Saturday, January 23, 2021

Anglican Isaac Barrow (1852) Addressing Instances of the Bishop of Rome Restoring People After Excommunication or their Deposal from Office

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)