Year of Christ 422.bracketCelestinechosenwithout Opposition.

Upon the Demise ofBoniface,Celestinewas chosen in his room, without the least Disturbance or Opposition.Eulaliusindeed, who was still alive, and led a retired Life in the neighbouring Province ofCampania, was tempted by his Friends inRometo try his Fortune a Second time; but he did not chuse to quit his Solitude, and involve both himself and them in new Troubles.Celestinewas a Native ofRome, the Son of onePriscus, and a Deacon, if not a Presbyter, at the Time of his Election[1588].

Antony,one of St.Austin’sDisciples,appointed by hisInterest Bishop ofFussala.

He was scarce warm in the Chair, when he received a Letter from St.Austinon the following Occasion. As the small Town, or rather Village ofFussala, belonging to the Bishoprick ofHippo, the See of St.Austin, stood at a great Distance from that City, the good Bishop thought he could not better consult the spiritual Welfare of the Inhabitants, who had but very lately abandoned the Party of theDonatists, than by causing their Town to be erected into a separate Bishoprick,and letting them have a Bishop of their own. This was indeed abridging both his own Jurisdiction and Revenues; but as he had the Good of the People more at Heart than either, he pursued his Scheme with Success, and prevailed upon his Collegues inNumidiato ordain a young Man namedAntony, whom he had brought up from his Infancy, the first Bishop of the Place, though at that time only a Reader. This Promotion,per saltum, as it is styled, was strictly forbidden by the Popes in their Decretals; but to their Orders St.Austinpaid no greater Regard than the other Bishops did, though he always spoke of them, and to them, with all the Respect that was due to the first Bishop in the West.|Antony’s scandalous Behaviour.|St.Austinhad soon Occasion to repent his transgressing those Regulations, which, it must be owned, are in themselves very wise: forAntony, who was but a Youth, and had been kept by St.Austinunder great Restraint, no sooner found himself free from all Controul, than abandoning himself intirely to the Indulgence of his youthful Passions, he thereby scandalized the new Catholics to such a Degree, that they let St.Austinknow the Conduct of their Bishop, unless he was quickly removed, would certainly drive them to the last Extremity; meaning, perhaps, that they should be forced either to put him to Death, or to join anew theDonatists, whom they had but lately forsaken. Such Menaces alarmed St.Austinno less than the Conduct of his favourite Disciple surprised him. A Council was immediately summoned at his Request by the Primate ofNumidia;Antonywas ordered to attend it, and the Inhabitants ofFussalainvited to lay their Complaints before the Assembly. The Summons was complied with by all, andAntony, by a great Number of Witnesses, convicted of Rapine, Violence, and Extortion. But, because some capital Crimes laid to his Charge were not sufficiently proved, the Fathers of the Council, out of an unseasonable Compassion, contented themselves with only condemning him to restore to the Inhabitants ofFussalawhat he had with Violence taken from them.|He is deprived of the Administration, and all Jurisdiction, by a Council.|They were even inclined to leave him in the quiet Possession of his Church; but that being warmly opposed by the People, they deprived him of the Administration, and of all Jurisdiction; but as he still retained the Episcopal Dignity, they did not chuse to remove him to another City to live there even as a private Person, lest they should be thought to transgress the Rules of the Fathers forbidding Translations[1589]. None could think so who were the least acquainted with those Rules.

He appeals toRome.

Antonysatisfied, pursuant to his Sentence, the Inhabitants ofFussala, whom he had wronged. But pretending that he had been unjustly deprived of his Bishoprick, he resolved to appeal toRome. He was sensible that his appealing at this Juncture, when the Point of Appeals was warmly disputed, as I shall relate hereafter, was Merit enough to recommend him to the Favour of that See. However, not trusting to that alone, asBonifacewas still alive, he first engaged in his Favour his own Primate, the Primate ofNumidia, who, having been excused on account of his great Age from assisting at the Council, was not well acquainted with what had passed there.|Prevails upon the Primate to write in his Behalf toRome.|Him therefore he easily persuaded, that he had been very ill used by the Council:For had they thought me guilty, said he,of the Rapine and Extortions, that were laid to my Charge, they ought, and, without all doubt, would have deposed me: they have not deposed me; and therefore did not, as is manifest, think me guilty. If I did not deserve to be degraded from my Dignity, I did not deserve to be driven from my See.Thus he artfully turned the Mercy that had been shewn him against those who had shewn it; and, having by that means imposed upon the Primate, persuaded him to write a Letter in his Behalf toBoniface.|How received byBoniface.|With this Letter he repaired toRome, but did not meet there with the Reception he expected: for all he could obtain ofBonifacewas a Letter to the Bishops ofNumidia, requiring them to reinstate him in his See,provided he had represented Matters as they truly were. This conditional RequestAntony, on his Return toAfrica, improved, it seems, into an absolute Command: for he threatened the People ofFussalawith a Visit from the Imperial Troops and Commissaries, if they did not receive him as their lawful Bishop, in Compliance with the Orders of the Apostolic See[1590].|The People ofFussalawrite against him toCelestine.|In the mean timeBonifacedying, andCelestinebeing chosen in his room, the People ofFussalaapprehending, as St.Austinwrites, greater Evils from a Catholic Bishop, after their Return to the Church, than they had done from a Catholic Emperor during their Separation, writ a most pathetic Letter to the new Pope, intreating him to pity their Condition, to curbAntonyin his unchristian Attempts, and to redeem them, by his Authority, from the Calamities which they had Reason to apprehend from that Prelate’s Cruelty and Ambition. In the same Letter they imputed all their Misfortunes toAustin, who had set over them such a Bishop.|Are seconded by St.Austin.|And thisAustinwas so far from taking amiss, that he owned the Charge, and even backed their Request with a Letter of his own, conjuringCelestine, by the Memory of St.Peter,who abhorred all Violence and Tyranny, not to use either with the People ofFussala, who, he said, had but too much Reason not to submit tamely to the galling Yoke from which they had been so lately delivered. He adds, that if, in spite of all his Endeavours and Remonstrances, he should still have the Mortification to see the Church ofFussalaplundered and tyrannically oppressed by one whom he had raised to that See, he should think himself obliged to atone for the Share which he had in his Crimes, by resigning his own[1591].|Celestineacquiesces in the Sentence of the Council ofNumidia.|Celestinewas so affected with these Letters, that he immediately acquiesced in the Sentence of the Council ofNumidia; and the new Bishoprick ofFussalabeing suppressed, that Town, with its District, was again subjected to the See ofHippo. From these Letters, that were written by theAfricanson this Occasion, it appears, that the Bishops ofRomeused, in those Days, to send some of their Ecclesiastics intoAfrica, to see the Sentences, which they had given, executed there; and that those Ecclesiastics came with Orders from the Court for the Civil Magistrates to assist them, where their Assistance should be required, or thought necessary.

