Produced by KD Weeks, Charlene Taylor, Bryan Ness and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
(This book was produced from scanned images of public
domain material from the Google Books project.)






------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. The text also
affected the now obsolete ‘long s’ (ſ). All of been replaced with the
modern ‘s’.

Each article is marked with a sidenote indicating the year a Pope
assumed the office. These notes are underscored with a large horizontal
brace, which is not reproduced here.

Marginal ‘sidenotes’ are marked as ‘[Sidenote: text]’ They appear either
preceding a paragraph, or, when they annotate text within a paragraph,
approximately where they occur in the original, usually on a sentence
break.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

The original text does not include a Table of Contents. The following
has been constructed for ease of navigation

   St. PETER
   LINUS,                    First Bishop of Rome,          CE 66.
   CLETUS or ANACLETUS       Second Bishop of Rome,         CE 78.
   CLEMENT,                  Third Bishop of Rome,          CE 91.
   EVARISTUS                 Fourth Bishop of Rome,         CE 100.
   ALEXANDER,                Fifth Bishop of Rome,          CE 109.
   SIXTUS,                   Fourth Bishop of Rome,         CE 119.
   TELESPHORUS,              Seventh Bishop of Rome,        CE 128.
   HYGINUS,                  Eighth Bishop of Rome,         CE 139.
   PIUS,                     Ninth Bishop of Rome,          CE 142.
   ANICETUS,                 Tenth Bishop of Rome,          CE 157.
   SOTER,                    Eleventh Bishop of Rome,       CE 168.
   ELEUTHERIUS,              Twelfth Bishop of Rome,        CE 176.
   VICTOR,                   Thirteenth Bishop of Rome,     CE 192.
   ZEPHYRINUS,               Fourteenth Bishop of Rome,     CE 201.
   CALLISTUS,                Fifteenth Bishop of Rome,      CE 219.
   URBANUS,                  Sixteenth Bishop of Rome,      CE 223.
   PONTIANUS,                Seventeenth Bishop of Rome,    CE 230.
   ANTERUS,                  Eighteenth Bishop of Rome,     CE 235.
   FABIANUS,                 Nineteenth Bishop of Rome,     CE 236.
   CORNELIUS,                Twentieth Bishop of Rome,      CE 251.
   LUCIUS,                   Twenty-first Bishop of Rome,   CE 252.
   STEPHEN,                  Twenty-second Bishop of Rome,  CE 253.
   SIXTUS II.                Twenty-third Bishop of Rome,   CE 257.
   DIONYSIUS,                Twenty-fourth Bishop of Rome,  CE 258.
   FELIX,                    Twenty-fifth Bishop of Rome,   CE 269.
   EUTYCHIANUS,              Twenty-sixth Bishop of Rome,   CE 275.
   CAIUS,                    Twenty-seventh Bishop of Rome, CE 283.
   MARCELLINUS,              Twenty-eighth Bishop of Rome,  CE 296.
   MARCELLUS,                Twenty-ninth Bishop of Rome,   CE 308.
   EUSEBIUS,                 Thirtieth Bishop of Rome,      CE 310.
   MELCHIADES,               Thirty-first Bishop of Rome,   CE 311.
   SYLVESTER,                Thirty-second Bishop of Rome,  CE 314.
   MARK,                     Thirty-third Bishop of Rome,   CE 336.
   JULIUS,                   Thirty-fourth Bishop of Rome,  CE 337.
   LIBERIUS,                 Thirty-fifth Bishop of Rome,   CE 352.
   DAMASUS,                  Thirty-sixth Bishop of Rome,   CE 366.
   SYRICIUS,                 Thirty-seventh BISHOP of Rome, CE 384.
   ANASTASIUS,               Thirty-eighth Bishop of Rome,  CE 398.
   INNOCENT,                 Thirty-ninth Bishop of Rome,   CE 402.
   ZOSIMUS,                  Fortieth Bishop of Rome,       CE 417.
   BONIFACE,                 Forty-first Bishop of Rome,    CE 419.
   CELESTINE,                Forty-second Bishop of Rome,   CE 422.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------




                                  THE
                                HISTORY
                                 OF THE
                                 POPES,

                                FROM THE
                    Foundation of the SEE of _ROME_,

                                 TO THE

                             PRESENT TIME.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                VOL. I.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     _By_ _ARCHIBALD BOWER_, _Esq_;

 _Heretofore Public Professor of_ Rhetoric, History, _and_ Philosophy,
                                _in the
             Universities of_ Rome, Fermo, _and_ Macerata,

       _And, in the latter Place, Counsellor of the Inquisition_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          The _THIRD EDITION_.

                               _LONDON_:
                       Printed for the _AUTHOR_.

                                  ---

                               M. DCC. L.




                                 TO THE

                                  KING

SIR,

It is not only as having the Happiness to be Your subject, that I beg
Your permission to lay this Book at Your feet. In whatever part of the
world I had been born, or had resided, I should have desired to present
it to Your Majesty, as the Great Protector of the Reformed Religion, and
worthily filling that Throne, which, above any in _Europe_, is the chief
Bulwark against the Papal Power, and all its pernicious attendants. The
wonderful rise, and monstrous growth of that Power, almost to the ruin
of all true Religion, and all the Civil rights of mankind, will be
delineated in the course of this Work, which I flatter myself may be of
some Use to the Protestant Cause. For, next to the light of the Gospel,
there is nothing that Popery has more to fear, than that of historical
Truth: It is a test which the pretensions and doctrines of _Rome_ can
never abide; and therefore she has used her utmost endeavours, not only
to lock up the Gospel from the eyes of the Laity, and prefer her own
Comments, Decrees, and Traditions, to the authority of the Scriptures,
but to corrupt, disguise, and falsify History, in which necessary
business her ablest pens have been employed. To take off those
disguises, and discover those falsehoods, is consequently a task
becoming the zeal of a good Protestant; and my intention at least,
though not my performance encourages me to hope for Your Majesty’s
Gracious Protection.


In the latter part of this History I shall have often the pleasure to
shew, how great an Instrument under _GOD_ the Power and Strength of this
kingdom has been, to maintain and support the Reformation all over
_Europe_. But I must also shew with concern, that from the death of our
wise Queen _Elizabeth_, the Princes of the House of _Stuart_, instead of
pursuing that glorious Plan, which she had traced out, were either
remiss in the cause, or wholly forsook it; so that had not the
Revolution providentially happened, and in consequence of it, the House
of _Brunswick_ been called to the Throne of these kingdoms, the Reformed
Religion would, in all probability, have not only been lost in _Great
Britain_, or at least under a fate of severe persecution, but would have
been in great danger every-where else, from such a change in the Balance
of Power as that event must have produced. The support of Your Royal
Family is therefore most necessary, even upon motives of
self-preservation, to every Protestant both here and abroad. May a due
sense of that important connection between Your safety and Theirs, be
always kept alive in their minds. May our Holy Religion continue to
flourish under Your Majesty’s Care, and that of Your Royal Posterity, to
the latest times. May neither the open attacks, nor secret machinations
of _Rome_ prevail against it. And may it produce all the Fruits that
ought to spring from it, the truly-christian spirit of Toleration,
universal charity, good morals, good learning, freedom of thought, and
candour of mind. I need add no other wishes or prayers to these: They
comprehend all happiness to Your Majesty, to Your Royal Family, and to
my Country; and they come from the heart of,

                  _Sir_,
                        _Your Majesty’s_
                              _Most Loyal_,
                                    _Most Faithful_,
                                         _And most devoted Subject_,

                                                    ARCHIBALD BOWER.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  THE
                                PREFACE

The Work, which I now offer to the Public, I undertook some years since
at _Rome_, and brought it down to the Pontificate of _Victor_, that is,
to the close of the Second Century. As I was then a most zealous
champion for the Pope’s Supremacy, which was held as an article of Faith
by the body I belonged to, my chief design, when I engaged in such a
work, was, to ascertain that Supremacy, by shewing, century by century,
that, from the Apostles times to the present, it had ever been
acknowleged by the Catholic Church. But alas! I soon perceived, that I
had undertaken more than it was in my power to perform. Nay, while, in
order to support and maintain this cause, I examined, with particular
attention, the writings of the Apostles, and of the many pious and
learned men who had flourished in the three first centuries of the
church, I was so far from finding any thing that seemed the least to
countenance such a doctrine, that, on the contrary, it appeared evident,
beyond all dispute, that, during the above-mentioned period of time, it
had been utterly unknown to the Christian world. In spite then of my
endeavours to the contrary, Reason getting the better of the strongest
prejudices, I began to look upon the Pope’s Supremacy, not only as a
prerogative quite chimerical, but as the most impudent attempt that had
ever been made: I say, in spite of my endeavours to the contrary; for I
was very unwilling to give up a point, upon which I had been taught by
_Bellarmine_, that _the whole of Christianity depended_[1]; especially
in a country, where a man cannot help being afraid even of his own
thoughts, since, upon the least suspicion of his only calling in
question any of the received opinions, he may depend upon his being soon
convinced by more cogent arguments, than any in _Mood_ and _Figure_. But
great is the power of truth; and at last it prevailed: I became a
proselyte to the opinion which I had proposed to confute; and sincerely
abjured, in my mind, that which I had ignorantly undertaken to defend.

Being thus fully convinced, that the Pope’s so much boasted Supremacy
was a bold and ungodly usurpation, I could not help censuring with
myself the men of learning, who had countenanced such a pretension,
especially the two great champions of the Papal power _Bellarmine_ and
_Baronius_. Did they not see what every man, who but dips into the
primitive writers, must see; what is obvious to common sense? The poor
shifts they are often put to, their ridiculous evasions and cavils,
their unmeaning distinctions, their wresting several passages, contrary
to the plain and natural meaning of the authors they quote, and, above
all, their unsatisfactory answers to the objections of the adverse
party, shew but too plainly, that they wrote not from conviction, nor
aimed at truth, but, perhaps, at the _red Hat_, which was afterwards
bestowed upon them, as a reward for betraying the truth. Few have
written in defence of the Pope’s Supremacy, that have not been
preferred; and none perhaps who had not preferment in view. _Æneas
Sylvius_, afterwards _Pius_ II. being asked, before he was raised to the
Papal Chair, How it happened, that, in all disputes between the Popes
and the Councils, many Divines sided with the former, and very few with
the latter? _Because the Popes_, answered he, _have benefices to give,
and the Councils have none_. Had he been asked the same question after
he was Pope, he would not perhaps have returned the same answer; but
said, upon his being put in mind of it, as _Gregory_ XIII. did
afterwards on a like occasion, that, _being raised higher, he saw better
and farther_. Those therefore who have stood up in defence of the
liberty of the Church against Papal Usurpation, cannot be supposed to
have had any other inducement to espouse the cause of truth, but truth
itself. And this some have had the Christian courage to do even in
_Italy_, and almost in the Pope’s hearing, at the peril of their
liberty, of their lives, of all that was dear to them; as I shall have
occasion to shew hereafter. But to return, in the mean time, to the
present History: I no sooner found myself in a Country where truth might
be uttered without danger, than I resolved to resume and pursue, in my
native tongue, as soon as I recovered the use of it, the work I had
begun in a foreign language. On the one side I saw the only obstruction
to an undertaking, which had already cost me no small pains and labour,
happily removed; while I flattered myself on the other, that as a
complete _History of the Popes_ was still wanting, such a performance
might meet with a favourable reception from the public. I am well
apprised, that others have, at different times, and in different
languages, treated the same subject: but whether any of their several
works may deserve the name of a _complete_, or even of a _tolerable
History_, I leave those to judge who have perused them; and shall only
say in respect to myself; that, instead of diverting me from undertaking
the same province, they have more than any thing else encouraged me to
it. _Anastasius_ and _Platina_, the two _Classics_, as they are deemed,
in this branch of History, have indeed given us the _Lives of the
Popes_, from the foundation of the See of _Rome_ to their times, but in
so broken, imperfect, and unsatisfactory a manner, that from them we
learn but very little, even concerning those of whom they have said
most. It was not their design to write a History, but only to draw, as
it were in miniature, the portraits of the _Roman_ Bishops, by relating,
in a summary way, such of their actions, as appeared to them most worthy
of being recorded; and, to say the truth, they have both betrayed no
less want of discernment in chusing what they should relate, than of
exactness in relating what they had chosen.

_Anastasius_ the Monk, surnamed _Bibliothecarius_, that is,
Library-keeper, Secretary, and Chancellor of the Church of _Rome_ (for
all these employments antiently centred in one person, and were
comprised under the common name of _Bibliothecarius_) flourished in the
ninth century, under _Nicolas_ I. _Adrian_ II. and _John_ VIII. He wrote
a succinct account of the Bishops, who governed the Church of _Rome_,
from St. _Peter_ to _Nicolas_ I. who died in 867. But the memoirs he
made use of were none of the best. In his time the world was over-run
with forged or corrupted Pontificals, Martyrologies, Legends, _&c._
which were then no less universally received, than they have been since
rejected by the learned of all persuasions. However, that from these the
_Bibliothecarian_ borrowed the greater part of his materials, at least
for the six first centuries, is but too apparent from his overlooking,
nay, and often contradicting, the unexceptionable testimonies of
contemporary writers; as will be seen in the sequel of the present
History. As therefore the records, which he copied, are so justly
suspected, and his own authority can be of no weight with respect to
those distant times, the reader must not be surprised to find, that, in
this History, I have paid no manner of regard to an author, who has been
hitherto blindly followed by those, who have written on the same
subject. There may indeed be some truth in what he relates; but his
frequent mistakes render that truth too precarious to be relied on,
unless confirmed by the concurring testimonies of other more credible
and less credulous authors. However, in the times less remote from his
own, I shall readily allow his authority its due weight; the rather, as
he seems not to have written with a design of imposing upon others, but
to have been imposed upon himself by frauds and forgeries; for he wrote
in an age, when the world lay involved in the thickest mist of
ignorance, when superstition and credulity triumphed without controul,
and spurious pieces, filled with idle and improbable stories, had thrust
every grave writer, nay, and the Gospels themselves, out of doors.

_Platina_, so called from the _Latin_ name of _Piadena_, a village in
the _Cremonese_, the place of his nativity (for his true name was
_Battista_, or _Bartolomeo Sacchi_) flourished six hundred years after
_Anastasius_, that is, in the fifteenth century, under _Calixtus_ III.
_Pius_ II. _Paul_ II. and _Sixtus_ IV. Under _Pius_ II. he was Secretary
of the _Datary_, the office where vacant benefices are disposed of; but,
being dismissed by _Paul_ II. tho’ he had purchased the place, in the
height of his resentment, he appealed to the _future Council_. What he
suffered under that Pope, first in prison, and afterwards on the rack,
we shall hear from himself, in a more proper place. _Sixtus_ IV. the
successor of _Paul_, well apprised of his innocence, took him into
favour, and, having enlarged, endowed, and enriched the _Vatican_
library with a great number of valuable books, in different languages,
he committed the care of them to him. It was probably at this time that
he wrote, or rather transcribed, the Lives of the Popes from St.
_Peter_, whom he supposes the founder of that See, to _Paul_ II. who
died in 1471. I say _transcribed_; for, if we except the few Popes who
lived in or near his own times, _viz._ _Eugene_ IV. _Nicolas_ V.
_Calixtus_ III. _Pius_ II. and _Paul_ II. he copied, almost verbatim,
all he has said of the rest, only interweaving now and then the profane
history with the ecclesiastic[2]. The Lives of the fourteen succeeding
Popes, from _Paul_ II. to _Pius_ V. elected in 1566. were compiled by
_Onuphrius Panvinius_, of the _Augustin_ order, a man more commendable
for his learning, than for his candor and veracity. These are, as we may
style them, the original compilers of the Lives of the Popes: _Platina_
adopted _Anastasius_’s concise method of writing, and _Panvinius_,
_Platina_’s, contenting themselves with bare hints; and thereby putting
their readers to the trouble of consulting other writers, in order to
gratify the curiosity they had raised. _Much has been said of the Popes
by other Historians, but very little by their own_, as the learned
_Pagi_ observed, after comparing the authors I have mentioned, with the
contemporary Historians of other nations. I might well add, that the
_very little_ they have said has been thought too much; whence some of
them, and _Platina_ in particular, have been made, in all their Editions
since the middle of the sixteenth century, to speak with more reserve,
and to suppress or disguise some truths they had formerly told.

As for those who in later times have engaged in the same province, we
need only dip into their works to be satisfied, that to search out truth
was not their business. Some are all praise and panegyric, others all
satire and gall: some have made it their study to excuse the worst of
Popes, others to arraign the best. That many of the Popes have been
wicked men, abandonedly wicked, is undeniable, notwithstanding the pains
that have been taken to extenuate their crimes; but neither are there
wanting some good men among them, of innocent lives, and unblemished
characters, whose only crime is their having been Popes; and to
misrepresent or misconstrue the virtuous actions of these, as some have
done, is no less blameable in an Historian, than to dissemble or gloss
over the criminal actions of the others. This partiality may be easily
accounted for with respect to one great period of the present History.
During the quarrels and wars between the Popes and Emperors, which
lasted many years, and occasioned, in seventy-eight battles, the
destruction of an infinite number of innocent people, two powerful
factions reigned, as is well known, both in _Germany_ and _Italy_,
distinguished by the names of _Guelphs_ and _Ghibbelines_; the former
being zealously attached to the Papal and the latter to the Imperial
interest. In the midst of these distractions few writers stood neuter,
but, siding, according to their different interests or inclinations,
with one party or the other, drew their pens, each against the head of
the party he opposed, with more rage than the soldiers did their swords.
And hence it is, that we find the same facts related by contemporary
authors with such different circumstances; the same persons, the
Emperors especially and the Popes, painted in such different colours. Of
this very few Writers in the later times have been aware; and therefore
have, as their bias led them to favour one cause more than the other,
adopted as undoubted truths the many groundless aspersions and
undeserved reproaches which party zeal had suggested to the
_Ghibbelines_ against the Popes, or to the _Guelphs_ against the
Emperors. I wish I could intirely clear an eminent _Italian_ historian
of our own times from this imputation.

But, after all, as it was not merely with a view to supply the want of a
complete History of the Popes, that I formerly undertook so laborious a
task; neither is it now with that view alone I resume it. What I
proposed to myself, when I first undertook it, I have said already; but,
being convinced that I laboured in vain, and convinced by such evidence
as the strongest prejudice could not withstand, I thought it a duty
owing to truth, to set it forth to others in the same irresistible
light; and to defend, at least with as much zeal, the best of causes, as
I had done the worst. A disloyal subject, who had taken up arms against
his lawful Sovereign, would not be thought intirely to comply with his
duty, by only laying them down: he ought, if actuated by a true spirit
of loyalty, and truly convinced of the badness of his cause, to range
himself under the banners of his injured Lord, and devote to his service
and defence the sword he had drawn against him. By a like obligation, a
writer, who has, even ignorantly, combated truth, is bound, not only to
lay down his pen, as soon as he finds himself engaged in a bad cause,
but, when occasion offers, to turn against error in favour of truth the
very weapon he had employed against truth in favour of error.

But to give the reader some account of the History itself, and the
method I have pursued in delivering it: I have intituled it, _The
History of the Popes_; but might as well have styled it, _The History of
Popery_; since it not only contains an account of the Lives and Actions
of the Popes, but of every _Popish_ tenet; when, by whom, on what
occasion, and to serve what purpose, each of them was broached; those
more especially which relate to the Pope as _Christ’s Vicar upon earth_,
as _the Supreme Head of the Church_, as _an Infallible Guide to
salvation_; for these are the prerogatives he claims, as entailed upon,
and inseparable from the _Roman_ See. But that no such doctrines were
known in the first and purest ages of Christianity; that the Bishop of
_Rome_ was then, nay, and thought himself, upon the level with other
Bishops; that the Catholic Church acknowleged no power, authority, or
jurisdiction in the Bishop of _Rome_, but what was common to him with
all other Bishops, will appear so plain from the following History, that
I can hardly conceive it possible for any man, however prejudiced in
favour of the _Papal Power_, and _Popish Religion_, to peruse it without
abjuring the one and the other: I am but too well apprised of the
strength of prejudice; but, strong as it is, it can never be proof
against plain matter of fact. For who can believe, for instance, in the
Pope’s Infallibility, who can help looking upon such an article of
belief as the grossest affront that ever was offered to human
understanding, when he reads of a _Liberius_ admitting and signing the
_Arian_ creed, or confession of faith, declared heretical by all his
Successors; of an _Honorius_ condemned by the Fathers of the sixth
Oecumenical Council, as an _organ of the devil_, for holding the heresy
of the _Monothelites_; of _John_ XXII. preaching up and propagating,
both by his Missionaries and his Legates _a latere_, a doctrine, which
he himself retracted on his death-bed; of seven Popes[3] cursing and
damning, in emulation of one anther, all who denied a certain tenet[4],
and another Pope[5] as heartily cursing and damning all who maintained
it, nay and recurring to the _Ultima Ratio_ of the later Popes, the
_Fagot_, in order to _root out of the Church_ (these are his very words)
_so pestilential, erroneous, heretical, and blasphemous a doctrine_?
This occasioned great scandal in the Church, insomuch that some even
took the liberty to represent to his Holiness, that the Decrees and
Constitutions of one Pope could not be reversed by another. The Pope
replied (and what other reply could he make?) _That they were mistaken,
since it might be proved by innumerable instances, that what had been
decreed wrong or amiss by one Pope or Council, could be rectified and
amended by another_. This answer silenced them at once, says our
Historian: And well it might; I am only surprised, that the word
_Infallibility_ has ever been since heard of. The _Franciscan_ Friers,
who had occasioned the dispute, paid dear for it: As they continued to
plead the Infallibility of seven Popes against that of one, and
obstinately adhered to their doctrine, Pope _John_, losing all patience,
ordered all to be burnt alive, who did not receive his Constitution;
which was done accordingly, and many of those unhappy wretches chose
rather to expire in the flames than to yield. These remarkable
transactions are related by several contemporary writers of
unquestionable authority, and among the rest by _Nicolaus Eymericus_,
who was Inquisitor of the province of _Tarragon_, and has inserted them
in his _Directorium Inquisitorum_[6]. Other facts without number, of the
same nature, and alike irreconcileable with the other prerogatives
claimed by the Popes, as well as with the chief articles of the _Roman
Catholic_ religion, will occur in this History, and all so well
attested, that nothing, I think, can withstand the force of Truth thus
displayed. Logical arguments and controversial reasoning cannot be well
adapted to every understanding, and therefore are not always attended
with the desired effect, however skilfully managed; but historical facts
lie level to the meanest capacities, and the consequences thence
deducible are to the meanest capacities plain and obvious. It is true,
the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_ have endeavoured to darken the
clearest facts, since they could not deny them, as being vouched by
their own approved authors; but they have done it in so aukward a
manner, with such absurd, ridiculous, and unintelligible
interpretations, comments, distinctions, _&c._ that, were it not well
known it was their interest to defend that cause, one would be apt to
think they intended rather to ridicule than defend it.

But if the Popes were originally mere Bishops, upon the level with other
Bishops; if they had no power but what was common to them with all other
Bishops; by what means could they thus exalt themselves above their
Collegues, nay, _above all that is called God_? What could induce their
Collegues, and with them the greater part of the _Christian_ world, to
acknowlege such an unheard-of power, and submit to a yoke of all others
the most heavy and tyrannical? For an answer to these questions I refer
the reader to the following History, where he will find every branch of
power, authority, or jurisdiction claimed by the Popes, traced from its
first origin, and the various steps pointed out, by which they raised
themselves from the lowest beginnings to the highest pitch of greatness;
which is opening a school of the most refined policy, that ever was
known or practised upon earth. In this respect we must own the Popes to
have been, generally speaking, men of extraordinary talents, the ablest
Politicians we read of in History, Statesmen fit to govern the world,
and equal to the vast dominion they grasped at; a Dominion over the
Minds as well as the Bodies and Estates of mankind; a Dominion, of all
that ever were formed, the most wide and extensive, as knowing no other
Bounds but those of the Earth; nay, and not even those, since these
mighty Princes claim to themselves all power in Heaven as well as in
Earth, all power over the Dead as well as the Living. To establish the
spiritual part of this wondrous Authority upon the Gospel of _Christ_,
which contradicts it in every line, was an undertaking of no little
difficulty, and that required no common skill: to establish the temporal
dominion without a fleet, without an army; to subject to it not only the
ignorant and superstitious multitude, but Kings themselves, nay and to
prevail upon them to employ both their arms and their interest in
promoting a power evidently derogatory to and inconsistent with their
own; was a work not to be accomplished but by men of superior talents,
thoroughly acquainted with all the arts of insinuation and address, and
steady in pursuing, by the best concerted measures, the great point that
they constantly had in their view.

Two things, however, concurred to facilitate, in some degree, the
establishing the one and the other; _viz._ the profound ignorance of the
times, and the matchless cunning of the persons employed by the Popes as
their Emissaries and Agents; without which helps no imposture was ever
carried on with success.

It was in _the night, while men slept_, while the earth was overspread
with the darken night of ignorance, that _the enemy came, and sowed his
tares_. From the Beginning of the Seventh Century to the time of the
Reformation, Letters were utterly neglected; and in proportion to that
neglect, Credulity and Superstition, the inseparable companions of
Ignorance, prevailed among the Laity even of the highest ranks: the
little knowlege that still remained (and very little did remain) was
wholly confined to the Clergy, chiefly to the Monks, men most zealously
attached to the interest of the Pope, as well knowing, that by promoting
his interest, they promoted at the same time their own. It was in this
period of time, in this long darkness of ignorance, credulity, and
superstition, that the Pope and his Agents introduced maxims and notions
concerning the Papal Prerogatives, very different from those which the
world had entertained to that time. In the beginning of the Seventh
Century, that is, in the year 606. Pope _Boniface_ III. a man of great
address, having craftily insinuated himself into the favour of _Phocas_,
obtained of that Traitor and Murderer[7], the famous Rescript settling
the Supremacy on the See of _Rome_, in opposition to the claim of the
Patriarch of _Constantinople_. As _Phocas_ bore an irreconcileable
hatred to _Cyriacus_, who was then vested with the Patriarchal dignity,
he was the more easily prevailed upon to decide the Controversy, which
had already lasted a long time between the two Sees, in favour of the
See of _Rome_. If this hatred in the Usurper was owing to the zeal of
_Cyriacus_ in laying before him the enormity of his crime, and exhorting
him to repentance, _Boniface_, nay and his predecessor St. _Gregory the
Great_[8], knew better how to make their court to men in power, than to
take the least notice of their sins, however public, or mention
_Repentance_ in their hearing. Be that as it will, it is certain, that
to this monster of wickedness the Church of _Rome_ owes her Supremacy.
And it was this Grant from _Phocas_, that more than any thing else
inspired the Bishops of _Rome_ with pride and presumption; which
increasing as their power increased, they were carried by degrees to all
the excesses an unbounded ambition can suggest, when free from all Curb
of Conscience, Morality, and Religion.

Yet, after all, the Supremacy granted by _Phocas_ was but a Supremacy of
Order and Dignity; it gave no _new_ power to the Bishop of _Rome_, but
only raised him above his Collegues, especially his Rival, the Patriarch
of _Constantinople_; and made him, as some express it, _the First
amongst his Equals_. But his Successors, thirsting after power, and
scorning to hold their dignity by so precarious a tenure as the
Emperor’s pleasure, which might hereafter revoke the decision of
_Phocas_, and give the Precedence in rank to _Constantinople_ instead of
_Rome_, began to disown the favour they had received, to set up for
themselves, and to claim the Supremacy, as inherent by Divine Right in
their See, and derived from St. _Peter_, as Chief of the Apostles, and
Head of the Church. Thus was the foundation of the Supremacy changed;
and wisely changed, according to the rules of human policy. The old
foundation was no-ways proportioned to the immense superstructure, which
they now began to design; since they could claim but very little power,
if any at all, in virtue of the Emperor’s Grant. But the new foundation
was capable of bearing whatever the most unbounded and aspiring ambition
could build on it. Besides, the Bishop of _Rome_ could not challenge, by
a Rescript of the _Roman_ Emperor, any Superiority over the Churches,
that had no Dependence on the _Roman_ Empire. But a Supremacy, inherent
by Divine Right in the Papal Dignity, raised him at once above all the
Bishops of the Catholic Church. What therefore now remained was, to
improve this extensive Supremacy into a no less extensive Power and
Jurisdiction. And here no time was lost, many circumstances concurring
to promote and forward the execution of their attempt. Besides the
ignorance of the times, and the influence of the Monks, which operated
strongly in their behalf, the Princes of _Europe_ were quarrelling among
themselves about the Western parts of the _Roman_ Empire, and all glad
to purchase, at any rate, the friendship of the Bishop of _Rome_, who,
after the famous Donation of _Pepin_ in 754. had taken great state upon
him, and bore a considerable sway in all public affairs. As for the
Bishops, and the rest of the Secular Clergy, they looked upon the Pope,
especially after he had added the Sword to the Keys, as their protector
and defender; and were on that consideration disposed to concur in
strengthening his power, and rendering it formidable, tho’ at the
expence of their own; chusing rather to subject themselves to an
Ecclesiastical master, than to submit to the Civil authority. I might
add, that some now began to mind the Fleece more than the Flock; and
with That it was some time before the Popes thought it proper to meddle;
but, when they did, they soon retrieved, by the haste that they made,
the time they had lost.

Yet I do not believe, that they designed at first to run those lengths,
or carry the Papal Prerogative to that extravagant height they
afterwards did. The success, that attended them in the pursuit of one
claim, encouraged them to set up and pursue another. Of this no one can
doubt, who peruses with the least attention the Records of those Ages,
and compares the Popes in the beginning of the Seventh Century with the
Popes in the latter end of the Eleventh. We shall find them, in the
first-mentioned period of time, submitting with all humility to Princes;
claiming no kind of authority or jurisdiction whatsoever but in virtue
of the Canons of Councils, or the Rescripts of Emperors; glorying, or
pretending to glory, in the humble title of _Servants of Servants_;
acknowlegeing themselves Subjects and Vassals of the Emperors, and
patiently waiting the will and pleasure of their liege Lords to take
upon them the Episcopal dignity, or exercise the functions of that
office. Such were the Bishops of _Rome_ in the beginning of the Seventh
Century. How different from those in the latter end of the Eleventh!
They were then vested with the _Plenitude of all power_, both Spiritual
and Temporal; above Councils, and uncontrouled by their Canons; the
fountain of all pastoral jurisdiction and authority; and, by Divine
Sanction, impowered to enact, establish, abrogate, suspend, all
Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions: they were then become _Lords and
Masters_, the most haughty and imperious Lords, the most severe Masters,
mankind had ever groaned under: they no more begged, but dispensed
titles, boasting a power of setting up Kings, and pulling them down at
pleasure; of calling them to an account, absolving their subjects from
their allegiance, divesting them of their dominions, and treating in
every respect as their slaves and vassals, those, whom one of their best
and greatest Predecessors[9] had acknowleged _superior to all Men_, and
thought himself _in duty bound to obey_. This _Plenitude of power_, as
they style it, was not acquired at once, but by degrees, as I have
observed above; some of the Popes being more, and some less active,
crafty, and aspiring. But what is very remarkable, of the one hundred
and fourteen between _Boniface_ III. who laid the foundation of the
Papal grandeur, and _Gregory_ VII. who raised it to the highest pitch,
not one ever lost an inch of ground his Predecessors had gained. And
thus, by constantly acquiring, and never parting with what they had
acquired, nay, and tying the hands of their Successors by the
irreversible entail of a Divine Right, they became the sole Spiritual
Lords, and had almost made themselves the greatest Temporal Lords of the
whole Christian world.

But by what particular means they rose to such an height of grandeur and
majesty, by what artifices and subtle contrivances they maintained what
they had usurped, and strove to retrieve what they had lost, when it
pleased Divine Providence to check and restrain within more narrow
bounds their overgrown power, the reader will learn from the following
History. Some of the arts they have made use of, are of the most
refined, and some of the blackest nature; and both I have endeavoured,
in this work, to set forth in their truest light, without disguise or
exaggeration; those more especially which the Popes and their Agents
have formerly employed, and still employ, to bring anew under their
yoke, such nations as have had the Christian courage to shake it off,
and assert that _Liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free_. If I
shall be so happy as thereby to keep awake and alive, in the breast of
every true _Englishman_, that noble ardour, which has, on a late
occasion, exerted itself in so distinguished a manner; if it shall
please Heaven to second my Undertaking so far, as to alarm by it those
Protestants (I wish I might not say those _many_ Protestants) who are
not aware of, nor sufficiently guarded against, the crafty insinuations,
the secret views and attempts of the Papal Emissaries; I shall think the
time and pains it has cost me abundantly paid.

I am well apprised of the reception a work of this nature must meet
with, and of the treatment its author must expect, both at home and
abroad, from the Popish Zealots. But let them vent their zeal in what
manner they please, I shall neither answer nor relent their reproaches
and censures, however malignant and groundless: nay, I shall hear them
with as much pleasure and satisfaction as I should the praises and
commendations of others; it being no less meritorious in a writer to
have displeased the enemies of Truth, than to have pleased the friends.
And these, I flatter myself, will find no great room for censure: it
would grieve me if they should, since I have done all that lay in my
power to leave none. I have advanced nothing for which I have not
sufficient vouchers: and these I have taken care to quote in the margin,
that the reader, by recurring to the places pointed out in each author,
may be convinced of my sincerity and candor. I have always preferred the
contemporary writers, when equally credible, to those who wrote after,
tho’ not without taking notice of their disagreement; and such as
flourished nearest the times when the transactions happened, which they
relate, to those who lived at a greater distance. Pursuant to this Rule,
in delivering the Lives of the Bishops who governed the Church of _Rome_
during the First Ages of Christianity, I have confined myself wholly to
the Primitive writers, trusting no Modern any farther, than as he wrote
from the Antients. From these there is no Appeal; it is by them, and
them alone, that the Papal Supremacy must stand or fall. If they have
all conspired to misrepresent the sense of the ages in which they lived
(and it is only by this hypothesis that the Supremacy can be supported),
in what other monuments shall we search for it?

The Partiality, which I have so much complained of above in the works of
others, I have taken all possible care to avoid in my own; checking the
very first emotions of that zeal, which, on my reflecting how long, and
how grosly I had been imposed upon, would, if not carefully watched,
have proved as strong a biass in me against the _Pope_, and the _Popish
Religion_, as the opposite zeal has proved for them in others. The vices
and vicious actions of the bad Popes I have not dissembled; but neither
have I magnified them: the virtues and commendable actions of the good
Popes I have neither lessened nor misconstrued; nay, I have more than
once justified the conduct and character of some pious men among them,
greatly injured by their own Historians, because they lived, and
suffered mankind to live, in peace; applying themselves solely, as it
became good Bishops, to the discharge of their Pastoral duty. These
their Historians have strangely misrepresented, measuring the merit of
each Pope by the great Things they atchieved, no matter by what means,
for the exaltation of their See; which, in other terms, is measuring
their Merit by their Pride and Ambition.

The Length of this History requires, I presume, no Apology. Every one
knows, that the Popes acted, for several ages, as the Umpires of
_Europe_, or rather as the Sovereigns; several Princes being actually
their vassals, and the rest affecting to pay them the same respect as if
they were. This emboldened them to intermeddle in the public affairs of
each State and Kingdom; insomuch that no remarkable event happened, no
revolution, no change of government or constitution, which they did not
either promote or oppose, as it suited their interest, with too many of
them the only standard of right and wrong; and their authority, through
the ignorance, credulity, and superstition of those unhappy times, was,
generally speaking, of such weight, as to turn the scale into which it
was thrown. Besides, they had, in every Kingdom and Nation, their
Legates or Vicars, who, together with the Clergy, formed, as it were, a
separate State, and one Kingdom or Empire within another. These, at the
instigation of the Popes, their Lords and Masters, were constantly
encroaching on the Civil Authority and Jurisdiction, on the Rights of
the People, and Prerogatives of Princes. Hence arose innumerable
Disputes, which, if Princes did not comply with their demands, ended in
Anathemas, Interdicts, Civil Wars, Rebellions, private Assassinations,
and public Massacres. Those who are versed in the Histories of other
Nations, as well as in that of our own, and know what a considerable
part the detail of these fatal disputes takes up in the particular
Histories of each State and Kingdom, will not find fault with the Length
of this, which, if complete, and as such I offer it to the public, must
comprise them all. Besides, I have given a summary account of the many
Heresies that have sprung up in the Church; of the Councils that have
been held; of the religious and military Orders; of their Founders,
institutions, fundamental laws, _&c._; subjects all, in some degree,
connected with the History of the Popes.

