Produced by Steven Giacomelli, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND
CLEARED FROM
THE CHARGE OF SCHISM,
UPON
TESTIMONIES OF COUNCILS
AND
FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX CENTURIES.
BY
THOMAS WILLIAM ALLIES, M. A.
RECTOR OF LAUNTON, OXON.
LONDON:
JAMES BURNS, 17, PORTMAN STREET,
PORTMAN SQUARE.
1846.
* * * * *
LONDON:
R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.
* * * * *
ADVERTISEMENT.
* * * * *
The writer of the following pages is more and more convinced that the whole
question between the Roman Church and ourselves, as well as the Eastern
Church, turns upon the Papal Supremacy, as at present claimed, being of
divine right or not. _If it be_, then have we nothing else to do, on peril
of salvation, but submit ourselves to the authority of Rome: and better it
were to do so before we meet the attack, which is close at hand, of an
enemy who bears equal hatred to ourselves and to Rome; the predicted
Lawless One, the Logos, reason, or private judgment of apostate humanity
rising up against the Divine Logos, incarnate in His Church. _If it be
not_, then may we take courage; for the position of the Church of England
being tenable, all the evils within her pale, which we are now so deeply
feeling, will, by God's blessing, be gradually overcome. As to practical
abuses in her, who will venture to say they are so great as in the Roman
Church of the tenth century, when the First See was filled successively by
the lovers of abandoned women, who made and deposed Popes at their will?
Our cause being good, all that we have to deplore of actual evil should
lead to more earnest intercession, more continued striving after that love
which breathes itself forth in unity, but should not shake the confidence
of any obedient heart in our mother's title. When the Donatists made the
crimes of individuals an excuse for breaking unity, St. Augustin reminded
them, that the crimes of the chaff do not prejudice the wheat, but that
both must grow together till the Lord of the harvest send forth his angels
to make the separation.
The writer will not conceal that he took up this inquiry for the purpose of
satisfying his own mind. Had he found the Councils and Fathers of the first
six centuries bearing witness _to_ the Roman supremacy, as at present
claimed, instead of _against_ it, he should have felt bound to obey them.
As a Priest of the Church Catholic in England, he desires to hold, and to
the best of his ability will teach, all doctrine which the undivided Church
always held. He finds by reference to those authorities which could not be
deceived, and cannot be adulterated, that while they unanimously held the
Roman primacy, and the patriarchal system, of which the Roman pontiff stood
at the head, they as unanimously did not hold, nor even contemplate, that
supremacy or monarchy which alone Rome will now accept as the price of her
communion. They not only do not recognise it, but their words and their
actions most manifestly contradict it. This is, in one word, his
justification of his mother from the sin of Schism. If true, it is
sufficient: if untrue, he knows of no other.
But should any opponent think these pages worthy of a reply, the writer
warns him, at the outset, that he must in fairness discard that old
disingenuous trick of using testimonies of the Fathers to the primacy of
the Roman See in the episcopal and patriarchal system, in order to prove
the full papal supremacy, as now claimed, in a system which is nearly come
to pure monarchy. By this method, because the Fathers recognise the Bishop
of Rome as successor of St. Peter, they are counted witnesses to that
absolute power now claimed by the Roman pontiff, though they recognise
other Bishops, in just the same sense, to be successors of the holy
Apostles; or though they call every Bishop's see the see of Peter, as the
great type and example of the episcopate. What such an one has to establish
in order to justify the Roman Church, and to prove that the English and the
Eastern are in Schism, is, that Roman doctrine, as stated by Bellarmine,
which is really the key-stone of the whole system, that "Bishops succeed
not properly to the Apostles," "for they have no part of the true apostolic
authority," but that "all ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends
immediately from the Pope," and that "the Pope has, full and entire, that
power which Christ left on the earth for the good of the Church."[1] Let
this be proved on the testimony of the first six centuries, and if it be
true, nothing can be more easy than to prove it, as the contradictory of it
is attempted to be proved in the following pages, and all controversy will
be at an end. We claim that it should be proved, for even De Maistre, who
has put forward this theory with the least compromise, declares, "There is
nothing new in the Church, and never will she believe save what she has
always believed."[2]
* * * * *
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CLEARED FROM
THE CHARGE OF SCHISM.
