The Church of England cleared from the charge of Schism

The hundred and thirty years between the death of St. Leo and the accession of St. Gregory, were years of trouble, confusion, and disaster: "the stars fell from heaven, and the powers of the heavens were shaken." The Western empire was overthrown; barbarians and heretics obtained the mastery in Italy, and generally in the West; there was but one fixed and central authority to which the eyes of churchmen could turn with hope and confidence in the whole West, that of the Roman Pontiff.

I select the following points as bearing on our subject: —

In the year 536 we have one of those rare instances in which the Primacy of Rome is seen acting on the Eastern Church, but in perfect accordance with the Canons and the Patriarchal system. The Pope Agapetus had been compelled by Theodatus, king of the Goths, to proceed to Constantinople, in order that he might, if possible, prevail upon Justinian not to attempt the recovery of Italy. Not having wherewith to pay the expenses of his journey, he had been compelled to borrow money on the sacred vessels of St. Peter's Church. On arriving at Constantinople he refused to see the new Patriarch Anthimus, or to receive him to his communion, both because he was suspected of heresy, and had been translated from the See of Trebisond. Anthimus refused to appear in the Council that the Pope held at Constantinople to judge him; so he was deposed, and returned his pallium to the Emperor. Mennas was elected in his stead by the Emperor, with the approbation of all the Clergy and the people, and the Pope consecrated him in the church of St. Mary. "Pope Agapetus wrote a synodal letter to Peter, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to acquaint him with what he had done in this Council. 'When we arrived,' said he, 'at the court of the Emperor, we found the See of Constantinople usurped, contrary to the Canons, by Anthimus Bishop of Trebisond. He even refused to quit the error of Eutyches. Therefore, after having waited for his repentance, we declare him unworthy of the name of Catholic and Bishop, until he fully receive the doctrine of the Fathers. You ought likewise to reject the rest whom the Holy See has condemned. We are astonished that you approved this injury done to the See of Constantinople, instead of informing us of it; and we have repaired it by the ordination of Mennas, who is the first of the Eastern Church ordained by the hands of our See.'"111 I find this Pope presently called by the Easterns, 'Father of fathers,' 'Archbishop of ancient Rome,' 'Ecumenical Patriarch.' This latter title is also given to Mennas. I shall have more to say about it hereafter; but it is remarkable that it was first given, so far as we have any record, to Dioscorus,112 by a Bishop in some complaint made to him at the Latrocinium of Ephesus; but Justinian gives to the Patriarch of Constantinople the title, "to the most holy and blessed Archbishop of this royal city, and Ecumenical Patriarch."113

The Pope shortly after dies at Constantinople, and a Council is held, at which the Patriarch Mennas presides, the Bishops who had accompanied the defunct Pope taking rank after him. He writes to the Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem, and informs him of the acts of this Council. Peter assembles his Council at Jerusalem: the procedure which took place at Constantinople was there found canonical, and the deposition of Anthimus was confirmed. Here the same facts which prove the Pope's Primacy refute his Supremacy: and this is not an isolated incident, but one link in a vast and uninterrupted chain of evidence.

