A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

Councils Assembled, From the Beginning of the FIFTH CENTURY, To the YEAR 430.

The Canons of a Council, supposed to have been held at Rome under Pope Innocent I.

SIRMONDUS hath published some Regulations, written in the Name of a Synod at * 1.1 Rome, to the Bishops of Gaul; which are certainly ancient, though it be unknown to what time they are to be referred: but because they appeared to Sirmondus to be written in the Style of St. Innocent's Letters, he believed they might belong to this Pope however, they are placed immediately after his Letters, and these are the Contents of them.

After a short Preface, in the two first Canons, according to Sirmondus's Distinction, they speak of those Virgins Penance, who having solemnly put on the Veil, and received the Priests Benediction, commit Incest, or contract prohibited Marriages; it is ordained, That they shall do several Years Penance, to bewail their Fault. Penance is likewise imposed upon those that made the single Vow of Virginity, though they made no solemn Profession, nor received the Veil; when they happen to Marry, or suffer themselves to be taken away. The Third Canon, is, concerning the Sanctity of Bishops, of Priests, and of Deacons: they are told, That they ought to give Example to the People; That they are obliged to remain Unmarried: and several Reasons are alledged for it. Priests and Bishops (say they) are to preach Continence to the People: With what Confidence shall they do this, if they keep it not themselves? They are obliged to offer frequently the Holy Sacrifice, to Baptize, Consecrate and Administer: To do it with the greater Reverence, they must be Chast both in Body and Spirit. In the Fourth, those seem to be excluded out of the Clergy, that have born any Secular Offices.

In the Fifth Canon, it is observed, That the Church of Rome doth not admit to Sacred Or∣ders those who defiled the Sanctity of their Baptism by any carnal Sin. In the Sixth, other Bishops are exhorted to follow the Custom of that of Rome: because that as there is but One Faith in the Church, so there should be but One Discipline.

It is observed in the Seventh Canon, That Priests and Deacons may administer Baptism in the Easter Holy-days, in Parishes, in the presence of the Bishop, in whose Name they administer it at that time: but when Necessity obliges them to Baptize at any other time, that must be done by the Priest, and not by the Deacon.

The Eighth Canon, about the Benediction of the Holy Oyl, is very obscure. It is probable, that all that is said there, amounts to no more than, That there is no need o•• several Persons to Bless it. The Ninth declares, That it is not lawful now, as it was under the Old Law, to Marry a Brother's Wife, nor to keep Concubines with a Wife.

The Tenth forbids those to be ordained Bishops, that have exercised Secular Functions, though they were Chosen by the People: because their Approbation is of force, only when they chuse one worthy of that Office.

The Eleventh Canon speaks very ambiguously concerning a Man's Marrying his Uncle's Wife; or an Aunt's Marrying with the Son of her Husband's Brother.

The Twelfth appoints, That a Bishop should be chosen out of the Clergy.

The Thirteenth declares, That those who go from one Church to another, shall be deprived of their Office.

The Fourteenth contains that Order so often repeated in the Canons, That a Clerk deposed by his own Bishop, is not to be admitted. This Order is defended in very strong Terms, and established upon very good Reasons. If another Bishop's Clerk is not permitted to do the Functions of his Ministry, except he brought his Dimissory Letters; how much rather is it forbidden to receive and admit to the Communion a Clerk condemned by his own Bishop. This would be to partake of another Man's Sin; to offer Injury to a Brother, and suspect him with∣out ground to have done Unjustly.

The Fifteenth Canon confirms and renews the Law of the Council of Nice, touching the Ordination of Bishops by the Metropolitan, and the Bishops of the Province; and forbids Bishops to meddle with those Ordinations that belong not to them.

The Sixteenth is, against the Abuse of those Bishops who had Ordained some Lay-men that had been Excommunicated by their own Bishop.

The Council of Milevis.

THis Council was assembled at Milevis, a City of Africa, the 26th. of October, 402. It is * 1.2 one of those the Africans called General; that is, it was not composed of Bishops only of one Province, but of Deputies from all the Provinces of Africa. Aurelius, Bishop of Car∣thage, presided there. The Bishops confirmed at first what had been done in the last Councils of Hippo and Carthage; and then made some New Orders about some particular Contests among the African Bishops.

The First is concerning the Precedency of the Older Bishops. Having justified the Equity of following the ancient Order, according to the established Custom of Africa, it was ordained, to prevent the Contests that might happen upon that Subject, That they should keep Two Lists, which they called Matricula's, or Archives of all the Bishops of Numidia; the one to be preserved in the City of the chief See; that is, in Carthage, or in that City whose Bishop was Metropolitan by Seniority: and the other in the Civil Metropolis; that is, in Constantina. This Order seems to have been made upon the Occasion of that Contest betwixt Victorinus and Xantippus, Bishops of the Province of Numidia, who both pretended to the Primacy of that Province, as appears by St. Augustin's 59th. Letter.

The Second Canon is, touching the Accusation formed against Quodvultdeus, Bishop of Centuria. His Accuser presented himself to the Synod, and caused Quodvultdeus to be asked, Whether he would have his Cause debated in the Council. The Bishop consented at first; but the next day he was of another mind, and retired. The Bishops ordered, That he should not be admitted to the Communion of the other Bishops, till his Business was decided, yet without depriving him of his Bishoprick; because they thought it unjust to do it before his Cause was judged.

The next Order was, concerning Maximianus, Bishop of Vaga, who offered to quit his Bi∣shoprick for the good of the Church, (as it is observed in St. Augustin's 69th. Letter.) The Council ordained, That a Letter should be sent both to him, and to his People, to oblige him to withdraw; and, That the People should chuse another.

The Fourth Canon is likewise to prevent Contests about the Seniority of the Bishops; en∣joyning the Bishops Ordained in Africa, to take Testimonial-Letters of those that Ordained them; marking both the Day and the Year of their Ordination.

The Last Canon forbids any Man to be admitted into the Clergy of one Church, who per∣formed the Duty of a Reader in another.

These Canons are in the Code of the African Church, from the Eighty sixth, &c. to the Ninetieth inclusively.

Of the Councils held by St. Chrysostom at Constantinople and at Ephesus, in the Years 400, and 401. * 1.3

BOth these Councils examined the Accusations brought by Eusebius of Valentinople, against Antoninus Bishop of Ephesus. The History of them is in the Life of St. Chrysostom, (pag. 8.) of this Volume.

A Council assembled in the Year 403. in a Suburb of Chalcedon, called, The Oak, in which St. Chrysostom was Condemned.

THe History of this Synod is likewise in the Life of St. Chrysostom, (pag. 9.) It is taken * 1.4 out of Palladius, and out of the Abridgment of the Acts of this Council, quoted by Pho∣tius, Cod. 59th. of his Bibliotheca.

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 403.

