YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE PAPACY;

ITS HISTORIC ORIGIN AND PRIMITIVE RELATIONS

WITH THE

EASTEKST OHTJECHES.

_ KY THE
ABBfi GUETTEE, D.D.,
A '"
Author of "A Histoet of thb Gallican Church," etc., etc., ito.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH, AND PREFACED BY AN ORIGINAL
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
A.. CLEVKLA-ND COXE,
BISHOP OF WESTERN NEW-YORK.

PUBLISHED BY
MINOS PUBLISHING CO.
NEW YORK. N. Y.
Yale Divinity Library

Printed in U.S.A.
By
Cosmos Greek-American Printing Co.
205 West 25th Street, New York 1, N. Y.

THIS EDITION IB PUBLISHED
IN GRATEFUL BECOGNTTTON OF THE HAND OF GOD
FN thb
STENTS OF THIS MEMORABLE TEAR,
-A..D. MDCCOL X,V I ,
LACS DEO. AMEN.

EDITOR'S PEEFAOE.

j HE author of this work is not a Protestant.
He is a French divine reared in the commun
ion of Rome, and devoted to her cause in pur
pose of heart and life ; but his great learning having led
him to conclusions contrary to those of the Jesuits, he
is " under the ban." Proscribed by the Papacy for the
fidelity with which he has pursued and illustrated the
study of Church History, he accepts the logical conse
quences of his position, and finds himself a true Catholic
at last, receiving the communion in both kinds at the
hands of the Greeks, in the Church of the Russian Em
bassy in Paris. The interesting biographical notice
which is prefixed to his work explains his personal his
tory, and gives assurance of his ability to treat the sub
ject of the Papacy with the most intimate knowledge
of its practical character. He writes with science and
precision, and with the pen of a man of genius. Should
he continue his career as it has been begun, he is des-

vi editor's peefacb.
tined to be a man of the age, and the precursor of
events the most interesting and important to religion
and to civilization.
There is no dignity nor payment which would not
have been accorded to him, in the Romish Communion,
had he written his History of the Church of France in
the interests of the party called Ultramontane, that is,
the Jesuit party. Like Fleury, he preferred to tell the
facts as he discovered them to be, and for this, of course,
he has been persecuted. The censures of the Court of
Rome led him to review his work with the earnest de
sire to amend it ; but this reviewal, by his very efibrt to
make it thorough, led him to conclusions which he had
not anticipated. In the work herewith presented, we
have the results. It is written in a style more attract
ive than the similar work of Barrow on the Supremacy,
and on some interesting questions it throws new light ;
while its originality, analytical power and illustrative
force are everywhere conspicuous.
The reader must understand that the writer uses the
word Catholic accurately and not in the vulgar sense.
He employs it as it is understood in the Creeds, and as
it is used by all scholars and theologians who write
correctly. Thus, " the Catholic Church " is the Historic
Church of Christ, preserving the orthodoxy of the Four
Great Councils, and united in the Apostolic Episcopate.
The Oriental Church is the original stock of this great

EDITOES PEEFACE. Vll
Tree ; and the Latin or Roman Churches are but a
branch of it. The Church of Rome was itself a Greek
Church for the first three centuries of its existence.*
The Abbe has fixed on Hadrian I. as the first Pope ;
the editor has always preferred, for several reasons, to
name Nicholas I. as the real founder of the Papacy ;
but, as it was a slowly developed institution, and may
be dated, in its first stages, from the claim of a Univer
sal Episcopate by Boniface IH., it is always important
to define what is meant by the term, when we pro
nounce any early bishop of Rome " a pope." The title-
Papas was common to all bishops, Greek and Latin,
from the earliest times ; but, the developed Papacy, as
we now understand it, was not visible till the era of
Charlemagne, under whose successors it was settled in
Western Europe as the base of the Feudal system.
Every traveler and every man who reads, will find
the historical facts with which this work will render him
familiar of the very greatest utility. For want of this
knowledge, the present aspect of Europe, and all the
questions which are called "Eastern," are misappre
hended grossly, and men, otherwise intelligent, add
daily to popular ignorance by attempting to explain
them. In America, the importance of understanding
such matters is becoming deeply felt ; and it is not too
much to say that the Abbe Guett^e will be found by
* See MUman'a Latin. Christianity.

viii EDITOR'S PREFACE.
the reader to be the clearest writer now living on all
matters connected with the Papacy.
His History of the Church of France is volumin
ous and elaborate; his work on the Jesuits, and his
confutation of M. Renan, deserve to be universally
known. Should this translation meet with the favor it
merits, it is to be hoped that the translator will continue
these labors, and enrich the English-speaking world with
the .entire series of the author's works.
Buffalo, May, 1866. A. C. C.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.

HE nature of the questions discussed in the
following work would ordinarily lift them
above all personal considerations and require
that the argument be left to take care of it
self in the honest vindication of Catholic truth. Th,ere
attaches to the present treatise, however, an interest quite
separated from its merits as an argument, in its identifica
tion with the history of a man of whose remarkable ca
reer and labors it is one of the most valuable fruits. It
is believed, therefore, that it can scarcely fail to derive
additional force from the account which it is proper
here to give of the author.
Rene-Francois Guettee was born at Blois, on the
banks of the Loire, in the Department of the Loire et
Cher, on the first of December, 1816, of worthy parent
age, but with no other inheritance than a good name
aiid fair opportunities for education. Self-devoted from
the beginning to the Cliurch, his studies were pursued
regularly and entirely in his native city. From a
very early age his mind seems to have revolted against
the wearisome routine that ruled the system of instruc
tion, under which the seminarist becomes a mere recep
tacle in quantity and quality of the knowledge judged
by the Church of Rome to be the needful preparation
for the instruments of her despotic rule. Guettee,
without comprehending then the evil results of such
a system, felt only its restraints and insufficiency. His
mind, in its ardent desire for knowledge and its rapid
acquisition, worked out of the prescribed limits with
an instinctive appropriation of the whole domain of
truth, and read and studied in secret. lie consecrated

X BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
to study the time devoted by others to amusement, and
thus stored his mind with knowledge both varied and
accurate. But such predilections, never viewed with
favor by the Church of Rome, disquieted Guettee's
professors, and marked him as an independent young
man, a character always regarded with jealousy and
suspicion. All possible obstacles were accordingly
thrown in his way, and had not his scrupulous regular
ity of conduct and unquestionable piety counterbal
anced these unfavorable impressions, he might have
found difficulty in obtaining orders.
At .the age of twenty-one M. Guettee was admitted
to the sub-diaconate ; at twenty-two he was made deacon,
and at twenty-three years he was advanced to the priest
hood, receiving his ordination on the twenty-first day of
December, 1839, at the hands of Mgr. de Sausin, Bishop
of Blois. He began at once the faithful exercise of his
ministry, first as vicar, then as cure. Mgr. de Sausin
was succeeded in the see of Blois by Mgr. Fabre des
Essarts, a man of liberal mind and of strong Gallican
predilections. He soon perceived in the young cur6
qualities that inspired him with warm interest in his
welfare. M. Guettee's studies, directed by a mind un
shackled by prejudice, spurred by an ardent love of
truth and insatiable thirst for knowledge, had led him,
soon before his ordination to the priesthood, to con
ceive the idea of writing a History of the Church of
France. To this work he gave himself with character
istic ardor immediately after his ordination. Having
been appointed in 1841 to the cure of a small parish
distant about twelve miles from Blois, where the duties
left him the larger portion of his time for study, he
frequently rose at daybreak, and walked to the city for
the purpose of studying in the public library, which is
very rich in religious literature, and where he found all
the great historical collections and monuments of learn
ing in France. After devoting six hours to close
study, he returned on foot to the solitude of his own
chamber, where a large part of the night was con
sumed in work upon the materials he had gathered.
Absorbed thus between the cares of his ministry and
his literary labors, he at length attracted the notice of
his bishop, who remarked that he never presented him-

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF TDE AUTHOR. xi
self at the episcopal palace, although coming frequently
to the episcopal city. He accordingly sent to him a
request to know the subject of his laborious study at
the library ; and having learned the truth, asked to see
the manuscript of the first volume, then nearly com
pleted. This he caused to be carefully examined by
his Vicar-General, M. Guillois, the most learned man in
the diocese, whose report was of the most flattering
character. Mgr. des Essarts thereupon resolved to en
courage the young writer and give him every facility
for his work. M. Guettee was accordingly transferred
to another parish very near the episcopal city, and
where the charge of the ministry upon his time was
equally light. The episcopal library was placed at his
service and the emoluments of his post enabled him to
go from time to time to Paris for such researches in the
great libraries as became necessary.
Thus M. Guettee passed several years in the success
ful prosecution of his great work. In 1847 Mgr. Fabre
des Essarts proposed to his own publisher to Ijegin the
publication of the History of the Church of France.
No sooner had the first volume appeared than the
author received from a large number of the French
bishops letters of the warmest commendation; while
on the other hand there was formed against him in
his own diocese a hostile party, composed of priests
immediately surrounding the bishop, who were rendered
jealous by the marks of episcopal favor lavished upon
the new writer, and of the directors of the seminaries,
who could not forgive one who had shown so little re
verence for their narrow prescriptions, and who owed
so little to them. The bitterness of this party could
only acquire intensity in the steady progress of our au
thor in the path "of distinction. In 1849 M. Guettee,
with the approbation of the Bishop, resigned his cure,
and came to Blois to accept the editorial charge of a
political journal which had been offered to him by the
authorities of the department. After the public excite
ment caused by the proclamation of the Republic in
1848 had somewhat subsided, the sincere democrats of
the country who did not sever the cause of order from
that of liberty, felt the necessity of creating such organs
of a true democracy as should enlighten the people upon

Xll BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
their duties as well as upon the question of their rights.
With this aim was founded Le Republicain de Loire et
Cher, and some surprise was caused at seeing the edit
orship of the journal confided to a priest by democrats,
who had until then passed for enemies of the clergy and
of the Church. The confidence of his friends was fully
justified in the influence which M. Guettee obtained
for this journal by his earnest defense of the principles
to which it was devoted, founding and strengthening
them upon the authority of the Gospel, and showing
them to be in harmony with the principles of revealed
religion. By this service he attached more firmly to him the
regard of the Bishop of Blois, who then conceived the
design of drawing the Abbe into closer relations with
himself by giving him a residence in the episcopal pal
ace ; but before this plan could be executed the Bishop
was prostrated by the disease that was destined to re
move him from life in the following year. M. l'Abbe
Garapin, a vicar-general, an intelligent and learned man
in the episcopal administration of Blois, who, like the
Bishop, felt a strong regard for M. Guettee, informed
him secretly of the Bishop's kind intentions, but coun
selled him to decline them and thereby escape the ma
chinations of his enemies in the administration, who
would be certain, as soon as the Bishop's approaching
death should put the power into their hands, to signal
ize it by driving him from the palace. M. Guettee follow
ed this friendly advice, and having resigned the charge of
the journal he had edited for eighteen months, because
by this change of regime he could no longer edit it
with independence, and seeing his friend the Bishop at
the point of death, he resolved to quit the diocese of Blois,
and demand permission to establish himself at Paris,
where he might enjoy more facilities for the completion
of his History of the Church of France. Knowing that
the first vicar-general would very joyfully seize the op
portunity of ridding the diocese of one for whom he
cherished so cordial a dislike, he asked and readily ob
tained a full letter of credit certifying to his learning
and piety.
Thus furnished, M. Guettee arrived in Paris, and made
no other request of the archiepiscopal administration

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. xiii
there than to be authorized to say mass within the dio
cese, attaching himself at the same time to an ecclesi
astical college as professor. Mgr. Sibour, then Archbish
op of Paris, having been apprised of the residence of
M. Guettee in the capital, invited him to present himself
at the episcopal palace, and offered him a chaplaincy
with such warmth of manner that he did not feel at lib
erty to refuse so evident a desire to serve him. In 1851
six volumes of the History of the Church of France
had already been published, and the author had received
for it the approbation of more than forty of the French
bishops. This success caused great uneasiness to the
ultramontane party. M. Guettee, it appeared, while so
treating his great subject as to win the high suffrages
just referred to, manifested so sincere a love of truth
that his work became dangerous to a party with whom
this was no recommendation. The design was immedi
ately formed of gaining over the author, and accordingly
Mgr. Gousset, Archbishop of Rheims, who was at the
head of the ultramontane party, made overtures to him,
intimating that honors and ecclesiastical preferment
would not be tardy in rewarding his unreserved devo
tion to the ultramontane doctrines. But this dignitary
quickly saw that he had to deal with one who could not
be brought to traffic with his convictions, nor be intimi
dated by threats. From this moment began that war
against him which issued in his present entire withdrawal
from communion with the Church of Rome as a branch of
the Catholic Church schismatical in position and corrupt
ed in doctrine. This alienation, however, was gradual, the
fruit of his growing convictions and deeper insight into
the principles of the complicated and powerful system
with which now he had to grapple. The struggle called
for all the resources of his thoroughly balanced and
severely disciplined mind, as well as of his extensive
learning. He saw at first far less clearly than did the
ultramontane party, the steady divergence of his views
from the Papal doctrine. The Gallican tone that per
vaded more and more his History of the Church of
France proceeded not from a deliberate point of view
from which he wrote, but was the scrupulous and truth
ful rendering of history by his honest, mind, the im
partial and logical use of the materials out of which

XIV BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
his history was to be made. To such a mind, there
fore, the forced revelation of this divergence from the
doctrines of a party who for that reason solely demand
ed his retractation and unquestioning submission, could
only increase the dissidence, and so it proved. The
first seven volumes of the History, approved by more
than forty bishops, and six of them published under the
direction and with the sanction of the Bishop of Blois,
were placed in the Index of books prohibited by the
court of Rome. Mgr. Sibour gave his approbation to
the resistance made at once by M.- Guettee to this de
cree. The author was immediately attacked with great
violence by the Uhivers and other Jesuit journals,
and defended himself with great spirit and ability, all
his replies being first submitted to 'Mgr. Sibour and
approved by him. During this struggle the eighth
and ninth volumes of the History appeared. Mgr.
Sibour charged one of his vicars-general, M. l'Abbe"
Lequeux, with the mission of submitting them to the
" Congregation of the Index," with the request that its
objections might be made known to the author before
they were censured. The author had furnished M.
Lequeux with letters bearing a similar petition. This
ecclesiastic had himself suffered by the censure of the
Congregation, passed upon his Manual of Canon Law,
a classic of many years' standing in the seminaries.
He had submitted, and was on his way to Rome for the
purpose of learning the objections of the Congregation
and correcting his work. But he obtained no satis
faction either for himself or for M. Guettee, whose two
new volumes were placed arbitrarily in the Index
without a word of explanation as to the grounds of
censure. Thus M. Guettee was baffled in his many
respectful and patient endeavors to obtain the desired
communication with the Congregation at Rome. He
resolved, therefore, to pursue his work without concern
ing himself about censures so tyrannical and unreason
able. But matters were about to change their aspect
at the archiepiscopal palace. In the course of the year
1854, the bishops were called to Rome to be present at
the promulgation of the new dogma of the Immaculate
Conception. Mgr. Sibour was not invited. He had
addressed to Rome a paper in which he proved that

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. XV
this dogma, or belief, was not definable, because it
was not taught either in Holy Scripture, or by Catho
lic tradition. To punish him for this act he was not
included among the bishops invited. Deeply mortified
at this omission, he wrote to the Pope touching it, and
in a manner so submissive that he was at once reward
ed with an invitation couched in the most gracious
terms. The character of Mgr. Sibour was well under
stood at Rome as that of a weak and ambitious man,
full of vanity and without fixed convictions, who could
be won by flatteries and bought with promises. He
was, therefore, received with studied politeness and
lodged in the Vatican. His namesake and friend, M.
Sibour, cure of the church of St. Thomas Aquinas in
Paris, was made Bishop of Tripoli in partibus, and his
friend, M. L'Abbe Darboy, the present Archbishop of
Paris, was appointed Prothonotaire Apostolique. For
himself he received the promise of a cardinal's hat. In
return for these kindnesses he was constrained to sac
rifice his Gallican friends among the clergy of Paris,
and the promise made to that effect was well kept.
M. L'Abbe Lequeux, his vicar-general, found himself
dismissed to his old place among the Canons of Notre
Dame ; M. L'Abbe Laborde was persecuted and finally
found no better refuge than the hospital, where he
.soon after died ; M. I'Abbe Prompsault, who had been
for nearly thirty years chaplain of the Hospice of les
Quinze Vingt, was deprived of his position, left without
resources, and subsequently died in the hospital not long
after. Finally, forgetful or regardless of all the en
couragement he had given to M. I'Abbe Guettee in his
resistance to the action of the Congregation of the Index,
and of his repeated proofs of regard and confidence, he
withdrew his support, deprived him of his place, and
reduced him, like the others, to poverty. Here, however,
he found a less submissive spirit. Roused by the in
justice and tyranny of this act, M. Guettee printed a
letter to Mgr. Sibour which proved a home-thrust to
this vacillating prelate. It recounted all the facts of
his past relations with the Archbishop, his patient en
deavors to be at peace with the court of Rome, his of
fers of every reasonable submission, and earnest ap
plication directly to the Congregation of the Index, and

XVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
afterward to Mgr. Sibour himself, to have his obnoxious
work examined by a commission ; how this was refused
when proceeding from himself as an overture of con
ciliation, but was subsequently suggested by the Arch
bishop himself, in the form of a menace, to induce the
Abbe Guettee to withdraw from Paris voluntarily, and
save himself from the threatened censure and disability ;
that he declined the latter course and opened himself
and his work with every facility to the scrutiny of his
judges. He set forth the action of the Council of Ro-
chelle in 1853 — the same which proposed to censure
Bossuet — which attacked the eighth volume of the Hist
ory of the Church of France, and did not spare even
the Abbe's personal character; that when he had pre
pared his defense and asked permission of the Archbish
op to publish it, lest it should be seized as the pretext
for depriving him of his functions, he was answered that
before such permission could be accorded he must re
sign those functions in the diocese of Paris ; that he re
fused to do this, and that by agreement certain copies
of his defense were deposited with the Archbishop, and
an agreement made that it should not be published ; that
though this defense was not made the occasion of his pre
meditated removal, the pretext for a measure so deter
mined upon was soon after made out of a petty difference
of a personal kind beween himself and a confrere, with
out any regard to the importance or the justice of the
case ; that Mgr. Sibour finally deprived him of the poor
office of hospital chaplain, with the evident design of
withdrawing from him such means of subsistence as
alone prevented his quitting Paris.
This letter, addressed to Mgr. Sibour, protesting
against his action and fully exposing the motives that
could alone have operated to these persecutions, was
printed and a copy sent to the Archbishop before it
was published. Under the impression, however, that it
had been published, the Archbishop immediately replied
by depriving the Abbe of the permission to say mass in
Paris, thus completing the disability cast upon him.
But upon the Abbe's informing him that the letter had
not been published, that it was designed as a defense
of himself, not as an attack upon the administration of
the diocese, and offering to deposit the edition of the

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. XVU
letter at the archiepiscopal palace, to avoid the evils of
publicity, Mgr. Sibour next day sent a very kind note
to M. Guettee, expressing himself touched by the terms
of his response, restoring to him the authority to cele
brate mass, accepting the deposit of the copies of his
printed letter, and desiring to see him to give him some
further proof of his satisfaction. At a personal inter
view the same evening, Mgr. Sibour promised him short
ly new ecclesiastical functions.
-It would seem, however, that the Archbishop's eyes
were beginning to be opened toward Rome. His sub
mission and absolute conversion had so satisfied that
court that it was in no haste to confer the promised
cardinal's hat; and Mgr. Sibour feeling that he had
been amused with words, repented of his acts of injus
tice and was meditating some reparation, of whicli his
gentler disposition toward M. Guettee was a sign, when
these better intentions were arrested by the tragic death
he so suddenly met at the hand of the assassin Verger,
in the church of St. Ftienne du Mont.
His successor, Cardinal Morlot, was a man of politi
cal ideas and aspirations, astute and scheming, who never
lost sight of the importance or neglected the means
of maintaining the best relations with the powerful.
He made every needful concession to the successive gov
ernments in France, and at the same time conciliated
Rome, feeding its insatiable greed of riches by sending
large SHms of money for its necessities. Such a man
could have no thoughts to bestow upon the trivial work
of repairing the wrongs of his predecessor. On the
contrary, he was not long in showing himself yet more
severe against M. Guettee, and at the close of the year
1855 finally refused to renew his permission to say mass
in Paris. From this moment began the war in earnest
which ended in the separation of our author from the
Church of Rome. After having in vain endeavored to
procure from the Archbishop in writing the refusal to
sanction the continuance of his ministry in the diocese
of Paris — a refusal that was prudently communicated
to him verbally by the proper official — he published his
appeal to the Pope against the decision as a gross vio
lation of canon law, and another to the government,
as an abuse of authority and an invasion of his civil-eccles-

XV111 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
iastical rights. These appeals, firm in their language
and unanswerable in their facts and arguments, were not
published with any hope of answer or justice, but for
the purpose of exposing clearly the outrageous viola
tion by his adversary of the ancient liberties of the Gal
lican Church, and the arbitrary and despotic character of
the whole proceeding. He did not imagine that the
Pope would ever be permitted to hear of his wrongs,
or if he were, that he would listen to them at the ex
pense of his own friends and of the principles upon
which the power of the Papacy is built. Nor was
it to be expected that the State would embroil itself
with an individual conflict with the Church upon a
question of canon law. Thus M. I'Abbe Guettee, inno
cent of the smallest offense against good morals, and
with a character free from all taint, without any eccles
iastical censure resting upon him, or any proceedings
directed against him, was deprived of the exercise of
his ministry, with the evident purpose of driving him
from Paris, where his enlightened views caused too
much inconvenience to^the ultramontane party.
It is unnecessary to say that the scheme failed, or to
follow the controversy that ensued upon this open rup
ture. It had the natural result of disclosing more clear
ly than ever to M. Guettee the principles of the Church
of Rome and the despotic usurpation of the Papacy.
The energy and industry with which he answered the
attacks upon him developed his views, defined his ob
jections and thoroughly awakened the latent protest
of his enlightened conscience against the pretensions
of Rome. He became finally the watchful and open
antagonist of the Papacy, and shortly after found him
self the editor of the Review called V Observateur Cathol-
ique, which had, and still has, for its object the resist
ance of Papal usurpations and corruptions in the Church
by the principles of primitive truth and a pure Catho
licity. He has published successively a History of the
Jesuits, in three volumes ; the Memoirs et Journal de
VAbb'e Le Dieu sur la Vie et les Ouvrages de Bossuet,
in four volumes ; also a refutation of Renan's Vie de
Jesus. His latest and most important work is the Pa-
paut'e Schisrhatique, now presented in English. Six
years ago he founded, in conjunction with the Rev.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR. xix
Archpriej3t Wassilieff, titular head of the Russo-Greek
Church in France, and especially attached to the Rus
sian Church in Paris, V Union Chr'etienne, a weekly pub
lication in quarto form, having for its specific object the
diffusion of information upon the principles of the primi
tive Church as those of a true Catholicity, upon which
the non-Roman branches of the Church should be recall
ed to a renewal of their outward unity, and thus a re
sistless influence be opposed to the invasions of the
Papal principle and the corruptions it has introduced
into the primitive faith. It is natural that such a con
secration of his labor and such associations, should
have led M. Guettee into close and increasingly devoted
relations with the Oriental Church, and especially with
the Orthodox Church of Russia. His views ceasing to
be Roman and Papal only because more intensely
Catholic, he sought a home in the East, where the Pa
pal power could never seat itself, and especially in the
Orthodox Russian Church, where its pretensions are
held in abhorrence. All that is venerable, pure, and
Catholic in the faith and form of the Church of Christ,
our author believes he has found in the Russo-Greek
branch, and he has therefore attached himself warmly
to it, making it the platform for his earnest and pure-
minded labors for the restoration of visible unity. He
is in turn held in high esteem by the authorities and
learned men of the Russian Church, and has recently
received from it the high and rare honor of a doctorate
in theology. His labors for union are warmly appre
ciated and encouraged there as they are everywhere
by all who understand them. M. Guettee is no enthu
siast; he is fully aware of the difficulties and magni
tude of the work to which his life is consecrated, and
looks for no marked progress or flattering results to
show themselves in his lifetime, but is content to sow
wide and deep the seeds of truth, leaving them to germ
inate and become fruitful in God's good time. He
has a warm and intelligent appreciation of our Ameri
can branch of the Church, and looks to its activity
in the great endeavor as of the highest importance, be
lieving that her catholic character and free and mobile
structure peculiarly mark her as a powerful instrument
to promote the interests of the Catholic faith. M. Guet-

XX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
tee has in preparation a work of much interest and im
portance, designed to bring into a single view the harm
onies and differences of the various branches of the
Catholic Church. It forms a careful survey of the
ground, and is likely to become a valuable help to an
enlightened view of the work of unity, to which the
providence of God seems to be directing all Christian
minds. This new production of M. Guettee will be
translated without delay, and published simultaneously
in French, Russian, and English.

ATJTHOE'S INTEODTJOTIOK

|HK Pope is a king, and pretends to be sover
eign pontiff of the Christian Church.
We do not propose to occupy ourselves with
his royalty. To what advantage ? It will soon fall. Its
ruin is decreed by Providence. Foreign bayonets will
no more save it than the sophisms of its defenders. If,
as is affirmed, these are necessary to uphold the sover
eign pontificate, it is but another reason for desiring its
fall — because this pontificate is an usurpation. This
we proceed to demonstrate in the present work. To
reach this end we shall have recourse neither to ques
tionable arguments nor to declamation. Facts drawn
from original sources are summoned as witnesses. We
take the Roman episcopate at the origin of Christian
ity, follow it through centuries, and are able to prove
incontestably, that during eight centuries the spiritual
Papacy, as we understand it at the present day, had no
existence ; that the bishop of Rome was during three cen
turies only a bishop, with the same rank as the others ;
that in the fourth century he received a primacy of
honor without universal jurisdiction; that this honor
has no other foundation than the decrees of the Church ;
that his restricted jurisdiction over certain neighboring

22 AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION.
churches is supported only upon a custom legalized by
Councils. As for the universal sovereignty, absolute, qf divine
right — in other words, the Papacy — facts and catholic
testimony of the first eight centuries condemn instead
of sustaining it.
History reveals to us the Papacy, after several fruit
less attempts, taking its birth from circumstances and
establishing itself in the ninth century, with its double
political and ecclesiastical character. Its real founder
was Adrian L Nicholas I. chiefly contributed to its
development ; Gregory VH. raised it to its loftiest pitch.
Adrian I. was in fact the first Pope. They who be
fore this occupied the see of Rome, were only bishops,
successors, not of St. Peter, as has been declared and
repeated to satiety, but of Linus, who was already bish
op of Rome when St. Peter arrived in that city, to seal
there by his martyrdom the faith he had preached.
The defenders of the Papacy commit, therefore, at the
outset, one of the grossest historical errors in carrying
back the Papacy, that is, the Papal sovereignty, to the
origin of Christianity. This error has led them to a thou
sand others, impelled, as they have been, to seek proofs
for the support of this false theory in the history of the
Church and in the writings of the ancient fathers.
They have thus wrested facts and distorted testimo
nies. They have even dared to attack Holy Scripture,
and by delusive anti-catholic interpretation, made it
bear false witness in favor of their system. It is thus
that the Church of Rome was the first to give example
of those individual interpretations for which she so bit-

AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION. 23
terly reproaches Protestantism. She was the first to aban
don the Catholic rule of the interpretation of the sacred
books ; she has put aside the collective interpretation of
which the fathers of the Church have been the faithful
echoes, and upon her own authority she has presumed
to discover in Scripture that which the Church Catholic
has not found there. She has come thus to arrogate for
her usurped sovereignty a divine foundation. She has
drawn from this principle all its consequences ; the Pope
has become the vicar of Jesus Christ, the necessary cen
tre of the Church, the pivot of Christianity, the infallible
organ of heaven. These Papal errors were so skillfully
disseminated in the western countries that they were
there gradually adopted. The protests which they drew
forth were indeed continued, but partaking of the spirit
of the age, they were not sufficiently pointed ; such even
as were raised against the abuses of the Papacy, admit
ted as beyond question a divine basis for that institu
tion. At the present day, these errors have penetrated not
only among the clergy and religious men ; the rational
ists — anti-Christians themselves — admit the idea that
the Pope is the sovereign chief of the Christian Church,
and that his spiritual prerogatives are derived from
Jesus Christ. Many Protestants themselves do not con
ceive of a Catholic Church without a Pope, and see this
church only in the Roman Church.*
We ourselves have been misled by the common error,
* The author thus touches two of the greatest advantages which modern writers,
unfortunately, concede to the Papists : 1st. That of identifying historical Christ
ianity with the Mediaeval Roman system ; 2d. That ol calling the Trentine Church
the Catholic Church.

24 AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION.
taught as we had been to regard it as a revealed and
incontestable verity.
In embarking upon the extensive researches we were
obliged to make for the preparation of the History of
the Church of France, it did not enter our thoughts
to examine certain questions, which only in an indirect
way entered into our subject and upon which we had
blindly accepted certain opinions. Hence some expres
sions too favorable to the Papacy, and some errors
of detail in our book. We seize the occasion now
offered to give warning of them, in order that our
readers may be on their guard against these errors,
which, however, will find their correction in the present
work. Rome has visited "with her censure the History of the
Church of France because it was not sufficiently favor
able to her pretensions. We ourselves censure it be
cause too many concessions are there made to Roman
prejudices which had been imparted to us as truth, and
which we had not been at the pains thoroughly to ex
amine. Should Providence ever put it into our power
to reprint the History of the Church of France, we
shall deem it an obligation of conscience to make the
correction. This would have been done at the demand
of Rome, had Rome condescended to convince us of
error. We shall do it, however, at the requirement of
our own conscience, now more enlightened.
No man is infallible ; hence, inasmuch as a man dis
honors himself by changing his opinions without good
reason or pretending such change from motives of in
terest, in the same degree does he honor himself when

AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION. 25
acknowledging and retracting errors he discovers him
self to have committed.
We are therefore disposed to great tolerance toward
Roman Catholics who believe in the divine origin of
the Papal prerogatives; for we know that this pre
judgment is communicated to all of them with the first
elements of religious instruction, and that every thing in
the Roman Church tends to strengthen it in their souls.
But the more deeply this delusion is rooted in the Ro
man Church, and generally in all the West, the more
are we bound to combat it with vigor.
To this pursuit have we for several years persever-
ingly devoted ourselves, and, thanks to God, our labors
have not been useless. We hope the new work we now
send forth will also bear its fruits, and will come to the
help of those religious men, daily increasing in number,
who, in the presence of the abuses and excesses of every
kind committed by the .Papacy, can no longer be blind
ed respecting it by old delusions.
Accustomed to see in it the divine centre of the
Cliurch, they can no longer recognize such a centre
in this hotbed of innovations and of sacrilegious usurp
ations; they ask, therefore, where is the Church of
Jesus Christ ? We need only divest the Papacy of the
glory it has usurped, that the Church Catholic may at
once appear in her majestic perpetuity, in her univer
sality. The Papacy has narrowed it to the point of
presuming to comprehend the whole Church in Itself.
Tear away these glittering pretensions, and the Christ
ian society will appear marching with unbroken prog
ress through ages, preserving inviolate the deposit of

26 AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION.
revelation, protesting against every error, whether ema
nating from Rome or elsewhere ; accepting as her rule
only the catholic rule founded upon the Word of God,
of which the Councils and the Fathers are the organs.
In this holy society there are neither Greeks nor Bar
barians, but Christians only, who can say with St. Pa-
cian, " Christian is my name ; Catholic my surname,"
because they believe without exception in all fullness
(ko#' 5Aov) the doctrine taught by the Master and pre
served intact by the Church in all ages and in all places.
This great truth is concisely expressed by the well-known
words of Vincent of Lerins :
"Quod unique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus."
The Pope would, in his own interest, limit the Church
to such as acknowledge his sovereignty, that he might
then absorb them and say, "I am the Church." Let
us break down the barriers he has raised, and we shall
at once see the Church in all her beauty, expanding in
freedom, unshackled by territorial boundaries, owning
as its members all particular churches, bound together
by the same faith, communing with one another through
pastors alike apostolic, made one in Jesus Christ, the
great Pontiff, the sole Head of the Church, and in the
Holy Spirit its guide.
Who has broken this admirable unity of the first
Christian ages ? The Pope.
He has usurped the place of Jesus Christ, and has
said to all churches, " It is in me and by me you shall
be united; the ministry of your pastors shall proceed
from me ; from me are you to receive doctrine. T am

author's introduction. 27
supreme pastor. It is my right to govern all. I am
supreme judge. I may judge all and be myself judged
by no one whomsoever. I am the echo of heaven, the
infallible voice of God.*
Shall the harmony of the Church Catholic be de
stroyed because the Papacy has availed itself of outward
circumstances to extend its usurped domination over
a certain number of individual churches? Assuredly
not. So far from excluding from this concord churches
which have resisted her usurpations, it is the Papacy
itself that is to be thus excluded. Not only has she
broken with churches truly Catholic, but she has vio
lated the traditions of her own Church. She has divid
ed them into two distinct parts, like the Roman episco
pate itself. The Roman traditions of the first eight
centuries are not the same as those of succeeding ages.
The Papacy has, therefore, lost its true perpetuity in
the very points wherein it has innovated. Thus a mem
ber of the Roman Church who returns to the primitive
doctrine of that Church, who rejects the innovations of
the Papacy, reenters at once into the Catholic concord,
belongs to the true Church of Jesus Christ, to that
Church which has maintained itself in its double char
acter of perpetuity, of universality. Far from us be
those deplorable accusations of schism hurled at vener
able churches, which have preserved the revealed doc
trine in its primitive purity, which have preserved the
apostolic ministry ! The Papacy calls them schismati-

* To similar words, almost the same as those summed up by the author, the pre
sent pontiff, Pius IX., lately presumed to add the awful expression, " I am the Way,
the Truth, and the Life." — Editor.

28 author's introduction.
cal, because they have refused to acknowledge its usurp
ations. It is full time such noisy misapprehensions
should cease.
We proceed, then, to demonstrate that it is the Pa
pacy itself which is guilty of schism ; that after having
provoked division, it has perpetuated and consolidated
it by its innovations ; in a word, that it has caused
its divisions to pass into a state of schism.
This proved, we shall be at liberty to conclude that
those who are considered by the Papacy as schismatics
because of their opposition to her autocracy, are in real
ity the true Catholics, and that it has, in seeking to sepa
rate others from it, become itself separated from the
Church. There are those in the West who would present the
Papacy as the legitimate development of the Christian
idea, as Christianity arrived at its completion. The
truth is, that it is the negation of the evangelical idea,
of the Christian idea. Can, then, the negation of an
idea be considered as its development ? There will be
some astonishment perhaps in seeing us enter upon such
a subject with this degree of candor. We answer, that
at the epoch in which we live, there is need to speak
frankly without mental reserve. We do not understand
circumlocution with respect to error. Indulgent, chari
table toward men who are deceived, we believe that
we obey a true instinct of charity in waging open war
with the errors that deceive men. " To speak truth,"
as wrote the Patriarch Photius to Pope Nicholas, "is
the greatest act of charity." L'Abbe Gtjeit6e.

THE PAPACY.

i.

HE Christian Church is fundamentally divided.
Were it desirable to expose the internal feuds
which agitate all Christian societies, and the
contradictory doctrines of the sects which
have revolted against the Mother Church, they would
foi-m a* sorrowful picture.
Yet conflicts and heresies have their purpose. Indeed,
as to doctrines which do not belong to the deposit of rev
elation, and which have not been defined, controversy
is permitted and the liberty of the human mind is to be
respected. As for heresy, St. Paul tells us that it is
necessary, in order that the faith of believers may be
well grounded and enlightened.
But above all divisions, there is one more serious, and
which before all must attract attention because of its
importance and of the facts which have provoked it ;
it is that which exists between the Oriental Catholic
Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
Every Christian heart must be saddened in view of
this separation, which has subsisted for so many centu
ries between churches which have alike an apostolic
origin; which have, save one word, the same creed;

30 THE PAPACY.
which have the same sacraments, the same priesthood,
the same ethics, the same worship. In spite of these
elements of union, division has been since the ninth cent
ury an acknowledged fact between these churches.
Upon whom recoils the responsibility for this great re-
ligous and social crime? This is one of the gravest
questions upon which a theologian can enter; he can
not resolve it without bringing to judgment one of these
churches, without accusing it of having despised the
word of Jesus Christ, who made unity a condition essen
tial to the existence of his Church. It is evidently only
by the strangest perversion of Christian common-sense
that the division could have been provoked and perpet
uated. This is admitted in the two churches, Orient
al and Roman. For this reason they return upon each
other the accusation of schism, and are unwilling to ac
cept before God and before the world the responsibility
Avhich they both regard as a stigma. One of the two
must be guilty. For notwithstanding reprehensible acts
might be specified on either side, these minor faults
would not account for the separation. Discussions upon
secondary points, coldness, occasioned by vanity or am
bition, can engender only transient controversies. To
determine a fundamental and permanent division, there
must be a more radical cause and one which touches the
very essence of things.
It is not possible, then, to resolve the question we
have put without seeking this powerful and deep-seated
cause which has provoked the schism and kept it alive
to the present day. In approaching this question, we
have been struck at the outset by the difference that
exists between the reproaches which the two churches,
Oriental and Roman, urge against each other recipro
cally. The latter alleges that the Oriental Church sepa
rated herself (from her) to satisfy a pitiful grudge, through
interest, through ambition. Such motives could, phil-

THE PAPACY. 31
osophically, explain only temporary strifes. The Ori
ental Cliurch, on the contrary, assigns for the schism a
motive radical and logical : she affirms that the Roman
Church has provoked it in seeking to impose in the name
of God an unlawful yoke upon the Universal Church,
that is, the Papal sovereignty, as contrary to the divine
constitution of the Church as to the prescriptions of the
oecumenical councils.
If the accusations of the Oriental Church are well
founded, it follows that it is the Roman Church which
is guilty. In order to enlighten ourselves upon this
point, we have investigated the relations of the two
churches before their separation. It is, indeed, neces
sary to establish clearly the nature of these relations in
order to see from which side has come tho rupture. If
it be true that the Roman Church sought in the ninth
century to impose upon the whole Church a rule un
known to the previous ages and therefore unlawful,
we must conclude that she alone should bear the re
sponsibility of the schism. We have pursued the study
with calmness and free from prejudice: it has brought
us to these conclusions : (1.) The bishop of Rome did not
for eight centuries possess the authority of divine right
which he has since sought to exercise.
(2.) The pretension of the bishop of Rome to the sov
ereignty of divine right over the whole Church was the
real cause of the division.
We are about to produce the proofs in support of
these conclusions. But before presenting them we think
it profitable to interrogate the Holy Scriptures, and ex
amine whether the pretensions of the bishop of Rome
to universal sovereignty of the Church have, as is al
leged, any ground in the Word of God.

32 THE PAPACY.

H.
THE PAPAL AUTHORITY CONDEMNED BY THE WORD OF GOD.

HE Church, according to St. Paul, is a temple,
a religious edifice, of which the faithful are
the stones. " You are," said he to the faith
ful of Ephesus, (2 : 20-22,) " built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner-stone ; in whom all the
building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy tem
ple in the Lord : in whom ye also are builded together
for an habitation of God through the Spirit."
Thus, according to St. Paul, the Church is the society
of all the faithful of the Old as well as of the New
Testament; the first, instructed by the prophets, and
the second, by the apostles, form together a spiritual
habitation, having for its foundation Jesus Christ, waited
for by the one as the Messiah, adored by the other as
the Divine Word clothed in humanity.
The prophets and apostles form the first layers of this
mystic edifice. The faithful are raised on these founda
tions and form the edifice itself; finally Jesus Christ is
the principal stone, the corner-stone which gives solidity
to the monument.
There is no other foundation or principal stone than
Jesus Christ. St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, (1
Cor. 3 : 11,) "For other foundation can no man lay than
that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Paul gave to the
Corinthians this lesson, because among them many at-

THE PAPACY. 33
tached themselves to the preachers of the Gospel, as
though they had been the corner-stone of the Church.
" I have learned," said he to them, " that there are con
tentions among you. . . . Every one of you saith, I
am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas ; and I
of Christ. Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for
you ?''
Peter himself could not be, according to St. Paul,
regarded as the corner-stone of the Church, as the first
vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than 'himself or Apollos.
Peter and all the other apostles were only in his eyes the
ministers of Jesus Christ, the first layers of the mystic
edifice. St. Paul also compares the Church to a body, of which
Jesus Christ is the head, and of which the members are
the pastors and the faithful.
" Christ," said he, " gave some, apostles ; and some,
prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and
teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ :
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto
the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and
fro, and earned about with every wind of doctrine, by
the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby
they lie in wait to deceive. But speaking the truth
in love, may grow up into him in all things, whicli is
the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body
fitly joined together and compacted by that which every
joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in
the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body,
unto the edifying of itself in love."
There is then but one Church, of which Jesus Christ
is the head ; which is composed of the faithful as well
as tho pastors, and in the bosom of which the pastors
Yale Divinity Library

34 THE PAPACY.
work in the various ministrations which arc confided to
them to develop the Christian life, of which charity is
the sum.
Do we perceive, in these notions of the Church, a mon
archy governed by a sovereign pontiff, absolute and in
fallible? Now this Church which St. Paul regards as the de
pository of divine instruction — this Church as extended
in its unity as in its universality — it is this that he calls
"the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim. 3 : 15.)
"The elders which are among you I exhort, who
am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of
Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be
revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you,
taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but will
ingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; neither
as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples
to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear,
ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."
(1 Peter 5 : 1, et seq.)
St. Peter, then, whom the Roman theologians would
make the absolute prince of the Church, knew but one
chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ. As for himself, he was
the colleague of the other apostles by his priesthood ; he
speaks neither of his primacy nor of his sovereignty. He
does not raise himself above the other pastors of the
Church, whom, on the contrary, he addresses as his
equals and his brethren ; justifying himself solely in
giving them counsel, in that he was a witness of the suf
ferings of Jesus Christ and also of his future glory,
which had been revealed to him upon Mount Tabor.
We have not met in Holy Scripture any text relating
to the subject we are now considering, where Jesus
Christ is not regarded as the sole head of the Church, nor
in which the Church is not represented as a whole, one and
identical, composed of the faithful as well as the pastors.

THE PAPACY. 35
It can not be disputed that these pastors have receiv
ed from Jesus Christ the powers necessary to govern
well the Church. Furthermore, it can not be denied
that these powers given to the apostles were also trans
mitted to their legitimate successors; for the Church
and the body of pastors should, according to Christ's
word, be perpetuated for all ages. Before leaving the
eartlvChrist said to his apostles : " Go teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo
I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
(Matt. 28 : 19, 20.)
Jesus Christ is then perpetually with the body of the
pastors-of the Church. It is to them he has said in the
person of the apostles : " He that heareth you heareth
me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me." It is
still to them he says : " Receive ye the Holy Ghost ;
whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them,
and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained."
This power, given in a general manner to all the apos
tles, had been promised to St. Peter previously, and in
the same terms. This is one of the proofs that the Popes
bring to support their theory of a special and superior
power that Peter had received from Jesus, and that has
been transmited to them ; but they do not remark that
the power was given to all, that it was not promised to
Peter personally, but to all the apostles in his person.
This is the observation of St. Cyprian, and of the greater
number of the Fathers of the Church. Other texts are
also cited to support this theory. We will consider them.
Here is the first :
" Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my
Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."*
. * Matt. 16 : 18, 19. It will here be remembered that both the text and its applica
tion lose nearly all their power when translated into English. In French, the word
stone and the Christian name Peter are both rendered " Pierre,"

36 THE PAPACY.
If we believe with the Popes, this text proves that
St. Peter and the bishops of Rome, his successors, have
been established by Jesus Christ as the corner-stone of
the Church, and that Error, figured by the gates of hell,
shall never prevail against this stone or rock. Hence,
they draw this result, that they are the sovereign heads
of the Church.
If this reasoning be true, it follows that St. Peter,
to the exclusion of the other apostles, was established
as corner-stone of the Church, and that it was not merely
a personal privilege to him, but that it has passed to
the bishops of Rome.
It is not thus.
First of all, Peter was not called the rock of the Church
to the exclusion of the other apostles. He was not
made the head of it. We see a proof of this in the text
of St. Paul, already cited, in which that apostle dis
tinctly affirms that the foundation-stones of the Church
are the prophets and apostles, joined together by the
corner-stone, which is Jesus Christ.
The title of " rock of the Church " can not be given to
St. Peter without forcing the sense of Holy Scripture,
without destroying the economy of the Church, nor
without abandoning Catholic tradition. Jesus Christ
has declared that he was himself that stone designated
by the prophets, (Matt. 21 : 42; Luke 20 : 17, 18.) St.
Paul says that Christ was that Rock, (1 Corinth. 10:4.)
St. Peter teaches the same truth, (1 Pet. 2 : 1, 8.)
The greater number of tne Fathers of the Church
have not admitted the play upon words that our Ultra-
montanes attribute to Jesus Christ in applying to St.
Peter these words, " And upon this rock I will build my
Church."* In order to be convinced that their interpre-
* Launoy, Doctor of the Sorbonne, known for a great number of works on theol
ogy and whose vast erudition no one will dispute, has bIk wn the Catholic trad
ition upon that question. He has demonstrated by clear and authentic texts that

THE PAPACY. 37
tation is most just, it is only necessary to recall the cir
cumstances under which Jesus Christ addressed to St.
Peter the words so much abused by the Roman theolo
gians. He had asked of his disciples, " Whom do men say
that I the Son of man am?" The disciples replied,
" Some say John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Je-
remias, or one of the prophets." " But whom," replied
Jesus, " say ye that I am ?" Simon Peter, answering
him, said, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God." Jesus answered him and said, " Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And
I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my Church," etc.
These words mean nothing but this : " I say unto thee,
whom I have surnamed Peter because of the firmness
of thy faith, I say to thee that this truth that thou hast
professed is the foundation-stone of the Church, and that
Error shall never prevail against it."
As St. Augustine remarks, it was not said to Simon,
Thou art the rock, (la pierre,) but thou art Peter, (Pierre.)
The words of St. Augustine deserve to fix the attention.
" It is not," said he, " upon thee as Peter, but upon that
rock which thou hast confessed." " Ce n' est pas, dit il
sur toi qui es pierre, mais sur la pierre que tu as con
fessed . . . tu es pierre, et sur cette pierre que tu as con
fessed, sur cette pierre que tu as reconnue en disant,
Thou art Christ, etc., sur cette pierre je b&tirai mon
eglise" I will build thee upon myself, I will not be built
upon thee. Those who wished to be built upon men said,
"lam of Paul, I am of Apollos, lam of Cephas, that
but a small number of Fathers or Doctors of the Church have applied to St. Peter
the title of rock, upon which the Church should be built ; while the most of them do
not apply this to him at all, but understand these words of Christ In quite a
different manner. His collection of Letters may be consulted, which are the treat
ises of a savant of the first order.

38 THE PAPACY.
is to say, of Peter ;" but those who did not wish to be
built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, they said, " I am
of Christ." In the French language the name given
to the man having the same designation as that of the
thing, there is an amphibology which is not found either
in Greek or Latin. In these languages the name of
the man has a masculine termination, while the name
of the thing has a feminine, rendering it more easy to
perceive the distinction that Christ had in view ; more
over, it is easy in these two languages to remark, by the
aid of the pronoun and the feminine article that precedes
the word la pierre, (the stone,) that these words do not
relate to the masculine substantive which designates
the man, but to another object. Besides, the Greek word
on has not been sufficiently remarked, which in Latin is
exactly rendered by the word quia, which means be
cause, (parce que.) In translating thus in French,
the amphibology is avoided, upon which is founded all
the reasoning of the popes and their partisans.
In Holy Scripture the Eock is frequently spoken of
in a figurative sense. This word always signifies Christ,
and never, directly or indirectly, St. Peter. The best
interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself. It is then
with good reason that the immense majority of the Fa
thers and Doctors have given to the passage in question
the interpretation that we claim for it — always refer
ring either to Jesus Christ, or to faith in his divinity the
word rock, which the Saviour used. This interpretation
has the threefold advantage of being more conformed to
the text, of better according with other passages of Holy
Scripture, and of not attributing to Christ a play upon
-words little worthy of his majesty.*
* Among the Fathers who have given this interpretation to the famous passage,
" Tu eat Petrus," we will name St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, sixth book ; St.
Gregory of Nyssa, Advent of our Lord ; St. Ambrose, bonk 6, on chapter ix. of St.
Luke and on 2d chapter of Epistle to the Ephesians ; St. Jerome upon the 18th verse of
the 16th chapter of St. Matthew ; St. John Chrysostom, homilies 55 and 83 upon St.

THE PAPACY. 39
As for the few old writers who admitted this play upon
words, it must be remembered that none of them inter
preted the text in a manner favorable to the Papal sov
ereignty, nor drew from it the exaggerated.consequences
of this system. These consequences are diametrically
opposed to the whole of their doctrine.
It is true that Christ addressed himself directly to
Peter; but it is only necessary to read, the context to
see that he did not thereby give him a title to the ex
clusion of the other apostles. In fact, after having pro
nounced the words we have quoted, Jesus Christ, still
addressing himself to Peter, added :
"I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven." In the two parts of this text, Christ
simply made two promises to Peter ; the first, that the
Church should he so firmly established in the faith in
his personal divinity, that error should never prevail
against that truth; the second, that he would give to
Peter an important ministry in the Church.
It is not possible to sustain the doctrine that the pow
er of the keys was granted exclusively to St. Peter, for
Jesus Christ gave it to all of them at the same time, em
ploying the same terms that he had used in promising it
to St. Peter, (Matt. IS : 18;) moreover, he promised to
Matthew, and 1st chapter Epistle to the Galatians ; St. Augustine, Tracts 7 and 123
upon St. John, ]3th sermon upon the words of the Lord, taken from St. Matthew, 1st
Book of the Retractations ; Acacius, homily pronounced at the Council of Ephesus ; St.
Cyril of Alexandria, 4th book upon Isaiah, 4th book oftlie Trinity; St. Leo I., Ser
mons 2d and 3d, upon his elevation to the episcopate, sermon upon the Trans
figuration of ourLord, sermon 2d upon the nativity of the apostles Peter and Paul ;
St. Gregory the Great, 3d book, 83d epistle ; St. John Damascene upon the Trans-
ftguraiion. This interpretation of the Fathers was preserved in the West until the era when
Ultramontanism was erected into a system by the Jesuits in the 16th century. It
will suffice to prove this to cite Jonas of Orleans, 3d book on the worship of im
ages ; Hincmar of Rheims, 33d essay; Tope Nicholas I., 6th letter to Photius ; Odo
of Cluny, sermon upon the see of St. Peter ; Rupert, 3d book upon St. Matthew and
32th book upon the Apocalypse; Thomas Aquinas, supplement Q. 25, art. 1 ; An
selm, upon the 16th chapter of St. Matthew ; Eckius, 2d book of the primacy of St.
Peter; Cardinal de Cusa, Catholic Concordance, 2d book, chapters 13 and 19.

40 THE PAPACY.
all the apostles collectively, and not only to Peter, to be
with them to the end of the world.
According to St. Matthew, (Matt. 28 : 18, et seq.,)
Jesus approached his disciples and said to them : " All
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go
ye ... . teach all nations, etc .... and I am with you
alway, unto the end of the world."
We read in St. John, (John 20 : 21, et seq.,) "As my
Father hath sent me, even so send I you." After having
said these words, he breathed upon them, and said to
them, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whosesoever sins ye
remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever
sins ye retain, they are retained."
Evidently Christ gave to his apostles collectively the
prerogatives he had promised to Peter. The promise
jnade to Peter has been realized in respect to the whole
body of pastors, which proves that Christ only spoke to
Peter as representing his colleagues, as being a, type of
the apostolic body.*
But, it may be asked, should we not conclude that
what was addressed to Peter alone under such solemn
circumstances, was the bestowal of prerogatives in a
special and superior manner ?
It must be remarked, that nowhere in the Gospel is it
seen in respect to Peter alone, that any such promise made
to him has been realized. Peter received this power only
with the other apostles. But, if in the designs of Christ
there was to be in the Church a supreme and absolute
head, this institution wrould have been of sufficient import
ance to cause a particular mention in the sacred vol
ume, of some occasion when Jesus Christ delegated
superior powers to this supreme chief. On the con
trary it is seen that special assistance for the preser-
* It is thus this text is interpreted by Origen, upon St. Matthew ; St. Cyprian, Of
the Unity of the Church ; St. Augustine, Tracts 50 and 118 upon St. John, sermon
205 upon the Nativity of the Apostles Peter and Paul ; St. Ambrose upon 3Sth Psalm ;
St Pacian, 3d letter to Sempronius.

THE PAPACY. 41
vation of revealed truth, as well as the power of the keys,
was given to Peter only collectively with his fellow-
workers in the apostleship.
St. Paul knew no more than the evangelists of super
ior powers having been conferred upon St. Peter. Be
side the texts that we have already quoted, we read in
the Epistle to the Galatians, (2 : 7, 8, 9,) that Paul
ascribes to himself, among the Gentiles, the same pow
er that Peter had among the Jews, and that he did not
regard Peter as superior to James and John, whom he
calls, like Peter, the pillars of the Church. He even
names James, Bishop of Jerusalem, before Peter when
he gives them their title of pillars of the Church; he
believed so little in any authority of Peter, that he
withstood him to the face, because he was to be
blamed. When the apostles assembled at Jerusalem, Peter
spoke in council only as a simple member of the assem
bly, not even the first, but after many others. He felt
himself obliged in presence of the other apostles — some
old disciples and some faithful followers — to renounce
publicly his opinion upon the necessity of circumcision
and other Judaical ceremonies. James, Bishop of Jeru
salem, summed up the discussion, proposed the resolu
tion which was adopted, and acted as the veritable
president of the assembly. (Acts 15 : 7.)
The apostles then did not consider St. Peter as the
foundation-stone of the Church. Consequently the Papal
interpretation of the famous text, Tu es Petrus, is as con
trary to Holy Scripture as it is to Catholic tradition.
We can not see any serious objection to the manner
in which we understand it. Our interpretation neces
sarily results from the comparison of the various texts
of Scripture relating to the same subject.
From a Catholic and traditional point of view it pre
sents every guarantee — in fine, the text considered in

42 THE PAPACY.
itself can receive no other legitimate rendering. From
the simple reading of the passage, it appears that the
Saviour's principal object was to concentrate upon him
self and his divine mission the whole attention of
his disciples. His divinity is the idea to which evi
dently his questions and the answers of Peter had re
ference ; the conclusion then should relate to that idea.
It is not possible to apply it to Peter, as head of the
Church, without pretending that Christ, after having
spoken of his divinity, drew from it, as a consequence,
the Pontifical power, which is an idea essentially different.
Let us now see if the other texts quoted by the Ro
mish theologians in favor of the Papal authority prove
that Jesus Christ has truly established this authority in
his Church.
They support themselves upon this passage of the Gos
pel of St. Luke, (St. Luke 22 : 31, et seq.,) "Simon,
Simon, behold ; Satan hath desired to have you that he
may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee,
that thy faith fail not ; and when thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren."
Jesus here addresses himself to the apostles in the
person of Simon, surnamed Peter. He says that Satan
has asked permission to sift them, that is, to put their
faith to severe trial. It is necessary to remark the word
you, in Latin vos, in Greek vuag. Satan did not obtain
the opportunity that he desired. The apostles will not
lose their faith in presence of the temptations which they
will be made to endure in the ignominious death of their
Master. Peter only, in punishment for his presumption,
shall yield and then deny his Master. But, thanks to the
special prayer of the Saviour, he shall return in repent
ance, and will thus have a great duty to fulfill toward the
brethren scandalized by his fall — the duty of strengthen
ing them, and repairing by his zeal and faith the fault
he has committed.

THE PAPACY. 43
Truly it is impossible to conceive how the Popes
have been so bold as to set up this passage of St. Luke
in order to establish their system. It must be remarked
that these words quoted were addressed by Christ to
St. Peter the very day that he was to betray him, and
that they contain only a prediction of his fall. St. Peter
understood this well, since he immediately replied, " Lord,
I am ready to go with thee both into prison, and to
death;" but Jesus added, "I tell thee, Peter, the cock
shall not crow this day before that thou shaft thrice
deny that thou knowest me."
The text of St. Luke's Gospel is a proof against the
firmness of St. Peter's faith, rather than in favor of it —
a fortiori, then, should no deductions in support of
his superiority in the matter of doctrine or government
be drawn from it. And the Fathers of the Church
and the most learned interpreters of Holy Scripture have
never dreamed of giving to it any such meaning. Aside
from modern Popes and their partisans, who wish at any
price to procure proofs, good or bad, no one has ever
seen in the words above quoted more than a warning
given to Peter to repair by his faith the scandal of his
fall, and to strengthen the other apostles whom this fall
must shake in their faith.* The obligation to confirm
their faith proceeded from the scandal he would thus oc
casion ; the words confirma fratres are only the con
sequence of the word conversus. Now if one would
give to the first a general sense, why should it not be
given to the second ? It would result then, if the succes
sors of St. Peter have inherited the prerogative of con
firming their brethren in the faith, they have also inher
ited that of the need of conversion, after having denied
Jesus Christ. We can not see how the Pontifical author
ity would gain by that.
* It was not until the ninth century, that any Father or ecclesiastical writer ad
mitted the Ultramontane interpretation.

44 THE PAPACY.
The Popes who have found such a singular proof to
support their pretensions in the thirty-first and thirty-
second verses of the twenty-second chapter of St. Luke's
Gospel, have been very guarded in their quotation of
the preceding verses.
The evangelist relates that a discussion arose among
the apostles, as to who should be considered the great
est among them. The famous words, Tu es Petrus were
already pronounced — this should prove that the apostles
did not receive them as understood by the Popes of mo
dern times. The very eve before the death of Christ,
they were ignorant that he had chosen Peter to be the
first among them, and the foundation-stone of the Church.
Christ took part in the discussion. This would have
been an excellent opportunity for Him to proclaim the
power of Peter — moreover, it was time that it should
be done, for on the morrow he was to be put to death.
Did he do it ? Not only did the Saviour not recognize
the superiority he is said to have promised Peter, but
he gave altogether a contrary lesson to his apostles,
saying to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise
lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon
them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so ; but
he -that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger,
and he that is chief, as he that doth serve."
In comparing the recital of St. Luke with that of St.
Mark, it will be seen that the discussion had been oc
casioned by the request that the mother of James and
John had made of Christ in favor of her children. She
had begged for them the first two places in his kingdom.
Christ did not tell her he had given the first place to
Peter, an answer which would have been very natural
and even necessary if St. Peter had in fact been invested
with a superior authority. The ten other apostles were
indignant at the ambitious demand made by James and
John through their mother ; they agitated among them-

THE PAPACY. 45
selves the question of superiority. Christ then gave them
the lesson which we have related, and which immediately
precedes the text upon which the Roman theologians pre
tend to support their system. (Matt. 20 : 20, et seq.)
The value of this pretended proof, after the context
is considered, will be appreciated.
They cite still in their favor a passage in the Gospel
of St. John, (21 : 15, et seq.)
" Jesus said to Simon Peter : ' Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me more than these ?' He saith unto him :
'Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.' He saith
unto him : ' Feed my lambs.' He saith unto him again,
the second time : ' Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me ?'
He saith unto him : ' Yea, Lord ; thou knowest that I
love thee.' He saith unto him : ' Feed my sheep.' He
saith unto him the third time: 'Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me ?' Peter was grieved because he saith
unto him a third time, Lovest thou me? And he
said unto him: 'Lord, thou knowest all things; thou
knowest that I love thee.' Jesus said unto him : ' Feed
my Sheep.' "
The Roman theologians argue thus upon this text :
"Jesus Christ has given to St. Peter in a general
manner the care of the pasture of the sheep and lambs ;
now, the lambs are the faithful, and the sheep are the
pastors ; therefore, Peter, and in his person his succes
sors, have received a supreme power over the pastors
(or shepherds) and over the faithful."
If this reasoning were just, it would necessarily prove
1st. That the function confided to St. Peter was not also
given to the other pastors of the Church; 2d. That
the lambs signify the faithful, and the sheep the
pastors. Now St. Peter himself teaches us, that all the pastors
of the Church have received the miuistry of feeding the
flock of the Lord. We have already quoted the passage

46 THE PAPACY.
of his first epistle, in which he said to all those who were
the heads of different churches, " Feed the flock of God
which is among you." (1 Pet. 5 : 2.)
Does the solemnity with which Christ gave that func
tion to Peter imply that he possessed it in a superior
manner? Nothing supports this idea. The Fathers
of the Church and the most learned commentators have
only seen the expiation of his threefold denial in this
threefold attestation of love that Christ drew from
Peter. Nor did Peter see any thing else, since he
" was grieved." Had he conceived that Christ therein
conceded to him any superior powers, he would rather
have rejoiced than have been saddened by the words
that were addressed to him ; but he was convinced that
the Saviour demanded a triple public declaration of his
fidelity, before reinstalling him among the shepherds of
his flock, because he had given reason for legitimate sus
picions by denying his Master again and again. Christ
could only address himself to Peter, because he alone had
been guilty of this crime.
Now, do the lambs signify the faithful and the sheep
the pastors ? This interpretation is altogether arbitrary,
there can be nothing found in Catholic tradition to con
firm it ; on the contrary, tradition formally contradicts it,
and it would be impossible to quote one single Father
of the Church in its support. Moreover, this interpreta
tion is not conformable to Scripture. The words sheep
and lambs are indifferently used in Holy Writ to de
scribe the same object. Thus we read in St. Matthew :
"I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves,"
(Matt. 10: 16,) and in St. Luke: "I send you forth as
lambs among wolves, (St. Luke 10 : 3.) The word sheep
in Scripture signifies the faithful. We read in Ezekiel,
(34 : 6,) "My sheep wandered through all the moun
tains." " Other sheep I have which are not of this
fold." St. Peter, addressing himself to the faithful of

THE PAPACY. 47
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, said
to them : " Ye were as sheep going astray, but are now
returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. (1
Pet. 2 : 25.)
It is not possible therefore to found or give different
meanings to the words sheep and lambs, nor to interpret
the word sheep in the sense of pastors or clergy.
If we feel obliged to give to the two expressions a
different meaning, would it not be more natural to under
stand by lambs the young members who have need of
the most tender care, and by sheep to understand those
of maturer age, according to the faith ?
Thus the Papal interpretation is so thoroughly divest
ed of foundation, that a commentator upon the Gospels
— one who would not be suspected by Roman theolo
gians, the Jesuit Maldonat — speaks of it in this lan
guage: "We should not reason acutely, in order to
discover why Christ employs the word lambs rather
than sheep. He who would do this, should carefully
consider that he will only appear ridiculous to the
learned, for it is incontestable that those whom Christ
calls his lambs are the same as those he elsewhere desig
nates as his sheep. (Comment, in cap. xxi. John, § 30.)
St. Peter then was instituted neither the foundation-
stone of the Church nor its chief pastor.
It need not be denied, however, that a certain primacy
was accorded to this apostle. Although he was not the
first, in order of time, chosen by our Lord as disciple,
he is named the first by St. Matthew — this evangelist
wishing to name the twelve apostles, thus expresses
himself: "The first Simon, who is called Peter, and
Andrew his brother," etc. (Matt. 10:2.) St. Luke and St.
Mark also name St. Peter the first, although otherwise
they do not follow the same order in naming the others.
Upon many occasions Christ gave to Peter evidences
of particular consideration. His surname of Peter, with-

48 THE PAPACY.
out having all the importance that the Roman theolo
gians attach to it, was nevertheless given to him to
signify the firmness of his faith, and for the purpose of
honoring him. Ordinarily Peter was always the first to
question our Lord, and to answer him in the name of
the other disciples. The evangelists use this expres
sion, " Peter and those with him," to describe the apos
tolic body. (Mark 1 : 36 ; Luke 8 : 45 ; 9 : 32.) From
these facts can we conclude, with the Doctor de la
Chambre, " that Christ had granted to St. Peter above
all his colleagues in the apostolate, a primacy of juris
diction and authority in the government of the Church ?
(Traite de l'Eglise, 1st vol.) This consequence is not
logical. In the first place it is possible to he first in
a corporation without having necessarily jurisdiction and
authority — to be, as it is said, first among equals— pri
mus inter pares. Moreover, St. Peter is not alway3
named first in the Holy Scriptures ; thus St. John names
Andrew before him, (1 : 44 ;) St. Paul names him after
James, (Galat. 2:9;) he even names him after the other
apostles and the brethren of the Lord, (1st Corinth. 9 :
5.) " Peter then was only the first among the apostles as
Stephen was the first among deacons." These words are
St. Augustine's, (Sermon 316.) Origen, (upon St. John,)
St. Cyprian (71st letter to Quint.) have the same idea.
We can affirm that no Father of the Church has seen in
the primacy of Peter, any title to jurisdiction or absolute
authority in the government of the Church. They would
not have been able to draw these conclusions without
contradicting Holy Scripture itself.
Christ forbade his apostles to take, in relation to each
other, the titles of Master, Doctor, and even Father, or
Pope, which signifies the same thing. His words are
positive, (Matt. 23 : 8) : "Be ye not called Rabbi: for
one is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon earth, for one is your

THE PAPACY. 49
Father which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters :
for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is
greatest among you shall be your servant."
Upon comparing these words of the Gospel with the
pictures that the Roman theologians make of the pre
rogatives of the bishop of Rome, it will be easily seen
that these theologians are not in the truth.
St. Matthew relates that Peter having interrogated Je
sus Christ upon the prerogatives of the apostles, our
Lord answers him, saying : " Verily I say unto you, that
ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when
the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye
shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of IsraeL"
If Christ had destined a superior seat to Peter, if he
had granted to him a higher position than to the other
apostles, would he have said to St. Peter himself that
the twelve apostles should be seated upon twelve thrones
without distinction ?
The conclusion from all this is, that there is in the
Church but one master, but one lord, one chief shep
herd. Saith Christ: "I am the Good Shepherd." .(John
10 : 11.) "Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say
well, for so I am." " One is your Master, even Christ."
(Matt. 23 : 10.)
He is seated alone upon the throne of his majesty, in
the heavenly city whose " wall has twelve foundations,
and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the
Lamb. (Rev. 21:14.) The first pastors are there upon the
their seats, judging the tribes of the new people of God.
If any discussions arise that can not be amicably set
tled, they must be carried to this tribunal; not to one
alone, but before the whole Church, represented by
those ordained to govern it.
There is nothing then in the writings of the New Tes-

50 THE PAPACY.
tament which is even remotely favorable to that sove
reign authority that the Romish theologians ascribe to St.
Peter and, to the bishops of Rome, whom they consider
his successors.
It may be even said that Scripture formally contradicts
this authority. We have already quoted some words
of Christ sufficiently positive. The book of the Acts,
and the Epistles contain facts demonstrating that St.
Peter did not enjoy any superiority in the apostolic col
lege. In fact, it is said in the Acts, (8 : 14,) "Now
when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto
them Peter and John." Peter was subordinate, not
only to the apostolic college, of which he was a mem
ber, but to a lesser number of apostles in convention
at Jerusalem ; since he received from them a mission.
In the same book, (11 : 2-3,) we read that the faithful
of the circumcision reproached Peter for mingling with
the uncircumcised, and Peter excused himself by re
lating that he had obeyed an express order of God. Is
this the mode in which a chief is ordinarily treated, or
that one supreme would act in relation to subordinates ?
At the council of Jerusalem, (Acts 15 : 7,) Peter was
not presiding, it was James who gave sentence, (19th
verse,) Peter spoke but in his turn as a simple member.
Yet the presidency belonged to him by right, if he had
been vested with authority and jurisdiction over the
whole apostolic body. St. Paul (Epis. Galatians 2 : 7,
etc.) refutes the primacy of Peter. He affirms that he is
his equal, he relates having reprimanded Peter for " walk
ing- not according to the truth of the Gospel." (1 4th verse.)
Again, he denies this (1 Corinth. 3 : 4, 5, 22) when he
affirms that Peter is but a simple minister like himself,
like Apollos, who must not attach the faithful to them
selves, but only as ministers of Christ, their only Mas
ter. Finally, St. Peter himself denies the primacy with

THE PAPACY. 51
which he has since been invested by Romish theologi
ans, when he addressed himself to the pastors of the
churches which he had founded as their colleague. (1
Pet. 1 : 1.)

52 THE PAPACY.

HL

OF THE AUTHORITY OP THE BISHOPS OF ROME IK THE
FIRST THREE CENTURIES.
HISTORY shows us that the Fathers and Bish
ops, during the first eight centuries, have
given to Holy Scripture-the same interpreta
tion that we have just set forth. If the
Bishop of Rome had by divine right enjoyed universal
authority in the Church, if, as the successor of St. Peter,
he had been the vicar and representative of Christ, the
necessary centre of the Church, there is no doubt that
these prerogatives would have been recognized by
Christian antiquity, the faithful guardian of the Faith
and of Divine Institutions. Though the Church suffer,
after the lapse of ages, some decline on her human side,
that is to say, in the men that govern her, and form part
of her, it will not be assumed that this decay appeared
at the outset. It is natural and logical to go back to
the beginnings of an institution to become acquainted
with its true character ; it is there we find the necessary
starting-point from which to trace its development, its
progress, or lapses, age by age. If we prove that the
primitive Church did not recognize in the Bishop of
Rome the authority which he now assumes, that this
authority is only an usurpation dating from the ninth
century, it must necessarily be concluded, that this au
thority is not of Divine origin, and that consequently,
it is the duty of every Church and all the faithful to
protest against it, aud combat with it.

THE PAPACY. 53
Now we can affirm, after deep and conscientious study
of the historical and doctrinal remains of the first eight
centuries of the Church, that the Bishop of Rome has
no ground for claiming universal authority, that such
authority has foundation neither in the Word of God
nor the laws of the Church.
The first document by which the partisans of the Pa
pal sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written
by St. Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to
the Church at Corinth. They assert, that it was written
by virtue of a superior authority attached to his title of
Bishop of Rome.
Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was
not Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians.
2d. That in this matter, he did not act of his own au
thority, but in the name of the Church at Rome, and
from motives of charity.
The letter signed by St. Clement was written a.d. 69,
immediately after the persecution by Nero, which took
place between the years 64 and 68, as all learned men
agree. Many scholars, accepting as an indisputable fact
that the letter to the Corinthians was written while
Clement was Bishop of Rome, assign its date to the
reign of Domitian. But Clement only succeeded Anen-
cletus in the See of Rome, in the twelfth year of Do-
mitian's reign, that is to say, a.d. 93, and held this See
until a.d. 102. The testimony of Eusebius leaves no
doubt upon this point.*
Now, it may be seen from the letter itself that it was
written after a persecution ; if it be pretended that this
persecution was that of Domitian, then the letter must
be dated in the last years of the first century, since it
was chiefly in the years 95 and 96 that the persecution
of Domitian took place. Now, it is easy to see from
the letter itself, that it was written before that time, for
* Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book III. chaps, xiii., xv., xxxiv.

54 THE PAPACY.
it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still existing in the
temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed with
the city of Jerusalem, by Titus, a.d. 70. Hence, the
letter must have been written before that year. Be
sides, the letter was written after some persecution, in
which had suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious mar
tyrs. There was nothing of the kind in the persecution
of Domitian. The persecution of Nero lasted from the
year 64 to the year 68. Hence it follows, that the letter
to the Corinthians could only have been written in the
year 69, that is to say, twenty-four years before Cle
ment was Bishop of Rome.
In presence of this simple calculation what becomes
of the stress laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty,
upon the importance of this document as emanating
from Pope St. Clement ?
Even if it could be shown that the letter of St. Cle
ment was written during his episcopate, this would
prove nothing, because this letter was not written by
him by virtue of a superior and personal authority pos
sessed by him, but from mere charity, and in the name
of the Church at Rome. Let us hear Eusebius upon
this subject :
" Of this Clement there is one epistle extant, acknow
ledged as genuine, .... which he wrote in the name
of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the time
when there was a dissension in the latter. This we
know to have been publicly read, for common benefit, in
most of the churches, both in former times and in our
own ; and that at the time mentioned, a sedition did
take place at Corinth, is abundantly attested by Hege-
sippus."* Eusebius, further on, recurs to the letter of Clement,
and again remarks that it was written in the name of
* Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book III. chap. xvi.

THE PAPACY. 55
the Church at Rome* He could not say more explicitly,
that Clement did not in this matter act of his own au
thority, by virtue of any power he individually pos
sessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a suspicion
of such authority. It thus commences : " The Church
of God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which
is at Corinth." The writer speaks of the Ecclesiastical
Ministry, in relation to several Priests whom the Corin
thians had rejected most unjustly; he looks upon this
Ministry as wholly derived from the Apostolic Suc
cession, attributing neither to himself nor to others
any Primacy in it.
There is every reason to believe that St. Clement
draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first
centuries it has been considered as his work. It was
not as Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apos
tles, that he wrote it. Without having been charged
with the government of the Roman Church he had been
made Bishop by St. Peter, and had been the companion
of St. Paul in many of his Apostolic visitations. It
may be, that he had worked with St. Paul for the con
version of the Corinthians. It was natural, therefore,
that he should be commissioned to draw up the letter
of the Church of Rome to a Church of which he had
been one of the founders. And so, Clement speaks to
them in the name of the Apostles, and above all of St.
Paul, who had begotten them to the faith. Even had
he written to them as Bishop of Rome, it would not be
possible to infer any thing from this in favour of his
universal' authority. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Ire-
nseus of Lyons, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, have writ
ten letters to divers churches, not excepting that of
Rome, without thereby pretending to any other autho
rity than that they possessed as bishops, to do God's
work in all places. • Ibid. chap, xxxvlil.