An End put to theSchism formed byEulalius.

The Schism formed byEulaliuswas not, it seems, yet quite extinct inRomein the Year 425. for I find a Law of that Year, dated the 17th ofJuly, and addressed toFaustusPrefect of the City, commanding allManichees, Heretics, Schismatics, and Sects of every Denomination, to be driven out ofRome; but more especially those, who, separating themselves from the Communion of theVenerable Pope, kept alive a dangerous Schism. Over theseFaustusis injoined to keep a watchful Eye, to summon them to communicate withCelestine, and, if they did not comply with the Summons in Twenty Days, to banish them an Hundred Miles fromRome[1592]. This Law was issued byPlacidia, who, upon the Death of her BrotherHonorius, which happened in the Month ofAugust423. and that of the UsurperJohn, killed in 425, governed the Western Empire, as Guardian to her SonValentinianIII. The Law she issued, probably put an End to the Schism; for no further Mention is made of it by any Historian.

It was in the Time ofCelestine, and the following Year 426. the Fourth of his Pontificate, that the Bishops ofAfrica, quite tired out with the daily Encroachments of the Bishops ofRome, and not able to brook the despotic and arbitrary Power which they had begun to exercise over them, took the no less laudable than necessary Resolution of breaking their Chains before they were thoroughly riveted, and asserting their antient Liberty, by effectually removing what had endangered it, the pernicious Abuse of appealing toRome.|Apiarius,a Presbyter ofSicca,appeals toRome.|The Incident, which gave Occasion to that Resolution, was the Appeal of a Presbyter ofSicca, namedApiarius, who, being convicted of many Crimes, and thereupon degraded and excommunicated by his own BishopUrbanus, appealed toZosimusthen Bishop ofRome.|Zosimusrestores him to the Rank from which he had been degraded.|Zosimus, who missed no Opportunity of acquiring new Power, or improving the Power which he had acquired, not only received the Appeal, but, without ever hearing the other Side, restoredApiariusboth to his Rank, and the Communion of the Church. This was the boldest Attempt that had yet been made upon the Rights and Liberties of theAfricanChurches; and therefore the Bishops in those Parts, all uniting in a Cause that was common to all, loudly complained of such an arbitrary Act, as an open Violation of the Canons of the Church, forbidding those, who had been excluded from the Communion by their own Bishop, to be admitted to it by any other[1593].Zosimus, finding theAfricanBishops had taken the Alarm, and were determined to restrain his Power within the Limits prescribed to it by the Canons, and, on the other hand, being well apprised, that he could allege no Canons, that had ever been received by them, to countenance the Power which he claimed, and had exercised, thought it would be no great Crime to recur to Fraud on so urgent an Occasion.|To support his Pretensions, endeavours to impose upon theAfricanBishops the Canons ofSardicafor the Canons ofNice.|Agreeably to this Scheme, he caused Two Canons to be transcribed from the Council ofSardica; the one allowing Presbyters and Deacons, when rashly excommunicated by their own Bishops, to appeal to the neighbouring Bishops; and the other, authorizing the Appeal of all Bishops to the Bishop ofRome. Had theAfricansreceived these Canons, he intended to have justified, by the former, his judging and absolvingApiarius, notwithstanding the Distance betweenRomeandNumidia; and, in virtue of the latter, to get the Canon revoked, which theAfricanBishops had lately made, forbidding,on Pain of Excommunication, Appealsbeyond Sea; that is, toRome. Nothing less than an intire Subjection of theAfricanChurches to the See ofRomewould satisfy the boundless Ambition ofZosimus; and such a Subjection would infallibly have ensued, had the Two above-mentioned Canons been received by theAfricanBishops in the Sense whichZosimusdid, and seemed determined to make others, put upon them. But the main Point was, to persuade the Bishops ofAfricato admit such Canons, especially at so critical a Juncture. The Council ofSardicahad never been received there: nay, they were, it seems, at this very Time, utter Strangers both to that Council and its Canons; so that it was useless to quote them as such. Of thisZosimuswas aware; and therefore, as he stuck at nothing that stood in the way of his Ambition, he resolved, by one of the most impudent and barefaced Impostures recorded in History, to try whether he could not impose upon the Bishops ofAfricathe Canons ofSardicafor the Canons ofNice.|With this View he sends a Solemn Embassy intoAfrica.|With this knavish View, and to render the Imposture more solemn, and less suspected, he dispatched intoAfricaThree Legates,viz.FaustinusBishop ofPotentiainPicenum, and TwoRomanPresbyters,PhilippusandAsellus. Their Instructions, contained in a Letter addressed to themselves, were, to require of theAfricanBishops a strict Observance of the Two above-mentioned Canons ofNice; to complain of their repairing so often to Court; and to desire them not to communicate withUrbanusofSicca, who had deposedApiarius, or even to send him toRome, if he refused to correct what he had done amiss[1594]; that is, we may suppose, if he did not restoreApiariusto his Rank, and the Communion of the Church.

