Page:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu/103

Rh reappears at Carthage. But not only did the culprit finally and ignominiously break down before the council: the replies from the Eastern churches had come in, with authentic copies of the Nicene canons; and the canons put forward by Zosimus and his successors were not there. [It must be noted that, although Gratus of Carthage was possibly present at Sardica in 343 (see Nicene Lib. vol. 4, Athanasius, p. 147), the African church knew nothing of the canons passed there. They only knew Sardica by repute as an "Arian" synod, and friendly to the Donatists (Ep. 446; c. Crescon. IV. xliv. 52). The canons of Sardica had not passed into the generally accepted rules of the church.] The council press the ignominious exposure, which makes a clean sweep of papal jurisdiction in Africa, with a firm but respectful hand. They are content to ask Coelestinus to observe the canons, not to receive appellants, not to send legates tanquam a latere, and, above all, not to inflict Faustinus upon them anymore. The Roman chancery did not learn from this painful experience not to tamper with the canons (see the present writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iv., S.P.C.K. 1896), but the incident is decisive as to the mind of the African church. Though Reuter, in his scrupulous desire to be fair, minimizes the part taken by Augustine in the case (pp. 306 seq.), there is nothing to shew that in this matter he was in other than perfect accord with Aurelius and the African bishops. On the contrary, he says, late in his life, of clergy who merely evade his own rigorous diocesan rule: "interpellet contra me mille concilia, naviget contra me quo voluerit, adjuvabit me Deus ut ubi ego episcopus sum, ille clericus esse non possit." This tone implies that the Apiarius case is now matter of history (Serm. 1561). But Reuter is probably right in his view that Augustine's interest in constitutional questions was small compared to his concern for doctrine.

(d) The Roman See and the Final Doctrinal Authority.—Augustine shews no jealousy of the power and prestige of the Roman see. On the contrary, he regarded it as, in a special degree, the depository of apostolic tradition. What degree of dogmatic authority did this imply? The principal data for answering this question are connected with the Pelagian controversy (supra, § 10, a, b). Innocentius certainly reads into the letters of the Africans (Aug. Epp. 175‒177, see 181‒183) a hyper-Sardican attitude towards his chair of which they were innocent. But it is clear that the Africans attach the greatest importance to his approbation of their decision, only they do not treat the doctrinal issue as at all doubtful or subject to papal decision; on the contrary, in the private letter (Ep. 1773, 6‒9) which Augustine sends to ensure that Innocentius shall not lack full information on the merits of the case, he takes for granted that the ecclesiastica et apostolica veritas is already certain. He assumes (with probable historical correctness) that the African church owes its original tradition to Rome (ib.19); but both have their source ("ex eodem capite") in the Apostolic tradition itself (see Reuter, pp. 307‒311). Augustine refers to Innocentius's reply in a

letter to Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 186). He treats it not as a doctrinal decision, but as a splendid confirmation of a doctrine already certain (see Reuter, p. 311). As a result, the Pelagians have definitely lost their case: "causa finita est." Augustine uses this phrase twice: once (§ 10, a, fin.) with reference to the African councils and the reply of Innocentius; once (see beginning of this section) in 421 of the condemnation of Pelagianism by the judicium episcoporum. With the latter passage we must compare Ep. 19022 (written in 418), where the "adjutorium Salvatoris qui suam tuetur ecclesiam" is connected with the "conciliorum episcoporum vigilantia," not with the action of popes Innocentius and Zosimus. At a much later date (426), reviewing the controversy as a whole, he speaks of the whole cause as having been dealt with conciliis episcopalibus; the letters of the Roman bishops are not dignified with separate mention (Ep. 2145). On the whole, these utterances are homogeneous. The prominence, if any, assigned to the rescripta over the concilia in Serm. 131, 10 (supra, § 10, a, fin.) is relative to a passing phase of the question. Its sense is, moreover, wholly altered in the utterance invented for Augustine by some Roman Catholic apologists: Roma locuta est, et causa finita est. It occurred to no one in those days to put any bishop, even of an apostolic see, above a council, although there are signs at Rome of a tendency to work the Sardican canons in that direction. Augustine experienced, as we have seen, a signal, and to him especially galling, papal blunder in the action of Zosimus with reference to the Pelagians. The brunt of the correspondence with Zosimus at this painful crisis apparently fell upon Aurelius and the bishops of his province (Afri. c. Duas Epp. Pel. II. iii. 5), rather than upon Numidia, Augustine's own province. Augustine, as compared with the African bishops, distinctly minimizes the indictment. Zosimus had pronounced the libellus of Coelestius catholic. Augustine explains this favourably, as referring not to his doctrine, but to his profession of submission to correction; "voluntas emendationis, non falsitas dogmatis approbata est." The action of Zosimus was well meant, even if too lenient (lenius actum est. See also de Pecc. Orig. vi. 7, vii. 8). The letter of the Afri, which was stern and menacing in tone ("Constituimus . . . per venerabilem . . . Innocentium . . . prolatam manere sententiam," Prosp. adv. Coll. v. 15) put an end to all hopes of compromise. Zosimus, however (c. Duas Epp., u.s.), "never by a word, in the whole course of the proceedings," denied original sin. His faith was consistent throughout. Coelestius deceived him for a time, but illam sedem usque ad finem fallere non potuit (de Pecc. Orig. xxi. 24). "The Roman church, where he was so well known, he could not deceive permanently" (ib. viii. 9). But there had been danger. "Supposing—which God forbid!—the Roman church had gone back upon the sentence of Innocentius and approved the dogmata condemned by him, then it would be necessary rather [potius] to brand the Roman clergy with the note of praevaricatio." Even in contemplating the repellent possibility that the action of Rome had been 