VAO THIBD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
at Rome, in whom all the conditions, external and inten ?J of the highest eminence and control in the chm'ch are combined. But in the same epistle he remarks, that the '' thrice blessed and divine double star of Peter and Paul rose in the East and slied its rays in every direction ; " in coimection with wldch it must be remembered that he was at that time seeking protection in Leo against the Eutychian robber-council of Ephesua (•149), which had unjustly deposed both himself and Flavian of Constantinople.
His bitter antagonist also, the arrogant and overbearing Ctkil of Alexandria, descended some years before, in his battle against JSTestorins, to unworthy flattery, and called Pope Coelestine " the archbishop of the whole [Iloman] world." ' The same prelates, under other circumstances, repelled with proud indignation the encroachments of Rome on their jurisdiction.
§ 62. The Decrees of Councils on the Po/pal Authority.
Much more important than the opinions of individua lathers are the formal decrees of the councils.
First mention here belongs to the council of Sardica ir. [llyria (now Sofia in Bulgaria) in 343,' during the Arian controversy. This council is the most favorable of all to the
' Epist. 113. Comp. Bennington and Kirk, 1. c. p. 91-93. In the Epist. 116, to Renatus, one of the three papal legates at Ephesus, where he entreats h?s intercession with Leo, he ascribes to the Roman see the control of the church of the world {tIjiv Kara. t7/i/ olKuvfJi(vr\v 4KKKy\aiSiu tV hy^l^oviixv), but certainly in the oriental sense of an honorary supervision.
' 'ApxtfTior/coTTo*' iraiTTjs TTjj olKovixfVT]'! [i. c., of thc Roman empire, according to the well-known usus loquendi, even of thc N. T., comp. Luke ii. 1], irarepa re Kal -iraTpiapxr}" Kf\f<TT7voi' rhv rrji ix€ya\oir6\f(i)i Vijxifs. Encom. in S. Mar. Deip. (torn. V. p. 384). Comp. his Ep. ix. ad Coolest.
* That this is the true date appears from the recently discovered Festival Epistles of Athanasius, published in Syriac by Cureton (London, 1848), in an English translation by Williams (Oxford, 1851), and in German by Larsow (Leipzig, 1852). Mansi puts the council in the year 344, but most, writers, including Giesicler, Nemder, Milman, and Greenwood, following the erroneous statement of Socrates (ii. 20) and Sozomoii (iii. 12), place it in the year 347. Comp. on thc subject Larsow L>ie Festbriufe des Athanasius, p. 31 ; and Hefele, Concilicngesch. i. p. 513 sqq.
§ 62. DECREES OF COUNCILS ON PAPAL AUTHORITY. 311
Roman claims. In the interest of the deposed Athanasius and of the Nicene orthodoxy it decreed :
(1) That a deposed bishop, who feels he has a good cause, may apply, out of reverence to the memory of the apostle Feter, to the Roman bishop Julius, and shall leave it with him either to ratify the deposition or to summon a new council.
(2) That the vacant bishopric shall not be tilled till the decision of Rome be received.
(3) That the Roman bishop, in such a case of appeal, may, according to his best judgment, either institute a new trial by the bishops of a neighboring province, or send delegates to the spot with full power to decide the matter with the bishops.'
Thus was plainly committed to the Roman bishops an appellate and revisory jurisdiction in the case of a condemned or deposed bishop even of the East. But in the first place this authority is not here acknowledged as a right already existing in pi-actice. It is confeiTed as a new power, and that merely as an honorary right, and as pertaining only to the bishop Julius in person." Otherwise, either this bishop would not be expressly named, or his successors would be named with him. Furthermore, the canons limit tlie appeal to the case of a l)i3hop deposed by his comprovincials, and say nothing of other cases. Finally, the council of Sardica was not a general council, but only a local synod of the West, and could therefore establish no law for the whole church. For the Eastern bishops withdrew at the very beginning, and held an opposi-
* Can. 3, 4, and 5 (in the Latin translation, can. 3, 4, and 7), in Mansi, iii. 23 sq., and in Hefele, i. 539 sqq., wtiere tlie Greek and the Latin Dionysian text is given with learned explanations. The Greek and Latin texts differ in some points.
' So the much discussed canones are explained not only by Protestant historians, but also by Catholic of the Galilean school, like Peter de Marca, Quesnel, Du-Pin, Richer, Febronius. This interpretation agrees best with the whole connection ; with the express mention of Julius (which is lacking, indeed, in the Latin translation of Prisca and in Isidore, but stands distinctly in the Greek and Dionysian texts : 'lov\ia Tw eniffK6TT(ii 'PttiyUTjr, Julio Romano episcopo) ; with the words, " Si vobis placet " (can. 3), whereby the appeal in question is made dependent first on the decree of this council ; and finally, with the words, " Sancti Petri apostoli memoriam honore* mus," which represent the Roman bishop's right of review as an honorary matter What Hefele urges against these arguments (i. 548 sq.), seems to me very insuffi eient