56 THE PAPACY.
Nothing can properly be inferred, either from the
letter itself or from the circumstances under which it
was written, that should make this proceeding on the part
of the Corinthians appear in the light of an acknowledg
ment of any superior authority in the Bishop or the
Church of Rome ; or this answer in the light of an
authoritative act. The Corinthians addressed themselves
to a Church where dwelt the fellow-labourers of St. Paul,
their father in the faith ; and that Church, through Cle
ment as her organ, recommended peace and concord to
them, without the least pretension to any authority
whatever. Thus, in the intervention of Clement, no proof can be
found to support the pretended authority of the Bish
ops of Rome. Clement was the deputy of the clergy of
Rome in that affair, chosen because of his capacity, his
former connection with the Corinthians, his relation
with the Apostles, and the influence he had for these
various reasons. But he did not act as Bishop of Rome,
much less as having authority over the Cliurch of Cor
inth. In the second century the question concerning Easter
was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental
Churches wished to follow the Judaical traditions, pre
served by several Apostles in the celebration of that
feast, and to hold it upon the fourteenth day of the
March moon ; other Eastern Churches, in agreement
with the Western Churches, according to an equally
Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the
Sunday following the fourteenth day of the March
moon. The question in itself considered was of no great im
portance ; and yet it was generally thought that all the
Churches should celebrate at one and the same time the
great Christian festival, and th.it some should not be

THE PAPACY. 57
rejoicing over the resurrection of the Saviour, while
others were contemplating the mysteries of his death.
How was the question settled ? Did the Bishop of
Rome interpose his authority and overrule the discus
sion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a
supreme authority ?
Let us take the evidence of History. The question
having been agitated, "there were synods and convo
cations of the Bishops on this question," says Eusebius,*
" and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree,
which they communicated to all the Churches in all
places. . . . There is an epistle extant even now of
those who were assembled at the time ; among Avhom
presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church in Cesarea
and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is another
epistle " [of the Roman Synod] " extant on the same
question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also
of the Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the
most ancient, presided ; also of the Churches of Gaul,
over whom Irenaeus presided. Moreover, one from
those in Osrhoenc, and the cities there. And a particu
lar epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the Corinthians ;
and epistles of many others who, advancing one and
the same doctrine, also passed the same vote."
It is evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the
Roman synod in the same terms as of the others ; he
does not attribute it to Bishop Victor, but to the as
sembly of the Roman Clergy ; and lastly, he only men
tions it in the second place after that of the Bishops of
Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably established ; it is that in
the matter of Easter, the Church of Rome discussed
and judged the question in the same capacity as the
other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only
signed the letter in the name of the synod which repre-
* Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap, xxlii.

58 THE PAPACY.
sented that Church. The partisans of the Papal author
ity affirm that it was Victor who commanded the coun
cils to assemble. This assertion is altogether false.*
Several Oriental Bishops did not conform to the deci
sion of the others. Polycrates of Ephesus, above all,
protested against it.f Then a lively discussion arose
between him and Victor, Bishop of Rome, who seemed
to think that the Bishop of Ephesus would be alone in
his opinion, and advised him, in consequence, to ask the
opinion of the other Bishops of his province. Polycrates
complied, and those Bishops declared themselves in favor
of his opinion ; he wrote thus to Victor, who threatened
to separate them from his communion.
This did not move Polycrates ; he replied vigorously,
saying to him particularly . " They who are greater
than I have said ' we ought to obey God rather than
men.' Upon this Victor, the Bishop of the Church
of Rome, forthwith endeavoured \ to cut off the Church
es of all Asia, together with the neighboring Churches,
as heterodox, from the common unity. And he publish
ed abroad by letters, and proclaimed that all the brethren
there were wholly excommunicated." Thus Eusebius.
It is difficult to believe that the partisans of the Ro
man pretensions can find in these words of Eusebius
and in the conduct of Victor any proof in favor of their
system. WTithout much effort, they might find in them
a proof to the contrary The expression of Eusebius,
that " Victor endeavoured" etc., must first be noticed.
It is clear that those who endeavour have not in them
selves the power to do that which they have in view,
otherwise the act would follow the will. Victor, how
ever, did all he could in order that this excommunica
tion should be recognized — he e\en pronounced it ; but
* Among the Roman theologians who make this false assertion, we will particu
larly name Darruel in his work entitled Du Pape et de ves Droits. This book
sums up all the errors and exaggerations of the Romish theologians.
t Eusebius Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiv. J TTEtpurai ; Euseb. loe. eit.

THE PAPACY. 59
that act remained but an attempt, and had to be ratified
by the other Churches in order to be valid. Victor did
not have, then, as Bishop of Rome, the power to ex
communicate other Churches, since the effect did not
follow the sentence which he believed himself entitled
to give in the name of the Western Churches, because
of the importance of his See.
The Bishops, who would have submitted to his sen
tence, if they had recognized in him the Head of the
Church, invested with universal authority, not only did
not obey him, but strongly censured his conduct.
" But this," adds Eusebius, " was not the opinion of
all the Bishops. They immediately exhorted him,"
[Victor] " on the contrary, to contemplate that course
that was calculated to promote peace, unity, and love
to one another."
Thus, instead of believing that unity consisted in
union with Victor, the bishops exhorted him to observe
better the true notions of unity. Many went even fur
ther. " There are also extant," continues Eusebius,
" the expressions they used, who pressed upon Victor
with much severity. Among these also was Irenseus,
who, in the name of those brethren in Gaul, over whom
he presided, wrote an epistle in which he maintains
the duty of celebrating the mystery of the resurrection
of our Lord only on the day of the Lord. He becom
ingly also admonishes Victor not to cut off whole
churches of God who observed the tradition of an an
cient custom." Irenseus endeavored to show to Victor
that differences in practice, of which he gives divers ex
amples, are not inconsistent with Unity of Faith. "And
when," adds Eusebius, " the blessed Polycarp went to
Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little
difference among themselves likewise respecting other
matters they immediately were reconciled, not disputing
much with one another on this head. For neither could

60 THE PAPACY.
Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because
he had always observed it" [a certain custom] " with
John the disciple of our Lord, aud the rest of the Apos
tles with whom he associated ; and neither did Polycarp
persuade Anicetus to observe, who said that he was
bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before
him. Which thing being so, they communed with each
other ; aud in the church Anicetus yielded to Polyqarp
the office of consecrating." And thus, though following
different usages, all remained in the communion of the
Church. " And not only to Victor, but likewise to the
most of the other rulers of the churches, he sent letters
of exhortation on the agitated question."*
Thus Victor could not, of his own authority, cut off
from the Church, in fact, those whom he had declared
excommunicate ; the other Bishops resisted him vigor
ously, and St. Irenaeus, the great divine of the age, made
war in his letters upon those which Victor had written
to provoke the schism.
This discussion, invoked by the partisans of Papal
pretensions in their favor, falls back upon them with all
its weight, and with a force that can not in good faith
be contested.
Anicetus did not invoke his authority against Poly
carp, nor did Victor against Irenoeus and the other
Bishops. Polycarp and Irenseus reasoned and wrote as
equals of the Bishop of Rome in Episcopal authority,
and recognized but one rule — ancient tradition.
How were the Churches reunited in a common prac
tice ? Eusebius thus relates that happy result, which
certainly was not due to the Bishop of Rome :f
" The Bishops, indeed, of Palestine, Narcissus and
Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the Bishop of the
Church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that
* Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiv.
t Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxv.

THE PAPACY. 61
came together with them, having advanced many things
respecting the tradition that had been handed down to
them by succession from the Apostles, regarding the
Passover, at the close of the epistle use these words :
' Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the
Church, that we may not give occasion to those whose
minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also,
that they observe the same day at Alexandria which we
also do ; for letters have been sent by us to them and
from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season
with one mind and at one time.' "
Nevertheless, many Churches preserved the tradition
of the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus, and were not
on that account regarded as schismatics, although Victor
had separated himself from their communion.
The partisans of the Papal system attach much im
portance to the influence exercised by the Bishop of
Rome in the question of Easter and some other matters :
they transform that influence into authority. This is an
untenable paralogism. It is not to be wondered at that
the Bishop of Rome should have enjoyed from the first
a high influence in religious questions ; for he filled the
first See of the West, and as Bishop of the Capital of
the Empire, he was the natural link between East and
West. It was then understood that the Catholic Church
was not exclusively in any country ; that the East pos
sessed no more universal authority than the West.
This is why certain heretics, born and condemned in the
East sought protection in the West, and above all at
Rome its representative. Thus it is, that even some
saints— as Polycarp of Smyrna— went themselves to
Rome to confer with the Bishop of that city upon
religious questions.
But it is not possible conscientiously to study these
facts from reliable documents without eliciting this
truth : that the influence of the Bishop of Rome did not

62 THE PAPACY.
arise in an universal authority — that it did not even
have its source in an authority recognized by all the
Western Churches, but was simply derived from the im
portance of his See.
Rome was the centre of all communications between
different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded
thither from all quarters — whether for political business
or private interests — and thus her testimony as an Apos
tolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who
came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the
witness of all the Churches to which they severally be
longed. Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenseus, of which
the Roman theologians have made the strangest mis
use.* This great theologian, attacking the heretics who
sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes
against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved every
where and always. " But," he adds, " as it would be
very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession
of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great
and very ancient Church and known of all, which was
founded and established at Rome by the two very glo
rious Apostles, Peter and Paul ; whicli possesses a tra
dition that comes from the Apostles as much as the
Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to
us through the succession of her Bishops ; by that, we
confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either
through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where
they should ; for every Church, that is to say, the
faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go to
ward that Church, because of the most powerful prin
cipality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles
has been preserved by those who are of all coun-
tries."f * St. Irameus, In Hseres. Lib. III. cap. iii.
t We must quote the text of St, Irenffius, that it may be compared with our trans-

THE PAPACY. 63
The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of
this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor
of the Papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faith
ful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, be
cause it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of gov
ernment, and the centre of all business, civil and politi
cal, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree
with — which is a misinterpretation ; they make poten-
tiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and
they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are
only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates
that they do not solely designate the capital and princi
pal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximce,
antiquissimce, by greatest and most ancient, without re
flecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenaeus an asser
tion manifestly false ; for, granting that the Church of
Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not cer
tainly be called the most ancient — every one knew that
a great number of churches had been founded in the
East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation
does not make the author say in conclusion, that the
Apostolic tradition has oeen preserved at Rome, by
those who were of all countries — (ab his qui sunt
undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX., in his
Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, "In
all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a
misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing non
sense to the good Father.
In the text as we render it all things hang together.
lation " Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tall volumine omnium ecclesiarum
enumerare successiones ; maxima et antiquissimce et omnibus cognitce, a glo-
riosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Romse fundatse et constitutes Ecclesiae,
earn quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per suc
cessiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes
eos qui quoquomodo, vel per ccecitatem et malam sententiam prseterquam oportet
colligunt. Ad banc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, ne
cesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique fideles ; in
qua semper ab his qui sunt unetique,conseroata est ea,quce, est ab Apostolis, Tra-
ditlo."

64 THE PAPACY.
St. Irenseus after having established that only the uni
versal Faith should be received, points out to the here
tics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them
an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradi
tion had been there preserved by the faithful of the
whole world.
How then could St. Irenams, whose purpose it is to
give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief,
and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chap
ter from which the text is taken, logically say what is
attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians ?
He would then have argued thus : It is necessary to
adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches ; but it
suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to
which there must be uniformity and submission, because
of her primacy. St. Irenseus never expressed so unrea
sonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the
universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith
of the Church of Rome as true — thanks to the concourse
of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and
who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How
did they preserve it ? Because they would have pro
tested against any change in the traditions of their own
churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St.
Irenseus does not give the pretended Divine authority
of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preserva
tion of tradition in the Cliurch of that city — but logic
ally, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of
other Churches who controlled her traditions by those
of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invin
cible obstacle to innovation.
It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the
Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there
gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence
in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead.
But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attend-

THE PAPACY. 65
ing those transactions in which he took part, show that
he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other
Bishops. It is clear that all discussion relative to this text of
St. Irenasus turns upon the sense to be given to the word
convenire. If this word signifies to agree with, we must
conclude that the venerable writer thought all must
necessarily agree with the Church of Rome, and with
out that it is imjiossible to be in tho unity. If the word
means to go, all the Ultramontane scaffolding will fall
of itself, for it can not reasonably be affirmed that all
the faithful must of necessity go to Rome, even though
the Church established in that city should be the first
and principal Church, the centre of Unity. It follows
that the sense of this word should be determined in so
evident a manner that there remain no doubt in respect
to it.
We have already remarked that the preposition ad
determined the sense of it — we can add niany others to
this already conclusive proof.
If we possessed the Greek text of the passage in
question, there is no doubt there would not be the un
certainty resulting from the Latin word. But Eusebius
and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments
of the primitive text. Now it happens that in these
fragments the good Father uses expressions which the
Latin translator has rendered by the word convenire,
and which have no meaning except just this one of go
ing — whether together or separately.
In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne's edition,
col. 785,) St, Irenajus says : " All the priests who have
gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness
to it."
Greek text : teal navres ol ¦npeabvTepot. fiaprvpovoiv, ol
Kara rfjv 'Aoiav 'luxa-vvn tu> rov Kvplov uaBnry avii6e6Xrj-
KOTSg.

66 THE PAPACY,
Latin translation : " Omnes seniores testantur qui in
Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt."
In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne's edition, col.
947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scrip
ture, St. Irenaeus says of them, " Being assembled at
Ptolemy's house," etc.
In Greek : " SweXOovtuxv de avrwv £nl to avrb napa
tS> TlToXeuaiut."
The Latin translator renders this " Convenientibus
autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemaeum."
The Benedictine Massuet, editor of St. Irenaeus's
works, pretends that St. Irenaeus must have used in tho
text in question, the words avutaivetv npog rrjv ruv
Fuuaiuv 'EKtcXr/oiav. And he pretends that ovudaivetv
npos riva is the same thing as ovubaivuv rtvi.
Although this opinion were unimpeachable, such eru
dition would be worth nothing, for we must content
ourselves with supposing that the good father has used
the word avubaiveiv. It would seem to us more natural
and logical to look for the unknown word among the
known words, which the translator renders convenire.
Now from that study, it should appear that St. Irenaeus
did not use ovu6aiveiv, but avutetXiiKOTeg, which has
the sense of a running together toward a place, or of
avveXdovreg, which has an analogous signification, since,
in the Greek texts that have been preserved, he has used
these words to express the idea for which the trans
lator used convenire.
In general, the translator of St. Irenaeus gives to the
word convenire the sense of to go, and not to agree with.
Why then give it this sense in the famous text in ques
tion, when in the text itself the preposition ad gives the
idea of direction toward a place, and the adverb undique
gives that of departure from all places other than Rome
where the faithful were found ?
Nothing is wanting to prove that it is impossible to

THE PAPACY.

67

give to the words of St. Irenaeus the sense attributed to
them by the Romish theologians. The good father then
has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all
countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their bu
siness, because that city was the first and most powerful
of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic
tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith
of the Churches to which they belonged.
It is certain that Rome, in her position as an Aposto
lic Church, had a very great authority during the first
centuries, and Tertullian is right in calling her as a wit
ness against the heretic to whom he said, " Thou hast
Rome, whose authority is close at hand. Happy Church !
to whom the Apostles gave all the doctrine with their
blood !" (De Praescrip. c. xxxvi.) But cannot an Apos
tolic Church bear witness to the Faith against heresy
without enjoying universal and divine authority ?
St. Cyprian was right in calling the Church of Rome,
" the chair of Peter ; the principal Church, from whence
6acerdotal unity emanated." (St. Cyp. 55th epis. to
Cornelius.) But for all that, did he pretend that the
Bishop enjoyed authority by Divine right ? He believed
it so little, that in his Treatise upon the Unity of the
Church, he understands by the " chair of Peter" the
entire Episcopate, he regards St. Peter as the equal of
the other Apostles and denies his primacy, he makes St.
Peter to be the simple type of the unity of the Apostolic
College.* Therefore, it is in a limited sense that he calls
the Church of Rome the chair of Peter ; he makes her
the principal Church — but that was a fact resulting from
her exterior importance. She was the source of Sacer
dotal Unity in this sense that Peter was the sign and
type of the unity of the Apostolic College. To give any
other sense to the text from the letter of St. Cyprian to
* Further on will be found entire the texts of St. Cyprian and TertuUIaa.

68 THE PAPACY.
Cornelius would be to contradict the Treatise on the
Unity of the Church, to attribute to St. Cyprian two
contradictory doctrines, and consequently to take from
him all logic and all authority.
Those who have given such high importance to the
text of St. Cyprian, taken from his letter to Cornelius,
have forgotten another that so well explains it that it
is difficult to understand how they have omitted it. It
is that in which he declares that, " Rome should precede
Carthage, because of its great size— pro magnitudine
sua.*" This doctrine agrees with that of St. Irenseus
and the other Fathers, who have never mentioned any
divine prerogative with which the Church of Rome had
been favored.
St. Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and many
other Western Fathers have praised the Church of Rome
as an Apostolic Church, and have attached a high im
portance to her testimony in questions of faith. But
not one of them asoribes to her any such doctrinal au
thority that her testimony would cf itself be sufficient
to -determine questions under discussion. It must even
be remarked that St. Augustine sets up the authority
of the Oriental churches against the Donatists, and
does not mention that of Rome, although she was the
Apostolic Church of the West. St. Irenaeus would be
the only one to sustain that doctrine, if we should re
ceive his text as translated by the Romish theologians.
But we have seen that this interpretation is'false, and
that he has attributed to the testimony of the Church
of Rome a great authority in this sense only : that it
had received the Apostolic tradition, and, thanks to the
Believers who congregated there from all parts, that tra
dition had been preserved pure unto his times. There
fore, it was not because the Church of Rome was the
* Cypr. Ep. 69 ad Cornel.

THE PAPACY. 69
principal, the first, the most powerful in Christendom
that her testimony was chiefly valuable, but because of
the Believers from other churches, who strengthened it
by their adherence.
When Constantinople had become the capital of the
Roman Empire, St. Gregory Nazienzen said of that
Church, what St. Irenaeus had said of that of Rome, and
with still more formal expressions. " This city," said
he, " is the eye of the world. The most distant nations
press toward her from all parts, and they draw from her
as from a spring the principles of the Faith." (Greg.
Naz. 42d dis., §10, col.. 470, Migne's edit.) The Latin
translation of St. Gregory, like that of St. Irenaeus, em
ploys the word convenire to express the crowding of
people toward Constantinople. Must we give to it the
sense of agreeing with, because this Father calls Con
stantinople not only a powerful and principal Church —
but the eye of the world, source of faith ?
The ninth canon of the Council of Antioch held in
341, will of itself be sufficient to determine the sense of
the text of St. Irenaeus. The canon reads : " Let the
bishops established in each province know that to the
bishop of the metropolitan city is confided the care of
the whole province, because all those who have business
come to the metropolis from all parts. Therefore it has
appeared advisable to grant a superior honor to him."
If the faithful were drawn to a mere metropolis to
transact their business, how much more to the capital of
the empire, which was for them a necessary centre, and
in which they must meet from all parts of the empire !
Such is the fact established by St. Irenaeus, and from it
he concludes that the witness of the Church of Rome
should suffice to confound heretics.
Finally let us remark, that the chapter of the learned
Father only relates to the heretics of Rome, for whom
he destined the book ; and that will convince us, that it

70 THE PAPACY.
is a strange abuse of the words to give them an abso
lute sense, making them relate to heretics in general,
and to all ages ; for he only affirmed that the Roman
Church had preserved her apostolic tradition pure to his
time, and not, that she would always so preserve it.
The discussion upon the baptism of heretics throws
further light upon the question we are examining.
From all antiquity,* it was customary merely to im
pose hands upon those who had fallen into heresy, and
wished to reenter the bosom of the Church. In the third
century a grave discussion arose upon this subject. St.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was the first in the West
who maintained that baptism should be readministered
to converted heretics. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria,
who at that time exerted a great influence throughout
the Church by reason of his holiness, his zeal and learn
ing, declared himself openly for the Bishop of Carthage,
and wrote upon the subject to Stephen, Bishop of Rome.
Stephen, persuaded that no change should be made in a
tradition handed down from time immemorial, was very
much grieved at an opinion which he looked upon as an
innovation. St. Cyprian admitted the existence of the
custom, but he contended that it was not lawful. He
even took advantage of a contrary doctrine that he
said his church had preserved, and according to which
baptism administered by heretics was regarded as null.
St. Cyprian, having assembled several councils of bish
ops of the province of Africa, sent their transactions to
Stephen, with a letter,f in which he said, " I believe that
I should write to you upon a subject that concerns the
unity and dignity of the Church Catholic, and should
confer upon it, with a man so grave and so wise as
you." It is not, as one may see, to a superior that he ad-
* Euseb. EccL Hist. Book VII. chaps, ii. and UL
t Cyprian, Epp. 72, 73, ad. Steph.

THE PAPACY. 11
dresses himself, but to an equal whose gravity and wis
dom he esteems. He even makes him understand, that
he is in error in supporting the custom of the Roman
Church. He says :* " I am persuaded that your faith
and piety make that which conforms to the truth agree
able to you. However, we know there are some who
will not abandon sentiments with which they have been
once imbued, and who maintain particular usages, with
out interrupting harmony among the Bishops. In such
cases we do no violence and impose no law upon any
one." St. Cyprian does not wish here to impose his opinion
upon Stephen ; but he blames him for preserving that
which he regards as a prejudice contrary to the truth.
Stephen rejected the doctrine of St. Cyprian ; he fur
ther declared that he would not even communicate with
him, nor with the Bishops of Cilicia, of Cappadocia and
Galatia, who followed the same doctrine. Dionysius of
Alexandriaf wrote to him, to exhort him to peace ; tell
ing him that all the Oriental churches, although divided
in their opinions, on the doctrines of Novatus, were in
most perfect union, and rejoicing in that happy result.
He counselled him not to trouble again the Church in
regard to the baptism of heretics.
At this stage of the matter Xystus succeeded Stephen.
Dionysius of Alexandria hastened to write to him to dis
suade him from following the way of Stephen. He
says of this bishop: J "He had written before respecting
Helenus and Firmilian, and all those from Cilicia and
Cappadocia and Galatia and all the nations adjoining,
that he would not have communion with them on this
account, because they, said he, rebaptized the heretics ;
and behold, I pray you, the importance of the matter ;
• Ibid.
t Letter of St. Dionysius of Alex. In Eusebius, Eccl Hist Book TEL chap, v.
t Letter of St. Dion, of Alex. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Book VII. chap. v.

72 THE PAPACY.
for in reality, as I have ascertained, decrees have been
passed in the greatest councils of the Bishops, that those
who come from the heretics are first to be instructed,
and then are to be washed and purified from the filth of
their old and impure leaven. And respecting all these
things I have sent letters entreating them."
St. Dionysius did not see an act of authority in the
letter of Stephen, but an intervention that might throw
a new germ of trouble in the Church ; it was on this
ground that he wished to check him. Instead of troub
ling the Church, Stephen would have pacified it, if a
universal authority had been recognized in him. This
consideration suffices to establish the entirely private
and personal character of his letter.
What had been the result ? Was he obeyed, as he
would have been had the Bishop of Rome had supreme
authority? Was his separation regarded as breaking
the unity of the Church ? Assuredly not ! St. Diony
sius of Alexandria acted in this affair as St. Irenaeus did
in the question of Easter ; he declared openly for those
who differed with the Bishop of Rome, while to the
latter he addressed earnest prayers for the peace of the
Church. St. Cyprian assembled a new council of the
bishops of Africa, who confirmed their first opinion ; and
he consulted with Firmilian, in order to oppose the en
tire Church against the Roman Church in this question.
Firmilian answered St. Cyprian in a letter, that will
show the belief of Oriental Christendom touching the
authority of the Bishops of Rome.*
" Firmilian to his brother in the Lord, Cyprian, greet
ing: " We have received by our very dear deacon Roga-
tian, whom you have sent to us, the letter, beloved bro
ther, that you have written us ; and we have rendered
* Firmilian to St. Cyp. among the letters of the latter. Seventy-fifth letter. Edit.
Baluze — reviewed by the Benedictines.

THE PAPACY. 73
thanks to God, that while being thus separated in body,
we are united in spirit, as if we were dwelling, not only
in the same country, but in the same house ; which may
well be said, since the spiritual house of God is one. In the
last days, says the prophet, the mountain of the Lord,
and the house qf God, placed on the summit qf the
mountains, shall be manifested. Reunited in this house,
we there enjoy the bliss of unity. It is what the psalm
ist asks of the Lord — to dwell in the house of the Lord
all the days qf his life. Whence, and from another
passage, appears the happiness of the saints in being
united: Oh! how good and pleasant a thing it is for
brethren to live together in unity. In fact, union,
peace, and concord confer a very great felicity, not only
to faithful men who know the truth, but to the angels
of heaven themselves, who according to the divine word
experience joy when a sinner repents and returns to the
bond of unity. This woidd not be said of the angels who
inhabit heaven, if they also were not united to us, who
rejoice over our union ; as, on the other hand, they are
grieved when they see hearts and minds in division, not
only as though they did not invoke the same and only
God, but as if they would not speak to or hear each
other. But in this we may be grateful to Stephen ; for,
by his violence, he has put your faith and wisdom to
trial ; yet if we have an advantage because of him, it is
not to him that we owe it. Truly, Judas for his perfidy
and treachery which he so criminally employed toward his
Saviour, should not be regarded as the cause of the great
blessings that the passion of the Lord procured for us, in
delivering the world and all people. But for the present
we will pass over what Stephen has done, fearing, lest
in remembering his audacity and insolence, we experi
ence too much grief at his bad actions."
This preamble of Firmilian's letter demonstrates that
he was very far from placing the centre of unity in the

74 THE PAPACY.
pope. In his eyes, Stephen was but a bishop, full of au
dacity and insolence, because he had dared to separate
himself from the communion of those who had another
belief frtfm his own upon the question of the baptism
of heretics ; and he even goes so far as to compare him
to Judas. Nor must it be forgotten that Firmilian
was one of the holiest and wisest bishops of his time.
The principle of unity he placed in God ; he says,
" As it is but one and the same Lord that dwells in us,
he joins and knits together his own among themselves,
by the bond of unity, in whatever place they may be."
As for the Church of Rome, which it is sought to im
pose upon us now as the centre of unity, he thus speaks
of her :
"Those who are at Rome do not observe all the
things which were given at the beginning, and it is in
vain that they pretend to support themselves upon the
authority of the apostles : it is thus, that, upon the day
for the celebration of Easter, and upon a great number
of other mysteries of religion, there are diversities among
them, and that they do not observe all that is observed
at Jerusalem ; likewise in other provinces, many varieties
are encountered according to the diversity of places
and tongues ; yet they are not separated for all that
from the peace and unity of the Church Universal."
The Church of Jerusalem was the model church, ac
cording to Firmilian ; she was the mother of all the others,
and the purest type after which all the others should form
themselves. As for the Church of Rome, she could, like
any other private church, be cut off from unity. This ia
why he declared so energetically against Stephen, who
had dared to break peace with the bishops of Africa ; who
slandered the Apostles Peter and Paul, by pretend
ing to follow their traditions. " I have reason," he said,
" to be indignant at the manifest folly of Stephen, who,
on the one hand, glories in his episcopal seat, and pre-

THE PAPACY. 75
tends to possess the succession of Peter, upon whom the
foundations of the Church were placed, and who, on the
other hand, introduces other stones, (Pierres,) and con
structs new buildings for other churches, by asserting,
upon his own authority, that they possess the true bap
tism. . .
"Stephen, who boasts of possessing the see of St.
Peter by succession, shows no zeal against the here
tics. . . You, Africans, you may say to Stephen, that
having known the truth, you have rejected the custom
of error ; but for us, we possess at the same time, truth
and usage ; we oppose our custom against that of the
Romans ; our usage is that of truth, preserving, since
the beginning, that which Christ and the Apostles have
given to us. . . Yet Stephen does not blush to affirm,
that those in sin cart remit sins, as though the waters
of life could be found in the house of the dead. WTiat 1
dost thou not fear God's judgment, when thou showest
thyself favorable to heretics against the Church ! But
thou art worse than all the heretics ; for when those
among them, who have recognized their error, come to
thee to receive the true light of the Church, thou then
comest in aid of their errors, and extinguishing the light
of the truth of the Church, thou gatherest around them
the darkness of the night of heresy. Dost thou not un
derstand that an account of these souls will be demand
ed of thee in the day of judgment, since thou hast re
fused the waters of the Church to those who were thirsty,
and hast caused the death of those who wished to live ?
And yet thou art angered ! Look at thy folly, who
darest to attack those who fight against falsehood for
truth's sake ! Who is it, that is most righteously an
gry with another? Is it he who agrees with the
enemies of God, or rather, he, who for the truth of the
Church, declares himself against those who agree with
the enemies of God ? . . What disputes, what discussions

76 THE PAPACY.
thou preparest for all the churches of the world ! What
grievous sin thou hast committed in separating thyself
from so many flocks ! Thou hast killed thyself; do not
deceive thyself ; for he is truly schismatic who renounc
es the communion of the unity of the Church ! While
thou thinkest that all others are separated from thee,
it is thou who art separated from all others." Thus
Firmilian speaks to the Bishop of Rome, and no one
dreamed of taxing him with wrong, even among those
who differed with him concerning the baptism of here
tics.* St. Dionysius of Alexandria without openly taking part
against the Bishop of Rome, endeavored to lead him to
the idea of rebaptizing. It is to this end that he dis
plays his doubts in regard to a man whom he had ad
mitted to the communion without rebaptizing him, and
who, nevertheless, scarcely dared to participate in the
body of the Lord, because he had only received baptism
among the heretics, and with guilty words and rites.
" Brother,"! he wrote to Xystus, " I have need of your
counsel, and I ask your opinion on an affair that has
presented itself to me, and in which, indeed, I am afraid
I may be deceived." It is not to a superior he addresses
himself, to ask a decision, but to an equal, to a brother,
* Some Ultramontanes have contested the authenticity of Firmilian's letter ; but
the most learned among them agree, with the learned of all the schools, to regard it
as authentic. The strongest reason that Barruel alleges to contest its authority,
is that Firmilian could not have written such a letter, since, according to St. Dionysius
of Alexandria, he was reconciled to the pope before the letter «ould have been
written. If Barruel had been a little more learned, he had known that in the letter of St.
Dionysius of Alexandria to Stephen, the letter to which he alludes, he does not say
that the whole church was in peace upon the subject of the baptism of heretics, since
the discussion was just beginning ; but that he only says, Stephen would be wrong to
trouble the church by this discusssion, when she was in the enjoyment of peace after
the troubles created by Novatus. The other pretended proofs of Barruel are still
more feeble, and do not deserve discussion. We only say that he has displayed
an extraordinary audacity in confronting thus the most Illustrious scholars of every
school, who admit this letter as authentic, without any dispute.
t Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book VII. chap. ix.

THE PAPACY. 77
in order to know his views, that he may himself come
to a determination. We ask every man in good faith, is
it thus that the Bishop of Alexandria would have writ
ten to the Bishop of Rome, if the latter had enjoyed
an authority universally acknowledged, to terminate
dogmatic or disciplinary discussions ?
We find in the acts of the last council of St. Cyprian
a very significant criticism upon the pretensions which
the Bishop of Rome had begun to put forth. After
having asked the advice of his colleagues, he speaks
thus, "Let each one give his opinion without judging
any one and without separating from the communion
those who are not of his opinion ; for none of us sets
himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor compels his
brethren to obey him by means vf tyrannical terror,
every bishop having full liberty and complete power ;
as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge
another. Let us all wait the judgment of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint us to
the government of his Church and to judge our conduct.*
It is evident that St. Cyprian had in view Stephen,
Bishop of Rome, who had dared to declare those out
of his communion who thought otherwise than he did
upon the baptism of heretics. The Roman Theologians
choose to consider these excommunications by the Bish
ops of Rome as sentences which separated from the
Church those upon whom they fell. But the manner in
which the sentence of Victor in the Easter question and
that of Stephen in the discussion upon the baptism were
considered, proves that they were only regarded as per
sonal acts of the Bishop of Rome, and had no other effect
than to sever the relations between him and those who
did not share his way of thinking. As for the unity of
the Church, that remained intact, for the very simple
reason that this unity did not consist in an union with
* Conell. Carth. St. Cyprian, pp. 829, 830, Bened. edit.

78 THE PAPACY.
the Bishop of Rome, and that those whom he separated
from his communion communicated with the rest of the
Church. Those only were considered out of the Church,
upon whom excommunication was declared by the
Church itself in general council, or in particular councils
to which the rest of the Church adhered.
The criticism made by St. Cyprian upon the title of
bishop of bishops leads one to think that the Bishop of
Rome endeavoured even then to assume it, and recalls a
remark of Tertullian.*
This learned priest of Carthage said ironically of a
Roman bishop whose teaching he censured : " I learn
that an edict has been given, even a peremptory edict,
the Sovereign Pontiff, that is, the Bishop of Bishops
has said : ' I remit the sins of impurity and of fornica
tion to those who do penance.' O edict ! not less then
can be done than to ticket it — Good work. But where
shall such an edict be posted ? Surely, I think upon the
doors of the houses of prostitution.". . . Tertullian
equally ridicules the titles of Pope and apostolic which
had been taken by the Bishops of Rome. Men like
Zephyrinus and Callistus his successor, f could well
appropriate pompous titles that they did not deserve ;
but the Church, instead of recognizing their legitimacy,
and regarding them as emanating from a divine right,
censured them by her most learned doctors, and looked
upon them as the evil fruit of pride and ambition. St.
Cyprian would not have been consistent with himself

* Tertull. de Pudicitia, § 1.
t See the work entitled $i%ooo<l>ov[ieva upon the scandal of these two unworthy
bishops, which with justice haB been attributed to St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Ostia,
or to the learned priest Caius. It is certain at any rate that this book is the work
of a writer contemporary with the events recorded, and one who enjoyed great
authority in the Roman Church. Tertullian reproaches a bishop of Rome with hav
ing adopted, owing to the seductions of Praxeas, the heresy of the Patripassians, (Lib.
adv. Pi-ax. § 1.) The author of $i?LO(7o<f>ovueva attributes this heresy to Zephy
rinus and to Callistus, Bishops of Rome at that time. He did not believe, It is evi
dent, in their infallibility.

THE PAPACY. 79
if he had submitted and declared himself in favour of
the pretensions of the Bishops of Rome. In fact, in his
Treatise upon Church Unity, he positively denies the
primacy of St. Peter himself; he makes that Apostle
merely to be the type of unity, which resided in the
apostolic college as a whole ; and by succession in the
whole episcopal body, which he calls the see of Peter.
It is only by a series of the strangest of distortions that
the Roman theologians understand by this last expression
the see of Rome. They can not give such a sense to it
without completely forgetting the rest of the text from
which this is taken. We will give it as an example
among a thousand of the want of good faith of the parti
sans of popery, when they cite from ancient traditions.
After mentioning the powers promised to St. Peter, St.
Cyprian remarks that Jesus Christ promised them to
him alone, though they were to be given to all. " In
order to show forth unity," he says, "the Lord has
wished that unity might draw its origin from one only.*
The other Apostles certainly were just what Peter
was, having the same honor and power as he.f All
are shepherds, and the flock nourished by all the Apos
tles together is one, in order that the Church of Christ
may appear in its unity."
The see of Peter in St. Cyprian's idea, is the author-
* Here Is the explanation of the passage, of which we have already spoken, where
Bt. Cyprian calls the Church of Rome " Source qf sacerdotal unity."
t In some manuscripts, in thlB place it has been added, " But the primacy haa
been given to Peter, in order that there might be but one church and one see. Sed
primatus Petro datur ut una Ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur." These
words could be explained In a sense not Ultramontane, by that which precedes in
St. Cyprian upon Peter— hhs type of unity ; but it is useless to waste time in ex
plaining an Interpolated text. Thus it was regarded by the learned Baluze, who
prepared the edition of the works of St. Cyprian, published subsequently by the
Benedictine Don Maran. When that edition was published, one named Masbaret,
professor at the Seminary of Angers, obtained authority from the government to
reestablish the passage. It was at that time thought desirable not to oppose Rome,
and the passage was inserted by means of a card. See VHisUAre des Capitulairee,
In which notice the observations of Chlniac upon the Catalogue of the Works of
Stephen Baluze.

80 THE PAPACY.
ity of the apostolic body, and, by succession, of the epis
copal body ; all the bishops had the same honour and the
same authority, in all that relates to their order, as the
Apostles had the same honor and authority as Peter.
Since St. Cyprian admits this principle, how has it
been possible to misconstrue some of his expressions as
has been done ? Even were it necessary to understand
the see of Peter to mean the see of Rome, there would
follow nothing favorable to the pretensions of the bishop
of that see, since as bishop he would possess no more
honor, no more authority than the others ; and, as St.
Cyprian further proves, the episcopate is one, and the
bishops possess it jointly and severally.
But the Bishop of Carthage calls the Church of Rome
root and womb of the CathoKc Church.* What fol
lows if such expressions were generally employed in his
time to designate all the apostolic churches ? No one
denies the Church of Rome was founded by the Apos
tles — it was thus a root of the Catholic Church, a
mother church — but not exclusively the root — the
mother of the Church. In fact, Tertullian calls all the
apostolic churches wombs and originators — which
means, " mothers having given origin to others ;"f the
same divine calls Jerusalem — mother of religion, matri-
cem religionis'.\ The first Council of Constantinople! gave
to the Cliurch of Jerusalem, the title of mother of all
the churches. In Africa the title of matrix or mother
was given to all the great metropolitan churches. || A
Gallican bishop of the fifth century, Avitus of Vienne,
wrote to the Patriarch of Jerusalem : " Your apostolate
exercises a primacy granted to it by God : and it is care
ful to show that it occupies a principal place, (principem
locum) in the Church not only by its privileges, but by
* St Cyp. letter 45 to Cornelius. t Tertul. Prescript, c xxl.
X Tertul. adv. Marcionem, Book IV. c. xxxv. § Labbe, Collect, des Conciles.
I See Conciles d' Afrlque. Same collection.

THE PAPACY. 81
its merits."* Thus it is not surprising that St. Cyprian
should give the title of mother church — root of the
church to that of Rome, which had given birth to others,
perhaps even in Africa, and whose origin was of apostolic
date. Through the Apostles she was, like other apos
tolic churches, the mother and root of the Catholic
Church, Since these qualifications are not given to her
in an exclusive manner, they prove nothing in favour of
the authority she claims. No one denies that Rome has
been one of the most important centres of Christian ra
diation over the world ; no one disputes that she was a
powerful, venerable, and apostolic church. But all con
curs to prove that her importance did not confer univer
sal authority upon her during the first centuries.
We see that as early as the third century, the Bishops
of Rome, because St. Peter had been one of the founders
of that see, claimed to exercise a certain authority over
the rest of the Church, giving themselves sometimes the
title of bishop of bishops ; but we also see that the whole
Church protested against these ambitious pretensions,
and held them of no account.
Since the Roman theologians attach so much import
ance to the testimony of St. Cyprian and Tertullian, we
have been obliged to determine the sense of it in a clear
and precise manner. To the texts of the great Cartha
ginian bishop we will add some of Tertullian, which are
of high importance, because the Roman theologians have
wished to interpret them in their favor.
In his book against Marcion,f he expresses himself
thus : " If it be proved, to begin with : that is most true
which is most primitive ; that is most primitive which
has been from the commencement ; that which was from
the commencement was established by the Apostles ; it
* Works of St. Avitus, edited by Father Sirmond. 2d volume of the miscellaneous
works of P. Sirmond.
t TertuU. adv. Marcion. Book IV. % 6.

82 THE PAPACY.
will then be equally unquestionable, that that has been
given by the Apostles which has been held sacred by the
apostolic churches. Let us see what milk the Corinthians
have received of St. Paul ; according to what law the
Galatians have been corrected ; what the Philippians,
the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read ; what the Romans
our neighbors announce, they who have received direct
from Peter and Paul the Gospel attested by their blood.
We have also the churches nourished by John." . .
The Church of Rome is here assigned its proper place,
which is after the apostolic churches, whose foundation
was anterior to her own.
Tertullian does not esteem her witness superior to that
of others ; only he establishes one fact, namely, that
the Church of Rome, the only apostolic Church of the
West, was nearer than the others, and it was therefore
more easy for him and his opponents to ascertain her tes
timony touching the questions that divided them.
In his book Be Prcescriptionibus Tertullian develops
the same doctrine of the witness of apostolic churches,
and he appeals to that of the Church of Rome in the
same manner as in his book against Marcion.
"That which the Apostles have preached," he said,*
" that is to say, that which Christ has revealed to them,
I claim by prescription, that it should only be proved
by the churches that the Apostles have founded, teach
ing them, either viva voce, or by their epistles. H this
be so, all doctrine that agrees with that of the apostolic
churches, mothers and sources of faith,\ is agreeable to
the truth."
Further on, Tertullian applies this general principle.
" Let us glance,"J he says, " at the apostolic churches,
where the sees of the apostles still remain, where their
epistles are still read, where their voice still resounds,
* Tertul De Prsescript. § xxi. t Matricibus et originalibut fldei.
% TertuL De Prescript § xxxvi.

THE PAPACY. 83
and their face, as it were, is still seen. Is it Achaia that
is near thee? thou hast Corinth; if thou art not far
from Macedonia, thou hast the Philippians ; if thou canst
go to Asia, thou hast Ephesus ; if thou dwellest near
Italy, thou hast Rome, whose authority is near us.
How happy is that church to whom the Apostles have
given all its doctrine with their blood — where Peter suf
fered death like his Lord, where Paul was crowned by the
death of John the Baptist, whence the Apostle John, after
being plunged into boiling oil without suffering any ill,
was banished to an island. Let us see what that church
says, what it teaches, what it testifies in common with
the churches of Africa."
The Romish theologians ordinarily content themselves
with quoting that part of the text we have put in italics.
They are careful not to call attention to the fact that
Tertullian speaks of the Church of Rome, only after the
other apostolic churches, and in the same character / that
he appeals specially to her evidence, only because it was
the apostolic church nearest to Africa, whose testimony
it was most easy to obtain. These observations, the im
portance and truth of which all will understand, destroy
completely the interpretation that these theologians en
deavour to give to the few lines they cite. This doubt
less is why they ordinarily pass the others over in silence.
The Romish theologians have eagerly collected many
causes brought for adjudication to the see of Rome dur
ing the first three centuries, and have instanced them as
proofs of the superior authority of the bishops of this
see over all the Church. Nevertheless, these appeals
prove absolutely nothing in favour of that authority. The
principal instances upon which they rely are those of
Origen, of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, of Paul of Samo-
sata, and of the Novatians. We will examine these
cases in the light of authentic historical monuments.
First, we will establish a general principle which de-

84 THE PAPACY.
termines their true character, as well as that of the
appeals addressed subsequently to the Bishop of Rome ;
it is, that an appeal to a see or a bishop is not a proof in
favour of its authority. During the first three centuries,
frequent intercourse existed between the bishops ; and if
a discussion arose in one particular church, those who
endeavoured to prove to their adversaries that they were
wrong, addressed themselves to other bishops, praying
them to make known the belief of their churches, so as
to condemn those who wished to give force to new
opinions. Distant churches were most commonly ap
pealed to, such as could not be suspected of partiality,
apostolic churches, or bishops who enjoyed a high repu
tation for holiness or learning. Those who were con
demned in the West appealed to the East, and those
who were condemned in the East appealed to the West,
and above all to Rome, which was the only apostolic
church of that country.
It is very natural that the Church of Rome should
not have been excluded from'these appeals ; but, before
alleging these appeals in support of her supreme authority,
it would be necessary to show her to have been the only
one appealed to, and that her sentences were received as
emanating from that authority. We shall see that such
was not the case.
Origen never appealed to Rome, notwithstanding
many Romish theologians affirm that he did. Con
demned at first by the bishops of Egypt, subsequently
by several others, and in particular by the Bishop of
Rome, he saw fit to justify himself before those who had
condemned him. " But he also wrote," says Eusebius,*
"to Fabian us, Bishop of Rome, and to many others of
the bishops of churches, respecting his orthodoxy." Such
is, in all its simplicity, the fact in which Roman theolo
gians have found a proof of the primacy in authority
* Euseb. Hist Eccl. Book VI. chap. xxxvL

THE PAPACY. 85
and jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome. They carefully
avoid quoting the text of Eusebius, and have passed
over in silence the opinion of St. Jerome touching the
condemnations of which Origen had been the object.
Jerome, after speaking of the innumerable labours of the
learned priest of Alexandria, cries,* " What reward has
he received for so much toil and sweat? He is con
demned by Bishop Demetrius, and, excepting the bishops
of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Achaia, he is unan
imously condemned by all. Even Rome assembled her
Senate (that is, her synod) against him ; not that he
taught new dogmas, not that he held heretical opinions,
as those who bark after him like furious dogs would
persuade us ; but because they could not bear the bril
liancy of his eloquence and learning, and because, when
he spoke, all the others seemed dumb."
Thus, according to St. Jerome, the clergy of Rome as
sociated themselves in low intrigues against Origen ;
and, according to Eusebius, this great man wrote to the
Bishop of Rome as he wrote to many others to justify
his faith.
We ask what this fact proves for the authority of
the Bishops of Rome.
The case of St. Dionysius of Alexandria proves noth
ing more. Many of the faithful, not having understood
the teaching of this great bishop against Sabellius and
his partisans, went to Rome, and attributed a heretical
doctrine to him. A council was then holding in that
city. The Roman bishop wrote, in the name of the
council, a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria, to ascertain
if it were true that he taught the doctrine attributed to
him. The Bishop of Alexandria sent to Rome a work he
had composed and in which his sentiments were set forth
with precision.
Such is the substance of what St. Athanasius and
• Ap. Ruff, Uv. 11.

86 THE PAPACY.
Eusebius wrote on this point. Now, because one bishop
asks in the name of a council, for information from an
other bishop respecting his faith, must we conclude that
the bishop who seeks this information possesses authori
ty and jurisdiction over him to whom he writes ? It
is not only the right but the duty of every bishop to
seek to enlighten a brother whom he believes in error,
and to hold himself ready to give an account of his own
faith. Thus, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria per
formed an imperative duty ; neither of them exercised
authority. Again, because many went to Rome to accuse him,
is there, therefore, no reason to say that they recognized
a superior authority in this see ?
Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, wishing to have Marcianus
of Aries condemned, accused him to St. Cyprian. Did
he thereby acknowledge a superior authority in St. Cyp
rian ? Two wicked bishops, who showed in their favour
letters from the Bishop of Rome,* were condemned by
St. Cyprian upon the accusation of the Spanish bishops.
Shall we infer that the Spanish bishops acknowledged in
Cyprian an authority not only over their church, but
superior to that of the Bishop of Rome ? The histoiy of
the Church affords numerous examples of bishops who
appealed to each other, and that without recognizing
any authority in those to whom the causes were sub
mitted. Dionysius of Alexandria,! himself received complaints
against the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of An-
tioch, as the Bishop of Rome had received them against
his. As that bishop had written to him, he wrote to the
Bishop of Antioch, to inform him of the accusations made
against him. He addressed himself to Paul in the name
* Letters of St. Cyprian.
t Euseb, Eccl. Hist. Book VU. chap. xxviiL and xxx. Library of the Fathers,
Vol. xl

THE PAPACY. 87
of his clergy, as the Bishop of Rome had addressed him
in the name of the Roman council. The Bishop of An
tioch replied, in order to give explanations ; and Diony
sius, not finding them sufficiently clear, wrote back to
refute them. The bishops of Syria assembled at Antioch
to judge PauL They wrote to Firmilian of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, and to Dionysius of Alexandria, praying
them to come and judge with them. Had they thus
written to the Bishop of Rome, the Romish theologians
would have gloried in the fact, which, nevertheless,
would prove nothing more in favour of the jurisdiction
of that bishop, than it proves in favour of that of Firmi
lian or of Dionysius.
The latter could not present himself at the council,
because of a serious malady that shortly after laid him
in the tomb ; but he wrote to the Council of Antioch a
letter which was sent to the whole Church by a second
council that terminated the case of Paul of Samosata.
This heretical bishop having wished to continue in the
episcopal dwelling, the bishops, in order to have him
expelled, wrote to the Emperor Aurelian at Rome, who,
says Eusebius,* "decided most equitably, ordering the
building to be given up to those to whom the Christian
bishops of Italy and Rome should write."
The second Council of Antioch had written to the
Bishop of Rome as well as to the successor of Dionysius
in the see of Alexandria. The Church of Italy adhered
to the sentence of the council against Paul of Samosata,
who was driven from the Church.
It has been wished to find in the decision of Aurelian,
a proof in favor of the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Rome. It is more accurate to say that the Emperor,
in the affair upon which he had been consulted, wished
to hear the testimony of bishops, who could not be
reasonably challenged by either party, because they
« Euseblua Eccl, Hist. Book VII. chap. xxx.

88 THE PAPACY.
were not interested to favour one more than another ; of
bishops whose sentence he himself could easily ascertain,
since he lived among them. It must be remarked that
the Emperor did not give as final the sentence of the
Bishop of Rome ; he named him with the other bishops
of Italy, and after them ; and if he mentioned him in
a special manner, it was evidently because of the im
portance of his see, established in the capital of the
empire, and not because he enjoyed any particular au
thority. There must truly be great need of proofs in favour of
the Roman supremacy, when its supporters look for
them in the conduct of a pagan emperor ; while all the
ecclesiastical details of the affair of Paul of Samosata
prove that supremacy had not been recognized by the
Church. The case of the Novatians is not more favourable to
their system. The schism of Novatus of Carthage is
easily confounded with that of Novatian of Rome. The
partisans of Novatian like those of Novatus, affected
an extreme rigor toward those whom persecution had
overcome. Novatian having established his schism at
Rome, as Novatus had done at Carthage, the schisma
tics of Rome endeavoured to obtain the support of the
Church of Africa, as the schismatics of Carthage that of
the Church of Rome. From their relations and appeals
one might as fairly infer the supremacy of Carthage over
Rome. But the Romish theologians endeavour to fix the
attention only upon that of Rome ; wherefore is easily
understood. Their efforts are useless, for facts confound
them. St. Cvprian in several councils severely condemned
the opinions of Novatus and Novatian. The first, a most
zealous partisan of sentiments which were not less than
criminal, seeing he was about to be brought to trial,
fled to Rome. There he had an understanding with

THE PAPACY. 89
Novatian, who aspired to the Episcopate of that city,
and caused him to be proclaimed bishop, although Cor
nelius was already lawfully elected.
Cornelius and his competitor addressed themselves to
the Bishop of Carthage. Cyprian believed in the law
fulness of Cornelius' election ; yet he did not admit
him at once to his communion, because of the letters of
his rival. He called a council of the bishops of Africa,
who determined to send two of their number to Rome,
in order to learn what had happened there. The result
being favourable to Cornelius, communion was establish
ed between him and the bishops of Africa.
Novatian still continued to call himself the Bishop of
Rome, and renewed his appeals to the Church of Africa.
He was foiled by the energy of Cyprian, but never
theless gained some partisans. At Rome his party was
considerable. Cyprian interfered to reestablish the
order of the Church, and succeeded, and Cornelius in
formed him of the happy event.
Up to this time, it is rather the Bishop of Carthage
who influences the affairs of the Church of Rome, than
the Bishop of Rome, those of the Church of Carthage.
But soon after, the schismatics of the latter city elected
a bishop who sought communion with the Church of
Rome. This party afterward divided in two portions,
each one choosing a bishop ; this division weakened
them. Not having been able to gain any partisans in
Africa, they presented themselves at Rome, to accuse
Cyprian, as formerly they had accused Cornelius before
the Bishop of Carthage. The Bishop of Rome permitted
himself to be shaken by their calumnies ; but he arrived
at other conclusions after having received the letters of
Cyprian. Novatian's party existed at Rome after the death of
Cornelius. He had partisans in most of the churches.
Marcianus, Bishop of Aries, was of the number.

90 THE PAPACY.
Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, believed it necessary un
der these circumstances to appeal for support to the
principal bishops of the West, in order to condemn
Marcianus. He therefore addressed Stephen, Bishop
of Rome, and Cyprian. The latter had written to the
Bishop of Rome, to tell him what he ought to do under
the circumstances. He was himself too far from the
seat of the trouble to give much attention to the case,
and he entreated his brother of Rome to write to the
clergy and people of Aries, advising them to depose
Marcianus. In all these facts, related exactly after authentic docu
ments,* nothing can be seen but an equal intervention
by the bishops of Rome and Carthage, in the affairs
of the Church, an equal desire to entertain friendly re
lations between them, and to be in perfect communion.
If St. Cyprian praises Cornelius and the Church of Rome
for condemning the schismatics of Africa, he had pre
viously blamed them for having hesitated to pronounce
between him and the illegitimate bishop who had pre
sented himself at Rome. Happy that his adversaries
had not found in that church the support they hoped
ft>r, he gave great praise to the Romans, and it was then
he wrote that famous passage, which has been so much
abused :
"They (his adversaries) dared to embark and carry
their letters to the see of Peter, to the principal church
from which sacerdotal unity has sprung, not thinking
there were the Romans whose faith the Apostle has
praised, and to whom perfidy can have no access."
We have explained according to St. Cyprian himself,
the expressions from which the Romish theologians
would draw such vast conclusions. It only remains for
us, therefore, to notice that the circumstances and the
context take from them all the importance it has been
* Bee chiefly the Letters of St. Cyprian.

THE PAPACY. 91
sought to attribute to them. It was right that St. Cyp
rian should thank the Church of Rome for declaring in
his favour against his adversaries. In order to do this,
he recalls the memory of its two founders — of St. Peter,
who was the type of unity in the apostolic, and, by con
sequence, of the Episcopal body ; of St. Paul, who had
praised the faith of the Romans. It must be observed,
it is not to the Bishop of Rome that he gives this praise,
but to the clergy and faithful of that Church, who, at
his prayer, had read his letters, and before whom he
had pleaded his cause. In his eyes the bishop is nothing
without his clergy and the faithful, and he grants him
no personal prerogative. This text of St. Cyprian, there
fore, is contrary, not favourable to the system of a Papal
autocracy. Any one will be convinced of this who reads
entire the letters of the bishops of Rome and Carthage.
They both act "only in concert with the clergy of their
Church and the bishops of their province ; neither as
sumes any personal authority.

92 THE PAPACY.

IV.

IIACTS combine with doctrinal evidences to
prove that the Papacy enjoyed no universal
authority during the first three centuries of
the Church ; to prove that the bishops of Rome
had in ecclesiastical affairs only such influence as was
necessarily derived from the importance and dignity of
their see ; the only one in the West, which was general
ly recognized as apostolic.
Moreover, the Church of Rome was the mother of
many other churches, over which she exercised a cer
tain authority, as we learn from the sixth canon of the
first oecumenical council held at Nicea a.d. 325.
There has been a great deal of discussion upon this
famous canon, in which the Roman theologians have en
deavoured to see an argument in favour of their opinions.
They have called in evidence all the manuscripts in
order to find some that should favour their views ; and
they have, in fact, found some which serve them admir
ably, by reason of certain additions, which would be
very satisfactory if they were only authentic. For in
stance : " Since, then, the holy synod has confirmed the
primacy of the Apostolic See, which is what is due to
the merit of St. Peter, who is the prince of the whole
episcopate (literally, of the episcopal crown) and to the
dignity of the city of Rome."
This is certainly a beautiful preamble for the sixth

THE PAPACY. 93
canon of Nicea ; but it is unfortunate that the forger
should betray himself, even by his style,* which cannot
be antecedent to the date of the manuscript itself, name
ly, the middle ages. In a Roman manuscript, at the
head of the sixth canon, we read : " The Roman Church
always had the primacy." These words, which we might
otherwise adopt, are copied from the Acts of the Council
of Chalcedon, and in no wise belong to those of Nicea
any more than this other formula interpolated in another
manuscript, " Let the Roman Church have the primacy
forever." All these additions were unknown in the ninth
century, since the author of the Fausses Decr'etales, who
was then living, and who would not have failed to profit
by them, has given the canons of the early councils, ac
cording to Dionysius Exiguus. This learned man, who
made his collection of the canons at Rome itself, died in
the first half of the sixth century. According to Cassi-
odorus, he had a perfect acquaintance with Greek ; his
version, consequently, deserves entire confidence, and in
it we find none of the preceding additions ; but it is thus
we find the sixth canon of the Nicene Council :
" Let the ancient custom be preserved, that exists in
Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alex
andria have authority in all these countries, since that
has also passed into a custom for the Bishop of Rome.
Let the churches at Antioch and in the other provinces
preserve also their privileges. Now, it is very evident,
that if any one be made bishop without the concurrence
of the metropolitan, the great council declares that he
may not be bishop," etc., etc.
The object of this canon was to defend the authority
* We give it as a specimen of its kind : Cum igitur sedis apostolicce prima-
tum, sancti Petri meritum qui princeps est episcopalis coroncs et Bomanss
dignitas civitatis, sacras etiam synodi firmavit auctoritas. It is only neces
sary to have read two pages of the Ecclesiastical Remains of the Fourth Century, to
discover at first sight the fraud, and be persuaded that this ambitious and uncouth
verbiage is of a much later age.

94 THE PAPACY.
of the Bishop of Alexandria against the partisans of
Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, who refused to recognize
it in episcopal ordinations.
The object of the sixth canon, therefore, was merely
to confirm the ancient customs respecting these ordina
tions, and, in general, the privileges consecrated by an
cient usage. Now, according to an ancient custom,
Rome enjoyed certam prerogatives that no one contest
ed. The council makes use of this fact in order to con
firm the similar prerogatives of Alexandria, Antioch, and
other churches.
But what were the churches over which, according to
custom, the Church of Rome exercised a right of super
vision ?
Ruffinus designates them Suburbicarian. This writer,
who wrote his Ecclesiastical History in the fourth cen
tury, who was born at Aquileia and dwelt at Rome,
must have known the extent of the jurisdiction of the
Roman Church in his times. Now, what does he under
stand by the suburbicarian churches ? It is known that
from and after Constantine's reign, the Church was di
vided in dioceses and provinces like the empire itself.*
From this undeniable fact, we know the suburbicarian
churches ; they are those which existed in places of the
same name in the fourth century — these places being
those that were dependent upon the diocese, or the pre
fecture of Rome — that is to say, the ten provinces
called " Sicilia, Corsica, Sardinia, Campania, Tuscia,
Picenum Suburbicarium, Apulia cum Calabria, Bruttium,
Samnium, Valeria." Northern Italy formed another dio
cese, of which Milan was the prefecture, and was not
dependent upon Rome. The diocese of Rome did not
call itself Italy, but the Roman Territory. This is why

* A diocese was then a union of several provinces, and a province was a section
of a diocese. The words have changed their sense, and at this time an ecclesiastical
province is composed of several dioceses.

THE PAPACY. 95
St. Athanasius* calls Milan the metropolis of Italy, and
Rome the metropolis of the Roman Territory. In the
fourth century, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Roman
bishops extended only over southern Italy and the isl
ands of Corsica, Sicily, and Sardinia.
When the Fathers of the Church speak of the see of
Rome as the first of the West, they do not intend to
speak of its universal jurisdiction, but of its greatness as
the only apostolic episcopate of these countries.
The provinces which the Council of Nicea subjected to
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria formed the
diocese of Egypt, just as those subject to the Bishop
of Rome formed the diocese of Rome. It makes a com
parison between them that perfectly agrees with the
commentary of Ruffinus. The sixth and seventh canons
of the Council of Nicea may be considered as the legal
origin of the patriarchates ; the title was not yet in use,
but the order was established. According to the prin
ciple admitted by the first general council, the number
of patriarchs was not limited to four; we are even
given to understand that beside the four great apostolic
churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
there were others which enjoyed similar privileges. The
bishops of these churches did not obtain the title of pa
triarch, but they enjoyed other titles that raised them
above the simple metropolitans, such as exarch and
primate. In spite of the subterfuges of the Romish theologians,
they cannot escape from two consequences of the sixth
canon of the Council of Nicea :
1st. The council declared that the authority of the
Bishop of Rome extended only over a limited district,
like that of the Bishop of Alexandria.
2d. That this authority was only based upon usage.
Hence, it follows that this authority in the eyes of the
* Bt Athaoas. Ep. ad Sollt

96 THE PAPACY.
council was not universal ; that it was not of divine right.
The ultramontane system, being entirely based upon the
universal and divine character of the Papal authority, is
diametrically opposed to the sixth canon of the Nicene
Council. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the council, by
invoking the Roman custom, in confirmation of that of
Alexandria, recognized the legitimacy of the established
usage, and rendered homage to the dignity of the Ro
man see ; but we must add, that the prerogatives recog
nized in it were not those to which it has since laid
claim. The General Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381,
which is the second oecumenical- council, has well
interpreted that of Nicea by its third canon, " Let the
Bishop of Constantinople have the primacy of honour
(priores honoris partes) after the Bishop of Rome, be
cause Constantinople is the new Rome."
The Bishop of Rome was, therefore, regarded as the
first in honour, because he was bishop of the capital of
the empire. Byzantium having become the second cap
ital, under the name of Constantinople, its bishop be
came entitled to be second in rank, according to the
principle that had governed the Council of Nicea in the
exterior constitution of the Church, and according to
which the divisions of the empire were made the divi
sions of the Church.
The GScumenical Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451, which
met a century after that of Constantinople, throws a new
light upon this point, and thus expresses itself in the
twenty-eighth canon :
" In all things following the decrees of the holy Fa
thers, and recognizing the canon just read by the one
hundred and fifty bishops well-beloved of God, (third
canon of the second council,) we decree and establish the
same thing touching the privileges of the most holy

THE PAPACY. 97
Church pf Constantinople, the new Rome. Most justly
did the Fathers grant privileges to the see of the ancient
Rome, because she was the reigning (capital) city.
Moved by the same motive, the one hundred and fifty bish
ops well-beloved of God, grant equal privileges to the
most holy see of the new Rome, thinking, very properly,
that the city that has the honour to be the seat of the em
pire and of the senate, should enjoy in ecclesiastical things
the same privileges as Rome, the ancient queen city,
since the former, although of later origin, has been raised
and honoured as much as the latter." In consequence of
this decree, the council subjected the dioceses of Pontus,
of Asia,* and of Thrace, to the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Constantinople.
The legates of Pope Leo L in the Council of Chalcedon
opposed this canon. It was adopted, nevertheless ; but
the Fathers of the council addressed a respectful letter
to Leo, in which, after alluding to the opposition of the
legates, they add : " We therefore beg you to honour our
judgment by your own decrees."
Romish theologians have claimed to see in this pro
ceeding a proof that the Fathers of Chalcedon recognized
in the Bishop of Rome a supreme authority over the de
cisions of the councils, which, they say, would be of no
avail if not confirmed by him. But it is more just to see
in this but an act of great propriety inspired by the love
of peace and harmony. The council would of course de
sire that the West should be in concord with the East.
The Bishop of Rome represented the West in the council,
being the only bishop in the West possessing an apostolic
see ; again, his see was the first in honour in the universal
Church, and evidently it was proper to entreat him to
acquiesce in the decision of the council. He was not
asked to confirm it, but by his own decrees to honour the
* Asia Minor Is understood, the ancient Metropolis of which was Ephesus. The
part of Asia confided to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch Is called the Hast.

98 THE PAPACY.
judgment which had been rendered. If the confirmation
of the Bishop of Rome had been necessary, would the de
cree of Chalcedon have been a judgment, a promulgated
decision before that confirmation ?
St. Leo did not understand the letter from the Council
of Chalcedon as do our Romish theologians. He re
fused — not to confirm it by his authority — but simply
to admit it. " This decree shall never obtain our con
sent" he said.* And why did he refuse his consent ?
Because the decree of Chalcedon took from the Bishop
of Alexandria the second rank, and the third from the
Bishop of Antioch, and was in so far forth contrary to
the sixth canon of the Council of Nicea, and because the
same decree prejudiced the rights of several primates or
metropolitans.f In another letter addressed to the Em
peror Marcianus,J St. Leo reasoned in the same manner :
" The Bishop of Constantinople, in spite of the glory of
his church, cannot make it apostolic ; he has no right to
aggrandize it at the expense of churches whose privi
leges, established by canons of the holy Fathers and set
tled by the decrees of the venerable Council of Nicea,
cannot be unsettled by perversity nor violated by in
novation." The Church of Rome has too well forgotten this prin
ciple of one of her greatest bishops.
In his letter to the Empress Pulcheria,§ St. Leo de
clares that he has " annulled the decree of Chalcedon by
the authority of the blessed Apostle St. Peter." These
words seem at first sight to mean that he claimed for
himself a sovereign authority in the Church in the name
of St. Peter ; but upon a more careful and an unbiased
examination of his letters and other writings, we are
convinced that St. Leo only spoke as the bishop of an
• St Leo, epis. Illi. vet. edit. ; lxxxiv. edit. Quean. f Ibid.
% Ft. Leo, epis. liv. vet. edit. ; lxxxvlil. edit Quesn.
J St Leo, epis. Iv. vet. edit

THE PAPACY. 99
apostolic see, and that in this character he claimed the
right, in the name of the apostles who had founded his
church, and of the western countries which he represent
ed, to resist any attempt on the part of the Eastern
Church to decide, alone, matters of general interest to
the whole Church.
The proof that he regarded matters in this light is
that he does not claim for himself any personal au
thority of divine origin, descended to him from St. Peter,
but that, on the contrary, he presents himself as de
fender of the canons, and looks upon the rights and reci
procal duties of the churches as having been established
by "the Fathers and fixed by the Council of Nicea. He
does not pretend that his church has any exceptional
rights, emanating from another source. But by eccle
siastical right, he is the first bishop of the Church ; be
sides, he occupies the apostolic see of the West ; in these
characters he must interfere and prevent the ambition of
one particular church from impairing rights that the
canons have accorded to other bishops, too feeble to re
sist, and from disturbing the peace of the whole Church.
After carefully reading all that St. Leo has written
against the canon of the Council of Chalcedon, it can
not be doubted what he really meant. He does not
claim for himself the autocracy which Romish theolo
gians make the ground-work of papal authority. In
his letter to the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, he
only styles himself " guardian of the catholic faith and
of the constitutions of the Fathers," and not chief and
master of the Church by divine right.* He regarded the
canon of the Council of Chalcedon as wrung from the
members of that assembly by the influence of the Bishop
of Constantinople, and he wrote to the Bishop of Anti-
och,f that he ought to consider that canon as null, inas-
* St Leo, epis. lxi. vet edit ; lxxx. edit Quesn.
t St Leo, epis. lxil vet edit ; xclL edit. Quesn.

100 THE PAPACY.
much as it was contrary to the decrees of Nicea. " Now,"
he adds, " universal peace can only subsist upon the con
dition that the canons be respected."
Modern Popes would not have written thus, but would
have substituted their personal authority for the language
of the canons.
Anatolius of Constantinople wrote to St. Leo that he
was wrong in attributing the twenty-eighth canon of
the Council of Chalcedon to his influence ; that the Fa
thers of the council had enjoyed full liberty ; and that
as far as he himself was concerned, he did not care for
the privileges that had been conferred upon him. Never
theless, these privileges remained in spite of the opposition
of the Bishop of Rome, and were recognized even in the
West. Let us give one proof among a thousand. It is
a letter from an illustrious Gallican bishop — St. Avitus,
metropolitan Bishop of Vienne — to John, Bishop of Con
stantinople.* At the same time we can perceive in the
struggles between the bishops of Rome and Constanti
nople respecting the canon of Chalcedon, the origin of
the dissensions which afterward led to an entire rupture.
In principle, Leo was right to defend the canons of Nicea ;
but he could not deny that one oecumenical council had
the same rights as another that had preceded it ; especi
ally while it adhered to the spirit that had directed it.
The Nicene Council, in consecrating the usage by which
the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the first in honour
in the Church, had in view not so much the apostolic
origin of his see, as the splendour which he acquired from
the importance of the city of Rome ; for many other
churches had an equally apostolic origin, and Antioch, as
a church founded by St. Peter, had priority over Rome.
Why, then, should not the Bishop of Constantinople have
been received as second in rank, Constantinople having
become the second capital of the empire ; since the Bishop
* Works of St. Avitus, in the miscellaneous works of P. Sirmond.

THE PAPACY. 101
of Rome was first in rank, only because of its position as
the first capital ? It was well understood that the Coun
cil of Chalcedon had not been unfaithful to the spirit tliat
had inspired that of Nicea ; and that if it had somewhat
changed the letter of its decrees, it had done so in obedi
ence to the same motives that had directed the first
oecumenical assembly. It sustained itself, moreover, upon
the second cecumenical council, which, without giving
to the Bishop of Constantinople any patriarchal jurisdic
tion, had, nevertheless, conferred upon him the title of
second bishop of the universal Church, and that too
without any opposition on the part of the Bishop of
Rome, or any other Bishop in the West.
The twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon was the con
sequence of the third canon of Constantinople. It was
the more necessary to give to a patriarch jurisdiction
over the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, that elec
tions and consecrations occasioned in these dioceses per
petual struggles between the primates and the metro
politans. The Council of Nicea having sanctioned the
privileges founded upon usage, every primate and me
tropolitan pretended to have some such rights.
It was thus the Bishop of Antioch endeavoured to
stretch his jurisdiction over the isle of Cyprus ; but from
time immemorial this Church had governed herself by her
bishops together with the metropolitan. The case was
carried to the QEcumenical Council of Ephesus., which de
clared in favor of the Church of Cyprus. Its motive
was, " that it was necessary to beware, lest under pre
text of the priesthood the liberty J*e lost which Jesus
Christ, the liberator of all men, has given to us, at the
cost of his blood."*
This is why the metropolitans of Cyprus styled them
selves as before avroKexfxaXoi (independent) and did not
recognize the jurisdiction of any superior bishop. The
* St. LeotEpls. xclL Labbe, Collec. of Councils. Cabassut. Not. Eccl p. 209.

102 THE PAPACY.
Bishop of Jerusalem was likewise acephalous, or with
out chief, according to the seventh canon of the Nicene
Council, and he retained the ancient honour of his see.
Thus Leo was right to pronounce in favour of re
spect for canons ; but he was wrong in placing disciplin
ary canons in the same rank with dogmatic definitions.
In fact, the first may be modified when grave reasons
demand it, nay, should be modified, sometimes, in the
letter, if it be desired to preserve them in spirit ; while
definitions of faith should never be modified as to the
letter, much less as to the spirit.
The canons of the first oecumenical councils throw in-
contestably strong light upon the prerogatives of the
Bishop of Rome. They are the complement to each
other. The twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon contains
nothing less than the doctrine we defend, even though
the opposition of the West, in the person of the Bishop
of Rome, should strip it of its oecumenical character as
certain theologians maintain ; for it is well to notice that
St. Leo did not protest against it as opposed to the di
vine and universal authority of the see of Rome, for
which he only claimed an ecclesiastical primacy, but
simply because it infringed upon the sixth canon of
Nicea, in bringing down the Bishop of Alexandria to the
third rank of the episcopate, and the Bishop of Antioch
to the fourth.
It is, therefore, incontestable that at that period the
Bishop of Rome did not possess universal authority in
the Church by divine right.
This is still more evident, from the part that the bish
ops of Rome took in the councils. One fact is certain,
that they did not convoke the first four oecumenical
councils, that they did not preside over them, that they
did not confirm them.
We will prove this for each of the Councils.
Here is what Eusebius relates of the convocation, pre-

THE PAPACY. 103
sidence, and confirmation of the First (Ecumenical coun
cil of Nicea : *
Constantine declared that he must prosecute to the
utmost this war against the secret adversary who was
disturbing the peace of the Church.
Resolved, therefore, to bring as it were a divine ar
ray against this enemy, he convoked a general council,
and invited the speedy attendance of bishops from all
quarters in letters expressive of the honorable estimation
in which he held them. Nor was this merely the issu
ing of a bare command, but the Emperor's condescension
contributed much to its being carried into effect : " For
he allowed some the use of the public means of convey
ance, while he afforded to others an ample supply of
horses for their transport. The place, too, selected for
the synod, the city of Nicea in Bithynia (which de
rived its name from Victory) was appropriate to the
occasion. As soon, then, as the imperial injunction
was generally made known, all with the utmost celerity
hastened to obey it."  "The number
of bishops exceeded two hundred and fifty, while that
of the presbyters and deacons in their train, and the
crowd of acolytes and other attendants was altogether
beyond computation.
" Of these ministers of God some were very distin
guished by wisdom and eloquence, others by the gravity
of their fives and by patient fortitude of character, while
others again united in themselves all these graces. There
were among them men whose years demanded the tribute
of respect and veneratioa Others were younger, and in
the prime of bodily and mental vigor ; and some had but
recently entered on the course of their ministry. For
the maintenance of all a sumptuous provision was daily
furnished by the Emperor's command.
" Now when the appointed day arrived on which the
• Euseb. Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. v. et seq.

104 THE PAPACY.
council met for the final solution of the question in dis
pute each member attended to deliver his judgment in
the central building of the palace. On each side of the
interior of this were many seats disposed in order, which
were occupied by those who had been invited to attend,
according to their rank. As soon, then, as the whole
assembly had seated themselves with becoming gravity,
a general silence prevailed in expectation of the Emper
or's arrival. And first of all, three of his immediate fam
ily entered in succession, and others also preceded his ap
proach, not of the soldiers or guards who usually accom
panied him, but only friends, who avowed the faith of
Christ. And now all rising at the signal which indicated
the Emperor's entrance, at last he himself proceeded
through the midst of the assembly like some heavenly
messenger of God. ... As soon as he had advanced
to the upper end of the seats, at first he remained stand
ing, and when a low chair of wrought gold had been set
for him, he -waited until the bishops had beckoned to
him, and then sat down, and after him the whole assem
bly did the same.
" The bishop who occupied the chief place in the
right division of the assembly then rose, and, addressing
the Emperor, delivered a concise speech."
This account shows that it was the Emperor who
convoked the council, and gave formal orders to that
effect, and that he occupied the place of president in the
assembly. Doubtless he had no ecclesiastical right to
convoke this council ; yet while the direct intervention
of the emperors in the convocation of councils in the
first centuries does not prove that they had any eccles
iastical rights, it proves, at least, that the Church did
not then possess any central power that could call all
the bishops together. Otherwise the Christian emperors
would have addressed that authority, and every thing

THE PAPACY. 105
undertaken by them without that authority would have
been null and void.
The bishop who occupied the highest place in the
Nicene Council had only the first place on tthe right of
the Emperor. Constantine was placed in the middle, at
the end of the hall, and upon a separate seat. What
bishop occupied the first place, Eusebius does not say ;
which leads one to think it was himself. The historian
Socrates maintains, in fact, that it was really Eusebius,
Bishop of Csesarea in Palestine. This bishopric was one
of the most important of the East, and the first in Pales
tine since the destruction of Jerusalem.
In the commencement of his Life of Constantine, Eu
sebius thus expresses himself: " I myself have recently
addressed eulogies to the victorious prince, seated in
the assembly of God's ministers." If these words are
not a demonstrative proof, they nevertheless give great
probability to the statement of Socrates.
But whether it be Eusebius tif Caesarea, or Eustathius
of Antioch, as Theodoret affirms,* or Alexander of Alex
andria, as Nicetas f maintains, after Theodore of Mopsu-
estia, is of small account. Thus much is certain, that
the envoys of the Roman Bishop did not preside. This
is a fact admitted by all historians worthy of credence.
We must come down to Gelasius of Cyzicus to learn that
the Bishop of Rome presided at the Council of Nicea
in the person of Hosius of Cordova, his deputy. In the
first place, Hosius was not the delegate of the Bishop
of Rome ; he takes this title neither in the Acts of the
Council nor elsewhere. The Bishop of Rome was only
represented by the priests Vitus and Vincent, and not
by Hosius. Thus, even if Hosius had presided over the
Council, this fact would prove nothing in favour of the
pretended authority. But it is certain that Hosius had
» Theodoret, Hist. Keel. Bunk I. ch. vii.
t Nicet. Thesaur. fid orthodox, Book V. ch. vii.

