ence in such matters. Bishops were every where instituted by the various Metropolitans. But with the fifth century, when Christianity had become the received faith of the civilized world, the rule became established, that no new Bishoprics could be made without the consent of the Metropolitan Bishop, the Synod of the Province, the Prince, and the Pope.* In illustration of this rule, Thomassinus gives a series of examples, and shows, in regard to almost every country of Europe, that the assent of the Prince was a preliminary condition in the establishment of Bishops' Sees within his territory. To the same effect, Balsamon of Constantinople, Patriarch of Antioch, and so far representing the opinions of the Eastern Church, in his Commentary on the 60th Canon of the Council of Carthage, writes, towards the conclusion of the 12th century: "You must know that it is a canonical observance, that the districts of the Bishops shall remain undisturbed; but that new Bishops should be made in Dioceses which are subject to other Bishops 'is not permitted without the royal mandate, even if the Bishop in possession should consent a thousand times. For it has been synodically established, that not even a great Synod can make new Bishops without the royal permission. Other writers might be cited to

* "Novi nulli, temporibus his mediæ ætatis sæculo vi. vii. et viii., creabantur Episcopatus nisi de Metropolitani, Synodi Provincialis, Principis, et Papæ consensu.' Thomassinus, p. 1. l. i. c. 55.

↑ "Tu autem scias quod Episcoporum quidem regiones immotas manere, ut canonicum, servatur. Fieri autem Episcopos de novo in parochiis, quæ sunt aliis Episcopis subdita, sine regio mandato non permittitur, etiam si millies consenserit, qui eam habet, Episcopus. Synodice enim constitutum est, ut nec ipsa magna Synodus sine jussu regio posset novare Episcopos." Cf. Beveridge, Pandectæ Canonum, tom. i. p. 592.

Petrus de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, 1. iv.; Baronii Annales, passim.

the same effect, as the matter is not one of general speculation, but of historical fact.

On the other hand, it may be said that the Pope has at times created local, as distinguished from titular Bishops, mero motu suo, without having previously obtained the consent of the Prince of the land. There are doubtless a few instances of this kind to be found, chiefly in the North of Europe; but in these cases, the Legate of the Pope expressly claimed to act in the name, not only of the Pope, but of the Emperor, as Lord Paramount over the Princes of Northern Europe.*

It may, however, be safely said, that in all the chief states of Europe, even in the most Catholic, if Catholicism admits of degree, the consent of the Crown has been obtained as a preliminary measure; and in the Papal Rescripts for the erection of Sees which are preserved in the Bullarium Romanum, it is generally specified, particularly in later times, that it has taken place at the instance and demand of the Sovereign of the land. But further than this, when the question of right has been raised on the part of the Crown, the Pope has consented to retrace his steps, and has cancelled his previous act. A remarkable instance is to be found in Thomassinus, part 1. 1. i. c. 57. s. 7. The Duke of Savoy had, through the favour and influence of the Emperor Maximilian, obtained from Pope Leo X., in 1515, that the borough of Bresse should be made a city and the See of a Bishop. The diploma of the

*"Adelbertus Hamburgensis et ipse Episcopus ac Legatus pari saltem vigore explicuit Legationem suam, quâ Septentrionales omnes gentes complectebatur - frequens illud in ore habens, Duobus se dominis tantum obnoxium esse, Papæ et Imperatori. Itaque fidentius quandoque excitavit Cathedras regibus haudquaquam assentientibus."—Baronii Annales, anno 1067, quoted by Thomassinus, who adds, "Ea sane tempestate omnes illi ad Boream Reges Imperatorum potestati obnoxii quodammodo erant.”

Pope to that effect had been already issued; but on the expostulation of the French King it was recalled towards the close of the year, expressly because the King of France had not assented to it, nor the Archbishop of Lyons, from whose Province the new Diocese was to be subducted. The same Pontiff, six years afterwards, was once more induced to re-establish the suppressed Bishopric; but since that was done without the consent of the King of France, who succeeded shortly afterwards in re-establishing his dominion over Bresse, the latter succeeded without difficulty in persuading Paul III. to extinguish the See.

