with the same rapidity in all the leading centres of Church life. Some would be more sheltered from evil influences; others would be more exposed to them. It will, I think, be well to fix our attention specially on the Church of Rome, and to consider the characters of three popes who succeeded each other in that see, occupying it during the half-century which intervened between A.D. 337 and A.D. 385. These three pontiffs were S. Julius, Liberius, and Damasus.

All that we know of Pope S. Julius, his steady support of S. Athanasius, and the friendship of that great man which he enjoyed, his letter to the Arianizing bishops of the East, his letter to the Church of Alexandria, his reputation throughout the Church in the East as well as in the West, the absence of any charges against him,-all combine to set him before us as worthy of the high position which he held.

Pope Liberius comes before us with a less satisfactory record. There must have been something noble about the man, otherwise he could never have held his ground so heroically when he withstood the Emperor Constantius to the face, and, declining all gifts of money from his persecutor, went into exile at Beroea for two years, remaining firm in the confession of his faith in the Consubstantial, and in his fellowship with S. Athanasius. It seems, moreover, quite clear that Liberius was much beloved by his flock in Rome. But afterwards, as we all know, he failed. He yearned to get back to his beloved people. He withdrew his communion from S. Athanasius and put his signature to a document which compromised the faith.1 Cardinal Baronius, whose opinion may safely be accepted in such a matter, conjectures that his envy of the fortune of the rival pope Felix, and his longing for the adulation to which he had been used at Rome, were the Delilah that deprived this Samson of his courage and strength.2 Some time after his return to Rome Liberius recovered himself, and thenceforth stood firm in his profession of the Nicene faith. But I think that Ammianus Marcellinus, who was a contemporary, implies that Liberius must have sanctioned and used the grandeur and luxury which he, the historian, attributes to the Roman bishops, because it was, in his opinion, the desire

I have discussed the subject of Liberius' fall in Appendix G, pp. 275-287. 2 Baronii Annall., s.a. 357, § xli., ed. 1624, iii. 761, 762.

If we are to believe what S. Jerome tells us in his Chronicon, the clergy of the Roman Church, in the time of Liberius, were in a very unsatisfactory condition. Among the entries in the Chronicon, for the year 352, occurs the following statement: "When Liberius was driven into exile on account of the faith, all the members of the Roman clergy swore that they would acknowledge no other bishop. But when Felix was intruded into the episcopate by the Arians, most of the clerici perjured themselves" (P. L., xxvii. 685, 686). These words of S. Jerome are also to be found in S. Prosper's Chronicon (P. L., li. 578, 579).

for such things which led the two competitors for the Roman see, when it was rendered vacant by the death of Liberius, to proceed to such disgraceful extremities of tumult and bloodshed. The pontificate of Liberius coincided with a very critical time in the history of the Church, and it cannot be said that, taken as a whole, his pontificate was worthy of the exalted position which he occupied.

Damasus, the successor of Liberius, began his episcopate most unhappily. In the riots between his partisans and the supporters of his rival Ursinus, 137 persons were killed in one day, and others died afterwards of their wounds. We cannot say for certain that Damasus was responsible in whole or in part for this terrible scandal, although, according to the statement of his opponents, he led his followers on to the attack. It seems in any case clear that the slaughter was committed by his supporters, even if he in no way sanctioned it. It was surely a terrible thing to mount an episcopal throne through streams of human blood. One cannot help feeling that a saint, even if personally innocent, would have resigned all claim to the see under the circumstances. Ammianus Marcellinus divides the blame equally between the two competitors. Passing on from this unhappy commencement, there can, I think, be no doubt that Damasus was accustomed to use a great deal of worldly pomp and luxury. The words of Ammianus Marcellinus and of Praetextatus have been already quoted, and their witness harmonizes with certain observations of S. Basil. That great saint, writing about a projected visit of his brother, S. Gregory Nyssen, to Rome, says, "For my part, I do not see who are to accompany him, and I know that he is entirely without experience in ecclesiastical matters; and, while he would be sure to meet with respect and to be valued by a considerate person, I know not what advantage could arise to the whole Church from the intercourse of such a one as he, who has no mean adulation in his nature, with one high and lifted up" (he, of course, means Damasus 2), "sitting on I know not how lofty a seat, and so not able to catch the voice of those who tell him the truth on the ground." "8 S. Basil here describes Pope Damasus as a haughty, inconsiderate person, who expected to be addressed in a tone of flattery. S.

