« PreviousContinue »
knowledge," says the latter to Parmenian, the Donatist, “that, in the city Rome, on Peter first hath an Episcopal See been conferred, in which Peter sat, the head of all the Apostles, ... in which one See unity might be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles should support their respective Sees; in order that he might be at once a schismatic and a sinner, who against that one See (singularem) placed a second. Therefore that one See (unicam), which is the first of the Church's prerogatives, Peter filled first; to whom succeeded Linus; to Linus, Clement; to Clement, &c., &c. . . to Damasus, Siricius, who at this day is associated with us, (socius,) together with whom the whole world is in accordance with us, in the one bond of communion, by the intercourse of letters of peace.”1
Another Pope: “Diligently and congruously do ye consult the arcana of the Apostolical dignity,” says St. Innocent to the Council of Milevis (A.D. 417), “the dignity of him on whom, beside those things which are without, falls the care of all the Churches; following the form of the ancient rule, which you know, as well as I, has been preserved always by the whole world.” Here the Pope appeals, as it were, to the Rule of Vincentius; while St. Augustine bears witness that he did not outstep his prerogative, for, giving an account of this and another letter, he says, “He [the Pope] answered us as to all these matters as it was religious and becoming in the Bishop of the Apostolic See."3
Another Pope: “We have especial anxiety about all persons,” says St. Celestine (A.D. 425), to the Illyrian Bishops, “on whom, in the holy Apostle Peter, Christ conferred the necessity of making all persons our concern, when He gave him the Keys of opening and shutting.” St. Prosper, his contemporary, confirms him, when he calls Rome “the seat of Peter, which, being made to the world the head
? ii. 3. ? Coustant, pp. 896, 1064. 3 Ep. 186, 2.
of pastoral honour, possesses by religion what it does not possess by arms;" and Vincent of Lerins, when he calls the Pope “the head of the whole world."1
Another Pope: “Blessed Peter," says St. Leo, (A.D. 440, &c.)“hath not deserted the helm of the Church which he had assumed. . . His power lives and his authority is pre-eminent in his See.” 2 “ That immoveableness, which, from the Rock Christ, he, when made a rock, received, has been communicated also to his heirs."3 And as St. Athanasius and the Eusebians, by their contemporary testimonies, confirm St. Julius; and St. Jerome, St. Basil, and Ambrosiaster, St. Damasus; and St. Optatus, St. Siricius; and St. Augustine, St. Innocent; and St. Prosper and Vincent, St. Celestine; so do St. Peter Chrysologus, and the Council of Chalcedon confirm St. Leo. “Blessed Peter," says Chrysologus, “who lives and presides in his own see, supplies truth of faith to those who seek it.” 4 And the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, addressing St. Leo respecting Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria : “He extends his madness even against him to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Saviour, that is, against thy Apostolical holiness.” 5 But the instance of St. Leo will occur again in a later Chapter.
The acts of the fourth century speak as strongly as its words. We may content ourselves here with Barrow's admissions :
“ The Pope's power,” he says, “was much amplified by the importunity of persons condemned or extruded from their places, whether upon just accounts, or wrongfully, and by faction ; for they, finding no other more hopeful place of refuge and redress, did often apply to him: for what will not men do, whither will not they go in straits ? Thus did Marcion go to Rome, and sue i De Ingrat. 2. Common. 41. ? Serm. De Natal. iii. 3. 3 Ibid. v. 4.
4 Ep. ad Eutych. fin. 5 Concil. Hard. t. ii. p. 656.
Apiarius, to Rome. And, stiality condemneneing
for admission to communion there. So Fortunatus and Felicissimus in St. Cyprian, being condemned in Afric, did fly to Rome for shelter; of which absurdity St. Cyprian doth so complain. So likewise Martianus and Basilides in St. Cyprian, being outed of their Sees for having lapsed from the Christian profession, did fly to Stephen for succour, to be restored. So Maximus, the Cynic, went to Rome, to get a confirmation of his election at Constantinople. So Marcellus, being rejected for heterodoxy, went thither to get attestation to his orthodoxy, of which St. Basil complaineth. So Apiarius, being condemned in Afric for his crimes, did appeal to Rome. And, on the other side, Athanasius being with great partiality condemned by the Synod of Tyre; Paulus and other bishops being extruded from their sees for orthodoxy; St. Chrysostom being condemned and expelled by Theophilus and his complices; Flavianus being deposed by Dioscorus and the Ephesine synod; Theodoret being condemned by the same, did cry out for help to Rome. Chelidonius, Bishop of Besançon, being deposed by Hilarius of Arles for crimes, did fly to Pope Leo.”
