The Irish standard., 1896-07-11

800
ftenttons off the good old MANN the vat.
lean & ID the pref aration q their er1cy-
Eelicals in answer to the pope's, some OF
these fall minded papers have been led
into making such strong sta a y, en- s
| that their pl0nounc ements may be dig
Inified with the name Of bulls. =
That the early bishops of Rome made
/ no such claims as the pope makes now is
|true enough il weSare locking tor some
|explicit declaration Of the infallibility
from the first three centuries The au-
sthentic writings Of the. early popes are
aoafned to the letters of Clements and an
extract from popes like Callistus, or Ste
Ephen, q Fabian, or Cornelius, found
either in Eusebius. or Tertulllan, or the
Pbilo5ophnmena. But it IS singular to
notice thatsin all these extracts the atti-
tude Of the Roman bishop is one not a
little in harmony with the present
claims Of the papacy.
7 Thus Clement ;nterferes with authority
in the private affairs Of the Church OF
Corinth. and does so before the close OF
the first century. Thus Victor, about
100 A. d., is on the point of excommunl-
eating the Quartodeeinlans Of Asia Min
or, and would have done SO but for the
kindly offices Of Irenaeus of Lyons, who
does not seem to have questioned his
right to act in this hgh-handed manner
but counseled delay and patience. Thus
Anicetus, in the middle of the second
century, withstands a disciple OF the
Apostle John, the aged Polycarp, on the
question of the date of Easter Thus
Stephen, in the middle OF the third CEN
fury, tells Cyprian of Carthage his duty
in the manner of the rebaptism of here
tics: and Tertullian, at an earlier date,
sneeringly testdes that the Bishop Of
Rome assumed the title or acted the part
Of the Bishop of Bishops"
Origen, in the beginning OF the third
century, sought the recognition and the
good offices of Rome, as if the Roman en-
dcrsement were the bond of his ortho-
doxy, and the preservation of the lists OF
Roman Bishops occupied the attention
Of the Oriental Christian scholars from
the earliest times. Was it, moreover, a
matter of mere chance that the Emperor
Aurelian, prosecutor Of Christians,
should refer the Christians of Antioch,
who had appealed to him in the case of
Paul Of Sa1nosata, to the Bishops OF
Italy, and especially the Bishop OF
Rome? And why, too, was it that the
Emperor Decius should say, as the ru-
NOR had it, that he would rather hear of
a new usurper than of a new Bishop OF
Rome? .t.
These facts are not proofs Of the in
fallibility of the papacy, but they go far
to show, when closely examined. that at
least during the first three centuries the
Bishops of Rome laid claim to a juris-
diction extending far and wide beyond
Italy; that they interfered not merely in
disciplinary measures, but more in doc
trinal matters in the whole Christian
world. Taken together they certainly
seem TO show that the early Bishops OF
Rome believed themselves in possession
of primacy, of which the latter dehnl-
items are but logical development. And
when one comes to look into the words
of the Fathers Of the Church, he finds 1t
is pretty strong statement to say that
the Fathers do not co1lntenance such
claim, for several Of them have used ex-
pressions which require very adroit han
ding to be understood in any other sense
than that which the Roman theologians
claim.
1t makes no difference whether the
Bishop of Rome was called pope or not,
or whether all the bishops, even as the
Greek priests at present, were called
popes or not. His peculiar claim is
based upon something more than this
title and whatever the effect of the pres
ent encyclical, it might be just as well to
admit that whether his contention is
right or wrong, he has at least a fight
ing chance" to defend it historically.
They are not all fools or blind to history
who leave the Church of England to
Join the Church of Rome; and even Lord
Halifax, the president Of the English
Church Union, is willing to recognize in
the papacy a prdmacy of authority by
divine right.
LiNcOLN'S PROPHECY