day than in St. Cyprian's. The Donatists alleged against him in the
question of Baptism the authority of Cyprian in this great Council of
Carthage. This leads him to make a very important statement--"You are wont
to object against us Cyprian's letters, Cyprian's judgment, Cyprian's
Council: why do you assume the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and
reject his example for the peace of the Church? But who is ignorant that
canonical holy Scripture, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, is
contained in its own certain limits, and is so preferred to all subsequent
letters of Bishops, that no doubt or discussion at all can be held
concerning it, as to whether that be true or right, which is acknowledged
to be found written in it: but that the letters of Bishops which either
have been or are written after the confirmation of the canon, may be
reprehended both by the reasoning, peradventure more full of wisdom, of
some one in that matter more skilled, and by the weightier authority and
more learned judgment of other Bishops, and by Councils, if haply there has
been in them any deviation from the truth; and that Councils themselves,
holden in particular regions or provinces, yield, beyond all question, to
the authority of plenary Councils, which are made out of the whole
Christian world: and that former plenary Councils themselves are often
corrected by subsequent ones, when by some practical experience what has
been hidden is laid open, and what lay concealed is recognised, without any
puffing up of sacrilegious pride, without any haughty exhibition of
arrogance, without any strife of livid envy, with holy humility, with
Catholic peace, with Christian charity."[25] Here, where, in a _dignus
vindice nodus_, we should have expected some mention of the Chief See, and
St. Peter's rights, all is referred to the voice of Bishops in
Council,--that See, in which, according to Bellarmine, the plenitude of all
the power resides which Christ left in His Church, is not even spoken of.
He proceeds--"Wherefore holy Cyprian, the more exalted, the more humble,"
(in a matter for which he was excommunicated by the Pope, and in which, if
the present Papal theory be true, his conduct was to the last degree
insolent, and unjustifiable,) "who so loved the example of Peter as to
say,--'Showing, indeed, an instance to us of concord and patience, that we
should not pertinaciously love our own opinion, but should rather count for
our own any useful and sound suggestions, which at times are made by our
brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful:' he sufficiently shows
that he would most readily have corrected his judgment, had any one pointed
out to him that the Baptism of Christ might be given by those who had gone
out (from the Church) in the same manner that it could not be lost when
they went out: on which point we have already said much. Nor should we
ourselves venture to make any such assertion, were we not supported by the
unanimous authority of the whole Church: to which he too, without doubt,
would yield, if the truth of this question had at that period been
thoroughly sifted, and declared, and established by a plenary Council. For
if he praises and extols Peter for having with patience and harmony
suffered correction from a single younger colleague, how much more readily
would he himself, with the Council of his province, have yielded to the
authority of the whole world, when the truth was laid open? because,
indeed, so holy and so peaceful a soul might most readily agree to one
person (_i.e._ the Pope), speaking and proving the truth; and this,
perhaps, was really the fact, but we know not. For not all which at that
time was transacted between Bishops could be committed to posterity and
writing, nor do we know all which was so committed. For how could that
matter, involved in so many clouds of altercations, be brought to the clear
consideration and ratification of a plenary Council, unless first for a
long time throughout all the regions of the world it had been thoroughly
tried, and made manifest by many discussions and conferences of Bishops on
the one side and on the other? But wholesome peace produces this, that when
obscure questions have been long under inquiry, and, through the difficulty
of ascertaining them, beget various judgments in brotherly discussion,
until the pure truth be arrived at, the bond of unity holds, lest in the
part cut off the incurable wound of error should remain." He considers Pope
Stephen here, even when he was right, as one of many _brethren_, who had a
right to be deferentially heard, but no more. As in another place, arguing
with these same Donatists, he distinctly considers the case of the judgment
of the Roman Pontiff being erroneous. "The Donatists,"[26] says he, "chose
with a double purpose, to plead their cause with Coecilian before the
Churches across the sea; being doubly prepared, that if they could by any
skilfulness of false accusation have overcome him, they might to the full
satiate their desire: but if they failed in this, might continue in the
same perversity, but still as if they would have to allege, that they had
suffered in having bad judges: this is what all wrong suitors cry, though
they have been overcome by the plainest truths: as if it might not be
answered them and most justly retorted,--Let us suppose that these Bishops
who judged at Rome," (Pope Melchiades and his Council,) "were not fair
judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church,
where the cause might have been tried even with those very judges, so that
had they been convicted of false judgment their decision might be
reversed."
