THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CLEARED FROM THE CHARGE OF SCHISM. (continued 2)

I may remark here, that St. Leo the Great does apply these passages both to St. Peter personally, as distinct from the other Apostles, and to the Roman Pontiffs, as his successors, distinct from all other Bishops. St. Augustin's different application is the more remarkable.

The strongest expressions respecting the power of the Roman see, which I have been able to find in the works of St. Augustin, are contained not in his proper works, but in two letters of Pope St. Innocent, written in answer to the synodical letters of the Council of Milevi,—"who thought fit likewise to communicate their judgment to the Pope St. Innocent in order to join the Apostolical authority to their own."^[42] Their own words are,—"What we have done, Sir and Brother, we have thought good to intimate to your holy charity, that the authority of the Apostolical See may also be added to what we, in our mediocrity, have ordered, to protect the salvation of many, and also to correct the perversity of some."^[43] They were writing concerning a point nearly touching the common faith, i.e., in condemnation of Pelagius. The Pope in his answer, praises them, that—"Guarding, according to the duty of priests, the institutions of the Fathers, ye resolve that those regulations should not be trodden under foot, which they with no human but Divine voice decreed: viz., that whatever was being carried on, although in the most distant and remote provinces, should not be terminated before it was brought to the knowledge of this see: by the full authority of which the just sentence should be confirmed, and that thence all other churches might derive what they should order; whom they should absolve; whom, as being bemired with ineffaceable pollution, the stream, that is worthy only of pure bodies, should avoid; so that as from their parent source all waters should flow, and through the different regions of the whole world the pure streams of the fountain well forth uncorrupted."^[44] And in like manner to the Bishops of Numidia, at the same Council. "Ye do, therefore, diligently and becomingly consult the secrets of the Apostolical honour, (that honour, I mean, on which beside those things that are without, the care of all the Churches awaits,) as to what judgment is to be passed on doubtful matters, following in sooth the direction of the ancient rule, which you know, as well as I, has ever been observed in the whole world. But this I pass by, for I am sure your prudence is aware of it: for how could you by your actions have confirmed this, save as knowing that throughout all provinces answers are ever emanating as from the Apostolic fountain to inquirers? Especially, so often as a matter of faith is under inquiry, I conceive that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to refer, save to Peter, that is, the source of their own name and honour, just as your affection hath now referred, for what may benefit all Churches in common, throughout the whole world. For the inventors of evils must necessarily become more cautious, when they see that at the reference of a double synod they have been severed from ecclesiastical communion by our sentence."^[45]

There is certainly an indefiniteness about these expressions, which may be made to embrace anything; but they do not fairly mean more than that supervision of the faith which belonged to the office of the first of the Patriarchs. Moreover, they come from a Pope; in St. Augustin's mouth, they would have much more force. They show us, besides, what a tendency there was in the power of the Patriarch continually to increase, as being the centre of appeal to so many, not only Bishops, but Metropolitans. Nay, at this very time, within less than a century, a rival power had grown up in the East, in the See of Constantinople, which, from a simple bishopric, under the Exarch of Heraclea, threatened to push aside the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch; and, by virtue of the Imperial residence at, or near Constantinople, to exercise as great an influence through the whole East, as Rome did in the West. If this happened where there was no Apostolic See to build upon, but simply the privileges of the royal city, how much more in the case of Rome, which stood alone in the West the single object of common reverence; "since it is well known," says this same Pope Innocent, "that there were no churches founded by any one, either in Italy, the Gauls, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or in the adjacent islands, unless by those whom the Apostle St. Peter, or his successors, had appointed Bishops."^[46] So that the Pope, on the Patriarchal theory, was the common father of the whole West.

In the latter years of St. Augustin's life, the important question of appeals from African Bishops to Rome was settled. Apiarius, a priest, had been excommunicated by his Bishop, and appealed to the Pope. The Bishops of Africa would not agree to the Pope's claim, that the causes of clergy, condemned by their own Bishop, should be brought before the neighbouring Bishops; nor that Bishops should appeal to Rome. The Pope alleged the Canons of Nicea, (not, be it observed, an inherent power in his see to judge Bishops;) the Bishops of Africa said they could not find those Canons in the copies which they had. They agreed, however, to be thus treated, provisionally, for a short time, till they were better informed of the decrees of Nicea. It turned out that, by the Canons of Nicea, the Pope meant those of Sardica, to which the African Bishops refused obedience. The end of this was, that Pope St. Cœlestine restored Apiarius to communion, and sent him back to Africa, with Faustinus, his Legate. "At his arrival, the Bishops of Africa assembled a Council, in which Aurelius, of Carthage, and Valentine, Primate of Numidia, presided. Thirteen more are named, but the name of St. Augustin does not appear among them. This Council having examined the affair of Apiarius, found him charged with so many crimes, that it was impossible for Faustinus to defend him, though he acted the part rather of an advocate than of a judge, and violated all right in the opposition he maintained against the whole Council, under pretence of supporting the privileges of the Church of Rome. For he wanted Apiarius to be received to the communion of the Bishops of Africa, because the Pope had restored him to it, believing that he had appealed, though he could not prove even the fact of his appeal. After a debate of three days, Apiarius at last, stung with remorse, and moved by God, confessed, on a sudden, all the crimes of which he had been accused, which were so infamous and incredible as to draw groans from the whole Council; after which he was for ever deprived of all ecclesiastical administration.

"The Bishops wrote a synodical letter to Pope Cœlestine, in which they conjure him, for the future, not to receive to his communion those who have been excommunicated by them; since this was a point ruled by the Nicene Council. For, they added, if this be forbidden with respect to the minor Clergy, or Laymen, how much more did the Council intend its observance in respect to Bishops? Those, therefore, who are interdicted from communion in their own provinces, ought not to be restored by your Holiness too hastily, and in opposition to the rules; and you ought to reject the Priests, and other Clergy, who are so rash as to have recourse to you. For no ordinance of our fathers has deprived the Church of Africa of this authority, and the decrees of the Nicene Council have subjected the Bishops themselves to their respective Metropolitans. They have ordained with great wisdom and justice, that all matters should be terminated in the places when they arise; and did not think that the grace of the Holy Ghost would be wanting in any province to bestow on its Bishops the knowledge and strength necessary for their decisions; especially, since whosoever thinks himself wronged, may appeal to the Council of his province, or even to a General Council, unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of assembled Bishops. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send thither the necessary witnesses, whether from the weakness of sex, or of advanced age, or any other impediment? For that your Holiness should send any one on your part we can find ordained by no Council."

"With regard to what you have sent us by our brother, Faustinus, as being contained in the Nicene Council, we find nothing of the kind in the more authentic copies of that Council, which we have received from our brother, the Bishop of Alexandria, and the venerable Atticus, of Constantinople, and which we formerly sent to Boniface, your predecessor, of happy memory. For the rest, whoever desires you to delegate any of your clergy to execute your orders, we beseech you not to comply, lest it seem that we are introducing the pride of secular dominion into the Church of Christ, which ought to exhibit to all men an example of simplicity and humility. For as to our brother Faustinus, since the wretched Apiarius is cut off from the Church, we depend confidently on your goodness, that, without violating brotherly charity, Africa shall be no longer forced to endure him. Such is the letter of the Council of Africa to Pope St. Cœlestine."^[47]

I confess it was not without astonishment that I first read this passage of history; so exactly had the African Bishops, in 426, when the greatest father of the Church was one of them, anticipated and pleaded the cause of the English Church, in 1534. It is precisely the same claim made in both instances, viz. that these two laws should be observed, on which the stability of the government of the whole Church Catholic rests; as Thomassin remarks:—first, that the action of the Bishop in his own diocese, in matters proper to that diocese, should not be interfered with; secondly, that the action of the Metropolitan with his Suffragans, in matters belonging to his province, should be left equally free. Who ever accused the African Bishops, and St. Augustin, of schism, for maintaining a right which had come down to them from all antiquity, was possessed and acted on all over the Church, was specifically enacted at the greatest Ecumenical Council, and recognised in every provincial Council held up to that time? This was all that the Church of England claimed; she based her claim on the unvarying practice of the whole Church during, at least, the first six centuries. We repeat, it is not a case of doubt, of conflicting testimony, in words elsewhere quoted, "of Popes against Popes, Councils against Councils, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves; a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age."^[48] It is the Church of the Martyrs, the Church of the Fathers, of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustin, and Gregory the Great, bearing one unbiassed indisputable witness, attested in a hundred Councils, denied in none, for the Patriarchal system, and against a power assumed by one Bishop, though the greatest, most venerable, and most illustrious in his own see, to interfere, dispense with, suspend, or abrogate, the authority of the Bishop in his Diocese, and of the Metropolitan in his Council; to exercise singly, by himself, powers which belong only to an Ecumenical Council, and to annul the enactments of at least the first four Ecumenical Councils. Had an advocate been instructed to draw out the abstract case of the English Church, he could not have described it more exactly than the African Bishops in stating their own. True, indeed, it is, that the African Bishops were maintaining a right which not only had never been interrupted, but was universal; while the English Bishops resumed a power which had been surrendered, not only by them, but by all the west of Europe, for many hundred years. Accordingly, the African Bishops did not suffer even a temporary suspension of communion with Rome, for having both condemned afresh Apiarius, whom the Pope had restored, and explicitly refused permission to the Pope to interfere in the ordinary government of their dioceses; while the English Church has ever since been accused of schism by the rest of the Latin communion. This decision of the African Bishops, in the year 426, is a proof that the Canon of the Council of Sardica, conferring, in certain cases, the power of ordering a cause to be reheard on the Pope, and the most favourable to his authority of any Canon of an ancient Council, was yet not received even throughout all the West.

