Whether he did so or not, the pope certainly professed to deprive Hilary of his metropolitical authority, and he made various other arrangements in regard to the churches of Gaul which could not be justified by the canons, and which, as Tillemont observes, were not carried out.1

It seems to have been because S. Leo feared that the bishops of Gaul would not pay much attention to his revolutionary decrees, that he applied again to the civil power; that so, however much his orders might be lacking in canonical validity, they might, at any rate, be clothed with all the majesty of the imperial authority. The Emperor Valentinian III. was then ruling in the West. He was a feeble and contemptible prince, stained with every vice, who murdered with his own hands Aetius, the only great man in his service. It was to this Valentinian that S. Leo applied for help in his contest with S. Hilary. The Emperor, who was probably governed in the matter by his mother, the Empress Galla Placidia, did all that S. Leo wished, and addressed a rescript, in the year 445, to that same Patrician, Aetius, whom he afterwards killed. In this rescript the Emperor says, among other things, that "the peace of the churches will then only be preserved, when the whole body of them acknowledge their ruler. Hitherto this has been inviolably observed; but now Hilary of Arles, as we have learnt from the faithful report of the venerable man, Leo, the Roman pope, has, with contumacious daring, attempted certain unlawful things, and thus an abominable confusion has invaded the churches north of the Alps." Towards the end of the rescript the Emperor adds, "We decree, by a perpetual edict, that nothing shall be attempted contrary to ancient custom, either by the Gallican bishops or by the bishops of other provinces, without the authority of the venerable man, the pope of the eternal city; but whatever the authority of the apostolic see has sanctioned or shall sanction, let that be held by them and by all for a law; so that if any of the bishops shall neglect, when summoned, to come to the tribunal of the Roman prelate, let him be forced to come

of an angry letter written by S. Leo's successor, Pope Hilary, against another great light of the Church of Gaul, S. Mamertus of Vienne, says, "There is no cause for wonder that the Roman pontiff, Hilary, should have so vehemently attacked Mamertus, a man, as events proved, illustrious by his sanctity; for in these litigious cases it is very easy for any one to be deceived. Something very similar happened to S. Leo, who inveighed most bitterly against S. Hilary for very much the same reason. Who does not know that it often happens that the ears of pontiffs are filled with false accusations, by which they are deceived; and, when they imagine that they are acting in accordance with justice, they are really harassing the innocent" (Baron., Annal. Eccl., s.a. 464).

Tillemont, xv. 80, 81, 85, 86; compare the remarks of Baluze, in De Marca's De Concord. Sac. et Imp., v. xxxiii., coll. 631-636, edit. Böhmer, 1708.

by the civil governor of the province." 1

Thus did the

decrepit autocracy of the dying empire plant in the home of freedom, the Church of God, the hateful likeness of itself. This rescript of Valentinian goes far beyond the rescript of Gratian. It makes the pope's word law, and it makes the bishops his humble servants. It is grievous to think that so noble a man as S. Leo really was, should have stained his history by his share in this degrading act of legislation. The Roman Catholic Tillemont justly observes that those who have any love for the liberty of the Church, and any knowledge of her discipline, will agree that this rescript will redound through all ages as little to the honour of Leo, whom it praises, as it does to the hurt of Hilary, whom it condemns.3 Succeeding popes knew well how to use such a law in their own interest.

4

5

In the meanwhile, the blessed Hilary spent the four remaining years of his saintly life working out his own salvation and promoting that of his people. He gave himself to prayer and preaching, and the practice of good works; he redoubled his austerities; he helped the poor of his diocese with gifts, and consoled them by his sympathy. At length he died, and, if Tillemont is right, he was at his death still out of communion with Rome. His body was carried to S. Stephen's Church, the people crying out with one accord, "This day has for ever brought to an end the reproaches of an unjust accusation." S. Honoratus, who was present, tells us that the saint's remains were nearly torn to pieces by the crowds who pressed around to touch them.

