And it is of no small importance that we have here speaking a Pope, one to whom twelve centuries have given the name of Great, one who, with St. Leo, stands forth out of the ancient line of St. Peter's heirs as an especially legislative mind. Every Catholic is bound to take his words without suspicion. Now St. Gregory asserts, as we have seen, the right of his See to call any Bishop to account, even the four Patriarchs, in case of a violation of the Canons; declaring at the same time that, when the Canons are kept, the meanest Bishop is his equal in the estimation of humility. Even while arguing against this title he says, "To all who know the Gospel is manifest that the charge of the whole Church was entrusted by the voice of the Lord to the holy Apostle Peter,"—"and yet he is not called Universal Apostle;" but this title, he asserts, and the theory implied in it, is devilish, an imitation of Satan, an anticipation of Antichrist. What else can we conclude but that which so many other documents prove, that this Primacy over the whole Church, the ancient and undoubted privilege of the Bishop of Rome, was something quite different from what he is here reprobating? For St. Gregory, least of all men, was so blind as to use arguments which might be retorted with full force against himself. And yet, any one reading these words of his, and not knowing whence they came, would suppose they were written by a professed opponent of the present Papal claims. For in these letters St. Gregory acknowledges all the Patriarchs as co-ordinate with himself, acknowledges our Lord to be sole Head of the Church, declares the title of Universal Bishop blasphemous and Antichristian, expressly on the ground that it is a wrong done to the Universal Church, to every Bishop and Priest: "If one is universal, it remains that you are not Bishops;" declares, moreover, that St. Peter himself is only a member of the Universal Church, as St. Paul, St. John, St. Andrew, were other members, the heads of different communities. This may be said to be the precise logical contradictory of De Maistre's assertion, that "the Pope" is "the Church," in which he assuredly only expresses the Papal idea. Rarely, indeed, is it that any controversy, appealing to ancient times, can have a testimony on all its details so distinct, and specific, and authoritative as this: and yet it may be said no more than to crown the testimony of the six centuries going before it. That during this period the Bishop of Rome was recognised to be first Bishop of the whole Church, of very great influence, successor of St. Peter, and standing in the same relation to his brethren the Bishops that St. Peter stood in to his brother Apostles; this, on the whole, I believe to be the testimony of the first six centuries, such as a person, not wilfully blind, and who was not content to take the witness of a Father when it suited his purpose and pass it by when it did not, would draw from ecclesiastical documents. I have set it forth to the best of my ability, as well where it seemed to tell against the present position of the Church of England, as in those many points in which it supports her.
What then is our defence on her part against the charge of schism? It is simply this. That no one can now be in the communion of Rome without admitting this very thing which Pope Gregory declares to be blasphemous and anti-Christian, and derogatory to the honour of every Priest. This is the very head and front of our offending, that we refuse to allow that the Pope is Universal Bishop. If the charge were that we refuse to stand in the same relation to the Pope that St. Augustin of Canterbury stood in to this very St. Gregory, that we refuse to regard and honour the successor of St. Gregory with the same honour with which our Archbishops, as soon as they were seated in the government of their Church, and were no longer merely Missionaries but Primates, regarded the occupant of St. Peter's See, I think both the separation three hundred years ago, and the present continuance of it on our part, would, so far as this question of schism is concerned, be utterly indefensible. But this is not the point. It may indeed be, and frequently is, so stated by unfair opponents. The real point is, that, during the nine hundred years which elapsed between 596 and 1534 the power of the Pope, and his relation to the Bishops in his communion, had essentially altered: had been, in fact, placed upon another basis. That from being first Bishop of the Church, and Patriarch, originally of the ten provinces under the Præfectus Prætorii of Italy, then of France, Spain, Africa, and the West generally, he had claimed to be the source and channel of grace to all Bishops, the fountain-head of jurisdiction to the whole world, East as well as West; in fact, the 'Solus Sacerdos,' the 'Universus Episcopus,' contemplated by St. Gregory. There is a worldwide difference between the ancient signature of the Popes, 'Episcopus Catholicæ Ecclesiæ Urbis Romæ,' and that of Pope Pius at the Council of Trent, 'Ego Pius Catholicæ Ecclesiæ Episcopus.' It has been no longer left in the choice of any to accept his Primacy, without accepting his Monarchy, which those who profess to follow antiquity must believe that the Bishops of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, Augustin and Chrysostom, the West and the East, would have rejected with the horror shown by St. Gregory at the first dawning of such an idea. And, whereas Holy Scripture and antiquity present us with one accordant view of the Universal Church governed by St. Peter and the Apostolic College, and, during the first six centuries at least, as the Bishop of Rome is seen to exercise the Primacy of St. Peter, so his brother-Bishops stand to him as