shall be cast forth outside the walls of the cities, so that the Catholic churches throughout the whole world may be restored to the orthodox bishops who hold the Nicene faith." Here we have a really operative enactment, dealing not merely with words, but things. By the law of the previous year, the legal right to call themselves Catholics and their assemblies churches had been taken away from the heretics ; but their church-buildings had been left in their hands. By the new law of January, 381, it was made obligatory on the representatives of the Emperor in the various cities to deprive the heretics of their houses of prayer, and to hand those buildings over to their Catholic rivals. Antioch was by far the most important city in which the churches remained still in the hands of the Arians. 2 The Emperor therefore sent thither one of his generals, named Sapor, with a copy of his edict, and commissioned him to 1 Cod. Theod., xvi. 5, 6. 2 We have seen that in Constantinople the churches were taken from the Arians soon after Theodosius' entry into the city on November 14, 380. At Alexandria the people had risen against Lucius, the Arian bishop, in the spring of 378, and had driven him from the city, the Catholics under Peter taking possession of the churches. X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 337 carry out its provisions in that capital. 1 Sapor may very probably have started from Constantinople on his journey to Antioch immediately after the publication of the law which he had to administer. If so, he would probably reach Antioch not later than the beginning of February, and he might be there a week earlier. 2 Sapor had a difficult question to decide. When the Arians had been expelled by him from the Antiochene churches, three sets of claimants presented themselves before him, namely, the great Church of Antioch which recognized S. Meletius as its bishop, the Eustathians whose bishop was Paulinus, and the Apollinarians whose bishop was Vitalis. All these three bodies through their representatives declared that they accepted the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as it was held by Damasus. The scene is described by Theodoret, who, as I have already mentioned, 3 was unaware of the fact that during the interval between February 28, 380, and July 30, 381, the law professed to unite Peter of Alexandria with Damasus, 4 and to regard those two as jointly the legally authorized representatives of orthodoxy. If Theodoret had had an opportunity of studying the edict Cttnctos populos, he would no doubt have put into the mouths of the claimants a reference to Peter as well as to Damasus. There are other points in connexion with this scene before Sapor, in regard to which it is difficult to believe that Theodoret has preserved 1 Cf. Theodoret. H. ., v. 2, 3. Theodoret unfortunately confuses three different laws, namely, (i) Gratian's law of August, 378, allowing the bishops banished by Valens to return to their sees ; (2) Theodosius' law, Cunctos populos, dated February 28, 380 ; and (3) Theodosius' second law, Nullus haereticis, dated January 10, 381. He appears also to be unaware (//". ., v. 2) that in the second of these three laws Peter of Alexandria was joined with Damasus, as a legal representative of orthodoxy. There can \>e no doubt that Sapor's visit to Antioch was subsequent to the law of January 10, 381, and that he was sent by Theodosius, and not by Gratian. 2 The distance from Constantinople to Antioch along the great Roman road was 716 English miles. An ordinary traveller, such as the Bordeaux pilgrim in 333 (cf- P- viii. 788, 789), took forty days to cover the distance. On the other hand, in 387 Caesarius, the magister ojficiorum, hurried from Antioch to Constantinople in six days (cf. Rauschen, Jahrbiichcr, p. 265). Sapor would, of course, use the cursus publicus, and would have no wish to dally on the road. If he travelled at the rate of fifty-one miles a day, he would get to Antioch in a fortnight. I do not understand why Merenda asserts (De S, Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xii. I, P. Z., xiii. 181) that Sapor could scarcely have got to Antioch before March. I would here mention once for all that, whenever in this book I mention the distance from one place to another along the Roman roads, my statements are based on Colonel Lapie's measurements, as recorded in Portia D'Urban's Recueil des Itiiitraires Anciens. * See note I above. 4 Peter, however, died during the course of this interval, on February 14, 381. He may have been actually dead when Sapor was investigating the rival claims at Antioch ; but the news of his death would hardly reach Antioch before the second week in March, and I think it probable that the investigation took place in February. Z ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. a perfectly accurate record ; 1 but we have no reason to doubt the main fact, which appears in his narrative, namely, that there was a contest between the three parties of claimants in the presence of Sapor, and that the Emperor's representative finally decided that the church-buildings in Antioch should be handed over to S. Meletius. The whole account pre- supposes that the three parties were out of communion with each other. We have already seen that in the early part of the year 380 peace had not been made between the two rival sections of orthodox Christians at Antioch. The events connected with Sapor's execution of the commission confided to him, to which I have already referred, show that this state of division still continued in February, 38 i. a And this conclusion is corroborated by an incident that took place before the close of Sapor's investigation, to which it will be well at this point to turn our attention. Theodoret tells us that, after much disputing had taken place in the presence of Sapor, " Meletius, who of all men was most meek, thus kindly arid gently addressed Paulinus : ' The Lord of the sheep has put the care of these sheep in my hands : you have taken upon yourself (avaSeS^eu) the charge of the rest ; but the sheep themselves agree in a common orthodoxy 3 (KOIVWU Se aXX/jXotc T WG tvatfieiac; TO. BplfJLfJLara). Therefore, dear friend, let us unite our flocks, and bring to an end our struggle for the place of chief command (rriv irtpl rrje riytpovias . . . Staftaxnv) ; and, tending our sheep in concert, let us apply to them a common care. But if the middle seat 1 For example, he makes S. Flavian say that Damasus, in contrast with Paulinus, "openly proclaims the Three Hypostases," whereas we know from S. Jerome's testimony (Ep. xvii. ad Marcum, 2, P. L., xxii. 360) that both Damasus and Peter of Alexandria used the formula of the One Hypostasis. Compare Merenda (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xii. 2, P. L. } xiii. 183, 184). 2 Tillemont, in his Histoire des Empereurs (note vii. on Theodosius I., torn. v. pp. 728, 729, edit. 1701), shows by very convincing reasons that Sapor's visit to Antioch must be placed after the promulgation of the law of January 10, 381. Giildenpenning and Ifland (Der Kaiser Theodosius der Grosse, p. 102, n. 27) agree with Tillemont. 3 Newman, in the Oxford translation of S. Athanasius' Orations against the Arians (p. 364, note b), says, "The technical sense of evffepeia aaV/feta, pietas, impietas, for orthodoxy, heterodoxy, has been noticed " above. Compare a similar note in his Arians of the Fourth Century (3rd edit., 187 1, p. 286), and also a note by Dr. Bright in the Oxford translation of the Later Treatises of S. Athanasius (p. 12). The word efarc'/fc la specially connoted the right belief in God. S. Meletius' flock and the Eustathians substantially agreed in their belief in the One God in Three Persons. The natural corollary seemed to be that they should coalesce so as to form one flock, and thus communicate together in sacris. For an instance of a similar use of the word evo-ffieia by Theodoret, see his Hist. Eccl., v. 6 ad fin., where, giving a reason for the freedom of the West from the contamination of Arianism, he refers to the " pure orthodoxy " (oucpac^j/q rrjv evo-fftfiav) of Valentinian. X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 339 is the cause of the strife, that strife I will endeavour to get rid of. For I shall place the divine Gospel on that seat, and shall then recommend that we sit on either side. Should I be the first to pass away, you, my friend, will hold the leader- ship of the flock alone. Should this be your lot before it is mine, I in my turn, so far as I am able, will take care of the sheep.' These things gently and kindly spoke the divine Meletius. But Paulinus did not acquiesce. Then the general, having given judgement on what had been said, delivered the churches to the great Meletius. But Paulinus continued at the head of the sheep who originally seceded." l So writes the Blessed Theodoret. Nothing could be clearer than this. Hitherto the two sections had been disunited, and a struggle had been going on between the two claimants of the episcopal throne of Antioch. Now the peace-loving S. Meletius proposes that, since there was no real doctrinal difference between the two sections, they should unite to form one flock, which should be ruled by the two bishops acting together ; and further that, when either bishop died, the survivor should become sole bishop. Considering that the enormous majority of the orthodox in Antioch adhered to S. Meletius, and that he was recognized as the sole bishop by almost all the bishops of the Eastern Church outside of Egypt, the proposal was an exceedingly magnanimous one. However, Paulinus, relying on his recognition by the West and by Egypt, refused for the present Meletius' Christian offer. But he did not maintain this rigid attitude for long. Perhaps, when he heard Sapor's decision, and found that all the churches of Antioch were being handed over to his rival, he began already to regret that he had not come to terms. Soon afterwards there must have arrived from Constantinople the imperial letters con- voking the second Ecumenical Council. 2 S. Meletius, as the recognized Bishop of Antioch, would receive a summons, but Paulinus would be left out in the cold. Anyhow, whatever Paulinus' motives may have been, it is certain that, before S. Meletius started on his journey to Constantinople, a com- pact of some sort was agreed upon between the two bishops. The council was to meet in May, 8 and S. Meletius may be supposed to have left Antioch near the beginning of April, that is to say, very soon after Easter, which fell that year on the 28th of March. I regard it as practically certain that the compact was made at some time during February or March, 381.* 1 Theodoret. H. ., v. 3. * Cf. Acta SS,, torn. ii. Mai., p. 412. 1 Cf. Socrat. H. ., v. 8. . 4 The Bollandists take a similar view. In a marginal note (Acta SS. t torn. iv. 340 ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. It remains to investigate what the nature of the compact was. It appears to have contained at least two stipulations. Probably there may have also been a third. But, whereas we have direct evidence of what was contained in the first two clauses of the treaty, the existence and contents of the third can only be established by inference. (1) It is quite certain that S. Meletius and Paulinus agreed together that, as far as they could bring it about, whenever either of them should be removed by death, the survivor should be regarded as sole Bishop of Antioch, and that no successor of the dead bishop should be consecrated during the lifetime of the surviving bishop. 1 (2) It was also agreed that S. Meletius should apply once more to the Western bishops to be admitted to their com- munion, a privilege which had hitherto been refused. 2 And we may feel morally sure that Paulinus promised to support S. Meletius' request ; though it was no doubt provided that Paulinus should not be expected to communicate with S. Meletius, nor his followers with S. Meletius' followers, until it was ascertained that the Western bishops would be willing to grant their communion to the great body over which S. Meletius presided. 3 (3) As it is obvious that S. Meletius could not possibly bind by his sole action the other bishops of the province and patriarchate 4 of Antioch, it seems to me to be in the highest degree probable that he undertook to do what he could to obtain from his fellow-bishops, whose dioceses were situated Jul., p. 60) they say, "Pax aliqua tandem affulget circa A.c. 381." They are speaking of peace between S. Meletius and Paulinus. The Due de Broglie (L'Egliseet FEmpireauiv' sihle, III. i. 424, 425, edit. 1868) in like manner holds that the compact was made after Sapor's visit and just before S. Meletius' de- parture for Constantinople in 381. 1 In September, 381, the Fathers of the Council of Aquileia in their letter, Quamlibet> which was nominally addressed to the three Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II., and Theodosius, but was really intended for Theodosius only, wrote as follows : " We suppose that our petition has been presented to your Pieties, in which, in accordance with the compact of the parties, we have requested that on the death of either of them the rights of the Church should remain with the survivor, and that no intrusive consecration should be forcibly attempted " (Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. 5, P. Z., xvi. 989). 2 The Fathers of Aquileia, in their letter, Quamlibet, quoted in the previous note, speak of the followers of S. Meletius as being " persons who have sought our communion according to the compact, which we wish should stand " (Ep. *.,6). 3 It will be remembered how S. Basil cautiously refrained from deciding to admit the penitent Marcellians of Ancyra to his communion, until he had heard from Peter of Alexandria concerning his intentions in reference to the same set of people (compare p. 326, n. i). * The title "patriarch " had hardly come into use ; but the sixth Nicene canon shows that Antioch had for a long time possessed special privileges, such as were afterwards called "patriarchal." Cf. S. Hieron, Lib. contra Joann. Jerosol., 37, P. L., xxiii. 389. See also Duchesne's Origines du ctilte, pp. 19-21. X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 341 within the circumscription, subject to the Comes Orientis, their formal assent to the compact. 1 We have no reason to suppose that there was any revival of the proposal that the two orthodox bodies at Antioch should be immediately merged into one, and that the two bishops should govern that one body in common. Apparently, if the compact had been finally ratified, the two bodies would have been in communion with one another, but would have retained their separate organizations until the death of one or other of the bishops. A state of things would have resulted which would not have lasted long, but whidh, while it did last, might be compared, as regards some of its features, with the co-existence at the present time of Latins and Uniat Orientals, living side by side in the same city, and enjoying in common the communion of the papal see, but governed respectively by their own bishops. From the very nature of the case it is impossible to suppose that the compact could take effect at once. It needed to be ratified both in the East and in the West : in the East, because without such ratification there would be no security as to the fundamental stipulation being carried out, in case S. Meletius should die first ; and in the West, because, Paulinus' adherents in the East being relatively so very few, he would compromise his whole position if he were to take any definite step without the consent of his Western allies ; and, moreover, there would be a danger of those allies appoint- ing a successor to Paulinus, in the event of -his dying first, if they had not been consulted on the subject of the compact. It is to my mind out of the question to suppose that the two bodies at Antioch were brought into communion with each other by the mere fact that the two bishops had agreed to a compact, which, until it was ratified, remained in a purely inchoate condition. 2 Even if we could imagine that per 1 S. Gregory Nazianzen tells us {Carmen de Vita sua, 1576-1579, Opp. % ed. Ben., ii. 756) that up to the moment of his death S. Meletius " recommended many things tending to agreement, which things he had previously been accus- tomed to pour out on his friends, and thereupon he departed to the choirs of the angels." In the immediate context, both before and after this passage, there are allusions to the Antiochene dispute, the forty 6p6va>y fyis. S. Meletius died at Constantinople in May or June, 381, about three months after the compact was made. 4 So the Bollandist, Father Van den Bosche (Ada SS., torn. iv. Jul., p. 61), declares that this compact was " non universale et numeris omnibus absolutum ; sed particulare quoddam, informe, inchoatum et quasi solemnioris prodromum." On the other hand, Merenda holds that the compact was universally binding ; and he tries to show (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xiv. I, et cap. xviii. 2, P. L., xiii. 190, 221) that when, after S. Meletius' death, an effort began to be made in the Ecumenical Council to bring about the election of S. Flavian as his successor, S. Gregory Nazianzen delivered an oration to the assembled Fathers, in which he expressed his grief that compacts made publicly and confirmed by oaths should be treated as of no account, and he thinks that S. Gregory is referring to 342 ROME AND ANTIOCHIV. [X. impossibile such was the case, it would still remain the fact that no transaction between the two bishops could of itself bring Paulinus into communion with the rest of the episcopate of the Eastern Church, nor S. Meletius into communion with the West. 1 As soon as the compact was made, steps must have been taken to get it ratified. S. Meletius certainly, and Paulinus probably, sent envoys to the West to explain the personal agreement which had been made between the two bishops at Antioch, and to request the Western bishops to accept the compact in all its parts and to admit to their communion the great Church of Antioch with its bishop at its head. The envoys almost certainly went first to Rome. 2 But we hear of no council being held there in 381. The fact is that during that year the Roman Church was passing through a time of great distress, owing to the machinations of the emissaries of the anti-pope Ursinus. A false accusation of a most offensive kind had been brought against Pope Damasus. 3 Later on, an investigation into the truth of this accusation was held by the Prefect of the city, Valerius Severus, who pronounced no sentence of acquittal, but sent in a report of the results of his investigation to the Emperor Gratian. A sense of insecurity pervaded the whole city. 4 Either before or after the investigation, or perhaps both before and after, there appear to have been riots, for we read that " the blood of innocent persons was shed." 5 The Church of Rome was almost completely deprived of the offices of religion 6 the compact made between S. Meletius and Paulinus. Merenda is alluding to a passage in the first paragraph of S. Gregory's twenty-second Oration (S. Greg. Naz. Opp.) ed. Ben., i. 414); but he mistranslates the passage (cf. cap. xviii. 2), which has nothing to do with the compact made at Antioch, and he entirely misapprehends the occasion and purport of the twenty-second Oration, which was delivered two years before the date of the Ecumenical Council. As Dr. Rivington has adopted Merenda's theory {Prim. Ch. } p. 231, note), I have discussed the matter in Additional Note 74, p. 501 . 1 It will be remembered that, about a year before the compact was made, the bishops of Italy had put forth a synodical declaration, in which it was implied that S. Meletius was "alien from their communion" (see pp. 332-334). No private compact with Paulinus could undo the effect of such a declaration. 8 All the other embassies from the East, as for example those sent in 365, 371, 374 376 and 379, went to Rome, and therefore we may assume, until the contrary is proved, that the envoys in 381 went first to Rome. If any one, however, should think it more probable that S. Meletius' envoys went direct from Antioch vid Sirmium to Milan, I am quite ready to waive my own opinion. 3 On the date of this conspiracy against Damasus, see the Excursus on the date of the Roman Council, which petitioned Gratian on the subject of the trial of bishops in the letter, Et hoc gloriae vestrae, pp. 519-521. 4 Cf. Ep. inter Ambrosianas xi. 6, P. Z., xvi. 987. * Rom. Concil. Ep. ad Gratianum et Valentinianum^ 8, P. Z., xiii. 580 : " sanguis innocentium funderetur." 8 Ep. tit., " spoliaretur prope ecclesia omnibus ministeriis." Possibly the word ministeriis may be used for ministris, as the word servitium is used in some passages for servi. X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 343 (ministeria). The crisis still continued in the early part of September, when the Council of Aquileia was being held. I cannot say whether it had begun when the Antiochene envoys arrived in Rome ; but it certainly must have begun soon after their visit, if not before ; and when it had once begun, it would entirely prevent the possibility of holding a council in the city, so long as it lasted. 1 The envoys had no doubt been instructed to proceed from Rome to Milan, and to bring the matter of the Antiochene compact before S. Ambrose. The extraordinary influence which the see of Milan acquired during the epis- copate of that great saint, had by this time made itself felt even as far as Antioch. Duchesne has shown that during the latter part of the fourth century " the episcopate of the West seems to recognize a double hegemony : that of the pope and that of the Bishop of Milan." 2 No doubt this influence of the see of Milan was mainly felt in the West ; but it was also felt, as Duchesne points out, " in the affairs of the Eastern Church, at Antioch, at Caesarea, at Constanti- nople, at Thessalonica." 3 To Milan, therefore, the Antiochene envoys went. If they started from Antioch as early as February 14, they might easily arrive at Milan by May 4.* If their departure 1 If pope Damasus had ratified the compact and had admitted S. Meletius to his communion on the occasion of the Antiochene envoys' visit to Rome, the news of his action would have been carried by the envoys to Milan. In that case the bishops of North Italy would surely have referred to such action when writing to Theodosius about the schism at Antioch in various letters during the course of the year. But we find no trace of any allusion to any such proceeding on the part of Damasus, either in the letter Quamlibet or in the letter Sanctum animum tuum or in any other document of authority. Moreover, if Damasus had admitted S. Meletius to the communion of the Roman Church, how do Ultramontanes account for the fact that S. Ambrose and the Fathers of Aquileia petitioned Theodosius for an ecumenical council, to be held at Alexandria, which should decide whether or no communion should be granted to S. Meletius and to his flock ? 2 Origines du Culte Chretien, 2nd edit., p. 32. 8 Loc. cit, * Vallarsi (/>. L., torn. xxii. col. 1.) says that it would take at least two months for news to go from Milan to Antioch. As Antioch is 2004 English miles from Milan by the direct road vid Sirmium, Constantinople, and Ancyra, that gives 33 miles per diem as an average rate of travelling. If S. Meletius' envoys started from Antioch on February 14, and travelled at that average rate vid Con- stantinople, Heraclea, Aulona, Hydruntum, and Capua, they would reach Rome after a journey of 1876 miles on April 12. Allowing them ten days for their stay in Rome, and twelve more for their journey to Milan, which was 389 miles distant from Rome, they would be with S. Ambrose on May 4. As the determination of the average rate of travelling in the fourth century is a point of considerable im- portance, it may be well to corroborate the opinion of Vallarsi by that of other learned men. I will therefore refer to statements made by Tillemont and Stiltinck. In his life of Liberius ( viii. n. 133, Acta SS. t torn. vi. Septembr., p. 602) Stiltinck, speaking of Tillemont, says, " Integrum mensem requirit, et merito, ut legati Ancyra Sirmium pervenirent." Stiltinck is no doubt referring to Tillemont's 56th note on the Arians (vi. 774), where, however, it should be noted that by a misprint Easter is wrongly stated to have fallen on April 22 in the year 358 ; ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. from Antioch be put as late as March 3, they would at the same rate of travelling reach Milan by May 21. It is clear to me that at some date not very long after their arrival a council of the bishops of the province of Milan was held, if indeed it was not sitting when they arrived, and that that council ratified the first clause of the compact, so far as S. Ambrose and his comprovincials were concerned. It is also clear to me that the council wrote to Theodosius, begging him to use his influence, so that there should be agreement between S. Meletius and Paulinus in respect to peace and concord without violation of ecclesiastical order, or at least that, whenever one of the two Antiochene bishops should come to die, the rights of the Church should remain with the survivor, and that no attempt to carry out illegally an intrusive consecration should be permitted. As regards the request of S. Meletius to be admitted to the communion of the Western bishops, I shall show later on that the council deferred giving any answer. S. Ambrose evidently felt that it would be imprudent for him to take action in such a delicate matter (Egypt and the West being already com- mitted to Paulinus) until he had consulted Rome and Alexandria. In the preceding paragraph I have assumed that a pro- vincial council of the Milanese province was held soon after the arrival of the Antiochene envoys at Milan. I proceed to justify this assumption. That the bishops of North Italy met in council at some time between the arrival of the news of the Antiochene compact in Milan and the first week in September, 381, the date of the opening of the Council of Aquileia, is clear from a passage in the letter Quamlibet, addressed by the Aquileian Council to Theodosius. In that letter the Fathers of the council had been speaking of the irruption of the Goths into Pannonia and Epirus in February or March, 380, and of how that irruption had prevented the execution of the plan of sending some Western bishops as arbitrators to Antioch. They go on to say, " But because the desires, which we formed at that time, failed to be accomplished owing to the troubles of the State, we suppose that our petition has been presented to your Pieties, in which, in accordance with the compact of the parties, we have requested that on the death of one [of the two bishops] the rights of the Church should remain with the survivor, and that no attempt to carry out whereas it really fell on April 12, as Tillemont has rightly stated in another place (cf. vi. 430). The distance from Ancyra to Sirmium is 973 English miles, and if it took a month to traverse that distance, the average daily rate of travelling must have been 32 or 33 miles. This result agrees with that derived from the statement of Vallarsi. X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 345 illegally an intrusive consecration should be permitted." 1 Now, a majority of those bishops present at the Council of Aquileia, whose sees are known, came from North Italy, the remainder coming from various provinces in different parts of the Western empire. It necessarily follows that the petition to Theodosius, to which reference is made in the above-quoted passage, must have emanated from a council, at which the bishops from North Italy were present. But having regard to the conciliar history of that epoch, we should be safe in saying that such a council would either be a general council of all Italy or of Italy and Gaul, presumably held at Rome, or else a council of the bishops of the province of Milan, pre- sumably held at Milan. Now, there had been no council, attended by bishops from all Italy, held in Rome since the council held immediately before the Gothic irruption in the early part of the year 380. The Roman council, held at that time, had implied that S. Meletius was " alien from its com- munion," 2 and had determined to send bishops to Antioch to try and make peace. It certainly did not ratify the Antiochene compact, which was not then in existence. The compact, as we have seen, did not come into existence until after Sapor's mission to Antioch in January, 381. Moreover, it would not be likely that a letter written to Theodosius by Damasus and S. Ambrose in January, 380, would have been left still unanswered in September, 381. It is clear, therefore, that the petition to which the Aquileian Fathers refer was written by a council held in North Italy not many months before the Council of Aquileia. If the Antiochene envoys arrived in Milan on or before May 21, 381, the council which sent the petition to Theodosius may well have been held either in the second half of May 3 or in the beginning of June in that year. In fact, the opening of the Milanese council would approximately coincide in date with the opening of the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople, which commenced its sittings in May. A letter written by the 1 Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. 5, P. Z,., xvi. 989. " Sed quia studia nostra tune temporis habere effectum per tumultus publicos nequiverunt, oblatas pietati vestrae opinamur pieces nostras, quibus juxta partium pactum poposcimus ut altero decedente, penes superstitem Ecclesiae jura permanerent, nee aliqua superordinatio vi attentaretur." In the first two editions of this book I adopted without suffi- cient consideration the faulty translation of this passage, which is to be found in the Oxford translation of S. Ambrose's Epistles. I am indebted to Dr. Riving- ton for pointing out to me the mistake (see Prim C/i., p. 267). The true meaning of the passage, as might be expected, fits in far better with the general setting of the history, and equally helps forward my main argument. 2 See p. 332. 3 I hope to show later on that this council had to deal with another very im- portant subject (see pp. 537, 538), and it is therefore quite possible that it was already in session when the envoys from Antioch arrived. 346 ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. first-mentioned of these two councils would reach Con- stantinople in the middle or towards the end of the deliberations of the Second Ecumenical Council, which was taking in hand the settlement of the affairs of the Church of Antioch, and was setting aside the compact. Theodosius would not be likely to answer the North Italian letter until he could report something definite about the state of the Antiochene Church. He was still occupied by business arising out of the proceedings of the Ecumenical Council on July 30, when he published the law Episcopis tradi ; l and he probably did not hear how the new bishop, S. Flavian, had been received at Antioch until the beginning of September, at the earliest. 2 As Milan is 1288 miles from Constantinople, it is easy to understand why no answer from Theodosius had reached S. Ambrose, when the Council of Aquileia met at the beginning of September. In point of fact, that council had received no information about any of the proceedings of the Ecumenical Council, nor had it even heard about the death of S. Meletius. For further evidence, corroborating the conclusion that a council of the province of Milan was held towards the end of May or at the beginning of June in the year 381, the reader is referred to an Excursus dealing with this subject, which will be found at the end of the book. 8 If we now review the relations of the two bodies of orthodox believers at Antioch to each other and to the other churches, whether in the East or West, at the end of May 381, it would appear from what has been said that an inchoate personal agreement had been made between S. Meletius and Paulinus, which needed, however, to be ratified both in the East and in the West, before it could take such effect as to bring Paulinus and the Eustathians into com- munion with the great majority of the Eastern bishops, and also to bring S. Meletius and the Church of Antioch into communion with Rome and the West. We have no reason to suppose that the compact had been in any way ratified at Rome, where no synod could have been held owing to the critical state of affairs. But at Milan it was being so far ratified, that S. Ambrose and his suffragans, at the very time which we are considering, were petitioning Theodosius to use his influence to bring about an agreement between Paulinus and Meletius, "in respect to peace and concord without violation of ecclesiastical order," or, if such 1 Cod. Theod., xvi. I, 3. 2 Tillemont (x. 528) holds that S. Flavian was not consecrated until August or September, 381. See also p. 364. 3 See Excursus //., pp. 529-540. X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 347 concord could not be effected, that " at least, if one of the two died before the other, no one should be put in the place of the deceased while the other lived." l It is clear that the compact was still a purely personal one between the two Antiochene bishops, and that their respective followings were not yet united in one communion. It remains to consider the question whether S. Meletius had been admitted to the communion of the West, so far at any rate as that could be done without the intervention of the Bishop of Rome. On a priori grounds one would expect that admission to the communion of the West would not be granted until the negotiations about the compact had been brought to a happy conclusion, a result which could not be reached until the attitude of the Eastern bishops was known. And this surmise is converted into a- certainty by a consideration of the words used in two passages of the letter Quamlibet by the Fathers of Aquileia. Those Fathers, addressing Theodosius in September, say, "We hear that [in the East] there are among the Catholics themselves frequent dissensions and warring discord ; and we are disturbed in our whole state of mind, because we have ascertained that many innovations have taken place, and that persons are now being treated vexatiously who ought to have been supported, men who have always persevered in our communion. 2 In a word [to make our meaning perfectly clear], Timothy, Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, and Paulinus, Bishop of the Church of Antioch, who have always maintained the concord of communion with us inviolate, are said to be put in great anxiety by the dissensions of other persons, whose faith in former times was undecided. 8 We would indeed wish that these persons, if it be possible, and if tJiey are recommended by an unmutilated faith, should be added to our fellowship (ad consortia nostra] ; but yet in such a way that there be preserved to those colleagues, who have enjoyed our communion from of old, their own prerogative." 4 A little further on in their letter the Aquileian Fathers 1 p. inter Ambrosianas xiii. 2, P. Z., xvi. 990. For further remarks on this passage, see p. 537, note 2. This seems to refer to Sapor's judgement in favour of S. Meletius, in conse- quence of which the latter, and not Paulinus, was recognized by the civil power as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch. a In my opinion reference is here made to S. Meletius and his followers, and to them only. Timothy had recently succeeded his brother Peter in the see of Alexandria. He no doubt wrote letters to S. Ambrose, announcing his elevation. In those letters he may well have referred to the anxiety which, as occupying the most important see in the Eastern empire, he felt with regard to the Antiochene schism. I do not think that there is any allusion to a corresponding schism at Alexandria. Of such a schism I find no trace in history. 4 Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. 4, P. Z., xvi. 988, 989. ROME AND ANTIOCHIV. [X. say, "We beg of you, most clement and Christian Princes, 1 to give orders that a council of all the Catholic bishops should be held at Alexandria, that they may more fully 2 discuss among themselves and define tfte persons to wJwm communion is to be imparted, and the persons with whom it is to be maintained." 3 Nothing could be clearer than these passages. The state of " warring discord " is still going on and dividing into two camps the Eastern Christians who hold the Catholic faith. One party among these orthodox believers, the party of Paulinus, has " from of old " maintained communion with the West. The other party, that is, the party of S. Meletius, has in past times wavered in the faith at least, that is the view taken of them by the Fathers of Aquileia. But the Aquileian Fathers are willing to admit them to their communion, if it can be shown that their faith is now full and unmutilated. 4 However, before definite steps towards reunion are taken, they wish that an Ecumenical Council should be summoned to meet at Alexandria, in order that in a larger assembly the bishops of the whole Church may determine what persons are to be admitted to Catholic communion. Clearly, in the opinion of S. Ambrose and his brethren, S. Meletius and his followers have not yet been admitted to the communion of the West. It is perfectly impossible to suppose that a union between the Meletians and the West had already been effected and had afterwards been broken, and that nothing should be said in this letter Quamlibet about these events. Yet this is the astounding theory which Dr. Rivington has adopted. His notion is that S. Meletius was received into full communion by Damasus in the great council, held at Rome in 380, on the basis of a supposed compact made at the Council of Antioch in 37Q. 5 He further thinks that this union was 1 The letter is pro forma addressed to the two Western Emperors as well as to Theodosius. 2 The expression "more fully" (plenius) refers to the very limited number of bishops, not more than thirty-two, who attended the Council of Aquileia. The proposed Ecumenical Council at Alexandria would, of course, be on a very much larger scale. * Ep. cit., 5. 4 The words, " si fieri potest et fides plena commendat," should be noted. If, as Dr. Rivington supposes, the Meletians had been in the communion of Rome and the West from the Roman Council of 380 until the election of S. Flavian in the summer of 381, the West must have recognized their " full " ortho- doxy during that time. What, one may ask, had happened since S. Flavian's election which could possibly throw doubt on the integrity of their faith, so as to necessitate the insertion of this conditional clause ? 8 Compare Prim. CA., pp. 250, 264. It should be noted that on p. 216 Dr. Rivington expresses the view that in 373 Damasus was " withholding express and final sanction to either party," that is, to both S. Meletius and Paulinus. On p. 250 he implies that S. Meletius was " welcomed by Rome as Bishop of Antioch in her archives " in 380. On p. 276 he says that " S. Meletius before 379 " (he means before 380) was " neither excommunicated nor adopted by Rome." X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 349 broken by the election and consecration of S. Flavian to the see of Antioch as successor to S. Meletius in the summer of 38 1. 1 But if so, why do the Fathers of Aquileia preserve complete silence about all these supposed facts? Why do they say nothing about S. Meletius having been fully admitted to the communion of Damasus in 380, or about the death of S. Meletius, or about the election of S. Flavian and the con- sequent rupture of communion with the West, or about the ratification of S. Flavian's election by the Second Ecumenical Council ? Those were the very points which needed to be brought out and pressed upon Theodosius' consideration. Later on in the year, when news of the Council of Con- stantinople had reached North Italy, such of these events as had really taken place were pressed upon the Emperor's attention by S. Ambrose and his suffragans in the letter Sanctum animum tuum. But at Aquileia not a word is said about them. And the reason is that the news of these events, or of such of them as had really happened, had not reached Aquileia in September ; 2 and as regards the supposed 1 Compare Prim, CA., p. 265, where Dr. Rivington implies that the Fathers of Aquileia were, in September, 381, petitioning for a General Council to consider " whether they should extend their communion to the followers of Meletius now placed under Flavian." 2 Dr. Rivington (Prim. C/i., p. 264, note 2) tries to prove that the Aquileian Fathers knew what had taken place in the Council of Constantinople by two arguments. First, he declares that " it is impossible to suppose that they would ask for a ' fuller council ' at Alexandria . . . before they knew the issue of the council of Constantinople." But they had not mentioned the Council of Constantinople, and there is no reason to suppose that they knew any- thing about it. The word " fuller " refers, as I have already pointed out, to the relative smallness of the number of bishops gathered at Aquileia. But, secondly, Dr. Rivington argues that the Aquileian Fathers " knew of Theodosius' law of July, for they thank him for passing it, and this law was passed subsequently to the Council of Constantinople, and brings in the name of Nectarius, who was ordained at that council." Dr. Rivington is referring to a passage in the first paragraph of the letter Quamlibet, in which the writers thank Theodosius, because ' ' all the churches of God, in the East especially, have been restored to the Catholics." These words evidently refer to the concluding sentence of Theo- dosius' law, Nulhis haereticis, published on January 10, 381, which has been quoted above on p. 336. They perhaps refer also to the carrying out of that law at Antioch and elsewhere. Reference to a law published in January cannot prove any knowledge of a council held five or six months later. No doubt, if we had any independent proof that the Fathers of Aquileia had received intelligence of the law published on July 30 (Cod. Theod., xvi. i, 3), which renewed the final pro- vision of the law promulgated in January, we might suppose that thanks were being given for the more recent constitution ; but evidence of any knowledge of that law is completely wanting, and it is most unlikely that the bishops at Aquileia knew any- thing about it. In fact, when one takes account of times and distances, the proba- bility that a copy of the law had not reached Aquileia during the sitting of the council becomes a moral certainty. This law was concerned solely with the Eastern Empire, and the probability is that weeks or even months would elapse before it would be notified to the West. But suppose that Theodosius sent a copy to Gratian on the day after its promulgation at Hadrianople, where the Emperor was sojourning. It would be sent to Milan, the city of Gratian's ordinary residence, and where, in fact, he probably was in September, 381. If 350 ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. admission of S. Meletius to full communion with Damasus in 380, and the supposed rupture of communion with the Meletians on the part of the West in 381, they rest on no substantial basis of historical testimony, but are, on the contrary, incon- sistent with such evidence as we have, and must be regarded as mere mistakes, and consequently reference to them, either in the letter Qiiamlibet or in the letter Sanctum animum fuum, could not reasonably be expected. The real truth is that there had been no reunion, and that there was no subsequent rupture. The Fathers of Aquileia bear witness that S. Meletius and his followers were not in their communion in September, 381, and the history of the negotiations between Antioch and the West shows that they never had been. As a matter of fact, though the news had not yet reached North Italy, S. Meletius had died about three months before. He died, as he had lived, outside the com- munion of Rome. 1 He died president of a council which the Church venerates as ecumenical. 2 And one may say with truth that from the day of his death the Catholic East, and from some later date the Catholic West, have honoured him as a hero of sanctity and orthodoxy. His name has been inscribed both in the East and in the West on the roll of the canonized saints. 3 Before quitting the subject of S. Meletius, it will be well to gather together some of the more important facts, the truth of which seems to me to have been made plain in the course of the preceding investigation, and which throw light on the position of S. Meletius and on his relation to the Roman see. the messenger travelled at the average speed, he might reach Milan on Sep- tember 4. If we suppose that Gratian gave orders on the next day that a copy should be made and sent to S. Ambrose at Aquileia, it might reach him on the nth or 1 2th of September, by which time the council had in all probability come to an end. * See Additional Note 75, p. 502. 2 Pope S. Gregory the Great, in a letter to the Eastern patriarchs (Registr., lib. i. ep. 25, P. L., Ixxvii. 478), says, " I confess that I receive and venerate the four councils as I receive and venerate the four books of the Gospel " ; and then the holy pope goes on to name expressly the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Constantinople, the first Council of Ephesus, and the Council of Chalcedon. For the main facts connected with the history of the recognition of the ecumeni- city of the Second Council, see Appendix H, pp. 353-361. * The English Jesuit organ, The Month (September, 1893, p. 123), commenting on a passage included in the two earlier editions of this book, in which I expressed my belief that, "if Cardinal Wiseman's theory is true," S. Meletius "was a schismatic in life and a schismatic in death," said, "Such a conclusion, if well- founded, would unquestionably tend to show a divergence of faith between the modern and the ancient Church, for the modern Church would not regard as a saint one who lived and died in schism." For myself, I think that the ancient Church would, equally with the Church of all ages, have refused to canonize any one whom it considered to have died in schism. But the ancient Church, unlike the modern Church of Rome, did not hold the view that those who are separated from the communion of the pope are in consequence of that separation if so facto in a state of schism. X.] THE COMPACT AT ANTIOCH. 351 I have, I hope, first of all cleared the memory of the saint from the charge of heterodoxy. It is true that until the year 363 he did not formally accept the term o/nooixnov, which he probably feared might be abused to support Marcellianism and Sabellianism. But all, or almost all, the other Eastern Catholic bishops and saints shared with him in that fear. As we have seen, S. Cyril of Jerusalem carefully avoided using the Nicene formula in his celebrated catechetical lectures. On the other hand, at the time when almost the whole episcopate, both in the East and West, signed the heretical creed of Ariminum, 1 S. Meletius seems to have been one of the few who escaped that disgrace. In the presence of the persecuting Emperor Constantius,he boldly preached the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and he never swerved in any way from main- taining the true Godhead of our Lord, though he had in consequence to go three times into banishment, and spent nearly nine years, that is to say, about half his Antiochene episcopate, in exile. After his accession to the see of Antioch, he summoned a council at the first opportunity and accepted the creed of Nicaea, and, in union with S. Basil and S. Eusebius of Samosata, helped the Catholic bishops of the East to keep true to the faith all through the weary years of the persecution under Valens. At a time when the sees of Rome and Alexandria were still granting their communion to the heretic, Marcellus, S. Meletius went so far as to refuse S. Athanasius' proffered friendship, in order to avoid even the appearance of condoning the Marcellian " blasphemy." 2 As regards S. Meletius' canonical position at Antioch, he was elected by the clergy and laity of the church in that city, the greater number of whom were Catholics ; and the election was canonically confirmed by the bishops of the province and patriarchate. Some of these bishops were Arianizing in belief, or, at any rate, in policy, but they were in canonical possession of their sees, and were in communion with the bishops of the Eastern Church. Others of them, such as S. Eusebius of Samosata, were Catholics. If we are to believe the witness of S. Chrysostom, S. Meletius, within three or four weeks of his inthronization, had " delivered the city from the error of heresy, and had cut off the putrefying and 1 Dr. Rivington (Prim. CA., p. 189) says that " eventually, scarcely more than eighteen or nineteen bishops in Christendom remained uncom promised." This is an exaggeration. I could name thirty ; and there were probably others, whose names have not been preserved. * " Blasphemy " is the term applied by the Council of Chalcedon to Marcellus' doctrine (see note 4 on pp. 325, 326). The fundamentally heretical character of the Marcellian teaching has been recognized in modern times by thinkers of such different schools as Bishop Lightfoot, Bishop Hefele, Dr. Gwatkin, Mgr. Duchesne, and Cardinal Newman. See pp. 480, 481. 352 ROME AND ANTIOCH IV. [X. incurable members from the rest of the body, and had brought back vigorous health to the multitude of the Church." l S. Chrysostom's testimony is confirmed by the fact that a few weeks afterwards the great majority of the Antiochene Christians broke away from all communion with the Arians, and rather than separate themselves from the fellowship of S. Meletius, were content to be deprived of the use of their church buildings, and henceforth met for worship in the fields. Yet a small section of orthodox believers in Antioch, the Eustathians, held aloof from the saint on the ground that the great Church of Antioch, over which he presided, had, ever since the exile of S. Eustathius in 331, been compromised by the Arianizing belief of its bishops, although those bishops had never been canonically deposed, and had, in fact, for twelve years enjoyed the communion of the Roman see, and had all along enjoyed the communion of the episcopate of the East. 5. Eustathius himself before leaving Antioch had urged his disciples to refrain from separating from the bishops who should be appointed to succeed him, even though they might seem to be wolves. This appeared to him to be the best course for Catholics in Antioch to take under the circum- stances, so that the policy of the Eustathians had been condemned beforehand by the saint, after whose name they were called. Unfortunately their leader, Paulinus, not only refused to communicate with S. Meletius, but allowed himself to be consecrated by the fanatical Lucifer, who, in consequence of the reprobation which this irregular act called forth, broke away from the unity of the Church, and died in schism. S. Basil, S. Eusebius, and the other leaders of the Eastern Catholics, always regarded S. Meletius as the one legitimate Bishop of Antioch, and refused their communion to Paulinus as being in their judgement an intruder. Paulinus, however, had the good fortune to be recognized at Alexandria. For many years after the Council of Sardica the Roman -Church refused her communion to all the Eastern churches. In 365 she somewhat imprudently granted her communion to Eustathius of Sebaste and other Semi-Arians, including some of the least satisfactory members of that party, who soon fell away into pneumatomachianism. In 372 she began to com- municate with S. Basil, but she remained separate from both parties at Antioch until 375. Then she finally made her choice, and sent letters of communion to the Eustathians, recognizing Paulinus as sole Bishop of Antioch, and making .him to be in a certain sense her representative in the East. .It would appear that in consequence of the calumnies of the 1 S. Chrys. Horn, in S. Melet., Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 519. X.] THE ECUMENICITY OF THE SECOND COUNCIL. 353 Eustathians she regarded S. Meletius and S. Eusebius of Samosata as " Ariomaniacs," and, looking upon them in that light, she of course kept them where they always had been, namely, outside her communion. This state of separation between S. Meletius and Rome continued on to the end, during the remaining six years which intervened between Paulinus' recognition by Rome and S. Meletius' death. 