Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Urbanus, bishop of Sicca Veneria
Urbanus (6), bp. of Sicca Veneria, a town
of proconsular Africa (Kaff) 22 miles from
Musti (Ant. Itin. xli. 4; Shaw, Trav. p. 95;
Aug. Ep. 229). Apparently a member of
Augustine's monastic society at Hippo (Aug.
Ep. 139. 34), he had occasion to remove
from his office for grave misconduct a presbyter
named Apiarius. Apiarius appealed to
Zosimus, bp. of Rome, who ordered his
restoration. In a council which met May 1,
418, the African bishops decreed that no
priest, deacon, or inferior clerk should prosecute
any appeal beyond sea. Zosimus then
sent a commission to Africa, headed by
Faustinus, bp. of Potenza, with instructions
as to four points they were to impress on
the African bishops: (1) That appeals from
bishops of other churches should be made to
Rome. (2) That bishops should not cross
the sea unnecessarily (importune) to visit the
seat of government (comitatum). (3) About
settling through neighbouring bishops matters
relating to priests and deacons excommunicated
by their own bishops. Zosimus quotes
a decree purporting to be one of the council
of Nicaea, enjoining appeal to the bp. of Rome
in case of bishops degraded by the bishops of
their own province. (4) About excommunicating
Urbanus, or at least summoning him
to Rome unless he revoked his decision against
Apiarius. This was in the latter part of 418.
The African bishops were willing to accept
provisionally the first and third propositions,
until the canons of Nicaea, on which they were
said to be founded, should be examined, for
they were not aware of the existence among
them of such rules. But at the end of 418
Zosimus was succeeded by Boniface, and no
further action was taken until May 419, when
217 bishops met in council at Carthage
(Hardouin, Conc. vol. i. p. 934; Bruns,
Conc. i. 156, 157 D). Faustinus and his
colleagues attended, and stated the conditions
proposed by Zosimus. The bishops insisted
on seeing them in writing, and the documents
were accordingly then produced and read.
On this Alypius, bp. of Tagaste, remarked that
the decree referred to as one of Nicaea and
quoted by Zosimus did not appear in the
Greek copies with which the African bishops
were acquainted. He proposed that reference should be made by themselves and by Boniface to the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, to obtain information as to its genuineness. Pending these consultations, the council determined that Apiarius should be allowed, under a circular letter, to exercise his office in any place except Sicca. No mention is made of any action taken in this matter by Boniface, who died a.d. 422, and was succeeded by Celestine I.; but in 426 the question was revived by further misconduct on the part of Apiarius at Tahraca, and, when removed from his office by the African bishops, he again appealed to Rome. At a council summoned for the purpose Faustinus appealed again and behaved with great insolence, demanding on the part of the Roman pontiff that Apiarius should be restored. The bishops refused. A strenuous dispute lasted 3 days, and was ended by Apiarius confessing his guilt. The assembled bishops took the opportunity of requesting the bp. of Rome to be less easy in receiving appeals, and not to admit to communion persons excommunicated by them; all appeals ought to be terminated in the province in which they begin, or in a general council. Rohrbacher says some good theologians thought the whole history of Apiarius a forgery (Hist. de l’Eglise, vol. iv. pp. 348–371).
[H.W.P.]