certain writings of Ibas and of Theodoret; although it must have known well that it was acting in defiance of the wishes of Pope Vigilius, who, though he was in Constantinople at the time, refused to come to the council. One would have to tell how for six months the pope refused his assent to what had been done by the council, but at last, in a letter to S. Eutychius, confessed that it was the devil who had deceived him, and led him to despise brotherly charity, so that he was carried away into discord, but now he wishes to retract his former opposition, and to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, and such writings of the same Theodore and of Ibas and of Theodoret as had been condemned by the council. One would have to narrate the history of the dissensions which arose in the West in consequence of Vigilius having assented to the decrees of the Fifth Council; of how the bishops of Tuscany, Liguria, Venetia, and Histria withdrew from communion with the Roman see; and of how the province of Aquileia remained out of communion with the pope for nearly one hundred and fifty years. One would have to point out that many who then lived and died outside the Roman communion, have since been reckoned among the saints. To give one instance, ten bishops of Como, who were never in communion with the pope, are venerated as saints by the Church of Como to this day, and this veneration has been sanctioned by the Congregation of Rites. One might go on_to_quote the celebrated letter of the glorious missionary, S. Columbanus, to Pope Boniface IV., in which he justifies the refusal of many of the bishops of North Italy to communicate with the papal chair. It is true that S. Columbanus makes some mistakes in his historical statements; but the principles which he lays down show that he had no notion of accepting the papal theory. But, interesting as these subjects are, I must resist the temptation to discuss them. Enough has been said, I think, to show that Cardinal Wiseman committed a rash act when he appealed to "the doctrine of the ancient Fathers "5 in favour of his theory, that “it is 1 Coleti, vi. 239-246. 2 From A.D. 557 to A.D. 698. These ten bishops' names are these: S. Flavian I. (Feb. 26); S. Adalbert (June 3); S. Agrippinus (June 17); S. Martinianus (Sept. 3); S. John II. (Oct. 3); S. John III. (Oct. 20); S. Octarianus (Oct. 23); S. Benedictus (Oct. 30); S. Flavian II. (Nov. 26); S. Rubianus (Dec. 16); cf. Acta SS., tom. x. Octobr., Pp. 106-108. He says to the pope in one passage of his letter, "Rightly do your juniors resist you, and rightly do they refuse to communicate with you” (Ep. v. ad Bonifacium Papam IV. § ix., P. L., lxxx. 279). According to the teaching of some modern Romanist writers, it would seem to be a very needless proceeding to take any pains to learn what "the doctrine of easy at once to ascertain who are the Church Catholic, and who are in a state of schism, by simply discovering who are in communion with the see of Rome, and who are not."1 No! the ancient Fathers taught a doctrine concerning the distinction between Catholics and schismatics, and concerning the true nature of the unity of the Church, which differs very widely from the teaching of the Vatican Council and of Cardinal Wiseman. In ancient times, if the question arose, Is such and such a bishop a prelate of the Catholic Church? various points would have to be investigated before an answer could be given. It would have to be considered whether the bishop had been validly ordained in the line of the apostolical succession; whether the faith which he publicly professed was in agreement with the doctrinal tradition of the Church; whether he was the canonical occupant of his see; whether the see itself had been canonically erected.2 These would seem to be the principal questions which would need to be satisfactorily answered in such a case. It is quite certain that the mere fact of being in communion with the pope or out of communion with the pope would in no way be a certain test of a bishop's status. S. Meletius was out of communion with Damasus, yet his people constituted "the true Church of God" at Antioch. Paulinus and Evagrius were in communion with Rome, yet their position was illegitimate; they had illegally mounted the throne;" their partisans were guilty of "dividing the Church." A 66 According to the teaching of the Fathers, the true canonical bishops of the Catholic Church constituted a college, of which Christ our Lord was the one and only Head. If they, as a whole, were looking to Him, and depending on Him, He was able and willing to safeguard the visible unity of the episcopal body. If their faith in the ancient Fathers" was. The notion, favoured by these writers, appears to be, that by pronouncing the magic word "development" the defenders of their church are freed from the necessity of tracing back the substance of her creed to primitive times. Fortunately, the Roman Church herself has never committed herself to a theory so profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. May the day never come, when so large a division of Christendom shall, by adopting so fundamental an error, break with its own tradition and with the faith once delivered to the saints. On the general subject of doctrinal development, see Appendix M, PP. 424-433. 1 See p. 216. Of course Cardinal Wiseman would agree as to the necessity of these requirements being fulfilled. But he would hold that, normally, canonicity of status would be guaranteed by the fact of being recognized by the pope, and that apart from such recognition canonicity of status is an impossibility. S. Basil. Ep. ccxiv., Opp., ed. Ben., iii. 321, and see above on p. 321. * S. Chrys. Hom. xi. in Epist. ad Ephes., Opp, ed. Ben., xi. 86, 89, and see above, on pp. 369, 370. their invisible Head failed, if they began to put their trust in secular princes or in an ecclesiastical monarch of their own creating, they ran the risk of experiencing the withdrawal of the Lord's hand, and of losing, at any rate for a time, the precious gift of visible unity. Even so, each separate section of the canonical episcopate remained united to our Lord, and through Him, and through the common faith and the fundamental institutions of the Church, retained an organic union with the other sections. The essential unity remained, though the visible unity, in so far as it depends on intercommunion, was in abeyance. Even in our present divided condition the Lord still governs His Church, and through her begets new children, and feeds and guides those whom He has begotten; but how miserably weakened is the divided Church's witness in the face