1 It had no effect on the view of S. Meletius, which was taken by the Eastern Church. Full of gratitude for his saintly life and his noble stand against Arianism, and recognizing him as the sole legitimate Bishop of Antioch, the Eastern bishops rallied round S. Meletius in a great synod at Antioch, as soon as the death of Valens put a stop to the Arian persecution of the Church. Two years later, at the Second Ecumenical Council, the Eastern bishops again rallied round the saint, who pre- sided over it ; and he died, still out of communion with Rome, not very long after the council had begun its sittings. 2 APPENDIX H. On the way in which it came to pass that the Constantinopolitan Council of 381 was finally recognized by the whole Church as an Ecumenical Council (see p. 350). IN considering the history of the gradual recognition of the ecumenicity of the Second Council, it seems convenient to begin with the fact that the Constantinopolitan Council of the year 382, in its synodical letter, twice calls the council held in the year immediately preceding "the Ecumenical Council." 3 But the council of 382, when it thus attributed ecumenicity to the council of 381, must have used the word " ecumenical " in a restricted 1 Quite apart from the fact that S. Meletius' orthodoxy on the vital question of our Lord's co-equality and consubstantiality with the Father was doubted at Rome, he continued until his death to occupy the great see of Antioch in defiance of the pope, who recognized his rival. It was impossible for Damasus to com- municate with S. Meletius until he had resigned his see, or until some compact, establishing either the joint-episcopate or the concurrent episcopate of S. Meletius and Paulinus, had been accepted and ratified by Rome. But none of these alternatives ever came to pass. There was no need for Damasus to excom- municate S. Meletius, because the latter had never been in the Roman communion, at any rate since the great rupture which followed the Council of Sardica. * Dr. Rivington (The Appeal to History, p. 25) considers that " the whole case of S. Meletius suggests the * Roman ' theory of Church government as in full working order " ! Comment is needless. 3 Cf. Theodoret. H. E., v. 9. 2 A 354 APPENDIX H. [X. sense. It must have meant to say that the council of 381 was a general council of the Eastern olKovfuevn, or empire. 1 For Theodosius had only summoned to that council the bishops of his own empire, 2 and as a matter of fact there were no representatives of the episcopate of the Western empire present at it. But although, so far as the intention of its summoner and the limited area from which it drew its members were concerned, the council of 381 was not ecumenical in the wide sense of that term, yet from the very first it had a right to be regarded as a council of the whole Eastern Church, and its decrees were canonically binding on that church. Moreover, as at the council's request, Theodosius ratified its decrees, their canonical authority was reinforced throughout the Eastern empire by the sanction of the State. It may, however, be doubted whether, in fact, much attention was paid to these decrees in Egypt during the seventy years which inter- vened between 381 and the date of the Council of Chalcedon. It was otherwise at Constantinople and at Antioch. The Bishops of Constantinople took action at once in accordance with the provisions of the third Constantinopolitan canon of 381, and placed themselves at the head of the Eastern episcopate. Nectarius, for example, in 394 presided over a synod, at which Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of Antioch were present. S. Chrysostom practically acted as Patriarch over the three exarchates of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, 3 although patriarchal jurisdiction was not formally given to his see until the famous 28th canon was passed by the Council of Chalcedon. We have proof that S. Proclus * in particular called attention in some synodical epistle or declaration to the precedence granted to his see by the third Con- stantinopolitan canon. Domnus of Antioch, writing to S. Flavian of Constantinople in September or October, 448, complained bitterly of Dioscorus of Alexandria, because the latter had accused him of cowardice, on the ground that he had, " in accordance with the canons of the holy Fathers," assented to the declaration of a Constantinopolitan Council, over which " Proclus of blessed memory " had presided. 5 Dioscorus had "reproached Domnus once and again concerning this matter, as if he had thereby betrayed the rights of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria." In an earlier part of the same letter Domnus had narrated how Dioscorus, in an Alexandrian synod, had anathematized him as a 1 Theodoret {Haereticar. Fab. t Compend., iv. 12, P. G., Ixxxiii. 433) twice uses the term ^ oiKovpcvri to denote the Eastern empire. Similarly S. Basil (Ep. ccxliii. i, Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 373), writing to the bishops of Italy and Gaul, speaks of the Western empire as ^ KO.& vpas oi'/cou/ieVrj. * Cf. Theodoret. H. ., v. 6. 3 Ibid., v. 28. 4 S. Proclus' episcopate lasted from 434 to 446. s Cf. Theodoret. Ep. Ixxxvi. ad Flavianum, P. G., Ixxxiii. 1280. This letter has been usually ascribed by mistake to Theodoret. A very slight study of it will convince the reader that it has a Bishop of Antioch for its author. A Syriac translation of it has now been discovered in the library of the British Museum (Additional MS. 14530). The translation forms part of the acts of the Latrocinium (compare the Abbe Martin's Pseudo-Synode d'Ephtse, p. 115, note 4, and see the same author's Actes du Brigandage Ephlse, pp. 139-143). In this Syriac translation the letter is ascribed to Domnus, and it was read as part of the evidence against Domnus at the Robber-council. X.] THE ECUMENICITY OF THE SECOND COUNCIL. 355 heretic, and he calls on S. Flavian " to fight on behalf of the faith which is being attacked, and of the canons which are being trodden under foot." " For," he says, " when the blessed Fathers held a synod there in the imperial city [of Constantinople], they, acting in harmony with those who assembled at Nicaea, distinguished the patriarchates (rets Siot/djo-ejs), and assigned to each patriarchate the management of its own affairs ; " and then he goes on to summarize the remainder of the second canon of the Constantinopolitan Council of 381, and to show that Dioscorus had acted in manifest disobedience to its requirements ; and he again begs S. Flavian to vindicate the authority of the holy canons. But, although the canons of 38 1 were regarded as authoritative in the East, and although signs are not wanting that the creed, which is commonly called the Constantinopolitan creed, 1 and in all probability received some measure of sanction from the Second Council, 2 was regarded as a document of authority in Constantinople early in the fifth century, 3 yet for all that the first written testimony which can at present be cited in favour of the council of 381 being put on a line with the great Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus, 4 belongs, as we shall see, to the year 449. There is certainly no trace of the Council of Constantinople being regarded as ecumenical by the Fathers of Ephesus (A.D. 431). Not a word was said at Ephesus either of the Council or of the creed of Con- stantinople ; whereas the creed of Nicaea was read both in the first session and in the sixth, 5 and frequent references to the decrees of the Nicene Council occur in the acts. It would seem that the council of 381 was not regarded as an ecumenical assembly by the civil power in Constantinople in 448, for on February 16 in that year Theodosius the Younger addressed a law to the praetorian prefect, Hormisdas, in which the Emperor twice refers to the faith set forth at Nicaea and Ephesus, while he makes no reference to the Council of Constantinople. Again, during the first session of the council held at Constantinople on November 8, 448, for the trial of Eutyches, under the presidency of S. Flavian, Eusebius of Dorylaeum presented a libellus of accusation, in which he protested that for himself he remained firm in the faith of the Fathers of Nicaea and Ephesus. 7 And at the second session of the same council (November 12), on the invitation of S. Flavian, the bishops present made, each one, his declaration of his belief in the doctrine of the two 1 This creed is an enlarged edition of the creed of the Church of Jerusalem. The earlier form of the creed of that church was probably enlarged by S. Cyril of Jerusalem about the year 363, and promulgated for the use of his church. Besides other emendations, six clauses, containing thirty words, and taken from the Nicene creed, were inserted into the middle of the second paragraph (compare Hort's Two Dissertations, pp. 94-96, 142-144). 2 Compare Hort's Two Dissertations, pp. 97-107. 3 Ibid., pp. 75 and 112-115. 4 Yet a primacy of honour was always reserved for the council, creed, and canons of Nicaea. All subsequent ecumenical formularies were regarded as explanations of the Nicene creed. 5 Cf. Coleti, iii. 1008, I2OI. 6 Cod. Just. t i. I, 3. ' Coleti, iv. 932. 356 APPENDIX H. [X. Natures in one Person. Many of them made references to the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus ; but the council of 381 was not mentioned. 1 Not long after S. Flavian's condemnation of Eutyches in November, 448, he was requested by Theodosius to send him in writing a confession of his faith. S. Flavian did so, and it is in the letter which he sent on that occasion to the Emperor that we for the first time find the Con- stantinopolitan Council of 381 put on a line with the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus. S. Flavian says in this letter that having been appointed to the ministry of the evangelical priesthood, he had been orthodox and unblamable in his belief, " always following the divine scriptures and the dogmatic formularies 2 of the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea and Constantinople, and of those who assembled at Ephesus under Cyril of holy memory, the former Bishop of Alexandria." 3 The wording of this sentence may perhaps imply that the position assigned to the council and creed of Constantinople was not a new departure of Flavian's, but was traditional in the imperial city. 4 I should not, however, wish to lay too much stress on this last inference, as it cannot be said to be free from all doubtfulness. This important document was almost certainly written at some date between November, 448, and March 30, 449 ; 5 and, if one may speculate on probabilities, I should say rather late than early in that period. 6 In the following August the Robber-council met. As it was entirely under the influence of Dioscorus of Alexandria, we might a priori expect that there would be no reference made by it to the Constantinopolitan Council of 381. And such, in fact, is the case. During its first session Dioscorus says that he has lying before him the decrees of Nicaea and Ephesus. 7 And Eutyches in the libellus, which he presented to the council, and which contained the confession of his faith, refers more than once to the doctrine set forth at Nicaea and Ephesus ; 8 and near the end of this libellus he speaks of the faith which the Fathers who met at Nicaea delivered, and which the Fathers at Ephesus " in the second council con- 1 Cf. Coleti, iv. 965-973. See also Theodosius' message to the council during its seventh session (Coleti, iv. 1005). * Tats fKQffftffi. Cf. Suicer., s.v. e0es. The Constantinopolitan Fathers add that the whole of the local Church of Anlioch was consenting to Flavian's ordination, and as it were with one voice gave him honour. XL] THE EPISCOPATE OF S. FLAVIAN. 365 truly apostolical Church of Antioch." l But the Western bishops in their council at Rome took a different view of the matter. They had always supported Paulinus, and they continued to support him now. Sozomen tells us that " the bishop of the Romans and all the priests (i.e. bishops) of the West were not a little indignant ; and they wrote the customary synodical epistles to Paulinus, as Bishop of Antioch, but they entered into no communication with Flavian ; and they treated Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beroea, and those who acted with them, 2 the consecrators of Flavian, as guilty persons, and they held them to be excommunicate." 3 Thus the old state of things went on. The orthodox of Antioch continued to be divided into two camps, as they had been divided ever since the banishment of S. Eustathius in 331. The great majority acknowledged S. Flavian as the true bishop, and he enjoyed the communion of the Catholic bishops throughout the Eastern empire, with the exception of those whose sees were situated in Egypt, Cyprus, and Arabia. The small body of the Eustathians still clung to Paulinus, who was recognized by Rome and the West. Of course, if the theories of the Vatican Council and of Cardinal Wiseman are true, S. Flavian and Diodorus and Acacius were excom- municated schismatics, and the Eastern bishops, who supported them and communicated with them, were fautores schismati- corum. However, the blessing of God seemed to rest upon them. It was at Antioch, in the midst of this nest of so-called schismatics, that S. Chrysostom was growing day by day in sanctity, and was becoming famous for the eloquence and unction and fruitfulness of his preaching. As may be sup- posed, when the fact that he was a great Eastern saint and doctor is remembered, he took no heed of the papal pro- nouncement against S. Flavian. Antioch was an Eastern see, and the Eastern bishops had sanctioned Flavian's consecra- tion, and had determined that it was canonical, as in fact it was. In such a matter it was for the Eastern bishops to judge ; and S. Chrysostom, being well versed in the Church's laws, threw himself heart and soul into S. Flavian's cause. His whole life had hitherto been spent out of communion 1 Theodoret. H. E., v. 9. 2 TOVS 0/Kl &l6$v eat/roD 1 Thiel has shown in his Monitum praevium in Symmachi epistolam 12 (Epistt. RR. PP., p. 97) that Symmachus' letter Quod plene is a reply to the letter Bonus. Now, the letter Quod plene is addressed "universis episcopis, presbyteris, diaconibus, archimandritis, et cuncto ordini vel plebi per Illyricum, Dardaniam, et utramque Daciam." This inscription makes it clear who the writers of the letter Bonus were. That letter purports to emanate from the Ecclesia Orientalis ; but it does not require much knowledge of the state of the Church in the Eastern empire during the latter half of the reign of Anastasius to make it quite certain that, if the inscription of the letter Bonus is anything more than a heading composed by a later scribe, the expression Ecclesia Orientalis must stand, not for the whole, but only for a part, and that a small part, of the Eastern Church. It may be noted that the letter Quod plene is numbered in Thiel's edition as the 1 3th letter of Symmachus. It appears also as the lO4th letter in the Collectio Avellana. * Ep. inter Symmachi an as xii. 2, 3, ap. Thiel, p. 711. 3 " Acacium . . . sed et Petrum Antiochenum anathematizantes cum sociis eorum." Collect. Avellan. Ep. cxvi. a, I, p. 520. 4 On the ecclesiastical status of these clerks and monks of Syria Secunda, see pp. 418-420. 412 APPENDIX J. [XII. a.Ko\o\>e 75 2 )- XII.] ON DEVELOPMENT. 425 Again, theological science, though from the very law of its being it is bound to be conservative, is nevertheless continually making progress. Mistakes are pruned away, and accurate knowledge takes the place of uncertain guesses. For, as Dr. Hogan, the President of S. John's Roman Catholic Seminary at Brighton, in Massachusetts, truly observes, " Theology comprises a great variety of elements of very unequal value dogmas of faith, current doctrines, opinions freely debated, theories, inferences, conjectures, proofs of all degrees of cogency, from scientific demonstration down to intimations of the feeblest kind." 1 Speaking of Roman Catholic theology, as it stood three hundred years ago, the same writer says, " To those unacquainted with their methods, one of the most surprising things in the theologians of that and the preceding ages is the extraordinary amount of knowledge they claimed to have upon all sorts of subjects appertaining to, or touching upon, religion. They knew, for instance, everything about the angelic world. Whole folios were filled with accounts of the origin of the celestial spirits, their probation, organization, action, powers, functions, relations between themselves, with mankind, and with all creation. Theologians told the story of creation itself in its principal stages and in all its particulars with a detail such as nobody would venture upon at the present day. They described the state of innocence as if they themselves had lived through it, explaining what Adam knew and what he was ignorant of, how long he lived in paradise, and what sort of existence he would have led if he had never fallen. . . . With the same imperturbable confidence, they looked out on the world of nature and on the world of grace, solving to their satisfaction the endless problems of each. They seemed to know the purposes of God in all His works, and the necessary laws and limitations of His divine action. They saw into heaven, and told of what sort was the life of the glorified saints. They described in terrible detail the sufferings of the reprobate, located hell, and calculated mathematically its form and dimensions." 2 One can easily understand that the wiser theologians of the Roman communion have felt that in the presence of such wild luxuriance their theology needed to be developed by the use of the pruning-knife, and this process of pruning has been freely carried out by them during the last three hundred years, though much still remains to be done. On the other hand, theological science may healthily develop by 1 Clerical Studies, p. 166. This book was published in 1898 with the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston. * Op, tit., pp. 171, 172. Dr. Hogan gives references in a note to the treatises of Suarez, the Salmanticenses, etc., De creatione, De angelis, De novissimis, and to Lessius, De perfectionibus et moribus divinis. The Abbe Turmel, in a note to an article on the History of Angelology (Revue d'Histoire et de Litterature t tome iv. p. 554), gives an account of Lessius' teaching in his treatise, De perfec- tionibus et moribus divinis (XIII. xxiv. 150 et seqq.). The Abbe says, " Ce qui le preoccupe avant tout, c'est de prouver que la cavite de 1'enfer, situee au centre de la terre, a seulement une lieue de diametre et non cent lieues comme le voulait Ribera. II prouve qu'une lieue suffira largement a trente milliards de damnes attendu que (n. 151) ' valde credibile est eos non ita disponendos per ilia loca ut possint pedibus insistere et hue illucque discurrere, sed colligendos in cumulum . . . (n. 161) sicut cum magna copia pisciculorum vel fabarum in ardenti oleo frigitur.' " 426 APPENDIX M. [XII. growth in many different ways. Bishop Butler, in a well-known passage, has pointed out one very important instrument of such constructive theological development. He says, " As it is owned the whole scheme of scripture is not yet understood ; so, if it ever comes to be understood, before the restitution of all things, and without miraculous interpositions ; it must be in the same way as natural knowledge is come at : by the continuance and progress of learning and of liberty ; and by particular persons attending to, comparing and pursuing, intimations scattered up and down it, which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the world. For this is the way in which all improvements are made ; by thoughtful men's tracing on obscure hints, as it were dropped us by nature accidentally, or which seem to come into our minds by chance. Nor is it at all incredible that a book, which has been so long in the possession of mankind, should contain many truths as yet undiscovered. For all the same phenomena, and the same faculties of investigation, from which such great discoveries in natural knowledge have been made in the present and last age, were equally in the possession of mankind several thousand years before. And possibly it might be intended that events, as they come to pass, should open and ascertain the meaning of several parts of scripture." 1 From the preceding observations it will, I hope, have been made clear that the principle of development has a wide field for exercise in the domain of discipline and in the domain of theology. But the question of chief interest for us in relation to the present inquiry is, What scope is there for the principle of development in the domain of obligatory dogma ? No Catholic will deny that the Church has the right to impose on her children from time to time new words and formulas, for the purpose of protecting the faith, which she has received by tradition from our Lord and His apostles, against the misinterpretations of heretics. When Arius, professing to accept the traditional teaching of the Church that the Lord Jesus is God, proceeded to refine on the word " God," and to teach that there was a time when our Lord's higher nature was not, the Church was within her rights when in opposition to this heresy she required her children to confess that our Lord as God is consubstantial with the Father. In the Nicene definition there was no development of the substance of the apostolic faith, though there was a development in regard to its expression. An unambiguous formula expressing the old faith was made obligatory, which had not been obligatory before. Again, the Church having taught from the beginning that the one Lord Christ is at the same time truly God and truly man, it was competent for her to define against the Monophysites that the one divine Person of Christ exists in two natures, the divine nature and the human nature. And again, it was competent for her to assert against the Monothelites her immemorial belief that each of those two natures is a complete nature having its own will, and that our incarnate Lord had therefore two wills an uncreated will belonging to His divine nature,' and a created will belonging to His human nature. Such an assertion adds nothing to 1 Butler's Analogy, II. iii. 21, ed. Gladstone, 1897, pp. 193, 194. XII.] ON DEVELOPMENT. 427 the substance of the traditional faith of the Church, it merely guards that traditional faith from perverse misinterpretation. The Church, then, has on various occasions, by her legislative action, authorized and made obligatory the use of new and more developed formulas, with the object of providing effective tests which should unmask the misbelief of innovating heretics. But in connexion with such legis- lative action, the Church has been wont to protest, by the pens and lips of her representative men, that the adoption of these new formulas implied no change in the substance of her belief. Thus S. Athanasius, writing in the autumn of the year 359 about the action of the Nicene Council, and contrasting it with the action of the Arianizers, who on May 22, 359, had published at Sirmium their " Dated Creed," says, " Without prefixing consulate, month, and day, they [the Nicene Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, ' It seemed good as follows,' for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance ; but about the faith they wrote not, ' It seemed good,' but, ' Thus believes the Catholic Church ; ' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but apostolical j and that what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the apostles" 1 Similarly at the Council of Ephesus a letter from Capreolus of Carthage was read, in which he expressed his hope that the Fathers of the council "would drive away from the midst of the Church by the force of ancient authority new and strange doctrines, and in this way resist new errors, whatever they might be. . . . For whoever wishes that his decrees concerning the Catholic faith should remain in force for ever must confirm his opinion, not by his own authority, but by the judgement of the ancient Fathers ; so that in this way, corroborating his opinions partly by the decrees and sentences of the ancients, partly by those of the moderns, he may show that he asserts, teaches, and holds the one truth of the Church coming down from the beginning to the present time in simple purity and in unconquered constancy and authority." 2 When this letter had been read to the council, the president, S. Cyril of Alexandria, said, " Let the epistle of Capreolus, the most reverend and most God-beloved Bishop of Carthage, which has been read, be inserted in the acts, since it expresses a clear opinion. For he desires that the ancient dogmas of the faith should be confirmed, and, on the other hand, that such as are novel, wantonly devised, and impiously promulgated, be reprobated and condemned." Then all the bishops cried out, " These are the words of us all : these things we all assert : this we all desire." 3 S. Vincent of Lerins, commenting on these exclamations, says, " What do they mean, when they speak of ' the words of us all ' and of the desires of us all, but that what has been handed down from antiquity should be retained, what has been newly devised should be rejected with disdain ? " 1 Two years after the Council of Ephesus, Pope Xystus III., writing 1 S. Athan., De Synodis, S, Opp., i. 575. * Capreol. Ep. \. ad concilium Ephfs. ii., P. /,., liii. 845, 847. 3 Coleti, iii. 1077. * S. Vincent. Lirin. Commonit. cap. xxxi., P. L., 1. 682. 428 APPENDIX M. [XII. (A.D. 433) to John of Antioch about the condemnation of Nestorius which had been decreed by the council, said, "Let no more licence be allowed to novelty, because it is not fit that any addition should be made to antiqidty. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." 1 To pass on to the condemnation of Eutychianism, decreed by the Council of Chalcedon in its own synodical definition, and by its acceptance of the tome of S. Leo, which agreed with that definition. Let us hear S. Leo's description of his own tome. Writingto S.Proterius of Alexandria in March, 454, he says, " There is no new doctrine (praedicationis) in my letter, which I wrote concerning the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ in reply to Flavian of holy memory, when he sent me a report against Eutyches ; for in nothing did my letter depart from the rule of that faith which was manifestly maintained by our predecessors and by yours. And if Dioscorus had been willing to follow and imitate them, he would have remained in the body of Christ, having in the works of Athanasius of blessed memory the materials for instruction, and in the discourses of Theophilus and Cyril, [bishops] of holy remembrance, the means of laudably opposing a dogma which was long ago condemned, rather than of choosing to consort with Eutyches in his impiety." 2 A little lower down in the same chapter Leo says to S. Proterius, " And you must in such wise diligently exhort the laity, and clergy, and all the brotherhood, to advance in the faith, as to show that you teach nothing new, but that you instil into all men's breasts those things which the Fathers of revered memory have with harmony of statement taught, and with which in all things our letter \t.e. the tome] agrees. And this must be shown not only by your words, but also by actually reading aloud the statements made by those who went before, that God's people may understand that those things are now being taught to them, which the Fathers received from their predecessors and have handed on to their successors." That S. Leo regarded his teaching as being not only patristic, but also apostolic, is evident from an earlier sentence of this same epistle, in which he says to Proterius, " You laudably hold fast to the doctrine which has come down to us from the blessed Apostles and the holy Fathers." The passages, which I have quoted, seem to me to make it clear that in passing the great synodical acts, by which the heresies of Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches were condemned, and certain new formulas were established in opposition to those heresies, as obligatory tests of orthodoxy, the Church had no idea of making any substantial development in her doctrine. Her view was that she was resisting an innovating development, and was carefully re-stating in precise terminology the doctrine which she had held and taught from the first. That certainly was the account of her action which her representative men put forward. S. Leo, for example, evidently recognized that the laity had a right to have it proved to them that the new definitions against Eutychianism were in absolute agreement with the teaching of the Fathers ; and Pope Xystus III. laid it down as an acknowledged principle that "it is not fit that any addition should be made to antiquity." 1 S. Xysti III. Ep. vi. adjoann. Antiochen. 7, P. L., 1. 609. a S. Leon. Ep. cxxix. ad S. Proterjtim, cap. ii., P. Z.., liv. 1076. XII.] ON DEVELOPMENT. 429 Newman, in his treatise on Development, in which he does his best to be-little the witness of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Catholic faith, is nevertheless obliged to acknowledge " that there is not an article in the Athanasian Creed concerning the Incarnation, which is not anticipated in the controversy with the Gnostics." " There is," he adds, " no question which the Apollinarian or the Nestorian heresy raised, which may not be decided in the words of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian." Newman quotes these words from one of his own earlier writings ; but he adds, " This may be considered as true." x As regards the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Jesuit, Petavius, is not uncommonly supposed to have taught in the third, fourth, and fifth chapters of his first book De Trinitate, as well as in other places, that some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers diverged in some respects from the Catholic faith in regard to that fundamental article. And Bishop Bull, in his admirable Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, 2 and the brothers Ballerini in the Prolegomena to their edition of the works of S. Zeno of Verona, 3 have roundly taken Petavius to task for the line which he has followed. Petavius' editor, Zaccaria, who also was a Jesuit, has warmly defended his wisdom and orthodoxy in reply to the animadversions of Bishop Bull, the brothers Ballerini, and others. 4 For myself, I venture to think that Petavius has worded some passages of his first book very incautiously ; but in justice to him attention ought to be called to the Preface, prefixed by himself to his De Trtnttate, which preface, unless I am mistaken, is almost entirely ignored by Bishop Bull. 5 In its pages he goes over the Ante-Nicene ground again and with very much more satisfactory results. After a careful discussion of the principal Ante-Nicene testimonies, he says, " By this abundance of most holy and most learned witnesses we trust that we have cleared our faith, and have abundantly fulfilled what was proposed at the outset ; so that all might understand that belief in the Catholic dogma concerning the Trinity came down through the unbroken line and through what may be called the channel of tradition from Christ and the apostles to the Nicene times." Then he proceeds to admit that certain passages, in his opinion not altogether satisfactory, are to be found in the writings of some of the witnesses whom he has called. But he adds, " Etenim errores illi, ac labes opinionum privatarum, vel magis in loquendi modo, quam in re ipsa consistunt, ut saepe dixi ; vel ad ipsam communis dogmatis substantiam non pertinent, sed ad quaedam capita illius, et consequentia decreta ; vel denique in sola versantur inter- pretandi ratione, dum mysterii ipsius, fideique summam, in qua omnes 1 Newman, Development, edit. 1885, pp. 13, 14. 2 See Bishop Bull's Prooemium to his Defensio ( 7, 8, Works, edit. 1846, vol. v. part i. pp. 9-13). 3 Cf. Ballerin. Prolegom. Opp. S. Zenonis, Dissert, ii. cap. i. i.-viii., P. L., xi. 84-113. 4 See the Appendicula Venetiani Editoris in qua brevis Petavianae doctrinae instruilur apologia, ap. Petav. Dogm. Theol., ed. 1865, ii. 279, 280. 4 Bossuet, in his Sixieme Avertissement sur Its lettres de M. jurieu, c. ( CEttvres, edit. 1816, torn. xxii. p. 145), says, "Si j'avois a me plaindre de la candeur de Bull us, ce seroit pour avoir pousse le Pere Petau, sans presque faire mention de cette preface oil il s'explique, ou il s'adoucit, ou il se retracte, si Ton veut ; en un mot, oil il enseigne la verite a pleine bouche." 430 APPENDIX M. [XII. invicem congruunt, alius aliter edisserit." 1 It follows, therefore, that in his final judgement Petavius' view in no way contradicts the position which I am defending. 2 In fact it is by no means necessary for my argument that I should be prepared to maintain either the accuracy in language or even the orthodoxy of all the ante-Nicene Church writers. It is sufficient that an adequate stream of tradition bears unmistakable witness to the faith of the Church in the Catholic dogma of the Trinity from the time of the apostles to the time of the Council of Nicaea. Cardinal Franzelin has shown with great fulness of learning that " always and everywhere it has been held in the Church as a principle that the successors of the apostles are the guardians of the apostolic doctrine, to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away." He says again that " it has always been a universal principle that whatever is new, if it is confounded with the deposit of faith, pertains not to the faith but to heresy." And he adds, " Hence apostolicity is a necessary mark of a doctrine of the faith." 3 Again, Franzelin says, " As often as it has been defined that any article of doctrine belongs to the Catholic faith, it has always been understood that such action was altogether the same as defining that that revealed doctrine came to us from the Apostles either in divine Scripture or in unwritten tradition. . . . Hence all investigation of proofs was always reduced to this one thing, namely, whether the doctrine was contained in the Scriptures or in apostolical tradition ; and this is clearly demonstrated by the acts of all the councils and by the history of all the definitions of faith. This very principle that nothing can belong to the revelation, which is to be believed by Catholic faith, unless it is contained in Scripture or in apostolical tradition, is presupposed by all theologians in their demonstrations, and is also expressly asserted by them." Franzelin refers to S. Thomas, Melchior Canus, Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, Suarez, De Lugo, and Benedict XIV. 4 It is not of course for a moment to be supposed that these divines imagined that the decisions of later councils were, all of them, explicitly and totidem verbis contained either in Scripture or in apostolical tradition. 1 Petav. Praefat. in torn, secund. op. Thcol. dogm., cap. vi. i., Dogm. Theol. t edit. 1865, torn. ii. p. 277. 2 Compare cii. of Bossuet's Sixieme Avertissement (CEuvres, torn. xxii. pp. 146-148), in which the Bishop of Meaux gathers together the main con- clusions of Petavius' preface, and shows that " il est constant, selon le Pere Petau, que toutes les differences entre les anciens et nous dependent du style et de la methode, jamais de la substance de la foi." Cardinal Franzelin (De Deo Trino secundum Personas, sect. i. thes. x., pp. 152, 153) points out the discrepancy between Petavius' teaching in the first book of his De Trinitate and his later teaching in his Prolegomena. Franzelin adds, " Posteriores theologi multi, et inter hos Natalis Alexander, Maranus, Lumper, Moehler (in Opere ' Athanasius Magnus ') et ex Anglicanis Georgius Bullus locutiones vetustorum Patrum diffici- liores interpretati sunt, non ut Petavius lib. i. sed alio sensu, qui conveniat cum ejusdem Petavii Prolegomenis ; hancque suam interpretationem veram esse, ex ipsis Patrum principiis demonstrarunt, ita ut de pleno consensu doctrinae ante synodum Nicaenam cum professione synodi et patrum subsequentium quoad unam deitatem trium distinctarum personarum saltern inter theologos catholicos res videretur esse liquida." 3 Franzelin. De Divina Tradifione, th. xxii., edit. 1870, pp. 233, 234. 4 Cf. Franzelin. op. at., p. 234. XIL] ON DEVELOPMENT. 431 But they did hold that the substance of those decisions was revealed to the apostles and was communicated by the apostles to the Church, to be by her continuously guarded, handed down, and taught ; and they denied that the Church either needed or in fact received any fresh revelations in post-apostolic times to enable her to fulfil her duty in these respects. If we compare the simple baptismal declaration of faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, which may have been all that was required from the catechumen in apostolic times, with the Nicene creed or with the Chalcedonian definition, we of course admit that a development of expression in obligatory formularies had taken place. We may compare such a development to the growth of the infant into a full-grown man, or to the up-springing of the oak tree from the acorn. But we should be under a complete misapprehension if we imagined that the Fathers of Nicaea or Chalcedon were imposing new doctrines on the Church. The whole substance of their definitions had been revealed to the apostles, and had been continuously handed on from generation to generation in the Church. The function of the Ecumenical Councils was to gather up into obligatory formulas the faith which had been traditionally taught, expressing in carefully chosen, precise words such portions of the deposit of apostolic tradition as needed from time to time to be authoritatively defined in opposition to the innovations of heretics. S. Vincent of Lerins, in the celebrated twenty-third chapter of his Commonttorium, in which he deals with the subject of doctrinal development, concludes his statement with the following weighty words. He says, " This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her councils this, and nothing else (neque quicquam praeterea), she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few syllables (paucis litteris), and generally, for the better understanding, designating the old meaning of the faith by the characteristic of a new name." 1 1 S. Vincent. Lirin. Commonit. cap. xxiii., P. L., \. 669. It is to be noted that S. Vincent, having occasion to refer to the Church's decisive judgements on doctrine, which she was moved by the innovations of heretics to formulate, says nothing of any papal definitions, but speaks only of " the decrees of her councils." Of course S. Vincent was aware that leading bishops, whether at Rome, Alexan- dria, or elsewhere, had often had occasion to promulgate their official condemnation of newly devised false doctrines. Instances of such episcopal decisions abound in the history of the early Church. But though decisions of individual bishops or of local synods were regarded as weighty, especially when they emanated from the great apostolic or primatial sees, yet they were not, when taken by themselves, looked upon as decisive ; whereas the decrees of a council, received by the Church as ecumenical, were regarded as being the utterances of the Church herself. The introduction into theology of the idea that papal decisions are final and irreformable is not a development in any sense. It is a revolution. So that even if, for the sake of argument, we allowed the right of enforcing under anathema substantial doctrinal developments to be attributed to the Church, it would not follow that the novel theory of papal infallibility could be made obligatory. Pius IX. rightly perceived that if, as he held, papal infallibility was a true doctrine, it was necessarily not only true but fundamental ; it was, as he said, " ipsum fundamentale principium Catholicae fidei ac doctrinae " (compare note 2 on p. 251). It is one thing to enforce corollaries which are evidently presupposed and implied in the traditional teaching of the Church, and it is a totally different 432 APPENDIX M. [XII. The development of a seed into a full-grown tree supplies an analogy which sets forth very well the growth of the Church's disciplinary regu- lations, and the progress which is attainable in many departments of theological science, and the increasing complexity of the expression of dogma in the Church's creeds and doctrinal definitions. But the development of a seed into a full-grown tree would be a very misleading parable, if it were used for setting forth the relation between the substance of the apostolic teaching and the substance of the Church's authoritative dogma in later times. The Church's duty is to guard the deposit of that substance, and to hand it on unchanged until her Lord's return, while at the same time she expresses and applies it in various ways according to the varying circumstances and needs of successive generations. The late Father Dalgairns, of the Brompton Oratory, has very well expressed this fundamental principle of the Church's action. " Christian truths," he says, " were thus planted whole like the trees in Paradise ; they grew, they unfolded blossoms and they developed into fruit, but they never sprang from seed. If the principle [of doctrinal development] is to be of any scientific use, we must not be content with indistinct germs, any more than we could hope to satisfy a man who asked for an oak, by showing him an acorn." l The bearing of this immutable principle of the Church's action on the questions which may be raised as to her polity is very obvious. If the society founded by our Lord is at the present time rightly believed to be constituted jure divino as a monarchy, with the pope as her divinely em- powered monarch, then that society has always been so constituted. The popes must always have enjoyed a divinely given primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church, and they must from the first have been endowed with the privilege of infallibility, when pronouncing judgement in regard to doctrinal controversies. Thoughtful Ultramontanes see clearly what is involved in the dogma, to which they are pledged by the Vatican decrees. Thus Cardinal Pitra repudiates the idea of " a slow progress of the Holy See" as being "rationalistic." 2 And the rulers of the Roman Com- munion in England are continually pressing upon us the primitive character of the Vatican teaching in regard to the papal prerogatives. Bishop Ullathorne, for example, in a letter addressed " to the Catholics of his diocese," says, " The pope always wielded this infallibility, and all men knew this to be the fact ; " and he goes on to say, "The infallibility can only teach and enforce the unchangeable doctrines of the Church ; what was always, everywhere, and by the concurrent Fathers held." 3 Similarly Dr. Bilsborrow, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, in his third lecture in reply to the Bishop of Manchester, says, " In their claims thing to bring in new fundamental principles, and thus make fundamental changes in the structure of the Church's creed. A fundamental change cannot be called a development. To speak plainly, a fundamental change is a heretical innova- tion. 1 Dalgairns' Essay on the Spiritual Life of the First Six Centuries, being the introduction to the English translation of the Countess Hahn-Hahn's Lives of the Fathers of the Desert (p. 1., edit. 1867). * Pitra, Analecta Novissima, p. 15. 3 Ullathorne, The Db'llingerites, Mr. Gladstone, and the Apostates from the faith, p. 14. XIL] ON DEVELOPMENT. 433 to be the supreme and infallible teachers of Christendom, the Sovereign Pontiffs have made no advance from the Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians in A.D. 96 to the Pastor Aeternus of Pius IX. in our own days." 1 Leo XIII. says very much the same in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, on the Unity of the Church. His words run thus, " In the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age." 2 Now, it is to show that the theory about the nature and authority of the papal primacy set forth by the Vatican Council was not " the venerable and constant belief" of the early ages of the Church, that this book of mine has been written. But while I feel constrained by the claims of truth to do what I can to make it clear that Bishop Ullathorne, Bishop Bilsborrow, and Pope Leo XIII. are mistaken in their opinion that the teaching of the Vatican Council is really primitive, I thoroughly sympathize with them in their desire to claim the witness of the early Church for the doctrine which they believe to be true and obligatory. On the other hand, the writer of a review of the first edition of this book, which appeared in the Tablet, jauntily says, " Had the Vatican decrees been laid before S. Cyprian, likely enough he would not have recognized them as his own belief, or even the legitimate deductions therefrom." 3 This of course is in plain contradiction with the assertion of Bishop Ullathorne that " the pope always wielded this infallibility, and that all men knew this to be the fact." I have no doubt that the Tablet reviewer is right, and that Bishop Ullathorne is wrong, in the statements which they respectively make. But when I remember that both accept the Vatican decrees as infallibly true, I feel that Bishop Ullathorne's underlying principle is Catholic, while the reviewer's underlying principle is, to use Cardinal Pitra's word, " rationalistic," not to say heretical. I would strongly urge those who are interested in the question of doctrinal development to study with care the late Dr. Mozley's treatise on the Theory of Development, and Sir William Palmer's treatise on The Doctrine of Development and Conscience. 1 See the Catholic Times for December 21, 1894. * See the authorized English translation of the Satis Cognitum, pp. lv., Ivi. : see also the Vatican decree itself (Constit. Dogmat. Prim, de Eccl. Christi, cap. iv., Collect. Lacens., vii. 486). * See the Tablet for September 9, 1893, p. 408. 2 F ADDITIONAL NOTES. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE I. NOTE I (see p. 8). On the date of the formation of the ecclesiastical province of Milan. In the course of the fourth century Milan became a metropolitical see, and Northern Italy ceased to belong to the ecclesi- astical province of Rome. 1 It is not easy to determine the exact point of time when this change took place. It may be noted that the Council of Sardica, in 343, requests S. Julius of Rome to inform the bishops of Sicily, Sardinia, and Italy concerning its acts and definitions. 2 The term Italy in this passage cannot, I think, be limited to Central and Southern Italy, for the bishops from those parts, who subscribed the acts of the council, speak of themselves as coming respectively from Thuscia, Campania, and Apulia ; whereas Protasius of Milan, Fortu- natian of Aquileia, Severus of Ravenna, Ursacius of Brixia, and Lucius of Verona, who all belonged to Northern Italy, speak of themselves as coming " ab Italia." 3 These facts seem to indicate that at the time of the Council of Sardica Milan and Northern Italy remained still within the sphere of the pope's metropolitical jurisdiction. Perhaps the metro- political authority of Milan began during the episcopate of the Arian, Auxentius (354-374).* S. Ambrose, who succeeded Auxentius, was undoubtedly a metropolitan ; but we have no reason to suppose that it was in his time that the see became metropolitical. I would suggest that the consent of the see of Rome to the separation of Northern Italy from its province may have been granted, either by Felix II., who was nominated by Constantius and consecrated by Arians in 356, or by Liberius, at the time when he was yielding pliantly to the demands of that same Constantius (compare pp. 275-287). It can hardly be doubted that it was the residence of the Emperor at Milan which led to the elevation of its see to metropolitical rank. There is a certain ancient Latin version of the canons of Nicaea, in which it is stated that the Bishop of Rome has the care of the loca suburbicaria? If it were true, as Maassen 6 supposes, that this version was brought back from the Nicene Council to Carthage by Bishop Caecilian, the position taken up by Duchesne, denying that Milan was a metropolitical see in the time of the Council of Nicaea, would be disproved ; but I see no sufficient reason for accepting Maassen 's theory. Compare p. 185, note 2. 1 Cf. Duchesne, Lib. Ponf. t Introduct., p. cxxix. 2 Cf. Coleti, ii. 691. 3 Ibid., ii. 692. 4 Compare Bacchinius, a learned Benedictine, who seems to take this view in his De Eccl. Hierarch. Origin., p. 346. * See canon 6, quoted on p. 139, note i. 6 Geschichte der Quellen des canonischen Rechts, pp. 8-1 1. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE I. 435 NOTE 2 (see p. 9). Bishop Lightfoot, 1 referring to the Roman Church in the time of S. Ignatius, speaks of "the prestige and the advantages, which were necessarily enjoyed by the Church of the metropolis." NOTE 3 (see p. 10). On the special weight to be attached to the witness of the Apostolic Churches, see Tertullian, de Praescript., capp. 20, 21, 27, 28, 32, 36 ; de Virg. Veland., cap. 2 ; adv. Marcion.,\\b. i. cap. 21 ; lib. iv. cap. 5. NOTE 4 (see p. 12). On the connexion between the ecclesiastical and the civil dignity of the three great cities of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The learned and pious Oratorian, Cabassutius, in his Notitia Eccle- siastica? says, " Quia praeterea inter imperil Romani civitates primarias post imperil caput Romam, primo fulgebat dignitatis gradu Alexandria Aegypti, et secundo Antiochia Syriae ad Orientem ; ideo [vivente Apostolo Petro] Romana ecclesia primum, Alexandrina secundum, Antiochena tertium sortita est nobilitatis gradum." With the exception of the three words, "vivente Apostolo Petro," which I have bracketed, this observation is very true. As regards the bracketed words, it would, I think, have been quite impossible for Cabassutius to have given any proof of his thesis that the Roman Church occupied the first place in the hierarchy, the Alexan- drine the second, and the Antiochene the third, during the lifetime of S. Peter, in other words, before the destruction of Jerusalem. We know nothing about the series of obscure events which resulted in the placing of the bishops of the three great sees at the head of the hierarchy. To me it seems most probable that, either after the destruction of Jerusalem or after the death of S. John, the Roman bishop was naturally recognized as primus inter pares, but that it was not until towards the end of the second century that the informal suffrages of Catholics assigned to Alexandria and Antioch the second and third places. 3 Dr. Rivington has adopted from some earlier Roman Catholic writers an astounding theory, 4 according to which the see of Alexandria took precedence of the see of Antioch, because the Jewish Ethnarch of Alexandria " took pre- cedence of all other heads of the Jewish people in their dispersion." In the beginning of the last century the Benedictine, Bacchinius, 5 started some such notion. He was refuted by the learned Ultramontane, Hierem. a Bennettis, in his Privileg. Rom. Pont. Vindicata (art. vii. prolegom., torn, iv. pp. 107-109). A Bennettis concludes his refutation thus : " Itaque ad formam Judaicae Reipublicae inducta, contemperataque regiminis ecclesi- astici dispositio non tarn perperam opinione fingitur, quam figmentum Divino consilio parum cohaerens, plurimumque indecens obtruditur." Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to grant Dr. Rivington's thesis, it would only afford a fresh example of the way in which matters unconnected with the supernatural order reacted on the order of pre- cedence among the great churches of Christendom. If the Alexandrine S. Clement of Rome, i. 71, edit 1890. Dissert, xiii., edit. 1680, p. 47. Compare Duchesne, Eglises Separees, pp. 119, I2O. The Primitive Church and t/u See of Pete:; pp. 125, 126. De Eccl. Hierarch. Origin., cap. iii. IO, edit. 1703, pp. 226-229, 436 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE I. Ethnarch did take precedence of the Antiochene Archon, such pre- cedence would be a matter of civil arrangement, not of divine appoint- ment. I do not care to waste time and space in the refutation of a theory so improbable as that adopted by Dr. Rivington ; but before finally quitting it, I would ask whether there is any reason to suppose that there were any Jewish Ethnarchs of Alexandria after the time of the Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54)- NOTE 5 (see p. 14). All bishops, as successors of the Apostles, receive at their consecration jurisdiction which is ecumenical in its range. When I say that the Bishop of Rome had no actual jurisdic- tion outside of Italy, I do not forget that by their consecration all bishops become successors of the apostles, and have a habitual or, to use Vasquez's expression, a radical jurisdiction, which is ecumenical in its range. The exercise of that habitual jurisdiction is ordinarily restrained by the by-laws of the Church ; yet, when the necessities of the Church really require it, a bishop may exercise his ecumenical jurisdiction outside his own diocese or province or patriarchate in abnormal ways. Naturally it was the bishops of the more important sees, whose aid was most frequently invoked by persons at a distance on occasions, when it was considered that the faith or fundamental discipline of the Church was in danger ; and we should expect to find, and I think we do find, that the aid of the occupant of the primatial see of Rome was invoked more frequently than that of any other prelate. But the right of Stephen of Rome to meddle with the affairs of the Church of Gaul, when Marcianus, the Novatian, was Bishop of Aries, did not differ in kind from the right of S. Cyprian of Carthage to meddle with the affairs of the Church of Spain in the matter of Basilides and Martialis (compare pp. 55-61). NOTE 6 (see p. 16). Pope Victor did not claim to be able by his own authority to cut the Asians off from the common unity. Eusebius, describing Victor's action, says that he "endeavours to cut off" the Asian churches "from the common unity." Dr. Rivington paraphrases this by saying that Victor "decided, or at least threatened, to excom- municate the Asiatic churches 'from the common unity.'" 1 But to "endeavour" to do a thing is neither to "decide" to do it nor to " threaten " to do it. 2 If Victor had threatened the Asians that, unless 1 The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, p. 41. * Dr. Rivington, one must say it to his credit, does make some effort, however feeble, to do justice to the word ireiparat. It is very unfortunate that Mgr. Duchesne, in his account of the incident (Egliscs Separtes, pp. 143, 144), through some extraordinary oversight, ignores the word altogether. His accuracy is so well known that I feel that such an assertion needs to be justified. I therefore quote the whole passage. Duchesne says, "Victor precede alors centre eux par voie d'excommunication : il les retranche de 1'union commune, rrjs /COIJ/TJS evdifffus : c'est 1'expression d'Eusebe. II a done conscience que lui, chef de 1'Eglise romaine, il dispose de 1'universelle communion, qu'il est en son pouvoir, non seulement d'interrompre ses relations avec un groupe ecclesiastique, mais de mettre ce groupe au ban de 1'Eglise entiere. Comment veut-on que nous parlions, si Ton nous interdit de designer parle nom clechef de 1'Eglise le depositaire d'une pareille autorite ? " It would be difficult to imagine a more disastrous paragraph* ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE I. 437 they kept the next Easter on a Sunday, they would be excom- municated, such a threat would not have been an attempt to cut them off, but rather an attempt to make it unnecessary to cut them off. The object of a threat is to produce obedience. Victor had threatened before, and the Asians had stood firm against his threats. In his opinion the time had now come for him to act. And he did act to the full extent of his power. His endeavour to cut off the Asians from the common unity took this form : he denounced them by letters to his brethren of the episcopate, and proclaimed that they were utterly separated from com- munion. There was a real separation from communion, 1 but obviously it did not go so far as to produce a cutting off from the common unity. That was the goal to be reached, but it was not yet reached. The Bollandist, Father de Smedt, describes the pope's action thus, " It seems that we must conclude that Victor deprived them [viz. the Asians] of his own communion (communione sua), and that he laid his injunctions on the other bishops to refrain from communicating with them." 2 I should myself suppose that Victor would hardly have ventured to enjoin a course of action on the universal episcopate. He more probably used terms of request and persuasion. However, the point to be noticed is that Father de Smedt describes Victor's action as a depriving the Asians of his own communion. Dom Coustant, in a passage already quoted (see p. 225, n. 2), takes the same view, and so does Tillemont (iii. 634). 3 1 There is great unanimity among the ancient authors who deal with this matter. They all, or almost all, imply that there was an absolute excom- munication and not a mere threat This is the view taken not only by Eusebius, but by S. Epiphanius, by Socrates, by Pope Nicholas I., and by Nicephorus Callisti. The fact is so evident that it is admitted by most learned Roman Catholics, such as Cardinal Baronius, the Jesuit Halloix, Archbishop de Marca, Schelstrate, Tillemont, Pagi, Bossuet, Dom Massuet, Dom Coustant, Roncaglia, Mansi, the Bollandist Bossue, and the Bollandist De Smedt. Newman, in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (p. 63), implies that he agrees with these great writers. He says, " Was S. Victor infallible when he separated from his com- munion the Asiatic churches ? or Liberius, when in like manner he excommuni- cated Athanasius? . . . No Catholic ever pretends that these popes were infallible in these acts." Some few Romanist writers take the other view, and deny that Victor did more than threaten excommunication. Dr. Rivington in particular appeals (Prim. Ch., p. 46) to the witness of S. Firmilian (see p. 438), who may be thought to imply that the Paschal controversy had never produced any disruption of communion. This argument has been by anticipation ably refuted by Father de Smedt (Diss. SeZ., pp. 74, 75), and before him by Mansi (cf. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl., torn. v. p. 205, ed. 1786, Bing. ad Rhen.). * Dissertationes Selectae, p. 73. * The fact that Victor limited himself to depriving the Asians of his own com- munion is highly important. It shows how futile is the argument in favour of the papal claims which some Roman Catholics draw from this whole episode. They say that no one disputed Victor's authority, but that even those who disapproved of his action did not go further than to remonstrate with the use he made of his authority. But why should any one dispute Victor's right to deprive certain persons of the communion of the Roman Church ? Nobody denies that the Roman popes possess that right. What is denied is that they have the right to cut people off from the common unity of the Catholic Church ; and Victor did not claim to be able to do that. If he had thought that he could cut the Asians off from the Catholic Church, he certainly would have done so ; for he considered that they deserved to be cut off from that unity, and he did all that he could to* get that punishment inflicted on them. The fact that he did not attempt to cut them off by hit own authority from the common unity shows, under the circum- stances, that he did not suppose that he possessed authority to do so. 438 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE I. NOTE 7 (see p. 17). S. Firmilian probably followed the quarto- deciman usage. S. Firmilian's words run as follows : " But that they who are at Rome do not in all respects observe the things handed down from the beginning, and that they in vain allege the authority of the Apostles, any one may know even from this, that concerning the paschal days which are to be celebrated, and concerning many other ordinances of religion (circa celebrandos dies Paschae et circa multa alia divinae rei sacramenta) he may see that among them there are certain variations, and that all things are not there observed in the same way as they are observed at Jerusalem ; as in very many other provinces many things are varied according to the diversity of places and men ; nor yet has there on this account been at any time any withdrawal from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church." It is evident that, according to S. Firmilian's view, the Roman Church had varied from the Apostolic tradition in the matter of the Paschal observance. To me his words seem clearly to allude to the quartodeciman question, and not to that later paschal controversy which was appeased by the Council of Nicaea. 1 Apostolic tradition could hardly have been invoked in favour of this or that paschal cycle, or for the purpose of determining such a question as whether Easter could or could not be kept before the equinox ; whereas in the quartodeciman controversy both sides claimed to have derived their prac- tice by tradition from Apostles. I do not think that S. Firmilian's words necessarily imply that on the particular question of Easter Rome differed from Jerusalem. If a divergence on that point is implied, then either S. Firmilian was mistaken, or he is not referring to the quartodeciman practice ; for Jerusalem in his time was no more quartodeciman than Rome was. Of these two alternatives I should prefer to adopt the former. I feel convinced that S. Firmilian had the quartodeciman question before him. And the tone of the passage seems to me to imply that the usage of Caesarea, S. Firmilian's own church, differed from the usage of Rome. In other words, Caesarea in 256 still followed the quartodeciman tradition. In the time of Victor that tradition was followed, not only by the churches of Asia, but also by " the neighbouring churches," which may well have included the Christian communities of Cappadocia. 2 Both Asia and Cappadocia had given up their quartodecimanism before the time of the Council of Nicaea, as appears from Constantine's letter to the churches, :! written at the conclusion of the council. However, I am ready to grant that this argument, which I have based on S. Firmilian's words, is not absolutely decisive ; and, if any one is not convinced by it, I fall back on the fact that readers of Eusebius would naturally conclude from his account that the Asian churches persevered in the practice which they inherited from S. John. If any one maintains the opposite view, the onus probandi lies on him. 1 Compare Duchesne's article, entitled, La Question de la P&que au Concile de Nicte, in the Revue des Questions Historiques for July, 1880 (torn, xxviii.). 2 Baronius (Annall., s.a. 258, xlvi., torn. ii. p. 522, edit. Antverp, 1617), speaking of S. Firmilian, with special reference to the passage which I am discussing, says, " Quis non videat ipsum stetisse a parte Quartodecimanorum." 3 Euseb., Vit. Consianiini, lib. iii. cap. 19. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE I. 439 NOTE 8 (see p. 26). On the meaning of conventio ad in 2 Cor. vi. 15 (Vulg.} Not being able to discover any passage in which the verb convenire ad has the meaning agree with, our Ultramontane adversaries appeal to the Vulgate translation of 2 Cor. vi. 15, part of which runs thus, " Quae autem conventio Christi lad Belial ?" Here we have the substantive conventio, which is derived from convenio, followed by the preposition ad. The question at once arises, Does the word conventio ever mean " agreement " in the sense of consent to another's opinions or doctrines? Because, unless it has that meaning, it will entirely fail to help the ordinary Romanist explanation of convenire ad in the Irenaean passage. One must say in reply that neither Facciolati nor Lewis and Short recognize any such meaning as belonging to the word. Setting aside two technical uses of the word connected with law and marriage, conventio has two meanings. It may mean a " meeting," or it may mean a " covenant " or " bargain." I suppose, therefore, that the unknown Latin translator * of 2 Cor. vi. meant to say, " What com- munion hath light with darkness ? and what covenant hath Christ with Belial ? " That appears to be the only meaning which the Latin will bear. Whether that was S. Paul's meaning is another question. S. Paul wrote, Tis 5e &s Be\/ap. Probably the Latin words consensus or consensio would best express the meaning which S. Paul attached to i>ririffis, which is a very rare word, does at times mean a " bargain " or " covenant ; " just as the word ffv^wvfw means at times " to strike a bargain " or " to make an agreement." It happens that in the only other place in the Vulgate New Testament in which conventio occurs, it represents the Greek word a>vf>, which has in that passage the meaning " to make a bargain." In S. Matt. xx. 2, the Vulgate reads, " Conventione autem facta cum operariis ex denario diurno," which corre- sponds to the Greek (ru/i^a^cra? 5e yuera ruif ipyaruv IK Srtvaplov r^v i]/j.(pca>. For this meaning of the verb /x$>wpea> see De Valois' first note on Evagr. Hist. Eccl., lib. i. cap. 2, and for the corresponding use of the noun ffvuftaniffis see Du Cange. The meaning "covenant " suits very well with the context in 2 Cor. vi. 15, although it is more likely that S. Paul meant " concord." But " conventio " cannot mean " concord," and as used here can, I think, only mean " covenant." It seems to follow from all this that the attempt to use 2 Cor. vi. 15, in order to justify the ordinary Romanist translation of convenire ad in the Irenaean passage, fails. 2 1 The word conventio in 2 Cor. vi. 15, came into the Vulgate from the Vdus Itala. S. Jerome did not retranslate the epistles, but somewhat sparingly revised the old version of them ; and in the verse in question he retained the old wording unchanged. * Even if the attempt had not failed, such a use of the word conventio would 440 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE /. NOTE 9 (see p. 27). One may illustrate the combination of undique with convenire ad by the following passages in which undique is combined with the completely parallel expression concurrere ad. (l) The Council of Antioch (A.D. 341), in its ninth canon, says, " It is right that the bishops in each province should know that the bishop who presides in the metropolis receives also the care of the whole province, because all who have business resort to the metropolis from all quarters ; wherefore it seemed good that he should enjoy precedence in dignity." In the old Latin translation of the canon by Dionysius Exiguus the italicized words are thus rendered, " Propter quod ad metropolim omnes undique, qui negotia videntur habere, coneurrunt? 1 (2) S. Gregory Nazianzen, in the farewell oration which he delivered in the presence of the second Ecumenical Council, when he was resigning the bishopric of Constanti- nople, describes the imperial city thus : he calls it " the eye of the world . . . the bond of union between the East and the West, to which the extremities of the earth resort from all quarters (iravraxoOtv (rwrp^h i- e - undique concurrunf), and from whence they start afresh (#px Ta ')> as from a common emporium of the faith." 2 NOTE 10 (see p. 31). In the years 1892 and 1893, when this book was first written and when the first two editions of it were published, I held the view that S. Irenaeus, when he used the expression, " propter potentiorem principalitatem," was referring to the imperial status of the city of Rome rather than to the primatial position of the Church of Rome. In adopting this interpretation I could cite as agreeing with me many weighty authors, as for example Bishop Pearson, 3 Bishop Stillingfleet, 4 Dr. Salmon, 5 the Abbe Guettie, 8 Dr. von Dollinger, 7 and Dr. Cyriacus, 8 a learned ecclesiastical historian belonging to the Orthodox Church of Greece. Other learned writers have held that S. Irenaeus attributes the potentior prindpalitas to the Church of Rome rather than to the city of Rome. This is the view of Dr. Routh, 9 Dr. Pusey, 10 Dr. Bright, 11 Dr. Robertson, 12 and others. In my earlier editions I had admitted (p. 41), that " the disputed words would very naturally be referred to the Church which had just been mentioned," but the arguments in favour of referring the words to the city seemed to me at that time to prevail. Further be an isolated phenomenon ; and it would be a very illegitimate proceeding to explain the verb convenire in the Irenaean passage from one exceptional instance of the use of the substantive conventio in a peculiar sense, when the ordinary meaning of convenire ad gives an excellent meaning to the passage. 1 Dion. Exig. Codex Canonum Ecclesiast., can. 87, P. L., Ixvii. 161. 2 S. Greg. Naz. Oral, xlii. cap. 10, Opp. , ed. Ben., i. 755. * De Success. Prim. Rom. Episc., I. xiii. 4, Minor Theological Works, edit. Churton, ii. 429. 4 Rational Account, part ii. ch. vi., Works, edit. 1709, iv. 423-426. * Infallibility of the Church, second edit., pp. 381-383. 8 La Papaute Schismatique, pp. 37-45. J Considerations for the Bishops of the [ Vatican] Council respecting the question of Papal Infallibility, reprinted in Declarations and Letters, pp. 15, 16. 8 See The Church Quarterly for July, 1882, p. 313. 9 Tres Breves Tractatus, edit. 1854, p. 23. 10 Sermon on The Rule of Faith, appended note, p. 64. 11 The Roman See in the Early Church, pp. 31, 32. 13 Church Historical Society Lectures, series ii. p. 218. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE I. 44! consideration has led me to change my opinion on this point, and I have consequently rewritten the whole of that part of my first lecture, which deals with the Irenaean passage. NOTE 1 1 (see p. 33). On the Greek equivalents of the Latin princi- palitas in the great treatise of S. Irenaeus. The words principalis and principalitas, which fundamentally mean first and firstness, may be used in various connexions, and may gather round themselves various secondary notions, so that in different contexts they need to be translated by different English words, and similarly they may themselves represent in different passages different Greek words. Thus there are three passages in S. Irenaeus (viz. IV. xxvi. 2 ; V. xiv. I ; V. xxi. i) where it seems to be generally admitted * that principalis represents the Greek apxaws in the sense of original. There is one passage (II. xxx. 9) where principalitas seems to be used of the angelic order of principalities as in Eph. i. 21, and where no doubt S. Irenaeus used S. Paul's word apxt. There are two passages, both of them in III. xi. 8, where the original Greek of S. Irenaeus has been preserved by Anastasius Sinaita, and where principalis in the translation stands for fiyffj.ovtKos in the original. One may illustrate that translation by the I4th verse of the Miserere Psalm, where the spiritus principalis of the Vulgate corresponds with the wreC^ta ^^OVM^V of the Ixx. And again the regular Greek rendering of the title Princeps, as applied to the Emperor, was ^-ye/u^c, and in that connexion principatus was riyenovla.? To go back to S. Irenaeus ; the translator in I. ix. 3 uses principaliter to represent irpo-rtyov/j.fvas. There are eight passages in S. Irenaeus (viz. I. xxx. 8 ; I. xxxi. I ; II. i. 2 ; IV. xxxv. 4 ; also two passages in I. xxvi. i j and two passages in IV. xxxv. 2), in which the author is discussing the Gnostic systems with their highly technical phraseology, and in which the translator uses principalitas to denote the supreme Deity, to whom some Gnostics gave the abstract appellation of " The Sovereign Power." In these passages I believe that S. Irenaeus used the word aMem-la. This can be shown to be the case as regards the two passages in I. xxvi. I, by a reference to the Philosophumena of S. Hippolytus, 3 and as regards the passage in I. xxxi. i by a reference to Theodoret* and to S. Epiphanius ; 5 and we may fairly presume that the same word avOffria is used in the other five passages, in which the supreme God, as set forth in various Gnostic systems, is spoken of in the Latin translation of S. Irenaeus as the Principalitas. Finally, there is one passage (viz. IV. xxxviii. 3) where the translator renders the word vpuTfiifi by the expression principalitatem habebit, a rendering which suggests vpuTfta, as the substantive, which in such a passage would correspond with principalitas!'' 1 Compare Dora Chapman's article in the Revue Binidictine for February, 1895. P- 55- 2 See Mommsen's Siaatsr., II. ii. 733, note 6. I owe this reference to Professor H. F. Pelham's article in the Journal of Philology (vol. viii. p. 326). * S. Hippol. Philosophum., vii. 33, and x. 21. 4 Theod. ffaer. Fab. Compend., i. 15, Patrol. Grace. , Ixxxiii. 368. 8 S. Epiph., Haeres. xxxviii. n. I, P. G. t xli. 653. ' Dom Chapman has rightly noted this point in the Revue Bentdictine for February, 1895, p. 60, note 3. 442 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IL Unfortunately, none of these passages has any great similarity to the passage in III. iii. 2, where a certain potentior principalitas is attributed to the Roman Church, and by implication a potens principalitas is attributed to other apostolical and metropolitical churches. If one is to be limited to words used or suggested by S. Irenaeus, I should be inclined to propose either irpwrtia or fiytnovia, as the original word used in III. iii. 2; and on the whole I agree with Dr. Funk 1 and Dom Chapman * in giving the preference to irpareia. I do so because that word seems to keep closest to the fundamental meaning of principalitas ', and to be a very suitable word to describe the pre-eminence of apostolic and metropolitical sees. But we cannot be sure that the word, used by S. Irenaeus in III. iii. 2, is one of the words used or suggested by him in other passages where his translator has given the rendering, principalitas or principalis. He may very well have used a fresh word in III. iii. 2. For example, he may have used the word wpoftipta, as suggested by Dr. Routh. 3 In any case the word must have been one which was fitted to express the pre-eminence and authority of the several apostolic churches, in their relation to the other churches of the regions over which they respectively presided. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. NOTE 12 (see p. 40). On the Angels of the seven churches. The angels of the seven churches are generally and, I think, rightly under- stood to mean the bishops of those churches. Among the Fathers, that view is taken by S. Epiphanius (Haer. xxv. iii., Patrol. Graec., xli. 324), Ambrosiaster (Comment, in I Cor. xi. 8, 9, 10, Patrol. Lat., xvii. 253), S. Jerome (Comment, in i Tim. iii. 2, P. L., xxx. 879), S. Augustine (Ep. xlii. cap. viii. n. 22, P. L., xxxiii. 170), Socrates (H. E., IV. xxiii. 69, ed. Hussey, torn. ii. p. 529), Cassiodorus (Complex, in Apoc. ii. 8, P. L., Ixx. 1406), Primasius (Comment, in Apoc. i. 20, P. L., Ixviii. 803), and others ; among mediaeval writers by S. Bede (Explan. Apoc. i. 20 et iii. i, P. L., xciii. 137, 140), Rupert (Comment, in Apoc. i. 20, P. L., clxix. 864), Richard of S. Victor (In Apoc. lib. i. cap. iv., P. L., cxcvi. 712), and also according to Petavius (De Eccl. Hierarch., lib. i. cap. ii. xv., Theol. Dogm., torn. vii. p. 491, edit. 1867) by Cardinal Hugo de S. Caro, and Nicolas de Lyra ; among Anglican writers by Ussher (Opusc. de Episc. et Metropolitan, orig., edit. 1688, pp. 4-16), Hammond (Annotations on the New Testament^ vol. iv. pp. 512, 513, edit. 1845), Pearson (On the Creed, art. ix., ed. Burton, Oxford, 1870, p. 598 ; Vindic. Ignat., pars ii. cap. xi., p. 519, ed. Churton), Archbishop Trench (Epistles to the Seven Churches, edit. 1867, pp. 52-59), Dean Vaughan (Lectures on the Revelation, third edit., vol. i. p. 20), Doctors Westcott and Hort (New Testament in Greek, vol. ii. appendix, edit. 1 Historisch-polilische Bliitter, vol. Ixxxix. p. 735. * Revue Benedictine for February, 1895, p. 60. 3 Routh, in his Tres Breves Tractattts (p. 21), expresses his opinion that " propter potentiorem principalitatem " may be fairly rendered into Greek thus : 5ia TTJV eyKpaTfffrtpav irpoeSpiav. He gives a Greek rendering of the whole passage, heading it, " Interpretatio vetus nunc ex veteribus glossariis Graece reddita." ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 443 1881, p. 137), and others. As regards Romanist writers it is enough to say that Petavius (loc. '/.) asserts that the view, which we are considering, is the "communis sententia interpretum," and that the "recentiores non aliter exponunt ; " and, if we come to writers of the present generation, Addis and Arnold (Catholic Dictionary, s.v. Bishop, p. 84, edit. 1887, New York) say that " the Angels of the Churches " u answer to the idea of diocesan bishops and to nothing else." Among Protestants the same view is maintained by Grotius ( Vot. pro pace contra Rivetum, art. 7, edit. 1642, pp. 42-44), Bunsen (Ignatius von Antiochien und seine Zeit, edit. 1847, p. 85), and Godet (Studies on the New Testament, tr. Lyttelton, 1884, pp. 337, 338). I cannot help thinking that Bishop Lightfoot, who regards the " Angels " in Rev. ii. and iii. as the guardian angels of the churches, or else as their personification (Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, edit. 1892, pp. 159, 160), and Mr. Gore, who follows Lightfoot (Church and the Ministry, edit. 1889, pp. 254, 255), have been misled by their assignment of an early date to the Apocalypse. For myself, I have never been able to accept the theory of the early date, and I am glad to observe that the more recent writers, including Harnack, Zahn, Ramsay, and Bousset, repudiate it. 1 NOTE 13 (see pp. 42 and 113). In the Clementine romance S.James, not S. Peter, is the chief ruler in the Church. According to the Clementine romance, there is a chief ruler of the universal Church ; but the holder of that office is not S. Peter, nor his Roman successor, S. Clement, but S. James, the Lord's brother, "the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy Church of the Hebrews, and the churches every- where excellently founded by the Providence of God." 2 S. Peter receives a charge from S. James to send him a written report of his discourses and of his proceedings year by year. 3 Apostles, teachers, and prophets, who do not first accurately compare their preaching with that of James, are to be shunned. 4 They are not to be believed " unless they bring from Jerusalem the testimonial of James, the Lord's brother, or of whosoever may come after him" 5 James is styled " the archbishop." S. Peter says, "While we abode in Jericho . . . James, the bishop, sent for me, and sent me here to Caesarea." 7 Altogether S. Peter is represented as quite subordinate to S. James. Before S. Peter leaves Caesarea to start on his missionary circuits, he consecrates Zacchaeus to be his successor at Caesarea, compelling him " to sit down in his own chair." 8 The account of Zacchaeus' nomination and consecration to the bishopric of Caesarea 9 is curiously like the consecration of Clement to the bishopric of Rome, as given in the letter to James. In both cases it 1 I have tried to indicate in this note some of the great names that can be cited in favour of the identification of the angels of the churches with bishops ; but it is only fair to warn beginners that even in the patristic period this identification was not universally admitted. 2 Epistle of Clement to fames, in the salutation. 3 See Homilies, i. 20, and Recognitions, i. 72. 4 See Homilies, xi. 35. * Recognitions, iv. 35. 6 Ibid., i. 73. 7 Ibid., i. 72. 8 Homilies, iii. 63. ' Ibid., iii. 60-72. 444 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. is a consecration to a local bishopric, and not to a monarchy over the universal Church. Taken as a whole, the Clementine romance is entirely un-Petrine and un-Roman. NOTE 14 (see p. 43). Duchesne on the "years of Peter." Duchesne, in his Origines Chretiennes, says, " Les 25 anne*es du pontifical romain de saint Pierre se heurtent a des difficulty's assez graves." He adds in a note, " Le livre des Actes signale la presence de saint Pierre a Jerusalem vers la Paque de 1'an 44, puis en 5 1 ; il est a Antioche en cette anne'e ou en 54. II n'est pas a Rome au commencement de 58 (cette difficultd disparait si 1'on admet que les saluts de Rom. xvi. sont adresse's a d'autres e"glises que celle de Rome) ; 1 ni en 61 ; les dpitres de S. Paul, dcrites de Rome, ne le mentionnent jamais. Sans doute, tout cela n'est pas absolument inconciliable avec un sejour effectif de 25 ans, comportant necessaire- ment quelques absences ; mais il est bien extraordinaire que ces absences tombent precisdment a toutes les dates pour lesquelles nous avons des renseignements sur la chre'tiente' de Rome." 2 NOTE 15 (see p. 46). Bishop Lightfoot on the infatence of the Clementine romance at Rome. Bishop Lightfoot says, " Whatever theory may be held respecting the dates and mutual relations of the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, the original romance which was the basis of both cannot well be placed later than the middle of the second century ; for, though originally written in Syria or Palestine (as its substance bears evidence), it had circulated so as to influence public opinion largely in the West before the time of Tertullian." 3 In this last statement Bishop Lightfoot evidently has in view Tertullian's assertion that the Church of Rome relates that Clement was ordained by Peter. As far as I am aware, that is the only passage of Tertullian which throws any light on the question of the date of the romance, and it only does so on the sup- position that the theory of Clement having been the first bishop of Rome and of his having been ordained by S. Peter was due to the circulation of the romance in the West. Bishop Lightfoot had touched on the same point in an earlier passage. He had said, " Though the date of this work [viz. the Clementine romance] cannot have been earlier than the middle of the second century, yet the glorification of Rome and the Roman bishop obtained for it an early and wide circulation in the West. Accordingly even Tertullian speaks of Clement as the immediate suc- cessor of S. Peter." 4 As regards the date of the romance, Bishop Light- foot had said in a still earlier passage, " The Clementine romance, which we find incorporated in the existing Homilies and Recognitions . . . must have been written soon after the middle of the. second century." 5 (On this last point see also note 6 on pp. 48, 49.) NOTE 1 6 (see note 2 on p. 46 and also p. 49). The misplacement of S. 1 For weighty arguments in favour of the traditional view that the greetings in Rom. xvi. are addressed to persons living in Rome, see Sanday and Headlam's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. xcii.-xcv. 8 Duchesne, Origines Chretiennes, p. 73. 3 S. Clement of Rome, i. 361. * Ibid., i. 64. 8 Ibid., i. 55. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 445 Clement's name is to be traced to the influence of the Clementines. In some of the early lists of the Bishops of Rome we find the names of Clement and Anencletus (alias Cletus) transposed. Thus the author of the first section of the Philocalian or Liberian catalogue gives the order of the bishops as follows: (i) Peter, (2) Linus, (3) Clement, (4) Cletus. There are some in- teresting observations on the subject of this author's mistake in an article which appeared in the Revue des Questions Historiques for April, I8/6. 1 The article was written by the learned Jesuit, Pere Colombier. The writer says, "Mais a quoi attribuer son erreur ? Fut-elle purement accidentelle ? II est permis de le supposer. Cependant on pourrait avec plus de vraisem- blance attribuer cette transposition a 1'influence de certaines pieces apo- cryphesqui circulaient alors en Orient. Rufin d'Aquile"e nous a consent une pre"tendue lettre de saint Cle'ment a saint Jacques dont le but est d'apprendre a cet apotre, mort en 62, comment sur la designation de saint Pierre lui-meme, Cle'ment vient, en 67, ou plus tard, de monter le second au trone pontifical. Cette piece, avec 1'ignorance de Rufin prouve la ten- dance de certains Orientaux a rapprocher saint Cle'ment de saint Pierre. Cependant, comme elle exclut saint Lin du second rang, elle ne peut expliquer completement la se*rie de notre auteur, Pierre, Lin, Cle'ment. Nous retrouvons cette se*rie telle quelle dans les Constitutions Apostoliques, recueil dont la redaction definitive est poste*rieure k 1'an 230,2 mais dont bien des fragments remontent plus haul que cette date : ' Pour 1'Eglise de Rome, disent les Constitutions, Lin, fils de Claudia, fut ordonnd le premier par Paul. Moi Pierre, je sacrai Cle'ment apres la mort de Lin.' 3 Est-ce dans cet endroit, est-ce dans quelque autre pareil, que notre auteur a puis son opinion sur la place de saint Cle'ment ? il serait im- possible de le dire. Mais cela ne me par ait pas douteux, elle lui vient directement ou indirectemenl des he'retiques judaisants qui cherchaient a grandir son autorite" en faisant de lui le compagnon inseparable et le successeur immediat de saint Pierre? Cette tendance a produit toute une littdrature apocryphe dont il nous reste encore de eurieux debris." It is clear from this passage that the Pere Colombier agrees with me in tracing to the Clementine romance the tendency to connect S. Clement as closely as possible with S. Peter, a tendency which has, as he thinks, affected the order of the bishops in the Philocalian catalogue, and which had undoubtedly exercised, directly or indirectly, a strong influence on Christian opinion in Rome, before Tertullian wrote his De Praescript, Haeret. NOTE 17 (see p. 52). On the meaning of S. Cyprian's words : "ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdota,lis exorta est" (S. Cypr. Ep. lix. 14, Opp. ii. 683). I am somewhat astonished to observe that Mgr. Duchesne, referring to this passage of S. Cyprian, says (Eglises 1 Tome xix. pp. 408, 409. * The first section of the Philocalian catalogue seems to have been compiled in the year 234, and is attributed by Bishop Lightfoot (S. Clement of Rome, i. 259) and by most other modern critics to S. Hippolytus. It supplies, I think, the earliest authority for the Roman episcopate of S. Peter. 3 Cf. Constitut. A fast., lib. vii. cap. 47. 4 The italics are mine. 446 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. Separ^es, p. 145) that Cyprian "te'moigne toujours du plus grand respect pour la chaire de Pierre, pour 1'Eglise souveraine l (principalis}, d'ou precede Punke* de Pe'piscopat." Surely proctda, notprocede, is the correct rendering of " exorta est;" 1 To do Dr. Rivington justice, he translates " exorta est" rightly " took its rise." 2 In a note to this passage of his book, Dr. Rivington objects to my interpretation of " Sacerdotalis unitas" He says that " S. Cyprian gives not the slightest hint that he is speaking of Africa only." But over and over again " collegium sacerdotale " and similar expressions are used by S. Cyprian without any more particular limitation, of the African episcopate. 3 As regards the passage under discussion, I have suggested (p. 51, n. i) that S. Cyprian is referring to the whole body of Western bishops, not to the Africans only. Passing to the consideration of the meaning of the word " principalem? it is to be noted that Dr. Rivington appears to think that it must mean " sovereign? because Tertullian in his De Anima (cap. 13) defines " princi- palitas " as " that which is over anything." But Tertullian is defining the substantive, as he is using it in that passage. He himself uses the word differently in other passages. Much more may S. Cyprian use the adjec- tive "principalis " in one of its usual senses, though not in the sense in which Tertullian uses the substantive in the De Anima. As Dr. Bright observes, " The De Praescr. Haer., where principalitatem is opposed to posteritatem, is a likelier book than the De Anima to have been much in Cyprian's hands." * NOTE 1 8 (see p. 54). On S. Cyprian's condemnation of Felicissimus' appeal to Rome. Dr. Rivington curiously misapprehends the events connected with the journey of Felicissimus and his companions to Rome. He says that "S. Cyprian denounced in no measured terms a certain small body of schismatics who repaired to Rome in the hope of persuading S. Cornelius, the pope, that they were true bishops." 5 He evidently supposes that the five bishops, who consecrated Fortunatus to be the pseudo-bishop of Carthage of the party of Felicissimus, 6 went with 1 Archbishop Benson (Cyprian, p. 537) says very truly, "It is matter of grief when one finds a scholar like Duchesne led by the logic of his position to translate principalis ecclesia ' 1'eglise souveraine.' " 2 Prim. CA., p. 58. 3 I am glad to see that Archbishop Benson, in the Introduction to his Cyprian (p. xxxvii.), interprets the expression " unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est," 'as Ido. He is speaking of the obscurity which hangs about the origins of Christianity in Africa ; and he says, " It was and is vain to try to ascertain where and by what avenues the flood had poured in. Cyprian only knew that the ' sacerdotal unity,' the one order of bishops, traced to the ' primal church' of Rome." 4 The Roman See in the Early Church, p. 45, n. I think myself that the words, "unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est," iix the sense of "principalis" in this passage. But I have no doctrinal objection to translating ecclesia principalis, " primatial church," so long as the word " primatial " is understood of a primacy of honour and influence, and not of a primacy of jurisdiction. Compare Arch- bishop Benson's Note on the meaning of Principalis (Cyprian, pp. 537-540). He shows that "sovereignty, 'ruling power,' is exactly what was not included, implied, or allowed in the term." * Prim. CA., p. 67. 8 Dr. Rivington strangely enough asserts (Prim. CA., p. 67) that Fortunatus was made bishop over the Novatianists at Carthage. But this is a complete ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 447 that leader of sedition to Rome. 1 But there is no reason for supposing that any one of them was among the companions of Felicissimus. On the contrary, S. Cyprian seems rather to suggest a distinction between these bishops and the emissaries of Fortunatus who went to Rome. In one passage of his letter to S. Cornelius, after describing the crimes and false teaching of the party of laxists at Carthage, he says, " After all this, they yet, having had a pseudo-bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence the episcopal unity took its rise." 2 Moreover, we have no reason to think that the people who went to Rome represented those five bishops. S. Cyprian, writing to the Roman bishop, describes them as " having been sent as legates by Fortunatus their pseudo-bishop, carrying to you letters as false as he whose letters they carry is false." 3 They were the legates of Fortunatus, not apparently of Privatus and his colleagues, who had consecrated Fortunatus.* They went to Rome to announce that the pseudo-bishop had been set up against the bishops {Ep. lix. 14). They asserted that this pseudo-bishop had been consecrated by twenty-five bishops (Ep. lix. n) ; there would, therefore, be no special need for them to prove that five particular bishops out of those twenty-five were true bishops. The " desperate and abandoned persons," of whom S. Cyprian speaks, were primarily the party of laxists, among whom Felicissimus was " standard- bearer," 5 and over whom Fortunatus had lately been consecrated bishop; while among their adherents were at least three of the Carthaginian presbyters, of whom two were named respectively Donatus and Gordius. 6 It is true that in May, 252, an alliance was made between the party of Felicissimus and the five deposed or schismatical bishops, who were headed by Privatus, ex-bishop of Lambesis ; and it is possible that, having been thus brought into connexion with the laxist faction at Carthage, they may have kept up their connexion with it afterwards ; but we have no proof that such was the case. After Fortunatus was consecrated, he was deserted by nearly all his followers. The great majority of these deserters made their submission to the Church. 7 It is mistake. Maximus had been made bishop of the Carthaginian Novatianists (Ep. lix. 9, torn. ii. p. 676), who were a party of rigorists. Fortunatus was bishop of the followers of Felicissimus, who were a party of laxists. 1 See Prim. CA., p. 68. 2 S. Cypr. Ep. lix. 14, Opp. , ii. 683, "Post ista adhuc insuper pseudo- episcopo sibi ab haereticis constitute navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram adque ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre." J Ep. lix. 1 6, Opp., ii. 685. 4 It is true that in the passage quoted above the voyagers to Rome are described as carrying letters from schismatic and profane persons ; so that they had letters from others besides Fortunatus. But the structure of the sentence seems to suggest that the schismatici et profani, who gave the letters, were not the same as the haeretici who consecrated the pseudo-bishop. Probably the other letters were written by the presbyters who belonged to the laxist faction, and who ruled it under Fortunatus. 4 Ep. lix. 9, Ofp., ii. 676. 6 Cf. Ep. xiv. 4, Opp., ii. 512, and Ep. xliii. I, 2, 3, Opp., ii. 591, 592. 7 Cf. Ep. lix. 15, Opp., ii. 684. 448 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. scarcely probable that Privatus or any of his four colleagues took that course ; but, as they had formed an alliance with the party of Felicissimus, when it was relatively large, they may not improbably have wished to disentangle themselves from it, when it was losing the great majority of its adherents. Certainly S. Cyprian does not seem to have had Privatus prominently before his mind, when, speaking of the "desperate and abandoned men," he says that, "knowing well their own guilt, they dare not come to us, nor approach the threshold of the Church." 1 For in a previous paragraph of his letter S. Cyprian had mentioned that Privatus had professed a wish to plead his cause before the council of Catholic bishops, which had met in Carthage on the previous I5th of May, but that he had not been allowed to do so. 2 On the whole it seems highly improbable that any of the five consecrators of Fortunatus formed part of the embassy to Rome, 3 and it is doubtful whether, when S. Cyprian wrote his letter to Cornelius, they were still in alliance with the " desperate and abandoned " faction of Felicissimus. It is primarily about Felicissimus and his faction that S. Cyprian is speaking in the important passage, quoted on p. 53, which must now engage our attention. In that passage, so far as I have quoted it in the text, S. Cyprian is dealing entirely with the question whether it was proper that the matters connected with Felicissimus, Fortunatus, and their adherents should be dealt with in Africa or in Rome. He gives various good reasons why " it behoves those over whom we are set not to run about from place to place, nor, by their crafty and deceitful boldness, break the harmonious concord of bishops, but there to plead their cause, where they will have both accusers and witnesses of their crime." Then he adds the important words : " Unless perhaps some few desperate and abandoned men count as inferior the aitthority of the bishops established in Africa, who have already given judgement concerning them." 4 Dr. Rivington wholly mistranslates and misunderstands this passage. He renders it thus : l< Unless the authority of the regular (constitutoruni) bishops in Africa seems less than [that of] a few desperate and abandoned men." 5 The translation is based on the theory that the " desperate and abandoned men " were bishops. Dr. Rivington says in the text of the same page of his book, " These men themselves were neither legitimate bishops nor numerous. They were desperate and abandoned men and few." But we have already seen that this theory is erroneous. Regarding them in the mass, it would be true to say that the " desperate and abandoned men " were not bishops, although no doubt they had at least one bishop, Fortunatus, among them. Dr. Rivington wishes to make out that S. Cyprian is not denying by implication the inferiority of the 1 Ep. lix. 1 6, Opp., ii. 686. 2 Cf. Ep. lix. 10, Opp., ii. 677. 3 Mgr. Duchesne (Origines Chrttiennes, p. 426) speaks of this embassy in the following terms: "Felicissimus et quelques-uns des siens partirent pour Rome." * Ep. lix. 14, Opp. , ii. 683, 684, " Nisi si paucis desperatis et perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum, qui de illis jam judicaverunt." 8 Prim. Ch., p. 69, n. 2. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 449 authority of the bishops in Africa, when compared with the authority of bishops elsewhere, and specially when compared with the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The view which he suggests is that the comparison lies between the authority of the regular bishops in Africa and the authority of the irregular bishops, Privatus and his colleagues. He therefore translates " episcoporum in Africa constitutorum," " the regular bishops in Africa." But this is an impossible rendering. The phrase is one which is constantly used by Cyprian, and the parallel passages show clearly that the words must be translated, "the bishops established in Africa." 1 There is no comparison between regular and irregular bishops, but between African and Italian bishops. Nor is there any need to resort to the theory of an " ellipse," and to insert the bracketed words " [that of]." The translation of the passage, as it stands, runs perfectly smoothly, and it requires no doctoring of any kind. 2 It is highly creditable to Archbishop de Marca of Paris that he adopts the straightforward ex- planation of S. Cyprian's words, and points out how this passage, taken with the circumstances which led up to it, illustrates the primitive dis- cipline of the Church, which forbade appeals from the judgement of provincial synods. He says, " Cyprian, therefore, when, in accordance with the decision of his [provincial] council, he had rejected from his communion certain clerks and a certain pseudo- bishop of the heretics, gets indignant with Cornelius, the Roman bishop, because, when those persons had gone to Rome, the pontiff had hesitated for some little while whether he would receive them to his communion. In consequence Cyprian openly sets forth in a letter to Cornelius the rights of the bishops of each province, which consist in this, that to them belong the examina- tion and decision of causes, and the government of their flock, they having to give an account of their administration to God ; and that it is not lawful to appeal to Rome or elsewhere ; and that the authority of the 1 Compare Ep. xliii. 3, Opp., ii. 592, " universis episcopis vel in nostra provincia vel trans mare constitutes ; " and Ep. Ixvii. 6, Opp., ii. 741, "episcopis in toto mundo constitutis ; " and Ep. Ixviii. 2, Opp., ii. 744, "ad coepiscopos in Gallia constitutes;" and Ep. Ixxii. i, Opp., ii. 776, "ad Quintum collegam nostrum in Mauretania constitutum." 2 As Dr. Rivington's translation, or rather mistranslation, is based upon an erroneous theory, there is, strictly speaking, no need to discuss another point which he raises. However, I will say something about it. Dr. Rivington sup- poses that the expression " minor auctoritas," attributed hypothetically by S. Cyprian to the schismatics, refers to their plea that the African bishops who con- demned them were too few in numbers. But S. Cyprian has not yet hinted at that plea. Through the whole of the latter portion of the fourteenth paragraph (ed. Hartel) of his letter, S. Cyprian is insisting that the schismatics ought to plead their cause at Carthage and not at Rome. It is not until he reaches the fifteenth paragraph that he touches on the question of numbers, and mentions the fact that " if the number of those [bishops] who judged in their cause last year be reckoned, and there be added thereto the number of presbyters and deacons, [it will be found that] more were then present at the hearing and judgement than these same persons amount to, who appear now to be joined with Fortunatus." I cannot agree with Dr. Rivington in thinking that " the Oxford edition is doubt- less correct in including this sentence in 14." It seems to me that the more modern editors, Migne and Hartel, were well advised when they rejected that arrangement. However, my argument in no way depends on the question of arrangement. 2 G 450 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. African bishops is not inferior to the authority of the other bishops." l The historian, Aube", after giving an account of this incident, and after quoting the passage from S. Cyprian's letter to S. Cornelius, which we have been considering, says, " On ne saurait trouver un texte plus formel, et de date plus prdcise, ni d'authenticite* plus incontestable pour e"tablir 1'inde'pendance des grands sieges e"piscopaux en face du siege de Rome au milieu du iii* siecle. En dehors de cette these, du reste, toute cette lettre de Cyprien ne se comprend plus." 2 Assuredly one may say with confidence concerning the passage quoted from De Marca, and also concerning the passage quoted from Aube", " This witness is true." NOTE 1 9 (see p. 55). The Emperor Philip, according to a very respect- able tradition, was a baptized Christian (see Aube, Les Chretiens dans P Empire Romain, pp. 467-488) ; and in any case the Church enjoyed a profound peace during his reign. One of the seven bishops was S. Trophimus, the first Bishop of Aries (see Duchesne, Pastes, torn. i. p. 101). NOTE 20 (see p. 56). On the appearance of the metropolitical system in Gaul at the end of the fourth century, see Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 31, and also Pastes, tome i. pp. 89, 90, 103 ; but compare also pp. 31, 101, which seem to suggest that Marseilles and perhaps Aries enjoyed a certain metropolitical authority earlier in the century. See also the remarks of the Ballerini in their Observationes in Dissert, quint. Ojiesnell., pars ii. cap. v. (Opp. S. Leon., Patrol. Lat., torn. lv. col. 607 et seq.), and in their disquisition, De Antiq. collection, et collector, canonum, pars i. cap. v. 4 {Opp. S. Leon., Patrol. Lat., torn. Ivi. coll. 43, 44). NOTE 21 (see p. 57). "Diriganturinprovinciametadplebem Arelate consistentem a te litterae quibus abstento Marciano alius in loco ejus sub- stituatur et grex Christi qui in hodiernum ab illo dissipatus et vulneratus contemnitur colligatur." The word "quibus" depends on "substituatur'' and " colligatur." Even if one were to grant that, so far as grammar is concerned, it might depend also on " abstento," yet it is clear that in fact it does not depend on " abstento," because S. Cyprian has already implied in the previous paragraph that the duty of excommunicating Marcianus belonged to the bishops of Gaul. In any case, the ablative " quibus " denotes in this passage a remote and not an immediate instrumentality. One may describe the case of " quibus " as the ablativus causae moventis. Stephen's letters would not directly gather together the scattered flock. That gathering would be a remote result of the consecration of the new bishop, which consecration would itself be a remote result of the pope's 1 De Marca, De Concord. Sacerd. et Imp., lib. vii. cap. i. iii., coll. 987, 988, edit. 1708). It may be worth noting that S. Cyprian carried out his doctrine about the finality of provincial decisions, in the advice which he gave to the Spanish churches in connexion with the case of Basilides and Martialis (see pp. 59-61).. 2 Aube, 1} Egtise et ? Etat dans la seconde moitie du Hi' stick, p. 272, n., edit. 1886. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 451 admonitions. It would seem that S. Cyprian is urging Stephen to write three letters, one to the bishops of Gaul, pressing on them the duty of excommunicating Marcianus ; one to the lay people of Aries, pointing out that, when Marcianus has been excommunicated, it would become their duty to elect a successor ; and one to the bishops of Gallia Narbonensis, the province in which Aries was situated, and which was called "the Provincia "par excellence, urging them to come to Aries, and to preside at the election, and to consecrate the bishop elect. When the election and consecration had taken place, Stephen would of course be informed of the name of his new colleague. NOTE 22 (see p. 5 8). The episode of Mar claims supplies no confirmation of the papalist theory. If any one wishes to see a discussion of the episode of Marcianus of Aries from an Ultramontane point of view, let him refer to Dr. Rivington's Primitive Church and the See of Peter, pp. 70-72. Dr. Rivington on p. 75 actually says, " It is astonishing how any one could fail to see in the affair of Marcian of Aries an emphatic testimony to the strictly papal method of government as existing in the Church at that time, and taken for granted by S. Cyprian." But one must not suppose that all Ultramontane writers give expression to such wild views. It is a pleasure to quote by way of contrast the candid words of a really learned Vaticanist writer like Professor Funk. Speaking of this case of Marcianus, he says, " I cannot see in this an evidence of the Roman primacy, and therefore cannot on this ground regard it as undeniable ; that Cyprian here concedes to the successor of Peter the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over external dioceses, and therefore over the whole Church.' 