The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 5
CHAP. 5. Of the Council of Carthage, called the ſixth. Of the Appeals from Africa to Rome. The remonſtrances of the Biſhops of Africa to the Biſhop of Rome upon that ſubject. Confutation of the XL. Chapter of the firſt Book of the Cardinal.
LEt us follow the thred of the Hiſtory. In the year 419. happened a paſſage as memorable, as any thing related in the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory. The Biſhops of Rome offended with the expreſs order of the Milevitan Council, forbidding all Appeals from Africa to Rome, laboured to heal that ſore, and not being able to do it by violence, or cenſures, (for they ſhould have been laughed at) they would go about it by ſubtilty.
There was then a Council ſitting at Carthage, where two hundred and ſeven Biſhops met. To that Council the three above-named Legates of the Biſhop of Rome were ſent, Fauſtinus, Philippus, and Aſellus. That Council being but a particular Council, without any Patriarch preſent, it was then or never, that the Legates that repreſented the perſon of the Biſhop of Rome, ſhould have had the precedence, and been placed in an honourable rank; which yet was not deferred unto them: For Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage preſided at the Council. And that which grieveth moſt our Adverſaries, is, that after Aurelius, they placed Valentinus Biſhop of the firſt See of Numidia, and after Valentinus, Fauſtinus the firſt Legate of the Biſhop of Rome. This is found written in the Tomes of the Councils, in the beginning of the Council, and in the Code of the Canons of the Church of Africa, in theſe words,(a)Cum Aurelius Papa una cum Valentino primae ſedis Numidiae, & Fauſtino Eccleſiae Potentianae, primae ſedis Provinciae Italiae Piceni, Legato Eccleſiae Romanae, &c. After the Pope Aurelius with Valentinus of the firſt See of Numidia, and Fauſtinus Legate of the Church of Rome, were ſet, &c. And that which is moſt remarkable, is, that Philippus and Aſellus, becauſe they were but Prieſts, were ſet at the very loweſt end, under all the Biſhops of Africa, although they were Legates of the Roman Pope, at which they were not offended, for they found that juſt and reaſonable. Upon this our Cardinal is ſtorming, in the 40. Chap. of his firſt Book, and giveth three anſwers; ſaying, that either the Copies of the Councils are corrupted, of which he brings no proofs; or that theſe Legates repreſented the negotiating perſon of the Pope, not his judiciary perſon. A diſtinction forged in his brains, which makes the Pope to have two perſons: but it is confuted by the Council, where Fauſtinus, Philippus and Aſellus are termed Legates, not Negotiatours. Alſo he ſuſpecteth that their Commiſſion was expired: Which alſo is confuted, in that they act in the Council as Legates; which they would not have done, had they not been avouched by the Biſhop of Rome. Of Philippus and Aſellus, put after all the Biſhops of Africa, he ſaith nothing, finding no ſhift to excuſe it.
Theſe three Legates were charged in their inſtructions, to labour that thereafter it might be lawful to appeal from Africa to Rome, and to the Roman Biſhops See, notwithſtanding the Canon of the Milevitan Council, whîch had forbidden thoſe Appeals, upon pain of Excommunication. But the contrary came to paſs. For in that Council, the ſame Canon was renewed, and theſe Appeals prohibited upon the ſame penalties. And becauſe one Apiarius, a Prieſt of Sicia in Africa, being excommunicated by his Biſhop, was gone to Rome to Pope Zozimus, who had favourably received him, and admitted him to his communion, this diſpleaſed the Biſhops of Africa, of whom Saint Auſtin was one.
Upon this the Legates of the Biſhop of Rome aroſe, and laboured to defend the Authority of the Roman Biſhop, who had ſent them.(b)Baron. An. 419. §. 60. & ſeq. For that they alledged no Text of Scripture, and ſpake not of the Popes Primacy, by vertue of Saint Peters ſucceſſion; for in thoſe dayes they diſputed not ſo: neither had they that in their memories: But they produced a forged Canon, which they falſly pretended to be of the Council of Nice, whereby it is permitted to Biſhops to Appeal unto the Roman See: By a notorious falſhood they propounded a Canon of the Council of Sardica, where there was none but Occidental Biſhops belonging to the Roman Patriarchat, who to ſpite the Oriental that had depoſed Julius Biſhop of Rome, conferred as much honour as they could upon Julius, but an arbitrary honour depending upon their will, as we proved before.
How little was the authority of that Canon, it was ſeen by that which followed: For all the Biſhops of the Council hearing that pretended Canon of Nice, were much amazed, and ſaid that the Canon was unknown unto them, and that they had never heard of ſuch an Order. Among others, Alypius Legate of the Churches of Numidia, ſpake thus in the name of the Synod: Having conſulted the Greek Copies, I know not how it came to paſs that we have not found all theſe things in it. Wherefore Holy Pope Aurelius, we beſeech your reverence, that ſince the authentical Copies of that Council are held to be in the City of Conſtantinople, you be pleaſed to ſend ſome [Legates] with Letters from your Holineſs [to the Patriarch of that See], and not only to him, but alſo to the Venerable Biſhops of Alexandria and Antioch, that they may ſend us that Council, with ſtipulation [or atteſtation] by their Letters, that hereafter all ambiguity may be removed: For we have not found it to be as our brother Fauſtinus ſaith. Yet to appeaſe that Fauſtinus, Alypius voted that this pretended Canon might be received promiſſionally, till the Deputies that were to be ſent, ſhould be returned. The Reader may obſerve by the way, that Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, is called Pope by Alypius, and his Holineſs: Titles which in our dayes are given only to the Biſhop of Rome.
