POPE
268
POPE
of the Phrj'gian bishops. TertuUian (Con. Prax., i)
tells us that the pope at first acknowledged the genu-
ineness of their prophecies, and that thus "he was
giving peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia",
when further information led him to recall the letters
of peace which he had issued. The fact that the pope's
decision had weight to decide the whole question of
their orthodoxy is sufficiently significant. But in St.
Cyprian's correspondence we find clear and unmis-
takable e\-idence of a system of appeals. BasiUdes and
^Martial, the bishops of Leon and Merida in Spain, had
in the persecution accepted certificates of idolatry.
They confessed their guilt, and were in consequence
deposed, other bishops being appointed to the sees.
In the hope of having themselves reinstated they
appealed to Rome, and succeeded, by misrepresenting
the facts, in imposing on St. Stephen, who ordered their
restoration. It has been objected to the evidence
drawn from this incident, that St. Cjiirian did not
acknowledge the validity of the papal decision, but
exhorted the people of Leon and ^Ierida to hold fast
to the sentence of deposition (Ep. Ixvu, 6). But the
objection misses the point of St. Cj-prian's letter. In
the case in question there was no room for a legitimate
appeal, since the two bishops had confessed. An ac-
quittal obtained after spontaneous confession could
not be valid. It has further been urged that, in the
case of Fortunatus (Ep. hx, 10), Cj-prian denies his
right of appeal to Rome, and asserts the sufficiency of
the .\frican tribunal. But here too the objection rests
upon a misunderstanding. Fortunatus had procured
consecration as Bishop of Carthage from a heretical
bishop, and St. CjTJrian asserts the competency of the
local synod in his case on the ground that he is no true
bishop — a mere pseudo-episcopus. Juridically consid-
ered he is merely an insubordinate presbyter, and he
must submit himself to his own bishop. At that period
the established custom denied the right of appeal to
the inferior clergj-. On the other hand, the action of
Fortunatus indicates that he based his claim to bring
the question of his status before the pope on the
ground that he was a legitimate bishop. Privatus of
Lambese, the heretical consecrator of Fortunatus who
had previously been himself condemned by a synod of
ninety bishops (Ep. lix, 10), had appealed to Rome
without success (Ep. xxxvi, 4).
The difficulties at Carthage which led to the Dona- tist schism provide us with another instance. When the seventy Xumidian bishops, who had condemned Csecilian. invoked the aid of the emperor, the latter referred them to Rome, that the case might be decided by Pope Miltiades (313). St. Augustine makes fre- quent mention of the circumstances, and indicates plainly that he holds it to have been C;eciUan's un- doubted right to claim a trial before the pope. He Bays that Secundus should never have dared to con- demn Ca?cilian when he declined to submit his case to the African bishops, since he had the right "to reserve his whole case to the judgment of other colleagues, especially to that of Apostohcal Churches" (Ep. .xhii, 7). A little later (367) a council, held at Tyana in Asia Minor, restored to his see Eustathius, bishop of that city, on no other ground than that of a successful appeal to Rome. St. Basil (Ep. ccl.xiii, 3) tells us that they did not know what test of orthodoxy Liberius had required. He brought a letter from the pope de- manding his restoration, and this was accepted as decisive by the council. It should be observed that there can be no question here of the pope employing prerogatives conferred on him at Sardica, for he did not follow the procedure there indicated. Indeed there is no good reason to believe that the Sardican pro- cedure ever came into use in either East or West. In 378 the appellate jurisdiction of the pope received civil sanction from Emperor Gratian. .-Vny charge against a metropolitan was to come before the pope himself or a court of bishops nominated by him, while
all (Western) bishops had the right of appeal from
their provincial synod to the pope (Mansi, 111,624).
Similarly \'alentinian III in 44.5 assigned to the pope
the right of evoking to Rome any cause he should
think fit (Cod. Theod. Novell., tit. xxiv, De episco-
porum ordin.). These ordinances were not, however,
in any sense the source of the pope's jurisdiction,
which rested on Divine institution; they were civil
sanctions enabhng the pope to avail himself of the
civil machinery of the empire in discharging the duties
of his office. What Pope Nicholas I said of the synodal
declarations regarding the privileges of the Holy See
holds good here also: "Ista privilegia huic sanctae
Ecclesiffi a Christo donata, a synodis non donata, sed
jam solummodo venerata et celebrata" (These privi-
leges bestowed bj- Christ on this Holy Church have
not been granted her by synods, but merely pro-
claimed and honoured bv them) ("Ep. ad Michaelem
Imp." in P. L., CXIX, 948).
Much has been made by anti-Catholic writers of the famous letter "Optaremus", addressed in 426 by the African bishops to Pope St. Celestine at the close of the incident relating to the priest Apiarius. As the point is discussed in a special article (Apiarius of Sicc.\), a brief reference will suffice here. Protestant controversialists maintain that in this letter the Afri- can bishops positively repudiate the claim of Rome to an appellate jurisdiction, the repudiation being conse- quent on the fact that they had in 419 satisfied them- selves that Pope Zosimus was mistaken in claiming the authority of Nica^a for the Sardican canons. This is an error. The letter, it is true, urges with some dis- play of irritation that it would be both more reason- able and more in harmony with the fifth Nicene canon regarding the inferior clergj- and the laity, if even epis- copal cases were left to the decision of the African synod. The pope's authority is nowhere denied, but the sufficiency of the local tribunals is asserted. In- deed the right of the pope to deal mth episcopal cases was freely acknowledged by the African Church even after it had been shown that the Sardican canons did not emanate from Nicaea. Antony, Bishop of Fussala, prosecuted an appeal to Rome against St. Augustine in 423, the appeal being supported by the Primate of Numidia (Ep. ccix). Moreover, St. .\ugustine in his letter to Pope Celestine on this subject urges that pre- vious popes have dealt with similar cases in the same manner, sometimes by independent decisions and some- times by confirmation of the decisions locally given (ipsa sede apostolica judicante vel aliorum judicata firmante), and that he could cite examples either from ancient or from more recent times (Ep. ccix, 8). These facts appear to be absolutely conclusive as to the tra- ditional African practice. That the letter "Optare- mus" did not result in any change is e\-inced by a letter of St. Leo's in 446, directing what is to be done in the case of a certain Lupicinus who had appealed to him (Ep. xii, 13). It is occasionally argued that if the pope really possessed jure ditino a supreme jurisdic- tion, the African bishops would neither have raised any question in 419 as to whether the alleged canons were authentic, nor again have in 426 requested the pope to take the Xicene canon as the norm of his action. Those who reason in this way fail to see that, where canons have been established prescribing the mode of procedure to be followed in the Church, right reason demands that the supreme authority should not alter them except for some grave cause, and, aa long as they remain the recognized law of the Church, should observe them. The pope as God's vicar must govern according to reason, not arbitrarily nor capri- ciously. This, however, is a verj- different thing from saying, as did the Galilean divines, that the pope is subject to the canons. He is not subject to them, be- cause he is competent to modify or to annul them when he holds this to be best for the Church.
IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of
