Primitive Church

I
-'

--
-'
THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

AND THE
PRIMACY OF ROME

AND THE
PRIMACY OF ROME
BY PROFESSOR
GIORGIO BARTOLI
HODDER AND STOUGHTON

LONDON MCMX
y,'<:Â<^s
'iTQUfi
{The Italian version oj
this
e le Chiese cristiane,'
FrinUd
ly EazUl,
work appears
G. Barioli.
WaUon &
Viney, Ld.,
as
'^
II Cristianesimo
Florence: O.Jalla!]
London and AyUibury.
PREFACE
rriHIS
demands
book
which,
am
an
introduction,
will
afraid,
have to be
mainly occupied with myself.

Until eighteen months ago
Society
the
of
more
so.
Society.
Jesus
of
was
not
I left it of
was a member
now
expelled
my own
am no
from
that
accord, because
the religious opinions and doctrines I held

did not any longer agree with the opinions
and doctrines held sacred by that Society.
As
Jesus
long as
my
remained in the Society of
Superiors never complained of
for reasons other
than those connected with
On
differences in doctrine.
appeal to
me.
all
the Jesuits
served
me
the
this point I
who have known
Society
of
Jesus
twenty-seven years with the utmost
261407
can
for
fidelity,
PREFACE
obedience, and self-sacrifice.
and languages
literature,
Society, both
of the
in
the
Word
God
of
and
languages,
regular writer
home and abroad
at
years
five
on the
staiF
Civilta
Cattolica,
Rome
published at
of Jesus, and
Rome
of
The
my
why have
so,
of
the Jesuit
which
of
is
the
the Papacy.
of
I left the Society
against
rebelled
the Church
history of
life
and
was
under the eye
Pope, and in the interest
Things being
have preached
in different countries
for
La
magazine
taught science,
several colleges
in
Europe and Asia.
i.e.
these
was narrated
two years of
last
in
letter
which I
addressed to the Italian newspaper // Corriere

della Sera,
firom
which
a few quotations.
forced from
liberal
me.
" I
and
Here
left
me by
clerical
it is
venture to
This letter was
make
almost
the stupid reports which
papers
circulated about
the Society of Jesus for reasons
of conscience, for which I

none, save to
God
alone.
vi
am
answerable to
But those reasons
PREFACE
For
were not the only ones.
this last year,
owing to doctrinal accusations brought by

unkno^vTi
me
forbade
first
to
centres of culture
possible for
learned
my
people against me,
me
then they made
to
to
wi'ite,
my
any way
inclination for scientific studies
me
im-
it
any intercourse with
study,
exercise in
and
in large cities
live
to hold
men, to
any book, to
Superiors
to preach, they relegated
print
natural
they forbade
me
to a
town
of secondary importance, where I could have
no contact whatever with books or students

I
was
settled
ordered
to
duty or fixed occupation
commanded me never
any
there without
live
go
to
finally,
out
they
of the
my brethren, who was

to keep a watch upon my private conversations and report them to my Superiors.
house without one of
And
all this
in the
name
of our
Lord Jesus
Christ
"
in
Were these rigorous measures against me

any way justified
Was I the heretic
?
and modernist
answer
briefly
was supposed to
and simply
vii
be
was condemned
PREFACE
not only before
knew who were my
accusers,
me
but before any definite charge against
had been
in doctrinal matters
on
the
came
know
to
Roman
Later
stated.
the wrong opinions (from

view)
of
point
and
religious
me;
doctrines which were imputed to
many
as a matter of fact,
me
were never held by
but,
of those opinions
nay, I had preached
and written against some of them publicly
and
acknowledged
explicitly.
others
mine but they were minor points of

;
opinions
or
any
rate,
most
my
rehgious
referred to free theological matter
not appertain to the

" Feeling sure of
my
a serious punishment
publicly preached
they did
just claim, I asked
inflict
for
upon me such
faults
either not
committed or greatly exaggerated.
in
opinions
faith.
the Superiors not to
acknowledged
At
and learned men.
of
denied any justice.
doctrine,
and vindicated by a
accepted
host of theologians
as
My
was
Superiors, however,
writing that I had never
erroneous
they persisted in carrying out

viii
doctrines
my
but
punishment.
PREFACE
I
my
appealed from
Superiors to the
local
General of the whole Society.
was
Rome
to
asked permission to go to
rejected.
myself
clear
this last favour.
if
appealed
and protect
me
to,
the
was denied
inquired of a friend
whether the authorities of the

would,
of
personally
charges brought against me.
even
appeal
IVIy
Roman Church
look
against
my
into
my
Superiors.
case
I
was answered that the tribunal of the Church
my
could and would do nothing in
There was, then, nothing

to submit to a
in
left
for
behalf.
me
but
of slavery and idleness
life
the Society of Jesus, or to rebel against
the Society and the

latter
course.
Church.
wrote
chose the
to
letter
my
Superiors and abandoned the Society and the
Roman
Church."
Surely no
the resolution
sensible
I
then took.
vigorous
healthy,
man
wonder at
will
I
was
still
young,
endowed, moreover, with
an intense wash to study, to preach, to write,

to
employ myself
bours.
in the service of
my
saw myself reduced, by a

ix
neigh-
false
and
PREFACE
absurd religious system, to impotence, con-
demned
my
of
most abject
to the
mind and
slavery, the slavery
doomed
soul,
my own
though slow, destruction of

ality.
my
of
stroke I broke off the chains
slavery,
and returned to the
liberty of
What man
of sense,
wonder
I repeat, can
my
at
I should like, however, to

in this connection.
Although
in
owing to
my
turned to
in public,
these
last
years
of
my
mind and
more
of Christianity,
yet,
About
my
written testimony of
way because
Roman
this I possess the
Superiors.
think
soul
and
never preached any but
Catholic doctrines.
life,
spiritual
purer,
rebellion?
make three stateThe first is this.
my
studies,
conception
evangelical
in this
person-
At one
the children of God.
ments
to a sure,
it
is
I acted
highly im-
moral and dishonest for a clergyman to preach

doctrines not received
he
is
by the Church of which
the paid minister.
years of
my
points of
life I
Roman
any longer
For these
last three
ceased preaching on certain

doctrine which 1 did not
believe, e,g,
on the Papacy, the
PREFACE
Church, the nature of the sacraments, char-
and the hke
acter,
but
moment
truth, that never for a
my
can affirm, with
did
betray
conscience or the Church.
second
In the
place
maintain
should never have had the
that
courage to set
myself in open opposition to the Church of
Rome
had
not been pushed to
by
and
lived
persecution
my
was
old friends, of course, deplore
fanatical
that
it
body of ignorant
and monks
priests
in
whose
hands the direction of the Romish Church

to-day and will continue to
me
to
believe
superstitions
circulation
by
they induced
my
But they have
secession from the Church.
only to thank for
for
The Roman Church
tinued, begets rebellion.
and
views, I
Tyranny, when con-
three years subjected.
my
domestic
the
to which, on account of
and
whom
the people amongst
fanaticism of
by the
it
lie.
and to preach
By
all
lies
forcing
sorts
of
and errors which they put into

their pulpits
me
first
and
in their books,
to doubt, then to dis-
beheve, dogmas and points of

xi
Roman
doctrine
PREFACE
me
which to
were once
But whose
divine.
true, sacred, infaUible,
fault
was
this
Rome, by wishing
repeats itself:
must, in the end, lose
History-
to get
all,
all.
was obliged to leave the Society
Finally, I
of Jesus and the Church because I lay under
the imputation of being a modernist

truth
was ever
and
My
one.
friends,
and English modernists, may
Italian
if I
never was
but in
their
in
sympathy with
ideas.
As
the
testify
their beliefs
a matter
of
fact,
opposed that religious movement from the

very beginning, and
did not conceal from
Father Tyrrell
my
certain that
was bound to
it
distrust of
modernism
rejects the
fail,
On
lacked a sound foundation.
New
it
Critics,
for
it
the one hand,
on the other
My
faith,
contrary, rests on the Bible, and
alone
because
Papacy
likewise discards the
support of the Church.
knew
Testament as the
sole foundation of Christianity
hand,
it.
as the
on the
on the Bible
not the Bible of the extreme Higher
but
reformers
the
Bible
of
those
and learned theologians

xii
religious
who
in
PREFACE
the sixteenth
century revolted
Roman
against the
mine, their belief
My
Their faith
Church.
my
is
readers will, I hope, not find
In 1896
change.
my
amiss
it
intellectual
was at Bombay
in India,
waiting for a steamer which was to
me
my
to
German
an
against
local
which had commented
fresh
me
from
my
Anglican
studies,
I
work immediately.
St.
was
and a newly made

thought
my
was an
it
Anglican writer
of the weakness of his position
by
paper,
in a rather ill-natured
easy thing to convince
article
to write
the " Claims of the Papacy."
doctor in theology.
to
carry
Canara.
Jesuit, since dead, asked
article
way on
South
in
college
is
belief.
subjoin here the story of
if I
successfully
set
In the course of
my
so
quoted against him certain words
Cyprian in his treatise
JEcckske, which, as
once for
all
it
De
Unitate
seemed to me,
settled
the
claims
the lawfulness of
of the Papacy to universal domination.

friend the
German
smiled, stared
at
Jesuit
read
me, and asked

xiii
my
My
article,
me where
"
PREFACE
my
I had studied
know," he
just
by
not
"that the words you have
quoted were never uttered or written

Cyprian
St.
in Italy
are
said,
You do
"
theology.
works
it
is
later
And you mean
to say that
not generally
known
that they
interpolation
in
Cyprian's
St.
me
These words stung

first I
wondered
could be true;
if
having
so.
been
Then
At
friend's bold assertion
study of the
but a short
question convinced
tionably
my
to the quick.
me
that
was unques-
it
got very indignant at
basely imposed
upon by
my
Professors of Theology, who, either through
culpable ignorance were not
famous interpolation
in Cyprian's works, or,
in the interest of the Papacy,
to ignore
I
it.
aware of the
had preferred
I suspected, therefore, that as
had once been deceived
in
my
studies,
might have been so God knows how often

besides.
In consequence,
resolved, there
and then, to study the whole of
my
theology
over again for myself.

I
have been true to

xiv
my
resolve of 1896.
PREFACE
For ten long
eventful
life
years, in the midst of a very
and manifold
studies, in
India,
in
Europe, as a teacher, a preacher, a writer
in
the Clvilta
Cattolica,
beloved studies of theology.

again
the treatises
all
went over
read the Fathers
my
never forgot
of the Church in their most recent editions

I
thought a good deal
of
made myself acquainted with

histories of Christian dogma
I took
Christianity
several
on the origins
a keen interest in everything appertaining to

Patristic
left
and
Biblical criticism, and, finally, I
nothing undone that might clear up
doubts and make
my
mind.
carried
And
my
heart
note this
studies
theology
consulted
as with regard
Mazrella,
Stentrup, Wiceburgenses, Hurter,

tinis,
were
on almost exclusively with the help
of Catholic books and scholars

to
peace with
at
my
my
Lepicier, Pepe,
and
Bilhot,
De Augus-
others, not to say
anything of the older schoolmen and theologians
of the sixteenth
history of Christian
Thomassin,
dogma
Bingham,
century.
I
For the
read Bellarminus,
Rauschen,
Moehler,
PREFACE
Bardenhewer, Schwane, Turmel, and Harnack,
to
whom
must add
and Salmon, whose books
Fairbairn,
but recently, when

developed to
of
for other subjects, Gore,
my
my present
had
ideas
already
evangelical standard
faith.
These
scientific
studies,
conducted
honesty,
severity
by
of
conscientious fidelity, convinced

Christian doctrine which the
serves
is
I read
up to her
and
priests
me
with
method, and
me
that the
Rome
Church of
faithful
members
not the theology of the Bible or of the
Primitive Christian Church, but an

system, based partly on
Holy
Scripture, partly
on Aristotelian philosophy, partly

apocryphal
authority,
on
texts,
legends
of
also
on
doubtful
on wilful alterations and interpola-
tions of ancient canons,

relics
artificial
of old heathenism.
on
superstitions
and
Finally, I persuaded
myself that a catholic or a truly universal

consent on the
existed
dogmas of the Roman Church
neither
in
the
past
nor
in
the
present.
These opinions, of course, are

xvi
far
from
"
PREFACE
Roman
being received in the

are officially
condemned
as heretical
and opposed to Catholic
testant,
Therefore, at the end of
my
They
Church.
and Prodoctrines.
studies, I
myself deeply at variance with the
my
creed of
What
"
found
official
Church.
a
will
learned
man
do,"
asked
V. Ermoni in the Quinzai?ie of February 16,

1904,
*'
if,
at the close of
deep and conscien-
tious studies, he arrives at conclusions
no manner agree with the
in
of his Church
Ought he
convictions of his
official
which
creed
to reject the dearest
conscience and
turn his
back on what he believes to be the truth
He should
continue to study, answers Ermoni,
But
and endeavour to change opinion.

that
is
not possible?
adds, the learned
but
this
man
In this
case,
if
Ermoni
has no other alternative
he must say, from the bottom of
his heart, " I believe
and
I adore."
Ermoni's solution of the case
is
right
and
good when the mind of the pious and learned

Christian
is
anxious about the fundamental
mysteries of Christianity, which

xvii
we can
indeed
PREFACE
believe but
my
case
moment doubted
I never for a
This was not
not understand.
fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
me
detached
is
Ahat
not
her
not the Bible
preserved by her, but the arbitrary
Holy
interpretations of
imposes on
the
much good
that
degeneration,
which her
accept,
was
Paganism
Christianity, but her
which
Rome
from
the
Christian world
of
not
the
in her, but the evils of
is
of
superstition,
priests
to
Scripture which she
are
by her to
required
and
practise,
idolatry,
defend
to
with
and Aristotelian subtle-
scholastic sophistries
ties.
This was
Had
turning-point
I listened to
of the
of
the
flesh, 1
Jesus,
my
life.
the world or to the voice
should not have
much
of
less
the
left
the Society
Church.
had
nothing to gain, but everything to lose by

the change.
On
the contrary,
happy land of compromises

at all costs.
Moreover,
it is
Italy
is
the
and of peace
highly fashionable
with us openly to disagree with the religious

creed of the Church and at the same time
xviii
TREFACE
to profess oneself a
could
not do
good and obedient Catholic.

not
could
so.
preach
doctrines which I did not believe, profess, as

divinely revealed,
human
be
inventions
and usages which

finally, I
dogmas which
knew
defend customs,
to
rites,
held to be superstitious
could not accept the claims of the
my
Papacy, which
studies
had shown
me
to
be not primitive, but unscriptural and maintained in opposition to half the world.
duty to God and

I
my
conscience was clear:
Roman Church and
protested against the
left
I\Iy
her fold.
This book contains the substance and the

of a
conclusions
few of those momentous
questionings which for ten long years occupied
my
It does not pretend to
thoughts.
theology.
In
fact, I
wrote
ideas
than
my own
up
others.
But
friends for
regard suggested to
as
it
rather to clear
to
whom
be
I
read
by
have much
that I should print
it,
might do some good to souls who were
in the
I
me
it
much
same
spiritual difficulties as
comply with
their
advice,
xix
my
own.
and present
it
PREFACE
in
an English dress to the indulgent reader,
who, I
my
am
sure, will see for himself that,
with
could
not
actual
Evangelical
faith,
honestly remain any longer pledged to obey
the Pope.
I
acknowledge here a debt of deep gratitude
to the Rev.
But
for
him
Donald Matheson, of Oxford.

this
book could not have seen
the light of day in
its
English vesture.
Giorgio Bartoli.
Florence^
XX
CONTENTS
PAOB
CHAP.
I.
II.
The True Church of Christ

Of the Unity of the Church
TO the Scrifpures
III.
Is
Peter
the
Rock
and
Church Government?
IV.
accoiidixg
Centre
.18
of
...
30
The Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers

OF THE Church on St. Peter
V.
What
Tertullian
and
St.
48
Cyprian
thought about the Church of Rome
AND
VI.
its
Bishop
Origin of the
.....
Roman Claims
xxi
78
97
CONTENTS
CHAP.
PAGE
VII.
Religious Development in the Church
125
VIII.
Doctrinal Unity in the Roman Church
144?
The Church
161
IX.
X.
XI.
of Christ and the Gospel
The Democracy
The
of the Church
,173
Florentine, the Tridentine, and
the Vatican Councils

Index of Scripture Texts
Index of References
XXll
....
222
279
281
CHAPTER
THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST

H
dX^êia eXevdepwaei.
ABOUT
five
of the
v/JLas.
'Iwai'.
hundred and
human
32
fifty
millions
race profess Christianity.
those five hundred and
Of
viii.
fifty
millions all
that can think for themselves and are truly

Christians, not only nominally so,
following Christian doctrines
the divinity of Christ.
They
They
Church.
They
recognise
hold that Christ
established a religious society
admit the
which
is
called
recognise that Christ left
certain truths or doctrines to that Society or
Church.
Finally, they admit that the accept-
ance of Christ's doctrines and the practice

of the Christian life are the bonds w^hich unite
members into one society, one Church,

one body formed by Him.
One fact, however, stares them in the face.
the
They cannot
close
their
eyes to
the stern

reality that
many
institutions claim
distinct
the right of being called the Church of Christ,
each one of them holding a special doctrine
which they put forward as the doctrine of

but which, nevertheless, disagrees
Christ,
with the doctrine held by any other of the
institutions.
Hence the
difficulty
quirer, religiously
asks himself:
name
belong
"1.
which besets the
inclined,
To what
Church of Christ
?
2.
How
is
far
'
is
in-
He
twofold.
society does the
really
and by right
unity in doctrine
Church?"
To these two questions the Church of Rome
She alone, of all
has one answer only.
Churches, is the true Church of Christ and
necessary to the unity of the
she alone, exclusively of

institutions,
possesses in
all
its
tirety the doctrine of Christ,
other Christian
purity and en-
and
is its
legally
appointed and authorised teacher.
The Roman Church
holds herself to be the
and true Church of Jesus

She declares all other Churches heretical, schismatical, false
and their followers
out of the fold, cut off from the living Christ,
and condemned to the everlasting fire of
only, the unique
Christ.
heU.

The Church
Rome
of
behef in an almost
has stated this awful
number of official
Middle Ages down
infinite
documents, from the early
own
to our
Reformation
Lutheran
the
become,
Nay, since the days of
times.
if possible,
her
voice
in proclaiming herself the only true
of Christ.
Church
In consequence, she *'not only
forbids the Catholic to profess that
which
has
even sterner and louder
he, led
by the natural
religion
light of reason,
believes to be true," but, moreover, " forbids
him
as
to hope for the eternal salvation of such
do not
Church of
in
live
the
which
Christ,
bosom of the true

is
only the
Roman
Extra Ecdesiam, nulla salus.

of the Church (Roman) there is no
Church."^
Out
salva-
tion.
Here
is,
Fourth
"The
for instance, the definition of the
Lateran
Council
Firmiter).
(cap.
Church of the
Universal
faithful
is
one (the Roman), out of which not even one

gets salvation
Innocent
"
III.,
niillus
the Profession
in
And
omnino salvatur.
of Faith
We
believe
with the heart and profess with the
mouth
prescribed to the Waldenses
one Church only
*'
not the Church of the
Pius IX., in the Syllabus, Propos. XV., XVII.

but
heretics,
Roman
the
holy,
And
one finds salvation."
Cantate Doriiino
the Bull
firmly
who
is
Cathohc, ApostoHc
we
Church, out of which,
believes
and
beheve, not
Eugenius IV.
:
in
" (The
Church)
that
not one
professes
not in the Church (not Pagans, not
even Jews,
partake of
heretics, or schismatics) shall ever
life
...
eternal,
if
before his death
he does not join the same Church
and that
the unity of the ecclesiastical body
is
so very
necessary that the sacraments help towards

eternal
life
only
those
that
live
in
the
bosom of the Church." The same doctrine

was several times proclaimed by Pope
Gregory XVI., by Pius IX. in his Encyclical
of August 10, 1864, and elsewhere in the
Syllabus, as above referred to.
add here
a few words of Pope Pius IX. 's EncycUcal,

because they are very significant
"
We must
again and
again," he says, "mention and

condemn the most grievous error which is
entertained by some Catholics, who think
that heretics, who live far away from the
true faith and Catholic unity,

at
eternal
life.
may
This opinion
is
yet arrive
absolutely
contrary to the Catholic doctrine."

I
know
that
many
4
Roman
theologian

has turned his
mind and pen
rigidity of this doctrine
to soften the
but their
efforts have,
on the wliole, proved abortive. As long as

words have a definite meaning, the official
words of the Church, referred to above, will
for ever proclaim that "out of the Roman
fold there
no salvation."
is
that
tliis
meaning may be gathered
their genuine
from the
And
fact
that,
as
often
as
is
also
Roman
theologian has ventured to print a book up-
holding the milder doctrine, or explaining away

the more rigid one, he has immediately been
silenced,
and
his
Expurgatorius
as
book
put on the Index
infected
and laxity of opinions.
with
This fate
few years ago, Rev. Fr. Castelein,

wrote a book to show that, after
was
some hope
for
Pagans,
liberalism
befell,
who
S.J.,
all,
there
heretics,
and
He
was immediately ordered to

hold his peace, and a ferocious Redemptorist
Father, F. X. Godts, wrote an awful book,
De Paucitate Salvandoruni, against him, and
schismatics.
showed, to
his
own immense
satisf\iction,
that
Roman Church has always taught that

the majority of men "go literally to the
And he adds that this doctrine is
devil."
the
deemed by
certain theologians to be of the

essence of
{dicitur
faith
de
esse
fide)
by
more than true, common, certain,"

and that it was upheld by universal tradition,
by twenty-three Fathers of the Church,
by seventy-four theodoctors, and saints
logians and commentators on Holy Writ
''
others
in fine, that
it
can quote for
itself
the
all
Church documents.^
It
is
Roman
true that
divines, in treating
of Justification, are forced to grant that " an

act of perfect charity will justify a man," even
if
he be out of the
Roman
on
are too explicit
tures
fold.
this
The
Scrip-
subject to be
However, when they pass on to

explain how a heretic may make an act of
gainsaid.
perfect charity they cause

as
of
to render
all,
it
wellnigli
it
to be so difficult
impossible.
an invincible ignorance
is
First
necessary to
may be thereby excused

Roman Church, which alone
the heretic, that he
from joining the

is the true Church of Christ, and in which
Moreover, if the
alone salvation is possible.
heretic be a sinner
sins,
his
he must excite himself to perfect con-
trition
1
and wants to repent of
because
imperfect
Franciscus Xav. Godts, O.F.R.;,
Bruxellis, 1895.
De
contrition
may
Paucitate Sahmndorum.

Roman
suffice to
their sins
from
all
Catholics,
when they
but peiject contrition
is
demanded
Roman
those that are out of the
But then who can get
confess
perfect
fold.
contrition
Perfect charity and perfect contrition are so
according to the majority of
difficult,
divines, that the
somewhat
Roman Church
cruelly,
the
forbids
Roman
logically, if
faithful
to
" hope for the eternal salvation of those that
hve and die out
of her
fold "
(Pius
IX.,
Syllabus, Propos. XVÎI.).
In
pondering
which
is
Roman
over
awful
this
not the doctrine
theologian, but
of
the
this
official
doctrine,
or that
doctrine
one might think the nonCatholics to be very few in number, so as to

the Church,
of
matter very
De
little,
after
all, if
they go to
hell.
minimis non curat prcetor.
The
communion with Rome,
But, just the reverse

Christians
when
not
all told,
in
is
the real truth.
surpass the
Roman
Catholics
by almost eighteen millions as will be made

clear from the following tables, compiled by
;
the Rev. Fr. Krose, S.J., for Die KathoUschen
3Iisdonen, in 1904.
The
learned author has
followed in his statistics Die Bevblherung der
Erde,
Das
Diplomatisches Jahrbuch (Gotha),

Les Missions
Catholiques, the
lished yearly
by the Propaganda Fide, and
other reliable sources.
Country.
statistics
pub-

are reckoned
nowadays
millions are
them
264 millions, yet very few
at
Roman
up
doctrines and live
of
practices
fact as widely
as
circles
is
it
thinking
known
is
in
This
my
part
Roman
admitted and
men
to the religious
Church.
their
gratuitous assumption on
all
amongst
body of the
to be found
that profess the whole
no
is
it
is
ecclesiastical
by
regretted
Our age
of that Churcli.
the age of liberalism, and a liberal educa-
tion brings with
it
more
or less complete
divorce from the doctrines held sacred by the
Roman
Church.
The Roman
hierarchy
still
holds her own, yet the mass of the educated

people falls away from her. France is not the
only well-known instance.
Italy very closely
follows the sister Latin country.
more than
Catholic
half
Ireland,
gone,
and
Austria
even
is
Ireland,
nurses the seed of future
Half her children that leave her

shores fall away from the Roman
rebellions.
green
Church,
or give
up
the
practice
of
moreover,
their
the
religion,
^êry significant,
fact that
the classes that thus forsake their
is
mother, the Church, are chiefly the educated

ones,
i.c,
whose hands
the government of their
those
likely to be,
in
is,
or
is
countries.

If,
is
therefore, the only true
Roman, we
the
Church of Christ
are forced
to
say that
nowadays is reduced to a few

miUions of men and women, most of whom,
Christianity
moreover, profess rather the rehgion of a

renovated Paganism than the true rehgion of
the Gospel of Christ.
weighty one, and has of

late attracted a good deal of attention from
The
difficulty is a
thinking
men
of
Roman communion.
the
Most theologians of the Church of Rome,

whilst admitting the difficulty, confess their
utter inability to solve
selves behind the
They
it,
and
shelter
them-
dark shadow of mystery.
prefer openly to profess their ignorance
rather than widen the limited horizon of their
church-view.
Others
explain
it
away by
having recourse to half a dozen systems of

theology, veritable stumbling-blocks to faith,
rather than helps to
intellect.
a pious and inquiring
few, finally, do not hesitate to
admit that Christ has actually

mission, and strengthen their
quoting
difficult
failed in
position
Scriptural
two or three
and dubious interpretation.
texts
His
by
of
All these answers are downright blasphemy,

sheer want of faith, or supine ignorance.
10

The
at hand.
proposed difficulty
the
of
solution
The Roman
Catholic Church
Church, not the
local
The
Christ.
Church of
univei^sal
Catholic
truly
is
is
universal
or
Church of Christ is invisible, and to her

by right belong all the chosen ones, though
on earth they worship God and His Christ
in different local Churches, by various rites
and
under
and
tongues,
Christian
several
denominations.
Of
course, the
Roman Church
rejects the
theory of an invisible Church, which

all,
is,
after
the only true and universal Church of
Yet
Christ.
admit
it.
earnest Christian
one can
no
fact,
any semblance of
that
truth,
is
The
town,
their
i.e,
witli
souls.
visible
and
true
communion
members of his
it
their
the dead
as
are
in
bodies only, not with
IMoreover,
the idea of an in-
Church, to express the body of true
believers,
whatever
ancient.
with
indeed in the Church,
latter are
but they are in
say,
in spiritual
with the wicked and sinful

Church.
man must
every sane
surely
In
who
alone
are
the
Church,
community they belong,

^Vhen our blessed Lord said,
two or three
are gathered
is
"
to
very
Where
together in
My

am
name, there
(Matt,
unmistakably
of
And
St.
earth.
the
He
20),
xviii.
His
spoke
Ignatius
is,
{Ubi Christus
est,
ad
{Epistula
which
there
wrote
the
the
first
Smyrneos,
cap.
the Head."
Where
"
which
Church,
"the words,
occur
here
literature,
which
of
On
Roman
viii.).
Rauschen,
time in Christian
universal
"
Catholica est Ecclesia)
ibi
Ecclesia,
on
the Cathohc Church
is
Catholic scholar, remarks that

Catholica
Church
Martyr expressed
he
Gerardus
Dr.
and
clearly
invisible
same idea when
Jesus Christ
them"
the midst of
in
for
mean
Christ
is
'
Indeed from the
first
there was obviously a
between true and untrue Christians,

between the spiritual and the carnal, between
the vessels to honour and the vessels to dis-
distinction
honour.
" It
is
Martyr, "for a
better,"
man
says
to be
St.
silent
Ignatius
and be a
The
Christian, than to talk and not be one.
kingdom of God is not in word, but in
power. "^
"
The
tree
is
known by
its fruit
so
those that profess themselves to be Christians

For
are to be recognised by their conduct.
1
Gerardus Rauschen, Florilegium Patristicum.
St. Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. xv.
12
Bonnse, 1004.

there
sion,
not
is
now
demand
man
but that a
mere
for
profes-
be found continuing in
" It
the power of faith to the end."^
is fitting,
then, not only to be called Christians, but to
be so in
For
reality.
it
called so that renders a
Tlie
not the being
is
man
blessed.""
Didachc teaches no
other
doctrine.
" All true Christians are one, though scattered
over the world, and God, the
Church, will gather them
winds into His kingdom."^

the Didachc
fold,
and
is
will
of the
The theology of
The Church
clear.
pass
all
Head
from the four
away, with
mani-
is
its
various
kingdom of God is one

and will last for ever, here as a kingdom of
When,
grace, there as a kingdom of glory.
therefore, Roman Catholic and High Church
organisations
the
Anglican theologians maintain that " the idea

of an invisible Church to express the body
of true believers,
who
alone are the Church,
community they belong,
to whatever
is
an
idea entirely at variance with Scripture and

all
pre-Reformation teaching,"
thing which they cannot prove.

^
St. Ignatius' Epistle to the
Id.^ Epistle to the
'
Didache,
Cf.
ix.
they assert a
If the early
Ephesians, chap. xiv.
MagnesianSj chap.
iv.
x. 5.
Lux Mundi, ^^The Church," by Rev. W. Lock,
13
p. 275.
";

Christian literature distinguishes betv/een true
and untrue Christians, between the Church and

the kingdom, it distinguishes between a visible
True, the words
and an invisible Church.
" visible and invisible Church " do not occur
but
it
matters
We do not look
little.
for the
words where we have the idea. The visible

Church was to the first Christians, as it is for
us,
" the
invisible
Church
"
simply
they called the
To
Church, "kingdom."
belong the Christians
who
live
the latter
in
perfect
righteousness according to the Gospel, the true

children of God, and
persevere
All these form the kingdom of
to the end.
God upon
who
those
all
earth.
This difference between the Church and the
kingdom,
Church,
between the
i.e.
is
likewise
visible
and
invisible
very apparent in those
Lord which teach about the

kingdom, and in such passages as "to them
parables of our
[to the
the
poor in
spirit,
to the children] belongs

to " enter the
kingdom of heaven," and
kingdom,"
in
Matt.
v.
xviii.
3,
3,
Mark x. 14 John iii. 5 or " the kingdom

of God is not meat and drink, but righteous;
ness and peace and joy in the
(Rom.
xiv. 17).
Finally,
14
it is
Holy Ghost
very significant

that
Christ
uses
nowhere
and
INIatthew
iKKXrjcria
twice
only
else),
(in
but âcrCKda
twenty-three times in JNlatthew alone.

answer, in the second place, the Church
Rome
of
not only denies the great truth of
the invisibility of the Church, but she also

gives a
wrong
According
Christ
the
is
definition of the visible Church.
to
" the
her,
true
Church
of
the society of the faithful, believing
doctrine
sacraments,
of
Christ,
sharing
in
His
communion with the

Now, this view of the
and
in
Pope of Rome."
Church of Christ is completely at variance
Even when applied to
with Holy Writ.
the visible Church this definition is too
limited and narrow
it
excludes
too
earnest and real Christians from the
many
Church
most it may be said

only of the local Church of Rome. Stern,
real facts compel us to admit that "the
visible Church
of Christ consists of the
sum-total of all Churches and believers that
profess the essential doctrines of Christ and
of
Christ,
and
at
employ the most important, if not all, of

the means of grace which He left for our
eternal salvation."
The
Christian Churches are thereby placed
15
:;

on a certain graduated scale of perfection
and of intrinsic excellence. Those that drink
more abundantly at the living fountain of
the doctrine of Christ, and adhere more
closely to His divine Gospel, stand at the
others somewhat lower
top of the scale
others, finally, which have adulterated the
;
divine message of Christ,
so
do not reform themselves, are

of
long as they
bottom
at the
it.
As
long, however, as the different Churches
believe
and
what
practise
essential
is
salvation both with regard to doctrine
Christian
life,
they, although not
communion with one

of
the
same
brooklets from the
same sun
Christ
of
the same
same
vineyard,
same
source, rays of the
divine will object at this point
definition
of
destroys the
The
more than
strictly in
Christ the Lord.
Roman
"Your
the
of
vines
mother-root,
and to
another, are branches
ofF-shoots
tree,
to
the
Church
true
unity of
the
of
Church.
nothing
Church, according
to
you,
congeries
of
Churches, often
is
war with one another on capital points of

Christian doctrine, and differing from one
another in manner of worship, in charity,
at
16

Such is not the true Church of
Christ.
She is one, because she professes
the same faith, accepts the same sacraments,
obeys the same Bishops, and chiefly the
in
all.
Roman Pontiff."
To this I rejoin
of
The
the true Church
of
you give
definition
Christ
defines
the
Roman
Church, not
The
Church never possessed the

unity which the Roman divines
Church.
the universal
primitive
fancied
now claim for her. If she did not

when newly born, why should it be
now ? If, w^hen already grown up,
exist
archic
and prosper without that

unity,
of perishing
why
now ?
possess
it
necessary
she could
strict
mon-
in
danger
But more about
this in
should she be
the following chapters.
17
CHAPTER
II
OF THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH ACCORDING

TO THE SCRIPTURES
WE
are
all
familiar with the
with which
Roman
arguments
theologians de-
monstrate the monarchical unity and organisa-
The Church
Church of Christ.
"
is
kingdom of Christ," the city of the
great King," " His rest and habitation for
tion of the
" the
ever,"
the " house of the living God," the
**fold
of
which
Christ
is
the
Shepherd,"
the " body of Avhich Christ is the Head," the

" spouse of which He is the bridegroom,"
"the temple of God," "the family of Christ."

All these metaphors, they say, imply in the
Church of Christ a perfect

which is possessed by the
only
i.e.
unity of
faith,
of sacraments, unity
answer
is
of
unity, the unity
Roman Church
unity of love, unity
government.
My
that in this, as in other matters,
18
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

the
Roman
ment a
theologians
stretch
The
Httle too far.
their
argu-
epithets lavished
by the prophets of the Old Covenant, or by

our Lord, upon the Church are, after all,
metaphors, not strictly
They can be
definitions.
scientific
each one of them,
explained,
with regard to other characteristics or notes
The
of the Church.
instance,
may
of time, to attain
soul
of
" the
community
for
and
in-
Church was,
in the course
God
with
of
each
" fold "
Christ "
readily
the
Christian
Sliepherd,
They imply also a certain

But wliat kind
grant it.
Uniform or multiform ?
kingdom of the same kind
to
to the docility of
Christians towards their supreme

Christ.
to
individual
members of the
the
God "
the " temple of
household
the
of
activity
kingdom of God,"
refer to tlie greatness
fluence to which the
the dealings
**
Is
the
unity,
we
of unity
unity of a
as that of a " city,"
of a "fold," of a " funnily," of a " temple," of
a " body
is
"
the word
specific
as to
Who
*'
can say so
Moreover,
kingdom " in the Gospels so

mean a monarchy rather than
a federation of republics, a democracy rather
than an oligarchy?
Who
blem with certainty
can solve this pro-
Suppose Jesus meant

19

not
comprehensively
this,
all
collectively
exclusively,
not singly, so as to include in
His Church such absolute monarchies as the
Church
of
Rome, moderate ones
the
like
Greek, Oriental, and English Churches, and

quasi-republics,
Churches
Christian
many
like
other
But what
of
if
the
those
metaphors meant a prophecy of the future?

Certainly the evidence of St. Paul's Epistles
shows us a very
that
is,
different scene in real
" a household "
torn asunder by in-
testine discords, " a family "
were
at
"
"
body
variance
amongst
whose members
themselves,
with tendencies to divisions, to
And what
ness, to sin.
days, that
is,
in the
life,
St.
dawn
Paul saw
selfish-
in his
of Christianity,
we
Those metaphors,
mean an ideal state
see likewise in our times.

therefore,
of
may
after all
Church to
the
be
attained
in
future,
civilised,
mankind having become

and men's minds being fully de-
veloped,
all
when,
all
races of
Christians
selves that unity
is
will
convince them-
to be sought in variety,
peace in the union of hearts, fellowship of

Christ in the love of God, of our Lord, and
of their fellow-men.
taphors referred to
Furthermore, the me-
may
20
indicate also a state

or
mode
being
of
Church
the
of
the
in
different periods of her earthly career, or in
The Church may
various parts of the world.
one country, " a household,"

in another " a
i.e, a scene of active work
elsewhere a
family," all love and peace
be, for a time, in
God," owing to the hohness and
" temple of
fervour of her children
become
all
in this soul she
the "bride of Christ";
may
a time,
for
over the world, the kingdom of God, for
her grandeur and power
Neither
may Roman
unity of the Church
and so
forth.
divines, to prove the
by them,
as conceived
have recourse to the sublime petition of our

blessed Lord, addressed on the eve of His
" Holy
His Eternal Father
Father, keep through Thine own name those
crucifixion
to
whom Thou
be one, as
We
are.
JNIe
that they
Neither pray
them
these alone, but for
beheve on
Me;
hast given
also
which
through their word
may
for
shall
that they
be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me,

andÎ in Thee, that they also may be one
This prayer, apparently, has only
in Us."
all
may
one meaning
that
all
Jesus asked his Eternal Father
Christians that beheve in
be one in charity as
21
He
is
Him
should
one with His

Eternal Father one in love, though distinct
from His Father in person: and so all the

Churches, though distinct amongst themselves,
should love one another and be one in the
All the ancient Fathers
charity of the Lord.
none excepted explained

this prayer of our Lord by the love and
charity we owe to one another, never by
of the Church
all,
the monarchical and absolute unity of the
Church.
prove the unity of the
Cyprian, to
St.
Church, often quoted the words which occur

in
the
dove,
Song of
my
Solomon
undefiled,
is
Now,
of her that bore her."
that
may
one, there
is
is
"My
9):
but one; she
only one of her mother, she
mere word
(vi.
the
is
cJioice
the
one
apart from the
nothing in this text
warrant an argument in favour of
the unity of the Church
and one wonders
at the simplicity of the great African Bishop,

as
also at the intellectual level of
many
of
the Fathers of the early Church.
Rome
and the majority

of the Roman divines hold that two dogmatic
texts only are to be found in the Bible with
regard to the unity of the Church: one in
Even
the Church of
St. Paul's Epistle to the
22
Ephesians
(iv.
3-6),

the other in St.
Matthew
over, only St.
Paul deals directly with the
More-
(xvi. 13-19).
unity of the Church, St. Matthew's text being
most a valuable auxiliary to the former,

not estabhshing by itself and alone the unity
at
of the Church.
Now
about
St.
words a few remarks
will
speaking
of
professo
ea^
mysterious
First,
suffice.
that
simply marvellous
is
very
Paul's
the
it
when
Paul,
St.
unity of the
Church, should omit to mention the promise

of Christ to St. Peter, and the prerogative
granted to him of being, in the
Roman
sense,
the rock upon which the Church was to be

built,
the centre, the origin, and the bond of
Did
unity.
union
was
Paul believe that an actual

Churches with Peter
essential to the unity of the
why
so,
St.
of the several
did
mention
he not
content with saying,
"
Church
it?
He
One Lord, one
If
is
faith,
one baptism, one God and Father of all."

