XXI.]

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.

423

own province. It is worthy of remark that the ground on which Leo asserts the nullity of the canons is not their having been passed without his consent, but their being in opposition to the decrees of Nicæa, which he said would last to the end of the world, and which no subsequent assembly of bishops, however numerous, had power to alter.* But in spite of Roman protests the canon remained firm; Constantinople retained the rank assigned to it, and after long unavailing struggle Rome was forced to recognize the existing facts. The Quinisext Council, 681, confirmed all the Chalcedon canons without exception, and the Council of Florence formally renewed the order established by Chalcedon, with Constantinople second.

To what a height Constantinople grew may be judged from the title of Ecumenical or universal bishop, about which there was such amusing controversy at the end of the sixth century. In the grandiloquent language of the East it did not mean all that the word would in strictness convey; and the bishop of Constantinople would probably have allowed that there might be more universal bishops than one; but Gregory the Great, taking it literally, was shocked at what he called a proud and foolish word; declared that the assumption of it was an imitation of the devil, who exalted himself above his fellow angels; that it was unlike the behaviour of St. Peter, who, although first of the Apostles, did not pretend to be more than of the same class with the rest, and that this piece of arrogance was a token of Antichrist's speedy coming. I call this amusing on account of the laughable shifts to which Roman divines are reduced in their efforts to reconcile this language with the assumption of the same title and all it denotes, by Gregory's successors.

Leo, in like manner, rejected the ambitious claims, already mentioned of Juvenal of Jerusalem, on the ground that they were an infringement of the Nicene canon. But though Juvenal did not succeed in obtaining everything he had wished for, the question of the claims of Jerusalem was dealt with as an entirely open one by the Council of Chalcedon, and that see then permanently secured a higher position than Nicæa had given it.

XXII.

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.

LTHOUGH the question of the Infallibility of the Pope

A is that with which I am directly concerned in this

course of Lectures, yet in treating of the matter historically I have found it necessary, before entering on the discussion of it, to trace the growth of Roman supremacy; because the claim to Infallibility was the last stage in the progress of Roman ambition. First, there was but the readily acknowledged claim to honourable precedence among Churches: then there was the claim to command, first over neighbouring Churches, afterwards over more distant ones; last of all came the idea of Infallibility. It did not necessarily arise out of the claim to sovereignty, for the most rightful of human rulers is not exempt from occasional errors; but the notion was suggested by the exemption which Rome seemed to enjoy from the calamities which befel other principal sees. At the third general council the bishop of Constantinople was deposed for heresy; at the fourth the bishop of Alexandria. Other sees were, in like manner, at times occupied by men whom the later Church repudiated as heretics. Probably the true explanation why it was long before the name of heretic permanently attached itself to any bishop of Rome is, that the side supported by the powerful influence of Rome always had the best chance of triumphing, and so of escaping the stigma of heresy which the defeated party incurred. At one time, indeed, it seemed for a moment that things might turn out differently; for on the temporary triumph of Eutychianism at the Robber Synod of A.D. 429, the bishop of Rome was excommunicated as a heretic; but by the opportune

XXII.]

THE FALL OF LIBERIUS.

425

death of the emperor the cloud blew over, and this piece of impudence was regarded as only aggravating the guilt of the Alexandrian. Thus, then, it was not until after some five centuries, during which the Chair of Peter' escaped any permanent stain of heresy, that the idea suggested itself that this exemption was a privilege conferred in answer to our Saviour's prayer that Peter's faith should not fail. We have now to inquire how far the belief in such a privilege is justified by facts; and we must also examine whether the bishop of Rome has really discharged the office of teacher and guide to the Church, which it is imagined was conferred on him.

I have already (p. 390) spoken of the charge of heresy brought by Hippolytus against Zephyrinus and Callistus. Döllinger's is the only way of meeting that case which saves the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. An attempted proof that the accused bishops were really orthodox would leave it still open to reply that, at least Hippolytus regarded it as a possible thing that the bishop of Rome might be a heretic. But if Hippolytus did not regard Callistus as bishop of Rome, no use can be made of the case in the present controversy.

I pass over minor matters and come at once to the great Arian controversy. I have already remarked that Constantine clearly knew nothing of the idea that the bishop of Rome was the appointed teacher and guide of the Church; for if that had been the accepted belief of the Church of the day, the emperor could not but have heard of it; and, being most anxious to suppress controversy, and to give peace to the Church, he would not have adopted the costly expedient of a council, but would have used the simpler method of obtaining a ruling from the bishop of Rome, if he had any reason to think that the Church would accept that ruling as decisive. But the history of these Arian disputes affords a painful proof that this controversy, at least, was not settled by the bishop of Rome. I allude to the fall of Liberius. The case being a celebrated one, it may be well to delay a little on it, and to state without exaggeration what the real amount of this fall was.

