IN

NOTE [N] p. 100.

THE PRIMITIVE TIMES IT WAS HELD NECESSARY THAT ALL CHURCHES, AND THE FAITHFUL DISCIPLES OF CHRIST, WHER EVER THEY WERE DISpersed, shOULD BE IN COMMUNION WITH THE PARTICULAR CHURCH OF ROME, AS THE FIRST CHURCH IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD, AND THE CENTRE OF UNITY. St. Irenæus, who died in the year 202, thus expresses himself on this subject: :-"As it would be tedious to enumerate the whole list of successors in all the episcopal sees, I shall confine myself to that of Rome, the greatest, and most ancient, and most illustrious church, founded by the glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, receiving from them her doctrine, which was announced to all men, and which, through the succession of her Bishops, is come down to us. With this church, on account of its superior headship, it is necessary that every other church, that is, the faithful of all countries, should be in communion, (convenire). They, therefore, having founded and instructed this church, committed the administration thereof to Linus. To him succeeded Anacletus; then, in the third place, Clement. To Clement succeeded Evaristus, to him Alexander, and then Sixtus, who was followed by Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. But Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, now governs the church." Adv. Here. 1. iii, c.iii. Tertullian, who died in 245 writes. "Let them (the heretics) produce the origin of their Churches; the regular succession of their Bishops. Smyrna has her Polycarp, appointed by St. John: Rome her Clement, ordained by St. Peter; and so the other Churches.... In Italy there is Rome; an authority, to which we can readily appeal. Happy Church, which the great Apostles fully impregnated with all their doctrine and with their blood." De Præscrip. c. xxxii and xxxvi. St. Cyprian, who suffered martyrdom in 258, writing to Pope Cornelius, states the improper conduct of certain Schismatics, who had gone from Africa to Rome, and says; "After these attempts, having chosen a Bishop for themselves, they dare to sail and to carry letters from Schismatics and profane men to the chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence the sacerdotal unity took its rise; not reflecting, that the members of that Church are Romans, whose faith was praised by St. Paul, to whom perfidy can have no access." Ep. 59.

St. Optatus of Milevis, about the year 380, writes thus to Parmenianus the Donatist, "You cannot deny that St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, established an episcopal chair at Rome: this chair was one; that all others might preserve unity, by the union which they hold with it j.... so that now, he is a Schismatic and an offender, who sets up another, against the only chair." De Schismat. Donat Lib. 2.

St. Jerom, seeing a division in the church of Antioch, and not knowing whom to adhere to, wrote two letters to Pope Damasus, in 376 or 377, to consult him, how he ought to act. In the first he says, "I am joined in communion with your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. Upon that rock I know the church is built. Whoever eats the lamb out of that house, is a profane person. Whoever is not in the ark, shall perish in the deluge..... Whoever gathers not with you, scatters; he who is not Christ's, belongs to Antichrist.....Order me, if you please, what I should do." Not receiv ing a speedy answer, St. Jerom wrote a second letter, conjuring his Holiness to answer his difficulties, and not despise a soul, for which Jesus Christ died. "On one side," says he, "the Arian fury rages, supported by the secular power: on the other side the church (at Antioch) being divided into three parts, each would needs draw me to itself. All the time, I cease not to cry out, Whoever is united to the chair of Peter, he is mine!" Ep. 14 & 16, ad Damas.

From these and other testimonies, which might be cited, we may see, that in the early ages of the Christian church, the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, was respected as the visible head of the church of Christ on earth, as the common Father of the faithful, and as the centre of unity, in faith and government. We may also see, that all true Christians felt it to be their duty, to be united in communion with him, as members with their head, as children with མ་་་ their Father, and as subjects of the kingdom of Christ, of which he was acknowledged to be the supreme Ruler on earth.

NOTE [O], page 100.

THE BISHOPS OF ROME HAVE EVER BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED, FROM THE EARLIEST AGES OF CHRISTIANITY, AS THE SUPREME RULERS ON EARTH OF THE WHOLE CHURCH OF CHRIST; AND HAVE EXERCISED AN ACKNOWLEDGED PRIMACY OF SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION, AS OF DIVINE RIGHT, OVER ALL OTHER PARTICULAR CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.

