The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 3 – Chapter 4
CHAP. 3. Of the Milevitan Council, and of the prohibition there made to Appeal unto Rome. The Cardinals anſwers are examined.
IN the year of our Lord 402. a Council ſate at Milevis in Numidia; and another in the ſame town in the year 415. Of which two Councils ſince the Canons are confounded, we will ſpeak here as if the two Councils were but one.
Two evils did vex the Churches of Africa. Firſt, the hereſie of Pelagius and Celeſtius. And in conſequence of that firſt evil, the rebellion of ſome Clarks, who being condemned by the Church of Africa, would croſs the Seas and come to Rome, to find ſupport in the Biſhop of Rome, who did greedily receive thoſe Appeals, labouring thereby to raiſe his authority. Thus after that Celeſtius had been condemned in Africa, he had his recourſe to Pope Zozimus, and that Pope received and defended him for a time againſt the Churches of Africa. But being better informed ſince, or deſpairing of his power to reſtore him, he forſook him.
That being then a new thing not practiſed before, the Biſhops of Africa would prevent that evil, and make in the Milevitan Council, either in the firſt or in the ſecond, this excellent Canon which is the 22. It is decreed that the Prieſts, Deacons, and other inferior Clarks (if in their cauſes they complain of the judgement of their Biſhops) be heard by the Biſhops of the neighbourhood, who being adjoyned by the conſent of their Biſhops ſhall decide their buſineſſes. (d)Quod ſi & ab Epiſcopis provocandum putaverint, non niſi ad Africana provocent Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarū ſuarum. Ad tranſmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in communione ſuſcipiatur.And if they think that they ought to Appeal alſo from their Biſhops, let them not Appeal but to the Councils of Africa, or to the Primats of their Province, as it was often decreed about Biſhops. But whoſoever will Appeal beyond the Sea, let him not be received to the Communion by any in Africa. This Canon is found ſet down in theſe terms in the Greek copies, and in(e)Apud Balſamonem in collectione Canonum Carthaginenſium Can. 31. foreign, &c. Hincmar. in Ep. 55. cap. 17. Qui provocandum putaverint ad Primates ſuarum Provinciarum, ſicut & de Epiſcopis ſaepe dictum eſt, provocent. Balſamon the moſt learned of all the Grecians in Eccleſiaſtical Law, and in Zonaras, and in many Latin copies, and is ſo alledged in the Council of Rhemes under Hugh Capet, and by Hinckmarus.
That by the Appeals beyond the Seas, the Appeals to Rome are forbidden, it is out of queſtion; And Balſamons words are notable to that purpoſe,(f)foreign, &c. Since theſe preſent Canons were framed in Carthage, that is in Africa, by the judgements beyond the Seas, by all means thoſe of Rome are underſtood; And hence it appears, that thoſe of the Church of Rome glory in vain, ſaying that the differences of all the Churches muſt be judged by them upon Appeal: For if Rome be not allowed to receive the Appeals of Africa, how much leſs ſhall ſhe have that right over all other Provinces?
The Reader muſt not find ſtrange, that Balſamon ſaith that this Canon hath been framed at Carthage. For in the ſixth Council of Carthage, this Canon hath been again confirmed, upon occaſion of one Apiarius a Prieſt in Africa, who having been condemned by his Biſhop Ʋrban, had Appealed to Rome; at which the African Biſhops were much offended, as we ſhall ſee hereafter.
This Canon being made by a multitude of good and holy Biſhops, among whom were Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, and Auſtin Biſhop of Bona, (g)Bellarm: l. 1. de Matrimonio c. 17 §. Reſpondeo Canones. Canones Milevitani ab Auguſtino praecipue compoſiti.who framed the Canons of this Council, whereby it is forbidden upon pain of excommunication to Appeal unto Rome, it is no wonder that the Advocates of Papacy have done all their endeavour to falſifie it, and to corrupt both the ſenſe and the words. The Roman Decree compiled by Gratian, Cauſa 2. Qu. 6. Can. Placuit, hath added an exception in the end which corrupteth the whole Canon. For after thoſe words, If any will Appeal beyond the Sea, let him not be received by any in Africa to the Communion, they have ſewed up this tayl, niſi forte Romanam ſedem appellaverit, unleſs perhaps he hath Appealed to the Roman See. How ſhould the Roman See be excepted, ſeeing that the Canon is expreſly ma… againſt thoſe that Appealed to the Roman See?