106 THE PAPACY.
not that honour, and that the ecclesiastical presidence
of the assembly was in the Bishops of the great Sees of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Caesarea of Palestine, while
the Emperor himself had the civil presidency.
After having heard the eulogies of the first bishop of
the assembly, Constantine made an address in which he
said that he had convoked all the bishops to labor for
peace, and he entreated them to secure it to the Christ
ian world. When he had finished, he invited the Pre
sidents op the Council to speak. There were, there
fore, several presidents. With this declaration before
us of Eusebius,* who was an eye-witness — a declaration
that nothing contradicts — can it reasonably be contend
ed that the Council was presided over by the Bishop of
Rome, in the person of Hosius his proxy ? What fact
can authorize such an assertion, diametrically opposed
to the authoritative and positive testimony of Eusebius ?
This learned historian has accurately traced the func
tions of Constantine. From the time the bishops took
the floor, animated discussions arose. " The Emperor,"
continues Eusebius,J " gave patient audience to all alike,
and received every jiroposition with steadfast attention,
and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party
in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement
disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time, by
the affability of his address to all, and his use of the
Greek language, (with which he was not altogether un
acquainted,) he appeared in a truly attractive and ami
able light, persuading some, convincing others by his
reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging
all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in
bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting
every disputed question."
Constantine convoked the council and presided over
* Euseb. Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. xiii. t Ibid.

THE PAPACY. 107
it. These are tioo facts which no one in good faith
can contest. A third fact, not less unquestionable, is
that it was he who promulgated its decrees. To es
tablish this, it is sufficient to translate the following pas
sages of the letter that he addressed to all the bishops
who had not attended the assembly, " in order," writes
Eusebius,* "to assure them of what had been done."
It is Eusebius himself who has preserved this letter for
us:" CONSTANTTNUS AUGUSTUS TO THE CHURCHES :
" Having had full proof in the general prosperity of
the empire, how great the favour of God has been toward
us, I have judged that it ought to be the first object of
my endeavours, that unity of faith, sincerity of love, and
community of feeling in regal d to the worship of Al
mighty God, might be preserved among the highly fa
vored multitude who compose the Catholic Church : and
inasmuch as this object could not be effectually and cer
tainly secured, unless all, or at least the greater number
of the bishops were to meet together, and a discussion
of all particulars relating to our most holy religion to
take place ; for this reason as numerous an assembly as
possible has been convened, at which I myself was pres
ent, as one among yourselves, (and far be it from me to
deny that which is my greatest joy, that I am your fel
low-servant,) and every question received due and full
examination, until that judgment which God, who sees
all things, could approve, and which tended to unity and
concord, was brought to light, so that no room was left
for further discussion or controversy in relation to the
faith." After this preamble, which is of itself significant, Con
stantine publishes the decree of the Council, upon the
celebration of Easter. He explains the reasons for it and
* Life of Constantine, Book III. ch. xvi. and xvii.

108 THE PAPACY.
recommends its observance. Before dismissing the
bishops, Constantine again addressed them, exhorting
them to maintain peace among themselves. He par
ticularly recommends " those in high places not to raise
themselves above their inferiors in rank ; for," he adds,
"it belongs to God only to judge the virtue and supe
riority of each one."* He gave them some further ad
vice, and then permitted them to return to their churches.
They all withdrew joyfully, ascribing to the intervention
of the Emperor the peace that had been established be
tween those who had differed in opinion.
In respect to the most serious question that had been
discussed in the Council — that of Arianism — Constantine
wrote of it to Egypt, where the discussion had birth,
"confirming," writes Eusebius, "and sanctioning the
decrees of the Council on this subject."f
Thus nothing is wanting in the intervention of Con
stantine at Nicea. It is he who convokes the Council,
he who presides, and he who confirms the decrees. Eu
sebius, a contemporaneous historian, an eye-witness of
the events, who took part in the Council, positively as
serts it ; while subsequent historians, all worthy of confi
dence — Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret — bear witness
to the fidelity of his recital.
Gelasius of Cyzicus, author of a romance founded upon
the Council of Nicea, who lived in the fifth century, is
the first, as we have 6aid, to make mention of the Bish
op of Rome in the convocation and presidency of the
Council of Nicea. His mistake was propagated in the
East, and the sixth general council in the seventh cen
tury did not protest against it when uttered in its pres
ence. But it will be admitted that the erronous asser
tion of a writer who entirely contradicts history and the
clearest traditions, cannot be received as truth because
* Euseb. Life of Constantine, Book III. ch. xxl.
t Euseb. Life of Constantine, Book UI. ch. xxlll.

THE' PAPACY. 109
a council held at a much later period did not protest
against it, when, even had it been competent, it was not
called to pronounce upon that question. It is not pos
sible, then, honestly to oppose such proofs to the multi
plied evidences of contemporaneous writers, and to that
of the Council itself, which, in its letters, never speaks
of the intervention of the Bishop of Rome'.
It is certain that Constantine did not claim any ecclesi
astical rights for himself; that he only presided at the
Council in order to assure liberty of discussion, and that
he left the decisions to episcopal judgment. But it is
nevertheless true that he convoked the Council, that he
presided, that he confirmed its decrees ; that under him
there were several bishops presidents ; that the delegates
of the Bishop of Rome did not preside ; that Hosius,
who the first signed the acts of the Council, was not the
delegate of the Bishop of Rome, whatever Gelasius of
Cyzicus may say, whose testimony is worth nothing,
even by the avowal of the most learned of the Roman
theologians.* What now was the intervention of the Bishop of
Rome in the second cecumenical council ? Nothing.
The Council was convoked by the Emperor Theodo-
sius, (a.d. 381,) who did not even ask the opinion of the
Bishop of Rome. That Bishop, Damasus, did not even
send legates to it, nor did any other western bishop take
part in it. The Council was composed of one hundred
and fifty members, among whom we distinguish such
men as St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa,
* See the Judgment given by the Jesuit Feller upon this historian : " A Greek
author of the fifth century, who wrote the History of the Mesne Council, held In
825. This history is only a novel in the opinion or thb best cranes— at least, In
many respects, he Is at variance with the documents and relations most worthy of
belief." Like a good Ultramontane, Feller affirms that Gelasius had excellent motives,
and it is this which hat made him embellish his history a little. Thus, ac
cording to Feller, Gelasius has lied, but his falsehoods are excnsable because of Ml
Intentions, and because bis motives were good. Feller was faithful to the spirit
of his Company.

110 THE PAPACY.
St. Peter of Sebaste, St. Amphilochius of Iconium, and
Sfe Cyril of Jerusalem. It was presided over by St.
Meletius of Antioch.
For a long time there had been a schism at Antioch.
That city had two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus. The
Bishop of Rome was in communion with the latter, and
consequently regarded Meletius as schismatic, which
nevertheless did not prevent his being regarded as a
saint by the Western churches as well as those in the
East. The second oecumenical -council was therefore
under the presidency of a bishop who was not in com
munion with Rome. Meletius died during the sitting of
the council. Those who were well known for eloquence
among the Fathers pronounced his eulogy. There re
mains only the discourse of St. Gregory of Nyssa. The
faithful vied with each other in lavishing marks of their
veneration for the holy Bishop of Antioch; he was re
garded by all as a saint, and when his body was trans
ported to Antioch the journey was an uninterrupted
ovation. After the death of St. Meletius, St. Gregory Nazi-
anzen presided. The assembly did not recognize Paul
inus as the legitimate Bishop of Antioch, although he
was in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and they
paid no heed to a compromise, by the terms of which
the survivor Meletius or Paulinus was to be recognized
as bishop by all the Catholics. They accordingly chose
St. Flavianus to succeed Meletius, and, excepting the
partisans of Paulinus, the Church of Antioch supported
this choice.
St. Gregory Nazianzen having obtained permission
to resign his see of Constantinople, was succeeded as
president of the council, successively by Timothy of
Alexandria and Nectarius of Constantinople. These
presidents had no relations with the Bishop of Rome.
Nevertheless the council enacted important dogmatic

THE PAPACY. Ill
decrees, and its decisions mingled with those of the
Council of Nicea in the formula of the creed ; moreover,
it changed the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy by
giving to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place
in the Church, and by placing after him the Bishops of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It enacted besides
a great number of disciplinary canons which were adopt
ed by the whole Church.*
The year following the Council of Constantinople, the
Emperor Gratianus assembled another at Rome. Pauli
nus of Antioch was there. He was there sustained in his
opposition to St. Flavianus, who was nevertheless recog
nized as the legitimate bishop by the majority of the
provinces that depended upon the patriarchate. The
West had raised an outcry against the East, for having
decided important matters without the concurrence of
the West. But aside from the legitimacy of Flavianus,
all the other acts of the Council were now concurred in,
and the Council of Constantinople was universally con
sidered as cecumenical, although neither convoked, nor
presided over, nor yet confirmed by the Bishop of
Rome. In view of such facts, what becomes of the pretensions
of the Bishop of Rome to an absolute autocracy in the
Church? He claims, to-day, that all jurisdiction comes
from him, and here is a council presided by a holy bishop
with whom Rome is not in communion promulgating
dogmatic and the most important disciplinarian decrees ;
and this council is one of those which St. Gregory the
Great revered as one of the four gospels.
The third oecumenical council held at Ephesus (431)
was convoked by the Emperor Theodosius IL. and his
* See the Acts of the Council in Father Labbe's Collection ; Ecclesiastical Histories
of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret ; the Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa and of
St Gregory Nazianzen, etc.
t See Ecclesiastical Histories of Sozomen and of Theodoret ; the Letters of St
Jerome and of St. Ambrose ; the Collection of the Councils by Labbe.

112 THE PAPACY.
colleague ; both of them signed the letter of convocation
addressed, as was customary, to the metropolitans of each
province. "The troubles of the Church," they say,*
"have made us think it indispensable to convoke the
bishops of the whole world. In consequence, your Holi
ness will make arrangements to present yourself at Eph
esus, at the Pentecost, and to bring with you such of the
bishops as your Holiness may judge convenient," etc.
We read in the acts of the council that St. Cyril was
the first, as occupying the place of Celestine, Bishop of
Rome ; but as Fleury remarks,! " He might as well have
presided by right of the dignity of his see." This re
flection is quite just. Nevertheless, since the second
cecumenical council had given the second place in the
episcopate to the Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius
might have disputed the presidency of the assembly with
his antagonist, Cyril. Cyril had, therefore, a good rea
son to come to an understanding with Celestine, Bishop
of Rome, in order that the heretic they had assembled
to condemn should not preside over them.
We can thus understand why the Bishop of Alexandria
thought fit to appear at the council with the prerogatives
of the Bishop of Rome ; but it would be wrong to con
clude that he was the legate of that bishop, who was re
presented by two Western bishops and a Roman priest.
In none of the acts of the council does Cyril mention his
title of legate of the Bishop of Rome ; and when the dis
cussion was about him, he called to the chair not the
delegates of the Roman Bishop, but the Bishop of Jerusa
lem, who was next to him in rank, -since the Bishop of
Antioch was not at the council.
After having read the Nicene Creed, a dogmatic letter
was read from St. Cyril to Nestorius, and the bishops
* See Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria; Collection of the Councils, by' Labbe.
Eccl. Hist of Socrates.
t Fleury, Eccl. Hist Book XXV. ch. xxxvll.

THE PAPACY. 113
present adopted it as the expression of their faith. They
next read a letter in which Nestorius set forth his doc
trine : it was condemned. Juvenal of Jerusalem propos
ed to read the letter of the very holy Archbishop of
Rome to Nestorius ; then was read the third dogmatic
letter of St. Cyril ; this was the synodal letter with the
twelve anathemas. It was declared that the doctrine of
the Bishop of Rome and that of St. Cyril were agree
able to the Nicene Creed.
The testimony of the fathers in the East and West
was then opposed to the errours of Nestorius. There
was read a letter written by the Bishop of Carthage in
the name of the African bishops, who could not be pre
sent at the council, and of whom St. Cyril was the dele
gate. That was approved. Finally the sentence was
pronounced and signed by all the bishops. St. Cyril
signed thus : " Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, I have sub
scribed, judging with the Council." The other bishops
adopted the same form. It must be observed that St.
Cyril did not sign as representative of the Bishop of
Rome. If he had consented to use the delegated pow
ers of Celestine, it was simply to be prepared in case
Nestorius should have wished to dispute his precedence.
Consequently that delegation had not the importance
that Romish theologians delight in ascribing to it.
The Bishop of Antioch had not arrived when the con
demnation of Nestorius was pronounced. They pretended
that Cyril was judge in his own cause, against the Bish
op of Constantinople. The Emperor declared in favour
of the latter, and his party claimed that the discussion
should be reopened. It was at this time that the Bish
op of Rome sent three legates to represent him. They
were bearers of a letter which commenced thus : " The
assembly of the bishops manifests the presence of the
Holy Spirit ; for a council is holy and should be vener
ated, as representing a numerous assembly of Apos-

114 THE PAPACY.
ties. They were never abandoned by the Master whom
they were ordained to preach. He taught by them, and
told them what they should teach,, and he declared that
it was he who was heard through his apostles. This charge
to teach has been transmitted to all the bishops alike,
we all possess it by right of inheritance, we all who an
nounce in the place of the apostles, the name of the
Lord in divers countries of the world, according to his
word : ' Go teach all nations.'1 You must observe, my
brethren, we liave received a general order, and that
Jesus Christ willed we should all execute it in discharg
ing this duty. We should all participate in the labors
of those to whom we have all succeeded." A Pope
writing thus to a council was very far removed from
the theories of modern Papacy. Celestine's letter was
approved by the assembly, which in its enthusiasm cried
out, "Celestinus the new Paul/ Cyril the new Paul!
Celestinus, defender of tiie faith ! Celestinus, who
agrees with the council I The whole council Tenders
thanks to Celestinus ! Celestinus and Cyril are one !
The faith of the council is one ! It is that of the whole
earth !"
Celestine and Cyril were put in the same category as
defenders of the Catholic faith. Neither had any author
ity except through the conformity of their doctrine with
that of the council. Instead of considering Celestine as
having inherited a universal authority from St. Peter,
they compare him to St. Paul, the Doctor-Apostle.
The legates examined the Acts of the Council, and
declared that they regarded them as canonical, " since,"
they said, " the Bishops of the East and West have taken
part in the council, in person or by proxy." It was not,
then, because the Bishop of Rome had directed or con
firmed it.
The council, in its synodical letter addressed to the
Emperor, relies upon the adhesion of the Bishops of the

THE PAPACY. 115
West, of whom Pope Celestine was the interpreter, to
prove that its sentence against Nestorius was canonical.
In view of these facts and this doctrine, it will be ad
mitted that St. Cyril might have presided at the coun
cil without any mandate from the Pope ; that if he re
joiced that he represented Celestine, it was only because
he thereby took precedence of Nestorius, in spite of the
canon of the Council of Constantinople, which gave to
Nestorius the first rank after the Bishop of -Rome ; and
that the three deputies of the Pope did not go to Ephe
sus to direct the assembly or confirm it, but to convey
the adhesion of the Western bishops assembled in coun
cil by Celestine.
It is false, therefore, to say that the Pope presided at
the council by St. Cyril, who in such case would have
been his legate. It is one thing to yield for a particu
lar reason the honours attached by the Church to the
title of first bishop, and quite another to delegate the
right to preside at an oecumenical council. The position
of legate of the Bishop of Rome did not carry, with it
the right to preside, as we see in councils where the
deputies of that bishop were present, but did not pre
side. The prerogatives of first bishop delegated to St.
Cyril, gave him precedence over Nestorius — in case that
heretic had chosen to insist on presiding over the Coun
cil of Ephesus, by virtue of the third canon of the Coun
cil of Constantinople. The Romish theologians have,
therefore, grossly misunderstood the fact, of which they
would make a weapon against the Catholic doctrine.
They have not observed that even after the arrival of
the legates of the Bishop of Rome at Ephesus, when St.
Cyril did not preside at the council, it was Juvenal,
Bishop of Jerusalem, who had that honour. The Bishop
of Antioch having taken sides with Nestorius, and not
attending the assemblies, the right to preside fell upon
the Bishop of Jerusalem ; since, according to the Mer-

116 THE PAPACY.
archy established by the Councils of Nicea and Con
stantinople, he was fifth in order. This fact alone is
strong proof against the opinion that attributes to the
Bishop of Rome the right to preside at councils either
in person or by proxy. Had he been present, and if the
council had had no reason for putting him on his trial, or
excluding him, he would without doubt have presided,
in virtue of his ecclesiastical title of first Bishop ; but
when he caused himself to be represented there, his
deputies had no right to preside, and in fact never did
preside. The Bishops of Rome themselves knew so well
that they had not this right, that they oftenest delegated
simple priests or deacons, who could not properly preside
in a council of bishops.
The Acts of the Fourth (Ecumenical Council, held at
Chalcedon in 451, are not favourable to the Papal sys
tem, whatever may be said by Romish theologians.
The council was convoked by the Emperor Marcia
nus,* who gave notice of it to the Bishop of Rome, St.
Leo. The Empress Pulcheria also wrote to him, and
said that it had pleased the very pious Emperor, her
husband, to assemble the Eastern bishops in council,
in order to consider the necessities of the Catholic faith.
She entreats him (the Bishop of Rome) to give his con
sent, in order that its decisions may be according to
rule. It was, in. fact, just and necessary to demand the
adhesion of the West, so that the council might be oecu
menical. St. Leo rephed that the doubts which had
been raised concerning the orthodox faith made a coun
cil necessary ; consequently, the Emperor Marcianus and
Valentinian his colleague, addressed letters of convoca
tion to all the bishops.
It must be remarked that St. Leo only consented to
the convocation of the council. He, therefore, believed
* All the documents to which we refer In this account, may be found la Labbe's
Collection of the Councils. See also, the works of St Leo.

THE PAPACY. 117
neither in his right to convoke it, nor to terminate the
discussions himself, by virtue of his authority. His let
ters to Marcianus, to Pulcheria, and to the Fathers of
the council, leave no doubt of this.
This preliminary fact is of great importance.
Leo had requested that the council should take place
in Italy ; but the Emperor refused this, and convoked it
at Nicea and afterward Chalcedon. In nearly all its
sessions the council recognizes having been convoked
by the most pious Emperors, and never mentions the
Bishop of Rome in this connection. A Roman council,
under Pope Gelasius, asserts that the Council of Chalce
don was assembled by the intervention of the Emperor
Marcianus, and of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople.
The original conception was in fact theirs; yet, as St.
Leo consented to it, his prerogatives as first bishop were
allowed him, as they should have been. Consequently,
he sent to Chalcedon his legates, who were, Boniface,
one of his fellow-priests of the city of Rome — as he says
in several of his letters to Marcianus — Paschasinus,
Bishop of Sicily, Bishop Julian, and Lucentius.
" Let the brethren," said he, in his letter to the Fa
thers of the council, " believe that by them I preside in
the council. I am present amongst you in the persons
of my vicars. Vou know from ancient tradition what we
believe ; you cannot therefore doubt what we wish."
As this shows, St. Leo appeals to the old traditions,
and leaves the council to judge all questions without in
terposing his pretended doctrinal authority.
But does he use the word preside in its strictest sense ?
If we attentively examine the Transactions of the
Council, we see that the delegates of the Emperor occu
pied the first place ; that the assembly had several presi
dents ; that the legates of the Bishop of Rome and Ana
tolius of Constantinople acted simultaneously as ecclesi
astical presidents. Such was the case in the twelfth

118 THE PAPACY.
session particularly ; and accordingly a council of Sar
dinia says, in a letter addressed to the Emperor Leo :*
" The Council of Chalcedon was presided over by Leo,
the very holy Archbishop of Rome, in the persons of his
legates, and by the very holy and venerable Archbishop
Anatolius." Photius, in the seventh book of The Synods, desig
nates as presidents of the Council Anatolius — the legates
of the Bishops of Rome, the Bishop of Antioch and the
Bishop of Jerusalem. Cedrenus, Zonarius, and Nilus of
Rhodes relate the same thing. f
On the other hand, in the report addressed to St. Leo
by the Fathers of the Council, we read that the assembly
was presided over by the delegated officers of the Em
peror. We must, therefore, 'admit that the Council of
Chalcedon was held under the same conditions as that
of Nicea ; that the civil authority held the first place
there ; and that the bishops of sees since called patri
archal presided together. We have no difficulty after
this in admitting that the Bishop of Rome occupied the
first place among the bishops in the persons of his le
gates ; but it is one thing to occupy the first place and
another thing to preside, especially in the sense that
Romish theologians give to this word.
It is an undeniable fact that the dogmatic letter ad
dressed by St. Leo to the Fathers of the Council was
there examined and approved for this reason : that it
agreed with the doctrine of Celestine and Cyril, confirm
ed by the Council of Ephesus. When the two letters
of St. Cyril were read, in the second session, the " most
glorious judges" and all the assembly said: "Let there
now be read the letter of Leo, most worthy in God,
Archbishop of Royal and Ancient Rome." At the close
of the reading the bishops exclaimed: "Such is the faith
* Int. act Cone. Chalced.
t Ced. Compend. Hist ; Zonar. Annal. ; Nil Rhod. de Synod.

THE PAPACY. 119
of the Fathers ; this is the faith of the Apostles ! We all
believe thus I Anathema to those who do not thus be
lieve! Peter has spoken by Leo. Thus taught the
Apostles. Leo teaches according to piety and truth ;
and thus has Cyril taught." Some of the bishops having
raised doubts as to the doctrine contained in St. Leo's
letter, it was determined that after five days, they
should meet al the house of Anatolius, Bishop of Con
stantinople, in order to confer with him, and receive
further explanations. If such a commission had been
given to the legates of the Bishop of Rome, there is no
doubt that the Romish theologians would draw numer
ous conclusions from it in favour of their system. But
the legates were only called upon by Anatolius to ex
plain certain Latin words that seemed obscure to those
who doubted and who, after the explanation of the le
gates, gave their adherence with the others to Leo's let
ter. All that was done in this council in the matter of
this letter proves, in the most evident manner, that it
was not approved as coming from a bishop having au
thority, but rather because it agreed with traditional
teachings. It suffices to glance through the Transac
tions, to find abundant evidence of this. Some Romish
theologians can see nothing but these words, " Peter has
spoken by Leo," as if that expression could have an Ul
tramontane sense, placed as it is in the midst of other
exclamations, and taken with a host of other declara
tions, which give it only the meaning we have indicated.
As those honorary titles which are found in the Trans
actions of the Council, addressed to the Bishop of Rome,
have been much abused, we must point out their true
meaning. St. Gregory the Great in his letters against the title
of oecumenical bishop assumed by John the Faster, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, teaches us that the Coun
cil of Chalcedon had offered this title to the Bishop of

120 THE PAPACY.
Rome. In fact we see, in the Transactions of the Coun
cil, that this title was given to him by his legates. The
first of them subscribed to the profession of faith in the
sixth session in these terms :
" Paschasinus, bishop, vicar of his Lordship Leo,
Bishop of the universal church, of the city of Rome,
president of the Synod. I have ordered, consented, ahd
signed." The other legates signed in about the same
terms. Again in the third session, the legates in speaking of
St. Leo, said : " The holy and blessed Pope Leo, head
of the universal Church, endowed with the dignity of
the Apostle Peter, who is the foundation of the Church
aud the rock of faith," etc., etc.
In the fourth session, the legate Paschasinus gave
also to Leo the title of Pope of the universal Church.
The Fathers of the council saw in these expressions
nothing more than an honorary title, which the Bishop
of Rome, no doubt, desired the better to determine his
superiority over the Bishop of Constantinople, whom
the second oecumenical council had raised to the second
rank, and who as bishop of the new capital of the em
pire must naturally gain a preponderant influence in the
affairs of the. Church, because of his frequent relations
with the emperors. There is then every reason to be
lieve that the council, in order to humour the jealousy
of the Bishop of Rome, accorded to him the title of
cecumenical bishop. It was one way of causing Rome
to adopt the twenty-eighth canon, of which we have
already spoken, and in which was developed that of
the second oecumenical council, concerning the eleva
tion of the Bishop of Constantinople to the second rank
in the episcopate. But the Bishops of Rome, if we are
to believe St. Gregory, their successor, regarded this
title as illegal.
In view of such a decision by the popes themselves,

THE PAPACY. 121
can nrach importance be attached to the words of the
legates, and is it fair to use them as proofs of an author
ity, of which the expression alone was condemned at
Rome ? Let us observe, moreover, that the council in
offering a title to the Bishops of Rome, indirectly de
cided that they had no right to it in virtue of their
dignity, and that they should never claim for this title
any thing more than a purely ecclesiastical value.
As for the confirmation of the Acts of the Council,
we must observe two things : that it was the council
that confirmed the dogmatic letter of St. Leo, and that
the Fathers only addressed him in order to ask his
adherence and that of the Western Church. Leo refused
to admit the twenty-eighth canon, as we have said ; yet
that did not prevent its being universally admitted in
the West no less than in the East.
Thus the Bishop of Rome did not convoke the Coun
cil of Chalcedon ; he did not preside alone by his depu
ties, who only had the first place because he was the
first bishop in virtue of the canons ; he did not con
firm the council; and the honorary titles conferred
upon him prove nothing in favour of the universal and
sovereign authority that is sought to be ascribed to the
Papacy. The accounts we have given can leave no doubt as to
the view which was universally taken of the authority of
the Bishops of Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Vet, in order not to leave unanswered any of the as
sertions of the Romish theologians, we will proceed to
examine the facts and texts in which they have sought
proofs to support their system.
The principal events of the fourth and fifth centuries
upon which they rely, are those relating to St. Athana
sius, to the Donatists, and to St. John Chrysostom. Let
us consult the positive and admitted data of history in
relation to this subject.

122 THE PAPACY.
One of the results of the sixth canon of Nicea had
been to give the first rank in the Church to the Bishop
of Rome. Moreover, by reason of the circumstances in
which the West was placed, he must be considered as
its interpreter. Consequently, the following ecclesias
tical rule* became a usage : that he should always be
invited to the oriental councils when they should assem
ble, and that they should decide nothing without having
his opinion. This was a just rule ; for the East, in it
self, no more forms the universal Church than the West ;
and the Bishop of Rome represented the entire West
at a period when these countries were overrun by bar
barians, when the bishops could not leave their sees to
go to the East, to testify in discussions in which their
particular churches were not interested. This is the
reason given by Sozomen.f " Neither the Bishop of the
city of Rome," he says, " nor any other bishop of Italy,
or of the more distant provinces, assembled at this coun
cil, (Antioch,) for the Franks were then ravaging Gaul."
Paul of Constantinople, and Athanasius of Alexan
dria, faithful to the faith of Nicea, being persecuted
and condemned by some of the oriental bishops, sus
tained by the imperial power, naturally addressed them
selves to the Western Church, appealing to the Bishop
of Rome, who represented it. " The Bishop of the city
of Rome," says Sozomen,J " and all the bishops of the
West, regarded the deposition of the orthodox bishops
as an insult to themselves; for, from the beginning,
they had approved of the Nicene faith, and still con
tinued of the same opinion. Hence, they graciously
received Athanasius, who went to them, and they
claimed the right to judge his cause. Eusebius (of Ni-
comedia) was much grieved at this, and wrote of it to
Julius." * Socrates, Hist Eccl Lib. n. c. xvll. t Sozom. Hist Eccl. Lib. HI. c vl.
t Sozom. Hist Eccl. Lib. HI. c va

THE PAPACY. 123
Eusebius of Nicomedia represented the Eastern Ari-
ans, and it was the Bishop of Rome who represented
the Western bishops. That bishop was Julius. He as
sumed the defence of the persecuted bishops, sustained
them against the Eastern bishops, and, using thus the
prerogatives of his see,* recognized as legitimate bish
ops those whom the Arians had unjustly deposed.
The latter assembled at Antioch, and addressed a let
ter to Julius, in which they sharply told him that it
was no more his business to meddle with those whom
they had expelled than it had been theirs to concern
themselves with the affair of Novatus, whom he had driv
en from the Church. Sozomenf gives further particulars
of this letter. We learn from him that the oriental
bishops said, " That the Church of Rome was glorious,
because it had been the abode of the Apostles, and that
from the beginning, she had been the metropolis of
piety, although the teachers of the faith had come to
her from the East. Yet it did not appear just to them,
that they (the Eastern churches) should be regarded as
inferior, because they were surpassed in number and in
magnificence by a church to whom they were superior
in virtue and courage."
Julius did not reply to them that he was chief of the
Church by divine right, but he reminds them of the
ecclesiastical rule already quoted, in virtue of which he
had the right to be summoned and consulted. Sozomen
adds,J that " this prerogative, due to the dignity of
his see, gave him the right to take care of all those
who had appealed to him, seeking refuge from the per
secutions of the Arian faction of the East, and that he
should restore to each one his church."
The pretensions of the Bishop of Rome did not ex
tend beyond an ecclesiastical prerogative. The Eastern
* Socrates, Hist. Eccl Lib, n. c xv. t Sosom. Lib. HL c. viii.
% Sosom. Lib. m. c. vill.

124 THE PAPACY.
bishops would not believe that Julius was the interpre
ter of the Western Cliurch, as he claimed in the answer
which he addressed to them.*
For this reason the bishops of that part of the Catholic
Church were convoked, that they might decide between
the Eastern bishops and the Bishop of Rome in the case
of the persecuted bishops — especially St. Athanasius.
That was the object of the Council of Sardica, (a. d. 347.)f
This fact alone is sufficient to prove that the universal
authority of the Bishop of Rome was not then recog
nized, and that his ecclesiastical prerogative was subordi
nate to the judgment of the council.
Julius wrote to the Council of Sardica, excusing him
self from personally responding to the letter of convo
cation that had been addressed to him. He sent two
priests and a deacon to represent him, and the assembly
was presided over by Hosius, Bishop of Cordova.
The cause of Athanasius and that of the other bishops
deposed in the East by the Arian faction, with the sup
port of the imperial power, was examined. Their inno
cence and orthodoxy were established, and they were
confirmed as legitimate bishops of their respective sees.
A council assembled at Rome by Julius had already pro
nounced a similar sentence, but that had been found
insufficient. Another council of the West, held at
Milan, requested the Emperor Constans to make arrange
ment with his brother, who resided at Constantinople, to
assemble the bishops of the two empires. It was then
that the two emperors convoked the Council of Sardica,
where the Eastern clergy were to meet the Western, and
terminate the discussion. The Arian bishops, finding
themselves in the minority, pleaded some technical ob
jection for not attending the council, which held its ses-

* Letter of Julius to the Eastern Bishops, hi the Apology of St Athanasius, § 5
t Socrat. Hist Eccl. Lib. I. u. xx.

THE PAPACY. 125
sions nevertheless, under the presidency of Hosius,
Bishop of Cordova.
The Council of Sardica was neither convoked nor
presided over by the Bishop of Rome. Nor was Hosius
there as his legate, as some say, without being able to
prove it ; nor were his delegates treated with any par
ticular honour.
In his letter, written to the Eastern bishops, in the
name of the Roman council,* Julius had blamed them
for having judged Athanasius and the other bishops, who
adhered to the Nicene Creed, without regard to the cus
tom which had obtained, of deciding nothing in the East,
without referring to the Apostolic See of the West,
" Are you ignorant," he said, " that it is the custom to
write first to us ?"f
The Council of Sardica strengthened that custom by
its third canon, which was proposed in these terms by
Hosius : " If two bishops of the same province have a
discussion, neither of them shall choose as umpire a bish
op of another province. If a bishop who has been con
demned is so certain of his being right, that he is willing
to be judged again in council — let us honor, if you
find it well to do so, the memory of the Apostle St.
Peter : let those who have examined the cause write to
Julius, Bishop of Rome : if he think well that the
case have a rehearing, let him designate the judges ; if
he think there be no necessity for reviewing, his decision
shall be final."
This proposition was approved by the council, and the
Bishop Gaudentius added, (canon 4th,) that during the ap
peal, no bishop should be appointed to the place of the one
deposed, until the Bishop of Rome should judge the case.
The council (Can. 5th, Greek — 7th Latin) prescribed
the practice of these appeals to Rome.
* Athanas. Apolog. f 38. t Athanas. Apolog. § 85.

126 THE PAPACY.
The Romish theologians exult in these canons. Yet
it is only necessary to read them carefully to perceive
that they are altogether contrary to that system. In
fact, the council, far from recognizing in the Bishop of
Rome an universal and divine authority, did not even
sanction, in any general manner, the usage which had
grown up of appealing to the Bishop of Rome as the
representative of the West. It merely so decided for
certain particular cases. Beside the bishops of the
great sees, whom the Arians persecuted, and whose
cause it was the province of the councils to judge,
there were many less important bishops and priests in
the East, whose causes the entire Church could not con
sider.* It is these bishops that the council refers, in the last
resort, to Julius, Bishop of Rome. It does not refer
them to the Bishop of Rome generally, but to Julius.
Nor does it make this rule obligatory ; the appeal is
purely optional; and lastly, the council proposes to
honour the memory of St. Peter by granting to a Bishop
of Rome a prerogative which it considers new and ex
ceptional. Is not such a decision tantamount to a
formal declaration that the Pope had no legal rights,
even in the decision of questions of discipline and the
general government of the Church ? If the council
had believed that the Pope had any right whatever,
would it have thought to do him so great an honour in
granting him a temporary prerogative ?
The council published its declarations in several syn-
odical letters,! in which are examined in detail the cases
of St. Athanasius and the other orthodox bishops per
secuted by the Arians, and unjustly deprived by them
of their sees.
* See the letter of Julius to the Eastern Bishops in the Apology of St. Athana
sius. t Athan. Apolg. adv. Arianos ; Hilary of Poitiers, Fragments ; Theodoret, EccL
Hist.

THE PAPACY. 127
The Romish theologians quote, with an especial pride,
the synodal letter to the Bishop of Rome, in which the
following language occurs :
" And thou, beloved brother, though absent in body,
thou hast been with us in spirit, because of thy desire
and the accord that is between us. The excuse thou
hast given for not taking part in the council is a good
one, and based on necessity ; for the schismatic wolves
might, during thine absence, have committed thefts and
laid traps ; the heretical dogs might have yelped, and,
in their senseless rage, have effected mischief ; finally,
the infernal serpent might have diffused the venom of
his blasphemies. It would have been well and very
proper to convoke the bishops of all the provinces at
the capital, that is to say, at the see of St. Peter ; but
you will learn from our letters all that has been done ;
and our brethren in the priesthood, Archidamus and
Philoxenus, and our son Leo the deacon, will make all
things known to you by word of mouth."
We have translated the word caput by capital, and
we believe that such was the meaning of the council ;
for it places it in contrast to the word province in tho
same phrase. It would have been well, according to
the council, to hold the assembly as Julius desired, at
Rome, for the double reason that Rome was the capital
of the empire, and also the see of St. Peter.
The Romish theologians translate the word caput by
that of chief ; but they do not thereby help their cause ;
for this word signifies both head and first in hierarchal
order. That the Bishop of Rome is the head of the
Church, as being first bishop and holding the highest
see, we do not deny ; that he is the first in the hierarch
al order established by the Church every one allows ;
what then is the use of translating illogically a text of
the Council of Sardica, for the sake of propping up a

128 THE PAPACY.
system which it really can in no wise be made to
favour ?
While endeavouring to draw such great advantage
from one word employed by the Council of Sardica,
these theologians have kept out of sight the facts which
clearly appear from the transactions of that holy as
sembly, namely, that it was convoked by the Emperors
Constans and Constantius — as the council itself aud all
the historians affirm ; that it was convoked in order to
pass upon a decision rendered by the Pope, in a council
at Rome ; that Hosius presided, and not the legates ;*
and finally, that, instead of being itself confirmed by
the Pope, it was the council that confirmed the sen
tence of the Pope, and that granted him certain ecclesi
astical privileges.!
These incontrovertible facts are more significant than
a mistranslated word can be in the question of Papal
authority, and give to the appeal of St. Athanasius ita
true character.
Let us now examine the case of the Donatists.
It is not our purpose to explain in detail the causes of
this schism, which so long afflicted the Church of Africa.
From the numerous facts connected with it, we only in
tend to draw this conclusion, that both the schismatics
and the Catholics recognized in the episcopate the only
authority competent to decide the questions that di
vided the Church. Hence the numerous councils that
were called on both sides, and which mutually con
demned each other. Constantine, immediately upon his
elevation to the throne, wrote to Caecilianus, Bishop of
Carthage, to offer him money and the protection of his
* To establish this fact, it is only necessary to quote the first line of the signa
tures of the council : " Hosius of Spain, Julius of Rome, by the Priests Archida-
tous and Philoxenus," etc. St. Athan. Apolog. adv. Arian. § 50.
t St Athanasius, Apol. adv. Arian., and History of the Arians for the monks.
Eccl. Hlsts. of Soci-utes, Sozomen, and Theodoret Acts of the Council in Father
Labbe's Collection.

THE PAPACY. 129
lieutenants to enable him to bring the schismatics to
order. The latter endeavored to justify themselves be
fore the prince, claiming that the bishops who had con
demned them were judges in their own eause, and pray
ing the Emperor to allow them to be tried by bishops
from Gaul, where he then was. He consented, and
named as judges three of the most learned and distin
guished bishops of the age — Maternus of Cologne, Rhe-
ticius of Autun, and Marinus of Aries. He sent them
to Rome, to join with Miltiades, bishop of that city,
and Mark,* in hearing the conflicting depositions of
Caecilianus and his opponents. Eusebius has preserved
the letter which Constantine wrote upon this occasion
to the Bishop of Rome and to Mark. We will translate
that letter, together with an extract from the petition
of the Donatists to Constantine. These documents will
determine the character of the appeal of the Donatists,
and will prove that the Romish theologians are wrong
in citing it in support of their opinions.
Here is, first, the extract preserved by St. Optatus.f
" We beseech thee, O Constantine ! most excellent em
peror, thou that comest from a righteous family, (for thy
father was not a persecutor like his colleagues ; and
Gaul is free from this crime,)! since between us bishops
in Africa there are dissensions, we beseech thee let thy
piety give us judges who are of Gaul !"
In consequence of this petition, Constantine chose the
three bishops we have mentioned, adding to their num
ber the Bishop of Rome and Mark, to examine and give
judgment in the case. Constantine writes thus to the
two Roman judges : §
* It is very generally admitted by the learned that Mark was an Influential priest,
who was Bishop of Rome after Sylvester.
t St. Optat. Book I. against Parmenlanus.
X The Donatists here refer to the crime of having given up the Holy Scriptures
during the persecutions.
% Enseb. Eccl. Hist. Book X. ch. v.

130 THE PAPACY.
"Constantine Augustus, to Miltiades, Bishop of
Rome and to Marcus.* As many communications of
this kind have been sent to me from Anulinus, the most
illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is contained
that Caecilianus, the Bishop of Carthage, was accused
in many respects by his colleagues in Africa, and as this
appears to be grievous, that in those provinces whicli
divine Providence has freely intrusted to my fidelity,
and in which there is a vast population, the multitude
are found inclining to deteriorate, and in a manner
divided into two parties, and among others, that the
bishops were at variance ; I have resolved that the same
Caecilianus, together with ten bishops, who appear to
accuse him, and ten others, whom he himself may con
sider necessary for his cause, shall sail to Rome. That
you (vp£>v) being present there, as also Reticius, Mater-
nus, and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have com
manded to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be
heard, as you may understand most consistent with the
most sacred law. And, indeed, that you may have the
most perfect knowledge of these matters, I have subjoined
to my own epistle copies of the writings sent to me by
Anulinus, and sent them to your aforesaid colleagues.
In which your gravity will read and consider in what
* This Mark has been very troublesome to the Romish theologians. If he had not
been named with the Bishop of Rome, it would have been far easier to have made
of the latter a sovereign judge, to whom the three Gallican bishops were added
merely from motives of expediency, and to remove every pretext on which the
Donatists could oppose the sentence. But the bare name of this Mark is sufficient
to forbid that conclusion. Baronius was so thoroughly convinced of this, that he
has tried to prove that there was in this place an errour of the copyist. He there
fore proposes to replace the words scat Mcipfcy by leps'spxV- There are many in
conveniences attendant upon this, besides that of distorting Eusebius's text. The
first is that the word hieraroh signifies bishop, and Miltiades is already called by
Constantine Bishop of Rome. Why should he have given him twice the same
qualification in the superscription of his letter ? The second is, that the word
iepapxo, to mean bishop, was not yet in use, in the fourth century. All the learned
oppose these reasons to Baronius, and call attention to the further fact that all the
manuscripts clearly bear the words Sial MupKw. Must a text be distorted and a
bad word introduced in order to please the Romish theologians? The end will not
justify the means.

THE PAPACY. 131
way the aforesaid cause may be most accurately investi
gated and justly decided, since it does not escape your
diligence that I show such regard for the Holy Catholic
Church, that I wish you, upon the whole, to leave no
room for schism or division. May the power of the
great God preserve you many years, most esteemed."
From the foregoing documents we must conclude,
that the Donatists did not appeal to Rome, but to the
Emperor ; that they did not ask the arbitration of the
Bishop of Rome, but of the Gallican bishops ; that it
was the Emperor who added of his own motion the
Bishop of Rome and Mark to the three Gallican bishops
whom he had chosen. Is there in all this the shadow
of an argument in favour of the. sovereign authority of
the Bishop of Rome ? Could the choice of the place
seem important ? Evidently not, for there is nothing
peculiar in Constantine's choosing the city whither one
could most easily go from both Africa and Gaul ; and
this choice explains why he added Miltiades and Mark
to the judges asked for by the Donatists. It would
have been very improper to send bishops to Rome to
judge an ecclesiastical cause, without asking the inter
vention of those who were at the head of the Roman
Church. It is thus easy to see why Constantine named
Miltiades and Mark judges in the case of the Donatists,
although their intervention had not been asked.
Fifteen other Italian bishops went to Rome for this
affair. The council pronounced in favor of Caecilianus.
The Bishop of Rome having been of the council, the sen
tence would necessarily have been regarded as final if
his sovereign authority had been recognized. Such was
not the case.
The Donatists complained that the Gallican bishops
whom they had asked for were too few in number at
Rome, and demanded a more numerous council, in
which their cause should be examined with more care.

132 THE PAPACY.
Constantine convoked this council at Aries. He invit
ed there a large number of bishops from different prov
inces of his empire — that is to say, of the West, for at
this time he only possessed that part of the Roman em
pire. Eusebius has preserved Constantine's letter to
the Bishop of Syracuse, inviting him to come to Aries.*
This letter is important as showing that the judgment
at Rome was not considered final, and that it was the
Emperor who convoked the Council of Aries. But the
Fathers of the council themselves say so in their letter
to Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, who had succeeded Mil
tiades. The Bishop of Rome sent thither as his legates,
the priests Claudianus and Vitus, and the deacons Eu-
genius and Cyriacus. The council took place in 315, ten
years before the great Council of Nicea. Marinus of
Aries presided. After confirming the sentence of the
Council of Rome, the bishops saw fit to make several
ordinances, which they sent to Sylvester with this let
ter: " Marinus, etc., etc., to the well-beloved Pope Sylves
ter, eternal life in the Lord.
" United by the bonds of mutual charity and in the
unity of the Catholic Church, our mother, from the city
of Aries, where our most pious emperor has caused us
to meet, We salute you, most glorious father, with all
the respect which is due to you.
" We have had to do with men both licentious and
most dangerous to our law and tradition ; but thanks to
the power of God who is present in our midst, and to
tradition and the rule of truth, they have been con
founded, silenced, and rendered unable to carry out and
prove their accusations ; wherefore by the judgment
of God and the Church, who knows her own, they have
been condemned.
* Euseb. loe. eit. Saint Optatus, Book I. Letters of St. Augustin, passim.
Father Labbe's Collect, of Gallican Councils In Sirmond.

THE PAPACY. 133
" Would to God, beloved brother, you had condescend
ed to be present at this spectacle ! We think that the sen
tence given against them would have been still more
overwhelming, and, if you had given judgment with us,
we would have experienced a still greater joy; but you
could not leave those places where the apostles still pre
side, and where their blood renders a continual witness
to the glory of God.
" Well-beloved brother, we have not thought it neces
sary to confine ourselves solely to the business for which
we assembled, but have also considered the necessities of
our respective provinces ; and we send you our ordi
nances, that through you, who have the greatest authority,
they may become universally known."
It is generally claimed in the West, that by these last
words, the Council of Aries recognized the universal au
thority of the Bishop of Rome. But it is not sufficiently
remembered that this council was held without any co
operation on the part of that bishop ; that he did not
preside ; that in the letter of the Fathers, no mention is
made of his authority, among the motives that caused
them to condemn the Donatists ; that they do not wait
for his approbation or confirmation in order to proclaim
their disciplinarian ordinances ; that they merely apprize
him of them, in order that, since in his position of bish
op of an apostolic see he had the greatest authority, he
might make them known to all.
This only proves that the Bishop of Rome was recog
nized as the first in the West, because of the apostolic au
thority and of dignity of his see ; that he was thus the
natural medium between the West and the apostolic sees
of the East. To find more than this in the words of the
Council of Aries would be to distort them. It suffices to
notice, that this council, convoked without the Bishop of
Rome, acted independently, and that it confirmed a sen
tence of a council of Rome at which the Pope presided, to

134 THE PAPACY.
be convinced that the papal authority as received at this
day in the West, was then unknown.
It thus appears that the Romish theologians are with
out a show of reason when they cite the appeal of the
Donatists as favourable to papal pretensions.
Let us now examine the case of St. John Chrysostom :
This great Bishop of Constantinople drew upon him
self the hatred of the Empress Eudoxia and of many bish
ops and other ecclesiastics, by his firmness in maintaining
the rules of the purest discipline.* His enemies were
supported by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. This
bishop had condemned some poor monks as Origenists.
They had come to Constantinople to seek for redress.
The famous question of Origenism was thus revived.
Chrysostom did not think it profitable to examine ijb-
But Eudoxia, who busied herself with theological ques
tions more than was becoming in a woman, took the part
of the monks against Theophilus, who was accordingly
commanded to appear at Constantinople. But before
Theophilus arrived there, Chrysostom incurred the hatred
of the Empress, and she determined upon using Theophi
lus to avenge her of that great man, who had not known
how to yield a servile submission to her caprices.
It was not long before Theophilus, who had been sum
moned to Constantinople under accusation of guilt, bore
himself as the judge of that innocent archbishop, who
out of respect for the canons, had refused to judge him.
He conspired with certain bishops who were courtiers ;
and he corrupted sundry ecclesiastics by money and
promises. Sustained by the court, he, with thirty-five
other bishops assembled in a place called The Oak, near
Chalcedon, (a.d. 403.) These bishops were at once
* The facts we are about to analyze all rest upon the authority of Palladius the
historian, a disciple of St. John Chrysostom ; the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates
Sozomen, and Theodoret ; the works of St. John Chrysostom ; and upon the official
documents inserted either in the work of Baronius or in the Collection of Councils by
Father Labbe.

THE PAPACY. 135
prosecutors, witnesses, and judges. They had not dared
to assemble at Constantinople, where the broad light of
day would have fallen upon their calumnies, and where
they had cause to fear the faithful people who venerated
their pastor. Of the thirty-five bishops, twenty-nine
were of Egypt. While the enemies of Chrysostom as
sembled at The Oak, the faithful bishops, forty in num
ber, had gathered around Chrysostom, at the call of the
Emperor, to judge Theoj)hilus. Chrysostom was con
ferring with these bishops, when two messengers from
the pseudo-council of The Oak came to summon him to
appear there. The holy bishop refused to recognize his
enemies as judges. They nevertheless proceeded to de
pose him, and wrote to the Emperor Arcadius, that it
was his duty to banish him and even to punish him for
the crime of high treason, in having in his sermons in
sulted the Empress Eudoxia. This amounted to a de
mand for his death. The whole people rose against the
conventicle of The Oak in favour of Chrysostom, who
would not leave the city without being forced to do so.
The Emperor then commanded one of his counts to expel
him, using violence even, if necessary. The saint took
advantage of a moment when his faithful children had
somewhat relaxed their vigilance, to leave his house, and
give himself up to the soldiers commissioned to arrest
him. He was put in ward until evening, and was
conveyed by night to the port. But in spite of these
precautions, the people found out that their pastor was
taken from them. A great crowd followed him weeping.
Chrysostom was put on board of a ship, and hurried off
before daylight, and he was landed on the coast of
Bithynia. Such gross injustice gave universal umbrage. Several
of the enemies of the saint repented of their calumnies ;
the people besieged the churches and filled them with
their clamour. A dreadful earthquake at this time filled

136 THE PAPACY.
Eudoxia, the first cause of the crime, with terror. She
attributed it to her injustice, and hastened to recall
Chrysostom. The people received him in triumph, and
his enemies hid themselves or fled. He asked a council
before which to justify himself. Theophilus, afraid to
face incorruptible judges, fled to Egypt. But Eudoxia,
having recovered from her first fright, renewed her per
secutions against Chrysostom, who, with apostolic free
dom, preached against her numerous acts of injustice.
Theophilus was written to, to return, that the intrigues
of the pseudo-council of The Oak might be carried
out. But the Bishop of Alexandria contented himself
by sending perfidious counsels from a distance. A new
council was assembled ; forty-two bishops pronounced
in favour of the saint. The others, influenced by the
court, accepted as legitimate his deposition by the pseu
do-council of The Oak, and decided that Chrysostom,
having been deposed by a council, and having reassumed
his see without having been reinstated by another
council, was guilty and deserved to be deposed.
Chrysostom, indeed, had asked for a council immedi
ately after his return to Constantinople ; the Emperor
had granted it ; but Eudoxia had given contrary orders,
for she did not desire a regular council, but an assembly
composed of the enemies of the saintly Archbishop. She
carried her point, and caused Chrysostom to be con
demned for not having been reinstated by a council,
when she herself had rendered that council impossible.
Renewed persecutions followed this unjust sentence.
It was then that Chrysostom addressed himself to the
West, represented by the bishops of the most important
sees, to set before them the violence and injustice of
which he had been the victim. The object of his letter
was to warn the Western bishops against the calumnies
that his enemies might perhaps already have published
against him, and to entreat them not to take from him

THE PAPACY. 137
their charity and their communion. He addressed his let
ter to the Bishop of Rome, who was then (a.d. 404) Inno
cent to Venerius of Milan, and to Chromatius of Aquileia.
This fact, which is not denied, suffices to prove that he
did not appeal to the Pope as a chief having authority
over all the Church. He added in his letter, that he was
disposed to defend himself, provided his adversaries
would give him a fair trial ; which is a further proof
that he did not carry his case to Rome as to a superior
tribunal. It was natural that the Bishop of Constanti
nople, persecuted in the East by unworthy bishops and
by the imperial power, should look to the Western
Church for assistance. The bishops who had declared
for Chrysostom, as well as the people of Constantinople,
wrote also to the Western Church ; their letters were car
ried to Rome by four bishops and two deacons. They
believed that Theophilus of Alexandria would endeavour
to seduce the bishops of the West, and they were not
mistaken. In fact, a messenger from Theophilus had ar.
rived in Rome some days before the deputies from Con
stantinople, and had handed to Innocent a letter in which,
without entering into any details, the Bishop of Alexan
dria said that he had deposed Chrysostom. Some time
after, he sent to Rome the acts of the pseudo-council at
The Oak. Innocent declared that he would remain in
communion with Chrysostom and Theophilus until such
time as a council composed of Eastern and Western bish
ops should pronounce canonically upon the case. He ac
cordingly requested the Emperor of the West to come to
an understanding with his brother Arcadius, Emperor of
the East, in order that this council might be assembled.
Honorius did, in fact, write to this effect ; but the court at
Constantinople wished to be revenged upon Chrysostom,
and not to have him regularly tried. The holy Archbish
op, after suffering most unjust treatment, was accordingly
again exiled. Arsacius was placed in his see, without the

138 THE PAPACY.
observance of the canonical forms. He died the follow
ing year, and was quite as uncanonically succeeded by
Atticus. These renewed persecutions did not cool the zeal of
St. Chrysostom's friends. Several of them took refuge
in Rome and brought to Innocent a letter from those of
the clergy and people of Constantinople who remained
faithful to their bishop. Innocent answered, consoling
them ar.d endeavouring to inspire them with the hope that
God would soon deliver them by means of the oecumen
ical council which he was labouring to have assembled.
It was to a lawful council that Chrysostom and his
friends had appealed ; and Innocent, far from assuming
the right to determine the affair by his own authority,
placed all his hopes as well in the council.
These facts speak loudly, and need no comment.
Other bishops of the West were of the same opinion.
The Bishop of Aquileia, in particular, joined his efforts to
those of Innocent, in order to obtain from Honorius the
convocation of a council in the West that should con
sult upon the means of terminating the affair that so
justly engaged their thoughts. The Italian bishops as
sembled by order of Honorius and gave as their opinion,
that an oecumenical council should be assembled at
Thessalonica, whither the bishops of the East and West
could go with equal facility ; and that such a council was
necessary in order to close the discussion by a final award.
They prayed him to write to this effect to Arcadius.
Honorius wrote to ask Innocent to send him five bishops,
two priests and one deacon, to carry the letter which he
should write to his brother. It was the third that he
wrote him on the same subject.
In view of the difficulties raised by Arcadius against
the convocation of a council, this was certainly a proper
occasion for the Pope of Rome to settle the question
himself, in virtue of his sovereign authority, if he had

THE PAPACY. 139
possessed any. But neither Chrysostom nor his friends
of the East, nor the bishops of the West, nor the Pope
himself dreamed of this mode, to them unknown. They
all were satisfied to ask of the emperors a council, which
alone had the authority to give a final decision.
The deputies who bore the letter of Honorius were
likewise intrusted with several other letters, from Inno
cent of Rome, from Chomatius of Aquileia from Vene-
rius of Milan, and other bishops of Italy. Moreover,
they were bearers of a note from the council of Italy, to
the effect that Chrysostom should in the first place be
reinstated in his see and in communion with the Eastern
bishops, before appearing at the cecumenical council,
where his cause was to be decided.
Arcadius did not even allow the deputies to land at
Constantinople, but sent them to Thrace where they
were treated as prisoners. The letters they carried were
taken from them by force, and they were cast upon a
rotten vessel to be returned to the West. Four Eastern
bishops who had accompanied them were roughly hand
led and exiled to the most distant parts of the empire.
Many Eastern bishops then became the victims of the
most cruel treatment, and Arcadius entered upon an or
ganized persecution against all those who had remained
faithful to Chrysostom.
Palladius relates that the Roman Church and the West
ern council resolved thereupon to communicate no longer
with the partisans of Atticus and Theophilus, until it
should please God to provide the means of assembling
the oecumenical council. Theodoret also relates that the
bishops of Europe acted thus. Some Eastern churches
followed the same rule ; but other churches, and that of
Africa in particular, did not separate themselves from
the communion of Chrysostom's adversaries, although
taking the part of this holy patriarch, and hoping that
justice would be done to him.

140 THE PAPACY.
This was the state of things when St. John Chrysos
tom died. From his remote place of exile, a short time
before he quitted this life, he had written to Innocent,
thanking him for the zeal he had displayed in his cause.
He wrote similar letters to the Bishop of Milan and
other bishops who had openly declared for him.
The entire East rendered justice to the great Arch
bishop after his death, recognizing him as a saint, which
recognition restored the communion between all the
Eastern and Western churches.
Such is the exact analysis of facts relating to the affair
of St. Chrysostom. It appears from it, that the saint
did not appeal to Rome ; that he sought in the Western
Church a support against his enemies of the East ; that
the Western bishops only acted cdllectively to cause his
case to be determined ; that they only ascribed to a gen
eral connciLauthority to pronounce final sentence ; that
they only claimed for themselves the right to separate
themselves from the communion of such as they deemed
accomplices of injustice ; and lastly, that Innocent of
Rome acted with no more authority in all these discus
sions than the Bishop of Milan or of Aquileia.
From these facts, is it not clear that the case of St.
John Chrysostom, far from furnishing evidence in favour
of the sovereign authority of the Papacy, proves precise"
ly the contrary ?
Some Romish theologians having asserted, in the face
of all historical documents, that Chrysostom had ap
pealed to Rome for the purpose of suspending the pro
ceedings against him by the interposition of the papal
authority, we will remark, that, according to St. Chrysos
tom himself, he addressed his protest, not only to the
Bishop of Rome, but to other bishops. " I have also
addressed this same letter," he says, "to Venerius,
Bishop of Milan, and to Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia."
Here is what he asks of his colleagues in the West ;

THE PAPACY. 141
" I pray you, therefore, to write letters declaring null and
void all that has been done against me, granting me
inter-communion with you as in the past, since I am
condemned without a hearing, and since lam ready to
justify myself before any impartial tribunal."
What was the tribunal to which he appealed ? The
Bishop of Rome affirms that there was no other except a
council ; he expresses himself substantially to this effect
in his letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople :
" From the friendly letter that Germanus the priest and
Cassianus the deacon have handed to me from you, I
have gathered with an anxious mind the scene of woe
you describe, and the afflictions and the trial that the
faith has endured among you. This is an evil for
which there is no other remedy than patience 
I derive from the beginning of your affectionate epistle
the consolation which I needed  Innocent
bishops are driven from their sees. John, our brother
and colleague, and your bishop, has been the first to suffer
from this violence, without having been heard, and with
out our knowing of what he is accused. . . . As re
gards the canons, we declare that only those made at
the Council of Nicea should be recognized 
Nevertheless, what remedy can be applied to so great
an evil ? There is no other than to convoke a council.
. . . Until we are able to obtain the convocation of
a council, we cannot do better than to await from the
will of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ the remedy
of these evils. . . . We are continually devising
means to assemble a general council, where all dissen
sions may be set at rest at the command of God. Let
us then wait, intrenched within the bulwark of patience."
We could multiply such texts ; but to what purpose,
when all the facts demonstrate the errour of these Ro.
mish writers ?
We will now endeavour to learn, with the aid of doc-

142 THE PAPACY.
trinal texts, what has been the teaching of the Fathers
of the fourth and fifth centuries respecting the authority
of the Bishops of Rome.
After studying profoundly and critically, and without
bias or prejudice the historical and dogmatic remains of
the first centuries of the Church, we cannot read with
out pain the works of Romish theologians in favour of the
papal authority.
We have had the patience to read most of those regard
ed as authorities, such as Bellarmin, Rocaberti, Andre
Duval, Zaccaria, and many of the most renowned of the
modern theologians who have taken these as their guides
— such as Gerdil, Perrone, Passaglia. We have read the
principal works of the modern Gallicans — those, namely,
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries — and particu
larly the works of Bossuet, Nicole, Tournely, and La
Chambre. We are convinced that the latter have bor
rowed from the UI tramontanes those of their texts which
appear to have the greatest weight, limiting the sense
to a primacy of divine right and a restricted authority
of the Pope, while the others extend it to an absolute
authority and infallibility. Among them all, we have
remarked, first, a crowd of broken and corrupted texts
distorted from their true sense, and isolated from the
context expressly to give them a false interpretation.
We have remarked, secondly, that the texts of each
particular Father are isolated from other texts of
the same Father touching the same point of doctrine,
although the last may modify or absolutely destroy the
sense attributed to the first. We have remarked, thirdly,
that these writers deduce from these texts, consequences
clearly false, and which do not logically follow from
them. Of this we shall give two examples, among the
many we could point out.
Launoy, as we have already mentioned, has ana
lyzed the Catholic tradition upon the interpretation of

THE PAPACY. 143
the text, " Thou art Peter," etc. He has found but seven
teen Fathers or Doctors of the Church who have applied
to St. Peter the word the stone, (la pierre;) he has pointed
out more than forty of them, who have understood this
expression as applied to the confession of faith made by
St. Peter, that is to say, to the divinity of Jesus Christ.
The Uitramontanes cannot dispute this, but they pretend
that by giving the faith of Peter as the foundation of the
Church, the Lord necessarily granted to that Apostle not
only an indefectible faith, but also infallibility, and that
these gifts have passed to his successors.
Now, all the Fathers of the Church, quoted for the
latter interpretation, have meant by the confession of
St. Peter, only the belief he had confessed, his objective
faith, or the object of that faith, and not the subjective
faith or the personal adherence that he had given to it.
The belief confessed by St. Peter being the divinity of
Jesus Christ, the Fathers quoted have interpreted the
text, " Thou art Peter," etc., in this sense, that the
divinity of Jesus Christ is the rock upon which the
Church rests. All speak in the clearest terms to this
effect. Not one of them speaks of any privilege what
ever granted to St. Peter personally — and a fortiori, not
of any privilege descended to the Bishops of Rome as
his successors. Thus, even had St. Peter received any
prerogative from Jesus Christ, it would be necessary to
prove that this prerogative was not personal ; but the
Uitramontanes dispose of that difficulty with extreme
facility. They simply affirm that the privileges grant
ed to St. Peter belong to his successors ; they rest these
privileges upon texts which say nothing at all about
them ; they affirm, on the strength of these falsified
texts, that the Bishops of Rome are the only successors
of St. Peter, because that Apostle died Bishop of Rome.
What they say upon this last point is the second ex
ample that we shall give of their false reasoning. They

144 THE PAPACY.
rely chiefly upon St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius
to prove this.
Now, Eusebius expresses himself thus : " After the
martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first that
received the episcopate at Rome."* " Clement also,
who was appointed the third Bishop of this Church,
(Rome.)"f "After Anencletus (or Cletus) had been
Bishop of Rome twelve years he was succeeded by Cle
ment. "J "After Euaristus had completed the eighth
year as Bishop of Rome, he was succeeded in the epis
copal office by Alexander, the fifth in succession from
Peter and Paul."§ Thus it makes no difference to Eu
sebius whether he places Paul before Peter, or Peter
before Paul, when he speaks of the foundation of the
Church of Rome. The bishops are the successors of
the one as well as of the other, and neither of them is
counted among the Bishops of Rome. St. Irenaeus has
nowhere said that Peter had been Bishop of Rome ; he
even asserts the contrary in a most incontestable man
ner. He expresses himself in substance as follows :
"The blessed Apostles, (Peter and Paul,) when they
founded and organized the Church of Rome, gave to
Linus the episcopate, and the care of governing that
Church  Anencletus succeeded Linus ; after
Anencletus, Clement was the third, since the Apostles,
who had charge of this episcopate."!
St. Peter and St. Paul founded and organized the
Church of Rome, but it was Linus who wras made the first
Bishop, even during the life of the Apostles. Observe
that Peter and Paul are here coordinated by the holy
doctor. Thus if we prove the episcopate of St. Peter at
Rome by the text quoted, we also prove that of St.
Paul by the same text. Rome would then have had
two Apostle-Bishops at one and the same time.
* Eccl. Hist. Book mVch. 2. t Book IIL ch. 4. X Book m. ch. 16.
5 Book IV. ch. 1. I St. Iren. agt. the Heret Book HI. ch. 8.

THE PAPACY 145
Tertullian mentions the Bishops of Rome in the same
order as St. Irenaeus, and designates Linus as the first,
and Anencletus as the second.* He only claims for
Rome the succession of St. Peter, by ordination, from
St. Clement, third bishop of that city. " Let those,"
he said, " who boast of dating back to apostolic times,
show by the succession of their bishops, that they de
rive their orgin from an Apostle or an apostolic man,
as the Church of Smyrna proves that Polycarp was or
dained by John, or as the Church of Rome shows that
Clement was ordained by Peter."! We might infer
from this, that Linus and Anencletus were ordained by
St. Paul, who in that case, had organized the Roman
Church before Peter.
When Tertullian says that St. Peter sat on the chair
of Rome, he does not mean that he was Bishop, but that
he taught there ; for the word chair signifies nothing
more than teaching in the writings of the Fathers. If
he had meant otherwise, he would have made Linus
the second bishop, not the first.
Thus the evidence brought by Romish theologians to
prove the episcopate of St. Peter at Rome, tells against
them, and only establishes the fact that St. Peter and
St. Paul founded the Roman Church, and consequently
that this Church is Apostolic in its origin, which no one
denies. Besides these historical evidences which con
found them, the Romish theologians have invoked the
letter of Firmilianus, already quoted, and those few
texts from St. Cyprian, the true meaning of which we
have already explained. As regards the letter of Fir
milianus, it is only necessary to read it, in order to
understand its true sense, and to wonder that they
should have ventured to appeal to its evidence. As to
St. Cyprian, we will now in a general way sum up his
• TertulL agt. Marclon, Book IV. t TertuUlan-de Prescription, chap, xxxit

146 THE PAPACY.
.doctrine, in order to make apparent the abuse that has
been made of it.
St. Cyprian* proves : First, that the Church of Rome
was built upon St. Peter as the type and representative
of the unity of the Church ; secondly, that the Church
of Rome is the chair of Peter ; thirdly, that the Church
of Rome is the principal church from which sacerdotal
unity proceeded ; fourthly, that treachery and errour
cannot gain access to the Roman Church.
From this, the Romish theologians argue that the
Popes, as successors of St. Peter, are the centre of uni
ty, and that beyond them and their Church, all is schism.
Such are not the legitimate conclusions from the doc
trine of St. Cyprian ; for the holy Doctor lays down »
other principles besides, which clearly determine the
sense of the former ones : First, that St. Peter in con
fessing the divinity of Jesus Christ, answered for all the
Apostles, and spoke in the name of them all, and not in
his own name personally ; secondly, that the other Apos
tles were equal to St. Peter in power and dignity ; third
ly, that all the Bishops who are successors of the Apos
tles are successors of St. Peter, in the same way as those
of Rome.
If St. Peter answered Jesus Christ in the name of his
colleagues, it was because the question was addressed
to them as well as to him. St. Cyprian positively as
serts this : " Peter, upon whom the Lord had built the
Church, speaking alone, for all, and answering by the
voice of the Church." If the personality of that Apos
tle teas not concerned in Christ's question and in Peter's
answer, can it be said that his person is the foundation
of the Church ? It is evident that all the AposUes have
been so many foundations of that mystical edifice ; as
Holy Scripture affirms very plainly, and as we have
already endeavoured to show. Peter in replying alone,
* St. Cyp. de Unitat. Eccl, Letters 2T, 56, 59, 75.

THE PAPACY. 147
was, therefore, but the symbol of the unity which was
to govern the Apostolic body, and afterward the epis
copate. But in being the symbol or sign, was he neces
sarily the source and principle of it, so that without him
it could not subsist ? What if he were ? Would the
Bishop of Rome inherit this privilege? St. Cyprian
was so far from this opinion, that he united with Fir-
milianus in rebuking Stephen, Bishop of Rome, for
breaking this unity and putting himself outside of this
unity, when he separated himself from the communion
of those who differed with him in belief concerning re-
baptism. The question is not whether Stephen was
right or wrong, but what Cyprian thought of his op
position. Now so far from believing that unity with
Stephen was necessary to unity with the Church, he
affirmed that Stephen had separated himself from that
unity. Can it be said after this, that Cyprian placed
in the Bishop of Rome the smirce and principle of the
unity of the Church ? He did not even attribute that
prerogative to the person of St. Peter. He saw in him
only the symbol of that unity, which resided in the en
tire apostolate, as it was subsequently to reside in the
episcopate, which is one ; wrhich episcopate in its unity,
is the see of Peter. He fully develops that reflec
tion in one of his letters.* " Jesus Christ," he says,
"in order to determine the honour due to a bishop,
and all that concerns the government of the Church,
speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, ' I say to thee,
thou art Peter,'' etc." Thus Christ does not confer upon
Peter, by these words, a personal prerogative ; he con
fers upon all the Apostles a power common to them all,
and not only upon the Apostles, but upon all the Bish
ops their successors, who jointly and severally possess
the episcopate, which is one, and which is thus the found
ation of Church unity. * St Cyp. 27th Letter.

148 THE PAPACY.
Is it consistent with this doctrine of St. Cyprian to
affirm, as do the Romish theologians, that Christ gave
to Peter a personal privilege, and that this exclusive
privilege has passed to the Bishops of Rome ?
The great principle that runs through the remarks
of the Bishop af Carthage, is, that in the Church there
is but one apostolic see ; that is to say, as he himself
explains it, but one legitimate episcopate transmitted
from the Apostles ; let this episcopate be attacked at
Rome or elsewhere, it is an attack upon the unity and
upon the apostolic see, which must remain one, as Christ
has taught us by answering to one for alL It is this
episcopate which is the chair of St. Peter. Therefore
when Novatus would establish at Rome, side by side
with the legitimate episcopate, another episcopate which
does not come from the Apostles, this last episcopate is
out of the unity of the apostolic see — the universal see,
the unity of which is typified in Peter ; he is therefore
schismatic, as well as all others who would establish in
any place whatsoever, an episcopate separate from the
one which constitutes the apostolic inheritance.
Instead of thus comparing the several points of the
doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the Church, the Romish
theologians have only consented to notice some few
words standing alone, such as see of Peter, source of
unity, for the sake of applying them without reason to
the particular church of Rome, while they might so
easily have convinced themselves that the holy Father
understood by these words nothing more than the apos
tolic Church, or the legitimate episcopacy in general.
It is thus that he speaks of the lawful episcopate of Car
thage as the see of Peter, as well as of that of Rome ;*
that he speaks of the early bishops of Rome, as the pre
decessors of himself, the Bishop of Carthage, which ob
viously means that he possessed the same legitimate
• St, Cyprian, 10th Letter,

THE PAPACY. 149
episcopate that they had ;* and accordingly, in the fa
mous letter to Pope Cornelius, which has been so much
abused by the Romans, because in it the holy Doctor
calls the Church of Rome the principal church, from
which sacerdotal unity proceeded^ — in this letter, St.
Cyprian exclaims with indignation against a handful of
unprincipled men, who sought an appeal to Rome, as if
the bishops of Africa were not possessed of the same
authority. If, contrary to all evidence, we should accept the con
struction given by some Romish theologians to a few
isolated words of St. Cyprian, we must conclude that
the good Father was wanting in common-sense. For on
the one hand he would make Peter the foundation and
chief of the Church, while on the other he would teach
that all the Apostles had the same honour and power as
Peter ; he would make the Bishop of Rome sole in
heritor of St. Peter's prerogatives, while maintaining
that all lawful bishops are his heirs in the like manner ;
he would teach that the episcopate is but one, possessed
jointly and severally by all legitimate bishops, and at
the same time he would make the Roman episcopate a
separate and superior authority ; he would regard the
Pope as the source of unity, and in the same breath re
prove the Pope for seeeding from unity ; he would recog
nize a superior jurisdiction in the see of Rome, while he
would call those men unprincipled who did not see in
Africa the same episcopal authority as in Rome.
We have already seen that St. Cyprian blamed Pope
Stephen for pretending to be bishop of bishops, which,
according to his real teaching, was in fact monstrous ;
but had he taught the doctrine that Rome ascribes to
him, he could not have blamed him, for it would have
been legitimate.
• St Cyprian, 67th Letter.
t St. Cyprian, 6Bth Letter. We have already explained these words.

150 THE PAPACY.
Is it just, then, for the sake of favouring the papal sys
tem, to make of St. Cyprian a writer wanting in good
sense and logic, and to isolate out of his writings a few
words that may be interpreted in favour of this system,
without noticing the rest ?
We think it more proper to compare the several parts
of the doctrine of one to whose genius and holiness all
Christian ages have rendered homage. In this manner
we find in his works a broad, logical, and catholic doc
trine, but one opposed to the papal system. Whence
it follows that the champions of the modern Papacy can
not rest upon his evidence, without falsifying his works,
without insulting his memory, without denying by im
plication both his genius and his sincerity, which alone
can give any authority to his words.
It follows from all this, that Rome cannot establish
her pretended rights upon the testimony of either St.
Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Firmilianus, nor of
Eusebius of Caesarea, without resorting to such subter
fuges as are unworthy of an honest cause.
Such is also their practice with respect to numerous
testimonies that prove the falsity of their interpreta
tion of the famous text, " Thou art Peter." The Fathers,
who understand it to refer to the person of St. Peter,
are the most ancient, say these theologians ; they were
nearer to the apostolic times, and understood the text
better than those of later centuries. Upon that point
they emphatically quote Tertullian, who, in fact, says : *
" Could any thing have been hidden from Peter, who
was called the rock of the church which was to be
built ?"
At first sight, one might indeed think that Tertullian
had applied the word rock (la pierre) to the person of
Peter, but he explains himself in another of his works,
* Tertull. De Prescription, cap. xxil

THE PAPACY. 151
where he says :* " If Christ changes the name of Simon
to that of Peter, it is not only to signify the strength
and firmness of his faith, for then he would have given
him the name of such solid substances as are strength
ened and made more durable by admixture and cohe
sion ; but he gives him the name of Peter (the stone)
because, in Scripture, the stone typifies and represents
Christ, who is the stone of which we read that it is
laid to be a stumbling-stone and rock of offence.! Since,
then, he thus changes his name, it is to express the
change he is going to make in the world, by transform
ing idolatrous nations into stones similar to him, and fit
for the building of his Church."
With this explanation of Tertullian himself before us,
where are the deductions that it is sought to draw from
his first text ?
And further, when we see Tertullian, in the work
from which we have quoted, maintaining that in address
ing Peter, Christ addressed all the Apostles ; teaching,
moreover, that the twelve Apostles were equal among
themselves, like the twelve wells of Elim, the twelve
precious stones of Aaron's breast-plate, and Joshua's
twelve stones from Jordan ; can it be said in good faith
that he acknowledged in St. Peter any exceptional or
superior prerogative ? Above all, can he be said to
have acknowledged these prerogatives in the Bishops of
Rome? One thing is certain, that the Fathers who seem to
have understood the words " upon this rock " to apply to
the person of St. Peter, really meant to apply it only to
the object of his Faith, namely, Jesus Christ, the Man-
God. We will give as an example St. Hilary of Poi
tiers. This Father, in his commentary upon St. Matthew and
* Tertull. adv. Marc. Lib. IV. t Rom. 9 : 38.

152 THE PAPACY.
upon the Psalms, applies to St. Peter the word rock of
the Church, and regards him as its foundation.*
But in his work upon the Trinity he acknowledges
that it is upon tihe rock of his confession — that is to say,
upon the divinity of Jesus Christ — that the Church is
built.! " There is," he adds, " but one unchangeable
foundation,J that only rock confessed by the mouth
of St. Peter, ' Thou art the Son of the living God?
Upon that are based as many arguments for the truth
as perversity can suggest doubts, or infidelity calum
nies." It is evident that in this place the holy Father means
only the object of St. Peter's confession of faith — that is,
the divinity of Jesus Christ. If it should be claimed
that he meant his subjective faith — that is to say, his
adherence — and that the Bishops of Rome have inherited
that unfailing faith, it suffices to recall the anathema of
the same Father against Pope Liberius, who had grown
weak in the confession of the divinity of Christ : " I say
to thee anathema, O Liberius, to thee and to thine ac
complices. I repeat, anathema. And again I say it to
thee a third time ; to thee, Liberius, thou prevaricator."§
According to St. Hilary of Poitiers, therefore, if St
Peter may be considered as the rock of the Church, it
is only because of the confession of faith that he made
in the name of the whole Apostolic College, and through
the very object of that faith, which is the divinity of
Christ. His doctrine thus agrees with that of Tertul
lian and the other Fathers, who have only in this sense
applied to Peter himself the title of rock of the Church.
If we add that this Father and the others nowhere imply
that this title belongs to the Bishops of Rome, and fur-
* St. Hii. of Poit Commentary upon the 16th chap, of St Matt, and upon the 181st
Psalm, § 4.
t St. Hii. of Poit. on the Trinity, Book VI. chap. 86.
X St. Hii. of Poit on the Trinity, Book IL chap. 2a
j St Hii. de Poit Fragm.

