supremacy of the Patriarch of the Western Church; whilst, subsequently to the Reformation, we find that no contrary practice has grown up in regard either to those states which have continued in ecclesiastical communion with the Holy See, or those which have renounced such communion. It is difficult to understand how a principle of such importance, if it involved a spiritual question, should never have been asserted by the Pope in his relations with sovereign princes, who have professedly acknowledged and recognised the spiritual supremacy of the Holy See, and that meanwhile a use and practice should have intervened, which has shifted the matter altogether from its foundations on abstract principle. necessity of protection at the hands of the territorial sovereign has introduced the right of consent on his part, and the practice of Europe has established it.

The

91

CHAP. IV.

MR. BOWYER, in discussing the question whether the rights of the nation and the sovereignty of the Crown have been violated, says, that "the erection of Bishoprics is an integral and essential part of the exercise of the Pope's spiritual authority, as the only primary source of spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the centre of Catholic unity on earth. How then can it be said, that by erecting Bishoprics in England, the Pope has exceeded his legally recognised and admitted spiritual power, and exercised a civil or temporal jurisdiction or authority ?"

The answer to Mr. Bowyer's question, after the survey in the preceding chapter of the practice which has obtained in Europe, is obvious. We have seen that in Roman Catholic countries, as Mr. Bowyer himself admits, new Bishoprics are not created by the Pope's authority without the consent of the Government. We have seen that in countries not in Ecclesiastical Communion with the Church of Rome, the temporal power has claimed and exercised a control over the erection of Episcopal Sees. It has either not consented to the Roman Catholic Church being normally constituted under a territorial hierarchy, in which case the spiritual affairs of the Roman Catholic body have been administered by Vicars Apostolic of the Holy See, or it has consented, and in that case exercised its voice in some mode or

other, either directly by way of "Concordat" with the See of Rome, or indirectly by means of diplomatic negotiations, in settling the territorial basis of the Episcopal Constitution.

It may be useful here to notice an objection which has been thought to be of weight, that the Bishoprics which the Pope has erected, are not territorial in a sense, which concerns the sovereignty or dominium eminens of the Crown. An answer to this remark seems to be suggested at once by Dr. Wiseman's own statement, that the new Bishops are Bishops belonging to the country, and that they are immoveable by the Pope, unlike the Vicars Apostolic, who were unconnected with the country, and revocable ad nutum Pontificis. Either the epithet territorial is altogether inadmissible in regard to Bishoprics, or the Bishops created by the Papal Brief are not improperly classed under that head, as exercising jurisdiction within the territory from which they take their titles. Titular Bishops, on the other hand, have a barren title; they possess the episcopal character and dignity, but have no territorial relation, as Bishops, to the land wherein they accidentally exercise episcopal functions.

A territorial dukedom and a titular dukedom are distinctions which import a well-known difference. A territorial duke has temporal jurisdiction in the territory from which he takes his title: whereas a titular duke has the title, but no territorial attributions. A territorial dukedom does not necessarily carry with it "some tangible possession of something solid," but only the exercise of certain rights and privileges quá the territory and its inhabitants are concerned. A territorial duke is not necessarily a pro

prietary duke; on the contrary, he may be dependent for " ways and means" altogether upon the supplies which the inhabitants furnish to him. So likewise a territorial Bishopric, as distinguished from a titular Bishopric, needs not imply a tangible possession of the land, or any right of property in it, but only the exercise of jurisdiction quâ the territory, from which the Bishop is entitled, and its inhabitants are concerned; and a territorial Bishop may be as dependent upon the contributions of the faithful as a titular Bishop.

Dr. Wiseman speaks of local Bishops, which is a convenient expression; yet, if it were courteous to cavil at the phrase, it might be said that all Bishops are Bishops of some place or other. Titular Bishops, for instance, are ordained to the title of a place, where a Church is supposed still to exist, so that "local" would be rather a generic than a specific term. The ancient titular Bishops, against whom Archbishop Anselm complained so loudly in a letter to one of the Irish kings, "Dicitur Episcopos in terra vestrâ passim eligi, et sine certo Episcopatûs loco constitui," are supposed to have been rather abusive Bishops, or in the nature of Chor-Episcopi, a species, it is thought, of suffragan Bishops. On the other hand, the English suffragan Bishops, appointed under 26 Hen. 8. c. 14., were as much local Bishops as the ordinary Bishops; for these Suffragans had English Sees, and might have been aptly styled local Suffragans, in contradistinction to titular Suffragans, such as the Suffragans of the ordinary Bishops in Prussia who are consecrated Bishops in partibus.

The statute 26 Hen. 8. c. 14., deserves a cursory notice. By that Act it was provided, that twenty

five Towns in England and Scotland, and the Isle of Wight in addition, should be taken and accepted for Sees of suffragan Bishops: that the Archbishops and Bishops in ordinary should severally have the power, if they so pleased, to select two honest and discreet spiritual persons to be named by them for Suffragans, and should present them to the King, who should have the power to give to one of those persons the style, title, and name of a Bishop of such of the Sees aforesaid, as the King should think fit, provided it be within the same province, "whereof the Bishop, that doth name, is." Letters Patent were thereupon to be issued under the Great Seal, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury or York, as the province might be, signifying the name of the person presented, and the style and title of dignity of Bishopric whereunto he shall be nominated, requiring the Archbishop to consecrate the said person so nominated and presented to the same name, title, style, and dignity of Bishop that he shall be nominated or presented unto. It was further provided, that these Suffragans should not use, have, or execute any jurisdiction, or episcopal power or authority within their Sees, but such only as they should be licensed to use by any Archbishop or Bishop of this realm, within their diocese, to whom they shall be Suffragans. This Act is still in force, having been repealed by 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8., but revived by 1 Eliz. c. 1. A curious question may accordingly arise upon its construction, in conjunction with the Roman Catholic Relief Act. Shrewsbury and Nottingham are amongst the twenty-five towns which are to be taken and accepted for Sees of Suffragan Bishops, but they are likewise towns which the Pope has erected into Sees for his Ordinary