III.
OF THE AUTHORITY
OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME IN THE FIRST THREE
CENTURIES.
HISTORY shows us that the Fathers and Bishops, during
the first eight centuries,
have given to Holy Scripture the same interpretation that we
have just set forth. If
the Bishop of Rome had by
divine right enjoyed universal
authority in the Church,
if, as the successor of St. Peter, he bad been the vicar
and representative
of Christ, the necessary centre of the Church, there is no doubt
that these prerogatives would have been recognized by Christian antiquity, the faithful
guardian of the Faith
and of Divine Institutions. Though
the Church suffer, after the lapse of
ages, some decline on
her
human side, that is to say, in
the men that govern her, and form part of
her, it will not be assumed that this decay appeared at the outset. It is natural and logical to go back
to the beginnings of an institution to become acquainted with its true character; it is there we find the necessary starting-point from which to trace its development, its progress,
or lapses, age by age. If we
prove that the primitive Church
did
not recognize in the Bishop
of Rome the authority which he now
assumes, that this authority is only an usurpation dating from the ninth century, it must necessarily be concluded, that this
authority is not of Divine origin,
and that consequently, it is the duty of
every Church and all the faithful to protest against it, and combat with it.
Now we can affirm, after deep and conscientious study
of the historical
and doctrinal remains of
the first eight centuries of the Church, that the Bishop
of Rome has no ground for claiming universal authority, that such authority has foundation neither in the Word of God nor the laws of the Church.
The first document by which
the partisans of the
Papal sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written
by St. Clement in the name of
the Church at Rome to the
Church at Corinth. They assert,
that it was written by virtue of a superior authority
attached to his title of
Bishop of Rome.
Now,
it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was
not Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in this matter,
he did not act of' his own
authority, but in the
name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of
charity.
The letter signed by St.
Clement was written
A.D. 69, immediately after the persecution by Nero, which took place between
the years 64 and
68, as all learned men agree. Many scholars, accepting
as an indisputable fact that the letter to the Corinthians was written while Clement was Bishop of Rome, assign its date to the reign
of Domitian. But Clement
only succeeded Anencletus in the See of
Rome, in the twelfth year of
Domitian's reign, that
is to Say,
A.D. 93, and held this See until A.D.
102. The testimony of Eusebius leaves no doubt upon this point.*
Now, it may be seen from the letter itself
that it was written after a persecution; if it be
pretended that this persecution was that of Domitian,
then the letter must be dated in the last years of the
first century, since it was
chiefly in the years
95 and 96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it
is easy to see from the letter itself,
that it was written before that time, for
it speaks of the Jewish
sacrifices as still existing in the temple of Jerusalem.
The temple was destroyed with the city of
Jerusalem, by Titus, A.D.
70. Hence, the letter must have been written
before that year. Besides, the letter was written after some
*
Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book III. chaps. xiii.,
xv., xxxiv.
persecution, in which had suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was
nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian.
The persecution of Nero lasted from the
year 64 to the year 68.
Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could
only have been written
in the year 69, that is to say, TWENTY-FOUR YEARS before Clement was Bishop of Rome.
In presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the
stress laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the importance of this
document as emanating from Pope St. Clement?
Even if it could be shown
that the letter of St.
Clement, was written during his
episcopate, this would prove nothing, because this letter was not written
by him by virtue of a
superior and personal authority possessed by him, but from mere charity,
and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let us
hear Eusebius upon this subject :
"Of this Clement there is one epistle extant,
acknowledged as genuine, . . . . which he wrote in the name of
the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the time when
there was a dissension in the latter.
This we know to have been publicly read, for
common benefit, in most
of the churches, both in former times and in our
own; and that at the time mentioned, a sedition did take place at Corinth,
is abundantly attested
by Hegesippus."*
Eusebius, further on, recurs to the letter
of Clement, and again
remarks that it was written in the name
of the Church at Rome. † He could not say more explicitly, that Clement did
not in this matter act of his own authority, by virtue of any power be
individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself
gives a suspicion of such authority. It thus
commences: " The Church of God which is at Rome, to the Church
of God which is at
Corinth." The writer speaks of the Ecclesiastical
Ministry, in relation to several Priests whom the
Corinthians had rejected
most unjustly; he looks
upon this Ministry as wholly
derived from the Apostolic Succession, attributing neither to himself nor
to others any Primacy in it.
There is every reason
to believe that St. Clement draughted
this letter to the
Corinthians. From the first centuries it has been considered as his work. It was
not as Bishop of Rome, but as
a disciple of the Apostles, that he wrote it. Without having
been charged with the government of
the Roman Church he had been made Bishop by St.
Peter, and had been the companion of St.
Paul in many of his Apostolic visitations. It may be, that he
had worked with St. Paul for
the conversion of the Corinthians. It was natural, therefore, that he should be commissioned to draw
up the letter of the Church
of Rome to a Church
of which he had been one of
the founders. And so,
Clement speaks to them in the name of the Apostles, and above all of St.
Paul, who bad begotten
them to the faith. Even had he written
to them as Bishop of Rome, it would not be possible to infer any thing
from this in favour of his
universal authority. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenæus of Lyons, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, have written
letters to divers churches,
not excepting that of
Rome, without thereby pretending to any other authority than that they possessed
as bishops, to do GOD'S work in all places.
Nothing can properly be inferred, either from the letter itself
or from the
circumstances under which it was
written, that should make this proceeding on the
part of the Corinthians appear
in the light of an acknowledgment of any superior
authority in the Bishop
or the Church of Rome ; or
this answer in the light of
an authoritative act. The Corinthians addressed themselves
to a Church where dwelt the fellow-labourers of St. Paul, their father
in the faith; and that Church,
through Clement as
her organ, recommended peace and concord to them, without
the least pretension to any authority whatever.
* Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book III. chap.
xvi.
† Ibid. chap. xxxviii.
Thus, in the intervention of Clement, no proof can be found to support the pretended authority of
the Bishops of Rome. Clement was the deputy of the
clergy of Rome in that affair, chosen because of his capacity, his former connection with the Corinthians, his relation with the Apostles,
and the influence he had for these various reasons.
But he did not act as
Bishop of Rome, much less as having authority over the Church of Corinth.
In the second century
the question concerning Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches wished to follow the Judaical
traditions, preserved by several Apostles in the celebration of that
feast, and to hold it upon
the fourteenth day of
the March moon; other Eastern Churches, in agreement with the Western Churches,
according to an equally Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of' Easter the Sunday following the
fourteenth day of the March moon.
The question in itself considered was of no great importance; and yet it was
generally thought that all the Churches
should celebrate at one and the same time the great
Christian festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating
the mysteries of his death.
How was the question
settled? Did the Bishop of Rome interpose
his authority and overrule the discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed
a supreme authority ?
Let us take the evidence of History. The question having
been agitated, "there were synods and convocations of the
Bishops on this question," says Eusebius,* "and
all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the Churches
in all places. . . . There is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided
Theophilus, Bishop of the
Church in Cesarea
and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is another epistle" [of the
'Roman Synod] "extant on the same
question, bearing
the name of Victor. An epistle also of
the Bishops in Pontus,
among whom Palmas, as the
most ancient, presided; also of
the Churches of Gaul, over whom Irenæus
presided. Moreover, one from those
in Osrhoene, and the cities there.
And a particular
epistle front Bacchyllus, Bishop
of the Corinthians;
and epistles of many others who,
advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote."
It is evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod in
the same terms as of the others; he does not
attribute it to Bishop Victor,
but to the assembly of
the Roman Clergy; and lastly,
he only mentions it in the second place after that of the
Bishops of Palestine.
