PART I. THE POPES HAVE NO DIVINELY GIVEN LECTURE I. THE SEE OF ROME IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES.-I. Introductory-Primitive organization and precedence- The Paschal controversy-The Irenaean passage. I AM to speak to you, my dear brothers, in these lectures about the controversy which we, who belong to the English branch of the Catholic Church, have continually to carry on with the upholders of the claims of the Roman papacy. I suppose that most of us would very much prefer to keep aloof from controversy; or, if we must have it, we should wish to spend our time and labour in doing battle with the materialists and positivists and agnostics who set themselves to undermine the very foundation of the Christian faith. If it were possible, we should like to treat our Roman Catholic neighbours as brethren, differing from us in certain matters of more or less importance, but whose work, taken as a whole, we could accept as a substantial aid in the struggle with sin and unbelief. Now, undoubtedly there are English Roman Catholic writers and workers whom we can regard in this more favourable light. We thank God for their writings and for their work, and we desire to profit by their wholesome teaching and by their good Christian example. Unfortunately, when we consider the Roman communion in England as a whole, we are obliged to admit that there is another side to the matter. One very prominent aspect of that communion is the controversial position which she takes up in regard to the spiritual status and spiritual claims of our Mother, the Church of England. I do not complain of this controversial attitude. If a man sincerely believes that the Roman pope is infallible, and that communion with him is one of the divinely ordained conditions of salvation; if he adheres to the dogmatic definition of Pope Boniface VIII. in his Bull Unam Sanctam, in which occurs the following passage: "We B therefore declare, assert, and define that for every human creature it is altogether necessary to salvation that he be subject to the Roman pontiff;"I say that, if a man holds with sincerity such a faith as that, he is bound to do what he can, as opportunity may offer, to bring his neighbours and fellow-countrymen to the same belief with himself; and here, in England, he will almost necessarily have to take up a position of controversial antagonism to the claims of the English Church. But then, on the other hand, we, who repudiate these papal theories; we, who hold that those theories were the offspring of ambition and ignorance, and that they have been spread by violence and forgery, and who with all our hearts accept the Church of England as historically the authentic representative of the Catholic Church of Christ in this country;-we, I say, are forced almost against our will to do battle from time to time on behalf of our spiritual mother; and we are, therefore, bound to equip ourselves with some sufficient knowledge of the controversy between England and Rome, so that whether in public or in private we may be able to strengthen our people against those who would undermine their faith in the Catholicity of that branch of the Church to which they belong. Moreover, for the sake of our own peace of mind, it is of the highest importance that we should become solidly convinced that in our controversy with Rome about the papal claims, the truth is substantially on our side. It was the sense of the importance of helping my brethren to have clear and true views on this matter, which led me to accede to your secretary's invitation to give this course of lectures. I confess that I enter on them with fear and trembling; not from any doubt as to the side on which the truth lies, but from my consciousness of the very imperfect way in which I shall be able to handle the subject, and from the dread that I may do more harm than good by my treatment of it. I will ask your prayers that I may be helped and guided to say what shall tend to promote God's glory, and the Church's well-being, and the good of souls. I will do my utmost to be fair and accurate. If I make slips, as may very easily happen, I shall gladly correct them, when they are pointed out; I do not want to win a victory by any "Porro subesse Romano Pontifici, omni humane creature declaramus, dicimus, et diffinimus omnino esse de necessitate salutis." This bull is in the Regestum of Boniface VIII., in the Vatican library. A heliotype copy of it was published in 1888, in a work edited by Father Denifle and entitled Specimina palaeographica Regestorum Romanorum Pontificum ab Innocentio III. usque ad Urbanum V. (see the Revue des Questions Historiques for July, 1889, tome xlvi. pp. 253-257). The bull is also to be found among the Extravagantes Communes of the Corpus Juris Canonici, lib. i. tit. viii. cap. i. (ed. Friedberg, ii. 1245, 1246). assertions or arguments which will not stand the test of investigation. I hope sincerely that no mistakes will be made, the exposure of which would endanger the solidity of the proof of those central facts on which the argument really hinges. And now to come more directly to our subject. I cannot, of course, attempt in five lectures to cover the whole ground of this far-reaching controversy. I must make a selection; and I select the papal claim to a primacy of jurisdiction,1 because the discussion of that claim will take us into the very heart of the matter. I propose, if I have time, to deal with the following divisions of the subject: 1. The position of the see of Rome during the first three centuries. 