Part 51

_Apiarius_, being obliged to quit _Sicca_, as I have related above, retired to _Tabraca_, another City of _Numidia_, and led there so scandalous a Life, that he was excommunicated anew. Hereupon he appealed again to _Rome_, and _Celestine_, which is very surprising, notwithstanding the vigorous Opposition which his Predecessors had, but very lately, met with from the _African_ Bishops, in attempting to restore this very Presbyter, not only declared him innocent, and admitted him to his Communion, but sent him back into _Africa_, attended by the Legate _Faustinus_, who was ordered to see him reinstated. The _Africans_ were but too well acquainted already with the Presumption and Arrogance of the Bishops of _Rome_; and yet such an insolent Act quite surprised them. For _Celestine_ had neither examined the Crimes, which _Apiarius_ was charged with, nor heard the 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 of _Apiarius_ at _Rome_, which, he said, had given him great Joy; and by the Second, which was brought by _Faustinus_, he acquainted them, that he was overjoyed to have found him innocent. From this despotic and extraordinary way of acting, the _African_ Bishops concluded, that _Celestine_ was determined to keep no Measures with them, and that nothing less than an intire Subjection of the _African_ Churches to the See of _Rome_ would satisfy his Ambition. But they were resolved to maintain, at all Events, the Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free. [Sidenote: _A General Council assembled._ Apiarius _appears before it, with_ Faustinus.] A General Council was therefore assembled, and _Apiarius_ summoned to attend. He obeyed the Summons, and appeared before the Council at the Time appointed, but in Company with _Faustinus_, shewing thereby, that he placed greater Confidence in him than in his own Innocence. _Faustinus_ spoke first, and pressed, with great Warmth, the Fathers of the Assembly to re-admit _Apiarius_ to their Communion, since he had been declared innocent by the Apostolic See, and admitted by _Celestine_ to the Communion of the _Roman_ Church. The Bishops replied, that in _Africa_ _Apiarius_ had been found guilty, and that in _Africa_ his Innocence must be made to appear, before they could receive him again to their Communion. [Sidenote: _The Legate’s insolent Conduct._] As they stuck to this Point, _Faustinus_ undertook 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. [Sidenote: Apiarius _pleads his own Cause_.] _Apiarius_ was sensible, that the Speech of _Faustinus_, instead of reconciling the _African_ Bishops 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 of _Faustinus_, endeavoured to clear himself from the Crimes that had been laid to his Charge. [Sidenote: Faustinus _assists him_.] When he had spoken, the Witnesses against him were heard; and the Tryal lasted Three whole Days, _Apiarius_ striving, with great Art and Subtilty, to invalidate the Depositions, and _Faustinus_ prompting him when he was at a Stand. He might, perhaps, have escaped Condemnation, partly by his own Craft and Address, partly by the powerful Protection of the Bishop of _Rome_, had he been able to withstand the Stings of his own Conscience. [Sidenote: Apiarius, _struck with sudden Remorse, owns the Crimes laid to his Charge_.] But, on the Fourth Day, when _Faustinus_ began 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 of _Faustinus_, 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 were _heinous, 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 of _Rome_, 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, that _Apiarius_ was guilty; at least they did not know, that he was innocent. But as he had been declared guilty in _Africa_, 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 the _African_ Churches; 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 the _Africans_, now sensible that there was no Wickedness which the Bishops of _Rome_ would not countenance, in order to establish their Power in _Africa_, 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. [Sidenote: _The_ African _Bishops renew the Canon forbidding Appeals to_ Rome.] Accordingly they first absolutely cut off _Apiarius_ from the Communion of the Church; then renewed, in stronger Terms than ever, the Canon, which had given so great Offence at _Rome_, prohibiting, on Pain of Excommunication, Appeals _beyond Sea_, under any Pretence whatsoever; and this Prohibition they extended to Ecclesiastics of all Conditions and Ranks. _Faustinus_ blustered, vapoured, threatened; but all in vain. The Bishops not only signed, all to a Man, the above-mentioned Canon, but writ a Synodal Letter to _Celestine_, acquainting him with what had passed in the Case of _Apiarius_, and earnestly intreating him not to give Ear for the future to those, who should have recourse to him from _Africa_, nor receive to his Communion such as they had excluded from theirs: [Sidenote: _Their Letter to_ Celestine.] _For we must let your Venerableness_ (Venerabilitas tua) _know_, say they, _that it has been so established by the Council of_ Nice. _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 of_ Nice _has 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 Collegue_ Faustinus, _as a Canon of the Council of_ Nice, _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-Bishop_ Cyril _of_ Alexandria, _and the Reverend_ Atticus _of_ Constantinople. _Those Copies we sent to_ Boniface, _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 intreating him not to suffer _Faustinus_ to 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].

