two spouses, the words can only be taken to imply that the Pope is the bridegroom-general for each and every diocese, consequently is properly speaking its only authorised bishop, and the resident bishop becomes merely a dependent of the Pope, an acting intermediary, charged with some of his powers.1 But as far as this metaphor of marriage is concerned, it is only a metaphor, and the same conclusions cannot be drawn about the mystical spiritual marriage of a bishop with his diocese as about the natural marriage of a man and woman.2 In this sense each see must have two spouses-Christ and the bishop. When the Apostles constituted their disciples, Timothy, Titus, and the rest, bishops of certain places, they still exercising their apostolic supremacy, each of these Churches must have had several spouses. The parish priest may also be considered as spiritually espoused to his parish; but this parish forming part of the diocese partakes in the general relation of the latter to the bishop. Secondly, if there were in the same diocese two men having the same spiritual power it would, of course, be irregular and abnormal; but it is not so of two powers existing at the same time, of which one is subordinate to the other. The parish priest also has an ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, which is subordinate to the bishop, and does not exclude his jurisdiction.3 Bishops have an ordinary and immediate jurisdiction, which is also subordinate. Just as a judge of a court in which cases are first heard is not the less truly a judge because over him are other judges of higher courts, so a bishop is not the less truly a bishop because he is subordinate to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.

The Pope has been compared by St. Thomas Aquinas to a king in his kingdom, the bishops to the judges in their special cities. As a king may for just causes (for government should, according to St. Thomas, never be arbitrary) displace a judge from his office, so the Pope, when the safety of the Church demands it, can remove a bishop from his see, as Pius VII. did in France after the Concordat of 1801. A king may limit the powers of a judge, and the Pope may, by reservations, partitions of dioceses, and other measures, limit episcopal jurisdiction.6

As a king imparts of his own full powers authority to his inferior officers, so the Pope may by his supreme authority transfer full powers to the bishops, in which case the bishops, as the Council of Trent teaches, may act as delegates of the Holy See.

1 Berchtold, pp. 7, 8.

2 Innocent III., following still earlier usage, often has recourse to this metaphor, especially about the translation of bishops, for example : 1. i. Ep. 326, 335, 447, 490, l. ii. Ep. 278, pp. 291, 306, 422, 456, 845, c. ii. vii. de Translat. Episcop. i. 7, and even calls the spiritual bond in a certain sense fortius quam carnale, that can only be loosed by divina auctoritate (per Christi vicarium). But the translation of bishops shows that this vinculum spirituale can be loosed. Salmeron (Andries, Alph. Salmeronis Doctrina, p. 192) says: Vinculum episcopi cum sua ecclesia, quantum est ex parte utriusque, indivisibile esse deberet; sed quia Ecclesiae aedificatio exigebat, ut ex variis causis solveretur voluit Deus, ut solubile esset per suum vicarium.' In relation to another matter, Salmeron uses this comparison, p. 237: 'Sicut copula matrimonii non tollet vinculum matrimonii, novum inducendo, sed firmat antiquum; ita etiam consecratio non inducit novam et superfluam jurisdictionem . . . . sed stabilit antiquam datam a Papa (confirmante) ante consecrationem.' In the act of appointment of the bishop the Pope appears as ratifying the bond in the place of Christ.

3 In their censure upon the work entitled La Défense de l'Autorité de N.S. le Pape, par J. de Vernant, Metz, 1658, the Sorbonne made this statement in reference to the proposition, p. 44: Les curés ne sont pas immédiatement établis de Jésus-Christ,' and similar ones, pp. 46 seq., 448, 478: Hae propositiones, quatenus asserunt vel inferunt potestatem jurisdictionis curatorum non esse immediate a Christo, quantum ad institutionem primariam, falsae sunt et decretis S. Facultatis contrariae, salva semper immediata episcoporum in praelatos minores seu curatos et plebem subditam auctoritate' (Du Plessis, t. iii. P. i. p. 104). And in 1735 the Sorbonne said: 'Propositio quae tollit ab episcopo immediatum regimen parochiarum suae dioeceseos est ministerii episcopalis eversiva et Verbo Dei contraria' (ib. p. 214).