the College of Apostles stood to St. Peter: instead of this, which is the Church's divine hierarchy, instituted by Christ Himself, the actual Roman Church is governed by one Bishop who has an apostolical independent power, whilst all the rest, who should be his brethren, are merely his delegates, receiving from his hand the investiture of such privileges as they still retain. If St. Gregory did not mean this by the terms 'Solus Sacerdos,' 'Universus Episcopus,' what did he mean? That the Pope should be the only Priest who offered sacrifice, or the only Bishop who ordained, confirmed, &c. is physically impossible. Nor did the title of the Bishops of Constantinople tend to this: but to claim to themselves jurisdiction over the co-ordinate Patriarchs of the East, as the Popes have since done over the Bishops of the whole world. We have no need to consider what is the amount of this difficulty to Roman Catholics themselves: the same Providence which has placed them under that obedience, has placed us outside of it. Our cause, indeed, cannot be different now from what it was at the commencement of the separation. If inherently indefensible then, it is so now. But if then 'severe but just,' the lapse of three centuries in our separate state may materially affect our relative duties. I affirm my conviction, that it is better to endure almost any degree of usurpation, provided only it be not anti-Christian, than to make a schism: for the state of schism is a frustration of the purposes of the Lord's Incarnation; and through this, not only the English, and the Eastern Church, but the Roman also, lies fettered and powerless before the might of the world, and bleeding internally at every pore. How shall a divided Church meet and overcome the philosophical unbelief of these last times? or, the one condition to which victory is attached being broken, crush the deadliest attack of the old enemy? But the schism is made; let those answer for it before Christ's tribunal who made it. Now that it is made, I see not how a system, which is not a true development of the ancient Patriarchal constitution, but its antagonist, according to St. Gregory's words, can be forced upon us, on pain of our salvation, who have the original succession of the ancient Bishops of this realm, if any such there be, and the old Patriarchal constitution, 'sua tantum si bona norint.' I ground our present position simply on the appeal to tradition and the first six centuries.
Not that there is any abrupt break in the testimony of history there; but it is necessary to put a limit somewhere. Otherwise the seventh century supplies us with the remarkable fact of Pope Honorius condemned, by the sixth Ecumenical Council in 681, as having connived at and favoured the Monothelite heresy, condemned more than forty years after his death; a fact which utterly destroys the new dogma of the infallibility of the one Roman Pontiff by himself; and which Bellarmine and Baronius can only meet by attempting to prove that the acts of the sixth Council have been falsified, though they had been received for genuine by the seventh and eighth Councils, and for nine hundred years; and the letter of St. Leo, immediately after that Council, falsified also, in which he condemns the Monothelites, and amongst them Honorius, "who did not adorn this Apostolical See with the doctrine handed down from the Apostles, but endeavoured to subvert the undefiled faith by a profane tradition." The condemnation of the Council runs as follows:—"Having examined the letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus, and the answer of Honorius to Sergius, and having found them to be repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostles, and to the opinion of all the Fathers, in execrating their impious dogmas, we judge that their very names ought to be banished from the Holy Church of God; we declare them to be smitten with anathema; and, together with them, we judge that Honorius, formerly Pope of ancient Rome, be anathematized, since we find, in his letter to Sergius, that he follows in all respects his error, and authorizes his impious doctrine."[[147]]
It appears, likewise, that as the letter of St. Cyril was read and approved in the third Council, and that of Pope St. Leo in the fourth, so that of Pope St. Agathon was read and approved in the sixth, and that of Pope Adrian the First in the seventh, A.D. 787. But here it may be well to give Bossuet's summary. "This tradition" (i.e. that the supreme authority in the Church resides in the consent of the Bishops) "we have seen to come down from the Apostles, and descend to the first eight General Councils; which eight General Councils are the foundation of the whole Christian doctrine and discipline, of which the Church venerates the first four, in St. Gregory's words, no less than the four Gospels. Nor is less reverence due to the rest, as, guided by the same Spirit, they have a like authority. Which eight Councils, with a great and unanimous consent, have placed the final power of giving decisions in nothing else but in the consent of the Fathers. Of which the six last have legitimately examined the sentence of the Roman Pontiff even given upon Faith, and that with the approval of the Apostolic See, the question being put in this form, as we read in the Acts—'Are these decrees right, or not?'
"But we have seen that the judgment of a General Council never was so reconsidered, but that all immediately yielded obedience to it. Nor was a new inquiry ever granted to anyone after that examination, but punishment threatened. Thus acted Constantine; thus Marcian; thus Cœlestine; thus Leo; thus all the rest, as we have seen in the Acts. The Christian world hath acknowledged this to be certain and indubitable.
