has made as many as nine Popes speak on this subject, Anacletus, the first and second Sixtus, Fabian, Cornelius, Victor, Zephyrinus, Marcellus, and Julius. . . You have seen that all the Greek Bishops, and their Patriarchs even, were judged and often deposed in Councils; that permission was not asked of the Pope to assemble them, nor appeals made to him for their judgments. He was not applied to for the translation of Bishops or the founding of Bishoprics; the canons comprised in the ancient code of the Greek Church were followed. . . . . You will say, perhaps, that it is not surprising that the Greeks did not apply to the Pope, either for appeal or for the other matters, since, from the time of Photius, they ceased to recognise him as head of the Church. But did they apply to him before? And in the time when they were most united with the Roman Church, did they observe anything of that which I call the New Discipline? They were not so heedless as to do it, since the Latins themselves did it not, and this discipline was yet unknown to all the Church.'—Fleury, Quatrième Discours.

So much for the first part of Mr. Wilberforce's test. With the second he fares still worse.

'The second main particular in the Papal Supremacy, is the right of presiding in Councils. How comes this to belong to the Bishops of Rome?' -P. 182.

How, indeed? But perhaps we had better first ask, if it is the fact, before we inquire into the manner of accounting for it. Did the Bishops of Rome preside over the Early Ecumenical Councils? As the elder Patriarch of the Church, we should have expected that they would do so. But what says history? Did S. Peter preside at the Council of Jerusalem? No! Mr. Wilberforce maintains that he did (p. 125). Our readers have the Acts of the Apostles before them, and we leave the question to their judgment. Did the Bishop of Rome preside at Nicæa? No! It is almost certain that Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, the Emperor's favourite Bishop, presided. If he did not, he at any rate ranked above the representatives of the Roman Bishops, for he signs above them.'

Did the Bishop of Rome preside at Constantinople? No! The second Ecumenical Council, says Mr. Wilberforce, was 'merely an Eastern Synod.'. . . . It was presided over therefore by the Bishops of the city where it was held, and the first name subscribed is that of Nectarius of Constantinople' (p. 184). This is not correct. It was presided over by Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, a Patriarch unrecognised by the Patriarch of Rome, and probably at that moment out of communion with him; and it was only upon his death that S. Gregory Nazianzen, and

1 In the Bishop of Rome being represented by presbyters at Nicæa, Mr. Wilberforce sees something which 'distinguished him from the other prelates:' 'the see of Rome, as being the seat of the Primate, had a privilege of her own, independent of anything belonging to the Episcopal office in general' (p. 185). Unfortunately for this theory, Eusebius and Socrates give us the real reason of the presence of the presbyters. The prelate of the royal city was away on account of his age, and his presbyters were present, and filled his place.'-Socr. i. 8.

Nectarius became successively presidents ( Papal Supremacy.' p. 11). That it should have been merely an Eastern Synod,' where Rome was not represented, which fixed the shape of the Nicene Creed, ought, we should imagine, to be some obstacle to the theory of a Primacy which involves the Supremacy.'

Did the Bishop of Rome preside at the Council of Ephesus? No! S. Cyril of Alexandria was its president. Thus we see that Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria, that is, all the other four Patriarchates had the honour of presiding at the Ecumenical Councils of the Church before the Patriarch of Rome, on whom that office devolved for the first time at the Council of Chalcedon.

But is it found that the Bishops of Rome presided at the non-Ecumenical Councils-those Councils whose canons were taken into the code of the Eastern Church by the Council in Trullo? Did he preside at Ancyra? at Neocæsarea? at Gangra? at Antioch? at Laodicea? at Sardica? at Carthage? No! not at any one of them. Did he preside at any single Council previous to the Council of Chalcedon, except such as were held in his own Diocese or Patriarchate? No! not at one. And yet, the right of presiding at Councils is inherent in the Primacy' (p. 168).

Mr. Wilberforce will not, however, give up the Council of Ephesus. The president was the second Patriarch, S. Cyril, 'who acted professedly as the representative of the Primate S. 'Celestine' (p. 184). Not only did S. Cyril act as president 'by especial delegation from Pope Celestine, but the Council refers to his direction as the ground of its proceeding' (p. 186). The meaning of the last part of this sentence is that 'the Synod wrote to the Emperor, saying, that they had deposed Nestorius on finding him guilty of heresy, and that they praised Celestine, Bishop of great Rome, who condemned Nestorius for his heretical doctrines before our sentence, and 'put out his sentence against him before us for the sake of the safety of the Church, and of the holy and saving Faith 'which has been handed down to us from the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and the holy Fathers.' To us, as to Bossuet, the reconsideration of a sentence passed by the Roman Patriarch (a similar sentence had been passed by the Alexandrian Patriarch), shows rather a want than an abundance of authority on his part. But it is with the presidency that we have now especially to deal. Mr. Wilberforce has added a very telling

note:

"Vicem nostram Cyrillo delegavimus," &c. Harduin, i. 1318, 1307, 1466.— The commission to S. Cyril himself is given, Harduin, i. 1323, and is referred to by the Egyptian Bishops, 1355, 1475.'—P. 186.