1 The case of Bishop Marcianus of Aries proves in my eyes only the primatial position of the Roman Church in the West, 2 and to realize this we need only ask how Cyprian would have acted had a similar case occurred in Africa. If I am not quite mistaken as to his character and his Church principles, there can be no doubt that he would have done, as supreme metropolitan (Obermetropolite) what he here advises the pope to do, and what he had himself already begun, and probably carried out, in the case of Fortunatianus, Bishop of Assuras (Ep. 65). Just as little as the one case compels us to assign the primacy of the universal Church to Cyprian, so little is the other an evidence of Roman primacy." 3 NOTE 23 (see p. 61). Dr. Rivington discusses the case of Basilides and 1 These words between marks of quotation are cited by Dr. Funk from Peters, Der heilige Cyprian, p. 479. One of Dr. Peters' comments on this episode of Marcianus is characterized by Archbishop Benson (Cyprian, p. 319, n. I) as " shameless." 3 Though no one would deny that the Roman Church enjoyed a primacy of honour and influence in the West, yet it would perhaps be more accurate to say that this letter of S. Cyprian to Stephen proves that in the third century Rome exercised metropolitical authority, not only over Italy, but also in a measure over the infant churches in Gaul, which had been founded by missionaries who had been sent forth from Rome (compare pp. 55, 56). 3 Theologische Quarialschrift for 1879, p. 149. I owe the quotation from Dr. Funk's article to the kindness of the Rev. E. W. Watson of Salisbury. 452 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. Martialis in his Primitive Church and the See of Peter (pp. 72-75). It will, I think, be sufficient if I refer to two of his observations. On p. 73 he says, " The probability is, as Baronius thought, that " the two bishops, Sabinus and Felix, who had been substituted by the Spanish episcopate for Basilides and Martialis, " were sent to Rome [by S. Cyprian] with the [African] conciliar letter to help towards their acceptance by the pope." No doubt, on Ultramontane principles that would have been a not un- natural course to adopt ; but there is not the slightest trace of any such mission in the conciliar letter. S. Cyprian and his colleagues give their decision against Basilides and Martialis absolutely, and in no way suggest that it will need ratification at Rome before it can rightly influence the action of the Church in Spain. Moreover, if they had wished to induce the pope to modify his action, they would surely have written a very different letter. As Mgr. Duchesne observes, " The synodal letter of the African council . . . was not worded in such a way as would be likely to please the pope." 1 Evidently Dr. Rivington in his heart of hearts agrees with M. Duchesne, for he says on p. 75, " It looks as if it would not be difficult for the Evil One to produce a rupture between these two saints. . . . ' Coming events [that is, the quarrel about the validity of heretical baptism] cast their shadow before.'" If S. Cyprian had been an Ultramontane, he would have sent the two bishops straight to Rome to plead their cause before Stephen. Not being an Ultra- montane, but a sound Catholic, he sent them back to Spain with a letter bidding the Spanish Church pay no attention to the Roman decision in favour of the apostates. But Dr. Rivington makes another observation. He says, " Not a word has S. Cyprian to say against the possibility of a bishop being replaced in his bishopric by the pope." 2 But why should S. Cyprian say any- thing on the matter? We have no proof that Stephen had ventured to claim the right of restoring Basilides to his bishopric. It is to me a far more probable supposition that the pope contented himself with admitting Basilides to the communion of the local Roman Church. 3 Such a course was bad enough, and S. Cyprian does well to warn the Spanish bishops against imitating it, and to point out the guilt of any who should do so. But the pope's action, though faulty, was not invalid. It no doubt took effect at Rome, but it did not necessarily involve any invasion of the rights of the Spanish Church. It was a case for fraternal admonition in a letter to Stephen, rather than of protest on the score of invalidity in a letter addressed to the Spanish Christians. 1 Origines Chretiennes, p. 428. 2 Prim. CA., p. 74. 3 No doubt, when Basilides went to Rome, his ultimate aim was " to be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been rightly deposed." But we have no proof that he expected Stephen to replace him. If he could get Stephen to admit him to communion, and to give him a letter certifying that he had been so admitted, he might carry such a document back to Spain and might use it there with good effect, with the object of bringing about his restoration to his bishopric. On p. 74 Dr. Rivington himself says, " We do not know . . . what exactly his [Stephen's] judgement was." Precisely so. And until we do know, there is very little force in Dr. Rivington's argument. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 453 NOTE 24 (see note i on p. 62). The African custom of rebaptization seems also to have been followed at Antioch and in Syria, but not in Palestine. The Church in Palestine on this point, as on so many others, appears to have followed the lead of Alexandria. Compare Duchesne, Origines Chretiennes, pp. 432, 433. But see note 3 on p. 461. NOTE 25 (see note 3 on p. 62). On the nationality of the author of the treatise, " De Rebaptismate? Archbishop Benson (Cyprian, pp. 394, 406) is quite convinced that the author of the treatise De Rebaptismate was not an Italian, but an African. He appeals to the fact that the author never refers to the tradition of the Roman Church, and also to his use of African idioms. I do not venture to contest the Archbishop's conclusion ; but I feel a difficulty in understanding how an African bishop, writing about the year 255, could appeal, as he does (cap. i.), against Cyprian to " the venerable authority of all the churches," and to " the ancient and memorable and most solemn observance of all the holy and faithful men who have deserved well," without saying a word about the fact that his own African Church was committed to the practice of rebaptizing by the Council of Carthage under Agrippinus, held about forty years previously. Might not the writer be one of the Spanish bishops ? One ought to know whether African idioms and speech were confined to Africa. NOTE 26 (see note 4 on pp. 62, 63). Before the Council of Alexandria in 362, S. Athanasius disallowed the validity of Arian baptism. Dr. Rivington, speaking of the passage from S. Athanasius (Orat. it. contr. Ariann., 42) quoted by me on p. 62, says that " S. Athanasius does not deny the validity of baptism by heretics, but its sanctifying effects." 1 Newman, on the other hand, in his note in loc., says, " The prima facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavourable to the validity of heretical baptism." 2 In the succeeding paragraph S. Athanasius classes Arian baptism with that of the Paulianists and other heretics, who used the three Divine Names, but "not in a right sense," " nor with sound faith." Now, the Council of Nicaea in its iQth canon, had expressly ordered that Paulianists, who wish to return to the Catholic Church, should be rebaptized. As Hefele says, " The Council of Nicaea, like S. Athanasius himself, considered their baptism as invalid." 3 Thomassinus understands the passage quoted from S. Athanasius about Arian baptism as I do. He thinks that S. Athanasius looked on that baptism as invalid. 4 The same interpretation of the Athanasian passage is adopted by the Bollandist, Father Bossue, 5 and by Dr. von Dollinger. The reader is also 1 Prim. Ch., p. 78, n. 2 It should be noted that S. Athanasius wrote his second Oration against the Arians before the year 362, the date of the celebrated Council of Alexandria. Had the Oration been written after that date, the passage which we are con- sidering would not improbably have been differently worded. On the action taken at the council of 362 in reference to Arian baptism, see note I on p. 454. 3 Hefele, i. 431, E. tr. 4 Thomassin. Dissertat. ad Synodos sub Stephana Papa, xl., Patrol. Lat., iii. 1291, 1292. 3 A eta SS., torn. xii. Octobr., p. 499. 6 Dollinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, p. 1 79, E. tr. 454 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. referred to the full note in Dr. Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism, pp. 130, 131.1 NOTE 27 (see note 4 on p. 63). It seems to me clear that in the last paragraph of Ep. Ixxii., S. Cyprian is giving expression to his expectation that Stephen would refuse to change the custom of his Church. Aub takes the same view. 2 The Ultramontane, Jungmann, thinks that it cannot be doubted that S. Cyprian, when he wrote this letter to Stephen, knew that the Roman Church disagreed with him on the baptismal question ; and that his object was to induce the pope to treat the matter as appertaining to discipline rather than to doctrine, and as being a point on which each bishop might feel free to follow his own opinion. 3 NOTE 28 (see p. 64). Stephen's threats of excommunication were received at Carthage before the final council on baptism. Dr. Rivington thinks that Stephen's harsh reply to the synodical letter of the second Cyprianic council on baptism did not arrive at Carthage until after the third council was concluded. He bases his theory on certain arguments. A summary of each of these arguments will be found below, printed in italics. To the summary of each argument I have appended my reply. i. Stephens letter is not once mentioned in the Sententiae Episcoporum, which were delivered at the third council on baptism, and have been pre- served for us by S. Augustine* To this argument I answer that it would have been most unwise of S. Cyprian if he had read out at the council those remarks of Stephen, which he considered to be " arrogant, beside the purpose, and self-con- tradictory." 5 We know that Stephen called S. Cyprian " a false Christ," " a false apostle," " a deceitful worker ; " and it is quite possible that those abusive terms may have found a place in this very letter. Whether this was so or not, the letter contained " arrogant " remarks and threats of excommunication ; and if it had been read it would necessarily have been inserted in the acts, and would have been sent all over Africa. For the sake of Stephen, and still more for the honour of the Catholic Church, it was important to prevent such a publication. S. Cyprian considered that, when he was presiding over a council, one of his duties was to 1 Dr. Gwatkin, however, admits that the Council of Alexandria of the year 362 did not require the rebaptism of Arians. It would seem that S. Athanasius, who in principle rejected Arian baptism, thought it permissible, for the sake of unity at that very critical moment in the Church's history, to receive back into the Church, without rebaptizing them, those who had been baptized by Arians. S. Eusebius of Vercellae would hardly have consented to the Alexandrine decrees if they had required Arians to be rebaptized. Even Lucifer accepted Arian baptism. In the East the admission of Arians without rebaptizing them became the rule, as may be seen by referring to the so-called seventh canon of the second Ecumenical Council. 2 Aube, L'Eglise et F Etat dans la seconde moitie du Hi' silcle, p. 323, edit. 1886. 3 Cf. Jungmann. Dissertationes Selectae in Hist. EccL, torn. i. p. 325, edit. 1880. 4 See Prim. CA., p. 89. { Ep. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium, I, Opp., ed. Hartel, ii. 799. 6 Ep. S. Firmil. inter Cyprianicas Ixxv. 25, Opp., ed. Hartel, ii. 827. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 455 put obstacles in the way of the ill-advised publication of documents which would cause scandal. It was on this principle that at the Council of Carthage, held in April, 251, before the consecration of Pope Cornelius had been recognized in Africa as legitimate, S. Cyprian refused to submit to the council the charges against Cornelius which had been forwarded from Rome. He himself has explained the principle on which he then acted. In his 45th Epistle he says, "We rejected those bitter accusations which the adverse party had heaped together in a document transmitted to us ; considering and also reflecting that in so great and solemn an assembly of brethren, when the bishops (sacerdo- tibus) of God were sitting together and the altar was set, such things ought neither to be read nor heard. For those things should not without hesitation be put forward nor be incautiously and indiscreetly published, which, written with a contentious pen, may occasion scandal to the hearers and perplex with uncertainty brethren at a distance and living across the seas." 1 It can hardly be doubted that Cyprian would consider that the principles which had led him to suppress the publication of the accusations against Cornelius, were also applicable to Stephen's diatribe against himself, a diatribe which Bishop Hefele describes as " this violence of Stephen's," 2 and which Father de Smedt calls an "acris epistola." 3 If Stephen's letter was not read to the council, it is quite conceivable that a large number of the African bishops may never have seen it ; and in any case, if it was determined that the letter should not be published, they would refrain from making any explicit allusion to it in the public sessions of the council, when the inferior clergy and " a very great part of the laity " were present. 2. The speeches of the bishops do not show the irritation which we should have expected, if they had seen Stephens letter. But, on the other hand, it must be remembered, in the first place, that the sententiae of the bishops were not speeches in the ordinary sense of the word. They were the judicial utterances of the Fathers of the council, and they kept strictly to the point which was under adjudication, namely, the question of the validity or invalidity of heretical baptism. And, in the second place, if it was determined that S. Stephen's letter should not be published, the bishops would be on their guard against any open exhibi- tion of irritation, when they spoke at a public session. Moreover, S. Cyprian, in his opening address, as president, had urged the bishops to declare their opinion on the baptismal question freely, but " to judge no man " (" neminem judicantes "). Nevertheless, S. Cyprian gave to himself in that opening address some larger measure of liberty of speech, and to me his state of irritation is most patent. However, of that more later on. At the end of the session, when he delivered his sententia, he preserved the same judicial calmness as his colleagues. 3. Only two bishops dealt with Stephen's main argument about custom. 1 Ep. xlv. ad Cornelium, 2, Opp., ed. Hartel, ii. 600, 601. - Hefele, i. 101, E. tr. 3 De Smedt, Dissertations Selectae, p. 233. 456 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. As Stephen's angry letter has not been preserved, we cannot say for certain what his main argument was. And in any case it would be quite in accordance with what we should expect, that the bishops in their short sententiae should, as a rule, set forth the positive grounds for their own practice rather than spend their limited time in refuting the arguments of their opponents. Moreover, it is not correct to say that only two of the bishops at this final council dealt with the argument from custom. If any one reads the sententiae with care, he will see that at least four of the bishops handle the topic of custom, namely, Castus, of Sicca (28), Libosus of Vaga (30), Felix of Bisica Lucana (63), and Honoratus of Thucca (77) ; and to these four S. Augustine would add a fifth, 1 for he considers that Zosimus of Tharassa (56) dealt with that same topic. 4. S. Augustine does not suppose that the bishops were answering Stephen. As I have already pointed out, there is no reason to think that the bishops were making any special allusion to Stephen's letter. Perhaps many of them had not seen it. 2 On the other hand, it seems clear to me that S. Cyprian had Stephen's letter in mind. But S. Augustine had never seen S. Cyprian's letter to Stephen nor S. Firmilian's letter to Cyprian, 3 and without those two letters it would be very difficult to settle accurately the chronological sequence of the documents, and to solve several of the difficulties in their interpretation. As Father de Smedt points out, S. Augustine had no special sources of information which are not accessible to us, and therefore in the history of this baptismal contro- versy his authority is no greater than that of more modern writers. 4 But now, 5 putting aside Dr. Rivington's arguments, let us consider on its merits the question whether Stephen's harsh reply arrived at Carthage before or after the final baptismal council. The penultimate or second 1 Cf. De Baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. iii. cap. 7. 2 But even though they may not have seen Stephen's letter, they would know in a general way how strong the feeling at Rome was against rebaptizing, and they would probably have heard of Stephen's excommunication of the Orientals, so that they would quite understand that S. Cyprian was alluding to Stephen in his opening speech. 3 See note 7 on pp. 76, 77. 4 See De Smedt, Dissertationes Selectae, p. 242, and Aube, L'Eglise et PEtat dans la seconde moitit du Hi' sihle, p. 323, edit. 1 886. 5 It ought to be mentioned that further on (Prim. CA., p. 98) Dr. Rivington expresses an opinion, which, if it were true, would favour the view that Stephen's reply arrived in Carthage after the final council. He thinks that, when S. Cyprian sent Stephen's reply to Pompeius of Sabrata, he also sent him the decision of the final council. Dr. Rivington thinks that this result may be deduced from the last paragraph of S. Cyprian's letter to Pompeius (cf. Ep. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium, 12, Opp., ed. Hartel, ii. 809). But I cannot for a moment believe that the last paragraph of the letter to Pompeius contains the decision of the council. S. Cyprian must have mentioned the council, if he had been transmitting its decision to one of his suffragans. It seems to me that, as Stephen concluded his reply with a formula which expressed his decision, so Cyprian in the last paragraph of his letter gathered up his teaching into a formula, which in a measure imitates the phraseology of Stephen's formula, while in its substance it expresses the opposite view. It was the teaching of Carthage set over against the teaching of Rome ; and it was accepted by Pompeius, who in due time authorized Natalis of Oea to act for him at the final council, and to cast his vote in favour of rebaptizing. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 457 baptismal council had been held in the spring of 256, and it was from that council that the synodical letter to Stephen was sent. As Stephen had been in correspondence with the Eastern churches on this same question of the baptism of heretics, he must have had at his fingers' ends all the arguments in favour of his own view of the matter. Prima facie, one would suppose that his reply would reach Carthage before midsummer, and that would leave S. Cyprian two months to prepare for the autumn council, which met on September i. It would be very extraordinary if Stephen delayed his reply for five months, and then sent it so as just to miss the great council of eighty-five bishops, representing the whole of North Africa, which met in September to discuss the question. More- over, the harshness of Stephen's treatment of the legates of the September council would be easier to explain on the supposition that the council had reaffirmed the African practice in the teeth of Stephen's threat of ex- communication. If he had not yet made that threat, the discourtesy of his action would be inexplicable. 1 But to come to the strongest argument of all : S. Cyprian's own words in his opening speech at the September council appear to me to be con- clusive against Dr. Rivington's theory. S. Cyprian said, " It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion, if he differ from us. For no one of us setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror for ceth his colleagues to a necessity of obeying; inasmuch as every bishop, according to the absolute independence of his liberty and power, enjoys the right of forming his own judgement, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another." 2 It seems obvious that S. Cyprian, in these words, is referring to and is repudiating the claim of some unnamed person to set himself up as bishop of bishops, and who sought by tyrannical terror to enforce obedience to himself. And it is equally obvious that it is Stephen whom he has in mind. His words exactly describe Stephen's action ; and they prove that that action had already been taken. Baronius, 3 Tillemont, 4 Maran, 5 and the three Bollandists, Van den Bosche, 6 Bossue, 7 and De Smedt, 8 all agree in this interpretation of S. Cyprian's words. All honour to them for their candour ! The President of the Bollandists, Father de Smedt, writes as follows : " Nothing indeed was said [at the September council] about Stephen's letter and his mode of action, but 1 It is true that Dr. Rivington thinks (Prim. CA., p. 97) that there was no necessity for Stephen to admit the episcopal legates of the Church of North Africa to a conference, because "they did not come by appointment." It is hardly likely that this view of what would be allowable in accordance with the rules of Christian courtesy will find many defenders. Dr. Rivington, if he had been spared to bring out a new edition of his book, would, I feel sure, have withdrawn this argument. * See the prooemium to the Sententiae Episcoporum, Opp. S. Cypr., ed. Hartel, 435, 43- 3 Baron. Annall., s.a. 258, 42, ed. Antverp., 1617, 11. 521. 4 Tillemont, iv. 150. 5 Maran., Vit. S. Cypr. cap. xxxi., P. Z., torn. iv. col. 164. * Ada SS., torn. i. August., p. 117. 7 Ibid., torn. xii. Octobr., p. 480. 8 I mention here only Roman Catholic authorities. 458 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE If. nevertheless it is clear enough that they are held up to scorn (sugillantur) in Cyprian's opening speech." 1 As may be supposed, there is a general consensus of historical experts in favour of the view that Stephen's letter arrived at Carthage before the September council. It is true that Mattes takes Dr. Rivington's view, and that Hefele refrains from expressing a definite opinion ; but against Dr. Rivington must be set the names of Cardinal Baronius, 2 Tillemont, 3 Bishop Pearson,* Dom Maran, 5 Father Suyskens, Mgr. Freppel, 7 Arch- bishop Benson, 8 Father Bossue, 9 Mgr. Duchesne, 10 Father de Smedt, 11 Professor Jungmann, 12 and M. Aube. 13 It will require weightier argu- ments than Dr. Rivington has used to counterbalance the authority of a phalanx of that strength. NOTE 29 (see p. 66). Father de Smedt says, " Augustino schisma Donatistarum impugnanti illud maxime cordi erat, ut eis argumentum eriperet quod ex Cypriani, viri tantae apud Afros existimationis et auctoritatis, exemplo desumere potuissent, ideoque in eo totus versabatur ut ostenderet Cyprianum, quamvis cum Stephano circa quaestionem de validitate baptismi haereticorum dissentiret, noluisse tamen se ab ipsius et eorum qui cum ipso sentiebant communione separare." 14 NOTE 30 (see note 4 on p. 67). On S. Cyprian? s share in the trans- lation of S. Firmiliati's letter. Mr. E. W. Watson, in his admirable essay on the Style and Language of S. Cyprian?" says, " In Ep. Ixxv. 16 ' majores natu ' is one among many strong evidences against Cyprian as the original translator [the italics are mine], as is ' seniores ' in the same letter" (ii. 812, 22). But in the same essay Mr. Watson had previously said 17 that S. Cyprian "certainly had a hand in the translation of Ep. Ixxv., though that can only have been in improving a Latin version already made." All competent critics, whether Anglican, Romanist, or Protestant, appear to be agreed that S. Cyprian had a hand in the Latin translation of S. Firmilian's letter, as it has come down to us. Compare Abp. Benson's Cyprian, pp. 381-388. NOTE 31 (see note 6 on p. 67). Father de Smedt argues from S. 1 De Smedt, Dissert. Select., p. 234. 2 Baron., loc. cit. 3 Tillemont, iv. 153. 4 Pearson, Annales Cypr., p. 54. 5 Maran. Vit. S. Cypr. cap. xxx., P. L., iv. 159. 6 Ada SS., torn. iv. Septembr., pp. 299, 300. 7 Freppel, Saint Cyprien, p. 415. 8 Smith and Wace, D. C. B., s.v. Cyprian, vol. i. p. 750 ; and Abp. Benson's Cyprian, p. 361. 9 Ada SS., torn. xii. Octobr., p. 480. Duchesne, Origines Chrttiennes, p. 435. De Smedt, Dissert. Select., p. 234. Jungmann., Dissert. Select., pp. 329, 330. 3 Aube, V Eglise et t Etat dans la seconde moitti du Hi' siecle, p. 326. De Smedt, Dissert. Select., pp. 242, 243. Studia Biblica, iv. 260. Opp., ii. 814, 30. " Stud. Bibl., iv. 197, n. 2. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II. 459 Cyprian's Epistle to Ouintus (Ep. Ixxi.) that Stephen's controversy with the Orientals preceded his controversy with Cyprian. 1 NOTE 32 (see p. 70). On the question ivliether Pope Stephen suffered martyrdom. It may be questioned whether Valerian's edict of persecution had been published so early as August 2, 257, which was the date of Stephen's death. That edict forbade under pain of death the holding of " conciliabula " and all ingress into the cemeteries or catacombs. 2 Under those circumstances it is difficult to see how Xystus II. could have been elected and consecrated, if the edict had been published before his election and consecration. More than a year elapsed after the martyrdom of S. Fabian before his successor, S. Cor- nelius, could be elected. And similarly, very nearly a year elapsed after the martyrdom of S. Xystus before his successor, S. Dionysius, could be appointed. 3 Now we know that Valerian's edict had arrived in Carthage by August 30, because on that day S. Cyprian was, in accordance with its provisions, exiled to Curubis. 4 We cannot therefore put its publication in Rome later than August 25 or 26, 5 and, on the other hand, we are not obliged to put it earlier. The question arises whether it is possible to suppose that S. Xystus was consecrated before August 25. To that question it seems that an affirmative answer ought to be given. For the Acta S. Stephani, published by the Bollandists, 6 mention that S. Xystus was ordained as Stephen's successor on the ninth of the Kalends of September, that is to say, on August 24. These Acta are no doubt late and un- trustworthy, but it does not follow that they may not have preserved correctly the date of Xystus' consecration. The different papal lists seem to vary considerably, the one from the other, as to the duration of the episcopate of Xystus, so that no certain date for his consecration is derivable from that source. 7 This leaves the date supplied by the Bollandist Acta in possession ; and we may conclude that it is probable that Valerian's edict was not published in Rome until August 25. If that be so, it will follow that Stephen's death, which occurred on August 2, cannot have been brought about by the edict of persecution, and we may well suppose that he died peaceably by a natural death. 8 In 1 Cf. De Smedt, Dissert. Select. , p. 226. Perhaps the two controversies went on more or less part passu ; but there can be no doubt that Stephen's excommuni- cation of the Orientals preceded his excommunication of the Africans. See p. 463. 2 See the Ada Proconsularia of the martyrdom of S. Cyprian, I (Opp., ed. Hartel, Append, p. cxi.). 3 The Church of Rome was a very large body, and for the election of a bishop it was necessary that a full meeting should be held, not only of the clergy, but also of the laity. Such a meeting would be almost impossible when the cemeteries were closed, and meetings were forbidden under pain of death. 4 See the Acta Proconsularia, ut supra. 4 Archbishop Benson (Cyprian, p. xxv.) says, " A sailing vessel running before a fair wind from Ostia could reach Carthage on the second day." 6 Acta SS., torn. i. August., p. 144. 7 See Bishop Lightfoot's S. Clement of Rome, vol. i. pp. 285, 290, edit. 1890. 8 Compare Aube, op. cit., pp. 331-334, 365, 366. Archbishop Benson thinks that the edict was published in Rome before August 2, but he nevertheless holds that Stephen was not martyred, but died a natural death in Rome (see Abp. Benson's Cyprian, p. 475). The archbishop does not seem to notice the difficulty of supposing that the edict was published before the election of Xystus. 460 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX A. the Philocalian collection of 354 the name of Stephen occurs in the Depos. Episcoporum, and not in the Depos. Martiritmj whereas the name of Xystus appears in the latter. 1 NOTE 33 (see p. 71). S. Cyprian never retracted. In regard to a supposed retractation of Cyprian before his death, Father de Smedt drily observes, "Cyprianum ante mortem errorem suum retractasse, magis pie quam probabiliter assereretur." 2 Mgr. Duchesne, writing about the reunion of Rome with Carthage and Caesarea in the time of S. Xystus, points out that it was Rome that gave way, and not Cyprian or Firmilian. He says, " L'union ne se retablit pas aux de"pens de 1'usage de Saint Cyprien et de Saint Firmilien ; Saint Basile au iv e siecle appliquait la meme discipline que son celebre pre"decesseur. Elle e"tait encore en vigueur dans les e"glises africaines au temps du concile d'Arles (314). " 3 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX A. NOTE 34 (see p. 73). In S. Cypriarfs time the African custom of re- baptizing prevailed in the larger part of the Church. I have ventured to say in the text that it is probable that Stephen excommunicated a majority of all the Catholic churches then in existence. On the other hand, in Dr. Rivington's book, Authority, may be read the following passage : " It is notorious that Stephen did not stand alone. S. Augustine says that S. Cyprian's party consisted of ' some fifty Orientals, and seventy or a few more Africans, against many hundreds of bishops, to whom this error was displeasing, throughout the whole world.'" 4 The trustful reader who, without verification, is willing to accept as S. Augustine's the words which Dr. Rivington professes to quote from that Father, would naturally suppose that S. Augustine meant that hundreds of contemporary bishops sided with Stephen against Cyprian. But such an impression would be wholly erroneous, and would be due to the very curious method of trans- lation which Dr. Rivington has in this case adopted. S. Augustine's words are, " Contra tot millia episcoporum, quibus hie error in toto orbe displicuit." 5 It is obviously most misleading to translate "tot millia" "many hundreds? Why not go a little further and translate " tot millia,' 3 " many decades," or " many units " ? As it is certain that in the third century the Catholic episcopate did not number "many thousands of bishops," S. Augustine is clearly speaking, not of Cyprian's contemporaries, but of all the generations of bishops who had held office in the Church during the century and a half which intervened between Cyprian's age and his own. Even when we have made this correction, it will still remain the fact that S. Augustine was misinformed in regard 1 See Lightfoot, op. '/., pp. 249, 251. - Dissert. Select., p. 234. 3 Origines Chretiennes, p. 439. 4 Authority, p. 105, 2nd edit. * S. Augustin., Contra Cresconium Donatistam, lib. iii. cap. iii., Opp., ed. Ben., torn. ix. col. 437. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX A. 461 to the view which the Easterns l took of this question. 2 The great majority of the Eastern churches from the time of S. Cyprian until this nineteenth century have denied in principle the validity of heretical baptism, though in the case of some particular heresies they have been prepared to dispense with re-baptization, and to admit converts from those heresies by confirmation. The historical proof of this fact has been often set forth, and the reader may be specially referred to the treatise on the Minister of Baptism, by the Rev. W. Elwin. If we con- sider the state of things which existed at the time when the baptismal controversy first broke out, we shall find that the bishops of Italy, Egypt, and perhaps Palestine, 3 were on the side of Stephen ; and to these must probably be added the few bishops in Spain, Gaul, and perhaps Greece ; while on the side of Cyprian must be reckoned the bishops of Africa, Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the further East. 4 I should sup- pose that there can be no doubt that the number of bishops who sided with Cyprian was considerably larger than the number of those who sided with Stephen ; and, if we take into consideration the fact that, as Duchesne says, "Christians were incomparably more numerous in the East than in the West," 5 it will be seen that Stephen had entered on a course which would have ended in an attempt to excommunicate the larger part of the Catholic Church. When S. Augustine speaks of " fifty 1 Archbishop Benson {Cyprian, p. 379) says, "No one doubts Eusebius's ignorance of the West, or Augustine's of the East." 2 There can be no doubt that S. Augustine imagined that Stephen was sup- ported by a majority of the episcopate. Cf. S. Aug., De Unic. Baft, contr. Petil. cap. xiv., Opp., ed. Ben., ix. 538. But, as Fr. De Smedt says very truly, "In hac re ejus [sc. Augustini] auctoritas non est major quam scriptoris recentioris " (Dissert. Select., p. 242). 3 Duchesne (Oritfines Chretiennes, p. 433) says, " Sur ce point, comme sur beaucoup d'autres, la Palestine parait avoir suivi 1'usage d'Alexandrie. Je le conclus de la maniere dont Eusebe (H.E., vii. 2) parle de la coutume romaine." *But for a passage which looks the other way, see S. Cyrill. Hierosol. Procatech., cap. vii. 4 Duchesne (loc. '/.), after having mentioned that the African rule about re- baptizing heretics was in force in Asia Minor, goes on to say, " Elle etait egale- ment observee a Antioche et en Syrie." No doubt the use of Antioch prevailed in Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and the East, which were all in a measure subordinate to Antioch. Compare Duchesne (Origines Chretiennes, p. 337, n. l). One must note that S. Denys the Great, in a letter to the Roman priest, Philemon (ap. Euseb. H.E., vii. 7), says that the Cyprianic opinion was adopted "long ago in the most populous churches." 5 Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 21. As regards the comparative number of bishops who sided respectively with Stephen and with Cyprian, it may be observed that, according to Bingham (Antiquities, book ix. chap. v. I, Works, edit. 1843, vol. iii. p. 126) there were about 300 bishoprics in the seventeen provinces of Italy ; whereas it is computed that in Africa there were no less than 470 (Cf. P. L., torn. xi. col. 834). It will be understood that these figures repre- sent the numbers, not in the third century, but in the fifth century or later. But the proportion was probably much the same in the third century. In the summer or autumn of 251 S. Cornelius assembled sixty bishops in synod, who must have been mainly Italians ; whereas a few years before, in the time of Cyprian's pre- decessor, Donatus, ninety African bishops had deposed Privatus of Lambesis. Similarly, Dr. Neale (General Introduction, vol. i. pp. 115, 116) gives a list of 104 bishoprics subject to Alexandria, but he says (p. 126) that " in the time of its glory, Antioch seems to have had about 250 suffragan sees," and the numbers in Asia Minor were very large. 462 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX A. Orientals," he is either mistaken or he may be referring, as De Valois : supposes, to the numbers who were present at the Council of Iconium, twenty-five years before Stephen began the quarrel. NOTE 35 (see note i on p. 75). On the meaning of a certain phrase in Eusebius* History. After reading Dr. Rivington's note (Prim. Ck., p. 81), in which he discusses the meaning of the words, us ou5e eitfivois K.oiva>rfi, words which occur in a passage quoted by Eusebius 2 from a letter addressed by S. Denys to S. Xystus of Rome, in which S. Denys is summarizing a letter written by Stephen, I wrote to Professor Jebb of Cambridge, asking him to be so kind as to give me his opinion as to the meaning of the Greek expression. In his reply Sir Richard Jebb says, ''The words of Stephen, as quoted by Dionysius, would naturally mean that, from the time at which he was writing, he would refuse to com- municate with the bishops in question. The ground of this resolve is described as existent, not as contingent : eireiS^ . . . ara/fairrifovirc. Of course the Greek words do not actually exclude some qualifying, but un- expressed, thought, such as, ' he would (ultimately) cease to communicate with them,' if they persisted in re-baptizing. But this is not the natural or obvious meaning. If we said in English, ' he declared that he would not communicate with them, since they re-baptized heretics,' the plain sense would be that he intended to take such a course thenceforth. The case is precisely the same with the Greek words here. (It may be noted in passing that the use of the future participle by Dionysius, or Stephen, is not in accordance with pure classical Greek idiom, though it was very common in days when the Latin use of the future participle had infected Greek usage. A Greek writer of the fifth or fourth century B.C., would have said, not KoivuvTifftev, but fj.f\\d>v Koivuvfjfftiv, or Koivuvftv Pov\6/*fvos, or the like.)" In a second letter Dr. Jebb writes, " You are quite at liberty to quote my letter, provided you make it clear that I was dealing with the verbal question only, and not expressing any opinion concerning the historical facts to which Dionysius refers. I am not competent to form any judgment as to what Stephen actually did ; and I should not wish to appear as taking any side in the controversy on that question. But as to the natural meaning of the words which you quote, I have no doubt at all." I am very grateful to Sir Richard Jebb for answering my question so fully, and for allowing me to make his answer public ; and I naturally rejoice to find that my own interpretation, which is also that of Baronius and Mansi, is supported by the judgement of so distinguished a scholar. NOTE 36 (see note 2 on p. 75). I have said in the text that S. Denys of Alexandria in that fragment of a letter of his to S. Xystus II. of Rome, which is quoted by Eusebius (H. E., vii. 5), "dealt entirely with Stephen's relations with the Eastern bishops, and said nothing of his relations with the Church of North Africa." This statement is literally true; but 1 See a note of De Valois' on Euseb. H. ., vii. 5, and compare Abp. Benson's Cyprian, p. 340. 2 H. ., vii. 5. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX A. 463 nevertheless the word ou8 in the expression &s ouSe fKflvois KOWUV^O-WV implies that in a previous passage of this letter S. Denys had been referring to other persons with whom Stephen had refused to com- municate, because they re-baptized heretics ; and there can be no doubt that in that previous passage, which Eusebius does not quote, S. Denys had been speaking of Stephen's rupture of relations with S. Cyprian and the African bishops. It is important to notice that S. Denys by his use of the word irp6repov (previously) implies that the excommunication of the Easterns preceded the excommunication of the Africans. NOTE 37 (see note 2 on p. 77). Maran's principal argument in favour of his view that the African legates, who were rejected by Stephen, were sent by the second council on baptism and not by the third, depends on his theory that, if the legates had been sent by the third council, which was opened on the first of September, there would not have been time for S. Cyprian's deacon, Rogatianus, to carry his letter to S. Firmilian in Cappadocia and to return to Carthage before winter had set in. Arch- bishop Benson, who accepts Maran's view that the legates were sent by the second council, makes it clear that he does not attribute force to Maran's argument from the lateness of the season, when the third council met. He says (Cyprian, p. 373, n. i), "Supposing the delegates to have left Carthage about the end of the first week of September, there were eight weeks for them to go to Rome, to return to Carthage, then for Rogatian to make his way to Caesarea and be back in Carthage ''before winter] which, for navigation purposes, began at this era about November 3. This would be time enough." l It does not seem to me to be certain that Rogatianus must necessarily have got back to Carthage before November 3. Aube (VEglise et VEtat dans la seconde moitie" du Hi* siecle, edit. 1886, p. 329) thinks it sufficient to say, "Ce fut seulement a la fin de I'anne'e 256 que la rdponse de Firmilien arriva a Carthage." Dr. Rivington agrees (Prim. Ch., ch. viii.) that the legation to Rome, which was repulsed by Stephen, was subsequent to the third council. The mission of Rogatianus to Caesarea was unquestionably posterior to the repulse of the legation. NOTE 38 (see note 3 on p. 77). Father De Smedt discusses the question " Utrum Stephanus in Cyprianum et Firmilianum excommunicationis sententiam tulerit?" 2 He decides that we must come to the same conclusion as in the case of the controversy between Victor and the Asians. 3 In that case after a full discussion of the various aspects of the matter, he had concluded that Victor had deprived the Asians of his communion. 4 Hence it follows that De Smedt holds that Stephen deprived Cyprian and Firmilian of his communion. 1 Compare also Abp. Benson's Cyprian, p. 380. * Dissert. Select., pp. 238-244. 3 Op. cit., p. 242. 4 Ibid., p. 73. 464 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX B. NOTE 39 (see note 2 on p. 81). That S. Cyprian regarded the Catholic Church as " the root and mother " of the separate local churches can be shown demonstratively by a passage in his treatise Ad Fortunatum (de exhortatione martyrii}, where, having dwelt on the mystical number of the seven martyred Maccabees, and having pointed out that the number corresponds with that of the seven churches and their angels, to whom the Lord sent His commands and instructions in the Apocalypse, he goes on to say, "With the seven children there is evidently conjoined also the mother, their origin and root, who subsequently bare the seven churches, she herself having been founded first and alone by the voice of the Lord upon Peter." 1 Obviously it was not the local Roman Church but the Church universal, who bare in her womb the seven churches of Asia, and who, as S. Cyprian implies, was their " origo et radix." NOTE 40 (see note 3 on p. 81). S. Cyprian says that the Novatian party at Rome had " refused the bosom and embrace of their root and mother." So at the third Council of Carthage on the baptism of heretics Felix of Uthina (26) speaks of " omnes haeretici qui ad sinum matris ecclesiae adcurrunt." 2 Manifestly Felix is speaking of the bosom of the Catholic Church, not of the local Roman Church. The expression occurs in a speech, in which he is opposing the teaching and practice of the Roman Church. And who can doubt that the same interpretation must be given to the exactly parallel expression used by S. Cyprian in his letter to S. Cornelius? 3 Evidently Mgr. Duchesne takes that view, for he quotes and glosses the passage thus, " Non tantum . . . matris [Ecclesiae] sinum adque conplexum recusavit." 4 NOTE 41 (see note i on p. 83). Bossuet's interpretation of the Cyprianic expression, " matrix et radix." Bossuet, when he is interpreting S. Cyprian, understands the " matrix et radix" as I do, of the Church's unity. 5 1 "Cum septem liberis plane copulatur et mater origo et radix, quae ecclesias septem postmodum peperit, ipsa prima et una super Petrum Domini voce fundata " (Ad Fortunatum, cap. xi., P. L., iv. 694, 695). I have followed in this quotation Baluze's reading, Petrum, and not Hartel's reading, petram. On the true reading in this passage, see Mr. E. W. Watson's remarks (Studia Biblica, torn. iv. p. 256). 2 Opp. S. Cypr., ed. Hartel, i. 446. 3 Cf. Ep. xlv. ad Cornelium, I, Opp., ii. 600. 4 Duchesne, Origines Chretiennes, p. 420, n. Dr. Rivington's gloss (Prim. Ch., p. 464) on the passage is very different. After quoting S. Cyprian's ex- pression, " the bosom and embrace of the root and mother," he appends, as an explanation, the words " the legitimate bishop," adding, " For the legitimate bishop is the root of the Church in each region." To which gloss one might reply by the question, Is the legitimate bishop also the mother of the Church in each region ? For it is obvious that a true gloss must suit " mater " as well as " radix." 5 Instruction Pastorale sur les Prowesses de FEglise (CEuvres, edit. 1816, xxii. 411, 412). c.v. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX B. 465 He nowhere suggests that S. Cyprian means by the " matrix et radix" the local Church of Rome or the see of Rome. When he speaks of " cette tige, cette racine de Punite," he is referring chiefly to the unity which binds into one all the successive generations of the Church through the tradition of the one faith and through the succession of the apostolic ministry, though he refers also to the unity which knits together the various churches existing in different places at any one epoch. I have no objection to describe one aspect of Bossuet's view of S. Cyprian's meaning in the words of Dr. Rivington, when he says that the " root" "is the Church putting herself forth in a long chain of teachers." 1 I do not see that anywhere in his discussion of S. Cyprian's teaching does Bossuet attribute to that Father the view that this operation must be carried out "within the unity of the Chair of Peter." No doubt that was Bossuet's own theory, but he does not, so far as I am aware, impute it in his Pastoral Instruction to S. Cyprian. It is really too bad of Dr. Rivington to say that " then Bossuet proceeds to explain this root of unity more fully," whereupon he quotes a passage from Bossuet's Instruc- tion Pastorale, eleven pages further on, 2 in which the Bishop of Meaux gives his own personal views, 3 of the relation of the papacy to ecclesi- astical unity, saying nothing about S. Cyprian or about the expression " radix et matrix." In the course of those intervening eleven pages Bossuet had discussed the opinions of Tertullian, S. Clement of Alex- andria, and S. Bernard, and also other matters ; so that the later passage is in no sort of way an explanation of the Cyprianic phrase. NOTE 42 (see note 2 on p. 83). Dr. Rivington thinks that " no one would talk of acknowledging the Catholic Church." 4 But surely, when speaking of a place, where there were rival bodies, it would be most natural to tell people intending to travel, that they ought to make inquiries, and to be careful to acknowledge and hold fast to that body which enjoyed, or clearly had a right to enjoy, the communion of the Catholic episcopate. By acting in this way the travellers would, as far as in them lay, acknowledge and hold fast to her who was the root and womb of their regenerate life. Dr. Rivington also thinks that it is "the bishop, who is the root and womb of the Church." 5 I find it hard to believe that any instance can be found of a bishop being called " the womb of the Church." It is a very strange way of describing him. But it is not at all strange to speak of the Catholic Church as the root and womb of her children. Apparently Dr. Rivington thinks that S. Cyprian is speaking only of the instructions which he gave to people sailing " to Rome." 7 But there is nothing in S. Cyprian's forty-eighth letter to suggest this limitation, although no doubt a large number of those, who sailed from Africa, would 1 Prim. Ch., p. 466. 9 (Euvres, xxii. 423, 424. 3 Bossuet illustrates his view by quoting a passage from S. Optatus of Mileum. 4 Prim. Ch. y p. 465. 5 Loc . cit. * S. Cyprian uses the word "matrix" to denote the Catholic Church in his Ep. Ixxi. ad Quinttim, 2 (Opp., ii. 772), and also in his treatise, De Catholicae Eccksiac Unitate, 23 (Opp., i. 231). 7 Print. CA., u.s. 2 H 466 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX B. be on their way to Rome. S. Cyprian's advice was so worded that it would be applicable in any place where schismatic bodies were established alongside of the Catholic Church, even though there might happen to be a vacancy in the Catholic see. NOTE 43 (see note 3 on p. 83). S. Cypriaifs use of the genitive of apposition. One may compare the parallel expression, " radicem adque originem traditionis dominicae " in Ep. Ixiii. ad Caecilium,^ i. 1 It is clear from 2 that the traditio dominica is equivalent to " quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecit," and the expression " traditionis dominicae " is in the genitive of apposition. Similarly in Ep. Ixxiv. ad Pompeium, TO/ S. Cyprian says, " Si ad divinae traditionis caput et originem revertamur." A comparison of 10 with u seems to show that the expression "divinae traditionis" is also in the genitive of apposition. But in fact this use of the genitive case is very common in S. Cyprian's writings. NOTE 44 (see note 2 on p. 84). On the meaning of the word " caput " in certain Cyprianic passages. " We who hold the fountain-head (caput) and root." 3 It is clear to me that the word "caput," as used by S. Cyprian in this passage and in some other parallel passages, ought to be translated "fountain-head" or "source." Readers of Horace will remember the line in the first ode of the first book, in which occur the words, " Nunc ad aquae lene caput sacrae." And there is a sentence in S. Cyprian's letter to Pompeius, 4 in which there can be no question that "caput" means " fountain-head." S. Cyprian says, "ut si canalis aquam ducens . . . subito deficiat, nonne ad fontem pergitur, ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur, utrumne arescentibus venis in capite unda siccaverit," 5 etc. But this metaphor of a man seeking at the fountain-head the reason for the failure of the water is brought in by S. Cyprian to explain what he had been saying in the previous clause of the same sentence, in which the following words occur : " Si ad divinae traditionis caput et originem revertamur, cessat error humanus." 6 It is obvious that "caput" here has the same meaning of " fountain-head " or " source," and one sees at once how natural it is to couple " caput " in that sense with " origo." But this same combination of "caput" with " origo " occurs in S. Cyprian's treatise De Zelo et Livore, 1 and also in his better-known treatise, De Cath. Eccl. Unit.? where the Church is called " the fountain-head and source of truth " (veritatis caput adque originem}. Similarly the same combina- tion occurs in two earlier passages of the treatise on Unity ; first of all in 3, 9 where S. Cyprian says that men, deceived by Satan, leave the 1 Opp., ii. 701. 2 Ibid., ii. 808. 3 S. Cypr. Ep. Ixxiii. ad Jubaianum, 2, Opp., ii. 779. 4 Ep. Ixxiv. 10, Opp., ii. 808. s " As if a conduit conveying water . . . should suddenly fail, do we not go to the fountain, that there the reason of the failure may be ascertained, whether, the springs having run dry, the water has dried up at the fountain-head . ? " 8 "If we return to the fountain-head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases." ' 3> Opp., i. 421. " 12, Ofp., i. 220. 9 Opp., i. 212. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX B. 467 Church and join the sects, " when they do not have recourse to the source of truth (ad veritatis originem}, and do not seek the fountain-head (nee caput quaeritur), 1 and do not guard the doctrine of the heavenly teaching " (magisterii caelestis) ; and secondly, in 5, where, contrasting the unity of the whole Church with the multiplicity of her children, he says that the Church " pours abroad her streams which flow forth abundantly, yet that there is one fountain-head and one source and one mother having an abundance of children, the issue of her fruitfulness " (unum tamen caflutest et origo una et una mater fecunditatis successibus copiosa). 2 Here " caput " and "origo" are joined with " mater," and that conjunction would sug- gest that we might find instances of the combination of either of these words or both of them, with " matrix " or with "radix." 3 As a matter of fact we find in Ad Fortunatum 4 " origo et radix," in Ad Demetrianum^ "radicis adque originis," in the letter to Caecilius 6 "radicem adque originem," and finally in the letter to Jubaianus, 7 " caput et radicem ; " and this last is the passage which gave rise to this discussion. It appears, therefore, that " caput " is used in this passage in the sense of " fountain- head " or " source." 