Thom. in l. iv. d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, sol. 5, ad 3: Inconveniens esset, si dno aequaliter super eamdem plebem constituerentur, sed quod duo, quorum unus est alio principalior, super eamdem plebem constituantur, non est inconveniens, et secundum hoc super eamdem plebem immediate sunt et sacerdos parochialis et episcopus et Papa.'

5 S. Thom. in lib. iv. sent. d. 20, q. 4, a. 3, ad 3, quaestiunc 4, sol. 3: Papa habet plenitudinem potestatis pontificalis quasi rex in regno, episcopi vero assumuntur in partem sollicitudinis quasi judices singulis civitatibus praepositi.' Cf. in 1. ii. dist. et q. ult.: Sicut se habet potestas Dei ad omnem potestatem proconsulis: sic etiam se habet potestas Papae ad omnem potestatem spiritualem in Ecclesia.' Turrecrem. Sum. de Eccl. 1. ii. c. lxiv.

Cf. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, v. § 220, p. 339 seq.

§ 4.

But this comparison has been violently attacked, because it is said to repudiate altogether the divine constitution of the episcopate as well as the continuance, if not the right, of any apostolic succession.

To this we reply, first, that a comparison should never be stretched beyond the point of comparison, which in this case is the extension of power, and the question of the origin of the power is wide of the mark; secondly, that we must never forget to make the distinction between the divine institution of the episcopate and the appointment of each individual bishop, as well as to distinguish between the succession of bishops in the episcopate and that in the apostolate properly so called.

Bishops are, indeed, successors of the Apostles, as we learn from the Councils of the Vatican and of Trent, but this does not mean that everything that appertained to each individual Apostle appertains also to each individual bishop, each having the same supreme power. They are their successors, not as being the immediate witnesses and ambassadors of Christ furnished with extraordinary powers, but only as ordinary pastors and guardians of the Church. The individual bishop is not the successor of an Apostle as the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter; but the congregation of bishops with the Pope at its head is the successor of the College of Apostles. The Apostles were not limited to any particular space in the exercise of their power; the bishops are limited to their dioceses, and this limitation is an arrangement rendered necessary by the constitution of the Church. The opinion of theologians is divided upon the question of how far the episcopal authority is derived immediately from God; and this we proceed to inquire into more closely.

The Sorbonne in 1617 censured as follows the proposition of M. A. de Dominis (De Rep. Chr. 1. ii. c. i. n. 9, 13, 15), Prop. xiv.: Sicut Apostoli simul et in solidum aristocratice curam gerebant Ecclesiae cum potestate aequali et universali, ita episcopi omnes simul et in solidum eandem regunt Ecclesiam, singuli cum plena potestate. Haec prop, est haeretica et schismatica quoad ultima verba “singuli cum plena potestate."' Prop. xv.: 'Episcopi dicuntur Apostolorum successores, quia in

eorum officio, quod erat Apostolorum omnium commune, succedunt omnes omnibus in solidum. Haec prop. est haeretica et schismatica cum agat de jurisdictionis apostolicae potestate.' Prop. xvi.: In potestate universali succedunt episcopi non modo universi, sed etiam singuli. Haec prop. haeretica est et schismatica, ut duae praecedentes' (Du Plessis, Coll. Jud. t. ii. P. ii. p. 106).

Phillips treats this subject in detail, Kirchenrecht, i. § 23, p. 167 seq. Passaglia, de Ecclesia Christi, lib. iii. c. ix. seq., c. xxviii. seq., pp. 124 seq., 329 seq. Cf. Alex. Halens, p. 4, q. 49, membr. 6, a. 3, § 2. Thom. in l. iv. sent. d. 19, q. 1, a. 3, ad 1. Cajetan, t. i. tract. 3, pp. 42, 43. Dom. a Soto, in l. iv. d. 20, q. 1, a. 2. Bellarmin. de Rom. Pontif. 1. iv. c. xxv. Petav. de Eccl. Hierarch. 1. i. c. v.; 1. iv. c. vii. Suarez, de Fide, disp. 10, sect. 1, n. 4. Pignatelli, Consult. Canon. t. i. cons. 14, n. 3 seq. p. 19 seq. Natal. Alexander, H. E. saec. 1, diss. iv. § 4, n. 3, ad 3, t. iv. p. 240. Petrus Ballerini, de Potest. Eccles. c. i. § 4, p. 15 seq. ed. Monast. Schenkl, Syntagma Jur. Eccles. Salisb. 1786, § 36, note 2. Card. Gerdil, Apolog. Compend. del Breve super Soliditate, Opp. ed. Rom. xiii. pp. 135, 136. Also Pichler, Gesch. der Kirchl. Trennung, ii. p. 587 seq. § 6.