In the year 402, St. Augustin wrote a letter to the Catholics, commonly called his treatise "on the Unity of the Church." The bearing of this book on the controversy respecting schism between ourselves and the Roman Catholics is very remarkable. The Saint refers triumphantly to most express passages from the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, our Lord's own teaching, and that of His Apostles, bearing witness to the catholicity of the Church, an "Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe diffusa." He challenges his adversaries, the Donatists, to produce a single passage, which either restricted the Church to the confines of Africa, or declared that it would perish from the rest of the world, and be restored out of Africa. His test seems decisive against the Donatists, and against all those who in after times have restricted the Church to one province, or have declared the Roman Church to be so corrupt that it is not a part of the true Church. For if it be not, then the promises of Christ have failed. But while it annihilates the position of the Donatists, and of the Puritan or Evangelical faction in these present times, it leaves unassailed that of Andrewes and Ken. St. Augustin every where appeals to the Church spread throughout the whole world, as being, by virtue of that fact, the one communion in which alone there was salvation, and this upon the testimony of the Holy Scriptures only. "To salvation itself, and eternal life, no one arrives, save he who has Christ for his head. But no one can have Christ for his head, except he be in His Body, which is the Church, which like the Head itself we ought to recognise in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, nor to seek after it in the various reports, opinions, doings, sayings, and sights of men."^[49] But in the whole book there is not one word about the Roman see, or the necessity of communion with it, save as it forms part of the one universal Church. It is not named by itself any more than Alexandria, or Antioch. Any one will see the force of this fact who has but looked into the writings of late Roman Catholic authors. He will see how unwearied they are in setting forth the necessity of the action of the Roman see; how they consider it, and rightly, the centre of their system; how they are ever crying, "Without the sovereign pontiff there is no true Christianity."—De Maistre. The contrast in St. Augustin is the more remarkable. The creed of the Council of Trent says, "I acknowledge one holy, catholic, and apostolic Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all Churches: and I promise and vow true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ." This is distinct and unambiguous: just as much so is St. Augustin's "orbis terrarum." "For this the whole world says to them (the Donatists,) an argument most briefly stated, but most powerful by its truth. The case is, the African Bishops had a contest between themselves; if they could not arrange between themselves the dissension which had arisen, so that the wrong side should either be reduced to concord, or deprived, and they who had the good cause remain in the communion of the whole world through the bond of unity, there was certainly this resource left, that the Bishops beyond the sea, where the largest part of the Catholic Church is spread, should judge concerning the dissensions of their African colleagues,"^[50] &c. No doubt the Bishop of Rome was one, and the most eminent of these Bishops beyond the sea; but St. Augustin refers the decision of the Donatist controversy not to him specially, but to the Bishops generally. This is the very principle, for which the Eastern Church for a thousand years, and the English Church for three hundred, have contended against the Church of Rome. I know not whether what St. Augustin says or what he does not say is strongest against the present Roman claim; but I think his silence in his book "De Unitate Ecclesiæ" absolutely convincing to any candid mind. Let us hold for an infallible truth his dogma, "Securus judicat orbis terrarum;" but the Latin communion is not the "orbis terrarum." In truth, the papal supremacy at once cut the Church in half; the West, where the Pope's was the only apostolical see, unanimously held with him; the East, with its four patriarchs, as unanimously refused his claim, as a new thing which they had never received. Even De Maistre observes, (Liv. 4. ch. 4,) "It is very essential to observe that never was there a question about dogmas between us at the beginning of the great and fatal division."

Again, St. Augustin has five sermons on the day of the Apostles Peter and Paul; he enlarges, as we might expect, on their labours and martyrdom; on the wonderful change of life which grace produced in them, the one thrice denying, and then thrice loving; the other, a blasphemer and persecutor, and then in labours more abundant than all. He speaks of their being joined in their death, the first apostle and the last, in the service and witness of Him, who is the First and the Last; of their bodies, with those of other martyrs, lying at Rome. But not one allusion is there in all these to the Roman Pontiff; not a word as to his being the heir of a power not committed to the other Apostles. On the contrary, on the very occasion of St. Peter's festival, he does say, "What was commended to Peter,—what was enjoined to Peter, not Peter alone, but also the other Apostles heard, held, preserved, and most of all the partner of his death and of his day, the Apostle Paul. They heard that, and transmitted it for our hearing: we feed you, we are fed together with you." "Therefore hath the Lord commended his sheep to us, because he commended them to Peter."^[51] Thus Peter's commission is viewed not as excluding, but including that of all the rest; not as distinguished from, but typical of, theirs. Yet at this very time Roman Catholics would have us believe that the successor of Peter communicated to all Bishops their power to feed the Lord's flock; and that such a wonderful power and commission is passed sub silentio by the Fathers.

The very same principles which the Great Voice of the Western Church proclaims in Africa, St. Vincent of Lerins repeats from Gaul. Take the summary of his famous Commonitorium by Alban Butler. "He layeth down this rule, or fundamental principle, in which he found, by a diligent inquiry, all Catholic pastors and the ancient Fathers to agree, that such doctrine is truly catholic as hath been believed in all places, at all times, and by all the faithful. By this test of universality, antiquity, and consent, he saith all controverted points in belief must be tried. He sheweth, that whilst Novatian, Photinus, Sabellius, Donatus, Arius, Eunomius, Jovinian, Pelagius, Cœlestius, and Nestorius expound the Divine oracles different ways, to avoid the perplexity of errors we must interpret the Holy Scriptures by the tradition of the Catholic Church, as the clue to conduct us in the truth. For this tradition, derived from the Apostles, manifesteth the true meaning of the Holy Scripture, and all novelty in faith is a certain mark of heresy; and in religion nothing is more to be dreaded than itching ears after new teachers. He saith, 'They who have made bold with one article of faith, will proceed on to others; and what will be the consequence of this reforming of religion, but only that these refiners will never have done, till they have reformed it quite away?' He elegantly expatiates on the Divine charge given to the Church, to maintain inviolable the sacred depositum of faith. He takes notice that heretics quote the Sacred Writings at every word, and that in the works of Paulus Samosatenus, Priscillian, Eunomius, Jovinian, and other like pests of Christendom, almost every page is painted and laid on thick with Scripture texts, which Tertullian also remarks. But in this, saith St. Vincent, heretics are like those poisoners or quacks, who put off their destructive potions under inscriptions of good drugs, and under the title of infallible cures. They imitate the father of lies, who quoted Scripture against the Son of God, when he tempted Him. The Saint adds, that if a doubt arise in interpreting the meaning of the Scriptures in any point of faith, we must summon in the holy Fathers, who have lived and died in the faith and communion of the Catholic Church, and by this test we shall prove the false doctrine to be novel. For that only must we look upon as indubitably certain and unalterable, which all, or the major part of these Fathers have delivered, like the harmonious consent of a general council. But if any one among them, be he ever so holy, ever so learned, holds any thing besides, or in opposition to the rest, that is to be placed in the rank of singular and private opinions, and never to be looked upon as the public, general, authoritative doctrine of the Church. After a point has been decided in a general council, the definition is irrefragable. These general principles, by which all heresies are easily confounded, St. Vincent explains with equal elegance and perspicuity." "The same rules are laid down by Tertullian in his book of Prescriptions, by St. Irenæus, and other Fathers."—Lives of the Saints, May. 24.

But not a word is there here of the authority of the See of Rome deciding of itself what is, and what is not, error; or of its Communion of itself being a touchstone of what is, and what is not, the Catholic Church. These are necessary parts of the Papal Supremacy; instead of which St. Vincent holds universal consent.

Now let us hear Bossuet speaking of St. Vincent's rule. "These things then are understood not by this or by that Doctor, but by all Catholics with one voice, that the authority of the Church Catholic agreeing is most certain, irrefragable, and perspicuous. Christians must rest on that agreement, as a most firm and divine foundation; from whom nothing else is required but that in the Apostles' Creed, that believing in the Holy Spirit they also believe the holy Catholic Church; and claim for her the most certain authority and judgment of the Holy Spirit, by which they are led captive to obedience. Which entirely proves that this indefectible power both lies and is believed to lie in consent itself; and this clear and manifest voice dwells altogether in the agreement of the Churches; in which we see clearly, on the testimony of the same Vincent of Lerins, that not a part of the Church, but universality itself, is heard: For we follow," saith he, "the whole in this way, if we confess that to be the one true faith which the whole Church throughout the world confesses." And a little after, "What doth the Catholic Christian, if any part hath cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to that pestilent and corrupted member?^[52]

"Thence floweth unto General Councils that certain and invincible authority which we recognise in them. For it is on no other principle that Unity and Consent have force in Councils, or in the assembled Church, than because they have equal force in the Church spread through the whole world. For the Council itself hath force, because it represents the whole Church; nor is the Church assembled in order that Unity and Consent may have force, but it is therefore assembled, that the Unity which in itself has force in the Church, everywhere spread abroad, may be more clearly demonstrated in the same Church assembled, by Bishops, the Doctors of the Churches, as being the proper witnesses thereunto.

