With Xystus I (about 115 to 12a) a second division in the oldest papal catalogues begins. It is regarded as probable that he was the iirst who occupied in the pres- byterial college of Rome an episcopal position, although his fellow-presbyters may have only regarded him as primus infer pares. With Hyginus (about 135 to 139), Pius I (died about 154), Anicetus (died 166 or 167), and Soter (died 174 or 175), the history of the Roman bishops begins to be better authenticated. The names which have Just been mentioned are closely united in history with the names of the Gnostics Cerdon, Yalentinus, and Marcion. " The Shepherd of Ilermas," one of the cele- brated writings of the apostolic fathers, is ascribed to a brother of Pius I ; and during the administration of Anicetus, bishop Polycarp came to Rome to discuss with the Roman bishop the Iirst Easter controversy. Under Eleutherius, towards the close of the 2d century, Irenanis came to Rome as the delegate of the congregation of Lyons in affairs relating to Montanism. Iren;eiis is the first Church writer who unquestionably mentions an hon- orary pre-eminence of the Roman Church. He calls her (Adr. Ilcer. ii, 2) the greatest, the oldest Church, acknowledged by all, founded by the two most illustri- ous apostles, Peter and Paul, the Church ^'•irith v/iich, on account of her more important precedence, all Chris- tendom must agree" ("Ad banc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem con- venire ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ah his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea qn<e est ab apostolis traditio"). The famous passage is onl}' extant in Latin translations, and is of somewhat disputed interpretation, liut it is not doubted that Irena;- ns meant to ])lace the Cluirch of Rome above the other apostolic churches, to which likewise a precedence of honor is allowed. It is to be observed, however, that this passage altogether speaks of a precedence of the Roman Cluirch, not of tiie Roman bishop, and that there is no indication that anything bevond a mere precedence of honor is meant. Tiiat this was really the idea of Irenajus is confirmed by tlie fact that when, about 190, bishop Victor of Rome broke fellowship with the churches of Asia Minor for the only reason of their peculiar Easter usages, Iren.Tus rebuked Victor for troubling the peace of the Church, and declared him- self against a forced uniformity in such non-essential
matters. The Asiatic churches emphatically refused to comply with the demand of the Roman bishop, and the controversy remained unsettled until the 4th centurj', when the Council of Nice decided in favor of the Ro- man practice. Tertullian also gave prominence to Rome among the apostolic mother churches, but after joining the INIontanists he ridiculed the Roman bishop by calling him in irony '' pontifex maxiraus" and " epis- copus episcoporum." At the beginning of the 3d cen- tury Hjppolytus censured the Roman bishops Zephyri- nus and Calixtus for the lax discipline of their Cliurch. It appears from his work that these bishops claimed an absolute power within their own jurisdiction, and that Calixtus established the principle that a bishop can never be deposed or comjielled to resign by the pres- bytery. Cyprian (died 258) is the first who asserts in clear words the fundamental idea of the papacy, claiming superiority for the bishop of Rome as the suc- cessor of Peter, and accordingly calling the Roman Church the chair of Peter, the fountain of priestly uni- ty, and the root and mother of the Catholic Cliurch. It is, however, only an ideal precedence which Cyprian concedes to the bishop of Rome, for in the controversy concerning heretical bafitism, Cyprian, at the head of the African Church, and in union with the bishops of Asia Minor, opposed the position taken by the Roman bishop Stephen, and accused him of error and abuse of power.
A retrospect of the history of the Church during the first tliree centuries shows a gradually increasing readiness to concede to the Church, and at a later period to the bishop, of Rome, some kind of honorary supremacy, and an eagerness of the bishops of Rome to use this disposition of other churches for enlarg- ing their jurisdiction, and for asserting a real supe- riority over other bishops — a claim which, as has been shown, was promptly and emphatically denied in all parts of the Christian world ; and it is a most remark- able circumstance that almost every writer of this pe- riod whose words can be used as a testimony in favor of proving the existence of a germ of papacy, also men- tions and personally endorses the stanch opposition made to the first claims of the Roman bishops. The first oecumenical Council of Nice (326), in its sixth can- on, makes only an incidental mention of the Roman bishop. It confers upon the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria metropolitan rights over the churches of their several provinces, "since the same belongs also to the bishop in Rome." The boundaries of the Roman diocese are, jjerhaps intentionally, not defined, but it appears certain that the Roman diocese comprised, in the opinion of the Nicene Council, only the ten suburbi- carian provinces, or nearly the whole of Central Italy and the islands. See Patriarchate. Nothing cer- tainl}' indicates that at this period any one conceded to the Roman bishop a jurisdiction over all the Occidental churches; and not only the Church of North Africa, in the following century, but also the diocese of jMilan and the Church of Arelate, at a much later period repelled any claim of the Roman bishop to a jurisdiction over them. The canons of the Nicene Council were, how- ever, forged at Rome in the interest of the papacy at an early period, and the words Ecck-sia Romana semper hahuit jn'imatum were inserted. At the Council of Chalcedon (451) the Roman legate, Paschasinus, read the canon with tlie forged addition, but the council protested at once, and op])osed the genuine to the forged version of the Nicene canon. The Synod of Sardica (q. v.), held in 343, conceded to the Roman bishop, Julius I (337-352), a really superior jurisdiction over other bishops, as canons 3 to 5 provide that in case a sentenced bisho]) desired to obtain a new decision from another synod, his judges must apply to Julius, bishop of Rome, who would decide whether a new synod was to be called or the judgment of the former was to be ratified, and until his decision was made the see of the sentenced bishop must not be filled. Julius might de-