The History of the Popes: From the Foundation of the See of Rome, to the Present Time, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1 (part 2 of 3)
Footnote 731:
Bar. in martyr. 31. Aug.
Footnote 732:
Hil. frag. 47.
Footnote 733:
Id. ib.
Footnote 734:
Id. ib. p. 39. 43.
Footnote 735:
Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159. Hil. frag. 2. p. 43. Athan. ad Solit. p. 846.
Footnote 736:
Soz. p. 546, 547. Socr. l. 2. c. 36.
Footnote 737:
Athan. ad Sol. p. 838.
Footnote 738:
Ruff. l. 1. c. 20.
Footnote 739:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 834, 835. Ammian. l. 15. p. 47. Theod. l. 2. c. 13. & l. 15. p. 38. 41. 47.
Footnote 740:
Athan. & Theod. ib.
Footnote 741:
Athan. in Ar. or. 1. p. 290. Marcell. & Faustin. lib. prec. ad Theod. p. 30.
Footnote 742:
Theod. l. 2. c. 13.
Footnote 743:
Id. ib.
Footnote 744:
Theod. l. 1. c. 13.
Footnote 745:
Id. ib.
Footnote 746:
Id. ib & Athan. ad Solit. p. 835.
Footnote 747:
Theod. l. 2. c. 13. Soz. l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 748:
Marc. & Faust. &c. p. 3. Hier. chron.
Footnote 749:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 861. Ruff. l. 1. c. 22.
Footnote 750:
Ath. ib. Hier. ep. 98. Soz. l. 4. c. 24. Socr. l. 2. c. 37.
Footnote 751:
Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 752:
Hier. chron. Marc. & Faust. p. 3.
Footnote 753:
Athan. ib. Theod. l. 2. c. 14. Ammian. l. 16. p. 72.
Footnote 754:
Ammian. l. 16. p. 69. 72. Idat. chron. Alex.
Footnote 755:
Theod. l. 2. c. 14. Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 756:
Amm. l. 16.
Footnote 757:
Theod. ib.
Footnote 758:
Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 160.
Footnote 759:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 27.
Footnote 760:
Soz. l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 761:
Idem ib.
Footnote 762:
Ath. ad Solit. p. 837.
Footnote 763:
Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 41.
Footnote 764:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 48. Hier. vir. il. c. 97.
Footnote 765:
Hil. ib.
Footnote 766:
Idem ib. p. 49.
Footnote 767:
Idem ib. p. 47, 48.
Footnote 768:
Idem ib.
Footnote 769:
Idem ib. p. 49.
Footnote 770:
Idem ib. p. 51.
Footnote 771:
Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 772:
Idem ib.
Footnote 773:
Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 46.
Footnote 774:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 97. & in chron.
Footnote 775:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 776:
Athan. ad Solit.
Footnote 777:
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 9.
Footnote 778:
Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 779:
Idem ib.
Footnote 780:
Hier. chron. Mar. & Faust. p. 4.
Footnote 781:
Idem ib.
Footnote 782:
Socr. l. 2. c. 37.
Footnote 783:
Anast. c. 37. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 31.
Footnote 784:
Theod. l. 2. c. 13. Philg. l. 4. c. 3.
Footnote 785:
Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 786:
Marc. & Faust. p. 4.
Footnote 787:
Socrat. l. 2. c. 37.
Footnote 788:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 861.
Footnote 789:
Vide Bolland. Apr. t. 1. p. 31.
Footnote 790:
MS. p. 219.
Footnote 791:
Anast. c. 37. p. 22.
Footnote 792:
Idem ib. p. 21.
Footnote 793:
Leuchesini de infall. sed. Rom. p. 97. Rossi vicario di Cristo, p. 72.
Footnote 794:
Bar. ad ann. 557. n. 63.
Footnote 795:
Idem ib.
Footnote 796:
Id. ib. n. 64.
Footnote 797:
Id. ib.
Footnote 798:
Marcell. & Faust. p. 4.
Footnote 799:
Athan. de syn. p. 907.
Footnote 800:
Philost. i. 6. c. 6.
Footnote 801:
Chron. Alex. p. 684.
Footnote 802:
Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 65.
Footnote 803:
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 9.
Footnote 804:
Theodoret. p. 610.
Footnote 805:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 861.
Footnote 806:
Bell. ibid.
Footnote 807:
Lab. chron.
Footnote 808:
Bona, lit. l. 2. c. 11. p. 423.
Footnote 809:
Vide p. 78.
Footnote 810:
Lab. ibid.
Footnote 811:
Athan. ad Sol. p. 838.
Footnote 812:
Soz. l. 1. c. 16.
Footnote 813:
Id. ib.
Footnote 814:
Athan. ad Sol. p. 841.
Footnote 815:
Theod. l. 1. c. 6.
Footnote 816:
Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 63.
Footnote 817:
Concil. tom. 1. p. 969.
Footnote 818:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 838. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 63.
Footnote 819:
Ath. ib. apol. 2. p. 760. & alibi.
Footnote 820:
Euseb. ib. Socr. l. 1. c. 7.
Footnote 821:
Euseb. ib. l. 1. c. 7.
Footnote 822:
Zos. l. 2. p. 435.
Footnote 823:
Marc. & Faust. p. 34.
Footnote 824:
Ath. de fug. p. 704.
Footnote 825:
Aug. in Parm. l. 1. c. 8.
Footnote 826:
Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 73.
Footnote 827:
Socr. l. 1. c. 8.
Footnote 828:
Sulp. l. 2. c. 55. Theod. l. 2. c. 12.
Footnote 829:
Athan. fug. p. 703.
Footnote 830:
Athan. ad Sol. p. 837.
Footnote 831:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 16.
Footnote 832:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 837-841.
Footnote 833:
Id. ib. p. 838.
Footnote 834:
Id. ib. p. 838-840.
Footnote 835:
Athan. ib. p. 841. Sulp. l. 2. p. 162. Socr. l. 2. c. 31.
Footnote 836:
Ath. de fug. p. 704. Apol. 2. p. 807.
Footnote 837:
Id. ib. Socr. p. 127.
Footnote 838:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 841.
Footnote 839:
Ath. de fug. p. 704. & apol. 2. p. 807.
Footnote 840:
Id. ad Sol. p. 841.
Footnote 841:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 161, 162.
Footnote 842:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 841.
Footnote 843:
Phœbad. contr. Arian. p. 180.
Footnote 844:
Mar. & Faust. p. 34.
Footnote 845:
Hil. de syn. p. 124, 125. 133.
Footnote 846:
Vigil. in Eutychian. l. 5. n. 3.
Footnote 847:
Socr. l. 2. c. 31.
Footnote 848:
Soz. l. 4. c. 12.
Footnote 849:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 4.
Footnote 850:
Marcell. & Faust. p. 34.
Footnote 851:
Phœbad. p. 169.
Footnote 852:
Id. p. 180. Soz. l. 4. c. 12.
Footnote 853:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 161, 162.
Footnote 854:
Soz. ib.
Footnote 855:
Phœbad. p. 180.
Footnote 856:
Hil. syn. p. 133.
Footnote 857:
Idem ib. p. 137.
Footnote 858:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 141. & 842.
Footnote 859:
Idem ib.
Footnote 860:
Idem de frag. p. 704. & apol. 2. p. 807.
Footnote 861:
Vide Isidor. de vir. ill. in Osio, c. 1.
Footnote 862:
Menæa, p. 293.
Footnote 863:
Soz. l. 4. c. 16. & l. 3. c. 19. Ath. de syn. p. 873.
Footnote 864:
Greg. Nyss. de facto, p. 75.
Footnote 865:
Soz. ib.
Footnote 866:
Philost. l. 4. c. 20.
Footnote 867:
Soz. ib.
Footnote 868:
Theodor. l. 1. c. 22.
Footnote 869:
Soz. l. 4. c. 16. Ath. de syn. p. 869.
Footnote 870:
Ath. de syn. p. 870.
Footnote 871:
Ath. de syn. p. 873, 874. Soz. l. 4. c. 16.
Footnote 872:
Idem ib. & c. 17.
Footnote 873:
Soz. l. 4. c. 24.
Footnote 874:
Theod. l. 2. c. 21.
Footnote 875:
Socr. l. 2. c. 39. Soz. l. 4. c. 16.
Footnote 876:
Hil. de syn. p. 24.
Footnote 877:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 164.
Footnote 878:
Ath. de syn. p. 870.
Footnote 879:
Ammian. l. 21. p. 203.
Footnote 880:
Sulp. l. 4. c. 17.
Footnote 881:
Ath. de syn. p. 874. Sulp. l. 2. p. 162. Soz. p. 563.
Footnote 882:
Hier. p. 143. Sulp. p. 162.
Footnote 883:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 43, 44.
Footnote 884:
Idem ib. p. 46.
Footnote 885:
Ath. de syn. p. 876. Hil. frag. 1. p. 44. Epiph. hæres. 73. c. 22.
Footnote 886:
Hil. & Epiph. ib.
Footnote 887:
Idem ib.
Footnote 888:
Ath. de syn. p. 875.
Footnote 889:
Buch. cycl.
Footnote 890:
Ath. Soz. ib. Theod. l. 1. c. 15.
Footnote 891:
Ath. ib. p. 876. Soz. ib. Hil. frag. 2. p. 47, 48.
Footnote 892:
Ath. ib. Socr. l. 1. c. 37. Hil. frag. 2. p. 46.
Footnote 893:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 163. Ath. ad Afr. p. 934. Hil. frag. 2. p. 36.
Footnote 894:
Socr. ib. Ath. de syn. p. 930.
Footnote 895:
Ath. de syn. p. 929, 930.
Footnote 896:
Id. ib.
Footnote 897:
Theod. l. 2. c. 15, 16.
Footnote 898:
Id. ib.
Footnote 899:
Soc. l. 2. c. 37.
Footnote 900:
Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 113.
Footnote 901:
Theod. l. 2. c. 16. Hil. in ann. p. 122.
Footnote 902:
Id. ib.
Footnote 903:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 23.
Footnote 904:
Marc. & Faust. p. 25.
Footnote 905:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 36, 37. Theod. ib. Sulp. l. 2. p. 165.
Footnote 906:
Athan. ad Afr. p. 941. Sulp. p. 165. Marc. & Faust. p. 26. Hil. frag. p. 37.
Footnote 907:
Ath. ib. p. 934.
Footnote 908:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 37, 38.
Footnote 909:
Sulp. p. 166.
Footnote 910:
Sulp. ib.
Footnote 911:
Theod. l. 1. c. 17.
Footnote 912:
Id. ib.
Footnote 913:
Ambros. de fid. l. 3. c. 7.
Footnote 914:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 166.
Footnote 915:
Fulg. in Pint. c. 3. p. 536.
Footnote 916:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 53, 54.
Footnote 917:
Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.
Footnote 918:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 4, 5.
Footnote 919:
Mar. & Faust. p. 47.
Footnote 920:
Hier. ib.
Footnote 921:
Ath. de syn. p. 881. Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 114.
Footnote 922:
Greg. Naz. or. 21. p. 386.
Footnote 923:
Socr. l. 2. c. 40.
Footnote 924:
Soz. l. 4. c. 22.
Footnote 925:
Id. ib. Sacr. l. 1. c. 40. Ath. de syn. p. 881. Basil. in Eunom. l. 1. p. 697. Sulp. l. 1. p. 65.
Footnote 926:
Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 115. Soz. l. 4. c. 23. Basil. ep. 74.
Footnote 927:
Soz. l. 4. c. 24.
Footnote 928:
Socr. l. 2. c. 12. Soz. l. 4. c. 24. Philost. l. 5. c. 1.
Footnote 929:
Soz. l. 4. c. 26.
Footnote 930:
Greg. Naz. orat. 21. p. 387.
Footnote 931:
Id. ib.
Footnote 932:
Theod. l. 2. c. 17.
Footnote 933:
Bar. ad ann. 359. n. 48.
Footnote 934:
Greg. Naz. orat. 1. p. 387.
Footnote 935:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 21.
Footnote 936:
Hier. in Lucifer. p. 143. & in chron.
Footnote 937:
Idem ib.
Footnote 938:
Theod. l. 2. c. 23.
Footnote 939:
Socr. l. 2. c. 45. Ath. de syn. p. 906.
Footnote 940:
Philost. l. 6. c. 5.
Footnote 941:
Socr. l. 3. c. 1.
Footnote 942:
Theod. l. 3. c. 2. Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.
Footnote 943:
Ammian. l. 22. p. 223. Soz. l. 4. c. 30. Philost. l. 7. c. 2. Epiph. p. 912.
Footnote 944:
Greg. Naz. 21.
Footnote 945:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 28. Ath. ad Ruf. t. 2. p. 41. Amb. de salv. p. 316. Aug. ep. 50. Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.
Footnote 946:
Bolland. Maii 20. p. 207.
Footnote 947:
Bar. ad ann. 371. n. 132.
Footnote 948:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 30.
Footnote 949:
Hier. in Lucif. p. 144.
Footnote 950:
Bar. ad ann. 371. n. 132.
Footnote 951:
Ath. ad Jov. t. 1. p. 246.
Footnote 952:
Soz. l. 6. c. 10.
Footnote 953:
Socr. l. 4. c. 1.
Footnote 954:
Bas. ep. 75.
Footnote 955:
Socr. ib.
Footnote 956:
Ath. ad Asr. p. 931. & ad Epict. p. 582.
Footnote 957:
Soz. l. 5. c. 14.
Footnote 958:
Greg. Naz. orat. 44.
Footnote 959:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 25.
Footnote 960:
Socr. l. 2. c. 45. l. 4. c. 4. l. 5. c. 8.
Footnote 961:
Id. l. 4. c. 12. Soz. l. 6. c. 10.
Footnote 962:
Soz. Socr. ib.
Footnote 963:
Socr. ib.
Footnote 964:
Socr. l. 4. c. 12. Basil. ep. 82.
Footnote 965:
Marcell. & Faust. p. 4, 5.
Footnote 966:
Ruf. l. 3. c. 30, 31.
Footnote 967:
Idem ib.
Footnote 968:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 37, 38.
Footnote 969:
Bar. ad ann. 359. n. 3.
Footnote 970:
Theoph. l. 2. c. 13.
Footnote 971:
Id. ib.
Footnote 972:
Menæa, p. 293.
Footnote 973:
Breviar. Rom. 5 Aug.
Footnote 974:
Vide Bull. Urb. VIII. Breviario præfix.
Footnote 975:
Amb. de virg. l. 3. p. 437.
Footnote 976:
Bar. ad ann. 362. n. 206.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTINIAN, DAMASUS, GRATIAN, VALENS, Thirty-sixth BISHOP of Rome. THEODOSIUS.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 366. Damasus a Native of Rome,]
Liberius was succeeded by Damasus, whom the Spanish Writers, upon the Authority of Anastasius, suppose to have been a Native of Spain[977]; though there is no room to doubt of his being born in Rome, since it appears, from an Inscription quoted by Baronius[978], that his Father had been Lector, Deacon, and Presbyter, of the Church of St. Laurence in that City, and consequently must have lived there from his Youth. Damasus had a Sister named Irene, who embraced the State of Virginity, and died before she was Twenty, as we read in her Epitaph[979]. It is not therefore probable, that her Death happened in the Twelfth Year of her Brother’s Pontificate, as the Spanish Author of her Life tells us, he being then Seventy. Damasus served, as his Father had done, the Church of St. Laurence, till he was stricken in Years; for he was upwards of Sixty when raised to the Episcopal Dignity. [Sidenote: and Deacon of that Church.] He was Deacon of Rome in 355. when Liberius was sent into Exile; on which Occasion he not only bound himself, with the rest of the Clergy, by a solemn Oath not to acknowlege any other Bishop so long as Liberius lived, but attended him on his Journey to the Place of his Banishment[980]. [Sidenote: Whether he abandoned Liberius,and sided with Felix.] Marcellinus and Faustinus seem to insinuate, that soon afterwards, giving way to his Ambition, he forgot the Oath he had taken, abandoned Liberius, for whom he had professed the greatest Friendship, and sided with Felix his Antagonist[981]. But these Two Presbyters were zealous Partisans of the Antipope Ursinus, of whom hereafter; and therefore we ought to be very cautious of what they write to the Prejudice of Damasus. Jerom, who lived then at Rome, and in great Intimacy with Damasus, reproaches such of the Ecclesiastics as forsook Liberius, and joined Felix, with the Breach of a most solemn Oath; styles them Perjurers, Deserters, Time-servers, &c. which I cannot think he would have done so freely, had Damasus been one of the Number. I am therefore not a little surprised, that Baronius should blindly acquiesce to the Accounts of the above-mentioned Writers, and, without further Inquiry, condemn Damasus as guilty of Perjury, by ranking him among the Followers of Felix[982]. And yet the Annalist supposes him to have been appointed Great Vicar of Rome by Liberius, upon his withdrawing from the City to avoid the Persecution raised by Constantius after the Council of Rimini[983]: so that, according to him, he must have changed Sides anew, and, abandoning Felix, returned to Liberius, which is representing him as a Man swayed by no other Principles but those of Interest and Ambition, and therefore always siding with those who were uppermost. This is all we know of Damasus before his Election.
[Sidenote: He is chosen Bishop of Rome, and likewise Ursinus.]
Liberius dying on the 23d or 24th of September 366. as I have related above, great Disturbances were raised in Rome by the Election of Two Bishops to succeed him, viz. Damasus and Ursinus, whom the later Writers style Ursicinus, a Deacon of that Church. This double Election gave Rise to a dangerous Schism, and a kind of Civil War, within the Walls of the City, which did not end without a great deal of Bloodshed. I shall impartially relate what I find concerning this important Transaction in the contemporary Writers of either Side; leaving the Reader to judge which of the Two Pretenders was the Cause of so much Mischief, and which legally chosen. I shall begin with the Account which Marcellinus and Faustinus, who were then at Rome, give us of these Elections. They were both Presbyters of that Church, but, being strict Followers of Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari, of whom I have spoken above, they and their whole Party were deemed Schismatics, and consequently cruelly persecuted by the Catholic Bishops, especially Damasus. Finding themselves thus oppressed, the Two Presbyters, between 383. and 388. drew up a Petition in Behalf of themselves and their afflicted Brethren, addressed to Valentinian II. Theodosius, and Arcadius, intreating those Princes to protect their Innocence, and put a Stop to the unbridled Rage of their Enemies. With this Request the Two Presbyters repaired to Constantinople, being driven from Rome by Damasus, and there presented it to Theodosius, who, pitying their Condition, in his Rescript directed to Cynegius the Præfectus Prætorio, treated them as Catholics, granted them the free Exercise of their Religion, and declared all those wicked Men, nay, and Heretics, who had presumed, or should for the future presume, to persecute or molest them[984]. In the Preface, prefixed to this Petition, I find the following Account of both the above-mentioned Elections. Ursinus, say they, was chosen in the Basilic of Julius by the Deacons Amantius and Lupus, and the People, who had continued in the Communion of Liberius; but Damasus, by those who had adhered to Felix, assembled for that Purpose in the Church of St. Laurence, called in Lucinis. Ursinus was ordained the first, by Paul Bishop of Tivoli; which Damasus, who had always panted after the Episcopal Dignity, no sooner knew, than he hired a great Number of Chariot drivers, and other such despicable Wretches, who, violently breaking into the Basilic of Julius, massacred a great many People there. Seven Days afterwards they made themselves Masters of the Lateran Basilic, and there was Damasus ordained Bishop[985]. [Sidenote: Different Accounts of these Elections.] This Account charges Damasus alone with the Schism, and the Evils attending it. On the other hand, the Council of Rome, held about Twelve Years after, lays the whole Blame on Ursinus, who, say they, boldly attempted to usurp a Dignity, which on no Score was due to him[986]; and that which met at Aquileia in 381. and consisted of all the most eminent Bishops of the West, ascribes to Ursinus, and his Temerity, the many Calamities the Church had suffered; paints him as a Man of no Credit, Character, or Reputation; and adds, that he seized by Force what he had no Hopes of attaining by lawful Means[987]. Ambrose writes, that the Suffrage of Heaven concurred in the Election of Damasus[988]. According to these Authorities Damasus was lawfully elected, and Ursinus unlawfully. As to the Particulars of his Election, Jerom, who perhaps was then at Rome, tells us, that Damasus was first chosen, and then Ursinus, who, after his Election, seized by Force on the Basilic of Sicinus[989], that is, according to the most probable Opinion, the Basilic of Liberius, now Saint Mary the Greater. Socrates says, that Ursinus having near as many Votes as Damasus, he was thereby encouraged to hold separate Assemblies, and to get himself ordained in a dark and retired Corner of the Basilic of Sicinus[990]. Ruffinus assures us, that Damasus was already ordained, when Ursinus, transported with Rage at his being preferred to him, assembled a great Number of seditious People, and, supported by them, caused himself, in Defiance of the Canons of the Church, to be ordained, in the Basilic of Sicinus, by Paul Bishop of Tivoli; whereas the Bishops of Rome were always ordained and consecrated by those of Ostia. After his Consecration, continues this Author, he ordained several Persons; which was adding a Sacrilege to his unlawful Election[991]. Both Ruffinus, and Socrates, who follows him, were certainly mistaken as to the Place of this Ordination, since we are told by Marcellinus and Faustinus, that Ursinus was ordained, not in the Basilic of Sicinus, but in that of Julius[992]. These Two Writers, who were in Rome at the Time of the Elections, tell us, in express Terms, that Ursinus was chosen before Damasus; and Jerom, who was probably in Rome at the same Time, assures us, in Terms no less express, that Damasus was chosen before Ursinus. The former were greatly addicted to Ursinus, and the latter no less attached to Damasus. As for the Two Councils, which I have quoted above, they were held some Years after, when the Party of Damasus had universally prevailed, and it was a Crime to acknowlege Ursinus. Jerom has been followed by most of the Writers who came after, and the Authority of the other Two quite disregarded, for no other Reason but because they were Schismatics; for they joined Lucifer, as I have observed above, and refused to communicate with the Bishops who had signed the Confession of Rimini, nay, and with those who communicated with them.
[Sidenote: Great Disturbances in Rome, occasioned by this double Election.]
By this double Election the Citizens of Rome saw themselves, before they were aware, involved in a Civil War. The whole People were divided, some siding with Damasus, and some with Ursinus; and neither of the Competitors shewed the least Inclination to yield to the other. No Day passed without Skirmishes and Bloodshed; insomuch that Juventius Governor of the City, and Julian the Præfectus Annonæ, to put a Stop to the present, and prevent greater Disturbances, agreed to banish Ursinus, whose Party seemed less powerful, together with his Two Deacons Amantius and Lupus. The Two Authors I have often quoted write, that both Juventius and Julian were bribed by Damasus, who, taking Advantage of the Absence of his Competitor, armed his Followers with Clubs and Swords, hoping thus to intimidate the Friends of the exiled Bishop, and bring them in the End to acknowlege him. Seven Presbyters of the Party of Ursinus were seized, at the Request of Damasus, in order to be sent into Exile, but rescued by the People of the same Party, and carried in Triumph to the Basilic of Liberius; which Damasus no sooner heard, than, arming all his Followers, both Clergy and Laymen, with Clubs, Swords, Axes, &c. he marched at the Head of the seditious and enraged Multitude to the Basilic, which he and his Partisans immediately invested, and attacked with the utmost Fury. [Sidenote: Several Persons massacred.] It was set on fire in several Places; the Doors were forced, the Roof uncovered, and thence Showers of Tiles discharged on the People assembled there: great was the Massacre; One hundred and Sixty Persons, Men and Women, were inhumanly murdered on the Side of Ursinus, and a great many more wounded, some of whom died of their Wounds. On the Side of Damasus not one single Person was killed. This Riot began on the 25th of October 366. at Eight in the Morning.
[Sidenote: The Sedition becomes general.]
Thus the above-mentioned Writer[993] Ruffinus writes in general Terms, that the illegal Election of Ursinus, in Opposition to Damasus, occasioned such a Tumult, or rather Civil War among the People, some siding with the one, and some with the other, that the Places destined for Prayer streamed with Human Blood[994]. The Heathen Ammianus Marcellinus assures us, that the Partisans of Damasus and Ursinus were so implacably incensed against each other, that several Persons were wounded in the Quarrel, and some killed: nay, it is certain, adds he, that in the Basilic of Sicinus One hundred and Thirty-seven Persons were found dead, all killed the same Day: but Damasus in the End, by the Efforts of his Party, got the better of his Antagonist[995]. Jerom, however partial, owns, that Ursinus having got Possession of the Basilic of Sicinus, the Partisans of Damasus repaired thither in Crouds, and that several Persons were thereupon inhumanly massacred[996]. The Sedition became general, and the Seditious on either Side so numerous and powerful, that Juventius, not thinking it adviseable to punish, nor being able to appease, the enraged Populace, abandoned the City, and retired to the Country[997]. He was perhaps for Ursinus, whose Party being over-matched by that of Damasus, he might not think it safe to continue in Rome. Three Days after the Massacre in the Basilic of Liberius, that is, on the 28th of October, the Partisans of Ursinus, say Marcellinus and Faustinus, assembling, cried out aloud against Damasus, complaining of his Conduct, and begging that a sufficient Number of Bishops might be convened, and the Controversy referred to their Judgment and Decision[998]. Damasus was greatly favoured, and chiefly supported, by the Roman Ladies, which probably gave Occasion to the Charge of Adultery that was brought against him. But Jerom, either to clear him of this Charge, or to obviate the like Suspicions, naturally arising from his familiar Conversation with the Female Sex, styles him a Virgin Doctor of the Virgin Church[999].
[Sidenote: Damasus not easily cleared from all Guilt.]
Baronius, finding he can neither disguise nor extenuate the Cruelties committed by those who adhered to Damasus, is at a great deal of Trouble to disculpate him, and lay the whole Blame on Maximinus, who, as appears from History, discharged the Office of Præfectus Annonæ from the Latter-end of the Year 367. to the Beginning of 370. and was noted for his Cruelty. Baronius is supported herein by the Authority of Jerom and Ruffinus, of whom the former writes, that Damasus remained Conqueror, without hurting the Conquered[1000]; and the latter, that the Cruelties practised by the Prefect Maximinus, who had espoused the Cause of Damasus, upon those of the adverse Party, rendered the Name of that virtuous Prelate odious, though he had no Share in them[1001]. But who is to be charged with the Massacre in the Basilic of Sicinus or Liberius? On whom are the Murders to be laid, committed there? Maximinus was not then in Power, and perhaps not at Rome. I cannot help thinking but Damasus might at least have restrained his Followers from such Excesses; and consequently, as he did not, I cannot, with Ruffinus, conclude him to have had no Share in them; I say, at least restrained; for I will not charge him with heading and encouraging the riotous Multitude in that wicked Attempt, upon the bare Authority of Marcellinus and Faustinus, both zealous Partisans of Ursinus. But neither ought Baronius, Bellarmine, Davidius, &c. upon the bare Testimony of Two Writers, no less sanguine in the Cause of Damasus, suppose him to have been no-ways concerned in those Disorders. The famous Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived at this very time in Rome, and, as a Pagan, was no-ways concerned in the Quarrel, nor more inclined to one Side than the other, assures us, that both were equally ambitious of the Episcopal Dignity, and both equally guilty[1002]. The Authority of a Writer, thus unbyassed, and in every other respect unexceptionable, ought to be preferred, without the least Hesitation, to that of any other, whom we have just Reason to suspect of Partiality. Jerom indeed speaks with more Modesty and Reserve than Ruffinus, and those who have copied after him; for he only says, that Damasus did not hurt his Enemies after he had conquered them. But, in relating the above-mentioned Massacre, and the Skirmishes that happened before the Party of Damasus prevailed, he always describes his Partisans as the Aggressors, without ever pretending to excuse him, as having no Share in those Riots; which he would not have failed to do, had he not paid a greater Regard to Truth than Ruffinus seems to have done.
[Sidenote: The Luxury of the Bishops of Rome.]
The Heathen Marcellinus, after telling us, that Damasus and Ursinus aspired with equal Ambition to the Episcopal Chair, adds this famous Remark, which I shall set down in his own Words: I must own, says he, that when I reflect on the Pomp attending that Dignity, I do not at all wonder, that those, who are fond of Shew and Parade, should scold, quarrel, fight, and strain every Nerve to attain it; since they are sure, if they succeed, to be enriched with the Offerings of the Ladies; to appear no more abroad on foot, but in stately Chariots, and gorgeously attired; to keep costly and sumptuous Tables; nay, and to surpass the Emperors themselves in the Splendor and Magnificence of their Entertainments. But how happy would they be, if, despising the Grandeur of the City, which they allege to excuse their Luxury, they followed the Example of some Bishops in the Provinces, who, by the Temperance and Frugality of their Diet, the Poverty and Plainness of their Dress, the Modesty of their Looks fixed on the Ground, the Purity of their Lives, and the Regularity of their whole Conduct, approve themselves to the eternal God, and all his true Worshipers[1003]! Thus Ammianus. And that Damasus was fond of all that Pomp, Grandeur, and Parade, that he led such a voluptuous Life, as Ammianus here so justly censures and condemns in the Bishops of Rome, is not to be doubted, since Prætextatus, a Man of the first Quality, honoured with the greatest Employments of the Empire, and zealously attached to Paganism, in conversing familiarly with him, used pleasantly to say, Make me Bishop of Rome, and I'll immediately turn Christian[1004]. But, as I shall have Occasion to speak of this Subject hereafter, I shall only observe here, that the Offerings of those devout Women, and other pious Christians, were no better employed in the Days of Damasus, than the immense Wealth, which the Church of Rome acquired in After-Ages, by the voluntary Contributions of all the Christian Nations, is disposed of in ours. [Sidenote: How the Oblations of the Faithful disposed of.] With these Offerings the Bishops of Rome used in more early Times, to maintain the Poor of their own Church, and send the Overplus to other Churches, where the Poor were numerous, and the Offerings small. Of this generous Practice I have mentioned some Instances, that well deserve to be recorded. But when Ambition began to take place of Charity, the Poor were forgotten, and nothing thought of but splendid Equipages, numerous Retinues, princely Apparel, sumptuous Tables, and whatever else could feed the Vanity of these upstart Princes, and put them upon the Level with the greatest Monarchs. To such Purposes were the Oblations of the Faithful perverted. Baronius takes it very much amiss of Ammianus, that he should find Fault with the costly Tables and Entertainments of the Popes, since it is manifest from St. Austin, that the Christians at Rome, and, no doubt, the Pope with the rest, kept a rigorous Fast Three Days in the Week[1005]; so that, in his Opinion, they ought not to be blamed for rioting Four Days in the Week, provided they fasted Three. But to this Doctrine Ammianus was a Stranger, and therefore, notwithstanding the Fasts they might keep, he justly censured their expensive Tables and Banquets, as no-ways suited to their Profession and Character.
[Sidenote: Ursinus recalled by Valentinian;]
But to return to Ursinus; he had been banished Rome by the Prefect Juventius, before the 26th of October 366. as I have related above; but the Emperor Valentinian, who was at this time in Gaul, having, at the Request of his Friends, granted him Leave to return, he entered the City on the 15th of September 367. in a kind of Triumph, being met and received with loud Acclamations by those of his Party[1006]. At the same time the Emperor directed a Rescript to Prætextatus, who had succeeded Juventius in the Prefecture of Rome, injoining him to recall all those, who had been banned for the late Riots, and reinstate them in their former Condition, after warning them, that if, for the future, they disturbed the Peace of the Public, they should be punished without Mercy[1007]. [Sidenote: but banished anew.] But notwithstanding this Warning, new Disturbances must have happened, since Ursinus was, by an Order from the Emperor, banished again on the 16th of November of the same Year 367. together with Seven of his Followers, who were all confined to different Places in Gaul, where they continued till the Year 371[1008]. The Two Presbyters tell us, that Damasus, having, with large Sums, gained the Ministers and Favourites at Court, by their Means extorted from the Emperor the above-mentioned Order. They add, that the Friends of Ursinus were resolved to stand by him; but that he, to prevent Bloodshed, delivered himself up into the Hands of the Officers of Justice[1009]. However that be, by the Banishment of Ursinus, and some of the leading Men of his Party, Tranquillity was restored for a while, and the Disturbances composed, says Ammianus, which the Christians had raised by quarreling among themselves[1010].
[Sidenote: The Bishop of Rome impowered by the Emperor to judge other Bishops.]
About this Time the Emperor Valentinian enacted a Law, impowering the Bishop of Rome to examine and judge other Bishops, that religious and ecclesiastical Disputes might not be decided by profane or secular Judges, but by a Pontiff of the same Religion, and his Collegues[1011]. A very imprudent Law, considering the Nature and Consequences of such a Concession. The Bishops assembled in Council at Rome, in 378. after declaring, in the strongest Terms, their Approbation of this Law, agreed to present an Address to the Emperor Gratian, wherein they earnestly recommended to him the Execution of it, because it greatly redounded, say they, to the Honour of the sacred Ministry; because the Judgment of Bishops was more sure and certain than that of any Civil Magistrate; and, lastly, because it delivered the Prelates of the Church from the just Concern they were under, to find that they could not make their Innocence appear without Racks and Tortures, which innocent Persons were put to by the Secular Judges[1012]. This Exemption seems to have been understood by the Council as extending to all Cases, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical. Be that as it will, whatever Exemption was by the above-mentioned Law granted to the Bishops, whatever Power was by that Law vested in the Bishop of Rome, and his Collegues, the Council, with a due Sense of Gratitude, acknowleged such Power and Immunity to be intirely owing to the Indulgence of the Emperor: a plain Proof that the absurd and chimerical Notion of a Divine Right was not yet broached. The Bishops chose rather to be judged by the Pope and his Collegues, that is, by their own Brethren, than by Lay Judges, for the Reasons they allege in their Address to Gratian. Hence they chearfully submitted to his Judgment, and applauded every new Power that was granted him, as redounding to the Honour of the Episcopal Order. But, alas! they were not aware, that every new Power, yielded to the Bishop of Rome, was a new Link added to the Chain they were forging, if not for themselves, for those, at least, who were to succeed them. They little apprehended, that the Bishop of Rome would, in Process of Time, claim all the Power vested in him, and his Collegues, as due to him alone, and that too by Divine Right; that, in virtue of such a Claim, he would set up for universal and sole Monarch of the Church, exercise an unbounded Authority and Jurisdiction, and degrade all other Bishops from his Collegues to his Vassals and Slaves. Blondel is of Opinion, that the Bishop of Rome was, by that Law, only impowered to judge the Bishops within the Limits of his Jurisdiction, that is, those of the Suburbicarian Provinces[1013]. Others think that such a Power was only for a time, and extended to those Bishops alone who were concerned in the present Schism; which seems most probable, since Valentinian declares, that he enacted the above-mentioned Law to settle the Church, shaken by the Fury of the Schism[1014].
[Sidenote: The Followers of Ursinus driven out of Rome.]
Ursinus, and the leading Men of his Party, being driven out of the City, the Inhabitants began to enjoy their former Peace and Tranquillity. But yet his Followers continued to assemble in the Cœmeteries of the Martyrs, and even kept Possession of a Church, supposed to be that of St. Agnes, without the Walls[1015]. Of this Damasus took care to transmit an Account to the Emperor, in a Memorial; who, fearing that, from such a Spark, the Fire might break out again, which he had been striving to extinguish, injoined Prætextatus to put Damasus forthwith in Possession of that Church; and, in the Execution of this Order, probably happened what we find related, perhaps with some Exaggeration, by the Two Writers I have often quoted; for they tell us, that one Day, while the Followers of Ursinus were assembled, in great Numbers, in the Church of St. Agnes, Damasus, falling unexpectedly upon them with his Satellites, made a dreadful Havock of the innocent and defenceless Multitude[1016]. After this Second Massacre Prætextatus, to secure the Tranquillity of the City, sent several more of the Party of Ursinus into Exile. Valentinian, however, would not consent to their being confined to any particular Place; but gave them full Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out of Rome[1017]. The two Writers add, that the Cruelties exercised in the Church of St. Agnes gave great Offence to the Bishops of Italy; and that Damasus having invited some of them to Rome, to solemnize with him the Anniversary of his Consecration, he laid hold of that Opportunity to solicit them with Intreaties, nay, and to tempt them with Money, to condemn Ursinus; but all in vain; the Bishops equally unmoved by his Prayers and Offers, refusing, with great Firmness and Resolution, to condemn a Man whom they had not heard. Marcellinus and Faustinus close their Preface with a short Account of themselves, telling us, that the Presbyters of Ursinus’s Party were imprisoned, racked, banished, dispersed, and sent into different Countries; and that they themselves, who were of that Number, presented a Petition to the Emperors, begging them to put a Stop to so cruel a Persecution[1018].
[Sidenote: Damasus assembles a Council at Rome.]
Damasus having thus, in the End, by the Favour of the Emperors, intirely got the better of the adverse Party, and secured his Dignity, he turned his Thoughts to Ecclesiastical Matters. In the West there were now but Three Bishops, who still maintained the Doctrine of Arius; viz. Ursacius Bishop of Singidunum, Valens of Mursa, and Auxentius of Milan. [Sidenote: Ursacius and Valens condemned. Auxentius why spared.] Damasus, however, convened a numerous Council at Rome; and there examined anew, and anew condemned, the Tenets of Arius, and all who held them, namely Ursacius and Valens[1019]. Auxentius was a pure, and no less zealous, Arian, than either of these Two; but as he was in favour with Valentinian, whom he had deceived by an equivocal Confession of Faith, Damasus, and his Council, thought it adviseable not to name him. The Council writ a synodal Letter to the other Bishops, acquainting them with what had passed; which was answered by Athanasius, and the Bishops of Egypt, then assembled at Alexandria. In their Answer they thank Damasus for condemning Ursacius and Valens; but, at the same time, express no small Surprize to find, that Auxentius was not yet deposed, tho’ guilty not only of Arianism, but of many other Crimes, which they enumerate[1020]. Damasus and his Collegues paid, no doubt, great Regard to the Remonstrances of Athanasius; but, as Auxentius was supported by the Emperor, and they were better Courtiers than Athanasius, they never attempted to depose him; nay, they carried their Complaisance so far as to condemn Ursacius and Valens, as if they had been the only Arian Bishops in the West, without ever naming Auxentius. He therefore kept, for many Years, quiet Possession of the See he had usurped, and was at last deprived of it by Death alone.
[Sidenote: The Avarice of the Roman Clergy restrained by Valentinian.]
The many Abuses and Disorders, that reigned at this Time among the Ecclesiastics of Rome, offered a larger Field to the Zeal of Damasus, than the Heresy of Arius, now confined in the West to a Corner of Illyricum. But he was by no means a fit Person to set up for a Reformer of Manners, and the Evil required a more powerful Remedy than he could apply. The Prelates of the Church, even the Bishops of Rome, could yet only preach against Vice, admonish the Vicious, and inflict ecclesiastical Censures on such as gave no Ear to their Admonitions: all other Power was still lodged in Lay Hands, and only imparted to the Ecclesiastics in some extraordinary Cases. The insatiable Avarice of the Roman Clergy, the mean and scandalous Arts they were daily practising to circumvent the Orphans, plunder the Widows, and rob the lawful Heirs of their just Inheritance, cried loudly for a Reform; but were Evils too strong for the Curb of Exhortation, Admonition, or Censures merely ecclesiastical; and Damasus himself was not quite free from Imputations of this Nature. It was therefore necessary, that the Secular Power should interpose in Defence of the deluded Laity, against the Craft and Rapines of the ravenous Clergy. [Sidenote: Law enacted by him.] A Law was accordingly enacted by the Emperor Valentinian, in the Year 370. addressed to Damasus Bishop of Rome, and read, on the 29th of July, in all the Churches of that City, strictly forbidding the Ecclesiastics, and such as professed Celibacy, meaning the Monks, to frequent the Houses of Orphans or Widows, or to accept from those, whom they attended under the Veil of Religion, any thing whatsoever by way of Donation, Legacy, or Feoffment in Trust. Whatever was thus given or accepted, is declared forfeited to the public Treasury[1021].
This Law, taken in a literal Sense, only forbids the Ecclesiastics to accept such Donations as were made by the Women whom they attended in spiritual Matters as their Guides or Directors; but it was either understood and interpreted as extending to all Donations from pious Persons, or a new Law was made at this Time excluding the Ecclesiastics from all such Donations, as plainly appears from Jerom and Ambrose, of whom the former, in one of his Letters, writes thus: [Sidenote: The Sentiments of St. Jerom and Ambrose concerning this Law.] I am ashamed to say it, the Priests of the Idols, the Stage-players, Charioteers, Whores, are capable of inheriting Estates, and receiving Legacies; from this common Privilege, Clerks alone, and Monks, are debarred by Law; debarred, not under persecuting Tyrants, but Christian Princes[1022]. And Ambrose; We are excluded by Laws, lately enacted, from all Inheritances, Donations, and Legacies; yet we do not complain: And why should we? By such Laws we only lose Wealth; and the Loss of Wealth is no Loss to us. Estates are lawfully bequeathed to the Ministers of the Heathen Temples; no Layman is excluded, let his Condition be ever so low, let his Life be ever so scandalous: Clerks alone are debarred of a Right common to the rest of Mankind. Let a Christian Widow bequeath her whole Estate to a Pagan Priest, her Will is good in Law; let her bequeath the least Share of it to a Minister of God, her Will is null. I do not mention these Things by way of Complaint, but only to let the World know, that I do not complain; for I had rather we should want Money, than Virtue or Grace[1023]. From these Testimonies it is manifest, that either by the above-mentioned Law, or by some other published at this Time, the Ecclesiastics were restrained from receiving any Donations or Legacies whatever, by whomsoever bequeathed: and that such a Law was absolutely necessary, is no less manifest from the unquestionable Authority of Jerom, who lived at this very Time in Rome, and describes, as an Eye-witness, the Arts that were practised with great Success, by the Roman Clergy, to circumvent rich Widows, and old Men. The Clerks, says he, who ought to instruct and awe the Women with a grave and composed Behaviour, first kiss their Heads, and then, stretching out their Hand, as it were to bestow a Blessing, slily receive a Fee for their Salutation. The Women in the mean time, elated with Pride in seeing themselves thus courted by the Clergy, prefer the Freedom of Widowhood to the Subjection attending the State of Matrimony. Some of the Clergy make it the whole Business and Employment of their Lives to learn the Names of the Ladies, to find out their Habitations, to study their Humour. One of these (perhaps Antimus or Sophronius, two Monkish Harpyes, of whom he speaks elsewhere), an Adept in the Art, rises with the Sun, settles the Order of his Visits, acquaints himself with the shortest Ways, and almost breaks into the Rooms of the Women before they are awake. If he sees any curious Piece of Houshold Furniture, he extols, admires, and handles it; and, sighing that he too should stand in need of such Trifles, in the End, rather extorts it by Force, than obtains it by Goodwill, the Ladies being afraid to disoblige the prating old Fellow, that is always running about from House to House[1024]. The same Writer, speaking elsewhere of the Monks, displays the Arts which they practised to deceive, captivate, and plunder, the rich Widows, and old Men; and adds, that, by professing Poverty, they were become rich, and that the Church grieved to see many acquire great Wealth by serving her, who had been Beggars, while they lived in the World[1025]. So that the Monastic Profession was in those early Times what it is now, a gainful Trade, under the Mask of Religion. As for the mean, nay, and nauseous Offices, to which they were prompted by their Avarice, and the greedy Expectation of Legacies, to submit, about the childless old Men and Women in their Sickness, it would be forgetting the Dignity of an Historian to mention them. The Reader will find them described by Jerom, and perhaps too minutely, in the Letter he writ to his Friend Nepotian[1026]. In the same Letter he informs us, how the Wealth thus acquired was disposed of. I, says he, applying to himself what he levelled at others, to render the Truth he spoke less disagreeable; I, who was born in a poor Country Cottage, who had scarce Millet enough, and coarse Bread, to satiate my craving Stomach, now despise the finest Flour, the choicest Honey, am well acquainted with the different Kinds and Names of Fishes, and can tell by the Taste from what Coast each Shell-fish was brought, from what Province each Bird[1027]. A Law was therefore necessary to restrain the insatiable Avarice of the Roman Clergy, and obviate the unhallowed Use they made of the Wealth, which by such scandalous Means they had acquired. This Law Jerom calls a Caustic; and adds, that he does not complain of it, but of the Sore that required it[1028]. However, that he complains, and Ambrose too, not only of the Sore, but the Caustic, is manifest from their Words, and Manner of writing. To exaggerate the pretended Hardship, they both observe, that the Pagan Priests lay under no such Restraints: An unseasonable Observation! Since it shews the Difference between the Pagan and Christian Priesthood in a mortifying Light. The former gave no Occasion to such a Law, their Avarice wanted no such Restraints; if it had, we may be sure they had met with no Quarter from a Christian, nay, from an Orthodox Prince; and if he had spared them, such Partiality had not been tamely put up, and passed over in Silence, by the Ecclesiastical Writers of those Times, namely, by the Two I have mentioned.
[Sidenote: That Law probably not procured by Damasus.]
Baronius is of Opinion, that the above-mentioned Law was procured by Damasus, who, finding his Clergy no longer awed by the Spiritual Sword, had recourse to the Temporal: for the Temporal, adds he, though in the Emperor’s Hands, was given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his Successors, as well as the Spiritual[1029]. Thus he puts at once both Swords into the Popes Hands, though he has not yet been able to allege one single Instance of their having either. They got both, 'tis true, in After-ages; and we shall see, in the Sequel of this History, how they came by them. But that Law, says Baronius, was read in all the Churches of Rome. And so have others been, when they concerned the Clergy, and were addressed to, though not procured by, the Bishop of that City[1030]. Besides, as Damasus loved Pomp and Grandeur, it is not at all probable, that he was instrumental in the enacting of a Law, which deprived him of the main Fund to support them, the Generosity of the Roman Ladies.
[Sidenote: It is extended to sacred Virgins, and to Bishops.]
Two Years after, that is, in 372. the Law I have mentioned above was extended by the same Prince, viz. Valentinian, to the sacred Virgins and Bishops, so as to exclude the former from the Right of giving, and the latter from that of receiving, any thing whatsoever by way of Donation, Legacy, &c[1031]. But this Law, with another still more severe, published Twenty Years afterwards by the Emperor Theodosius, was abrogated by the Emperor Marcian in the Year 455. as I shall have Occasion to relate hereafter. [Sidenote: The primitive Rigour and Discipline utterly neglected at Rome.] In the mean time I cannot help observing with Astonishment, how early the primitive Rigour of Discipline and Manners was utterly neglected and forgotten by the Ecclesiastics of Rome; how early the most exorbitant Luxury, with all the Vices attending it, was introduced among them, and the most scandalous and unchristian Arts of acquiring Wealth universally practised. They seem to have rivalled, in riotous living, the greatest Epicures of Pagan Rome, when Luxury was there at the highest Pitch. For Jerom, who was an Eye-witness of what he writ, reproaches the Roman Clergy with the same Excesses, which the Poet Juvenal so severely censured in the Roman Nobility, under the Reign of Domitian. And how much more worthy were the former of the severest Censure, not only in regard of their Calling, and the Religion they professed, teaching them to curb and subdue all irregular Passions and Appetites, but from this aggravating Circumstance, that the Estates they so squandered and wasted were not their own, but the Patrimony of the Poor, the Substance of the Orphans, Widows, and unhappy Persons, whom, under the Cloke of Religion, they robbed of their just Inheritance! And herein they conformed to the Example of their Chief, who, finding an inexhaustible Fund in the Generosity of the Roman Ladies to support his Extravagance, lived in that Pomp and Grandeur which Ammianus has described above.
[Sidenote: The Orthodox persecuted in the East.]
But he was roused from the easy and indolent Life he led at Rome, by Letters from the famous Basil, lately raised to the See of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, the Metropolis of Pontus, imploring his Assistance, and that of the other Western Bishops, in the present unhappy Condition of the Churches in the East. Arianism was almost utterly extirpated in the West under the Orthodox Emperor Valentinian, as I have observed above; but in the East it triumphed under his Brother Valens, a most zealous Favourer of the Arians, a most implacable Enemy to the Orthodox, who were by him every-where driven from their Sees, and sent into Exile: nay, he gave full Power to the Arian Bishops and Magistrates to imprison, fine, beat, rack, and banish, at Pleasure, such of the Orthodox Clergy as they could not win over by more gentle Methods. This Power they used so tyrannically, especially at Constantinople, that the Clergy of that City resolved to apply to Valens himself for Relief, not doubting but the Miseries they groaned under might, if duly represented, even move him to Compassion. Accordingly they appointed Eighty of their Body, all Men of unblemished Characters, and known Piety, to repair to Nicomedia, where that Prince then was, and lay their Grievances before him. Upon their Arrival at Court, they were introduced to the Emperor, who heard them with great Attention, without shewing the least Emotion either of Resentment or Compassion. However, as, upon his dismissing them, he immediately sent for Modestus the Præfectus Prætorio, they concluded that he had given Ear to their just Complaints, and began to expect a speedy Redress of their Grievances. [Sidenote: _Inhumanly treated by the Emperor_Valens.] But the Charge he gave him, very different from what they expected, was to dispatch them all without Mercy or Delay. The Prefect, apprehending the Death of so many eminent Ecclesiastics might occasion a Tumult in the City, gave out that the Emperor had ordered them into Exile; and accordingly caused them to be put on board a Vessel, in order to be conveyed, as he pretended, to the Place of their Banishment. But the Vessel was no sooner out of Sight, than the Mariners, pursuant to their private Instructions, set Fire to it, and, betaking themselves to their Boat, left those they had on board to the Mercy of the Flames and Waves[1032].
[Sidenote: The Orthodox divided among themselves.]
But Athanasius, Basil, and the other Champions of the Orthodox Party, were not so much alarmed at the cruel Persecution raised against them by their Enemies, as at the unhappy Divisions that reigned at this very time among themselves. It was to procure a Remedy for these Divisions, to heal a dangerous Schism, that rent the Orthodox Party into two opposite Factions, that Basil, by the Advice of Athanasius, writ the above-mentioned Letter to Damasus, and that the Orthodox Bishops of the East writ in common a Letter to all their Brethren in the West. As this Schism did more Hurt to the Orthodox Cause than it was in the Power of their Enemies to have done, I shall not think it foreign to my Purpose to insert a succinct Account of its Rise and Progress. [Sidenote: What occasioned this Division.] Eustathius, the Orthodox Bishop of Antioch, being deposed by the Arians in 331. and one of their own Party put in his room, the greater Part of the Clergy and People of that City, acknowleging the new-chosen Bishop, and his Arian Successors, assisted at their Assemblies, mixed with the Arians, and received the Sacraments at their Hands, though they disagreed with them in Belief. But some more zealous than the rest, refusing to own any other Bishop so long as Eustathius lived, held their Assemblies apart, under the Direction of Presbyters animated with the like Zeal. These, from their steady Attachment to Eustathius, were called Eustathians, and with them alone Athanasius communicated while he was at Antioch[1033]. This Schism or Separation continued even after the Death of Eustathius, those of his Party declining not only the Communion of the Arians and their Bishops, but of the Orthodox, who communicated with them. In the Year 360. the See of Antioch being vacant, by the Translation of Eudoxius the Arian to that of Constantinople, the Arians, and the Orthodox, who communicated with them, chose with one Consent the famous Meletius to succeed him. Both Parties joyfully concurred in this Election; the Orthodox, because they knew his Doctrine to be no less pure than his Manners; and the Arians, because they hoped, by such a distinguishing Mark of their Friendship and Esteem, to win him, and by his Means to gain over to their Party the whole City of Antioch, nay, and the Eustathians themselves[1034]. But they soon found, to their great Mortification, that the Orthodox were better acquainted with Meletius than they, that he was most zealously attached to the Orthodox Party, and was not to be swayed by Friendship or Enmity, by Hopes or Terrors. [Sidenote: Meletius the new Bishop of Antioch declares in favour of the Orthodox.] He was no sooner installed, which Ceremony was performed with the greatest Solemnity, than he loudly declared in favour of Consubstantiality, and boldly cut off from his Communion, as rotten and incurable Members, all who held the opposite Doctrine. The Arians of Antioch were thunderstruck with the Boldness of the Attempt; the whole Party took the Alarm; Eudoxius Bishop of Constantinople, and the neighbouring Bishops, forgetful of every thing else, hastened to Antioch; Hopes, Fears, Prayers, Menaces, were successively employed, and nothing left unattempted to divert, at least to allay, the impending Storm. But all in vain; the Zeal of Meletius was incapable of Controul: he openly declared, that nothing should, nothing could, make him desist from, or relent in, the Work he had undertaken, till he had utterly extirpated the Arian Heresy, without leaving the least Shoot of so poisonous a Weed in the Field, which by Divine Appointment he was to guard and cultivate[1035]. The Arians finding him immovably fixed in his Resolution, and, what doubled their Concern, the whole Party in imminent Danger from one of their own chusing, they applied with better Success to the Emperor Constantius; and, charging the new Bishop of Antioch with Sabellianism, which Charge the credulous and unwary Prince believed upon their Word, [Sidenote: He is banished.] they extorted from him a Rescript banishing Meletius from Antioch about Thirty Days after his Installment, and confining him to Melitene in Armenia, his native City[1036]. Euzoius was preferred in his room, formerly the chief Favourite of Arius, and the most antient of all his Disciples; for together with him he was condemned by the great Council of Nice.
[Sidenote: Great Divisions in that Church.]
The Orthodox, who had hitherto communicated with the Arians, were so disobliged and scandalized at these Proceedings, that, in the End they renounced the Arian Communion; and, assembling by themselves, proposed an Union with the Eustathians. But their Proposal was rejected by the leading Men of that Party, alleging, that they could not admit them to their Communion, because they had for so many Years communicated with the Arians, received the Sacraments at their Hands, and still seemed to acknowlege Meletius as lawful Bishop, though he had been chosen by the Arian Faction: for the Eustathians, notwithstanding the heroic Firmness of Meletius in defending and promoting the common Cause, refused to own him, for no other Reason but because the Arians had had a chief Share in his Election[1037]. As this Disagreement greatly weakened the Orthodox Cause in Antioch, and might, in time, be attended with fatal Consequences, no Pains were spared by the apostolic Men of those Times, to induce the Eustathians to abate somewhat of their Zeal and Severity. As for the other Party, notwithstanding their Attachment to Meletius, whence they had the Name of Meletians, they were greatly inclined to an Accommodation, and seemed to court the Communion of the Eustathians, almost upon any Terms. Lucifer, the famous Bishop of Cagliari, on his Return from Thebais in Egypt, to which Place he had been confined by Constantius, was prompted by his Zeal to take Antioch in his Way, with a Design to mediate an Accommodation between the dissenting Parties. Being arrived in that City, he had several Conferences with the leading Men of the one and the other Party; and, finding neither averse to an Accommodation, he conceived great Hopes of succeeding in his Design; and therefore begged the Fathers of the Council of Alexandria, which was already sitting, and to which he had been invited by Athanasius, to dispense with his assisting at that Assembly, since his Presence seemed more necessary at Antioch. However, he appointed Two of his Deacons to be present as his Deputies, injoining them to agree, in his Name, to the Decisions of the Council[1038]. Baronius owns here, which I cannot help observing by the way, that Lucifer never appeared in the Council of Alexandria[1039]; forgetting, no doubt, what he elsewhere so strenuously maintains[1040]; viz. that Lucifer assisted at that Assembly, in the Name of Pope Liberius, and as his Legate.
[Sidenote: The Council of Alexandria strive to heal these Divisions.]
The Fathers of the Council not only approved of the Bishop of Cagliari’s Resolution, but appointed Eusebius of Vercelli, and Asterius of Petra in Arabia, to assist him in so pious an Undertaking. What seemed chiefly to obstruct the so much wished for Union, was a great Attachment on one Side to Meletius, and an equal Obstinacy on the other, in refusing to acknowlege one preferred by the Arians. The Confessors therefore assembled in Alexandria (for of Confessors alone that Assembly was composed) were of Opinion, that, if every other Remedy proved ineffectual, their Deputies should apply to Meletius; and, having persuaded him to resign his Dignity, chuse another in his room, equally acceptable to both Parties. They did not in the least doubt but Meletius would readily, nay, with great Joy, sacrifice his Dignity, and every other private View, to the public Tranquillity[1041]; so great was the Opinion they entertained of his Virtue. Had this wise Resolution taken place, it had, in all Likelihood, been attended with the desired Effect. [Sidenote: All Means of an Accommodation cut off by the imprudent Conduct of the Bishop of Cagliari.] But before the Deputies could reach Antioch, Lucifer, more commendable for Zeal than Prudence, had cut off all means of an Accommodation, by conferring, of his own Authority, the Episcopal Dignity on the Presbyter Paulinus, who was at the Head of the Eustathians, and had with more Warmth than any other opposed Meletius, and those who adhered to him. He was assisted in that irregular Ordination by Two other Confessors[1042]; viz. Gorgonius of Germanicia, and Cymatius of Gabala, or rather of Paltos[1043]. This Step he took to oblige the Eustathians, when he found that they could by no means be induced to acknowlege Meletius. But, instead of closing, he thereby widened, the Breach, the Meletians declaring, that they would never abandon a Bishop of their own Party, to acknowlege one of another, chosen without their Consent, or even their Knowlege[1044]. This unhappy Division, thus settled and confirmed between the Two Orthodox Parties in Antioch, did not continue long confined to that particular Church, but soon extended to the Church universal; some owning Meletius for lawful Bishop of Antioch, and others Paulinus. Athanasius communicated with Paulinus, and not with Meletius; and his Example was followed by the Bishops of Egypt, of Cyprus, and all the Bishops in the West[1045]. On the other hand, all the Orthodox Bishops in the East, except Athanasius, and those I have mentioned, espoused, with great Warmth, the Cause of Meletius[1046]. They all continued, however, notwithstanding this Disagreement, to communicate with each other, though with some Indifference and Coldness. The Ordination of Paulinus gave Rise to another Schism; for Eusebius of Vercelli, finding, on his Arrival at Antioch, all Hopes of an Accommodation cut off, and no room left for the Measures concerted and agreed to by the Council, immediately quitted the City, without communicating with either Party. This was condemning the Conduct of Lucifer; which he could not brook; and therefore, full of Resentment, he renounced the Communion of Eusebius, with whom he had hitherto lived in the greatest Intimacy, and suffered together with him a most painful Exile for the common Cause[1047].
