the termination of the twelve hundred and sixty years is to be computed, reckoning their commence

bears that date, the Emperor mentions his having already written to the Pope.

The reply of Pope John to the above memorable epistle is dated the 24th March, 534; and the following are extracts from it;

"Gloriosissimo et clementissimo filio Justiniano Augusto, Johannes Episcopus Urbis Romæ.

66

66

66

"Inter claras sapientiæ ac mansuetudinis vestræ laudes, Christia"nissime principum, puriore luce tanquam aliquod sydus irradiat, quod amore fidei, quod charitatis studio edocti ecclesiasticis disciplinis, Romanæ sedis reverentiam conservatis, et ei cuncta "subjicitis, et ad ejus deducitis unitatem, ad cujus auctorem, hoc "est apostolorum primum, Domino loquente præceptum est pasce oves meas: Quam esse omnium vere ecclesiarum caput, et patrum regulæ et principum statuta declarant, et pietatis vestræ reverendis"simi testantur affatus."-* * * * * *

66

"Proinde serenitatis vestræ apices, per Hypatium atque Deme“trium, sanctissimos viros, fratres et cöepiscopos meos, reverentia "consueta suscepimus: quorum etiam relatione comperimus, quod "fidelibus populis proposuistis edictum amore fidei pro submovenda "hæreticorum intentione, secundum apostolicam doctrinam, fratrum "et cöepiscoporum nostrorum interveniente consensu. Quod, quia apostolicæ doctrinæ convenit, nostra auctoritate confirmamus."

66

Upon the same occasion Justinian also addressed a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, of which I shall give the first paragraph. "Idem imperat. Epiphanio sanctissimo et beatissimo Archiepiscopo "Regiæ hujus Urbis et Oecumenico Patriarchæ.

"Cognoscere volentes tuam sanctitatem ea omnia quæ ad ecclesi"asticum spectant statum: necessarium duximus, hisce ad eam uti "divinis compendiis, ac per ea manifesta eidem facere, quæ jam "moveri cœpta sunt, quanquam et illa eandem cognocere sumus "persuasi. Cum itaque comperissemus quosdam alienos a sancta, catholica, et apostolica ecclesia, impiorum Nestorii et Eutychetis sequutos deceptionem, divinam antehac promulgavimus edictum (quod et tua novit sanctitas) per quod hæreticorum furores repre“hendimus, ita ut nullo quovis omnino modo immutaverimus, im"mutemus aut prætergressi simus eum, qui nunc usque, coadjuvante "Deo, servatus est, ecclesiasticum statum (quemadmodum et tua "novit sanctitas) sed in omnibus servato statu unitatis sanctissimarum

66

46

ment in the above year. Two modes of computing time have obtained; the one is to reckon by complete

“ecclesiarum cum ipso S. S. Papa veteris Romæ, ad quem similia "hisce perscripsimus. Nec enim patimur ut quicquam eorum, quæ "ad ecclesiasticum spectant statum, non etiam ad ejusdem referatur "beatitudinem: quum ea sit caput omnium sanctissimorum Dei "sacerdotum: vel eo maxime quod, quoties in eis locis hæretici pullularunt, et sententia et recto judicio illius venerabilis sedis "coerciti sunt."

66

The above documents are to be found at full length in the volume of the Civil Law, (Codicis lib. I. tit. I.) and by being published in that collection, they obtained the stamp of public and legislative authority as the laws of the empire. In these documents we find the emperor publishing a rule of faith to his subjects of the eastern empire, and addressing the pope of Rome on the occasion, as the acknowledged head of all the churches (not the western churches only), and requesting his approbation of what he had done. We see the pope, in reply, giving the sanction of his authority, as the acknowledged head of the church, to the religious edict of Justinian.

Gothofredus, a celebrated civilian, in his edition of the Corpus Juris, has the following note on the passage of Justinian's Epistle to the Patriarch of Constantinople, above quoted: "Hinc collige, errare eos, qui volunt imperatorum Phocam primum pro Gregorio Magno "pontifice, sententiam tulisse contra Johannem Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum; quum ex his verbis constet tempore Justiniani "primatum summo pontifici donatum fuisse."

Gravina, in his work on the Roman Law, entitled, Origines Juris Civilis, has the following remark: "Cum tamen sciamus, ipso Justi"niano teste, qui in Novellis veterem Romam sacerdotii fontem

appellat, Constantinopolitanum antistitem orientalibus episcopis "utcunque prælatum, ipsum tamen simul cum cæteris ecclesiis “Romano paruisse."

I next quote the exordium of an edict of Justinian, being the ninth of the Novella Constitutiones, of which the following is the title: “Ut etiam ecclesia Romana centum annorum gaudeat præ"scriptione.

66

Novella Constit. IX.

Imp. Justin. A. Joanni, viro beatiss. ac sanctiss. Archiepisc. et Patriarchæ veteris Romæ.

Præfatio.

"Ut legum originem anterior Roma sortita est, ita et summi pon"tificatus apicem apud eam esse nemo est qui dubitet. Unde et nos

or past time, the other by incomplete or current time. The first of these generally prevails in Europe,

"necessarium duximus, patriam legum, fontem sacerdoti, speciali nostri numinis lege illustrare," &c.

