CHAPTER VI.

ON THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN SEE.

THOUGH it has been shown that the bishop of Rome has not, by divine or human right, any proper jurisdiction over the universal church, it would be equally unjust to that see, to the primitive church, and to ourselves, to deny or diminish the ancient legitimate privileges of the chair of St. Peter.

While all bishops are alike successors of the apostles, it cannot be denied that the bishops of metropolitan and patriarchal sees have influence and authority in the church generally, in proportion to the dignity of their churches: and therefore, the bishop of the elder Rome being bishop of the principal church, and being the first of the patriarchs, could not fail to have more authority amongst his colleagues, the catholic bishops, than any other prelate. The exalted station in which the providence of God had placed him, imposed on him a special obligation of exhorting his brethren to the observance of the sacred canons, and of resisting the progress of heresy by formal condemnations.

These acts of the Roman bishop might extend to the whole church. He might transmit such decrees in faith and morals to all bishops for their approbation. Such decrees ought to have been received with respect, though no bishop was bound to approve or act on them, unless they appeared conformable to the doctrine of the universal church.

It was not unreasonable that the Roman patriarch should make regulations in discipline for particular churches, when consulted and requested to do so by those churches he might even make such regulations unsolicited, provided it were understood that it was in the way of counsel or admonition, not in that of precept or command.

The authority of the Roman see rendered it fitting that in matters of controversy concerning the doctrine or unity of the whole church, the see of St. Peter should not be neglected; but that its aid should be sought to re-establish order and peace.

In cases of extreme danger and necessity, all catholic bishops are authorized to dispense, even with the laws of œcumenical synods. This privilege, therefore, could not be refused to the Roman bishop; and the authority of his see would even give his dispensation greater weight than that of other bishops. Hence would follow the expediency of obtaining that dispensation in some cases, where bishops desired some authority in addition to their own.

Whenever the bishop of Rome was actually in communion with the universal church, he would naturally be the centre of unity, because of his authority in the universal church, which would lead churches in every part of the world to communicate with him on many occasions; and thus churches remote from each other would be united by means of their intercourse with a common centre. But when the universal church is divided, and a great part is not in communion with the Roman see, it ceases to be the centre of unity.

Such are the privileges naturally flowing from, or connected with the precedence of the Roman patriarch in the universal church privileges which were not merely honorary, but which were calculated for the edification, not the subjugation of the church. In these privileges there was nothing of jurisdiction or coercive power; they arose not from divine institution, but were founded on reason, and on Christian charity. Happy would it have been, if this venerable and apostolical see had not afterwards transgressed its rightful authority, and assumed powers which disturbed the unity and subverted the discipline of the church. But on this I shall speak more fully hereafter. VOL. II.-64

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE PATRIARCHATE OF ROME,

TREVERN and other writers have pretended, that the British churches formed part of the Roman patriarchate; and, therefore, that the reformation of these churches being effected without the consent of their patriarch, was irregular and schismatical. Let us, therefore, consider briefly the real extent of the patriarchate of Rome.

I maintain that this patriarchate extends legitimately to the regions included in the ancient Roman suburbicarian provinces of Tuscia, Umbria, Valeria, Picenum, Latium, Samnium, Apulia, Calabria, Lucania, Brutia, with the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and others adjoining; and that it does not include the northern provinces of Italy, Africa, France, Spain, Germany, Britain, or any of the other northern and eastern churches.

I. The controversy has turned chiefly on the sixth canon of the synod of three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nice; or rather, on the version of it by Ruffinus, which is as follows: "That in Alexandria, and the city of Rome, the ancient custom be preserved, so that the one take the care of the Egyptian, the other of the suburbicarian churches." The ancient Latin version, published by Sirmond and Justel also explain the power of the Roman see, confirmed by this canon, to relate to the suburbicarian provinces.b

Benedict XIV. in his treatise "De Synodo Diocesana,"

"Ut apud Alexandriam, et in urbe Roma, vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Ægypti, vel hic Suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat." -Ruffin. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 6.

See Bingham, Antiquities, book ix. c. 1.

says that Schelstrate, Pagius, Carolus à S. Paulo, and others, commonly understand by the term "suburbicarian churches," not merely the province of Rome, but all the regions of the west, which obeyed the Roman pontiff as their patriarch: "since it is clear from the context, that the council of Nice and Ruffinus speak not of the metropolitical, but of the patriarchal right."

Since, therefore, it is agreed that the clause refers to the patriarchate of Rome, let us now see its more particular meaning. To suppose that the term "suburbicarian " means "all the west," is an absurdity. We might just as reasonably say that it signifies "the whole world." The etymology of the term suggests evidently the notion of vicinity to Rome. By Gothofred, Salmasius, and Cave, it is understood to be here applied to the churches within the civil jurisdiction of the "Præfectus Urbis," that is, within a hundred miles round the city. Sirmond, Bingham, and others, with more reason suppose the term to signify the churches within the district of the "Vicarius Urbicus," extending over the ten provinces of Italy and the islands enumerated above.d

It appears from the Notitia, and from other sources consulted by Bingham, that the sees of these provinces were very numerous, amounting to about 240, of which 110 were immediately related to the bishop of Rome as their metropolitan; while the remainder, though under their own metropolitans, were also, in many respects, subject to the power of the Roman see. Such is the real extent of the patriarchate of Rome, which gave that see a great authority in the catholic church.

This conclusion is confirmed by the sentiments of the most learned Roman theologians. Fleury, in allusion to the extensive correspondence of Gregory the Great on matters of discipline, says, "St. Gregory did not enter into this detail, except for the churches which depended particularly on the holy see, and

e Benedict XIV., De Synodo Diocesana, lib. ii. c. 2.

Bingham, Antiquities, ut supra.

which for this reason they termed suburbicarian: that is to say, those of the southern part of Italy, where he was the only archbishop; and those of Sicily and the other islands, although they had metropolitans. But we do not find that he exercised the same immediate power in the provinces dependent on Milan and Aquileia, nor in Spain or Gaul." Thomassin also understands the word "suburbicarian" to relate only to Italy and the adjacent islands. Dr. O'Conor says, that "as patriarch, the pope's jurisdiction did not interfere with that of the patriarchs of Milan or of Aquileia, so that they who have dubbed him patriarch of all the western world, are quite ignorant of ecclesiastical history.' ." Du Pin proves at length that the Roman patriarchate does not extend beyond the suburbicarian provinces of Italy and the islands, and refutes the various arguments adduced to the contrary by many other Roman theologians."h

II. The Roman bishop did not, for many centuries, exercise the powers of a patriarch in the western churches generally. According to Thomassin, presbyter of the Oratory, the privileges of a patriarch were as follows. First, to ordain all the metropolitans of their patriarchate, and many of the bishops; secondly, to judge those metropolitans; thirdly, to receive the appeals of bishops from metropolitans, and even those of presbyters and deacons; fourthly, to assemble councils of those subject to their patriarchate. From this it may be concluded that the Roman patriarchate does not extend beyond Italy and Sicily, for the following reasons.i

1. There is no instance of the metropolitans of Africa being ordained by the papal authority. On the contrary, it is plain that the bishops of Carthage were ordained by the synod of Africa. De Marca, archbishop of Paris, has proved that it was

• Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. viii. s. 41.

f Thomassin. Vet. et. Nov. Eccl. Discipl. t. i. lib. i. c. 8. s. 14. O'Conor, Letter iii. of Columbanus.

Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. Dissert. i. § 11. 14.

i Thomassin. t. i. lib. i. c. 9. s. 12-14.