Now as we have had St. Jerome in a noted place appealing to Rome, and acknowledging her primacy, let us take another passage of his which, I think, implicitly denies St. Leo's view. Arguing then against the pride of the Roman deacons, in which city, as they were only seven in number, the office was in higher estimation than even the priesthood, which was numerous, he observes, "Nor is the Church of the Roman city to be considered one, and that of the whole world another. Both the Gauls, and the Britains, and Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, and all barbarous nations, adore one Christ, observe one rule of truth. If you require authority, the world is greater than the city. Wherever a bishop is, be it at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanæ, he is of the same rank, the same priesthood. The power of riches, and the humility of poverty, make a bishop neither higher nor lower. But all are successors of the Apostles. But you say, how is it that at Rome a priest is ordained upon the testimony of a deacon? Why allege to me the custom of a single city? Why defend against the laws of the Church a fewness of number, which is the source of their pride?"[[74]] The very force of St. Leo's view lies in the exact contradictory of St. Jerome's words: viz. the city is greater than the world, and this alone justifies and bears out the present claim of the Roman see, and its attitude both to those within, and to those without, its pale.
But fourthly, had this government, as imaged out by St. Leo, been submitted to not only in Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Illyricum, but throughout the West generally, all this would still be nothing for its catholicity, and therefore its binding effect, unless it had been allowed by the East. Now we have the strongest proof that it never was so allowed. This interference, and much more, the centralization pointed at, as it never would have been tolerated, so neither was it attempted, in the patriarchates of the East. There was far less danger of the patriarchal power becoming excessive, when it was possessed by five, who were a check to each other. St. Leo's influence and authority in the West were balanced by the exercise of like influence and authority in the East, originally by the sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and at this and later times still more by that of Constantinople. And though throughout the East the Bishop of Rome was reckoned the first of these in rank, yet the Easterns were governed entirely by their own Patriarchs. So far from there being any authority delegated by Rome to the Eastern Patriarchs, there was no appeal from them to Rome, that is to say, in a matter belonging to their particular government; for as to the general faith of the Church, in any peculiar emergency or violation of the usual order of procedure, there was an appeal, if not lawful, at least exercised, to any of the Patriarchs. Thus Theodoret of Cyrus, unjustly deposed by Dioscorus of Alexandria in the Latrocinium of Ephesus, flies "to the Apostolic throne" of St. Leo; "for in all things it is becoming that you should have the primacy. For your throne is adorned with many advantages. It has the sepulchres of our common Fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul. These have made your throne exceedingly illustrious. This is the height of your blessings."[[75]] Though a supplicant, he addresses him only as first Bishop of the Church, not as monarch. It is a virtual denial of the present Papal authority, because a silence, where it would have been put forward, had it been known. So the heretic Eutyches, before the council of his own Patriarch, "when his deposition was read, appealed to the holy synod of the most holy Bishop of Rome, and Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and Thessalonica."[[76]] Thus St. Isidore of Spain, in the sixth century, says: "The order of Bishops is fourfold; that is, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Bishops. In Greek a Patriarch is called the first of the Fathers, because he holds the first, that is, the Apostolic place, and therefore, because he holds the highest rank, he has such an appellation, as the Roman, the Antiochene, and the Alexandrine."[[77]] Accordingly Gieseler says, "At the end of this period," (A.D. 451,) the four Patriarchs of the East "were held in their patriarchates for ecclesiastical centres, to which the other Bishops had to attach themselves for maintenance of ecclesiastical unity; and in conjunction with their patriarchal synod they formed the highest tribunal of appeal in all ecclesiastical matters of the patriarchate; whilst, on the other hand, they were treated as the highest representatives of the Church, who, through mutual communication with each other, were to maintain the unity of the universal Church, and without whose concurrence no decrees concerning the whole Church could be made."[[78]]
But no more certain proof of the independence of the Eastern Church can be given than the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Constantinople to the Pope and the Western Bishops. This was a Synod of purely Eastern Bishops, held in 381, which afterwards, by the consent of the Western Church, became Ecumenical. This Council "arranged, without any reference to the West, the affairs of the Oriental Church, and was even quite openly on the side of the party of Meletius, rejected by the Westerns; just so the interference attempted by the Italian Bishops in the matter of Maximus, the counter-Bishop of Constantinople, remained quite disregarded."[[79]] They write thus: "To our most honoured Lords and pious brethren and fellow-ministers, Damasus," of Rome, "Ambrosius," of Milan, "Britton, Valerianus, Ascholius, Anemius, Basilius, and the other holy Bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, the holy Synod of orthodox Bishops assembled in the great city of Constantinople greeting in the Lord."