[Sidenote: St. Basil Bishop of Cæsarea applies to Damasus.]
Basil Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, one of the great Lights of the Church, left nothing unattempted, which he apprehended could any-ways contribute to the reuniting of the Orthodox among themselves, and putting an End to the present Schism. But, despairing at last of Success, and finding the Prelates in the East all warmly engaged in the Dispute, some in favour of Meletius, and some of Paulinus, he resolved to apply to the Bishop of Rome, who had not yet declared for either of the Competitors, his Thoughts being wholly employed in securing his Dignity against a Competitor at Home. He writ therefore to Damasus, intreating him to dispatch Deputies into the East, who, in Concert with the Prelates there, inclined to an Accommodation, might settle the proper Means of accomplishing so desirable a Work, and uniting in Charity those, who were already united in Faith. He added, that it was from his Zeal alone they expected Relief, from that Zeal which he had made so eminently appear on other Occasions; that Dionysius, one of his Predecessors, had afforded them a seasonable Assistance, when their Wants were less pressing, and their Condition not so deplorable; and therefore that there was no room left to doubt of his readily conforming to so glorious an Example[1048]. With this Letter, and another from the Bishops in the East, soliciting the Advice, Assistance, and Mediation of their Collegues in the West, Dorotheus, Deacon of the Church of Antioch, was dispatched into Italy: whence he returned in the Beginning of the following Year 372. with an Answer from the Bishops of Illyricum, Italy, and Gaul[1049]. [Sidenote: The haughty Conduct of Damasus resented by St. Basil.] But Damasus did not condescend to return an Answer to Basil, or take the least Notice of his Letter; which haughty Conduct he justly resented, and in pretty sharp Terms, taxing Damasus, in one of his Letters[1050], with a Spirit of Pride and Vanity, which made him overlook other Bishops as below his Attention, and expect to be accosted by them with the meanest Flattery. But his thus disregarding the Request and Intreaties of the Bishop of Cæsarea, was not owing to his Pride alone. He was so little acquainted with the State of the Churches in the East, and what passed there, that he looked upon Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, and Meletius, with whom Basil lived in great Intimacy, as rank Arians, tho’ they both lived at that very time in Exile, having been driven from their Sees by the Arians, on account of the Zeal, which they had, with an invincible Firmness, exerted in Defence of the Orthodox Faith[1051]. The Bishop of Rome might, with very little Trouble, have been better informed; but his Mind, it seems, was so deeply engaged in worldly Affairs, and his Thoughts so taken up with State, Pomp, and Grandeur, that he was never at Leisure to mind those Matters, which justly claimed, and ought to have engrossed, his whole Attention. By him the Western Bishops were led into the same Mistake concerning Eusebius and Meletius; and hence the Backwardness they shewed to correspond with Basil, as if he designed to impose upon them, or was himself imposed upon by others. [Sidenote: St. Basil complains of Damasus, and the Western Bishops.] Of this Basil justly complained in a Letter he writ to Eusebius of Samosata. If the Wrath of God, says he, is in the End appeased, if Mercy takes place, what other Help do we stand in need of? But, if his Anger continues, what Relief will the Pride of the West afford us? They neither know the Truth, nor can they patiently bear it. They are ever prepossessed with idle Jealousies, ever swayed by groundless Surmises; and therefore act now the same Part they lately acted in the Case of Marcellinus; that is, they quarrel with those, who inform them of the Truth, and, being left to themselves, they introduce and establish Heresies. As for my own Part, I had once some Thoughts of writing a private Letter to their Chief (that is, to Damasus), and, waving all Mention of Church Affairs, only tell him, that they neither know what passes here, nor take the right Method to be informed; and that they ought not to oppress those who are already humbled by Affliction, nor mistake Pride for Dignity, since that Sin alone is capable of Setting a Man at Enmity with God[1052]. From these Words it is pretty plain, that the Notion of the Pope’s Infallibility was not yet broached, or at least was not yet known to Basil. The Bishop of the Metropolis of the Empire was deservedly looked upon, in regard of the Dignity of his See, as the Chief and Head of all the Western Bishops; and to him as such, not as an infallible and unerring Judge, the Eastern Bishops frequently applied in the Disputes, that happened to rise among them; so that all we can infer from their applying to him is, that his Authority bore a great Sway; which was owing to the Pre-eminence of his See, and not to any Power or Prerogative peculiar to him, and superior to others.
[Sidenote: Damasus takes on him the Office of Judge, being only chosen Mediator.]
It was long ere Damasus could be brought to give any Attention to the Affairs of the East; and when he did, it was only to add Fewel to the Fire, which had lately begun to rage with great Violence. For, looking upon the Office of a bare Mediator, which alone had been offered him, as no-ways suitable to his Dignity, he arrogantly assumed that of a Judge, and not only acknowleged Paulinus for lawful Bishop of Antioch, but, misled by false and groundless Reports, declared Meletius a Transgressor of the Canons, an Intruder, a Schismatic, and even an Heretic[1053]; that Meletius, who had suffered Exile, and innumerable Hardships, in Defence of the Orthodox Faith, who was then revered all over the East, as a Man of extraordinary Sanctity, and is now honoured by the Church of Rome as a Saint of the first Class. [Sidenote: His Conduct condemned by St. Basil.] But his thus openly declaring in favour of Paulinus, his treating in such a base and unworthy manner one of the most eminent Prelates in the East, served only to engage the Followers of Meletius more warmly in his Cause; and the great Basil, among the rest, who could not help censuring the Conduct of Damasus as rash, partial, and injudicious: he even repented his having ever applied to him; for, in one of his Letters to Eusebius of Samosata, he expresses himself thus: The Saying of Diomedes occurs to my Mind; Intreaties are not to be used with Achilles, he is too haughty[1054]; and truly the more you flatter haughty and insolent Men, the more haughty and insolent they become[1055]. As no Regard was had to the Authority of Damasus, and the Western Bishops, who, following his Example, acknowleged Paulinus, and not Meletius, the Orthodox Bishops in the East not only continued divided among themselves, but a new Division arose between the Western Bishops, and those of the Party of Meletius, at the Head of which was Basil Bishop of Cæsarea. But, of these unhappy Divisions, so far as the Bishops of Rome were concerned in them, we shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.
[Sidenote: New Disturbances raised in Rome, by the Partisans of Ursinus;]
Damasus was far more successful in suppressing the Schism of Ursinus, which about this time was revived at Rome. The Emperor Valentinian, some time before, by a Rescript addressed to Ampelius Governor, and Maximinus Vicar of Rome, had allowed Ursinus, and the leading Men of his Party, who had been confined with him to Gaul, Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out of Rome, and the Suburbicarian Provinces[1056]. This Indulgence shewn by the Emperor to Ursinus, encouraged his Followers in Rome to declare openly in his Favour, and even to assemble apart from those who communicated with Damasus. But, being therein opposed by the Party of Damasus with their usual Violence, new Disturbances arose, and the City was upon the point of becoming again the Scene of a Civil War. [Sidenote: who are banished.] Simplicius, then Vicar of Rome, at the Request of Damasus, gave the Emperor immediate Notice of the approaching Danger; and the Emperor, in Answer to his Letter, sent him a Rescript, commanding all those who, in Contempt of Religion, held or frequented unlawful Assemblies, to be banished an Hundred Miles from Rome, that their Obstinacy might hurt none but themselves[1057]. Thus for the present a Stop was put to the Disorders that had begun to reign in the City.
[Sidenote: The Luciferians_ persecuted by_ Damasus.]
The two Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus pretend, that this Law was levelled at the Ursinians alone, but was interpreted by Damasus, as comprehending the Luciferians, or the Followers of Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari, who, refusing to communicate with the Bishops who signed the Confession of Rimini, and with all who communicated with them, had separate Assemblies at Rome, and even a Bishop of their own, named Aurelius. But Damasus, say they, using them, in virtue of the above-mentioned Law, with no less Cruelty than he did the Ursinians, they thenceforth assembled only in the Night, under a Presbyter, named Macarius, of whose Sanity and Austerities they relate wonderful Things. But Night and Darkness could not protect them against the persecuting Spirit of Damasus, whose Clerks, breaking one Night in upon them, while they were performing Divine Service in a private House, dispersed the Congregation, seized Macarius, and dragging him along with them over the sharp Flints, by which he was cruelly bruised, and dangerously wounded in the Thigh, they kept him the remaining Part of the Night closely confined. Next Morning he was carried before the Judge, who, finding him inflexible in rejecting the Communion of Damasus, condemned him to Exile; but the holy Presbyter, being arrived at Ostia, died there of his Wounds[1058]. The same Authors add, that Damasus caused several Catholic Presbyters to be sent into Exile, and some Laymen; but that Aurelius, the Luciferian Bishop, in spite of all his Efforts, continued in Rome to the Hour of his Death[1059].
[Sidenote: Apollinaris the Heresiarch. An Account of him.]
About this Time, that is, in the Year 377. a great Council was held at Rome, in which the famous Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, was condemned and deposed with his Two Disciples Vitalis and Timotheus. Apollinaris was a Man of uncommon Parts, great Penetration, universal Knowlege; and had at first been so zealous a Defender of the Orthodox Faith, that he was looked upon by all, particularly by Epiphanius and Athanasius, as one of the great Champions of that Cause[1060], and ranked by Philostorgius with Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen[1061]. He contracted a strict Friendship with Athanasius, when that Prelate passed through Laodicea in 349. on his Return to Egypt, and ever after maintained a close Correspondence with him, on which Account he was excommunicated by Gregory the Arian Bishop of that City[1062]. When the Arians began to prevail in the East, Apollinaris was cruelly persecuted by the Men in Power of that Party, and at last driven into Exile[1063]. Basil writ several Letters to him, and in those he writ to others, often mentions him as a Person for whom he had the greatest Esteem[1064]. He is said to have excelled in the Knowlege of the Scriptures, which he publicly interpreted at Antioch, where he had Jerom among the many Disciples, who flocked from all Parts to hear him[1065]. But he was equally versed in human Learning, especially in Poetry; and his Knowlege in that Branch of Literature proved very useful in the Time of the Emperor Julian. For that Prince having by a Law debarred the Christians from perusing or studying the Pagan Authors, Apollinaris, to supply the want of those Writers, composed several Pieces in Imitation of them, and, among the rest, a Poem comprising the History of the Jews to the Time of Saul, and divided into Twenty-four Books, which he distinguished by so many Letters of the Greek Alphabet, as Homer had done[1066]. He likewise writ Comedies, Tragedies, Lyric Verses, &c. imitating Pindar in the latter, and Menander and Euripides in the Two former[1067]. Sozomen thinks his Compositions fell in no respect short of the Works of the Antients; who, upon the Whole, says he, were far inferior to him, since they excelled, each in one Kind only, but he equally in all[1068]. The Tragedy, intituled, Christ suffering, which is to be found among the Works of Gregory Nazianzen, is by some ascribed to Apollinaris; but that Piece does not at all answer the great Opinion Sozomen seems to have entertained of him. His Paraphrase in Hexameter Verse on the Psalms, the only intire Work of his that has reached our Times, is an elegant, exact, and sublime Translation of them, greatly commended and admired by the best Judges[1069]. His Poetry proved very serviceable to him, when he began to broach his Heresy; for great Numbers of People, especially Women, embraced his Doctrine, being taken, and in a manner inchanted, with the Sweetness of his Verses; for he composed a great many Songs and Odes equally pious and elegant, adapted to all Occasions, and on all Occasions sung with suitable Airs by his Followers[1070]. To these Gregory Nazianzen no doubt alludes, where he speaks of the Psalms of the Apollinarists, to which the Psalms of David had given place; of those sweet and so much admired Verses, which were looked upon by them as a Third Testament[1071]. It was chiefly to oppose the Progress Apollinaris made, by the insinuating Means of his Poetry, that Gregory Nazianzen applied himself to the same Study. About the Year 362. Apollinaris was raised, in Consideration of his great Piety and Learning, to the See of Laodicea in Syria, in which City he was born, according to the most probable Opinion, and had spent the greater Part of his Life.
[Sidenote: The Doctrine held by Apollinaris, and his Disciples.]
As for the Doctrine held by Apollinaris, and his Followers, called from him Apollinarists; they maintained at first, that Christ had human Flesh, but not a human Soul, the Want of which was supplied, according to them, by the Divinity. But being afterwards convinced, that such a Doctrine was repugnant to several plain and express Passages of Scripture, they abandoned it in Part, and, distinguishing, with some Philosophers, the Soul, by which we live, from the Intelligence, by which we reason, they allowed the former in our Saviour, but denied the latter; the Operations of which, said they, were performed by the Divinity[1072]. Thus they allowed him, says St. Austin, the Soul of a Beast, but denied him that of a Man[1073]. By means of this Doctrine they avoided the Absurdity with which they reproached the Catholics, admitting in Christ, as they falsly imagined, Two opposite and distinct Natures, without any Union or Subordination between them[1074]. The Catholics indeed acknowleged Two distinct and complete Natures in Christ; but at the same time maintained an Union between them, such an Union as was admitted by the Apollinarists between the Flesh and the Divinity. The latter upbraided the Catholics with adoring a Man, styling them Anthropolaters; and the Catholics reproached in their Turn the Apollinarists with adoring the Flesh, calling them Sarcolaters[1075]. The Apollinarists distinguished themselves from the Catholics, by causing the following Words to be fixed on the Front of their Houses; We must not adore a Man that bears a God, but a God that bears Flesh. The Errors of the Apollinarists were not only concerning the Soul, but likewise the Body of our Saviour; for they maintained, that his Body, like other Bodies only in Appearance, was coeval with the Divinity, and of the same Substance with the eternal Wisdom[1076]. Hence it followed, by a natural Consequence, that the Body of our Saviour was impassible and immortal; that it was not taken of the Virgin Mary; that he was not born of her; that his Birth, Passion, Death, and Resurrection, were mere Illusions; or else, that the Divine Nature was passible: both which Absurdities were admitted by some of the Sects into which the Apollinarists were afterwards divided[1077].
[Sidenote: Apollinaris not known nor suspected to be the Author of the Heresy he broached.]
This Doctrine was first heard of in 362. and condemned the same Year in the Council of Alexandria. In 373. it began to make a great Noise in the Church; but it was not known even then by whom it had been broached: for Apollinaris was so far from owning himself the Author of those Tenets, that, in one of his Letters to Serapion Bishop of Thmuis in Egypt, which is still extant[1078], he expresses, in the strongest Terms, his Approbation of a Letter from Athanasius to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth, confuting the very Errors he held; and at the same time condemns the Folly of those, who maintained the Flesh to be consubstantial to the Divine Nature. In another Letter to the same Serapion, he owns the Body of our Saviour to have been taken of the Virgin Mary, to have been formed in her Womb, and his Flesh to have been of the same Substance with ours; adding, And these are Truths not to be called in question[1079]. In a Third Letter he assures Serapion, that he has ever denied in his Writings the Flesh of our Saviour to have descended from Heaven, or to be of the same Substance with the Divinity[1080]. Apollinaris, by thus publicly declaring against the Doctrine, which at the same time he was privately propagating, eluded the Vigilance of Athanasius himself, who, in confuting his Errors, never mentions his Name, nor seems to have entertained the least Suspicion of him; nay, he recommended Timotheus, a favourite Disciple of his, to Damasus, as a Person whose Orthodoxy was not to be questioned; and as such he was received, not only by the Bishop of Rome, but by all the Western Bishops, of whom he obtained Letters, on his Return, directed to Apollinaris, as to a Bishop of the Catholic Communion[1081].
[Sidenote: His Errors condemned in a Council at Rome.]
In the Year 374. or 375. Damasus convened a great Council at Rome, in which the Errors of Apollinaris were condemned; but neither was he nor any other named as the Broacher or Author of that Doctrine. [Sidenote: Damasus imposed upon by Vitalis one of his Disciples.] The very Year that Damasus condemned the Doctrine of Apollinaris, he was deceived and over-reached by one of the Disciples of that Heresiarch, named Vitalis. He was a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch, and of the Communion of Meletius, by whom he had been ordained; but afterwards, renouncing his Communion, he joined Apollinaris, and, being in high Esteem with the People, drew great Numbers over with him to that Side. Of these, called from him Vitalians, Apollinaris some Years after appointed him Bishop, adding thereby a Fourth Party to the Three that already divided the Church of Antioch, viz. the Arians, Paulinians, and Meletians[1082]. Before he threw off the Mask, and publicly maintained the Tenets of Apollinaris, he strove to be admitted with his Followers to the Communion of Paulinus of Antioch, and of Damasus; and with this View he undertook a Journey to Rome in the Year 375. As he had been suspected, and even accused, of holding the Doctrine of Apollinaris, Damasus required of him, before he admitted him to his Communion, a Confession of his Faith, which he gave under his Hand, but in such Terms as bore a double Meaning. Damasus, however, well satisfied with it, gave him a Letter for Paulinus of Antioch, and sent him back to be admitted by that Bishop to the Communion of the Church[1083]. But Damasus soon after, either upon his own Reflection, or at the Suggestion of others, apprehending himself imposed upon, writ another Letter to Paulinus, by the Presbyter Petronius, and afterwards a Third, which Holstenius has inserted at Length in his Roman Collection[1084]. Together with this Letter Damasus sent to Paulinus a Confession of Faith, drawn up by a Council summoned for that Purpose, desiring him to admit none to his Communion, but such as should sign that Confession, and the Confession of Nice[1085]. To this Piece the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon no doubt allude, in commending Damasus for pointing out, in his Letters to Paulinus, the Rules all Catholics ought to be guided by in reasoning of the Mystery of the Incarnation[1086]. What Baronius observes here is true, viz. that Vitalis, by the same ambiguous Confession of Faith, imposed upon Gregory Nazianzen, who received the Apollinarists as Brethren, and not as Enemies[1087]. He adds, And no Wonder that Vitalis imposed upon Damasus, since by the same Confession he imposed upon Gregory Nazianzen: he ought rather to have said, No Wonder that he imposed upon Gregory, who did not pretend to Infallibility, since he imposed upon Damasus, who was infallible. As Vitalis refused to sign the Confession sent by Damasus, Paulinus would not admit him to his Communion; upon which he pulled off the Mask, publicly renounced the Communion both of Damasus and Paulinus, and, bidding Defiance to the Canons, accepted the Title and Dignity of Bishop of Antioch, offered him by Apollinaris. [Sidenote: Apollinaris openly declares against the Church.] At the same time that Heresiarch, finding he could conceal himself no longer, openly declared, that he would communicate with none who held, that our Saviour had taken a human Soul, and human Understanding: which was separating himself from the Communion of the Catholic Church[1088]. It was long before it was believed in the Church that those Tenets had been broached, or were held, by Apollinaris: no Credit was given, at first, even to his Disciples, most People being inclined to think, that they were mistaken, and did not comprehend the sublime Thoughts of that great Man[1089]. But when no room was left for any further Doubt, the Surprize and Concern of the whole Catholic Party were equal to the high Opinion they had entertained of him till that Time[1090]. When Epiphanius writ against the Apollinarists, he well knew Apollinaris to be the Author of that Sect; for he reproaches him with this unwarrantable Separation from the Church; and yet he speaks of him with the greatest Respect; seems to think, that many Things had been unjustly fathered upon him; and takes a great deal of Pains to assure his Reader, that what he writes is Truth, and not Calumny proceeding from any private Pique, Malice, or Grudge[1091].
[Sidenote: A great Schism in the Church.]
The Schism, which the establishing of a new Bishop occasioned in the Church of Antioch, was not confined to that alone, but extended to most other Churches, over which Apollinaris appointed Bishops of his own Sect, who held separate Assemblies, practised different Rites, and, instead of the sacred Hymns commonly sung at Divine Service by the rest of the Church, introduced Canticles composed by their Leader, and containing the Substance of his Doctrine[1092]. The many perplexed Questions and Difficulties, which he and his Emissaries were daily starting about the Incarnation, bred such Confusion in the Minds of Men, that many began to question the Truth of that Mystery[1093]. The Objections they moved against our Saviour’s taking Flesh, and being born of the Virgin Mary, seemed calculated merely to raise improper Ideas, and sully the Thoughts of chaste Minds; for they themselves held his Body to be coeval with the Divinity, and to have only been conveyed into the World by means of the Virgin Mary[1094]. Their Doctrine was applauded and received by many, and few who read their Books were content with, or kept to the plain and antient Doctrine of the Church[1095]. [Sidenote: Basil recurs to the Western Bishops;] Basil therefore, and the other orthodox Bishops in the East, to put a Stop the more effectually to the growing Evil, not only declaimed against it in all their Writings, but dispatched the Two Presbyters Dorotheus and Sanctissimus with Letters to Damasus, and the other Western Bishops, intreating them to condemn without Delay the Doctrine of Apollinaris, and Apollinaris himself, since he had at last openly declared against the Church, and owned himself the Author of the new Sect[1096]. [Sidenote: who condemn the Doctrine of Apollinaris, and depose him with Vitelis and Timotheus.] In Compliance with this Request, a great Council was convened at Rome the following Year 378. in which Apollinaris was not only condemned with great Solemnity, but deposed, with his Two favourite Disciples, Vitalis and Timotheus; the former Bishop of the Apollinarists at Antioch, and the latter at Berytus in Phœnicia[1097]. By the same Council it was defined, that Jesus was true Man, and true God; and whoever maintained or asserted any thing to be wanting either to his Humanity or Divinity, was declared an Enemy to the Church[1098]. Vitalis had deceived Damasus, as I have observed above, by a Confession of Faith, in which, under equivocal Terms, he had artfully concealed his Heresy. The Bishop of Rome therefore, now undeceived, caused the Confession he had formerly approved of to be anathematized by the Council, together with its Author, exerting himself, says Gregory Nazianzen, with so much the more Vigour against them, as they had formerly taken Advantage of his Candour and Sincerity to impose upon him[1099]. Gregory Nazianzen therefore supposes, that the Pope could be imposed upon in a Matter concerning the Faith. Indeed the Sticklers for Infallibility must either give up that Prerogative, or allow all the Fathers to have talked Nonsense.
[Sidenote: A Mistake of Baronius.]
Baronius is certainly mistaken, and so was Ruffinus[1100], whom he follows, in asserting the Heresy of Apollinaris to have been first condemned by the Council of Rome, since it is manifest, that the Doctrine of that Heresiarch had been condemned long before by Athanasius, Basil, and Epiphanius, in their Writings, and by the Council held at Alexandria in 362. But Ruffinus probably meant no more, than that those Errors were first condemned by the Council of Rome, under the Name, and together with the Person, of Apollinaris; which is undeniable. [Sidenote: Another Mistake of the same Writer.] I cannot help observing here another Mistake of Baronius, pretending that Damasus (for whatever was done by the Council is by him ascribed to Damasus alone) in condemning Apollinaris condemned all the Errors he held; and consequently the Opinion of the Millenarians, holding that Christ was to return upon the Earth, and reign over the Faithful a Thousand Years before the End of the World. [Sidenote: The Doctrine of the Millenarians held by the greatest Men in the Church.] This Opinion was first broached about the Year 118. by Papias Bishop of Hierapolis, a Man of great Piety, honoured by the Church of Rome as a Saint[1101]. He declares, in the few Fragments of his Works, which have been conveyed to us by Eusebius[1102], that, as he lived near the Times of the Apostles, he made it his chief Business to learn of their Disciples whatever they could recollect to have been done or said by them, on different Occasions, that was not recorded in Holy Writ. Thus he learned the above-mentioned Doctrine[1103], which, upon the Authority of such a Tradition, countenanced by some Passages in the Revelations[1104], and one Text in St. Paul, was embraced and held by the most eminent Men for Piety and Learning, at that time, in the Church; and, among the rest, by Irenæus, and Justin the Martyr. And yet such a Doctrine is now rank Heresy in the Church of Rome. But, by declaring it such, have they not overset their own System, which places Tradition upon a Level with the Canonical Books of the Scripture? [Sidenote: How little Tradition to be depended upon.] Can they allege a more antient Tradition, one more universally received, or equally countenanced by Scripture, in favour of the many traditional Articles of Faith, which they have obtruded upon the World? Papias declares, he received the above-mentioned Doctrine of those who had learned it immediately of the Apostles. If such a Tradition be rejected as false, what other has a Right to be admitted as true? If we deny or question St. Peter’s having been at Rome, Tradition, and the Authority of Irenæus (for all the others have copied from him), are immediately produced against us. But what Weight either ought to bear, the Case before us sufficiently demonstrates.
To return to Apollinaris: It is very certain, that he held and taught the Doctrine of the Millenarians; but it is no less certain, that such a Doctrine was not condemned, as Baronius pretends[1105], by the Council of Rome in 378. since many eminent Men in the Church held it, and Sulpitius Severus among the rest, after that Council, without being deemed Heretics on that score. [Sidenote: The Apollinarists condemned by several Councils.] The Sentence pronounced against Apollinaris, and his Disciples, by the Council of Rome, was confirmed by a Council held the same Year at Alexandria[1106], by an Oecumenical Council assembled at Constantinople in 381. and by the Council of Antioch in 379[1107]. However, the Apollinarists, though thus condemned and deposed by all the Councils of the East and West, as we read in Gregory Nazianzen[1108], still kept their Ground, till Recourse was had to the Secular Power. [Sidenote: Penal Laws enacted against them.] For the Emperor Theodosius, at the Request of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople, enacted a Law, dated the Tenth of March 388. forbidding the Apollinarists to hold Assemblies, to have any Ecclesiastics or Bishops, or to dwell in the Cities[1109]. As this Law was executed with the utmost Rigour, at least against the leading Men of the Party, who were banished the Cities, and confined to the Deserts[1110], the Apollinarists were in a few Years reduced to a very small Number, when they begged to be admitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church, which was in the End granted them by Theodotus[1111], who governed the Church of Antioch, from the Year 416. to 428. But as their Conversion was owing not to Conviction, but Persecution, they still held in their Hearts the same Sentiments, which ever must happen in the like Case; nay, and privately instilled their Errors into the Minds of many, whose Faith had been, till that time, untainted[1112]. It was to these pretended Catholics, or disguised Apollinarists, that the Eutychian Heresy, and that of the Monothelites, of whom I shall speak hereafter, owed their Birth[1113]. Hence the Emperor Marcian, by an Edict in 455. declared the Eutychians to be Apollinarists, and consequently liable to the same Penalties[1114]. As for Apollinaris himself, he died about the Year 392. having maintained, to the Hour of his Death, the same Sentiments, in which he had lived; and, with them, the same outward Appearance, at least, of a most holy and exemplary Life[1115]; which is all the Authors of those Times Will allow him.
[Sidenote: New Disturbances raised by Ursinus.]
While Damasus, and the other Western Bishops, were wholly intent upon suppressing the Heresy of Apollinaris, and restoring the Eastern Churches to their former Tranquillity, the Antipope Ursinus, laying hold of that Opportunity, arrived privately at Milan, and there joined the Arians, upon their promising to support him with the whole Power of their Party[1116]. But Ambrose, who then governed that Church, and kept a watchful Eye over the Flock committed to his Care, gave immediate Notice of their clandestine Meetings, and pernicious Designs, to the Emperor Gratian, who soon after ordered Ursinus to quit Italy, and confined him to Cologne[1117]. During his Exile his Partisans were not idle; they found the Emperor Gratian, who in 375. had succeeded his Father Valentinian I. warmly engaged in favour of Damasus: they well knew, that so long as he continued in that Disposition, it would be in vain to solicit the Return of Ursinus, or to put up any Petition in his Behalf. [Sidenote: Damasus falsly accused, but cleared by the Emperor.] In order therefore to estrange the Mind of the Emperor from Damasus, they suborned a Jew, named Isaac, who had embraced the Christian Religion, but was then returned to Judaism, to accuse him before the Civil Magistrate of an heinous Crime, which I find not specified by any of the Antients. But the Emperor, taking upon himself the judging of that Cause, soon discovered the Innocence of the Accused, and the Malice of the Accuser; and therefore, honourably acquitting the former, and punishing the latter according to his Deserts, confined him to a Corner of Spain[1118].
This Attempt on the Reputation of Damasus was not the only Thing that gave him great Uneasiness at this time. The Emperor Valentinian had transferred, as I have related above, the Power of judging Bishops, such at least as were concerned in the Schism of Ursinus, from the Civil Magistrate to the Bishop of Rome. [Sidenote: Some Bishops, deposed by Damasus, keep their Sees.] But several Bishops, though deposed by him, still maintained themselves in their Sees, with open Force, in Defiance of his Sentence, and the Imperial Law. Among these were the Bishop of Parma, and Florentius Bishop of Puzzuolo, who, for their Attachment to Ursinus, had been both deposed by Damasus, and other Bishops assembled at Rome[1119]. The Donatists too, notwithstanding the severe Laws enacted against them by several Emperors, had got Footing in Italy, and in Rome itself, where they were known by the Names of Montenenses, and Rupenses, on account of their assembling in a Church or Oratory, which they had among the neighbouring Rocks and Mountains[1120]. They had a Bishop of their own, either sent from Africa, or ordained by Bishops sent from thence for that Purpose. Claudian, who governed them at this time, was their Fifth Bishop of Rome[1121]. The Emperor ordered him to be sent back to Africa, whence he came. But though he had been several times imprisoned, in order to oblige him by that means to return, he could not even so be prevailed upon to abandon his Flock; but continued at Rome, perverting many there, and rebaptizing all he could pervert[1122]. [Sidenote: The Italian Bishops recur to the Emperor.] To put a Stop to these Evils, the Bishops of Italy, assembling at Rome, had recourse to the Emperor Gratian, acquainting him with the Conduct of the contumacious Bishops, and earnestly intreating him to cause the Law, commanding the Bishops to be judged by the Bishop of Rome, and not by the Civil Magistrate, which he himself had enacted with his Father, to be put in Execution. By that Law, the Emperor, in all Likelihood, only intended to confirm, with respect to the Bishop of Rome, the Canons of the Church, appointing the Metropolitan, with his Council, Judge of the Bishops of his Province in Ecclesiastical Causes. But the Bishops, assembled on this Occasion at Rome, attempted to extend the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, far beyond the Bounds to which the Emperors and Canons had confined it. [Sidenote: Their letter to him.] For, in their Letter to Gratian, they suggested the following Regulations as necessary for the Tranquillity of the Church, and intreated him to establish them by Law: 1. That if any, who had been condemned by the Bishop of Rome, or other Catholic Bishops, should, after such Condemnation, presume to keep their Churches, they should be banished from the Territories of the Cities, where they had been Bishops. 2. That such as should refuse, when lawfully summoned, to appear before the Bishops, should be obliged, by the Prefect of Italy, or his Vicar, to repair to Rome, to be judged there. 3. That, if the accused Bishop resided in a distant Province, he should be obliged, by the Judges of the Place, to appear before his Metropolitan; and, if his Metropolitan was suspected as partial, or prejudiced against him, he might be allowed to appeal to the Bishop of Rome, or to a Council of Fifteen neighbouring Bishops; but, if the Accused was himself a Metropolitan, he should either repair to Rome, or appear before such Judges as the Bishop of Rome should appoint; and, when thus condemned, submit to the Sentence[1123]. [Sidenote: What they demand in particular for the Bishop of Rome.] In Behalf of the Bishop of Rome in particular they begged, in the same Letter, that, as he was above other Bishops by the Prerogative of the Apostolic See, though upon a Level with them as to the Ministry, he might not be obliged to appear before the Civil Magistrate, since other Bishops had been exempted from their Jurisdiction, but before a Council, or that the Emperor would reserve to himself the Cognisance of what concerned him, leaving to the ordinary Judges the Power of examining Facts and Witnesses, but not the Authority of pronouncing Sentence[1124]. [Sidenote: The Emperor’s Answer.] What Answer the Emperor returned to the Council, we know not; but, in a Rescript, addressed to the Vicar Aquilinus, after summing up the Heads of the Letter from the Council, and severely reprimanding his Officers for their Neglect, in not causing the Imperial Law to be put in Execution, he confirms the Rescript address’d to Simplicius, which I have mentioned above; commands the Bishop of Parma, Florentius of Puzzuolo, and Claudian the Donatist, with all those who shall be condemned by the Councils, as Disturbers of the Quiet of the Church, to be driven from their Dioceses, and banished an Hundred Miles from Rome: he grants all the Council had desired, with respect to the judging of Bishops; but requires the Bishop of Rome to act with the Advice of Five or Seven other Bishops; and, lastly, he forbids Persons of infamous Characters, or known Slanderers, to be admitted as Informers or Witnesses against Bishops[1125]. In this Rescript he takes no notice of what the Council had asked for the Bishop of Rome in particular.
[Sidenote: In what Sense the Pope above other Bishops.]
From these Pieces, which are still extant, it is manifest beyond all Dispute, as the Reader must have observed, that, in the Year 378. when this Council was held, no Prerogative was yet discovered in the Pope, peculiar to him, and not common to all Bishops, besides that of Rank, which arose from the Dignity of his See, that is, from his being Bishop of the Metropolis of the Empire; for, in that respect alone, the Bishops, who composed the Council, acknowleged him to be above them; nay, by declaring themselves, in express Terms, equal to him as to the Ministry, they seem to have taken particular Care, that no Room or Pretence should be left for his claiming a Superiority in any other respect. And how great would their Surprize have been, had Damasus, in hearing that Part of their Address to the Emperor, started up, and, protesting against it, as derogatory to his Prerogative, declared, that, to him all Power was given in Heaven and on Earth; that, so far from being equal to him, they, and all other Bishops, were but his Deputies and Delegates; that the Power, Authority, and Jurisdiction, which they enjoyed, were derived to them from the Plenitude of his! Had he talked in this Strain, the whole Council would have concluded him delirious. And yet these are the Sentiments of his Successors; these the very Words, with which they and their Divines have expressed them[1126]; so that it is now reckoned Heresy not to believe what in the Fourth Century it had been deemed Madness to have gravely uttered. [Sidenote: The Power he now claims unknown in the Time of Damasus.] It would perhaps have seemed still more strange and surprising to the Fathers of the Council, however prejudiced in his Favour, if Damasus, instead of gratefully acknowleging their Regard for him in petitioning the Emperor, that he might not be judged by the Civil Magistrate, but either by a Council, or the Emperor himself, had severely rebuked them as Strangers to, or Betrayers of, his inherent Right, acquainting them, that, in virtue thereof, all Men were to be judged by him, but himself by no Man[1127]; that the greatest Monarchs were his Slaves and Vassals, and he King of Kings, Monarch of the World, sole Lord and Governor both in Spirituals and Temporals[1128]; that he was appointed Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms[1129]; that his Power excelled all Powers[1130]; that it was necessary to Salvation for every human Creature to be subject to him[1131]. And yet these are the Notions, that have been uttered by his Successors, and the very Terms in which they were uttered. In the Age I am now writing of, they had been looked upon no otherwise than the Ravings of a distempered Brain; but they are now held by the Church of Rome, and her Divines, as Oracles, and inserted as such into her Canons. Bellarmine owns, that, in the Fourth Century, the Pope was still subject to the Emperors, nay, and to the Civil Magistrate, without the least Distinction between him and other Vassals. But this Subjection, says he, in his Apology against King James[1132], the Emperors exacted by Force, because the Power of the Pope was not known to them. Nor to any body else, he might have added, since the Writers of those Times seem to have been no better acquainted with the Power of the Pope than the Emperors; at least, they take no Notice of it, even in describing, as some of them have done, the State of the Church at the time they writ, and relating the Customs, Laws, and Practices, that then obtained. Besides, how could the Power of the Pope be unknown to the Christian Emperors, if it was one of the chief Tenets of the Christian Doctrine? Neither Damasus, nor any of his Predecessors, can be justly charged with Bashfulness, in acquainting the World with the Power they had or claimed. We may further observe here, that the Emperor requires the Bishop of Rome, in judging according to the Power granted him, to act with the Advice of Five or Seven other Bishops: a plain Proof, that he was as little acquainted with the Pope’s Infallibility, as with his Power.
[Sidenote: A new Accusation brought against Damasus.]
The Council of the Italian Bishops, assembled at Rome, no sooner broke up, than the Emissaries and Partisans of Ursinus began to raise new Disturbances in that City, by stirring up the Pagans against Damasus, and, at the same time, charging him with things, to use the Expression of the Council of Aquileia, not fit to be uttered by a Bishop, nor heard by such an Emperor as Gratian[1133]. Anastasius writes, that he was accused of Adultery by the Two Deacons Concordus and Callistus[1134]. And truly, that some Crime of that Nature was laid to his Charge, is pretty plain, from the Terms in which it was expressed by the Council. Valerian, then Governor of Rome, immediately acquainted the Emperor with the Accusation[1135]; but what Part Gratian acted on this Occasion, we are not told by any antient Writer. We read in the Pontificals, and most of the modern Writers, that the Cause was referred by the Emperor to the Council then sitting at Aquileia; and that Damasus was declared innocent by all the Bishops who composed it. [Sidenote: The Council of Aquileia writes to the Emperor in his Behalf.] But, as neither is related by any credible Author, I am inclined to believe, that Gratian took no Notice of the Charge, in Compliance with the Request of the Bishops assembled at Aquileia; for, by a Letter, they earnestly intreated him not to hearken to Ursinus, because his giving ear to him would occasion endless Disturbances in Rome; and, besides, they could by no means communicate with a Man who thus wickedly aspired to a Dignity, to which he had no Claim or Title; who, by his scandalous Behaviour, had incurred the Hatred of all good Christians; who had impiously joined the Arians, and, together with them, attempted to disturb the Quiet of the Catholic Church of Milan[1136].
[Sidenote: A great Council assembled at Constantinople, by the Emperor Theodosius.]
Towards the Latter end of the Pontificate of Damasus, Two great Councils were held, the one at Constantinople in 381. and the other at Rome in 382. The former was assembled by the Emperor Theodosius, who, after having put the Orthodox in Possession of the Churches, which till his Time had been held by the Arians in the East, where he reigned, summoned all the Bishops within his Dominions to meet at Constantinople, in order to deliberate about the most proper Means of restoring an intire Tranquillity to the Church, rent and disturbed not only by several Sects of Heretics, but by the Divisions that reigned among the Orthodox themselves, by that especially of Antioch, the most antient of all, which, from that Church, had spread all over the Empire, and occasioned rather an intire Separation, than a Misunderstanding between the East and the West, the former communicating with Meletius, and the latter with Paulinus, as I have related above. In this Council many weighty Matters were transacted, and several Canons established, some of which, namely, the Second and Third, deserve to be taken Notice of here. For, by the Second, the Council renewed and confirmed the antient Law of the Church, authorized by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Canons of the Council of Nice, commanding the Bishops of each Province to be ordained by those of the same Province, and such of the neighbouring Provinces, as they should think fit to call in; directing all Ecclesiastical Matters to be settled, all Disputes to be finally decided by a Council composed of the Bishops of the Province, or at least of the Diocese, that is, of all the Provinces under the same Vicar; and strictly forbidding the Bishops of one Diocese to concern themselves, under any Colour or Pretence whatsoever, with what happens in another[1137]. [Sidenote: which revokes the Privilege granted to the See of Rome by the Council of Sardica.] By this Canon the Privilege, formerly granted to the See of Rome by the Council of Sardica, was revoked, and all Appeals from the Council of the Diocese forbidden. By the Third Canon the See of Constantinople is declared first in Rank and Dignity after that of Rome[1138]. Some Greek Writers have pretended, that, by this Canon, the Two Sees were declared in every respect equal; but that Zonaras himself owns to be false and groundless[1139]. It is to be observed, that the Council of Constantinople gave Rank and Honour to that See, but no Jurisdiction. It was to the Council of Chalcedon that the Bishops of Constantinople owed their Authority and Jurisdiction; for by that Council they were impowered to ordain the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace[1140]. The Reasons alleged by Baronius to prove the Third Canon of the Council of Constantinople supposititious[1141], are quite frivolous; and it is certain beyond all Dispute, that the Bishops of that City maintained ever after the Rank, which the above-mentioned Canon had given them. In a short time the Bishop of Constantinople, taking Advantage of that Canon, and of the Deference that is naturally paid to the Bishop of the Imperial City, extended his Jurisdiction over all the neighbouring Provinces, nay, and over the whole Eastern Empire, as we shall observe in the Sequel of this History.
[Sidenote: The Council writes to the Western Bishops.]
The Canons of this Council were, without all doubt, sent, according to Custom, to the Western Bishops for their Approbation, probably with the Letter which the Council writ to them concerning the Heresy of Apollinaris[1142]. And yet Pope Leo the Great writes, that the Third Canon was never notified to the Church of Rome[1143]; and Gregory the Great, that the Canon condemning the Eudoxians, which was the first, had never been received at Rome[1144]: but Gregory perhaps meant nothing else, than that the Canon he mentions was of no Authority at Rome. As for Leo, it is hard to conceive what he meant by saying, that the Third Canon was not known to the Church of Rome; for he could not but know, that the Bishop of Constantinople held the Second Rank in the Church, and the First in the East, since his own Legates, whose Conduct he intirely approved of, owned him to have an indisputable Right to that Rank; nay, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylæum in Phrygia maintained, that it was with the Consent and Approbation of Leo himself that the See of Constantinople enjoyed that Honour.
[Sidenote: The Authority of this Council among the Greeks,]
The Authority of this Council has ever been great among the Greeks, who style it an Oecumenical Council, and had often recourse to it as such in the Council of Chalcedon[1145]. The Bishops of the Hellespont speak of it with the greatest Respect and Reverence, in a Letter they writ to the Emperor Leo[1146]. [Sidenote: and the Latins.] As for the Latins, I find a great Disagreement among the Popes themselves concerning the Authority of this Council; nay, the greatest of them all disagrees even with himself about it. The Legates of Pope Leo rejected its Canons, alleging that they had never been inserted in the Book of the Canons[1147]. In like manner the Popes Simplicius and Felix II. speaking of the Councils which they received, name those only of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon[1148]. Gregory the Great writes, that the Church of Rome had neither the Acts nor the Canons of the Council of Constantinople; that the Condemnation of the Macedonians was the only thing done by that Council which they admitted; and that as to other Heresies condemned there, they rejected them, as having been condemned before by other Councils[1149]. But he declares elsewhere, and often repeats it, that he received the Four Oecumenical Councils, as he did the Four Gospels[1150], naming the Council of Constantinople in the Second Place. [Sidenote: The Popes at Variance among and with themselves about it.] In the same Manner, and with the same Words, were the Four Oecumenical Councils received by Gelasius, and several Popes before him, as well as by Martin I. and several others after him: so that the Council of Constantinople is, according to some Popes, of equal Authority with the Gospel; according to others, of no Authority at all: nay, it is thus by the same Pope at one time extolled, at another undervalued. Let Baronius and Bellarmine reconcile these Contradictions, if they can.
[Sidenote: This Council was assembled by the Emperor, and not by Damasus.]
That this Council was assembled by the Emperor Theodosius, is affirmed by all the Writers who speak of it[1151], nay, and by the Bishops who composed it[1152]. And yet Baronius has the Assurance to assert, as a Thing not to be questioned, that it was convened by Damasus[1153], which none of the Antients have so much as once named: and this Assertion he founds upon the Authority of the universally exploded Acts of Damasus; of certain Manuscripts, which he knows very little of, and nobody else any thing; and of a Passage in the Acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council, where it is said, that Theodosius and Damasus opposed with great Firmness the Macedonian Heresy; whence the Annalist concludes, by what Rules of Logic I leave the Reader to find out, that the Council, which condemned the Heresy of Macedonius, was convened by the Authority of Damasus, backed by that of the Emperor[1154]. Christianus Lupus, more honest than Baronius, tho’ no less attached to the See of Rome, ingenuously owns, that the Council was assembled by the Emperor alone; but adds, that Damasus confirmed it[1155]; which is true, if he means no more than that Damasus accepted the Decrees made by the Council; for it was not his, but the Emperor’s Approbation, that gave them a Sanction; and accordingly they writ, not to him, but to the Emperor, acquainting him; by whose Command they had been called together, with the Decrees they had made, and requesting him to confirm them with his Seal and Sentence[1156]. This Council consisted of an Hundred and Fifty Bishops, among whom were Thirty-six Macedonians, whom Theodosius had particularly summoned, hoping to reunite them with the Catholics[1157]. No mention is made of Letters or Deputies sent either by Damasus, or by any of the Western Bishops; and Theodoret assures us in Two different Places[1158], that Theodosius only assembled the Eastern Bishops. Meletius of Antioch presided; for Gregory of Nyssa styled him in full Council, our Father and Head[1159]. Upon his Death (for he died while the Council was sitting) that Honour was conferred on Gregory Nazianzen, appointed by the Emperor and the Council Bishop of Constantinople[1160]; but he resigning, soon after, his new Dignity, his Successor Nectarius was named to preside in his room[1161].
One of the chief Motives that induced Theodosius to assemble so numerous a Council at Constantinople, was, to hear what Remedy they could suggest against the Schism of the Church of Antioch, which caused such Jealousies between the East and the West as seemed to forebode an imminent Rupture[1162]. But before the Fathers of the Council entered upon that important Subject, Meletius died; and his Death, which ought to have put an End to the present Disturbances, served only to increase them, and engage the contending Parties more warmly in the Dispute. It had been agreed by Meletius and Paulinus, that the Survivor should be sole Bishop of all the Orthodox at Antioch[1163]. Socrates and Sozomen add[1164], that Six Presbyters, who it was most likely might be one Day raised to that See, bound themselves by a solemn Oath not to vote for any other, nor to accept themselves the Episcopal Dignity, so long as either of the Two lived. [Sidenote: The Disturbances in the Church of Antioch increased.] However, Meletius was no sooner dead, than some of the Prelates present at the Council moved for chusing him a Successor, which occasioned many long and warm Debates. Gregory Nazianzen, elected Bishop of Constantinople a few Days before, exerted all his Eloquence to divert the Council from a Resolution, which, he said, would prove fatal to the Church, and kindle a Flame, which perhaps it might never be in their Power to extinguish[1165]. Several other Prelates, Enemies to Strife and Contention, falling in with Gregory, spoke to the same Purpose, exhorting their Collegues, with great Zeal and Eloquence, to put an End at last to the unhappy Divisions that had so long rent the Church, by allowing Paulinus, already stricken in Years, to govern peaceably the remaining Part of his Life[1166]. But the far greater Part were for a new Election, offering no other Reason to recommend such a Step, but that the East, where our Saviour had appeared, ought not to yield to the West[1167]. So that the Resolution of giving a Successor to Meletius was taken merely out of Pique to the Western Bishops, who, having the Bishop of Rome at their Head, had begun to treat their Brethren in the East with great Haughtiness, and assume an Air of Authority that did not become them; but that had been better resented on any other Occasion than on this.
[Sidenote: Flavianus ordained Bishop of Antioch.]
The Resolution being taken, Flavianus, a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch, was named by the Council, and, with the Approbation of the Emperor, and of all the Meletians at Antioch, ordained in that City. He is commended by the Writers who lived in or near those Times, as a Man of an exemplary Life, and extraordinary Piety, as a zealous Defender of the Orthodox Faith, and Opposer of the Arian Heresy, as a Mirror of every Sacerdotal Virtue; and, barring the Right of Paulinus, the most worthy and deserving Person the Council could name to succeed the great Meletius[1168]. These, and other like Encomiums, bestowed upon Flavianus by the Writers of those Times, leave no room to doubt but Socrates and Sozomen were misinformed in naming him among the Six Presbyters who took the Oath I have mentioned above; the rather as no notice is taken of such an Oath by his most inveterate Enemies, in the many Disputes that arose about his Ordination. [Sidenote: Greg. Nazianzen resigns the Bishoprick of Constantinople.] Gregory Nazianzen, who had been lately preferred to the See of Constantinople, and had accepted that Dignity with no other View, but to remove all Jealousies, and restore a good Understanding between the East and the West, being sensible that the electing of a new Bishop in the room of Meletius would widen the Breach, and obstruct all possible Means of an Accommodation, resigned his Dignity, and, to the inexpressible Grief of his Flock, retired both from the Council and City[1169]. In one of his Orations[1170], he ascribes this Resolution to the Divisions that reigned among the Bishops, declaring that he was quite tired with their constant quarreling and bickering among themselves, and comparing them to Children at Play; whom to join in their childish Diversions, would be degrading a serious Character. [Sidenote: Nectarius is chosen in his room.] Upon the Resignation of Gregory, Nectarius was chosen to succeed him; but, as to the Particulars of his Election, they are variously related by Authors, and foreign to my Purpose. He was a Native of Tarsus in Cilicia, descended of an illustrious and senatorial Family, but at the Time of his Election still a Layman, and Prætor of Constantinople; nay, he had not been baptized[1171].
[Sidenote: The Council of Aquileia writes to Theodosius in favour of Paulinus.]
The same Year that the Eastern Bishops met at Constantinople, by the Command of Theodosius, the Western Bishops met at Aquileia, by the Command of Gratian. While the latter were yet sitting, News was brought of the Death of Meletius, and at the same time they received certain Intelligence of the Resolution which the Council of Constantinople had taken of appointing him a Successor. Hereupon having dispatched the Business for which they had met, and condemned Palladius and Secundianus, the only Two Arian Bishops now in the West, they dispatched some Presbyters into the East, with a Letter to the Emperor Theodosius, wherein, after expressing the Joy it had given them to hear that the Orthodox in those Parts were at last happily delivered from the Oppression of the Arians, they complained of the Hardships Paulinus had met with, whom they had always acknowleged as lawful Bishop of Antioch, put the Emperor in mind of the Agreement between Paulinus and Meletius, and concluded with intreating him to assemble an Oecumenical Council at Alexandria, as the only Means of restoring Tranquillity to the Church, and settling a perfect Harmony amongst her Members[1172]. Before this Letter reached the Emperor, the Council of Constantinople was concluded, and the Bishops returned to their respective Sees. However, Theodosius recalled some of them, in order to govern himself by their Advice in granting or denying the Western Bishops their Request[1173]. [Sidenote: And the Bishops of Italy in favour of Maximus.] But the Election of Flavianus being in the mean time known in the West, the Bishops of the Vicariate of Italy, them assembled in Council with Ambrose Bishop of Milan at their Head, writ a long Letter to Theodosius complaining of that Election, openly espousing at the same time the Cause of Maximus against Nectarius, the new Bishop of Constantinople, and threatening to separate themselves intirely from the Communion of the Eastern Bishops, unless Maximus was acknowleged lawful Bishop of that City, or at least an Oecumenical Council was assembled to examine the Claims of the Two Competitors, and to confirm with their joint Suffrages the disputed Dignity to him, who had the best[1174]. They also desired, in the same Letter, to have the Contest between Paulinus and Flavianus decided.
[Sidenote: Who Maximus was, and how chosen Bishop of Constantinople.]
Maximus, surnamed the Cynic, because he had from his Youth professed the Philosophy, and wore the Habit, of that Sect, was a Man of a most infamous Character, and had been publicly whipt in Egypt, his native Country, and confined to the City of Oasis, for Crimes not to be mentioned[1175]. Being released from his Banishment, he wandered all over the East, and was every where equally abhorred and detested on account of his matchless Impudence and scandalous Manners[1176]. At last he repaired to Constantinople, where he had not been long, when, by one of the boldest Attempts mentioned in History, he caused himself to be installed and ordained Bishop of that City: for the Doors of the Church being broken open in the Dead of the Night, by a Band of Egyptian Mariners, he was placed on the Episcopal Chair in the profane Dress of a Cynic, by some Bishops whom his Friends had sent out of Egypt for that Purpose. But the People, and some of the Clergy, in the adjoining Houses, being alarmed at the Noise, and crouding to see what occasioned it, Maximus and his unhallowed Crew thought fit to withdraw, and complete the Ceremony in a Place better adapted to such a Scene of Profaneness, the House of a Player on the Flute[1177]. Maximus, thus ordained, in equal Defiance of the Imperial Laws and Canons of the Church, had the Assurance to claim the See of Constantinople as his Right, and to protest against the Election of Gregory Nazianzen, and likewise of Nectarius, who was chosen upon the Resignation of Gregory, tho’ they had both been named to that Dignity by the Council of Constantinople, that is, by all the Eastern Bishops. But no Regard being had to his Protest, nay, his Ordination being declared null by the Council, and he driven out of the City by the Populace, and rejected with Indignation by the Emperor, he had recourse to the Bishops of the Vicariate of Italy, then assembled in Council with Ambrose Bishop of Milan at their Head, as I have observed above. [Sidenote: He is acknowleged by Ambrose, and the Italian Bishops.] These giving an intire Credit to the Accounts of the lying and deceitful Cynic, as they were quite unacquainted with what had passed in the East, not only admitted him to their Communion, but, without farther Inquiry or Examination, acknowleged him for lawful Bishop of Constantinople, and writ the above-mentioned Letter to Theodosius in his Behalf[1178]. We must not confound this Council with that of Aquileia, as I find most Writers have done: for the latter was composed of almost all the Western Bishops under Valerian Bishop of the Place; whereas the Council I am now speaking of, consisted only of the Bishops of the Vicariate of Italy, under the Bishop of Milan their Metropolitan. It is surprising that Ambrose, and the other Bishops of that Council, should not have been better informed with respect to the Ordination of Maximus, since Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica, with Five other Bishops of Macedon, had, at least a Year before, transmitted to Damasus a minute Account of it, agreeing in every Particular with that which I have given above from Gregory Nazianzen[1179]. [Sidenote: The Emperor’s Answer to their Letter.] The Letter from the Council caused no small Surprize in Theodosius: he was sensible they had suffered themselves to be grosly imposed upon; but, not judging it necessary to undeceive them, he only told them, in his Answer to their Letter, that the Reasons they alleged did not seem sufficient to him for assembling an Oecumenical Council, and giving so much Trouble to the Prelates of the Church; that they were not to concern themselves with what happened in the East, nor remove the Bounds, that had been wisely placed by their Fore-fathers between the East and the West; and that, as to the Affair of Maximus, by espousing his Cause they had betrayed either an unwarrantable Animosity against the Orientals, or an inexcusable Credulity in giving Credit to false and groundless Reports[1180].
[Sidenote: A Council of all the Western Bishops assembled at Rome.]
Upon the Receipt of this Letter, the Italian Bishops, finding Theodosius no ways disposed to assemble an Oecumenical Council, applied to Gratian, who not only granted them Leave to meet at Rome, the Place they chose, but dispatched Letters to all the Bishops both in the East and West, giving them Notice of the Time and Place, in which the Council was to be held, and inviting them to it[1181]. But of all the Eastern Bishops, Two only complied with this Invitation; viz. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis in the Island of Cyprus, and Paulinus, whom all the West acknowleged for lawful Bishop of Antioch. The Western Bishops were all present, either in Person, or by their Deputies; and Damasus presided[1182]. But, as to the Transactions of this great Assembly, we are almost intirely in the Dark; for all we know of them is, that they unanimously agreed not to communicate with Flavianus, the new Bishop of Antioch, nor with Diodorus of Tarsus, or Acacius of Berœa, who had been chiefly instrumental in his Promotion; that they condemned the Heresy of Apollinaris; and that, at the Request of Damasus, a Confession of Faith was drawn up by Jerom, and approved by the Council, which the Apollinarists were to sign, upon their being re-admitted to the Communion of the Church[1183]. As for Maximus, they seem to have abandoned his Cause, being, in all Likelihood, undeceived, with respect to his Ordination, by Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica, and St. Jerom, who assisted at the Council, and could not be Strangers to the Character of Maximus, nor unacquainted with the scandalous Methods by which he had attained the Episcopal Dignity.
[Sidenote: The Misunderstanding between the East and the West increased.]
The Resolution they took not to communicate with Flavianus, whose Election, though imprudently made, was undoubtedly Canonical, and had been approved and confirmed by the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople, not only increased the Jealousies and Misunderstanding between the East and the West, but occasioned a great Disagreement, and endless Quarrels, among the Eastern Bishops themselves. For those who acknowleged Paulinus, viz. the Bishops of Egypt, of the Island of Cyprus, of Arabia, insisted upon the Deposition of Flavianus[1184]. Nestorius mentions some Letters, written by the Bishops of Egypt against Flavianus, with great Virulency, and a tyrannical Spirit, to use his Expression[1185]. On the other hand, the Bishops of Syria, of Palæstine, of Phœnicia, Armenia, Cappadocia, Galatia, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, not only maintained, with equal Warmth, the Election of Flavianus, but began to treat their Brethren in the East, who had joined the Western Bishops against them, as Schismatics, as Betrayers of their Trust, as Transgressors of the Canons of Nice, commanding the Elections and Ordinations of each Province to be made and performed by the Bishops of the same Province, and all Disputes concerning them to be finally decided in the Place where they had begun[1186]. This Schism occasioned great Confusion in the Church, which continued till the Year 398, when Chrysostom, after having, with indefatigable Pains, long laboured in vain to bring about an Accommodation between the East and the West, had at last, soon after his Promotion to the See of Constantinople, the Satisfaction of seeing his pious Endeavours crowned with Success, as I shall relate in a more proper Place.
[Sidenote: No Regard paid by the Eastern Bishops to the Judgment of the Pope.]
