A Source Book for Ancient Church History Part 54

These canons of the Council of Carthage, A. D. 418, were incorporated in the _Codex Canon Ecclesi African_ adopted at the Council of Carthage A. D. 419. The numbers given in brackets are the numbers in that Codex. Interprovincial councils were known in North Africa as general councils.

In the consulate of the most glorious emperors, Honorius for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth, on the calends of May, at Carthage in the Secretarium of the Basilica of Faustus, when Bishop Aurelius presided over the general council, the deacons standing by, it pleased all the bishops, whose names and subscriptions are indicated, met together in the holy synod of the church of Carthage:

1 [109]. That whosoever should say that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in the bodythat is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because of the desert [or merit] of sin, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

2 [110]. Likewise that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mothers womb should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which is removed by the layer of regeneration, whence the conclusion follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For not otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world,(177) and so it pa.s.sed upon all men in that all have sinned, than as the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith, even infants, who could have committed no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

3 [111]. Likewise, that whoever should say that the grace of G.o.d, by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of past sins, and not for a.s.sistance against committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.

4 [112]. Also, whoever shall say that the same grace of G.o.d through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us not to sin only in that by it are revealed to us and opened to our understanding the commandments, so that we may know what to seek, what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but that through it we are not helped so that we are able to do what we know we should do, let him be anathema. For when the Apostle says, Wisdom puffeth up, but charity edifieth, it were truly infamous were we to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which puffeth us up, but have it not for that which edifieth, since each is the gift of G.o.d, both to know what we ought to do, and to love it so as to do it; so that wisdom cannot puff us up while charity is edifying us. For as it is written of G.o.d, Who teacheth man knowledge, so also it is written, Love is of G.o.d.

5 [113]. It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification is given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were commanded to do through our free will; as if when grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema.

For the Lord spake concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said, Without me ye can do nothing, and not Without me ye can do it but with difficulty.

6 [114]. It seemed also good that as St. John the Apostle says, If ye shall say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us; whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of humility we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity, where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only in humility but also in truth. For the Apostle might have said, If we shall say we have no sins we shall extol ourselves, and humility is not in us; but when he says, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.

7 [115]. It has seemed good that whosoever should say that when in the Lords Prayer, the saints say, Forgive us our trespa.s.ses, they say this not for themselves, because they have no need of this pet.i.tion, but for the rest who are sinners of the people; and that therefore none of the saints can say, Forgive me my trespa.s.ses, but Forgive us our trespa.s.ses; so that the just is understood to seek this for others rather than for himself, let him be anathema.

8 [116]. Likewise it seemed good, that whosoever a.s.serts that these words of the Lords Prayer when they say, Forgive us our trespa.s.ses, are said by the saints out of humility and not in truth, let them be anathema.

The following canon, although it seems to have been enacted for the case of Apiarius, is nevertheless often cited in the same connection as the eight against Pelagius, and is therefore given here for the sake of convenience.

18 [125]. Likewise, it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the neighboring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their bishops shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But should they think that an appeal should be carried from them, let them not carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoso shall think of carrying an appeal across the seas, shall be admitted to communion by no one in Africa.(178)

85. Semi-Pelagian Controversy

With the condemnation of Pelagianism the doctrine of Augustine in its logically worked out details was not necessarily approved. The necessity of baptism for the remission of sins in all cases was approved as well as the necessity of grace. The doctrine of predestination, an essential feature in the Augustinian system, was not only not accepted but was vigorously opposed by many who heartily condemned Pelagianism. The ensuing discussion, known as the Semi-Pelagian controversy (427-529), was largely carried on in Gaul, which after the Vandal occupation of North Africa, became the intellectual centre of the Church in the West. The leading opponent of Augustine was John Ca.s.sian (ob. 435), abbot of a monastery at Ma.r.s.eilles, hence the term Ma.s.silians applied to his party, and his pupil, Vincent of Lerins, author of _Commonitorium_, written 434. The chief Augustinians were Hilary and Prosper of Aquitaine. The discussion was not continuous. About 475 it broke out again when Lucidus was condemned at a council at Lyons and forced to retract his predestinarian views; and again about 520. The matter received what is regarded as its solution in the Council of Orange, 529, confirmed by Boniface II in 531. By the decrees of this council so much of the Augustinian system as could be combined with the teaching and practice of the Church as to the sacraments was formally approved.

(_a_) John Ca.s.sian. _Collationes_, XIII. 7 _ff._ (MSL, 49:908.)

