We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 February 2009
The bishops of Roman Africa vacillated in their relations with the papacy in the three decades preceding the Vandal invasion and, more specifically, during the papacies of Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, and Coelestine. Theyseemed grossly inconsistent, first praising papal authority, then curbing its ability to influence African jurisdiction. In synodal letters of 416 associated with the Pelagian controversy, the bishops exalted Roman authority, even ascribing to the pope a ‘greate dignity’ and a ‘special gift of grace’. An additional private letter of five African bishops contrasted the African ‘brook’ with the Roman ‘spring’. Augustine also acknowledged the special authority of Rome. These were no mere effusions of polite speech. The Africans intended to sway a papal hand in their campaign against Pelagius and his supporters by seeking papal approbation of their condemnations of Pelagianism. The Council of Sardica and Roman law had earlier granted the papacy the authority to function as a ‘court of appeals’ in the Western Church. Accordingly, Innocent responded to the African bishops with a condemnation of the heresy, however equivocal in points of doctrine, dramatically clothed in the style of imperial rescript. Boniface and Coelestine soon provided official approbation of African canons issued in 418 at the Council of Carthage, and Augustine and subsequent popes regarded this as the proof of a consistent papal position in support of African doctrine, leaving Zosimus' temporary exoneration of Pelagius and Caelestius the unsuccessful exception to the rule.
1 Letter of the Council of Carthage of 416, apud Augustinum, Ep. 175. 2, CSEL xliv. 655; Letter of the Synod of Mileve in 416, Ep. 176 1, CSEL xliv. 664. Cf. also the ‘Epistola familiaris’ of Aurelius, Alypius, Augustine, Evodius, and Possidius, Ep. 177, CSEL xliv. 669.frGoogle Scholar.
2 Evidenced by his signature on the ‘Epistola familiaris’ and by other sources. See W., Marschall, Karthago und Rom, Papste und Papsttum I, Stuttgart 1971Google Scholar.
3 For polite speech in the letters, see ibid. 131–2. By the early fourth century, the canons of Sardica were known in Rome as Nicene canons, that is, as the canons of an ecumenical council: Hess, H., The Canons of the Council of Sardica, AD 343, Oxford 1958, 137Google Scholar. Canons 3, 4, and 5 played a role in the controversy over appeals discussed below. Turner, C. H., Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima. Canonum et conciliorum Graecorum interpretationes Latinae i/2, Oxford 1930, 493–8Google Scholar. For the place of these canons in the later controversy, see Marschall, , Karthago, 110–13Google Scholar, and Wermelinger, O., Rom und Pelagius, Papste und Papsttum v, Stuttgart 1975, II7ffGoogle Scholar., which includes a concise presentation of the legal sources.
4 For the general development and Pope Siricius’ introduction of the form, see H., Getzeny, Stil und Form der dltesten Papstbriefe bis auf Leo den Grossen, Giinzburg 1922, and Marschall’s conjectures about the Africans’ early knowledge and reception of it, Karthago, 115ff. For the form of Innocent’s letter, Wermelinger, Rom, 124, and for differences in points of doctrine,Google Scholaribid. 124ff., 128ff., 283.
5 Doctrinal equivocation was also true of Zosimus’ Tractoria, which, prompted by Honorius’ rescript, reversed his restoration of Caelestius and Pelagius and instigated the reaction of the ‘semi-Pelagian’ bishops of Southern Italy. See Wermelinger’s thorough and sensitive analysis, Rom, 209–18, 238ff., 259–78.
6 Canons 4–6 of the Council of Carthage of 418 were included by Dionysius Exiguus in the Decretalium collectio; so too, was the Indiculus of Coelestine, actually written by Prosper of Aquitaine, which presented as forceful a case as possible for the papal approbation of African conciliar moves against Pelagianism: PL lxvii. 217–19, 270. Coelestine retained a cautious distance from the doctrinal specifics of Prosper’s controversy with bishops of Gaul, but endorsed Augustine’s authority in matters Pelagian: H., Denzinger and A., Schonmetzer (eds), Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Dedarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, 36th edn, Freiburg im Briesgau 1976, 82, 88Google Scholar. Leo 1 reproduced African canons and the African position on Pelagius in a letter to Rusticus of Narbonne: PL cxxx. 902–3. Peter the Deacon knew and used the Indiculus: PL xlv. 1679f C. Munier (ed.), Concilia Africae A. 345–A. 525, CCL 171. 68Google Scholar, provides a brief conspectus of the canons in early collections. See also F. L. Cross, ‘History and Fiction in the African canons’, JTS N.S. xii (1961), 227–46. The more enduring means of transmitting the idea of papal approbation of the African position, particularly to medieval theologians, must have been Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings, which were far better known than the virtually unknown early collections of canons and decrees (although material from early collections made its way into the Corpus iuris canonici, it did not pertain to doctrinal questions or, to my knowledge, Pelagianism). Chapman, J., Studies on the Early Papacy, London 1928Google Scholar, Adam, K., ‘Causa finita est’, in A. M., Koeniger (ed.), Beitrage zur Geschichte des christlichen Altertums und der Byzantinischen Literatur. Festgabe Albert Ehrhard, Bonn-Leipzig 1922, 1–23Google Scholar, and Batiffol, P., Le Catholicisme de Saint Augustin, Paris 1920Google Scholar, present cases for African acknowledgement of papal primacy.