THE PAPACY. 153
ther, that their teaching is even altogether opposed to
that opinion, it will be admitted that it is only by a
strange abuse of some of their words, taken alone and
misconstrued, that the Romish theologians have sought
to prop the papal authority upon their testimony.
St. Epiphanius taught the same doctrine as St. Hilary
of Poitiers.* " Peter, prince of Apostles," he says, " has
been for us as a solid stone, upon which the faith of the
Lord rests as upon a foundation ; upon which the Church
has been in every way edified. It was chiefly because
he confessed the Christ, Son of the living God, that
it was said to him, ' Upon this rock of solid faith I will
build my Church.'"
The Apostle Peter is not separated from the dogma
he confessed ; and it is this dogma itself which is the
foundation of the Church.
We do not deny that St. Epiphanius called Peter
prince of Apostles ; but in what sense ?
The Romans cite the following text in their favour :!
" Andrew first met the Lord, because Peter was the
younger. But subsequently when they had renounced
every thing else, it was Peter who was first ; he then
takes precedence of his brother. Add to this that God
knows the bent of all hearts, and knows who is worthy
of the first place. It is for this reason that Peter was
chosen to be prince of his disciples, 'as is very clearly
declared." Did St. Epiphanius mean by this, that Peter was the
foundation and chief of the Church, or that the Church
was founded upon the objective faith of that Apostle —
that is to say, the divinity of Christ, to which he had
rendered homage ? He answers for himself, as we have
already seen.
" Upon Peter," he says, " the Church is built, because
* Eplph. Hseres. 69. t Eplph. Hares. 61.

154 THE PAPACY.
he confessed Christ as Son of the living God, and be
cause it was said to him, Upon this rock of solid faith
I will build my Church."
In the same place St. Epiphanius teaches that the
words " feed my sheep " were not said by the Lord to
commit to Peter the government of the Church, but to
reinstate him in his apostolic dignity, which he had
forfeited by denying Christ. " The Lord," he says,
" called Peter again after his denial ; and to efface
the three denials, he calls upon him thrice to confess him.''
Elsewhere* he makes St. Paul the equal of St. Peter
at Rome, saying of them, " Peter and Paul, the first of
all the Apostles, were equally Bishops of Rome." And
he thus speaks of St. James of Jerusalem :
" He (James) first received the see, (of Jerusalem :) it
is to him first that the Lord intrusted his throne
upon earth."!
It is clear that he did not believe that it was Peter
who had inherited the throne of the Lord in this world.
He believed then that the primacy granted to St. Peter
was a mere priority, as Pope LeoJ explains it in the fol
lowing passage : "The disposition of the truth remains ;
and the blessed Peter has persevered in that strength
of the rock -which he had received, and has never aban
doned the reins of the Church which had been confided
to him ; he received ordination before the others, in order
that when he is called rock (Pierre) and foundation, ....
we might know, by the mystery of these titles, what
union exists between him and Christ."
This text proves that St. Leo saw in St. Peter nothing
more than a priority of ordination. He believed that
it was by his ordination uniting him to Christ that he
was the rock (Pierre) and the foundation of the Church.
* Epiph. Hseres. 27. t Epiph. Hares. 78.
J St. Leo, Sermon II., (III. in Migne,) upon the anniversary of his elevation to, the
Pontificate.

THE PAPACY. 155
He understands the power of binding and loosing
committed to Peter in an equally orthodox sense. " This
power is confided to him," he says,* " in a special man
ner, because the type (forma) of Peter is proposed to
all the pastors of the Church. Therefore the privilege
op Peter dwells wherever judgment is given with
his equity." Hence he concludes that only that will
be remitted or retained which might be so by a just
sentence and one worthy of Peter.
It is difficult to understand how the Romish theolo
gians have dared to quote the two preceding texts in
support of the papal autocracy, so evident is it that St.
Leo ascribes to St. Peter only a primacy, or rather
a priority of ordination, and that instead of ascribing
to the Bishop of Rome only, the power of Peter, he re
gards that Apostle only as the form or figure of the
apostolic power, which is exercised in reality wherever
it is exercised with equity.
And this also explains these other words of St. Leo :!
" From the whole world is Peter chosen to lead the
vocation of all peoples, all the Apostles, and all the
Fathers of the Church ; so that, though there are many
priests and many pastors, nevertheless, Peter governs
all those whom also Christ governs in chief.
" The divine condescension gave to this man a great
and wondrous participation in His power ; whenever
He willed there should be something in common be
tween him and the other princes, he never gave save
through him what he did not deny to the others."
Such phrases that smack of panegyric should have
their doctrinal interpretation according to the positive
instruction which we find in the other texts of the same
father. St. Leo does not pretend that St. Peter's power, what-
* St. Leo, Sermon III., (IV. Migne.) t Ib-

156 THE PAPACY.
ever it was, passed to the Bishops of Rome. His letter
to the Council of Chalcedon proves this, as we have
seen, sufficiently ; and this power of the first Apostle
did not make him master of the others ; it has passed
to all bishops who exercise it lawfully ; Peter was only
distinguished by the priority of his ordination.
Romish theologians have misused the eulogiums that
St. Leo and other Fathers have addressed to St. Peter,
in an oratorical way, without choosing to see that even
literally understood, they do not constitute privileges
transmissible to the Bishops of Rome, since none of these
Fathers have recognized any in them ; but no one who
is familiar with the Fathers could take these eulogies lit
erally. We will prove this by the works of St. John
Chrysostom, whose writings have been most abused by
the Uitramontanes, and whom they most prefer to quote
in support of their system. They have accumulated
texts to prove that the great Bishop of Constantinople
gave to St. Peter the titles of first, of great apostle, of
Coryphants, of prince, of chief, and of mouth of the
Apostles. But if he has given the same titles to the other Apos
tles, what can we conclude in favour of St. Peter ?
Now, in several places in his writings he says of all
the Apostles, that they were the foundations, the col
umns, the chiefs, the doctors, the pilots, and the pastors
of the Church.
He calls Peter and John in the same sense, princes of
the Apostles.* He says of Peter, James, and John col
lectively, that they were " first in dignity among the
Apostles, the foundations of the Church, the first called,
and princes of the disciples."!
If he says of St. Peter, " Peter so blotted out his
denial, that he became the first of the Apostles, and that
» Upon St Matthew, Homily 82. t Upon the First Chapter of Galatians.

THE PAPACY. 157
the entire universe was confided to him,"* he likewise
says elsewhere of Peter and John, that the universe was
confided to them ;\ he says of St. Paul : "Angels often
receive the mission of guarding the nations, but none
of them ever governed the people confided to him as
Paul governed the whole universe. . . . The Hebrew
people were confided to Michael the Archangel, and to
Paul were committed the earth, the sea, the inhabit
ants of all the universe — even the desert."t "In the
kingdom of heaven," he says, " it is clear that no one
will be before Paul."§ He further calls him the pilot
qf the Church,\\ vessel qf election, the celestial trumpet,
the leader qf the spouse of Christ; that is, the Church. ^
In the following passage, he evidently places him above
St. Peter : " In the place where the cherubim are cover
ed with glory, and where the seraphim soar, there shall
we see Paul with Peter, (Paul) who is the prince and
president (irpooTaTris) of the choir of saints."**
It is most important to observe that St. Chrysostom
attributes an equal dignity to these two Apostles when
he mentions both of them together. We will give some
few examples.
In his second sermon on prayer, he tells us that
prayer has such power that it " delivered from great
perils both Peter and Paul, the columns of the Church
and princes of the Apostles, the most glorious in heaven,
the walls of the universe, and guardians of earth and
sea."!! Speaking of the rebuke which Paul gave to Peter at

* Against the Jews. Eighth Discourse.
t Upon St John. Eighty-eighth Homily,
X Panegyric upon St Paul. Second Homily.
j Upon St. Matthew. Sixty-fifth Homily.
I Sermon on the Twelve Apostles.
1 Homily upon the words, " May it please God that ye be patient awhile.'
** Thirty-second Homily upon Epistle to Eomans.
tt Upon Prayer. Second Discourse.

158 THE PAPACY.
Antioch, he says : " Is any one troubled to hear that
Paul resisted Peter, that the columns of the Church
came into collision and fell upon each other ? For
they are the columns that bear and sustain the roof of
faith ; and not only the columns, but also the shields
and eyes of the body of the Church, the source and
treasury of all good things ; and if one should say of
them all that could be imagined, he could not sufficient
ly describe their dignity."* Later he compares these
Apostles to two coursers drawing together the chariot
of the Church, adding, in allusion to his fall, that one of
them, Peter, appears to halt-! He finally adds, " How,
O Paul ! didst thou, who wast so gentle and good with
thy disciples, show thyself cruel, inhuman toward thy fel
low-apostle," (avvan6aroXos.)l Is it possible to say more
distinctly that Paul was equal with Peter in dignity ?
We find the same truth in the following passage,
which deserves very particular attention :
" Christ confided the Jews to Peter, and set Paul at
the head of the Gentiles. I do not say this of myself, but
we have Paul himself who says : ' For he that wrought
effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumci
sion, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.
(Galat. 2 : 8.) For as a wise general (fiaaiXevg) who,
after having carefully estimated the capacities of each,
gives to one the command of the cavalry, and to an
other that of the infantry, Christ also did certainly di
vide his army in two parts, and confided the Jews to
Peter, and the Gentiles to Paul. The two divisions of
the army are indeed several, but the General is
one."§ Here, then, is the true doctrine of St. John Chrysos
tom : The Apostles were equal in dignity ; Peter and
Paul were alike first among them, the one for the Jews,
* Homily on the words, " I withstood him to the face."
t Ibid. X IbW- § Ibid.

THE PAPACY. 159
the other for the Gentiles ; Peter never received any
exclusive supremacy over all Christendom ; the only
chief of the Church was, is, and ever shall be, Jesus
Christ himself. Let us carefully observe these words
of St. Chrysostom, "I do not say this of myself " which
signifies : this is not a mere personal opinion ; it is a truth
which the Holy Ghost has taught us by the Apostle Paul.
St. John Chrysostom has not recognized in the Church
any dignity superior to the apostolate in general.
" Of all spiritual magistratures," says he, " the great
est is the apostolate. How do we know this ? Because
the apostle precedes all others. As the consul is the
first of civil magistrates, so is the apostle the first of
spiritual magistrates. St. Paul himself, when he enu
merates these dignities, places at their head the prerog
atives of the apostolate. What does he say ? ' And God
has set some in the church ; first, apostles ; secondarily,
prophets ; thirdly, teachers.' Do you observe the sum
mit of these dignities ? Do you mark that the apostle
is at the apex of the hierarchy — no one before, none
above him. For he says : 'First, apostles.'1 And not
only is the apostolate the first of all dignities, but also
the root and foundation thereof."*
St. Chrysostom recognized no supremacy in the apos
tolate. Had he believed that Christ had set one of
the Apostles above the rest to be his representative
on earth and the visible chief of his Church, he certainly
would have said so, for manifestly then or never was
the time to speak of it.
We can now appreciate the audacity which the Ro
mish theologians display in asserting that according to
St. Chrysostom, the authority of Peter was the most
fundamental and essential thing in the organization
of the hierarchy, which the Church has received from
Christ. The great and holy Patriarch is his own de-
* Homily upon the Utility of Reading Holy Scripture.

160 THE PAPACY.
fence against those who have falsified his doctrine, when
he tells them that the apostolate belongs equally to all
the Apostles. " That it is the first of aul dignities,
THAT THE APOSTLE IS AT THE SUMMIT OF THE HIER
ARCHY, THAT NONE IS BEFORE AND NONE ABOVE HIM."
The Romish theologians make the most capital of this
passage on the election of St. Matthias : " Peter always
speaks first, because he is full of zeal ; because it is to
him that Christ has committed the care of the flock ; and
because he is the first among the Apostles." A little
further on, asking whether Peter would not, himself,
have designated some one to take the place of Judas, he
adds, " Without doubt he could have done this, but he
refrained in order not to seem to do a favour to the one
he would name."
In the first place, these expressions that "Peter always
speaks first, because he is full of zeal and because he is
first among the Apostles," are the best evidence that
Chrysostom never meant to say, because he was the
chief of the Church. And thus the third because, in
serted between the other two, "because it is to him
that Christ has committed the care of his flock," is no
longer susceptible of the meaning attached to it by the
Romanists ; unless one would make the good Father con
tradict himself, not only in this passage, but in all his
writings. This is abundantly confirmed by the explana
tion that the great Patriarch gives of the words, "feed
my lambs, feed my sheep" upon which our adversaries
most rely when they claim that it was to Peter alone
that these words were addressed, and that to him alone
was confided the care of the flock. " This," writes St.
Chrysostom, " was not said to the Apostles and bishops
only, but also to each one qf us, however humble, to
whom has been committed the care of the flock."*
Thus, according to St. Chrysostom, these words were
* Upon St Matthew, 77th homily.

THE PAPACY. 161
not said to Peter alone and only for him ; they did not
confer upon him the dignity of supreme pastor of the
Apostles and the Church ; but were addressed to all the
Apostles in common, and to all bishops and pastors who
are equally the successors of the Apostles. Moreover,
St. Chrysostom perceived neither honour nor authority in
these words, but an exhortation to zeal and carefulness.
"Three times," he says, "the Lord questioned Peter,
and three times he gave him this command, in order to
ehow him how much care must be taken for the salva
tion of the sheep."*
St. Chrysostom himself has refuted the conclusions that
the Romanists would draw from the remainder of the text.
" Behold," he says, " how Peter does all things by
common consent, and decides nothing by his own au
thority and power. . . ,"!
"It was not Peter who presented them, (Matthias and
Joseph,) but all, (the Apostles.) Thus Peter did nothing
but give them counsel, showing moreover that it did not
come from him, but had been announced of old in the
prophecies, and thus he was the interpreter, but not the
master" And again : " Remark the modesty of James,
although he had received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, he
says nothing on this occasion ; consider also the great
modesty of the other disciples, who, after unanimously
giving the throne to James, no longer disputed among
themselves. For that Church was, as it were, in heaven,
having nothing of earth — shining not by its walls or its
marbles, but by the unanimous and pious fervour of its
members." . . .
The Romish theologians quote the first part of this
text, but carefully abstain from quoting the last ; such,
indeed, being their habit.
According to this Father, therefore, the Apostles acted
by common consent ; they chose together the candidates
* Upon St. John, 88th homily. t Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

162 THE PAPACY.
for the election ; Peter did not speak as master, but as
interpreter of the prophecies ; James, who was the first
in dignity, and the other Apostles, allowed him to speak
alone because of their modesty, not because they did not
possess the same power as he. If St. Chrysostom re
cognized a superior dignity in any of the Apostles, we
should say it was in St. James of Jerusalem. In fact,
beside the text already quoted, we find the following
amongst his writings :
" Behold, after Peter it is Paul who speaks, and no
man objects ; James looks on and remains quiet, for the
primacy had been committed to him. John and the
other Apostles do not speak, but remain silent without
the least vexation, because their soul was free from all
vainglory. . . . After they (Barnabas and Paul)
ceased speaking, James answered and said, ' Simeon
hath declared how God, at the first, did visit the Gen
tiles.' . . . Peter's language had been more vehe
ment ; that of James is more moderate. It is thus those
should always act who possess great power. He leaves
severity for others, and reserves moderation for himself."
Again, where he analyzes the words of St. James, he
reasons thus :
" What means, I judge ? It means, I affirm, with
authority, that the thing is thus. . . . James, there
fore, decided the whole question."*
This passage may not seem to the Romanists to prove
the primacy of James, but it assuredly disproves that
of Peter — if by primacy we mean authority.
Romish theologians also quote St. Chrysostom upon
the fall of St. Peter as follows :
" God permitted him to yield, because He meant to
establish him prince of the entire universe ; so that, re
membering his own faults, he should pardon those who
might fall." * Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 33d hom.

THE PAPACY. 163
We have already seen that St. Chrysostom does not
use this title ol prince of the universe, in the sense that
Rome struggles to give it ; and without that interpre
tation, the passage quoted presents nothing further in
favour of the papal theory. As to St. Chrysostom's
opinion of Peter's fall, he himself explains it :*
" Wishing to correct Peter of this fault of contradic
tion, Christ permitted that this Apostle should deny
Him. . . . Hear what He says to him : ' I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.'' He holds this
language to him in order to touch him the more forcibly,
and to show him that his fall would be heavier than that
of the others, and that it would need a greater aid. For
his" was a double crime — that of contradiction, and that
of exalting himself above the others. There was yet a
third, still more serious — that of relying entirely upon
his own strength. In order to cure Peter, the Saviour
allows him to fall ; and, passing by the other disciples,
He says to him, ' Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath de
sired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat ' — that
is, to trouble, to tempt you — ' but I have prayed for thee,
that thy faith fail not.' Why, if Satan hath desired to
sift all the Apostles, does not the Lord here say, ' I have
prayed for you ' ? Is it not, evidently, for the reasons
I have stated ? Is it not in order to touch Peter, and
to show him that his fall would be heavier than that of
the others, that He speaks to him only ? How, then,
could Peter deny Christ ? Because Christ did not say
to him, ' that thou shouldst not deny me,' but ' that thy
faith fail not, that it do not entirely perish.' "\
How is it possible to discover in such language the
faintest allusion to a supremacy of authority given to
St. Peter upon the occasion of his fall ? What singular
boldness to maintain that our Lord meant to establish
a distinction in favour of Peter, and to notify him of his
Upon chapter 1st of Galatians. t Upon St. Matthew, 82d homily.

164 THE PAPACY.
elevation over the other Apostles, precisely at the mo
ment when He foretold him his fall and denial !
The following words most evidently determine the
meaning which Chrysostom gives to Peter's primacy.
He says, in the first place, that this Apostle was " first
in the Church." Now " the first in a society," does not
mean " the chief of that society." Again he adds :
" When I say Peter (Pierre) I say the solid rock, (la
pierre,) the unshaken base, the great Apostle, the first
of the Apostles, the first called, the first obedient."*
Evidently he praises Peter for the solidity of the faith ho
had confessed ; he calls him " first of the Apostles," be
cause he was the first called to the apostolate. He does
not say "first in authority," but " the first obedient."
St. Peter had, therefore, the glory of being called first
to the apostolate, and of being also the first servant of
Jesus Christ.
As regards the alleged succession from St. Peter that
is claimed for the Roman bishops, the Romish theolo
gians sum up the doctrine of St. Chrysostom as follows.:
" The Church of Antioch had the honour of possessing
St. Peter for a time. She acknowledges him as her
founder, but she did not keep him. It was to Rome
that he removed his see ; it was at Rome that he re
ceived the palm of martyrdom ; and Rome has his tomb
— Rome, preeminently the royal city."
What says the Father ?
" One of the prerogatives of our city (Antioch) is to
have had for her teacher Peter, the leader of the Apos
tles. It was just that the city which first of all the
world was adorned with the name of Christian, should
have for her Bishop the first of the Apostles. But hav
ing received him as teacher, we did not keep him al
ways ; we yielded him to the imperial city of Rome ; or
rather, we have always kept him ; for if we have not the
* Upon Almsgiving, 8d homily.

THE PAPACY. 165
body of Peter, we have kept the faith of Peter as our
Peter, since holding Peter's faith is as though We held
Peter himself."*
Peter is therefore nothing except for the sake of the
truth to which he testified. St. Chrysostom says this
expressly in the same discourse, and adds : " When I
mentioned Peter, another Peter was brought to mind,
[Flavian, Bishop of Antioch, at the time the discourse was
written,] a father and doctor common to us all, who has
inherited St. Peter's virtue, and has received his see in
heritage." Again, in his eulogy of St. Ignatius, Bishop
of Antioch, we read : " St. Ignatius was the successor
of Peter in his principality."! The Latin translation
thus renders it : " St. Ignatius succeeded (St. Peter)
in the dignity of the episcopate." This is incorrect.
The principality in the style of the Fathers is the apos
tolate, which is indeed the source of the episcopate, but
surpasses it in dignity and power. But whether translated
principality or episcopate, St. Chrysostom's testimony is
equally opposed to the Romish doctrine, that the Bishop
of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter. According
to St. Chrysostom, St. Peter cannot in fact have occu
pied the see of any one city, being equally and in a gen
eral sense the apostle-bishop of all the churches where
he preached the Gospel, and where his teachings are
preserved. In this same discourse, St. Chrysostom calls St. Igna
tius of Antioch, " teacher of Rome in the faith," and
gives the following as the reason why Peter, Paul, and
Ignatius died at Rome : " Tou [inhabitants of Antioch]
have through God's blessing, no further need of in
struction, for you have struck root in religion ; but the
people of Rome, because of the great wickedness that
prevailed there, needed more powerful aid ; therefore
* 2d Homily upon the Title of the Acts of the Apostles.
t Eulogy on St Ignatius.

166 THE PAPACY.
were Peter and Paul, and Ignatius with them, put to
death there."* In developing this subject, he adds :
" The death of these Apostles and Ignatius was a visi
ble proof and a preaching in action of the resurrection
of Jesus Christ."
In another discourse, St. Chrysostom shows just as
plainly that he ascribes no right of superiority to the
city of Rome, although Peter and Paul died there. He
says : " I love Rome for her magnificence, her antiquity,
her beauty, for the multitude of her inhabitants, her
power, her wealth, her military glory ; but, above all, I
call that city blessed, because Paul wrote to the Ro
mans during his life, because he loved them, because he
spoke with them, during his sojourn among them, and
ended his life in their midst."! He thus merely ex
presses a personal sentiment of affection for the city of
Rome. The praises he gives her are earthly and tem
poral. He merely says, " I love Rome," but he does not
say that he recognizes the Church of that city as the
Queen of Churches — the mother and mistress of all
others. He ascribes no privilege to her on account of
St. Peter. We see, therefore, that, in seeking to give the
sanction of so great a name to their doctrine of papal
prerogative, the Romish theologians have distorted the
works of this great divine. And no less the doctrine
of St. Gregory Nazianzen, which, in respect to St.
Peter, may be entirely summed up in this text : " Thou
seest," he says, " how among Christ's disciples, all
equally great, high, and worthy of election, this one is
called the Rock, in order that on his faith he may re
ceive the foundations of the Church. "J He does not
say that it was upon the person of St. Peter that the
Church was to be built, but upon his faith ; nor yet upon
his subjective faith, which was to fail so sadly at the
* Eulogy on Ignatius. t Homily 22, on the Epistle to Romans.
X S. Greg. Nazian. -26th Discourse.

THE PAPACY. 167
moment of his three-fold denial ; but upon his objective
faith — that faith which he had confessed in the divinity
of Christ.
Romanists invoke the testimony of St. Gregory of
Nyssa,* who says :
" We celebrate the memory of St. Peter, who is the
chief of the Apostles ; and in him we honour the other
members of the Church, for it is on him that the Church
of God rests, since, in virtue of the prerogative he holds
from the Lord, he is the firm and solid rock on which
the Saviour has built his Church."
Such is the translation of Roman theologians. Here
is the literal translation from the Greek :
" We celebrate the memory of St. Peter, who is the
chief of the Apostles ; and together with him are glori
fied the other members of the Church ; and the Church
of God is strengthened, since, in virtue of the gift that
the Lord has given him,-he is the firm and most solid
rock upon which the Saviour has constructed the
Church."! By their translation, the Romish theologians endeavour
to convey the idea that Peter received an exceptional
gift, that made him the sole foundation of the Church.
St. Gregory positively denies the errours they would at
tribute to him in the following passages, taken from the
same discourse they misquote :
"We chiefly commemorate to-day those who have
shone with a great and dazzling splendour of piety. I
mean Peter, James, and John, who are the princes of the
apostolic order. . . The Apostles of the Lord were
• Greg, of Nyssa, Panegyric of St. Stephen.
f lA.vnaovevr.Tat UtTpoc KefyaXri tuv 'AttootoXuv seal ovv6oi;d&Tai
fiiv uvr^s rd }.oin-dfi£on rijc kss.K.'knciac, i-Kwrnoi^erai Si rj tKKknaia rov
Qeov. Ovtos yap eari Kard rf/v dodeioav &vt$ irapd rov Kvpiov dapedv
il ifsp-ay^c seal axvpuraTt) nerpa it? rp ri{v CMcXnoiav 6 2<jr#p uKoib-
tmae. (Greg, of Nyssa.)

168 THE PAPACY.
stars that brightened all under heaven. Their princet
and chiefs — Peter, James, and John — whose martyrdom
we celebrate to-day, suffered in various ways. . .
" It is just to celebrate on the same day the memory
of these men, not only because they were unanimous in
their preaching, but because of the equality of their
dignity, (rbv biurrtuov.) The one (Peter) who held
the first place, (nptoroadciTTig,) and who is the chief of the
Apostolic college, received the favour of a glory suitable
to his dignity, being honoured with a passion similar to
that of the Saviour. . . But James was beheaded,
aspiring to the possession of Christ, who is truly (dvrag)
his head, for the head of man is the Christ, who is at
the same time head of all the Church." ....
" They (the Apostles) are the foundations of the Church,
the columns and pillars of truth. They are never-failing
springs of salvation, from which flow abundant torrents
of divine doctrine."
After again giving the same titles to Peter, James,
and John, St. Gregory adds :
" Nevertheless, we have not said this to debase the
other Apostles, but to bear witness to the virtue of those
of whom we speak ; or, better still, in order to speak
the common praise of all the Apostles."
All these titles, all this praise, given by St. Gregory to
Peter, James, and John, refer not to the dignity of their
apostolate — that dignity was the same in all — but mere
ly to their personal virtue. He is at particular pains to
leave no doubt as to the true value of these encomiums,
and upon the doctrine of the real equality of the Apos
tles, for he adds :
" AS REGARDS THE TRUTH OF THE DOGMAS, they, (the
Apostles,) like members, represent one and the same
body ; and whether one member be honoured, as the Apos
tle says, (1 Cor. 12 : 26,) all the members rejoice with it.
As their labours for religion were in common, so also the

THE PAPACY. 169
honours deserved for their preaching of the faith are in
common. Why," he continues, " should we be so bold as
to endeavour to express what is above our power, and to
strive worthily to celebrate the virtues of the Apostles ?
Our encomiums are not for Simon, (Peter,) known as
having been a fisherman, but for his firm faith, that
supports thb Church. Neither do we exalt the sons
of Zebedee, (James and John,) but the Boanerges, which
means the sons of the thunder."
It is, therefore, not the person of Peter that is the
rock of the Church, but the faith he confessed ; that is,
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or the divinity of Christ,
to which he bore witness.
Among the Greek Fathers there is not one who has
taught a different doctrine from that of Chrysostom and
Gregory of Nyssa. St. Cyril of Alexandria says express
ly, " The word rock has only a denominative value — it
signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the
Apostle."* This forbids us to ascribe to Cyril the opinion
that founds so great privileges upon that word, and yet
this text has been quoted in favour of the modern Papacy
by its champions. They quote yet another passage : " He
(Christ) teaches his disciple (Peter) that it was He that
knew all things before they were created ; He announces
to him that his name shall be no more Simon, but Peter ;
giving him to understand by this word that He would
build his Church upon him as upon a stone and a very
solid rock."!
Has he taught that Peter should be exclusively the
foundation of the Church ? No ; for he teaches else
where J that " Peter and John were equal in dignity and
honour." In another place § he teaches that " Christ is the
* St. Cyril of Alexandria, Of the Trinity, Fourth Book.
t St Cyril of Alexandria upon St. John, Book II. ch. xU.
t St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Nestorius.
| Bt. Cyril of Alexandria, Second Discourse on Italah.

1?0 THE PAPACY.
foundation of all — the unshaken base upon which we
all are built as a spiritual edifice." Has he in this
taught that the privileges of Peter would pass to the
Bishops of Rome ?
He nowhere makes the least mention of such a thing.
Why, then, do Romish theologians call him to witness ?
For we have seen that the application of the word rock to
Peter does not prove that this Apostle enjoyed any ex
ceptional prerogatives ; much less does it prove that the
Bishops of Rome have inherited any from that Apostle.
St. Cyril had, touching the prerogatives of St. Peter,
no other teaching than that of the learned school of
Alexandria. Clement, one of the great luminaries of
that school, taught distinctly that no primacy — in the
sense of authority — ever existed among the Apostles.
" The disciples," he says,* " disputing for primacy,
Christ made a law of equality, saying, ' Ye must be
come as little children.' "
Origen taught no other doctrine. Romish theologians
quote some texts in which he seems to apply to the per
son of St. Peter the title of the rock, but they omit this
passage, in which he clearly explains himself: " If you
believe," he says,! "that God has raised the whole
building of his Church on Peter alone, what will you
say of John, the son of the Thunder ? What will you
say of each of the Apostles ? Will you venture to say
that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in
particular, but shall prevail against the others ? Are
not the words, the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it, addressed to them all ? Have not these words had
their fulfilment in each one of the Apostles ?" And such
also is the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, ever faith
ful to the traditions of his fathers.
The same is true of that of St. Basil of Caesarea.
* St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromat Fifth Book, fifth section.
t Origen, Commentary on St. Matt.

THE PAPACY. 171
Romanists have in vain sought to use him as an author
ity. It is sufficient to read him to be assured that he
has nowhere made the Apostle Peter the rock of the
Church, as they pretend. " The house of the Lord,"
he says,* " built in the top of the mountains," is the
Church — according to the Apostle who says that one
should know how to conduct one's self in the House of
God, which is the Church of the living God. Its foun
dations are in the holy mountains, for it is built upon
the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets. One of
these mountains was Peter, upon which rock the Lord
promised to build his Church. It is just that sublime
souls, lifted above terrestrial things, should be called
mountains. Now, the soul of the blessed Peter was
called a sublime rock, because he was firmly grounded in
faith, and that it bore constantly and courageously the
blows that were laid upon it in the day of trial. St.
Basil concludes that by imitating that faith and courage
we shall also become mountains upon which the house
of God may be raised.
Some Western fathers of the fourth and fifth centu
ries seem, more than those of the East, to favour the
papal authority. But it is not so in fact. We have
already given the doctrine of Tertullian, of St. Cyprian,
of St. Hilary of Poitiers, and of St. Leo. That of Am
brose, Augustine, Optatus, and Jerome is the same.
According to St. Augustine, St. Ambrose had made
the word rock in his hymns relate to the person of St.
Peter, and this had at first led him to adopt this con
struction. St. Ambrose, however, explains himself in
other writings, as in the following :! " Faith is the foun
dation of the Church, for it was not oi the person but of
the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of
hell should not prevail against it ; it is the confession of
• St. Basil on second chapter of Isaiah. tSt Ambrose, On the Incarnation.

172 THE PAPACY.
faith that has vanquished hell." The truth confessed by
St. Peter is, therefore, the foundation of the Church, and
no promise was made to his person, nor, consequently,
to his subjective faith.
Among the texts of St. Ambrose, Rome relies chiefly
upon this :* " The Lord, who questioned, did not doubt ;
he questioned, not to learn, but, in order to teach which
one he would leave, as the vicar of his love, before ascend
ing to heaven . . . Because, alone of them all, he confessed
Him, he is preferred to all . . . The Lord does not ask the
third time, likest thou me,! DU* lowest thou me ; and then
He does not commit to him, as the first time, the lambs
that must be nourished with milk, nor, as at the second
time, the young sheep ; but he commands him to pasture
all, that, being more perfect, he may govern the most
perfect." Now, say with much gravity the Romish theolo
gians, after quoting this text, who are these most per
fect sheep if not the other Apostles ? Then they go one
step further, and suppose that the Pope takes Peter's
place, and the Bishops that of the other Apostles ; and
thus they arrive at the conclusion that the Bishops are
the sheep as regards their relation to the Pope.
St. Ambrose never said a word that would sustain
such inferences. He gives no dogmatic character to
what he says of St. Peter. He proposes a mystic and
devout interpretation — he has no intention to confound
the Apostles, who are the shepherds, with the sheep.
Much less does he dream of any privileges of the Bish
ops of Rome, whom he does not even mention. A tot
tering foundation, indeed, for so lofty an edifice ! St.
* St. Ambrose, On St. Luke, and passim.
t Thus only can we do justice to the text. In fact, dyaT:q.c ana eSsXels are both
properly translated " lovest," as in our common English version ; but In the Greek
the two words indicate different degrees of loving — 0tAetv being stronger than
ayandv  Ed.

THE PAPACY. 173
Ambrose, like Hilary of Poitiers, ascribes sometimes to
the person of Peter, sometimes to his faith, or rather to
the object of his faith, the title of the rock. To his per
son he only attributes the title in a figurative manner,
and by extension. " Jesus Christ," he says," is the rock.
He did not deny the grace of this name to his disci
ple when he called him Peter, because he borrowed from
the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. En
deavour, then, thyself to be a rock — thy rock is thy faith,
and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art
a rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is
built upon the rock."
This explanation leaves no shadow of doubt upon the
sense in which St. Ambrose took this famous saying,
upon which Romanists rear the prodigious monument of
papal prerogatives. Why was this name given to
Peter? "Because," adds St. Ambrose, "the Church
was built on Peter's faith." But what faith ? His per
sonal belief, or the truth he believed ? St. Ambrose re
plies in the same place, " Peter was thus named because
he was the first who laid the foundation of faith among
the nations." What did he preach ? Certainly not his per
sonal assent. What he taught is, then, the truth that he
believed ; and that truth is the foundation of the Church.
The works of St. Ambrose are full of proofs against
papal pretensions. But why multiply texts ? One only
needs to glance over his works to be convinced that he
is no authority in favour of the Ultramontane system.
We shall therefore be content to quote only the follow
ing texts, in which he sets forth his belief concerning
Peter's primacy.
In explaining these words in the epistle to the Gala
tians, "I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter," he says:
" It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why ?
was Peter superiour to him and to the other Apostles ?
No ; but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to

174 THE PAPACY.
be intrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches.
Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission
from Peter ? No ; but that Peter might know that Paul
had received the power which had also been given to
himself." St. Ambrose also explains these other words : " When
they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was
committed to me :" " He (Paul) names only Peter, and
only compares himself with him, because as Peter had
received the primacy to found the Church of the Jews,
he, Paul, had been chosen in like manner to have the
primacy in founding the Church of the Gentiles." Then
he enlarges upon this idea, which completely demolishes
the papal pretensions. In fact, according to St. Ambrose,
Rome, which confessedly did not belong to the Jews,
should not glory in the primacy of St. Peter, but in that
of 'St. Paul. Besides, she would then come closer to
historic truth : for it is demonstrated that Paul evangel
ized Rome before Peter ; that her first two bishops
were ordained by Paul ; and that her succession through
Peter only dates from Clement, her third Bishop.
Finally, what does St. Ambrose mean by the word
primacy ? He attached no idea of honour or authority
to it, for he says positively : " As soon as Peter heard
these words, ' Whom say ye that I am ?' remembering
his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of con
fession, not of honour ; a primacy of faith, not of rank."*
Is not this to reject all idea of primacy as taught by the
Romanists ? It is clear, then, that they wrong St. Am
brose in making him their authority.
Not less St. Augustine. This Father indeed said,!
" Peter, who a short time before had confessed that
Christ was the Son of God, and who in return for that
confession, had been called the rock upon which the
* St. Ambrose on the Incarnation. + St Augustine on 69th Psalm.

THE PAPACY. 175
Church should be built, etc. ;" but he explains his mean
ing in several other works. Let us give a few speci
mens :* " Peter received this name from the Lord toi
signify the Church ; for it is Christ who is the rock, and
Peter is the Christian people. The rock is the
principal word ; this is why Peter is derived from the
Rock, and not the rock from Peter ; precisely as the
word Christ is not from Christian, but Christian from
Christ. ' Thou art therefore Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my Church. I will build thee on myself —
I will not be built on thee.' "
" The Church," he says again,! " is built on the rock
after which Peter was named. That rock was Christ,
and it is on this foundation that Peter himself was to
be raised."
In his book of the Retractations, the same Father says :f
"In that book, I said in one place, in speaking of St.
Peter, that the Church had been built on him as on the
rock. This thought is sung by many in the verses of
the blessed Ambrose, who says of the cock, that ' when it
crew the Rock of the Church deplored his fault.' But
I know that subsequently I very frequently adopted this
sense, that when the Lord said, ' Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church,' he meant by
this rock, the one which Peter had confessed in saying,
' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; ' so that
Peter, called by the name of this rock, represented the
person of the Church which is built upon that rock,
and which has received the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. In fact, it was not said to him, Thou art the
rock ; but thou art Peter. The rock was Christ. Peter
having- confessed him as all the Church confesses him,
he was called Peter. Between these two sentiments,
let the reader choose the most probable."
» St. Augustine, 18th Sermon. t St. Augustine, 124th Tract.
X St Augustine Retractations, Book L ch. 21.

176 THE PAPACY.
Thus St. Augustine condemns neither of the interpre
tations given to the text, Thou art Peter, etc. But he
evidently regards as the better the one which he most
frequently used. Yet this does not prevent the Romish
theologians from quoting this Father in favour of the
first interpretation, which he admitted but once, and
renounced, though without formally condemning it.
St. Augustine teaches, like St. Cyprian, that Peter
represented the Church — that he was the type of the
Church. He does not infer from this that the whole
Church was summed up in him ; but, on the contrary, that
he received nothing personally, and all that was granted
to him was granted to the Church.* Such is the true com
mentary upon the belief of the Fathers — that Peter typ
ified the Church whenever he addressed Christ, or the
Lord spoke to him. St. Augustine, it is true, admits
that Peter enjoyed the primacy, but he explains what
he means by that word. " He had not," he says, " the
primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the
disciples, (in discipulis.) His primacy among the disci
ples was the same as that of Stephen among the dea
cons." He calls Peter the first (primus) as he calls
Paul the last, (novissimus,) which conveys only an idea
of time. And that this was indeed St. Augustine's
idea, appears from the fact that,! in this same text, so
much abused by Romanists, because in it Augustine
grants Peter the primacy, he distinctly asserts that
Peter and Paul, the first and the last, were equal in the
honour of the apostleship. Therefore, according to
St. Augustine, Peter received only the high favour of
being called first to the Apostleship. This distinction
with which the Lord honoured him, is his glory, but
gave him no authority.
According to Romish theologians, St. Augustine re-
* Sermons 118 and 316, Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul, Tract 124 on John et alibi.
t Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul

THE PAPACY. 177
cognized the supreme authority of the Roman Church
when he said that " the principality of the Apostolic
chair has always been in vigour there ;"* but what did
he mean by these words ? It is certain that the Church
of Africa, under the inspiration of St. Augustine him
self, who was her oracle, wrote vigourously to the Bishop
of Rome, warning him not to receive to his communion
thereafter, those whom she had excommunicated, as he
had done in the case of a certain Appiarius,! because he
could not do so without violating the canons of the
Council of Nicea. Far from recognizing the supreme
authority of Rome, the Church of Africa, in accord with
St. Augustine, refused to that Bishop the title of sum-
mus sacerdos. St. Augustine did not, therefore, recog
nize the superior jurisdiction of the Roman Church.
What, then, does he mean by principality of the Apos
tleship? He leaves no doubt upon the subject. After
having ascribed this principality of the Apostleship to
St. Paul as well as to St. Peter, he observes that it is
something higher than the episcopate. " Who does not
know," says he, " that the principality qf the Apostle
ship is to be preferred to every episcopate ?"\ The
Bishops were considered, indeed, as successors of the
Apostles ; but while they inherited from them the apos
tolic ministry, they had no share in certain superiour pre
rogatives, which only belonged to the first Apostles of
Christ. These prerogatives constitute the principality
qf the Apostleship, which thus belongs equally to all
the first Apostles. And in fact, the title of Apostle-
prince is given to them all indifferently by the Fathers
of the Church. Every Apostolic Church, therefore —
that is, every Church that has preserved the legitimate
Apostolic succession — has preserved this principality of
* St. Aug. Ep. to the Donatlst Bishops.
t Epist Eplscop. Afrlc. ad Celestin. et Cone Carth. in.
X St Augustine's 10th Sermon on Peter and Paul

178 THE PAPACY.
the see, that is, of Apostolic teaching. St. Augustine
merely says that, in his time, the Church of Rome had
preserved this succession of Apostolic teaching. Does
that prove that he recognizes in her a superiour authori
ty, and one universal in the government of the Church ?
Assuredly not. So far was he from recognizing any
such authority, that by preference, he sends the Dona
tists to the Apostolic churches of the East, to be con
vinced of their errour; not because he did not believe
Rome to have inherited the Apostolic teaching — for we
have seen to the contrary — but because Rome, mixed
up as she was already with their discussions, did not
offer equal guarantees of impartiality as the Apostolic
churches of the East.
St. Augustine, who did not even recognize the right of
Rome to interfere with the discussion of mere matters of
discipline in the African Church, was still further re
moved from recognizing her doctrinal authority. In
many of his writings he sets forth the rule of faith, and
never in that connection does he mention the doctrinal
authority of the Church of Rome. In his eyes, the rule
of faith is the constant and unanimous consent of all the
Apostolic churches. His doctrine is the same as that
of Tertullian, and it has been copied, so to speak, by Vin
cent Lirinensis, whose admirable Commonitorium sums
up perfectly the doctrine of the first five centuries upon
this fundamental question. In view of this great doctrine
so clearly stated by the Fathers, and in which not the
faintest foreshadowing of Roman authority is to be found
— a doctrine, on the contrary, diametrically opposed to
this pretended authority — it is difficult to understand how
the partisans of the Papacy have ventured to invent their
system ; for they must have known that they were thus
putting themselves in direct opposition to all Catholic
tradition. Romish theologians quote with much pomp and cir-

THE PAPACY. 179
cumstance two other passages from St. Augustine. In
the first, this Father, speaking to the Pelagians,* says :
" As regards your cause two councils have been sent to
the Apostolic See. Rescripts hi ve returned ; the case is
finished — may it please God that also the errour be so !"
The advocates of the Papacy thus translate this passage :
"Rome has spoken — the case is finished ; Roma locuta
est — causa finita est." This expression, Rome has spoken
— Roma locuta est, is a mere invention. It does not occur
in St. Augustine. The other — the case is finished — is
there. We shall presently see what it means.
The second passage, similar to the first, is thus con
ceived : " Your cause is finished," he said to the Pelagi
ans,! " by a competent j udgment of the bishops in general ;
there is nothing for you to do except to submit to tho
sentence that has been given ; or to repress your restless
turbulence if you cannot submit !"
The first text dates back to the year 419, when the
Pelagians had been condemned by two African councils
and by Pope Innocent I. The second is of the year
421, when eighteen Pelagian bishops had appealed from
this sentence to a general council. According to this text,
say the Romish theologians, the condemnation of the
Pope, confirming that of the African councils, had a doc
trinal authority from which there was no appeal to a gen
eral council, and therefore Rome enjoyed a superiour and
final authority in dogmatic questions.
These inferences are not just. In the first place, St.
Augustine did not regard a sentence of Rome as final.
Thus, speaking of the question of rebaptism, he asserts
that St. Cyprian had a right to oppose his belief to that
of Pope Stephen ; and he says that he himself would
not give so positive an opinion on that point if a general
council had not settled it. t At the same time he admits
* St. Aug. Serm. 131 , Pe Verb. Evang. t St. Aug. adv. Julian, Lib. HI.
X St. Aug. de Baptismate adv. Donat. de Baptismate adv. Petil.

180 THE PAPACY
that Stephen had with him the majority. He says to the
Donatists, that after having been condemned by the coun
cil of Rome, they had one resource left — an appeal to the
plenary or oecumenical council.* It thus appears that
he did not regard the sentence of the Pope, even given
in council, as final and without appeal.
It must be remarked, moreover, that in the case of
the Pelagians, St. Augustine only once mentioned a sen
tence from Rome — in the first text quoted. In the second
text, and everywhere else, he only speaks of a judgment
given by all the bishops ; particularly those of the East. !
This, then, is St. Augustine's argument : " You have been
condemned everywhere — in the East and in the West —
why then appeal to the Church in council, when all the
churches unanimously condemn you ?" The Pelagians
relied on a sentence in their favour given by Pope Zosi-
mus, Innocent's successor. How does Augustine answer
them ? " If I should concede (what is not true) that the
Roman Church passed this judgment upon Celestius and
Pelagius, and that she approved their doctrines, it would
only follow that the Roman clergy were prevaricators. J "
This answer of St. Augustine overthrows the whole the
ory that the Uitramontanes would build upon this enlarg
ed and distorted text. He did not exclude Rome in the
judgment given against the Pelagians, because that
church is Apostolic and a part of the Church Catholic ; yet
his argument is wholly summed up in the following words :
" Where will you go ?" he says to the Pelagians. " Do
you not see, wherever you turn, the army of Jesus Christ
arrayed against you the world over ; at Constantinople
quite as much as in Africa and in the most remote
lands ?"§
Beside all this, another proof that even at Rome as well
as elsewhere in the church, the sentence of Innocent I.
» Aug. Eplst 4 t St Aug. Lib. I. adv. Julian.
X Ib. Lib. IL S XX,.

THE PAPACY. 181
was not regarded as terminating the case is found in
the fact that, after his sentence, the case was reexamined
at Rome itself by Zosimus, the successor of Innocent, by
the several churches in a great number of synods ; and
finally* by the OScumenical Council of Ephesus, which
judged the case and confirmed the sentence given at
Rome and in all other places where it had been examined.
When we are told how Pope Innocent I. happened
to be called upon to give an opinion in the case of Pela-
gius, we see very clearly that the Romish theologians
have misapplied the text.
The African bishops had condemned the errours of Pe-
lagius in two councils, without a thought of Rome or its
doctrine. The Pelagians then set up, to oppose them, the
alleged faith of Rome, which they said harmonized with
their own. Then the African bishops wrote to Innocent
to ask him whether this assertion of the Pelagians was
true. They were the rather moved to this that the Pe
lagians had great influence at Rome. ! They did not
write to the Pope to ask of him a sentence that should
guide them, but that they might silence those who claim
ed that heresy was maintained at Rome. Innocent con
demned it, and therefore Augustine says: "You pre
tended that Rome was for you ; Rome condemns you ;
you have also been condemned by all the other churches ;
hence the case is finished." Instead of asking a decision
from Rome, the African bishops pointed out to the Pope
the course he should pursue in this affair. J
Here then again have the Romish theologians not only
abused the text of St. Augustine, but also invented apart
of it to suit the necessities of their cause.
Another text which at first sight seems very favourable
* Eplst. Cone. Ephes. ad easiest, v. et St. Prosp. Opera, Phot. Blblloth. Cardinal
Norls. Hist Pelag. Lib. IL cap. lx. Rom. ed.
t Eplst. Synod Carthag. ad Innocent int. St. Aug. Op. Aug., Ep. 181 and 194,
Possld., lnt Op. Aug. St. Prosp. Chron. ad ann. 418.
% Eplst. quinque Eplscop. Int. Aug. Op.

182 TBE PAPACY.
to Romish pretensions, is that of St. Optatus of Melevia,
which is quoted on all occasions by those theologians.
Reasonably interpreted, this text is no more in their favour
than those of the other Fathers. The holy bishop of
Melevia was opposing the Donatists who had established a
bishopric at Rome. He wished to prove to them that this
bishopric was not legitimate. To do this it was neces
sary to prove that the only legitimate bishopric was that
which had descended in direct line from the Apostles — for
there was but one only Apostolate of which Peter typified
the unity, and nothing outside of that Apostolic see — that
is, this apostolate — could claim to be legitimate. St. Op
tatus, therefore, thus addresses his adversary : *
" Thou canst not deny it — thou knowest that the bish
op's chair was first given to Peter in the city of Rome ;
upon that chair sat Peter the chief of all the Apostles ;
thou knowest why he was called Peter ; that thus in that
one see, unity should be preserved by all ; lest each of
the other Apostles should claim a separate see for him
self ; and that he should be schismatic and sinful who
should establish another bishopric beside that only
see." " For the sake of unity," he elsewhere says,! tne hless-
ed " Peter (for whom it had been enough had he only
obtained pardon after denying his Master) deserved to be
preferred to all the Apostles, and alone received the keys
of the kingdom of heaven to impart them to others."
St. Optatus was arguing against a man who denied the
unity of the ministry and its Apostolic origin. In order
to convince him he holds up before him Rome — the only
Apostolic church of the West whose origin was incon
testable. He shows him that Peter, who was the type of
sacerdotal unity, founded the see of Rome ; that, conse
quently, he must be with this see, if he would be in the
unity and would give an Apostolic character to his min-
* S. Optat Lib. H. cont. Parm. t Ib. Lib. I. cont. Parni.

THE PAPACY. 183
istry ; but from this to an authority over the whole
Church is a long step.
The whole argument of St. Optatus proves this to have
been his idea in the preceding texts.
" Our angel,"* he says," dates back to St. Peter — yours
only to Victor. ! Address yourself, if you like, to the
seven angels which are in Asia ; to our colleagues — those
churches to whom St. John wrote, and with which you
are evidently not in communion. Now all outside of
these seven churches is foreign. If you have any one of
the angels of the seven churches with whom you are one,
you commune through him with the other angels ; through
them with the churches, and through the churches
with us. Such not being the case, you have not the
characteristics of a Catholic church — you are no true
Catholics." Such is a faithful analysis of the argument of St. Op
tatus. He does not seek in his work to prove that the
legitimate Bishop of Rome had universal authority — he
only proves that he was descended in direct line from the
Apostles, and that his Donatist rival was illegitimate.
He proves that all the Apostolic churches of the East
were in communion with the Apostolic Bishop of Rome,
and that, consequently, the Donatists were not in Catho
lic or universal unity. We really cannot see how such
teaching can be quoted to support the pretensions of
the modern Papacy. Nay, more. We may certainly
justly quote it against them.
We have now reviewed the strongest texts upon which
the Uitramontanes and modern Gallicans have rested
their theories about the Papacy. The former see in them
the papal autocracy, the latter a limited monarchy of
which the Pope is the head — not absolute nor infalli
ble, but subject to the laws and decrees of the coun-
* He alludes to the angels of the churches, which in the Apocalypse mean the
bishops. t This was the bishop the Donatists had established at Rome.

184 THE PAPACY.
cils. Both have misinterpreted the texts and have drawn
false conclusions from them ; it would be sufficient to set
them the one against the other in order to confound
them. The only facts proved by the texts are the fol
lowing :
First. St. Peter was the first among the Apostles ; but
this title gave him no authority.
Secondly. Peter cooperated with St. Paul in founding
the Church of Rome.
Thirdly. This Church is consequently an Apostolic see.
The advocates of papal authority would conclude from
these facts, that the Bishops of Rome, as successors of
St. Peter, have inherited that Apostle's prerogatives.
But the texts prove neither the prerogatives of Peter nor
their descent to the Bishops of Rome. That Bishop is no
more the heir of St. Peter than of St. Paul. He merely
holds his bishopric in the same church where those Apos
tles exercised their apostleship. Peter and Paul died at
Rome, but if by their death they glorified the Church, non
constat that they have bequeathed their apostolate any
more than the other apostles have bequeathed theirs to
the churches in which they died. Those prerogatives
which were intended to be perpetuated in the Church,
have been transmitted not by the death of the Apostles,
but by ordination. It is to this end that they ordained
and established bishops in all the churches they found
ed ; at Rome as much as anywhere else. Accordingly,
as appears from the records of the first centuries, the
first Bishop of Rome was Linus, and not St. Peter.
The Roman episcopate, therefore, only dates back to
Linus, and that episcopate draws its origin from the
Apostolate ; from Paul first, who ordained the first two
bishops, then from Peter, who ordained Clement, who
was chosen to fill the see of Rome after the death of
Anencletus, and long after Peter's death. The Bish
ops of Antioch are traced in precisely the same manner

THE PAPACY. 185
to the apostolate of Peter and Paul ; those of Alexandria
also go back to Peter by St. Mark, who was the delegate
and disciple of that Apostle. The other Apostolic Sees,
Jerusalem, Smyrna, Byzantium, etc., can be traced like
that of Rome to some one of the Apostles. Their epis
copate is thus Apostolic, but it is not the Apostolate.
Before concluding our examination of the Fathers of
the fourth and fifth centuries, we must mention, in the
way of objection, some texts of St. Jerome that seem fa
vourable to such papal extravagances. We must premise :
First That even should the words of this Father be
taken literally, they could prove nothing, since he would
be alone against all ; and the opinion of a single Father
proves absolutely nothing as to Catholic doctrine.
Secondly. That these texts of St. Jerome cannot be
taken literally without making him contradict himself.
Writing to Pope Damasus, his friend and protector,
Jerome thus expresses himself:* " Although your great
ness awes me, your goodness reassures. I ask of the
priest the saving sacrifice — of the shepherd the help he
owes to the sheep. I speak to the successor of the fisher
man, to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief
save Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness ;
that is to say, with the see of Peter. I know the
Church is built upon this rock. Who eats not of the
lamb in this house is defiled. Whoever dwells not in
Noah's ark will perish at the time of the deluge. I do
not know Vitalis ; I repel Meletius ; I ignore Paulinus.!
Whoever does not reap with you, scatters his harvest ;
that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist." Then he
asks Damasus if he shall speak of the divine hypostases,
or be silent.
And addressing Damasus or the Roman ladies, partic-

• St Hleron. Epis. 67 ad Damas.
t ThU alludes to the dissensions In the church of Antioch.

186 THE PAPACY.
ularly Eustochia Jerome speaks in very nearly the same
terms of the Roman see.
Should his words be taken literally, or should we not
rather see in them only a bit of flattery addressed to
the Pope — the rather that Damasus had given to Jerome
pledges not only of protection but of friendship ? At
all events, it is certain that we cannot take them liter
ally without making St. Jerome contradict himself.
We notice, in the first place, that he recognized but one
First in the Church — Jesus Christ ; that he calls the
Apostle Peter the rock on which the Church is built,
asserting at the same time that Christ alone is that rock,
and that the title oi secondary stones belongs equally to
all the Apostles and to the Prophets. " The sto?ies,"* he
says, " must be understood to mean the Prophets and
the Apostles. The Church is the rock founded upon the
most solid stone." He teaches that the Church is rep
resented by the Apostles and Prophets, meaning that it
is established upon both — " super prophetas et apostolos
constituta." Yet, in his letter to Damasus, he seems to
say that Peter is the foundation of the Church, to the
exclusion of the others.
But did he not, perhaps, mean to imply that Peter had
some superiority as a foundation of the Church ? Not
so ; for he clearly says the contrary : " The solidity of
the Church," he says, " is supported upon them (the
Apostles and Prophets) equally-! He calls Peter prince
of the Apostles ; but he also says : " He (Christ) shows
us Peter and Andrew — princes of the Apostles — estab
lished as teachers of the Gospel."
Was this principality of Peter an authority, as might
be inferred from the letter to Damasus ? Jerome an
swers that question in the following passage :\ " What can
be claimed for Aristotle that we do not find in Paul ?
» S. Hieron. adv. Jovlnian. t S. Hieron. adv. Jovin.
X 8. Hieron. adv. Pelag. Lib. I. ch. 4.

THE PAPACY. 187
for Plato that does not belong to Peter ? As Plato was
the prince of philosophers, so Peter was the prince of
Apostles, upon whom the Church of the Lord was built
as upon a solid rock." Elsewhere,* he represents St.
Paul saying : " I am in nothing inferior to Peter ; for
we were ordained by the same God for the same minis
try." Clearly, if inferior in nothing, (in nullo,) then
equal in every thing.
The Romish theologians cannot deny that the Fathers
have generally taught the equality of the Apostles
among themselves ; on this point, tradition is unani
mous. No Father of the Church has taught any other
doctrine. But these theologians affect to give no weight
to so important a fact. They try to evade the over
whelming testimony of the Fathers by this distinction :
the Apostles, they say, were equal in respect of the
apostolate, but not in respect of the primacy. \ But clear
ly, such a primacy, as it is understood at Rome, cannot
coexist with any equality whatsoever. The Fathers can
not teach the equality of the Apostles without denying
the superiority of any one of them. They teach that
equality absolutely. To resort, then, to a distinction that
takes away this absolute character, is to falsify their
testimony. After all, has St. Jerome conceded to the see of Rome
any exceptional prerogatives, as we might be led to
think from his letters to Damasus and Eustochia ? Let
us see what he says in another letter :\
" We must not believe that the city of Rome is a differ
ent church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain,
Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations,
* S. Hieron. Comment, in Epist. ad Galat
t Lest we be accused of falsely attributing this distinction to the Romish party,
let us here say that it may be found in the works of a theologian of great authority
in that party, Father Perrone. Tract de Loe. Theol. part 1st, sect. 2d, chap 1.
Difficult, respona. ad 6.
% S. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.

188 THE PAPACY.
adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same ride
of truth. If one is looking for authority, the world is
greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be
he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at
Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same
authority, the same merit, because he has the same
priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low
estate to which poverty reduces, render a Bishop neither
greater nor less."
It cannot be more distinctly stated that the rule of
truth dwells only in the entire episcopal body, and not
at Rome ; that the Bishop of Rome is no more, as bish
op, than the humblest bishop of the Church ; that the
power he possessed because of his riches, did not make
him superiour to the rest. One might almost think that
St. Jerome exerted himself, in all his works, to refute
his own letters to Damasus.
But, say the Roman theologians, the papal preroga
tives were so well recognized, that even the heretic Jo-
vinian mentions them. And, in fact, in order to prove
to St. Jerome that the estate of marriage was superior
to that of virginity, he says : " St. John was a virgin,
and St. Peter was married ; why, then, did Christ prefer
St. Peter to St. John to build his Church on him?" The
Romanists stop here, but do not give us St. Jerome's
answer to Jovinian — a proceeding not creditable to
their good faith, as we shall see. Here is St. Jerome's
answer :* " If he chose Peter rather than John for this
honourable distinction, it was that it was more expedient
not to confer it upon a young man, nay a child, as John
was, in order to excite no jealousy. But if Peter be an
Apostle, so is John also. The one is married, the other
is virgin ; but Peter is only an Apostle, and John is an
Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet."
St. Jerome could not have reasoned thus, if he had had
* & Hieron. Lib. L adv. Jovin.

THE PAPACY. 189
the same idea of St. Peter's primacy as is held at Rome
concerning that of the Pope. His reasoning against
Jovinian would have been worthless if that heretic had
considered Peter's primacy otherwise than as a priority,
in virtue of which he was the representative of the Apos
tolic college, and the type of unity; for he (St. Jerome)
grounds his argument upon this conceded point : that St.
Peter was but an Apostle like the others. If Jovinian
had believed that Peter was any thing more than this,
St. Jerome's argument would have been ridiculous. And
if St. Peter had been the chief— the prince of the Apos
tles in the sense that Rome now gives to these expres
sions — would St. Jerome have laid down as the first
principle of his argument, that St. John was superiour to
St. Peter, because of his characters of Evangelist and
Prophet ?
After the review we have given of the constant and
universal tradition of the Church, during the first five
centuries, we may well be amazed to hear Cardinal Orsi*
assert, that nothing could be opposed to papal preten
sions except a few isolated texts, which do not contain
the true sense of Catholic tradition ; to hear all the ad-
vocat s of the Papacy declare that Catholic tradition is
in favour of their system, especially in the first centu
ries ! * Orsi, de Infalllb. Bom. Pontlf.

190 THE PAPACY.

V.

OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME DURING
THE SIXTH, SEVENTH, AND EIGHTH CENTURIES.
j,E have already seen that the cecumenical coun
cils of Constantinople and Chalcedon had
- given to the Bishop of Constantinople the
second place in the Catholic episcopacy,
and that St. Leo, Bishop of Rome, had opposed this law,
as changing the hierarchal order established at the first
GScunienical Council of Nicea.
We may believe that St. Leo was indeed only moved
to this opposition by his respect for the canons. But
his successors, probably, had another motive. They
feared lest the Bishop of Constantinople should soon
supplant them in the primacy. Such fears were the
more reasonable that the Council of Chalcedon had
only given as the reason of the primacy the dignity of
the city of Rome, the capital of the empire. Now Rome
was daily growing less influential. The Roman empire
in the West had fallen under the blows of the barba
rians ; Rome was passing successively through the
hands of various tribes, who destroyed every thing —
even to the signs of her former greatness. Constan
tinople had become the only centre of the empire,
and increased in splendour in proportion as Rome
was humbled. On the other hand, the emperor added
daily to the prerogatives of the Bishops of Constan
tinople, thus increasing their influence, while they quite

THE PAPACY. 191
forgot the Bishops of Rome. It was therefore nat
ural that the Roman Bishops should be jealous of the
prerogatives and honoure of their brethren of Con
stantinople, and that jealousy betrayed itself in the
relations necessary to be preserved between them. It
was no less natural that the Bishops of Constantinople
should show some degree of arrogance toward those of
Rome, who had merely the semblance of a primacy and
the memories of a glory that each day left more dim.
Such w#s the beginning of the struggles between the
sees of Rome and Constantinople during the sixth, sev
enth, and eighth centuries, and the motive that impel
led the Roman Bishops to aid in the establishment of a
new Western empire, in which, thanks to the new
emperors, they might so enlarge their prerogatives,
that they should eclipse those of the see of Constanti
nople. We must not lose sight of these general consider
ations if we would comprehend the history of the Pa
pacy and those struggles which led to the rupture be
tween the Eastern and Western churches.
No one denies that the emperors of Constantinople
strove to increase the influence of the bishops of that
city. They issued numberless decrees for this purpose ;
and the Emperor Zeno even made the twenty-eighth
canon of the Council of Chalcedon a law of the state.
The heads of the new empire of the East thought that
they were adding to their Wn glory when they surround
ed the see of their capital with splendour and power. In
consequence of his position, the Bishop of Constanti
nople was the sole medium of intercourse not only be
tween them and the other Oriental, but also the West
ern bishops. He became so powerful, that there grew
up a custom to choose him from the members of the im
perial or the most illustrious families.

192 THE PAPACY.
The Bishop of Constantinople had, at first, only enjoy
ed an honorary title in virtue of the third canon of the
second cecumenical council, (381.) Some time after,
the Emperor Theodosius the younger, made two laws
for the purpose of giving him a real authority over the
provinces of Asia and Illyria. The Council of Chalce
don gave its ecclesiastical sanction to these laws, (451,)
and extended the authority of the Bishop of Constanti
nople over Pontus and Thrace, in consequence of the
ecclesiastical troubles that afflicted these countries. The
Bishop of Constantinople himself thought himself en
titled to extend his jurisdiction over the other Patri
archal sees of the East.
To trace the beginning of these undertakings we
must go back to the fifth century.
In 476 Acacius was Bishop of Constantinople, and
Simplicius Bishop of Rome. Basiliscus having driven
Zeno from the imperial throne, declared himself in fa
vour of the heretics condemned by the Council of Chal
cedon, and recalled from exile Timothy iElurus, the
heretic Bishop of Alexandria, and Peter the Fuller,
heretic Bishop of Antioch, both canonically deposed.
These churches were filled with confusion, and a new
council was talked of, to revoke the decrees of Chalce
don. Simplicius wrote to Basiliscus against the here
tics, and at the same time applied to Acacius to obtain
from the Emperor the expulsion of Timothy, and to dis
suade that prince from convoking a new council,* But
Basiliscus was overthrown, and Zeno reascended the
imperial throne. Simplicius at once wrote to him,
praying him to expel the heretics, especially Timothy
of Alexandria.
Acacius sent a deacon to the Bishop of Rome, that he
might consult with him upon the best means to remedy
* See SlmpUc. Eplst. In Labbe's Collection. Evag. Hist

THE PAPACY.

193

the evils of the churches. Simplicius replied, that under
God, the Emperor only could remedy them ; and advised
that he should issue a decree exiling Timothy, and John
of Antioch, who had supplanted Peter the heretic, and
was no better than he had been ; in a word, all the
heretical bishops opposed to the Council of Chalcedon.
It is noteworthy that if the universal and absolute
authority of the Bishop of Rome, now ascribed to him,
had been recognized at that time, he would not have
needed imperial intervention to reestablish order and
respect for the laws in the churches. The usurpers of
bishoprics and the deposed bishops could not have had
so numerous partisans.
Simplicius invoked the good offices of Acacius with
Zeno in order to obtain the decree he desired, and to
cause those to be excommunicated who were to be ex
iled. The Emperor issued the decree that- Simplicius
and Acacius asked for, and convoked a council of East
ern bishops, who excommunicated the heretical bishops,
and particularly Peter and John, the usurpers of the see
of Antioch, and Timothy of that of Alexandria. The
council wrote to Simplicius praying him not to receive
into his communion any of those who had been con
demned. Then Simplicius, on his part, excommunicated
them, and gave Acacius notice of his sentence, entreat
ing him at the same time to solicit from the Emperor
the execution of the decree of proscription.
Timothy ./Elurus, already feeble through age and in
firmity, was permitted to die at Alexandria. After his
death, his supporters elected Peter, surnamed Mongus,
or " the Hoarse ;" but the Emperor Zeno had him driven
away, and reestablished in the chair of Alexandria Tim
othy Salofaciolus, who had been unjustly expelled.* The
* The Roman court is now so little acquainted with these facts, that In a work
published by it against the Eastern Church, over the name of Mr. Pitzlplos, it makes
Peter the Hoarse a Patriarch of Antioch. See Part I. ch. 2.

194 THE PAPACY.
three Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria
were thus in perfect communion, and mutually pledged
themselves thereof.
But the Bishop of Antioch, who had taken the place
of the two usurpers, Peter and John, was now killed in
a riot. For that church was sadly divided, and the re
ligious parties carried on a war to the knife there. To
obtain pardon of the Emperor they now agreed to give
up their right of election, and asked that Zeno should
himself choose a bishop for them. He chose Stephen,
who was consecrated at Constantinople by Acacius.
This choice was not canonical ; they knew that at Con
stantinople as well as at Rome ; but they alleged the
peculiar circumstances of the case .as their excuse, and
notified the Pope of what had occurred, in order that he
should not refuse to enter into communion with the new
bishop. Simplicius agreed to what had been done by
the Emperor and Acacius, insisting, however, that such
a choice, contrary to the canons of Nicea, should not es
tablish a precedent. This was agreed to at Constanti
nople ; but it is certain that the troubles of the churches
of Antioch and Alexandria served to extend the influ
ence of the Bishop of Constantinople over the whole
Eastern Church ; for the Emperor necessarily interfered
in these troubles, and availed himself, in ecclesiastical
matters, of the cooperation of the bishop nearest at
hand, whose advice he could most easily obtain. Sim
plicius was not blind to the progress of the rival see,
and that is why he so carefully appealed to the canons
to prevent the interference of Acacius from becoming a
matter of custom.
Nevertheless, upon Stephen's death, the Emperor
chose Calandion to succeed him ; and Acacius conferred
the ordination.
Calandion, according to custom, wrote a letter of no-

THE PAPACY. 195
tification to the Bishop of Rome, who entered into com
munion with him.*
The see of Alexandria, after the death of Timothy
Salofaciolus, gave greater trouble. John Tala'ia was
regularly elected and ordained ; but Acacius declared
against him, and persuaded the Emperor that John was
unfit to be a bishop, and urged him to restore the see
to Peter the Hoarse. This seemed to him to promise a
restoration of peace; for Peter promised to abandon,
with his followers, his opposition to the Council of Chal
cedon ; and the faithful would have no further objection
to him if he were once canonically consecrated. The
Bishop bf Rome did not agree with Acacius, and de
clared that, though he would not grant intercommunion
to John Talaia, he never could recognize Peter the
Hoarse as the legitimate bishop. Zeno overruled his
opinion, and established Peter ; and Acacius, deceived
by the orthodox declarations of this wicked bishop,
granted him communion.
John Talaia, flying from Alexandria, went to Antioch
and thence to Rome. In these two cities he made the
most overwhelming charges against Mongus, and was
received into communion by Calandion and Simplicius.
He wrote to Acacius to ask for his removal ; but Acacius
replied that he did not recognize him as legitimate Bish
op of Alexandria. Simplicius at once wrote to Acacius,
blaming him for having granted communion to Mongus.
He died before receiving the answer of the Bishop of
Constantinople, (483.) He was succeeded by Felix,
before whom John Talaia at once pleaded his cause.
John wrote a petition against Acacius ; and Felix as
sembled a council at Rome, which decided that Acacius
must reply to the petition of John, and pronounce an
* In the work before mentioned letters of communion are confounded with re
quests for confirmation, proving that the Roman court Is no better acquainted
with canon law than with historical facts. See Part I. ch. 3.

196 THE PAPACY.
anathema against Peter the Hoarse. These decisions
were sent to the Emperor.* In the letters that Felix
wrote to Zeno and to Acacius he bitterly complains
that there had not even been an answer to the letters of
his predecessor concerning the troubles of the Church of
Alexandria. Zeno, by mingled terror and flattery, in
duced the envoys of Felix to communicate with Acacius
and Peter Mongus; but the adversaries of these two
bishops denounced these legates at Rome, and they were
deposed. They had brought back letters in which Acacius
and Zeno explained their conduct respecting Peter Mon
gus, and denied the accusations against that bishop.
This conduct wounded the Pope, who. at once assem
bled a council of Italian bishops to excommunicate Aca
cius and depose him. He served on him a notice of the
sentence, which was signed, " Felix, Bishop of the holy
Catholic Church of Rome."
This sentence pronounced against Acacius was null
and anti-canonical, since it was rendered outside of the
district where the accused resided, and without the par
ticipation of the Eastern bishops, who were necessary
judges in this case. The sentence has, moreover, a very
passionate character ; and in it Felix affects to give to
his see of Rome the title of Catholic — that is, universal —
in order that his authority should seem to extend over
the whole Church.
From this we perceive that if the Bishops of Rome
did not, as Gregory the Great tells us, accept for their
persons the title of cecumenical or universal which the
Council of Chalcedon is said to have offered them, they
endeavoured, shortly after, to claim for this see, not mere
ly an honorary title, but an oecumenical authority, as con
trary to the intentions of the council as to the traditions
of the entire Church. The Bishop of Rome showed
* Felic. Eplst. Labbe'e Collection, voL Iv. Evag. Hist Eccl.

THE PAPACY. 197
himself disposed to exaggerate his prerogatives, in pro
portion as Acacius became more influential in the direc
tion of the affairs of the Eastern Church ; he became
more angry as the Bishop of Constantinople treated
him with more arrogance. Acacius despised the sen
tence of the Bishop of Rome, and even refused to re
ceive it. Some bishops having declared against him, he
caused them to be deposed ; and Rome, on her part, ex
communicated his adherents. After the death of Aca
cius, in 489, the dissension respecting him continued.
If one could doubt the share that the jealousy of Rome had
in her opposition to Acacius, such doubt would not sur
vive the perusal oi what Pope Gelasius wrote on this
subject in 495. Having received a letter from the
bishops of Dardania, in which he was informed that
the partisans of Acacius relied principally, upon the ir
regularity of the sentence passed against him by the
Italian Council, Gelasius replied to them, justifying him
self by the Council of Chalcedon, which, he claimed,
condemned in advance those who should oppose it.*
But this was precisely the question — whether Acacius
had failed in the respect due to the Council of Chalce
don, by endeavouring to quiet the troubles raised in the
East respecting that assembly. One evident fact is,
that Acacius, in his efforts to settle these troubles, and
in showing himself tolerant toward men, had sacrificed
nothing of the Catholic doctrine defined at Chalcedon.
No less clear is it that the men condemned first at Con
stantinople, afterward at Rome, had never been heard
face to face with their accusers ; that they had numerous
supporters; that they had been condemned, banished,
and persecuted through the imperial power, from which
* It was therefore under the false pretext of Mb opposition to the Council of
Chalcedon that Rome had deposed Acacius, which belles the assertion contained in
the work already cited, that no dogmatic question was pending between Rome and
Constantinople nndcr Acacius. Part I. ch. 8.

198 THE PAPACY.
the Roman bishops were incessantly demanding se
verity, as their letters show. It is not, therefore, to be
wondered at that Acacius, even after his death, should
have been regarded in the East as a great and holy
bishop, and that the sentence of the Italian Council
should have been considered as null and void. Gelasius
is not happy in his answer to the objection of the bish
ops of Dardania to the illegality of this sentence. In
return, he shows a great deal of temper when he tries
to confute the argument drawn in favour of Acacius from
the importance of the Byzantine see. " We laughed,"
he says,* " at the prerogative that they (the Eastern
bishops) claim for Acacius because he was bishop of the
imperial city. Did not the Emperor reside for a long
time at Ravenna, Milan, Sirmium, and Treves ? Have
the bishops of these cities exceeded, on this account, the
limits that antiquity has prescribed to them? If the
question be upon the dignity of cities, the bishops of a
second or third-rate see have more dignity than the
bishops of a city which is not even a metropolis. The
power of the secular empire is one thing, and the distri
bution of ecclesiastical dignities quite another. How
ever small a city may be, it does not diminish the great
ness of the prince who dwells there ; but it is quite as
true that the presence of the emperor does not change
the order of religion ; and such a city should rather
profit by such an advantage to preserve the freedom of
religion by keeping peaceably within its proper limits."
But what, then, was the foundation of the dignity of
the Roman Church ? Gelasius could indicate none other
but the Council of Nicea. Now has not one cecumenical
council the same rights as another? If at Nicea the
Church had so ruled the hierarchal rank that Rome
and Alexandria should be superiour to Antioch and
* Oelas. Ep. ad Eplscop. Dard.

THE PAPACY. 199
Jerusalem, because their sees were more important,
why should not the Council of Chalcedon have had
the right to put Constantinople before Alexandria
and even before Rome ? If, in the spirit of the Council
of Nicea, Rome and Alexandria must precede Antioch
and Jerusalem, it was evidently only because of their
political importance, as was very properly expressed
by the Council of Chalcedon. Why, then, should not
Constantinople — already more important than Alexan
dria, and now the capital of the empire — why should
she not be raised to a superiour hierarchal rank ?
Gelasius was far from the point when he spoke of the
imperial residences of Treves, Milan, Ravenna, and Sir-
mium ; for these cities were never reigning cities or capi
tals, like Rome and Constantinople. He went so far in
his anger as to refuse Constantinople the bare title of
metropolis, because the ancient Byzantium was not one.
It is thus that, while accusing and condemning Acacius
for his alleged opposition to the Council of Chalcedon,
Rome affected to trample on the decrees of that very
same Council. Of what consequence is it that Pope
Leo protested against these decrees, under cover of those
of Nicea ? It is none the less true that those of Chalce
don are of equal value, since that assembly was equally
oecumenical. It is not our business, however, to notice all the his
torical blunders and erroneous assertions of the letter
of Gelasius. We have only sought to show that the
more Constantinople increased in influence the more
Rome sought to humble her. The motive of this is
easily understood. Rome was in the hands of the bar
barians, losing each day more her prestige, while Con
stantinople, on the contrary, was at the height of her
splendour. In one of his treatises against Acacius* Gelasius
* Gelas. de Anath.

