against the master and the disciple, in a solemn council at Rome, at which the bishop of Alexandria was present: "Why do you ask of me anew," said the Pontiff, "the deposition of Timothy, who together with Apollinaris, was already condemned here by the judgment of the Apostolic See, in presence even of Peter, bishop of the city of Alexandria?""* The same zealous Pontiff, in a Roman synod, deposed Ursacius and Valens, and received the thanks of St. Athanasius, who urged him to proceed to the deposition of Auxentius, the Arian occupant of the See of Milan. Ursus and Tuentius having received episcopal consecration unlawfully, Zosimus addressed a letter to the African, Gaulish and Spanish bishops, in which he says: "Dearest brethren, we have sent letters to your holiness, and throughout the whole world, wheresoever and in whatsoever part of the earth the fountain of the Catholic religion flows, that you may not think that Tuentius and Ursus are to be received in any ecclesiastical rank, in the communion of the Church, from which they are wholly anathema."+ Thus did he most effectually depose them from the episcopate. Pope Boniface I., in June 418, addressed the bishops of Gaul concerning Maximus, bishop of Valentia, who had been accused to the Pope by his own clergy, and had neglected to appear when called to trial by those to whom the cognizance of the cause was delegated. He appointed a synod to be convened by the first of November, sent a summons to Maximus, and directed it to be published throughout all the provinces, lest he should avoid the citation, and plead ignorance; ordered the bishops to proceed, even in case of his absence, and promised to ratify their sentence.‡ Celestine, his successor, delegated to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne, power to try the bishop of Marseilles. He separated Daniel from the body of bishops, who had in vain sought to elude trial by pleading his episcopal character. Some Eastern nuns, whose monastery he had violently entered, had implored the authority of the Pontiff against him. Celestine directed all bishops holding the errors of Nestorius to be separated from the episcopal body, and ordered John of Antioch to be notified, "that unless he hold our sentiments and condemn in writing the new blasphemy, the Church would take such measures in his regard as the interests of faith might demand."¶ The Council of Chalcedon in deposing Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, professed to act in the name of Pope Leo: "The most holy Ep xiv. t. i. col. 514, Coustant. † Ep. iv. Ep. II. t. i. conc. col. 1239, Hard. § Ib. col. 1260. ¶ Ep. xxii. ad Syn. Ephes. apud Coustant t. i. col. 1202. | Ib. and blessed Leo, archbishop of great and elder Rome, by us, and by the present holy synod, has stript him of the dignity of the episcopate.* "The Apostolic See," as Pope Gelasius testifies, "by its own authority condemned Dioscorus, the prelate of the second See." Sixtus III. deposed Polychronius, bishop of Jerusalem. The bishops of the province of Tarragona, having stated to Pope Hilary the irregular ordination of a bishop by the bishop Silvanus, conclude in this way: "We beseech your See to instruct us by your apostolic words, what you wish us to observe in this matter, so that assembling the brethren, producing the enactments of the venerable synod, supported by your authority, we may, with God's assistance, understand what must be done with him who ordained, and him who received ordination. It will indeed, be a triumph for you, if in the time of your apostleship, which the chair of St. Peter holds, the Catholic Church hear that the new tares have been torn up." The Pope ordered the bishop Irenæus to retire from the Church of Barcellona, and threatened him with deposition from episcopacy, in case of disobedience. Pope Simplicius rebuked severely John of Ravenna for forced ordinations; prescribed some conditions, and threatened to inhibit the exercise of his functions, should he refuse to obey.‡ The same power was exercised by the Pope over the patriarchs themselves and other bishops of high rank. Peter Mongus, bishop of Alexandria, was excommunicated by Pope Simplicius. Peter Cnapheus, bishop of Antioch, having fallen into various heresies, especially that of Eutyches, was admonished by Felix III., and finally struck with anathema, and deposed. The Pope says: "Having written two letters to you, I now proceed, to pass sentence against you: yea rather he (sentences you) who is the head of all pastoral Sees, the glorious Peter, truly the greatest of the apostles." Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, was summoned by the same Pontiff, to answer in the assembly of bishops to St. Peter, to whom, in the person of Felix, the accusation was made. He was afterwards cut off utterly from the Catholic Church. "Being separated from the honor of the priesthood, and from Catholic communion, and likewise from the number of the faithful, know that the name and office of the priestly ministry are taken from you, being condemned by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and by apostolic authority." Mosheim relates the deposition of Acacius * Act III. Ep. Tarrac. ep. t. II. conc. Hard. col. 789. Some of the phraseology is obscure. Ep. ad Joan. Raven. ib. col. 804. Hard. t. II. col. 826. in these terms: "The Roman Pontiff, Felix II., having assembled an Italian council, composed of sixty-seven bishops, condemned and deposed Acacius, and excluded him from the communion of the Church, as a perfidious enemy to the truth." The opposition of the Greeks he takes as a denial of the right of the Roman See to pronounce such a sentence on the bishop of the imperial city, but he admits that Rome maintained its validity, and finally succeeded in exacting its acceptance. "Hence," he says, 66 arose a new schism and a new contest, which were carried on with great violence, until the following century, when the obstinacy and perseverance of the Latins triumphed over the opposition of the Oriental Christians, and brought about an agreement, in consequence of which, the names of Acacius and Fullo were erased from the diptychs, and sacred registers, and then branded with perpetual infamy." This is no equivocal proof of the exercise in the fifth century of the power of deposing bishops, over an Oriental prelate protected and supported by the emperor. It is not however true that the Orientals generally resisted the sentence. Acacius indeed remained