[[80]] Then after informing them what they had decreed concerning the highest matters of the faith, they go on—"But as to the management of particular matters in the Churches, both an ancient fundamental principle, (θεσμὸς,) as ye know, hath prevailed, and the rule of the holy Fathers at Nicea, that in each province those of the province," i.e. the Bishops, "and if they be willing, their neighbours also, should make the elections according as they judge meet. In accordance with which know ye both that the rest of the Churches are administered by us, and that Priests of the most distinguished Churches have been appointed. Whence in the, so to say, newly-founded Church of Constantinople, which by the mercy of God we have snatched as it were out of the jaws of the lion, from subjection to the blasphemy of the heretics, we have elected Bishop the most reverend and pious Nectarius, in an Ecumenical[[81]] Council, with common agreement, in the sight both of the most religious emperor Theodosius, and with the consent of all the Clergy and the whole city. And those," the Bishops, "both of the province and of the diocese[[82]] of the East, being canonically assembled, the whole accordant Church as with one voice honouring the man, have elected the most reverend and religious Bishop Flavian to the most ancient and truly apostolical Church of Antioch in Syria, where first the venerable name of Christian became known: which legitimate election the whole Synod hath received." (And this notwithstanding the Bishop Paulinus, who was received by Rome and the West, had survived St. Meletius, and was then alive. So that they would not, even when such an opportunity occurred, accept the Bishop in communion with Rome—a fact on the one side, which I suppose may weigh against those words of St. Jerome on the other, "I know not Vitalis; Meletius I reject; I am ignorant of Paulinus." [Quoted, p. 26.] It seems that though the test of communion with Rome satisfied St. Jerome, it did not satisfy an Ecumenical Council.) "But of the Church in Jerusalem, the mother of all Churches, we declare that the most reverend and religious Cyril is Bishop, both as long since canonically elected by those of his province, and as having struggled much against the Arians in different places. Whom, as being lawfully and canonically established by us, we invite your piety also to congratulate, through spiritual love, and the fear of the Lord, which represses all human affection, and accounts the edification of the Churches more precious than sympathy with, or favour of, individuals. For thus, by agreement in the word of faith, and by the establishment of Christian love in us, we shall cease to say what the Apostle has condemned—I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. For all being shown to be Christ's, who in us is not divided, by the help of God we shall keep the body of the Church unrent, and shall stand with confidence before the tribunal of the Lord."
Here is the whole East, in the year 381, long before the schism, announcing to the Bishops of Rome, Milan, Aquilea, and the West, the election of its Patriarchs, and exercising as an ancient incontestable right that liberty of self-government, according to the canons, for continuing to do which very thing, and for nothing else, the Latin Church accounts both the Greek and English Church schismatic. Now the Eastern Church, as its own rituals to this day declare, always acknowledged St. Peter's primacy, and that his primacy was inherited by the Bishop of Rome; but it is apparent at once that it never received, nay most strongly abhorred, that system of centralization of all power in Rome, which St. Leo seems to have had before his eyes. Its most holy and illustrious Fathers never submitted to this domination. St. Basil had already complained of the Western pride, (δυτικὴ ὀφρύς.)[[83]] St. Gregory of Nazianzum is that very Archbishop by whose voluntary cession and advice Nectarius is elected. St. Gregory of Nyssa, and Peter, brothers of St. Basil, are in this council, and so St. Cyril of Jerusalem. And yet Bellarmine will have it that Bishops who so wrote and so acted received their jurisdiction from Rome; and what is far more important, if they did not, the present Papal theory falls to the ground.
When Gieseler speaks of "the principle of the mutual independence of the Western and Eastern Church being firmly held in the East generally,"[[84]] of course it must be understood that there can be no independence, strictly so called, in the Church and Body of Christ. Independence annihilates membership and coherence. Accordingly, I am fully prepared to admit that the Primacy of the Roman See, even among the Patriarchs, was a real thing; not a mere title of honour. The power of the First See was really exerted in difficult conjunctures to keep the whole body together. I am quite aware that the Bishop of Rome could do, what the Bishop of Alexandria, or of Antioch, or of Constantinople, or of Jerusalem, could not do. Even merely as standing at the head of the whole West he counterbalanced all the four. But I accept bona fide what Socrates and Sozomen tell us. I believe they had before them neither the Papal Empire of St. Gregory the Seventh, nor the maxims of the Reformation. They are unbiassed witnesses. Sozomen then tells us, that when St. Athanasius, unjustly deposed, fled to Rome for justice, together with Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza, "the Bishop of the Romans, having inquired into the accusations against each, when he found them all agreeing with the doctrine of the Nicene Synod, admitted them to communion as agreeing with him. And inasmuch as the care of all belonged to him on account of the rank of his See, he restored to each his Church. And he wrote to the Bishops throughout the East, &c., which they took very ill;"[[85]] so ill, indeed, that they afterwards pronounced a sentence of deposition against the Pope himself. Again, Pope Julius "wrote to them, accusing them of secretly undermining the doctrine of the Nicene Synod, and that, contrary to the laws of the Church, they had not called him to their Council. For that it was an hierarchical law to declare null what was done against the sentence of the Bishop of the Romans."[[86]] That is, in matters concerning the state of the whole Church, as was this cause of Athanasius. So Socrates says, in reference to the same matter, that Pope Julius asserted to the Bishops of the East, that "they were breaking the Canons in not having called him to their Council, the ecclesiastical Canon ordering that the Churches should not make Canons contrary to the sentence of the Bishop of Rome."[[87]] These passages mark the prerogative of the First See: yet are they quite compatible with the general self-government of the Eastern Church. No doubt, when the Patriarchs of the East were at variance, all would look for support to him who was both the first of their number, and stood alone with the whole West to back him.
