had succeeded him. Celestine, without any communication with Africa, restored him to communion. It seems most extraordinary that pope after pope should have acted in this scandalous manner. Apparently, in order to assert the papal jurisdiction over Africa, the popes were willing to break the most fundamental canons of the Church, and to run the risk of presenting the Roman Church to the eyes of the world as an accomplice in foul and enormous crimes.

Pope Celestine went on to add insult to injury. He wrote to the African Church, expressing his joy at finding Apiarius innocent, although he had never had any opportunity of hearing what the accusers of that wicked priest had to say; and then, to make things worse, he sent him back to Africa to be readmitted to communion, and with him he sent, as legate, that same Bishop Faustinus who had given such just cause of umbrage to the African Church on the previous occasion. When Faustinus arrived, a universal or plenary council of all Africa was convoked, apparently in the year 426; and the bishops, under the presidency of S. Aurelius of Carthage, wrote an admirable letter (Optaremus) to Celestine. It was addressed "to the most beloved lord and honourable brother, Celestine." They begin by expressing the wish that, as Celestine had written to them about Apiarius with joy, so they could make their reply concerning him with similar joy. Then the gladness on both sides would be better founded, and the pope's satisfaction in regard to Apiarius would appear less hasty and precipitate. Then they proceed as follows, and I will give their exact words. They say, "When our holy brother and fellow-bishop Faustinus arrived, we assembled a council; and we believed that he had been sent with that man, in order that, as by his help Apiarius had formerly been restored to the priesthood, so now by his exertions the same Apiarius might be cleared of the very

1 The first sentence of the fifth canon of Nicaea runs as follows: "Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated by the bishops in each several province, let the sentence hold good, according to the rule which prescribes that persons excommunicated by some bishops are not to be received into communion by others." The fifty-third canon of Elvira lays down that "a man who has been excommunicated for any crime can only be restored to communion by the bishop who excommunicated him. But if another bishop shall have presumed to receive him without the co-operation or consent of him by whom he was excommunicated, he will have to answer for it before his brethren, and will risk removal from his office." Duchesne (Mélanges Renier, pp. 159-174) assigns the Council of Elvira to the year 300. Compare also the sixteenth canon of Arles (A.D. 314), the sixth of Antioch (A.D. 341), and the thirteenth (al. sixteenth) of Sardica (A.D. 343); and see Dr. Bright's note on the fifth canon of Nicaea.

The Ballerini, referring to a general council of the African Church, speak of it as a "concilium plenarium, seu, ut alio nomine promiscue vocabatur, universale" (cf. Ballerinor. Obss. in Dissert. xiii. Quesnell., § vi. n. xxviii., P. L., lvi. 1020).

great crimes charged against him by the people of Tabraca. But the course of examination in our council brought to light such great and monstrous crimes, as to overbear Faustinus, who acted rather as an advocate than as a judge, and who manifested rather the zeal of a lawyer engaged for the defence than the impartiality of an umpire. For first he vehemently opposed the whole assembly, inflicting on us many affronts under pretence of asserting the privileges of the Church of Rome, requiring that we should receive Apiarius back into communion, because your holiness, believing him to have appealed, though he was unable to prove that he had appealed, had restored him to communion. But to act in such a way was quite unlawful, as you will also better see by reading the acts of our synod. After a most laborious inquiry carried on for three days, during which, in the greatest affliction, we investigated the various charges against him, God the righteous Judge, strong and patient, put a complete end to the obstacles raised by our brotherbishop Faustinus and to the evasions of Apiarius himself, by which he was trying to conceal his execrably shameful acts. For his foul and disgusting obstinacy was overcome, by which he endeavoured to cover up, through an impudent denial, all this dirty mire; for our God put pressure upon his conscience, and published even to the eyes of men the secret things which He was already condemning in that man's heart, a very sty of wickedness; so that, notwithstanding his crafty denial, Apiarius suddenly burst forth into a confession of all the crimes with which he was charged, and of his own accord convicted himself of every kind of incredible infamy; and thus he changed to groans even the hope we had entertained, believing and desiring that he might be cleared from such shameful blots; except, indeed, that he mitigated by one consolation this our sorrow, in that he released us from the labour of a longer inquiry, and by confession had applied some sort of remedy to his own wounds, though, sir and brother (domine frater), it was done unwillingly and with a struggling conscience. Premising, therefore, our due regards to you,1 we earnestly beg of you, that for the future you do not too easily admit to a hearing persons coming to Rome from Africa,2 nor consent any more to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us; because your reverence will readily

"Praefato itaque debitae salutationis officio."