UPON the Three and twentieth Day of August, in the Year 403. was held at Carthage a * 1.5 general Council of Africa, wherein the Bishops that had been sent to the Churches beyond the Seas, about the Donatists Business, having reported what they had found, and the Excuses of those Provinces that had sent no Deputies being allowed, a Command was laid upon the Catholick Bishops of each City, to send a sort of a Summons to the Donatist Bishops of the same Cities, to oblige them to enter upon a Conference. And that this might be done uni∣formly, they prescribed a Form for this Act, which should be made in the Presence of pub∣lick Officers. Wherefore the Bishops of this Council desired, That the Proconsul Septimius, would send word to the Officers to help them in the Business, and to give them authentick Acts of those Summons. This Petition is registred in the Acts of the Third Conference at Carthage, in the 183 Ch. of the Third Day.

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 404.

THe Donatist Bishops having answered these Summons of the Catholick Bishops, only with * 1.6 Violences and Threatnings, the Catholicks assembled in a Council held the next Year upon the 25th. of June, deputed Theasius, and Evodius, to the Emperors, to obtain from them such Orders, as might prevent the Violences which the Circumcellians exercised against the Catholicks; and to Petition at the same time, that Theodosius's Law, which imposes Ten Pounds Penalty upon such as ordained Hereticks, or admitted them into their Assemblies, might take place against those who should detain the Protestations of Catholicks; and that the Law might be renewed which disabled Hereticks either to give, or receive Legacies. These were the Contents of the Memorials, given to both those deputed Bishops. Aurelius had a Commission to write to the Emperors in the Name of all the Bishops; and they also char∣ged him to write to the Judges, till the Deputies were come back to obtain of them some Pro∣tection for the Church; and he is desired to write to the Bishop of Rome about it.

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 405.

THIS Council, assembled upon the 21st. of August, made no general Canons for Africa, * 1.7 but only regulated some particular Businesses, which the Collector of the African Code hath expressed in these Terms.

It was ordained in this Council, That all the Provinces should send their Deputies to the general Council. Deputies were sent with a Letter to Mi∣zonius, to let him know, That he might send Deputies with all Freedom. It was thought fit to write to the Judges, to entreat them, That they would use their Endeavours to reconcile the Donatists, and the Catholicks, as had been already done at Carthage. And they were to write to the Emperor, to thank him for excluding the Donatists. But Pope In∣nocent having declared in his Letter which was read in the Council, That it was not convenient to send Bishops beyond the Seas, his Advice was approved, and they sent only Clerks of the Church of Carthage, to return the Thanks of the African Bishops.

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 407.

THIS Council, assembled upon the 13th. of June, made a great many very useful Regula∣tions. * 1.8

The Council of Hippo ordained, That a general Council of Africa should Yearly be held at Carthage. This discharges the Bishops of that annual Fatigue; and leaves it to the Prudence of the Bishop of Carthage, to call one, when, and where he thought fit. This is the substance of the First Canon of this Synod, which is the 95th. of the African Code. The Second or∣dains, That whoever appeals from an Ecclesiastical Judgment, may chuse such Judges as he shall think fit, with the Consent of his Accuser; and that, from their Judgment, there shall be no Appeal.

After this, they admitted the Deputies of the Provinces, and ordered, That Five Men should be appointed to see the Canons put in Execution.

The Third ordains, That Vincentius, and Fortunatianus, who were deputed to the Empe∣ror, should ask leave to nominate Advocates from among those that were actually in the Ser∣vice of the Church, that they might have Power to maintain the Church's Interests, and to go in to the Judges Courts, as the Bishops did, and make such Remonstrances as they should think necessary.

They discoursed of the Deputies Power at Court; and it was judged convenient, not to pre∣scribe to them what they should say there. The Deputies of the Province of Mauritania

Caesariensis complained, That enquiry having been made after Primosus to cite him to the Coun∣cil, he could not be found.

The Fourth Canon, which is the 98th. in the African Code, forbids the establishing of Bi∣shops in those Cities that had none before, without the Authority of a Metropolitan, and of a Council of the whole Province.

In the next, The People that are reconciled to the Church, and had a Bishop before their Reconciliation, are allow'd either to chuse one, or to submit themselves to the nearest Catho∣lick Bishop. For those who had no Bishop before, they are subjected to that Bishop who con∣verted them, if that Conversion happened before the Emperor's Law was enacted; but if since, then they must have their dependance upon their natural Bishop.

In the Sixth Canon, Judges are nominated to examine the Business of certain Deputies, who came not to the Synod, according to their Primate's Order.

In the Seventh, it is resolved to write to Pope Innocent about the Dispute betwixt the Church of Rome, and that of Alexandria, that so both those Churches might be at peace, and keep a good Correspondence with each other.

The Eighth Canon forbids divorced Persons to be married to others. This Regulation is there judged to be conformable to the Law of the Gospel, and to the Decision of the Apostle St. Paul. But since the civil Laws gave leave to the Husband, to marry after putting away his Wife, it is said, That the Emperor should be entreated to make another Law against that Cu∣stom.

The Ninth Canon prohibits the use of other publick Prayers, Prefaces, or Recommenda∣tions, or the practising of another Form of laying on of Hands, besides those which are ap∣proved by the Councils, and composed by Men of known Piety.

By the Tenth, those are to be degraded from the Honour of Priesthood, that should desire of the Emperor to be try'd by Secular Judges, but they are not restrained from desiring of him to be try'd by Ecclesiastical ones.

The Eleventh provides, That those shall be absolutely degraded, who having been Excom∣municated in Africa, repaired to remote Churches, to be admitted to Communion.

The Twelfth and last Canon, which is the 106th. in the African Code, appoints, That such Clerks, or Bishops as desire to go to Court, shall be obliged to take testimonial Letters of their respective Bishop, or Metropolitan, directed to the Bishop of Rome, and containing the Rea∣sons that bring them thither, that so the Bishop of Rome might grant them another Letter to go to the Court. It does not permit that Bishop, who had a Letter to go to Rome only, to have one from the Pope, to go to Court, except a new Business should happen, which he should acquaint the Bishop of Rome withal, and which should be mentioned in the Letter that he should give him. It is provided likewise, That in that sort of Letters, shall be set down the Day of Easter for that Year, that they may not want Date, or the Easter of the Year past, if that of the present is not exactly known.

Two Councils of Carthage, in the Year 408.

THE former of these Councils is of the 14th. of June, 408. All that is said of it in the * 1.9 African Code, is, That Fortunatianus was made Deputy against the Heathens, and the Hereticks.

The latter is of the 12th. of October. There they deputed the Bishops Restitutus, and Flo∣rentius to Court, to ask for Succor against the Heathens, and Hereticks, at the same time that Severus, and Macarius were Executed, and Theasius, Evodius, and Victor were Murthered upon their Account.

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 409.

THIS Council assembled upon the 13th. of June, is not a general Council, but * 1.10 a particular one. There it was declared, That one Bishop alone could not give Judgment.

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 410.

UPON the Twelfth of June 410. a Council assembled at Carthage, deputed Five * 1.11 Bishops to the Emperor, upon occasion of a Law of Valentinian, which granted Li∣berty of Conscience, that it might not prejudice the Laws made against the Hereticks of Africa.

The Council of Ptolemais.

ANDRONICUS, Governour of Pentapolis, guilty of great Oppression, and Inju∣stice, * 1.12 which he exercised in that Province, was Excommunicated by a Synod of Bishops held at Ptolemais. There Synesius made a Speech against him. But this Governour having ask'd Pardon, and promised to behave himself otherwise, the publishing of the Sentence of the Synod was suspended. There is an Account of this Matter in the Abridgment of the 57th 58th. and 72d. Letters of Synesius. Mention is made also of Assemblies of some Bishops, in the 67th. Letter of the same Author.

The Conference at Carthage.

THE Catholick Bishops had often demanded, ever since the Year 403. a Conference with * 1.13 the Donatist Bishops, to examine the Reasons which these pretended for their Separation from the Church in an amicable manner. The Donatist Bishops had constantly refused it, till the Year 406. and then consented to have one. They caused this Design to be authorized by an Order of the Emperor Honorius, dispatched at Ravenna the 14th. of October 410. Count Marcellinus was nominated President; and for the Execution of that Order, Two Rules wer made; the one to appoint the Day of the Conference, and the other to fix the manner of Procee∣dings, and to oblige the Bishops of both sides, to declare whether they accepted of it.

The Conference began at Carthage upon the First Day of June 411. The Donatist Bishops met there to the Number of 278. and the Catholicks were 286.

Marcellinus ordered, That Seven Bishops of each Party should be chosen to speak, of whom the chiefest of the Catholicks were St. Augustin, and Alypius, and that besides these, Seven should be named to assist as Councellors, and Four to over-look, that the Notaries should faithfully set down what should be said. He commanded also, That every one should set his Hand to what he asserted; and that whatsoever was done should be communicated to the People. He orde∣red, That the Thirty Six deputed Bishops should be admitted into the Place of the Conference. But the Donatists would be all there; and the Catholicks were contented, that their Eighteen Deputies only should be present.

The First Day was spent in personal Contests, concerning the Bishop's Qualifications. Marcellinus confessed at First, That it was above his capacity to be a judge of that Cause; and that it should rather be decided by those, of whose Disputes he undertook to judge. He caused the Emperor's Letter to be read, whereby he was appointed to be Judge. He promises them not to judge of any thing that should not be clearly proved by either Party. He gave the Do∣natists leave to chuse one to be judge with him of that Cause.

Nothing Remarkable was done in the Second Meeting on the 3d. of June. The Donatists having desired time to examine the Acts of the First, Marcellinus granted it to them, and ad∣journed the Conference to the Eighth Day of that Month.

An Accident happened about the manner of their Session. Marcellinus having desired the Bishops to sit down, the Donatists pretended, That it was forbiden by Scripture. The Catho∣lick Bishops would not keep their Seats, while the Donatist Bishops were standing. Marcelli∣nus, out of Respect to the Bishops, caused his Seat to be taken away.

In the Eighth Day of the Third Session, the Donatists disputed long about the Qualities of Opposers, and Defenders. But at last, St. Augustin obliged them to come to the main Que∣stion, which was, Where was the Catholick Church? The Donatists confessed, That that was it, which was spread throughout the whole Earth; and so they had only now to examine Which Party was united with the Churches of other Parts of the World: And in this Point, the Catholicks had the upper hand. To divert the Question, the Donatists desired, That the Acts which they had in their Hands might be read: And so they entered upon the Examination of Caecilian's case. They presented a Memorial, wherein they affirmed, That the F••ults of every particular Member, infected a whole Community; and consequently, that Caecilian be∣ing guilty, the Catholicks were in the wrong for keeping with him, and that they had a suf∣ficient Reason to divide from him. This was the Point in Question. St. Augustin answered it fully, proving out of Holy Scripture, that the Church upon Earth will always consist of good and evil Members. He confirmed that Proposition by St. Cyprian's Authority, and urged the Donatists Example against themselves, alledging their Behaviour towards the Maximianists. After this, St. Augustin concludes, That though Caecilian had been guilty, yet that argued no∣thing against the Cause of the Church.

Yet Marcellinus would have it examined, Whether he was really Guilty: His Innocence was proved, as well as that of Felix of Aptungis, who ordained him by Acts of the Judgments given in their behalf, whereby they had been pronounced guiltless of the Crimes lay'd to their Charge.

The Fourth Conference being ended, and the Bishops of both sides withdrawn, Marcelli∣nus gave Judgment for the Catholicks, whom he declared Conquerors; and the Bishops being called in, he read it to them.

The Council of Cirta, or Zerta.

THIS Council was assembled at Cirta, or rather Zerta, in June 412. The Council writ a * 1.14 Synodical Letter, to refute the false Rumours which the Donatists had spread abroad concerning the Conference at Carthage. This Letter is the 141st. amongst St. Augustin's Letters.

The First Council of Carthage, against Coelestius.

COELESTIUS came from Rome, to Carthage, with a Design to be there ordained * 1.15 Priest in the Year 411. But his Error being discovered by Paulinus the Deacon, who for∣merly had been a Reader in the Church of Milan, he was put off to a Council of Carthage, held about the latter end of the Year 411, or the beginning of 412. by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage. He was particularly asked, Whether he believed original Sin. He would never ac∣knowledge it as a matter of Faith; and affirmed, before the Council, that several Catholicks held, That Children were not born in Sin, but in the same State wherein Adam was, before he had offended God. The Bishops of this Council being not able to make him alter his Opi∣nion, Excommunicated him, and he was forced to leave Africa. St. Augustin relates some Fragments of the Acts of this Council, in the Second Book of Grace, and Original Sin. Ma∣rius Mercator hath also written the History of that Council.

The Conference of Jerusalem.

PELAGIUS, Coelestius's Tutor, being retired into Palaestine, was well received by John * 1.16 of Jerusalem, who had protected Rufinus, whose Disciple Pelagius was: But Paulus Oro∣sius being then in that Country, and being well acquainted with Pelagius, and Coelestius's Er∣rors, with the judgments given against the latter, and with the Writings both of St. Jerom, and of St. Augustin against them, accused Pelagius in a Synod, or rather in a Conference held at Je∣rusalem the 30th. of July, in the Year 415. in the presence of John, Bishop of that City, who caused Pelagius though a Lay-Man, to come in, and shewed him much Respect. Orosius having opposed to him both St. Jerom, and St. Augustin's Authority, it was little regarded. He then accused him of believing, That Man may be without Sin. John of Jerusalem affirmed, That if he maintained that Man could be free from Sin, without God's Help, that was indeed impious, but since he acknowledged that Man needeth divine Succour, he could not be accused: And he asked Orosius, whether he would deny the Assistance of God. Orosius professed, that he did not, and anathematized all those that said it; but he saw, that they understood not one another, and that the Interpreter was not Faithful; so that he was obliged to say, That Pela∣gius was an Heretick; and that they ought to send him to those Judges that understood Latin; and that John having declared himself, his Protector could not be his Judge. After several Al∣tercations it was agreed, that they should write to Pope Innocent about it. In the mean time, Orosius coming to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, Seven and forty Days after, was called by him Heretick, and Blasphemer; having affirmed, That Man could not be without Sin, no not with God's Grace. Orosius gives an Account of this whole Matter, in his Apology; which certainly, is an Ancient Monument.

The Council of Diospolis.

HEROS, and Lazarus, Two Bishops of Gaul, who had been obliged to quit, the one the * 1.17 Bishoprick of Arles, and the other, that of Aix, and to retire into the East, joined with Orosius, to accuse Pelagius; and drew up a Petition, containing the Errors whereof they accu∣sed him, which they pretended to be taken out of his Books, and maintained by Coelestius his Disciple. This Accusation was preferr'd to a Synod of Fourteen Bishops, held at Diospolis, anciently called Lydda, a City of Palaestine. Eulogius of Caesarea was President, and John of Jerusalem held the Second Place. Though they were absent, yet their Petition was read; (for one of them was very sick at that time) and they questioned Pelagius about the Errors alled∣ged against him. This Man answered all the Heads of his Accusation, by disowning all the Errors imputed to him, or by giving a Catholick Sence in appearance, to what either Coelestius, or himself had asserted. Whereupon, the Synod absolved him, as having sufficiently answered the Charge of his Adversaries. St. Augustin produces the Acts of this Council, in the Book of Pelagius's Acts; and there is an Abridgment of them in his 106th. Letter. He makes use also, of the Authority of the Fathers of this Council against Julianus. St. Prosper likewise

quotes the Fathers of this Council with high commendation, for condemning Pelagius's Errors. Yet St. Jerom calleth this Council, a Pitiful Assembly, because they suffered themselves to be imposed upon by Pelagius's Dissimulation.

A Second Council of Carthage against Pelagius and Coelestius. The Council of Milevis against the same.

HEros and Lazarus were not contented to accuse Pelagius before the Council of Diospolis, but * 1.18 they gave Orosius Letters directed to the Bishops of Africa; who, as they well knew, were less favourable to Coelestius and Pelagius. These without receiving those Letters, assembled both at Carthage, and at Milevis; where they condemned the Opinions attributed to Coelestius and Pelagius, and decreed, That the Authors of such Doctrines were to be Anathematized, unless they condemned their Errors very clearly. The Bishops of both these Councils writ to Pope Innocent, to authorize their Decision by the Concurrence of the See of Rome: Their Letters were followed by another from five Bishops, who writ by themselves to the Pope about the same Sub∣ject. These Letters are the 175th. 176th. and the 177th. among St. Augustin's Letters. The Pope answered them, and approved the Judgment of the African Bishops; as appears by his Letters dated the 25th. of January 417.

The Council of Carthage, held about the latter end of the Year 417.

THe Bishops of Africa having received Zosimus's Letter, assembled about the latter end of * 1.19 the Year 417. to deliberate about what they should do. They answered him immediately, That he was to blame, for offering to retract the Cause of Pelagius and Coelestius, which had been judged, and protested against whatsoever he might do in their behalf, without hearing them. This Letter is not extant, but it is mention'd in the 3d. Letter which Zosimus writ to them. After the first step, they collected all that had been done against Coelestius; and having confirmed the same, they sent it to Pope Zosimus by the Subdeacon Marcellinus: and further, they deputed Bishop Vindemi••lis to carry it to Court. To this Synod must be referred what Prosper saith in his Chronicon upon the Year 418. and elsewhere, That it consisted of Two hun∣dred and fourteen Bishops. They wrote a long Letter to the Pope; wherein they complained, That he did too easily believe Coelestius; telling him, That he should have been obliged to re∣voke his Errors by Name. They discovered the Evasions which he used to elude the difficulty, by equivocal Terms. They sent him a Memorial of those Errors, whereof they were to exact of him a clear and precise Condemnation; and exhorted him to maintain what was done by his Predecessor. Father Quesnel believes, not without probability, That in this Synod were concluded the Nine Canons concerning Grace; which are commonly ascribed to the Council of Milevis. But if they were proposed in this Council, they were not concluded upon nor subscri∣bed till that which was Assembled in May next Year, to which the Code of African Canons attribute them. The Endeavours of the Africans had good Success; for the Emperor Honorius made an Edict against Pelagius and Coelestius, the last day of April, 418. And shortly after, Pope Zosimus published, as we have said, his Sentence against them.

The Council of Carthage in the Year 418.

THe African Bishops willing to confirm what they had done against Pelagius and Coelestius, * 1.20 Assembled upon the First day of May of the Year 418. and made Eight Canons against the Pelagian Errors, and some other Orders about the Business of the Donatists.

The First pronounceth an Anathema against any who dares affirm, That Adam was created Mortal; so that he must have died, whether he had sinned or not, because his Death was not an Effect of Sin, but a Law of Nature.

The Second likewise declares an Anathema against such as deny, That Children ought to be baptized as soon as they are Born; or such as own that they may be baptized, and yet affirm, That they are born without Original Sin.

In some places there is a Third Canon, which is an Addition to this; wherein those that affirm That there is a particular place, where Children dead without Baptism do live happily, are con∣demned; and to this Notion is opposed what our Saviour saith, That none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, except he be regenerate of Water and the Holy Spirit. Photius citeth this Canon in his Collection. It is found in another Manuscript, and in the Code of the Romish Church, published by Father Quesnel. And lastly, St. Augustin seems to own it, when he says, That the difference which the Pelagians made betwixt Eternal Life and the Kingdom of Heaven, had been condemned in an African Council; yet this Canon is not found in the ancient Code of the African Church. The Collectors of this Canon have not own'd it, and in the Chapters about Grace attributed to Pope Coelestine, the 3d, 4th, and 5th. Canons are cited, which should

be the 4th, 5th, and 6th, if this were the Third. Perhaps this Canon was added, or look'd upon as an Explication of the foregoing.

The Third Canon in the common Editions pronounces Anathema against all that should say, That the Grace which justifies Man through Jesus Christ our Lord, doth only remit Sins com∣mitted; but that it is not given to succour Man that he may Sin no more.

The Fourth expounds the Nature of this Grace, by condemning those who should say, That it doth no further help us, than as it gives us the knowledge of what we ought to do, but not by enabling us to fulfil the Commandments, which it gives us the knowledge of.

The Fifth is against those that hold, That Grace is given only that we may do that which is good with less difficulty; because one may absolutely accomplish the Commandments by the Power of his Free-Will, without the help of Grace.

The Sixth declares, That St. John did not say merely out of Humility; If we say that we have no Sin, we deceive our selves.

The contrary Truth is confirmed in the Seventh Canon, by these words of the Lord's Prayer, Forgive us our Trespasses, &c. And they are condemned who affirm, That the Righteous do not say this Prayer for themselves, but for others.

In the Eighth there is a Condemnation of another way of eluding the force of these words, by saying, That the Righteous pray out of Humility, but not truly. It is said, That God would never endure that Man who in his Prayers should lye not only to Men, but to God him∣self; by asking with his Mouth, That God would forgive his Sins, and saying in his Heart that he had none.

After these Eight Canons concerning Grace, some Orders are set down.

The First, Is to reform the Fifth Canon of the Council of Carthage in the Year 407. whereby it was Enacted, That those Bishops who converted any Donatists, should have the Jurisdiction over them. This Order having bred some Disputes, it was thought fit here to reform it; and it is enjoyn'd, That in what place soever any Donatists are reconciled, they shall be of the same Diocess with the Catholicks of that place.

When there were two Bishops in the same place, namely, The ancient Catholick and the re∣conciled Donatist, it might occasion several Difficulties, which the Council prevents in the next Canon, which enjoins, That the junior Bishop shall make a division of those places where there were many Catholicks and Donatists, and that the senior shall have his choice. That if there is but one place where the Catholicks and Donatists were intermixt, that Place shall belong to that Bishop of the two, the place of whose residence is the nearest; That if they prove equally distant, the Choice shall be left to the People. And if the ancient Catholicks desire to have their own Bishop, and the reconciled, him they had before, then the Majority of voices shall carry it; but if they be equal, then the senior shall have the Precedency. Lastly, If the Places cannot be equally divided; As for example, if the number of Divisions should be odd, then two equal Divisions shall be made, and the Place over and above shall bedisposed of, as is said just before.

In the Third Rule it is provided, That whosoever hath enjoy'd a place Three Years, shall remain in quiet Possession, if there be a Bishop in the Church of that Diocess, where naturally he ought to have been.

The Fourth is against those Bishops who violently took Possession of the Jurisdiction of such places as they pretended to be of their Diocesses, without having the matter in Dispute adjudged by Bishops.

The First ordains, That those that shall neglect to procure the Re-union of places dependent from their Diocesses, shall be put in mind of it by the Neighbouring Bishops; That if they are not converted within Six Months after such Admonition, they shall belong to the Diocess of that Bishop that can convert them; if it appears that the Bishop of the place hath neglected it. It is added, That if a Contest happens betwixt two Bishops of different Provinces, the Metro∣politan of the Province where the place in dispute is situated shall appoint Judges, or the Parties shall choose one, or three.

This gives occasion for renewing the Canon, which forbids any Appeal to be made from the judgment of Judges thus chosen.

It is enacted by the Seventh Order, That a Bishop neglecting to reconcile the Donatists that are in his Diocess, shall be admonished, and if they be not reconciled in Six Months, they shall not communicate with him until he hath reconciled them. Provided always, That he who had the execution of the Emperor's Orders was in his Province.

It is added in the Eighth, That if it be proved, that any Bishop affirmed that these Donatists were come into the Communion of the Church, and it was not so, he shall lose his Bishoprick.

The Ninth enjoins, That if the Priests, Deacons, and other Clerks, complain of their Bi∣shop's Judgments, they shall be judged by the Neighbouring Bishops, with the consent of their own; That if they appeal from this Judgment, it must be to the Council of Africa, and it Excommunicates those that shall make their Appeals to Judges beyond the Seas.

The Tenth contains an Exception from that Prohibition of veiling a Virgin before the Age of Five and twenty, when being in danger of Death, she desires it, or her Parents for her.

Lastly, That they might not too long detain the Bishops out of their Diocesses, they chose three out of each Province, and gave them Power to order all things with Aurelius, who is desired to Subscribe the Canons and Rules now mentioned; which were also Subscribed by all the Bishops.

Of the Council of Tella, or Zella, and of some other Councils of Africa.

AMong the African Councils, is reckoned one held the 22d. of February in the Year 418. at * 1.21 Tella or Zella; whereof a Decree is produced which confirms the Fourth Letter attributed to Pope Syricius, and under whose Name some Canons are found in the Collection of Ferrandus the Deacon. They do not agree about the Name of the place where this Council was celebrated. It is said in the beginning, That it was Assembled at Tella; some think that it should be Zella▪ instead of Tella; because some Canons are quoted under that Name by Ferrandus.

Sirmondus thinks that we should read Telepta, because Donatianus of Telepta presided; yet all Editions constantly call this the Council of Tella, and we read in the Notitia, of the Pro-consular Province of Africa, that there was a City called Tella in that Province, which was a Bishops See. This City differs from Telepta, and from Zella, which were in the Province of Byzacena. And though Ferrandus citeth Canons under the Name of a Council of Tella and Zella, yet it doth not follow, that he believed it to be the same Council; on the contrary, it is probable, that the Canons Registred in his Collection under different Names, were made by different Councils.

But it is very likely, as Father Quesnel hath observed, That both the Council of Tella, and the Canons Registred in Ferrandus under that Name, are Supposititious.

For, First, Tella being a City of the Proconsular Province, what likelihood is there that a Council of the Province of Byzacena should be called there? and that Donatianus the Metropo∣litan of Byzacena should Preside in it?

Secondly, Is it credible, That a numerous Council should be Assembled in February, at a time that a General Synod of Africa was Summoned for the Month of May?

Thirdly, Wherefore do they suppose that the Legates of the Proconsular Province should assist at a Council of the Province of Byzacena?

Fourthly, This Council is supposed to have been Assembled to receive the Fourth Letter of Pope Syricius. This Letter is Spurious as we have shewed, and though it were not, How un∣likely is it, that the Africans would go about to confirm it so late? Is there any Example of their so doing? What reason had they to do it? Why should they make use of the Pope's Letter written several Years before to make Regulations by?

In the Fifth place, Some of the Canons in Ferrandus's Collection, under the Name of the Council of Tella do not suit with the African Customs. That in the 6th. Ch. forbids ONE Bishop alone to ordain another Bishop, except the Bishop of Rome. The African Bishops had been far enough from approving this Exception so contrary to the Canons, and to Custom. The others are taken out of Syricius's Epistle against the African's pertinaciousness, who did not own the Canons of other Churches, except those of the Council of Nice, and such as had been made in African Councils. As for the other Canons cited under the Name of the Council of Tella, or Zella, they may be true, and it is probable that they are of another Council; namely, Those that are in the 3d. 16th. 65th. 68th. and 218th. Chapters. The others are in the 4th. 6th. 30th. 138th 174th. Chapters.

There is mention in this Council, of another Council held at Thisdry, under whose Name there are two Canons in Ferrandus the Deacon's Collection, Ch. 76th, and 77th. In this Colle∣ction there are likewise some Canons of other African Councils, of which we have no other knowledge. The Learned Baluzius collected them in his new Collection of such Councils as were omitted in the preceding Collections. Vol. 1. Page 366. and 367.

Councils of Carthage in the Years 418. and 419. Concerning the Cause of Apiarius.

URbanus Bishop of Sicca, a City of Mauritania Coesariensis, and formerly St. Augustin's Di∣sciple, * 1.22 did both degrade and excommunicate Apiarius, a Presbyter, as one that had been unlawfully ordained. This man repaired to Pope Zosimus, who received him kindly, and ad∣mitted him to the Communion. This Pope's action, contrary to the Rules of the Church, that forbid Bishops to receive those Clerks that are excommunicated by their Brethren, amazed the African Bishops. But Zosimus seeking an opportunity to extend his Dominion and increase his Authority, would not let this occasion slip. Wherefore he sent Legates into Africa, a Bishop called Faustinus, and two Priests, Asellius and Philip; not only to cause Apiarius to be restored, but also to make them admit of the Canons of the Council of Sardica, concerning the Appeals of Bishops to the See of Rome, and the Judgments of Clerks.

The Africans seeing that the Pope undertook to protect Apiarius, judged it more convenient to accommodate the business; and so they found this Medium, to put him out of the Church of Sicca, and give him leave to do the Functions of his Order any where else. But before they came to a conclusion, suspecting that Zosimus's Legats were not come into Africa without some De∣sign, they urged them to give an account of their Commission. At first they would have made some Proposals of their own; but the Africans without hesitation, desired to see the Writings of their Commission, and so they were obliged to read the Memorial of their Instructions; which

contained four Heads. The First was, touching Appeals to the See of Rome. The Second, To hinder Bishops from going to Court. The Third, That Priests should be permitted to have their Causes examined by Neighbouring Bishops. By the Fourth they were commanded, either to Excommunicate Urbanus Bishop of Sicca, or to cite him to Rome, except he retracted what he had done. The Second Head admitted no Dispute; because the African Bishops had already enacted, That neither Bishops nor Priests should go to Court. They answered the Fourth, by composing the business as we have said; so that only the First and the Third remained to be de∣cided, and they were of great consequence. The Pope's Legates alledged to support their Preten∣sions, the Canons of the Council of Sardica, which allow Appeals to the See of Rome for Bishops condemned by a Provincial Synod, and permit a Clerk condemned by his own Bishop, to appeal to the Bishops of the Neighbouring Provinces.

Though the Africans had no knowledge of these Canons, yet because the Pope's Legates posi∣tively urged them, they promised, out of the respect they paid to that Council, to observe the Canons, until they were inform'd whether they were belonging to the Council of Nice, or no. This was their resolution in the first Council held about that business at Carthage in Autumn of the Year 418. which they acquainted Zosimus withal.

After this Pope's Death, The Bishops of Africa being assembled in an Universal Synod at Car∣thage the 23d. day of May, to the number of 217. Faustinus the Pope's Legate sitting in that Synod, next after Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and Valentinus Metropolitan of Numidia, and Asellius and Philippus the Priests after the Bishops, the Canons of the Council of Nice were read, as they had the Copies of them on both sides. The Africans not finding in their Code the Canons which the Pope's Legates affirmed to have been enacted by the Council of Nice, Alypius proposed, That they should send Deputies to the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, to clear this dispute, by taking Copies of the true Acts of the Council of Nice: This Advice was approved, and they concluded, that in the mean time they should observe the Con∣tents of those Canons: And they resolved to write to Pope Boniface about what they had done, and to pray him to write to the Eastern Patriarchs; That this Point might be cleared. This being done, they repeated the Creed and the Twenty Canons of the Council of Nice, according to the Copy which Caecilian Bishop of Carthage, had brought from that Council whereat he assisted. They added to these, Three and thirty other Canons conformable to those of the Council of Nice. The First is only an Advertisement of Aurelius, concerning the Canons of the Council of Nice. The Second is a Confession of the Holy Trinity. The Third confirms the Rule of the Council of Carthage of the Year 401. concerning the Celibacy of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. It is said, That their Ministery obligeth them to it. Faustinus confirms this Order in the Fourth Canon. The Fifth is against the Covetousness of the Clergy, that usurp upon their Brethren. The Sixth reneweth the Law which forbids the Priests to consecrate the holy Chrism, and to re∣concile Penitents publickly, and to consecrate Virgins. The Eighth gives a Priest leave to recon∣cile Penitents in cases of necessity. The Ninth provides that the Accusation of one that is guilty of any Crime shall not be admitted against a Bishop. The next is against either Bishops or Priests, who receive a Person excommunicated by his Bishop, without his consent.

Both the Tenth and the Eleventh pronounce an Anathema against those Priests, who being reproved by their Bishops, are so bold as to raise an Altar against an Altar, or make a Schism.

The Twelfth settleth the necessary number of Judges, to decide Ecclesiastical Causes. A Bi∣shop is to be judged by Twelve Bishops; A Priest, by Six Bishops, with his respective Bishop; and a Deacon, by Three only. The Thirteenth Canon reneweth the ancient Laws about Bi∣shops Ordinations; namely, That a Bishop cannot be ordained without the Primate's consent; and that three Bishops at the least must be present at the Ordination. In the Fourteenth, there is an Exception of the Twelfth for the Province of Tripolis, where there were few Bishops, declaring, That in this Province a Priest may be judged by Five Bishops, and a Deacon by Two: and for the same reason, they say, That one Deputy may serve.

To maintain Ecclesiastical Authority among Clerks, The Fifteenth forbids them to make their Complaints before Civil Judges, when they are cited before Ecclesiastical ones; and in case they do, though they get the better, yet they must be deposed, if it be a Criminal business; and if it be a Civil Matter, they shall lose what they have got. It was also provided by these Canons, That if the Sentence of the first Ecclesiastical Judges, was reversed by a Superiour Judgment; yet this shall do no Prejudice to the former Judges, except they are convicted of having given Judgment out of Passion or Favour. It is added, That there can be no Appeal from chosen Judges, though they were fewer in Number than is appointed. Lastly, Priest's Children are forbidden to exhibit Publick Spectacles, or to be present at any; They declare also, That the same ought to be forbidden all Christians.

The Sixteenth forbids Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to be Farmers, Attornies, or to get their Living by any sordid Commerce. Readers are obliged to Marry when they come to the Age of Puberty, or to make a Vow of Continency. Clerks are not to take Use for Money Lent. They will not have Deacons to be ordained, nor Virgins consecrated before they are Five and twenty Years old. Lastly, Deacons are forbidden to Salute the People; That is, to speak to the People in Reading, as Bishops were wont to do in Preaching.

The 17th. grants to the Province of Silesia, that had been separated from Numidia, the Right of having a Primate, or Metropolitan, but dependent upon the Primate of Numidia.

The 18th. enjoyns, That Bishops Ordaining either Bishops or Clerks, shall make them under∣stand the Canons. It forbids the giving the Eucharist to the Dead, and renews the Order of the Council of Nice, about the Celebration of Provincial Councils.

The 19th. ordains, That whosoever accuses a Bishop, must do it before his Metropolitan; who shall cite him to appear within a Month before him, and before the Judges whom he hath chosen: That in the mean time the Bishop shall not be suspended from the Communion: That if at the Month's end he gives good Reasons for his not appearing, he shall have another Month; but if he doth not appear at his second Summons, he shall be suspended from the Communion until he hath justified himself: and, That if afterwards he comes not to the Uni∣versal Council, he shall be look'd upon as having condemned himself: That the Accuser is not to be kept from Communicating, if he appears upon all Set-days; but upon his withdrawing, he shall be suspended, but yet so as not to hinder his Prosecution. Lastly, They forbid the admitting of a noted Person to form an Accusation, except it be concerning his particular Interest. The 20th. gives Rules for the Judgment of Priests and Deacons; but other Clerks are left to the sole Judgment of the Bishop.

