there is one most important passage, contained in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, in which the holy martyr treats of the unity of the Church Universal, of "the one and undivided episcopate," and of the one Church putting forth her rays "all over the whole world." In that passage he quotes the great Petrine text about "the rock" and "the keys,” but he interprets it of Peter as the historical commencement of the episcopate, not of Peter and his local successors at Rome as the perennial fountain of a unity secured by their supreme jurisdiction and by their being the necessary centre of communion. If S. Cyprian had believed in the modern papal claims, he must have mentioned them in that passage.

NOTE 49 (see note 2 on p. 88). S. Cyprian and S. Augustine taught that S. Peter symbolized the Church's unity.-Dr. Rivington (Prim. Ch., p. 61) says, "Mr. Puller does not venture to translate the word 'manifest' by 'symbolize,' but throughout he appears to understand them as equivalent.” I certainly do think that, when S. Cyprian in his De Unitate (§ 4, Opp., i. 212, 213) says that our Lord arranged for His Church to start from one man, namely S. Peter, "ut unitatem manifestaret," or again "ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur," he means that Christ made this arrangement in order that the unity of the Church might be symbolized or typified or figured by S. Peter. The same thought occurs in S. Cyprian's Epistle to Jubaianus, where he says, "To Peter, in the first place, upon whom he built the Church, and from whom he appointed and showed forth the origin of unity (et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit), the Lord gave that power, namely, that whatsoever he should loose on earth should be loosed in heaven." And it is to be noted that S. Augustine, when quoting this passage, substitutes the words "in typo unitatis" for the words "unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit." S. Augustine rightly sees that, when in this group of passages S. Cyprian uses such words as "ostendere,” "manifestare," "monstrare,” he means to imply that S. Peter was appointed to be the type or symbol or figure of the Church's unity. And S. Augustine not only rightly understood S. Cyprian's meaning,3 but he also, as might

that the rent garment of Ahijah, which fitly symbolized the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah, could not symbolize the Church militant here on earth, because that Church in its entirety is always visibly one. That is not the teaching of S. Cyprian. He held, indeed, as we also hold, that there is a most real unity of the Catholic Church, resulting primarily from her union with our Lord, which is incapable of division; but, when he applies the contrast between Ahijah's garment and Christ's seamless robe to the visible state of the Church on earth, he applies it to the visible unity of each local Church, not to the visible unity of the whole Church militant. When making this application he says (De Unitate, § 8, Opp., i. 216), "Who then is such a criminal and traitor, who is so inflamed by the madness of discord, as to think aught can rend, or to venture on rending, the unity of God, the garment of the Lord, the Church of Christ? He Himself warns us in His gospel and teaches, saying, And there shall be one flock and one shepherd.' And does any one think that there can in one place be either many shepherds or many flocks?" Thus S. Cyprian's application of the type is not to the Church Universal, but to the Church" in one place."

1 S. Cypr. Ep. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, § 7, Opp., ii. 783.

2 Cf. S. August., De Baptismo, lib. iii. cap. xvii., P. L., xliii. 149.

3 In an article entitled L'idée de l'Église dans saint Cyprien, which was published in the Revue d'Histoire et de Littérature Religieuses for November, 1896, the learned author, who writes under the nom de plume of J. Delarochelle, and

be expected, agreed with his teaching. So in his Enarratio on the 108th (Heb. 109th) Psalm, he says, "For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is admitted to have represented in a figure (cujus ille agnoscitur in figura gestasse personam), on account of the pre-eminence which he enjoyed among the disciples (propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit); as it is written, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and other passages of the like purport: so Judas doth in a certain way represent " 1 And again in his fiftieth those Jews who were enemies of Christ." Homily on S. John's Gospel S. Augustine says, "Peter, when he received the keys, symbolized the holy Church "2 (Ecclesiam sanctam significavit). "Since in symbolic Once more, in his 149th Sermon, S. Augustine says, meaning (in significatione) Peter was representing the Church, what was given to him alone, was given to the Church. Therefore Peter was bearing the figure of the Church" 3 figuram gestabat Ecclesiae).

NOTE 50 (see note 2 on p. 90).—In illustration of what is said in the text, the speech made at the third Carthaginian Council on baptism by Fortunatus of Thuccaboris may be consulted. He refers to the Church It being founded on Peter, in order that he may conclude from that premiss that the power of baptizing has been committed to the bishops.5 must be remembered that this council was held at a moment when the ecclesiastical relations of Rome and Africa were very strained, and when in fact the pope was preparing to separate the African bishops from his communion.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LECTURE III.