"Hence, therefore, is perceived a double method of recognising Catholic truth; the first, from the consent of the Church everywhere spread abroad; the second, from the consent of the Church united in Ecumenical or General Councils; both which methods I must set forth in detail, to show more clearly that this infallible and irresistible authority resides in the whole body of the Church."

He then proceeds to show that the type or form of all Ecumenical Councils was taken from the first Council held at Jerusalem by the Apostles. He notes these particulars: First, there was a great dissension, the cause of it: then, that the chief Church, in which Peter sat, was then at Jerusalem; whence it became a maxim, that Councils should not be regularly held without Peter and his Successors and the First Church in which he sits. Thirdly, it was as universal as could be. Fourthly, all were assembled together. Fifthly, the question was stated, next deliberated on, lastly decided by common sentence; which all became rules for future Councils. Sixthly, the discussion is thus stated in the Acts, "when there had been much disputing." Seventhly, the deliberation is opened by Peter, whence it became a custom that the President of the Council should first give sentence. Eighthly, Paul and Barnabas give their testimony, in confirmation of Peter's sentence; and James expressly begins with Peter's words—"Simon hath declared," whence the custom that the rest give their voice at the instance of the President. "They do not, however, so proceed as if they were altogether bound by the authority of the first sentence, but themselves give judgment; and James says, 'I give sentence.' Then he proposes what additions seemed good to the principal question, and gives sentence also concerning them." Tenthly, "The decree was then drawn up in the common name, and adding the authority of the Holy Spirit, 'It seemed good unto us being assembled with one accord,' and 'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;' there then lies the force, 'to the Holy Ghost and to us:' not, what seemed good to Peter precisely, but, to us; and led by the Spirit, not Peter alone, but the unity itself of the holy Council. Whence, too, Christ said that concerning the Spirit whom he was about to send: 'But when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall teach you all truth:' you, saith He, the Pastors of the Churches, and the Masters of the rest. Hence, the Spirit is always added to the Church and the holy congregation. 'I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Church, the Catholic Church:' and with reason therefore, and carefully was the maxim which we have mentioned laid down of old by our Doctors: 'The strength of Councils resides not in the Roman Pontiff alone, but chiefly in the Holy Spirit and in the Catholic Church.'

"Eleventhly: when the matter had been judged by common sentence, nothing was afterwards reconsidered, nor any new dissension left to any one; but the decree was carried to the Churches, and the people are taught to keep the decrees which were decreed, in the Greek 'judged,' by the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem.

"This we Catholics urge with common consent against heretics who decline the commands and authority of Councils: which would have no force, unless together with the authority we also prove the form, and place the force itself of the decree, not in Peter alone, but in Unity, and in the Consent of the Apostles and the Pastors of the Church."^[53]

In another place he says, 'In ecclesiastical acts we do indeed find that the Catholic Church is affirmed by Chief Pontiffs and Councils to be represented by Ecumenical Synods, which contain all its virtue and power, which we are wont to mean by the word "represent." But this we do not read of the Roman Pontiff, as affirmed either by the Pontiffs themselves, or by Ecumenical Councils, or any where in Ecclesiastical Acts.^[54]

I have been unable to find any testimony of St. Chrysostom to the transmission of St. Peter's primacy over the whole Church to the Bishop of Rome. He has, however, a passage about Rome which is worth transcribing; for sometimes, as we have just seen, as much is proved by what is not said, as by what is said. Speaking then of St. Paul, he writes:—"Rather if we listen to him here, we shall surely see him there; if not standing near him, yet we shall see him surely shining near to the King's throne, where the Cherubim ascribe glory, where the Seraphim spread their wings. There with Peter shall we behold Paul—him that is the leader and director of the choir of the saints,—and shall enjoy his true love. For if, being here, he so loved men, that having the choice "to depart and be with Christ," he chose to be here, much more there will he show warmer affection. Rome likewise for this do I love, although having reason otherwise to praise her, both for her size, and her antiquity, and her beauty, and her multitude, and her power, and her wealth, and her victories in war. But passing by all these things, for this I count her blessed; because, when alive, he (Paul) wrote to them, and loved them so much, and went and conversed with them, and there finished his life. Wherefore the city is on that account more remarkable than for all other things together, and like a great and strong body, it has two shining eyes, the bodies of these saints. Not so bright is the heaven when the sun sends forth his beams, as is the city of the Romans sending forth everywhere over the world these two lights. Thence shall Paul, thence shall Peter, be caught up. Think, and tremble, what a sight shall Rome behold, when Paul suddenly riseth from that resting-place with Peter, and is carried up to meet the Lord. What a rose doth Rome offer to Christ! with what two garlands is that city crowned! with what golden fetters is she girdled; what fountains does she possess! Therefore do I admire that city; not for the multitude of its gold, nor for its columns, nor for its other splendours, but for these the pillars of the Church."^[55] Had St. Chrysostom felt like a Roman Catholic could he have stopped there? Loving Rome for possessing the blessed and priceless bodies of the two Apostles, could he have failed to mention the sovereignty of the universal Church, which together with his body Peter had left enshrined at Rome? Would it not have seemed to him by far the greatest marvel at Rome, as it has to a late eloquent partisan, that Providence has placed "in the middle of the world, to be there the chief of a religion without its like, and of a society spread everywhere, a man without defence, an old man who will be the more threatened, the more the increase of the Church in the world shall augment the jealousy of princes, and the hatred of his enemies."^[56] "This vicar of God, this supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church, this Father of kings and of nations, this successor of the fisherman Peter, he lives, he raises among men his brow, charged with a triple crown, and the sacred weight of eighteen centuries; the ambassadors of nations are at his court: he sends forth his ministers to every creature, and even to places which have not yet a name. When from the windows of his palace he gazes abroad, his sight discovers the most illustrious horizon in the world, the earth trodden by the Romans, the city they had built with the spoils of the universe, the centre of things under their two principal forms, matter and spirit: where all nations have passed; all glories have come: all cultivated imaginations have at least made a pilgrimage from far: Rome, the tomb of Martyrs and Apostles, the home of all recollections. And when the Pontiff stretches forth his arms to bless it, together with the world which is inseparable from it, he can bear a witness to himself which no sovereign shall ever bear, that he has neither built nor conquered, nor received his city, but that he is its inmost and enduring life, that he is in it like the blood in the heart of man, and that right can go no further than this, a continuous generation which would make the parricide a suicide." Such feelings as these are what any Churchman must habitually entertain, who looks on the Roman Pontiff as at once the governing power and the life of the Church. Could, then, St. Chrysostom have beheld in Rome the Church's heart, whence her life-blood courses over the whole body, and have seen no reason to love her for that? or have stated that she was more remarkable for possessing even the bodies of the blessed Apostles than for all other things together? What Roman Catholic would so speak now? The power of the Roman Pontiff in the Latin Communion is actually such, that Lacordaire's words respecting the city of Rome apply to the whole Church; to destroy that power would be to destroy the Church herself; the parricide would be a suicide. But how can this dogma be imposed upon us as necessary to salvation, if St. Augustin, St. Chrysostom, and the Church of their day knew it not? or let it be shown us, how any men who did know it, could either have written as they write, or have been silent as they are silent.

We may sum up St. Augustin's view of the relation of the Roman Pontiff to his brother Bishops in his own beautiful words to Pope Boniface: "To sit on our watch-towers and guard the flock belongs in common to all of us who have episcopal functions, although the hill on which you stand is more conspicuous than the rest."^[57] My object in these remarks throughout has been to show, that a denial of either of these truths is a violation of the Church's divine constitution. The Papacy has greatly obscured the essential equality of Bishops; its opponents have avenged themselves by explaining away the unquestionable Primacy of St. Peter, and its important action on the whole Church.

What this Primacy was, and how it was exercised at a most important crisis of the Church, I will now endeavour to show. Five years after the decision of the African Bishops about appeals, the third Ecumenical Council assembled at Ephesus,—and here, as in other cases, I prefer that another should speak, and he the most illustrious Prelate of France in modern times.^[58] "In the third general Council of Ephesus, and in those which follow, our whole argument will appear in clearer light, its Acts being in our hands; and there existing very many judgments of Roman Pontiffs on matters of faith, set forth with the whole authority of their see, which were afterwards re-considered in general Councils, and only approved after examination, than which nothing can be more opposed to the opinion of infallibility. And as to the Council of Ephesus, the thing is clear. The innovation of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, is known; how, by denying to the Virgin Mary the title of 'Mother of God,' he divided into two the person of Christ. Pope St. Cœlestine, watchful, according to his office, over the affairs of the Church, had charged the blessed Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to send him a certain report of the doctrine of Nestorius, already in bad repute. Cyril declares this in his letter to Nestorius; and so he writes to Cœlestine all the doctrines of Nestorius, and sets forth his own: he sends him two letters from himself to Nestorius, who likewise, by his own letters and explanations, endeavoured to draw Cœlestine to his side. Thus the holy Pontiff, having been most fully informed by letters from both sides, is thus inquired of by Cyril. 'We have not confidently abstained from communion with him (Nestorius) before informing you of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes such erroneous doctrine.'" And he adds, that his judgment should be written to the other Bishops also, "that all with one mind may hold firm in one sentence." Here is the Apostolic See manifestly consulted by so great a man, presiding over the second, or at least the third, Patriarchal See, and its judgment awaited; and nothing remained but that Cœlestine, being duly consulted, should perform his Apostolic office. But how he did this, the acts themselves will speak out.