The truth of this assertion will be shewn, by well attested acts of the acknowledged exercise of this superior jurisdiction over the Eastern and Western Churches, before and after the division of the empire.

10. Pope Victor, in order to maintain unity of discipline in the church, insisted on the churches of Lesser Asia conforming to the observance of the church of Rome, and of other Christian churches, respecting the time of celebrating Easter. Several councils held at Rome, in Palestine, in Gaul, and other places, had unanimously determined the point, according to the Roman custom.

Polycrates, and other Asiatic Bishops, were determined to adhere to their own custom. Pope Victor, at last, threatened to cut them off from the communion of the church. St. Irenæus, in 200, wrote a letter to the Pope, in his own name, and in that of his brethren in Gaul, récommending a toleration of the custom for some time longer, and advising him, not totally to cut off so many churches from the body of the universal church. But neither the Asiatic Bishops, whom Pope Victor had threatened with excommunication, if they refused to comply with his requisition; nor those, who endeavoured to dissuade him, out of motives of prudence and charity, from carrying his threat into execution, are known to have ever questioned his right to enforce his requisition. What could have given the Bishop of Rome jurisdiction over the churches in Asia, but the character of Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church? See Euseb. lib. 5, Hist. c. 24, et epist. Polycrat. ad Vict. ibidem.

2o. About the year 255, St. Stephen, Bishop of Rome, condemned the practice of rebaptising those, who had been otherwise, in due form, baptised by heretics. He required that St. Cyprian, of Carthage, and Firmilianus, of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, should conform to the tradition of the church in that respect; and threatened them with excommunication if they did not comply. By what authority did Pope Stephen act? By the supreme authority of the Apostolic See, as Firmilianus insinuates, in his epistle to St. Cyprian, tom. i, Conc. page 757.

St. Vincent, of Lerins, observes on this subject, in his first Commonitorium, cap. 5, "Then Stephen, of blessed memory, Bishop of the Apostolic See, made resistance, together with his other colleagues, to the erroneous practice of St. Cyprian, &c., distinguishing himself above the rest by his zeal; and thinking it becoming, I conceive, so much to surpass all others by his exertions, in defending the faith, as he was raised above them all by the authority of his see." St. Cyprian himself, in his letter to Pope Cornelius, calls the church at Rome, the chair of Peter, and the principal church, whence the sacerdotal unity took its rise, &c. Ep. 59.

3o. About the year 269, some of the faithful of Alexandria, suspecting St. Dionysius, the Patriarch of that See, of entertaining opinions against the consubstantiality of the Son, laid an accusation against him, before St. Dionysius, Bishop of Rome. The Pope called upon the Patriarch to give to him an account of his faith. The Patriarch cleared himself, by the letter, which he accordingly wrote, to refute the charge, and defend his character. St. Athanasius bears testimony to this fact, in his book on the Synods of Rimini and Seleucia. Why did the Catholics of Alexandria carry their charge against their Patriarch to the Bishop of Rome? Why did the Patriarch of

Alexandria submit to justify himself before the Bishop of Rome; but because they acknowledged in his see a superior tribunal and jurisdiction, even over the Patriarchs of the East?

4°. When St. Athanasius was expelled from his see, by the Arians, Pope Julius cited him and his enemies, before the tribunal of the Apostolic See. Why did these Patriarchs, and other Bishops of the East, submit to these citations? Was not this an acknowledgment of their subordination to the superior authority of the Bishop of Rome? Pope Julius, in his celebrated epistle to the Eusebians, in the year 341, inserted by St. Athanasius in his second Apology against the Arians, says, that he had cited to a synod at Rome Athanasius, whom they had accused. "He came," says the Pope, "not of his own accord, but after he was sent for, and had received our letters. .... But why was not particular information communicated to us, concerning the church of Alexandria? Do you not know, that it is the custom, for the case to be first laid before us in writing, in order that from hence a just decision may be sent? Certainly, if any such suspicion were entertained against the Bishop of that see, it should have been communicated to this church....The rule which I give you, is that, which we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, and I believe it to be so well known to every body, that I should not have mentioned it, had I not been thrown into such a state of anxiety by what has taken place."

