That each newly elected bishop should pay homage to the head of the church, is an act of communion with the Holy See extremely commendable. That the nominator of this bishop should be expressly approved by the pope, is a practice calculated to draw closer the ties which ought to connect the first pastor with all the others. That the pope should even profit of this circumstance to examine the qualifications of the elected, and to remonstrate against an improper choice, is also a security of the honour of the clergy and the discreet administration of the dioceses; it is also a means of enlightening the religion of the prince, and providing against surprise or error. But, that the pope should refuse investiture to a prelate whom the sovereign thinks irreproachable, or that, from considerations foreign to the person of the individual elected, from motives merely political, or, because of certain differences between the sovereign and the pope, the latter should persevere in with-holding all canonical investiture; so criminal an abuse of a respectable office authorizes a reversion to the ancient privilege of nomination. We have collected, in concluding the tenth chapter, the principles professed on this head by the advocate general Talon at the close of the seven-, teenth century; about which time Bossuet traced the origin of bulls of investiture and acknowledged their novelty.³²⁸ “As the pope,” he says, “gives “bulls for the investiture of bishops, Bellarmin fixes “on this point, which he exhibits as an important “proof in favor of his opinion. But he does not “condescend to observe how modern this practice “is, and how often the church has united with the “Greeks and other Orientals, yet leaving them in “full possession of their ancient customs, and with− “out obliging them to look for bulls.... The church “of Carthage possessed the absolute right of or− “daining the bishops dependent on it, as also the “bishops of Ephesus, of Cesarea in Cappadocia, “and Heraclia. Our Gallic churches and those of “Spain enjoyed the same privilege.” ³²⁸ Def. of the Clergy of France, 1. 8. c. 15. These two authorities, Talon and Bossuet, might suffice; but it may not be useless to establish on this important point a chronological series of facts and of evidence.