The course of events, for some time past, has been such as to force upon
the most faithful sons of the Church of England the consideration of
questions which they would rather have left alone, as long ago settled; for
the nature of these questions is such, not to speak of their intricacy and
painfulness, as almost to compel the student to place himself, as it were,
_ab extra_ to that community, which he would rather regard with the
unreasoning and unhesitating instinct of filial affection. One of these
questions, perhaps the first which directly meets and encounters him, is
the charge of Schism brought against the Church of England on account of
the events of the sixteenth century, and her actual state of separation
from the Latin communion, which has been their result. Time was, and that
not long since, when it might have been thought a sort of treason for one
who ministers at the altars of the Church of England, and receives by her
instrumentality the gift of Life, so much as to entertain the thought,
whether there was a flaw in the commission of his spiritual mother, a flaw
which, reducing her to the condition of a sect, would invalidate his own
sonship. And certainly the treatment of such a question must be most
painful to any one, who desires to be obedient and dutiful, and therefore
to be at peace. How can it be otherwise, when, instead of eating his daily
portion of food in his Father's house, he is called upon to search and
inquire whether indeed he have found that house at all, and be not rather a
fugitive or an outcast from it. Such, however, is the hard necessity which
is come upon us. Let no one imagine that it is our _choice_ to speak on
such subjects. We are in the case of a beleaguered soldier in an enemy's
country; he may not think of peace; he must maintain his post or die; his
part is not aggression, but defence: the matter at issue is the
preservation of all that he holds dear, or extermination. The question of
_schism_ is a question of salvation.
But over and above the general course of events which forces us to
reconsider this question, circumstances have taken place in the past year
which we may boldly pronounce to be without a parallel in the history of
the Church in England since she became divided from Catholic communion.
Those who have followed with anxious sympathy that great restorative
movement which, for twelve years, has agitated her bosom,--those who have
felt with an ever increasing conviction, as time went on, and the different
parties consolidated and unfolded themselves, that it was at the bottom a
contest for the ancient faith delivered to the saints, for dogmatic truth,
for a visible Church, in whom, as in a great sacrament, was lodged the
presence of the Lord, communicating Himself by a thousand acts of spiritual
efficacy, against the monstrous and shapeless latitudinarianism of the day;
against the unnumbered and even unsuspected heresies which have infected
the whole atmosphere that we breathe; against, in fine, the individual will
of fallen man, under cover of which the coming Antichrist is marshalling
interests the most opposite, and passions the most contradictory; and
further, those not few nor inconsiderable, we believe, who, by God's grace,
owe to the teaching of _one man_ in particular a debt they never can
repay,--the recovery, perchance, of themselves from some form of error
which he has taught them to discern, or the building them up in a faith
whose fair proportions he first discovered to them,--these will feel with
deeper sorrow than we can express the urgency of the occasion to which we
allude. For how, indeed, could the question, whether the Church of England
is fallen into schism, or be, as from the laver of their regeneration they
have been taught to believe, a member of that one sacred Body in which
Christ incarnate dwells,--how could this question be so forced upon their
minds, as by the fact that her Champion, whom they had hitherto felt to be
invincible, who had seemed her heaven-sent defender, with the talisman of
victory in his hands, of whom they were even tempted to think
Si Pergama dextra
Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent,
that he, who fighting her battles, never met with his equal, unsubdued by
any foe from without, has surrendered to his own doubts and fears;
self-conquered, has laid down her arms, and has gone over to the camp
opposed. Henceforth she has ranged against her those powers of genius and
that sanctity of life, to which so many of her children looked as to a
certain omen of her Catholicity. They felt that she who bore such children,
must needs be the spouse of God. It is no wonder that many others, of no
mean name among us, and whom we could ill afford to spare, have had their
doubts and disquietudes determined by such a fact as this. For the first
time, I repeat, in the history of the Church of England have earnest and
zealous children of hers, who desired nothing but their own salvation and
the salvation of others, found no rest for the sole of their feet within
her communion. Men who set out with the most single-minded purpose of
defending her cause, nay, of winning back to her bosom alienated
multitudes, of building her up in a beauty and a glory which she has not
yet seen, and one, especially, who has been the soul of that great movement
to restore her,--these have now, after years of hard fighting spent in her
service, quitted her, and proclaim that all who value their salvation must
quit her likewise.