That advice was followed; only that proviſional reception of the Canon was not admitted. And the twenty Canons of the Council of Nice were inſerted into the Acts of the preſent Council according to the truth, without that Canon inſerted by Fauſtinus: Who upon that deſired the Council that they would not ſend to Conſtantinople, nor to Alexandria, or Antioch, for fear of ſowing diſcord between the Churches, but that they ſhould refer themſelves about it to the teſtimony of the Biſhop of Rome. But his Remonſtrances were not received. In thoſe days Popes and their Legats uſed Supplications and Remonſtrances, of which the Aſſembly judged, but they uſed no commands.
According to the Councils order, Deputies were ſent to the Biſhops of the Eaſt, to bring the original Copies of the Council of Nice. While they were in their journey, Bonifacius Biſhop of Rome died, and Celestinus ſucceeded. Theſe Deputies brought the Originals to the Council of Carthage, which aſſembled again upon that ſubject; and in them nothing was found of all that Fauſtinus had ſaid, and the impoſture was diſcovered. Whereupon theſe Letters of Remonſtrance were ſent to Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome. (c)Praefato debitae ſalutationis officio, impendio deprecamur ut deinceps ad aures veſtras hinc venientes non facilius admi…tatis: nec à nobis excommunicatos in communionem ultra velitis recipere; quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio definitum facile advertet venerabilitas tua. Nam ſi de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur id praecaveri, quanto magis hoc de Epiſcopis voluit obſervari? &c.After our bounden duty of ſalutation, We inſtantly beſeech you, that hereafter you admit not ſo eaſily to your ears thoſe that will come from hence; and that you receive no more to the Communion thoſe whom we have excommunicated. For your Reverence ſhall alſo eaſily acknowledge that this is forbidden by the Council of Nice. For if it appear that this is forbidden to the inferiour Clarks and Laymen, how much more would [that Council] have it practiſed in (d)Note, in Biſhops.Biſhops? that they being ſuſpended from the Communion, be not re-admitted to the Communion haſtily or unduly by your Holineſs. Let your Holineſs alſo reject the wicked refuge of Prieſts and inferiour Clarks. For no constitution of the Fathers hath taken that from the Church of Africk. And the Decrees of Nice have ſubjected both the Clarks of inferior Orders, and the Biſhops to their Metropolitans. For they have moſt wiſely and juſtly provided that every buſineſs be determined in the place where it begun. Being confident that the grace of the Holy Ghoſt ſhall not be wanting to every Province, whereby the equity be prudently perceived and conſtantly kept by Christs Prieſts. Eſpecially ſeeing that it is lawful to every one, if he be offended by the judgement of his judges, to appeal to the Council of his Province, or even to an Ʋniverſal Council. Ʋnleſs perhaps ſome body believe that God can inſpire to every one of us the juſtice of the examination of a cauſe, and refuſe it to a multitude of Biſhops aſſembled in a Council. Or how can a judgement made beyond the Sea be valid, to which the perſons of neceſſary witneſſes cannot be brought by reaſon of the infirmity of their ſex or age, or of many other intervening buſineſſes? For this ſending of men [to us] from your Holineſs we do not find commanded by any Synod of the Fathers. And as for that which you did long ſince ſend to us by Fauſtinus our fellow-biſhop, as belonging to the Council of Nice, we could not find it in the trueſt copies of the Councils, ſent by holy Cyrillus, our Colleague, Biſhop of the Church of Alexandria, and by the venerable Atticus Biſhop of Conſtantinople, which alſo we ſent to Bonifacius your predeceſſour of venerable memory, by Innocent Prieſt, and Marcel Subdeacon. Take heed alſo of ſending to us any of your Clarks for executors in favour of the firſt that asketh it, leſt it ſeem that we will bring the (e)Fumoſum typhum.fumous pride of the world into the Church of Chriſt, which beareth the light of ſimplicity, and the brightneſs of humility before them that deſire to ſee God. That Epiſtle is excellent, and a precious jewel of Antiquity, which is found in the Tomes of the Councils, in the end of the VI. Council of Carthage: and in the Greek Canons publiſht by Du Tillet; and in the Code of the Canons of the African Church, and in Balſamon: and is acknowledged as true by Baronius, Bellarmin, and generally by all our adverſaries that have written of this controverſie. Even in the Council of Rhemes held in the time of Hugh Capet, Arnulphus Biſhop of Orleans makes uſe of this piece againſt the Popes authority. Note by the way that our Cardinal in the beginning of ch. 51. alledgeth this Council of Rhemes, and ſaith that it was held to oppreſs Arnulphus Biſhop of Orleans: which is falſe; for this Council was not held againſt this Arnulphus Biſhop of Orleans, but againſt another Arnulphus Archbiſhop of Rhemes. (f)An. 419. §. 78.Baronius makes no difficulty to ſay that the things contained in that Epiſtle are ſomewhat hard; but eſpecially that which the Fathers ſay in that Council, that the Popes ſhould ſend no more Legats à latere, from his ſide, to Africa. But there are other clauſes in it as hard; as that they like not his receiving of thoſe that appeal to him from Africa, though they ſhould be Biſhops; nor that he ſend Commiſſioners or Executors from him, nor that he bring worldly pride into the Church. And their ſaying that the Canons produced by the Legats are falſe, and not to be found, is likewiſe very hard.
M. du Perron, though he uſe a thouſand tricks to weaken the ſtrength of that Epiſtle, yet cannot diſſemble that it diſpleaſeth him; and endeavours to ſhew that theſe Fathers are in the wrong. He ſaith they have taken that licence, and that the heat of choler fetched theſe words from them, and that their ignorance is excuſable. But that which he brings againſt that excellent Epiſtle, where above two hundred Fathers ſpeak with one accord, deſerveth a Chapter by it ſelf.