Nay, it appears, the cause of the Donatists, after being decided by Pope
Melchiades, was reheard, and that, not by a plenary Council, but by other
Bishops of the West, deputed by Constantine. "Know,"[27] says St. Augustin,
"that your first ancestors carried the cause of Coecilianus before the
Emperor Constantine. Demand this of us, let us prove it to you, and if we
prove it not, do with us what you can. But because Constantine dared not to
judge in the cause of a Bishop, he delegated the discussion and terminating
of it to Bishops. This took place in the city of Rome under the presidency
of Melchiades, Bishop of that Church, with many of his colleagues. They
having pronounced Coecilianus innocent, and condemned Donatus, who had made
the schism at Carthage, your party again went to the Emperor, and murmured
against the judgment of the Bishops in which they had been beaten. For how
can the guilty party praise the judge by whose sentence he has been beaten?
Yet a second time the most indulgent Emperor assigned other Bishops as
judges, at Arles, in Gaul, and from them your party appealed to the Emperor
himself, until he too heard the cause, and pronounced Coecilianus innocent,
and them false accusers." Did he who wrote these words mean to censure
Constantine for granting a second hearing after the judgment of Pope
Melchiades?
"Basilides," says Mr. Newman, "deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome,
and gains the ear of St. Stephen." This, however, is only half the case. It
comes to the knowledge of St. Cyprian that he has done so. Let us take
Fleury's account.[28] "As Basilides and Martial still endeavoured to force
themselves back upon their sees, Felix and Sabinus, their legitimate
successors, went to Carthage with letters from the Churches of Leon,
Asturia, and Merida, and from another Felix, Bishop of Sarragossa, known in
Africa as attached to the faith, and a defender of the truth. These letters
were read in a Council of thirty-six Bishops, at the head of whom was St.
Cyprian, who answered in the name of all by a letter addressed to the
Priest Felix, and to the faithful people of Leon and Asturia, and to the
Deacon Loelius, with the people of Merida." In this letter he says,
"Wherefore,[29] according to Divine tradition, and Apostolic observance,
that is to be kept and observed, which is observed by us also, and
generally throughout all the provinces, that in order rightly to celebrate
ordinations, the nearest Bishops of the same province should meet together
with that people for whom the head is ordained, and the Bishop should be
chosen in the presence of the people, which is most fully acquainted with
the life of every one, and has observed the conduct of each individual from
his conversation. And this we see was observed by you in the ordination of
our colleague Sabinus, so that, according to the suffrage of the whole
brotherhood, and the judgment of the Bishops, who were either present, or
had sent you letters about him, the Episcopate was conferred upon him, and
hands laid upon him in the place of Basilides. Nor can it invalidate a
rightful ordination, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes and
the laying bare his conscience even by his own confession, going to Rome
deceived our colleague Stephen, who was far removed and ignorant of the
thing as it was really done, that he might make interest for an unjust
restoration to that Episcopate from which he had been rightfully deposed.
It comes to this, that the crimes of Basilides have been rather doubled
than wiped away, since to his former sins, the crime of deceit and
circumvention has been added. _Nor should he be so much blamed, who through
negligence was overreached_, as the other execrated, who fraudulently
deceived. But if Basilides could overreach men, God he cannot," &c. If the
appeal of Basilides to Stephen proves the Roman Primacy, what does the
subsequent appeal of the people of Leon, Asturia, and Merida, to Carthage,
prove? And if the restoration of Basilides by Stephen, proves that he
possessed that power, what does the subsequent pronouncing of that
restoration void by Cyprian and his brother Bishops, without even first
acquainting Stephen, prove?
In truth, all the acts of St. Cyprian's Episcopate, of which we have given
several in illustration, are an indisputable assurance to the candid mind
that he treated the Roman Pontiff simply as his brother,--his elder
brother, indeed,--holding the first see in Christendom, but, individually,
as liable to err as himself. And it is equally clear that St. Augustin, a
hundred and forty years later, did not censure him for this. What we have
seen, is this. In the matter of Fortunatus and Felicissimus, Cyprian
rejects with vehement indignation their appeal to Rome: in the case of
Marcian of Arles, he writes as an equal to Pope Stephen, almost enjoining
him what to do: in the question of rebaptizing heretics, he disregards St.