I do not doubt, but this Work will meet with a favourable Reception from
_Protestants_ of all denominations; such a Reception, I mean, as is due
to Truth. It will, I flatter myself, retard, at least, the daily
increase of the Papal interest in these happy Kingdoms. As for the
_Roman Catholics_ here, would they but lay aside their prejudices, so
far as to peruse it with the least degree of candor and attention, I am
confident Truth would exert its power no less efficaciously upon some of
them, than it has done upon me. They cannot surely be more biassed in
favour of the errors they had been brought up in, than I was. In them
Truth has but one enemy to contend with, Education; in me it had two,
Education and Interest; and the latter is but too often the more
powerful of the two. What I forfeited by adhering to Truth, most of the
_Roman Catholics_ in _England_ well know; and I am very confident none
of them can say, that I have ever yet reaped, or sought to reap, the
least temporal benefit from it. If therefore the Power of Truth, when
duly displayed, is so great, as to triumph thus over the combined force
of Education and Interest, we may well hope, that it will, at least in
some, triumph over Education alone: I most heartily wish it may in all.

-----

Footnote 1:

  Bellar. Præf. de Sum. Pont.

Footnote 2:

  The authors he thus copied were _Anastasius Bibliothecarius_, from St.
  _Peter_, or rather _Linus_, to _Nicolas_ I. _Gulielmus_, likewise
  _Bibliothecarius_, from _Nicolas_ I. to _Alexander_ II. _Pandulphus
  Pisanus_, from _Alexander_ II. to _Honorius_ II. _Martinus Polonus_,
  from _Honorius_ II. to _Honorius_ IV. _Theodorus_ of _Niem_, from
  _Honorius_ IV. to _Urban_ VI. and from _Urban_ VI. to _Martin_ V. who
  died in 1431, other writers, whose works are extant, but their names
  unknown. He likewise borrowed a great deal of _Ptolemæus Lucensis_, a
  _Dominican_ Frier, who flourished, and compiled the Lives of the
  Popes, in the time of _Boniface_ VIII. chosen in the year 1294.

Footnote 3:

  _Gregory_ IX. _Innocent_ IV. _Alexander_ IV. _Nicolas_ III. _Martin_
  IV. _Nicolas_ IV. _Clement_ V.

Footnote 4:

  That the _Franciscan_ Friers had no property, in common or in private;
  a question, if any ever was, _de lana caprina_. What was it to
  mankind? what to the Christian Religion, whether a few Friers had, or
  had not any property? No man was the better for believing they had, no
  man the worse for believing they had not. And yet to read the bulls of
  the Popes one would think, that the whole of Christianity had been at
  stake.

Footnote 5:

  _John_ XXII.

Footnote 6:

  Direct. Inquis. part. ii. quæst. 51. See also _Antoninus_ in his
  _Summa theologiæ_, part. iv. tit. ii. c. 7. num. 5. _Petrus Alliacus
  Cameracensis_; _Continuator Nangii ad ann._ 1333; _Joannes Gerso in
  Ser. de Fest. Paschat. Longus in Monas. Cicestr. Chronic._ and
  _Gobelinus Cosmodromii ætat._ vi. c. 71.

Footnote 7:

  _Phocas_ settled himself on the Imperial throne by the murder of
  _Mauritius_, his lawful sovereign, and the massacre of his six
  children, and of all his friends and relations. Five of his children
  he caused to be inhumanly butchered in the presence of their father.

Footnote 8:

  _Gregory_ styles him a most pious and religious Prince; caused his
  image, and that of his wife _Leontia_, who was no better than he, to
  be lodged in an oratory at _Rome_; and, congratulating him on his
  advancement to the throne, ascribes it to a particular Providence.

Footnote 9:

  _Gregory the Great._

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Illustration]

                                  THE
                                HISTORY
                                 OF THE
                                 POPES,
                                   OR
                           BISHOPS of _ROME_

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                              _St._ PETER

It is out of some Regard to an antient Tradition, that I have placed St.
_Peter_ at the Head of the Bishops of _Rome_, though I am well apprised,
that this, like most other Traditions, will hardly stand the Test of a
strict and impartial Examination. [Sidenote: _That St. Peter was ever
at_ Rome, _known only by Tradition._] To avoid being imposed upon, we
ought to treat Tradition as we do a notorious and known Lyer, to whom we
give no Credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some Person of
undoubted Veracity. If it is affirmed by him alone, we can at most but
suspend our Belief, not rejecting it as false, because a Lyer may
sometimes speak Truth; but we cannot, upon his bare Authority, admit it
as true. Now that St. _Peter_ was at _Rome_, that he was Bishop of
_Rome_, we are told by Tradition alone, which, at the same time, tells
us of so many strange Circumstances attending his coming to that
Metropolis, his staying in it, his withdrawing from it, _&c._ that, in
the Opinion of every unprejudiced Man, the Whole must favour strongly of
Romance. [Sidenote: _Tradition not to be depended upon._] Thus we are
told, that St. _Peter_ went to _Rome_ chiefly to oppose _Simon_, the
celebrated Magician; that, at their first Interview, at which _Nero_
himself was present, he flew up into the Air, in the Sight of the
Emperor, and the whole City; but that the Devil, who had thus raised
him, struck with Dread and Terror at the Name of _Jesus_, whom the
Apostle invoked, let him fall to the Ground, by which Fall he broke his
Legs. Should you question the Truth of this Tradition at _Rome_, they
would shew you the Prints of St. _Peter_’s Knees in the Stone, on which
he kneeled on this Occasion, and another Stone still dyed with the Blood
of the Magician[N1].

-----

Footnote N1:

  This Account seems to have been borrowed from _Suetonius_, who speaks
  of a Person that, in the public Sports, undertook to fly in the
  Presence of the Emperor _Nero_; but, on his first Attempt, fell to the
  Ground; by which Fall his Blood sprung out with such Violence, that it
  reached the Emperor’s Canopy [N1.1].

Footnote N1.1:

  Suet. l. 6. c. 12.

-----

[Sidenote: _Fabulous Accounts of St._ Peter.]

The _Romans_, as we are told, highly incensed against him for thus
maiming, and bringing to Disgrace, one to whom they paid divine Honours,
vowed his Destruction; whereupon the Apostle thought it adviseable to
retire for a while from the City, and had already reached the Gate,
when, to his great Surprize, he met our Saviour coming in, as he went
out, who, upon St. _Peter_’s asking him where he was going, returned
this Answer, _I am going to_ Rome _to be crucified anew_: which, as St.
_Peter_ understood it, was upbraiding him with his Flight; whereupon he
turned back, and was soon after seized by the provoked _Romans_, and, by
an Order from the Emperor, crucified. These, and a thousand like
Stories, however fabulous and romantic they may seem, we cannot, without
great Incoherency, reject, if we admit St. _Peter_ to have been at
_Rome_; since the Whole is equally vouched by the same Authority, and
has been upon the same Authority equally believed by those, who are
called in by the Advocates for the See of _Rome_, to witness St.
_Peter_’s having preached the Gospel in that City. [Sidenote: _The
greatest Men imposed upon by false Traditions._] These are
_Arnobius_[10], _Cyril_ of _Jerusalem_[11], _Eusebius_[12],
_Irenæus_[13], _Tertullian_[14], _Jerom_[15], and _Justin_ the
Martyr[16]. These have all supposed St. _Peter_ to have been at _Rome_,
and, together with St. _Paul_, to have planted Christianity in that
great Metropolis of the World; but this they took upon Tradition, and
consequently their Authority is of no greater Weight than Tradition
itself, which had they duly examined, they would not perhaps have so
readily pinned their Faith upon it. False and lying Traditions are of an
early Date, and the greatest Men have, out of a pious Credulity,
suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them. How many Traditions,
after having reigned for Ages without Controul, were upon the
Reformation, when Men took the Liberty to examine what they believed,
rejected by the Church, ashamed to own them, and degraded into popular
Errors! But that of St. _Peter_’s having been at _Rome_, and the first
Bishop of that City, was a Tradition of too great Consequence not to be
maintained at all Events, since upon that chiefly was founded the Claim
of his pretended Successors to an uncontrouled Authority, and universal
Jurisdiction; a Foundation infinitely too weak for such an immense
Superstructure.

[Sidenote: _How little regard paid to them by some Popes._]

And here I cannot help observing the little Regard that the Popes
themselves have shewn to Tradition, though received by the greatest
Lights of the Church, when it did not promote the Honour or Interest of
their See. Of this we have a glaring Instance in a parallel Case; for as
St. _Peter_, according to Tradition, travelled to _Rome_, so did St.
_Paul_, according to Tradition, travel into _Spain_: the former
Tradition was received by the Writers I have quoted above, and the
latter by some of the same Writers, _viz._ by _Cyril_ of
_Jerusalem_[17], and _Jerom_[18], and by _Athanasius_[19],
_Chrysostom_[20], _Theodoret_[21], _Gregory the Great_[22], and many
others; yet such a Tradition was rejected, perhaps justly, by Pope
_Innocent_ I. who would not allow St. _Paul_ to have ever been in
_Spain_[23]. Have we not an equal Right to question, or even to deny,
St. _Peter_’s having ever been at _Rome_? Are not the Authorities at
least equal on both Sides? Why then must the Travels of one Apostle be
looked upon as an Article of Faith, and those of the other be deemed
fabulous?

[Sidenote: _No Mention in the Scripture of St._ Peter_’s having
ever been at_ Rome.]

And truly, if we examine narrowly into this matter, the former Tradition
will appear no less groundless to us, than the latter did to that Pope:
for, in the first place, neither St. _Peter_ himself, nor any of the
Sacred Writers, give us the least Hint or Intimation of his having ever
been at _Rome_. We are told of his being at _Antioch_, at _Jerusalem_,
at _Corinth_, at _Babylon_[24]; but of the great Metropolis of the
Empire, where he is supposed to have fixed his See, not the least
Mention is made. And may we not from that Silence question, to say no
more, his having ever been there? I know that by _Babylon_, from whence
St. _Peter_ wrote his first Epistle[25], _Eusebius_,[26] _Jerom_[27],
the Venerable _Bede_[28], _Oecumenius_[29], and _Grotius_[30],
understood _Rome_; but this is a bare Conjecture, and no better grounded
than that of others, who thought that by _Babylon_ was meant
_Jerusalem_[31]. The learned Doctor _Pearson_, Bishop of _Chester_,
seeing no Occasion here to recur to a figurative Sense, is of Opinion,
that the above-mentioned Epistle was written not from _Babylon_ in
_Chaldæa_, which then lay in Ruins, but from _Babylon_ in _Egypt_; and
no Man has taken more Pains to make the World believe, that St. _Peter_
preached at _Rome_, and founded that See[32]. But, in this Controversy,
the Silence of St. _Paul_ in particular, if duly attended to, must be
thought, by every unbiassed Man, a far more convincing Proof of St.
_Peter_’s not having been at _Rome_, than all the Authorities that have
been yet alleged, are of his having been there. [Sidenote: _St._ Paul,
_in the many Letters he wrote from_ Rome, _never mentions St._ Peter.]
For that Apostle, while at _Rome_, had frequent Opportunities of
mentioning his fellow Apostle, and fellow Labourer; and yet, naming
several others, he is quite silent as to him. From _Rome_ he wrote to
the _Galatians_, to the _Ephesians_, to the _Philippians_, to the
_Colossians_, to _Timothy_, and to _Philemon_, without ever mentioning
_Peter_, or sending any Salutation from him; nay, it is certain, that
St. _Peter_ was not at _Rome_ when the Apostle of the Gentiles wrote to
the _Colossians_; for, mentioning _Tychicus_, _Onesimus_, _Aristarchus_,
_Marcus_, and _Justus_, he adds, _These alone, my Fellow-workers unto
the Kingdom of God, who have been a Comfort unto me_[33]. _Peter_ was
not there, when St. _Paul_ wrote his second Epistle to _Timothy_, where
he says, _At my first Answer no Man stood with me, but all Men forsook
me_[34]: nor was he there immediately before St. _Paul_’s Death, when
_the Time of his Departure was at hand_; for he tells _Timothy_, that
_all the Brethren did salute him_; and, naming _Eubulus_, _Pudens_,
_Linus_, and _Claudia_[35], he omits _Peter_, whom we may thence
conclude not to have been there. And yet it is a received Tradition in
the Church of _Rome_, that St. _Peter_ was then not only in that
Metropolis, but confined and bound in the same Prison with St. _Paul_.
As that Apostle, in writing from _Rome_, sends no Salutations from
_Peter_, so in writing to _Rome_ he greets many others, but never
mentions him[36]. Now who would not sooner chuse to reject such
Traditions, than to suppose St. _Paul_ guilty of such an unfriendly and
unaccountable Omission?

[Sidenote: _St_. Peter, _though at_ Rome, _not Bishop of_ Rome.>]

From what has been hitherto said, every impartial Judge must conclude,
that it is, at least, very much to be doubted whether St. _Peter_ was
ever at _Rome_; but, allowing him to have been there, it still remains
to be proved, that he was Bishop of that See. This the Sticklers for the
Papal Authority spare no Pains to make out, being well apprised, that
the Whole of their Cause lies here at stake; and yet I find nothing
alleged by them in so material a Point, but a few misinterpreted
Passages out of the Ecclesiastical Writers: for the right understanding
of which it is to be observed, that such of the Antients as called
_Peter_ Bishop of _Rome_, and _Rome_ the _Place_, the _Chair_, the _See_
of _Peter_, meant no more than that he was Superintendent of that
Church, that he founded it by converting Men to the Faith, and erected
the Episcopal Chair, by appointing the first Bishops. That this was
their true Meaning, is apparent from what we read in _Ruffinus_; who,
having mentioned _Linus_, _Cletus_, and _Clemens_, as succeeding each
other in the See of _Rome_, while _Peter_ was still alive, thus accounts
for their Episcopacy: They were, says he, appointed Bishops by _Peter_,
to the end that, they taking upon them the Episcopal Charge, he might be
at Leisure to discharge the Duties of his Apostolical Office. And this,
he tells us, was not a Notion of his own, but the common Opinion[37].
_Irenæus_ speaks to the same Purpose: _The Apostles_, says he, _founding
that Church, delivered the Episcopal Office into the Hands of_
Linus[38]. Hence the most antient Writers, who lived nearest the
Fountain of Tradition, never stile St. _Peter_ Bishop of _Rome_, but
only say, that, by ordaining Bishops, he founded that Church[39].
[Sidenote: _In what sense St._ Peter _and St_. Paul _stiled Bishops
of_ Rome.] St. _Peter_ therefore was not Bishop of _Rome_ in the strict
Sense, to which that Word is now confined, but in the more large Sense,
of which I have taken notice above: and in that St. _Paul_ has as good a
Claim to the high-sounding Titles of _Pope_, _Bishop of_ Rome, _&c._ as
St. _Peter_, since, together with him, he is said to have founded that
Church. The Popes indeed will not allow him that Honour, nor condescend
to reckon him among their Predecessors; but _Epiphanius_ and _Eusebius_
have been more complaisant; of whom the former says, Peter _and_ Paul
_were the first at_ Rome, _both Bishops and Apostles_[40]; and the
latter speaking of the Succession of the Bishops of _Rome_, Alexander
_derived his Succession in the fifth Place from_ Peter _and_ Paul[41].
Both therefore were Bishops of _Rome_, or neither; both in the Sense of
the antient Writers, but neither in that, which is now annexed to the
Word _Bishop_. [Sidenote: _The Duties of a Bishop and an Apostle
inconsistent._] And truly the Office of an Apostle, and that of a
Bishop, as the Word is now understood, are incompatible. An Apostle,
says _Chrysostom_[42], is charged with the Instruction not of any
particular Nation or City, but of the whole World; but a Bishop must
reside, says the same Writer[43], and be employed in one Place: and
therefore St. _Peter_, who knew these two Duties to be inconsistent, if
he was ever at _Rome_, committed there, as he did in other Places, the
Episcopal Charge to others, and pursued his Apostolical Office, which
required a more extensive Care.

[Sidenote: _Whether_ James _the Apostle was Bishop of_ Jerusalem.]

But St. _James_, say the Popish Writers, though an Apostle, was
appointed Bishop of _Jerusalem_; and why might not St. _Peter_, though
an Apostle, undertake the Episcopacy of _Rome_? It is surprising they
should lay so much Stress as they do on this Objection, since they must
know it to be grounded on an Uncertainty; as _Eusebius_ the greatest
Antiquary of former Times[44], _Hegesippus_ the most antient
Historian[45], _Epiphanius_[46], _Jerom_[47] _Gregory of Nysse_[48],
_Chrysostom_[49], and many others, reckon _James_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_,
not among the _Apostles_, but the Seventy Disciples. Of the same Opinion
among the Moderns, are _Grotius_[50], Dr. _Hammond_[51], _Valesius_[52],
_Blondel_[53], and _Salmasius_[54]. The last of these saying, after his
positive and confident manner, _It is certain that he was not one of the
Twelve_, I may at least say, it is not certain that he was; and
consequently the Objection can be of no considerable Weight. But
allowing him to have been one of the Twelve, as some of the Antients
seem to think[55], there was a special Reason, why one of the Apostles
should be appointed to reside at _Jerusalem_, that City being the
Metropolis, the Fountain, the Centre of the Christian Religion; our
Faith had there had its Birth; the Church was there very numerous,
consisting of many Thousands of believing _Jews_[56]; and thither
resorted great Numbers of those of that Nation, who were converted to
Christ in other Countries. On these Considerations it might seem
expedient, that a Person of the greatest Authority should preside there.
But there was no special Reason why an Apostle should constantly reside
at any other Place, nor does it appear that any did: St. _Peter_
especially could not reside at any one Place, since to him, as _the
Apostle of the Circumcision_, was committed the Charge of converting the
dispersed _Jews_ in all Parts of the World.

[Sidenote: _What meant by the_ Apostolic See, Chair, Throne, _&c._]

As for the Appellations of the _Apostolic See_, _Chair_, _Throne_, &c.
given by the Antients to the See of _Rome_, they import no more than
that it was erected by an Apostle; for they are bestowed
indiscriminately on all the Sees, in which Bishops had been placed by
the Apostles; _viz._ of _Ephesus_[57], of _Smyrna_[58], of
_Alexandria_[59], of _Corinth_, _Thessalonica_, _Philippi_[59], &c. The
Title of _Apostolic See_, common to many, was, in Process of Time, by
the Ambition of the Bishops of _Rome_, appropriated to their own. They
had, as they thought, till the Year 1662. a pregnant Proof not only of
St. _Peter_’s erecting their Chair, but of his sitting in it himself;
for till that Year, the very Chair, on which they believed, or would
make others believe, he had sat, was shewn and exposed to public
Adoration on the 18th of _January_, the Festival of the said Chair. But
while it was cleaning, in order to be set up in some conspicuous Place
of the _Vatican_, the Twelve Labours of _Hercules_ unluckily appeared
engraved on it. Our Worship however, says _Giacomo Bartolini_, who was
present at this Discovery, and relates it, was not misplaced, since it
was not to the Wood we paid it; but to the Prince of the Apostles St.
_Peter_[60]. An Author of no mean Character, unwilling to give up the
holy Chair, even after this Discovery, as having a Place and a peculiar
Solemnity among the other Saints, has attempted to explain the Labours
of _Hercules_ in a mystical Sense, as Emblems representing the future
Exploits of the _Popes_[61]. But the ridiculous and distorted Conceits
of that Writer are not worthy our Notice, tho’ by _Clement_ X. they were
judged not unworthy of a Reward.

[Sidenote: _St._ Peter _how, or by whom, placed in the See of_ Rome.]

But to return to our Subject; it may be inquired, If St. _Peter_ was
Bishop of _Rome_, who placed him in that See? Did our Lord appoint him?
Did the Apostles name him? Did the People chuse him? Did he assume it
himself? To these Queries no Answers have been yet given, but such as
are so ridiculously weak, that it is not worth my while to relate them,
nor the Reader’s to hear them. _Bellarmine_, in one Place, positively
affirms, that _God commanded St_. Peter _to fix his See at_ Rome[62];
but elsewhere contents himself with saying, _It is not improbable that
God commanded St._ Peter _to fix his See at_ Rome[63]. Is it is no more
than not improbable, it is uncertain; it may be a mere Conjecture, a
Dream.

[Sidenote: _Other Bishops of_ Rome _appointed by St._ Peter.]

St. _Peter_, either alone, or jointly with St. _Paul_, as we read in
_Irenæus_, and in the Apostolical Constitutions[64], appointed other
Bishops of _Rome_. Now, when he appointed others, did he resign his
Episcopacy, or retain it? If he resigned it, he did not die Bishop of
_Rome_; which shakes the very Foundation of the Pope’s Claim to
Supremacy: if he retained it, there were Two Bishops on the same See at
one time; which Pope _Innocent_ I. in his Epistle to the Clergy and
People of _Constantinople_, condemned as an Irregularity never known
till his Time[65]: he did not, it seems, recollect that it had been
practised by his Predecessor Pope _Peter_. _Theodoret_ tells us, in his
Ecclesiastical History, that when the Emperor _Constantius_ would have
had _Felix_ to sit in the See of _Rome_, together with _Liberius_, upon
the Return of the latter from Banishment, the People of _Rome_ would not
content to it, crying out, _One God, one Christ, one Bishop_. _Felix_
died soon after, and upon his Death _Theodoret_ makes the following
Remark: _It was_, says he, _a special Providence, that_ Peter_’s Throne
might not suffer Infamy, being held by Two Prelates_[66]. He did not
consider, or rather did not believe, that it had been held by St.
_Peter_ and St. _Paul_, by St. _Pater_ and by _Linus_.

[Sidenote: _St._ Peter _Bishop at_ Rome, _not of_ Rome.]

To conclude, St. _Peter_ was perhaps Bishop at _Rome_, not of
_Rome_[N2]. He was Bishop at _Rome_, if he ever was there, being, in
virtue of his Apostleship, impowered to discharge, at _Rome_, and
every-where else, all Episcopal Functions; but was not specially Bishop
of _Rome_, or any other Place; that is, he did not take upon him the
Charge of any particular Bishop, the Administration of any particular
Bishoprick, that being inconsistent both with the Dignity and Office of
an Apostle, or universal Bishop.

-----

Footnote N2:

  'Tis a Distinction made by a Pope, _King in_ Etruria, _not of_
  Etruria.

-----

Footnote 10:

  Arnob. l. 2. in Gent.

Footnote 11:

  Cyril. catech. 6.

Footnote 12:

  Euseb. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote 13:

  Iren. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 14:

  Tert. de anim. c. 24.

Footnote 15:

  Hier. de vir. illustr. c. 2.

Footnote 16:

  Justin. apol. 2.

Footnote 17:

  Cyr. cat. 17.

Footnote 18:

  Hier. in Isai. xi. 14.

Footnote 19:

  Athan. ad Drac.

Footnote 20:

  Chrys. ad Hebr. præf.

Footnote 21:

  Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 17.

Footnote 22:

  Greg. in Joh. xxiii. 22.

Footnote 23:

  Concil. tom. 2. p. 1245.

Footnote 24:

  Act. xi. 2. xv. 7. Gal. i. 18. ii. 9. Gal. ii. 11. 1 Pet. v. 13. 1
  Cor. i. 12.

Footnote 25:

  1 Pet. v. 13.

Footnote 26:

  Euseb. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 27:

  Hier. vir. illust. c. 8.

Footnote 28:

  Bed. tom. 5. p. 713.

Footnote 29:

  Oecu. p. 526.

Footnote 30:

  Grot. synops. in Pet.

Footnote 31:

  Vide Grot. ib. p. 1541.

Footnote 32:

  Pears. oper. posth. p. 56, & seq.

Footnote 33:

  Coloss. iv. 11.

Footnote 34:

  2 Tim. iv. 6.

Footnote 35:

  Ibid. iv. 21.

Footnote 36:

  Ad Rom. xvi. 3-15.

Footnote 37:

  Ruffin. in præf. ad Clem. recogn.

Footnote 38:

  Iren. apud Euseb. c. 5, 6.

Footnote 39:

  Constit. Apost. 7. 46. Iren. 3. 3.

Footnote 40:

  Epiph. hær. 7.

Footnote 41:

  Euseb. l. iv. c. 2.

Footnote 42:

  Chrys. tom. 8. p. 115.

Footnote 43:

  Idem Eph. iv. 11.

Footnote 44:

  Euseb. l. i. c. 12.

Footnote 45:

  Heges. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 2.

Footnote 46:

  Epiph. hær. 78.

Footnote 47:

  Hier. de vir. ill.

Footnote 48:

  Greg. p. 279.

Footnote 49:

  Chrys. in Mat. hom. 33.

Footnote 50:

  Grot. in Jac. i. 1.

Footnote 51:

  Hamm. dissert. Ignat. 4. 3.

Footnote 52:

  Val. in Euseb. 1. 12.

Footnote 53:

  Blond. in epist. Clem. ad Jacob.

Footnote 54:

  Wal. Mess. p. 20.

Footnote 55:

  Aug. cont. Cres. l. 2. c. 37. Vide Pears. Ann. Paulin. p. 58.

Footnote 56:

  Act. xxi. 20.

Footnote 57:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 58:

  Idem ib. & Tertull. de præs. hæret. c. 32. Euseb. l. 3. c. 36.

Footnote 59:

  Tertull. ib. c. 36.

Footnote 60:

  Bartol. Antichitá sacre di Roma, p. 32.

Footnote 61:

  Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.

Footnote 62:

  Bell. de sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 4.

Footnote 63:

  Idem ib. l. 2. c. 12.

Footnote 64:

  Iren. apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 6. et Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 65:

  Inn. I. apud Soz. l. 8. c. 26.

Footnote 66:

  Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 17.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 NERO,                           LINUS,                 VITELLIUS,
 GALBA,                _First_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.        VESPASIAN,
 OTHO,                                                  TITUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 66.  Linus, _and not_ Clemens, _the Bishop of_
Rome.]

There is a great Disagreement among the Antients about the first Bishops
of _Rome_: _Tertullian_ makes _Clement_, whom he supposes to have been
ordained by St. _Peter_, the immediate _Successor of that Apostle_[67].
He was followed therein by _Ruffinus_[68], and _Ruffinus_ by the
_Latins_ in general; among whom that Opinion universally prevailed
towards the End of the Fourth Century. But _Jerom_, rejecting the
Opinion of the _Latins_, places _Linus_ immediately after the Apostles,
_Anacletus_ next to him, and _Clement_ in the third Place[69]. His
Opinion is supported by the Authority of _Irenæus_[70], _Eusebius_[71],
_Theodoret_[72], and likewise of _Epiphanius_[73], _Optatus
Milevitanus_[74], and St. _Augustin_[75], with this Difference, that
_Epiphanius_ gives the Name of _Cletus_ to the Successor of _Linus_, and
both _Optatus_ and St. _Augustin_ place him after _Clement_; but in this
they all agree, that _Linus_ was the first, after the Apostles, who
governed the Church of _Rome_. To the Authority of these Writers I may
add that of the Apostolic Constitutions, telling us, in express Terms,
that _Linus_ was ordained Bishop of _Rome_ by St. _Paul_[76]. [Sidenote:
_Whether_ Clement _appointed by St._ Peter _to succeed him_.] As to what
we read in _Tertullian_ and _Ruffinus_, _viz._ that _Clement_ was
ordained by St. _Peter_, and named to succeed him; Dr. _Hammond_
answers, That _Clement_ governed with Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction
the converted _Jews_, while _Linus_ and _Anacletus_ governed, with the
same Power, the converted Gentiles. He adds, That, upon the Death of
_Anacletus_, both Churches were united under him[77]. Thus he strives to
reconcile the Opinion of the _Latins_, placing _Clement_ immediately
after the Apostles, with that of the _Greeks_, allowing him only the
third Place: for, granting what he advances to be true, and Reasons are
not wanting to support it, _Clement_ was, agreeably to the Opinion of
the _Latins_, the immediate Successor of the Apostles, with respect to
the _Jews_; but, with respect to the Gentiles, he succeeded _Anacletus_,
agreeably to the Opinion of the _Greeks_[78]. This Answer _Cotelerius_
applauds as an ingenious, learned, and probable Solution; but, at the
same time, rejects it as contradicting, in his Opinion, the Apostolic
Constitutions, and not supported by the Authority of any antient
Writer[79]. The learned Dr. _Pearson_ will admit no Opinion that
supposes Two Bishops to have presided together in one City[80], that
being an Irregularity, according to St. _Cyprian_[81], _contrary to the
Ecclesiastic Disposition, contrary to the Evangelic Law, contrary to the
Rules of the Catholic Institution_, and condemned as such by the Council
of _Nice_[82]. It is very much to be doubted, as I have shewn above,
whether St. _Peter_ ever was at _Rome_, and consequently whether
_Clement_ was ordained, by him, Bishop of that City. His not succeeding
him is a Proof, that he was not; for who can imagine, that the People
and Clergy of those Days would have thought of chusing any other, or
that any other, though chosen, would have accepted of a Dignity, to
which _Clement_ had been named by St. _Peter_ himself, and which he was
actually possessed of at the Apostle’s Death? Be that as it will,
_Linus_ is now universally acknowleged both by the _Greeks_ and _Latins_
for the first Bishop of _Rome_.

As for the Life and Actions of _Linus_, all I can find in the Antients
concerning him, is, that it was he whom St. _Paul_ mentioned in his
Epistle to _Timothy_[83]; that, upon the Authority of the Apostolic
Constitutions, he was supposed, by some, to have been the Son of
_Claudia_, whom the Apostle mentions in the same Place[84]; and that his
Life and Conversation were much approved of by the People[85].
[Sidenote: Linus _no Martyr, tho’ placed among the Martyrs_.] The Church
of _Rome_ allows him, in the Canon of the Mass, a Place among the
Martyrs; but no mention is made of his having suffered for the Faith,
either in the antient Martyrologies, or in _Irenæus_, who, speaking of
him, and his immediate Successors, distinguishes none but _Telesphorus_
with the Title of Martyr. _Baronius_, determined to maintain, right or
wrong, the Credit of the sacred Canon, in Opposition to all the
Antients, nay, and to his own System, cuts off one Year from the
Pontificate of _Linus_, that he may place his Death under _Vespasian_,
and not, as _Eusebius_ has done[86], under _Titus_, in whose Reign he
owns none to have suffered for the Faith[87]. Had he remembered what he
must have read in _Tertullian_ and _Eusebius_, he had saved himself that
Trouble: for _Tertullian_ assures us, that _Vespasian_ made no Laws
against the Christians[88]; and _Eusebius_, that he did not molest them,
though he caused a diligent Search to be made after those who were of
the Race of _David_, which occasioned a dreadful Persecution against the
_Jews_[89]. _Linus_ governed the Church of _Rome_, according to
_Eusebius_[90] and _Epiphanius_[91], Twelve Years; so that, if we place,
with them, the Death of St. _Peter_ in 66. _Linus_ must have died in the
Year 78. of the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: _Books ascribed to him._] We
have, under the Name of _Linus_, Two Books of the Martyrdom of St.
_Peter_ and St. _Paul_[92]; but they are generally looked upon as
supposititious[93]. _Trithemius_ makes him the Author of the Life of St.
_Peter_, in which a particular Account was given of the Dispute between
that Apostle, and _Simon_ the Magician. This Piece has not reached our
Times, and was perhaps of the same Stamp with the other, since it is
never mentioned either by _Eusebius_, or St. _Jerom_. The Decrees, that
are ascribed to him, are no-where to be found, but in _Anastasius
Bibliothecarius_, and such-like Writers, whose Authority is of no Weight
in Matters so distant, unless supported by the Testimony of the
Antients.

-----

Footnote 67:

  Tert. de præsc. hæret. c. 32.

Footnote 68:

  Recog. p. 398.

Footnote 69:

  Hier. vir. illust. c. 15.

Footnote 70:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 71:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 4. 21.

Footnote 72:

  Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 21.

Footnote 73:

  Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 74:

  Optat. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 75:

  Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 76:

  Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 77:

  Hamm. l. 5. c. 1.

Footnote 78:

  Idem ib. p. 247, 258.

Footnote 79:

  Cotel. in not. Const. p. 298.

Footnote 80:

  Pears. posthum. p. 159. 161.

Footnote 81:

  Cypr. ep. 44. 46. 52. 55.

Footnote 82:

  Syn. Nic. can. 8.

Footnote 83:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 2 Tim. iv. 21.

Footnote 84:

  Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 85:

  Tert. in Marc. c. 3.

Footnote 86:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 13.

Footnote 87:

  Bar. annal. ad ann. 80.

Footnote 88:

  Tert. apol. c. 5.

Footnote 89:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 12.

Footnote 90:

   Idem ib. c. 13.

Footnote 91:

  Epiph. l. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 92:

  Bib. Patr. tom. 7.

Footnote 93:

  Vide Baron. ad ann. 69. et Voss. Hist. Græc. l. 2. c. 9.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 TITUS                  CLETUS, _or_ ANACLETUS,         DOMITIAN.
                       _Second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 78. ]

_Linus_ was succeeded by _Cletus_, or _Anacletus_, whom the _Greeks_
constantly style _Anencletus_, that is, _Irreprehensible_. An Opinion
has long obtained in the Church of _Rome_, distinguishing _Cletus_ and
_Anacletus_ as Two Popes, nay, as Two Saints; the Festival of the one
being kept on the 26th of _April_, and that of the other on the 23d of
_July_[94]. [Sidenote: Cletus _and_ Anacletus _not two, but one
Pope_.] But this Distinction is now given up by the most learned Men of
that Church, not only as groundless, but as plainly contradicting the
most celebrated Writers of Antiquity, _Irenæus_, _Eusebius_, and St.
_Jerom_, to whom we may add _Caius_, a Priest of _Rome_, who, writing in
the Beginning of the Third Century, reckoned _Victor_ the Thirteenth
Bishop of that City[95]. _Baronius_, however, spares no Pains to keep up
that Distinction; but alleges nothing to countenance it, except the Poem
against _Marcion_, ascribed to _Tertullian_, the Pontifical of
_Anastasius_, and some Martyrologies[96]. Who was the Author of that
Poem is not well known, but all agree, that it was not written by
_Tertullian_[97]. Besides, the Author, whoever he was, places both
_Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ before _Clement_; which _Baronius_ condemns as
a gross Mistake. As for the Pontifical, the Annalist often finds fault
with it; and complains, in this very Place, that _Anastasius_’s whole
Chronology is overcast with an impenetrable Mist[98]. The Martyrologies
he quotes are of too modern a Date to deserve any Regard, since none of
them were heard of before the Ninth Century[99]. [Sidenote: _How they
were first distinguished._] But how, says _Baronius_, was this
Distinction first introduced? We may, perhaps, account for it thus:
_Irenæus_, with all the _Greeks_, and St. _Jerom_, among the _Latins_,
place _Anacletus_, as we have observed above, before _Clement_; whereas
St. _Austin_ and _Optatus Milevitanus_ place him after. This, and his
being called _Cletus_ by _Epiphanius_, and in several Copies of
_Ruffinus_, might induce some to imagine, that as the Names and Places
were different, so were the Persons. Thus, as we conjecture, of one Pope
Two Popes were made, Two Saints, and Two Martyrs; for, in the Canon of
the Mass, he has a Place with _Linus_ among the Martyrs; though neither
was acknowleged for such by _Irenæus_, or any of the Antients; nay,
_Anacletus_ is said, in some Pontificals, to have _died in Peace_, that
is, according to the Phrase of those Days, of a natural Death[100].
_Bollandus_, after having much laboured, but laboured in vain, to
maintain the Distinction between _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_, yields at
last, and gives up the Point. But yet, unwilling to make the least
Alteration in the Catalogue of the Popes, which places, with the
Approbation of the Holy See, _Clement_ between _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_,
he strives to save it with a new and pretty extraordinary Invention; for
he pretends _Anacletus_ or _Cletus_ to have resigned the Chair to
_Clement_, and _Clement_, in his Turn, to have yielded it to him again.
Thus, according to him, though _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ are one and the
same Person, yet no Fault is to be found with the Catalogue; and
_Clement_ is rightly placed both after and before him[101]. This is a
Speculation of his own, altogether groundless, and therefore not worthy
of a Place here, were it not to shew what low Shifts and Subterfuges
even Men of Parts, in the Church of _Rome_, chuse to submit to, rather
than to yield to Reason, in Points that seem to derogate from the
Authority of that See. _Anacletus_ governed the Church Twelve Years,
according to _Eusebius_[102]; to which some add Two Months, some Three,
and some only one; so that he must have died in the Year 91. He is
supposed to have been buried next to St. _Peter_, in the _Vatican_,
where his supposed Body is shewn, and worshiped to this Day[103].
[Sidenote: _Decretals ascribed to him_.] We find, in the Collection of
_Isidorus Mercator_, Three Decretals, under the Name of _Cletus_; but
such Decretals as are anterior to the Pontificate of Pope _Syricius_,
who was elected in the Year 384 are now universally looked upon as
bare-faced Forgeries[104][N3].