NOTE 51 (see p. 96). In primitive times, not only the Roman popes but also other bishops used to write admonitory letters to foreign churches. It will perhaps help us to understand how natural it was for

who is evidently a sincere papalist, thus sums up (p. 528) S. Cyprian's view: "Ainsi la primauté de Pierre était un symbole. Il a reçu avant tous les autres le pouvoir apostolique pour qu'il figurât dans l'unité de sa personne l'unité de Î'Église. Puis le même pouvoir a été donné à tous les apôtres, qui le détiennent That is exactly solidairement avec lui, et au même titre, au même degré.'

S. Cyprian's view; and it is pleasant to find it honestly acknowledged by one who, as an Ultramontane, takes a very different view. The Cyprianic view has been widely propagated in the later English Church by means of Bishop Pearson's great work on the Creed. Pearson says (Art. ix. n. 69, ed. Burton, Oxford, 1870, p. 600), "Whereas all the rest of the Apostles had equal power and honour with S. Peter, yet Christ did particularly give that power to S. Peter, to show the unity of the Church which he intended to build upon the foundation of the Apostles."

1 S. August. Enarrat. in Psalm. cviii. § 1, P. L., xxxvii. 1431, 1432.

2 S. August. in Joannis Evang. tractat. 1. § 12, P. L., xxxv. 1763.

3 S. August. Serm. cxlix. cap. vi., P. L., xxxviii. 802.

• Sententiae episcoporum, n. 17, Opp., i. 444.

5 See also a passage in the Epistle of S. Firmilian (Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas lxxv. § 16, Opp. S. Cypr., ii. 820, 821).

S. Clement and the Church of Rome to write a letter of admonition to the Church of Corinth, if we recall to mind what Eusebius1 tells us of the various Catholic epistles which S. Dionysius of Corinth (circa 170) wrote to different churches in foreign parts. Thus he wrote to the Lacedaemonians a letter admonishing (úπo@erikh) to peace and unity. The subject of this letter is the very subject of S. Clement's letter to the Corinthians. S. Dionysius also wrote to the Athenians a letter, in which he censures them as if they had almost apostatized from the faith. He wrote to the Church of Amastris in Pontus, commanding (πpoσtάtte) that church to receive back penitents. No doubt the churches of Athens and Sparta were afterwards in the province of Corinth; but Amastris was far away in Pontus, and Eusebius mentions all these churches as foreign churches, and contrasts Dionysius' labours for them with his work on behalf of those under his own control (Toîs ûn' autóv). If S. Dionysius of Corinth wrote about the year 170 in this sort of way to distant churches, why should not S. Clement of Rome have written a similar letter to the Corinthian Church from seventy to eighty years earlier? And if we cannot rightly deduce from these letters of S. Dionysius that the Church of Corinth had any jurisdiction over Pontus, why should we be required to hold that the letter of S. Clement proves that the Roman Church claimed jurisdiction over Greece, and, in fact, over all the world?

NOTE 52 (see p. 100).-There is another passage in S. Augustine's works which is very similar to the lines of the anti-Donatist ballad quoted in the text, and which bears out my interpretation of the expression, "ab ipsa Petri sede." S. Augustine says in his Contra Faustum, “Vides in re quid hac Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet episcoporum serie, et tot populorum consensione firmatur." 3

NOTE 53 (see p. 102).-The meaning of S. Augustine's expression, "unitas in multis," which is applied by him to S. Peter in the passage quoted in the text, may be illustrated by a parallel passage in S. Augustine's Tractat. cxviii. in Johan. Evang., § 4.* He is discussing the symbolism of the dividing our Lord's garments into four parts and the casting lots for the undivided seamless coat, and he says, "Just as in the case of the apostles, though their number also was twelve-fold, or, in other words, fourfold, with three apostles to each division, and though all the apostles were questioned, Peter alone made answer, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God;' and to him it is said, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' as if he alone received the power of binding and loosing: whereas both in that confession he spake as one for them all, and this gift he received with them all as being the representative of unity itself: one for all, on the ground that he is

H. E., iv. 23.

2 S. Dionysius wrote also to the Church of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and to the Churches of Gortyna and Cnossus in Crete. He wrote also to the Roman Church.

3 Contra Faustum, lib. xi. cap. 2, Opp., ed. Ben., viii. 219.

Opp., ed. Ben., tom. iii. pars ii. coll. 800, 801.

[symbolically] the unity in all." 1 Here the expression, personam gerens ipsius unitatis" of the penultimate clause shows that we must understand symbolically the statement in the last clause that S. Peter is the "unitas in omnibus." This passage seems to me to corroborate the correctness of the second of the two interpretations of the expression, "unitas in multis," which I have suggested in note I on p. 102.