Stephen's judgment, and the anathema which accompanies it; and how strong
St. Firmilian's language is we need not repeat, who declares that St.
Stephen's excommunication only cut off himself: in the case of Basilides,
he deposes afresh one whom Stephen had restored.
Such are the illustrations afforded by the preceding century to what we
have stated was the unquestioned constitution of the Catholic Church at the
time of the Council of Nicea; viz. that while the three great Sees of Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch exercised a powerful but entirely paternal
influence on their colleagues, that of Rome having the undoubted primacy,
not derived from the gift of Councils, or the rank of the imperial city,
but from immemorial tradition as the See of St. Peter; yet, at the same
time, the fullness of the priesthood, and with it all power to govern the
Church, were acknowledged to reside in the whole Episcopal Body. "The
Bishop," says Thomassin, quoting with approbation a Greek writer, as
representing the doctrine of the early Fathers, and of the universal Church
since, "is the complete image in the Church on earth of Him who in the holy
Trinity alone bears the name of Father, as being the first principle
without principle, and the fruitful source of the other Persons, and of all
the divine perfections.... The Bishop communicates the Priesthood, as He
who is without principle in the Godhead, and is therefore called
Father."[30] The Apostolic Canons, and those of the Council of Nicea, are
the legislative acts bearing witness to this order of things: the conduct
and words of St. Cyprian, St. Firmilian, and St. Augustin, which we have
instanced, and an innumerable multitude of other cases, exhibit it in full
life and vigour; while, on the other side, there is absolutely nothing to
allege.
The history of the Church during the three hundred years following the
Nicene Council is but a development of this constitution. The problem was,
how to combine in the harmonious action of One organized Body those
Apostolical powers which resided in the Bishops generally. The Patriarchal
system was the result. As the Church increased in extent, her rulers would
increase in number. This multiplication, which would tend so much to
augment the centrifugal force, was met by increased energy in the
centripetal: the power of the Patriarchs, and specially of the Bishop of
Rome, grew. It is impossible, in my present limits, to follow this out, but
I propose to give a few specimens, as before, in illustration.
In so vast a system of interlaced and concurrent powers as the Church of
Christ presented, differences would continually arise; and in so profound a
subject-matter as the Christian revelation, heresies would be continually
starting up: to arrange the former, and to expel or subjugate the latter,
the Bishops, says Thomassin, having already more than once appealed to the
Christian Emperors for the calling of great Councils, saw the danger of
suffering the Imperial authority to intervene in ecclesiastical causes, and
sought to establish a new jurisprudence on this head.[31] "The Council of
Antioch (A.D. 341), and that of Sardica (A.D. 347), which were held almost
at the same time,--the one in the East, the other in the West,--set about
this in a very different manner, aiming, however, at the same end. The
Council of Antioch ordered that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, who should
have been condemned by a provincial Council, might recur to a larger
Council of Bishops; but that if they carried their complaints before the
Emperor they could never be reestablished in their dignity." "One must in
good faith admit, that this regulation had much conformity with what had
been practised in the first ages of obscurity and persecution, for it was
in the same way that extraordinary Councils had been held, such as were
those of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, Bishop of that great city. It
was the Metropolitans and Bishops of the neighbourhood who assembled with
those of the Province where the flame of a great dissension had been
kindled. The Council of Sardica, urged by the same desire to break through
the custom which was introducing itself, of having recourse to the Emperor
for judgment of spiritual causes of the Church, bethought itself of another
means, which was not less conformable to the practice of the preceding
centuries, and which had, beside that, much foundation in the Holy
Scriptures. For Jesus Christ, having given the Primacy, and the rank of
Head, to St. Peter, above the other Apostles, and having given successors
as well to the Apostles, to wit, all the Bishops, as to St. Peter, to wit,
the Roman Pontiffs; moreover, having willed that His Church should remain
for ever one by the union of all Bishops with their Head, it is manifest,
that if the Bishops of a province could not agree in their Provincial
Council, and if the Bishops of several provinces had disputes between each
other, the most natural way to finish these differences was to introduce
the authority of the Head, and of him whom Jesus Christ has established as
the centre of unity of His universal Church."
