The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 5 · Section 13
SECT. XIII.
The African Canon contrary to the Roman. Lenity to the Donatists. The History of the Canon. S. W. his Exceptions answered. The feined Revocation, and Request. Romes umpirage between Caecilianus and Donatus, no act of Iurisdiction.
THat the power which is duly vested in Kings, in case it be taken away by forreigne, i. e. by the Popes lawes, is perfectly lawfull to be resumed by the Originall possessors, i. e. by our Kings of England, I indeavoured to shew a pari, by the practice of the African Church set downe in the Councel of Carthage, Can 71. Where when the Pope had determined one thing about the non-reception of the Donatists, and by letter signified that to the Councel of Carthage, they prudently and deliberately decree another, and incurre no danger of Schism, by this meanes. This in the treatise of Schism, p. 128. I shortly touch't, but now upon this occasion must more largely deduce, to vindicate the truth, and force of that testimony for the inferring of my conclusion.
When that great dissen…ion fell out in Africk, betweene Caecilianus Arc…bishop of Carthage, and Donatus à casis nigris, and S. Augustin tels us,Ep. 162. that though Pope Melchiades, by the judgment of his Collegues, or Bishops in Council assembled with him, condemn d Donatus, yet they so spared the Donatists, as many as should repent, that they were ready to give them free choice to regaine the peace of the Church, and even for those that had been ordeined Bishops by Majorinus, so that they were two Bishops in one See, they thus compounded it, that he that was first ordein d in each See, should be confirmed, and some other Church and flock be provided for the other. And the same he affirmes againe in his 50. Ep. The Bishops, saith he, in the Church of Rome, thus ju…ged in the difference betwixt Caecilianus and the Donatist, that all, beside Donatus, the aut…or of the Schisme, should upon …eformation be received unto their honors, though they had been ordeined out of the Church; not that they might have the holy Spirit out of the unity of the body of Christ, but that they might n…t, by continuing out of the Church, deceive others, and th…t being thus m…ldly handled, they might more probably be cured. This was thus resolved in Constantine's time, about the yeare 300. But 100. yeares after, Pope Anastasius in a Syned at R…me determines a greater severity necessary toward the Donatists, and sends an Epistle to the Council of Carthage to signifie this their judgment. The Epistle of Anast…sius, I suppose, is*Justel. in Cod. Can. Eccl. Af…. p. 74 not extant, but the†Just. Cod. Can. Ec. Af…. p 184. an… B…ls. in Can. p…g. 692. A…ts of the Councel of Carthage assure us thereof, and set down the summ of it to be an advice to the Africans, that they should not by any meanes foreign, dissemble, or proceed with that lenity, toward the treachery and impudence of the haeretical and Schismatical Donatists, which did grievously wast the Catholike Church through all the African region. On receit of this later, the African Fathers in Council give humble thanks to God for his mercy, & to Anastasius and his Coun…il, for their pious care for them, as for fellow-members of Christ, foreign, who though they be scituate in severall parts o… the earth, yet consist in one ha…mony and concord of a body. But that being done, they proceed conciliarly to handle, and consider that matter, and all things that seemed to tend to the profit of the Church, and finally they resolve foreign, to continue to deale mildly and pacifickly with them, de…ming that the likelyest meanes to convince gainsayers, and to reduce them to the knowl…dge of the truth; and accordingly severall things they*Can foreign. Sec. Just. foreign. Sec. Bals. decree, particularly to write an Epistle to their other brethren and fellow-Bishops, especially to the Apostolical See of Rome, where Anastasius presided, to signifie to them foreign, the great necessity, lying on them in order to the peace and utility of the Church, to receive the Donatists to their dignityes, as many as should return to the unity of the Church, proposing to all other Bishops to doe the like after their example, who were first infested with them, and with a non obstante, notwithstanding what had been decreed at Rome, foreign, that which is determined against their honours in the beyond-sea Synod (foreign, viz, that in Italie, saith the Scholiast) shall not, say they, hinder or prejudice this decree; and againe, foreign— they that have been ordeined on the part of the Donatists, if they shall reform and returne to the Catholike faith, shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod (which had determined that they should not be received to their own dignities) but shall the rather be received as those that take care for Catholike unity.
Here thus anciently, i. e. in the yeare 401. tis cleare, that the decree at Rome was not thought fit to prejudice or hinder the African Synod, to adhere to their former resolution, and so to lawes contrary to the Romane See, and that was all that I undertooke to inferre from it.
Now to this what hath S. W. to say? Why, confessing the former part of the story, about Melchiades, first, he resolves that the Donat…sts obstinacy permitted not his decree to be executed, and therefore it was recalled; then that under Pope Anastasius, the African Councel commanded a request to be made to the Bishops of Italy by whose predecessors the Revocation was made, that the Donatist Bishops might reteine their places, adding that the cunning Balsamon puts the provision it self for a Canon of this Councel, and the Dr. takes no notice of the request, though he must ne…des have read it in Baronius whom he there cites.] And out of these premisses his conclusion is, that as farre as can be drawn out of the fact and Council, it argues the direct contrary to what the Dr. concludes, viz. that it was not lawfull for their national Council to infringe what was done at Rome.]