7 There had been a number of earlier African regulations of appeals, most notably by the Council of Carthage of 397 (bishops may only appeal with the permission of the primate) and the Council of Carthage of 407 (appeals could not be made without having received litteraeformatae from the pope), the latter perhaps in response to a papal objection to frequent African appeals made in 405: C. Munier, ‘ Un canon inedit du xxe concile de Carthage: “ Ut nullus ad Romanam ecclesiam audeat appellare ”’, in Recherches de science religieusexl (1966), 125; Marschall, Karthago, 164–5. The bishop, Faustinus, and the priests, Philippus and Asellus, appeared with a commonitorium from Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage in 419, asserting the right of the papacy to decide all appeals; Concilium Carthaginense anni 41 g Ada 25 Maii, CCL cxlix. 89–94.
8 The initial response of the Council of Carthage in May 418, may be found in the Registri ecclesiae Carthaginensis excerpta, c. 125, CCL cxlix. 227. The prohibition of 424 may be found in the synodal letter, Optaremus, ibid. 169. For the tenacity of this prohibition, cf. R. A. Markus, ‘ Carthage-Prima Justiniana-Ravenna: an aspect of Justinian’s Kirchen- politik’, Byzantion xlix (1979), 305–6, repr. in idem, From Augustine to Gregory the Great, London 1983, no. 13. The date of the first limitation of appeals in 418 is controverted. See S. Lancel, ‘Saint Augustin et la MaurÉtanie CÉsarienne’, Revue des Études augustiniennes xxx (1984). 51.
9 For primacy, see n. 6. For autonomy, see Reuter, H., Augustinische Studien, Gotha 1887, 231–358Google Scholar; Caspar, E., Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Ho’he der Weltherrschaft, 2vols, Tübingen 1930, 1933, i. 326–43Google Scholar; and Munier, ‘Un canon’ (n. 7 above). For acknowledged papal authority without juridical submission, see Marschall, Karthago (where primacy is accepted with considerable qualifications, most notably a strong view of African autonomy), and Wermelinger, Rom.
10 This is also true of Marschall and Wermelinger, Marschall following a more canonical agenda of the question of primacy and Wermelinger following a theologian’s agenda of the doctrinal positions of Africa and Rome.
11 Wermelinger, Rom, 285. I think this is also strongly suggested by Marschall’s highly equivocated view of the African idea of papal primacy, which is to his mind, a very pronounced estimation of Roman authority which can be called ‘primacy’, but not in the medieval or modern meaning of the term, and which in no way compromised African autonomy: Marschall, Karthago, passim, and conveniently summarised in the conclusion, 220–2.
12 For the African tradition: Marschall, Karthago, 18–83.
13 n. 70, below.
14 Combes, G., La doctrine politique de S. Augustin, Paris 1927, 383–93Google Scholar remains useful, despite its age. For the change in imperial policy and the decline of Donatism see Tengström, E., Donatisten und Katkoliken: soziale, wirtschaftliche und politische Aspekte einer nordafrikanischen Kirchenspaltung, Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia XVIII, Götenborg 1964, 166–9Google Scholar. For the maintenance of older methods of polemic and persuasion see n. 20 below.
15 Cf. Marschall’s cursory treatment of the affair in Karthago, 197–201; C. Munier’s more thorough analysis, ‘La lettre 20* et les appels a Rome’, in Lettres Divjak, Paris 1983; and H. Chadwick, ‘New Letters of St Augustine’, JTS xxxiv (1983), 440–4. A very concise presentation of the new information (and a more complete bibliography of recent contributions) may be found in Oeuvres de Saint Augustin, XLVIB: Lettres i*-2g*, ed. J. Divjak, Paris 1987, 516–20 (hereafter, Lettres).
16 Lepelley, C., ‘Liberte, colonat et esclavage’, Lettres Divjak, 341–2; M.-F. Berrouard, ‘ Un tournant dans la vie de l’Eglise d’Afrique: les deux missions d’Alypius en Italie’, Revue des Études augustiniennes, xxxi (1985), 69–70Google Scholar. The point had already been made, with a sharp contrast between urban and rural society, by Frend, W. H. C., The Donatist Church, Oxford 1952, 265–6Google Scholar.
17 Chadwick, ‘New Letters’, 425; Berrouard, ‘Un tournant’, 50–1, which points out how Epp. 10*, 15*, 16*, 22*, and 23* change the old impression that Alypius’ missions to Italy were primarily concerned with the struggle against Julian of Eclanum.