Here is a point irrefragably established; it is that in the matter of
Easter, the Church of Rome discussed
and judged the question in the same capacity as the
other churches, and that the
Bishop of Rome only signed the letter
in the name of
the synod which represented that Church. The partisans
of the Papal authority affirm
that it was Victor who
commanded the councils to assemble. This assertion
is altogether false.†
Several Oriental Bishops did not conform to the decision of the
others. Polycrates of Ephesus, above all, protested
against it.* Then a lively discussion arose between him and
Victor, Bishop of Rome, who seemed to think that the Bishop
of Ephesus would be alone in his
opinion, and advised
him, in consequence, to ask
the opinion of the other Bishops of his province. Polycrates complied, and those Bishops declared
themselves in favor of his opinion; he wrote thus to Victor,
who threatened to separate
them from his communion,
* Euseb.
Eccl. Hist. Book
V. chap. xxiii.
† Among the
Roman theologians who make this
false assertion, we will particularly name Darruel in his work
entitled Du Pape et
de ses Droits. This
book sums up all
the errors and exaggerations
of the Romish
theologians.
* Euseb.
Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiv.
This did not move Polycrates; he replied vigorously, saying
to him particularly. "They
who are greater than I
have said 'we ought
to obey God rather than men.' Upon this Victor, the
Bishop of the Church of Rome, forthwith endeavoured† to cut off the
Churches of all Asia, together with the neighboring Churches, as heterodox, from the common
unity. And he published abroad
by letters, and proclaimed that all the brethren
there were wholly excommunicated." Thus Eusebius.
It is difficult
to believe that the partisans of the
Roman pretensions can find in these words of Eusebius and in the conduct of Victor
any proof in favor of
their system. Without
much effort, they might find in them a proof
to the contrary. The expression of Eusebius, that "Victor endeavoured," etc., must first be noticed. It is clear that those who endeavour
have not in themselves the power
to do that which they have in
view, otherwise the act would follow the will. Victor,
however, did all he could in order that this excommunication should
be recognized-he even pronounced it; but that act remained but an attempt, and had to be
ratified by the other
Churches in order to be valid. Victor
did not have,
then, as Bishop of Rome, the power
to excommunicate other Churches, since the effect
did not follow
the sentence which he believed himself entitled
to give in the name of
the Western Churches, because of the importance
of his See.
The Bishops, who would have submitted to his sentence, if they had recognized
in
him the Head of
the Church, invested with universal authority, not only did not obey him, but
strongly censured his conduct.
“But this," adds Eusebius, " was not the opinion of all
the Bishops. They immediately exhorted
him," [Victor] "on the contrary, to contemplate that course that was calculated to promote peace, unity, and love to one another."
Thus,
instead of believing that unity consisted in union with Victor, the bishops
exhorted him to observe better
the true notions
of unity. Many went even further. " There
are also extant," continues Eusebius, " the expressions they used, who pressed upon Victor with much severity. Among these also was Irenæus, who, in
the name of those brethren
in Gaul, over whom he presided,
wrote an epistle
in which he maintains the duty of celebrating the mystery of the
resurrection of our Lord only on
the day of the Lord. He becomingly also
admonishes Victor not to cut off whole churches of God who observed the tradition of an
ancient custom."
Irenæus endeavored to show
to Victor that differences
in practice, of which, he gives divers examples, are not inconsistent with Unity of Faith. " And when," adds Eusebius, " the blessed Polycarp went to Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little deference among themselves likewise
respecting other matters, they immediately
were reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this
head. For neither could
Anicetus persuade Polycarp
not to observe it, because he had always observed it"
[a certain custom] “with
John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of
the Apostles with whom he
associated; and neither did Polyearp persuade
Anicetus to observe, who said
that he was bound to maintain the practice of the
presbyters before him. Which thing being
so, they communed with
each other; and in the church
Anicetus yielded to Polyearp the office of consecrating." And thus, though
following different usages, all remained in the communion of the Church.
"
And not only to Victor, but likewise to the most of the
other rulers of the churches, he sent letters of exhortation on the agitated
question."*
Thus Victor could not, of his own authority, cut off from the Church, in fact,
those whom he had declared
excommunicate; the other
Bishops resisted him vigorously, and St.
† Greek Words; Euseb.loc.cit.
* Euseb.
Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiv.
Irenæus, the great divine
of the age, made war
in his letters upon those which Victor had
written to provoke the schism.
This discussion, invoked by the partisans of Papal pretensions in their favor, falls
back upon them with all its weight, and with a force that can not in good faith be contested.
Anicetus did not invoke
his authority against
Polycarp, nor did Victor
against Irenæus and the other Bishops.
Polycarp and Irenæus
reasoned and wrote as equals of the Bishop of Rome in Episcopal authority, and recognized but one rule-ancient tradition.
How were the Churches
reunited in a common practice? Eusebius
thus relates that happy result, which certainly
was not due to the Bishop
of Rome:†
" The Bishops,
indeed, of Palestine, Narcissus
and
Theophilus, and Cassius
with them, the Bishop of the
Church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came
together with them, having
advanced many things respecting the tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the Apostles, regarding
the Passover, at the close
of the epistle use the
words: Endeavor to send copies of the
epistle through all the Church, that we may not give occasion
to those whose
minds are easily
led astray. But we
inform you also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria
which we also do; for
letters have been sent by
us to them and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season
with one mind and at one time.' "
Nevertheless, many Churches preserved the tradition of the
Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus, and were not on
that account regarded as schismatics, although
Victor had separated himself from their communion.
The partisans of
the Papal system attach much importance to the influence exercised by the Bishop of Rome in the question
of Easter and some other
matters: they transform that influence into authority.
This is an untenable
paralogism. It is not to be wondered at that the Bishop of Rome should have enjoyed
from the first a high influence in religious questions; for he filled the first See of the West, and as Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, he was
the
natural link between East and west.
It was then understood that the Catholic
Church was not
exclusively in any country ; that the East possessed no more universal authority than the West. This is why certain heretics, born and condemned in the East,
sought protection in the West, and
above all at Rome, its representative. Thus it
is, that even some saints-as Polycarp of Smyrna-went themselves to Rome to confer with the Bishop
of that city upon religious questions.
But it is not possible conscientiously to study these
facts from reliable
documents without eliciting this truth: that the influence of the Bishop
of' Rome did not arise
in an universal authority-that it did not even have its source in an authority
recognized by all the Western Churches, but was simply derived
from the importance of
his See.
Rome was the centre
of all communications between different
parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded
thither from all quarters-for political business or private interests-and
thus her testimony as an Apostolic
Church was strengthened by
the faithful who came thither
from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.
Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which
the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse.* This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith,
preserved everywhere and always.
"But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious
to enumerate in such a work the succession of all
the Churches, we
will trace that of the very great and very ancient
† Euseb. Eccl. Hist.
Book V. chap. xxv
* St.
Iraeneus, In Hæres.
Lib. III. cap. iii.
Church and known
of all, which was founded and established at Rome by
the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a
tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith
declared to men, and which has
transmitted it to us
through the succession of her Bishops; by that,
we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad
intention, do not gather
where they should ; For.
every Church, that is to say, the faithful
who are from all places,
are obliged to go toward
that Church, because
of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all
countries." †
The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of
this passage, in order to find in it
an argument in favor of
the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole
world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital
of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre
of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire
ad by the words, to agree with-which
is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem
refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general
manner, and nothing indicates that they do not
solely designate the capital and
principal city of the
Empire. Again, they translate, maximae,
antiquissimae, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false;
for, granting that the Church of Rome was the
greatest of her day, she
could not certainly be called the most ancient-every one knew
that a great number of
churches had been founded
in the East before that of
Rome. Moreover, their translation does
not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by
those who were of all countries-(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the
text requires, but like Pius
IX., in his Encyclical Letter to
the Christians of the East, “In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense
to the
good
Father.