2. The relation of S. Peter to the Apostolic College and to the Church. 3. The origin and growth of the papal jurisdiction. 4. The truth about the unity of the Church.2 My purpose is to deal with these different points with special reference to their bearing on the modern Roman claims, and it will therefore be well to set those claims before you in their most authentic form. We could not have them in a more authentic form than in the decrees of the Vatican Council of the year 1870. That council is accepted by the pope and by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and by the whole Roman Catholic Church as an Ecumenical Council. It was in their view an Ecumenical Council, over which the pope himself presided. The decrees were promulgated by Pope Pius IX. from his presidential throne. There were 535 votes registered, of which 533 were in favour of the decrees with which we are dealing, and two only were adverse.3 After the suspension of the council, the decrees were accepted by all the other bishops of the Roman communion. In quoting the Vatican decrees, I am quoting an authority which cannot be gainsaid by any member of the Roman Catholic Church. What, then, do these decrees say in reference to the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff? They say, or rather the pope and the council say in them, that "the Roman Church, by the appointment of the Lord, holds the chief authority of In lectures vi.-xii., which were not delivered with the others, I have discussed the cognate but not identical claim which is made on behalf of the pope, when it is asserted that he is the necessary centre of communion for the whole Church. 2 The fourth heading is dealt with in the seven lectures which constitute the second part of this book (see pp. 215-433). After the voting, the pope, rising from his seat, said, "Decreta et Canones, qui in Constitutione modo lectâ continentur, placuerunt Patribus omnibus, duobus exceptis: Nosque, sacro approbante Concilio, illa et illos, ut lecta sunt, definimus et Apostolicâ auctoritate confirmamus" (Collectio Lacensis, tom. vii. coll. 487, 488). ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction belonging to the Roman pontiff is a truly episcopal power," and that "it is an immediate power." They go on to say that all the pastors and all the faithful, whether taken separately or taken all together, are bound to the authority of the pope "by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." They add that "this is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and that no one can deviate from it without the loss of his faith and salvation." They further teach that, in consequence of the apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff enjoys jure divino, "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that recourse may be had to his judgement in all causes which appertain to the jurisdiction of the Church;" "that the judgement of the apostolic see cannot be revised by any one, and that no one may pass judgement on its decisions; wherefore those who affirm that it is allowable to appeal from the judgements of the Roman pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council as to an authority higher than the pope, are wandering from the straight pathway of truth." They pronounce an anathema on "any one who asserts that the Roman pontiff has only an office of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church;" or "that he has only the chief part, and not the total plenitude, of that supreme power." 1 Assuredly, if these decrees truly represent the mind of our Lord, we must accept the view commonly attributed to Cardinal Cajetan, namely, that "the Church is the born handmaid of the pope."2 And we are not to suppose that it is the theory of the Roman Church that this teaching about the power of the pontiff is some late development unknown to antiquity. On the contrary, the pope, when he promulgated the decree from which I have been quoting, expressly stated, in his own name and in the name of the council, that he rested his teaching on the plain testimony of Holy Scripture, and that in this definition he was adhering to the clear and perspicuous decrees of his predecessors, the Roman pontiffs, and of the General Councils. This, then, is the teaching, the truth or falsehood of which 1 These passages are quoted from the Constitutio dogmatica prima de Ecclesiâ Christi, which was passed by the council and confirmed by the pope at the fourth session, on July 18, 1870 (cf. Collect. Lacens., vii. 482-487). 2 Cf. Apol. Tractat. de Comparat. Auctorit. Papae et Concil., cap. i. I must confess that I have some doubts as to whether this passage, when taken with its context, bears out the common idea about its meaning. |