18 Lepelley, C., Les cites de I’Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire, I: La permanence a“une civilisation municipale, Paris 1979, 374–6, 398–9Google Scholar, which also notes the consistency between political realities and Augustine’s view of the relation of church and state. See also Cranz, F. E., ‘The development of Augustine’s ideas on society before the Donatist controversy’, Harvard Theological Review 16 (1954), 255–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Markus, R. A., Saeculum: history and society in the theology of St Augustine, Cambridge 1970Google Scholar. The contrary view, that African Catholics represented an imperial, politically assimilated version of the Christian religion, cautiously presented by Combes, La doctrine, 322–3, and in more forceful terms by Frend, Donatist Church, 324–6, and idem, ‘The Roman Empire in the eyes of western schismatics during the fourth century AD’, Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae, Louvain 1961, 9–22Google Scholar, has become less tenable. Cf. also Markus, R. A., ‘Donatism: the last phase’, in C. W., Dugmore (ed.), Studies in Church History, i, London 1964, 118–26Google Scholar, and Tengstrom, Donatisten, 190.
19 In 411, there were about 650 episcopal sees of both parties, mostly in civitates but also in some villae and fundi: Crespin, R., Ministère et saintetá, Paris 1965, 16Google Scholar; A. H. M.Jones, The Later Roman Empire, Oxford 1964, ii., see ch. xix. Contrast the approximately 100 sees of Merovingian Gaul: D. Claude, ‘Die Bestellung der Bischöfe in merowingischen Reiche’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Kanonistische Abteilung XLIX), lxxx (1963), 4. The moderate growth of dioceses and the greater increase in the number of parishes in the early medieval West left a medieval bishop to manage a large clerical bureaucracy, with little contact with the parish life of the laity. For episcopal organisation, Le Bras, G., Institutions ecclÉsiastiques de la ChrÉtiente mÉdievale, Histoire de l’Èglise, Paris 1959, i/i. 205Google Scholar. African Catholics multiplied episcopal sees in an attempt to bring the Donatist laity under new leadership, having failed to convert much of the laity by trying to convert their bishops first. The technique may have been copied by a Catholic bishop, Severus, from a Donatist, Petilianus, and then introduced on a wider scale by the Catholic party: Crespin, Ministère, 16; Lancel, S., Actes de la Conference de Carthage en 411, Sources Chretiennes cxciv, Paris 1972, i. 123–7Google Scholar; Frend, Donatist Church, 265–6. The Africans also sought to constrain the laity with imperial decrees enforcing the Theodosian laws against their enemies in 405 and 407, but the decrees were soon followed by an edict of toleration and had limited success in converting Donatist bishops and priests, although Donatist expansion nevertheless slowed. The decisive change occurred after 411, because of the aforementioned laws that increased the threat against the laity themselves (n. 14 above).
20 Augustine orginally opposed coercion but, having discovered that it did bring about sincere conversions, changed his mind: Brown, P., ‘St. Augustine’s attitude to religious coercion’, Journal of Roman Studies liv (1964), 107–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, repr. in idem, Religion and Society in the Age of St Augustine, New York 1972, 260–78, and Combes, La doctrine, 402. For his readiness to receive imperial support so long as the imperium was capable of giving it, see Brown, P., ‘Religious coercion in the later Roman Empire: the case of North Africa’, History xlviii (1963), 283–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar, repr. in Religion and Society, 301–31, especially 327–8 in the reprint.
21 Defensores were originally chosen by the praetorian prefect and designated by the emperor (CT 1. xxix. 6, a. 367). Election then passed to the cities, with the praetorian prefect controlling designation and official nomination (CT 1. xxix. 6, a. 387). Finally, bishops and clergy were included with city notables in an electoral body which made nominations (CJ 1. lv. 8). Jacques, F., ‘Le defenseur de cite d’apres la lettre 22*’, Revue des Études augustiniennes xxxii (1986), 65–70Google Scholar; E., Herrmann, Ecclesia in Re Publica, Europaisches Forum 11, Frankfurt am Main 1980, 313–15Google Scholar, which notes how the moral oversight of bishops paralleled the defensor’s oversight of official corruption.
22 Requested by the Council of Carthage in 407 and granted by Honorius in the same year: CCL cxlix. 215; CT xvi. ii. 38; Lancel, ‘Aug. et Maur.’, 4gfGoogle Scholar.
23 Lancel, ‘Aug. et Maur.’, 65–6.
24 Herrmann, Ecclesia, 221–3; Synesios, Ep. 57 in Hercher, (ed.), Epistolographi Graeci, Amsterdam 1965, 668–9Google Scholar, cited in Herrmann, ibid. 215, n. 65. For a bishop’s need for a political mentality and its incompatibility with contemplation, see also Synesios, Ep. 105, PG lxvi. 1484.
25 Ep. 28*. i. Lettres, 402–6; C., Lepelley, ‘La crise de l’Afrique romaine au dÉbut du ve siecle, d’après les lettres nouvellement decouvertes de Saint Augustin’, AcadÉmie des Inscriptions el Belles-Lettres, Comptes Rendus, 07-10 (1981), 451Google Scholar.