In the text as we
render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having
established that only the universal Faith should be received, points
out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as
offering to them an evidence
the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there
preserved by
the faithful of the whole world.
How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule
for private belief, and who
enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which
the text is taken, logically
say what is attributed to him by the
Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus:
It is necessary to adopt as
the rule the belief
of all the churches; but it suffices
to appeal to that of the
Church of Rome, to which there
must be uniformity and submission,
because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion.
He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he
points out the Faith of the
Church of Rome as true--thanks to the concourse of the faithful
who assembled there from all parts,
and who thus preserved
there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve
it? Because they would
have protested against any change in the
traditions of their own
churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop
of Rome, as the principle of the
† We must quote the text of St. Irenaeus,
that it may be compared with our translation,
“Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelsirum enumerate successiones; maximae et antiquissimae et omnibus
cognitae, a gloriosissimis
duobus apostolis Petro
et Paullo, Romae
fundatae
et constitutae Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per suecessiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui
quoquomodo, vel
per coecitatem et malam sententiam praeterquam oportet
colligunt. Ad hane
enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoe est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique,
conservata eat ea, quae est ab Apostolis, Traditio."
preservation of
tradition in the Church of that
city--but logically, he attributes that
preservation to the faithful of other
Churches who controlled her traditions by those
of their own Churches, and who thus
formed an invincible obstacle
to innovation.
It was natural that the Bishop of the
Capital of the
Empire, precisely because of the faithful who
there gathered from all parts,
should acquire a great influence in religious
matters, and even occasionally take the lead.
But all the monuments, as also
the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show
that he enjoyed no authority superior
to that of the other Bishops.
It is clear that all discussion relative
to this text of St. Irenæus
turns upon the sense to be given to the word
convenire. If this word signifies to agree with, we must
conclude that the venerable writer thought it all must necessarily agree with the Church
of Rome, and without that it is impossible
to be in the unity. If the
word means to go, all
the Ultramontane scaffolding will fall of itself, for
it can not reasonably be affirmed that all the faithful must of Necessity go to Rome, even though the Church established in that city should be the first and principal Church, the centre
of Unity. It follows that the sense of this word should be determined in so evident a manner that there remain no doubt
in respect to it.
We have already remarked that the preposition ad determined the sense
of it--we can add many others to this already
conclusive proof
If we possessed the Greek text of the
passage in question,
there is no doubt
there would not be the uncertainty resulting from the Latin
word. But Eusebius and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments of the primitive text. Now
it happens that in these fragments the good
Father uses expressions which the Latin
translator has rendered by the word convenire, and which have no
meaning, except just this one of going--whether together or separately.
In the second
book, chapter xxii., (Migne's
edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: "All the priests
who have gone to Asia,
to John, disciple of the Lord,
bear witness to it.”
Greek Text: ke pántes i presvíteri martiróvsin, i katá tin asían Ioánni to Tov Kiríon
Mathití simvevlikótes.
Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur
qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum
Domini convenerunt."
In the third
book, 21st chapter, (Migne's edition, col. 947,)
speaking of the Septuagint
interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus
says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy's house," etc.
In Greek: Sinelthónton de aftón epí to aftó pará to ptoleméo
The Latin translator renders this "Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud
Ptolemaeum."
The Benedictine Massuet, editor of
St. Irenæus's works, pretends that St. Irenæus must have used in the text in question, the words
simvénin pros tín ton Roméon Eklisían. And he pretends
that simvénin pros tiná is the same thing as simvénin tiní.
Although this opinion were unimpeachable, such erudition would be worth nothing, for we must content ourselves with supposing that the good
father has used the word simvénin.
It would seem to us
more
natural and logical
to look for the unknown word
among the known words, which the translator renders convenire. Now from that study, it should appear that St. Irenæus did not use
simvénin, but simvevlikótes, which has the
sense of a running together toward a place, or
of sinelthóntes, which has an analogous signification, since, in the Greek texts that have been preserved, he has
used these words to express the
idea for
which the translator used
convenire.
In general, the translator of St. Irenæus gives
to the word convenire the sense of
to go,
and not to agree with.. Why then give it this sense in
the famous text in question, when in the
text itself the preposition ad gives the idea of
direction toward a place, and the adverb undique gives that of
departure from all places other than Rome where the faithful were found?
Nothing is wanting
to prove that it is impossible
to give to the words of St. Irenæus
the sense
attributed to them by the Romish theologians.
The good father then has
simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries,
drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the
first and most powerful
of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition,
because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged.
It is certain
that Rome, in her position
as an Apostolic Church,
had a very great authority during
the first centuries, and Tertullian is right in calling
her as a witness against
the heretic to whom he said, "
Thou hast Rome, whose
authority is close at hand. Happy
Church! to whom the Apostles gave all the doctrine with their blood!" (De Praescrip.
c.xxxvi.) But cannot an Apostolic Church bear witness to the Faith
against heresy
without enjoying universal and divine authority?
St. Cyprian was right in calling the Church of
Rome, the chair of Peter; the principal Church, from whence sacerdotal unity emanated." (St. Cyp. 55th epis. to Cornelius.) But for
all that, did he pretend
that the Bishop
enjoyed authority by Divine
right? He believed it so
little, that in his Treatise upon the
Unity of the Church, he understands by the
"chair of Peter,"
the
entire Episcopate, he regards
St. Peter as the
equal of the other Apostles
and denies his primacy, he makes St. Peter to be the simple type of
the unity of the Apostolic
College.* Therefore, it is in a limited sense
that he calls the Church
of Rome the chair of Peter;
he makes her the principal Church--but that was a fact resulting
from her exterior importance. She was the source
of Sacerdotal Unity in this sense that Peter
was the sign and type
of the unity of the
Apostolic College.
To give any other sense to
the text from the letter of St. Cyprian to Cornelius
would be to contradict the Treatise on the Unity of the Church,
to
attribute to St. Cyprian
two contradictory doctrines, and consequently
to take from him all
logic and all authority.
Those who have given
such high importance
to the text of St. Cyprian,
taken from his letter to Cornelius,
have forgotten another that so well explains it that it is difficult to understand how they have omitted it. It is that in which he declares that, “Rome should
precede Carthage, because
of its great size--pro
magnitudine sua."* This doctrine agrees with that
of St, Irenæus and the other Fathers,
who have never mentioned any divine prerogative
with which the Church of Rome had been favored.
St. Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and many other
Western Fathers have praised the Church of Rome as
an Apostolic Church, and have attached a high importance to her testimony in questions
of faith. But not one of
them ascribes to her any such
doctrinal authority that her testimony would of itself be sufficient to determine questions under discussion. It must even be remarked that St. Augustine
sets up the authority of the
Oriental churches against the Donatists, and does
not mention that of Rome, although
she was the Apostolic Church of the West. St. Irenæus
would be the only one to sustain that doctrine, if we should receive his text as
translated by the Romish theologians.
But we have seen that this interpretation is false, and that he has attributed to the testimony of the
Church of Rome a great
authority in this sense only: that it had received
the Apostolic tradition, and, thanks to the Believers who congregated there from all parts,
that tradition had been preserved pure unto his times. Therefore, it was not because
the Church of
* Further on will
be found entire
the texts of St. Cyprian and Tertullian.