-----

Footnote N3:

  All the decretal Epistles of the Popes, before _Syricius_, are so
  filled with Absurdities, Contradictions, Anachronisms, _&c._ that they
  are now given up, even by the most sanguine Advocates for the Papal
  Supremacy. And yet these very Decretals, absurd as they are, and
  inconsistent with themselves, as well as with all the genuine Writings
  of those Times, whether sacred or profane, were, for several Ages, the
  main Stays of the whole Fabric of the Papal Power. By them that Power
  was established; by them it was supported; for, in the Days of
  Ignorance, they were universally received as the genuine Writings of
  the antient Bishops of _Rome_, in whose Names they were published.
  And, truly, were we to rank them, as they were ranked in the monkish
  and ignorant Ages, with the Decisions of the Oecumenical Councils, and
  the Canonical Books of the Scripture, no room would be left to
  question any Branch of the unlimited Power claimed by the Popes. They
  were held in the greatest Esteem and Veneration from the Beginning of
  the 9th Century to the Time of the Reformation, when, upon the first
  Dawn of Learning, the Cheat was discovered, and the Stays removed,
  which till then had supported the unwieldy Edifice. But it was then in
  a Condition to stand by itself, at least till new Frauds were devised
  to prop it up; and this was accordingly done, without Loss of Time.

  The Decretals of the first Popes are quoted by _Bellarmine_, to prove,
  that the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome was universally acknowleged
  in the earliest Times[N3.1]: but, at the same time, he owns, that _he
  dares not affirm them to be of undoubted Authority_. And what can be
  more absurd than to quote a Forgery, or what he himself owns may be a
  Forgery, in Vindication of so darling a Point as _the Supremacy_? But
  he did it for want of better Evidences, and must therefore be excused.
  _Baronius_, ashamed to lay any Stress on such gross and palpable
  Forgeries, contents himself with only saying, that the Popes had no
  hand in forging them; and that they never made use of their Authority
  to support their own. That they were concerned in, or privy to, the
  forging of those Letters, I dare not affirm: but that they
  countenanced them, as they did all other Forgeries tending to the
  Advancement of their See; that they received them as genuine, and
  endeavoured to impose them upon others; nay, that they made use of
  them soon after their first Appearance in the World, to establish and
  promote the Authority of their See; are undoubted Matters of Fact:
  witness the Letter, which _Nicolas_ I. wrote, in the Year 865. to
  _Hincmarus_ Archbishop of _Rheims_, and to the other Bishops of
  _France_, who, refusing to comply with some exorbitant Demands of the
  Pope, had rejected the Decretals, on which those Demands were founded,
  as Writings that had been lately counterfeited. _Nicolas_, in his
  Answer to them, maintains the Authenticity of those Letters, exhorts
  all, who profess the Catholic Faith, to receive them _with due
  Veneration_, and claims, in virtue of such sacred and authentic
  Writings, an uncontrouled Authority over all the Churches of the
  World, as lodged from the Beginning in his See[N3.2]. And was not this
  making use of the supposed Authority of those Decretals to promote his
  own? _Nicolas_ seems to have believed the Letters to be genuine: and,
  if he did, he was certainly mistaken, and erred in proposing, as he
  does, spurious Pieces for a _firm and strong Foundation_ of our
  Belief, as well as our Practice. If he did not believe them to be
  genuine, and yet endeavoured to persuade the Bishops of _France_ that
  they were so; nay, and claimed, upon the Authority of such Pieces, a
  Power over them, and their Churches; a worse Epithet would suit him
  better than that of _fallible_, which is common to all Men.

  The first who published these Decretals was, according to _Hincmarus_,
  _Riculphus_ Bishop of _Mentz_, who was supposed to have brought them
  from _Spain_; because the Name of _Isidore_ was prefixed to the
  Collection, and a famous Writer of that Name, _viz._ _Isidore_ Bishop
  of _Seville_, had flourished in _Spain_ some Centuries before. But
  such a mean and scandalous Undertaking is altogether unworthy of so
  great a Prelate; and besides the Author of the supposed Decretals has
  copied, _verbatim_, some Passages from the Council of _Toledo_ in 675.
  and from the Sixth Council in 681. whereas _Isidore_ of _Seville_ died
  in 636. The learned _Ellies du Pin_ lays this Forgery at the Door of
  some _German_ or _Frenchman_, the Letters being all written in the
  Style of the _Germans_ and _French_, of the 9th Century, and many of
  them addressed to Persons of these two Nations. _Hincmarus_ was
  mistaken, in supposing the forged Decretals to have been first
  published by _Riculphus_ of _Mentz_; for in some of them are found
  Fragments of the Council held at _Paris_ in 829. and he died in 814.
  They were first ushered into the World, and forged too, in all
  likelihood, by one _Benedict_, Deacon of the Church of _Mentz_,
  though, in his Preface to that Collection, he would fain make us
  believe, that _Autcarius_, the Successor of _Riculphus_, found them in
  the Archives of that Church, and that they had been placed there by
  _Riculphus_, who had brought them from _Spain_. _Autcarius_, in whose
  Time _Benedict_ published his Collection, is thought to have been
  privy to the Imposture. The Name of _Isidore_, which was then very
  common in _Spain_, was prefixed to it, to persuade the World, that the
  Decretals were brought from that Country, and not forged at _Mentz_,
  where they first appeared. However, they were suspected by some, even
  in that dark Age, and absolutely rejected by _Hincmarus_ of _Rheims_,
  as Writings of no Authority. But the Popes, whose Pretensions they
  were calculated to favour, exerting all their Authority to bring them
  into Repute, they were in the End universally received, and inserted
  into all the Collections of Canons. At present they are so universally
  exploded, that there is not a single Writer, no, not even in the
  Church of _Rome_, who is not ashamed to patronize or defend them. But
  the Work is done, for which they were intended; and now that the
  Edifice can stand by itself, no matter what becomes of the Stays that
  supported it, when it could not. These Decretals may be justly looked
  upon as a standing Monument of the Ignorance, Superstition, and
  Credulity, that universally prevailed in the Church, from the
  Beginning of the Ninth Century to the Time of the Reformation. I shall
  conclude with observing, that, from these Decretals, _Anastasius_ the
  _Bibliothecarian_, and after him _Platina_, have chiefly copied what
  they relate of the first Popes, supposing them to have really done
  what, in those spurious Pieces, they are said to have done.

Footnote N3.1:

  Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote N3.2:

  Nic. I. ep. 42.

-----

-----

Footnote 94:

  Martyrol. Roman.

Footnote 95:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Pearson posthum. p. 147, 148.

Footnote 96:

  Bar. ad ann. 69.

Footnote 97:

  Halloix in vit. Iren. p. 646.

Footnote 98:

  Bar. ad ann. 69.

Footnote 99:

  Bolland. Pont. p. 217.

Footnote 100:

  Vide Pears. posthum. p. 19.

Footnote 101:

  Bolland. Pont. p. 217.

Footnote 102:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.

Footnote 103:

  Bolland. 26 Apr. 410, 411.

Footnote 104:

  Vide Card. Bon. liturg. l. 1. c. 3. et Natal. Alexand. hist. Eccles.
  p. 743, &c.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DOMITIAN,                      CLEMENT,                TRAJAN.
 NERVA,                _Third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.


[Sidenote: Year of Christ 91.   Clement _mentioned by St._ Paul.]

_Clement_, the Successor of _Anacletus_, is, according to _Origen_[105],
_Eusebius_[106], and all the Antients, the Person whom St. _Paul_, in
his Epistle to the _Philippians_[107], names among those who had
_laboured with him in the Gospel, and whose Names were in the_ _Book of
Life_. Hence _Chrysostom_ concludes, that, together with St. _Luke_ and
_Timothy_, he attended the Apostle of the Gentiles in all his
journeys[108]. _Irenæus_ assures us, that he had not only seen the
Apostles, and conversed with them; but that, when he was appointed
Bishop of _Rome_, he still heard their Voices sounding in his Ears,
still had before his Eyes the Rules and good Example they had given
him[109]. _Origen_ styles him _the Disciple of the Apostles_[110];
_Ruffinus, almost an Apostle_[111]; and _Clement_ of _Alexandria, an
Apostle_[112]. That he was well versed in every Branch of Learning,
especially in polite Literature, descended of a Senatorian Family, and
nearly related to the _Cæsars_, is what we read in _Eucherius_[113] and
_Nilus_[114], who seem to have followed therein the _Recognitions_, a
Book of no Authority. [Sidenote: _Some confound him with_ Flavius
Clemens.] _Eucherius_ perhaps confounded, as others have done, Pope
_Clement_ with _Flavius Clemens_, who was Son to _Flavius Sabinus_, the
only Brother of _Vespasian_, and suffered Death for the Christian
Religion in the Persecution of _Domitian_[115]; for Pope _Clement_ was,
as himself seems to insinuate, rather of the Race of _Jacob_ than of the
_Cæsars_[116]. [Sidenote: _Chosen Bishop of_ Rome.] Upon the Death of
_Anacletus_ he was unanimously chosen by the People and Clergy of _Rome_
to succeed him. He had been named, say some, to that Dignity by St.
_Peter_ himself, preferably to Linus and _Anacletus_[117]; but had
declined it, finding that the Faithful were not all equally disposed to
submit to the Judgment and Authority of St. _Peter_. He therefore
withdrew; and, as he was of a mild and pacific Disposition, led a
retired Life to the Death of _Anacletus_, when he was forced to accept
of the Dignity, which he had before declined. Thus _Ruffinus_, upon the
Authority of the _Recognitions_; which appears to me, I must own, a very
improbable Tale. During his Pontificate happened an impious and
detestable Division, to use his own Terms, among the Christians of
_Corinth_, which obliged them to have recourse to other Churches,
especially to that of _Rome_; [Sidenote: _His famous Epistle to the_
Corinthians.] and on this occasion was written that famous Epistle to
the _Corinthians_, so much magnified by the Antients and publicly read,
not only in the Church of _Corinth_, as _Dionysius_ assures us, who was
Bishop of that City in 180, but in many other Churches, to the Time of
_Eusebius_, and St. _Jerom_[118], and perhaps long after. It was by some
ranked among the Canonical Books of the Scripture, and by all reverenced
next to them[119]. It was written in the Name of the whole Church of
_Rome_, and to the whole Church it is, in express Terms, ascribed by
_Irenæus_[120], and _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, who calls it the Epistle
of the _Romans_ to the _Corinthians_[121]. However, it was composed by
_Clement_, in the Name of the Church; for, in the primitive Times,
Bishops did nothing by themselves, but every thing jointly with their
Churches: _We advise_, _We exhort_, _We recommend_, &c. was their usual
Style; which the Popes still observe, though they mean only themselves;
for they scorn to join either with the People or Clergy. The Style of
this excellent Letter is plain, clear, full of Energy, without any
useless Ornaments; and the Whole written with the Simplicity, as
_Photius_ observes[122], that the Church requires in Ecclesiastical
Writers. There is so great an Affinity, both as to the Sense and the
Words, between this Epistle, and the Epistle to the _Hebrews_, that some
have concluded _Clement_ to have been the Translator, nay, and the
Author of that Epistle[123]. [Sidenote: _Unjustly criticized by_
Photius.] In _Clement_’s Epistle _Photius_ discovers, as he thinks,
Three Faults; _viz._ that he supposes other Worlds beyond the Ocean;
that he speaks of the Phœnix as a real Bird; and that he uses Words
expressing the Humanity of our Saviour, and not his Divinity. But, as to
the first of these Objections, there can be no Difficulty now, that we
know for certain what was but doubtfully advanced by the Antients: in
speaking of the Phœnix he complies with the Opinion universally
received in those Days by the Learned, both among the Christians and
Pagans. As to the Third Objection, _Photius_ must not have observed,
that he styles our Saviour’s Sufferings, the _Sufferings of God_, which
was acknowleging his Divinity. [Sidenote: _Thought lost, but appears
again._] This Epistle, the most precious and valuable Treasure the
Church can boast, after the holy Scriptures, was for many Ages bewailed
as lost; but, in 1633. it was again restored to the Christian World, by
_Patricius Junius_, a _North Briton_, who published it from a
Manuscript, written by an _Egyptian_ Lady, named _Thecla_, about the
Time of the great Council of _Nice_, and afterwards brought over into
_England_[124]. That this Piece is genuine, appears from a great many
Passages quoted out of it by the Antients.

The most remarkable Event that happened in the Pontificate of _Clement_,
was the Persecution of _Domitian_; but what Part he bore in it we can
learn from no credible Author. [Sidenote: Clement _dies._] He died,
according to _Eusebius_[125], in the Third Year of _Trajan_’s Reign,
that is, in the 100th of the Christian Æra. In the Canon of the Mass he
has a Place, with his Two Predecessors, among the Martyrs; but
_Telesphorus_, the Seventh Bishop of _Rome_, is the first, as I have
observed above, who was acknowleged as such by _Irenæus_, whose
Authority is of far greater Weight than that of _Ruffinus_, or Pope
_Zosimus_, who suppose him to have died for the Confession of the
Faith[126]. [Sidenote: _His fabulous Acts._] In the Acts of _Clement_,
to which _Gregory_ of _Tours_ gave an intire Credit[127], and after him
many others, especially the Two credulous Annalists, _Baronius_[128],
and _Alford_[129] in his Annals of the _British_ Church, we read, that
_Clement_ was banished, by _Trajan_, into the _Chersonesus_, beyond the
_Euxine_ Sea; that there he caused a Fountain to spring up miraculously,
for the Relief of the Christians confined to the same unhospitable
Region; that he converted the whole Country to the Faith, which provoked
the Emperor to such a degree, that he ordered him to be thrown into the
Sea, with an Anchor fastened to his Neck. It is added, that, on the
Anniversary of his Death, the Sea retired to the Place where he had been
drowned, though Three long Miles from the Shore; that upon its retiring,
there appeared a most magnificent Temple, all of the finest Marble; and
in the Temple a stately Monument, in which was found the Body of the
Saint; that the Sea continued thus retiring every Year on the same Day,
not daring, for the Space of Seven Days, to return to its usual Bounds,
that the Christians might, at their Leisure, and without Apprehension of
Danger, perform their Devotions in Honour of the Saint. [Sidenote: _The
Miracles he wrought, unknown to_ Irenæus.] To crown the Whole, they add,
that, one Year, a Mother having heedlessly left her young Child in the
Temple, upon her Return, next Year, she found it not only alive, but in
perfect Health[130]. No Mention is made of such stupendous Miracles by
_Irenæus_, who was brought up under _Polycarp_, Bishop of _Smyrna_, in
_Asia_, at the very Time _Clement_ is supposed to have suffered, and who
speaks of him at Length. His Silence is a plain Demonstration, that they
were unknown to him; and they must have been known, had they been true.

[Sidenote: _Other Writings  ascribed to_ Clement.  _A second Letter to
the_ Corinthians.  _Five other Letters._]

Besides the Letter to the _Corinthians_, of which I have spoken above,
several other Pieces are ascribed to _Clement_; _viz_. a second Letter
to the _Corinthians_; which is, without all Doubt, very antient; but
_Eusebius_ doubts whether it was written by _Clement_[131]; and both St.
_Jerom_[132], and _Photius_[133], absolutely reject it. Five other
Letters, placed among the Decretals, whereof the first, more antient
than the rest, was translated by _Ruffinus_, and is quoted by the
Council of _Vaison_, held in 442[134]. However, it is generally looked
upon as a spurious Piece; for the Author of it, whoever he was,
acquaints St. _James_, Bishop of _Jerusalem_, who died long before St.
_Peter_, with St. _Peter_’s Death[135]. [Sidenote: _His_ Itinerary.]
_Clement_’s Itinerary, which, in _Photius_’s Time, was prefixed, by way
of Preface, to the _Recognitions_[136]. The _Recognitions_, relating,
under the Name of _Clement_, the Actions of St. _Peter_, his Interview
with _Simon_ the Magician, how _Clement_ himself knew again his Father
and his Brothers, whom he had forgot; [Sidenote: _The_ Recognitions.]
whence the whole Work took the Name of _Recognitions_, that is, _of
knowing again_: it is likewise called the _Itinerary of St._ Peter, the
_Acts of St._ Peter, the _Acts of St._ Clement[137]. The _Recognitions_
are quoted by _Origen_[138], _Epiphanius_[139], and _Ruffinus_[140], as
the Work of _Clement_, but these Writers, at the same time, own them to
have been altered in several Places, and falsified by the Heretics; nay,
_Epiphanius_ tells us, that the _Ebionites_ scarce left any thing found
in them[141]. The Author was well versed in Philosophy, Mathematics,
Astrology, and most other Sciences, but not so well acquainted with the
Doctrine of the Church; whence his Work is absolutely rejected by
_Athanasius_[142]; and now generally looked upon as a Piece falsely
ascribed to _Clement_. [Sidenote: _St._ Peter_’s Dialogues with_
Apion.] St. _Peter_’s _Dialogues_ with _Apion_ were probably written in
the Third Century, and to gain Credit fathered upon _Clement_; for
_Eusebius_ writes, that there had lately appeared a long Work, under the
Name of _Clement_, containing Dialogues between St. _Peter_ and
_Apion_[143]. [Sidenote: _The Apostolic Constitutions._] As to the
_Apostolic Constitutions_, if that Work is different from _the Doctrine
of the Apostles_ mentioned by _Athanasius_ and _Eusebius_; _Epiphanius_
is the first who speaks of it: it appears at least, from _Dionysius_ of
_Alexandria_, that, in the Year 250. the Constitutions either had not
yet appeared, or were of no Repute in the Church[144]. _Epiphanius_
tells us, that many suspected them; but, as for himself, he received
them, since he found nothing in them repugnant to the Faith, or the
Discipline of the Church[145]. But as be quotes several Passages out of
them, which are not to be found now, we may well conclude, that, since
his Time, they have been either altered or curtailed. The _Greeks_
indeed, in the Second Canon of the Council, that, in 692. was held at
_Constantinople_, in a Tower of the Imperial Palace, called _Trullus_,
that is, the _Cupola_, declare, that they had been falsified, in several
Places, by the Heretics. _Photius_ thinks that, with respect to the
Style, they fall short of the _Recognitions_, but far excel them in the
Purity of the Doctrine, adding, at the same time, that it is no easy
Task to clear them from the Imputation of _Arianism_[146]. Dr. _Pearson_
takes them to be a Collection of several Pieces, published in the
earliest Times, under the Name of the Apostles, and containing, as was
pretended, the Instructions they had given[147]. _Albaspinæus_, Bishop
of _Orange_, thinks the Matter they contain excellent, and the Whole
agreeable to the Discipline observed by the _Greek_ Church, during the
Four first Centuries; bur nevertheless he looks upon them only as a
Collection of the different Customs, that were established, by degrees,
in the Church, and some of which were disputed even in the Fourth
Century[148]; so that they can by no means be ascribed either to the
Apostles, or to _Clement_. [Sidenote: _The Canons of the Apostles._] The
_Constitutions_ end with 85 Canons, long known by the Title of _The
Canons of the Apostles_; but, as they contain several things that were
not received in the Apostles Time, nor in _Clement_’s, the ablest
Critics are of Opinion, that they likewise are but a Collection of
several Decrees made in the first Ages of the Church, and that they were
not collected into one Body till the Third Century[149]. I don’t find
them quoted before the Council of _Constantinople_ in 394. The _Greeks_,
in the Council of the Year 692. mentioned above, bound themselves to the
Observance of them; but they are all rejected by Pope _Gelasius_:
however, _Dionysius Exiguus_ having, not long after, placed the first
Fifty at the Head of his Collection, they were received by degrees; but
the other Thirty-five have not been admitted to this Day.

Upon the Whole, of the many Writings ascribed to _Clement_, the first
Letter to the _Corinthians_ is the only one undoubtedly his: and what a
wide Difference appears, as to the Spirit and Style, between that
excellent Piece, and the Briefs, Bulls, Mandates, _&c._ of his
Successors: He does not command, but exhorts; he does not threaten, but
intreats; he does not thunder Anathema’s and Excommunications, but
employs the most mild and gentle Persuasives, even with the Authors of
the Schism. [Sidenote: Clement_’s Infallibility unknown to him, and to
the_ Corinthians.] Had he known himself to be the infallible and
unerring Judge of Controversies, from whose Tribunal lay no Appeal; had
the _Corinthians_ believed themselves bound, on Pain of Damnation, to
submit to his Decisions; there had been no Room for Reasons, Arguments,
and Persuasives; he ought to have exerted the Power, with which he was
vested, and put an End to all Disputes, in the peremptory Style of his
Successors, _We declare, and command all Men to comply with this our
Declaration, on pain of incurring the Indignation of the Almighty; and_,
as if that were not enough, _of his blessed Apostles_ Peter _and_ Paul.
But it was not till some Ages after, that the Popes found out their
Infallibility, or rather their flattering Divines found it out for them;
so that this invaluable Privilege lying dormant, Men were obliged, for a
long time, to make use of their Reason, in deciding religious
Controversies.

-----

Footnote 105:

  Origen. in Jo. p. 143.

Footnote 106:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.

Footnote 107:

  Philip. iv. 3.

Footnote 108:

  Chrys. in Phil. hom. 13.

Footnote 109:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 110:

  Orig. Pr. in l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 111:

  Ruf. ad Orig. 195.

Footnote 112:

  Clem. strom. 4.

Footnote 113:

  Euch. ad Val. p. 19.

Footnote 114:

  Nil. l. 2. ep. 49.

Footnote 115:

  Dio, l. 65. Suet. in Dom. c. 15. Orig. in Cels. l. 1. p. 5.

Footnote 116:

  Clem. ep. 1. c. 4.

Footnote 117:

  Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 118:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 119:

  Vide Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. et 38. et l. 4. c. 23.

Footnote 120:

  Iren. ib.

Footnote 121:

  Clem. strom. 5.

Footnote 122:

  Phot. c. 126.

Footnote 123:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 38. et l. 6. c. 25. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 124:

  Not. Jun. p. 3. Not. Cotel. p. 8.

Footnote 125:

  Eus. l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 126:

  Ruf. Orig. t. 1. p. 778. Concil. per Lab. t. 2. p. 1558.

Footnote 127:

  Greg. Tur. de glor. martyr. c. 35.

Footnote 128:

  Bar. ad ann. 102.

Footnote 129:

  Alf. ad ann. eund.

Footnote 130:

  Greg. Tur. ib.

Footnote 131:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.

Footnote 132:

  Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 133:

  Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 134:

  Concil. per Labb. t. 3. p. 1458.

Footnote 135:

  Vide Blond. Decret. p. 25. 28.

Footnote 136:

  Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 137:

  Coteler. not. in script. Apost. p. 353.

Footnote 138:

  Orig. Philocal. c. 23. p. 81, 82.

Footnote 139:

  Epiph. hær. 30. c. 15.

Footnote 140:

  Ruf. ad Orig. p. 195.

Footnote 141:

  Epiph. hær. 30. p. 65.

Footnote 142:

  Athan. sym. p. 154.

Footnote 143:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.

Footnote 144:

  Ign. prol. c. 8. p. 54.

Footnote 145:

  Epiph. hær. 76. p. 822.

Footnote 146:

  Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 147:

  Pears. in Ign. t. 1. p. 60, 61.

Footnote 148:

  Alb. obser. l. 1. c. 3. p. 37, 38.

Footnote 149:

  Idem ib. et Ign. prol. c. 15. p. 103.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 TRAJAN                        EVARISTUS,
                       _Fourth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 100. ]

Clement was succeeded by _Evaristus_, _Evaristes_, or _Aristus_, as he
is called in the most antient Catalogue of the Popes[150], in the Third
Year of _Trajan_’s Reign, that is, in the Close of the First Century of
the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: Evaristus _governs Nine Years_.] He
governed about Nine Years, that is, to the Twelfth Year of _Trajan_, and
the 109th of Christ[151]. _Eusebius_, in his Chronicle, supposes him to
have died in the Year 107[152]; and, in his History, says, that his
Death happened about the Year 109[153]: but, in the Series and
Succession of the Popes, that Writer is every-where consistent with
himself in his History, and quite otherwise in his Chronicle. [Sidenote:
_Several things ascribed to him, without sufficient Foundation._]
Besides, the History ought to correct the Chronicle, as being posterior
to it. To _Evaristus_ are ascribed Two Decretals, the Distribution of
the Titles or Parishes of _Rome_, on which _Baronius_ makes a long
Descant[154], and an Order, that Bishops, when they preached, should be
always attended by Seven Deacons[155]. But these, and many other things
of the same Nature, we read only in _Baronius_, _Platina_, _Anastasius_,
_Ciaconius_, &c. and my Design is, as I have declared in the Preface, to
follow the Antients alone, in the History of the antient Popes; and
therefore I shall take no notice of what the Moderns advance, unless I
find it supported by the Authority of the original Writers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 TRAJAN                        ALEXANDER,               ADRIAN.
                       _Fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 109. ]

_Sixtus_ is placed, by _Optatus Milevitanus_[156], immediately after
_Evaristus_; but that is certainly a Mistake, owing, in all likelihood,
to those who transcribed him, since _Irenæus_[157], _Eusebius_[158],
_Epiphanius_[159], and even St. _Augustin_[160], who follows _Optatus_
in every thing else relating to the Popes, place _Alexander_ between
_Evaristus_ and _Sixtus_. _Irenæus_ reckons _Alexander_ the Fifth Bishop
of _Rome_; so that we agree with the most authentic and unexceptionable
Writer of Antiquity in excluding St. _Peter_, and supposing _Cletus_ and
_Anacletus_ to be one and the same Person[161]. _Alexander_ governed Ten
Years, and some Months; and died in the Third Year of _Adrian_, and 119
of Christ[162]. [Sidenote: Alexander _not a Martyr_.] We can learn
nothing of the Antients concerning him: he is worshiped indeed by the
Church of _Rome_ as a Martyr; but that Title is not given him by
_Irenæus_: and as for the Venerable _Bede_, who ranks him among the
Martyrs, he was led into that Mistake by _The Acts of St. Alexander_,
which, in the Opinion of Dr. _Pearson_, were composed in the Seventh
Century, but are now universally rejected as fabulous. [Sidenote: _The
Institution of Holy Water falsly ascribed to him._] _Platina_ ascribes
to Pope _Alexander_ the Institution of _Holy Water_[163], which
_Baronius_ takes very much amiss of him, since he thereby robs the
Apostles of an Honour due to them; for by the Apostles, in his Opinion,
was first introduced the Use of _Holy Water_[164]. But if we trace up
this _Holy Water_ to the Fountain-head, we shall find that it arises
from an unhallowed Spring, from the _Lustral Water_ of the Pagans; for
peace being restored to the Church by _Constantine_, the Christians
began, as a modern Writer well observes[165], to adopt the Ceremonies of
the _Gentiles_. Several Cities in _Italy_, _France_, _Germany_, _Spain_,
&c. pretend to have Reliques of this Pope, insomuch that, were they all
put together, they would form at least twenty intire Bodies[166].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ADRIAN.                        SIXTUS,,
                       _Sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 119. ]

The Successor of _Alexander_ is named _Sixtus_ by _Optatus_[167], and
St. _Augustin_[168]; but by _Irenæus_[169], _Eusebius_[170],
_Epiphanius_[171], and _Jerom_[172], _Xystus_: which Word has some
Signification annexed to it in _Greek_; whereas _Sixtus_ has none either
in _Greek_ or _Latin_. He presided Ten Years according to
_Eusebius_[173], but not complete; for he was raised to the See in the
Third Year of _Adrian_, of Christ 119. and died in the Twelfth Year of
the same Prince, about the latter End of the Year of Christ 128[174]. He
is ranked among the Martyrs in the Canon of the Mass, and in all the
Martyrologies: but his immediate Successor is the first to whom that
Title is given by _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: _Decretals falsly ascribed to_
Sixtus.] To _Sixtus_ are ascribed two Decretals, but both forged in
latter Ages, as plainly appears from _De Marca_, from _Baluzius_, and,
above all, from the haughty Title of _Universal Bishop_, which _Sixtus_
is made to assume in one of them: a Title, as F. _Pagi_ is forced to
confess, unknown to the Bishops of the primitive and best Times[175].
_His Reliques._ The Title of _Universal_ would be better adapted to the
Reliques of this Pope, than to his Episcopacy; for they are dispersed
all over the Roman Catholic World: but _Baillet_ himself looks upon them
as false, and unworthy of the Worship that is paid to them, not
excepting even those that were given by _Clement_ X. to Cardinal _De
Retz_, who caused them to be placed with great Solemnity in the Abbey of
_St. Michael_ in _Lorrain_[176].

-----

Footnote 150:

  Buch. p. 270.

Footnote 151:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 152:

  Euseb. chron. l. 4. c. 1.

Footnote 153:

  Idem, l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 154:

  Bar. ann. 112.

Footnote 155:

  Idem, ann. 121.

Footnote 156:

  Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 157:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 6.

Footnote 158:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 1.

Footnote 159:

  Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 160:

  Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 161:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 6.

Footnote 162:

  Idem, l. 4. c. 5.

Footnote 163:

  Platin. in ej. vit.

Footnote 164:

  Bar. ad ann. 132. N. 3.

Footnote 165:

  Le Sueur, hist. de l'Egl. & de l'Emp. ad ann. 108.

Footnote 166:

  Vid. Bolland. 3 Maii, p. 370. & Baillet vies de Saints, 3 de Mai.

Footnote 167:

  Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 168:

  Aug. ep. 53.

Footnote 169:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 170:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 4.

Footnote 171:

  Epiph. hær. 97. c. 6.

Footnote 172:

  Hier. chron.

Footnote 173:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 174:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 4, & 5.

Footnote 175:

  Pagi in vit. Sixt.

Footnote 176:

  Baill. ib. 6. d'Avril.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ADRIAN.                      TELESPHORUS,              ANTONIUS PIUS.
                      _Seventh_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 128. ]

_Sixtus_ was succeeded by _Telesphorus_ (or, as some style him,
_Thelesphorus_), the Seventh Bishop of the See of _Rome_[177]. To him is
ascribed, in some Editions of the Chronicle of _Eusebius_, the
Institution of _Lent_[178]; but in none of the best Editions Mention is
made of such an Institution, and scarce in any Manuscripts[179].
_Baronius_ endeavours to prove, that this Fast was instituted by the
Apostles, and that _Telesphorus_ established it for ever by a Decree;
but his Arguments are so weak, that he deserves rather to be pitied than
answered. He introduces too early the Bishops of _Rome_ issuing Decrees,
and prescribing Laws to the whole Church. [Sidenote: Telesphorus _the
first Bishop of_ Rome _Martyr_.] _Telesphorus_ was the first Bishop of
_Rome_ who suffered Death for the Christian Religion, seeing _Irenæus_
distinguishes him with the Title of Martyr[180], which this Author gives
to none of his Predecessors; but, as to the Particulars of his Death,
the Antients have left us quite in the Dark. He suffered in the Eleventh
Year of his Pontificate, the First of _Antoninus Pius_, and 139 of
Christ[181].

-----

Footnote 177:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 4. c. 5.

Footnote 178:

  Bar. ad ann. 154.

Footnote 179:

  Not. Scal. in chron. 216. Not. Pont. in chron. p. 612.

Footnote 180:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 181:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 10.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ANTONINUS PIUS.               HYGINUS,,
                       _Eighth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 139. ]

_Hyginus_, the Successor of _Telesphorus_, governed the Church but Four
Years, and those not complete; for, in 142. we find _Pius_ already in
that See[182]. [Sidenote: _The Two Heretics_,  Valentine _and_ Cerdo,
_come to_ Rome.] In his Time the two famous Heretics, _Valentine_ and
_Cerdo_, came to _Rome_; the former from _Egypt_, and the latter from
_Syria_, to display their new Doctrine in that great Metropolis.
_Hyginus_ no doubt opposed them with all the Zeal of a primitive Bishop;
but, in spite of his Zeal, they gained a great many Proselytes to their
heterodox Opinions[183]. His Infallibility, had it been then known and
believed, would have soon put a Stop to the growing Evil. The Church of
_Rome_ honours _Hyginus_ among her Martyrs; but none of the Antients
give him that Title. To him is ascribed the Use of Godfathers and
Godmothers in Baptism, and the Ceremony of Consecrating Churches; but
upon no better Grounds than the Two Decretals are fathered upon him,
which are, by all the Learned, rejected as spurious. _Hyginus_ died in
the Year 142. the Fourth or Fifth of _Antoninus Pius_; and is supposed
to have been buried near St. _Peter_[184].

-----

Footnote 182:

  Idem, l. 4. c. 11.

Footnote 183:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 4. Philas. c. 44. Epiph. hær. 41. c. 1.

Footnote 184:

  Bolland. April. p. 22.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ANTONINUS PIUS.                 PIUS,
                       _Ninth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 142.
]

_Anicetus_ is placed next to _Hyginus_ by _Optatus_[185], St.
_Augustin_[186], and _Epiphanius_[187]: But who would not, with
_Eusebius_[188], rather follow _Irenæus_[189], and _Hegesippus_[190],
naming _Pius_ immediately after _Hyginus_, since the former wrote in the
Time of _Eleutherius_ the Second Bishop after _Anicetus_; and the latter
lived at _Rome_ in the Time of _Anicetus_, and continued there till the
Pontificate of _Eleutherius_.

[Sidenote: Marcion _comes to_ Rome.]

In the Time of _Pius_, _Marcion_, a Native of _Pontus_, and the Son of a
Bishop of the holy Catholic Church, says _Epiphanius_[191], being
excommunicated by his Father for debauching a Virgin, and finding he
could by no means prevail upon the venerable Prelate to receive him
again into the Church, abandoned his native City, supposed to be
_Sinope_, and fled to _Rome_. Upon his Arrival there, he applied to the
Elders of that Church, intreating them to admit him to their Communion.
But those holy Men, who had been taught by the Disciples of the
Apostles, instead of complying with his Request, returned him this
Answer; [Sidenote: _The Power of receiving Appeals  disowned by
the Church of_ Rome.] We cannot admit you without Leave from your holy
Father; nor can we, as we are all united in the same Faith, and the same
Sentiments, undo what our holy Collegue your Father has done.--Thus
_Epiphanius_[192]. Had _Bellarmine_ lived in those Days, he had taught
them another Doctrine, a Doctrine which, however necessary, the Apostles
had forgot to deliver to their Disciples; _viz._ That the See of _Rome_
was raised above all other Sees; that the Appeals of the whole Catholic
Church were to be brought to it; that no Appeals were to be made from
it; that it was to judge of the whole Church, but be judged by none.
_Marcion_ did not apply to _Pius_, as the Reader must have observed, or
at least did not apply to him alone, but to the Elders, who disclaimed
all Power of reversing the Sentence of a particular Bishop or Judge. And
is not this an evident and incontestable Proof that the Power of
receiving Appeals was not known, or thought of, in those Days? And yet,
who would believe it? _Bellarmine_ has the Assurance to allege this very
Case as an Argument to prove in the Pope a Power of receiving
Appeals[193]. But what would become of this Prerogative, should the Pope
return the same Answer to every Appellant?

[Sidenote: Pius _no Martyr_.]

_Pius_ governed the Church for the Space of Fifteen Years, and died in
157. the Twentieth of _Antoninus_[194]. The _Roman_ Martyrology tells
us, that he was martyred in the Persecution of _Antoninus Pius_; but in
that Prince’s Reign there was no Persecution; nor is the Title of Martyr
given him by _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: _Writings ascribed to him._]
_Baronius_ ascribes to this Pope a Decree, commanding the Festival of
_Easter_ to be kept on _Sunday_, and quotes the Chronicle of
_Eusebius_[195]. This Decree is indeed mentioned in some Editions of
that Writer; but _Scaliger_ assures us, that no Mention is made of it in
any Manuscript Copy; and therefore he has left it out in his
Edition[196]. As to the Celebration of _Easter_, it is manifest from
_Irenæus_, that though _Pius_, as well as his Predecessors _Sixtus_,
_Telesphorus_ and _Hyginus_, differed from the Bishops of _Asia_, yet
they did not on that Account separate themselves from their
Communion[197]. On this Pope are fathered several spurious Pieces,
_viz._ some Decrees, Two Letters ranked among the Decretals, and Two
more written to _Justus_ Bishop of _Vienne_ in _Dauphiné_. The Decrees,
as well as the Decretals, are universally rejected; and yet F. _Pagi_
quotes one of them to prove the real Presence in the Sacrament[198]. The
two Letters to _Justus_ are deemed genuine by _Baronius_[199], by
Cardinal _Bona_[200], and by _Blondel_ in his Treatise of the
Sibyls[201], who nevertheless suspects them elsewhere[202]. On the other
hand, they are absolutely rejected as false by Dr. _Pearson_[203], by
_Cotelerius_[204], and _Natalis Alexander_[205], who discover several
Expressions in them that were not in Use till some Ages after, and a
great many Incoherences. To say with _Le Sueur_, That they were written
originally in _Greek_, and in latter Times translated into _Latin_[206],
is but a poor Evasion. As for the Fable of _Hermes_, the Brother of
_Pius_, who, by the Command of an Angel appearing to him in the Disguise
of a Shepherd, is said to have written a Book shewing, that _Easter_
ought to be kept on _Sunday_, I refer the Reader to _Platina_, and
such-like Writers.