John Ca.s.sian, born about 360, was by birth and education a man of the East, and does not appear in the West until 405, when he went to Rome on some business connected with the exile of Chrysostom, his friend and patron. In 415 he established two monasteries at Ma.r.s.eilles, one for men and the other for women. He had himself been educated as a monk and made a careful study of monasticism in Egypt and Palestine. Western monasticism is much indebted to him for his writings. _De Inst.i.tutis Cn.o.biorum_ and the _Collationes_. In the former, he describes the monastic system of Palestine and Egypt and the princ.i.p.al vices to which the monastic life is liable; in the latter, divided into three parts, Ca.s.sian gives reports or what purports to be reports of conversations he and his friend Germa.n.u.s had with Egyptian ascetics. These books were very popular during the Middle Ages and exerted a wide influence.

Ch. 7. When His [G.o.ds] kindness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good-will s.h.i.+ning forth or which He himself has, as it were, struck out from the hard flints of our hearts, He fans it and fosters it and nurses it with His breath, as He will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth [I Tim. 2:4]. For He is true and lieth not when He lays down with an oath: As I live, saith the Lord, I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live [Ezek.

33:11]. For if he willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we think without grievous blasphemy that He willeth not all men universally, but only some instead of all be saved. Those then who perish, perish against His will, as He testifieth against each of them day by day: Turn from your evil ways for why will ye die, O house of Israel? [Ezek.

33:11] The grace of Christ is then at hand every day, which, while it willeth all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, calleth all without exception, saying: Come all unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest [Matt. 11:28]. But if he calls not all generally but only some, it follows that not all are heavy laden with either original sin or actual sin, and that this saying is not a true one: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of G.o.d [Rom.

3:23]; nor can we believe that death pa.s.sed on all men [Rom. 5:12]. And so far do all who perish, perish against the will of G.o.d, that G.o.d cannot be said to have made death, as the Scripture itself testifieth: For G.o.d made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living [Wisdom 1:13].

Ch. 8. When He sees anything of good-will arisen in us He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on to salvation, giving increase to that which He himself implanted or He sees to have arisen by our own effort.

Ch. 9. But that it may be still more evident that through the good of nature, which is bestowed by the kindness of the Creator, sometimes the beginnings of a good-will arise, yet cannot come to the completion of virtue unless they are directed by the Lord, the Apostle is a witness, saying: For to will is present with me, but to perform what is good I find not [Rom. 7:18].

Ch. 11. If we say that the beginnings of a good-will are always inspired in us by the grace of G.o.d, what shall we say about the faith of Zacchus, or of the piety of that thief upon the cross, who by their own desire brought violence to bear upon the Kingdom of Heaven, and so antic.i.p.ated the special leadings of their callings?

Ch. 12. We should not hold that G.o.d made man such that he neither wills nor is able to do good. Otherwise He has not granted him a free will, if He has suffered him only to will or be capable of evil, but of himself neither to will nor be capable of what is good. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that there are by nature seeds of goodness implanted in every soul by the kindness of the Creator; but unless these are quickened by the a.s.sistance of G.o.d, they will not be able to attain to an increase of perfection; for, as the blessed Apostle says: Neither is he that planteth anything nor he that watereth, but G.o.d that giveth the increase [I Cor.

3:7]. But that freedom of will is to some degree in a mans power is very clearly taught in the book called _The Pastor_,(179) where two angels are said to be attached to each one of us, _i.e._ a good and a bad one, while it lies in a mans own option to choose which to follow. And, therefore, the will always remains free in man, and it can either neglect or delight in the grace of G.o.d. For the Apostle would not have commanded, saying, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling [Phil. 2:12], had he not known that it could be advanced or neglected by us. But that they should not think that they did not need divine aid he adds: For it is G.o.d who worketh in you both to will and accomplish His good pleasure [Phil.

2:13]. The mercy of the Lord, therefore, goes before the will of man, for it is said, My G.o.d will prevent me with His mercy [Psalm 59:10], and again, that He may put our desire to the test, our will goes before G.o.d who waits, and for our good delays.

(_b_) Vincent of Lerins, _Commonitorium_, chs. 2, 23, 26, (MSL, 50:659.)

The rule of Catholic verity.

Vincent of Lerins wrote his _Commonitorium_ in 434, three years after the death of Augustine, who had been commended in 432 to the clergy of Gaul by Celestine of Rome [_Ep._ 21; Denziger, nn.