8 NOTE 45 (see note4 on p. 84). Although Jubaianus, no less than Cyprian and his fellow-bishops of Africa and Numidia, was in communion with the one Catholic Church, yet Dr. Rivington is mistaken in his idea 9 that Jubaianus is included in the "nos." 10 He had not as yet joined Cyprian and his adherents in drawing the conclusion that the baptism adminis- tered by Novatian was invalid. All through this early part of the letter " nos " is contrasted with " tu." NOTE 46 (see note 5 on pp. 84, 85). A celebrated Cyprianic passage guarded from misinterpretation. It seems almost incredible, but it is the 1 It is plain that Dr. Rivington is mistaken, when, commenting on the words, "nee caput quaeritur," he says (Prim. Ch., p. 61), "The head is the bishop viewed as the heir of the promises made to Peter." In an earlier passage of his book {Prim. Ch., p. 49), Dr. Rivington had given a completely different interpretation of the words " nee caput quaeritur," an interpretation which in its substance is not far from the truth, though it is based on a wrong view of the meaning of " caput." 2 Opp., i. 214. 3 "Radix" is joined with "mater" in Ep. xlv. ad Cornelium, I, Opp., ii. 600, and with " matrix" in Ep. xlviii. ad Conn-Hum, 3, Opp., ii. 607. 1 n, Opp., i. 338. * 2, Opp., i. 352. 6 Ep. Ixiii. ad Caecilium, I, Opp., ii. 701. 7 Ep. Ixxiii. ad Jtibaianutn, 2, Opp., ii. 779. 8 Dr. Rivington tries (Prim. Ch., p. 464) to bolster up his theory that in this passage the "caput et radix" of the Church is Pope Stephen, by quoting S. Cyprian's words to the effect that the party of Novatian had set up " an adulterous and opposed head outside the Church " (see Ep. xlv. ad Cornelium, i, Opp., ii. 600). But in that letter to Cornelius, written five years earlier, the word " caput " is used in the sense of " head " or bishop of the local Church of Rome. The schismatics had made Novatian the pseudo-bishop of Rome. Whereas here S. Cyprian is speaking of the Catholic Church as the fountain-head and root of individual Christians. The word "caput" is used in a totally different sense, so that the two passages have no bearing, the one on the other. Prim. Ch., p. 85, n. 2. 10 " Nos autem qui ecclesiae unius caput et radicem tenemus " (Ep. Ixxiii. 2). 468 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX B. fact that Dr. Rivington, commenting on the words in S. Cyprian's treatise on the Unity of the Church, " unum tamen caput est et origo una et una mater fecunditatis successibus copiosa," 1 glosses them as follows : "meaning the Church and Peter, whom Christ instituted as the ' origin of unity.' " He goes on to say that in that passage S. Cyprian " sees in the legitimate bishop the Peter for the time being." 2 Those who are familiar with the paragraph in question will remember that S. Peter is not mentioned in it ; nor is a word said about "the legitimate bishop" being " the Peter for the time being." The statements in Dr. Rivington's gloss are pure romance. The passage, which gave rise to this astounding comment, together with the sentences which immediately precede it, grows out of and is intended to illustrate the following statement : " The Church is one, and she is spread abroad far and wide, so as to become a multitude, through the increase of her fruitfulness." S. Cyprian follows up this statement by a series of analogies taken from nature, which emphasize the contrast between the unity of the Church and the multi- plicity of her progeny. The Church is compared to the one sun, and to the one tree, and to the one spring, and to the one mother ; while we, her children, are compared to the many rays, and to the many branches, and to the many streams, and to the many descendants. But it will be best to give the passage in full. It runs thus : " As there are many rays of the sun, yet but one light ; and as there are many branches of the tree, yet but one oak secured by its tenacious root ; and as when from one spring there flow down many streams, although multiplicity seems to be diffused through the bountifulness of the overflowing abundance, nevertheless unity is preserved in the source (in origine). Separate a ray of the sun from its body [of light], the unity of the light suffers no division ; break a branch from the tree, the broken branch will not be able to bud ; cut off a stream from the spring, the stream so cut off dries up. So also the Church, flooded with the light of the Lord, puts forth her rays all over the whole world ; nevertheless it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor does the unity of the body suffer division. So she [the Church] stretches out her branches over the whole earth by the abundance of her productiveness ; she extends far and wide her streams issuing forth in copious outflow : nevertheless there is one fountain- head (caput) and one source (origo) and one mother prolific in children, the issue of her fruitfulness. By her bringing forth we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her life we are quickened." 3 It will be seen that there is no reference here to the "legitimate bishop" as being " the Peter for the time being," nor to " Peter whom Christ instituted as ' the origin of unity.' " The passage is entirely taken up with the relation of the Church as a whole in her unity * to the children of the 1 S. Cypr. de Cath. Eccl. Unit., 5, Opp., i. 214. 2 Prim. Ch., p. 464. 3 S. Cypr., loc. cit. 4 So Dom Maran, in the preface to the Benedictine S. Cyprian (p. vii.), speaking of the passage of the De Unitate, quoted in the text, rightly says, " non ecclesiae particular!*, sed universalis sive catholicae unitas describitur ; " and again a little lower down Dom Maran, speaking of that same passage, says, " Sanctus martyr unum toto orbe episcopatum commendat." ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX B. 469 Church in their multiplicity. Peter, in S. Cyprian's view, was the first- called Apostle, 1 and so for a transient moment the Church's unity was embodied in him, and thus he was the historical commencement of that unity. 2 In that sense he was the " origo unitatis ; " and S. Cyprian dwells on the fact in the preceding section of this treatise. 3 But here he is dealing, not with the historical commencement (origo) of the Church's unity, but with the Church in her unity as the perennial source (origo) of her children in their multiplicity. NOTE 47 (see note I on p. 85). Dr. Rivington, commenting on my words " S. Cyprian was opposing Pope Stephen," 4 says, " This is an anachro- nism. Stephen had not yet appeared on the scene." 5 That, however, is not the view taken by the learned President of the Bollandists. He agrees with Archbishop Tizzani that even in S. Cyprian's epistle to Quintus, an epistle which was written some time before the epistle to Jubaianus, " it seems clear enough that Cyprian treats with scorn (sugillare) the decision on the subject of the baptism of heretics, which had been published by Stephen." It is true, no doubt, that Stephen's decision in the African controversy was sent to Carthage after the letter to Jubaianus had been written ; but, as Father De Smedt points out, the decision, which was treated with scorn in the letter to Quintus, would be the decision pro- mulgated by Stephen in the controversy about re-baptism, which he had been carrying on with the Easterns. 7 Stephen had in that controversy already declared his view about re-baptism, and had tried to enforce that view by excommunicating the Oriental bishops, who refused to conform to it. So that it is not correct to say that, when the letter to Jubaianus was written, " Stephen had not yet appeared on the scene." Moreover it seems pretty clear, as De Smedt also points out, that in the concluding paragraphs of the letter to Jubaianus Cyprian " is carping at Stephen." H NOTE 48 (see note i on p. 88). It is true that in the greater part of his treatise, De Unitate, S. Cyprian is dealing rather with the unity of each local church than with the unity of the whole Catholic Church. 9 Nevertheless 1 But see the note on p. 88. - Similarly S. Cyprian speaks (De Bono Patientiae, IO, Off., i. 403) of Abel as initiating the "originem martyrii," because, historically, he was the first martyr. 3 De Cath. Ecd. Unit., 4, Opp., i. 213. 4 I was speaking of the earlier part of the year 256, when S. Cyprian's letter to Jubaianus was written. 4 Prim. Ch. t p. 85, n. 2. 8 De Smedt, Dissert. Sel., p. 226. Compare also Archbishop Benson's Cyprian, pp. 346, 350. 7 Or, if not the final decision, then one of the earlier letters of the controversy. 8 Dissert. Sel., p. 233. 9 If Dr. Rivington is speaking of the larger portion of S. Cyprian's treatise and not of the whole of it, he is right in saying (Prim. C/i., p. 57), that the circum- stances under which he wrote it " would not necessarily, nor even naturally, lead him to the subject of papal jurisdiction ; " for, as Dr. Rivington truly observes, " It was the rights of bishops over the laity, and the test of a lawful occupant of any see, Rome included, which occupied his [Cyprian's] attention." It is for that very reason that Dr. Rivington must be held to misrepresent S. Cyprian's teach- ing, when (Prim. Ch., pp. 61, 62) he credits the holy martyr with the doctrine 470 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON APPENDIX D. there is one most important passage, contained in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, in which the holy martyr treats of the unity of the Church Universal, of " the one and undivided episcopate," and of the one Church putting forth her rays "all over the whole world." In that passage he quotes the great Petrine text about " the rock " and " the keys," but he interprets it of Peter as the historical commencement of the episcopate, not of Peter and his local successors at Rome as the perennial fountain of a unity secured by their supreme jurisdiction and by their being the necessary centre of communion. I f S. Cyprian had believed in the modern papal claims, he must have mentioned them in that passage. NOTE 49 (see note 2 on p. 88). S. Cyprian andS. Augustine taught that S. Peter symbolized the ChurcKs unity. Dr. Rivington {Prim. Ch., p. 61) says, " Mr. Puller does not venture to translate the word ' manifest ' by ' symbolize,' but throughout he appears to understand them as equivalent." I certainly do think that, when S. Cyprian in his De Unitate ( 4, Opp.^ i. 21 2, 213) says that our Lord arranged for His Church to start from one man, namely S. Peter, " ut unitatem manifestaret," or again " ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur," he means that Christ made this arrangement in order that the unity of the Church might be symbolized or typified or figured by S. Peter. The same thought occurs in S. Cyprian's Epistle to Jubaianus, where he says, "To Peter, in the first place, upon whom he built the Church, and from whom he appointed and showed forth the origin of unity (et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit\ the Lord gave that power, namely, that whatsoever he should loose on earth should be loosed in heaven." 1 And it is to be noted that S. Augustine, when quoting this passage, substitutes the words " in typo unitatis " for the words " unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit." ' 2 S. Augustine rightly sees that, when in this group of passages S. Cyprian uses such words as " ostendere," " manifestare," " monstrare," he means to imply that S. Peter was appointed to be the type or symbol or figure of the Church's unity. And S. Augustine not only rightly understood S. Cyprian's meaning, 3 but he also, as might that the rent garment of Ahijah, which fitly symbolized the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah, could not symbolize the Church militant here on earth, because that Church in its entirety is always visibly one. That is not the teaching of S. Cyprian. He held, indeed, as we also hold, that there is a most real unity of the Catholic Church, resulting primarily from her union with our Lord, which is incapable of division ; but, when he applies the contrast between Ahijah's garment and Christ's seamless robe to the visible state of the Church on earth, he applies it to the visible unity of each local Church, not to the visible unity of the whole Church militant. When making this application he says (De Unitate, 8, Opp., i. 216), " Who then is such a criminal and traitor, who is so inflamed by the madness of discord, as to think aught can rend, or to venture on rending, the unity of God, the garment of the Lord, the Church of Christ ? He Himself warns us in His gospel and teaches, saying, ' And there shall be one flock and one shepherd.' And does anyone think that there can in one place be either many shepherds or many flocks ? " Thus S. Cyprian's application of the type is not to the Church Universal, but to the Church " in one place." 1 S. Cypr. Ep. Ixxiii. ad Jubaianum, 7, Opp., ii. 783. 2 Cf. S. August., De Baptismo, lib. iii. x cap. xvii., P. L. , xliii. 149. 3 In an article entitled Uidee de I' Eglise dans saint Cyprien, which was published in the Revue a* Histoire et de Litteralure Religieuses for November, 1896, the learned author, who writes under the nom de plume of J. Delarochelle, and ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE III. 471 be expected, agreed with his teaching. So in his Enarratio on the io8th (Heb. logth) Psalm, he says, " For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is admitted to have represented in a figure (cujus ille agnoscitur in figura gestasse personam), on account of the pre-eminence which he enjoyed among the disciples (propter primatum quern in discipulis habuit) ; as it is written, ' I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and other passages of the like purport : so Judas doth in a certain way represent those Jews who were enemies of Christ." 1 And again in his fiftieth Homily on S. John's Gospel S. Augustine says, " Peter, when he received the keys, symbolized the holy Church " 2 (Ecclesiam sanctam significavit}. Once more, in his i4Qth Sermon, S. Augustine says, " Since in symbolic meaning (in significatione) Peter was representing the Church, what was given to him alone, was given to the Church. Therefore Peter was bearing the figure of the Church " 3 (figitram gestabat Ecclesiae). NOTE 50 (see note 2 on p. 90). In illustration of what is said in the text, the speech made at the third Carthaginian Council on baptism by Fortunatus of Thuccaboris may be consulted. 4 He refers to the Church being founded on Peter, in order that he may conclude from that premiss that the power of baptizing has been committed to the bishops. 5 It must be remembered that this council was held at a moment when the ecclesiastical relations of Rome and Africa were very strained, and when in fact the pope was preparing to separate the African bishops from his communion. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE III. NOTE 51 (see p. 96). In primitive times, not only the Roman popes but also other bishops used to write admonitory letters to foreign churches. It will perhaps help us to understand how natural it was for who is evidently a sincere papalist, thus sums up (p. 528) S. Cyprian's view : " Ainsi la primaute de Pierre e'tait un symbole. II a recu avant tous les autres le pquvoir apostolique pour qu'il figurat dans 1'unite de sa personne 1'unite de 1'Eglise. Puis le meme pouvoir a ete donne a tous les apotres, qui le detiennent solidairement avec lui, et au meme titre, au meme degreV 1 That is exactly S. Cyprian's view ; and it is pleasant to find it honestly acknowledged by one who, as an Ultramontane, takes a very different view. The Cyprianic view has been widely propagated in the later English Church by means of Bishop Pearson's great work on the Creed. Pearson says (Art. ix. n. 69, ed. Burton, Oxford, 1870, p. 600), " Whereas all the rest of the Apostles had equal power and honour with S. Peter, yet Christ did particularly give that power to S. Peter, to show the unity of the Church which he intended to build upon the foundation of the Apostles." 1 S. August. Enarrat. in Psalm, cviii. I, P. L., xxxvii. 1431, 1432. 2 S. August, in Joannis Evang. tractat. L 12, P. L., xxxv. 1763. 3 S. August. Serin, cxlix. cap. vi., P. L. t xxxviii. 802. 4 Sententiae episcopornm, n. 17, ?//., i. 444. 5 See also a passage in the Epistle of S. Firmilian (Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cypriamcas Ixxv. 16, Opp. S. Cypr., ii. 820, 821). 472 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE III. S. Clement and the Church of Rome to write a letter of admonition to the Church of Corinth, if we recall to mind Avhat Eusebius l tells us of the various Catholic epistles which S. Dionysius of Corinth (circa 170) wrote to different churches in foreign parts. Thus he wrote to the Lacedaemonians a letter admonishing (viroOeriK-fi) to peace and unity. The subject of this letter is the very subject of S. Clement's letter to the Corinthians. S. Dionysius also wrote to the Athenians a letter, in which he censures them as if they had almost apostatized from the faith. He wrote to the Church of Amastris in Pontus, commanding (irpoffrdrTfi) that church to receive back penitents. 2 No doubt the churches of Athens and Sparta were afterwards in the province of Corinth ; but Amastris was far away in Pontus, and Eusebius mentions all these churches as foreign churches, and contrasts Dionysius' labours for them with his work on behalf of those under his own control (TO?S inr' avrtv). If S. Dionysius of Corinth wrote about the year 170 in this sort of way to distant churches, why should not S. Clement of Rome have written a similar letter to the Corinthian Church from seventy to eighty years earlier? And if we cannot rightly deduce from these letters of S. Dionysius that the Church of Corinth had any jurisdiction over Pontus, why should we be required to hold that the letter of S. Clement proves that the Roman Church claimed jurisdiction over Greece, and, in fact, over all the world ? NOTE 52 (see p. 100). There is another passage in S. Augustine's works which is very similar to the lines of the anti-Donatist ballad quoted in the text, and which bears out my interpretation of the expression, " ab ipsa Petri sede." S. Augustine says in his Contra Fanstum, " Vides in re quid hac Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas, quae ab ipsis funda- tissimis sedibus Apostolorum nsqne ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet episcoporum serie, et tot populorum consensione firmatur." 3 NOTE 53 (see p. 102). The meaning of S. Augustine's expression, " unitas in multis," which is applied by him to S. Peter in the passage quoted in the text, may be illustrated by a parallel passage in S. Augustine's Tractat. cxviii. in Johan. Evang., 4. 4 He is discussing the symbolism of the dividing our Lord's garments into four parts and the casting lots for the undivided seamless coat, and he says, " Just as in the case of the apostles, though their number also was twelve-fold, or, in other words, fourfold, with three apostles to each division, and though all the apostles were questioned, Peter alone made answer, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God ; ' and to him it is said, ' I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' as if he alone received the power of binding and loosing : whereas both in that confession he spake as one for them all, and this gift he received with them all as being the representative of unity itself: one for all, on the ground that he is 1 H. E., iv. 23. * S. Dionysius wrote also to the Church of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and to the Churches of Gortyna and^Cnossus in Crete. He wrote also to the Roman Church. 3 Contra Faustum, lib. xi. cap. 2, Opp., ed. Ben., viii. 219. 4 OpP-> e d- Ben., torn. iii. pars ii. coll. 800, 801. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE III. 473 {symbolically} the unity in all" l Here the expression, " personam gerens ipsius unitatis " of the penultimate clause shows that we must understand symbolically the statement in the last clause that S. Peter is the " unitas in omnibus." This passage seems to me to corroborate the correctness of the second of the two interpretations of the expression, " unitas in multis," which I have suggested in note I on p. 102. NOTE 54 (see p. 109). S. Peter's primacy, as held by representative Anglican divines. I have been surprised to notice that Dr. Rivington, in his book entitled Dependence (p. 33), says that, " as an Anglican," he "for a long while held, as a more logical view, that S. Peter excelled the others in natural qualities only;" and in an earlier book entitled Authority? he commits himself to the extraordinary statement that "the idea that all the apostles were equal, except in natural qualities," is " a fundamental point of Anglican teaching." 3 I cannot imagine what can have led him into such a complete misapprehension. The English divines, handing on the tradition of the Fathers, no doubt teach that the apostles were equal, not only in regard to order, but also in regard to jurisdiction. They deny altogether that any one apostle had juris- diction over the others ; or that the jurisdiction of any one apostle over the Church was of a different kind from the jurisdiction of each of the other apostles over the Church. But while doing full justice to the doctrine of the Fathers about the equality of the apostles, they also do justice to the scriptural and patristic teaching about S. Peter's priority of place, to his leadership or foremanship in the apostolic college. I do not know that any of them identify that leadership with S. Peter's superiority in natural qualities, or suppose that it simply arose out of those natural qualities, without any reference to acts and words of our Blessed Lord. Even if English divines of repute could be found who held such a view (which I doubt), yet assuredly the general tradition of the English Church has been the other way ; and it would be absurd to say that the view held by Dr. Rivington, when he was an Anglican, is " a fundamental point of Anglican teaching." No doubt S. Peter's leadership among the twelve does not occupy the same important position in Anglican teaching that it occupies in Romanist teaching. From the nature of the case, a priority of place is a much less important matter than a supremacy of jurisdiction ; and the difference of view in the estimate of importance is greatly intensified when the priority of place is supposed to belong to S. Peter personally, whereas the supremacy of jurisdiction is supposed to belong to him officially, and to have been transmitted by him to a long line of successors. From the English point of view it is a matter of no 1 " Sicut in Apostolis cum esset etiam ipse numerus duodenarius, id est, quadripartitus in ternos, et omnes essent interrogati, solus Petrus respondit, Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi : et ei dicitur, Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, tamquam ligandi et solvendi solus acceperit potestatem : cum et illud unus pro omnibus dixerit, et hoc cum omnibus tamquam prrsonam gerens ipsius unitatis acceperit : ideo unus pro omnibus, quia nnitas est in omnibus." 2 Authority, p. 59. 3 Compare also Authority, pp. 69, 70. 474 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE III. doctrinal importance whether or no S. Peter's priority of place was retained by him to the end of his life ; or, again, whether it had reference to the whole body of the apostles, or to the apostles of the circumcision only. Such questions may afford interesting points for scriptural or patristic investigation, but whichever way they might be decided, they would not affect the substance of our faith ; nor would that faith be affected if we came to the conclusion that, with the evidence at our disposal, they do not admit of any certain answer. S. John and S. James, his brother, had a certain priority along with S. Peter during our Lord's lifetime, and, according to S. Clement of Alexandria, they retained that priority after the Ascension ; * but it would be difficult to say whether their priority, such as it was. remained to the end, and whether it related only to the twelve or to other apostles also. Would S. John have taken precedence of S. Paul, or would S. Paul have taken precedence of S. John ? Individual Fathers may perhaps speculate on the matter, but I feel sure that nothing certain has been revealed, and that such questions do not touch the faith. Our English divines, if they happen to touch on these minor questions, abound each in his own sense. But as regards the more important point of S. Peter's leadership of the apostolic college, at any rate during our Lord's lifetime and during the earlier years of the Church's history, the stream of Anglican teaching has, I should suppose, been quite clear. Let me give a few examples which happen to come to hand. Archbishop Potter of Canterbury (A.D. 1 737-1 747), in his Discourse of Church Government (2nd edit, pp. 75-80), discusses the matter very fully. He says that " some of the apostles were superior to the rest, both in personal merit and abilities, and in order of place" He pro- ceeds to prove this by quoting passages from Holy Scripture ; and then states again the conclusion at which he arrives, namely, that " some of the apostles had a pre-eminence above others." Then he goes on to say that " it may be observed further that in most places Peter is preferred before all the rest ; whence our Lord often speaks to him, and he replies before, and, as it were, in the name of the rest." Having adduced various passages from the New Testament in proof, he concludes, that "from these and the like passages, it is evident that Peter was the foreman of the college of apostles whilst our Lord lived on earth ; and it is plain that he kept the same dignity at least for some time after His Ascension/'' Then he elaborates this last point out of the earlier part of the Book of the Acts, and, summing up the result of the argument, he says that "it is evident that S. Peter acted as chief of the college of apostles, and so he is constantly described by the primitive writers of the Church, who call him the Head, the President, the Prolocutor, the Chief, the Foreman of the Apostles, with several other titles of distinction." The archbishop goes on to discuss the qualifications of S. Peter, which rendered him fit to be selected to occupy this position of precedence. It is notorious that the Fathers differ very much among themselves on this point ; some like 1 See note 2 on pp. 112, 113. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE III. 475 S. Jerome thinking that it was because S. Peter was the eldest, 1 others like Eusebius holding that it was because he was the stronger character, others with greater probability regarding it as the reward of the apostle's great confession. The archbishop says, " Whatever was the true reason of this order, which we will not pretend to determine, since the Scriptures are silent, it is certain that nothing more was founded on it than a mere priority of place ; and that neither Peter nor any other apostle had any power or authority over the rest." This he proceeds to prove by the testimony of Holy Scripture, and then he solidly explains the texts which have been misinterpreted by the Romanists, as if they made in favour of their theory of the papal supremacy. Finally, the archbishop shows how the Church was governed by the apostles after they had ceased to live together at Jerusalem, and had dispersed into different parts of the world. I have given an account of Archbishop Potter's treatment of this subject at some length as a specimen. The views of others may be given more succinctly. Archbishop Bramhall of Armagh (A.D. 1661-1663), in his Just Vindi- cation of the Church of England (chap, v., Works, eel. 1842, i. 152, 153), says, " All the twelve apostles were equal in mission, equal in commis- sion, equal in honour, equal in all things, except priority of order, without which no society can well subsist." And on p. 154 he speaks "of S. Peter's . . . principality of order." So again in his Schism Guarded (chap, i., Works, ii. 371), replying to his Romanist adversary, Serjeant, the archbishop says, " If he [Serjeant] had not been a mere novice and altogether ignorant of the tenets of our English Church, he might have known that we have no controversy with S. Peter, nor with any other about the privileges of S. Peter. Let him be 'first, chief, or prince of the apostles,' in that sense wherein the ancient Fathers styled him so. ... The learned Bishop of Winchester,* (of whom it is no shame for him to learn) might have taught him thus much, not only in his own name, but in the name of the king and Church of England : ' Neither is it questioned among us whether S. Peter had a primacy, but what that primacy was ; and whether it were such an one as the pope doth now challenge to himself, and you challenge to the pope ; but the king 3 doth not deny Peter to have been the prime and prince of the apostles.'" 4 Bishop Bull, in his reply to Bossuet's queries (Works, edit 1846, ii. 1 Seep. 488. z Bishop Andrewes. * James I. 4 See Andrewes' Rcspon*. ad Apolog. Bellarm., cap. i., edit. 1851, p. 17. As I hope that what I write may be of some benefit to readers who may not be acquainted with the Latin language, I observe that when Bishop Andrewes speaks of S. Peter as " the prince of the apostles," he does not mean to ascribe to him any monarchical or princely jurisdiction over his brethren. In the Latin the word " princeps " means a person who is first, either in time or order. S. Peter is " princeps apostolorum," as being the first in order among them. The English expression, " prince of the apostles," may easily be misunderstood by less instructed persons. Archbishop Bramhall, translating Bishop Andrewes, and writing for scholars, uses the expression without fear of being misinterpreted. 476 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE II 7. 295), cites and adopts the first of the passages which I have just quoted from Bramhall, so that it is clear that he held that S. Peter was invested with a " priority of order " in the college of apostles. Barrow, in his Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy (Suppos. i., Works, edit. 1818, vol. vi. pp. 48 Jf.}, discusses carefully four different kinds of primacy, which may belong to a person in respect of others. They are (i) a primacy of merit ; (2) a primacy of repute ; (3) a primacy of order ; and (4) a primacy of jurisdiction. He admits that S. Peter, in respect of the original apostles of the circumcision, possessed the first two kinds of primacy ; and he denies that he had any primacy of juris- diction over any of the apostles either of the circumcision or of the Gentiles. As regards the primacy of order, Barrow is less clear than the other divines to whose opinions I have referred. He thinks that this privilege " may be questioned ; " but at the same time he admits that there are probable arguments which may be brought forward in its favour, and he grants that the Fathers "generally seem to countenance it." He enumerates various acts and words of our Blessed Lord which specially concerned S. Peter, and he concludes that by this manner of proceeding "our Lord may seem to have constituted S. Peter the first in order among the apostles, or sufficiently to have hinted His mind for their direction, admonishing them by His example to render unto him a special deference.'' He gives a very much larger space to the arguments in favour of the primacy of order than to the arguments against it ; and I can hardly doubt that he personally inclined towards the view that S. Peter had such a primacy, as the more probable, though in his judgement the probability did not amount to a moral certainty. Having referred to some of the great names of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I will quote the words of a much-respected bishop who has been lately called to his rest, and whose Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles has gone through thirteen editions. Bishop Harold Browne says, "We may readily admit that S. Peter had a certain priority among his brother apostles assigned to him by our Blessed Lord; " and this priority he further defines to be a " priority of order," which did not involve " a primacy of power or pre-eminence of jurisdiction." J The bishop supports his position with considerable fulness, arguing from Scripture and the Fathers. I have now quoted Archbishop Potter, Archbishop Bramhall, Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Bull, Dr. Isaac Barrow, and Bishop Harold Browne ; and, with the exception of some slight reserve on the part of Dr. Barrow, they all express very clearly their belief in S. Peter's primacy of order. I have carefully avoided any reference to such writers as Bishop Forbes of Brechin, or Dr. Pusey, who might be challenged as representing only one school of theological opinion ; and I should certainly suppose that a view handed on with such a large measure of unanimity by such re- presentative prelates and theologians, agreeing as it does with the consentient witness of the Fathers, may claim to be considered the 1 Article xxxvii. ii. (Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, 5th edit., 1860, pp. 803, 804). ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IV. 477 normal tradition and teaching of the English Church. I say again that I cannot conceive on what grounds Dr. Rivington can have been led to suppose that the negation of S. Peter's primacy of order " is a fundamental point of Anglican teaching." I am afraid that, if Arch- bishop Bramhall had been dealing with him, he would have said that he was a " mere novice," and " ignorant of the tenets of our English Church." It is hardly likely that any of my Anglican readers should have fallen into such a curious mistake. If there should be any such, I would urge them to take care lest they also oscillate in this matter from an extreme on the one side to a contrary and far more harmful extreme on the other side. NOTE 55 (seep. 115). Dr. J. B. Mayor, in his commentary on the Epistle of S. James (p. 30), points out a reason for supposing that the synodical letter of the Council of Jerusalem "was drawn up by S. James." It would be natural for the president to draft the synodical letter ; so Dr. Mayor's observation lends some support to the view that S. James did preside. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IV. NOTE 56 (seep. 131). Professor Gwatkin, in his Studies of Arianism (p. 55), says, "Society in the Nicene age was heathen to an extent we can scarcely realize. The two religions were often so strangely inter- mingled that it is hard to say which was which. The heathens on one side never quite understood the idea of an exclusive worship ; while, on the other, crowds of nominal Christians thought it quite enough to appear in church once or twice a year, and lived exactly like the heathen round them, steeped in superstitions like their neighbours, attending freely their immoral games and dances, and sharing in the sins resulting from them. The free intercourse had its good side, in the easy transition from one system to the other ; but it undoubtedly heathenized the Church." NOTE 57 (see p. 136). The devout and learned De Valois, who edited the great work of Ammianus Marcellinus, thus describes his author, " Mihi quidem Marcellinus summis quibusque Historiae scriptoribus comparandus videtur ; " and again, " Etsi enim Deorum cultui mancipatus fuit, quod certe negari non potest, ea tamen fide, sinceritate, modestia de Christianorum rebus loquitur, ut nisi ex plurimis locis toto opere sparsis constaret eum cultorem numinum fuisse, Christianus non immerito posset videri." These passages occur in De Valois' preface. NOTE 58 (see p. 137). The Council of Nicaea was not convened by the pope. If S. Silvester had been the monarch of the Church, and had exercised an authority over the Church such as that which is ascribed to the Roman pontiffs by the Vatican decrees, he would 478 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IV. certainly have himself convoked the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. This he undoubtedly did not do. The Ecclesiastical writers of the fourth and fifth centuries have much to tell us about the convocation of the council, but with one accord they ascribe that convocation to Constantine. I might quote the words of Eusebius, 1 S. Epiphanius,- Rufinus, 3 Socrates, 4 Sozomen, 5 Theodoret, 6 and Gelasius of Cyzicus. 7 But for the sake of brevity I will confine myself to the statements made by two Ecumenical Councils. And first, the Nicene Council itself, in its letter to the Church of Alexandria, says, " By the grace of God a great and holy synod has been gathered together at Nicaea, our Emperor, Constantine, most beloved of God, having summoned us out of various cities and provinces." 8 The council says not a word about any action taken in the matter by S. Silvester. It is simply inconceivable that the council should have maintained silence on such a point, if S. Silvester had had any real share in the convocation, 9 and if the members of the council had regarded him as their infallible monarch. Long afterwards, in the year 680, the unknown author of the Sermo Acclamatorius, which was addressed to the Emperor Constantine IV., and which was delivered in his presence during the concluding session of the sixth Ecumenical Council, hazarded the wild assertion that, when Arius the divider of the Trinity arose, "immediately Constantine, semper Augustus, and the famous Silvester assembled a great and illustrious synod in Nicaea." 11 If those words expressed the truth, we may be quite certain that the Council of Nicaea would have coupled Silvester with Constantine in the sentence of its synodical letter to the Church of Alexandria, which I have quoted above. It is perhaps a work of supererogation, but I proceed to point out that the witness of the Council of Nicaea is corroborated by the witness of the Council of Ephesus in 430. In the acts of the Ephesine Council there is a Relatio of the holy synod, addressed to the Emperors Theodosius II. 1 Euseb., Vit. Constantin., lib. iii. capp. 4, 5, 6. * S. Epiphan., Haer. Ixix. cap. xi. 3 Rufin. ff. ., lib. i. cap. i. 4 Socrat. H. ., lib. i. cap. 8. 5 Sozom. H. ., lib. i. cap. 17. 6 Theodoret. H. ., lib. i. cap. 6 (al. 7). 7 Gelas. Cyzic., Comment. Act. Cone. Nicaen., lib. i. praef. (Coleti, ii. 117). 8 Cf. Socrat. H. ., i. 9. 9 The Council of Aries, held in 314, was a council consisting of bishops from Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Britain. Being a purely Western council, one might have expected that S. Silvester would have had a share in its convocation. Yet the council, writing to the pope, speaks of its members as " having been brought to Aries by the will of the most pious Emperor." The council is entirely silent about any action of the pope (cf. Coleti, i. 1449, 145)- 10 Dr. Rivington boldly deduces (Prim. C/i., p. 158), from this statement in the Sermo Acclamatorius, that " the idea of the Nicene Council was not due to the Emperor, but to the pope himself ! " " Coleti, vii. 1085. It may be noted that in this same Sermo Acclamatorius the council repeats its anathema on Pope Honorius, casting him out from the holy enclosure of the church. The council's anathemas are authoritative, but its historical statement about S. Silvester having joined in the convocation of the Nicene Synod must be taken for what it is worth ; and, in fact, its worth is infinitesimally small. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IV. 479 and Valentinian III., on the subject of the deposition of Nestorius. In the course of that Relatio the council speaks of the exposition of the apostolic faith made "by the 318 holy Fathers gathered in the metro- political city of Nicaea by Constantine of holy memory." * It would of course be a priori highly probable that, before convoking the Council of Nicaea, Constantine would take the advice of some of the more influential bishops, especially of those who were near at hand. It may even be true that the proposal to convoke such a council originated with one or other of them. If Constantine had been living in or near Rome, one might conjecturally have credited S. Silvester with the suggestion. As a matter of fact, Constantine was in the East, and the troubles which gave rise to the council, that is to say, the Arian trouble, the Meletian trouble, and the dispute about Easter, were at that stage primarily Eastern questions. Alexandria was the principal centre of disturbance ; and S. Epiphanius tells us that it was " in consequence of the painstaking diligence and the stirring exhortations of Alexander, the holy Bishop of Alexandria, that Constantine of blessed memory convoked a synod in the city of Nicaea." 2 But there was one prelate, whom the Emperor would be certain to consult, and whose advice would weigh more with him than even the exhortations of S. Alexander. There is no need to say that that prelate was Hosius of Cordova. From the year 312 onwards Hosius seems to have been Constantine's chief adviser in ecclesiastical matters. He was continually in attendance at court, and he was certainly with Constantine when the Emperor came to the determination to convoke the Council of Nicaea. Sulpicius Severus, speaking of Hosius, says that "the synod of Nicaea was regarded as having been held at his instigation." 3 Thus we have explicit testimony to the fact that the convocation of the council was urged upon the Emperor by at least two bishops, namely, by Hosius and by S. Alexander. We may conclude that Rufinus speaks accurately when he says, " Then he [Constantine] in accordance with episcopal advice summons a council of bishops to meet in the city of Nicaea." 4 It is of course impossible to demonstrate that S. Silvester did not write to Constantine, urging him to summon a council. All we can say is that there is not a particle of proof that he did so. No writer of the fourth or fifth centuries 5 thinks it worth while to mention the fact, if it was a fact. And the probability is that Constantine would come to a decision after taking the advice of the bishops within his reach. In any case, S. Silvester cannot have inter- vened in the matter in any public way ; for, if he had, some mention of such an important fact must have come down to us. It is not possible to imagine a general council of the Roman communion being convoked now, without the action of the pope being very much en evidence. It is 1 Condi. Ephes. Actio i. (Coleti, iii. uoo). * S. Epiph., Haer. Ixviii. cap. 4. 3 Sulp. Sever. Hist. Sacr., lib. ii. cap. 40, P. L. t xx. 152. " Nicaena synodus auctore illoconfecta habebatur." 4 Rufin. If. ., lib. i. cap. i., P. Z., xxi. 467. "Turn il!e ex sacerdotum sententia apud urbein Nicaeam episcopale concilium convocat." * The writers of the sixth century are equally silent, but they are too far removed from the Nicene Council to make it of any use to lay stress in such a matter on what they do or do not say. 480 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IV. for papalist writers to explain l why the state of things was so different in the fourth century. Surely, one would expect a monarch to summon his parliament. NOTE 59 (see note i on p. 138). The Council of Aries (314) in its second synodical letter to Pope Silvester heads its letter as follows, " Domino sanctissimo fratri Silvestro Marinus vel coetus episcoporum qui adunati fuerunt in oppido Arelatensi " (see Hefele, Councils, E. tr., i. 184). The wording of this inscription seems to make it clear that Marinus of Aries presided. NOTE 60 (see note 6 on p. 138). On the whole subject of the sixth Nicene canon compare Dr. Bright's Notes on the Canons of Nicaea (pp. 22-26), and also his Roman See in the Early Church (pp. 75-81, and pp. 481-483). Rufinus (Hist. Eccl., i. 6, P. L., xxi. 473) defines the sphere of the pope's jurisdiction, to which an implicit allusion is made in the canon, as consisting of the suburbicarian churches. Such a definition conveys a true representation of the sphere of the pope's metropolitical jurisdiction in the beginning of the fifth century, when Rufinus published his history. But at the time of the Council of Nicaea that sphere included the whole of Italy. See the Additional Note i, p. 434. NOTE 61 (see p. 141). It must be said that during the years which followed the Nicene Council there was one important matter, in con- nexion with which the Church of Rome, under the guidance of S. Julius, committed herself to the wrong side. That matter was the formal approval which was given by Rome in 340 to Marcellus of Ancyra. 2 On 1 I will here put on record what must be called Dr. Rivington's grotesque account of S. Silvester's view of the situation. He says (Prim. CA., pp. 159- 161): "The way, then, in which S. Silvester elected to govern the Church was by a council in the East, which the Emperor hailed for the fulfilment of his own desire for the unity of the Church as the safeguard of his empire. S. Silvester knew well that papal infallibility does not act like magic. . . . S. Silvester con- sidered that the circumstances of the case demanded the apparatus of a council rather than an ex cathedra judgement from himself." This is of a truth making bricks without either clay or straw. 3 Some time before 336 Marcellus wrote his book against Asterius the sophist. Extracts from this book have been preserved by Eusebius of Csesarea in his replies to it. It is from these extracts that our knowledge of the teachings of Marcellus is principally derived. Cardinal Newman, in his first Disserlatiuncula critico-theologica (Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical, pp. 20, 2l), has given a conspectus of the principal points in the Marcellian heresy, gathering them out of Eusebius' replies. Newman points out that there is no good reason for throwing doubt on Eusebius' testimony, which is corroborated in various ways. It is true that the Council of Sardica tried to whitewash Marcellus, on the ground that the statements, which Marcellus had made as an inquirer, had been wrongly taken by his opponents as if they represented his avowed opinions. But, as Bishop Lightfoot says (Smith and Wace, D. C. B., s.v. Eusebius of Cczsarea, ii. 342), "The quotations given by Eusebius speak for themselves." And similarly the Jesuit Petavius (De Trin., I. xiii. ii.) observes: "As far as we can gather from Marcellus' own words, quoted by Eusebius, it appears that he taught seriously, and as the expression of his own opinion, some altogether absurd and heretical things." S. Basil and the Eastern Church had good grounds for the horror with which they regarded Marcellus' teaching. See also p. 231, note 2, and p. 236. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IV. 481 this personage, and on his heretical opinions, see Dr. Robertson (S. Athanasius, Prolegomena, pp. xxxv., xxxvi., xliv., and also p. 116, note 5), and see also Dr. Bright (S. Athanasius^ Orations against the Arians, Introduction, p. xliv.), and Cardinal Newman (Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical, p. 182). Hefele says of Marcellus, "Neither does Marcellus present the idea of a true God-man, but sees in the miraculously born JESUS a man in whom the Logos, the (vtpyfia. Spaa-riK-fi of God, dwells. . . . Thus Marcellus, to a certain extent like Paul of Samosata, makes Christ a man in whom God dwells." 1 Dr. Gwatkin says of S. Julius, " His one serious mistake was in supporting Marcellus " . . . " Knowing . . . what his [Marcellus'] doctrine was, we must admit that the Easterns were right in resenting its deliberate approval at Rome." 2 See also p. 291, note i, and p. 325, note 4. NOTE 62 (see p. 142). Hefele has shown very conclusively that the canons of Sardica do not allow the appeal of a bishop from the sentence of the synod of his province to be heard at Rome. The appeal must be heard in the neighbourhood of the province to which the bishop belonged. See Hefele's Councils, E. tr., ii. 117, 118, 124-128. NOTE 63 (see note I on p. 149). Reasons for supposing that the see of Aquileia became a metropolitical see before the death of Constantius. I will set down in this note some facts which seem to me to make it highly probable that the Bishop of Aquileia was a metropolitan, not only in the early part of the fifth century, 3 but also during the last forty years of the previous century. 1. When at the Easter festival of the year 404 the persecution of S. Chrysostom, which had been going on for some months, was reaching its climax, the saint addressed a long letter to the most influential bishops of the Western Church, imploring their help and countenance. Three copies of this letter were sent, one addressed to Innocent, Bishop of Rome, another to Venerius, Bishop of Milan, and the third to Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia. Innocent and Venerius were undoubtedly metro- politans; and the fact that S. Chrysostom appealed for help to Chromatius, in exactly the same terms as those which he employed in his letters to Innocent and Venerius, supplies a strong reason for believing that Chromatius also was a metropolitan. The persecuted saint, having shown how iniquitous and uncanonical the proceedings against him had been, implores these three great prelates to write letters declaring the said proceedings to be null and void, and making it clear that his communion with them remained unbroken. 4 2. In the year 402 S. Jerome wrote his Apology against the Books of Rufinus. In the course of an attack on S. Epiphanius, Rufinus had 1 Hefele, Councils, E. tr., ii. 32. 2 Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy, p. 67. The fact that Aquileia was metropolitical in the time of S. Leo (440-461) is outside of all possible dispute (cf. S. Leon. Ep. i. ad Aquileisnsem Epucopum, cap. ii. and Ep. ii. ad Septimum Episcopum Altinensem, cap. i., P. L., liv. 594, 597). 4 Cf. S. Chrysost. Opp., ed. Ben., torn. iii. p. 520. 2 I 482 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IV. declared that the reason why certain persons were helping forward the conspiracy against Origen was, because they were accustomed in their discourses and books to plagiarize from Origen, and they wished to deter men from reading that author, lest their thefts from him should be discovered. S. Jerome replies, "Who are these persons? . . . You ought to give their names, and to specify the men themselves. Are the blessed Bishops Anastasius and Theophilus and Venerius and Chromatius and the whole synod of the Catholics, both in the East and in the West, to be esteemed to be plagiarists of Origen's books, because, being moved by the same Spirit, they have pronounced a similar sentence, and publicly denounce Origen as a heretic?" 1 In this passage S.Jerome, besides making a general reference to the whole episcopate of the East and West, selects four representative names, namely (i) the Pope of Rome, (2) the Pope of Alexandria, (3) the Metropolitan of Milan, and (4) S. Chromatius of Aquileia. It seems clear to me that Aquileia was a metropolitical see in 402. 3. At the Council of Aquileia, held in 381, S. Ambrose was present, and was in many respects the mouthpiece and leader of the assembly. Nevertheless, in the first paragraph of the acts of the council, which contains a list of the bishops who took part in it, the name of S. Valerian of Aquileia occurs first, and the name of S. Ambrose second. 2 And similarly, in the list of those present, which is found at the end of the acts, S. Valerian heads the list and S. Ambrose follows immediately after him. 3 It seems to me impossible to suppose that a suffragan bishop would take precedence of his metropolitan in a council attended not only by bishops of the province, but by the representatives of distant churches. Bishops from Africa, Gaul, and Western Illyricum sat at this council along with bishops from North Italy. And when one remembers the unique position which S. Ambrose occupied in the West, the closeness of his relations with the Emperor, and the way in which distant churches referred to him as an oracle, 4 the impression is forced upon one that he certainly would have occupied the first place, if the bishop of the city where the council was held had not been as much a metropolitan as he was himself, 5 and 1 S. Hieron. Apol. adv. libr. Rufin., ii. 22, P. Z., xxiii. 445. 2 S. Ambros. Opp., P. L., xvi. 955. 3 P. Z., xvi. 979. 