With these Instructions the Legates set out forAfrica, where they no sooner arrived, than a Council was convened, at which assisted, among the rest,AlypiusBishop ofTagaste, St.Austin’s great Friend, andAureliusBishop ofCarthage. When the Legates first appeared before the Council, the Bishops desired them to lay their Instructions before the Assembly; which they were at first unwilling to do, contenting themselves with declaring their Commission by Word of Mouth. But theAfricansknowing whom they had to deal with, and thereupon pressing them to communicate their Instructions is Writing, they complied at last, and produced the LetterI have mentioned above, which was immediately registred.|The Surprize of theAfricanBishops on this Occasion.|When it was publicly read, it is impossible to conceive the Surprize and Astonishment that appeared in the whole Assembly. They had never heard of those Canons; and to find them thus confidently ascribed to the Council ofNice, was what appeared to them strange beyond Expression. Warm Disputes arose, of which, however, we know no Particulars. Several differentGreekCopies, severalLatinCopies, were sent for, and carefully examined and compared; but no such Canons could be found there. However, as the Legates continued to maintain, with an unparalleled Impudence, the disputed Canons ofNice, the Council agreed to observe them, till they had, by a more diligent Inquiry, discovered the Truth[1595].

They continued their Sessions; but as they were few in Number, as the Point in Dispute was of the utmost Consequence, and nearly affected all the Bishops ofAfrica, they thought it should be communicated to all; and that, without the Concurrence of all, no Resolution should be taken.|A General Council assembled atCarthage.|A General Council was accordingly assembled atCarthage, consisting of Two hundred and Seventeen Bishops, from the different Provinces ofAfrica. They met, for the first time, on the 25th ofMay419.Faustinusbeing placed next afterAureliusofCarthage, andValentinePrimate ofNumidia, and the Two PresbytersPhilippusandAsellusafter the other Bishops. Being all seated,Aureliusmoved, that the Canons ofNicemight be read, from the Copies which they had of that Council inAfrica.|The Conduct ofFaustinus,the Pope’s Legate, on this Occasion.|But this was warmly opposed byFaustinus, insisting upon their reading, in the first place, his Instructions, and coming to some Resolution concerning the Observance of the Canons ofNice, which he was charged by the Apostolic See to require of them.It matters not, said he,whether or no those Canons are to be found in your Copies, or, indeed, in any other. You must know, that the Canons and Ordinances ofNice,which have been handed down to us by Tradition, and established by Custom, are no less binding than those that have been conveyed to us in Writing. To this Speech the Bishops returned no Answer; without doubt, because they thought it deserved none. However, at his Request, his Instructions were read, and warm Debates ensued.|The Resolution taken by the Council.|Alypiuswas of Opinion, that since the disputed Canons were not to be found in any of their Copies, Messengers andLetters should be immediately dispatched to the Bishops ofConstantinople,Alexandria, andAntioch, for authentic Copies of the Acts and Canons ofNice. This ProposalFaustinushighly resented, as an Outrage offered to the Apostolic See, which, he said, was thereby arraigned of Fraud and Forgery. He therefore advised them to write toBoniface, who, by this time, had succeededZosimus, and, leaving to him the Care of examining the Authority of those Canons, submit the Whole to his Judgment, to his known Prudence and Discretion. He added, that by acting otherwise they might give Occasion to great Divisions and Disturbances in the Church.Aurelius, not to exasperate the Legate, whom he found to be a Man of a haughty, imperious, and intractable Temper, made no other Reply, butthat they would write toBoniface. St.Austinpromised to observe those Canons so long as it could be reasonably supposed that they were the Canons ofNice. The other Bishops made the same Promise; which was confirming the Resolution the Council had taken the Year before. Here the Legate exaggerated anew the Affront they offered to theRomanChurch; adding, that the only Reparation they could make, for questioning the Authenticity of Canons proposed by her, was to leave the deciding of that Point to her, and acquiesce in her Judgment. But the Warmth, the Earnestness, the Passion which he betrayed in his Speech, and in his whole Conduct, served only to heighten the Jealousy, and confirm the Suspicions, of theAfricanBishops. It was therefore universally agreed, in spite of the Remonstrances, Intreaties, and Menaces of the Legate, thatAureliusshould write to the Bishops ofConstantinople,Alexandria, andAntioch, for authentic Copies of the Canons ofNice: that if the Canons, quoted byFaustinus, were found in those Copies, they should be punctually observed; if not, that a new Council should be convened, and such Resolutions taken, as the Fathers, who composed it, should think proper[1596].

The Affair ofApiarius,how settled by theCouncil.

Matters being thus settled, with respect to the pretended Canons ofNice, concerning Appeals, the Council took next into Consideration the Case ofApiariuswhich had given Occasion to the present Dispute betweenRomeandAfrica; and it was agreed, thatApiariusshould make the due Submission to his Bishop, and there upon be re-admitted to his Communion, and restored to his Rank. However, as he had given great Offence to the People ofSicca, byhis scandalous Life, he was ordered, by the Council, to quit that City; but, at the same time, allowed to exercise the Functions of his Office in any other Place[1597]. This Medium the Council wisely chose between the Two opposite Sentences; that ofUrbanusexcommunicating and deposing him, and that ofZosimusrestoring him to the Communion and the Priesthood. Such was the Issue of the Appeal ofApiarius: and I leave the Reader to judge, whetherBaroniusshould boast of it as he does. And now nothing remained, but to acquaintBonifacewith the Acts and Resolutions of the Council; and this was done accordingly by a Letter, which they all signed, and delivered to the Legates. In that Letter they beggedBonifaceto procure, from the East, authentic Copies of the Canons ofNice, promising to observe the Canons in Dispute, till such Copies were procured; but this upon Condition, that if those Canons were not found to be genuine, they should recover their antient Privileges, and not be forced tosubmit to a Yoke, which Ambition alone could impose[1598].