Footnote N70:

_Schelstrate_ would make us believe, that _Gregory the Great_ prevailed upon the _African_ Bishops to revoke the Canon forbidding the Presbyters and inferior Clergy to appeal to _Rome_[N70.1]; and _Davidius_, That the _Africans_ changed 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 of _Sardica_[N70.2]. But neither alleges any solid Reason, or even Conjecture, to prove Facts of such Importance; nay, what _Davidius_ advances is certainly false, since the Canons forbidding all Appeals to _Rome_, made at this time, were still quoted among the other Canons of the _African Collection_ in 825. and confirmed by a Council held at _Carthage_ that Year[N70.3]. Some pretend that _Celestine_ separated himself on this Occasion from the _African_ Bishops, and that this Separation continued between their Churches, and that of _Rome_, till the Beginning of the VIIth Century, when _Eulalius_ of _Carthage_, 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 the _Roman_ See[N70.4]. This they advance upon the Authority of a Piece commonly ascribed to Pope _Boniface_ II. But that Piece is so evidently supposititious, that _Baronius_ himself is forced to give it up.

Footnote N70.1:

Schel. Eccles. Afric. p. 50.

Footnote N70.2:

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

Footnote N70.3:

Concil. t. 4. p. 1636.

Footnote N70.4:

Van. Espen. in Can. p. 216.

[Sidenote: Celestine _declares Translations lawful_.]

The following Year 427. _Sisinius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_ being dead, the Bishops in those Parts were for appointing _Proculus_ in his room. But, as _Proculus_ had been ordained before, though never installed Bishop of _Cyzicus_, they were under some Apprehension, lest his Promotion to the See of _Constantinople_ should be deemed a Breach of the Canons forbidding Translations. But _Celestine_, whom they consulted on this Occasion, delivered them from that Apprehension, declaring, in a Letter, which he writ at this time to _Cyril_ of _Alexandria_, _John_ of _Antioch_, and _Rufus_ of _Thessalonica_, 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].

Footnote 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 of _Arles_, of _Nice_, of _Alexandria_, of _Sardica_, of _Chalcedon_, of _Antioch_, forbid them on the severest Penalties the Church could inflict. The Council of _Sardica_, 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[N71.1]. The Council of _Alexandria_, under St. _Athanasius_, in their Epistle to all the Catholic Bishops, speak thus of _Eusebius_, who had been translated from _Berytus_ to _Nicomedia_: Eusebius _did 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_[N71.2]. What Analogy between a Wife, and a Bishoprick? The Bishops of that Assembly were even of Opinion, that _Eusebius_, by abandoning his former Church had annulled his Episcopacy. In the Synod under _Mennas_ it was laid to the Charge of _Anthimus_, that being Bishop of _Trebisond_, he had _adulterously_ seized on the See of _Constantinople_[N71.3]. 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 that _adulterous 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 to _Timothy_, _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 Word _Wife_, not in a metaphorical, but a natural Sense, and thereupon excluded from the Episcopal Dignity such as had been twice married. But allowing St. _Paul_ to have meant a _Church_ by the Word _Wife_, 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 of _Rome_.

