to be entrusted with cura omnium Ecclesiarum, and enforced and used his authority-as shall be seen in the fifth section-both over the Greek and the Latin churches. And, indeed, it would have been the most glaring contradiction to refuse on one side the right of supreme jurisdiction, and on the other to exercise it over the whole world. It is surprising that none of the Protestant disputants who have written upon the subject seem to have recognised the inconsistency. St. Gregory, in truth, refused the honour only of that singular title, as he constantly insinuates wherever, in his letters, he speaks of the offer made in the Council of Chalcedon. All the letters quoted in the two foregoing notes prove this-nay, even one of his letters cited in the Eirenicon bears testimony to the same effect. "How is it," he says in this letter to the Emperor Maurice, "that while we seek not the glory of this name, though offered to us, yet another presumes to claim it, though not offered?" 235

VIII. But why then did St. Gregory and his predecessors refuse the title of "universal bishop?" After all we have said on the question, further explanation is hardly needed. They refused this honorary title because they remembered that they were the vicars of Him who has said, "Learn of Me; for I am humble of heart" (St. Matt. xi. 20). Their office was to inspire their fellow-bishops with the same sentiments of humility, and they could not have effectually succeeded in this task, had they coveted so singular a title; they recollected the great lesson taught them by Christ: "He that is greatest among you, let him do as he that serves" (St. Luke xxii. 26). Having refused the title of "universal bishop," they adopted that of servi servorum Dei, in order to follow the divine counsel

235 S. Greg. Epist., 1. v., epist. xx. (1. c., p. 749).

by making themselves the least of all, though superior to all in power and authority. And, certainly, by that mark of humility alone could the Popes check the pride and ambition of the Bishops of Constantinople, who, in opposition to every principle of right and justice, had usurped the title of "universal," extending their authority and their jurisdiction beyond all lawful bounds. How difficult would it have been to overcome the proud stubbornness of the Greek Patriarchs had the Popes shown themselves too fond of titles of honour? Thus humility and prudence induced the Popes to abolish that title, which would have added nothing substantial to their divinely-bestowed authority. In the next section we shall see how the Popes, and Gregory the Great himself, acted on the principle of their divine supremacy, and we shall learn how their authoritative voice was listened to and obeyed in the Universal Church. This will cast such a light on the subject as to defy contradiction on the part of Protestants or schismatics of every shade.

SECTION IV.

THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE EXERCISED OVER, AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY, THE EASTERN CHURCH. CANON XXVIII. OF CHALCEDON.

I. No doctrine in the Church of Christ is so clearly deducible from the records of ecclesiastical history as that of the supremacy of the Apostolic See. To deny this doctrine is nothing less than to gainsay the clear testimony of indisputable facts and documents. It is surprising that so many Protestants who pretend to learning seem unaware of the existence of these historical evidences, or at least unable to appreciate their import. But it is yet more strange to see such men labour at drawing darkness from the clear light of history, and throwing into obscurity the fundamental doctrine upon which rests the divine economy of the whole Church. Most Protestants, probably, and the High Church party especially, would not attempt to deny that the Popes in early times exercised a supreme authority over all the Western Church, but they consider that this authority was enjoyed by the Bishops of Rome in their character of Patriarchs of the West, having been invested by the Church itself with supreme power over every particular church within certain boundaries. Further, they would not shrink from acknowledging that the Eastern Church recognised a Papal primacy. Thus far they are with us, but they deny that the supreme authority was exercised and acknowledged throughout the whole Church, and they maintain that the Eastern Church, never having admitted the divine right of the supremacy,

G

has never varied in her doctrines regarding it. The High Church party, therefore, agree with all Protestants in countenancing the Greek schism, which they unanimously attribute to usurpations of the Popes. Dr. Pusey, who cites the words of the schismatic Bishop of Zerniza,236 seems to be of the same mind. But if history be read in its original sources, it will be seen how much these writers do violence to its evidences, and destroy its teachings. We learn, indeed, from Dr. Overbeck's recent work, that in this the Puseyite party has for an accomplice the schismatic church of the East.237 But in the present section we hope to show, historical documents in hand, that the divine supremacy was uniformly and universally acknowledged in the Eastern Church until the time of its final separation from the Catholic communion, and that the rulers of the East, whether ecclesiastical or civil, never disputed the supreme authority of the Pope.

II. It cannot be questioned that in the fourth century the supreme authority of the Apostolic See was fully acknowledged in the Oriental Church. As soon as the heresy of Apollinaris and his disciple Timotheus arose at Antioch, the neighbouring bishops sent letters to Rome to Pope Damasus, requesting the deposition of these heretics, both of whom were bishops in the Eastern Patriarchate. Pope Damasus applauded the bishops for having given to the Apostolic See the honour which was due to it.238 He afterwards declares

236 Eirenicon, p. 63.

237 Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism. By J. F. Overbeck, D.D. London, 1866.

238 S. Damasus: Epist. xiv., n. 1 (Coustant., p. 571). “Quod debitam Apostolicæ Sedi reverentiam exhibet caritas vestra, in eo vobis ipsis plurimum præstatis, filii carissimi."-Other facts demonstrative of Papal supremacy during the first three centuries, will be adduced in the volume in which the infallibility of the Pope

"239

that Apollinaris and Timotheus had already been deposed by the sentence of the Apostolic See; that he had once for all issued a confession of faith; and finally, that, "Whoever professes himself a Christian must keep what has been handed down from the Apostles." We here see that even before the Oriental bishops had applied to Pope Damasus, two of their brethren had been condemned and deposed by him. In virtue of what power was this done? Doubtless, in virtue of that power of holding the helm which, as he himself intimates, belonged to the bishop who sat in the Chair of the Apostle Peter,210 and by no other authority. Damasus restored the Patriarch Peter to his see of Alexandria when he had been deposed by the intrigues of a certain Lucius. 241 And in this he followed the example of his predecessor, Julius; for when the five banished bishops-St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Paul of Constantinople, Asclepias of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra in Galatia, and Lucius of Hadrianople— being driven from their sees by their opponents, came to Rome, and appealed to the authority of this Pontiff, Julius judged their cause with supreme authority, and finding their profession of faith to be in harmony with his own, he sent them back with his authoritative

will be treated. For the present, we refer our readers to H. Hagemann, Die Römische Kirche, und ihr Einfluss auf Disciplin und Dogma, pp. 128, 134, 439, &c. Freiburg, 1864.

239 S. Damasus: n. 2. "Scitote igitur quod profanum illum Timotheum Apollinarii hæretici discipulum cum impio ejus dogmate damnavimus." Ibid, n. 3, "Quid igitur depositionem Timothei a me denuo postulatis, qui et hic judicio Sedis Apostolicæ. depositus est una cum magistro suo Apollinario?" See the Profession of Faith in Coustant., p. 518, seq.

240 S. Damasus: n. I. "Etsi maxime in Sancta Ecclesia in qua S. Apostolus sedens docuit, docet nos quodam modo clavum tenere, quem regendum suscepimus," &c.

241 Socrates: Hist. Eccles., 1. iv., c. xxxvii. Edit. Valesii, p. 254.