He never dreamt of saying, " One government, one organisation, one ruling Church,
monarchy,
one
one empire."^
that agree with the

*
Cf.
torn.
i.
J.
p.
Corluy,
13.
S.J.,
Roman
Spicilegium
Gaudavi, 1884.
23
How
does
claims?
Dogmaticum
Biblicunij

But there
something more.
is
are to be taken in their obvious
The
ception of the Church.
" keep
the Ephesians to
the bond
but " one Lord, one
God and Father

There
the
unity
of the
To this end
Church there
one baptism, one
of
in the
faith,
all."
"one Lord,"
is
apostle exhorts
of peace."
he reminds them that

is
sense, the
Paul favours the broader con-
text of St.
spirit in
words
If
i.e,
Jesus
received and worshipped alike by
all
Christ,
Christian
These are at variance often
denominations.
amongst themselves about minor points of

Christian doctrine but no Christian Church,
even to this day, has ever rejected our Lord
;
Jesus
Whenever one
Christ.
did
so
she
ceased being a Christian Church.
There
for the
is
" one faith,"
word faith
any other meaning.
i.e.
in this verse cannot

St.
of the faith in general,

Christianity, as
For
adays.
faith in the Lord,
Paul does not speak

of the doctrines of
we might speak
St.
Paul,
have
of
them now-
and for the early

was all. Every-
Christians, Jesus, the Lord,
thing centred in
Him
as
Him.
Lord were held
All
who worshipped
for Christians,
even
when, in other points of doctrine not directly

24

connected
the
with
opinions
received
Christians
first
man and
Spirit,
They
God
true
Kara
our
in
simplest kind.
of
Lord was
God
i.e.
Him
to be true
heavenly part,
;
man
the earthly and visible part.
i.e.
the
of
according to the
the
the invisible, the spiritual aspect

crdpKa,
of
leaders
the faith of the
believed
nvevixa,
from
differed
the
And
Church.
this or that
they
Christ,
/caret
Later
on the Fathers of the Church borrowed from
Jew
the
Philo the distinction between the
and the uttered

and thus, little by
interior word, \6yo^ eVStaêro?,
word, Xoyo9
little,
7rpo(j)opLK6<;
Platonic or Aristotelian philosophy
made
entrance into the Church and got mixed
its
up with
please St. Irenanis,
works
his
This, however, did
creed.
its
who
complains
not
in several places
that
" frivolous
of
talk
and subtilty of disputation,
{minutiloquium)
being of Aristotelian origin, they [the heretics]

try to
bring into the faith" {Contra Hcer,,
lib.
cap. xiv.
iii.
It
that
2).
preposterous
say
is
not,
all
Churches, whether or not in com-
therefore,
munion with
faith in the
to be true
to
Rome, have even now one
Lord,
i.e.
they
God and
true
25
all
believe
jMan,
Him
which
is

what
Paul, in this verse, requires
St.
Nothing more.
" One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
the
faithful to believe.
This
baptism.
One
absolutely in favour of a
is
wider conception of the Church.
Since the
Cyprian and Pope
controversy between St.
Stephen about the validity of baptism con-
by
ferred
heretics,
all
the Christian world
holds that their baptism
the baptism that enlists a Christian
the army of the Church.
in
doctrine of the
official
is
baptism only, the baptism of
therefore one
the Lord
There
valid.
is
This
Roman and
the
is
of the
universal Church.
The
inference
stated
" If
in
the
very words of
conferred
Cyprian:
St.
by
be
heretics
is
then heresy, as well as the Catholic
valid,
Church,
St.
the
baptism
may
and
obvious
is
brings
children
forth
to
Cyprian stopped here, but we
"Therefore
further:
Christ
is
Christ.'
may go
abiding
in
Church
which confesses His

Theredivinity and bestows His baptism."
any
fore
single
that
Church, although
communion with the Church
not
of
in
Rome,
part of the true Church of Christ,
branch
of the
Vine, the
26
actual
is
is
a true
Body and Bride

of
Take, for instance, the Greek,
Christ.
the Oriental, and the Russian Churches.

these
Churches, as granted by
and
valid orders,
Rome, have
consequence have valid
in
They
sacraments.
All
validly
baptize,
validly
administer the sacrament of Penance, validly
Body and
consecrate the
Blood of the
the
Iôrd, validly ordain for the holy priesthood,
and, finally, are validly recognised as channels
What more
of divine grace.
make them
true Church of Christ
Rome
is
wanted to
parts and living branches of the
and
If
submission
to
communion with
the Pope were
essential to the
Church, they would not be
Churches at
living
all
Churches.
they would be dead, not

If
Peter were
the only
necessary rock of the Church, those Churches,
not founded on Peter, could not stand.
If
Peter were the only fountain through which

Christ's grace flows,
grace.
If in
they would be without
the house of Peter only one
could eat the Pascal
Lamb, they would be
long dead of starvation.
And
yet they are
There is no gainsaying this.

And what I say of the Greek and Roman
Churches must be said in like manner of
living.
all
other
communions who
27
believe
in
the
Him
God, and rightly conThey are all and

fer His holy baptism.
branches
of the one true
each of them living
Church of Christ. They may differ amongst
Lord, worship
as
themselves in beauty, in
vitality, in perfection,
but they are all branches of

Jesus Christ is the hidden
and
the same vine,
root of them all, thus verifying His word
in fruitfulness
"
Where two
in
My
them"
or three are gathered together
(Matt,
inference of
Jesus Christ
Finally,
xviii.
St.
is,
(Ubi Christus
is
am
name, there
20),
Ignatius
there
ibi
is
in
the midst of
and
the
right
Martyr, " Wliere
the Catholic Church
"
Catholica est Ecclesia),
the proper unity of the Church
to be looked for especially in the invisible
Those that see the true and

universal Church of Christ in the invisible
Church only are at no loss to discover her
wonderful unity and divine organisation.
For it is clear that the true children of
God worship the same God and Father of
all,
profess the same faith in our Lord,
share in the same Baptism of Christ, and
partake of the same heavenly bread.
Of course, when laying stress upon the
Church.
invisibility
of
the Church,
28
do not mean

to
the
discredit
Church
visible
importance of belonging to
of
fact,
As
it.
and
the
a matter
Church cannot exist

Church, and the latter is
the invisible
without the
visible
properly our home, our school, our nursery,
our Church on earth.
bring forward the
theory of the invisibility of the true Church

of
Christ
only to
Church of Christ
state
that,
as
the true
primarily and essentially
is
a spiritual unity, so the unity of the Church

primarily and essentially a spiritual unity.
This spiritual unity is " kept " by all Evange-
is
ical
Churches, which are thereby entitled to
and branches of the

It is a real and
universal Church of God.
be called
true
parts
present unity
that
Christ
in all
the different Churches,
really
one by
Body
of the true
faith
in
who
This
is
of
are
the
of Christ on earth, and to this Church,
which we perceive by
sight,
Him.
members
we
apply
all
faith rather
those
than by
passages
and
promises of Scripture which might otherwise
seem
to lack fulfilment.
29
CHAPTER
IS
III
PETER THE ROCK AND CENTRE OF CHURCH
GOVERNMENT
Ij^ROM what
-^
evident
have hitherto said

the words of
that
to the Ephesians,
if
St.
it
is
Paul
they prove anything,
vindicate rather the position of the Churches
not in communion with
Rome
argument
drawn from
Roman
escaped the
make
Rome
The weakness
itself
little
St.
than that of
of
their
own
has
not
Paul
divines, w^ho accordingly
account of the
apostle's
text,
and repair more wilHngly to the much-quoted

" Thou
words of our Lord to St. Peter
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
:
My
Church"
(JNIatt.
xvi.
13-19).
On the
Rome
strength of these words the Church of

claims for
supreme pastor the primacy
its
of jurisdiction
making him
at
over
the
the
universal
same time
30
Church,
the
rock
PETER AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT

upon which the Church rests, the centre of
Church government, the infallible teacher
of
all
the faithful, the source of
astical power, and,
finally,
all ecclesi-
the Vicar of Christ.
The arguments whereby Roman divines prove

their thesis are too well known to be reThey explain the meaning of
peated here.
They
the promise made by Jesus to Peter.
confirm their meaning by the testimony of
the early Fathers
they add such philosophic
and theological arguments as are more or less

closely related to it, and to the sense they
attach to the
text.
the Primacy of
Biblical
rock,"
the thesis of
Pope
essentially
the
one as regards
Now, they
**
Anyhow
its
is
alleged basis.
assert that Jesus,
by the word
meant not Himself, nor the Church,
nor the apostles collectively taken, nor the

objective faith of St. Peter,
of the
divinity of Christ
fessed,
but
himself,
all
"
the
none
very
else.
i.e.
the doctrine
which Peter con-
person of
They say
St.
Peter
that Christ, to
intent and purposes, thus spoke to Peter
Thou
a most
art a rock,
and upon thee,
solid rock, I will build INly
Hence they
infer that the
are of divine appointment.
31
as
upon
Church."
claims of
Rome

the contrary, I maintain that Jesus, by
On
the word "rock," meant the objective faith
the
is
is
confession
the most
Fathers of the Church;
Churches
as
it
it
God."
it
admitted by
is
responds to the real Church,
who do
Pope of Rome
art
support of most
it
communion of the
includes the great
faithful
Thou
obvious interpretation;
that which receives the
all
"
Son of the hving
the
Christ,
This
or his
Peter,
of St.
not
pay allegiance to the
and finally, it is indeed

the immutable rock on which the Church
will stand for ever and ever.
And observe that this opinion in no way
;
contradicts those divines
who
hold, with Ter-
tullian, that the "rock" is Peter, because

our Lord used St. Peter's ministry in laying
the foundation of the Church amongst the Jews
and the Gentiles, by ordering him to preach,
first of the apostles, to them, and to baptize
This view of the text
them.
to
my
case,
of
is
own, but rather perfects
moreover,
Rome.
tion which
In
is
it
fact, if
not opposed
it,
and
in
no
favourable to the claims
we
accept the interpreta-
Tertulhan gives to our text
we
are forced to say, with him, that Christ be-
stowed
on
St.
Peter
32
personal
privilege

which in no way passed to
the
Roman
But
the
us examine the text
let
first
literal
In fact
is
by
the Church,
who
The
in
so to say,
is,
the rock
is
and upon him the
Christ,
founded.
it
Peter
interpretation.
pointed out
Church
It
aspect.
that, at first sight, the
interpretation of Christ's words sounds
plausible enough.
the
and, in
itself,
in its exegetical
place,
must be acknowledged
Roman
his successors in
See.
ancient Fathers of
their
referred
writings
to St. JNIatthew's text, called Peter the rock
This must
and foundation of the Church.

be granted as absolutely
true.
Amongst such
early Fathers are St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius

of Csesarea, and a few others,
till
we
at the time of St. Hilary of Poitiers.
three things are to be remarked here.
of
St.
But
First
most of those Fathers attribute to

Peter the name of rock en imssant, by
all,
the way, and nothing more.

the word
of
sounds to the
it.
arrive
our
ear,
Lord
They
literally
and
accept
as
it
but they do not explain
In the second place, others like Tertullian,
Cyprian, Firmihan, and Origen, whilst they
grant that Peter
is
the rock meant by Christ,
33

deducing from it the Roman
and deeds contradict them.
words
claims, in
The words and deeds of those four doctors
so far from
known
are too well
few of them
to be reported here.
find
will
their
place later on.
when the Fathers set themselves

deliberately to comment on the word " rock,"
Thirdly,
by Christ of Peter, they were almost

forced by the evidence of the case to admit
that the rock meant by Christ was not the
as used
actual person of Peter, but the faith confessed
by him, or
He whom
Father who, as
first
studied our text
who
it
St.
is
The
Peter confessed.
seems, deliberately
Hilary of Poitiers,
and beyond any doubt

that the rock of which Christ spoke is the
states
clearly
objective faith, or the confession, of Peter.
Other
Fathers
opinion, so that
not universal.
him held the same

became very common, if
after
it
In
fact,
the majority of the
Fathers can be reckoned to be in
its
favour.
Amongst them ranks also the illustrious

St. Augustine, who in his book De Retractatioiiibus, lib.
in
his
youth
" rock " as

later
i.
n. 21, narrates of
himself that
he had explained
the word
meaning the person of Peter but

on he had adopted that interpretation
34
;

Leo
of St.
in
time,
his
which taught the
rock to be the confession of Peter, or his

objective faith.
The
vacillation
the
of
Fathers in
early
the interpretation of St. JNIatthew's text can
be accounted for in this way that when the

"
Fathers assert of Peter that he is the " rock
:
referred to
by
Matthew's
Christ, they think of
whereas, when tliey apply themtext only

selves deliberately to comment on it, they
;
are forced to take into account other passages
of
Scripture,
other
apostles
wherein
it
no
also,
is
less
that
said
so
the
than Peter,
are the foundation of the Church that they

also were granted " the power of binding and
;
loosing "
alone,
is
building
1 Cor.
and
finally that Christ,
and Christ
the chief corner-stone of the whole
(Ephes.
iii.
20,
ii.
cf.
Pet.
ii.
4f.,
11).
These assertions of Holy Writ agree quite

well with the theory that the rock
by Christ
is
the
objective faith
meant
of Peter
because, as Peter's faith was the faith also
of the
is
other apostles, just as
founded on him,
them.
Jesus
stone, because
is,
it
is
no
less
the Church
founded on
moreover, the chief corner-
whom
did Peter confess but
35

Son of the
Jesus, the
Roman
divines try to
by saying that Peter
God?
living
ward
off this difficulty
the chief foundation,
is
But, in
the other apostles secondary ones.

the
name
common
of
know
who
sense,
ever heard
of principal and secondary foundations?

stone
is,
or
is
not, a foundation-stone.
If
it
be
not laid at the very bottom of the building,

cannot
it
properly
us
let
that the
Son of the
rock
the
living
not anticipate.
Roman
title
Peter's confession, or
is
faith in Christ, the
But
the
to
Therefore,
foundation-stone.
of
meant by Jesus
claim
lay
his
God.
have said
interpretation of the words

if
one
analyses the conception involved in the
word
of
appears
Christ
plausible
but
" rock," as applied to the person of St. Peter,

its
absurdity becomes manifest.
the rock of which Christ speaks
not
a material
therefore,
rock.
cannot
Jesus
spiritually.
Church on
be
is
St.
when
buried a living
so
as
to
a moral,
person,
materially,
a living
but
man under
man,
as
were wont to
a public building.
propitiate
effect,
not going to found His
the body of
raising
is
Peter's
taken
oriental nations before Christ
do,
In
They
the foundations,
the spirits of the land
3G

new
the protection of the
for
custom has survived in
own
Church
Iîkewise, the
bridges.
mean
to
Christ
with regard
especially
days,
society,
congregation
must, on
new
to
taken by
is
a moral body of men, a
not a material building.

fore
This
house.
India even to our
human beings,
The Church there-
of
Roman
the
supposition,
be
reared, not on the body, but on the soul of

Peter, i.e, not on his material, but on his
spiritual
or
qualities
the fiiculties of Peter will

to
the
AMnch
faculties.
of
stand as a rock
The will, or
the Church of Christ?
Peter's will must certainly be
mind ?
excluded, because
it is
Christ that willed to
Pound a Church, not Peter

Peter
is
requested
nto the Church,
i.e.
to
in
admit
fact,
the
to raise the
when
Gentiles
Church of
amongst the Gentiles, he hesitates,

must be encouraged to the
The
by a heavenly vision.
^reat work
Church of Christ must, therefore, rest on
But how ? Has Peter
:he mind of Peter.
Has
conceived and planned the Church ?
Christ
le doubts, and
given
Peter
it
Magna Charta
jay so
And
law^s,
and,
so
to
or constitution?
yet, if
it
37
rests at all
say,
Who
its
will
on Peter,

must rest on something that belongs to
the mind of Peter. What is this? If I
it
err
not,
it
nothing else but Peter's act
is
of faith, whereby he said
Roman
theologians
Church
they say, the

Peter
is
rock,
account of his
But
further
on
that
In
The
by the
as
i.e,
ejus,
on
so far, so good.
They
the subjective faith of
is
on the contrary, that
say,
this
Peter,
from them.
differ
on
fidem
And
faith.
Peter,
the objective faith of

jective.
art the
because,
agree,
rests
projjtc?'
say that the rock
Peter
Thou
Son of the hving God."
Christ, the
all
"
reader
not
easily
will
it
the
is
sub-
understand
subjective faith the personal act
of faith of Peter
is
understood
we mean
objective faith
which Peter
pressed by Peter
the
whereas by
doctrine
itself
The former is exthe words, " Thou art,"
believed.
the
of
act
assertion
Here
reader
asserting;
itself
the living
I
in
"
The
the
by the
the Son of
latter
Christ,
God."
wish to
call
the attention of the
to a very important,
disregarded,
notion.
It
is
yet too often
this.
society
must be founded
on a Magna Charta, on a set of rules, on
cannot rest on a man.
38
It

on laws, on enactments.
statutes,
Nothing
men together into a corporation

common laws. This truth is so trite
that I am half ashamed of wasting time over
What form is to matter, statutes are
it.
to a society.
Laws are the binding force
can bind
but
of
Even
society.
submitting to
society
tlieir
and
law,
their
the
in
lord,
thereby
Now, the
is
incorporating force.
It
of
it
his
is
constitute
you
if
will,
but
rewârd,
Charta for his
it
disappears with
it
cause
cannot be a JMaorna
it
the worshippers
followêrs, for
The
of Christ.
but a
remains in Peter,
his glory, his happiness, the
is
slaves
law
not and cannot be an
does not go out of him

;
they
of
lord's
subjective faith of Peter,
being a personal act,
him
tlie
an inferior society,
society.
case
personal act of Peter can-
not be a law, a statute, an enactment, and
cannot be the rock,
therefore
eternal,
un-
immovable, upon which the

Lord intends building His Church.
But
changeable,
the objective faith of

the
rock
described
Peter
by our
may
well
be
The
Lord.
recognition and profession of the divinity of

Christ
Christ,
is
the
the
Magna Charta
Son of the
39
of Christendom.
living
God,
is
the

centre of the Church, the alpha and
To beheve
of Christianity.
Him,
in
the absolute condition of
is
omega
God,
as
Christian
life.
This judgment, this profession, contains in
germ
Christian
all
doctrine
Christian
doctrine,
springs
The Incarnation
Him.
all
from
the
Him
Incarnate God, centres in

to
because
forth
and reverts
the birth in
is
The
time of the Son of the living God.

Trinity
the
is
Son of the
the
is
Church
living
of
love
birth
God.
Jesus
for
same
the
of
The redemption
mankind.
The
the kingdom, the household, the
is
family, the
God.
eternal
The
bride of the
Son of the
living
sacred rites of worship are the
channels through which flows the grace of
the Son of the living God.
In short, every-
thing can be traced back to the profession of

the divinity of the Son of the hving God.
On
the contrary,
if this
belief
falls,
no Church, no Sacraments, no
Christianity.
Hence the
The
Christian faith
text
of
St.
there are
Trinity,
is
no
dead.
Matthew may,
according to this view, be thus paraphrased

" Blessed
art
thou,
Simon
Bar-jona
for
and blood hath not revealed this truth

unto thee, but INIy Father which is in
flesh
40
And
heaven.
thou
Peter,
art
unto
say also
upon
and
thee,
truth
the
that
by
thee professed, as upon a sohd rock, I will

and the gates of hell,
Church
build
My
[i.e.
and
errors
By "the
it."
not prevail against
sins] shall
gates of hell" most of the
Greek Fathers, and many

Church, understood
Now
also of the Latin
vices,
sins,
errors,
and
promise of the Lord can

be verified by history, because the Eastern
heresies.
this
Church never rejected the divinity of Christ

much less so did the Church of Rome.
Even when Arianism was predominant in
the East, the divinity of Christ was never
openly denied, although His divine relations

with the Father were for a time misunderIf the text holds
stood.
good
of Peter and his successors,
for the person

1
ask, did
not
the gates of hell prevail against the Church
Rome
of
eleventh
never
during
the
centuries?
If
ninth,
not
tenth,
then,
and
certainly
But they say:

faith of
These two, the objective
Peter and his subjective

two, but one only.
not
really
no
right to
his
faith.
faith, are
You have
between Peter and

These two make but one Peter.
distinguish
41

Jesus founded His Church upon the believing
I answer,
Peter, upon Peter, a man of jaith,
two
the
not one.
two,
really
are
theories
two to St. Augustine,

who discriminated between them and left his
readers the choice of either of them " Harum
They appeared
to be
autem duarum sententiarum qu^

It
babilior eligat lector."
true that
is
pro-
sit
say that the rock meant by Christ
when
is
the
objective faith of Peter, I include the person
of
Peter in
secondary,
my
not
the
into
indirect
in
my
takes
that
here
in
faith
To
of
Peter in
explain
my
take, for instance, the Institute of
a
it.
Peter
concept in obliquo, in
way; the
direct way.
say
it
place
principal,
Philosophers would
enters
but
concept;
an
recto,
meaning,
M. Pasteur
deahng with rabies. Upon what

Is it founded on the person,
is it founded ?
Surely on
or on the theory, of M. Pasteur ?
in Paris, for
his
theory.
theory
all
still
M. Pasteur
lives after
the institutes for
over.
If,
is
dead, but
him, and upon

rabies
twenty years
all
hence,
the
it
his
rest
world
experience
and science were to prove Pasteur's theory

useless, and mistaken, the institutes
false,
would soon fall into neglect, and would be
42

Pasteur's great fame and
finally forgotten.
name
In
could not possibly save one of them.
manner, Peter
like
jective
fciith,
i.e,
is
dead, but his ob-
his fLiith
in the divinity of
him
and
Christ,
lives
Church
as a solid foundation.
after
supports
If
the
to-morrow
the world were to cease to believe in Christ

as
God, what would the Church come to
Again, they say that our interpretation of

is not natural, as the obvious meaning
the text
of the text requires that the rock referred to
by Christ should be Peter and none

answer
is,
requires
that the rock should be something
appertaining to Peter
it
JMy
else.
that the obvious sense of the text
That
readily grant.
should be a personal and transient act of
Peter, such as his subjective faith
is,
deny.
remark here that St. Matthew's

text contains a metaphor which tends to
merge into an allegory.
Now it is in the
INIoreover, I
nature of such figures of speech to say one

thing that another
dicitur et
hardly
may be
understood.
aliud intelligitur.
abstain
from
Unum
Finally, I
remarking, that
can
it
is
simply a thing wonderful, mysterious, scarcely

comprehensible,
to
give to
how
our Lord should choose
His Church
43
one
of
the
most

important points of His doctrine under the
dark veil of a metaphor, difficult and
obscure.
But Roman divines wîll not be content

yet.
They insist that Christ could not, by
the
f^
rock,
mean
Peter's
objective
faith
or
"rock" is nowhere in
Scripture used as a symbol for faith.
Let
it be so
what then ? Could not Christ use
a new symbol for faith?
Was there not an
confession,
because
occasion
used
when the
Bible epithets were
Surely this difficulty
of the pen of Dr. Murray.
is
first
not worthy
Will anybody
affirm that "rock," as a metaphor, does not
harmonise well with the strength of faith ?

Others say that if Jesus meant by the word
" rock " Peter's confession, our text does not
run smoothly, but its sense becomes forced
and unnatural.
all,
Is that really so?
I say that it is rather
First of
dangerous to speak
of smooth sense and obvious reading in a text

difficult in itself
and obscure.
I answer, in
my own opinion
the text in question, interpreted as I think it
the second place, that in
ought to
and more naturally.

Well, I suppose everybody will grant that in
verse 17 we must supply the object of the
be, reads better
44

verb
it
the
"reveal,"
common
" thy
is
sense
divinity "
confession "
" that
of the living God."
am
the Christ, the Son
This taken for
my
text
Simon Bar-jona
Blessed art thou,
thy confession
but, etc.
18.
17.
because
And
of
Church.
thy
."
confession, in
the Gospel
confession
will
True, the words in
this
build
JNIy
of thy
verse 18 are not to be found in
italics,
but neither are those of verse
can properly assume them in the
why
say
upon
to thee, that thou art Peter, and
rock
place
**
:
and blood hath not revealed to thee
flesh
We
in JNIy
faith
All these sentences are
arrange
thus
all
" thy
equivalent to one another.

granted,
"it" of
admit that
of the
Now,
translations.
not also in the second
Is
the reading rational, natural, and smooth
17.
first
not
Is
not the correlation between the two verses

perfect
Who
can ask of
a writer or
preacher that in a figure of speech he should

express everything explicitly
However,
they
will
these
nice distinctions
Christ
still
insist,
" AV'hy
about the words of
Metaphors are to be taken
in the
mass, not in such a discriminating way.
Jesus
makes use of the metaphor of a house to

45

be
built,
the foundation
of
principle both of its unity
Jesus says that Peter
and of
the
is
its solidity.
the foundation-stone
and by that He means that

His Church, which is the society of the
of His Church
in
is
which
the authority of
faithful,
same time the
its
chief
is
at the
of the unity and
principle
the reason of the stability of the Church."

To this difficulty I answer, first, that the
foundation-stone of a house does not consist
This
of one stone only.
need be proved.
The
many
is
too evident to
foundations
of
the
and St. Paul

accordingly teaches us that "the Church of
Christ is built upon the foundation of
Church
consist of
stones,
and prophets " (Ephes. ii. 20

Truly St. Paul favours rather
iv. 11).
cf.
a broad than a narrow conception of the
the
apostles
Church
In the second place, I reject the
notion that the unity

building rest only on
and
its
solidity
of the
foundation.
Daily
experience shows just the reverse.
Raise, for
instance, upon granite foundations a building
mud
and in a short time you will

The fact is,
realise its unity and stability
foundation
is one
that a strong and sound
condition of the unity and solidity of the
46
with
walls,

building; not the only one.
And
here like-
wise St. Paul sides with those that upliold

a broader conception of the Church, in that
he says that "the building" of the Church,

being fitly framed together in Jesus, the
chief Corner-stone (not in the Pope), groweth
up
into an holy temple in the
Lord (Ephes.
ii.
Finally, I reject the assertion that
20, 21).
the authority, or the fticulty of jurisdiction,

resident in the
head of any society,
is
the
binding force and the principle of unity in

It is quite true, authority must not be
it.
wanting
but the laws and rules of conduct
and action for the members, in correlation

with the end of the society, are far more
If the Pasteur theory and its
necessary.
serum are proved
false
and
useless, there is
no President of the Pasteur Institute that

Pasteur himself
will save it from destruction.
Would not this fate

would be powerless.
be shared by the Church, if Christ were to
be proved an impostor
So
far
we have
discoursed on the text
itself,
apart from any detailed consideration of the
which the early Fathers of the Church

Let us now pass on to examine
interpreted it.
way
in
this latter point.
47
CHAPTER
IV
THE FATHERS AND ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS

OF THE CHURCH ON ST. PETER
HAVE
Roman
of
Italian,
before
three different books
Catholic theology
one by an
another by a French, and a third by
German author
and
me
laid
all
of
them
out on the same plan
are conceived
:
ah uno disce
oifines.
After the so-called Scriptural proof, they

quote the Fathers to prove that they held
Peter to be the rock meant by Christ upon
which the Church was to be built. " Prob.
II.
Ex. Patribus
esse petram, super
Patres docent B. Petrum
quam
Ecclesia fundata est."
And
they quote Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen,

Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Epi-
John Chrysostom, Ambrose, AugusJerome, and others of less account.
phanius,
tine,
Now,
it is
quite true that
48
all
these Fathers,
FATHERS AND WRITERS ON

and many
others, say often, in passing words,
that the Church
Peter
that the same
built
is
the rock
is
but
on Peter, and that

it
is
not
At
true
less
Fathers held at other times
that the rock was Jesus, or that

confession
PETER
ST.
made by
St.
it
wâs the
Peter.
the time of the Vatican Council a book
was published under the title Qucestio, wliich

examined very carefully the opinions of the
Fathers of the Church upon our subject and
;
found that eight Fathers interpreted the

*'
rock " as all the apostles collectively
it
word
meaning Christ Himself; seventeen applied it to St. Peter, and

forty-four interpreted it as the fiiith which Peter
taken
sixteen took
confessed
"
Quadraginta quatuor ea verba
explicant dejide
have by
worth's book,
as
it
quam
me
Five
First
St.
Peter in the
the Very Rev. J. Water-
the
confessus est Petrus."
Commentarij by Writers of
on the Place of
Centuries
New
Thomas Richardson,
Testament,
1871.
I take
London
my
quota-
from him, because he is beyond suspicion.

In his book I see quoted a great
number of Fathers and writers in support of
tions
Apud Hurter,
Tract III.,
TheologicB Dogmaticce
Thesis Ixxi., uota.
S.J.,
De Primatu,
49
Compendium,

the word " rock " as applied to Peter
but
it
all of them do
on purpose and
by design, repeating as it were mechanically
''
the words of Jesus
Thou art a rock, and
upon this rock I will build My Church."
This word, to them, is a mere adjective which
they bestow on Peter, just as our Lord did.
The same Fathers and writers, however,
whenever they happen to inquire into the
meaning of the word *' rock," as applied to
Peter, uphold either (a) that the true rock
is Christ
or (b) that St. Peter was called
Rock because he was entrusted with the
is
necessary to observe that
so in passing remarks, not
foundation of the Church,

first
of
to the
all,
i.e.
because he,
opened the gates of the Church
Jews and the Gentiles or (<?) because,

first Church founded
by him at
;
from the
Jerusalem,
all
other Churches are derived
Church is founded
upon the profession of faith by him uttered,
on which faith, as upon a solid rock, the
Church was for ever founded.
In Mgr. Waterworth's collection I see that
over thirty Fathers and writers of the first
or (d) finally, because the
five
centuries
call
Peter a rock
whom, however, add
many
explanations of
50
of
their

meaning
greater
PETER
ST.
other parts of their works.
in
number of them
Jesus a rock,
call
although not so as to exclude
Peter, as
St.
a secondary rock, or foundation, of the Church.
few, as
mus
Asterius
St.
Firmilian
(139),
St.
Innocent
St.
Gregory
I.
and
(61),
and
not to the exclusion of
"
the other apostles;
Church was founded on

professed by Peter, when
the Christ, the Son of
the rock of the faith

said,
others, as
about twenty profess explicitly our
opinion, ix, that the
he
all
Jerome (110)
on Peter, but
St.
say that the Church was built
finally,
perhaps
and third meanings of
" rock " referred to abovê
St. Basil (G9), Origen (14),
and
(8),
Boniface (137),
St.
(135),
others, held the second
the word
Tertullian
(30),
Nazianzen
Maxi-
St.
78),
(p.
Thou
art
the living God."
The
St.
Epiphanius
128,
St.
may
reader
130),
(p.
Athanasius
Augustine (125,
Chrysostom (85, 90),
(50),
St.
Ambrose
(44,
45),
(13),
Theodoret
Hilary of Poitiers
(71,
72, 76),
(152), St. Cyril of
(143), Tertullian (6), Victor of
Palladius
has a wish,
67), St.
John
St.
St.
read, if he
(133),
Pope
51
Alexandria
Antioch
Cassian (155),
senus (156), St. Leo,
Origen
(133),
Paul Eme-
(157, 158, 160, 162),

Pope
Gelasius,
St.
(170), to
whom
may
he
add the following, not mentioned by Mgr.

Waterworth St. Gregory of Nyssa Juvenal
:
Jerusalem
of
St.
Eucherius; Felix
Peter Chrysologus
Anastasius Sinaita
Isidore of Seville;
St.
Damascenus
Of
all
St.
Pope; Pope Hormisdas

St. Gregory the Great
III.,
St.
Pope Adrian
Bede
I., and
;
St.
John
others.
these passages I shall quote only a
few to show
that,
when
the Fathers discoursed
on and analysed the concept involved in the

word " rock," as applied to Peter, they necessarily fell in
with the interpretation
here
that the rock on which the
Church
rests is the objective faith in Jesus, the Son
Thus Christ is the Rock,
of the living God.
the foundation, the God-Man, and on Him,
and on faith in Him, stands the Church
strong and immovable, the same yesterday,
to-day, and for ever.
Souls are continually
being joined on, by the work of the Holy
Ghost, and in this way the Church is ever
being built on the living Rock, Christ, the
defend,
i.e.
Son of the
*
may
living God.^
original text of the Fathers that I am going to quote

be found in Gallaudius, Bihl. Veter. Patr. (Venet., 17C5), or
The
in the
Migne
edition.
52

Origex
Comment
as Peter,
Thou
God
the Hving
in
"But
10, 11, pp. 522-6.
if
torn. xii. n. 9,
we have
also said,
art
if
[i.e.
'
Matt.
PETER
ST.
we beheve
the
in
divinity of Jesus]/ not as having been revealed
by
to us
light
'
flesh
and
blood,'
but because the
has shone upon our hearts from
the
Father in heaven,' we become Peter then

may be said to us by the Word, Thou art
;
Peter,'
Christ
*
and the
is
a rock,'
drank of the
them'
(1
For every disciple of

of which they drank wlio
rest.
spiritual
Cor. x. 4)
rock that
followed
and upon every such
rock every ecclesiastical word (logos)
is
built,
and the conversation that is in accordance

with it. For in each one of the perfect who
have the assemblage of the words that make
up the blessedness of words, and of works,
and of thoughts [i.e. the active faith com-
good thoughts, words, and works] is

the Church that is built up by God.
But
prising
thou thinkest that on that Peter alone the

whole Church is built by God, what wilt thou
if
say concerning John,
that son of thunder,'
or each one of the apostles
we
Besides, shall
dare to say that against Peter individually

^
Tlie words in the text included in brackets are mine.
53

of
the 'gates
hell
not
shall
prevail/
but
against the rest of the apostles and perfect
men
But do not that
they shall prevail?
'The gates of
saying,
against
it,'
will build
not prevail
hell shall
and that other
'
Upon
this
My Church,' both happen
each of them
And
are then
'
to
rock I
all
and
the keys of
heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone,

and shall no other of the blessed receive them ?
'
But if I will give to thee the keys of the

kingdom of heaven' is common also to the
'
others,
how
not also
the things spoken
all
and those spoken after, as if addressed to

Peter? ..." (Waterworth, Co;/z7;i. pp. 13, 14).
before,
Origen, in this text, demonstrates (a) that

Christ
spoke
to
all
the
person of Peter, and to

Christian.
apostles
and each perfect

All the apostles
and each
(b)
is
him, therefore, the Church

{d)
speaking,
that
The
is
rock,
a rock,
(c)
On
being built by
is
finally
and
strictly
" the assemblage of the words
make up
the blessedness of words, and
of works, and of thoughts
"
the practice of the Christian

St.
the
all
perfect disciple of Christ,
God.
in
"
faith
and
life].
De Trinitate, vi.
And the Father, by saying,
Hilary of Poitiers
36, 37, p. 160-61.
[i.e.
54

*
This
is
My
Son
to
say,
Peter
to
God
'
art,'
there
confession
Upon
is
'
in heaven
'
given,
is
is,'
Thou
rock, then,
of
hell
"
This
earth,
(p. 44).
8,
p.
fciith,
is
'
unavailing
'
This faith has 'the
Epiphanius
7,
this
the gates
kingdom of heaven'
binds or looses on
n.
This
of the
through
the building of the Church;
against her.
59,
said,
'
acknowledgment of one
the
is
faith are
St.
is
Son of
the
art
that this answer
in
that confesses.
this
it
revealed
5),
the discovery of one that reveals
is
whilst
xvii.
Thou
'
because in that
there
(Matt.
'
PETER
ST.
of the
whatsoever it
kcijs
bound
or loosed
(The itahcs are mine.)
Adversus Hccres., Cathar.

500.
"And
the
blessed
who for a while denied the Lord,

Peter, who was the very chief of the
apostles, who became unto us truly a firm
Peter,
rock, founding the faith
which
first
the
of the Lord, upon
Church was in every way
in that he confessed Christ, the
the living God, and heard
that
built
Son of
iipo?i
this
My
Church^
rock of secure faith 'I will build
because he had openly confessed Him the true
Son
St.
."
(pp. 66, 67).
Ambrose: De Incarnatione,
32, 33, cap. v. n. 34, pp. 710-11.
55
cap. iv. n. 30,
"
Thou
art

Simon
silent,
thou art
and, though the rest reply,
silent
whereas thou
still,
who even when not

He, then, who was silent
first
before
exercised
[acted]
a primacy
wit, of confession, not
when
am?'
say you that I
own
not unmindful of his
once,
at
whom
the
asked, didst ask.
he heard, 'But
art
place,
a primacy, to
of liononr
a 'primacy
of faith, not of order. That is to say Let

no one now surpass me now it is my part
:
must make compensation
silent.
rest
and
This, then,
of the apostles
is
above
yea,
that I was
for
that Peter for the
is
the
rest
therefore called the foundation, because
he knew how not only

but also that of
approved
to
own,
to sustain his
Him
all \coinmune'\.
him the Father
Christ
revealed.
For
he who speaks of the true generation of the

Father, has received
the
of
flesh.
it
of the Father, not of
Faith, therefore,
the Church, for, not
but of his faith, was
of
it
is
the
confession vanquished hell.
for
of Peter,
the flesh
said that
of hell shall not prevail against
fession has shut out
foundation
it
And
'
'
the gates
;
but the
this
con-
more than one heresy;

like a good ship, is
whereas the Church,
often buffeted
by many waves, the foundation

5Q
PETER
ST.
of the Church ought to hold good against
all
heresies " (pp. 75-6).
Athanasius: In Ps.
St.
Thy
" In
Migne.
have been well
Thy
faith
who
saints,
pleasing
Thou
for,
cvviii.,
founded
on Thy faith, and the gates of

prevail against
And
is
it."
Epist. I.
accuracy
revealed,
and
apostles
old
any way
" It
and
doctrine
which was preached by the
by
preserved
and
the
(p.
Fathers.
tradition the Church
if
one
he cannot
fails,
be any more called Christian, nor

in
28
n.
examine with care
the
from which,
"
not
Catholic Church, which the
For, in that doctrine

is founded,
Church
the
hell shall
ad Serapionem,
into
tradition of the
Lord
truly
is
necessary, moreover, to
and
1191,
every age
in
Thee,
to
hast
p.
he such
is
50).
St. John Chrysostom

On Matt. xvi. n. 1.
What, then, says Christ ? Blessed art thou,
Simon Ear-jona, because flesh and blood hath
:
"
not revealed
it
to thee
(n. 2),
and
say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon

this
rock
I will
My
build
on the faith of the confession
Victor of Antioch
*
Church, that
"
(p.
90).
In Evang, Marci,
few manuscripts^ instead of Church, have world.
57
is,

cap.
" Because, as Christ the
p. 377.
iii.
Lord
was about to build His Church on Peter, that

is, on the unbroken and sound doctrine of Peter
and his unshaken faith, therefore, in prophetic
"
spirit He calls him Peter
(pp. 132-3).
Oratio II,
St. Cyril of Alexandria
:
in
Isa.,
p.
upon
Peter, and
Church,
"He
593.
calling,
this
Thou
art
rock I will found
My
said
think, the rock,
movableness in the faith of

is
the
the
ini-
disciple.
It
somewhere by the voice of the

Its foundations are upon the holy
said also
Psalmist,
'
Exceeding
mountains.'
well
are
the
holy
and evangelists likened to mounas their knowledge is established as a
apostles
tains,
foundation to those after them" (p. 143).

"Christ saying. Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-jona,
etc., calling,
but
nothing else
sively
I think, a
rock, allu-
the unshaken
and
most firm faith of the disciple, upon which

faith,
danger
without
even
of failing,
the
of God has been firmly set and

founded, remaining indestructible for ever by
Church
of
the gates
Migne, tom.
St.
p.
hell"
viii.
Augustine
2470,
i.
p.
:
{Dialog,
de
Triiiitate,
147).
Tract 124
in Joann. n. 5,
" Therefore does the
58
Lord
say,

*Upon
will build JNly
rock I
this
because Peter had said

the
Son
of
the
rock, therefore.
fessed,
Thou
PETER
Church,
art the Christ,
Upon
God.'
this
says, 'which thou hast con-
My
I will build
'
'
living
He
ST.
The rock
Church.'
upon which foundation Peter

For other foundation
also himself was built.
no man can lay but that which is laid,
was
Christ,
'
which
is
And
Christ Jesus'"
Serm.
again,
Apost. Petr,
CCXCV^
Pauli, n. 1-4.
et
which thou hast
125).
(p.
said
Thou
"
in
Upon
Nat,
this
art the Christ, the
Son of the living God,' 'I will build My Church.'

For thou art Peter (Petrus). So Petrus from
Petra, as from Christ Christian "
And
lib.
i.
Retract, xxi.
1,
(p. 13).
pp. 67, 68.
''
In
a certain place [of Augustine's book against

the Epistles of Donatus] I said of the Apostle
Peter that on him, as on a rock, the Church
was founded; which sense

the
mouth
of
many
is
also
sung by
in the verses of the most
Ambrose, w^here he says that the
blessed
cock, hoc, ipsa petra
ecclesice,
canente, culpam
But I know that I have since very

often so expounded what was said by the
Lord, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock
diluit.
'
I will build
INIy
Church,' that
59
it
should be
Him whom
understood upon
saying,
Thou
art
Peter confessed,
the living God'; and so Peter,
named from
would represent the person of the
Church, which is built upon this rock, and
received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
For it was not said to him. Thou art
this rock,
Petra
(a
rock or stone) but Petrus
whom
Petra was Christ
senses
Him.
choose whichever of
may
opinion
But
of
St.
things.
(p.
121).
First, in the
Augustine, there
meanings between which he
let
these two
be the more probable"
remark here two
but the
Peter confessed, as
the whole Church confesses

the reader
tells
are
two
his reader
what many Roman divines

say, that they are one and the same: secondly,
expounded our text
if in early youth he
to choose, against
according
the
to
first
meaning, afterwards
always and constantly he chose the second.
V.
Theodouet: Epist. LXXVII.,^z^/a//o, torn.

"For this also, Christ our Lord
p. 1130.
permitted the
fession he
first
of the apostles, whose con-
had fixed as a kind of giôundwork
and foundation of
and to deny
the Church, to
be shaken,
and again raised him up, teaching
us by the same two things
60
not to trust in
"

ourselves,
and
confirm
to
ST.
PETER
wavering
the
152).
(p.
Paul Emesenus
Horn, de Nativit, {inter
Upon this
faith, the Church of God was founded ; upon
upon this roch, the Lord
this profession,
Opera
God
S. Cyriili Alex.) p. 1437.
*'
placed the foundation of the Church
"
156).
(p.
St.
cap.
i.
Leo, Pope
p. 14.
this
Serm. IV. in JVatal. Ordin.
In Migne
words of chap.
Migne,
ii.
it is
cap.
ii.
c.
(closing
and beginning of chap.