I find in the laws of the Emperor Justinian just at the same time, looking at them merely as facts, a full confirmation and recognition of the Episcopal and Patriarchal constitution of the Church. In 538, the Emperor, in an edict, addressing the Patriarch Mennas, says, "Wherefore we exhort you to assemble all the Bishops who are in this imperial city … and oblige them all to anathematize by writing the impious Origen … that your Blessedness send copies of what you do on this subject to all the other Bishops, and to all the superiors of monasteries… We have written as much to Pope Vigilius and the other Patriarchs"… "The Patriarch Mennas, and the Bishops who were at Constantinople, subscribed to this: it was then sent to Pope Vigilius, to Zoilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to Ephrem of Antioch, and to Peter of Jerusalem, who all subscribed to it"… "There are three great laws of the year 511, of which the first regulates ordinations: " those of the Bishops were still in the hands of the several clergy, laity, and Metropolitans… "The second law of the 18th March enacts, that the four General Councils shall have the force of law, that the Pope of Rome is the first of all the Bishops, and after him the Bishop of Constantinople." – "Bishops cannot be called to appear against their will before secular judges for any cause whatsoever. If Bishops of the same province have a difference together, they shall be judged by the Metropolitan, accompanied by the other Bishops of the province, and may appeal to the Patriarch, but not beyond. Likewise if an individual, clerk or lay, has a matter against his Bishop. The Metropolitan can only be tried before the Patriarch." – "Simony is forbidden … still it is allowed to give for consecrations, according to ancient customs, in the following proportion. The Pope and the four Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, may give to the Bishops and the Clergy according to custom, provided that it exceed not twenty pounds of gold. The Metropolitans and the other Bishops may give a hundred gold solidi for their enthronement," &c.114

So, again: "Therefore let the most holy Patriarchs of each Diocese propose these things to the most holy Churches under them, and make known to the Metropolitans, most beloved of God, what we have ratified. Let these again set it forth in the most holy Metropolitan Church, and notify it to the Bishops under them. But let each of these propose it in his own Church, that no one in our commonwealth be ignorant of it."115

"We charge the most blessed Archbishops and Patriarchs, that is, of elder Rome, and Constantinople, and Alexandria, and Theopolis and Jerusalem."116

But Pope Pelagius I. himself says: "As often as any doubt ariseth to any concerning an Universal Council, in order to receive account of what they do not understand – let them recur to the Apostolical Sees. – Whosoever then is divided from the Apostolical Sees, there is no doubt that he is in schism."117

St. Augustin had said long before, "What hath the See of the Roman Church done to thee, in which Peter sat, in which Anastasius sitteth now: or of the Church of Jerusalem, in which James sat, and where now John sitteth: with which we are joined in Catholic unity, and from which ye in impious fury have separated."118

We now come to the dark and sad history of Pope Vigilius. And here I am glad that another can speak for me. Bossuet says: "The acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, the fifth general, under Pope Vigilius and the Emperor Justinian, will prove that the decrees of the third and fourth Councils were understood in the same sense by the fifth as we have understood them. And this Council received the account of them near at hand, and transmitted it to us."119

"The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret's writings against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. The question was whether that letter had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon. So much was admitted that it had been read there, and that Ibas, after anathematizing Nestorius, had been received by the Council. Some contended that his person only was spared; others that his letter also was approved. Thus inquiry was made at the fifth Council how writings on the faith were wont to be approved in former Councils. The acts of the third and fourth Council, those which we have mentioned above respecting the letter of St. Cyril and of St. Leo, were set forth. Then the holy Council declared – 'It is plain, from what has been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is brought before them. For, great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognisance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.' But the acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved. So, then, it is certain, from the third and fourth Councils, the fifth so declaring and understanding it, that letters approved by the Apostolic See, such as was that of Cyril, or even proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were received by the holy Councils not simply, nor without inquiry."

Pope Vigilius afterwards, when consenting to this Council, "acknowledges that the letter of St. Leo was not approved at the Council of Chalcedon until it had been examined and found conformable to the faith of the three preceding Councils; and this avowal is the more important in the mouth of a Pope."120

"Again, in the same fifth Council the acts against the letter of Nestorius are read, in which the Fathers of Ephesus plainly pronounce, 'that the letter of Nestorius is in no respect agreeable to the faith which was set forth at Nicea.' So this letter also was rejected, not simply, but, as was equitable, after examination; and Ibas condemned, who stated that Nestorius had been rejected by the Council of Ephesus without examination and inquiry.

