The rights of individual clergymen are vindicated by the Apostolic See without prejudice to order, and the episcopal authority. Thus St. Gregory instructed Vitalis, the defensor of Sardinia, to unite justice with moderation: "If there be any who seek justice, the aid of the Apostolic See, through you, is not to be denied them. Yet reverence is to be observed for each bishop, so that the discipline of the clergy may not be relaxed by your defence."* He would have clergymen tried by their own bishops, and in case they lodged a complaint against their bishop, he directed the Defender to interpose for its settlement, or to procure the election of judges by mutual agreement. "If," he says, "the jurisdiction of each bishop is not maintained, what ensues but that the ecclesiastical order is disturbed by us, who should guard it ?" He even occasionally interposed to obtain for priests some favor which they desired. He wrote to the bishop of Syracuse, in behalf of Cosmas, who had been a monk, and was afterwards subdeacon in the city of Syracuse, but on his promotion to the priesthood, was sent to a country charge, and he suggested that it would be a great act of kindness to attach him to the Church of Syracuse, as he was melancholy in his actual situation. To the bishop of Palermo, at the solicitation of the clergy, Gregory wrote to urge the fulfilment of the stipulations made with them, and admonished him not easily to believe reports to their prejudice, but to examine the charges in presence of the elder clergy.§ On the return of Exhilaratus, bishop of the same See, where the Pope had detained him in punishment of his severity to his clergy, Gregory wrote to the Defender to be attentive, lest the bishop should treat the clergy unjustly, and to use his authority that these should respect their prelate. When an Abbot alleged that he had been deposed without fault on his part by the bishop of Cesena, Gregory wrote to the bishop of Ravenna, directing him to ascertain the fact, and reinstate him, if he had been unjustly deposed.T *L. ix. ep. lxiv. $ Ep. xliv. † L. xi. ep. xxxvii. L. xiii. ep. xxviii. ¶ L. xiv. ep. vi. 187 CHAPTER XII. DEPOSITION OF BISHOPS. THE office of bishop is perpetual, a sacred character, which can never be effaced, being impressed in ordination: yet the exercise of the power may be for just causes inhibited, and the governing authority, or jurisdiction, may be entirely taken away. The eminence of the dignity, which is no less than that of successor of the apostles, does not secure him who is adorned with it, from the danger of error, should he listen to the whisperings of pride, rather than guard that which is committed to his trust, or of vice, if he be neglectful of the approaches of temptation. For this reason the apostle addressed strong exhortations to Timothy and Titus, to fulfil the duties of their sacred office, and instructed them in what circumstances they should receive accusations. The power of suspending bishops from the exercise of their functions, or of removing them altogether from the ministry, is among the most awful and sublime functions of the higher ecclesiastical dignitaries. In the early ages it was exercised by metropolitans, or other superiors, especially in councils, where the collection of bishops judged and deposed the delinquents. Territorial limits were not always accurately observed, especially where one of the patriarchs intervened, whose high rank gave a coloring of authority even to acts performed beyond the province in which he presided. Thus Flacillus, bishop of Antioch, presided at a Council in which Athanasius of Alexandria was condemned, and Theophilus of Alexandria undertook to try and depose Chrysostom of Constantinople, who, however, protested against his authority. The power was at all times exercised by the Roman Bishop in a manner to leave no room for doubt, that he claimed authority to judge and punish by censure all bishops, even the patriarchs themselves, and that he grounded his claims on his office as successor of Peter. These claims were put forward with entire confidence, as admitting of no question, and the exercise of the power was implored by bishops occupying the highest Sees, and it was submitted to by those against whom it was exercised, or if resisted, resistance was ineffectual. St. Leo, in his instructions to his Vicar in Illyricum, directed that cases of difficulty and importance should be reserved to his own judgment:* whence Bianchi maintains that the deposition of bishops was from that time reserved to the Holy See. The reservation was well established in the ninth century, since the Council of Troyes implored Nicholas I. to provide for the dignity of the episcopal office, by restraining metropolitans who sometimes attempted to depose bishops without the Apostolic judgment, contrary to the decrees of his predecessors.‡ The deposition of Rothade, bishop of Soissons by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, gave occasion to this complaint, and Nicholas rescinded it as unjust, and done without his knowledge. I have elsewhere briefly narrated the origin of the schism of Novatian. I shall now state in the words of archbishop Potter, of the Anglican communion, the punishment inflicted by the lawful Pope on the weak prelates who had lent themselves to the sacrilegious ordination: “Three bishops, who ordained Novatian, the schismatic bishop, were deposed, and others ordained to succeed them by Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, whose proceedings in this matter were generally approved all over the world."