These are some of the special circumstances which force upon the most
reluctant the question of Schism. It was the privilege of other days to
feed in the quiet pastures of truth. We have to seek the path to Heaven
through the wilderness of controversy, where too often "the highways are
unoccupied, and the travellers walk through byways." But it is a question
which cannot be put off or thrust aside. No instructed Christian, who has
any true faith or love, can bear the thought that he is out of the one fold
of Christ. The question cannot be put off, for it will brood upon him in
his daily devotions and labours; a doubt as to the justice of his cause
will paralyse all his exertions. It cannot be thrust aside; for the
imputation of heresy on another has no tendency to answer the charge of
schism against oneself. It must be met openly, honestly, and without
shrinking. The charge of Schism touches immediately the Christian's
conscience, for this reason, that, if true, it takes away from his prayers,
his motives, his actions, his sufferings, that one quality which is
acceptable to Almighty God. Here it is most true, that "all, which is not
of faith, is sin:" he who does not believe, at least, that he is a member
of the one Church, whatever outward acts he may perform, cannot please his
Judge. In the words of one who himself gave his goods to feed the poor, and
shed his blood for the testimony of Jesus,[3] "if such men were even killed
for confession of the Christian name, not even by their blood is this stain
washed out. Inexpiable and heavy is the sin of discord, and is purged by no
suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church; he can never
attain to the kingdom, who leaves her with whom the kingdom shall be." "A
man of such sort may indeed be killed, crowned he cannot be." Therefore the
charge of Schism, when once brought before the reflecting mind, cannot be
turned aside,--it must be met and answered: if it is not answered, at least
to the conviction of the individual, it leaves upon the whole of his
obedience the stain of insincerity, which is fatal. In this respect it is
more pressing and imperious, more fatal, even than that of heresy. I
observe this, because, in the comments I have seen on the painful
departures of friends from among us, and in exhortations not to follow
them, it has not seemed to be always recognised. When men leave us on the
ground that we are in schism, surely all censure of them, and all defence
of ourselves, is beside the mark, which does not meet and rebut this
particular accusation. Under this no man can rest: it is useless, it is
sinful, to ask him to rest, unless you can remove the imputation. To talk
of "disappointment, or a morbid desire of distinction, or impatience under
deficiencies, want of discipline, or sympathy in spiritual superiors," and
such-like causes, as being those which have impelled a man to the most
painful sacrifices, and "in the middle of his days to begin life again," is
surely both untrue as regards the individual, and futile as to preventing
others doing like him, when the ground of schism among others is alleged by
himself, and is felt to lie at the bottom. Could we prove that the Church
of England is clear both of enunciating heresy in her formularies, and of
allowing it within her pale, it would in no respect answer this charge of
schism against her, except so far as the _a priori_ presumption, that she
who is clear of the one would be clear of the other also. But it would
remain to be met and answered specifically.
Moreover, I must confess that this is a point on which I, for one, cannot
write in the spirit of a controversialist. I must state, to the best of my
poor ability, and to the utmost reach of my limited discernment, not only
the truth, but the whole truth. I cannot keep back points which tell
against us. Gibbon charges Thomassin with telling one half the truth, and
Bingham the other half, in their books upon the ancient discipline of the
Church. Whether this be true or not, I cannot, in my small degree, do
likewise. I have found Bishop Beveridge, in his defence of the 37th
Article, quote, in several instances, part of a paragraph from ancient
Fathers, because it told for him, and omit the other part, because it told
against him. And, in considering the celibacy of the clergy, it is usual to
find Protestant writers enlarging on the fact, that St. Peter was married;
and that the Greek Church has always allowed its parish priests to be
married; while they keep out of view that St. Peter's marriage preceded his
call, and that the Eastern Church never allowed those who were already in
holy orders, to marry, but only to keep those wives which they had taken as
laymen. Or again, in deference to the circumstances of the English Church,
writers conceal the fact, that the whole Church of the East and West, on
the authority, as to the first point, of the express Word of God itself,
has never allowed a person who married twice, or who married a widow, to be
in holy orders at all. I have observed Bingham, when he treats of celibacy,
alluding triumphantly to the biography of St. Cyprian, by Pontius, to prove
that an ancient saint, martyr, and bishop, of the third century, was a
married man; but taking care to leave out the express notice of Pontius,
that, from his conversion, he lived in continence. Those who wish to see on
the Roman side another sort of unfairness alluded to in the Advertisement
may look to the 6th Chapter of the 1st Book of De Maistre, on the Pope,
where they will find a host of quotations to prove the Supremacy, which
only prove at the outside the Primacy; and by far the greater number of
them might be paralleled by like expressions which are addressed to other
bishops, but of which fact no mention is made. They are assumed in a sort
of triumphant strain to prove the point in question, while, to the student
of antiquity, their weakness, or, sometimes, their irrelevancy, only proves
the reverse. This sort of disingenuousness is so common on both sides, that
it may be said to be the besetting sin of controversialists. If, however,
there be any question in which perfect candour is requisite, it is surely
this of schism. Would it not be a most miserable success to be able to
deceive oneself, or others, as to whether one is or is not within the
covenant of salvation? The special pleader in such a case is surely the
most unhappy of all men; for he deprives himself of the greatest of
blessings. He seems to win his cause, while he most thoroughly loses it;
for if a man be indeed out of the ark of Christ's Church, what benefit can
one possibly render him equal to that of bringing him within it? I write,
then, with the strongest sense of responsibility on this subject, and shall
not be deterred from making admissions, if truth require them, which seem
to tell on the other side, and which have accordingly been shrunk from, or
slurred over, by our defenders in former times.
And this leads to another consideration. The charge of Schism against the
Church of England is, that by rejecting the Papal authority in the
sixteenth century, she lost the blessing of Catholic communion, and ceased
to belong to that One Body to which salvation is promised. Now, in such a
matter, the Church of England must be judged by principles which have been,
from the first, and are still, recognised by all Christendom. Whatever
obedience we may owe, in virtue of our personal subscription, to articles
or other formularies, drawn up in the sixteenth century, it is obvious they
can decide nothing here. What I mean will be best shown by an example.