"The holy Fathers proceed to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have done, had they undertaken the examination of Ibas' letter. They compare the letters with the acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The holy Council declared – 'The comparison made proves, beyond a doubt, that the letter which Ibas is said to have written is, in all respects, opposed to the definition of the right faith, which the Council of Chalcedon set forth. All the Bishops cried out, 'We all say this; the letter is heretical.' Thus, therefore, is it proved by the fifth Council that our holy Fathers in Ecumenical Councils pronounce the letters read, whether of Catholics or heretics, or even of Roman Pontiffs, to be orthodox or heretical, according to the same procedure, after legitimate cognisance, the truth being inquired into, and then cleared up; and upon these premises judgment given.

"What! you will say, with no distinction, and with minds equally inclined to both parties? Indeed we have said, and shall often repeat, that there was a presumption in favour of the decrees of orthodox Pontiffs; but in Ecumenical Councils, where judgment is to be passed in matter of faith, that they were bound no longer to act upon presumption, but on the truth clearly and thoroughly ascertained.

"Such were the acts of the fifth Council. This it learnt from the third and fourth Councils, and approved; and in this argument we have brought at once in favour of our opinion the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the second Constantinopolitan."121

The point here taken up by Bossuet, and proved upon indisputable authority, is of the greatest importance, viz. that the decree of a Roman Pontiff, de fide, and he, perhaps, the greatest of the whole number, was judged by a General Council, and only admitted when it was found conformable to antiquity. It settles, in fact, the whole question, that the Bishop of Rome is indeed possessed of the First See, and Primate of all Christendom; but that he is not the sole depository of Christ's power in the Church, which is, in truth, the Papal idea, laid down by St. Gregory the Seventh, and acted upon since. The difference between these two ideas is the difference between the Church of the Fathers and the present Latin Communion in the matter of Church government, in which they are wide as the poles asunder.

The history of Pope Vigilius further confirms the truth of what we have said. Bossuet proceeds: "In the same fifth Council the following acts support our cause.

"The Emperor Justinian desired that the question concerning the above-mentioned three Chapters should be considered in the Church. He therefore sent for Pope Vigilius to Constantinople. There he not long after assembled a Council. The Orientals thought it of great moment that these Chapters should be condemned, against the Nestorians, who were raising their heads to defend them; Vigilius, with the Occidentals, feared lest thus occasion should be taken to destroy the authority of the Council of Chalcedon; because it was admitted that Theodoret and Ibas had been received in that Council, whilst Theodore, though named, was let go without any mark of censure. Though then both parties easily agreed as to the substance of the faith, yet the question had entirely respect to the faith, it being feared by the one party lest the Nestorian, by the other lest the Eutychean, enemies of the Council of Chalcedon should prevail.

"From this struggle many accusations have been brought against Vigilius, which have nothing to do with us. I am persuaded that everything was done by Vigilius with the best intent, the Westerns not enduring the condemnation of the Chapters, and things tending to a schism." The facts here alluded to, but for obvious reasons avoided by Bossuet, are as follows, very briefly. Vigilius on the 11th of April, 548, issues his 'Judicatum' against the three Chapters, saving the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Thereupon the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, with two of his own confidential Deacons, withdraw from his communion. In the year 551, the Bishops of Africa, assembled in Council, excommunicate him, for having condemned the three Chapters. At length the Pope publicly withdraws his 'Judicatum.' While the Council is sitting at Constantinople he publishes his 'Constitutum,' in which he condemns certain propositions of Theodore, but spares his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with respect to Ibas, he declares his letter was pronounced orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon. Bossuet goes on: "however this may be, so much is clear that Vigilius, though invited, declined being present at the Council; that nevertheless the Council was held without him; that he published a 'Constitutum' in which he disapproved of what Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas were said to have written against the faith; but decreed that their name should be spared, because they were considered to have been received by the fourth Council, or to have died in the communion of the Church, and to be reserved to the judgment of God. Concerning the letter of Ibas, he published the following, that, understood in the best and most pious sense, it was blameless; and concerning the three Chapters generally, he ordered that after his present declaration Ecclesiastics should move no further question.

