UNTIL IT RAISED ITSELF TO SUCH A HEIGHT THAT THE FREEDOM OF THE CHURCH WAS OPPRESSED, AND ALL
RESTRAINT OVERTHROWN
(Modest position of the Roman see in early times, 1-4)
1. POSITION OF THE ROMAN SEE IN THE COUNCILS OF NICAEA AND EPHESUS
As to the antiquity of the primacy of the Roman see, there is nothing pertaining to its establishment earlier than that decree of the Council of Nicaea, in which first place among the patriarchs was granted to the Roman bishop, and he was ordered to take care of the suburbicarian churches.F193 When the council made such a division between him and the other patriarchs as to assign to each his own boundaries, surely it did not establish him as head of all, but made him one of the chiefs. Vitus and Vincentius were present in the name of Julius, who was then governing the Roman Church. The fourth place was given to them.F194 I ask, if Julius had been recognized as head of the church, why were his delegates relegated to fourth place? Should Athanasius have presided over this universal council, which ought particularly to reflect the hierarchical order?F195 In the Council of Ephesus it appears that Celestine (who was then Roman pontiff) used a trick to ensure the dignity of his see. For when he sent his delegates
thither, he made Cyril of Alexandria (who would have presided anyway) his proxy.F196 What was the purpose of this mandate, but in some way or other to attach his name to the first seat? For his delegates sit in a lower place, are asked their opinion along with the rest, and subscribe in their order. Meanwhile, the patriarch of Alexandria joins Celestine’s name with his own.
What shall I say of the second Council of Ephesus, where, though Leo’s legates were present, Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, presided as if by his own right?F197 The Romanists will object that this was no orthodox council, since it condemned the saintly Flavian but acquitted Eutyches and condoned his impiety. But when the synod was convened, when the bishops apportioned the seats among themselves, there surely the legates of the Roman Church were sitting with the others just as if in a holy and lawful council. Yet they do not contend over the first place, but yield it to another;F198 they would not have done this if they had believed their place to be first by right. For the bishops of Rome were never ashamed to raise the greatest contentions for their own honors, and for this sole reason to harass and disturb the church with dangerous conflicts; but because Leo saw that it would be a too unreasonable demand if he were to seek the first seat for his own legates, he let it pass.
2. IN THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AND THE FIFTH OF CONSTANTINOPLE
There followed the Council of Chalcedon, in which, by the emperor’s concession, the representatives of the church of Rome occupied the first seat. But Leo himself admits that this was an extraordinary privilege; for when he seeks it from Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria, he does not contend that it is his due, but only pretends that the Eastern bishops who had presided over the Council of Ephesus then stirred up everything and wickedly abused their power. Since, therefore, a grave moderator was needed and it was unlikely that those who had once been so fickle and disorderly would be fitted for this task, he asks that, on account of the others’ shortcomings and incapacity, the governing function be transferred to himself.F199 What is sought by special privilege and apart from normal procedure is certainly not of customary law. Where it is pretended only that there is need of another new president because previous ones have acted badly, it is clear that it neither had been done before nor ought to be perpetuated, but is done only in view of present danger. In the Council of Chalcedon the Roman pontiff accordingly has first place not because it belongs to that see, but because the synod has need of a grave and competent moderator, while those who ought to have presided exclude themselves from that place by their intemperance and wantonness.
What I am saying, a successor of Leo has by action approved. In sending his legates to the Fifth Council at Constantinople (which took place long after), he did not wrangle for the first seat but readily allowed Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, to preside. So in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was present, we observe that not the legates of the Roman see but Aurelius, archibishop of the place, presided, even when the authority of the Roman pontiff was under debate. Indeed, a universal council (the Council of Aquileia) was held in Italy itself, at which the Roman bishop was not present. Ambrose presided, who then wielded great influence with the emperor; no mention is made there of the Roman pontiff. It therefore happened through the prestige of Ambrose that the see of Milan was at that time more illustrious than that of Rome.F200
3. THE PROUD TITLES OF THE LATER ROMAN BISHOPS NOT YET KNOWN IN THE EARLY PERIOD
As for the very title of “primate” and other proud titles with which the Romanists wonderfully vaunt themselves, it is not difficult to judge when and how they crept in. Cyprian often mentions Cornelius; he calls him by no other name than “brother,” or “fellow bishop,” or “colleague.” But when he writes to Stephen, Cornelius’ successor, Cyprian not only makes him equal to himself and to the rest but even speaks rather sternly to him, objecting now to his arrogance, now to his ignorance.F201 After Cyprian we are aware how the whole African church views this matter. For the
Council of Carthage forbade that anyone be called “prince of priests,” or