Suppose a person were to take the 6th Article, and set upon it a meaning,
not at all uncommon in these days, viz. that the Church of England therein
declares, that Holy Scripture is the sole standard of faith; and that every
man must decide for himself, what is, or is not, contained in Holy
Scripture; and that he, searching Holy Scripture for the purpose, can find
nothing whatever said about the Papal authority;--it is obvious, that such
a mode of arguing would be utterly inadequate either to terminate
controversy, or, one would think, to quiet any troubled conscience: for
whether or no this be the meaning of the 6th Article, the whole Greek and
Latin Church would reject with horror such propositions as the first two
put together, as being subversive of the very existence of a Church, and of
all dogmatic authority. It is a valid argument enough to an individual to
say, You have signed such and such documents, and are bound by them: but if
he is in doubt whether the documents themselves be tenable, they cannot be
taken to prove themselves. The decision of a province of the Church in the
sixteenth century cannot be quoted to prove that that decision is right,
for it is the very thing called in question. It is the Reformation itself
which is put on trial; it cannot appeal to itself as a witness; it must be
content to bring its cause before a judge, whose authority all will
admit,--and that judge, need we say, must be antiquity, and the consent of
the undivided Church. And the Church of England, it must be admitted, has
not shrunk from this appeal. Her often-quoted canon enjoins her ministers,
in that part of their duty wherein most is left to their private judgment,
"to teach nothing which they wish to be held and believed religiously by
the people, save what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New
Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops, have
collected out of that very doctrine." Thus she spoke in the year 1571. The
Church had then passed through fifteen centuries of a chequered, but
superhuman, and most marvellous existence. Her continuous life implies a
continuity of principles, ruling her from the beginning; and any
controversy which affects her well-being, as does that concerning the
integrity or loss of a great member, must be judged according to those
principles. The present position of the Church of England may be merely a
provisional one, I firmly believe that such is the fact; but if she is to
claim the allegiance of her children as a part of the Catholic Church, it
must be proved that such her position is tenable upon the principles which
directed that Church when undivided. In short, I propose honestly, though
briefly, to meet this imputation of schism by an appeal to the authority of
the first six centuries: an authority, which no Roman Catholic can slight
or refuse.
Let us go back to the first period at which the universal Church, emerging
from the fires of persecution, is found acting as one body. United, indeed,
it had ever been from the day of Pentecost, in charity, in doctrine, in
sacraments, in communion. The Christian people, scattered throughout the
wide precincts of the Roman empire, and speaking its various tongues, was
one in heart and spirit--"A peculiar people," like none other: the Bread
which they ate, and the Cup which they drank, made them One living Body.
But so long as the Church was engaged in a fierce and unrelenting conflict
with the Paganism and despotism of the empire, she could hardly exhibit to
the world her complete outward organization. So, although in the intervals
of persecution, important provincial councils had been held, and though it
was felt to be necessary for discipline that local synods should take place
twice every year, yet not until the year 325, at the Council of Nicea, does
the whole Church meet in representation; the immediate cause of that
assemblage being a heresy so malignant as to threaten her existence, and
which could be repressed by no less energetic means. That is a strongly
marked and important point in her existence, throwing light upon the
centuries preceding, and establishing irremovable landmarks for those
ensuing, at which we have full means for judging what her constitution and
government were. As the decrees of the 318 Fathers established for ever the
true doctrine concerning the Eternal Son, so do they offer an imperishable
and unambiguous witness concerning the discipline and hierarchy of the
Church. What was schism then, is schism now; what was lawful and compatible
with Christian Sonship and privileges then, is so now. What then is the
view they present us with? We find the Bishops throughout the whole world
recognised, without so much as a doubt, to be the successors of the
Apostles, invested with the plenitude of that royal Priesthood which the
Son of God had set up on the earth in His own Person, and from that Person
had communicated to His chosen disciples, and so possessed of whatever
authority was necessary to govern the Church. Thus spoke a fresh and
unbroken tradition, so universal and so unquestionable that no other voice
was heard beside. Thus the Episcopal power may be safely recognised as of
divine appointment: in truth it is scarcely possible to have stronger
evidence than we have of this. One of the most learned of those who are
opposed to us on the charge of schism, thus sums up the decisions "of all
the Fathers and all the Councils of the first ages." "The Bishop represents
Christ, and stands in his place on earth. As therefore the Priesthood of
Christ embraces all sacerdotal authority and complete power to feed the
flock, so that while we may indeed distinguish and define the various
powers included in that fullness and perfection, yet it is a great crime to
dissever and rend them in any way from each other, just as we distinguish
without dividing the attributes and perfections of the Godhead itself; so
the Episcopate in its own nature contains the fullness of the Priesthood,
and the perfection of the Pastoral office. For Christ received the
perfection of the Priesthood from His Father, when He was sent by Him.