"Such was the decree of Vigilius, issued upon the authority with which he was invested. And the Council, after his constitution, both raised a question about the three Chapters, and decided that question was properly raised concerning the dead, and that the letter of Ibas was manifestly heretical and Nestorian, and contrary in all things to the faith of Chalcedon, and that they were altogether accursed, who defended the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, or the impious letter of Ibas defending the tenets of Nestorius; and who did not anathematize it, but said it was correct.

"In these latter words they seemed not even to spare Vigilius, although they did not mention his name. And it is certain their decree was confirmed by Pelagius the Second, Gregory the Great, and other Roman Pontiffs… These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the faith, the decrees of sacred Councils prevailed over the decrees of Pontiffs, and that the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff, could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical."

Compare with this history the following remark of De Maistre, "that Bishops separated from the Pope, and in contradiction with him, are superior to him, is a proposition to which one does all the honour possible in calling it only extravagance."122

After all this Fleury says: "At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of St. Augustin. He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the three chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. 'We recognise for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defence of the three chapters.'"123

Nor can I think it a point of little moment that Bishops of Rome were at different times deposed or excommunicated by other Bishops. As in the second century the Eastern Bishops disregard St. Victor's excommunication respecting Easter; and in the third St. Firmilian in Asia, and St. Cyprian in Africa, disregard St. Stephen's excommunication in the matter of rebaptizing heretics; so when the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch found that Pope Julius had received to communion St. Athanasius, and others whom they had deposed, they proceeded to depose him, with Hosius and the rest.124 This was in the fourth century. In the fifth, Dioscorus, at the Latrocinium of Ephesus, attempts to excommunicate St. Leo. In the sixth, as we have just seen, the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, all of the West, separate Pope Vigilius from their communion, and the former afterwards solemnly excommunicate him. It matters not that in all these cases the Bishops were wrong; I quote these acts merely to prove that they esteemed the Bishop of Rome the first of all Bishops indeed, yet subject to the Canons like themselves, and only of equal rank. For on the present Papal theory, such an act, as we have seen le Père Lacordaire affirm, would be merely suicidal, – pure insanity. It is in utter contradiction to the notion of an ecclesiastical monarchy.

In like manner we find portions of the Church, as that of Constantinople, again and again out of communion with the Roman Pontiff, but they do not therefore cease to be parts of the true Church. So Gieseler states that in consequence of jealousies about the condemning the three Chapters the Archbishops of Aquileia, with their Bishops, were out of communion with Rome from A.D. 568 to 698.125 A reconciliation takes place, and communion is renewed. Facts of the same nature, and applying closely to our own position, are mentioned by Bossuet;126 viz. that the Spanish Bishops, not having been present at, nor invited to, the sixth General Council, did not receive it as Ecumenical, though invited to do so by the Pope of the day, until they had themselves examined its acts, and found them accordant with previous Councils. And as to the second Nicene, or seventh General Council, the Gallic Bishops, with Charlemagne at their head, long refused to receive it, though supported by the Pope, because neither they nor other Occidentals were present at it. "Nor were they in the mean time held as heretical or schismatical, though they differed on a point of the greatest moment, that is, the interpretation of the precepts of the first table, because they seemed to inquire into the matter with a good intention, not with obstinate party spirit."127 Yet Pope Adrian had himself written against them.