4 Duchesne (Origines du Culte Chretien, 2 e edit., p. 32) says, "L'influence d'Ambroise se fait sentir souvent dans les affaires de 1'eglise orientale, a Antioche, a Cesaree, a Constantinople, a Thessalonique ; c'est lui qui est charge de donner un eveque a Sirmium dans un moment critique. A Aquilee, il dirige un concile oil se reglent les dernieres difficultes laissees par la crise arienne dans le pays du bas Danube. Mais c'est surtout en Gaule et en Espagne que Ton semble considerer 1'autorite ecclesiastique de Milan comme un tribunal superieur et ordinaire." On p. 35 Duchesne says, " II y a done, en Occident, vers la fin du IV e Siecle, une tendance universelle a considerer Peveque de Milan comme une autorite de premier ordre, a 1'associer au pape dans les fonctions de magistral ecclesiastique supreme, de juge des causes majeures et d'interprete des lois disciplinaires generates. " s The Ballerini, in their Observationes in Dissert, v. Quesnelli (pars ii. cap. v. 2, P. Z., Iv. 607), speaking of the precedence of bishops at councils, say, "Neque enim post horum fsc. metropolitarum] institutionem in more fuit ut metropolitani (quicumque adessent) simplici episcopo quantumvis antiquiori locum cederent." ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE IV. 483 still more, if that bishop had been one of his own suffragans. It has often been the case, both in earlier and later times, that councils have had more than one president ; and to me it seems probable that S. Valerian and S. Ambrose were joint presidents of the Council of Aquileia. S. Valerian, on account of his seniority by consecration, and on account of the synod being held in his cathedral city, would be reckoned as first president, and S. Ambrose would be second president. But while the place of highest dignity was reserved for the older prelate, one can well imagine that S. Valerian would be the first to wish that the practical work of conducting the proceedings should be left in the competent hands of his junior colleague. Or it may be that the Emperor, who convoked the council, had by some authoritative act made S. Ambrose to be the "causae cognitor." Any way, it seems evident that in 381 the Bishop of Aquileia was a metropolitan. 1 4. Some confirmation of this conclusion seems to result from the fact that the synodical epistle of the Council of Constantinople, held in 382, is addressed to Damasus of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, Britonius of Trier, 2 Valerian of Aquileia, Acholius of Thessalonica, Anemius of Sirmium, and to the other bishops assembled in the city of Rome. 3 Here Valerian of Aquileia is named before Acholius of Thessalonica, who was undoubtedly a metropolitan and more than a metropolitan, being the vicar of the Roman see throughout Eastern Illyricum, and in that capacity having metropolitans subject to him. 4 5. In this connexion it is worth mentioning that there is no evidence that either S. Valerian or S. Chromatius ever attended any of the pro- vincial synods held at Milan during the episcopate of S. Ambrose, or that S. Ambrose ever exercised in any way metropolitical jurisdiction over them. 5 Such jurisdiction cannot be safely inferred from the fact that in 388 he probably consecrated S. Chromatius at Aquileia. If the con- secration had taken place at Milan, the case might be different. In the 1 It is fair to say that Duchesne is of opinion (Origines du Culte Chretien, 2 ., i. 414. 4 S. Chrys. Horn. iii. in Epist. ad Coloss., 3, Opp., ed. Ben., xi. 348. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE XL 503 received by the authority of the said apostolic see the grace of communion, which grace he would never have obtained if letters of communion (super hoc scripta) had not issued from this place." 1 Here the state of distress which afflicted the Church of Antioch is represented as continuing during the occupancy of the see by S. Meletius and by S. Flavian, and as being at last brought to an end by the admission of S. Flavian to the com- munion of the Roman Church. Not a word is said about any reconcilia- tion of S. Meletius with Rome, and in fact the passage implies that S. Boniface knew of no such event having taken place. Reference may also be made to some lines in S. Gregory Nazianzen's Carmen de Vita sua. The saint is describing the dispute in the Ecumenical Council as to the succession to the see of Antioch after S. Meletius' death. He gives in verse the subject of the speech which he made, counselling that Paulinus should be left undisturbed. In this speech the following passage occurs : "As long as the divine bishop [Meletius] was in the midst, and it was not clear how ever they of the West would receive the man (rbv foSpa 5|oj"r'), for hitherto they had been wroth, it was in a way pardonable to grieve somewhat the defenders of the canons, as they call themselves " 2 (rovs, us \tyova-t, -rSv voyuav oyiitWopay). The defenders of the canons are, of course, Damasus and the Western bishops, who so styled themselves. Merenda points out that the meaning of 5e'oi>r' in this passage is to receive into communion. He says, " Norunt vero omnes, quae sit ecclesiastico stylo perpetua hujus verbi vis. Hinc SfKTot, qui communionis jure utuntur, quibus &SCKTOI oppositi sunt. Vid. Can. Ap. 13, ac Suicerum. Vide etiam epistolam Julii ad Orientales n. 13." 3 S. Gregory seems clearly to imply that the breach of com- munion with the West continued during S. Meletius' life ; but on his death Paulinus, who was in communion with the West, was left sole bishop (novoQpovos, cf. 1586) ; and S. Gregory is anxious that the restoration of peace between the Churches of Rome and Antioch should not be prevented by the election of a successor to S. Meletius. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE XI. NOTE 76 (see note 2 on p. 364). On the calumnious legend, attributing perjury to S, Flavian. -It would not be right to give expression to a favourable judgement about S. Flavian's qualifications for the episcopate, if it were possible to accept as true a story, which finds a place in the pages of Socrates, 4 and which has been taken over from him by Sozomen. 5 According to that story, at the time when S. Meletius and Paulinus made their compact, six of the clergy of Antioch, who seemed to have the best chance of being elected to the bishopric whenever the see should be vacant, solemnly swore that they would neither come 1 S. Bonif. Ep. xv. 6, P. L. t xx. 782, 783. This letter was probably wiitten in the year 422. * S. Greg. Naz. Carmen de Vita sua, 1611-1615, Opp., ed. Ben., 11. 758. 1 De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xviii. 4, n. c, P. Z., xiii. 221, 222. 4 Cf. Socrat. H. ., v. 5. * Cf. Sozom. H. ., vii. 3. 504 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE XL forward as candidates nor accept the episcopate 1 so long as either Meletius or Paulinus remained alive, but would leave the survivor in possession of the see. Moreover, Socrates and his copyist, Sozomen, assure us that one of the six who publicly bound themselves by this oath was Flavian. The story seems to me to be quite incredible. It is rejected by the Bollandists, 2 and it is regarded by Tillemont as not well authenticated and as a tale which it is not easy to believe. 3 If it were true, then S. Flavian owed his episcopal dignity to flagrant perjury ; and surely, if that had been the case, he could never have been venerated in the way he was by a man like S. Chrysostom, who was ordained in Antioch to the diaconate just at the time when the oath was supposed to have been taken. S. Chrysostom was. at that time thirty-seven years old, and he must have known of the incident of the oath, if it really took place. Moreover, if S. Flavian had been guilty of perjury when he accepted the bishopric, he could never have been enrolled in the catalogue of the saints j for he retained his see until his death, and therefore never made satisfaction for his abominable crime. And again, how is it that S. Gregory Nazianzen, who argued so earnestly against electing any successor to S. Meletius during the lifetime of Paulinus, and who has preserved for us the substance of what he said on that point, never alludes to this alleged oath-taking? 4 And why does S. Ambrose, who wrote against S. Flavian's claim, make no reference to the perjury which had accompanied his consecration ? 5 But above all, how is it possible to conceive that the diocese, province, and patriarchate of Antioch, and the whole episcopate of the East, gathered in the Second Ecumenical Council, could have made themselves parties to this atrociously wicked act ? And finally, how could the Fathers, who met at Constantinople in the year 382, have had the audacity to write, in their letter to Damasus and to the other Western bishops, that the episcopate of the province and patriarchate of Antioch had " canonically consecrated the most reverend and most God-beloved Bishop Flavian" ? Dr. Rivington no doubt ventures to say that " it is to be feared " that Flavian " had promised [why not sworn ?} not to accept the bishopric." 7 But he can only support his suggestion by charging half the Church, as well as saints like S. Chrysostom, with the crime of condoning and 1 Van den Bosche is, I think, mistaken when he argues (Ada SS., torn. iv. Jul., p. 60) that Socrates differs from Sozomen in that he does not represent the six clergymen as binding themselves to refuse the bishopric if it should be offered to them, but describes their action as limited to the taking of an oath to refrain from using any personal efforts to secure their election. On the contrary, Socrates expressly says that they swore to allow whichever of the two bishops should survive the other to retain undisturbed possession of the see. There is no real difference between Socrates' story and Sozomen's. Only the latter states explicitly what the former clearly implies. I gather from Merenda's statement (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Geslt., cap. xiv. i, P. L., xiii. 190) that he would agree with me on this point, as against Van den Bosche. * Cf. Acta SS., loc. cit. 3 Cf. Tillemont, x. 527, and see viii. 371. 4 Cf. S. Greg. Naz. Carmen de Vita sua, 1591-1679, Opp. t ii. 758-762. 5 Cf. S. Ambros. Ep. Ivi. ad Theophilum, P. L., xvi. 1220-1222. Theodoret. H. ., v. 9. 7 Prim. Church, p. 253. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE XL 505 supporting perjury. Ultramontane controversialists may be ready to take upon themselves the responsibility of making such an accusation, but no one can wonder that more prudent historians of their communion, such as the Bollandists, shrink from such a course. The story narrated by Socrates and Sozomen was probably one of the many calumnies invented by the Eustathians. 1 They were quite capable of it, 2 and they had an interest in running down S. Flavian. NOTE 77 (see note 3 on p. 364). On the place and date of S. Flavian's consecration. In this note I intend to discuss the place and date of S. Flavian's consecration. It should be observed that the Constantinopolitan Council of 382, in its synodical letter to the Western bishops, says that Nectarius was consecrated " in the presence of the Ecumenical Council ; " but in the next sentence, when it describes the consecration of S. Flavian, it makes no allusion to the ceremony having been performed in the presence of the Ecumenical Council. What it tells us is that "over the most ancient and truly apostolical Church in Antioch of Syria . . . the bishops of the province and of the Eastern diocese [i.e. patriarchate], having come together, canonically consecrated the most reverend and most God-beloved Bishop Flavian, the whole Church [of Antioch] assenting and as it were with one voice honouring the man." 3 In this passage we are undoubtedly given to understand that the consent of the Church of Antioch was obtained before S. Flavian was consecrated. And it will follow that, on the hypothesis that S. Flavian was elected and afterwards consecrated by the bishops of the Oriens^ when they were in Constantinople for the Ecumenical Council, we must allow an interval of at least seven weeks to intervene between the election and the consecration, in order that letters might be sent to Antioch, and an assembly of the Church of Antioch might be held to confirm the election, and the confirmatory decree of that assembly might be communicated to the bishops in Constantinople. But, when it is remembered that after the death of S. Meletius, which perhaps did not take place till June, some time must be allowed for the heated discussions in Constantinople (described by S. Gregory Nazianzen) as to whether any successor to S. Meletius should be appointed, it may well be doubted whether it would be possible for the replies from Antioch to reach Constantinople before the close of the Ecumenical Council, an event which certainly took place in July. This result seems to militate against the hypothesis of a consecration at Constantinople during the sitting of the council, and it absolutely precludes the idea that S. Flavian's consecration preceded that of Nectarius. And I am bound to say that the expressions used in the synodical letter of the council of 382 seem to 1 Socrates makes extraordinary blunders about the history of the Church of Antioch, and appears to be prejudiced in favour of the Eustathians. For example, he says (ff. ., vi. 3) that after the death of S. Meletius, S. Chrysostom separated himself from the Meletians, and afterwards was ordained priest by Evagrius, the successor of Paulinus ! Fortunately, we have S. Chrysostom's sermons, which prove his devotion to S. Flavian, by whom he was ordained to the priesthood. See p. 327, and note I on p. 363, and Additional Note 70 (p. 496). 3 Theodoret. H. ., v. 9. 506 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE XL me to imply very clearly that S. Flavian was consecrated in the presence of the Church of Antioch, and, if so, certainly not until August or September, 381.! When the Fathers of the council of 382 add that " the general body of the synod (rb TTJS vvvfoov K0iv6v) approved this legitimate consecration," they may be referring either to the approbation of the Ecumenical Council given several weeks before the consecration, or to the recognition granted to S. Flavian, as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, by the council of 382. NOTE 78 (see note i on p. 368). On the date of the preaching of S. Chrysostonfs Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Tillemont, in his Life of S. Chrysostom, expresses the opinion ' 2 that that Father's Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians were preached before the year 392 ; and Newman, in the Preface to the Oxford translation of those Homilies (p. x.), comes to a similar conclusion. In the first two editions of this book I accepted this result without sufficient consideration. As a matter of fact, both Tillemont and Newman elsewhere rectify this date. The former suggests reasons for assigning the Homilies to the year 395 ; 3 and the latter, in a note on the tenth Homily, follows Tillemont's later suggestion. 4 I am inclined now to think that this later date is right. The mention of wars and earthquakes in the last paragraph of the sixth Homily, seems to point to 395. During the whole of the autumn of 394 various regions of Europe had been shaken by earthquakes ; 5 and in the spring of 395 the Huns were laying waste the provinces of the upper valley of the Euphrates, and actually approached Antioch, so as to be within view of the walls ; and Alaric with his Visigoths was ravaging Greece. 6 NOTE 79 (see note 2 on p. 368). On the date of Evagrius 1 death, and on the question -whether in 395 he was in communion with Rome. It is commonly said that Evagrius died in 392 or 393, but the argument in favour of so early a date is not very convincing. It seems to rest entirely on the words of Socrates and of his imitator, Sozomen. 7 Paulinus, as we have seen, died in 389, and Socrates tells us that Evagrius " did not live on for a long time " 8 after his consecration. Sozomen 1 It is out of the question to suppose that the bishops of the province and patriarchate of Antioch absented themselves for seven weeks from Constantinople during the sitting of the Ecumenical Council, in order that they might repair to Antioch for the election and consecration of S. Flavian. The conclusion expressed in the text, that S. Flavian was consecrated at Antioch in August or September, agrees with the view taken by Tillemont (x. 528). 2 Tillemont, xi. 375. 3 Ibid., xi. 629. 4 See the Oxford translation of S. Chrysostom on the Epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians, edit. 1879, p. 220, note. * Cf. Marcellin. Comit. Chronic., P. L., li. 920. 6 See Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders, edit. 1892, vol. i. part 2, p. 654. 7 When I speak of Sozomen as an " imitator " of Socrates, I do not for a moment wish to suggest that there are not many passages in his history in which he takes an independent line, and gives us information about facts for which %ve should look in vain in the pages of Socrates. But it remains true that there are many other passages in which he simply echoes Socrates. 8 Socrat. H. ., v. 15, ov TTV\VV ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE XL 507 uses similar expressions, 1 of which we need not take special account, because in regard to this matter Sozomen evidently derived his facts from Socrates. As a rule, both Socrates and Sozomen are very vague in their chronology. In regard to the particular date which we are investigating, it is to be noted that in a passage, which follows very soon after the words quoted above, Socrates implies that S. Flavian was reconciled to Rome and Alexandria " shortly after " 2 Evagrius' death. It appears, therefore, that, according to Socrates, Evagrius died not long after 389 and shortly before 398, which was the date of S. Flavian's reconciliation with Siricius and Theophilus. This leaves us free to assign Evagrius' death to whichever year between 389 and 398 may on other grounds seem most probable. Now, I think that there can be no question that Evagrius was alive when S. Chrysostom preached his eleventh Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians. As we have seen, S. Chrysostom preached that homily in order to deter the members of the great Church of Antioch from " going over " to the Eustathians ; and in a passage, which I have quoted in the eleventh Lecture, he puts into the mouths of the mocking heathen the following words : " If the doctrines are the same, if the mysteries are the same, why does one of the two rulers invade the other church ? " 3 Clearly each of the two churches had, at the time when the homily was delivered, its own &px 379> 4 it must have become clear that, however attractive a tutor Ausonius may have been, he was lacking in the gifts necessary for an administrator, and that some change must be made. At the same time, Gratian was loth to take any step which would seem to cast a slur upon his old friend ; he therefore devised, or at any rate sanctioned, a new thing. The prefectures of Italy and of Gaul were united, and the com- bined prefectures were committed to Ausonius and Hesperius acting together as joint prefects of the whole West. 5 We may be practically 1 The name of Hesperius, with the title of prefect, first appears in the Code on January 21, 377 (cf. Cod. Theod., i. 15, 8). 2 Ausonius became prefect between January 12, 378 (Cod. Theod., ix. 20, i), and April 20, 378 (Cod. Theod., viii. 5, 35). * The Gratiarum Actio, which Ausonius pronounced in the presence of Gratian early in September, 379, implies that in August, 378, when he was designated for the consulate, he was simply Prefect of Gaul (cf. Auson. Grat. Act., viii. 40, Opuscc., ed. Schenkl, p. 24). 4 Cod. Theod., xiii. I, n. In this law, which is addressed to Hesperius only, a certain provision is made, which is to have force in Italy and in Western Illyricum. The same provision is also to have force in Gaul, but with some modification of the details. This shows that at the date when this law was enacted, viz. on July 5, 379, Hesperius had already had his jurisdiction enlarged so as to cover Gaul as well as Italy. 4 In his Gratiarum Actio (ii. 7, Opuscc., edit. Schenkl, p. 20) Ausonius says, "Ad praefecturae collegium filius cum patre conjunctus." And a little further on he says, addressing his imperial pupil (ii. u, p. 21), " Tui tantum praefectura EXCURSUS I. 525 sure that from that time onward, so long as the new arrangement lasted, Hesperius did almost all the work. If the joint prefecture began in 378, Hesperius' labours must have been somewhat lightened by the cutting off of Eastern Illyricum from the West, in the new partition of the empire which was made by Gratian and Theodosius in January, 379 ; but my own opinion is that the joint prefecture was subsequent to that partition. The arrangement of the father and son acting as prefects in common was still in force in the early part of September, 379 ; l but before December 3 the prefectures were again separated, Hesperius retaining the administration of Italy, together with Western Illyricum and Africa, while Siburius succeeded to the prefecture of Gaul, 2 and Ausonius retired once more into private life. It would seem, therefore, that the plan of joint prefects was introduced into the administration of the Western Empire to meet a particular emergency ; but the idea seems to have commended itself to Gratian, and after two years of return to normal methods it was revived again, so far as the prefecture of Italy was concerned. From the beginning of 382 to the close of 386, that is to say, for about five years, there seem to have been regularly two joint prefects administering in common the Italian prefecture. In that prefecture Hesperius had been succeeded by Syagrius some time between March 14, 38o, 3 and June 18, 380.* Syagrius remained prefect for rather more than two years, and did not retire from his office until some time between July 5, 382, 5 and August 18, 382. But before he did so, in the early months of 382, some time before April i, 7 Hypatius became his colleague. I have attempted to set forth, beneficii, quae et ipsa non vult vice simplici gratulari, liberalius divisa quam juncta, cum teneamus duo integrum neuter desiderat separatum." In his Epicedion in Patrem (w. 41, 42, Opuscc., edit. Schenkl, p. 34), Ausonius makes it clear that he had held the prefecture of the praetorium of Italy as well as the prefecture of the praetorium of Gaul. He puts into the mouth of his father a description of his own honours, and makes his father say "Maximus ad summum columen pervenit honorum, Praefectus Gallis et Libyae et Latio." 1 That is to say, at the time when Ausonius pronounced his Gratiarum Actio (see the passages quoted in the preceding note). 2 Cod. Theod., xi. 31, 7. * Ibid., x. 20, 10. 4 Ibid., xi. 30, 38. s Ibid., xii. I, 89. 6 Ibid., ix. 40, 13. In regard to this law, which, according to the two codes of Theodosius and Justinian (cf. Cod. Just., ix. 47, 20), was addressed on August 18, 382, by Gratian, Valentinian II., and Theodosius, " Flaviano Praefecto Praetorio Illyrici [et Italiae" in Cod. Theod., not in Cod. Just.] from Verona, Baronius and Godefroy try to make out that it belongs to the year 390, and that it was enacted by Theodosius after the massacre at Thessalonica. But Pagi has successfully replied to their arguments (Critica, ad ann. 390, iv.-ix., edit. 1727, vol. i. pp. 578, 579). If Baronius is right, it would be necessary to change not only the Emperors, the prefect, and the consuls, but also the month and the place. Tillemont (Empereurs, v. 721, 722) agrees with Pagi ; and Haenel, the critical editor of the Theodosian Code (edit. 1842, col. 939), takes " unhesitatingly" the same view. Seeck (Chronol. Symmach., p. cxvii. adn. 579) tries to revive Ba- ronius' view, but he has been answered by Rau.schen (Jahrbiicher, p. 337, n 9, and pp. 321, 322). I have no hesitation in accepting the date given by the two codes. 7 Ibid., xi. 16, 13. This law was published at Carthage on April I, 383. It must have been enacted some weeks, if not months, earlier. Gratian was in North Italy during the early part of the year. 526 EXCURSUS I. in the table given below, the double succession of Italian prefects which followed. HYPATIUS became prefect some time before April i, 382, 5 and continued prefect all through this year. HYPATIUS began the year as pre- fect. He ceased to be prefect between May 28, 383, and March 13, 384. 10 Amcus became prefect in suc- cession to Hypatius between May 28, 383,9 and March 13, 384- 10 382. SYAGRIUS became prefect be- tween March 14, 38O, 1 and June 1 8, 38o. 2 He ceased to be prefect between July 5, 382, 3 and August 18, 382.* FLAVIANUS became prefect, in succession to Syagrius, be- tween July 5, 382, 3 and August 1 8, 382,* and con- tinued prefect through the rest of this year. 383. FLAVIANUS began the year as prefect. He ceased to be prefect between February 27, 383, and the middle of September 7 in that year. He was almost certainly Btill prefect on May io, 8 and probably remained in office till early in September. PROBUS probably became pre- fect, in succession to Flavi- anus, in September, 383^ His name first appears in the Code in a law whose true date appears to be January 19, 384." I See n. 3 on previous page. * See n. 5 on previous page. 5 See n. 7 on previous page. 6 Cod. Theod., vii. 18, 8, and ix. 29, 2. 7 There is a letter from Flavianus to Symmachus (Symmach., lib. ii. ep. 6, edit. Seeck, p. 44), written from Campania, after his retirement, when "aestas prope decessit autumno." I think that he must have fallen into disgrace with Theodosius .after Gratian's death on August 25. 8 Flavianus' son fell into disgrace with Theodosius, and his fall probably brought about that of his father. But the son was still Proconsul of Asia on May io (cf. Cod. Theod.) xii. 6, 18). Compare Seeck (Chronol. Symmach., p. cxvii.). ' Cod. Theod., ii. 19, 5. 10 Ibid., xiii. I, 12. II Ibid., xi. 13, i. The subscription of this law gives the date, January J9> 383 5 but Probus cannot have been prefect at that date. No doubt the date has been corrupted by the omission of the words, "post consulatum," a very common mistake of the scribes. The insertion of those words gives the corrected date, 384, which fits in well with another law addressed to Probus on October 26, 384. The inscriptions in honour of Probus, to be found in the Corpus Inscrr. Latt. (vol. v. pars i. p. 340, n. 3344, and vol. vi. pars i. p. 386, nn. 1751-1753), seem to me to justify Seeck's view (Chronol. Symmach., p. ciii.) that Probus was prefect during part of the years 383 and 384 (see also Socrat., v. ii and Sozom., vii. 13). Yet Seeck tries to put the law of October 26 back to 383 by the omis- sion of the words, "post consulatum," which are found in the subscription (Cod. Theod., vi. 30, 6), on the ground that ordinarily "post consulatum" is only found See n. 4 on previous page. * See n. 6 on previous page. EXCURSUS L 527 384. PROBUS probably began the year as prefect ; and was, as it seems to me, certainly prefect on January 19, 384." He ceased to be prefect between October 26, 384, 12 and June i, 385. 13 He pro- bably remained prefect at least to the end of 384. 385. PROBUS probably began the year as prefect. PRINCIPIUS succeeded him some time before June i, 385. 13 He continued pre- fect through the year. ATTICUS probably began the year as prefect. He was certainly prefect before March 13, 384. 10 He ceased to be prefect between March 13, 384, 10 and May 21, 384." PRAETEXTATUS became prefect between March 13, 384, 10 and May 21, 384.** He died in the autumn, after September 9, 384. 15 NEOTERIUS probably succeeded Praetextatus in the autumn of 384. He first appears in the Code on February i, 385. 16 NEOTERIUS probably began the year as prefect. He was cer- tainly prefect on February i,385. 16 He ceased to be prefect some time between July 10, 385," and January 23, 386. 18 EUSIGNIUS probably succeeded Neoterius before the end of the year. He first appears as pre- fect in the Code on January 23, 3 86.* 8 EUSIGNIUS probably began the year as prefect. He was cer- tainly prefect before January 2 3 386. 18 He continued prefect through the year. His last ap- pearance in the Code was on May 19, 387, 20 at which time he was sole prefect in Italy. I think that the preceding table gives approximately a true view of the double succession of prefects in Italy from 382 to 386. Possibly a more critical investigation of details might lead to some corrections having to be admitted ; but the broad fact that there was a double succession during those years cannot, I think, be impugned. in laws belonging to the first months of the year. However, Rauschen (Jahr- biicher, p. 82, n. 7) has shown that that rule does not hold in laws belonging to the latter part of the fourth century. 12 Cod. Theod., vi. 30, 6. " Ibid., ix. 30, 14. " Ibid., vi. 5, 2. " Cod. Just., i 54, 5. Praetextatus died after having been nominated by the Emperor as one of the consuls for 385 (cf. S. Hieron. Lib. contr. Joann. Hierosol., cap. 8, P. L., xxiii. 361). See also C.I.L., vol. vi. pars i. pp. 396, 397, nn. 1777 et 1778. 16 Cod. Theod.,\ii\. 5, 43. The words, "post consulatum," must be inserted into the subscription of this law (cf. Seeck, Op. fit., p. cliv. adn. 785). 17 Ibid., vii. 2, 2. 18 Ibid., xvi. I, 4, and 4, I. 19 Ibid., ii. 8, 18 ; viii. 8, 3 ; xi. 7, 13. * Ibid., xi. 30, 48. 386. PRINCIPIUS continued prefect till near the end of the year, and seems to have had no successor. His name ap- pears in the Code for the last time as prefect on November 3, 386. 19 528 EXCURSUS I. From what I have said it will, I hope, be clear to any reader, who has had the courage to wade through this argument, that it is just possible that there may have been two prefects of the Praetorium of Italy, viz. Ausonius and Hesperius, during at any rate part of the time which elapsed between the death of Valens on August 9, 378, and the accession of Theodosius on January 19, 379 ; but that it is more probable that the temporary union of the two prefectures and their joint-administration by Ausonius and his son did not commence until after Theodosius' accession, in which case Hesperius must have been sole prefect in Italy during the five months which preceded that accession. It will, I hope, also be clear that in 382, from April i onwards, there were certainly two prefects of the Italian praetorium ; and in particular that Syagrius and Hypatius were joint prefects in Italy between April i and July 5 in that year. Lastly, it has, I think, been shown that we have no reason to suppose that in 380 there was ever more than one Italian prefect at any one time. Hesperius was sole prefect in the early part of that year, and Syagrius in the later part. Unless I am much mistaken, this last result gets rid of Merenda's theory that the synodical letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae emanated from the Roman Council of 380. No doubt that theory has been adopted by Hefele and Duchesne ; but they do not seem to have noticed the difficulties which attach to it. The necessity under which we lie, of dating the synodical letter mentioned above, during a time when there was a plurality of prefects in Italy, does not absolutely exclude the theory which assigns the letter to the later months of 378, though it leaves the possibility of that date doubtful. I have, however, given, in an earlier part of this Excursus* other reasons which, to my mind, make such a date highly improbable. On the other hand, all the data of the problem seem to me to be satisfied, if we suppose that a council was held at Rome in May or June of the year 382, and that it was by that council that the letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae 2 was drawn up. 1 See pp. 518, 519. 2 In that letter ( 5) it is mentioned that Florentius, Bishop of Puteoli, had been condemned and deposed six years before at a Roman synod, and that he has now, "post sextum annum," crept back to his city. The condemnation of Florentius may well be supposed to have taken place at the council held at Rome in the latter half of the year 376 or in the beginning of 377 (for the date, see p. 326, and compare Merenda, De S. Damasi Opusculis et Gestis, cap. xi., P. L., xiii. 172-180, and Hefele, E. tr., ii. 290). The name of the Vicarius Urbis, Aqui- linus, to whom Gratian's rescript was addressed, does not help to decide the year when the rescript was written. There are gaps in the list of the known names of the Urban Vicars, in 378, 380, and 382. There is nothing to prevent Aquilinus being assigned to any of these years. If my conclusion as to the date of the council is correct, it will follow that he was, in fact, Vicar in the year 382. EXCURSUS II. On certain facts and dates connected with the proceedings of Maximus the Cynic in North Italy, which corroborate the conclusion that a council of the province of Milan was held in May, or thereabouts, in the year 381 (see p. 346). I PROPOSE in this Excursus to try and throw some light on certain passages, bearing on the proceedings of Maximus the Cynic in North Italy, which do not seem to me to have been rightly explained hitherto. My reason for dealing with this subject is that, unless I am much mistaken, I shall be able to show that Maximus appeared before a council of the bishops of the province of Milan in the month of May, 381, or thereabouts ; and if I only succeed in making this seem probable, I shall have corroborated the conclusion, at which I have arrived on p. 346, that a Milanese council was, in fact, held about that time. 1 Such a corroboration will, I hope, tend to confirm the confidence of readers in the general accuracy of my chronology of the Antiochene compact and of its partial ratification in North Italy. In order to make the discussion comprehensible, it will be necessary to begin by giving a short summary of the grotesque story of Maximus' earlier proceedings. Towards the end of the year 379, when S. Gregory Nazianzen was acting as a missionary bishop in Constantinople, and was doing his utmost to revive the faith in that Arian city, a strange personage appeared on the scene, one Maximus, an Alexandrian, who " wore the white robe of a Cynic, and carried a philosopher's staff, his head being laden with a huge crop of crisp curling hair, dyed a golden yellow, and swinging over his shoulders in long ringlets." 2 This personage, in some- way or other, gained the heart of the too confiding Gregory, and was admitted to his closest companionship. The saint actually preached a panegyrical oration in honour of Maximus and in his presence. But Gregory was nurturing, without knowing it, a viper in his bosom. Maximus was plotting to get himself substituted for his kind host and patron, as bishop of the Catholics in Constantinople. He somehow per- suaded his fellow-countryman, Peter of Alexandria, to become his accomplice. Peter, notwithstanding the fact that he had previously written to S. Gregory, recognizing his status as missionary bishop in Constantinople, now sent three of his Egyptian suffragans to consecrate 1 I use the expression " Milanese council " to denote a council of the bishops of the province, of which Milan was the metropolis. Such a council would usually be held at Milan, but it might on occasion be held at any other city in the province. 8 Smith and Wace, D.C.B., iii. 878. 2 M 530 EXCURSUS ii. Maximus and intrude him into Gregory's place. One night, when Gregory was ill, they forced their way into the saint's church, the church of the Resurrection, and settled Maximus on the episcopal throne, and began to carry out the rites appointed for the consecration of a bishop. But before they had concluded, daybreak arrived ; the plot was dis- covered ; the magistrates arrived on the scene ; Maximus and his conse- crators were driven into a neighbouring house, the abode of a flute- player, and there the consecration was completed, and the new bishop's tawny locks shorn off. Maximus fled from Constantinople to Thessa- lonica, to invoke the help and countenance of Theodosius. But the newly baptized Emperor repelled him with great indignation and terrible oaths, 1 and he had to seek refuge with Peter at Alexandria. Here also he created a disturbance, threatening Peter that, if he did not bring about his re-establishment as the Catholic bishop in Constantinople, he would oust him from his own throne. Peter had to appeal to the augustal prefect, who expelled Maximus from the city, and for a time no more was heard of him. Before passing on to the later history of Maximus, it will be necessary to consider the chronology. The Benedictine editors of the works of S. Gregory Nazianzen, in their Monilum 2 to the Thirty-fourth Oration, ex- press the opinion that Maximus' consecration took place in March or April, 380. This seems to be a very probable date ; for Damasus, writing to certain Macedonian bishops in the early part of the year 38 1, 3 says that the consecration took place " at the time when, by God's provi- dence the heretics had been humbled." 4 This would appear to refer to the period when the law of February 28, 38o, 5 was beginning to take effect throughout the empire. We may suppose that Maximus reached Alexandria not later than the month of June. How long he remained there before he was driven out of that city, and whither he went after his expulsion, we do not know. He disappears from our sight, until he turns up in Milan sometime during the Easter-tide of 381 ; 6 and soon after- wards we find him present at a council of the bishops of the province of Milan, who take up his cause and write in his favour to Theodosius, 1 Cf. S. Greg. Naz. Carmen de Vita sua, 1010, Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 726. 3 S. Greg. Naz. Opp., ed. Ben., i. 618. 3 For the date of Damasus' letters to the Macedonian bishops, see Rauschen (Jahrbiicher t p. 115). 4 P. L., xiii. 565. 5 See pp. 334, 335. 6 On Easter day, March 28, 381, S. Ambrose wrote the prologue to the first book of his treatise De Spiritu Sancto, as will be evident to any one who reads carefully the penultimate paragraph of that prologue (S. Ambros. Prolog, in Jib. i. de Spiritu Sancto, 17, P. L., xvi. 736, 737) with its clear reference to "these thousand persons " baptized " to-day" at Milan. Now, the last paragraph of the prologue shows that, when S. Ambrose wrote it, he had no doubts about the canonical status of S. Gregory Nazianzen at Constantinople. On the other hand, at the Milanese council, which, as we shall see, was held in May, a few weeks after Easter, S. Ambrose upheld Maximus' claims to the Constantinoplitan see against the claims of S. Gregory. It is clear that Maximus arrived in Milan soon after Easter. It may be well to mention that Peter of Alexandria, who is referred to in the passage mentioned above as if he were alive, had really died on February 14 ; but the news of his death would not reach Milan until the latter part of April. EXCURSUS II. 531 apparently intending, if they should receive a reply from the Emperor in time, to come to a decision on his case at the forthcoming Council of Aquileia, which was to be held in September. I proceed to make good the truth of these last assertions. They are based very largely on what we learn from the letter Sanctum animunt tuum^ addressed to Theodosius by another council of the province of Milan, which was held, as I think, in the last month of the year 38i. 2 In order that my argument may be more easily followed, I will begin by quoting the greater part of the third paragraph, and the whole of the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the letter in question. After mentioning Nectarius, of whose consecration to the see of Con- stantinople in succession to S. Gregory Nazianzen the council had lately heard, the letter goes on to say 3 " 3. . . . Cujus ordinatio "3. ... We do not see what regu- quem ordinem habuerit, non larity his [viz. Nectarius'] consecration videmus. Namque IN CON- had. For, IN A COUNCIL LATELY HELD, CILIO NUPER, cum Maxi- after Maximus, the bishop, had read a mus episcopus Alexandrinae letter of Peter, a man of holy memory, Ecclesiae communionem ma- and had made it clear that the com- nere secum lectis Petri sane- munion of the Church of Alexandria tae memoriae viri literis remained with him, and had proved by prodidisset, ejusque intra the plainest testimony that he was con- privatas aedes, quia Ariani secrated in accordance with his \i.e basilicas adhuc tenebant, se Peter's] mandate in a private house, creatum esse mandate, tribus because the Arians were still at that episcopis ordinantibus, 4 dilu- time in possession of the basilicas, and cida testificatione docuisset, that three bishops co-operated in his nihil habuimus, beatissime consecration, we had no reason, most principum, in quo de episco- blessed Prince, for doubting concerning patu ejus dubitare possemus, his episcopal status ; [and we felt this all cum vim sibi repugnanti a the more,] because he had testified that, plerisque etiam de populo et when he resisted, force had actually been clero testatus esset illatam. put upon him by very many of the laity and of the clergy. 1 It is unfortunate that this letter has been preserved only in one manuscript. We may be morally certain that, if we had other manuscript copies of the letter, we should be able to restore on manuscript evidence to their original form words, which copyists may have altered, and to bring back into the text, on similar evidence, words which copyists may have dropped. Conjectural emendations are much more admissible in such cases as this than they ordinarily are, when the manuscript evidence is abundant in quantity and varied in provenance. - The date of the council, from which the letter Sanctum animum tuuin emanated, is discussed in note 2 on pp. 538, 539. have received the universal approval of later editors. The corrected passages are pointed out in the notes. I take over the division into paragraphs from Migne (P. L., xvi. 991-993), and I punctuate at my own discretion. 4 The text of this passage is corrected in accordance with the brilliant con- jecture of De Valois (see his note on Sozom. H. ., vii. 9). The manuscript reads, " secretum esse mandatoribus episcopis ordinantibus." 532 EXCURSUS IL "4. Tamen ne absenti- bus partibus praesumpte aliquid definisse videremur, Clementiam tuam datis lite- ris putavimus instruendam, ut ei consuleretur ex usu publicae pads atque con- cordiae. Quia revera adver- tebamus Gregorium nequa- quam secundum traditionem patrum Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae sibi sacerdotium vindicate. Nos igitur 1 in synodo ea, quae totius orbis episcopis videbatur esse prae- scripta, 2 nihil temere statu- endum esse censuimus. At eo ipso tempore, 3 qui gene- rale concilium declinaverunt, Constantinopolique 4 gessisse dicuntur. Nam cum cog- novissent ad hoc partium venisse Maximum, ut causam in synodo ageret suam (quod etiamsi indicium concilium non fuisset, jure et more "4. Still, that we might not appear to have settled anything over-confidently, in the absence of the parties, we thought that information should be furnished to your Clemency by letter, in order that his case might be provided for in such a way as to serve the interests of public peace and concord ; because in truth we perceived that in a way quite unauthorized by the tradition of the Fathers, Gregory was claiming for himself the bishopric of the Church of Constantinople. We there- fore l in that synod, attendance at which appeared to have been prescribed to the bishops of the whole world, 2 came to the conclusion that nothing ought to be decided rashly. But at that very time 3 those who refused to come to the General Council, are reported to have held a council at Constantinople. 4 Now, after they had become acquainted with the fact that Maximus had come hither to plead his cause in the synod (and this, even if a council had not been convoked, it was competent for him to do lawfully and according to the custom of our pre- 1 Tillemont's conjectural emendation of this passage will be discussed later (see pp. 536, 537). The text printed and translated here is that of the manuscript. 9 The council to which reference is here made is clearly the Council of Aquileia. The bishops of both East and West were originally summoned to that council (cf. Gestt. Condi. Aquil., 4-12, P. Z., xvi. 956-959). But by the advice of S. Ambrose, Gratian caused fresh letters to be dispatched, which re- lieved the bishops outside of North Italy from any obligation to attend, while they left them free to come if they wished. The council itself, in its letter Benedictus Deus ( 3, P. Z., xvi. 981), describes what actually happened. The Aquileian Fathers say, " Though owing to the distance of the journey they [viz. the bishops of ' the churches over the whole world '] could not come personally, yet nearly all from all the Western provinces were present by the legates who were sent. " * The text of this clause is corrected in accordance with Labbe's conjecture. The manuscript reads, "Adeo ipso tempore." 4 There must be something corrupt in this passage. Either the "que" should be erased or some words have dropped out after "dicuntur." In translating I have ignored the "que." Hardouin suggests the substitution of "quae" for " que," but that emendation does not seem to help the sense. [Since the earlier part of this note was written, my friend, Mr. C. H. Turner, of Magdalen, has suggested to me that in lieu of " Constantinopolique gessisse " we should read " Constantinopoli inique gessisse." This makes excellent sense, and very much improves the connexion of this sentence with that which follows. This letter was probably written by S. Ambrose, and I observe that S. Ambrose, when he recited Ps. cxviii. 78, was accustomed to say, " quoniam injuste iniquitatem gesserunt in me ; " and in his exposition of that verse he says, " Numquid hie maledicit qui in se iniqua gesserunt ? " (Expos, in Ps. cxviii., Serm. x. 41, P. Z.,xv. 1416). If Mr. Turner's emendation is accepted, the "nam" which follows "dicuntur" should be translated "for" instead of "now."] EXCURSUS II. 533 majorum, 1 sicut et sanctae memoriae Athanasius, et dudum Petrus, Alexandrinae ecclesiae episcopi, et orien- talium plerique fecerunt, ut ad ecclesiae Romanae, Italiae et totius occidentis confu- gisse judicium viderentur) ; cum eum, sicut diximus, ex- periri velle adversum eos qui episcopatum ejus abnue- rant comperissent, praesto- lari utique etiam nostram super eo sententiam debue- runt. Non praerogativam vindicamus examinis, 2 sed consortium tamen debuit esse communis arbitrii. "5. Postremo prius con- stare oportuit, utrum huic abrogandum, quam alii con- ferendum sacerdotium vide- retur, ab his praesertim, a quibus se Maximus vel de- stitutum, vel appetitum inju- ria querebatur. Itaque cum Maximum episcopum recepe- runt 3 in communionem nos- tra consortia,quoniam eum a Catholicis constitit episcopis ordinatum, nee ab episco- decessors, 1 as also Athanasius of holy memory, and quite lately Peter, both of them bishops of the Church of Alex- andria, and a considerable number of Easterns have done, so that they ap- peared to have had recourse to the decision of the churches of Rome, of Italy, and of all the West) ; after they had ascertained, as we said, that Maximus wished to bring to a formal issue the question raised by those who denied his episcopal status, they were surely bound to have waited for our judgement about him. We do not claim that the right of examination belongs to us as a peculiar privilege, 2 but we ought to have had a share in what should be a common decision. " 5. Last of all it ought to have been decided whether it was right that the bishopric should be taken away from Maximus, before it was decided that it ought to be conferred on another, especially since those who conferred it were persons, concerning whom Maximus was complaining that he had been either abandoned by them or assailed by them with violence. Therefore since we and the bishops, who are our colleagues, have received 3 Maximus the bishop into our communion on the ground that it was 1 It is clear that here also the text is corrupt. Some such words as " facere potuisset " have dropped out. .In translating I have corrected the text in accord- ance with my proposed emendation. * Dr. Rivington (Prim. Ch., pp. 478, 479) insists that the expression "prae- rogativam examinis " in this passage must mean " the examination of the matter in the first instance" because of the technical meaning attached to the word praerogativa^ when used of the tribe or century which on any occasion had to vote first in the Roman Comitia. But is the word praerogativa ever used of a court of first instance? It is a favourite word with S. Ambrose, who uses it in the sense of "privilege." Cf. S. Ambros. Enarr. in Ps. xliii. 13 (P. L., xiv. 1149) ; Expos, in Ps. cxviii., Serm. ii. 14 (P. L. t xv. 1279) ; Prolog, in lib. i. de Spir. Sanct., 17 (P. L., xvi. 736) ; Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. 4 (P. L., xvi. 989) ; and compare the synodical letter, Et hoc Gloriae Vestrae, 10 (P. L., xiii. 582). This synodical letter belongs, as has been shown, to the year 382, and may have been written by S. Ambrose. * It would appear that this reception of Maximus into the communion of the North Italian bishops took place at the "concilium nuper." That council recognized his episcopal status ; the bishops expressly say ( 3) that they had no reason in that council for doubting about it, though the further question of his light to the see of Constantinople was reserved. This note will be better understood, after the reader has digested the discussion, which follows, and deals with the meaning of the whole passage. 534 EXCURSUS IL patus Constantinopolitani certain that he had been consecrated by putavimus petitione remo- Catholic bishops, we also came to the vendum. Cujus allegationem conclusion that he ought not to be ex- praesentibus partibus aesti- eluded from his right of claim to the mavimus esse pendendam. bishopric of Constantinople. And we Nectarium autem cum nu- held that his argument in proof of his per nostra mediocritas Con- claim should be weighed in the presence stantinopoli cognoverit ordi- of both parties. But since we have learnt natum, cohaerere communio- recently that Nectarius has been conse- nem nostram cum orientali- crated at Constantinople, we do not see bus partibus non videmus. that our communion with the Eastern Praesertim cum ab iisdem regions stands firm ; especially since Nec- Nectarius dicitur illico sine tarius is said to have been left without the communionis consortio desti- fellowship of communion immediately tutus, a quibus fuerat ordi- [after his consecration] by the very persons natus." l who had consecrated him." 1 I have, I hope, made it clear in note 2 on p. 532, that the council, which, when it was originally convoked, was intended to be an Ecumenical Council, and to which allusion is made in the fourth paragraph of the letter Sanctum anitmim tuum, quoted above, was in fact the Council of Aquileia. But the question now arises : Are we to identify this council with the council previously mentioned, as having been " lately held " (concilio nuper), before which Maximus appeared, and to which he read or caused to be read the letter of Peter of Alexandria in his favour, and which finally addressed a letter to Theodosius in defence of Maximus' claims to the see of Constantinople as against the claims of S. Gregory Nazianzen ? or are we to regard the concilium nnper as having been held some months before the Council of Aquileia ? Some arguments at once suggest themselves in favour of distinguishing between the two councils. 1. If the two councils are to be identified, why does S. Ambrose, when he first mentions this council in the third paragraph, refer to it simply as a concilium mtper; while later on, after giving an elaborate account of what had happened at it, having occasion to make explicit mention of it again in the fourth paragraph, he, without any apparent reason, gives a full description of it as having been originally intended to be an Ecumenical Council ? The natural mode of proceeding, if the two passages refer to the same council, would have been to give the full description of the council when it was first mentioned. It is impossible to read consecutively the third and fourth paragraphs without feeling that the full description seems to be inserted in the fourth paragraph, in order to distinguish the council so described from the council previously mentioned. 