Moreover the perfection of the Priesthood, or both the Episcopal powers,
(_i.e._ the Sacerdotal and the Pastoral,) He gave at once to His Apostles
when he sent them as He himself was sent by the Father. Lastly, that same
perfection they transmitted to Bishops, sending them as they themselves
were sent by Christ." "Whence Bishops are Fathers by the most noble
participation of divine Fathership which is on earth; so that here that
expression of Paul is true--'From whom every Fathership in heaven and earth
is named.' For no greater Fathership is there on the earth than the
Apostolical and the Episcopal." _Thomassin_, Part I. Liv. i. ch. 2.
And, viewed in itself, this power was sovereign and independent in every
individual Bishop, who was the spouse of the Church, the successor of the
Apostles, and of Peter, the centre of unity; able, moreover, to communicate
this authority to others, and to become the source of a long line of
spiritual descendants. But was this power in practice exercised in so
unmodified a form? Would there not have been not only imminent danger, but
almost certainty, that a power unlimited in its nature, committed to so
large a body of men, who might become indefinitely more numerous, yet were
each independent centres of authority, instead of tending to unity would
produce diversity? Accordingly we find, together with the apostolical
authority, admitted to be lodged in the Episcopal body in general, a
preponderating influence exercised by certain sees, viz. by Rome in the
West, and by Alexandria and Antioch in the East. Under these leading
Bishops are a great number of metropolitans; and others, again, like the
Bishops of Cyprus, have their own metropolitan, but are not subordinate to
either of the three great sees. Next to these, rank the Bishops of Ephesus,
Cesarea, and Heraclea, who preside respectively over the provinces of Asia,
Cappadocia, and Thrace, and were afterwards called Exarchs. And the source
of this preponderating influence is to be traced to the fact that the
Apostles laid hold of the principal cities, and founded Churches in them,
which became centres of light to their several provinces, and naturally
exercised a parental authority over their children. The three great
Bishops, though not yet called Patriarchs, or even Archbishops, seem to
have exercised all the power of Patriarchs. No general Council would be
binding without their presence in person, or by deputy, or their subsequent
ratification. Moreover, among these, the Bishop of Rome, as successor of
St. Peter, has a decided preeminence. What the extent of that preeminence
was, had not yet been defined; but it is very apparent, and acknowledged in
the East as well as in the West. It does not seem, indeed, that his
authority differed in _kind_, but only in _degree_, from that of his
brethren, especially those of Alexandria and Antioch. The Apostolical
Canons, more ancient than the Council of Nice, and representing the whole
East, say:--"The Bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first
among them, and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence
without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his
own parish, (_i.e._ diocese,) and the country places which belong to it.
But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of
all, for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the
Lord Jesus Christ." Canon 34. The Council of Nicea mentions the sees of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome in precisely similar terms:--"Let the ancient
customs be maintained, which are in Egypt and Libya, and Pentapolis;
according to which the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over all those
places. For this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome. In like manner in
Antioch, and in the other provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to
the Churches." Canon 6. That is, as it would seem, let the Bishop of
Alexandria have the power to consecrate Bishops in the three provinces of
his Patriarchate, for the Bishop of Rome does the same in his, _i.e._ in
the suburbicarian provinces, or in Italy, south of the province of Milan,
and in Sicily. This precedence or prerogative of Rome, to whatever extent
it reached, was certainly, notwithstanding the famous 28th Canon of
Chalcedon, not either claimed or granted merely because Rome was the
imperial city. It was explicitly claimed by the Bishop of Rome himself, and
as freely conceded by others to him, as in a special sense successor of St.
Peter. From the earliest times that the Church comes before us as an
organized body, the germ at least of this preeminence is observable. From
the very first, the Roman Pontiff seems possessed himself, as from a living
tradition which had thoroughly penetrated the local Roman Church, with a
consciousness of some peculiar influence he was to exercise on the whole
Church. This consciousness does not show itself here and there in the line
of Roman Pontiffs, but one and all, whatever their individual characters
might be, seem to have imbibed it from the atmosphere which they breathed.
St. Victor, and St. Stephen, St. Innocent, St. Leo the Great, and St.
Gregory, are quite of one mind here. That they were the successors of St.
