Contents
C.F. Rogers: IT will be gathered from what we have seen how precarious is the argument for the Papal claims which is based on texts; how few and far between they are; how doubtful in interpretation; and how they need always to be read in their contexts. But it may equally well be argued that the case against them is no less precarious; that in saying they are few we are falling into the old error of "arguing from silence"; that the records that have survived from the earliest times at least are scanty; that they have been preserved by chance, and are of an occasional nature; that because a thing is not mentioned it does not follow that it did not exist.
But when we come to consider not words but events, the matter becomes much clearer. Events in history are not so patient of different interpretations. Where words and sentences stand alone, things done are linked up with other facts and are not so easily misrepresented. This can be seen in the last instance considered. Augustine said the cause was ended. It was not. Zosimus went back on his decision which, of course, therefore was not given ex cathedra. The African bishops objected to, and repudiated, his interference. So let us consider the chief historical events that are quoted in support of the Papacy and to prove that our [Anglican] Church, merely Episcopal Succession, is no part of the true Church founded by Christ.
Clement of Rome (A.D. 96)
About the year A.D. 96, Clement of Rome, who was personally acquainted with the Apostles, wrote a letter to the Corinthians which has been preserved and can still be read. The Church at Corinth was rent with discords as it had been when St. Paul wrote his Epistles. The presbyters were deposed. There was apparently no bishop.
The usual Roman Catholic interpretation of his action is that he was the Bishop of Rome, the third in succession from St. Peter as very ancient tradition testified and that he was exercising his right as Head of the Church to rebuke and to administer discipline.
Thus Mgr. Duchesne says that he "concludes in words well suited to give an idea of the tone of authority which pervades the whole document," and quotes: (The Churches Separated from Rome, p. 84.)
"You will cause us great joy if, complying with what we have written to you in the Holy Spirit, you at once set aside the unjust excess of your anger, as we have exhorted you to do in recommending to you peace and concord by this letter. We have sent faithful and prudent men, who, from their youth up until their old age, have lived among us without reproach; they will be witnesses between you and us. If we act thus it is because our only anxiety has been, and still is, to see your speedy return to peace."
And his comment is:
"Whether we consider this spontaneous act of Rome in itself or whether we weigh the terms of the letter, we cannot escape this impression - that as early as the end of the first century of the Christian era, i.e. about fifty years after her foundation, the Roman Church was conscious of possessing supreme and exceptional authority, which she will never cease hereafter to claim. The Apostle John was still living at Ephesus at the time when Clement wrote. We find no trace of his intervention, nor of that of any of his friends. And yet communication was easier between Ephesus and Corinth, than between that of Corinth and Rome."
Is this a valid comment on the writer's action? The only satisfactory way to decide is to read the whole epistle. Certainly the passage by itself would hardly lead to such a conclusion, though it might, perhaps, be fairly argued that it is not incompatible with the Papal claim. It does not in itself suggest anything more than a natural interest felt by one important Church for another. As for the fact that there is nothing from St. John (as far as we know, for, of course, he may have written many letters which have not been preserved), you might equally well say that there is no epistle from St. Peter to the seven Churches of Asia (though, of course, he too may have written letters which have been lost), or, for the matter of that, to the Corinthians of an earlier generation to whom St. Paul did write. Nor does the fact that Ignatius, as we saw, wrote to several Churches, emphasizing episcopacy, prove that he claimed as Bishop of Antioch to be Head of the Church.
And on reading the epistle as a whole we find that it was written in the name of the Church; there is no mention of the bishop. The opening sentence runs: (Kidd, Documents, vol. i. No. 10.)
"The Church of God sojourning in Rome to the Church of God sojourning in Corinth, to them who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied."
Indeed, though there is no reason for doubting that the letter is by Clement, his name is not once mentioned. "His existence," says Bishop Lightfoot, "is not hinted at from beginning to end." (The Apostolic Fathers, pt. i. vol. i. (Macmillan, 1890), 69.) And that is not because he does not happen to mention the question of bishops. He refers to St. Peter and St. Paul as on an equality one with another, and the other Apostles as joint founders of the Church; if he makes any difference between them it is to exalt St. Paul.