TheAfricanBishopswrite into the Eastfor authentic Copiesof the Council ofNice.

With this Letter the Three Legates set out fromAfrica, on their Return toRome. Upon their Departure, theAfricanBishops writ, agreeably to the Resolution they had taken, toAtticusofConstantinople, andCyrilofAlexandria, begging they would cause to be transcribed, and sent intoAfrica, the most authentic Copies they had of the Canons ofNice. With this Request the Two Bishops readily complied; and the same Year 419. the Messengers sent toAlexandriaandConstantinoplereturned with the wished-for Copies, and very friendly and obliging Answers, which are still extant[1599], fromCyrilandAtticus, addressedtoAurelius,toValentine,and to all the Bishops ofAfricaassembled atCarthage. As for the Bisop ofAntioch, theAfricansprobably did not write to him; at least, they had no Answer from him[N69].|The pretended Canons not found in those Copies, and the Dispute dropt byBoniface.|They immediately compared the Two Copies, sent them from the East, with their own, especially with that whichCæcilianusofCarthagehad brought with him fromNice, where he had assisted at the Council; and found them agree in every Particular, without any Trace of the Canons thatZosimushad produced: upon which they dispatched the same Ecclesiastics with them toRome, whom they had sent into the East.Boniface, who was an Enemy to all Fraud and Imposition, acquiesced; the Dispute was dropped; so that the Canon, which theAfricanBishops had lately made, forbidding Appeals toRome, andZosimushad thus fraudulently attempted to defeat, remained in its full Vigour; and the Churches ofAfricawere suffered quietly to enjoy their antient Rights and Privileges, so long asBonifacelived. But in the Pontificate of his SuccessorCelestine, the Storm broke out anew.

N69. It is very observable, that theAlexandrianCopy was originally sent fromRomebyMarcusBishop of that City, upon a Complaint made by theEgyptianBishops, that theArianshad burnt all the Copies of the Council ofNicethat were then found inAlexandria.

The Power of receiv-ing Appeals claimed bythe Popes only asgranted by theCanons.

It may not be improper here to observe, thatZosimus, though wholly bent on exalting his See, and straining every Prerogative to the highest Pitch, yet did not presume to exalt it above the Canons; did not claim the disputed Power of receiving Appeals, of judging, deciding,&c.independently of the Canons. And was not this owning himself, but for the Canons, to be upon the Level with the other Bishops his Collegues; at least in respect to this Point? Is not the scandalous Method, which he took on this Occasion to extend his own Power, and curtail that of theAfricanBishops, a Demonstration of his deriving his Claim from the Canons alone? Could there ever offer a better Opportunity, could there ever occur a more urgent Necessity, of asserting aDivine Right? AsZosimustherefore never asserted, nor even mentioned, such a Right, we may well conclude, that he either had no Notion of it, or did not think it sufficiently grounded to be of any Use in the present Dispute. And yet thisDivine Rightof receiving Appeals from all Parts of the World, of constituting, confirming, judging, censuring, suspending, deposing, removing, restoring Bishops, and all other Ecclesiastics, is now held, as an Article of Faith, by all trueRomanCatholics; insomuch that to dispute such an Article, would be no less dangerous, in Countries where the Inquisition prevails, than to dispute any Article of theApostolicorNiceneCreed. It is true,Innocentthe First, as the Advocates for the See ofRomeobserve, had claimed, byDivine Right, the Power of finally deciding all Controversies. But he himself seems to have been sensible, that he had gone too far, For what else could have induced him to restrain that Claim, as soon as he had set it up, toMatters of Faith alone[1600]? HadZosimusthought the general Claim capable of being maintained, he need not have recurred, as he did,to Fraud and Imposture. The Pretensions ofInnocent, in their utmost Extent, were indeed renewed, in Process of Time, by his Successors; but not till the intolerable Abuse, which they made of the Power granted them by the Canons ofSardica, on which they founded all their Usurpations, obliged other Councils to revoke those Canons; and then it was, that, no other Means being left of maintaining their ill-gotten Power, they revived the Claim ofInnocent, and, challenging no longer by the Canons, but byDivine Right, the Prerogative of receiving Appeals, they put it out of the Power of all future Councils to abridge or restrain it.

WhetherZosimusignorantly mistook theCanons ofSardicafor those ofNice.

The Three CardinalsBaronius,Bellarmine, andNoris, thinking the Imputation of Ignorance less injurious to the Memory ofZosimus, less derogatory to the Dignity of the Apostolic See, than that of Fraud and Imposture, suppose him to have ignorantly mistaken the Canons ofSardicafor the Canons ofNice; which is supposing, that in the whole Archives of theRomanChurch there was not a single genuine Copy of the Council ofNice, or thatZosimushad never perused it; and to suppose either is highly absurd. Besides, the whole Conduct of the Legate, the Pains he took to divert theAfricanBishops from consulting other Copies, and, when he could not prevail, his recurring tounwrittenCanons; and, as that too proved ineffectual, his striving by all possible means to persuade theAfricansto leave to the Pope the Care of examining other Copies, and to acquiesce, without any further Inquiry, in what should thereupon be determined by him; plainly shews, that the Legate was privy to the Fraud, and apprehended a Detection.

Apiariusexcommun-icated anew. He ap-peals again toRome,and is restoredbyCelestine,andsent back attendedby the LegateFaustinus.