-----

Footnote 185:

  Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 186:

  Aug. ep. 53.

Footnote 187:

  Epiph. hær. 42.

Footnote 188:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 189:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 190:

  Apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 22.

Footnote 191:

  Epiph. hær. 42. c. 1.

Footnote 192:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 193:

  Bell. l. 2. c. 21.

Footnote 194:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.

Footnote 195:

  Bar. ad ann. 159.

Footnote 196:

  Euseb. chron. not. Scal. p. 119.

Footnote 197:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 198:

  Pagi in Pio, n. 2.

Footnote 199:

  Bar. ad ann. 166.

Footnote 200:

  Bona rer. liturgic. l. 1. c. 3.

Footnote 201:

  Blond. l. 2. c. 6.

Footnote 202:

  Idem de la primauté.

Footnote 203:

  Pears. in Ign. l. 2. p. 170.

Footnote 204:

  Cotel. not. in script. Apost. p. 42, 43.

Footnote 205:

  Nat. Alex. t. 1. p. 89.

Footnote 206:

  Sueur. hist. de l'Egl. &c. ad ann. 149.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ANTONINUS,                    ANICETUS,                   M. AURELIUS.
                       _Tenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 157.  _St._ Polycarp _comes  to_ Rome, _and
reclaims many from the Errors of_ Marcion.]

_Pius_ was succeeded by _Anicetus_, in whose Time _Valentine_ the
Heretic, who came to _Rome_ in the Pontificate of _Hyginus_, and had
gained many Proselytes under _Pius_, continued sowing his pestilential
Errors among the Members of that Church: but many whom he had seduced,
were reclaimed by St. _Polycarp_, formerly the Disciple of St. _John_
the Evangelist, and then Bishop of _Smyrna_. His declaring to them, that
the Doctrine taught by the Church was the Doctrine he had learnt of the
Apostles, made such an Impression on their Minds, that they abjured the
Errors of _Valentine_, and returned to the Communion of the
Faithful[207]. They preferred the bare Word of _Polycarp_, who claimed
no Infallibility, to the infallible Authority of _Hyginus_, _Pius_, and
_Anicetus_. This is a plain Proof, that the Popes had not yet begun to
exert their Infallibility; or, if they had, that it was not acknowleged.
What brought St. _Polycarp_ to _Rome_ was the Controversy about the
Celebration of _Easter_, which at this Time began to grow very warm
between the Eastern and Western Churches[208]. All the Churches of the
East, and amongst the rest that of _Smyrna_, kept _Easter_ on the 14th
Day of the Moon of the first Month, in Conformity to the Custom of the
_Jews_: on the other hand, _Anicetus_ would neither conform to that
Custom himself, nor suffer any under his Jurisdiction to conform to it,
obliging them to celebrate that Solemnity on the _Sunday_ next following
the 14th of the Moon. That this Dispute might not occasion a Schism in
the Church, _Polycarp_ undertook a Journey to _Rome_, in order to confer
with the Bishop of that City, who was the chief Opposer of the
_Quartodecimans_[209]. [Sidenote: Anicetus _and he disagree about
the Celebration of_ Easter, _but part without Breach of Charity_.] But
it happened in this, as it does in most religious Disputes, they parted,
each retaining his own Way of thinking; but at the same time, what
happens but seldom, without the least Breach of that Charity which is
the great and fundamental Law of our holy Religion. In Token whereof
they communicated together at the holy Sacrament; nay, _Anicetus_, out
of Respect to St. _Polycarp_, yielded to him the _Eucharist_[210]; that
is, gave him Leave to consecrate the _Eucharist_ in his own Church:
after which they parted in Peace, though both determined to follow the
antient Practice of their respective Churches[211]. St. _Polycarp_,
though well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Apostles, was a
Stranger, it seems, to that of _Bellarmine_, _Baronius_, &c. _viz._ that
the whole Catholic Church is bound to conform to the Rites, Ceremonies,
and Customs of the Church of _Rome_.

[Sidenote: Hegesippus _and St._ Justin _at_ Rome.]

In the Time of _Anicetus_, _Hegesippus_, and the celebrated Martyr St.
_Justin_, came to _Rome_, upon what Occasion is uncertain. The former
continuing there to the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, wrote a Book on
the Doctrine which in that Church had been conveyed down from the
Apostles to _Anicetus_, and was still observed, says he, in all its
original Purity[212]. The latter opposed with great Zeal _Marcion_, and
his Followers, publishing a Book against his pernicious Tenets, and
against Heresies in general[213]. It was at _Rome_ that he had frequent
Conferences with _Crescens_ the _Cynic_, a Man of some Note at that
Time; but, according to the Genius of his Sect, proud, surly, conceited,
and a declared Enemy to all who professed the Christian Religion, which
he painted in the blackest Colours[214]. The Malice of this _Cynic_
procured in the End for our zealous and learned Apologist what he had
long and most ardently wished, the Glory of sealing with his Blood the
Truth, which he had so strenuously defended and promoted with his
Pen[215]. He suffered under _Marcus Aurelius_ and _L. Verus_ about the
Year 167. towards the End of the Pontificate of _Anicetus_.

To this Pope are ascribed by _Anastasius_, _Platina_, _Ciaconius_, and
other modern Writers, several Ordinances and Decrees; but as they are
not mentioned by any of the Antients, we do not think them worthy of our
Notice. _Anicetus_ governed the Church, according to _Eusebius_[216],
Eleven Years, from the Year 157. to the 8th Year of _M. Aurelius_, that
is, to 168. of the Christian Æra. _Raban_, _Florus_, and _Anastasius_,
suppose him to have died for the Profession of the Faith; which was, it
seems, unknown to _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: Anicetus _not a Martyr_.] He was
buried, according to some, near St. _Peter_, in the _Vatican_, according
to others, in the Burying-place of _Calixtus_[217]; out of which, though
it is uncertain whether he was buried there or no, [Sidenote: _His
Reliques._] his Head was taken in 1590. and given by _Urban_ VII. to the
_Jesuits_ of _Munich_ in _Bavaria_, where it is yearly, with great
Solemnity, exposed to public Adoration on the 17th of _April_, the
Anniversary, as is supposed, of his Death: his Body was taken out of the
same Place in 1604. and given by _Clement_ VIII. to the Duke of
_Altaemps_, who caused it to be conveyed to the Chapel of his Palace in
_Rome_, and to be deposited there in a Marble Tomb, formerly the Tomb of
the Emperor _Alexander_; where it is worshiped to this Day.

-----

Footnote 207:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 1. c. 24.

Footnote 208:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 13.

Footnote 209:

  Iren. apud Euseb. l. iv. c. 14.

Footnote 210:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 23, 24.

Footnote 211:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 212:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.

Footnote 213:

  Just. Apol. 2. p. 70.

Footnote 214:

  Tatian. orat. cont. Græc. p. 160.

Footnote 215:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 16. Epiph. hær. 46. c. 1.

Footnote 216:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 19.

Footnote 217:

  Vide Bolland. April 17, & 22.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 M. AURELIUS.                    SOTER,
                      _Eleventh_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 168. ]

_Soter_, the Successor of _Anicetus_, is highly commended on account of
his extensive Charity towards the Poor of other Churches, but more
especially towards those who were condemned for the Confession of their
Faith to work in the Mines[218]. [Sidenote: _His Charities to
the distressed Christians._] These he is said not only to have relieved
in their Distress with generous Gatherings made for that Purpose at
_Rome_, wherein he followed the Example of his Predecessors, but
moreover to have sent Letters to them in their afflicted Condition. This
we learn from a Letter of _Dionysius_, then Bishop of _Corinth_, which
was an Answer to a Letter from _Soter_, and the Church of _Rome_.
_Dionysius_ returns Thanks to the _Romans_, and their Bishop, for their
Generosity to the Poor of _Corinth_; acquaints _Soter_ that his Letter
had been publicly read; adds, that he shall cause it to be read for the
future; and closes his Epistle with great Encomiums on the _Romans_, who
had so generously contributed to the Support of the indigent
_Corinthians_[219]. This laudable Custom did not end with the Second
Century of the Church; for _Dionysius_ of _Alexandria_, writing about
the Year 254. to _Stephen_ Bishop of _Rome_, says, that all _Syria_ and
_Arabia_ felt the good Effects of the Generosity of the _Romans_[220].
And some Years after, that is, about the Year 260. Pope _Dionysius_
being informed, that the City of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_ had been
ruined by the Wars, and many Christians carried into Captivity, he sent
large Sums to ransom them, with a Letter to the Church of _Cæsarea_,
which was still read in St. _Basil_’s Time[221]. _Eusebius_ tells us,
that this Custom continued till the last Persecution[222]. How
differently the immense Revenues of the See of _Rome_ are employed now,
those know who have seen the extravagant Pomp, Luxury, and Parade of
that Court. [Sidenote: _The Heresy of_ Montanus _broached in his Time_.]
In the Year 171. the Fourth of _Soter_, was broached the Heresy of the
_Montanists_, so called from their Ringleader _Montanus_[223]. Against
these _Soter_ is said, by an anonymous Writer of some Antiquity, to have
composed a Book, which was answered, according to the same Writer, by
_Tertullian_, become the Defender of that Sect[224]: but, according to
the best Chronologists, _Tertullian_ did not turn _Montanist_ till many
Years after the Death of _Soter_; and, besides, both _Soter_’s Book, and
_Tertullian_’s Answer to it, were quite unknown to _Eusebius_, and even
to St. _Jerom_, who took great Delight in reading _Tertullian_. _Soter_
presided Eight Years, according to _Eusebius_[225]; that is, from the
Year 168. to 176. or to the Beginning of 177. the 17th Year of the Reign
of _M. Aurelius_. [Sidenote: _He did not die a Martyr._] The Title of
Martyr is given him by the modern Writers, but not by _Irenæus_, or any
of the Antients. To him are falsly ascribed Two Epistles, which have
been placed among the Decretals. Where he was buried is uncertain; but
his Body is worshiped, at present, in the Church of St. _Sylvester_ at
_Rome_, _and in the Cathedral of_ Toledo _in_ Spain[226].

-----

Footnote 218:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.

Footnote 219:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 220:

  Idem, l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 221:

  Basil. ep. 220.

Footnote 222:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.

Footnote 223:

  Euseb. chron.

Footnote 224:

  Auct. anonym. de hæres. Sirmund. edit. hær. 26. 86. p. 28. 79.

Footnote 225:

  Euseb. l. 5. p. 153.

Footnote 226:

  Bar. in martyrol. 22 April. et Bolland. ad eund. diem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 M. AURELIUS,                 ELEUTHERIUS,                    COMMODUS.
                      _Twelfth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 176. ]

_Eleutherius_ was Deacon of the Church of _Rome_ in 168. when
_Hegesippus_ came to that City[227]; but _Soter_, the Successor of
_Anicetus_, being dead, he was chosen to govern the Church in his
room[228]. [Sidenote: _The Martyrs of_ Lions _write to_ Eleutherius.] It
is certain, that his Election was known in _Gaul_ before the Death of
the Martyrs of _Lions_, so famous in ecclesiastical History; for the
Controversy, which had been raised some Years before in the Churches of
_Asia_, by _Montanus_ and his Followers, concerning the prophetic
Spirit, to which they pretended, making at that time a great Noise in
the Church, the Martyrs of _Lions_, desirous to contribute, so far as in
them lay, to the public Peace, wrote Letters, from their Prisons, to the
Churches of _Asia_, and likewise to _Eleutherius_, Bishop of _Rome_,
declaring their Judgment and Opinion in the Case[229]: for great Honour
was paid, in those Times, to the Martyrs, and their Opinion was always
received with Esteem and Veneration. It were much to be wished, that
_Eusebius_ had set down their Opinion at Length; but he contents himself
only with saying, that it was intirely agreeable to true Piety, and to
the orthodox Faith[230]; which, in my Opinion, is enough to make us
reject the Notion of Dr. _Pearson_, who takes it for granted, that they
wrote in Favour of those Fanatics, and that for no other Reason but
because they are said, by _Eusebius_, to have written for the Peace of
the Church[231]. Was the admitting of false Prophets, and false
Prophecies, giving Peace to the Church? The same Writer adds, that
_Eleutherius_ was induced, by the Reverence and Regard he had for the
holy Martyrs, to receive the Prophecies of _Montanus_, and his Two
Prophetesses[232]. [Sidenote: Eleutherius _did not approve the
Prophecies of_ Montanus.] But herein I must beg Leave to disagree with
that learned Writer, and likewise with Dr. _Cave_[233]; for it was not,
in my Opinion, _Eleutherius_, but his Successor _Victor_, who received
the Prophecies of _Montanus_. _Tertullian_, the only Author who informs
us, that the Dreams of that Enthusiast were approved by the Bishop of
_Rome_, does not distinguish that Bishop by his Name; so that he is to
be found out only by Reasoning and Chronology. Now, on one hand, we read
in _Tertullian_, that _Montanus_ had been opposed by _the Predecessors_
of the Bishop, who embraced his Opinions[234]; and, on the other, in
_Eusebius_[235], that the Heresy of _Montanus_ was first broached in the
Year 171. the Eleventh of the Reign of _M. Aurelius_, and the Fourth of
the Pontificate of _Soter_, the immediate Predecessor of _Eleutherius_;
these Two therefore, and these alone, were the Bishops, who could oppose
_Montanus_; and, since the first Broaching of that Heresy, the only
Predecessors of the Bishop who embraced it. _Victor_, the Successor of
_Eleutherius_, was greatly provoked against the _Asiatic_ Bishops, on
account of their refusing to comply with the Custom of the Church of
_Rome_, in the Celebration of _Easter_; and therefore might, out of
Spite to them, approve of the Opinions which they had condemned: for
_Montanus_, and his Followers, had been already condemned, as _Eusebius_
informs us[236], by several Synods held in _Asia Minor_. [Sidenote:
_Councils held without consulting the Bishop of_ Rome.] No Opinion is
now deemed heretical, unless condemned by the Bishop of _Rome_, who
claims that Prerogative as peculiar to himself; but the Synods of
_Asia_, the first mentioned in History, after that of the Apostles at
_Jerusalem_, condemned the Opinions of _Montanus_, and cut him off from
their Communion, without consulting or even acquainting therewith, the
Bishop of _Rome_. But, to return to the Martyrs; some are of Opinion,
that they condemned, in their Letters, the Tenets of _Montanus_, and his
Followers; but, at the same time, wrote in their Favour, to far as to
intreat the Bishops of _Asia_, and _Eleutherius_ Bishop of _Rome_, to
treat them with Indulgence, and admit them, upon Repentance, to their
Communion[237]. This is but a bare Conjecture, not authorized by any of
the Antients; and we don’t find, that the _Montanists_ ever shewed the
least Inclination to return to the Communion of the Church.

[Sidenote: Florinus _and_ Blastus _broach their new Doctrine_.]

It was in the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, that _Florinus_ and
_Blastus_ first broached their new Doctrine; which was readily embraced
by many at _Rome_; for they were both Presbyters of that Church[238].
_Florinus_ was first one of the Emperor’s Officers in _Asia_, afterwards
the Disciple of St. _Polycarp_, then famous all over that Province; and,
lastly, Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_; but both he and _Blastus_
were degraded on account of their heretical Opinions, and cut off from
the Communion of the Faithful[239]. Against _Florinus_, _Irenæus_, then
Bishop of _Lions_, wrote a Letter, intituled, _Of Monarchy, or that God
is not the Author of Evil_[240]; and another Piece called, _De Ogdoede_,
that is, _of the Eight_; meaning, perhaps, the Eight _Eons_, or Persons
that composed the chimerical Divinity of the _Valentinians_; for
_Florinus_ fell at last into that Heresy[241]. Against _Blastus_, whom
_Pacian_ surnames the _Greek_[242], _Irenæus_ wrote a Book, intituled,
_Of Schism_[243]. _Ado_[244] and _Bede_[245] tell us, that _Eleutherius_
issued a Decree, ordaining _Easter_ to be kept on the _Sunday_ after the
14th of the first Moon; but as no mention is made of such a Decree, by
any Writer of those Times, their Authority is of no Weight.

[Sidenote: _The Conversion of_ Lucius, _a_ British _King_.]

_Lucius_, a _British_ King, is said, by _Bede_, to have written to Pope
_Eleutherius_, intreating him to send a proper Person into _Britain_, to
instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion; which the Pope
readily granted[246]. But as this is vouched only by _Bede_, who lived
many Ages after him, and by a Pontifical, supposed to have been written
about the Middle of the Sixth Century, what Credit the whole History of
_Lucius_ may deserve, I leave the Reader to judge. Such a remarkable
Event could not have escaped _Eusebius_, who, speaking of this very
Period of Time, tells us, that, at _Rome_, many Persons, eminent for
their Birth and Wealth, embraced the Christian Religion, with their
whole Families[247]. A solemn Embassy from a _British_ King, and his
Conversion, surely deserved a Place in the History of the Church.
[Sidenote: _The whole Account fabulous._] He informs us, that, in the
Reign of _Commodus_, and the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, the Christian
Religion enjoyed a profound Tranquillity all over the World; that it
flourished, and attracted, to use his Expression, the Minds of many
People[248]. Had he not here a favourable Opportunity of mentioning our
Royal Proselyte, who, in the Reign of _Commodus_, is supposed to have
written to _Eleutherius_, and by his means to have been converted to the
Christian Religion? To what can we ascribe the Silence of such an exact
and accurate Writer, concerning an Event which would have greatly
recommended both his History, and the Christian Religion? To an
invincible Antipathy, says the Jesuit _Alford_[249], which he bore to
the Name of _Britain_, and which was so prevalent in him, that he chose
rather to suppress the Conversion of _Lucius_ than mention it. But what
could thus set _Eusebius_ against _Britain_? Had he been ever injured by
the _Britons_? Does he not elsewhere mention both them and their
Country? This jesuitical, absurd, and groundless Speculation, which must
expose the Author of it to the Ridicule of every Reader, I should
perhaps have let pass unobserved, had he not in this very Place
insulted, beyond the Bounds of common Decency, the Reformers of
Religion, for rejecting some idle Ceremonies, which he supposes to have
been practised at the Conversion of _Lucius_. But, not to lay the whole
Stress on the Silence of _Eusebius_, and other antient Writers, to whom
King _Lucius_ was utterly unknown, why should he have been at the
Trouble of sending to _Rome_ for an Instructor? Were there not many in
his own Kingdom as capable of instructing him as any _Rome_ could send?
The Christian Religion had been planted in this Island long before the
Reign of _Lucius_, in the Time of the Apostles, as _Gildas_ seems to
insinuate[250], at least very early in the Second Century; for _Origen_,
who flourished in the Beginning of the Third, tells us, that the Virtue
of the Name of _Jesus_ had passed the Seas, to find out the _Britons_ in
another World[251].

[Sidenote: _Several Monkish Fables concerning King_ Lucius.]

The short Account, which _Bede_ gives us of the Embassy and Conversion
of King _Lucius_, has not only been greedily swallowed by the Monkish
Writers, who came after him, but has served as a Ground-plot to the
innumerable Fables with which they have filled this Part of their
Histories. They even tell us the Names of the Embassadors sent by
_Lucius_ to the Pope, and of the Legates _a Latere_ sent by the Pope to
_Lucius_. The former were _Elvanus_ and _Medwinus_, who, being ordained
Bishops by _Eleutherius_, returned to _Britain_, and greatly contributed
to the Conversion of this Island. These Fables gained Credit, by
Degrees, in those Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, insomuch that the
Two Embassadors were at last ranked among the Saints; and their Bodies,
where or when found, nobody knows, exposed to public Veneration, in the
Monastery of _Glassenbury_, on the First of _January_[252]. The Pope’s
Legates were _Fugacius_ and _Damianus_, who, as we are told, went back
to _Rome_, to obtain of _Eleutherius_ a Confirmation of what they had
done; and, from _Rome_, returned into _Britain_, with a Letter from the
Pope to King _Lucius_[253]. As for the King himself, he is said to have
quitted his Kingdom, and, turning Missionary, to have preached the
Gospel in _Germany_, especially at _Ausburgh_; to have travelled from
thence into the Country of the _Grisons_; and, lastly, to have been
ordained Bishop of _Coire_, their Metropolis; and to have died there a
Martyr[254]. To these Monkish Fables King _Lucius_ owes a Place among
the Saints; for on the Third of _December_ is kept, in the Church of
_Rome_, _the Festival of_ Lucius, _King of the_ Britons, _who died at_
Coire _in_ Germany[255]: these are the Words of the _Roman_ Martyrology;
but _Bede_ does not so much as mention him in his; a plain Proof, that
what is said of his Preaching, of his Martyrdom, _&c._ was invented
after that Writer’s Time. And yet _Alford_ has not only filled his
Annals with these, and suchlike fabulous Accounts, giving an intire
Credit to them, but inveighs, with great Acrimony, against those who
have not the Gift of Belief in the same Degree with himself, especially
against _Dempster_, telling, him, that till his Time the Conversion of
_Lucius_ had never been questioned by any Man of Sense or Learning[256].
And truly, the Story of King _Lucius_ has been credited even by the
greater Part of Protestant Writers, out of Respect to our venerable
Historian; but as he wrote many Ages after the pretended Conversion of
that Prince, and none of the Writers of those Days, whom such a
remarkable Event could hardly have escaped, give us the least Hint of
it, we may be well allowed to question the Whole, notwithstanding the
Authority of _Bede_, which can be of no Weight with respect to
Transactions that are said to have happened in Times so remote.

_Eleutherius_ governed, according to the best Chronologers, Fifteen
Years; and died in 192. the last of the Emperor _Commodus_[257]. To him
are ascribed a Decretal, addressed to the Bishops of _Gaul_, and a
Decree, declaring against _Montanus_, and his Followers, that no Food
was forbidden to the Christians; but both are deemed spurious. He was
buried, according to some, in the _Salarian Way_, according to others,
in the _Vatican_; but, in what Place soever he was buried, his Body is
now worshiped in the _Vatican_ at _Rome_, in the Cathedral of _Troia_ in
_Apulia_, and in several other Places[258]. The Title of Martyr is given
him by the Church of _Rome_, but not by any of the antient Writers.
Under him flourished _Hegesippus_, who wrote, in Five Books, an Account
of what had happened in the Church since our Saviour’s Death, to his
Time[259]. He came to _Rome_ in the Pontificate of _Anicetus_, who was
chosen in 157. and, remaining there to the Time of _Eleutherius_, who
succeeded _Anicetus_ and _Soter_ in 177. he wrote a Book on the Doctrine
received by Tradition in that Church[260]; but neither of these Works
has reached our Times.

-----

Footnote 227:

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. Hier. vir. ill. c. 22.

Footnote 228:

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 229:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 230:

  Euseb. ib.

Footnote 231:

  Pears. post. p. 255.

Footnote 232:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 233:

  Cave Lives of the Fathers, p. 164.

Footnote 234:

  Tert. in Prax. c. 1.

Footnote 235:

  Euseb. in chron.

Footnote 236:

  Idem l. 5. c. 16. Con. per Labb. t. 1. p. 599.

Footnote 237:

  Vide Dupin. Biblioth. p. 287.

Footnote 238:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 14.

Footnote 239:

  Idem ib. c. 15, 20.

Footnote 240:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 241:

  Fleuri hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 26, 27. p. 395. 397.

Footnote 242:

  Pacian. ep. 1.

Footnote 243:

  Euseb. ib. c. 20.

Footnote 244:

  Ado ad ann. 194.

Footnote 245:

  Bed. chron. t. 2. p. 111.

Footnote 246:

  Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 4. et chron. t. 2. p. 111.

Footnote 247:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 21.

Footnote 248:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 249:

  Annal. ad ann. 182. p. 140.

Footnote 250:

  Gild. ex. c. 6. p. 116.

Footnote 251:

  Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.

Footnote 252:

  Vide Ush. Brit. eccles. antiq. c. 4. et Bolland. 1. Jan.

Footnote 253:

  Bar. ad ann. 183. Bolland. 26 Maii. Ush. ib. p. 54. 102.

Footnote 254:

  Vide Ush. ib. p. 137, 138.

Footnote 255:

  Martyr. Rom. 3 Decem.

Footnote 256:

  Alf. ad ann. 201. p. 201.

Footnote 257:

  Euseb. chron. Florent. p. 811.

Footnote 258:

  Bolland. 26 Maii, p. 364.

Footnote 259:

  Hier. vir. ill. c. 22.

Footnote 260:

  Idem ib. et Euseb. l. 4. c. 11, 22.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 COMMODUS,                      VICTOR,                        SEVERUS.
 PERTINAX,           _Thirteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 192. ]

_Victor_, the Successor of _Eleutherius_, is counted by a Writer, who at
this very time lived in _Rome_, the Thirteenth Bishop of that City[261]:
so that neither is St. _Peter_ reckoned among them, nor is _Cletus_
distinguished from _Anacletus_. [Sidenote: _The Heresy of_ Theodotus.]
In _Victor_’s Time a new Heresy was broached at _Rome_ by one
_Theodotus_ of _Byzantium_, denying the Divinity of _Christ_[262]. The
_Theodotians_ gave out, that _Victor_ favoured their Doctrine[263];
which he did, perhaps, at that Time[264]; though he cut them off
afterwards from his Communion. [Sidenote: Victor _approves the prophetic
Spirit of_ Montanus.] Be that as it will, he can by no means be cleared
from another Imputation, namely, that of owning and approving the
prophetic Spirit of _Montanus_, and his Two Prophetesses, _Prisca_ and
_Maximilla_: for _Tertullian_, his Contemporary, tells us, in express
Terms, that he received their Prophecies; that, upon receiving them, he
gave Letters of Peace to the Churches of _Asia_ and _Phrygia_; but that
one _Praxeas_, just come from those Parts, giving him a false Account of
those Prophets, and their Churches, and remonstrating, that by approving
them, he condemned his Predecessors, prevailed upon him to revoke the
Letters, which he had already written in their Behalf. [Sidenote: _His_
Infallibility, _how defended by_ Baronius _and_ Bellarmine.] Thus
_Tertullian_, who was then himself become a Follower of _Montanus_[265].
Here _Baronius_ and _Bellarmine_, the Two great Advocates for the Pope’s
Infallibility, are put to a Stand: they own, and cannot help owning,
that the Pope was deceived, and imposed upon; but, for all that, will
not give up his Infallibility. How great is the Power of Prejudice and
Prepossession! They find the Pope actually erring, and yet maintain,
that he cannot err. But this Apostacy from common Sense, if I may be
allowed the Expression, is not, perhaps, so much owing to Prejudice, as
to something worse; for no Prejudice, however prevalent, can withstand
the indisputable Evidence of plain Matters of Fact. It is no new thing,
says _Baronius_, nor what ought to cause in us the least Surprize, that
a Pope should be over-reached by Impostors[266]. A Pope over-reached in
Matters of Faith! What then becomes of Infallibility? or what is the Use
of it? But the _Montanists_, says _Bellarmine_[267], craftily concealed
from the Pope what was erroneous and heretical in their Prophecies; so
that he, discovering nothing in their Doctrine repugnant to that of the
Church, believed they had been unjustly accused to, and condemned by,
his Predecessors. But, in the first Place, _Tertullian_ tells us, in
express Terms, that the Prophecies of _Montanus_, and his Followers,
were approved by the Pope; whereas the Prophecies, which he is supposed
by _Bellarmine_ to have approved, were not the Prophecies of _Montanus_,
but others, quite different, and in every respect orthodox. In the
second Place, if _Victor_ believed, that the _Montanists_ had been
unjustly condemned by his Predecessors, he did not believe them
infallible; so that, in every Light, this Fact oversets the pretended
Infallibility. We may add, that, if the Pope’s Infallibility depends
upon a right Information, and neither he nor we can know whether he has
been rightly informed, his Infallibility is thereby rendered quite
useless; since, in every particular Case, we may doubt, and that Doubt
cannot be removed, whether the Information, upon which he acts, was
right, or no.

[Sidenote: _The famous Controversy about the Celebration of_
Easter.]

But what most of all distinguished the Pontificate of _Victor_ was, the
famous Controversy about the Celebration of _Easter_, between the
Eastern and Western Bishops; the former keeping that Solemnity on the
14th Day of the first Moon, on what Day soever of the Week it happened
to fall; and the latter putting it off till the _Sunday_ following.
This, surely, could not be a Point of any Consequence, since the
Apostles had not thought fit to settle any thing concerning it; nay, by
observing the Paschal Solemnity themselves, some on the one Day, and
some on the other, as it is manifest they did[268]; they plainly
declared, that it was quite indifferent on what Day it was observed.
Accordingly, from the Apostles Time to _Victor_’s, each Church had
followed the Custom and Practice established by their respective
Founders, without giving the least Disturbance to others, or being, on
that Account, disturbed by them[269]. Pope _Anicetus_ even suffered such
of the _Asiatics_ as happened to be at _Rome_, to celebrate _Easter_
after the manner of _Asia_[270]: _Soter_, indeed; and his Successor
_Eleutherius_, obliged those who lived at _Rome_ to conform to the
Custom of that Church; but that did not prevent their sending the
_Eucharist_, or Sacrament, to the Bishops who followed the opposite
Practice[271]; for a Custom then obtained among Bishops to send the
_Eucharist_ to each other, especially at _Easter_, in Token of Communion
and Peace; but this Custom was suppressed by the 14th Canon of the
Council held in the Fourth Century at _Laodicea_[272]. [Sidenote:
Victor_’s haughty Conduct_.] _Victor_, not satisfied with what his Two
immediate Predecessors had done, took upon him to impose the _Roman_
Custom on all the Churches that followed the contrary Practice.
[Sidenote: _Is opposed by the Bishop of_ Ephesus,] But, in this bold
Attempt, which we may call the first Essay of Papal Usurpation, he met
with a vigorous and truly Christian Opposition from _Polycrates_, at
that Time Bishop of _Ephesus_, and one of the most eminent Men in the
Church, both for Piety and Learning. He had studied, says
_Eusebius_[273], the Scriptures with great Attention, had conferred with
Christians from all Parts of the World, and had ever conformed his Life
to the Rules of the Gospel. _Jerom_ speaks of him as a Man of excellent
Parts, and one universally respected[274]. In the present Controversy,
he peremptorily refused to relinquish the Practice of his own Church,
which had been first introduced by the Apostles St. _John_ and St.
_Philip_, and had been handed down to him by Seven Bishops of his own
Family[275]. Hereupon _Victor_, impatient of Contradiction, wrote a
Letter, threatening to cut him off from his Communion, unless he
forthwith complied with the Practice of the Church of _Rome_[276].
[Sidenote: _and by a Council of all the Bishops of_ Asia minor.]
_Polycrates_, greatly surprised at the hasty Proceedings of his Fellow
Bishop, assembled in _Ephesus_ a Council of all the Bishops of _Asia
minor_, when it was unanimously resolved, that the Practice, which they
had received from their Predecessors, ought not to be changed[277].
Agreeably to this Resolution, _Polycrates_ writ to _Victor_, acquainting
him therewith; and, at the same time, modestly insinuating, that, as to
his Menaces, he had better forbear them, since they had no manner of
Effect upon him, or his Brethren[278]. [Sidenote: _He cuts them off from
his Communion._] Upon the Receipt of this Letter _Victor_, giving the
Reins to an impotent and ungovernable Passion, published bitter
invectives against all the Churches of _Asia_, declared them cut off
from his Communion, sent Letters of Excommunication to their respective
Bishops; and, at the same time, in order to have them cut off from the
Communion of the whole Church, writ to the other Bishops, exhorting them
to follow his Example, and forbear communicating with their refractory
Brethren of _Asia_[279]. They all complied, to be sure, with the Desire
of the Head of the Church, who had Power to command; but, out of his
great Moderation, chose to exhort and advise! [Sidenote: _No Regard had
to his Excommunication._] No; not one followed his Example, or Advice;
not one paid any sort of Regard to his Letters, or shewed the least
Inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable Attempt; but,
on the contrary, they all joined, as _Eusebius_ assures us[280], in
sharply censuring and rebuking him, as a Disturber of the Peace of the
Church. [Sidenote: _He is censured by_ Irenæus.] Among the rest
_Irenæus_, then Bishop of _Lions_, writ him an excellent Letter, putting
him in mind of the Moderation of his Predecessors, and telling him, that
though he agreed with him in the Main of the Controversy, yet he could
not approve of his cutting off whole Churches, for the Observance of
Customs, which they had received from their Ancestors. He writ, at the
same time, to many other Bishops[281], no doubt, to dissuade them from
joining the Bishop of _Rome_. However that be, it is certain, that, by
this means, the Storm was laid, a Calm was restored to the Church, and
the _Asiatics_ allowed to follow undisturbed their antient
Practice[282]. But Pope _Victor_, says _Baronius_[283], excommunicated
the _Asiatics_, which he would never have ventured to do, had he not
known, that he had Power and Jurisdiction over them. [Sidenote: _Had no
Power over the_ Asiatics.] The Argument may be thus retorted against
him: The _Asiatics_ made no Account of his Excommunication; which they
would not have ventured to do, had they not known, that he had no Power
nor Jurisdiction over them. Besides, _Victor_ did not excommunicate
them, as that Word is now understood; that is, he did not cut them off
from the Communion of the Catholic Church; for all the other Bishops
continued to communicate with them, as they had done before; he only
separated himself from their Communion; which was no more than every
Bishop had Power to do. _Victor_ being thus baffled in his Attempt, his
Successors took care not to revive the Controversy; so that the
_Asiatics_ peaceably followed their antient Practice till the Council of
_Nice_, which, out of Complaisance to _Constantine the Great_, ordered
the Solemnity of _Easter_ to be kept every-where on the same Day, after
the Custom of _Rome_[284].

This Dispute happened, not in the Reign of _Commodus_, as we read in the
_Synodicon_[285], but in the Fourth Year of the Reign of _Severus_, as
St. _Jerom_ informs us[286], of Christ 196. [Sidenote: Victor _dies_.]
_Victor_, of whom we find nothing else in the Antients worthy of Notice,
died Five Years after[287], that is, in the Ninth of the Emperor
_Severus_, and in the End of 201. or the Beginning of 202. of Christ,
having governed the Church Ten Years. He is named, by St. _Jerom_, the
first among the Ecclesiastical Authors that wrote in _Latin_[288].
[Sidenote: _His Works._] He published a Piece, on the Controversy about
the Celebration of _Easter_, and some other Books on religious Subjects,
which were still extant in St. _Jerom_’s Time[289]. [Sidenote: _Pieces
falsly ascribed to him._] As for the Two Decretals that are ascribed to
him, and the Two Letters to _Desiderius_ and _Paracoda_, both Bishops of
_Vienne_, they are universally rejected[290]. [Sidenote: _He is
sainted._] The Church of _Rome_ has placed _Victor_ among her Saints;
and truly, his Attempt, however unsuccessful, to promote the Power and
extend the Jurisdiction of that See, deserved no less a Reward.

-----

Footnote 261:

  Vide Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.

Footnote 262:

  Epiph. hær. 54. c. 1. Euseb. l. v. c. 28.

Footnote 263:

  Euseb. ib.

Footnote 264:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 265:

  Tert. in Prax. c. 1.

Footnote 266:

  Bar. ad ann. 173. n. 4.

Footnote 267:

  Bell. de sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 8.

Footnote 268:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 23. 25. Socrat. l. 5. c. 21. Epiph. hær. 70. c. 10.

Footnote 269:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 270:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 271:

  Idem. ib. c. 20.

Footnote 272:

  Concil. per Labb. t. 1. p. 150.

Footnote 273:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 22. et 24.

Footnote 274:

  Hier. vir. ill. c. 45.

Footnote 275:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 276:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 277:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 278:

  Idem ib. Hier. vir. ill. c. 45.

Footnote 279:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. Socrat. l. 5. c. 22.

Footnote 280:

  Euseb. ib.

Footnote 281:

  Euseb. ib. et Socrat. l. 5. c. 22.

Footnote 282:

  Euseb. ib. Hier. vir. ill. c. 35. Phot. c. 120. Cypr. ep. 75. Anast.
  p. 445.

Footnote 283:

  Bar. ad ann. 198. n. 10.

Footnote 284:

  Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 18. Soz. l. 1. c. 16. Concil. l. 3. c. 18,
  19. p. 492.

Footnote 285:

  Concil. Labb. t. 1. p. 601.

Footnote 286:

  Hier. vir. ill. c. 43. et chron.

Footnote 287:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Hier. chron.

Footnote 288:

  Hier. de vir. ill. c. 34. 40.