26 Ep. 22*. ix. Lettres, 360; Ep. 10*. Lettres, 166–82. For ’Galatae mercatores’ and their identity, see Lepelley’s commentary,Google Scholaribid. 472.
27 Or the privileges could be extended, as in for example, the elevation of bishops to a status comparable to honorati, possessores, and curiales (n. 21, above). See also the extensive treatment of Herrmann, Ecclesia, 290–348. Imperial support of the episcopal office should nevertheless by treated cautiously, just as an emperor like Gratian, once thought to be almost the political executor of Ambrose’s policy, was far from absolute in his support of Catholicism: G., Gottlieb, ‘Gratianus’, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum xii, Stuttgart 1983, 718–32Google Scholar, with bibliography of the most important literature.
28 Brown, , ‘Augustine’s attitude’, in Religion and Society, 274–5Google Scholar. Augustine’s practice of coercion was mitigated: Crespin, Ministère, 168–9. Contrast the use of pressure against pagans without constraint: H., Maisonneuve, ‘Croyance religieuse et contrainte, la doctrine de S. Augustine’, Melanges de science religieuse xix (1962), 50–1Google Scholar.
29 See n. 19, above. For the crisis of vocations, see Lepelley, ‘La crise’ (n. 25, above), and P.-A., FÉvrier, ‘Discours d’Eglise et rÉalitÉ historique dans les nouvelles Lettres de saint Augustin’, Lettres Divjak, 101–15Google Scholar.
30 Lepelley, Les cites, I. 140–9; F., Jacques, Le privilège de libertÉ. Politique impÉriale et autonomie municipale dans les citÉs de Vaccident romain {161–244), Collection de l’Ècole Frangaise de Rome LXXVI, Rome 1984, 379–425Google Scholar, which notes the parallel between municipal and episcopal elections.
31 Cicero, De re publica i. 34/The connection between virtue and prosperity recalls, of course, Aristotle, Politico vii. 1, 1323338Google Scholar.
32 F., Jacques, ‘Le defenseur de citÉ d’après la lettre 22*’, Revue des Études augustiniennes xxxii (1986), 65Google Scholar.
33 Augustine, De civitate Dei v. 19, CSEL xl. 251–2Google Scholar.
34 Ibid. 252, 253–4.
35 Augustine, Expositio ex epislola ad Romanos lxiv. 1–3, 6, CSEL lxxxiv. 44–5Google Scholar.
36 K.-H., Lütcke, ‘ Auctoritas’ bei Auguslin, mit einer Einleitung zur romischen Vorgeschichte des Begriffs, Tubinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft XLIV, Stuttgart 1968, 57Google Scholar.
37 Wermelinger, Rom, 104–8, 418–20Google Scholar.
38 Lütcke, ‘Auctoritas’, 137Google Scholar.
39 Reuter, Aug. Studien, 284–6; Eugypius, Thesaurus, xviii bis (from the Liber resolutionutn ad Orosium), PL lxii. 595Google Scholar.
40 W., Simonis, Ecclesia visibilis et invisibilis. Untersuchungen zur Ekklesiologie und Sakra-menlenlehre in der afrikanischen Tradition von Cyprian bis Auguslin, Frankfurter theologische Studien v, Frankfurt am Main 1970, 84–5Google Scholar, 87, 122–3.
41 Ep. 208. 2, 5, CSEL lvii. 343–4, 344–5Google Scholar.
42 Sermo Guelferbytanus xxxii. 9, Miscellanea Agostiniana, v. 1, Rome 1930, 571, perhaps preached at Antoninus’ ordination. Cf. S. Lancel, ‘L’affaire d’Antoninus de Fussala’, Letlres Divjak, 269–70.
43 S. Guel. xxxii. 4. ibid. 566.
44 E., Lamirande, Ètudes sur I‘ecclÉsiologie de saint Augustin, Ottawa 1969, 128–32Google Scholar.
45 S. Guel. xxxii. Misc. Agost., 563Google Scholar.
46 For a bishop’s personal authority, cf. Liitcke, ‘Auctoritas’’, 137, n. 668, where Liitcke also points out the similarity of this conception to Cicero, Leg. agr. ii. 45Google Scholar.
47 Eugypius, Thesaurus xvii bis, PL lxii. 595. Similarly, Ambrose, De qfficiis ii. 24, PL xvi.135Google Scholar.
48 Sermo ccclv. 2. The sermon was preached in December, 425: D. C., Lambot (ed.), Sancti Aurelii Augustini sermones selecti duodeuiginti, Stromata Patristica et Mediaevalia 1, Brussels 1950, 123–5Google Scholar (hereafter, Sermones); Ep. 126. 8, CSEL xliv. 14.