Apiarius, being obliged to quitSicca, as I have related above, retired toTabraca, another City ofNumidia, and led there so scandalous a Life, that he was excommunicated anew. Hereupon he appealed again toRome, andCelestine, which is very surprising, notwithstanding the vigorous Opposition which his Predecessors had, but very lately, met with from theAfricanBishops, in attempting to restore this very Presbyter, not only declared him innocent, and admitted him to his Communion, but sent him back intoAfrica, attended by the LegateFaustinus, who was ordered to see him reinstated. TheAfricanswere but too well acquainted already with the Presumption and Arrogance of the Bishops ofRome; and yet such an insolent Act quite surprised them. ForCelestinehad neither examined the Crimes, whichApiariuswas charged with, nor heardthe Witnesses, nor even condescended to let them know, that he intended to judge him anew. He writ, indeed, Two Letters to them on this Occasion, but which seemed merely designed to insult them: for, by the First, he gave them Notice of the Arrival ofApiariusatRome, which, he said, had given him great Joy; and by the Second, which was brought byFaustinus, he acquainted them, that he was overjoyed to have found him innocent. From this despotic and extraordinary way of acting, theAfricanBishops concluded, thatCelestinewas determined to keep no Measures with them, and that nothing less than an intire Subjection of theAfricanChurches to the See ofRomewould satisfy his Ambition. But they were resolved to maintain, at all Events, the Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free.|A General Council assembled.Apiariusappears before it, withFaustinus.|A General Council was therefore assembled, andApiariussummoned to attend. He obeyed the Summons, and appeared before the Council at the Time appointed, but in Company withFaustinus, shewing thereby, that he placed greater Confidence in him than in his own Innocence.Faustinusspoke first, and pressed, with great Warmth, the Fathers of the Assembly to re-admitApiariusto their Communion, since he had been declared innocent by the Apostolic See, and admitted byCelestineto the Communion of theRomanChurch. The Bishops replied, that inAfricaApiariushad been found guilty, and that inAfricahis Innocence must be made to appear, before they could receive him again to their Communion.|The Legate’s insolent Conduct.|As they stuck to this Point,Faustinusundertook his Cause; but, instead of proving, as he had promised to do, or even attempting to prove his Innocence, he inveighed, from the Beginning of his Speech to the End, and in very harsh and opprobrious Language, against the Council, and all the Members, who composed it.|Apiariuspleads his own Cause.|Apiariuswas sensible, that the Speech ofFaustinus, instead of reconciling theAfricanBishops to him, had incensed them more than ever against him; and therefore thinking it adviseable to take the Cause into his own Hands, he stood up as soon as the other had done; and, with a Modesty capable, as he thought, of atoning for the Insolence ofFaustinus, endeavoured to clear himself from the Crimes that had been laid to his Charge.|Faustinusassists him.|When he had spoken, the Witnesses against him were heard; and the Tryal lasted Three whole Days,Apiariusstriving, with great Art and Subtilty, to invalidate the Depositions, andFaustinusprompting him when he was at a Stand. He might, perhaps, have escaped Condemnation, partly by his own Craft and Address, partlyby the powerful Protection of the Bishop ofRome, had he been able to withstand the Stings of his own Conscience.|Apiarius,struck with sudden Remorse, owns the Crimes laid to his Charge.|But, on the Fourth Day, whenFaustinusbegan to triumph as sure of Victory,Apiarius, struck with sudden Remorse, damped at once all his Joy, by voluntarily owning, to the great Surprize of all present, and the unspeakable Confusion ofFaustinus, every Crime with which he had been charged. Those Crimes the Fathers have thought fit to wrap in Oblivion; and indeed it was not proper, that Posterity should know them; since they wereheinous, incredible, such as ought not to be mentioned, and drew Sighs and Tears from the whole Assembly[1601]. And this is the Man whom Two Popes, both now worshiped as Saints in the Church ofRome, absolved as innocent; and, as innocent, would have supported with Force and Violence, had not Providence almost miraculously interposed, to prevent the Evils that would have ensued. They could not but know, thatApiariuswas guilty; at least they did not know, that he was innocent. But as he had been declared guilty inAfrica, their declaring him innocent, whether he was so or not, gave them an Opportunity of renewing the Attempts of the Apostolic See on the Liberties of theAfricanChurches; and it was, no doubt, with this View that they absolved and restored him. But, as he was not hardened enough in Iniquity for their Purpose, he owned himself guilty, in spite of their Judgment declaring him innocent, and thereby defeated their Schemes for the present. For theAfricans, now sensible that there was no Wickedness which the Bishops ofRomewould not countenance, in order to establish their Power inAfrica, to the utter Subversion of all Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline there, thought themselves bound, as they tendered the Welfare, Peace, and Tranquillity of the Churches committed to their Care, to act with that Vigour and Steadiness, which so urgent an Occasion seemed to require.|TheAfricanBishops renew the Canon forbidding Appeals toRome.|Accordingly they first absolutely cut offApiariusfrom the Communion of the Church; then renewed, in stronger Terms than ever, the Canon, which had given so great Offence atRome, prohibiting, on Pain of Excommunication, Appealsbeyond Sea, under any Pretence whatsoever; and this Prohibition they extended to Ecclesiastics of all Conditions and Ranks.Faustinusblustered, vapoured, threatened; but all in vain. The Bishops not only signed, all to a Man, the above-mentioned Canon, but writ a Synodal Letter toCelestine, acquainting him with what hadpassed in the Case ofApiarius, and earnestly intreating him not to give Ear for the future to those, who should have recourse to him fromAfrica, nor receive to his Communion such as they had excluded from theirs:|Their Letter toCelestine.|For we must let your Venerableness(Venerabilitas tua)know, say they,that it has been so established by the Council ofNice.And though Mention is there made of Clerks only, and Laymen; yet there is no room to doubt but it was their Intention, that such a Regulation should extend to Bishops too; and it would be a great Irregularity, should your Holiness(a Title then common to all Bishops)over-hastily and unduly admit to your Communion Bishops, who have been excommunicated in their own Provinces. Your Holiness therefore must not receive the Presbyters, and other Clerks, who, to avoid the Punishment, which they deserve, recur to you; the rather as we know of no Constitutions thus derogatory to the Authority of our Churches; and the Council ofNicehas subjected the Bishops themselves to the judgment of their Metropolitan. The Fathers of that Council have decreed, with great Wisdom and Equity, that all Disputes should be finally determined in the Places where they began, being sensible, that the Grace of the Holy Spirit, necessary for judging rightly, would not be wanting in any Province; especially as every Man, who thinks himself injured, may apply for Redress, if he pleases, to the Synod of his own Province, or to a national Council. Would it not be Presumption in any of us to suppose or imagine, that God will inspire a particular Person with the Spirit of Justice, and refuse it to many Bishops assembled in Council? And how can a Judgment, given out of the Country, and beyond Sea, be right, where the necessary Witnesses cannot be present, by reason of their Sex, of their Age, or of some other Impediment? As for your sending Legates, we find no such Ordinance in any Council, nor in the Writings of the Fathers. As for what you have sent us by our CollegueFaustinus,as a Canon of the Council ofNice,we must let you know, that no such Canon is to be found in the genuine and uncorrupt Copies of that Council, which have been transcribed and sent us by our Fellow-BishopCyrilofAlexandria,and the ReverendAtticusofConstantinople.Those Copies we sent toBoniface,your Predecessor of worthy Memory. We therefore earnestly beg you would send no more Legates, nor Ecclesiastics, to execute your Judgments here, lest you should seem to introduce worldly Pride and Arrogance(typhum sæculi)into the Church of Christ.They conclude with intreatinghim not to sufferFaustinusto continue any longer among them[1602].Celestine, finding the Spirit with which they acted, and sensible that it would be useless to employ Force at this Juncture, thought it advisable to acquiesce for the present, and wait till a more favourable Opportunity should offer for him, or his Successors, to renew the Attempt[N70].