Footnote 289:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 290:

  Pears. posth. p. 91, 92. Bosquet. l. 3. c. 5.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 SEVERUS,                     ZEPHYRINUS,                     MACRINUS,
 CARACALLA,          _Fourteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.         DIADUMENUS,
 GETA,                                                    HELIOGABALUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 201.  _A dreadful Persecution against the
Christians._]

In the first Year of the Pontificate of _Zephyrinus_, who succeeded
_Victor_, a dreadful Persecution was raised against the Christians by
the Emperor _Severus_, and carried on with great Cruelty in all Parts of
the Empire. _Zephyrinus_, however, had the good Luck to escape it, and
to see the Church, by the Death of that Prince, happily delivered from
the Evils, which the Rage of her foreign Enemies had brought upon her.
[Sidenote: Zephyrinus _opposes the_ Theodotian _Heretics_.] But her
domestic Enemies gave her no Respite; the _Theodotian_ Heretics
continued sowing, and not without Success, their pestilential Errors at
_Rome_. _Zephyrinus_, it seems, opposed them with great Vigour and Zeal;
for they reproached him, as we read in _Eusebius_[291], as the first who
had betrayed the Truth, by maintaining against them the Divinity of
_Christ_: hence he is ranked, by _Optatus_, with _Tertullian_,
_Victorinus_, &c. among those who have successfully defended the
Catholic Church[292]. _Baronius_, to extol _Zephyrinus_, ascribes to him
the first Condemnation of _Praxeas_[293], which was followed by a solemn
Retractation under his own Hand. But it was in _Africa_, and not at
_Rome_, that _Praxeas_ was condemned, as appeared plain to me, from the
Words of _Tertullian_[294], before I had seen either _Pamelius_ or
_Moreau_, who understood them in that Sense. _Praxeas_, as we have
observed above, had done an eminent Piece of Service to the Church of
_Rome_, by reclaiming Pope _Victor_ from the Heresy of _Montanus_: but
the Good he had done on that Occasion was over-balanced by the Mischief
his new Heresy occasioned both at _Rome_ and in _Africa_; for in both
Places he gained many Proselytes. [Sidenote: _The Heresy of_ Praxeas.]
He denied all Distinction of Persons in the Godhead, so that the Father
being, according to his Doctrine, the same Person with the Son, it was
he who took upon him human Nature, and suffered on the Cross; whence his
Followers were called _Patropassians_[295].

[Sidenote: Origen _at_ Rome.]

In the Pontificate of _Zephyrinus_, and, as _Eusebius_ seems to
insinuate, in the Beginning of the Reign of _Caracalla_, that is,
towards the Year 211 or 212. came to _Rome_ the celebrated _Origen_,
being desirous, as he himself declared, to see that Church, so venerable
for its Antiquity and Renown; but, after a very short Stay there, he
returned to _Alexandria_[296]. [Sidenote: _Famous Dispute, at_ Rome,
_between_ Caius _and_ Proclus.] About the same time happened, at _Rome_,
the famous Dispute between _Caius_, a Presbyter of that Church and
_Proclus_, a leading Man among the _Montanists_[297]. _Caius_ committed
to Writing the Reasons and Arguments on both Sides[298]: but that Piece
has not reached our Times, though it was well known to _Eusebius_, who
styles it a Dialogue[299] and likewise to _Theodoret_[300].

[Sidenote: Tertullian _falls off from the Church_.]

It was during the Pontificate of _Zephyrinus_ that _Tertullian_, the
great Defender of the Christian Religion, fell off from the Catholic
Church. His Fall, which was lamented by all the Faithful as a common
Loss, is ascribed, by St. _Jerom_, to the Envy and ill Usage he met with
from the _Roman_ Clergy[301]. [Sidenote: _The Titles of_ High  Pontiff,
_&c. whether,  and in what Sense,  given by_ Tertullian  _to the Bishop
of_  Rome.] But how ill soever he was used by them in those Days, he has
perhaps met with worse Treatment at their Hands in latter Times; for
they call upon him as an Evidence, to witness the Pope’s universal
Jurisdiction, and to confirm to him the haughty Titles, which he
assumes; but with how little Reason, will appear from the following
Relation: A Catholic Bishop had, by a public Declaration, admitted
Persons guilty of Adultery and Fornication to a Place among the
Penitents. As _Tertullian_ was a strict Observer of Rites and
Discipline, and a most zealous Asserter of the greatest Rigours of
Religion, he could not brook so much Moderation and Indulgence: and
therefore, in his Book _De Pudicitia_, which he wrote on that Occasion,
he extols the Severity of the antient Discipline, aggravates the
Greatness of those Offences, undertakes to confute the Arguments for
Remission and Indulgence; and, speaking of the above-mentioned
Declaration, he calls it _a peremptory Decree_, and styles the Bishop,
who made it, _high Pontiff_, and _Bishop of Bishops_[302]. Hence the
Advocates for the See of _Rome_ infer, that, even in those early Times,
such Titles were given to the Bishop of _Rome_, and that his Decrees
were even then deemed peremptory[303]. But in the first Place, it is
uncertain whether that Declaration was published by the Bishop of
_Rome_, or by some other great Bishop, perhaps of _Carthage_, of
_Alexandria_, or _Antioch_; for no Bishop is named by _Tertullian_. In
the second Place, it is evident from the Context, that, in the
above-mentioned Passage, _Tertullian_ speaks ironically; and
consequently all that can be inferred from thence is, that he gave those
Titles to the Catholic Bishop, whoever he was, by way of Derision; or if
the Bishop had assumed them in his Declaration, he took from thence
Occasion to expose his Vanity and Ambition. _Baronius_, and the
Flatterers of the Bishops of _Rome_, triumph in this Passage of
_Tertullian_; from which however nothing can be inferred in Favour of
that See, unless they prove, which they can never do, that the
above-mentioned Declaration or Decree was published by the Bishop of
_Rome_; that those Titles, which raise him above other Bishops, were
Part of the Decree; and lastly, that _Tertullian_ mentioned them as due
to him, and not by way of Sarcasm, ironically reflecting on his Pride
and Ambition.

As to the Actions of _Zephyrinus_, the Antients have left us quite in
the Dark; and we cannot depend on what we read in the modern Writers.
[Sidenote: Zephyrinus _not a Martyr_.] He governed about Seventeen
Years, and died in the first Year of _Heliogabalus_, and 218. of the
Christian Æra[304]. In the _Roman_ Martyrology he has a Place among the
Martyrs, which puts _Baronius_ himself to a Stand[305], since the Church
enjoyed a profound Tranquillity from the Death of _Severus_ to the End
of his Pontificate.

-----

Footnote 291:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.

Footnote 292:

  Opt. l. 1. c. 37.

Footnote 293:

  Bar. ad ann. 196. n. 20.

Footnote 294:

  Tert.in Prax. c. 1. p. 634.

Footnote 295:

  Caten. Græc, Patr. c. 53.

Footnote 296:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 14.

Footnote 297:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 14. Hier. vir. ill. c. 59.

Footnote 298:

  Idem ib. c. 20.

Footnote 299:

  Idem, l. 3. c. 31.

Footnote 300:

  Theod. hæret. fab. l. 3. c. 2.

Footnote 301:

  Hier. vir. ill. c. 53.

Footnote 302:

  Tert. de Pudic. c. 1.

Footnote 303:

  Bar. ad ann. 216. n. 5, 6, &c.

Footnote 304:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 21. & chron.

Footnote 305:

  Bar. ad ann. 221. n. 1, 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 HELIOGABALUS,                 CALLISTUS,            ALEXANDER SEVERUS.
                     _Fifteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 219.
]

_Zephyrinus_ was succeeded by _Callistus_, or _Callixtus_, as he is
styled by _Optatus_[306], and St. _Austin_[307]. In his Time the Church
enjoyed a long, happy, and uninterrupted Peace, as _Tertullian_ calls
it[308], which lasted from the Death of _Severus_ in 211. to the Reign
of _Maximinus_ in 235. as did also the State from the Death of
_Macrinus_ in 218. to the Year 233. [Sidenote: _The Emperor_ Alexander
_favourable to the Christians_.] _Alexander_, who succeeded
_Heliogabalus_ in 222. proved extremely favourable to the Christians,
and even allowed them, if I mistake not the Meaning of a profane Writer,
the free Exercise of their Religion[309]: it is at least certain, that
he adjudged to them, against the Tavern-keepers, a Piece of Ground,
which it is pretended they had usurped upon the Public, laying, when he
gave Sentence in their Favour, that it was better God should be served
on it in any Manner, than that it should be occupied by
Tavern-keepers[310]; which was giving them Leave to serve God on it
after their own Manner. On this Spot of Ground _Baronius_ supposes
_Callistus_ to have built a Church in Honour of the Virgin _Mary_, known
at present by the Name of _Santa Maria in Trastevere_, that is, _Saint
Mary beyond the Tyber_[311]. But the Pontifical of _Damasus_, upon which
alone he sounds his Opinion, deserves no Credit, as I shall shew in the
Life of that Pope. _Callistus_ is said by _Anastasius_[312] to have
inclosed a large Piece of Ground on the _Appian_ Way, to serve as a
Burying-place for the Christians. [Sidenote: Callistus_’s
Burying-place_.] This Ground is frequently mentioned in the
Martyrologies, and described at Length by _Arringhus_, who tells us,
that 174,000 Martyrs, and 46 Popes, were buried in it[313]. Though
_Alexander_ was of all the Pagan Emperors the most favourable and
indulgent to the Christians, as is evident from all the antient Writers,
both Christians and Pagans, yet he is represented in the Martyrologies,
and in the Acts of some Martyrs, especially of _Callistus_, to which
_Bede_ gave an intire Credit[314], as the most barbarous and inhuman
Tyrant that ever shed Christian Blood. [Sidenote: _The Acts of_
Callistus _deserve no Credit_.] If we reject these Acts, and we must
either reject them, or the Authority of the most unexceptionable Writers
among the Antients, we expunge at once above 300 Martyrs out of the
Catalogue of Saints worshiped to this Day by the Church of _Rome_, upon
the bare Authority of such Acts. [Sidenote: _Many Saints out to be
expunged out of the Catalogue._] Among these are the Consul _Palmatius_,
with his Wife, his Children, and Forty-two of his Domestics; the Senator
_Simplicius_, with his Wife, and Sixty-eight of his Domestics: and, what
will be an irreparable Loss, the so much celebrated St. _Cæcilia_, in
whose Honour Churches have been erected in every Christian Kingdom.
_Baronius_, not presuming on one Side to question the Emperor
_Alexander_’s Kindness to the Christians, which would be giving the Lye
to all the Antients, but, on the other, looking upon it as a Sacrilege
to rob the Church of so many valuable Reliques, ascribes the cruel Usage
they are supposed to have met with in that Prince’s Reign, not to him,
but to _Ulpian_ the celebrated Civilian, who flourished under him[315].
But in those Acts the Martyrs are said to have suffered unheard of
Torments, there minutely described, by the express Command of the
Emperor _Alexander_. Besides, could _Alexander_ be said to have favoured
the Christians, could the Christians be said to have enjoyed a happy
Tranquillity under him, had one of his Officers persecuted them with the
utmost Cruelty in his Name, and by his Authority? _Baronius_, not
remembring, it seems, that in this Place he had charged _Ulpian_ with
all the Cruelties against the Christians, supposes elsewhere[316]
several Martyrs to have suffered in the Reign of _Alexander_, after the
Death of _Ulpian_. _Bede_, 'tis true, has followed these Acts; but they
are not on that Account at all the more credible, since he often follows
Pieces which are now universally given up as supposititious. The very
first Words of these Acts are sufficient to make us suspect the Truth of
them; for they begin thus; _in the Time of_ Macrinus _and_
Alexander--How come these two Princes to be joined together? _Macrinus_
reigned with his Son _Diadumenus_, and _Heliogabalus_ between them and
_Alexander_. Soon after the Consul _Palmatius_ is said to have been
condemned without any Form of Judgment, without so much as being heard;
whereas _Herodian_ assures us, that _Alexander_ was a strict Observer of
the Laws; and that no Criminal was condemned in his Reign, but according
to the usual Course of Law, and by Judges of the greatest
Integrity[317]. _Callistus_, if we give Credit to his Acts, was kept a
long time Prisoner in a private House, where he was every Day cruelly
beaten by the Emperor _Alexander_’s Orders, and at last thrown headlong
out of the Window into a Well. [Sidenote: Callistus _not a Martyr_.] The
Acts are evidently fabulous, but _Callistus_ nevertheless is worshiped
among the Martyrs; and the Waters of the Well, which is to be seen at
_Rome_ in the Church that bears his Name, are said to cure all sorts of
Diseases to this Day. He governed the Church Five Years, and died in the
Latter-end of the Year 223[318]. the Third of the Emperor _Alexander_.
His Body is exposed to public Adoration on the Tenth of _May_, in the
Church of St. _Mary_, beyond the _Tyber_, at _Rome_[319] and in that of
our Lady at _Rheims_[320]. Two Decretals are ascribed to _Callistus_,
and likewise the Institution of the Ember-Weeks, but without the lean
Foundation.

-----

Footnote 306:

  Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 307:

  Aug. ep. 53.

Footnote 308:

  Tert. de cor. mil.

Footnote 309:

  Lamprid. in vit. Alex. p. 121.

Footnote 310:

  Idem ib. p. 131.

Footnote 311:

  Bar. ad ann. 224. n. 4, 5.

Footnote 312:

  Anast. in vit. Call.

Footnote 313:

  Arring. l. 3. c. 11.

Footnote 314:

  Bed. Martyr. 10 Maii, 14 Oct.

Footnote 315:

  Bar. ad ann. 226. n. 4.

Footnote 316:

  Idem ad ann. 232. n. 11.

Footnote 317:

  Herod. l. vi. p. 575. 588.

Footnote 318:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 21. & in chron.

Footnote 319:

  Bolland. 10. Maii, 498, 499.

Footnote 320:

  Arring. l. 2. c. 12. Theod. l. 4. c. 1, 2. 6. 8.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ALEXANDER.                     URBANUS,
                     _Sixteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 223.
            _The Acts of_ Urbanus _fabulous_.]

All I can find in the Antients concerning _Urban_, the Successor of
_Callistus_, is, that, during the whole Time of his Pontificate, both
Church and State enjoyed a profound Peace under the Emperor _Alexander_;
that he held the Chair near Seven Years, and died about the Middle of
the Year 230[321]. Great and wonderful Things are related of him in his
Acts, and in those of St. _Cecilia_, but such Acts[322] are evidently
fabulous, since, in Opposition to all the Antients, they represent the
Emperor _Alexander_ as a most cruel Persecutor of the Christian Name.
_Urban_ himself is supposed to have suffered under him, and placed
accordingly by the Church of _Rome_ among her Martyrs. His Body is now
worshiped in an Abbey of his Name in the Diocese of _Chalons_ on the
_Marne, and in the Church of St._ Cæcilia _at_ Rome[323].

-----

Footnote 321:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 26.

Footnote 322:

  Bed. Martyr. & Boll. 25 Maii.

Footnote 323:

  Eric. l. 1. c. 12. Bolland. 25 Maii.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ALEXANDER,                    PONTIANUS,                    MAXIMINUS.
                    _Seventeenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 230. ]

_Pontianus_ succeeded _Urban_ in 230. and governed, according to the
Pontifical of _Bucherius_[N4], Five Years, Two Months, and Seven Days;
that is, from the 22d of _July_ 230. to the 28th of _September_
235[324]. [Sidenote: Origen _deposed_.] In the Second Year of his
Pontificate, the famous _Origen_ was deposed and excommunicated by
_Demetrius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, and the Sentence approved of by most
other Bishops, especially by the Bishop of _Rome_, who assembled, it
seems, his Clergy on that Occasion: For what else could St. _Jerom_
mean, by telling us, that _Rome assembled her Senate against
Origen_[325]? [Sidenote: _The Persecution of_Maximinus.] The calm and
quiet Days, which the Church had for some Years enjoyed, especially
under _Alexander_, expired almost with the Pontificate of _Pontianus_;
for that excellent Prince being assassinated in the Month of _May_ 235.
_Maximinus_, who succeeded him, out of Hatred to him, began to persecute
with great Cruelty the Christians, whom he had so much favoured,
especially the Bishops[326]. [Sidenote: Pontianus _banished to_
Sardinia.] _Pontianus_ among the rest was banished _Rome_, and confined
to the unwholsome Island of _Sardinia_[327], where he died the same Year
on the 28th of _September_, but of what Kind of Death is not well
known[328].

-----

Footnote N4:

  This Pontifical, well known to _Cuspinian_, _F. Petau_, and other
  Chronologers, was published by _Bucherius_ the _Jesuit_, in 1633. with
  the _Paschal Cycle of Victorius_. It is a Catalogue of the Bishops of
  _Rome_, from the Foundation of that See to the Time of _Liberius_, who
  was chosen in 352. As the Election of _Liberius_ is marked, and not
  his Death, the Catalogue is supposed by some to have been written in
  his Time. His Election is marked thus; _Liberius fuit temporibus
  Constancii ex die_ xi. _Kalendas Junias in diem--a Consulibus
  Constantio_ V. _& Constantio Cæsare_--By _Constantius Cæsar_ is meant
  _Gallus_, the Son of _Julius Constantius_, who, by his Father
  _Constantius Chlorus_, was Half-brother to _Constantine the Great_.
  _Gallus_ was raised by the Emperor _Constantius_ to the Dignity of
  _Cæsar_ in the Year 351. on which Occasion he gave him his own
  Name[N4.1], and the following Year took him for his Collegue in his
  Fifth Consulship, as appears from _Idatius_, from _Prosper_, and from
  the _Alexandrian_ Chronicle. The above-mentioned Pontifical is very
  faulty in the Times preceding the Pontificate of _Pontianus_, who was
  chosen in 230. nay, if we believe _Bucherius_, _Anicetus_,
  _Eleutherius_, and _Zephyrinus_, are omitted in it. I said, _If we
  believe_ Bucherius; for _Bollandus_, another _Jesuit_, who perused the
  same Manuscript, assures us, that he found there the Names of those
  three Bishops, which _Bucherius_ assures us were not to be found
  there[N4.2]. Which of the two _Jesuits_ is the honester is hard to
  determine in any Case, but impossible in this, unless the original
  Manuscript should be produced, which both perused. F. _Pagi_, the
  _Franciscan_, seems to favour _Bucherius_; for he complains of
  _Bollandus_ for interpolating the Manuscript, and not publishing it
  with all its Faults and Charms, as _Bucherius_ had done. But then he
  does not tell us, that he had seen the original Manuscript.
  _Bollandus_ on the other hand complains of _Bucherius_ for
  undervaluing such an unvaluable Piece; and settles by it his whole
  Chronology of the Popes, pretending it to have been sent by Pope
  _Damasus_ to St. _Jerom_[N4.3]. But for this the only Ground he has
  are some Letters from _Damasus_ to St. _Jerom_, and from _Jerom_ to
  _Damasus_, which, by the best Judges, are all thought supposititious.
  But even allowing it to have been sent by _Damasus_ to St. _Jerom_,
  that ought not to recommend it more to our Esteem than it did to his;
  and he seems to have paid very little Regard to it: for in his Book of
  _Illustrious Men_, which he wrote after the Death of _Damasus_, he
  places _Clement_ after _Anacletus_, though that Pontifical puts
  _Anacletus_ after _Clement_[N4.4]. What I have hitherto said is to be
  understood with respect to the Times preceding the Pontificate of
  _Pontianus_; for, from his Time, the Pontifical of _Bucherius_ is
  almost quite exact to the End, that is, to the Election of _Liberius_;
  and the more exact, the nearer it comes to his Time. I said _almost_,
  for it is not even thenceforth free from all Faults; but it has fewer
  than any other antient Record that has reached us; and it is on this
  Consideration that, from the Time of _Pontianus_, I have preferred it
  to all others. With respect to his Predecessors, I have adopted the
  Chronology of _Eusebius_, where it does not appear that he was
  mistaken; for that he was mistaken in some Points, is but too plain;
  and, for aught we know, he may have been so in many others. But as in
  those dark Times we have no authentic Records, no indisputable
  Authorities, to depend on, I thought it more adviseable to tread in
  the Footsteps of so famous and antient a Writer, than, by attempting
  to open a new Way, perplex and confound both myself and the Reader, as
  _Pearson_, _Dodwell_, and _Pagi_, have done. And it was not, I must
  own, without some Concern, that I found a Man of Dr. _Pearson_’s
  Learning reduced, by undervaluing the Authority of _Eusebius_, to take
  for his Guide a Writer of no Authority at all, _viz._ _Eutychius_ of
  _Alexandria_, who flourished so late as the Tenth Century, and is only
  famous for his Blunders, even in what relates to his own Church. To
  the Pontifical were annexed, in the same antient Manuscript, several
  other small Pieces; _viz._ 1. A List of the Consuls from the Year 205.
  to 354. with the Epacts, Bissextile Years, and the Day of the Week,
  with which each Year began. There are some Mistakes in the Epacts, but
  the rest is done with great Exactness. 2. Another List of the Consuls
  and Governors of _Rome_, from the Year 254. to 354. 3. A short
  Necrology of the Bishops of _Rome_, in which are marked, according to
  the Order of the Months, the Day on which each of them died, and the
  Place where he was buried. It begins with _Lucius_, and ends with
  _Julius_. In this List, _Sixtus_ II. and _Marcellus_ are omitted; the
  latter probably by a Mistake of the Transcriber, confounding him with
  his Predecessor _Marcellinus_; and the former, perhaps, because he is
  set down in the Calendar of Martyrs annexed to the Necrology. These
  Pieces, as well as the Pontifical, all end at the Year 354. whence
  Cardinal _Noris_[N4.5] and others are of Opinion, that they were
  written that Year.

Footnote N4.1:

  Aurel. Vict. p. 518. Socr. l. 2. c. 28.

Footnote N4.2:

  Bolland. Apr. t. 1. p. 22-24.

Footnote N4.3:

  Bolland. ib. p. 3. n. 10.

Footnote N4.4:

  Hier. de vir. illustr. c. 15.

Footnote N4.5:

  Fast. consular. p. 23.

-----

-----

Footnote 324:

  Bolland. April. t. 1. p. 25.

Footnote 325:

  Ruf. in Hier. l. 2. p. 225.

Footnote 326:

  Oros. l. 7. c. 19.

Footnote 327:

  Vide Hallo. vit. Orig. p. 20.

Footnote 328:

  Vide Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 25.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 MAXIMINUS.                     ANTERUS,
                     _Eighteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 235. ]

_Anterus_, the Successor of _Pontianus_, presided only One Month and Ten
Days, and died on the 3d of _January_ 236[329]. Some modern Writers
place one _Cyriacus_ between him and _Pontianus_; but their Opinion,
founded on the Authority of the fabulous Acts of St. _Ursula_, is
sufficiently confuted by _Eusebius_[330], _Optatus_[331], St.
_Augustin_[332], and _Nicephorus_[333], who all Name _Anterus_ as the
immediate Successor of _Pontianus_. [Sidenote: Anterus _probably dies a
Martyr_.] The Shortness of his Pontificate, and the cruel Persecution
carried on by _Maximinus_, give us room to believe, that he died a
Martyr, which Title is given him in the Martyrologies of St. _Jerom_ and
_Bede_[334].

-----

Footnote 329:

  Boll. pont. p. 28-32.

Footnote 330:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 22.

Footnote 331:

  Opt. contr. Par. l. 2.

Footnote 332:

  Aug. eg. 165.

Footnote 333:

  Niceph. chron.

Footnote 334:

  Vide Flor. p. 995-997.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 MAXIMINUS,                    FABIANUS,                        PHILIP,
 GORDIAN,            _Nineteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome              DECIUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 236. ]

_Fabianus_, called by the _Greeks_, _Fabius_, by _Eutychius_[335], and
in the Chronicle of _Alexandria_, _Flavianus_[336], was, according to
_Eusebius_, miraculously chosen for Successor to _Anterus_; for he tells
us, [Sidenote: _His miraculous Election._] That the People and Clergy
being assembled in order to proceed to a new Election, a Dove,
unexpectedly appearing, settled, to the great Surprize of all present,
on the Head of _Fabianus_, who was not so much as thought of, being but
a Layman, as appears from the Account, and not an Inhabitant of _Rome_,
but just then come out of the Country. At this Prodigy the whole
Assembly cried out with one Voice, Fabianus _is our Bishop_; and,
crouding round him, placed him without further Delay on the Episcopal
Throne.--Thus _Eusebius_[337]: and to his Account is owing the modern
Notion, that the Pope is always chosen by the Holy Ghost. [Sidenote:
_Not all popes thus chosen._] _What happened in the Election of St._
Fabianus (says Cardinal _Cusani_) _happens in the Election of every
Pope. 'Tis true we do not see the Holy Ghost with our corporeal Eyes;
but we may and must see him, if we are not quite blind, with those of
the Mind. In vain therefore, O eminent Electors, are all your Intrigues;
the Person, on whose Head the heavenly Dove is pleased to perch, will,
in spite of them, be chosen[338]._ In the Sequel of this History, we
shall see such Monsters of Iniquity elected, and by such scandalous
Practices, that to imagine the Holy Ghost any-ways concerned in the
Election would be absolute Blasphemy.

[Sidenote: Fabianus _worthy of the Dignity to which he was raised_.]

As for _Fabianus_, he seems to have been well worthy of the Post to
which he was raised; for the famous Bishop of _Carthage_, St. _Cyprian_,
in Answer to the Letter, wherein the Clergy of _Rome_ gave him an
Account of the glorious Death of their Bishop, calls him _an excellent
Man_; and adds, that _the Glory of his Death had answered the Purity,
Holiness, and Integrity of his Life_[339]. [Sidenote: _Some of
his Regulations._] From the Pontifical of _Bucherius_ we learn, that he
appointed Seven Deacons over the Fourteen Regions, or Wards, into which
_Rome_ was then divided[340], to take care of the Poor, says
_Baronius_[341]. We read in other more modern Pontificals, that he named
Seven Subdeacons to overlook the Seven Notaries, who are supposed to
have been first appointed by Pope _Clement_, and whose Province it was
to commit to Writing the Actions and Speeches of the Martyrs. It is
manifest from St. _Cyprian_[342], as Dr. _Pearson_ well observes, that
in the Time of _Cornelius_, the Successor of _Fabianus_, the Church of
_Rome_ had Seven Subdeacons, to whom St. _Cyprian_ recommended the
strictest Exactness in marking the Day of each Martyr’s Death[343]. As
for taking down their Speeches, which some seem to object to, the Art of
writing in Short-hand was well known in those Times. _Eusebius_ tells
us, that by _Tiro_, _Cicero_’s Freed-man, were first invented certain
Marks, which stood not only for whole Words, but intire Sentences[344].
But this Invention is, by _Dio_, ascribed to _Mæcenas_, who ordered his
Freed-man _Aquila_ to make them known to all who cared to learn
them[345]. Of their wonderful Quickness in writing, with the Help of
these Marks, _Martial_ takes notice, in one of his Distichs, saying, How
fast soever the Tongue may run, the Hand runs faster[346].

[Sidenote: _Said to have converted the Emperor_ Philip.]

_Baronius_[347] and _Bollandus_[348] ascribe to _Fabianus_ the
Conversion of the Emperor _Philip_, and his Son; adding, from the Acts
of _Pontius_ the Martyr, that he pulled down the great Temple of the
_Romans_, that he dashed to Pieces their Idols, and converted the whole
City. What a Pity that such wonderful Feats should have been passed over
in Silence by _Eusebius_, and all the Antients! As for the Conversion of
_Philip_, and his Son, it is questioned by many, and very justly, the
Silence of _Eusebius_ alone being an unanswerable Evidence against it;
but all agree, that if he was instructed and converted by _Fabianus_, he
did no great Honour either to his Instructor, or his Religion. In the
Latter-end of the Year 249, the Emperor _Philip_ being killed by the
rebellious Soldiery at _Verona_, _Decius_, who was raised to the Empire
in his room, began his Reign with the most dreadful Persecution that had
ever yet afflicted the Church. [Sidenote: Fabianus _martyred in the
Persecution of_ Decius.] _Fabianus_ was one of the first that fell a
Victim to the implacable Hatred this Emperor bore to the Christian Name.
He was put to Death on the 20th of _January_ 250. while _Decius_ was
Consul the second time, together with _Gratus_, after having governed
the Church Fourteen Years, one Month, and Ten Days[349].


[Sidenote: _The See vacant._  Year of Christ 250. ]

The Death of _Fabianus_ was followed by a Vacancy, which lasted at least
Sixteen Months, the Christians being either imprisoned, or so dispersed,
that they could not assemble to chuse a new Bishop. During this
Interval, the Clergy, that is, the Presbyters and Deacons, took upon
themselves the Care and Administration of all Ecclesiastical Matters;
and, being informed by _Clementius_, Subdeacon of the Church of
_Carthage_, who came to _Rome_ about _Easter_ in 250. that St. _Cyprian_
had been obliged, by the Fury of the Persecution, to withdraw for a
while from his See, they writ to that Clergy, exhorting them to follow
their Example[350]. Several excellent Letters passed on this Occasion
between the Clergy of _Rome_, and St. _Cyprian_ and his Clergy,
especially concerning the Method they were to hold with the _Lapsed_;
that is, with those who had either obtained of the Pagan Magistrates
Protections, or _Libels of Safety_, whence they were called
_Libellatici_, or had actually sacrificed to Idols, and were thence
named _Sacrificati_. In one of these Letters, the _Roman_ Clergy, after
having maturely examined so material a Point, and advised not only with
the neighbouring Bishops, but with others, who, from the distant
Provinces, had fled for Concealment to _Rome_, declare it was their
Opinion, [Sidenote: _The Opinion of the_ Roman _Clergy concerning
the Lapsed_.] That such of the Lapsed as were at the Point of Death,
should, upon an unfeigned Repentance, be admitted to the Communion of
the Church, but that the Cause of others should be put off till the
Election of a new Bishop, when, together with him, with other Bishops,
with the Priests, Deacons, Confessors, and Laymen, who had stood firm,
they should take their Case into Consideration; adding, that a Crime
committed by many ought not to be judged by one; and that a Decree could
not be binding without the Consent and Approbation of many[351].
[Sidenote: _They disown the Pope’s Infallibility._] Could they in more
plain and express Terms disown the Infallibility of the Pope their
Bishop? Could they upon mature Deliberation write thus, and at the same
time believe his Judgment an infallible Rule? Such a Proposition would,
in these Days, be deemed heretical; and no Wonder; the Pope’s
Infallibility must be maintained at all Events; and to maintain it is
impossible, without condemning, as heretical, the Doctrine taught by the
Church in the first and purest Ages.

-----

Footnote 335:

  Eutych. p. 384.

Footnote 336:

  Chron. Al. p. 630

Footnote 337:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 29.

Footnote 338:

  Card. Cus. de meth. consistorii, c. 7. p. 85.

Footnote 339:

  Cypr. ep. 4. & 31.

Footnote 340:

  Buch. cycl. 271.

Footnote 341:

  Bar. ad ann. 112. n. 9.

Footnote 342:

  Cyp. ep. 37.

Footnote 343:

  Pears. posth. p. 19.

Footnote 344:

  Euseb. in chron.

Footnote 345:

  Dio Olymp. 193. ann. 4.

Footnote 346:

  Mart. l. 14.

Footnote 347:

  Bar. ann. 246. n. 9.

Footnote 348:

  Boll. 20. Jan. p. 253.

Footnote 349:

  Buch. cycl. p. 267.

Footnote 350:

  Cypr. ep. 3.

Footnote 351:

  Idem ep. 31.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DECIUS,                       CORNELIUS,                       GALLUS.
                     _Twentieth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.


[Sidenote: Year of Christ 251. ]

After the See had been vacant for the Space of Sixteen Months,
_Cornelius_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_, was at last
elected[352], on the 4th of _June_ 251. according to the most probable
Opinion[353]. [Sidenote: _The Character of_ Cornelius _by St._ Cyprian.]
He was, according to St. _Cyprian_[354], a Man of an unblemished
Character, and, on account of his peaceable Temper, his great Modesty,
his Integrity, and many other eminent Virtues, well worthy of the
Dignity to which he was raised. He did not attain at once, says the same
Writer, to the Height of the Priesthood, but after he had passed through
all the inferior Degrees, agreeably to the Discipline of the Church. He
was so far from using Intrigues, from intruding himself by Violence, as
some have done, that Violence was necessary to make him accept the
Dignity offered him. He was ordained Bishop, continues St. _Cyprian_, by
some of our Collegues, who, being then at _Rome_, conformed to the
Judgment of the whole People and Clergy[355]. As _Decius_ was still
alive, who had declared, that he had rather bear with a Competitor to
his Crown, than with a Bishop of _Rome_[356], the Christians, in all
Likelihood, laid hold of the Opportunity, which the Revolt of _Valens_
gave them, to chuse a new Bishop; for this very Year _Julius Valens_
revolting, caused himself to be proclaimed Emperor in _Rome_[357]; and
though he held the Empire but a very short time, yet his Revolt might
divert _Decius_ for a while from persecuting the Christians.

[Sidenote: Novatian]

Though _Cornelius_ was chosen by the unanimous Voice of the People and
Clergy, yet _Novatian_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_, who aspired
to the same Dignity, not only refused to acknowlege him; but having
gained a considerable Party among the People, Five Presbyters, and some
Confessors, he wrote in their Name and his own to St. _Cyprian_, and no
doubt to many other Bishops, laying heinous Crimes to the Charge of
_Cornelius_; namely, his having sued for a Protection from the Pagan
Magistrates, which was ranking him among the _Libellatici_, who were
excluded from all Dignities and Employments in the Church. St. _Cyprian_
having received this Letter, and at the same time one from _Cornelius_,
acquainting him with his Election, as was customary in those Times among
Bishops, he caused the one to be read in a full Assembly of the People
and Clergy, but suppressed the other, looking upon it as a scandalous
Libel[358]. [Sidenote: _St._ Cyprian _calls a Council_,] However, to
prevent the Calumnies and false Reports that might be spread abroad by
_Novatian_ and his Partisans, he assembled a Council of all the Bishops
of his Province, who, hearing of the Schism in the Church of _Rome_,
resolved to send thither two of their Body, who should carefully inform
themselves of what had passed in the late Election, and on their Return
make a faithful Report of all they had learnt. Pursuant to this
Resolution, _Caldonius_ and _Fortunatus_, Two _African_ Bishops, were
dispatched to _Rome_ with Letters from the Council to the Clergy of that
City, and to the Bishops who had been present at the Ordination of
_Cornelius_. The Bishops no sooner received these Letters than they
answered them, assuring their Brethren in _Africa_, that _Cornelius_ had
been lawfully chosen; and at the same time commending him as a Person,
on account of his extraordinary Piety, and exemplary Life, most worthy
of the Dignity to which he had been raised. [Sidenote: _which
acknowleges_ Cornelius.] Their Testimony was soon after confirmed by
_Caldonius_ and _Fortunatus_ returning from _Rome_, and like wise by
_Stephanius_ and _Pompeius_, Two _African_ Bishops, who had assisted at
the Ordination of _Cornelius_; so that he was universally acknowleged
all over _Africa_[359].

The _African_ Bishops no sooner acknowleged _Cornelius_ than they
acquainted him with the Resolutions, which they had taken in their late
Council, with respect to the Lapsed. [Sidenote: _Resolutions of
the Council of_ Africa _concerning the Lapsed_.] The Substance of these
was, That such as had yielded to the Fury of the Persecution ought not
to be abandoned, lest, giving themselves up to Despair, they should fall
into a total Apostasy; but should be re-admitted to the Union of the
Church upon a sincere Repentance, and after a long Penance; that the
Time of their Penance should be shortened, or prolonged, according to
the Nature of their Crimes; that is, the _Libellatici_ should have a
shorter Time assigned them; and the _Sacrificati_, called also
_Thurificati_, who had actually offered Sacrifice, or Frankincense, to
Idols, should not be admitted till they had expiated their Offence by a
very long Penance; but that both the _Libellatici_ and _Sacrificati_
should be taken in, before the Time of their Penance was expired, if at
the Point of Death, or even thought to be in Danger[360]. As to fallen
Bishops, they were to be dealt with in the same Manner; and, after due
Penance, or, as it is sometimes called, Satisfaction, be admitted only
in a Lay Capacity[361]. _Cornelius_ did not, upon the Receipt of these
Determinations or Decrees, step into his oracular Chair, and thence, as
an infallible Judge, condemn or approve them. Such arbitrary Proceedings
would not have been well relished by the Bishops of _Africa_, nor even
by his own Clergy, who not long before had declared, That _a Decree
could not be binding without the Consent and Approbation of many_.
[Sidenote: _Which are approved by the Council of_ Rome.] He therefore
acted on this Occasion as St. _Cyprian_ had done, as other Bishops did
afterwards; that is, he assembled a Council, which _Eusebius_ calls _a
great Council_[362]; for it consisted of Sixty Bishops, and a great
Number of Priests, Deacons, and Laymen, who, in those Times, were
admitted to all Councils[363]. By this Venerable Assembly were the
Decrees of the Council of _Africa_ examined and approved, and then sent
to be in like manner examined and approved by other Bishops, till the
whole Church had agreed to them[364].