2 There might, of course, be cases in which some doctrinal matter might be in dispute, in which it would be allowable to appeal from a decision of an African council to the Catholic episcopate beyond the seas, and pre-eminently to the occupants of the several apostolic thrones.

perceive that this has also been decreed by the Nicene Council. For, although this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity, how much more did the council will this to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who have been suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or precipitately or in some undue sort by your holiness. Let your holiness reject, as is worthy of you, that bad taking shelter with you of priests and of the clergy of lower degree, both because by no ordinance of the Fathers has this right been withdrawn from the African Church, and also because the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed the inferior clergy and the bishops themselves to their metropolitans. For they have ordained with great prudence and justice that all matters shall be terminated in the places where they arise; and they did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any province, by which grace the bishops of Christ would discern with prudence and maintain with constancy whatever was equitable; especially since any party, who thinks himself wronged by a judgement, may appeal to the synod of his province, or even to a general council [of all Africa]; unless it be imagined by any one that our God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops assembled in

council."

3

I must break off here to point out how faithfully the great African Church had guarded the tradition which she

1 See the first note on p. 190. The Nicene Council makes no provision for any appeal to Rome. The provincial synod is the highest court of appeal which it recognizes.

"Vel festinato vel praepropere vel indebite." The pope had no right to receive to his communion African Christians who had been excommunicated by the African Church, until they had been restored by their own church. If he did so, he would be acting hastily and precipitately and in an undue way. The great principle on which the council insists is "that all matters shall be terminated in the places where they arise." Dr. Rivington (Dependence, pp. 226, 227) has failed to realize this.

3 It will hardly be believed that Father Bottalla, speaking of this letter (Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 142), says that the African Fathers "made no objection to appeals of bishops to the Roman pontiff, but only to those of the inferior clergy. He goes on to say (p. 143), "The African Church never denied the right of the pope to receive appeals in the case of bishops and even of priests. Such a denial was impossible, since that church had always looked upon the Roman Bishop, as not only its patriarch, but also the supreme pastor of the universal Church.' Father Bottalla's argument may be retorted upon himself. As the African Church clearly did deny the right of the pope to receive appeals in the case of bishops and also of priests, it follows, on Father Bottalla's principles, that that church did not look upon the pope either as its patriarch or as "the supreme pastor of the universal Church.” It is fair to add that all Roman Catholic divines are not like Father Bottalla. Tillemont (xiii. 862-866, and 1031-1039) and others candidly admit what ought never to have been denied. The Council of Carthage, under S. Aurelius, was carrying on the old principle laid down by S. Cyprian (see p. 53).

possessed nearly two hundred years before, in the time of S. Cyprian, who, you will remember, implied that no Christian would be likely to think that the authority of the bishops in Africa was inferior to the authority of the pope, except some few "desperate and abandoned men."

I now continue my quotation from the letter of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine. They go on to say, "How shall we be able to trust a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send the necessary witnesses, whether on account of the weakness of sex, or of advanced age, or through any other impediment? 2 For that any legates a latere should be sent by your holiness, we can find ordained by no synod of the Fathers." Next they point out that the Sardican canon, quoted by Faustinus, is not a genuine Nicene canon, as was made apparent by the authentic copies of the canons of Nicaea, which they had received from Alexandria and Constantinople. Finally, they conclude their letter thus. They say, "Moreover, refrain from sending any of your clerks, as executors of your orders, whoever they may be who petition you to send them, refrain from granting this, lest it should seem that we are introducing the smoky arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ, which sets before those who desire to see God the light of simplicity and the splendour of humility. For now that the miserable Apiarius has been removed out of the Church of Christ for his horrible crimes, we feel confident respecting our brother Faustinus, that, through the uprightness and moderation of your holiness, our brotherly charity remaining uninjured will by no means have to endure him any longer in Africa. Sir and brother, may our Lord long preserve your holiness to pray for us.'