§ Cornelius acted as of his own authority in proceeding to this measure, which met with universal approbation, the crime of the schismatical ordination being deemed by all most enormous, as tending to destroy,. or render doubtful, the essential authority of the Church. Not long afterwards another occasion arose for a similar exercise of power, no longer in the neighborhood of Rome, but over a bishop of an illustrious See in Gaul. Marcian held the See of Arles, and being known to be infected with Novatianism, the bishop of Lyons and the other bishops of the province applied to Pope Stephen for his removal. To secure the success of their application, they addressed letters to St. Cyprian, who accordingly wrote to Stephen, urging him to prompt and decisive action. "Faustinus, our colleague, residing at Lyons, has repeatedly written to us, dearest brother, stating matters which, I know, have been reported to you also, both by him, and by our other fellow-bishops in the same province, namely, that Marcian, who resides at Arles, has joined Novatian, and departed from the unity of the Catholic Church, and the harmony of our body, and of the priests. Wherefore it behooves you to write at length to our fellowbishops in Gaul, that they may no longer suffer Marcian, an obstinate and proud man, and an enemy to divine mercy and to the salvation of * Ep. vi. ad Anastasium Thessalonic. the brethren, to insult our college, inasmuch as being an abettor of Novatian, and imitating his obstinacy, he has withdrawn from our com munion, whilst Novatian himself, whom he follows, was formerly excommunicated and judged to be an enemy of the Church, and when he had sent ambassadors to us in Africa, wishing to be admitted to our communion, he received for answer from a numerous council of bishops, who were assembled, that he was without, and that none of us could communicate with him, since, whilst Cornelius was ordained bishop in the Catholic Church, by the judgment of God, and choice of the clergy and people, he was endeavoring to raise a profane altar, and to erect an adulterous See, and to offer sacrilegious sacrifices in opposition to the true priest.-Let your letters be directed throughout the province and to the people of Arles, whereby, Marcian being cut off (from the communion of the Church), another may be substituted in his place, and the flock of Christ may be gathered together, which, hitherto being scattered and wounded by him, is despised."* It has in vain been attempted to account for this call for the interposition of Stephen, by reference to the fact that Novatianism had sprung up at Rome, on occasion of the opposition to the election of his predecessor. This was no reason why the bishops of Gaul should not, of themselves, proceed to the deposition of the heretical bishop, if Stephen were not the lawful and proper judge. They were not wanting in zeal against the heresy, since they had already addressed Stephen and Cyprian, urging the former to come to their aid, and begging the influence of the latter for the speedy success of their application. Of Stephen it was plainly expected that he should remove the perverse teacher: ABSTENTO MARCIANO ;" and to him Cyprian looked for authoritative information of the successor. 66 The power of deposing bishops was recognized in the Pope by a Roman council held in the year 378, and by the emperors Gratian and Valentinian. In addressing the emperors, the fathers state that "numberless bishops from various parts of Italy had assembled at the sublime sanctuary of the Apostolic See." They compliment the emperors as "observing the precept of the holy apostles," inasmuch as having banished Ursinus, the leader of the schism, and separated his partisans from his society, they had decreed "that the Roman Bishop should try the other priests of the various Churches, so that the Pontiff of religion with his colleagues should judge of religion, and the priesthood should not suffer in its honor, by subjecting the priest to the judgment of a secular judge, as might otherwise hap Ep. lxvii. alias lxviii. pen." They complain that some bishops, his partisans, still endeavor to persuade others "not to submit to the judgment of the Roman priest;" and they mention several instances of deposed bishops who retain possession of their Sees, and they ask the aid of the civil authority to give effect to the ecclesiastical sentence. They pray that a bishop, who declines to appear for trial, may be compelled by the Governor, or his Vicar, to repair to Rome, or if he be far distant, to appear before the metropolitan, or if the metropolitan be accused, that he be compelled to come to Rome without delay, or to appear before judges appointed by the Roman Bishop. In cases wherein the metropolitan, or other judge, is open to suspicion, they wish an appeal to lie to the Roman Bishop, or to a council of fifteen neighboring bishops. The emperors granted the request, giving civil force to the sentence of the Roman Bishop, passed with the advice of five or seven bishops, and terming the See itself most holy. Those documents shew clearly the eminence of the Roman Bishop, as occupant of the Apostolic See, and his right to judge, whether alone, or surrounded by his colleagues. The reason of the qualifications prescribed in the imperial edict was that the sentence should be passed solemnly, maturely and advisedly and although it had force independently of these circumstances, yet it was in the power of the emperors to limit the civil sanction to sentences clothed with them. Mosheim, and Maclaine, his translator, refer to these measures as imprudent concessions of the emperors and bishops, which prepared the way for Roman supremacy ‡ but it is easy to see, on inspection of the documents themselves, that the belief that Rome was "the sublime sanctuary of the Apostolic See," preceded and gave rise to these decrees. Those who in the investigation of ecclesiastical history set out with the persuasion that the Papacy is an invention of later ages, ingrafted on the original system, can only discover in the many documents of an early date "steps by which the Roman Bishops mounted afterwards to the summit of ecclesiastical power;" whereas they obviously shew the exercise of high authority derived from a divine source, and recognised alike by bishops and by emperors. So fully acknowledged was the power of the Pope to depose bishops, when false to the faith, or recreant to their duty, that the Eastern bishops solicited Pope Damasus to depose Timothy, a bishop infected with the heresy of Apollinaris, and received for reply that the sentence of deposition had already been passed by the Apostolic See * Ep. vi. apud Coustant t. i. col. 528. Fourth Century part 1I. ch. II. p. 108. † Ep. vii. ibidem col. 532. |