“first bishop,” but only “bishop of the prime see.” Yet if anyone unroll the more ancient records, he will find that the Roman bishop was then content with the common appellation of “brother.” Surely as long as the true and pure form of the church has lasted, all these prideful names, with which the Roman see afterward began to grow insolent, were utterly unheard of; what the titles “supreme pontiff,” and “sole head of the church on earth” might be, was unknown. But if the Roman bishop had dared take such title to himself, there were stouthearted men who would soon have suppressed his folly. Jerome, since he was a Roman presbyter, was not disinclined to proclaim the dignity of his own church, as much as the facts and the state of the times allowed; yet we see how he also reduces it to its rank. “If authority is sought,” he says, “the world is
greater than a city. Why do you proffer me the custom of one city? Why do you vindicate the claims of a mere handful, from whom has arisen an arrogance contrary to the laws of the church? Wherever a bishop may be, at Rome, or Gubbio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, he is of the same merit and the same priesthood. Power of wealth and lowliness of poverty do not make a higher or lower bishop.”F202
4. GREGORY I REFUSED THE TITLE “UNIVERSAL BISHOP”
Not until the time of Gregory did contention arise over the title of
“universal bishop”: the ambition of John of Constantinople furnished the occasion for the quarrel. For he wished to make himself universal—
something no one else had ever tried before. In that quarrel Gregory does not take the ground that the right which belonged to him was taken away, but stoutly protests that the appellation is profane, in fact, sacrilegious, the very precursor of Antichrist. “The whole church falls from its
condition,” he says, “if anyone who is called ‘universal’ falls.” Elsewhere:
“For our brother and fellow bishop to take the name of sole bishop, despising all others, is a very sad thing to bear patiently. But what else does this pride of his signify except that the times of Antichrist are already near at hand? For he is obviously imitating him who, spurning fellowship with the angels, tried to climb to the pinnacle of uniqueness!”
In another letter he writes to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: “None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word.
For clearly if one patriarch is called ‘universal,’ then the name ‘patriarchs’
is taken away from the rest. But let this be far from the Christian mind, that anyone should wish to claim for himself an advantage by which to threaten the honor of his brethren in the slightest degree.” “To consent to this wicked word is nothing less than to destroy the faith.” “It is one thing,” he says, “that we should preserve unity of faith; another, that we ought to repress self-exaltation. But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop,’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self- exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest.” Likewise, he writes again to Anastasius of Alexandria: “I have said that he cannot have peace with us unless he correct his pride over a superstitious and proud word which the first apostate invented.
And (that I may forbear to speak of the injury to your honor) if one
bishop is called ‘universal,’ the universal church goes down when that universal bishop falls.”
But his statement that this honor had been offered to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon has no semblance of truth, for no such thing is to be read in the acts of that synod. And Leo himself, who in many epistles impugns the decree passed there in favor of the see of Constantinople, would doubtless not have passed over this proof which was the most plausible of all if it had been true that he had repudiated what was given him; and being a man otherwise too desirous of honor, he would not willingly have
overlooked what would redound to his praise. Gregory was therefore deceived in thinking that this title had been offered to the Roman see by the Council of Chalcedon. I forbear mentioning how ridiculous it is that he testifies that it proceeded from a holy synod, and at the same time calls it wicked, profane, abominable, proud, and sacrilegious, indeed devised by the devil, and published by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he adds that his predecessor refused it lest when something was given exclusively to one, all bishops should be deprived of their due honor. Another passage:
“No one ever wished to be called by such a name; no one seized upon this presumptuous title lest, by snatching to himself in the pontifical rank the glory of uniqueness, he should seem to deny it to all his brethren.”F203
(Limitations of its authority in relation to that of emperors and metropolitans, 5-10)
5. ORIGIN OF ROMAN JURISDICTION I come now to the jurisdiction which the Roman pontiff asserts he incontrovertibly holds over all churches. I know how many contentions there once were over this: for there was no time when the Roman see did not seek to gain control over other churches. And it will not be out of place here to investigate by what means it gradually emerged into some power. I am not yet speaking of that unbounded sway which it not so long ago took upon itself. That we shall postpone to its proper place.F204 But here it is worthwhile to sketch how at an early period, and in what ways, it advanced itself to usurp some right over other churches.
When the Eastern churches were divided and troubled by the Arian factions, under the Emperors Constant,us and Constans, sons of
Constantine the Great, Athanasius, the chief defender then of the orthodox faith, was expelled from his see. This calamity compelled him to come to Rome, that by the authority of the Roman see he might both, as it were, repress the fury of his enemies and strengthen the pious in their distress.
He was honorably received by Julius, the then bishop, and succeeded in getting the Western bishops to take up the defense of his cause. Since, therefore, the pious had great need of outside help, and they discerned in the Roman Church their best help, they willingly granted to it as much authority as they could. But the whole point was only that they greatly esteemed communion with it, from which they thought it shameful to be cut off.