"To this we may add the testimony of the admirable Pope St. Gelasius: 'A good and truly Christian Council once held, neither can nor ought to be unsettled by the repetition of a new Council.' And again: 'There is no cause why a good Council should be reconsidered by another Council, lest the mere reconsideration should detract from the strength of its decrees.' Thus what has received the final and certain judgment of the Church, is not to be reconsidered; for that judgment of the Holy Spirit is reversed, whenever it is reconsidered by a fresh judgment. But the judgment put forth by a Roman Pontiff is such, that it has been reconsidered. It is not therefore that ultimate and final judgment of the Church.
"Nor is that sentence of Gregory the Great less clear, comparing the four General Councils to the four Gospels, with the reason given; 'Because being decreed by universal consent, whoever presumes either to loose what they bind, or bind what they loose, destroys not them but himself.'
"So then our question is terminated by the tradition of the ancient Councils and Fathers. All should consent to the power of the Roman Pontiff, as explained according to the decree of the Council of Florence, after the practice of General Councils. The vast difference between the judgment of a Council and of a Pontiff is evident, since after that of the Council no question remains, but only the obedience of the mind brought into captivity; but that of the Pontiff is upon examination approved, room being given to object,—which was to be proved."[[148]]
Here the real question at issue is, whether the Bishop of Rome be First Bishop, or Monarch, of the Church. Now, I have endeavoured to delineate, from the Fathers and from Councils, what the true Primacy of the Roman See is. What is now required from us to admit as terms of communion is—"That the ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends immediately from the Pope;" "the government of the Church is monarchical, therefore all authority resides in one, and from him is derived unto the rest;" "there is a great difference between the succession to Peter and that to the rest of the Apostles; for the Roman Pontiff properly succeeds Peter not as Apostle, but as ordinary Pastor of the whole Church; and therefore the Roman Pontiff has jurisdiction from Him from whom Peter had it: but Bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles, as the Apostles were not ordinary, but extraordinary, and, as it were, delegated Pastors, to whom there is no succession. Bishops, however, are said to succeed the Apostles, not properly in that manner in which one Bishop succeeds another, and one king another, but in another way, which is two-fold. First, in respect of the holy Order of the Episcopate; secondly, from a certain resemblance and proportion: that is, as when Christ lived on earth, the twelve Apostles were the first under Christ, then the seventy-two Disciples: so now the Bishops are first under the Roman Pontiff, after them Priests, then Deacons, &c. But it is proved that Bishops succeed to the Apostles so, and not otherwise; for they have no part of the true Apostolic authority. Apostles could preach in the whole world, and found Churches ... this cannot Bishops." ... "Bishops succeed to the Apostles in the same manner as Priests to the seventy-two Disciples."[[149]] Again: "But, if the Supreme Pontiff be compared with the rest of the Bishops, he is deservedly said to possess the plenitude of power, because the rest have fixed regions over which they preside, and also a fixed power; but he is set over the whole Christian world, and possesses, in its completeness and plenitude, that power which Christ left on earth for the good of the Church."[[150]] He proceeds to prove this by those passages of Scripture:—'Thou art Peter,' &c.; 'Feed my sheep,' &c.; which we have seen St. Augustin explaining as said to St. Peter in the person of the Church, while he expressly denies that they are said to him merely as an individual. "These keys not one man but the unity of the Church received:" "he was not the only one among the Disciples who was thought worthy to feed the Lord's sheep," &c. What Bellarmine here says, is, assuredly, both the true Roman view, and moreover absolutely necessary to justify that Church in the attitude she assumes and the measures she authorizes towards other parts of the Church. And if it be the ancient Catholic doctrine, it does justify her. That it is not the ancient doctrine, I think I have already shown; but let us hear what Bossuet says of it. "One objection of theirs remains to be explained, that Bishops borrow their power and jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff, and therefore, although united with him in an Ecumenical Council, can do nothing against the root and source of their own authority, but are only present as his Counsellors; and that the force of the decree, as well in matters of faith as in other matters, lies in the power of the Roman Pontiff. Which fiction falls of itself to the ground, even from this, that it was unheard of in the early ages, and began to be introduced into theology in the thirteenth century; that is, after men preferred generally to act upon philosophical reasonings, and those very bad, before consulting the Fathers.[[151]]
"But to this innovation is opposed, first, what is related in the Acts of the Apostles respecting that Council of Apostles, which the letter of St. Cœlestine to the Council of Ephesus, and the proceedings of the fifth Ecumenical Council, proved to be as it were repeated and represented in all other Councils. But if any one says that, in this Council, the Apostles were not set by Christ to be true judges, but to be the counsellors of Peter, he is too ridiculous.[[152]]