libertatis suæ et potestatis, arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alium judicare."

SUPREMACY

A FEW REMARKS ON ARGUMENTS FROM ST. CYPRIAN AGAINST THE OF THE BISHOP OF ROME; i. e. AGAINST GREATER DIGNITY OR AUTHORITY IN HIM, THAN ANY OTHER OF THE EPISCOPAL ORDER.

1. "From the Equality of the Episcopal Order :-Ut unitatem, &c. from St. Cyprian, de Unit. Eccles."-Our Lord said to Peter only, 66 super istam Petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam :" and after he had given to all the apostles "parem potestatem," to the other apostles as well as to Peter, power of forgiving sins, and authority to preach the gospel to all nations, he says to Peter only, "Pasce oves meas. Here is a special commission given to Peter by name. "Hoc erant utique et cæteri apostoli, quod fuit Petrus." To be sure they were: equally bishops and apostles as he was. Nevertheless, tamen," says St. Cyprian, "ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis originem ab uno incipientem suâ auctoritate disposuit." When our Lord selected one of his apostles, on whom to build his Church, he conferred on that apostle a peculiar distinction. The great commission delivered to Peter, in the words "Pasce oves meas," is another. When St. Cyprian says the apostles were "pari consortio præditi et honoris et potestatis," he cannot be understood to include those distinctions which he had so strongly marked; for without such obvious limitation, he would have grossly contradicted himself. The peculiar honour conferred on Peter is the very ground on which his argument is raised. His object is to prove the unity of Christ's Church, and he proves it by the unity of its foundation: "Super hanc Petram ædificabo." Hence he says, from the chair of St. Peter, from the principal church, the sacerdotal unity is derived. Super unum ædificabo." From the supplementary quotation, we learn that the humble St. Peter, in discussing a question with his brother apostle, St. Paul, did not speak or act "insolenter aut arroganter," as if he should say, "I am the head, the primacy resides in me, I must be obeyed," &c. ergo, St. Cyprian denied the primacy of St. Peter. that the argument?

66

Is

Argument 2.-"From the Equal Power of Deposition and Excommunication."- The effect of the letters (from Rome) would be, that Marcion would be deposed, and another appointed in his room." One remark will be sufficient. If the power of each bishop in Gaul was equal to the power of the Bishop of Rome, why did not the Gallic bishops depose Marcion themselves? why write to Carthage to entreat Cyprian to write to Rome?

The next argument is to prove the unequal power of Bishops. Argument 3." From the Power of the Bishops of Spain to depose, and the want of Power in the Bishop of Rome, either to depose, or restore their Bishop.-Epis. 67." I have not by me the works of St. Cyprian, nor have I any note or recollection of the facts stated in his 67th Epistle. Supposing the statement of my Rev. friend to be correct

and I am sure he thinks it is—I learn that the bishops of Spain had a power which the Bishop of Rome had not; that some of the Spanish bishops appealed to the Bishop of Rome (who had less power than themselves); that their appeal was admitted by him; that other Spanish bishops appealed from the decision of the Bishop of Rome to Cyprian; and that the latter, having been thus appealed to, exhorted the Spanish bishops to withstand Stephen, then Bishop of Rome. This being the case, what becomes of Arguments the first and second, built on the equality of the episcopal order? Why, the Bishop of Rome is not equal to the bishops of Spain: here lies an appeal from the See of Rome to that of Carthage. What a fool, then, that Basilides must have been, to appeal to the Roman Bishop, whose power was unequal to that of the Spaniards, instead of appealing at once to Carthage, where we must infer the supremacy resided, and where, of course, the affair might have been terminated, en derniere ressort. For we do not read of an appeal from the decisions of Cyprian to any of the ancient metropolitan or patriarchal Churches, Lyons or Vienne, to Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem.

Argument 4.-" From Cyprian's Denial of the Right of Appeal to Rome." I remark, there is not one expression quoted which denies the right of appeal to Rome. What Cyprian denies, is, that the individuals who went to Rome on the occasion referred to, had any just ground or cause for appealing; which they had not, if (as I believe was really the fact) they had been justly and canonically condemned at Carthage; that is, after a fair trial, upon complete evidence, and with due observance of the just and equitable rules of judicial proceedings then established. "Their cause could only be heard where their crime had been committed." If that be a denial of the right of appeal, what must we say of Cyprian in the case of Basilides? The fourth argument ends with this passage: "He speaks of them as 'desperati et perditi,' who thought that the authority of the bishops of Africa was inferior (minor esse) to that of Rome." The only remark I shall make at present on this passage is, that the four last words quoted, viz. " to that of Rome," are an addition to the words of Cyprian-an addition for which there is no authority in the text. The addition has been borrowed from the comments of an unprincipled Frenchman of the name of Rigault.