* Cypr. Ep. 59
ad Cornel.
Rome was
the principal, the first, the most Powerful
in Christendom that her testimony was chiefly valuable, but because
of the Believers from other
churches, who strengthened it by
their adherence.
When Constantinople had become the capital of the
Roman Empire, St. Gregory Nazienzen said of that Church, what St. Irenæus had said of that of Rome, and with still more
formal expressions. " This
city," said he, "
is the eye of the world.
The most distant
nations press toward her from all parts,
and they draw from her as
from a spring the principles of the Faith." (Greg.
Naz. 42d dis., §10, col..470, Migne's edit.)
The Latin translation of St. Gregory, like that of
St. Irenæus, employs the word
convenire to express the crowding
Of people toward Constantinople. Must we give to it the sense of
agreeing with, because
this Father calls Constantinople not only a powerful and principal Church
but the eye of the
world, source of faith?
The ninth canon of
the Council of Antioch held in 341, will of itself be sufficient to determine the sense
of the text of St. Irenæus. The canon reads: "Let the bishops
established in each province know that
to the bishop of the metropolitan city is confided the care of the whole province, because all those who have business
come to the metropolis from all parts. Therefore it has appeared advisable
to grant a superior honor to
him."
If the faithful were drawn
to a
mere metropolis to transact their business, how much more to the capital of the empire, which was
for them a necessary centre, and in which they
must meet from all parts of the
empire. Such is the fact established by St. Irenæus,
and from it he concludes that the witness of the
Church of Rome should suffice
to confound heretics.
Finally let us
remark, that the chapter of the learned Father only relates to the heretics of Rome, for whom
he destined the book; and that will convince us, that
it is a strange abuse of the words to give them an absolute
sense, making them relate to heretics in general, and to
all ages; for he only affirmed that the Roman Church had preserved her apostolic tradition pure to his time, and not, that she
would always so preserve it.
The discussion upon the baptism of heretics throws further light upon the
question we
are examining.
From all antiquity,* it
was customary merely to impose bands upon those who had fallen into heresy, and wished to reënter the bosom of
the Church. In the third
century a
grave discussion arose upon this subject.
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was the first in the
West who
maintained that baptism
should be reädministered
to converted heretics. Dionysius, Bishop of
Alexandria, who at that time exerted
a great influence throughout the Church
by reason of his holiness, his zeal and learning, declared himself openly for the
Bishop of Carthage, and wrote upon the
subject to Stephen,
Bishop of Rome. Stephen, persuaded that no change should
be made in a tradition handed down from time immemorial, was very
much grieved at an opinion which
he looked upon as an innovation. St. Cyprian
admitted the existence of the custom, but he contended that it was not
lawful. He even took advantage of a contrary doctrine that he said his church had preserved, and according to which baptism administered by heretics was regarded as null.
St. Cyprian, having
assembled several councils
of bishops of the province of Africa, sent their transactions to Stephen, with a letter,† in
which he said, “I believe
that I should write to you
upon a subject that concerns the unity and dignity
of the Church Catholic, and should confer upon it,
with a man so grave
and so wise as you.”
It is not, as
one may see, to a superior
that he addresses himself, but to an equal whose
gravity and wisdom he esteems.
He even makes him understand, that he is in error in
* Euseb.
Eccl. Hist. Book
VII. chaps. ii. and iii.
† Cyprian, Epp.
72, 73, ad. Steph,
supporting the custom
of the Roman Church. He says:‡ "I am persuaded that your faith and piety make that which conforms to the truth agreeable to you. However, we know there are some who will
not abandon sentiments with which they have been once imbued, and who
maintain particular usages,
without interrupting harmony among the Bishops.
In such cases we do no violence and impose
no law upon any one.”
St. Cyprian does not wish here to impose his opinion
upon Stephen; but he blames him for
preserving that which he regards
as a prejudice contrary
to the truth.
Stephen rejected the doctrine of St.
Cyprian; he further declared
that he would not even communicate with him, nor
with the Bishops of Cilicia, of Cappadocia and Galatia, who
followed the same doctrine. Dionysius of Alexandria§ wrote to him, to exhort him to
peace; telling him that all the Oriental churches, although divided in their opinions,
on the doctrines of Novatus, were in most perfect
union, and rejoicing in that happy result. He counseled him not to trouble again
the Church in regard to the baptism
of heretics.
At this stage of the
matter Xystus succeeded Stephen. Dionysius
of Alexandria hastened to write to him to dissuade him from following the way of
Stephen. He says of this bishop:§§ “He had written before respecting
Helenus and Firmilian, and all those from Cilicia
and Cappadocia and Galatia and all the nations adjoining, that he would not
have communion
with them on this account, because they, said he, rebaptized the heretics; and behold,
I pray you, the importance
of the matter;
for in reality, as I have ascertained, decrees have been
passed in the greatest councils of the
Bishops, that those who come from the heretics
are first to be instructed, and then are to be washed
and purified from the filth of their old and impure leaven. And respecting all these things I have
sent letters entreating them."
St. Dionysius
did not see an act of
authority in the letter of Stephen, but an intervention that might throw
a new germ of trouble in the Church; it was on this
ground that he wished to check him. Instead of troubling the Church,
Stephen would have pacified
it, if a universal authority had been recognized in him. This consideration suffices to establish
the
entirely private
and personal character, of his letter.
What had been the result ? Was he obeyed,
as he would have been had the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority? Was his separation regarded
as breaking the unity
of the Church? Assuredly not! St. Dionysius of
Alexandria acted in this affair
as St. Irenæus did in the
question of Easter; he declared openly
for those who differed with the Bishop of Rome,
while to the latter he addressed
earnest prayers for the
peace of the Church.
St. Cyprian assembled a new
council of the bishops of Africa, who confirmed their first opinion; and he
consulted with Firmilian, in order to oppose
the
entire Church against the Roman Church in this
question.
Firmilian answered
St. Cyprian in a letter, that will show
the belief of Oriental
Christendom touching
the authority of the
Bishops of Rome.*
“Firmilian to his brother in the Lord, Cyprian, greeting:
"We have received
by our very dear deacon Rogatian, whom you
have sent to us, the letter, beloved
brother, that you have
written us; and we
have rendered thanks to God, that while being thus separated
in body, we are united
in spirit, as if we
were dwelling, not only
in the same country,
but in the same house; which may well be said, since the spiritual house of God is one. In the last days,
says the prophet, the mountain
of the Lord, and the house of God, placed on the
summit
of the mountains, shall be manifested. Reünited
in this house, we
‡ Ibid.
§ Letter of St. Dionysius of Alex. In Eusebius, Eccl. HisL Book VII. chap.
v.
§§ Letter of St. Dion. of Alex. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Book
VII chap.
v.
* Firmilian to St.
Cyp.
among the letters
of the latter. Seventy-fifth letter. Edit. Baluze--reviewed
by the
Benedietines.
there enjoy the bliss of unity.