4

1 I have discussed the meaning of the passage quoted on p. 53, from which the expression, "desperate and abandoned men," is taken, in the Additional Note 18 (pp. 446-450).

The whole of this reasoning is just as valid for the case of bishops as for the case of the inferior clergy. It goes to prove that "all matters" should "be terminated in the places where they arise." There is a passage in S. Augustine's forty-third (al. 162nd) letter, addressed to Glorius and others (Opp., ed. Ben., ii. 91), which is sometimes quoted as if it implied that African bishops could appeal to Rome from the sentences of the regular ecclesiastical tribunals in Africa, but that priests and deacons could not so appeal. Such a view proceeds from a complete misunderstanding of the passage and of the circumstances connected with the origin of the Donatist schism, to which S. Augustine is referring. It would take too long to deal with the matter in a note. The reader may be referred to Archbishop De Marca (De Concord. Sac. et Imp., lib. vii. cap. xvi. §§ vi.-ix., coll. 1053-1056, edit. Böhmer, 1708), and to Tillemont (vi. 15, 16).

On the subject of the exsecutores of the Roman bishops, see Du Cange (Glossarium Med. et Infim. Latinitat., edit. 1843, tom. iii. p. 144) and Dom Coustant (P. L., 1. 426, 427).

Coleti, iii. 532-534, and P. L., 1. 422–427. On the genuineness of this letter, see Appendix F, pp. 204-214.

Such was the celebrated letter of the Church of North Africa to Pope Celestine. I cannot imagine a more complete repudiation of the papal idea. That idea involves the principle that jure divino every member of the Church, whether clerical or lay, has an inherent right to have "recourse to the pope's judgement in all causes which appertain to the jurisdiction of the Church." The African Fathers absolutely deny that right.2 Because, if they had believed in it, they must have safeguarded it. No Christian man would pass over and ignore a matter of divine revelation. No assembly of Christian subjects could venture to dictate to their divinely appointed sovereign, that he should refrain from using one of his divinely given prerogatives. Ultramontane writers ask of us impossibilities when they ask us to believe that. Let them say, if they like, that the African Church was wrong, heretical in fact, in regard to that matter which, in the opinion of De Maistre, is the "necessary, only, and exclusive foundation of Christianity;" but, as honourable men, let them refrain from pretending that the Church of North Africa, in the time of S. Augustine, believed in the principles laid down by the Vatican Council. Such a pretence is an impertinence and an act of folly, which must alienate every person of good sense and Christian simplicity who is cognizant of it. Let the Church of S. Augustine, S. Aurelius, and S. Alypius be branded as heretical, if the Ultramontanes choose to have it so; we for our part are quite willing to stand side by side. with those great saints, and to share their condemnation. There is the possibility, some may think the probability, that at the awful tribunal of our Lord hereafter the note of heresy may be otherwise assigned.

It is hardly worth while to refer to the absurd cavil which some Romanists make, when they set forth, as if it overthrew the whole argument arising out of the synodical letter which has been so largely quoted, the fact that Anthony, Bishop of Fussala, appealed in A.D. 421 (or 422) to Pope Boniface from the decision of a council in Numidia, which

1 Bossuet (Def. Decl. Cler. Gall., xi. 14, Œuvres, xxxiii. 334, edit. 1818) calls this letter "nobilem illam epistolam." The Ultramontane Lupus naturally calls it "infelicissimam, et scatentem erroribus," and the synod, which wrote it, he describes as " erraticam, deviam ac praevaricatoriam." The unfortunate Lupus, with his Ultramontane ideas, continually finds himself completely out of sympathy with the great saints of the fourth and fifth centuries. They and he lived in two different worlds of thought. Bossuet well describes his pettifogging criticisms on the African Fathers who wrote this letter, as "inepta, ne dicam impia" (Op. cit., P. 337). For full proof that Bossuet was the author of the Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani, the reader is referred to Cardinal de Bausset's Histoire de Bossuet, edit. 1819, tom. ii. pp. 381-429.

2 For a fuller discussion of the views of the African bishops on the subject of appeals to Rome, see the Additional Note 68, p. 490.

3

E.g. Father Bottalla, loc. cit.