The fifth Argument is, "From the Declaration of his own Independence of Rome, as Bishop of Carthage." I have looked in vain for any such declaration. If there be any thing like it, it must be in the last and longest quotation, beginning with the words " neque enim," and ending with these, "tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alium judicare." That is, he cannot be judged by another, any more than he himself can judge. He is speaking to the African bishops assembled at Carthage: he says, every one of these bishops is at liberty to declare his own opinion (on the question of rebaptizing in certain cases); that he is not to be condemned for freely expressing his sentiments. It was wished that each bishop should state his own opinion: this was done. To produce this result, it was thought advisable to encourage those bishops, by securing them against

interruption, or the fear of censure. But, if this be a declaration of independence of the See of Rome, the proposition must be taken in its general sense, so as to mean, no bishop can judge another, no bishop can be judged by another. To tell us that was the doctrine of Cyprian, and at the same time to assert, that Cyprian received appeals from the sentences of the Roman bishops, that he deposed bishops, &c.-c'est un peu fort.

A REPLY TO A FEW REMARKS" ON ARGUMENTS FROM ST. CYPRIAN

AGAINST THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME.

66

1. Your argument, in your first remark, proceeds upon a point which I do not dispute; viz. that our Lord (according to Cyprian) said so and so to Peter; viz. " Pasce oves,”- Super istam Petram ædificabo,""Dabo tibi claves ;" and, in short, derived the unity of his Church, originally, "ab uno." The question, however, is this, Does Cyprian allow or disallow the supremacy of St. Peter? Does he say that he is the "supreme pastor?" that he is "Episcopus Episcoporum ?" that, because he laid as it were the first stone of the building, therefore he is the head or chief corner-stone of it, and entitled to the supreme and perpetual government of it? Does he say that "Pasce oves" (an expression three times directed to Peter, who three times denied him, and which carries with it more of rebuke and warning than compliment), denotes more than his great charge to all his apostles,μaðeνtýσate távta тà čovŋ, “Teach all the nations?" Does he say, in short, that the power of loosing and binding, denoted by the word "keys," has a greater meaning in Matt. xvi. than it has in Matt. xviii.? I see nothing like this, either in Cyprian or in Scripture. St. Cyprian may, as you say, grossly contradict himself; he may say that Peter and the apostles were, in the same respect," pares et impares;" that they. were equal and unequal in power, equal and unequal in rank: this, certainly, would be gross contradiction on his part; but I see no such language as this. They may have been "impares" as to the hour of their appointment to the ministry, (one may have been called at the first, and another at the third, hour of the day;) but, remember, the question is, not as to the hour of their calling, but their station and authority in the Church when called. In this respect, Cyprian states that they were Pares," and he does not contradict himself by saying, that, in this respect, they were Impares." He makes the last equal to the first, in respect of their duties, their honours, their powers, their penny reward; ergo, say I, no supremacy in any one particular Bishop over the rest. It is in vain, then, for you to say, in defence of supremacy, "Super unum." I say, as you do, "Super unum;" but only as respects the origin of Christ's Church on earth, not its government. You may not be able to see the distinction between "unity or priority as to time," and "unity or priority as to power and rank;" but it is the distinction (and not without an important difference) for which I am contending. The one simply constitutes the elder brother; the other, that the elder should rule the younger. St. Cyprian (in Epis. 73.) says, as both you and I do," Super unum ;" but he says also, what you Ecclesia, quæ una est, et super unum, qui et claves ejus accepit,

do not,

66

66

66

66

Domini voce fundata est. Hæc est una quæ tenet et possidet omnem sponsi sui et Domini potestatem; in hac præsidemus, &c. ;"—making himself as much president, or supreme, in this one Church of Christ, which was founded " super unum," as Stephen himself. As to the conjunction, "tamen," in Cyprian, on which you lay so much stress, I need scarcely say, that it refers to the " unitatem manifestaret," to the "unitatis originem," to the "ab uno incipientem," in short, to the origin of our Lord's Church. It joins, according as our Lord arranged (disposuit), parity as to power and rank, with unity as to origin, two distinct things; but you would swallow up the first in the last, and then make this last word, unus, signify supremus," whereas it does not even signify "superior." As to the supplemental quotation, I need not have added it, (my first being so full and pointed,) but, most certainly, I need not retract it. My argument is not, as you suppose, that Cyprian denied the supremacy of Peter because he, in his humility (a virtue for which he was not distinguished), did not insist upon it, but because he did not insist upon it at all with any spirit, either good or bad, either according to Cyprian, or according to Scripture. He ought, as St. Paul himself did, to have "commended himself, even though he might appear a fool in his glory;"—he ought, if he was "the very chiefest apostle," to have said so, on such an occasion, or his supremacy must be denied as nothing worth." But, says St. Cyprian, he did not arrogantly say se primatum tenere," (as some are inclined to do,) he did not even allude to it, but knocked under. "Consilium veritatis admisit, et rationi legitimæ, quam Paulus vindicabat, facile consensit" (Epis. 71). Thus much for your first remark.