From this whole Account it is manifest, as the Reader must have observed, that the Orientals paid no manner of Regard either to the Judgment of the Bishop of Rome, or to that of the whole Body of the Western Bishops, assembled in Council under him. For though they well knew the Bishop of Rome, and his Collegues in the West, to be warmly engaged in favour of Paulinus, yet they refused to acknowlege him, even after the Death of Meletius; and therefore raised Flavianus to the See of Antioch, in the room of Meletius, and confirmed that Election in an Oecumenical Council. The Western Bishops exclaimed against it, desiring it might be referred to the Decision of a General Council. But not even to that Demand would the Orientals agree, thinking, as they declared in their Answer, that there was no Occasion for a Council, since Flavianus had been chosen and ordained by the Bishops of the Diocese, which was all the Canons of Nice required. They therefore exhorted them to divest themselves of all Prejudices, to sacrifice all private Affections to the Peace and Unity of the Church, and to put an End to the present, and prevent all future, Disputes, by approving, with their joint Suffrages, an Election which had been approved and confirmed by an Oecumenical Council[1187].
[Sidenote: The Custom of appointing Vicars introduced by Damasus, and on what Occasion.]
To return to Damasus: He was the first who introduced the Custom, which his Successors took care to improve, of conferring on certain Bishops the Title of their Vicars, pretending thereby to impart to them an extraordinary Power, enabling them to perform several Things, which they could not perform in virtue of their own. Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica was the first who enjoyed this Title, being, by Damasus, appointed his Vicar in East Illyricum, on the following Occasion: Illyricum, comprising all antient Greece, and many Provinces on the Danube, whereof Sirmium was the Capital, had, ever since the Time of Constantine, belonged to the Western Empire. But, in the Year 379. Dacia and Greece were, by Gratian, disjoined from the more Westerly Provinces, and added, in favour of Theodosius, to the Eastern Empire, being known by the Name of East Illyricum, whereof Thessalonica, the Metropolis of Macedon, was the chief City. The Bishops of Rome, as presiding in the Metropolis of the Empire, had begun to claim a kind of Jurisdiction, or rather Inspection in Ecclesiastical Matters, over all the Provinces of the Western Empire; which was the first great Step by which they ascended to the Supremacy they afterwards claimed and established. This Damasus was unwilling to resign with respect to Illyricum, even after that Country was dismembered from the Western, and added to the Eastern Empire. In order therefore to maintain his Claim, he appointed Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica to act in his stead, vesting in him the Power which he pretended to have over those Provinces. Upon the Death of Acholius he conferred the same Dignity on his Successor Anysius, as did the following Popes on the succeeding Bishops of Thessalonica, who, by thus supporting the Pretensions of Rome, became the first Bishops, and, in a manner, the Patriarchs, of East Illyricum; for they are sometimes distinguished with that Title. This, however, was not done without Opposition, the other Metropolitans not readily acknowleging for their Superior one who, till that time, had been their Equal[1188]. Syricius, who succeeded Damasus, inlarging the Power claimed by his Predecessor, decreed, that no Bishop should be ordained in East Illyricum without the Consent and Approbation of the Bishop of Thessalonica[1189]. But it was some time before this Decree took place. Pope Innocent I. writes, that his Predecessors committed to the Care of Acholius, Achaia, Thessaly, the Two Epirus’s, Candia, the Two Dacia’s, Mœsia, Dardania, and Prævalitana, now Part of Albania, impowering him to judge and decide the Controversies that might arise there, and appointing him to be the first among the Primates, without prejudicing the Primacy of those Churches[1190]. Thus were the Bishops of Thessalonica first appointed Vicars or Vicegerents of the Bishops of Rome, probably in the Year 382. for in that Year Acholius assisted at the Council of Rome, and it was, in all Likelihood, on that Occasion that Damasus vested him with this new Dignity. [Sidenote: The Institution of Vicars improved by the succeeding Popes.] The Contrivance of Damasus was notably improved by his Successors, who, in order to extend and inlarge their Authority, conferred the Title of their Vicars, and the pretended Power annexed to it, on the most eminent Prelates of other Provinces and Kingdoms, engaging them thereby to depend upon them, and to promote the Authority of their See, to the utter Suppression of the antient Rights and Liberties both of Bishops and Synods. This Dignity was for the most part annexed to certain Sees, but sometimes conferred on particular Persons. Thus was Austin appointed the Pope’s Vicar in England, Boniface in Germany; and both, in virtue of the Power which they pretended to have been imparted to them with that Title, usurped and exercised an Authority above that of Metropolitans. The Institution of Vicars was, by the succeeding Popes, improved into that of Legates, or, to use De Marca’s Expression, the latter Institution was grafted on the former[1191]. [Sidenote: Legates vested with greater Power than Vicars.] The Legates were vested with a far greater Power than the Vicars, or, as Pope Leo expresses it, were admitted to a far greater Share of his Care, though not to the Plenitude of his Power[1192]. They were sent on proper Occasions into all Countries, and never failed exerting, to the utmost Stretch, their boasted Power, oppressing, in virtue of their paramount Authority, the Clergy as well as the People, and extorting from both large Sums, to support the Pomp and Luxury in which they lived.
The Custom of appointing Vicars and Legates may well be alleged as a remarkable Instance of the Craft and Policy of the Popes, since, of all the Methods they ever devised (and many they have devised) to extend and establish their Power, none has better answered their ambitious Views. But how Bellarmine could lay so much Stress upon it as he does[1193], to prove, that the Pope has, by Divine Right, a sovereign Authority and Jurisdiction over all the Churches of the Earth, is unconceivable. [Sidenote: The sending Legates no Proof of the Pope’s universal Jurisdiction.] For it is certain, beyond all Dispute, that such a Custom had never been heard of till the Time of Damasus, that is, till the Latter-end of the Fourth Century, when it was first introduced, upon the dismembering of East Illyricum, by Gratian, from the Western Empire. Damasus did not even then claim that sovereign and unlimited Power, with which Bellarmine is pleased to vest him, but only a kind of Inspection over the Provinces of the Western Empire, as Bishop of the first See. [Sidenote: The Disingenuity of Bellarmine.] And here I cannot help observing the Disingenuity of Bellarmine, who, in speaking of this Institution, expresses himself thus: Leo appointed Anastiasius Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicar in the East, in the same manner as the Predecessors of Anastasius had been Vicars to the Predecessors of Leo[1194]. From these Words every Reader would naturally conclude, and Bellarmine designs they should, that the Bishops of Thessalonica had been the Pope’s Vicars from the Beginning, or Time out of Mind; whereas it is certain, that this Institution had taken place but a few Years before. Pope Leo I. in conferring on Anastasius the Vicariate Dignity of his See, as he styles it, declared, that he followed therein the Example of his Predecessor Syricius[1195], who first appointed Anysius to act in his stead. But he was doubly mistaken; for these Vicars were first instituted, as is notorious, by Damasus, and not by Syricius; and it was not by Syricius, but by Damasus, that Anysius was vested with that Dignity[1196]. The Bishop of Thessalonica is styled, by the antient Writers, the Pope’s Vicar in East Illyricum, which is manifestly confining his Vicariate Jurisdiction to that District; but Bellarmine extends it at once all over the East, by distinguishing him with the Title of the Popes Vicar for the East[1197]. But how little Regard was paid to the Pope’s Authority in the East, I have sufficiently shewn above.
I find nothing else in the antient Writers concerning Damasus worthy of Notice, besides his generously undertaking the Defence of Symmachus, who, being Prefect of Rome in 384. the last Year of Damasus’s Life, and a sworn Enemy to the Christians, was falsly accused to the Emperor, as if he had with great Cruelty persecuted and oppressed them. But Damasus had the Generosity to take his Part, and clear him, by a Letter he writ to the Emperor, from that Charge[1198]. [Sidenote: Damasus dies.] This was one of the last Actions of Damasus’s Life; for he died this Year on the 10th or 11th of December, being then in the Eightieth Year of his Age, after he had governed the Church of Rome for the Space of Eighteen Years, and about Two Months[1199]. He was buried, according to Anastasius[1200], near his Mother and Sister, in a Church which he had built at the Catacombs, on the Way to Ardea; whence that Place, though Part of the Cœmetery of Calixtus, is by some called the Cœmetery of Damasus[1201]. He proposed at first being buried near the Remains of St. Sixtus, and his Companions; but afterwards changed his Mind, lest he should disturb the Ashes of the Saints[1202]. He caused the Church of St. Laurence, near the Theatre of Pompey, probably that which his Father and he himself had formerly served, to be rebuilt, inlarged, and embellished; Whence it is still known by the joint Titles of St. Laurence and Damasus[1203]. In that Church his Body is worshiped to this Day. But, how or when it was removed thither, nobody knows[1204]. [Sidenote: The Decrees ascribed to him suppositious.] Several Decrees are ascribed to Damasus by Gratian, Ivo of Chartres, Anastasius, and others, but all evidently forged by some Impostor blindly addicted to the See of Rome, and quite unacquainted with the Discipline of the Church in the Fourth Century. In one of them a Canon is quoted from the Council of Nice, forbidding the Laity to eat or drink of any thing that was offered to the holy Priests, because none but the Jewish Priests were allowed to eat of the Bread that was offered on the Altar. We know of no such Canon; and besides, it is not at all probable, that the Council of Nice would have restrained the Clergy from sharing at least with the Poor what was offered them. In another of these Decrees the Paying of Tythes is commanded, on pain of Excommunication; whereas it might be easily made appear, that, in the Fourth Century, the Offerings destined for the Maintenance of the Clergy were still voluntary. Another Decree supposes, that, by an antient Custom, all Metropolitans swore Fealty to the Apostolic See, and could ordain no Bishops till they had received the Pall from Rome. For the Sake of this, Baronius admits all the rest: but of such a Custom not the least Mention, or distant Hint, is to be met with in any antient Writer.
[Sidenote: His Writings in Prose and Verse.]
Damasus is ranked by Jerom[1205] among the Ecclesiastical Writers, on account of the many small Pieces he writ, chiefly in Verse; for he had a particular Genius for Poetry, and was no despicable Poet, if some Compositions ascribed to him were truly his. He writ several Books, both in Prose and Verse, in Commendation of Virginity; but neither that, nor any of his other Works, has reached our Times, besides some Letters, and a few Epitaphs, Inscriptions, and Epigrams, which have been carefully collected by Baronius[1206], though it may be justly questioned whether the several Pieces ascribed to him by that Writer were written by him. A short History of the first Popes, styled, The Pontifical of Damasus, and published together with the Councils, has long passed for the Work of Damasus; but now even Baronius owns it not to be his; and most Critics are of Opinion, that it was written after the Time of Gregory the Great; nay, some ascribe it to Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who flourished in the Ninth Century[1207]. As for his Letters, those to Aurelius of Carthage, to Stephen, styled, Archbishop of the Council of Mauritania, to Prosper Primate of Numidia, to the Bishops of Italy, are all spurious, as well as the Letters to which some of them are Answers, and supposed to have been forged by that notorious Impostor Isidorus Mercator[1208]. His genuine Letters are the Two, that are to be found among the Works of Jerom, to whom they were written; Two to Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica, published by Holstenius in his Collection of the antient Monuments of the Church of Rome[1209]; a Letter of great Length to Paulinus of Antioch, whereof the chief Heads are set down by Theodoret in his History, as are likewise those of his Letter to the Orientals concerning Timotheus, the favourite Disciple of Apollinaris. Several Letters from the Councils, that were held in Rome in his Time, and at which he presided, are still extant, and may well be ascribed to him. The Two Letters to Jerom are well worth perusing, being written in a pure, easy, and elegant Style, and with a great deal of Spirit, Vivacity, and even Gaiety, though Damasus was then much advanced in Years, and overburdened with Cares and Business[1210]. In one of them he declares, that his only Delight was to read the Scriptures; and that all other Books, however well written, gave him rather Disgust than Pleasure. Jerom returned to Rome from the East in 382. with Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis, and Paulinus of Antioch, to assist at the Council held there. [Sidenote: Jerom kept at Rome, and employed by him.] The other Two returned to their Sees; but Jerom continued at Rome, being kept there by Damasus, who employed him in answering the Letters he received from the Councils of several Churches applying to him for his Advice[1211]. Damasus, taken with his Learning and Erudition, and chiefly with the Knowlege he had of the Scripture, had long before lived in great Intimacy with him, and upon his leaving Rome writ frequent Letters to him, not thinking it beneath the Rank he held in the Church to consult him as his Master about the true Meaning of some difficult Passages in holy Writ[1212]. Thus in one of his Letters he desires him to explain the Parable of the Prodigal Son[1213], and in another to interpret the Word Hosanna, which he says was differently interpreted by different Writers, who seemed to contradict each other[1214]. In Compliance with this Request, Jerom writ the Piece on that Subject, which is still extant. It was likewise at the Desire of Damasus that he corrected the Latin Version of the New Testament, and revised at Rome the Latin Version of the Psalms, comparing it with the Greek Text of the Septuagint. But as to the Letter, with which Damasus is supposed to have encouraged him to undertake that Work, it is evidently supposititious, and altogether unworthy of him.
[Sidenote: Psalmody falsly ascribed to him.]
Anastasius ascribes to Damasus the Custom of Singing, instead of Reading, the Psalms at Divine Service[1215]. But it is manifest from Austin, that this Practice was brought from the East, and first complied with by the Church of Milan[1216], in the Year 386. that is, Two Years after the Death of Damasus. So long as Damasus lived, Jerom continued at Rome; but as, by his Learning and exemplary Life, he was an Eye-sore to the lewd, ignorant, and haughty Clergy of Rome, or as he styles them, the Senate of Pharisees[1217], he thought it adviseable to abandon the City upon the Death of his great Friend and Protector, and retire to Jerusalem, hoping to find there that Quiet and Tranquillity which he despaired of being able to enjoy while he dwelt with the Scarlet Whore[1218], that is, while he lived at Rome. [Sidenote: His Character.] As for the Character of Damasus; Jerom styles him, a Virgin Doctor of the Virgin Church; and, in his Letter to Eustochium, a Man of great Excellence. Theodoret commends him as a Man of a holy Life, as one who declined no Fatigue or Labour to support and maintain the Doctrine of the Apostles, and who struck the Arians with Terror, though he attacked them at a Distance[1219]. Elsewhere he calls him the famous Damasus[1220], and places him at the Head of the most celebrated Teachers of Truth, who, till his Time, had appeared in the West[1221]. That Greek Writer could not be biassed in his Favour, though Jerom perhaps was. The Orientals declared, in 431. that they followed the Example of Damasus, and other Persons eminent for Learning[1222]; and the Council of Chalcedon, speaking of his Letter to Paulinus of Antioch, styles him the Honour and Glory of Rome for Piety and Justice[1223]. The Church of Rome honours him as a Saint, and his Festival is kept in some Places on the 10th, in others on the 11th of December. But, after all, that he got the Pontificate by the most horrible Violence and Bloodshed; that he lived in great State; that he had frequent and grand Entertainments; that he kept a Table, which, in Sumptuousness, vied with the Tables of the Emperors themselves; and all this at the Expence of the Roman Ladies, whose generous Contributions might have been applied to better Uses; is affirmed by contemporary and unexceptionable Writers. It is likewise manifest from the Letters of Jerom, that in his Time the Discipline of the Church was greatly relaxed; that the Observance of the primitive Canons was almost utterly neglected; and that Luxury, Ignorance, and Debauchery, universally prevailed among the Ecclesiastics at Rome. And this Charge against his Clergy in some degree recoils upon him, since he appears to have carried the Papal Authority farther than any of his Predecessors, and therefore might have restrained and corrected them. Whether his Sanctity may not from all this be justly questioned, notwithstanding the favourable Testimony of some antient Writers, I leave the Reader to judge.
-----
Footnote 977:
Anast. c. 38.
Footnote 978:
Bar. 384. 16. in appar. ad annal.
Footnote 979:
Boll. 21 Feb. p. 244.
Footnote 980:
Marcell. & Faust. p. 3.
Footnote 981:
Id. p. 3-5.
Footnote 982:
Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 60. & ad ann. 367. n. 8.
Footnote 983:
Id. ad ann. 359. n. 48.
Footnote 984:
Marc. & Faust. p. 18. 100. 103. Gennad. c. 16.
Footnote 985:
Marc. & Faust. p. 5, 6.
Footnote 986:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 8.
Footnote 987:
Ibid. p. 68, 69. 71.
Footnote 988:
Amb. ep. 11. tom. 5.
Footnote 989:
Hier. chron.
Footnote 990:
Socr. l. 4. c. 24.
Footnote 991:
Ruff. l. 2. c. 10.
Footnote 992:
Marc. & Faust. p. 5, 6.
Footnote 993:
Id. p. 6, 7.
Footnote 994:
Ruff. l. 2. c. 10.
Footnote 995:
Ammian. Mar. l. 27. p. 337.
Footnote 996:
Hier. chron.
Footnote 997:
Ammian. ib.
Footnote 998:
Marc. & Faust. p. 9.
Footnote 999:
Hier. ep. 5. t. 2.
Footnote 1000:
Hier. ep. 49.
Footnote 1001:
Ruf. l. 2. c. 20.
Footnote 1002:
Ammian. l. 27. p. 337.
Footnote 1003:
Idem ib. p. 337, 338.
Footnote 1004:
Hier. ep. 61. t. 2.
Footnote 1005:
Aug. ep. 86. Bar. ann. 367. n. 10.
Footnote 1006:
Marc. & Faust. p. 6-9.
Footnote 1007:
Vide Bar. ad ann. 368. n. 4.
Footnote 1008:
Marc. & Faust. p. 9, 10.
Footnote 1009:
Idem ib.
Footnote 1010:
Ammian. l. 27. p. 349.
Footnote 1011:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 80.
Footnote 1012:
Id. p. 81.
Footnote 1013:
Blond. Prim. p. 165.
Footnote 1014:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 80.
Footnote 1015:
Marc. & Faust. p. 10 Bar. ad ann. 368.
Footnote 1016:
Id. p. 10, 11.
Footnote 1017:
Vide Bar. ad ann. 368. n. 3.
Footnote 1018:
Marc. & Faust. p. 11, 12.
Footnote 1019:
Ath. ad Afr. p. 931.
Footnote 1020:
Id. ib. p. 931-941.
Footnote 1021:
Cod. Theod. 16. t. 2 l. 20 p. 48.
Footnote 1022:
Hier. ep. 2. p. 13.
Footnote 1023:
Amb. ep. 12. t. 5. p. 200.
Footnote 1024:
Hier. ep. 22.
Footnote 1025:
Id. ep. 3.
Footnote 1026:
Id. ep. 2.
Footnote 1027:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1028:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1029:
Bar. ad ann. 370. n. 118.
Footnote 1030:
Vide Cod. Theod. t. 6. p. 50.
Footnote 1031:
Cod. Theod. nov. 16. t. 2. l. 22. p. 50.
Footnote 1032:
Socr. l. 4. c. 15. Soz. l. 6. c. 13. Theod. l. 4. c. 21. Naz. or. 20.
Footnote 1033:
Socr. l. 2. c. 45. Theod. l. 2. c. 27. ep. 73. c. 28. Hier. chron.
Footnote 1034:
Soz. l. 4. c. 28.
Footnote 1035:
Chrys. or. 45.
Footnote 1036:
Chrys. ib. Epiph. c. 38. Soz. l. 4. c. 28. Theod. l. 2. c. 27. Philost. l. 5. c. 5.
Footnote 1037:
Socr. l. 2. c. 44. Theod. l. 3. c. 12.
Footnote 1038:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 20. Socr. l. 3. c. 6.
Footnote 1039:
Bar. ad ann. 362. n. 180.
Footnote 1040:
Id. ib. n. 206.
Footnote 1041:
Athan. de Ant. p. 574-577.
Footnote 1042:
Hier. chron.
Footnote 1043:
Ath. ep. ad Solit. & de Antioch. Eccl. p. 580.
Footnote 1044:
Ruf. l. i. c. 27. Theod. l. 3. c. 2.
Footnote 1045:
Id. ib. c. 30.
Footnote 1046:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1047:
Id. ib. Theod. l. 3. c. 2.
Footnote 1048:
Basil. ep. 320.
Footnote 1049:
Id. ep. 2. 73.
Footnote 1050:
Id. ep. 250.
Footnote 1051:
Id. ep. 321.
Footnote 1052:
Id. ep. 8.
Footnote 1053:
Id. ep. 10.
Footnote 1054:
Hom. Il. 9. ver. 694.
Footnote 1055:
Basil. ep. 10.
Footnote 1056:
Cod. Theod. 9. t. 29. l. 1. p. 221.
Footnote 1057:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 91.
Footnote 1058:
Marc. & Faust. p. 65-69.
Footnote 1059:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1060:
Basil. ep. 293. Epiph. 77. c. 24. Hier. vir. ill. c. 104.
Footnote 1061:
Suidas, p. 273.
Footnote 1062:
Soz. l. 6. c. 25.
Footnote 1063:
Nil. l. 1. ep. 257.
Footnote 1064:
Basil. ep. 82.
Footnote 1065:
Hier. ep. 65.
Footnote 1066:
Soz. l. 5. c. 18.
Footnote 1067:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1068:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1069:
Voss. poet. Græc. c. 9. p. 76. Baillet. t. 6. p. 453. 455.
Footnote 1070:
Soz. l. 6. c. 25.
Footnote 1071:
Naz. or. 52. p. 745.
Footnote 1072:
Epiph. 77. c. 23. Theod. hær. 4. c. 8. Ath. de incar. p. 615. Nem. l. 1. p. 710. Naz. orat. 46. p. 722.
Footnote 1073:
Aug. in Jo. hom. 47.
Footnote 1074:
Naz. or. 52. p. 749.
Footnote 1075:
Nys. in Apol. l. 2. p. 47. Naz. car. 146.
Footnote 1076:
Athan. ad Epiph. 582. Aug. pers. c. 24. & hær. 55. Theod. l. 5. c. 3. Naz. or. 51.
Footnote 1077:
Ath. ib. p. 583. Naz. or. 46. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257. Theod. l. 5. c. 3.
Footnote 1078:
Leont. p. 1031.
Footnote 1079:
Id. p. 1032.
Footnote 1080:
Id. p. 1035.
Footnote 1081:
Id. p. 1042.
Footnote 1082:
Ep. 77. c. 20. Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Soz. l. 6. c. 25. Chron. Alex. p. 688.
Footnote 1083:
Epiph. 77. c. 20. Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Naz. or. 52.
Footnote 1084:
Vet. Rom. eccles. mon. collect. p. 181.
Footnote 1085:
Ib. p. 180. & Theod. l. 5. c. 10.
Footnote 1086:
Conc. t. 4. p. 826.
Footnote 1087:
Naz. or. 51.
Footnote 1088:
Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Facund. l. 4. c. 2.
Footnote 1089:
Nil. ep. 257.
Footnote 1090:
Basil. ep. 293. Epiph. 77. c. 34.
Footnote 1091:
Epiph. 66. c. 20. 77. c. 2.
Footnote 1092:
Basil. ep. 293. Soz. l. 6. c. 25.
Footnote 1093:
Basil. ib.
Footnote 1094:
Naz. or. 46, & 5. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257.
Footnote 1095:
Basil. ep. 74.
Footnote 1096:
Id. ep. 74.
Footnote 1097:
Ruff. l. 2. c. 20. Soz. l. 6. c. 25.
Footnote 1098:
Ruff. ib. Theod. p. 719. Concil. t. 5. p. 741. Leon. Sulp. p. 1042. Phot. p. 231.
Footnote 1099:
Greg. Naz. or. 52.
Footnote 1100:
Ruff. ib.
Footnote 1101:
Martyrol. Rom. 22 Feb.
Footnote 1102:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 33.
Footnote 1103:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1104:
Revel. c. xx.
Footnote 1105:
Bar. ad ann. 118. n. 2. & 373. n. 14.
Footnote 1106:
Ruf. l. 2. c. 20.
Footnote 1107:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 99. Prædestinat. de hæres. c. 55.
Footnote 1108:
Naz. ep. 77.
Footnote 1109:
Cod. Theod. 16. t. 5. l. 14. p. 130.
Footnote 1110:
Soz. l. 6. c. 26.
Footnote 1111:
Theod. l. 5. c. 3.
Footnote 1112:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1113:
Leo, ep. 134. c. 2. Pet. dog. t. 4. p. 24.
Footnote 1114:
Conc. t. 4. p. 886, 887.
Footnote 1115:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 104. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257. Greg. Nyss. in Eph. t. 3. p. 609.
Footnote 1116:
Amb. ep. 4.
Footnote 1117:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 82. 92.
Footnote 1118:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 84-92.
Footnote 1119:
Ib. p. 82-93.
Footnote 1120:
Opt. l. 2. p. 49. Aug. de Unit. c. 3. t. 7. & ep. Hier. 165. chron.
Footnote 1121:
Opt. l. 2. p. 49.
Footnote 1122:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 83, 84.
Footnote 1123:
Ibid. p. 85-87.
Footnote 1124:
Ibid. p. 87-89.
Footnote 1125:
Ibid. p. 90, 91.
Footnote 1126:
Bellar. de summ. Pont. l. 4. c. 24. Aug. Triumph. de potest. Eccles. in præf. ad Joh. XXII. Concil. Later. sub Leone X.
Footnote 1127:
Grat. dist. 40. c. 6.
Footnote 1128:
Bonif. VIII. in ap. ad Mart. Polon. & Conc. Vienn. p. 909.
Footnote 1129:
Pius V. in Bull. apud Cam. ad ann. 1570.
Footnote 1130:
Sixt. V. in Bull. contr. Hen. Navar.
Footnote 1131:
Bonif. VIII. extrav. com. l. 1. tit. 8. c. 1.
Footnote 1132:
Bellar. ap. p. 202.
Footnote 1133:
Amb. ep. 4.
Footnote 1134:
Anast. c. 38.
Footnote 1135:
Cod. Theod. ch. p. 104.
Footnote 1136:
Amb. ib.
Footnote 1137:
Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 9. Concil. t. 2. p. 947.
Footnote 1138:
Concil. ib.
Footnote 1139:
Zon. in can. p. 70. 72.
Footnote 1140:
Concil. t. 4. p. 795-798.
Footnote 1141:
Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 37, 38.
Footnote 1142:
Concil. t. 4. p. 826.
Footnote 1143:
Leo, ep. 53. c. 5.
Footnote 1144:
Greg. 5. ep. 31.
Footnote 1145:
Theod. l. 5. c. 9.
Footnote 1146:
Conc. t. 4. p. 945.
Footnote 1147:
Conc. t. 4. p. 809. Marca de concord. sacerd. & imp. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 1148:
Lup. ep. 53. c. 5.
Footnote 1149:
Greg. l. 6. ep. 31.
Footnote 1150:
Id. l. 1. ep. 24.
Footnote 1151:
Theod. l. 5. c. 6. Naz. or. 14. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7.
Footnote 1152:
Ep. syn. conc. t. 1. p. 872.
Footnote 1153:
Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 20.
Footnote 1154:
Id. ib. n. 19.
Footnote 1155:
Lup. notæ in can. 1, 2. p. 74.
Footnote 1156:
Vide Bar. ad ann. 281. n. 37.
Footnote 1157:
Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7.
Footnote 1158:
Theod. l. 5. c. 2. 6, & 7.
Footnote 1159:
Nyss. de Mel. p. 587.
Footnote 1160:
Id. ib. p. 589. & Naz. car. 1. p. 27.
Footnote 1161:
Vide Lup. t. 1. p. 275.
Footnote 1162:
Theod. l. 5. c. 6.
Footnote 1163:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 76, 77.
Footnote 1164:
Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3.
Footnote 1165:
Naz. car. 1. p. 24-26.
Footnote 1166:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1167:
Id. ib. p. 27.
Footnote 1168:
Vide Theod. l. 5. c. 9. & Cod. Theod. ap. p. 164.
Footnote 1169:
Naz. ep. 15.
Footnote 1170:
Id. or. 32.
Footnote 1171:
Theod. l. 5. c. 8. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Ruff. l. 2. c. 21. Soz. l. 7. c. 8, & 10.
Footnote 1172:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 75-78. Theodor. l. 5. c. 9.
Footnote 1173:
Theodor. l. 5. c. 9.
Footnote 1174:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 103-107.
Footnote 1175:
Naz. or. 23. & car. 148.
Footnote 1176:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1177:
Id. car. 1. p. 14, 15. & or. 28.
Footnote 1178:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 104-107.
Footnote 1179:
Vide Holsten. coll. vet. Rom. eccles. monument. p. 37-40.
Footnote 1180:
Cod. Theod. ap. p. 99-101.
Footnote 1181:
Hier. ep. 27. Theod. l. 5. c. 9.
Footnote 1182:
Hier. ep. 16. Theodor. l. 5. c. 9. Ambr. ep. 22.
Footnote 1183:
Soz. l. 7. c. 11. Holst. coll. t. 2. p. 37. Ruf. de orig. lib. adulter. p. 197.
Footnote 1184:
Theodor. l. 5. c. 23. Socr. l. 5. c. 10.
Footnote 1185:
Mercat. opera, t. 2. p. 86. n. 5.
Footnote 1186:
Soz. l. 7. c. 11. Theodor. l. 5. c. 23.
Footnote 1187:
Theodor. l. 5. c. 8.
Footnote 1188:
Vide Christ. Lup. de Rom. Apell. p. 627, 628.
Footnote 1189:
Coll. Rom. Holsten. p. 43.
Footnote 1190:
Ibid. p. 48, 49.
Footnote 1191:
De Marc. concord. sacerd. & imp. l. 6. c. 5.
Footnote 1192:
Leo, ep. 48.
Footnote 1193:
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 20.
Footnote 1194:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1195:
Coll. Rom. Holsten. p. 145.
Footnote 1196:
Ibid. p. 46-49.
Footnote 1197:
Bell. ib.
Footnote 1198:
Sym. l. 10 ep. 34.
Footnote 1199:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 103.
Footnote 1200:
Anast. c. 38.
Footnote 1201:
Aring. l. 3. c. 12. n. 16.
Footnote 1202:
Vide Bar. in app. ann. 384. n. 25.
Footnote 1203:
Front. cal. p. 50. Bar. ad ann. 384. n. 16.
Footnote 1204:
Aring. l. 3. c. 12.
Footnote 1205:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 103.
Footnote 1206:
Bar. ad ann. 584. n. 21.
Footnote 1207:
Bolland. propyl. p. 59.
Footnote 1208:
Id. ib. & Du Pin. Biblioth. p. 459.
Footnote 1209:
Holsten coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 37, & 180.
Footnote 1210:
Hier. ep. 124, & 144.
Footnote 1211:
Id. ep. 11. Ruff. de Orig. p. 197.
Footnote 1212:
Hier. ep. 144.
Footnote 1213:
Id. ep. 146.
Footnote 1214:
Id. ep. 144.
Footnote 1215:
Anast. c. 38.
Footnote 1216:
Aug. confess. l. 9. c. 7.
Footnote 1217:
Hier. in præf. version. Did. de Spir. Sanct.
Footnote 1218:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1219:
Theod. l. 5. c. 2. & l. 4. c. 27.
Footnote 1220:
Id. ep. 144.
Footnote 1221:
Id. ep. 145.
Footnote 1222:
Concil. t. 3. p. 740.
Footnote 1223:
Concil. t. 4. p. 82.
VALENTINIAN, SYRICIUS, ARCADIUS, THEODOSIUS, Thirty-seventh BISHOP of HONORIUS. Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 384. ]
Syricius, the Successor of Damasus, according to the Pontificals, and some antient Monuments quoted and received by Baronius[1224], was a Native of Rome, the Son of one Tiburtius, had been first Reader, and afterwards Deacon, under Liberius, and, upon his Death, had zealously espoused the Cause of Damasus against Ursinus and his Party. Damasus being dead, he was chosen in his room by the unanimous Acclamations of the whole Roman People, being at that time Presbyter of the Church known by the Title of the Pastor, perhaps the most antient Church in Rome[1225]. Ursinus, who was still alive, did not fail, upon the Vacancy of the See, to revive his former Claim; but he was rejected with Scorn and Indignation. Valentinian the younger, who then reigned in Italy under the Direction of his Mother Justina, received the News of this Election with great Joy; and, concluding from the Unanimity of the Electors, the Worth and Merit of the Person elected, confirmed Syricius in his new Dignity, by a Rescript dated the 23d of February, and directed to Piaianus, at that Time either Prefect or Vicar of Rome[1226][N20].
-----
Footnote N20:
Damasus died on the 10th or 11th of December 384. as I have related above; and Syricius was chosen the same Year, as we read in the Chronicle of Prosper. Anastasius therefore, and the Author of the Pontifical published by Bollandus, as well as Baronius, were certainly mistaken in affirming, upon what Grounds I know not, that, upon the Death of Damasus, the See remained vacant for the Space of 31 or 36 Days[N20.1].
Footnote N20.1:
Anast. p. 21. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32. Bar. ib. n. 5.
-----
[Sidenote: His Answer to Himerius Bishop of Tarragon.]
The first Thing I read of Syricius is his answering a Letter or Relation which Himerius, Bishop of Tarragon in Spain, had sent to Damasus by Bassianus, a Presbyter of that Church, requiring the Advice of the Church of Rome concerning some Points of Discipline, and certain Abuses that prevailed in Spain. Damasus being dead before the Arrival of Bassianus, Syricius, who had succeeded him, caused this Relation or Letter to be read, and carefully examined, in an Assembly of his Brethren, that is, perhaps, of the Bishops who had assisted at his Ordination; and, having maturely weighed and considered every Article, he first acquainted Himerius with his Promotion, and then returned to each the following Answers[1227]. The First was concerning the Sacrament of Baptism, which was by some Bishops of Spain rejected as null and invalid, when conferred by an Arian Minister. In Opposition to them, Syricius alleges the Authority of Liberius, and of the Council of Nice, the Practice of the Church of Rome, and that of all other Churches both in the East and West[1228]. Isidorus of Seville takes particular notice of this Point of Discipline, which he says was established by the Letter of Syricius[1229]. By the Second Article he forbids the Sacrament of Baptism to be administred at Christmas, or the Epiphany, on the Feasts of the Apostles or Martyrs, or at any other Time but Easter, and during the Pentecost of that Festival, meaning, in all Likelihood, all Easter time, or the Fifty Days between Easter and Pentecost, or Whitsuntide; for such, adds he, is the Practice of the Church of Rome, and of all other Churches. From this Rule, however, he excepts Children, and all Persons, who are any-ways in Danger[1230]. By the Third Article, he forbids granting the Grace of Reconciliation to Apostates, that is, forgiving and readmitting them to the Communion of the Church, except at the Point of Death[1231]. By the Fourth, a Woman, who, being betrothed to one Man, has received the Priest’s Blessing to marry him, is debarred from marrying another. The Fifth Article commands all Persons, who, being guilty of a Crime, have performed Penance for it, to be treated as the Apostates, if they relapse into the same Crime; and the Sixth, all religious Persons, whether Men or Women, guilty of Fornication, to be dealt with in the same Manner, and, moreover, to be excluded from partaking of the sacred Mysteries, that is, of the Eucharist, except at the Point of Death[1232]. How different is the present Practice of the Church of Rome from that of the same Church in the Fourth Century! which was perhaps even too severe.
[Sidenote: Priests and Deacons obliged to observe Celibacy.]
Syricius, by the Seventh Article of his Letter, obliges all Priests and Deacons to observe Celibacy; and as some had not paid due Obedience to that Command of the Church, he allows those who should acknowlege their Fault, and plead Ignorance, to continue in their Rank, though without Hopes of rising: but as for those who should presume to defend this Abuse as lawful, he declares them deposed and degraded from the Rank they held in the Church[1233]: Pope Innocent I. writing to Exuperius Bishop of Toulouse, quotes and transcribes great Part of this Article[1234]. The Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Articles describe at length the Life which those ought to have led, who are raised by the Clergy and People to the Episcopal Dignity, and the Steps or Degrees by which they should ascend to it. They ought first to have been Readers; at the Age of Thirty, Acolytes, Subdeacons, and Deacons; Five Years after, Presbyters; and in that Degree they were to continue Ten Years before they could be chosen Bishops. Those who had been married to Two Wives, or to a Widow, are absolutely excluded from ever sitting in the Episcopal See. Even the Lectors are forbidden, on pain of Deposition, to marry twice, or to marry a Widow[1235]. These, and several other less important Regulations, Syricius delivers as general Rules to be inviolably observed by all Churches, often declaring, that those who do not readily comply with them shall be separated from his Communion by the Sentence of a Synod, and strictly injoining the chief Prelates of each Province to take care they be punctually observed within the Bounds of their respective Jurisdictions, on Pain of being deposed, and treated as they deserve. He therefore desires Himerius to notify his Letter, not only to all the Bishops of his Diocese or Province, but likewise to those of Carthagena, Bætica, Lusitania, Galicia, and to all the neighbouring Bishops, meaning perhaps those of Gaul; for Innocent I. supposes the Decrees of his Predecessor Syricius to be known to Exuperius of Toulouse[1236]; and in all Likelihood they were so to others in that Country.
This Letter is the First of all the Decretals acknowleged, by the Learned, to be genuine, and likewise the First in all the antient Collections of the Canons of the Latin Church. It is quoted by Innocent I. and Isidore of Seville, and is the only Letter of the many ascribed to Syricius, that Dionysius Exiguus has inserted in his Collection. It is to be found in Father Quesnel’s Roman Code[1237]; and Cresconius quotes no other Decrees of Syricius but what are taken from this Letter. It is dated the Third of the Ides of February, that is, the Eleventh of that Month 385. Arcadius and Bauto being Consuls[N21].
-----
Footnote N21:
The Jesuit Papebrok highly extols this Letter[N21.1], but, at the same time, does not think it quite pure and genuine, because the Date, says he, has been added to it; for the other Letters of Syricius, and likewise those of his Predecessors, bear no Date. But can we conclude from thence, that they never had any? Some of the Letters of Innocent I. are dated, and some without a Date, and he admits both. The Transcribers contented themselves, for the most part, with copying the Body of the Letter, and neglected the rest. Papebrok adds, that the Date ought to have been expressed thus: Arcadio Aug. et Bautone viro clar. Conss. and not Arcadio et Bautone viris clarissimis, as it is in that Letter. But might not this Mistake be owing to the Ignorance of the Transcribers, who, finding, in the Original, only the Two Letters, V. C. which are to be met with in many antient Writings, set down viris clarissimis, instead of viro clarissimo? Papebrok must have observed the same Mistake in the Letter, which Pope Innocent I. writ to the Council of Milevum[N21.2], and which he allows to be altogether genuine. For Slips or Oversights of this Nature, hardly avoidable, no Piece ought to be condemned, or even suspected.
Footnote N21.1:
Bolland. prop. p. 58.
Footnote N21.2:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1289.
-----
[Sidenote: The Celibacy of the Clergy first proposed in the Council of Elvira.]
As Priests and Deacons are commanded, by the Seventh Article of this Letter, to abstain from Marriage, and this is the first Opportunity that has offered of mentioning the Celibacy of the Clergy, a short Digression on such a material Point of Discipline in the Church may not, perhaps, be unacceptable to the Reader. The laying of this heavy Burdens on the Shoulders of the Clergy, a Burden too heavy for most of them to bear, as Experience has shewn, was first moved in the Council of Elvira, held about the Year 300. according to the most probable Opinion; and, being warmly promoted by the celebrated Osius of Cordoua, and Felix of Acci, now Guadix in Andalusia, who presided at that Assembly, it passed into a Law; and all Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, were commanded, on Pain of Deposition; to abstain from Wives; and the begetting of Children. These are the very Words of the 33d Canon of that Council[1238]. That, till this time, the Clergy were allowed to marry, even in Spain, is manifest from the 65th Canon of the same Council, excluding from the Communion of the Church, even at the Point of Death, such Ecclesiastics, as, knowing their Wives to be guilty of Adultery, should not, upon the first Notice of their Crime, immediately turn them out of Doors[1239]. How long the 33d Canon continued in Vigour, is uncertain; nay, it may be questioned whether it ever took place: if it ever did, it was out of Date, or at least not generally observed by the Spanish Clergy, in the Time of Syricius, as evidently appears from the Words of his Letter, or Answer to Himerius of Tarragon. I said, by the Spanish Clergy, for no such Injunction had yet been laid on the Ecclesiastics of any other Country or Nation. About Fifteen Years after, was held the Council of Ancyra, in which it was decreed, That if any Deacon did not declare at his Ordination, that he designed to marry, he ought not to be allowed to marry after but might, if he made such a Declaration, because, in that Case, the Bishop tacitly consented to it. The Council of Neocæfarea, which assembled soon after that of Ancyra, and consisted, in great Part, of the same Bishops, commanded such Presbyters as married after their Ordination to be degraded. In the Year 325. was held the Council of Nice; and, in that great Assembly, it was moved, perhaps by Osius, who acted a chief Part there, that Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, should be debarred from all Commerce with the Wives they had married before their Ordination. But this Motion was warmly opposed by Paphnutius, who had himself ever led a chaste and single Life, and was one of the most eminent and illustrious Prelates, at that time, in the Church. He represented, that the Burden they proposed laying on the Clergy, was too heavy; that few had sufficient Strength to bear it; that the Women, thus abandoned by their Husbands, would be exposed to great Dangers; that Marriage was no Pollution, but, according to St. Paul, commendable; that those therefore, who were not married, when first admitted to the Sacerdotal Functions, should continue in that State; and such as were, should continue to live with their Wives. Thus Sozomen[1240], Socrates[1241], and Suidas[1242][N22].
-----
Footnote N22:
I am not unapprised, that this Account is rejected by Baronius[N22.1], and Bellarmine[N22.2], as fabulous; but, notwithstanding the Pains they have both taken to make it appear incredible, F. Lupus allows it to be true[N22.3], though a no less zealous Stickler for the Discipline of the Church of Rome than either of them. Ruffinus, I own, takes no Notice of this Transaction, as Valesius well observes. But has no true Transaction been, either wilfully or ignorantly, omitted by that Writer? Valesius well knows, that many have; and had he perused that Author with a little more Attention, he would not have so positively affirmed, that no one ever named Paphnutius among the Bishops of Egypt, who assisted at the Council of Nice, since he is named among them by Ruffinus, and with great Commendations[N22.4].
Footnote N22.1:
Bar. ad ann. 58. n. 21.
Footnote N22.2:
Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.
Footnote N22.3:
Lup. in can. p. 114.
Footnote N22.4:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 4.
-----
The Advice of Paphnutius was applauded by the whole Assembly, add the above-mentioned Historians, and the Point in Dispute was left undecided. In the Year 340. it was decreed, in the Council of Arles, that, no Man, incumbered with a Wife, should be admitted to Holy Orders, unless he promised, with his Wife’s Approbation and Consent, to abstain for ever from the conjugal Duty.
This is all I can find in the antient Records concerning the Continence or Celibacy of the Clergy, before the Time of Syricius. And hence it is manifest, that both Crichtonæus and Melanchthon were greatly mistaken; the former in affirming, which many have done after him, that Celibacy was first imposed upon the Clergy by Syricius[1243]; and the latter by confidently asserting, that Celibacy was not required of the Ministers of the Gospel by any Council, but by the Popes, in Opposition to all Councils and Synods[1244]. It must be owned, however, that this Law was not so generally observed before the Time of Syricius, as it was after. For it was not long after his Time before it became an established Point of Discipline in most of the Western Churches, not in virtue of his Letter, or of those which his Successors writ to the same Purpose, but because it was injoined by the Synods of each particular Nation. Thus it was established in Africa by the Council of Carthage in 390. in Gaul by one held at Orleans, by Two at Tours, and one at Agde; in Spain, by Three held at Toledo; in Germany, by the Councils of Aquisgranum, or Aix la Chapelle, of Worms, and of Mentz. We know of none in Britain: and that it did not even begin to take place here till the Arrival of Austin, in the Sixth Century, may be sufficiently proved from the Letters of that Monk to Gregory, and Gregory’s Answer to him; but of that more hereafter[N23].
-----
Footnote N23:
I cannot forbear taking notice here of an inexcusable Mistake in the Ecclesiastical History of England, by Nicolas Harpsfeld, Archdeacon of Canterbury, a Work in great Request abroad. That Writer tells us, that Restitutus Bishop of London assisted at the Council of Arles, and signed the above-mentioned Canon, forbidding a Man incumbered with a Wife to be admitted to Orders, unless he promised, with her Consent, to refrain from all Commerce with her after his Ordination. He leaves us to infer from thence, that this Canon was received in Britain[N23.1]. But surely Harpsfeld must never have seen either the Subscriptions, or the Acts of that Council. Had he seen the Subscriptions, he had hardly omitted Two British Bishops out of Three. For, besides the Name of Restitutus, I find among the Subscriptions, the Names of Adelphus de colonia Londinensium, that is, as is commonly believed, of Colchester, and of Hibernus of Eboracum, or York. Had he seen the Acts, he had never been guilty of such a gross Mistake as to ascribe the above-mentioned Canon to the Council of Arles, at which Restitutus assisted, since that Council was held against the Donatists of Africa, in the Year 314. and not the least Mention was made there of the Celibacy of the Clergy[N23.2]. The Second Council of Arles was held about Twenty-six Years after, and of that Council the said Canon is the Second.
Footnote N23.1:
Harp. Hist. Eccles. Anglican. p. 26.
Footnote N23.2:
Concil. t. 1. p. 1426-1429.
-----
[Sidenote: The present Practice of the Church of Rome, with respect to this Point.]
As to the present Practice and Doctrine of the Church of Rome, with respect to this, in their Opinion, most essential Point of Ecclesiastical Discipline, no Man is allowed, after his Ordination, to marry, or to cohabit with the Wife he had married before: nay, in order to prevent all possible means even of any clandestine Commerce between them, the Woman must, by a solemn Vow of Chastity, renounce all Claims on her Husband, and, retiring into a Monastery, bind herself by a second Vow to continue there, without ever once going out, on any Pretence whatsoever, so long as her Husband lives, who cannot be admitted so much as to the Rank of a Subdeacon, till she is secured by these TWO VOWS. Such is the present Practice of the Church of Rome, though Subdeacons were allowed to marry long after the Time of Syricius, who, in his Letter, mentions only Deacons and Presbyters, and does not even oblige them to part with their Wives, but only excludes them from rising to a higher Degree in the Church. Pope Leo the Great, chosen in 440. was the first who extended the Law of Celibacy to the Subdeacons, commanding them, in a Letter, which he writ about the Year 442. to Rusticus Bishop of Narbonne, to abstain, as well as the Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops, from all Commerce with their Wives. But this Law was observed by very few Churches. In the Time of Pope Gregory the Great, that is, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, it had not yet taken place, even in Sicily, though reckoned among the Suburbicarian Provinces: it was first introduced into that Island by him; but he allowed those to cohabit with their Wives, who had been ordained without a previous Promise to live continent, though he would not suffer them to be raised to a higher Degree without such a Promise. Bellarmine[1245], and the other Divines of the Church of Rome, to soften the Odium, which the hard, and commonly impracticable Command she lays on her Clergy, must reflect on her, represent Continency as a Virtue to be easily acquired. Their Ascetics seem better acquainted with the Difficulties and Struggles attending the Practice of that Virtue, than their Divines; for they prescribe, as the sole Means of attaining it, constant Prayer, frequent Fasting, macerating the rebelling Flesh with all kinds of Austerities, and principally the avoiding of all Female Company. And, if these be the sole Means of attaining it, I leave the Reader to judge how few of their Clergy do attain it.
[Sidenote: In the primitive Church, married and unmarried Men raised indiscriminately to Ecclesiastical Dignities.]
No one is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that in the Three first Centuries of the Christian Religion, married and unmarried Men were indiscriminately raised to the Episcopal, and every other Ecclesiastical Dignity; nay, Jerom writes, that in his Time, that is, in the Fourth Century, the former were, the most part, preferred to the latter, not in regard of their greater Merit, but because, in such Elections, the unmarried Men were outnumbered by the married, who chose to be governed by one in their own Station of Life[1246]. It is hence manifest, that Marriage was not thought, in Jerom’s Time, inconsistent with, or any Bar to, the Episcopal Dignity. And why should it? since, excepting St. John, the Apostles themselves were all married, as we are told, in express Terms, by Ignatius the Martyr[1247], who was their Contemporary and Disciple, and whose Authority ought, on that Consideration, to be of greater Weight than that of all the other Fathers together. But such of the primitive Clergy, says Bellarmine[1248], as were married before their Ordination, abstained ever after from the Use of Matrimony: let our Adversaries produce, if they can, but a single Evidence of a Presbyter or Bishop’s having any Commerce with their Wives. It lies upon him to shew they had not. We know nothing to the contrary, and therefore may well suppose, that, pursuant to the Advice given by the Apostle to all Husbands and Wives, they came together after Ordination as they did before, lest Satan should tempt them for their Incontinency.
[Sidenote: Celibacy recommended by the Fathers:]
The Fathers, it is true, out of a mistaken Notion of an extraordinary Merit attending Celibacy in this Life, and an extraordinary Reward reserved for it in the other, began very early to recommend it to Persons of all Ranks and Stations, but more especially to the Clergy, as the principal Excellence and Perfection of a Christian. By their Exhortations, and the Praises they were constantly bestowing on Virginity, Celibacy, and Continence, many among the Clergy, and even some of the Laity, were wrought up to such a Pitch of Enthusiasm, as to mutilate themselves, thinking they could by no other means be sufficiently qualified for the unnatural, but meritorious, State of Celibacy. And, what is very surprising, this Practice became so common in the End of the Third, and the Beginning of the Fourth, Century, that the Fathers of Nice were obliged to restrain it by a particular Canon. They enacted one accordingly, excluding for ever from the Priesthood, such as should make themselves Eunuchs, the Preservation of their Life or Health not requiring such a Mutilation. By the same Canon they deposed and degraded all, who should thus maim themselves after their Ordination[1249]. But tho’ the Fathers warmly recommended Celibacy to the unmarried Clergy, and Continence to the Married, neither was looked upon as an Obligation, till late in the Fourth Century, and not even then in all Places; for Epiphanius, who lived till the Beginning of the Fifth, writes, that though Men still begetting Children were excluded by the Ecclesiastical Canons from every Dignity and Degree in the Church, yet they were in some Places admitted as Subdeacons, Deacons, and Presbyters, because those Canons were not yet universally observed[1250]; so that, according to Epiphanius, it was not by the Apostles [Sidenote: never injoined by the Apostles:] (as the Divines of the Church of Rome pretend), but by the Ecclesiastical Canons, that this Obligation was laid on the Clergy; and, in his Time, those Canons were not yet universally complied with, nor indeed many Ages after: nay, in the Greek Church, the Clergy are to this Day allowed to cohabit with the Wives they married before their Ordination; and, in this Kingdom, Celibacy was not universally established till after the Conquest, as I shall have Occasion to shew in the Sequel of the present History.
[Sidenote: deemed by Pagans the highest Degree of Sanctity.]
The abstaining from lawful, as well as unlawful Pleasures, was deemed, by the antient Pagans, especially in the East, the highest Degree of Sanctity and Perfection. Hence some of their Priests, in Compliance with this Notion, and to recommend themselves to the Esteem of the People, did not only profess, promise, and vow an eternal Abstinence from all Pleasures of that Nature, as those of the Church of Rome do, but put it out of their Power ever to enjoy them. Thus the Priests of Cybele by becoming Priests ceased to be Men, to borrow the Expression of Jerom; and the Hierophantes, who were the first Ministers of Religion among the Athenians, rendered themselves equally incapable of transgressing the Vows they had made, by constantly drinking the cold Juice of Hemlock[1251]. A Stoic, called Cheremon, introduced by Jerom to describe the Lives of the Egyptian Priests, tells us, among other things, that, from the time they addicted themselves to the Service of the Gods, they renounced all Intercourse and Commerce with Women; and, the better to conquer their natural Inclinations, abstained altogether from Meat and Wine. Several other Instances might be alleged to shew, that Celibacy was embraced and practised by the Pagan Priests, long before the Birth of the Christian Religion; and, consequently, that it was not Religion, but Superstition, that first laid the Priesthood under such an Obligation. The Church of Rome has borrowed, as is notorious, several Ceremonies, Customs, and Practices of the Pagans, and perhaps the Celibacy of the Priesthood among the rest: I say, perhaps, because it might have been suggested to her by the same Spirit of Superstition that suggested it to them: for where-ever the same Spirit prevails, it will ever operate in the same manner, and be attended with the same, or the like Effects. Thus we find the same Austerities practised by the Pagans in the East-Indies, and other idolatrous Nations, that are practised and recommended by the Church of Rome; and yet no Man can imagine those Austerities to have been by either borrowed of the other. There is almost an intire Conformity between the Laws, Discipline, and Hierarchy of the antient Druids, and the present Roman-Catholic Clergy; nay, the latter claim the very same Privileges, Prerogatives, and Exemptions, as were claimed and enjoyed by the former[1252]: and yet we cannot well suppose them to have been guided therein by their Example. Celibacy was discountenanced by the Romans, who nevertheless had their Vestals, instituted by their Second King at a time when, the new City being yet thinly inhabited, Marriage ought in both Sexes to have been most encouraged: and the same Spirit, which suggested to that superstitious Prince the Institution of the Vestals, suggested the like Institutions to other Pagan Nations, and to the Church of Rome that of so many different Orders of Nuns.
How much better had the Church of Rome consulted her own Reputation, had she either, in Opposition to the Pagan Priesthood, allowed her Clergy the Use of Matrimony, or, by a more perfect Imitation of their Discipline, with the Law of Celibacy, prescribed the like Methods of observing it! How many Enormities had been prevented by either of these Means, the World knows. But none of her Clergy have the Observance of their Vows so much at Heart as to imitate either the Athenian or the Egyptian Priests: and as for those of Cybele, they are so far from conforming to their Practice, that a Law subjecting them to it has kept them out of Protestant Kingdoms, when the Fear of Death could not.
[Sidenote: The Celibacy of the Clergy a bad Institution.]
If every Law or Institution is to be judged good or evil, according to the Good and Evil attending them, it is by daily Experience but too manifest, that the forced Celibacy of the Clergy ought to be deemed of all Institutions the very worst. Indeed all sensible Men of that Church know and lament the innumerable Evils which the Celibacy of her Clergy occasions, and must always occasion, in spite of all Remedies that can be applied to it. But she finds one Advantage in it, which, in her Eyes, makes more than sufficient Amends for all those Evils, viz. her ingrossing by that means to herself all the Thoughts and Attention of her Clergy, which, were they allowed to marry, would be divided between her and their Families, and each of them would have a separate Interest from that of the Church. Several Customs and Practices, once warmly espoused by that Church, have, in Process of Time, been abrogated, and quite laid aside, on account of the Inconveniences attending them; and this, which long Experience has shewn to be attended with more pernicious Consequences than any other, had, but for that political View, been likewise abolished.
[Sidenote: Another Letter of Syricius.]
Another Letter, universally ascribed to Syricius, has reached our Times. It is written in a very perplexed and obscure Style; bears no Date; is not to be found either in Dionysius Exiguus, or any antient Code; and is addressed to all the Orthodox dwelling in different Provinces[1253]: which is manifestly a Mistake, since Syricius desires those, to whom it is addressed, to confirm it with their Subscriptions, which cannot be understood but of Bishops. However, as it is received by all as genuine, I shall not take upon me to reject it as spurious. The Subject of this Letter is the Ordination of the Ministers of the Church; and the First Article is against those who pretend to pass from the Vanities of the World to the Episcopal Dignity. Syricius writes, that they came often to him, attended with numerous Retinues, begging him to ordain them; but that they had never been able to prevail upon him to grant them their Request. In the Second Article he complains of the Monks, who were constantly wandering about the Country, and on whom the Bishops chose rather to confer holy Orders, and the Episcopal Dignity itself, than to relieve them with Alms. The Third and last Article forbids a Layman or Neophyte to be ordained either Deacon or Presbyter. If this Letter be genuine, Syricius was the first Bishop of Rome who styled himself Pope, as Papebrok well observes[1254]; for the Title of his Letter, as transmitted to us, runs thus; Pope Syricius to the Orthodox, &c. The Word imports no more than Father, and it was antiently given, out of Respect, to all Bishops, as I have observed elsewhere; but I have found none before Syricius who distinguished themselves with that Title.
[Sidenote: Jerom retires from Rome.]
Jerom continued at Rome some Months after the Death of his great Patron Damasus. But, finding himself obnoxious to the Roman Clergy, for the Liberty he had taken in some of his Writings to censure their effeminate and licentious Lives, and, on the other hand, not being countenanced and supported by Syricius, as he had been by his Predecessor, he thought it adviseable to abandon that City, and return to Palæstine. Some pretend, but without sufficient Authority, that Syricius joined the rest in reviling and persecuting him.
[Sidenote: The Usurper Maximus writs to Syricius.]
Baronius has inserted, in his Annals[1255], a Letter from the Usurper Maximus, who reigned in Gaul; from which we learn, that Syricius had writ first to him, exhorting him to continue steady in the Catholic Faith, being, perhaps, apprehensive lest he should suffer himself to be imposed upon by the Priscillianists, who were very numerous in Gaul; and complaining to him of the undue Ordination of a Presbyter named Agricius. Maximus, in his Answer, pretends great Zeal for the true Faith, and promises to assemble the Bishops of Gaul, and of the Five Provinces, meaning Gallia Narbonensis, to examine the Affair of Agricius. He assures Syricius, that he has nothing so much at Heart as to maintain the Catholic Faith pure and uncorrupted; to see a perfect Harmony established among the Prelates of the Church, and to suppress the many Disorders which had prevailed at the Time of his Accession to the Empire, and would have soon proved incurable, had they been neglected. He adds, that many shocking Abominations of the Manichees, meaning no doubt the Priscillianists, had been discovered, not by groundless Conjectures and Surmises, but by their own Confession before the Magistrates, as Syricius might learn from the Acts. For Maximus caused the Ringleaders of that Sect to be put to Death this very Year, convicted before the Magistrates of the grossest Immoralities[N24]. These were Priscillian himself, Felicissimus, and Armenus, Two Ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his Doctrine; Asarinus and Aurelius, Two Deacons; Latronianus, or, as Jerom calls him, Matronianus, a Layman; and Enchrocia, the Widow of the Orator Delphidius, who had professed Eloquence in the City of Bourdeaux a few Years before. These were, by the Order of Maximus, all beheaded this Year at Treves. The rest of Priscillian’s Followers, whom they could discover and apprehend, were either banished or confined.