NOTE 54 (see p. 109). S. Peter's primacy, as held by representative Anglican divines.-I have been surprised to notice that Dr. Rivington, in his book entitled Dependence (p. 33), says that, “as an Anglican,” he "for a long while held, as a more logical view, that S. Peter excelled the others in natural qualities only;" and in an earlier book entitled Authority, he commits himself to the extraordinary statement that "the idea that all the apostles were equal, except in natural qualities,” is “a fundamental point of Anglican teaching." "13 I cannot imagine what can have led him into such a complete misapprehension. The English divines, handing on the tradition of the Fathers, no doubt teach that the apostles were equal, not only in regard to order, but also in regard to jurisdiction. They deny altogether that any one apostle had jurisdiction over the others; or that the jurisdiction of any one apostle over the Church was of a different kind from the jurisdiction of each of the other apostles over the Church. But while doing full justice to the doctrine of the Fathers about the equality of the apostles, they also do justice to the scriptural and patristic teaching about S. Peter's priority of place, to his leadership or foremanship in the apostolic college. I do not know that any of them identify that leadership with S. Peter's superiority in natural qualities, or suppose that it simply arose out of those natural qualities, without any reference to acts and words of our Blessed Lord. Even if English divines of repute could be found who held such a view (which I doubt), yet assuredly the general tradition of the English Church has been the other way; and it would be absurd to say that the view held by Dr. Rivington, when he was an Anglican, is "a fundamental point of Anglican teaching."

No doubt S. Peter's leadership among the twelve does not occupy the same important position in Anglican teaching that it occupies in Romanist teaching. From the nature of the case, a priority of place is a much less important matter than a supremacy of jurisdiction; and the difference of view in the estimate of importance is greatly intensified when the priority of place is supposed to belong to S. Peter personally, whereas the supremacy of jurisdiction is supposed to belong to him officially, and to have been transmitted by him to a long line of successors. From the English point of view it is a matter of no

1

"Sicut in Apostolis cum esset etiam ipse numerus duodenarius, id est, quadripartitus in ternos, et omnes essent interrogati, solus Petrus respondit, Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi: et ei dicitur, Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, tamquam ligandi et solvendi solus acceperit potestatem: cum et illud unus pro omnibus dixerit, et hoc cum omnibus tamquam personam gerens ipsius unitatis acceperit : ideo unus pro omnibus, quia unitas est in omnibus."

2 Authority, p. 59.

3 Compare also Authority, pp. 69, 70.

doctrinal importance whether or no S. Peter's priority of place was retained by him to the end of his life; or, again, whether it had reference to the whole body of the apostles, or to the apostles of the circumcision only. Such questions may afford interesting points for scriptural or patristic investigation, but whichever way they might be decided, they would not affect the substance of our faith; nor would that faith be affected if we came to the conclusion that, with the evidence at our disposal, they do not admit of any certain answer. S. John and S. James, his brother, had a certain priority along with S. Peter during our Lord's lifetime, and, according to S. Clement of Alexandria, they retained that priority after the Ascension; but it would be difficult to say whether their priority, such as it was, remained to the end, and whether it related only to the twelve or to other apostles also. Would S. John have taken precedence of S. Paul, or would S. Paul have taken precedence of S. John? Individual Fathers may perhaps speculate on the matter, but I feel sure that nothing certain has been revealed, and that such questions do not touch the faith.

Our English divines, if they happen to touch on these minor questions, abound each in his own sense. But as regards the more important point of S. Peter's leadership of the apostolic college, at any rate during our Lord's lifetime and during the earlier years of the Church's history, the stream of Anglican teaching has, I should suppose, been quite clear.

Let me give a few examples which happen to come to hand.

Archbishop Potter of Canterbury (A.D. 1737-1747), in his Discourse of Church Government (2nd edit., pp. 75-80), discusses the matter very fully. He says that "some of the apostles were superior to the rest, both in personal merit and abilities, and in order of place." He proceeds to prove this by quoting passages from Holy Scripture; and then states again the conclusion at which he arrives, namely, that "some of the apostles had a pre-eminence above others." Then he goes on to say that "it may be observed further that in most places Peter is preferred before all the rest; whence our Lord often speaks to him, and he replies before, and, as it were, in the name of the rest." Having adduced various passages from the New Testament in proof, he concludes, that "from these and the like passages, it is evident that Peter was the foreman of the college of apostles whilst our Lord lived on earth; and it is plain that he kept the same dignity at least for some time after His Ascension." Then he elaborates this last point out of the earlier part of the Book of the Acts, and, summing up the result of the argument, he says that "it is evident that S. Peter acted as chief of the college of apostles, and so he is constantly described by the primitive writers of the Church, who call him the Head, the President, the Prolocutor, the Chief, the Foreman of the Apostles, with several other titles of distinction." The archbishop goes on to discuss the qualifications of S. Peter, which rendered him fit to be selected to occupy this position of precedence. It is notorious that the Fathers differ very much among themselves on this point; some like

See note 2 on pp. 112, 113.