N70.Schelstratewould make us believe, thatGregory the Greatprevailed upon theAfricanBishops to revoke the Canon forbidding the Presbyters and inferior Clergy to appeal toRome[1]; andDavidius, That theAfricanschanged their Minds with respect to the Appeals of Bishops, as soon as they were informed, that such Appeals had been allowed, and approved of, by the Council ofSardica[2]. But neither alleges any solid Reason, or even Conjecture, to prove Facts of such Importance; nay, whatDavidiusadvances is certainly false, since the Canons forbidding all Appeals toRome, made at this time, were still quoted among the other Canons of theAfrican Collectionin 825. and confirmed by a Council held atCarthagethat Year[3]. Some pretend thatCelestineseparated himself on this Occasion from theAfricanBishops, and that this Separation continued between their Churches, and that ofRome, till the Beginning of the VIIth Century, whenEulaliusofCarthage, and his Collegues, desirous of putting an End to the Schism, revoked all the Canons that had been made in 426. derogatory to the Rights of theRomanSee[4]. This they advance upon the Authority of a Piece commonly ascribed to PopeBonifaceII. But that Piece is so evidently supposititious, thatBaroniushimself is forced to give it up.1. Schel. Eccles. Afric. p. 50.2. Dav. jugemens Canoniques des Evesques, p. 663, 664.3. Concil. t. 4. p. 1636.4. Van. Espen. in Can. p. 216.

1. Schel. Eccles. Afric. p. 50.2. Dav. jugemens Canoniques des Evesques, p. 663, 664.

1. Schel. Eccles. Afric. p. 50.

2. Dav. jugemens Canoniques des Evesques, p. 663, 664.

3. Concil. t. 4. p. 1636.4. Van. Espen. in Can. p. 216.

3. Concil. t. 4. p. 1636.

4. Van. Espen. in Can. p. 216.

CelestinedeclaresTranslations lawful.

The following Year 427.SisiniusBishop ofConstantinoplebeing dead, the Bishops in those Parts were for appointingProculusin his room. But, asProculushad been ordained before, though never installed Bishop ofCyzicus, they were under some Apprehension, lest his Promotion to the See ofConstantinopleshould be deemed a Breach of the Canons forbidding Translations. ButCelestine, whom they consulted on this Occasion, delivered them from that Apprehension, declaring, in a Letter, which he writ at this time toCyrilofAlexandria,JohnofAntioch, andRufusofThessalonica, that they might safely place on one See a Bishop named to another, nay, and a Bishop who actually governed another[1603]; that is, he declared Translations lawful[N71].