(Ch. v. "Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world, and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance." Ibid. vol. ii. p. 274; Kidd, Documents, vol. i. No. 11.)
(Cf. ch. 42. "The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ .... So then Christ is from God and the Apostles are from Christ .... Having therefore received a charge ... they went forth with the glad tidings .... So they appointed their firstfruits ... to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe." Ibid. p. 293.)
He says the Apostles appointed successors.
(Ch. 44. "And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishops' office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration" (p. 294))
He may have held that St. Peter was the Head of the Church, and that his successors inherited his prerogatives; but it is strange, if he did, that he does not mention it. He does no more than any important Church might do in writing to a sister Church. As Dr. Kidd writes: (History, vol. i. p. 136.)
"As far as appears from this Epistle it was the pre-eminence of the Roman Church that gave rise to the claims of its bishop, and not the privilege of the bishop that lent authority to the intervention of his Church."
Is not the utmost we can say that it shows a spirit existing from the beginning that afterwards developed into the medieval and modern Papal claim? Roman Catholic writers acknowledge that "it is not a priori to be expected that the Roman primacy should appear at once on the face of history developed in its modern form, or even to its full extent."
(Dom. J. Chapman, Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims, p. 62. The Papal Encyclical of Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, [ca. 1894] declares however, that "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.")
Dr. Lightfoot, who is sometimes quoted by them as acknowledging that this letter is "the first step towards Papal aggression,"
(So Mgr. Benson in the little tract alluded to above, St. Peter in the New Testament and in the Fathers (p. 11). He, however, only claims that the sayings he quotes are sufficient to prove that the primacy of Peter "existed and was recognized at least in a rudimentary form, in the first four and a half centuries.")
and is the authority on the Apostolic Fathers, wrote: (Apostolic Fathers, pt. i. vol. i. p. 69.)
"Nevertheless the language of this letter, though itself inconsistent with the possession of Papal authority in the person of the writer, enables us to understand the secret of the growth of Papal domination. It does not proceed from the Bishop of Rome, but from the Church of Rome. There is every reason to believe the early tradition which points to St. Clement as its author, and yet he is not once named. The first person plural is maintained throughout, 'We consider,' 'We have sent.' Accordingly writers of the second century speak of it as a letter from the community, not from the individual."
Victor and the Churches of Asia (A.D. 190)
The development of this spirit can be seen later. The inclination of the Church to give advice becomes a tendency of the Bishop of Rome to give orders. The Christians of the west coast of Asia Minor kept Easter on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, whatever day of the week it was. They argued that they had apostolic tradition for their practice, that St. John at Ephesus had so kept it. Polycarp, about the middle of the century, had come to Anicetus at Rome to see if they could arrange the matter between them. They came to no agreement except the agreement to differ. They did not quarrel, and gave one another the Communion. But in the year 190, Victor - it is significant that he was the first Pope with a Latin name - excommunicated the Asiatic Churches for not conforming to his custom, which was that of the rest of the Church. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, remonstrated with him, not to say rebuked him. The Roman custom ultimately prevailed. The whole story is told by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. (Bk. v. ch. 23.)
Such are the bare facts. They are interpreted by Roman Catholic historians thus. The fact that Polycarp came to Rome to consult Anicetus involved a recognition of his authority. Victor's request to the bishops to hold councils on the question proves "the exceptional situation and ecumenical authority of the Roman Church," (Duchesne, Churches Separated from Rome, p. 95.) since he "caused the matter to be debated." (Funk, History, vol. i. p. 53.) His action in excommunicating the Quartodecimans, as they were called, shows that he was regarded as the head of the Church. "What term are we to make use of if we are forbidden to apply the title 'head of the Church' to one who is depository of such plenary authority?" He was not arbitrary or unreasonable in his action. He was open to advice even from a provincial bishop, Irenaeus, though "he may have gone beyond what was strictly just. But we have only very incomplete information," and as a matter of fact the Churches of Asia did give up their practice. (Duchesne, op cit. p. 96. Cf. P. Batiffol, L'Église Naissante, tr. H. L. Brianceau, Primitive Catholicism (Longmans, 1911), P. 227-8.)
