How, then, did Peter differ from the rest? Mr. Rivington, in one passage (p. 67) correctly describes him as their representative,' but the drift of his language goes very much farther; whereas, in Cyprian's idea, Christ had a purpose in speaking particularly (at Cæsarea Philippi) to him who had spoken for the rest; He made Peter a living object-lesson (if we may so say) of their oneness. Not a word about supreme jurisdiction,' or 'princedom' over Apostles (p. 83); not a word of his being the 'principle of their cohesion,' the superior in subordination to whom they were' to act; not a word, in short, of any Petrine 'prerogative.' This can only be extracted from the evidence by glossing, assuming, and mistranslating.' True, Cyprian called the Roman see the 'place' or 'chair' of Peter: he had taken up the notion that the Apostle had been the first Bishop of Rome. He also calls the Roman Church ecclesiam principalem. This adjective might mean either 'primeval' or 'pre-eminent,' ' chief' or 'preeminent'; Mr. Rivington repeatedly and arbitrarily insists on translating it by ruling' or 'sovereign,' and in the next chapter gives to 'sovereign'a significant capital initial (p. 67). It is a way of his to work by such iterations, which are expected, we suppose, to impress the mind as if they were so many proofs. The sense of 'primeval '3 is not required by the

Petri, sed de fide dictum est, quia portæ mortis ei non prævalebunt.' So Enarr. in Ps. xxxviii. 37: "Tibi dabo claves. . . ut et solvas et liges." Hoc... ecclesia Dei audivit. . . . Quod Petro dicitur, apostolis dicitur.' This explains Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia,' Enarr. in Ps. xl. 30.

1

Eg. 'The aroma of infallibility lingered in the vacant [Roman] see' (p. 52). The equality of power' in all the Apostles is arbitrarily restricted in p. 61, and Peter is identified (in defiance of grammar: see above) with the origin of unity (p. 55), an error twice repeated in App. I. Again the thirty-third letter, which makes Peter an image of the future united episcopate, is wrested into meaning that all legitimate episcopacy must flow froin Peter in the sense of being commissioned by the Pope (p. 54 ff.), and the Church is said to be built on Peter' in the sense of being permanently dependent on Rome.

2 In Ep. 71. 3, Cyprian implies that such a' primatus' as Peter held among the Apostles did not give him a right to demand obedience from Paul. The whole context implies that he and Paul were colleagues. In referring to this passage (p. 83) Mr. Rivington takes advantage of the ambiguity of principality' and 'prince,' and mistranslates Augustine's 'primatus apostolorum' apostolatus principatum,' which mean 'first place among' (not, over ') the Apostles (see context, De Bapt. ii. 2).

3 Mr. Rivington says that in De Anima, 13, Tertullian had 'defined the word as meaning—that which is over anything.' Clearly he has taken the reference at second hand, for the phrase is, ' principalitas ubi sit, id est, qui cui præest.' Under his favour, we must still think that the De Præscr. Hær, where principalitatem is opposed to posteritatem (c. 31), is a likelier book than the De Anima to have been much in Cyprian's

next words, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. If this is to be taken literally, it must refer to the West; for no one would say that the 'union' of Christian chief pastors in general had only come into existence when a Church was fully organized at Rome; and that Church, says Mr. Rivington,' was, on any view, the mother-Church of Africa' (p. 98).

Next, as to Cyprian's ' appeals to Rome,' we are told that if Cyprian objected to the appeal of some African Novatianists, and contended that their case had already been decided in Africa, it was because Fortunatus was not a legitimate bishop, and because the African judges had been sufficiently numerous, so that Cyprian 'here in no way offends against' the Vaticanist principle on the subject (p. 70). Does he ever affirm it? Mr. Rivington tries hard to make him ask Stephen of Rome to act Papally in the case of the Bishop of Arles. But the letter clearly shows that Stephen is applied to chiefly as the appropriate person to promulgate that excommunication of Marcian which is already involved in the anti-Novatian action of all bishops. This fits in with the Roman bishop's leadership, but falls a good way short of supremacy'; and one need not dwell on the respectful peremptoriness with which Cyprian admonishes Stephen to do this and to do that. The letter written on the part of a Carthaginian council on the case of Basilides and Martial 2 gives Mr. Rivington some annoyance; but, by way of making the best of it, he tells us that it 'does not dispute the principle that the Pope could, when just cause existed, restore a deposed bishop of Spain' (p. 75). We ask: Where is the principle admitted? Can Mr. Rivington expect us to let him shift the onus probandi after this fashion?