"Christ says:
vol. liv^ p. 150).
iii.
Upon
strength I will raise up an everlasting
My
Church, which
shall reach to heaven, shall rise
on the firmness
temple, and the height of
This confession the gates of hell

shall not hold ; the bonds of death shall not
of
this faith.
hind;
(p.
St.
for
this
word
is
the word
of
life"
160).^
The
Ballerini Brothers
Leo does not speak
remark here, agaiust Quesnel, that

and in many others of his
iu this place,
sermons, of faith in general, nor of the private faith of Peter,

but of that faith which Peter was to preach, and the deposit of
which he left to the Roman See and to his successors, with an
equal privilege of solidity."
vol.
liv.
p.
523.
St.
And what
Leonis Magni Opera, ed. Migne,
the Ballerini brothers say of St.
Leo's words must be equally said of all the Fathers here quoted.
one, indeed, could interpret their words as said of faith iu
No
general, nor of the subjective faith of Peter, but of that faith
which Peter preached.
61

Gelasius, Pope: Epist,
St.
Labbe,
iv.
p.
1158.
*'
You
I.
Euphenu
have read the
cometh by hearing, and

hearing by the word of God (Rom. x. 17)
that word, that is, which promised that the
Faith
sentence:
gates of hell should never prevail against the

confession of the blessed Peter " (p. 170).
The
third
St.
authors hitherto quoted lived from the

to the sixth
century
and
Tertulhan
Cyprian will follow in the next chapter,
when we
deal expressly with the nature of
For the present, then, I stop

Only I add a few words about the
here.
mediaeval doctors of the Church which I take
from Mr. W. Denton's commentary on the
Church
unity.
Gospels for holy days, Eestivals of St. Peter,

After the learned author has brought forward
numbers of
Middle Ages
Roman
*'
great
commentators
as witnesses against the
the
of
modern
interpretation of our text, he adds
might
indefinitely,
extend these extracts almost

but enough has been cited to
show that the modern Roman theory obtains

no sanction from the great commentators of
the Middle Ages.
quoted are of
The
all ages,
to the sixteenth
authors
whom
have
from the ninth century
inclusive
62
they are of
all

countries and conditions
life
saints
bishops and priests, seculars
cardinals,
monks and
regulars,
of
PETER
ST.
and
and
of various orders,
friars
Benedictines, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carthusians,
ing
is
and Franciscans
evidenced
men
every
in
volumes, and whose orthodoxy
In their writings
we
whose
page of
is
learntheir
unquestioned.
find the Catholic
inter-
pretation of our blessed Lord's words.
Upon
this
rock
and
illustrated.
idll build
My
And
Haymo, Rabanus
Church, maintained
INIaurus,
Archbishop
Peter Damian, Rupertus Tuitensis,
de
Gorranus,
Cassia,
Carthusianus {Doctor
a Villanova,
St.
Hugo, Ludolph,
Cardinal
Astensis,
names
certainly such
St.
John Arboreus, Faber
Francis Titelmann, John
iElfric,
Bruno
Simon
Dionysius
Tostatus,
ecstaticus),
as
Thomas
Stapulensis,
Ferus, and
John
Soarez, cannot be set aside as either hceretici
or imperiti.
doubt not that
easy matter to quadruple the

witnesses
They
are
witnesses
but
a
to
it is
those words,
needless for
the
truth
me
to do so.
that
the
Catholic
has ever interpreted
first,
this rock,
would be an
imposing cloud of
sufficiently
Church, from the
it
number of such
of
Him who
Not Roman.
63
alone
is

alike
Rock
the
of the Church and of the
individual believer."^
The outcome
of
preted " this rock

it
was not
"
is
that
if
testimony,
a few inter-
meaning
as
in the present
(at least this
whole
the
ancient and medieeval,
Roman
St.
Peter,
sense at
all
has never yet been really proved),
and that an overwhelming

preted "this rock
"
majority inter-
mean
to
Christ Himself,
or the objective faith confessed by St. Peter
Him, the God
in
such
Before
Incarnate.
splendid array of ancient
and mediaeval witnesses against the Roman

interpretation of the word " rock," one may
ask, in
wonder,
Council
why the
interpreted
Fathers of the Vatican
it
as
said
solely
and
exclusively of Peter's person, and not of his

objective faith.
The answer
without possibility of evasion.
is
at
hand and
The majority
of the Fathers at the Vatican Council were
Pope and entirely under

owing to a very one-sided and
deficient education, fanatically and a priori
convinced of the Pope's primacy and infalliin
the pay of the
his
thumb,
bility.
It
or,
must never be forgotten that the
* Quoted by Arthur Briiickman, The Controversial Methods of

Romanism, p. 167.
64
PETER
ST.
majority of those prelates was largely
up of
Italian Bishops
wholly dependent on
made
and ApostoHc Vicars,
Rome; men, moreover,
of little learning, if not altogether ignorant

of everything not strictly connected with the
Roman theology. But they were a crowd,
and with
their votes
overwhelmed the learned
minority which opposed
The
claims.
fact
is
the
unjust
that the Vatican council
was not
free,
at
But more about
all.
Pope's
and, as such, was no

this
in
Council
a proper
chapter at the end of this work.
Roman
divines,
as a fitting conclusion of
the Biblical argument in favour of the primacy

;
of the Church of
Rome,
are fond of massing
New Testament
spoken of as first of
the apostles, or in which some deference is
together
in
all
which
paid to
Now,
those texts of the
Peter
St.
him
just
is
in preference to all the
to
be
fair
others.
and honest, without
denying that in a few texts Peter appears

as first and chief of the twelve, I shall add
here a
list
of other texts, where he ranks
with the apostles in perfect equality, without

distinction of absolute supremacy.
Therefore,
as far as Scriptural evidence goes,
against, than in favour of,
65
it is
rather
modern Romanism.
p

The Scriptural Evidence against Modern
Romanism
St 3Iatthew
Chap,
xxviii. 18fF.
"And
Jesus came and
spake unto them, saying, All power
unto
Me
therefore,
them
in
heaven and in earth.
in
and teach
Go
ye
baptizing
nations,
all
name
the
given
is
the Father, and of
of
Holy Ghost: teaching
the Son, and of the
them to observe all things whatsoever I have

commanded you and, lo, I am with you
:
always,
Amen."
even unto
end
the
Commission and promise to abide
with successors given to
xxii.
28
fF.
all
equally.
Luke
St,
Chap.
of the world.
Ye
"
are they
which have
My temptations. And
I appoint unto you a kingdom, as My
Father hath appointed unto Me
that ye
may eat and drink at My table in My
continued with
Me
in
kingdom, and
sit
on
twelve tribes of Israel."

St.
thrones judging the
No
appointment of
Peter as vice-regent or chief

St,
Chap.
xi.
16
"
ruler.
John
Then
66
said
Thomas, which

is
unto
called Didymiis,
his fellow
we may
L.et us also go, that
ST.
PETER
disciples,
die with
Him."
All equal.
Chap.
20
xii.
fF.
among
Greeks
worship at the
to
fore
them
and
there were certain
came up to
same
came thereThe
which was of Bethsaida of
that
feast.
Philip,
Galilee,
And
"
him,
desired
saying,
Sir,
we
would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth

Andrew and again Andrew and Philip tell
Jesus." Andrew and Philip approach Jesus
:
directly,
and not through
Chap. XV. 2G
is
come,
fF.
whom
Peter.
St.
"But when
I will
the Comforter
send unto you from the
Father, evcfi the Spirit of truth, which pro-
ceedeth from the Father, ye shall testify of
Me
and ye
also shall bear witness, because
ye have been with
No
special
JNIe
to
gift
from the beginning."
St.
Peter
all
equal as
witnesses.
Chap.
13
xvi.
"
is
into
for
truth
He
come,
Spirit of truth,
all
Howbeit when He, the
He
shall
He
speak
things to come."
by the Holy
and
guide you
not speak of
He
He will show
Himself; but w^hatsoever

shall
will
shall hear, that
you
All to be equally guided
Spirit.
67

Chap.
xvii.
21
"
Thou, Father,
as
may
that they also
world
No
may
That they all may be one

Me, and I in Thee,
art in
be one in
Thou
believe that
Us
that the
hast sent Me."
great inferiority of rank, as in bishops
compared to Popes, but oneness
as the
Divine
Persons are co-equal.
Chap. XX. 22
this,
He
fF.
"
And when He
had
said
breathed on them, and saith unto
them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are

retained.
But Thomas, one of the twelve,
called Didymus, was not with them when
Jesus came. The other disciples therefore
;
said
The
on
unto him.
"
Power
all.
We
have seen the
of the Keys
"
Lord."
bestowed equally
After the events described (Matt,
xvi.)
the disciples spoken of as equal.
The Acts of
Chap.
i.
14
the Apostles
" These
all
continued with
one accord in prayer and supplication, with

the
women, and Mary the mother of
Jesus,
and with His brethren."

Chap.
ii.
"
And
them cloven tongues
there appeared unto
like as of fire,
68
and
it

sat
upon each of them."
on
St.
No
ii.
42
"
And
double portion
they continued stead-
fastly in the apostles' doctrine
in
and fellowship,
breaking of bread, and in prayers."
in St. Peter's doctrine,
Chap.
iv.
but
all
"This is the stone which

nought of you builders, which is
11:
own testimony
Chap.
vi.
as to
who
" Tlien
is
the Rock.
hcclvc called the
tJic
not reason that
is
St. Peter's
the disciples unto them, and
multitude of
It
Not
the apostles'.
was set at
become the head of the corner."
said,
PETER
Peter.
Chap.
and
ST.
we
God, and serve
the word of
should leave
tables."
All
equal.
Chap.
apostles
"
Whom
they set before the
and when they had prayed, they

hands on them." All equal.
laid their
Chap.
vi.
"Now when
14:
viii.
the apostles
which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria

had received the word of God, they sent
unto them Peter and John." Apostles tonot one supreme over
gether supreme,
apostles.
Chap.
Peter sent by
St.
ix.
15:
him. Go thy way
unto
INIe,
to
"But
:
bear
the Lord said unto
for he
jNIy
69
all.
is
a chosen vessel
name
before
the

Gentiles,
and kings, and the children of
Israel."
Paul the apostle of the Gentiles.

" But Barnabas took him,
Chap. ix. 27
St.
and brought him to the
apostles."
Not
to
St. Peter.
"
And
the apostles and

heard that the
Judea
brethren that were
Gentiles had also received the word of
And when Peter was come up to
God.
Chap.
xi.
fF.
in
Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision
contended with him."
supreme and
as
Chap. XV. 6
came together
No
Peter not regarded
infallible.
And
"
St.
the apostles and elders
for to consider of this matter."
appeal to St. Peter.
Wherefore my sentence is,

that we trouble not them, which from among
the Gentiles are turned to God." St. James,
Chap. XV. 19
not
St.
"
Peter, president of the council.
Chap. XV. 23
"
And
they wrote letters
by them after this manner. The apostles and

elders and brethren send greeting unto the
brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch
and Syria and Cilicia." Decree of apostles,
not encyclical of
Chap.
the
And
went through
they delivered them the decrees
xvi. 4
cities,
"
St. Peter.
as they
70

apostles
that
Decrees of apostles, not

Chap.
I do,
Arise,
St. Peter.
"And
10:
xxii.
What
said,
Lord ? And the Lord

and go into Damascus
be told thee of
shall
PETER
were ordained of the

and elders which were at Jerusalem."
keep,
to
for
ST.
which are
things
all
appointed for thee to do."
shall
unto me.
and there it
said
Apostle of the
Gentiles not sent to St. Peter, who, therefore,
had not supreme power of jurisdiction

If he had, it is difficult to
and mission.
why
understand
such a case as
Chap,
whole
received
30
in
that
all
not
recognised
in
this.
xxviii.
years
was
it
And Paul
own hired
"
his
came
in
dwelt two
house,
and
unto him, preaching
kingdom of God, and teaching those

things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ,
the
with
confidence, no
all
Rome
St.
Paul
St.
Peter, even
in
if
man
forbidding him."
no hint of
inferiority to
the latter were there at
the time.
Epistle of
Chap.
i.
Paul
5
"
the Apostle to the
By whom we have
Romans
received
grace and apostleship, for obedience to the

faith
among
all
nations, for
71
His name."
If

had been said by St. Peter, how it would
have been twisted into the support of papal
this
claims to absolute obedience

Chap. i. 15: " So, as much as in
!
me
is,
am ready to preach the Gospel to you that are

at Rome also." No hint of St. Peter at Rome.
Chap. XV. 20
" Yea, so have I strived to
where
preach the Gospel, not
named,
should build upon another man's
lest I
Church
foundation."
founded by
The
was
Christ
at
Rome
not exclusively
St. Peter.
First Epistle of
Paul
the Apostle to the
Corinthians
Chap.
one of you
Apollos
St.
"Now
12:
i.
I of
is
Chap.
and
St.
iii.
of Christ."
am
is
laid,
which
is
Jesus
Peter not the foundation.
22
"
things present, or
St.
of
The modern
first.
Whether
Paul, or Apollos,
or Cephas, or the world, or
yours."
and
here denounced.
" For other foundation can
11
iii.
no man lay than that

Christ."
of Paul
every
sign of true Churchmanship, " I
of Peter,"
Chap.
am
Cephas
named
Peter not
Roman
saith,
and
this I say, that
things
life,
to
come,
Peter not mentioned
72
or death, or
first.
all
are

Chap, ix 5
about a
and
St.
Have we
"
PETER
ST.
not power to lead
a wife, as well as other apostles,
sister,
as the brethren of the
Lord, and Cephas?"
Peter married, and not mentioned
Chap.
xii.
the Church,
28
"
And God
first.
hath set some in
secondarily prophets,
first apostles,
thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts
of
healings,
of
tongues."
governments, diversities
helps,
First
not
apostles,
Rome,
Peter, or the Bishop of
St.
first
or a Vicar of
Christ.
Chap. XV. 5
ff.
then of the twelve

seen of James
James and
St.
He
"
was seen of Cephas,

after that He was
tlien of all the apostles."
St.
Peter mentioned in same terms.
All equal.
Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle
to the
Corinthians
Chap.
xi.
"
For
suppose I was not a
No
whit behind the very chiefest apostles."

hint of St. Peter's supremacy here.
Chap.
xi.
are without,
daily, the
28
care of
xii.
that
and that which cometh upon
had been said by

Chap.
" Beside those things
all
St.
11:
the churches."
Peter
"For
73
me
If this
in
nothing
am

behind the very chiefest apostles, though I
No
be nothing."
inferiority to St. Peter.
The Epistle of Paul
the Apostle to the
Galatians
saw
"
But other of the apostles

none, save James the Lord's brother."
Chap.
19
i.
All equal.
But of these who seemed to

be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh
Chap.
ii.
no matter to
person
for
:)
"
me
they
God accepteth no man's

who seemed to be somewhat
:
added nothing to me but conwhen they saw that the Gospel of
in conference
trariwise,
the uncircumcision was committed unto me,

as the
Gospel of the circumcision was unto
Peter:
(for
he that wrought effectually in
Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,
me
And
toward the Genwhen James, Cephas, and John,
who seemed
to be pillars, perceived the grace
the same was mighty in

tiles
that
:)
was given unto me, they gave to
me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that

wê should go unto the heathen, and they unto
;
the
circumcision."
All equal.
mission not wider than
Chap.
ii.
11
St.
Peter's
St. Paul's.
"But when Peter was come

74
to

Antioch,
withstood him to the
he was to be blamed."
and
No
PETER
ST.
face,
because
hint of supremacy
infallibihty here.
Epistle of
Paul
the Apostle to the
Ephcsiaiis
Chap.
20
ii.
And
"
are
built
upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus

Christ Himself being the chief corner stone."
of St. Peter as the rock on which
No mention
the Church
is built.
"Endeavouring to keep the

unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." The
modern Roman test of unity is submission to
Chap.
iv.
3:
Rome.
Chap.
apostles
11
iv.
and
evangelists
fF.:
"And
he
some, prophets
gave
some,
and
some,
and some, pastors and teachers
work
of the body
for the perfecting of the saints, for the
of the ministry, for the edifying

of Christ."
Christ, sole
The
No
mention of any Vicar of

source of jurisdiction and mission.
Epistle of
Paul
the Apostle to the
Colossians
Chap.
ii.
fF.
"
As ye have
therefore re-
ceived Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in
75
Him
and
rooted
stablished
the
in
up
built
ye
as
faith,
Him, and
in
have
been
taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Beware
any man
lest
you through
spoil
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition
men,
of
rudiments of
the
after
For
world, and not after Christ.
dwelleth
the
all
And
bodily.
the
Him
Godhead
Him, which
the
of
fulness
in
ye are complete in
and power."
The Christian living and growing in Christ
No mention of any
is complete in Him.
other bond but the mystical union by which
the head of
is
principality
all
we
are
He
dwells in us by the
all
united to
and by which
Christ,
Holy
Spirit.
The First Epistle Geneiâl of Peter

Chap.
i.
" Peter,
an apostle of Jesus
Christ, to the strangers scattered
Pontus,
Cappadocia,
Galatia,
An
Bithynia."
Apostle, or the
throughout
Head
and
supreme
Asia,
apostle, not the chief,
of the Church, or the
Vicar of Christ, but Peter, an apostle.
Chap.
ii.
*'
:
Wherefore
also
it is
contained
in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief
corner
stone,
belie veth
on
elect,
Him
precious
shall not
76
and he that
be confounded."

own testimony
Peter's
St.
ST.
PETER
that Christ
is
the
Rock.
Chap.
you
V.
The elders which are among

who am also an elder, and a
"
exhort,
witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also

a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed."
" Also
an elder
"
no mention of supreme
headship.
The Second Epistle General of Peter

Chap.
apostle
i.
"
Simon
Peter, a servant and an
of Jesus Christ, to
them
that have
obtained like precious faith with us through

the righteousness of
Christ."
No
God and our Saviour Jesus
allusion to
supreme headship.
That ye may be mindful of

the words which were spoken before by the
holy prophets, and of the commandment of
us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour."
Chap.
iii.
"
All equal.
The Bevelation of
Chap. xxi. 14
"
St.
And
John
the
Divine
the wall of the city
had twelve foundations, and in them the names
Lamb."
No
foundation of
one
of the twelve apostles of the
mention of one
special
apostle, St. Peter.
77
CHAPTER V
CYPRIAN THOUGHT
ABOUT THE CHURCH OF ROME AND ITS
WHAT TERTULLIAN AND
ST.
BISHOP
the preceding chapter
IN neither
Tertulhan nor
have reserved them for

they
fit
in better here.
independent witnesses.
have quoted
I
St.
this
Cyprian.
place, because
Nor are they two

They are practically
one only. St. Cyprian is the pupil, Tertullian

the "Master," though not heard always by
former
the
St.
with
unreasoning
Cyprian knows at times
pendent.
Both of them were
imaginative,
men
how
submission.
to be inde-
rhetoricians, very
of fervent passions, idealists,
with a strong tendency to exaggeration, and
born
controversialists.
St.
Cyprian, moreover,
was possessed with a strange hankering after

unity, which at times seemed akin, not to a
religious virtue,
but to a very human weakness.

'78
TERTULLIAN AND
men
two
CYPRIAN
ST.
African Church, between a.d.
what the
150 and 250,
They
will explain to
These
will
thought of church unity.
us
tell
us in what sense the Church of Christ
how its. unity
what elements it is comthe bond that binds together
is
the particular Churches
all
one,
arose, of
what
posed,
is
into
one great
Church, and in what relation the
universal
See of Peter stands to the other Churches

established
Now
Peter,
The Church
(a)
i.e.
apostolic
"
'
one
original
are,
Church,' and,
not to
the
I will
Church
shalt bind or loose,'
or loose.'
him
the
For
first
man
sent of
(c)
The
of the faith."
*
I will
build
My
give to thee the keys,'
and whatsoever thou

not what they shall bind
*
'
built ; that
is,
God
to
79
through him
to use the key.
of Israel, hear these words

a
man.
is
Church
so also the event teaches
Church was
he was the
original
however, at the same
"wombs and originals

Upon thee,' He says,
'
on
built
The Church
(b)
from one
Churches
one,
is
is
it
through
time
him.
tJn'ough
one because
and
over the world.
all
with himself, teaches constantly three
sistent
things
by the apostles
Tertullian, although not always con-
Ye men
Jesus of Nazareth,
you,'
and the
rest

(Acts
In short, he unlocked the
22).
ii.
kingdom of heaven in the

baptism of Christ, by which offences heretofore bound are loosed and those not loosed
are bound according to true salvation" (De
entrance of the
Pudicitia, n. 21).
"
The Church being founded, the
apostles
scattered themselves through the whole world
same doctrine of the same faith

to the Gentile nations, amongst which, afterwards, they established Churches, and from
to preach the
them, later on,
all
the other Churches bor-
rowed the generation of faith and the seed

of doctrine, and they are still now borrowing,
that they
esteemed
may
be Churches.
Hence they
likewise apostolic,
and
legitimate
Because
offspring of the apostolic Churches.
every family
is
Therefore, so
to be traced back to its origin.
viany and
make but one Church,

founded by
Churches
different
that first one which
the apostles,
And
are
from which
was
all others
and all
apostolic, whilst, being all one, they show
the unity of the Church, which is manifested
derived.
so all are the
first,
peace, by the
mark of hosthe
by
name of brotherhood,
of all which things there is no other
pitality
also
by
their
communion of
80
TERTULLIAN AND
ST.
CYPRIAN
reason than that they have the same rule of

faith "
{De Prcescripfionibus, cap. xx.).

Now, what the apostles did preach, that
is to say, what Christ revealed unto them,
1 will here also rule must be found out in
no other way than from those same Churches
which the apostles themselves founded by
preaching to them first viva voce, as men say,
and afterwards by epistles. If these things
"
becomes
in like degree manifest that
be
so, it
all
doctrines which agree with those apostolic
Churches, the
wombs and
originals of the faith,
must be accounted true, as without doubt containing that which the Churches have received
from the apostles, the apostles from Christ,
Christ from God ..." {De Prcesaip. cap. xxi.).
St. Cyprian holds the same doctrine, but
he expounds it more clearly and develops it
more abundantly.
" Moreover, after all this, a pseudo-bishop
having been set up for themselves by heretics,

they dare to
sail
and to carry
letters
from
schismatics and profane persons to the chair
of Peter, and the principal Church, whence the
unity of the piiesthood took
its ?ise "
[Epist,
ad Cornelium, n. 18).
" There is one baptism and one Holy Ghost,
81

and one Church, founded by Christ the Lord
upon Peter, yro7/^ the origin and by reason oj
"
unity (Origine unitatis et ratione)
LXX., ad
"
Januar.).
The Lord
thee,' saith
saith
to
He, that thou

'
Peter,
say unto
and upon
art Peter,
To
this rock,' etc. (Matt. xvi. 18, 19).
His
again, after
My
(Epist.
resurrection.
Upon
sheep.'
He
says,
him, being one.
He
'
him,
Feed
builds
His Church and though He gives to all the

apostles an equal power, and says, "As the
Father sent Me, even so I send you receive
;
ye the Holy Ghost whosesoever

;
etc., yet, in
ye remit,'
sins
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 were what Peter
was, endued with an equal fellowship, both of
honour and power but a commencement is
made from unity, that the Church may be
;
set
before us as one " {de
Oxford
Unitate, p. 393.
translation).
"
For what quarrels and dissensions hast

thou [Pope Stephen] provoked through the
And how
Churches of the whole world ?
great sin hast thou heaped up for thyself
when thou
didst cut thyself off
82
from so many
TERTULLIAN AND
flocks
For thou
ceive not thyself:
matic
the
who
has
ST.
CYPRIAN
didst cut thyself off: de-
he
for
is
truly the schis-
made himself an
apostate
from
communion of the unity of the Church
LXXV.,
(Epist.
From
"
Firmilian to Cyprian).
the passages of Tertullian and of
Cjrprian hitherto quoted
following
we may draw
now
the
disregarding
inferences,
the
episcopalianism of the two African doctors,
which they both held and taught.

{a) Christ,
according to these two authors,

the apostles and their suc-
placed
all
cessors
on the same
alike
Yet, to
{h)
level.
indicate
oneness or the
the
unity of the commission or charge
them,
first
He
Petrum locutus
est
prêcipiens " (ad
mox
gave
"
Dominus, ad unum,
ut unitatem fundaret ex uno,
commune
He
addressed Pete?' alone.
Ad
id est
idipsum in
Pacianum, Epist.
III. cap. xi.)
The
(c)
in
itself
with
all
authority of every bishop
is
perfect
and independent, yet not forming
other bishops a mere agglomeration of
powers, but being a tenure upon a totality,

like that of a shareholder in
perty.
" Episcopatus
singulis in
unus
some
est,
solidum pars tenet ur."
83
joint pro-
cujus

The
{d)
unity
of
fession
Church's
the
of
one united episcopate, the
her
is
bond
tangible
the same faith in
pro-
Jesus Christ,
the same sacraments, the same spiritual end.

{e) The Church is one, also, because it first
came from one, i,e, through Peter, and sprang
from one Church, the Church of Jerusalem.

is one Church which spreads itself out
multitude
of Churches, wider and wider
into a
" There
in every increasing fruitfulness
sun has
a tree
just as the
many rays, but one only light, and

many branches, yet one only heart,
based in the clinging root."

"
The Lord,"
says St. Augustine, "has placed
the foundation of the Church in the apostolic
(Dominus
sees
fundamenta
Ecclesias
"
apostolorum sedibus collocavit)."
Church must
And
the root
attach itself to
in
each
of
the apostolic sees (ad radices apostolicarum

sedium)."
And
Irenseus
St.
" This
the
is
Church [the Church of Jerusalem] from which each Church took its rise
voice of that
this
is
the voice of the great
of the citizens of the
St.
St.
Augustini, Contra
Irenaei,
Adv.
New
city,
litteras Petiliani^ lib.
Hcer.
lib.
Migne.
84
iii.
the city
Testament,"
cap.
ii.
xii.
etc.^
cap. 61.
u.
195,
ed.

TERTULLIAN AND
Hae
("
CYPRIAN
ST.
voces Ecclesias ex qua habuit omnis
Ecclesia initium
").
The form of government
(f)
Church
is
body.
It
that of a body,
for the
therefore, a practical
is,
whole
a representative
i.e.
" the
moral unity, held together by
unity, a
cement of
mutual concord."
The
{g)
themselves
single
Churches
and
independent,
perfect
Churches,
the originals of the faith "
together do not
in
they
because
from the apostolic
sprang
wombs and
all
are
" the
;
yet
make many Churches, but
one Church only, because the
first
declaration
of the foundation of a universal Church
is
couched in language addressed to one only

St. Peter.
{h)
rule
Accordingly, as "that body
any one
bishop
(i)
may
"Pontifex
as
may
fortiori,
not
any one
not rule that body.
no
Therefore
porum,"
bisliop," so,
maximus
et
bishops
all
may
one
style
himself
Episcopus
episco-
are
equal amongst
themselves, both in honour and power.
Hence the
Church is a great
to no particular
Church did Christ grant the power of juris{k)
republic
universal
of Churches, and
diction over
all
the
rest.
85
In
this,
the univer-

Church possesses a government sui generis,
the hke of which does not exist amongst
purely human societies. The Government
sal
that approaches most nearly to that of the
Church
is
States, or
in
some
Government of the United

that of a company of shareholders
the
joint property.
the
according to
Peter,
(/)
doctors, being the
two African
one apostle to
whom
commission to found the Church was
the
firstly
Church of Jerusalem, from which all other Churches derived,

enjoys a certain primacy amongst the other
He is
bishops of the Catholic Church
primus inter parses, and his Church is
given, and the head of the
Ecclesia principalis.
(m) After
the death
of
St.
who
view may be
Peter,
from an episcopalian point of

regarded as Bishop of Jerusalem and,
the death of James,
and
till
his successor in that see,
same Church to
Christians looked upon the Church of
after the dispersion of the
Pella,
Jerusalem
as
the
Ecclesia pinncipalis,
matrix and radix unitatis

ficant
is
letter of
the inscription of
and very
the
signi-
the apocryphal
Clement, Bishop of Rome, to James,
Bishop of Jerusalem, in
86
which the former
TERTULLIAN AND
ST.
CYPRIAN
informs the latter of the death of Peter and

of his
own
election.
"
Clement to James, the
Lord's brother, and Bishop of bishops, and

who rules Jerusalem, the holy Church of the
Hebrews, and the Churches everywhere excellently founded by the Providence of God,
with the elders and deacons and the rest of
The
the brethren, peace be always."^
letter
was written between 200 and 230 a.d. and

but it shows a certain
is, of course, apocryphal
;
inclination in the early Christians
to attach
a certain pre-eminence to the Church from
which all others had descended. But, as the

Church at Jerusalem broke up very soon, so
in the course of time, for very
Rome came
the
to be the Ecdcsia
apostoUca,
sedes
human
the
radix
reasons,
principalis,
et
matrix
was a natural development, of

which TertuUian and Cyprian are two of the
unitatis.
It
earliest witnesses,
"
The term
nothing more.
principalis
by
Ecclesia given
Cyprian to the Church of Rome, defined indeed

her position
and highest
among Churches.
She
is
first
in a great republic of Churches,
possessing a general pre-eminence as distinct

1
Cf.
Dr. Gerardus Rauschen Manuale di Patrologia,

Rom. Pont. Opera Dubice, torn. ii. p. 31.
S. Clementis I.,
87
p.
39

from a
special function, a constitutional pre-
eminence as opposed to despotic
Augustine lays
St.
stress
of the Church of Rome.
In
on the principate
effect, he writes as
follows to Glorius Eleusius (Epistle

*
Romanse
licse
Ecclesise
qua
in
cathedrae viguit
Also
rule.
XL II
I.)
semper apostoand urges
principatus,'
the Donatists to submit to the judgment of
Pope Melchiades and his colleagues the

given on appeal at
less,
Rome
14).
(s.
bishops,
Neverthe-
he points out that, supposing that
judgment
be wrong, there was
to
Roman
still
an
appeal to a general Council, which might reconsider
and reverse the judgment of the

bishops
Ecce putemus illos
Pope and
'
episcopos, qui
Romae
judices fuisse
restabat adhuc plenarium uni-
versas
ipsis
Ecclesias
judicarunt,
Concilium, ubi
non bonos
etiam
judicibus causa posset agitari, ut
judicasse
convicti
solverentur'
(s.
eorum sententise
That distinctly ex-
19).
'
cum
male
essent,
presses the nature of principatus.

strictly speaking,
si
sovereign
'
It
was
not,
in its decisions,
great as was the respect paid to them."^
The
^
reader
may have remarked
Archbishop Benson, Cyprian : his

London^ 1897.
p. 539.
Appendix A.
88
Life, his
that I gave
Timesj
his
Work,
TERTULLIAN AND
CYPRIAN
ST.
the most beautiful extract of Cyprian's treatise

on the Unity of the Church according to the
Oxford
translation.
of the same passage.
known
are well
"He
[Peter],
fed,
"
to
Roman
in
order to
interpolations
The words
interpolated
His Church upon that one

entrusts His sheep to be
Him
He
established one Chair
''And primacij
Church
of
is
all
shown, to be fed
given
and
to Peter,
and one
Christ
pointed out; and

is
so
builds
and
did
leave out the shameful
Chair
that one
may
be
arc pastors and one flock
bij all
the apostles xvith one-
hearted accord.
"He
idio deserts
the Chair
of Peter, on
which the Church was foimded, does he trust
that he is in the Church ? "
Now, the words
"The
history
of
in
their
itahcs
are spurious.
interpolation,"
says
Archbishop Benson, " may be distinctly traced

even now, and it is as singular as their controversial importance has been unmeasured.
Their insertion in the pages of Be Unitate
Ecclesi(B
army
a forgery which has deceived an

of scholars and caused the allegiance
is
of unwilling thousands to
89
Rome.
Because
no disguising the fact if Cyprian

wrote them and beheved them, he held and
there
is
taught the cardinal doctrine of the
But he did
See.
He
not.
Roman
never wrote
the words ascribed to him, and the passage,
penned by him,
truly
words,
italicised
doctrine
is
runs
from
smoothly, and
separated
a different one.
It
is
the
the
the doctrine
of a Christendom, perfect in unity, without

hint of Petrine or of any primacy.
have already said,

(such
it
As we
exhibits a unity indicated
the special argument of the passage)
is
by Christ, committing one and the same charge,

first to one and then to all of the apostles
as peers or equals of that one.
"Nor
meant
lation
could the interpolations ever have been
as
is
The manipu-
honest paraphrases.
too great.
The
insertions
omissions bear on the face of
and the
them the
evi-
dence of design.
This was to raise the Chair
of Peter over
all
the Churches in the world.
And
end Rome, or
to this
scrupulous friend of
Rome,
rather an unresorted to the
corruption of the text of Cyprian's
Their origin
ignorance
may
of
also
De
Unitate,
be quite fortuitous, the
scribe,
the
Roman priest, who copied as

90
devotion of a
genuine Cyprianic
TERTULLIAN AND
CYPRIAN
ST.
by Pope
But be that as it may,
text a paraphrase of Cyprian's text

Pelagiiis II., A.D. 585.
if
Rome
can be excused for the origin of the
fraud, she cannot be
pardoned
for
authority, in
and printers
having de-
by papal
the teeth of evidence upon editors
who were at its mercy."
Hberately for these centuries forced
it,
These interpolations were first perpetrated

in an edition of St. Cyprian's works which
ten
contains
and
treatises
seven
letters.
According to the learned scholars Hartel and
Dom
of
Chapman, the three principal famihes

manuscripts, where nowadays the omissions
and insertions are
found, derive from that
edition.
Amongst
other codices the so-called
Codices
Monacciiscs
graph
tions.
(31),
traced to an apo-
now lost, contain the interpolaFather Chapman thinks, very ingeni-
(x),
ously, that St. Cyprian himself
He
believes
Novatus,
Unitatc,
their author.
that the saint, at the time of
made
in
is
a second
order
edition
counteract
to
of his JDe
by
it
the
nefarious influence of that schismatic priest,
the
as
directed
He
*
first
edition
of his
work had been
against the schism of Felicissimus.
supports his opinions by the following
Archbishop Benson, Cyprian
91
his Life, his Times, his
Work,

arguments
{a)
The
Novatus
at the schism of
very
likely, in
interpolated readings aim
the third century
made
quoted, or otherwise
they existed,
{b)
they were
(c)
use
in
of,
the
fourth century, by St. Optatus, St. Jerome,
on by Pope Gelasius II. and the

all
I answer to
this
Venerable Bede.
did
attack
Novatian
schism
not
the
{a) The
primacy of the See of Rome there was no
and
later
need, therefore, that St. Cyprian should have
added the well-known passages to
his treatise
Rome.
to defend the primacy of the Bishop of
The only crime
of Novatus was to deny the
legitimate claim of Bishop Cornelius to the
See of
Rome
primacy of that
which,
first
was written
Chapman
of
in
no way did he
in
See.
all,
{b)
offers
reject the
The manuscript
the interpolations,
it
can be traced back
to an archetype of the third century
does not prove his assertion,

asserts that the doctors
knew
Dom
the eighth century.
thinks that
(c)
He
but he
likewise
Optatus and Jerome
the Cyprianic interpolations and
use of them in their
own
writings.
made
And why
so ?
Because the two saints mention the
words cathedra Petri, sl formula which occurs
in
an interpolated passage
92
of
JDe
Unitate.
TERTULLIAN AND
ST.
CYPRIAN
But the learned author should

that a similar phrase
is
mind
to
call
to be found in one
of St. Cyprian's letters to Cornelius (Epist.
LIX.
14)
argument,
his
therefore,
not
is
do not mention here the

attempts that have been made to find a trace
to the
point.
of the interpolated passages in the writings

of Prudentius, Ambrose, and Augustine, be-
cause they
all
failed
polation, therefore,
now
by
all
is
naries this
To
is
certain,
scholars,
Protestant, although
still
The
miserably.
and
Catholic
admitted
is
well
as
most Roman
in
inter-
as
semi-
simply ignored.^
conclude in the words of Archbishop
Benson
" Singular, hateful,
aggression
" Its
and
in its
time
has been this forgery as a papal
effective,
upon history and
first
summaries
threads
in
literature."
may have been
marginal
exaggerated language.
Then
came an unwarrantable paraphrase and

deliberate
Then
'
Cf.
John
it
mutilation for a political purpose.
appeared in the manuscripts of the
Hartel,
St.
Cypriani Opera Omnia (Vindobonae,
Dom Chapman
868)
Revue Benedictine, p. 364,

No. 4, October 1902 Abbe Joseph Turmelj Histoire du dogme
de la Papaute, pp. 109, 110 (Paris
Picard, 1908) Archbishop
E. White Benson, Cyprian: his Life, his Time, his Work
(London, 1897).
in
the
93

its indictment round its neck, side
by side on the same page with the original
which it caricatured. Then it was forced into
two grand editions with an interval of a
century and a half between them, first by
the Court of Rome itself, then by the Court
author with
Rome before its

Romanam condere
of France with the fear of

eyes
'
mohs
Tantae
erat
sedem!'"^
A word more about St. Augustine. It is
a fact, both singular and wonderful, that the
great doctor of Hippo, in his treatise on the
Unity of the Church, never so much as
Rome
alludes to
as the centre of
or to the Bishop of
Rome,
Church Government and the
On
formal cause of the unity of the Church.

the
Donatists
is ?
he
contrary,
in fact
"
You
answer
thus
ask
argues
against
me where
the
the Church
search the Scriptures."
And
he proceeds to show that, according
Church of Christ
over the world, and not confined
to the Scriptures, the true
spread
is
all
to a small corner of Africa, as the Donatists
pretended
St.
*
his
it
was.
And
that
is
Augustine twice quotes the

Archbishop E. White Benson_, Cyprian:
Work, p. 219. London, 1897.
94
all.
True,
text,
" and
his Life, his Time,
TERTULLIAN AND
upon
rock
this
but he interprets
it
CYPRIAN
my
build
will
ST.
Church
in a mystical way.
"
And
would have been so easy for him to

You, Donatists, ask me where the
Church is. I answer The Church is where
Peter is.
Those are in the true Church of
yet
it
say
"
Christ
who
of
Rome
of
Rome,
are in
but, as
you
so
communion with the See

you reject the Communion
are out of the true
Church
This argument would have been a
of Christ."
very forcible one
yet, I repeat, St.
does not even think of
He
it.
Augustine
appeals to the
Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith; nothing
more or
less,
and that
is all.^
What is the natural conclusion

Apparently
future the
this,
Roman
to modify to
definition
not,
as
that in a
from
more or
all this?
less
near
theologians will be forced
a great extent the idea and
of the Church.
The Church
is
they think, an absolute monarchy,
with the Pope at her head
great republic of Churches,
independent of
but rather a
one another, and yet linked together by the

profession of the
same
of the same Christian

*
S.
faith,
life,
by the practice
and by
Augustini Episcopi, Liber sive Epistula
contra Petiliani DonatistcB Epistulam.
95
De
love.
This
Unitate EcclesicB

is
the only unity of the Christian Church
which can be proved to be

All the rest
is
really primitive.
a late development, nothing
else.
The ancient Fathers and
ecclesiastical writers
of the Church professed about her nature and

constitutions the belief which I have been so
and two General Councils of

the Church, which were really free, and at
which all Christian nations were duly represented, the Councils of Constance and of Basel,
far explaining,
and discussed about this

weighty subject in no other way than I have
done heretofore. Let the reader, if he chooses,
consult the writings of John Gerson and other
thought,
believed,
theologians of his times, and he will see for

himself what those men thought about the
constitution of the Church.
From
St. Cyprian's
times to the Councils of Constance and Easel,

more than one thousand years elapsed, but the
true idea of the Church of Christ was never
It survived through the boisterous and
lost.
medieval times. Unfortunately, two

centuries later, it began to founder on the
difficult
deceitful shoals of
Rome.
CHAPTER
VI
ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CLAIMS
rpERTULLIAN
-*-
in theory
and
and Cyprian scorned, both

practice, the idea that the
Rome
was Siunmus Pont ifex and

Episcopus Episcoporum yet there is no disBishop of
Rome,
guising the fact that the Church of
almost from the very beginning, put forth

claims to a
over
all
other Churches.
letter of the
of
the
certain superiority
The tone
Roman Church
Corinthians
the
and primacy
to the
attitude
Victor in the question of Easter
of the
Church
of
Pope
the strong
words of Pope Stephen to St. Cyprian the

letter of Pope Zosimus to the African bishops;
;
the proclamation of the legate Philip before
the Fathers at the Council of Ephesus

other documents
down
to
Pope
and
Gelasius, all
go to show that Rome did not forget itself.