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 famous _Methodius_, who suffered under _Diocletian_ in the Year 311. or 312. passed from the See of _Olympus_ in _Lycia_ to that of _Tyre_[N71.4]. _Eustathius_, who is supposed to have presided at the Council of _Nice_, was translated from _Berœa_ to _Antioch_, that is, from a small See to the second in the East[N71.5]; nay, _Sozomen_ ascribes this Translation to the Council of _Nice_ itself[N71.6]. _Syderius_, Bishop of _Erythra_ in _Libya_, was translated by _Athanasius_ to _Ptolemais_, the Metropolis of the whole _Pentapolis_[N71.7]. _Euphronius_ Bishop of _Colonia_, a small Town on the Borders of _Armenia_, was by a Synod, consisting of all the Orthodox Bishops of that Province, translated to the Metropolitan See of _Nicopolis_; 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[N71.8]; the _Arians_ being very powerful in that City, and no Man more fit to make head against them than _Euphronius_. The Inhabitants of _Colonia_ were very unwilling to part with their Bishop; and the Ecclesiastics there even threatened to join the _Arian_ Party, if _Euphronius_ was taken from them[N71.9]. But they were in the End prevailed upon by St. _Basil_ to acquiesce in the Will of God, who, said he, had inspired the Prelates with such a Resolution[N71.10]. 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.

Pope _Gelasius_ II. 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 of_ Antioch _for that of_ Rome[N71.11]? 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. _Peter_ never was Bishop of _Rome_, as I have shewn already[N71.12]; and some of the Reasons, proving him never to have been Bishop of _Rome_, make equally against his pretended Episcopacy of _Antioch_. Most of the Ecclesiastical Writers indeed suppose him to have been Bishop of _Antioch_; but St. _Luke_ is quite silent on that Head, though within the Compass of his History, as _Jerom_ observed[N71.13]; 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 of _Antioch_, saying, It was held by _Ignatius_ after him[N71.14]. _Origen_ was copied by _Eusebius_, and _Eusebius_ by those, who came after him.

On Translations a modern Writer of the Court of _Rome_ reasons 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[N71.15].” 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_[N71.16]? 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.

Footnote N71.1:

Concil. t. 2. p. 628.

Footnote N71.2:

Syn. Alex. apud Athan. apol. 2.

Footnote N71.3:

Concil. sub Menn. p. 9.

Footnote N71.4:

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

Footnote N71.5:

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

Footnote N71.6:

Soz. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote N71.7:

Synes. ep. 67.

Footnote N71.8:

Basil. ep. 292.

Footnote N71.9:

Id. ibid.

Footnote N71.10:

Id. ibid. & ep. 290. 293.

Footnote N71.11:

Gelas. II. ep. 1.

Footnote N71.12:

See above, p. 5.

Footnote N71.13:

Hier. in Gal. ii.

Footnote N71.14:

Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.

Footnote N71.15:

Contius de Curia Romana.

Footnote N71.16:

Anast. ep. 2.

[Sidenote: _His Letter to the Metropolitans of_ Illyricum.]

The same Year _Celestine_ writ to _Perigenes_ of _Corinth_, _Donatus_ of _Nicopolis_ in _Epirus_, and _Basil_ of _Larissa_ in _Thessaly_, all Three Metropolitans of _Illyricum_, recommending to them an intire Submission to the See of _Rome_, and to that of _Thessalonica_; _Rufus_, who presided there, having been appointed by him to determine, in his Name, all Disputes that might arise among them. He lets them know, that, in virtue of the Submission, which they owed to the See of _Thessalonica_, and he required of them, they were to ordain no Bishops, assemble no Councils, without the Knowledge and Consent of _Rufus_; which was restraining to the See of _Thessalonica_, that is, engrossing to himself (for the Bishop of _Thessalonica_ acted only as his Vicar), the Privileges, which the Council of _Nice_ had granted to all Metropolitans. It is observable, that in this very Letter _Celestine_ affects an intire Obedience to the Canons of the Church. _We ought_, says he, _to subject our Will to the Rules, and not the Rules to our Will; we ought to conform to the Canons, and strictly observe what they prescribe_[1604]. But he did not govern himself by this Maxim upon other Occasions.

[Sidenote: _He complains of several Abuses that prevailed in some Churches of_ Gaul.]