Writing prior to 1870, Anglican Isaac Barrow quoted Baronius who, commenting on the power to restore any bishop excommunicated from the church or deposed from his office by ecclesiastical censure wrote:
“It is,” says
Baronius, “a privilege of the Church of Rome only, that a bishop deposed by a
synod may without another synod of a greater number be restored by the pope.” (Baron.,
ann. 449, § 127). (Isaac Barrow, A Treatise of the Pope’s Supremacy: To
Which is Added A Discourse Concerning the Unity of the Church [ed. Thomas M’Crie;
Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1852], 312)
Barrow then addresses and refutes the
following examples that are often cited, even today:
1. They pretend that
Pope Stephanus restored Basilides and Martialis, Spanish bishops, who had been
deposed; for which they quote St. Cyprian’s epistle, where he says, “Basilides
going to Rome, imposed upon our colleague Stephen, who lived a great way off,
and was ignorant of the truth of the matter, seeking unjustly to be restored to
his bishopric, from which he had justly been deposed (Cyprian, Epistle lxviii).
But we answer, The
pope attempted such a restitution by way of influence and testimony, not of
jurisdiction: wherefore the result of his act, in St Cyprian’s judgment, was
null and blamable, which could not be so deemed if he had acted as a judge; for
a favourable sentence, passed by just authority, is valid, and hardly liable to
censure (Epistle lv). The clergy of those places, notwithstanding that
pretended restitution, conceived those bishops incapable, and requested the the judgment of St Cyprian about it; which argue the pope’s judgement not to have
been peremptory and prevalent than in such cases. St. Cyprian denies the pope
of any other person to have power of restoring in such a case, and exhorts the
clergy to persist “in declining the communion of those bishops.” Well does
Rigaltius ask why they should write to St Cyprian if the judgment of Stephanus
were decisive; and he adds that indeed “the Spaniards appealed from the Roman
bishop to him of Carthage.” No wonder seeing the pope had no greater authority,
and probably St. Cyprian had the fairer reputation for wisdom and goodness.
Considering which things, what can they gain for this instance? Which, indeed, considerably
makes against them.
2. They allege the
restitution of Athanasius, and of others linked in cause with him by Pope
Julius. “He,” says Sozoman, “as having the care of all, by reason of the
dignity of his see, restored to each his own church” (Sos. iii.8).
I answer, The pope
did not restore them judicially, but declaratively,--that is, declaring his
approbation of their right and innocence, admitted them to communion. Julius,
in his own defence, alleged that Athanasius was not legally rejected, so that,
without any prejudice to the canons, he might receive him; and the doing it upon
this account plainly did not require any act of judgment (Sos. iii.8. Julii
Ep., apud Athen. in. Apol., ii).
Nay, it was necessary
to avow those bishops, as suffering in the cause of the common faith. Besides,
the pope’s proceeding was taxed and protested against as irregular; nor did he
defend it by virtue of a general power that he had judicially to rescind the
acts of synods. And, lastly, the restitution of Athanasius and the other bishops
had, no complete effect till it was confirmed by the synod of Sardica, backed
by the imperial authority, which in effect restored them. This instance,
therefore, is in many respects deficient as to their purpose.
3. They produce
Marcellus being restored by the same Julius (Soc. i. 36). But that instance,
beside the forementioned defects, hath this, that the pope was grievously
mistaken in the case; whence St Basil much blames him for his proceeding
therein (Bas., Ep. x).
4. They cite the
restitution of Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, by Pope Liberius, out of an
epistle of St Basil, where he says, “What the most blessed bishop Liberius
proposed to him, and to what he consented, we know not; only that he brought a
letter to the restored, and, upon showing it to the synod at Tyana, was
restored to his see” (Bas., Ep. lxxiv).
I answer, That restitution
was only from an invalid deposition by a synod of Arians at Melitene (Soz. iv.24),
importing only an acknowledgement of him, upon approbation of his faith
professed by him at Rome; which had such influence, to the satisfaction of the
diocesan synod at Tyans, that he was restored;--although, indeed, the Romans were
abused by him, he not being sound in faith; for “he now,” says St Basil, “destroys
that faith for which he was received,” (Bas., Ep. lxxiv), &c.
5. They adjoin that Theodoret
was restored by Pope Leo I., for in the Acts of the synod of Chalcedon it is
said that “he received his place from the bishop of Rome” (Act, i. p.
58).
I answer, The act of
Leo consisted in an approbation of the faith which Theodoret professed to hold,
and a reception of him to communion thereon (Syn. Chalc., Act. viii. p.
368); which he might well do, seeing the ground of Theodoret’s being disclaimed
was a misprision, that he, having opposed Cyril’s writings (judged orthodox),
erred in faith, consenting with Nestorious.
Theodoret’s state
before the second Ephesine synod is thus represented in the words of the
emperor: “Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, whom we have before commanded to mind only
his own church, we charge not to come to the holy synod, until, to the whole
synod assembled, it shall seem good that he come and bear his part in it” (Syn.
Chac., Act. i. p. 58). He was not perfectly deposed, as others were, who
had others substituted in their places (Liberat. Xii. Vid. Conc.
Chalc. part iii. p. 490. Theod. rescript.). He was deposed by the
Ephesine synod.
The pope was, indeed,
ready enough to assume the patronage of so very learned and worthy a man, who
in so very suppliant and respectful a way had addressed to him for succour; for
whom does not courtship mollify? And the majority of the synod, being inflamed
against Dioscorus and the Eutychian party, was ready enough to allow what the
pope did in favour of him. Yet a good part of the synod (the bishops of Egypt,
of Palestine, of Illyricum), notwithstanding the pope’s restitution,--that is,
his approbation in order thereto,--did stickle against his admission into the
synod, crying out, “Have mercy on us! The faith is destroyed! The canons
proscribe this man! Cast him out, cast out Nestorius’ master! (Ibid., p. 54) so
that the imperial agents were fain to compromise the business, permitting him
to sit in the synod as one whose case was dependent, but not in the notion of
one absolutely restored: “Theodoret’s presence shall prejudice no man, each one’s
right of impleading being reserved both to you and him” (Ibid.)
He therefore was not
entirely restored till, upon a clear and satisfactory profession of his faith,
he was acquitted by the judgement of the synod. The effectual restitution of
him proceeded from the emperor, who repealed the proceedings against him, as
himself doth acknowledge: “All these things,” says he, “has the most just
emperor evacuated” (Theod., Ep. cxxxix. ad Asperam) . . . To
these things he premised the redressing of my injuries (Ep. cxxxviii, ad
Anatol.)” And the imperial judges in the synod of Chalcedon join the
emperor in the restitution: “Let the most reverend Theodoret enter, and bear
his part in the synod, since the most holy archbishop Leo and sacred emperor
have restored his bishopric to him" (Act. i. p. 53). Hence it may
appear that the pope’s restitution of Theodoret was only opinionative,
dough-baked, [unfinished] incomplete; so that it is but a slim advantage which
their pretence can receive from it. (Ibid., 315-18)