Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1893)

THE first five lectures printed in this volume were delivered in the Church of All Hallows-on-the-Wall, in the city of London, to an audience consisting of clergymen, working for the most part in the parishes of London and its suburbs. They were delivered at the request of an association of East End incumbents, which is known by the name of "Our Society," on five consecutive Thursday mornings in Lent, 1892. These five lectures deal with the claim to a supremacy or primacy of jurisdiction, as of divine right, which is made on behalf of the Roman pontiffs. The two remaining lectures 1 have been written subsequently, and deal with the theory that communion with the see of Rome is the necessary condition of communion with the Catholic Church.

I have not thought it necessary to devote any lecture to the consideration of the crowning claim of the papacy to doctrinal infallibility, because, if I am not mistaken, this claim to infallibility is usually set forth as a consequence logically involved in the doctrine that the pope has a primacy of jurisdiction, and that he is the necessary centre of communion. I have preferred to deal with these two more fundamental claims. If they can be shown to be unwarranted, it will evidently follow that the logical superstructure which has been built upon them is baseless.

2

I wish particularly to call attention to the fact that, in dealing with the historical argument against the papal claims, I have not attempted to cover the whole ground, even within the limits of the first six centuries, beyond which period I

[In this enlarged edition the two additional lectures mentioned in the text have expanded into seven lectures.-(July, 1900).]

2

Compare Bottalla, The Infallibility of the Pope, pp. 3, 4.

do not profess to go. If I had made any such attempt, this book would have become so voluminous, that it would probably have secured very few readers, and the object which I had in view, when I undertook to prepare it, would be defeated. I have been obliged to make a selection among the historical episodes and passages from the writings of the saints, which throw light on my general subject, in order that I might be able to treat the episodes and passages so selected with some fulness of detailed statement and discussion. I particularly regret that I have been unable to discuss the history of the Roman pontificate in relation to the four great heresies connected with the names of Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, and also that I have been able to say so very little about the third, fourth, and fifth of the Ecumenical Councils, and less than I could have wished about the first and second.1

In the third lecture and in the earlier part of the sixth lecture I have discussed the witness of Holy Scripture in regard to the two fundamental papal claims. The rest of the book is mainly taken up with an appeal, in regard to those claims, to the acts and writings of the great saints of the Primitive Church. It was the fact that such an appeal constitutes the main argument of the book, which decided me in the choice of its title. I do not think that it is necessary for me to vindicate the importance of such an appeal. The genuine sons of the Church of England have always professed themselves to be ready to abide by it; and the traditional theology of the Roman communion has

['In this enlarged edition the history of the relations of Liberius and Damasus to the Arian movement is set forth with considerable fulness, and there is a good deal of additional matter dealing with the first two Ecumenical Councils. The reader is also referred to Dr. Bright's Roman See in the Early Church. In that work Dr. Bright has discussed the relations of the papacy to Pelagianism on pp. 126-136; to the Council of Ephesus on pp. 144-171, and to the Council of Chalcedon on pp. 172-210. The subject of the relations of the papacy to Pelagianism is also discussed in an article, entitled Two Roman Controversialists, which appeared in the Church Quarterly for April, 1897; and the relations of Popes Celestine and Leo to the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon are discussed in an article entitled Rivington on the Roman Primacy, 430-451, which appeared in the Church Quarterly for 1899. These two articles may be regarded as supplementary to Dr. Bright's book. I take this opportunity of calling the attention of those who may read this note, to Dr. Bright's discussion of the cases of S. Denys of Alexandria and of Paul of Samosata, and also to his treatment of the dealings of Pope S. Julius with the Easterns (cf. The Roman See in the Early Church, PP. 53-57, and pp. 81-85).—(July, 1900).]

been accustomed to assign a very high place to the witness of the Fathers. If there are any Roman Catholics in the present day who shrink from the appeal to the saints of the Primitive Church, it is desirable that they should be encouraged to declare their opinions openly. While we shall sincerely grieve at the declension from the Catholic standard which such a change of front would betoken, the explicit abandonment of the traditional argument of the Church's defenders will at any rate show how hopeless it is to defend the modern claims of the papacy by an appeal to the witness of the Primitive Church. New doctrines need new theological methods to uphold them. As for us, we are content to stand upon the old paths.