Again: “Our adversaries do oppose some instances of popes meddling in the constitution of bishops; as, Pope Leo I. saith, that Anatolius did 'by the favour of his assent obtain the bishopric of Constantinople. The same pope is alleged as having confirmed Maximus of Antioch. The same doth write to the Bishop of Thessalonica, his vicar, that he should confirm the elections of bishops by his authority. He also confirmed Donatus, an African bishop :-*We will that Donatus preside over the Lord's flock, upon condition that he remember to send us an account of his faith.' Pope Damasus did confirm the ordination of Peter Alexandrinus."
And again: “The Popes indeed in the fourth
century began to practise a fine trick, very serviceable to the enlargement of their power; which was to confer on certain bishops, as occasion served, or for continuance, the title of their vicar or lieutenant, thereby pretending to impart authority to them: whereby they were enabled for performance of divers things, which otherwise by their own episcopal or metropolitical power they could not perform. By which device they did engage such bishops to such a dependence on them, whereby they did promote the papal authority in provinces, to the oppression of the ancient rights and liberties of bishops and synods, doing what they pleased under pretence of this vast power communicated to them; and for fear of being displaced, or out of affection to their favourer, doing what might serve to advance the papacy. Thus did Pope Celestine constitute Cyril in his room. Pope Leo appointed Anatolius of Constantinople; Pope Felix, Acacius of Constantinople .... Pope Simplicius to Zeno, Bishop of Seville : “We thought it convenient that you should be held up by the vicariat authority of our see.' So did Siricius and his successors constitute the bishops of Thessalonica to be their vicars in the diocese of Illyricum, wherein being then a member of the western empire they had caught a special jurisdiction; to which Pope Leo did refer in those words, which sometimes are impertinently alleged with reference to all bishops, but concern only Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica: “We have entrusted thy charity to be in our stead; so that thou art called into part of the solicitude, not into plenitude of the authority.' So did Pope Zosimus bestow a like pretence of vicarious power upon the Bishop of Arles, which city was the seat of the temporal exarch in Gaul."1
More ample testimony for the Papal Supremacy is scarcely necessary than what is contained in
| Barrow on the Supremacy, ed. 1836, pp. 263, 331, 384.
these passages: the simple question is, whether the clear light of the fourth and fifth centuries may be fairly taken to illuminate the dim notices of the preceding
ceives occording to approve
PARALLEL INSTANCES. Bacon is celebrated for destroying the credit of a method of reasoning much resembling that which it has been the object of this Chapter to recommend. “He who is not practised in doubting," he says, “but forward in asserting and laying down such principles as he takes to be approved, granted, and manifest, and, according to the established truth thereof, receives or rejects everything, as squaring with or proving contrary to them, is only fitted to mix and confound things with words, reason with madness, and the world with fable and fiction, but not to interpret the works of nature.”1 But he was aiming at the application of these modes of reasoning to what should be strict investigation, and that in the province of physics; and this he might well censure, without attempting, what is impossible, to banish them from history, ethics, and religion. Physical facts are present; they are submitted to the senses, and the senses may be satisfactorily tested, corrected, and verified. To trust to anything but sense in a matter of sense is irrational; why are the senses given us but to supersede less certain, less immediate informants? We have recourse to reason or authority to determine facts, when the senses fail us; but with the senses we begin. We deduce, we form inductions, we abstract, we theorize from facts; we do not begin with surmise and conjecture, much less do we look to the tradition of past ages, or | Aphor. 5, vol. iv. p. xi. ed. 1815. ..