"And first, he approves of Cyril's letters and doctrine; for he writes to him thus: 'We perceive that you hold and maintain all that we hold and maintain:' and to Nestorius, 'We have approved, and do approve, the faith of the Prelate of the Church of Alexandria:' and he threatens him with extremities, "If you preach not that which Cyril preaches.' Nothing could be said more marked. Nor does he only approve Cyril's doctrine, but disapproves, too, the perverse dogma of Nestorius: 'We have seen,' he says, 'your letters containing open blasphemy;' and that distinctly, because he was unwilling to call the Blessed Virgin 'Mother of God:' and he decrees that he should be deprived of the episcopate and communion, unless, within ten days from the date of the announcing of the sentence, he openly rejects this faithless innovation, which endeavours to separate what Scripture joineth together, that is, the Person of Christ. Here is the doctrine of Nestorius expressly disapproved, and a sentence of the Roman Pontiff on a matter of faith most clearly pronounced under threat of deposition and excommunication: then, that nothing be wanting, the holy Pope commits his authority to Cyril to carry into execution that sentence, 'associating,' he saith to Cyril, 'the authority of our See, and using our person, place, and power:' so to Nestorius himself; so to the Clergy of Constantinople; so to John of Antioch, then the Bishop of the third or fourth Patriarchal See; so to Juvenal, Bishop of the Holy City, whom the Council of Nice had ordered to be especially honoured: so he writes to the other Bishops also, that the sentence given may be duly and in order made known to all. Cyril proceeds to execute his office, and performs all that he had been commanded. He promulgates and executes the decrees of Cœlestine; declares to Nestorius, that after the ten days prescribed and set forth by Cœlestine, he would have no portion, intercourse, or place with the Priesthood. Nothing evidently is wanting to the Apostolical authority being most fully exercised; but whether the sentence put forward with such authority, after a great dissension had arisen and mention been made of an Ecumenical Council, was held to be final, the succeeding acts will demonstrate.

"We have often said—we shall often say—that it is the constitution of the Church only in extraordinary cases and dissensions to recur, of necessity, to an Ecumenical Council. But in the usual order even the most important questions on the faith, when they arise, are terminated by the consent of the Church being added to the decree of the Roman Pontiff. This is clearly manifest from the cause of Nestorius. We confess plainly that the sentence of Cœlestine would have been sufficient, as Cyril hoped, to repress the new heresy, had not great commotions arisen, and the matter seemed of such a nature as to be referred to an Ecumenical Council. But Nestorius, Bishop of the royal city, possessed such influence, had deceived men's minds with such an appearance of piety, had gained so many Bishops, and enjoyed such favour with the younger Theodosius and the great men, that he could easily throw everything into commotion; and thus there was need of an Ecumenical Council, the question being most important, and the person of the highest dignity; because many Bishops, amongst these almost all of the East, that is, of the province of Antioch, and the Patriarch John himself, were ill disposed to Cyril, and seemed to favour Nestorius; because men's feelings were divided, and the whole empire of the East seemed to fluctuate between Cyril and Nestorius. Such was the need of an Ecumenical Council.

"To this must be added the prayers of the pious and orthodox; here were most pious monks, who had suffered much from Nestorius for the orthodox faith, and the expression, 'Mother of God,' supplicating the Emperor 'for a sacred and Ecumenical Council to assemble, by the presence of which he should unite the most holy Church, bring back the people to one, and restore to their place the Priests who preached the pure faith, before that impious doctrine (of Nestorius) crept wider.' And again, 'We have asked you to call together an Ecumenical Council, which can most fully consolidate and restore the tottering.' Here, after the judgment of the Roman Pontiff, a firm and complete settling of the tottering state of things is sought for by the pious in an Ecumenical Council.

"The Emperor, moved by these and other reasons, wrote to Cyril,—'It is our will that the holy doctrine be discussed and examined in a sacred Synod, and that be ratified which appeareth agreeable to the right faith, whether the wrong party be pardoned by the Fathers or no.'

"Here we see three things: first, after the judgment of St. Cœlestine, another is still required, that of the Council; secondly, that these two things would rest with the Fathers, to judge of doctrine and of persons; thirdly, that the judgment of the Council would be decisive and final."

"He adds, 'those who everywhere preside over the priesthood, and through whom we ourselves are and shall be professing the truth, must be judges of this matter; on whose faith we rest.' See in whose judgment is the final and irreversible authority.

"Both the Emperor affirmed, and the Bishops confessed, that this was done according to the Ecclesiastical Canons. And so all, and Cœlestine himself, prepared themselves for the Council. Cyril does no more, though named by Cœlestine to execute the pontifical decree. Nestorius remained in his original rank; the sentence of the universal Council is awaited; and the Emperor had expressly decreed, 'that before the assembling and common sentence of the most holy Council, no change should be made in any matter at all, on any private authority.' Rightly, and in order; for this was demanded by the majesty of an universal Council. Wherefore, both Cyril obeyed and the Bishops rested. And it was established, that although the sentence of the Roman Pontiff on matters of faith, and on persons judged for violation of the faith, had been passed and promulged, all was suspended, while the authority of the universal Council was awaited. This we have seen acted on by the Emperor, acquiesced in by the Bishops and the Pope himself. The succeeding acts will declare that it was approved in the Ecumenical Council itself.

"Having gone over what preceded the Council, we review the acts of the Council itself, and begin with the first course of proceeding. After, therefore, the Bishops and Nestorius himself were come to Ephesus, the universal Council began, Cyril being president, and representing Cœlestine, as being appointed by the Pontiff himself to execute his sentence. In the first course of proceeding this was done. First, the above-mentioned letter of the Emperor was read, that an Ecumenical Council should be held, and all proceedings in the mean time be suspended: this letter, I say, was read, and placed on the acts, and it was approved by the Fathers, that all the decrees of Cœlestine in the matter of Nestorius had been suspended until the holy Council should give its sentence. You will ask if it was the will of the Council merely that the Emperor should be allowed to prohibit, in the interim, effect being given to the sentence of the Apostolic See. Not so, according to the acts; but rather, by the intervention of a General Council's authority, (the convocation of which, according to the discipline of those times, was left to the Emperor,) the Council itself understood that all proceedings were of course suspended, and depended on the sentence of the Council. Wherefore, though the decree of the Pontiff had been promulged and notified, and the ten days had long been past, Nestorius was held by the Council itself to be a Bishop, and called by the name of Most Religious Bishop, and by that name, too, thrice cited and summoned to take his seat with the other Bishops in the holy Council; for this expression, to take his seat, is distinctly written; and it is added, in order to answer to what was charged against him. For it was their full purpose that he should recognise, in whatever way, the Ecumenical Council, as he would then afterwards be, beyond doubt, answerable to it; but he refused to come, and chose to have his doors besieged with an armed force, that no one might approach him.

"Thereupon, as the Emperor commanded, and the Canons required, the rule of faith was set forth, and the Nicene Creed read, as the standard to which all should be referred, and then the letters of Cyril and Nestorius were examined in order. The letter of Cyril was first brought before the judgment of the Council. That letter, I mean, concerning the faith, to Nestorius, so expressly approved by Pope Cœlestine, of which he had declared to Cyril, 'We see that you hold and maintain all that we hold and maintain;' which, by the decree against Nestorius, published to all churches, he had approved, and, wished to be considered as a canonical monition against Nestorius: that letter, I repeat, was examined, at the proposition of Cyril himself, in these words: 'I am persuaded that I have in nothing departed from the orthodox faith, or the Nicene Creed; wherefore I beseech your Holiness to set forth openly whether I have written this correctly, blamelessly, and in accordance with that holy Council.'

"And are there those who say that questions concerning the faith, once judged by the Roman Pontiff on his Apostolical authority, are examined in general Councils, in order to understand their contents, but not to decide on their substance, as being still a matter of question? Let them hear Cyril, the President of the Council; let them attend to what he proposes for the inquiry of the Council: and though he were conscious of no error in himself, yet, not to trust himself, he asked for the sentence of the Council in these words: 'whether he had written correctly and blamelessly, or not.' This Cyril, the chief of the Council, proposes for their consideration. Who ever even heard it whispered, that after a final and irreversible judgment of the Church on a matter of faith, any such inquiry or question was made? It was never so done, for that would be to doubt about the faith itself, when declared and discussed. But this was done after the judgment of Pope Cœlestine: neither Cyril, nor any one else, thought of any other course: that, therefore, was not a final and irreversible judgment.

"In answer to this question, the Fathers in order give their judgment,—'that the Nicene Creed, and the letter of Cyril in all things agree and harmonise.' Here is inquiry and examination, and then judgment. The acts speak for themselves: we say not here a word.

"Next that letter of Nestorius was produced, which Cœlestine had pronounced blasphemous and impious. It is read: then at the instance of Cyril it is examined, 'whether this, too, be agreeable to the faith set forth by the holy Council of the Nicene Fathers, or not.' It is precisely the same form according to which Cyril's letter was examined. The Fathers, in order, give judgment that it disagreed from the Nicene Creed, and was, therefore, censurable. The letter of Nestorius is disapproved in the same manner, by the same rule, by which that of Cyril was approved. Here, twice in the same proceeding of the Council of Ephesus, a judgment of the Roman Pontiff concerning the Catholic Faith, uttered and published, is re-considered. What he had approved and what he had disapproved, is equally examined, and, only after examination, confirmed.