As I have said, my appeal is mainly to the acts and writings of the saints of the Primitive Church; and for the purposes of this argument I acknowledge none as saints except those whose sanctity the Church has recognized in some formal way. It was not until the twelfth century that in the West the canonization of saints was reserved to the pope. In the earlier times the right of decreeing the recognition of the sanctity of this or that servant of God appertained, in the first place, to the bishop of the diocese to which he belonged. Such a decree would, when first promulgated, be authoritative only within the bishop's own sphere of jurisdiction; but, if it was approved and accepted by other bishops, it would gradually acquire a wider and in many cases an ecumenical authority. In later times, before the twelfth century, the decrees of canonization usually emanated from the Provincial Synods.1 In the great patriarchal sees there was sometimes a tendency to canonize patriarchs who can hardly be said to have deserved the honour. The Bollandists have noted this tendency in regard to some of the occupants of the see of Constantinople, but the same thing might be said with truth concerning some Roman popes. In dealing

1 Mabillon, Acta SS. ord. S. Bened., tom. vii. pp. lix., lx., Praefat. in saec. decim., §§ 91, 92; cf. Benedict XIV., De serv. Dei beatif. et beat. canoniz., lib. i. cap. vi. § 9, Opp. tom. i. p. 17, ed. 1767. The saints, to whose testimony appeal is made in this book, are for the most part venerated throughout the Church, both in the East and in the West. In some few cases the veneration of this or that saint may, according to circumstances, be confined to the East or to the West. Where the veneration is purely local, as in the case of the ten saintly bishops of Como (p. 405), attention is called to the fact.

with the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, I have not felt bound to use the title of saint in every case in which the name of this or that bishop has found a place in the local calendar.

Although these lectures were originally addressed to a clerical audience, I hope that they may be found to have some interest for that large and increasing body of laymen who recognize the importance of these questions. Having this object in view, and feeling sure that in any case some of those whom I should most wish to interest in the main argument of my book, would be repelled by the frequent occurrence of quotations in the Latin and Greek languages, I have tried to keep Latin and Greek as much as possible out of the text of the lectures, and to relegate quotations in those languages to the notes. I have not scrupled to lighten my own labour by using any accessible translations of patristic passages which I wished to quote in English. I do not think that I have ever done so without carefully comparing the translation with the original, and without correcting any expression occurring in the translation which seemed to need correction.

I hope that I have not anywhere transgressed the rules of Christian courtesy. The nature of my argument is of such a character that I have been compelled at times to criticize and controvert the statements and arguments of others; but I should be extremely sorry if there was a single word which might seem to be either uncharitable or consciously unfair.

I had written thus far, when I received a copy of the Preface with which the Bishop of Lincoln has enriched my book. I wish to express my gratitude to him for the Preface itself, and for his kindness in finding time to write it in the midst of his unceasing pastoral labours. Perhaps I ought to have foreseen that his affection would lead him to speak of me in a way that I do not deserve. May our Lord reward him, both now and in the world to come, for the manifold ways in which he has poured out his goodness upon me, ever since the old Cuddesdon days, more than a quarter of a century ago.

I desire also to thank Dr. Bright for taking the trouble to read over the proof-sheets of the fifth lecture, and for making

several helpful suggestions in regard to the treatment of the case of Apiarius.

My thanks are also due to other kind friends, who have been good enough to answer questions, and who have in that way put me in the right track, and enabled me to solve various problems. But I must specially record my gratitude to my friend the Rev. V. S. S. Coles, of the Pusey House, who read carefully through the manuscript of this book, and whose remarks have led me to add here and there notes which will, I think, strengthen the general argument.

Lastly, I must thank my friend and brother, the Rev. P. N. Waggett, for his careful correction of the proof-sheets of the whole book, and for the help which he has given me in the work of making the index, and in other ways.

F. W. P.

THE MISSION HOUSE, COWLEY S. JOHN,
Feast of S. Patrick, 1893.

« ZurückWeiter »