200 THE PAPACY.
reviews the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which
granted the second rank in the Church to the Bishop
of Constantinople. He pretends that this decree is of
no force because it was rejected by the Roman see.
Why, then, does this see take for the foundation of its
argument the Council of Nicea, as having of itself a
superiour authority, to which Rome herself should sub
mit ? Was it not because the Council of Nicea was
cecumenical ? But was not the Council of Chalcedon
equally so, and hence was not its authority the same as
that of the Nicene Council ?
Evidently Rome, by reason of her antipathy against
Constantinople, put herself in a false position. To es
cape from it there was but one course open to her,
namely, to proclaim that she held her authority from
God, and was superiour to that of the councils. This
course she took. She so affirmed timidly at first, open
ly when she saw a favorable opportunity.
These papal tendencies first appeared in the letters
and instructions from tile Popes in matters connected
with those troubles which had arisen from the pretend
ed deposition of Acacius. Nearly the entire East re
garded this sentence as null. The Popes sustained it,
and confounded that affair with that of the Council of
Chalcedon, in order to give it more importance ; never
theless, the prevailing doctrine even in these docu
ments, is that the council could alone determine the
basis of reconciliations, thus excluding the idea of a
central and sovereign authority at Rome or elsewhere.
That thought chiefly pervades the writings of Gelasius
and Hormisda, who took the chief part in the troubles of
the East.* Peace was restored in a council held at Con
stantinople, (a.d. 519,) and upon conditions discussed
with equal authority by either side. When, in 525,
* See their letters in Labbe's Collection of Councils, vol iv.

THE PAPACY. 201
Pope John I. went to Constantinople by order of Theo-
doric, King of Italy, to plead for the Arians, he was in
vited to celebrate mass on Easter-day. He accepted on
condition that he might be permitted to occupy the first
seat. None denied him this privilege ; still the demand
betrays in the Papacy a serious anxiety on the subject
of the Roman primacy. The Bishop of Constantinople
was then rich and influential ; the Bishop of Rome, on
the contrary, subject to the whims of heretical kings,
was in such poverty, that in 536, when Agapitus was
made to go to Constantinople by order of Theodotus,
king of the Goths, he was forced to sell some of the con
secrated vessels in order to raise money sufficient for
the journey. Agapitus was received by the Emperor
Justinian with honours. The Emperor had called to the
see of Constantinople Anthymus, Bishop of Trebizond,
known for his attachment to the errours of Eutyches.
The bishops who were at Constantinople availed them
selves of the presence of the Pope, to hold with him a
council against Anthymus, who preferred to return to
his see of Trebizond, rather than to make a Catholic con
fession of faith. Mennas, chosen in his place by the
clergy and people, and confirmed by the Emperor, was
consecrated by the Pope. In a letter from the Eastern
bishops it is remarked, that they give to Agapitus the
titles oi Father of fathers and Patriarch, and that in a
letter from the monks, he was called Archbishop of the
ancient Rome and cecumenical Patriarch.* These titles
were merely honorary and in the style of the age, espe
cially in the East. They gave the title of Father oi
fathers to every bishop whom they particularly wished to
honour. This proves nothing in favour of an authority
which the Popes themselves did not yet claim.
The discussions relating to the "Three Chapters" fur
nish an incontestable proof of our assertion.
* Labbe, voL y.

202 THE PAPACY.
Ever since the Council of Chalcedon, the East had
been filled with the most animated discussions ; the
most subtle reasoning was resorted to. Some openly
tampered with the doctrine of the council, in order that
they might attack it to better advantage ; others denied
its orthodoxy, as contrary to the Council of Ephesus and
to St. Cyril. The latter charge arose from this, that
the Fathers of Chalcedon had given cause to believe
that they approved of the doctrine of Theodoras, Bishop
of Mopsnestia, a letter of Ibas, and the writings of Thec-
deret against the anathemas of St. Cyril. The Empe
ror Justinian took great part in theological discussions,
partly from inclination, and also because the various
factions, each seeking to enlist him on their side, refer
red their causes to him. He thought that he had found
the means of reuniting men's minds on the subject of
the Council of Chalcedon, by clearing up the misunder
standings which the three writings above mentioned
had occasioned, and condemning them, which he did,
in fact. These are called the Three Chapters. They
certainly had a Nestorian tendency ; the authors were
no longer at hand to explain them ; and all that was
requisite was to condemn the Nestorianism in their
writings. Justinian sent the condemnation of the Three Chap
ters to all the bishops, with orders to sign it. Some
obeyed this, others resisted, regarding that condemna
tion only as an attack on the Council of Chalcedon.
Pope Vigilius was ordered to Constantinople by Jus
tinian. After refusing to concur in the condemnation,
he consented without prejudice to the Council of Chal
cedon. This reservation left unsatisfied the enemies of
the council, while it did not excuse the condemnation
in the eyes of the other party. The bishops of Africa,
Illyria, and Dalmatia, and many other bishops individ
ually, separated from the communion of Vigilius. Those

THE PAPACY. 203
of Africa solemnly excommunicated him in a council in
551* Without passing on the question at issue, these facts
show clearly that in the sixth century the Bishop of
Rome was regarded neither as infallible nor as the centre
of Catholic unity ; that this centre was believed to rest
only in the pure and orthodox faith, and in the coun
cils that represented the whole Church.
Vigilius, alarmed by the condemnations that were
showered upon him, asked the Emperor for an oecumen-
nical council to close the discussion. Justinian con
sented, and convoked the bishops. Vigilius withdrew
his signature, and it was agreed that all should let the
matter rest until the decision of the council. This
proves that at Rome, as elsewhere, no infallible doctri
nal authority was recognized, except that of the episco
pate — the only interpreter of the universal faith.
Vigilius refused to attend the meetings of the coun
cil under pretext that the West was not as numerously
represented as the East. He was told that the number
of Western bishops then at Constantinople was greater
than it had been at the other cecumenical councils. This
objection raised by Vigilius proves that he did not think
he could, by his presence or by delegation, give an oecu
menical character to a council, as is now assumed at
Rome. Nevertheless, Vigilius sent to the council his
opinion upon the Three Chapters, opposing their con
demnation. The council paid no heed to his opposition,
examined carefully the three writings, and condemned
the doctrine in them as opposed to anteriour councils,
particularly to that of Chalcedon, which was solemnly
recognized as cecumenical, on the same ground with
those of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.
Before giving sentence, the council rehearsed its pro-
* See Pacundl Op., edit of Father Sirmond j and for the documents, Labbe's Col
lection of Councils. See also the Eccl Hlsts. of Evag. and Theoph.

204 THE PAPACY.
ceedings in respect to Vigilius. " When The Most Pious
Vigilius," it said,* " was in this city ; he took part in
all the discussions concerning the Three Chapters, and
condemned them several times both in writing and by
word of mouth. After this he agreed, in writing, to
come to the council and examine them with us, in order
to come to a common decision. The Emperor having,
in pursuance of our agreement, exhorted us to assemble,
we were obliged to entreat Vigilius to fulfil his prom
ise, recalling to him the example of the Apostles, who,
filled with the-Holy Ghost individually, and needing no
deliberation, would not, nevertheless, determine the
question ' whether the Gentiles must be circumcised,'
until they had met in council and had strengthened
their opinions by passages from Scripture. The Fathers
who in times past have held the four councils, have fol
lowed the ancient examples, aud have decided together
all questions concerning heretics ; for there is no other
way of knowing the truth in questions of faith.
"According to Scripture, each one has need of his
brother's aid, and when two or three are gathered to
gether in the name of Jesus Christ, he is in the midst
of them. We have therefore repeatedly invited Vigilius,
and the Emperor has sent officers to him for the same
object ; but he has only promised to give his judgment
in private touching the Three Chapters. Having heard
his reply, we have all considered what the Apostle says,
• That every one shall give account of himself to God /'
and on the other hand, we have feared the judgment
with which those are threatened who scandalize the
brethren." Then the council relates all that was done in examin
ing the Three Chapters ; it condemns them, while it de
clares its respect for the Council of Chalcedon. By this
* Labbe's Collection of Councils. Counc. of Const, session 8.

THE PAPACY. 205
wise decision, the fifth cecumenical council disproved tho
accusations that passionate men had spread among the
Westerns touching the evil dispositions of most of its
members. At the same time it exposed the pretexts
held out by the adversaries of the Council of Chalcedon,
for rejecting the decisions of that holy assembly. It
thus powerfully contributed to quiet the dissensions.
Vigilius saw he had been wrong in undertaking the
defence of a bad doctrine, under pretence of his respect
for the Council of Chalcedon. Six months after the
closing of the council, he wrote to Eutychius, the Patri
arch of Constantinople, acknowledging that he had sin
ned against charity in separating himself from his
brethren. He adds that no one should be ashamed to
retract, when he discovers the truth. "Having," he
says' " examined the matter of the Three Chapters, I
find them condemnable." Then he declares against
those who sustain them, and condemns his own writ
ings in their defence. He publishes finally a long me
morial to prove that the Three Chapters contained un
sound doctrine.* He returned to communion with those
whom he had previously anathematized, and peace was
restored. The fifth cecumenical council was neither convoked
nor presided over by the Bishop of Rome, although he
was present in the city where the council was held.
The meetings were held not only without him, but
against him. Nevertheless, the decision of this council
was considered canonical, and the Pope himself, after
some objections, arising out of his ignorance of certain
facts, submitted to it. The West concurred with the
council thus assembled without the Pope and against
the Pope, and thus the assembly acquired its cecumen
ical character.
All the circumstances of this great fact of ecclesias-
* Labbe's Collection, vol. v.

206 THE PAPACY.
tical history prove, beyond dispute, that nothing was
known in the sixth century, even at Rome, of these pre
tended prerogatives that are now ascribed to the Pa
pacy. The discussions that took place at the close of that
century, between John the Faster, successor of Euty-
chius, at Constantinople, and Pope Gregory the Great,
clearly establish the same truth.
We have already mentioned that the title of cecumen
ical had been given to the Bishop of Rome as a mere
honour in the Council of Chalcedon ; that Pope Felix
had affected to give to his see the title of catholic in
the same sense ; and that some Oriental monks had
called Pope Agapitus cecumenical Patriarch. These
precedents were copied at Constantinople. The em
perors were bent upon raising the Patriarch of that
capital, which they called the new Rome, to the
same degree of honour as belonged to the one of an
cient Rome, still keeping him in the second rank, but
only in respect of seniority. The Emperor Maurice
thus gave to John the Faster the title of cecumenical
Patriarch. Pope Pelagius H. and his successor Gregory the Great
protested against this title. Gregory then wrote those
famous letters which so absolutely condemn the modern
Papacy. We will give some extracts from them.
At the beginning of his episcopate, Gregory addressed
a letter of communion to the Patriarchs John of Con
stantinople, Eulogius of Alexandria, Gregory of Anti
och, John of Jerusalem, and to Anastasius, formerly Pa
triarch of Antioch, his friend. If he had considered
himself the chief and sovereign of the Church ; if he had
believed he was so by divine right, he would certainly
have addressed the Patriarchs as subordinates ; we
should find in that encyclical letter some traces of his
superiority. The fact is quite the reverse of this. It

THE PAPACY. 207
speaks at great length of the duties of the episcopate,
and not even dreams of mentioning the rights which
such a dignity would have conferred on him.
He particularly insists upon the duty of a bishop not
to permit himself to be engrossed by the cares of exter
nal things, and concludes his encyclical letter with his
confession of faith, in order to prove himself in commun
ion with the other Patriarchs, and through them with
all the Church.*
Such silence on St. Gregory's part concerning the
pretended rights of the Papacy is of itself significant
enough, and Romish theologians would find it difficult
of explanation. What, then, shall they oppose to the
letters from which we are about to give a few extracts,
and in which St. Gregory most unreservedly condemns
the very idea which is the foundation of their Papacy as
they understand it — that is, the universal character of
its authority ?
Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople :
" You remember, my brother, the peace and concord
which the Church enjoyed when you were raised to the
sacerdotal dignity. I do not, therefore, understand how
you have dared to follow the inspiration of pride, and
have attempted to assume a title which may give offence
to all the brethren. I am the more astonished at it that
I remember your having taken flight to avoid the epis
copate ; and yet you would exercise it to-day, as if you
had run toward it, impelled by ambitious desires. You
who used to say so loud that you were unworthy of the
episcopate, you are no sooner raised to it than, despis
ing your brethren, you aspire to have alone the title of
bishop. My predecessor, Pelagius, of saintly memory,
wrote very seriously to your Holiness upon this subject.
He rejected, in consequence of the proud and magnifi
cent title that you assumed in them, the acts of the
* St. Greg. Pap. Epist. 25, lib. 1.

208 THE PAPACY.
synod which you assembled in the cause of Gregory, our
brother and fellow- bishop ; and to the archdeacon,
whom, according to usage, he had sent to the Emperor's
court, he forbade communion with you. After the
death of Pelagius, having been raised, notwithstanding
my unworthiness, to the government of the Church,*
it has been my care to urge you, my brother, not by
writing, but by word of mouth, first by my envoy, ! and
afterward through our common son, Deacon Sabinian,
to give up such assumption. I have forbidden him also
to communicate with you if you should refuse to yield
to my request, in order that your Holiness may be in
spired with shame for your ambition, before resorting
to canonical proceedings, in case shame should not cure
you of pride so profane and so reprehensible. As before
resorting to amputation, the wound should be tenderly
probed, I pray you — -I entreat you — I ask with the great
est possible gentleness, that you, my brother, will resist
all the flatterers who give you an erroneous title, and
that you will not consent to ascribe to yourself a title
as senseless as vainglorious. Verily I have tears for
this ; and from the bottom of my heart I ascribe it to
my own sins that my brother has not been willing to
return to lowliness — he who was raised to the episcopal
dignity only to teach other souls to be lowly ; that he
who teaches others the truth would neither teach it to
himself, nor consent, for all my prayers, that I should
teach it him.
"I pray you, therefore, reflect that by your bold pre
sumption the peace of the whole Church is troubled, and
that you are at enmity with that grace which was given
to all in common. The more you grow in that grace,

* According to St. Gregory, every bishop has a part in the government of the
Church, the authority residing in the episcopate.
t The Bishop of Rome had kept representatives at the court of Constantinople
ever since that city had become the imperial residence.

1HE PAPACY. 209
the more humble you will be in your own eyes ; you
will be the greater in proportion as you are further re
moved from usurping this extravagant and vainglorious
title. You will be the richer as you seek less to despoil
your brethren to your profit. Therefore, dearly beloved
brother, love humility with all your heart. It is that
which insures peace among the brethren, and which
preserves unity in the Holy Catholic Church.
" When the Apostle Paul heard certain of the faith
ful say, ' I am of Paul, I qf Apollos, and I of Cephas?
he could not see them, without horror, thus rending the
body of the Lord, to attach his members to various
heads ; and he exclaimed, ' Was Paul crucified for
you ? — or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ?' If
he could not bear that the members of the body of the
Lord should be attached piecemeal to other heads than
tliat of Christ, though those heads were Apostles, what
will you say to Christ, who is the head of the universal
Church — what will you say to him at the last judg
ment — you who, by your title oi universal, would bring
all his members into subjection to yourself? Whom,
I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse
title if not him who, despising the legions of angels, his
companions, endeavoured to mount to the highest, that
he might be subject to none and be alone above all
others; who said, ' I will ascend into heaven; I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also
upon the mount of tshe congregation, in the sides of the
North ; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds ;
Iwill be like the Most High' ? What are your brethren,
the bishops of the universal Church, but the stars
of God ? Their lives and teaching shine, in truth,
through the sins and errours of men, as do the stars
through the darkness of the night. When, by your
ambitious title, you would exalt yourself above them,
and debase their title in comparison with your own,

210 THE PAPACY.
what do you say, if not these very words, I will
ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above
the stars of God? Are not all the bishops the clouds
that pour forth the rain of instruction, and who are
furrowed by the lightnings of their own good works ?
In despising them, my brother, and endeavouring
to put them under your feet, what else do you say
than that word of the ancient enemy, I will ascend
above the heights of the clouds? For my part, when,
through my tears, I see all this, I fear the secret judg
ments of God ; my tears flow more abundantly ; my
heart overflows with lamentations, to think that my
Lord John — a man so holy, of such great abstinence and
humility, but now seduced by the flattery of his famil
iars — should have been raised to such a degree of pride
that, through the lust of a wrongful title, he should en
deavour to resemble him who, vaingloriously wishing
to be like God, lost, because he was ambitious of a false
glory, the grace of the divine resemblance that had been
granted to him, and the true beatitude. Peter, the first
of the Apostles, and a member oi the holy and universal
Church ; Paul, Andrew, John — were they not the chiefs
of certain nations ? And yet all are members under one
only head. In a word, the saints before the law, the
saints under the law, the saints under grace — do they
not all constitute the body of the Lord ? Are they not
members of the Church ? Yet is there none among
them who desired to be called universal. Let your
Holiness consider, therefore, how much you are puffed
up when you claim a title that none of them had the
presumption to assume.
" You know it, my brother ; hath not the venerable
Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of
universal upon the bishops of this Apostolic.See, whereof
I am, by God's will, the servant ? And yet none of us
hath permitted this title to be given to him ; none hath

THE PAPACY. 211
assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special dis
tinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should
seem to refuse it to all the brethren.
. . . "The Lord, wishing to recall to a proper hu
mility the yet feeble hearts of his disciples, said to them,
4 If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of
all ;' whereby we are clearly taught that he who is truly
high is he who is most humble in mind. Let us,
therefore, beware of being of the number of those ' who
love the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in
the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.'
In fact, the Lord said to his disciples, ' Be ye not called
Rabbi, for one is your Master, . . . and all ye are
brethren. Neither be ye called Fathers, for ye have but
one Father.'
" What then could you answer, beloved brother, in
the terrible judgment to come, who desire not only to
be called Father, but universal Father of the world ?
Beware then of evil suggestions ; fly from the counsel of
offence. ' It is impossible,' indeed, ' but that offences
will come ; but,' for all that, ' WO unto him through
whom they come /' In consequence of your wicked and
vainglorious title, the Church is divided and the hearts
of the brethren are offended.
. . . " I have sought again and again, by my mes
sengers and by humble words, to correct the sin which
has been committed against the whole Church. Now
I myself write. I have omitted nothing that humility
made it my duty to do. If I reap from my rebuke noth
ing better than contempt, there will nothing be left for
me but to appeal to the Church."
By this first letter of St. Gregory we see, first, that
ecclesiastical authority resides in the episcopate, and not
in any one bishop, however high in the ecclesiastical
hierarchy ; secondly, that it was not his private cause
that Gregory defended against John of Constantinople,

212 THE PAPACY.
but that of the whole Church; thirdly, that he had not
himself the right to judge the cause, and was compelled
to refer it to the Church; fourthly, that the title of uni
versal bishop is contrary to God's word, and vainglorious
and wicked ; fifthly, that no. bishop, however high in the
ecclesiastical hierarchy, can assume universal authority,
without invading the rights of the entire episcopate ;
and lastly, that no bishop in the Church can claim to bo
Father of all Christians without assuming a title which
is contrary to the Gospel, vainglorious, and wicked.
John of Constantinople, having received his title of
universal from the Emperor, Gregory wrote the follow
ing letter to that prince :*
" Our very pious lord does wisely to endeavour to
accomplish the peace of the Church that he may re
store peace to his empire, and to condescend to invite
the priesthood to concord and unity. I myself desire it
ardently ; and as much as in me lies, I obey his worship
ful commands. But since not my cause alone, but the
cause of God is concerned ; since it is not I alone who am
disturbed, but the whole Church that is agitated ; since
the canons, the venerable councils, and the command
ments of our Lord Jesus Christ himself are attacked, hy
the invention of a certain pompous and vainglorious
word ; let our most pious lord cut out this evil ; and if
the patient would resist him, let him bind him with the
bonds of his imperial authority. In binding such things
you will give liberty to the commonwealth, and by ex
cisions of this sort you will diminish the malady of your
empire. " All those who have read the Gospel know that tho
care of the whole Church was confided by our Lord
himself to St. Peter, first of all the Apostles. Indeed,
he said to him, ' Peter, lovest thou me ? Feed my sheep^
Again it was said to him, ' Satan has desired to sift
* Letters of St. Gregory, Book V. Letter 20, Benedictine edition.

THE PAPACY. 213
thee as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not : and wfien thou art converted, strengtshen thy
brethren' It was also said to him, ' Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the-
gates qf hell shall not prevail against it : and I will
give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and what
soever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in hea
ven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.' He thus received the keys of the
celestial kingdom ; the power to bind and loose was given
to him ; the care of all the Church and the primacy were
committed to him ; and yet he did not call himself uni
versal Apostle. But that most holy man, John, my
brother in the priesthood, would fain assume the title of
universal bishop. I can but exclaim, O temporal 0
mores /"
We cannot pass over these words of St. Gregory
without pointing out their great importance. This
learned doctor interprets, as we have seen, the texts of
the Gospel, which refer to St. Peter, in the sense most
favourable to that Apostle. He exalts Peter as having
had the primacy in the Apostolic college ; as having
been intrusted by the Lord himself with the care of tho
whole Church. What does he infer from all this ? Ever
since the Popes have abused the texts that he quotes, in
order to attribute to themselves an absolute and univer
sal authority in the Church, we know how they reason.
They give to the language of the Gospel, in the first
place, the very broadest and most absolute sense, and
then apply it to themselves as the successors of St.
Peter. St. Gregory acts quite otherwise : he places
Peter's prerogatives side by side with his humility,
which kept him from claiming universal authority ; he
is so far from holding himself out as Peter's heir, that
he only quotes the example of that Apostle to confound
John of Constantinople, and all those who would claim

214 THE PAPACY.
universal authority in the Church. Thus he attacks, by
St. Peter's example, the same authority that the popes
have since claimed in the name of St. Peter and as his
successors. St. Gregory continues :
" Is it my cause, most pious lord, that I now defend ?
Is it a private injury that I wish to avenge ? No ; this
is the cause of Almighty God, the cause of the univer
sal Church.
" Who is he who, against the precepts of the Gospel
and the decrees of the canons, has the presumption to
usurp a new title ? Would to Heaven there were but
one who, without wishing to lessen the others, desired
to be himself universal / • • • •
" The Church of Constantinople has produced bishops
who have fallen in the abyss of heresy, and who have
even become heresiarchs. Thence issued Nestorius,
who, thinking there must be two persons in Jesus
Christ, mediator between God and man, because he did
not believe that God could become man, descended thus
to the very perfidy of the Jews. Thence came Macedo-
nius, also, who denied that the Holy Spirit was God
consubstantial with the Father and the Son. But if any
one usurp in the Church a title which embraces all the
faithful, the universal Church — O blasphemy ! — will then
fall with him, since he makes himself to be called the
universal. May all Christians reject this blasphe
mous title — this title which takes the sacerdotal honour
from every priest the moment it is insanely usurped by
one !
" It is certain that this title was offered to the Roman
Pontiff by the venerable Council of Chalcedon, to honour
the blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles. But none of
us has consented to use this particular title, lest, by con
ferring a special matter upon one alone, all priests
should be deprived of the honour which is their due.

THE PAPACY. 215
How, then, while wo are not ambitious of the glory of
a title that has been offered to us, does another, to whom
no one has offered it, have the presumption to take it ?"
This passage of Gregory is very remarkable. He
first asserts that it was a council that offered the Bish
ops of Rome the honour of being called universal.
Would this council have done this with a view to honour
these bishops if it had believed that they already had
universal authority by divine right? Moreover, St.
Gregory asserts that the council wished to honour the
bishops as an honour to St. Peter. He, therefore, did not
believe that universal authority came to them by succes
sion from that Apostle. The Church of Rome has cause
to glory in St. Peter, for he made her illustrious by his
martyrdom. It was, therefore, in remembrance of this
martyrdom, and to honour this first of the Apostles, that
the General Council of Chalcedon offered the Bishops of
Rome this honorary title. How shall we reconcile these
statements of St. Gregory with the pretensions of the
modern Bishops of Rome, who believe that of divine
right they are invested not only with the title of univer
sal Bishop and common Father of the Faithful, but also
with an universal sovereignty ?
These letters of St. Gregory are unquestionable re
cords attesting that the universal Church was startled
from the moment there appeared in her bosom the first
glimmerings of an universal power residing in a single
bishop. The whole Church understood that such author
ity could not be established without depriving the en
tire episcopate of its rights ; in fact, according to divine
institution, the government of the Church is synodical.
Authority can, therefore, only reside in the entire body
of legitimate pastors, and not in any individual pastor.
We cannot declare in favour of the universal author
ity of one without destroying the divine principle of the
organization of the Church.

216 THE PAPACY.
This truth stands out prominently from the writings
of Pope Gregory the Great.
He writes upon the same subject to Eulogius, Bishop
of Alexandria, and Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch. He
says to them : " Eight years ago, in the life of our pre
decessor, Pelagius, of saintly memory, our brother and
fellow-bishop, John, taking occasion from some other
matter, assembled a synod in the city of Constantino
ple, and sought to assume the title of universal, which
our predecessor no sooner learned than he sent letters
by which, in virtue of the authority of the Apostle St.
Peter, he nullified the acts of the synod."
Romish theologians have strangely misused this pas
sage in favour of their system. Had they compared it
with the other texts from St. Gregory on the same sub
ject, and -with the whole body of his doctrine, they
might have convinced themselves of two things : First,
that in this passage Gregory only refers to the primacy
granted by the councils to the Bishop of Rome because
of the dignity of his see, made glorious by the martyr
dom of St. Peter, first oi the Apostles. Secondly, that
the only question before the synod of Constantinople
was one of mere discipline, in which the accused priest
had appealed to Rome. Pelagius, then Bishop of Rome,
was therefore judge in the last resort in this matter, in
virtue of the primacy granted to his see. This primacy
had been granted to his see for the sake of St. Peter.
The Council of Chalcedon, in order to honour St. Peter,
had also offered the title of universal to the Bishops or
Rome, as we learn from St. Gregory.
But between this and a sovereignty of divine right
coming to the popes by succession from St. Peter, there is
a great gulf; yet Romanists have found it all in the
text from St. Gregory above quoted ; carefully avoiding
to quote, however, the other texts that limit its meaning,
and teach us the true doctrine of this Pope. They often

THE PAPACY. 217
act thus in respect of their quotations from the councils
and the Fathers of the Church, as we have already re
peatedly shown.
St. Gregory continues :
" As your Holiness, whom I particularly venerate,
well knows, this title of universal was offered by the
holy Council of Chalcedon to the Bishop of the Apos
tolic see, which, by God's grace, I serve. But none of
my predecessors would use this impious word, because,
in reality, if a Patriarch be called universal, this takes
from all the others the title of Patriarch. Far, very far,
from every Christian soul be the wish to usurp any
thing that might diminish, however little, the honour of
his brethren ! When we deny ourselves an honour that
has been offered to us, consider how humiliating it is to
see it violently usurped by another."
Roman theologians have carefully avoided calling at
tention to this passage, where St. Gregory considers
himself a Patriarch equal to the other Patriarchs ; where
he clearly says, if one of the Patriarchs may claim to
be universal, the others are, ipso facto, no more Patri
archs. This doctrine perfectly agrees with that of the
lorimacy granted to the Patriarch of Rome, for St.
Peter's sake, and in remembrance of the martyrdom
suffered by this first of the Apostles at Rome ; but does
it agree with a universal sovereignty, coming by divine
right to the Bishops of Rome, through Peter, their
assumed predecessor ? Assuredly not.
St. Gregory continues to unfold a teaching contrary
to the modern Papal system :
"Therefore," he says, " let your Holiness not give to
any one in your letters the title of universal, lest you de
prive yourself of your own due, by offering to another
an honour that you do not owe to him. For my part,
though separated from you by great distance of land
and sea, I am, nevertheless, closely bound to you in

218 THE PAPACY.
heart. I am confident that such are also the sentiments
of your Holiness toward me ; if you love me as I love
you, no distance can separate us. Thanks be, then, to
that graiu of mustard-seed, which was, indeed, in ap
pearance, small and contemptible, but which, spreading
afar its branches, sprung all from one root, has formed
a shelter for all the birds of the air ! Thanks be, also,
to that leaven which, hidden in three measures of meal,
has joined in one unity the whole of mankind. Thanks,
again, for that little stone, broken without effort from
the mountain, that has covered the whole surface of the
earth, which has so extended itself as to make out of
the human race, now united, the body of the universal
Church, which has even made distinctions of the parts
serve to riyet the bonds of unity.
" Hence it follows, that we are not far from you,
since we are one in Him who is everywhere. Let us
give Him thanks for having so destroyed all enmities
that, in his humanity, there is in the world but one fold
and one flock, under one shepherd, which is Christ him
self. Let us always remember these warnings of the
Preacher of truth : ' Endeavouring to keep the unity oj
the Spirit in the bond of peace.' (Ephes. 4:3.) ' Fol
low peace with all men, and holiness, without which no
man shall see the Lord.' (Heb. 12 : 14.) The same
said to his disciples, ' If it be possible, as much as
lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.' (Romans 12 :
18.) He knew that the good could have no peace with
the wicked ; therefore, he says at once, as you know,
1 If it be possible.' "
Let us pause a moment over this part of Gregory's
letter. Is it not remarkable that, in speaking of the
Church as one flock under the guidance of a single pas
tor, which is Jesus Christ, he expressly says that Jesus
Christ is the only visible pastor of the Church, or, which
is the same thing, that he is the pastor in his humanity,

THE PAPACY. 219
in his flesh, according to the whole strength of the ex
pression, " in came su& ?"
Does not this exclude all idea of a universal pastor,
taking the place of and representing Christ ? There
fore, does it not, in one word, destroy all the assump
tions of the modern Papacy, and reduce the true Papacy
to a primacy established by the Church?
Further, St. Gregory, in quoting the epistle to the
Romans, calls these Romans " disciples" of St. Paul. St.
Paul only wrote his epistle to the Christians at Rome,
a.d. 58. There were then at Rome very few Christians
— not established as a Church, properly so called, and as
sembling at- the house of Aquila, one of their number.
They had come to Rome from various countries that ha<l
been evangelized by St. Paul, and are thus called by St.
Gregory his disciples. They wrote to him, beseeching
him to visit and instruct them. Paul replied to them by
his letter, in which he promises to evangelize Rome.
He went there two years later. There he found some
Jews, who only knew the Christians by name, and who,
therefore, cannot have already been converted by St.
Peter, their special Apostle. Paul formed a church at
Rome, and gave it for a bishop one Linus, his disci
ple, whom Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, and Eusebius men
tion, as we have already seen, as the first Bishop of
Rome. Where, now, is the alleged episcopate of St. Peter at
Rome, upon which the Uitramontanes base all their
systems ? St. Peter evidently came to Rome but a
short time before he suffered martyrdom there. It was
because of the martyrdom of the first of the Apostles,
and not because of his episcopate at Rome, that the
councils, like that of Chalcedon and that of Sardica, for
example, granted certain special privileges to the Bish
ops of Rome. Nor does St. Gregory, in his letters to
the Patriarchs, endeavour to ascribe to himself, by right

220 THE PAPACY.
of Apostolic succession from St. Peter, an authority
which was not his ; he even very justly traces his Church
back to St. Paul, and not to St. Peter. Thus, when, ip
another place, he calls the authority of his predecessor
the authority of St. Peter, he means by that only the
rights which the Bishops of Rome had received from
the councils for tiie honour of St. Peter, who had made
that Church illustrious by his glorious death !
Could any one find in St. Gregory's letter to the Pa
triarchs the language of a superiour toward his subor
dinates ? St. Gregory, as first bishop of the Church, as
first of the Patriarchs, takes the lead, calls the attention
of the other Patriarchs, his brethren, to the encroach
ments of one of their number. He entreats them to join
him in resisting what he regards as a misfortune for the
whole episcopate ; nay, for the universal Church. He
does not make the slightest allusion to any superiour au
thority in himself; he appeals only to the divine pre
cept and to the canons, against an usurpation, which he
calls diabolical. Is this the language of a chief, of a
universal monarch ? Clearly not. We cannot read
this beautiful letter of St. Gregory to the Patriarchs of
Antioch and Alexandria without being convinced that
such a Papacy as is now assumed to be of divine right,
was unknown to him ; that he cried out against ten
dencies that may be looked upon as the first attempts
at universal jurisdiction ; that he looked upon those
first attempts as an enterprise which might upset the
Church and which threatened the rights of the entire.
priesthood. Perhaps he attached too much importance
to a purely honorary title which only emanated from
the imperial authority ; but he saw, under this title, an
anti-canonical undertaking, and the first attempts at a
universal Papacy. What would he say of this Papacy
itself, with all its modern pretensions .? He would justly
show himself its greatest enemy, and would see in it the

THE PAPACY. 221
source of all the evils with which the Church has been
for centuries overwhelmed.
The Patriarch of Alexandria, not replying to him,
Gregory wrote asking for his opinion.*
Thereupon John of Constantinople died. Gregory
wrote at once to his successor, Cyriacus, who had sent
him a letter of communion. He congratulates him upon
his faith, but adds, concerning the title of universal,
which he had followed the example of his predecessor
in. taking:
" We shall truly be at peace,! & vou renounce the
pride of an impious title, according to the word of the
Apostle of the Gentiles, ' 0 Timothy, keep that which
is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain
babblings.'' (1 Tim. 6 : 20.) It is indeed too unjust
that those who have become the preachers of humility,
should glory in a vain title of pride. The Preacher of
truth says, ' God forbid that I should glory save in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (Gal. 6 : 14.) Hence
he is truly glorious who glories not in temporal power,
but in what he suffers for the name of Christ. In this
we heartily embrace you, in this we recognize you as
priest, if, repelling the vanity of titles, you occupy an
holy see with holy humility.
"For we have been offended in respect to a sinful
title ; we have had a grudge concerning it, we have de
clared loudly on the subject. Now you know, my broth
er, that the Truth hath said, ' If thou bring thy gift
to the altar, and there "rememberest that thy brother
hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the
altar, and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy broth
er, and then come and offer thy gift.' (St. Matt. 5 :
23, 24.) Thus, although every fault is wiped away by
the sacrifice, the evil of giving offence to the brethren
• Letters of St. Gregory, Book VI., Ep. 60, Benedictine Ed.
t Ibid. Book VII. Ep. 4.

222 THE PAPACY.
is so great, that the Lord will not accept from him who
is guilty of it the sacrifice that usually atones for sin.
Hasten, therefore, to purify your heart of this offence,
that the Lord may look with favour upon the offering
of your gift."
Gregory having occasion to write again to Cyriacus,
alludes again to the subject, so much importance did he
attach to it :
" I could not express to you in this letter," says he, *
" how my soul is bound to you ; but I pray Almighty
God, by the gift of his grace, to strengthen still more
this union between us, and destroy all occasion of of
fence, in order that the holy Church, united by a confes
sion of the true faith, of which the bonds are riveted
by the reciprocal sentiments of the faithful, may suffer
no damage from any discussions that the priests may
have among themselves. As for me, in spite of all I
say, and through all the opposition that I make to cer
tain acts of pride, I preserve charity in the depth of my
heart, God be thanked, and while I sustain externally
the claims of justice, I do not inwardly repel those of
love and affection.
" On your part, reciprocate my sentiments, and re
spect the rights of peace and affection, that remaining
in unity of spirit, there may be left no subject of divi
sion between us. We shall the more easily obtain the
grace of the Lord if we come before him with united
hearts." Cyriacus was not touched by Gregory's tender exhor
tations, who, some time after, wrote to the Patriarch of
Antioch, blaming him, in a friendly way, for not attach
ing enough importance to the usurpation of their broth
er of Constantinople. We see by that letter that the
Patriarch of Antioch feared to draw upon himself the
? Ibid. Book VI. letter v.

THE PAPACY. 223
displeasure of the Emperor if he declared against the
Patriarch of Constantinople. He wrote his friend St.
Gregory a very flattering letter. " But," replied the
great Pope, " your Holiness, I perceive, would have
your letter like the bee that carries both honey and a
sting, that you might both satisfy me with honey and
sting me. But I have found in this an occasion to re
flect upon these words of Solomon, ' Faithful are the
wounds of a friend ; but the kisses of an enemy are de
ceitful.' (Prov. 27 : 6.)
" As regards what you say to me concerning the title
whereat I am offended, that I should yield, because the
thing is of no importance, the Emperor has written me
to the same effect. That which he says by virtue of his
power, I know you say out of friendship. I am not
surprised to find the same expressions in your letter as
in that of the Emperor, for love and power have many
things in common ; both are in the first rank, and they
always speak with authority.
" When I received the synodical letter from our broth
er and fellow-bishop, Cyriacus, I did not see fit to put
off replying to him, in spite of the impious title he as
sumed in it, lest I should thereby trouble the unity of
the holy Church ; but I took care' to tell him my opinion
touching this grand and superstitious title ; I told him
that he could not have peace with us if he did not re
frain from taking this title of pride, which was but an
invention of the first apostate. You must not consider
this same affair as unimportant ; for, if we tolerate it, we
corrupt the faith of the whole Church. You know how
many, not heretics only but heresiarchs, have arisen in
the church of Constantinople. Not to speak of the in
jury done to your dignity, it cannot be denied that if
any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crum
bles if that universal one fall. But far be it from me to
lend an ear to such/o%, to such levity! I confide in

224 THE PAPACY.
the all-powerful Lord, who will fulfil the promise he has
made, ' Whosoever excdteth himself shaU be abased.' "
(Luke 14 : 11.)
No one could more wisely estimate than does St.
Gregory the serious inconveniences that the Church
might suffer from a central authority assuming to repre
sent and sum up the Church. Man, whatever he may
be, and frequently from the superiour dignity itself with
which he is invested, is subject to errour : if the Church
be summed up in him, the Church falls with him. Such
is St. Gregory's reasoning. He foresaw but too well ;
and the Roman Church has fallen into endless errours,
with a Pope who claims to sum her up in his own
person, and to be her infallible personification.
Happily the Church of Jesus Christ is neither that of
one time nor that of one place, and she may always be
distinguished by the Catholic criterion so clearly set
forth by the Fathers of the Church. Otherwise, we
must cease to believe the promises of Christ, and must
say in an absolute sense what St. Gregory said hypothet-
ically, The universal one has fallen, the whole Church
has fallen I
They said at the court of Constantinople, that Greg
ory only made such fierce war against the title of uni
versal from jealousy of the Bishop of the New Rome,
and to debase him. The Emperor and Cyriacus wrote
thus to him with all the respect that was his due ; but
Gregory made Cyriacus clearly understand that he had
misjudged him. He sent to him and to the Emperor a
deacon, Anatolius by name, to undeceive them, giving
him letters for the Emperor and the Patriarch. To the
latter, after thanking him for his flattering words, he
says:* " It must be not only by words, but by deeds, that
• Book vn. Ep. a.

THE PAPACY. 225
you show to me and to all your brethren the splendour
of your charity, by hastening to renounce a title of pride,
which has been a cause of offence to all the churches.
Fulfil these words, ' Endeavour to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace, (Eph. 4 : 3,) and this other,
' Give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproach
fully.' (1 Tim. 5 : 14.) Your charity will shine forth if
there be no division between us, in respect to a vainglo
rious title. I call Jesus to witness, from the depth of
my soul, that I do not wish to give offence to any person,
from the least to the greatest. I desire all to be great
and honoured, provided such honour detracts nothing
from that which is due to Almighty God. Indeed, who
ever would be honoured against God is not honourable in
my eyes. . . . In this matter I would injure no one ;
I would only defend that humility which is pleasing to
God and the peace of the holy Church. Let the things
newly introduced be therefore abrogated in the same
manner as they have been established, and we shall
preserve amongst us the purest peace of the Lord.
What kindly relations can exist between us if our senti
ments are but words, and we wound one another with
our deeds ?"
In his letter to the Emperor, Gregory devotes himself
to refuting the argument that was drawn from the in
significance of this honorary title, to which they pre
tended, at Constantinople, not to attach any great im
portance. "I pray your Imperial Piety," he says,*
" to observe that there are some frivolous things that
are inoffensive, but also some others that are very hurt
ful. When Antichrist shall come and call himself God,
it will be in itself a perfectly frivolous thing, but a very
pernicious one. If we only choose to consider the num
ber of syllables in this word, we find but two, (JDe-us ;)
» Book VII. Ep. 88.

226 THE PAPACY.
but if we conceive the weight of iniquity of this title, we
shall find it enormous. I say it without the least hesi
tation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or de
sires this title, is, by his pride, THE PRECURSOR OF
ANTICHRIST, because he thus attempts to raise him
self above the others. The errour into which he falls
springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist ; for as
that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above
other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be call
ed sole bishop exalteth himself above others."
Nowadays they teach, in the name of the Church and
in favour of the Bishop of Rome, the same doctrine that
St. Gregory stigmatized with so much energy. The
partisans of the Papacy teach continually that the Pope
has a universal authority — that he is the universal
bishop — that, properly speaking, he is the only bishop,
the source whence flows all ecclesiastical dignity, in
cluding the episcopate, which is but indirectly and medi
ately of divine right.
Such is the instruction that they would now foist
upon us as Catholic doctrine. Do our modern inno
vators apprehend that Pope Gregory the Great regarded
such a doctrine as diabolical, and has, in anticipation,
called this Pope, so invested with an assumed universal
episcopate, Antichrist ?
St. Gregory was in the habit of taking no important
decision without giving information of it to the other
Patriarchs. He therefore wrote to those of Alexandria
and Antioch, to inform them what course he had
adopted with regard to the new Patriarch of Constanti
nople. Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, was per
suaded, and announced to Gregory that he would no
longer give the title universal to tho Bishop of Constan
tinople ; but, thinking to flatter Gregory, whom he loved
and who had done him service on many occasions, he
gave the same title to him, and wrote that if he did not

THE PAPACY. 227
give it to the Bishop of Constantinople, it was in sub
mission to the commands of Gregory. Gregory an
swered at once, and the following •passage from his
answer shows what idea he had of his own authority
as bishop of Rome :
" Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in
addressing certain persons you no longer give them cer
tain titles that have no better origin than pride, using
this phrase regarding me, ias you have commanded.'
I pray you let me never again hear this word command;
for I know who I am and who you are. BY YOUR
POSITION YOU ARE MY BRETHREN; by your
virtues you are ray fathers. Ihave, therefore, not com
manded; Ihave only been careful to point out things
which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that your
Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly
wished to impress on your memory ; for I said that you
should no more give that title to me than to others ; and
lo ! in the superscription of your letter, you give to me,
who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of uni
versal and of Pope. May your sweet Holiness do so no
more in future, I beseech you ; for you take from yourself
wthat you give in excess to another. I do not ask to in
crease in dignities, but in virtues. I do not esteem that
an honour which causes my brethren to lose their own
dignity. My honour is that of the whole Church. My
honour is the unshaken firmness of my brethren. I con
sider myself truly honoured when no one is denied the
honour due to him. If your Holiness calls me universal
Pope, you deny that you are yourself what J should
then be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be the
words that puff up vanity and wound charity."
Thus did Pope Gregory condemn, even in the person
of the Bishops of Rome, the title of Pope and that of uni
versal. He acknowledges that the Patriarch of Alexan
dria is his equal, that he is not entitled to lay any com-

228 THE PAPACY.
mands upon him, and consequently that he has no
authority over him.
How is this orthodox doctrine of St. Gregory's to be
reconciled with the modem teaching that ascribes to
the Pope a universal authority of divine right ? Let
the defenders of the Papacy answer.
St. Gregory, consistent with himself, sees the unity
of the Church only in the true faith, and never makes
the least allusion to the necessity of being in communion
with the Church of Rome.
And no wonder ; for he did not regard the see of
Rome as the only see of St. Peter. He expressly ac
knowledged that the sees of Alexandria and Antioch
were, quite as much as that of Rome, the see of the first
of the Apostles, and that these three sees were but one.
Let us quote his words. He writes thus to Eulogius,
Patriarch of Alexandria :*
" Your Holiness has spoken to me at large, in your
letters, of the see of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles,
saying that he still resides here by his successors.
Now, I acknowledge myself unworthy not only of the
honour of the chiefs, but even to be counted in the num
ber of the faithful. Yet I have willingly accepted all
that you have said, because your words regarding the
see of Peter came from him who occupies that see qf
Peter. A special honour has no charms for me ; but I
greatly rejoice that you, who are very holy, only ascribe
to me what you also give to yourself. Indeed, who is
ignorant that the holy Church has been made fast upon
the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose name
js the type of the firmness of his soul, and who borrowed
from the rock his name of Peter ? — that it was said to
him by the Truth, ' I will give unto thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven . . . When thou art con
verted strengthen thy brethren. . . Simon, Son of
* lb. Book VTJ. Ep. 89.

THE PAPACY. 229
Jonas, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep." Therefore,
though there were many Apostles, the single see of the
prince of the Apostles prevailed by his princedom ;
which see now exists in three places ; for it is he that
made glorious that see where he condescended to rest
(quiescere) and close his present life. It is he who
adorned the see, whither he sent the Evangelist, his dis
ciple. It is he who strengthened the see, which he
occupied for seven years, although finally compelled to
leave it. Since then there is but one see of the same
Apostle, and three bishops now hold it by divine author
ity. All the good I hear of you I also impute to my
self." Observe that St. Gregory, in speaking of Rome, only
says that St. Peter rested there and died there. To
Alexandria he only sent his disciple ; but at Antioch he
held, the see for seven years. If, then, in the strict accepta
tion of the words, any biBhop has inherited the see oi
St. Peter, it must be, according to St. Gregory, the
Bishop of Antioch. The great Pope was well aware
that Peter only went to Rome to die there ; that the
Roman Church was already founded and governed by
a bishop ; he accordingly limits himself to saying that
he made glorious the see of Rome by the martyrdom he
suffered there, while he designates Antioch as the true
episcopal see of Peter. We believe that St. Peter was,
strictly speaking, no more Bishop of Antioch than of
Rome ; but we only wish to show what was the opinion
of St. Gregory ; and that opinion, whatever it was, is no
less a withering argument against the pretensions of the
court of Rome.
Writing to Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, to offer
consolation in his sufferings, Gregory says :* " Behold
now, your Holiness is weighed down with many tribu
lations in your old age ; but remember what was said
» lb. Book Vin. Ep. 2.

230 THE PAPACY.
of him whose seat you fill. Is it not of him that the
Truth himself said, ' When thou shall be old . . . an
other shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou
wouldest not " ? (John 21 : 18.)
We know that these words were addressed by our
Lord to St. Peter. In another letter to the same Anas-
tasius, St. Gregory thus expresses himself, after having
quoted what he believed to be the words of St. Ignatius
of Antioch :
" I have introduced in my letter these words drawn
from your writings, that your Holiness may know that
your own holy Ignatius is also ours. For as we have
in common the master, the prince of the Apostles, we
must neither of us exclusively claim the disciple of this
prince of the Apostles."*
St. Gregory wrote to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexan
dria, " We have received, with the same tenderness as
it was given us, the benediction of St. Mark the Evan
gelist, or rather, more properly speaking, of the Apostle
St. Peter."!
He wrote again to the same, after having congratu
lated him upon his refutation of the errours of the Mono-
phy sites :
" Praise and glory be in the heavens to my saintly
brother, thanks to whom the voice of Mark is heard
from the chair of Peter, whose teaching resounds
through the Church as the cymbal in the tabernacle,
when he fathoms the mysteries — that is to say, when,
as priest of the Most Highest, he enters the Holy of
Holies."! Was any thing more flattering ever said to the
Bishops of Rome than Gregory here says to Eulogius
of Alexandria ? Does not the saintly Pope seem to
copy the very words of the Council of Chalcedon,
* lb. Book V. Ep. 39. t Ib. Book VIH. Ep. 89. X lb. Book X Ep. 35.

THE PAPACY. 231
"Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo" ? Why draw
such vast consequences from the words of the Fathers of
Chalcedon, spoken in praise of the Bishop of Rome, and
yet draw none whatever from those of the great Pope
addressed to the Patriarch of Alexandria ? He wrote
again to the same :* " The bearers of these presents,
having come to Sicily, were converted from the errours of
the Monophysites and have joined the holy Church uni
versal. Desiring to go to the Church of the blessed Peter,
prince of the Apostles, they have besought me to give
them commendatory letters to your Holiness, in order
that you might assist them against the attacks of their
heretical neighbours."
In another letter, in which he discourses of simony, he
writes to Eulogius : " Root out this simoniacal heresy
from your most holy see, which is ours also." He calls
the Church of Alexandria a most holy church.] With
such evidence before us, how can we draw any conclu
sion in favour of the Roman see from expressions like
these of apostolic see, or holy see ? Such epithets were
common, during the first eight centuries, to all the
churches founded by the Apostles, and were never exclu
sively employed to describe the Church of Rome.
From what we have shown of the doctrine of St.
Gregory respecting the see of St. Peter, it is easy to see
that no absolute sense can be honestly attached to such
expressions as these, " My son, the lord Venantius has
come toward the blessed Apostle Peter to beg me to com
mend his cause to you," etc. J " The care of the whole
Church was confided to Peter, prince of the Apostles."§
" He received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, the
power to bind and to loose was given to him, the care
of the whole Church, and the princedom were intrusted
to him."|| " Who does not know that the holy Church
* Ibid. Book xn. Ep. 50. i t Ibid. Book XHI. Ep. 41.
X Ibid. Book IL Ep. 58. § Ibid. Book V. Ep. 20. | Ibid.

232 THE PAPACY.
has been strengthened by the firmness of the prince of
the Apostles ?"*
These expressions certainly belong to St. Gregory;
but is it fair to quote them separately and give them an
absolute sense ? Yet this is the course of the Romish
theologians, not only with the works of Gregory, but
with all those of the other Fathers of the Church. In
this manner they have succeeded in deceiving a great
number of the faithful, and even many sincere theolo
gians ; the latter could not suspect such a strange dis
honesty in writers who at every turn are boasting of
their devotion to the cause of the Church and truth, and
they have thought it safe to quote from them at second
hand. We can now understand what St. Gregory meant by
the see of St. Peter, and by the titles of first and prince
of the Apostles. But that we may throw still stronger
light upon his thoughts, we will quote a few more texts,
both decisive and clear, which shall determine the exact
meaning of these phrases, that have been so culpably
misused by the advocates of Popery.
St. Gregory, in his book upon the Pastoral Rule, lays
down this principle: that the pastors of the Church
should not use their authority toward blameless believ
ers, but only toward sinners whom gentleness could not
correct. In support of this principle he quotes the ex
amples of the Apostles Peter and Paul. " Peter," he
says, "the first pastor holding the princedom of the holy
Church, by the will of God, (auctore Beo,) showed him
self humble toward the faithful, but showed how much
power he had beyond others when he punished Ananias
and Sapphira ; when it became necessary to punish
sins, he remembered that he was the highest in the
Church, (summus,) and in taking vengeance of the
crime, he exercised the right of his power." f
* Ibid. Book VII. Ep. 40. t St. Greg. Pastoral Rule, Part n. chap. vl.

THE PAPACY. 233
In the same passage he proves by the example of St.
Paul, as well as by that of St. Peter, that the pastor should
be humble toward the faithful, and only exercise his
power when he is compelled to take in hand the cause
of justice. Thus St. Paul declared himself the servant
of the faithful, the least among them ; " but," adds St.
Gregory, " when he finds a fault to correct, he remem
bers he is master, and says, ' What will ye ? I will come
to you with a rod of iron.' Hence," concludes St.
Gregory, the highest places are best filled when he who
presides rules rather his own vices than the brethren.
But when those who preside correct those who are sub
ject unto them, they should observe this duty," etc.*
It appears from this that St. Gregory regarded St. Paul
as well as St. Peter and their successors as filling the
highest place in the Church, as presiding in the Church.
If he says that Peter held the princedom, he also says
that Paul was master ; he uses the same word (summus)
to signify the authority of St. Peter and that of St. Paul,
and of all those who have the right to exercise author
ity in the Church. Would he have expressed himself in
a manner so general, if by this word princedom he had
meant to signify a superiour authority ascribed exclu
sively to St. Peter ? Just as by the see of St. Peter, he
means the first; degree of the episcopate represented by
the Patriarchs ; so likewise by the words " superiour
authority" he only means that of the episcopate which
the pastors of the Church have inherited.
The more intima,te we grow with the works of the Fa
thers of the Church, the more we are convinced of their
unanimity in considering the authority in the Church as
one and possessed jointly and severally by the first pas
tors or the bishops. At first blush we might believe
that the word "princedom," or that of "prince" of the
Apostles, given by them to St. Peter, clashed with this
* St. Greg. loe. eit

234 THE PAPACY.
principle. St. Gregory has shielded us from this false
interpretation. For while ascribing to Peter the prince
dom of the Church, he has not exalted him more than St.
Paul. He shall tell us so most clearly in his own words.
We read in his Dialogues :
"Peter. How can you prove to me that there be those
who do no miracles, and yet are not inferior to those
who do them ?
" Gregory. Dost thou not know that the Apostle
Paul is the brother of Peter, first of the Apostles in the
princedom ?
" Peter. I know this perfectly," etc., etc.*
Thus Paul was the equal or brother of Peter in the
Apostolic princedom. Is it possible to say with greater
clearness that by such titles no particular personal and
exclusive dignity was intended ?
In another place St. Gregory regards St. Paul as
having a right, as well as St. Peter, to the title oi first
Apostle. In relating in his Dialogues the death of one
Martin, a priest, he says that this holy man saw Peter
and Paul calling him to heaven : " I see, I see," said
Martin. " I thank you. I thank you !"
As he often repeated these words, his friends about
him asked him to whom he spoke. He wondered at
their question, and said, " Do you not see here the holy
Apostles ? do you not perceive Peter and Paul the first
of the Apostles ?"\
And lastly, Gregory leads us to think that St. Peter
was never Bishop of Rome. We have already quoted
some positive texts on this point. Here is another to
confirm them :
" It is certain," he says, " that at the time when the
holy Apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom, the
faithful came from the East to beg the bodies of these
Apostles, who were their fellow-countrymen. They car-
* St Greg. Dialogues, Book I. chap. 12. t Ibid. Book IV. Chap. 11.

THE PAPACY. 235
ried these bodies as far as the second mile stone, and
deposited them in the place called the Catacombs. But
when they would have taken them up, to continue their
journey, the thunder and lightning threw those who at
tempted it into such a panic that no one has ever again
dared to attempt their removal."*
It is not our business to discuss the truth of this story ;
but one truth may be clearly inferred from this recital,
namely, that the Eastern people could claim the body of
St. Peter because he was of their country, and that the
Romans never dreamed of answering that his body be
longed by a better title to them, because he had been,
their bishop.
Thus the doctrine of Gregory the Great upon the
Church destroys, piece by piece, the whole Papal sys
tem. We defy the Romanists to find in the writings of
this great Pope a single word which gives any idea of
that universal monarchy whose centre is in the Church
of Rome, and whose sovereign the bishop of that city.
This doctrine runs utterly counter to that of St. Gregory.
According to him, the unity of the Church results from
the reciprocal relations ofits chiefs. "May your piety,"
he wrote to Anastasius, Archbishop of Corinth, " reply
to our letters in which we have notified him of our or
dination, and by replying (litteris reciprocis) give us the
pleasure of knowing that the Church is united''
He defines the " unity of the Catholic Church" as
" the totality (compago) of the body of Christ."! He
does not swerve from this : the individual churches are
the members of the church ; each church is governed by
its pastors ; the authority is the same, of divine right,
in all the pastors of the Church ; the whole edifice is
supported upon the see of St. Peter ; that is, upon the
patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, which
* Letters of St. Gregory, Book IV. Ep. 80,
t Ibid. Book II. Ep. 4T.

236 THE PAPACY.
exercise, of ecclesiastical right, a supervision over the
whole Church.
Can any thing be conceived more diametrically op
posed to the Papal system than this doctrine of St.
Gregory ?
Maurice having been killed byPhocas, Pope Boniface
HI. hastened to apply to the murderer, that he might
obtain official recognition of the primacy of the Roman
Church. He saw it imperilled by the title of oecumeni
cal, that Maurice had granted to John the Faster.
That pious emperor had been the chief support of the
title taken by the Bishop of Constantinople. The Patri
arch did not long enjoy the good graces of Phocas,
whose violence he condemned, Rome made advances
to the tyrant ; Gregory the Great himself covered him
with adulation ; and Boniface IH., who was raised to
the see of Rome after the short episcopate of Sabinian,
wrote to the murderer of Maurice, to ask for the same
title of cecumenical that Gregory the Great had so en
ergetically condemned.* It was generally understood
that the Bishop of Constantinople assumed by this title
to be the first in the Church. Accordingly, the historian
of the Popes, Anastasius the Librarian, thus mentions
this proceeding of Boniface IH. :
"He (Boniface)! obtained from the Emperor Phocas,
that the Apostolic see of the blessed Apostle Peter, that
is to say, the Roman Church, should be the chief (caput,
the head) of all the churches, because the Church of
Constantinople wrote that she was the first oi all the
churches." Paul the Deacon thus records the same fact :J "At
the request of Pope Boniface, Phocas decreed that the
see of the Roman and Apostolic Church should be the
chief (caput) of all the churches, because the Church of
• Noel Alexandre. Hist. Eccl t Anast De Vlt Rom. Pontlf. % 6T. Bonif. m.
X Paul Dlac. De Gestls Longobard. Lib. IV. % 8T.

THE PAPACY. 237
Constantinople wrote that she was the first of all the
churches." Such is for the Church of Rome the official origin of
the title of chief of the universal Church, which she
claims for her bishop. It had been given to him occa
sionally before, but only in flattery, and without attach
ing, to it any other meaning than that of head of the
episcopate, or oi first bishop y it was occasionally given
to the Roman Church itself, and then the word caput
only meant chief 'in the sense of head. She had been
called head of the Church, that is, first of the churches.
This title, becoming official, thanks to Phocas, soon
changed its signification. " Chief" no longer meant
head, but sovereign prince ; to-day it means absolute
monarch, infallible autocrat. Such is the progress of
this title of caput, given to the Roman Church by Pho
cas, one of the vilest men that ever occupied a throne.
Some years later (633) arose the quarrel of the Mono-
thelites, which gives us further proofs against the Papal
system, and demonstrates that in the seventh century
the self-styled universal authority of the Bishops of Rome
was not recognized.*
An Arabian bishop, named Theodore, starting from
this Catholic truth, defined at Chalcedon, that there is
but one person in Christ, inferred that there was in
Christ but one wiU and one operation. He thus neg
lected the distinction of the two natures, divine and
human, which are hypostatically united in Jesus Christ,
but not mingled, and which retain their respective es
sence, each consequently with its own will and its own
proper action or operation, since will and action are as
necessary attributes of the human being as of God.
Theodore thus confounded being with personality. Ser-
gius, Bishop of Constantinople, consulted by Theodore,
• See Theoph. Eccl. Hist., and Labbe's Collection of the Councils, vol vi. for
the documents. See also Hlstolre da Monothelisme, par Combefis.

238 THE PAPACY.
fell into the same errour with him. He believed that his
system was calculated to bring back to the Church those
who were still opposed to the Council of Chalcedon.
Accordingly, he sent them a paper upon this subject, and
opened communications with them. Cyrus, Bishop of
Alexandria, who shared his views, did the same, and
many of the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon ac
cepted its decrees with this pretended explanation.
This result encouraged the Monothelite bishops, who
were also sustained by the Emperor Heraclius. Sophro-
nius, a monk of Alexandria, had declared against his
bishop, and had gone to Constantinople to confer upon
the question with Sergius, whom he found in perfect
agreement with Cyrus. Sophronius, in despair for this
new errour, was returning when he was elected Bishop
of Jerusalem. Sergius, believing that in his high posi
tion Sophronius would declare against him, and would
seek the support of the West, wrote to Honorius, Bishop
of Rome, setting forth his doctrine, and its good results
in the East, particularly at Alexandria. Honorius re
plied with his famous letter, in which he also only re
cognizes one will and one operation in Jesus Christ ; he
censured those who were in favour of admitting two, and
promised to remain in perfect harmony with Sergius,
telling him, however, at the same time, that the Church
should not be troubled by this new question, whether
there were one or two wills or operations, and that
such a war of words should be left to grammarians.
Sophronius, ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, at once
assembled his synod, and read before it the letter of
communion, which, according to custom, he was to ad
dress to the other Patriarchs of the Church. He sent it
to Sergius and also to Honorius. This letter was very
explicit in regard to the two wills and two operations.
Honorius, having read it, told the messengers of Sophro
nius that, for the good of the Church, it was best noj;

THE PAPACY. 239
to agitate that question. The messengers agreed to
this, and Honorius wrote to the Patriarchs of Con
stantinople and Alexandria, making the same re
quest. Sophronius, who saw that the faith was in peril, wrote
a paper, in which he proved from the Fathers that, ac
cording to the constant traditions of the Church, two
wills and two operations should be recognized in Jesus
Christ. He proved this to be the necessary consequence
of the two natures. In despair of convincing Sergius
and Cyrus, who had openly declared in favour of the
contrary doctrine, he sent one of his suffragan bishops
to Rome, hoping to overcome her hesitancy rather than
to convert Constantinople or Alexandria. We are ig
norant of the result of this embassy. Honorius died hi
638, and was succeeded by Severinus, who in turn was
succeeded soon after by John IV. It was during the
brief pontificate of Severinus that the Emperor Herac-
lius published his "EKdeaig, or Exposition, to give an of
ficial character to the Monothelite doctrine. This "'EitOeatg
was addressed to all the bishops, and was solemnly ac
cepted by those of Alexandria and Constantinople. It
is not known whether Severinus approved it or not.
But after the death of Heraclius, John IV. condemned
it in a Roman council. We perhaps owe that condem
nation to the explanations of the envoy of Sophronius.
Sergius had died before this decision of the Roman
council. Pyrrhus, his successor, set up in opposition to
the decision of John IV. the letter of Honorius, John's
predecessor. John attempted an apology ; but the let
ters of Sergius and Honorius still exist ; they prove
that John's defence was untenable ; that Honorius had
perfectly understood Sergius ; that he had answered
him agreeing with the letter he had received from him ;
that both rejected in a general way the two distinct
wills and operations. It was with justice, then, that

240 THE PAPACY.
Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the sixth cecu
menical council, as we shall shortly see.
After the publication of the "Endeoic of Heraclius, the
discussions upon the two operations and two wills as
sumed greater proportions. The whole East was filled
with them. Many bishops declared against the new
doctrine, and appealed to the West, in the person of the
Bishop of Rome, to sustain the Catholic faith. Pyr-
rhus, having abandoned his see, was succeeded by Paul,
who wrote letters of communion to Theodore, then
Bishop of Rome. Theodore replied, praising the ortho
doxy of Paul's faith, but expressing surprise that he had
not condemned the "EKdeaig of Heraclius. Yet he himself
did not dare to censure that document openly ; he
ought, therefore, to have understood why Paul, who
was then at Constantinople, had not solemnly condemn
ed it. In his answer, Theodore urged that Pyrrhns,
Paul's predecessor, must be canonically deposed, or be
sent to Rome to be judged. This opinion was not fol
lowed. But Pyrrhus himself, having been proved to be
in errour by the monk Maximus of Constantinople, asked
to go to Rome, where he was received with all honours
due to his title of ex-Patriarch, by Theodore, to whom
he intrusted a perfectly orthodox confession of faith.
Rome took advantage of the occasions offered by
Monothelism to enlarge her authority. The two Patri
archs of Constantinople and Alexandria having declared
in favour of the new doctrine, all those who were ortho-
dox.in the East had occasion to turn to the Patriarch of
Rome and write to him as thev bulwark of the faith which
was threatened throughout the East. At such a time the
title of successor of St. Peter was not withheld from
him, and some bishops went so far as to trace back to
that Apostle the authority of the Roman see. This flat
tered the tendencies which were destined to be daily
more and more developed at Rome.

THE PAPACY. 241
Some Popes, particularly St. Leo, had made alto
gether too much of the prerogatives of the Apostle
Peter, and possibly with a purpose. St. Gregory the
Great, indeed, came in to determine the orthodox sense
of the expressions of his predecessors ; but it is certain
that beginning with St. Leo, the Bishops of Rome were
tending to exaggerate the prerogatives of the first of
the Apostles, in order to appropriate them by right of
succession. As the small patriarchate of Jerusalem was
under the authority of St. Sophronius, the most illus
trious defender of orthodoxy in the East, the Pope
thought he might properly have himself represented
there. He chose for his legate Stephen of Dora, who
had been sent to Rome by Sophronius himself to en
lighten Honorius. This was a step unheard of before
in the East, and therefore it should not pass unnoticed ;
it sustains our allegation that the Popes intended to
profit by every circumstance in order to increase their
authority, the more as it was threatened by the Bishops
of Constantinople. The two highest Patriarchs of the
East had fallen into heresy, and now or never should
Rome speak out. The Popes did not let the oppor
tunity go by. Nevertheless, the authentic documents
concerning the question of Monothelism agree in proving
that all the Patriarchs discussed the dogmatic questions
among themselves on a footing of equality. Many bish
ops having declared against Paul of Constantinople, he
gave explanations that might be interpreted either way,
and which satisfied no one. But as he was continually
found fault with for his silence respecting the "EKdeaig, he
prevailed upon the Emperor Constans te publish a new
edict, which received the name of Type. By this edict
the "EKdeaig was withdrawn, and both parties were si
lenced. This was precisely what Honorius had formerly asked,
in the letter in which he declared in favour of Monothel-

242

THE PAPACY.

ism. But Theodore was no longer satisfied with this.
He assembled a council of Italian bishops, and there de
posed Paul of Constantinople, and Pyrrhus, who had re
lapsed into Monothelism after he left Rome. He dared
to sign this anti-canonical sentence with a pen dipped
in the consecrated wine. Such impiety might satisfy
the rancour of Rome, but it could only have calamitous
results. Paul continued to consider himself legitimate
Bishop of Constantinople, and replied to the violence of
the Bishop of Rome with corresponding violence. He
caused to be overthrown the Roman altar of the palace
of Placidia, where the two envoys of the Roman Bishop
resided, and forbade them to celebrate the holy myste
ries. This was to declare them and their bishop excom
municate. They returned to Rome, and one of them, Martin,
was elected to succeed Theodore, who died soon after
throwing this new element of discord into the Church by
his sentence, (649.) Martin was no sooner consecrated,
than he assembled at Rome a-numerous council of bish
ops from the environs of Rome, from the Exarchate of
Ravenna, from Sicily, and from Sardinia. Some African
bishops, Stephen of Dora, and some Greek monks, refu
gees in Rome, were present. The question of the two
wills and two operations was examined, the "EKdeaig, the
Type and their defenders were condemned. Martin
signed the acts of the council as follows : " Martin, by
the grace of God, Bishop of the holy catholic and apos
tolic Church of the city of Rome. I have signed as
judge this sentence in confirmation of the orthodox
faith, and also the condemnation of Theodore, formerly
Bishop of Pharan, of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Sergius
of Constantinople, of Pyrrhus and Paul his successors,
and of their heretical writings, of the impious "EKdeaig
and the impious Type, published by them."
All the bishops, one hundred and five in number, em-

THE PAPACY. 243
ployed the same formula in signing. They concurred in
the condemnation, as judges, as well as the Bishop of
Rome, who merely had the first place in the council.
Martin sent the transactions of the Council of Rome
to the East, and named John, Bishop of Philadelphia,
his vicar for the entire East, condemning as heretics the
Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria as well as the Pa
triarch of Constantinople. Martin declared in the com
mission given to John of Philadelphia, that he gave it
to him " by virtue of the power that he had received
from St. Peter," and because of the unhappy condition
of the East now ravaged by Mussulmans.
It was thus that the Bishop of Rome availed himself
of the misfortunes of the East to seize upon universal
power in the Church by virtue of an alleged succession
from St. Peter. These formulas became more and more
the fashion at Rome after the middle of the seventh
century, and Martin particularly contributed to carry
them out. He claimed authority such as his predeces
sors never enjoyed. Thus, being dissatisfied with the
letter of communion he had received from Paul, the new
Bishop of Thessalonica, he dictated the formula he
should accept. Paul refusing to comply, Martin an
nounced to him without the form of a trial that he was
deposed from his see. He was the more inclined to
make this bishop feel his power, because his province
had been submitted to the jurisdiction of Constanti
nople in spite of Rome.
The patriarchal churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem had enough to do to defend themselves
against the ferocious conquerors of the East; they,
therefore, took no notice of the encroachments of Rome,
nor the acts of her vicar. They only protested by their
silence and by ceasing to keep up any relations with
the Roman see. For them, Constantinople became the
first see of the Church, and they remained in communion

244 THE PAPACY.
with it. The only contest was now between the Bish
ops of Rome and Constantinople.
By the Council of Rome, Martin had obviously de
sired to pay back the last Council of Constantinople, in
which his predecessor, Vigilius, had been, as he himself
confessed, convicted of errour. But he had not imi
tated the prudence of this council, which, while it con
demned the errours of Vigilius, had not sought to de
pose him, and thus violate the rights of the bishops
of the Roman province. Moreover, Martin attacked
the Emperor himself in condemning The Type, which
had been promulgated as a law of the state. He had,
indeed, endeavoured to ascribe that document to the
Bishop of Constantinople, and had written to the Em
peror to persuade him that he was not personally con
cerned in the decision. But these precautions only
irritated Constans, who had Martin ousted from Rome.
He accused him not only of heresy, but of rebellion and
high treason. One Eugene-was substituted for Martin
in the episcopate of Rome. Martin, speaking of his de
position, says in one of his letters : * "It has never been
practised in this manner ; for, in the absence of the
bishop, he is replaced by the archdeacon, the arch-
priest, and the dean."
He never dreamed of appealing to any exclusive priv
ilege in favour of the Bishops of Rome, and acknow
ledged that they were subject to the common law.
The anti-canonical deposition of Martin answered to
that which he had himself pronounced, as uncanonically
against Paul of Constantinople. It may be safely said
that if Martin had had, like Paul, the imperial power at
his disposal, he would have treated his antagonist as he
himself was treated.
The letters of the Roman bishops to the emperors
will satisfy any one that it was a matter of tradition
* Mart. Eplst. ad Theod.

THE PAPACY. 245
among them to ask for violent measures against all
whom they considered heretics ; and we know how
faithful they were to these traditions when they had in
their own hands both the spiritual and the temporal
power. From a purely ecclesiastical point of view, it was
natural that the first encroachments of the Papacy
should excite a powerful reaction. Martin, coming to
Constantinople, (654,) was treated as a prisoner of state ;
insults were heaped upon him, and he was shamefully
maltreated. The Bishop of Constantinople, who was
ill, disapproved of such violence, and besought the Em
peror not to treat a bishop thus. He died soon after
expressing these kindly sentiments. Martin was ban
ished to Cherson. Thence he wrote several letters. He
complains that the Roman Church sent him no aid ; and
in one of his letters he thus expresses himself in regard
to the Roman clergy and of the successor who had been
appointed to his place :* " I am amazed at those who
belong to the Church of St. Peter, because of the little
care they have of one who is of them. If that Church
have no money, she lacks, thank God, neither grain, nor
wine, nor other provisions that she could send to my
aid. . . . Have I been such an enemy to the Church,
and particularly to them ? I pray God nevertheless, by
the intercession of St. Peter, to preserve them unshaken
in the orthodox faith, and chiefly the pastor who now
governs them." Thus Martin regarded Eugene, who
had been put in his place, and* whose promotion had
been approved by the Roman clergy, as the legitimate
Bishop of Rome. It must be acknowledged that his let
ter is not very favourable to the pretensions of the mod
ern Papacy, and is a more than sufficient answer to what
he himself said of his universal power inherited from St.
Peter. He died about a year after writing this letter.
* Mart Eplst xvllL Labbe's Collection.

246 THE PAPACY.
Pyrrhus, the former Bishop of Constantinople, was
the same year reinstalled in that see ; but he only sur
vived his restoration a few months, and was succeeded
by Peter. Eugene, Bishop of Rome, was succeeded by
Vitalianus, in 658. Constans, going to Rome under
his episcopate, was received by him with great honours,
and communicated with him, although this Emperor
had never revoked his Type, and had persecuted Pope
Martin and the monk Maximus, who was regarded in
the East as the great defender of orthodoxy. During
the episcopate of Vitalianus — fourteen years — no differ
ences existed between the sees of Rome and Constanti
nople. In 664 Constans died, and Constantine Pogon-
atus ascended the imperial throne. In 6 74 Vitalianus was
replaced by Adeodatus, who was succeeded by Donus.
He died in 679, and Agatho was elected to the see of
Rome. Peter of Constantinople had been succeeded by
Constantine, who gave place, in 678, to Theodore.
This Patriarch, full of pacific intentions, had sent to
Donus a letter exhorting him to peace. But the Bishop
of Rome did not reply, imitating his predecessors, who
had given no answer to the synodical letters of the later
bishops of Constantinople. This schism grieved the
Emperor, who determined to reestablish friendly rela
tions between the Eastern and Western churches. He
therefore inquired of Theodore and of Macarius of Anti
och as to the cause of the division.* They replied:
"There have been introduced new modes of speaking
of the mysteries, either through ignorance or from ex
cessive curiosity ; and never, since these questions have
been under discussion, have the two sees assembled
to search out the truth." The Emperor concluded
that the remedy for these divisions was a council, and
consequently wrote thus to Donus : " Circumstances do
Dot allow the assembling of a complete council ; but
» V. Theoph. Eccl. Hist and voL vl of Labbe'a Collection.