49 Sermo ccclv. 1. Sermones, 124. ‘ Providemus enim bona, ait idem apostolus, non solum coram deo, sed etiam coram hominibus. Propter nos, conscientia nostra sufficit nobis: propter uos, fama nostra non pollui, sed pollere debet in uobis. Tenete quod dixi, atque distinguite. Duae res sunt conscientia et fama. Conscientia tibi, fama proximo tuo. Qui confidens conscientiae suae neglegit famam suam crudelis est: maxime in loco isto positus, de quo loco dicit apostolus scribens ad discipulum suum: Circa omnes te ipsum bonorum operum praebens exemplum’Google Scholar;.
50 Ep. 208. 5, CSEL lvii. 345; Sermo cccxxxix. 1. Sermones, 112Google Scholar.
51 Ep. 83. 4, CSEL xxxiv. 390; Sermo ccciii. 17, PL xxxviii. 1391–92; Ep. 8*. Lettres, 152–6Google Scholar.
52 Augustine, De civ. Dei, xix. 19, CSEL xl bis. 406; Crespin, Ministèr, 183. Synesios of Cyrene understood the public nature of the office in particularly clear terms: S., Vollenweider, Neuplatonische und christliche Theologie bei Synesios von Kyrene, Göttingen 1985, 206–9Google Scholar; J., Bergman, Synesius of Cyrene: Philosopher-Bishop, Berkeley 1982, 163Google Scholar. See also n. 24, above.
53 Perhaps the most vivid example is the election of Eraclius, Augustine’s successor. See the Ada ecclesiastica, apud Aug., Ep. 213, CSEL lvii. 372–9.
54 Sermo ccciii. 17, PL xxxviii. 1391–2, for the bishop in the forum; Possidius, Vita Augustini, xiv, PL xxxii. 44–5, for debate with Donatists; Ep. 22*. ix-xi. Lettres, 360–4, for an episcopal appeal out of the episcopate’s control; and Berrouard, ‘Un tournant’, for Alypius and Peregrinus in Italy to seek imperial indulgence for refugees in the basilica of Carthage and to represent the African episcopate in cases appearing in Rome or Ravenna.
55 This, in spite of the fact that it was a solid institution, highly resistant to the suggestion of change from Rome and implying the tenacity of local church custom. See R. A., Markus, ‘Country Bishops in Byzantine Africa’, in D., Baker (ed.), The Church in Town and Countryside, Studies in Church History xvi, Oxford 1979, 1–15Google Scholar; idem, ‘Carthage-Prima Justiniana-Ravenna’ (n. 8, above). Note also the desire to hinder a primate from exalting himself: ’Ut primae sedis episcopus non appellatur princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis episcopus’: Breviarium Hipponense xxv, CCL cxlix. 40.
56 Crespin, Minist’ere, 17; Lancel, Actes i. 134–3; Hess, Canons, 133.
57 The usurping of congregations by neighbouring bishops was alleged to be already common in Africa in the mid-fourth century; it was also sharply condemned at the end of the century: Cone. Carth. a. 345–48, c. 10, CCL cxlix. 8; Cone. Carth. 0.390, c. 11. ibid. 17–18. For primatial control of episcopal ordinations, see Cone. Carth. a. 3Q0, c. 12. ibid. 18. Primates also controlled other matters related to leadership, e.g. by regulating accusations brought against bishops and (together with the provincial council) the dissolution of church property: Breviarium Hipponense, vi, a. ibid. 34. Cone. Hipp. 24 Sept. 42“], c. 9, ibid. P. 253.
58 Possidius, Vita, ix, PL xxxii. 40–1; Ep. 21*. Lettres, 344. For the name, Honoratus, and the location of Thiaua, see Lancel’s commentary, ibid. 52–3.
59 Consider the reluctance of Siricius of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, or Martin of Tours to entangle themselves in the Priscillian affair: B., Vollmann, Studien zum Priscillianismus, St Ottilien 1965, 3–7Google Scholar. Consider also the limitation of appeals in 405, n. 7, above.
61 Augustine’s journey appears to have been related to the appeal of Priscus of Quiza, who aspired to the primacy of Mauretania but suffered loss of communion which made him ineligible: Lancel, ‘Saint Augustin’, 48–59 (n. 8, above); idem, Actes i. 186–7. A Donatist synod was held in North Africa in 418 or 419, ibid. 122–3. For tne debate with Emeritus see Possidius, Vita, xiv, PL xxxii. 44–5. Cf. also Reg. eccl. Carthag. excerpta, cxxiii, for Catholic bishops neglecting to combat Donatism in 418, CCL cxlix. 226.
62 Chadwick, ‘New Letters’, 446 (n. 15, above).
63 Ep. 13*. Lettres, 256–60. Cf. also Ep. 18*. ibid. 280–4.
64 Brev. Hipp. c. 5, CCL cxlix, 34. Canones in causa Apiarii, c. 18. ibid. 139, etc.. The role of the council in maintaining contact between bishops is suggested by F., Van der Meer, Augustinus der Seelsorger, trans. N., Greitemann, Cologne 1951, 289Google Scholar.