One of his expedients is to say that it would not have been relevant to Cyprian's purpose, in the cases of the Novahands. As to other phrases, the terms' root, womb, mother' are applied in p. 85 and App. I. to the Pope! Let anyone read Ep. 45. 1; Ep. 48. 3; Ep. 73. 2, and he will see the absurdity of such twisting. 'Ecclesiæ matricem et radicem' means the Church herself, as radicem et originem traditionis' (Ep. 63. 1) means the original tradition itself. Carthaginians about to visit Rome were naturally forewarned to acknowledge 'the legitimate Church,' not the Novatianist schism.

1 Cypr. Ep. 68. There is no warrant for 'with a mandate' from the Pope for a new election at Arles; nor for the gloss on plenissimas litteras as 'not merely a Papal brief,' &c. (p. 71). Similarly, on page 88, Cyprian's assurance that what is religious and true will please Stephen' (Ep. 72. 3) is turned into the 'belief that what he believes true will be sanctioned by authority. No 'subject of Rome' could have written this letter. 'Our colleague' is applied by Cyprian alike to Sabinus

2 Ep. 67. and to Stephen.

tianists and of the Lapsed, to press 'the Papal jurisdiction,' because it was legitimate episcopal authority which was in question. But that jurisdiction,' if acknowledged, would have added immensely to the force of Cyprian's contention. Again, in regard to the baptismal question, Stephen is said to have' put Cyprian on his obedience' (p. 95); as if Cyprian had ever owned himself bound to obey him!! And lastly, Mr. Rivington thinks it probable' that he ultimately led the way in the direction of submission '2 (p. 112); he relies absolutely on an unsupported statement of Jerome that the Africans issued a new decree.'3 He assumes that the establishment of the Roman usage was due to Papal authority, ignoring alike the decision of the Council of Arles and the adherence of the East to its own rule. Is this to pass for writing history?

4

The case of the two Dionysiuses is treated as attesting the Church's reliance on her 'permanent apostle' at Rome; but the close relation between Rome and Alexandria explains

1 Let anyone consider whether, in that case, he could have written the letter (Ep. 74) which Mr. Rivington fairly summarises on page 99. Firmilian's letter is called 'savage' (p. 109). Whether the great Cappadocian did or did not believe Stephen to be literally the successor of Peter, he certainly did not acknowledge him as what Mr. Rivington means by a Pope. We are not concerned to maintain that Stephen did more than threaten to break communion with bishops who differed from him; but Firmilian, writing to Cyprian, must be relying on what Cyprian had told him when he says that Stephen refused to the African envoys not only communion,' but even shelter and hospitality' (Ep. 75.25).

2

St. Augustine was willing to hope so; but observe his language in De Bapt. ii. 5: If Cyprian praises Peter for accepting correction from one junior colleague, how much more readily would he, with the council of his province, universi orbis auctoritati, patefacta veritate, cessisset!'

3 See Vallarsi on Adv. Lucif. 23: 'Alibi novi hujusce decreti mentionem fieri nullam invenimus; quin et ipsa disputatio inter Donatistas et S. Augustinum tale nihil penitus novit.' Elsewhere, as we shall see, Jerome's witness to a fact, although supported, is thrown over, because it is inconvenient.

▲ ‘De Afris, quod propria lege sua utuntur, ut rebaptizent, placuit,' &c. cap. 8. A.D. 314. Mr. Rivington wonders at the 'widespread error that St. Augustine called the Council of Arles a "plenary council of the universal Church." As a matter of fact, he only says that if the Donatists were not satisfied with their judges at Rome' (note this plural), ""there remained a plenary council . "but that they had not availed themselves of it. The words which he italicises are not in Augustine's Ep. 43, 19. What Augustine does say is that the Donatists preferred to accuse their judges to the Emperor. But in De Bapt. ii. 14 he expressly says that after Cyprian's death, but before his own birth, the true view as to baptism 'ad plenarii concilii auctoritatem perducta est,' and the prevailing or non-African custom plenario concilio confirmata est.' The Council of Arles was plenary' for the West.

the complaint made to Dionysius of Rome, and his action in calling on his namesake to explain himself.' Then we have Aurelian's reference of the question as to the see of Antioch to 'the bishops of Italy and the bishop of Rome': Eusebius says, 'the bishops of the religion in Italy and in the city of the Romans.' Mr. Rivington is quite confident of his ground here. The bishops of Italy' are in his eyes (p. 123) 'the Papal consistory ... a synod of a select number,' forming 'the normal organ of Papal decisions.' Evidently he does not know that Italy,' when thus distinctively used, meant Northern Italy, the region which had Milan for its head.2