It is what the psalmist asks
of the Lord--to dwell in the house
of the Lord all
the days of his life. Whence, and from another
passage, appears the happiness
of the saints in being united:
Oh! how good and pleasant
a thing it is for
brethren to live together in unity. In fact,
union, peace, and concord confer
a very great felicity, not only to faithful men who know the truth, but to the angels of heaven
themselves, who according to the divine word experience joy when a sinner
repents and returns to the bond of unity. This would not be said of
the angels who inhabit heaven, if they also were not united
to us, who rejoice over our
union; as, on the other
hand, they are grieved
when they see hearts
and
minds in division,
not only as though
they did not invoke
the same and only God,
but as if they would not
speak to or hear
each other. But in this we
may
be grateful to Stephen; for,
by his violence, he has
put your faith and wisdom
to trial; yet if we have an advantage
because of him, it is not to him that we
owe it. Truly, Judas for his perfidy and treachery
which he so criminally employed
toward his Saviour,
should not be regarded as the
cause of the great
blessings that the passion
of the Lord procured for us, in delivering the world and all people.
But for the present
we will pass over what Stephen
has done, fearing, lest in
remembering his audacity
and insolence, we experience too much grief at his bad actions."
This preamble of Firmilian’s
letter demonstrates
that he was very far from placing the
centre of unity in the pope.
In his eyes, Stephen
was but a bishop,
full of audacity
and insolence, because he had dared to separate
himself from the communion of those
who had another belief from his own upon the question of the baptism of heretics; and he even goes
so far as to compare him to Judas. Nor must it be forgotten that Firmilian was one
of the holiest and wisest bishops of his time.
The principle of unity he placed in God;
he says, "As it is but one and the same Lord
that dwells in us, he joins and knits
together his own
among themselves, by the
bond of unity, in whatever place
they may be."
As for the Church of Rome, which it is sought to impose upon
us now as the centre of
unity, he thus speaks of her:
"Those who are at Rome do not
observe all the things
which were given
at the beginning, and it is in vain that they pretend to support
themselves upon the authority of the apostles: it is thus, that, upon
the day for the celebration of Easter, and upon a great
number of other mysteries
of religion, there are diversities among them and that they do
not observe all that is observed at Jerusalem; likewise in other
provinces, many varieties are encountered according to the diversity of places
and tongues ; yet they are not separated for all
that from the peace and unity of
the
Church Universal."
The Church of Jerusalem was the model church,
according to Firmilian; she was
the mother of all the others, and the purest
type after which all the others should form
themselves. As for the Church of Rome, she could, like any other
private church, be cut off from
unity. This is why
he declared so energetically against Stephen,
who had dared to
break peace with the bishops of Africa; who slandered the Apostles Peter and Paul, by
pretending to follow their traditions. “I have reason," he said, “to be indignant at the
manifest
folly of Stephen, who, on the one hand, glories
in his episcopal seat, and pretends to possess the succession of Peter, upon
whom the foundations of the Church
were placed, and who, on the other hand, introduces other stones, (Pierres,) and constructs new buildings for other churches, by asserting, upon his own
authority, that they possess
the true baptism. . .
Stephen, who
boasts of possessing the see of St.
Peter by succession, shows no zeal against the heretics. . . You,
Africans, you may say
to Stephen, that having known the truth, you have rejected the custom of error; but for
us, we possess at the same time, truth
and usage; we oppose our
custom against that of
the Romans; our usage is that of truth, preserving, since
the beginning, that which Christ and the Apostles have given to us.
. . Yet
Stephen does
not blush to affirm, that those in sin can remit sins, as though the waters of life could be found in the house
of the dead. What! dost thou not fear God's judgment, when
thou showest thyself favorable to heretics against the Church! thou art worse than all the heretics; for when those among them, who
have recognized their error, come to thee to
receive the true light of the
Church, thou then comest in aid of their
errors, and extinguishing the light of
the truth of the Church, thou gatherest
around them the darkness of
the night of heresy. Dost thou not understand
that an account of these souls will be demanded of thee
in the day of judgment, since thou hast refused the waters
of the Church to those who were thirsty, and hast caused
the death of those
who wished to live? And
yet thou art angered! Look at thy folly,
who darest to attack those who fight against falsehood for truth's sake! Who is it, that is most righteously angry
with another? Is it he who
agrees with the enemies
of God, or rather,
he, who for the truth
of the Church, declares himself against
those who agree with the enemies of God?
. . What disputes, what discussions thou preparest for all the
churches of the world!
What grievous sin thou
hast committed in separating thyself from so many flocks!
Thou hast killed
thyself; do not deceive thyself;
for he is truly schismatic who
renounces the communion of the unity of
the Church! While thou thinkest
that all others are
separated from thee,
it is thou who art separated from all others."
Thus Firmilian speaks to the Bishop of Rome, and no one
dreamed of taxing him with wrong, even among those who differed with him concerning the baptism of heretics.*
St. Dionysius
of Alexandria without openly
taking part against the Bishop of Rome,
endeavored to lead him to the idea of
rebaptizing. It is to this end that he displays his doubts
in regard to a man whom he
had admitted to the communion without
rebaptizing him, and who, nevertheless, scarcely
dared to participate in the body of the Lord, because
he had only received baptism among, the heretics, and with guilty words and rites. “Brother,"† he wrote to Xystus, " I have need of your counsel, and I ask your opinion on
an affair that has presented itself to me, and in which, indeed, I am afraid I may be deceived." It is not to a
superior he addresses
himself, to ask a decision, but to an equal, to a
brother, in order to
know his views,
that he may himself come to a determination. We ask every man in good
faith, is it thus that the Bishop of
Alexandria would have written
to the Bishop of Rome , if the
latter had enjoyed
an authority universally acknowledged to terminate dogmatic or
disciplinary discussions?
We find in the acts of the
last council of St. Cyprian
a very significant criticism upon the
pretensions which the Bishop of Rome had begun to put forth. After having asked
the advice of his colleagues, he speaks thus, "Let each one give his opinion
without judging
any one and without separating from the Communion those who
are not of his opinion; for none
of us sets himself up
for a bishop of bishops, nor compels his brethren
to obey him by means of tyrannical terror, every bishop having full liberty and complete power; as he cannot
* Some Ultramontanes have contested the authenticity of
Firmilian's
letter; but
the most
learned among
them
agree, with the learned of
all the schools, to regard it as authentic. The
strongest reason that Barruel
alleges to contest its authority, is that Firmillan could
not have written
such a letter, since,
according to St. Dionysius of Alexandria, he was reconciled to the pope before the letter
could have been
written.
If Barruel had been a little more learned, he
had
known that in the letter
of St.
Dlonysius of Alexandria to Stephen, the
letter to which he alludes,
he does not say that
the whole church was
In peace upon the subject of the baptism of heretics, since the discussion was just beginning;
but that he only says,
Stephen would be wrong to trouble the church
by this discussion, when she was in the enjoyment
of peace after
the troubles created by Novatus. The other pretended
proofs of Barruel
are still more feeble, and
(do not
deserve discussion.
We only say that
he has displayed
an extraordinary audicity
in in confronting thus the most illustrious scholars
of every school, who
admit
this letter as authentic,
without any dispute.
† Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book VII. chap. ix
be judged
by another, neither can he judge another. Let us all
wait the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint
us to the government of his
Church and to judge
our conduct.‡
It is evident
that St. Cyprian
had in view Stephen,
Bishop of Rome, who
had dared to declare those out of
his communion who thought otherwise than he did upon
the baptism of heretics. The Roman Theologians choose to consider
these excommunications by the Bishops
of Rome as sentences which separated
from the Church
those upon whom they fell.
But the manner in which the sentence of Victor in the Easter
question and that of Stephen in the discussion upon the
baptism were considered, proves that they were only regarded
as personal acts of the
Bishop of Rome, and had no other effect than to sever
the relations between him and those
who the unity of did
not share his way
of thinking. As for the Church, that remained intact,
for the very simple reason
that this unity
did not consist
in an union with the Bishop
of Rome, and that those whom he separated from his communion communicated with the rest of
the Church. Those only were considered out of the Church, upon whom excommunication was
declared by the Church
itself in general
council, or in particular councils
to which the rest of
the Church adhered.
