POPE
264
POPE
bitter polemic, "De Pudicitia" (about 220), was
called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope
Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which
had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in
a large measure relaxed. TertuUian, now lapsed into
heresy, fiercely attacks "the peremptory edict",
which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops",
has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm:
but none the less they indicate clearly the position of
authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition
comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Mon-
tanist heretic.
The views of St. CiTirian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion (see Cypri.w of Carthage, Saint). He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an ef- fective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as "the prin- cipal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" (ad Petri oathcdram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est). The force of this ex- pression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the Church. This was, he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very oflice as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Ep. Ixviii, 1). He holds, also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Aries fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the re- quest of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen "to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may be sub- stituted in his place" (Ep. Ixviii, 3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light, believed that the pope possessed a real and effective primacy. At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a diocese already subject to a legiti- mate and orthodox bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour, but of jurisdiction. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often con- tested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible.
Contemporary with St. Cj-prian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents bearing on the present question are related of him. Eusebius (Hist, eccl., VII, ix) gives us a letter addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it ap- peared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had been frequenting the sacra- ments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St. Xystus's advice and begs for his decision (^wiM'ji'), that he may not fall into error {SeSn^s ixii ipa <T<pi\\ufiai). Again, some years later, the same patriarch occasioned anxiety to some of the brethren by making use of .some expressions which appeared hardly compatible with a full belief in the Divinity of Chri.st. They promptly had recourse to the Holy See and accused him to his namesake, St. Dionysius of Rome, of heretical lean- ings. The pope replied by laying down authorita-
tively the true doctrine on the subject. Both events
are instructive as showing us how Rome was recog-
nized by the second see in Christendom as empowered
to speak with authority on matters of doctrine. (St.
Athanasius, "De sententia Dion)'.sii" in P. G., XXV,
.500). Equally noteworthy is the action of Emperor
Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned
Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge
of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place.
Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the
civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was
acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop
of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of
the see. The incident proves that even the pagans
themselves knew well that communion with the
Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian
Churches. That the imperial Government was well
aware of the position of the pope among Christians
derives additional confirmation from the saying of St.
C>'prian that Decius would have sooner heard of the
proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election
of a new pope to fill the place of the martyred Fabian
(Ep. Iv, 9).
The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowl- edged from the days of the Apostles. It was not of course exercised in the same way as in later times. The Church w.os as yet in her infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure gov- erning the relations of the supreme pontiff to the bishops of other se!es. To establish such a system waa the work of time, and it was only gradually embodied in the canons. There would, moreover, be little call for frequent intervention when the Apostolic tradi- tion was still fresh and vigorous in every part of Christendom. Hence the papal prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital welfare of souls demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which led to the intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St. Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occujjants of the Chair of Peter was not disputed. In view of the pur- poses with which, and with which alone, these early popes employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by Protestant controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its origin in papal am- bition, disappears. The motive which inspired these men was not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith and the consciousness that to them had been commit- ted the responsibility of its guardianship. The con- troversialists in question even claim that they are justified in refusing to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating from a Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal in- terests of anyone are concerned, his statemejits should not be admitted as evidence (cf., for example. Puller, op. cit., 99, note). Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with the state- ments of an individual, but with the tradition of a Church — of that Church which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its doctrine, and which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. That tradi- tion, moreover, is absolutely imbroken, as the pro- nouncements of the long series of popes bear witness. Nor floes it stand alone. The utterances, in which the jjopes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian Churches, form part and parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing
