What happened at the Council of Carthage?

The bishop of Rome, assuming an undue authority, took upon himself to excommunicate the bishops of Asia! A synod was at once called at Carthage. It is said to have consisted of eighty-seven bishops. The questions to be considered were: 1, the validity of baptism by heretics; 2, the conduct of Rome.

Cyprian in every respect maintained the independence of the episcopate against Rome. He says, "Among us there is no one who will arrogate to himself any authority over those of his own order or claim to be a bishop of bishops … inasmuch as every bishop has equal liberty of judging and determining upon all questions that come before him, and can no more be judged by, than he can judge, another. Therefore it should be our resolution to await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all our powers to govern His church are derived, and who alone has authority to call us to account" (Prologue to judgment of 87 bishops in Council of Carthage). So when Pope Cornelius had received Felicissimus, who had been excommunicated in Africa, Cyprian writes to blame him severely, and says the crime ought to be judged where it is committed, and where the witnesses are, "unless to some few desperate and lost persons the authority of the bishops established in Africa seem to be inferior. Their cause is already taken cognizance of, the sentence already passed on them," and declares a special portion of the flock is appropriated to each shepherd, which each is to rule and govern, having to give an account of his acts to God (Epist. 58, Oxford).

72 I add a short note, referred to in the body of the paper, as to the epoch of the dogma of papal supremacy. The first I find, in the midst of much vague deference and admission of rank, who formally makes the pope the one and sole centre of unity, is Optatus of Milevi. In his second book (not having his works, I quote from the Centuriatores Magdeburgici) he says, "The episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter in the city of Rome, in which he sat as head of all the apostles; whence also he was called Cephas, in whom alone the unity of the chair should be kept by all, nor the apostles lay claim each to one for himself (singulas sibi quisque); so that he would be a schismatic and a sinner who should establish another in opposition to the one single chair." But this is said in opposition to the schism of the Donatists. When the African synods, in Augustine's time, had condemned the Pelagians, they sent their decrees as usual to the bishop of Rome. Innocent I tells them they had manifested a proper sense of the submission due to the apostolic see, whence all episcopal power flowed, and must ever flow, as from one single fountain-head, to fertilize the whole world by its manifold streamlets. He had, he said, of his own authority condemned these heresies, and severed their authors from the Church. However, the following pope, Zosimus, approved the statements of Pelagius, as sent to him from Palestine, and condemned all the previous proceedings against Pelagius. But, under Augustine's influence, a council of Carthage, A.D. 418, condemned and anathematized Pelagius, and decreed that anyone shall presume to appeal beyond sea (that is, to Rome), "let none among you receive him into communion." They sent to the emperor, who condemned and banished him from Rome, and then Zosimus condemned too, what he had approved; and the Africans being content, Zosimus claims Peter's universal jurisdiction as before, and all goes on smoothly. Augustine, in his treatise on the Gospel of John, expressly declares that Christ was the rock on which the Church was built - on the rock which Peter had confessed. Elsewhere, if I remember, in his Retractations, he says, people may take it otherwise if they prefer it.

But Zosimus' pretensions set aside their judgment. They met at Carthage in May, 418, Augustine presiding, and condemned and anathematized Pelagius and his disciples, and, not content with this, took the opportunity, in the Council of Milevis, of republishing the Nicene canon, and in their 22nd decree that the appeals should be to local synods or metropolitans, and that if any appealed across the sea (that is, to Rome) he should be received into communion in no African church. Zosimus gave way, summoned Celestius, whom the Africans had condemned, and condemned him too. So much for the pope's infallibility and authority.

"Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles, I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly — I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him. None of you, I hope, will doubt the great authority of the holy Bishop of Hippo, the great and blessed St. Augustine. This pious doctor, the honour and glory of the Catholic church, was secretary in the Council of Melvie. In the decrees of this venerable assembly are to be found these significant words — 'Whoever wills to appeal to those beyond the sea shall not be received by any one in Africa to the communion.' The bishops of Africa acknowledged the bishop of Rome so little that they smote with excommunication those who would have recourse to an appeal. These same bishops, in the sixth Council of Carthage, held under Aurelius, Bishop of that city, wrote to Celestinus, Bishop of Rome, to warn him not to receive appeals from the bishops, priests, or clerics of Africa; and that he should send no more legates or commissaries; and that he should not introduce human pride into the church.

"That the Patriarch of Rome had from the earliest times tried to draw to himself all the authority is an evident fact; but it is an equally evident fact that he had not the supremacy which the Ultramontanes attribute to him. Had he possessed it, would the bishops of Africa — St. Augustine first among them — have dared to prohibit the appeals of their decrees to his supreme tribunal? I confess without difficulty that the patriarch of Rome held the first place. One of Justinian's laws says, 'Let us order, after the definition of the four Councils, that the holy pope of ancient Rome shall be the first of the bishops, and that the most high Archbishop of Constantinople, which is the new Rome, shall be the second.' 'Bow down then to the supremacy of the pope,' you will say to me. Do not run so fast to this conclusion, my venerable brethren, inasmuch as the law of Justinian has written on the face of it, 'Of the order of the patriarchal sees,' precedence is one thing, the power of jurisdiction is another. For example, supposing that in Florence there was an assembly of all the bishops of the kingdom, the precedence would be given to the Primate of Florence, as among the Easterns it would be accorded to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as in England to the Archbishop of Canterbury. But neither the first, nor the second, nor the third, could deduce from the position assigned to him a jurisdiction over his colleagues. The importance of the bishops of Rome proceeded not from a divine power, but from the importance of the city in which they had their seat. Monsignor Darboy is not superior in dignity to the Archbishop of Avignon; but, in spite of that, Paris gives him a consideration which he would not have, if, instead of having his palace on the bank of the Seine, he had it on that of the Rhone. That which is true in the religious order is the same in civil and political matters: the Prefect of Rome is not more a prefect than he is of Pisa; but civilly and politically he has a greater importance. I have said that from the very first centuries the Patriarch of Rome aspired to the universal government of the church. Unfortunately he very nearly reached it; but he had not succeeded assuredly in his pretensions, for the Emperor Theodosius II. made a law by which he established that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have the same authority as he of Rome — (Leg. cod. de sacr., etc.) The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon put the bishops of the new and the old Rome in the same order on all things, even ecclesiastical. (Can. 28.) The sixth Council of Carthage forbade all the bishops to take the title of prince of the bishops or sovereign bishop. As for this title of universal bishop, which the popes took later, St. Gregory I., believing that his successors would never think of adorning themselves with it, wrote these remarkable words, 'None of my predecessors has consented to take this profane name; for when a patriarch gives himself the name of Universal, the title of patriarch suffers discredit. Far be it then from Christians to desire to give themselves a title which brings discredit upon their brethren!' The words of St. Gregory are directed to his colleagues of Constantinople, who pretended to the primacy of the church. Pope Pelagius II. calls John, Bishop of Constantinople, who aspired to the high priesthood, 'impious and profane.' 'Do not care,' he said, 'for the title of universal, which John has usurped illegally. Let none of the patriarchs take this profane name; for what misfortunes may we not expect, if among the priests such elements arise? They would get what has been foretold for them — He is the king of the sons of pride.' (Pelagius II., Lett. 13.) These authorities, and I might add a hundred more of equal value, do they not prove, with a clearness equal to the splendour of the sun at midday, that the first bishops of Rome were not till much later recognised as universal bishops and heads of the church? And, on the other hand, who does not know that, from the year 325, in which the first Council of Nice was held, down to 580, the year of the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, among more than 1,109 bishops who assisted at the first six general Councils there were not more than nineteen Western bishops? Who does not know that the Councils were convoked by the Emperors without informing, and sometimes against the wish of, the bishop of Rome? — that Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, presided at the first Council of Nice, and edited the canons of it? The same Hosius presided afterwards at the Council of Sardica, excluding the legates of Julius, Bishop of Rome.

98 It is worth while, though it be long, to recite what the prelates say in what they call the universal African Council of Carthage: — "No determination of the Fathers has ever taken this authority (of judging its own clergy) from the African church, and the decrees of Nice have openly committed both inferior clergymen and bishops themselves to their metropolitans. For they have provided most prudently and justly that every matter should be terminated in its own place where it arose. Nor is it to be thought that to each and every consideration the grace of the Holy Spirit will be wanting by which equity may be prudently perceived by the priests of Christ, and firmly maintained, especially because it is allowed to every one, if he be offended by the judgment on the charges, to appeal to the councils of his province, or even to a universal one. Unless perhaps there be some one who may think that our God may inspire justice in examining to a single person, whoever it may be, and deny it to innumerable priests assembled in council … For we have not found it established in any synod of the Fathers that any should be sent as legates of your holiness (tuoe sanctitatis a latere, the common name since for popish legates). For that which you formerly transmitted by the same Faustinus, our co-bishop, as on the part of the Nicene Council, in the truer copies of the Council of Nice, which we have received, sent from our co-bishop, Cyril, of the church of Alexandria, and the venerable Atticus, prelate of Constantinople, from the authentic copies, which also had already been sent by us to bishop Boniface of venerable memory, your predecessor, by the hands of Innocent, presbyter, and Marcellus, sub-deacon, by whom they were forwarded to us from them (Cyril and Atticus), we have not been able to find anything of the kind. Also do not think of sending, nor granting, upon any of ours requesting it, any of your clergy as executors (agents to enforce decrees) lest we may seem to introduce the smoky pride of this world into the church of Christ, which offers the light of simplicity and the day-light of lowliness to those who desire to see God." And then the council declares that Africa could no longer endure the presence of Faustinus, if brotherly charity were to be preserved. Apiarius was already put out.

A few words on the order of the canon of the New Testament may not be out of place. We have said that the Acts and the Catholic Epistles are usually found together in MSS. This is the case in the three oldest uncials - the Vatican , the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrian. Yet as to this order there was evidently no fixed rule, nor was the place assigned the Acts in the sacred volume always that next to the Gospels. For in the Codex Sinaiticus the thirteen Epistles of Paul precede the Acts and the Catholic Epistles. Again, in the Codex Bezæ it is evident that the Catholic Epistles had preceded the history of the Acts. Then in the enumeration of the books of the New Testament, whether by councils or by individual writers, no fixed order obtained. The Gospels, though not always in the same order as we have them, hold the first place. The Apocalypse, if mentioned, for the most part comes last. At times the Acts and Catholic Epistles are mentioned before the Pauline writings; at times this order is reversed. The council of Carthage (AD 397) mentions the sacred books of the New Testament in the following order: the Gospels, the Acts, Paul's Epistles, the Catholic Epistles (James excepted), and the Revelation.

The Canon of the New Testament. — A few words on the order of the canon of the New Testament may not be out of place. We have said that the Acts and the Catholic Epistles are usually found together in MSS. This is the case in the three oldest uncials — the Vatican, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrian. Yet as to this order there was evidently no fixed rule, nor was the place assigned the Acts in the sacred volume always that next to the Gospels. For in the Codex Sinaiticus the thirteen Epistles of Paul precede the Acts and the Catholic Epistles. Again, in the Codex Bezae it is evident that the Catholic Epistles had preceded the history of the Acts. Then in the enumeration of the books of the New Testament, whether by councils or by individual writers, no fixed order obtained. The Gospels, though not always in the same order as we have them, hold the first place. The Apocalypse, if mentioned, for the most part comes last. At times the Acts and Catholic Epistles are mentioned before the Pauline writings; at times this order is reversed. The council of Carthage (A.D. 397) mentions the sacred books of the New Testament in the following order: the Gospels, the Acts, Paul's Epistles, the Catholic Epistles (James excepted), and the Revelation.

4.It is true that Irenaeus (about 140 to 202 AD) and Tertullian (around 160 to 220 AD) do not mention the Second Epistle of Peter. The Muratori Canon (end of 2nd century) does not mention it either; neither does it mention Hebrews, James and First Peter. Origines (about 185 to 254 AD) is the first to mention Second Peter but considers it contested. So does Eusebius (around 263 to 339 AD). Cyrill of Jerusalem (around 310 to 386 AD) and Athanasius (around 296 to 373), however, refer to it as writing of the Canon and so do Augustine (354 to 430 AD) and Hieronymus (around 340 to 420 AD). The Eastern Church confirmed at the synod of Laodicea (around 360 AD) that Second Peter is part of the Canon of Holy Scripture. The West has done so in the well known synods in Rome (382 AD), Hippo (383 AD) and Cartago (397 AD) where the inspired writings of the NT found definite recognition against the always increasing heresies.

The Eastern Church confirmed that the epistle of James belonged to the canon of Holy Scriptures at the synod of Laodicea (around 360 AC). The west accepted the epistle in the known synods in Rome (382 AC), Hippo (393 AC) and Cartago (397 AC). This is also where the writings of the NT (inspired by the Holy Spirit) found final acceptance for the protection from false doctrines being propagated at the time.