obstinate, but died in a few years. Flavita his successor sought the communion of the Holy See, which was, however, denied him, until he should remove the suspicions which fell on his faith, and cancel from the diptychs the name of Acacius. Euphemius, who soon succeeded him, a man of sound faith, pleaded in vain with the Pontiff, that the memory of Acacius might be spared. Among other things he objected that he should not have been condemned by a single bishop. Pope Gelasius, who then occupied the chair of St. Peter, answered that he was condemned in virtue of the council of Chalcedon, since he professed heresies which it had condemned; and he relied on the supreme authority of the Holy See, the high court of Appeal, whose judgments are final. He shewed that Acacius had previously accepted and executed a commission of the Holy See for the deposition of several bishops. "In this very case," says Gelasius, writing in 493, "Timothy of Alexandria, and Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul and John, and others, not one only, but several bearing the priestly title, were cast down by the sole authority of the Apostolic See. Of this fact Acacius himself is witness, since he was charged with the execution of the sentence. In this manner, then, falling into the company of those who have been condemned, Acacius is condemned."+ St. Gregory the Great exercised in a marked manner the right of judging and deposing bishops, which was fully recognised in him by * Mosheim, Church History, p. II. ch. v. §. xxi. + Ep. xiii. the emperor of Constantinople, as well as by all his colleagues in the episcopate. The emperor wished him to proceed in the case of the primate of Byzacium, but he hesitated to come to a final decision, not feeling assured of the sincerity of the accused in his professions of submission: "As to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, I know not what bishop is not subject to it, when any fault is found in bishops. But when delinquency does not require it, all of us are equal, on the principle of humility." Accordingly he directed the mode of trial, and authorized the deposition of Lucillus, bishop of Melita, and the substitution of another in his place. To the bishops of Ravenna and Milan he committed the trial of Maximus, bishop of Salona, promising to ratify their judgment, the particulars whereof he required Castorius the notary to report to him. On his professing repentance, he restored him the episcopate, reminding him that he had throughout "tempered the exercise of the authority of the Apostolic See with moderation," and directing him, inasmuch as he was "restored to the communion of the Apostolic See," to send one to Rome, to receive the pallium as usual. I shall mention but two instances out of many of the exercise of the power in England, at a much later period. The bishop of Litchfield was deposed by the Apostolic Legates, and he retired to a monastery: whereupon Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, consulted Pope Alexander II. how he should proceed to provide for that See. Godfrey, archbishop of York, brother of King Richard, was denounced to Celestine III. for grievous neglect of his pastoral duties and other misconduct; wherefore the bishop of Lincoln with others were commissioned to take cognizance of the facts, and to suspend him from the administration, if he were found guilty. The Pope himself in 1195 pronounced the suspension. It is unnecessary to give further examples, since those already adduced plainly shew that the Roman Bishop, as the superior of all other bishops, judged and deposed them, either in solemn council, or with less solemnity by his own act. No prelate, however elevated, was exempt from his judgment, and, in case of conviction, from his sentence. Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople enjoyed privileges, but remained subject to the supervision, correction, and censure of Rome. The imperial favor availed nothing against the prerogative of Peter. His successor, however, did not always appear in a menacing attitude. He could heal, as well as strike, and was often appealed to, that the wounds inflicted by others might be remedied by his indulgence and authority. * Ep. lix. Ep. lxxi. † Ep. lxiii. + Ep. lxvii. Baron. an. 1095. Ibid. an. 1159. 195 CHAPTER XIII. APPEALS. In all governments there is a tribunal of appeal, whose judgment is final. By it the sentences of the inferior judges are strengthened and confirmed, when found conformable to justice and law; or reversed and corrected, if proved to be contrary to sound principle. The existence of such a tribunal is an evidence of its supremacy: the judge must be the sovereign, or his representative, or the depository of supreme power, since he exercises the supremacy of the law. The usage. of appealing to the Bishop of Rome from the judgment and censures of bishops, and councils, in every part of the Church, is of the highest antiquity, and shews that he was believed to possess a power superior to all other bishops. In urging this point, I do not wish to discuss questions as to the limits of this power. I care not, at present, to inquire when appeals should lie to Rome, and what intermediate tribunals should be resorted to previously, or whether in any extraordinary or possible contingency, an appeal lies from the decision of a Pontiff to a General Council. My object is, to shew from unquestionable facts of history that in all ages appeals were made from all parts of the Christian Church to the Roman Bishop, and consequently that his superior authority was by all acknowledged. St. Epiphanius relates of Marcion, that having been excommunicated for a grievous sin, against chastity, by his father, the bishop of Sinope,* he filed to Rome, about the year 141, and sought to be restored to communion, but that the chief clergy, (the See being vacant) declared that, without the consent of his father, they could not grant him relief, being united with him in faith and friendship.† The journey and the application shew that the superior power of Rome was recognised, and the refusal which he met with, proves that the clergy, who exercised authority during the vacancy, were unwilling to rescind the sentence, In the early ages men who had been married but once, "the husband of one wife," were often assumed to the ministry, as they still may be, after the death of their wives, or on a mutual and voluntary profession of continency. † Hær. xiii. n. ii. |