The 21st. forbids Clergy-mens Sons to Marry Heretical or Heathenish Wives. The 22d. hin∣ders Clerks to give their Estates to Hereticks, though they were their Parents. The 23d. for∣bids Bishops to go out of Africa without leave from the Metropolitan of their respective Pro∣vince, from whom they are to receive a formed Letter, or a Letter of Recommendation. The 24th. prohibits the Reading of any other besides Canonical Books in the Church, whereof the Catalogue there set down agrees with that of the Council of Trent. It is noted at the latter end of this Canon, That the Contents thereof are to be notified to Boniface, and the Bi∣shops of Italy, that they may confirm it: and that the African Church hath learned from her Father's Tradition, That the Books expressed in that Catalogue, ought to be read in the Church. The 25th. confirms the Law of Celibacy, for the Superior Orders; and it extends it to Sub-deacons, but other Clerks are left at their liberty.

The 26th. forbids the Selling the Goods of the Church, or of Bishops, without the Metropoli∣tan's leave, unless there be an urgent Necessity; in which case they are to advise with the nearest Bishops.

The 27th. provides, That Priests and Deacons. shall not be put to publick Penance; and, That such as were Re-baptized, shall not be promoted to the Priesthood. The 28th. forbids those Priests and Deacons who find fault with the Judgments of their own Bishops, to seek for Judges out of Africa; but they are permitted to have their Cause examined by neighbouring Bishops, but with the Consent of their own Bishop: wherein this Canon differs from that of Sardica, which gave Clerks leave indifferently to chuse neighbouring Bishops for their Judges, without seeking for the Consent of their own Bishop.

The 29th. declares, That he condemneth himself; by suffering himself to be Excommunicated by an Ecclesiastical Judgment, who neglects to appear, and yet doth not forbear Communica∣ting before he is heard. The 30th. saith, That if the Accuser hath some reason to fear any thing in the place where the Accused dwelleth, he may chuse a place hard-by to produce his Witnesses.

The 31st. punishes those Clerks who refuse to be promoted to Superior Orders by their Bi∣shops, by depriving them of the Functions of their Ministery. The 32d. declares, That the Bi∣shops, Priests and Deacons, who being poor when they were Ordained, have afterwards pur∣chased Estates out of the Churches Revenue, ought to be dealt withal like those who detain other Mens Estates unlawfully gotten, except they bequeath them to the Church: but they are permitted to do what they please with such Estates as come to them either by Succession or by Donation. Finally, The 33d. and last forbids Priests to Sell the Churches Goods unknown to the Bishops; and the Bishops, without acquainting the Council and their Priests with it: even the Metropolitan is not permitted to usurp what belongs to his Church. This is what was enacted in the First Session of this Council. Afterwards the Canons of former African Councils were read, in the same order in which we see them in the Code of the African Church.

The last Session of this General Council was upon the 28th. of May, of the same Year. Se∣veral Bishops complained, That they were kept there too long, and so desired to return to their Diocesses: wherefore they nominated Deputies of each Province to compleat what remained yet to do; but before they separated themselves, they added Six Canons more to the former. The 1st. forbids the receiving the Accusation of an accused Person. In the 2d. they would not have such admitted for Accusers as are Slaves, or Freed-men, nor infamous Persons, as Mimicks, or Stage-Players, no more than Hereticks and Heathens. In the 3d. it is provided, That if the Accusation consists of several Heads, and the Accuser cannot prove the First, he shall not be suffered to propose the rest.

The 4th. prescribes the Qualifications of Witnesses, according to what hath been said of Ac∣cusers; that is, That whosoever was not qualified to be an Accuser, could not be admitted for a Witness: adding, That the Domesticks of an Accuser could not be Witnesses, nor such as were under the Age of Thirteen Years.

The 5th. provides, That if a Bishop declares that such a Person hath confessed a Crime to him alone, and that Person denies it, and refuses to do Penance; that Bishop ought not to think that Injury is done to him, if the thing is not believed upon his Word, though he saith, That he will not Communicate with that Person, out of a Scruple of Conscience. The next

Canon adds, That in this case, if the Bishop will not communicate with that Person, the other Bishops shall not communicate with that Bishop; that so Bishops may not offer to say what they cannot prove. These Canons shew, That Crimes were confessed to Bishops,; and that the Bishops excommunicated Men, and put them to publick Penance for those Crimes, though they were secret ones; but that the Bishop could not oblige those outwardly to do publick Penance, who had confessed their Crimes secretly to him, unless he had other Proofs to con∣vict them.

After this, Aurelius concluded the Synod, putting off to the next day the writing to Boni∣face. All the Bishops subscribed and approved what had been done and read in the Synod.

The next day they composed the Letter to Boniface; wherein the African Bishops gave him an Account of what had been done about the Memorial of Instructions which Zosimus had given to his Legates; and promised him to see the two Canons of the Council of Sardica executed, concerning the Appeals of the Clergy, and the Judgments thereupon, until they had received out of Greece the true Copies of the Council of Nice; upon Condition, That if these Canons were not there, they would not endure this new Yoke, which seemed to be an Effect of Ambi∣tion; and that they should be suffered to enjoy their ancient Privileges.

These Copies were not long in coming; they received them in November of the same Year, with obliging Letters from St. Cyril, and Atticus of Constantinople; but they did not find the Canons alledged by Zosimus's Legates, but only the Confession of Faith, and the Twenty ordi∣nary Canons. They had no sooner received them, but they sent the same to Pope Boniface.

This seemed to have put an end to the Dispute; and indeed, it was not spoken of any more in Boniface's time, but it was renewed under the Pontificate of Pope Coelestine. For this Apia∣rius, to whom the African Bishops had shewed Kindness for the Pope's sake, instead of be∣having himself wisely, gave great occasions of Complaint against him; so that they were obliged to condemn him. He failed not, to procure his Restoration, to apply himself to the same Means that had before proved effectual: he went to Pope Coelestine, who received him kindly, and admitted him to Communion: he wrote in his behalf to the African Bishops, and sent Faustinus to procure his Restoration. The African Bishops met to judge him. At first he rejected their Judgment, under pretence of maintaining the Privileges of the See of Rome, and demanded to be admitted to the Communion, since Coelestine, to whom he made his Ap∣peal, had admitted him. This Opposition, back'd by Faustinus, did not hinder the African Bishops from undertaking the Examination of the Crimes laid to his Charge. At the third time of their Meeting, Apiarius confessed,

That he was guilty of the Crimes he was accused of, so that there was no more need of Pleading.

But the African Bishops seeing of what Importance it was, to prevent that for the future the African Councils should not be thus imposed upon, they writ a Letter to Pope Coelestine. In which having related in what manner Apiarius's Business was con∣cluded, they intreated him earnestly to hearken no more to those that should come from Africa, and not to admit any more to his Communion any Man that was Excommunicated by the African Bishops.