-----
Footnote N24:
The first Author of this Sect was one Mark, a Native of Memphis in Egypt, a famous Magician, and once a Follower of the Doctrine of the Manichees[N24.1]. From Egypt he travelled into Spain, where he had for his Disciples a Woman of Quality named Agapa, Elpidius the Rhetorician, and Agagius[N24.2]. Priscillian, of whom I shall speak hereafter, was the Disciple and Successor of the Two latter. Jerom tells us, upon the Authority of Irenæus, whom he quotes, that Mark passed from the Banks of the Rhone into Aquitaine,and from thence into Spain[N24.3]; which made Baronius write, that he first infected Gaul[N24.4]. But no such thing was ever affirmed by Irenæus; and besides, Jerom confounds the Sect of the Marcosians with that of the Priscillianists, and the Author of the former, who was contemporary with Irenæus, with the Author of the latter, who lived in the Fourth Century.
The Priscillianists broached no new Doctrine, but formed a new Sect, by adopting every impious Opinion that had been broached by others; whence their Sect is styled by Austin, the common Sink of all other Heresies[N24.5]. By their external Behaviour, which was extremely modest and composed, they gained many Followers, whom, by degrees, they let into the Abominations of their Sect; for there was no Lewdness which they did not encourage and practise, rejecting Matrimony for no other Reason, but because it confined a Man to one Woman, and a Woman to one Man[N24.6]. They held it no Crime to speak contrary to what they thought and believed, and to confirm with an Oath what they said when they were talking to People of a different Persuasion. This was one of their favourite Maxims, which above all others they took care to inculcate to their Proselytes, often repeating to them, and among themselves, the famous Verse;
Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli.
Swear, forswear, but never betray a Secret[N24.7].
Hence it was no easy Matter to discover them; for they mixed with the Orthodox at Divine Service, received the Sacraments of the Church, and disowned, with the most solemn Oaths, the Doctrine which they had been heard by many to utter and teach[N24.8]. To this Sect Priscillian, who gave Name to it, was gained by the above-mentioned Elpidius and Agagius. He was a Man of Birth and Fortune, being descended of an antient and illustrious Family in Spain, and is said to have been endowed with extraordinary Parts, and well versed in every Branch of Learning; so that many were induced by his Example to embrace the new Sect, and more by his Eloquence; for he had a particular Gift of speaking well, and gaining the Affections of all who heard him[N24.9]. Among his Followers were several Persons of the first Rank, both Men and Women, and even some Bishops, namely, Vegetinus, Symphosius, Instantius, and Salvianus, of whom the Two latter entered into an indissoluble League and Alliance with him[N24.10].
Footnote N24.1:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Isid. Hisp. de Scrip. Eccles. c. 2.
Footnote N24.2:
Id. ib.
Footnote N24.3:
Hier. ep. 29.
Footnote N24.4:
Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 113, 114.
Footnote N24.5:
Aug. hær. 70. p. 13.
Footnote N24.6:
Id. ib. & Leo, ep. 93.
Footnote N24.7:
Aug. ib. ep. 253. & ad Con. c. 2.
Footnote N24.8:
Id. ib.
Footnote N24.9:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Hier. in Isai. 64. p. 240.
Footnote N24.10:
Sulp. ib. p. 171. Concil. t. 1. p. 741.
-----
[Sidenote: They are honoured by their Followers as Saints and Martyrs.]
But these Severities served only to increase the Evil which they were employed to cure. The Bodies of Priscillian and of those who had suffered with him, were conveyed by their Friends and Adherents into Spain, and there interred with great Pomp and Solemnity;[Sidenote: Many embrace their Doctrine.] their Names were added to those of other Saints and Martyrs, their Firmness and Constancy extolled, and their Doctrine embraced by such Numbers of Proselytes, that it spread in a short time over all the Provinces between the Pyrenees and the Ocean[1256]. Symphosius, Metropolitan of Galicia, whom, after the Death of Priscillian, they looked upon as the chief Man and Head of their Sect, took care to fill all the vacant Sees in that Province with Bishops of his own Communion. Dictinius, whom he raised among the rest to that Dignity, is supposed by St. Austin[1257] to have been the Author of a Book, famous in those Times, styled Libra, or, the Pound[N25]. [Sidenote: Two of their leading Men renounce their Errors;] However, both he and Symphosius were afterwards convinced of their Errors; and, desiring thereupon to be reconciled with the Church, they undertook a Journey to Milan, in order to engage St. Ambrose, Bishop of that City, in their Favour. He received them with the greatest Marks of Kindness and Affection; and being satisfied with the Terms of Reconciliation, which they themselves proposed, and promised to observe, he writ in their Behalf to the Bishops of Spain, who, at his Request, admitted them to their Communion[1258][N26].
-----
Footnote N25:
It was so called because it contained Twelve Questions, as the Roman Pound did Twelve Ounces. In that Piece the Author endeavoured to prove, from the Practice of the Patriarchs, of the Prophets, Apostles, Angels, and of Christ himself, that a Lye could be no Crime, when uttered to conceal our Religion[N25.1].
Footnote N25.1:
Id. ib. c. 2, & 18.
Footnote N26:
That these two Bishops should have applied to St. Ambrose, and not to Syricius, is what Baronius cannot brook; and therefore to bring in, right or wrong, the Bishop of Rome, he quotes a Passage of the Council of Toledo, where the Fathers of that Assembly, speaking of the Letter which St. Ambrose had written in favour of Symphosius and Dictinius, adds the following Words in a Parenthesis; Which Things were likewise suggested by Pope Syricius, of holy Memory[N26.1]. But as these Words have no manner of Connection with the rest, it is manifest they have been foisted in on Purpose to bring Syricius upon the Stage; and were we to admit them as genuine, we could only conclude from thence, that Syricius too had written to the Bishops of Spain in behalf of Symphosius and Dictinius. Baronius indeed goes a great way farther; for he infers from the above-mentioned Words, that St. Ambrose acted by the Advice and Direction of Syricius; and from thence by a second Inference, which could occur to none but himself, that both Ambrose, and Simplicius, who succeeded him in the See of Milan, were the Pope’s Legates[N26.2]. It is by such far-fetched Inferences and Deductions that he endeavours, throughout his voluminous Performance, to mislead his unwary Readers into a Belief of the Pope’s Supremacy.
Footnote N26.1:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1230.
Footnote N26.2:
Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 54.
-----
[Sidenote: and are admitted to the Communion of the Church by the Council of Toledo.]
In the Year 438. of the Spanish, and 400. of the common Æra, a Council was held at Toledo; and, in the Presence of that Assembly, Symphosius, Dictinius, and Comasus, one of Symphosius’s Presbyters, solemnly abjured the Errors of Priscillian, anathematized the Doctrine, Sect, and Books of that Heretic, and readily signed the Confession of Faith which the Council had drawn up. Their Example was followed by Three other Bishops, viz. Paternus, Isonius, and Vegetinus, who were all admitted to the Communion of the Church, and even allowed to keep their Sees, though unduly preferred, on Condition the Bishops of Rome and Milan should consent thereto, and restore them to the Peace of the Church[1259]. From these Words, which are the very Words of the Council, it is manifest, first, that the Fathers, who composed that Assembly, were Strangers to the Bishop of Rome’s universal Jurisdiction; and, secondly, that the Bishop of Milan did not act, as Baronius pretends, on that Occasion as the Pope’s Legate. Their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop of Milan, besides that of the Bishop of Rome, sufficiently proves the one; and their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop of Rome, besides that of the Bishop of Milan, the other.
Four other Bishops, viz. Herenius, Donatus, Acurius, and Æmilius, could by no means be induced to follow the Example of Symphosius and Dictinius; and were thereupon deposed by the Council, and cut off from the Communion of the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: The Acts of that Council confirmed by St. Ambrose and Syricius.] The Bishops of Rome and Milan not only confirmed the Acts of the Council with respect to Symphosius and Dictinius, but separated themselves from the Communion of the Bishops of Bætica and the Carthagenese, who, thinking the Council had dealt too favourably with them, refused to admit them to their Communion[1260]. [Sidenote: Dictinius honoured as a Saint.] Dictinius died in 420. and is now honoured in Spain as a Saint, though it may be justly questioned whether he deserves that Honour. Idatius the Chronologist who was a Native of Spain, and raised there to the Episcopal Dignity about the Year 428. mentions him without saying any thing in his Praise, or taking the least Notice of his being honoured then as a Saint. St. Austin speaks doubtfully even of his Conversion[1261], and at the same time tells us, that his Book was highly esteemed by the Priscillianists, and his Memory no less revered; which, notwithstanding the eminent Sanctity ascribed to him by Baronius[1262], gives us room to suspect, that the Honour now paid him is owing to a Tradition handed down by the Priscillianists. [Sidenote: Priscillian honoured as a Saint and a Martyr.] For thus was Priscillian himself once revered both as a Saint and a Martyr. Nay, the Author of the Notes on Sulpitius Severus assures us, that he has seen his Name in some, not very antient, Martyrologies; and Petrus de Natalibus has allowed, both to him, and to Latronianus, who suffered with him, a Place among the Martyrs of the Church, pretending to be countenanced therein by the Authority of Jerom[1263]. And truly it must be owned, that Jerom, in the Year 392. writ very favourably of Priscillian. He was executed, says he, by the Faction of Ithacius, being accused by some as if he had embraced the Heresy of the Gnostics; but others maintained, that he held not the Doctrine and Tenets with which he was charged[1264]. But being afterwards better informed, he styles him an execrable Man[1265], and condemns his Doctrine as an infamous Heresy, as a Plague and Contagion, that cruelly ravaged most of the Spanish Provinces[1266]. It is not therefore without Reason that the Church of Rome now anathematizes, as an Heretic, the Man she once revered as a Saint. Such has been the Fate of many others, judged by Baronius himself unworthy of the Worship that was paid them, and therefore set aside, when, by the Command of Gregory XIII. he revised and corrected the Roman Martyrology. As for Dictinius, he has not yet been driven out of Heaven, though nobody can well tell how he came in. 'Tis true, both he and Symphosius are styled Bishops of holy Memory, in the Abstract of the Council of Toledo, which is supposed to have been done about the Year 447. This is all Baronius can plead in favour of his eminent Sanctity. A poor Charter indeed to hold a Place in Heaven by, and claim the Worship and Honours attending it! For the Author of that Abstract is utterly unknown; and, besides, he canonizes alike Symphosius and Dictinius, styling them both Bishops of holy Memory. Why then should his Authority have so much Weight with respect to the one, and none at all in regard of the other? If we bar Prescription, which surely can have no room here, Dictinius can have no more Right to keep the Place he has, than Symphosius to claim the Place he has not. Nay, the latter would have a far better Right, were it true, that Dictinius relapsed into the Errors he had abjured, and was on that Account deposed with several other Bishops of his Sect. This I read in an Author of great Note[1267]; but as he advances it upon the Authority of another, viz. of Idatius the Chronologist, and the Passage he quotes is not to be found in that Writer, at least in the Editions I have perused, it would be both unjust and ungenerous to deprive Dictinius of, or disturb him in, the Possession of his Saintship upon such an Evidence.
[Sidenote: The Doctrine of the Priscillianists takes deep Root in Spain.]
Syricius and Ambrose, in Conjunction with the Catholic Bishops of Spain, alarmed at the wonderful Progress the Doctrine of Priscillian had made in so short a Time, left nothing unattempted they could think of to put a Stop to the growing Evil. But all to no Purpose; in spite of their utmost Efforts, in defiance of the most severe Laws, that were enacted against them, especially by the Emperors Honorius, and Theodosius the younger, their Numbers increased daily, and their Doctrine grew daily more popular; the Severities that were practised against them, serving only to recommend those to the Esteem and Veneration of the Multitude, who suffered them, as many did, with Patience and Constancy. As they held it lawful to conceal their real Sentiments from the Catholics, by disowning them with the most solemn Oaths; the Catholics suffered themselves to be led by a mistaken Zeal into the same Error, disowning, in like manner, their Sentiments, the better to discover those of their Adversaries. But this pernicious Practice of defending Truth by destroying it, and opposing Lyes by Lying, was fully and unanswerably confuted by Austin, in his Answer to Consentius, who had writ to him at Length upon that Subject[1268][N27].
-----
Footnote N27:
The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning Equivocations, mental Reservations, and the Lawfulness, or rather Obligation, of concealing, with the most solemn Oaths, what has been revealed under the Seal of Confession, has perhaps some Affinity with the Doctrine of the Priscillianists. What is only known under the Seal of Confession, say their Divines, is not known to Man, but to God alone, since it was not discovered to a Man, but to God represented by a Man, that is, to the Priest or Confessor; and therefore the Priest may, with a safe Conscience, affirm, even upon Oath, that he knows not what he thus knew. 'Tis by recurring to this Doctrine, that F. Daniel Bartoli, in his History of England, or rather of the Jesuits in England, endeavours to justify the Conduct of the Jesuit Garnet, in not discovering the Gun-powder Plot, to which he supposes him to have been privy: but as it was disclosed to him in Confession, or at least under the Seal of Confession, he had sinned grievously by discovering it, though by such a Discovery he might have saved a whole Nation from Destruction[N27.1]. So that the violating such a Seal is a far greater Evil than the Loss of so many Lives, than the utter Ruin of an intire Nation. A Doctrine evidently repugnant to the Dictates both of Reason and Humanity.
Footnote N27.1:
Bar. hist. d'Inghilterra.
-----
The indefatigable Pains Syricius took, together with the other Catholic Bishops, in suppressing the Heresy of the Priscillianists, proved quite unsuccessful, though seconded by the Secular Power, and the severest Laws that had yet been enacted against Heretics. Their Doctrine rather gained, than lost Ground; and we shall find them in the Sixth Century, that is, Two hundred Years hence, still a numerous Sect, and Councils assembling, to very little Purpose, against them. Syricius was not so intent, as we are told, upon maintaining the Doctrine of the Church, as to neglect the Discipline. [Sidenote: Council assembled by Syricius at Rome.] In order to correct several Abuses, that had begun to prevail, and revive some antient Constitutions, that were grown out of Use, he convened a Council at Rome, which is said to have consisted of Eighty Bishops; and, with their Consent and Approbation, established the following Canons: 1. That no one should presume to ordain a Bishop, without the Knowlege of the Apostolic See. 2. That no Man should be admitted to the Ecclesiastical Order, who, after the Remission of his Sins, that is, perhaps, after his Baptism, had worn the Sword of worldly Warfare. 3. That no Clerk should marry a Widow. 4. That the Novatians and Montanists, that is, Donatists, should be received into the Church by the Imposition of Hands; but that such as, abandoning the Catholic Faith, had been rebaptized by them, should not be re-admitted without performing a long Penance. 5. That the Priests and Deacons should live continent, being, by their Office, daily employed in the Divine Ministry[1269]. These Canons or Decrees, say the Roman Catholic Divines, are contained in a Letter, which Syricius writ to the Bishops of Africa, and which was read, and received as a Law, by a Council held some Years after at Tela, in the Province of Byzacene, as appears from the Acts of that Council[1270]. Ferrandus, Deacon of Carthage, in his Abridgment of the Canons, done in the Sixth Century, often quotes the Letter of Syricius, and takes particular Notice of the Canons that were copied from it by the Council of Tela. The same Letter, together with the Acts of that Council, are to be found, Word for Word, in the antient Code of the Church of Rome. So that, upon the Whole, we cannot question, says Baronius, the Authenticity of that Piece, without rendering the Authority of every other Monument of Antiquity quite precarious, and leaving Men to their own wild and groundless Conjectures. But Men of Learning have, of late Years, been too much upon their Guard to admit, without the strictest Examination, any Piece, however authentic in Appearance, that seemed to countenance the extraordinary Power and Authority claimed by the Bishop of Rome. And not without Reason, since they well knew what Pains had been taken to banish Truth, by suppressing or adulterating the most authentic Records, and to establish Falshood, by substituting in their room fabulous Legends, spurious Letters, and Acts of Councils that never were held. As for the Letter ascribed to Syricius, it has been suspected ever since Criticism took place[1271], and lately rejected, as unquestionably supposititious, by F. Quesnel, who, in a learned Dissertation on that Subject, proves, in my Opinion, unanswerably, not only the Letter; but the Acts of the pretended Council of Tela, to have been forged, and inserted, in latter Times, into the Collection of Ferrandus, and the Roman Code[1272][N28].
-----
Footnote N28:
To convince the Reader of this double Forgery, I need not refer him to that judicious Writer. The many groundless, perplexed, and contradictory Arguments, or rather Conjectures, alleged by those who have taken most Pains to prove both the above-mentioned Pieces genuine, viz. by Chifflerus, Papebrok, and Cardinal Noris, are, perhaps, a more convincing Proof of their being forged, than any that can be alleged against them. There is so palpable a Difference, in point of Style, between this Letter, and that which Syricius writ to Himerius, and which is on all Hands allowed to be genuine, that no one can possibly suppose both to have been penned by one and the same Person. Besides, in the former Letter Syricius absolutely commands, and in this only advises, exhorts, and intreats the Priests and Deacons to live continent. Of those Two Difficulties none of the Writers I have just quoted have thought fit to take the least Notice, though they could hardly escape their Observation. The very first Canon or Article of this Letter, for the sake of which both the Letter itself, and the Acts of the Council, were most probably forged, sufficiently betrays the Forgery. For it is absolutely unintelligible, and therefore pointed, construed, altered, &c. in Twenty different Manners, by those who maintain it to be genuine. Some read it thus: Ut sine conscientia sedis Apostolicæ Primatis nemo audeat ordinare; That no one should presume to ordain without the Knowlege of the Primate of the Apostolic See. I do not find the Bishops of Rome to have ever styled themselves, in their Letters, Primates of the Apostolic See; nay, the humble Title of Primate of the Apostolic See (humble with respect to the Bishop of Rome, Primate, Prince, and Monarch of the whole Church), so soured Labbé, that he fairly owned the Truth, chusing rather to give up the Letter, than to admit a Title that seemed to detract from the Supremacy. Besides, it is very certain, that, in the Time of Syricius the Bishops of Rome were not yet so lost to all Modesty as to pretend, in open Defiance of the Canons, that no Bishop should be ordained without their Knowlege. Others read that Article thus: Ut extra conscientiam sedis Apostolicæ, hoc est, Primatis, &c. That none should presume to ordain without the Knowlege of the Apostolic See, that is, of their Primate. Now, is it probable, that the Bishop of Rome would have given the Title of Apostolic See to all the Metropolitan Churches; a Title which Pope Leo the Great would not allow even to the Bishop of Constantinople[N28.1]? I might add, that the Author of this Letter writes, and I think very ridiculously, that the African Bishops would have come to Rome to assist at the Council, had they not been prevented by their Infirmities, or old Age; which is supposing them all to have been old or infirm; that the Subscription of this Letter is very singular, Data Romæ in Concilio Episcoporum octoginta, which in all other Synodal Letters is placed at the Beginning; that neither this Letter, nor the Council of Tela; by which it is supposed to have been quoted, are ever mentioned or taken notice of by any of the Councils, that were afterwards held in Africa; to establish the Celibacy of the Clergy. Some will have this Letter to have been written only for the Bishops of the Vicariate of Rome, of which Syricius was Primate, and to have been sent by him to the Bishops of Africa, and perhaps to those of the other Provinces, with a Design to try whether they might not be prompted to receive the Canons it contained, as general Rules, though made for the Vicariate only. This had been attempting to establish at once, and in a manner by Surprize, an universal Jurisdiction. But I can hardly believe, that, in the Days of Syricius, when the Ambition of the Bishops of Rome was yet in its Infancy, they should have aspired to, or entertained any Notion of, such a Jurisdiction. As to the Council, I shall only observe here, that it is said in all the printed Copies of the Councils, all the antient Manuscripts, but one, to have been held at Tela, in the Province of Byzacene, whereas Tela is allowed, even by those who defend this Council as genuine, to have belonged to the Proconsularis. They have therefore nothing else to recur to but the Ignorance of the Transcribers, the usual Refuge in such Cases, whom they all agree to have been mistaken, though all equally at a Loss, and at Variance among themselves, how to correct the supposed Mistake. For, instead of Tela, some read Zela or Zella, others Tena, Teneptis, Teleptus, &c. In short, there is not a single Town in the whole Province of Byzacene, bearing the least Resemblance in Name with Tela, that has not been substituted in its room; nay, some have bestowed that Honour on the smallest Villages, as if it were probable, that, in a Province, filled, as Byzacene was, with considerable Cities, and Episcopal Sees, Bishops should chuse to assemble in a Village. To read Proconsularis instead of Byzacene, as some have done, is contradicting, and consequently giving up, the Acts of that Council; for the Thirty-three Bishops named there, as composing it, were all of the latter Province, and Vincentius and Fortunatianus are said to have assisted as Deputies from the former[N28.2]. It would be needless to dwell any longer on this Subject, and point out the many Absurdities and Contradictions that occur in the supposed Acts of that Council, since the very Title must convince every impartial Reader, that no such Council was ever held. I cannot, however, help taking Notice of a very extraordinary Canon, quoted by Ferrandus, from the Letter of Syricius, and approved, as is said there, by the Council of Tela; viz. That no Bishop should be ordained by a single Bishop, the Church of Rome excepted. This Exception is not to be found in the Letter ascribed to Syricius, from which they make Ferrandus quote it; and, besides, the Bishops of Rome were never ordained by a single Bishop, nor did they ever take upon them to ordain Bishops alone.
Footnote N28.1:
Leo, ep. 78.
Footnote N28.2:
Concil. t. 1. p. 1577.
-----
I find no farther Mention made of Syricius, in the antient Writers, till the Year 390. when he condemned the Doctrine of Jovinian; and cast him and his Followers out of the Church. Jovinian was by Profession a Monk, by Birth a Latin, as Jerom observes, and the first who infected that Language with Heresy; all, or rather almost all, the Heresies that, for the first Four hundred Years, had disturbed the Peace of the Church, having been broached by Greeks, Chaldæans, or Syrians[1273]. He had formerly practised great Austerities, going bare-footed, living upon Bread and Water, covered with a tattered black Garment, and earning his Livelihood with the Sweat of his Brow, his Hands being callous with long and hard Labour[1274]. The Doctrine he taught is, by Jerom, reduced to the Four following Heads: 1. That those, who, with a lively Faith, have been regenerated by Baptism, cannot afterwards be overcome by the Devil. 2. That for all those, who shall preserve their Baptism; an equal Reward is reserved in Heaven. 3. That there is no Difference of Merit between abstaining from some Meats, and using them with Thanksgiving. 4. and lastly, That Virgins, Widows, and married Women, are in a State of equal Merit; and, consequently, that all Difference in Merit can only arise from their different Actions. That the Two last were then counted Heresies, shews that the Church began, in this Century, to be tainted with Doctrines that border on Popery, and no-ways consist with the Liberty of the Gospel[1275]. Besides these Tenets, Jovinian taught, as Ambrose and Austin inform us, that the Virgin Mary preserved her Virginity in conceiving our Saviour, but lost it in bringing him forth, pretending to prove by Arguments, false, but ingenious enough, say they, that we should otherwise be obliged to own, with the Manichees, the Body of Christ not to have been real, but aereal[1276]. He, besides, charged the Catholics with Manicheism, on account of their preferring the State of Virginity to that of Matrimony[1277]. Both Jerom and Ambrose tell us, that, together with his Doctrine, he changed his Manners, renouncing his former Austerities, and giving himself up to all manner of Debauchery, to redeem, as it were, the Time he had lost[1278]. But perhaps this Charge was not well founded, but rather supposed as a Consequence of his undervaluing Celibacy, and the Merit ascribed to it, there being too many Instances in Ecclesiastical History of such Inferences, drawn from Opinions which were not approved by the Fathers of the Church, as could no-way be justified. They often painted those, whom they styled Heretics, in the blackest Colours, to prejudice the People more effectually against their Doctrine. In this Art Jerom excelled all the rest, and none ever disagreed with him, who did not at once forfeit those very Virtues, which he himself had admired and extolled in them before. He abstained, however, from Matrimony; but merely, say Austin and Jerom, to avoid the Trouble and Anxiety attending it, and not because he apprehended there could be in this Life any Merit in Continency, or any Reward allotted for it in the next[1279]. This Doctrine he broached in Rome, and soon found there a great Number of Followers, among the rest several of both Sexes, who had embraced, and professed for many Years, the State of Virginity, being seduced and misled, says Austin, by the Cavils of that impious Wretch, asking them, whether they pretended to be more holy than Abraham and Sarah, than many other Men and Women, who, though married, are commended in the Old Testament, for their eminent Sanctity[1280]. The first, who took Offence at this Doctrine, were Two Laymen, viz. Pammachius and Victorinus. All we know of the latter is, that he was illustrious for his Birth, and, if we believe Ambrose, venerable for his Piety[1281]. As for Pammachius, he is well known in the History of the Church, and often mentioned by Jerom with the greatest Commendations. He was descended, says that Writer, from the antient Family of the Camilli, and yet less distinguished by the Nobility of his Descent than his Piety[1282]. Having heard, by Chance, some of the Propositions advanced by Jovinian, he made it his Business to inquire more narrowly into his Doctrine, being assisted therein by Victorinus, who had taken the Alarm upon hearing, in Rome, this shocking Doctrine, says Jerom[1283], that a Virgin was no better than a married Woman. These Two having, by a diligent Inquiry, discovered at length the whole Doctrine of Jovinian, as well as the Author and Promoters of it, they presented a Request to Syricius, acquainting him therewith, and desiring, that the Doctrine of Jovinian might be condemned by the Episcopal Authority, and the Sentence of the Holy Ghost, as contrary to the Law of God[1284]. These are Ambrose’s Words, as the Text now is; but it is generally thought to have been altered and corrupted. [Sidenote: The Doctrine of Jovinian condemned by a Council at Rome.] Be that as it will, Syricius did not take upon him to act on this Occasion by his private Authority; but, assembling the Priests, Deacons, and other Ecclesiastics of Rome, he read to them the Request of Pammachius and Victorinus, and, having, together with them, maturely examined the Doctrine of Jovinian, he declared it, with the unanimous Consent of the whole Assembly, contrary to Scripture; and at the same time cut off, for ever, from the Communion of the Church, not only Jovinian, who had first broached such a Doctrine, but those among his Followers, who were found to have been the most sanguine in promoting it; viz. Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Frontinus, Martianus, Januarius, and Ingenius[1285]. Jovinian, instead of submitting to the Judgment of Syricius, and his Clergy, immediately left Rome, and repaired with all Speed to Milan, not despairing of being able to engage Ambrose in his Favour, and likewise the Emperor Theodosius, who was then in that City, before Syricius could prejudice them against him. Of this Syricius was aware, and therefore, without Loss of Time, dispatched Three of his Presbyters to Milan, Crescentius, Leopardus, and Alexander, with a Letter to that Church, which has been transmitted to us among Ambrose’s Works[1286], acquainting them with what had passed at Rome. In virtue of this Letter he was rejected by Ambrose; and, at the Request of the Three Roman Presbyters, driven our of the Town by the Emperor[N29].
-----
Footnote N29:
Baronius pretends it was on this Occasion that Theodosius enacted the Law, dated from Verona the 3d of September of the present Year 390. commanding all, who professed a monastic Life, to quit the Cities, and retire, pursuant to their Profession, into the Deserts[N29.1]. But that it was made on a very different Occasion, it will fall in my way to shew hereafter.
Footnote N29.1:
Bar. ad ann. 390. n. 47, 48.
-----
The Letter of Syricius was answered by Ambrose, and signed by him, and several other Bishops, who were still at Milan, where they had met to condemn Ithacius, and his Adherents, for having been accessary to the Death of Priscillian. In their Answer they commend the Pastoral Vigilance of Syricius, and, having briefly declared their Opinion against the other Tenets of Jovinian, dwell on what he had advanced against the Virginity of the Virgin Mary. But they seem to have mistaken his Meaning, in charging him with Manicheism, and supposing him to have held, that our Saviour did not assume a real Body: for he held no such Doctrine, but only charged the Catholics with it, as Austin tells us in express Terms[1287]. It is surprising, that such a Question should have thus employed the Thoughts and Attention of so many venerable Prelates, and created such Feuds and Animosities in the Church. Both Parties agreed, that the Virgin Mary had brought forth her Son without the Co-operation or Intercourse of Man; and in that Sense alone she is styled a Virgin.
[Sidenote: Law enacted against Jovinian, and his Followers.]
From Milan Jovinian returned to the Neighbourhood of Rome, where his Followers continued to assemble, under his Direction, till the Year 398. when the Emperor Honorius, giving Ear to the Complaints of the neighbouring Bishops, enacted a Law, commanding him and his Accomplices to be beaten with Whips armed with Lead, and transported into different Islands[1288]. Jovinian himself was confined to the Isle of Boas, on the Coast of Dalmatia[1289], where he gave up the Ghost, about the Year 406. in the Midst of the Mirth and Jollity of a Banquet, says Jerom, adding that he was revived in Vigilantius, as Euphorbus was formerly in Pythagoras[1290]. Some of Jerom’s Friends in Rome sent him the Book, which Jovinian had composed to explain and defend his Doctrine, begging him to confute it. He readily complied with their Request, and ended his Work in the Year 392. It consisted of Two Books, but met with a very indifferent Reception at Rome. For though he declared from the Beginning, that it was not his Intention to condemn Marriage, and that he had an utter Abhorrence to the Errors of Marcion, of Tatian, and the Manichees, holding Marriage to be sinful; yet the disparaging Terms he made use of in speaking of Marriage, gave great Offence, even to those who professed Continency[N30].
-----
Footnote N30:
This induced Pammachius to purchase all the Copies of it he could get, and send them back to the Author, acquainting him in a friendly manner with what had chiefly given Offence[N30.1]. This Jerom took as a Token of the most sincere Friendship; and therefore, not satisfied with acknowleging the Obligation he had laid on him, and commending his Conduct as worthy of his great Prudence, and answerable to the Affection which it was owing to, he immediately set about the Apology which Pammachius had advised him to write, and inscribed it to him[N30.2].
Footnote N30.1:
Ex Ruff. p. 231. & ep. 52.
Footnote N30.2:
Hier. ep. 51, 52.
-----
Notwithstanding the Severity of the Law I have mentioned above, some still continued to hold, and privately to propagate, the Doctrine of Jovinian, which induced Austin to compose his Treatise on the Advantages of Marriage and Virginity; a Performance far more judicious than that of Jerom, who has taken great Pains to disparage and cry down Marriage, the better to extol Virginity, as if he could not commend the one without condemning the other. Austin, on the contrary, begins his Work with great Encomiums on Matrimony, to which, however commendable, in the End he prefers Virginity. But after all, the Reasons alleged by the one as well as the other, are, if duly weighed, but empty and unconclusive Speculations.
[Sidenote: New Disturbances in the Church of Antioch.]
The following Year, 391. a great Council was convened at Capua, chiefly with a View to restore Peace to the Church of Antioch, and put an End to the Schism, which had long prevailed there, and had occasioned almost an intire Separation between the East and the West, as I have related elsewhere[1291]. Paulinus, who was acknowleged for lawful Bishop of that City by Part of the Catholics there, by the Bishops of Egypt, Arabia, Cyprus, by the Bishop of Rome, and all the Western Bishops, died about the Year 388[1292]. But the unhappy Division, which had reigned during his Life, continued to reign even after his Death. For Paulinus, by a most unaccountable Conduct, and a most notorious and open Violation of the Canons, took upon him not only to appoint himself a Successor before he died, but to ordain him alone. The Person whom he thus both named and ordained, was one Evagrius, a Presbyter, with whom he had always lived in close Friendship[1293]; and who on that Account was, notwithstanding his illegal Election and Ordination, acknowleged by Paulinus’s Party for Bishop of Antioch. Theodoret writes, that the Bishop of Rome, with the other Western Bishops, and those of Egypt, embraced his Communion[1294]. But Ambrose assures us, that the Bishops of Egypt stood neuter, suspending all Communication both with Evagrius, and his Competitor Flavianus; and speaks in such manner of both, as gives us room to suppose that he himself communicated with neither. Both rely more on the Invalidity of their Competitor’s Ordination, says he, than on the Validity of their own. It is therefore with Reason that Flavianus declines a fair Tryal, and not without Reason that Evagrius does not demand one[1295]. The Example of Ambrose was, in all Likelihood, followed by the Bishop of Rome, and the other Western Bishops; or Ambrose, perhaps, conformed to theirs[N31].
-----
Footnote N31:
A modern Writer will have it by all means, that Syricius communicated with Evagrius[N31.1], because he had always opposed Flavianus, as his Predecessors had done. But surely from his espousing the Cause of Paulinus, who was legally chosen, against Flavianus, whose Election was contested, we cannot well conclude, that, in Opposition to him, he likewise took the Part of one whose Election was indisputably illegal. It is far more probable, that he communicated with neither.
Footnote N31.1:
M. Launoy, ep. 7. p. 10.
-----
All the Bishops of Illyricum, upon the Death of Paulinus, admitted Flavianus, and not Evagrius, to their Communion, if we may depend upon Theodoret[1296]. As this new Election occasioned unheard-of Disturbances in the Church of Antioch, as the Division still continued between the East and the West, the Western Bishops had frequent Recourse to the Emperor Theodosius, during the Three Years he passed in the West, pressing him to oblige, by his Imperial Authority, both Flavianus and Evagrius to submit their Cause to the Judgment of a Council, that should be held in Italy. Theodosius consented at last to their Request, named Capua for the Place where the Council should meet, and took upon him to oblige Flavianus to repair thither at the Time appointed. Soon after, that is, about the 14th of July 391. he left Italy, where he had continued ever since the Year 388. settling young Valentinian on the Throne, and set out for Constantinople, into which City he made his Entry on the 10th of November. Before his Departure from Italy he had writ to Flavianus, commanding him to repair to Constantinople, and wait his Arrival there. Flavianus readily complied with the Emperor’s Orders, and appeared at Court the Day after his Arrival. But when the Prince acquainted him with the Promise he had made to the Western Bishops, and desired him to prepare for the Journey, which he did in a very obliging Manner, Flavianus represented to him the Inconveniences, attending so long a Journey at that Season of the Year, and begged he would give him Leave to put it off to the Spring, when he would not fail to obey his Orders. The Emperor, seeing him stricken in Years, thought the Excuse just and reasonable; and therefore, out of Compassion and Good nature, allowed him for the present to return to his See[1297]. Thus did Flavianus, by the Indulgence of the Emperor, avoid the Judgment of the Western Bishops, who wisely forbore meddling with so nice a Subject in his Absence, though his Competitor was present.
[Sidenote: The Council of Capua.]
The Council of Capua met in the Latter-end of the Year 391. and was it seems, a very numerous Assembly, since it is styled, in the Canons of the Church of Africa, a full Council[1298]. But whether it was composed of all the Western Bishops, or only of the Bishops of Italy, is uncertain, and cannot be determined from the Words of Ambrose, We all met[1299], which may be equally understood of both. As the Acts of this Council have not reached our Times, we do not even know who presided at it, some conferring that Honour on Ambrose[1300], some on Syricius[1301], and some on both[1302]. That Syricius presided, or even assisted, in Person, is not at all probable; for in the Times I am now writing of, the Bishops of Rome had begun to affect Grandeur; and, under Pretence that their Presence was necessary in the great Metropolis of the Empire, to assist or preside in Councils held elsewhere by their Deputies or Legates, as they are now styled. That Syricius assisted, by his Deputies, at the Council of Capua, I do not doubt, since the Council was composed, at least, of all the Bishops of Italy, and Syricius owned himself bound by their Decrees[1303]. But that Ambrose presided, seems undeniable, since by him, and him alone, the Whole was conducted and managed[N32].
-----
Footnote N32:
Baronius, without the least Foundation in History, supposes Ambrose to have acted as the Pope’s Legate. But it is the Custom of that Writer to vest every eminent and distinguished Prelate with the Legatine Dignity on such Occasions, and then pass upon his Readers the Deference and Regard shewn to their Merit for a Tribute paid to the Bishops of Rome.
-----
The Council avoided deciding, and even taking into Consideration, the Affair of Flavianus and Evagrius, in the Absence of the former, though they had chiefly met for that Purpose. However, to re-establish the Tranquillity of the Church, they agreed to renew their Correspondence with, and grant their Communion to, all the Catholic Bishops of the East. [Sidenote: The Difference between the Two Competitors to the See of Antioch refered, by the Council, to the Bishops of Egypt.] As for the Difference between the Two Competitors for the See of Antioch, they committed the discussing and deciding it to Theophylus Bishop of Alexandria, and the other Bishops of Egypt, as the most proper Judges, since they communicated with neither, and therefore could not be suspected to favour the one more than the other[1304]. The Bishop of Alexandria immediately acquainted Flavianus with the Resolution of the Council, summoning him, at the same time, to appear, in Compliance therewith, before the Bishops of Egypt, who were soon to assemble, in order to put the Decree of that venerable Assembly in Execution. [Sidenote: Flavianus refuses to comply with the Decree of the Council.] But Flavianus, instead of obeying the Summons, and paying the Regard that was thought due to the Decree of so numerous a Council, refused to stir from Antioch, pleading a Rescript, which he had extorted from Theodosius, commanding the Western Bishops to repair into the East, and there examine the Affair in a new Council. This Theophylus did not expect, and therefore being at a Loss how to conduct himself on such an Emergency, he gave Ambrose immediate Notice of the Summons he had sent, and the Answer he had received. Ambrose had nothing so much at Heart as to restore Peace and Tranquillity to the Church of Antioch; and from the Regard which the Council had shewn to Flavianus, as well as the Impartiality with which they had acted with respect to both, he had promised himself Success in so pious an Undertaking. It was therefore with the utmost Concern that he saw his Endeavours thus unexpectedly defeated, and all Hopes of accomplishing what he had undertaken, vanish at once. He had but too much Reason to resent such an affronting Conduct, which did not so much affect the Council in general, as him in particular, since it was at his Motion, that the Council took the above-mentioned Resolution. That, however, did not tempt him to depart from the Neutrality he had embraced, and declare for Evagrius: he still maintained the same Impartiality, and refused to communicate with either. [Sidenote: Ambrose_’s Moderation and Impartiality_.] In his Answer to Theophylus, he desires him, without betraying the least Emotion of Anger or Resentment, to summon Flavianus once more, directing him, at the same time, to communicate with all the Catholic Bishops of the East, pursuant to the Decree of the Council, whether he complied with this Second Summons or no; and to acquaint the Bishop of Rome with what he had done, that, the Whole being approved by that Church, as he did not question but it would, the whole Church might be happily of one Mind, and reap the Fruit of his Labour[1305].
[Sidenote: Syricius writes to the Emperor.]
Syricius, and in all Likelihood Ambrose too, wrote to Theodosius, pressing him to send Flavianus to Rome[N33], if he did not approve of his being judged by the Bishop of Alexandria. Syricius, in his Letter, tells the Emperor, that he well knew how to deal with Tyrants, who revolted from him, and how to chastise them; but suffered those to go unpunished, who despised the Laws of Christ[1306][N34].
-----
Footnote N33:
That is, into the West; for thus Theodoret constantly expresses the West.
Footnote N34:
Theodoret tells us, that Damasus, Syricius, and Anastasius the Successor of Syricius, wrote to the Emperor Theodosius about the Dispute between Flavianus and Evagrius. A gross Mistake! since Damasus was dead long before the Election of Evagrius, and Theodosius before that of Anastasius.
-----
Theodosius, in Compliance with the Request of Syricius, made in the Name of all the Western Bishops, sent anew for Flavianus, and told him, that he must, by all means, either repair to Rome, or submit his Cause to the Judgment of the Bishops of Egypt. [Sidenote: Flavianus ready to resign his Dignity, rather than to submit to the Judgment of the Egyptian or Western Bishops.] But he was determined, says Theodoret, to relinquish his Dignity rather than to suffer the Western Bishops, or those of Egypt, to examine and decide whether he had a Right to it or no; and, by that means, to hold it of them. He therefore answered the Emperor, with great Calmness and Respect, in the following Terms: Sir, if my Faith is not thought Orthodox, or my Conduct not worthy of a Catholic Bishop, I am willing to be judged by those who accuse me, and ready to submit to the Sentence they shall pronounce. But, if all this Noise is made merely for the sake of my Dignity, from this Moment I resign every Preferment I enjoy in the Church, to those whom nothing but Preferment can silence. You may therefore dispose of the See of Antioch, now vacant, to whom you please. Theodosius, pleased with this Answer, and thinking Flavianus, the more ready he was to give up his Dignity, the more worthy to hold it, ordered him to return to Antioch, and resume the Government of his Church; nor did he ever afterwards give the least Attention to the pressing and repeated Instances of Syricius, and his Collegues in the West[1307].
[Sidenote: Flavianus _did not acknowlege in_Syricius _the Power claimed by his Successors_.]
From the whole Conduct of Flavianus it is manifest, that he did not acknowlege any extraordinary Power in Syricius, much less that Power, which has been claimed by his Successors, of disposing, by Divine Right, of all Bishopricks, of placing and displacing Bishops, at Pleasure, throughout the Christian World. This Power, though evidently usurped, and utterly unknown even in the End of the Fourth Century, Bishops are now obliged to own in their very Titles, styling themselves Bishops of such a Place, by the Grace of God, and of the Apostolic See. Flavianus was content with the Grace of God; and, as for the Grace of the Apostolic See, he gave himself no Trouble about it. And yet Flavianus is honoured by the Church of Rome as a Saint; and his Festival kept on the 26th of September. And truly, if we may depend upon the Testimony of the most authentic and unexceptionable Writers of those Times, we shall hardly find one in the Roman Calendar more worthy of that Honour. The famous John Chrysostom, who was one of his Presbyters before his Promotion to the See of Constantinople, has filled his Homilies with the Praises of the great Flavianus, as he styles him. His distinguished Merit, eminent Virtues, and extraordinary Piety, seem to have been Chrysostom’s favourite Topic; and these Encomiums he bestowed upon him, while he was still alive. After his Death he was distinguished by the Council of Chalcedon, with the Title of the blessed Flavianus[1308]; and by that of the East, held under John of Antioch, ranked among the brightest Luminaries, the most illustrious Prelates, and the greatest Saints of the Church[1309]. Theodoret never names him without adding to his Name some Epithet, denoting his extraordinary Merit, such as the great, the holy, the admirable Flavianus. As therefore no room is left to doubt of his extraordinary Piety and Merit, we may well conclude, from his absolutely refusing to submit his Cause to the Judgment of Syricius, and the other Bishops of the West, that he did not acknowlege either in him or them a Power to judge him. This Refusal did not, in the Eyes of Chrysostom, and other great Men, detract in the least from his Merit, nor lessen the high Opinion they entertained of his Sanctity. A plain Indication that they did not think his Conduct reprehensible, and consequently did not acknowlege, more than he, that Power which is now one main Article of the Roman Catholic Creed.
[Sidenote: The Communion between the East and the West renewed.]
As Flavianus declined the Judgment of the Western as well as the Egyptian Bishops, and the Emperor gave no farther Ear to their Remonstrances and Complaints, the Resolution taken by the Council of Capua was put in Execution; which was, to renew the Communion and good Understanding between the East and the West, and abandon the Church of Antioch to its Schism, which, after so many promising Remedies applied in vain, began now to be deemed an incurable Evil[1310].
[Sidenote: Bonosus accused before the Council.]
The Council of Capua, after the above-mentioned Resolution concerning the Difference between Flavianus and Evagrius, heard a Charge brought by some Bishops against Bonosus, Bishop of Naissus in Dacia, according to some, or, as others will have it, of Sardica, the Metropolis of that Province. He was accused of a Crime against the Canons of the Church and the Law of God[1311], and likewise of Heresy. [Sidenote: His Errors.] The Crime is not specified; but as for the Heresy, I gather from Austin, that he held the Son to be inferior to the Father[1312]; and from Ambrose, that he taught, the Virgin Mary had had other Children after the Birth of Christ[1313]. [Sidenote: The judging of his Cause committed by the Council to the neighbouring Bishops, who condemn him.] He had, it seems, been condemned by Damasus, who died in 384[1314]. but still held his See, and was not driven from it, even by the Council of Capua. For the Fathers of that Assembly committed the hearing and judging of his Cause to the Bishops in his Neighbourhood, chiefly to those of Macedon, under their Metropolitan Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica[1315]. The neighbouring Bishops assembled, pursuant to the Order of the Council; and Bonosus, as well as his Accusers, appearing before them, they found the Charge so well supported, that they immediately forbid him to enter his Church; which was suspending him from all Episcopal Functions. Bonosus complained loudly of this Sentence, and even advised with the Bishop of Milan, whether he might not, in Defiance of a Judgment so rash and immature, still exercise the Functions of his Office, and, in case of Opposition, repel Force with Force. Ambrose exhorted him, in the strongest Terms, to acquiesce to the Sentence, to conduct himself with the Prudence, Temper, and Moderation, that became a Bishop; and, above all, not to undertake any thing that might be interpreted as a Contempt of the Authority of his Judges, since he could not contemn their Authority, without contemning at the same time that of the Council, which had appointed them[1316]. In the mean time the Bishops of Macedon, having more leisurely examined the Cause of Bonosus, wrote to Syricius, referring the Decision to him, and declaring their Abhorrence of the detestable Error, that the Virgin Mary had other Children besides Christ. If this was an Error, which may well be doubted, it was one that did no-way affect the Christian Faith, and therefore did not deserve such a severe Condemnation: but as it thwarted the favourable Opinions then entertained in the Church concerning Virginity, it is no Wonder that it should meet with so rough a Treatment[N35].
-----
Footnote N35:
That the Virgin Mary had other Children besides Christ, was not a new Opinion. It was taught by Helvidius in 383. and long before him by Tertullian, as Jerom himself is forced to own in the Treatise which he wrote against Helvidius: nay, in the Time of Epiphanius, who flourished from the Year 366. to 403. that Opinion universally prevailed in Arabia, as appears from the Letter which he wrote in Confutation of it, and addressed to all the Christians dwelling in Arabia, from the Presbyters down to the Catechumens. In that Letter he styles those who denied the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary, Antidicomarianites; and ranks them, though their Opinion had not yet been condemned by the Church, sometimes among the Heretics, and sometimes among the Schismatics. But in the same Letter he censures, with no less Severity, those who adored her, styling the Worship that was paid her an idolatrous Heresy; which was taxing those who paid it both with Heresy and Idolatry; and from neither will the unmeaning Terms of Latria, Dulia, Hyperdulia, &c. invented and used by the Schoolmen to express different Degrees of Worship, excuse the present Practice of the Church of Rome. Epiphanius was unacquainted with such Terms, as well as with the different Degrees of Worship answering them; and therefore called the Meeting of certain Women, on a stated Day, to offer a Cake to the Virgin Mary, and eat it together in her Honour (whence they had the Name of Collyridians), a Folly repugnant to Religion, an Illusion of the Devil, a robbing God of the Honour that was due to him, an idolatrous Heresy[N35.1]. These Women came from the Northern Provinces of Scythia into Thrace, probably about the Year 372. when Athanaric King of the Goths drove all the Christians out of his Dominions. From Thrace they wandered into Arabia; and there, in Opposition to the Antidicomarianites, introduced the above-mentioned idolatrous Practice. This is the first Instance of any Worship paid to the Virgin Mary; and to those Women the extravagant Worship that is still paid her by the Church of Rome, owes its Rise. Some of these Women took upon them to act, at their Meetings, as Priestesses. This Epiphanius styles an abominable Abuse, Women being so utterly incapable, says he, of performing any Ecclesiastical Functions, that our Saviour did not grant even to his Mother the Power of baptizing[N35.2].
Footnote N35.1:
Epiph. hær. 78, 79.
Footnote N35.2:
Idem ibid.
-----
Syricius, in his Answer to the Bishops of Macedon, approves their Sentiments; and employs almost his whole Letter to shew, that the Virgin Mary was always a Virgin: but as for the Cause of Bonosus, he tells them, that it was not lawful for him to judge it, since that Province had been committed to them by the Council of Capua[1317]. And was not this disclaiming, in the most plain and explicit Terms he possibly could, that Power which his Successors challenge, and have almost overturned the Christian Religion to maintain[N36]?
-----
Footnote N36:
Such a Letter, we may be sure, has not been tamely received by the Partisans of Rome. Some of them have rejected it as forged and surreptitious, for no other Reason, but because Syricius is there made to disclaim a Power which he undoubtedly had. But this is evidently begging the Question[N36.1]. Others, finding it conveyed to us amongst Ambrose’s Letters, have ascribed it to him, by prefixing his Name to it. But Ambrose is unluckily named, and spoken of, in the Body of the Letter: whence Baronius himself allows it not to be his[N36.2]. The Style afforded great Matter of Dispute, some thinking it like, and others unlike, to the Style of Syricius: but more than the Style, the Title; To Theophilus and Anysius. The former was Bishop of Alexandria: And how came he to be any-ways concerned in the Cause of Bonosus? If that Name was common to him with some Bishops of Macedon, how came that Bishop to be named before Anysius his Metropolitan[N36.3]? In the Height of these Disputes, Holstenius published the above-mentioned Letter at Rome, under the Name of Syricius, from a very antient and authentic Manuscript, with the following Title, To Anysius and the other Bishops of Illyricum[N36.4]. This turned the Controversy into another Chanel; for the Dispute was no more concerning the Authenticit, but the Sense, of the Letter, which the Sticklers for the See of Rome began to think very different from the Sense that the Words of Syricius had conveyed to them before; nay, those who had rejected the Letter as spurious, for no other Reason but because Syricius was there made to disown a Power which he undoubtedly had, were not ashamed now to maintain, that he disowned no such Power. Some of them have a particular Faculty or Talent at making Authors say what they never thought or dreamt of; nay, at making them affirm what they flatly deny, and deny what they positively affirm. But they have not been so successful on this as on several other Occasions. The Words of Syricius are too plain and precise to admit of any plausible, or even probable, Misinterpretation. To avoid therefore the tiresome and unnecessary Task of confuting the forced Interpretations they have put on the Words of Syricius, I refer the Reader to his Letter, which is the Fifth amongst Ambrose’s Letters; and leave him to judge, whether it was possible for him to disclaim, in Terms less liable to Misinterpretations, the Power of judging a Cause committed by a Council to the Judgment of others, which was disclaiming, in other Words, that universal Jurisdiction, which his Successors have usurped, and pretend to exercise by Divine Right.
Footnote N36.1:
David. p. 562, 563.
Footnote N36.2:
Bar. ad ann. 389. n. 76.
Footnote N36.3:
Vid. Blond. primau. p. 236.
Footnote N36.4:
Holst. coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 189.
-----
[Sidenote: Bonosus exercises the Episcopal Functions after his Condemnation.]
As Syricius declined the judging of Bonosus, his Cause was in the End decided, and he condemned by Anysius and the other Bishops, to whom that Judgment had been committed by the Council of Capua. It was at the same time decreed, that those who had been ordained by him after the first Sentence, that is, after his Suspension, should retain the Degrees to which he had raised them. This Indulgence was shewn, as is declared in the Decree, contrary to the common Rule, on account of the present Necessity; that is, lest they should adhere to Bonosus, and form a Schism[1318]. [Sidenote: He ordains some by force.] Bonosus, though thus condemned, continued to exercise the Episcopal Functions, and, holding separate Assemblies, to ordain, without Examination or Distinction, all who presented themselves to him: nay, he is even charged with dragging some by open Force to his Conventicle, and ordaining them there against their Will[1319]: a kind of Rape never heard of before. What Advantage he could propose to himself or others in so doing, we are not told, and it is not easy to guess. The Bishops of Macedon allowed even those, who were thus ordained, to keep their respective Degrees in the Catholic Church, upon their only receiving the Benediction of a lawful Bishop. Hence those, who found themselves excluded by the Church from holy Orders, on account of their scandalous Lives, applied to Bonosus, pretending to espouse his Party, but left him as soon as they had obtained the Degree they wanted[1320]. Bonosus died about the Year 410. but his Doctrine did not die with him, being maintained by some Two hundred Years after his Death[N37].
-----
Footnote N37:
His Followers were known by the Name of Bonosiacs or Bonosians; and Mention is made of them by Pope Gregory, towards the Latter-end of the Sixth Century[N37.1]. That Pope writes, as does likewise Gennadius[N37.2], that the Church rejected their Baptism, because they did not baptize in the Name of the Three Divine Persons. But the Council of Arles, held in 452. by the Seventeenth Canon, commands the Bonosians to be received into the Church by the holy Unction, the Imposition of Hands, and a Confession of Faith, it being certain, that they baptize in the Name of the Trinity[N37.3]. It is to be observed, that several Writers have confounded the Bonosians with the Photinians, who did not baptize in the Name of the Three Persons; and by them both Gregory and Gennadius were misled[N37.4].
Footnote N37.1:
Greg. l. 9. ep. 61.
Footnote N37.2:
Id. ib. Genn. dog. c. 52.
Footnote N37.3:
Avit. frag. p. 188.
Footnote N37.4:
Vide Concil. t. 2. p. 1270. & t. 3 p. 663. & t. 4. p. 1013.
-----
[Sidenote: An End put to the Schism of Antioch.]
Syricius had, in the last Year of his Life, the Satisfaction of seeing an End put at length to the Schism of Antioch, which I have had so frequent Occasion to speak of; and the East and West, after so long a Misunderstanding, or rather Separation, happily reunited. This great Work was accomplished in the following Manner: Evagrius, the Successor of Paulinus, dying not long after his Promotion, Flavianus employed all the Credit and Interest he had at Court, and with the Clergy of Antioch, to prevent the Election of a new Bishop in the room of the deceased: and so far his Endeavours proved successful. But he could by no means gain the Eustathians, who continued to assemble apart, or prevail either upon the Bishops of Egypt, or Syricius, and the other Western Bishops, to admit him to their Communion, though he had no Competitor, whose Cause they could espouse against him. Thus, through the inflexible Obstinacy of the Egyptian and Western Bishops, was Discord kept alive, and a kind of Schism fomented among the Prelates and Members of the Catholic Church, says Sozomen[1321]. In this Situation Affairs continued from the Year 392. in which Evagrius died, to the Year 398. when the famous John Chrysostom, Presbyter of the Church of Antioch, was, in regard of his extraordinary Merit, preferred to the See of Constantinople. No sooner was he placed in that high Station, than his generous Disposition, above all little Piques and Jealousies, his Zeal for the Welfare of the Church in general, and the tender Regard he had for that of Antioch in particular, prompted him to employ all the Credit and Authority, which his new Dignity gave him, in bringing about an intire Reconciliation between the East and the West, and restoring the Church of Antioch to the Communion of those Churches, from which it had been so long separated[1322]. [Sidenote: Chrysostom studies to reconcile the Eastern and Western Bishops.] Chrysostom had been consecrated by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, whom the Council of Capua had appointed to decide, with the other Bishops of Egypt, the Difference between Flavianus and Evagrius, as I have related above. To him therefore, before he left Constantinople to return to Egypt, the new Bishop of that City, impatient to see so great a Work brought to a happy Issue, imparted his Intention of attempting a Reconciliation between Flavianus and Syricius Bishop of Rome, earnestly intreating him to second and promote with his Endeavours an Undertaking truly worthy of the Two first Bishops of the East.
[Sidenote: Flavianus and Theophilus reconciled.]
There had subsisted a Misunderstanding between Theophilus and Flavianus ever since the Year 391. when the Council of Capua was held. Flavianus had refused to submit his Cause to the Judgment of Theophilus, pursuant to the Resolution of that Council; which he had highly resented; and, in the Height of his Resentment, as he was a Man of a fiery and choleric Temper, he had written to Flavianus in a very haughty and imperious Style. To these Letters Nestorius, no doubt, alludes, where he tells us, that Egypt could not, by her menacing Letters, though written in the Style, and with all the Haughtiness, of an imperious Tyrant, move or terrify the blessed Flavianus[1323]. It was necessary, in the first place, to remove the Misunderstanding which had so long subsisted between these Two Prelates; and in this Chrysostom met with no Difficulty or Obstruction, Theophilus readily agreeing to the Terms he proposed in the Name of Flavianus, and Flavianus ratifying them, upon the first Notice, without the least Exception or Limitation. [Sidenote: Chrysostom attempts a Reconciliation between Flavianus and Syricius.] What these Terms were, we are no-where told; but it is certain, that, all Disputes being thereby composed, the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch were intirely reconciled, and the Communion between them renewed, to the great Satisfaction of both[1324]. The next Thing to be attempted, and, as was apprehended, the most difficult to be accomplished, was the reconciling of Syricius with the Bishop of Antioch, who had now held that See Seventeen Years, but had not been able, notwithstanding the great Character he bore, to obtain the Communion of Syricius, or any of his Predecessors, on account of their strong Prejudice against him, as well as his Predecessor Meletius, and their obstinate Attachment to the contrary Party, in Opposition to the far greater Part of the Eastern Bishops. [Sidenote: His prudent Conduct.] But the Zeal of Chrysostom was Proof against all Difficulties. Not despairing therefore of Success, he took the most effectual Means a consummate Prudence could dictate, to obtain it, advising the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria to acquaint the Bishop of Rome, by a solemn Embassy, with their Reconciliation, and at the same time to beg, in the Name of Flavianus, the Communion of that See. This he knew would flatter the Vanity of Syricius, and be of more Weight than any Remonstrances they could make. They readily fell in with the Proposal, and Deputies were immediately chosen to put it in Execution. These were Acacius Bishop of Berœa, Demetrius of Pessinus, and several other Bishops, with Isidorus Presbyter and Hospitaler of the Church of Alexandria, and a great Number of Presbyters and Deacons of the Church of Antioch. Acacius, who was at the Head of this Deputation, was charged by Chrysostom to present to Syricius the Decree of his Election to the See of Constantinople[1325]. That so great an Honour might not be conferred in vain on the See of Rome, it was thought adviseable to acquaint Syricius with their Design, before they set out, and to be well assured of a kind Reception on their Arrival in the West. [Sidenote: Syricius and Flavianus reconciled.] They gave him accordingly early Notice of their Intention, and he, taken with the Bait, readily promised to settle every thing to their Satisfaction[1326]; which he did accordingly, receiving them, on their Arrival at Rome, with the greatest Marks of Respect and Esteem, and admitting Flavianus to his Communion. From Rome the Deputies repaired into Egypt, where all the Bishops, following the Example of Theophilus and Syricius, acknowleged Flavianus for lawful Bishop of Antioch, and, assembling in Council, with great Solemnity, embraced his Communion. [Sidenote: The Misunderstanding between the East and the West intirely removed.] From Egypt the Deputies set out for Antioch, and there, by delivering to Flavianus Letters of Communion from the Western and Egyptian Bishops, completed the great Work, and with it their Deputation[1327]. Thus was an End put, at last, to the Schism of Antioch; and, after so many Years of Strife and Contention, a perfect Harmony and good Understanding were settled anew between the East and the West[N38].