1 Mr. Barmby (Smith and Wace, D. C. B., iv. 1069), speaking of Ammianus Marcellinus, says that though not a Christian," he "writes of the Christians in a friendly spirit, and shows no bias on the one side or the other of the contest between Damasus and Ursinus.' "" See also Additional Note 57, p. 477. 2 Tillemont (ix. 225) says, "C'est à dire visiblement avec le Pape Damase,

dont S. Basile parle içi."

Ep. ccxv. ad Dorotheum Presbyterum, Opp. S. Basil., ed. Ben., 1730, tom. iii. p. 323.

Jerome, speaking of the Roman clergy in the time of Damasus, paints in vivid colours the pride of the deacons, and the foppishness and avarice of some of the priests.1 Altogether one feels that, however it may have been before, in the time of Damasus a spirit of worldliness had got hold of a large number of the Roman clergy of all orders. It is easy to see that a worldly clergy presiding over a very wealthy church, which, by the consent of all, enjoyed a primacy of honour in relation to the whole Church, which not long before had had its jurisdiction enlarged by the action of the Council of Sardica, and even in ante-Nicene times had made unwarrantable claims, would be likely to exaggerate their own pre-eminence and to initiate a policy of aggression on other churches less favourably situated. This is exactly what happened. But before we proceed to consider that policy and the various ways in which it showed itself, it will be desirable to recall certain events which took place earlier in this fourth century, and throw light on our general subject.

In the year of our Lord 325, the first Ecumenical Council was summoned by the Emperor Constantine to meet at Nicaea. It is important that we should realize what were the relations in which S. Silvester, the Bishop of Rome, stood to that great gathering, which represented the whole Catholic Church. If S. Silvester was the infallible monarch of the Church, and was so recognized, his sovereign position ought to come out clearly in the history of the council. But, as a matter of fact, it does not appear that S. Silvester had anything to do with the convoking of the council. It was convoked by the Emperor, and there is no particle of proof that he consulted S. Silvester before convoking it. Nobody attributes any share in the convocation of the council to the pope until the end of the seventh century-three centuries and a half after the event. Neither is there any reason to suppose that S. Silvester presided in the council, either personally or by his legates. Eusebius, speaking of Silvester, says, "The bishop of the imperial city was absent on account of his old age, but presbyters of his were present and filled his place." "4 These presbyters were two in number, Vincentius and Vito (or Victor), but they neither signed first nor were they the chief presidents. To use Cardinal Newman's words, "Hosius, one of the most eminent men of an age of saints, was president."5 Hosius was Bishop of Cordova, in Spain, and was the prelate who had the greatest influence

1 Cf. S. Hieron. Ep. xxii. ad Eustachium, § 28, P. L., xxii. 414.

2 See pp. 140-144.

3 See Additional Note 58, p. 477.

De Vit. Const., iii. 7.

The Arians of the Fourth Century, 3rd edit., 1871, p. 257.

with the Emperor, and he was probably appointed by the Emperor to preside.1 Some Ultramontanes suppose that he presided as the chief legate of the pope; but none of the early historians speak of him as holding any such position.2 Vincentius and Vito (or Victor) are the only legates whom they mention. Gelasius of Cyzicus, at the end of the fifth century, is the first to suggest the idea that Hosius was also a legate; but Gelasius' authority is of the weakest.3 We may safely say that Silvester neither convoked the council, nor presided in it by his legates, and that the council was not confirmed by him in any special way. In one sense, of course, each bishop who was absent from the council, and who accepted its decisions, confirmed it by that acceptance. But the decision of the council was enforced on the Arian heretics without anybody waiting to find out whether the pope agreed or disagreed with what had been done. If Silvester was the infallible monarch of the Church, he certainly adopted the strangest methods of asserting his infallibility and sovereign authority. He simply said nothing about either of them, but behaved just as he ought to have behaved if he was the first bishop in the Church and nothing more.

