conclusion " that the Roman bishops not only claimed the highest authority in all ecclesiastical matters since the first times of Christianity, but that these preten- sions, founded on Christ's declarations, were acknowl- edged by the whole Church, especially by the episco- pate" (see Phillips, Kirchenrecht, p. 156). This is not the place to show, by the history of the Roman bishops of the first centuries, how indefensible such an assump- tion must appear: we must leave this to the special ar- ticles of this work, contenting ourselves with calling the attention of the reader to the principal features of the development of the primacy.
Among the numerous works written on the subject, we mention in favor of it: Bibliotheca maxima Poniifi- cia, in qua authores melioris notce qui hactenus pro S. Romana Sede scripseritnf,fe7-e omnes continentur, promo- vente Fr. H. Tom. de Roceaberti (Roma'. 1689. 21 vols. fol.) ; A. Daude, Majestas Hierarchies cul. Summi Ponli- Jicis (Bamb. 1.761, 2 vols. 4to); Pet. Ballerini, De Vi ac Ratione Primatus, etc. (Augsb. 1770, 2 vols. 4to ; ed. nov. by Westhoff ) ; J. Roskovany, J>e Primatu Romani Puntifcis ejusqve Jurihus (ibid. 1834, 8vo); Rothensee, Der Primat des Papstes in alien Jalirhunderien, heraus- yeyeben von Rdss nud Weiss (Mainz, 183G, 4 vols. 8vo). Against it : Ellendorf. Der Primat ,1, ,- i i'anisiln u Pupste (Darmst. 1841 and 184G, 2 vols. 8vo) ; Barruel, Dtt Pape et ses Droits reliyieux (Paris, 1803) ; Le Maistre, Du Pape (ibid. 1820); Gosselin, Pouvoir du Pape au Moyen Age (Louvain, 1845, 2 vols. 8vo). These and other works have been extensively used by Phillips in his Canon Laic, the fifth volume of which (Ratisbon, 1857) is entirely devoted to the subject of primacy.
Generally the testimony of Irenauis (d. 202) and of Cyprian (d. 258) are specially invoked to show that the primacy of the Roman bishops was accepted in the 2d century. But the former (Adversus Hans. lib. iii, cap. iii), in order to demonstrate the truth of the Catholic doctrine, appeals to the tradition of all the sees found- ed by the apostles; for Italy and the West, he names especially Rome as being the only Occidental see of undisputed apostolic foundation. The potior princi- palis mentioned by Irenanis designates the political situation of the city, which could not fail to enhance its ecclesiastical importance. In the same way, Con- stantinople, at a later period, took the second place in the hierarchy, as being a second Rome (Concil. Con- s/an/iiK'p. aim. 381, can. 3; comp. Bickcll, Geschichte des Kiichenrecltts, i, 209 sq.). The ideas of Cyprian about the unity of the Church logically led to primacy, yet the relations he himself maintained to the Roman bishop do not imply the acknowledgment of a prerog- ative like that which is supposed to be advocated in his book De Unitate Ecclesice, and in his letters in favor of Rome. Its foundation by an apostle, and the authority of the first metropolis of the Roman empire, gave at an early period a great importance to the see of Rome; but the same importance is attributed to the bishop of Alexandria and of Antioch, in the 3d canon of the Council of Nice, in 325. At that council the Roman bishop did not exercise a higher authority than the other bishops. This is clearly shown by the acts of the council, signed by two presbyters, " instead of our pope," i.e. bishop (see Analecta Alcana — fragments re- lating to the Council of Nice — by Harris Cowpers [Lon- don and Edinburgh, 1857]). It was at a later period attempted to give can. 6 Nic. Cone, another form than the primitive by adding at the beginning the words "Quod ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum" (see Gieseler, Kirchengesch ichte, i, § 91). The struggle for the maintenance of the orthodox doctrine was ex- tremely advantageous to the bishops of Rome, and the Council of Sardica (343) emphasized most decidedly the pre-eminence of the Roman see in the Western Church : the Oriental bishops on that occasion protested and left the assembly. The resolutions of Sardica were not at once accepted even in the Western Church. At the request of the bishop Daraasus, and of a Roman
PRIMACY
58S
'PJMACY
synod of 378, the emperor Gratian issued a rescript in favor of Rome (Gieseler, I c. § 92, n. i). In W5 an edict of Valentin ian III proclaims the primacy of the bishop of Rome over t he whole Church— a primacy which, besides the higher rank over the bishops, in- cludes a supreme ecclesiastical legislation and jurisdic- tion. Tin- emperor founds this preference on the pri- macy of Peter ("sedis apostolicae primatum, sancti Petri meritum, qui princeps esl episcopalis corona"),
on the political importance of R ■ (" Romanse digni-
tas civitatis"), and on the Synod of Sardica i " sai rae sy-
iritas") (comp. Riehter, Kirckenrecht 6th ed. . g 22, ii. 3). Bui the Church ol the Easl was by no means subordinated to the Roman see; the Council of Chalcedon, 451, in can. 28, declares thai the see of Constantinople has the same privileges in the Eastern Church which in the Western Church belong to Rome (ri tact 7rpe<rj3ua airk/mvav r<{> fjjc viag Pw/ijyc aytio-('iTi;i '-a 'v<:>). If, in later times, the lirst place in the Roman empire is acknowledged to belong to Rome i c. 7. pr. c 8, C. de Summa Trimtafe ' i. 1 ] ; Jus- tinian, a. 533, No. ix. exxxi, <•. 2, a. 535, 545, etc.), this uas only a distinction of honor without any prac- tical consequences; fur the patriarch of Constantino- ple was also the highest instance (c. 29, C. de Episcop.