"These were the first proceedings of the Council of Ephesus in the matter of faith. We proceed to review what concerns the person of Nestorius, in the same proceeding. First, the letter of Cœlestine to Cyril is read and placed on the Acts; that, I mean, in which he gave sentence concerning Nestorius: on which sentence, as the Fathers were shortly, after full consideration, to pass their judgment, for the present it was only to be placed among the Acts. In the letter of Cœlestine there was no special doctrine: it only contained an approval of Cyril's doctrine and letter, and a disapproval of those of Nestorius; concerning which letters of Cyril and Nestorius, the judgment of the Holy Council was already past, so that it would be superfluous to add anything to them.

"But for the same reason, the other letter of Cyril being read,—that, I mean, which executed the sentence of Cœlestine,—nothing special was done concerning that letter, but it was only ordered to be placed on the Acts.

"After these preliminaries, judgment was to be pronounced on the person of Nestorius. Inquiry was made, whether what Cœlestine had written to Nestorius, and what Cyril had done in execution, had been notified to Nestorius; it was certified that it had been notified, and that he had remained still in his opinion: and that the days had elapsed, both which were first fixed by St. Cœlestine, and, afterwards by the Emperor, convoking the Council. Next, for accumulation of proof, testimonies of the Fathers are compared with the explanations of Nestorius: the huge discrepancy shows Nestorius to be an innovator and heretic. A decree is made in these words. The holy Council declares,—'Since the most impious Nestorius has neither been willing to obey our procedures, nor to admit the Bishops deputed by us, we have, necessarily, proceeded to the examination of what he has impiously taught: finding, therefore, partly from his own letters, partly from his discourses, that he holds and preaches impiety,—compelled by the holy Canons, and by the letters of our most holy Father, our fellow-minister, Cœlestine, Bishop of the Roman Church,—we have come to this sentence: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, by this most holy Council, declareth Nestorius to be deprived of his dignity."' You see the Canons joined with the letters of Cœlestine in terms, indeed, of high honour, which tend to set forth the majesty of the Apostolic see. You see the Council carry out what Cœlestine decreed, and thus compelled it comes to a painful judgment, but that a new one, and put forth in its own terms in the name of Christ; and after, by legitimate inquiry, it was evident that all had been done rightly and in order.

"Finally, the sentence pronounced by the Council, is written to the most impious Nestorius: 'The holy Council to Nestorius, another Judas: know thou hast been deposed by the holy Council. So he, who before the inquiry of the holy Council was called the most religious Bishop, after this inquiry, is presently set forth as most impious, as another Judas, and as deposed by an irrevocable sentence, from his episcopal seat.

"Thus a most weighty matter is completed by the most weighty agreement; that same which we have asserted gives validity to everything in the Church: and the order of the judgment is plain in itself. That is, sentence is put forth by Cœlestine; it is suspended by the Convocation of a General Council; it is heard and examined; it is corroborated by a new and irrevocable judgment, united with the authority of the whole Church. This the Fathers declare in their report to the Emperor: 'We have removed Nestorius from his see, and canonically deprived him; highly extolling Cœlestine, Bishop of Great Rome, who before our sentence had condemned the heretical doctrines of Nestorius, and had anticipated us in giving judgment against him.' This is that unity, this that agreement, which gives invincible and irresistible force to ecclesiastical judgments.

"So every thing is in harmony, and our judgment is supported. For in that the holy Council approves and executes the judgment of the Apostolical see, on a matter of faith and on a person, it does, indeed, recognise the legitimate power and primacy of the said see. In that it does not approve of its judgment, until after legitimate hearing and renewed inquiry, it instructs us that the Roman Pontiff is, indeed, superior to all Bishops, but is inferior only to a General Council, even in matters of faith. Which was to be proved.

"In the mean time, the Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Presbyter Philip, had been chosen by Cœlestine to be present at the Council of Ephesus, with a special commission from the Apostolic see, and the whole Council of the West. So they come from Rome to Ephesus, and appear at the holy Council, and here the second procedure commences.

"Wolf, of Louvain, amongst other records of antiquity, has put forth the charge of Cœlestine to his Legates, and his instructions, as Cœlestine himself calls them. In these he charged them, to defend the dignity of the Apostolic see; 'not to mix themselves with the dissensions of the Bishops, whose judges they should be,' in conjunction, that is, with the Council: 'to confer on proceedings with Cyril, as being faithful.' We shall now review what they did, in compliance with these orders: and by this we shall easily show that our cause is confirmed.

"First, they bring forward the letter of St. Cœlestine to the Council, in which the charge committed to his Legates is thus expressed:—'We have directed our holy brethren to be present at the proceedings, and to execute what we have ordained.' Hence, it is evident, that the Council of Ephesus was employed in executing the Apostolical judgment. But of what sort this execution is, whether it be, as they will have it, mere obedience, or by a legitimate hearing of the Council itself, and then by a certain and infallible judgment, the ensuing proceedings will show.

"After reading the letter of Cœlestine, the Legates, in pursuance, say to the Bishops;—'According to the rule of our common faith, command to be completely and finally settled what Cœlestine hath had the goodness before to lay down and now to remind you of.' This is the advantage of a Council; after whose sentence there is no new discussion, or new judgment, but merely execution. And this the Legates request to be commanded by the Council, in which they recognise that supreme authority.

"Firmus, Bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, answers for the Council;—'The Apostolical and holy See of the Bishop Cœlestine hath prescribed the sentence and rule for the present matter.' The Greek words are, hath first set forth the sentence and rule, or type, which expression is afterwards rendered, form. We will not quarrel about words; let us hear the same Firmus accurately explaining what the thing is:—'We,' says he, 'have charged to be executed this form respecting Nestorius, alleging against him the Canonical and Apostolic judgment;' that is, in the first procedure, in which, after examination and deliberation, we have seen the decree of Cœlestine confirmed. Thus a general Council executes the sentence of the First See, by legitimate hearing and inquiry, and not as a simple functionary; but after giving a canonical and apostolical judgment. Let the Pope's decree, as is due to the authority of so great a See, be the form, the rule; which same, after convocation of a Council, only receives full authority from the common judgment.

"It behoved, also, that the Legates, sent to the Council on a special mission, should understand whether the proceedings against Nestorius had been pursued according to the requisition of the Canons, and due respect to the Apostolic See. This we have already often said; wherefore, with reason, they require the acts to be communicated, 'that we too,' say they, 'may confirm them.' The proceedings themselves will declare what that confirmation means.

"After that, at the request of the Legates, the acts against Nestorius were given them, they thus report about them at the third procedure:—'We have found all things judged canonically, and according to the Church's discipline.' Therefore judgments of the Apostolic see are canonically, and, according to the Church's discipline, re-considered, after deliberation, in a General Council, and judgment passed upon them.

"After the Legates had approved the acts against Nestorius communicated to them, they request that all which had been read and done at Ephesus from the beginning, should be read afresh in public Session, 'in order,' they say, 'that obeying the form of the most holy Pope Cœlestine, who hath committed this care to us, we may be enabled to confirm the judgment also of your Holiness.' After these all had been read afresh, and the Legates agreed to them, Cyril proposes to the holy Council, 'That the Legates, by their signature, as was customary, should make plain and manifest their canonical agreement with the Council.' To this question of Cyril the Council thus answers, and decrees that the Legates, by their subscription, confirm the acts; by which place, this confirmation, spoken of by the Council, is clearly nothing else but to make their assent plain and manifest, as Cyril proposed. This true and genuine sense of confirmation we have often brought forward, and shall often again; and now congratulate ourselves that it is so clearly set before us by the holy Council of Ephesus.

"But of what importance it was that the decrees of Ephesus should be confirmed by the authority of the Legates of the Apostolic see, as says Projectus, one of the Legates, is seen from hence; because, although Cyril, having been named the executor of the Pope's sentence, had executed it in the Council, yet he had not been expressly delegated to the Council, of which Cœlestine had yet no thought, when he entrusted Cyril to represent him. But Arcadius, Projectus and Philip, being expressly sent by Cœlestine to the Council, confirmed the acts of the Council, in virtue of their special commission, and put forth in clear view by all manner and testimony the consent of all Churches with the chief Church, that of Rome.

"Add to this, that the Legates, sent by special commission to the Council of Ephesus, bore the sentence, not only of the Apostolic see, but also of the whole West, whence the Presbyter Philip, one of the Legates, after all had been read afresh, and approved by common consent, thus sums up; 'It is then established according to the decree of all Churches, for the Priests of the Church, (Eastern and Western,) either by themselves, or by their Legates, to take part in this consent of the Priesthood, which was pronounced against Nestorius.'

"Hence it is clear how the decrees of the Churches themselves mutually confirm each other; for all those things have force of confirmation, which declare the consent and unity of all Churches, inasmuch as the strength of ecclesiastical decrees itself consists in unity and mutual agreement. So that, in putting forth an exposition of the faith, the East and the West, and the Apostolic see and Synodical assemblies, mutually confirm each other; whence, too, we read that acclamation to Cœlestine, in the Council of Ephesus:—'To Cœlestine, guardian of the faith, (to Cœlestine agreeing with the Council,) one Cœlestine, one Cyril one faith of the Council,' (one faith of the whole world.)