Liberius, to his credit, made at first a noble resistance to

the pressure put on him by the Arian Emperor Constantius.* He defied his threats and submitted to exile; but in his banishment he was purposely insulated from other confessors. His Church at Rome was committed to another, Felix, who was consecrated by three Arian bishops. And it was this which seems more than anything else to have wrought on the constancy of Liberius-the being separated from his see, and knowing that his place there was occupied by another. After two years' banishment he seems willing to submit to anything in order to obtain restoration. St. Jerome tells us that Fortunatian, bishop of Aquileia, who had lapsed into Arianism, seduced him and constrained him to the subscription of heresy. He became the bearer of the letter of Liberius to the emperor. The heretical creed was offered to Liberius by Demophilus of Constantinople, one of the worst of the Arians. Liberius writes to the Arians as his most beloved brethren the presbyters and his fellow-bishops, the bishops of the East. He apologizes to the bishops for ever having defended Athanasius, on the ground that bishop Julius, his predecessor, had so done; but having learned,' he says, when it pleased God, that you have condemned him justly, I assented to your sentence. So, then, Athanasius being removed from the communion of us all, so that I am not even to receive his letters, I say that I am quite at peace and concord with you all, and with all the Eastern bishops throughout the provinces. But that you may know better that in this letter I speak in true faith the same as my common lord and brother, Demophilus, who was so good as to vouchsafe to exhibit your Catholic creed, which at Sirmium was by many of our brethren and fellow-bishops considered, set forth, and received by all present: this I received with willing mind, contradicted in nothing. To it I gave my assent: this I follow; this is held by me.' St. Hilary interrupts the account thrice with the words, This is Arian faithlessness;' 'anathema, I say to thee, Liberius and thy associates;' again, and a third time, anathema to the

*In the following I abridge the story as told in Pusey's Councils of the Church, p. 168.

xxII.]

THE FALL OF LIBERIUS.

427

prevaricator Liberius.' Time compels me to omit another letter of Liberius, still more miserable, in which he puts himself expressly in communion with the whole Arian and semiArian party in the East and West, even with the worst of the Arians, out of communion with all who rejected the Arians, speaks of Athanasius as one who was bishop of Alexandria, and entreats his own restoration to Rome through the heads of the persecuting Arian party."

*

There has been some dispute as to which of the three creeds known as Sirmian it was that Liberius signed. For myself, I think that it is of no importance which he signed, and that his signing means no more than communicating with the Arians, which it is certain he did. You will remember that the Arians were struggling for comprehension, and that they were willing to use extremely high language concerning our Lord's dignity. The worst of their formulæ did not assert anything untrue, but merely omitted the phrases which the orthodox used to exclude the Arians. For instance, if Liberius signed the worst of the Sirmian formulæ, he would only have had to say that we do not worship two gods; that our Lord said, 'My Father is greater than I,' and that the word 'homoöusios' is not in Scripture.

A fine specimen of controversial courage was exhibited by the Jesuit Stilting, who (Bolland. AA. SS., Sept. vi., 598 seq.) did not scruple to deny the fall of Liberius, condemning as forgeries all the passages of early writers which asserted it. However, he has not succeeded in convincing candid men of his own communion; and Hefele, for example (History of Councils, v. 81), satisfactorily disposes of the difficulties raised by Stilting against accepting the testimony of Athanasius (Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 41, Apolog. cont. Arian. c. 89) and of Jerome, who, in his chronicle, has Liberius tædio victus exilii et in heretica pravitate subscribens Romam quasi victor intraverat,' and in his Catalogue condemns Fortunatian because Liberium Romanæ urbis episcopum, pro fide ad exilium pergentem, primus sollicitavit, ac fregit, et ad subscriptionem hæreseos compulit.' Hefele makes no doubt that Liberius agreed to the two things on which the Emperor insisted, namely, that he should join in the condemnation of Athanasius, and that he should enter into communion with the bishops who refused the Homoöusion. But he rejects the letters of Liberius, transcribed by Hilary, from which I have given an extract in the text. The question of the genuineness of these letters is a very subordinate one, affecting as it does, not the question of the fall of Liberius, but only the amount of humiliation with which that fall was attended. However, I believe them to be genuine. The fragments of Hilary which contain them are accepted as genuine by the best Roman Catholic critics, Tillemont, Fleury, Ceillier, Montfaucon, Möhler, &c. The arguments for