But it is equally possible to interpret the whole affair very differently. It was a very natural and seemly thing for Polycarp to consult Anicetus. The two bishops discussed the question on terms of equality, neither persuading the other. The various Churches held synods as Victor asked (not desired or ordered eexiwosate). Victor, so far from being infallible, was quite wrong in excommunicating the Asian Churches, and the other bishops, though agreeing with him in their customs, did not follow him in this. They simply disregarded his claim. Indeed, Irenaeus took him seriously to task for what he had done. The Asian Churches gradually came into line with the rest of the Church, but agreement was delayed, not hastened, by the action of Victor.
If this be the true interpretation of the facts it was the first recorded instance of a spirit that grew to immense proportions later on, a spirit that in the name of unity fomented instead of healing divisions. Clement had spoken in the name of a Church. Victor spoke as a man. As Dr. Lightfoot writes: (Apostolic Fathers, Pt. i. vol. i. p. 70.)
"Even this second stage has carried the power of Rome only a very small step in advance towards the assumptions of a Hildebrand or an Innocent or a Boniface or even of a Leo: but it is nevertheless a decided step. The substitution of the Bishop of Rome for the Church of Rome is an all-important point. The later Roman theory supposes that the Church of Rome derives all authority from the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter. History inverts this relation and shows that, as a matter of fact, the power of the Bishop of Rome was built upon the power of the Church of Rome. It was originally a primacy, not of the episcopate, but of the Church."
Which of these two interpretations is the true one? We can only read Eusebius' account and decide for ourselves. It runs as follows: (Tr. A. C. McGiffert, Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.)
"Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine over whom Theophilus, Bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, presided. There is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor, also of the bishops in Pontus - over whom Palmas as the oldest presided; and of the parishes in Gaul over which Irenaeus was bishop, and of those in Osrh&oulm;ene and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, Bishop of the Church at Corinth, and of a great many others who uttered the same opinion and judgment and cast the same vote."
The Council and Bishop of Rome seem here to be in no way differentiated from the other councils and bishops. The bishops of Asia, however, reply to the Bishop and Church of Rome:
"But the bishops of Asia led by Polycrates decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the Church of Rome set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: `We observe the exact day neither adding nor taking away.'"
He then mentions Philip, John, Polycarp, Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris of Laodicea, and Melito of Sardis, continuing:
"All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith, and I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I therefore brethren who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said, `We ought to obey God rather than man.'" After this he writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: "I could mention the bishops whom you requested to be summoned by me and whom I did call."
Was this request such as any bishop might make to another, or was it of the nature of a command? Victor seems to have regarded it as a command, at any rate we read:
"Whereupon Victor who presided over the Church of Rome immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the Churches of all Asia with the Churches that agreed with them as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole Churches of God which observed the tradition of ancient custom .... And not only to Victor but likewise to most of the other rulers of the Churches he sent letters of exhortation on the agitated question."
Of course it may be argued that Eusebius tells the story in his own way to make it appear that the bishops were all on an equality, and that Irenaeus of Lyons had as much authority as Victor of Rome. But he quotes the actual words of Irenaeus, and if he distorts the facts (though I do not see what grounds we have of accusing him of doing so), it only shows that nearly two hundred years later the Papal claims were not yet established.
Cyprian and the Unity of the Church (A.D. 251)
The authority of the African bishop Cyprian in the next century is constantly quoted in connection with these claims. The Decian persecution occurred in his time. Many fell away and afterwards repented. The confessors, those who had suffered and stood firm, took upon themselves to readmit them. In this they were encouraged by a section of the clergy who disliked the bishop. Cyprian declared that the question must be settled by the whole episcopate, at Carthage and at Rome. Novatus, the leader of the opposition, went to Rome and there threw in his lot with Novatian, who also took the rigorist view and was opposing Cornelius the Pope. The Council of Carthage in 251 settled the case for Africa and supported Cornelius against Novatian. A council at Rome did the same for Italy and suppressed the Novatian schism.