66

66

66

I lastly quote on this subject the words of Justinian in the 131st of his Novella Constitutiones, and entitled, De Ecclesiasticis Titulis et Privilegiis. Cap. II. " De Ordine sedendi Patriarcharum,” runs thus: Ideoque sancimus sanctissimum senioris Romæ Papam, primum esse "omnium sacerdotum; beatissimum autem archiepiscopum Constantinopoleos novæ Romæ, secundum habere locum post sanctam apostolicam senioris Romæ sedem."

66

Having thus given a view of the different legal documents, in virtue of which the pope was constituted head of the church by the emperor Justinian, I shall now quote the original authorities for the grant of the emperor Phocas, in the year 606.

The first of these authorities is the historian Paulus Diaconus.

In his work, De Gestis Longobardorum, lib. IV. cap. 36, is the following passage:

66

"Phocas igitur, ut præmissum est, extincto Mauricio, ejusque filiis "Romanorum regnum invadens, per octo annorum curricula principatus est. Hic, rogante Papa Bonefacio, statuit sedem Romanæ "et apostolicæ ecclesiæ caput esse omnium ecclesiarum, quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat.” Diaconus writes to the same purpose in his work, De Gestis Romanorum ad Eutropii Historiam Additus, lib. XVII. "Hic (Phocas), rogante Papa Bonefacio, statuit sedem Romanæ ecclesiæ, ut caput "esset omnium ecclesiarum: quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana pri·66 mam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat."

66

Anastasius writes as follows in his Historia Ecclesiastica et de Vitis Pontificum, P. II. p. 44. cap. 3. Bonefacius III. Anno Christi 606. Phocæ Imp. 4.

Bonefacius, natione Romanus, ex patre Joanne Cabaudioce, sedit "menses octo, dies viginti octo. Hic obtinuit apud Phocam Principem, ut sedes apostolica beati Petri Apostoli caput esset omnium "ecclesiarum, id est, ecclesia Romana, quia ecclesia Constantinopo"litana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat."

I am not aware that any other original authorities for the grant of Phocas have been quoted. It will be observed that the above quotations, in themselves, are sufficiently meagre, and there is no appearance in them of any new title having been conferred by Phocas, but merely a confirmation of the one previously given by Justinian, which, in the contests for power between the bishops of Rome and

and the last in Asia. If one event were to happen upon Friday, and another upon Sunday, we should say that two days only intervened between the two events. If a sovereign succeeded to the throne of a particular kingdom in the year 1800, and died in 1810, we should say that he died after a reign of ten years.

But an Asiatic computes by current and not by complete time, and he would say, that three days intervened between the event which occurred on Friday, and that which happened on Sunday; and that the sovereign who succeeded to the throne in 1800, and died in 1810, reigned eleven years. Many examples of this mode of reckoning occur in the scriptures. Our Lord, it is well known, died on Friday and rose on Sunday, and he is uniformly in the scriptures said to have risen after three days. Our Lord's second appearance to his assembled disciples after his resurrection, is generally allowed to have been on the Lord's Day, as was his first appearance; yet the evangelist John tells us that his second appearance was eight days after the first.* Zedekiah is said, in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 11. and 2 Kings xxiv. 18.

Constantinople, may very probably have been in process of time disputed by the eastern patriarch. Here is also no original imperial decree or epistle, as in the time of Justinian; and I can scarcely conceive, that after reading the documents of Justinian, any impartial person who has no system to support will, on the meagre testimony of Diaconus and Anastasius, maintain that the papal supremacy had its origin in the reign of Phocas.

I ought to say, in concluding this note, that for the quotations given above, from Gravina and Anastasius, I am indebted to the kindness of friends, not having myself seen the works from which they are extracted.

* John xx. 19. 26.

to have reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: but it is plain from what is said in the following chapter of Kings, from the 3d to the 9th verses, that the eleven years of Zedekiah's reign were not complete years; and if we even suppose the first to have been a complete year, and that his reign began on the first day of it, yet it appears that he was dethroned and taken prisoner on the ninth day of the fourth month of the eleventh year of his reign; and that on the seventh day of the fifth month, the city and temple of Jerusalem were burnt to the ground by Nebuzaradan. In this instance then the sacred historian, reckoning by current and not by past time, denominates a period eleven years, which was, strictly speaking, only ten years four months and eight days. In like manner, the year of the jubilee was called the fiftieth year, though in complete time it was only the forty-ninth.* Indeed, I know not whether any example occurs in the Old or New Testament of a different mode of reckoning.

In computing prophetical time, I presume that it must be obvious to every one, that we ought to attend to those principles on which it hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit to reckon historical time. Following then the above mode of reckoning, if the twelve hundred and sixty years of Daniel and St. John commenced in the year of our Lord 533, they must have expired in the year 1792.

This, therefore, is the result of the application of history to the first proposition, that the twelve hundred and sixty years actually commenced in the year 533, and ended in 1792.

* Lev. xxv. 8-10.

P