ceived decretal epistles from them. Therefore they must have been within the Roman patriarchate.

Answer. Polycarp of Smyrna, Dionysius of Alexandria, and many other bishops of the east, either resorted to Rome, or wrote to consult the bishop of Rome in difficult cases: but no one pretends that any part of the of the east was within the Roman patriarchate. Such applications merely implied respect for the Roman see, and confidence in the wisdom of its judg

ments.

V. Pope Siricius and his successors made the bishops of Thessalonica their vicars in Illyricum: Zosimus and his successors appointed the bishops of Arles vicars in France. Leo made Potentius vicar in Africa. Simplicius and his successors made the bishops of Seville vicars in Spain. Gregory made Augustine vicar in Britain. Therefore these provinces were all within the Roman patriarchate.

Answer. Pope Theodore sent a vicar into Palestine; Martin commissioned another for the east. Gregory VII. gave the pallium to the Latin patriarchs of the east: yet no one will pretend that these churches were within the patriarchate of Rome. Therefore the appointment of vicars in various countries of the west is no proof that the bishop of Rome was patriarch of those countries; but without doubt the pontiffs endeavoured by these means to acquire jurisdiction, and gradually succeeded; though it may be most reasonably denied that they did so under pretence of any right as patriarch; their claim being usually founded on their primacy in the church.

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE PROGRESS OF THE POWER OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF.

I HAVE already spoken of the various causes which from the beginning conferred on the church of Rome the chief place amongst christian churches. The number of its clergy and people, its wealth and charity, its apostolical origin, the purity of its faith, the greatness and dignity of the city of Rome, conspired to elevate this apostolical see in the estimation of the whole church. Hence from an early period many churches of Italy, and the adjoining isles, acknowledged the bishop of Rome as their patriarch; and his patriarchal privileges were confirmed by the œcumenical synod of Nice. The same causes which induced so many churches to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of Rome, led the remainder of the church throughout the world to regard the Roman see with great reverence, and to ask for its aid on many occasions. The power of that church arose naturally from the honour paid to it; and extended itself gradually, while men were ignorant of the results which would follow, and made no sufficient efforts to prevent them, by establishing definite principles and limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The immense fabric of the papal domination was established by three powers, which were slowly developed. First, the judicial power,

secondly, the legislative power, and thirdly, the executive power. It was confirmed by the temporal power of the popes, and by the monastic orders. These points I shall now examine *.

I. By the judicial power of the Roman see, I mean the power of acting as supreme judge in all causes. This power arose from appeals. It was very natural that when bishops or clergy were deprived of their benefices by the judgment of provincial synods, they should sometimes apply to the greatest and most powerful bishop of the universal church, in the hope of persuading him to advocate their cause, and to use his influence and authority for their restoration. Hence we find applications made to the Roman see from Spain in the third century, and in the fourth by S. Athanasius, and other eastern bishops. The Roman pontiffs always befriended those who thus sought their aid, and though their judgment was not absolutely binding, (having been rejected by the Spanish bishops, and the Eastern in several cases,) yet its influence was considerable; and the benefit which it had procured to the orthodox cause in contributing to the restoration of Athanasius, led the bishops of the council of Sardica, A. D. 343, to give somewhat of a formal and legislative establishment to the judicial authority of the Roman see. They decreed, that if any bishop condemned by a provincial synod, should appeal to the bishop of Rome, no successor should be ordained at once, but that the bishop of Rome should have power

a The principal authorities on which this review is founded are Barrow, Treatise on Pope's Supremacy; Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Disciplina; Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl.; and

Biblioth. des Auteurs; Fleury, Discours sur l'Histoire Ecclesiastique; De Hontheim; Febronius; Koch, Tableau des Révolut. de l'Europe, t. i; Van Espen, Jus Canonicum, &c.

to revise the cause, and, if he judged it reasonable, to direct a new trial in the neighbouring province. This canon, indeed, did not give the pontiff the power of himself judging any bishop in his tribunal at Rome; but it was a great step, as it invested him with a certain power of taking cognizance of episcopal causes; and though the canon was not received by the Eastern or the African churches, or generally in the west for some ages, it laid a foundation on which gradually a vast superstructure was raised. The emperor Valentinian, about A. D. 372, contributed still further to the same end, by issuing a decree that the bishop of Rome should judge all other bishops in the Roman empire, in order that they should not be brought before the temporal courts. The bishops of Italy, assembled at Rome about A. D. 379, returned their thanks to the emperors Gratian and Valentinian for this decree, little foreseeing the chains which they were forging for their own necks.

We find the Roman pontiffs thenceforward urging their claims at one time on the canon of Sardica, at another on the principle of the law of Valentinian, at another on the precedents in the case of Athanasius and the Eastern bishops. Yet in many instances churches refused to acknowledge these claims. Thus the African churches rejected the right of hearing appeals claimed by Pope Zosimus. The judgment of the pontiff was rejected by the Gallican bishops in the case of Chelidonius, and of Salonius and Sagittarius, bishops who had appealed from the decrees of Gallican synods. It was rejected by the English bishops in the case of Wilfrid, deposed from the see of York, and who had appealed to Rome. Still from continual exercise and perseverance, the pontifical power extended itself and acquired partisans; and in the ninth century pope Nicholas I.

maintained that the Roman pontiff had a right to take immediate cognizance of all causes of bishops, even to the exclusion of provincial synods, which had always hitherto judged bishops according to the canons of the universal church. To these canons were now opposed the spurious decretals forged in the preceding century, which were brought forward as the laws of the church during its most primitive ages. Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and the Gallican bishops, in vain attempted to deny the authenticity of these decretals. The age was unable to distinguish the marks of their forgery, and they established ere long in all the western church the principle, that the pontiff was the immediate and proper judge of all bishops whatever, with the power of summoning them before his tribunal.

But the principle thus established was capable of still further extension. The pontiffs accordingly claimed the power of judging the causes of the inferior clergy, whether already decided by local synods or not. Nicholas I. in the ninth century, assumed the power of reversing the judgments of synods in such cases: his successors, and particularly Gregory VII. encouraged direct applications from the clergy, and finally from the laity in all causes whatever to the Roman see. In fact the spurious decretals broadly and continually asserted this right. Several synods endeavoured in vain to check these innovations: the tribunals of Rome ultimately obtained all the emolument and power arising from the judgment of almost all the ecclesiastical causes of Europe. The pontiff was acknowledged in the thirteenth century, as the immediate and supreme judge of every christian.

II. The legislative power of the Roman see arose from the consultations of bishops in difficult cases, and from the practice of fraternal admonition.