I do not mention the texts of St. Ignatius
97

and Irenaeus, because they are too obscure
and uncertain to prove anything/
The claims of the Roman Church were
resolutely and constantly resisted from the
very beginning, which fact should set
theologians
are
not,
whether
thinking
after
of
rather
all,
Roman
claims
their
human than
divine appointment.
According to me, the

velopment of the
Roman
the following causes

1.
In
St.
and further declaims are due to
rise
Gospel
Matthew's
13-19
xvi.
' The words of St. Ignatius, TrpoKaOrjixevr] ttjs dydTrrjs {" presidens in charitate "), if they prove anything, show that at the time
of St. Ignatius the Church of Rome was famous all over the
(.'hristian world for her charity, a thing attested also by St. DionyI say, if
sius, quoted by Eusebius, H.E. lib. iv. cap. xxiii. 10.
they prove anything, because the reading is very uncertain and
tlie meaning obscure.
Cf. St. Ignatius, Epistula ad Romanos ;
G. Rauschen, Florilcgium
F. X. Funk, Patres Apostolici
;
Patristicum (Bonnae, 1904).
must be said
about the Roman Church. From Dr. Grabe
to Dom Chapman, a host of learned men have attempted to fix
a definite meaning on the famous text, and all failed because
the original Greek text of the saint is lost, the translation is
barbarous, the reading doubtful, and the meaning very obscure.
It is high time that Roman divines should cease quoting St.
At the best it
Irenaeus's text in favour of the Roman Church,
Cf. Opera S. Irencei contra Hareses, lib. iii.
is worth very little.
The same
of
thing, and that with greater reason,
St. Irenaeus's text
cap.
iii,
Dissertationes in Irencsi Lihros, pp. 219, 231 (ed.
Dom
la
Migne)
John Chapman, Le Temoignage de St. Irenee en faveur de

Primaute Romaine {Revue Benedictine, Fevrier 1895).
98
THE ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGIN OF
and elsewhere
supposing
these texts to be
genuine, and not later interpolations, as some

scholars are inclined to think
ground
there
for a limited primacy,
over the
Bishop of
of
rest
Rome
Christendom.
the
apostles
the
modern
is
a real
but of Peter
the apostles, not of
the
over his fellow bishops in
was
Peter
primus
but
parses,
inte?^
Roman
among
certainly
claims
is
no
On
the
there
foundation whatever in that text.
for
and Epistles
there are other texts that seem to counterbalance more than half the weight of St.
Matthew's text.
2. Connected
with the famous text is
hand,
other
Gospels
the
in
also the inference that, as Christ in

St.
Peter and
it
blesses
promises him a reward for
and confession, the effect of Christ's

blessing and the reward can hardly be any
other thing but the primacy in the Roman
his faith
This
sense.
forget that
we
St.
the apostles,
must never
in the person of all
Peter,
had
We
deny.
already
made
similar
confession, long before the scene at Cêsarea
Philippi
Thou
that
living
And we
believe
and
art that Christ, the
God"
(John
vi.
99
69),
are
sure
Son of the
confession,

more emphatic than that
indeed, fuller and
difficulty
which
John's text undoubtedly
St.
]\Iatthew's
creates against
manner
a twofold
in
Corluy, S.J., to solve the
Fr.
Caesarea.
at
xvi.
" Perhaps,"
" John's original text read, 6tl

6 ayto9 Tov Oeov,
art the Christ,
the holy one of God,' which

6
vio<;
it
is
less
infinitely
less,
is
Son of God."
TOV 6eov, the
he says,
crv el 6 xP''^to<;
Thou
that
answers
16,
but
less
Certainly
**
admittendum
lectio
vlo<;
Oeov
tov
tunc temporis nee
est
The
and therefore adds
sees that,
preefertur
Si
you
are
warranted in making such a supposition
good Father
than
Petri
nee ceterorum apostolorum supernal Christi

naturae cognitionem tarn plenam fuisse, ut
eum
cum
unius
Patre naturae esse crederent."
Admittendum
Why
est:
Because,
held up at
My
in
otherwise,
be
the
admitted.
force
of
far diminished.
theological prejudice
must be
all costs.
answer
being
to
would be too
JNIatthew's text
The Roman
is
it
is,
St.
Peter got his reward
proclaimed blessed
by our Lord
in being given the privilege of fixing, so to

^
p. Corluy, S.J., Spicilegium
p. 87.
Dogmaticum Bihlicum,
Gandavi, 1884.
100
torn.
i.
ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN' CLAIMS

say,
and
the formula
of
rule
faith,
'
'
"
upon
which, as upon a rock, Christ would found
Church
His
and
getting
in
finally,
Church
keys of the
promise of the
solemn manner, before
all
among
Various
bined in no
now
it
Rome
and
dignity,
the
to give
to
the
Church
And
so
we
find
beginning
of
the
second century, the Church

greatly
charitable,
in
far-famed,
respected,
and very
rich.
greatness
fail
power
walls.
its
from
already,
The
is.
could hardly
com-
Roman
degree to bring the
little
resident within
that
circumstances
historical
Church to what
of imperial
lustre,
Is not this a magnificent
his fellow apostles.
3.
in
the other apostles,
with a certain pre-eminence of honour
reward
the
Rome was
very
holy,
Later on followed
the division of the empire into metropolises,

in
consequence of which, the
established
to the
its
Roman
Antioch,
divisions.
also
corresponding
metropolitans,
Corinth,
Church
Rome became
Ephesus,
one,
Thessalonica,
others.
Under Constantine the Great the
empire
was
patriarchates,
further
divided
into
four
which the Church immediately
imitated, and the
Bishop of
101
Rome became
CHURCH
TflE PRIMITIVE
the
the
of
Patriarch
greatness of the
Roman
West.
That the
See was dependent
measure on the greatness of the

capital may be deduced also from the third
in a great
Canon of
(a.d.
381),
Council
the
Constantinople
of
which decreed "that the Bishop

have the prerogative
of honour, after the Bishop of
Constantinople
of
(Trpeo-fieia)
Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome."

In this Canon it is assumed as undisputed
"the prerogatives of the Bishop of
Rome depended on the greatness of the
The Popes were well
capital of the world."
that
aware
of
transferred
this
the
when Constantine
hence,
Constantinople
to
capital
they began to urge in favour of their
own
primacy the promise of Christ to St. Peter

(Matt. xvi. 16-19) and the tradition of the
Church.
4.
Another important agent
of the papal claims
is
to
in the
growth
be found in the
ancient bishops themselves, who, by appealing

to the
Bishop
made him
and
of
Rome
in
their
quarrels,
believe himself to be their natural
divinely
appointed judge.
This
was
the case especially during the Arian troubles,
when
St.
Athanasius
102
appealed
to
Pope
"
ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGIN OF THE
Julius,
and
Council of
others
by permitting
Rome.
after
Sardica
provided
for,
bishops
the
" This also
that
in like
is
if in
Hence the
him.
confirmed
this
to
custom
appeal
manner
to
to be
any eparchy [province]
one of the bishops should have any matter

against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither
of these shall
in as judges
call
another eparchy.
If,
the bishops shall seem to have
demned
bishops of
however, any one of
been
con-
any matter, and thinks that he

a bad case, but a good one, in
in
has not
order that the decision

afresh, if
it
may
be considered
seems good to your charity,
us honour the
memory
let
of blessed Peter, and
be written, by those who have

given judgment, to Julius, Bishop of Rome,
that so, by the neighbouring bishops of
let
letters
that province,
sidered anew,
the
judgment may be con-
and he furnish
the judges
Canon III.).
Canon the Ballerini Brothers
(Council of Sardica,
About this
and Palma agree with
the GaUicans, Peter de
Marca, Quesnel, Dupin, Richter, Febronius,
and
others, that the Council, with the words,
Let us honour the memory of blessed

Peter," etc., conferred on the Bishop of
"
103

Rome
a privilege which he had not previously-
had, at least de jure,

counteract,
if
To
not de facto.
however, the consequence, con-
trary to the
deduced from
Roman
it,
claims,
which
may
be
the Ballerini Brothers up
hold that this Canon did not deal with the

appeal to
of
the
most
Rome
itself,
process.
energetically,
but only the revision
This
and
Hefele
contradicts
good
shows, with
arguments, that Canon III. deals with appeals

properly so called and with nothing
else.^
But there is much more. In the history

of the rise and gradual development of the
papal claims the historian must never lose
sight of a force which was for centuries at
work in favour of the Papacy, i.e, the falsifi5.
cations
and interpolations of passages
in the
books of the ancient Fathers, or in the Acts

and Canons of the Councils, in order to
defend or promote the interests, the dignity,
and the grandeur of the Roman See. It is

true these frauds do not explain by themselves
the gradual development of the
exaggerated claims of the Papacy,
historian
*
Hefele,
French
of
independent
History of the Christian
ed. Paris, 1869.
104
but no
judgment
Councils, vol.
ii.
and
p.
559.
THE ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGIN OF
learning will ever be able to deny that those

frauds helped, to a great extent, the growth
the papal claims, and
of
to
largely
their
being
contributed very
recognised
as
of
divine appointment.
For
instance,
Roman
the
theologians for
centuries appealed to the false decretals and
interpolated
to
the
De
Unitate Ecclesice
ments
witnessing
universal
to
the
to
Cyprian's
of St.
text
as
authentic
belief
docuthe
of
Church with regard to the Papacy,
and the learned never dared
call in
question
such momentous evidences, though on other
and reasonable grounds well inclined to do

so.
Yet the
false decretals
polated passages were
As
De
and Cyprian's
inter-
shameless fabrications.
a matter of fact, as Rufinus in his book,
Adidteratione Librorum Origenis, rightly
all
was pretty common in the early

Church (and, we may add,
through the Middle Ages till the invention
of
the press) to corrupt the writings of the
remarks,
it
centuries of the
great ecclesiastical writers, forging
new books
or passages, altering the genuine ones, adding
them explanatory
what they believed to
to
ignorant amanuenses,
phrases,
be
correcting
misspellings
of
or mis-translations, as
105

the case
may
be, suppressing
this
or that,
reducing this text to a more orthodox tenor,
and the hke. Thus, says he, were corrupted

and interpolated the writings of TertulHan,
of St. Hilary, of St. Cyprian, and, above all,
of Origen.^
In this way, as already shown,
we have
to
famous Cyprianic interpolation in
register the
favour of the Papacy in
De
Unitate Ecclcsicc,
was again
which interpolation
reprinted, not
Migne in his edition of

the Church Fathers but it was rightly omitted
by Hartel in his Vienna edition (18G8) of
many
years ago, by
;
St.
Cyprian's works,
and
forcible
of
If Bossuet
the Cyprianic
about
the
another
clear
demonstration of the fraud, and
its origin.^
spurious, he
and he added a
had known, and held
interpolation
to
be certainly
would have spoken and written

primacy of the Pope in quite
strain.
Yet, even with the Cyprianic
which he believed
to be genuine, his genius saw through the
exaggerated claims of the Papacy, and deinterpolation under
his eyes,
nounced them.
mus
Ch'igenis Opera, torn. vii. p. 629 seq. ; Migne, Patrol. GrcBc.

Sancti Tasci Cacili Cypriani, Opera Omnia, Recensuit Guliel-
Hartel.
Viiidoboiiee, 18G8,
106

THE ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGIN OF
Another forgery
in favour of
Rome
is
which
in the formula, or profession of faith,
Pope Hormisdas presented
for
signature to
the oriental bishops
who had taken
the Acacian schism.
In that formula
the following words

tolica
immaculata
"
est
found
part in
we
read
Quia in Sede Apossemper catholica re-
servata religio ct sancta celcbrata doctrinal
The words
in
are
italics
wanting
in
the
genuine formula which Pope Hormisdas consigned to his legates for the Greek
Emperor
Anastasius, nor are they in his Letter 26 to
They
the bishops of Spain.

in the
appear, however,
formula signed by the Fathers of the
Eighth Ecumenical Council, and from that

document were taken by the Vatican Council
But
to establish the infallibility of the Pope.
they are not genuine.
both the sources
Hormisdas and
i.e.
They
wanting in
in the formula of St.
are
in his Letter 26.
They
were,
Acts of the
Eighth Council by a friend of Rome.^
forgery, likewise, are the ^ye documents,
therefore, interpolated
into the
once commonly given at
full length, in
old editions of Collectio Condliojûm, to
that the Fathers of the

1
Cf. Thiel, EpistolcB
107
the
show
Council of Nicasa
Rom.
Pontif.

asked for the approval and ratification of their
Canons and Acts by Pope Sylvester. The

(a)
collective letter
five documents are
written by Osius, JNIacarius of Jerusalem, and
the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincent,
Pope
to
Sylvester
containing
latter,
Council
(c)
(b)
the
the answer
of
the
ratification
of
the
another letter of Pope Sylvester,
almost identical in purpose with the former
one
(d)
the Acts of
Pope
Council, convened by
Constitutio
supposed
(e)
the
All these documents
Sylvestii.
are spurious.
Roman
Sylvester, in order
the Council of Niceea
confirm
to
They were forged
at a
much
later date than the Council of Nicasa, perhaps
by a liOmbard priest,
who lived at Rome, and wanted by that
fabrication to defend Pope Symmachus, who
had been accused of several crimes and summoned before a Synod of Bishops (501 or 503),
in the
sixth century,
who, however, acquitted him. The style and

Latin of the documents are simply barbarous.^
The words which
the Prisca, the ancient
Latin translation of the Nicene Canons, preEcclesia Romana semper

fixes to Canon VI.
^
Cf. D. Constant, Epiatolcs
Rom. Pontificum,
Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, vol.
i.
108
p.
430
seq.
Praef. p. Ixxxvi.

ORIGIN OF THE IIOMAN CLAIMS
hahuit primatiun
('*
The Roman Church

primacy
always possessed the
and
polated, spm'ious,
false.
The
genuine wording of Canon VI.

"
The
ancient
are
")
has
inter-
true and
as follows
is
custom, followed
Egypt,
in
Libya, and in the Pentapolis, must continue

that the Bishop of Alexandria
i.e.
is
to have
right of jurisdiction over all those pro-
the
vinces, because
he
as the Bishop of
Some unknown
is
in the
same conditions
Rome."
friend of the
Roman
a monk, perhaps, finding implied in this

a
equality of
certain
rank,
See,
Canon
condition,
and
power of the Bishop of Alexandria with that

of
Rome,
prefixed
to
the old
Prisca the
primacy of the
But the words thus added are his,
aforesaid words, to save the
Pope.
not those of the Council of Nicaea.
Altogether spurious and fabricated
is
the
pretended Synod of Sinuessa, held in that

303, in which it was established
Prima Sedes non jicdicatur a quopiam
(" The first See [that of Rome] may not be
judged by any one "). Hardouin and Mansi
place A.D.
that
inserted
the Acts of that Council in their
collections
^
but
now
all
the learned, Cathohc
Cf. Harduiiij S.J._, Collectio Concil. torn.
109
i.
p.
325.

as well as Protestant, agree in holding these
Canons to be spurious and utterly
Thus wrote, many years

Natalis
Alexander,
Walch, and
ago, Pagi, Papebroek,
Remi
is
the celebrated Decretum
Decree of Pope
St. Gelasius 1.),
where we meet very strong words

of the primacy of the Roman See.
been
lately
demonstrated
convincing arguments, by
book, Le Pape St Gelase}
interpolated,
Largely
doubtful,
is
in favour
This has
with very
again,
M. Roux
at
or,
in
his
very
least,
the text of the Canons III., IV.,
V. of the Council of Sardica.

text of the Canons
favour of
Bower,
Ceillier,
others.
False likewise
Gelasii (the
fabricated.
Rome
is
much
The Greek
less
explicit in
than the Latin translation
of Denis, which bluntly attributes the right

In the ancient
of revision to the Pope.
Prisca,
moreover,
the
sentence
additional
Quce deaxverit Romanus Episcopus,

confirmata erunt (" What the Roman Bishop
occurs:
has decreed, shall be confirmed "), which words

are altogether wanting in the Greek text.^
Roux, Le Pape
Cf.
Van Espen,
St. Gelase, cap. vii.
Paris, 1880.
Diritto Ecclesiasiico, ed. Ital. p.
Hefele, etc.
110
276
Fuchs,
THE ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGLN OF
Of course,
of Sardica
well
it is
is
Ecumenical.
known
that the Council
and never was, held
not,
canons
Its
had,
for
however, a
importance owing to the fact that later
fictitious
on Pope Zosimus
(a.d. 417-418), in the
cause
of the priest Apiarius from Sicca in Africa,
deposed from his rank by the bishop of that

see,
in
and appealing to Rome, the Pope, I say,

order to show that he had the right to
accept the appeal of Apiarius, quoted, and
what he
referred the African bishops to
Canon of the
says
"
When
Council
of Nicasa
called
which
a bishop believes he has been
by his colleagues he may

appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop
unjustly deposed
shall
have
is
in
partibus^.).''
not of NicTa, but of

the
Greek,
the
by new
This Canon
examined
cause
his
judges {judiccs in
the
Sardica,
seventh
in
the
fifth
Latin
text.
Another fraud, as singular as it is evident,

has to do with the Canons of the Council
of Niceea, translated early into Arabic and
by the Maronite
them is
which comes under
edited in the sixteenth century
Abraham
found
the
Echellensis.
following,
Number XLI v.:
"
Amongst
Quemadmodum
111
Patriarcha

potestatem
habet
super subditos
suos
ita
quoque potestatem habet Romanus Pontifex

super
universes Patriarchas,
quern admodum
habebat Petrus super universes Christianitatis

principes et concilia ipsorum
quoniam
Christi
Vicarius est super redemptionem, Ecclesias et
cunctos populos ejus."
(Just as the Patriarch
has authority over his subjects, so has the
Roman
St.
Pontiff over
Peter had over
dom and
is
all
their
all
the Patriarchs, as
all
the princes of Christen-
Councils
because the Pope
the Vicar of Christ over the redemption,
the Churches and
all his
peoples.)
These
supposed Arabic Canons of the Council of

Nicsea
were
Egypt
John
into
brought
from
Alexandria
in
Europe by the Italian Jesuit

Baptist Romano, and were directly
received as genuine, though in themselves
most absurd, by the Jesuit Francis Turrianus
and another Jesuit, Alphonsus Pisano, did
not shrink from inserting them into his
;
history of the Council of Nicsea.
The
latter
accepted likewise, as authentic, a pretended

letter
The
of
fact
St.
is
Athanasius to Pope Marcus.
that the Council of Nicea
made
but twenty Canons, and the aforesaid Arabian
Canons
are synodical regulations referring to
112
THE ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGIN OF
various oriental peoples,
to Syrians, Chal-
as,
deans, Maronites, Copts, Jacobites, etc., etc.
the manuscripts from which the
JMoreover,
Abraham
INIaronite
blunders,
various readings
ticular of
copied them are
misspellings,
;
which must be
even should
said in par-
from without.
it
be genuine,
At any rate,
which we most
emphatically deny, the explanation
History
tells
now
and
Canon XLIV., savouring of modern
manipulation
this,
of
full
interpolations,
is
at hand.
us that, in former centuries,
now
that oriental Church, driven to the
wall by the Turks, used to approach the
Roman
Church with the view of obtaining from her

more fortunate sister money and men against
her foes.
To get all this more easily, those
oriental
Churches
in
distress
the
gratified
Pope with the most splendid and laudatory

titles,
at.
which, later on, they themselves laughed
In
fact,
that threatened
fell
danger
as soon as the political
them was warded
off,
back into the schism and hated
more than
oriental
This
ever.
Churches,
Notwithstanding
all
the
is
the history of
JMaronite
this,
they
Rome
and
in
all
excepted.
spite
of
and of sound criticism, the so-called

Arabian Canons were accepted as genuine by
history
113

Fr. Hardouin, and
printed
in
his
Collectio
Co7iciliorum}
There remains the most important fraud

of
the
all,
fraud
Decretals.
of the
About
False
so-called
the year a.d. 853 there
appeared in France a collection of Canons,
and papal regulations, named
letters,
after
Isidorus Mercator, or pseudo-Isidore.
divided into three parts.
The
It
is
contains
first
Apostolic Canons, fifty in

number, the Acts of the Council of Nica?a,
and sixty decretals, from Pope Clement to
the
so-called
Pope Melchiades.
lutely spurious
The
are abso-
decretals
and forged
Apostolic
the
Canons are partly spurious, partly interpolated or variously corrupted, none of them
really apostoKc.
The Canons of the Council
of Nicsea are a more or less faithful translation from the Greek text of the Council's
The second
Acts.
part
of
the
collection
embraces the Acts of the Councils, from the

Nicene till the Second Hispalense (a.d. 619).
With few
Councils
exceptions, these Acts of
all
these
reported from more ancient

and deserve a very limited credit,
because only a few of them are genuine, and
are
collections,
Ct
Hefele, History of the Councils^ vol.
114
i.
p.
350
seq.
ORIGIN OF THE
not
many
of the forged or genuine
either
are kept free from
The
third part
Gregory
with
I.,
corruptions.
substantial
of
consists
Pope
from
cretals
ROMAN CLAIMS
many
Sylvester
the
Pope
to
of
additions
decrees attributed to
Gregory
part of the collection
some
papal de-
II.
forty
are absolutely false and forged.
St.
few
In
this
documents
They were
by the pseudo-Isidore. The forger

thought thereby to raise the Pope above all
To this end he maintains
in the Church.
fabricated
no Council, not even provincial,

may be convened without the Pope's per-
that (a)
mission
bishops,
the Pope, being superior to
(b)
all
not be judged by any of them
may
he says that the bishops are called i?i

partes sollicitudinis Eoviani Pontificis, i.e. "to
(c)
share, in a certain measure, the pastoral cares
of the
infers
Roman
that the bishops
of the
Pope
priests,
may
whence he
Pontiff,"
{d)
are
but
rightly
the vicars
the bishops, nay, even the
always appeal to the Pope.
This fraud acquired in course of time such
an authority in the Church that theologians,

canonists, bishops, nay, even the Popes and
the
Councils
false decretals
themselves,
appealed
and quoted them

115
to
the
as authentic

and
The
genuine.^
the
authenticity of
Decretals
But
sixteenth century.
doubt about the
first
it
rose
in
the
was vehemently
defended by the Jesuit Turrianus (a.d. 1572)
Magdeburg Cen-
against the writers of the

turice,
who
attacked
Turrianus was re-
it.
futed and reduced to silence by Blondel and
by a host of
others.
Protestant scholars
now
Catholic as well as
recognise part of the
Decretals as spurious and forged, and give

to the other part that weight and authority
(and in that measure) which
it
moral
decretals
can
that
evil
hardly
centuries
be
the
the false
deserves.
caused
They were
imagined.
acknowledged,
The
revered,
for
and
authentic source of ecclesiastical, and, partly
And
at least, also of civil law.^
remarked
here, that
when
in
must be
1582, by order
it
Pope Gregory XI II. and under the revision of a committee appointed by him, the
of
correct text of the Corpus Juris
was pubHshed,
the false decretals were retained,
although,
even then, most of the learned asked for their

But the decretals, genuine and
suppression.
^
pp.
^
Cf. Rev. B. Jungmann, Dissertatio in Hist. Eccl, vol. iii.

43-n6. Ratisbon, 1881.
Cf. Franciscus Xav. Funk, History of the Charchj vol. i.
p. 331, 98.
116
THE ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGIN OF
spurious, afforded a great
exaggerated claims of the
the
to
help and support
Papacy,
and so Rome overlooked the forgery, relying

on the almost infinite creduhty of mankind.
Rome
Subsequent events have proved that
was
right.
Even now
number of
a great
pious theologians swear by the false decretals
Nor
is
it
decretals should
so
late
The
have been introduced, even
1582,
into
the
laws were compiled
their pupils.
to a Jesuit,
Corpus
the Papacy.
command
of
Now
it
is
by
well
and exalt the
Juris,
and
eccle-
Jesuits
known
the only purpose in hfe
defend, promote,
at that the false
chief collections of Councils
siastical
by
as
wondered
to be
or
that,
is
to
interests of
The Jesuit Sirmond, at the

Pope Paul V., made a collection
of the decisions of Councils, from which, at

the instigation, and by the advice
of.
Cardinal
Bellarmine, himself a Jesuit, he omitted the

Acts of the Council of Basel. The Sirmond
collection formed the groundwork for all
the collections that were compiled later on.
To
Sirmond succeeded Fr. Labbe,

from
Bourges, who was
followed by the Jesuit Cossart.
Somewhat
later the work was taken up by Fr. Hardouin,
Fr.
another
Jesuit
117

a French Jesuit, and a great enemy of the
GaUican Church.
when he
and
Fr.
Hardouin never
can, to display his love for
At
for the papal prerogatives.
XIV.
of Louis
fails,
Rome
the death
the Hardouin edition of the
Act of the
Councils was forbidden by an
French Parliament, being thereby declared

be
to
contrary
the
to
of
principles
the
State and to the laws of the Gallican Church.
All
seized
later,
be found were
could
that
the copies
and destroyed. However, some years

it was permitted, on condition that a
book of
rectifications
should be added
Finally,
sale.
it
to
in
the Gallican sense
each
copy offered for
was permitted without any
restrictions whatever.
Dr. Salmon, Professor
of the French Sorbonne, wrote a scathing

criticism of Hardouin's work.^
The
reader, at this point of our historical
researches,
the
all
forgeries,
may
ask what part
aforesaid
and
shameless
frauds.
as Popes, very likely

prelates,
when
still
Rome
had in
interpolations,
We answer
the Popes,
had none. The Roman

at the bottom of the
and looking about for

help to reach the golden top, were certainly
bureaucratic
scale,
Cf. Hefele, History of the Councils, vol.
118
i.
p.
70
seg,
:;
ORIGIN OF THE
guilty of
some
literary
but on the whole,
we
ROMAN CLAIMS
and theological frauds
are rather inclined to
excuse them, as they were never themselves
These frauds
due to bishops, monks, or priests,
needing the help and patronage of Rome
noted for excessive learning.
are mostly
against other bishops, princes, or ecclesiastical
upon by
Pope and promoted to
superiors,
or desirous to be smiled
the then
reigning
Some of the
however, may have
higher rank in the hierarchy.

interpolators
acted
or forgers,
good
in
faith.
was perhaps
It
marginal note, which passed innocently into

the text
an incorrect reading which
mistaken for the right one
was deceived
by a
was
this transcriber
copy,
faulty
that
one
corrupted a manuscript for the sake of the
Papacy, or to help a friend in need.
any
rate, let
the
origin
of
all
At
these frauds
may, the papal prerogatives, in the

eyes of the learned, have gained very little
be as
it
indeed by such methods and ways

6.
But there was another element
at
in bringing to the front the claims of
the natural inclination in

natural love of
imperialism.
man
uniformity,
The Church,
119
it
his
work
Rome
to unity, his
passion for
must never be

Rome when the
Rome dreamt of
was brought to
empire was at its best.
forgotten,
nothing but imperiaHsm, of uniform laws, of

Roman enactments imposed on conquered
nations, of assimilating the vanquished peoples
to
bringing
of
itself,
gods
all
its
own
This love of unity and uniformity
pantheon.
Roman Empire
the
broken up
just because
its
When,
Rome.
has ever been a mania of

happily,
to
to
fell
pieces,
wanted to
rulers
Roman standard, the Roman

laws, the Roman customs on every nation
of the world, the Roman Church tried to
effectuate in the Christian what the Roman
enforce
the
Empire had
Pagan world.
everywhere
ritual,
to
failed
accomplish
The Church
single
the
strove to set
standard of
faith,
up
of
of customs, of government, and that
standard was
to
be
its
The word may seem
own, the
Roman.
very hard, but that
is
a dangerous mania, the mania of
a mania,
unity, or rather uniformity.
the
in
world
into
confusion
But why bring

and
internecine
strife for the sake of a unity and conformity
which it
Church ?
large,
is
not God's will to have in His

Christ
founded
the Church in
Christianity
at
general, not the par-
120
THE ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGIN OF
Churches,
ticular
left
founding
the apostles the care of
to
He
Church even of Jerusalem.
ticular
par-
He
Churches.
national
brought down from heaven the heavenly tree
and consigned
all
if
it
to the Twelve, to be planted
over the world.
Is
wondered
to be
it
at
that tree, in different parts of the wôrld,
took
features,
special
was
clothed
in
particular foliage, brought forth characteristic

flowers,
and
yielded
peculiar fruits,
cordance with the quality of the
in
ac-
soil,
the
aspect of the place, the mildness or harshness

of the climate
the
apostles
say
instituted
it
most deliberately
Churches,
national
having a liturgy, a language, customs and

quite distinct from
one
another,
yet bound together by the bond of a
common
common
characters
faith
as
love of
to
the
essentials,
and
the Son of
Christ,
God.
In
the
beginning of the third century there existed
more than two dozen
different liturgies,
from
India to Rome, from Ethiopia to Germany,

and the standard, so to say, of each national
Many
Church
was
liturgies
disappeared, in the course of time,
together
with
its
liturgy.
the
Churches
of
few
these
were
given up spontaneously by the bishops them-
121

the people generally being reluctant
selves,
by the Popes, who,
others were suppressed
in their eagerness to bring everything to the
Roman
standard, saw in liturgical variety a
danger to catholicity, and above all to the

recognition of the primacy of the holy See.
This poHcy of destroying the national liturgies
of the Churches in communion with Rome
down
continued
to our times,
wisely put a stop
Leo XIII. very
Was
it
when Pope
perhaps because nothing was
to
it.
left to
destroy? or because he foresaw the coming

rousing of the Churches all over the world ?
The
fact
is
that
God will have no
There are not
in the world.
which are perfectly
He
alike.
in
it
uniformity
two things
hates uniformity.
Not two men
are like one another, not
leaves of the
same
Variety
two atoms of matter.

cosmic law
variety
is
partly a
is
product of our mind, which, being

limited, attributes its
things
unity.
it
grasps
stars,
not
the great
the foundation of the
is
and unity
universe
not two
tree,
two
own
subjective
finite
and
limitation to the
Hmitation, in this case,
Partly, also,
it
is
is
a characteristic of
the universe, but rather as a result of activity,

than as a thing in itself. There exists not one
122
;
!
THE ROMAN CLAIMS
ORIGIN OF
many
Universe, but
different things, arranged
with a wonderful order and mutual dependence.

This order, this mutual dependence, this relation of cause
is
and
effect,
we
call unity.
It
a quality of the universe rather than the
universe
itself.
remembered,
is
And
this unity, it
should be
The
not uniformity.
latter
supposes or implies a perfect equality
the
former requires only a certain mutual relation.

This correlation does exist in the universe
However,
but not uniformity.
together
relation
of
things
ground
for
calling
the
In like manner
many.
men
although
vastly different
we
call
not
mankind
many
divided into
call
mutual
sufficient
one,
from one another
We
characters.
universe
psychological and
in
different
are
this
is
one,
races,
in colour,
physiological
a tree one, although
two things in it similar to one

We call a monarchy one, and yet
there are not

another.
we
call
a republic also one, an oligarchy, a
government
like that of the
United
States,
a tribal state, a patriarchal system, and so

forth.
They
how
Why,
are all one, but
How unlike one another

madness of wishing to have
!
ourselves
Of
all
different
then, this
others like
hating people, because they
123

will
not conform to our views
Of
declaring
them cut off from the grace and the love

of Christ because they will not shape their
thoughts,
manners,
actions,
according to our standard

willed
it
so,
well and good
and
customs
If Christ
?
;
but
He
had
never
dreamt of such uniformity in His Church.

Christ has not founded the Roman more than
the
Alexandrian,
the
Antiochian,
or
the
Ephesian Church. He is the Rock that supports them all, and He is broad enough to
support them, just as they
the Father of
all
are.
men, and
Him, although some
are
all
black,
As God
is
come from
some red,
others yellow, others brown, others white, so

all the Churches are from Him, although they
pray in different tongues, use different customs,

practise different hturgies, have a more or less
form of government, and differ in

As
things not essential, even in their belief.
the mania in a few despots of building up
huge empires has brought on the world untold
evils, so the mania of creating a Church one and
different
uniform in everything has caused intolerance,

inquisition, rehgious wars, hatred, persecutions,
and every sort of outrage against the liberty of

men. And all that, in the name of the Lord
124
!
CHAPTER
VII
RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT IN THE CHURCH
EOMAN
especially
divines,
the
since
Reformation, are most stubbornly op-
posed to the Protestant distinction between
primary and secondary
articles
of faith
former necessary and to be believed by
the
all,
the latter free and the object of human, not

of divine, faith.
you open a Roman Catholic Catechism, you will find forthwith the much-disYet,
if
"
cussed distinction.
What
mysteries of holy faith?"
made
to answer:
are the principiil
And
the child
"The Unity and

God;
is
the most
blessed
Trinity of
passion,
and death of our Lord Jesus Christ."
As
the
Incarnation,
a matter of fact, these three mysteries of
Christianity Unity, Trinity, and Incarnation

have been believed from the very beginning,
and from
these, as
from a centre,
125
all
the other

lesser mysteries
of
course
considers
it,
have radiated during the long
centuries
and,
if
the formula of the
chism, embodying,
even
to
principal mysteries of our faith,
one
carefully
Roman
this
is
Cate-
day,
the
nothing else
but the development of Peter's confession,

"
Thou
art the Christ, the
Son of the
living
God."
This formula was shaped into the Symbol,
or the baptismal Creed, which, between the
first
and second
follows
centuries, in
Rome, ran
as
" I believe in God, the Father Al-
mighty, and in Christ Jesus, His Son, the

only-begotten,
who was born of the Holy

Virgin Mary, who was crucified
Ghost and the

under Pontius Pilate, and buried on the third
day rose again, ascended into the heavens,
sitteth at the right hand of the Father, whence
He cometh to judge the living and dead.
And in the Holy Ghost and the resurrection
;
of the flesh."
As
to the authoritative standard of belief,
held in the East early in the third century,
we may
listen to Origen,
220, thus writes in his

*
who, about the year
De
Priiicipiis, lib.
Leighton Pullan, Early Christian Doctrine^
1901.
126
p. 35.
i.
London,
DEVELOPMENT
"As many
49:
48,
47,
n.
THE CHURCH
IN
of
those
profess to beHeve in Christ disagree
who
amongst
themselves, not only in small, but also in great

things,
or the
also,
is
i.e.
about God, our Lord Jesus Christ,
Holy Ghost
and about other points
as regards the angels
deemed necessary
to lay
former a certain rule of

a boundary line
the
the Church
is
therefore
down about
it
the
and to draw
to examine into
belief,
then also
... At any
latter.
rate,
the teaching of
always to be observed, a teach-
ing which was transmitted in orderly succession
from the
apostles,
and remains
even to the present day.

"
that
Now,
this also
is
in the
Churches
to be well kept in mind,
the holy apostles,
faith of Christ,
when preaching
the
taught a few things appertain-
ing to the faith very clearly and openly, even

to the ears of those
who
appeared
less fit to
enter into the secrets of divine knowledge
but about other things they asserted indeed

their existence,
but held their peace as to their
nature and origin, leaving to the Christians of

the following ages the care of unravelling the
hidden mysteries, that so they might have an

excellent exercise for their minds.
"
The
things that the apostles taught openly
127

and
is
fully are the following
who
one God,
nothing,
who
of the Old
created
First, that there
out
things
all
of
just and good, the Author
is
New
of the
as
Testament, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that Jesus

Christ was begotten of the Father before
;
every creature
were made
that through
that he
Him
things
all
God and man,
is
born
and the Virgin Mary that

He did truly suffer, rise again, and ascend into
heaven that the Holy Ghost is associated in
honour and dignity with the Father and the
Son that it is He who inspired the saints,
both of the Old and of the New Dispensation
Holy
of the
Spirit
that there will be a resurrection of the dead,
when
will
the body, w^hich
is
sown
be raised in incorruption, and that, in the
world to come, the souls of

eternal
life,
or
is
spirits,
way
men
eternal
suffer
according to their work

soul
in corruption,
will inherit
punishment,
that every reasonable
a free agent, plotted against
by
evil
comforted by good angels, but in no
constrained
that the
Scriptures were
written by the agency of the Spirit of

that they have
two
senses, the plain
hidden, whereof the latter can be

to those to
w^hom
is
God
and the
known only
given the grace of the
128
DEVELOPMENT
Holy
in
Spirit
knowledge."
And
St.
IN
THE CHURCH
the word
wisdom and
of
Irenaeus
"
The
tradition
apostles enables us to see that

all is
one and the same, while
and the
same God
of the
the faith of
all
accept one
the Father, and believe
the same dispensation of the Incarnation of
Son of God, and acknowledge the same gift

of the Spirit, and meditate the same precepts,
and preserve the same form of that ordination
which belongs to the Church, and expect the
same coming of the Lord, and await the same
salvation of the whole man, both body and
soul."
At
the close of
the third century most
Christians believed the
following
points
of
most of them
several of them, however, were not apostolic
teaching, but a later development or even
Christian doctrine, or at least
corruption of the genuine primitive Christian

doctrine.
On God
(a)
In the unity and
trinity of the
God-
head.
* Origen,
De Principiis, lib. i. n. 47^ 48, 49, abbreviated
somewhat. Cf. Bigg's Bampton Lectures, 1886, p. 752.
129

(b)
In the identification of the Word, or

Logos, with Jesus Christ.
(c)
(d)
(e)
In the divinity of Christ.

In the divinity of the Holy Ghost.
In the Incarnation, passion, and death of
Jesus Christ.
if) In His birth from the Virgin Mary.

(g) In the Atonement.
(h)
In the resurrection of Christ, His descent

to the nether world, and ascent to
heaven.
On the Church
(i)
(k)
(l)
(771)
In the Church.
In the power of the Church to absolve
from sin.
In the power of the Church to ordain
bishops, priests, and deacons.
In a religious worship, which consisted
in
(7^)
pious
readings,
prayers,
sermon,
and the Lord's Supper, with the singing of psalms and hymns.
In the unity of the Church, which consisted in the
of
the
mutual love and harmony
people
superiors,
i.e,
with
their
bishops, priests,
ferior ministers.
130
spiritual
and
in-
DEVELOPMENT
(o)
IN
THE CHURCH
In the union of charity amongst the

various Churches.
On Means
{p)
They beheved
of
Grace
in the giâce of Christ,
which they connected particularly with

the Holy Ghost and with spiritual
" Charismata."
(q)
In the holy baptism and Eucharist.
(r)
In penance.
On Man
(s)
In the immortality of the
(t)
In
(u)
In
tlie
life
with
(i;)
In a
{x)
In
(y)
In
soul.
resurrection of the dead.

eternal
God
hell, or
the
and union of the soul
in heaven.
place of punishment.
existence
of good
spirits,
or
existence
of
spirits,
or
angels.
the
evil
demons.
(z)
We
In the existence of a chief amongst

demons, the devil.
prove, with a certain degree of

approximation to certainty, that these points
may
of Christian doctrine were beheved at the end

of the third century, ab omnibus semper, et
131

ubique
by
all,
always, and everywhere.
the development did not stop here.

to dogma, church discipline, and
it
till
But
went
century, both with regard
on, century after
worship,
It
culminated in
by the Roman Church,
manner of
the definition
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and

in 1869-70 of the Papal Supremacy and
in 1854, of the
Infallibility.
We
must, therefore, admit a certain kind
of development within the Christian Church.
But here the question

Is
it
human
or divine
rises
Is it legitimate
Is it
the unchangeableness
May
of
compatible with
revealed religion
the Pope, or the bishops,
i.e,
the teaching
Church, enjoin as a Christian duty, under the

penalty of mortal
article
of
precept
To
at
sin,
new
a new
the belief of a
faith,
or the practice of
up
these questions, I
must dwell
some length upon an idea which has too
clear
all
often escaped the attention of the

theologians.
whether
It
is this.
natural
or
within certain limits,

tain
peculiar shape,
cannot develop
Every created
artificial,
is
is
thing,
contained
determined by a cer-
form, or
measure, and
itself indefinitely
132
Roman
beyond
its
DEVELOPMENT
The
proper nature.
not
is
height
the
IN
THE CHURCH
height of a poplar,
an
of
e.g,^
but
apple-tree;
neither the one nor the other continues to
grow
maximum
they have
of their growth, they
Each thing has got a
stop growing.
a measure, a character of
it
When
in height indefinitely.
reached the
cannot develop
itself
its
height,
own, beyond which
without becoming a
monstrosity, and so perishing.
This
not only of natural things, but of
is
true
artificial
things likewise, and so the Latin poet sang

Est modus in rebus, sunt certi deiiiquc fines
Quos ultra citraquc, nequit consistcre rectum.
Horace.
This being
so, will
Christianity alone be able
to develop itself indefinitely, without alteration,
without changing substantially into something

very different from
dares say so
its
former nature
Christianity,
no
less
Who
than any
other created thing, possesses a form, a nature,
a character of
nature,
that
its
When
own.
character
have
that form, that
reached
their
greatest development, they must perforce cease

growing and stop for ever. If they continue
to grow, Christianity alters, changes, decays
and
perishes.
We ask, firstly, what
is,
133
so to say, the natural

measure, growth, or height of Christianity?
When
did
it
reach
it, if
ever
Roman
theo-
logians answer that the divine tree of Chris-
grows in their garden

hundred years of hfe, has
tianity (which, of course,

only), after nineteen
not attained yet to
In
fact,
its full
height and growth.
they say between a.d. 1854 and 1870
a growth of
two yards was added to
Do
it.
they bring any argument to prove such a

fabulous statement
They say
tianity being a doctrine,
of the
Holy Ghost
a doctrine
It
is
also a worship, a
itself in-
not merely
life,
a ten-
communion
is all this,
truths.
it is
Chris-
under the influence
can develop
I answer, Christianity
definitely.
dency, a
it
that,
of the soul with God.

and not only a body of Christian
answer,
further,
that
even
if
Christianity be a doctrine only, this doctrine,
these tenets, cannot develop themselves indefinitely.
The
doctrine of
Christianity
is
contained in the Apostles' Creed, which professes all the mysteries of Christianity.
the
Christian mysteries,
as
all
grant, cannot develop themselves at

is
Now
theologians
all.
This
taught expressly by, amongst others, John
Henry Newman,
ment
of
in his
Christian
Essay on
Doctrine*
134
the Develop-
Christianity,
DEVELOPMENT
THE CHURCH
IN
therefore, cannot properly develop itself
own
its
mysteries, which stand to
it
beyond
as do
the shape, the form, the height, the peculiar

character to any other created or artificial
thing.
when did Christianity reach the

growth of its own form and nature ? The
Secondly,
full
answer
death
Roman
given by the
is
when they
themselves
the
of
theologians
affirm that, with
the
apostles,
revelation
the
of
Christian mysteries was finally closed.
What
We
rightly
is
the inference from
infer
apostles
the hearts and
in
were
the faithful,
them
this
that the divine mysteries which Jesus
deposited
fore,
all
i.e,
by the
latter
minds of the
consigned
at the death of the apostles

all
to
to the Church, which, there-
" very clearly
heard Origen say.
possessed
and openly,"
as
we
These Christian mysteries,
incapable of being developed
and
compre-
hended, are the doctrinal object of our
they alone and nothing
else.
They
faith,
are con-
tained in the primitive creed of the Apostles,
and have been believed by all Christians

always.
That creed is the groundwork of
Christianity.
It suffices by itself, as far as
doctrine
is
concerned, to
135
make
a true Christian

Church when denied,
The
it turns a Christian into an unbehever.
Christiantree
of
divine
natural growth of the
ity is contained within the measure of the
and to
establish a true
The
mysteries.
aforesaid
tree
reached
its
greatest growth at the death of the apostles,
and was then perfect in its nature. All subsequent growth is to be deemed not essential,
but accessory human, not divine nay, exag;
geration, or perhaps superstition.