Peter, who himself sat and ruled and spoke in their person, was as strongly
felt, and as consistently declared, by those Pontiffs who preceded the time
of Constantine, and who had continually to pay with their blood the price
of that high preeminence, as by those who followed the conversion of the
empire, when the honour of their post was not accompanied by so much
danger. We are speaking now, be it remembered, of the feeling _which
possessed them_. The feeling of their brother Bishops concerning them may
have been less definite, as was natural: but, at least, even those who most
opposed any arbitrary stretch of authority on their part, as St. Cyprian,
fully admitted that they sat in the See of Peter, and ordinarily treated
them with the greatest deference. This is written so very legibly upon the
records of antiquity, that I am persuaded any one, who is even very
slightly acquainted with them, cannot with sincerity dispute it. I cannot
think Mr. Newman has the least overstated the fact when he says, "Faint
they (the ante-Nicene Testimonies to the authority of the Holy See) may be
one by one, but at least they are various, and are drawn from many times
and countries, and thereby serve to illustrate each other, and form a body
of proof. Thus, St. Clement, in the name of the Church of Rome, writes a
letter to the Corinthians, when they were without a Bishop. St. Ignatius,
of Antioch, addresses the Roman Church, and it only out of the Churches to
which he writes, as 'the Church which has the first seat in the place of
the country of the Romans.' St. Polycarp, of Smyrna, betakes himself to the
Bishop of Rome on the question of Easter;" (but the Pope, St. Anicetus, and
he, not being able to agree as to the rule of keeping Easter, agreed to
retain their several customs; a fact which is as much opposed to the
present notion of the Roman Supremacy, as any fact can well be.) "The
heretic, Marcion, excommunicated in Pontus, betakes himself to Rome. Soter,
Bishop of Rome, sends alms, according to the custom of his Church, to the
Churches throughout the empire, and, in the words of Eusebius,
'affectionately exhorted those who came to Rome, as a father his children.'
The Montanists, from Phrygia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its
Bishop. Praxeas, from Africa, attempts the like, and for a while is
successful. St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the
Asian Churches. St. Irenaeus speaks of Rome, as 'the greatest Church, the
most ancient, the most conspicuous, and founded and established by Peter
and Paul,' appeals to its tradition, not in contrast, indeed, but in
preference to that of other Churches, and declares that 'in this Church
every Church--that is, the faithful from every side, must meet,' or 'agree
together, _propter potiorem principalitatem_.' 'O Church, happy in its
position,' says Tertullian, 'into which the Apostles poured out, together
with their blood, their whole doctrine.' The Presbyters of St. Dionysius,
Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to St. Dionysius, of Rome;
the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The Emperor Aurelian
leaves 'to the Bishops of Italy and of Rome' the decision, whether or not
Paul, of Samosata, shall be dispossessed of the see-house at Antioch. St.
Cyprian speaks of Rome as 'the See of Peter, and the principal Church,
whence the unity of the Priesthood took its rise, ... whose faith has been
commended by the Apostles, to whom faithlessness can have no access.' St.
Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself
from various Churches of the East. Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by St.
Cyprian, have recourse to Rome. Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes
himself to Rome, and gains the ear of St. Stephen."[4]
It must be observed that the _extent_ of this authority, in the Chief See,
has not been defined; but, whatever it was, it did not interfere with the
divine right of the Bishops to govern each in his own diocese. They derived
their authority by transmission from the Apostles, as the Bishop of Rome
from St. Peter; the one was as much recognised as the other. They were not
his _delegates_, but his _brethren_. Frater and Co-episcopus _they style
him_, as he styles them, for hundreds of years after the Council of Nicea;
owing him, indeed, and willingly rendering him the greatest deference, but
never so much as imagining that their authority was derived from him. This
fact, too, lies upon the face of all antiquity, and is almost too notorious
to need proof. If, however, any be wanted, it is found in the names which
Bishops bore both then, and for a long time afterwards, and in their mode
of election and their jurisdiction. For their names: "It must first be
confessed," says a very learned Roman Catholic, who, in his humility,
shrunk from the Cardinalate offered to him for his services to the papal
see, "that the name of Pope, of Apostle, of Apostolic Prelate, of Apostolic
See, was still common to all Bishops, even during the three centuries which
elapsed from the reign of Clovis to the empire of Charlemagne;" and he adds
presently: "These august names are not like those vain and superficial
titles with which the pride of men feeds itself; they are the solid marks
of a power entirely from Heaven, and of a holiness altogether Divine."[5]
Indeed, the view which every where prevailed was that so admirably
expressed by St. Cyprian: "Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in
solidum pars tenetur."[6] "The Episcopate is one; it is a whole in which
each enjoys full possession." St. Isidore, of Seville, says: "Since also
the other Apostles received a like fellowship of honour and power with
Peter, who also were scattered throughout the whole world, and preached the
Gospel; whom, at their departure, the Bishops succeeded, who are
established throughout the whole world in the seats of the Apostles."[7]
But Pope Symmachus (A.D. 498-514) has expressed the equality and unity of
the Episcopate and Apostolate between the Pope and all Bishops, by the
highest and most sacred similitude which it is possible to conceive. "For
inasmuch as after the likeness of the Trinity, whose power is one and
indivisible, the priesthood is one in the hands of various prelates, how
suits it that the statutes of the more ancient be broken by their
successors?"[8] We are told by the same author: "Pope Hormisdas (A.D.