65 Sermo cccxxxix. 4. Sermones, 115–16.
66 Sermo cccxxxix. 1. ibid. 112.
67 ‘Laudari autem a male uiuentibus nolo, abhorreo, detestor, dolori mihi est, non uoluptati: laudari autem a bene uiuentibus, si dicam nolo, mentior; si dicam uolo, timeo ne sim inanitatis appetentior quam soliditatis. Ergo quid dicam? Nee plene uolo, nee plene nolo. Non plene uolo, ne in laude humana pericliter; non plene nolo, ne ingrati sint quibus praedico’: ibid.
68 Thus, Augustine’s defence of the decision of sacerdotes transmarini at a Roman synod in favour of Cecilian and his stress on African agreement with the Roman see may have helped Optatus of Mileve develop his views of papal primacy: Batiffol, , Le Catholicism, 192–209Google Scholar (n. 6, above). See also Marschall, Karthago, 72–83 (which presents the case far more cautiously).
69 Marschall, Karthago, 94–7. Judicial authority over metropolitans in the provinces of Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Africa was granted to pope or a council of fifteen neighbouring bishops by Gratian and Valentinian 11 in 378: Collectio auellana, Ep. 13. xii-xiv, CSEL xxxv. 58. It is also noteworthy that Gratian, Valentinian 11, and Theodosius 1 conferred on Rome, together with Alexandria, a magisterial role in Christian doctrine: CT XVI. i. 2; Wermelinger, Rom, 118. Milan also heard appeals: ibid. 116.
70 Marschall, Karthago, 113–26.
71 Registri ecclesiae Carthaginensis excerpta vii. 68, CCL cxlix. 200. The extent of the practice is indicated in lines 607–15, and it is not clear that, in the African resolution to allow it only when necessary to further church unity, the role of the local bishop changed (lines 625–6).
72 Ibid. vii. 68 (sending of letters) and vii. 65 (Anastasius’ role), CCL cxlix. 199, 200. The papacy was a practical choice in resolving the disagreements that arose between churches, which could, in part, be attributed to a charismatic element in Roman authority and the ability of the papacy to interpret Scripture: Wermelinger, Rom, 107; Ep. 176. 5, CSEL xliv. 667–8. But Africa could also try to intervene: Reg. eccl. Carthag. excerpta, ci. CCL cxlix. 217, from the Council of Carthage in 407. See also Duval’s comments in Lettres, 434–5Google Scholar.
73 Epistula Aurelii et Mizonii ad episcopos Numidiae et Maretaniae, sent to the Council of Carthage in 397: CCL cxlix. 28. The Byzance bishops had arrived in Carthage early for the conference, were unable to stay until proceedings actually began, and hence undertook this business with Aurelius: Cross, ‘History and fiction’ (n. 6, above). Forms of the expression ‘ecclesiasticae utilitatis causa’ were used with reference to the need to make Donatist conversion easier and with reference to a variety of concerns: Reg. eccl. Carth. excerpta, vii. 66, CCL cxlix. 199. Cf. also Cone. Carth. a. jgo, ibid. 12; Brev. Hippon. xxxvii. ibid. 45 (= Reg. eccl. Carthag. exc, iii. 49); Reg. eccl. Carthag. exc, vii. 78, ibid., 203; Cone. Hippon. a. 427, ibid., 250; Cone. Carth. a. 525, ibid. 255–6, 273.
74 Ca elestius was a priest of Rome according to Zosimus: Ep. 45. 2 of Epistulae auellana colleclio, CSEL xxxv. 99.
75 G., Bonner, Augustine and Modern Research on Pelagianism, Villanova 1972, 36. See also n. 80, belowGoogle Scholar.
76 Movement of anti-Pelagian literature, Ep. 19*. i. (written in 416), Lettres, 286, 507; Denunciation of Pelagius, Ep. 19*. iii. ibid. 288–90; Refutation of Pelagian doctrine, Ep. 5*. ibid. 118–241; Ep. 6*. (probably written in 420) ibid. 127–44, 45*; News about Pelagius, Ep. 4*. ii. (written in summer or fall, 417), ibid. 108–16, 430–32. (Cyril of Alexandria sent Augustine the gesta of the Palestinian synod that exonerated Pelagius, which were requested of John of Jerusalem a year earlier, Ep. 179. 7, CSEL xliv. 695); Ep. 10*. i (probably written in 428) ibid. 166–8, 466–9. (Augustine protested Alypius’ failure to report the restoration of Julian of Eclanum’s supporter, Turbantus, to the Catholic church by Coelestine.)
77 ‘Hoc itaque gestum, domine frater, sanctae caritati tuae intimandum duximus, ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis adhibeatur auctoritas pro tuenda salute multorum et quorundam peruersitate etiam corrigenda’: apud Aug., Ep. 175. 2, CSEL xliv. 655.
