ST. PETER'S ROMAN EPISCOPATE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXI, Issue 41, 8 October 1903, Page 6

ST. PETER'S ROMAN EPISCOPATE

DEAN BURKE AND BISHOP NEVILL The following letter from the Very Rev. Dean Burke in reply tlo his Lordship Bishop Nevill appeared in the • Otago Daily Times ' of Thursday :— ' Sir,— l feel constrained to appear again in your columns, seeing the charges of dishonesty, effrontery, and deception made against me by Bishop Nevill in his recent gentlemanly letters. Your readers know by this time that he is unable to hring forward even one scrap of reliable, unmistakable evidence to support that " figment " over Which he boasted so bravely some weeks agio. They know that, instead of supporting his thesis by argjument and evidence, he has merely danced about, like a hen on stubbles, from one petty pin-prick to another — just trying, for appearance sake, to keep on saying something. Unfortunately for himself, he made one effort to allege two instances of evidence in his favor— one, the meeting of the Apostles ; the other, the Sixth Canon of Nice< Both these instances tell against him ! St. Peter, in speaking first at the apostolic meeting (A.D. 51), acted obviously as its president. His absence from Rome, supposing that he had undertaken the Roman episcopate at that date (some historians say Yes, some say No), could no more be alleged as a proof against such episcopate than Cardinal Moran's absence from Sydney could be alleged,, centuries henjce, a's a proof that he had never been Bishop of Sydney. I see Bishop Nevill will make up " per-tiheorems " for us Catholics. They say an old dog cannot be beaten oft his trot. It would, then, be much safer for him, when intending these " theorems " for newspaper publication, to consult some Catholic authorities rather than rely upon The Malicious Travesties of Littledale and Salmon. ' (1) His monstrous mutilation of the Sixth Canon of Nice.— Having assured yo\ir readers, on his own authority, that the Pope had nothing to do with the presidency of the Council of Nice, and that the bishops present did not recognise him as " a bigger man " than any of theanselves, Bishop Nevill goes on to mutilate the Sixth Canon :" They sard in Orreek, ' Let the ancient customs be preserved '—viz , that the affairs of a province be settled in a province to which they refer ; and it does not even mention Rome. After the words I have translated the Canon goes on to say, ' So that the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all affairs in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapohs '—then follow Rome, Antioch, and other eparchs or provinces (Nicea Canon 6). Rather hard this on the successor of Peter , but perhaps this Council was- too early for thfem to have found out who and what the Bishop of Rome was ! " .Now, Sir, in this short piece of episcopal argumentation there may be found miitilation, interpolation, distortion, and foolish comment ! In his succeeding letter Bishop Nevill devotes half a column of similar stuff to the Council of Nice. 1 The Sixth Canon of Nice, say Neander and all decent historians, was enacted to protect the Bishop of Alexandria against the attempts of the violent schismatical Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, who withdrew from Alexandria's immemorial jurisdiction, arrogated equal rights to himself, and, by gathering around him all the discontented elements of the place, caused endless trouble in Egypt. The Catholic Church then, like the Catholic Church to-day, was most anxious to protect the established rights and privileges of every province and diocese. So to remove confusion in this case the Fathers of Nice declared that the immemorial privilege of the great Church of Alexandria, founded by Peter, through his disciple St. Mark, should be maintained. But hear the Canon itself :■—" Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis be adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these ; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner as regards Antioch and the other provinces, let each church retain its privileges.' Compare this with Bishop Nevill's absurd distortion. You perceive that whilst making a Niceme arrangement of his own, he omitted the very point and kernel of the Canon as regards /Rome—" epeide kai to en te Rome episkopo touto sunethes estin "—"" — " since this also is the oustom of the Bishop of Rome." This Important Clause is so translated in the Latin version read at the General Council of Chalcedon, " Quoniam et Romano episcopo haec est consuetude " So learned Protestant writers translate it— v.g. : " Since this is the custom also with the Roman Bishop " (Neander) ; " since this also is cus-