-----
Footnote N38:
If Syricius is to blame (and who, but Baronius, can excuse him?) for not acknowleging Flavianus, at least after the Death of Paulinus, the Election of his Successor Evagrius being unquestionably uncanonical and illegal; how much more is he to blame for not acknowleging him even after the Death of Evagrius, when he had no Pretence whatsoever for denying him his Communion, and by granting it he might have put an End to the Schism? Baronius, to conceal the Truth, and mislead his Readers, takes a great deal of Pains, in his Account of this Schism, to place in a false Light all the Transactions relating to it. But, in spite of all the Art he has been able to use, to varnish over the Conduct of Syricius, and impose on the Public, it must appear undeniable to every impartial, I may say, to every rational, Man, that the Schism, and the many Evils attending it, which are pathetically described by Chrysostom, who was then at Antioch[N38.1], were intirely owing to the Pride and Obstinacy of the Bishop of Rome, at least during the last Six Years, that is, from the Year 382. when Evagrius died, to 388. when he yielded, at last, upon his being courted to it by a solemn Embassy. He had nothing then to object against the Election, and much less against the Conduct of Flavianus; and, if he had nothing then, he could have nothing before; so that it was merely from a haughty and obstinate Spirit that he refused to communicate with him, and, by such a Refusal, kept up and fomented a Division so pernicious to the Church. Baronius represents him as labouring with indefatigable Pains to restore the Tranquillity of the Church, and leaving nothing unattempted that could any-ways contribute to the promoting of so pious an Undertaking, an Undertaking which he had so much at Heart. But that he had nothing at Heart besides the Glory of his See, is but too manifest from his Conduct; for the Minute that was saved, as it was by the above-mentioned Deputation, all the Difficulties vanished at once, which till then had obstructed the Work. As for the Conduct of Flavianus, in refusing to submit his Cause to the Judgment of the Council of Capua, or of the Egyptian Bishops, appointed to judge it by that Council, it must appear, if impartially considered, more worthy of Commendation than Blame, tho’ condemned, in very unbecoming Terms, by the Sticklers for the See of Rome. He had been chosen in the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople, in the Year 381. by the unanimous Voice of all the Bishops of the Diocese of the East, or the Patriarchate of Antioch, and soon after ordained in their Presence, at Antioch, with the Approbation of Nestorius, then Bishop of Constantinople, and the loud Acclamations of the far greater Part of the People of Antioch, promising themselves, in him, a second Meletius, in whose room he was chosen[N38.2]. Being thus chosen and ordained, he was acknowleged by all the Bishops of the East, except those of Egypt, of the Island of Cyprus, and Arabia. Could he therefore, without shamefully betraying the undoubted Right, which the Bishops of each Diocese had of chusing their Metropolitan, suffer his Election to be questioned and canvassed by the Western Bishops, who had no Concern in it; and, besides, had openly espoused the Cause of his Competitor Paulinus, and supported him, so long as he lived, with the most open and avowed Partiality? Could he, without foregoing, in a manner still more shameful, both his own Right, and that of his Electors, out of Compliance to the Bishops assembled at Capua, put himself upon the Level with Evagrius, whose Election and Ordination were undoubtedly illegal? Besides, Flavianus was sensible, that the Eastern Bishops would have paid no manner of Regard to the Sentence of the Council; that, had the Council adjudged the See of Antioch to Evagrius, such a Judgment, instead of closing, would have widened the Breach between the East and the West; and consequently, that his complying with their Summons, far from answering the End they proposed to themselves, would more probably have had a quite contrary Effect, since he had but too much room to suppose, that the strong Prejudice, which they had on all Occasions betrayed against him, would incline them to favour his Competitor, notwithstanding the known Illegality both of his Election and Ordination. It was therefore, upon the Whole, very prudent in him to decline putting the Affair upon that Issue.
Footnote N38.1:
Chrys. in Eph. hom. 11.
Footnote N38.2:
Socr. l. 5 c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3. Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Cod. Theod. ap. p. 104.
-----
[Sidenote: Flavianus endeavours in vain to gain over the Eustathians.]
Flavianus, being thus at last, in the Seventeenth Year of his Episcopacy, acknowleged by, and united in Communion with, all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, spared no Pains to gain over the Eustathians, that, by reuniting them to the rest of his Flock, he might have the Merit and Glory of establishing an intire and lasting Tranquillity in the Church committed to his Care. But his Zeal was not therein attended with the wished for Success. The Glory of completing so great and desirable a Work was, by Providence, reserved for Alexander, one of his Successors, who had the Satisfaction of seeing all Party-Names laid aside, and the whole People of Antioch united in one Flock, under one and the same Shepherd. This Union was made with great Solemnity, in the Year 415. Eleven Years after the Death of Flavianus, and Eighty-five after the Beginning of the Schism. Thus Theodoret, in his Ecclesiastical History[1328]. But Theodorus the Lector assures us, that there still remained some Seeds of that unhappy Division till the Year 482. when the Body of Eustathius being brought back to Antioch, the few Eustathians, who still continued to assemble apart, joined the rest of the Catholics, and the Name of Eustathian was never more heard of[1329]. [Sidenote: Flavianus honoured by the Church of Rome as a Saint, tho’ ill used in his Life-time by the Popes.] Flavianus died in the Year 404. the Ninety-fifth of his Age, and Twenty-third of his Episcopacy, and is now honoured as a Saint; a Distinction which none of his Competitors have deserved, though as much caressed and favoured by the Two Bishops of Rome, Damasus and Syricius, as he was opposed and ill used. How fallible have the Bishops of that See shewed themselves, from the earliest Times, in their Judgment of things! How rash in taking Parties, and fomenting Discords! How obstinate and inflexible in maintaining the Cause, which they had once undertaken, let it be ever so bad! The only thing that can be alleged against the Character of Flavianus, is his having accepted the Bishoprick of Antioch, contrary to the Oath he had taken, on Occasion of the Agreement between Meletius and Paulinus, as I have related above[1330]. That he took such an Oath, is vouched both by Socrates and Sozomen[1331]. But as he was looked upon by all the East, and extolled by Chrysostom, even in his Life-time, as a Prelate of an unblemished Character, and never reproached, even by his greater Enemies, with such an Oath, in the many Disputes that arose about his Election, I had rather charge those Two Writers with one Mistake more (for they are guilty of many others), than a Man of Flavianus’s Probity with such a scandalous Prevarication.
[Sidenote: Syricius dies.]
Syricius did not long enjoy the Satisfaction he had, to see the Schism of Antioch ended in his Days, and a good Understanding settled anew between the East and the West. He died the same Year 398. and, according to the most probable Opinion, on the 26th of November[1332]. He is said, in his Epitaph, quoted by Baronius[1333], to have been a Man of a tender, compassionate, and generous Temper; to have studied the Happiness of the People committed to his Care; to have spared no Pains in procuring them the Blessings that flow from Peace and Tranquillity; and to have screened several Persons from the Wrath of the Emperor, to maintain the Rights of the Church[1334]. [Sidenote: Was once honoured as a Saint.] He is commended by Ambrose, and the whole Council of Milan, as a vigilant Pastor[1335], by Isidore of Seville as an illustrious Pontiff[1336]; and he has even a Place among the other Saints, in most of the antient Martyrologies[1337]. However Baronius has not thought him worthy of a Place in the Roman Martyrology. It is well known, that the Charge of revising and correcting the Roman Martyrology was committed, by Pope Gregory XIII. to Baronius, with full Power to reject such as he should judge unworthy, and admit others in their room, whom he should declare worthy of the public Worship, and a Place there[N39]. [Sidenote: Why expunged by Baronius out of the Calendar of Saints.] The Keys of Heaven, says a modern Writer, speaking of that Charge, were taken from Peter, and given to Baronius; for it was not by Peter, but by Baronius, that some were excluded from, and others admitted into, Heaven[1338]. He then shews, that by this Second Minos, as he styles him, several were driven from the Seats they had long held in Heaven, and to which they had a just Claim, to make room for others, who had no Claim. Among the former he names Syricius, whom he thinks Baronius ought to have treated in a more friendly manner, upon the Recommendation of Ambrose, of the Council of Milan, and of Isidore. What thus prejudiced Baronius against him, and outweighed, in his Scales, all the Recommendations that could be produced in his Favour, was his Indifference for Jerom and Paulinus, and the Kindness he shewed to Ruffinus, Jerom’s Antagonist. Syricius, instead of protecting Jerom, as his Predecessor Damasus had done, against the Roman Clergy, whom he had provoked with his Writings, gave him, in a manner, up to their Resentment; which obliged him to abandon Rome, and return into the East, as I have related above. The Name of Paulinus, afterwards Bishop of Nola, is famous in the History of the Church, and celebrated by Jerom, Ambrose, Austin, and all the Writers of those Times. He had abandoned the World, and the immense Wealth he possessed, to lead a retired Life; and, in the Year 395. he passed through Rome, in his Way to Nola, which he had chosen for the Place of his Retirement. The Treatment he met with at Rome, from that Clergy, and Syricius himself, must have been very unworthy of a Man of his Character, since it obliged him, as he himself writes[1339], to quit the City in great Haste, and pursue his Journey to Nola. Two Years afterwards Ruffinus came to Rome, and there met with a very different Reception. For Syricius received him, tho’ violently suspected of Origenism, with the greatest Marks of Esteem and Affection; and, after having entertained him a whole Year, gave him Letters of Communion at his Departure. Of this Jerom complains, as if Advantage had been taken of the Bishop of Rome’s Simplicity, to impose upon him[1340]. I will not pretend, as some have done, to justify Ruffinus; but cannot help observing, that such a Charge ought not to be admitted against him, upon the bare Authority of Jerom, or of those, who have only copied what he writ.
-----
Footnote N39:
The Roman Martyrology contains the Names of such Saints as may be publicly worshiped, and of the Places where they died, with a succinct Account of the most remarkable Feats which they are supposed to have performed. I said, who are publicly worshiped; for in private every one is allowed to honour, worship, and invoke whom they please, provided they have sufficient Grounds to believe them in a State of Happiness, or in the Way to it, that is, in Heaven, or in Purgatory; for the Souls in Purgatory may be privately worshiped and invoked; nay, most of the Popish Divines are now of Opinion, that even a canonized Saint may be still in Purgatory. When Learning began to revive, many gross Mistakes were discovered in the Roman, as well as in the other Martyrologies, some being placed among the Saints, and consequently worshiped as Saints, who had been notorious Sinners; and others daily invoked, who had never existed. That the Church therefore might be no longer misled in her Worship, Gregory XIII. thought it necessary to interpose his infallible Authority; and, having accordingly, ordered Baronius to revise and correct the Roman Martyrology, he confirmed, by a special Bull, dated the 14th of January 1584. all the Emendations, Additions, Corrections, &c. which Baronius had been pleased to make, threatening with the Indignation of the Almighty God, and of his Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, all who should presume to make any further Alterations. And yet many Alterations have been made since Gregory’s Time; and that many more might and ought to be made, has been sufficiently shewn by many Protestant, and some Roman Catholic, Divines.
-----
[Sidenote: Jerom and Ruffinus quarrel.]
Jerom and Ruffinus had lived several Years in close Friendship, and great Intimacy; but, falling out in the Year 393. their former Friendship was turned at once into an open and avowed Enmity. What gave Occasion to this Breach I shall relate hereafter, and only observe here, that Jerom not only quarreled with Ruffinus, but with all the Friends of Ruffinus; nay, and with those too, who, professing an equal Friendship for both, would not break with either, or any-ways interfere in the Quarrel. Among these was the celebrated Roman Matron Melania, so frequently spoken of, and so highly commended, by Austin, by Paulinus, and, above all, by Jerom himself, who has filled his Letters with her Praises, proposing her as a true Pattern of every Virtue becoming her Sex.
[Sidenote: Jerom quarrels with all the Friends of Ruffinus, especially with Melania.]
Melania had retired with Ruffinus to Jerusalem, Twenty-seven Years before, and continued there practising, under his Direction, those Works of Charity, which Jerom so often admires and extols. It could not therefore be expected that she should discard the Partner of her holy Life, and all her good Works, as Paulinus styles him[1341], the Minute the other was pleased to dislike him, or, indeed, that she should take any Part at all in the Quarrel. And yet, because she prudently declined taking Part, but continued to shew the same Affection and Esteem for Ruffinus, which she had done before; Jerom, forgetful of the Regard that was due to a Matron of her Birth and Piety, and of the high Encomiums which he had himself bestowed on her, began to inveigh with no less Bitterness against her, than against Ruffinus himself. [Sidenote: His Conduct towards her.] In one of his Letters, still extant[1342], after finding Fault with one of Ruffinus’s Friends, thought to be John Bishop of Jerusalem, he adds; “But, after all, he is not so much to blame as his Instructors Ruffinus and Melania, who, with a great deal of Trouble and Pains, have taught him to know nothing.” Ruffinus tells us, that Jerom, finding that Melania, who was a Matron of great Judgment and Penetration, did not approve of his Actions and Conduct, thereupon spitefully erased out of his Chronicle, what he had there written in her Praise[1343]. But he did not, nor was it, perhaps, in his Power to make such an Alteration in all the Copies; for what he is said to have cancelled, is still remaining in all the printed, as well as manuscript Copies of that Work, which have reached our Times. Melania lived Eighteen Years after, steadily pursuing the same Course of Life, for which Jerom had once proposed her as a Pattern to her whole Sex[1344]. She died at Jerusalem in the Year 411. and died poor, having spent an immense Estate in relieving the Needy and Indigent, not only of the Countries where she lived, and through which she passed, but those too of the most distant Provinces of the Empire. For Persons in Poverty and Distress, whether in Persia or Britain, says the Author of her Life[1345], were alike the Objects of her Charity, and felt alike the Effects of her Generosity and Good-nature. She died, but with her did not die the Rancour and Spleen which Jerom had for so many Years harboured in his Breast against her. For, carrying his Resentment even beyond the Grave, while the Poor were every-where bemoaning, with Tears, the Loss of so generous a Benefactress, while the Writers were paying the deserved Tribute of Praise to the Virtues of so pious a Matron, Jerom, instead of joining the rest in the common Grief, strove to dry up their Tears, to drown their Praises, by throwing out several peevish and ill-natured Reflections on the Memory of the Deceased. As the famous Pelagius had inscribed a Book to her before he broached his Opinions, Jerom, in the Letter which he writ to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians, could not forbear bringing her in, and observing on that Occasion, with a malignant Quibble, that the very Name of Melania bespoke (in the Greek Tongue), and sufficiently declared, the Blackness of her Treachery and Perfidiousness[1346].
[Sidenote: Syricius not to be condemned on the bare Authority of Jerom.]
Such was the Conduct of Jerom towards that illustrious Matron, in her Life-time, and after her Death. From this Conduct I leave the Reader to judge, whether the Authority of so prejudiced a Writer ought to have been of such Weight with Baronius as to make him exclude her, as well as Syricius, from the Roman Martyrology, or the Calendar of Saints. Should we grant Ruffinus to have really held the Errors which Jerom charged him with, it must still be owned, that Melania acted, as became a Person of her Wisdom, Piety, and Experience, in suspending her Judgment, and not breaking with Ruffinus, till she was otherwise convinced, than by the Invectives of his Antagonist, equally levelled against herself, that he was no longer worthy of her Friendship and Regard. As for Syricius, Jerom rather commends than blames him, even where he complains of his Kindness to Ruffinus. For he only says, that Ruffinus abused the Simplicity of Syricius, who judged of the Spirit of others from his own[1347]; which was saying, in other Words, that he was a good Man, but mistaken in his Judgment, or not infallible: so that his only Crime, according to Jerom, was want of Infallibility. However, upon the Authority of that Father, Baronius not only condemns the Conduct of Syricius, but, rashly prying into the inscrutable Secrets of Providence, pretends his Days to have been shortened for the Countenance he gave to Ruffinus, and the Remissness he shewed in suppressing the Errors, with which he was charged. It is certain, that Ruffinus was well received, and entertained, in a very hospitable manner, by Syricius, during his Stay at Rome; and that, upon his leaving that City, he received from him Letters of Communion. Now, if Syricius did not know, or did not believe, that Ruffinus held those Errors, how unjust is it to blame him for the Kindness he shewed to a Man of Ruffinus’s Character! If he did know, and yet gave him Letters of Communion, how will Baronius be able to clear Syricius from the Imputation of holding the same Errors[N40]?
-----
Footnote N40:
A modern Writer[N40.1], taking the Part of Syricius against Baronius, has composed a whole Dissertation, and not a short one, to shew how undeservedly Syricius has been cashiered in this Review of the Church triumphant, while many others passed Muster for great Saints, whose Virtues, he might have said, whose very Existence, may be justly disputed. I shall not enter into the tedious Detail of his Arguments and Reasons, but only observe, that the Name of Syricius ought not to have been struck out of the Calendar, while the Names of the Arian Pope Liberius, and the Antipope Felix, his Antagonist, were kept in; though, upon other Accounts, I think him myself very unworthy of the Name of a Saint.
Footnote N40.1:
Florentinus, in vetus Martyrol. Hieronymi, p. 1001-1010.
-----
[Sidenote: The Misunderstanding between Syricius and Paulinus no Charge against Syricius.]
As for the Treatment Paulinus of Nola met with from Syricius, there was, no doubt, a Misunderstanding between them; but, as I am quite in the Dark as to the Cause of it, I will not take upon me to condemn the one rather than the other. Perhaps they were both to blame; perhaps they both meant well, and neither was to blame. However that be, the Misunderstanding between them was soon removed; for, during the remaining Part of Syricius’s Life, Paulinus went constantly to Rome once a Year, as he himself declares, in one of his Letters[1348]. Syricius, it is true, did not take Jerom into his Protection, as his Predecessor had done, nor shew him the same Kindness; which is the Third Charge brought by Baronius against him, but of no more Weight than the other Two, that is, of none at all. Jerom, prompted by his Zeal, and censorious Temper, could not help inveighing, with great Bitterness, in all his Writings, against the Looseness and Debauchery, which universally prevailed, in his Time, among the Roman Clergy, and the pious Frauds they made use of to extort Legacies and Presents from old Men, from Widows, and from Orphans. Syricius might have been as much offended at the Vices of his Libertine Clergy, as Jerom was, and even studied to reform them; but, at the same time, be glad, without deserving the least Reproach on that score, to get rid of so troublesome a Censor, who thus exposed their Irregularities to the Eyes, and them to the Contempt, of the World[N41].
-----
Footnote N41:
The Festival of Syricius was never kept, it seems, by public Authority; but is marked in some antient Martyrologies, on the 22d of February, and in others on the 26th of November. The last was more probably the Day of his Death, since he is said, both by Prosper and Isidore, to have governed 14 Years, to complete which one Month only will be wanting, if we place his Death on that Day; and several, if with Baronius we suppose him to have died on the 22d of February[N41.1]; for, as to the Year of his Death, there is no Disagreement among Authors. Baronius mentions an antient Picture, Part whereof, says he, is still to be seen in the Title of Pope Syricius[N41.2]. But that Picture is no more to be seen, and he explains himself no farther.
Footnote N41.1:
Vid. Boll. 22 Feb. p. 282.
Footnote N41.2:
Bar. ad ann. 395. n. 6.
-----
Syricius was interred in the Cœmetery of Priscilla, but his Body was translated, about the Latter-end of the Eighth Century, to the Church of St. Praxedes[1349], where his Remains (for Baronius will not allow us to call them Relics) still lie unregarded.
-----
Footnote 1224:
Bar. ad ann. 385. n. 5. Anast. c. 29. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32.
Footnote 1225:
Vide Bar. ad ann. 385. n. 5.
Footnote 1226:
Id. ib. n. 6.
Footnote 1227:
Concil. t. 1. p. 69. 689-691.
Footnote 1228:
Ib. p. 689.
Footnote 1229:
Isid. ser. c. 3.
Footnote 1230:
Con. ib.
Footnote 1231:
Ib. p. 690.
Footnote 1232:
Ibid.
Footnote 1233:
Ib. p. 689, 690.
Footnote 1234:
Inn. ep. 3. c. 1. t. 1. p. 755, 756.
Footnote 1235:
Ib. & p. 691.
Footnote 1236:
Inn. ep. 3. c. 1. t. 1. p. 755, 756.
Footnote 1237:
Cod. Rom. a Ques. cum Leone edit. c. 29.
Footnote 1238:
Conc. t. 1. p. 1210.
Footnote 1239:
Ib. p. 1329.
Footnote 1240:
Soz. l. 1. c. 23.
Footnote 1241:
Socr. l. 1. c. 11.
Footnote 1242:
Suid. in vit. Paph.
Footnote 1243:
Chricht. de contin. sacerd. c. 4.
Footnote 1244:
Melanch. in Apol. p. 13.
Footnote 1245:
Bellar. de cler. l. 1. c. 21.
Footnote 1246:
Hier. in Jovin. l. 1.
Footnote 1247:
Ign. ep. ad Philadelp.
Footnote 1248:
Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.
Footnote 1249:
Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Concil. l. 2. p. 28, 29. Ambr. ep. 25.
Footnote 1250:
Epiph. hæres. 59.
Footnote 1251:
Hier. l. 2. in Jov.
Footnote 1252:
Vide Cæs. comm. de bell. Gall. l. 6. Cic. div. l. 1.
Footnote 1253:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1028.
Footnote 1254:
Bolland. prop. p. 213.
Footnote 1255:
Bar. ad ann. 387. n. 65, 66. ex t. 1. ep. Rom. Pont. p. 48.
Footnote 1256:
Hier. ep. 29.
Footnote 1257:
Aug. ad Con. c. 3.
Footnote 1258:
Concil. t. 1. p. 742. ed. Binian.
Footnote 1259:
Concil. t. 1. p. 742.
Footnote 1260:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1279.
Footnote 1261:
Aug. ad Conc. c. 3.
Footnote 1262:
Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 56.
Footnote 1263:
Pet. de Natal. l. 11. c. 89.
Footnote 1264:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 121.
Footnote 1265:
Ad Cte. t. 2. p. 152.
Footnote 1266:
Id. ep. 82. 29. in Isai. c. 60.
Footnote 1267:
Leo, t. p. 831.
Footnote 1268:
Aug. ad Con. contra mendac. per totum.
Footnote 1269:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1028-1030.
Footnote 1270:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1578.
Footnote 1271:
Vide Blond. censur. in decretal. epist. p. 550.
Footnote 1272:
Quesn. dissert. 5. sur S. Leon.
Footnote 1273:
Hier. in Jovin. l. 2. t. 2. p. 94.
Footnote 1274:
Id. ib. l. 1. c. 25. Aug. hæres. 82. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1275:
Hier. ib. c. 1.
Footnote 1276:
Aug. op. imp. l. 4. c. 121. & hær. 82. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1277:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 2. & ad. Bon. l. 2. c. 2.
Footnote 1278:
Hier. ib. c. 25. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1279:
Amb. ibid.
Footnote 1280:
Aug. hæres. 82. Hier. in Jovin. l. 2. c. 23.
Footnote 1281:
Amb. ep. 6.
Footnote 1282:
Hier. ep. 26.
Footnote 1283:
Id. ep. 50.
Footnote 1284:
Amb. ep. 6.
Footnote 1285:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1286:
Id. ep. 7.
Footnote 1287:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 2.
Footnote 1288:
Cod. Theod. 16. t. 5. l. 53.
Footnote 1289:
Hier. in Vigil. c. 1.
Footnote 1290:
Hier. in Vigil. c. 1.
Footnote 1291:
Vide p. 220.
Footnote 1292:
Soz. l. 5. c. 15. & l. 7. c. 15. Hier. vir. ill. c. 125.
Footnote 1293:
Theodor. l. 5. c. 25.
Footnote 1294:
Theod. ib.
Footnote 1295:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1296:
Theod. ib.
Footnote 1297:
Id. ib. & Amb. 9.
Footnote 1298:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1072.
Footnote 1299:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1300:
Laun. ep. 7. p. 10.
Footnote 1301:
Bar. ad ann. 391.
Footnote 1302:
Blond. primaut. p. 237.
Footnote 1303:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1304:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1305:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1306:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23.
Footnote 1307:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1308:
Concil. t. 4. p. 830.
Footnote 1309:
Facund. Hermian. l. 8. c. 1.
Footnote 1310:
Ruff. l. 11. c. 22.
Footnote 1311:
Mercat. t. 2. p. 128.
Footnote 1312:
Aug. ep. 150.
Footnote 1313:
Amb. ep. 5. & Instit. Virg. p. 5.
Footnote 1314:
Merc. ib.
Footnote 1315:
Amb. ib.
Footnote 1316:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1317:
Amb. ibid.
Footnote 1318:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1274.
Footnote 1319:
Ib. p. 1275.
Footnote 1320:
Ib.
Footnote 1321:
Soz. l. 8. c. 3.
Footnote 1322:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23. Soz. l. 8. c. 3.
Footnote 1323:
Marc. t. 2. p. 86.
Footnote 1324:
Socr. l. 5. c. 15.
Footnote 1325:
Soz. l. 8. c. 3. Socr. l. 6. c. 9. Pallad. dial. c. 4.
Footnote 1326:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23.
Footnote 1327:
Soz. l. 5. c. 15. Theod. ib. Pallad. dial. p. 10.
Footnote 1328:
Theod. l. 5. c. 35.
Footnote 1329:
Theodor. Lect. l. 2.
Footnote 1330:
Vid. p. 221.
Footnote 1331:
Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3.
Footnote 1332:
Vid. Bolland. 22 Feb. p. 282.
Footnote 1333:
Bar. ad an. 398. in app.
Footnote 1334:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1335:
Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1336:
Isid. vir. ill. c. 3.
Footnote 1337:
Florent. p. 999. Bolland. Feb. 22. p. 282.
Footnote 1338:
Aguilera santi di Palermo.
Footnote 1339:
Paul. ep. 1.
Footnote 1340:
Hier. ep. 16. & in Ruf. l. 3. c. 6, & 7.
Footnote 1341:
Paul. ep. 9.
Footnote 1342:
Hier. ep. 101.
Footnote 1343:
Ex Ruf. l. 2.
Footnote 1344:
Vid. Hier. ep. 99.
Footnote 1345:
Pallad. hist. Lausiac. in Bibl. Patr. c. 118.
Footnote 1346:
Hier. ad Ctes. l. 2.
Footnote 1347:
Hier. in Ruf. l. 3. c. 6, 7.
Footnote 1348:
Paul. ep. 16.
Footnote 1349:
Vid. Boll. prop. p. 59.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCADIUS, ANASTASIUS, HONORIUS. Thirty-eighth BISHOP of Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 398. Anastasius writes to Paulinus.]
Syricius was succeeded by Anastasius[1350], after a Vacancy of Twenty Days, according to some; and, according to others, of near Two Months. He was no sooner chosen, than he writ a kind and obliging Letter to Paulinus, then at Nola in Campania, and an other in his Commendation to the Bishops of that Province[1351]. This he is supposed to have done, in order to efface the bad Impression, which the Treatment Paulinus had met with in the Time of Syricius, might have given him against that See, and the Roman Clergy.
[Sidenote: What occasioned the Quarrel between Jerom and Ruffinus.]
It was in the Time of Anastasius, and soon after his Election, that the famous Dispute arose between Jerom and Ruffinus, which was afterwards carried on with a Warmth on both Sides quite unbecoming Men of their Profession. Of this Quarrel, and the Part Anastasius acted on that Occasion, the Writers of those Times give us the following Account. Ruffinus, a Presbyter of Aquileia, and a great Admirer of Origen, having accompanied Melania, whom he had attended Twenty-five Years at Jerusalem, on her Return to Rome in the Time of Syricius, was received there with extraordinary Marks of Esteem by the Roman Clergy, and Syricius himself, as I have observed elsewhere[1352]. [Sidenote: Ruffinus translates Origen_’s_Periarchon.] Encouraged by the Reception he met with, he continued a whole Year at Rome; and during that Time published, but without putting his Name to it, a Latin Translation of Origen’s Periarchon, or Treatise of Principles, having first removed the Prejudice which some might entertain against that Writer, by the Translation of an Apology, which the Martyr Pamphylus had composed in his Vindication, while he was in Prison. To this Apology he added a Piece of his own, shewing that most of the Errors ascribed to Origen had been maliciously inserted into his Works by his Enemies after his Death[1353]. In the Preface to the Periarchon itself he also declared, that, in Imitation of a learned Brother, meaning Jerom, who had translated above Seventy of Origen’s Books, he had either corrected or suppressed such Errors as had appeared to him repugnant to the Articles of the Catholic Faith[1354]. [Sidenote: Many at Rome embrace the Errors of Origen.] The Work, thus recommended, was received with uncommon Applause at Rome, and the Sentiments of Origen greedily embraced, and warmly maintained, by great Numbers of the Clergy as well as the Laity, to whom Origen had till then been, it seems, utterly unknown. This happened in the Time of Syricius, who, either not suspecting Ruffinus, as he had not put his Name to the Translation, or perhaps not judging him worthy of Censure for barely relating the Sentiments of another, or supposing that, agreeably to his Preface, he had suppressed whatever was wrong in the original Work, gave him Letters of Communion at his Departure from Rome: for he had no sooner published his Translation than he left that City and returned to Aquileia. Syricius died soon after, and Anastasius was no sooner chosen in his room, than the famous Roman Matron Marcella, offended at the new Doctrines that began to prevail in Rome, applied to him, pressing him to put a Stop to the growing Evil, and at the same time accusing Ruffinus as the Author of the Translation, to which alone it was owing[1355]. [Sidenote: Errors left in the Work, notwithstanding the Corrections made by the Translator.] To make good this Charge, she produced some Copies corrected with Ruffinus’s own Hand; and several Persons appeared, who, having by her means been reclaimed from the Errors of Origen, owned they had been led into them by the Disciples of Ruffinus[1356]. This Jerom cannot relate without launching into the Praises of his Heroine Marcella, crying up her Zeal, extolling her Courage and Resolution, in thus making head against so numerous a Band, meaning the Origenists in Rome, while the Clergy declined that Trouble, or rather promoted the Doctrines they ought to have opposed. But elsewhere he will not allow Women, under any Pretence whatsoever, to concern themselves in religious Controversies. To meddle in Disputes concerning Faith or Religion, is not at all the Province (says he, with the Words of St. Paul) of silly Women, laden with Sins, led away with divers Lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the Knowlege of the Truth[1357]. But he speaks here of Melania, who was no less attached to Ruffinus than Marcella was to him.
[Sidenote: Jerom_’s Charge against_ Ruffinus.]
In the Periarchon were contained, without all doubt, many unfound and unwarrantable Notions, and Ruffinus corrected those only that related to the Trinity. He corrected, says Jerom, what Origen had impiously written concerning the Trinity, being well apprised it would have given great Offence at Rome. But as to his other Errors, those especially concerning the Fall of the Angels, and the first Man, the Resurrection, the World or Worlds of Epicurus, the Restoration of all Things, &c. he either left them, as he found them in the Original, or confirmed them with Reasons borrowed from the Comment of Didymus, an avowed Defender of Origen. Thus he declared himself a Catholic with respect to the Trinity; that in other Points the Reader might not be aware of him as an Heretic[1358].
[Sidenote: Ruffinus_’s Answers_.]
In Answer to this Charge, Ruffinus declared, that it was never his Intention to correct all the Errors that were ascribed to Origen; that the Declaration he had made, in his Preface to the Periarchon, ought to be restrained to those Errors only that related to the Trinity; and that it was very uncharitable to judge of his Faith, from the Faith of the Author he translated, and not from his own Words. He then declares his Sentiments touching some particular Points, in which Origen was thought to differ from the Church; adding, that where Origen differed from the Catholic Church, he differed from Origen.
[Sidenote: Jerom condemns Origen, and inveighs against Ruffinus.]
Anastasius, notwithstanding the Solicitations of Marcella, declined either proceeding against Ruffinus, or censuring his Translation, till Two Years after, when Jerom, in a new Version which he published of the same Work, undertook to prove, that several Opinions of Origen were truly heretical, and as such ought to be condemned by the Church. As to Ruffinus, he inveighed bitterly against him, as if he had translated that Work with no other View but to propagate the Errors it contained. Thus began the famous Quarrel between these Two Writers, which occasioned no small Disturbance in the Church, some siding with Jerom against Ruffinus, and others with Ruffinus against Jerom. Among the former, the most sanguine were Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in the Island of Cyprus, and Anastasius Bishop of Rome. Theophilus not only condemned in a Council, which he summoned for that Purpose, the Errors of Origen, but Origen himself, declaring him an Heretic, and forbidding all under his Jurisdiction to read, or even keep his Works by them; which is the first Instance we have of such Prohibitions. [Sidenote: Origen condemned by Anastasius and several other Bishops.] His Example was followed by Epiphanius, Anastasius, Venerius Bishop of Milan, Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia, and several others. But some, and among the rest John Bishop of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom then Bishop of Constantinople, disapproving the rash Conduct of their Collegues, could by no means be induced to confirm the Sentence they had pronounced; which Epiphanius resented to such a Degree, that he immediately separated himself from their Communion. Sozomen adds, that he even refused to pray for young Theodosius, while he was dangerously ill, because his Mother Eudoxia would not banish from Constantinople some Monks who had warmly espoused the Cause of Origen[1359]. Ruffinus ranks Epiphanius among those Plagiaries, who, borrowing from Origen all they said or writ, cried down his Works, in order to deter others from reading them, and consequently from discovering, that what was admired in them was not their own[1360].
[Sidenote: Ruffinus is summoned to Rome.]
Origen being thus condemned as an Heretic, near 150 Years after his Death, Anastasius, at the Instigation of Marcella, Pammachius, Oceanus, and some other of Jerom’s Friends in Rome, writ to Ruffinus, complaining of his Translation, and summoning him to appear, and give an Account of his Faith. In Answer to this Letter, Ruffinus sent him a Confession of Faith intirely agreeable to that of the Catholic Church, adding, that he held no other; that his Faith had been sufficiently tried in the Persecution of Valens; and that, as to the Translation of Origen’s Work, he had there neither approved nor disapproved, but barely related, the Sentiments of that Writer. He modestly declined complying with the Summons calling him to Rome; and concluded with declaring, that the Faith of the Roman Church and his were one and the same[1362][N42].
-----
Footnote N42:
The chief Errors of Origen were concerning the Trinity, the Resurrection of the Body, the Eternity of Hell-Torments, and the Origin of Souls. If his Works were not interpolated by the Heretics, as Ruffinus pretended they were, it is no easy Matter to determine what was his real Opinion with respect to the Trinity; for in some Passages he seems to acknowlege an Equality, and in others to establish an Inequality, between the Father and the Son. As to the Resurrection, he was accused of not believing, that the Body, at least the same Body, was to rise from the Dead. He denied the Eternity of Hell-Torments, and held, that even the Devils would repent in the End, and be saved. He maintained the Souls to have been created before the World; to have been confined to the Bodies, which they animated, as so many Prisons, to expiate there the Sins which they had committed; to be in perpetual Motion passing from one Body to another, and at last to become Angels. With the Three last Errors chiefly Ruffinus was charged by St. Jerom; and it was to clear himself from such an Imputation, that, in his Answer to Anastasius summoning him to Rome, he declared his Belief with respect to those Articles, styling his Answer on that Account an Apology. As to the Trinity, those whom they called Origenists, were allowed, even by their Enemies, to be quite orthodox in their Belief of that Mystery. Touching the Resurrection, Ruffinus declared and explained his Faith in such clear Terms as ought to have left no room, even for St. Jerom, to arraign him on that Head. He expressed himself in a manner no less orthodox with respect to the Eternity of the Pains of Hell. But, as to the Origin of Souls, he owns himself to be quite at a Loss what to think, and what to determine, on that Subject, since no particular Opinion had been yet settled by the Church, and the Ecclesiastical Writers disagreed in that Point among themselves; some believing, with Tertullian and Lactantius, the Souls to have been formed with the Bodies; and others maintaining, with Origen, that they were all created before the World: as to himself, he declared, that he held nothing for certain but what he was taught by the Church, viz. that the Souls as well as the Bodies proceeded from God[N42.1]. This Jerom called a false, artful, and imposing Confession, as if Ruffinus did not believe what he professed in the most solemn Manner to believe; and Anastasius, judging of his Faith not from his own Words, but from those of Jerom, separated himself from his Communion.
I cannot help observing here, that Jerom, whom nothing now will satisfy but the Condemnation of Origen, used a few Years before to inveigh with the same Gall and Bitterness against the Enemies of that Writer as he does now against his Friends, condemning with as much Acrimony those who accused him, as he now condemns those who excuse him. Origen had been condemned in his Life-time by Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria, and by several other Bishops: and Jerom, after telling us, in speaking of the Judgment that was given against him, that he had written more Books than others had time to read; and that in the Number of his Volumes he had surpassed Varro, and the other most eloquent Writers both Greek and Latin; adds, But what Reward did he receive for so much Toil and Labour? He was condemned by the Bishop Demetrius; and, if we except the Bishops of Palæstine, Arabia, Phœnicia, and Achaia, he was condemned by all the rest. Even Rome assembled her Senate against him, not because he taught any new Doctrines, or held any heretical Opinions, which those who snarl at him, like so many mad Dogs, would fain make us believe; but because they could not bear the bright Rays of his Eloquence and Knowlege, and were forced to be dumb when he spoke. This Passage is quoted by Ruffinus, and Jerom himself owns it to have been copied from his Letter to Paula[N42.2].
By the Senate that Rome assembled against Origen, Jerom meant, no doubt, the Bishop and Clergy of that City: and that he made no Account of their Judgment, sufficiently appears from the contemptuous and ironical Manner he speaks of it. However, that Father is brought in by Baronius as an Evidence for Infallibility, on account of the Regard which he afterwards paid to the Judgment of Anastasius, styling it a decisive Sentence. But Jerom had then changed his Opinion; and Anastasius only condemned what he had condemned before; so that from the great Regard which Jerom shewed on that Occasion for the Judgment of Anastasius, Baronius can at most conclude, that he thought the Popes infallible when they agreed with him; for that he thought them fallible when they disagreed with him, is manifest from his not acquiescing in the Judgment of another Pope condemning Origen, when he himself had not yet condemned him.
Footnote N42.1:
Ruff. ad Anast. p. 202.
Footnote N42.2:
Hier. vir. illustr. c. 54. Ruff. l. 2. p. 225.
-----
[Sidenote: Anastasius separates himself from his Communion.]
But this Confession, however orthodox, did not satisfy Anastasius, or rather Jerom and his Friends in Rome. They continued, says Ruffinus, the Persecution which they had so successfully begun, and with their malicious Suggestions prevailed in the End on Anastasius to comply with their unjust Demands[1363]; that is, I suppose, to separate himself from his Communion: for Anastasius, in his Answer to a Letter which John Bishop of Jerusalem had writ in favour of Ruffinus, acquaints that Prelate, that he had cut him off from his Communion, and left him to be judged by God and his own Conscience. As to Origen, says he in the same Letter, I knew not before who he was, nor what he had writ. Ruffinus has translated him into our Language; and, in so doing, what else could he have in view but to infect this Church with his pernicious Doctrines? He has expressed his own Sentiments in translating those of his Author; and is therefore no less guilty than Origen himself, whom we have all condemned[1364][N43].
-----
Footnote N43:
The same Charge lies against Jerom; nay, he was the more guilty of the Two. For he had not only translated many of Origen’s Works, containing Errors no less repugnant to the Catholic Truths than any in the Periarchon, but had besides filled his Comments on the Scripture, especially on the Epistle to the Ephesians, with the worst of Origen’s Errors, viz. with those relating to the Resurrection of the Body, to the Pre-existence of the Souls, and to the Duration of Hell-Torments, as is manifest from the many Passages quoted by Ruffinus out of the Comments of that Father. Jerom found great Fault with Ruffinus, for not confuting the Errors which he translated; concluding from thence, that he held the same Doctrines: and yet he was himself so far from confuting in his Comments any of Origen’s erroneous Opinions, that on the contrary he often delivered them in such manner as made many, and St. Austin among the rest, believe them to be his own[N43.1]. Nay, in one Place he seems to own, that he held some of Origin’s Errors[N43.2]: but ends what he there writes of him thus; If you believe me, I never was an Origenist; but if you absolutely insist upon my having been one, I now tell you, that I am so no more; and it is to convince you of this, that I am become the Accuser of Origen.
Footnote N43.1:
Hier. ep. 89.
Footnote N43.2:
Hier. ep. 65.
-----
In the same Letter Anastasius mentions with great Joy a Decree of the Emperors, that is, of Arcadius and Honorius, forbidding the Works of Origen, and imposing severe Penalties on such as should for the future read or peruse them[N44].
-----
Footnote N44:
Ruffinus pretended this Letter to be supposititious, and to have been forged by St. Jerom, alleging, that he could not believe the Bishop of Rome capable of such a crying Piece of Injustice as to condemn an innocent Man, and condemn him in his Absence. He added, that if Anastasius had ever written such a Letter to John of Jerusalem, John, with whom he lived in great Intimacy, would have acquainted him with it, which he had not done. In Answer to this Charge, Jerom refers him to the Archives of the Roman Church[N44.1]; and to Jerom I refer the Jesuit Halloix, supposing the Letter to have been feigned, tho’ not by St. Jerom, on account of the following Words, that seem to wound the pretended Supremacy. I have intirely separated myself from him, meaning Ruffinus: I will not even know where he is, or what he is doing: let him try, if he pleases, to be absolved elsewhere. So that Anastasius thought he might be absolved elsewhere, though condemned at Rome. This Halloix, more jealous of the Papal Supremacy than the Pope himself, will not allow, and therefore pretends the Letter to be supposititious. But, since the Time of Ruffinus, none besides him ever questioned its Authenticity.
Footnote N44.1:
Hier. in Ruff. l. 3. c. 5, & 6.
-----
[Sidenote: The Condemnation of Origen owing chiefly to the Bishop of Alexandria.]
Such is the Account the contemporary Writers, and Jerom himself, give us of the Condemnation of Origen, and his Interpreter Ruffinus, very different from that which we read in Baronius, introducing his High Pontiff Anastasius as acting the First Part on that Occasion; though Jerom tells us, in express Terms, that Anastasius followed the Example of Theophilus; that he condemned in the West, what had before been condemned in the East[1365]; and that Rome and all Italy owed their Deliverance to the Letters of Theophilus[1366]; meaning the circular Letter, which Theophilus writ to all the Catholic Bishops, acquainting them that he had condemned Origen, and prohibited his Books, and exhorting them to follow his Example[1367]. It was by this Letter that Anastasius was induced to condemn Origen: For what else could Jerom mean by saying, that Rome and Italy were, by the Letters of Theophilus, delivered from the Errors of Origen? Baronius could not but know, that the Letter of Theophilus was addressed to all the Catholic Bishops, since it is styled by Theophilus himself, in a Letter he writ to Epiphanius[1368], and by Epiphanius, in one of his Letters to Jerom[1369], A general Letter to all Catholics; and yet the Annalist speaks of it as directed to Anastasius alone, in order to impose by that means on his Readers, and persuade them, that the Bishop of Alexandria submitted the Sentence he had pronounced to the Judgment of Anastasius, being well apprised, that it could be of no Weight unless confirmed by the first See. Had he been well apprised of this, I cannot think he would have pronounced such a Sentence, as it is very certain he did, without the Authority, the Advice, or even the Knowlege, of the first See.
[Sidenote: The Bishop of Aquileia communicates with Ruffinus, though excommunicated by Anastasius.]
As to Ruffinus, Anastasius, it is true, separated himself from his Communion; but did not excommunicate him, that is, as the Word is now understood, did not cut him off from the Communion of the Catholic Church, as Baronius insinuates. The Power of excommunicating him in this Sense was by the Canons vested in his own Bishop; and it is manifest from Jerom, that Chromatius, then Bishop of Aquileia, continued to communicate with him after Anastasius had renounced his Communion; nay, after Chromatius himself had condemned Origen, and the Origenists[1370], that is, those who held the Errors of Origen. A plain Proof, that the Bishop of Aquileia did not acquiesce in the Judgment of Anastasius in ranking Ruffinus among them. And truly the only Charge brought against him by Anastasius, in his Letter to John of Jerusalem, was his having translated Origen into the Latin Tongue, without pointing out his Errors, or offering any Arguments to confute them. Thence he was by Jerom induced to conclude, that Ruffinus held the same Errors. [Sidenote: Ruffinus unjustly condemned.] What could Ruffinus propose, says he in his Letter, by translating Origen into the Roman Language? Had he exposed the execrable Errors his Work contains, and raised in his Readers that Indignation which the Author deserves, I should rather have praised than blamed him. But he has in his Mind consented to those Errors, and in translating the Sentiments of Origen expressed his own[1371]. This Ruffinus denied; declaring, with the Words of Origen, in his Preface to the Periarchon[1372], that he embraced nothing as Truth, that any-ways differed from the received Doctrines of the Catholic Church: nay, he was so far from defending any of Origen’s Errors, which seemed to him repugnant to the Catholic Truths, that in the Apology he composed in Defence of that Writer, as well as in the Preface which he prefixed to his Translation, he undertook to prove, that those Errors were not his, but had been maliciously inserted into his Works, either by his Enemies to eclipse his Reputation, or by Heretics, who had fathered upon him their own Doctrines, with a View of recommending them to the World by the Authority of so great and so venerable a Name[1373]. He followed therein the Example of the most eminent Writers, and the greatest Lights of the Church, namely, of the Martyr Pamphylus[1374], of Athanasius[1375], Basil[1376], his Brother Gregory of Nyssa[1377], Gregory Nazianzen[1378], and many others, who, out of the great Regard they had for a Man of Origen’s Piety and Learning, either ascribed to others the Errors they found in his Works, or excused them, by putting on his Words the most charitable Construction they could bear. [Sidenote: Origen excused by some of the Fathers, and once by Jerom himself.] Jerom himself had been formerly one of Origen’s greatest Admirers, had translated above Seventy of his Books, and thought he could not employ his Time better than in enriching the Latin Tongue with the Works of the best Writer and first Doctor of the Church after the Apostles[1379], as he then styled him. As Ruffinus, in his Translation of the Periarchon, endeavoured to excuse the Errors of Origen, so had Jerom done before him in translating his other Works, chusing rather to veil and excuse, than expose the Faults of one whom in other respects he so much admired[1380]. But this Admiration being afterwards changed into an open and avowed Enmity, the first Doctor of the Church after the Apostles became at once not only an heterodox, but an impious Writer; all who stood up in his Defence were arraigned of the same pestilential Doctrines; and what was found amiss in his Works was no longer veiled or excused, but set out in the worst Light[N45].
-----
Footnote N45:
Some of the Fathers would not allow even his Doctrine concerning the Trinity to be heterodox. For some Passages being quoted out of his Works by the Arians to confirm their Opinions, Basil and Nazianzen undertook to prove, from other Passages, that his Sentiments with respect to the Trinity were quite orthodox; and that the Arians had either out of Malice misinterpreted, or out of Ignorance misunderstood his Meaning, not being capable of fathoming the Depth of his Thoughts[N45.1]. It must be owned, that Origen, in several Places, speaks of the Trinity agreeably to the Sentiments of the Church, acknowleging the Son to have been from the Beginning in the Father; to be the Image of the Father; to have been begotten by him from all Eternity; to be the Wisdom of God; to be God, though not the Source and Origin of the Divinity, as the Father, whom on that Account he styles Autotheos; to be above all Creatures; to have the same Power as the Father, and to deserve the same Honour and Worship. But elsewhere he uses Expressions that can no-way bear an orthodox Sense, viz. that the Word is an Hypostasis different from the Father; meaning by the Word Hypostasis, Nature and Substance; that the Father and Son are One by Concord and Union; that the Son is not properly God, but called God, because he is the Image of the Divinity; that the Word and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Son is inferior to the Father, though far above all Creatures, as the Ray of the Sun is inferior to the Sun; and lastly, that the Son is the Minister of the Father. In these Passages is contained a very different Doctrine from that which is laid down in those I have quoted above: and hence some of the Friends of Origen, and among the rest Ruffinus, concluded the latter Passages to have been foisted in by the Arians, denying the Divinity of the Word; while others, allowing them to be Origen’s, undertook to explain them in a Catholic Sense, in Opposition to the Arians confirming their Doctrine with the Authority of so eminent a Writer. But his Enemies, attending only to the Passages where he seemed to establish an Inequality in the Trinity, not only condemned him as an Heretic, but all who stood up in his Defence, or attempted to interpret his Words in a Catholic Sense.
Footnote N45.1:
Socr. l. 4. c. 26.
-----
But what seems most of all surprising, and quite unaccountable, in the Conduct of that Father, is, that though he had with so much Noise procured Origen to be condemned as an Heretic, and his Books to be prohibited, particularly his Periarchon, or, as some will have it, the Periarchon alone, as containing most of his heretical Tenets; yet, in a private Letter to Paulinus, he refers him to that very Piece for the Decision of some Questions of the greatest Importance[1381]. But to return to Anastasius:
[Sidenote: The Bishops of Africa apply to Anastasius and Venerius of Milan.]
The same Year 401. in which Origen was condemned, the Churches of Africa being greatly distressed for want of Ecclesiastics, the Bishops of the Province of Carthage, assembling under Aurelius Bishop of that City, resolved to dispatch one of their Body into Italy to acquaint Anastasius, and Venerius Bishop of Milan, with the Condition of the African Churches, and implore their Assistance[1382]. Which of the Bishops was charged with this Legation, or what Success attended it, we are no-where told. But as Paulinus, who afterwards writ the Life of St. Ambrose, and belonged to the Church of Milan, was at this Time sent into Africa, and continued there, some have not improbably conjectured, that Venerius at least assisted his Collegues in Africa with a Supply of as many Ecclesiastics as he could spare. Baronius supposes Anastasius to have relieved those Churches with the like Supply; but this Supposition he builds upon the paternal Care which Anastasius had, as universal Pastor, of all the Catholic Churches[1383], which is building on a false Foundation.
[Sidenote: Anastasius advises the Bishops of Africa not to dissemble the Cruelties of the Donatists.]
The same Year another Council was held at Carthage, consisting of all the Bishops of Africa; and Aurelius, who presided in this, as he had done in the former, opened it with reading a Letter from Anastasius, exhorting the Bishops of Africa no longer to dissemble the Cruelties of the Donatists, who continued to use with great Barbarity the Catholic Bishops and Clergy[1384]. The Fathers of the Council returned Anastasius Thanks for his Advice; but, not thinking it quite agreeable to the true Spirit of Christianity, they declined complying with it. [Sidenote: Who refuse to comply with his Advice.] They knew that their Persecutors, had they complained of their Cruelties to the Civil Magistrate, would have been punished with Death, pursuant to a Law enacted against them, Three Years before, by the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius[1385]. They therefore chose, notwithstanding the Advice of Anastasius, rather to suffer with Patience a most cruel Persecution, than redeem themselves from it at so dear a Rate[1386]. In the same Council it was decreed among other things, that such of the Donatist Clergy, as should return to the Church, might be admitted, if the Bishop, who received them, thought it expedient, to the same Rank, which they had enjoyed before their Conversion. As a Decree had been lately enacted by Anastasius, and the other Italian Bishops, excluding converted Heretics from the Catholic Clergy[1387]; it was to acquaint them with the Motives which had prompted the Fathers assembled at Carthage, to admit the Donatists, that Aurelius and his Collegues writ to Anastasius; and not to beg of him a Dispensation in favour of the converted Donatists, as is ridiculously supposed by Baronius[1388].
[Sidenote: Anastasius dies.]
This is all I find recorded of Anastasius, by the antient Writers. He died on the 27th of April 402. after having held the See of Rome Four Years, One Month, and Thirteen Days. [Sidenote: Is greatly commended by Jerom.] Jerom, with whom he sided against Ruffinus, and the other Friends of Origen, distinguishes him with the Title of an eminent Man; and adds, that Rome did not deserve to enjoy him long, lest the Head of the World should be cut off under such a Bishop; nay, he was snatched away, says he, lest he should strive to ward off, with his Prayers, the Execution of the Sentence that was already pronounced; the Lord saying to Jeremiah, Pray not for this People for their Good: when they fast, I will not hear their Cry, &c[1389]. Jerom speaks there of the Calamities that befel Rome Seven Years after, when it was taken by the Goths, under Alaric. Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, not only an avowed Enemy to Origen, but a cruel Persecutor of all who stood up in his Defence, extols Anastasius for his pastoral Care, and indefatigable Pains, in preserving and maintaining the Purity of the Catholic Faith[1390]; alluding, no doubt, to his acting in Concert with him, against Origen, and the pretended Origenists. [Sidenote: Is honoured as a Saint.] Be that as it will, Anastasius is now honoured as a Saint by the Church of Rome; and the Honours paid him are chiefly owing to the Commendations of Jerom and Theophilus, whose Party he so warmly espoused. As to the Writings of Anastasius, Mention is made, by Jerom, of several Letters written by him on different Occasions; but that alone has reached our Times, which he writ to John Bishop of Jerusalem, and some Fragments of another to one Ursinus, on the Incarnation[N46].
-----
Footnote N46:
The Two Decretals that have been transmitted to us under his Name, are evidently supposititious, the one being dated Fourteen Years before his Election, and the other Fourteen years after his Death. One of these pretended Decretals is addressed to the German and Burgundian Bishops, tho’ nothing is more certain, than that the Burgundians were not converted to the Christian Religion till many Years after his Death, till the Year 436. if Socrates is to be credited[N46.1]. They are both made up of several Passages taken from the Letters of Innocent, Leo, Gregory, and others; and were, in all Likelihood, forged, as many others have been, by Isidorus Mercator.
Footnote N46.1:
Socr. l. 7. c. 30.
-----
[Sidenote: An ill-timed Observation of Baronius.]
Baronius observes, at the Death of Syricius[1391], that such Popes as did not, through Sloth and Indolence, exert the due Zeal in extirpating the heterodox Opinions that sprung up in the Church, that is, such Popes as did not exterminate all, who differed in Opinion from them, have been quickly cut off, to make room for other more zealous Asserters of the Purity of the Faith. An ill-timed Observation! which I might retort here, were I inclined to indulge such a Humour, since the indolent Syricius enjoyed his Dignity Thirteen Years (and not very many have enjoyed it longer), and the very zealous Anastasius only Four.
-----
Footnote 1350:
Theod. l. 5. c. 24. Soz. l. 7. c. 34. Aug. de civ. Dei.
Footnote 1351:
Paul. ep. 16.
Footnote 1352:
Page 273.
Footnote 1353:
Hier. Apol. l. 2. ep. 75. & dial. advers. Pelag.
Footnote 1354:
Id. ap. 1. advers. Ruff.
Footnote 1355:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1356:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1357:
Id. & Ctesiphont. advers. Pelag. Tim. 2. c. iii. v. 6, 7.
Footnote 1358:
Id. apol. 1. advers. Ruff.
Footnote 1359:
Soz. l. 8. c. 15.
Footnote 1360:
Hier. in Ruff. l. 2. c. 6. l. 3. c. 7. & Ruff. ad Orig.
Footnote 1362:
Hier. in Ruff. c. 6, 7. ep. 16. 78.
Footnote 1363:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1364:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1194.
Footnote 1365:
Hier. ep. 78.
Footnote 1366:
Id. ep. 71.
Footnote 1367:
Id. ep. 6. 69, 70.
Footnote 1368:
Id. ep. 6.
Footnote 1369:
Id. ep. 73.
Footnote 1370:
Apol. l. 3. c. 1.
Footnote 1371:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1194.
Footnote 1372:
Præf. ad Periarch. p. 665.
Footnote 1373:
Apol. pro Orig. apud Hier. t. 4. p. 194, 195. & præf. ad Periarch.
Footnote 1374:
Phot. c. 118.
Footnote 1375:
Athan. de Nicæn. decret. p. 277. Concil. t. 5. p. 652. Phot. c. 232.
Footnote 1376:
Concil. t. 5. p. 653.
Footnote 1377:
Phot. c. 232. & Nyss. in Cant. t. 1. p. 473.
Footnote 1378:
Naz. or. 31.
Footnote 1379:
Hier. de nom. Heb. p. 299.
Footnote 1380:
Hier. ep. 65.
Footnote 1381:
Hier. ep. 153.
Footnote 1382:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1642.
Footnote 1383:
Bar. ad ann. 401. n. 7.
Footnote 1384:
Concil. t. 1. inter Concil. Afr. c. 33.
Footnote 1385:
Cod. Theod. l. 3. de episc. & cler. & Greg. l. 1. ep. 52.
Footnote 1386:
Aug. ep. 127.
Footnote 1387:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1642.
Footnote 1388:
Bar. ad ann. 401. n. 14.
Footnote 1389:
Hier. ep. 16. Jerem. c. xiv. ver. 11, 12.
Footnote 1390:
Justin. in ep. ad Menan.
Footnote 1391:
Ad ann. 397. num. 21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCADIUS, INNOCENT, THEODOSIUS HONORIUS, Thirty-ninth BISHOP of Rome. the younger.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 402. The Election of Innocent, commended by the Antients.]