514-523) prescribed, and all the Bishops of the east subscribed, after the
Patriarch John of Constantinople, a formulary of faith and of Catholic
Communion, where, among other remarkable points, this is worthy of
particular attention:--that as all Churches make but one Church, so all the
thrones of the Apostolate, and all the Sees of the Episcopate, spread
through all the earth, are but one apostolic see, inseparable from the see
of Peter." This is the view of St. Augustin, expressed again and again in
his writings, especially when he is explaining those remarkable words of
our Lord to St. Peter, on which Roman Catholics ground the _scriptural_
proof of his Primacy. "For it is evident that Peter, in many places of the
Scriptures, represents the Church, (_personam gestet Ecclesiae_) chiefly in
that place where it is said, 'I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
Heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.' What! did
Peter receive those keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive
them, and John and James not receive them, and the rest of the Apostles? Or
are not those keys in the Church, where sins are daily remitted? But since
in meaning hinted, but not expressed, (_in significatione_), Peter was
representing the Church, what was given to him singly, was given to the
Church. So, then, Peter bore the figure of the Church: the Church is the
body of Christ."[9] So St. Chrysostom: "But when I speak of Paul, I mean
not only him, but also Peter, and James, and John, and all their choir. For
as in a lyre there are different strings, but one harmony, so, too, in the
choir of the Apostles, there were different persons, but one teaching;
since one, too, was the Musician, even the Holy Spirit, who moved their
souls. And Paul signifying this, said: 'Whether, therefore, it were they or
I, so we preach.'"[10] How little, on the one hand, the pre-eminence of St.
Peter's see derogated from the apostolicity of other Bishops, or, on the
other hand, their distinct descent and jurisdiction hindered them from
paying due deference to the Chief See, is apparent likewise in these words
of St. Jerome: "But, you say, the Church is founded upon Peter; although,
in another place, this self-same thing takes place upon all the Apostles,
and all receive the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, _and the strength of the
Church is consolidated equally upon them_: nevertheless, for this reason,
out of the twelve one is selected, that, by the appointment of a head, the
occasion of Schism may be taken away."[11] Thomassin doubts whether at the
Council of Nicea, or even at that of Antioch, sixteen years afterwards, the
name even of Archbishop was yet in use; the highest title used in those two
Councils being that of Metropolitan. St. Epiphanius quotes a letter of
Arius to Alexander, of Alexandria, in which he only gives him the quality
of Pope and Bishop, but nowhere that of Archbishop.
So much for the equality of the names of Bishops in the fourth century,
which recognises the essential equality and unity of their office. The laws
in force respecting their consecration and jurisdiction are as decisive.
Every Bishop, after being elected by the Clergy and people, and the
assembled provincial Bishops, was consecrated by the Metropolitan of his
province, except, indeed, in the Patriarchate of Alexandria, where the
Primate, as we have seen, and not the Metropolitans under him, consecrated
all Bishops. Where a Metropolitan had no immediate superior, in case of a
vacancy, the Bishops of his own province consecrated him, as in the case of
Carthage. Whatever might be the particular privileges of Patriarchs and
Metropolitans, as a general rule, no one Bishop had direct jurisdiction in
the diocese of another. The Bishops of the great sees, specially Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch, announced their accession to each other, together
with a profession of the orthodox faith. But as for any jurisdiction
emanating from Rome to the great Bishops of the east, such a thing was
never even imagined. Let us even rest the whole question on this important
point, for it is absolutely necessary to the Papal theory; and I do not
think any vestige of such a doctrine can be found in the first six
centuries. At least, let it be shown; for, to assert it in the face of
Canons which imply a system the very reverse of it, is merely begging the
whole question. That in cases of difficulty, or disputed succession, or
heresy, or schism, the voice of the Bishop of Rome would have great weight,
is, indeed, indisputable. When the ship of the Church was in distress, whom
should we expect to see at the rudder but St. Peter? Thus St. Jerome,
himself baptized at Rome, naturally looks to Rome in this difficulty. Mr.