I
have asserted that the dogmatic growth or
development which followed the death of the

apostles
is
principal.
all
human, not divine

Here is the proof.
additional, not
Theologians of
denominations grant that such a develop-
ment
proceeds, as from
its
starting-point,
the mysteries spoken of before.
was
is
from
Now, how
development effected ? This question

capital indeed, and deserves our greatest
this
attention, as
on
it
proposed question,
growth
human
which
or divine.
development
will
is
have
it,
is
depends the answer to the

i.e.
whether the dogmatic
visible
in
the Church
Well, then,
nothing
else, as
if
is
dogmatic
many
divines
but a drawing of the implicit out
of the explicit, in the manner in which a
theorem of geometry
is
136
drawn out of the
DEVELOPMENT
THE CHURCH
IN
elementary axioms of that science, then the

development of a dogma is certainly dogmatic,
and, hke
its
parental germ, equally revealed,
But
equally divine.
put
I
it
really so
it
is
Let us
to the test.
Vcrho Incarnato, by
Dc
open the book
Theology
Fr. Bilhot, S.J., Professor of
at the
Gregorian University at Rome, and read one

of its principal theses, that, namely, which
how
professes to explain
" the
Word became
Our author wants to demonstrate

Flesh."
that the union between God and man, through
^
Christ,
was
Word, not
his
effected
in
the Person of the
Here is
impossible that two
in the nature of
syllogism
" It
is
God.
from one another in person

or hypostasis, should be predicated of one
beings, different
But Holy Scripture says that the

Word was made Flesh,' i.e. attributes
human nature to the Word. Therefore, it is
another.
'
impossible that these two,
i.e.
the
Word
and
the INIan Christ, should have a different person

or hypostasis."
Now
1 ask,
This
where
syllogism contained
1
p. Ludov.
Roma?, 1895.
Billiotj S. J.,
is
Fr. BilHot's argument.
is
the conclusion of the
Not
De Verho
137
in its
minor pre-
Incarnato, Thesis V. p. 92
"

miss,
The second
certainly.
proposition of
the syllogism affirms only that "the
Word
was made Flesh." The conclusion, it is clear,

is entirely and exclusively contained in the
major term, or
Now
gism.
on
first
proposition, of the syllo-
this premiss,
depending
as it does
the very disputable definition of " person or
hypostasis,"
is
neither evident in itself nor
from Holy Scripture. It is a mere

philosophical opinion, which Fr. Billiot tries
taken
hard to prove in forty closely printed pages of

subtle and abstruse philosophy.
At
the same
time he combats the Catholic doctors Cajetan,

Scotus, Tiphanius,
Suarez,
and
others,
who
understood and spoke of "hypostasis or person

so,
or
" in
a quite different manner.
And
rightly
because the conclusion of his thesis stands
with the philosophical
falls
which
it is
a mere consequence.
by
opinion
The
of
afore-
and by their
philosophy to deduce, from the same premisses
laid down by Fr. Billiot, a quite different con"
True, they all admit that the" union
clusion.
said doctors are forced
was made
in the
Word
logic
Person and not in the nature
words " person

and " nature " are understood and defined by
them in a very different manner from that of
138
of
the
but
the
DEVELOPMENT
St.
Thomas
IN
THE CHURCH
and, in general, the theologians
According to Fr.
of the Thomist school.
Cajetan, " the essence of person consists in a

certain
last
manner
mode
or
of being which
mode
is
the
Accord-
term of the individual nature."
ing to Fr. Suarez, " person
is
the substantial
that limits and defines the individual
nature."
According to Scotus, "
it
consists in
a mere negation of the real or possible dependence of the individual nature."
St.
Thomas,
on the contrary, if he be justly interpreted,

calls by the name of person ** being itself,"
and, when speaking of God, ** subsistent
being."
he be justly interpreted, be-
I say, if
cause, as a matter of fact, all Catholic doctors
quote
St.
Thomas
him say the most
for themselves,
and make
different, nay, contradictory
things.
When,
the
therefore,
Christian
Councils
defined that the union of humanity with
was
effected
in
the
" Person,
God
not in the
nature of the AVord," they established and
decreed a formula or
to put an end to
way
of speaking in order
verbal disputations
they
did
not
clear
up the inscrutable mystery of the " Word
made
explain
Flesh."
wdiat
The
that
union was, or
early Christians confessed
139

Christ "true
of
the
first
Man, true God"; the Fathers

Councils,
knew nothing more.
as
a matter of fact,
All this for two other
which I mention by the way. All

theologians admit that in God "Person and
nature are not really distinct from one
reasons,
another."
It
therefore, less
is,
than useless
about the question
and quarrel
whether "the union of humanity with God
was made in the Person or in the nature
of the Word." Moreover, man cannot have
to discuss
He
true and proper ideas about God.

lofty for us.
When we
speak of Him, and
we make
discourse on His divine attributes,
use of analogical ideas
When,
terms.
therefore,
as of a " Person,"
that word,
when
too
is
i.e.
of proportional
we speak
we must
of
God
never forget that
applied to God, cannot have
the same meaning as it has when said of

man. This has been explained by Newman,
in his Giâmviar of Assent, by saying that
"the real reasoning process by which men
arrive at all their important convictions
purely intellectual, but largely
made up
imagination, association, probability,

instinct,
logical
is
not
of
memory,
popular persuasion, heredity, physio-
and psychological
140
feelings,
and every

DEVELOPMENT
kiiid
impression
of
man's being
forces,
is
IN
THE CHURCH
that the complexity of
susceptible of."
AVell, all these
which were undeniably at work
in the
dogmatical development of Christian doctrine,
human, not
The germ is divine, but the growth
divine.
just as man is human, not divine,
is human
although his soul is created directly by God
and infused into the human body. That
living germ, descended immediately from
God, grows in a human body and makes a
man, not a god. And so with the development of dogmas. The Church cannot reveal
Upon this all theologians
a new dogma.
demonstrate that the growth
is
agree.
All Christians are obliged to believe
and only, that body of Catholic

truth which was held uhiqiie that is, in
all parts, as opposed to any one particular
the whole
of,
Church
sempci^ always, as opposed to only
in recent
ages
ah omnibus, by
all
i.e.
by
the general body of the Church (as Vincent

of Lerins explains), not merely as the private
opinion of particular teachers.
Now
the doctrinal points which were held
sempe7\ uhique, et ah omnibus are the Christian mysteries, or the real revealed Christian
truths in their undeveloped state
141
those truths

which, according to Origen, the apostles " trans-
mitted to us very dearly
"
{manifestisdme tradi-
derunt) because necessary to the salvation of
mankind {qucecumque necessaiia crediderunt)

and these form the groundwork of Christianity,
and the germs out of which dogmatic theology

has developed
Of
these
itself.
developments
be distinguished
class
two
classes
can
of developments of
revealed truths, contained clearly in the Bible
and a
class of truths
or, at
not in a clear and undisputed manner.
least,
Of the
of truths the
first class
the development
class,
not found there,
is
germ
is
divine,
human; of the second
both the germ and the development are
human. In the former case the intellect of

man works upon the revealed truth directly,
and taking it as its proper object; in the
latter it has an indirect bearing upon it, and
operates about
it,
example of the
definitions
Christ
by way of analogy.
class are the
first
concerning the divine
an example of the
An
dogmatic
Person of
latter are the defini-
Immaculate Conception of the

Virgin Mary, or of the papal primacy and
tion of the
infallibility.
As
gives
rise
case,
the
germ which,
to
later
142
in the latter
development
is
DEVELOPMENT
purely human, so
at if
it is
IN
it is
THE CHURCH
not to be wondered
not found by scholars and doctors,
either in the Scripture or in the early tradition
of the Church.
St.
Bernard,
St.
Anselm
Thomas certainly had

examined pretty thoroughly the contents of
revelation
yet not one of those three very
eminent men was able to discover in it the
of Canterbury, and St.
truth of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
The
reason
cover
in
it
is
because
the heart
They could not
obvious.
it
was not there
of the
Christians
but
who
dis-
it
was
loved
Mary, and in the minds of those doctors who

thought it very convenient that the Mother
of the Redeemer should partake in an especial
manner of the fruit of redemption by being
exempted from the original sin. On this
principle, I should not
wonder
at all
if,
after
a few years, St. Joseph also should be declared
have been conceived without original sin.

His devotees already think so, and print books
to
to this effect.
fine
it.
Only
it
The
will
The Roman Church may

idea
is
growing, and
may
be a human, not a divine,
143
de-
ripen.
belief.
CHAPTER
VIII
DOCTRINAL UNITY IN THE ROMAN CHURCH
HAVE
more than
said,
once, that the
Church cannot reveal a new truth or

dogma. This is so important that it must
be kept always before one's eyes, as on it
depends the issue of
by
to the view held
this treatise.
According
Christian doctors, the
all
Church can never know what the early

Church did not. The revelation given once
later
for all to the apostles cannot
ished or added to.

all
It
and
delivered,"
is
it
is
be either dimin-
a " faith once for
thus of the very
essence of the
Christian revelation that, as
originally given,
it
and
final.
is
reiterates that if
new dogma he
is
St.
Paul repeats
any one announces a
Even
to be anathematised.
General Councils cannot frame

of faith, and whatever
theology in substance
is
is,
144.
new
new
articles
to Christian
by that very
fact,
DOCTRINAL UNITY
proved not to be of the
quod semper,
faith,
quod ubique, quod ah omnibus
according
to
the formula of Vincent of Lerins.
What
is,
then, the function of the
Church
with regard to the teaching of dogmas

function
is
twofold
tures, or tradition, if
something
in
Its
to search the Scrip-
first
may
perchance there
them which escaped the
be
studies
then to explain what has been

already revealed. This is its duty. It belongs
of the ancients
God
to
only to reveal
shall
new
articles of faith.
not delay about the
first
function.
was possible in the early centuries of the

Church to overlook the contents of the Scriptures it is more difficult now, although by no
means impossible; and no one can tell what
If
it
Holy
surprises
as
us,
its
second function
already
is
is
revealed,
development
Now
AVrit
may keep
contents are almost

to explain
and
here
faith,
the
theory
Its
of
and tradition there

the dogma, not
explanation and interpretation.
was
infinite.
what has been
finds its proper place.
in the Scriptures
the article of
tion
in store for
left
to
the
The explana-
Church, to
Councils, to Christian divines.
its
General
The
articles
of faith were delivered by the apostles very
145

distinctly
as
tradiderunt),
{manifestissime
but they did not give also their

explanation, in order that "those pious
Christians who had received from the Holy
Origen
says,
Ghost the
gifts of
knowledge, of wisdom, and
of tongues might exercise their talents in the

interpretation of the mysteries of faith delivered
unto them.
He,
therefore,
who
wishes to set up a body or a series of Christian

doctrines in a scientific
way must make use
of the aforesaid articles of faith as elements

velut elementis ac
and foundation stones,
'
examining very
fundamentis hujusmodi uti
carefully each assertion, whether it is neces'
sary and true, and
upon them build up
his
book with the help of other assertions, examples, and reasons found in the Scriptures,
and reasons and inferences drawn out of his
own investigation" {Be Principiis, lib. i.
n. 49).
What
Cathohc divine
ought to do he first set the example of, and
before and after him the Church did and
still
Origen
the
says
continues to do.
Out
faith, as first principles, or
she builds
up
of the articles of
foundation stones,
the explanations of the Christian
dogmas.
146
DOCTRINAL UNITY
Scripture and tradition teach us that Christ
was God and man but they are silent as to

the manner in which the union of the Deity
whether it was secunin Christ was effected
dum subsistentiam, or in any other way that
;
was left to the interpretation of the Church.

So likewise they are silent as to the nature
of the two wills in Christ, about His actions,
about His hberty, and the

Scripture and
the
Deity
Father, Son, and
teach us that in
tradition
there
are
like.
three
divine
things.
Holy Ghost, connected
to-
gether in a wonderful way, and yet that there

is
only one God.
But they
are silent as to
the nature of those three things divine.

will not tell us that
relatives,
much
they are three subsistent
less so tJiree
say nothing of
all
They
persons
and
those wonderful
will
things
which are taught by Christian divines about
Holy Trinity.
The Christian Church
the
of
very
learned
and
possesses hundreds
elaborate
theological
But
Holy Trinity.
what did their writers know more than the
simplest Christian folk ? They know that in
heaven is the Father, the Son, and the Holy
treatises
on the
]\Iost
Ghost, that each one of these three
147
is
distinct

from the other two, and yet all three constitute but one God.
They do not know,
in
reality,
" Trinity
century,
and,
word of the second or
Holy
third
taken grammatically,
if
So much
theological blunder.
of the
The very word
anything more.
" is
for the
is
mystery
Trinity.
Scripture and tradition teach us the history
of the original
fall,
and
us that
tell
But whether the
man down
first
sin
is
that
in
about
womb.
transmitted from the
to us in this, rather than in
that other way, whether

or
men
all
are sinners, even from their mothers'
thing,
consists
it
they
are
this
in
utterly
silent
it.
Scripture
and
tradition
heaven and
hell,
the former a place of re-
teach
ward, the latter of punishment

their
nature,
we know
about
but about
and condition they are

The Church has explained
place,
absolutely silent.
all
us
in
particular
about
the
four
last things.
Now,
the Church, the General Councils,
and Christian
divines,
articles of faith,
must
when
explaining the
necessarily
make
use
of the ideas, language, and intellectual tendencies of their times.
148
At
the bottom of
DOCTRINAL UNITY
explanation
their
which
Deny
that philosophy, and
explanation
the
Hes
article of faith.
a person
falls
of
the
interpretation
For
instance, in the
Shall
down
and
Trinity there are three persons.

is
philosophy,
the philosophy dominant in their
is
times.
there
Holy
But what
accept the definition
of Plato, or that of Aristotle
And,
down
nearer to us, shall I lay
come
to
as alone true
the definition of the schoolmen devoted to
Thomas, or that of the modern
St.
say that a person
is
standing complete in
ego
scious
"
Shall
" a subsisting
being,
itself,"
or again,
or " a self-con-
shall
the
accept
definition, or rather the concept, of Scotus
Suarez
and
That makes an enormous difference

mystery of " Holy
in the explanation of the
Trinity."
What
I ask the
Thomists
is
a subsisting relative
I
get one answer
?
;
If
if I
ask the followers of Scotus I get another

quite
different.
many extreme
Fr.
Suarez, in the eyes of
Thomists,
especially with regard
is
simply a heretic,
to the
Holy Trinity
and our Lord's Incarnation.

Again, suppose the theory of matter and
form
will
is
groundless, or even false, and
become of the whole

149
what
series of Tridentine

definitions ?
The fathers of Trent were
schoolmen of the Thomist type, and they
^conceived
the
Thomist way,
explanation
in
of
faith
in
obedience to their philo-
sophy.
This is the reason why, after close
on two thousand years of study, there are
no two Christian divines that agree fully on
any given subject, and that on each point
of doctrine there are at least two or three,
often four, five, or even more different
The whole history of dogmatic
opinions.
theology proves this to perfection, and it is
no use to deny what is apparent to all who
can read.
Therefore the much-boasted doctrinal unity
Roman Church
consists in mere verbal

whereby the members of that communion are forced by supreme authority to
of the
unity,
use a certain formula to express a certain

revealed truth to the exclusion of
But, as that word in

interpreted
different
in
different theological
all
agreement
wôrd,
ways according to
and philosophical systems.
finally
not on an
idea.
is
an agreement on a
I believe, for instance,
in the spiritual presence of our
Eucharistic Supper.
all others.
the formula can be
But how
150
is
Lord
in the
that presence
DOCTRINAL UNITY
effected
By
Roman
transubstantiation,
Suppose
Church.
says
the
deny
the
Thomist theory of matter, and form, and

accidents, what will the meaning of tran-
me
substantiation be to
Nothing, or else
meaning certainly different from that which

the same word conveys to a convinced
There is, therefore, no doctrinal
Thomist.
a
unity,
but
unity of
words, a
consent
on
formulas brought about by authority, nothing
The
else.
truly revealed
articles
of faith
were consigned to Scripture, and stand there

immutable for ever and ever. Even Cardinal
Newman
" It
is
took the same view when he wrote
true that,
of Scripture
so far as such
word became
[*the
mysterious,
they
words, and
cannot
are
relatively
statements
flesh'] are
to
us
be developed."^
but
They
can be believed, they cannot be explained.
They are the object of faith, not of science.

They can be expressed in other words,
more clear yet equivalent, they cannot be
wedded to any philosophical system. They
refuse to enter partnership with pure human
thought,
^
because
Cardinal J. H.
Christian Doctrine,
they
are
Newman^ An Essay on
98.
London^ 1845.
151
divine;
they
the Development of

cannot be
above
all
verified,
human
because they are over and
human
object of revelation, not of
They
ingenuity.
are the foundation of a supernatural
because
religion,
They
heaven.
come down from

common heritage of
God the Word left
they
are the
Churches, because
all
They form the
experience.
them to all.
Hence I draw the following inferences:
explanations of
the dogmatic
(a) The
formulas fixed by the various Churches are
human, not divine. The very fact that they
can vary, according to different systems of
philosophy, show their nature clearly.
It
(^)
not
is
always
very
easy to
dis-
tinguish between a dogmatic formula and
We
explanation.
former
the
dogmatic
may
the
contains
faith,
its
say, in general, that
the
latter
our
of
object
doctrine.
its
Therefore, a mere enlargement or expansion
of a dogmatic formula
only
all:
name.
As
to us
no explanation
I
is
have
said,
its science.
religion
God
is
is
life,
has opened
two books. Nature and Holy
The former
commonly
at
theology rightly deserves this
its
but theology
is
Scripture.
the subject-matter of science
so-called
the
152
latter
of
divine
DOCTRINAL UNITY
science,
which
are
in
theology what natural laws
the
other
is
Doctrines, then,
theology.
One might
sciences.
are
say
or theology,
true Christian doctrine,
in
that
is
the
explanation of Scripture by Scripture, and,

as such,
are
one merges into the other, and they
hardly distinguished from one another.
But Roman
theology
Catholic
planation of Scripture by
and to such a theology

I
have hitherto
human
is
is
the ex-
philosophy,
to be applied
all
said.
Under the formula there is the Christian

truth to be believed by all, immutable and
(c)
unchangeable
just as a man's identity does
not change with the different dresses he wears.

(d) Different
doctrine
than
The
some
in
quantity
of
greater
teaching
creeds.
Churches disagree rather

in
or
lesser
teaching
contradictory
contradictory doctrines which
Churches undoubtedly teach concern
the explanation and interpretation of dogma,
not the
belief
dogma
which are
itself;
in
or concern articles of
no way contained
in
Holy
Scripture.
(e)
No Church may
impose on
its
followers
the explanations of dogmatic truth, as funda-
mental
revealed
truths,
153
under
sanction of

anathema.
developments,
The
It
they
Christian
may
human
they are
because
Just
are
necessarily
free.
not bound to accept them.
is
be wise to do so: clergymen will
behave prudently
imparting religious
in
if,
instruction to the public, they do not depart
from them
them
but they must not adhere to
They
as to revealed truths.
are aspects
of divine revelation, viewed under a certain

angle and at a certain time
(f) True dogma

to true science, for
it
lies
above
far
be antagonistic
cannot
it
it
is
superior to science
it
Dogmas
world.
different
nothing more.
lives
are
quite
in
the
explanation
may be
formula,
because
it
range of
falls
the real
Supper,
call
dogmatic
the
antagonistic
But
to
science,
borrows words and ideas from the
human
under
criticism.
dogma,
of
not
objects,
of physical investigation, but of faith.
laws,
its
No
thought, and as
its
failings,
such
and
it
its
one can say a word against
presence of
mystically
Christ in
conceived
the Lord's
but
the supernatural action of Christ's
you
power
if
you enter forthwith within

the domain of scientific chemistry and natural
If you explain transubstantiation
science.
transubstantiation
154
DOCTRINAL UNITY
according to the atomic theory, the Thomists
you if you follow the principles

Thomist schoolmen, Scotus and
will attack
of
rigid
Suarez will
rise against
Independently
you.
of any and every philosophic system,
be
will
able
present
in
is really,
the
you partake
which
you when you

though spiritbread and wine of
the Lord's Supper ?
attack
to
maintain that Christ

ually,
at
No one, I will dare to say.

Roman theologians labour now
very
difficult,
who
under the
nay, almost impossible task of
demonstrating that the early Fathers of the
Church held
we
do,
which
is
in all things the
same opinion
as
because of the doctrinal continuity

held to be absolutely necessary to the
very existence of the Church.
Now,
if this
doctrinal continuity, with regard to the Fathers,

exists as to the
tainly
dogmas themselves,
it
is
cer-
wanting with regard to the explanation
of the same dogmas.
common
tered to,
The Fathers
held, in
with the humble people they minisall
Christianity,
the principal revealed truths of
and so
far so good.
But when
they began to discourse on them, to explain
and to interpret them, they went into many

different
opinions, that
155
can hardly
now be

with one another, and many of
cannot be free from manifest error.
reconciled
them
Take, for instance, the bishops and saints of

the ante-Nicene Church on the mystery of
the
Holy
Trinity.
Trinity, for they
They
beheved
Son, and in the
did believe in the

in the Father, in the
Holy Ghost
when
it
came
and yet
at
least
with-
into dispute, the
word
Antioch they condemned, or

drew,
at
homoousion which later on was received at

Nicaea as the special symbol of Catholicism
against
Arius.
The
six
great
bishops
of
those times were St. Irengeus, St. Hippolytus,

St.
Cyprian, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St.
Dionysius of Alexandria and St. Methodius.

Of these, St. Dionysius is accused by St.
sown the first seeds of ArianGregory is allowed by the same
Basil of having
ism, and St.
learned Father to have used language con-
cerning our Lord which he only defends on

the plea of an economical object in the writer.
Hippolytus speaks as if he were ignorant

of our Lord's Eternal Sonship St. Methodius
St.
speaks incorrectly, at
tion
the
and
St.
least,
Again,
St.
least,
Cyprian
about
is
very inexact, to say
baptism
Ignatius
may
156
upon the Incarnaand
its
minister.
be considered as a
DOCTRINAL UNITY
Patripassian
polytus
St. Justin Arianises
a Photinian
is
TertuUian
is
St.
on several points of Christian doctrine

is,
at the very least, suspected
Hip-
heterodox
;
Origen
Eusebius was
an Arian.^
But were all these Fathers heretics ? Not

all.
They all believed what we believe,
what true Christians always believe.
They
at
ing to explain
dogmas but in trythem they went off in different
ways, because
it
believed the true, revealed
is
very natural that men, in
the act of thinking, should do
when
"
the intellect
Newman,
Cardinal
it
is
so.
In
fact,
cultivated," says again
"it
is
as
certain
that
develop into a thousand various shapes
will
as that infinite hues and tints and shades of

colour will be reflected from the earth's sur-
face
when
the sunlight touches
and
in the
matters of religion the more, by reason of
the extreme subtlety and abstruseness of the
it
mental action by which they are determined." ^

This is human nature, i.e. man as God created
him.
^
jMen that think
Cf. Cardinal J.
all alike
spontaneously
H. Newman^ Development of Christian Doctrine,
pp. 13, 14.

^
Cardinal J.
Gladstone,
H. Ne^vman, in his controversy with Mr.

by William Barry in Newman, p. 20.
quoted
Loudon, 1904.
157

nowhere to be found.
Verbal doctrinal unity in the Roman Church
in religious subjects are
can be found, real unity never
They
repeat
same formula, they swear by

the same symbol; but what is white to one
The meaning of the
is black to the other.
materially the
formulas changes with the changing of the

schools and of the religious orders to which
the
Roman
To convince him-
divines belong.
self of this, one has only to study the history
dogmas Schwane for instance, Scheeben,

or Turmel all three Roman Catholics and
of
learned men.
an
In
fact, real doctrinal
God
impossibility.
will not
has created the universe and
have
man on
of variety, not of morbid uniformity.
you
find
two men
perfectly alike,
who
unity
it.
is
God
the lines
When
whose faces and persons are

will find also
two
intellects
think in an identical manner.
There
is
a certain class of people who, by
physiological temperament,
want to see every-
know everything with

They cannot pause a
infallible certainty.
moment in an honest doubt. They must
know, and make certain of it. They will
never be content unless you can tell them how
many souls there are in heaven, purgatory, and
thing uniform and to
158
DOCTRINAL UNITY
And what
hell.
the
like
each
Cardiff coal
the best
them.
whether
of purgatory and hell burns exactly
fire
Christ
these places are like
knew
infinite things
How great
sin,
is
whether Jesus
and how
He knew
the suffering in hell for
and how long they
in purgatory for their
sins,
will
have to stay
and how many
masses must be said in order to release them
from the prison they are so
afraid of.
For such people, thus childishly inclined,

Roman Church is the best communion to
They will find in it a
live and to die in.
number of priests, and a far greater number of
books, that will tell them all sorts of curious
things, and profess to unravel for them all the
the
mysteries of Christendom.
It
is
a pity that
what Suarez teaches is denied by Vasques,

what St. Thomas lays down as certain Scotus
denies as unlikely, what is affirmed by IMolina
is contradicted
by Bannez, and what one
school of theology builds up is demolished by
another school.
little.
People
But, after
affected
all, it
matters very
with the mania
of
uniformity in belief and certainty in creeds

will not
make
But
mind
sure of
is
it.
that.
They must know, and
That
is all.
that a certainty worth purchasing?
159

an intellectual peace arrived at by
rational means of inquiry and natural evoluIs it not reached rather by a sheephke
tion ?
Is that
acquiescence in authority about a thing for
which there cannot be authority at all ? Was

not the poet Tennyson right when he sang
There
lives
more
faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds
160
CHAPTER IX
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPEL
TN
-L
in
Church of
treating of the
Christ,
one
can hardly avoid discussing the question
what
relation
stands
it
to
the
Bible.
Church of
being unhistorical, because, they say, it makes
use of an argument altogether vicious, i.e. of
" The Church proves the
a circulus vitiosus,
Bible, and the Bible proves the Church."
apt
Infidels
are
If I ask
why
should believe in the di\dnity
of the Church, I
when
in
the
accuse
to
am
sent to the Bible
I ask the reason
why
and
should believe
the authenticity and truthfulness of the
Bible, I
If the
in
fact,
is
really
am
sent to the Church.
argument
the
is
put in
Roman Church
worth nothing.
this
way,
does put
Indeed,
we
as,
it,
it
can-
not use both the Bible and the Church to
prove one another under the same aspect.

ICl

This proof would be a stupid sophism.
The
argument holds good if the Bible is taken

as an historical document, not as an inspired
one.
The
argument,
then,
will
be
thus
stated: I take the four Gospels as historical
Studying them, just as
documents.
the books
would
of Plato, Virgil, Tacitus, Plutarch,
or Dante, I
come
to the conclusion that they
and give the

works, teaching, miracles, and death
are authentic, they are truthful,

real
life,
Hence I conclude that Jesus of

Nazareth is more than a man; that He is really
the Son of God, as He protested several times
of Jesus.
that
He
was.
Now
I take
a step further,
and, considering that the Church was founded
by Jesus Christ, I conclude that it is a divine

But the Church
and infallible institution.
tells
me
that the four Gospels are inspired,
and contain the true history of Jesus. I bow

my head and believe the Church. The argument, proposed in this way, has not a flaw,
and holds water.
what relation do the Gospels

stand to the Church ? Are they prior to the
Church, or posterior? Are they independent
of the Church, or utterly dependent? Are
Now,
in
they necessary to the Church, or only acces-
162
THE CHURCH AND THE GOSPEL

Could the Church go on without the
sory?
Gospels, or
intimately connected with
it
is
them?
I
1
do not wish to be misunderstood.
When
speak of the priority or posteriority of the

I
do not mean the written Gospels.
know
that the written Gospels are later
Gospels,
All
time than the Church. The first of them

came into being about the year 68, the last
in
about A.D.
few wxeks
is
no
Church existed a
and the
100,
About
after Pentecost.
By
discussion.
Gospels
Lord's message to the world.
this there
mean
the
This message
was delivered first by our Lord Himself; in

fact, it formed the theme of His sermons,
and then
it
formed
subject-matter
the
the preaching of the apostles.
preached
writing
the
is
which does not

then,
that
the
Gospel.
pure
Its
my
Church
message of Jesus
in
put into
being
accidental
affect
The
circumstance
argument.
is
fact,
posterior
it
of
apostles
is
I hold,
to the
the conse-
quence, the product, the fruit of that message,
and the written Gospels are nothing but the

message itself consigned to writing by two
apostles and by two disciples of the apostles.
The
Gospels,
therefore,
163
are
prior
to
the

Church
nay, they have created the Church.
They stand,
therefore, to the
Church
Magna
as
Charta stands to the Enghsh Constitution,

the rules or constitutions to a rehgious order,
laws to an empire, the
the enactments or
They
plan or design to anything whatever.

are the formal
being
its
Roman
efficient
therefore,
deny
it
we
most
at
know-
and authenticity of
the existence
the Gospels
arrive
When,
cause.
divines argue that for the very
ledge of
cause of the Church, Jesus
are indebted to the Church,

resolutely.
certain
Why
can I not
about
conviction
the
existence and authenticity of the four Gospels
without the help of the Church, just as
do
in the case of Plato's or Cicero's
Well,
appeal, with regard to them, to the
world at large
science
books?
and
make
use of
criticism afford
internal characters of the
the Church as a witness
me
all
the helps
study the
book I take also

and I come to the
;
conclusion that our four Gospels are really

authentic.
They
contain, undoubtedly in
substance, the teaching of Jesus
genuine,
whom
i.e,
its
they are
they were written by those
men
the Church and tradition assign for
their authors, about the
.164
time they say they

were
written
and
they
are
substantially-
trustworthy.
And
observe this
the actions, the miracles,
and the words of Jesus are stamped with the

wonderful impression of divinity. There is
no question about it. " The mere study of
the Gospels impresses us with the certainty
that Jesus was the
We
Son of God.
need
no other witness but His. The cffata of

our Lord are of a typical structure, parallel
to the prophetic announcements as predictions as well as the laying
In
come
of
to
the declaration of a
us as
In the old Covenant the Almighty,
lawgiver.
first
of doctrine.
His recorded words and works on
fact,
earth
down
all,
Commandments
spoke the Ten
from JNlount
Sinai,
So our Lord
first
and afterwards wrote them.
spoke His
own
of promise and of precept,
Gospel, both
on the mount,
His
corresponds to the authority which
and His evangelists have recorded

style, too,
He
assumes.
It
is
it.
of that solemn, measured,
and severe character which bears on the face

of
it
tokens of
its
'spake as no other
Beatitudes,
with
belonging to
man
His sermon opens,

incommunicable style,
which
are an instance of this
One who
The
could speak.'
165

which
befitted, as far as
God
befit,
human words
could
incarnate."^
The Roman Church
discards the Bible as
the ultimate rule of faith, because, she says,
the
of
heretics
appealed to
themselves
Church.
divinity
the
against
constantly-
to
authority
defend
of
the
AVell, this very fact shows the

and inspiration of Holy Writ. The
comprehensiveness
of
simply marvellous.
system
have
ages
all
the Bible in order
there,
the
four
There
is
no limited
is
no exclusive
field
The aphorisms of Jesus seem,
Gospels
of thought.
at times, con-
His views not

exactly in harmony with what He expressed
on other occasions His actions, though never
reproachable, always wonderful and mysterione
tradictory to
another
Now
ous.
The
all
this is the
mark of
divinity.
Deity, being infinite, looks at the various
aspects of things.
one only.
God
Man
will
is
mostly limited to
never found a system
man, just because of his limitation, will lay

a set form of things, will put into them
an ideal unity, will gather the creations of
his mind into the small compass of a system.
down
Cf. Cardinal J.
H. Newman, An Essay on
Loudon, 1846.
Christian Doctrine^ p. 42.
166
the Development of

And
in so doing he narrows
down
his views,
shortens the range of his vision, shuts out
from
his grasp a
multitude of facts and things,
and hmits himself
Just
so,
because
man
is
a finite being, by
God
is
infinite,
could expect
nature limited and small.

and Christ, being God, we
that
He
should
dehv^r
His
thoughts in such a form as to comprehend

aspects of things.
all
consequence
in
find
in
Jesus'
all
Gospel a
not verbal, mental,
because
Jesus,
He
the
has done
forms of
if
so,
correspondence,
if
not in words, in deeds,
Logos of the Father,
speaks in deeds as well as in words.

heretics
and
human thought
All
have found in the four Gospels the
foundation-stones of their religious systems,
because those stones were really there.
one or two stones will not make an
To
But
edifice.
the stones supplied by Jesus Christ they
added their own, and so they raised a building
by some, condemned by others. As

with the same stones you can build a palace
praised
or a fortress, a Gothic or a Byzantine Church,
Roman
Basilica or a classical temple, so the
words of Christ have helped to raise up

beautiful though different buildings.
And
who would be so foolish as to condemn Him
167

His Gospels food
lor having placed in
minds, stones for
men
all
Not
for all
buildings, salvation for
all
that the
heretics
so-called
read the
But have the orthodox

Gospels always
and Roman Catholics read them always in
aright.
a proper
The Gospels need
way ?
to be read
the light of the Spirit, and one should
in
approach them in fear and trembling and with
you read the Gospels in

order to find a prop for error and evil doing,
of course the Gospels will be mute to you
If
right intention.
they will refuse to speak.
Jesus
let
(John
viii.
Finally,
the eternal
any man
him come unto Me, and drink"
fountain of the water of God.

thirst,
is
" If
37).
the Gospel
is
the
unchangeable
part of the Christian religion, which preserves
the Church from degenerating
and turning
into a religion very different from that which
Christ founded
It
is
nothing
ing
one
is
upon
of
the
earth.
simplest
fixed in this world.
around
eternal laws.
us,
incessantly,
And we
truisms
All
is
that
chang-
according
to
change together with
the material, the moral, and the social world.
Our
bodies change from babyhood to infancy,
168

from
infancy
maturity, from
old age to a
youth,
to
from
maturity to
youth
old
age,
from
mysterious, yet higher,
life
to
still
evolving higher and higher towards the goal

divine never yet to be attained for ever and
ever.
Amidst
things,
as
to
this
religion
wonderful development of
changes, and not only
also
discipline,
its
all
which
conceivable
is
enough, but also with regard to the interpretation of
dogmas which come under the
are changing, that are

at fifty has not the
fifteen, so
man
human minds that

developing.
As a man
of
activity
intellectual
same
ideas
as
Middle Ages
living in the
could not think and act as a
Hence the
twentieth century.
Christ
is
always
in
danger
a boy of
of
man
of the
religion
of
developing
beyond its own nature and turning into

something foreign to it, by wây of one-sided
distortion, by way of too easy assimilation
of elements which are really uncongenial to
its original idea, by way of stagnation or of
turning the means into ends.
But just as human and political societies
can avert the danger of wrong and one-sided
development by going back and appealing
169

to their
Magna
Charta, or Statute Book,
so,
the Christian religion can always appeal to

the Gospel.
The words
of Christ,
now
con-
signed to paper, will never change for ever-
Earth and heaven will pass away

they will remain. Churches will come and
but Christ's
go, men will live and die,
more.
words
will
now
be as they are
for ever.
And
and ever they will be a fountain of

pure water to quench the thirst of all those
for ever
that approach.
Gospel
In consequence, the
rule of faith, because
it
is
the final
contains the one
immutable thing of the religion of Christ.

The Church can offer to the world no new
revelation.
Christ
has given, once for
all,
His religion to the world, and His message

If the
has been written in the Gospels.
Church wishes to remain
faithful, true, loyal
must go back and

listen again and again to His divine message,
the Gospel of Christ. In this manner only
to
its
divine Founder,
will the
eternal
it
Church remain unchangeable

mutability of
all
in the
things around her,
and her development and progress, because

she must develop and progress, will be
according to the lines laid down by Jesus
170

His
in
which
Jesus
is
in
is
is
Only that development

harmony with the message of
Gospel.
a legitimate development;
all
other
distortion, corruption, deterioration.
was to the message of Christ,

to the Gospel, that the Councils and the
early Fathers of the Church appealed in
Indeed
it
To
about Christian truth.
their differences
the Gospel they sent the Pagans that wanted
become Christians, yet knew not to what

Church to attach themselves in the contention,
division, and confusion that was the lot of
St.
the Church of Christ then as it is now.
John Chrysostom, in a case like this, sends
the Pagan to search the Scriptures, which
" I am
are held by all Christian Churches.
to
glad," he
says,
"that
all
parties
agree thus
on the Scriptures for, if we referred you

only to reason, you might justly be at a loss
but if we send you to the Scriptures, and
far
they are simple and true, your decision

Whoever accords with them is
easy.
Christian; but whoever
is
at
variance
it " (St.
is
with
John Chrys.
from
Homilies on the Acts, XXXIII., in the Library
them
is
very far
of the Fathers, Part II. pp. 462-7).

The answer St. John Chrysostom gave to
171

the religious inquirers of his times
to-day
will
also.
find
apostolic
we
give
Search the Scriptures, and you

in them the doctrines of the
the
creed,
institution
of
the
apostoHc ministry, the means of grace, and

all doctrines that are common to the majority
of
These
Churches.
The
because revealed.
doctrines are
rest is
divine,
human, because
developed out of elements partly human and

Man has found them, they
partly divine.
change with him, and no one should be put

out of the Church for disbelieving them.
Any Church
the
command
that does so
oversteps openly
of Christ, and turns the rehgion
of Jesus, which
is
a rehgion of liberty, into
a religion of oppression.
172
CHAPTER X
THE DEMOCRACY OF THE CHUKCH
WHOEVER
studies
the origins of the
Church cannot fail to obit was a clear and

genuine democracy. All the syllogisms and
Christian
serve that, in
cavils of the
its
beginning,
Roman
theologians will never
succeed in confuting this assertion, which
now undertake
it
briefly, so as
to prove, though I
must do
not too seriously to increase
the bulk of the present volume.

First of
all,
our Lord Himself often asserted
and absolute equality of the

members of His Church by teaching that
His disciples should look upon themselves as
brethren, act as such, and avoid all kind
the
perfect
of pre-eminence over each other.
In
fact,
the apostles having once discussed amongst
themselves the question

greatest
among them,
who
should be the
Jesus abruptly stopped
173
":

dispute
their
*'
any man
If
be
shall
(Mark
last
ix.
35).
with
the
to
desire
following
be
first,
words
same
the
all
and
servant
And
that
by these words
of
of
all
Jesus not only taught humility, but estab-
among
lished, in addition, a perfect equality
His
disciples, is to
be gathered from what
He
on another occasion, when the mother

of James and John asked Him to raise her
two sons to the first places in His kingdom.
Jesus resolutely refused her this favour, and
" Ye
then, turning to all the disciples, added
said
know
that the princes of the Gentiles exercise
dominion over them, and they that are great
upon them. But it shall

not be so among you but whoever will be
great among you, let him be your minister
and whosoever will be chief among you, let
him be your servant even as the Son of
man came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister, and to give His life a ransom for
exercise authority
many"
He
(Matt.
20-8).
xx.
And
elsewhere
more on the same idea " But

be not ye called Rabbi
for one is your
insists still
and all ye are brethren.

your father upon the earth
Master, even Christ
And
for
call
one
no man
your Father who
is
174
is
in
heaven,
THE DEMOCRACY OF THE CHURCH

Neither be ye called masters
But he that
Master, even Christ.
among you
xxiii.
shall
one
for
is
is
your
greatest
be your servant" (Matt,
8-11).
The Church
of
Rome now
interprets
all
those words of Jesus as having been spoken

but the first
by Him to teach humility
;
Christians and the apostles interpreted
them
quite differently.
In
the
the conduct of the apostles during

months and years that followed the
fact,
first
death of Jesus clearly proves that the Church

was a pure democracy founded on the principle of perfect equality, in
which the authority

this or that
and government belonged, not to
community
individual, but to the

ful,
or,
properly speaking, to
and
Pontiffs, bishops,
priests
of the faith-
Church.
the
governing with
despotic and absolute power, as the
Roman
Church has to-day, were, at that time, absolutely
unknown.
Indeed, the
first
act of the apostles after
the ascension of the Lord
an apostle
in place of
this selection is
the election of
Judas the
made, not by
whom, according
should
is
to the
have been
left,
175
traitor.
St.
Roman
Now
Peter, to
doctrine,
it
nor by the twelve

by
apostles,
but
brethren,
"who
the
assembly
entire
together
of
numbered about a
hundred and twenty" (Acts
i.
15)
and, more-
over, the election took place by drawing lots.