Accordingly, at the Council of Sardica, attended by St. Athanasius, then in
exile, and about a hundred Western Bishops, after the secession of the
Eastern or Arian portion, Hosius proposed, "If two Bishops of the same
province have a disagreement, neither of the two shall take for arbitrator
a Bishop of another province: if a Bishop, having been condemned, feels so
assured of his right, that he is willing to be judged anew in a Council,
_let us honour, if you think it good, the memory of the Apostle St. Peter_:
let those who have examined the cause, write to Julius, Bishop of Rome; if
he thinks proper to order a fresh trial, let him name judges; if he does
not think that there is reason to renew the matter, let what he orders be
kept to. The Council approved this proposition. The Bishop Gaudentius
added, that, during this appeal, no Bishop should be ordained in place of
him who had been deposed, until the Bishop of Rome had judged his
cause."[32]
"To make the preceding Canon clearer, Hosius said, 'When a Bishop, deposed
by the Council of the province, shall have appealed and had recourse to the
Bishop of Rome, if he judge proper that the matter be examined afresh, he
shall write to the Bishops of the neighbouring province to be the judges of
it; and if the deposed Bishop persuade the Bishop of Rome to send a priest
from his own person, he shall be able to do it, and to send commissioners
to judge by his authority, together with the Bishops; but if he believes
that the Bishops are sufficient to settle the matter, he will do what his
wisdom suggests to him.' The judgment which Pope Julius, together with the
Council of Rome, had given in favour of Athanasius and the other persecuted
Bishops, seems to have given cause to this Canon, and we have seen that
this Pope complained that they had judged St. Athanasius without writing to
him about it."
Such is the modest commencement of that power of hearing episcopal causes
on appeal, which has been the instrument of obtaining the wonderful
authority concentrated by a long series of ages in the see of Rome. However
conformable to the practice of preceding centuries, as Thomassin says, this
may have been, this power is here certainly _granted_ by the Council, _not
considered as inherent in the see of Rome_. And this one fact is fatal to
the present claim of the supremacy. To use De Maistre's favourite analogy,
it is as though the States General or Parliament conferred his royal powers
on the Sovereign who convoked them, and whose assent alone made their
enactments law. Accordingly, like the whole course of proceedings in these
early Councils, it is incompatible with the notion of the Pope being the
monarch in the Church. We may safely say, history offers not a more
wonderful contrast in a power bearing the same name, than that here
conferred on Pope Julius in 347, and that exercised by Pope Pius the
Seventh in 1802. On the bursting out of the French revolution, out of a
hundred and thirty-six Bishops more than a hundred and thirty remained
faithful to God and the Church: some offered the testimony of their blood;
the rest became confessors in all lands for Christ's sake, in poverty,
contempt, and banishment. After ten years, the civil governor, who had
lately professed himself a Mahometan, proposes to the Pope to re-establish
the Church, but on condition of himself nominating to the sees, and those
not the ancient sees of the country, but a selection from them, to the
number of eighty. Thereupon the Pope requires those eighty Bishops and
Confessors who still survived, and whom he acknowledged to be not only
blameless, but martyrs for the name of Christ, to resign into his hands
their episcopal powers. Of his own single authority he abolishes the
ancient sees of the eldest daughter of the Western Church, constitutes that
number of new sees which the civil power permits, and treats as schismatics
those few Bishops who disobey his requisition. I do not presume to express
any blame of Pope Pius; I simply mention a fact. But it seems to me,
certainly, that those who would entirely recognise the power and precedence
exercised by Pope Julius, are not necessarily schismatics because they
refuse to admit a power not merely greater in degree, but different in
kind, and to set the High Priesthood of the Church beneath the feet of one,
though it be the First of her Pontiffs.