But let us ſee what M. du Perron anſwereth to this;Pag. 376. for he extends himſelf upon this ſubject in the 47. ch. of the 1. book. He ſaith two things; The one, that this Canon muſt be underſtood only of the leſſer cauſes, not of the great, ſuch as are the queſtions about the faith and the Sacraments. The other, that this Canon meaneth only the cauſes of Clarks of an inferiour degree, as Prieſts, Deacons, and Subdeacons. He confeſſeth then that the Biſhops of Africa, of whom St. Auſtin is one, prohibit upon pain of excommunication to Appeal to the Biſhop of Rome in the cauſes of Prieſts and Deacons; And that in ſuch points they did not like that the Pope ſhould meddle with their buſineſſes: But that for the great cauſes, and for the cauſes of Biſhops, this Council intended not to hinder the Appeals to him. Wherefore he maintains that this clauſe [as it was often decreed about the Biſhops] muſt be razed, as added ſince. And yet the Greek copies publiſhed by our adverſaries, and Balſamon, and Zonaras, and many Latin copies, have that clauſe, and put the cauſes of Biſhops in the ſame rank, as the cauſes of Prieſts and Deacons. And which is more, we ſhall ſee hereafter, that the ſame Biſhops aſſembled again ſet down that clauſe ſo plain, that the Cardinal himſelf doth acknowledge it.
To prove that clauſe to be falſe, he ſaith that it is not found in the Originals of the Milevitan Council, that is in the Copies written in the Council it ſelf, which no man of this age hath ſeen. So this Prelat abuſeth the Reader. He addeth, that Gratian hath not that clauſe, nor the German Centuriators. But I have lately ſhewed how wickedly Gratian hath falſified that excellent Canon: And the Centuriators of Magdenburg have followed the Latin copies (that firſt came to their hand) corrupted by our adverſaries, and wanting that clauſe. All his other reaſons, this among others, that Auſtin in the 162. Epiſtle affirmeth, that by the antient Diſcipline of Africa, the Biſhops had that right to Appeal beyond the Sea, are likewiſe falſe or vain. Whoſo will read that Epiſtle, ſhall find no ſuch thing. Auſtins words are;(h)Neque enim de Preſbyteris aut Diaconis aut inferioris ordinis clericis, ſed de collegis agebatur qui poſſent aliorum collegarum judicio, praeſertim Apoſtolicarum Eccleſiarum, cauſam ſuam integram reſervare. The queſtion was not of Prieſts, Deacons, or other Clarks of the inferior order, but of the colleagues, who might reſerve their whole cauſe to the judgement of the other Biſhops, to the Apoſtolical Churches eſpecially. There Auſtin ſpeaks not of Appealing to the Biſhop of Rome, but to the Apoſtolick Sees in general aſſembled in Council; ſuch as were the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeruſalem, and Epheſus. And whereſoever in that 162. Epiſtle, mention is made of the Churches beyond the Sea, thereby not only the Churches of Italy are underſtood, but alſo thoſe of Greece, of Gaules, and of all the Eaſt and Weſt aſſembled in a Council; as Auſtin declares it in the ſame Epiſtle ſaying, Suppoſe that the Biſhops that judged at Rome were not good Judges, the univerſal Council of the whole Church remained yet. And in the ſame place; There remained yet unto them thouſands of colleagues beyond the Sea, where it was known that they might be judged, ſince they ſuſpected their African and Numidian colleagues. Where it is plain, that by the Biſhops beyond the Sea the Biſhop of Rome is not only underſtood. Thus in the book of the unity of the Church, ch. 2. It remained that the Biſhops beyond the ſea that make the great part of the extent of the Catholike Church, ſhould judge of the diſſentions of the Africans. But to what end ſhould we diſpute, whether by that Canon the Biſhops of Africa be forbidden to Appeal beyond the Sea, ſince we ſhall ſee hereafter that a few years after this Council of Milevis, the ſame Biſhops being aſſembled in the ſixth Council of Carthage, renew the ſame conſtitution? and write to Celeſtine Biſhop of Rome very expreſs letters upon that ſubject; where they ſay, that if the Appeals of Prieſts and Deacons to the Biſhop of Rome are not receivable, much leſs ought he to receive the Appeals of Biſhops, which belongs to the juriſdiction of their Metropolitans. The Cardinal acknowledgeth this, and ſo confutes himſelf.