128-142; Mansi IV, 454 _ff._]. Vincent attacked Augustine in his _Commonitorium_, not openly, but, so far as the work has been preserved, covertly, under the pseudonym of Peregrinus. The work consists of two books, of which the second is lost with the exception of what appear to be some concluding chapters, or a summary taking the place of the book. In the first book he lays down the general principle as to the tests of Catholic truth. In doing so he is careful to point out several cases of very great teachers, renowned for learning, ability, and influence, who, nevertheless, erred against the test of Catholic truth, and brought forward opinions which, on account of their novelty, were false. It is a working out in detail of the principles of the idea of Tertullian in his _De Prscriptione_ [_v. supra_, 27]. The Augustinian doctrines of predestination and grace could not stand the test of the appeal to antiquity. After laying down his test of truth it appears to have been the authors intention to prove thereby the doctrine of Augustine false. The so-called Vincentian rule is often quoted without a thought that it was intended, primarily, as an attack upon Augustine. The _Commonitorium_ may be found translated in PNF, ser. II, vol. XI.

Ch. 2 [4]. I have often inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanct.i.ty and learning, how and by what sure and, so to speak, universal rule I might be able to distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity, and I have always, and from nearly all, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds of heretics as they arise, or to avoid their snares, and to continue sound and complete in the faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our faith in two ways: first, by the authority of the divine Law, and then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one, perhaps, will ask: Since the canon of Scripture is complete and sufficient for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to add to it the authority of the Churchs interpretation?

For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words one way, another in another way; so that almost as many opinions may be drawn from it as there are men. Therefore it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies, and of such various errors, that the rule of a right understanding of the prophets and Apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself all possible care should be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic which, as the name implies and the reason of the thing declares, comprehends all universally. This will be the case if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality in this way, if we confess that one faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in nowise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at least almost all, priests and doctors.

Ch. 23 [59]. The Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds; does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is anothers, but, while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in viewif there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fas.h.i.+on and to polish it; if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it; if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other objects have councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity, should in the future be believed intelligently; that what was before preached coldly, should in the future be preached earnestly; that what before was practised negligently, should henceforth be practised with double solicitude?

Pa.s.sage referring especially to Augustine.

Ch. 26 [69]. But what do they say? If thou be the Son of G.o.d, cast thyself down; that is, If thou wouldest be a son of G.o.d, and wouldest receive the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, cast thyself down; that is, cast thyself down from the doctrine and tradition of that sublime Church, which is imagined to be nothing less than the very temple of G.o.d.

And if one should ask one of the heretics who gives this advice: How do you prove it? What ground have you for saying that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? he has only the answer ready: For it is written; and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the Apostles, from the prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul is precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. Then with the accompanying promises, the heretics are wont marvellously to beguile the incautious. For they dare to teach and promise that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of G.o.d, so that whosoever pertain to their number, without any labor, without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock,(180) have such a dispensation from G.o.d, that borne up of angel hands, that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should ever be offended.

(_c_) Council of Orange, A. D. 529, _Canons_. Bruns II, 176. _Cf._ Denziger, n. 174.

The end of the Semi-Pelagian controversy.

The Council of Orange, A. D. 529, was made up of several bishops and some lay notables who had gathered for the dedication of a church at Orange. Csarius of Arles had received from Felix IV of Rome eight statements against the Semi-Pelagian teaching. He added some more of his own to them, and had them pa.s.sed as canons by the company gathered for the dedication. It is noteworthy that the lay notables signed along with the bishops. Boniface II, to whom the canons were sent, confirmed them in 532: We approve your above written confession as agreeable to the Catholic rule of the Fathers. _Cf._ Hefele, 242. For the sources of the canons, see Seeberg, _History of Doctrines_, Eng. trans., I, 380, note 3. For the sake of brevity the scriptural quotations are not given, merely indicated by references to the Bible.

Canon 1. Whoever says that by the offence of the disobedience of Adam not the entire man, that is, in body and soul, was changed for the worse, but that the freedom of his soul remained uninjured, and his body only was subject to corruption, has been deceived by the error of Pelagius and opposes Scripture [Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 6:16; II Peter 2:19].

Canon 2. Whoever a.s.serts that the transgression of Adam injured himself only, and not his offspring, or that death only of the body, which is the penalty of sin, but not also sin, which is the death of the soul, pa.s.sed by one man to the entire human race, wrongs G.o.d and contradicts the Apostle [Rom. 5:12].