* Gerdil, Animadv. in Febron. posit. xxv. Opp. xiii. 305: Equidem positi sunt episcopi regere Ecclesiam Dei, non ut singuli toti Ecclesiae regendae incumberent omniaque munia; quae ad Ecclesiae regimen pertinent, singuli obirent, quod sine perturbatissima confusione fieri non posset, sed ut singuli eam portionem regerent, quae sibi cuique obtigisset, idque non privato cujusque judicio et arbitrio, quod nunquam licuit, sed ex legibus, quibus ecclesiastica disciplina continetur, atque ex ejus supremi capitis auctoritate, quam ad continendos in ordine et officio episcopas atque ad unitatis vinculum constringendum prorsus necessariam Barthelius agnovit.' Against Sarpi's theory, vid. Pallavicini, Hist. Conc. Trid. 1. vi. c. iii. n. 1 seq.; 1. xii. c. iii. n. 1 seq. Cf. also Bolgeni, l'Episcopato, t. i. c. vi. art. 3, p. 212 seq. ed. Orvieto, 1837.

Gerson, de Potestate Eccles. Opp. ii. p. 238, de Statibus Eccles. Consid. 2: Status praelationis episcopalis in Ecclesia quoad sui collationem primariam fuit immediate a Christo datus primis Apostolis, sicut status papalis Petro, licet postmodum talis collatio fieri potuerit et facta sit in successoribus per homines.'

PART II. HOW FAR EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IS DERIVED

IMMEDIATELY FROM GOD.

§ 1. Distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. § 2. Jurisdiction received from the Pope; Council of Trent. § 3. Formula of preconisation. § 4. Opinion of theologians. § 5. Lainez. § 6. Objections answered. § 7. The appointment of bishops. § 8. The Councils of Florence and Basle; authority of the Councils. § 9. Bishops not merely advisers, but judges. § 10. Neither the Vatican Council nor the Council of Trent has decided whether episcopal jurisdiction is derived from the Pope or immediately from God.

1

$1.

There is a distinction made in the Church between the power of order (potestas ordinis) and the power of jurisdiction (potestas jurisdictionis). The first is conferred by consecration, the second by the mere appointment. He who dispenses the power of order is only an instrument, but in imparting the power of jurisdiction he exercises authority and dominion. The former can neither be changed nor lost; the latter can be changed, restricted, or removed. If an heretical bishop exercises his power of order-that is if he baptises, or ordains, or says Mass-these acts are all valid, whilst acts of jurisdiction exercised by such a one are invalid," because the power has been withdrawn from him. If, for example, a suspended priest dispenses the Sacrament of Penance, his absolution is generally invalid, because in dispensing the Sacrament of Penance he exercises not merely the priestly power, but also the power of jurisdiction, and of this his suspension has deprived him. Further, the episcopal power of order can exist without the power of jurisdiction, as, for example, in the case of a bishop consecrated merely for episcopal acts.* And conversely, jurisdiction can be exercised without orders, as by a vicar capitular in a vacant see, or by a bishop nominated by the Pope, but not yet consecrated.+

By ecclesiastical laws, by Councils, and by the Pope, the power of bishops in the matter of jurisdiction may undergo, and has undergone, many changes. But that which is received immediately from Christ must be abiding and unchangeable. Theologians teach that the power of order of bishops proceeds immediately from God; not so the power of jurisdiction, for this it is given to men to confer. If the power of order and the power of jurisdiction were indivisible, if the latter were contained in the former, or both were equal in origin, the power of jurisdiction in the case of all bishops must be equal as the power of order is equal; there could be no metropolitans or patriarchs, and the power of jurisdiction could no more be lost than the power of order. The episcopal power of jurisdiction

* i.e. Confirmation, ordination, and certain blessings.