66

66

2. My second argument you only head thus, in your remarks: "From the Equal Power of Deposition and Excommunication," and argue upon these words, leaving out the words, "in Cyprian and Stephen." If it was not offensive, I would say, that it is one of the "miserable fallacies" with which, in your letter to me, you would charge Rigault, you lay down your own premises, and then reason upon them as mine. I added the words, "in Cyprian and Stephen," for this reason, that, having proved in my first argument the "parity of the episcopal order" in general, I would now, in my second, prove it in particular. You should, therefore, have added these last words, and reasoned upon them also; for (remember) the question here is, not about the equal power of the bishops of Gaul, but Cyprian's view of the power of the Bishop of Rome. I might, therefore, cut short "your one remark" with which you favour me, as sufficient, with one only on my part, that "it is nothing to the purpose." I said nothing about "the equal power of the bishops of Gaul," nor that " they wrote to Carthage, to entreat Cyprian (which does not appear) to write to Rome. Foreign aid, on account of the divided state of the Church in Gaul, and the alliance probably of the civil power with one party in it, was no doubt solicited by the bishops of Gaul, that Marcion, finding himself discountenanced and excommunicated abroad, might be more easily deposed at home: but that aid was equally sought and equally given in the Church of Carthage as of Rome; in the latter case, at the instigation-I might almost say, at the command-of Cyprian. "Diri

gantur literæ," says he to Stephen; and he adds this reason alone for his interference in the matter, not that he was the successor and representative of St. Peter, and endowed, on that account, with any especial privilege, but that he was the " vicarius et successor "of Cornelius and Lucius, his immediate predecessors, who had already condemned the heresy of Novatianus in Rome, out of which this of Marcion arose. Thus much for the equal power of Rome and Carthage, as respects Marcion: ergo, no supremacy. I may add, that the conduct of the bishops of Gaul, on this occasion, seems to be most exemplary, and to illustrate well that power which our Lord gave, and that discipline which he required in his Church (Matt. xviii.). Marcion, their brother, had trespassed against them; they tell him, among themselves, his fault; he "neglects to hear them;" they, therefore, "tell it to the Church," to the authorities of the Church "libram gubernandæ Ecclesiæ tenentes," that, if he neglected to hear them also, he might become as a "heathen man, and a publican."

66

3. Your third remark, in respect to the case of Basilides, is as little to the purpose as that relating to Marcion. Basilides had been deposed by the authorities of the Church in Spain, and his bishopric filled up. But the Bishop of Rome, on the application of Basilides, was inclined to interfere, and reverse the sentence. "No," says Cyprian, on the appli cation of the bishops of Spain, you cannot he has been 'justly deposed.' You cannot in this matter, any more than myself, do or undo what you please. The question as to Basilides has been already before the authorities of the Church in Spain, and been by them disposed of." You need not ask, then, "what becomes of Arguments the first and second, built on the parity of the episcopal order?" I answer, that they stand fast, as does this also, against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: the first and second from the parity of Rome and Carthage, as respects Marcion, and their apostolic calling; the third, against the supremacy of the same Bishop, when attempting to be an ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, α busy body in other men's matters." I perfectly agree with you, that Basilides was a fool in going to Rome; he said in his heart, "Tush, the Lord does not see my heretical or schismatical spirit; and, therefore, like another fool of whom we read, he said to his "soul, Take thine ease; Rome may yet build up a greater barn for my episcopal goods than I had before." But what must we think of the Bishop of Rome in this matter? Why surely, as Cyprian speaks, that he was a fool also. "In hàc parte, juste indignor ad hanc tam apertam et manifestam Stephani stultitiam, qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriatur, et se successionem Petri tenere contendit," &c. (Epis. 75.)*

66

4. My fourth argument, which you notice in your remarks, respecting Cyprian's denial of the right of appeal to Rome, is already

*This Epistle, by the way, was not written by, but to, Cyprian, by whom it was translated from the original Greek. The writer was Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia. He elsewhere says, Eos, qui Romæ sunt, non ea in omnibus observare, quæ sunt ab origine tradita, et frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem prætendere, &c. Thus the mystery of iniquity was gaining ground rapidly.-ED.