And what are the faculties conferred on the
new
apostle
Must
that
faithful,
is,
the priesthood
he, perhaps,
exercise a
Not
at
all.
judge the
magistracy,
or
In appointing
St. Matthias they only wished to complete

the mystic number of twelve persons who
had Uved with Jesus whilst He was living,

and might bear testimony to His resurrection
(Acts i. 21, 22). But on becoming apostle
Matthias (always according to the Acts)
does not acquire any superiority over his
St.
brethren; he
mony
is
is
not consecrated by any cere-
whatever, and no jurisdiction whatever
conferred
upon him.
itself is
disciples of Jesus.
bas,
The
title
of apostle
not reserved exclusively to the twelve
and
Later on also Paul, Barna-
Silas call themselves,
and
are, apostles
of the Lord.
On
the day of Pentecost the
descends
upon
all
the
without distinction and

gifts
(Acts
tongues.
ii.
Holy Ghost
disciples
fills
of
Jesus
them with His
4), especially with the gift of
If the apostles are seen displaying
176

greater activity and outstripping
that
all,
is
due to the superior virtue, greater talent, and
more intense enthusiasm which they possess.

Their gifts of nature and grace distinguish
them from their brethren, and render them
superior to them, and not any right of preeminence given them by Jesus. According
to the teaching of the JNIaster, they are
among equals" {Primi
**
first
inter pares).
Accordingly, in the
first
chapters
of the
Acts the apostles are seen doing everything

in accord among themselves and in common
with the brethren.
wâs perfect,
At
that time brotherhood
and the Church of Jerusalem had
the aspect of a clearly democratic society,
members enjoyed equal
whose
subjected
rights
and
themselves to the same burdens.
AMien the apostles, as the Church increases,

have no time to attend to the temporal wants
of the community, and decide to accept some
help, they propose to the brethren the election
of seven deacons
actually
made
(Acts
3fF.).
The
vi.
apostles
and the choice of these is

by the whole community
;
hear
that
" Samaria
has
embraced the wôrd of God," and send Peter

and John to that country (Acts viii. 14).
177

The
government of the primitive

shown by this fact also.
collective
Church
clearly
is
by the other apostles it is not

he who sends, as supreme head of the companions and of the Church.
The Roman theologians want us to bePeter
is
sent
from the
lieve that
been
ship
has
and
social
earliest
" a
delegation
conferred
faculties
the beginning on
times the apostleof
spiritual
by Jesus
in
the apostles exclusively,"
and therefore altogether

authority that confers
it.
depending on the
That, much later
came to dominate the

Church is most certain; that it was current
and common in the primitive Church is
on,
this
conception
absolutely
Acts
false.
that, in the
disciples
In
fact,
we
learn
from the
many
unknown to
time of the apostles,
preached
the
faith
them, and that they more
than
once
ac-
knowledged the right of every Christian to

preach, when internally moved to this by
Acts viii.
the Holy Ghost (Phil. i. 14-18
;
2-4,
xviii.
places).
ample
in
24-8, and
elsewhere
in
several
We
have another conspicuous ex-
St.
Paul, who, immediately after
baptism, began to preach the faith without
having been presented to the apostles to
178
re-

them (Acts
ceive his mission from
Only
years of
after three
he go to see Peter (Gal.
submit
not
does
20
ix.
apostleship
himself
But he
18).
i.
at
fF.).
does
him.
to
all
who have
He declares that "the

been companions of Jesus, have not taught
him anything" (Gal. ii. 6); that he is their
apostles,
inferior in nothing,
committed
Gentiles,
Jews
to
(Gal.
recognising
Peter to preach
to
as
ii.
and that to him it was

the Gospel to the
preach
any
Paul
St.
7).
supremacy
it
to the
is
so far
from
in
Peter,
that
he does not hesitate to scold him publicly

(Gal. ii. llfF.), and this at Antioch, of which
Church, according
Now
bishop.
theologians,
and
is
tradition,
to
Peter
he who, according to
was
Roman
the foundation of the Church
God on earth, eclipses

man who had not known
the Vicar of
himself before a
and who had not received from him,

from any other apostle, his apostolic
Jesus,
or
consecration.
have
been
monarchical
in the Greek,
had prevailed
Roman
Now
ask
possible
if
episcopate
Would
all
this
ideas
of
the
the
which
exist
to-day
Roman, and Russian Churches

The
in the apostolic Church ?
theologians triumphantly reply that
179

the case of St. Paul
from
received
singular, because
is
Jesus
Himself
Christ
he
the
mission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.
Be
But
so.
it
whom
then, from
did Apollos,
Barnabas, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, Simon,

and many others, prophets and teachers, of
whom mention is made in the Acts of the
Apostles, receive their mission ? They were
they
converted,
felt
inwardly
preach, and they preached.
inspired
to
Often they even
founded new Churches, of which they remained

the natural heads
that
is,
"
among
first
the
brethren."
Perhaps some of those unknown
preachers
converted
Gentiles of
not
two
the
would
Rome,
have
the
in
which
apostles
the
credit
founders of that Church.
Jews
first
case, they,
and
Peter
of
and
being
Do
not
Paul,
the
all
and
first
these
show that the dependence,

and government of the ecclesiastical
clearly
facts
mission,
authority
arrangement
human
is
fact,
not
divine
Speaking of
St.
Paul, what
is
to be said
of his ordination, together with St. Barnabas,

at the
the
hands of the prophets and teachers of
Church
Were
of
Antioch (Acts
xiii.
those prophets and teachers
180
1 fF.)
who
laid

And
hands on Paul and Barnabas bishops ?

not bishops, what did
if they were
their
act
were
they ordained
their
them?
priest,
signify
And
if
And
or
priests
apostles,
or
five
years (for that
six
since his conversion), he
number had passed
and
baptized,
conducted
the
How
eucharistic service, as a simple layman.

is
to be explained?
all this
by
bishops
Paul was only ordained a
then, for
preached,
the two
And why was
he not ordained by the apostles when, five

years previously, he had been presented to
them by
(Gal.
all
when
Peter
St.
i.
Barnabas (Acts
St.
18)
This
he
is
went
ix.
to
be
said,
or by
visit
him
not the place to answer
the above-mentioned questions.
however,
27)
in
general,
It might,
that
when
Paul arrived at Antioch the body of prophets

and teachers, as the most esteemed of all in
that Church, had the care of it in their hands
therefore constituting, as a fact, a collective
episcopate (episcopus, overseer), and as such,
on
the
own authority, by the inspiration

Holy Ghost, sent Paul and Barnabas
its
of
to
preach the Gospel in Cyprus and Pamphylia.
Some
years after, perhaps
and Barnabas, in
two or
their turn,
181
three,
Paul
assigned, with

the same
rite
Church
every
to
of imposition of hands, elders
they
had
evangelised,
recommending them to God (Acts xiv. 22).

Here again the two apostles are to be seen
estabhshing in every Church the order of
elders, as was customary in Judaism, so that
they should take care of the Churches they
Were those "presbyters," or

had founded.
elders, on whom Paul and Barnabas imposed
Roman
their hands, priests after the
Who will dare to assert this without
fashion
sufficient
proof ?
Let us proceed.
their
way
into
Divisions very soon
made
the rising Church, and that
on account of the ordinances of the law of

Moses, which some judaizing Christians said
should be observed, while others protested,
on the contrary, that they were not necessary.
To
decide the question, the brethren were
called to a special meeting, which, later on,
Church called a Council. Now that

assembly was composed of apostles, elders, and
brethren (Acts xv. 23), and consequently of
the
the entire Christian people, or the majority
who were then in

commanded in that Council ?
Jerusalem.
nor did James
first,
of Christians,
Who
not Peter
182
if
the
Certainly
so
":

to say,
opened
with a speech, the second
it
formulated the letter which was afterwards
Two
sent to the brethren of Syria and Cilicia.

classes are here
named with
greater honour
the apostles and elders, and this on account

the merits of
of
the second
but
one
either
the
other
The
rights in that Council.
ceremonies of the law

{collcgiaUtcr)
all
not
does
it
the
or
and the age of
first
appear that
enjoyed
special
question of the
is
treated collectively
possess
an equal right to
and the decision
at "
by
the apostles, elders, and all the Church
(Acts xv^ 22). What a difference between
the Council of Jerusalem and the last
Councils of the Roman Church, where the
Pope made and unmade everything
speak
Of course,
is
equality of rank
Christians did not at
all
of a diversity of offices
arrived
among
the
first
impede the existence
among them,
according
to the capacity of each individual, the collec-
community, and the

received from the Holy Ghost.
St. Paul
tive vote of the Christian

gifts
teaches that
Church,
first
'*
God
has constituted
Apostles,
secondly
thirdly teachers, after that miracles,
the
gifts
of
healings,
183
helps,
in
the
prophets,
and then
governments,

"
tongues
of
diversities
(1
Cor.
xii.
28).
Paul places the apostleship in the

same rank and order as the other aboveTherefore it is a talent,
mentioned gifts.
It is a power to do
jurisdiction.
a
not
good, to instruct and enlighten the brethren,
not primarily a right to command them, or a
All the offices mentioned by St.
mission.
St.
Paul are good and useful but none of them

confers on him who fills it the least authority
;
over his brethren, excepting in so far as the

latter,
God
seeing the gift of
in him, render
him voluntary obedience. Charity is above all

Every one exercises his
gifts (1 Cor. xiii.).
own
is
he
gift as
likes,
and, in the exercise of
it,
commands
of
not bound to submit to the
anybody.
In
this
manner
Silas,
Judas, Paul,
and Barnabas separate and go whither their

and fancy
will
dictates,
without any superior
assigning a given territory to them.

St.
Paul,
among
Besides,
the above-mentioned
offices,
does not mention bishops and elders (presbyters).
Why is this
elders
and bishops are the same thing, and
Because, as
we have
said,
that not a talent or gift, but an office which,

as its
age,
name
implies,
and age
is
is
connected chiefly with
a matter of necessity, not a
184

moral
qualification
although
undoubtedly-
moral qualifications were by no means
dis-
regarded in the selection of elders.
Thus, the apostles were not pontiffs, as the
Roman
brethren
who assumed
and laborious
of the
now
theologians
office
and nothing more.

as a rule,
propagandists,
Paul
St.
he
not
did
at the eucharistic love-feast
us that,
tells
he did not baptize, and

that
difficult
the propagation
They were
Gospel.
probable
is,
but were
most
the
that
assert
it
is
usually
;
also
preside
though nothing
hinders the belief that he did so sometimes.
\rhe
elders
Greek
(in
which
npea^vTepoL,
Romanists translate badly by the word

priests), were the elders, or the oldest men,
rîany
who
administered the
"inspector"
the
is
of the
commu-
{episcopus),
literally
affiiirs
The word bishop
nity.
only to
be
found
once in
Acts of the Apostles and there
applied to the entire
order of
the
it
is
elders,
and not to one bishop alone at the head

of the community, according to the fashion
of the
Roman
Apostles (xx.
Church.
17)
it
is
In the Acts of the

said
on arriving at Miletus, sent
that
for
St.
the elders
of the Church of Ephesus, and warned
185
Paul,
them

certain innovators
of
doctrines
against the
would enter Ephesus

and play havoc with the flock, of which the
Holy Ghost had constituted them " bishops,"
who,
after his departure,
that
is,
Therefore, this
inspectors.
bishop, which
the priests,
now
is
title
of
reserved to the chief of
charged with the spiritual govern-
ment of an
entire province, belonged, in the
time of the apostles, to
all
the elders of the
Jerome says
Church the
presbytery and the episcopacy were but one
and the same thing under two different names,
one of which signifies age (presbyter), and the
(St. Jerome, EpisL
other office (bishop) "
Christian Church, so that, as St.
" In the
first
ad Oceanum),
centuries
This
ancient author of
is
of the
also the opinion of the
comments on the letters

as St. Ambrose (Ambrosii
of St. Paul,
known
sive Hilarii
Diaconi comment, in Ephes,
"
To
iv.).
facihtate the conversion of the Pagans,"
he says, " in the
first
days of the Church,
Christians were allowed to
preach,
all
baptize,
and explain the Holy Scriptures in church.

But no sooner was the Church propagated in
every place and special Churches founded,
than rectors were appointed and other permanent offices in each Church, so that who186

ever had not been properly ordained
was
for-
bidden to exercise ecclesiastical offices in the

Church." This is the real explanation.
We
from the Acts and the scarce

records of the primitive Church that
historical
see
it
was
then ruled by orders, or classes, not by individuals, and that all behevers could baptize,
preach,
side
comment on
the Scriptures, and pre-
at the eucharistic
rite,
com-
or supper
memorating the passion of Jesus. Therefore,

at that time, there was no intrinsic difference
between priests and laymen. The intrinsic
came
difference
val theologians
later,
much
later,
when
were induced, by a
can be explained in
many
mediae-
fact
which
ways, to assert that
character and physical quahty
an indelible
arose in the minds, or souls, of the priests
means of
But
ordination.
this
It has
theological speculation.
is
by
a mediaeval
no foundation
whatever in the Scriptures nor in primitive

traditions.
Enough
for the present, as this subject will
be treated at length and expressly in another

work.
Thus
the
in
its
infancy,
not by individuals
by
it was absolutely democratic.
directed
to say,
Church,
classes,
187
was
that
St.
is
Paul

writes to the saints in Jesus Christ
at Philippi,
deacons
who
are
together with the bishops and
(Phil.
i.
Therefore
1).
Church the bishops were a
in
that
class of the faith-
the oldest, hence elders (presbyters), whose

business it was to watch over the Christian
ful
community, so that
it
should walk with up-
riditness in the faith and
life
of Jesus.
In
respect of age they were presbyters, or elders,
by
Therefore at that
they were bishops.
office
time there was not one only bishop at the

head of the community, but it was ruled by
prophets, teachers,
bishops,
such other believing
men
evangeHsts, and
as
tinguished by the gifts of the
Even
the
and
first
were most
dis-
Holy Ghost.
Paul himself, who perhaps was

the Church to manifest monarchical
St.
in
episcopaUan
tendencies,
properly
so
not detach himself from a healthy

In fact, even where he
spirit of democracy.
at the same
recognises,
exercises authority he
called, does
time, thsit jurisdiction belongs to the assembly of

believers.
Thus, he condemns the incestuous
person at Corinth, because " he, Paul, anticipates the decision of the faithful into the
whom he transports himself in spirit

with whom he associates himself in the
midst of
and
188

sentence
"
And
(1 Cor. v. 3).
when,
later on,
moved by the repentance of the sinner, he

desires to readmit him to the Church, he begs
the faithful to use indulgence and ratify his
him
charity towards
it
(2 Cor.
ii.
Hence
7-8).
seen that St. Paul puts in practice the
is
command
of
shall
be the
who
Jesus,
Church, that
is,
last
questions, of the
of the brethren.
desires
the
that
the assembly of the faithful,
judge of
all
controversies and
condemnation and absolution

In
fact,
He
teaches thus
" If thy brother shall trespass against thee,
and
him
tell
If he
alone.
between thee and him
his fault
shall hear thee,
thy brother.
And
if
thou hast gained
he will not hear thee,
then take with thee one or two more

the
mouth of two
word may be
if
that in
or three witnesses every
established.
neglect to hear them,
but
go
tell it
And
if
shall
unto the Church
he neglect to hear the Church,
be to thee as an heathen
he
man and
let
him
a publican.
Vêrily, I
say to you, whatsoever ye shall bind
on earth
shall
be bound also in heaven
and
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be

loosed also in heaven" (St. Matt,
Thus, the Church, that

faithful,
is,
15-18).
the assembly of the
binds and looses, that
189
xviii.
is
to say, con-

demns and absolves, and the head or heads of
the Church bind and loose only in the name
and by the authority of the Church. And is
not this a real democratic government
God
Indeed,
He
conscience
alone,
Lord of the
the
as
has given us, binds and looses
He speaks to our conscience in His Word

and by His Spirit. But this being so, there
are two reasons for the singular place given
by Christ to the apostles in this matter:
as
(a)
They were
divinely inspired to deliver to
us the message of Christ, which, later on,
consigned to writing, became what

the books of the
New
Testament,
they could work miracles,

gifts of spiritual insight to
Yet
in
to
so,
singular need of the times,
pretend.
we
(b)
will call
Just as
meet the
God gave them

which we cannot
subordinate sense the
Church, through her ministers,
still
binds and
looses, for as her ministers
they preach the
Word, and
in so far as
takes effect the
careless are
awakened to a sense of sin, i.e.

Word and the bur-
it
they are bound by the
dened are
filled
with peace,
i.e,
they are loosed
by the same Word. Yet He that binds and

looses is not man, but God, speaking in His
Word God, the only Lord of the conscience.
190

Presbyterianism
Church
therefore, the primitive
is,
It
organisation.
provides
for
the
election by the congregations (and the setting
by laying on of hands) of a
apart
indifferently elders or bishops,

fied
class called
who
are quali-
to perform, as representatives, any and
every spiritual
Episcopacy denies
act.
this,
You may preach, you may

congregation, you may baptize, you
saying in effect
rule a
may even
"
consecrate the bread and wine of
you by yourselves lay

hands on another the act is null and void,
because you cannot confer your own orders."
the
Supper, but
if
Monarchical Episcopacy
is
here reduced to
minimum, because the Roman and

Churches pretend
much
to
more.
its
Greek
Yet I
venture to say that their claims are not to

be found in the New Testament, nor are they
apostolic.
Of
course,
if
a congregation
unable, through the failure of

life,
through
strife
mally to elect
its
its
is
Christian
or scandal, freely and nor-
own
ministers, special pro-
from some
centre where life is still flourishing and active.
Such we may take to have been the case of
Crete an exception, therefore, not the rule
yet even there it would be hard to find the
vision
may have
to be
made
for
it
191

minimum
that monarchical Episcopacy
In conclusion
mands.
organisation was
de-
the primitive Church
representative; therefore a
representative democracy.
Summing up
following
the
democratic
briefly
facts
what we have
just said,
stand as proof
government
the
of
of
the
primitive
Church
(a)
of Jerusalem, mother and
The Church
pattern of
all
Churches, where an absolutely
and popular government existed.

(b) The existence in the Church of different
ruhng classes, to which, and not to one
collective
person alone, was entrusted the spiritual and
temporal care of the community.

(c)
The
fact that
when
St.
Polycarp wrote
to the Philippians, about the year 110, he
mentions the elders (presbyters) and deacons

only, not the bishop, who, according to the
Roman
system, should have been at the head
of that Church.
Various genuine and other apocryphal

letters, which, between the years 100 and
(d)
150,
other
were
written by certain
Churches,
were
Churches
to
letters,
in
collective
which the community only appears, not the

for instance, the letter from the
bishop
:
192

Church
Rome
of
that
to
the letter of the Church of
Corinth
of
Smyrna
to that
of Philomehum, etc.
(e) The Didache clearly leads to the supposition that the Christian community selected
its
own
rulers.
Two
facts which would be equally

{f)
strange and inexplicable in a society whose
government
democratic.
was
not
The
everybody
which
which
all
popular and
entirely
first
most certain fact,

was the faculty
whether priests or
knows,
Christians,
laymen, had of baptizing, that
is,
of adding
new converts to the Church, and

dependently of
the
heads
of
this
in-
the Church.
Now, when one thinks that the admission

of a new member into a society is the
highest
chief,
and most
one
cannot
primitive Christian
granted
to
every
authoritative
understand
Church
single
of
act
how
in
this faculty
Christian,
its
the
was
even
and women. This is inexplicable, except in an absolutely democratic

society, whose government and whose jurisdiction is really vested in the entire comservants, slaves,
munity and in each single individual of the

Such was the primitive government
same.
193
O

of the Christian Church.
Still
more, from
scattered fragments of sub-apostolic literature,
seems clear that, until the year 100 or 120,

any Christian, by permission of the community or its head, if there was one, and also
it
without
it,
could preside at the eucharistic
supper, and celebrate the sacred mysteries
moreover, any pious and
endowed
with
spiritual
devout Christian,
(charismata),
gifts
although not priest or bishop, might release
from the burden of sin.

attested by St. Hippolytus in
his fellow brethren
This
is
his
Philosophoumena,
clearly
by
Oratione, by Tertullian
elsewhere.
in
Origen
De
in
Pudicitia,
De
and
Finally, the office connected with
the position of elder, priest, or bishop was
not necessarily
perpetual,
turns.
It
seems that
deduced from the
but might cease
up or
altogether, or be taken
laid
this fact
letters of St.
down by
can also be
Poly carp to
the Philippians.
{g)
The
fact narrated
by
St.
Jerome, that
in
the early times the presbyters of Alexandria
appointed their
own
bishop
whence
it
might
be deduced that, in the time of the apostles,

that Church, like
many
others,
a college of equal presbyters.
194
was ruled by

(h)
That which
" in
that
the
age
apostolic
Churches which had

Churches
and
Epiphanius
St.
had
were
there
without bishops,
priests
that
attests, viz.
no
and
bishops
priests."
The
{i)
universal fact, touched
upon here
in the apostolic literature, that every
and there
Christian acquired a kind of right to rule
those
whom
Judaism
or
little
he converted from heathenism

hence
the
also
formation
groups of Christians under their
who was
apostle or evangelist,
of
own
priest, bishop,
and everything to them.

{k)
in
Another equally universal
nearly
all
apostolic, the
the
the
fact,
Churches, including
doubtful, or even quite mendacious
manner
it
the
tradition of the succession of
bishops, after the apostles,
first
that
is
;
very
in like
has been sought to trace back to
apostolic times, or thereabouts, the foundation
of
many Churches
this has
of Italy and France, and
been conclusively disproved by the
historical criticism of
writers.
of
Rome,
first
what
many
This can be said

of
whom
preacher,
relations
is
modern
even of the Church
learned
the real founder, or very
unknown
existed
195
it
is
between
not
known
Peter and

them and the Church
Paul, or between
Rome
above
and,
scurity
who were
to
as
there
all,
much
is
their
of
ob-
immediate
successors.
(/)
be
To
this
all
added,
another historical fact
may
where
the
explain
to
difficult
theory of a monarchical Episcopate existing
from the very beginning of the Church is

held, but easily explained when it is maintained
that the first ecclesiastical government was
in the
It
hands of a
many
that in
is
class,
not of an individual.
Churches, even in some
of the principal and apostolic Churches,
time of the apostles, or
the
at
find,
mediately
two
after,
we
im-
or three bishops, who,
according to tradition, were ordained by the

apostles themselves
and placed at the head
Thus we have
of the government.
Linus
and
others,
Clement
St.
Peter;
Anacletus,
all
the
governed
to
three ordained by
St.
apostles,
that
Rome
according
and,
Jerusalem
at
together with
says,
also,
at
Church
as
;
James, who,
Hegesippus
at
Antioch
Evodius and Ignatius sitting together, as we

learn from Baronius and others, in the same
episcopal chair at Athens Dionysius, Publius,
and Quadratus, ordained by the apostles and
;
196

the same
Churches, especially in
other
in
France, Italy, and Asia
The Roman
JNIinor.
theologians explain this fact by saying that
the apostles, not being able to remain always
one place, ordained two or three elders

as bishops, who, however, were not to govern
together, but to succeed one another when
in
the place became vacant.
Others say that
the apostles did this to prevent schisms from

arising in the Church after their death
Baronius, however,
Christians
of the bishops ministered to the
converted from
"one
of opinion that
is
Judaism
the other,
when
there were two, was bishop of the Christians
of
Gentile
And when
race."
there
were
these explanations are
All
ask.
and agree badly with the Acts and
JNIay it not be said,
the letters of St. Paul.
three?
fanciful,
instead,
that
three, or
Church,
the apostles
more
that
so
Churches
at
elders
divine
to
should be democratic and
by
classes?
And
explain very well

Titus, that
the
is,
different
then,
St.
two,
the head of every
government
the
according
established
ordination
collective
wôuld
Paul's
the
of
that
not
is,
this
command
to
to ordain elders (presbyters) for

cities
of
197
Crete,
who
little

on are described by the apostle
further
bishops
But,
as
it
the letters of St. Ignatius
said,
is
forbid the acceptance of that interpretation.

at the beginning of the second
They show that,
century the monarchical Episcopate already
Bishop
Church.
the
existed in
J. B.
answer,
many
Lightfoot and
though
critics ac-
cept the above-mentioned letters as authentic,
many
nevertheless
And
In
rightly.
weakened,
if
others
still
refuse them.
they are very
fact,
they have not lost
all
much
authority,
by the multiplicity of texts and varying

Certainly nobody would accept a
readings.
"will" as genuine of which three texts
existed, quite different from one another, and
Such is the
full of various readings besides.
state of the letters attributed to St. Ignatius.
But, supposing
them
to be genuine,
it
can
be said that the earnestness with which he

exhorted the faithful to submit to their own
bishop shows that the monarchical Episcopate
was a new thing, which was just then being
introduced into the Church, and found
resistance
from
anterior tradition.
reason
of
the
those
who
And
to an
perhaps this was the
intestine
198
appealed
struggles
in
the

Church of Corinth, to tranquillise which
the Church of Rome got Clement to write
the famous and most obscure letter, on which
it does not do to insist too much, because, to
three texts which can be interpreted in an
episcopalian sense,
many
others,
much
clearer,
can be opposed which seem to favour the

presbyterian interpretation
as also the fact
that, in the letter written
by the Church of
Rome
to that of Corinth, the bishop of the
latter
is
bishop
never
at
Or was he dead
Was
mentioned.
Corinth
?
there a
when Clement wrote?

Or was the government
hands of the order of elders (bishops)

against whom the juniors had rebelled?
in the
Clem.
(1
iii.
3).
But, supposing also that the letter in question
come down
has
and substantial
that
it
to us
free
alterations,
from corruption
it
is
still
certain
openly and exphcitly favours Presby-
terianism rather than the episcopal system.
In
to,
i.,
fact,
Clement speaks
of,
or rather alludes
our subject-matter only in the chapters

xxi., xhi., xliv., xlvii., liv
Ivii.,
and
in all of
Abbe Fouard remarks,

Clement does not seem to have before his
eyes anything but a collective body of elders or
them, as the learned

"
199

pastors, governing the Christian community."^
In
fact,
"You,
chap.
in
i.
Corinthians,
without
and
impartially
Clement thus speaks:

did everything most
discrimination
commandments
persons, walking in the holy
of God, subject to your
and giving to your

was due to them."
about
positors,
at
honour which
Abbe Fouard remarks

word
{pre-
rjyovixevoi
the
being in
chiefs),
mean
not
chiefs [prepositoi^s]
elders the
the
that
this
does
plural,
was
that, at Clement's time, there
bishop
Corinth a
of
properly so-called,
i.e.
on
an only chief or head of the Church
the contrary, that word very likely denotes a
small group of elders, chosen from amongst
;
the body of
pastors
irpecrlBvTepoLs)
{To'i<;
and govern
order to direct
in
common
in
the
Christian brotherhood of Corinth.^

chap.
Again, in
Clement expresses
xlii.
himself as follows: "Preaching [the apostles]

through villages and cities, they chose those
that
had
been
the
and
made
apostleship,
deacons
believe."
of
those
And
first-fruits
them
who,
in chap. xUv., "
C. Fouard, Saint Jean et la fin de
Abbe Fouard,
ibid.
later
p. 192.
200
VAge
of
their
bishops
on,
Our
and
should
apostles,
Apostolique, p. 201.

knew
enlightened by our Lord Jesus Christ,

that altercations
would
In order to prevent
of bishop.
of the
title
these
disputes,
about and because
rise
induced
to
by
it
their
prophetic knowledge, they designated those
whom we named
their
that, after
above, and ordered moreover
we
men
death, other well-tried
Therefore
should succeed to their ministry.
and unjust to deprive

of their office men who have been appointed
to it by the apostles and by other eminent
men, with the consent of the whole Church
think
whom
it
unlawful
they
served
without
blame, in
humility, peace, and generosity, and to
good
have
lives
testified.
ourselves
those
brethren,
all
for
all
whose
long
time,
We cannot, without rendering
guilty
a grievous
of
men who have
sin,
reject
worthily and piously
offered the holy oblations."
Dr. Rauschen, on the contrary, joining together chaps,
xli.
and
xlii.,
thus sums up
the sentences which concern the succession

in
the so-called Episcopate:
preaching in villages and
"The
cities,
apostles,
established
the best of their proselytes as bishops and
deacons
of
those
ordered that,
after
who had
their
201
believed,
death,
and
other well-

tried
men
should
succeed
we are not
Therefore,
to
to
he
their
office.
blamed if we
place in the Episcopate those that have holily,
and without
this
faults, offered the sacrificed
mistranslation
Rauschen, or to
Is
imputed to Dr.
Florentine editor? In
be
to
his
what part of the text does our author find

the italicised words? They do not exist at
Clement says this only, that "it was
all.
unlawful and unjust to deprive of their office
the elders of whom he speaks, and that the
Corinthians might
men who had
not,
without
worthily and
sin,
reject
piously offered
the holy oblations." And he says all

as appears from the context, in the
this,
name
of the Church of Corinth, and speaking the

language of those amongst the Corinthians
who had
elders:
risen in defence of their persecuted
he does not speak in
or in the
over, his
name
Roman
of the
assertion
is
his
own name,
Church.
JNIore-
negative, not positive,
Rauschen says, or his Florentine editor makes

him say, which makes no little diffisrence
because, in the former case, the words might
as
be interpreted of the
1
election
and assumption
88.
Dr. Gerhard Rauschen, Manuals di Patrologia, pp. 37,
Fireuze, 1904.
202

Episcopate
to the
in the latter case, only of
the defence and rehabihtation of the accused

elders.
In conclusion,
chap, xliv.,
by Dr. Rauschen or
somewhat
indicates
if
misin-
terpreted
his Florentine
editor,
definitely
episcopahan theory
if interpreted in its
the
obvious
means pure and simple

and
Presbyterianism, which is likewise taught by
chaps, i., xxL, xlvii., liv., and Ivii.
sense,
literal
it
All this reasoning renders three conclusions
more than probable
The
I.
first
or that which
of the Church,
government
prevailed at
Jerusalem and in the Churches depending on

it,
was democratic and
and unique
collective.
II.
A sole
government was not

the Churches but, according to
ecclesiastical
the usage in
circumstances,
the
established
apostles
now
one thing,
now
another, for the benefit of the
faithful.
III.
Collective
ever,
was the
government, how-
government, in imitation
ideal
of the apostolic college and of the Church
of Jerusalem.
And
here
theologians,
it
is
their
in
suppose that the

exactly as
it
to be noted that
is
syllogisms,
Church
Roman
often
pre-
from heaven
at present, and that, from
the very beginning,
it
203
fell
has
been the same

and uniform in everything all over the earth.
Nothing could be more false. The Church,
from Pentecost until the death of St. John,
and even afterwards, kept continually developing
identical
that
is,
changing
and uniform
nor
was
it
ever
in all parts of the world.
Such uniformity of the primitive Church, in

its
dogmas and
religious
excepting the essentials,
Roman
is
not
theologians,
always
practices,
a dream of the
historical
reality.
Christian Churches varied from one place to

another, from one nation to another, in second-
ary things, such as the language of worship, the
number of ministers, the authority of the
heads,
the form of liturgy, the eucharistic consecration, the
method of
charity, the fashion of the
liturgical dress, the celebration of Easter, the
sacred
the
in
music
in
number of the
fasting,
in
watching,
in
sacred books, in penance,
the symbolic signs or rites of grace, in
the form of asceticism, and in a thousand

other particulars.
in the
Therefore they varied also
form of government.
Some Churches
enjoyed a perfectly democratic rule
others had
some possessed a kind

of oligarchical government. Brotherhood, however, and the love of Jesus reigned in them all.
a paternal government
204

Despite
there
this,
all
no doubt that
is
very soon indeed they began to introduce a
monarchical Episcopate into the Church.

the questions arise
Here
Is this a divine or apos-
toHc institution? and
when
they begin
did
Church? To these
questions Tertulhan replies by asserting that
"St. John was the founder of the episcopal
" Ordo episcoorum, ad originem reorder."
census in Joannem stabit auctorem" {AdverThe same
sus Marcioncm, lib. iv. cap. 5).
to introduce
is
also
into the
it
by
asserted
However,
am
other
ancient
writers.
of opinion that St. Jerome
gives the real origin of the monarchical episco-
he constantly teaches that "in the

times the priesthood and episcopate were
pate, for
first
one and the same thing, and before a diaboHcal instinct caused parties to arise in the
Church,
saying,
ApoUos,
am
governed by
the
new
belonged
am
of
of Peter,
the
But inasmuch
common
as
Paul,
the
am
of
Churches were
council of the elders.
everybody considered that

whom he had baptized
Christians
to
him
alone,
it
was
arranged
everywhere that one elder should be elected,
who,
placed above the others,
would take
care of that Church, and thus the seeds of
205

schism were
The holy
extirpated."
then brings forward
many
doctor
texts of the holy
Scripture to prove that in ancient times the

priests
were called bishops, and then he thus
concludes:
"As
know
the priests
themselves
to be subject to the bishops merely because

it is
a custom in the Church
know
so the bishops
that they are superior to the priests
through
ecclesiastical
custom and not through
divine disposition: and therefore they should

rule the
The
Church
in
common
with the
priests."
theologian, Michael Medina, asserts that
Jerome was also that of

Saints Ambrose, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, and many other ancient
this opinion of St.
Fathers {Dissertationuvi
Ecclesiastic,
lib.
i.
cap. 3).
Jerome expresses the same ideas in

several of his other writings, and is followed
in this by ancient and mediaeval doctors. Thus,
according to St. Jerome, the origin of the monSaint
archical Episcopate
that
is
divine,
but human
by the historical
but by necessities which had
to say, suggested, not
record of Christ,
arisen,
was not
and to obviate the
passions.
St.
Nor
is
Jerome,
evil fruits of
human
this theory of St. Jerome
Epist. Divi Pauli
206
ad
Tit.
i.
ff.

contradicted by what
is
written in the letters
Timothy and Titus, in the

of St. Clement and those of St. Ignathe Pastor Hermce, nor by the fact that,
of St. Paul to
letters
tius in
after a. p. 150,
we
find the monarchical Epis-
copate firmly established in the larger Churches

of the world.
They do not
contradict, I say,
because some of those texts

another explanation
and
full
some
of variations
are
open
to
are terribly obscure
and then
answered by conceding that
all
can be
in this
or that
Church the monarchical Episcopate was established very early, as St. Jerome himself asserts,
and that the above-mentioned texts
refer to
those Churches, and not to the universal Church.

If
from the year 100 to 140 the Churches of
Rome,
Corinth, and Antioch had adopted the
government of one only bishop, as head of the

community, does it necessarily follow that all
the Churches of the world had done the same ?
This would follow if the government of the
Church had been distinctly and minutely established by Jesus Christ it would not follow
if this had been left to the free will of the
apostles and of the Church.
;
Now,
as
even
the
Jesuit
Cornelius
Lapide admits, according to the evidence of

207

the ancient Fathers, "Jesus did not regulate
everything in His Church, but as regards the
government of the same He conceded to the

apostles and their successors the right to
establish whatever they believed would be
most useful to it, as times should change and
new needs
This
arise.
required for the
is
prudent foundation of every

this St.
Paul
attests
when he
such
says
my
Tituvi, cap.
i.
verse
and
This I
Lapide, In Divi Pauli Epistulas
ad
''
these are my
orders '" (Cornelii a
have established for thee
commands
republic,
5, p.
661.
Epistula
Lugduni,
1732).
This theory
fact, it is clear
lem, whilst
its
all
is
that in
the apostles were there together,
government was
apostolic
by reason. In
the Church of Jerusa-
also supported
hands of the whole
in the
But when the apostles

and every one of them had
college.
were dispersed,
founded several Churches,

that in those
first
It
is
who founded
hands,
quite natural
so
a Church was
scarcely credible that
tians, often
is
years the bulk of the affairs
should remain in their

apostle
it
that the
its
chief.
newly made Chris-
uncultured and rude, should always
at once constitute a republican or democratic
208

In
government.
though
those
government
paternal
it
may
circumstances
most
the
is
be that in
civilised
the
natural,
countries
community immediately governed itself. But as the Church increased,

whether in the number of the faithful or in
the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the apostlethe
Christian
founder
left
for
other
regions
new
Gentiles to the faith,
mon
council as colleagues.
to
convert
Church remained in charge of the elders, who, as we

have seen above, formed a kind of committee
and governed it democratically, with a comthe
Afterwards, as
fervour diminished, disagreements arose here
and there, and, to put an end to them, the

apostolic founder of the Church, or rather, of
the Christian community, by \irtue

authority,
imposed on
an elder above
all
of his
community
Thus it is ex-
this or that
the others.
plained why, in certain Churches, the signs
of the monarchical Episcopate appeared very

early, whilst in others
the democratic govern-
ment continued undisturbed. Nobody can

make anything of the primitive documents if
he sets about reading them with the preconception that one only form
must
prevail in every Church.
209
of government
On
the con-

traiy,
in
he who rightly supposes that in
many
this, as
other things, the Churches were not
many
uniform, will be able to solve the
all
enigmas that come in
by
ner, little
little,
his
after
way.
In
this
the death
man-
of the
apostles (and perhaps even before, in certain
government was introduced into the Church first very mildly, so

that, as the ancient Fathers testify, there was
hardly any difference between bishops and
monarchical
places)
priests
afterwards the authority of the bishops
was more felt, though they were still elected

by the priests, by the neighbouring bishops,
and the people, and this through divine ordinafinally, the
tion, as taught by St. Cyprian
;
bishop arrogated to himself a nearly absolute,
and
in
some
places even a despotic, authority
over the people and clergy, and the universal
Church was gradually transformed into an

oligarchy first, in which the lay faithful were
nearly banished from the government, and
then into an absolute monarchy, in which the
Pope
is all,
whilst bishops are of
priests of still less,
little
account,
and laymen of none what-
soever.
Such
Church.
is
the actual government of the
But
it is
not of divine origin
210
Roman
human

and very human. The primitive
Church of Jesus was a great brotherhood, a
great democracy, a great society, whose memcertainly,
bers had an active and passive voice, elected

their
own
elected to
and
superiors,
the offices of the Church.
all
were
in their turn
Such,
and no other, was the primitive Church of

Jesus Christ.
In defence of the divine authority of the
Roman
hierarchy, the
theologians appeal to
the words of our Tôrd
you, heareth ]Me

despiseth
despiseth
Me
Him
sent
to
on
seventy
boundaries of Judea
disciples only,
Me
despiseth
(Luke x. IG).
These words were spoken by
temporary
Furthermore,
that heareth
Me"
that sent
the
a
He
and he that despiseth you,
and he that
But wrongly.
Jesus
"
disciples
whom He
mission
within
the
thus they concern those
and cannot be applied to others.

He gave power to the same
seventy to heal the sick, to cast out devils, to
upon serpents, and in St.

somewhat parallel passage
tread with impunity
Matthew,
in
addressed to the apostles,
on the
He
also conferred
latter the faculty of raising the dead.
Does the Roman hierarchy

faculties
possess
all
those
Thus, the mission entrusted to the

211

seventy
manent.
fact
no
was temporary,
disciples
we may
So, at least,
that the
means
per-
from the
themselves were by
apostles
and
infallible,
not
infer
work
not
could
Later on the Twelve are
miracles at will.
incapable of casting out devils (Matt.

14-19), they often
in
into error, are deficient
fall
judgment (John
xvii.
xiv.
they refuse to
9),
resign themselves to the prospect of the death
of Jesus
(Luke
not think necessary
much more
31-4), which they do
xviii.
thus the
and
apostles,
the seventy disciples, did not yet
understand the Christianity which their Master
Thus the words which Jesus

the latter, when sending them
was preaching.
addressed to
on a temporary mission, cannot be applied

to the catholic hierarchy, as
assert
and the
Roman theologians
conferred
gifts
then, can they claim to have
ated in the hierarchy
They
also
bring
have already cited

offend
15-18).
against
disciples in general,
habitually followed
right,
them perpetu-
forward
" If
thee,"
But Jesus
upon them
By what
ceased with their mission.
the
thy brother
(Matt,
etc.
laid this
duty on
even on the
Him
212
(Luke
we
text
shall
xviii.
all
the
women who
viii.
xxiii.

49),
By obliging
and not on the apostles only.
the faithful to submit their disputes to the
Church, that
is,
to the assembly and multi-
tude of his followers, Jesus clearly founded
democracy
detaching
context
the
in
Therefore,
eighteenth
the
and
Church.
applying
it
verse
to
addressed to
from
the
by
the
apostles
the Church,
only, while
it
theologians
commit a manifest mistake and
is
all
completely change the nature of the thought
and words of Jesus.