One interpretation of these events is that the action of the Bishops of Carthage needed the ratification of Rome. The other is that Carthage settled the matter for Africa, and Rome followed suit settling it for Italy.
Cyprian undoubtedly had a high respect for the Church of Rome, and regarded its bishop as the successor of St. Peter (St. Paul now begins to be dropped out). Quotations are constantly made from his writings which prove this. He "cannot be accused of hostility towards the Church of Rome," says Mgr. Duchesne. (Churches Separated from Rome, p. 97.) This is clear apart from the passages that used often to be quoted in quite good faith, but have been proved since in the opinion of most scholars to be later forgeries though some still maintain that Cyprian added them himself in a later edition of his letters.
Thus Dr. Funk writes: (History, vol. i. (Kegan Paul) p. 60.)
"So indeed we find the Bishop of Rome standing at the head of the whole Church. His primacy is implicitly acknowledged by the eagerness of heretics and schismatics to win the approval of the Roman Church; with St. Cyprian they evidently considered that to be in communion with Rome was to be in communion with the whole Church."
And again, after quoting the words of Irenaeus which we have just considered above: (Ibid.)
"Another writer, Cyprian, calls this Church the Ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis orta est (p. lix. 14; cp. De Eccl. Cath. Unit. iv., Ep. xliii. 5; p. 8), and, even more clearly than Irenaeus, describes her chief rank to her having been established by St. Peter. ... Hence, even in the first centuries, the primacy of the Church of Rome was looked upon as something settled, though it was then far from possessing that extent which it afterwards acquired."
And he continues:
"Cyprian, after ascribing the Church's unity to her having been founded on Peter, adds that our Lord had given equal authority to each of the Apostles, so that whatever was possessed by St. Peter was likewise shared by the other Apostles, and in the same passage in which he speaks of the Roman Church as chief of all, and the source of priestly oneness, he maintains that the bishops, so far as the government of their dioceses are concerned, are answerable to God (alone)."
Undoubtedly the prestige of the Roman Church was growing, but, for all his respect for her and: for all his politeness, what his view was is clear from the whole argument of his work, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, published just at the very time, and presenting his reasoned convictions. The unity of the Church, he argues, lies in the episcopate. The bishops are joint shareholders, as it were, of authority. Every bishop is a Vicar of Christ and an occupant of the Chair of St. Peter.
Or, as Dr. Kidd sums up his argument: (History, vol. i. p. 456.)
"Cyprian's doctrine of the unity of the Church is striking, but difficult. It lies in the unity and solidarity of the episcopate, to separate from which is to be cut off from God and from Christ. The authority of each bishop, however, is perfect and independent. It does not form, along with the authority of his colleagues, a mere agglomerate; but - in a legal phrase that 'reflects the author's earlier training' - it is 'a tenure on a totality like that of a shareholder in some joint property': for every bishop possesses ` the plenitude of the priesthood,' and as such is a Vicar of Christ and an occupant of `the chair of Peter.' It follows that there is only one bishop in each place; that the whole body of bishops decides where necessary; and yet that the majority cannot coerce the minority."
These are some of the actual words of Cyprian: (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, secs. 4-6; Kidd, Documents, vol. i. No. 147, p. 196.)
"The Lord said unto Peter, 'I say unto thee,' saith He, `that thou art Peter, etc...' Upon him, being one, He builds His Church and though He gave to all the Apostles an equal power, and says 'as my Father hath sent me, etc.' ... yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one. Certainly, the other apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power, but a beginning is made from unity that the Church may be set before us as one."
Or again:
"This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by falsehood; no one corrupt the truth of our faith by a faithless treachery. The episcopate is one; it is a whole in which each enjoys full possession."