The criticism made by St. Cyprian
upon the title of bishop
of bishops leads
one to think that the Bishop
of Rome endeavoured even then to assume it, and recalls a remark of
Tertullian.*
This learned priest
of Carthage said ironically of a Roman bishop whose teaching he censured: "I learn that an edict has been given,
even a peremptory edict, the Sovereign Pontif,
that is, the Bishop
of Bishops has said: 'I remit the sins of impurity and of fornication to those
who do penance.' O edict! not less
then can be done than to ticket
it--Good work. But where shall such an edict be posted? Surely,
I think upon the
doors of the houses of
prostitution."… Tertullian equally ridicules the titles of Pope and apostolic which had been taken
by the Bishops of Rome. Men like
Zephyrinus and Callistus his successor,† could well appropriate
pompous titles that they did not deserve; but the Church, instead
of recognizing their
legitimacy, and regarding them as
emanating from a divine
right, censured them by
her most learned doctors,
and looked upon them as
the evil fruit of pride and ambition.
St. Cyprian would not have been consistent with himself if he had submitted and declared himself in favour of the pretensions of the Bishops
of Rome. In fact, in his Treatise
upon Church Unity, he positively denies the primacy of St.
Peter himself; he makes that Apostle merely to be the type
of unity, which resided
in the apostolic college as a whole; and by
succession in the whole episcopal body, which he calls the see of Peter.
It is only by a series of the
strangest
of distortions that the Roman theologians understand by this
last expression the see of Rome.
They can not give such a sense to
it without completely forgetting the rest of the
text from which this is taken.
We will give it as an
example among a thousand of the
want of good faith of the
partisans of popery, when they cite from ancient
traditions. After mentioning the powers promised to St. Peter, St. Cyprian remarks that Jesus Christ promised them to him
alone, though they were to be given to all. "In order to show faith unity," he says,
"the Lord
‡ Concil.
carth. St. Cyprian, pp. 329, 330, Bened.
edit.
* Tertull. de Pudicitia, § 1.
† See the work entitled - Filosofoúmena upon the scandal of
these two unworthy bishops, which
with justice has been 'attributed to St.
Hippolytus, Bishop
of Ostia, or to the learned
priest Calus. It is certain at any rate
that this book is the work
of a writer contemporary with the events recorded, and one who enjoyed
great
authority in
the Roman Church. Tertullian reproaches a bishop
of Rome with having adopted, owing to the
seductions of Praxeas,
the heresy of the Patripassians, (Lib. adv. Prax. § 1.) The author of
Filosofoúmena
attributes this heresy
to
Zephyrinus and to Callistus,
Bishops of Rome at that
time.
He did not believe, it is evident, In their infallibility.
has
wished that unity might draw
its origin from one only.‡ The OTHER APOSTLES
certainly WERE JUST WHAT PETER WAS, having
the SAME,, honor AND POWER AS HE.§ All
are shepherds, and the flock nourished by all the Apostles
together is one, in order that the Church of Christ may appear in its unity."
The see of Peter
in St. Cyprian's idea, is the authority of the apostolic body, and, by succession, of the episcopal body;
all the bishops had the same honour
and the same authority, in all that relates to their order, as
the
Apostles had the SAME HONOR AND AUTHORITY AS PETER.
Since St. Cyprian
admits this principle, how has
it been possible to misconstrue some
of his expressions as has been done?
Even were it necessary to understand the see of
Peter to mean the see of
Rome, there would follow nothing favorable to the pretensions of the bishop of
that see, since as bishop he would
possess no more honor, no more authority than the others; and, as
St. Cyprian further proves, the episcopate is one, and the bishops possess it jointly and severally.
But the Bishop
of Carthage calls the Church of Rome root and womb of
the Catholic Church.* What follows if such expressions were generally employed
in his time to designate
all the apostolic churches? No one
denies the Church
of Rome was founded by the
Apostles-
-it was thus a root of
the Catholic Church, a mother church--but not exclusively THE ROOT-- THE mother of
the Church. In fact, Tertullian calls all the apostolic churches
wombs and ORIGINATORS - which means,
“mothers having
given origin to others;Ӡ the same divine calls Jerusalem-mother of religion, matricem
religionis.‡‡ The first Council
of Constantinople§§ gave to the Church of Jerusalem, the title of mother of all the churches. In Africa the title of
matrix or mother was given to all the great
metropolitan churches.** A Gallican bishop of
the fifth century, Avitus of
Vienne, wrote to the Patriarch of Jerusalem: “Your apostolate exercises a primacy granted to it by God: and it is careful
to show that it occupies
a principal place, (principem
locum) in the Church
not only by its privileges, but by
its merits."†† Thus it is not surprising
that St. Cyprian should give the title of mother
church-root of the church to
that of Rome, which had given
birth to others,
perhaps even in Africa, and whose
origin was of apostolic date.
Through the Apostles she was, like other apostolic
churches, the mother and
root of the Catholic Church. Since these qualifications are not given to her in an
exclusive manner, they prove nothing in favour of the
authority she claims. No one
denies that Rome has
been one of the most important centres
of Christian radiation over the world; no
one disputes that she was a powerful, venerable, and apostolic church.
But all concurs
to
‡ Here Is the explanation of the
passage, of which we have already spoken, where St. Cyprian
calls the Church of Rome “Source of sacredotal unity."
§ In
some manuscripts, in this place it has been added, “But the primacy has been
given to Peter,
in order that there might
be but one church and
one see. Sed .primatus Petro datur ut una Ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur.”
These words could be explained
in a
sense not Ultmmontane, by that which precedes in St.
Cyprian upon Peter--his type of
unity; but it is useless to
waste time in explaining an interpolated text. Thus it
was regarded by the
learned Baluze, who prepared the edition of the works
of St. Cyprian, published subsequently
by the Benedictine
Don
Maran. When that edition was published, one named Masbaret, professor
at the Seminary of Angers, obtained authority
from the government to reestablish the passage. It was
at that
time thought desirable not
to oppose Rome, and
the passage
was inserted by
means of a card.
See I'Histoire des
Capitulaires, in
which notice the observations of Chiniac upon
the Catalogue of the Works of Stephen Baluze.
* St. Cyprian letter 45
to Cornelius.
† Tertul. Præscript, c. xxi.
‡‡ Tertul. adv. Marcionem Book
IV.
c. xxxv.
§§ Labbe, Collect. des Conciles.
** See Conciles d'Afrique.
Same collection.
†† Works of St. Avitus, edited by Father Sirmond. 2d
volume
of
the miscellaneous works of P. Sirmond.
prove that her importance
did not confer
universal authority upon her
during the first centuries.
We see that as early
as the third century, the Bishops
of Rome, because St. Peter
had been one of
the founders of that see, claimed to exercise
a certain authority over the rest of
the Church, giving themselves sometimes the title of
bishop of bishops; but we
also see that the whole Church protested against these ambitious pretensions, and held them of no account.
Since the Roman theologians attach
so much importance to the testimony of St. Cyprian and Tertullian, we have
been obliged to determine the sense
of it in a clear and precise manner. To the texts of the great
Carthaginian bishop we
will add some of Tertullian,
which are of high importance, because the Roman theologians have wished
to interpret them in
their favor.