Another text is brought forward
"
And,
behold, I am with you always, even to the

consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20).
The Roman
these
theologians try to prove, with
words, that
hierarchij to the
Jesus
will
be
with
the
end of the world, and that
must be blindly obeyed, as that

which commands and speaks in the name of
therefore
God.
it
On
this
point the following will
be
by the reader
[a) These words
were spoken by Jesus at His last appearance
in Gahlee, which had been promised by
Him from the first day of His resurrection,
and at which a great number of persons were
present, perhaps more than five hundred
observed
(1
Cor. XV.
6).
Therefore Jesus addressed
213

these words to the whole Church, not to the
Now
apostles only.
Jesus
it is
ever present to
is
all
beyond doubt that

the Church in spirit,
and with His assistance, therefore, it cannot

err in the fundamental things of Christianity.
(b) This text is parallel with the other which
says
"
Where two
together
My
in
midst of them
is
it
evident
referred
(Matt,
that
above,
to
hierarchy,
but
who, even
if
in the
"
it
few
name and
There
are gathered
three
or
am
name, there
of
limited
extended to
Jesus,
the
to
all
those
number, gather together
spirit
remains
not
is
the
from which
promise
the
is
in
20)
xviii.
in
the
of Jesus.
famous
text
of
the
promise and benediction bestowed by Jesus
on
St. Peter,
with
the
which promise
Roman
the great point
theologians.
promise we have spoken

the third chapter.
is
Here
Of
this
at great length in
I
will
only add
that the words spoken to St. Peter,
"And
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it

shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 19), are
evidently parallel to the words addressed to
all
the disciples,
that
is,
214
to
all
the Church,

by the same Matthew (xviii. 18) I say
all the Church " because the eighteenth
to
verse cannot be detached from the verses
cited
'*
These say that the Church,

that is, the assembly of the faithful, is
supreme judge of all disputes and con-
that precede
troversies
Now,
it.
that
which
bind,"
grants
the
to
not Peter's special privilege, but

to
the apostles.
all
is,
in
disciples,
In every case
to the Church.
is,
brethren.
"to loosen and to
Jesus,
He
the
and condemn,
to judge, absolve,
the language of
that
among
arise
It
is
is
it
is
common
true, nevertheless,
few ancient Fathers note, Jesus

in chap. xvi. 19 directs His promise to Peter
in particular because, " as he was furnished
with more spiritual gifts, and showed greater
that, as not a
zeal
him
than the rest of the Twelve,

as
the
of
representative
Church," not because
He considered
His
future
by authority he was
and we have
already heard St. Cyprian confirming this by
saying that " the other apostles were that
which St. Peter was, enjoying the same
honour and equal power" {De Unitate Ecsuperior to the other apostles
clesice),
" But," say the Romanists,
215
'*
you grant that
I
'

monarchical Episcopate
the
institution
therefore
it
of apostoUc
is
of
is
divine
in-
because the apostles worked under
stitution,
Do
Holy Ghost."
the inspiration of the
not
That the apostles,

to avoid local disorder in some Churches,
imposed on the community the government
go too
one
of
answer.
fast,
only
person
grant
(mark, probable, not
at
as
probable
certain)
all
that
they founded the monarchical Episcopate in

the universal Church I decidedly deny.
fact,
even
the apostles,
it
is
does not at
it
all
The
of divine origin.
And
said.
is
it
a question not of
follow that
were
apostles
But
men, they were not God.

infalhble,
In
the Episcopate were founded by
if
they are
This
reply.
is
but whether
infallibility,
the apostles in giving to this or that particular
Church
collective,
moved by
or
and
institution
Roman
Then, as
own
is
of
in the second,
reject
sense,
regards
In the
lights.
government
institution.
the
received from Jesus,
instructions
that
paternal,
government, were
aristocratic
or followed their
case,
monarchical,
the
and
the
216
first
divine
origin
human
it is
first,
at
least
in
grant the second.
infallibihty
of
the

apostles, I
There is
the Acts, Epistles, and
ask some proof of
not a vestige of
in
it
Who, then,
much I know:
responsible for
Gospels.
is
This
that
St.
St.
Peter and
and
Paul
agree with
St.
St. Paul's writings
Peter finds in
things
not
does
it.
certainly the
in gifts of nature
two
and grace
schools,
and
does
form
not
they hesitate
the disciples
among
parties
differing
this
all
him;
obscure
of Peter, Paul, and Apollos dispute
themselves
resists
apostles differ
to interpret the spirit of Jesus
and
The answer
their
is
received the
with
all
infalhbility,
given
"But
His
infallible
at Pentecost they
filled
JMost true
gifts."
all
myth
are
Holy Ghost, who
He make them
or
demonstrate that
the pretended concord of the apostles in

things,
it ?
them
but did
The Holy
upon all who were
also?
Ghost descended equally

in the " upper room," many women included.
Did they all become equally infallible ?
Further, 1 grant that the apostles were in
perfect
essence
accord on
of
faith
all
that constitutes
in
Jesus
Christ.
Apostolic Creed, which goes back to the
the
The
first
years of the second century, bears testimony

to
what
I say.
But who can

217
assure us that

no
there were
secondary
What
differences
Christian
of
points
among them on
doctrine?
a different savour the letters of St.
Paul have from those of Peter, James, or

John, from the letter to the Hebrew^s, the
Apocalypse, the doctrine of the Acts, and
the theological theories of the fourth Gospel
Does not
show that the apostles

individuality, their manner of
this
all
maintained their
own judgment, even
thinking, and their
receiving the
Holy Ghost, and
in the practical things of
life,
this
which
after
not only
granted,
is
but also on those points of doctrine which

Jesus had not explicitly expounded
More-
over, I repeat, even conceding infallibility in
doctrine, does
it
follow that everything they
ordered for the good of the Church was a
command
divine
St.
own from
Jesus
of
Paul
Christ,
clearly
and
therefore
distinguishes
the divine commands.
If he
his
makes
a distinction between them, of course they

If St. Paul finds a
are not the same.
between the one and the other,

to prevent us from finding it also ?
difference
what
The
is
difference
is
that those which proceed
from Christ are divine those which proceed

from Paul are human. Among those human,
218
;

arrangements,
divine
not
included
is
the
monarchical Episcopate, established perhaps
some
but
apostle, not
this
in
Christian
that
or
by-
Church,
the universal
in
community
because the want of upright elders, respected
by the society of the

civilisation of the
faithful, or
the scant
converted people, rendered
may have
occurred in the
island of Crete, where Paul
left his disciple
it
necessary.
This
though
Titus:
intention of
than
rather
Church.
taken
as
the
to
series
5.
bishop
In
this
of
the
have been their
by
St.
vice-
Paul to organise
he
must not be
link
in
the
first
;
rather, he
made
episcopal
the
first
the chain, and that chain was not

of
individual
links,
but
rather
succession of committees of elders, the
of
the
under
Therefore,
chain of the island

link
i.
being
Titus would
apostle, left there
in
is,
This seems to be the
meaning of Titus
Cretans,
the
that
island,
the rule of elders.

clearest
Titus should
community
Christian
on the
usual fashion
case,
have been the
also
the apostle that
the
establish
may
it
first
which was estabUshed by Titus by the
order of St. Paul.
Under
these circumstances, how, and w^hy,
219

has
it
being
come
Church, from
to pass that the
democratic, has been transformed
by-
degrees into an absolute monarchy?
From what
have said up to
the reader will be

positive
and
clear
this point
a position to give a
in
answer to the two questions
The transformation is a human

development, due to human causes, not to
put above.
might
It
divine intervention.
be a de-
also
generation from the divine ideal instead of a

perfecting of
it.
If
the
Church had pre-
served its first form of government perhaps

At
all the world would now be Christian.
present the non- Christians are in the majority,
and the non-Roman Catholics outnumber by
who accept the absoRome. How is all this to
eighteen millions those

lute
monarchy of
be explained, after nineteen hundred years of

Has not the Christian Church,
Christianity ?
perhaps, spent
intestine
its
energy and spiritual
life in
wars which arose from ignorance,
greed of absolute power, and fanaticism,
in-
stead of earnestly applying itself to the conversion of the world
Do
the monarchical Episcopate
may
I in this
?
Not
condemn
at
all.
It
well be a legitimate form of government
in the
Church
really intended
220
by Jesus Christ

our Lord, useful to this or that Church in
particular,
but to be
all this
be " the servant of the

let it
the bishop must
God
servants of
"
;
not be said that the monarchical Epis-
copate, to the exclusion of every other form of
government,
Roman
a divine institution
is
physical qualities which
gave
it,
and
let
not
theologians attribute to the priesthood
Jesus Christ never
but which were invented by
of the lowest periods of
human
man
in
one
evolution.
It must not be thought, however, that the
authority of
account.
hierarchy
the
Church
perished on
mind
this
It
must be borne
is
for the use of the Church, not
in
the Church for that of the hierarchy.
that the
As
in
governments the form matters little if

the administration is good and tends to make
civil
society, that
is
the citizens, more prosperous,
contented, educated, and happy, so the form

of the ecclesiastical government
is
not of great
importance when the ends Jesus had in view
His Church are obtained that

is, when men are led to the Father, through
the knowledge of the Son, and the practice
in founding
of the Christian
life.
221
CHAPTER XI
THE FLORENTINE, THE TRIDENTINE, AND
THE VATICAN COUNCILS
HAVE
reserved for this last chapter an
-^
objection to
the
Roman
You
are attacking
my
doctrine which,
standpoint,
is
(Roman
capital
from
indeed.
divines will say)
the constitution of the Church, which,
cording
to
the whole
monarchical.
Catholic
The Councils
Church,
acis
of Florence and
of the Vatican, and indirectly that of Trent,
have declared that the Catholic Church is a

monarchy, at the head of which is the Bishop
Rome.
Those three Councils were Ecumenical, and have settled the matter once for
all.
They represented the whole Church, and
the whole Church is bound to submit and
accept their definitions as dogmas of faith.
of
purpose in this chapter to discuss this
difficulty fully
to inquire, namely, whether
222
THE COUNCILS
the three Councils of Florence, of Trent, and
the Vatican were really such as to
command
the interior assent of
Not
all
Christians.
believe that even a General
oblige the Christian absolutely

is
Lord
There
Council can
have erred
Councils
Athanasius
of
will
contra
God
God is
for only
of the conscience, and only
infallible.
position
that
hence the
viunduni.
always be the appeal from
tlie
Council to God, speaking in His Word, and

the question will always be of the true sense
of Scripture.
me
But
that the truth
is
if
the Council persuades
other than I had thought,
the Council becomes to

truth
yet,
even
so, J
me
the minister of
bow not
to the decrees
of the Council as such, but to the truth of
which the Council has convinced me,
God
However, to pave the way to

I
i.e,
to
alone.
my discussion,
ask the reader's kind permission to intro-
duce a few general remarks about the Councils

of Constance and Basel, and about the various
means by which the Papacy attained to that

supremacy which was crowned m 1870 by
the Vatican definition of the Pope's
infalli-
bihty.
The
constitution of the
223
Koman Church
is

now
certainly monarchic
nay, more,
it
is
monarchy of an absolute type, tempered only

by the good-will of the Pope for the Pope
The facility,
does and undoes everything.
for instance, with which he changes the
bishops from one see to another is simply
;
marvellous
yet, in ancient times, the bishops
were deemed to be the husbands of their

Churches, and as such bound to the same till
Now, in the Roman
death parted them.
system, they are the mere servants of the
Pope, especially in
lute
Italy,
where he
Assuredly, the
master.
Pope
is
abso-
is
the
master, the cardinals, the bishops, and the

priests
all
of
are
his
most obedient
servants,
and
them together (always excepted, amongst
who have an
make up the Church.
the bishops and priests, those

opinion of their own)
The Catholic laity, and that part of the clergy

who do not profess blind obedience towards
the Pope, count for less than nothing.
very different opinion, indeed, about the
Church was entertained

by the Fathers of the two Councils of ConIn the eyes of those
stance and of Basel.
two Councils the Pope was far from being
constitution of the
the absolute sovereign of an absolute
224
mon-
THE COUNCILS
archy,
but was rather esteemed to be the
federal
head of a great repubhc of Churches,
bound together by the Unk of the same faith

and the bond of the same love in our Lord.
This doctrine about the constitution of the
Church was maintained in a great number

of scholarly papers and books by the most
celebrated doctors of that time some from
the University of Paris, as the famous Chancellor Gerson, others from the Italian and
:
German
Universities.
"Those two Councils were
revolutionary,
and therefore have no authority
at all," say the
Roman
divines
*'
;
the Church of
Rome
never
accepted their decrees about the constitution

of the Church and the power of her head, the
Those two councils

were real, genuine, and honest Councils. That
there was some fighting and disorderly bePope."
answer
]\ly
is
haviour on the part of a few
readily grant
that they were revolutionary Councils I simply
deny.
To be
contest
is
sure,
some hot
discussion
and
hardly avoidable in a vast assembly
men who
and act as
they please. Now, the Councils of Constance
and Basel were perfectly free, not under the
of
thumb
are really free to talk
of the Papacy, as the later Councils,
225

and the
chiefly the Florentine, the Tridentine,
Vatican
were.
They
Church, at least
represented
whole
the
of
the
Latin
the
Church, not one part only, because
whole
all
Chris-
and enjoyed the

which were not by
but by nation where-
tian nations sent their envoys,
same number of
votes,
head, or personal ballot,
and at Rome the

" one man, one vote " rule was re-established,
as at Florence, at Trent,
which
immediately reversed
favour of the Papacy.
the
tables
in
For, in the last-named
Councils, the Fathers were mostly Italians, or
otherwise dependent on the Pope, thus crush-
ing
with their votes
minority.
the
small
protesting
Finally, the best scholars of Chris-
tendom were present
at Basel
and Constance,
where likewise all, or almost all, the Universities of Europe were duly represented whereas at Florence, at Trent, and in the Vatican,
the Fathers who were really learned were a
;
small minority, the less learned, nay, often the

ignorant, formed the overwhelming majority.
The Church
of France and
all
other Churches
of the Christian world respected and venerated

the Councils of Basel and Constance and im-
mediately accepted their decisions

the
acceptance,
by
all
226
Churches,
whereas
of
the
THE COUNCILS
Councils of Florence and Trent took a good
much diplomacy on
deal of time and
of
all
But Rome,
Rome.
at last,
Indeed
opposition.
took
it
the part
triumphed over
till
1870 to
get the Pope's infallibility and supremacy over

the whole Church defined
but
finally
Rome
triumphed over truth, history, and Christian

tradition, owing to the consummate arts of
her diplomacy, to the wonderful political
genius of some of her Popes, to the constancy
of her purpose, to the intrigues of her Court,
to
the supine ignorance of most Christian
bishops
and
but not
last,
least,
Rome
gained
the contest owing to her alliance in those
days with the State in most Christian countries.
The Pope
is
now
the recognised chief of over
250 millions of Christians, and most of
his
bishops and priests firmly believe in the divine

right of the
which
supreme on the throne

circumstances have raised for
Pope
historical
to
sit
him on the Vatican hill.

The historical and very human circumstances and contrivances which concurred to
make
up
the Papacy supreme
as folio w^s
may be summed
permanent Nuncios at
the various Cathohc Courts, whose duty was
227
(a)
The
creation of

up by all means the prestige of the
Papacy and to inform the Vatican as to the
opinions for or against Rome held by candi-
to keep
dates to the Episcopate.
The foundation
(b)
of the Society of Jesus,
a true praetorian body-guard of the
The
Jesuits,
scattered
all
over the
Pope.
world,
preach for ever the prerogatives of the Papacy,

teach the claims of the
Pope
in their schools,
defend them in their books or from the pulpit,
Rome
and keep
well
informed
about
any
attempt against her spiritual authority, and

also
about the opinions and qualities of those
laymen and ecclesiastics, whose value

wants to estimate.
persons,
Rome
(c)
The
establishment of a great
number of
religious bodies and congregations, male as

well as female, not dependent on the local!
on the Vatican, and:

therefore devoted to the Papacy to the last]
bishops, but exclusively
drop of their blood.
The firm
Rome, never to
(d)
men whose
not
resolution,
on the part of
j
raise to the
episcopal
chair
attachment to the Holy See was
absolutely certain
and
proved beyond
doubt; so that, between two men, one good

and learned, the other less so, but more
228
THE COUNCILS
attached to
if
Rome
can have
The
(e)
Rome, the
its
choice
way, on the
invariably,
latter.
creation of seminaries and colleges
Although
themselves good and
of the
for the education
these institutions are in

useful,
falls
clergy.
yet they have become, in the hands
of the Papacy, in the course of time one of the
most powerful means for producing a host of

priests and bishops wholly attached to itself
in spite of truth and of higher spiritual inter-
The method whereby this is effected is

very simple. The seminarists are forbidden
ests.
to attend the lectures at the public Universities,
so that they
any culture which
They
only,
grow up
is
quite ignorant of
not strictly
ecclesiastical.
|
|
are given the use of a very few books
and such
as are brim-full of papal prero-
gatives, ignore the difficulties of the learned
against the exaggerated claims of the Papacy,
have no
and
critical
spirit,
and abound
in manifold distortions of truth.
such books the minds of the

the
in fables
Roman Church
Upon
young clergy of
are formed.
When
they
leave the seminary they know, or rather have
a few notions
of,
a certain kind of history,
and theology, which have been

adapted, pre-arranged, and edited just for the
229
philosophy,

seminaries,
i.e.
ad usum
delphini,
case are the seminary students.
what we say must be apphed
who
Of
in this
course,
chiefly to the
clergy of the Latin nations, for Austria and
Germany, and, to a certain extent,

Anglo-Saxon countries, fare better
also the
in
this
respect.
{f) The establishment of the Roman congregations, whereby the prestige of the Papacy
grew immeasurably and which contributed to

the
virtual
Primates,
than
the rights of the
of
rendering the Archbishops worse
useless,
faithful
abolition
the bishops, priests, and
since
have recourse to
Rome
even
for the
minutest things, and not only for the causce

majoiês,
as
was
directed
by the
ancient
Canons.
The foundation of clerical papers,

subsidised by the Holy See or by the
{g)
bishops, encouraged
by autograph
letters
often
local
from
the Pope, and helped financially with thousands
of payments for masses.

sidising clerical papers
This
was much
way
of sub-
in favour at
the Vatican at the time of Pope Pius IX. and
Leo XI 1 1.
It
has somewhat
abated
now
under the government of the reigning Pontiff.
But
it is
not the desire for political influence
230
THE COUNCILS
that
is
lacking,
it is
money
that
need not be said that these
is
It
scarce.
clerical
papers
know no other interest but the exaltation

the Holy See.
of a peculiar kind
{h) The creation
theology,
philosophy,
and
history,
of
of
ascetics,
which tend almost instinctively to exalt and

magnify, out of proportion witli the rest of
Christian dogmas, the
a matter of fact,
is
Holy Church, which,
nothing and no one
as
else
but the Pope and the Holy See.
The
placing on the Index Ejcpurgatorius
of a great
number of books which, in the early

of the Church, would have circulated
{i)
centuries
not only without scandal to the

to their edification.
Now, on
faithful,
but
the contrary,
they are prescribed as infected with Protestantism, Gallicanism, Febronianism, Liberahsm,
and the
like.
The condemnation, through the Syllabus,

of the whole modern world, uttered with the
greatest solemnity by Pope Pius IX. and repeatedly renewed by Leo XIII. and Pius X.
(k)
In
fine,
the constant appealing of the Popes to
the Councils of Florence, of Trent, and of the

Vatican, as to the General Councils that settled
once for
all
the grade, the dignity, and the
231

authority of the Bishops of
Rome over the
rest
of Christendom.
Now
the question
said Councils really
when
is,
were the three
Ecumenical
afore-
Of course,
the whole Church (morally, of course,
not materially) freely meets

Council, and there proclaims
in
some
General
Christian
truth as appertaining to the deposit of the

Christian faith
brought down from heaven
by our Lord Jesus
Christ,
although not binding on
worthy
nevertheless
may
of
all
its
definitions,
Christians, are
consideration,
and
be taken as the genuine interpretation
Holy Writ and the true explanation of

But did the three
the primitive faith.
of
Councils of Florence, of Trent, and of the
Vatican
realise these conditions
absolutely
free?
Did
they
Were
they
represent
the
whole Church?
First of
all,
did the Council of Florence,
Pope Eugenius IV.,

represent the whole Church ? Who dares
The French
affirm it without discrimination ?
prelates
all but one, who was not subject
to the jurisdiction of the French King kept
Another
entirely away from the Council.
held
in
1439
under
large part
of
the teaching Church, headed
232
THE COUNCILS
by
and bishops, with
cardinals, archbishops,
hundreds of priests and learned laymen, not

only did not join the Council at Florence,
but
continued,
to
strances,
sit
in
at
of
spite
papal
Council
the
remon-
of Basel.
Moreover, most of the Greek bishops consented to the union with Rome, and signed
the decrees which estabhshed the supremacy
of the
Popereluctantly,
feignedly,
moved
not sincerely, but
thereto only by the authority
who
of the Greek Emperor,
the union, to get from the
hoped, through
Pope and from
the Latin Princes a strong subsidy in money,

and some help in men, to enable him to
make
a stand against
the
Turkish armies,
which threatened to bring his ill-fated empire

In fact, no sooner had the
to its last hour.
Greek bishops returned home than they
union with Rome,
as having been extorted from them and in
no way freely granted. But this is not all.
Even supposing the bishops had remained
publicly
renounced
the
faithful to their Florentine
engagement, they
would not have really represented the Greek

Church. In this case the bishops, who at
that Council represented their Churches,
testified
who
to the faith of their Churches, and
233
5|i

name of their Churches, byAct of Union with Rome, would
voted in the
signing the
have committed to
the
In
themselves alone.
union nobody but
fact,
they were con-
by the Greek people at home as

apostates and traitors.
The Greek Church
was then, as she is now, intensely hostile to
the Papacy
she believed then, as she believes now, the primacy of the Pope to be
sidered
a usurpation contrary to holy Scripture, to

the ancient Canons, and to primitive tradition.
Hence
it
is
that
all
the Greek people, the
Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and most of the bishops, only a few
excepted, then and
afterwards
rejected the
Council of Florence as void of any authority,

null,
and not Ecumenical.
The
Church adopted the same

attitude to the Florentine Council.
She refused to accept it as canon law for almost
three hundred years, so that in 1563, i.e.
124 years after the Council, the French CarGallican
dinal of Lorraine, at the Council of Trent,
protested that
"he, having imbibed at the
University of
Paris
opinions
favourable in
general to the Councils, accepted and approved

in all their parts the Councils of Constance
234
THE COUNCILS
and Basel, but not the Council of Florence.
He was sure that no French bishop would
Pope
sign the decree of superiority of the
the
over
Council
that
would protest against
it
the
ambassadors
that the proposed
decree would offer ample occasion and matter

for contentious books, for or against
Rome,
and the authority of the Apostolic See would

thereby be called in doubt."
The
opposition to the Council of Florence,
now open and
now silent, lasted in

when the P^-ench King
explicit,
France till 1738,

was induced by Rome to publish a decree
authorising the schools of the realm to teach
the universality of
And
the Florentine Council.
even then the permission was chiefly
due to the theological arguments of some

French theologians, as Peter de JNIarca and
others,
who
proved, or pretended to prove,
that the decrees
about
the
Pope
of the Florentine Council
did
not
contradict
the
Gallican system and the famous declaration

of
the Gallican
Church.^
The Council
of
Florence, then, not having represented truly
Card. Sforza Pallavicino^ Storia del Concilio di Trento,
cap. 16,
2
11.
lib. xix.
9.
Card. Hergenrother, History of the Church, vol.
235
v. p.
279.

and
really the universal
cannot be,
strictly called
consequence,
its
Church,
is
and
not,
Ecumenical, and, in
decrees on the primacy of
the Pope cannot be said to be
final,
apper-
taining to the faith, and irrevocable.
Let us
pass
to
Council
the
of
Trent.
This Council did not come to any decision

directly bearing
of
if
the
the
way
fined
i.e.
it.
supremacy
the papal legates, acted as
Pope were
infallible
spiritual
but indirectly the leaders of
the Pope,
the Council,
on the
really
the supreme and
head of the Church, thus paving

for the Vatican Council
The Council
which de-
of Trent helped to
strengthen the primacy of the Pope
Be-
{a)
cause of the great authority which the Pope,
supported by the Emperor of
Germany and
the King of Spain, was allowed to exercise
over the Fathers of the Council from the
beginning to the end of the Synod,

cause the
Pope succeeded
Be-
{b)
warding off
in
all
those mischievous questions which, indirectly

at least,
if
treated and approved of
Fathers,
might
supreme
authority
"whether the
have
been
over
hurtful
the
by the
to
Church,
his
e.g,
jurisdiction of the bishops pro-
ceeds directly from God, and not through the
236
THE COUNCILS
Pope," and "whether the obhgation of the
bishop to reside in his diocese be of human
or divine
Pope was
right,"
etc.
etc.,
Because the
(c)
able to maintain, throughout the
whole Synod, the formula, "
On
of the Pope's legates," whereby

and maintained that only the
the proposal
it
wâs stated
legates
had
any new question to
the right to propose
the Fathers of the Council; which principle,

accordingly, was acted upon till the end of
the
Synod.
In
this
way,
although
the
Council of Trent defined nothing whatever

about the supremacy of the Pope, yet the
same supremacy was constantly taken for

granted and acted upon by the Pope's legates,
who
ruled the assembly with a rod of iron,
always keeping before their minds the mandate of the Pope, '' not to permit the Council
of Trent to turn into a rebellious assembly,
like the Councils of
Of
Constance and Basel."
course, the Council of Trent
obedient to the
Pope
but wâs
it
was very
free
Did
not its servile submission to the Pope, not

spontaneous indeed, but mostly forced on
by external pressure, destroy its liberty?

Before I answer this momentous question I
shall set down a few considerations as to the
it
237

met together
fewness of the Fathers that

the Council as leading up to
viz.
my
main
at
subject,
the hberty of the Council.
The Fathers
of the Council of Trent were,
The Council
throughout the Synod, very few.

lasted nineteen years, and,
were
most
when
number of one hundred and
the Fathers
exceeded
the
eighty, very
few
numerous, never
indeed for an Ecumenical Council representing the whole Church.

I subjoin here a table of the bishops that,
at
one time or another, were present at the
Council, distributing
them according
to the
various countries from which they came.

Italian Prelates
THE COUNCILS
The paucity
of the bishops at the Council
of Trent was remarked by some of the Tridentine Fathers,
among others by the Spanish

who once lamented before
Cardinal Pacheco,
the Fathers the
weighty
dogma
fact
business
that
(the
" whereas to
definition
of
so
the
of Justification) the concourse and the
number of Fathers would
opinion of a great
be desirable, he regretted to see not only that
many who ought
to have been at the Council
were not present at
but that
all,
those present departed daily from
many
it.
of
And
although most of the latter did so with the

intention of returning to Trent
appointed for
care
much
public
viihi
for
their
ceremony
by the day
public session, he did not
tlie
presence then at that

order
in
placet (I agree).
On
to
say a simple
the contrary, he
wondered how they could pronounce upon

what they had not beforehand carefully examined."
Vho, then, defined the dogmas, I ask,
if
the Fathers were few and often absent from

the Council, according to the complaint of
Cardinal Pacheco
*
viii.
And
I answer, the theo-
Card. Sforza Pallavicino^ Storia del Concilio di Trento,

cap. 2.
239
lib.

Pope some sitting at Trent,
Rome, mostly members of various
logians of the
others at
all followers of Aristotle and

Thomas, and devoted to the Papacy.
These theologians carefully prepared the
matter that was to be proposed to the Fathers
rehgious orders,
St.
at Trent; they themselves discussed

at
Rome, then
it
generally without
When
at
Trent
it,
first
the Fathers accepted
much demur and
defined
Pope forewould
meet with a
saw that some opinions
determined opposition on the part of the
Fathers they artfully abstained from proposing
it.
the theologians of the
them, or even, by ingenious diplomacy,

prevented
Hence
it
the Fathers
is
from
that through
raising
many
Rome
them.
years
the
Germans, Catholics and Lutherans would not

join the Council, because they said it was not
owing to the scarcity of the

Fathers chiefly from the north of Europe
and secondly, because it was not free. This
truly Ecumenical,
last
question deserves a fuller consideration.
There are two principal historians of the

Council of Trent the Servite friar Paolo Sarpi,
:
and the Jesuit Cardinal Pallavicino. Neither

the one nor the other possessed the true
qualities of the historian, i,e, truthfulness and
240
THE COUNCILS
" Sarpi,"
impartiality.
says
Cesar
Cantii,
" has one
aim only, to accuse the Vatican and
discredit
the Council
Cardinal
Pallavicino
labours hard to defend the former and exalt
Indeed, the history of the Council
the latter.
of
Trent
still
is
closely follows Pallavicino,
from
his
book
Pallavicino
Raynold
be written.
to
and gives extracts
Lepat copies now
Sarpi,
now
the memoirs of the Council of
Trent by JNIendham are good, but he was not

sufficiently quahfied for the task he put his
hand to."'^ As for me, between Paolo Sarpi

and the Jesuit Cardinal Pallavicino I shall
follow exclusively the latter, making thereby
sure that the reader will take no exception
to my inferences as derived from such an
Well, the Jesuit
authoritative source.
torian
is
forced
numberless
confess
to
of
passages
his
and
his-
testify
work
to
in
the
pressure which the Popes, either directly or
through the legates, emperors, and princes,

although,
brought to bear on the Council
;
at the
same
time, he contends, against Sarpi,
that such a pressure
did not diminish the
liberty of the Council.

1
Whether
this
be the
Cesare Cantu, Storia Universale , Note al libro xv.
Ediz. Torino, 1888.
241
p. 811,

would deduce
perusal of Pallavicino's work
inference which a candid reader
from the careful
Certain
very doubtful.
is
it is
that the im-
pression which the reading of that book leaves
most shocking. No one who knows what

liberty is, and takes to heart the freedom of
is
that august assembly, can restrain a feeling
of deep disgust at the sight of the consum-
mate
arts of
Rome
in cajoUng, inviting,
and
and
even forcing the Fathers to think, vote,

define as Kome wished and had determined.
The
evidences
against
Council of Trent
Pallavicino's
First of
when
book
all,
it
the
liberty
of
the
may be summarised from

as follows.
is
a well-known fact that
Charles V. asked for a General Council
to discuss and terminate the Lutheran controversy, the Papal
Court would not
listen to
For the Pope was very much afraid

that the new Council would prove as rebellious as the two Councils of Constance
and Basel, which presumed to call in question
the supreme authority of the Pope.^ However, when the Popes saw that they could
him.
not prevent
^
its
convocation they regulated
it
Card. Sforza Pallavicino, Storia del Concilio di Trento, Introd.
cap. X.
242
THE COUNCILS
way
such a
in
hands the
bit
as
and
always to keep in their
reins of the horse, guiding,
and curbing it at will. In fact,

the Council of Trent was guided and directed
by and from Rome, so that it was a common
complaint amongst the Fathers of the Council,
from the beginning to the end of it, " that
restraining,
the
Pope had
by a
left
them no authority
single line those limits
them
assigned
in
all
to pass
which he had
matter of discussion.
This complaint lasted throughout the Council,

the last few months only excepted,
doors
to
general
when
reformation were
the
thrown
widely open."^
That this complaint of the Fathers was

well grounded may be proved by two facts,
equally certain and well known. First, the
three cardinal legates, who were the leaders
of the Council, never acted on their o^\ti or
on the
Council's
Rome for
or
initiative,
but looked
to
everything that was to be done, said,
defined;
so
that,
once,
even
Cardinal
Borromeo, the Pope's nephew and secretary,
admonished them not to expect everything

from Rome, lest the Fathers should have
*
Card. Sforza Pallavicino, Storia del Concilio di Trento,
xviii. cap. xi. n. 14.
243
lib.

reason
Pope
to
that not
they,
was the Council.
alone,
cardinal
cise
believe
legates,
instructions
but the
Second, the
following in this the pre-
of
Pope, reserved to
the
themselves alone the right of proposing to

the Council the subject-matter of the dogmas
or of reforms to be discussed and defined.
By
Rome
this
contrived
artfully
to
keep
away from the minds of the Fathers
all
those questions which referred to the authority

of the Pope, defined indeed at the Council
of Florence, but not received as yet by
Churches.
But the Pope
supreme authority, defined
Pope Eugenius
that his
the
time of
at
should
IV.,
all
insisted
be
not
again
thrown into uncertainty by unfriendly discussions.

Hence the famous phrase, " On
the proposal of the legates," placed at the
beginning
Against
of
this
new claim and

Pope arrogated
tested, almost
Act
every
phrase,
or
unjust
of
the
rather,
privilege
Council.
against the
which the
to himself alone, there pro-
from the beginning to the end
of the Council, in the
name
of his Master,
Count de Luna, ambassador of King Phihp

of Spain, the ambassadors of the Emperor,
and many bishops, on the ground that it
244
THE COUNCILS
was derogatory to the
essential liberty of the
Council.
be denied that in the interval

between the Council of Nicêa, where nothing
is visible of the Pope but the signatures of
It cannot
legates,
his
stantinople,
second Council of Con-
or the
where
the microscope must be
used to find the Pope, and the Council of

Trent, where the Pope's legates are every-
and onwards to the Vatican Council,

where the Pope does and undoes all things,
the machinery of the Roman Church has
thing,
perfected itself!
Rome,
arts
in fact, succeeded
soothing
in
by
its
wonderful
the Council and keeping
from the beginning to the

end, although there were not wanting many
amongst the Fathers who, if a good opporit
in subjection
had
tunity
offered,
rebelled against
with the
it.
difficulties
would
Our
have
willingly
historian, in
deahng
which the doctrine of Holy
Orders met with amongst the Fathers, remarks " The French refused to admit in the
:
proposed definition any word which might be

interpreted in favour of the superiority of the
Pope over the Council,

^
or that might
Storia del Concilio, etc., lib. cap. xxi. cap. iv.
245
mean

approval of the Council of Florence and condem-
The Spaniards
nation of that of Basel.
cepted, indeed, the Florentine Synod,
not demur
and did
to the pre-eminence of the
over the Councils
ac-
Pope
but they asked that
it
should be openly and clearly laid down that

the institution and jurisdiction of the bishops
was derived from God
not through
directly,
the Pope, although not independent of him.
one may almost say, almost

a few also of those nations
and
generally,
the members of which were fewest at the
Council, upheld the opinion more favourable
The
to
Itahans,
the
Pope with regard
to
each of the
aforesaid points of doctrine under discussion."
And somewhat
Pallavicino
which the
(1563):
below, in
thus
describes
the
the
same book,
appearance
Council presented at that time
"The
Italians believed the spiritual
supremacy of the Pope to be a great honour

and no small advantage to their country, which
in
this far
Wherefore
that
surpassed
in
all
other nations.
the Council the
country aimed
at
prelates
of
no object but the
defence and exaltation of the Apostolic See.
Most of the Spanish
on the other
somewhat the power
bishops,
hand, tended to curtail
246
THE COUNCILS
and authority of the
the
bishops
...
privileges
might be
French
to
to
of
principles laid
on
the
the
Pope,
down by
the
all
mind
to
rights
and
The
were
reduce
according
the
to
the
the Council of Basel,
the
that
contrary,
and
restrain
of which they approved."

call
raise
than monarchs.
little less
authority
and to
ancient
so that in their dioceses they
prelates,
determined
cardinals,
their
Now, when we
Italians
alone
at
Council of Trent surpassed in number

the other bishops together, there
reason
be
to
surprised
that
is
no
Rome, made
strong and invulnerable by the sure support

of the Italians, could actually prevent any-
thing being discussed or defined which conflicted
with
its spiritual
authority.
was the firm determination

of the Popes from the first opening of the
This, in fact,
Council to
sent
his
its
conclusion.
legates
to
When
open the
commanded them never
to
Paul III.
Council
he
fail
to sign the
Acts of the Council with
their
own names
as Presidents of the same,
and with that of
represented by them.
He
gave them permission to grant indulgences
to the faithful, but at the same time he
the
Pope,
as
247

warned them not to allow the Council to
do so/
And when some of the bishops
objected to the prelates of the regular orders
being given the right to vote, because the

bishops secretly thought the latter too
ob-
sequious to the will of the legates, Cardinal
Monte rebuked them most severely, reminding them that they were at Trent, not
del
Constance or Basel, in which
at
the
Pope not being
Councils,
any way present, the
in
bishops dared to usurp the papal jurisdiction.
The Council
of Trent, on the contrary, had
been convened by the Pope and was presided over
by the Pope
legates, to
whom
in the person of his
bishops
all
owed reverence
and obedience.^
To
the same cause are to be attributed the
constant efforts on the part of the
Pope
to
prevent the Council of Trent from assuming

the
title "
the
The Council
universal
of Trent, representing
Church,"
because
two
the
Councils of Constance and Basel had formerly
done
so,
professing thereby, and later on even
explicitly so, that "
authority
directly
The Council
from
Christ,
authority every dignity, be

*
Storia del Concilio, etc.^
lib. v.
248
derives
to
even papal,
it
'
its
which
Ibid., lib. vii.
is
THE COUNCILS
duty bound to submit." Nay, more: the
Pope reprimanded his legates because they
had allowed the title " universal and Ecu-
in
"not because it was untrue, but

because it was not safe to encourage the selfconceit of some bishops by those high titles."^
Hence is it that Popes and cardinal legates
menical,"
never yielded to the request of the Council,

expressed many times throughout the whole
Synod, that the voting should be taken by

nationalities, as had been done in the Council
of Constance and in other ancient Synods, and
not by single heads or by ballot. The reason
is that, towards the end of the Council, the
Italian prelates, all
bered
all
150,
but slaves to Rome, num-
whereas
other
the
bishops
But the
nations were scarcely 70.
of
legates
schism, and
Count
what
therefore they always
de Luna, the ambassadors of the Emperor,
the French bishops, and many others de-
and the Pope were
of a
afraid
refused
manded
of them.-
There were, indeed, two Councils sitting:

one at Rome, under the thumb of the Pope
Storia del Condlio,
Ibid.,
lib.
xxii.
etc.,, lib. vi.
cap.
iii.
cap.
lib.
where,
249
ii.
xx.
cap.
xiii.
and
else-

the other at Trent, under the
legates,
faithful
question, were
thumb
of the
servants of the Pope.

it
No
ever so unimportant, was
ever proposed to the Council at Trent that
had not been examined, discussed, and defined beforehand by the papal theologians at
Rome. The Council of Trent had little more
to do than to register the Roman conclusions,
discussing them at times at great length for
form's sake, and always according to the
system of scholastic theology, which,
logical
being one
and the same
Rome, could
and come to
at
Trent and at
not, in the end, contradict itself
For the
different conclusions.
papal theologians
at
Trent were the
brothers of the papal theologians at
twin
Rome,
and between the two sets the game was sure

to proceed in due order and continue successfully to the end anticipated and intended by
the Papal Court.
Indeed, the Council of Trent was a piece of
masterly wisdom and political ingenuity, and
it is impossible to read Pallavicino's work without admiring the genius and the foresight
of the several Popes who sat on the throne of
St. Peter throughout the Council.
Verily, if
^
Storia del Concilio, etc.,
250
lib.
xx. cap.
viii.
THE
COUxNCILS
the doctrine of Christ ought to be ascertained

by such contrivances, the Tridentine Canons
and definitions would deserve the highest
credit
but
Fathers,
is
Hberty, absolute liberty in the
if
the essential requisite of any truly
Christian and truly Ecumenical Council, no one
what name the Council of Trent

has a right.
It was not certainly free
at
can
to
tell
not sufficiently so to enable the Fathers
least,
on the momentous
questions on which they were called to vote.
The undue restraint under which the Pope
to speak out their minds
and
his legates
kept the Council drew from
the Fathers, more than once, the loudest com-
Once Mgr.
plaints.
IMartelli,
Bishop
of
Fiesole, " rose to say, with great force, that the
Fathers had joined the Council at great expense
and with no
little
yet, not only
personal inconvenience
and
were they not allowed freely to

opinions and decisions, but,
manifest their
while discussing, they were shut up in private

meetings, as
if
in
so
many
jails.
Let the
bishops rouse themselves from their drowsiness
let
treated.
asked
to
them see how wrongfully they were

The legate, Cardinal Del Monte,
.
INIgr.
Martelli
appeal from the
if
he had really resolved
Council to God.
251
The

Bishop of Fiesole, having been warned by the
legates that such an appeal savoured of
heresy,
withdrew
nal also asked
it
The
immediately.
him whether he
Cardi-
upheld
still
what he had formerly said, viz. that the bishops

I hold
acted on earth in the place of Christ.
'
it,'
said he,
'
till
am
convinced of the con-
The Cardinal then reprimanded him

and forced him into submission."
" Later on, when the Council, on account
trary.'
of the plngue, was transferred from Trent to
Bologna, the legates asked the same Mgr.