2. We have a full series of documents connected with the Council of Aquileia, namely, the Cesta Concilii and also four synodical epistles, that is to say one to the bishops of certain provinces in Gaul, two to the Emperor Gratian, and one to the Emperor Theodosius. But the letter in favour of Maximus, addressed to Theodosius by the concilium nuper, is not to be found in the Aquileian collection. It is surprising that so 1 Ep. inter Ambrosianas xiii. 3-5, P. Z., xvi. 991-993. EXCURSUS II. 535 important a letter, if it really was written by the Council of Aquileia, should have dropped out. 3. S. Ambrose, in the fourth paragraph of the letter Sanctum animum tuum, lays very great stress on the fact that the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) knew that Maximus had come to Italy to plead his cause before the Council of Aquileia. Twice over he repeats that the Constantinopolitan Council had "become acquainted with that fact" and had "ascertained" it. And it is on the basis of their knowledge of Maximus being in the West, waiting to plead before a council which had been convoked, that S. Ambrose and his suffragans rest their censure of the Constantinopolitan Fathers, who ought, in the opinion of the Italian bishops, to have waited to learn the judgement of the West on Maximus' claims before they consecrated and enthroned Nectarius. The most elementary sense of propriety would move S. Ambrose when complaining to an Emperor about the action of a council, which that Emperor had convoked and ratified, to bring forward some proof of the allegation on which he principally based his censure. One would expect to find in an earlier part of the letter, Sanctum animum tuum, a clear reference to some letter sent from North Italy to Constantinople, which should have arrived before the close of the Constantinopolitan Council, and which, even if it made no explicit reference to the forthcoming Council of Aquileia, should at least have explained the position of Maximus as having come to the West, and as having put himself in communication with certain of the Western bishops, and as being at the time, when the letter was sent, in a state of expectation, awaiting their decision upon his claims. Now, if the concilium nuper is a distinct council from the Council of Aquileia, we have in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the letter Sanctum animum tuum such a reference to a letter of advice, sent from North Italy to Constantinople, as would constitute a solid foundation for S. Ambrose's repeated allusions to the knowledge of Maximus' position, which was possessed by the Constantinopolitan Council. But if the concilium nuper and the Council of Aquileia are to be identified, we have no such reference ; for in that case the letter to Theodosius, described in the first sentence of the before-mentioned fourth paragraph, must have been written from Aquileia more than a month after the Council of Constantinople had been brought to a close. On the whole these three arguments, and more especially the last, appear to me to be so strong that, even if I were forced to accept the text of the fourth paragraph, as it is found in the single manuscript which has preserved it, I should myself feel no doubt that the concilium nuper is to be distinguished from the Council of Aquileia, and that it was in fact a council held some months before the Council of Aquileia. 1 1 To some readers the distinction between the concilium nuper and the Aquileian Council might seem to be proved by the fact that the concilium nuper defended the claims of Maximus against the claims of S. Gregory Nazianzen, making no mention of the claims of Nectarius. They would point out S. Gregory had resigned the see of Constantinople in June or early in July, and that Nectarius had succeeded him ccitainly before the end of July ; and t would therefore urge that it was impossible to suppose that the council, which made no mention of Nectarius and confined its attention to Gregory, is to be 536 EXCURSUS ii. But at this point it becomes necessary to call attention to a difficulty, which is inherent in the manuscript text, and which is not affected by the way in which the question as to the identity or non-identity of the concilium nuper with the Aquileian Council may be decided. According to the manuscript text S. Ambrose and his comprovincials write : "We therefore in that synod attendance at which appeared to have been prescribed to the bishops of the whole world came to the conclusion that nothing ought to be decided rashly. But at that very time those who refused to come to the general council are reported to have held a council at Constantinople." Now, the second of these two sentences, when taken in connexion with the first, seems to assert that the Council of Constantinople was held at the very time when the Council of Aquileia was being held. But further on in the same paragraph it is implied that the Council of Constantinople had been informed that Maximus was waiting to plead his cause before the Council of Aquileia, and it is laid down that the Eastern bishops ought to have waited for the decision of Aquileia before they took any final action of their own to his detriment. And, as a matter of fact, the Council of Constantinople was commenced more than three months before the Council of Aquileia, and had been brought to a close more than a month, perhaps nearly two months, before the opening of that Western synod. Thus the two sentences, which are quoted above, palpably contradict, as they stand, the facts of history, and are irreconcilable with statements made further on in the same paragraph, in which they themselves find a place. Clearly there must be some corruption in the text. I have no doubt myself that a word has dropped out. In fact, the whole of our difficulties will be avoided, and we shall succeed in getting a consistent statement, if an emendation of Tillemont's be adopted, and the word " nisi " be inserted before the words " in synodo ea." 1 The identified with the Council of Aquileia, which was held in September. I entirely agree with the conclusion, but I cannot accept that particular argument in its favour. The Aquileian letters make it perfectly clear that the events, which had occurred in Constantinople during the summer, were not known in Aquileia, when the council met there in September. 1 Tillemont (ix. 501) quotes the fourth paragraph of the letter Sanctum animum tmim in his margin thus "(nisi) in synodo ea, etc." He does not argue in favour of his emendation, but assumes it, as apparently not needing any justification, and he bases his whole reading of the history on the sentence so amended. As a result of his insertion of the word " nisi," he distinguishes the concilium nuper from the council which was originally intended to be ecumenical. He thinks that the concilium nuper was held in March, April, or May, and that the council, intended to be ecumenical, was held at the end of the year. Tille- mont's whole account labours under one great defect, produced by the fact that he assigns all these events to the year 382, whereas they really happened in 381. But his weighty opinion in favour of the insertion of "nisi," and his general interpretation of the third and fourth paragraphs of the letter Sanctum animum tuum are not vitiated by his chronological mistake. Owing to that mistake he identifies the council, which was originally intended to be ecumenical, with the Council of Rome, which was held in the autumn of 382. If the concilium nuper had been held in May, 382, instead of in May, 381, it would have attacked the claims of Nectarius to the see of Constantinople rather than the claims of S. Gregory Nazianzen. For parallels to such a use of nisi as Tillemont proposes, one may refer to Gal. ii. 16, Apoc. xxi. 27, and other passages of the New Testament in the Vulgate. Compare also Pope Stephen's words, "Nihil EXCURSUS II. 537 first of the sentences, quoted above, will then convey a meaning which may be thus expressed: "We therefore came to the conclusion that nothing should be rashly decided, but that the decision should be reserved for that synod, attendance at which appeared to have been prescribed to the bishops of the whole world." If that correction be admitted, all becomes clear. A sharp distinction is made between the concilium nuper and the Council of Aquileia ; and the meeting of the Council of Constantinople is stated to have taken place at the very time when the concilium nuper was being held, and not, as the manuscript reading implies, at the time when the Council of Aquileia was in session. As we know that the Council of Constantinople assembled in the month of May, we may conclude that it was in May or thereabouts that the concilium nuper was held. I hope that I have succeeded in showing that the chronology of the events connected with the story of Maximus confirms very remarkably the result, at which we had previously arrived, when we were considering such information as we possess concerning the reception of the news of the Antiochene compact in the West. The two lines of investigation are independent of each other, but they agree in pointing to the conclusion that a provincial council was held in North Italy in May or June, 381, and that a letter was addressed by that council to Theodosius. We can now see that two subjects were discussed in the council's letter, namely, (i) the ratification 1 of the Antiochene compact, 2 and (2) the claims of innovetur nisi quod traditum est," quoted by S. Cyprian (Ep. Ixxiv. i, Of p., ed. Hartel., i. 799), and S. Cyprian's own words in his Ep. Ixiii. ad Caecitium, X 3 (Opp. , i. 712, 3, 5), and see Archbishop Benson's note ( Cyprian, pp. 421, 422). One may compare also the words of the five legates of Pope Hormisdas, who were sent to Constantinople in 519, and who, in a suggestio addressed to the pope, describe a service held at Scampes thus : " Celebratae sunt missae ; nullius nomen obnoxium religionis est recitatum, nisi tantum beatitudinis vestrae " (P. Z., Ixiii. 442). [Since the previous portion of this note was written, Mr. C. H. Turner has again come to my help with what seems to me a most satisfactory emendation of the text. He suggests that in lieu of the words, ." nos igitur (nisi) in synodo," we should read, " nisi igitur in synodo." It is clear that " nisi igitur " could very easily get corrupted into "nos igitur." The reader will see at once that Mr. Turner's emendation gives to the sentence the same meaning as the less elegant emendation of Tillemont.] 1 See pp. 344, 345. 8 In the second paragraph of the letter Sanctum animum tuum, a paragraph to which I have not hitherto alluded, there is a plain reference to this first section of the synodical letter addressed to Theodosius by the Milanese council held in May, 381. For the sake of completeness I quote the passage : "We wrote to you not long ago (scripseramus cludum), that, since the city of Antioch had two bishops, Paulinus and Meletius, both of whom we regarded as true to the faith, there should be agreement between them in respect to peace and concord without violation of ecclesiastical order, or at least that, if one of them died before the other, no one should be put into the place of the deceased while the other lived." From what has been said it will now be evident to the reader that, when S. Ambrose and his suffragans used the expression "Scripseramus dudum" in their second paragraph, they were referring to a letter, written at the same North Italian synod, as the synod to which they allude in their third paragraph in the words, "in concilio nuper ;" and again they were also referring to the same letter as that, to which allusion is made by the Aquileian Fathers, when in their letter Qnamlibet ( 5, quoted on p. 345, note i), they speak of " preces nostras, quibus juxta partium pactum poposcimus," etc. 538 EXCURSUS II. Maximus the Cynic to the see of Constantinople. The different frag- ments of information fit in together like the pieces in a Chinese puzzle ; and the truth of the separate testimonies is corroborated by their mutual harmony. Although it is not strictly necessary to my argument, I venture to set down here what I have been able to gather, or probably conjecture, about the issue of the controversy in regard to Maximus. We have seen that at the preliminary council in May, 381, Maximus was received into com- munion, but that nothing was definitely decided as to his claim to the see of Constantinople. The final decision on that point was postponed until the Council of Aquileia should meet. When the Council of Aquileia did meet, it is clear that no reply had been received from Theodosius. He could hardly have replied without giving some information about the Council of Constantinople, and about its condemnation of Maximus and its appointment of Nectarius. But the Fathers of Aquileia show no signs of having ever heard of the Council of Constantinople or any of its pro- ceedings. Accordingly, the bishops at Aquileia again postponed any final decision in regard to Maximus' right to the see of Constantinople. When at last Theodosius' reply arrived, as no doubt it did arrive, the bishops of North Italy must have discovered that from their point of view everything had gone wrong in regard to the controversy about Maximus at the Council of Constantinople. That council had condemned Maximus, and had established Nectarius as successor to S. Gregory in the see of the imperial city. It may be presumed that soon afterwards another letter from Theodosius arrived, replying to the letter Quamlibet addressed to him by the Council of Aquileia. It is clear that either from it or from some other trustworthy source S. Ambrose and his suffragans learnt that Theodosius had no intention of summoning an Ecumenical Council at Alexandria. 1 The state of things must have seemed to S. Ambrose to be getting very serious, and he thought it right to summon a fresh council to meet, presumably at Milan, some time in the closing weeks of the year 381, most probably, as it seems to me, during December. 2 At that council he drew up and sent to Theodosius the 1 In their letter Sanctum animum tuum they say nothing about a council at Alexandria, although they are writing to Theodosius ; but they speak of a pro- posed council to be held at Rome. Some communications must have passed on the subject of the formal request of the Aquileian Council that there should be a council summoned to meet at Alexandria (cf. Ep. inter Ambrosianas xii. 5, P. L., xvi. 989). The proposal to hold a council at Rome implies, I think, that the crisis in that city was terminated. Gratian had no doubt decided in favour of Damasus and had banished Ursinus and Isaac. * As regards the date of the Milanese council, which sent the letter Sanctum animum tuum to Theodosius, the following considerations ought to be taken into account, (i) This council was obviously later than the Council of Aquileia, and it must be assigned to a date removed sufficiently from the date of the Aquileian Council to allow of the Aquileian letter Quamlibet reaching Theodosius, and of the Eastern Emperor's reply to that letter being received at Milan. (2) On the other hand, the interval between the two councils must not be made longer than would be necessary for the above-mentioned correspondence to take place ; because we have to find room in the year 382 for three other councils, all of which were attended by the bishops of North Italy. For in the first place, there was held in EXCURSUS II. 539 strong letter Sanctum animum tuum, part of which we have been con- sidering. Towards the end of that letter the bishops of North Italy threaten to break off all relations with the Eastern Church, unless Maximus is reinstated in the Constantinopolitan see, or unless the East will agree that the whole matter shall be brought before a General Council, to meet in Rome. It would seem that the writers had reason to think that their own Emperor, Gratian, would be ready to convoke the proposed council, as in fact he did. 1 They mention that it is at Gratian's suggestion that they are writing on these subjects to Theodosius. 2 To this letter Theodosius returned, to use S. Ambrose's expression, an " august and princely answer," which has not come down to us. A fresh council of the province of Milan was held in the year 382, 3 which sent a suitable reply to the Emperor's letter. That reply, beginning with the words Fidei tuae, we possess. 4 We may gather from it that Theodosius had written about the two controversies, which had been discussed in the letter Sanctum animum tiutm, that is to say, the controversy as to which of the two claimants, S. Flavian or Paulinus, had the best right to the see of Antioch, and the similar controversy in regard to the rival claims of Nectarius and Maximus to the see of Constantinople. 5 S. Ambrose and his colleagues say nothing which suggests that the Emperor's letter had in any way caused them to change their opinion in reference to either of those controversies. We know for certain that they, with the rest of the West, continued to support the claims of Paulinus at Antioch, and we may, I think, fairly presume that they continued to support Maximus' claims to the see of Constantinople. But not many weeks afterwards they, or some of them, must have gone to Rome to attend the council which synodically judged and acquitted Damasus, and they were no doubt disabused, by intercourse with Damasus and others, of the favourable view of Maximus' claims which they had too readily adopted in consequence of their having given an undeserved credence to the tale of that impostor. They would the earlier part of that year another council of the bishops of the province of Milan, which addressed to Theodosius the letter Fidei tuae (see the note on p. 380). Secondly, there was held at Rome a council attended by "almost innumerable bishops from the different parts of Italy," which synodically acquitted Damasus (see the Excursus I. on pp. 510-528, and refer specially to p. 523). And thirdly, there was the great council held at Rome in the autumn, which was originally intended to be an Ecumenical Council (see p. 522). These considerations seem to me to point to the closing weeks of the year 381 as the probable date of the letter Sanctum animum tuum, though it might conceivably have been written in January, 382. 1 Compare p. 523, note I ; and compare also Theodoret (//. ., v. 9) and Soromen (ff. ., vii. n). * Cf. Ep. inter Ambrosianas xiii. 6-8, P. L. xvi. 993. 3 Easter fell on April 17 in the year 382. I am inclined to think that the Milanese council, to which reference is made in the text, was held as soon as possible after Easter. 4 Ep. inter Ambrosianas xiv., P. L., xvi. 994, 995. 8 The Benedictine editors of the works of S. Ambrose express their opinion that Theodosius in his "august and princely answer" " et seriem qua Nectarii facta est ordinatio, non secus ac Maximi dolos ac scelera significasse, sicut et quae ad Paulini ac Flaviani causam pertinebant." This conclusion seems to result from a comparison of the two synodical letters Fidei tuae and Sanctum animum tuum. 540 EXCURSUS II. discover that Rome, Alexandria, and the East were at one in rejecting- Maximus' pretensions, though, for the present, Rome was still doubtful about the canonical status of Nectarius. The whole history of the support of Maximus' claims by S. Ambrose and his suffragans is of great interest, because it shows how very inde- pendent of Rome the see of Milan was in S. Ambrose's time. Damasus had been informed by S. Acholius of Thessalonica, perhaps as early as the year 380, of the baseless nature of Maximus' claims ; and he had written strongly against Maximus some time in the first two or three months of 381. But S. Ambrose was supporting Maximus all through the year 381, from Easter or thereabouts onwards, holding synods, and writing to Theodosius in Maximus' favour, and claiming a substantial share in the settlement of the question, and threatening to withdraw his communion from the East if they persisted in regarding their condemna- tion of Maximus as final. It is clear that he did not think that it was in any way necessary that he should consult Damasus before taking these measures. Of course S. Ambrose recognized that the Apostolic see of imperial Rome was, as a matter of fact, first in order among the sees of the West and in the whole Church ; l and he was prepared at the present juncture to grant to that see through the medium of State legislation certain care- fully defined judicial powers in relation to Western bishops and metro- politans. But, as Mgr. Duchesne has told us, there was practically at that time in the West " a double hegemony ; that of the pope and that of the Bishop of Milan ; " 2 and S. Ambrose had no idea of merging that double hegemony into the single hegemony of the pope. 3 In the particular case of Maximus, the pope, thanks to S. Acholius, had been better informed than the Bishop of Milan. But that accidental fact does not diminish the interest which attaches to S. Ambrose's view of his own position face to face with the occupant of the Roman see. 1 Just because the Roman see was, in fact, the first see, it necessarily was the normal centre, which was in continual communication with all parts of the Church. So long as it remained the first see, to enjoy the communion of Rome would under normal circumstances carry with it the enjoyment of the communion of all other Catholic churches. It was, therefore, natural for the Western Council of Aquileia to speak of " the rights of venerable communion flowing forth to all" from the Church of Rome (cf. Ep. inter Ambrosianas xi. 4, P. Z., xvi. 986). A similar remark concerning the see of Canterbury might be made at the present time by an English Churchman, who should be speaking of that primatial church in its relation to other churches of the Anglican communion. But neither in the fourth century nor now would it be necessarily implied that such a position rested on any immut- able divine sanction, or that it carried with it any monarchical jurisdiction. 2 Compare Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 32. 3 From what has been set forth in this Excursus it will be seen how curiously mistaken Dr. Rivington was, in thinking (see Prim. CA., p. 478) that, when S. Ambrose and his colleagues tell Theodosius in their letter Sanctum animum tuum that, since Maximus was pleading his cause in the West, the Easterns " ought to have waited for our judgement concerning him," "they certainly meant" "that the Easterns ought to have waited for the judgement of Rome." They assuredly meant nothing of the kind. There are occasions in the course of the history of the Early Church, when the expression "the West" may be regarded as practically almost equivalent to " Rome " ; but it would be a great mistake to treat the two expressions as if ordinarily they were interchangeable. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 541 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF ECCLESIASTICAL EVENTS BELONGING TO THE YEARS 381 AND 382. ( To illustrate Excursus I. and Excursus 77.) A.D. 381. Theodosius publishes his constitu tion Nullus Haereticis. Sapor arrives in Antioch. January xo (see p. 336). Peter of Alexandria dies. The compact is made between S. Meletius and Paulinus. S. Ambrose writes the prologue to his Lib. i. de Spiritu Sancto. Damasus writes to some Mace- donian bishops against Maxi- mus. Maximus arrives in Milan. S. Meletius' envoys arrive in Milan. A Milanese council is held, which writes to Theodosius about the Antiochene compact, and in favour of Maximus. This is the concilium nuper(see p. 531). The Second Ecumenical Council meets at Constantinople. S. Meletius dies. The Ecumenical Council passes its canons. Kectarius is consecrated. Theodosius publishes his constitu- tion Episcopis tradi. The Roman Church is very seri- ously disturbed by the machi- nations of Ursinus' emissaries. The charge against Damasus is investigated by the Prefect of the City. The Council of Aquileia meets. Gratian acquits Damasus and banishes Ursinus to Cologne, and Isaac the Jew to a corner of Spain. A Milanese council addresses the letter Sanctum animum tuum to Theodosius. Probably at the beginning of February (see p. 337). February 14 (see note 4 on p. 337). Probably during the second half of February (see pp. 343, 344). On Easter day, March 28 (see p. 530, note 6). Some time during the first three months in the year (see p. 530). Soon after Easter (see p. 530). Probably during the first three weeks in May (see pp. 343, 344). In the latter part of May, or at latest, in the first week of June (see pp. 345, 537)- Certainly in May ; probably in the latter part of that month (see P- 345)- Perhaps early in June. Perhaps on July 9 (cf. Mansi, iii. 557)- Probably in July ; certainly before July 30 (see p. 335, note 3). July 30 (see p. 335, note 3). During the spring and summer months (see pp. 342, 343, 519-521). Probably during July (see p. 520). September 3 (see p. 514)- Before December (see p. 538, note Probably during December, but possibly in January, 382 (see note 2 on pp. 538, 539)- CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. AJkjft. Easter day. A MH^pfff fftimfil addresses Ac letter Fiddtiuu to Theodosms. A council of all Italy meets in Rome, and synodkaOy acquits Damasus, and addresses the letter Ei hoc Gloria* Vcstrae to An Eastern council at Constanti- nople addresses the synodical letter (n ^Jr fa 7 rSr^) to toe Western bishops. Gratian sends his rescript Ordina- rwrum tententieu to Aqnifinus. A great council, intended to be ecumenical, but to which only five Eastern bishops come, is eti April 17. Probably towards the end of April (see p. 539 note 3). At the end of May or in June (see P-523)- In the summer (see p. 522). Probably in July or August. In die autumn (see p. 522 - CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE COUNCILS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS VOLUME. A-D. (circa) 50, Jerusalem, tinder S. Ja (circa) 195, Caesarea, tinder S. Tbeophflas and S. Narcissus- (circa) 195, Epbestts, under Polycrates of Ephesus. (circa) 195, Rome, under Victor of Rome. (circa) 215, Carthage, under Agrippinos of Carthage. 230, I coniimu 251, Carthage, first tinder S, Cyprian of Cartilage, 254 or 255, Carthage, fourth under S. Cyprian. 256 (spring), Carthage, sixth under S. Cyprian . 256 (September), Carthage, seventh under S. Cyprian 268, Antjocb, under Helenas of Tarsus. 300, Elvira, under Felix of Acci. 313, Rome, under S, MUtiades of Rome. 314, Aries, under Marinas of Aries. 320 or 321, Alexandria, tinder S. Alexander of Alexandria. 324, Alexandria, under Hosius of Cordova. 325, Nkaea, under Hosius, First Ecumenical. 335, Tyre, under Eusebius of Caesarea [?]. 339, Antioch, 340, Antioch. 341, Antioch (Council of the Dedication). 343, Sardka, under Hosius. 343, PbilippopoHs, under Stephen of Antioch, CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 543 Soon after 343, Carthage, under S. Gratus of Carthage. 344, Antioch. 345, Milan, 351, Sirmium. 353, Aries. 355, Milan. 357, Sirmium. 357, Melitene. 358, Ancyra, under Basil of Ancyra. 358, Sirmium. 359 (May), Sirmium. 359, Ariminum, under Restitutus of Carthage. 359, Seleucia. 360, Constantinople, under Acacius of Caesarea. 361, Antioch. 362, Alexandria, under S. Athanasius of Alexandria. 363, Antioch, under S. Meletius of Antioch. 364, Lampsacus. 367, Tyana. 371 (December), Rome, second under Damasus of Rome. 1 374, Rome, third under Damasus. 374, Valence. 375, in Western Illyricum. 376 or 377, Rome, fourth under Damasus. 379, Antioch, under S. Meletius, 380, Rome, fifth under Damasus. 381 (May), Constantinople I., under S. Meletius, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and Nectarius, Second Ecumenical. 381 (May or June), Milan, under S. Ambrose of Milan. 381 (September), Aquileia, under S, Valerian and S. Ambrose. 381 (December), Milan, under S. Ambrose. 382 (April), Milan, under S. Ambrose. 382 (May or June), Rome, sixth under Damasus. 383 (Summer), Constantinople, under Nectarius. 382 (Autumn), Rome, seventh under Damasus. 390, Carthage, under Genethlius of Carthage. 391-2, Capua. 394, Constantinople, under Nectarius. 397 G une )> Carthage, second under S. Aurelius of Carthage. 397 (August), Carthage, third under S. Aurelius. 398 (September), Turin. 401 (June), Carthage, fifth under S. Aurelius. 401 (September), Carthage, sixth under S. Aurelius. 1 I acree with Dr. Bright in thinking that this was "the second of Damasa*' councils (Later Treatises of S. Ati**as*MS, p. 45). It was apparently at this council that Auxcntius of Milan was anathematized (Bright, Of, /., p> 43, **vl cf. S. Athanas. f, Ml f+:tft*m, i). There had been an earlier council in or about 369, at which Ursacius and Valens had been cast out of the Church, but Auxentius had apparently been spared (cf. S. Alhanas. Ef* wf AfrvSt o and Bright, Of. ci/., p. 40). 544 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. A.D. 404, Carthage, ninth under S. Aurelius. 407, Carthage, eleventh under S. Aurelius. 408 (June), Carthage, twelfth under S. Aurelius. 408 (October), Carthage, thirteenth under S. Aurelius. 412, Zerta. 415, Diospolis, under Eulogius of Caesarea. 416, Carthage, under S. Aurelius. 1 416, Mileum, under Silvanus, the Primate of Numidia. 418 (May), Carthage, sixteenth under S. Aurelius. 418, Telepte. 418 (December), Carthage, under S. Aurelius. 2 419 (May), Carthage, seventeenth under S. Aurelius. 421, Carthage, eighteenth under S. Aurelius. {circa) 423, Carthage, nineteenth under S. Aurelius. 426, Carthage, twentieth under S. Aurelius. 431, Ephesus, under S. Cyril of Alexandria, Third Ecu- menical. 442, Vaison. 444, Besangon, under S. Hilary of Aries. 448, Constantinople, under S. Flavian of Constantinople. 449 (August), Ephesus, under Dioscorus of Alexandria, the Latrocinium. 449 (October), Rome, under S. Leo of Rome. 451, Chalcedon, under S. Leo's legates, Fourth Ecumenical. 484, Rome, under Felix III. of Rome. 485, Rome, under Felix III. 495, Rome, under Gelasius of Rome. 518, Jerusalem, under John III. of Jerusalem. 518, Tyre, under Epiphanius of Tyre. 518, Constantinople, under John II. of Constantinople. 525, Carthage, under Boniface of Carthage. 531, Rome, under Boniface II. of Rome. 535, Carthage, under Reparatus of Carthage. 536, Constantinople, under S. Mennas of Constantinople. 550, Carthage, under Reparatus. 553, Constantinople II., under S. Eutychius, Fifth Ecu- menical. 680, Constantinople III., under Agatho's legates, Sixth Ecumenical. 691, in Trullo, under Paul III. of Constantinople. 743, Rome, under Zacharias of Rome. 787, Nicaea II. 826, Rome. 833, Compiegne. 844, Thionville. 845, Meaux. 1869, 1870, Vatican, under Pius IX. of Rome. 1 A provincial council of the Proconsularis. 2 Probably a provincial council of the Proconsularis. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 545 CATALOGUE OF THE NAMES OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME DURING THE FIRST SIX CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST. N.B. The names of Roman bishops, who are not elsewhere mentioned in this volume, are printed in italics. i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ii. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1 6. 17. 1 8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Linus. Anencletus. Clement (A.D. 91-99). Evaristus (A.D. 99-109). Alexander (A.D. 109-119). Xystus I. (A.D. 119-128). Telesphorus (A.D. 128-138). Hyginus (A.D. 138-142). Pius I. (A.D. 142-154). Anicetus (A.D. 154-165). Soter(A.D. 165-173). Eleutherus (A.D. 173-188). Victor (A.D. 188-198). Zephirinus (A.D. 198-217). Callistus (A.D. 217-222), Urbanus (A.D. 222-230).* Pontianus (A.D. 230-235). Anteros (A.D. 235-236). Fabian (A.D. 236-250). Cornelius (A.D. 251-253). Lucius (A.D. 253-254). Stephen (A.D. 254-257). Xystus II. (A.D. 257-258). Dionysius (A.D. 259-268). Felix I. (A.D. 269-274). Eutychianus (A.D. 275-283). Gaius (A.D. 283-296). Marcellinus (A.D. 296-304). Marcellus (A.D. ? ). Eusebius (April, 310- August, Miltiades (311-314). Silvester (314-335)- Here follow the names and dates this volume, who flourished after the 33. Marcus (Jan. 336-Oct. 336). 34. Julius (A.D. 337-352). 35. Liberius (A.D. 352-366). 36. Felix II. (A.D. 356-365). 37. Damasus (A.D. 366-384). 38. Siricius (A.D. 384-398). 39. Anastasius I. (A.D. 398-402). 40. Innocent I. (A.D. 402-417). 41. Zosimus (A.D. 417-418). 42. Boniface I. (A.D. 418-422). 43. Celestine (A.D. 422-432). 44. Xystus III. (A.D. 432-440). 45. Leo I. (A.D. 440-461). 46. Hilary (A.D. 461-468). 47. Simplicius (A.D. 468-483). 48. Felix III. (A.D. 483-492). 49. Gelasius (A.D. 492-496). 50. Anastasius II. (A.D. 496-498). 51. Symmachus (A.D. 498-514). 52. Hormisdas (A.D. 514-523)- 53. John I. (A.D. 523-526). 54. Felix IV. (A.D. 526-530). 55. Boniface II. (A.D. 530-532)- 56. John II. (A.D. 532-535)- 57. Agapetus (A.D. 535~536). 58. Silverius (A.D. 536-538). 59. Vigilius (A.D. 537-555)- 60. Pelagius I. (A.D. 555-56o). 61. John III. (A.D. 560-573)- 62. Benedict I. (A.D. 574-578). 63. Pelagius II. (A. D. 578-590). 64. Gregory I. (A.D. 590-604)- of the Roman bishops mentioned in time of S. Gregory the Great. 1 The dates of the deaths of the first sixteen Bishops of Rome, and more especially of the first eight bishops, are to be regarded as approximate than as guaranteed by scientific chronology. 546 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. Boniface IV. (A.D. 608-615). Boniface VIII. (A.D. 1294-1303)- Honorius (A.D. 625-638). Urban V. (A.D. 1362-1370). Leo II. (A.D. 682-683). Adrian VI. (A.D. 1522-1523). Zacharias (A.D. 741-752). Benedict XIV. (A.D. 1740-1758). Adrian I. (A.D. 771-795). Clement XIV. (A.D. 1769-1774), Leo IV. (A.D. 847-855). Pius VII. (A.D. 1800-1823). Nicholas I. (A.D. 858-867). Pius IX. (A.D. 1846-1878). Gregory VII. (A.D. 1073-1085). Leo XIII. (A.D. 1878- ), Innocent III. (A.D. 1198-1216). INDEX ABERCIUS MARCELLUS, 32 Acacius of Beroea (Aleppo), 331, 365, 371, 372 Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, 130, 230, 231, 243, 248, 250-252, 291, 497 ; was the principal consecrator of S. Cyril of Jerusalem, 237, 244 ; summary account of, 245-247 Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 359, 385, 386, 396, 398-403, 409- 414, 416-418, 420, 423 ; his ex- communication by Pope Felix III. and what came of it, 376-385 ; the beginning of the quarrel, 377-379 ; complete breach of communion be- tween East and West resulted from excommunication of, 383 ; his death, 384 Acacius, appointed by his namesake of Caesarea to the see of Tarsus, 246 Acclamations, The day of the great, 359 Acholius, S., of Thessalonica, 334, 33S> 483, 5 22 540 ; made papal vicar in Eastern Illyricum by Dam- asus, 157 Acoemetae, The, 390 Adalbert, S., of Como, 405 Addis and Arnold, 443 ; their transla- tion of the Irenaean passage, 29 ; their view of its importance, 35 ; confuse S. Peter's call to be a disciple with his call to be an apostle, 90 Adeodatus, an African Bishop of the Proconsular province, 2IO Adrian I., Pope, 174 Adrian VI., Pope, 398, 399 Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, 357 Aetius, the Champion of the Ano- moeans, 246, 276 Aetius, the Patrician, 200 Agapetus, Pope, 417 Agapius, 176 Agileius, a deacon of Carthage, 205 Agrippinus, Bishop of Carthage, 453 Agrippinus, S., of Como, 405 Ahijah, symbolism of his rent garment, 470 Alaric, the Visigoth, 506 Alatheus, an Ostrogothic chief, 331, Alemannus, 390 Alexander, an African bishop, present at the Council of Sirmium (in 358), 275 Alexander, S., Bishop of Alexandria, 170, 479 Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, 180, 372 Alexander I., S., Pope, 37 Alexander, Natalis. See Natalis Alex- ander Alexandria, Church of, centralizing tendency in, 8 ; extent of province depending on, 8 ; obedience paid by Synesius to see of, 8 ; why con- sidered an apostolic see, 10 ; S. Mark its first bishop, IO ; influence of its see compared with that of Antioch, II, 12; the second city of the empire, 12, 435 ; "the arbiter of doctrine " in the time of Julian, 265 ; letter to, from Council of Nicaea, 204, 478, 498 Alexandria, Councils of: (A.D. 320 or 321), 255; (A.D. 324), I70;(A.D. 362), 31, 159, 232, 274, 289-291, 320, 453, 454, 495, 498 ; its pro- ceedings and the receptiuii of its decrees, 259-272 Allies, Mr., 98, 126, 222 Allnatt, Mr., 123, 124, 421 Alypius, S., of Tagaste, 183, 185, 187, 194, 206, 208, 211, 491 Ambrose, S., Bishop of Milan, 94, 132, 134, 148, 265, 310, 313, 320, 330, 343-350, 364, 38o, 434, 482-484, 504, 508, 509, 511, 512, 515, 518, 522, 530, 532-541 ; calls S. Peter "the Church's rock " in the hymn for Lauds on Sunday, 103 ; named before Pope Siricius by Council of Turin, 58, 113; seems to have in- herited his metropolitical jurisdiction from his predecessor, 148 ; Arians as well as Catholics concurred in his election, 253 543 INDEX. Ambrosiaster, 93, 442 ; identified by Dom Morin with Isaac the Jew, 520 Amelli, Dom Ambrogio, O.S.B., 212, 484 Ammianus Marcellinus, 136; on the wealth and luxury of the popes, 133, 135 ; De Valois' appreciation of, 477 Ampelius, Prefect of Rome, 303, 517 Amphilochius, S.,of Iconium, 165, 179, 335 Analecta Bottandiana t 391 Anastasius I., Emperor, 360, 386, 387, 390, 392, 396-399, 410, 411, 414, 415,419, 420 Anastasius II., Emperor, 391 Anastasius I., S., Pope, 157, 482 Anastasius II., Pope, 212, 359, 377 Anastasius Sinaita, 441 Anatolius of Euboea, 261, 262 Ancyra, Council of (April, 358), 276, 277, 280, 282 Andrewes, Bishop, 476 ; on S. Peter's primacy, 475 Anemius, Bishop of Sirmium, 483 Anencletus (al. Cletus), S., Pope, 37, 38, 45, 445 ; a monarchical bishop, 5 Angels of the seven churches, 442- 443 Anianus, appointed Bishop of Antioch, but never sat, 227 Anicetus, S., Pope, 15, 37, 38 Anthony, Bishop of Fussala, 194, 195, 208 Antidius, Vicar of Rome, 517 Antioch, Church of, a "truly apos- tolical " church, 10, 12, 365 ; its influence compared with that of the Church of Alexandria, II, 12; the third city of the empire, 12, 435 ; its world-wide influence, 31 ; in fourth century regarded S. Peter as its founder, 124, 366, 367 ; its contest with the see of Jerusalem, 130; its relation to the Church of Rome during a large part of the fourth century, 227-372 ; it remained out of communion with Rome from A.D. 343 to A.D. 398, 232 ; in the year 361 separated Arians from its com- munion, 256 ; the dealings of the Council of Alexandria in 362 with, 261-265 Antioch, Councils of: (A.D. 268), 68, 276, 280-282 ; decrees of, first quoted in Arian controversy at Council of Ancyra (in 358), 277 ; (A.D. 339), 229 ; (A.D. 340), 229 ; (A.D. 341), 144, 190, 229, 275, 280, 334, 440, 523 ; (A.D. 344), 232, 234 ; (A.D. 361), 250, 251 ; (A.D. 363), 291-293, 496-49S; (A.D. 379), 160, 329-332, 348, 353 Antonianus, Bishop, 5 Antonius, an African bishop of the Proconsular province, 206-208 Antonius, Bishop of Carpis, 208 Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica, 157, 158 a|joa>, meaning of the word in Poly- crates' letter to Victor, 15, 16 Apiarius, a priest, first of Sicca, then of Tabraca : the episodes connected with his appeals to Rome, 183-194 ; other references to him, 197, 205, 211, 490 Apollinarius, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria : became a heresiarch, 160 ; other references to him, 260, 305, 307, 38, 3H-3I6, 324-326, 330, 498 Apostolic sees : their influence, 10, 435 ; causes of their influence, IO ; list of the, 10 ; teaching of apostles may be learnt from public teaching of, 20 ; continually consulted, 32, 178 ; traced back their succession to their first bishop, himself appointed by apostles, 40 Aquileia, Church of: was probably metropolitical during a great part of the second half of the fourth century, 149, 481-485 ; remained out of com- munion with Rome for nearly 150 years, 405 Aquileia, Council of (September, 381), 331, 340, 343, 344, 346-35 , 482, 483, 488, 511, 514-521, S3i, 532, 534-538, 540, 54 Aquilinus, Vicar of Rome (A.D. 382), 144, 486, 487, 510, 511, 513, 518, 519, 528, 542 Arcadius, Emperor, 371, 379, 512 Archidamus, one of S. Julius' legates at the Council of Sardica, 171 Aretas, S., 389, 394-396 Ariadne, Empress, 410 Ariminum, Council of (A.D. 359), no papal legate at, 271; abrogation of decrees of, 273, 274 ; other references to, 162, 239, 247, 260, 291, 299, 300, 351 Anus, the heresiarch, 170, 231, 233, 234, 254, 255, 291, 307, 330, 426, 428, 478 Aries, Councils of: (A.D. 314), 138, 190, 460, 478, 480 ; (A.D. 353), 271 Asclepas, Bishop of Gaza, 141 Asellus, papal legate at Carthage (A.D. 419), 168, 184, 185 Asterius, S., of Petra, 176, 259, 261, 264, 268, 270 Asterius, the sophist, 480 Athanasius, an African bishop, present in 358 at Council of Sirmium, 275 Athanasius, S., of Alexandria : on the baptism of heretics, 62, 453, 454 > INDEX. 549 contra mundiim, 162, 274 ; wrote a treatise against the errors of Mar- cellus of Ancyra, 236 ; proclaimed in 359 the essential agreement of the middle party with himself, 236 ; presided in 362 over Council of Alexandria, 259; never refers to Liberius as being the author of the legislation of that council, 267 ; from A.D. 357 to the winter of 362- 363 was out of communion with Liberius, 270-272 ; his rehabilita- tion of Liberius, 272 ; was the chief restorer of the Church after the death of Constantius, 274 ; death of, 306 ; other references to, 31, 132, 135, 141, 143, 148, 159, 169, 171, 176, 179, 229, 230, 232-235, 237-240, 247, 252, 254, 255, 259-265,- 268, 269, 273, 276, 277, 280-284, 286, 288-293, 296-300, 310, 320, 351, 378, 386, 427, 428, 437, 484, 495-499, 533, 543 Athanasius of Ancyra, 246-248, 250, 291, 498 Athanasius, Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria (A.D. 490-497), 385 Atticus, S., Bishop of Constantinople, 188, 213, 367 Atticus, Nonius Maximus, Prefect of the praetorium of Italy, 526, 527 Aube, M., 12, 450, 454, 456, 458, 459, 463 Augustine, S., of Hippo : on S. Cyprian's gentleness and humility, 65, 66 ; on the power of the keys being given not to " one man," but to "the unity of the Church," 86, 471 ; his anti-Donatist ballad, 100, 101 ; taught that S. Peter was the symbol of the Church Militant, 101-103, 47, 47 * 5 taught that S. John was the symbol of the Church Triumphant, 101 ; changed his view about the meaning of " the rock," 101-104 ; on Petrus and Petra, 102, 103 ; did not hold the Vaticanist teaching about the papal powers, 104 ; his interpretation of the Pasce oves, 118, 119, 122, 123; in A.D. 397 knew nothing of the Council of Sardica, 156, 185 ; other references to, 51, 52, 54, 64, 70, 75-77, 88, 132, 152, 153, 183, 184, 187, 188, 193- 195, 203, 206-211, 223, 265, 385, 386, 442, 454, 456, 458, 460, 461, 472, 491, 492 Aurelius, S., Bishop of Carthage, 54, 143, 144, 183, 185, 187, 189, 190, 192, 194, 204-207, 209-211, 213, 376, 492 Ausonius, the poet, 524, 525, 528 Auxentius, Arian Bishop of Milan, the predecessor of S. Ambrose : was probably the first Metropolitan of Milan, 148, 434 ; other references to, 25.3. 299, 303, 484, 543 Auxiliaris, Prefect of Rome, 201 Bacchinius, O.S.B., 148, 434, 435 Bacchus, Father, 34 Badagius, 176 Ballerini, The brothers, 138, 173, 179, 189, 190, 205, 213, 317, 334, 359, 361, 415, 429, 450, 482, 491, 493 Ballerini, Pietro, 263, 372 Baluze, Etienne, 69, 87, 88, 200, 464 Baptism of heretics : African view of, 62 ; Roman view of, 62 ; the ques- tion not decided by the Council of Nicaea, 62 ; view of post-Nicene Eastern Fathers concerning, 62, 63, 461 ; view of the Eustathians about, 264 ; Syrian and Palestinian prac- tice in regard to, 453, 461 ; S. Athan- asius' views concerning, 453, 454 Barmby, Mr., 136 Barnabas, S., IO Baronius, Cardinal, 65, 68, 75, 135, 158, 1 66, 184, 199, 200, 265, 271, 301, 320, 327, 335, 363, 380, 390, 392, 418, 419, 437, 438, 452, 457, 458, 462, 492, 525 Barrow, Dr. Isaac, on S. Peter's primacy, 476 Barry, Bishop, 107 Barses, S., of Edessa, 301 Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, 230, 237, 240, 242, 246, 275-261, 285 Basil, S., of Caesarea in Cappadocia : quotes S. Firmilian as an authority, 68 ; his opinion of Pope Damasus, 136, 163, 164 ; supports S. Meletius, 160, 163 ; his character and position, 163 ; holds that, in the case of Mar- cellus of Ancyra, Roman Church "supported heresy," 164; his con- ception of the position of the Roman bishop illustrated, 164, 165 ; sum- mary account of his career before he became bishop, 238-240 ; was ordained reader and consecrated bishop when he was out of com- munion with Rome,- 238, 239 ; his negotiations from 371 to 377 to restore intercommunion between Rome and Antioch, 297-328 ; comes into com- munion with Rome, 301 ; his death, 328 ; other references to, 31, 70, 71, 94, 132, 179, 235, 237, 241, 242, 246-249, 252, 253, 256, 261, 267, 268, 271, 281, 282, 288-290, 292, 294-297, 340, 35'. 352, 354. 3 6 3. 37, 3^3, 3 8 6, 396, 406, 460. 480. 497-499 Basil, S., the elder, father of S. Basil the Great, 238 550 INDEX. Basilides, Bishop of Leon : deposed as a libellatic, 59 ; wrongly admitted to communion by Pope Stephen, 59 ; other references to, 436, 450-452 Batiffol, Mgr., 43, 49, 231, 254, 363, 502 Bausset, Cardinal de, 194 Bede, S., the venerable, 223, 442 Bellarmine, Cardinal, 98, 99, 123, 202, 43 Benedict, S., of Como, 405 Benedict XIV., Pope, 430 Bennettis, Hieremias a, 424, 435 Benson, Archbishop : on S. Cyprian's teaching about the episcopate, 6 ; other references to, 66, 67, 87, 91, 446, 451, 453, 458, 459, 461-463, 469, 537 Bernard, S., 465 Besanfon, Council of (A.D. 444), 197 Beveridge, Bishop of S. Asaph, 144 Biener, 173 Bilsborrow, Bishop, 432, 433 Bingham, Joseph, 249, 461 Bishops : normally chosen from clergy of local church in early times, 5 ; all essentially equal, 6 ; receive at consecration the charisma veritatis cerium, 23 ; " the Church is settled upon the," 90 ; inherit the whole ordinary jurisdiction of the apostolic college, 6, 90; are styled "Vicars of Christ," 93, 407 ; are successors of S. Peter, 90, 94, 121, 123, 124 ; Gratian's rules for the trial of Western, 145-148 ; in some pro- vinces the senior, acted as quasi- metropolitan, 149, 150 ; receive ecumenical jurisdiction at consecra- tion, 436 Blondel, 510 Blunt, Professor, 220 Boniface, Bishop of Carthage, 205 Boniface, the Notary, 415, 416 Boniface I., S., Pope, 182, 185-187, 189, 194, 195, 204, 206, 209, 213, 376, 502, 503, 513 Boniface II., Pope, 157 Boniface IV., Pope, 405 Boniface VIII., Pope, I, 2 Bonner, Bishop, 25 Bossue, Father, S. J., 67, 437, 453. 457, 458 Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux : his criti- cism of Bishop Bull's treatment of Petavius, 429 ; other references to, 67. 83, 94, 138, 164, 194, 374-376, 430, 437, 464, 465 Bottalla, Father, S.J. : his misunder- standing of various Cyprianic pas- sages, 77-91 ; his criticism of S. Jerome, 161, 249, 250 ; his extra- ordinary explanation of an African canon against appeals to Rome, 189 ; his statement about appeals from Africa to Rome, 192 ; his strange account of the pacification of the Church in the time of Hormisdas, 402 ; other references to, 88, 107, 194, 222, 254, 403 Bousset, Professor, 443 Bouvier, Mgr., Bishop of Le Mans, 386 Bouvy, M., 391 Bramhall, Archbishop : on S. Peter's primacy, 475 j other references to, 476, 477 Bright, Dr., xxxii., 8, 12, 13, 41, 63, 130, 143, 180, 190, 236, 281, 338, 382, 383, 440, 446, 480, 481, 543 Brightman, Mr., xxx., 27, HO Britonius, Bishop of Trier, 364, 483 Broglie, The Due de, 340, 362, 363 Browne, Bishop Harold, on S. Peter's primacy, 476 Bubalius, a Macedonian bishop, 183 Buck, Father Victor de, S.J., 494 Bull, Bishop : on S. Peter's primacy, 475, 476 ; other references to, 429, 43 Bunsen, Baron, 443 Butler, Alban, 386, 393, 394 Butler, Bishop, 426 ByzantinischeZeitschrift, 158 Cabassutius, 435 Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage : wrongly credited with a certain Latin version of the Nicene canons, 30, 139, 185, 434 ; deposed by a synod of 70 !Nuniidian bishops, 152, 153 Caesarea in Palestine, Church of : enjoyed metropolitical authority, 130 ; according to Clementine romance, one of S. Peter's chairs, 443 Caesarea in Palestine, Council of (circa 195), 7, 16 Caesarius, S., of Aries, 179 Caesarius, a Magister officiorum, 337 Caius, 47 Cajetan, Cardinal, 4 Caldonius, an African bishop, 81, 82 Callistus, Pope, 65 Campettscs, why the Antiochene Catho- lics were so styled, 256, 312, 314 Cange, Du. See Du Cange Canon, Roman, of the Mass, 45 Cantarelli, 517 Canterbury, Archbishop of: his juris diction confined to his province, 9 ; his influence extends throughout An- glican communion, 9 ; normally the centre of communication and of com- munion to all the Anglican churches, 540 ; another reference to, 31 INDEX. 551 Canus, Melchior, O.P., 430 Capreolus, of Carthage, 427 Capua, Council of (winter of 391-392), 367. 368, 508, 509 Caput, meaning of, in certain Cyprianic passages, 466-467 Carpentier, Pere, S. J., 395 Carthage, Collation of. See Collation Carthage, Councils of : (circa 215), 453; (A.D. 251), first Cyprianic, 51, 81, 455 ; (A.D. 254 or 255), fourth Cyprianic, 59 ; (spring of 256), sixth Cyprianic, 63, 76, 457 ; (September, 256), seventh Cyprianic, 64-67, 76, 77, 454-458, 464, 471 ; (soon after 343), 185 ; (A.D. 390), 207 ; (June, 397) second under S. Aurelius, 523 ; (August, 397), third under S. Aurelius, 207, 522, 523 ; (June, 401), fifth under S. Aurelius, 523; (September, 401), sixth under S. Aurelius, 209, 523 ; (A.D. 404), ninth under S. Aurelius, 209 ; (A.D. 407), eleventh under S. Aurelius, 209 ; (June, 408), twelfth under S. Aurelius, 523 ; (October, 408), thirteenth under S. Aurelius, 523 ; (A.D. 416), 206; (May, 418), six- teenth under S. Aurelius, 184, 189, 205, 491 ; (December, 418), 184 ; (May, 419), seventeenth under S. Aurelius, 143, 154, 167, 168, 185, 204-210, 213, 491 ; (A.D. 421), eighteenth under S. Aurelius, 205 ; (circa 423), nineteenth under S. Aurelius, 205 ; (A.D. 426), twentieth under S. Aurelius, 54, 143, 190-194, 204-214, 493 ; (A.D. 525), 205 ; (A.D. 535), 206 ; (A.D. 550), 404 Carthage, See of: its great influence, II ; the metropolitical see of Pro- consular Africa, 148, 150; it had no exaggerated authority, 183 Cassian, 152 Cassiodorus, 174, 442, 484 Castus, of Sicca, 456 Ceillier, Dom, O.S.B., 326 Celestine, S., Pope : the letter of the African Church to, 190-193, 204- 214 ; other references to, 54, 171, 172, 179, 189, 190, 194, 195, 197. 204-206, 209-213, 376, 493 Celticius, or Celticus, African bishop, probably of the Proconsular province, 207, 210 Ceriani, Mgr., 500 Chalcedon, Council of (A.D. 451), fourth Ecumenical ; its twenty-eighth canon historically correct, 12, 13 ; that canon rejected by the West, 12, 13 ; but it practically held its ground, 1 3 ; absurd perversion of the meaning of the ninth canon of, 175; other references to, 36, 129, 130, 144, 155, 166-169, 325 3SO 35 !. 357-361, 37- 378, 382, 385-387, 390, 393-395. 397. 399, 43, 4", 4", 4*6, 419, 428, 431 Chapman, Dom, O.S.B., 29, 30, 33, 34, 441, 442 Charles the Great, Emperor, 174 Chelidonius, Bishop of Besa^on, 196- 199 Chiniac de la Bastide Duclaux, 87 Christian Remembrancer, 55 Chromatius, S., of Aquileia, 481-483 Chrysostom, S. : his dealings with the "tall brothers," 60, 6 1 ; his view that at the Council of Jerusalem S. James, as being in high authority, appeared in the milder part, and left what was unpleasant for S. Peter to say, 115; the Oxford translation of his Homilies on the Acts, based on the best manuscripts, 115; his interpretation of the Pasce oves, 123- 127 ; was out of communion with Rome until he was fifty-one or fifty- four years old, 124, 127, 366; re- garded the Eustathians as schis- matics, 368-370 ; his treatment of S. Peter's share in S. Matthias' election, 372-375 ; the date of his preaching his Homilies on the Ephesians, 506 ; other references to, 88, 94, 132, 158, 161, 166, 202, 223, 228, 253, 254, 256, 329, 351, 352, 354, 364, 365, 371, 372, 379, 396, 406, 481, 502, 504, 505, 507, 508 Chtircfi Quarterly Review, 12, 440 Circuits of Peter, 41 Claudia, 445 Claudius, Emperor, 436 Clement, S., of Alexandria, 46, 1 12, 113,465,474 Clement, S., of Rome, Pope : is counted as first Bishop of Rome by Tertullian, 39, 40, 45 ; made no claim in his epistle to any papal jurisdiction over the Corinthian Church, 96, 472 ; his name misplaced in some early papal lists, 444, 445 ; other references to, 16, 21-23, 37, 181, 433, 443, 444 Clement, S., spurious epistle of, to S. James, prefixed to Clementine Homilies, 42-44. 