For (say they) your Holiness may take notice, That it was so decreed in the Council of Nice; and though mention is made there only of Clergy and Laity, yet there is a great deal more reason to observe this Rule, with respect to Bishops; and it would prove a great Disorder, should your Holiness allow Communion against the Rules to Bishops Ex∣communicated in their Provinces. Likewise, your Holiness ought to reject those Priests, and other Clergy-men who apply themselves to you, to avoid the Punishment which they deserve; so much the rather, because we no where read that the Canons have taken away this Privilege from the African Church; and that according to the Decree of the Council of Nice, the Judgment of Priests, and of other Clerks, belongs to the Metropolitan. For the Fathers of that Council were wise and just enough to see that all-Causes ought to be decided in those very places where they have their birth; and that each Province shall not want the Light of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to direct and enable them to do Justice to their People; so much the rather, that every one who thinks himself wrong'd by the Sentences of Judges that are put upon them, may have their recourse to a Synod of that Province, or even to a National Council. Were it not great rashness in any one of us, to believe that God can inspire by his Spirit one single Person to do Justice; and deny the same to a great number of Bishops assembled in a Council? And how can it be imagined, that Judgment given out of the Country, and beyond the Seas, can stand, since it is often impossible to transport Wit∣nesses? They add, That they had sent to Pope Boniface, Coelestine's Predecessor, the true Copies of the Council of Nice, where the Canons alledged by Faustinus are not found. They advise him to send no more Clerks into Africa to see his Judgments executed, lest he should seem to introduce into the Church, which Breaths nothing but Humility, the Pomp and Vanity of the Age; and then they entreat him, not to suffer Faustinus to abide any longer in Africa.

The Council of Ravenna, in 419.

THis Council was assembled at Ravenna, in April, 419. by order of Honorius the Emperor, * 1.23 to judge betwixt Eulalius and Boniface, who disputed about the See of Rome. For since the Bishops could not agree, the Emperor purposed to call another more numerous Council, to

which he invited Bishops out of Gaul and Africa. In the mean while it was ordered in this, That Eulalius and Boniface should keep out of Rome; and that Achillaeus, Bishop of Spoleto, should take care of the Church till the Contest was ended. But Eulalius's Precpitation justified Boniface's Right, and was the cause that no other Council met upon that Subject. You may see what was said about it in the Account of Pope Boniface.

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 420.

WHat we have said hitherto concerning the Councils of Africa, celebrated in the beginning * 1.24 of the Fifth Century, sufficiently shews, That the Vigilancy of those Bishops made them meet often, and gives reason to conjecture, That Yearly Councils were held at Carthage; but we have not the Acts of all those Councils. Possidius, in St. Augustin's Life, intimates, That in 420. there was a Meeting of Bishops at Carthage, where a young Virgin confessed that she had suffered infamous things from the Manichees. St. Augustin relates the same thing in his Treatise Of Heresies, ch. 46. and the Author called Praedestinatus, hath not forgot to reckon this Meeting among the African Councils; but it may be that it was only an Assembly of Bi∣shops, like that wherein St. Augustin caused Heraclius the Priest to be elected his Successor, which cannot be called a Council.

The Council of Constantinople, in the Year 426.

THis Council was assembled by Theodosius's Command, to Ordain Sisinnius Bishop-Elect of Con∣stantinople, * 1.25 in the room of Atticus. Theodorus of Antioch was present, and there condemned the Massalian Heresie by a Synodical Letter: And Neon's Opinion was, That as many as should be convicted of favouring that Sect, should be Expelled, without hope of Re-admission, what∣soever Promises they might make. The reason of that extraordinary Severity came from this, That those Hereticks made no scruple of Abjuring their Sect, even with the most dreadful Oaths. This Synod is mentioned in the Council of Ephesus, where the Synodical Letter is confirmed, p. 3. Act. 7.

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 427. against Leporius.

LEporius, Priest and Monk of Marseilles, embu'd with Pelagius's Errors, having likewise * 1.26 maintained that which Nestorius published not long after, was driven out of Gaul: God's Providence directed him to Africa; where he was undeceived of his Errors by Aurelius and St. Augustin, who most charitably instructed him. After he was fully persuaded of the Truth, they made him subscribe a Confession of Faith; wherein he sharply condemned those Errors which he had published, concerning the Person of Jesus Christ, and made a clear Profession of the Faith of the Church. Aurelius, St. Augustin, and some other Bishops, being assembled, signed that Profession, and wrote a Letter to Proculus of Marseilles, and the other Bishops of that Countrey; whereby they attested Leporius's Conversion, and intreated them to receive him charitably. This Leporius having been present at the Assembly which St. Augustin called at Hippo, to chuse Heraclius for his Successor, held at the latter end of the Year 426, could not be sent back before 427.

The Council of Constantinople, in the Year 428.

NEstorius having been chosen Bishop of Constantinople, in 428. after Sisinnius's Death, Philip, * 1.27 an ancient Priest of the Church of Constantinople, found fault with some of Nestorius's Sermons, and refused to Communicate with him. This provoked Nestorius, who caused him to be cited to his Council, and persuaded Coelestius to accuse him. But Philip being come to the Council, and Coelestius not appearing, Philip remained fully justified. This Council is spoken of in the Memorial which St. Cyril gave to Possidonius, and which was carried to Rome.

We conclude here the former Part of the Third Volume, which gives an Account of the Au∣thors of the Fifth Age of the Church, that we may not enter upon the History of the Council of Ephesus, which we shall speak of in the latter Part.

The END of the FIRST PART of the THIRD TO ME.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Spurious Council of Rome, un∣der Inno∣cent I.
• * 1.2

  Council of Milevls, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ccccii.
• * 1.3

  Councils at Constan∣tinople and Ephesus, by St. Chryso∣stom, cccc, & cccci.
• * 1.4

  Council at the Oak, against St. Chry∣sostom, cccciii.
• * 1.5

  Council of Carthage, cccciii.
• * 1.6

  Council of Carthage cccciv.
• * 1.7

  Council of Carthage ccccv.
• * 1.8

  Council of Carthage, ccccvii.
• * 1.9

  Two Coun∣cils of Carthage, ccccviij.
• * 1.10

  Council of Carthage, ccccix.
• * 1.11

  Council of Carthage, ccccx.
• * 1.12

  Council of Ptolemais, in ccccxi.
• * 1.13

  Confe∣rence of Carthage, in ccccxi.
• * 1.14

  Council of Cirta, in ccccx••j.
• * 1.15

  Council I. of Carthage against Coelestius, in ccccxj.
• * 1.16

  Confe∣rence of Jerusa∣lem, in ccccxv.
• * 1.17

  Council of Diospo∣lis, in ccccxviij.
• * 1.18

  Counc. II. of Car∣thage, and of Milevis, against Pelagius and Coele∣stius in ccccxvj
• * 1.19

  Council of Carthage in ccccxvij.
• * 1.20

  Council of Carthage in ccccxviij.
• * 1.21

  Council of Telia, or Zella &c. in ccccxvi••j.
• * 1.22

  Councils of Car∣thage con∣cerning Apiarius, in ccccxviij & ccccxix.
• * 1.23

  Council of Ravenna, in ccccxix.
• * 1.24

  Council of Carthage, in ccccxx.
• * 1.25

  Council of Constanti∣nople, in ccccxxvi.
• * 1.26

  Council of Carthage, against Le∣porius, in ccccxxvii.
• * 1.27

  Council of Constanti∣nople, in ccccxxvi••i.