JNIartelli
he
intended
to
join
them
at
Not now,' he answered, because my

means do not permit me to do so.' On
Bologna.
slender
if
*
'
the contrary,' rejoined the

great bitterness,
your contumacy.'
in order to atone for

Martelli's
contumacy consisted
that he gave out
great frankness.
with
legate
first
you ought to go to Bologna

"
in this only,
his opinions freely
But there was no
and with
help.
In
the eyes of the legates and the majority of

the
Italian
ardently
bishops,
Rome, the Fathers
that
attached
to
spoke freely and
frankly were heretics, ill-bred, fools, rascals,
and worse.
*
These
vile
Storia del Concilio, etc., lib.
vii.
252
are not
epithets
cap. iv.
Ibid., lib. ix.
of
THE COUNCILS
my
They are to be found, even to

the Diary of the secretary of the
invention.
this day, in
Council,
Angelo
those bishops
all
did
science,
not
JNIassareUi,
who,
who
thus styled
for
reasons of con-
share the
Pope's opinion,
or yield bhndly to the injunctions of
The
question that was debated then,
the very beginning of the
at
Rome.
Council,
i.e.
was
whether the Fathers should commence their

work by discussing and defining the points of
Christian doctrine denied or altered by Luther,
or rather
by reforming the very low morals of
the Christian world.
The Emperor
Charles
King of France, the French and

Spanish bishops, the Germans, and in general
v.,
the
the Christian people, desired that the Council

should put its hand immediately to the work
of reform, as
more necessary and conducive
The Pope, on
the peace of the world.
to
the
contrary, being afraid lest the Council should

venture of its own accord to reform the
Papal Court, to which, he beheved, it had no

right Avishing, moreover, to crush Lutheran
doctrine, which was fast undermining the
;
authority of the
the
Church,
Holy See and the unity of
accepted
the
Council should commence

253
its
view
that
the
work by defining

the controverted points of Christian dogma.
Most of the Fathers then present

Council (scarcely fifty), stood fast by
at
the
reform,
whereupon the Secretary JNIassarelli writes

about them in his Diary as follows
" In like manner, of the same opinion [in
:
favour of the reform]
who
is
the Bishop of Fiesole,
is
very obstinate and headstrong
ignoramus, malign.
He
is
says things becoming only an

and a madman.
... an
a beast, and
illiterate
" Also the Bishop of Chiozza, who,
a learned man,
a
madman,
yet
is
though
of small brains,
ungrateful, unbeheving, and
person
ill-bred.
" Item, of the
He
of Capaccio.
pure maUce.
same opinion
the Bishop
favours this decision out of
He
is
is
vain and proud, of
small literary culture, and of an ill-balanced
judgment.
" Item,
Cornelius.
possesses
the
Bishop
This
so
man
very
of
is
Father
very well read, but
little
prudence that there
is
between him and a
horse.
" Item, all
Bitonto,
understanding
and
any
difference
the Spanish bishops,
Astorga,
scarcely
Pacense, Lanciano, Castellamare, of
254
whom
THE COUNCILS
shall
say nothing more in detail than that
they are Spaniards.
"
The French bishops likewise followed

opinion: i.e. the Archbishop Aquensis,
But the
etc.
show that
this
etc.,
French, being very candid,
want
they
the
out of
reform
sincere zeal.
"Item, the Bishop of Aquino, since he

old
and
in
wonder
if
his
second childhood,
he has
little
or
it
no
is
no
is
brains,
as
no conscience at all.
The other opinion, embraced by the Popes
and the Legates, i.e. to commence the Council
by the discussion of dogmas, was adhered to
he certainly has
by
Catholic
all
etc., etc."
prelates,
as
Feltre,
Ivrea,
^
I give here the Italian orig-inal of Massarelli's Diary, which
have done into English word by word. '' Item, il Vescovo di
ignoraute e
Fiesole,, il quale e molto ostinato ed imprudente
maligno
E una bestia e dice cose da ignorante et pazzo.
pure
.
Item, il Vescovo di Chiozza, il quale^ sebbene e dotto,
ingrato, infedele e villano. Item,
e di poco cervelloj pazzo
Costui lo fa per
della stessa opinione e il Vescovo di Capaccio.
malignita
e persona vana et superba, di poche lettere et di
Itemîl Vescovo di Bitonto, Frate Cornelio.
giudizio irregolato.
Costui ha assai buone lettere, ma di giudizio e di prudenza e
scemo, che non e diiferenza da lui a un cavallo. Item, tutti

gli Spagnuoli, cio e Astorga, Pacense, Lanciano, Castellamare,
de' quali non diro altre particolarita, se non che sono Spagnuoli.
si
Di questa opinione erano anche i Francesi, cio e I'Arcivescovo Aquense, etc., etc. ; i quali, per essere persone piu semplici,
mostrano che si movevano per buon zelo. Item, il Vescovo di
.
255
We
may
did the secretary of
ask here,
the Council, Angelo

reflect in his
accurately
Massarelli,
Diai^y the minds and opinions
of the legates and of the ultra-papal party
Some may
think he did not, but the con-
temporary Tridentine documents are there to

prove that Massarelli was a faithful echo of
the fanatical Italian faction, which ruled the
In consequence, according to the

party, any one who conforms himself to
Council.
latter
the opinions of the legates

prudent,
them
imbecile,
being
holy,
ever
so,
and
so little
is
catholic, wise,
whoever differs from

an ass, a fool, an
is
and suspected
in his faith.
Tilings
could the Fathers of the Council
of Trent be truly and really free
Nay, more. Very often the legates were not

content to rebuke the Fathers in words they
:
passed to deeds.
On
January
15, 1547, a great
dispute arose in the Council about that part of
"Representing the universal Church,"

which many Fathers wanted to have added
its title,
Aquino, quale, essendo veccliio et rimbambito, non e meraviglia se

ha poco cervello, come certo ancora ha poco coscienza, etc.
Dair altra opinione (cio e da quella che sosteneva si cominciasse
dai dogmi) erano tutti i Prelati Cattolici, come Ivrea^ Feltre,
etc., etc." (Concilium Tridentinum, Diariorum Pars I., Massarelli,
.
Diarium, tom. i. p. 882. Edidit Sebastianus Merkle, 1902). MassaMy quotation is from the first.
relli wrote two diaries.
256
THE COUNCILS
to the title of the Council
refusing stubbornly to
the contrary,
it.
Two
the legates, on
days
afterwards
the
accept
Bishop
of
Fiesole read a paper in which he reproved
the
bishops
for
acting,
some
in
delegates of the Apostolic See.
Bishop of
AlifFe,
an
official
cases,
JNIgr.
of
as
Pighini,
the Papal
Holy
court {Sacra Rota), rose to defend the
See, and, interrupting the Bishop of Fiesole,

said
that the
Another
heretical
Court,
opinions of
of
official
the Bishop of
were
the latter
Papal
the
Albenga (auditor of
the Camera Apostolica), joined Mgr. Pighini

in vituperating the
Bishop of Fiesole.
Then,
to defend the latter, rose the Spanish Cardinal
Pacheco, echoed by
many
Spanish bishops,
by the Bishop of Calaorra, who

bitterly and openly complained that the
Council was not free, ending his forcible
speech by publicly asking permission to go
back to his diocese, as it was of no use to
sit at a Council which was kept under undue
chiefly
restraint all
this,
the
the while.
first
Notwithstanding
legate asked
all
the unfortunate
Bishop of Fiesole to deliver up to him the

incriminating
diately
paper,
complied.
and the
Finally,
257
imme-
latter
Cardinal
S
del

Monte, with a serious speech, succeeded in
putting out the flames of discord and restoring
peace to the Council.
Another prelate whom the fanatical Italian

faction harassed and persecuted on account
of his freedom of speech, was Melchior
Avosmedianus, Bishop of Guadix, in Spain.
"On December 1, 1562, he was to give his
opinion on those words of the Canon proposed
by the legates which said that *the bishops

are called by the Pope to share part of his
He objected that the wording
pastoral care.'
of the Canon was too narrow and illiberal,
because, said he, if anybody should be
elected to
the episcopate, according to the
Apostolic or Nicene Canons, he would become
he were not chosen

by the Pope, the aforesaid Canons decreeing
this only, that the newly elected bishop be
a true bishop, even
if
and consecrated by the metroSt. John Chrysostom, St. Nicholas,

politan.
St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others had
been true bishops, although not chosen by
ordained
the Pope.
At
these words of the Bishop
of Guadix a great tumult broke out in the

Council.
Some shouted
at him, others vitu-
perated him, others hissed at him, stamped,
258
THE COUNCILS
and
him
curse on
heretic
'
is
Put him out f A

at the stake
him
he
Burn
Next day the French
out loudly
cried
^
'
Cardinal of Lorraine complained, in a very
behaviour
the
of
speech,
serious
of
the
Italian Fathers against the Bishop of Guadix,
and added that, should such a thing befall

one of his countrymen, he would appeal from
^
the present Council to another more free."
" Seven months later, on the eve of the
twenty- third session of the Council, July 15,
1563, in which the Canons of
Holy Orders
were to be publicly read and approved, the

Spanish Fathers, through Count de Luna,
ambassador of King Philip
II.,
asked that,
where the Canons spoke of the institution of

the
bishops,
words
the
such by divine ordination
'
The
bishops
are
should be changed
instituted
The bishops have been

The Italian Fathers
by Christ.'
and
legates
into the following
the
'
would
proposed change, because

lest
permit
they were afraid
si
eccito
gran commozione nel Concilio, e

i piedi,
e sclamarono
alcuni g-ridarono, fischiarouo, batterono

Si
mandi
fuori
anatema
sia bruciato
e eretico
words of the historian Pallavicino,

*
the
the Spanish formula might prove, in the
" A queste parole
not
Storia del Concilio, etc., lib. xix. cap. v.
259
"
Original

course of
time,
stumbling-block
authority of the Pope.
theologians asserted
those
the
to
Accordingly, most of
that
bishops
all
depend on the Pope, nay, not a few went

so far as to maintain that Christ consecrated
St.
Peter alone bishop, and through him
They
the others.
threatened,
therefore,
all
if
the words proposed by the Spaniards were

accepted,
to
great
raise
tumult
Council and to disturb the session.
in
the
On
the
evening before the session the cardinal legates
Count de Luna and

besought him to desist from his request.
called
The
privately
on
latter at last yielded to their entreaties,
and he
in
his
turn induced his bishops to
follow his example and be contented, though

reluctantly, with the formula approved of at
Rome.
the
*
Thus
it
became
session, and the

by Christ were not inserted
twenty-third
instituted
Canon."
hold
to
possible
'
words
in the
In the time of Pope Pius IV. the French
and Spanish bishops wanted by
all
means to
define that " the jurisdiction of the bishops
proceeds immediately from God."
marvellous to see the

*
subtle
It
arts
is
Storia del Concilio, etc., lib. xxi. cap. xi.
260
simply
and
fine
THE COUNCII^
diplomacy practised by Delfino, Nuncio at the
Court of the Emperor Ferdinand, where the
Jesuit Canisius ruled supreme,
by the
legates
at Trent with the ambassadors of the princes,
by the papal theologians
at the Council
and
Rome, in order to prevent that definition.

The Pope, however, not hoping he could prevail on the Fathers to define him to be
at
" Rector of the universal Churcli," preferred
that nothing at
all
should be said about his
claims rather than have

tailed
them denied
or cur-
by an unfriendly Council. He trusted

would be more favour-
that another Council

able to him.^
Again,
**
the French
When,
in the time of Pius IV.,
bishops,
under the guidance of
the Cardinal of Lorraine, were daily expected

at Trent, the legates, acting
under advice from
Rome, hastened
dogmas approved,
because
to have the
'Rome was
afraid
of the French.'
most of the sessions only Italian

and Spanish bishops were present, the former,
however, in far greater numbers than the
latter.
Finally the French arrived, and the
first
legate introduced
the Canon about
*the duty of the bishops to reside in their
In
fact, at
Ibid., lib. xxi, cap. xi.
261

dioceses,'
by
and the Spanish bishops were warned
their king
to support the
Pope
against
the French, because the latter were ill-disposed
towards the Holy See."^

If the Council of Trent
had been really

the same results
would have arrived at

As, howas those of Constance and Basel.
not
free,
being
kept,
from its
ever, it was
opening to its close, under the thumb of the
Pope, of the papal legates, and of several
emperors, kings, and princes then friendly
from political motives to the reigning Pope,
it ended as it did, leaving the papal authority
as it had been defined by a few bishops at
free it
the Council of Florence.
The Vatican Council
crowned the efforts of the Papacy both at

Florence and at Trent by declaring the Pope
infallible, and supreme ruler of the universal
Church.
The
arts
with which
Rome
succeeded in
and to a certain extent

befooling the French Cardinal of Lorraine
soothing,
cajoling,
are simply wonderful.
Trent
till
his
left
]
his
arrival at
departure he was honoured,
praised, applauded,
never
From
extolled,
alone with
his
but, above all,

French friends.
Storia del Concilio, etc., lib. xvii., xviii., xix.
262
THE COUNCILS
Rome knew
the amiable foibles and the
side of the
man.
conti
First Gualtieri, then Vis-
were the guardian angels
Pope assigned
whom
spy on and
the
to the dangerous cardinal with
him good,
the Holy See, and
the object of keeping
submissive to
weak
quiet,
in order to
to headquarters
report
And when
words and doings.
and
all
his
the French
grew suspicious of Gualtieri, Cardinal

Navagero, by command of Pius IV., took his
place as bodyguard of the lofty and pompous,
yet candid Frenchman. The Italian suppleness, diplomacy, and ingenuity got the upper
hand over the French impulsiveness and
The French cardinal remained to
candour.
the end faithful to the Pope, and gave no
gi'eat trouble to Rome.^
cardinal
In conclusion,
apostles
the
in
commenced
"Visum est
may
it
first
their
be said that
Council at
decrees
Spiritui
if
the
Jerusalem
by the formula,
Sancto et nobis
(It has
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us),"

the Fathers of the Council of Trent might
have
properly
Romse,
good
said,
"
Visum
est
prêcipue
et aliquantulum nobis (It has
chiefly to
]
Rome, and
in
some degree
Ibid., lib. xvii., xviii., xix,^ passim,
263
seemed

to us
Indeed, not without reason, the
also).**
French Ambassador Lansac used to say, very

wittily, that the Holy Ghost arrived at Trent
in the mail of the cardinal legates, which
mail ran to and fro between Rome and Trent
every day.
The
Jesuit historian of the Council of Trent
closes his
ponderous work with a
which he
against Paolo
in
strains
nerve
every
may
this or that particular point
certainly
to
show,
Sarpi, that the Council was free.
Well, the Servite Father
is
final chapter,
wrong
be wrong in
but Pallavicino
in his general assumption
and presumption of the liberty of the Council.

He has failed to support his beloved theme
by arguments nay, in his book there is more

than enough to force on any" candid reader
the conviction that the Council of Trent was
in no way free.
Of course, no physical violence was inflicted
on the Fathers but, however reluctant they
;
were, their fear of substantial injury or dis-
advantage, their reverence and regard for the

legates
and
for the Pope, the
influences of
and princes, and

their persuasions, prayers, commands, rewards,
punishments, blandishments, and the like,
superiors, emperors, kings,
264
THE COUNCILS
acted on the minds and wills of the Fathers
through
all
the
Council,
and made them
submit, whether they willed or not, to the

Pope. Finally, it may be affirmed that the
Council of Trent was a splendid achievement

on the part of Rome, a masterpiece of human
prudence, wisdom, and foresight; but essenAVhether
tially it was a very human work.
the
Holy Ghost had
extent,
it
is
part in
it,
and to what
impossible to say, but
can say with certainty

of Trent was not
free,
is
and did not
represent the universal Church.

bishops, wholly
so
Ave
sufficiently
The
Italian
committed by material and
national motives to the side of
commanded
what
that the Council
many
the Pope,
votes in the Council
that alone they could counterbalance all the

If the Council of Trent
rest of the Fathers.
had been perfectly free, and the voting had

been not by personal ballot, but, as justice
demanded, by nationalities, it would have had
the same termination as the Council of Conand would have restored peace to the
Church. As it was it caused the Roman Church
to plunge headlong into Ultramontanism,
stance,
which
in the long
run
will
prove
fatal to
it.
Let us now pass to the Vatican Council.

265

This Council was
conceived
of the Society of Jesus.

well
known
ing temper, was
College
its
haughty and overbearfather and originator.
studying theology
was
bosom
Jesuit,
afterwards for his fanaticism, his
inflated rhetoric, his
He
the
young
in
when he conceived
Roman
the
at
the
desire
There-
seeing the Pope's infalhbility defined.
upon he bound
to promote its
in
power.
his
himself, with a
by
definition
With
of
solemn vow,
all
the means
the permission of his
he had the formula of his vow

on a leaflet, which he scattered
superiors,
printed
broadcast, chiefly
among
the students of the
French Seminary. In 1867 occurred the

Centenary of St. Peter, which, by its festive
Rome
celebrations, attracted to
foreign
ber of
and
bishops
a great
priests,
num-
chiefly
of Italian prelates.
French, and a multitude

The Jesuit Father did not
He
slip.
let
advertised his great
the chance
vow amongst
the crowd of strangers, and himself wrote

an article in the Jesuit magazine, the Civilta
Cattolica,
its
The title
Nuovo Tributo
fame.
"Un
then at the high-water mark of
of
the
article
a S. Pietro'
Civilta Cattolica^ Serie VI. vol. x. pp.
266
was,
(A New
641-61.
THE COUNCILS
Tribute to St. Peter)." To the two tributes
which the faithful paid already to St. Peter,
the tribute of blood (soldiers who volunteered
in the service of the Pope), and the tribute
money
of
(Peter's pence),
CathoHcs to add a
submission of
third,
he asked
viz.
all
good
the voluntary
minds to the Catholic
their
belief of the infalhbility of the Pope.^
The
Rome
at
by the fanatical Jesuit

was taken up by other fanatical
agitation started
Catholics
all
over
the
world.
It
wâs,
of
backed up by the Vatican, and ended

with the convocation of the Council, which
was officially opened on December 8, 1869.
There assembled at the Vatican Council
course,
750 Fathers, amongst wîom wêre 46 cardinals (more than half of them Italians),
32 Generals of Religious Orders, 84 French,
48 Austrian, 19 German, 35 English, and
some 50 Spanish prelates. From Poland,
Russia, and Portugal no bishop was present
at the Council, because they were forbidden
their respective
by
ItaUan prelates, then,
governments.
all told,
300, w^hereas the others,

1
i.e,
did
The nonnot number
450, were either
Cecconij Storia del Concilio Ecumenico VaticanOj vol.
note.
267
ii.
p.
489,

dependent directly
Italians or apostolic vicars,
on the Pope
for
election
their
Propaganda Fide
and means of support.
or on
the
Pius IX., moreover, granted free lodging and
maintenance to some
apostolic
who
vicars,
poor bishops or
180
paid back his bounty
by declaring him
infallible
of the Church.
Of
and supreme head
course,
say
this
to
and not to censure the Pope,

state the
although, the Council having been chiefly
fact,
the
convened to define
infalhbility
of the
Pope, it might have seemed more proper on

the part of the Pope to abstain from anything which could be interpreted into canvassing for votes.
One
to
of the
appoint
first
things the
Commission
examine the petitions

Fathers, in order to
or
refer
Pope
to
did was
receive
proposals
them
to the Council, or to reject them.
of
and
the
afterwards
The im-
portance of this Commission can scarcely be

exaggerated, as the general turn which the
Council took depended to a great extent on

it.
Now
almost
*
zils.
all,
twenty-six
its
members,
i.e.
were chosen directly by the Pope,
Th. Granderatli, S.J.,

Herder, Freiburg, i. Br.
Cf.
of
Ge-schichte des Vatikanischen
1903.
2G8
Kon-
THE COUNCILS
any one might have expected, by
the Council. The Pope did so, it was said,
and
not, as
afterwards, in order to avoid unnecessary con-
fusion and trouble in the Council.
It
may
but was not the liberty of the Council

Is it not
violated by such proceedings?
be so
better, in a public assembly, to
permit some
tumult and disturbance, than to crush liberty

of speech in
its
members ?
JNIeanwhile, there
was no end to the written
requests and formal solicitations to the Council
How-
to define the infallibility of the Pope.

ever, those
idle.
who opposed
They busied
it
did not remain
themselves,
vain, to frustrate the able
though
in
manoeuvres of the
opposite party, which enjoyed the strength of

the majority and the favour of the Papal
Court.
Against the
definition, or its oppor-
Rauschen wrote a paper,

which was signed by a certain number of
German, Austrian, and Hungarian bishops.
A second paper was likewise written by
tuneness. Cardinal
several
bishops
one explained
of
Upper
Italy.
third
what many French bishops
thought of the proposed
definition.
came from the North American

A fifth and last was committed
269
A fourth
bishops.
to paper

by
In
bishops.
oriental
of various nationalities,
the
against
All
these
definition
petitions
136
all
prelates,
declared themselves
of
papal
were
infallibility.
not
presented,
person, but, as had been

of the Council
Committee
arranged, to the
for receiving proposals from the Fathers.
to
the Pope
in
composed of men
Papacy,
the
five
refused
almost
being
Committee,
This
to take
petitions,
exclusively
ardently attached to the

into
consideration
which accordingly came
Requests in favour of the definition got naturally the upper hand, and were
to nothing.
forwarded to the Council.

Was the Vatican Council really free
we
read the pamphlet
La
If
situation des choses a
Eo7?ic, written during the Council, at
Rome,
and by one of its members, the answer to the

The
above question cannot be doubtful.
pamphlet
The
free.
not
Vatican Council was
proves its case by the following arguments.
Council was handcuffed by the
(a) The
papal theologians, before its convocation, by a
schemes which settled beforehand what subjects were to be handled and in
what way, viz. in accordance with the object
set of doctrinal
aimed
at
by the Holy See.

270
THE COUNCILS
The
(b)
fourteen rules or limits of discussion
imposed by the Pope on the Council deprived

the dissenting party of
means of making
all
itself heard.
The
(c)
by the
institution
Fope of the
Commission, of which we have just spoken,

gave up the Council practically into the hands
of a few meanly obsequious to the Pope, the
members of the Commission

were chosen by the Pope and not by the
more
so that the
Council.
(d)
The
creation of four deputations, one of
which, that on dogmas, was composed of
men
wholly devoted to the Pope, intensely hostile

to the modern world, and saturated with that
kind of scholastic theology which ignores difficulties, because unacquainted with their historical or scientific grounds.
(e)
The
excessive
number of ItaHan
(nearly 250), about 90 of
whom
bishops
had been up
to a few years before political subjects of the
All those bishops were a priori favourable to the exaggerated claims of the Papacy
and always ready to overwhelm with their
Pope.
numbers the votes of

differed
their
colleagues
who
from them.
(/) The admission
to the Council of the
271

and solely dependent
The pamphlet in question was
apostolic vicars, strictly
on Rome,
etc.
not actually
written, by Mgr.
Dupanloup, one of the chief opponents of
inspired,
papal
if
infallibility.
In Rome, as everywhere else in the Catholic

world, two religious parties, bitterly hostile to
one another, stood face to face

cally
to
it,
one
fanati-
devoted to the Papacy, the other hostile

though not in the same degree and pro-
portion as the other was favourable.
Amongst
the prelates of the Council determined on declaring the
Pope
infallible
and placing him
at
the head of an absolute monarchy there were

a few learned men, mostly, however, rhetorically so, like JNIgr. JManning,
Westminster
whereas
it
Archbishop of
cannot be questioned
that the weight of true learning,

vast
knowledge,
bishops
of
infallibility.
like
the
Greith,
the
was
the
side
of the
minority opposed to papal
We find
following
Verot,
on
deep and
in the minority
Hefele,
Las
Cases,
Von
names
Ketteler,
Strossmayer,
Maret, Rauschen, Schwarzenberg, Dupanloup,
Haynald, Melchers, and others equally

brated.
The
latter,
cele-
moreover, were backed
up by three-fourths of the Catholic men of

272
THE COUNCILS
learning throughout the world.
In fact, as
Court of Bavaria
wrote to Cardinal Caterini in 1868 "Almost
the Papal Nuncio at the
all
the Catholic professors of theology in the
various
universities
any reputation
of
Germany who enjoy
for learning
and
with the great party of the

bitterly hostile to
that
have
Rome.
If
science, side
German savants
we except a few
Rome
pursued their studies at
{Doctoj^ romanus, they say, asimis germcuius)
and perhaps a few
others,
not even point out,

or
learned
men
in
all
more
whom
rest,
could
professors
the various branches of
and
theological knowledge,
bargain,
the
or less
priests
into
the
share the aspirations
of that party against the spiritual authority of
Rome."^
Indeed, when, later on. Dr. DolHnger publicly protested against the Vatican
Council, he was adhered to by the entire body
of the University of Breslau, by 25 professors

of the University of Bonn, by 13 of that of
Prague, by as
many
of that of jMiinster, by
150 teachers of Cologne, by 138 of Baden,

etc.
During the Council, likewise, a great
number of German and Austrian bishops de-
clared themselves against the infallibility of

*
Cecconi, Storia del ConciUo Vaticano.
273

by 25 French
bishops, the most learned and influential of
that nation, by a few bishops of upper Italy,
and by many others of different nationalities.
the Pope, followed in
The
this
learned historian of the Councils, Bishop
Hefele, not only opposed the definition with

all his
might, but also advised his colleagues
not to submit after the definition, the Council
not having been
free.
was of no use. The Italian, the

Spanish, and the Belgian bishops, together
But
it
with the apostolic vicars
whelmed
(over
100)
over-
with their votes the rest of the
The
supremacy
and the infallibility of the Pope was in their
hands.
They wanted to have it defined, and
Council.
they had
that
it.
definition
of
the
No power on earth
definition.
The Pope
could prevent
was
declared
supreme and infallible on July 18, 1870,

crowning with that solemn definition the incessant efforts of the Papacy from the Council
of Florence to our
own
times.
The tyrannous majority favourable to the

Pope thus obtained a complete victory. The
vanquished minority
left
the Council before
the public session at which the definition of

the infalhbility wâs proclaimed.
274
But did the
THE COUNCILS
victorious
majority
represent
whole
the
Church ? At most, its definitions are binding

on the Roman Church alone, because half the
Churches of Christianity were not represented
at
in the Council.
all
But, leaving aside the
Greek, Russian and Protestant Churches, even

within the
Roman Church
it
can be shown
that the Council scarcely represented

fact,
the Italian bishops are
now
368, against
681 for the rest of the Catholic world,
we
They
if
In
it.
include the bishops of oriental
even
rites.
form more than onethird of the whole body of Catholic bishops

alone, therefore,
throughout the world.^
In 1870 the Italian
bishops at the Council were no less than 250,
thus counterbalancing half the Council.
It
must be remarked, moreover, that the dioceses

of most of these Italian bishops are very small,
mere parishes at times, of a few thousand
souls.
Yet these bishops were equal in voting
power to the Archbishop of Paris, whose
diocese numbered over 2,200,000 souls, to the
Archbishop of Breslau, who governed 1,700,000
Catholics, to the Archbishop of Cologne, caring
for 1,400,000 CathoHcs, to the
Archbishop of
Gerarchia Pontificia 1902. Roma.
Typografia Propa-
Cf.
ganda Fede.
275
;
;

Cambray,wholikewisewasin charge of 1,300,000
souls.
even mere fairness
Is this justice, or
Nay, more.
The
to be defined
by a
dogmas of
true
faith
need
decisive majority of votes.
They
require an almost unanimous consent,

was anciently established by the Fathers,
and as was proclaimed at the Council of
Florence by the Greek Archbishop, Bessarion,
" Debere Ecclesiam Dei
in these words
unum in locum congregatam de rebus fidei
judicare, ac secundum praecepta divine legis
as
communi omnium consensu ferre sententiam

communia sunt, communi sensu oportere
quse
(The
terminari
in
Church
of
God
gathered
one place in order to judge about things
appertaining to the
faith,
must do
commandments
ing to the
so accord-
of the divine law,
and pass judgment with the consent of

for the things that are
common
to
all
all
are to
be estabhshed with the consent of all)." And

Pius IV. thus wrote to the Fathers of the
Council of Trent
de
quibus
constaret
inter
"
Ne
Patres
definirentur nisi ea
unanimi
(He admonished them
consensu
to
define
those points only of Christian doctrine upon
which the Fathers agreed with unanimous

consent)."
Was there such unanimous consent
276
THE COUNCILS
on the
Pope and on the

of the Church?
Who can sayof the
infallibility
constitution
any approach to truth ? There was,

on the contrary, a very strong minority, made
up mostly of university men, which decidedly
opposed both the one and the otlier. It was,
so with
however, crushed by the victorious majority.
But
is
mere majority of votes
sufficient, in
a Council, to turn a given point of doctrine

into an article of faith
answer in
my
stead
Dr.
Iêt
he writes, " n'est pas regardee par

theologiens
des
[of
resultat
comme
turning
point
of
que
la
c'est-a-dire
un
plupart
la
pour ce
suffisante
doctrine into an article of faith]
I'unanimite morale
Le Noir
" Iâ simple majorite,"
Christian
ils
tel
exigent
accord
comme
minorite dissidente passe
in-
aperûe, ecrasee quelle est par le nombre."

**
The mere majority
is
not regarded by most
theologians as sufficient for turning a point
of
doctrine
into
an
of
article
require a moral unanimity,
i.e.
that the dissenting minority
by
they
may
be passed
as a negligible quantity, being crushed
numbers."^
^
faith
such an accord
Le Noir,
Now
Dictionnaire des droits de
TEglise, chap. v. h, n. 443.
by
ask again, did the disla
raison dans la foi de
Edition Migne^ 18G0^ Paris.
277

senting
minority
appear as non-existing
looked
and
Vatican
the
at
Could
disregarded
It
it
Council
be over-
was
indeed
crushed by the quasi-material violence of the

greater
number
but
by and overlooked
Never
Enough
could not be passed
it
as
of the Vatican Council.
closed yet, and
No
non-existing.
It
is
not
might be reopened under

new circumstances and conditions of thought.
it
The Vatican Council

and
in consequence
it
of 1870 was not free,
can have no binding
on the conscience of
null and void of any effect
of reason and history.
force
278
Catholics.
;
It
was
this is the verdict
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS

PAGE
PAGE
Acts
Matthew
St.
V. 3
xvi. 13-19.
14
23, 30, 45,

98, 102,
14-19
xvii.
4
15-18
20 .
xviii. 3,
xviii.
xviii.
xxiii.
Mark
2
viii.
ff.
X. 16
...
31-4
28 ff
xxiii. 49
xxii.
St.
14
174
175
CO,
213
X. 14
xviii.
210
212
189,212,215
214
8-11
xxviii. 18
St.
...
XX. 20-28
212
14
211
212
GG
212
John
vi.
69
37
16
xi.
xii.
20ff.
xiv. 9
XV. 26
xvi. 13
xvii. 11,
XX. 22
)9f.
viii.
20,21
.
1G8
66
67
212
67
67
21 ,68
68
Acts
i.
14,
15
68,
176
continued

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS
1
Corinthians
11
iii.22
V. 3
iii.
INDEX OF REFERENCES
[The date
a name
after
is the date
of death unless
otherwise indicated.]
PAGE
Abraham
the Maronite
Adrian
(795)
I.
Abp.
Îfric,
113
52
....
or
(1006
G3
Ambrose, St. (397) 51, 55, 186
52
Anastasius Sinaita (599?)
Anselm, St. (1109)
143
Arabic Canons of Nicjea 1 1 1 f
Arboreus, John (/Z. 1520).
63
51
Asterius of Amasea (410)
Athanasius, St. (373)
51, 57
Augustine, St. (430)
31, 42,
51, ^8f., 84, 88, 94 f.
1051)
PAGE
Billot. P.
137
Blondel, D. (1655)
Boniface, St. (755)
f.
116
51
Borromeo, Card. (1584)

243
Bossuet, Bp. (1704)
106
Bower,A.,ex-S. J. (1750) 110
Brinckman, A
64 n.
.
Bruno
of Ast, St.
125)
Cajetan, Card. (1534)

Calaorra, Bishop of
63
138
f.
234
257
241
Cantu, C. (6. 1805)
272
Cases, Las
Cassian, St. J. (445)
51
Castelein (S. J.)
5
Catechism, Roman
125
Cecconi
267, 273 n.
CeilUer, Remi (1761)
110
Chapman, Dom J. 91, 92, 98 n.
Chrysostom, St. J. (407)
51,
Basil, St. (379)
51, 156
57, 171
Bede, Ven. (735)
52, 92
Ballerini (1754)
Bannez (1604)
103
61 n.
....
Baronius, Card. (1607)

Barry,
Basel, Council of (1431)
159
197
157
96,
117,
224
ff.
Bellarmine, Card. (1621).
Benson, Archbishop
117
87 f.,
89,., 93f.
Bernard,
St. (1133)
Bessarion, Card. (1472)
Bigg, Dr. C. (1908)
...
.
....
Civilta Cattolica
Clement of Rome,
266
207
86 f.
107,
St.
Clement, pseudoCoUectio Conciliorum

.
f .,
109, 117
142
276
199
Council
Constance,
129 n.
281
(1414)
96,
224
of
f.,
234
INDEX OF REFERENCES
PAGE
FeKx
III. (492)
Ferus,
John
(1554)
Councils
Basel (1431) 96,117, 224 ff.,
234
234
Constance.
96, 224 ff.,
102
Constantinople (381)
Florence 227, 232, 235, 276
114
Hispalense (619)
52 n.
Gallandius, And. (1779)
Gelasius I., St. (496) 52, 62, 97,
3
LateranlV. (1215).
Nicsea
107, 108, lllf., 156
.
Sardica (347)
103, UOf.
109
Sinuessa
Trent (1546-64) 150, 236 ff.
Gerarchia Pontificia
Gerson, John (1429)
Godts, F.
5,6
63
Gorranus, N. de (1295)
98 n.
Grabe, Dr. (1711)
268 n.
Granderath, T
52
Gregory I., Great, St. (604)
Gregory Nazianzen, St. (c. 389)
'
Vatican (1870)
Creed of Cents. I. and
.
266
126
II.
63
Damian, P., Card. (1072)
248, 251, 258
Del Monte
62
Denton,
13, 193
Didache
Dionysiusof Alex., St. (204). 156
63
Dionysius Carthus. (1471)
98 n.
Dionysius Cor. {fl. 170)
273
Dollinger, Prof. J. J.
272
Dupanloup, Bp. (1878)
103
Dupin, Dr. (1719)
.
Gelasius II. (1119)
156
Gregory XIII. (1.^)85)

Gregory XVI. (1846)
Guadix, Bishop of
Hardouin (1729)
Haymo
(835)
Haynald
Faber Stapulensis (1536)

Febronius " (1790)
63
103
272
258 f.
....
von
104, 108 n.,

n.,
II.)
Hergenrother, Card.
Hilary of Poitiers,
.
Deacon
Hippolytus,
282
63
272
Hegesippus (Cent.
Hilary,
f.
91, 93 n., 96
110n.,114n., 118
(367)
109, 114, 117
von.
A^'.
33, 98 n.
Eusebius of Csesarea
116
Greith
Hartel,
4,232
51
Hefele, C. J.
EugeniusIV. (1447)
Gregory of Nyssa, St. (c. 396) 52

Gregory Thaumaturgus (670)
Epiphanius, St. (403) 51, 55, 195

Eucherius, St. (454) 52, 98 n.
110
92
275
96
ff.
Cyprian, St. (268)

22, 26, 33,
78-96, 105, 106, 156, 215
Cyril of Alex., St. (444) 51, 58
'
PAGE
....
52
63
Firmilian, Bp. (269) 33, 51, 82 f.
Florence, Council of 1439) 227,
232, 235, 276
Fouard, Abbe Const.
199 f.
llOn.
Fuchs
Funk, F. X.
98 n., 116
Constantinople, Council of 102

108 n.
Constant, D.
Corluy, J. (S. J.)
23, 100
Cornelius a Lapide (1637) 207 f.
116f.
Corpus Juris
117
.
Cossart, S. J. (1674)
272,274
.
196
235 n.
St.
33,34,51,54
(Cent. IV.)
St. (240) 33, 156,
186
149
INDEX OF REFERENCES
PAGE
PAGB
Hispalense, Concilium (619) 114

Hormisdas, Pope (523) 52, 107
Macarius of Jerusalem (336) 108

Magdebiu'g Centurice (1559) 116
109
Mansi, G. D. (1769)
Marca, P. de, Abp. (1662) 103,
235
272
Maret, H. L. C. (6. 1804)
251 f?., 257
Martelli, Bp.
63
1832)49 n.,50
Hugo, Cardinal (1263)

Hurter,H. (S.
J.;6.
Ignatius, St., Martyr ( 107
13 n., 28, 96 n., 198

51
Innocent I. (417)
^vittssareiii, /i.
Innocent
ISIaximus, St. (662)
12
n.,
...
III. (1216)
13 n.
3,
Irenteus, St. (202) 25, 84, 98 n.,
Isidore of Seville, St. (636)
156
52
Isidore, pseudo-
115
Jerome,
194,
John Arboreus
John Damasc,
51, 92, 168,
St. (420)
205
1520)
{fi.
f.,
.
207
63
St. (Cent.
52
63
VIII.)
John Ferus (1554)

Jungmann, Rev. B.
.
116
Justin Martyr (c. 167)

Juvenal of Jerusalem(458)
Krose
52
Baron von
(S. J.)
272
7
Labbe, P. (S. J.) (1667) 62,

Lansac (Ambassador)
Las Cases
Lateran Council IV. (12 15)
Le Xoir, Abbe
.
Leo,
St.
(461)
Lightfoot, Bishop J. B.
Lorraine, Card.
Ludolph (1370)
Luna, Count de
Lux Mundi
117
264
272
3
277
35, 51, 61
Leo XIII
Lepat
Lock,
n.
33
Ketteler,
122
241
198
13 n.
234,
(1574)
261, 262
...
.
63
244, 259
13 n.
INDEX OF REFERENCES
PAGE
PAGE
Peter de Marca (1662) 103, 235

97
Philip, Legate
260 f.
Pius IV. (1565).
Pius IX. (1878) 3n., 4, 7,230
Strossmayer, G. Bp. .
272
Suarez(1617) 138 f.,149,155, 159
Sylvester, I. (335)
108
Sylvestri, Constitutio
103
....
.
49
QucBStio
.
103
(856)
63
Quesnel, P. (1719).
...
.
TertulUan
(c.
230)
32, 33, 51,
78-96, 205
Theodoret (457)
Rabanus Maurus
Rauschen, Dr. G.
98
12, 87,
n.,
51,60
Thiel
107 n.
Thomas a
Villanova, St.
63
201f., 269, 272
(1555)
241
103
Richter
112
Romano, J. B
Rome, Epistle of, to Corinth
97, 193, 199
110
Roux
Rufinus (410)
105
Rupertus Tuitensis (1135)
63
Thomas
(1274) 139, 143, 149, 155, 159

Tiphanius
138
Titelmann, F
63
Tostatus
63
Trent, Council of 150,227,236ff.
Turmel, Abbe J.
93 n., 158
Turrianus, F. (S. J.)
112, 116
Salmon (of Paris),Dr.( 1736) 118
Van Espen,
Raynold
....
Sardica, Council of
103, 110
Sarpi, Paolo (1623)
240
Scheeben
Schwane, J. (1851)
Schwarzenberg
f.
f.,
264
158
158
272
Scotus(c. 891)138 f.,149,155, 159
Simon de Cassia
...
Sinuessa, Council of
Sirmond,
J. (S.
J.)(1651)
(Dupanloup ?)
Smyrna, Epistle
Philomelium
Soarez, J
I.
(257)
Z. B., Prof.
110 n.
159
Vatican Council(1869-70)266ff.
(1728)
Vasques
Verot
272
Victor of Antioch (Cent.

IV.)
51,57
Victor, I. (197 ?)
97
Victor, Roman priest
108
...
Vincentof Lerins(/Z. 434)141, 145
Roman
priest
108
270 ff,
Walch,C.W.F.
to
of,
St.
Vincent,
La
Situation des choses,
Stephen,
63
109
117
Aquinas,
193
63
Printed by Hazell, Watson
97
dc
Waterworth,
J.
(1784)
.
49
110
54
ff.
Zosimus, Pope (417-18) 97, 111
Viney, Ld,,
London and Aylesbwy
14
""
DAY USE
LOAN
REC'D
NOi/
26Ma.'60J
LD
21-100m-ll,'49(B
(H7452sl0)476B
DEPT.
**c
LIBRARY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
miii
ttj^M^mîmmig^l^ltg^^^

Primitive Church

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Primitive Church

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

I

THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

HODDER AND STOUGHTON

{The Italian version oj

London and AyUibury.

mainly occupied with myself.

the religious opinions and doctrines I held

and doctrines held sacred by that Society.

remained in the Society of

Superiors never complained of

for reasons other

than those connected with

who have known

twenty-seven years with the utmost

home and abroad

I left the Society

under the eye

Pope, and in the interest

Europe and Asia.

addressed to the Italian newspaper // Corriere

This letter was

the stupid reports which

the Society of Jesus for reasons

of conscience, for which I

But those reasons

were not the only ones.

this last year,

owing to doctrinal accusations brought by

people against me,

then they made

inclination for scientific studies

any intercourse with

to preach, they relegated

of secondary importance, where I could have

no contact whatever with books or students

duty or fixed occupation

my brethren, who was

Were these rigorous measures against me

knew who were my

but before any definite charge against

the wrong opinions (from

doctrines which were imputed to

were never held by

nay, I had preached

and written against some of them publicly

mine but they were minor points of

referred to free theological matter

not appertain to the

just claim, I asked

committed or greatly exaggerated.

the Superiors not to

and learned men.

denied any justice.

writing that I had never

they persisted in carrying out

General of the whole Society.

this last favour.

whether the authorities of the

charges brought against me.

was answered that the tribunal of the Church

could and would do nothing in

There was, then, nothing

of slavery and idleness