Later on the following sentences were interpolated in this passage: After the words "to begin from one":
"And the primacy is given to Peter, that there might be shown one Church of Christ and one See; and they are all shepherds, and the flock is one, which is fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent."
After the words "to manifest unity" were added:
"He established one chair (unam cathedram constituit)."
And a little later:
"He who deserts the chair of Peter on which the Church was founded."
(The passage in full may be translated as follows:
"The Lord saith unto Peter, `I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it! I will give 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.' And to the same [Apostle] He says after His resurrection `Feed my sheep.' He builds His Church upon that one, and to him entrusts His sheep to be fed. And although after His resurrection He assigns equal power to all his apostles, and says 'As the Father sent Me even so send I you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye remit they shall be remitted unto him, and whosesoever sins ye retain they shall be retained,' nevertheless in order to make the unity manifest, he established one chair, and by His own authority appointed the origin of that same unity beginning from one. Certainly the rest of the Apostles were that which Peter also was, endued with equal partnership both of honour and office, but the beginning sets out from this unity, and primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ and one Chair may be pointed out: and all are pastors and one flock is shown, to be fed by all the Apostles with one-hearted accord, that one Church of Christ may be pointed out. It is this one Church which the Holy Spirit in the person of the Lord speaks of in the Song of Songs, saying, 'my dove is one, my perfect one, one is she to her mother, elect to her who brought her forth.' He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the faith? He who strives and rebels against the Church, he who deserts the Chair of Peter on which the Church was founded, does he trust that he is in the Church?"
(Archbishop Benson, from whose Cyprian, Has Times, His Work (Macmillan, 1897), p. 203, I take this translation, continues:
"The words in italics admittedly must be from the pen of one who taught the cardinal doctrine of the Roman see. If Cyprian wrote them, he held that doctrine. There is no disguising the fact ....
"But the reader will observe that, separated from the italicized words, the passage runs smoothly and the doctrine is a different one. It is the doctrine of a catholicity perfect in unity without hint of Petrine or of any primacy.")
The fact that they were so interpolated shows that the original phrases failed to satisfy the later claims of the Papacy. It is argued by some that the words are genuine and were added by St. Cyprian himself in a later edition of his work because he felt what he had first written was inadequate, but this view has not recommended itself to the majority of scholars. (For a very full discussion of the whole question, see Denny's Papalism, 1239-1246, pp. 651-662.)
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that this could have been the case, for the matter came up again over the question of "re-baptism." Were people baptized by heretics and schismatics properly baptized, or must they be baptized again? Cyprian argued, very logically, that a man who is not a member of the Church himself could not admit another, that the sacraments of the Church could not be administered by those who were outside the Church. The Roman Church under Pope Stephen took the opposite view.
The third Council of Carthage in the year 256 decided in favor of Cyprian's view. It reported to Stephen, who as Pope on his personal authority excommunicated its members. They met again in September of the same year, repudiated his decision, and ignored his excommunication. Here are Cyprian's words at the opening of the Council: (Mansi, i. 951, quoted by Denny, Papalism, 581, p. 282.)
"None of us setteth himself up as a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another."
It is difficult to think that he could have written thus if the Papal claims had been part of the accepted teaching of his day.
The African bishops appealed to the East, and among others, Firmilian of Caesarea replied thus: (Among the Letters of Cyprian, lxxv. sec. 24; Kidd, Documents, vol. i. No. 155.)
"What strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up through the Churches of the whole world! And how great `sin' hast thou `heaped up,' 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 from all."
Shortly after this, persecution began again and nothing more was done. Ultimately the Church as a whole decided as Stephen had decided, against Cyprian, but in doing so it in no way admitted his claim to decide for others. As Jeremy Taylor said, "The sum is this, Cyprian did right in a wrong cause (as it hath since been judged), and Stephen did ill in a good cause." (Liberty of Prophesying, ii. 23; Works, vol. v. p. 397.)