78 Sermo cxxxi. 10, of 23 Oct. 417, PL xxxviii. 734.
79 The papacy followed a consistent course toward primacy, the culmination of which is already apparent in Innocent I’S Interventionspolitik: Wermelinger, Rom, 116–17. For the controversies in Rome, Brown, P., ‘Pelagius and his supporters: aims and environment’, JTS xix (1968), 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar, repr. in Religion and Society, 94–118 (n. 20, above). For Gaul, cf. Mathisen, R., ‘Emigrants, exiles, and survivors: aristocratic options in Visigothic Aquitania’, Phoenix xxxviii (1984), 159–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
80 The best presentation I know of the beginnings of a Pelagian movement in Africa is in Bonner, G., St Augustine of Hippo. Life and controversies, London 1963, 32 offGoogle Scholar. R. Hedde and E. Amann also provide a concise presentation of the texts relevant to the course of the controversy, in ‘Pelagianisme’, DThC ii/1. 675–715. The problem with an ‘African movement’ is that no African Pelagians are known, although Augustine refers to hearsay in Carthage (De pecc. mer. et rem. in. vi. 12, CSEL lx. 138–9) de nd tries to stress the damage that Caelestius inflicted on the weak there, but with interesting equivocations. For example, he contends that Caelestius deceived many ‘fratres’, but quickly adds, ‘quos non deceperat, conturbaret’, and earned the condemnation of the bishops: De gestis Pelagii, xxxv. 62, CSEL xxxii. 116Google Scholar. Pelagian doctrine, ‘contentious and feverish assertions’, allegedly rattled the weakness of’many brothers’. But it was Marcellinus who asked about the doctrines and received De pecc. mer. el rem., De bap. parvulorum ad Marcellinum, and De spirilu et littera in return: De gest. Pel. xi. 25 ibid. 78. Clearly, Augustine is justifying the Carthaginian condemnation, but he may, in fact, only be describing the impression Caelestius and his Roman friends made among Catholics in town who recognised the conflict of doctrines and who would be even more disturbed to learn that non-African doctrines were congenially received abroad and their bishop’s theological judgment laid aside. ‘Me apertior, iste occultior fuit, ille pertinacior, iste mendacior vel certe ille liberior, hie astutior’; ‘pertinacior’ really describes the man who evaded an African episcopal judgment: De gratia Christi, II. xii. 13. But none of this necessarily requires the teaching to have found African adherents.
81 See n. 20, 28, above. For the extent to which a bishop could fail to do so, see Reg. eccl. Carthag. excerpla, cxxiii, CCL cxlix. 226 (from the Council of Carthage in 418). For the council, Lancel, ‘Aug. et Maur’. 51Google Scholar.
82 Apud Aug., Ep. 177. 19, CSEL xliv. 688 (using a Cyprianic metaphor; Cyprian, De unitate ecclesiasticae, iv-v); Wermelinger, Rom, 104–8, 418–20Google Scholar.
83 The Roman see likewise believed it held a peculiar priority in the churches of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and all the islands in between: Innocentius 1, Ep. 25. 2, PL xx. 552. Caelestius raised the appeal at Carthage in 411, left it off to find support in Palestine, and pursued it with Zosimus. Orosius tried to avoid an overthrow of the African decision in Palestine by calling for the transfer of the case to Rome, as a matter of western origins deserving a western solution: Marschall, Karthago, 127, 15 of; Bonner, , St Augustine of Hippo, 334Google Scholar.
84 Brev. Hipp. xxxv. CCL cxlix. 42; Cone. Hippon. 24 Sept. 427, iv.Google Scholaribid. 251.
85 Cf. ‘Optaremus’, CCL cxlix. 170.
86 Munier, ‘La lettre 20*’, 288 (n. 15, above); Berrouard, ‘Un tournant’ for Alypius and Peregrinus in ItalyGoogle Scholar.
87 Munier, ‘La lettre 20*’, 289; Ep. 20*. i-vi. Lettres, 292–302. For the organisation of the letter, the chronology of the affair, and aspects regarding rural society in North Africa, Lancel, ‘L’Affaire d’Antoninus’ (n. 42, above). Frend has also called attention to the significance of the letter for understanding African-Roman relations in ‘Fussala: Augustine’s crisis of vulnerability’, Lettres Divjak, 251–65, which presents the Catholic party as considerably weakened by the entire affair (but cf. also Markus, ‘ Donatism: the last phase’ [n. 18, above], and idem, ‘Country bishops’ 2–3)Google Scholar.
88 Ep. 20*. vii-xxiii. Lettres, 302–28. For the attempt to satisfy the prohibition of transfers, which was already on Augustine’s mind at the beginning of the entire process, Ep. 20*. viii. Lettres, 304, and Ep. 209. 7, CSEL lvii. 350. For the judges, Ep. 20*. xii. Lettres, 310–12. Frend took these to be papal legates, for which there is no evidence other than papal appointment and concerning which there is a conspicuous silence in the record of events: C. Munier, ‘La lettre 20*’, 292–3; Frend, ‘Fussala’, 258–63Google Scholar.