THE PAPACY. 247
you may send discreet and learned men, who, with the
Patriarchs Theodore and Macarius shall solve these ques
tions. They shall enjoy complete security here, and
even for their return, in case they do not come to an un
derstanding. After this we shall be justified in the
sight of God ; for while we can exhort to union, we are
unwilling to compel any one. Send us from your holy
Church three men at most, if you will, and from your
council (that is, of his ecclesiastical province,) about
twelve bishops, including the metropolitans." Be
side this, the Emperor offered every assistance and
safeguard to the deputies for their journey. Donus
was dead when the imperial missive reached Rome,
(679.) It was given to Agatho, who convoked at Rome
a large council, to choose the delegates that should be
sent to Constantinople. All the provinces of Italy took
part in that assembly, in which were also several bish
ops from France. Agatho did not, then, it should seem,
claim for himself the right to send delegates by his
own authority to Constantinople. The council sent the
Emperor a letter, signed by the Pope and all the mem
bers of the assembly. Agatho addressed him another
in his own name. The delegates were well received
at Constantinople by the Emperor. Theodore was no
longer Patriarch ; George had succeeded him. He and
Macarius of Antioch assembled the metropolitans and
the bishops depending from their sees. The churches
of Alexandria and Jerusalem were represented there.
All united with the Western delegates to form what is
known as the sixth oecumenical council.
The first session took place on the seventh of Novem
ber, a.d. 680. The Emperor occupied the first place, in
the middle ; on his left were the delegates from Rome
and Jerusalem ; on his right, the Patriarchs of Constan
tinople and of Antioch, and the delegate from Alexan
dria ; next, on each side, quite a great number of me-

248 THE PAPACY.
tropolitans and bishops. During several sessions the
Emperor caused the acts of the Councils of Ephesus and
Chalcedon to be read, together with all the texts cited
for or against the two wills and two operations in Christ.
The question being discussed, all agreed, except the
Patriarch of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, in con
demning Monothelism and all those who had supported
it, including Honorius, Pope of Rome. This important
decree, which so loudly refutes the pretensions of the
modern Papacy, deserves to be quoted verbally.*
" Having examined the pretended dogmatical letters
of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus, and the replies
of Honorius to Sergius, and finding them opposed to
the doctrine of the Apostles, to the decrees of the coun
cils, and to the sense of all the Fathers, but agreeable,
on the contrary, to the false doctrines of the heretics,
we entirely reject them, and detest them as calculated
to corrupt souls. And while we reject their impious
dogmas, we also think that their names should be ban
ished from the Church — namely, of Sergius, formerly
Bishop of this city of Constantinople, who first wrote
upon this errour ; of Cyrus of Alexandria ; of Pyrrhus,
Paul, and Peter, Bishops of Constantinople ; of Theo
dore, Bishop of Pharan ; all of whom Pope Agatho men
tions in his letter to the Emperor, and hath rejected.
We pronounce anathema against them all. With them
we think we should expel from the Church, and pro
nounce anathema against Honorius, formerly Bishop of
Old Rome. We find in his letter to Sergius that he fol
lows, in every respect, and authorizes his impious doc
trine." In the sixteenth session, after the profession of faith
of the Patriarch George of Constantinople, the council
rung with acclamations, and among others, with the fol
lowing: "Anathema to Theodore of Pharan, to Sergius,
* Cone. Constant, sess. xllL In Labbe's Collection.

THE PAPACY. 249
to Cyrus ! Anathema to Honorius the Heretic !"
In the profession of faith of the council, read in the last
session, Honorius is condemned with the other heretics ;
anathema is again pronounced against him as well as
against the other Monothelites.
The council enacted many canons. The thirty-sixth
renewed those of Constantinople and Chalcedon touch
ing the rank of the Patriarchs in the Church. It is thus
worded: "Renewing the decrees of the hundred and
fifty holy Fathers assembled in this royal city, blessed
of God, and of the six hundred and thirty assembled at
Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople
shall enjoy the same prerogatives as that of Old Rome —
that it shall be as great in ecclesiastical matters, being
the second after it. After these shall be the sees of
Alexandria, Antioch, and then that of the city of Jeru
salem." Thus did the council answer the pretensions
of Rome. The legates of Agatho and one hundred and
sixty bishops subscribed to the acts of the council.
Five copies were made of them, which were signed by
the Emperor's hand — one for each of the five Patriarchal
churches. Fifty-five bishops, and the delegates of the
Oriental churches, addressed a letter to Agatho, re
questing him to concur in what had been done.
Those who had been condemned by the council — six
in number — hoping, without doubt, to prevail on the
West not to concur in these acts, asked to be sent to
the Pope. The Emperor granted this, and banished
them to Rome.
Meanwhile, (682,) Agatho having died, Leo II. was
elected Bishop of Rome. It was he that received the
legates and the transactions of the council. The Em
peror wrote two letters — one to the Pope, the other to
the members of the Western councils — in reply to those
he had received. Leo II. solemnly concurred in the acts
of the council, by his letter to the Emperor, of May

250 THE PAPACY.
seventh, a.d. 683. Among other passages, we read:
" We anathematize the inventors of the new errour, to
wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius,
Pyrrhus Paul and Peter of Constantinople, and also
Honorius, who, instead of purifying this Apostolic
Church by the doctrine of the Apostles, has come near
to overthrowing the faith by an impious treason."
Nothing is wanting, as we see, to the condemnation
of Pope Honorius as an heretic ; yet this has not pre
vented Romish theologians from saying he was not
so condemned. They have written long disquisitions
upon this subject, in which they have distorted all the
facts. The acts which we have quoted are clear enough
of themselves to prove, to any honest man, that the
sixth oecumenical council did not believe in the doc
trinal authority of the Bishops of Rome; that those
bishops themselves did not believe themselves possessed
of any such authority.
Is it not incredible that the Romish theologians
should have dared to cite this council in favour of their
system ? Among their acclamations the Fathers said,
" Peter has spoken by Agatho ;" " therefore," say the
Romanists, " they recognized the same doctrinal author
ity in Agatho as in Peter." They will not reflect that
this acclamation was made after the examination of
Agatho's letter, when it appeared to be in conformity
with Apostolic doctrine. The council approved of Aga
tho's letter as it condemned that of Honorius, his pre
decessor. It was therefore the council that possessed
doctrinal authority ; and no more of it was recognized
in the see of Rome than in other Apostolic sees.
The doctrine of one Pope wras esteemed to be that of
Peter, because seen to be Apostolic ; that of another
Pope was condemned as contrary to Peter's teaching,
because it differed from Apostolic tradition. This fact
stands out so prominently in the Acts of the Sixth

THE PAPACY. 251
Council, that it is difficult to understand how men who
claim to be in earnest have ever contested it.
Under the reign of Justinian II. there assembled at
Constantinople two hundred and eleven bishops, of
whom the four Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alex
andria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were the chief. *
This assembly is known under the title of the Council
in Trullo, because it was assembled under the TruUus
or dome of the imperial palace. Its object was to add
to the acts of the fifth and sixth cecumenical councils,
which had not made any disciplinary rules. Church
discipline was alone discussed. Customs widely differ
ent already prevailed in the Eastern and Western
churches, particularly in regard to the marriage of
priests. The Roman Church even then was drifting to
ward ecclesiastical celibacy as a general law. The East
ern Church, on the contrary, solemnly proclaimed the
ancient law respecting marriage of priests, deacons,
and sub-deacons. Rome, therefore, refused to receive
the laws of the Council in Trullo. This embittered the
antagonism already existing between Rome and Con
stantinople. In thus disavowing ancient discipline, and
refusing to subscribe to canons, which were its exact
expression, she was laying the groundwork of that wall
of separation which was so soon to be raised between
the two churches. It was Pope Sergius (692) who re
fused to admit the canons of the Council in Trullo. He
particularly relied upon this, that the council prescribed
to the Roman Church, to change her practice regarding
the Saturday fast, a practice that she had followed from
time immemorial. Some zealous Romans, like the priest
Blastus, had tried as early as the fifth century to impose
the Roman custom upon the whole Church ; at the close
of the seventh century the East undertook to impose
hers upon Rome. It must be granted that a council of
* Bee the transactions of this council in Labbe's Collection, vol vi.

252 THE PAPACY.
two hundred and eleven bishops had more authority
than Blastus and his followers ; but it was a matter of
mere discipline, and the Eastern usage should not have
been imposed upon the Western Church, but submitted
to the judgment of the bishops of that Church. We may
believe that the Eastern Church assembled in Trullo
meant, by several of her canons, to remind the Roman
Church how far she had removed from the primitive
discipline, and that the Roman Church would not accept
that lesson, chiefly because it came from Constanti
nople. Official relations were not interrupted between the
two churches ; but for a long time they had been far
from fraternal. The opposition of Rome to the Council
in Trullo did not prevent her intercommunion with
Constantinople ; but these relations were feebly kept
up until the discussion regarding images arose in 726.
The Emperor Leo the Isaurian * declared himself the
enemy of that " cultus " which was addressed to images,
alleging that it was idolatrous. This idea does uot
speak very well for his judgment ;! but he had the
power, and many bishops took sides with him.J
Constantinople at that time possessed a great and
holy Patriarch, Germanus, who energetically opposed the
Emperor's errours. He wrote concerning them to sev
eral bishops, and particularly to Gregory IL, then Bishop
of Rome, who answered, assuring him that he was of
his opinion.
The Emperor resorted to every expedient to corrupt
* Leo III.
t The Editor reminds the reader that the Abbe Guettee Is not a Protestant, and
that the value of his work is the greater as the testimony of one who has no Pro
testant objections to Romish errours. The veneration of Icons or pictures (not
images) in the Greek Church, is a gross abuse, and needs to be reformed practi
cally ; but the Romish education of the Abbe leads him, perhaps, to be less sensi
tive on this subject than many of the Russo-Greeks. The Catechism of Platon
Metropolitan of Moscow, exhibits a genuine dread of the peril of Idolatry which
even his own dogma involves. — [En.]
X See EccL Hist of Theoph. and Niceph., and Labbe's Collection of the Councils.

THE PAPACY. 253
Germanus. Failing in this, he persecuted him. Germanus
preferred to resign his office rather than concur in the
Emperor's decree against images. He retired to his
father's house, where he lived like a monk and died like
a saint. Anastasius, his assistant, was put in his place
by the Emperor. He was an ambitious man, who had
sold his faith to the Emperor for the Patriarchal see.
Leo also endeavoured to corrupt Gregory H. ; but his
promises and threats had no other effect than to raise
against him in rebellion all those who still recognized
the imperial authority in the West.
Anastasius sent a letter of communion to the Pope,
who refused to recognize him, and even threatened his
deposition if he should continue to maintain heresy.
Meanwhile Gregory H. died, (731,) and was succeeded
by Gregory HI. This Pope wrote to the Emperor sev
eral letters full of excellent doctrine and the most val
uable information.* Thus, in the first, he says to the
Emperor : " The decisions of the Church belong not to
emperors but to tshe bishops ; accordingly, as these do
not meddle in civil affairs, so likewise should the emperors
not busy themselves with ecclesiastical matters. If the
emperors and the bishops agree, then they form in com
mon a single power to treat of affairs in the spirit of
peace and charity."
Leo proposing a council, Gregory told him that such
an assembly was not needed, since it was only neces
sary for himself to return to order, that peace might be
universal respecting the question at issue. " You think
to frighten us," he said, " by saying, ' I will send to
Rome and break the image of St. Peter, and will carry
off Pope Gregory loaded with chains. I will treat him
as Constans treated Martin.' Know, then, that the
Popes are mediators and arbiters of peace between the
East and the West. We do not, therefore, fear your
* Letters of Greg. LTL In Labbe's Collection.

254 THE PAPACY.
threats ; at one league from Rome we shall be in
safety." These words depict exactly the position which the
Bishops of Rome had taken in the midst of all the na
tions who had dismembered the Roman empire in the
West — a position that became one of the elements of
their power. As to any pretensions to any sort of po-,
litical authority, or the supreme authority in the Church,
no trace of either can be found in the letters of Gregory
III. He saw this authority only in the bishops ; that
is, he only saw a collective authority in the Church.
The Emperor replying that he possessed both imperial
and sacerdotal power, Gregory wrote him an admirable
letter upon the distinction of the two powers, still
placing the ecclesiastical authority in the episcopate.
Agreeably to his principles, Gregory III. called a coun
cil at Rome to give a collective decision concerning im
ages. He sent that decision to the Emperor and to
Anastasius of Constantinople, with private letters to
lead them back to the right way. His efforts only served
to redouble the persecutions against the Catholics of the
East. The bishops of those countries could neither come
together in convention nor obtain a hearing. In their
stead John Damascene took up the defence of the
Church. The Mohammedan yoke gave the great theo
logian liberty boldly to attack the Emperor and those
who served as his instruments to give sanction to his
errours or execute his cruelties.
The doctrinal whims of Leo the Isaurian had a polit
ical result which he was far from foreseeing. The West
renounced him, and Rome, threatened by the Lombards,
turned to Karl Martel, Duke of the Franks, to offer him
the Roman Conssdate. Gregory III. made this propo
sition to Karl. This terrible warrior died then, and
Gregory III. also. But the idea remained. Pepin, the
son of Karl, and Pope Zachary renewed the neo-otia-

THE PAPACY. 255
tions. Zachary approved for Pepin's benefit the depo
sition of the first race of Frankic kings. In return, the
new king delivered Rome from the attacks of the Lom
bards, became its lord paramount, and gave it in ap
panage to the Pope. Thus the relations ceased between
the Popes and the Eastern emperors, whom they no
longer recognized as sovereigns. The separation be
came complete when the son of Pepin, Karl the Great,
better known as Charlemagne, was proclaimed at Rome
Emperor of the West.
This political rupture made way for the religious
schism between the East and the West. Rome was
rising again from her ruins at the same moment that
Constantinople was falling into decay. The Popes, be
come more rich and powerful than ever, crowned with
the diadem of temporal power, could not but meditate
revenge for the humiliations to which in their pride
they imagined they had been subjected.
While the West was quite escaping him forever, Con
stantine Copronymus, the son of Leo, assembled coun-:
cils and caused the condemnation of images in an as
sembly of bishops bereft of conscience, who endeavour
ed to dishonour the memory of the Patriarch St. Ger
manus and the learned John Damascene. Pope Stephen
II. (756) prevailed upon Pepin, King of France, to take
the cause of the Church in hand. Constantine Copro
nymus had sent to this prince an embassy which trou
bled the Pope. Stephen feared lest politics should hin
der his plans, and the Emperor of the East should re
sume some influence in the affairs of the West. He
therefore wrote thus to Pepin : * " We earnestly entreat
you to act toward the Greeks in such manner that the
Catholic faith maybe for ever preserved, that the Church
may be delivered from their malice, and may recover all
her patrimony." The Church of Rome had had consider-
* Steph. IL Eplst. In Cod. Carol,

256 THE PAPACY.
able property in the East, which had been confiscated
since the rupture between Rome and the empire. " In
form us," adds the Pope, " how you have talked to the
envoy, and send us copies of the letters you have given
him, that we may act in concert."
Paul, who succeeded Stephen n., continued in the
same • relations with Pepin. His letters* show that he
had to struggle against the influences of certain poli
ticians, who were endeavouring to effect an agreement
between the King of France and the Emperor of Con
stantinople. The latter particularly depended upon the
Lombards against Rome. The Popes were alarmed at
what might be the results of such an alliance. They
accordingly strove to excite the Frankic kings against
the Greeks and Lombards.
We have now come to the last years of the eighth
century. The Eastern empire, delivered from Copro-
nymus and his son Leo IV., breathed again under the
reign of Constantine and Irene.
Charlemagne reigned in France, Adrian I. was Bishop
of Rome ; Tarasius, a great aud saintly Patriarch, ruled
at Constantinople. Before consenting to his election,
Tarasius addressed to the court and people of Constan
tinople a discourse from which we quote the following
passage : " This is what I principally fear, (in accepting
the episcopate:) I see the church divided in the East;
we have different languages among us, and many agree
with the West, which anathematizes us daily. Sepa
ration (anathema) is a terrible thing ; it drives from
the kingdom of heaven and leads to outer darkness.
Nothing is more pleasant to God than union, which
makes us one Catholic Church, as we confess in the
creed. I therefore ask you, brethren, that which I be
lieve is also your will, since you have the fear of God :
I ask that the Emperor and Empress assemble an cecu-
* Paul et Steph. IIL Epist In Cod. CaroL

THE PAPACY. 257
menical council, in order that we may make but one
body under a single chief, who is Jesus Christ. If the
Emperor and Empress grant me this request, I submit
to their orders and your votes ; if not, I cannot consent.
Give me, brethren, what answer you will."*
All but a few fanatics applauded the project of a
council, and then Tarasius consented to be ordained
and instituted bishop. He at once addressed his letters
of communion to the churches of Rome, Alexandria, An
tioch, and Jerusalem.! In these he made as usual his
profession of faith, and invited those churches to the
council which the Emperor was about to assemble.
The Empress-regent and her son wrote to Pope Adrian
that they had resolved to assemble an cecumenical coun
cil ; they begged him to come to it, promising to re
ceive him with honours ; or to send representatives if he
could not personally accept their invitation.
Adrian's answer to the Emperor and Empress is a
very important document, in regard to the question we
are examining. We find in it a style which the Bish
ops of Rome had not hitherto allowed themselves to
adopt toward the emperors.
Rome, jealous of Constantinople, was soon to crown
Charlemagne Emperor, of the West, and thus to break
all political ties with the East. The Pope enjoyed
great temporal authority in that city under the protec
tion of the Frankic kings ; he was rich, and he was am
bitious to surround his see with still greater magnifi
cence and splendour. Adrian therefore replied arro
gantly to the respectful letter he had received from the
court of Constantinople. He insisted upon certain con
ditions, as one power dealing with another, and partic
ularly upon this point : tliat the patrimony of St. Pe-
• Theoph. Annal. Labbe's Collection of Councils, voL vlL, Vlt. Taras. ap. Bol-
land. 15 Februar.
t See all the documents In Labbe's Collection of the Councils, Tth vol.

258 THE PAPACY.
ter in the East, confiscated by the iconoclastic emperors,
must be restored in toto. We will quote from his letter
what he says respecting the Patriarch of Constantinople :
" We are very much surprised to see that in your letter
you give to Tarasius the title of cecumenical Patriarch..
The Patriarch of Constantinople would not have even
the second rank without the consent of our see ; if
he be oecumenical, must he not therefore have also the
primacy over our church ? All Christians know that
this is a ridiculous assumption."
Adrian sets before the Emperor the example of
Charles, King of the Franks. " Following our advice,"
he says, " and fulfilling our wishes, he has subjected all
the barbarous nations of the West ; he has given to the
Roman Church in perpetuity provinces, cities, castles,
and patrimonies which were withheld by the Lombards,
and which by right belong to St. Peter ; he does not
cease daily to offer gold and silver for this light and
sustenance of the poor.','
Here is language quite new on the part of Roman
bishops, but henceforth destined to become habitual
with them. It dates from 785 ; that is, from the same
year when Adrian delivered to Ingelramn, Bishop of
Metz, the collection of the False Decretals.* There is
* Here are some details regarding the False Decretals :
It appears from the acts of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, that the Church had
already a Codex Canonum, or collection of the laws of the Church. Several of these
laws are held to have emanated from the Apostles themselves. What they had com
menced the councils continued, and, as soon as the Church began to enjoy some
little tranquillity, these venerable laws were collected and formed the basis of eccle
siastical discipline ; and, as they were mostly in Greek, they were translated into
Latin for the use of the Western churches.
At the beginning of the sixth century Dionysius, surnamed Exiguus, a monk at
Rome, finding this translation Incorrect, made another at the request o. Julian, cu
rate of St. Anastasia at Rome, and a disciple 'of Pope Gelasius. Dionysius collected,
besides, whatever letters of the Popes he could discover In the archives, and pub
lished in his collection those of Siricius, Innocent, Zoslmus, Boniface, Celestine, Leo,
Gelasius, and Anastasius, under which last he lived. The archives of Rome at that
time possessed nothing prior to Siricius — that is, to the end of the fourth century.
At the beginning of the seventh century, Isidore of Seville undertook to complete

TBS PAPACY. 259
something highly significant in this coincidence. Was
it Adrian himself who authorized this work of forgery ?
the collection of Dionysius. He added the canons of some national or provincial
councils of Africa, Spain, and France, and some letters of a few of the Popes, going
back no further than to. Damasus, who died in 884, and was the predecessor of Siri
cius. This collection of Isidore of Seville begins with the canons of the Council of
Nicea. He used the old translation, and not that of Dionysius for the Greek canons.
His collection was but little known, and in history we do not meet it until 785.
.and then disfigured snd interpolated by an unknown forger, giving Mb name as Isi
dore Mercator. This collection contained, beside the pieces contained in the collec
tion of Isidore of Seville, certain Decretals which he ascribed to the Popes of the
first three centuries. Several scholars make Isidore Mercator and Isidore of Seville
separate writers, while others think that the latter had added, through humility.
the word Peccator to his name, which was corrupted to Mercator. However this
may be, the best Ultramontane critics as well as the Qallicans, agree that the De
cretal* ascribed to the Popes of the first centuries in the collection of Isidore Mer
cator, are spurious. Marchettl himself admits their Bpuriousness. "Learned men
of great piety," he adds, " have declared against this false collection, which Car
dinal Bona frankly calls a pious fraud ." "Baronius does not as frankly regard
them as a fraud ; nevertheless, he would not use them in his Ecclesiastical Annals,
lest it should be believed that the Roman Church needed suspicious documents to
establish her rights.11
The Uitramontanes cannot openly sustain these Decretals as true, for It has been
abundantly proved that they were manufactured partly from ancient canons, with
extracts from the letters of the Popes of the fourth and fifth centuries. Entire pas
sages, particularly from St Leo and Gregory the Great, are found ia them. The
whole is strung together in bad Latin, which for even the least critical scholar has
all the characteristics of the style of the eighth and ninth centuries.
The collection of Isidore Mercator was disseminated chiefly by Riculf, Archbishop
of Mayence, who took that see in 787. Several critics have concluded from this that
this collection first appeared at Mayence, and even that Riculf was its author.
Were these False Decretal* fabricated In Spain, Germany, or Rome f We have
no certainty on the subject. The oldest copies tell us that it was Ingelramn who
brought this collection to Rome from Metz, when he had a lawsuit there In 785 ;
but other copies tell us that it was Pope Adrian who, upon that occasion, delivered
It to Ingelramn, September nineteenth, a.d. 785. Certain it is, that at Rome we
find the first mention of it. Yet Adrian knew that these Decretals were false, since,
ten years before, he had given Charlemagne a copy of the canons, which was no
other than that of Dionysius Exlguus.
The False Decretd&s were so extensively circulated in the West, that they were
everywhere received, and particularly at Rome, as authentic.
The Uitramontanes, while they do not dare to maintain the authority of the writ
ings ascribed to the Popes of the first three centuries, nevertheless indirectly sustain
them. Several works have been written with this object against Fleury, who justly
asserted and abundantly proved that they changed the ancient discipline. We will
quote among these Ultramontane works those of Marchettl, of Father de Housta,
and Father Honore de Salnte-Marie :
" We may conjecture," says Marchettl, " that Isidore gathered the Decretals of
ancient Popes which the persecutions of thcfirst centuries had not permitted to be
collected, and that animated by a desire to transmit the collection to posterity, he

260 THE PAPACY.
We do not know ; but it is an incontestable fact that
it was in Borne itself under the pontificate of Adrian^
made such haste that he overlooked some faults and chronological errours which
were afterward corrected by more exact criticism."
Thus, then, the Decretals of the first three centuries are false -} nevertheless they
are substantially true. Such Is the Ultramontane system. It only remains to say,
to make the business complete, that the texts of St. Leo and St. Gregory the Great,
which are found In these Decretals, do not belong to those fathers, who, In that case,
must have copied them from the Decretals of their predecessors. It would be quite
as reasonable to maintain this opinion, as to say that we only find In the False De
cretals a few faults and chronological errours.
To this first system of defence, the Uitramontanes add a second. They make a
great display of eloquence to prove that an unknown person without any authority
could never have introduced a new code in the Church. We think so too. But
there is one great fact of the very highest Importance which our Uitramontanes
have left out of sight, that, at the time when the False Decretals appeared, the see
of Rome had for about two centuries taken advantage of every occurrence to increase
her influence and to put into practice what the False Decretals lay down as the
law. Every one knows that after the fall of the Roman empire, most of the Western
nations were essentially modified by the Invasion of new races ; that the Church se
riously felt this change ; that the pursuit of learning was abandoned, and that after
the seventh century the most deplorable ignorance reigned In the Western churches.
From that time the Bishops of Rome began to take part directly in the government
of individual churches, which frequently' lay In the hands of only half-Christianized
conquerors. They sent missionaries to labour for the conversion of the invading
tribes ; and these missionaries, like St Boniface of Mayence, retained for the Popes
who sent them, the feelings of disciples for their masters. The churches newly
founded by them, remained faithful to these sentiments. It would not, therefore, be
surprising If the fabricator of the False Decretals lived in or near Mayence. He
composed that work of fragments from the councils and the Fathers, and added
regulations which were in perfect harmony with the usages of the see of Rome at the
end of the eighth century, and which Rome, doubtless, inspired.
This coincidence, joined to the ignorance which then prevailed, explains suffi
ciently how the False Decretals could be accepted without protest — the see of Rome
using all its influence to spread them. As most of the churches had been accus
tomed for two centuries to feel the authority of the Bishops of Rome, they accepted
without examination documents which seemed to be no more than the sanction of
this authority. The False Decretals did not therefore create a new code for the
Western churches ; they only came in aid of a regime which, owing to political dis
turbances, the Popes themselves had created.
Thus the Romanists have their labour for their pains, when they seek to defend
the Decretals by saying that an unknown author without authority could not have
established a new code.
Here are the objections that Fleury makes to the False Decretals : " The subject-
matter of these letters* reveals their spuriousness. They speak of archbishops, pri
mates, patriarchs, as if these titles had existed from the birth of the Church. They
forbid the holding of any council, even a provincial one, without permission from
the Pope, and represent appeals to Rome as habitual. Frequent complaint is therein
made of usurpations of the temporalities of the Church. We find there this maxim,
* Hist. Eccl. llv. xliv.

THE PAPACY. 261
and in the year in which he wrote so haughtily to the
Emperor of the East, that this new code of the Papacy
is first mentioned in history. Adrian is the true creator
of the modern Papacy. Not finding in the traditions of
the Church the documents necessary to support his am
bitious views, he rested them upon apocryphal docu
ments written to suit the occasion, and to legalize all
future usurpations of the Roman see. Adrian knew
that the Decretals contained in the code of Ingelramn
were false. For he had already given, ten years before,
that bishops falling into sin may, after having done penance, exercise their func
tions as before. Finally, the principal subject: of these Decretals is that of com
plaints against bishops ; there Is scarcely one that does not speak of them and give
rules to make them difficult. And Isidore makes it very apparent in bis preface
that he had this matter deeply at heart"
The object of the forger in this last matter Is evident It was to diminish the au
thority of the metropolitans, who, from time Immemorial, had enjoyed the right to
convoke the council of their province to hear complaints against a bishop bf that
province in particular, and judge him. The forger, whose object It was to concen
trate all authority at Rome, would naturally first endeavour to check the authority
of the metropolitan, and make the appeals to Rome seem to offer greater guarantees
and to be more consonant with episcopal dignity.
One must be utterly ignorant of the history of the first three centuries, not to
know that at that period the Church had no fixed organization ; that It was not
divided into provinces and dioceses until the reign of Constantine and by the Coun
cil of Nicea ¦ that it was this council that recognized in the sees of Rome, Alexandria.
and Antioch a superiority common to them all over a certain number of churches to
which they had given birth, and over which, according to custom, they exercised a
special supervision. But the forger does not hesitate for all this to bring into play
archbishops, primates, and patriarchs during the first three centuries, and ascribes
to the first Bishops of Rome, as rights, prerogatives which the councils had never
recognized, and which these bishops had usurped In the West since the invasions of
tiie barbarians had overthrown the ancient Roman polity.
After our deep study of the history of the Church, we feel at liberty to assert that
It Ib impossible to accumulate more errours than the Uitramontanes have done, to
defend the alleged legal force of the False Decretals ; that the False Decretals es
tablished in the ninth century a new code completely opposed to that of the firBt
eight Christian centuries ; and that the forger had no other object than to sanction
the encroachments of the court of Rome during the two centuries preceding the com
position of his work. We have carefully studied what has been said pro and contra
upon this subject The writings of the Romanists have convinced us that this forger
of the ninth century has never been defended but by arguments worthy of him ; that
Is to say, by the most shameful misrepresentations. The works of the Galileans are
more honest, and show deeper research. Yet even in them we perceive a certain
reticency which injures their cause, and even now and then a forced and unnatural
attitude concerning Papal prerogatives, which they do not dare to deny. (See the
works of Hlncmar of Rheims, and the Annals of Father Lecolnte.)

262 THE PAPACY.
to Charles, King of the Franks, a code of the ancient
canons, identical with the generally received collection
of Dionysius Exiguus. It was, therefore, between the
years 775 and 785 that the False Decretals were com
posed. The time was favorable to such inventions. In the
foreign invasions which had deluged the entire West
with blood and covered it with ruins, the libraries of
the churches and monasteries had been destroyed ; the
clergy were plunged in the deepest ignorance ; the East,
invaded by the Mussulman, had now scarcely any rela
tions with the West. The Papacy profited by these
misfortunes, and built up a power half political and half
religious upon these ruins, finding no lack of flatterers
who did not blush to invent and secretly propagate
their forgeries in order to give a divine character to an
institution that has ambition for its only source.
The False Decretals make as it were the dividing
point between the Papacy of the first eight and that of
the succeeding centuries. At this date, the pretensions
of the Popes begin to develop and take each day a more
distinct character. The answer of Adrian to Constan
tine and Irene is the starting-point.
The legates of the Pope and those of the Patriarchal
churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, having
gone to Constantinople, Nicea was appointed as the
place of assembling the council. The first session took
place September twenty-fourth, 787. This second Coun
cil of Nicea is reckoned the seventh oecumenical, both by
the Eastern and Western churches.* Adrian was rep
resented by the Archpriest Peter, and by another Peter,
Abbot of the monastery of St. Sabas at Rome. The
Bishops of Sicily were the first to speak, and said, " We
deem it advisable that the most holy Archbishop of Con
stantinople should open the council." All the members
* See its transactions in Labbe's Collection, vol. rili.

THE PAPACY. 263
agreed to this proposition, and Tarasius made them an
allocution upon the duty of following the ancient tradi
tions of the Church in the decisions they were about to
make. Then those who opposed these traditions were
introduced, that the council might hear a statement of
their doctrine. Then were read the letters brought by
the legates of the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Anti
och, and Jerusalem, for the purpose of ascertaining what
the faith of the East and the West might be. The
Bishop of Ancyra had shared the errour of the icono
clasts. He now appeared before the council to make
his confession of faith, and commenced with the follow
ing words, well worthy oi being quoted : " It is the law
of the Church, that those who are converted from a
heresy, should abjure it in writing, and confess the
Catholic faith. Therefore do I, Basil, Bishop of An
cyra, wishing to unite myself with the Church, with
Pope Adrian, with the Patriarch Tarasius, with the
Apostolic sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
and with all Catholic bishops and priests, make this con
fession in writing, and present it to you, who have
power by apostolic authority."
This most orthodox language clearly proves that at
that time the Pope of Rome was not regarded as the
sole centre of .unity, the source of Catholic authority ;
that unity and authority were only recognized in the
unanimity of the sacerdotal body.
The letter of Adrian to the Emperor and Empress,
and the one he had written to Tarasius were then read,
but only in so far as they treated of dogmatic questions.
His complaints against the title of cecumenical and his
demands concerning the patrimony of St. Peter, were
passed over in silence. Nor did the legates of Rome
insist. The council declared that it approved of the
Pope's doctrine. Next were read the letters from the
Patriarchal sees of the East whose doctrine agreed with

264 THE PAPACY.
that of the West. That doctrine was compared with
the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, in order to
verify not only the present unanimity, but the perpetuity
of the doctrine ; and the question was also examined,
whether the iconoclasts had on their side any true Cath
olic tradition. After this double preparatory examina
tion, the council made its profession of faith, deciding
that according to the perpetual doctrine of the Church,
images should be venerated, reserving for God alone the
Latria or adoration, properly so called.
The members of the council then adjourned to Con
stantinople, where the last session took place in the
presence of Irene and Constantine and the entire people.
The Acts of the seventh oecumenical council, like
those of the preceding ones, clearly prove that the
Bishop of Rome was only first in honour in the Church ;
that his testimony had no doctrinal weight, except in
so far as it might be regarded as that of the Western
Church ; that there was as yet no individual authority
in the Church, but a collective autfiority only, of which
the sacerdotal body was the echo and interpreter.
This doctrine is diametically opposed to the Romish
system. Let us add, that the seventh oecumenical coun
cil, like the six that preceded it, was neither con
voked, presided over, nor confirmed by the Pope. He
concurred in it by his legates, and the West concurred
in the same way, whereby it acquired its oecumenical
character. But this concurrence of the West was not at first
unanimous, at least in appearance, notwithstanding the
well-known concurrence of the Pope ; which proves that
even in the West such doctrinal authority was not then
granted to the Pope, as his supporters now claim for
him. Seven years after the Council of Nicea, that is, in
794, Charlemagne assembled at Frankfort all the bish
ops of the kingdoms he had conquered. In this council

THE PAPACY. 265
several dogmatic questions were discussed, and partic
ularly that concerning images. By the decisions there
rendered, the council intended to reject that of the
second council of Nicea, which had not been thoroughly
understood by the Frankio Bishops. These Bishops re
proached the Pope with his concurrence in that deci
sion, and Adrian in a manner apologized for it.
He recognized, it is true, the orthodoxy of the doc
trine professed by the council, but alleged that other
motives would have impelled him to reject that council,
had he not feared lest his opposition might be construed
into an adherence to the heresy condemned. " We have
accepted the council,"* wrote Adrian, " because its de
cision agrees with the doctrine of St. Gregory ; fearing
lest if we did not receive it, the Greeks might return to
their errour, and we be responsible for the loss of so
many souls. Nevertheless, we have not yet made any
answer to the Emperor on the subject of the council.
While exhorting them to reestablish images, we have
warned them to restore to the Roman Church her ju
risdiction over certain bishoprics and archbishoprics,
and the patrimonies of which we were bereft at the
time when images were abolished. But we have re
ceived no answer, which shows that they are converted
upon one point, but not upon the other two. Therefore,
if you think fit, when we shall thank the Emperor for
the reestablishment of images, we will also press him
further upon the subject of the restitution of the patri
monies and the jurisdiction, and, if he refuse, we will
pronounce him a heretic."
The attacks of the Frankic Bishops against Adrian,
although unjust, prove abundantly that they did not
recognize in the Papacy the authority it claims to-day.
The False Decretals had not yet been able completely
* Reap. ad. Lib. Oarolin. in Labbe's Collection, voL vill.

266 THE PAPACY.
to prevail over the ancient usages. Adrian replied to
these attacks with a modesty that is easy of explana
tion, when we reflect how much he needed the Franks
and their King Charlemagne to establish the basis of
the new Papacy. Far from mentioning that alleged
authority which he so proudly strove to* impose upon
the East, he was willing, in respect to the Franks, to
play the part of prisoner at the bar. He made ad
vances to them to the extent of proposing to pronounce
the Emperor of Constantinople a heretic for a mere ques
tion of temporal possessions, or of a disputed jurisdic
tion. But we find in Adrian, under this humble show
of submission, a prodigious shrewdness in creating oc
casions for increasing his power. If the Franks had
asked him to declare the Emperor of Constantinople
a heretic, they would thereby, have recognized in him a
sovereign and universal jurisdiction, and laid thus a pre
cedent which would not have been neglected by the
Papacy. Adrian I. died in 796, and was succeeded by Leo HI.,
who pursued the same policy as his predecessor. Imme
diately after his election, he sent to Charlemagne the
standard of the city of Rome and the key of the confes
sion of St Peter. In return the Frankic King sent him
costly presents by an ambassador, who was to come to
an understanding with him upon all that concerned
" the glory of the Church, and the strengthening of the
Papal dignity, and of the Roman patriciate given to
the Frankic King.*
Leo had some intercourse with the East upon the oc
casion of the divorce of the Emperor Constantine. Two
holy monks, Plato and Theodore Studites, declared them
selves with special energy against the adulterous con
duct of the Emperor. Theodore applied to several bish
ops for aid against the persecutions which their OppOSi-
Alcnin Ep. Si.

THE PAPACY. 267
tion to the Emperor had drawn upon them. The letters
of Theodore Studites* are replete with fulsome praises of
those to whom he writes. The Romish theologians have
chosen to notice only the compliments addressed to the
Bishop of Rome. With a little more honesty they
might as easily have noted those, often still more em
phatic, that are to be found in his other letters ; and they
must then have concluded that no dogmatic force could
be attached to language lavished without distmction of
sees, according to circumstances, and with the evident
purpose of flattering those to whom the letters were ad
dressed in order to render them favourable to the cause
which Theodore advocated. The Romanists have not
been willing to notice so obvious a fact. They have
quoted the fulsome praises of Theodore as dogmatic tes
timony in favour of Papal authority, and have not
chosen to see that if they have such a dogmatic value
in the case of the Bishop of Rome, they must also have
it no less in behalf of the Bishop of Jerusalem, for ex
ample, whom he calls "first of the five Patriarchs," or
others, whom he addresses with as much extravagance.
On these terms we should have in the Church several
Popes enjoying, each of them, supreme and universal
authority. This conclusion would not suit the Romish
theologians ; but it follows necessarily if the letters of
Theodore Studites have the dogmatic value that Rome
would give them to her own advantage. Moreover, if
Theodore Studites occasionally gave pompous praise to
the Bishop of Rome, he could also speak of him with
very little respect, as we may see in his letter to Basil,
Abbot of St. Sabas of Rome.f
At the commencement of his pontificate, Leo in. had
to endure a violent opposition on the part of the rela
tives of his predecessor, Adrian. They heaped atrocious
accusations upon him.
• Theod. Stud. Ep. 15. t Theod. Stud. Ep. 28.

268 THE PAPACY.
Charlemagne having come to Rome (800) as a patri
cian of that city, assembled a council to judge the Pope.
But Leo was sure beforehand that he would prevail.
He had received Charlemagne in triumph, and the pow
erful king was not ungrateful for the attentions of the
pontiff.* The members of the council accordingly de
clared with one voice : " We dare not judge the Apos
tolic see, which is the head of all the churches ; such is
the ancient custom!" Men were not overnice in those
days in matters of erudition. By the ancient usage the
Bishop of Rome was to be judged like any other bishop ;
but the doctrines of the False Decretals had no doubt
begun to spread. Ingelramn of Metz, who had used
them in his lawsuit at Rome, was the chaplain of Charle
magne, and one of his first councilors. According to
this new code of a new Papacy, the Apostolic see, which
could judge all, could be judged of none. Rome ne
glected no chance to establish this fundamental princi
ple of her power, of which the inevitable consequence
is Papal infallibility and even impeccability. These con
sequences were not developed at once, but the principle
was now skilfully insinuated upon one favourable occasion.
Leo III. justified himself upon oath. Some days later,
on Christmas-day, a.d. 800, Charlemagne having gone
to St. Peter's, the Pope placed upon his head a rich
crown, and the people exclaimed, " Long life and vic
tory to the august Charles, crowned by the hand of God
great and pacific Emperor of the Romans !" These ac
clamations were thrice enthusiastically repeated ; after
which the Pope knelt before the new Emperor and
anointed him and his son Pepin with the holy oil.
Thus was the Roman empire of the West reestab
lished. Rome, who had always looked with, jealousy
* Sismondi alleges that this mock trial and the subsequent capital punishment of
Leo's accusers were prearranged, together with the coronation mentioned in the text,
during Leo's visit to Charlemagne a short time previous at Paderborn. Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xvii. — [Editor.]

THE PAPACY. 269
upon the removal of the seat of government to Constan
tinople, was in transports of joy ; the Papacy, pandering
to her secret lusts, was now invested with power such
as she had never before possessed. The idea of Adrian
was achieved by his successor. The modern Papacy, a
mixed institution half political and half religious, was
established ; a new era was beginning for the Church
of Jesus Christ — an era of intrigues and straggles, des
potism and revolutions, innovations and scandals.

270 THE PAPACY.

VI.

THAT THE PAPACY, BY HEE NOVEL AND AMBITIOUS PRE-
TENSIONS, WAS THE CAUSE OP THE SCHISM BETWEEN
THE EASTERN AND WESTERN CHURCHES.
JE have shown, First, that the Bishops of Rome
did not enjoy universal authority during the
first eight centuries of the Church. Sec
ondly, That they were not then considered
either as the centre of unity or as the source of juris
diction. Thirdly, That they were not supposed to be
invested of divine right with any prerogatives whatever
as successors of St. Peter.
If, after the ninth century, they put forward in re
spect of these three points pretensions contrary to the
established and universal doctrine of the first eight cen
turies ; if they undertook to subject the whole Church
to their sovereign authority ; if they assumed to be the
necessary centre of unity and the source of jurisdiction,
we must conclude that they have sought to usurp a
power to which they had no right.
If these usurpations provoked energetic resistance on
the part of the Eastern Church ; if the Bishops of Rome
made the recognition of their usurped power a condition
precedent to reunion, it must follow that the Papacy is
the first and direct cause of the division. The facts we
shall allege will prove this to be so.
After the coronation of Charlemagne, there was an
interval of peace between the two churches. Leo the

THE PAPACY. 271
Armenian renewed the heresy of the Iconoclasts and per
secuted the Catholics. Many took refuge in Rome ; and
Pascal I. (817) built a church for them, in which they
held services in Greek. This Pope even sent letters and
legates to Constantinople to advocate the cause of the
faith, which the majority of the bishops, with the Patri
arch Nicephorus at their head, courageously defended.
Leo the Armenian, hoping nothing from Rome, sought
a support in the Church of France. The Bishops of
that church assembled at Paris and adopted several de
cisions similar to those of the Council of Frankfort, of
which we have spoken. Several of them we're sent to
Rome to give good advice to the Pope, then Eugenius II.
This was the beginning of that traditional opposition
of the Church of France to the Papacy, in conformity
¦with catholic doctrine, which has been called GaUi-
canism. The Bishops of the Council of Paris, like those of
Frankfort, had no precise notion of the question dis
cussed in the East ; but we only desire to prove by them
that they believed they had the right to contest the
oecumenical character of the seventh general council,
even after the Pope had concurred in it, and that they
ascribed no dogmatic authority in the Church to the
Bishop of Rome.
Several somewhat obscure Popes now succeeded each
other until 858, when Nicholas I. took the see of Rome.
The Eastern Church, persecuted by iconoclastic empe
rors, defended the holy traditions of the Church with
invincible courage. She enjoyed some tranquillity at
last under the reign of Michael, (842,) after a persecu
tion that had continued almost without interruption for
a hundred and twenty years. Methodius, one of the
most courageous defenders of orthodoxy, became Bishop
of Constantinople, and was succeeded (847) by Ignatius,
son of the Emperor Michael Rhangabo, predecessor of

272 THE PAPACY.
Leo the Armenian. This Michael had been shut up in a
monastery with his three sons, who had been made eu
nuchs, in order to incapacitate them for reigning. Ig
natius passed through all the lower degrees of the cler
gy, and was a priest when chosen for the Patriarchal
see. The Emperor Michael was a licentious man, who
left his uncle Bardas to govern the empire. Ignatius
drew upon himself the hatred of the Emperor by refus
ing to make nuns of the Empress dowager Theodora
and her two daughters. He made a powerful enemy
of Bardas, to whom he publicly refused the communion,
because of the scandal of his private life. Moreover,
from the day of his consecration, he had also incurred
the enmity of Gregory, Bishop of Syracuse, by humili
ating him and refusing to permit him to take part in
that solemnity, on the ground that he was accused of
divers misdemeanours ; which was indeed true, but he
had not been judged. Ignatius subsequently judged
and condemned. him; but Rome, to which Gregory ap
pealed, refused at first to confirm the sentence, notwith
standing the solicitations of Ignatius, and only consent
ed when war was openly declared against Photius and
his adherents.
We willingly admit that Ignatius had none but good
intentions and conscientious motives in all that he did ;
but it is also just to acknowledge that he imitated
neither the prudence of a Tarasius, nor the sublime
self-denial of a Chrysostom. Naturally enough, the
recollection of the imperial power, of which his father
had been deprived by violence, did not dispose him
to humour those who held that high position which he
looked upon as the birthright of his family. The im
perial court accused him of taking sides with an adven
turer who fancied he had claims on the imperial crown,
and he was exiled.
Many of the bishops before him had been equally ex-

1HE PAPACY. 273
posed to the caprice of the court. Among his predeces
sors, and even in the see of Rome, Ignatius might have
found examples of men who preferred to renounce a
dignity they could no longer exercise with profit to the
Church, rather than to excite by useless opposition dis
turbances which always injure it. He did not see fit to
imitate these examples, and refused to renounce his dig
nity in spite of the entreaties of several bishops.
The court could not yield. It convoked the clergy,
who chose Photius for their Patriarch.
Photius was -nephew of the Patriarch Tarasius, and
belonged to the imperial family. His portrait is thus
drawn by Fleury :*
" The genius of Photius was even above his birth.
He had a great mind carefully cultivated. His wealth
enabled him readily to find books of all descriptions ;
and his desire of glory led him to pass whole nights in
reading. He thus became the most learned man not
only of his own but of preceding ages. He was versed
in grammar, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, medicine, and
all the secular sciences ; but he had not neglected eccle
siastical lore, and when he came to office, he made him
self thoroughly acquainted with it."
In a work latterly composed by the court of Rome,
they have been obliged to say of PhothiB :f " His vast
erudition, his insinuating temper, at once supple and
firm, and his capacity in political affairs, even his sweet
expression of face, his noble and attractive manners,
made him conspicuous among his contemporaries."
But we ought first to have traced the character of
Photius after those writers who are not suspected of
partiality to him. Truth also demands that we should
state what documents have served as the basis of all

* Fleury Hist. Eccl. Lib. L. § 8, ann. 858.
t The Eastern Cliurch, a book published under the name of M. Pitzipios, PartL
chap. 4, edition of the Roman " Propaganda."

274 THE PAPACY.
that has since been written in the Roman Church upon
the important events in which he took part.
We will first mention the letters of Metrophanes, me
tropolitan of Smyrna, of Stylien, Bishop of Neo-Csesarea,
and of the monk Theognostus. These three men are
known as personal enemies of Photius. Anastasius the
Librarian was so contemptible a man that no import
ance can be attached to his testimony. The following
is an abstract of the sentence rendered against him at
Rome itself in 868 : " The whole Church of God knows
what Anastasius did in the times of the Popes our pre
decessors, and what Leo and Benedict ordered in re
spect to him, that the one deposed, excommunicated,
and anathematized him ; the other having stripped him
of his priestly vestments, admitted him to lay commun
ion. Subsequently, Pope Nicholas reinstated him on
condition of his remaining faithful to the Roman
Church. But after having pillaged our Patriarchal
palace and carried off the Acts of the Councils in which
he had been condemned, he has sent men out over the
walls of this city to sow discord between the princes and
the Church ; and caused one Adalgrim, who had taken
refuge in the Church, to lose his eyes and tongue.
Finally, as many among you have, like myself, heard
a priest, named Adon, a relative of his, say, he has for
gotten our benefits to the extent of sending a man to
Eleutherus to induce him to commit the murders you
know of.* Therefore we order, in conformity with the
judgments of Popes Leo and Benedict, that he be de
prived of all ecclesiastical communion, until such time
* Eleutherus, son of Bishop Arsenus, having debauched a daughter of Pope Adrian
n ., carried her off and married her, though she was betrothed to another. This Pope
obtained from the Emperor Louis commissioners to judge him according to the Ro
man law. Then Eleutherus became furious, and killed Stephanie the wife of the
Pope, and his daughter, who had become his own wife. It was rumoured that Anas
tasius had put up his brother Eleutherus to commit these murders. At the com
mencement of his reign, about 868, Adrian had made Anastasius librarian of the Ro
man Church. (V. Annates Berlin. )

THE PAPACY. H5
as he shall be -acquitted by a council of the things where
of he is accused ; and whoever communicates with him,
or even speaks to him, incurs the same excommunica
tion. If he remove himself however little from Rome,
or if he discharge any ecclesiastical function, he shall-
suffer perpetual anathema, both he and his accomplices."
Anastasius doubtless obtained a pardon from Adrian
as he had obtained it from Pope Nicholas. Rome had
need of him in her contentions with the East, for he
spoke Greek very well, which was then a rare accom
plishment in the West. Accordingly, in the following
year (869) we "find Anastasius at Constantinople, engaged
in the council against Photius. He translated its decrees
from Greek into Latin, and added a preface, in which
he describes, in his own style, the acts attributed to
Photius. Could such a man be regarded as a credible
witness against the Patriarch of Constantinople, as a
wise discriminator of facts, or as an honest narrator ?
May we not believe that he wished to show himself
faithful to tihe Roman Church according to the condi
tion of his first pardon granted by Nicholas ?
"It is not known precisely at what time this author
died. It is certain that he was still living under the
pontificate of John Vin., who was elected in 872, and
died in 882."*
There has indeed been an attempt to make the world
believe in a seui nd Anastasius, the Librarian at Rome
at the same time, so as not to load the historian of the
Popes with accusations which deprive -him of all credi
bility. But no proof can be brought to sustain this as
sertion, which must consequently be regarded as devoid
of all foundation. It is certain that Anastasius the Li
brarian flourished precisely at the time we have men
tioned, and that no other Anastasius the Librarian is
known beside the one implicated in the atrocious crimes
* Feller, Diet, Blog. voc. Anastasius.

276 THE PAPACY.
mentioned in his sentence ; who was repeatedly con
demned there at Rome itself, and who only obtained
pardon upon conditions whicli lay him open to suspicion,
when he speaks of the enemies of the Roman Church.
The testimony of Nicetas David, the Paphlagonian,
author of the Life of Ignatius, is relied on against Pho
tius. We may even say that this writer is the great
authority against him. Still, impartiality compels us to
observe, that Nicetas carried party spirit so far against
Photius as to adopt the famous addition {Filioque) made
to the creed, though not yet officially recognized as le
gitimate even in the West. The whole of his recital and
that of Michael Syncellus, proves that these two writers
must be ranked among the personal enemies of Photius.
Now, when a historical personage is to be judged,
should we defer to the opinion of his enemies ? The
question answers itself.
A clear and invincible argument against these authors
may be drawn from their own writings, as compared
with other historians such as George, Cedrenus, Zona-
ras, and Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The former
attribute to Photius, on account of their hatred to him,
the persecutions of which Ignatius was the object, while
they are ascribed to Bardas by the latter, who are im
partial. How shall we decide between these conflicting ac
counts of the historians ? We will believe neither.
Photius, and the Popes with whom he quarrelled, wrote
letters in which their own thoughts are set forth. These
letters exist ; they are the most credible documents.
We will hear the litigants themselves defend their own
cause. This is the best mode of arriving at the truth.
Photius received the episcopal ordination on Christ
mas day, 858. The following year he wrote to Nicho
las I., then Bishop of Rome :
"To the most holy, sacred, and reverend fellow-minis-

THE PAPACY. 211
ter, Nicholas, Pope of the old Rome : Photius, Bishop
of Constantinople, the new Rome :
"When I consider the grandeur of the priesthood;
when I think of the distance between its perfection and
the baseness of man ; when I measure the weakness of
my powers, and recall the ideas I have had all my life
of the sublimity of such a dignity — thoughts which in
spired me with wonder, with stupefaction, when I saw
the .men of our times, not to mention those of ancient
times, acceptmg the dreadful yoke of the pontificate,
and, though men of flesh and blood, undertaking, at
their great peril, to fulfil the ministry of the pure-spirited
cherubim ; when my mind dwells upon such thoughts,
and I find myself in that position in which I have trem
bled to see others, I cannot express the pain and the
grief I experience. In childhood I took a resolution
that age has only strengthened, to keep myself aloof
from business and noise, and to enjoy the peaceful de
lights of private life ; still (I should confess it to your
Holiness, since in writing to you I owe you the truth)
I have been obliged to accept dignities from the impe
rial court, aud thus break my resolutions. Yet have I
never been so bold as to aspire to the dignity of the
priesthood. It seemed to me too venerable and formi
dable ; "above all, when I recalled the example of St.
Peter, head of the Apostles, who, after having given to
our Lord and our true God, Jesus Christ, so many evi
dences of his faith, and showed how ardently he loved
him, regarded the honour of being raised by his Master
to the priesthood as the crowning glory of all his good
works. I also recall the example of that servant who
had received one talent, and who, having hid it, he-
cause his. master was a hard man, that he might not
lose it, was obliged to give an account of it, and was
condemned to the fire and to Hades for having per
mitted it to lie idle.

278 THE PAPACY.
" But why should I thus write to you, and. renew my
pain and aggravate my grief, and make you the confi
dant of my sorrow ? The remembrance of painful things
embitters their evil without bringing any solace. That
which has happened is like a tragedy, which took place,
no doubt, in order that by your prayers we might be
enabled to govern well that flock which has been com
mitted to us, I know not how ; that the cloud of dif
ficulties hanging over us might be' dispelled ; that the
heavy atmosphere which surrounds us might be cleared.
Even as a pilot is joyful when he sees his well-directed
bark driven by a favourable wind, so a church is the joy
of a pastor, who sees it increase in piety and virtue,
dispelling the anxieties that encompass him like clouds,
and the fears inspired by his own weakness.
" A short time since, when he who had the episcopal
office before us abandoned this honour, I found myself
attacked on all sides, under what direction I do not
know, by the clergy and the assembly of bishops and
metropolitans, and particularly by the Emperor, who is
full of love for Christ, good, just, humane, and (why
shall I not say it ?) more just than those who reigned
before him. Only against me has he been inhuman, vio
lent, and terrible. Acting in concert with the assembly
of which I have spoken, he has given me no respite,
actuated, he says, to this insistance by the unanimous
wish and desire of the clergy, who would allow me no
excuse ; and asserting that in view of such a vote he
could not, however he might desire it, permit my resist
ance. The assembly of the clergy was large, and my en
treaties could not be heard by many of them ; those
who heard them took no heed of them ; they had but
one intention, one determined resolve — that of imposing
the episcopate upon me in spite of myself." . . .
We will pause here one moment. The enemies of
Photius have maintained that in thus expressing him-

THE PAPACY. 279
self he gave evidence of his hypocrisy ; that instead of
refusing the episcopacy, he had desired it. They also
accuse him of falsehood in asserting that his predeces
sor had abandoned his dignity.
Are these two assertions true ? We can better know
a man by his familiar correspondence than by the gra
tuitous assertions of his enemies. This is certainly a
principle that no one will contest. Now the familiar
letters of Photius to his relative, the " Caesar " Bardas,
clearly prove that he left no means untried to escape
from the dignity that it was sought to impose upon him.
The honours which he enjoyed at court were already a
burden to him, because they forced him from studies
which were his only passion ; he knew, that once raised
to the patriarchal chair, he would be compelled to give
up that peaceful life in which he enjoyed the truest
delights of learning ; and therefore he entreated Bardas
to give another the chair.* What motive could he have
had to write this intimately to a man who knew his
tastes and was his friend ?
Now did Photius seek to deceive the Pope by writing
to him that Ignatius had abandoned his see ? It is cer
tain that, right or wrong, Ignatius had been condemned
as a conspirator, and as such banished by the Emperor.
If, under these circumstances, he had, as Anastasius the
Librarian asserts, laid his church under a species of
interdict, such conduct would have been criminal and
opposed to that of the greatest andtnost saintly bishops.
We have already seen Pope Martin condemned, perse
cuted, and banished like Ignatius, yet acknowledging
the legitimacy of Eugene, elected by the Roman Church
as his successor without his ever having given his resig
nation. St. Chrysostom, unjustly exiled, wrote in this
noble language : " The Church did not begin with me,
* Photi. Epist. ad Bard.

280 THE PAPACY.
nor will it end with me. The Apostles and the Pro
phets have suffered far greater persecutions."
As a conclusion, he exhorted the bishops to obey who
ever should be put in his place, and only begged them
not to sign his condemnation if they did not believe him
guilty. Photius must have considered this custom, and looked
upon his predecessor as having fallen from his dignity,
seeing that all the clergy except five votes* had elected
him to succeed Ignatius. But he could not write to the
Pope that Ignatius had been deposed, since he had not
been canonically condemned.
He was therefore neither a hypocrite nor a liar in writ
ing to the Pope, as we have seen. He thus continues :
" The opportunity for entreaty being taken from me,
I burst into tears. The sorrow which seemed like a
cloud within me and filled me with anxiety and dark
ness, broke at once into a torrent of tears which over
flowed from my eyes. To see. our words unavailing to
obtain safety, impels us naturally to prayers and tears ;
we hope for some aid from them even though we can no
longer expect it. Those who thus did violence to my
feelings left me no peace until they had obtained what
they desired, although against my will. Thus here I
am, exposed to storms and judgments that only God
knows of, who knows all things. But enough of this,
as the phrase is." "
" Now as communion of faith is the best of all, and
as it is preeminently the source of true love, in order to
contract with your Holiness a pure and indissoluble
bond, we have resolved to briefly engrave, as upon mar
ble, our faith, which -is yours also. By that means we
shall more promptly obtain the aid of your fervent
prayers, and give you the best evidence of our affec
tion." * Those historians who are enemies to Photius acknowledge this.

THE PAPACY. 281
Photius then makes his profession of faith with an
exactitude and depth worthy of the greatest theologian.
He there refers the fundamental truths of Christianity to
the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Re
demption. He accepts the seven cecumenical councils,
and sets forth in few words, but with remarkable accu
racy, the doctrine there propounded. He adds :
" Such is the profession of my faith, touching the
things that belong to it and flow from it. In this faith
is my hope. It is not mine alone, but is shared by all
those who wish to live piously, who have in them the
love of God, who have resolved to maintain the pure
and exact Christian doctrine. In recording thus our
profession of faith in writing, and in making known to
your very sacred Holiness that which concerns us, we
have as it were engraved upon marble what we have
expressed to you in words ; as we have told you, we
need your prayers, that God may be good and propitious
to us in all we undertake ; that He may grant us grace
to tear up every root of scandal, every stone of stum
bling from the ecclesiastical order ; that we may care
fully pasture all those committed to us ; that the multi
tude of our sins may not retard the progress of our flock
in virtue, and thereby make our faults more numerous ;
that I may at all times do and say to the faithful what is
proper ; that on their side they may be always obedient
and docile in what concerns their salvation ; that by the
grace and goodness of Christ, who is the chief of all,
they may grow continually in Him, to whom be Glory
and the kingdom with the Father and Holy Spirit, the
consubstantial Trinity and principle of life, now and
evermore, world without end. Amen."
This letter savours of the taste of the age in its affect
ed style. But it is no less a beautiful monument of or
thodoxy, and, in all respects, worthy of a great writer
and a great bishop.

282 THE PAPACY.
The enemies of Photius have said that another, claim
ed to be his first letter to the Pope, was a work of hy
pocrisy in which he sought to win him over to his side
by unworthy means, and chiefly by affecting great zeal
against the iconoclasts. They have never been able to
quote a line of this supposed letter. Those who invent
ed it seem not to have remembered that the bishops
could not hold the least intercourse before the usual let
ters of intercommunion. On this occasion as on many
others, hatred has made the forgers blind. The first let
ter of Photius to the Pope is the one we have just trans
lated. It was brought to Rome with a letter from the Em
peror. Nicholas I. took this occasion to do an act of
supreme authority in the Church. This Pope is one of
those who most contributed to unfold the work of
Adrian I. The Jesuit Maimbourg,* meaning to praise
him, asserts that, " during his pontificate of nine years,
he raised the papal power to a height it had never be
fore reached, especially in respect to emperors, kings,
princes, and patriarchs, whom he treated more roughly
than any of his predecessors, whenever he thought him
self wronged in the prerogatives of his pontifical pow
er." This is undoubtedly true, but Father Maimbourg
did not appreciate either the historical importance of
what he established, nor the fatal consequences of this
development of papal power. Nor did he see that this
vaunted development was nothing short of a radical
change, and that, in the ninth century, the Papacy was
no longer the Roman patriarchate of the first eight cen
turies. Nicholas did not know what had taken place at- Con
stantinople at the time of the deposition of Ignatius and
the election of Photius. He only knew that Photius
was a layman at the time of his election. It is true,
* Maimb. History of the Greek Schism.

THE PAPACY. 283
many canons of the West forbade hasty ordinations ;
but these canons did not obtain in the East, and
although usage there was in favour of progressive ordi
nations, the history of the Church proves, by numerous
examples, that these canons and this usage were occa
sionally passed over in favour of men of distinguished
merit and under circumstances of peculiar gravity. We
need only to recall the names of Ambrose of Milan, Nec-
tarius, Tarasius, and Nicephorus of Constantinople, to
prove that the ordmation of Photius was not without
the most venerable precedent. But Nicholas desired to
appear in the character of supreme arbiter. Instead of
modestly putting off intercommunion with the new Pa
triarch until he should be more fully informed, he an
swered the letters of Photius and of the Emperor in this
style :
" The Creator of all things has established the Prince
dom of the divine power which the Creator of all things
has granted to his chosen Apostles. He haS firmly
established it on the firm faith of the Prince of the
Apostles, that is to say Peter, to whom he preeminently
granted the first see. For to him was said by the voice
of the Lord, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.' Peter, thus called because of the solidity
of the rock, which is Christ, continues to strengthen by
his prayers the unshaken edifice of the universal Church,
so that he hastens to reform, according to the Mile of
true faith, the folly of those who fall into errour, and
sustains those who consolidate it lest the gates of hell,
that is to say, the suggestion of wicked spirits and the
attacks of heretics, should succeed in breaking the unity
of the Church."*
Nicholas then pretends to be convinced that when
* Nlcol. Ep. 2d and 8d In Labbe's Collection of the Councils, vol vill. Nat Alex-
and. Hist. Eccl. Dissert. It. in Stecui ix.

284 THE PAPACY.
Michael sent to Rome, it was to fulfil the rule estab
lished by the Fathers ; that " without the consent of
the Roman see and the Roman pontiff, nothing should
be decided in controversies."
This principle was admitted in this sense, that no.ques-
tion of faith could be passed upon without the concur
rence of the Western churches, which was commonly
transmitted through the chief see of those countries ;
but not in this sense, that the consent of the individual
see of Rome or of its bishop was absolutely necessary.
Nicholas thus relied upon an errour, and improperly
treated it as admitted by the Emperor of the East.
Upon this latter point, at least, he knew what the truth
was. He next attacks the election of Photius, relying
on the canons of the Council of Sardica, and the Decre
tals of the Popes Celestine, Leo, and Gelasius, whom he
calls doctors of the catholic faith. He might have con
sidered that the faith was not in question, but only a
mere matter of discipline, and that the East had not,
and was entitled not to have, upon this point, the same
discipline as the West. Adrian I. had forbidden in fu
ture to raise a layman to the episcopate. Nicholas
relies on this as a precedent. But he does not consider
whether Adrian had any better right than himself to
make this prohibition.- " It is our will," he adds,
" that Ignatius should appear before our envoys, that
he may declare why he has abandoned his people with
out regarding the rules of our predecessors Leo and
Benedict  All the proceedings will then be trans
mitted to our superior authority, that we may judge by
Apostolic authority what is to be done, in order that
your church, which is now so shaken, may be firm and
peaceful for the future."
Following a practice which was already established
in the Roman Church, Nicholas did not permit his du
ties as supreme pontiff to divert his mind from the ma-

THE PAPACY. 285
terial mterests of his see ; accordingly, he writes to the
Emperor : ." Give back to us the patrimony of Calabria
and that of Sicily and all the property of our church,
whereof it held possession, and which it was accustomed
to manage by its own attorneys ; for it is unreasonable
that an ecclesiastical possession, destined for the" light
and the service of the Church of God, should be taken
from us by an earthly power."
Behold now the temporalities already invested with
religious consecration !
" It is our will," adds Nicholas, (these words flow
naturally from- his pen upon all occasions,) "It is our
will that consecration be given by our see to the Arch
bishop of Syracuse, that the tradition established by the
Apostles may not be violated in our time." This mo
tive is truly strange, to say no more of it. Sicily was
made subject to the Roman Patriarchate in the fourth
century. After the fall of the empire, that region had
remained within the dominions of the Emperor of Con
stantinople. Now, according to the rule admitted time
out of mind in the Church, the ecclesiastical divisions
should follow every change in the civil divisions. By
that rule, Syracuse properly depended upon Constanti
nople, and not Rome. Nicholas willed it otherwise,
but the law willed it thus, and the Apostles to whom
he appealed had certainly never made the see of Syracuse
subject to that of Rome. The letter to Photius is but
an abridgment of that to the Emperor, with this differ
ence, that Nicholas avoids the use of the ambitious ex
pressions we have quoted. He addressed Photius as a
simple layman, without giving him any episcopal title,
though he knew him to have been lawfully consecrated.
This affectation was big with this idea : that no bishop
could bear the character of his order, except by the con
sent of the Roman Pontiff.
The earlier popes had never used such language either

286 THE PAPACY.
to the emperors or to their brethren the bishops. In
cases where they were obliged to interfere for the de
fence of faith or of discipline, they did not assume the
character of sovereign umpires, and claimed no supreme
authority ; they appealed to tradition, to the canons ;
they did nothing without a council, and did not mix
things temporal with things spiritual. We have noticed
the first steps of the Papacy in its new ways and its
attempts to abolish the ancient canon law. Nicholas I.
thought himself prepared to treat these new pretensions
as ancient and incontestable prerogatives. He thus de
serves a place between Adrian L, the true founder of
the modern Papacy, and Gregory "VTI., who raised it to
its highest. But the False Decretals were unknown in
the East. Nicholas I., instead of invoking the general
principles of the oecumenical councils, quoted the Decre
tals of his predecessors, as if it were possible for those
Bishops of Rome to establish universal laws. Photius,
in his second letter, reminded him of the true principles
with as much accuracy as moderation.
The legates of Nicholas having arrived at Constanti
nople, a council was assembled in that city, in which
three hundred and eighteen bishops took part, and
which the legates attended. Ignatius appeared before
that assembly, and was solemnly deposed. Every one
admits this. But the enemies of Photius represent these
three hundred and eighteen bishops, who held their ses
sions publicly. and before large crowds, as so many trai
tors sold to the crown. We find it difficult to believe
that so many bishops can have prostituted their con
sciences unchecked, to a man, by any remorse, and that
the people did not protest against such infamy. It is
difficult to believe in this connivance of three hundred
and eighteen bishops, surrounded by a crowd of clergy
and people. It seems to us more probable that, in spite
of his virtues, Ignatius had. been raised to the Patri-

THE PAPACY. 287
archate less by election than by a powerful influence,
and because of his noble blood, whereof he was indeed
reproached, and that he was implicated, involuntarily,
no doubt, in certain political intrigues. We see no
reason to doubt the purity of his intentions ; but may he
not have been the tool of ambitious men ? was it not
owing to their baneful influence that he did not imitate
the magnanimity and the truly bishop-like self-sacrifice
of a Chrysostom ?
Ignatius was a second time deposed by the Council
of Constantinople in 861. He appealed to the Pope ;
but his petition was signed by only six metropolitans
and fifteen bishops.
The legates returned to Rome. Shortly after their
arrival, an imperial ambassador brought the transactions
of the council and a letter from Photius, thus con
ceived :
" To the very holy among all and most sacred brother
and co-minister, Nicholas, Pope of ancient Rome, Pho
tius, Bishop of Constantinople, the new Rome.
" Nothing is more honourable and precious than char
ity ; this is the general opiniop confirmed by Holy Scrip
tures. By her that which is separated becomes united ;
contentions are ended ; that which is already united and
closely tied, becomes united more closely still ; she
closes all doors to seditions and intestine quarrels ; for
' charity thinketh no evil, suffereth long, hopeth all
things, endureth all things, and,' according to the blessed
Paul, ' never faileth.' She reconcileth guilty servants
with their masters, insisting, in mitigation of the fault,
upon their similar natures ; she teaches servants to bear
meekly the anger of their masters, and consoles them
for the inequality of their state by the example of those
who suffered the like with them. She softens the anger
of parents against their children, and against their mur
murs; 6he makes parental love a powerful weapon,

288 THE PAPACY.
which comes to their aid and prevents in families those
strifes from which nature shrinks. She -easily checks
dissensions between friends, and persuades them to
kindly and friendly intercourse. As for those who have
the same thoughts concerning God and divine things,
although distance separate them, and they never behold
each other, she unites them and identifies them in
thought, and makes true friends of them, and if per
chance one of them should too inconsiderately raise
accusations against the other, she cures the evil, sets all
things to right, and rivets the bond of union."
This picture of the benefits of charity was intended
for Nicholas, who had not practised it toward Photius,
but had shown an excessive eagerness to rebuke him.
The Patriarch of Constantinople continues :
" It is this charity that has made me bear without
difficulty the reproaches that your paternal Holiness has
hurled at me like darts ; that has forbidden me to con
sider your words as the results of anger or of a soul
greedy of insults and enmities ; that on the contrary
has made me regard them as the proof of an affection
which cannot dissimulate, and of a scrupulous zeal for
ecclesiastical discipline, a zeal that would have every
thing perfect. For if charity will not permit us even to
consider evil as wrong, how shall she permit us to call
any thing wrong ? Such is the nature of true charity,
that she will even regard as an intended benefit that
which causes us pain. But since there is no reason
why truth should not be spoken between brothers or
fathers and sons, (for what is there more friendly than
truth ?) let me speak and write to you with perfect free
dom, not from a desire to contradict you, but with intent
to defend myself.
" Perfect as you are, you should have considered at the
outset that it was quite against our will that we were
placed under this yoke, and therefore have had pity upon

THE PAPACY. 289
us instead of re,buking us ; you should not have despised
us, but have had compassion on our grief Indeed, we
owe pity and kindness and not insult and contempt to
those who have suffered violence. But we have suffered
violence, how great, God alone, who knows the most
secret things, can know ; we have been detained against
our wishes, we have been watched narrowly, surrounded
with spies like a culprit; we have received votes against
our will, we have been created a bishop in spite of our
tears, our complaints, our affliction, our despair. Every
one knows it ; for these things were not done in secret,
and the exceeding violence to which I have been sub
jected was so public as to be known of all. What !
should not those who have endured such violence be
pitied and consoled as much as possible, rather than be
attacked, evil-entreated, and laden with insults ? I have
lost a sweet and tranquil life ; I have lost my glory,
(since there be who love earthly glory ;) I have lost my
precious leisure, my intercourse so pure and delightful
with my friends, that intercourse whence grief, double-
dealing, and recrimination were excluded. No one hated
me then ; and I. ... I accused, I hated no one, neither
at home nor abroad. I had nothing, against those who
had the least intercourse with me, and nothing a fortiori
against my friends. I have never caused such pain'to
any one as that I should reap an outrage from it, save
in those dangers to which I have been exposed for the
cause of religion.* Nor has any one so seriously offended
me as to drive me to insult him. All were good to me.
As for my conduct, I must be silent on that point ; but
every one proclaims what that has been. My friends
loved me better than their parents ; as for my parents,
they loved me more than the other members of the fam
ily, and knew it was I who loved them best."
* Photius here alludes to the resistance he had made to the Iconoclastic emperors
and their partisans.

290 THE PAPACY.
The enemies of Photius themselves are forced to admit-
that his life was that of a man devoted to study ; that
as first secretary of state he possessed the greatest
honours to which he could have aspired. How shall such
admissions be reconciled with that immoderate lust after
the episcopate which they attribute to him ? We are
nearer the truth in accepting his letters as the actual
expression of his sentiments. He resisted as best he
could his promotion, and it was only the will of the Em
peror and that of Bardas that forced him to accept a see
which no one could fill better than himself.
Photius having drawn a comparison, as true as it is
eloquent between his former scholar's life and the new
life that had been imposed upon him, thus continues :
" But why repeat what I have already written ? If I
was believed, then I was wronged in not being pitied ;
if I was not believed, I was no less wronged in that my
words were not believed when I spoke the truth. Upon
either side, then, I am unfortunate. I am reproached
where I expect consolation and encouragement ; grief is
thus added to grief. I hear said to me, ' Men ought not
to have wronged you.' Then say so to those who have
wronged me. ' They ought not to have done you vio
lence.' The maxim is excellent ; but who deserves your
reproaches if not those who did me violence ? Who
should be pitied if not those to whom violence has been
done ? If any one left in peace those who did violence
in order to attack those who suffered it, I might have
hoped from your justice that you would condemn him.
The canons of the Church, it is said, have been violated
because you are raised from the rank of a layman to the
highest office of the ministry. But who has violated
them ? He who has done violence, or he who has been
compelled by force and against his will? But you
should have resisted! How far? I did resist even
more than necessary. If I had not feared to excite still

THE PAPACY. 291
greater storms, I would have resisted even unto death.
But what are these canons that are said to have been vio
lated ? Canons never to this day received by the Church
of Constantinople. Canons can only be transgressed
when they ought to be observed ; but when they have
not been handed down to us there can be no sin in not
observing them. I have said enough — even more than
was expedient — for I wish neither to defend nor justify
myself. How should I wish to defend myself, when the
only thing I desire is to be delivered from the tempest,
and to be relieved of the burden that bears me down ?
It is to this degree that I have coveted this see, and
only to this degree do I desire to retain it. But if the
episcopal chair is a burden to you to-day, it was not thus
at the commencement. I took it against my will, and
against my will do I remain in it. The proof is that
violence was done to me from the first ; that from
the first I desired as I do this day to leave it. Bnt
though some polite things had to be written to me, it
was impossible to write to me with kindness and to
praise me. We have received all that has been said to
us with joy, and with thanks to God who governs the
Church. It has been said to me, ' You have been taken
from the laity ; that is not a laudable act ; therefore are we
undecided and have deferred our consent until after the
return of our apocrisiaries.'* It had been better to say,
We will not consent at all; we do not approve ; we do
not accept, and never will. The man who offered himself

• The Abbe Jager in his History of Photius, Book DX page 64, ed. 1854, has
taken this analysis of Nicholas's letter as an assertion of Photius. He therefore
adds in a note, A new falsehood / Upon the same page he had just before written,
An impudent falsehood I This is a new lie! ta characterize the affirmations of
Photius, saving that he remained in the bishopric against his will, and that bis
only ambition was to quit it. These notes are unworthy of a writer who respects
himself. Moreover, before reproaching Photius for a third He, that writer should
have taken a little trouble to understand his language ; he then would not have
taken for a personal assertion of Photius, the analysis of the Pope's letter, who had
indeed said he would postpone his consent until the return of his envoys.