Newman says:[12] "The divisions at Antioch had thrown the Catholic Church
into a remarkable position; there were two Bishops in the see, one in
connexion with the East, and the other with Egypt and the West,--with
which, then, was Catholic Communion? St. Jerome has no doubt upon the
subject. Writing to St. Damasus, he says: 'Since the East tears into pieces
the Lord's coat, _and foxes lay waste the vineyard of Christ, so that among
broken cisterns, which hold no water, it is difficult to understand where
the sealed fountain and the garden inclosed is_, therefore by me is the
chair of St. Peter to be consulted, and that faith which is praised by the
Apostle's mouth, _thence now seeking food for my soul where of old I
received the robe of Christ. Whilst the bad children have wasted their
goods, the inheritance of the Fathers is preserved uncorrupt among you
alone. There the earth from its fertile bosom returns the pure seed of the
Lord a hundred fold: here the grain buried in the furrows degenerates into
darnell and tares. At present the Sun of Righteousness rises in the West;
but in the East that fallen Lucifer hath placed his throne. You are the
light of the world: you the salt of the earth: you the vessels of gold and
silver: but here the vessels of earth or wood await the iron rod and the
eternal flame.' Therefore_, though your greatness terrifies me, yet your
kindness invites me. From the Priest the sacrifice claims salvation; from
the Shepherd the sheep claims protection. Let us speak without offence: I
court not the Roman height: 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.... I know not Vitalis (the Apollinarian);
Meletius I reject; I am ignorant of Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with
thee, scattereth; that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist."[13]
Considering all the circumstances of the case, no one can wonder at St.
Jerome's application. When it is remembered that the Roman See, up to that
time, had been free from all suspicion of heresy, and that the Arian
controversy was the one in question, and that he himself, of full manhood,
had been baptized, and had lived at Rome, the force of his language is
hardly surprising. His words certainly prove, what, I suppose, no student
of antiquity can doubt, the Primacy of the Roman See: but could there be a
greater unfairness than to apply their bare letter to a state of things
totally changed? or to consider expressions proving the _primacy_ of Rome,
as claimed in the fourth century, to prove equally a _supremacy_ as claimed
in the nineteenth, which is as different from the former as one thing can
well be from another. This very St. Meletius, a man of pre-eminent sanctity
of life, the ordainer of St. Chrysostom, dies, it would appear, out of
communion with Rome, and has ever been accounted a saint in the Western as
well as in the Eastern Church.
But to recur to the point of jurisdiction at the time of the Nicene
Council. It is beyond question, both from the acts of that Council, and
from the Apostolic Canons, which represent the Eastern Church in the second
and third centuries, that, whatever the pre-eminence of Rome might consist
in, there was no claim whatever to confer jurisdiction on Bishops out of
the Roman Patriarchate, then comprising Italy, south of Milan, and Sicily.
Even differences, any where arising, were to be settled in Provincial
Councils. "It is necessary to know, that, up to the Council of Nicea, all
ecclesiastical affairs had been terminated in the Councils of each
Province; and there had been but very few occasions in which it had been
necessary to convoke an assembly of several Provinces. The Council of
Nicea, even, only speaks of Provincial Councils, and orders that all things
should be settled therein."[14] The testimony and conduct of St. Cyprian
will illustrate the Roman Primacy, to which Mr. Newman claims him as a
witness. And such he is beyond doubt. In his fifty-fifth letter, which
begins, "Cyprian to his brother Cornelius, greeting;" he complains bitterly
to that Pope that Felicissimus and his party "dare to set sail, and to
carry a letter from schismatical and profane persons to the see of Peter,
and to the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its
rise; nor consider that they are the Romans whose faith had been praised by
the preaching of the Apostle, to whom faithlessness can have no access."
This Mr. Newman considers a pretty strong testimony in his "cumulative
argument" for the authority of Rome. It would be as well, however, to go on
a little further, and see what was the cause of St. Cyprian's vehement
indignation. It was, that Felicissimus ventured _to appeal to Pope
Cornelius_, when his cause had already been heard and settled by St.
Cyprian, at Carthage. "But what was the cause of their coming and
announcing that a Pseudo-Bishop had been made against the Bishops? For,
either they are satisfied with what they have done, and persevere in their
crime, or, if they are dissatisfied, and give way, they know whither they
may return. For, since it has been determined by all of us, and is both
equitable and just, that the cause of every one be heard there where the
crime has been committed, and _to every shepherd a portion of the flock is
allotted, which each one rules and governs, as he is to give an account of
his doings to the Lord_, it is certainly behoving that those over whom we
preside should not run about, nor break the close harmony of Bishops with
their deceitful and fallacious rashness, but should plead their cause where
they may find both accusers and witnesses of their crime; _unless to a few
desperate and abandoned men the authority of the Bishops seated in Africa
seem less_, who have already judged concerning them, and have lately
condemned, by the weight of their sentence, their conscience, bound by many
snares of crimes. Their cause has been already heard, their sentence
already pronounced; nor is it becoming to the judgment of priests to be
reprehended by the levity of a fickle and inconstant mind, when the Lord
teaches and says, 'Let your conversation be yea, yea; nay, nay.'" Let any
candid person say, whether he who so wrote to one whom he acknowledged as
the successor of St. Peter, could have imagined that there was a Divine
right in that successor to re-hear not only this, but all other causes; to
reverse all previous judgments of his Brethren by his single authority;
nay, more, to confer on all those Brethren their jurisdiction "by the grace
of the Apostolic See."[15]