Then to come to the Card…als two anſwers unto this Canon; We are not ignorant that there are ſome greater, ſome leſſer cauſes: All cauſes are not of the ſame importance, and there was no need for him to trouble himſelf to prove that; leſs yet to employ the teſtimony of Pope Innocent writing to Victricius Biſhop of Roven, whom he makes to ſay, that the greateſt cauſes muſt be referred to the Apoſtolick See, to prove that the greateſt cauſes of Africa were referred to Rome: For beſides that the Decretal Epiſtles of the antient Popes are ſuſpected of forgery, the teſtimony of Popes is not receivable in their own cauſe.
To no purpoſe he alledgeth in the ſame place Pope Gregory the firſt, and Pope Leo, who are come ſince, and very often attribute unto themſelves a power that belongs not to them. And no witneſs (ſay I again) is receivable in his own cauſe. To alledge Charlemagne, and Hinckmarus, and Gerſon, (i)P. 776.as the Cardinal doth in the ſame place, is deſcending too low, even 1400. years after Chriſt. That which was done in the late ages in France, over which the Pope hath exerciſed a tyranny theſe ſix or ſeven hundred years, is very different from the condition of the Churches of Africa in St. Auſtins time. But the Cardinal not being able to find any antient African witneſs that reſerveth the Appeals in great cauſes to the Biſhop of Rome, nor any example in antiquity but ſuch as he forgeth, hath been forced to rake in the dregs of the laſt ages, and authors of the late Gallican Church, to prove the Appeals of the antient Biſhops of the African Church unto Rome: Whereas we bring antient and famous examples out of Africa it ſelf; for it was a principal cauſe which was handled in the Council of Africa, aſſembled by(k)Of Agrippin. and Cyprian, and the Councils by them aſſembled, ſee before book 3. ch. 3. of this work. Agrippinus Biſhop of Carthage, even the doctrine of the Sacrament of baptiſm. Yet Agrippinus made no difficulty to decide ſuch an important point of doctrine without, yea againſt the Roman Church. And yet the Biſhop of Rome at that time ſhewed not himſelf offended at it, and called not the cauſe before himſelf. For the Biſhops of Rome in thoſe dayes behaved themſelves with more humility.
Cyprian Biſhop of the ſame Church did the ſame, having purpoſely aſſembled a Council againſt the doctrine maintained by Steven Biſhop of Rome, and did not for that incur any cenſure of the Roman Pope, but was followed by the moſt famous Biſhops of the Eaſt, Dionyſius of Alexandria, and Firmilianus of Ceſarea in Cappadocia. Who knoweth not that the Biſhops of Africa in St. Auſtins time took great offence when Celeſtius condemned by them, went to Rome to Zozimus Biſhop of the place, who favourably received him, and for a time defended him with his authority? It was about an important point, the Pelagian hereſie. We ſhall ſee more examples hereafter, even out of Africa.
Yet ſuppoſe that this clauſe of the Milevitan-Canon, ſpeaks only of the leſſer cauſes, yet it is contrary to the Biſhop of Rome, and debaſeth his authority. For although the inferiour Courts cannot judge definitively, and without Appeal, but of certain lower cauſes, and to a certain ſumm of money: yet it belongs not to them to make thoſe limitations, but it belongs to a Soveraign Judge to ſet thoſe limits. An inferiour Court cannot prohibit, upon pain of death or fine, Appeals unto higher Courts in certain caſes. Likewiſe if the African Councils had been inferiour Judges, ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome, it belonged not to them to prohibit Appeals unto the Biſhop of Rome, in certain caſes, upon pain of Excommunication, nor to write to him, that he ſhould thereafter take heed of receiving ſuch Appeals, or taking notice of them. But it had belonged to the Pope to ſet limits to them, and to grant them to judge definitively and without Appeal of ſome Cauſes of leſs moment, reſerving to himſelf the knowledge of the Cauſes of a higher nature.