And thus again in St. Leo's time a very extraordinary emergency arose, which still further raised the credit of the Roman Patriarch. Dioscorus of Alexandria, supporting the heretic Eutyches, had, by help of the Emperor, deposed and murdered St. Flavian of Constantinople: Juvenal of Jerusalem was greatly involved in this transaction. Dioscorus had then consecrated Anatolius to be the successor of St. Flavian, and Anatolius had consecrated Maximus to Antioch, instead of Domnus, who, too, had been irregularly deposed after St. Flavian. Now, had Dioscorus been otherwise blameless, his consecrating Anatolius, of his own authority, to Constantinople, and Anatolius then consecrating Maximus to Antioch, without the participation of Rome, was an infringement of the just rights of the Primacy; as a Patriarch could not be deposed without the concurrence of the First See. Thus the whole East was in confusion. A heretic had been absolved; one Patriarch murdered, two deposed; and of the other two, one was chief agent, and the other not clear, in these transactions. No wonder that at the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishop of Rome appeared at the head of the West, both to vindicate his own violated rights, for Dioscorus had even deposed him, and as the restorer of true doctrine, and the deliverer of the Church.
But I must now quote, at considerable length, the argument of Bossuet, and his statement as to where the sovereign power in the Church resides. We have already seen what he has said respecting the Council of Ephesus; and his observations on that of Chalcedon and the four succeeding Councils are equally important. His argument, which was intended for the justification of the Gallican Church, really reaches to that of the Greek and English Church also; and it is of the very utmost value, as it rests upon authorities which are sacrosanct in the eyes of every Catholic—the proceedings and decrees of Ecumenical Councils. Let it only be remembered, that I quote no German rationalist, no one who denies either the doctrine or hierarchy of the Church; but a Catholic prelate, the most strenuous defender of the faith, and one who, in the great assembly of his brethren, cried out, "If I forget thee, Church of Rome, may I forget myself; may my tongue dry, and remain motionless in my mouth, if thou art not always the first in my remembrance, if I place thee not at the beginning of all my songs of joy."[[88]]
The question then at issue is, whether the Bishop of Rome be the first of the Patriarchs, and first Bishop of the whole world, the head of the Apostolic college, and holding among them the place which Peter held, all which I freely acknowledge, as the testimony of antiquity; or whether he be, further, not only this, but the source of all jurisdiction, uniting in his single person all those powers which belonged to Peter and the Apostles collectively: an idea which, however extravagant, is actually maintained at present in the Church of Rome, is moreover absolutely necessary to justify its acts, and to condemn the position of the Greek and English Church. Bossuet, who fought for the Gallican liberties, fought for the Anglican likewise.
"Let[[89]] us now review the Acts of the General Council of Chalcedon. The previous facts were these. The two natures of Christ were confounded by Eutyches, an Archimandrite and Abbot of Constantinople, an old man no less obstinate than out of his senses. He then was condemned by his own Bishop, St. Flavian of Constantinople, and appealed to all the Patriarchs, but chiefly to the Roman Pontiff. Leo writes to Flavian, and 'orders everything to be laid before him.' Flavian answers and requests of Leo 'that, making his own the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches, he should, at the same time, decree that the condemnation of Eutyches was regularly passed, and by his own words should strengthen the faith of the Emperor.' He added, 'For the cause only needs your support and definition; and you should, by your own determination, bring it to peace.' This means, it is plain and clear, it has yet few followers, and those obscure, and of no great name. He ends, 'For so the heresy which has arisen will be most easily destroyed, by the cooperation of God, through your letters; and the Council, of which there are rumours, be given up, that the holy Churches be not disturbed.' This, too, is in accordance with discipline, for heresies to be immediately suppressed, first by the Bishop's care, then by that of the Apostolic See: nor is it forthwith necessary that an universal Council be assembled, and the peace of all Churches troubled.
"After the proceedings had been sent to Leo, he writes to Flavian, most fully and clearly setting forth the mystery of the Lord's incarnation, as he says himself, and as all Churches bear witness; at the same time he praises the acts of Flavian, and condemns Eutyches, yet with the grant of indulgence, should he make amends. This is that noble and divine letter which was afterwards so warmly celebrated through the whole Church, and which I wish to be understood so often as I name simply Leo's letter.