of the unbelieving world, and how feeble is her use of her supernatural weapons in her warfare with Satan and his spiritual hosts of wickedness! Assuredly, if we long for the restoration of the Church to her ancient spiritual glory, we must yearn for the restoration of her visible unity. For this we must pray, for this we must work. But that unity can only be restored in accordance with the institution of Christ. If we could have a perfect unity by some human device of our own, by building up a papacy into a great tower of Babel, to prevent our being "scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth," it would but result in an increase of confusion. The Church can be united under Christ's Headship, and under His only. He has not chosen to appoint one great ecclesiastical potentate as His vicar, to represent His Headship over the Church. Each bishop is Christ's vicar for the diocese over which he presides; but for the whole Church the Invisible Head appoints an Invisible Vicar, even the Holy Ghost, whose principal instrument in the external government of the Church is the collective episcopate. Therefore the only way which will really lead towards a restoration of visible unity, is a more complete subjection of the bishops to the Holy Ghost. We ought to pray for a great outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon the whole of the Catholic episcopate, that so in all parts of the Church the rust of party-spirit and prejudice and ignorance and worldliness and ambition may be purged away, and by the mysterious unifying power of the Spirit, 1 Gen. xi. 4. 2 Tertullian (de Praescript. Haeret., cap. xxviii.) and S. Jerome (Hom. xxii. in Luc., P. L., xxvi. 268) both call the Holy Ghost the Vicar of Christ. S. Jerome says, "When the Lord Jesus came, and sent the Holy Ghost, His Vicar (Vicarium Suum), every valley was exalted." Compare S. John xiv. 16, and see S. Hilar. Pictav. Epist. seu Libell. § vi. (P. L., x. 739). those who have long been severed may be drawn together, and obstacles to unity may be removed, and the attraction of love may bind and unite, and the whole body of the Church's rulers may look up to Christ in faith and trust, and from Him receive their impulse and direction. May our Lord hasten this in His own time. We know not whether it is our Lord's purpose to accomplish this unifying work before His return. It may be that, in punishment for His people's sins, the visible unity of the Church will remain suspended until the Church herself has been purged through the fires of the last great persecution, which shall be in the days of Antichrist. It may be that the outpouring of the Spirit will not be granted until Israel "shall turn to the Lord," when "the veil is taken away." It may be that the prophecies of the conversion of the world shall find their fulfilment in that new order of things, which shall issue out of Christ's "appearing and kingdom," when the nations shall be ruled with a rod of iron by the saints who have overcome, and who have been caught up to be with our Lord. We must not venture to be over-confident in regard to the sequence of future events. But we know that all God's promises shall be wonderfully fulfilled in due season. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. Ultimately "the Lord shall be King over all the earth in that day shall the Lord be one, and His Name one." 5 Ultimately "all flesh shall come to worship before Me, saith the Lord." Ultimately the world shall believe that the Father sent the Son, because the followers of Christ, who believe in Him through the apostolic word, shall be "perfected into one."7 1 2 Cor. iii. 16. 5 Zech. xiv. 9. 2 2 Tim. iv. I. Cf. S. John xvii. 20-23. APPENDIX J. On the completeness of the breach of communion between the East and the West during the period of the Acacian troubles (see p. 383). DR. RIVINGTON in an article on the Acacian Troubles, which was published in the Dublin Review, tried hard to show that during the period of those troubles there was no breach of communion between the East and the West, or that at any rate any breach, which there may have been, was not a complete breach. After a long argument he sums up thus: "Our conclusion must be this: although there was estrangement between the East and West, the Easterns were not excommunicated by Rome. Euphemius and S. Macedonius were not anathematized." Now, it is this conclusion which I propose to combat, and I hope to convince any one, who will take the trouble to read this Appendix, that from the year 484, when Felix III. of Rome excommunicated Acacius of Constantinople, until the year 519 the breach between the main body of the Eastern Church and the see of Rome was complete. It is natural to begin my proof by citing the formal words of Felix III. Immediately after Acacius had been excommunicated on July 28, 484, Felix notified the fact to his Roman flock by posting up a proclamation or "edict," which was thus worded: "Acacius, after having been twice admonished by us, has not ceased to make light of our salutary decrees, and has thought it right to imprison me in the persons of my legates. Him God has cast out from the priestly office by means of a sentence inspired by heaven. Therefore if after the publication of this announcement any bishop, clerk, monk, or layman shall hold communion with the aforesaid Acacius, let him be anathema, and may this sentence be carried out by the Holy Ghost." Thus on the very day on which Acacius was excommunicated, a similar anathema was fulminated against all persons of whatever degree, who should hold communion with him. As a matter of fact, for the next thirty-five years, or thereabouts, the bishops, clergy, and faithful of the orthodox Eastern Church, with very few exceptions,3 "2 1 Dublin Review for April, 1894, vol. cxiv. p. 379. Epistt. RR. Pontt. Genuin. et quae ad cos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro ad Pelagium ii., ed. Thiel, Felicis III. Ep. vii., p. 247. There was a short period during the pontificate of Gelasius, when the bishops of the province of Dardania appear to have been in the Roman communion. But afterwards they broke away from the pope. In the time of Symmachus they were in communion with the East and not with the West. They returned to the Roman communion soon after Hormisdas' accession. In the early part of Hormisdas' episcopate various bishops in Scythia, Illyricum, and Epirus were reconciled with Rome. Some of them soon afterwards undid their previous action and returned to the communion of the East. For a long time after the breach between Rome and Constantinople, some of the Constantinopolitan monks adhered |