The Church Councils
The great Church Councils were held in the East and were predominantly Eastern in character. That of Nicaea in 325 A.D. was summoned by the Emperor Constantine. Rome was only represented by two legates. Indeed, no Pope was present at any of the four great Ecumenical Councils. The questions at issue were settled at Nicaea, as at the others, first by the Council itself, not by the Pope, and then by the subsequent consent and acceptance of the whole Church, including, of course, that of Rome.
It is argued that Hosius, the great Bishop from Spain, and the Roman legates signed first, and that they were commissioned by the Pope to represent him. So Funk writes:
"These [papal legates] took precedence of all those present, taking the first seats and usually being also the first to append their signatures."
(Manual of Church History (Kegan Paul, 1910), vol. i. 65, p. 187. He continues: "Through his legates the Pope signified his assent to the decrees of the Council, nor was any subsequent ratification judged necessary. This is apparent from the fact that the Emperor gave his confirmation as soon as the canons were passed, or at the close of the Council, i.e. before the papal ratification could possibly have been secured." (Another interpretation of this fact would be, of course, that no special ratification by the Pope was considered necessary.)
The only reply to this is that, in the case of the Council of Nicaea at any rate, Eusebius never says so, (De Vit. Const. iii. 7, P.G. xx. 1061.) nor do any of the other writers on whom we rely for first-hand information. The statement first appears in the fifth century (in the writings of Gelasius of Cyzicus), and the Canons of the Council say that the provincial synods are the authority (Canon iv) for ratifying ordinations (Canon v), and for matters of discipline (Canon vi); see above pp. 23-25.
(Historia Concilii Nicaeni, Lib. ii. c. 5, P.G. lxxxv, 1229, quoted in Denny's Papalism, 301, p. 138. O. Bardenhewer, the great Roman Catholic authority on the writings of the Fathers, says (Patrology, Eng. tr. T. J: Shahan (Herder, 1908,) p. 534: "His [Gelasius] work is a mere compilation from such earlier Christian historiographers as Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Where his narrative is not sustained by these older writers it is of doubtful value, and at times positively erroneous.")
The Claims of Pope Leo I. (A.D. 440-461)
It cannot be denied, nor do I wish to deny it, that Pope Leo made great claims for the Papacy. If not quite amounting to that of infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council of 1870, or even to those of the great popes of the Middle Ages, they involved a definite assumption of power as the successor of St. Peter and a claim as such to be the head of the Church whom all must obey.
But the question whether these claims were acknowledged is not so clear. The Roman See was undoubtedly the first in the West. With the disappearance of the African Church it was left without a rival. Leo, moreover, by sticking to his post when the Emperor ran away before the barbarian invaders, gained for the papacy much of the honour and confidence that had hitherto been directed towards the State. In the East, too, there was a great respect for the ancient Church founded, no one doubted, by St. Peter, nor was this respect less for the then occupant of the See both as a governor and as a theologian.
This comes out clearly in the history of the Council of Chalcedon, and passages are not difficult to find which can be quoted in support of the papal claims, and that not merely from Leo's words. We read, for instance, that the - (See Mgr. Benson's little tract quoted above, p. 19.)
"Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, writes in the sentence of deposition, read by the papal legates and signed by all the bishops against Dioscorus: 'Wherefore the most holy and blessed archbishop of the great and elder Rome, Leo, by us and by the present holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and base of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped Dioscorus of the episcopal ... dignity (Mansi, vi. p.1046)."
Or again that Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, wrote to Eutyches that - (Among Leo's letters, No. 25, P.L. liv. 743. Quoted with several others by Dom. Chapman, Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims, p. 95.
"Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own See, gives the true faith to those that seek it. For we in our solicitude for truth and faith cannot without the consent of the Roman Church hear causes of faith."
And that - (Papal Supremacy and Infallibility by the Rev. Sydney F. Smith, S.J. Catholic Truth Society, Pamphlet C63, p. 12.)
"when shortly afterwards the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, on listening to the letter of the same Pope Leo, exclaimed: 'Peter has spoken by Leo'; this phraseology is exemplified, and it sounds quite natural to our ears."