292 THE PAPACY.
for this see, who has bought the episcopate, who never
received an honest vote, is a bad man in all respects.
Leave the episcopate and the office of pastor. One who
should have written me thus, would have written agree
ably, however falsely. But was it necessary that one
who had suffered so much on entering the episcopate,
should suffer again in leaving it? That he who had
been pushed violently into that office, should be pushed
from it with still greater violence ? One who has such
sentiments, such thoughts, must care very little to repel
calumny intended to deprive him of the episcopal chair.
But enough upon this subject."
In the remainder of his letter Photius explains at great
length that one Church should not condemn the usages
of another, provided they are not contrary either to
the faith or to the canons of the general councils. He
justifies his ordination by this rule, and by the example
of his holy predecessors, Nectarius, Tarasius, Nicephorus ;
and also that of St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, father of the
theologian, and Thalassius of Caesarea. He shows to
Nicholas that in the last council held in presence of
his legates, several disciplinary rules suggested by him
were adopted because they appeared useful. He praises
the Pope for his love of the maintenance of the canons,
and congratulates him for it the more that, having the
primacy, his example was the more powerful. He takes
occasion from this to inform him, in conclusion, that a
large number of criminals escape to Rome, under pre
text of making a pilgrimage, to hide there their crimes
under a false appearance of piety. He begs him, there
fore, to observe upon this point the canons which pre.
scribe to each bishop that he shall receive to communion
only those who can show letters of recommendation
from their own bishop.
In all ages Rome has been thus reproached for serving
as a refuge for hypocritical criminals. The Church of

THE PAPACY. 293
•France wrote- frequently to the Popes in the same strain
as Photius did upon this occasion.
This letter of the Patriarch could not be palatable to
Nicholas, for under cover of polished and elegant
phrases it carried very just lessons. Photius does
not use one harsh word. He does not even adopt
his honorary title of cecumenical Patriarch'; he recog
nizes the primacy of the see of Rome; but he does
not . flatter the ambition of the new Papacy, he does
not bow before it, and his gentleness does not exclude
firmness. Such an adversary was more dangerous to
Nicholas than a violent and ambitious man. Instead of
disputing with him the rights he claimed over certain
churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he says to
him : " We would have yielded them to you if it had de
pended upon us ; but as it is a question of countries and
boundaries, it concerns the state. For my part, I should
like not only to render to others what belongs to them,
but even to yield a part of the ancient dependencies of
this see. I should be greatly obliged to any one who
would relieve me of a portion of my burden."
No better reply than this could have been made to a
Pope who only thought of extending his power by every
means. But Nicholas did not profit by this lesson,
which was as just as it was moderate. He would be
lieve neither his legates nor the acts of the council
which were presented to him. He even declared to the
ambassador Leo, who had been sent to him, that he had
not sent his legates to depose Ignatius, or to concur in
the promotion of Photius ; that he bad not consented,
and never would consent to either.
Nicholas pretended thus to judge of the legitimacy
of bishops, forgetting that the canons only gave him
the choice to enter into communion with the one or the
other. It was well understood that before entering into
relations with Photius, he must have positive informa-

294 THE PAPACY.
tion as to the legitimacy of his election ; but, according
to the laws of the Church, that legitimacy did not de
pend upon the Papal will, but upon the judgment pro
nounced upon Ignatius, and the regularity of the elec
tion of Photius. A council of three hundred and
eighteen bishops had publicly approved that election,
and the deposition of Ignatius. The legates had wit
nessed the proceedings ; they gave evidence to what
they had -seen and heard ; it was certainly enough, it
should seem, to decide Nicholas to grant his communion
to one whose learning and honourable character made
him well worthy of the episcopate. But in taking sides
with Ignatius, Nicholas was doing an act of sovereign
authority. This prospect flattered his tendencies too
much to permit him to eschew it. He therefore assem
bled the clergy of Rome to solemnly disown his legates.
He subsequently wrote to the Emperor, to Photius, and
to the whole Eastern Church, letters which are monuments
of his pride. We must give them, that the doctrine
they contain may be compared with that of the first
eight centuries, and that a conviction may thus be ar
rived at, that the Papacy had abandoned the latter, in
order to substitute for it an autocratic system which
the Eastern Church could not accept. *At the begin
ning of his letter to the Emperor Michael, he takes it for
granted that this prince has addressed himself " to the
holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman Cliurch, chief
(head) of all the churches, which follows in all its acts
the pure authority of the Holy Fathers," for the pur
pose of being informed what he should think in ecclesi
astical matters.
Nicholas neglected no occasion of repeating these
high-sounding phrases, which disprove themselves, for
the Fathers were- completely ignorant of them. Com
ing to the cause of Ignatius, he complains "that con-
* Nlohol. Eplst. 6 and 6.

THE PAPACY. 295
trary to his orders a sentence had been pronounced
against Ignatius ; not only had they omitted to do what
he had prescribed, but had done just the opposite.
Therefore, he adds, since you sustain Photius,' and re
ject Ignatius, without the judgment of our Apostolate,
we would have you to know that we do not receive Pho
tius, nor condemn the patriarch Ignatius."
This is certainly talking like a master. He then is at
pains to find differences of detail between the promotion
of Nectarius and Ambrose, and that of Photius. But
these differences, even supposing they were such as he
makes them, were not of a nature to override a positive
enactment, had it been considered absolute and suscep
tible of no exceptions.
His letter to the very wise man Photius commences
in this solemn manner :
" After our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, who
was very God before all ages, had condescended to be
born of the Virgin for our redemption, and to appear
as very man in the world, he committed to the blessed
Peter, prince of the Apostles, the power to bind and
loose in heaven and upon earth, and the right to open
the gates of the kingdom of heaven ; he condescended
to establish his holy Church upon the solidity of that
Apostle's faith, according to this faithful saying, ' Verily,
I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it : and I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' "
Such is the great argument on which the modern
Papacy has always relied. It openly rejects the catho
lic and traditional interpretation of these divine words ;
it makes of rights granted to all the Apostles in common

296 THE PAPACY.
an exclusive and personal right in favour of Saint Peter ;
it takes its stand, contrary to all ecclesiastical law, and
in virtue of a gratuitous sacrilege, as sole inheritor of
chimerical prerogatives, and pretends upon these lying
and fragile bases to establish the fabric of its universal
autocracy. Such was the claim that Nicholas opposed
to Photius ; and it is now said that this Patriarch, who
was perfectly acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity,
ought to have submitted to such authority ! His duty
was to protest as he did ; and would to God that all the
Bishops of the Catholic Church had imitated his cour
age, as firm as it was pure and moderate !
This is Nicholas's commentary upon the words of the
Gospel he had quoted : " According to this promise, by
the cement of the holy Apostolic institution, the founda
tions of the edifice, composed of precious stones, began
to arise ; and, thanks to Divine clemency, and by the
zeal of the builders, and the solicitude of the Apostolic
authority, to arise to the summit, to endure forever,
"having nothing to fear from the violence of the winds.
The blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, and door
keeper of the celestial kingdom, merited the primacy in
that edifice, as all who are orthodox know, and as we
have just declared." No ODe, in fact, among those who
are orthodox denies the primacy of St. Peter ; but did
that primacy give him supreme authority ? No, replies
Catholic tradition. Tes, answers Nicholas, who thus
continues : " After him (St. Peter) his vicars, serving
God with sincerity, and delivered from the shadow of
darkness that hinders from walking in the right way,
have received in a higher sense the care of pasturing
the sheep of the Lord, and have carefully accomplished
this duty. Among them the mercy of God Almighty
has condescended to include our littleness ; but we
tremble at the thought that we shall answerer** of all,

THE PAPACY. 297
and for all, to Jesus Christ, when he shall call each one
to account for his works.
" Now, as all believers come for their doctrine to this
holy Roman Church, which is the chief (head) of all the
churches ; as they ask of her what is the purity of the
faith ; as those who are worthy, and who are ransomed
by the grace of God, ask of her absolution for their
crimes ; it is our duty, who have received the charge of
her, to be attentive, to keep constant watch over the
flock of the Lord, the more that there are those who
are ever eager to tear it with cruel fangs. ... It
is apparent that the holy Roman Church, through the
blessed Apostle Peter, prince of the Apostles, who was
thought worthy to receive from the mouth of the Lord
the primacy of the churches, is the chief (head) of all
the churches ; that it is to her that all must apply to
know the just course, and the order to be followed in
all useful things, and in the ecclesiastical institutions,
which she maintains in an inviolable and incontestable
manner, according to the canonical and synodical laws
of the holy Fathers. Hence it follows that whatsoever is
rejected by the rectors of this see — by their full author
ity — should be rejected, any particular custom notwith
standing ; and that whatsoever is ordered by them
should be accepted firmly and without hesitation."
Thus Nicholas opposed his sovereign authority to
the laws, followed from all antiquity by the Church,
which Photius had rehearsed to him. He next en
deavours to find differences of detail in the elections
of Nectarius, Ambrose, Tarasius, and that of Photius.
He succeeds no better upon this point than in his letter
to the Emperor Michael, and he silently passes over the
other examples- mentioned by Photius.
In his letters to the Patriarchs and to the faithful of
the East,* Nicholas sets forth like views upon his autoc-
• Nichol. Epist. 1 and 4.

298 THE PAPACY.
racy. He commands the Patriarchs of Alexandria, An
tioch, and Jerusalem to make known to their faithful
the decisions of the Apostolic see.
Ignatius, by his appeal to Nicholas from the judg
ment passed upon him, had too much flattered the pride
of the Pope. To prove this it will be sufficient to quote
the superscription of his appeal papers.
"Ignatius, oppressed by tyranny, etc., to our most
holy Lord, apd most blessed President, Patriarch of all
sees, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles,
Nicholas, oecumenical Pope, and to his most holy bish
ops ; and to the most wise, universal, Roman Church."*
St. Gregory the Great would have rejected such titles
as diabolical inventions, as we have already seen by his
letters to John the Faster ; but the Papacy of St. Gre
gory the Great was no more ; it had given place to a
politico-ecclesiastical institution, with oxxly power for its
aim. Ignatius, so long as he flattered the ambition of
Nicholas, could not but be right in his eyes. Photius,
who held to the ancient doctrine, and looked upon the
Bishop of Rome simply as first bishop, without granting
him any personal authority, could not but be wrong.
Accordingly, without further question, Nicholas pro
nounced anathema against him, in a council which he held
at Rome at the commencement of the year 863. " We
declare him," he says, " deprived of all sacerdotal honour
and of every clerical function by the authority of God
Almighty, of the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, of all
the saints, of the six general councils, and by the judg
ment which the Holy Spirit has pronounced by us."\
He ventured in the sentence to accuse Photius himself
of the persecutions that Ignatius had endured. This
* See Libel. Ignat. in Labbe's Collection, vol. viii. Many scholars doubt the
authenticity of this document. Notwithstanding his friendly relations with Home,
we can scarcely believe that Ignatius could have addressed the Pope in the form
above quoted.
t Labbe's Collection of Councils, voL viii.

THE PAPACY. 299
was a calumny drawn from the denunciations of the ene
mies of Photius, and since repeated by all the Romish
writers who have spoken of the discussion between this
Patriarch aud Nicholas.* It is apparent, moreover, from
all the Pope did, that he had predetermind to hear noth
ing in favour of Photius, in the way of proof or argu
ment. To him a few monks, partisans of Ignatius, who
had come to Rome, were better authority than a council
of three hundred and eighteen bishops, beside a large
number of ecclesiastics and monks, which held its ses
sions in presence of an immense concourse of people. It
must indeed be admitted that the conduct of Nicholas
must have had an altogether different motive than the
defence of Ignatius or the justice of his cause. He be
lieved himself the depositary of divine authority, and
the organ of the DZoly Spirit.
It was iii this character that he claimed all his rights.
But the general councils to which he appealed to sup
port his condemnation had ordained that a bishop should
only be tried and condemned by his brethren of the
* We have not noticed all that is related by the enemies of Photius, In respect to
the sufferings of Ignatius. First. Because these details have nothing to do with the
principal question. Secondly. Because these recitals are evidently exaggerated.
Thirdly, Because history does not hold Photius responsible for them. Did not Igna
tius draw upon himself the hatred of the Emperor and Bardas by his Imprudent zeal
by his proceedings respecting Gregory of Syracuse, and by his sentiments hostile to
the government? These are questions upon which even the recitals of his partisans
could not establish his innocence. We may even say that these intemperate recitals
Injure him by their very exaggeration. Ilia refusal to resign provoked the violence
of the court. We do not deny It, although the details of this violence are very diffi
cult to be admitted completely. But was Photius an accomplice in this violence f
We reply no, first, because impartial historians in no manner attribute it to him,
and because he himself protested, In his letteis to Bardas, against the violence with
which his adversaries were treated. These letters, well worthy of a great and holy
bishop, may be found among his correspondence. Shall it be only In the case of
Photius that familiar letters are incompetent evidence » Romish historians pretend
that his letters to Bardas were written hypocritically. But the Impartial and inde
pendent writers who confirm the evidence of those letters, were they too hypocrites f
Is it credible that only the enemies of Photius had the privilege of telling the truth
when speaking of him ? If men were to be judged by the evidence of their enemies
only, who then would ever be innocent ? By this system one might easily prove
t .iat Christ himself was worthy of death.

300 THE PAPACY.
same province, and they had not granted any more au
thority to the Bishop of Rome than to the others. As
for the pretensions of Nicholas to divine authority, we
know what they amount to ; and his reasoning is worthy
of the thesis he would prove.
The Emperor Michael, when he learned the decision
of the Council of Rome, wrote to Nicholas a letter filled
with threats and contumely, (a.d. 864,) which, of course,
the enemies of Photius attribute to him, alleging that
the Emperor only thought of his pleasures. This is to
them a conclusive argument. Nicholas replied to the
Emperor in a very long letter full of apocryphal state
ments, false logic, and the grossest historical mistakes.
We learn from this letter that the Emperor had met the
Papal pretensions with a host of facts, which reduced
the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to its just propor
tions. Nicholas discusses them superficially ; his rea
sonings are false, and he confounds some incidental
proceedings with the recognition of the absolute author
ity which he claimed. To give an instance of his so
phistry : " Observe," he writes, " that neither the Coun
cil of Nicea nor any other council, granted any privilege
to the Roman Church, which knew that in the person
of Peter she teas entitled thoroughly to the rights of all
power, and tliat she had received the government of all
the sheep of Christ."* He rests that doctrine upon the
evidence of Pope Boniface. " If," he continues, " the
decrees of the Council of Nicea be carefully examined,
it will certainly appear that this council granted no en
largement to the Roman Church, but rather took exam
ple from her, in what it granted to the Church of Alex
andria." Nicholas does not add that the council had
looked upon the authority of the Roman see over the
suburbican churches as resting only on usage, and not
* Quas In Petro noverat earn totius Jura potestatls pleniter meruisse et cunctarum
Christi ovium regimen acceplsse.

THE PAPACY. 301
on divine right ; nor that if a similar authority to that
of Rome was given to the Alexandrian Church, it fol
lowed that there was nothing divine in that authority,
since a council could not give by divine authority.
It is with like force of reasoning that Nicholas en
deavours to answer all the objections of his adversary
against the Papal autocracy.
He concludes with a distinction between the two do
mains in which the priesthood and the empire should
respectively act. If Michael needed to be taught that
he had no right over ecclesiastical things, should not the
Papacy have understood in like manner that it had no
right over temporal things ?
The Eastern Church was in duty bound to protest
against the attempts of Nicholas. They were contrary
to the ancient law. The Uitramontanes are obliged to
admit this, though indirectly. A writer,* who professes
to write the history of Photius, but only accepts as true
the assertions of the declared enemies of this Patriarch,
has been forced, by the weight of evidence, to speak as
follows :
" Schism has thrown a clear light upon the doctrines
respecting the primacy of the holy see. Never were
its prerogatives better established than in the struggle
of Pope Nicholas. . against the Photian schismatics."
Is it credible that before the ninth century no occasion
had presented to call forth these prerogatives, if they
had in fact belonged to the Roman see ? The facts we
have already related sufficiently answer that question.
Questions of far greater moment than the deposition of
a bishop had certainly been discussed between the East
and West since the origin of the Church, and these
questions, instead of bringing out Papal authority in
relief, had reduced it to its strict limits. But in the
ninth century circumstances were changed ; the Papacy
* Jager, Hist, de Photius, llv. iv. p. 114, edit. 1864,

302 THE PAPACY.
had sacrificed the ancient Catholic doctrine to its own
ambitious dreams, and now availed itself of every cir
cumstance to establish a spiritual autocracy as contrary
to Scripture as it was to the teachings of the Fathers
and the councils.
Strong in the ancient canons, Photius looked upon the
excommunications of Nicholas as null, and continued to
discharge his episcopal duties with a zeal and devotion
that his enemies distort with remarkable dishonesty.
They will only see in him a beast of prey, combining the
most consummate hypocrisy with cruelty carried to ex
travagance, and do not even take the trouble to recon
cile two such characters in one and the same man, and
with facts which completely contradict them.
But Nicholas could not bear this contempt of his
sovereign authority, and he availed himself of the con
version of the Bulgarians to renew the war against
Photius.* The first seeds of Christianity had been cast among
the Bulgarians about the year 845. In 864 Photius
contributed powerfully to the conversion of the King
Bogoris,f which was followed by that of all his people.
He even addressed to this king a beautiful treatise upon
the duties of princes. Bogoris, at war with the Ger
mans and their Emperor Louis, thought he might ap
pease him by asking for some Latin priests to instruct
* At this time (866) the Emperor caused Bardas to be put to death, and placed
Basil, who had served him in this matter, at the head of affairs. The correspond
ence of Photius shows that the Patriarch had strongly reproached Bardas for his
violence against Ignatius and his followers. When Bardas was dead, Photius wrote
to the Emperor, congratulating him on having escaped the intrigues of Bardas. By
collating these letters, we see that Photius was not on such familiar terms with Bar
das, that the cruelties of the Csesar could be attributed to the Patriarch. But this
conclusion does not suit the enemies of Photius, who would make him answerable
for every act of violence. They therefore assert that Photius was coward enough to
accuse Bardas after his death, whom he had meanly flattered during his life, and had
used as the instrument of his own revenge. Enemies and fanatics may thus write
history, but such a course can only excite disgust In honest consciences.
t See Photius, Epist. Book I. letter viii.

THE PAPACY. 303
his people. He sent ambassadors to Rome in 866, shortly
after the unlawful excommunication pronounced against
Photius. Nicholas could not hesitate to avail himself
of so rare an opportunity to extend his power in the
East. He therefore sent legates to the King of the
Bulgarians with a long " opinion " on the cases submit
ted by the latter, without stopping to ask if the state
ments of fact set forth in those cases were true. He
did not forget* in his " opinion " to exalt beyond meas
ure the Roman see, and to disparage that of Constan
tinople. According to him, the see of Ramef is, through
St. Peter, the source of the episcopate and the Apostolate;
therefore the Bulgarians must accept no bishop save
from Rome. It is from Rome also they must receive
the doctrine. " St. Peter,"| he says, " yet lives and
presides upon his seat , he reveals the truth of the faith
to those who seek it ; for the holy Roman Church has
always been -without spot or wrinkle ; it was her founder
whose confession of faith waB expressly approved."
The Pope added to his legates to Bulgaria three more
legates for Constantinople, giving to the latter eight
letters dated on the thirteenth of November, 866 ; they
are monuments of vainglory.§ He threatens to have Mi
chael's letter against the Roman prerogatives ignomini-
ously burned unless he will disavow it. He writes to
the clergy of Constantinople that he deposes all those
who adhere to Photius and reestablishes the partisans
of Ignatius. He complains to Bardas, that Bardas has
disappointed him in all that he had hoped from his
piety ; he notifies Ignatius that he has reestablished
him in his see, and anathematized Photius and his ad
herents ; he flatters Theodora, the Empress dowager,
and congratulates himself upon having taken the part
• See these answers in Labbe's Collection of Councils, vol. vllL
t Resp. lxxiii. X Rcsp. cvL
5 Labbe's Collection, vol. viii. Epist. NichoL lx. et seq.

304 THE PAPACY.
of Ignatius whom she herself supported.; he implores
the Empress Eudoxia to take the part of Ignatius be
fore the Emperor, and urges upon all the senators of
Constantinople that they separate themselves from the
communion of Photius and declare themselves for Ig
natius. His letter to Photius, the third of the series, deserves
a special mention ; he gives him simply the title of man,
Nicolas, etc., Vieo Photio. He accuses him of having
"impudently violated the venerable canons, the deci
sions of the Fathers, and the divine precepts." He calls
him thief- — adulterer; asserts that he has failed in his own
obligations, corrupted the legates, banished those bish
ops who refused to enter into communion with him;
adding that he might justly call him a homicide, a viper,
a modern Ham, and a Jew. He falls back upon the ca
nons of Sardica, and the Decretals of his predecessors,
and concludes by threatening such an excommunication
as should last him during his whole life.
So pathetic a letter could produce but one result, that
of exciting Photius to condemn the Pope.
The legates having reached Bulgaria, all the Greek
priests were driven from the country, and the confirma
tion which they had administered was pronounced in
valid. This was to insult the Eastern Church in the
grossest manner, and to trample under foot the first prin
ciples of Christian theology. Photius could endure nei
ther this insult added to errour, nor the enterprises of
Nicholas. In 867 he convoked a council at Constanti
nople, and invited the Patriarchs and bishops of the
East and also three bishops of the West, who had ap
pealed to him against the despotism of Nicholas.*
These were the Bishop and Exarch of Ravenna, and
the Archbishops of Treves and Cologne.f The legates
* We shall have occasion to mention his circular letter.
t Nicholas was accustomed to depose bishops, even from the greatest sees, by his

THE PAPACY. 305
of the three Patriarchal sees of the East, with-a host of
bishops, priests, and monks, the two Emperors, and the
senate, took part in that assembly.*
The letters of Nicholas were there read, and by a unan
imous vote he was held unworthy of the episcopate,
and excommunication and anathema were pronounced
against him. This decision was forwarded to Nicholas
by Zacharias, Metropolitan of Chalcedon, and Theodore
of Cyzicus. Anastasius the Librarian declares that but
twenty-one among upward of a thousand signatures
with which this document was covered, were authentic.
We know what this man's testimony is worth. Cer
tain it is that the document was well known in the
East, and that the Council of Constantinople, which
afterward annulled it, did not consider the signatures
as forged. This fact speaks louder than any one men
dacious writer. The sentence of the council against
Nicholas was more canonical than that pronounced by
Nicholas against Photius, for it was only an excom-
own authority and in violation of the canons, according to which they could only be
judged by their fellow-bishops in their, own province. The most of them took no
notice of these condemnations. The Archbishops of Treves and of Cologne met the
sentence of Nicholas by a protest, wherein, amongst other things, they say : " Without
a council, without canonical Inquiry, without accuser, without witnesses, without .
convicting us by arguments or authorities, without our consent, in the absence of
the metropolitans and of our suffragan bishops, you have chosen to condemn us, of
your own caprice, with tyrannical fury ; but we do not accept your accursed sen
tence, so repugnant to a father's or a brother's love ; we despise It as mere insulting
language ; we expel you yourself from our communion, since you commune with
the excommunicate -, we are satisfied with the communion of the whole Church
and with the society of our brethren whom you despise and of whom you make your
self unworthy by your pride and arrogance. You condemn yourself when you con
demn those who do not observe the apostolic precepts which you yourself the first
-violate, annulling as far as in you lies the divine laws and the sacred canons,
AND NOT FOLLOWING IN THB FOOTSTEPS OF THE Popes TOUR PREDECESSORS. " Photius
did not write to Nicholas with the rude energy of these Western bishops.
* The acts of this council were'reversed by another, which was held shortly after
for the purpose of reinstating Ignatius. This fact, admitted by the Western writers,
has not prevented certain of their number from expressing the absurd opinion that
this council never was held, and that Photius invented both the council and its acts.
Mr. Jager has adopted this idea In his heavy pamphlet against Photius, Book IV.,
p. 140.

306 THE PAPACY.
munication and not a deposition ; now any church has
a right to separate itself from the communion of those
she esteems guilty, and no longer consider them as
bishops. The same year that Nicholas was excommunicated, a
revolution took place at Constantinople that was to be
fatal to Photius in its results. Michael was killed by
Basil, whom he had associated with himself in the em
pire. The murderer of Bardas and Michael necessarily
distrusted Photius.*
Moreover, Photius refused to admit the murderer to
the communion. He was, therefore, shut up in a mo
nastery. Basil reestablished Ignatius and sent ambas
sadors to Rome bearing the Acts of the council that
had excommunicated Nicholas. This Pope had died
and had been succeeded by Adrian IL; who, in 868, as
sembled a council at Rome to condemn Photius anew.
The envoy of the Emperor, in its presence, flung to the
ground the Acts of the Council of Constantinople,
struck them with his sword, and trampled them under
foot. After this extravagant conduct he asserted that
the signature of his master upon the document was
forged ; that the council had only been composed of
* The enemies of this Patriarch, who often contradict themselves In their state
ments, do not agree upon the time or the circumstances of his exile. Anastasius
pretends that Basil knew nothing of the dispute between Ignatius and Photius until
after the death of Michael ; that he informed himself of the matter as soon as he was
left sole emperor, and sent two deputies to Rome, one chosen by Ignatius and the
other by Photius, to plead their several cause before the Pope ; that one of the depu
ties, the one who represented Photius, was drowned on the voyage ; that the other,
npon his arrival at Rome, found Nicholas dead. Nicetas, on the contrary, tells us
that the day after the death of the Emperor Michael, Basil caused Photius to be im
prisoned in a monastery, in order to reinstate the legitimate Patriarch. Some West
ern writers have hastily accepted the account of Nicetas for the sake of denying the
truth of the storythat Photius incurred the hatred of Basil by refusing him the com
munion on account of the murder he had committed. Of course these writers say
that such an act of pastoral courage was Incompatible with the character of Photius.
This would be quite true if the great and learned Bishop had been such an one as
they paint him. But, as the character they attribute to him Is diametrically opposito
to his real character, as it shines forth In his authentic acts and his writings, they
are only, in fact, giving one more proof of their partiality.

THE PAPACY. 307
some bishops who happened to be in Constantinople ;*
that the other signatures, one thousand in number, were
false. The sincerity of this fanatic may well be doubted.
If the signatures were false, this ought to have been
proved in the East and not in the West. Instead of
verifying a fact which could be so easily ascertained,
the Council of Rome decided that the acts should be
burnt. Such a proceeding naturally suggests that it seemed
easier to burn the Acts than to prove their falsity.
Adrian H. did not fail upon that occasion to exalt the
authority of the Bishop of Rome. " The Pope," he said
in, his council, "judges all the bishops, but we do not
read that any have judged him."f He mentions, indeed,
the condemnation of Honorius, but he pretends that the
anathema which fell on him was legitimate only because
it was previously pronounced on him by the see of
Rome itself. This assertion is false, as we have already
seen. Instead.of condemning Honorius, the see of Rome
had endeavoured to defend him. It did not mention him
at first among those to be condemned, and it was only
after the condemnation by the council that Rome also
decided to pronounce anathema against him.
Before separating, the members of the Council of
Rome trampled under foot the acts which anathematized
Nicholas, and then threw them into a great fire.
After this expedition Basil's ambassadors returned to
Constantinople accompanied by three legates <5f Pope
Adrian, bearing two letters, one addressed to the Em
peror, the other to Ignatius. " It-is oue will," he writes
to the Emperor, " that you should assemble a numerous
council, at which our legates shall preside, and in which
* If this were true, it would follow that the rest of the signatures must have been
collected outside of the council and' by way of concurrence. They would then gain
In weight, for the signers, in that case, roust have acted with the more freedom.
t Labbe's Collection of Councils, voL viii.

308 THE PAPACY.
persons shall be judged according to their faults ; and
that in this council shall be publicly burnt all the copies
of the acts* of the false council held against the Holy
See, and that it be forbidden to preserve any of them
under pain of anathema." Adrian then demanded the
Roman priests who had gone to Constantinople to com
plain to Photius of Pope Nicholas. The letter to Ig
natius is an instruction as to the treatment of those
ecclesiastics who had declared for Photius, but were
now willing to abandon his cause. Adrian added to
these letters a formula to be signed by the members of
the. council, in which they agreed to recognize him as
Sovereign Pontiff and Universal Pope.
The council was opened at Constantinople, in the
Church of Saint Sophia, on the 5th of October, 869.
There were present the three Papal legates, Ignatius,
Thomas, Bishop of Tyre, self-styled representative of
the Patriarch of Antioch, and the priest Elias, calling
himself the representative of the Bishop of Jerusalem.
The bishops who declared against Photius were
brought in. They were twelve in number. They were
permitted fo take seats, and formed the whole council
at the first session. At the second, ten bishops who
had adhered to Photius entered to crave pardon for
their fault. It was readily granted, and they took their
places with the others. Eleven priests, nine deacons,
and seven sub-deacons imitated the ten bishops, and
were p'ardoned in the same manner.
Two new.bishops arrived at the third session, so that
the assembly was composed of twenty-four bishops,
without counting the presidents. At the fourth session
two bishops, ordained by the former Patriarch, Metho
dius, asked leave to defend the Patriarch Photius, with
•The historians Inimical to Photius nevertheless relate that but one copy ex
isted, carefully hidden by Photius, who, they Bay, had Invented the Acts, which
copy was seized, carried to Rome, and burnt at the council held in that city.

THE PAPACY. 309
whom they declared they remained in communion. The
council refused to hear them. The patrician Bahaner
opposed this decision in the name of the Senate of Con
stantinople. The legates of the Pope upheld it on the
ground that the Pope had pronounced in the last resort
and it was not lawful to examine the cause of Photius any
further. But being obliged to yield, they added : " Let
them enter and hear the synodical decision and judg
ment of Pope Nicholas. They are seeking excuses, and
only wish to avoid a trial." " But," said the Senate,
" if they wished to avoid it, they would not cry out, Let
us be judged— they would retire." " Let them enter,"
said the legates, " but let them remain in the lowest
places." The Senate asked that three or four more bish
ops of the party of Photius should be admitted. " We
consent to it," said the legates, " but on condition that
they shall declare that they represent all the rest, and
they shall only come in to .hear the letter of Nicholas."
It was evident, therefore, that Rome had only caused
this council to be called in order to consecrate her as
sumed sovereign and universal authority.
The bishops who sided with Photius, seeing that the
council would not hear them, had retired. Only the
first two remained, offering to prove, if the Emperor
would give safe-conduct to their witnesses, that Nicho
las had communed with them when Photius sent them
to Rome as his deputies.
The safe-conducts were not granted.
At the fifth session, Photius was forcibly brought in.
He only answered, in a few words full of dignity, that
he excepted to the council, and would not plead to the
accusations brought against him. In his eyes thirty-
three bishops, assembled by the order of the Emperor,
his enemy, should not presume to reverse the sentence
of the three hundred and eighteen bishops who had
proclaimed him legitimate Patriarch.

310 THE PAPACY.
In the sixth session, the adjunct Elias attempted to
prove that the resignation tendered by Ignatius was
null and void. This fact is important, for it confirms
what Photius had written to Nicholas, that " his prede
cessor had abandoned his office." At the same time it
proves that Ignatius had understood his duty in the dif
ficult position in which he was placed ; that he had at
first imitated the great bishops who have always pre
ferred to resign an office which was snatched, however
unjustly, from them, rather than to trouble their Church.
Left to himself, Ignatius was too virtuous not to imitate
such conduct ; but, in consequence of the weakness of
his character, he became the tool of a few intriguers and
of the ambitious projects of the Popes, who disguised
their own bad designs Under his virtue.
Some bishops, partisans of Photius, were introduced
at the sixth session, at which the Emperor was also pre
sent. After the speeches that were made against them
and their Patriarch, the Emperor said to them, " What
do you think of it ?" " We will answer you," they re
plied, and one of them, Anthymius, of Caesarea, in
Cappadocia, added, " My lord, we know your goodness
and justice ; give us in writing a guarantee of safety if
we speak forth freely our justification, and we shall
hope to show that these accusations are but idle words."
This humble language only irritated the Emperor, who
would not give the asked for assurance. The Pope's
legates, as well as the Emperor, refused to hear any
justification. -They considered Photius and his adher
ents as irrevocably condemned by Nicholas, although
the sentence of that Pope was anti-canonical and arbi
trary. The legates constantly repeated, in tones of an
ger, " That it was superfluous to hear condemned per
sons ; that they should be expelled from the assembly,
since they had not come there to confess their fault and
ask pardon." The supporters of Ignatius also suffered

THE PAPACY. 3H
from the bitter language of the legates when they re
fused to sign the famous formula brought from Rome.
Photius and Gregory of Syracuse were brought in at
the seventh session. An officer of the court having
asked them, in the name of the legates, if they would
sign ; " If they had heard what we have already said,"
replied Photius, "they would not ask this question.
Let them do penance themselves for the sin they have
committed." This answer exasperated the legates, who
overwhelmed Photius with gross language, after their
wont. The same officer then asked Photius what he
had to reply. "I have no answer to calumnies," he
said. The bishops who sided with Photius were again
solicted, but in vain, to separate from him. The Bishop
of Heracleia even replied, pointing to Photius, " Ana
thema upon him who anathematized that bishop 1" The
others displayed equal energy. They insisted on their
former demand of perfect liberty to defend themselves.
The Emperor interposed a demurrer, saying that the
council represented the Church since the five Patriarchs
were represented.* He would not see that one bishop,
one monk, and a priest, assuming to represent the three
Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, gave
no guarantee, without the presence of any other bishop
of these Patriarchates, and without an opportunity of
communicating with the Patriarchs themselves ! The
friends* of Photius replied that the canons, since the
Apostles, proved just the opposite ; that the pretended
representatives of the five Patriarchates did not consti
tute the Church, which, on the contrary, spoke by means
of the canons, followed since the Apostles.
This session terminated in anathemas against Photius
* The Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem had only false representatives.
The Patriarch of Alexandria was only represented at the ninth session. In his
letter to the Emperor he declares that he knows nothing of the discussions, and
that he relies on the Emperor and his bishops and clergy. His envoy was
.afterward disavowed.

312 THE PAPACY.
and his partisans. In the following session, every paper
which could implicate those of this council who had taken
the part of Photius against Ignatius was burned before the
whole council. Finally the council ended with some can
ons and a profession of faith. The acts were signed by
one hundred and two bishops. This was but few when
we reflect that the Patriarchate of Constantinople alone
numbered at that time more than six hundred, and that
the Emperor Basil had used all his influence to collect a
numerous council. An immense majority of the bishops
took no part in what took place at Constantinople.
Some zealous friends of Photius were the only ones who
would make up their minds to appear before the assem
bly, and protest against that which was done there, and
put the Emperor in the wrong by asking him to guar
antee to them full liberty for their defence.
A fact worthy of remark, and of the greatest signifi
cance, is that Ignatius, who presided side by side with
the legates of Rome, kept the most profound silence
during the whole council. A great number of questions
were discussed before him, upon which he alone could
give positive information — such as that of his resigna
tion and the attendant circumstances, the conduct of
Photius toward him, and many others. Ignatius allowed
them to be discussed pro and contra, without saying
one word to throw light upon the debates. Must it not
be inferred from such silence that he did not know what
side to take in view of the facts as he knew they had
happened, and of the plausible reasons under which the
Roman legates and certain intriguers covered their.
lying recitals ?
Whatever we may choose to infer from this silence,
we think that it can only be construed in favour of Pho
tius, and of his version of all that had occurred.* We
* It must be observed that the Acts of this Council of Constantinople considered
by Rome cecumenical, are only known to Anastasius the Librarian. The authentic

THE PAPACY. 313
naturally ask why Ignatius did not deny that he had
abdicated, or assert that it had been extorted from him
by violence, since this was the gist of the whole ques
tion. We may therefore conclude that he really re
signed his see, freely and conscientiously ; but that
Nicholas being unwilling, as he himself said, to accept
that resignation, some ambitious men, personal ene
mies of Photius, prevailed upon Ignatius to reconsider
his determination, suggesting to him as" a legitimate
motive the protest of the Patriarch of Rome against it.
But while he followed the impulsion of Rome in what
concerned his reinstalment in his see, Ignatius did not
show himself dis.posed to submit to all its requirements,
as in the matter of signing the Roman formula, and
in the conference, which took place after the council,
concerning the Church of Bulgaria.
Several^ members of the council, from hatred to Pho
tius rather than from conviction, had already signed the
formula which enslaved the whole Church to the Ro
man see. They had submitte'd to this demand in order
that the council, from whichthey expected results satis
factory to their own secret desires, should not remain
an impossibility. After it was over, they sent com
plaints to the Emperor and to Ignatius regarding their
signatures, and asked that they should not be sent to
Rome. They protested, moreover, against the qualified
form in which the legates had signed, reserving the ap
probation of the Pope, for thereby the Bishop of Rome
reserved the right to approve or to cancel, at his will,
what had been done.
It was too • late to remedy this ; but the Emperor, to
acts were taken from the legates by the Sclavonians, who robbed them on their re
turn from Constantinople. Anastasius pretended that he had an exact copy of the
acts, which he translated into Latin at Rome. It is therefore to the evidence of this
man that we have to refer for all 'that relates to this council. If the acts, such as he
has given them, are so favourable to Photius, is it not reasonable to think that they
would be much more so If they were trustworthy f

314 THE PAPACY.
ease his mind in regard to the formula, caused all
the signatures that could be found in the house of tho
legates to be taken away during their absence. The
legates protested ; but in vain. Ignatius did not cen
sure this act of the Emperor, and proved, in the confer
ence about Bulgaria, that he was not a partisan of the
doctrine of the formula.
' The Bulgarians learning that a council was sitting at
Constantinople, sent deputies there to know whether
their churoh ' should depend from Rome or Constan
tinople.* The Emperor convoked the legates of Rome and the
East to answer this question in presence of Ignatius,
" As we have newly received the grace of baptism, we
fear lest we make a mistake ; we therefore ask you, who
represent the Patriarchs, to what church we should be
subject." Pope Nicholas had replied to the question, but his
decision was only regarded as that of a single Patriarch.
The legates of Rome maintained that his decision was
supreme, and must not be departed from. The Eastern
legates were not of this opinion. The Romans pro
tested that they had received no power to examine the
question raised by the Bulgarians. In spite of this spe
cial pleading, the Eastern legates judged it proper to be
decided. " From whom have you conquered the prov
inces where you dwell ?" they asked of the Bulgarians ;
" and what church was established there then ?"
" We wrested them from the Greeks," they replied ;
" and the Greek, clergy were established there."
" In that case," said the legates, " your church de
pends from the Greeks ; that is, from the Patriarchate
of Constantinople."
" But, for the last three years," said the papal legates,
" Rome has sent Latin priests there." This prescription
* See Vlt. Pap. Hadr. et Epist. Hadr. in Labbe's Collection, vol. Till.

THE PAPACY. 315
of three years did not suffice, in the eyes of the other
legates, to prevail over the ancient possession, and they
declared that the Bulgarian church should be under the
jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Ig
natius was of the same opinion ; but the Roman legates
said that the holy see of Rome had not chosen them for
judges. '¦'-lie only," they added, "has the right to
judge the whole Church. He despises your opinion as
readily as you give it lightly." As long as the condem
nation of Photius was the question, that opinion had
been of far greater value in their eyes. They annulled
the judgment that had been rendered, and begged Ig
natius not to despise the rights of the holy see, which
had restored him to his. The Emperor was angry at
the pretensions of the legates. They soon left, and were
robbed on the way by the Sclavonians, who took from
them the authentic acts of the council.
In consequence of the decision of the Eastern legates,
the Bulgarians dismissed the bishop and priests who
had been sent by Rome to them, and received a Greek
bishop and priests. Adrian learning this, wrote to the
Emperor of the East, threatening Ignatius and the bish
ops he had sent to Bulgaria with excommunication.
There is extant only a fragment of a letter from
Adrian II. to Ignatius. He speaks to him as a superior
to an inferior; accuses him of violating the canons as
they obtained at Rome ; and tells him, in threatening lan
guage, that a similar course had occasioned the fall of
Photius. Such letters make it very evident that Rome had pur
sued the reinstalment of Ignatius, not for the sake of
justice, but to find occasion to do an act of sovereignty
in the East. A careful reading of these documents leaves
no doubt in this respect. Ignatius, in the eyes of the
Pope, was as guilty as Photius, the moment he refused
to submit to this sovereignty.

316 THE PAPACY.
Adrian II. died in the month of November, 872, and
was succeeded by John VIII. This Pope took greatly
to heart this affair of Bulgaria. He wrote twice to Ig
natius to demand that he should renounce all jurisdic
tion over that church. The Emperor Basil (878) having
asked him for legates to labour for the pacification of the
religious troubles which had been rife in the East since
the reestablishtnent of Ignatius, the Pope availed him
self of this occasion to write to that Patriarch a third
letter, in which he thus expressed himself:* "We give
you this third canonical monition (he should have said
anti-canonical) by our legates and letters ; thereby we
command you to send without delay to Bulgaria active
men, who shall go through the whole country, and take
away all those whom they may there find who have
been ordained by you or by those of your dependence,
so that in one month there shall remain neither bishops
nor clergy of your ordination ; for we cannot consent
that they should infect with their errour this new church
which we have formed. If you do not withdraw them
within the time mentioned, and if you do not renounce
all jurisdiction over Bulgaria, you are hereby deprived
of the communion of the body and blood of the Lord
until you obey. A delay of two months from the recep
tion of this letter is granted to you. If you remain ob
stinate in your violation of discipline and your usurpa
tion, you are hereby, by the judgment of Almighty God,
and by the authority of the blessed Apostle Princes, and
by the sentence of Our Mediocrity, deprived of and de
posed from the dignity of the Patriarchate which you
have received through our favour."
Thus, to usurp jurisdiction over the Church of Bul
garia, the Pope does not hesitate to strike, ipso facto,
a Patriarch with excommunication and deposition, if he
does not obey his orders ! Have we observed any simi-
* Joann. Pap. VHL Ep., Labbe's Collection, vol. ix.

THE PAPACY. 317
lar conduct on the part of the Popes of the first eight
centuries ?
But the bishops of the East were neither disposed to
recognize the Papal authority nor to obey his anti-can
onical orders. Those who supported Ignatius were as
much opposed to this as the partisans of Photius.
John VIH. wrote to the Greek bishops and clergy in
Bulgaria a letter still more severe than that addressed
to the Patriarch Ignatius! It began thus : "To all the
bishops and other Greek clergy, invaders of the diocese
of Bulgaria, and excommunicate by these presents."
He gave them thirty days to obey his orders, and prom
ised the bishops to give them other sees on condition of
leaving those they then occupied.
This was certainly acting as absolute sovereign. John
wrote to the Bulgarian King and to Count Peter, who
had been envoy to Rome in the time of Pope Nicholas.
The substance of these letters is, that nothing should be
received gave from the Roman Church, inasmuch as she
is the source of all true doctrine. All these missives
were sent by the legates Paul and Eugene. When these
envoys reached Constantinople, Ignatius was dead, and
Photius was again Patriarch, (878.)*
After some difficulties, the legates recognized Photius
as Patriarch, and even said that Pope John had sent
them to Constantinople to anathematize Ignatius and
reinstate Photius. Photius and the Emperor Basil sent
letters and ambassadors to the Pope.f John was ap
prised of this, and seemed disposed to pacify the Church
* It is not our business to relate the doings of Photius during his exile. We
therefore only refer to his letters those who wish for cumulative proof of the gen
tleness, charity, and ability whereby he regained the good graces of the Emperor
Basil. These documents more than sufficiently answer the hateful statements of his
enemies, in which absurdity vies with atrocity, and which, to every impartial man,
only prove the blind hatred of those who composed them.
t Among these letters there was one In which Ignatius, near unto death, begged
the Pope to recognize Photius as lawful Patriarch. Naturally enough, the enemies
of Photius maintain that this letter Is a forgery, but without proof.

318 THE PAPACY.
of Constantinople and to receive favourably the letters
and envoys ;* which he really did, and sent th'em back
with letters for the Emperor and Photius. These letters
of John VHI. contain the most distinct answer to all
the calumnies of the enemies of Photius. " In consider
ation," he said to the Emperor, " of the unanimity with
which all the Patriarchs, even those who had been
ordained by Ignatius, had acquiesced in the election of
Photius, he consented to recognize him as Patriarch."
But as Photius had not waited for the recognition of
Rome to reascend his episcopal chair, and regarded as
null the council assembled against him, the Pope en
larged extensively upon this consideration : that neces
sity frequently exempts from the observance of rules.
He therefore passes over these formal difficulties the
more readily as the legates of his predecessor had
signed the acts of the council conditionally and saving
the approbation of the Pope ; he gives in detail the
conditions upon which he recognizes Photius ; he must
assemble a council and ask pardon for haying reascended
his seat without a sentence of absolution ; he must
renounce all jurisdiction over Bulgaria, and must receive
into his communion all the bishops ordained by Ignatius.
As to those of the latter who should refuse to enter in
communion with Photius, he threatens them with excom
munication. These latter bishops were very few in number. The
Pope wrote to the principal ones, Metrophanes, Stylienus,
and John, threatening them with excommunication ; and
he charged the legates, whom he intrusted with his letr
ters, to excommunicate all those who should refuse to
recognize. Photius as legitimate Patriarch, forbidding"
all, whoever they might be, to give credit to the calum
nies circulated against this Patriarch.
It is, doubtless, out of respect for these commands of
? Letters of Pope John VHI. in Labbe's Collection.

THE PAPACY. 319
the Pope, that the Romish writers have vied in repeat
ing these calumnies of such as Metrophanes, Stylienus,
Nicetas, and other inveterate enemies of Photius, and
have refused to see any thing save knavery and hypoc
risy in the familiar correspondence of this great man.
They have left no means untried to disguise the import
ance of these letters of John VEIL Cardinal Baronius,
in his Annals, goes so far as to maintain that the femi
nine weakness displayed by John in this matter, gave
rise to the fable of a female pope Joan. Every one
knows that John VEIL, far from being weak in char
acter, was energetic even to roughness ; but Romish
writers stick at nothing when they wish to rid them
selves of facts, or even of Popes whose acts do not
neatly fit into their systematic histories.
The legates with the Pope's letters having reached
Constantinople, a council was called and attended by
three hundred and eighty-three bishops, with Elias, who
represented the Patriarch of Jerusalem.*
John's letters are full of the new teachings of the Pa
pacy. He claims that he has, by divine right, the care
of all the churches, and occupies the place of St. Peter,
to whom Christ said, "Feed my sheep." He pretends
that he has been entreated to admit Photius to the dig
nity of the Patriarchate, and even to ecclesiastical orders ;
he now admits him, although he has usurped the episco
pate without the consent of the holy see, but on condi
tion, that he shall ask pardon in full council ; he gives
him absolution by virtue of the power he has received
from Jesus Christ through St. Peter, to bind and loose
all things without exception. He commands Photius to
resign all jurisdiction over Bulgaria, and forbids him
to ordain any there. In all his letters he gives com
mands, and claims to exercise an absolute sovereignty
of divine origin.• Collection of Councils by Father Hardouln, vol. vL

320 THE PAPACY.
Such pretensions were not recognized in the East,
which held to the doctrines of the first eight centuries
on the subject of the Papacy. It was clear that if such
letters as these were read in the council, all hope of
peace was at an end. Hence only the substance of
these letters was retained ; every expression that could
wound, or give reason to believe that the Pope wished
to be Sovereign of the Church, was weeded out. Ex
pressions of encomium in use in the East were added.
These letters, as Fleury tells us, were thus modified,
" apparently in concert with the legates, who Tieard tshem
read without complaint." The first of these legates,
Cardinal Peter, having asked, " Do you receive the
Pope's letter?" the council replied, "We receive all
that relates to the union with Photius and the interests
of the Church, but not what concerns the Emperor and
his provinces." By this, the Council rejected the pre
tensions of the Pope to Bulgaria. From such a unani
mous disposition of nearly four hundred Eastern bish
ops, we may judge what protests the Pope's letters
would have excited if the legates had not had the pru
dence to modify them in concert with Photius.* The
East had always preserved this maxim, followed by all
the cecumenical councils, that ecclesiastical divisions
must follow those of the empire. Bulgaria, having been
anciently a Greek province, depended from the Greek
Patriarch and not the Latin.
Cardinal Peter having asked that the adversaries of
Photius who had been excluded might be recalled,
Photius replied, " The Emperor has only exiled two of

* The Abbe Jager, in his indigestible pamphlet against Photius, claims that the
Pope's letters were altered by Photius alone. Would not the legates have protested
against that fraud, since they heard them read In the council In their modified
shape? Instead of complaining of these letters, they publicly sought to ascertain
that "every one was satisfied with them. Moreover, they carried them back to -Rome
with the acts of the council. The Pope did not protest, and it is In Rome itself that
they were afterward found.

THE PAPACY. 321
them, and that for causes not ecclesiastical ; we pray
him to recall them."
"How did the Patriarch Photius reascend his
throne ?" asked Peter.
The council replied, " By the consent of the three
Patriarchs, at the request of the Emperor ; or rather
yielding to the violence done to him, and to the prayers
of the whole Church of Constantinople."
" What !" asked Peter, " has there been no violence on
the part of Photius ? Has he not acted tyrannically ?"
" On the contrary," replied the council, " all took
place with gentleness and tranquillity."
" Thank God !" exclaimed the Cardinal.
Thus, nearly four hundred bishops, in presence of the
Pope's envoys, and in public, confound the rare calum
niators of Photius, and yet these calumniators are ac
cepted in the West as writers worthy of faith, even while
their histories give numberless proofs of a hatred akin
to madness and absurdity !
When Cardinal Peter had finished his questions, Pho
tius spoke as follows : " I tell you, before God, that I
never desired this see ; the majority of those here pres
ent know this well. The first time I took it against my
will, shedding many tears, after resisting it for a long
time, and in consequence of the insurmountable violence
of the emperor who then reigned, but with the consent of
the bishops and clergy, who had given their signatures
without my knowledge. They gave me guards" . . .
He was interrupted by the exclamations of the coun
cil, " We know it all, either of our own knowledge or
by the evidence of others who have told us."
" God permitted me to be driven away," continued
Photius. " I did not seek to return. I never excited
seditions. I remained at rest, thanking God, and bend
ing before his judgments,.without importuning the Em
peror, without hope or desire to be reinstated. God,

322 THE PAPACY.
who works miracles, has touched the Emperor's heart,*
not for my sake but for the sake of his people : he has
recalled me from my exile. But, so long as Ignatius of
blessed memory lived, I could not bring myself to resume
my place, in spite of the exhortations and entreaties that
were made by many upon this subject."
The council said, " It is the truth."
" I meant," continued Photius, " to make my peace
with Ignatius firm in every way. We saw each other
in the palace ; we fell at each other's feet, and mutually
forgave each other. When he fell ill he sent for me ; I
visited him several times, and gave him every consolation
in my power. He recommended to me those who were
most dear to him, and I have taken care of them. After
his death the Emperor entreated me publicly and pri
vately ; he came himself to see me, to urge me to yield
to the wishes of the bishops and clergy. I have yielded
to so miraculous a change that I might not resist God."
The council said, " It is thus."
Are not such words worth more, pronounced publicly
as they were, and their truth attested by four hundred
bishops, than all the diatribes of passionate enemies ?
In the following sessions, the legates of the Patri
archal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem gave
unquestionable proofs that their Patriarchs had always
been in communion with Photius ; that the pretended
legates who were present at the council of 869, under
Adrian, and who had concurred in the condemnation of
Photius, were only envoys of the Saracens, as Photius
himself had written in his protest against that assembly.
In consequence, that council was anathematized by
the legates of Rome, by those of the other Patriarchal
sees of the East, and by all the bishops present, f
* His enemies have said that he resorted to magic to dispose Basil in his favour
and some serious historians have accepted this ridiculous accusation.
t Nevertheless, the Romanists call that council of 869 the eighth oecumenical.

THE PAPACY.

323

The acts of the council of 879 are as full of dignity
and as high-toned as those of the council of 869 were
passionate and unworthy of true bishops. Adrian's
legates were more like men possessed than like judges,
if we may judge from the acts preserved by Anastasius
the Librarian, while the legates of John, on the contrary,
displayed in all things as much wisdom as moderation.*
During their sojourn at Constantinople they repeatedly
saw Metrophanes, one of the worst enemies of Photius,
and one of the writers who serve as guides to the
Romish writers in their accounts. They requested him
to furnish proofs against Photius, but could draw from
him nothing but idle words. They summoned him to
the council, but he refused to appear, under the false
pretext of illness. " He is not so ill," said the legates,
" that he cannot talk a great deal, and yet say very lit
tle." Upon his refusal to appear he was anathematized.
* The acts of the council of 879 have been found in the original at Rome itself,
with all the authentic signatures, including those of the legates of Rome -, and yet
the ecclesiastical historians of the West Insinuate that they may have been altered.
On the other hand, the acts of the council of 869 were lost by the Roman legates,
and are only known through Anastasius the Librarian, who pretended to have a
copy ; and the Western historians will not allow of a doubt as to their genuine
ness. Is this impartial ? If the acts of the council of 879 had come from the East
to the West, there might be some grounds for contesting their genuineness ; but they
were found at Borne, and were taken from the archives of Rome to give them to the
public.

324

THE PAPACY.

vn.

THB PAPACY WHICH CAUSED THB DITISIOK HAS PEEPET-
PATED AND STBENGTHENED IT BY INNOVATIONS, AND
MADE IT A SCHISM.
jROM the facts which we have just discussed,
it appears that the Papacy in the ninth cen
tury sought dominion over the Church, and
the position of a sovereign pontificate, the
centre of unity and the guardian of orthodoxy. Its de
fenders are very far from contesting this ; but they claim
that these pretensions were not new, and to prove this
they appeal to the dogmatic testimony of the Fathers,
to the facts of ecclesiastical history of the first centU!
ries of the Church, and even to the word of God.
We announced it as our special purpose to show their
assertions to be false in regard to the first eight centu,
ries of the Church, and this we have done.
We grant that after the ninth century the Popes
assumed to exercise the sovereign pontificate. We have
pointed out the first occasions on which Rome came
before the Eastern Church with her new pretensions,
and we have ascertained that the Oriental Church re
fused to recognize them.
It is thus beyond all doubt that it was the Papacy
which provoked the division, by seeking to impose a
sovereignty upon the whole Church which had been un
known during the first eight centuries of the Church.
Union being reestablished, at least in appearance, be-

THE PAPACY. 325
tween the Papacy and Photius, the Eastern Church was
none the less separated from Rome ; for there was now
a radical divergency between them. Peace would not
have existed even outwardly between them if the letters
of Pope John had been read to the last council as they
were written. In the assembly of 869 the partisans of
Ignatius and Ignatius himself declared against the Papal
sovereignty almost as energetically as Photius and his
friends. On her side, Rome no longer did any thing
without asserting her pretended sovereignty, and with
out setting herself up as the necessary centre of unity.
The controversies between the Papacy and Photius,
like their reconciliation, would have remained as unim
portant as a thousand others of the same kind in the
history of the Church, if a radical division had not been
worked out from that time in consequence of the insti
tution of the Papacy. In following out these relations
of the East with Rome, we shall meet with many attempts
to reconcile the two churches at different periods. But
Rome insisting upon a recognition of her sovereignty as
a condition precedent, and the Eastern Church always
appealing to the doctrine of the first eight centuries,
unity could never be reestablished. It would now only
be possible on condition that the Papacy should abandon
its unlawful pretensions, or the Eastern Church the prim
itive doctrine. Now, the Eastern Church well knows
that the renunciation of that doctrine would not only be
criminal in itself, but would result in subjection to an
autocracy condemned by the Gospel and by Catholic
doctrine ; hence she cannot yield without incurring
guilt and without committing suicide. And the Pa
pacy, on its side, knows that it annihilates itself by return
ing to the Catholic unity with the simple character of
the ancient Roman episcopate. It will not, therefore,
yield any of the prerogatives which it has grown to con
sider as emanating from a divine source. For this cause

326 THE PAPACY.
it not only provoked the division in the Church, but has
perpetuated and strengthened it by the pertinacity
with which it has maintained what was- the direct cause
of it.
To this first cause we must add the successive changes
which it has introduced in orthodox doctrine and the
03cumenical rules of discipline. The history of its inno
vations would be long. From the institution of the au
tocracy to the new dogma of the' Immaculate Concep
tion, how many changes ! how many important modi
fications 1 We may write this sad history in a special
work. At this time it will suffice to consider the most
serious innovation which it has permitted itself, namely,
the addition which it has made to the Creed ; for that
addition, together with the Papal autocracy, was the
direct cause of the division which still exists between
the Eastern and Western churches.
It has been sought to trace the discussion respecting
the procession of the Holy Spirit to remote antiquity.
We will not follow the learned upon this ground, but
will simply show that it was in the eighth century that
it first assumed any importance.*
Two Spanish Bishops, Felix d'Urgel and Elipand of
Toledo, taught that Christ was the adopted Son of God,
and not his Word, co'essential with the Father. Their
errour called forth unanimous complaints in the West,
particularly in France, whose kings then possessed the
northern part of Spain. The defenders of orthodoxy
thought they had found an excellent weapon against
adoptivism when they decided that the Son is so tho
roughly one in substance with the Father, that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from him as well as from the Father.
* It seems certain that the addition to the Creed was made by a council of Toledo
In 688, and was confirmed by another held in the same city in 658. N. Alexander,
Hist. Eccl. Dissert, xxvil. In Saacul. iv. maintains that it was admitted In the Coun
cil of Toledo In 5S9, but It has been proved that the acts of the council were altered
in this particular.

THE PAPACY. 327
This formula was looked upon as the bulwark of ortho
doxy, and was introduced into the Creed, to which was
added, in consequence, the word Filioque {and from the
Son) after the words proceeding from the Father.
That addition, made by a local church which had no
pretensions to infallibility, was for this very cause irreg
ular. It was further wrong in giving a conception of
the Trinity contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures,
according to which there is in God but one principle,
which is the Father, from which proceed, from all eter
nity, the Word by generation, and the Spirit by proces
sion. As the quality of a principle forms the distinctive
character of the Father's personality, it evidently cannot
be attributed to the Word without ascribing to Him that
which is the distinctive attribute of another Divine Per
son. Thus the French and Spanish bishops, wishing to
defend in the Trinity the unity of essence or of substance,
attacked the personal distinction and confounded the
attributes which are the very basis of that distinction.
Another serious errour on their part was in giving a
decision without first ascertaining that the words which
they employed were authorized by Catholic tradition.
Outside of the perpetual and established doctrine, no
bishop can teach any thing without danger of falling
into the most serious errours.
The dogmatic truths of Christianity relating to the
very essence of God — that is, of the Infinite — are neces
sarily mysterious ; hence no one should presume to
teach them of his own authority. Even the Church her
self only preserves them as she has received them. Reve
lation is a deposit confided by God to His Church, and
not a philosophical synthesis which may be modified.
Without doubt these Spanish and French bishops had
no other end in view but in the clearest manner to ex
pound the dogma of the Trinity ; but their exposition,
not having the traditional character, was an errour.

328

THE PAPACY

The design of this work does not permit us to dis
cuss thoroughly the question of the procession of the
Holy Spirit.* We must limit ourselves to the history
of this Roman addition.
That addition was first adopted in Spain, in the
seventh century, in a committee at Toledo, and was
adopted by several Western churches. In 767, Constan
tine Copronymus having sent some ambassadors to
Pepin, King of the Franks, this prince received them in
an assembly known as the Council of Gentilly. As the
Greeks were accused of errour respecting the worship
of images, so the ambassadors accused the Franks of er
rour concerning the Trinity, and in having added the
word Filioque to the creed. The details of the discus
sion upon this subject are not extant, but it is cer
tain that the addition was very little spread through
France before the close of the eighth century, when
Elipand and Felix d'Urgel taught their errour. The
Council of Frioul, in 791, saw fit to oppose them by ap
proving the doctrine of the procession from the Father
and the Son, but without admitting the addition of the
Filioque, because the Fathers who composed the creed
were right in using only the evangelical expression,
proceeding from the Father.]
Felix of Urgel, after having been condemned in seve
ral councils, was banished to Lyons, by Charlemagne,
in 799. He doubtless propagated his errours in that
city, and the question of the procession of the Holy
Ghost was discussed there. The learned Alcuin wrote
* We recommend to those who need to be enlightened upon this Important ques
tion the treatise published by Monseigneur Macarius, Archbishop of Krakow, in his
Theologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe. This learned theologian has discussed the
question, and summed up the labours of several theologians of the Eastern Church
upon the subject, in such a manner as to leave no doubt. The treatise of Monseig
neur Macarius is one of the most learned theological works that we have read.
[Theologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, French edition, vol. L Paris: Cherbuliez, 10
Rue de la Monnaie.]
t Father Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. viL

THE PAPACY. 329
to the brethren at Lyons, urging them both to avoid the
errours of the Spanish Bishop and also axis interpolation
of the creed. " Beloved brethren," he says, " look well
to the sects of the Spanish errour ; follow in the faith
the steps of the holy Fathers, and remain attached to
the holy Church Universal in a most holy unity. It has
been written, ' Do not overstep the limits laid down by
the Fathers ; insert nothing new in the creed of the
Catholic faith, and in religious functions be not pleased
with traditions unknown to ancient times.' "*
This letter was written in 804. It thus appears that
at the beginning of the ninth century the addition was
already condemned in France by the most learned and
pious men. Alcuin also censured, as we see, the usage
that was beginning to prevail of chaunting the creed in
the service instead of reciting it.
The interpolation in the creed had, nevertheless, some
advocates, who, five years later, proposed, in a council
at Aix-la-Chapelle, to solemnly authorize the Filioque.
They met with opposition, and it was decided to refer
the question to Rome. Leo III. was then Pope. He
compromised the matter. Without positively rejecting
the doctrine of the procession from the Father and from
the Son, he censured the addition made to the creed.f
He even saw fit to transmit to posterity his protest
against any innovation, by having the creed engraved
upon two tablets of silver that were hung in St. Peter's
Church, and under which was written the following in
scription : " I, Leo, haveput up these tablets for the love
and preservation of the orthodox faith." The deputies
from the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle had needed all the
resources of their logic and erudition to persuade Leo
ni. that this doctrine of the procession of the Holy
Ghost might be Catholic. Their erudition was inaccu-
• Alcuin Eplst. 69. tBirmond's Condi. Antiq. GalL, vol. IL

330 THE PAPACY.
rate, and consequently the opinions they rested upon
it were not true. They confounded in God the substance
with the proper character of the divine personality, the
essential procession of the Spirit with His mission in the
world.* Leo IH., although he gave a hearing to their
arguments, did not show himself any more favourable
to the addition, nor even to the chaunting oi the creed
in the services of the Church.
Nevertheless, the Creed continued to be chaunted
with the addition in Spain and in all the countries sub
ject to Charlemagne. Rome only adopted that prac
tice at the commencement of the eleventh century,
(about 1015,) at the request of the Emperor Henry, but
she seemed to agree with the other Western churches
as to the substance of the doctrine. It was thus that
Photius could justly reproach the Roman Church as well
as other Western churches with admitting an innovation
in the faith. After having been deposed by Nicholas,
and after himself condemning that Pope, he sent to the
Eastern Patriarchs a circular letter, in which he thus
expresses himself upon the question of the Filioque :f
" Besides the gross errours we have mentioned, they
have striven, by false interpretations and words which
* This confusion Is at the bottom of all the arguments of the Western theologians
to this day. In support of their errour, they rely upon certain texts in which the
Fathers speak only of the divine substance common to the three persons, and make
no mention of the essential character of the personality in each of them. This
character In the Father is that of being the sole principle of the Son by generation,
and of the Spirit by procession. Such is the doctrine of the Church, including the
Roman Church herself. She admits that the Father is the sole principle in the
Trinity, and that such is the character of His personality, without perceiving that
she contradicts herself in making of the Son another pHrsciple in the Trinity by her
addition of Filioque, since she makes the personal action of the Son the same as
that of the Father in the procession of the Holy Ghost.
t [The editor always permits the Abbe to speak for himself and for the Gieeks ,
but it must not be inferred that he admits the justice of all that Is here quoted from
Photius, nor even of all which the Greeks still charge on those who retain the
Filioque. The truth Is, the Filioque Is of no authority at all in the Creed, con
sidered as the Creed. This is confessed by Anglicans ; but it Is retained In the
Liturgy as true in Itself, and true in a sense not at all conflicting with the Greet
Ortlsodoxy.]

THE PAPACY. 331
they have added, to do violence to the holy and sacred
Creed, which has been confirmed by all the oecumenical
councils, and possesses irresistible force. O diabolical
inventions ! Using new language, they affirm that the
Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father only, but
from the Son also ! Who ever heard such language,
even from the mouth of the impious of past ages !
Where is the Christian who could admit two causes in
the Trinity, that is to say, the Father — cause of the Son
and Holy Spirit ; and the Son — cause oi the same
Spirit ?
" This is to divide the first principle into a double divin
ity — it is to lower Christian theology to the level of
Grecian mythology, and to wrong the Trinity incompre
hensible and one in principle, (bnepovoiov teal uovapxiTrjs
Tptkdog.) But how should the Holy Spirit proceed from
the Son ? If the procession He holds from the Father is
perfect, (and it is thus, since He is very God of very
God,) what is this procession from the Son, and what is
its object ? Certainly it is a vain and futile thing. More
over, if the Spirit proceed from the Son as well as the
Father, why is not the Son begotten by the Spirit as
well as by the Father ? Let them say this in order that
there be no piety mixed with their impiety, that their
opinions may agree with their language, and they may
shrink from no undertaking. Let us consider further,
that if the property oi the Holy Spirit be known in that
He proceeds from the Father, the property of the Son like
wise consists in His being begotten by the Father. But
as they in their madness assert, the Spirit proceeds also
from the Son ; hence the Spirit is distinguished from the
Father by more numerous properties than the Son, since
the Spirit proceeding from both, is something common
to the Father and to the Son. The procession of the
Spirit from the Father and the Son is the property of
the Spirit. If the Spirit is further removed from the

332 TIIE PAPACY.
Father than the Son, the Son must be nearer to the sab-
stance of the Father than the Spirit. Such was the
origin of the audacious blasphemy pronounced against
the Holy Spirit by Macedonius, who followed without
knowing it the system and errour of those who teach
it in these days.
" Moreover, if all be common between the Father
and the Son, assuredly that which concerns the Holy
Spirit is common also, namely, that He must be God,
King, Creator, Almighty, Simple, without exterior form,
Incorporeal, Invisible, and absolute All. Now if the
procession of the Spirit be common to the Father and
to the Son, then the Spirit must also proceed from Him
self, He is His own principle — at one and the same time
cause and effect. Even the Greeks have not gone to
such length in their fables.
" One more reflection : if it were the property of the
Spirit alone to have relation to different principles, He
would be the only one to have a plural principle and
not a single one.
" Let me add that if, in the things where there is
community between the Father and Son, the Spirit must
be excluded, and if the Father be one with the Son in
substance only and not in properties, then necessarily
the Holy Spirit can have nothing in common except
what concerns the substance.
" You see how little the advocates of this errour are
entitled to the name of Christians, and that they only
take it to deceive others. The Spirit proceeding from
the Son ! Where hast thou learned this fact that thou
assertest ? In what Gospel hast thou found this word ?
To what council belongs such blasphemy ?"
Photius appeals to Scripture and Catholic tradition
against the Western ^ system. He adds that the conse
quence of this system is that there are in God four per
sons or hypostases ; for the Spirit having a double prin,

THE PAPACY.

333

ciple, is a Being double as to personality. He further
unfolds many considerations which prove in him a pro
foundly philosophical mind, and to which the Western
theologians have answered nothing to the purpose.*
All the arguments in favour of pure Catholic tradition,
prove conclusively that particular churches never, even
with the best intentions, can meddle with impunity with
the sacred deposit of Revelation, f
Photius brought several more accusations against the
Roman Church. He knew perfectly that each particular
church was entitled to its own regulations, and he had
laid down this soundest of principles in opposition to
Nicholas himself, who sought to impose the discipline
of the Western Church upon the Eastern. But in disci
pline we should distinguish between Apostolic rules,
which have a character of universality, and private reg
ulations. Now, he claimed .that the Roman Church
violated Apostolic rules of discipline upon three princi
pal points. First, in imposing the fast and abstinence
of Saturday. Secondly, in making ecclesiastical celiba
cy a general law. Thirdly, in regarding as void con
firmation given by priests after baptism. The Roman
Bishop who had been sent to the Bulgarians had trans
gressed the principles of orthodoxy so far as to repeat
* The reader will soon be of our opinion if he will read without prejudice and with
an unbiased mind the treatise of Monseigneur Macarius, which we have already men
tioned, and the learned work of Zoernicave, who devoted almost his entire life to the
study of the question before us In all the records of tradition. The works of such as
Perrone and Jager, not to mention the rest, are very meagre as compared with those
we speak of. This last-named author claims to rest his arguments upon ontological
considerations to prove that the Father Is the sole principle in the Trinity, although
the Son is so also with him. A very original Idea indeed to resort to the science of
the human being In order to explain the Infinite Being I And besides, the resec
tions of the Abbe Jager, and those authors upon whom he relies, have this slight
defect, that they are unintelligible not only to the reader, but most probably to the
writers. Ambiguous phrases never make a good argument for an innovation.
t Among the letters of Photius (Lib. II. ep. 24) there is one to the metropolitan of
Aquileia. He replies to the texts of the Latins by saying that if ten or twenty can
be found in favour of the innovation, there can be found six hundred against It j
whence It follows that tradition will always remain clear on this point. He also
works out the same arguments as In his. encyclical letter.

334 THE PAPACY.
the sacrament of confirmation to those who had received
it from Greek priests. This was such a flagrant viola
tion that even the Romanists do not defend it.
Photius, in his encyclical letter, appeals to all the
Apostolic sees of the East against the innovations of the
Ltalians. He concludes by entreating them to adhere
publicly to the second Nicene Council, to proclaim it
the seventh oecumenical, and to declare against the inno
vations of the barbarous nations of the West who under
take to adulterate the true doctrine.
Photius had some reason to consider the Western
people as little civilized. Since the invasion by the
tribes which had transformed the West, the ecclesiastical
schools and libraries had been destroyed, and the clergy
were profoundly ignorant.
Charlemagne had given a strong impulse, to letters ;
but in spite of his efforts -and those of the distinguished
men who aided him, the ecclesiastical sciences were in
their infancy, and a certain pedantry too often took their
place. Now, the character of a pedant is to be quite
certain about every thing. The innovators therefore
thought they had done a work of high religious philoso
phy in adding to the Creed those words of which Photius
complained. They thought they had defined the nature
of the Trinity better than the Nicene Council, in attribut
ing to the Son the personal quality of the Father in order
to prove that he had the same substance. They defended
this doctrine by some misinterpreted texts from the Fa
thers, of whom they possessed very few works, and thus
they set up a false opinion as a dogma, without regard
to the testimony of the Apostolic churches of the East.
They consulted the Popes ; but the Popes, who were
themselves very ignorant, swayed on the one hand by
the reasoning of men whom they thought learned, and,
on the other hand, desiring to avail themselves of this
opportunity to do an act of sovereign authority, yielded

THE PAPACY. 335
and sanctioned the innovation, even while they resisted
its introduction into the Creed.
Thus was Rome influenced by errour in the interest
of her assumed sovereignty. And hence Nicholas felt
that the Papacy itself was attacked by the encyclical
letter of Photius. At a loss how to reply, he applied to
those scholars who, in the Church of France, were the
avowed champions of the innovation. Photius had taken
no notice of the Latin innovations so long as they re
mained in the West, and perhaps only knew of them
vaguely. But when the Roman priests spread them
through Bulgaria, in defiant opposition to the doctrine
of the Eastern Church, and among a people brought into
the faith by the Church of Constantinople, he could be
silent no longer, and he drew up against the Roman
Church such a bill of attainder as shall endure for ever
as a protest against the abuses and errours of which she
has been guilty.
Nicholas so far humbled himself that he applied to
Hincmar, a famous Archbishop of Rheims, who had
resisted his autocratic pretensions. He felt he had
need of this great theologian of the West to resist Pho
tius. He had received the accusations of that Patriarch
through the Prince of Bulgaria. " In reading that pa
per," he says,* " we have concluded that the writers
dipped their pen in the lake of blasphemy, and that
instead of ink they used the mire of errour. They con
demn not only our Church, but the whole Latin Church,
because we fast on Saturday and teach that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son ; for they
maintain that He proceeds from the Father only." Nich
olas sums up some further complaints of the Greeks.
Some of them are not to be found in the circular of Pho
tius to the Easterns. " What is still more senseless," he
adds, " before receiving our legates, they would oblige
* NlchoL Eplst. In Labbe's Collection, voL vill.

336 THE PAPACY.
them to make a profession of faith, in which these arti
cles and those who have maintained them are anathe
matized, and to present canonical letters to him whom
they call their cecumenical Patriarch." We perceive by
this that the Easterns, in order to preserve the ancient
faith and discipline against Roman innovations, resorted
to all the means in their power.
It is impossible to share the opinion of Nicholas, who
chose to regard as foolish measures of caution both per
fectly legitimate and canonical, which were only wrong
inasmuch as they were an obstacle to his ambitious
projects. Having exhibited his grievances against the Easterns,
Nicholas commanded all the Metropolitans to assemble
Provincial Councils, reply to the accusations of Photius,
and send the result of their deliberations to Hincmar of
Rheims, who would transmit them to him. The Bishops
of France assembled. Several of them entered the lists
against the Easterns, particularly ^Eneas of Paris. Ra-
tramn, a monk of Corhey, composed the most learned
work. No one could have done better in the defence
of a bad cause. At a time when the records of tradition
were very rare in the West, it was difficult to compile
from them any complete instruction. The Frankic divines
therefore quoted in their favour only a few texts, of which
many were from apocryphal works. Photius seems to
allude to these labours when he says in his letter to the
Metropolitan of Aquileia, that if one could quote ten or
twenty Fathers in favour of the opinions of the Latins,
one might quote six hundred in support of the belief of
the Church. The historical facts adduced by Ratramn in
proof of the Roman primacy are completely distorted for
want of proper information ; and, besides, in defending
that primacy, he had no intention whatever to maintain
a sovereignty of divine right. His reasoning and his
quotations, like those of uEneas, respecting the celibacy

THE PAPACY. 337
of the priesthood, did not reach that question ; for the
Easterns did not disapprove of celibacy in itself con
sidered, but only as a general law imposed upon the
clergy. In this light celibacy certainly changed the gen
eral discipline of the primitive Church, and the Easterns
were right in attacking it on this ground.
Under John VIH the question of the Procession of
the Holy Ghost changed its character at Rome like that
of the elevation of Photius to the Patriarchal chair.
The addition of the Filioque made to the Nicene Creed
in the West was solemnly condemned in the sixth ses
sion of the council of 879. The legates of the Pope,
those of the Eastern Patriarchal sees, and all the bishops
concurred in that condemnation.
The Pope,* upon receiving the transactions, wrote to
Photius :*
" We know the unfavourable accounts that you have
heard concerning as and our Church ; I therefore wish
to explain myself to you even before you write to
me on the subject. Tou are not ignorant that your
envoy, in discussing the Creed with us, found that we
preserved it as we originally received it, without adding
to or taking any thing from it ; for we know what severe
punishment he would deserve who should dare to tam
per with it. To set you at ease, therefore, upon this
subject, which has been a cause of scandal to the Church,
we again declare to you that not only do we thus recite
it, but even condemn those who, in their folly, have had
the audacity to act otherwise from the beginning, as
violators of the divine word, and falsifiers of the doctrine
of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Fathers, who have
transmitted the Creed to us through the councils ; we
declare that their portion is that of Judas, because they
have acted like him, since, if it be not the body of Christ
itself which they put to death, it is, at all events, the
* Joann. viiL epist.

