3. The general nature of the office of the pope may be inferred from his reputed character as successor of St. Peter, and vicegerent of Christ on earth, whence follow all the powers necessary for the practical government of the church. hence he is held (1) to possess over the entire church, and each of its parts, a supreme authority, not indeed arbitrary, but regulated by the law of God and by the canons. He has power (2) to examine and decide authoritatively all controversies; (3) to convoke councils; (4) to revise and confirm their decrees; (5) to issue general decrees, whether upon discipline and morals, or upon doctrine; (6) he is the center of communion, separation from which involves the forfeiture of the communion of the whole church; (7) he has ultimate authority to appoint bishops in all parts of the church, and however this right may be exercised in the first instance, as by the sovereign, by the clergy,. or by a synod of bishops, it rests with him to confirm episcopal elections, no matter how made, and to grant "canonical institution," (8) he can also deprive bishops and set others in their place„and can even, in cases of great emergency, suppress bishoprics and change their limits according to existing requirements; (9) he has authority to judge of the doctrine taught in particular books, or by particular individuals, and to pronounce authoritatively as to its conformity with the Catholic faith, or the contrary. This privilege formed the subject of the great controversy with the Jansenists as to what are called " dogmatic facts." 4. All Catholics are agreed that the pope, as primate, possesses, by divine law, and in virtue of his office, full governing authority over the entire church. Of the exercise of such power they find traces in history from the earliest times. Roman Catholic his torians trace the history of the pope's primacy in St. Clement's letters to the church of Corinth, in the action taken by Victor in the Paschal controversy, and by Stephen and Cornelius in the controversy on rebaptizing heretics; in the deposition of 11Iarcian, bishop of Arles, at the instance of Cyprian, by pope Stephen ; in the leading part taken by the popes in the condemnation of Donatus and of the Pelagian heresy; and, perhaps, more than all, in the appeals made from various parts of the church by persons excom municated by their own bishops, and the rehearing at Rome of such causes, and the con firmation or reversal of the sentence according to the result of the trial. These several facts, however, although to Catholics they appear evidences of the papal supremacy, are explained by Protestant writers in a sense which does not suppose any permanent supremacy on the part of the Roman see, and which they hold to be reconcilable with the full independence of national churches; and it is admitted by Catholics themselves, while they contend that the instances to which they appeal imply a real exercise of pri macy from the beginning, that the details of that primacy have undergone a gradual and extensive development in the progress of the church. Up to the date of the late Vatican council great differences of opinion existed between the Galilean and the ultramontane schools as to the extent and nature of the papal authority, whether decrees of doc trine or in the government of the church. As to the former, all agreed that the judg ment of the pope, in concert with the body of bishops, was infallible; but they differed as to papal decrees on doctrine issued by the pope alone, ex catitedrti, and addressed to the whole church, although both agreed as to the duty of respectful obedience on the part of all, until the general sense of the church should have been ascertained; and should no reclamation on the part of the church take place, the decree of the pope was held to be, in the opinion of both the contending schools, as infallible; and the doctrine propounded therein was allowed to be recognized as a question of faith, which had been sanctioned with the ultimatum of infallibility. See GALLICANISM. But the ultramon
tanes held that a doctrinal decree issued, ex cathedra, is infallible, ipso facto, and inde. pendently of any reference to the church dispersed. As to the government of the church, the ultramontanes held the pope to be supreme, and thus to be superior to general councils, and independent of their decrees. The Gallicians, on the contrary, held that a general council is superior to the pope, and has power to bind him by its decrees. Further, the ultramontanes held that the pope is the source of all jurisdiction in the church, and that the bishops derive their powers through him from Christ. The Gallieans regarded the episcopal power as received directly from Christ by virtue of the episcopal office. This difference of opinion leads to many controversies of detail as to the respective rights and powers of the pope and the bishop in the several dioceses, regarding which it is only necessary to indicate the general ground of difference of opinion. With regard to all, it may be said that both on the question of infallibility and on all its practical consequences, the ultramontane view, although not in its most extreme form, has received the sanction of the late Vatican council. .
5. The chronology of the papacy in the 1st c. is very obscure. The enumerations in the ancient writers are imperfect, and they differ as to the exact order of succession. The two most ancient catalogues, those of Iremeus And Augustine, differ in more than one particular. The chief difficulty regards Liuus and Cletus. The former is believed to have been the vicegerent of Peter during the interval between his first coming to Rome and his final residence there. He would, therefore, have been at once the con temporary of Peter and his successor (though but for a very brief period). The diffi culty as to Cletus arises from the doubt whether he be the same person with Anacletus. We subjoin a catalogue drawn up after the most careful modern authorities, and arranged according to centuries: Protestants generally object to the list of popes given by Roman Catholics, that there is no absolutely conclusive evidence of the apostle Peter's ever having been at Rome; although most of them admit the probability that he was there, and suffered martyrdom there. But they deny that there is any evidence whatever of his having exercised the office of bishop either there or anywhere else. They call in question many other of the names and dates in the earlier part of the list, not so much disputing the existence of the persons named, as their exercise of the office of bishop in Rome, and still more their right to be considered bishops of Rome. According to Protestants in general, the papacy grew, by a gradual assumption of power, out of an ordinary bishopric, through the advan tage of metropolitan position and influence, and was afterward supported by the fable— as they deem it—of the see of St. Peter.