[Sidenote: Novatian _excommunicated_.]

At the Council of _Rome_ assisted among other Presbyters _Novatian_: but
as he maintained, in Opposition to the whole Assembly, that the Lapsed
were to be admitted upon no Terms or Satisfaction whatsoever, but should
be left to the Divine Tribunal, he was himself cut off from that
Communion, which with an invincible Obstinacy he denied to others[365].
Provoked at this Sentence, he readily gave Ear to the Insinuations of
_Novatus_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Carthage_, who had fled from
thence to _Rome_, to avoid the Sentence of Excommunication, with which
he was threatened by St. _Cyprian_, and the other Bishops of _Africa_,
for his scandalous Doctrine, and irregular Practices[366]. _Pacianus_
paints him in the blacked Colours: [Sidenote: Novatus _his
Wicked ness_.] He stripped the Orphans, says he, plundered the Widows of
the Church of _Carthage_, and appropriated to himself the Money
belonging to the Poor and the Church[367]: He turned his Father out of
Doors, and let him die of Hunger in the Streets, and would not even be
at the Trouble of burying him after his Death. With a Kick in the Belly
he made his Wife miscarry, and bring forth a dead Child: whence
_Pacianus_ calls him a Traitor, an Assassin, the Murderer of his Father
and Child[368]. As for his Doctrine, he held, while at _Carthage_,
Tenets diametrically opposite to those he taught at _Rome_: for, at
_Carthage_, he was for admitting to the Communion of the Church not only
the Lapsed, but all other Sinners, let their Crimes be ever so heinous,
without any Sort of Penance; and, at _Rome_, for excluding them, let
their Penance be ever so long, let their Repentance be ever so
sincere[369]. At _Carthage_ he found _Felicissimus_, of whom I shall
speak hereafter, inclined to Lenity; and _Novatian_, at _Rome_, to
Severity: and therefore, as he was a Man of great Vanity, and no
Principles, he suited himself to the different Tempers of such as he
judged the most capable of raising him. [Sidenote: _He gains
many Followers, and some Confessors, to the Party of_ Novatian.] At
_Rome_, by a Pretence to an uncommon Sanctity and Severity, he gained a
great many Followers, and among them some Confessors lately delivered
out of Prison, from whom he extorted Letters directed to _Novatian_,
wherein they consented to the Ordination of the said _Novatian_. In
virtue of these Letters he was accordingly ordained, some say in
_Rome_[370], others in a neighbouring Village[371], by Three Bishops
sent for by _Novatus_ out of the Country for that Purpose, and quite
unacquainted with his Views. [Sidenote: Novatian _the first_ Anti-pope.]
Being thus ordained Bishop, he was set up by the Party against
_Cornelius_, whom they charged with relaxing the Discipline of the
Church, and communicating with the Lapsed, especially with one
_Trophimus_. This St. _Cyprian_ calls a false and groundless Charge;
for, as to _Trophimus_, though he was in the Number of the
_Thurificati_, that is, though he had offered Frankinsense to Idols, and
even persuaded his Flock (for he was a Presbyter, if not a Bishop) to
follow his Example, yet he had sufficiently atoned for his Crime, by a
sincere Repentance, by a long Penance, and, above all, by bringing back
his People with him, who would not have returned without him[372]. As
for the others, 'tis true, he communicated with some who had not
fulfilled the Time of Penance assigned them, but such only as, being
admitted at the Point of Death, had afterwards recovered; which can no
otherwise be avoided, says St. _Cyprian_[373], but by killing those to
whom we granted the Peace of the Church, when we apprehended them to be
in Danger. _Novatian_ having thus, by a pretended Zeal for the
Discipline of the Church, and the artful Insinuations of _Novatus_,
seduced a great many at _Rome_, who styled themselves the _Cathari_,
[Sidenote: _He acquaints the other Churches with his Ordination._] that
is, the pure, undefiled Party; he wrote in their and his own Name to the
other Churches, acquainting them with his Ordination, exhorting them not
to communicate with the Lapsed upon any Terms, and bitterly complaining
of the scandalous Lenity and Remisness of _Cornelius_[374]. At the same
time _Cornelius_ wrote to the other Bishops, giving them a faithful
Account of all that had happened at _Rome_, especially of the
uncanonical Ordination of _Novatian_. However, the Letters of
_Novatian_, signed by several Confessors, who were greatly respected in
those Days, made no small Impression on _Antonianus_ an _African_
Bishop, and _Fabius_ Bishop of _Antioch_[375], but quite gained over to
the Party _Marcianus_ Bishop of _Arles_[376]. [Sidenote: _His Deputies
rejected and excommunicated in_ Africa.] The other Bishops declared all
to a Man for _Cornelius_, especially St. _Cyprian_, and those of his
Province, who, being assembled in a Council when the Deputies of
_Novatian_ arrived, excommunicated without farther Examination both him
and them[377]; and well they might, since they had taken so much Pains
to inform themselves of the Lawfulness of _Cornelius_’s Election, as we
have related above. The Deputies, though thus rejected with Scorn and
Disgrace by the Council, did not abandon the Enterprize, but proselyting
from Town to Town, nay, from House to House, inveigled a great many,
under colour of communicating with the Confessors[378]. [Sidenote: _St._
Cyprian_endeavours to reclaim the Confessors_.] St. _Cyprian_
therefore, whose Zeal was not confined within the Bounds, however
extensive, of _Africa_, _Numidia_, and the Two _Mauritania_’s, to
withdraw this main Support from the Party, writ a short but nervous
Letter to the Confessors, deploring the Fault they had committed, by
consenting to the unlawful Ordination of _Novatian_, and exhorting them
to return with all Speed to the Catholic Church[379]. _Dionysius_ Bishop
of _Alexandria_ writ them a pathetic Letter to the same Purpose[380];
and these Letters had at last the desired Effect; but not before
_Novatus_, who had drawn them into the Schism, left _Rome_; which
happened on the following Occasion:

[Sidenote: Novatian _sends new Deputies into_ Africa.]

_Novatian_, being informed that the Deputies he had sent into _Africa_
were every-where rejected and despised, resolved to send others, whom he
judged, on account of their Rank and Authority, more capable of
promoting his Design[381]. The Persons he pitched upon were
_Nicostratus_, _Novatus_, _Evaristus_, _Primus_, and _Dionysius_. Of the
Two last I find no farther Mention made in History; of _Novatus_ I have
spoken above; and as for _Evaristus_ and _Nicostratus_, the former was a
Bishop, and is supposed to have been one of the Three that ordained
_Novatian_. _Nicostratus_ was a Deacon of the Church of _Rome_[382], and
had been imprisoned with the Two Presbyters _Moses_ and _Maximus_, for
the Confession of the Faith[383], which intitled him to a Place among
the Confessors.[Sidenote: _Their Characters._] To these Three St.
_Cyprian_ ascribes the excellent Letter, as he styles it, which the
Confessors of _Rome_ writ to those of _Carthage_[384]. He was likewise
one of the Confessors, who writ to St. _Cyprian_ himself, as appears
from the Title of that admirable Letter, which runs thus: _The
Presbyters_ Moses _and_ Maximus, _the Deacons_ Nicostratus _and_
Ruffinus, _and the other Confessors, who are with them, to Pope_
Cyprian[385]. [Sidenote: _The Name of Pope antiently common to all
Bishops._] We may here observe, by the way, that the Name of _Pope_,
which signifies no more than _Father_, was antiently common to all
Bishops; but was afterwards, by a special Decree of _Gregory_ VII.
appropriated to the Bishop of _Rome_. To return to _Nicostratus_, the
Character given him by St. _Cyprian_ and _Cornelius_, bespeaks him quite
unworthy of being joined with the others, who are named in that Letter,
and were all Men of great Piety: for he had squandered away the Money
belonging to the Church, that was lodged in his Hands, embezzled that of
the Widows and Orphans, and defrauded a Lady, who had trusted him with
the Management of her Affairs[386].

[Sidenote: _The Deputies are everywhere rejected in_ Africa.]

These new Deputies met with no better a Reception than the former had
done: for St. _Cyprian_, being informed of their Departure from _Rome_,
by the Confessor _Augendus_[387], and soon after of their Characters by
the Acolyte _Nicephorus_, both sent, for that Purpose, by
_Cornelius_[388], he acquainted therewith the other Catholic Bishops,
who, upon that Intelligence, rejected them with the greatest
Indignation, as Apostates, and Firebrands of Sedition. Hereupon the
Deputies having, by the Means and Contrivance of _Novatus_, procured
some of their Party to be ordained Bishops, and _Nicostratus_ among the
rest, they named them to the Sees of the Catholic Bishops; which bred
great Confusion and Disorder in the Church, it being a difficult Matter
for the Bishops in the distant Provinces to distinguish between their
lawful Brethren and the Intruders, and consequently to know whom they
should admit to, and whom they should exclude from their Communion. But
against this Evil a Remedy was found by St. _Cyprian_, and the other
_African_ Bishops, who, to arm him against the Craft and Arts of those
subtle Impostors, transmitted to him a List of all the Catholic Bishops
of that Province[389].

[Sidenote: _The Confessors return to the Communion of the Church._]

The Storm, which _Novatus_ had raised in _Rome_, was laid by his
Departure; for he was no sooner gone, than the Confessors, whom he had
seduced, _viz._ _Maximus_, _Urbanus_, _Sidonius_, and _Macarius_,
signified to _Cornelius_ their eager Desire of quitting his Party, and
returning to the Communion of the Church. _Cornelius_ questioned, at
first, their Sincerity; but, being convinced of it at last, he assembled
his Clergy, not caring to trust to his own Judgment, in order to advise
with them, in what manner he should proceed, in the present Case. At
this Council assisted, besides the _Roman_ Clergy, Five Bishops, who
either happened to be then at _Rome_; or, on this Occasion, had been
invited thither by _Cornelius_. They were scarce met, when the
Confessors, attended by a great Croud, appeared before them, testifying,
with a Flood of Tears, the Sincerity of their Repentance, and begging
they would forget their part criminal Conduct. [Sidenote: _How
received._] The Council did not think it adviseable to come to any
Resolution, till they had acquainted the People with the Request of the
Confessors; which they no sooner did, than the People flocked to the
Place, and, not upbraiding, but embracing, with Tears of Joy, their
retrieved Brethren, and with the same Tenderness as if they had been
just then delivered out of Prison, pointed out to the Council the Method
they were to pursue. Accordingly _Cornelius_, having, with the
Approbation of the Council, made them renounce the Errors of _Novatian_,
and acknowlege him for the only lawful Bishop of _Rome_, readmitted
them, without farther Satisfaction, to the Communion of the Church[390].
From this Account I should imagine, that those who accompanied the
Confessors, at their first appearing before the Council, were
_Novatians_, whom they had brought back with them; but I dare not affirm
it, since St. _Cyprian_, in his Answer to _Cornelius_, speaks only of
the Four above-mentioned Confessors. [Sidenote: Cornelius
_acquaints St._ Cyprian _with their Return_.] The Confessors being thus
returned, to the inexpressible Joy of the whole People, _Cornelius_,
impatient to impart the good News to St. _Cyprian_, writ to him, as soon
as the Council broke up, to acquaint him with what had happened, and
invite him to partake of the common Joy, to which he had so much
contributed[391]. With this Letter _Nicephorus_ the Acolyte embarked,
without Delay, for _Africa_; and thence returned soon after with an
Answer, wherein St. _Cyprian_ assured _Cornelius_, that, the Return of
the Confessors had caused an universal Joy in _Africa_, both for their
Sake, and because it might open the Eyes of many, and prove in the End
the Ruin of the schismatic Party[392]. The Confessors themselves writ to
St. _Cyprian_, upon their Return[393], who immediately answered
them[394]; and, in all Likelihood, to the other chief Bishops of the
Church; since _Eusebius_ informs us, that _Dionysius_, Bishop of
_Alexandria_, writ twice to them after their Return[395]. [Sidenote: _In
what manner_ Novatian _endeavoured to keep the rest steady_.]In the mean
time _Novatian_, seeing great Numbers, moved by the Example of the
Confessors, daily fall off from his Party, to keep the rest steady by
the most sacred Ties, used, in administring the Eucharist, to hold the
Hands of those who received it, with the holy Bread in them, between
his, and oblige them to swear, _by the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ_, that they would never abandon him, nor return to
_Cornelius_[396].

[Sidenote: _A Schism in the Church of_ Carthage.]

As the Church of _Rome_ was rent by the Schism of _Novatian_, so was the
Church of _Carthage_ by that of _Felicissimus_; and as the former, upon
his being excommunicated by _Cornelius_, and the Council of _Rome_, had
recourse to St. _Cyprian_, in like manner the latter, being cut off from
the Communion of the Church by St. _Cyprian_, and the Council of
_Carthage_, had recourse to _Cornelius_. But as the Doctrine of
_Felicissimus_, though diametrically opposite to that of _Novatian_, was
equally repugnant to the Catholic Truth, and to the Discipline
established in the Church, as I have observed above, he was at first
rejected by _Cornelius_, with great Steadiness and Resolution. But the
Bishop of _Rome_ had, at last, been frightened into a Compliance, had he
not been animated and encouraged by St. _Cyprian_: for the Followers of
_Felicissimus_ having, in Imitation of the _Novatians_, appointed one of
their own Faction, named _Fortunatus_, Bishop of _Carthage_,
_Felicissimus_ took upon himself to carry to _Cornelius_ the Letters of
the new and Third Bishop of that City. Accordingly he set out for
_Rome_, attended by a Troop of seditious, desperate, and abandoned Men,
says St. _Cyprian_[397]. _Cornelius_ rejected them at first with great
Firmness, and immediately acquainted St. _Cyprian_ with what had passed;
but _Felicissimus_ threatening to read publicly the Letters he had
brought, if _Cornelius_ did not receive them, and to discover many
scandalous Things, he was not a little intimidated. He therefore writ a
second Letter to St. _Cyprian_, but betrayed in it a great deal of Fear
and Weakness: however, the excellent Letter, which St. _Cyprian_ writ in
Answer to his, inspired him with new Vigour, and kept him steady[398].

[Sidenote: _The Persecution renewed by_ Gallus.]

In the mean time, _Decius_ being killed, the Persecution was carried on,
or rather renewed, with more Fury than ever, by _Gallus_ his Successor.
As the _Roman_ Empire was, at this Time, afflicted with a dreadful
Plague, _Gallus_, who, it seems, had not molested the Christians during
the first Months of his Reign[399], issued an Order, injoining Men of
all Ranks and Professions to offer Sacrifice to the Gods, hoping, by
that means, to appease their Wrath, and put a Stop to the raging Evil.
It was on Occasion of this Plague that St. _Cyprian_ writ his excellent
Discourse on _Mortality_, wherein he so eloquently teaches a Christian
to triumph over the Fears of Death, and shews with how little Reason we
mourn for those Friends and Relations who are snatched from us.
[Sidenote: Cornelius _apprehended_.] Such of the Christians as refused
to comply with the Emperor’s Edict, were either banished or executed.
_Cornelius_, among the rest, was apprehended at the first breaking out
of the Persecution, and made a glorious Confession of his Faith, as
appears from St. _Cyprian_, who, on that Occasion, writ him a Letter of
Congratulation[400]. What happened to him afterwards is uncertain; for
his Acts are evidently fabulous, though they have been received by
_Bede_, by _Ado_, by _Anastasius_, and many others, far more
considerable for their Number than their Authority. We read in the
Pontifical of _Bucherius_, that he was banished to _Centumcellæ_, now
_Civita-vecchia_, and died of a natural Death, according to the
Expression used there[401] (_Dormitionem accepit_). As to the Title of
Martyr, with which he is distinguished by St. _Jerom_[402], it was
antiently given to all those who, for the Confession of Faith, died in
Prison, which in all Likelihood happened to _Cornelius_[N5].

-----

Footnote N5:

  _Cornelius_ is reckoned, by St. _Jerom_, among the Ecclesiastic
  Writers, on account of the Four Letters, which he writ to _Fabius_
  Bishop of _Antioch_, who seemed not to dislike the Tenets of
  _Novatian_[N5.1]. He writ several other Letters, whereof Two are still
  extant among those of St. _Cyprian_[N5.2]; and some Fragments of his
  Fourth Letter to _Fabius_ have been transmitted to us by _Eusebius_.
  As for the Letter to _Lupicinus_, Bishop of _Vienne_, which was found
  in the Archives of that Church, and published by Father _du Bosc_, the
  Cardinals _Baronius_[N5.3] and _Bona_[N5.4] think it genuine; but it
  is, without all Doubt, supposititious: for, according to _Ado_ and
  _Baronius_ himself[N5.5], _Florentius_, whom _Lupicinus_ is supposed
  to have succeeded, was raised to that See in the Reign of _Maximus_,
  or _Gordian_, about the Year 240. and held it till the Reign of
  _Valerian_, and about the Year 258. so that in 252. when _Cornelius_
  died, _Lupicinus_ was not yet Bishop. Besides, in the Title of the
  Letter, which _Baronius_ has suppressed, _Lupicinus_ is styled
  _Archbishop_; which Title was not known then, nor long after. The
  Letter is therefore rejected by _Launoy_[N5.6], and Dr.
  _Pearson_[N5.7], as a forged and spurious Piece. _Erasmus_ ascribes to
  _Cornelius_ the Treatise on Charity[N5.8]; and _du Pin_ both that, and
  the other on the public Shews, with the Discourse against
  _Novatian_[N5.9], which are all to be found among St. _Cyprian_’s
  Works.

Footnote N5.1:

  Hier. vir. ill. c 66. p. 290.

Footnote N5.2:

  Cypr. ep. 46. 48.

Footnote N5.3:

  Bar. ad ann. 255. n. 47.

Footnote N5.4:

  Bona lit. 1. c. 3. p. 13.

Footnote N5.5:

  Bar. ad ann. 262. n. 58.

Footnote N5.6:

  Laun. Ger. l. 4. c. 6.

Footnote N5.7:

  Pears. Cyp. ann. p. 37.

Footnote N5.8:

  Eras. Cyp. p. 417.

Footnote N5.9:

  Du Pin, t. 1. p. 469.

-----

_Cornelius_ died on the same Day of the Month and the Week, on which St.
_Cyprian_ was martyred Six Years after[403]; that is, on the 14th of
_September_ 252. according to the most probable Opinion, having held the
Pontificate one Year, Three Months, and Ten Days. [Sidenote: _His
Reliques._] His Body is supposed to have been translated from
_Civita-vecchia_ to the Cemetery of _Callistus_; for near that Place
Pope _Leo_ I. is said to have built, in Honour of _Cornelius_, a
Basilic, or magnificent Church[404]. His Body was believed to be still
at _Rome_ in the End of the Eighth Century; for _Anastasius_ tells us,
that Pope _Adrian_ placed it in a Church, which he had built in
_Capracoro_[405]; but it was soon after removed from thence, and brought
into _France_, by _Charlemagne_, as _Pamelius_ assures us, upon the
Authority of a small Life of St. _Cyprian_, written, as he supposes, by
_Paulus Diaconus_[406][N6].

-----

Footnote N6:

  There is a famous Abbey, bearing his Name, at _Compeigne_ in the Isle
  of _France_, where his Reliques, and those of St. _Cyprian_, are
  supposed to be kept in the same Shrine. But how can we reconcile this
  with what we read in the Council of _Reims_, held in 1049. under _Leo_
  IX. _viz._ that the Body of St. _Cornelius_ was removed by the Clergy
  of _Compeigne_, from that City to _Reims_; and received there by the
  Pope[N6.1]? But, on the other hand, the Council is contradicted by
  _Aubertus de Mira_, who assures us, that, in 860. the Reliques of Pope
  _Cornelius_ were translated from the Abbey of _Inde_, standing about
  Four Miles South of _Aix la Chapelle_, to that of _Rosnay_, which is,
  at present, a Collegiate Church in _Flanders_, between _Oudenarde_ and
  _Tournay_. In this Church is still to be seen a Shrine, supposed to
  contain, as appears from the Inscription, the Bones of St. _Cornelius_
  and St. _Cyprian_[N6.2].

Footnote N6.1:

  Conc. t. 9. p. 1033. 1042.

Footnote N6.2:

  Vide Bolland. 12 Feb. p. 607. et Pamel, p. 23.

-----

_Eusebius_ observes, that, in the Time of _Cornelius_, the Church of
_Rome_ was in a most flourishing Condition; for, not to mention the
People, who were almost without Number, it consisted of 46 Presbyters, 7
Subdeacons, 42 Acolytes, 52 Exorcists, Lectors, and Janitors, or
Door-keepers, and 1500 Widows, and other Poor, who were all maintained
by the Alms and Offerings of the Faithful[407].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 GALLUS,                        LUCIUS,                     VOLUSIANUS.
                    _Twenty-first_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 252.   _He is banished._]

_Lucius_ was no sooner named to succeed _Cornelius_, than he was
apprehended, and sent, with many others, into Banishment; for St.
_Cyprian_ wrote him a Letter, in the Name of his Collegues, and his own,
congratulating him, at the same time, on his Promotion, and his Exile,
as appears from St. _Cyprian_’s Second Letter to him[408]; for his First
has not reached our Times. _Lucius_ had been but a very short time in
Banishment, when he was recalled, to the inexpressible Joy of his Flock,
who, it seems, crouded out to meet him[409]. On this Occasion St.
_Cyprian_ wrote him a Second Letter, still extant[410], wherein he
testifies the Joy with which the News of his Return had been received by
him, and his Brethren in _Africa_. [Sidenote: _Returns to_ Rome.] He
returned to _Rome_ during the Heat of the Persecution; but what
occasioned his Return, we are no-where told. St. _Cyprian_ says, in his
Second Letter to him, that he was perhaps recalled to be immolated in
the Sight of his Flock, that they might be animated and encouraged by
the Example of his Christian Constancy and Resolution[411]; which
happened accordingly; for he had not governed Eight whole Months, says
_Eusebius_[412], no, nor Six, according to the most probable Opinion,
but only Five, and a few Days, when he died a Martyr; for that Title is
given him by St. _Cyprian_[413]. [Sidenote: _and dies a Martyr._] He was
beheaded, say the Martyrologies; but on this Point the Antients are
silent; and his dying in Prison had given him a just Claim to that
Title. His Body is supposed to have been discovered intire, in the
Church of St. _Cæcilia_ at _Rome_, in 1599. though the Church of
_Roskild_, in the Isle of _Zeland_, had long before pretended to his
Head[414].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                STEPHEN,
                   _Twenty-second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 253.  _The Bishops of_ Gaul _write to_
Stephen.]

_Stephen_, who succeeded _Lucius_, in 253. soon after his Election,
received a Letter from _Faustinus_, Bishop of _Lions_, written in the
Name of all his Collegues in _Gaul_, informing him, that _Marcian_,
Bishop of _Arles_, having embraced the Doctrine of _Novatian_, had
denied the Communion of the Church to the Lapsed, even at the Point of
Death. At the same time they writ to St. _Cyprian_, and on the same
Subject[415], not caring to come to any vigorous Resolution against
their Collegue, without the Advice and Approbation of other Bishops,
especially of _Rome_ and _Carthage_; the former being eminent for the
Dignity of his See, and the latter for his known Zeal, Piety, and
Learning. But _Faustinus_ did not find in the Bishop of _Rome_ the Zeal
he expected; and therefore he writ a second Letter to St. _Cyprian_,
exhorting him to animate the others by his Example[416]; which that
zealous Prelate did accordingly: for he writ immediately to _Stephen_,
pressing him to dispatch, without Delay, full and ample Letters to the
Bishops of _Gaul_; that, finding themselves thus backed and supported,
they might thereby be encouraged to depose _Marcian_, and name another
in his room. It is not to be doubted but the Bishop of _Carthage_, who
had the Welfare of the Church, at least, as much at Heart as the Bishop
of _Rome_, did himself what he encouraged the others to do; but I cannot
positively affirm it, since his Answer to _Faustinus_ is lost. As to the
Issue of this Affair, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark[N7].

-----

Footnote N7:

  _Marcian_’s Name is not in the List of the Bishops of _Arles_,
  published by F. _Mabillon_: whence some modern Writers have concluded,
  that he was actually deposed; but that List is very imperfect, the
  Names of many Bishops being wanting there, whom we certainly know to
  have governed that Church.

-----

St. _Cyprian_ did not doubt in the least but that _Marcian_ would be
deposed; for, in his Letter to _Stephen_, he desires him to let him know
the Name of the Person who should be chosen in his room, that he may not
be at a Loss, to whom he should direct his Letters, and his
Brethren[417].

_Faustinus_, and the other Bishops of _Gaul_, did not apply, on this
Occasion, to _Stephen_ alone, but to him, and to St. _Cyprian_. Why then
should their applying to the Bishop of _Rome_ be construed, as it is, by
all the Roman Catholic Writers, into a tacit Acknowlegement of his
universal Jurisdiction, and not the like Construction be put on their
applying to the Bishop of _Carthage_? But, in Truth, neither can bear
such a Construction, since the Bishops of _Gaul_ did not refer the Cause
of _Marcian_ either to _Stephen_, or to St. _Cyprian_: they writ to both
only for their Advice and Approbation. _Stephen_ was backward, for
Reasons unknown to us, in giving his; and therefore St. _Cyprian_, in a
Letter, which he writ on this Occasion, pressed him to encourage with
his Letters the People of _Arles_, and the Bishops of _Gaul_, to depose
_Marcian_, and appoint another in his room[418]. Was not this plainly
acknowleging, not in the Bishop of _Rome_, but in the People and Clergy,
the Power of deposing one Bishop, and appointing another in his room?

[Sidenote: Stephen_’s rash Conduct_.]

But to return to _Stephen_: His rash Conduct had involved the Churches
of _Spain_ in endless Calamities, had not St. _Cyprian_, and the other
Bishops of _Africa_, zealously interposed. The Bishops of _Spain_,
having judged Two of their Collegues unworthy of the Episcopacy, _viz._
_Basilides_ of _Leon_ and _Astorga_, and _Martial_ of _Merida_, had
disposed of their Sees to others, appointing _Sabinus_ in the room of
the former, and _Felix_ in that of the latter. They were both
_Libellatici_, and guilty of many other Crimes, for which _Martial_ had
been deposed; but _Basilides_, returning to himself, and conscious of
his own Guilt, had voluntarily resigned, declaring he should think it a
great Happiness to be readmitted, after due Satisfaction, to the
Communion of the Church, even in the Capacity of a Layman. But, Ambition
getting the better of all his good Resolutions, he soon began to pant
after his former Condition; and, thinking the Favour and Interest of the
Bishop of _Rome_ might greatly contribute to his Re-establishment, he
undertook a Journey to that City; [Sidenote: _He suffers himself to be
imposed upon._] and there, as St. _Cyprian_ expresses himself, _imposed
upon our Collegue_ Stephen, _who lived at a great Distance, and was
ignorant of the Truth, seeking unjustly to be restored to his
Bishoprick, from which he had been justly deposed_[419]. Being thus
admitted to the Communion of the Bishop of _Rome_, he returned well
satisfied to _Spain_, and there exercised all Episcopal Functions, as he
had formerly done. St. _Cyprian_ does not tell us, in express Terms,
that _Martial_ too had recourse to _Rome_; but that he had, may,
perhaps, be gathered from his Words; for he writes, that,
notwithstanding the Craft and Deceit _Martial_ had used, probably in
imposing upon _Stephen_, he had not been able to preserve his
Episcopacy[420]. Besides, he acted as a Bishop after he had been deposed
by a Synod; which he would have hardly attempted, had he not been
countenanced by some Bishop of Rank and Dignity. Be that as it will, the
Churches of _Leon_, _Astorga_, and _Merida_, applied, in this their
Distress, to the Bishops of _Africa_, imploring, both by Letters and
Deputies, their Advice and Assistance. The Deputies were the Two new
Bishops _Felix_ and _Sabinus_; and their Deputation was backed by a
pressing Letter from _Felix_, Bishop of _Saragosa_, whom St. _Cyprian_
styles a Propagator of the Faith, and Defender of the Truth[421].
[Sidenote: Martial _of_ Merida  _excommunicated by  the Bishops of_
Africa,  _tho’ admitted by_  Stephen _to his  Communion_.] These Letters
being read at _Carthage_, in a Council of 28 Bishops, with St. _Cyprian_
at their Head, it was concluded, that _Basilides_ and _Martial_ ought
not to be acknowleged as Bishops; that it was not lawful to communicate
with them; that such Bishops as did, ought to be excommunicated
themselves; and, finally, that their imposing upon _Stephen_, instead of
giving them any kind of Right to the Sees they had forfeited by their
Wickedness, added to their Guilt. By the same Council, the Election of
_Sabinus_ and _Felix_ was confirmed, and they acknowleged by all the
_African_ Bishops as their Collegues[422].

[Sidenote: _Appeals to_ Rome, _no Proof of the Pope’s Supremacy_.]

It is surprising, that _Bellarmine_, _Baronius_, _Davidius_, and other
Advocates for the Pope’s Supremacy, should lay so much Stress as they
do, on the Recourse to _Rome_ of the Two deposed Bishops. If their
recurring, or appealing, as they are pleased to style it, to the Bishop
of _Rome_, is any Proof of his being acknowleged by them for the Head of
the Church, the Appeal of the other Bishops of _Spain_ from him to St.
_Cyprian_, and their acquiescing to his, and not to the Judgment of
_Stephen_, will be a stronger Proof of St. _Cyprian_’s being acknowleged
by them for the Head of the Church. Had _Basilides_ and _Martial_
recurred not to _Rome_, but to _Carthage_, had the Bishops of _Spain_
appealed from St. _Cyprian_ to _Stephen_, as they did from _Stephen_ to
St. _Cyprian_, and acquiesced to his Judgment, no Notice had been taken
of the Appeal of the Two Apostates; that only of the Catholic Bishops
had been set forth with great Pomp and Flourish of Words. But, as the
Case stands, they must be satisfied with the Evidence of the Apostates,
and leave the Catholic Bishops to bear Testimony for us, which we shall
not misuse; we shall not build upon it the Supremacy of the Church of
_Carthage_; we shall not set up St. _Cyprian_ for a Judge, to whose
Tribunal all Appeals must be brought; in short, we shall not make him an
universal Judge, an universal Pastor, a Pope; though, to the Testimony
of the _Spanish_ Bishops, that of _Gregory Nazianzene_ should be added,
and I defy the Champions for the See of _Rome_ to allege one in their
Favour more plain and expressive: _St._ Cyprian, says he, _presided not
only over the Church of_ Carthage, _or that of_ Africa, _on which he
reflected an extraordinary Lustre, but over all the West, nay, and over
all the Nations of the East, of the North, and the South_[423]. Had
_Gregory_ said as much of the Bishop of _Rome_, the Passage had been
employed as a Corner-stone to support the Pope’s universal Jurisdiction.

[Sidenote: _The famous Dispute about the Baptism of Heretics._]

Not long after the Affair of the _Spanish_ Bishops, that is, about the
Year 256. according to the most probable Opinion, happened the famous
Contest about the Baptism of Heretics, which rent the whole Church into
Two Parties, the one headed by St. _Cyprian_, and the other by
_Stephen_. St. _Cyprian_ maintained, that Baptism administred by
Heretics, was null and invalid; and, consequently, that such as came
over from them, from what Sect soever they came, ought to be baptized by
a Catholic Minister: he owned there was but one Baptism, and therefore
avoided the Word _Rebaptization_; but thought that Heretics had not the
Power of conferring it. [Sidenote: _Both Opinions erroneous._] On the
other hand, _Stephen_, and those who adhered to him, pretended, that
Baptism conferred by Heretics, of whatever Sect or Persuasion, was
valid; so that by avoiding one Error, they fell into another; for some
Heretics of those Times, namely, the _Montanists_ and _Marcionites_, did
not baptize, as is commanded by the Gospel, in the Name of the Three
Persons; whence their Baptism was declared null by Two Oecumenical
Councils, as I shall relate hereafter. I know great Pains have been
taken to excuse _Stephen_; but his own Words, quoted by St. _Cyprian_,
from his own Letter to him, can, in my Opinion, admit of no Dispute; for
he there forbids, in express Terms, the Baptizing of Heretics, _from
what Heresy soever they should come_[424]. And here we may observe, by
the way, that the whole Church erred, either at this Time, or
afterwards; for afterwards both Opinions were condemned, and both were
held at this Time, by the one or the other of the Two Parties, into
which the whole Church was divided. The Point in Dispute had been
canvassed long before, and differently settled in different Provinces.
The Churches of _Africa_ and _Numidia_ had formerly admitted Heretics,
without baptizing or rebaptizing them; but the contrary Practice was
established in a Council of the Bishops of these Two Provinces, summoned
about the Close of the Second Century, by _Agrippinus_ Bishop of
_Carthage_[425]. [Sidenote: _The Custom of baptizing Heretics practised
by several Churches, and established by Councils_.] The same Practice of
baptizing Heretics was followed by the Churches of _Cappadocia_, and the
other Provinces of _Asia_, as a Tradition handed down to them from the
Apostles Times; whence it was confirmed in a Council, which was held at
_Iconium_ in _Phrygia_, about the Year 230. and consisted of all the
Bishops of _Cappadocia_, _Galatia_, _Cilicia_, and the neighbouring
Provinces[426]. The same Practice was approved of by another Council,
assembled, much about the same time, at _Synnades_ in _Phrygia_[427].
The Bishops of _Pontus_ and _Egypt_ agreed, it seems, with those of
_Cappadocia_ and _Galatia_[428]; but all the other Bishops, especially
those of _Italy_, _Gaul_, and _Spain_, held the contrary Opinion, and
followed the opposite Practice. This Disagreement, both in Opinion and
Practice, had hitherto created no Disturbance in the Church, each Bishop
conforming to the Custom of his particular Church, as received by
Tradition, or settled by Synods, without censuring those who disagreed
with him, or being censured by them. [Sidenote: _It is confirm’d by two
Councils held by St._ Cyprian;] But the Question was now revived by
Eighteen Bishops of _Numidia_, who writ to a Council, held at this time
by St. _Cyprian_, to know whether they had done well in rebaptizing
Heretics, agreeably to the antient Practice of their respective
Churches. What raised this Doubt now, we know not; but it is certain,
the Council answered, that they ought to follow the Practice which they
had hitherto observed[429]. The same Answer was returned by St.
_Cyprian_, to _Quintus_ Bishop of _Mauritania_, who had asked the same
Question[430]. Soon after, another Council was held at _Carthage_,
composed of 71 Bishops, wherein the Decrees of the former Council,
concerning the Baptism of Heretics, were confirmed; and besides, it was
ordained, that such Presbyters and Deacons as had received Ordination at
the Hands of Heretics, or who, after receiving Orders in the Church, had
fallen into Heresy, should be admitted to Communion only as Laymen[431].
[Sidenote: _who acquaints_ Stephen _with their Decrees_.] The Council,
by a synodal Letter, acquainted _Stephen_ with these Resolutions, hoping
he would approve and embrace them; but at the same time declaring, that
if any Bishop should think fit to reject them, and follow different
Opinions, agreeably to the Liberty they all claimed, no Breach of Peace
and Unity should thence follow on their Side[432]. With this Letter St.
_Cyprian_ sent those he had written to _Quintus_, and to the Bishops of
_Numidia_[433].

[Sidenote: _St._ Cyprian_’s famous letter to_ Jubaianus.]

It was after this Council, and before _Stephen_’s Answer, that St.
_Cyprian_ wrote the famous Letter to _Jubaianus_, who was a Bishop; but
in what Province, or of what City, we know not. _Jubaianus_ had, by a
Letter, asked St. _Cyprian_’s Opinion about the Baptizing of Heretics;
and, at the same time, sent him the Copy of a Letter, which he had
received; wherein many Reasons were alleged to prove, that Baptism, by
whomsoever administred, not even the _Marcionites_ excepted, ought to be
deemed valid. The Author of this Letter inveighs bitterly against St.
_Cyprian_, and those of his Party, styling them Betrayers of the Truth,
and Enemies to the Peace and Unity of the Church[434]. _Baronius_, and
likewise _Pamelius_, ascribe that Piece to _Stephen_, not apprised that
they must consequently own the Doctrine held by _Stephen_ to have been
no less erroneous than that which was held by St. _Cyprian_, if the
Doctrine of the Church be true, as I have observed above. But we have
not sufficient Grounds to suppose _Stephen_ the Author of it, since many
besides him writ in favour of that Opinion. St. _Cyprian_, in Answer to
_Jubaianus_, sent him his Letter to _Quintus_, that of the first Council
to the Bishops of _Numidia_; and, moreover, wrote him a long Letter,
with a great many Arguments in favour of his Opinion, and the Answers to
what was objected against it; especially in the Letter, whereof
_Jubaianus_ had transmitted him a Copy[435]. [Sidenote: _His Desire
to live in Peace and Unity with those who held the opposite Opinion._]
He ends his Letter by a most solemn Protestation of Unity and Charity
with those who should differ from him; which is related at Length by St.
_Jerom_[436], and likewise by St. _Austin_, who tells us, that he was
never tired with reading over and over again those Words of Peace and
Charity, breathing nothing but the sweetest Odour of that Union, in
which the holy Prelate anxiously sought to live with his Brethren[437].
To this Letter _Jubaianus_ returned Answer, that he had fully convinced
him, and that he willingly embraced his Opinion[438]. In that Letter St.
_Cyprian_ seems to have mustered all the Arguments that could be alleged
in favour of his Opinion; and therefore St. _Austin_ has employed his
Third, Fourth, and Fifth Books on Baptism, in confuting them.