tomary with the Bishop of Rome " rSchafft ThP nhm™ Rich t0 • r Jr c °S nise "• Antiquity and the Roman Bishop's recognition were the grounds for preserving %6 le S an J* lail VWtoW- The 6 interpretation is de? ™^nSn by *? mlem l ea ™6.°t the words (sunethes tini Ist i^ consuetum est alicui ; it is his custom) ; by the grammatical construction of the Canon and by the reasoning for the legislation This is the interpretation we find placed upon this Canon in the declarations of extemporary and sub-contemporary Bishops and Emperors X - 6 A Pr f" 6 ,? in F en l iy accur *te Roman " Scrinia - and ?n So 6 th P £ll r 6 FS* eaJ:ly Council of Cfoalcedoi nJ fen < r anon u of Nlc e, mutilated and distorted by Bishop Will to show that the Fathers of the first m s TonnVR U rL Of w the^ Church did ™t recefcnise «£ Bishop of Rome as " a bigger man " than any of themselves, is, in the hands of theologians and historians, one of the evidences alleged for the Papal Supremacy ! How scant must be his supply of " proofs ' when he felt compelled to fall bock upon the meeting of the Apostles and the Sixth Canon of Nice ! ' Difficulties and replies.— ln order to he as 1 brief as possible, and at the same time touich upon as many as possible of Bishop Nevill's wandering objections, I shall compress my matter into the shape of difficulties and short answers. Difficulty 1. : Bishop Nevill does not know, who presided at the Council of Nice, but he is cocksure no papal legates or deputies presided there— " earlier accounts do not so pronounce." Answer • All the earlier accounts we have do so unanimously pronounce. Socrates, the ancient Greek Church historian the lists of the names of those who signed the comciliar documents, the accounts of Gclasius, Bishop of Cyzicus— all place Hosius and the Roman priests Vitas' and Vincent first, even before, the exarchs or patriarchs of Alexandria and Antiooh. Why if Simply because they were the representatives of the Supreme Bishop Sylvester of Rome. ' On the festival of St. Sylvester we find even the ancient ,Greek Liturgy saying, " Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council (Nice), and hast illustrated the throne of the supreme one of the disciples "—Peter. Difficulty 2 : Bishop Nevill, with Henry VIII. on the brain, is rather inclined to think that the unbaptised catechumen, Constantine the Emperor, was " the real president." Answer : Too ridiculous to need reiply. Listen to Hosius addressing Constantino : " Concern thyself not with ecclesiastical affairs, nor teach us in such matters, but rather learn from us. To thee God has given the Empire ; to us He has given the things of the Church." And Constantine, unlike Henry VIII. or the Bishop, frocking and unfrocking Elizabeth, took the lesson kindly and humbly. Difficulty 3 : Bishop Nevill says unat with something like " effrontery " and " the only imaginable motive " — to deceive your readers — I make the dreadful statement that the " Acts "—i.e., the history of the general transactions— of Nice were lost ; then he solemnly and at great length proceeded to communicate to an inoocent world a fresh and profound piece of historical information— namely, that the Nicene Creed and 20 Canons and a synodical letter are preserved ! Answer : The boys of the Sixth Standard in my school know from their sixpenny " Church History " that those 20 Canons are preserved ! Every old woman who goes to Mass on Sunday knows that the Nicene Creed is preserved, for she has it in her prayer book, and she hears it read ! ' Bishop Nevill has occupied nine and a half columns of your paper mostly with historical matter of this profound vkind ; the rest he has filled up with miserable attempts to make little points, and with insinuations as to dishonesty, deception, and so on. But even in these insinuations he is not original. The pages of the lovely Littledale, whom he reads, admires, and recommends, are full of them— the pages of Littledale, " vituperative and brutal," " the untrustworthy compiler of rude congeries of fallacies and erroneous statements " ; of Littledale " whose name should be received with a howl of execration by those whom he has duped." The burden of the song of this man so described by his- own reverend co-religionists, is the dishonesty and deceit of Roman controversialists ! Verily, men judge of others from themselves. ? ' (2)" Sardica ! " " The obscure Synod of Sardica !" —Bishop Nevill, makes a great ado because I quoted meagrely from this Council. Compelled to follow his dance from one Littledalean difficulty to another, I was confined for want of space to mere references, indications, and the shortest quotations. I certainly have been unjust in that way— unjust to my own case. But I have always wished to be generous with him, did opportunity allow ; hence I shall now quote Sardica (for him at some length. In the collection of Dionysius the Little the Third Canon reads thus : " If any bishop shall have been