47, 48, 445 Clementine romance, probably origi- nated theory of S. Peter's Roman episcopate, 41-49 ; its depreciation of S. Paul, 42, 43 ; its author an Ebio- nite, 41-43 ; its Ebionite tendency not recognized in the West, 48 ; its date, 48, 49; represents S. James as a hyper-apostolic pope, 113, 443 ; is entirely un- Roman, 444 ; its influ- ence at Rome, 444 ; brought about 552 INDEX. misplacement of S. Clement's name, 444,445 Cletus, S., Pope. See Anencletus Coelestius, the co-adjutor of Pelagius, 184, 491 Coleti, Edition of the Concilia by, 48 et passim Collation of Carthage (A.D. 411), a conference between Catholics and Donatists, 207-210 Collectio Avellana : its contents, 415; other references to, 145, 206, 283, 360, 381, 384, 399-4 2 410-412, 415-418, 420-423, 5 IO 5 IJ 5'3, 517 Collectio Htspana : its contents, 415 ; other references to, 415-417 Collectio Lacensis, 3, 4, 28, 34, 57i 63, 117, 218, 433 Collections of canons and other eccle- siastical documents, summary account of various, 499, 500 Colluthus, a pseudo-bishop in Egypt, 170 Colombier, Pere, S.J., 445 Columbanus, S., writes to the pope to tell him that his juniors rightly refuse to communicate with him, 405 Como, The ten saintly bishops of, who were never in communion with Rome, 405 Compiegne, Council of (A.D. 833), 93 Constans, Emperor, 170, 231, 233 Constantine I., Emperor : in all proba- bility appointed Hosius to preside at Nicaea, 138, 169, 170 ; other references to, 131, 137, 152, 158, 438, 478, 479, 486 Constantine IV. (Pogonatus), Emperor, 398, 47.8 Constantinople, Church of : the growth of its authority, 130 Constantinople, Councils of : (A.D. 360), 238, 241-244, 246, 250, 279, 296; (A.D. 381), second Ecumenical, 13, 36, 130, 144, 155, 165, 171, 339, 346, 349, 350, 353-363, 371, 440, 454, 489, 5 OI -503> 505, 56, 59, 5* 2 S3 2 , 535-53 8 , 541 J (summer, 382), 10, 155, 237, 353, 364, 379, 483, 504-506, 522, 542 ; (A.D. 394), 176, 354; (A.D. 448), 355, 484; (A.D. 518), 359; (A.D. 536), 397, 423 ; (A.D. 553), fifth Ecumenical, 251, 404; (A.D. 680), sixth Ecumenical, 478 Constantius, Bishop of Uzes, 201 Constantius, Emperor, 135, 159, 231- 234, 240, 242, 249, 254, 256, 258, 259, 268-272, 274, 276-278, 281, 283, 286, 351, 434,481, 484 Constantius, the Patrician, 152, 513 Convenire ad, meaning of, in Irenaean passage, 25-27 ; meaning of " con- ventio ad" in 2 Cor. vi. 15 (Vulgate), 439 Corbellini, 494 Cornelius, S., Pope: is called "brother" by S. Cyprian, 5 ; parts of one of S. Cyprian's letters to, explained, 50- 55 ; passages about, in S. Cyprian's letters, explained, 78-85 ; other references to, 92, 446, 448-450, 455, 459, 461, 464, 467 Corpus inscriptionum Latinamm, 526, 527 Corpus juris canoma, 2 Coustant, Dom, O.S.B., 183, 189, 193, 206, 225, 333, 361, 404, 437, 491 Cracow, University of, 88 Crescens, an African bishop, present in 358 at Council of Sirmium, 275 Crescens, of Cirta, 76 Cresconius, 76 Cuntz, 171 Cyprian, S., of Carthage: treats popes as his equals, 5, 50 ; his teaching about the joint-tenancy of bishops, 6 ; his witness against the papal theory, 49-72 ; is styled by the clergy of Rome, "Most blessed and most glorious pope," 50 ; denounces ap- peals to Rome, 53, 54, 154, 446-45 '> his principles of Church-government accepted at Rome in his time, 54 ; urges Stephen to help Church in Gaul, 56-58, 451 ; supports Felix and Sabinus against Pope Stephen, 59-61, 452 ; writes to Pompeius against Stephen's letter, 64 ; de- nounces any one who claims to be "a bishop of bishops," 65; is ex- communicated by Pope Stephen, 67, 72-77, 225 ; special honour paid to him by the Roman Church, 71 ; the collecting of his letters, a work of time, 76 ; passages of his works cited by Romanists in favour of the papalist theory, shown to have been misunder- stood, 77-95, 464-471 ; ante-dates the commencement of S. Peter's apostolate, 88, 90, 92 ; his writings proscribed by Pope Gelasius, 89 ; sees in our Lord's promise to S. Peter the institution of the episco- pate, 89, 90, 92, 104, 470 ; teaches that the Church was founded on S. Peter by the word of the Lord, 93, 94 ; the meaning of his words, " ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est," 51, 52, 445, 446 ; never retracted his views on heretical baptism, 460 ; his view of the sense in which S. Peter was the " origo unitatis," 469 ; taught that S. Peter symbolized the Church's INDEX. 553 unity, 88, 470 ; other references to, 37. 39. 101, 114, 121, 122, 179, 183, 192, 193. 396, 433. 43 6 454-459, 461, 463, 492, 537 Cyriacus, Dr., 440 Cyriacus, S., the Anchorite, 388, 392 Cyril, S., of Alexandria : on the Pasce oves, 118-120, 127, 128; presided at Ephesus, not as papal legate, but in virtue of the dignity of his see, 376, 377; other references to, 126, 171, 172, 179, 188, 213, 356, 357, 367, 390, 427, 428 Cyril, S., of Jerusalem: summary account of the first ten years of his episcopate, 237, 238 ; other references to, 126, 130, 165, 230, 232, 244, 245, 259, 351, 355, 356, 461 Cyril, of Scythopolis, 386, 387, 392- 394 Dalgairns, Father, 432 Damasus, Pope : the riots at his election, 133, 136; is described by S. Basil as being a haughty incon- siderate person who expected to be flattered, 136 ; his pontificate, 144- 166 ; received coercive patriarchal jurisdiction over bishops of Western empire by decrees of Valentinian I. and of Gratian, 144-157 ; made S. Acholius of Thessalonica his vicar in Eastern Illyricum, 157 ; ignored S. Meletius and in 375 recognized Paulinus as the true and only Bishop of Antioch, 160, 316; S. Jerome's famous letter to, 162 ; regarded by S. Basil as an "arrogant" man, 163, 164 ; elected by the adherents of Pope Felix II., 286; his letter Per filium watt/i, addressed to Paulinus, 317, 318 ; according to Baronius, ''was deceived by certain false reports," 327 ; other references to, 10, 99, 104, 137, 139, 155, 156, 158, 165, 1 66, 178-181, 198, 204, 270, 286, 294, 297-300, 302-316, 318-324, 326, 327, 329, 331-335, 337, 338, 342, 343, 345, 348-350, 3 6 4, 3^3. 386, 406, 483-4^5, 487, 489, 493, 499, 5> 53, 54, 5 IO 5 '7, 5 l8 , 520-523, 530, 538-541, 543 Daniel, S., the Stylitc, it6, 388, 391, 396 Darboy, Archbishop of Par;s, in Dated Creed, 427 Decentius, of Eugubium, 180 Delarochelle, J., 470, 471 Demophilus, Arian Bishop of Beroea in Thrace, afterwards Arian Bishop of Constantinople, 233, 336 Denifle, Father, O.P., 2 Dcnys (or Dionysius), S., of Alexan- dria : mentions the excommunication of the Asians by Pope Stephen, 67 ; his letters on the baptismal con- troversy, 70 ; other references to, 68, 73-76, 79, 179, 461-463 Development of doctrine : Vatican teaching on papal authority not set forth as a late, 4 ; other references to, xv., xxviii., xxix., 405, 406, 424-433 Dhu'n Navvas, King of the Homeritae, 395 Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea m Capprv- docia, 238, 239 Diodorus, a layman of Antioch, after- wards Bishop of Tarsus, 248, 256, 335, 365 Diodorus, of Tyre, 498 Dion Chrysostom, 12 Dionysius, S., Bishop of Alexandria. See Denys Dionysius, S., Bishop of Corinth, 472 Dionysius Exiguus, 172-175, 207, 212, 213, 440, 491 Dionysius, S., Bishop of Milan, 148 Dionysius, S., Pope, 67, "O, 71, 254, 255, 459 Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, 166- 169, 354-356, 383, 384, 387, 399, 411, 416, 419, 428 Dioscorus, a Roman deacon and legate, afterwards an antipope, 360 Diospolis, Council of (A.D. 415), 130 Dollinger, Dr. von, 251, 440, 453 Domnus II., Bishop of Antioch, 235, Donatus, an African bishop, probably of the Proconsular province, 207, 210 Donatus, Bishop of Carthage, the im- mediate predecessor of S. Cyprian, 461 Donatus, a Carthaginian priest who joined the party of Felicissimus, 447 Dorotheus, one of the clergy of S. Mele- tius, 163, 298-300, 304-309, 315, 320, 324, 326, 327 Dublin Review, 33, 34, 2 1 6, 319, 4O9> 417, 424 Du Cange, 51, 193, 39, 439 Duchesne, Mgr. : his account of E Proculus, 152 ; his estimate of Pope Zosimus, 187 ; his assertion of the right and duty of every bishop to interfere with other bishops in de- fence of Church discipline, 197 > * opinion that Sozomen's account of Liberius' fall is based on trustworthy documents, 276 ; on the " years ol Peter," 444 ; other references to, 7, 8, 13,16,21,48,55, 58,68,70,139, 145, MS, 149, I56-I5, '76, 196,228, 263, 265, 271, 274, 281, 283, 285 287, 291, 3P> 343, 35, 356, 36'. 554 INDEX. 4*4, 434-43 8 445. 446, 448, 45. 45 2 . 453, 458, 460, 461, 464, 482, 483, 493, 5 IO 5!9, 5 2 o, 528, 540 Dupin, on Pope Stephen's action in regard to Bishop Basilides, 59 Eastern Church : middle party in, during large part of fourth century, 235-241 ; regarded at Rome as under anathema during thirty-five years, 409-414 Ecdesia principalis> meaning of, 51, 52, 446 Elesbaan, S., the King, 389, 394-396 Eleusius, of Cyzicus, 275-277, 281 Eleusius, a Donatist, 152, 185 Eleutherus, S., Pope, 15, 21, 37 Elias, Bishop of Aquileia, 172 Elias, S., of Jerusalem, 166, 386-388, 396, 404, 418 Elpidius, a priest, 307 Elvira, Council of (A.D. 300), 190 Elwin, Mr., 63, 461 Emmelia, S., the mother of S. Basil, 238 Ephesus, Church of: S. Irenaeus ap- peals to its witness, 22, 35 ; enjoyed longer than other churches the privi- lege of being taught by a resident apostle, 22; other references to, 10, 40 Ephesus, Councils of: (circa 195), 16 ; (A.D. 430), third Ecumenical, 130, 171, 180, 182, 350, 355-361, 376, 377, 427, 478, 479 ; (A.D. 449), la- trocinium, 166-168, 354, 356, 357, 512 Epiphanius, S., Patriarch of Constanti- nople (A.D. 520-535), 389, 391, 401, 402, 421-423 Epiphanius, S., Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, 37, 45, 47, 176, 198, 237, 242, 243, 246, 248, 252, 254, 255, 277, 290, 324, 437, 441, 442, 478, 479, 481, 522 Epitomes, Clementine, 41 Estius, 107, 112, 439 Eudoxius, Bishop of Antioch and after- wards of Constantinople, 158, 227, 232, 233, 248-250, 255, 276, 283, 294, 296 Eulalius, a supposed Bishop of Antioch, 227 Eulalius, a supposed Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 243 Eulogius, Bishop of Caesarea in Pales- tine, 130 Eulogius, S., of Edessa, 160, 165, 329 Euphemius, Patriarch of Constanti- nople, 384, 385, 387, 390, 391, 397, 399, 400, 402, 409, 410, 412, 416 Euphrates, Bishop of Cologne, 232 Euphronius, Bishop of Antioch, 227, 229 Eupsychius, S., 318 Eu probably con- secrated at Rome, 20, 21 ; office for his feast in Roman breviary, 28 ; knew nothing about papal in- fallibility, 35 ; says nothing about devolution of primacy from S. Peter to Roman bishops, 37 ; did not be- lieve that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, 37 ; his numbering of the Roman bishops, 37-39 ; his descrip- tion of the Church of Jerusalem, 52; other references to, 32, 45, 49, 51, 75. 429, 440-442 Irenion, S., Bishop of Gaza, 291, 292 Isaac, a converted Jew who relapsed into Judaism and is identified by Dom Morin with Ambrosiaster, 520, T 521, 523, 538, 54 Ischyras, a pseudo-presbyter in Egypt, 170 Isidore, S., a priest of Alexandria, 371, 372 Israel, analogy between organization of, and organization of Church, 219- 221 ; position of the high priest in, 221, 222 Ithacians, schism of, 58 James, S., the brother of the Lord : was first Bishop of Jerusalem, 41, 44 ; was ranked among the apostles, 112 ; in Jerusalem took precedence of S. Peter, 113; was called by Rufinus "the bishop of the apostles, 113 ; was called by S. Hesychius ' ' the exarch of the apostles," 113; presided at the Council of Jerusalem, 113-116; is represented in Clementine romance as S. Peter's superior, 443 James I., King of England, on S. Peter's primacy, 475 Jansenists, The, 251 Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, 332 Januarius, Bishop of Caralis, 148 Januarius, Bishop of Gisipa, 207, 209 Javolenus, Priscus, 6 Jebb, Professor, Sir Richard, 462 Jerome, S., describes the worldliness of the Roman clergy, 137 ; some details of his early history, 161 ; faults in, pointed out by Father 558 INDEX. Bottalla, 161, 249, 250 ; his famous letter to Damasus, 162 ; the early age at which he wrote that letter, 162, 163 ; that letter does not in its teaching represent the apostolic tra- dition, 165 ; was misled by Damasus into joining the Eustathians, 165 ; it was apparently at his petition that Damasus' letter Per filium meum was written, 316, 499, 500; on the true Vicar of Christ, 407 ; meaning of a passage in his treatise against Jovinian, 488-489 ; his faith became in time purified, 489 ; other references to, 16, 18, 45, 66, 100, 119, 131-135. 152, 166, 227, 239, 242, 248, 249, 258, 260, 261, 264, 269, 270, 273, 284, 286, 303, 304, 309-315, 335, 333, 340, 363, 368, 386, 439, 442, 481, 484, 523, 527 Jerusalem, Church of: the variations of its influence, 1 1 ; its lack of civil importance, n; S. James its first bishop, 41, 44 ; the mother-church of the whole world, 52 ; its bishop- ric regarded by some as a higher dignity than the apostolate, 112, 113; the growth of its authority, 130 ; it finally acquired patriarchal jurisdiction, 130, 155 ; "no one dares to separate himself from " it, 401 ; was not quartodeciman in the time of S. Firmilian, 438 Jerusalem, Councils of : (circa A.D. 50), 113-116, 447 ; (A.D. 518), 359, 393 John, S., the Apostle and Evangelist : constituted S. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, 10, 40, 45 ; kept Easter in the quartodeciman way, 14, 15 ; one of the founders of the Church of Ephesus, 22 ; did not teach papalism to S. Polycarp, 35 ; was never Bishop of Ephesus, 40 ; is regarded by S. Augustine as the symbol of the Church Triumphant, 86, 101 ; other reference to, 36 John Angeloptes, Bishop of Ravenna, 148 John I., Bishop of Antioch, 390, 428 John, S., the Chuzibite, 388, 393 John II., S., Bishop of Como, 405 John III., S., Bishop of Como, 405 John II., Patriarch of Constantinople, 359, 3 60 , 388, 390, 397-401, 412, 417, 420, 421 John, Bishop of Elche in Spain, 415, 417 John II., Bithop of Jerusalem, 130 John III., Patriarch of Jerusalem, 359 John, Bishop of Nicopolis, 360 John I., Pope, 395 John II., Pope, 361 John Scholasticus, a schismatic pa- triarch of Constantinople, 143, 173,. 174 John, S., the Silentiary, 389, 394, 395 John, a monk of Syria Secunda, 419 John Talaia. See Talaia Jordanes, the Gothic historian, 331, 5'5 Josephus, on the civil precedence of Antioch, 12 Jovian, Emperor, 235, 272, 273, 288, 291, 293, 294, 497, 498 Jovinian, a heretic, 488, 489 Jubaianus, a Mauritanian bishop, 66 T 84, 85, 92, 115,467,469 Julian the Apostate, Emperor, 258, 259,. 267, 288, 493 Julian, Bishop of Cos, 167, 168 Julian, Cardinal, 212 Julianus, a celebrated jurist, 173 Julius, S., Pope, 135, 141-143, I/I, 204, 229-231, 233, 234, 238, 434, 480, 481, 503 Jungmann, Professor, of Louvain : on the fundamental importance of the theory cf S. Peter's supposed Roman episcopate, 36 ; on the substantial orthodoxy of the majority of the Semi-Arians, 240 ; other references to, 46, 77, 454, 458 Justel, Henri, 173, 176 Justin, Emperor, 390, 394, 396, 397, 401, 403, 414, 420, 423 Justin Martyr, S., 32 Justinian, Emperor, 143, 174, 390, 401, 403> 317, 525 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, 130, 377 Keys, The power of the, given not to "one man," but to "the unity of the Church," 86, 108, 471, 488 Knabenbauer, Father, S.J., 222 Koran, The, 395 Kymatius, Bishop of Paltus, 261, 262, 264 Labbe, 510, 531, 532 Labyrinth, The Little, 47 Ladislas, King of Poland, 88 Lagarde, 49 Lampsacus, Council of (A.D. 364), 240, 294 Langen, 510 Lapide, Cornelius a, S.J., 107, 222 Lapie, Colonel, 337 Latrocinium. See Ephesus, Councils of Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, his Conference with Fisher, 55 Launoi, Jean de, doctor of the Sor- bonne, 88, 377 Lawrence, Cardinal, 212 Lea, John Walter, on the Cyprianic view of the independence of bishops, 65 INDEX. 559 Lejay, The Abbe, 28 Leo I., Emperor, 358, 403 Leo I., S., Pope : did not claim any inherent right to preside at an Ecumenical Council, 167-169; his controversy with S. Hilary of Aries, 196-202 ; obtained a rescript in favour of the authority of the Roman see from Valentinian III., 200, 201, 376 ; spoke of S. Hilary as a man "of holy memory," 202 ; other references to, 12, 100, 104, 128, 130, 172, 183, 357, 359, 360, 371, 376- 378, 397, 399, 4", 428, 481, 483, 512 Leo II., S., Pope, 398 Leo IV., Pope, 174 Leo XIII., Pope, 164, 433 Leontius, Bishop of Antioch, 227, 232, 233. 234, 253, 283 Lessius, S.J., 425 Libellus, The, of Hormisdas, 398-403, 412, 413, 419 ; its various forms, 414-417; many Eastern bishops avoided signing it, 421-424 Liberatus, Archdeacon of Carthage, 1 68 Liber Diurnus, 172 Liberius, Pope ; heroically withstood the Emperor Constantius, 135 ; with- drew in 357 his communion from S. Athanasius, 135, 270, 283 ; com- promised the faith, 135, 162, 271 ; styled by some "Saint Liberius," 265 ; the chief share in the pacification of 362, not to be attributed to, 266- 274 ; escaped banishment after Coun- cil of Ariminum, 271 ; was in 362 still out of communion with S. Atha- nasius, 271 ; rehabilitation of, by S. Athanasius, 272 ; his letter to the bishops of Italy, 272 ; Sozomen's account of the fall of, 275-287 ; signed an express repudiation of the dfjLoovffiof, 281 ; did not grant his communion to S. Meletius during the last year of his life, 293-295 ; other references to, 28, 31, 136, 230, 232-234, 259, 260, 292, 296, 297, 320, 434, 437, 484, 498 Liber Ponlificalis, 38, 48, 70, 414, 520, 521 Libosus, Bishop of Vaga, 456 Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham : on S. Linus and S. Anencletus, 5 ; on the date of the Clementine romance, 49 ; on the variations in S. Peter's posi- tion, 114; on the influence of the Clementine romance at Rome, 444 ; other references to, 38, 40-46, 112, 227, 35'. 37L 435, 443, 445, 459, 460, 480 Linus, S., Pope : a monarchical bishop, 5 ; received episcopate from S. Peter and S. Paul, 21, 38; was first bishop of Rome, 37, 39 ; date ot the consecration of, 38, 43, 44; other references to, 39, 45, n6, 445 Liturgy of S. James : its interpretation of " the rock," 99 Lockhart, Father, 28 Lucentius, Bishop of Asculum, one of S. Leo's legates at Chalcedon, 167 Lucianic creed, one of the creeds promulgated in 341 by the Council of Antioch, 280 Lucifer, Bishop of Caralis in Sardinia : consecrated Paulinus to be bishop cf the Eustathians at Antioch, 159, 264 ; fell away into schism, 159, 265 ; baseless theory ascribing status of a papal legate to, 267, 493-496 ; other references to, 235, 257, 260, 261, 263, 273, 288, 303, 352, 368, T 36.9, 454 Lucius, an Arian bishop of Alexandria, 336 Lucius, Bishop of Verona, 4^4. T T\ ~J~ Lucius, Pope, 5 Lugo, Cardinal de, S.J., 430 Lumper, 430 Lupus, Christianus, 194, 424 Lyons, only see in Celtic Gaul at first, 16, 55 Maassen, 30, 139, 173, 185, 205, 212, 434, 499, 5oo Macedonius I., Bishop of Constanti- nople and heresiarch, 240, 307, 330 Macedonius II., S., Patriarch of Con- stantinople (A.D. 495-5"), 387, 3S8, 390, 396, 397, 399, 400, 402, 409, 410, 412, 416, 418 Macedonius, a Magister officiorum t 485 Macedonius, Bishop of Mopsuestia, 233 Macrina, S., the elder, S. Basil's grandmother, 238 Macrina, S., the younger, S. Basil's sister, 238 Magnus, an African Christian, 78, 79 Maistre, M. de, 98, 99, 116, 118, 194 Maldonatus, S.J., 223 Malnory, the Abbe, 1 79 Mamachi, Thomas Maria, O. Praed , 126 Mamertus, S., of Vienne, 200 Manning, Cardinal, 25, in, 112, 286 Mansi, Archbishop of Lucca : on S. Cyprian's excommunication, 74, 75 ; other references to, 145, 164, 206, 437, 462, 496, 510, 522 Maran, Dom, O.S.B., 67, 69, 77, 229, 240, 244, 245, 267, 276, 281, 289, 290, 294, 295, 300, 306, 308, 316, 318, 321, 322, 327, 333, 363, 430, 457, 458, 463. 468, 490 560 INDEX. Marca, Archbishop de, of Paris, 143, 144, 193, 200, 437, 449, 450 Marcellian, Duke of Valeria, 515 Marcellinus. See tinder Ammianus Marcellinus Marcellinus Comes, 506 Marcellus, of Ancyra : S. Athanasius towards the end of his life withdrew his communion from, 290 ; died out of communion with the Roman see, 326 ; other references to, 141, 164, 230, 231, 233, 236, 237, 255, 259- 261, 263, 279, 280, 289, 291-293, 295. 296, 307. 325, 330. 351, 378, 480, 481, 497, 498 Marcian, Emperor, 168, 172, 202, 325, 357, 358 Marcianus, of Aries, S. Cyprian's letter about, 55-58, 436, 450, 451 Marcion, the heresiarch, 38, 154, 198 Marianus (al. Marinus or Martinus), Bishop of Utzippara, 207-210 Marin, The Abbe, 391 Marinianus, Vicar of the Spains, 486 Marinus. See Marianus Marinus, Bishop of Aries, 138, 480 Mark, S., first Bishop of Alexandria, 10, ii, 378 Marseilles, see of, 56 ; its quasi-metro- political status, 149, 151 Martialis, Bishop of Merida in Spain : deposed as a libellatic, 59 ; other references to, 436, 450, 452 Martin, The Abbe, 354, 357 Martin, S., of Tours, 152 Martinianus, S. , of Como, 405 Martinus. See Marianus Martyrius, an Arianizing bishop, 233 Martyrius, Bishop of Marcianopolis, 335 Martyrology, The Roman, 68, 166, 202, 287, 327, 367, 386, 387, 390-395, 418 Mason, Dr., 62 Massuet, Dom, O.S.B., 20, 25, 39, 437 Mattes, 458 Matthias, S., the election of, to the apostolate, S. Chrysostom's view of S. Peter's position in connexion with, 372-375 Mauritania Tmgitana, 149 Maximin, S., of Trier, 230 Maximinus, a Vicar of Rome, 517 Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, 130 Maximus, Bishop of the Carthaginian Novatianists, 447 Maximus, the Cynic: chronology of events connected with his history, 529-540 ; his proceedings before coming to Italy, 529, 530 ; other references to, 380, 541 Maximus, Emperor, 367, 486 Maximus, S., Bishop of Jerusalem, 130, 237 Mayor, Dr. J. B., 477 McCloskey, Cardinal, 286 Meaux, Council of (A.D. 845), 93 Meindaerts, Peter John, Archbishop of Utrecht, 332 Meletius, S., Bishop of Antioch : was at one time Bishop of Sebaste, 158 ; was appointed Bishop of Antioch, 158; professed Catholic faith in the presence of Constantius, 159 ; falsely accused of being an Arian, 160 ; was supported by.S. Basil and all the Eastern saints, 160 ; presided over the second Ecumenical Council, 165 ; died during the council out of com- munion with Rome, i65, 350, 353, 502, 503 ; was canonized at once, 1 66 ; was probably consecrated tishop in 357 at Council of Meli- tene, 241-244 ; was never a Ho- moean, 245 ; his orthodoxy discussed, 247-255 ; his sermon before Con- stantius, 254, 255 ; his history during the reigns of Jovian and Valens, 288- 328 ; accepted Nicene creed and terminology in 363 at Council of Antioch, 291-293 ; was never ad- mitted to communion by Liberius, 293-295 ; his second and third exiles, 302 ; his claim rejected by Daniasus, 319 ; stigmatized at Rome as an Ariomaniac, 320, 327; "the most admirable bishop of the true Church of God," 321 ; one of the decrees of the Roman Council of 380 was directed against, 332-334 ; the com- pact of, with Paulinus, 340, 346, 347 ; other references to, 161-164, 227, 228, 235, 238, 246, 256-259, 261-265, 329, 330, 332, 337-339, 34i-345 348-352, 362-370, 383, 389, 406, 496-499, 501, 5 2 > 54, 505, 537, 54i Melitene, Council of (A.D. 357), 237, 238, 241, 243, 244, 296 Mennas, S., Patriarch of Constanti- nople : anathematized Pope Vigilius, 404 ; other references to, 397, 402, 417 Merenda, Antonius Maria, 145, 278, 279, 294, 297, 305, 306, 308, 315- 319, 321, 325, 330, 331, 333, 337, 338, 341, 342, 488, 501-504, 510, 5", 51.3, 519, 528 Metropolitans, authority of, 6-8 ; origin of, 7 ; there were none, except the pope, in the suburbicarian regions, 147, 148 ; the establishment of, in the West, 148, 149, 450 ; are not mentioned in the Latin edition of the Sardican canons, 153 INDEX. 561 Meurin, Bishop, 115 Meyer, Guilehims, 144,510-513 Milan, Church of: the date of its bishop becoming a metropolitan, 148, 151, 434, 485 ; in the time of S. Ambrose and his immediate successors it shared with the Roman Church the hege- mony of the West, 540 ; other refer- ences to, 58, 113 Milan, Councils of: (A.D. 345), 233, 234, 247 5 (A.D. 355), 484 ; (May or June, 381), 344-346, 529-538, 541 5 (December, 381), 204, 380, 531-539, 541 ; (April, 382), 204, 380, 539, 542 Mileum, Council of (A.D. 416), 206, 207 Miltiades, S., Pope, 152 Misenus, Bishop of Cumae, 378, 383, 384, 396, 410, 416 Missal, Roman, its interpretation of "the rock," 99 Moberly, Bishop, of Salisbury, on " Feed My sheep," 119 Mbhler, Joannes Adamus : on the origin of metropolitans, 7 ; other references to, 13, 430 Mommsen, Theodor, 30, 287,361,414, 441, 520 Mongus, Peter. See Peter Mongus Montalembert, M. de, on the pagan corruption which invaded the Church in the fourth century, 131-133 Montfaucon, Dom, O.S.B., 159, 260, 263, 293, 363, 370,496, 511 Month, The, 350 Montreuil, 173 Morcelli, S. J., 205, 207-209 Morin, Dom Germain, O.S.B., 520 Moschus, John, 393 Mozley, Dr. J. B., 433 Murray, Dr., of Maynooth, on the promise to S. Peter, 98 Najran, The 3911 Martyrs of, 389, 394, 396 Natalis Alexander, O. P., 74, 75, 77, 141, 378, 422, 423, 430, 493, 494 Natalis, Bishop of Oe'a, 456 Neale, Dr., 6, 332, 391, 418, 461 Nectarius, Bishop of Avignon, 201 Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, 165, 335, 349, 354, 380, 5o5> 53 . 534-536, 538-541 Neoterius, prefect of the praetorium of Italy, 527 Nepotianus, a priest, 134 Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, the heresiarch, 376, 399, 411, 412, 419, 428, 479 Newman, Cardinal : on the meaning of convenire ad, 25 ; describes the state of Christendom in 360 and 36 1 ... 239 ; on the Church of Alexandria as " the arbiter of doctrine " in the time of Julian, 265 ; on the heresy of Mar- cellus of Ancyra, 480, 481 ; other references to, 28, 68, 137, 138, 159, 216, 236, 237, 247, 255, 258, 263, 280, 281, 338, 351, 429, 437, 453, 506, 508 Nicaea, First Council of (A.D. 325), first Ecumenical : was convoked by the Emperor, 137, 169, 477-480 ; its president was Hosius, 137 ; Hosius presided at, not as papal legate, 169-172 ; its fifth canon, 139, 140, 190, 523 ; set the seal of its approval on that system of Church government for which the Church of England con- tends, 140 ; its sixth canon, 138, 139, 382, 480 ; recognizes no primacy of ecumenical jurisdiction in Roman Church, 139 ; dispute as to whether Sarclican canons are to be attributed to, 184-193; correct copies of canons of, sent in 419 to Carthage, 188 ; other references to, 17, 62, 130, 137-140, 141, 144, 153, 166, 167, 174, 192, 204, 235, 236, 239, 255, 260, 268, 272, 273, 279, 291, 292, 295, 296, 299, 300, 317, 334, 350, 35 1 355- 361, 376, 381, 416, 426, 427, 430, 431, 434, 438, 453, 497, 498 Nicaea, Second Council of (A.D. 787), 251, 267, 269 Nicephorus, acolyte, 5 Nicephorus Callisti, the Church his- torian, 385, 437 Nicholas de Lyra, 442 Nicholas I., Pope, 175, 177, 225, 437, 500 Nicole, Pierre, on the excommunication of Acacius, 385, 386 Nieuwenhuisen, Michael van, Arch- bishop of Utrecht, 332 Novatian, an anti-pope, 51, 561 467; passages about, in S.Cyprian s letters, explained, 78-85 Novatus or Navatus, Bishop of Sitifis, 185 Octarianus, S., of Como, 405 Oehler, Franciscus, 39 Onesimus, appointed by Acacius of Caesarea to the see of Nicomcdia, 246 Optatus, an African bishop, probably of the Proconsular province, 207, 210 Optatus, S., of Mileum, 29, 100, 465 Optimus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, 335 Origen, 482 Orsi, Cardinal, description of second Ecumenical Council by, 165 Otreius, Bishop of Melitene, 335 2 O 562 INDEX. Pagi, Father, 145, 170, 395, 422, 423, 437,510. 525 Palafox, Juan de, 332 Palatinus, Bishop of Bosa or Bossa, 206, 207 Palladius, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch (A.D. 488-498), 385, 387 Palmer, Sir W., 433 Palmieri, Dominico, S.J., 222 Pantaleon, S., and his eight companions, 389, 395 Paschal controversy, 14-19, 224, 225, 436-438 Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum, chief papal legate at Chalcedon, 168, 169, 202 Paschasius, an agent of the anti-pope Ursinus, 520 Passeralius, 39 Paternus, Bishop of Perigueux, 258 Patroclus, Bishop of Aries, 152 Paul, S., the Apostle : an apostolic founder of the Roman Church, 12, I3 J 9, 21, 37, 44; martyred at Rome, 12, 13 ; an apostolic founder of the Church of Ephesus, 22 ; was never Bishop of Rome, 40 ; his work ignored by the Clementine romance, 42, 43 ; his real work at Rome, 43, 44 ; chronology of his life, 43 ; covertly attacked in the Clementine romance, 48 ; comparison of, with S. Peter, 92; puts S. James before S. Peter, when enumerating the pillar- apostles, in, 112; probably recog- nizes S. Peter's primacy of order in I Cor. ix. 5, in ; his rebuke of S. Peter at Antioch, n6j his tone of independence, 116 Paul, Patriarch of Alexandria, 402 Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, a heresiarch, 68, 255, 275-277, 279, 280, 282, 380, 481 Paulianists, 453 Paulinas, the biographer of S. Ambrose, 253 Paulinus, Eustathian bishop of Antioch ; consecrated by the firebrand, Lucifer, 159, 264, 352 ; acknowledged in 375 by Damasus as the true Bishop of Antioch, 160 ; rejected by S. Basil and the Eastern saints, 160 ; used the formula of the One Hypostasis, 161 ; admitted in 346 to the com- munion of S. Athanasius, 234 ; from September 362 to September 363, probably not in communion with S. Athanasius, 234, 288-290 ; generally regarded in the East as a schismatic, 318 ; his compact with S. Meletius, 340, 346, 347 ; date of his death, 367 ; other references to, 158, 162, 165, 176, 228, 247, 249, 250, 252, 256, 257, 260, 261, 263, 288-290, 293, 297, 299, 301, 303, 304, 306, 309- 326, 329, 330, 332-334, 337-339, 341, 342, 344, 348, 353, 362, 363, 365, 368-370, 406, 496-498, 5o- 505, 508, 522, 537, 539, 541 Paulinus, S., of Nola, 48 Faulinus, Bishop of Tyre, 227 Pearson, Bishop, 70, 440, 442, 458, 471 Pelagius, the heresiarch, 184, 491 Pelagius, S., of Laodicea in Syria, 160, 165, 246, 247, 250, 291, 292, 301, 3 2 9, 330, 335, 498 Pelagius I., Pope, 176, 484 Pelagius II., Pope, 172 Pelham, Professor, 30, 441 Pentadius, Bishop of Carpis, 208 Perrone, Joannes, S.J., 25, 33, 98, 99, 2 1 6, 382 Petavius, Dionysius, S.J., 254, 255, 280, 282, 429, 430, 442, 443, 480 Peter, S., the Apostle : an apostolic founder of the Roman Church, 12, 13, 19, 21, 37, 44 ; martyred at Rome, 12, 13 ; was never Bishop of Rome, 36-49 ; the theory that he was Bishop of Rome, vital to papalists, 36 ; that theory propagated by the Clementine romance, 42, 47 ; spurious epistle of, to S. James, 42 ; origin of the ex- pression, " see of Peter," 44 ; as the first-chosen apostle, a fitting symbol of the unity of the Church Militant, 84-88, 92, 101-103, 470, 471 ; the nature of his primacy, 86 ; our Lord's words to, recorded in S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, convey a promise, not a gift, 88 ; bishops are successors of, 90, 94, 123, 124 ; promise made by our Lord to, at Caesarea Philippi, discussed, 97-109 ; his precedence in confession rewarded by priorily in designation, 108 ; his leadership in the work of founding the Church, 108, 109 ; his supposed primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles disproved by Scripture, no-il6 ; was sent to Samaria by his brother-apostles, 1 10, III ; was "recognized as a pillar," III, 112; his name placed between the names of S. James and S. John, 111-113; his speech at the Council of Jerusalem, 113, 114; obscure allusion in I Pet. v. 13 to his con- nexion with Rome, 1 16 ; meaning of Christ's pastoral charge to, 117-128; the years of, 384, 444 ; in what sense he is styled " unitas in multis " by S. Augustine, 472-473 ; teaching of Anglican divines about, 473-477 Peter I., S., Bishop of Alexandria, 179 Peter II., Bishop of Alexandria, 160, INDEX. 563 306, 319, 321, 325, 326, 335-338, 340, 347, 529-531, 533, 534, 54i Peter, Monophysite Metropolitan of Apamea, 392, 418, 421 Peter, Cardinal, 212 Peter Chrysologus, S., Bishop of Ravenna, 148 Peter the Fuller, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch (A.D. 471-488), 384, 410- 412, 416, 417, 419 Peter Mongus, Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria (A.D. 477-490), 377- 379, 381-385, 399, 403, 4io, 411, 414, 416, 419 Peter, S., Bishop of Sebaste, 165, 238, 318 Peters, Dr., 451 Petronius, a priest, 317 Peyron, Amadeus, 500 Philagrius, Prefect of Egypt, 233 Philemon, a Roman priest, 70, 461 Philip, Emperor, 55, 450 Philip, legate in 419 at Carthage, and in 431 at Ephesus, 168, 182, 184, 185 Philippopolis, Council of (A.D. 343), 185, 230-233, 238 Phillips, Mr. Sadler, 25 Philomelium, Church of, 16 Philostorgius, an Arian historian, 227, 242, 246 Philoxenus, one of S. Julius' legates at Sardica, 171 Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium, a heresi- arch, 233, 234, 275, 279, 280, 325 Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 173, 176, 177, 295 Pitra, Cardinal, 391, 404, 432 Pius I., S., Pope, 15, 37, 38 Pius VII., Pope, 28 Pius IX., Pope, 3, 34, 115, 251, 371, 43!433 Polycarp, S., Bishop of Smyrna, 10, 15, 21, 23, 32, 35, 40, 45 Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, 15-18, 225 Pompeianus, an Antiochene, the father of Evagrius, 304 Pompeius, Bishop of Sabrata, 5, 64, 456, 466 Pontius, S., the biographer of S. Cyprian, 70 Pope, jurisdiction of the, as defined by Vatican Council, 3, 4; had in early times primacy of honour and in- fluence, 14 ; decision of, in a matter outside his jurisdiction, had no bind- ing force, 6 1 ; was practically bishop of bishops in Italy, 65 ; his primacy regarded by Bellarmine as " the principal matter of Christianity," 98 ; in the fourth and fifth centuries was the only metropolitan in the suburbicarian regions, 139, 148 ; powers of, enlarged by the legisla- tion of Valentinian I. and Gratian, I S 1 I S3> "545 that legislation, so far as it was received, made the popes to be Patriarchs over the West, 154, 155 ; was spokesman of West in dealing with East, 155 ; how regarded by S. Basil, 164, 165 ; was able to enforce his authority by the help of the civil magistrates, 1 78 ; was left free by the imperial con- stitutions to make and enforce his own law, 1 80 ; the nature and origin of his various kinds of power, 180, 181 ; was not the necessary centre of communion, 224-406 ; maybe called " head " in two senses, 221. See also under Rome, Church of Possidius, S., Bishop of Calama, 491 Potitus, a Vicar of Rome, 517 Potter, Archbishop of Canterbury : on S. Peter's primacy, 474, 475 ; other reference to, 476 Praetextatus, an African bishop, of the Proconsular province, 210 Praetextatus, Vettius Agorius, 133, 136, 5'7, 527 Primasius, Bishop of Adrumetum, 442 Princifalitas, meaning of, 29-32, 51, 102, 441-442 Principius, prefect of the praetorium of Italy, 527 Priscillian, the heresiarch, 485 Pritannius, Bishop of Trier, 483. See also Britonius Privatus, of Lambesis, a bishop excom- municated for heresy, 51, 447, 448, 449, 4 61 Probus, Sextus Petronius, prefect of the praetorium of Italy, 526, 527 Proclus, S., Bishop of Constantinople, 354 Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles : treated Pope Zosimus* summons with con- tempt, 152 ; other references to, 149, 196 Prophets, the second degree in the ministry in the apostolic age, 106, 107 Prosper, S., of Aquitame, 331 Protasius, Bishop of Milan, 434 Proterius, S., Bishop of Alexandria, 428 Protogenes, Bishop of Sardica, 171 Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, 48, lol Pulcheria, Empress, 167 Puppianus, Florentius, 93 Pusey, Dr., 62, 108, 440, 476 Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium tt Felictm episcopos, the Ursinian preface to the Luciferian Lilwllus precum, 283, 286, 517 564 INDEX. Quien, Le, Pere, O.P., 244, 257, 295 Quintus, Bishop of Buruc in Mauri- tania, 91, 459, 469 Rade, 514, 515 Ramsay, Professor, 32, 116, 443 Rattray, Bishop of Dunkeld, 249 Rauschen, Dr. Gerhard, 328, 334, 337, 486, 502, 508, 514, 517, 525, 527, 530 Ravenna, the see of, became metro- political in fifth century, 148 Ravennius, a priest, afterwards Bishop of Aries, 201 Rebaptismate, De, author of the treatise, 62 ; his nationality, 453 Recognitions, Clementine, 41, 48, 443, 444 Refutatio Hypocrisis Meletii, 291, 293, 496 Reparatus, Bishop of Carthage, excom- municated Pope Vigilius, 404 Reserve, The principle of, thoroughly understood by the primitive saints, 255 Reviie Biblique t 28, 43 Revue cThistoire et de lilterature re- ligieuses, 425, 470 Revue des questions historiques, 2, 7, 445 Rhodon, 32 Richard of S.Victor, 442 Richardson, Mr. : attempts a reply to the Fathers of Chalcedon, 13 ; his private canonization of Paulinus of Antioch, 367 ; other references to, 223, 389 Rigault, Nicolas, 67 Rivington, Dr. Luke : his translation of the Irenaean passage about the Roman see, 23, 24 ; speaks of " Saint Liberius " and " Saint Lucifer," 265 ; attributes the legislation of the Coun- cil of Alexandria in 362 to Liberius, 266 ; considers that " the whole case of S. Meletius suggests the ' Roman ' theory of Church government as in full working order," 353 ; his mis- taken notion about diptychs, 424 ; thinks that " the strictly papal method of government " is "taken for granted by S. Cyprian," 451 ; other references to, xxviii., 29, 38, 45, 47, 48, 73. 74, 86, 94, 115, 153 166, 172, 177, 192, 204-206, 2OS, 211, 220, 247, 249, 254, 256, 257, 269, 286, 292-294, 306, 319, 322, 324, 325, 342, 345, 348, 349, 351, 358, 373, 375, 409, 4H, 4I7, 423, 435 43 6 , 446, 448, 449, 451, 45 2 -454, 45 6 - 458, 460, 462-464, 465, 467-469, 470, 473, 477, 478, 480, 487, 490, 493-496, 504, 508, 509, 522, 533, 540 Robertson, Dr. Archibald, 32, 234, 236, 238, 280, 281, 288, 299, 440, 481, 497, 498, 510 " Rock," The, of the Church : patristic interpretations of, 99-105 ; the com- monest and the oldest opinion is that S. Peter is the, 99 ; the Fathers hardly ever connect the Roman see with, 99- 101 ; the true interpretation of, 105- 109 Rogatianus, a Carthaginian deacon, 463 Rogers, Mr. Alfred, 269 Rohrbacher, The Abbe, 334 Romanus, S., the Melodist, 388, 391 Rome, Church of: the organization of the local, 5 ; extent of province de- pending on, 8, 14, 139, 434, 451 ; centralizing tendency in, 8 ; Bishop of, took precedence over other bishops, 9 ; reason of this precedence, 12, 13, 36 ; founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, 12 ; scene of the martyrdom of those apostles, 1 2 ; possessed their sacred relics, 13 ; only apostolic see in the West, 13, 178 ; had a primacy of honour and influence, but not of jurisdiction, 14 ; its witness against Gnostics, 21 ; why S. Irenaeus appeals primarily to its witness, 22, 33 ; special advantages in handing on the faith possessed by, 27, 28, 33 ; its potentior principalitas, 31-33 ; con- sulted more frequently than other apostolic sees, 32 ; received intelli- gence from all parts of the Church, 32 ; representatives of other churches come to, and influence, 32 ; its pri- macy attributed by some writers to S. Peter's supposed Roman episco- pate, 36 ; sequence of early bishops of, 45 ; mother-church of greater part of the West, 51, 52, 82 ; was not regarded by S. Cyprian as " the root, the source, and the matrix of Catholic unity," 79-85, 464-469 j received rich donations from the Emperors and others in the fourth and follow- ing centuries, 133 ; the greater part of the clergy of, perjured themselves in the time of Liberius, 135 ; Coun- cil of Nicaea silent about appeals to, 140 ; a quasi-appeal to, permitted by Council of Sardica, 142, 143 ; re- garded in early times as the head of the West, 155, 451 ; from early times was consulted by Western churches, 178 ; appeals to, forbidden by African Church, 189, 192, 193, 448-450, 490-493 ; history of, from 358 to 363, very little known, 271 ; leadership of, is not a vital element in the Church's constitution, 274 ; in INDEX. 565 the fourth century it was normally the centre of communication and communion to all other Catholic churches, 540. See also under Pope Rome, Councils of: {circa 195), 16 ; (A.D. 313), 152; (A.D. 369), first under Damasus, 543 ; (December, 371), second under Damasus, 155, 206, 299, 300, 302, 330, 484, 543 ; (A.D. 374), third under Damasus, 307, 320, 330; (A.D. 376 or 377), fourth under Damasus, 326, 327, 330 ; (A.D. 380), fifth under Damasus, 330-334, 348 ; (May or June, 382), sixth under Damasus, 144-146, 155, 204, 342, 510-528, 539, 542 ; (autumn, 382), seventh under Damasus, 364, 365, 483, 522, 523, 536, 539, 542 ; (Octo- ber, 449), 512; (July, 484), 379; (October, 485), 359, 381, 382, 410, 416 ; (A.D. 495), 383, 384, 410, 416 ; (A.D. 531), 157; (A.D. 743), 499; (A.D. 826), 500 Roncaglia, Constantinus, 437 Rossi, G. B. de, 259, 287 Routh, Dr., 440, 442 Rubianus, S., of Como, 405 Rufinianus, an African bishop of the Proconsular province, 210 Rufinianus, a bishop, to whom S. Athanasius wrote : the spuriousness of a clause interpolated into the epistle of S. Athanasius to, 269 ; other references to, 267, 268, 271 Rufinus of Aquileia, 38, 48, 113, 139, 242, 248, 260, 261, 264, 265, 270, 445, 478, 480, 481 Rufinus, prefect of the praetorium, 179 Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, 157, 39. 52 Ruinart, Dom, O.S.B., 154 Rupert, Abbot of Deutz, 442 Rusticus, 403 Sabas, S., the Great, 386, 389, 393, 394, 396, 404 Sabellius, the heresiarch, 255, 291 Sabinus, Bishop of Leon in Spain, successor to Basilides, 59, 60, 452 Sabinus, S., a Milanese deacon, 164, 299, 300, 302 Sacerdos: the usual meaning of the word in patristic literature is Rishop, 93 Safrac, an Ostrogothic chief, 331, 515 Sage, Bishop, on the licentia of epis- copal authority, 65 Sallustius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 385 Salmanticenses, The, 425 Salmon, Dr., 42, 46, 47, 96, 440 Salvian, on the decay of Christian morality, 132 Sampson, S., the Receiver of strangers, 388, 390 Sanctissimus, a priest, 305-307, 309, 315, 324, 326 Sanday, Dr., 76, 444 Sapor, one of Theodosius 1 generals, 336-340 Sardica, Council of (A D. 343) : account of, 140-144 ; Hosius presided at, by nomination of the Emperor, 170, 171 ; the dealings of the Eastern Church with the canons of, 143, 144, 172-177 ; dispute at Carthage as to whether certain canons of, were really Nicene, as Pope Zosimus declared, 184-193 ; tried to whitewash Mar- cellus of Ancyra, 480 ; other refer- ences to, 137, 153, 154-157, 178, 196, 204, 215, 229-234, 237, 247, 259, 300, 317, 319, 352, 3 6 5 382, 434, 481, 485, 491, 492 Sarum Breviary, 102 Saturninus, Bishop of Aries, 258 Saturninus and Scipio, consulate of, 38 Savio, Fedele, S.J., 58 Scannell, Dr., his rendering of con- venire ad, 25 Scheeben's Dogmatik, 25 Schelstrate, 437 Schisma, occasional untechnical use of the word, 489 Secundus, Bishop of Tigisis, 152, 153 Seeck, Otto, 5 2 5-5 2 7 Segna, Cardinal, 39 Seleucia, Council of (A.D. 359), 227, 237, 239, 243, 248, 250, 282 SeWria, Padre, 28 Sergius, a monk of Syria Secunda, 419 Servus Dei, Bishop of Thubursicum Bure, 206, 208 Severianus, an African bishop present in 358 at the Council of Sirmium, 275 Severus, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch (A.D. 512-519), 387, 392, 421 Severus, Bishop of Ravenna, 434 Severus, Sulpicius. See Sulpicius Severus Sevems, Valerius, Prefect of Rome, 520, 541 Siburius, prefect of the praetorium of Gaul, 525 Silvanus, Primate of Numidia, 207 Silvanus, Bishop of Tarsus, 237, 240, 295, 296, 3'2, 498, 499 Silvester, S., Pope: neither convoked the Council of Nicaea, nor presided over it, either in person or by his legates, 137, 138, 169-172,477-480; other references to, 137, 138, 166, 376, 480 Silvia, S., of Aquitame, 48 Simplicianus, S., Bishop of Milan, 58 Simplicius, Pope, 377, 378 566 INDEX. Siricius, Pope, 58, 156-158, 176, 179, 181, 197, 273, 368, 371, 485, 507-509 Sirmium, Councils of: (A.D. 351), 280; (A.D. 357), 236; (A.D. 358), 259, 275-287 ; (May, 359), 427 Sirmond, Jacques, S.J., 511, 513 Smedt, Father de, S.J., 7, 13, 240, 276, 277, 281, 437, 455-461,463, 469 Smyrna, Church of: an apostolic see, IO ; S. Polycarp constituted its bishop by S. John, 10, 21, 41, 45 ; S. Irenaeus appeals to its witness against Gnostics, 21, 22, 35 j other references to, 16, 39, 40 Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, 17, 138, 171, 204, 231, 242, 243, 248, 249, 251, 262, 264, 291, 293, 2 95 296, 339, 367, 372, 437, 442, 478, 497, 5 3-S07. 512, 519, 526 Soter, S., Pope, 15, 37 Sozomen, the ecclesiastical historian : his account of Liberius' fall, 275-287 ; in what sense he was an imitator of Socrates, 506 ; other references to, 61, 138, 176, 231, 237, 238, 242, 243, 248, 250, 251, 259, 262, 271, 295. 2 96, 3. 38, 334, 365, 3 6 7, 372, 478, 484, 503-507, 512, 519, 526, 531, 539 Spain : before A. D. 386 there were metropolitans in, 149, 485 ; was administered by a proconsul during the latter part of Gratian's reign, 151, 485-487 Stephen, Bishop of Antioch : was ex- communicated by Council of Sardica, 158, 230 ; other references to, 227, 229, 231, 232 Stephen (Bishop or Archbishop), a friend of Dionysius Exiguus, 212, 213 Stephen, Pope ; his dealings and re- lations with S. Cyprian, 55-71 ; his "proud" and "impertinent" re- marks, 64 ; his treatment of certain Carthaginian legates, 67 ; his excom- munication of various churches in Asia Minor, 67, 75, 225 ; dwells on his see being the chair of Peter, 69 ; "an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church," 69 ; calls S. Cyprian "a false apostle," 69, 454 ; is invoked as a saint by the Roman Church, 70 ; his martyrdom doubtful, 70, 459-460 ; other refer- ences to, 5,13, 50, 121, 122, 179, 436, 450-452, 454-458, 460, 462, 463, 467, 469, 536 Stieren, Dr. Adolphus, 39 Stillingfleet, Bishop, 440 Stiltinck, Joannes, S.J., 240, 250, 263, 265, 266, 267, 286, 287, 343, 493, 494. 507, 5o8 Stubbs, Dr., Bishop of Oxford, 149 Suarez, Franciscus, S.J., 425, 430 Suicer, Johannes Casparus, 126, 503 Sulpicius Severus, 258, 265, 479, 483, 485-487 ffvvoSos li>?>i)/j.ovffa, 380, 39O, 421 Suyskens, Constantinus, S.J., 77, 458 Syagrius, prefect of the praetorium of Italy, 525, 526, 528 Syagrius, Bishop of Verona, 483 Sylloge Centulensis, 287 Symeon, S., Stylites, 391, 392, 418 Symmachus, Q. Aurelius, 526 Symmachus, Pope, 183, 212, 271, 321, 359,377409,4".520 Synodicon, 17 Syria Secunda, The 350 martyrs of, 388, 392, 418-421 Tabkt, The, 433 Talaia, John, Patriarch of Alexandria, 377, 378 Tall brothers, their appeal to S. Chry- sostom, 60, 6 1 Taurianus, a Macedonian bishop, 183 Telepte, Council of (A.D. 418), 209 Telesphorus, S., Pope, 15, 37 Terentius, an African bishop, probably of the Proconsular province, 207, 2IO Terentius, Count, 319, 321, 322 Terentius, Bishop of Tomi in Scythia, 335 Tertullian : on the apostolic churches, 10, II, 44, 435; does not regard either S. Peter or S. Paul as Bishops of Rome, 39, 40 ; regards S. Clement as first Bishop of Rome, 40, 45, 46 ; speaks ironically of Pope Callistus as " the bishop of bishops," 65 ; his interpretation of the promise to S. Peter, 104 ; on the true Vicar of Christ, 407 ; other references to, 47, 51, 81, 429, 444-446, 465 Theasius, Bishop of Memblosa, 207, 209 Theodore, of Mopsuestia, 256, 404, 405 Theodore, Bishop of Petra, 392 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, 138, 148, 204, 206, 227, 235, 237, 242, 248, 249, 264, 299, 300, 307, 337- 339, 353, 354, 3^3, 364, 405, 44*. 478, 484, 504, 505, 508, 522, 539 Theodoric, King, 419 Theodoras, prefect of the praetorium of Italy, 513 Theodosian Code, 169 et passim Theodosius, S., the Coenobiarch, 388, 392, 393, 396 Theodosius, a superior of the hermits in the desert of Chalcis, 310 Theodosius the Great, Emperor: his INDEX. 567 decrees in favour of the Nicene faith, 334-336 ; other references to, 131, 150, 156, 165, 171, 204, 247, 331, 340, 343, 345-349, 354, 367, 37L 380, 509-512, 515, 518, 525, 526, 528, 530, 531, 534, 535, 537-542 Theodosius the Younger, Emperor, 167, 355-357, 4/8, 5", 513, 525 Theophanes, S., 388, 404 Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, 61, 176, 179, 202, 320, 354, 367, 371, 379, 382, 428, 482, 507-509 Theophilus, Bishop of Castabala, 295 Theophylact, 88 Thiel, Andreas, 361, 411 Thionville, Council of (A.D. 844), 93 Thomas Aquinas, S., 93, 203, 254, 255, 430 Thomassinus, Ludovicus, 25, 453 Tiberius II., Emperor, 173, 176 Tillemont, 12 tt passim ; his conjectural emendation of a passage in the letter Sanctum animum tuttm, 536, 537 Timothy I., Bishop of Alexandria, 179, 335, 347 Timothy the Cat, Monophysite Pa- triarch of Alexandria (A.D. 457-477), 358, 383, 384, 399, 4", 4i6 Timothy III., Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria (A.U. 520-537), 394, 395 Timothy, Monophysite Patriarch of Constantinople, 397, 398 Timothy, a disciple of Apollinarius, 326 Tissot, M. Charles, 208, 209 Tizzani, Archbishop, 469 Touttee, Dom, O.S.B., 237, 244, 295, 363, 496 Trench, Dr. R. C., Archbishop of Dublin, 442 Trophimus, S., Bishop of Aries, 450 Trullo, Council in (A.D. 691), 143, 144, 174, 179 Turin, Council of (A.U. 398), 58, 113, 149 Turmel, The Abbe, 425 Turner, Mr. C. H. : his proposed emendations of the text of passages in the Milanese letter Sanctum ani- mum tuum, 532, 537 ; other refer- ences to, xxx., 76, 170, 171, 1 88 Tutus, Bishop of the " Ecclesia Melzi- tana," 206, 208 Tutus, Bishop of Misgirpa, 207, 208 Tyana, Council of (A.D. 367), 295, 296 Tyre, Council of (A.D. 335), 141, 229 Tyre, Council of (A.D. 518), 359 Ullathorne, Bishop, 432, 433 Unam Sane tarn, The bull, I, 2 Undique, meaning of, 27 Union Rcvifiu, 65 Unitas sacerdotalis t meaning of, 52, 446 Unity of the Church : Roman theory of, 216, 217 ; Roman theory of, contrasted with Catholic doctrine about, 217, 218 ; teaching of Holy Scripture about, 218-224 J summary of truth about, 406-408 ; will ulti- mately be visible and perfect, 408 Urban, a Mauritanian bishop, 522 Urban V., Pope, 2 Urban, Bishop of Sicca, 184, 187 Ursacius, Arian Bishop of Singidunutn, 234, 271, 275, 277, 279, 281, 284, 285, 543 Ursacius, Bishop of Brixia, 434 Ursinus, anti-pope, 136, 286, 303, 342, 514-522, 538, 541 Ussher, Archbishop, 442 Vaison, Council of (A.D. 442), 48 Valence, Council of (A.D. 374), 197 Valens, Arian Bishop of Mursa, 230, 234, 271, 275, 277, 279, 281, 284, 285, 543 Valens, Emperor, 165, 256, 292, 294, 296, 297, 302, 306, 307, 310, 328, 329, 351, 353. 495, 5io, 512, 518, 524, 528 Valens, Julius, Arian Bishop of Pettau, 514, 55 Valentia, Gregory de, S.J., 430 Valentinianl., Emperor, 133, 144, 145, 147-151, 153-157, 178, 195, 294, 299, 303, 306, 307, 338, 487, 512, 517, 522 Valentinian II., Emperor, 145, 340, 486,487, 510-513, 5'5, 521-525 Valentinian III., Emperor: murdered Aetius, 200 ; enlarged by a rescript the State-given jurisdiction of the Roman see, 200, 201 ; this rescript of, a new starling-point in the development of papal claims, 202 ; other references to, 376, 479, 512 Valentinus, Primate of Numidia, 185, 206, 207, 376 Valerian, Emperor, 70, 459 Valerian, S., Bishop of Aquilcia, 300, 302, 364, 482-484 Valerius Severus, Prefect of Rome, 342 Vallarsi, Dommico, 162, 304, 343 Valois, De (Valesius), 75, 80, 170, 439, 462, 477, 531 Van den Bosche, Petrus, b.J., 257, 330, 341, 457, 504 Van Espen, Zeger Bernardus : on the essential equality of bishops, 6 ; other references to, 184, 491 Van Papenbroeck ( Papebrochius), Daniel, S.J., 494 Vasquez, Gabriel, S.J., 436 568 INDEX. Vatican Council (A.D. 1869, 1870) : its teaching, 3, 4 ; theory set forth by, unknown in Pope Victor's time, 18 ; that theory contradicted by S. Cyprian, 53, 60, 63 ; witness of the first three centuries adverse to its theory, 72, 96; quotes "Thou art Peter" and "Feed My sheep" in support of papal supremacy, 97 ; its theory not held by S. Augustine, . 104 ; other references to, 17, 34, 64- 66, 115, 117, 128, 140, 143, 187, 188, 194, 199, 202, 215-218, 322, 323, 365, 406, 433, 494 Vaughan, Dr., Dean of Llandaff, 442 Venables, Edmund, Canon of Lincoln, 138 Venerius, S., Bishop of Milan, 481, 482 Vercellae, the so-called "archives of," 494-495 Verhoven, Franciscus, S.J., 390 Victor, Bishop of Abdera, 207 Victor, Bishop of Misgirpa, 208 Victor, Bishop of Pappianum, 207 Victor, Pope : separated Asians from his inun communion, 18 ; endeavoured to separate them from the Catholic communion, but failed, 18 ; other references to, 13, 15-19, 31, 47, 75, 224, 225, 436, 437, 463 Victor. See Vito Victorinus, Marius, 278, 279 Victricius, Bishop of Rouen, 179 Vigilius, Pope : anathematized by S. Mennas, 404 ; confessed to S. Euty- chius that the devil had deceived him, 405 ; other references to, 171, 330, 361, 404 Vincent, S., of Lerins, 427, 431 Vincentius, Bishop of Capua, 137, 138, 170, 171, 271 Vincentius, Bishop of the " Ecclesia Culusitana," 207, 209, 210 Vitalian, Magister militum of Thrace, 415 Vitalis, a priest at Antioch : became in 374 an Apollinarian, 160 ; was con- secrated in 376 to be the Apollinarian bishop at Antioch, 160, 308 ; other references to, 161, 162, 252, 309, 311-319, 324, 337 Vitalis, Bishop of Truentum, 378 Vito (or Victor), legate of Pope S. Silvester at Nicene Council, 137, 138, 170, 171 Viventius, Prefect of Rome, 517 Voe'l, Guillaume, 173, 176 Volventius, Proconsul of Spain (A.D. 332), 485 Vulgate, meaning of convenire ad in, 26 Waterworth, 25 Watson, Mr. E. W., 451, 458, 464 Westcott, Dr. B. F., Bishop of Durham, no, 442 Western Empire, principal divisions of, during reigns of Valentinian I. and Gratian, 150, 151 White, Mr. H. J., 500 Wilberforce, R. I., 25, 55 Williams, Mr. George, 418 Wiseman, Cardinal : makes communion with Rome to be the test of member- ship in the Catholic Church, 216, 225, 323, 406 ; asserts that this theory is taught by the Fathers, 216, 224, 323, 405 ; other references to, 226, 227, 350, 365. 366, 372, 394, 396, 406 Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher, Bishop of Lincoln, 131 Xystus I., S., Pope, 15, 37 Xystus II., S., Pope, 70, 71, 74, 459, 460, 462 Xystus III., S., Pope, 181, 427, 428 Zaccagni, Laurentius Alexander, pre- fect of the Vatican library, 325 Zaccaria, Franciscus Antonius, S.J., 161, 250, 363, 429 Zacchaeus, 443 Zacharias, Pope, 499 Zahn, Dr. Theodor, 49, 443 Zeno, Bishop of Tyre, 498 Zeno, Emperor, 377, 414 Zeno, S., Bishop of Verona, 429 Zerta, Council of (A.D. 412), 207 Zigabenus, Euthymius. Sec Euthymius Zigabenus Zoilus, Bishop of Larissa in Syria, 291 Zosimas, S., the Wonder-worker, 389, 393 Zosimus, Bishop of Tharassa, 456 Zosimus, Pope, 152, 167, 168, 182, 184-188, 196, 197, 335, 491, 492 THE END. PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES. 7' 000 037 831 University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. QL I 3 1935.