The Cardinals ſecond anſwer was, that this Milevitan-Canon ſpeaks not of the Cauſes of Biſhops, and that theſe Fathers meant not to forbid the Epiſcopal Appeals; and that this clauſe was falſly added. But we ſhall preſently hear the ſame Biſhops expounding themſelves upon that point, ſo plainly, that all matter of doubt ſhall be removed. But though that clauſe quarrelled at were put out, yet it is plain that this Canon forbids that no Appeals from Biſhops be made beyond the Sea, that is, to the Biſhop of Rome. For that Canon prohibits Appealing from the judgement of Biſhops, to any but the Primates of Africa, or before the Synod of the Province. Now in caſe of Appeal from the judgement of a Biſhop, the ſaid Biſhop is accuſed to have ill Judged, and he that was Judge becomes a party. The Biſhop then is forbidden by this Canon to maintain the juſtice of his own Judgement before any, but the Judges of Africa, or before the Primates of his Province.
For theſe cauſes Baronius, who deals more roundly then our Cardinal,Baron. An. 419. §. 70. doth freely confeſs that this Canon diſpleaſed the Biſhop of Rome, as being offenſive to his authority. Yet this hindred not the Biſhops of that ſame Council from writing Letters full of reſpect and love to Innocent Biſhop of Rome, which are inſerted among Auſtins Epiſtles. To theſe Letters we will give a Chapter purpoſely, becauſe Cardinal du Perron triumpheth about them, and alledgeth them upon every occaſion.
CHAP. 4. Of the Schiſm happened at Rome, between Bonifacius and Eulalius.
IN the year of Chriſt, 417. Innocent dyed; Zozimus ſucceeds him, a favourer for a time of the Hereticks Pelagius and Celeſtius. Baron. An. 415.Baronius relates the Epiſtle which he writ in their defence. But Zozimus ſoon after changed opinion, being better informed.
The year following, he ſent three Legates, Fauſtinus a Biſhop, Philippus and Aſellus Prieſts, to the Council of Africa aſſembled at Carthage. The ſame year Zozimus being dead, two Biſhops, Bonifacius and Eulalius were elected, by two contrary factions of the Roman People and Clergy: For in thoſe dayes there was no Cardinals in the Roman Church, and the election of Popes was made by the Votes of the Clergy and the people. The Prefect of the City, named Symmachus, would appeaſe the ſedition; but not being able to maſter the people, he writ ſpeedily to the Emperour Honorius about it; who with his ſiſter Placidia, and his nephew Valentinian, made his ordinary reſidence, now at Ravenna, now at Milan. Symmachus favoured Eulalius, and perſwaded the Emperour, who turning both theſe competitors out of the City, appointed guards to Bonifacius, to keep him from raiſing troubles. So ſmall was then the Popes power, that a few Serjeants ſerved to keep him priſoner. But Eulalius having made bold to return into Rome without the Emperours leave, and the Roman Clergy having ſent to the Emperour, and petitioned for Bonifacius, the face of buſineſſes changed, and both were ſummoned to appear before the Emperour at Ravenna, upon the ſeventh of February, to be heard in their Reaſons, and to receive Judgement from his Imperial Majeſtie; which ſummon they obeyed. And that the Church of Rome might not be without conduct in their abſence, Honorius appointed Achilles Biſhop of Spoleto to diſcharge the Office of Biſhop of Rome as a Delegate. The parties being heard,(b)Baron. An. 419. §. 34. & 36. the Emperour gave ſentence for Bonifacius, and expelled Eulalius. For in that time the Biſhops of Rome were ſubject to the Emperour, as much as the leaſt of the people; and no man entred into that Office without his approbation.
This trouble gave occaſion to the Emperour Honorius to make a Law, which is inſerted into the 79. Diſtinction of the Roman Decree, in theſe terms:(c)Diſtinct. 79. Can. Si duo. Si duo forte contra fas temeritate concertantium fuerint ordinati, nullum ex eis futurum Sacerdotem permittimus, ſed illum in ſede Apoſtolica permanſurum cenſemus quem ex numero Clericorum nova ordinatione divinum judicium & univerſitatis conſenſus elegerit. If perhaps two be eſtabliſhed againſt reaſon, by the raſhneſs of the contenders, we ſhall ſuffer neither of them to be Biſhop. But we decree, that he who by the judgement of God, and by the conſent of the generality, ſhall be elected among the Clarks by a new Ordination, ſhall remain in the Apoſtolick See.