Unfortunate, that when we turn to Harduin, we find that "the commission' referred to has nothing whatever to do with the Council of Ephesus, that the létter containing it was written on the 10th of August, A. D. 430, and that the act which S. Cyril is thereby authorized to perform is to be performed after the expiration of ten days, whereas the Council of Ephesus was not summoned till the 20th of December, that is, more than four months afterwards, and did not sit till the 22d of June, 431. At the time that S. Celestine wrote his letter, the proposal of an Ecumenical Council was not broached. The facts are these. Nestorius and S. Cyril, the two great Patriarchs of the East, being locked in internecine strife, turned for help to the Patriarch of the West. They both wrote to S. Celestine. S. Celestine took the side of S. Cyril and orthodoxy, and followed his lead in the Nestorian controversy just as Julius clung fast to S. Athanasius in the Arian disputes. A Roman Council was held, which resulted in the condemnation of Nestorius by the Roman Church. Upon this Celestine writes to S. Cyril, Aug. 10, 430, the letter which, according to Mr. Wilberforce, appoints him to act as president at the Council of Ephesus by especial delegation from Pope Celestine' (at a time when the Council of Ephesus had not yet been heard of), and contains his commission' for that purpose. It runs as follows:

'Join therefore the authority of our See to your own; use our stead; execute this sentence with strictness and vigour : let him either, within ten days from the day of this monition, condemn in writing his wicked teaching, and declare that he holds that faith about the nativity of Christ, our God, which is held both by the Roman Church and by your Holiness' Church, and by the whole of our religion; or if he does not do this, let your Holiness provide at once for his Church, and let him know that he must needs be cut off from our body, since he has been unwilling to receive the treatment of his physicians, and like a pestilent disease, has rushed violently to the destruction of himself and of all entrusted to him. We have written to the same effect to our ho'y brethren and brother Bishops, John (of Antioch); Rufus (of Thessalonica); Juvenal (of Jerusalem); and Flavian (of Philippi), in order that our sentence, or rather the Divine sentence of Christ, may be known about him. Aug. 10, 430.'—Harduin, i. 1323.

S. Cyril, like S. Celestine, held his Council at Alexandria, and then despatched his celebrated letter of excommunication, written not only in his own name, but also by authority of the above commission,' in that of S. Celestine. This excommunication was conveyed to Constantinople by four Bishops, and there published Dec. 6, A. D. 430. Nestorius met it with like anathemas against his opponents; and then, to allay the storm, Theodosius called the Council of Ephesus; the sentences of Celestine and Cyril, meantime, remaining without effect, as they awaited the superior authority of a General Council.

So much for the Vicem nostram Cyrillo delegavimus, and the Com

mission to S. Cyril, which, we repeat, was given for one thing, and is represented by Mr. Wilberforce to have been given for another. But we are told further, that it is referred to by the Egyptian Bishops.' The fact indicated by these words is, that the chief notary, who was Peter, an Alexandrian presbyter, read the list of the Bishops who were present at the opening of the Council; and the list begins thus: The most religious and pious Bishops, 'Cyril of Alexandria, who was also managing the part (Stémov'TOS KAI TOV TÓTov) of Celestine, the most holy and pious Bishop ' of the Church of the Romans, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Memnon of Ephesus, and Flavian of Philippi, who was holding also the part of Rufus, the most pious Bishop of the Church of 'Thessalonica,' &c. This means that Cyril was armed with the authority of the Patriarch of Rome, as well as his own, and held his proxy just as Flavian held that of Rufus. But where is there anything about his presiding by Celestine's commission, and the Egyptian Bishops acknowledging it? Whether or no he presided simply in his own right, or by his own right, strengthened by the addition of the right of Celestine, is a question which we need not discuss. That he presided in his own right is indubitable, and the reason why S. Celestine's name is recorded is, according to Richerius, that the orthodox body might have a majority of the Patriarchs on their side, whereas without him, they were divided two against two. Most justly Mr. Allies says, that S. Cyril sat as president in his own right; and Bossuet's words are sufficiently explicit: Although Cyril having been named the executor of the Pope's sentence, had executed it in the Council,' (he had executed it previously to the Council;) yet he had not been expressly delegated to the 'Council, of which Celestine had yet no thought when he trusted Cyril 6 to represent him. But Arcadius Projectus and Philip being expressly sent by Celestine to the Council, confirmed the acts of the Council in virtue of this special commission.' 1 After their arrival, which did not occur at the beginning, these three legates are the тоTоτńρηтαι of Celestine and the Western Bishops, and accordingly Arcadius subscribes next after Cyril, who signs first simply in his own character, i.e. because he was Patriarch of Alexandria, and President of the Council. The difference between the commission to S. Cyril, previous to the time that the Council was thought of, and of the commission to Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip for the Council, is distinctly stated in the letter of the Synod to the Emperor. And in the letter of the Synod to Celestine, relating the condemnation of S. Cyril and Memnon, by John of Antioch, the especial reason given why Celestine ought to be personally indignant t it, is, not that his representative was condemned, but that Hard. i. p. 1483.