These and similar passages show, it is argued, that Leo's power to excommunicate Dioscurus was recognized, and that he, in his tome or letter, decided a question of faith which could not be heard without his consent.
But against this it may equally well be argued that the quarrel between Dioscurus and Leo was a personal one, in which the Council sided with Leo. Dioscurus at a synod at Nicaea had dared to excommunicate the Pope. He was supported, it is true, by only a dozen Egyptian bishops, and he was quite in the wrong in his theological views, but he would hardly have done so if it had been a recognized doctrine that the successor of St. Peter was the head of the Church and infallible. The Council of Chalcedon backed up the Pope in the words quoted above.
Again, it may equally well be argued that the case of Chrysologus at Ravenna and that of the Council of Chalcedon were not quite parallel. No doubt at that time a bishop of a city of Italy, though it were the residence of the court, could not try cases of faith without reference to the metropolitan see of Rome, but that does not seem to have been the case in the East. The letter of Leo was accepted because it agreed with what the members of the Council believed. After they had heard it read they said, "Peter hath spoken by Leo." they did not say, "Let us hear and obey what Peter will say by Leo." That is, they acknowledged its authority because they thought he was right; they did not think he was right because they acknowledged his authority.
(That no more was meant by the words "Peter has spoken by Leo," seems to be the natural conclusion when the exclamation is not separated from the others. These, as given by Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, vol. iii. Eng. tr. (T. & T. Clark, i 883 ), p. 317:
"After this was done, the bishops exclaimed: `That is the faith of the fathers, that is the faith of the apostles! We all believe thus! the orthodox believe thus! Anathema to him who believes otherwise! Peter has spoken by Leo: thus Cyril taught! That is the true faith! Why was not that read at Ephesus (at the Robber Synod)? dioscurus kept it hidden.'")
This seems to be borne out, for example, by the words of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, who was the first to give his sentence: (Mansi, vii., pp. 10 et seq., quoted in Denny's Papalism, p. 453, p.212.)
"The letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo agrees with the creed of the 318 Fathers who were at Nicaea, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled at Constantinople, who confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings at Ephesus under the most blessed and most holy Cyril, by the Ecumenical and most holy Council when it condemned Nestorius; I have therefore agreed to it and willingly subscribe to it."
His reason for accepting Leo's tome is that it agrees with the decisions of the Councils. The other bishops say they accept it for the same reason.
The Council was called by Marcian the Emperor against the wishes of Leo. It passed canons maintaining the rights of synods to act independently of Rome, for which Leo was putting forward claims. It asserted, rightly or wrongly, that the Fathers had assigned privileges to Rome because it was the Imperial City, and it claimed that equal rights had been awarded to Constantinople as the New Rome, the Imperial capital of the East. Thus Canon xxviii. runs: (Denny, 410, p. 192. Cp. W. Bright, The Canons of the First Four General Councils (Oxford, 1892), pp. xlvii. 221 ff.)
"We, following in all things the ordinances of the Holy Fathers and recognizing the recently read canon of the 150 religious bishops, do ourselves adopt the same determination in regard to the privileges (presbeioon) of the most holy Church of Constantinople, New Rome, for the Fathers naturally assigned privileges to the See (throvoo) of the Elder Rome, because it was the Imperial City, and moved by the same purpose, the 150 religious Bishops awarded the same privileges to the most holy See of New Rome, judging with good reason that the city which is honored with the sovereignty and the Senate, which enjoys the same privileges with the elder Imperial Rome, should also in ecclesiastical matters be magnified as she is, holding the second place after her, and so that for the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses the Metropolitans only, together with those bishops of the neighboring dioceses who live in barbarian territories, shall be consecrated by the aforesaid Holy See of the Holy Church of Constantinople" (Mansi, vii. 370.)
When this canon was passed the Roman legates were absent.
(The Papal Encyclical against Anglican Orders, Satis cognitum, declares that this decision is worthless because it did not have the consent and approval of the Holy See. But this, surely, is to argue in a circle and beg the question.)
They objected and proceeded, again no doubt in good faith, to quote the sixth Canon of Nicaea as beginning, "The Roman Church hath always held the primacy." This was met with cries of disapprobation. These words, they declared, were not in the original. They had been added at Rome. And on examination it was found to be so. The Imperial Commissioners made it quite clear that to the Roman Church might be conceded precedence and chief honors, as befitted so ancient and distinguished a Church, but no more. Leo regarded this as opposing his claim and tried to get the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch to object, but in vain. The Canon was afterwards further ratified by the Council in Trullo (A.D. 692). (Denny, 450, 754, pp. 210, 382.)
C.F. Rogers: THESE are the chief passages, so far as I can find, which are brought forward by Roman Catholics both in popular controversial works and in histories whose aim is primarily the study of the past. There are, of course, many others that might be adduced and considered. On either side they make an imposing array. It is not difficult to impress people in favor of a case by a mass of quotations of which they cannot judge the value, or to arouse their anger against it by a string of refutations of which they cannot judge the fairness. It may be the more effective way, but I am sure it is not the right one.
I have therefore tried to put both sides as fairly as is possible for one who is quite convinced on one side, and to give as far as possible the actual words or facts in question, so that if I am biassed, my readers may judge for themselves. In doing so we must be careful not to read back later ideas to earlier times. Men may fairly say with Aristotle that the nature of a thing is only seen in its final form not in its germ, and may declare with Vincent of Lerins that there may be development of doctrine and custom; but they must be equally careful not to find centralization where only unity is thought of, not to postulate authority where mere precedence is conceded, and not to find infallibility where authority is acknowledged.
So a born Roman Catholic, a member of the Church in a foreign land, may find considerable support for his loyalty to the Papal See. It is not my desire, or my place, to criticize the organization and discipline of his Church from which, I willingly concede, we have much to learn. He may not think the arguments against the Papacy sufficient to justify his leaving her communion, especially in countries where the only alternative is Calvinism or Secularism. But, at least, I think we may say that, for an English Churchman, the evidence for the Papal claims is not so conclusive as to justify his forsaking the Church of the land in which he was born; that if, as is generally conceded, this is the one essential point at issue, the proof of those claims is not so clear either from the words of Christ, from the action of the Apostles, or from the history of early times, as to make it necessary for him to commit what, if the claims be not true, is a grave sin of schism, and a refusal to follow the command of the Master.
For though the English Church may have many faults and the Roman (as she undoubtedly has) many virtues, we have this advantage over her, that we do not claim to be infallible. We can acknowledge and confess our sins, and confession is good for Churches as well as for individuals. Against one who acknowledges his transgression, the gates of hell will not prevail. We can learn from a sister Church without giving up our peculiar prerogatives. We can have all that she has that is good, without being compromised by having to justify whatever in her may be mistaken.
And the English Church, as the English people, has, we believe, a great call from God and a great part to play in the world. We need not be John Bullish. We may admire and learn from the Latin races. We may recognize, even if we do not admire, the effectiveness of German Caesarism with its centralization and discipline. But none the less, without offence, we may believe that the English tongue is destined to be the language of the times to come as Latin was of the Middle Ages, and that the English people are called to a world empire in influence if not dominion, uniting the races of men not by rule but by service.
And if the English Church is called to the same catholic mission in things spiritual, we need not say ours is the only way. We may learn from the saints of the Latin Church and from the martyrs of the East. We may take example in much from those who dissent in other ways from us at home. But if the English Church is part of the Catholic Church founded by Christ, and, as such, is called to interpret the Christianity of the English in the future, to serve the cause of the conversion of the heathen, and that of the reunion of Christendom, not by "lording it over them but by being among them as He that serveth," it is, I repeat, a grave thing to refuse the call of God and seek a spiritual home in a foreign Church on the ground of arguments based on an unproved and doubtful appeal to history.
The End
Go to Literature Index Page
This URL is www.abcog.org/pope3.htm