What truth there is in these premisses, but especially how his contrary conclusion is inferred from them, he hath not used any medium to shew us. And therefore tis all as easily denyed, as suggested. But I shall farther desire it may be observed, that he doth not so much as pretend, that what the African Council here did in this was Schismatical, and then without more adoe, it followes, that a national Council may without incurring of Schism make contrary lawes to what is decreed at Rome, for this it is evident the Africans did in that Synod, 401. and he no way denyes their having done it, and yet neither doth he accuse them, for what they did. This being thus yielded, there is no more that I desire to gaine from this testimony. And therefore, 1. I need not be sollicitous whether Mel hiades decree were revoked. There was indeed no need of revoking, for if the Donatists would not take the benefit of it, it voided it selfe, and became of no force of its own accord: 2. I demand, when, or by whom it was revoked; not before Anastasius, for then sure that Councel under him, that sent to Africk to presse that severity, would have pressed that Revocation; and it is sufficient to say, no such precedent Revocation appearing in any Popes, or Councils time betwixt Melchiades and Anastasius, there is no ground to affirme that before Anastasius it was revoked, and yet that twas not Anastasius that revoked it, is confest by S. W. when be saith the revocation was made by the predecessors of those Bishops of Italy that were under Anastasius.
But then 2. for his suggestion, that under Anastasius the African Council ordeined a request to be made to the Bishops of Italy, that the Donatists Bishops might reteine their places, there is not the least proofe offered, save onelyonly from Baronius, who is farre from being a competent witnesse in this matter. And on the other side we have these strong prejudices against it; First, that the Decree from Rome read at the opening of the Council of Africk having been directly contrary to all mercy, or mildnesse to the Donatists, it no way appears by any subsequent decree, that they after softend it, and for that decree it selfe, being so contrary to the Donatists reteining their places, it could be no answer of favour to the Africans request, that they might reteine them; 2. Of any such request we have not the least footstep in that Council, and 3. that*68. Sec B…u … Just 71. Sec. Bals. Canon from whence*Concil. Tom. 1. pag 749 D. Binius's note deduces it, belongs not to any such request, but is clearly the setting down what the Afr…c…ns h…d†Can. 66. already decreed in this matter, contrary to Anastasius's conciliary determinati n, brought to them, and read at the opening of the Council, and is that very Canon, from which I fetch the evidence of their making a decree contrary to what had been determined at Rome, with the foreign, or non obstante of Romes contrary determination.
Th…s being briefly thus cleared, I may adde thirdly, that if the African Fathers did so request, and thereupon the Council at R me made any decree to revoke their revocation, and consequently to agree with the Africans in the milder way, yet t…is could not have been to the prejudice of the Africans, for still this was to comply with, not to over-rule the Africans, and we know that even in Melchiades's time, when it is granted that the Council of Italy did judge betwixt Caecilianus and Donatus, the Catholikes and heretical Schismatikes in Africk, this came not before them by way of ordinary appeale, as to legal judges or superiors, but of extraordinary complaint, because the Bishops of Africk being divided one from the other in a horrible Schism, and Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africk, being a party in the controversy, it could not possibly be determined at home, and so was most properly, and necessarily to be done by forreiners, and accordingly not by the Pope alone, but by a Council of Bishops; and Augustine saith, Ep. 162. that there were thousands of those Collegues, where the differences might have been determined, meaning a fraternal determination, (by allowing the one, and granting communion with him, and expressing disallowance of the other) and not an authoritative act of Jurisdiction, a neighbourly interposition, such as the present case, and necessity of the Church of Africk required, but not any injunction or command as to legal subjects. And indeed this sufficiently appeares by the Africans behaviour here, upon that decree of Anastasius and the Council, which was certeinly sent from them, and read at the opening of that African Council, and yet deemed no way constringent to them, but a decree presently made by the Africans quite contrary to that from Rome. How little that of subjection was owing or acknowledged from Africk to Rome, I shall now adde no more, having formerly made it cleare, when I spake of the exemption of Carthage.
4hly, When he attributes it to the cunning of Balsamon that he puts the provision it self for a Canon of this Council, I know not well what to answer, for I am not sure. I judge right (and I believe the Reader will be as little able to resolve as I am) what he means by the provision it selfe; OnelyOnly I am sure Balsamon doth no otherwise set down those Canons, than now I see Binius himself doth out of the Codex Can: Eccl: Afr: (save onelyonly that the numbers of the Canons are varied) as may appear to any by comparing Balsamon p. 692. &c. with Binius's Councels, Tom: 1. p. 942. &c. and so sure the cunning was not on Balsamons, but on S. W his side, who having nothing to say, was to d vert by finding fault, and accusing some body.
5tly. That the Doctor took no notice of the request, he now hath given a sufficient account, because though Baronius mentioned it, he had many weighty prejudices against it, and no motive to believe Baronius.
And then lastly for the conclusion, it follows most evidently, as I inferred it, that the African Council decreed the very contrary to what Rome had determined at this time, and that when they had taken so solemn a cognizance of her determination, and yet were under no mark of schisme for so doing.