6

1 Boss. vii. 9. 13.

the Synod had been insulted, in which sat Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip, τὴν σὴν ἡμῖν παρουσίαν δι ̓ ἑαυτῶν χαριζόμενοι καὶ τῆς ἀποστολικῆς καθέδρας τὸν τόπον ἀναπληροῦντες.

Richerius, the learned doctor of the Sorbonne, writes clearly and decidedly:

'Bellarmine, and the other writers of the Roman Court, plead that Cyril presided because Celestine had made him his vicar. But since the Ephesian Council was held against Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the right of presiding belonged to Cyril of Alexandria, in the absence of the Roman Pontiff; without any commission from Celestine, he would have held that office in right of his own see, according to the Nicene canons. Why, it is evident from the second action, that Celestine sent Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip to take his place in the Council of Ephesus; the acts declare it in so many words, and yet Cyril signed before them in the sixth Action. Nor should it be concealed that this letter in which Celestine commits his stead to Cyril, was written before he thought that a General Council was going to be held against Nestorius, and is restricted solely to the execution of his sentence against Nestorius, who he desired should be excommunicated and deposed, unless he repented within ten days after the sentence. From hence it follows, that it is a vain attempt which is made to prove that Cyril presided over the Council of Ephesus as Celestine's vicar, since that office belonged to him by the prerogative of his own see.'-Hist. Conc. Gen. p. 150.

6

Before leaving the Council of Ephesus, we must give a specimen of how much Mr. Wilberforce can effect by translation, and by a judicious choice of versions: We have directed, according to our solicitude, our holy brethren and fellow priests, 'men of one mind with us, and well approved, the Bishops Ar'cadius and Projectus, and Philip our presbyter, that they may be present at those things which are done, and carry out that 'which we have previously appointed; to which, we have no doubt, 'your Holiness will yield assent, since what is done appears to be decreed for the security of the whole Church'' (p. 186). This ought to be translated thus: We have sent to you, as undertaking our 'solicitude, the holy brethren our fellow ministers, men proved 'to be of the same soul with ourselves, Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and our presbyter Philip, who will be present at the 'proceedings, and carry out what was long ago settled upon by We doubt not that your Holiness will accord with them, for 'whatever conclusion ye shall arrive at would seem to be settled for 'the sake of the security of all the Churches.'' Mr. Wilberforce has

'us.

1 Hard. i. p. 1510.

2 Hard. i. p. 1741.

* Απεστείλαμεν τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀναδεχομένους φρόντιδα, τοὺς ἁγίους ἀδελφοὺς καὶ συλλειτουργοὺς ἡμῶν, ὁμοψύχους ἡμῖν δεδοκιμασμένους ̓Αρκάδιον καὶ Προΐεκτον ἐπισκό πους, καὶ Φίλιππον τὸν ἡμέτερον πρεσβύτερον, οἳ τοῖς πραττομένοις παρέσονται καὶ τὰ παρ' ἡμῖν πάλαι ὁρισθέντα ἐκβιβάσουσιν· οἷς παρασχεθῆναι παρὰ τῆς ὑμετέρος ἁγιότητος οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλομεν συγκατάθεσιν, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτο ὅπερ ἂν γνῶτε, δοκῇ ὑπὲρ τῆς πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἀμεριμνίας κεκρίσθαι. There is another reading given in the margin, ἐπὰν τὸ πρασσόμενον δοξῇ ὑπὲρ τῆς πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησίων ἀσφαλείας ; i.e. since that which is being done will have seemed to be decreed for the security of all the Churches; and still another, orèp dvéyvwte, dokeî úñèρ K.T.λ., i.e. that which ye