right, his authority is not definitive, he is entitled to the highest respect and deference. Thus far, there is no difference of opinion among romancatholics; but here, they divaricate into the Transalpine and Cisalpine opinions.

(II.)-Difference between Transalpine and Cisalpine Doctrines, on the Temporal and Spiritual Power of the Pope.

THE great difference between the transalpine and cisalpine divines, on the power of the pope, formerly was, that the transalpine divines attributed to the pope a divine right to the exercise, indirect at least, of temporal power, for effecting a spiritual good; and, in consequence of it, held that the supreme power of every state was so far subject to the pope, that, when he deemed that the bad conduct of the sovereign rendered it essential to the good of the church, that he should reign no longer, the pope was authorized, by his divine commision, to deprive him of his sovereignty, and absolve his subjects from their obligation of allegiance; and that, even on ordinary occasions, the pope might enforce obedience to his spiritual legislation and jurisdiction, by civil penalties.-On the other hand, the cisalpine divines affirmed, that the pope had no right either to interfere in temporal concerns, or to enforce obedience to his spiritual legislation or jurisdiction, by temporal power; and consequently had no right to deprive a sovereign of his sovereignty, to absolve his subjects from their allegiance, or to enforce his spiritual authority over

either, by civil penalties. This difference of opinion exists now no longer, the transalpine divines having insensibly adopted, on this subject, the cisalpine opinions.

But, though on this important point, both parties are at last agreed, they still differ on others.

In spiritual concerns, the transalpine opinions ascribe to the pope a superiority, and controlling power over the whole church, should she oppose his decrees, and consequently over a general council, its representative; and the same superiority and controlling power, even in the ordinary course of business, over the canons of the universal church. They describe the pope, as the fountain of all ecclesiastical order, jurisdiction and dignity. They assign to him, the power of judging all person's in spiritual concerns; of calling all spiritual causes to his cognizance; of constituting, suspending and deposing bishops; of conferring all ecclesiastical dignities and benefices, in or out of his dominions, by paramount authority; of exempting individuals or communities from the jurisdiction of their prelates; of evoking to himself, or to judges appointed by him, any cause actually pending in an ecclesiastical court; and of receiving, immediately, appeals from all sentences of ecclesiastical courts, though they be inferior courts, from which there is a regular appeal to an intermediate superior court. They farther ascribe to the pope, the extraordinary prerogative of personal infallibility, when he undertakes to issue a solemn decision on any point of faith.

The cisalpines affirm, that in spirituals, the pope is subject, in doctrine and discipline, to the church, and to a general council representing her; that he is subject to the canons of the church, and cannot, except in an extreme case, dispense with them; that, even in such a case, his dispensation is subject to the judgment of the church; that the bishops derive their jurisdiction from God himself, immediately, and not derivatively through the pope; that he has no right to confer bishoprics, or other spiritual benefices of any kind, the patronage of which, by common right, prescription, concordat, or any other general rule of the church, is vested in another. They admit, that an appeal lies to the pope from the sentence of the metropolitan; but assert, that no appeal lies to the pope, and that he can evoke no cause to himself, during the intermediate process. They affirm, that a general council may, without, and even against the pope's consent, reform the church.-They deny his personal infallibility, and hold, that he may be deposed by the church, or a general council, for heresy or schism: and they admit, that in an extreme case*, where there is a great division of opinion, an appeal lies from the pope to a future general council. The

* Instances of which, are, according to the account of Bossuet, so very rare, that it is scarcely possible to find true examples of such an extreme case in the course of several ages. "Ce qu'il y a de principal, c'est, que les cas, auxquelles la France soutient le recours du pape au concile, sont "si rares, qu'à peine on peut en trouver de vrais exemples en "plusieurs siècles."-Lettre du Bossuet au Cardinal d'Estrées. Euvres de Bossuet, vol. ix. p. 272, ed. Ben.

66

reader will be informed in a subsequent part of the work, that certain questions on the power of the pope in temporal concerns were sent by the desire of Mr. Pitt, to several foreign universities for their opinions upon them. We shall transcribe, in the Appendix*, these questions and the answers given to them by the universities: the reader will thus have the whole subject before him.

II. 2.

Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and Papal Legates.

1. THE PATRIARCHS stand nearest to the chair of St. Peter. Before the seat of the Roman empire was transferred to Constantinople, the church had the three patriarchs of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Three dioceses were independent of them, and subject, each to its primate: that of Asia, to the primate of Ephesus; that of Thrace, to the primate of Heraclea; and that of Pontus, to the primate of Cesarea. After the translation of the seat of empire to Constantinople, the bishops of that city rose to importance: by degrees they acquired ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Thrace, Asia and Pontus, and were elevated to the rank of patriarchs. The same rank was afterwards conferred on the bishop of Jerusalem. In the course of time, the patriarch of Constantinople raised himself above the other oriental prelates, and finally assumed the title of oecumenical or universal patriarch. The popes opposed this attempt and preserved their * Appendix, Note II.

rank, so that, as Mr. Gibbon justly observes, "till "the great division of the church, the Roman "bishop had ever been respected by the oriental"ists, as the first of the five patriarchs."

After the separation of the Greek from the Latin church, the four oriental patriarchates ceased to exist: they are now represented by four churches in Rome; the patriarchate of Constantinople, by the church of St. Peter in the Vatican; the patriarchate of Alexandria, by the church of St. Paul; the patriarchate of Antioch, by the church of St. Mary the greater; and the patriarchate of Jerusalem by the church of St. Laurence. The pope continues patriarch of the west, and his patriarchate is represented by the church of St. John Laterant. Subsequent to these, are the much more modern patriarchates of Vienna, Lisbon, the Indies, Cilicia and Armenia, Grado, since transferred to Venice, and Aquileia; but the actual existence of the last is, at best, very doubtful.

Patriarchates in the church are analogous to dioceses in the Roman empire: the governor of a diocese had temporal jurisdiction over several provinces; a patriarch has ecclesiastical jurisdiction over several sees.

2. PRIMATES were unknown in the empire of the east; they emanated, in the western empire, from the pope, and were supposed to possess some

* History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, esq. vol. 6, quarto, p. 400.

+ See Onuphrius de Episcopatibus, Titulis et Diaconiis Cardinalium.