In his book
against Marcion,‡‡ he
expresses himself thus: "If it be proved, to begin
with: that is most true which is most primitive; that is most primitive which has
been from the commencement; that which was from
the commencement was
established by the Apostles; it will then be equally unquestionable, that that has been given
by the Apostles which has
been held sacred by the apostolic churches. Let us
see what milk the Corinthians
have received of St. Paul; according to what law the Galatians have been corrected; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read; what the Romans our
neighbors announce, they who have
received direct from Peter and Paul the Gospel
attested by their blood. We have also the churches nourished by John." . .
The Church of Rome is here assigned its proper place, which is after the apostolic
churches, whose foundation was anterior to her own.
Tertullian does
not esteem her witness superior to that of others; only he establishes
one fact, namely, that the Church of Rome, the only apostolic Church of the West, was nearer than the others, and it was therefore more easy for him
and his opponents to ascertain her
testimony touching the questions that divided
them.
In his book De
Prœscriptionibus Tertullian develops the same doctrine
of the witness of apostolic churches, and he appeals to that of
the Church of Rome in the same manner as
in his book against Marcion.
“That which the Apostles
have preached," he said,* "that is to say, that
which Christ has revealed to them, I
claim by prescription, that it should only be proved
by the churches that the Apostles
have founded, teaching them, either viva voce, or by their epistles. If this be so, all
doctrine that agrees with that of
the apostolic churches, mothers and sources of faith.† is
agreeable to the truth."
Further on, Tertullian applies
this general principle.
"Let us glance,"‡ he says, " at the apostolic churches, where the sees of the apostles still remain, where their epistles are still read, where their voice still resounds,
and their face, as it were,
is still seen. Is
it Achaia that is near thee? thou hast Corinth;
if thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast the Philippians; if thou canst go
to Asia, thou hast Ephesus; if thou
dwellest near Italy, thou hast -Rome, whose authority
is near us. How happy is that
church to whom the Apostles have given all its doctrine with their blood-where Peter suffered
death like his Lord, where Paul was crowned by the death of John the Baptist, whence the Apostle John, after being plunged
into boiling oil without suffering any ill, was banished to
an island.
Let us see what that church says, what it teaches, what it testifies in common with
‡‡ Tertull.
adv.
Marcion. Book IV. § 5.
* Tertul De Prœscript.
§ xxi.
† Matricibus et originalibus fidei.
‡ Tertul De Prescript. § xxxvi.
the churches of Africa."
The Romish theologians ordinarily content themselves with quoting that part of the text we have put in italics. They are careful
not to call attention to the fact that Tertuillian
speaks of the Church of Rome, only after the other apostolic churches, and in the same
character; that he appeals
specially to her evidence, only because it was the apostolic church nearest to Africa, whose testimony it was most easy to obtain.
These observations, the importance and truth of which
all will understand, destroy
completely the interpretation that these theologians endeavour to give to the few lines they cite. This doubtless
is why they ordinarily pass the
others over in silence.
The Romish theologians have eagerly collected many causes
brought for adjudication to the see of
Rome
during the first three centuries, and have instanced them as proofs of
the superior authority of the
bishops of this see over all the Church. Nevertheless, these appeals
prove absolutely nothing
in favour of that
authority. The principal
instances upon which they rely
are those of Origen, of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, of Paul of Samosata, and of the Novatians. We will examine these cases in the light of authentic historical monuments.
First we will
establish a general principle which determines their true character, as well
as that of the appeals addressed subsequently to the Bishop
of Rome; it is, that an appeal to
a see or a bishop is not a proof
in favour of its authority. During the first three centuries,
frequent intercourse existed
between the bishops; and if a discussion arose in one particular
church, those who endeavoured to prove to their adversaries that they were wrong,
addressed themselves to other bishops, praying them to make known
the belief of their churches, so as
to condemn those who wished to give force to new
opinions. Distant churches
were most commonly appealed
to, such as could not be suspected of partiality, apostolic churches, or bishops who enjoyed a high reputation for holiness or learning. Those who were condemned
in the West appealed
to the East, and those
who were condemned in the East appealed
to the West, and above all to Rome, which was
the only apostolic church of that
country.
It is very natural that the Church of Rome should not have been excluded
from these appeals; but, before alleging these appeals in support
of her supreme authority, it would
be necessary to show her
to have been the only one appealed
to, and that her sentences
were received as emanating
from that authority. We shall
see that such was not the case.
Origen never appealed
to Rome, notwithstanding many Romish theologians affirm that he did. Condemned at first by
the bishops of Egypt, subsequently by several others, and in particular by the
Bishop of Rome, he saw fit to justify himself before those who
had condemned him. "But he also wrote," says
Eusebius,* "to Fabianus, Bishop
of Rome, and to
many
others of the bishops of churches, respecting his orthodoxy."
Such is, in all its simplicity,
the fact in which Roman theologians have found
a proof of the primacy in authority and jurisdiction of
the Bishops of Rome. They carefully avoid
quoting the text of
Eusebius, and have passed over in silence the opinion of St.
Jerome touching the condemnations
of which Origen had been the object. Jerome, after speaking
of the innumerable labours
of the learned priest
of Alexandria, cries,† " What reward has he
received for so much toil and sweat?
He is condemned by Bishop Demetrius,
and, excepting the bishops of Palestine, Arabia,
Phœnicia and Achaia,
he is unanimously condemned by all. Even Rome assembled her Senate (that is, her synod)
against him; not that he taught new
dogmas, not that he held heretical
opinions, as those who bark
after him like furious
dogs would persuade us; but because they could not bear the brilliancy of his
eloquence and learning, and because, when he
spoke, all the others
seemed dumb."
* Euseb. Hist.
Eccl. Book
VI. chap. xxxvi.
† Ap. Ruff, liv. ii.
Thus, according to St. Jerome, the clergy
of Rome associated themselves
in low intrigues against Origen; and, according
to Eusebius, this great
man wrote to the Bishop of Rome as he wrote to many others
to justify his faith.
We ask
what this fact proves for the authority of the
Bishops of Rome.
The case of St. Dionysius of Alexandria proves nothing more. Many of the faithful, not having understood the teaching of this great bishop against
Sabellius and his partisans,
went to Rome, and attributed a heretical doctrine to him. A
council was then holding
in that city. The Roman bishop wrote, in the name of
the
council, a letter
to Dionysius of Alexandria, to ascertain if it were true that he taught the doctrine
attributed to him. The Bishop of Alexandria sent to Rome a work he
had composed and in which his sentiments
were set forth with precision.
Such is the substance of what
St. Athanasius and Eusebius
wrote on this point.
Now, because one bishop
asks in the name of a
council, for information from another bishop
respecting his faith, must we
conclude that the bishop who seeks this information possesses authority and jurisdiction over him to whom he writes? It is not only the right but the duty of
every bishop to seek to enlighten a brother whom he believes in error, and to hold himself ready to give an account of his
own faith. Thus, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria
performed an imperative duty; neither of them
exercised authority.
Again, because
many went to Rome to accuse him, is there, therefore, no reason to say that they recognized a superior authority in this see?
Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, wishing to have Marcianus of Arles condemned, accused
him to St. Cyprian. Did he thereby acknowledge a superior authority in St. Cyprian? Two wicked bishops, who showed in their favour letters from the Bishop
of Rome,* were condemned by St. Cyprian
upon the accusation of the Spanish bishops.
Shall we infer that
the Spanish
bishops acknowledged in Cyprian
an authority not only over their church,
but superior to that of
the Bishop of Rome ? The history
of the Church affords numerous
examples of
bishops who appealed to each other, and that without recognizing
any authority
in those to whom the causes
were submitted.