"These acclamations, then, of Catholic unity being heard, Philip, the Legate, thus answers:—'We return thanks to your holy and venerable Council, because, by your holy voices, as holy members, you have joined yourselves to a holy head; for your blessedness is not ignorant that the blessed Peter is the head of the whole faith, or even of the Apostles.' This, therefore, is the supreme authority—the supreme power—that the members be joined with each other, and to the Roman Pontiff, as their head. Because the force of an ecclesiastical judgment is made invincible by consent.

"Finally, Cœlestine himself, after the conclusion of the whole matter, sends a letter to the holy Council of Ephesus, which he thus begins; 'At length we must rejoice at the conclusion of evils.' The learned reader understands where he recognises the conclusion; that is, after the condemnation of Nestorius by the infallible authority of an Ecumenical Council, viz. of the whole Catholic Church. He proceeds: 'We see, that you, with us, have executed this matter so faithfully transacted.' All decree, and all execute, that is, by giving a common judgment. Whence Cœlestine adds, 'We have been informed of a just deposition, and a still juster exaltation:' the deposition of Nestorius, begun, indeed, by the Roman see, but brought to a conclusion by the sentence of the Council; to a full and complete settlement, as we have seen above: the exaltation of Maximianus, immediately after the Ephesine decrees substituted in place of Nestorius: this is the conclusion of the question. Even Cœlestine himself recognises this conclusion to lie not in his own examination and judgment, but in that of an Ecumenical Council.

"And this was done in that Council in which it is admitted that the authority of the Apostolic See was most clearly set forth, not only by words, but by deeds, of any since the birth of Christ. At least the Holy Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true and magnificent encomiums, 'concerning the dignity of the Apostolic See, and Peter the head and pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, and by Christ's authority administering the keys, who to this very time lives ever, and exercises judgment in his successors.' This he says, after having seen all the acts of the Council itself, which we have mentioned, so that we may indeed understand, that all these privileges of Peter and the Apostolic See entirely agree with the decrees of the Council, and the judgment entered into afresh, and deliberation upon matter of faith held after the Apostolic See."

The letter of Pope Cœlestine, received with all honour as that of the first Bishop in the world, recognises likewise the authority of his brethren. It began thus: "The assembly of Priests is the visible display of the presence of the Holy Ghost. He who cannot lie has said, 'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them:' much more will He be present in so large a crowd of holy men; for the Council is indeed holy in a peculiar sense,—it claims veneration as the representative of that most holy Synod of Apostles which we read of. Their Master, whom they were commanded to preach, never forsakes them. It was He who taught them, it was He who instructed them, what they should teach others; and He has assured the world, that in the person of His Apostles they hear him. This charge of teaching has descended equally upon all Bishops. We are all engaged in it by an hereditary right; all we, who having come in their stead, preach the name of our Lord to all the countries of the world, according to what was said to them, 'Go ye and teach all nations.' You are to observe, my brethren, that the order we have received is a general order, and that He intended that we should all execute it, when he charged them with it as a duty devolving equally upon all. We ought all to enter into the labours of those whom we have all succeeded in dignity."

"Thus Pope Cœlestine acknowledged that it was Christ Himself who established Bishops in the persons of His Apostles, as the teachers of His Church: He places Himself in their rank, and declares that they ought all to concur in the preservation of the sacred deposit of Apostolical doctrine."^[59]

The importance of this testimony will be felt by those who remember that Bellarmine specifically denies that the government of the Church resides in Bishops generally; and that in this he is at least borne out by the last three centuries of Roman practice.

Bossuet proceeds to remark as follows:—"From this doctrine of St. Cœlestine we draw many conclusions: first, this,—that Bishops in the Apostles were appointed teachers by Christ Himself, not at all by Peter, or Peter's successors. Nor does a Pontiff, seated in so eminent a place, think it unworthy to mix himself with the rest of the Bishops. 'We all,' he says, 'in the stead of the Apostles preach the name of the Lord: we all have succeeded them in honour.' Whence it is the more evident that authority to teach was transmitted from Christ, as well to Cœlestine himself, as to the rest of the Bishops. Hence that the deposit of sacred doctrine is committed to all, the defence of which lies with all; and so the faith is to be settled by common care and consent; nor will the protection of Christ, the true Master, be wanting to the masters of Churches. This Cœlestine lays down equally respecting himself and all Bishops, successors of the Apostles. Then what agrees with it: that as the Apostles, assembled on the question concerning legal rites, put forth their sentence as being at once that of the Holy Spirit and their own, so too shall it be in other most important controversies; and the Council of the Apostles will live again in the Councils of Bishops. Which indeed shows us, that authority and the settlement of the question lies not in the sentence of Peter alone, or of Peter's successors, but in the agreement of all.

"Nor, therefore, does Cœlestine infringe on his own privilege in reckoning himself with the other successors of the Apostles; for as the other Bishops were made successors to the other Apostles, so he, being made by Christ successor to Peter their chief, everywhere takes precedence of all by authority of Peter, as we read set forth and acted on in the same Council.

"Thus in the third holy General Council, and in those first ages, we both prove against heretics, that the power of the Apostolical See everywhere takes precedence and leads all, and, what is of the most importance, in the name of Peter, and so as instituted by Christ. Not less do we show to Catholics, that the final and infallible force of an ecclesiastical judgment is seated there, where to the authority of Peter, that is, of the Pope, is added the authority and agreement of Bishops also, who are throughout the whole world in the stead of Apostles; which alone the Church of France demands,"^[60]—and, we may add, the Church of England.

Again; compare the spirit of St. Cœlestine's words with the spirit that dictated the following to De Maistre, whom we might leave alone, if he were not the exponent of a theory now in the greatest vogue in the Roman Church;—a theory, indeed, which those must accept, who leave us, without any chance of modification; for it is not Bossuet's most Catholic doctrine, but Bellarmine's, which is acted on and taught now. "I do not affect to cast the least doubt upon the infallibility of a general Council. I merely say, that it only holds this high privilege from its head, to whom the promises have been made. We know well that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. But why? On account of Peter, on whom she is founded. Take away this foundation, how would she be infallible, since she exists no longer? Unless I am deceived, in order to be something, one must first exist."^[61]

Again: "We see that for two centuries and a half religion has done very well without them (General Councils), and I do not think that any one thinks of them, in spite of the extraordinary needs of the Church, for which the Pope will provide much better than a General Council, if only people knew how to avail themselves of his power."^[62]

It must not be forgotten that this same Council of Ephesus, which allows none but heretics to refuse to the blessed Virgin the title and the honour of 'Mother of God,' confirms by its eighth Canon the Episcopal and Patriarchal system, and bears the strongest testimony against the Roman. It runs thus: "The most beloved of God and our fellow-bishop Rheginus, and Zeno and Evagrius, the most religious Bishops of the Province of Cyprus, have declared unto us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the laws of the Church, and the Canons of the holy Fathers, and which affects the liberty of all. Wherefore since evils which affect the community require more attention, inasmuch as they cause greater hurt; and especially since the Bishop of Antioch has not so much as followed an ancient custom in performing ordinations in Cyprus, as those most religious persons who have come to the holy Synod have informed us, by writing and by word of mouth; we declare that they who preside over the holy Churches which are in Cyprus, shall preserve, without gainsaying or opposition, their right of performing by themselves the ordinations of the most religious Bishops, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers and the ancient custom. The same rule shall be observed in all the other Dioceses, and in the Provinces everywhere, so that none of the most religious Bishops shall invade any other Province, which has not heretofore from the beginning been under the hands of himself or his predecessors. But if any one has so invaded a Province and brought it by force under himself, he shall restore it, that the Canons of the Fathers may not be transgressed, nor the pride of secular dominion be privily introduced under the appearance of a sacred office, nor we lose by little the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, has given us by His own blood. The Holy and Ecumenical Synod has therefore decreed, that the rights which have heretofore, and from the beginning, belonged to each province, shall be preserved to it pure and without restraint, according to the custom which has prevailed of old, each metropolitan having permission to take a copy of the things now transacted for his own security. But if any one shall introduce any regulation contrary to what has been now defined, the whole Holy and Ecumenical synod has decreed that it shall be of no effect."^[63]

It must be allowed that De Maistre has very good reasons for disliking General Councils.

Nine years after this Council, St. Leo the Great became Pope, whose long and able Pontificate will afford us the best means of judging what the legitimate power of the Roman See was, and how it tended to the preservation and unity of the whole Church. He lived at an important crisis, when the barbarous tribes of the North were about to burst over the Empire and the Church; the system of which, had it not been consolidated by himself, his immediate predecessors and successors, might have been dissolved and broken up into fragments.

I will first show, by a few quotations, that St. Leo had no slight sense of his own duty and dignity among his brother Bishops. We will then see how his actions, and the way in which they were received by others, supported his words.