judged in any matter and shall be persuaded that he has a good cause so that he may desire a second Council, if it pleases you let us honor The Memory of St. Peter the Apostle ; let those who examined the matter write to Julian, the Roman Bishop ; that if he deems it right to revise the judgment it be revised and let him appoint the judges. But if he decide that the cause is not of a nature to warrant a revision of what was done what he shall decree shall be confirmed." Bishop Nevill tells us this was '• a scheme " to provide a court of appeal ! There is not a word about appeals in the Canon ; it is "a scheme " to show special respect to the successor of Peter, then attacked by the Arian heretics. We come now to the Fourth Canon ; it deals with the subject of " Appeals." It runs : "If any bishop be deposed by the 'juldginent of the neighboring bishops and declares his wish that his case be adjudged at Rome, after the appeal of him who appears deposed, let no other bishop be ordairied for his See until the case be defined by the decision of the Roman Bishop." The Seventh Canon runs : " If any bishop was accused and judged and deposed by the bishops of his own province, and if he who is deposed appeals and has recourse to the Bishop ■of the Roman Church and wishes to be heard by him," etc., etc. I think I had better stop ! How could Bishop Nevill stanid any more of a thing so " Romish " and ♦« Popish " ? 1 Difficulties and Replies.— Difficulty 1 : Oh ! but that many bishops were not present at this " ooscure Synod of Sardica."— Answer : Authorities ancient and modern are divided as to the number present. Newman says 380 assembled, of whom 76 were Arians (" Arians," p. 289); Neander says that 300 Westerns and 76 Easterns were, present (Hist. IV., p. 46) ; St. Athanasius, who was himself a member of it, says that the decrees of the Council of Sardica were signed by more than 300 bishops (Apol. Cont. Or. C. 1). Bishop Nevill calls this Council an " obscure Synod." St. Athanasius calLs it a " great Synod." The Emperor Justinian called it, in one of his edicts, " Ecumenical." Many ancient Fathers named it " Magnum Concilium "—the " Great Council." Difficulty 2 : Oh ! but " the Eastern bishops withdrew from it." — Answer : Just fancy calling 76 violent Arian heretics " the Eastern Bishops " ! Remember that there were at the time in the " Eastern Church " Over 700 Bishops. This cavil is a ditch dug for the credulous by the cynical, anti-Papal De Marca— called- by Bishop Nevill " the Roman De Marca " ! Some of Bishop NeviU's " authorities " leaped into it ; he follows as a matter of course. Difficulty 3 : Oh ! but " Mosheim tells us that its enactments are regarded by some as forged."— Answer : Wonderful ! When you look for the prejudiced Mosheim 's authority for the statement you read in the footnote. " Mich. Geddes, Diss. Can. Sard ! " The same Bishop Hosius who presided at Nice presided also at Sardica. Many of the same bishops attended both Councils ; hence the Council of Sardica was commonly considered among the ancients as a continuation of that of Nice. Its Canons, often bound up with those of Nice and regarded as an appendix to them, were quoted as Nicean, by Popes ajid Fathers. Though apparently not known in early Africa, these Canons were found in Western and Eastern collections. But of what authority is ancient testimony as compared with that of Mich. Geddes ! Difficulty 4 : " The Codex Canonum Ecclcsiae Univeisae does not think it worth while to include the Canons of Sardica at all," says Bishop Nevill triumphantly. Answer : Now or never these contemptibly popish Canons are wiped out. But what is this- aflair with the magnificent name—" Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae " ? It is the compilation of a blundering fellow called Christy Justell, who contrived to supply for the deficiencies of his work by the splendor of its title. His ' Codex," made up of Canons genuine and spurious, appeared in 1610, and was received by Canonists with a shout of laughter. It soon disappeared to the dusty top shelves of controversial cranks, whence it has been occasionally, but rarely, taken down by that useful class of men for their own purposes. Once Mr. Foulker quoted it in 1869 against Cardinal Manning. The effort did not prove hapipy for Foulker ; the despatch of his lofty authority was quick and decisive. Can it be that Bishop Nevill has the controversial pamphlets of Foulker beside " the useful little books " of the lovely Lit.tledale ? ' My letter should extend to length too great were I to touch upon all the , Petty Difficulties and Inacouiacies (there is hardly a leading statement historically correct in the whole production) of Bishop NeviU's letter. 1 may remark as to the synodical letters of this Council that three were written : a general one intended for all Bishops of the Church, a special one for the clergy and laity of Alexandria, and a third addressed to Pope Julius. This contained the clause which I quoted as

giving in the fewest possible words an Idea of the spirit pervading the Canons and letters of the Council : " For this will seem best and by far the most fitting if the Lords Bis-hops make reference from- all the provinces to the Head, that is, the See of the Apostle Peter." The synodical letters were signed by Bishops from Spain, Gaul, Italy, Sardinia, Pannonia, Decia, Macedonia, Epirus, Rhodes, Palestine, Egypt, etc. (Parsons' Hist. Stud., Vol. 1., p. 211). ' To conclude, what immediate bearing has all Bishop NeviU's random talk about the Council of Sardica, " appeals," and so on upon the historical question " Was St. Peter Bishop of Rome ?' ' Why tun away from the pojnt ? Why try and conceal his escape in a cloud of dtist about the Papal Supremacy ? As he was, on the run, what a pity he did not get to a subject with which he should be far better acquainted— I mean the Royal Supremacy. This is a very puzzling question to many people ; hence they would like to hear from him a dissertation from the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Councils on that wonderful text— 2s Hen. Vlll.,— which confers on a lay Pope " the supreme power, jurisdiction, order, rule, and authority over the estate ecclesiastical." '