The restrictions under which, according to the Council of Sardica, the Pope
could cause a matter to be reheard, are specific. Much larger power is
assigned in the fourth General Council, that of Chalcedon, to the see of
Constantinople, in the ninth Canon, which says, "If any Bishop or Clergyman
has a controversy against the Bishop of the province himself (_i.e._ the
Metropolitan), let him have recourse to the Exarch of the diocese, or to
the throne of the Imperial city of Constantinople, and plead his cause
before him."
But, between these two Councils of Nicea, A.D. 325, and Chalcedon, 451, the
whole Patriarchal system of the Church had sprung up, and covered the
provinces of the Roman Empire with as it were a finely reticulated net. The
system may be said to be built on two principles, recognised and enforced
in the Apostolic Canons, and consistently carried out, from the Bishop of
the poorest country town up to the primatial see of Rome. These principles
are, "the authority of the Metropolitan over his Bishops in important and
extraordinary affairs, and the supreme authority of Bishops in the ordinary
government of their particular bishoprics. With this distinction, that the
Metropolitan even cannot arrange important and extraordinary affairs but
with the counsel of his suffragans, whilst every Bishop conducts all the
common and ordinary affairs of his Diocese without being obliged to take
the advice of his Metropolitan."[33] This latter principle, it will be
seen, expresses the essential equality and unity of the High Priesthood
vested in Bishops by descent from the Apostles, to which St. Cyprian bears
such constant witness, so that it may be said to be the one spirit which
animates all his government: while the former, leaving this quite
inviolate, builds together the whole Church in one vast living structure.
For as the Bishops of the province have their Metropolitan, and their
spring and autumn Councils under him, so the Metropolitan stands in a like
relation to his Exarch, or Patriarch; and of the five great Patriarchs of
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, who are found at
the Council of Chalcedon to preside over the Church Catholic, that of Rome
has the unquestioned primacy, and is seen at the centre, sustaining and
animating the whole. "The most important of all the powers of
Metropolitans, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, was the election of Bishops, the
confirmation and consecration of Bishops elected. For all the other degrees
of authority were founded on this one, which rendered the Metropolitan the
Father, Master, and Judge of all his suffragans."[34] "And so that famous
Canon of the Council of Nicea, (the 6th,) which seems in appearance only to
confirm the ancient right of the three first Metropolitans of the world to
ordain the Bishops of all the provinces of their dependence, establishes in
effect all the rights and all the powers of the Metropolitans, because it
establishes the foundation on which they all rest. 'If any one be made a
Bishop contrary to the sentence of his Metropolitan, the great Synod
declares that he should not be a Bishop.' Nothing is juster than to found
the right of a holy and paternal rule on the right of generation. For by
ordination the Bishops engender not children indeed, but Fathers, to the
Church." This system continued unimpaired in the whole Church, at least to
the time of St. Gregory the Great. It offers, I think, an unanswerable
refutation to what must be considered the strongest argument of the Roman
Catholics for the Supremacy, that there could be no unity in the Church
without it, as a living organized body; history says, there _was_ unity,
with five co-ordinate Patriarchs, and an Episcopate twice as numerous as
that of the present Latin Communion. In the Latin Church itself, this
system was only gradually overshadowed by another system which sprang from
the excessive development of one of its parts; in the Greek and Russian
Church, it continues down to this day; whatever ecclesiastical constitution
we still have ourselves, is a part of this system. And by reference to, and
under cover of this, which if not strictly of Divine right, as is the High
Priesthood of Bishops, approaches very nearly indeed to it, and was the
effluence of the Spirit of God ruling and guiding the Church of the
Fathers, we must justify ourselves from the damning blot of schism. We
cannot, dare not, do this upon principles such as "the right of private
judgment"--"The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants,"--and the like,
which lead directly, and by most certain consequence, to dissent, heresy,
and anarchy. God forbid that they who profess to be members of the One holy
Catholic Church should, urged by any unhappiness of their provisional and
strange position, take up Satanic and Antichristian arms. No! if we may not
hope for that system under which Augustin and Chrysostom laboured and
witnessed, we will have nothing to do with those who destroy dogmatic faith
altogether, and break up the visible unity of the Church of Christ into a
multitude of atoms. _Quot homines, tot voluntates._ We cannot so relapse
into worse than a second heathenism, and with the unity of Pentecost
offered us, deliberately choose the confusion of Babel.