In a sermon on the anniversary of his consecration, after noticing with pleasure the number of Bishops present, he continues, "Nor, as I trust, is the most blessed Apostle Peter, in his kind condescendence and faithful love, absent from this assembly, nor does he disregard your devotion, reverence for whom has drawn you together. And so he at once rejoices at your affection, and welcomes the observance of the Lord's Institution in those who share his honour; approving that most orderly charity of the whole Church, which in Peter's see receives Peter, and slackens not in love to so great a shepherd, even in the person of so unworthy an heir." On a like occasion,—"Although, then, beloved, our partaking in that gift be a great subject for common joy, yet it were a better and more excellent course of rejoicing, if ye rest not in the consideration of our humility: more profitable and more worthy by far it is to raise the mind's eye unto the contemplation of the most blessed Apostle Peter's glory, and to celebrate this day chiefly in the honour of him who was watered with streams so copious from the very Fountain of all graces, that while nothing has passed to others without his participation, yet he received many special privileges of his own. The Word made flesh already dwelt in us, and Christ had given up Himself whole to restore the race of man. Wisdom had left nothing unordered; power left nothing difficult. Elements were obeying, spirits ministering, angels serving; it was impossible that Mystery could fail of its effect in which the Unity and the Trinity of the Godhead Itself was at once working. And yet out of the whole world, Peter alone is chosen to preside over the calling of all the Gentiles, and over all the Apostles, and the collected Fathers of the Church: so that though there be among the people of God many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter rules all by personal commission (propriè), whom Christ also rules by sovereign power. Beloved, it is a great and wonderful participation of His own power which the Divine condescendance gave to this man: and if He willed that other rulers should enjoy ought together with him, yet never did He give, save through him, what He denied not to others. In fine, the Lord asks all the Apostles what men think of Him; and they answer in common so long as they set forth the doubtfulness of human ignorance. But when what the Disciples think is required, he who is first in Apostolic dignity is first also in confession of the Lord. And when he had said, 'Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,' Jesus answered him, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father, which is in heaven:' that is, Thou art blessed, because My Father hath taught thee; nor opinion which is of the earth deceived thee, but heavenly inspiration instructed thee; and not flesh and blood hath shown Me to thee, but He, whose only-begotten Son I am. And I, saith He, say unto thee, that is, as My Father hath manifested to thee My Godhead, so I, too, make known to thee thine own pre-eminence. For thou art Peter; that is, whilst I am the immutable Rock, I, the cornerstone, who make both one, I, the foundation beside which no one can lay another; yet thou also art a rock, because by My virtue thou art established, so that whatever is Mine by sovereign power, is to thee by participation common with Me. And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: on this strength, saith He, I will build an eternal temple, and My Church, which in its height shall reach the heaven, shall rise upon the firmness of this faith. This confession the gates of hell shall not restrain, nor the chains of death fetter; for that voice is the voice of life. And as it raises those who confess it unto heavenly places, so it plunges those who deny it into hell. Wherefore it is said to most blessed Peter, 'I will give to 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.' The privilege of this power did indeed pass to the other Apostles, and the order of this decree reached to all the rulers of the Church, but not without purpose what is intended for all is put into the hands of one. For therefore is this entrusted to Peter singly, because all the rulers of the Church are invested with the figure of Peter. The privilege, therefore, of Peter remaineth, wheresoever judgment is passed according to his equity. Nor can severity or indulgence be excessive, where nothing is bound, nothing loosed, save what blessed Peter either bindeth or looseth. But at the approach of His passion, which would disturb the firmness of His disciples, the Lord saith, '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, that ye enter not into temptation.' The danger from the temptation of fear was common to all the Apostles, and they equally needed the help of Divine protection, since the devil desired to dismay, to make a wreck of all: and yet the Lord takes care of Peter in particular, and asks specially for the faith of Peter, as if the state of the rest would be more certain, if the mind of their Chief were not overcome. So then in Peter the strength of all is protected, and the help of Divine grace is so ordered, that the stability, which through Christ is given to Peter, through Peter is conveyed to the Apostles.

"Since, therefore, beloved, we see such a protection divinely granted to us, reasonably and justly do we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our Chief, rendering thanks to the Eternal King, our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, for having given so great a power to him whom He made chief of the whole Church, that if anything, even in our time, by us be rightly done and rightly ordered, it is to be ascribed to his working, to his guidance, unto whom it was said,—'And thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren:' and to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, in answer to the triple profession of eternal love, thrice said with mystical intent, 'Feed My sheep.' And this, beyond a doubt, the pious shepherd doth even now, and fulfils the charge of his Lord; strengthening us with his exhortations, and not ceasing to pray for us, that we may be overcome by no temptation. But if, as we must believe, he everywhere discharges this affectionate guardianship to all the people of God, how much more will he condescend to grant his help unto us his children, among whom on the sacred couch of his blessed repose he resteth in the same flesh in which he ruled. To him, therefore, let us ascribe this anniversary day of us his servant, and this festival, by whose advocacy we have been thought worthy to share his seat itself, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ helping us in all things, Who liveth and reigneth with God the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever." I have before me similar passages in abundance; but these are enough to show how far the teaching of St. Leo, as to his own office, agreed with, how far went beyond, that of St. Augustin. The combination of the Patriarch's, and still more of the universal Primate's, power with that of the Bishop, is a nice point. If this be pushed too far, it issues in a monarchy; if the other alone be allowed, it converts the one kingdom of Jesus Christ into an unlimited number of petty republics. On the one hand there is danger pregnant to the high priesthood of the Church; on the other hand, to the sacrament of unity. The one-sided development of St. Leo's teaching has produced the Papacy, in which the Bishops, who represent the Apostles, are no longer the brethren, co-ordinate in authority, but the delegates, of St. Peter's successor: but the one-sided development of St. Cyprian's teaching has rent into pieces the seamless robe of Christ. Yet this need not be so: in the bright days of the Church of Christ it was not so. Surely the first six centuries of her existence are not a dream; and that beautiful image of St. Augustin not an imagination, but what he saw before his eyes: "to sit on our watch-towers, and guard the flock, belongs in common to all of us who have episcopal functions, although the hill on which you stand is more conspicuous than the rest."

A Pontiff so deeply and religiously impressed with the prerogatives of St. Peter's successor was likely to be energetic in discharging his duties. In truth we behold St. Leo set on a watch-tower, and directing his gaze over the whole Church: over his own West more especially, but over the East too, if need be. He can judge Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, as well as Eugubium, and is as ready too. Wherever Canons are broken, ancient custom disregarded, encroachments attempted, where Bishops are neglectful, or Metropolitans tyrannical, where heresy is imputed to Patriarchs, in short, wherever a stone in the whole sacred building is being loosened, or threatens to fall, there is he at hand to repair and restore, to warn, to protect, or to punish. But still they are brethren, they are equals, they are fellow-apostles, with whom he has to act, over whom he presides. If Peter was reproved by Paul, and yet the glorious Apostles laboured, witnessed, fought together, and together rest in Roman earth, then may the successors of the Twelve remonstrate with, nay, reprove and resist the successor of the Chief of the Twelve. If he is vicar of Christ, so are they. We have already seen examples of this, we shall find others, without schism.

It had become the custom of the Roman Pontiffs, at least as early as St. Damasus, (366—384,) and St. Siricius, (384—398,) to charge some one prelate, in each province where their influence extended, to represent the Roman Church; to report any infractions of discipline, or innovations on the faith; to announce the election and consecration of Bishops. Thus Anastasius of Thessalonica presided over the ten Metropolitans of Illyricum in Pope Leo's name. The Primate of Arles represented him in southern Gaul; and others in Spain; and so on. It is even said that all the Primacies of western Europe were in their origin derivations thus made from the Primacy of St. Peter. An authority, which was exercised on the whole for the good of all, seems to have been generally submitted to by the Bishops of the different provinces: doubtless every Bishop felt his hands strengthened in his particular diocese, and had an additional security against any infraction of his rights by his brethren, when he was able to throw himself back on the unbiassed and impartial authority of the Bishop of Rome. An authority, however, which in its commencement professed to be the especial guardian of the Canons, and to protect and maintain all in their proper place, was very liable to abuse, and had an inherent tendency to increase, and to absorb the power of the local Bishops and Metropolitans in the indefinite pretensions of the Patriarch. We have seen the resistance offered to the Pope in the case of the wretched Apiarius by the African Church, and now the Church of Gaul furnishes a defender of the rights of Metropolitans against Pope Leo in one of the holiest and most apostolical of its ancient Bishops.

St. Hilary of Arles, of noble birth, of splendid ability, having in the world the highest prospects, was converted to God by the prayers of St. Honoratus. Thereupon he sold his large possessions, and bestowed them on the poor, and retired to the desert of Lerins. His friend, St. Honoratus, was shortly after made Bishop of Arles, but he could not persuade St. Hilary to remain there with him. Within three years he died, and St. Hilary, who was attending him in his sickness, hastened, as soon as all was over, to return to his monastery. But it was in vain: he was pursued, brought back by force, and ordained, in spite of himself, Metropolitan of the first See in Gaul, at the age of twenty-nine years. At forty-eight he died, worn out with the severe labours and ascetic life he had imposed on himself. The nineteen years of his episcopate were devoted to the most incessant exertions as Bishop and Metropolitan. Unwearied in energy, unbounded in charity, gifted with extraordinary eloquence, a severe defender of discipline, yet winning others to follow where he was ready to go before himself, he becomes the soul of the three or four provinces over which the See of Arles then presided. He is connected in some degree with ourselves, as having probably held one of the chief places in that great council of the Gauls in the year 429, which sent St. Germanus and St. Lupus into Britain to resist the Pelagians. He belonged to the same monastery as St. Vincent of Lerins, and at the same time. It is certain, also, that he was a great friend of St. Germanus, and often conferred with him. On one of these occasions great complaints were brought to the two saints against Celidonius, Bishop of Besançon, for having formerly married a widow, and for having condemned persons to death. St. Hilary judged Celidonius in a provincial council, which declared that, having been husband of a widow, he could not keep his bishopric, and that he ought voluntarily to quit a dignity which the rules of Scripture permitted him not to hold. He was accordingly deposed.