Afterward, evil and wicked men also added greatly to the dignity of the Roman Church; for to flee lawful judgments, they betook themselves to its asylum. Any presbyter condemned by his bishop, or any bishop by a synod of his province, immediately appealed to Rome. And the Roman bishops received these appeals more avidly than they should have,
because it seemed a form of extraordinary power to meddle in business far and wide. So, when Eutyches was condemned by Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that injustice had been done him.
Leo, without delay, and no less rashly than suddenly, undertook the support of this evil cause. He grievously inveighed against Flavian, as if the latter had condemned an innocent man without a hearing, and by this ambition of his succeeded in confirming Eutyches’ impiety for a time.F205 It is evident that this often happened in Africa; for as soon as any rascal came under regular judgment, he fled at once to Rome and heaped many calumnies upon his countrymen; moreover, the Roman see was always ready to intervene. This audacity compelled the African bishops to decree that no one, under penalty of excommunication, should appeal beyond the sea.F206
6. THE PECULIAR FEATURES OF THE ROMAN POWER OF THAT TIME
Still, whatever it was, let us investigate what right and power the Roman see then had. Church power is comprised under these four headings:
ordination of bishops, calling of councils, hearing of appeals or
jurisdiction, and motions of chastisement or censures.F207All the ancient councils order bishops to be ordained by their metropolitans; nowhere do they order the Roman bishop to do this except in his own patriarchate.
But gradually the custom prevailed that all Italian bishops should come to Rome to seek consecration, except metropolitans, who did not allow themselves to be reduced to this servitude. But when any metropolitan was to be ordained, the Roman bishop sent one of his presbyters thither to be present, not to preside. Among Gregory’s letters there is an example of this in the consecration of Constantius of Milan after the death of Laurentius. However, I do not think this was a very ancient regulation; but when, for the sake of honor and of courtesy, they at first sent their legates hither and thither to witness ordinations in testimony of fellowship, what had been voluntary began afterward to be considered obligatory. However this may be, it is evident that formerly the power to ordain belonged to the Roman bishop only in the province of his own patriarchate, that is, in the suburbicarian churches, as a canon of the Council of Nicaea states.
To ordination was annexed the sending of a synodical epistle, in which the bishop of Rome was in no respect superior to the others. Immediately after their consecration the patriarchs customarily declared their faith in a solemn document, in which they professed to subscribe to the holy and orthodox councils. Thus, when they gave an accounting of their faith, they mutually approved themselves to one another. If the Roman bishop had received this confession from the others, not given it, he would thereby have been recognized as superior, but that he was obliged no less to give it to, than to exact it from, the others, and to be subject to the common law, surely was a sign of fellowship, not of lordship. This practice is
exemplified in Gregory’s letters to Anastasius, to Cyriacus of Constantinople, and elsewhere to all the patriarchs together.F208
7. MUTUAL ADMONITION
There follow admonitions or censures. Just as the Roman bishops formerly used them toward others, so they bore them in turn. Irenaeus severely rebuked Victor, because he rashly disturbed the church with dangerous contention over something unimportant. Victor obeyed without a protest.F209 Such freedom was then customary among the holy bishops to use their brotherly right toward the Roman prelate, admonishing and chastising him whenever he sinned. He, in turn, when occasion demanded, reminded the others of their duty and rebuked any fault. For Cyprian, when he urges Stephen to warn the bishops of Gaul, does not base his argument upon fuller power but upon the authority that bishops have in common. I ask, if Stephen had then been in charge of Gaul, would not Cyprian have said, “Compel them, as they are yours”? But he spoke far otherwise. “The brotherly fellowship,” he says, “by which we are bound together among ourselves requires that we admonish one another.”F210 And we see also with what very harsh words this man of otherwise gentle disposition inveighs against Stephen himself when he thinks he has grown too haughty. Therefore, in this respect also it does not yet seem that the Roman bishop was endowed with any jurisdiction over those who were not of his province.
8. AUTHORITY IN THE CONVENING OF SYNODS As to the convening of synods, it was the duty of each metropolitan to summon a provincial synod at stated times. In this matter the bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction. Moreover, only the emperor could call a universal council.F211 For if any of the bishops had tried this, not only would those outside his province not have heeded his summons, but a tumult would have broken out at once. Therefore, the emperor impartially summoned them all to be present. Socrates, indeed, relates that Julius expostulated with the Eastern bishops because they had not called him to the Synod of Antioch, although it was forbidden by the canons that anything should be decreed without the knowledge of the Roman pontiff.F212 But who does not see that this is to be understood of such decrees as bind the church universal? Now it is no wonder if such
allowance is made both for the antiquity and greatness of the city and then for the dignity of the see, as that no universal decree concerning religion is