cannot have any right in the way of jurisdiction or coercive power, to force them to obey the canons: but he may fraternally admonish them, and in case of their continuing incorrigible, may separate them from the communion of his church. The same right also belongs to all bishops of the catholic church, and does not infer any assumption of jurisdiction over other bishops, but merely the common interest which every christian pastor has in the welfare of the whole christian community.

Another privilege claimed for the Roman pontiff is, that nothing of importance should be transacted in the church, without referring to him. It has been shown above, that provincial synods were competent to take cognizance, not only of all causes relating to bishops, but even of controversies of faith and morals: and that it was the principle of the Gallican church, that bishops are jure divino, judges in controversies of faith. Therefore synods may act in the most important causes, as they have done in innumerable instances, without previously consulting the Roman pontiff; and if they inform him afterwards of their proceedings, which was usually done out of respect to that apostolic see, and that the chief bishop might make known their proceedings to other churches; this does not infer any jurisdiction in the Roman pontiff, but is merely an exercise of fraternal charity and communion: and the same notification was often made to other churches as well as to that of Rome.

IV. I have now shown, that according to doctrines avowed without censure in the Roman obedience, by the Gallican church, and by their most learned and eminent theologians, the Roman pontiff has not by divine right, any ordinary jurisdiction over the clergy

and people subject to other bishops. I have shown in the same manner, that he has no divine right to make laws of faith, morals, or discipline, compulsory on other bishops; that he cannot annul or derogate from such laws made by other bishops; that he has no divine right to judge or depose other bishops, either in the first instance, or on appeal; no divine right to reverse the judgments of provincial synods; to summon, preside in, or confirm oecumenical synods; to appoint, confirm, consecrate, translate, judge, or depose bishops; none to appoint coadjutors, or accept resignation of sees; none to erect new sees and metropoles; none to force bishops to observe the canons; none to be consulted on every measure of importance in the church. And hence it follows inevitably, that the Roman bishop has not, by divine right, any ordinary jurisdiction, properly so called, over the universal church; and that this conclusion is a sound and an orthodox conclusion, accordant with the doctrine of the Roman church itself.

It is vain to adduce, in reply to this, any instances, in which the Roman pontiffs are alleged to have exercised jurisdiction over other bishops, during the first five or six centuries. We do not deny that several such cases may be pointed out, in some of which the Roman pontiffs acted within their own patriarchate, in others exceeded their privileges, in others were justified by extraordinary circumstances, such as the prevalence of heresy; but these do not affect our argument, which is, that according to the most learned Roman theologians, the Roman pontiff did not generally or ordinarily exercise any jurisdiction over all other bishops. This being the case, he could not have possessed any such jurisdiction jure divino; for if he had, God would

not have permitted it to be usurped by others: the supposition would be inconsistent with the promises of Jesus Christ to be always with his church.

It is equally vain to allege, as the Ultramontanes do, that provincial synods and particular bishops exercised these powers in the first ages, by dispensation from the Roman see, because of the difficulty of communicating with that see in times of persecution. For not only is it a mere assumption, a baseless theory, that the provincial synods and bishops ever had any dispensation or permission from Rome for such acts; but it is plain, that the correspondence between all churches was never more frequent than in the time of persecution, as we may see by the writings of Cyprian alone; and further, that provincial synods and bishops remained in the full exercise of that jurisdiction which is now claimed for the Roman see, for many centuries after the church was relieved from persecution, and protected by christian princes.

Though, as I have observed, the argument of this chapter is not affected by the production of any instances of the exercise of jurisdiction in other churches by the Roman bishop, yet I shall briefly notice the principal examples adduced by Delahogue, Milner, Tournely, De La Luzerne, Bailly, Berington, and others.

OBJECTIONS.

Several of the Roman pontiffs at various times have exercised various acts of jurisdiction over other churches. (1) Victor excommunicated, or threatened to excommunicate the Asiatic churches, in consequence of their adherence to their custom of celebrating Easter. I reply, that the Asiatic churches did not obey the

pontiff's command, but retained their custom, until the council of Nice; and were acknowledged always as a portion of the catholic church. S. Irenæus and others blamed Victor for insisting on their adopting another custom. (2) Stephen of Rome excommunicated Cyprian and the African bishops for their practice in rebaptizing heretics. I answer, that the Africans retained their custom notwithstanding, and were in full communion with all the rest of the church. Therefore the church generally did not hold it necessary to obey the Roman pontiff's commands. (3) Cyprian wrote to pope Stephen urging him to depose Marcianus, a schismatical bishop of Gaul, and to appoint another bishop in his place. I answer with Du Pin, that he only requested him to write to the people of Arles and the Gallican bishops, to appoint another bishop in his stead; and that this does not infer any peculiar prerogative in the Roman bishop, but only a charitable solicitude for the welfare of the church. (4) Basilides and Martialis having been deposed in Spain, appealed to pope Stephen to be restored to their sees.

Answer. The clergy and people of Spain paid no regard to the judgment of the Roman see in their favour; and were approved and encouraged by St. Cyprian in so doing.

(5.) When certain persons represented to Dionysius of Rome, that Dionysius of Alexandria had taught heresy, the latter wrote an apology to clear himself. Therefore it was the opinion of both parties that the see of Rome had jurisdiction over the church of Alexandria.

a

Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. p. 146, &c. See Barrow, Pope's Supremacy, p. 714.

Du Pin, p. 151. Barrow, p. 720.

Answer. It was common in that age for individuals to appeal to other churches against bishops accused of false doctrine: thus the church of Antioch applied to Dionysius of Alexandria, Firmilian, and others, against Paul of Samosata. Such applications only inferred the common care of all bishops for the church of Christ ©.

(6.) Pope Julius restored to their sees St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza.

Answer. Athanasius had been compelled to escape from Alexandria to Rome in consequence of the persecution of the Arians, and had been irregularly condemned. Julius of Rome and a synod assembled at Rome, having heard his defence, acknowledged him as the legitimate bishop of Alexandria. There is no evidence that Julius restored him to his see: and it may be added, that this act of the Roman synod was not universally approved, and had no effect till the great synod of Sardica confirmed it". Nearly the same may be said of the other cases mentioned. It must be observed also, that these circumstances occurred in times of imminent danger to the church from the Arian heresy; and when the ordinary rules might be dispensed with.

(7.) Eustathius of Sebaste having been deposed by a synod of Acacians at Constantinople, and having been afterwards sent on a mission to pope Liberius, obtained from him letters of restoration to his see.

Answer. He was not restored to his see by Liberius, but received letters testifying the soundness of his faith, on which the synod of Tyana restored him to his see". (8.) St. John Chrysostom, having been unjustly de

e Ibid. p. 152.

d Ibid.

p. 721.

p. 158, 159. Barrow, • Ibid. p. 163.