N71. Against Translations there may be Reasons in Policy; but there can be none in Conscience; and none that are at all to the Purpose, have been alleged either by the Councils, or Fathers, though the former have exerted all their Authority to prevent them, and the latter all their Oratory to make them appear criminal. The Councils ofArles, ofNice, ofAlexandria, ofSardica, ofChalcedon, ofAntioch, forbid them on the severest Penalties the Church could inflict. The Council ofSardica, by its First Canon deprived such Bishops, as should change their Churches, even of the Lay-Communion: and because some pleaded, or at least the Council apprehended they might plead, the Desire and Request of the People; to leave no room for such an Excuse, the Council by its Second Canon deprived those, who should allege it, of the Lay-Communion, even at the Point of Death[1]. The Council ofAlexandria, under St.Athanasius, in their Epistle to all the Catholic Bishops, speak thus ofEusebius, who had been translated fromBerytustoNicomedia: Eusebiusdid not reflect on the Admonition of the Apostle, Art thou bound to a Wife? Do not seek to be loosed. For if it be said of a Woman, how much more of a Church? To which if one is tied, he ought not to seek another; that he may not be likewise found an Adulterer, according to the Scripture[2]. What Analogy between a Wife, and a Bishoprick? The Bishops of that Assembly were even of Opinion, thatEusebius, by abandoning his former Church had annulled his Episcopacy. In the Synod underMennasit was laid to the Charge ofAnthimus, that being Bishop ofTrebisond, he hadadulterouslyseized on the See ofConstantinople[3]. In the same Strain have the Fathers declaimed against Translations, whenever an Opportunity offered of bringing in that favourite Topic; for the Canons and Decisions of the Councils were only the private Opinions of the major Part of the Bishops, who composed them. They generally inveigh against thatadulterous Traffick, as if they supposed a Bishop to be married to the Church, which he was ordained to serve, or tied to it by Bonds no less indissoluble than a Husband to his Wife: And it was upon that Supposition, that they charged with Adultery those, who passed from one Church to another. But that Supposition none of them have been able to make good either from Scripture or Reason. As for the Command of the Apostle in his Letter toTimothy,A Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife, which some of them have interpreted as levelled against Translations; the far greater Part both of the Fathers and Councils have in that Passage understood the WordWife, not in a metaphorical, but a natural Sense, and thereupon excluded from the Episcopal Dignity such as had been twice married. But allowing St.Paulto have meant aChurchby the WordWife, the most obvious and natural Interpretation we can give to his Words, is, that he there forbids Pluralities of Bishopricks, which were once very common in the Church ofRome.But whatever Reasons the Fathers and Councils may have alleged, or could allege, against Translations, they have themselves defeated them all by the contrary Practice. For some of the greatest Saints, and Lights of the Church, have been either translated, or approved and promoted the Translations of others. The famousMethodius, who suffered underDiocletianin the Year 311. or 312. passed from the See ofOlympusinLyciato that ofTyre[4].Eustathius, who is supposed to have presided at the Council ofNice, was translated fromBerœatoAntioch, that is, from a small See to the second in the East[5]; nay,Sozomenascribes this Translation to the Council ofNiceitself[6].Syderius, Bishop ofErythrainLibya, was translated byAthanasiustoPtolemais, the Metropolis of the wholePentapolis[7].EuphroniusBishop ofColonia, a small Town on the Borders ofArmenia, was by a Synod, consisting of all the Orthodox Bishops of that Province, translated to the Metropolitan See ofNicopolis; that Translation was highly applauded by St.Basil, who thought it owing not to human Prudence, but to a particular Inspiration of the Holy Ghost[8]; theAriansbeing very powerful in that City, and no Man more fit to make head against them thanEuphronius. The Inhabitants ofColoniawere very unwilling to part with their Bishop; and the Ecclesiastics there even threatened to join theArianParty, ifEuphroniuswas taken from them[9]. But they were in the End prevailed upon by St.Basilto acquiesce in the Will of God, who, said he, had inspired the Prelates with such a Resolution[10]. From these (and many other Instances might be alleged) it is manifest, that the Fathers spoke like mere Declaimers, when they compared a Bishop, who left one Church, and took another, to a Husband, who abandoned his Wife, and married another Woman. But indeed they only inveighed thus, generally speaking, against Translations, when the Persons translated were of the Party, which they opposed; it was then Adultery, it was forfeiting the Episcopal Dignity, to pass from one Church to another. But when they apprehended, that such Changes could any-ways promote the Cause which they had espoused and maintained, those Changes were thereby sanctified, and owing to a particular Inspiration of the Holy Ghost.PopeGelasiusII. excused Translations by the Example of St.Peter.Who dares to maintain, says he,that St.Peter,the Prince of the Apostles, was to blame, for changing the See ofAntiochfor that ofRome[11]? And who dares to maintain, that any Bishop is to blame for doing what the Prince of the Apostles had done before him? But were there no other Instances, besides that of St.Peter, to give a Sanction to Translations, I should readily grant them never to have been allowed in the Church. For St.Peternever was Bishop ofRome, as I have shewn already[12]; and some of the Reasons, proving him never to have been Bishop ofRome, make equally against his pretended Episcopacy ofAntioch. Most of the Ecclesiastical Writers indeed suppose him to have been Bishop ofAntioch; but St.Lukeis quite silent on that Head, though within the Compass of his History, asJeromobserved[13]; and his Silence ought to be of more Weight, than the Authority of Writers, who lived some Ages after.Origen, who flourished in the Third Century, was the first who mentioned St.Peter’s See ofAntioch, saying, It was held byIgnatiusafter him[14].Origenwas copied byEusebius, andEusebiusby those, who came after him.On Translations a modern Writer of the Court ofRomereasons thus: “Translations have been severely censured by the Fathers, and often condemned both by the Popes and the Councils. But neither can the Councils tie the Hands of the Popes, nor can one Pope tie the Hands of another. The Power of dispensing with all canonical Impediments the Popes hold by Divine Right; which therefore can only be restrained by divine Authority. However, Translations ought not to be allowed, but on most urgent Occasions; and it is in order to prevent them, that the Popes have adopted the wise Regulations of some well-governed Republics, where certain Goods are not prohibited, but loaded with such Customs as are next to a Prohibition[15].” The Canons were made for the Good of the Church, and the People; and therefore cannot be binding when they oppose either. Hence it follows, that there being in such Cases no Room left for a Dispensation, nothing ought in Justice to be exacted for it. And yet, let the Occasion be ever so urgent, a very considerable Sum must be paid into the Apostolic Chamber for the pretended Dispensation. If the Occasion is not urgent, they allow the Canons to be binding; and what can induce the Popes to dispense with them, but that, which one of them taxed those Bishops with, who seek Translations,Avarice, filthy Lucre, and an ungodly Desire of greater Wealth[16]? as if the Canons had been made with no other View but to give the Popes an Opportunity of filling their Coffers by granting Leave to transgress them.1. Concil. t. 2. p. 628.2. Syn. Alex. apud Athan. apol. 2.3. Concil. sub Menn. p. 9.4. Hier. vir. ill. c. 83. Socr. l. 6. c. 13.5. Theod. l. 1. c. 6. Theoph. Eutych. & alii.6. Soz. l. 1. c. 2.7. Synes. ep. 67.8. Basil. ep. 292.9. Id. ibid.10. Id. ibid. & ep. 290. 293.11. Gelas. II. ep. 1.12. See above, p.5.13. Hier. in Gal. ii.14. Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.15. Contius de Curia Romana.16. Anast. ep. 2.