Nor has England been in any way an exception to the general rule. We learn from the historian Bede*, that Pope Gregory arranged with the Archbishop of Arles to ordain the missionary Augustine to the office of Bishop, on the condition of his having been first received by the English nation; and that it was Ethelbert, King of Kent, not the Roman Pontiff, who assigned to Augustine, on his second coming, as Bishop, the metropolitan city of Canterbury as his See. On a similar principle we find one of the earliest kings of England, Edward the Elder, the immediate successor of King Alfred, erecting in a National Council five new Sees, and Pope Formosus giving his subsequent confirmation to the King's Act. Again, in the reign of William the Norman, we find that the King's consent was obtained by Archbishop Lanfranc to the establishment of three episcopal Sees, in Chester, Salisbury, and Chichester. Again, in the reign of the second William, Anselm, the successor of Lanfranc, is described by a contemporary historian as

* Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, lib. i. ch. 23. and 26. Cf. Godwin de Præsulibus Angliæ, vox Cantuarensis.

"knowing that no new Bishopric could be instituted without the consent of the King, and the confirmation of the Pope*," and accordingly writing to Paschal II., in reference to the division of Lincoln into two Sees, that the King and Bishops of England had consented to the measure. In a similar manner it is stated by Matthew Paris, that King Henry I. converted the Abbey of Ely into a Bishop's See; and Matthew of Westminster recounts, that King Henry II. erected a See of Carlisle, and bestowed it upon his confessor. In both these cases the Pope's confirmation was no doubt required; on the other hand, the King on no occasion abdicated his authority as territorial sovereign.

Such then appears to have been the practice of Europe before the Reformation of the Church in England, and the publication of the Decrees of Trent. It remains to be seen whether any other practices. have grown up in Europe since the Reformation.

Here indeed a distinction at once suggests itself between states which continue to acknowledge the ecclesiastical supremacy of the See of Rome, and states which have protested against it, and renounced ecclesiastical communion with that See. In the former case the relations of the Holy See are for the most part regulated by the ancient practice before the Reformation, in the absence of any special treaty-engage ments in the form of "Concordats;" but in no case has there been any departure from the ancient rules, as to the consent of the Crown being a requisite condition for the erection of a Bishop's See. The Bullarium Romanum supplies ample evidence, that the

* "Anselmus, sciens præter Regium consensum et Romani Pontificis auctoritatem, novum Episcopatum nusquam rite institui posse, scribit, &c."-Eadmerus, Nov. Hist. ch. 4.

consent, nay the request, of the Sovereign, is still a condition precedent to the erection of an episcopal See within his territory, and the factum of such consent is, for the most part, although not always, recorded in the body of the Brief itself. The Bulls, or Letters Apostolic, as the case may be, generally, run in the form of " precibus annuere volentes, tamque pio desiderio satisfacere ipsius Philippi Regis*," or "piis igitur ejusdem Reginæ de Apostolica Sede optime meritæ votis annuere opportunum in Domino censentest," or to some similar purport, showing that the consent of the Crown is the foundation on which the Pope proceeds to deal with a foreign territory, and to assign a See within it to the newly created Bishop.

It remains for us to consider how far the practice may have undergone a change with respect to those States which have renounced ecclesiastical communion with the Roman See. These States may be distributed into two classes such as have entered into direct diplomatic relations with the See of Rome, and such as have held themselves completely aloof. The former class again divide themselves into such as have treaties with the Holy See by way of Concordat, and such as have made arrangements with the Pope by means of diplomatic negotiations. The kingdom of the Netherlands, as constituted by the treaty of Vienna, supplies an instance, perhaps the only one, of a Concordat between a Protestant prince and the Holy See. The convention between King William I. and Pope

* Bull of Paul IV., anno 1559, erecting various archiepiscopal and episcopal Sees in Belgium at the prayer of Philip II. of Spain. Bullarium, tom. iv. pars i. p. 360.

† Bull of Pius VII., anno 1806, erecting an episcopal See in the city of Leghorn, at the prayer of Maria Louisa, Queen of Hetruria. Bullarii Continuatio, tom. xiii. p. 64.