338 THE PAPACY.
faithful of God who are his members, whom they tear
by schism, giving them up, as well as themselves, to
eternal death, as also did that base Apostle. Never
theless, I think that your Holiness, so full of wisdom,
is aware of the difficulty of making our bishops share
this opinion, and of changing at once so important a
practice which has taken root for so many years. We
therefore believe it is best not to force any one to aban
don that addition to the Creed, but we must act with
moderation and prudence, little by little, exhorting them
to renounce that blasphemy. Thus, then, those who
accuse us of sharing this opinion do not speak the truth.
But those who say that there are persons left among us
who dare to recite the Creed in this manner, are not
very far from the truth. Your Holiness should not be
too much scandalized on our account, nor withdraw from
the healthy part of the body of our Church, but zealously
contribute by your gentleness and prudence to the con
version of such as have departed from the truth, so
that with us, you may deserve the promised reward.
Hail in the Lord, worthily venerated and catholic
brother !"
John VHI. spoke particularly of the addition ; but
the expressions he used prove that he condemned the
doctrine, as well, which that addition represented. The
word would have been no blasphemy if it had expressed
a truth. The Papacy was changeful, then, as to the
doctrine ; it hesitated under Leo HI. ; it approved the
new dogma under Nicholas I. ; it rejected it as blas
phemous under John VHI.*
After having ascertained this principal Roman inno-
• Several Western writers have endeavoured to disprove the authenticity of this
letter of John VIII. Their arguments cannot counterbalance this fact, that this let
ter was published from Western manuscripts. Had the Easterns invented it, as the
Romanists maintain without any proor, it would have come from the East to the
West, while it really went from the West to the East. This certain fact speaks louder
than all their dissertations, and answers every objection.

THE PAPACY.

339

vation, let us now continue our account of the Roman
enterprises against the East.
John VIII. being dead, Marin* was elected Bishop of
Rome. He had been one of the legates of Nicholas in
Bulgaria and at the council of 869. It could not, there
fore, be hoped that he would follow the course of his
immediate predecessor. It is thought that it was he
who carried to Constantinople the letters of John ap
proving the council of 879, except in those things
wherein the legates had exceeded their powers. This
exception was a mere formality ; for he had received the
acts ; knew perfectly what had happened ; very modestly
urged Photius not to take it amiss, that he had demand
ed a submission from him; and knew the Patriarch
had not been willing to make one, for this reason, that
only the guilty should beg pardon.f Marin could not
concur with the council of 879, without condemning
that of 869, of which he had been one of the presi
dents. He, therefore, refused, when he was at Constan
tinople, to condemn himself by condemning that council,
and the Emperor Basil detained him a prisoner one
month for this cause.
Raised to the Roman episcopate, (882,) Marin had
a grudge to satisfy. He hastened to condemn Pho
tius. But his pontificate was short, and in 884 he was
succeeded by Adrian HX, who also condemned the Pa
triarch of Constantinople. The Emperor Basil wrote
very energetic letters to this Pope, but they only arrived
at Rome after his death, and were delivered to his suc
cessor, Stephen V., (885,) who had been the intimate
friend and confidant of Marin, against whom the Empe
ror's letters were particularly directed. Stephen under
took his defence. We will quote some passages of his
letter, which are well worthy of notice.J " As God has
* Known also as Martin II. t Joann. vUL Eplst.
X Steph. V. Eplst, Labbe's Collection, vol lx.

340 THE PAPACY.
given you the sovereignty of temporal things, in like
manner we have received from him, through St. Peter,
Prince of the Apostles, the sovereignty of spiritual
things. To us is committed the care of the flock ;
this care is as much more excellent as the heavens are
above the earth. Hear what the Lord said to Peter,
Thou art Peter, etc. I therefore entreat your Piety to
honour the name and dignity of the Prince of the Apos
tles by conforming to his decrees ; for the episcopate in
all the churches on earth owes its. origin to St. Peter, by
whom we instruct all the faithful, teaching them whole
some and incorruptible doctrine."
Here is a clear enunciation of Papal sovereignty and
Papal infallibility of divine right. Stephen pretends
that the legates of Pope Sylvester, at the first Council
of Nicea, established this principle, " That the first
bishop could not be judged by any one." Such an as
sertion was worthy of the erudition of that age. As a
consequence of his doctrine of the episcopal character,
Stephen claims that Photius never was any thing but a
layman, since he did not derive his episcopate from
Rome. "Did not the Roman Church," he adds, " write to
you to hold a council at Constantinople ? I ask you, to
whom could it write ? To Photius, a layman ? If yx»u
had a Patriarch, our Church would often visit him by
letters. But, alas ! the glorious city of Constantinople
is without a pastor, and if the affection that we bear
toward you did not lead us to bear patiently the insult
to our Church, we should be obliged to pronounce
against the prevaricator, Photius, who has so basely
spoken against us, more severe penalties than our pre
decessors. We do not presume, in thus speaking, to
fail in the respect due to you ; we speak in our own de
fence and that of Pope Marin, who held the same senti
ments as Pope Nicholas."

THE PAPACY. 34 X
Thus Nicholas had bequeathed to Marin the senti
ments which the latter had bequeathed to Stephen. As
for the acts of John VIII., they were completely ignored.
Photius did not change as easily as the Popes, and he
followed the rules of ancient law with moderation and
intelligence. It appears from the letter of Stephen V. that the Pa
pacy was no longer so very defiant toward the emperors
of the East. The Roman empire of the West had crum
bled with Charlemagne. From its fragments had
sprung a thousand little independent states, for ever
quarreling among themselves. The feudal system was
organizing; The Papacy no longer saw a powerful
prince at hand to protect it. Rome itself was a prey
to the quarrels of several hostile parties. Meanwhile
the Mussulmans continued their conquests. Checked in
the East by the Emperor Basil, they were pouring in
upon the West, and Rome itself was threatened. John
VHI. knew that Rome could obtain better aid from the
Emperor of the East than from the divided princes of
the West. His successors, with less cleverness, implored
the same assistance without sacrificing any of their con
temptible personal grudges. It was only fair that they
should not succeed.
Had the Papacy been happily inspired, it might have
availed itself of its influence in the West to arouse the
Princes against the Mussulmans, and unite them with the
Emperor of the East in that great straggle. But Rome
preferred to indulge her antipathies against a Church
which set up the doctrine and laws of the primitive
Church in opposition to her usurpations. She aroused
the West as much against the Eastern Christians as
against the Mussulmans, and thus introduced a radical
fault in those great movements of nations known as the
Crusades. The conception of these .expeditions was
grand, and for the West it led to some useful results.

342 THE PAPACY.
We do not deny it ; but historical impartiality demands
that it should be confessed, at the same time, that the
Papacy, which set these expeditions on foot, failed to
give them the character of grandeur they would have
had, if, instead of circumscribing them to the West, it
had united in a fraternal embrace the Eastern Christians
with the Crusaders. Rome sacrificed all to her hatred of
the Eastern Church.
The Emperor Basil died shortly after receiving the
letter of Pope Stephen V. Leo, the Philosopher, son of
Basil, succeeded him upon the throne of the East. He
drove Photius from the see of Constantinople, to put
there his own brother Stephen. As a pretext for this
nsurpation, he sent two of his officers to the Church of
Saint Sophia, who ascended the pulpit and publicly
read off the crimes which it pleased the Emperor to
impute to Photius ; and the Patriarch was next accused
of having been concerned in a plot, the object of which
was to place one of his relatives on the throne. Not
a single proof of this charge could be adduced.
Then Leo had Bishop Stylien brought to court, who
waa a personal enemy of Photius, and the two composed
an infamous letter for the Pope (a.d. 886) in which they
collected all the accusations of the enemies of Photius —
accusations which had been declared to be calumnies by
John VEIL, and by a council of four hundred bishops.
This letter of Stylien is one of the principal documents
of which the Western writers have made use in their
accounts of what they call the schism of the East*
Its value may be estimated at a glance. Stylien's
letter only arrived at Rome after Stephen's death, (891.)
Formosus, his successor, replied that Photius had never
been any thing more than a layman; that the bishops
whom he had ordained were likewise nothing but lay-
• The Abbe Jager innocently says, " The letter of Stylien Is a historic monument
upon which we have frequently drawn." Hist, of Phot, book ix. p. 887, edit. 1854.

THE PAPACY. 343
men ; that he was therefore condemned without need of
any trial ; that the bishops, his adherents, should be treat
ed with mercy, but only as laymen.* The Pope who
wrote this answer was exhumed by Pope Stephen VL
His putrescent corpse was cited, judged, and condemned.
John IX. reversed this judgment of Stephen VI. These
facts and the atrocious immoralities of the Popes of that
period are covered by Romanists with a veil of complais
ance. They have anathemas only for a great Patriarch
who, by his virtues and ecclesiastical learning, deserves
to rank with the most illustrious bishops of the Church.
There is no doubt that Photius died the same year that
Formosus wrote his famous letter to Stylien against
him, that is, in 891. \
The Eastern Church holds Ignatius and Photius in
equal veneration. She has declared anathemas against
all that has been written against either of them. She is per
fectly wise in this decision. It was her will that these two
Patriarchs should be judged by themselves and by their
own writings, without reference to other writings dictat
ed by passion. Now, Ignatius wrote nothing against
Photius ; and the latter, in his numerous writings, never
attacked Ignatius. After the restoration of Ignatius,
and the reconciliation of Photius with the Emperor
Basil, they saw each other, forgave each other, and it
may be said that Ignatius died in the arms of Photius
according to what this latter Patriarch declared before
four hundred bishops in the council of 879.
It is therefore dishonest to appeal to the testimony of
a few enemies of Photius who were Greeks, on the
ground that they belonged to the Eastern Church. That
Church has disowned them, and has had the wisdom to
• See Labbe's Collection of Councils, vols. vHl. and Ix.
t M. Jager, who thinks himself a historian of some weight, says that Photius
died in 891 adding that thiB was several years after the letter of Pormosus. That
letter, however, as well as the pontificate of Pormosus only dates from the year 891,
Stephen V., his' predecessor, having died only the same year.

344 THE PAPACY.
warn her faithful that calumnies inspired by blind
hatred, whether they come from Greeks or Latins, are
alike to be condemned.*
Stylien, Bishop of Neo-Csesarea, and an enemy to Pho
tius, remained in correspondence with the Popes after
the death of that Patriarch. John IX. wrote to him in
the year 900,f to this effect, "It is our will that the
decrees of our predecessors (concerning the Patriarchs
of Constantinople) should remain inviolate ;" but this
Pope did not attempt to reconcile those of John Vni.
with those of Nicholas, both of whom were equally his
predecessors. Five years after, the court of Rome had
some relations with the East, to sanction an act of injustice.
The Emperor Leo VI. having married for the fourth time,
had thereby violated the discipline of the Eastern Church,
sanctioned even by civil laws. The Patriarch Nicholas
besought him to have the case examined by the five
Patriarchal churches. Leo feigned to consent, and wrote
to Sergius IH, Pope of Rome, to Michael, Pope of Alex
andria, | to Simeon, Patriarch of Antioch, and Elias,
Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Patriarchs sent legates.
The Emperor bribed them. The faithful bishops were
exiled. Nicholas was deposed, and Euthymius put in
his place; and, finally, a dispensation was granted to
the Emperor for his fourth marriage. Thus did Rome
* The Abbe Jager sees an astonishing contradiction in the conduct of the Greek
Church. (Hist, of Phot, book ix. p. 392). This is the fault of his eyes, which by
the effect of a singular mirage have made him see things quite different from what
they are in reality. A historian who starts with the principle of only listening to
the enemies of the person whose history he is about to write, must necessarily find
contradictions in those who have followed an opposite course. The question is,
whether in judging a man it is expedient to refer exclusively to his enemies. There
Is in the work of the Abbe Jager a contradiction much more astonishing than that
which he imputes to the Greek Church. It is (he Satanic character he ascribes to
Photius, side by side with that which shows forth from the letters he has quoted of
this great man. Mr. Jager did not perceive that Photius, by his letters, belies aU
these infamous accusations that he renewed against him.
t See Collection of Councils, by Father Labbe, vol. lx.
X The Patriarch of Alexandria took the title of Pope as well as the Bishop of Rome,
and still preserves If.

THE PAPACY. 345
sustain the unjust deposition of a Patriarch who was
guilty of nothing more than of maintaining the rules of
church discipline. For in all things she acted less in
accordance with justice than with her own interest. If
she had taken the part of Ignatius, it was because she
feared the opposition of Photius to her sovereignty. If
she so readily sacrificed Nicholas, it was in order to do
an act of authority in the East. Power was her sole
object. Pope Sergius could not indeed be fastidious
upon the subject of the illicit marriage of Leo, for he
was himself the lover of the infamous Marozia, and had
by this adulterous connection a son, who was a Pope like
himself* Such a Pope could not understand the deli
cacy of conscience of the Patriarch Nicholas. After the
death oi the Emperor Leo, Euthymius was driven away
and Nicholas reinstated. This Patriarch was even placed
at the head of the regency during the minority of the
young Emperor Constantine, surnamed Porphyrogenitus.
Reinstalled in his see, he wrote (a.d. 912) to Pope An
astasius HI., the successor of Sergius, to complain of the
conduct of his legates at Constantiople. " They seem," f
he wrote, " to have come from Rome for no other pur
pose than to declare war against us, but since they
claimed the primacy in the Church, they ought carefully
to have ascertained the whole affair, and written a report
of it, instead of consenting to the condemnation of those
who had incurred the displeasure of the Prince only for
their detestation of incontinency. It is not, indeed, to be
wondered at that two or three men should be taken by
surprise; but who could have supposed that Western
bishops would confirm that unjust sentence by their
votes without knowledge of the cause ? I learn that the
» Rome was then governed by three prostitutes, Theodora and her two daughters
Marosia and Theodora, who disposed of the Popedom In favour of their lovers and
adulterine children. ...
t NicoL Eplst. to the Collection of the Councils, vol lx. Appendix.

346 THE PAPACY.
pretext of dispensation is brought forward, as if by a
dispensation debauchery could be authorized and the
canons violated. Dispensation, if I am not mistaken, is
intended to imitate the mercy of God ; it extends its
hand to the sinner and lifts him up, but it does not per
mit him to remain in the sin into which he has fallen."
This perfectly just doctrine was not that of Rome.
At one time, under pretence of observing the canons,
she would throw an entire kingdom into confusion, as
under Nicholas I., in relation to the marriage of Hloter ;
then again she could give dispensation without difficulty
in equally important cases. This was because her study
was always to establish the principle of her absolute
power over laws as well as men. Her will was her law,
and the interest of her sovereignty her only rule.
The Patriarch Nicholas felt the consequences of the
palace intrigues ; he was banished and again reinstated.
Peace was finally reestablished in 920, by an imperial
decree which again recognized the discipline for which
Nicholas had suffered persecution. This Patriarch wrote
to Pope John X. to renew friendly relations between
the churches of Rome and Constantinople. But John
X. was more engrossed by his adulterous amours with
Theodora, Marozia's sister, than by the affairs of the
Church. For a century there was scarcely any intercourse
between the churches of Rome and Constantinople;
which did not tend to retlnite them in matters of doc
trine.* In 1 024 the Patriarch Eustathius attempted to
have himself recognized at Rome as the ecclesiastical
chief of the East, in the same way as the Pope was
chief of the West. His envoys were on the point of
succeeding — thanks to their money, of which the court
of Rome was very greedy ; but the intrigue transpired,
* Nat Alex, in Hist Eccl. Dissert. IV. Sajcul. lx. et x.

THE PAPACY. 347
and caused some agitation, principally in Italy. The
court of Rome did not dare to go further. This fact
proves, at least, that the Bishops of Rome and Constan
tinople were not at strife. Those of Rome were mostly
unworthy of their place; their political business and
the struggles which prevailed in most of the Western
churches were as much as they could attend to, and
they did not trouble themselves with the Eastern
churches, where their sovereignty was always opposed.
But the contest recommenced in 1053, when Leo IX.
was Bishop of Rome.
Having received letters of communion from Peter,
the new Patriarch of Antioch, Leo affected, in his an
swer, to tell him that he held the third rank in the Pa
triarchate, thus ignoring the Patriarch of Constanti
nople, notwithstanding the decrees of the oecumenical
councils, which had given him the second rank, the
third to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the fourth to
the Patriarch of Antioch. At that time Michael Ceru-
larius was Patriarch of Constantinople ; he had written
a letter to John, Bishop of Trani, against several disci
plinary or liturgical practices of the Latin Church.*
Cardinal Humbert having read this letter at the Bish
op's house, translated it into Latin and sent it to Pope
Leo IX. The Pope wrote to the Patriarch of Constan
tinople in unmeasured terms. The Patriarch then wrote
a second letter against the Latins, completing his accu
sations. The most serious one was that of adding the
Filioque to the Creed. Leo IX. should have calmly
answered these accusations ; proved that many of them
were unfounded ; and excused several Latin usages
upon the principle that discipline may vary in different
countries, provided the regulations of the Apostles and
of the oecumenical councils are kept inviolate ; confessed,
* This letter may be found in the Annals of Baronius. See Letters of Leo IX. In
the Collection of Councils. Nat. Alexand. Hist. Eccl. Synop. Sascul. xl. c. iv.

348 THE PAPACY.
in fine, that many of the accusations made by the Patri
arch were just, and undertaken the reform of .the West
ern Church. But Leo IX. only cared for the injury that
he thouglit was done to his pretensions as sovereign
head of the Church, and he wrote to Michael Cerularius
under the influence of that thought.*
After a long exordium upon the unity of the Church,
he claims that unity to be in the Roman Church, which
has received that high prerogative from God through
St. Peter. That Church having received as its founda
tion Jesus Christ through St. Peter, is the unshaken
rock against which the gates of hell shall never prevail.
There can, therefore, be no errour in the Roman Church,
and it is only through pride that the Eastern Church
makes those accusations. He attacks that Church on
account of the heresies that have sprung up in her
bosom ; but he does not observe that no church can
be made responsible for heresies she has condemned ;
whilst the Roman Church was herself accused of having
taught errour in lieu of sound doctrine. He ventures
to recall the opposition of the ancient Bishops of Rome
to the title of oecumenical, but does not remark that the
Popes had usurped the thing as well as the title, although
not officially introduced in all their acts ; he falsely main
tains that the first Council of Nicea declared that
no one could judge the Bishop of Rome, and that he
was the chief of all the churches. He cites an apocry
phal grant of Constantine to prove the sovereign power
of the Pope in a temporal as well as a spiritual point of
view. He thinks also that he has subdued the impudent
vanity of those who contested the rights of the Papacy.
He resorts to those texts of Scripture which at all times
have constituted the meagre arsenal of the Papacy. He
maintains that Constantinople owes to the Holy See the
* Leo IX Ep. In Labbe's Collection of Councils, vol. lx

THE PAPACY. 349
second rank that she occupies among the Patriarchal
Churches. As for the Roman Church, she has an excep
tional rank, and to attack her rights is to attack the
Church Universal, of which she is the divine centre.
Pride and jealousy alone could suggest such sacrilegious
intentions. Such is the substance of the first letter of Leo T7T. to
the Patriarch Michael Cerularius.
Politics envenomed these first discussions. The Nor
mans were attacking the empire. The Emperor Con
stantine Monomachus, too weak to resist all his enemies,
resolved to ask the aid of the Germans and Italians, and
to this end applied to the Pope, who had great influence
over those people. In order to conciliate the Pope he
wrote to him that he ardently desired to reestablish
friendly relations, so long interrupted, between the
churches of Rome and Constantinople. He persuaded
the Patriarch Michael lo write in the same strain to Leo
IX., who at once sent three legates to Constantinople
with a letter for the Emperor aud another for the Patri
arch, (1054.)
He begins by felicitating the Emperor upon the pious
desire he had communicated to him, but very soon
comes down to the rights of the Roman see. " The
Catholic Church," he says, " mother and immaculate
virgin, although destined to fill the whole world with
her members, has nevertheless but one head, which must
be venerated by all. Whoever dishonours that head
claims in vain to be one of her members." That head
of the Church is Rome, whose power the great Con
stantine recognized by his grant. Now, as Bishop of
Rome, he is the Vicar of God charged with the care of
all the churches. He therefore wishes to restore its
splendour to the Roman Episcopate, which for a long
time has been governed by mercenaries, he says, rather
than pastors. The Emperor of Constantinople can aid

350 THE PAPACY.
him in this work, by restoring the estates which the
Roman Church possessed in the East, and by checking
the enterprises of the Patriarch Michael, whom he
accuses of ambitious projects against the churches of
Alexandria and Antioch.
In his letter to Michael Cerularius, Leo IX. first ac
knowledges the receipt of the letters written to him by
that Patriarch in favour of a pacification. " We shall
have peace," he tells him, " if you will, in future, abstain
from overstepping the boundaries set up by the Fathers."
This is just what the Eastern Church said to the Papacy.
Leo then finds fault with Michael for his ambition, his
luxury, and his wealth. Did such blame fall with a good
grace from the mouth of a Pope ? He adds, " What a
detestable, lamentable, sacrilegious usurpation is yours,
when in speech and in writing you call yourself universal
Patriarch ! " Then he mentions the opposition of St.
Gregory to this title ; and this brings him to the pre
tended rights of the Church of Rome. " The Roman
Church," he says, " is not, as you allege, a local
church ; is she not the head and mother ? How could
she be this if she had neither members nor children ?
We proclaim this openly because we believe it firmly ;
the Roman Church is so little a local church, that in
all the world, no nation which presumes to disagree
with her can any longer be regarded as belonging to the
Church. It is thenceforth only a conventicle of heretics
— a synagogue of Satan ! Therefore let him who would
glory in the name of a Christian cease to curse and
attack the Roman Church ; for it is vain in him to pre
tend to honour the Father of the family if he dishonours
his spouse ! "
Is it surprising that the Eastern Church energetically
protested against this sacrilegious doctrine ?
Cardinal Humbert was chief of the legates of Leo
IX., who were bearers of these letters. The Emperor

THE PAPACY. 351
received them with distinction, and Humbert opened
the discussion at once, entering upon the defence of the
Latin Church, making sundry accusations against the
Greek Church, and showing that the Greek Church had
her own peculiar discipline and her own peculiar abuses
as well- as the Latin Church. His writings were trans
lated into Greek by the Emperor's order.
The Patriarch Michael refused to communicate with
the legates. Without doubt he knew that it was a fore
gone conclusion with the Emperor to sacrifice the Greek
Church to the Papacy in order to obtain some aid for his
throne. The letter he had received from the Pope had
enlightened him sufficiently as to what Rome meant by
union. The legates proceeded to the Church of Saint
Sophia at the hour when the clergy were preparing for
the mass. They loudly complained of the obstinacy of
the Patriarch, and placed upon the altar a sentence of
excommunication against him. They went out of the
church, shaking the dust from their feet and pronouncing
anathemas against all those who should not communicate
with the Latins. All this was done with the Emperor's
consent ; which explains why the Patriarch would have
no intercourse with the legates. The people, convinced
of the Emperor's connivance, revolted. In the moment
of danger Constantine made some concessions. The
legates protested that their sentence of excommunication
had not been read as it was written ; that the Patriarch
had the most cruel and perfidious designs against them.
However that may be, and had Michael even been guilty
of such wicked designs, this manner of acting was none the
more dignified or canonical. Michael has been further
accused of making groundless complaints against the
Latin Church. Several of these were, in fact, exag
gerated ; but it has not been sufficiently observed that
the Patriarch, in his letter, only echoed the sentiments of
all the Eastern churches. Ever since the Papacy had at-

352 THE PAPACY.
tempted to impose its autocracy upon them, there had
been a strong reaction in all these churches. On the
spur of this sentiment every thing had been sought out
that could be laid at the door of the Roman Church,
which by her bishops held herself out as the infallible
guardian of sound doctrine. Michael Cerularius was
only the interpreter of these complaints ; he would never
have had enough influence to impose his grievances, true
or pretended, upon the whole Christian East ; so that those
who call him the consummator of the schism commenced
under Photius, have but superficially understood the
facts. What made the strength of Photius against the
Papacy was, that all the churches of the East were with
him, in spite of political intrigues, imperial influence,
Papal violence, and the spite of relentless enemies.
Therein lay the strength of Michael Cerularius also-
This Patriarch possessed neither the learning, the genius,
nor the virtues of Photius ; but he spoke in the name of
the East, and the East recognized its own sense in his
protests against the innovations of Rome. The Em
peror, jealous of the influence he had acquired, banished
him, and was endeavouring to have him deposed by a
council, when he heard of his death, (1058.)
After the death of the Patriarch Michael intercourse
between Rome and Constantinople became even less
frequent than before. We hear of one legate sent in
1071, by Pope Alexander H, but rather for a political
object than from motives of religion. He thought that
the Eastern Emperors might be of great help in the
Crusades. Gregory VII., who soon after ascended the Papal
chair, (in 1073,) raised the Papacy to its greatest height,
by skilfully taking advantage of the divisions caused
by the feudal system, to extend the influence of the
Church, which he summed up in the Bishop of Rome.
But he did not use his influence to reconcile the

THE PAPACY. 353
West with the East ; and besides, the antagonism was
too great between the two churches, to allow the
diplomatic negotiations of the Popes with the Emperors
of the East to have any useful result. The Papacy
had spread throughout the West the idea that the
Greeks were schismatics and dangerous enemies to
the Church, while the Easterns regarded the people
of the West in the light of barbarians who were
Christians only in name and had tampered with the
faith and the holiest institutions of the Church. Hence
the distrust of the Crusaders on the part of the Greeks,
and the violence of the Crusaders against them.
We are not concerned with those expeditions in this
work. We will only notice this acknowledged fact,
that the Crusades only strengthened the antipathy
which had long existed between East and West, and
that if any attempt were made to reconcile them, it
was ever the emperors, acting from motives of policy
and interest, that took the lead. These emperors never
ceased to think of their Western possessions. They
watched the contests between several of the Popes
and the emperors of the West. These contests, as
animated as they were protractecVpaeere caused by
the Papacy, which, in virtue of its spiritual sover
eignty, pretended to overrule the temporal powers.
Alexis Comnenus endeavoured to turn them to account.
He sent (a.d. 1112) an embassy to Rome announcing
that he was inclined to proceed thither to receive
the imperial crown from the hands of the Pope. This
step did not lead to any thing more, but it proves that
the emperors of that period had a decided tendency
to conciliate Rome from motives of mere policy. Man
uel Comnenus (a.d. 1155) sought the alliance of the
Pope and of Frederic, Emperor of the West, against the
Normans who had wrested Sicily from the empire of
Constantinople. Upon that occasion Pope Adrian TV.

354 THE PAPACY.
sent legates to Manuel, with a letter for Basil, Arch
bishop of Thessalonica, in which he exhorted that
bishop to procure- the retlnion of the churches. *
Basil answered that there was no division between
the Greeks and Latins, since they held the same faith
and offered the same sacrifice. "As for the causes of
scandal, weak in themselves, that have separated us
from each other," he adds, "your Holiness can cause
them to cease, by your own extended authority and
the help of the Emperor of the West."
This reply was as skilful as it was wise. The
Papacy had innovated ; it enjoyed a very widespread
authority in the West. What was there to prevent
its use of that authority to reject its own innovations,
or those it had tolerated ? It was in the power of the
Church of Rome to bring about a perfect union be
tween the two churches. But the Papacy had no
such idea of union; no union could exist in its view
except upon the submission of the Eastern Church to
its authority. But the Eastern Church, while main
taining the ancient doctrine, was in an attitude of
continual protest against this usurped authority, and
was not disposed to submit to this unlawful yoke.
The emperors continued their politioal intrigues
while the Church was in this situation. They kept
on good terms with the Emperor of the West so
long as he was friendly with the Papacy; but as
soon as new struggles arose, they profited by them
to renew their applications to the Popes respecting the
imperial crown. Alexander HI. being at war with
Frederic, Manuel Comnenus sent him (a.d. 1166)
an embassy, to make known to the Pope his good in
tentions of reuniting the Greek and Latin churches, so
that Latins and Greeks should thenceforth make but one
• Adrian Iv. Ep. 7.

THE PAPACY. 355
people under one chief. He asked, therefore, the crown
of the whole Roman empire, promising Italy and other
material advantages to the Roman Church. The Pope
sent legates to Constantinople. Two years later (a.d.
1169) Manuel sent a new embassy to Alexander, offer
ing to reunite the Greek and Latin churches, if he
would grant him the crown he solicited. The Pope
refused, under pretext of the troubles that would follow
that grant. Notwithstanding this refusal the most
friendly relations existed between the Pope and Manuel,
at whose request a Cardinal sub-deacon, named John,
went to Constantinople to work for the union of the
churches. But Manuel's tendencies were not approved
of by the Greeks, who detested the Latins, not only for
religious reasons, but also from resentment for the vio
lence they had suffered from the Crusaders. And ac
cordingly, after Manuel's death, the Latins were mas
sacred without mercy at Constantinople, (a.d. 1182.)
Cardinal John was one of the victims. Andronicus, who
had instigated the massacre, was elected Emperor. He
died shortly after, and was succeeded by Isaac Angelus,
who was dethroned by his brother, Alexis Angelus.
Innocent HL was Bishop of Rome, (a.d. 1198.) Since
Gregory VTL no other Pope had had so much influence
in the West. Alexis Angelus hastened to follow the
policy of the Comneni : he sent ambassadors, with a
letter to the Pope from him, and another from the
Patriarch John Camaterus, in order to prove to him
that they desired to procure a union between the
churches. Innocent dispatched legates to Constanti
nople, bearing letters in which he exalted the Roman
Church beyond all measure. The Patriarch gave the
legates his answer, which began thus :
" To Innocent, very holy Roman Pope, and our he-
loved brother in the Lord Christ, John, by the Divine
Mercy, Archbishop of Constantinople, Patriarch of New-

356 THE PAPACY.
Rome, love and peace from our Lord and Saviour Jesns
Christ." Here is the substance of his letter :
" In reading the letter you have sent to our Humility,
we have approved of the zeal of your Holiness for our
mutual union in the faith. But I will not conceal from
you what has greatly embarrassed me in your letter. It
amazes me, in fact, that you call the Church of Rome
one and universal, since it is well established that the
Church is divided into particular churches, governed by
pastors, under one sole, supreme pastor, Jesus Christ
And what I do not further understand is, that you call
the Church of Rome the mother oi the other churches.
The mother of the churches is that of Jerusalem, which
surpasses them all in antiquity and dignity. I cannot,
therefore, plead guilty to the accusation, which your
Holiness makes against me, that I divide the single and
seamless coat of Christ. When, on one side, we behold
our own Church carefully preserving the ancient doctrine
of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and, on the other,
your Church fallen into errour on this point, we may
well ask you which of them has rent the coat of Christ ?
" I am not the less disposed, for all that, to second the
kind intentions of the Emperor for good."
The Emperor also answered the Pope, who replied in
two letters from which we will give some extracts. He
writes to the Patriarch : " The primacy of the Roman
see has been established, not by man, but by God, or
rather, by the Man-God ; this can be proved by number
less evangelic and apostolic evidences, confirmed by
canonical constitutions which attest that the most holy
Roman Church was consecrated in Saint Peter, the
prince of the Apostles, to be the mistress and mother of
all the others." Innocent cites many texts from Scrip
ture, interpreting them in his own way.* He wonders
• We have already determined their true sense in the first chapter of this work.

THE PAPACY. 357
that the Patriarch is ignorant of these interpretations ;
then he undertakes to answer the two questions which
he had put to him : " You ask me," he says, " how the
Roman Church is one and universal. The universal
Church is that which is composed of all the churches,
according to the force of the Greek word Catholic. In
this sense, the Roman Church is not universal, it is only
a part of the Universal Church ; but the first and the
principal part, like the head in a body. The Roman
Church is such because the fulness of power resides in
her, and that only a part of that fulness overflows to
the others. That one Church is therefore universal in
this sense, that all the others are under it. According
to the true sense of the word, the Roman Church only
is universal, because it is the only one that has been
raised above the others 
" You ask me how the Roman Church is the mother
of the churches ? She is so not according to time but
according to dignity. The Church of Jerusalem may
be regarded as the mother of the faith, because that
faith came first from her bosom ; the Church of Rome
is the mother of the faithful, because she has been
placed over them all by the privilege of her dignity."
Innocent then congratulates the Patriarch upon his de
sire for unity, and adds that he owes respect and obedi
ence to the Roman Church and to its bishop as to his
chief; that he will receive him upon condition that he
shall be subject as a member should be to the head, but
that if he refuse respect and obedience, he will proceed
against him and the Greek Church.
Innocent HI. liked to talk like a master. He ex
presses himself in the same manner in his reply to the
Emperor. He declares his willingness to call a council,
although the constitution of the Church is not synodal ;
that he will invite the Patriarch to it ; that if he will
there submit to the Roman Church, and render it the

358 THE PAPACY.
obedience which he owes to it, peace shall be made with
him. He begs the Emperor to see that the Patriarch
appears at the council thus disposed ; and concludes this
letter also with threats.
He did not carry them into execution, however ; for
he knew that to secure the success of the Crusade which
was then organizing, he must keep on good terms with
the Greek Emperor. He therefore wrote to the Crusa
ders who had just left Venice, and were on their way
to Constantinople, " Let none among you flatter him
self that he may be permitted to invade or pillage the
land of the Greeks, under pretext that it is not sufficiently
submissive to the Holy See, or that the Emperor is an
usurper, having wrested the empire from his brother.
What crimes he or his subjects may have committed, it
is not for you to judge ; and you have not taken the
Cross to avenge that injury."
The Crusaders knew perfectly well that their success
would insure their absolution. They had made a treaty
at Venice, with the young Alexis, son of Isaac and
nephew of the Emperor. This prince promised, that if
the Crusaders should give him back the throne his uncle
had usurped, he would subject the Greek Church to the
Papal sovereignty, and join the Crusaders against the
Mussulmans. Upon reaching Constantinople, the Crusaders showed
the young Alexis to the people, but soon perceived that
they would excite no sympathy in this manner. They
then determined to force him upon the city, which they
took by assault. They sent news of this to the Pope by
a letter in which they sought to excuse themselves for
having attacked the Greeks.* " The cruel usurper of
the empire (Alexis Angelus) had harangued the people
and had persuaded them that the Latins were coming to
* See ViUehardouln ; see It Godef. ad ann. 1303 ; Raynold. Annal. ; Innocent m.
Eplst.

THE PAPACY. 859
ruin their ancient liberty, and subjugate the empire to
their laws and to the authority of the Pope. This so
excited them against us and against the young Prince,
that they would not listen to us." They pretended to
have been first attacked by the Greeks ; they related
what the old Emperor Isaac, together with his son
Alexis, was doing for them, and took good care to add,
" He further promises to render you that obedience
which the Catholic emperors, his predecessors have
rendered to the Popes, and to do all in his power to
lead back the Greek Church to that obedience."
One of the chiefs of the Crusaders, the Count of St.
Paul, wrote, on his part, to the Duke of Louvain : " We
have so much advanced the cause of the Saviour that
the Eastern Church, of which Constantinople was for
merly the metropolis, being reunited to the Pope its head,
with the Emperor and all his empire, as it was formerly,
recognizes herself as the daughter of the Roman Church,
and will humbly obey her for the future. The Patriarch
himself is to go to Rome to receive his pallium, and has
promised the Emperor on his oath to do so. The young
Alexis wrote in the same strain to the Pope. " We
own," he said, " that the chief cause which has brought
the pilgrims to succor us is, that we have voluntarily
promised, and upon oath, tihat we would humbly recog
nize the Roman Pontiff as the Ecclesiastical head of all
Christendom, and as the successor of St. Peter, and that
we would use all our power to lead the Eastern Church to
that recognition, understanding well, that such reunion
will be very useful to tiie empire and most glorious for
us. We repeat to you the same promises by these pre
sents, and we ask your advice how to woo back the
Eastern Church."
It was, therefore, well understood that union meant
nothing but submission to the Roman see. The Crusad
ers and their proteges knew that only such promises

360 THE PAPACY.
could lead Innocent IH. to approve what he had at first
censored. The experiment succeeded. Innocent replies
to Alexis that he approves of his views as to the reunion
of the Eastern Church. If he will remain faithful to his
engagements, he promises him all manner of prosperity ;
if he should fail, he predicts that he will fall before his
enemies. Innocent then replied to the Crusaders. He feared
that they had only exacted from Alexis the promise to
subject the Eastern to the Roman Church, in order to
excuse their own fault. " We will judge by these re
sults," he said, " whether you have acted sincerely : if
the Emperor sends us letters-patent that we may pre
serve as authentic proof of his oath ; if the Patriarch
sends as a solemn deputation to recognize the primacy
of the Roman Church, and to promise obedience to us ;
and if he asks of us the pallium, without which lie
cannot legitimately exercise the Patriarchal functions."
Could the Eastern Church recognize such a doctrine
as being that of the first eight centuries ?
The Crusaders soon quarreled with Alexis, who, when
he was Emperor, at once forgot his promises. But
this young prince had alienated the Greeks by ascend
ing the throne by means of the Latins. He was de
throned, and Constantinople fell into the power of an
adventurer. The Crusaders decided that this man had
no right to the crown, and that the Greeks were to be
treated without much consideration, since they shad with
drawn from their obedience to the Pope. They, there
fore, took possession of the city, and placed one of their
number, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, on the throne.
Constantinople was sacked ; all its churches polluted,
pillaged, and laid waste.
The Latin Empire of Constantinople began in 1204
and ended in 1261. During that period of about half a
century, the hatred between the Greeks and Latins as-

THE PAPACY. 361
sumed fearful proportions. The Marquis of Monferrat
chief of the Crusaders, wrote to the Pope, that, if Con
stantinople had been taken, it was principally to do a
service to the holy see, and bring the Greeks back to the
obedience which was due to it. " After our miraculous
conquest," he adds, " we have done nothing except for
the sake of reuniting the Eastern Church to the holy see ;
and we await your counsel for that result."
In his reply, Innocent censures the excesses and sacri
leges of which the Crusaders had been guilty. " The
Greeks," he adds, " notwithstanding the bad treatment
they suffer from those who wish to force them to return
to the obedience of the Roman Church, cannot make up
their minds to do so, because they only see crimes and
works of darkness in the Latins, and they hate them
like dogs. . . . But the judgments of God," continues
the Pope, " are impenetrable, and hence we would not
judge lightly in this affair. It may be that the Greeks
have been justly punished for their sins, although you
acted unjustly in gratifying your own hatred against
them ; it is possible that God may justly reward you for
having been the instruments of His own vengeance."
It is evident that Innocent HI. was calm enough to
make subtle distinctions in the presence of a city of
bloodshed and ruins. The rest of his letter is worthy
of the foregoing: "Let us leave," he says, "these doubt
ful questions. This i3 certam, that you may keep and
defend the land which is conquered for you by the de
cision of God ; upon this condition, however, that you
will restore the possessions of the churches, and that
you always remain faithful to the holy see and to us."
The Papal sovereignty was the great and single aim.
Crimes became virtues, provided the authority of the
holy see was propagated and sustained.
Not content with approving the taking of Constan
tinople, Innocent undertook to establish firmly the new

362 THE PAPACY.
empire. He accordingly wrote to the bishops of France
a circular, of which this is the substance : " God, wish
ing to hallow His Church by the retlnion of the schis
matics, has transferred the empire of the proud, disobe
dient, and superstitious Greeks to the humble, pious,
catholic, and submissive Latins. The new Emperor,
Baldwin, invites all manner of people, clerical and lay,
noble and yillain, of all sexes and conditions, to come to
his empire to receive wealth according to their merit
and quality. The Pope, therefore, commands the bish
ops to persuade every one to come ; and he promises the
Indulgence of the Crusade to those who will go to up
hold the new empire."
Baldwin having begged the Pope to send him some
Latin ecclesiastics to strengthen the Papal Church in
the East, Innocent wrote a new circular to the bishops
of France. " Send," says he, " to that country all
the books you can spare, at least to have them copied,
that the Church of the East may agree with that of the
West in the praises of God !" Thus the venerable litur
gies of the East found no grace in the eyes of the Papa
cy. It was a new church it wished for in the new
Latin-Greek Empire.
Baldwin established a Latin clergy at Constantinople,
and named the canons, whom he installed at Saint So
phia. These elected the Venetian, Thomas Morosini, for
their Patriarch. Innocent found no irregularity except
in his elective character ; therefore, instead of confirm
ing the election, he directly appointed Thomas to the
Patriarchate. His letter deserves to be quoted : " As
for the personal character of the Patriarch elect, he is
sufficiently known to us and to our Brethren the Car
dinals, because of the long sojourn he has made with us.
We know he is of a noble race, and of proper life, pru
dent, circumspect, and sufficiently learned. But having
examined the election, we have not found it canonical,

THE PAPACY. 363
because, laymen having no right to dispose of ecclesias.
tical affairs, the Patriarch of Constantinople should not
have been elected by the authority of any secular prince.
Besides, the Venetian clergymen, who call themselves
canons of Saint Sophia, could not have the right of
election, not having been established in their Church
either by ourselves or our legates or deputies. For this
reason we have cancelled the election in full Consis
tory." Then the Pope declares that, wishing to provide for
that Church, the care of which is specially his, he ap
points the same Thomas Patriarch in virtue of the ful
ness of his power.
Nothing can be legitimate in the Church, except by
this full power ; such was the claim of the Papacy.
Innocent defended the ecclesiastical possessions, of
which a part had been appropriated by the Crusaders.
" It is not expedient," he said, " for the holy see to au
thorize this act. Moreover, since their treaty was made
with the Venetians— -for the honoun of the Roman
Church, as they say in nearly every article — we cannot
confirm an act which detracts from that honour."
Innocent conferred upon Thomas Morosini, who was
only a sub-deacon, the diaconate, the priesthood, and the
episcopacy ; then he published a bull, in which he thus
expresses "himself : "The prerogative of grace which
the holy see has given to the Byzantine Church proves
clearly the fulness of power that this see has received
from God, since the holy see has put that Church in
the rank of Patriarchal Churches. It has drawn it, as
it were, from the dust ; it has raised it to the point of
preferring it to those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeru
salem ; it has placed it next to the Roman Church, above
all others."
Innocent recognized the fact that the Church of Con
stantinople had the second rank in the Church. But he

0 C4 T-ffiff PAPACY.
ascribed this to the Roman see, although that see had
protested against the decrees of the cecumenical councils
of Constantinople and Chalcedon, which had given that
Church the second rank in spite of Rome. It was thus
that the Papacy in the middle ages distorted history to
find proofs in support of its pretensions.
The Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, John Cama-
terus, resigned and retired to Thrace. He was suc
ceeded by Michael Autorian, who crowned Theodore
Lascaris Emperor of the Greeks. They both fixed
their residence at Nicea in Bithynia.
The French and Venetians quarreled about the new
Latin Patriarch and the division of the ecclesiastical
property. Thomas applied to the Pope, who replied in
a long letter, from which we will quote an extract :
" Of the four beasts which are about the throne Ezekiel
put the eagle above the others, because, of the four Pa
triarchal Churches, represented by the four beasts,
which surround the holy see as its servants, the Church
of Constantinople has the preeminence."
Thus Rome was the throne. The imperial eagle, the
type of Constantinople, was to be the first of the sym
bolic beasts that adored it. Such was Innocent's modest
notion of his authority. He thus gives a divine origin
to the preeminence of Constantinople, because it had
come from the holy see— God's organ. After this pre
amble the Pope gives Thomas some instructions, among
which we will notice the following : " You ask me how
you should arrange the bishoprics in those countries
where there are only Greeks, and in those where they
are mixed with Latins. In the first you must consecrate
Greek bishops, if you find any, who will he faithful to
you, and are willing to receive consecration from you.
In mixed bishoprics you will ordain Latins, and give
them preference over the Greeks. ... If you can
not bring the Greeks to the Latin ritual, you must sui-

THE PAPACY. 365
fer them to keep their own until the holy see otherwise
orders." Such was the policy constantly followed by
the Papacy in respect to the united Greeks ; to tolerate
them until they could be made to submit.
From that epoch there were in the East, by Papal
authority, two Catholic churches opposed to each other.
Schism was thenceforth an accomplished fact, (1206.)
As the Bishop of Thessalonica justly wrote to Pope
Adrian IV., no schism really existed before that period.
There had merely been a protest of the Eastern Church
against the Roman innovations. This protest was an
terior to Michael Cerularius and even to Photius. It
took a more decided character under those Patriarchs,
because Rome innovated more and more, and wished to
impose her autocracy upon the whole Church ; but in
reality the schism had not taken shape. As Fleury
judiciously remarks, respecting the intercourse between
Manuel Comnenus and Alexander III., " It cannot be
said that in his day the schism of the Greeks had yet
taken shape."* This cursory remark of the learned his
torian, who cannot be suspected of partiality for the
Greek Church, has an importance which every one will
understand. It necessarily follows from it that neither
Photius nor Michael Cerularius created the schism.
Who then was its author ? It would be impossible to
point one out among the Greeks. To our minds it is
the Papacy, which, after having called forth the protests
of the Eastern Church, and strengthened them by its
own autocratic pretensions, was really the founder of
the schism. The true author of it is Pope Innocent HL
It had been commenced by the Latin Church of Jeru
salem ; it was consummated by that of Constantinople.
This is the testimony of authentic and impartial his
tory. The Papacy, after having established the schism,
strengthened it by establishing Latin bishoprics in cities
• Fleury Hist Eccl. liv. lxxill. ( 89.

366 THE PAPACY.
where Greek bishoprics had existed since the Apostolic
times. When the Latin bishops could not reside there,
Rome gave them titles in partibus infidelium, as if the
Apostolic Church of the East had none but infidels
among its members.
Innocent III. died in 1216. His successors continued
his work. But the Greek Emperors of Nicea, on the
verge of being overcome by the Latin Emperors of Con
stantinople, bethought themselves to resume the policy
of their predecessors toward the Papacy. At the en
treaty of the Emperor John Vataces, the Patriarch
Germanus wrote to Pope Gregory IX. (1232.) His
letter was filled with the best sentiments.* He first
calls upon Jesus Christ, the corner-stone which joins
all nations in one and the same Church ; he ac
knowledges the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and
declares that he has no desire to contest it ; and he
adds : " Let us seek, with all possible care, who have been
the authors of the division. If we ourselves, then point
out to us the wrong we have committed and apply the
remedy ; if the Latins, then we cannot believe that it is
your determination to remain outside of the Lord's her
itage, through ignorance or criminal obstinacy. All ac
knowledge that the division has sprung from different
beliefs, from abolishing canons and changing the ritual
that has come to us by tradition from our fathers.
Now all are witness that we ask supplicatingly to be
retinited in the truth, after a profound examination to be
made thereof, so that we may no longer hear from either
party the imputation of schism." After having drawn
the picture of the woes which that imputation of schism
had drawn upon them from the Crusaders, Germanus ex
claims, " Is it this that St. Peter teaches when he re
commends the pastors to govern their flocks without
* See this letter in Labbe's Collection of Councils, vol. xl. ; also In the Historian
Matthew Paris.

THE PAPACY. 367
violence or domination ? I know that each of us be
lieves himself right, and thinks that he is not mistaken.
Well then, let us appeal to Holy Scripture and the
Fathers." Germanus wrote in the same way to the Cardinals who
constituted the Pope's council. " Permit us," he writes
to them,* " to speak the truth ; division has come from
the tyrannical oppression that you exercise, and from the
exactions of the Roman Church, which is no mother,
but a step-mother, and tramples upon the other churches
just in proportion as they humiliate themselves before
her. We are scandalized to see you exclusively at
tached to the things of this world, on all sides heaping
up gold and silver, and making kingdoms pay you trib
ute." Germanus then demands a thorough examination of
the questions that divide the Church ; and to show the
importance of such an examination, he calls attention to
the fact that a large number of nations agree with him.
Gregory IX.* did not follow Germanus upon the
ground which this Patriarch had taken. He accuses
the Greek Church of too much submission to the tem
poral power, whereby it had lost its liberty; but he
does not say wherein the liberty of the Church lies.
For every Christian that liberty consists in the right to
preserve revealed doctrine and Apostolic laws in their
integrity. From this point of view has not the Eastern
Church been always more free than the Western?
Whether a Church sacrifice the truth to an Emperor or
to a Pope-King, it is equally servile in either case. Is
it not wonderful to hear the Papacy talk thus of liberty
to the Eastern Church while in the very act of attempt
ing her subjugation, and after it has enslaved the Church
of the West? Gregory IX., instead of accepting the
discussion proposed by Germanus, promised to send him
two Dominicans and two Franciscans to explain to him
* Greg. IX Ep. in Labbe's Collection of Councils, vol. xl.

368 THE PAPACY.
his intentions and those of the Cardinals. These monks
actually set out for Nicea in the following year, (a.d.
1233,) bearing a letter to the Patriarch Germanus, in
which the Pope compared the Greek schism to that of
Samaria. It will be granted that the comparison was
not very exact.
In fact, Rome was neither Jerusalem, nor the univer
sal temple, nor the guardian of the law. These titles ra
ther belonged to the Eastern Church than to the Roman,
which had altered dogmas and Apostolic laws, while the
other had piously preserved them. In the same letter
Gregory IX. claims, as head of the Church,, the twofold
power, spiritual and temporal ; he even maintains that
Jesus Christ gave that power to St. Peter when he said
to him, " Put up thy sword into the sheath." * This in
terpretation of the text is worthy of the opinion it was
cited to sustain. Gregory IX. concludes by attacking the
use of leavened bread for the Eucharist. " That bread,"
he said, " typifies the corruptible body of Jesus Christ,
while the unleavened bread represents his risen and glori
ous body." The four Western monks were received at
Nicea with great honours. They conferred with the
Greek clergy concerning the procession of the Holy
Ghost ; the report is still extant that was made in the
West.f In this report the monks claim to have had the
advantage, as may well be imagined ; but by their own
showing, they confounded substance with personality in
the Trinity — the essential procession, with the temporary
sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Church ; they mis
quoted Scripture and the Fathers ; they could give no
reason for the addition made to the creed ; and they
likened that addition, irregularly made, and involving
a new dogma, to the development that the oecumenical
Council of Constantinople had given to the creed of the
first cecumenical Council of Nicea.
• Gospel ace. to St. John 18 : 11. t Ap. Raynald. ad Ann. 1233.

THE PAPACY. 369
As for the Eucharist, the discussion concerning it
was quite insignificant. Before they retired, the monks
declared to the Emperor that, if the Greeks wished to
unite with the Roman Church, they must subscribe to her
doctrine and submit to the Pope's authority. It appears,
therefore, that they had not come to inquire what was
the true doctrine, and whether or not the Papal authority
was legitimate ; union to them, as to the Pope, meant
nothing but submission. The Patriarch Germanus did not
understand it so ; therefore he called a council to exam
ine the points of difference existing between the Greeks
and Latins. * That assembly was held at Nymphsum.
According to the account of the Nuncios themselves,
their only triumph was in asking the Greeks why they
no longer submitted to the Pope, after having formerly
recognized his authority ? If we may believe them, the
Greeks were very much embarrassed by this question,
and kept silence. Such a remark is sufficient to show
with how little honesty their account was composed.
Certainly the most ignorant of the Greeks knew that
the Papal authority had never been recognized in the
East. After long discussions upon the procession of the
Holy Spirit, and upon unleavened bread, the Emperor
summoned the Nuncios and said to them, " To arrive
at peace, each side must make concessions ; abandon
your addition to the creed, and we will approve of your
unleavened bread." The Nuncios refused. " How then
shall we conclude peace ?" asked the Emperor. " Thus,"
replied the Nuncios : " You shall believe and teach
that the Eucharist can be consecrated only in unleavened
bread ; you shall burn all the books in which a different
doctrine is taught ; you shall believe and teach that the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the
Father, and shall burn all the books that teach the con
trary. The Pope and the Roman Church will not abate
» Kaynald. ad Ann. 1233 ; Wading. Annal. Min. ad Ann. 1288.

370 THE PAPACY.
one iota of their belief ; the only concession that can
be made to you is, not to oblige you to chaunt the creed
with the Latin addition. Such was the substance of
the reply of the Nuncios. The Emperor was much an
noyed at it, and at the last session of the council
the two parties separated, mutually anathematizing each
other. No other result could have been anticipated.
About thirty years after this Council, (a.d. 1269,)
Michael Palseologus reentered Constantinople, and de
stroyed the Latin empire, which had only lasted fifty-
seven years. The Papacy now saw vanish its most
cherished hopes. Urban IV., the reigning Pope, wrote
to Louis IX., King of France, urging him to take up
the defence of the Latin Emperor, " expelled by the
schismatic Greeks, to the shame of the West." He en
deavoured to arouse the whole of Europe, and caused a
Crusade to be preached against Palseologus. The Empe
ror sought to move the Pope by embassies and presents,
and promises to work efficiently for the union of the
churches. This policy, first adopted by the Comneni,
and now resumed by Palseologus, resulted in two solemn
assemblies — the second Council of Lyons and that of
Florence, in which it was sought to fix upon a basis of
union. All endeavours to do this proved futile, because
the Papacy had no notion of having its supreme and
universal authority, nor its doctrines, called in question.
Clement IV. formally declared this in a proposal for union
which lie sent to Michael Palaeologus by four Francis
cans.* According to the same Pope, Michael was guilty
of the division existing between the churches, because if
he chose to use his power, he could force all the Greek
clergy to subscribe to the demands of the Pope. To
use that power, he said, in forcing the Greek clergy
was the only mode of securing his empire against the
* Raynald Annal. Eccl. -, Labbe's Collection of Councils, vol. ix. ; Wading. Annal.
Min. ; Pachymeros, Hist Orient, book v.

THE PAPACY.

371

enterprises of the Latins. Thus, according to Clement
IV., interest, brute force, and threats were the true
means of obtaining unity. Michael Palasologus was par
ticularly in danger of an invasion on the part of Charles,
King of Sicily. Remembering that Clement IV. had
written to him that the only mode of protecting him
self against the Latins was to unite the churches, he
wrote to Gregory X. to express to him his own good
intentions in this respect.
It is not our purpose to give a detailed account of the
relations between Gregory and Michael. We need only
say that the latter acted solely from political motives ;
that he abused his imperial power to persuade some of
the bishops to favour his projects ; that he persecuted
those who resisted him ; that some bishops, who were
traitors from interested motives, made all the conces
sions that the Pope demanded ; that their course was
disavowed by the rest, notwithstanding the dreadful
persecutions that this disavowal drew upon them ; in
fine, that reunion, instead of being established by
those intrigues and acts of violence, only became more
difficult than ever.
Such is, in substance, the history of what took
place at the second Council of Lyons (1274) in regard
to the reunion of the churches, and of what took place
in the Greek Church after the Council. It is all political,
and has no religious character. Gregory X. declared
peace at Lyons upon the basis laid down by Clement
IV. But this union was only made with Michael Palseo
logus and a few men without principles. The Church
of the East had no share in it. Rome herself was so
persuaded of this, that Martin IV. excommunicated
Michael Palseologus for having tricked the Pope under
pretext of retinion, (1281.) Andronicus, who succeeded
Michael, (1283,) renounced a policy in which there was
so little truth.

372 THE PAPACY.
But it was resumed by John Palseologus for the Coun
cil of Florence.
In the interval between these two assemblies of
Lyons and Florence, several parleys took place between
the Popes and the Emperors, but they resulted in noth
ing, because the Eastern Church, instead of drawing
nearer to the Church of Rome, was increasing the dis
tance between them in proportion as the Papacy became
more proud and exacting.
Still, John Palseologus succeeded, by using all his
authority, in persuading a few bishops to attend the
Council of Florence.
There were two distinct periods in that assembly —
that of the doctrinal expositions, and that of the conces
sions. By the doctrinal exposition it was made apparent that
the Eastern Church differed from the Roman upon many
fundamental points, and that she maintained her doc
trine against Papal innovations, because that doctrine
had been bequeathed to her by the Apostles and the
ancient Fathers.
The concessions were inconsistent with the doctrinal
exposition. Why ? Because the Pope and the Empe
ror of the East used all the resources of their despotic
power to overcome the resistance of the Greeks ; be
cause the Pope, in spite of his formal engagements, left
to perish with hunger those Greeks who did not yield
to his demands, while at the same time the Emperor of
the East rendered their return to their country an im
possibility ; because the Papacy was able to gain over
some ambitious men, whose treachery it rewarded with
a cardinal's hat and other honours. But the Papacy did
not succeed, for all that, in obtaining from the Council of
Florence any distinct recognition of its pretended sove
reignty. For that assembly, even while it proclaimed
that sovereignty of divine right, inserted in its decree

THE PAPACY. 373
one clause which annulled it, and declared it a sacri
legious usurpation.
In fact that sovereignty can only be an usurpation if
we seek to determine its character by a reference to the
oecumenical councils.
Thus was iniquity false to herself in that famous as
sembly, which was nothing more than a conspiracy
against sound doctrine, which, under the name of a union,
promulgated only a mendacious compromise, broken be
fore it was concluded ; the abettors of which were ana
thematized by the Eastern Church ; of which the Church
of the West, represented in a great majority by the
Council of Basle, condemned the principal author, Pope
Eugene, as a heretic, a schismatic, and a rebel to the
Church. Since the sad drama of Florence the Papacy has not
attempted to subjugate the Eastern Church. It has pre
ferred to endeavour to disorganize her, little by little, in
order gradually to attain to her enslavement. Its policy
has been to pay an outward respect to the Eastern ritual
and doctrine ; to profit by every circumstance, particularly
by all conflicts between nationalities, to insinuate itself
and lend its authority as a support and a safeguard to
national rights ; to be contented, at first, with a vague
and indeterminate recognition of that authority, and
then, by all manner of hypocrisy and deceit, to
strengthen that authority, in order to turn it afterward
against the doctrines and ritual for which at first it
feigned respect.
This explains the contradictory bulls iseued by the
Popes on the subject of the united of all churches. The
united Greeks of the East and of Russia, the united
Armenians, the united Bulgarians, the united Maronites,
etc., etc.
H as we hope, we should ever publish a special work
on the points of difference between the Eastern and

374 THE PAPACY.
Roman Churches, we shall exhibit in its details, and
with proper references to authorities, the policy of
the Papacy. We shall detect that policy at work in
the assemblies of Lyons and of Florence; in all the
relations between the Popes and the Emperors of Con
stantinople, since the establishment of the Latin king
doms of the East ; and in the contradictory bulls that have
emanated from Rome from that time to our own.
Oar object in the present work has been only to
prove :
First. That the Papacy, from and after the ninth
century, attempted to impose, in the name of God,
upon the universal Church, a yoke unknown to the
first eight centuries.
Secondly. That this ambition called forth a legitimate
opposition on the part of the Eastern Church.
Thirdly. That the Papacy was the first cause of the
division. Fourthly. That the Papacy strengthened and per
petuated this division by its innovations, and especially
by maintaining as a dogma the unlawful sovereignty that
it had assumed.
Fifthly. That by establishing a Papal Church in the
very bosom of the Catholic Church of the East, it made
a true schism of that division, by setting up one altar
against another altar, and an illegitimate episcopacy
against an Apostolic episcopacy.
We have proved all these points by unanswerable
facts. It is therefore with justice that we turn back
upon the Papacy itself that accusation of schism of
which it is so lavish toward those who refuse to recog
nize its autocracy, and who stand up in the name of God
and Catholic tradition against its usurpations and sacrile
gious enterprises.
We say now to every honest man : On the one side you
have heard Scripture interpreted according to the Catho-

THE PAPACY. 375
lie tradition ; you have heard the OEcumenical Councils
and the Fathers of the Church ; you have heard the Bish
ops of Rome of the first eight centuries. On the other side
you have heard the Popes subsequent to the eighth cen
tury. Can you say that the doctrines of the one and of
the other are identical ? Are you not compelled to ac
knowledge that there are concerning the Papacy two
contradictory doctrines: the divine doctrine, preserved
during eight centuries even in the bosom of the Roman
Church — a doctrine which condemns every idea of auto
cracy or sovereignty in the Church of Jesus Christ ; and
the Papal doctrine, which makes of that autocracy an
essential and fundamental dogma of the Church, a dogma
without which the Church cannot exist?
Which is the doctrine that every Christian must pre
fer? That of God, or that of the Pope ? That of the
Church, or that of the Court of Rome ?
You must choose between the two. Are you in favour
of the divine doctrine, preserved by the Church ? Then
you are a Catholic Christian. Are you in favour of the
doctrine of the Papacy ? Then you are a Papist, but
you are not a Catholic. This name only belongs to
those, who, in their faith, follow Catholic tradition.
That tradition contradicts the Papal system ; hence you
cannot be a Catholic and accept this system. It is
high time to cease playing upon words and to speak
distinctly ; be a Papist if you will, but do not then call
yourself a Catholic. Would you be a Catholic? Be
no longer a Papist. There is no possible compromise ;
for Catholic and Papist are words which mutually deny
each other.

IISTDEX.

Acacias, his contest with Rome, 198-197.
Adrian I., the first Pope, 358-262.
 The False Decretals, published during the reign of, 258, et seg.t note.
Adrian II. claims to be Autocrat of the Church, 807, 316.
Agapitus at Constantinople, 201.
Alcuin opposes the addition Filioque, 328, 829.
Ambrose of Milan, his doctrine unfavourable to the Papal authority, 171-174.
Appeals to Rome, nature of, 88, 84.
Athanasius of Alexandria, affair of, unfavourable to Papal authority, 121-123.
Augustine of Hippo, his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 87, 174-181.
Aurelian, Emperor, decision of, alleged In proof of Papal authority, 87, 88.
Authority, Papal, condemned by the Word of God, 32-51.
Avitus of Vienne, his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 80, 100.

Baptism of heretics, discussion upon the, 70.
Basil of Cassarea, his doctrine opposed to the Papacy, 170, 171.
 of Thessalonica, letter of, to the Pope upon the means of ending the division
between the churches, 854.
Bulgarians converted by PhotiuB, 802.
 Ignatius endeavours to preserve his jurisdiction over the, 814, et seq.
 Why they applied to Rome, 302, 808.
 Answer of Pope Nicholas to the, £03, et seq.
o
Centre of authority in the Church, 85.
Chief, Christ the, of the Church, 32, et seq. (See Head.)
Chrysostom, affair of John, unfavourable to the Papacy, 184-141.
 Doctrine of John, opposed to the Papacy, 156-166.
Clement of Rome, letter of, 58-56.
Council of Antioch, Canon of, explaining a text of St. Ireneeus, 69.
 of Constantinople deposes Ignatius and recognizes Photius, 286, 28T.
 falsely called by the Romans the eighth cecumenical, 808, et seq.
 acts of, not authentic, 312, note.
 opposed to the so-called eighth oecumenical, 318, et aeq.
 Acts of, authentic, 328, note.
 of Jerusalem, 41.

378 INDEX.
Council of Nicea, (first oecumenical,) contrary to Papal authority, 92-96.
 of Constantinople, (second oecumenical,) contrary to Papal authority, 96,
 of Ephesus, (third oecumenical,) contrary to Papal authority, 101.
 of Chalcedon, (fourth oecumenical,) contrary to Papal authority, 96-101.
 oecumenical, (fifth,) opposed to Papal authority, 203-20G.
 (sixth,) opposed to Papal authority, 246-250.
 (seventh,) opposed to Papal authority, 257, 262-2C4.
 of Sardica, opposed to Papal authority, 124-128.
 in Trullo, opposed to Papal authority, 251, 252.
Councils, the oecumenical, were neither convoked nor presided over, nor confirmed
by the Bishops of Rome, 102, 121, 205, 245, et seq., 262-264.
Crusades, the, ill-planned by the Papacy, 341.
Cyprian, controversy of, upon the baptism of heretics, 70-72.
 doctrine of, contrary to Papal authority, 67, 77-81, 91, 145, et seq.
Cyril of Alexandria, doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy, 169, 1T0.
Church of Africa, opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 177.

Decretals, (see False Decretals.)
Dispensation, what is a, according to the Church of Constantinople and according
to the court of Rome, 346.
Division, character of the, between the Eastern and Western Churches, 29, et seq.
Donatists, the affair of the, unfavourable to Papal authority, 128-134.
Dionysius of Alexandria, his doctrine concerning the Roman primacy, 71, 76.
 his alleged appeal to Rome, 85. E
Easter, discussion concerning, 56-61.
Empire, (Latin,) foundation of, at Constantinople, 360.
 Fall of, 870.
Epiphanius, hia doctrine contrary to the Papacy, 153, 154.
Eusebius of Caesarea, testimony of, against Papal authority, 144.
 upon the first oecumenical councils, 103.
— — — upon the discussion concerning the baptism of heretics, 70, 71.
 upon the discussion concerning Easter, 60, 61.
 upon the Letter of St. Clement of Rome, 53-55.
 upon the affair of Dionysius of Alexandria, 84
 upon the affair of Origen, 85.
Eustatbius, the Patriarch, his overtures to the court of Rome, "46.
Excommunications, nature of the, of the Bishops of Rome in the first centuries, 77.

False Decretals, the basis of the Papacy, 258, et seq., note.
Filioque, addltlonof, to the Creed, 826, et seq.
Firmilian, his doctrine concerning the Roman primacy, 72-76.
Florence, Council of, and the false union proclaimed there, 872, 873.
Frankic Bishops of the eighth century opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 265, 266,
271,804.
Fathers, doctrine of the, contrary to Papal authority, 88, note, 40, note, 141-143, 134,
185. (See their names.)

INDEX.

37»

a
Gelasius of Rome, erroneous doctrine of, 198-200.
Germanus, letter of the Patriarch, to Pope Gregory IX, 866,
 to the Cardinals, 367.
¦  ¦ assembles the Council of Nymphseum, 869.
Greeks, (united,) policy of Rome in respect to the, 864, 365, £78.
Gregory IX., his singular accusations against the Eastern Church, and his doctrine
concerning Papal prerogatives, 367.
Gregory X. and Michael Palseologus, 870, 371.
Gregory Nazianzen, text of, upon the Church of Constantinople, 69.
 doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy, 166, 167.
Gregory of Nyssa, doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy, 167-169.
Gregory of Syracuse and Ignatius of Constantinople, 272.
Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, opposed to Papal authority, 206-286.
H
Hilary of Poitiers, doctrine of, unfavourable to the Papacy, 151, 152.
Hlppolytus of Ostia, doctrine of, unfavourable to Papal authority, 78.
Honorius, Bishop of Rome, his heresy, 238.
 condemned after hia death by the sixth, oecumenical Council and by the
Bishop of Rome himself, 248-250.
Head, or caput, meaning of the word, 127.
 change in its meaning, and its official origin, 236, 287.

Iconoclasts, matter of the, a proof against Papal authority, 252.
Ignatius of Constantinople deposed, 272, 286, 287.
 his appeal to Rome, 287, 298.
 doubtful authenticity of his appeal papers, 298, note.
 reinstated by the Council of Constantinople, called by Romanists the eighth
oecumenical, 80S, et seq.
 his silence during that council, 812.
 threatened by Adrian II., 815.
 John VHI., 816.
 reconciled to Photius, 822.
Innocent III., Letters of Pope, to the Patriarchs and Eastern Emperors, and his doc
trine on the pretended rights of the Roman see, 355-357, 360-362. 864.
— excuses the crimes of the Crusaders because of their devotion to the see of
Rome, 861, 862.
 endeavours to establish firmly the Latin Empire of Constantinople, 361.
 the real author of the schism between the two Churches, 362.
 doctrine of, concerning the prerogatives of the see of Constantinople, 363, 864.
Irenaeus admonishes Pope Victor, 59.
 Text of, touching* the primacy of the Roman Church, 62-69.

Jager, (Abbe,) draws bis Information regarding Photius from Stylien, 842, note.
 calling himself the historian of Photius Ib guilty of an absurdity for the sake
of Insulting Photius, 901, note.

380 INDEX
Jager, (Abbe,) Indirectly acknowledges the changes which took place during the ninth
century in the authority of the Bishop of Rome, 801.
 errours of this pretended historian, 302, note, 805, note, 306, note, 808, note,
817, note, 820, note, 888, note, 843, note, 844, note.
John Camaterus, Patriarch, Letter of to Innocent III., 355.
John the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople, his title of cecumenical, 206-286.
John, (St,) text of, relative to St Peter, 45.
John VIII., threatens Ignatius with deposition, 816.
 <- claims the right to depose the Greek Bishops and clergy of Bulgaria, 816.
 his legates recognize Photius as legitimate Patriarch, 817.
 Letters of, modified, 320, et seq.
 Letter of, against the addition MUoque, 337.
Jerome, doctrine of, opposed to Papal authority, 185-189.
L
Lambs and sheep, 46, 47.
Latin Empire, foundation of, at Constantinople, 360.
 Fall of,.570.
Leo VI., Emperor, violates church discipline, 844.
 is condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople, 844, 845.
 absolved by the Court of Rome, 844, 845.
Leo L, Bishop of Rome, doctrine of, opposed to Papal authority, 97-102, 154-156.
Leo III., opposed to the addition Filioque, 829.
Leo IX, Pope, his relations with Constantinople, and his doctrine concerning her
rights, 347-852.
Luke, (St,) Texts of, relating to St Peter, 42-44
Lyons, Second Council of, and the pretended reunion of the Churches, 385.
M
Macarius, Monseigneur, his treatise upon the Procession of the Holy Spirit, 828-338,
notes.
Maimbourg, (Father,) a Jesuit, indirectly admits thb change that took place during
the ninth century In the authority of the Bishops of Rome, 282.
Matthew, (St,) Text of, "Thou art Peter? etc., 85-42.
Michael Cerularius. His protest against the Roman Innovations, 347-850.
- ¦— excommunicated by the legates of Leo IX, 851.
 general character of his protest, 852.
Monothelltes, matter of the, a proof against the Papal authority, 237-250.
MorosinJ., (Thomas,) first Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, 862, 863.
N
Negotiations between Rome and Constantinople, why they were useless, 853, 354
Nicholas, Patriarch, hia relations with the court of Rome, 844-346.
Nicholas L, Pope of Rome, 271.
 strengthens the new Institution of the Papacy, 281
 new doctrine contained in his letters, 283, et seq., 295, et seq., 300, et seq.,
304, et seq.
 declares against the council that deposed Ignatius, and recognised Photius,
298.
 autocratic pretensions of, 298, et seq.

INDEX. 381
Nicholas L deposes Photius, 298.
.  Is anathematised by the Council of Constantinople, 805, et seq.
 his reply to the Bulgarians, 803.
 applies to the Western Bishops to reply to the protest of Photius, 836.
Novatians, matter of the, unfavourable to Papal authority, 88-90.
Nymphssum, Council of, discussions between the Greeks and the Latins respecting
the addition Filioque, 368-870.

Object of this work, 29, et seq.
(Ecumenical, title of, 1206-286.
Optatus of Melevia, his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 183, 188.
Origen, his pretended appeal to Rome, 84-85.
 his doctrine opposed to the Papacy, 170.

PahEologus, (Michael,) his policy toward Home, 370, 371.
 (John,) his policy, 872.
Papal authority contrary to God's Word, 32-51.
Papacy, origin of the, 257.
 first pretensions to the, condemned, 69, 75, 77, 78, 81.
 opinions against the : (see Fathers.)
Ambrose of Milan, 171-174.
Augustine, (St.,) 87, 174-181.
Avitus of Vlenne, 80.
Basil of Caesarea, 170, 171.
Chrysostom, (St John,) 156-166.
Council of Nicea, 92-96.
 Constantinople, 96.
 Ephesus, 101.
 Chalcedon, 96-101.
 Fifth (Ecumenical, 203-206.
 Sixth " 246-250.
 Seventh " 257,262-264.
 Sardica, 124-128.
 in Trullo, 251, 252.

Cyprian, (St.,) 67, 77-81, 91, 145, et seq.
Cyril of Alexandria, 169, 170.
Dionysius of Alexandria, 71, 76.
Epiphanius, 153, 154.
Eusebius, 144.
Firmilian, 72-76.
Gregory Nazlanzen, 166, 167.
Gregory of Nyssa, 167-169.
Gregory the Great, 206-236.
Hilary of Poitiers, 151, 152.
Hlppolytus of Ostia, 78, note.
Jerome, 185-189.
Optatus, 182, 183.
Origen, 170.

382 INDEX.
Papacy, opinions against the, {continued.')
Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, 256, 257.
Tertullian, 67, 78, 80-83, 145.
Theodore Studites, 266, 267.
Paul of Samosata, affair of, 86, 87.
Paul, (St.,) doctrine of concerning the Church, 82, 83, 41.
Photius, his election and character, 278, 274, et seq,, 290.
 slandered by Stylien, according to the Emperor's order, 842.
 Biographers of, 273-276.
 first letter of, to Pope Nicholas, 276, et seq.
 second letter of, 287.
 injustice of the accusations brought against, 299, note.
 exiled by the Emperor Basil, 806.
 arbitrarily condemned, 808, et seq~
 reinstated by a legitimate council, 819.
 apology of, 820, et seq.
 reconciled with Ignatius, 322.
 protest of, against the Roman Innovations, 880, et seq.
 again arbitrarily deposed by the Pope, 389, et seq.
- ¦ exiled a second time, 342.
 death of, 848.
Peter, (St.,) doctrine of concerning the Church, 84
Policy of the Eastern Emperors toward the court of Rome, 853, 854, 866.
Polycrates, answer of, to Victor, 58.
Primacy of Peter according to Scripture, 47-51.
R
Rock, Jesus Christ the, of the Church, 85, et seq.
Rome and Constantinople, antagonism between, 190-208, 255, 324-325.
Rome, first attempts of the Bishops of, to increase their authority, 196, 198, 200, 240,
241, 255, 262, 268.
—  its rupture with the Empire of the East, 255.
 • radical change in the doctrine of, in the ninth century, concerning the author
ity of its bishop, 270.
 Council of, against Photius, 806, 807.
 innovations of, 325-827.
 variations of, relative to the addition Filioque, 88S.
 false policy of, 341. s
Sheep and lambs, 46, 47,
Summary of this work, and consequences which flow from it, 874, 875.
Sardica, Council of, opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 124, 128.
Stylien, an enemy and calumniator of Photius, 342, 844
T
Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, opposed to Papal authority, 256, 257.
Tertullian, doctrine of, opposed to Papal authority, 67, 78, 80-83, 145.
Theodore Studites, opposed to Papal authority, 266, 2C7.
Three Chapters, matter of the, a proof against Papal authority, 201-205.
u
Union, conditions of, according to the envoys of Gregory IX. to the Council of
Nymphseum, 869, 870.

INDEX 383
Union, the political, decreed at the second Council or Lyons, 871.
 second, decreed at Florence, 872.
Urban IV., (Pope,) causes a Crusade to be preached against the Greeks, 8T0.

Victor, Bishop of Rome, admonished by Polycrates of Ephesus, 58.
 by Irenssus of Lyons, 59, 60.
Vigilius, Bishop of Rome, falls Into -errour and submits to the sixth oecumenical
council, 202-205. W
West, the Popes contribute to the establishment of a new Roman empire In the,
265.