But whatever Reasons the Fathers and Councils may have alleged, or could allege, against Translations, they have themselves defeated them all by the contrary Practice. For some of the greatest Saints, and Lights of the Church, have been either translated, or approved and promoted the Translations of others. The famousMethodius, who suffered underDiocletianin the Year 311. or 312. passed from the See ofOlympusinLyciato that ofTyre[4].Eustathius, who is supposed to have presided at the Council ofNice, was translated fromBerœatoAntioch, that is, from a small See to the second in the East[5]; nay,Sozomenascribes this Translation to the Council ofNiceitself[6].Syderius, Bishop ofErythrainLibya, was translated byAthanasiustoPtolemais, the Metropolis of the wholePentapolis[7].EuphroniusBishop ofColonia, a small Town on the Borders ofArmenia, was by a Synod, consisting of all the Orthodox Bishops of that Province, translated to the Metropolitan See ofNicopolis; that Translation was highly applauded by St.Basil, who thought it owing not to human Prudence, but to a particular Inspiration of the Holy Ghost[8]; theAriansbeing very powerful in that City, and no Man more fit to make head against them thanEuphronius. The Inhabitants ofColoniawere very unwilling to part with their Bishop; and the Ecclesiastics there even threatened to join theArianParty, ifEuphroniuswas taken from them[9]. But they were in the End prevailed upon by St.Basilto acquiesce in the Will of God, who, said he, had inspired the Prelates with such a Resolution[10]. From these (and many other Instances might be alleged) it is manifest, that the Fathers spoke like mere Declaimers, when they compared a Bishop, who left one Church, and took another, to a Husband, who abandoned his Wife, and married another Woman. But indeed they only inveighed thus, generally speaking, against Translations, when the Persons translated were of the Party, which they opposed; it was then Adultery, it was forfeiting the Episcopal Dignity, to pass from one Church to another. But when they apprehended, that such Changes could any-ways promote the Cause which they had espoused and maintained, those Changes were thereby sanctified, and owing to a particular Inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

PopeGelasiusII. excused Translations by the Example of St.Peter.Who dares to maintain, says he,that St.Peter,the Prince of the Apostles, was to blame, for changing the See ofAntiochfor that ofRome[11]? And who dares to maintain, that any Bishop is to blame for doing what the Prince of the Apostles had done before him? But were there no other Instances, besides that of St.Peter, to give a Sanction to Translations, I should readily grant them never to have been allowed in the Church. For St.Peternever was Bishop ofRome, as I have shewn already[12]; and some of the Reasons, proving him never to have been Bishop ofRome, make equally against his pretended Episcopacy ofAntioch. Most of the Ecclesiastical Writers indeed suppose him to have been Bishop ofAntioch; but St.Lukeis quite silent on that Head, though within the Compass of his History, asJeromobserved[13]; and his Silence ought to be of more Weight, than the Authority of Writers, who lived some Ages after.Origen, who flourished in the Third Century, was the first who mentioned St.Peter’s See ofAntioch, saying, It was held byIgnatiusafter him[14].Origenwas copied byEusebius, andEusebiusby those, who came after him.

On Translations a modern Writer of the Court ofRomereasons thus: “Translations have been severely censured by the Fathers, and often condemned both by the Popes and the Councils. But neither can the Councils tie the Hands of the Popes, nor can one Pope tie the Hands of another. The Power of dispensing with all canonical Impediments the Popes hold by Divine Right; which therefore can only be restrained by divine Authority. However, Translations ought not to be allowed, but on most urgent Occasions; and it is in order to prevent them, that the Popes have adopted the wise Regulations of some well-governed Republics, where certain Goods are not prohibited, but loaded with such Customs as are next to a Prohibition[15].” The Canons were made for the Good of the Church, and the People; and therefore cannot be binding when they oppose either. Hence it follows, that there being in such Cases no Room left for a Dispensation, nothing ought in Justice to be exacted for it. And yet, let the Occasion be ever so urgent, a very considerable Sum must be paid into the Apostolic Chamber for the pretended Dispensation. If the Occasion is not urgent, they allow the Canons to be binding; and what can induce the Popes to dispense with them, but that, which one of them taxed those Bishops with, who seek Translations,Avarice, filthy Lucre, and an ungodly Desire of greater Wealth[16]? as if the Canons had been made with no other View but to give the Popes an Opportunity of filling their Coffers by granting Leave to transgress them.

1. Concil. t. 2. p. 628.2. Syn. Alex. apud Athan. apol. 2.3. Concil. sub Menn. p. 9.4. Hier. vir. ill. c. 83. Socr. l. 6. c. 13.5. Theod. l. 1. c. 6. Theoph. Eutych. & alii.6. Soz. l. 1. c. 2.7. Synes. ep. 67.8. Basil. ep. 292.

1. Concil. t. 2. p. 628.

2. Syn. Alex. apud Athan. apol. 2.

3. Concil. sub Menn. p. 9.

4. Hier. vir. ill. c. 83. Socr. l. 6. c. 13.

5. Theod. l. 1. c. 6. Theoph. Eutych. & alii.

6. Soz. l. 1. c. 2.

7. Synes. ep. 67.

8. Basil. ep. 292.

9. Id. ibid.10. Id. ibid. & ep. 290. 293.11. Gelas. II. ep. 1.12. See above, p.5.13. Hier. in Gal. ii.14. Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.15. Contius de Curia Romana.16. Anast. ep. 2.

9. Id. ibid.

10. Id. ibid. & ep. 290. 293.

11. Gelas. II. ep. 1.

12. See above, p.5.

13. Hier. in Gal. ii.

14. Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.

15. Contius de Curia Romana.

16. Anast. ep. 2.

Back to Index Next