About the close of the third century, St. Cyprian, a prelate of the Latin church, declared that no bishop was superior to his brethren, since none of them established himself the bishop of bishops, nor reduced his equals to obey him by any tyrannical power, since every one had an absolute liberty of his will, and entire power; and as no one could be judged by another, so neither could he judge. On this, the Abbé Fleury remarks, that this is true, where there is no decision of the church.* St. Jerome, no very long time afterwards, writes thus:"Wheresoever there is a bishop, be it at Rome, at Eugubrium; at Constantinople, or at Rhegium; at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he is of the same worth, and of the same priesthood: the power of wealth and the lowliness of poverty renders not a bishop more high or low: for all of them are successors of the apostles."+ "A Christian diocese,” says Mr. Gibbon, if I may be allowed to adduce his authority, "might be spread over a province, or reduced to a village; but all the bishops possessed an equal and indelible character: they all derived the same powers and privileges from the apostles, from the people, and from the laws.' The canons ‡ of Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Ca i Eccles. Hist. 1. vii. c. 29. + Jerom. in Ep. Evangel. 101. nov. ed. tom. v. p. 802, apud Geddes's Modest Apology, p. 81, 82. Decline and Fall, v. iii. p. 32. 8vo. ed. sarea, passed about A. D. 240, after the Goths had ravaged Asia, in the reign of Galierius, are contained in a circular letter sent to every bishop by Euphrosynus, whom Thaumaturgus styles his Old Friend. This letter begins by addressing every bishop as " Most Holy Pope." Pope Pelagius II. A. D. 589, in a letter annulling the acts of the council of Constantinople, in which John the Patriarch took upon himself the title of Universal Bishop, condemned, as much too arrogant for any Christian Bishop, this unbecoming claim of superiority.* This opposition to John the Fraster is known to every one; but as some improper use seems at times to have been made of it, I will continue the subject a little further. Pelagius II. was succeeded in the Pontificate by the celebrated Gregory the Great, a person remarkable for his humility and his ardent piety, and rendered dear to Britons as the apostle of England.† The disputes about the title of universal bishop, in which this pope took so honourable a part, are detailed in every respectable writer on ecclesiastical history since that period, though much more has been made of the language of Gre"Do not gory than the facts seem to warrant. you know," says he, in a letter to the Constan Banck, de Tyrannide Papæ, c. 16, in l'Historie des Papes, in Vit. Pelag. II. + Bede Eccles. Hist. tinoplitan bishops, "that the bishops of this Apostolic See were called Universal, as a mark of honour offered to them by the venerable Council of Chalcedon; but none of them usurped that arrogant title, lest by attributing to himself alone the dignity of episcopacy, he might seem to deny the rights of all his brethren."* In this epistle, the pope thus expostulates with his brother prelate: "What wilt thou reply to Christ, the Head of the Universal Church, that thou goest about by the appellation of Universal Bishop, to make all his members subject to thee? Whom dost thou imitate in so perverse a name, but Lucifer, who sought to be singular, and raise himself above his fellow angels ?" In thus opposing the claim of John the Fraster, he does not appear to have any private or sinister view to his own honour; for, in a letter which he addressed to Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, who had complimented him with this obnoxious title, he says, "I request you will not address me in that manner again, whereas, by giving to others more than they are entitled to, you are deprived of it yourselves. I do not wish to rise by words, but by good conduct. Nor do I consider as an honour, that, whereby, I know, my brethren lose their honour: for my honour is * Lib. iv. Ep. 38. + I am, in this instance, quoting his words as I find them translated in the Introduction to The Protestants' Apology p. 119. h the honour of the Universal Church. My honour is the firm vigour of my brethren; and, indeed, I am then truly honoured, when to every one of them their due honour is not denied. Now, if you call me Universal Bishop, you deny yourself to be that, of which you attribute to me the universality. God forbid such things should be thought of; away with phrases that puff up by vanity, and wound charity!" Agreeably with these sentiments, this great bishop, writing to Eusebius of Thessalonica, and other bishops, says, "If one bishop be universal, it remains, that you are not bishops:" and in a letter to Sabinius, his nuncio at Constantinople, he observes, that "as the government cannot defend us against the swords of our enemies, and as it has made us lose our properties for the protection of the state, it is most shameful, that they should endeavour to make us lose also our faith by consenting to this unjust title." On this passage, Fleury remarks, St. Gregory considered this dispute as a question of faith, because, in fact, we are not allowed by faith to acknowledge but one only bishop, of whom the others would be only vicars."* In other parts of this pope's epistles, he exclaims, "Oh! my great lord, it is not for my own right or honour that I dispute: I speak unequivocally and boldly: whosoever shall call himself universal bishop, or desire to be so called, in the * Hist. Eccles. liv. xxxv. § 39. pride of his heart, is the forerunner of Antichrist."* And again, in his epistle to the Emperor, "the Universal Church," says he, "must go to ruin, whensoever he that is the Universal Bishop shall chance to fall." "In his rival," says Gibbon, speaking of Gregory I., "the patriarch of Constantinople, he condemned the antichristian title of universal bishop, which the successor of St. Peter was too haughty to concede, and too feeble to assume; and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Gregory was confined to the triple character of bishop of Rome, primate of Italy, and apostle of the West." In this estimate of the Roman Pontiff's jurisdiction, this sweeping historian is somewhat inaccurate; and it is proper now to shew the use which some disputants have made of Gregory's humble and pious concessions. It is argued from hence, that before the age of Gregory, the Popes of Rome had no exclusive spiritual authority in the Church beyond the limits of their own diocese. Before we proceed to examine into this matter, it may be proper to take some notice of what the pope says in the epistle wherein he alludes to the council of Chalcedon, as having honoured the bishops of the Roman See with the title of Universal. "On ne trouve point dans les actes de ce Concile ce que dit le Pape S. Grégoire dans ses lettres, qu'il offrit au Pape Lib. vi. Ep. 30. |