Dionysius of Alexandria,†† himself received
complaints against the doctrine
of Paul of Samosata, Bishop
of Antioch, as the Bishop
of Rome had received
them against his. As
that bishop had written
to him, he wrote to the Bishop
of Antioch, to inform
him of the accusations made against him. He addressed himself to Paul in the name of his
clergy, as the Bishop of Rome had addressed him in the name of
the Roman council.
The Bishop of Antioch replied, in order to give explanations; and Dionysius, not finding
them sufficiently clear, wrote
back to refute them. The bishops of Syria assembled at Antioch
to judge Paul. They wrote to Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and to Dionysius
of Alexandria, praying them to come and judge with them. Had
they
thus written to the Bishop of Rome, the
Romish theologians would have gloried in the fact, which, nevertheless, would
prove nothing more in favour of the
jurisdiction of that bishop, than it proves
in favour of that of
Firmilian
or of Dionysius.
The latter could not present himself at the council,
because of a serious malady
that shortly after laid him in the tomb; but he wrote to the Council of Antioch a letter which was
sent to the whole Church by a Second council that terminated the case of
Paul of Samosata.
This heretical bishop having wished to continue in the episcopal dwelling, the bishops, in order to have him expelled, wrote
to the Emperor Aurelian
at Rome, who, says
* Letters of St. Cyprian.
†† Euseb, Decl. Hist Book VII chap. xxviii. and
xxx.
Library of the Fathers, vol. xi.
Eusebius,‡ "decided most equitably, ordering the building
to be given up to those to whom
the Christian bishops of Italy and Rome should write."
The second Council of Antioch had written to the Bishop
of Rome as well as to the successor of Dionysius in the see of Alexandria. The Church of Italy
adhered to the sentence
of the council against
Paul of Samosata, who was driven from the Church.
It has been wished to find in the decision of Aurelian, a proof in favor of
the universal jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Rome. It is more accurate
to say that the Emperor, in the affair upon which he had been consulted, wished to
hear the testimony of bishops, who could not
be reasonably challenged by either party, because
they were not interested to favour one more
than another; of bishops whose sentence he himself could easily
ascertain, since he
lived among them. It must be remarked that the Emperor did not give as
final the sentence of the Bishop
of Rome; he named him with the other
bishops of Italy, and after them ; and if he mentioned him in a special manner, it was
evidently because of the importance of his
see, established
in the capital of the
empire, and not because
he enjoyed any particular authority.
There must truly
be great need of
proofs in favour of the
Roman supremacy, when
its supporters look for them in the conduct of a pagan emperor; while
all the ecclesiastical
details of
the affair of Paul of Samosata prove that supremacy had not been recognized by the
Church.
The case of the Novatians is not more favourable to their system. The schism of Novatus of Carthage is easily confounded with that of Novatian of Rome. The partisans
of Novatian like those of
Novatus, affected an extreme rigor toward those
whom persecution had overcome. Novatian
having established his schism
at Rome, as Novatus had done at
Carthage, the schismaties of Rome endeavoured to obtain the support of the Church of Africa, as the schismatics of Carthage that of the Church
of Rome. From their relations
and appeals one might as
fairly infer the supremacy of
Carthage over Rome. But the Romish theologians endeavour to fix the attention only upon that of Rome; wherefore
is easily understood. Their
efforts are useless,
for facts confound them.
St. Cyprian in several
councils severely condemned the opinions of Novatus and Novatian. The first, a most zealous
partisan of sentiments which were not less
than criminal seeing he was about to be brought
to trial, fled to Rome. There he had an understanding with Novatian, who aspired to the Episcopate of that city, and caused
him to be proclaimed
bishop, although Cornelius
was already lawfully elected.
Cornelius and his competitor
addressed themselves to the Bishop of Carthage. Cyprian believed in the lawfulness of Cornelius' election; yet he did not admit him at once to
his communion, because of the
letters of his rival.
He called a council
of the bishops of Africa, who determined to send two of their number to Rome, in order to learn what had happened there. The result
being favourable to Cornelius, communion
was established between him and the bishops of Africa.
Novatian still continued to call himself the Bishop
of Rome, and renewed his appeals
to the Church of Africa. He was foiled by the energy of Cyprian, but nevertheless gained some partisans. At Rome his party
was considerable. Cyprian interfered to reestablish the order of the Church, and succeeded., and Cornelius
informed him of
the happy event.
Up to this time, it is rather the Bishop of Carthage who influences the affairs of the Church of Rome, than the Bishop
of Rome, those of
the Church of Carthage. But soon after, the schismatics of the
latter city elected
a bishop who sought communion with the Church of Rome. This party afterward divided in two
portions, each one choosing
a bishop; this division weakened them.
Not
having been able to gain any partisans
in Africa, they
‡ Eusebius Eccl, Hist. Book VII.
chap.
xxx.
presented themselves at Rome, to accuse Cyprian, as formerly they bad accused
Cornelius before the Bishop of Carthage. The Bishop of Rome permitted himself to be shaken
by their calumnies; but he arrived
at other conclusions after having received
the letters of Cyprian.
Novatian's party existed
at Rome after the death of
Cornelius. He had partisans in most of the churches. Marcianus, Bishop of
Arles, was of the number.
Faustinus, Bishop of
Lyons, believed it necessary under these circumstances to appeal
for support to the principal bishops of the West, in order to condemn Marcianus. He
therefore addressed Stephen,
Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian.
The latter had written
to the Bishop of Rome, to tell him what he ought to do
under the circumstances. He was himself too far from the seat of the
trouble to give much attention to the case, and he entreated
his brother of Rome to write to the clergy and people of Arles, advising them to depose Marcianus.
In all these facts, related
exactly after authentic documents,* nothing can be seen but an equal intervention by the bishops of Rome and Carthage, in the affairs
of the Church, an equal
desire to entertain
friendly relations between
them, and to be in perfect
communion. If St.
Cyprian praises Cornelius and the Church
of Rome for condemning the schismatics of
Africa, he had previously blamed them for having
hesitated to pronounce
between him and the
illegitimate bishop who had
presented himself at Rome. Happy
that his adversaries had not found in
that church the support
they hoped for, he gave great praise
to the Romans, and it was then he wrote that famous passage, which has
been so much abused:
“They (his adversaries) dared to embark
and carry their letters to the see of Peter, to the
principal church from which sacerdotal unity has
sprung, not thinking there were the Romans whose faith the Apostle has praised, and to whom perfidy can have no access."
We have explained according to St. Cyprian himself, the expressions from which the
Romish theologians would draw such vast conclusions.
It only remains for us, therefore, to notice that the circumstances
and the context take from them all the importance
it has been
sought to attribute to them. It was
right that St. Cyprian should thank the Church of Rome
for declaring in his favour against his adversaries. In order
to do this, he recalls the memory
of its two founders--of St. Peter, who was the type of unity
in the apostolic, and, by consequence, of the Episcopal body;
of St. Paul, who had
praised the faith of
the Romans. It must be observed, it is not to the Bishop of Rome
that he gives this praise,
but to the clergy and faithful
of that Church, who, at
his prayer, had read his letters, and before whom he had pleaded his cause. In his
eyes the bishop
is nothing without
his clergy and the faithful, and he grants him no
personal prerogative. This text of St.
Cyprian, therefore, is contrary, not favourable to the system
of a Papal autocracy. Any one will be convinced of this
who reads entire the letters
of the bishops of Rome and Carthage. They both act only in concert with the
clergy of their Church
and the bishops of their province; neither
assumes any personal
authority.
* See chiefly the Letters of St. Cyprian
No comments:
Post a Comment