On the Demise of Anastasius, Innocent was immediately, and with one Consent, chosen by the Clergy, and the People[1392]. He was, according to Anastasius[1393], a Native of Albano, and the Son of another Innocent; but, according to Jerom, both the Son and Successor of Anastasius[1394]. Theodoret styles him a Man of great Address, and a lively Genius[1395]; Prosper, a worthy Successor of St. Peter[1396]; and Austin distinguishes him, after his Death, with the Title of the Blessed Innocent[1397]. Orosius says, that God withdrew that holy Bishop from Rome, when the City was taken, as he did Lot from Sodom[1398]; and Jerom, in writing to Demetrias, exhorts her to adhere steadily to the Faith of Innocent[1399]. Austin, in the Letter he writ to him in the Name of the Council of Milevum, ascribes his Election to a particular Providence; and adds, that the Fathers of the Council thought it a Duty incumbent upon them to suggest to him what might be done for the Good of the Church, since they could not think him capable of hearing any thing of that Nature with Contempt or Indifference[1400].
[Sidenote: He writes to Anysius of Thessalonica.]
Innocent was no sooner chosen and ordained, than he writ to Anysius of Thessalonica, acquainting him with his Election, and charging him, as his Three immediate Predecessors had done, with the Care of the Churches of East Illyricum[1401]. In the End of the following Year 403. the Emperor Honorius visited the City of Rome; and, during his Stay there, Innocent went frequently to wait on him, in order to obtain, in Behalf of some Bishops, and other Ecclesiastics, an Exemption from executing certain Civil Offices hereditary in their Families. He succeeded in his Suit; but it cost him a great deal of Trouble and Uneasiness[1402]. [Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Victricius.] Victricius Bishop of Rouen, who happened to be then at Rome, having applied to him for Information, with respect to the Practice and Discipline of the Roman Church, Innocent, to gratify him, and that he might not seem to approve, by his Silence, the Abuses that prevailed in some Churches, sent him a Book of Rules, as he styled it, containing several Regulations, which had been originally established, says he, by the Authority of the Apostles and Fathers, but were now, in many Places, either quite unknown, or utterly neglected. He therefore intreats Victricius to communicate them to the neighbouring Churches and Bishops, that they might be acquainted with the Discipline of the Roman Church, and conform to it in instructing the new-converted Christians[1403].
[Sidenote: The Articles it contains.]
This Book of Rules contains Thirteen Regulations relating to different Points of Discipline, whereof the First forbids, and declares uncanonical, the Ordination of Bishops without the Knowlege and Approbation of their Metropolitans. The Second excludes from the Clerical Order such as have served, or shall continue to serve, in War after Baptism. The Third orders all Differences and Disputes, arising among the Ecclesiastics, to be decided by the Bishops of the Provinces, saving the Rights of the Roman Church[N47]; and commands those to be deposed who shall recur to other Tribunals, except in Causes of the greatest Importance, when, after the Bishops have given Sentence, Recourse may be had to the Apostolical See, pursuant to the Order of the Council, meaning, no doubt, the Council of Sardica[1404]. The Three next relate to those who shall have married a Widow, a Woman that has been divorced, or a second Wife, either before or after Baptism; and they are all alike declared incapable of being ever admitted among the Clergy. The Seventh forbids Bishops to ordain Clerks of another Church, without the Permission of their own Bishops, or to admit those to serve one Church, who have been deposed in another. The Eighth allows the Novatians and Donatists, who return to the Church, to be readmitted by the bare Imposition of Hands; but subjects those to a long Penance, who had quitted the Church to be rebaptized by them. The Ninth relates to the Celibacy of the Priests and Deacons, who are debarred by it from all Commerce with their Wives, after Ordination. The inferior Clergy were allowed to marry; but Innocent, by the Tenth Article of the present Letter, excepts those who, before they were admitted among the Clergy, had lived in Monasteries, and professed Continence there; it being fit, says he, they should observe in a higher Rank what they had observed when only Monks. In the same Article he observes, that those, who had lost their Virginity before Marriage, did not receive the Blessing of the Church when they afterwards married; and that it was the antient Practice of the Church, that such as had lost it before Baptism, should promise, before they were admitted to the Clerical Order, never to marry. The Eleventh forbids those to be ordained, who were not exempted from all Civil Offices and Employments, such Offices diverting them from the Functions of the Priesthood, and sometimes obliging them to exhibit Shews and public Sports, of which the Devil was, without all Doubt, the Author and Promoter. [Sidenote: Innocent thinks the Marriage of a Woman with another Man valid, while her Husband is still alive.] The Twelfth forbids Women, who have married a Second Husband, their First being still alive, to be admitted to Repentance, or allowed to do Penance, till one of the Two dies. The same Discipline is to be observed, according to this Article, with respect to the Virgins, who, after consecrating their Virginity to Jesus Christ, shall, either by a public Marriage, or by private Fornication, violate the Faith they had pledged to their immortal Spouse.
-----
Footnote N47:
In some Editions this Clause is wanting.
-----
[Sidenote: The unchristian Severity of one of these Articles ill excused by Baronius.]
Baronius[1405], to answer the Objections which some Innovators, as he is pleased to style them, have offered against the unchristian Severity of this Article, tells us, that the Repentance of such a Virgin can by no means be sincere, so long as she continues with the Man she married; which is quite foreign to the Purpose, since Innocent excludes her from Repentance, not only so long as she lives with him, but so long as he lives. Innocent knew what Baronius seems not to have known; viz. that the Marriage of Virgins, however solemnly consecrated, held good, even according to the Practice of the Roman Church[1406]; and, consequently, that they could not abandon their Husbands; and hence he would not admit them to Repentance, or the Participation of the Sacred Mysteries, till the Death of their Husbands; which was keeping them, as it were, in a State of Excommunication, without any possible Means of redeeming themselves from it. And it is this uncharitable Severity, which some Divines of the Reformed Churches have deservedly blamed. Baronius stigmatizes such Marriages with the Name of Adultery; but he confounds the Time of Innocent with his own; for, in his Time, the Vow of Chastity was declared a true Marriage; and, consequently, every subsequent Marriage void and null; but, in Innocent’s Time, the Marriage of a sacred Virgin was held valid, though commonly deemed sinful. Whether it be sinful or no, or whether a Vow of that kind can be lawfully made, I shall not take upon me to determine here; but I am very confident, that of most Persons, who debar themselves by a solemn Vow from ever marrying, we may say, with the Fathers of the Eighth Council of Toledo, that they had better break a Vow, which they had rashly made, than fill up, by observing it, the Measure of their Sins.
But to return to the Letter: The Thirteenth and last Article will have those Virgins to do Penance for some time, who shall marry after having promised to live Virgins, though they had not yet received the Sacred Veil[1407]. This Letter has been inserted by Dionysius Exiguus, in his Code of the Roman Church, and is quoted by the Second Council of Tours, held in 567[1408]. and by several other Councils[1409][N48].
-----
Footnote N48:
And yet some have been induced by the Date it bears, to question its Authenticity. For it is dated the 15th of February 404. Now, it is manifest, say they, from the Letter itself, that Victricius was at Rome while the Emperor Honorius was there; and it is no less certain, that Honorius did not arrive at Rome till the Month of December 403. If therefore Victricius was at Rome in December 403. it is not at all probable, that Innocent should have written to him on the 15th of February 404. To solve this Difficulty, some suppose Victricius to have applied to Innocent, while he was still at Rome; and Innocent, instead of informing him, as he might, by Word of Mouth, to have given him in Writing the desired Instructions, that, having thus more Weight, they might the more readily be complied with by other Bishops. But it is manifest, from Innocent’s Words, that his Letter was an Answer to one from Victricius; and we cannot well suppose Victricius, who was at Rome in December, to have returned to Rouen, to have written from thence to Innocent, and Innocent to have returned him so full an Answer by the 15th of the following January. We may conclude the Year to have been, by some Mistake, altered, and 404. inserted in the Date instead of 405. since the Letter could not be written earlier, as I have just observed, than the Month of January (if January was the true Month) of the latter Year; and we have no Reason to think it was written later. The Mistake as to the Year might have been occasioned by the Transcriber’s omitting P. C. Post Consulatum Honorii, and thereby confounding the Year of the Emperor’s Sixth Consulship 404. with the Year after it 405.--Such Omissions frequently occur, and have led Writers, not aware of them, into great Mistakes, in point of Chronology, or made them suspect, nay, and condemn, as spurious, the most authentic Pieces of History. This Letter, in some Editions, bears no Date; and F. Labbé assures us, that he has seen a manuscript Copy of it, in which the Date was wanting. Some therefore suppose the Date to have been afterwards added, nay, and the whole Conclusion of the Letter. For Innocent closes it by saying, that the Observance of the Rules it contains will banish all Ambition among the Bishops, compose all Differences, prevent all Schisms, and leave no room for the Devil to insult the Flock of Christ. A Conclusion taken probably from some other Piece, and not at all adapted or applicable, with Truth, to this.
-----
[Sidenote: Letter of the Council of Carthage to Innocent.]
In the Year 404. Austin writ to Innocent, in the Name of the Bishops assembled in Council at Carthage, intreating him to apply to Honorius for new Laws against the Donatists; whose Cruelties towards the Orthodox, if not magnified by Austin[1410], are scarce to be matched in History. The Emperor hearkened to Innocent’s Remonstrances, and severe Laws being issued against them, they began by that means to be convinced of their Errors, and to return daily in great Numbers to the Unity of the Church. This is what we read in one of Austin’s Letters[1411]; for the Donatists, as he would make us believe, finding themselves persecuted, began to inquire, which they had never done before, into the Grounds of the Religion, for which they suffered. This Inquiry had the desired Effect; their Eyes were opened; they discovered the Errors of their Sect; and, being sensible of their Folly in foregoing any temporal Advantage, or exposing themselves to the least Inconvenience, for the sake of such a Religion, they sincerely abjured it, and zealously embraced the Catholic Faith. An ingenious Term, I must own, to excuse, nay, and to authorize and sanctify, the greatest Barbarities! But daily Experience teaches us, that Persecution has a contrary Effect, and that the more Men are persecuted, the more obstinately they adhere to the Opinions, however absurd, for which they suffer; witness the great Number of Martyrs which almost every Church, as well as the Catholic, can boast of. And, where it has not that Effect, the most it can do is to make Men become Hypocrites, and profess a Religion they do not believe; but scarce ever changes their Hearts, or brings any to a sincere and efficacious Assent to a Faith which is thus violently forced on their Minds.
[Sidenote: Innocent writes to the Bishops of Spain.]
About the same time, or not long after, Innocent writ to the Bishops of Spain, and the chief Articles of his Letter were: 1. That they ought to cut off from their Communion such of their Brethren as refused to communicate with Symphosius, Dictinius, and other Bishops, who, having renounced the Errors of Priscillian, had been readmitted to the Communion of the Church by the Council held at Toledo, in the Year 400[1412]. 2. That those Bishops should be deposed who had been ordained without the Knowlege or Consent of their Metropolitan. 3. That such as presumed to ordain against the Canons should be likewise deposed, and all who had been thus ordained by them.
[Sidenote: Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople recurs to Innocent.]
Chrysostom, the celebrated Bishop of Constantinople, having been unjustly deposed in 403 and driven from his See by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, and the Council ad Quercum, or at the Oak, near Chalcedon, had, upon his Return to Constantinople, insisted upon a Council being summoned, to make his Innocence the more plainly appear to the World. This Theophilus, and the Bishops of his Party, not only strenuously opposed, but, by the great Interest they had at Court, prevailed upon the Emperor Arcadius to drive him from Constantinople a Second time, and banish him to Cucusus, an inhospitable Place in Cilicia. The News of these last Proceedings had not yet reached Rome, when Theophilus sent one of his Lectors with a Letter to Innocent, acquainting him, that he had deposed Chrysostom. As, in this Letter, Theophilus observed an intire Silence with respect to the Motives that had prompted him to take such a Step, Innocent prudently forbore returning him an Answer. There happened to be then at Rome a Deacon of the Church of Constantinople, who, hearing what Theophilus had written, went immediately, and warned Innocent to be upon his Guard, intreating him, at the same time, not to proceed but with the utmost Caution, in so nice and important an Affair, and assuring him, that the Truth could not remain long undiscovered. Accordingly, in Three Days, Pansovius, and Three other Bishops, arrived at Rome, with Three Letters for Innocent; viz. one from Chrysostom himself, another from the Bishops of his Communion, and the Third from the whole Clergy of Constantinople. Chrysostom, in his Letter, which is still to be seen in his Works, and in those of Palladius, who writ the History of his Persecution, after giving Innocent an Account of the Storm his Enemies had raised against him, intreats him to declare such wicked Proceedings void and null, to pronounce all who had any Share in them punishable, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws, and to continue to him the Marks of his Charity and Communion. In the Title and Close of the Letter, he addresses himself to one, but every-where else to more Persons, the Letter having been written, as appears from the Copy in Palladius[1413], not to Innocent alone, but to him, to Venerius of Milan, and Chromatius of Aquileia, Bishops of the Three chief Sees in the West.
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Answer to_ Chrysostom_’s Letter_.]
Innocent, acting with his usual Prudence and Circumspection, in his Answer to the above-mentioned Letters, declared, that he admitted the Bishops of both Parties to his Communion, from which he could exclude no Man till he was lawfully judged and condemned; and that therefore, to compose all Differences, and leave no room for Complaints on either Side, it was fit a Council should be assembled, consisting of the Western as well as the Eastern Bishops. The other Bishops of Italy, to whom Chrysostom had written, returned much the same Answer[1414], following therein the Advice, which Chrysostom himself had given to the Bishops of his Party; viz. that they should communicate with his Enemies, to prevent Divisions in the Church, but not sign his Condemnation, because he did not think himself guilty[1415]. Innocent’s Answer to Theophilus was in Words to the same Effect. His Letter to Chrysostom was carried into the East by Demetrius Bishop of Pessinus, who took care to shew it every-where, to the end it might be every-where known, that the Roman Church still communicated with that holy Bishop[1416].
[Sidenote: Theophilus writes to Innocent.]
A few Days after Innocent had answered Chrysostom’s Letter, Petrus, one of Theophilus’s Presbyters, and Martyrius Deacon of the Church of Constantinople, arrived at Rome, with Letters from Theophilus, and the Acts of Chrysostom’s Deposition by the Council ad Quercum. From these it appeared, that the Council had consisted of Thirty-six Bishops, whereof Twenty-nine were Egyptians, and over these Theophilus had, as their Metropolitan, too great an Influence; that Chrysostom had been condemned without being heard, and that nothing had been laid to his Charge, deserving so severe and exemplary a Punishment. [Sidenote: Innocent_'s Answer to_ Theophilus.] Innocent therefore, having read them, with the utmost Indignation, answered Theophilus in a few Words; that he was determined, as he had notified to him by his former Letter, to communicate both with him and his Brother John; that he could by no means depart from the Communion of the latter, till he was lawfully judged and condemned; that a Council was to be soon held, before which it was incumbent upon Theophilus to make good his Charge, and the Steps he had hitherto taken, by the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Nice, since the Roman Church admitted no others[1417]. [Sidenote: Letters from the Bishops of Chrysostom_’s Party to_ Innocent.] With this Letter Petrus and Martyrius returned to Constantinople, whence arrived at Rome, soon after their Departure from that City, Theoctecnus, a Presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, and one of Chrysostom’s Friends, with Letters from Twenty-five Bishops, informing Innocent, that Chrysostom had been driven a Second time from his See; that he had been conducted by a Band of Soldiers to Cucusus, and confined to that Place; and that the great Church had been consumed by Fire, the very Day he was carried out of Constantinople. Innocent was greatly affected with this Account, and shed many Tears in reading it. But as these Troubles and Disorders were fomented by some great Men at the Court either of Arcadius or Honorius, and a Misunderstanding was then subsisting between the Two Brothers, or their Ministers, he concluded, that his Endeavours towards the restoring of Peace and Unity would prove unsuccessful, and might even blow the Fire, which already burnt with so much Violence, into a greater Flame. [Sidenote: Who sends Letters of Communion to them.] On these Considerations he wisely forbore making any Application for the present to Honorius, and only sent Letters of Communion to Chrysostom, and the Bishops, who had espoused his Cause[1418]. [Sidenote: Letters from Acacius to Innocent.] These Letters were delivered to Theoctecnus, who was scarce gone, when one Paternus, who styled himself a Presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, arrived at Rome, with Letters from Acacius, who had been intruded into the See of Constantinople, and from some other Bishops of his Party, charging Chrysostom with setting Fire to the Basilic or Great Church. So barefaced a Calumny provoked Innocent to such a Degree, that he would neither hear Paternus, nor return an Answer to the Letters he had brought.
[Sidenote: Chrysostom_’s Friends cruelly persecuted_.]
In the mean time a most cruel Persecution was railed at Constantinople, against Chrysostom’s Friends, refusing to communicate with Acacius, Theophilus, and Porphyrius, who had intruded himself into the vacant See of Antioch, and, in Defiance of the Canons, maintained, by Force of Arms, the Dignity he had usurped. This Persecution was carried on under a Christian Emperor, with as much Cruelty as any had ever been under the most inveterate Enemies of the Christian Name. The Pretence they made use of was to discover the Authors of the late Fire; and as the Imperial Officers chiefly suspected, or pretended to suspect, Chrysostom’s Friends, Optatus, who was then Prefect or Governor of Constantinople, and a Pagan, laid hold of that Opportunity to vent upon them the implacable Hatred he bore to the Religion they professed. Many therefore, without Distinction of Sex or Condition, were, by his Orders, dragged to the public Gaols, and confined there to Dungeons; others tormented with such Barbarity as to expire on the Rack; and great Numbers, after having undergone repeated Tortures, stript of all their Effects, and banished to the most remote and desolate Places of the Empire.
[Sidenote: Two Edicts enacted against them.]
At the same time the Emperor Arcadius, strangely prepossessed against Chrysostom, and those of his Communion, caused Two Edicts to be published; the one directed to the Governors of the Provinces, whom he strictly injoined not to suffer, in their respective Jurisdictions, any private Assemblies or Meetings of Persons, who, despising the Churches, worshiped elsewhere, lest they should seem to communicate with the most Reverend Prelates of the holy Law, Arsacius, Theophilus, and Porphyrius. The other commanded such Bishops as refused to communicate with them, to be driven from their Sees, and their Effects to be seized. The Persecution, which still raged, though it was soon after stopt at the Remonstrances of Studius the Præfectus Prætorio, and the Severity, with which the Two Imperial Edicts were put in Execution, drove great Numbers, both of the Clergy and Laity, from Constantinople, and the Provinces subject to Arcadius. Among the former were Cyriacus Bishop of Synnada, Eulysius of Apamea in Bithynia, Palladius of Helenopolis, Germanus a Presbyter, and Cassianus a Deacon, who afterwards embraced the Monastic Life, and became famous for his Ascetic Writings. [Sidenote: Several Bishops, and the whole Clergy of Constantinople, write to Innocent.] Eulysius brought Letters to Innocent from Fifteen Bishops of Chrysostom’s Communion, acquainting him with the deplorable State of the Constantinopolitan Church, and one from Anysius of Thessalonica, declaring, that in the present unhappy Divisions he had resolved to conform intirely to the Sentiments of the Roman Church. Germanus and Cassianus likewise delivered Letters to Innocent, written in the Name of the whole Clergy of Constantinople, and giving him an Account of the Persecution that still raged, and of the cruel Treatment their Bishop had met with[1419]. [Sidenote: His Answer to the Clergy.] Innocent, in his Answer to this Letter, expresses, in the most pathetic Terms, his Concern for the unhappy State of that Church, and their Sufferings; he encourages them to bear, with Patience, their present Tribulation and Afflictions, nay, and with Joy, since it is for the sake of Justice they suffer, and are thus persecuted; he complains of the undue Deposition of his Collegue, and Installation of another in his Life-time, which he shows to be against the Canons of the Council of Nice, the only Canons admitted and obeyed by the Roman Church: he concludes with informing them, that as he had always thought it necessary, that an Oecumenical Council should assemble, he had long considered, and was still considering, by what Means it might be assembled, since a Council, and nothing else, could appease so violent a Storm, and restore to the Church the so much wished for Tranquillity[1420].
Two Presbyters in the mean time came to Rome from the East, Domitianus of Constantinople, and Vallagus of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, and brought with them the original Acts, which they had purchased with a large Sum of the Imperial Officers, containing an authentic Detail of the Cruelties which some Women of Quality had been made to endure for not communicating with Arsacius, and the Bishops of his Faction. [Sidenote: Innocent applies to Honorius;] With these the good Bishop was so deeply affected, that he could no longer forbear applying to Honorius, who, at his Request, writ immediately to Arcadius a very pressing and friendly Letter in favour of Chrysostom, and those of his Communion. At the same time he issued an Order for convening a Council of the Western Bishops, who, meeting soon after at Rome, drew up an Address, which they sent to Ravenna, where the Emperor then was, earnestly intreating him to interpose anew his good Offices with his Brother Arcadius, that an Oecumenical Council might be allowed to assemble at Thessalonica, in order to compose the present Differences, which had already produced a Misunderstanding between the Eastern and Western Churches, and might in the End bring on an intire Separation. [Sidenote: who writes to Arcadius.] Honorius, in Compliance with their Request, writ a Third Letter to Arcadius (for he had, it seems, written already a Second), and at the same time one to Innocent, desiring him to appoint Five Bishops, Two Presbyters of the Roman Church, and One Deacon, to carry his Letter into the East, thinking that such a Legation would add no small Weight to his Mediation. The Letter to Arcadius was in the following Terms:
[Sidenote: His Letter.]
“This is the Third time I write to your Meekness (ad Mansuetudinem tuam) intreating you to correct and rectify the iniquitous Proceedings that have been carried on against John Bishop of Constantinople. But nothing, I find, has been hitherto done in his Behalf. Having therefore much at Heart the Peace of the Church, which will be attended with that of our Empire, I write to you anew by these holy Bishops and Presbyters, earnestly desiring you to command the Eastern Bishops to assemble at Thessalonica. The Western Bishops have sent Five of their Body, Two Presbyters of the Roman Church, and One Deacon, all Men of the strictest Equity, and quite free from the Byass of Favour and Hatred. These I beg you would receive with that Regard which is due to their Rank and Merit: If they find John to have been justly deposed, they may separate me from his Communion; and you from the Communion of the Orientals, if it appears that he has been unjustly deposed. The Western Bishops have very plainly expressed their Sentiments, in the many Letters they have written to me on the Subject of the present Dispute. Of these I send you Two, the one from the Bishop of Rome, the other from the Bishop of Aquileia; and with them the rest agree. One thing I must above all beg of your Meekness; that you oblige Theophilus of Alexandria to assist at the Council, how averse soever he may be to it; for he is said to be the first and chief Author of the present Calamities. Thus the Synod, meeting with no Delays or Obstructions, will restore Peace and Tranquillity in our Days[1421].”
[Sidenote: The Pope’s Legates not allowed to touch at Thessalonica.]
With these Letters the Legates set out from Rome, attended by the above-mentioned Prelates Demetrius, Cyriacus, Eulysius, and Palladius; and, sailing for Greece, put in at Athens, with a Design to pursue their Voyage to Thessalonica, having Letters from Innocent to Anysius Bishop of that City. But at Athens they were, to their great Surprize, stopt and detained by a Military Tribune, who let them know, that they must not touch at Thessalonica; and at the same time appointed a Centurion as a Guard over them, strictly injoining him not to suffer them, under any Pretence whatsoever, to approach that City. Soon after the Tribune parted them, and, putting them on board Two Vessels, ordered the Mariners to convey them strait to Constantinople. Anysius communicated with Chrysostom, as I have observed above; and it was, without all doubt, on this Consideration that the Legates were not allowed to set foot in his Diocese. [Sidenote: The hard Usage they met with on their Journey,] They arrived at Constantinople the Third Day after they had left Athens, but starved with Hunger; for the Tribune had neither supplied them with Provisions when they embarked, nor allowed them Time to supply themselves; so that they had tasted no Kind of Victuals during the Three Days they were at Sea. [Sidenote: and at Constantinople.] On their Arrival at Constantinople, they were not suffered to come ashore there, but ordered to a Castle on the Thracian Coast called Athyra, where they were all closely confined, the Legates in one common Room, and the other Bishops in so many separate Cells. As the People of Constantinople were most zealously attached to Chrysostom, the Emperor apprehended, and with a great deal of Reason, that their entering the City, and conversing publicly there, might be attended with uncommon Disturbances and Commotions; and therefore thought it adviseable to keep them at a Distance, and under Confinement. They had not been long thus confined, when they were ordered, they knew not by whom, to deliver the Letters they had brought. But neither by this Person, whoever he was, nor by several others, who were successively sent on the same Errand, could they be prevailed upon to part with them, alleging, that Letters from an Emperor ought to be delivered to none but an Emperor.
As they continued firm and unshaken in this Resolution, one Valerian, a Military Tribune, was at last called in, and ordered to employ the Rhetoric peculiar to his Profession, since no other could prevail. [Sidenote: The Letters taken from them by Force.] Valerian accordingly, after a short Preamble, proceeded to Violence; and, seizing them, took the Letters by Force, having in the Struggle wounded one of the Bishops in the Hand. The next Day they were visited by a Person, who, without acquainting them who he was, or by whom sent, offered them a very considerable Sum, on condition they would communicate with Atticus, who, upon the Death of Arsacius, had, by the Bishops of his Faction, been intruded in his room. [Sidenote: They are put on board a leaky Vessel;] Upon their rejecting, as they did, with the utmost Indignation, this Offer, Valerian, who was present, conducted them under a strong Guard to the Sea-side, and there put them on board an old leaky Vessel, having first, with a large Bribe, prevailed upon the Commander, as they were informed, to engage his Word, that they should not outlive that Voyage. [Sidenote: but arrive safe in Italy.] They outlived it however, and, having reached Lampsacus, they embarked on board another Vessel, which landed them safe at Otranto. As for the Eastern Bishops who had attended them from Rome, viz. Cyriacus, Eulysius, Palladius, and Demetrius, after having been some time kept under close Confinement at Athyra, they were banished to the most remote and abandoned Places of the Empire. The other Bishops, who refused to communicate with Atticus, Theophilus, and Porphyrius, fared no better, being in like manner either driven into Banishment, or obliged to abscond, and, under the Disguise of Mechanics, earn their Livelihood by the meanest Professions. Many perished in the Places of their Exile for want of Necessaries; and others were so cruelly harassed, nay, and barbarously beaten, by the merciless Soldiery, appointed to conduct them, that they died on the Road[1422]. Such were the wretched Effects of that unchristian Principle of Persecution being lawful to punish Error in religious Disputes, which all Sects of Christians then held, and all suffered by in their Turns, as the different Parties among them got the Civil Magistrate and Force on their Side.
[Sidenote: Honorius resolves to revenge the Affront offered to his Embassadors, but is diverted from it.]
Honorius, being informed of the base Treatment the Legates had met with, though vested with the sacred Character of Embassadors, was so provoked at such a notorious Violation of the Right of Nations, that he resolved to make War on his Brother, and revenge it by Force of Arms. But from this Resolution he was diverted by a threatened Invasion of the Barbarians, and the seasonable Discovery of the famous Stilicho’s Treachery, which obliged him to keep all his Troops in Italy, or the adjoining Provinces. As for Innocent, finding the Mediation of Honorius, which he had procured, prove unsuccessful, and no other Means left of affording the least Relief to Chrysostom and the other persecuted Bishops, he resolved to make known to the World his Abhorrence of the Evils, which it was not in his Power to redress; and accordingly separated himself from the Communion of Atticus, Theophilus, and Porphyrius, as the chief Authors of the present Calamities[1423].
[Sidenote: Arcadius and Eudoxia not excommunicated by Innocent.]
Baronius, thinking it inconsistent with the Dignity of his High Pontiff thus tamely to bear with the insulting Conduct of Arcadius, would fain persuade us, that, after he had tried in vain all other Methods of bringing the Emperor, and the Empress Eudoxia, to a Sense of their Duty, he at last thought himself obliged to thunder against both the tremendous Sentence of Excommunication, cutting them off as rotten Members from the Body of the Faithful committed to his Care and Direction. To prove this, he produces several Letters from Innocent to Arcadius, and from Arcadius to Innocent, transcribed partly from Gennadius, Glycas, and Nicephorus, and partly from the Vatican Manuscripts[1424]. To enter into a critical Examination of those Pieces, would be wasting Time, and tiring the Reader to no Purpose. I shall therefore content myself with Three Observations, each of them sufficient, in my Opinion, to make the World reject them all as mere Forgeries. In the first place, the Silence of the Historians, who writ at that Time, touching so remarkable and unprecedented an Event as the Excommunication of an Emperor and an Empress, is an unanswerable Confutation of every Proof that can be alleged to support the Authenticity of the pretended Letters. For who can imagine, that the Writers, who flourished then, and have transmitted to us most minute Accounts of far less important Transactions both Civil and Ecclesiastical, would have passed this over in Silence? In the Second place, Eudoxia is supposed, in all those Letters, to have outlived Chrysostom; whereas it is certain, that she died in 404, four Years before him. Lastly, In the above-mentioned Letter, Arcadius is all along supposed to have repented, and changed his Conduct towards Chrysostom, to have persecuted his Enemies as he had formerly done his Friends, and to have chiefly vented his Resentment on the first Author of all the Disturbances, the Empress, who thereupon, out of Grief, Rage, and Despair, fell into a dangerous Malady[1425]. But of all this not the least Hint is to be met with in Palladius, who writ in the last Days of the Life and Reign of Arcadius; nay, that Historian speaks of the Friends of Chrysostom as Men still under the Emperor’s Displeasure, and feeling the dreadful Effects of it in the inhospitable Places, to which they had been formerly confined.
[Sidenote: Chrysostom did not appeal to the See of Rome.]
From the Conduct of Chrysostom on this Occasion, the Roman-Catholic Divines have taken a great deal of Pains to prove, that the Custom of appealing to the See of Rome obtained in his Time; that he actually appealed to that See; and consequently, that the Prerogative of receiving Appeals from all Parts, and finally deciding all Controversies, claimed by the Bishops of Rome, was then acknowleged even in the East. Nothing surely but the utmost Distress for want of other Instances to prove their Assertion, could have tempted them to make use of this; since, from the Conduct of Chrysostom on this very Occasion, nay, and from that of Innocent too, if set in their true Light, it may be undeniably made out, that this pretended Prerogative was utterly unknown to both. The Fact stand thus, and thus it is related by the Historians, who have transmitted it to us: Chrysostom is unjustly accused; the Bishop of Alexandria takes upon him to inquire into his Conduct; assembles a Council, consisting chiefly of Egyptian Bishops, and summons Chrysostom to appear before them: Chrysostom pays no Regard to the Summons, protests against it, and will not allow the Bishops assembled to have any Power or Authority over him, since it had been ordained by the Canons of the Church, that the Affairs of the Provinces should be regulated by the Bishops of the Provinces; and it was consequently very incongruous, that the Bishops of Thrace should be judged by those of Egypt[1426]. No Regard is had to his Protest, none to the Canons upon which it was grounded: he is summoned anew; and, not appearing within the limited Time, is judged, condemned, and deposed. From this Sentence he appeals to a lawful Council; but, being, notwithstanding his Appeal, driven from his See, he recurs at last to the Western Bishops, namely, to Innocent of Rome, Venerius of Milan, and Chromatius of Aquileia, intreating them not to abandon him in his Distress, nor exclude him from their Communion[1427], but to procure by all means the assembling of a General Council, in order to restore the Church to her former Tranquillity.
[Sidenote: Chrysostom an utter Stranger to the Power of receiving Appeals in the Bishops of Rome.]
Such was the Conduct of Chrysostom: and, from this Conduct, does it not manifestly appear, that Chrysostom was an utter Stranger to the pretended Power in the Bishops of Rome of receiving Appeals from all other Tribunals, and finally determining all Controversies? Who can think, that, had he been acquainted with such a Prerogative, he would, when so unjustly oppressed, have appealed to a Council, which, he was well apprised, would meet with great Obstructions, when he had, ready at hand, a more certain and easy Method of finding Relief? Had he been satisfied, that Innocent had such a Privilege, is it likely he would have written to him on so urgent an Occasion, without taking the least Notice of it; that he would have contented himself with only intreating him to procure the assembling of a General Council? Should a Bishop now, apprehending himself injured by a National or Provincial Synod, appeal, not to the Pope, but, as Chrysostom did, to a General Council, he would, by such an Appeal, draw upon himself the Indignation of the Roman See: for it would be thence concluded, and no Conclusion can be more natural, that he did not acknowlege the Power of receiving Appeals claimed by that See.
[Sidenote: Chrysostom never acknowleged such a Power.]
But Chrysostom, say they, did acknowledge such a Power; for, in his Letter to Innocent, he intreats him to declare such wicked Proceedings void and null, and to pronounce all, who had any Share in them, punishable, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws. But Chrysostom addresses himself here, not to Innocent alone, as I have already observed, but to him, in Conjunction with Venerius of Milan, and Chromatius of Aquileia[1428]; nay, he addresses himself, throughout the whole Letter, to more Persons than one; and yet Baronius has the Assurance to style the Letter an Appeal to Innocent[1429]. And why to him, and not to the other Two, since he writ nothing to him but what he writ to them? [Sidenote: The Disingenuity of Bellarmine.] Bellarmine, finding some Expressions in the above-mentioned Letter, which he thought might be so interpreted as to favour and countenance the Pretensions of the See of Rome, had Chrysostom addressed himself to Innocent alone, makes him accordingly, by altering the Number in the Passage he quotes, address himself to Innocent alone[N49]; and then concludes, that even the Greeks acknowleged the Bishop of Rome for their Supreme Judge[1430]. What must every impartial Man think of a Cause, that wants to be thus defended? What of those, who thus defend it?
-----
Footnote N49:
He changes obsecro ut scribatis into obsecro ut scribas.
-----
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Exuperius Bishop of Toulouse.]
About this time, that is, in the Year 405. Innocent, being consulted by Exuperius[N50] Bishop of Toulouse, concerning some Points of Discipline, answered him by a Decretal, containing the following Decisions: 1. That the Priests and Deacons, who were daily employed in sacrificing or baptizing, were not to be allowed the Use of Matrimony; that those, who were ignorant of the Decretal issued by Syricius, might be forgiven, upon their promising thenceforth to live continent; but, as to the rest, they should, as unworthy of Indulgence, be deposed. The Second Article relates to those, who, after Baptism, had led a wicked or sinful Life, and at the Point of Death desired the Communion. Innocent declares, that to such, according to the antient Discipline of the Church, which was more severe, Repentance was granted, and not the Communion; but, according to the present Practice, both were granted. By Repentance is here meant, according to the most probable Opinion, a Reconciliation with the Church; and, by the Communion, the Eucharist, which the Thirteenth Canon of the Council of Nice commands to be given to all dying Persons who desire it. Some doubted whether it was lawful for a Christian to discharge the Office of a Judge, in criminal Cases. Innocent therefore declares, in the Third Article, that no Penance ought to be imposed upon those who had condemned Criminals to the Rack, or even to Death, the Civil Power having been established by God for the Punishment of Criminals. As Women were, it seems, more frequently punished for Adultery than Men, some imagined that Crime not to be alike punishable in both. This Notion Innocent confutes in the Fourth Article; adding, that Women were more frequently punished, merely because the Husbands were more forward in accusing their Wives, than Wives were in accusing their Husbands. The Fifth Article is a Confirmation of the Third; for it only absolves from all Sins such as are obliged, by their Office, to prosecute or condemn Criminals. The Sixth Article excludes from the Communion of the Church all Men, who, after they have been parted from their Wives, marry other Women; and all Women, who, after they have been parted from their Husbands, marry other Men[N51]. The same Punishment is, by this Article, inflicted on those who marry them, but not on their Parents or Relations, provided they have been no-way accessory to that unlawful Contract. The last Article contains a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of Scripture, the same as are still acknowleged by the Church of Rome as Canonical. In the same Article, some Books are pointed out, that ought to be absolutely condemned and rejected[1431][N52]. These Directions, or Instructions, Innocent pretends to have drawn partly from Scripture, and partly from Tradition; and thanks Exuperius, because he had, by applying to him for a Solution to his Difficulties, engaged him to examine them with Attention, and thereby given him an Opportunity of learning what he had not known before. It is surprising he should have mentioned the Scripture, since the very first Article, debarring for ever married Men from the Use of Matrimony, is an open Contradiction to the Directions given by St. Paul to all married Persons, without Restraint or Distinction; Defraud you not one the other, except it be with Consent for a time, &c. and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your Incontinency[1432].
-----
Footnote N50:
Exuperius was, as we gather from Ausonius, a Native of Bourdeaux, one of the greatest Orators of his Time, and had governed Spain in Quality of Prefect. He afterwards withdrew from the World; embraced the Ecclesiastical State in the Place of his Nativity[N50.1]; and was, for his eminent Virtues, raised to the See of Toulouse. He was chiefly commendable for his Charity to the Poor; though he bestowed the greater Part of it on Objects, perhaps, of all, the least worthy of his Compassion: for, by the Monk Sisennius, he sent considerable Sums into the East, to be distributed there among the Monks of Egypt and Palæstine[N50.2]; which might have been better employed at home, Gaul being then threatened with an Invasion of the Vandals, Alans, and other barbarous Nations; who, accordingly, broke into that Province on the last Day of the Year 406. and made themselves Masters of Toulouse itself. It was, however, this Kindness of Exuperius to the Monks, that chiefly recommended him to Jerom[N50.3], who often mentions him with the greatest Commendations[N50.4], and even inscribed to him his Comment on Zechariah.
Footnote N50.1:
Paulin. ep. 20.
Footnote N50.2:
Hier. præf. in lib. 1, 2, & 3. Zech. & ep. 152.
Footnote N50.3:
Idem ibid.
Footnote N51:
The matrimonial Bond is held, by the Church of Rome, indissoluble, and a Separation only allowed as to Bed and Board, even in Cases of Adultery; whence it follows, that so long as they both live, neither can marry, without being guilty of Adultery. There are, however, some annulling Impediments, as the Canonists style them, that is, Circumstances rendering the Marriage-contract null; and if any of these intervene, and is made to appear, the Parties are then declared not to have been married; and, consequently, free to marry whom they please. Till Innocent’s Time, Men, who had been parted from their Wives convicted of Adultery, were allowed to marry again. This Epiphanius tells us in express Terms; adding, that, agreeably to Scripture (no doubt to Matt. v. 32.), it could be no Crime to marry again; that those who married again were not excluded, on that score, from Life everlasting; and consequently ought not to be excluded from the Communion of the Church[N51.1]. The Scope and Design of Epiphanius, throughout his Work, was to acquaint us with the several Heresies that sprung up in the Church, and to explain, in Opposition to them, the Catholic Doctrines. It must therefore have been deemed a Heresy in his Time, that is, towards the latter End of the Fourth Century, to think the matrimonial Bond indissoluble, even in Cases of Adultery, or to hold it unlawful for a Man to marry again, who had put away his Wife for the Cause of Fornication. But the Heresy became afterwards a Catholic Truth, and the Catholic Truth a Heresy. This Change, however, was not so much owing to Innocent’s Decretal, as to the Two Books, which St. Austin writ about the Year 419. to prove, that it is unlawful for a Husband, who has put away his Wife, even for Adultery, or for a Wife who has been thus put away, to marry again, while both are living. He founds his Opinion on that of St. Paul, The Wife is bound by the Law, as long as her Husband liveth[N51.2]. But, instead of understanding that Passage with the Exception made by our Saviour himself, Whosoever shall put away his Wife, saving for the Cause of Fornication, &c. he endeavours, by many logical Distinctions, and unnatural Interpretations, to remove that Exception, though expressed by the Evangelist in the plainest Terms. He was therein, no doubt, misled, by the groundless, but then reigning, Notion, of an extraordinary Merit annexed to Celibacy; and therefore ends his Word with exhorting the Husbands, who have put away their Wives, to observe Continency, in Imitation of the Ecclesiastics, who observe it (says he) with the greatest Exactness, though it was not by their own Choice that some of them went into Orders. It may be questioned, whether, even then, the Continence of the unmarried Clergy was such as he represents it.
Footnote N51.1:
Epiph. hæref. 59.
Footnote N51.2:
1 Corinth. vii. 39.
Footnote N52:
These were several Books, styled The Acts of the Apostles, forged by Leucius, Nezocharis, and Leonides, and ascribed by them to some of the Apostles. Leucius was, by Sect, a Manichee, as appears from Austin, who confuted his Books[N52.1]. Nezocharis and Leonides are, by Innocent, styled Philosophers. The Books of Leucius, in the latter End of the present Century, were anew declared Apocryphal by Pope Gelasius: The Books, says he in one of his Decretals, composed by Leucius, a Disciples of the Devil, are all Apocryphal[N52.2].
Footnote N52.1:
Aug. de fide contra Manich.
Footnote N52.2:
Gelas. in Decretal. de lib. Apocryph.
-----
[Sidenote: His Letter to Anysius of Thessalonica.]
As the Bishops of Rome had, ever since the time of Damasus, taken upon them to appoint the Bishop of Thessalonica their Vicar for East-Illyricum, Innocent no sooner heard, that Rufus had been promoted to that See, vacant by the Death of Anysius, than he let all the Bishops in those Parts know, by a Circular Letter, probably directed to Rufus himself, that he conferred on him the same Dignity which his Predecessors had conferred on the other Bishops of Thessalonica. He writ, at the same time, a private Letter to Rufus, containing some Instructions relating to the Exercise of his Vicarious Power, and, with them, the Names of the Provinces which he was to govern, as his Vicar and First Primate; but without intrenching, adds Innocent, upon the Rights and Privileges of the Primate or Metropolitan of each Province. In this Letter he takes great Care, that Rufus should not forget he is indebted for such a Power to the See of Rome; for that he frequently repeats, as if he entertained some Jealousy of Rufus, or apprehended that he might claim such a Power, as Bishop of Thessalonica, that City being, according to the Civil Division of the Empire, on which the Ecclesiastical was ingrafted, the Metropolis of East-Illyricum[1433].
[Sidenote: Rome reduced to great Streights by Alaric.]
The same Year 407. the Emperor Honorius visited the City of Rome, and continued there till the Month of May of the Year 408. On the 23d of the following August, Stilicho was killed; and Alaric the Goth, entering Italy soon after his Death, appeared before Rome, and laid close Siege to that City in the latter End of the same Year. As no Provisions could be conveyed into the Place, all the Avenues being shut up, and well guarded, a Famine soon ensued, and upon the Famine a Plague, which daily swept off great Numbers of the Inhabitants. In this Extremity, such of the Senators as still adhered to the Pagan Superstitions, promising themselves Relief from the Gods of their Ancestors, resolved to implore their Protection, by solemn Sacrifices offered up to them in the Capitol, and other public Places of the City. [Sidenote: The Pagan Superstitions connived at by Innocent.] This Resolution, says Zosimus[1434], they imparted to Innocent, then Bishop of Rome, who, sacrificing his private Opinion to the public Welfare, agreed to it, on Condition that the Ceremony should be privately performed. Of these Sacrifices Sozomen too takes particular Notice[1435]; but makes no Mention of Innocent; which has induced some to suspect the Veracity of Zosimus, who was, as is well known, a sworn Enemy to the Christian Religion. But that those Sacrifices were performed, is affirmed both by him and Sozomen; and it is not at all probable, that Pompeianus, who was then Governor of Rome, and a Christian, would have suffered them, without the Consent and Approbation of Innocent. However that be, I see not why Baronius should be so provoked against Zosimus, for making Innocent thus connive at the superstitious Worship of the Gentiles, since his Successors have always allowed, and do still allow, even in Rome itself, the free Exercise of the Jewish Worship.
[Sidenote: Innocent leaves Rome, and repairs to the Emperor at Ravenna.]
Rome being reduced to the last Extremity, Deputies were, in the End, sent out to treat with Alaric, who, hearkening to their Proposals, raised the Siege, upon their paying to him Five thousand Pounds Weight of Gold, Thirty thousand of Silver, Four thousand Silk Garments, Three thousand Skins of Purple Dye, and as many Pounds of Pepper. At the same time the Romans engaged to mediate a Peace between him and Honorius: but the Emperor refusing to comply with the Terms that were proposed, though no-ways unreasonable, the Roman Senate sent Two solemn Deputations to Ravenna, where Honorius then resided, to lay before him the Danger to which he exposed the Empire, and persuade him to accept the Conditions offered him both by them and by Alaric. As the First Deputation proved unsuccessful, Innocent, thinking his Presence might give some Weight to the Negotiations, left Rome, and, together with the Deputies, repaired to Ravenna. Thus he escaped the Mortification of seeing the City of Rome taken and plundered by the Barbarians[1436]. For, Honorius still rejecting the Terms of Peace, Alaric returned with his Army before Rome; and, having made himself Master of it on the 24th of August of the Year 410. treated the great Metropolis of the Empire no better, if Jerom may be credited, than the Greeks are said to have treated antient Troy[1437].
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Marcianus, Bishop of Naissus.]
While Innocent continued at Ravenna, he writ to Marcianus Bishop of Naissus, a City in Mœsia, concerning the Ecclesiastics of his Diocese, who had been ordained by Bonosus, of whom we have spoken above[1438]. In that Letter, Innocent declares, that Marcianus ought to admit to his Communion, and even restore to their Churches, those Ecclesiastics, who, having adhered to Bonosus after his Condemnation, were willing to return, provided they had been ordained by him before his Condemnation. One of these, by Name Rusticus, to remove all Doubt concerning the Validity of his Ordination, had caused himself to be reordained by a Catholic Bishop; and this Reordination Innocent condemns, in the same Letter, as highly criminal[1439].
[Sidenote: His Letter to Aurelius of Carthage.]
In the Year 412. Innocent writ to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, whom he seems to have greatly honoured and esteemed, concerning the Day on which Easter was to be kept in the Year 414. He acquaints Aurelius, that the 16th Day of the Moon of March would fall that Year on the 22d of the Month, and the 23d of the Moon on the 29th of the Month; and consequently that, in his Opinion, Easter ought to be kept on the 22d of March. However, he desires Aurelius to discuss that Point in the Council of the African Bishops, that was in a short time to be held at Carthage; and to let him know, whether they approved of such a Regulation, or what they objected against it, that he might solemnly notify by his Letters, according to Custom, the Day, on which Easter was to be celebrated[1440]. Their thus notifying to the other Bishops the Day on which Easter was to be kept, was no Argument of Power; but it gave them an Air of Pre-eminence, which they dextrously improved into Power.
[Sidenote: The Letter of the Bishops of Macedon to Innocent.]
In the Year 414. Vitalis, Archdeacon probably of Thessalonica, arrived at Rome, with Letters for Innocent, from the Bishops of Macedon, touching certain Points of Discipline which, it seems, they had referred to him, and he had decided before. In this Letter they represent to him, in the first Place, that, according to the Custom and Practice of their Churches, the marrying a Widow was no Bar or Impediment to Orders, or even to the Episcopal Dignity; and that to marry one Wife before, and a Second after, Baptism, was not, with them, deemed Bigamy. Then passing to those, who had been ordained by Bonosus, they declare it as their Opinion, that nothing more could be required than the Blessing of a lawful Bishop to re-admit them to the Functions of their Office. They conclude with begging Leave to raise to the Episcopal Dignity one Photinus, who had been condemned by the Predecessors of Innocent, and to depose a Deacon, by Name Eustatius[1441].
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Answer_.]
This Letter Innocent answered, almost in the Style and Language of a modern Pope. He begins with expressing his Surprize at the Affront they offered to the Apostolic See, by calling in Doubt what he had already decided. He then answers, one by one, the Heads of their Letter, with all the Authority of an unerring Judge, though neither he, nor any of his Predecessors, had ever yet claimed, or thought of claiming, such a Prerogative. He absolutely condemns the Practice of admitting to Orders such as had married Widows, because that was forbidden, says he, by Moses to the High Priest of the Jews; which was tacitly declaring the Levitical Laws to be still, in some Degree, binding with respect to the Christian Clergy. He adds, that if any such had been ordained, it was the general Practice of all the Churches, both in the East and West, to depose them[N53]. [Sidenote: Innocent declares Orders conferred by Heretics to be null.] As for those who had married but one of their Two Wives after Baptism, Innocent declares them equally incapable of being ordained as if they had married both[N54]. As to the Ecclesiastics ordained by Bonosus, Innocent not only excludes them from the Ministry, but endeavours to prove in general, that Orders, when conferred by Heretics, are null, borrowing, for that Purpose, of St. Cyprian, all the Arguments which that Father had made use of to prove a no less erroneous Opinion; viz. the Nullity of Baptism, when conferred by Heretics[N55].
-----
Footnote N53:
Such a Practice, however general, could have no other Foundation but the same unwarrantable Notion: I say, unwarrantable; for what can be more so than to exclude, as Innocent does, even from the lowest Degrees in the Church, a Man who had married a Widow, because the High-Priest of the Jews was not allowed to marry one, though all other Priests were, under that Law, free from such a Restraint?
Footnote N54:
Jerom held the contrary Opinion, and maintained it in one of his Letters[N54.1], with Reasons, that appeared to Baronius almost unanswerable[N54.2], that is, no otherwise answerable than by the Ipse dixit of Innocent, which, with him, stood in the room of Reason.
Footnote N54.1:
Hier. ep. 83.
Footnote N54.2:
Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 60.
Footnote N55:
He was, it seems, no Logician; else, to prove his Opinion, he had never made use of Arguments, that equally proved, and had been calculated to prove, an erroneous Opinion, an Opinion long before condemned by all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, and very lately by himself, in a Letter to Alexander Bishop of Antioch, where he maintains the Validity of Baptism conferred by an Arian[N55.1].
Footnote N55.1:
Inn. ep. 18.
-----
[Sidenote: Which Opinion has been since declared heretical.]
The Opinion, which he endeavours to establish here, has been since condemned as heretical, by several of his Successors, and is now held as such by the whole Church; which has cut out a great deal of Work for the Champions of Infallibility. They plainly see (and who can read Innocent’s Letter without seeing?), that the Reasons which he made use of were all calculated to prove the Nullity of Ordination by the Hands of an Heretic; but nevertheless pretend, that whatever their seeming Purport may be, Innocent employed them only to prove, that an heretical Bishop had not the Power of conferring Grace, and with it the Right of exercising lawfully the Functions of his Office[1442]. But who can believe any Man, endowed with the least Share of common Sense, capable of arguing so absurdly? If his Meaning may be thus wrested, in spite of his Words, to a Catholic Sense, whose Meaning may not?
[Sidenote: Innocent owns the Holy See to have been imposed upon.]
With respect to Photinus, Innocent declares himself very unwilling to blame, or give Occasion to the World to think that he blamed, the Conduct of his Predecessors, who had condemned Photinus; but nevertheless, since so many Prelates had made it appear by their joint Testimonies, that the Holy See had been imposed upon by false and groundless Reports, he agrees to his Promotion. As to the Deacon Eustatius, he lets them know, that, whatever Reports may have been spread to his Prejudice, he is well assured both of his Probity, and the Purity of his Faith, and therefore cannot consent to his Deposition. In the End of his Letter, he complains of the Bishops of Macedon for not paying due Regard to the Testimony of the Roman Church, in behalf of the Two Subdeacons Dizonianus and Cyriacus.
[Sidenote: The Misunderstanding between the Eastern and Western Churches continues after the Death of Chrysostom.]
We have observed above, that Chrysostom being driven from the See of Constantinople into Exile, Innocent, and with him most of the Western Bishops, had espoused his Cause with great Warmth; but, finding that all their Endeavours in his Behalf proved unsuccessful, they at last separated themselves from the Communion of Atticus of Constantinople, Porphyrius of Antioch, and Theophilus of Alexandria. In the Year 407. Chrysostom died at Cumana in Pontus; but with him did not die the Animosities, which his Deposition had occasioned between the Churches of the East and the West. Atticus indeed thought nothing could now obstruct the wished-for Union; and therefore, as soon as Chrysostom’s Death was known, he applied to Rome, desiring the Communion of that Church. But he was greatly surprised, when he understood, that Innocent, instead of readily granting him his Request, insisted upon his first acknowleging Chrysostom to have been, and to have died, lawful Bishop of Constantinople, by inrolling his Name in the Diptychs[N56], with the Names of other Bishops of that City. This Demand seemed to Atticus highly unreasonable; for it was obliging him to acknowlege his own Election to have been null. He therefore peremptorily refused to comply with it; but nevertheless continued soliciting, by means of his Friends at Rome, a Reconciliation with that Church[1443]. But Innocent was inflexible; he was determined at all Events to carry his Point, and therefore would hearken to no other Terms till that was complied with. The Eastern Bishops followed the Example of Atticus; the Western that of Innocent. And thus were the Separation, and the Animosities attending it, continued Seven Years longer, each Party bitterly inveighing, in the mean time, against the Authors of the Divisions, and each expressing a most earnest Desire of a Reconciliation.
-----
Footnote N56:
The Diptychs were Tables, in which were inrolled the Names of all those who died in the Communion of the Church. The Bishops were placed there by themselves; and of all Commemoration was made by the Deacon in the Time of the Service.
-----
[Sidenote: The Churches of Antioch and Rome reconciled.]
At length Porphyrius of Antioch, one of Chrysostom’s most inveterate Enemies, dying in the Year 413. or 414. Alexander, who till then had led a monastic Life, was chosen in his room by the unanimous Consent of the People and Clergy. As he was fully convinced of Chrysostom’s Innocence, and the Malice of his Enemies, he no sooner found himself vested with that Dignity, than he caused the deceased Prelate’s Name to be inserted in the Diptychs of his Church, and the Two Bishops Helpidius and Pappus to be restored to their Sees, from which they had been driven for refusing to renounce his Communion, and to communicate with his Enemies. After this Alexander sent a solemn Deputation to Rome, at the Head of which was, it seems, the famous Cassian, to acquaint Innocent with his Promotion, to inform him of what he had done, and thereupon to renew the Union between the Two Churches. Alexander, who entertained a sincere Desire of seeing Peace and Concord restored between the East and the West, did not doubt but the Example of his Church would be followed by many others, and a Way, by that Means, be paved to a general Pacification. Innocent received the Deputation with the greatest Marks of Joy, admitted Alexander to his Communion, and, with the Consent and Approbation of Twenty-Four other Bishops, declared the Church of Antioch again united to that of Rome.
[Sidenote: The Bishop of Antioch strives to reconcile the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.]
Several other Bishops, moved partly by the Example, and partly by the Letters and Exhortations of the Bishop of Antioch, yielded to Innocent, and submitted to the Terms he required. But Atticus still adhered to his former Resolution, and, to gain him, Alexander, who spared no Pains to complete the Work he had begun, repaired in Person to Constantinople. But he acted there with such Indiscretion as rendered that haughty Prelate more averse, than he had ever yet been, to an Accommodation on the Terms proposed by Innocent. For all other Means he could think of, to compass his Design, proving unsuccessful, he resolved in the End to apply to the Populace, who, as he well knew, had been most zealously attached to Chrysostom during his Life, and revered him as a Saint after his Death. [Sidenote: His imprudent Conduct.] Suffering therefore his Zeal to get the better of his Prudence, and of every Consideration Prudence could suggest, he began to harangue the Multitude, and inflame them with seditious Speeches against Atticus, as carrying, even beyond the Grave, his Hatred and Malice against their holy Bishop. The Populace heard him with Attention, applauded his Zeal, and, full of Rage against Atticus, demanded, in a tumultuous manner, that the Name of so holy, so great and deserving a Prelate, might be inrolled, without further Delay, in the Diptychs. But their Clamours and Threats made no more Impression on the Mind of Atticus than the Reasons of Alexander; he withstood both; and the Bishop of Antioch, finding all his Attempts thus shamefully baffled, returned to his See, with the Mortification of having only widened the Breach, which he intended to close, between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople[1444]. Baronius supposes Alexander to have acted on this Occasion as Innocent’s Legate[1445]. But I find nothing in the Antients to countenance such a Supposition, besides his haughty Behaviour, and his pursuing, by the most unwarrantable Methods, what he had in View.
[Sidenote: The Name of Chrysostom inrolled in the Diptychs by the Bishop of Constantinople.]
Atticus, however, allowed, in the End, Chrysostom’s Name to be inserted in the Diptychs; but whether he did it by Choice or Compulsion, is uncertain; for, in one of his Letters, he writes, that he could no longer withstand the Threats and Violence of the enraged Multitude[1446]; and in another, that he had done it to comply with the Will of the Emperors, and to conform to the Sentiments of his Brethren, both in the East and the West[1447]. However that be, it is certain, that he never changed his Sentiments with respect to Chrysostom, as is manifest from his declaring, after he had placed his Name in the Diptychs, that he thereby meant no more than to own, that he had been once Bishop of Constantinople; but that he still adhered to the Judgment that was given against him. With this, however, Innocent was satisfied; and so is Baronius.
[Sidenote: The Two Churches re-united at last.]