But the Council of Nicaea throws light in other ways on the position of the Roman see. In the sixth canon there is a reference to the Church of Rome. In that canon the council decreed as follows: "Let the ancient customs prevail, namely, those in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis: that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these, since the same is customary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and other provinces, that the privileges be secured to the churches," etc. This canon ratifies the ancient custom that the Bishop of Alexandria should retain his fulness of jurisdiction over

Even the Ultramontane Ballerini consider that it is most probable that it was by the Emperor's orders that Marinus of Arles presided at the Council of Arles in A.D. 314 (cf. Ballerinor. Obss. in Dissert. v. Quesnell., pars ii. cap. v. § 4, P. L., lv. 608). See also Additional Note 59, p. 480.

2 E.g. Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen.

Cardinal Newman (Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, p. 84) says, "Gelasius est auctoritate tenui." Mr. Venables says that "his work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue (see Smith and Wace, D. C. B., s.v. "Gelasius" [13], ii. 622). Compare Mansi, ii. 753; Coleti, ii. III, 112; and Tillemont, vi. 675.

See Appendix D, pp. 166-172.

5 See Bossuet's Defensio, pars iii. lib. vii. cap. vii. Bossuet says concerning the dogmatic decree of the Nicene Council, "Facto Patrum decreto, adeo res transacta putabatur, ut nullâ morâ interpositâ, nullo expectato sedis apostolicae speciali decreto, omnes ubique terrarum episcopi, Christiani omnes, atque ipse imperator, ipsi etiam Ariani, tamquam divino judicio cederent."

On the spurious addition to this canon, in which it is said that the Roman Church always had the primacy, see p. 382, and also the Additional Note 60, p. 480.

the various provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. That jurisdiction was far-reaching, as I observed in a previous lecture. But the canon goes on to cite the case of the Roman see as parallel to the case of the Alexandrine see. It says, "since the same is customary for the Bishop of Rome." Rufinus, explaining this sixth Nicene canon, mentions that Rome had the care of the suburbicarian churches,1 as Alexandria had of the Egyptian and Libyan churches. Rufinus' statement about the pope's sphere of jurisdiction no doubt expressed accurately the state of things in his own time (circa 400), but in the time of the Council of Nicaea the metropolitical jurisdiction of the see of Rome extended over the whole of Italy. However, the point to be noticed is that the council says not a word about any Roman primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church. It puts side by side the privileges of the second see and the privileges of the first see. The bishops of both sees were powerful bishops-powerful metropolitans—if you will, powerful patriarchs, though it is practically certain that in the Nicene age the Bishop of Rome was not, strictly speaking, a patriarch with subject metropolitans. But whatever they were, the nature of their authority was substantially the same. The canon perhaps implies a certain primacy in Rome, because it proposes Rome as, in a sort of way, the model; but if a primacy is implied, it is obviously a primacy of honour, not a universal supremacy of jurisdiction. If that had been thought of, it would have been safeguarded. Moreover, if that had been thought of, Rome would hardly have been mentioned as a precedent for the limited jurisdiction of Alexandria. If you are discussing the privileges of this or that peer, you are hardly likely to illustrate your argument by referring to the prerogative of the king.

But again the Council of Nicaea throws light on the question whether the see of Rome had a primacy of jurisdiction over all churches, by its decree in regard to appeals. The fifth canon allows persons who think that they have been unjustly excommunicated by their bishop to complain to the provincial synod, and the synod is to determine whether the

1 Cf. Rufin. H. E., i. 6, P. L., xxi. 473. In a certain ancient Latin version of the canons of Nicaea, published by Maassen, the first sentence of the sixth canon runs thus: "Antiqua per Aegyptum adque Pentapolim consuetudo servetur, ut Alexandrinus episcopus horum habeat sollicitudinem, quoniam et urbis Romae episcopo similis mos est, ut in suburbicaria loca sollicitudinem gerat" (cf. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des Canonischen Rechts, p. 905). This version was in use at Carthage in the fifth century, and has been attributed to Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage, who was present at Nicaea; but for my own part I doubt if the version is earlier than the pontificate of Damasus (compare p. 434). Cf. Tillemont, x. 790; and Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 30.