Thus was gathered into the joys of Paradise one more of the long line of saints who have withstood the usurpations of the Roman pontiffs, and who, in many cases, have died outside their communion. One is thankful to know that after

1 Constitutio Valentiniani III. Augusti, inter Leoninas Ep. xi., P. L., liv. 638. The subsequent history shows what an effect it had in Gaul. The Gallican bishops were much more compliant with the papal claims, after the promulgation of Valentinian's constitution, than they had been previously.

Tillemont, xv. 83, 84.

When S. Hilary got home to Arles, he showed the Christian meekness of his spirit by sending first the Priest Ravennius, and afterwards the Bishops Nectarius and Constantius, to pacify S. Leo's wrath. However, he would not yield on the main point; and his friend Auxiliaris, the Prefect of Rome, who had acted as host to the Bishops Nectarius and Constantius, urged him to use "a certain softness" (quâdam teneritudine) in his messages, which would conciliate "the ears of the Romans" (aures Romanorum). Tillemont (xv. 85), after quoting this letter of Auxiliaris, observes that we are not told that S. Hilary followed the prefect's advice, or that he made any further effort to appease S. Leo. Duchesne (Fastes, i. 117), speaking of S. Hilary, says, "Quand il mourut, le 5 Mai, 449, la réconciliation n'était pas faite."

5 Tillemont, xv. 89.

"Haec dies querelas injustae imputationis perpetuo resecavit" (Vit. S. Hilar. Arel., ap. Opp. S. Leon., edit. Quesnel, 1700, i. 371).

S. Hilary's death, S. Leo spoke of him as a man "of holy memory; "2 and his commemoration occurs on the 5th of May in the Roman Martyrology. It is well for the Church in all ages to meditate on the example of such saints, and to celebrate their names with honour from generation to generation.

It will not be possible for me in these lectures to trace the further development of the papal power, as it shows itself in the authentic records of the history of the Church. The rescript of the Emperor Valentinian III. formed a new starting-point, and all manner of causes combined together to help forward the evil growth. The barbarian invasions of the West, the Mohammedan conquest of the East and of Africa, the long succession of successful forgeries which formed a chain of which the forged decretals of the pseudoIsidore constituted only one link, the final breach between the East and the West, the temporal sovereignty which the popes acquired, the Crusades, the close alliance between the State and the Church, the dependence of the later monastic orders and of the friars on the Roman see, the systematizing labours of the schoolmen and the canonists, working as they did so largely on spurious authorities,-all these causes, and many more, helped to develop the papal power from what it was in the time of S. Leo, into what it became in the time of Bellarmine and into what it is now, as set forth in the Vatican decrees. The thing itself is not of God. It is of the earth earthy. It is impossible to exaggerate its weakening effect on those portions of the Church which have accepted it. For a long while its worst excesses were rejected by the noblest provinces of the Roman communion, as, for example, by the illustrious Church of France. Now it seems as if its deadening influence had been bound upon the whole of that communion by the Vatican decrees of 1870. We ought to thank God every day that in His great mercy He has delivered the Church of England from that bondage. We must indeed mingle with our thanksgivings the deepest penitence and humiliation, when we think how unfaithful we have been in our use of our freedom; when we think of our lack of discipline, of our miserable Erastianism, of our worldliness,

1 Ep. xl. ad Episcopos per Arelatensem Galliae Provinciam constitutos, P. L., liv. 815.

2 These words of S. Leo would not of themselves prove that S. Hilary died in the Roman communion. In a letter to Bishop Paschasinus (Ep. lxxxviii. cap. iv., P. L., liv. 929), and also in a letter to the Emperor Marcian (Ep. cxxi. cap. ii., P. L., liv. 1056), S. Leo calls Theophilus of Alexandria a man "of holy memory." Now, Theophilus had been excommunicated by the Roman Church for what he had done against S. Chrysostom, and he died outside the Roman communion (see Tillemont, xi. 495).