Alexander maintained ever after a close Correspondence with Innocent, courting his Favour with the most servile Submissions, recurring to him in every momentous Affair relating to his Church, and suffering himself to be blindly guided by his Counsels. In one of his Letters he consulted him, it seems, concerning the Prerogatives of his See, and the Extent of his Jurisdiction; and nothing can be more subtle than Innocent’s Answer. [Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Alexander of Antioch.] For after a long Preamble on the Dignity of the See of Antioch, he craftily insinuates all the Privileges and Prerogatives annexed to it to be owing not to the Dignity of the City, but to the Dignity of the See, as having been once the See of St. Peter. He adds, that on this Consideration it had been distinguished with an extensive Jurisdiction, and that it yielded to that of Rome itself only because St. Peter had accomplished there what he had begun at Antioch[1448]. [Sidenote: The Prerogatives of the See of Rome owing to the City, and not to St. Peter.] What Innocent proposed to himself by thus exalting the See of Antioch, by deriving the Privileges, Prerogatives, and Jurisdiction, of that See from St. Peter, is obvious. If they were owing not to the City, but to St. Peter, as Innocent affirms, those enjoyed by the See of Rome were, in like manner, owing to St. Peter, and not to the City. This Notion, now first started by Innocent, was not suffered to drop; but, being greedily embraced by his Successors, it was, in Process of Time, improved by them into a general Plea for all their exorbitant Claims. And thus Innocent may be justly said to have pointed out the Ground on which the unwieldy Fabric of the Papal Power was afterwards built. But if it be true, as Innocent pretends, that the See of Antioch owed its Dignity to St. Peter, and not to the City, how will he account for its being ranked under that of Alexandria, which was neither founded, nor had ever been honoured, by that Apostle? But not to waste Time in combating such a groundless Notion, nothing is more certain, than that the Disposition and Division of the Church was founded upon, and intirely agreeable to, the Disposition and Division of the Empire[1449]; and consequently that as no Regard was had to St. Peter, or any other Apostle, in the Civil, none could be had in the Ecclesiastical, Polity. And hence it naturally follows, that as Rome was the first City of the Empire, Alexandria the Second, and Antioch the Third, the Sees should be ranked in the same Order; and in the same Order they were ranked accordingly, though the See of Alexandria was founded only by a Disciple of St. Peter, and that of Antioch was supposed to have been founded by St. Peter himself.
[Sidenote: The Division of the Church founded on the Division of the Empire.]
This Division of the Church took place soon after the Division of the Empire made by Constantine the Great, on which it was founded. It was first introduced by Custom, but afterwards confirmed by several Councils; and in none of them is there a Word of St. Peter. As therefore the Bishop of Alexandria preceded in Rank the Bishop of Antioch, for no other Reason but because the City of Alexandria preceded in Dignity the City of Antioch, according to the secular Constitutions of the Empire; so the Bishop of Rome preceded in Rank all other Bishops, for no other Reason but because the City of Rome, as the Seat of the Empire, preceded in Dignity all other Cities.
[Sidenote: Innocent encourages the Bishop of Antioch to invade the Rights of the Metropolitans.]
But to return to Innocent: In the same Letter to Alexander he observes, that the Bishop of Antioch did not preside over a single Province, but a whole Diocese; and therefore advises him not only to maintain the Right he had of ordaining the Metropolitans, but not to suffer other Bishops in the Provinces under his Jurisdiction, however distant, to be ordained without his Consent and Approbation. He adds, that, with respect to the Bishops of the less remote Provinces, he might reserve to himself the Right of ordaining them[1450]. This was encouraging the Bishop of Antioch to invade and usurp the undoubted Rights of the Metropolitans, in open Defiance of the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council of Nice, which were afterwards confirmed by almost innumerable other Councils, all granting to the Metropolitans the Power of ordaining the Bishops of their respective Provinces jointly with the Bishops of the same Province, without ever once mentioning the Patriarch or Head of the Diocese[1451]. But of this Right the Bishops of Rome had deprived the Metropolitans under their Jurisdiction as early at least as the Time of Syricius; for that Pope, in the Letter which he writ to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica, appointing him his Vicar for East-Illyricum, charges him not to suffer any Bishops to be ordained in those Provinces without his Consent and Approbation. Innocent maintained what his Predecessors had usurped; and, to countenance their Usurpation and his own, he encourages, by this Letter, the Bishop of Antioch to pursue the same Conduct with respect to the Metropolitans of his Diocese. The Example of the Bishops of Rome was, in Process of Time, followed by those of Constantinople, who, rivaling them in Pride and Ambition, not only usurped the Power of ordaining all the Bishops of their Diocese, but, by the Interest they had at Court, obtained an Imperial Rescript, confirming to them the Power which they had usurped. But they were soon obliged to part with it, though thus guaranteed, by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon impowering, by their Twenty-eighth Canon, the Bishops of Constantinople to ordain the Metropolitans in the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace; but at the same time ascertaining to the Metropolitans the Right of ordaining the Bishops of their respective Provinces. But the Bishops of Rome, ever determined to part with no Power, however acquired, found means not only to elude the Decrees of this and several other Councils, ascertaining the Rights of the Metropolitans in the plainest Terms, but to improve, by daily Incroachments, their usurped Jurisdiction, as I shall have frequent Occasion to observe in the Sequel of this History.
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter occasions great Disputes between the Bishops of_Antioch and those of Cyprus.]
Innocent complains, in the next Article of his Letter, of a Custom that obtained in the Island of Cyprus. It was one of the chief Privileges of the Patriarch, or Bishop, who presided over a whole Diocese, to ordain the Metropolitans of the Provinces comprised under his Diocese. But the Metropolitan of Cyprus was ordained by the Bishops of that Island without the Consent, or even the Privity, of the Bishop of Antioch, though Cyprus belonged to his Province, according to the Civil Division of the Empire. This Custom Innocent condemns, as repugnant to the Canons of the Council of Nice; adding, that it was first introduced in the unhappy Times when Arianism prevailed all over Syria, the Bishops of Cyprus refusing then to acknowlege those of Antioch, who were infected with that Heresy. This Article proved the Source of endless Disputes between the Bishops of Antioch and those of Cyprus; the former pretending, that the Power of ordaining the Metropolitan of Cyprus was lodged in them, and the latter opposing with great Warmth such a Pretension. [Sidenote: Which are in the End decided in favour of the latter.] The Controversy was at length referred to the Council of Ephesus; and the Fathers of that numerous Assembly, having heard and examined with great Attention the Pleas of both Parties, condemned in the strongest Terms the Pretension of the Bishops of Antioch, as repugnant to the antient Canons, that is, to those very Canons, on which, at the Suggestion of Innocent, they had founded it. And here I cannot help observing, by the way, that the Bishops of Antioch never thought of alleging, in support of their Claim, the Authority of Innocent, which they would certainly have done, had they not been well apprised, that no Regard would have been paid to it by the Fathers of the Council. As for what Innocent adds concerning the Time and Manner in which the Custom he complains of was introduced, he must certainly have been no less mistaken in those Particulars, than he was in the Sense and Meaning of the Canons of Nice. For who can imagine, that the Arian Bishops, at the Time Arianism prevailed, that is, when they had the greatest Interest at Court, and the Orthodox had none, would have suffered the Bishops of Cyprus to withdraw themselves, contrary to the established Laws of the Church, from their Jurisdiction, for no other Reason, but because the Bishops of Antioch professed the Doctrine of Arius?
Alexander, in his Letter to Innocent, had asked him, Whether Two Metropolitan Sees should be erected in one Province, which had been divided by the Emperors into Two? Innocent replies, That the Concerns of the Church being different from those of the State, the Church ought to adhere to the antient Rule. [Sidenote: Alterations in the State generally attended with the like Alterations in the Church.] However, it is plain from History, that such Alterations in the State were, generally speaking, attended with the like Alterations in the Church; insomuch that when the Bishop of any considerable City wanted to be raised to the Dignity of a Metropolitan, the most expeditious Way of gratifying his Ambition was, to apply to the Emperor for a Division of the Province; that his City being advanced, by such a Division, to the Rank of a Metropolis, he might, by the same Means, be preferred to that of a Metropolitan. Of mere Bishops, thus raised to the Dignity of Metropolitans, without any Regard to Innocent’s Letter, or, as it is styled, Decretal, several Instances occur in History.
Innocent, in the End of his Letter, declares it as his Opinion, that such Ecclesiastics as had renounced Arianism, or any other Heresy, with a Desire of being received into the Church, ought not to be admitted as Ecclesiastics, but only as Laymen. [Sidenote: Ecclesiastics ordained by Heretics to be admitted into the Church only as Laymen.] This Doctrine is intirely agreeable to the erroneous Doctrine concerning the Invalidity of Ordination by the Hands of an Heretic, which we have heard him labour to establish in his Letter to the Bishops of Macedon[1452]. He concludes this Letter with intreating the Bishop of Antioch to cause it to be read in a Council, or to see that Copies of it be transmitted to all the Bishops of his Diocese, that all may agree in observing the Instructions which it contains[1453].
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to the Bishop of_ Eugubium.]
But of all Innocent’s Letters, that which he writ to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium (a City still known by the same Name in the Duchy of Urbino) is by far the most worthy of Notice, whether we consider the Doctrine which he there lays down, or the Principles on which he founds it. As to the Doctrine, it may be reduced to the Two following Heads; viz. That all the Churches in the West are bound to adopt, and strictly to observe, every Practice and Custom observed by the Roman Church; and that the Customs of all other Churches, differing from those of the Roman Church, are but Corruptions of the antient Tradition, Deviations from the Practice of the Primitive Times, and insufferable Abuses. As for the Principles on which he founds this Doctrine, they are, to say no more, of a Piece with the Doctrine itself. For he pretends, 1. That no Apostle, besides St. Peter, ever preached in the West. He ought, with St. Peter, to have at least excepted St. Paul; and, no doubt, would, had not his Memory failed him, as well as his Infallibility. [Sidenote: All Churches ought, according to him, to conform to the Customs of the Roman Church.] He supposes, in the Second place, That all the Churches in the West were founded by St. Peter, or by some of his Successors; and consequently, that they ought to conform to the Customs of the Roman Church, since to that Church they owe their Origin. But that the Church of Lyons, not to mention others, was founded by Preachers sent thither out of Asia by St. Polycarp, and not by St. Peter, or any of his Successors, is affirmed by all the Antients, and allowed by the most learned among the Moderns; though some of them pretend, without the least Foundation, the Whole to have been done by the Authority of the Bishop of Rome[1454]. Innocent pretends, in the Third place, every Point of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Polity to have been settled by the Apostles, and whatever was settled at Rome by St. Peter to have been there strictly observed ever since his Time, without the least Addition or Diminution. He concludes this Part of his Letter with laying it down as a general Maxim, That it is unlawful for any Bishop to make the least Alterations in the Discipline of his Church, or even to introduce into one Church a Custom or Practice observed by another[1455]. This nevertheless is what all Bishops have done, and even those of Rome, both before and after Innocent’s Time, and consequently what they thought it lawful to do. [Sidenote: Some Customs of the Roman Church borrowed of other Churches.] The Psalmody, for Instance (and innumerable other Instances might be alleged), or the singing of Psalms in the Churches, was not instituted by any of the Apostles but first introduced by St. Ignatius into the Church of Antioch[1456], whence it spread in a very short time to all the Churches in the East, those Bishops no more scrupling to adopt, than Ignatius had scrupled to introduce, so laudable a Practice. Of the Eastern Churches it was borrowed by the Church of Milan, and of the Church of Milan by that of Rome, long before Innocent’s Time; which plainly shews, that his Predecessors held not that Doctrine, no more than one of the best of his Successors, St. Gregory the Great, who openly approves of some Customs, that were first unknown to, but afterwards adopted by his Church[1457]. Upon the Whole, it is evident, that Innocent was grosly mistaken, not only with respect to this Point, but likewise in asserting, that whatever had been settled at Rome by St. Peter, was still observed there without the least Addition or Diminution.
[Sidenote: The Ceremony of anointing those who are confirmed.]
The remaining Part of Innocent’s Letter relates to some particular Ceremonies and Customs, especially to the Ceremony of confirming those who were baptized, and the Custom of fasting on Saturdays. With respect to the former, he informs Decentius, that, according to the Custom of the Church, founded on the Practice of the Apostles, the Bishop alone can anoint on the Forehead those who have been baptized, and give them the Holy Ghost; and that the Priests can only anoint other Parts, the Episcopal Power not having been granted to them, though they partake of the Priesthood[N57].
-----
Footnote N57:
The Ceremony of anointing with Oil the Forehead, and likewise the Organs of the Five Senses, in those who had been baptized, is undoubtedly very antient. Tertullian, who lived in the Latter-end of the Second Century, speaks of it as a Ceremony universally practised and established[N57.1]. St. Cyprian[N57.2], who flourished Fifty Years after, St. Ambrose[N57.3], St. Austin[N57.4], St. Jerom[N57.5], and the other Fathers, describe it as a Ceremony, by which the Holy Ghost was given to those who had been baptized, and consequently which none but Bishops could administer, they being the Successors of the Apostles, to whom alone that Power was granted. For the Fathers, generally speaking, and other antient Writers, suppose this, and the Imposition of Hands, by which the Holy Ghost was given by the Apostles to those who were baptized[N57.6], to be one and the same Ceremony. The Oil employed on this Occasion was, as early as the Third Century, solemnly consecrated, kept in the Churches or Places where the Faithful met, and held by them in great Veneration[N57.7]. This gave Rise, in the following Century, to many superstitious Practices, and Miracles were said to have been wrought by the holy Oil, to warrant such Practices, and confound those who thought it unlawful to comply with them. A very remarkable Miracle of this Nature is gravely related by Optatus Milevitanus[N57.8], who writ about the middle of the Fourth Century. But, in the Time of the Apostles, the Whole of this Ceremony consisted in the Imposition of Hands: Then laid they their Hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Not a Word of Oil, of Chrism, of Unction, of signing with Oil on the Forehead in the Form of a Cross, and much less of a Blow given by the Bishop on the Cheek to the Person that is confirmed, though these are now all deemed, in the Church of Rome, material Parts of this Ceremony. As such Rites were unknown to, and unpractised by, the Apostles, it matters little how early they were introduced after their Time. And here I cannot help observing, that the Roman Catholics themselves have not thought fit to adopt all the Ceremonies used on this Occasion, and recommended by the Fathers. For, in Innocent’s Time, the Person confirmed was not only anointed on the Forehead, but on other Parts; on the Forehead by the Bishop, on other Parts by the Priests. The other Parts were, as we gather from Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem[N57.9], the Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Hands, and Feet. The anointing of these Parts was, in the Opinion of that Father, no less fraught with Mysteries than the anointing of the Forehead; and yet the former Unction, notwithstanding its Antiquity, and all the Mysteries it symbolized, has been long since omitted, as altogether unnecessary. They might in like manner have omitted all the rest, and contented themselves, as the Apostles did, with the bare Imposition of Hands.
Footnote N57.1:
Tert. de resur. carnis.
Footnote N57.2:
Cypr. ep. 72, 73.
Footnote N57.3:
Ambr. de sacram. l. 3. c. 2.
Footnote N57.4:
Aug. contra Petil. l. 1. c. 104. de baptis. l. 3. c. 16. In ep. 1. Joan. tract. 3. & de diver. ser. 33.
Footnote N57.5:
Hier. contra Luciferian.
Footnote N57.6:
Act. viii. 15-17.
Footnote N57.7:
Cyp. ep. 70. & de oper. card. & unct. Chris.
Footnote N57.8:
Optat. Milev. contra Parm. l. 2.
Footnote N57.9:
Cyril. Catech. mystag. 3.
-----
[Sidenote: Confirmation not a Sacrament.]
The Roman Catholics, finding this Ceremony, now known by the Name of Confirmation, styled a Sacrament by St. Cyprian[1458], and St. Austin[1459], have thereupon raised it to that Rank, not reflecting that the antient Writers frequently make use of that Word to express no more than a sacred Ceremony, or Mystery. And truly were they to reckon among their Sacraments all the Ceremonies which the Fathers and other Christian Writers have distinguished with that Title, their Number would amount to Seventy rather than to Seven.
[Sidenote: Why deemed formerly unlawful to fast on Sunday or Saturday.]
With respect to the other Point, those who are ever so little versed in the Writings of the Fathers, must know, that from the earliest Times it was deemed unlawful, nay, and highly criminal, for a Christian to fast on Sunday or Saturday; on Sunday, because those Heretics, who denied the Resurrection of our Saviour, fasted on that Day, in Opposition to the Orthodox, who, believing it, solemnized the Sunday, the Day on which it happened, with Feasting and Rejoicings; on Saturday, because other Heretics holding the God of the Jews, and the Author of their Law, to be an evil Spirit, whom Christ came to destroy, fasted on the Seventh Day, thinking that by fasting they vilified the God of the Jews as much as the Jews honoured him by feasting[1460]. Among the antient Canons, known by the Name of the Apostolic Constitutions, we read the following Ordinance: If a Clerk shall be found to have fasted on a Sunday or a Saturday, let him be deposed; if a Layman, let him be cut off from the Communion of the Faithful[1461]. But that Canon must be understood only with respect to the East; for there was broached, and there chiefly prevailed, the Heresy that first introduced such a Practice. But in the West, where that Heresy was scarce known, some Churches, and the Roman in particular, observed both Fridays and Saturdays as Fast-days. [Sidenote: Friday from the earliest Times a Fast-day.] The Friday was, from the earliest Times, a Fast-day with all Churches, both in the East and the West; the Saturday was only in the West, and even there with very few Churches, which had borrowed that Custom of the Roman Church, as we are informed by St. Austin[1462]. Innocent therefore, desirous of establishing in all other Churches the Custom that obtained in his own, undertakes to prove, first, That all may, and, secondly, That all ought to observe Saturday as a Fast. [Sidenote: Saturday a Fast-day in the Roman Church.] That all may, he proves well enough; but the Reasons he offers to shew that they all ought, viz. Because Christ lay in the Sepulchre the Saturday as well as the Friday, and the Apostles fasted, as he supposes, on both Days, are manifestly unconclusive as to any Obligation. Besides, it was not because Christ lay in the Sepulchre, or because the Apostles fasted, but because Christ was crucified on a Friday, that a Fast was appointed to be observed on that Day. In Process of Time, the Custom of sanctifying both Days with a Fast took place in most of the Western Churches; and this Custom has been made in latter times a general Law, and one of the Commandments of the Church, which all Roman Catholics are bound to obey on Pain of Damnation. However, the Severity of it is so far relaxed, that, as they are only required to abstain from Meat, the utmost Riot and Epicurism in other Kinds of Food, and in Wine, may be, and are indulged on their Fast-days.
[Sidenote: The Ceremony of anointing the Sick with Oil.]
The last Article of Innocent’s Letter relates to the Ceremony of anointing the Sick with Oil, agreeably to that of St. James, Is any sick among you, &c.[1463]? As the Apostle directs the Faithful to call for the Elders of the Church; some took from thence Occasion to question whether Bishops were impowered to perform that Ceremony. Innocent therefore answers Decentius, who had proposed the Question, that there can be no room to doubt whether or no the Bishops have such a Power, since the Priests can have none, which the Bishops have not, of whom they receive all their Power. It is true, says Innocent, that St. James ordered the Faithful to call for the Elders, and not for the Bishops; but that was because he knew that the Bishops could not have so much Leisure from other important Duties as the Priests. He adds, that this Unction must not be applied to Penitents; that the Oil used in it must be blessed by the Bishop; and when it is thus blessed, not the Presbyters only, but all the Faithful, may anoint with it both themselves and others. The Power of anointing, St. James confined to the Elders or Priests, and that is the present Doctrine of the Church of Rome, though Innocent extended such a Power to all the Faithful. This Ceremony, now known by the Name of Extreme Unction, was, in Innocent’s Time, a kind of Sacrament; for so he styles it[1464]. But it is now a true Sacrament, and such it was declared by the Council of Trent[1465].
[Sidenote: Letters from the Councils of Carthage and Milevum to Innocent.]
In the Year 416. Innocent received Three Letters from the African Bishops; viz. one from the Bishops of Africa, properly so called, assembled at Carthage; another from those of Numidia, assembled at Milevum; and a Third from St. Austin, signed by him and Four other Bishops. The Two Councils writ to acquaint Innocent, that they had condemned Pelagius and his Disciple Cælestius, of whose Opinions I shall speak hereafter, and desire him to add the Authority of the Apostolic See to their Decrees. The Letter from St. Austin, and the Four other Bishops, was to inform Innocent, in a friendly manner, that he was suspected of countenancing those Heretics, and favouring their Doctrine. This Suspicion they themselves seem not to have thought quite groundless: for Possidius, one of the Bishops who subscribed the Letter, writes, that the African Bishops took a great deal of Pains to convince Innocent, and his Successor Zosimus, that the Doctrine of Pelagius was erroneous and heretical, knowing that his Followers were striving to infect the Apostolic See itself with their poisonous Tenets[1466]. They strove in vain, says Baronius; and perhaps they did; but the African Bishops had never taken so much Pains to guard the Apostolic See against that Infection, had they not thought it capable of being infected. The Five Bishops sent to Innocent, together with their Letter, St. Austin’s Answer to a Letter which he had received from Pelagius, his Confutation of a Book composed by that Heretic, and the Book itself, with the Passages marked in it that gave most Offence, and claimed a particular Attention, lest he should overlook them[1467]. This was not treating him as an infallible Judge[N58].
-----
Footnote N58:
Baronius observes here, that their informing him by a private Letter, and not by a public one from the Council, of the Suspicions that some entertained of him, was a Mark of the great Respect and Veneration, they had for the Bishop of Rome, whose Nakedness they were unwilling, as it became dutiful Children, to expose to the Eyes of the World[N58.1]. And who told Baronius, that, in the like Circumstances, they would not have shewn the same Respect for any other Bishop? He had better have observed, and the Observation is more obvious, that his being suspected at all evidently proves the Infallibility of the Apostolic See not to have been, in those Days, an Article of the Catholic Faith.
Footnote N58.1:
Bar. ad ann. 416. n. 11.
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Answer to the Councils_.]
The Letters from the Council of Carthage, from that of Milevum, and from the Five Bishops, were brought to Rome by Julius, Bishop of some City in Africa; and, by the same Julius, Innocent answered them with Three Letters, all dated the 27th of January of the Year 417. The First, which is addressed to Aurelius, probably Bishop of Carthage, and to the other Bishops of that Assembly, he begins with commending them for their Zeal, their Pastoral Vigilance, and the Regard they had shewn for the Apostolic See. [Sidenote: He claims the first a Divine Right of finally deciding all Controversies.] He thence takes an Opportunity to resume his usual and favourite Subject, the Dignity, Pre-eminence, and Authority of that See; roundly asserting, that all Ecclesiastical Matters throughout the World are, by Divine Right, to be referred to the Apostolic See, before they are finally decided in the Provinces. This was indeed a very bold Claim, and a direct asserting to himself the Universal Supremacy attained by his Successors. But it was yet too early for such a Claim to be granted; and it is plain the African Bishops had no Idea of this Divine Right. For, had they entertained any such Notion, they surely would never have presumed finally to condemn and anathematize, as they did, Pelagius and Cælestius, without consulting at least the Apostolic See: neither would they have written to Innocent in the Style they did, after they had condemned them: for, in their Letter, they did not leave him at Liberty to approve or disapprove of what they had done; but only desire him to join his Authority to theirs, which they well knew he could not refuse to do, without confirming the Suspicion of his countenancing the Pelagians, and their Doctrine. [Sidenote: Which is not acknowledged by the African nor the Numidian Bishops.] We have anathematized Pelagius and Cælestius, say the Fathers of the Council of Carthage, and thought fit to acquaint you with it, that to the Decrees of our Mediocrity might be added the Authority of the Apostolic See. This is a modest Style, and respectful to the See of Rome; but it is that of Men who plainly thought they had a Right to act in this Matter, by their own Judgment and Power, without waiting for the Award of that See, as they ought to have done, is they had allowed of Innocent’s Claim. In like manner the Council of Milevum, after informing Innocent of the Sentence, which they had pronounced against the Two above-mentioned Heretics, adds; And this Error and Impiety, which has every-where so many Followers and Abetters, ought also to be anathematized and condemned by the Apostolic See[1468]; which was putting Innocent in mind of what he ought to do, and not consulting him what they should do. [Sidenote: An Instance of Innocent_’s great Subtlety and Address_.] This Conduct of the African Bishops gave Innocent no small Uneasiness. He was at a Loss what to do at so critical a Juncture. For to approve of a Conduct, so derogatory to the pretended Dignity of his See, was giving up his Claim to the Divine Right of finally deciding all Ecclesiastical Controversies. To disapprove it, was confirming the Suspicion of his countenancing the Doctrine which they had condemned. But Innocent was a Man of great Subtlety and Address; and he found out, at last, an Expedient to extricate himself out of that Perplexity, and gratify the Fathers of both Councils, without either approving or condemning their past Conduct. The only thing they required of him was to join his Authority with theirs, in condemning the Pelagian Heresy; and that he readily did. But, lest in so doing he should seem to approve of their having condemned it without first consulting him, in his Answer to their Letters, he supposes them to have actually consulted him; nay, to have referred to him the final Decision of that Controversy; and, agreeably to that Supposition, he commends them for the Deference they had thereby shewn to the Apostolic See. You have well observed, says he, the Ordinances of the antient Fathers, and not trampled under-foot what they, not in human Wisdom, but by Divine Order, have established; viz. That whatever is done in Places, however remote, should, for a final Conclusion, be referred to the Apostolic See. And again, You have had due Regard to the Honour of the Apostolic See, I mean of him who has the Charge and Care of all Churches, in consulting him in these Perplexities, and intricate Cases[1469]. Thus did Innocent maintain his Claim, and, at the same time, avoid quarrelling, at an improper Season, with those who had acted in direct Opposition to it. A necessary Policy in the first setting up of such extravagant and groundless Pretensions.
[Sidenote: He excommunicates Cælestius and Pelagius.]
In the present Letter he not only approves of the Judgment given against Pelagius and Cælestius by the African Bishops, but alleges several Reasons in Confutation of the Doctrines they taught; and concludes, by declaring them cut off from the Communion of the Church, agreeably to the Sentence of the African Bishops, as Men not only unworthy of that Communion, but of human Society, and even of Life[1470]. The same things he repeats in his Answer to the Bishops of Numidia; but he seems there to have been sensible, upon a more cool Consideration, that, in his Letter to the Council of Carthage, he had strained his Prerogative too high; and therefore in this he confines to Matters of Faith the general Maxim, which he had laid down, concerning the Obligation of referring all Ecclesiastical Matters, for a final Decision, to the Apostolic See. In the same Letter he endeavours to confute, in particular, the Doctrine of Pelagius, allowing Children, who die without Baptism, to partake of eternal Life[1471]. In his Answer to the Five Bishops, he refers them for his real Sentiments, concerning the Doctrine of Pelagius, to the other Two Letters, adding, that he had read the Book of Pelagius, which they had sent him, and found nothing in it that he liked, or rather that he did not dislike[1472][N59].
-----
Footnote N59:
That the Pelagian Heresy was first condemned by the African Bishops, is a Fact so well attested, that one would think it impossible it should ever have come into any Man’s Thoughts to call it in question. And yet Baronius, upon the Authority of a very doubtful Passage out of St. Prosper, a contemporary Writer, roundly asserts that Heresy to have been first condemned, not by the African Bishops, but by Innocent[N59.1]. The Words of Prosper are:--Pestem subeuntem prima recidit sedes Roma Petri[N59.2]. These Words are variously interpreted by the Learned; but all agree in rejecting the Interpretation of Baronius, as making[N59.3] Prosper contradict a known Truth.
Footnote N59.1:
Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 26.
Footnote N59.2:
Prosp. de Ingratis, l. 1. c. 2.
Footnote N59.3:
Vide Jansenium de Hær. Pelag. p. 16. Merc. t. 1. p. 9.
-----
[Sidenote: Cælestius condemned by the African Bishops, notwithstanding his Appeal to Rome.]
Cælestius had been condemned by a Council held at Carthage in the Year 412. and probably consisting of the same Bishops who composed that of the Year 416. From their Sentence he appealed, as Baronius observes[1473], to the See of Rome, summoning his Accuser Paulinus to appear at the same Tribunal. But all we can infer from thence is, that either Innocent did not receive the Appeal, or, if he did, that the African Bishops made no Account of it, since they condemned him anew, without waiting for the Judgment of Innocent, to whom he had appealed.
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Jerom.]
Innocent writ Two Letters more, a little before his Death, one of which was to St. Jerom, comforting him in his Distress. For some who favoured Pelagius, provoked at Jerom’s repeated Invectives against him, had set Fire to his Monastery at Bethlehem, and burnt it down to the Ground, agreeably to the Spirit and Methods in which religious Controversies were now carried on. Their Design was to have burnt Jerom himself; but he had the good Luck to escape out of the Flames, and save himself in a strong Tower. The Two noble Virgins, Eustochium and her Niece Paula, who led a retired Life under the Direction of Jerom, met with no better Treatment. For those Fanatics, breaking into the House where they lived, beat some of their Attendants in their Presence, killed others, and threatened them with Fire and Destruction. With this they acquainted Innocent, who thereupon writ to Jerom, offering to exert the whole Authority of the Apostolic See against the Authors of such Excesses, provided he knew who they were: for the Two Virgins had concealed their Names, probably to prevent his exerting that Authority, which they had Reason to apprehend would be attended with greater Evils.
Innocent adds, that so long as the Authors and Promoters of those unheard of Barbarities are unknown, he can only condole with those who have suffered by them; but, if they were accused in due Form, at his Tribunal, he would not fail to appoint proper Judges to try them; which, by the way, he had no Right to do.
[Sidenote: His Letter to John of Jerusalem.]
Innocent’s other Letter is to John Bishop of Jerusalem, who hated Jerom on account of his Inveteracy against Origen, and was suspected to connive at the cruel Treatment he and his Followers had met with. Him therefore Innocent reprimands very severely, for suffering such enormous Abuses within the Limits of his Jurisdiction. In his Letter he gives him the Title of well-beloved Brother; but, at the same time, treats him with more Haughtiness than was becoming even in a Superior, though he neither had, nor could claim by the Canons, any kind of Jurisdiction or Authority over him.
[Sidenote: Innocent dies.]
These Letters Innocent writ in the Latter-end of January, and died on the 12th of March of the same Year 417. having governed the Roman Church near Fifteen Years; for his Predecessor Anastasius died on the 27th of April 402. and he was chosen soon after his Decease, as I have observed above. He was generally esteemed a Man of good Parts, and well acquainted with the Laws and Traditions of the Church. [Sidenote: The See of Rome greatly indebted to him for its Grandeur.] Hence he was frequently consulted by the Western, and sometimes by the Eastern Bishops, in Points both of Faith and Discipline. Of this general Esteem, and the Deference that was thereupon paid to his Decisions, he took Advantage to lay down, with an Air of Authority, and as undoubted Truths, many false, groundless, and dangerous Maxims, all tending to the Diminution of the Episcopal Power, and the Advancement of the Papal. The Dignity of the Apostolic See was, as we have seen, the Burden of almost all his Letters; he even improved it into a Claim of Supremacy; and we may say, with great Truth, that to him the See of Rome was more indebted for the Grandeur it afterwards gained, than to all his Predecessors together. He formed the Plan of that Spiritual Monarchy, which they, by constant Application, established at last, in spite of the many almost insurmountable Difficulties, which they had to contend with. He was the first who, changing the antient Foundation of the Primacy, claimed it as the Successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, as he is styled, and not as the Bishop of the first City, though on that Consideration alone it had been granted by the Councils. I said Primacy, because the Word Supremacy was utterly unknown in those Days. The Council of Sardica, held in the Year 347. had allowed, in some Cases, and under several Restrictions, Appeals to be made to the See of Rome, as has been observed elsewhere[1474]. But Innocent, scorning to owe any Branch of his Authority to that, or any other Council, claimed, by Divine Right, the Power of finally deciding all Ecclesiastical Controversies and Disputes; which was claiming, by Divine Right, an unlimited Jurisdiction. It is true, no Regard was had to such Claims; nor indeed did Innocent dare to pursue them, being well apprised of the Opposition he would meet with, if he should then have made such an Attempt. He therefore wisely contented himself with laying Foundations, and thought it a great Advance, as it certainly was, to have openly asserted such Notions, and brought the Ears of Men to endure them, if not their Minds. Had he gone farther, he would have been stopped in his Career, and it might have proved fatal to the Power of Rome before it was come to an Age of Maturity; but that he went thus far was of great Benefit to it, because it made a Beginning, and furnished his Successors with a Pretence to plead some Antiquity for the Opinions and Principles upon which they proceeded.
[Sidenote: His Decretals often quoted by the Popish Divines.]
Accordingly the Decretals of Innocent are frequently quoted by the Advocates for the See of Rome, to shew how early the Popes claimed, by Divine Right, and as Successors of St. Peter, an universal Authority and Jurisdiction. But if the Principles, on which they founded their Claims, were false in Innocent’s Time, they are still so in ours; if no Account was then made of such Claims (and that none was made, I have sufficiently shewn), no Account ought to be made of them now; no more than if they were dated but Yesterday. Nor, indeed, ought the Beginning of the Fifth Century to be esteemed an early Time in the Christian Church. Great Corruptions were then crept into it; and, with regard to the Point in Question, it was very late. For had the Bishop of Rome been supreme Head of the Church, in Right of St. Peter, how came that Supremacy to be unknown, and unheard of, for above Four hundred Years? If the Four first Centuries could not discover it, on what new Light was it revealed to the Fifth?
[Sidenote: Is sainted.]
Innocent has been inrolled, by his Successors, in the Catalogue of Saints; and he is now adored in the Church of Rome as a Saint of the first Rate; an Honour which, it must be confessed, he better deserved at their Hands, in their Estimation of Merit, than any of his Predecessors, or any of his Successors, except Gregory the VIIth.
-----
Footnote N50.4:
Idem ep. 410, 411.
Footnote 1392:
Collect. Rem. ab Holsten. p. 45.
Footnote 1393:
Anast. c. 41.
Footnote 1394:
Hier. ep. 8.
Footnote 1395:
Theod. l. 5. c. 35.
Footnote 1396:
Prosp. in Col. c. 10.
Footnote 1397:
Pec. orig. c. 9.
Footnote 1398:
Oros. l. 7. c. 39.
Footnote 1399:
Hier. ubi supra.
Footnote 1400:
Aug. ep. 92.
Footnote 1401:
Coll. Rom. p. 46, 47.
Footnote 1402:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1252.
Footnote 1403:
Ibid. p. 1249.
Footnote 1404:
See above, p. 120, 121.
Footnote 1405:
Bar. ad ann. 404. num. 130.
Footnote 1406:
See Natal. Alex. hist. eccles. t. 10. p. 14.
Footnote 1407:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1249-1252.
Footnote 1408:
Concil. t. 5. p. 858. & 866.
Footnote 1409:
See Blond. Decr. p. 55.
Footnote 1410:
Aug. cp. 50.
Footnote 1411:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1412:
See above, p. 247.
Footnote 1413:
Pall. Dial. c. 2.
Footnote 1414:
Idem ib. c. 8.
Footnote 1415:
Idem ib.
Footnote 1416:
Idem ib. c. 3.
Footnote 1417:
Idem ib.
Footnote 1418:
Pallad. ibid. c. 2.
Footnote 1419:
Pall. ubi supra. Soz. l. 8. c. 26. Hist. Lausiac, c. 121.
Footnote 1420:
Soz. ubi supra, & ep. Rom. Pont. Inn. 15.
Footnote 1421:
Pall. ibid.
Footnote 1422:
Pall. in dial. ubi supra.
Footnote 1423:
Idem ibidem.
Footnote 1424:
Bar. ann. 407. n. 19-22.
Footnote 1425:
Vid. Bar. ubi sup. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. & Glyc. l. 4. p. 259, 260.
Footnote 1426:
Chrysos. ep. 122.
Footnote 1427:
Pall. dial. 2.
Footnote 1428:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1429:
Bar. ad ann. 404. n. 20.
Footnote 1430:
Bell. Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 15.
Footnote 1431:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1254-1256.
Footnote 1432:
1 Corinth. vii. 5.
Footnote 1433:
Holsten. Coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 49-51.
Footnote 1434:
Zos. l. 5. c. 40.
Footnote 1435:
Soz. l. 9. c. 6.
Footnote 1436:
Zos. l. 5. p. 819, 820. Soz. l. 9. c. 7.
Footnote 1437:
Hier. ep. 16.
Footnote 1438:
Vid. sup. p. 263-266.
Footnote 1439:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1271.
Footnote 1440:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1269.
Footnote 1441:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1272-1276.
Footnote 1442:
Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.
Footnote 1443:
Theodoret. l. 5. c. 34.
Footnote 1444:
Niceph. l. 14. c. 27.
Footnote 1445:
Bar. ad ann. 48. n. 32.
Footnote 1446:
Niceph. c. 26.
Footnote 1447:
Idem, c. 27.
Footnote 1448:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1269.
Footnote 1449:
See above, p. 105, & seq.
Footnote 1450:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1269.
Footnote 1451:
Vid. Ell. Du Pin de antiq. eccles. disciplin. differt. prim. n. 12.
Footnote 1452:
Vide supra, p. 310.
Footnote 1453:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1265-1269.
Footnote 1454:
Vide Petr. de Marc. dissert. de primat. p. 227.
Footnote 1455:
Concil. t. 1. p. 1245. Ugh. t. 1. p. 676.
Footnote 1456:
Socrat. l. 6. c. 8.
Footnote 1457:
Greg. l. 7. ep. 64.
Footnote 1458:
Cypr. ep. 72.
Footnote 1459:
Aug. de diver. serm. 33.
Footnote 1460:
Vide Iren. l. 1. c. 21-24. & Epiph. hæres. 21-28. & 41, 42.
Footnote 1461:
Apost. const. can. 55.
Footnote 1462:
Aug. ep. 86.
Footnote 1463:
James v. 14, 15.
Footnote 1464:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1248.
Footnote 1465:
Conc. Trid. sess. 14. can. 1.
Footnote 1466:
Possid. Aug. vit. c. 18.
Footnote 1467:
Aug. ep. 95.
Footnote 1468:
Aug. ep. 90-95.
Footnote 1469:
Idem ib.
Footnote 1470:
Aug. ep. 93.
Footnote 1471:
Idem ep. 91. 93.
Footnote 1472:
Idem ep. 96.
Footnote 1473:
Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 25.
Footnote 1474:
Vide p. 121.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HONORIUS, ZOSIMUS, THEODOSIUS Fortieth BISHOP of Rome. the younger.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 417. ]
Zosimus, the Successor of Innocent, was, according to the Bibliothecarian, a Greek by Nation, and the Son of one Abraham[1475]; which is all we know of him before his Election. He was elected and ordained Six Days after the Death of his Predecessor, that is, on the 18th of March 417[N60].
-----
Footnote N60:
Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybæum, observes, at the Year 443. that in 417. when Zosimus was Bishop of Rome, Easter, which ought to have been kept on the 22d of April, was, by a Mistake, kept on the 25th of March[N60.1]; so that on the 25th of March, Zosimus was in Possession of the See; and consequently must have been chosen and ordained on the 18th of that Month, the only Sunday in 417. between the 12th of March, when Innocent died, and the 25th. For in those Days Bishops were commonly ordained on Sundays, and it is very certain, that Zosimus was ordained on that Day, since he pretended the Ordination of Two Bishops, whom he deposed, to be null, because they had been ordained on another Day[N60.2]. Theodoret makes Boniface the immediate Successor of Innocent[N60.3]. But all the other Writers, without Exception, place Zosimus between Innocent and Boniface.
Footnote N60.1:
Leo, t. 1. p. 413.
Footnote N60.2:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1569.
Footnote N60.3:
Theod. l. 5. p. 751.
-----
[Sidenote: Pelagius, his Country, Profession, Parts, &c.]
The first thing that engaged the Attention of Zosimus, after his Election, was the Heresy of Pelagius, and his chief Disciple Cælestius, which, at that time, made a great Noise in the Church. Pelagius was by Birth a Briton, and a Monk by Profession; but one of those who, parting with their Estates, and renouncing all worldly Honours, lived an austere Life; but in no Community, and under no Rule. Such a Monk was the famous Paulinus, such Pammachius, and such probably Pelagius; for I do not find, in any antient Writer, that he ever confined himself to a Monastery; nay, the wandering Life he led is a strong Proof he never did[N61]. As to his Parts, Jerom, who could never discover any thing commendable in those he opposed, speaks of him with the greatest Contempt, as if he had no Genius, and but very little Knowlege[1476]. But St. Austin, a more candid and less passionate Writer, owns him to have been a Man of extraordinary good Sense, of a very sprightly Genius, of great Penetration, and one who was not easily overcome, but rather capable of maintaining, with the strongest Reasons that could be offered, the Opinions which he once embraced[1477]. He lived several Years at Rome, at least from the Year 400. to 411. and was there well known, and greatly esteemed. For St. Austin, who first heard of him, while he lived at Rome, spoke of him in the first Books, which he writ against him, as of a Man, who passed for a Saint, who had made great Progress in Piety, whose Life was chaste, and Manners blameless, who had sold and given to the Poor all he had, &c[1478]. St. Paulinus and St. Jerom seem to have once entertained a no less favourable Opinion of him in these respects, than St. Austin did; for they too, in some of their Letters, speak of him with the greatest Commendations. But he no sooner began to broach his new Doctrines than he forfeited their good Opinion, and with it every Virtue which he had formerly possessed; nay, they pretend that he abandoned himself, at once, to immoderate Eating and Drinking, and to all manner of Debauchery, passing his whole Time in Revels and Banquets, in caressing and pampering his Body, which by that means, says Jerom, swelled to such an exorbitant Size, that he was more capable of crushing his Adversaries with the Weight of his Carcase than the Weight of his Arguments[1479]. We shall find very few, if any at all, who, upon their teaching Doctrines not approved by the Fathers, have not been immediately transformed by them, out of their great Zeal for the Purity of the Faith, into Monsters of Wickedness, though they themselves had, perhaps, proposed them before for Patterns of every Christian Virtue. It behoves us therefore to be very cautious in giving Credit to what they say of those whom they style Heretics. With respect to Pelagius, St. Austin, more moderate than the rest, does not charge him with any Vices, but only ascribes to Hypocrisy the Virtues which he had admired in him before[1480].
-----
Footnote N61:
He is commonly styled Pelagius the Briton, to distinguish him from Pelagius of Tarento, who lived about the same time[N61.1].
Footnote N61.1:
Aug. ep. 106. Prosp. contra Ingrat. l. 1. c. 1.
-----
[Sidenote: Cælestius, his Family, Profession, Parts, &c.]
Cælestius, the first and chief Disciple of Pelagius, was, according to some, a Native of Scotland or Ireland; according to others, of Campania in Italy[1481]; but, with respect to his Country, nothing certain can be advanced. He was descended of an illustrious Family, and had applied himself, from his Youth, to the Study of the Law, and made some Figure at the Bar; but growing weary of that Profession, he retired from the World, embraced a monastic Life, and lived some Years in a Monastery[1482]. St. Jerom speaks of him as a Man of no Genius or Talents[1483]. But St. Austin entertained a very different Opinion of his Parts; for he commends him as a good Writer, as one who was thoroughly acquainted with all the Subtilties of Logic, and whose Talents would have proved very serviceable, could he have been retrieved from his Errors[1484].
[Sidenote: Their Doctrine.]
The Tenets of Pelagius or Cælestius (for those, who embraced them, are styled indifferently Pelagians and Cælestians) may be reduced to the following Heads: 1. That we may, by our Free-will, without the Help of Grace, do Good, and avoid Evil. 2. That if Grace were necessary for either, God would be unjust in giving it to one, and denying it to another. 3. That Faith, which is the first Step to our Justification, depends upon our Free-will. 4. That the Sin of Adam hurt none but him; that Children are born in the State which he was in before the Fall; that they are not delivered by Baptism from eternal Perdition, but, without Baptism, partake of Life everlasting. By Life everlasting they meant, a middle State between eternal Happiness and eternal Misery. 5. That Grace is only necessary to render the Observance of the Commandments more easy.
[Sidenote: Both pass over into Africa.]
These Opinions Pelagius and Cælestius first broached at Rome, about the Year 405. and gained there a great many Followers; more, says St. Austin, than could be well imagined[1485]. They both left Rome in 410. or 411. and, crossing over into Africa, infected many there, says the same Author, especially at Carthage, with their new Doctrine[1486]. [Sidenote: Pelagius repairs to Palæstine.] Pelagius, after a short Stay at Carthage, went first into Egypt, and from thence into Palæstine, where he continued a long time[1487]. Cælestius remained at Carthage, hoping to be preferred there to the Priesthood; but as he did not use the due Caution in propagating his Doctrine in that City, he was soon discovered, and accused by one Paulinus, a Deacon, before a Council, at which several Bishops were present, and Aurelius of Carthage presided. [Sidenote: Cælestius accused and condemned in Africa.] The Charge brought against him was, That he held the Sin of Adam to have hurt him alone; that it could not be imputed to his Descendents; and that no Sin was cancelled by Baptism. These Tenets he did not own before the Council; but neither would he disown or anathematize them; and therefore the Bishops, provoked at his Obstinacy, not only condemned his Doctrine, but, at the same time, cut him off, as an incorrigible Heretic, from the Communion of the Church[1488]. [Sidenote: Appeals to Rome, but flies to Ephesus.] From this Sentence Cælestius appealed to the Judgment of Innocent, then Bishop of Rome, summoning Paulinus, his Accuser, to make his Charge good at that Tribunal. But Cælestius himself laid, it seems, no Stress on his Appeal; for, instead of repairing to Rome, he fled to Ephesus[1489], where we shall leave him for the present.
[Sidenote: Pelagius accused in Palæstine by Heros and Lazarus, two Gallican Bishops;]
Pelagius, in the mean time, was not idle in Palæstine, whither he had retired, as I have said above; but, being countenanced by John Bishop of Jerusalem, he gained daily such Numbers of Followers there, that Heros and Lazarus, Two Bishops of Gaul, whom I shall speak of hereafter, happening to be then in Palæstine, thought it incumbent upon them to accuse him to Eulogius Bishop of Cæsarea, and Metropolitan of Palæstine. They drew up a Writing accordingly, containing the chief Heads of the Doctrine which Pelagius taught, together with the Articles, for which his Disciple Cælestius had been condemned by the Council of Carthage; and this Writing they presented to Eulogius. Hereupon a Council was assembled soon after at Diospolis, a City of Palæstine, known in Scripture by the Name of Lydda. It consisted of Fourteen Bishops, and Eulogius of Cæsarea presided; but neither of the Gallican Bishops was present, the one being prevented by a dangerous Malady, and the other not chusing to abandon him in that Condition. However, their Charge against Pelagius was read, and he examined, by the Fathers of the Assembly, on the Articles it contained. [Sidenote: and absolved by the Council of Diospolis.] But as nobody appeared against him, as none of those Bishops were sufficiently acquainted with the Latin Tongue to understand his Books, and he disowned some Propositions, explained others in a Catholic Sense, and anathematized all who maintained Doctrines repugnant to those of the Catholic Church, the Council pronounced, at the Suggestion of John of Jerusalem, the following Sentence: Since the Monk Pelagius, here present, has satisfied us, as to his Doctrine, and anathematized with us whatever is contrary to the true Faith, we acknowlege him to be in the Communion of the Church[1490]. This Council St. Jerom styles, The pitiful Synod of Diospolis[1491]. But St. Austin, instead of insulting them, calls them Holy and Catholic Judges; and will not answer, that he himself might not have been deceived by the Artifices of Pelagius, had he been one of his Judges[1492].
[Sidenote: He is accused by Heros and Lazarus to the Bishops of Africa.]
Heros and Lazarus, surprised to hear that the Fathers of the Assembly had absolved Pelagius, and despairing of ever being able to get him condemned in the East, where his Cause was openly espoused by the Bishop of Jerusalem, resolved to apply to their Brethren in the West, especially to the Bishops of Africa, who they well knew could not be prejudiced in his Favour, since they had already condemned his favourite Disciple Cælestius. Pursuant to this Resolution, they writ, by the famous Orosius, who was returning from Palæstine to Africa, to the Bishops of that Province, accusing Pelagius and Cælestius as the Authors of an Execrable Sect; giving them a particular Account of what had passed in the Council of Diospolis, and acquainting them with the wonderful Progress the new Heresy made in the East, especially in Palæstine[1493].
[Sidenote: The Doctrine of Pelagius and Cælestius_ condemned anew in_ Africa.]
These Letters were delivered by Orosius to the Bishops of the Province of Carthage, who, after having caused them to be read in the Provincial Council, which was then sitting in that City, and, with them, the Acts of the Council, which had been held Five Years before against Cælestius, not only condemned the Doctrine ascribed to him and Pelagius, but declared, that the same Sentence should be pronounced against them, unless they anathematized, in the plainest and most distinct Terms, the Errors with which they were charged[1494]. The Example of the Bishops of Africa was followed by those of Numidia, assembled at Milevum, and by Innocent Bishop of Rome, as I have related above.
[Sidenote: They appeal to Rome.]
This Condemnation, so solemn and general, was attended with the wished for Effect. It greatly lessened the Reputation of Pelagius and Cælestius, staggered many of their Followers, and deterred others from embracing their Doctrines. Of this both Pelagius and Cælestius were well apprised; and, at the same time, sensible, that the only means of retrieving their Credit, and maintaining the Ground they had gained, was to justify themselves either to the Bishops of Africa, or to the Bishop of Rome, they chose the latter, thinking it more easy to gain over one than many. Besides, in Africa they knew St. Austin, who was in great Reputation there, and swayed all the Councils as he pleased, to be their declared and irreconcileable Enemy; whereas they had many Friends at Rome; and, among the rest, the Presbyter Sixtus, who was afterwards raised to that See[1495]. In order, therefore, to persuade the Bishop of Rome, as Pelagius had done the Bishops of Diospolis, that they had been falsly and maliciously accused, Pelagius writ a Letter to Innocent, whose Death he had not yet heard of, while Cælestius, trusting to his Eloquence, and depending on the Favour which the Bishops of Rome had always shewn to those who recurred to them, undertook a Journey to that City. He had fled from Carthage to Ephesus, as I have related above. On his Arrival in that City he was well received by the Bishop of the Place, and even preferred, after he had staid some time there, to the Priesthood. [Sidenote: Cælestius is driven from Ephesus and Constantinople.] But, in the mean time, his Doctrine giving Offence to some, while it was embraced by others, great Disturbances arose; and he was, in the End, driven out of the City. Being thus expelled from Ephesus, he repaired to Constantinople; but he no sooner began to discover his Sentiments there, than Atticus, who then held that See, and kept a watchful Eye over him, commanded him forthwith to depart the City[1496]. [Sidenote: Repairs to Rome and presents himself before Zosimus.] From Constantinople he went strait to Rome; and, finding that Innocent was dead, he presented himself before his Successor Zosimus, declaring, that he was come to Rome, to defend his oppressed Innocence at the Tribunal of the Apostolic See; not doubting but he should make it appear before so knowing and unprejudiced a Judge, and confute the many groundless Aspersions with which his Enemies had strove to blast his Reputation in the Eyes of the whole Church: he complained of the Judgment given against him by the African Bishops about Six Years before; and, pretending that his Accuser Paulinus, conscious of his Innocence, and his own Guilt, had declined the Judgment of the Apostolic See, he summoned him anew to appear, and make good the Charge which he had brought against him. [Sidenote: He delivers his Confession of Faith to Zosimus;] At the same time he presented to Zosimus a Request, containing a Confession of his Faith, with long Descants on the Articles of the Apostolic Symbol, concerning which his Orthodoxy had never been questioned. But as to Grace and Original Sin, he said, they were not Matter of Faith; but that he was, nevertheless, ready to acquiesce, even with respect to them, in the Judgment of the Roman See[1497].
Zosimus had at this Time some Affairs of the greater Importance on his Hands[1498]; but, highly pleased with the pretended Submission of Cælestius, and thinking this a favourable Opportunity of extending his Authority, and drawing to the Tribunal of the Apostolic See Appeals in Causes that had been judged and decided elsewhere, he postponed the other Affairs to attend to this alone, in his Opinion, the most important of all. A Day was appointed, without Loss of Time, for Cælestius to appear in the Church of St. Clement, and there give an Account of his Faith. He appeared accordingly; and the Confession being read, which he had delivered to Zosimus, he owned that, and no other, to be his Faith. In that Confession he did not deny Original Sin, but declared, in the clearest Terms, that he was in Doubt about it; and that the Belief of Original Sin was no Article of the Catholic Faith. [Sidenote: which is approved by him.] And yet such a Confession was approved by Zosimus as Catholic; which was approving, if not the Doctrine, at least the Doubts which Cælestius entertained of Original Sin[1499]. [Sidenote: The Roman Catholic Divines strive in vain to excuse Zosimus.] The Roman Catholic Divines have taken great Pains to clear Zosimus from this Imputation; but have been attended with no better Success than St. Austin was before them. For that Father, unwilling to condemn one of his Brethren, pretended that Zosimus, in approving the Confession of Cælestius, did not declare his Doctrine to be Catholic, but only the Disposition of his Mind to condemn whatever should be found amiss in his Doctrine; for such a Disposition, says he, makes a true Catholic[1500]: he might have added, if sincere, and not feigned; for it was certainly feigned in Cælestius; and consequently Zosimus was no less mistaken in declaring his Disposition of Mind to be Catholic, than if he had made such a Declaration with respect to his Doctrine. St. Austin himself was sensible of the Weakness of his Plea, and therefore immediately added; But, allowing the Doctrine of Pelagius and Cælestius to have been approved by the Roman Church, all we can infer from thence is, that the Roman Clergy was guilty of Prevarication[1501]; an Inference which he seems to be no-way solicitous about, though he could not have admitted it without giving up the Question, if he had thought the Pope infallible.
[Sidenote: His Haughty Letter to the African Bishops in favour of Cælestius.]
Zosimus, however prejudiced in favour of Cælestius, did not take upon him to restore him to the Communion of the Church, from which he had been cut off by the Bishops of Africa Six Years before, or to come to any farther Resolution till he had imparted the Affair to them. He writ accordingly to Aurelius of Carthage, and to the other African Bishops; not that he stood in need of their Advice, or wanted to be directed by them, as he let them know in his Letter, but because he was willing to hear what they had to object against one who had been first accused at their Tribunal. He upbraids those Prelates, and with great Bitterness and Acrimony, as if they had acted with too much Haste and Precipitation in an Affair that required the most mature Deliberation. As for Heros and Lazarus, the two great Opposers of Pelagius and Cælestius, he inveighs against them with the most abusive Language that an implacable Rage could suggest. He lets the African Bishops know, that if the Accusers of Cælestius did not appear at Rome in Two Months, to make good their Charge against him, he would declare him innocent, and admit him as a true Catholic to his Communion. He styles all such Inquiries, that is, Inquiries concerning Grace and Original Sin, empty Speculations, and trifling Disputes, owing to a criminal Curiosity, and an immoderate Desire of speaking and writing; in which perhaps he was not much to blame: he closes his Letter with exhorting them not to trust to their own Judgment, but to adhere in every thing to the Scripture and Tradition[1502].
[Sidenote: The Characters of Heros, Lazarus, and Patroclus.]
As for Heros and Lazarus, against whom Zosimus chiefly vented his Spleen, while he favoured Cælestius; St. Prosper gives us, in his Chronicle, the following Account of the former: “Heros, says he, was Bishop of Arles, a holy Man, and the Disciple of St. Martin. However, he was driven from his See by his own People, though quite innocent, and not even accused of any Fault. In his room was placed one Patroculus, an intimate Friend of Count Constantius, who at that Time, bore a great Sway in the Empire, and whose favour they courted, and hoped to earn by that Violence.” This happened in 412. All we know of Lazarus is, that he was ordained Bishop of Aix in Provence, by Proculus Bishop of Marseilles, a Prelate of extraordinary Merit, as appears from the high Commendations bestowed on him by the Council of Turin[1503], by St. Jerom[1504], and by Tiro Prosper in his Chronicle. Patroclus, who was intruded in the room of Heros, is painted by Tiro Prosper, a Writer no-ways prejudiced against the Pelagians, or their Friends, as a Man of a most abandoned Life, and one who turned the Episcopacy into a Trade, and sold the Priesthood to all who had Money to purchase it[1505]. Baronius interprets the violent Death, which he suffered in 426. when he was barbarously murdered by a Military Tribune, as a Punishment from Heaven for his criminal Intrusion[1506]. Such were the Characters of Heros, Lazarus, and Patroclus; and yet of the latter, who favoured the Pelagians, Zosimus entertained the highest Opinion, and often commends him in his Letters as a Man of great Merit and Virtue. [Sidenote: Heros and Lazarus falsly charged with many Crimes by Zosimus.] But the Two former, who had distinguished themselves above the rest in opposing the Pelagians, he most outrageously abuses, styling them, in his Second Letter to the African Bishops, Two Plagues, who, with their nonsensical Whims, disturbed the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church; Whirlwinds and Storms, that could suffer none to enjoy any Quiet. He adds, that he was not at all surprised at their wickedly attempting to defame with false Depositions, and lying Evidences, a Layman, meaning Pelagius, who had served God so long with an untainted Reputation, and shining Virtues, since they had raised so many Storms in the Church, had contrived so many Plots, employed so many Engines, to compass the Ruin of their Brethren and Collegues in the Episcopacy[1507]. No Mention is made by the Historians of those Times of any other Storms or Disturbances in the Churches of Gaul, but such as were occasioned by the Expulsion of Heros, and the Intrusion of Patroclus; and these Patroclus probably exaggerated beyond Measure, laying the whole Blame on Heros. For Patroclus was in Rome at the very Time Zosimus writ his Letter to the African Bishops, fraught with Invectives against Heros and Lazarus[1508]. In the same Letter Zosimus charges the Two Prelates with several other Crimes; viz. that they had both been ordained against the Canons, and against the Will of the People as well as the Clergy, whom, however, they had forced by Chains, Prisons, Confiscations, and the Favour of the Tyrant, meaning, no doubt, the Usurper Constantine, to consent in the End to their Election; that Lazarus had ascended the Episcopal Throne, while his Hands were still reeking with innocent Blood, &c. But, had they been guilty of such Excesses, would Prosper, who lived at this very Time, and all the other Historians, have passed them over in Silence? Would he have styled Heros an holy Man? Would St. Austin have called them both his holy Brethren[1509]? Would the Fathers of the Council of Carthage in 416. have acknowleged them for their Fellow-Labourers and Collegues in the Priesthood[1510]? Would Proculus of Marseilles, one of the most illustrious Prelates at that Time in Gaul, have ordained Lazarus, while his Hands were still reeking with innocent Blood? We may therefore, upon the Whole, agree here with Baronius[1511], and ascribe the Crimes, of which the two Prelates were arraigned by Zosimus, to the Suggestions of their Enemies, especially of Patroclus, in whom Zosimus reposed an intire Confidence. [Sidenote: They are both degraded and excommunicated by Zosimus.] However that be, Zosimus, highly incensed against both, not only declared them deposed, as Men unworthy of the Episcopal Dignity, but cut them off from his Communion, for many Reasons, says he, and, among the rest, because they had deposed themselves[1512].