Now all these various facts, from the first Nicene Council, converge towards one view, for which, I think, there is as full evidence as for most facts of history, – that the Pope, to the time of St. Gregory the Great, and indeed long afterwards, was but the first of the Patriarchs, who, in their own Patriarchates, enjoyed a co-ordinate and equal authority with his in the West. I suppose De Maistre acknowledges as much in his own way, when he says, "The Pope is invested with five very distinct characters; for he is Bishop of Rome, Metropolitan of the Suburbican Churches, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, and, lastly, Sovereign Pontiff. The Pope has never exercised over the other Patriarchates any powers save those resulting from this last; so that except in some affair of high importance, some striking abuse, or some appeal in the greater causes, the Sovereign Pontiffs mixed little in the ecclesiastical administration of the Eastern Churches. And this was a great misfortune, not only for them, but for the states where they were established. It may be said that the Greek Church, from its origin, carried in its bosom a germ of division, which only completely developed itself at the end of twelve centuries, but which always existed under forms less striking, less decisive, and so endurable."128 The confession of one who travesties antiquity so outrageously as De Maistre is curious at least: – and now let us proceed to the testimony of St. Gregory.

And, assuredly, if there was any Pontiff who, like St. Leo, held the most strong and deeply-rooted convictions as to the prerogatives of the Roman see, it was St. Gregory. His voluminous correspondence with Bishops, and the most notable persons throughout the world, represents him to us as guarding and superintending the affairs of the whole Church from the watch-tower of St. Peter, the loftiest of all. Let one assertion of his prove this. Writing to Natalis, Bishop of Salona in Dalmatia, he says, "After the letters of my predecessor and my own, in the matter of Honoratus the Archdeacon, were sent to your Holiness, in despite of the sentence of us both, the above-mentioned Honoratus was deprived of his rank. Had either of the four Patriarchs done this, so great an act of contumacy could not have been passed over without the most grievous scandal. However, as your brotherhood has since returned to your duty, I take notice neither of the injury done to me, nor of that to my predecessor."129 The following words in another letter will elucidate his meaning here. "As to what he says, that he (a Bishop) is subject to the Apostolical See, I know not what Bishop is not subject to it, if any fault be found in Bishops. But when no fault requires it, all are equal according to the estimation of humility."130 And again, writing to his own Defensor in Sicily, a part of the Church most under his own control, "I am informed that if any one has a cause against any clerks, you throw a slight upon their Bishops, and cause them to appear in your own court. If this be so, we expressly order you to presume to do so no more, because beyond doubt it is very unseemly. For if his own jurisdiction is not preserved to each Bishop, what else results but that the order of the Church is thrown into confusion by us, who ought to guard it."131 Gieseler says: "They (the Roman Bishops) maintained, that not only the right of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal in the West belonged to them, but the supervision of orthodoxy, and maintenance of the Church's laws, in the whole Church; and they based these claims, still, it is true, at times, upon imperial edicts, and decrees of Councils, but most commonly upon the privileges granted to Peter by the Lord."132 And I suppose if the Primacy of Christendom has any real meaning, it must mean this, that in case of necessity, such as infraction of the Canons, an appeal may be made to it. So undoubtedly St. Gregory understood his own rights. What his ordinary jurisdiction was, Fleury thus tells us: – "The Popes ordained clergy only for the Roman (local) Church, but they gave Bishops to the greater part of the Churches of Italy."133 "St. Gregory entered into this detail only for the Churches which specially depended on the Holy See, and for that reason were named suburbican; that is, those of the southern part of Italy, where he was sole Archbishop, those of Sicily, and the other islands, though they had Metropolitans. But it will not be found that he exercised the same immediate power in the provinces depending on Milan and Aquileia, nor in Spain and the Gauls. It is true that in the Gauls he had his vicar, who was the Bishop of Arles, as was likewise the Bishop of Thessalonica for Western Illyricum. The Pope further took care of the Churches of Africa, that Councils should be held there, and the Canons maintained; but we do not find that he exercised particular jurisdiction over any that belonged to the Eastern empire, that is to say, upon the four patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. He was in communion and interchange of letters with all these Patriarchs, without entering into the particular management of the Churches depending on them, except it were in some extraordinary case. The multitude of St. Gregory's letters gives us opportunity to remark all these distinctions, in order not to extend indifferently rights which he only exercised over certain Churches."134