We have hitherto seen with how much Temper, Moderation, and Candor, the
Dispute was managed on St. _Cyprian_’s Side: he determined nothing
without the Advice and Approbation of his Collegues assembled in
Council; the Determinations of the Council he imparted to other Bishops,
leaving them at full Liberty to embrace or reject them, and declaring,
that no Disagreement in Opinion should occasion in him the least Breach
of Charity. How different was the Conduct of the Bishop of _Rome_!
[Sidenote: Stephen_’s Pride and Arrogance_.] He condescended, indeed, to
answer the synodal Letter of the _African_ Bishops; but did it with that
Pride and Arrogance, that in After-ages became the Characteristic of his
Successors. He begins with the Dignity of his See, and his pretended
Succession to St. _Peter_, which he takes care to put them in mind of:
in the next Place, he rejects their Decrees with the utmost Indignation,
and attempts to confute the Arguments alleged to support them: he then
proceeds to Commands and Menaces, ordering St. _Cyprian_ to quit his
Opinion, and threatening to cut off, from the Communion of the Church,
all those who should presume to differ from him, and rebaptize Heretics:
he concludes his Letter with a bitter Invective against St. _Cyprian_,
branding that great Luminary of the Church with the reproachful Names of
_false Christ_, _false Apostle_, _deceitful Workman_[439]. Such was Pope
_Stephen_’s Answer to a most respectful Letter from a Council of 71
Bishops. _Pompeius_, Bishop of _Sabrata_ in the _Tripolitana_, hearing
of this Letter, and being desirous to peruse it, as he had done all the
rest on the same Subject, [Sidenote: _He is severely censured by
St._ Cyprian.] St. _Cyprian_, in Compliance with his Desire, sent him a
Copy of it; and at the same time writ him a Letter, wherein he treats
_Stephen_, upon the just Provocation he had given him, with more than
ordinary Sharpness and Acrimony, charging him with _Pride and
Impertinence_, with _Self-contradiction and Ignorance_, with
_Indiscretion_, _Obstinacy_, _Childishness_; nay, he styles him a
_Favourer and Abetter of Heretics against the Church of God_[440]. St.
_Cyprian_ was more provoked at _Stephen_’s abusive Language, than moved
either by his Authority or Menaces. St. _Austin_ supposes the Opinion he
held to have been false and erroneous; and yet owns, that he was not
obliged to yield to the Authority of _Stephen_, nor give up the Point,
till he was convinced by dint of Reason, or by the Decision of an
Oecumenical Council[441]. [Sidenote: _St._ Cyprian _assembles a
great Council at_ Carthage;] However, as St. _Cyprian_ sought nothing
but Truth, upon the Receipt of _Stephen_’s Letter, he summoned a great
Council, in order to have the Question canvassed anew, and examined with
more Care and Attention. The Council met accordingly, on the First of
_September_ 256. consisting of 85 Bishops, a great Number of Presbyters
and Deacons, and a considerable Part of the People[442]. To this
Assembly were read the Letter of _Jubaianus_ to St. _Cyprian_, his
Answer to it, and _Jubaianus_’s Reply; with the Letter of the former
Council to _Stephen_, and _Stephen_’s Answer to the Council. These
Pieces being read, St. _Cyprian_ made a short Discourse, exhorting his
Collegues to speak their Mind freely: the Words he used on this Occasion
alluded, without Doubt, to the Pride and Arrogance of the Bishop of
_Rome_; _Let none of us_, says he, _set up for the Bishop of Bishops;
let none of us presume to reduce our Collegues by a tyrannical Fear to
the Necessity of obeying_: he concluded with protesting anew, in the
most solemn manner, that he left every one the full Liberty of following
what Opinion he liked best; and that no Man should, on that score, be
judged by him, or separated from his Communion[443]. [Sidenote: _which
confirms the antient Practice_.] The Discourse being finished, each
Bishop delivered his Opinion, and St. _Cyprian_ the last, all approving,
with one Consent, the Baptizing of Heretics. _Pamelius_ and others count
87 Bishops present at the Council, because _Natalis_ of _Oea_ spoke for
the Two other Bishops of _Libya Tripolitana_, viz. _Pompeius_ of
_Sabrata_, and _Dioga_ of _Leptis the Great_[444], who were absent.

The Third Council of _Carthage_ having thus confirmed the Decrees of the
Two former, notwithstanding the Threats and Menaces of the Bishop of
_Rome_, it was thought adviseable for the Peace of the Church to
acquaint him therewith; and at the same time to inform him more
particularly of the Reasons, on which their Opinion was grounded.
[Sidenote: _Deputies sent to_ Stephen, _how treated_.] Deputies were
accordingly dispatched to _Rome_ for that Purpose; but _Stephen_ not
only refused to see or hear them, but would not allow any of his Flock
to correspond with them, to supply them with the Necessaries of Life, or
even to admit them under the same Roof; excluding them not only from his
Communion, but from common Hospitality, says, _Firmilian_, who wrote
this very Year[445]. [Sidenote: _He excommunicates all who held
the opposite Opinion._] He did not stop here; but, transported with
Rage, or Zeal, as _Baronius_ is pleased to style it, he cut off from his
Communion all the Bishops who had assisted at the Council, and all those
who held the same Opinion, that is, the Bishops of _Africa_, _Numidia_,
_Mauritania_, _Cilicia_, _Cappadocia_, _Galatia_, and _Egypt_[446]. But
_Stephen_’s Anathemas proved, as those of _Victor_’s had done before,
_bruta fulmina_; no Regard was had to them, no, not even by those of his
own Party; who, by continuing in Communion with those whom he had cut
off from his, sufficiently declared their Thoughts touching his rash and
unchristian Conduct. This Dispute, says St. _Austin_, occasioned no
Schism in the Church, the Bishops continuing united in Charity,
notwithstanding their Disagreement in Opinion[447]. No Thanks to
_Stephen_, who did all that lay in his Power to set the Bishops at
Variance, and involve the whole Church in Confusion and Disorder: _The
Peace of Christ_, continues St. _Austin_, _triumphed in their Hearts,
and put a Stop to the growing Schism_; not in the Heart of _Stephen_,
where Rage, Ambition, and Envy lodged; Guests incompatible with Peace
and Charity; but in the Hearts of the other Bishops, who were thereby
restrained from following his Example. How many Schisms had been
prevented, had Bishops in After-ages trod in the Footsteps of those
great Prelates!

[Sidenote: Stephen’_s Conduct disapproved by_ Dionysius
_of_ Alexandria;]

_Dionysius_, afterwards Pope, and _Philemon_, both then Presbyters of
the Church of _Rome_, acquainted, no doubt, by _Stephen_’s Direction,
the great _Dionysius_, Bishop of _Alexandria_, with what had passed,
hoping to gain him over to their Party, and extort from him an
Approbation of _Stephen_’s Conduct: but that illustrious Prelate,
foreseeing, and well weighing, the evil Consequences that might attend
it, declared his Sentiments with all the Freedom and Zeal that became a
Man of his Rank in the Church. He told them plainly, that the condemning
a Practice, which had been established by so many Councils, was what he
could by no means approve of; that an Affair of such Consequence
required long and mature Deliberation; and that the deciding it
over-hastily might raise eternal Disputes, and end at last in a Schism:
he therefore begged _Stephen_, in a Letter, which he writ to him on this
Occasion, that he would, upon Reflection, alter his Conduct; and in an
Affair upon which so much depended, take different Measures from those
which he had hitherto pursued[448]. As _Stephen_ wrote to _Dionysius_,
so did St. _Cyprian_ to _Firmilian_, giving him a particular and candid
Account both of _Stephen_’s Conduct and his own. _Firmilian_ was Bishop
of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_, and one of the most eminent Prelates at
that Time in the Church both for Piety and Learning: he had a singular
Veneration for St. _Cyprian_, maintained with great Zeal the same Cause,
and consequently had been equally ill used and excommunicated by
_Stephen_. He therefore received with extraordinary Joy the Letter,
which St. _Cyprian_ sent him by _Rogatian_ one of his Deacons, often
read it with great Satisfaction[449], and answered it with a long
Letter[450], which is still extant, though St. _Cyprian_’s to him has
been lost long since. [Sidenote: _and severely censured by_ Firmilian.]
In this Letter _Firmilian_, amazed and provoked at _Stephen_’s
unaccountable Conduct, expresses his Detestation of it in sharper Terms
than the Laws of Charity can well allow; for, not content to charge him
with sacrificing the Peace of the Church to a petulant Humour, he
compares him to _Judas_, and stigmatizes him with the Epithets of
inhuman, audacious, insolent, wicked, impious Schismatic; for _he is a
true Schismatic_, says _Firmilian, who departs from the Unity of the
Church, which thou hast done, O_ Stephen; _for, by attempting to
separate others from thee, thou hast separated thyself from all other
Churches. How much Sin hast thou heaped upon thyself by cutting thyself
off from so many Flocks[451]!_ _Firmilian_’s Letter was translated into
_Latin_ by St. _Cyprian_ himself, as is manifest from the Style. It was
unknown, it seems, to St. _Austin_; for he never quotes it, nor, in
confuting the Opinion of Sr. _Cyprian_, takes any notice of some Reasons
alleged in that Letter to support it.

[Sidenote: Stephen _dies, but not a Martyr_.]

There was no Hope of seeing an End put to this Dispute, so long as
_Stephen_ lived; but he dying, his Successor, who was a Man of a quite
different Temper, laid the Storm, which his furious and ungovernable
Passion had raised. He died on the 2d of _August_ 257. according to the
most probable Opinion[452]. The Church of _Rome_, upon the Authority of
his Acts, ranks him among the Martyrs; but that Honour is not paid him
either by St. _Austin_, or by _Vincentius Lirinensis_, who, naming him
together with St. _Cyprian_, as they often do, give constantly the Title
of Martyr to the latter, and never to the former. [Sidenote: _His Acts
fabulous._] As for his Acts, they flatly contradict, in several Points,
the most unexceptionable Writers among the Antients[453], and therefore
by no means deserve the Credit which _Baronius_ would have us give
them[454]. Even _Anastasius_ seems to have made no Account of them, if
in his Time they were yet composed, which may be questioned; for the
Account he gives us of _Stephen_’s Death differs widely from that which
we read in those Acts[455]. But he had made a bold Attempt towards
extending the Power and Authority of the See of _Rome_, and therefore
was to be placed among the Saints for the Encouragement of others. To
say he had merited that Honour by his Virtues, either as a Christian or
a Bishop, had been carrying the Imposture too far: the only Means
therefore left of making him a Saint, was to make him a Martyr, that, by
his glorious Death, he might be thought to have deserved what it was
manifest from the Records of those Times he had not deserved by his
Christian Life. Hence Acts were forged, setting forth his heroic
Confession of the Faith before the Emperor, his Sufferings on that
Account, the stupendous Miracles he wrought, _&c._ which, however
incredible, might, in Process of Time, by their Antiquity alone, gain
Credit with the greater Part of Mankind. [Sidenote: _His Reliques._]
_Stephen_ was buried in the Cœmetery of _Callistus_[456]; whence his
Body was translated about the Year 762. by _Paul_ I. to a Monastery of
_Greek_ Monks, which that Pope had built in _Rome_, as we read in
_Anastasius_[457]. How it got from thence to _Trani_ in _Apulia_ nobody
knows; but from that City it was conveyed with great Pomp in 1682. to
_Pisa_ in _Tuscany_, where it is still worshiped in a Church bearing the
pretended Saint’s Name[458]. According to the most probable Opinion,
_Stephen_ governed Four Years, and about Six Months.

-----

Footnote 352:

  Euseb. chron. & l. 6. c. 33. Opt. l. 2. Aug. ep. 165, &c.

Footnote 353:

  Vide Pears. Cyp. an. p. 29. n. 6.

Footnote 354:

  Cypr. ep. 52.

Footnote 355:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 356:

  Idem ep. 52.

Footnote 357:

  Aur. Vict.

Footnote 358:

  Idem ep. 42.

Footnote 359:

  Nem. ep. 41, 42., 45.

Footnote 360:

  Idem ep. 52. 54.

Footnote 361:

  Idem ep. 68.

Footnote 362:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 363:

  Pacian. ep. 3.

Footnote 364:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 24.

Footnote 365:

  Theodoret. hær. fab. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 366:

  Pacian. ep. 3. Hier. vir. ill. c. 70. Cypr. ep. 49.

Footnote 367:

  Pacian. ep. 3.

Footnote 368:

  Id. ib. & ep. 2.

Footnote 369:

  Cyp. ep. 40. 49.

Footnote 370:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 371:

  Theod. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 372:

  Cyp. ep. 54.

Footnote 373:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 374:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 45. Socrat. l. 4. c. 28. Hier. vir. ill. c. 69.

Footnote 375:

  Cyp. ep. 52. Euseb. l. 6. c. 44.

Footnote 376:

  Cyp. ep. 67.

Footnote 377:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 378:

  Idem ep. 47. 79.

Footnote 379:

  Idem ep. 44.

Footnote 380:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 46.

Footnote 381:

  Cyp. ep. 48.

Footnote 382:

  Idem ep. 49.

Footnote 383:

  Buch. p. 271.

Footnote 384:

  Cyp. ep. 23.

Footnote 385:

  Idem ep. 26.

Footnote 386:

  Idem ep. 48, 49.

Footnote 387:

  Idem ep. 48.

Footnote 388:

  Idem ep. 49.

Footnote 389:

  Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 390:

  Idem ep. 46. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 391:

  Cyp. ep. 46.

Footnote 392:

  Idem ep. 47.

Footnote 393:

  Idem ep. 50.

Footnote 394:

  Idem ep. 51.

Footnote 395:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 396:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 397:

  Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 398:

  Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 399:

  Idem ep. 54.

Footnote 400:

  Idem ep. 57.

Footnote 401:

  Buch. p. 271.

Footnote 402:

  Hier. vit. Paul p. 237.

Footnote 403:

  Hier. vir. ill. c. 67.

Footnote 404:

  Flor. p. 828. 830.

Footnote 405:

  Anast. c. 46. p. 27.

Footnote 406:

  Pamel. prolog. in S. Cyp. p. 19.

Footnote 407:

  Euseb. 1. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 408:

  Cypr. ep 58.

Footnote 409:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 410:

  Idem ep. 58.

Footnote 411:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 412:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 2.

Footnote 413:

  Cyp. ep. 67.

Footnote 414:

  Bolland. 4. Mart. p. 301, 302.

Footnote 415:

  Cypr. ep. 67.

Footnote 416:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 417:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 418:

  Cypr. ep. 70.

Footnote 419:

  Cypr. ep. 68.

Footnote 420:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 421:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 422:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 423:

  Greg. Naz. orat. 18. p. 281.

Footnote 424:

  Cyp. ep. 70. 73.

Footnote 425:

  Cyp. ep. 70. 73. Aug. bapt. l. 2. c. 7, & 8.

Footnote 426:

  Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 427:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 428:

  Basil. ep. 75.

Footnote 429:

  Cyp. ep. 70.

Footnote 430:

  Idem, ep. 71.

Footnote 431:

  Idem, ep. 73.

Footnote 432:

  Idem, ep. 72.

Footnote 433:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 434:

  Idem, ep. 73.

Footnote 435:

  Idem, ib.

Footnote 436:

  Hier. in Luc. c. 9.

Footnote 437:

  Aug. bapt. l. 4. c. 8.

Footnote 438:

  Concil. p. 397.

Footnote 439:

  Cyp. ep. 74. Euseb. l. 7. c. 3. Aug. bapt. l. 2. c. 7.

Footnote 440:

  Cyp. ep. 74.

Footnote 441:

  Aug. de bapt. l. 1. c. 7. 18. & l. 2. c. 8. 15.

Footnote 442:

  Cyp. con. p. 397.

Footnote 443:

  Idem ib. Aug. de bapt. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 444:

  Cyp. conc. p. 403.

Footnote 445:

  Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 446:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 447:

  Aug. bapt. l. 5. c. 25.

Footnote 448:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 449:

  Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 450:

   Cyp ib.

Footnote 451:

  Id. ib.

Footnote 452:

  Buch. cycl. p. 297.

Footnote 453:

  Pears. annal. Cyp. p. 57, 58.

Footnote 454:

  Bar. ad ann. 259.

Footnote 455:

  Anast. in vit. Vict.

Footnote 456:

  Buch. cycl. p. 267.

Footnote 457:

  Anast. c. 95.

Footnote 458:

  Boll. Pont. p. 36.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 VALERIAN,                     SIXTUS II.                    GALLIENUS.
                    _Twenty-third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 257.  Dionysius _of_ Alexandria _interposes
in the famous Dispute_.]

_Stephen_ being dead, _Sixtus_ or _Xystus_ II. a Deacon of the Church of
_Rome_, was chosen to succeed him. As the late Dispute was not yet
ended, _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ no sooner heard of his
Promotion, than he began to press him with great Earnestness to
relinquish the wild Pretensions of his Predecessor, and concur with the
other Bishops in restoring Peace and Tranquillity to the Church[459]. He
writ Three Letters to him on the same Subject, whereof the last was from
_Dionysius_ and the whole Church of _Alexandria_, to _Sixtus_ and the
whole Church of _Rome_[460]. He writ likewise to _Dionysius_ and
_Philemon_, two Presbyters of the Church of _Rome_, whom we have
mentioned above, and who upon _Stephen_’s Death seem to have abandoned
his Party; for _Dionysius_ of _Alexandria_, in his first Letter to
_Sixtus_, writes, That these two Presbyters had been formerly of
_Stephen_’s Opinion[461], a plain Indication that they were not then.
The Bishop of _Alexandria_ had at last the Satisfaction to see his pious
Endeavours crowned with Success; for we find no farther Mention of this
Dispute till it was revived by the _Donatists_. [Sidenote: _Peace
restored to the Church by his means._] In what manner it ended, we are
no-where told; but it is manifest from the Writers of those Times, that
the _African_ and _Asiatic_ Bishops continued the same Practice of
baptizing Heretics, till it was condemned by the two great Councils, of
_Arles_ in 314. and of _Nice_ in 325[462]. Whence we may well conclude,
that the Terms proposed at the Beginning of the Dispute by _Dionysius_
and St. _Cyprian_ were agreed to by _Sixtus_, _viz._ That no Restraint
should be laid on the Bishops of either Side, but that every one should
be allowed to follow undisturbed which of the two Opinions he thought
most agreeable to the Scripture and to Reason. This was allowing the
Bishops to consult the Scriptures, and make use of their own Reason, in
a Point already judged and decided by the Bishop of _Rome_. But the
Successors of _Sixtus_ have not been so complaisant; for they pretend,
that a blind Faith ought to be yielded to all their Decisions as
infallibly true, a blind Obedience to all their Decrees as
unquestionably holy.

But now the Persecution, which had begun some Months before the Decease
of _Stephen_, raged with more Violence than ever: [Sidenote: Valerian
_persecutes the Church_.] For _Valerian_ having, at the Instigation of
an _Egyptian_ Magician, changed the Kindness he once had for the
Christians into an implacable Hatred, he ordered, by a Rescript to the
Senate, all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be carefully sought for,
and executed without Mercy[463]. [Sidenote: Sixtus _martyred_.] Pursuant
to this Order, _Sixtus_, who among the first fell into the Hands of the
Persecutors, was immediately either beheaded, as we read in the
Pontifical of _Bucherius_[464], or crucified, as we are told by
_Prudentius_[465]; having held the Chair only Eleven Months, and some
Days. _Pontius_, a Deacon of the Church of _Carthage_, styles him a good
and _pacific Prelate_[466], no doubt on account of his Conduct quite
opposite to that of his ambitious and quarrelsome Predecessor[N8].

-----

Footnote N8:

  _Ruffinus_ published, under the Name of _Sixtus_ Bishop of _Rome_, the
  Book of a _Pythagorean_ Philosopher, named _Sixtus_. St. _Jerom_
  reproaches him in two Places with that _Imposture_, as he styles it,
  supposing him to have known the Work, which he ascribed to Pope
  _Sixtus_, not to be his[N8.1]. St. _Austin_ was imposed upon among the
  rest; for, in his Treatise of _Nature and Grace_, he quotes that Book
  as the Work of Pope _Sixtus_; but he afterwards owned and corrected
  his Mistake[N8.2]. It was ranked by Pope _Gelasius_ among the Books of
  Heretics; so that he supposed it to have been written by a Christian,
  which was more than he could know, there not being a single Word in it
  whence we can argue the Author to have believed in, or to have had any
  Knowlege of Christ: and it is on this Consideration that it has been
  thought unworthy of a Bishop of those times.

Footnote N8.1:

  Ep. ad Ctesiph. contr. Pelag. c. 22. & in cap. 18. Ezech.

Footnote N8.2:

  Aug. l. 2. retract. c. 42.

-----

-----

Footnote 459:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 5. 9.

Footnote 460:

  Idem c. 9.

Footnote 461:

  Idem c. 5.

Footnote 462:

  Cyp. ep. 77. Basil. can. 47. & ep. 8. conc. Arel. can. 8.

Footnote 463:

  Cyp. ep. 82.

Footnote 464:

  Buch. p. 268.

Footnote 465:

  Prud. de coron. martyr. p. 71.

Footnote 466:

  Pont. in vit. S. Cyp. p. 8.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 GALLIENUS,                    DIONYSIUS,                  CLAUDIUS II.
                      _Twenty-fourth_ BISHOP _of_
                                 Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 258.  _The See vacant almost a whole Year._]

_Sixtus_ being dead, and the Christians prevented by the Persecution
from assembling to chuse another in his room, the See remained vacant
almost a whole Year, that is, from the 6th of _August_ 258. to the 22d
of _July_ 259. when _Dionysius_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_,
whom we have mentioned above, was elected, to the great Satisfaction of
the Faithful; for he was one of the most eminent Men of his Time both
for Piety and Learning[467]. During his Pontificate, the _Goths_ broke
into the Empire, over-ran all _Asia Minor_, and, having almost utterly
destroyed the City of _Cæsarea_, they carried with them into Captivity
most of its Christian Inhabitants. _Firmilian_ was then Bishop of the
Place, who had censured the Conduct of _Stephen_ with so much Sharpness
and Acrimony; [Sidenote: Dionysius_’s Charity to the distressed
Christians of_ Cæsarea.] but the Remembrance of what had passed on
that unhappy Occasion had not that Effect on _Dionysius_, which far less
Provocations have had on many of his Successors; for he no sooner heard
of the Distress that Church was in, than, laying hold of so favourable
an Opportunity to exert his Charity, he writ a Letter to comfort them in
their Calamity, and at the same time dispatched proper Persons with
large Collections to ransom the Christians who had fallen into the Hands
of the _Barbarians_[468]. The Letter, which _Dionysius_ wrote on this
Occasion, was carefully kept in the Archives of the Church of _Cæsarea_,
as an authentic Monument of his Goodness and Charity[469]. The great
_Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ having, at this Time, composed a
learned Treatise to prove against _Sabellius_ the Distinction of the
Divine Persons, some over-zealous Catholics, misconstruing several
Passages in that Work, and concluding that he had run into the opposite
Error, accused him to the Bishop of _Rome_, as if he denied the Son to
be consubstantial with the Father[470]. [Sidenote: Dionysius _of_
Alexandria, _accused at_ Rome _over him_.] Hereupon the Bishop of
_Rome_, having assembled a Council, acquainted _Dionysius_ with the
Sentiments of the other Bishops, and his own, expressing his Concern,
that the Divinity of the Word should have been questioned by him, and at
the same time desiring him to answer the Accusation[471]. This
_Dionysius_ readily did in Four Books, which he styled _Confutation and
Apology_; shewing therein that his Opinion was very different from what
it had been represented at _Rome_, and explaining those Passages which
had given Ground for the Accusation. This Work he addressed to the
Bishop of _Rome_[472]. Here _Baronius_ exults. Behold, says he, one of
the most eminent Prelates of the Church, upon Suspicion of Heresy,
arraigned at _Rome_, judged at _Rome_. [Sidenote: _That argues
no Jurisdiction in the Bishop of_ Rome.] Who does not see a supreme
Tribunal erected there, to which all Causes must be brought; a sovereign
Judge residing there, by whom all Persons must be absolved or condemned;
is either blind and cannot see, or shuts his Eyes and will not see[473].
And does not the sharp-sighted Annalist himself see what every one the
least conversant in Ecclesiastical History must see, if he is not either
blind and cannot, or shuts his Eyes and will not see, _viz._ Bishops,
when guilty, or only suspected of Heresy, accused to some of their
Collegues, who neither had nor claimed any Jurisdiction over them? Thus
was the famous _Paul_ of _Samosata_, Bishop of _Antioch_, at this very
Time, accused by his whole Church, first to _Dionysius_ Bishop of
_Alexandria_, and soon after to _Firmilian_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_[474].
That such an Accusation argued any Jurisdiction in those Bishops over
the Bishop of _Antioch_, is what _Baronius_ himself dares not affirm;
and yet a like Accusation brought to _Rome_ is enough for him to
transform that See into a supreme Tribunal; that Bishop, though far from
such ambitious Thoughts, into a sovereign Judge. But the Bishop of
_Rome_, says _Baronius_, required of _Dionysius_ a Confession or
Declaration of his Faith: And does not that argue Superiority and
Jurisdiction? _Baronius_ himself knew it does not: for it is impossible
he should not know, that when a Bishop was suspected of Heresy, all his
Collegues had a Right to require of him Confession of his Faith, and not
to communicate with him till they had received it.

[Sidenote: Paul _Bishop of_ Antioch _condemned and deposed_,]

In the Time of _Dionysius_ was held the famous Council of _Antioch_,
which condemned and deposed _Paul_ Bishop of that City, who denied the
Distinction of the Divine Persons, and the Divinity of _Christ_. Of the
Deposition of _Paul_, and the Election of _Damnus_, who was placed in
his room, Notice was immediately given to the whole Church, by a Synodal
Letter addressed to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Rome_, and to _Maximus_, who
had succeeded the great _Dionysius_ in the See of _Alexandria_[475]. And
here it will not be foreign to my Purpose to observe, that the Bishop of
_Antioch_ was summoned to appear before the Council, and not at the
supreme Tribunal erected by _Baronius_ at _Rome_; [Sidenote: _without
the Consent or Knowlege of the Bishop of_ Rome.] that he was condemned
and deposed without the consent or Concurrence, nay, and without the
Knowlege of the sovereign Judge residing at _Rome_; that he did not
appeal to him, which he certainly would have done, as he was a Man of
unparalleled Impudence and Ambition, had such a Custom obtained in those
Days; and lastly, that the Fathers of the Council writ to the Bishop of
_Rome_ in the same Manner as they did to other Bishops, letting him
know, that for the future he was to communicate with _Damnus_, and not
with _Paul_. All this is manifest from the Account which St. _Basil_
gives us of that Council[476]. And yet _Baronius_ brings in that Father,
even on this Occasion, as an Evidence for the Papal Supremacy[N9].

-----

Footnote N9:

  For by wrong pointing a Passage in the _Latin_ Translation of that
  Author, he makes him contradict himself, and ascribe the deposing of
  _Paul_ to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Rome_, and the Great _Dionysius_
  Bishop of _Alexandria_, though the latter was dead before _Paul_ was
  deposed, as is evident from the Letter which was written by the
  Council on that Occasion, and is addressed to _Maximus_ the Successor
  of _Dionysius_ in the See of _Alexandria_[N9.1]. The Passage runs
  thus; _Duo enim_ Dionysii _diu ante eos septuaginta fuere, qui_
  Samosatensem _sustulere, quorum alter_ Romæ, _alter_ Alexandriæ
  _Præsul erat_[N9.2]. The Meaning of St. _Basil_ is, that the two
  _Dionysius’s_ flourished before the Council of _Antioch_, which
  consisted of Seventy Bishops, and deposed _Paul_ of _Samosata_; that
  is, before the Second Council that was assembled against him; for
  another had been convened in the same City about eight Years before to
  depose him; but upon his pretending to renounce his Errors, the
  Sentence had been suspended. The above-quoted Passage _Baronius_ stops
  thus; _Duo enim_ Dionysii _diu ante eos septuaginta fuere; qui_
  Samosatensem _deposuere_, &c. so that the Relative _qui_ refers,
  according to this Method of Pointing, to the Two _Dionysius’s_, and
  not to the Seventy Bishops: as if St. _Basil_ had said, _The Two_
  Dionysius_’s, who deposed_ Paul _of_ Samosata, _flourished before the
  Council of_ Antioch, _which was composed of Seventy Bishops_[N9.3]. So
  that _Paul_ must be twice deposed, St. _Basil_ must contradict
  himself, all the Writers of those Times must be arraigned as guilty of
  an unpardonable Omission, lest the Bishop of _Rome_ should appear to
  have been, what he really was, an idle Spectator of a Transaction so
  famous in the History of the Church. A Writer of any Honour or Honesty
  had rather give up a Cause, than expose himself thus by attempting to
  defend it.

Footnote N9.1:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.

Footnote N9.2:

  Basil. de syn. p. 918.

Footnote N9.3:

  Bar. ad ann. 265. n. 10.

-----

From St. _Basil_, _Baronius_ runs to the Emperor _Aurelian_, begging of
a Pagan Prince what he could not extort from a Catholic Bishop, a
Declaration and Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: Paul
_keeps Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation_.] The Reader must know,
that _Paul_ having kept, by Force, Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation
in Defiance of the Council, the Catholic Bishops had recourse to the
Emperor, who, after hearing both Parties with great Attention, adjudged
the House to him, who should be acknowleged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and
the other Bishops of _Italy_[477]. This _Baronius_ interprets as an open
Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy; and that his Readers may not
overlook it, as most of them would be apt to do, he takes care to
bespeak their Attention, by marking it in the Margin with the following
Words in Capitals, _The Emperor_ Aurelian _acknowleges the Supremacy of
the Church of_ Rome[478]. From this one would expect to find _Aurelian_
not only turned Christian, but prostrate at his Holiness’s Feet, and
bowing down to kiss them: but our Annalist, to the great Disappointment
of his Readers, after having thus raised their Attention, only repeats
out of _Eusebius_ the Sentence pronounced by the Emperor, which he would
have us suppose with him to have been owing to the Knowlege that Prince
had of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Sentence
whether favourable to the Pretensions of the See of_ Rome.] And why
must the Pope’s Supremacy be brought in here rather than the Supremacy
of the Bishops of _Ravenna_, of _Milan_, of _Aquileia_, &c. and, above
all, the Supremacy of the collective Body of the _Italian_ Bishops? for
to them, and not to any particular Bishop, the Cause was referred by the
Emperor. As for the Emperor’s Conduct on this Occasion, it may be thus
accounted for: That just and wise Prince observed the Bishops in the
East greatly animated against _Paul_; and therefore apprehending them
more sway’d by Passion and Prejudice than by Justice and Equity, he
referred the Cause to the Bishops of _Italy_, who, he thought, would
judge more impartially, as being placed at a Distance, and not engaged,
at least not so warmly, in the Dispute[479]. [Sidenote: Dionysius
_dies_,] But this happened Two Years after the Death of _Dionysius_; for
he died on the 26th of _December_ 269. _Claudius_ and _Paternus_ being
Consuls, after having governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Ten
Years, Five Months, and Four Days, according to the most probable
Opinion[480]. As he died in the Reign of _Claudius_ II. surnamed _the
Gothic_, who is represented in the Acts of some pretended Martyrs as an
implacable Enemy to the Christian Name, he is in some Martyrologies
honoured with the Title of Martyr; [Sidenote: _not a Martyr_.] but as
neither _Eusebius_, nor any other antient Writer, takes notice of that
Prince’s having ever persecuted or molested the Christians, those Acts
ought to be looked upon as fabulous, and _Dionysius_ with 375 more
expunged out of the Catalogue of Martyrs; though some of them, namely,
_Marcus_, _Priscus_, _Valentine_, and _Quirinus_, are honoured by the
Church of _Rome_, as Saints of the first Class, and have filled with
their Reliques most of the Provinces of _Europe_.

-----

Footnote 467:

  Basil. ep. 220. & de Sp. Sanct. c. 29. Euseb. l. 7. c. 7. Athan. de
  Syn. ep. 918.

Footnote 468:

  Basil. ib.

Footnote 469:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 470:

  Athan. pro sent. Dion. Alex. p. 558.

Footnote 471:

  Idem ib. & de syn. 918, 919.

Footnote 472:

  Athan. ib. p. 558, 559.

Footnote 473:

  Bar. ad ann. 263. n. 50.

Footnote 474:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 27.

Footnote 475:

  Idem l. 7. c. 30.

Footnote 476:

  Basil. de synod.

Footnote 477:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 24.

Footnote 478:

  Bar. ad ann. 272. n. 10.

Footnote 479:

  Vide Du Pin de antiq. ecc. discip. dissert. 2. p. 156.

Footnote 480:

  Buch. p. 272.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 CLAUDIUS II.                    FELIX,                       AURELIAN.
                    _Twenty-fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 269.  Felix _dies a Martyr in the Persecution
of_ Aurelian.]

_Dionysius_ was succeeded by _Felix_, in whose Time a furious
Persecution being raised by _Aurelian_, he may be supposed to have
suffered among the rest, since he is distinguished by the Council of
_Ephesus_[481], by St. _Cyril_[482], and by _Vincentius
Lirinensis_[483], with the Title of Martyr. He presided, according to
_Eusebius_[484], _Syncellus_[485], and _Eutychius_[486], Five Years, to
which _Baronius_ adds Eleven Months, and Twenty-five Days[487]. He writ
a Letter addressed to _Maximus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, which is quoted
by _Cyril_, and the Council of _Ephesus_[488]. The Acts of the Martyrs,
who are supposed to have suffered under _Aurelian_, are without all
doubt supposititious; for in them frequent Mention is made of the
Emperor’s Son, whereas the Writers of those Times tell us in express
Terms, that he had a Daughter, but no Male Issue[489].

-----

Footnote 481:

  Conc. t. 3. p. 511.

Footnote 482:

  Cyr. ib.

Footnote 483:

  Vin. Lirin. c. 42.

Footnote 484:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 32.

Footnote 485:

  Sync. p. 385.

Footnote 486:

  Eutych. p. 400.

Footnote 487:

  Buch. 272.

Footnote 488:

  Conc. t. 3. p. 511. 851.

Footnote 489:

  Aur. vit. p. 223.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 AURELIAN,                    EUTYCHIANUS,                      PROBUS,
 TACITUS,           _Twenty-sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.             CARUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 275.  Eutychianus _not martyred_.]

_Felix_ being dead, _Eutychianus_ was chosen in his room in the very
Beginning of the Year 275[490]. Several Things are said of him, by
_Anastasius_, and other Writers of no Authority; but all I can learn of
the Antients concerning him is, that he governed Eight Years, and Eleven
Months[491]; and consequently died in the Close of the Year 283. He is
honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Martyr, and said in the _Roman_
Martyrology to have suffered under _Numerian_; but it is certain that in
283. when _Eutychianus_ died, _Numerian_ was not Emperor, but only
_Cæsar_, and at that very time engaged with his Father _Carus_ in a War
with the _Persians_ in the East, where he was assassinated by _Aper_ his
Father-in-Law. As for his Brother _Carinus_, who remained in the West,
neither he, nor the two preceding Emperors, _Tacitus_ and _Probus_, ever
gave the least Disturbance to the Christians; so that the Church of
_Rome_ must be at the Trouble of finding out a distinct Place in Heaven
from that of the Martyrs for _Eutychianus_, _Trophimus_, _Sabbacius_,
and the illustrious Senator _Dorymedon_, who are supposed to have
suffered under those Princes.