From this letter of Pope Julius, which St. Anthanasius himself inserted in his Apology, it appears, that St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, obeyed the citation of the Pope; that what the Pope did on this occasion, was not a novel act, but an ancient custom; and that in following it, he proceeded according to the rule of government received from St. Peter.

On this subject Theodoret writes, lib. ii, Hist. c. 3, tom. 3, "The Eusebians sent to Julius, the Roman Bishop, the calumnies which they had got up against Athanasius. Julius, following the ecclesiastical rule, commanded them to come to Rome, and appointed a day for the hearing of Athanasius."

5o. Pope Julius, in the year 341, by his apostolical authority, restored St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria; Paul, Bishop of Constantinople; Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra; Asclepas, Bishop of Gaza; and Lucius, Bishop of Adrianople, to their sees, of which they had been deprived by the Arians. Of this proceeding Sozomen writes in the following words, lib. iii, Hist. Eccles. cap. 7 :-" When the Bishop of Rome had heard the accusations against them, and had found that these Bishops all adhered to the faith of the Council of Nice, he received them to his communion. And as, by the dignity of his see, he was charged with the care of all, he reinstated each one in his own

respective church."-Socrates, lib. 2, c. 15, also states, that "Athanasius, Paul, Asclepas, Marcellus, and Lucius, went to Rome, and exposed their case to Julius, Bishop of that city. He, by virtue of the prerogative of his see, sending them with letters, full of vigour, to the Bishops in the East, restored to each of them his respective see.” It was by the supreme authority and prerogative of the See of Rome, that this jurisdiction was exercised over Bishops and Patriarchs in Asia, and Egypt.

46°. When Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste, in Armenia, had been condemned and deposed by a council of Arians, held at Melitina in 360, he appealed to Pope Liberius. The Pope restored him to his see, after he had complied with the proposals made to him. Eustathius produced the letters of the Pope, before the Bishops assembled in council at Tyana, in Cappadocia; and in consequence, without any question about the authority of Pope Liberius, he was put in possession of his church. This is stated by St. Basil the Great, in his 74th letter, ad Occidentales Episcopos de Eustathic Sebasteno.

7°. In the year 403, St. Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, was unjustly condemned, and deposed, by a synod of thirty-six Bishops, held in a church at Chalcedon, called the Synod at the Oak; where Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, presided. St. Chrysostom wrote to Pope Innocent, entreating him to declare null and void all that had been done, as no injustice could be more notorious. His letter to the Pope is conceived in these words :-" Write, I pray, and by your authority decree, that these iniquitous acts, done in my absence, and without any refusal on my part to submit to a lawful tribunal, shall be of no effect. Subject the authors of these proceedings to the censures of the church. Send your orders, that I, who am innocent, who am not convicted, nor proved, nor found guilty of any crime, may be restored to my church." Epist. 1, ad Innocent.-Surely this appeal from St. John Chrysostom, the most illustrious Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Pope, was a strong testimony of the authority of the tribunal of the Apostolic See, and of the superior jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over even the Patriarchs of the East. The ancient custom of appealing to Rome, had been confirmed by the 3d, 4th, and 7th Canons of the General Council of Sardica, in 347, which was as an appendix to the Council of Nice. By those Canons, it was declared, that any Bishop deposed by a synod in his province, has a right to appeal to the Bishop of Rome.

8. When the Council of Milevum, in Africa, had, in 416, condemned the Pelagian errors, St. Augustin wrote a letter to Pope Innocent I. in the name of the council, in these words:-" Since the Lord, by the signal gift of his grace, has placed you in the Apostolic See, and, in our times, has exhibited such a character in your person, that it will be rather imputed to our negligence, than to any haugh