"Celidonius,^[64] finding himself deposed, had recourse to Rome, where he complained that he had been unjustly condemned. It seems that St. Leo, without further examination, at once admitted him to his communion, in which he may have followed what Zosimus and Cœlestinus did in respect of the miserable Apiarius, priest of Africa. But I know not what Canon or what rule of the Church justifies such a proceeding. St. Hilary learnt this at the severest time of winter. Nevertheless, all the discomforts and dangers of this season gave way to the ardour of his zeal and faith. He undertook to pass the Alps, and to go on foot to Rome; and this he accomplished, without having even a horse either to ride or to carry baggage. Being come to Rome, he first visited the relics of the Apostles and Martyrs. Next he waited on St. Leo; and having paid him the greatest respect, he besought him very humbly to please to order what respected the state of the Churches according to immemorial practice. Persons were seen attending at Rome on the holy altar who had been juridically and justly deposed in Gaul: he was obliged to address to him his complaints of this; and, if they were found correct, besought the Pope at least to stop by a secret order this violation of the Canons. If not, he would not trouble him further, not being come to Rome to bring an action, and make accusations, but to pay to him his respects, to declare to him the state of things, and to beseech him to maintain the rules of discipline. There is reason to believe that St. Hilary maintained that St. Leo had no right at all to take cognizance of this cause as judge, meaning, doubtless, that the Church of France was in the same condition as that of Africa, and had the same power to terminate causes which arose there, without an appeal elsewhere being allowed. St. Leo even sufficiently assures us that this was St. Hilary's view; and he takes occasion from it to accuse him of unwillingness to be subject to St. Peter, and to recognise the Primacy of the Roman Church: which would prove that all the holy Bishops of Africa did not recognise it, and give heretics a great advantage. St. Leo, on the other hand, maintained not only that the Churches of the Gauls had often consulted that of Rome in various difficulties—which had nothing to do with the matter in question—but, also, that they had often appealed to the Holy See, which had either altered or confirmed judgments pronounced by them. If we may be allowed to regard the depositions of St. Leo and St. Hilary as the claims of different parties, and to examine the matter to the bottom, according to the light which history sheds on it, we may say that we do not find that the Gallican Church had hitherto admitted, up to that time, any appeal to the Holy See; and that Zosimus, having wished to claim the right of judging Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles, Proculus always maintained himself, in spite of all the efforts of this Pope. Meanwhile, as St. Leo, sufficiently jealous of the greatness of his See, found himself opposed by St. Hilary in a point of this importance, it is not surprising that he was susceptible of the bad impression given him of the conduct of this great saint, as we shall see hereafter. 'I dare not examine,' says the historian of St. Hilary, 'the judgment and the conduct of two men so great, especially now that God has called them to the possession of His glory. I confine myself to saying, that Hilary singly opposed this great number of adversaries; that he was not shaken by their menaces; that he laid the truth before those who would listen to it; that he prevailed over those who would dispute with him; that he yielded not to the powerful; in short, that he preferred running the risk of losing his life to admitting to his communion him whom he had deposed together with so many great Bishops.'

"Had St. Leo only required to have the affair reheard in the Gauls, agreeably to the Canons of Sardica, the only ones which the Church had hitherto made in favour of appeals to the Pope, St. Hilary would, perhaps, have consented; that is, if he were better acquainted with this Council than they were in Africa. But it is not apparent that such a rehearing was mentioned. And as to suffering the matter to be judged at Rome, St. Hilary, besides the other reasons which he might have, considered, doubtless, with St. Cyprian, that the proofs of the facts on which judgment must be made cannot be transported thither. So the Gallican Church has always maintained itself in the right, that appeals made to Rome be referred back to the spot. Though St. Hilary had protested that he was not come to engage in any dispute, nevertheless he did not refuse to take part in a conference, in which St. Leo heard him, together with Celidonius. Several Bishops were there. Notes were made of all that was said. St. Leo says that St. Hilary had nothing reasonable to answer; his passion carried him away to say things that a layman would not have dared to utter, and that the Bishops could not listen to. He adds that this haughty pride touched him to the quick, and that, nevertheless, he had used no other remedy than patience, not wishing to sharpen and increase the wounds which this insolent language caused in the soul of him who held it: that moreover, having received him at first as his brother, he only thought of soothing rather than vexing and paining him; and that indeed he did this to himself sufficiently by the confusion into which the weakness of his answers threw him. It is clear that St. Hilary would not answer on the main point of Celidonius's affair, because he maintained that St. Leo could not be judge of it. And we must not be surprised that the Romans found much insolence in the inflexible firmness with which he maintained it. Doubtless it was this pretended insolence which caused him even to be put under guard, which may surprise us in the case of a Bishop, and in an affair purely ecclesiastical. Among the insolent and rash expressions of which St. Leo in general complains, he remarks, in particular, that St. Hilary had often demanded to be condemned, if he had condemned Celidonius contrary to the rules of the Canons. He wished, then, that we should judge others by the rule which fully justifies St. Hilary. The saint, seeing that his reasons were not listened to, would not wait St. Leo's sentence. He preferred withdrawing secretly, while this affair was still being examined. So he escaped from his guards, and though it was still winter, left Rome, and returned to Arles, perhaps in February (445): so that when they sought for him to speak further on this matter, it was found that he was gone. St. Leo failed not to proceed, reversed the judgment delivered against Celidonius, declared him absolved and acquitted of the accusation of having married a widow, and restored him to his rank of Bishop, which he had already done at first, without having examined the affair."

There were other accusations made against St. Hilary, into which we need not enter. St. Leo wrote a very severe letter about him to the Bishops of Gaul: he accused him "of raising himself against St. Peter, and being unwilling to recognise his Primacy, as if all those who believe that a successor of St. Peter passes the bounds of the Canons were enemies of the Primacy of the Holy See. That would be to arm against the Popes in favour of heretics a great number of Fathers, of Saints, and of Councils."^[65] The result was that he took away from St. Hilary his rights of Metropolitan, and conferred them on the Bishop of Vienne, who had claims upon them. But this measure was so disliked by the suffragans of Arles, that he restored the See of Arles to most of its privileges under Ravennius, the successor of St. Hilary. However, this matter had even more important consequences. We will let the Roman Catholic historian, as before, describe them. "St. Leo apparently feared that the Bishops of the Gauls would not be sufficiently submissive to what he had ordered. And though he had made it a charge against St. Hilary that he had employed an armed force in affairs of the Church, for all that he recurred himself to the imperial power against him. He represented him to the Emperor Valentinian the Third as one who rebelled both against the authority of the Apostolic See, and the majesty of the Empire, and obtained of this prince, who was then at Rome, a celebrated rescript, addressed to the Patrician Aetius, general of the armies of the Empire, by which, under pretext of maintaining the peace of the Church, he forbids undertaking any thing whatever without the authority of the Apostolic See, or resisting its orders, which, says he, had always been observed inviolably up to Hilarius. He orders all Bishops to hold as law all that the authority of the Pope establishes, and all magistrates to compel by force to appear before the tribunal of the Bishop of Rome all persons cited thither, if they refused to go. It may be seen by what happened about this time to Atticus, Metropolitan of Nicopolis, in Epirus, how scandalous this employment of force was, and how opposed, according to St. Leo himself, to the gentleness of the Church. Valentinian adds, that the sentence given by St. Leo against St. Hilary, had no need of any one to be executed in the Gauls, since the authority of so great a Pontiff has a right to give any order to the Churches. He goes so far as to make it a charge against St. Hilary, to have deposed and ordained Bishops without consulting the Pope. He even names him a criminal of State on the score of his being charged with having employed the force of arms to establish Bishops, and to place them on a throne where they had only to preach peace. This law is dated the 6th of June, 445, and it is this which fixes the time of all this history. It is undoubtedly very proper, as says Baronius, to show that the Emperors have greatly contributed to establish the greatness and authority of the Popes. This is not the place to make other reflections upon it; but we cannot forbear saying that, in the mind of those who have any love for the liberty of the Church, and any knowledge of its discipline, this law will always as little honour him whom it praises as it will injure him whom it condemns. Pope Hilary quotes this law, and avails himself of the authority it attributes to the decisions of Rome."^[66] It would be presumptuous to add a word to the judgment of one who has made the first centuries of the Church his especial study. St. Hilary, on his return to Arles, made many attempts to reconcile the Pope to him, but all were fruitless, as he would not give up the point in dispute. "It seems," says Tillemont, "that he continued resolved to do nothing in prejudice of the rights he believed to belong to his Church, but that seeing the two great powers of Church and State united against him, he remained quiet and silent, occupied only in the work of his salvation, and that of his people." During the four years he survived, he redoubled his austerities and good works: he died in the odour of sanctity; and after his death, "St. Leo, though still persuaded that he was a presumptuous spirit, calls him 'of holy memory.' Yet, we have neither proof nor probability that he had restored him to his communion, from which he had cut him off."^[67] His name occurs in the Roman Martyrology.