89 Ep. 20*. xxiv-xxvi. Lettres, 328–32; Munier, ‘La lettre 20*’, 293Google Scholar.
90 Cf. the methods used to investigate the contentions raised by the laity of Antoninus’ church: Ep. 20*. ix, xiii-xvi. Lettres, 306–8, 314–18.
91 Ep. 20*. iii, xxvi, xxvii.Google Scholaribid. 296, 332, 334.
92 Ep. 209. 7, CSEL lvii. 350. Cf. the restoration of Apiarius or the acquittal of Brictius of Tours (Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, x. 4. MGH SS rer. Mer., i.1. 528)Google Scholar.
93 Ep. 209. 2, CSEL lvii. 348; Ep. 20*. iii. Letters, 296; Ep. 224. i, 3, CSEL lvii. 451, 454; Lancel, ‘L’affaire d’Antoninus’, 284. It may also be noted that during the affair, when Augustine had been discredited among the people of Fussala (Ep. 20*. xv. Lettres, 316), people excommunicated by Antoninus for opposing him apparently asked Augustine to intervene on behalf of their restoration to communion, which suggests a continued regional leadership role for Augustine among Catholic laity in the countryside during the controversy: Ep. 20*. xx.Google ScholarIbid. 322–4. For the contrary view, see Frend, ‘Fussala’, 264–5.
94 Ep. 209. 9, CSEL lvii. 351–2.
95 Ep. 209. 8, 9, Ibid. 351–2.
96 Ep. 209. 7, 8, Ibid. 350–1.
97 Ep. 209. 5, Ibid. 349–50. Antoninus was just over twenty at his ordination: Ep. 20*. iv. Lettres, 298. He had also not passed through the necessary clerical grades. See Frend, ‘Fussala’, 254 (Zosimus’ recent [418] Ep. ad Hesichium Salanitanum may be added to the texts noted there: PL lvi, 572–3).
98 Ep. 22*. v. Lettres, 352. Caesarea was the capital of Mauretania, a marginal African province: Lancel, ‘Aug. et Maur.’, 48–9.
99 Ep. 22*. vii, x, xi. Lettres, 356, 360–2, 362–4Google Scholar.
100 Ep. 22*. ix. ibid. 360.
101 Canones in causa Apiarii, xxviii, CCL cxlix. 109–10.
102 Ep. 1 *. v. Lettres, 50. The letter was written in the last three years of Augustine’s life. See Folliet’s comments, ibid. 442.
103 The breadth of contacts is clear from the imperial role in the struggle against Donatism and from Augustine’s correspondence with Marcellinus and Nectarius, to cite the most obvious examples from within Africa. We might also note the imperial role in condemning Caelestius and the correspondence with Fabiola regarding Antoninus, the role of Orosius and Paulinus in the Pelagian controversy, the correspondence with Constantius over Priscillianism (Epp. 11*, 12*, 119, 120, and 205; see Moreau’s comments, Lettres, 479–88), and African relations with eastern bishops (see Duval’s comments, ibid. 435).
104 Apud Aug., Ep. 181. 2, CSEL xliv. 703; Concilium Carth. a. 419, CCL cxlix. 89–94. The loss of Milan’s influence in advising other sees may be attributed to the move of the imperium to Ravenna in 403: Wermelinger, Rom, 116Google Scholar.
105 Regarding it as an advisory role had, nevertheless, become slightly atavistic, since it followed a form of intervention more typical of papal responses before the adoption of the rescript-form by Siricius: Getzeny, Stil und Form, 23Google Scholar.
106 Donatus’ appeal to the emperor was, for example, alleged to be an attempt to gain control of all of Africa: Augustine, Psalmum contra partem Donati, CSEL li. 7. For Donatus’ claim to the primacy, see Frend, Donatist Church, 177. In addition to the African attempts to hinder or avoid the appeals of Antoninus and Honorius, consider also the case of the flogged layman (Ep. 9*. Lettres, 158–64)Google Scholar.
107 Troeltsch, E., Augustin, die christliche Antike und das Mittelalter. lm Anschluss an die Schrift ‘De Civitate Dei’, Historische Bibliothek xxxvi, Munich 1915, repr. Aalen 1963, 31Google Scholar. Herrmann argued that the tendency to assimilate ecclesiastical institutions into the state was as actual in the Western empire as in the East, although it was hindered by the crisis of imperial government there, and unhindered in the east: Hermann, , Ecclesia, 390.Google Scholar She takes the privileges granted to bishops by imperial law and the similarities between episcopal functions and civil office to indicate the assimilation of episcopate and church into imperial government, with no concession to regional differences. Thus, we are left with a good account of state policy, in broad terms but exhaustively researched, and of institutional aspects of the episcopate in public life. See ibid. 290–ge348. We still lack an account of the multifarious interests of bishops active in communities that belonged to a highly pluralistic society. Cf. also Lepelley’s critique of Fustel de Coulanges in Les CitÉs, I. 371ff.