[Sidenote: The injustice of this Sentence.]
This Sentence he pronounced in their Absence, without even acquainting them with the Crimes laid to their Charge; not reflecting, in the Height of his Passion, that he was, at that very Time, complaining of the African Bishops for having condemned Cælestius in his Absence, reproaching them with too much Haste and Precipitation, and laying it down as a Rule never to be swerved from, that no Man ought to be condemned before he is heard, let the Crimes laid to his Charge be ever so great. As for their deposing themselves, or voluntarily abdicating their Dignity, it is very certain, if Prosper is to be credited, that Heros did not abdicate, but was violently driven from his See. If Lazarus abdicated (for Cardinal Noris[1513] and others[1514] are of Opinion he did not), that ought not to have been imputed to him as a Crime, any more than it was to Nazianzen Bishop of Constantinople, and many others, who were not even censured by their Enemies on that Account. [Sidenote: The other Bishops make no Account of the Anathemas of Zosimus.] The other Bishops seem to have made no Account of the Anathemas of Zosimus; for they still continued to communicate with them, and acknowlege them for their Collegues[1515]; the Name of Heros was inserted into the Diptychs of the Church of Arles after his Death; and Lazarus was, according to some, even restored to his See[1516].
[Sidenote: Pelagius transmits to Zosimus a Confession of his Faith;]
Not long after Zosimus had written the Letter, which I have mentioned above, to the Bishops of Africa in favour of Cælestius, he received one from Praylius Bishop of Jerusalem, warmly recommending to him the Cause of Pelagius; and another from Pelagius himself, in his own Vindication, and with it a Confession of his Faith. These Letters were directed to Innocent; but he being dead before they reached Rome, they were delivered to Zosimus. In the Confession of Faith Pelagius owned, that Baptism ought to be administered to Children as well as to the Adult; and that, notwithstanding our Free-will, we want the Assistance of Grace[1517]. Neither of these Propositions was inconsistent with, or repugnant to, his Doctrine; for though he denied Original Sin, he allowed Baptism to be administred even to Children, but only for their Sanctification. He admitted the Necessity of Grace, but not Grace as that Word was understood by St. Austin, and the other Bishops who opposed him; for by Grace he meant no more than the Remission of Sins, Instruction, the Example of Christ. In this Confession he did not disown any of his Tenets; but, not thinking it safe or adviseable openly to own them, he industriously declined explaining himself more distinctly on either of the above-mentioned Heads. [Sidenote: which he approves of,] Zosimus, however, fully satisfied with his Confession, and quite astonished (to use his own Words) at the rash Proceedings of the African Bishops, in condemning, as Heretics, Men whose Doctrine was so sound and orthodox, immediately transmitted to Aurelius of Carthage, and his Collegues in Africa, the Confession as well as the Letter which had been sent him by Pelagius. On this Occasion he writ himself a second Letter to the African Bishops, which we may justly style a Panegyric on Pelagius and Cælestius, and a bitter Invective against their Accusers, Heros and Lazarus. [Sidenote: and censures the African Bishops for condemning him.] This Letter he concludes with exhorting the Bishops of Africa to the Love of Peace and Unity, and condemning, as guilty of an Injustice unknown even to the Pagan Romans, those who gave Judgment in the Absence of the Persons accused, what Crimes soever were laid to their Charge[1518], as I have observed above.
[Sidenote: The African Bishops maintain their former Judgment.]
The African Bishops were no less surprised to find Zosimus so warmly engaged in favour of Pelagius and Cælestius, than Zosimus was surprised at their having condemned them. However, they were determined to stand to the Judgment which they had given, though sensible that such a Determination would not fail to produce, if Zosimus did not yield, a Misunderstanding, and perhaps an intire Separation, between Rome and Africa. This St. Austin seems chiefly to have apprehended, and to have been resolved, if it should so happen, to abdicate and retire[1519]. To prevent this Evil, which would have proved very detrimental to the common Cause, many Letters passed between Rome and Africa[1520]: but as none of those that were written at this Juncture by the African Bishops have reached our Times, having been probably destroyed by those whose Interest it was to destroy them; all we know concerning this Affair is, that the Africans maintained, with great Steadiness, their former Judgment against the Pretensions of Zosimus; and would never allow a Cause, that had been determined in Africa, to be re-examined at Rome, the rather as Innocent, the Predecessor of Zosimus, had concurred with them in condemning both Cælestius and his Doctrine[1521]. [Sidenote: Paulinus, summoned to Rome, refuses to obey the Summons.] The Letter from Zosimus to the African Bishops was carried by one Basilius, Subdeacon of Rome, who was charged with a verbal Order for the Deacon Paulinus, the first who accused Cælestius, to repair to Rome. To this Summons Paulinus returned Answer, that as the Bishops of Africa had condemned Cælestius upon his Accusation, it was no longer incumbent upon him, but upon them, to shew that his Accusation was well grounded; and therefore he could not conceive why Zosimus should require him to take a Journey to Rome[1522].
[Sidenote: The Council of Carthage condemns anew the Pelagian Doctrine without waiting for the Judgment of Zosimus.]
In the mean time Aurelius of Carthage was under the greatest Apprehension, lest Zosimus should be prevailed upon by Cælestius, and the other Pelagians at Rome, to take some hasty Step in their favour. Having therefore assembled, with all possible Expedition, a Council at Carthage, he first writ, in his own and their Name, to Zosimus, earnestly intreating him to suspend all further Proceedings in an Affair of such Moment, till he was more fully informed. This Letter was written, and a Messenger dispatched with it to Rome, while the Council was yet very thin; the Haste Aurelius was in to stop the Proceedings of Zosimus not allowing him to wait the Arrival of all. When the rest came, and they were in all Two hundred and Fourteen, they unanimously confirmed their former Sentence, and, without waiting for the Judgment of Zosimus, condemned anew the Doctrine of Pelagius and Cælestius[1523]. The Decrees which they made on this Occasion against the Pelagians were received, says Prosper, by Rome, by the Emperors, no doubt, Honorius and Arcadius, and by the whole World[1524]. And yet, in the making of these Decrees, the Bishop of Rome had no Hand; so that it was not Rome, but Africa, it was not the Pope, but the Bishops of Africa, or more truly St. Austin (for he governed intirely that Council), who taught the Church what she was to believe, and what disbelieve, concerning Grace and Original Sin. One of these Decrees is related by Prosper[1525], wherein the Two hundred and Fourteen Bishops declare, that we are aided by Grace, not only in the Knowlege, but in the Practice, of Virtue; and that without it we can neither think, speak, or do any thing whatsoever that is pious or holy[1526]. This, and the other Decrees of the Council, were sent immediately to Rome by the Fathers, who composed them, with a Letter for Zosimus, declaring that they were determined to adhere to the Judgment, which his Predecessor Innocent had formerly given against Pelagius and Cælestius, till such time as both owned, and in the most plain and unexceptionable Terms, the Necessity of Grace, and abjured the opposite Doctrine. [Sidenote: The Policy of the African Bishops.] It was the Effect of a refined Policy in the African Bishops not to mention their own Judgment, but to lay the whole Stress on that of Innocent, though his was not only preceded, but produced, or rather extorted, by theirs. They hoped that the Regard, which they pretended to have for Innocent, would bring Zosimus to a better Temper, and divert him from absolving those whom his Predecessor had so lately condemned. As Zosimus had reproached them in his Letter for believing too easily those who had appeared against Cælestius, they in their turn represented to him, that he ought not so easily to have believed Cælestius, and those who spoke in his Favour. In the same Letter they gave him a particular Account of all that had passed in Africa concerning Cælestius. No wonder therefore, that Zosimus should have complained of the Length of the Letter, calling it a Volume, and saying,[1527] that he had got through it at last. With this Letter Marcellinus, Subdeacon of the Church of Carthage, was dispatched to Rome, and he arrived there in the Beginning of March 418.
[Sidenote: Zosimus begins to yield.]
Zosimus was alarmed at the Steadiness of the Africans. He plainly saw from their Letter, and more plainly from their Decrees, that they were determined not to yield; and therefore, apprehending the evil Consequences that would infallibly attend his continuing to protect Pelagius and Cælestius against them, he resolved to yield, and withdraw, by Degrees, his Protection from both. [Sidenote: His boasting Letter to the African Bishops.] Hence, in his Answer to the Council, he contented himself with setting forth and boasting the Pre-eminence, Authority, and Prerogatives of the Apostolic See; which however, more modest than his Predecessor, he did not ascribe to Divine Institution, but to the Canons of the Church, and Prescription. He tells the African Bishops, that though he is vested with a Power of judging all Causes, though his Judgment is irreversible, yet he had chosen to determine nothing without having first consulted them; and this he dwells upon as an extraordinary Favour. He expresses great Surprize at their seeming to be persuaded, that he had given an intire Credit to Cælestius; assures them that he had not been so hasty, being well apprised that the last and definitive Judgment ought not to be given but with the greatest Caution, and after the most mature Deliberation; and in the Close of his Letter lets them know, that, upon the Receipt of their first Letter, he had suspended all further Proceedings; and, to gratify them, left Things in the State they were in before[1528].
[Sidenote: The Doctrine of Pelagius condemned again in a Council at Carthage.]
In the mean time the African Bishops, assembling in Council at Carthage, from all the Provinces of Africa, and some even from Spain, the more effectually to oppose and defeat any further Attempts of Zosimus, in favour of Pelagius and Cælestius, condemned their Doctrine anew, and more distinctly than they had hitherto done. This Council met on the 1st of May 418. consisted of 225 Bishops, and enacted Eight Canons, anathematizing the Pelagian Doctrine concerning Grace and Original Sin[1529]. To these Eight Canons they added Ten more, calculated to establish some Points of Discipline. Among the latter the Ninth deserves particular Notice; for it is there decreed, That Presbyters, Deacons, and inferior Clerks, if they complain of the Judgment of their own Bishop, may appeal, with his Consent, to the neighbouring Bishops, and from them to the Primate or Council of Africa. [Sidenote: Appeals beyond Sea forbidden by the Council, on Pain of Excommunication.] But, if any one should presume, say they, to appeal beyond Sea, let no Man receive him to his Communion[1530]. To this Decree Gratian has added, to save the Jurisdiction of the Pope, unless they appeal to the See of Rome; than which nothing can be more absurd, since it was to restrain the encroaching Power of the See of Rome that this Canon was made. We must not forget, that St. Austin was present at this Council, and signed this, as well as the other Canons and Decrees, that were, on this Occasion, enacted by the 225 Bishops.
[Sidenote: Law enacted by Honorius against the Pelagians.]
The Africans had dispatched, the Year before, the Bishop Vindemialis to the Court of Honorius, with the Decrees of the Council held against Pelagius, of which I have spoken above. And those Decrees the Emperor not only approved, but enacted this Year 418. a severe Law against the Pelagians, dated from Ravenna, the 30th of April, and addressed to Palladius then Præfectus Prætorio. Honorius there declares, he had been informed, that Pelagius and Cælestius taught, in Opposition to the Authority of the Catholic Church, that God had created the first Man mortal; that he would have died, whether he had or had not sinned; that his Sin did not pass to his Descendents; and several other impious Errors, that disturbed the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church. To put a Stop therefore to the growing Evil, he commands Pelagius and Cælestius to be driven from Rome; orders it to be every-where notified, that all Persons shall be admitted before the Magistrates, as Informers against those who are suspected of holding their wicked Doctrines; and such as are found guilty shall be sent into Exile[1531]. In virtue of this Law, an Order was issued by the Præfecti Prætorio, viz. by Junius Quartus Palladius Prefect of Italy, Monaxius Prefect of the East, and Agricola Prefect of Gaul, commanding Pelagius and Cælestius to be driven out of Rome, and the Accomplices of their Errors to be stript of their Estates, and condemned to perpetual Banishment[1532]. A most barbarous Treatment for holding Opinions, which, if erroneous, were certainly harmless. But it is usual for a persecuting Spirit to be as violent upon the most unessential as the most weighty Points: and the Rage of Disputation is never more keen, than when the Disputants can hardly define what they quarrel about; especially when the Sword of the Magistrate is drawn on that Side which has least to say for itself in Reason and Argument. I do not affirm this was the Case in the present Dispute; but this is certain, that if Pelagius went too far in his Opinion, so did his Opposers in theirs: and so far his Conduct was infinitely better than theirs, that he declared his own Notions to be Matters very indifferent to Catholic Faith, and professed a general Assent to that Faith; whereas they anathematized his Opinions as execrable Errors, and punished them with all the Severity that the most implacable Malice could exert[N62].
-----
-----
[Sidenote: Zosimus summons Cælestius to appear before him, and to condemn his Doctrine.]
Pelagius and Cælestius being thus condemned by the Decrees of the African Bishops, by the Law of the Emperor, and even by the Voice of the People, or rather of the Populace, who were everywhere ready, but no-where more than at Rome, to rise against the Enemies of Grace, as they were styled, and their Abetters; Zosimus thought it not safe to afford them any further Protection, unless Cælestius, who was still at Rome (the Imperial Law not being yet published there), consented to anathematize the Doctrines ascribed to him and Pelagius, in such clear and precise Terms as should leave no room, even for his Enemies, to question his Sincerity. He therefore appointed a Day for the Roman Clergy, and the neighbouring Bishops, to assemble; and, acquainting Cælestius with this Resolution, he summoned him to appear at the Time appointed, that, by condemning whatever he should be required to condemn, he might be publicly restored to the Communion of the Church, from which he had been cut off by the African Bishops. [Sidenote: Cælestius instead of appearing retires from Rome.] Cælestius was greatly perplexed with this Summons: he conceived it impossible to dissemble any longer his real Sentiments; but, at the same time, thinking it base to renounce them, and foreseeing the Consequences that would infallibly attend his avowing them, after he had been long in Suspense what Expedient to resolve on, he concluded at last, that the best and safest was, privately to withdraw from Rome, and keep himself concealed till the present Storm was blown over. This Expedient he chose, and put it in Execution with such Secrecy, that he was no more heard of till Three Years after, when he appeared again in Rome[1533].
[Sidenote: Zosimus condemns the Confession, which he had approved before.]
[Sidenote: Excommunicates Pelagius and Cælestius;]
In the mean time the appointed Day came; but Cælestius did not appear: he was summoned a new, and the Proceedings were adjourned for a few Days; but as he still absented himself, and no Tidings could be heard of him, Zosimus was so provoked in seeing himself thus deluded, that, without further Examination, he condemned the Confession of Faith, which he had approved before; confirmed the Sentence of the Africans, which he had so sharply censured; and, anathematizing the Doctrine both of Pelagius and Cælestius, declared the one and the other cut off from the Communion of the Church, if they did not publicly renounce and abjure the poisonous Tenets of their impious and abominable Sect[1534]. He did not stop here; but, to retrieve his Reputation, which had suffered greatly on this Occasion, and to atone by an opposite Zeal, for that which he had hitherto exerted in their Favour, he writ a long circular Letter to all the Bishops, anathematizing the Doctrine of Pelagius, and exhorting them to follow his Example. [Sidenote: and writes a circular Letter against them.] Copies of this Letter were sent into all the Provinces of the Christian World, and out of so great a Number of Bishops Eighteen only were found, who refused to receive it, and confirm, with their Subscriptions, the Anathemas it contained[1535].
[Sidenote: Some Bishops refuse to sign it,]
[Sidenote: _and send a Confession of their Faith to_Zosimus.]
As for the Eighteen Bishops, who refused to join the rest, they alleged, that they could not, in Conscience, condemn any Man in his Absence, and that it was but just they should first hear what he had to plead in his Defence, quoting to that Purpose the very Passages of Scripture which Zosimus had quoted in his Letter to the Africans, censuring them for condemning Pelagius in his Absence. They added, that, as for Pelagius and Cælestius, they had both condemned, in their Writings, the Errors imputed to them; and therefore did not deserve, in their Opinion, the Anathemas that Rome and Africa had, perhaps too hastily, thundered against them. Julian, Bishop of Eclana in Campania, one of the Eighteen, and the most distinguished among them, writ Two Letters on this Subject to Zosimus, one of which was signed by them all, and contained a Confession of their Faith, agreeing, in the most material Points, with the Confessions of Pelagius and Cælestius. For there they absolutely reject, and in the strongest Terms, Original Sin, under the Name of Natural Sin; but allow (and in this Article alone they differ from Pelagius) that by the Sin of Adam Death was let into the World. They intreat Zosimus to acquaint them with what should be found amiss in their Confession; but beg that he would not think of employing Force, since no Force, but that of Conviction, could produce in them a Change of Sentiments. They let him know, in the End of their Letter, that they have already appealed to the Judgment of an Oecumenical Council[1536]. [Sidenote: They are condemned and degraded by Zosimus.] Zosimus was so provoked at this Appeal, that, upon the Receipt of the Letter, he assembled, in great Haste, a Council, consisting of the Roman Clergy, and the neighbouring Bishops; and, having caused the Letter to be read in their Presence, he condemned anew Pelagius and Cælestius, and with them Julian, and the other Bishops, who signed it, declaring them guilty of the same Errors, and in Consequence thereof degraded, as incorrigible Heretics, from the Episcopal Dignity. [Sidenote: They recur to the Emperor for a General Council.] The Prelates, thus degraded, had recourse to the Emperor Honorius, complaining of the undeserved Severity of Zosimus, and intreating him to convene, by his Authority, an Oecumenical Council, to the Judgment of which they were ready to submit both themselves and their Doctrine. The Emperor seemed at first inclined to grant them their Request. But Count Valerius, a great Friend of St. Austin, and then very powerful at Court, not only diverted Honorius from it, but prevailed upon him to enact a Law, banishing from Italy Julian, and with him all the Bishops, whom Zosimus had deposed[1537]. [Sidenote: Who issues several Laws against them.] This Law was soon followed by another, commanding all Bishops to sign the Condemnation of Pelagius and Cælestius, on Pain of Deposition, and perpetual Banishment[1538]. The Pelagians interpreted their being refused a Council, as a Token of Victory; whence Julian, in a Letter which he writ to his Friends in Rome, insults his Adversaries, as if they had distrusted their Cause, and therefore declined the Judgment of an Oecumenical Council[1539]. In another Place he reproaches St. Austin, in particular, for courting the Friendship of Men in Power, especially of Count Valerius, with no other View but to crush, by their means, those whom he could not convince. St. Austin answered, That Recourse indeed had been had to Men in Power; but that the Pelagians ought rather to be thankful, than to complain, on that Score, since it was not to crush them, or to do them the least Hurt (for they were only driven from their Sees, and banished for Life), that the Interest and Power of great Men had been made use of, but merely to reclaim them from their sacrilegious Temerity[1540]. Might not a Decius, a Dioclesian, or any other Persecutor of the Church, have used the same Plea to justify his Persecution?
[Sidenote: The Pelagian Doctrine condemned by Two Councils in the East.]
About this time, that is, in the Latter-end of the Year 418. or the Beginning of 419. the Doctrine of Pelagius was condemned in a Council held at Antioch, at which presided Theodotius Bishop of that City; and in another, that met about the Year 421. in Cilicia, under the famous Theodorus of Mopsuestia, who had been hitherto an avowed Patron of the Pelagians, had received Julian when driven out of Italy, and even written a Book against St. Austin, in Defence of the Pelagian Doctrine[1541]. His Conversion was perhaps owing, as that of many others certainly was, to the severe Laws enacted against the Pelagians. Soon after the Council of Antioch, Pelagius, whom Jerom styles the Second Catiline, was driven from Jerusalem, where he had lived a long time, and obliged to fly to some other Place for Shelter[1542]. Whither he retired, or what became of him afterwards, is not recorded. St. Austin supposes both him and Cælestius to have been still alive, while he was writing against Julian, that is, about the Year 421[1543]. [Sidenote: Pelagius driven from Jerusalem.] As for Cælestius, it appears from a Rescript, or rather a Letter, of the Emperor Constantius to Volusianus, Prefect of Rome, in 421. that he was then in that City. [Sidenote: Cælestius returns to Rome.] For Constantius writes to Volusianus, that though he had enacted some Laws against the antient as well as the modern Heresies, yet he was informed, that they made daily great Progress; and therefore, to prevent the Disturbances that must arise from thence, he commands the Laws to be put in Execution, and the Enemies of the true Religion to be carefully sought for, especially Cælestius, and to be banished, if apprehended, an Hundred Miles from Rome. [Sidenote: Law issued against him.] To this Letter the Emperor added, with his own Hand, by way of Postscript, that the Reputation of Volusianus depended on the punctual Execution of this Order[1544]. In Obedience to the Emperor’s Commands, Volusianus issued a Proclamation, banishing Cælestius an Hundred Miles from Rome, and threatening with Proscription all who should presume to conceal him[1545]. Cælestius however appeared again in Rome Three Years after, and even applied to Cælestine, then in that See, to have his Cause examined anew. Is banished all Italy. But Cælestine, rejecting his Request with Indignation, caused him to be banished all Italy[1546]. From Rome he repaired to Constantinople, with Julian, and the other Bishops of the Pelagian Party, who all met there with a more kind Reception. [Sidenote: Is driven from Constantinople together with Julian, and the other Pelagian Bishops.] The Emperor Theodosius the younger was even inclined to assemble, at their Request, a great Council; and Nestorius, then Bishop of Constantinople, writ to the Pope in their Favour. But, in the mean time, Marius Mercator having composed, and presented to the Emperor, a Memorial against them, they were ordered by Theodosius, in virtue of that Memorial, to depart the City[1547]. Of Cælestius no farther Mention is made by any of the Antients. As for Julian, he wandered, for several Years, from Place to Place, being every-where abhorred, detested, and driven out by the Populace, as if his Presence had been enough to draw down from Heaven some remarkable Judgment upon them. [Sidenote: Julian dies in Sicily.] However, he found an Asylum at last in a small Village of Sicily, where he earned a Livelihood by keeping a School, till the Year 455. when he died, after he had divested himself of all he had, to relieve the Poor of the Place in a great Famine[1548]. He was a Man of a sprightly Genius, thoroughly acquainted with the Scriptures, well versed in all the Branches of polite Literature, especially in the Greek and Latin Poets, and once famous among the Doctors of the Church[1549]. [Sidenote: His Birth, Education, &c.] He was descended from an illustrious Family. His Father was an Italian Bishop, for whom St. Austin, notwithstanding his irreconcileable Aversion to the Son, professed the greatest Friendship and Veneration[1550]. His Mother was a Lady of the first Quality, and yet more commendable for her Virtue than her Birth[1551]. His Enemies, envying him even his noble Descent, strove to rob him of that Honour, small as it is, in Comparison of his other Endowments, by giving out, that he was a supposititious Child[1552]. He was admitted by his Father among the Clergy, when he was yet very young, and married, when he was of a more mature Age, to a Lady named Ja, of a Senatorial, nay, of the Æmilian Family, and the Daughter of Æmilius Bishop of Benevento[1553]. St. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, did not think it beneath him to write an Epithalamium on this Occasion, of a most singular kind; for he advises him and his Bride to continue Virgins, and observe Continency[1554]. A very extraordinary Advice on a Wedding-Day! That the married Couple agreed to it then, we are not told; but, not long after, probably on the Death of his Wife, Julian bound himself to the Observance of Continency; for he was ordained Deacon, and soon after raised to the See of Eclana[1555]. He had, long before, embraced the Pelagian Doctrine; and was so fully convinced of the Truth of it, that he often declared, if Pelagius himself should renounce his Doctrine, yet he would not[1556]. These Sentiments he maintained to the last, chusing rather to be driven from his See, and deprived of all the Comforts of Life, than to abjure Opinions, which he thought true, or admit Opinions, which he thought false. He was buried in the Place where he died; and his Tomb was discovered in the Ninth Century, with the following Epitaph; Here rests in Peace Julian a Catholic Bishop. From this Epitaph some have concluded, that he renounced at last the Pelagian Doctrine, and died a good Catholic. But they were not, it seems, aware, that the Pelagians constantly styled themselves Catholics, stigmatizing St. Austin, and the rest who opposed them, with the Name of Manichees.
[Sidenote: The Semipelagian Doctrine.]
Julian is supposed to have dissented in some Points from Pelagius, in those especially that relate to Grace, and thereby to have introduced, or laid down such Principles as naturally tended to introduce, the Semipelagian Doctrine; which may be reduced to the following Heads: 1. That when the Truth has been sufficiently declared, we may, by our own Free-will, without the Help of preventing Grace, begin to believe it; so that the first Beginning of our Faith cannot be properly called a Gift of God, but, our own Act. 2. That for all other good Works Grace is necessary (and here they differed from the Pelagians); but is never denied to a Man, who, by the good Use of his Free-will, has begun to believe. Thus, according to them, Grace was the Reward of Faith, and not Faith the Effect of Grace, which was the Doctrine of St. Austin. 3. That, by Grace preceding our Merits, no more can be meant, than the natural Grace and Bounty of God, given to Man in his Reason, and the natural Faculties of his Soul; by the good Use of which, he may render himself worthy of the extraordinary Grace that is necessary for him to work out his Salvation. 4. That the Children who die before they attain to the Years of Discretion, are eternally rewarded or punished, according to the good or bad Life they would have led, had they attained to the Years of Discretion. A most impious Tenet! making God punish Sins with eternal Misery that were never committed: yet not quite so impious as that of St. Austin; who, without having recourse to the Supposition of Crimes foreseen, supposed innocent Children to be eternally damned for a Crime committed by Adam, if, by the Fault of their Parents, they were not baptized. Other Tenets of the Semipelagians were these: 5. That the Notion of Election and Reprobation, independent on our Merits or Demerits, is maintaining a fatal Necessity, is the Bane of all Virtue, and serves only to render good Men remiss in working out their Salvation, and to drive Sinners to Despair. [Sidenote: The System of the Jesuits founded on the Semipelagian Doctrine.] 6. That the Decrees of Election and Reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of our good or evil Works, as foreseen by God from all Eternity. On these Two last Propositions the Jesuits found their whole System of Grace and Free-will, agreeing therein with the Semipelagians against the Jansenists and St. Austin; though, not daring to contradict the Doctor of Grace, as he is styled, they pretend their Doctrine, and not that of the Jansenists, to be the true Doctrine of St. Austin; which has occasioned endless Disputes, and endless Volumes. The latter Popes have all favoured the Semipelagians or Jesuits against the Jansenists and St. Austin; and Clement XI. above all the rest, by his famous Bull Unigenitus. But the Popes who lived nearer those Times, especially Gelasius and Hormisda, were all zealous Asserters of the Doctrine of St. Austin; nay, Hormisda declared the Doctrine contained in the Books of that Father, namely, in those he writ on Predestination and Perseverance, to be the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; which was declaring every true Catholic to be a Predestinarian[1557]. For the Doctrine of Predestination (as Predestination has been since understood by Calvin and his Followers) is there laid down in the plainest Terms; which so shocked some Persons, otherwise eminent for their Piety, say Prosper and Hilarius[1558], that they could not help censuring it, as a Doctrine repugnant to the Sense of the Church, and the Fathers; nay, as a Doctrine, which, were it even true, ought not to be made public, since it was not necessary that Men should know it; and if they did, it would render all Exhortations to good Works vain and useless[1559]. But these, say the Jesuits, pretending their System to be the pure Doctrine of St. Austin, misunderstood that Father, as did Faustus the famous Abbot of Lerins, when he writ, That if it be true, that some are predestined to Life, and others to Destruction, as a certain holy Man (St. Austin) has said, we are not born to be judged, but we are judged before we are born; so that there can be no Equity in the Day of Judgment[1560]. To speak impartially, it is no easy Matter to determine what System St. Austin had formed to himself, with respect to Grace, Free-will, and Predestination: for, in one Place, he seems to reject and condemn what he had been labouring to prove and establish in another. Hence Julian, whose Understanding was far more methodical, used often to quote him against himself, as the Jesuits and Jansenists still do in maintaining their Systems, though diametrically opposite, to be intirely agreeable to his Doctrine. He was apt to run into Extremes, and, in confuting one Error, to lay a Foundation for many others. Hence even his greatest Admirers are often at a Loss how to make him agree either with the Church or himself. However, his great Knowlege in those Days, his extraordinary Zeal for what he called the Catholic Doctrine, and, above all, his heaping daily Volumes upon Volumes against all who opposed it, so dazled the Understandings of the Popes themselves, that, looking upon him as an inspired Writer, they suffered him to dictate even to them, as if he had been Pope, and they common Bishops; as if Infallibility had been transferred from Rome to Hippo, and no longer vested in them, but in him.
[Sidenote: Zosimus quarrels with some Bishops of Gaul.]
But to return to Zosimus: As his Partiality to Pelagius and Cælestius occasioned a Quarrel between him and the African Bishops; his Partiality to Patroclus, who had usurped the See of Arles, as I have related above[1561], occasioned, in like manner, a Quarrel between him and some Bishops of Gaul; and from the latter he reaped no more Credit or Honour, than he had done from the former. [Sidenote: The Occasion of this Quarrel.] It arose on the following Occasion: The Bishops of Arles and Vienne had been long contending for the Metropolitan Dignity, and the Jurisdiction attending it, over the Provinces of Narbonne and Vienne: and the Decision of the Controversy having been referred, some Years before, to a Council that was held in Turin, it had been there decreed, that the Bishop who should prove his City to be the Metropolis of those Provinces, according to the Civil Division of the Empire, should enjoy the Metropolitan Dignity, and the Privileges annexed to it; but, in the mean time, to avoid any Breach of Charity, that both should exercise the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan over the Churches that were nearest to their respective Cities[1562]. Thus Matters continued, till Patroclus repairing to Rome, and there imposing upon Zosimus, who was quite unacquainted with the Merits of the Cause, prevailed upon him, by flattering his Vanity and Ambition, to decide, in his Favour, the Controversy, which had been so long depending. Zosimus censured very severely, as I have observed above, the African Bishops, for acting, as he pretended, with too much Haste and Precipitation, in the Case of Cælestius. But, surely, no Man ever deserved to be more justly censured, on that score, than himself: for, not to mention the Case of Heros and Lazarus, whom he excommunicated and deposed in their Absence, and without hearing what they had to plead in their Defence, he took upon him to decide the present Controversy, which a Council had left undetermined, upon the Information given him by one of the Parties concerned, without hearing the other: for, giving an intire Credit to all Patroclus said, or could say, in Behalf of himself and his Church, he writ a Letter, addressed to all the Bishops of Gaul, declaring, that, for the future, he would receive no Bishops or Ecclesiastics coming to Rome from those Provinces, unless they brought with them Letters of Communion, called Formatæ, from the Metropolitan of Arles, and excommunicating those who should transgress this Order[1563][N63]. The Privilege of granting the Formatæ was only personal; for Zosimus did not grant it to the See of Arles, but to Patroclus, whom he styles his holy Brother, in Consideration of his extraordinary Merit. To such a Degree had he suffered himself to be imposed upon, by a Man, who was the Disgrace of his Order[1564]. In the same Letter he vests him, as Bishop of Arles, with a Metropolitan Jurisdiction over the Province of Vienne and the Two Provinces of Narbonne, adjudges to his See all the Parishes and Territories that had ever been subject to the City of Arles, and grants him a full Power to decide and finally determine all Controversies that should arise in the Three above-mentioned Provinces, provided they were not of such Consequence as required them to be examined at Rome[1565]. The only Reason Zosimus alleges for thus exalting the See of Arles to the Prejudice of the See of Vienne, is, because Trophimus, the First Bishop of Arles, had converted those Provinces to the Christian Religion. A Reason both false and impertinent: false, because Trophimus flourished in the Year 250[1566]. and the Church of Arles was famous as early as the Year 177. when they writ, with their Brethren of Lions, to the Faithful in Asia[1567]: impertinent, because it was to the Dignity of each City, and to nothing else, that the Dignity of the Sees was owing. Hence the Council of Turin wisely adjudged the Metropolitan Dignity to him who should prove his City to be the civil Metropolis, with respect to the contested Provinces, as I have observed above. Zosimus, however, writ a Second Letter, which he addressed to all the Bishops of Gaul, Spain, and Africa, confirming to the See of Arles all the Rights and Privileges which he had granted in his First, and rejecting, with Scorn, the Decree of the Council of Turin[1568].
-----
Footnote N63:
These Letters were given, in the primitive Times, to traveling Ecclesiastics, that their Brethren, in the Places through which they passed, knowing who they were, and whence they came, might admit them to their Communion.
-----
[Sidenote: He is opposed by the Bishops of Gaul;]
The Bishops of Gaul, viz. Simplicius of Vienne, Hilarius of Narbonne, and Proculus of Marseilles, amazed and astonished at the Temerity of the Bishop of Rome, openly refused to acknowlege his Authority, or submit to his Sentence. Zosimus, highly provoked at the Opposition he met with, writ several threatening Letters to Hilarius and Proculus, as if he were determined to cut them off from his Communion, if they did not yield, and acknowlege Patroclus for their Metropolitan. As for Simplicius, he seems to have acted with less Vigour on this Occasion than the other Two; and it was perhaps on that Account that he has been sainted. Hilarius too yielded at last, not to the Menaces of Zosimus, which he made no Account of, but to those of Count Constantius, the avowed Patron of Patroclus[1569], whom he allowed, on that Consideration, to ordain a Bishop at Lodeve, within the Limits of his Province, which was owning him for his Metropolitan. But nothing could shake the Firmness and Constancy of Proculus. Zosimus, thinking he could frighten him into a Compliance, began with reproachful Language; from Reproaches he proceeded to Menaces; and from Menaces, to summon him to Rome, to answer there for his presuming to ordain Bishops in a Province (the Second Narbonnese) that had been adjudged by the Apostolic See to the Metropolitan of Arles. [Sidenote: especially by Proculus Bishop of Marseilles.] But Proculus made so little Account of his Reproaches, Menaces, and Summons, that I do not even find he returned them an Answer. It is at least certain, that he did not obey the Summons, and that he continued to exercise the same Jurisdiction, which he had exercised before, opposing to the repeated and peremptory Orders of Zosimus a Canon of the Council of Turin, appointing him Metropolitan of the Narbonnensis Secunda[1570]. Zosimus, transported with Rage in seeing his Authority thus slighted, writ Three Letters, all dated the 29th of September 417. viz. one to the People and Clergy of the Province of Vienne, another to those of the Second Narbonnese, and the third to Patroclus. In the Two former he inveighs bitterly against Proculus, and confirms anew to Patroclus the Metropolitan Dignity and Jurisdiction, which have been so unalterably intailed, says he, on the See of Arles, by the Decrees of the Fathers and Councils, that it exceeds even the Power and Authority of the Roman Church to transfer them to, or intail them upon, any other[1571]. This was disclaiming, in the plainest Terms, the Power of dispensing with the Canons, which has since proved so beneficial to the Apostolic See. And yet Zosimus was acting the whole Time in direct Opposition to the Fourth Canon of the Council of Nice, vesting, as it was understood by the subsequent Councils, the Bishop of each Metropolis with the Metropolitan Dignity and Jurisdiction over the whole Province. Zosimus, in his Letter to Patroclus, encourages him to resume and exercise, in spite of Proculus, the Metropolitan Jurisdiction over the Second Narbonnese, which Proculus had so unjustly invaded and usurped. [Sidenote: Proculus excommunicated and deposed by Zosimus.] This Patroclus durst not attempt, tho’ seconded by the whole Power of the Apostolic See; which wrought the Pride, Ambition,and Resentment of Zosimus to such a Pitch, that, giving the Reins to his Passion, he thundered the Sentence of Excommunication against Proculus, declared him unworthy of, and degraded from, the Episcopal Dignity, and committing the Church of Marseilles to the Care of Patroclus, commanded him to exercise there the Jurisdiction with which he was vetted. The Power of the Apostolic See was now exhausted, and, what drove Zosimus almost to Despair, exhausted to no Effect: for Proculus, to shew how little Regard he paid to the Sentence pronounced against him at Rome, ordained a Bishop soon after he was acquainted with it. [Sidenote: But continues to discharge the Functions of his Office.] Zosimus, sensible that the Authority of his See was here at stake, would not abandon the Attempt. He writ Two Letters more on the same Subject, one to Patroclus, exhorting him to exert, with Vigour and Severity, the Power with which he was vested; and at the same time commanding him to declare, in his Name, that he should never be prevailed upon to acknowlege those whom Proculus had ordained. The other Letter was to the People, Clergy, and Magistrates of Marseilles; stirring them up against Proculus, and encouraging them to drive him out, and receive another in his room at the Hands of Patroclus. These Letters occasioned great Disturbances in the Church of Marseilles, which was now rent into Two opposite Parties, some refusing to acknowlege Proculus, and others declaring that they would acknowlege no other[1572]. But, in spite of the utmost Efforts of Zosimus, of Patroclus, and their Partisans, Proculus still kept his Ground, still continued to exercise all Episcopal as well as Metropolitan Functions, as he had formerly done. He thought even the Evils attending a Schism of a less dangerous Tendency than those which he apprehended from the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome. [Sidenote: His Steadiness in opposing the Encroachments of Rome.] Had all the Prelates thus stood up in Defence of their just Rights and Privileges against the Papal Usurpations, the Church had never been reduced to that deplorable Thraldom, which she groaned under for so many Ages. But, alas! there have been in all Times but too many Simplicius’s, who, out of a mistaken Principle, have chosen rather to yield to an encroaching Power, than to raise Disturbances, and forego their own Ease, by withstanding it; but too many Patroclus’s, who, to gratify their own Ambition, have prostituted their sacred Dignity to the ambitious Views of the Pope, and raised him, at the Expence of their own Order, that they might be raised by him in their Turn. Proculus, though deposed, excommunicated, calumniated, persecuted by Zosimus and his Tools, kept to the last Possession of his See; nay, and was acknowleged for lawful Bishop of Marseilles, for Metropolitan of the Second Narbonnese, not only by the Bishops of Gaul, but likewise by those of Africa[1573]. He was still alive in 427. when he condemned the Monk Leporius for maintaining Christ to have been born Man only, but to have deserved, by his good Works, to become God[1574]. The Encomiums bestowed on him by the Council of Turin, by St. Jerom, and Tiro Prosper, as I have observed above, are a sufficient Confutation of all the Calumnies uttered against him by Zosimus, and the rest of his Enemies.
[Sidenote: Zosimus dies.]
The last Letters of Zosimus, that is, his Letters to Patroclus, and the People of Marseilles, are dated the 5th of March 418. and he died in the Latter-end of the same Year, on the 26th of December, says Baronius[1575], upon the Authority, we may suppose, of some antient Pontifical[N64].
-----
Footnote N64:
He is said to have been buried near the Body of St. Laurence, on the Tiburtine Way, on the 25th or 26th of December, according to Anastasius the Bibliothecarian[N64.1]; but on the 27th, according to an antient Pontifical, which agrees better with the Letters of Symmachus concerning the Election of his Successor Boniface: so that he may have governed One Year Nine Months and Eight or Nine Days, which is the Time that Prosper allows him[N64.2].
Footnote N64.1:
Anast. c. 42.
Footnote N64.2:
Vide Pontaci not. in chron. Prosp. p. 777.
-----
The Distemper which he died of lasted a long time, and was attended with such violent Fits, that he was often thought to be dead before he died. It was during his Illness that he writ his last Letters; and yet they are no less remarkable than the rest for that Fire and Vivacity, that Strength of Expression, and even that Elegance and Purity of Diction, that were peculiar to him. [Sidenote: His Character.] He was a Man of great Address in the Management of Affairs; well knew how to turn every thing to his Advantage; and in the several Disputes which he engaged in, he forgot nothing that could any ways distress those who opposed him. He was apt to engage too rashly, giving an intire Credit to those who, by a servile Submission, flattered his Ambition; and when he had once engaged in a Cause, as he was of a haughty and imperious Temper, impatient of Controul, passionate, headstrong, full of, and elated with, the Dignity of the Apostolic See, it required the greatest Art and Address in his Brethren to bring him into their Measures, and with-hold him from raising fatal Divisions in the Church. His whole Conduct and Behaviour towards them, the haughty and peremptory Style, which he assumed in writing to them, sufficiently shew that he looked upon them as infinitely below him, as bound to yield a blind Obedience to all his Commands, and submit, without Reply, to all his Decisions: and it is not to be doubted but, had he lived longer, and not met with the vigorous Opposition which he did from the Bishop of Marseilles, he would have made great Progress towards reducing his Fellow-Ministers and Fellow-Labourers, as they are styled by St. Cyprian, to that State of Dependence, not to say Slavery, which in the End they have been reduced to by his Successors. He was the first who made use of the Expression, For so it has pleased the Apostolic See[1576], an Expression which his Successors have all adopted, as the Language of the highest Authority, and such as exempted them from giving any Account either of their Actions, or of the Motives, that prompted them so to act. But, to paint Zosimus to the Life, we want no other Colours than those, which the African Bishops, who were but too well acquainted with him, have furnished us with in the Letter which they writ to his Successor Boniface. We hope, say they, that since it has pleased the Almighty to raise you to the Throne of the Roman Church, we shall no longer feel the Effects of that worldly Pride and Arrogance, which ought never to have found room in the Church of Christ[1577]. In the same Letter they complain of their having been made to endure such things as it was almost impossible for them to endure, which however they were willing to forget. Hard indeed and tyrannical must the Treatment have been, which they met with at the Hands of Zosimus, since it could extort from so many venerable Prelates a Complaint of this Nature, and that in a Letter to his immediate Successor. [Sidenote: Zosimus sainted by a Mistake of Baronius.] Zosimus however has been sainted, and is now worshiped by the Church of Rome as a great Saint, not so much in regard of his own Merits, as by a Blunder of Baronius in revising and correcting the Roman Martyrology. The Case is pretty singular, and may not be thought quite unworthy of a Place here, by reason of the Consequences, which every Protestant Reader may draw from it. In the Martyrology of Bede was marked, St. Zosimus Martyr, who suffered for the Confession of the Faith. This Martyr an ignorant Transcriber mistook for the Pope of the same Name, and, concerned to find so little said of so great a Saint, set down all he knew of him. This Copy Baronius perused, and, reading there what the Transcriber had added of his own, concluded the Saint mentioned in that Place to be Pope Zosimus, and accordingly, upon the supposed Authority of Bede, allotted him a Place among the other Saints in the Roman Martyrology. As for his being said to have suffered Martyrdom for the Confession of the Faith, Baronius ascribed that to the Ignorance of the Transcriber, making but one Saint out of two, though they lived at so great a Distance of Time from each other; for the Martyr lived in the earliest Times, and is mentioned by St. Polycarp, who flourished Two hundred Years and upwards before the Pontificate of Zosimus. To this double Blunder of the Transcriber and Baronius is Zosimus indebted for the Worship and Honours that are publicly paid him in the Church of Rome. Indeed that Church is not more grosly deluded in paying an idolatrous Worship to Saints, upon the Authority of her Infallible Guide, than in the Objects to whom that Worship is paid[N65].
-----
Footnote N65:
Bollandus, to saint Zosimus in a more honourable Way, supposes him to have once had a Place in the Martyrology of St. Jerom; and complains of those who have taken the Liberty to strike out his Name. One would think he had found his Name in some Copy of that Martyrology, or at least heard of it; but he ingenuously owns, that he never found it there himself, nor heard of any who did; adding, that nevertheless he is fully persuaded it was once there, and that he cannot think otherwise; and it is upon his not being able to think otherwise that he founds his Supposition, his Complaints, and the Saintship of Zosimus[N65.1]; which is allowing them to have no Foundation at all.
-----
-----
Footnote N62:
Honorius supposes, and likewise his Prefects, Pelagius to have been in Rome, when this law was enacted; but it is very certain, that he was then in Palæstine.
Footnote N65.1:
Boll. conat. ad chronol. Pont. p. 61, 62.
Footnote 1475:
Anas. c. 42.
Footnote 1476:
Jans. Hist. Pel. p. 2.
Footnote 1477:
Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.
Footnote 1478:
Aug. ep. 95. Pecc. Orig. c. 8-21, &c.
Footnote 1479:
Hier. in Jer.
Footnote 1480:
Vide Jan. hist. Pel. 1. 6. c. 24.
Footnote 1481:
Hier. in Jer. et Gernerius in Mar. Mercat.
Footnote 1482:
Gennad. de script. eccles. c. 44.
Footnote 1483:
Hier. ad Ctesiph. c. 3.
Footnote 1484:
Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.
Footnote 1485:
Aug. ep. 89.
Footnote 1486:
Aug. de Gest. Pelag. c. 22.
Footnote 1487:
Aug. ibid.
Footnote 1488:
Aug. ep. 89. Mar. Mer. comm. c. 1.
Footnote 1489:
Aug. ib. et de Gest. Pel. c. 11. Mar. Mer. comm. c. 1. Oros. apol. p. 801.
Footnote 1490:
Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 6. 11. 20. 29, 30. 35. ep. 96. 106. Hier. ep. 79.
Footnote 1491:
Hier. ibid.
Footnote 1492:
Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 1. Vide Noris hist. Pel. l. 2. c. 8.
Footnote 1493:
Aug. ep. 90.
Footnote 1494:
Idem ibid. ep. 95.
Footnote 1495:
Aug. Pecc. Orig. c. 8. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. ep. 104, 105. Prosp. in collat.
Footnote 1496:
Aug. ep. 90. 92. Hier. in Jer. Mercator. com. c. 1.
Footnote 1497:
Aug. Gr. Ch. c. 30. 33. Peccat. Orig. c. 23.
Footnote 1498:
Vide Bar. ad ann. 417.
Footnote 1499:
Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. & Pecc. Orig. c. 6.
Footnote 1500:
Idem ad Bon. ibid.
Footnote 1501:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1502:
Mercat. comm. c. 1. Vide Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 19, 20, &c.
Footnote 1503:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1115.
Footnote 1504:
Hier. ep. 4.
Footnote 1505:
Tiro Prosp. p. 51.
Footnote 1506:
Bar. ad ann. 426. n. 26.
Footnote 1507:
Bar. ibid.
Footnote 1508:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1571.
Footnote 1509:
Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 16.
Footnote 1510:
Idem ep. 90.
Footnote 1511:
Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 23.
Footnote 1512:
Bar. ibid. n. 27, 28, 29.
Footnote 1513:
Noris Hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 12.
Footnote 1514:
Gallia Christiana, t. 1. p. 2.
Footnote 1515:
Merc. comment. c. 3.
Footnote 1516:
Gall. Christ. ibid.
Footnote 1517:
Aug. Gr. Ch. c. 30. & Pecc. Orig. c. 18, 19.
Footnote 1518:
Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 25. 29.
Footnote 1519:
Hier. ep. 195. 209.
Footnote 1520:
Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.
Footnote 1521:
Aug. ib. & Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 4. & Quesnel. in Leon. opera, p. 676.
Footnote 1522:
Quesnel. ibid. p. 675.
Footnote 1523:
Prosp. chr. & in coll. c. 10.
Footnote 1524:
Prosp. chron. in Ingrat. l. 1. c. 2.
Footnote 1525:
Prosp. in Ingrat. l. 1. c. 3.
Footnote 1526:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1527:
Prosp. ibid. l. 1. c. 2. Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. & Pecc. Orig. c. 8. Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 5. 12.
Footnote 1528:
Bar. ibid.
Footnote 1529:
Conc. l. 2. p. 1121. Aug. ep. 47.
Footnote 1530:
Conc. l. 2. p. 1064. Nor. hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 17.
Footnote 1531:
Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 20.
Footnote 1532:
Bar. ad ann. 420. n. 4. Nor. hist. Pel. p. 88.
Footnote 1533:
Aug. Pecc. orig. c. 8. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. Mar. Merc. comm. c. 1.
Footnote 1534:
Aug. Pecc. orig. c. 3, & 4. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. Mercat. ubi supra. Prosp. chr. & Ingrat. l. 1. c. 3.
Footnote 1535:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. Conc. t. 3. p. 349. Prosp. chr. Merc. c. 3.
Footnote 1536:
Merc. subnot. p. 320-326.
Footnote 1537:
Aug. op. imperf. l. 1. c. 10. ad Val. p. 343. Conc. t. 2. p. 1558.
Footnote 1538:
Mer. Com. c. 3. Nor. hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 16.
Footnote 1539:
Aug. in Jul. l. 3. c. 1. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 24.
Footnote 1540:
Aug. op. imperf. l. 2. c. 14.
Footnote 1541:
Merc. Comm. c. 3.
Footnote 1542:
Hier. ep. 55.
Footnote 1543:
Aug. in Jul. l. 2. c. 10.
Footnote 1544:
Bar. ad ann. 420. n. 2.
Footnote 1545:
Phot. c. 53.
Footnote 1546:
Prosp. in Coll. c. 41.
Footnote 1547:
Vid. Garn. in Mercat. p. 144.
Footnote 1548:
Gennad. c. 45.
Footnote 1549:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1550:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. & op. imperf. l. 1. c. 68.
Footnote 1551:
Merc. subnot. c. 4. Aug. op. imperf. p. 22.
Footnote 1552:
Merc. ib. p. 40.
Footnote 1553:
Paulin. car. 14.
Footnote 1554:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1555:
Aug. in Jul. l. 3. c. 21. et l. 4. c. 11. Mer. Comm. c. 3.
Footnote 1556:
Aug. ep. 106.
Footnote 1557:
Concil. t. 4. p. 1531.
Footnote 1558:
Prosp. et Hil. Literæ ad Aug. l. 7. p. 542. 546.
Footnote 1559:
Prosp. & Hil. ibid.
Footnote 1560:
Vide Sirmond. hist. prædest. c. 1, 2, &c.
Footnote 1561:
See p. 336, 337.
Footnote 1562:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1156.
Footnote 1563:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1567.
Footnote 1564:
See p. 337.
Footnote 1565:
Conc. ib. p. 1567-1569.
Footnote 1566:
Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. l. 1. c. 30.
Footnote 1567:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 1.
Footnote 1568:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1568.
Footnote 1569:
Conc. ibid. p. 1581.
Footnote 1570:
Conc. ibid. p. 1155.
Footnote 1571:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1570.
Footnote 1572:
Conc. ibid. p. 1574.
Footnote 1573:
Du Pin, t. 3. p. 827.
Footnote 1574:
Cassian. incar. l. 1. c. 4.
Footnote 1575:
Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 72.
Footnote 1576:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1567.
Footnote 1577:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1141.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HONORIUS, BONIFACE, THEODOSIUS Forty-first BISHOP of Rome. the younger.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 419. Schism in the Church of Rome.]
Zosimus being dead, great Disturbances arose about the Election of his Successor. Eulalius, whom Authors distinguish with the Title of Archdeacon, shutting himself up in the Lateran with Part of the People, and some Presbyters and Deacons, was there chosen by them in the room of Zosimus. At the same time a great Number of the People, many Presbyters, and some Bishops, assembling in the Church of St. Theodora, named the Presbyter Boniface to the vacant See. [Sidenote: Boniface and Eulalius both chosen.] Both were ordained the same Day they were chosen; Boniface, by Nine Bishops, and in the Presence of Seventy Presbyters; Eulalius, by Three Bishops only, and in the Presence of a very small Number of Presbyters; but the Bishop of Ostia was one of the Three; and he claimed, from a Custom which had long obtained, the Right of ordaining the Bishop of Rome. [Sidenote: The Governor of Rome and the Emperor favour Eulalius,] Symmachus, Governor of the City, did all that lay in his Power to prevent this double Election; but, not succeeding therein, he immediately dispatched an Express to the Emperor Honorius, then at Ravenna, with a Letter dated the 29th of December 418. acquainting him with what had passed. But his Account was not impartial: he represented Eulalius as lawfully chosen, and his Competitor as an Usurper. Honorius therefore, by a Rescript dated the 2d of January 419. ordered him to persuade Boniface to retire from Rome, to use Force, if Persuasions did not prevail, and to apprehend and punish the Ringleaders of the Sedition, if any should be raised on that Occasion. With this Rescript the Emperor dispatched Aphrodisius a Tribune and Notary; and Symmachus, having received it on the 6th of January, sent early next Morning his Primiscrinius, or first Secretary, with an Order for Boniface to attend him, and hear what he had to impart to him in the Emperor’s Name, letting him know, in the mean time, that he must not take upon him to exercise any Episcopal Functions; for such was the Will and Pleasure of the Emperor. This Order Boniface received while he was holding an Assembly in the Church of St. Paul without the Walls; but paid no Regard to it; nay, those who attended him, falling on the Secretary, who brought it, treated him very roughly; which Symmachus no sooner knew than he caused the Gates of the City to be shut, and kept Boniface out. [Sidenote: who takes Possession of the Church of St. Peter.] In the mean time Eulalius, improving to his Advantage the Absence of his Competitor, repaired to the Church of St. Peter, took Possession of it amidst the loud Acclamations of his Partisans, and exercised there all Episcopal Functions.
[Sidenote: The Friends of Boniface write to the Emperor,]
The avowed Partiality of Symmachus for Eulalius left no room to doubt but he had misinformed the Emperor. The Bishops therefore, with the Presbyters and People, who had chosen Boniface, thought it their Duty to transmit to him a candid and impartial Account of the late Transactions: and this they did accordingly, intreating the Emperor at the same time to revoke his former Order, and to summon both Eulalius and Boniface to Court, in order to try their Cause there. [Sidenote: who summons a Council to decide the Controversy.] Their Request appeared just; and Honorius, in Compliance with it, sent an Order to Symmachus, dated the 13th of January 419. commanding him to suspend the Execution of his former Order, and to notify to the Two Competitors, that they, and those who ordained them, must repair to Ravenna, on Pain to him who should fail to appear there on the 8th of the ensuing February, of having his Election declared null. Several Bishops were summoned to attend at the same time, Honorius thinking it proper, that a Dispute of that Nature should be decided by none but Bishops. However, to remove all Suspicion of Partiality on his Side, he would not allow those to sit as Judges, who had been any-ways concerned in the Election or Ordination of either of the Competitors. [Sidenote: A more full Council summoned.] The Bishops met; but not being able to agree among themselves, Honorius thought the Affair of such Importance, that he put it off to the 13th of June, with a Design to have it decided then in a full Council. He writ accordingly not only to the Bishops of Italy, but to those too of Gaul and Africa, inviting them to the Council, and acquainting them with the Time and Place of its meeting. In the mean while he strictly injoined both Boniface and Eulalius to keep at a Distance from the City, lest their Presence should occasion Disturbances there. But as Easter approached, he appointed Achilleus Bishop of Spoleti, who was of neither Party, to perform the Episcopal Functions at Rome during that Solemnity. [Sidenote: Eulalius disobeys the Emperor, and is driven from Rome.] This Eulalius could not brook; and therefore returning to Rome, in open Defiance of the Emperor’s Orders, he assembled the People, seized on the Lateran, and shutting the Doors against Achilleus, performed in that Basilic the Episcopal Functions usual at Easter. The Emperor, being acquainted by Symmachus with what had passed, was so provoked at his Disobedience and Temerity, that, by a Rescript dated from Ravenna the 3d of April, and received at Rome on the 8th of the same Month, he commanded Symmachus to drive Eulalius from the City, and to put Boniface in Possession of the disputed See; which was accordingly done[N66].
-----
Footnote N66:
The original Copies of the Letters from Symmachus to the Emperor, and of the Emperor’s Rescripts to Symmachus, giving a full and distinct Account of the present Schism, are lodged in the Vatican Library, and have been thence copied by Baronius.[N66.1].
Footnote N66.1:
Bar. ad ann. 419. n. 1-42.
-----
[Sidenote: Boniface indebted to the Emperor for his Dignity.]
Thus was an End put to the Schism; thus was Boniface placed on the Roman See, and vested with the Papal Dignity by the Clemency of the Emperor, as Largus Proconsul of Africa expresses it in his Letter to the Bishops of that Province[1578]; and not by the Authority of a Council consisting of Two hundred and Fifty-two Bishops, which some have brought down from the Clouds, without even letting us know where or when they assembled[1579].
All we know of Boniface before his Election is, that he was the Son of one Jucundus a Presbyter[1580], was stricken in Years, well versed in the Ecclesiastical Laws, of an unblemished Character; and, what enhances his Merit, chosen against his Will. [Sidenote: Boniface applies to the Emperor for a Law to restrain the Ambition of the Candidates to the Papacy.] Thus say his Friends, in the Letter which they writ in his Behalf to the Emperor Honorius[1581]. His first Care, after he found himself in the quiet Possession of his See, was to prevent for the future, so far as in him lay, the Cabals and Intrigues that might be formed at other Elections, as they had been at his, to the great Disturbance of the City, and Scandal of the Christian Religion. With this View he writ to the Emperor, intreating him to restrain, by some severe Law, the Ambition of those who, trusting more to their Intrigues than their Merit, aspired to a Dignity that was due to Merit alone[N67].
-----
Footnote N67:
This Letter bears Date the First of July 419.
-----
[Sidenote: His Law for that Purpose.]
The Emperor, in Compliance with so just a Demand, enacted a Law, well calculated to prevent effectually the Evil complained of, and keep the Ambition of the Candidates to the Papacy within due Bounds. For by this Law, when Two Persons were chosen, neither was to hold the Dignity, but the People and Clergy were to proceed to a new Election. This is the first Instance, that occurs in History, of Princes intermeddling in the Election of the Pope; an Evil, says F. Pagi, which, from small Beginnings, grew to such a Height as to reflect great Shame and Disgrace on the Roman Church.[1582] But it must be observed, that the original Evil was the Corruption, the Violence, and the many Disorders which the Clergy and People were guilty of in those Elections. It was this which, at the Request of the Pope himself, called on the Emperors to interpose their Authority, as the only adequate Remedy to such Abuses. The succeeding Emperors followed the Example of Honorius, and the Gothic as well as the Lombard Kings, the Example of the Emperors, as we shall see in the Sequel of the present History.