This period suggests to Mr. Rivington a plea for the validity of the Popes' own 'witness to their office.' Here the 'witness' is greatly exaggerated; and at the same time it is forgotten that not only in mediæval but in earlier times bishops might be truly earnest and self-devoted, and wholly devoid of personal ambition, and yet be unconsciously affected by the temptation to aggrandise their own see, and in so doing to deal in large indiscriminate claims, or to reproduce, in spite of confutation, assertions which had become traditional and had done service.3 The manifest impossibility of any vulgar gain might lay them all the more open to this snare of great officials; especially when they were subject to the mysterious influence which the old imperial city, the traditional centre of the spirit of domination, was allowed to exercise over the rulers of its Church. Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento! It is not an ignoble suspiciousness, nor a controversial animus, which compels us to recognize human nature, with all its strange involutions and subtle combinations, in those who sit upon Church thrones, Roman or other. Is there no such thing,' we may ask, with a great analyst of character, 'as evil working underneath a veil ?14

IV. Mr. Rivington tells his readers that when the Donatists asked Constantine to let their cause be tried by Gallic

1 Some 'brethren, probably bishops,' were led to suspect St. Dionysius of leaning towards the Arian heresy in 261! Of course one sees what is meant. But could a scholar have written thus? On the baptismal question, one so gentle and pacific as Dionysius might 'entreat' Stephen without acknowledging him as a master; and when he asks Stephen's successor for his 'opinion' on a new and difficult case, 'as fearing lest he should make a mistake,' the context shows that he is seeking for 'brotherly counsel' (Eus. vii. 5, 9).

2 See Heinichen on Euseb. vii. 30. Cf. Eus. vi. 43.

3 On the Papal principle of making the very largest demands on the chance of their being allowed,' see Church Quarterly Review, xii. 185. Cf. Gore, Leo the Great, p. 101.

▲ Mozley's Essays, i. 308.

bishops, he 'referred them to Rome.' The authority for this is cited as 'Aug. Ep. 166; Euseb. H. E. x. 5.' It would have been more convenient to adopt the Benedictine numeration, which makes the letter in question stand as the 105th; and we there read that Constantine 'delegated to bishops the settlement of the case, which took place at Rome under the presidency of Melchiades, bishop of that Church, with many colleagues.' Eusebius gives a letter of Constantine to 'Miltiades' (Melchiades) and 'Marcus,' who was probably the bishop of Milan; in it both are addressed alike, and are informed that three (Gallic) prelates, to whom instructions had already been sent, are to be associated with them for the inquiry. This is what Mr. Rivington represents as a 'reference to Rome' (p. 140), as if a Papal judgment alone were in question. Optatus, we are told, 'gives the judgment actually delivered by ' Melchiades. But what Optatus assigns to him is the closing of the judgment by his own sentence,' following on that of the other bishops,' the president speaking last, as Cyprian had been wont to do. And if Augustine speaks of Melchiades' 'council' or Melchiades'' judgment,' he is thinking of this presidential position, to which he repeatedly refers, and in virtue of which Melchiades gave the 'last sentence' or vote; so again, the episcopal judgment of Melchiades, bishop of Rome, and of other bishops'; 'Cæcilian was acquitted by the sentences of the bishops and of Melchiades himself'; yet again, those bishops who judged at Rome'; and in the very letter before us we read of the 'judgment of the bishops.'2 We wholly deny, therefore, that 'the ecclesiastical status of the bishops in Africa rested with Melchiades' (p. 142), as if the other prelates assembled at Rome were practically no more than his advisers, on a similar footing to 'cardinals,' who 'to this day' thus assist the Pope (p. 151). To say so is to ignore evidence ad libitum.

1 Opt. i. 24: 'Cæcilianus supra memoratorum sententiis innocens est pronuntiatus, etiam Melchiadis sententia, qua judicium clausum est.'

2 Cf. Aug. Brev. Coll. iii. 24, 31; Ep. 43. 16, 19, 20; Ep. 105. 8. Mr. Rivington quotes a paragraph from Ep. 43, as far as the words in which Melchiades is apostrophized as 'father of the Christian people (p. 142). But this title implies nothing Papal. Any bishop might be so called if he acted paternally. And while we admit that Mr. Rivington has made good a charge of inaccurate translation and misinterpretation, on Laud's part, of language in Aug. Ep. 43, we must charge him with the like for rendering Melchiadis ultima prolata sententia' by 'the final sentence issued by Melchiades,' without noticing the previous words about the viri gravissimi not daring to pronounce hasty sentences'; and also for presenting that he would confirm' as equivalent to 'eum confirmari vellet