of our Laodicene self-satisfaction, of our very imperfect grasp of certain aspects of primitive truth. We may, however, in all humility hope that in some degree we are improving. Thank God! it is no part of our creed that the Church, which we love, is as yet without spot or wrinkle.1 We are free to see our faults, and to confess them, and to do what we can to amend them. The more we strive to amend what we see to be wrong, the more will our vision be purged, so that we shall become conscious of evil which we had not before suspected. Let us pray that we may be more and more weaned from trust in all mere earthly supports. It is not enough that we reject the earthliness of the papacy; we must seek to be freed from all reliance on the earthly accidents of our ecclesiastical position, on our connexion with the State, on our ancient endowments, on our social position. I do not say that we are necessarily to agitate for a revolution in these matters. The time may arrive when such an agitation may become necessary. But what we are bound to do is to wean our hearts from all reliance on these things, and to struggle continually against all that is corrupt and wrong, which may have crept into the Church in consequence of them. Our only real strength is in our true Head, Jesus Christ our Lord. If the Church had kept the eyes of her heart fixed on our Lord in the fourth century, as they had been fixed during the three previous centuries, that inroad of worldliness could never have taken place. It was the inroad of worldliness which in the West resulted in the papacy. We have got rid of the papacy, but we have not got rid of the worldliness. We need to live in much closer fellowship with our ascended King, not only in our individual life, though that, of course, must form the foundation, but also in our ecclesiastical life. We have to bring home to ourselves the living union which exists between Christ and the Church. No matter what clouds of danger and difficulty are lowering on the horizon, threatening the ship of the Church with an overwhelming storm, we have Christ with us in the ship, and He has pledged His word that He will bring us safely through. People often fly over to Rome, because they are so conscious of the terrible difficulties which threaten the Church on all sides, and they think somehow that a compact organization under an earthly head will give the Church the strength she needs. Alas! the earthly head, being no part of the institution of Christ, does not reveal the heavenly Head, but hides Him. It is the power of the heavenly Head, which we are to

1 Cf. S. August., De Perfect. Justit. Hom., cap. xv. § 35 (Opp., ed. Ben., 1690, x. 183); see also S. Aug. Retractt., lib. i. cap. vii. § 5 (Opp., ed. Ben., 1689, i. 10); and S. Thom. Summ. Theol., iii. q. viii. a. iii. ad 2TM.

trust. It is His organic connexion with the Church that we are to realize. It is His guidance which is pledged to us. It is His Headship which will reveal itself most marvellously in the hour of greatest need, to those who are looking to Him. If we do not look to Him, we shall certainly be swept away, either into heresy, or into unbelief, or into the false unity of the papal communion. All those things are doomed to an awful ending. But through all the terrors of the last times. Christ will purge and protect His own Church, and guard the faith of His people, who are trusting in Him and looking for the day of His glorious appearing.

APPENDIX F.

On the Genuineness of the Letter Optaremus, addressed by a Carthaginian Council (circa 426) to Pope Celestine (see p. 193).

DR. RIVINGTON undertakes the hopeless task of disputing the genuineness of the letter Optaremus,1 addressed in 425 or 426 by a Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine. He says of it, that it "has every possible mark of forgery." "2

His first objection to its genuineness is based on the fact that "it has no date." Well, the synodical letters, Sanctum animum tuum and Fidei tuae, addressed to Theodosius by two provincial councils of North Italy in 381 and 382, have no date. Similarly, the synodical letter Quoniam Domino, addressed in 419 by the seventeenth Council of Carthage under Aurelius to Pope Boniface, has no date. The synodical letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae, addressed by a Synod of Rome under Damasus to the two Western Emperors, has no date. The synodical letter addressed by the Council of Nicaea to the Church of Alexandria has no date. The three synodical letters, addressed by the Council of Sardica (1) to the Catholic episcopate, (2) to Pope Julius, and (3) to the Church of Alexandria, respectively, have, neither of them, any date. But it would be wearisome to continue the list. The objection is absolutely futile.

Dr. Rivington's next proof of the spuriousness of the letter Optaremus, is, if possible, still more absurd. He says, "It comes before us as emanating from a universal synod of Africa-the peer of the great • Ibid., p. 303.

1 P. L., 1. 422.

4

2 Prim. Church, p. 474.

Epp. inter Ambrosianas xiii. et xiv., P. L., xvi. 990, 994.

5 P. L., xx. 752.

6 P. L., xiii. 575.

'Theodoret. H. E., i. 8; Socrat. H. E., i. 9; Coleti, ii. 260. 8 Coleti, ii. 699, 690, 694.