sciences; in allowing Christian ladies to take to themselves, if they so desired, consorts of a lower rank, with whom they could not contract a legal marriage.

You may guess what a sensation was produced by the discovery of a work seemingly so damaging to the credit of two Roman bishops. Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln, who published separately this part of the newly-discovered work, believes every word that Hippolytus says to the discredit of the Popes. And he cannot be much blamed for doing so: for Hippolytus has always been honoured as a saint and a martyr, and the honour must have been given him from nearly his own time; for there is in existence a statue of him, which is proved to be nearly contemporary by its having engraved on it the cycle which Hippolytus invented in order to find the time of Easter. Now, that cycle was an erroneous one, and its error could not but be discovered after using it for a dozen years. We may conclude, therefore, that the time when it was engraved in perpetual honour of Hippolytus was before the error was discovered; that is to say before A.D. 240. If we accept the testimony of Hippolytus, it would follow that two bishops of Rome were not only men of indifferent moral character, but that they fell into heresy on a primary article of the Christian faith. Dr. Newman, on the other hand, was so shocked at this libel on Roman bishops, that he declared nothing would persuade him it could be the work of the saint and martyr Hippolytus. But a far better defence of the credit of the Roman see was made by von Döllinger, at that time in full credit as an able champion of the Roman Catholic Church. His work, Hippolytus and Callistus, has been translated into English (1876); and I do not know a more interesting and instructive work on early Church history.

Döllinger points out that though in this work Hippolytus claims to be a bishop, and is recognized as a bishop by early authorities, yet that the name of his see is not mentioned by them; and some of them expressly declare their ignorance of it. The statement that he was bishop of Portus (near Rome), though generally accepted, rests on comparatively late and untrustworthy authorities. A number of Greek MSS.,

xx.]

DÖLLINGER'S THEORY.

393

which cite passages from his writings, describe him as bishop of Rome. Further, in this work Hippolytus never ascribes the title of bishop to Callistus; and he speaks of him as having only seemed to obtain the dignity he aimed at. Döllinger's inference is, that the dissensions at Rome proceeded to such a length that they came to formal schism, Hippolytus being the bishop of the ultra-orthodox minority, and Callistus the one accepted by the majority of the Roman Church.

This theory gives an excellent explanation of all the phenomena presented by the treatise against heresies which we are discussing; but it is attended by the very grave difficulty that this, which would seem to have been one of the earliest schisms in the Roman see, seems to have been absolutely unknown to the rest of the Christian world; and that although the leader of one of the parties was that member of the Roman Church who was best known elsewhere for his learning and his literary activity. If Döllinger's hypothesis be well founded, it follows that Christians in the third century so far from regarding the bishop of Rome as their master and teacher, regarded the question, who was bishop of Rome, as one merely of local interest, and troubled themselves little to inquire who the bishop of Rome was. Rival bishops might claim the see for years, and one of them not an obscure person, but the leading divine in the Roman Church of his day, and yet the schism not leave a trace in Church history, and, as far as we can learn, not a single Eastern Christian have heard of its existence.

Taking this view, however, the impeachment of the orthodoxy of the Roman bishops is at once disarmed. Instead of believing on the word of Hippolytus that the Roman bishops who differed with him were heretics, we may question whether it was not he himself who was in the wrong, whether in his zeal against those who confounded the Persons of the Father and the Son, he did not use such indiscreet language as to lay himself fairly open to the charge of Ditheism: that is to say, whether he did not so separate their substances as to seem to teach Christians to worship two distinct Gods. It is still easier to defend

the disciplinary regulations of the Roman bishops, for the indulgence which characterized the practice of Callistus is more in accordance both with our own ideas, and with the practice of the Church since his time, than the unforgiving strictness of Hippolytus. And as for the charges of immorality, we are not bound to take as Gospel truth everything that is alleged by a witness so bitter and evidently prejudiced as Hippolytus. He clearly puts the worst construction on all the facts of the life of Callistus. Did he become bankrupt, it was because he had embezzled the funds entrusted to him. Did he get into trouble by his Christian zeal, it was because of his crimes, and because being unable to commit suicide, he was anxious for an occasion of death. And so on.

On the whole I consider that Döllinger has made out so good a case, that I am willing to acquit Zephyrinus and Callistus of the charge of heresy; though, as I have pointed out, the theory obliges us to set very low the influence exerted by the Roman Church on the rest of the Christian world at the beginning of the third century.

THE PROGRESS OF ROMAN SUPREMACY.

AT

T the conclusion of the last Lecture I told of von you Döllinger's theory that Hippolytus was an antipope, claiming in opposition to Callistus the dignity of bishop of Rome. This suggests a point in the controversy which ought not to be omitted, and on which, therefore, I will say something before going further. Supposing it to be proved that in order to avoid all risk of going wrong, Christ had given to His followers this compendious rule to guard them from error, 'Adhere to the bishop of Rome,' still even this simple rule has its uncertainties, for we have first to deter mine who the bishop of Rome is. Now, in all the time between the third century and the Reformation not a century has passed in which there has not been a schism in the Church on this very point, Christians being perplexed between the contending claims of different pretenders to the Roman see.

I have said something as to what possibly may have been one of the earliest of these schisms; I will now say something as to what is commonly counted the twenty-ninth; not the last, but the greatest and most memorable for its duration, its extent, and its damaging effects on the papal claims. I mean what is commonly called the great Western schism, which began in 1378, on the death of Pope Gregory XI. It lasted nearly forty years, during which time two or more popes disputed with each other the honour of being the rightful successor of St. Peter; and the claims of the contending parties were so evenly balanced that the nations of Western Christendom were tolerably equally divided between them.

Very respectable Roman Catholic writers have maintained that it is still impossible to decide with certainty which party was in the right-saints working miracles being numbered among the adherents of either pontiff-and finally (I quote from the Jesuit Maimbourg), even a general council, which had the aid of the Holy Ghost to enable them to decide infallibly, did not venture to solve the question, and had recourse to its authority instead of availing itself of its knowledge, that is to say, instead of informing the Christian world which of the popes was the true one, the council, by virtue of its authority, deposed them all, and set up a new pope of its own.

I must assume that you have a general knowledge of the facts of the case, and will recall to your memory that the death of Gregory XI. was the termination of what has been called the Babylonish Captivity, namely, the seventy years' residence of the French popes at Avignon. It is certain that the temporal interests of the city of Rome suffered greatly from the absence of its spiritual head. The Roman magistrates complained that the faithful were no longer attracted to Rome either by devotion or interest; that there was danger lest the unfortunate city should be reduced to a vast solitude; the sacred edifices left without roof, gates, or walls; the abode of beasts, which cropped the grass off their very altars. Accordingly, the death of Gregory XI.† and the election of his successor taking place at Rome— although the cardinals, being French, would undoubtedly, if they had free choice, have elected a French successor, they were surrounded by a violent mob, threatening to tear them in pieces and set the house on fire over their heads if they elected a foreign pope; and although they had at first protested that an election constrained by violence would not give a real pope but an intruder, yet ultimately they gave

* Histoire du grand Schisme d'Occident, p. 3.

† He had come to Rome chiefly on the persuasion of Catherine of Siena, a saint remarkable for having had the marks of the Saviour's wounds imprinted on her body, as well as for having had an espousal ring with four pearls and a diamond, placed permanently on her finger by our Lord Himself; although, to spare her modesty, these honours were invisible to all eyes but her own (Bolland, AA. SS., April 30, pp. 882, 901).