-----

Footnote 490:

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 32. Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 491:

  Buch. ib.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 CARUS,                          CAIUS,                     DIOCLETIAN,
 CARINUS,             _Twenty-seventh_ BISHOP _of_            MAXIMIAN.
 NUMERIAN,                       Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 283.V]

As little is said by the Antients of _Caius_ as is said of his
Predecessor. A few Days after the Death of _Eutychianus_, _Caius_ was
chosen to succeed him, _Carus_ and _Carinus_ being Consuls[492].
[Sidenote: Caius _not a Martyr, tho’ honoured as a Martyr_.] He presided
Twelve Years, Four Months, and Seven Days; that is, from the 17th of
_December_ 283. to the 22d of _April_ 296. _Caius_ too is counted by the
Church of _Rome_ among her Martyrs, upon the Authority of _Bede_, and of
the Acts of St. _Susanna_, by which that Writer seems to have been
misled. In those Acts _Caius_ is said to have suffered with _Susanna_
his Niece, and many others, under _Numerian_: but that Prince in his
Father’s Life-time had no great Power, being only _Cæsar_, and very
young, and was killed on his March out of _Persia_ soon after his
Father’s Death; so that he never reigned in the West, and but a very
short time in the East. _Caius_ therefore could not suffer under him at
_Rome_, where his elder Brother _Carinus_ governed. But the Vulgar have
a particular Veneration for Martyrs, and, what turns to a very good
Account, are glad to purchase their Reliques at any rate. [Sidenote:
_The Church of_ Rome _why so fond of Martyrs_.] The Church of _Rome_
therefore, to provide herself with great Store of them, has multiplied
beyond Belief the Number of her Martyrs; which she could not well do
without multiplying at the same time the Number of the Persecutors of
the Christian Religion. And hence it is that several Princes, who never
molested, nay, who greatly favoured the Christians, have been by the
Church of _Rome_ transformed in her Martyrologies and Legends into
Persecutors. As for the Acts of the supposed St. _Susanna_, they are
full of Mistakes and Absurdities, and contradict the best Historians of
those Times.

-----

Footnote 492:

  Idem ib.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DIOCLESIAN,                  MARCELLINUS,                 CONSTANTIUS,
 MAXIMIAN,            _Twenty-eighth_ BISHOP _of_             GALERIUS.
                                 Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 296.   Marcellinus _unjustly aspersed by
the Church of_ Rome.]

_Marcellinus_ succeeded _Caius_ on the 30th of _June_ 296. and governed
Eight Years, Three Months, and Twenty-five Days, according to the most
antient Records[493]: so that he must have died on the 24th of _October_
304. The Love of Truth, which an Historian ought never to swerve from,
obliges me to undertake the Defence of this Pope against the Church of
_Rome_ herself, and most of her Divines, who, joining the _Donatists_ of
_Africa_, have endeavoured to blacken his Memory with Aspersions equally
wicked and groundless. For the Church of _Rome_ tells us, both in her
Breviary and Martyrology, and her Divines must chime in with her, that
_Marcellinus_ being apprehended during the Persecution of _Dioclesian_,
he was persuaded by that Prince to deliver up the Holy Scripture to be
burnt by the Pagans, agreeably to a late Edict, and at the same time to
offer Incense to the Gods. This they found on the Acts of the Council of
_Sinuessa_, which is supposed to have been summoned on that Occasion,
and before which _Marcellinus_ is said to have been convicted by
Seventy-two Witnesses of the above-mentioned Crimes. That such a
scandalous Story, invented by the _Donatists_ of _Africa_, as St.
_Austin_ affirms[494], should not only have been credited, but
industriously propagated, by the Successors of _Marcellinus_, must seem
very strange and surprising to those, who recollect with how much Zeal
they have strove on other Occasions to conceal or excuse the least
Imperfections in their Predecessors. If therefore they not only readily
own the Apostasy of _Marcellinus_, but are the first to divulge it, and
take care to make it known in the Breviary to those who scarce know any
thing else, we may be well assured there is a Snake hid in the Grass;
the more as it is certain almost beyond doubt, that no such Council was
ever held; and consequently that the Acts upon which alone that Apostasy
is founded, are supposititious. To unravel the Whole, the Reader must
know, that the Fall of _Marcellinus_ made such a Noise in the Church, as
we read in those Acts, that immediately a grand Council met, composed of
no fewer than 300 Bishops. Before this Council _Marcellinus_ appeared;
but, at his first Appearance, the Bishops, struck with Horror at the
very Thought of judging the Head of the Church, the Judge of all, cried
out with one Voice, _The first See is to be judged by nobody: accuse
yourself, judge yourself, condemn yourself_. [Sidenote: _Their View,
therein._] To this Testimony, so favourable to the ambitious Views of
the Bishops of _Rome_, is intirely owing the Sanction which they have
given to such Fables, highly injurious to the Memory of one of their
best Predecessors. Without this Lenitive the Acts of the pretended
Council of _Sinuessa_, supposing the Apostasy of a Pope, had been
condemned; the Absurdities and Contradictions, which it is wholly made
up of, had been set forth in a proper Light; and the Testimonies of
_Theodoret_ and St. _Austin_ had been alleged to vindicate the Character
of _Marcellinus_: [Sidenote: Marcellinus _commended and vindicated by
the Antients_.] for of these two Writers the former tells us, that he
acquired great Glory by his Conduct during the Persecution[495]; and the
latter, in writing against _Petilian_ the _Donatist_, has the following
Words: _Why should I answer the Calumnies with which he loads the
Bishops of_ Rome? _Why should I clear them from the Crimes which he lays
to their Charge?_ Marcellinus, _and his Presbyters_ Melchiades,
Marcellus, _and_ Sylvester, _are accused by him as if they had delivered
up the sacred Books, and offered Incense to the Gods: Are they therefore
to be thought guilty? Does he prove what he advances against them? He
brands them with the Epithets of wicked, and sacrilegious; but I say
they are innocent: And why should I produce Reasons to support my
Defence, since he brings none to make good his Charge[496]?_ But a
solemn Declaration, that _the See of_ Rome _is to be judged by nobody_,
made in those early Times, by 300 Bishops, carries with it such Marks of
Truth, as quite invalidate the Testimonies of _Theodoret_ and St.
_Austin_, and render the Apostasy of _Marcellinus_, which gave room to
that Declaration, undeniable! St. _Austin_ looks upon the Apostasy of
_Marcellinus_, and his Presbyters _Melchiades_, _Marcellus_, and
_Sylvester_, who were all afterwards Bishops of _Rome_, as a mere
Calumny, as an Invention of the _Donatists_; but their Successors,
trampling upon all Authority that stands in the Way of their Ambition,
chuse rather to have Four of their Predecessors thought Apostates and
Idolaters, than part with the Decree of that pretended Council, exalting
them so high above all other Bishops.

[Sidenote: _The Acts of the Council of_ Sinuessa _fabulous_.]

If _Marcellinus_ acquired great Glory during the Persecution, as
_Theodoret_ assures us; if his Apostasy was a mere Calumny, broached by
the _Donatists_, as we read in St. _Austin_; the pretended Council of
_Sinuessa_ must be given up, since it is supposed to have been assembled
on occasion of _Marcellinus_’s Fall: but, abstracting from the Fall of
_Marcellinus_, the Circumstances attending that Council are in
themselves so absurd and incredible, that there needs no other Argument
to convince a Man, who has any Understanding, and dares to use it, that
no such Council ever was, or could be held. [Sidenote: _No such
Council ever held._] For who can conceive it possible, that, during the
most cruel Persecution the Church ever suffered, 300 Bishops should
assemble, not in _Rome_, where they might more easily have met
unobserved, but in a small Country Town, where a much less numerous
Assembly must immediately have been observed and suspected? But, after
the Death of _Fabianus_, says _Baronius_[497], the Clergy of _Rome_, and
the Bishops, met to chuse him a Successor, notwithstanding the
Persecution that raged then. He ought to have said _some Bishops_, as
St. _Cyprian_ does[498], whom he quotes; but I shall say so for him,
that his Argument may appear in its full Strength, and save me the
Trouble of answering it; for it will then run thus: Some Bishops,
perhaps 15 or 20, met unobserved in the great and populous City of
_Rome_: _Ergo_, 300 might meet unobserved in a small Country Town; for
such was _Sinuessa_.

[Sidenote: _The many Absurdities contained in the Acts of that
Council._]

This Council is supposed to have been held in a Grotto, or Cave, where
there was no room but for 50 at a time; and yet they are all said to
have been present when _Marcellinus_ owned his Crime, and divested
himself of his Dignity. And what a despicable Figure does he make on
that Occasion! At first he denies the Charge; but, being convicted by 72
Eye-witnesses, he owns it at last, but in Terms more becoming a
School-boy, trembling at the Sight of a Rod, than a penitent Bishop,
before so grave an Assembly. But the most remarkable Passage in that
Piece is the Dispute between _Urbanus_ High Pontiff of _Jupiter_, and
_Marcellinus_ High Pontiff of the Christians. _Urbanus_, to convince his
Fellow-Pontiff that he ought not to scruple offering Incense to
_Jupiter_, alleges the Example of the Mages offering Incense to
_Christ_. _Marcellinus_ answers, That the offering of Incense on that
Occasion was mysterious; and unravels the Mystery. Hereupon _Urbanus_,
unacquainted with Mysteries, appeals to the Judgment of the Emperors
_Dioclesian_ and _Maximian_; to this Appeal _Marcellinus_ agrees; and
the Controversy is referred by both _Pontiffs_ to be decided by the Two
Emperors. They, no doubt, gave Sentence in favour of _Jupiter_ and
_Urbanus_; and then _Dioclesian_, taking _Marcellinus_ with him into the
Temple of _Vesta_, persuaded him there to offer Incense to _Jupiter_,
_Hercules_, and _Saturn_. How these Three Deities came to have a Place
in the Temple of _Vesta_, the Compiler of these Acts alone knows. Such
are the Absurdities and Contradictions, of which that Piece is wholly
made up. But it flatters the Ambition of the Successors of
_Marcellinus_; on occasion of his Fall it exalts the See of _Rome_ above
all other Sees: its Authority therefore must not be called in question:
all the Absurdities and Contradictions it contains, must be blindly
believed; the Memory of _Marcellinus_ most unjustly slandered; the
Testimonies of _Theodoret_, and St. _Austin_, clearing him from all
Guilt, disregarded and rejected. And may not this be interpreted as a
tacit Declaration, that they had rather he had been guilty than
innocent, provided his Guilt could any-ways contribute to the
Aggrandizing of their See? What can we think their Ambition will spare,
since they have thus sacrificed to it the Character of one of their
Predecessors, whose Memory is revered by all Antiquity? The Church of
_Rome_ honours _Marcellinus_ as a Saint; and, not withstanding his
pretended Apostasy, allows him a Place amongst her Martyrs; probably by
way of Reparation for the Injustice done him. [Sidenote: Marcellinus
_falsly supposed to have died a Martyr_.] But his Martyrdom may be
justly questioned; at least it seems to have been utterly unknown to St.
_Austin_, who flourished not long after his Time, since he never
mentions it, tho’ it would have afforded him the strongest Argument he
could possibly use to silence the _Donatists_. His Martyrdom, 'tis true,
is vouched by _Bede_, who tells us, that he was beheaded at _Rome_, by
_Dioclesian_’s Order; but that Historian is often led into gross
Mistakes by a Pontifical, supposed to have been written in the Sixth
Century, which he frequently copies, with all its Anachronisms, and
other Faults.

[Sidenote: _Vacancy of Three Years._]

That, upon the Death of _Marcellinus_, there happened a Vacancy of some
Years, seems undeniable, since it is marked in the Pontificals, even in
that of _Bucherius_[499], and mentioned by all those who, till
_Baronius_’s Time, have written the History of the Popes: but what at
this time should occasion a Vacancy at least of Three Years, is what I
will not take upon me to account for: the Persecution lasted but Two
Years in _Italy_, according to _Eusebius_[500], which expired soon after
the Death of _Marcellinus_: some pretend that it raged there so long as
_Galerius_ was Master of that Country. Be that as it will, it is
certain, that _Maxentius_ usurped the Empire in 306. and that he not
only favoured the Christians, but pretended to be of the same Religion
himself; and yet the See remained vacant, according to the Pontifical of
_Bucherius_[501], till the Tenth Consulate of _Maximian Hercules_, and
the Seventh of _Maximian Galerius_, that is, till the Year 308.
_Baronius_ indeed admits of no Vacancy; but, in Opposition to all those
who have written before him, places the Election of _Marcellus_
immediately after the Decease of his Predecessor _Marcellinus_[502].
This I should readily agree to, but for the Authority of the
above-mentioned Pontifical, which had not yet appeared in _Baronius_’s
Time, and is thought to have been written about the Year 354. As for the
Chronicle of _Eusebius_, it can be here of no Weight on the one Side or
the other, since _Marcellus_ is there quite left out; and his Successor
_Melchiades_ is said to have died before _Constantine_ made himself
Master of _Rome_; whereas it is certain, that, under _Melchiades_, a
Council was held at _Rome_, by that Prince’s Order, as we shall see
hereafter.

-----

Footnote 493:

  Buch. cycl. p. 272.

Footnote 494:

  Aug. de bapt. c. 10.

Footnote 495:

  Theod. l. 1. c. 2. p. 524.

Footnote 496:

  Aug. in Pet. c. 16. t. 7. p. 87.

Footnote 497:

  Bar. ad ann. 303. n. 102. 105.

Footnote 498:

  Cyp. ep. 31.

Footnote 499:

  Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 500:

  Euseb. l. 8. c. 14.

Footnote 501:

  Buch. ib.

Footnote 502:

  Bar. ad ann. 304. n. 26, 27.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 MAXIMIAN,                     MARCELLUS,                     GALERIUS,
 CONSTANTIUS,       _Twenty-ninth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.       CONSTANTINE.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 308. ]

Upon the Death of _Marcellinus_, the See remained vacant somewhat
above Three Years and an half; that is, from the 24th of _October_
304. to the 19th of _May_ 308. when _Marcellus_ was chosen in his
room. Thus says the Pontifical of _Bucherius_, where, instead of Seven
Years, which is a Mistake of the Transcribers, as is manifest from the
Consulships mark’d there, we must read Three[503]. [Sidenote:
Marcellinus _and_ Marcellus _confounded by some Writers_;] The
Similitude of the Two Names has misled some Writers to confound
_Marcellinus_ with _Marcellus_; for _Eusebius_, as well as St.
_Jerom_, only mention the former; and _Theodoret_, omitting both
_Marcellus_ and _Eusebius_, who succeeded him, names _Melchiades_ as
the immediate Successor of _Marcellinus_[504]; which has made Dr.
_Pearson_ doubt, whether _Marcellus_ was ever Bishop of _Rome_[505].
[Sidenote: _but distinguished by others_.] But _Marcellinus_ and
_Marcellus_ are evidently distinguished in the Pontifical of
_Bucherius_, by the different Times, in which they governed, and the
different Consuls, under whom their Government began and ended[506].
They are, besides, distinguished both by _Optatus Milevitanus_[507],
and St. _Austin_[508], who speaks of _Marcellus_, not only as a
Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_, but as Bishop of that See. To these
Testimonies I may add the Epitaph of _Marcellus_ by Pope _Damasus_,
supposing him to have been Bishop of _Rome_[509]. _Damasus_ flourished
about the Year 366. Many things are said of _Marcellus_; but they are
all founded either on his Acts, or the modern Pontificals, and
consequently have no Foundation at all. Pope _Damasus_, in his
Epitaph, tells us, that his Steadiness in keeping up the Discipline of
the Church, and obliging such as had fallen, during the Persecution,
to give due Satisfaction, stirred up against him a general Hatred,
which, not confined to private Disputes and Invectives, ended in
Tumults, Bloodshed, and Murders[510]. [Sidenote: Marcellus _is
banished_.] _Damasus_ adds, that _the Crime of one, who had renounced
the Faith, while the Church enjoyed a profound Peace, induced the
Tyrant_ Maxentius _to send_ Marcellus _into Banishment_. But of these
Transactions the Antients either have not thought fit to give us a
more particular Account, or, if they did, their Writings have not
reached our Times. _Marcellus_ died on the 16th of _January_ 310.
having held the Pontificate One Year, Seven Months, and Twenty
Days[511]; but whether he died in Banishment, or was recalled to
_Rome_, is uncertain. [Sidenote: _His Acts are fabulous._] The Church
of _Rome_, upon the Authority of his fabulous Acts, has added him,
with many others, to the Number of her Martyrs: but _Maxentius_, who
reigned at _Rome_ during his Pontificate, and under whom he is said to
have suffered, had no sooner made himself Master of that City, than he
put an End to the Persecution, as we are told, in express Terms, by
_Eusebius_[512]. [Sidenote: _His Reliques._] He is said to have been
buried in the Cœmetery of _Priscilla_, on the _Salarian_ Way[513]:
but his Body, like the Bodies of most other Saints, is now worshiped
in several Places; _viz._ in a Church, bearing his Name, at _Rome_; in
the Abbey of _Omont_ in _Hainault_, not far from _Maubeuge_; at
_Cluni_, in a Parish-Church of the Diocese of _Elne_ in
_Roussillon_[514], &c.

-----

Footnote 503:

  Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 504:

  Theod. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 505:

  Pears. post. 109.

Footnote 506:

  Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 507:

  Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 508:

  Aug. ep. 165. & in Petil. c. 16. p. 87.

Footnote 509:

  Vide Bolland. 16. Jan. p. 5.

Footnote 510:

  Bar. ad ann. 309.

Footnote 511:

  Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 512:

  Euseb. l. 8. c. 14.

Footnote 513:

  Boll. Jan. 16. p. 5.

Footnote 514:

  Idem, & Flor. in Martyr. Hier. p. 256, 257.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 CONSTANTINE,                  EUSEBIUS,                      LICINIUS.
                     _Thirtieth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 310. ]

_Marcellus_ was succeeded by _Eusebius_, who governed Seven Months,
according to _Eusebius_[515], but only Four Months and Sixteen Days
according to the Pontifical of _Bucherius_[516]. [Sidenote: _Stands up
in Defence of the Discipline of the Church, and is banished._] From
an antient Epitaph on this Pope we learn, that he opposed, with great
Vigour and Zeal, one _Heraclius_, pretending that those who had fallen
during the Persecution, ought to be readmitted to the Communion of the
Church, without giving such Satisfaction as was then required; and that
hereupon great Divisions happening among the People, _Maxentius_, to put
an End to those Disturbances, banished _Eusebius_ into _Sicily_[517].
Many other things are said of him by _Anastasius_, _Platina_,
_Ciacconius_, and such-like Writers; but what we read in them has no
better Foundation than what is advanced by _Baronius_; _viz._ that he
instructed _Eusebius_ the celebrated Bishop of _Vercelli_, and gave him
his own Name[518]; which is founded on the Acts of that Bishop, now
universally rejected as supposititious.

-----

Footnote 515:

  Euseb. chron.

Footnote 516:

  Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 517:

  Bar. ad ann. 311.

Footnote 518:

  Idem ib. n. 42.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 CONSTANTINE,                 MELCHIADES,                     LICINIUS.
                    _Thirty-first_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 311. ]

_Melchiades_, or _Miltiades_, as he is called in the antient
Manuscripts, was chosen to succeed _Eusebius_, on the 2d of _July_ 311.
after a Vacancy of Nine Months, and upwards [519]; which Historians do
not account for. [Sidenote: Constantine _converted to the Christian
Religion_.   _His Edicts in favour of the Christians._] In his Time
happened the ever memorable Conversion of _Constantine_ to the Christian
Religion. That Prince, having overcome and utterly defeated the Usurper
_Maxentius_, on the 28th of _October_ 312. soon after issued an Edict,
jointly with _Licinius_, who was upon the point of marrying his Sister,
allowing the Christians the free Exercise of their Religion, and
likewise the Liberty of building Churches[520]. By the same Edict he
ordered the Places, where they had held their Assemblies before the
Persecution, and which had been taken from them, to be restored[521]. He
left _Rome_ in the Beginning of the Year 313. and, arriving at _Milan_,
he there issued a Second Edict, to correct some Mistakes that had given
Offence in the former[522]. What these Mistakes were, we know not; for
the Decree itself has not reached our Times; but _Valesius_ conjectures,
that the high Commendations bestowed on the Christian Religion alarmed
the Pagans, imagining, that the Intention of the Two Princes was to
suppress theirs; and likewise, that some Christians had taken Offence at
the odious Name of Heretics; given in that Decree to the various Sects
sprung from them[523]. Be that as it will, it is certain, that, by the
Second Decree, an intire Liberty of Conscience was granted to all sorts
of Persons, every one being allowed to honour and worship what Deity he
pleased; and in what manner soever he thought best. The Second Edict
strictly injoins all those, who had purchased of the Exchequer, or held
by Grant, any Place formerly destined for the Assemblies of the
Christians, to restore them forthwith, and apply to the Exchequer; where
they should be indemnified[524]. The same Year 313. _Licinius_, having
gained a complete Victory over _Maximinus_, a sworn Enemy to the
Christians, made himself Master of _Nicomedia_, and there caused the
Edict of _Milan_ to be proclaimed, and set up in the Market-place, on
the 13th of _June_[525]. Thus Peace was restored to the Church, in the
East as well as in the West, after a most cruel and bloody Persecution
of Ten Years, and almost Four Months; for the First Edict against the
Christians had been published in that very City on the 24th of
_February_ 303[526]

[Sidenote: _The Schism of the_ Donatists _in_ Africa.]

Another remarkable Incident of this Pontificate was, the famous Schism,
formed in _Africa_ against _Cæcilianus_, the Catholic Bishop of
_Carthage_; whereof a succinct Account will not be foreign to my
Subject, as _Melchiades_ was chiefly concerned in most of the
Transactions relating to it. The first Decree against the Christians,
published by _Dioclesian_, which I have just now mentioned, ordered the
Churches to be every-where laid level with the Ground, the Books of the
Scripture to be carefully sought for, and publicly burnt; and that such
Persons of Quality as should persist in the Profession of the Christian
Faith, should be deemed infamous, and excluded from all Honours and
Employments. This Edict was executed with such Rigour in _Africa_, that
it was a capital Crime in the Magistrates of the Cities, and punishable
with Death, to shew any Mercy or Compassion to a Christian, who, owning
he had the sacred Books, should refuse to deliver them into the Hands of
the proper Officers. [Sidenote: Traditores _who_.] Those who, in
Compliance with this Edict, delivered them up, which great Numbers did,
were styled _Traditores_, a Name, which afterwards became famous in the
History of the Church, by affording the _Donatists_ a plausible Pretence
to separate themselves from the Communion of the Catholic Bishops[527].
Of this Crime _Mensurius_, Bishop of _Carthage_, was falsly accused;
but, though the Charge could not be proved against him, yet some of his
Flock, encouraged by _Donatus_, Bishop of _Casænigræ_ in _Numidia_,
separated from his Communion[528]. _Mensurius_ dying some Years after,
_Cæcilianus_, Deacon of the Church of _Carthage_, was chosen in his
room, in Spite of the Cabals and Intrigues of _Botrus_ and _Cælesius_,
Two chief Presbyters, who aspired to that Dignity. [Sidenote: _The chief
Authors of the Schism against_ Cæcilianus.] _Cæcilianus_, soon after his
Election, summoned some Persons, in whose Custody his Predecessor had
left the Money of the Church, to deliver it up to him: but they not only
refused to comply with his Demand, but began to stir up the People, and
form a Party against him. _Botrus_ and _Cælesius_ were not idle on this
Occasion; but, animated with Jealousy and Envy, lest no Art unpractised
to blacken his Character, and discredit him with those who had preferred
him to them. But the chief Support of this Faction was _Lucilla_, a
Woman of great Quality, Wealth, and Interest, and an avowed Enemy to
_Cæcilianus_, who, while he was yet Deacon, had publicly reprimanded her
for kissing the Relique of a Martyr, as she was upon the Point of
receiving the Eucharist. An undeniable Proof, that the Worship of
Reliques was at this time disapproved by the Church. Such Liberty taken
with a Person of her Rank, was what she could not brook; and therefore
she laid hold of the first Opportunity that offered, and no better could
offer, to revenge the Affront[529]. It is not to be doubted but those,
who had separated from _Mensurius_, joined this Faction; since the
Second Schism owed its Origin to the First, as St. _Austin_ says,
speaking of the Two Schisms under _Mensurius_ and _Cæcilianus_[530].

[Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Numidia _summoned to depose him_.]

The Schismatics, to give an Appearance of Justice and Authority to their
Proceedings, summoned _Secundus_ Bishop of _Tigisis_, and the other
Bishops of _Numidia_, to depose _Cæcilianus_, and chuse another in his
room; for the Bishops of _Numidia_ claimed the Privilege of assisting at
the Election of the Bishop of _Carthage_, and ordaining him after he was
elected[531]. They readily complied with the Summons; but, upon their
Arrival, they found, to their great Surprize, that the whole City,
except a small Number of Schismatics, the avowed Enemies of
_Cæcilianus_, communicated with him as their lawful Bishop[532]. They
were 70 in Number; but as many of them were _Traditors_, and some guilty
of other enormous Crimes, as appears from the Acts of the Council of
_Cirtha_[533], they were easily prevailed upon by _Lucilla_, who is said
to have spent an immense Sum on this Occasion[534], to declare the
Election of _Cæcilianus_ void, and the See of _Carthage_ vacant.
[Sidenote: _They declare his Election null._] The only thing they could
lay to his Charge was, that he had been ordained by _Felix_ Bishop of
_Aptungus_, whom they falsly accused as a _Traditor_. _Cæcilianus_
refused to Appear before them; and truly to trust himself to such an
Assembly, had been acting a very imprudent Part; for _Purpurius_, Bishop
of _Limata_, had said, _If he comes among us, instead of laying our
Hands upon him, by way of Ordination, we ought to knock out his Brains,
by way of Penance_[535].

[Sidenote: _The Schismatics separate themselves from the Communion of
the Church._]

The Party having thus declared _Cæcilianus_ illegally elected and
ordained, they separated themselves from his Communion, and from the
Communion of all who communicated with him[536]; that is, from the
Communion of the Catholic Church; for _Cæcilianus_ was acknowleged by
the other Bishops of _Africa_, by the Bishop of _Rome_, and by all the
Bishops of the World, says St. _Austin_[537]. Such was the Rise of the
famous Schism, which, for the Space of 300 Years, and upwards,
occasioned great Disturbances in the Churches of _Africa_. [Sidenote:
_Called_ Donatists, _and from whom_.] _Donatus_, Bishop of _Casænigræ_
in _Numidia_, was the first Author of it, according to St.
_Austin_[538]; but it was not from him, but from _Donatus_, the
Schismatic Bishop of _Carthage_, that they took the Name of _Donatists_;
for, till his Time, they styled themselves the Party of
_Majorinus_[539], whom they chose and ordained Bishop of _Carthage_, in
the room of _Cæcilianus_; though he was then only Lector of that Church,
and had been formerly one of _Lucilla_’s menial Servants[540]. To
justify their Conduct, and their electing a new Bishop, they writ
Letters to all the Churches of _Africa_, filled with Calumnies against
_Cæcilianus_, and those who had ordained him. By these Letters great
Numbers were imposed upon, and misled; insomuch that, the People being
every-where divided, most Churches had Two Bishops, the one ordained by
_Majorinus_, and the other by _Cæcilianus_[541].

[Sidenote: _Edicts enacted by_ Constantine, _in favour of the
Christian Religion_.]

About this time, that is, about the Year 313. _Constantine_, out of his
Zeal for the Christian Religion, issued Two Decrees, addressed to
_Anulinus_, Proconsul of _Africa_, the one commanding all the Places in
that Province to be restored, which had once belonged to the Catholic
Church, and might have been usurped during the Persecution[542]; and the
other, exempting the Ecclesiastics from all civil Functions[543]. This
Privilege was granted only to the Ecclesiastics of the Catholic Church,
whereof _Cæcilianus_ was the Head, as was expresly declared in the
Edict; and therefore to him alone the Proconsul imparted it. It was a
great Mortification to the _Donatists_ to see themselves thus
disregarded by the Emperor: they therefore assembled a few Days after,
and drawing up a Petition to _Constantine_, they delivered it, unsealed,
to _Anulinus_, together with a Bundle of Papers, sealed up in a Leather
Bag, with this Title: _The Petition of the Catholic Church, containing
the Crimes of_ Cæcilianus; _by the Party of_ Majorinus. [Sidenote: _The_
Donatists _petition_ Constantine, _that the Dispute may be referred to
the Bishops of_ Gaul.] The Substance of the Petition was, that the
Controversy between them and the other Bishops of _Africa_ might be
referred to the Bishops of _Gaul_, who were free from the Imputation of
having delivered up the sacred Books to the Pagans[544]. _Anulinus_
immediately dispatched a Messenger to the Emperor, both with the
Request, and the Papers, giving him, at the same time, by a Letter still
extant[545], an Insight into the Dispute, that made so great a Noise in
_Africa_. _Constantine_, who was then in _Gaul_, having received and
read all those Pieces, expressed great Concern to find the Christians
thus divided among themselves, and the Bishops at Variance with one
another[546]. [Sidenote: _The Bishops named by_ Constantine.] However,
he readily granted to the _Donatists_ the Judges they demanded, naming,
for that Purpose, _Maternus_ Bishop of _Cologne_, _Rheticius_ Bishop of
_Autun_, and _Marinus_ Bishop of _Arles_[547]; all Men of known
Integrity, great Learning, and unblemished Characters. To these, by a
Letter under his own Hand, he gave Notice of their new Commission; and,
at the same time, for their better Information, he caused Copies to be
transmitted to them, of all the Papers he had received from
_Anulinus_[548]. The Three Bishops were ordered to repair, with all
Speed, to _Rome_, and there, jointly with _Melchiades_, Bishop of that
City, to sit as Judges of the Controversy. _Cæcilianus_ likewise was
ordered to _Rome_, and allowed to take with him Ten Bishops of his
Party, such as he should judge the most capable of defending his Cause;
and the same Liberty was granted to the adverse Party[549]. [Sidenote:
_His Letter to_ Melchiades.] _Constantine_, in the Letter he writ on
this Occasion to _Melchiades_, after appealing to him as a Witness of
the Respect and Veneration he had for the Catholic Church, declares, he
had nothing so much at Heart as to see her Members happily united: he
therefore earnestly intreats him to examine the Affair with the utmost
Attention, and, jointly with the Bishops of _Gaul_, to judge it
according to the strictest Laws of Justice and Equity[550]. In this
Letter _Constantine_ names no other Judges but the Three Bishops of
_Gaul_, _Melchiades_, and one _Mark_, supposed to have been Bishop of
_Milan_, whom he joins with _Melchiades_; but afterwards he ordered
Seven more to be added to the Number, and as many as could soon and
conveniently assemble; so that they were at last 19 in all[551].
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Rome.] They met, for the first time, on
_Friday_ the Second of _October_ 313. _Constantine_ and _Licinius_ being
the third time Consuls[552]. The Place they met in was the Apartment of
_Fausta_, in the _Lateran_ Palace[553], she being then, in all
Likelihood, absent in _Gaul_, with the Emperor her Husband. Before this
Assembly _Cæcilianus_ appeared as the Person accused, and _Donatus_ of
_Casænigræ_ as the Accuser. [Sidenote: Cæcilianus _absolved, and_
Donatus _condemned_.] They had but Three Meetings: in the First the
Characters of the Accusers and Witnesses were strictly inquired into,
and their Depositions heard; in the Second the Acts of the Council of
_Carthage_, which had condemned _Cæcilianus_, as I have related above,
were examined; and in the last _Cæcilianus_, against whom nothing had
been proved, was absolved, and _Donatus_ condemned as a Slanderer, and
the chief Author of the Schism[554]. An Account of the Whole, together
with the Acts of the Council, was immediately transmitted to
_Constantine_, who began to flatter himself, that he had put an End to
the Dispute; for he could not imagine, that the _Donatists_ would appeal
from the Judgment of such unexceptionable Judges, of Judges whom they
themselves had demanded. But the good Prince was yet a Stranger to the
Nature of religious Disputes, to the Heat, Animosity, and enthusiastic
Rancour, with which they are commonly carried on. Notwithstanding the
Pains he took, and his Successors after him, and no Pains they spared,
to heal these unhappy Divisions, they continued, to the great Scandal of
the Pagans, rending the Church into most furious Parties and Factions,
for the Space of near 300 Years. [Sidenote: Melchiades _dies_.] The
Council of _Rome_ was held in the Month of _October_ 313, and
_Melchiades_ died on the Tenth of _January_ ensuing, _Volusianus_ and
_Anienus_ being Consuls, having presided for the Space of Two Years, Six
Months, and Eight Days[555]. About an hundred Years after, the
_Donatists_ charged him with having delivered up the sacred Books, and
offered Incense to the Pagan Gods; but this St. _Austin_ calls a
groundless Charge, a mere Calumny, a malicious Invention of the
_Donatists_ of his Time to justify the Conduct of their Predecessors, in
appealing, as they did, from the Council of _Rome_, at which
_Melchiades_ assisted, and probably presided, as Bishop of the Imperial
City[556].

[Sidenote: _Whether the_ Lateran _Palace was given by_ Constantine
_to_ Melchiades.]

_Baronius_, impatient to see the Pope raised to the Rank of a Prince,
endeavours to prove, that _Melchiades_ was placed in that Station by
_Constantine_, and argues thus: The Council of _Rome_ was held in the
_Lateran_ Palace; therefore that Palace had been given by _Constantine_
to _Melchiades_, and belonged to him; for that an Assembly of Nineteen
Bishops only should meet in so spacious a Place, can no otherwise be
accounted for, but by supposing the Pope to have resided there. This he
calls a Demonstration[557]. Having thus got him a Palace, and, no doubt,
magnificently furnished, he finds no Difficulty in equipping him in
every other respect as a Prince: For who can imagine, says he, that
_Constantine_, so pious, so generous a Prince, would have given to the
Head of the Church a Royal Palace to live in, and not allow him at the
same time a suitable Retinue, with suitable Appointments? To act
otherwise, had not been honouring, but disgracing the Christian
Religion, since its High Pontiff, stalking about all alone in a huge
Palace, could be but an Object of Ridicule to the Pontiffs of the Pagan
Superstition, who lived in magnificent Houses, with answerable
Grandeur[558]. Thus is the Bishop metamorphosed at once into a
Sovereign. But the Metamorphosis is somewhat premature. If
_Constantine_, yet a _Neophyte_, was not well acquainted with the true
Spirit of the Christian Religion, _Melchiades_ was; and therefore, had
that Prince offered to distinguish him by any such Marks of worldly
Grandeur, I do not question but, as he was a very good Man, he would
have taken from thence an Opportunity of instructing him better in the
Principles of his new Profession, and shewing him in what Contempt the
Christian Prelates had, and he himself ought to have, all worldly
Grandeur. But no such Offer was ever made or dreamt of: For what at
length is all this founded on? On the Meeting of the Council in the
_Lateran_ Palace. The _French_ Academy meet in the _Louvre_: Are they
therefore Princes? And does not _Optatus_, of whom we have the whole
Account, call it in express Terms the House of _Fausta_[559]? _Fausta_
perhaps lived there, says _Baronius_, during the long and flourishing
Reign of her Father _Maximian_, and thence it might be called the House
of _Fausta_. Thus in the End is his Demonstration dwindled away to a
mere Conjecture, and a very groundless one too: But, waving that, why
might not _Fausta_ continue in the same Palace after her Father’s Death,
with her Husband _Constantine_, when he was at _Rome_, or alone, when
she did not attend him in the Wars? The Annalist seems to have forgot
that _Fausta_ was _Constantine_’s Wife. But after all, the Empress, as
it appears to me, had only an Apartment in the _Lateran_; for in this
Sense I understand _Optatus_ saying, _The Council was held in the House,
or Habitation, of_ Fausta _in the_ Lateran. But her being any-ways there
excludes _Melchiades_. Their sitting in the Imperial Palace gave a kind
of Authority and Sanction to their Decisions; and besides, there might
not be room in the House of _Melchiades_, if he had a House, for the
Council, and those who were to attend it, they being in all Forty
Bishops; so that we need not put _Melchiades_ in Possession of that
Palace to account for the Council’s meeting in it, as _Baronius_ has
done.

-----

Footnote 519:

  Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 520:

  Euseb. l. 9. c. 9.

Footnote 521:

  Idem l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 522:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 523:

  Val. in not. ad Euseb. hist. p. 195.

Footnote 524:

  Euseb. ib.

Footnote 525:

  Lact. pers. c. 47, 48.

Footnote 526:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 527:

  Aug. l. 7. c. 2. Opt. l. 1. p. 39.

Footnote 528:

  Aug. collat. Carth. die 3. c. 12. Vales. in not. ad Euseb. hist. p.
  191.

Footnote 529:

  Opt. l. 1. p. 41. Aug. Psal. Abced. p. 3. in Petil. c. 18. & contr.
  epist. Parmen. p. 7.

Footnote 530:

  Aug. coll. Carth. die 3. c. 12.

Footnote 531:

  Aug. in Par. l. 1. c. 3. & Psal. Abced. p. 3. Opt. p. 41.

Footnote 532:

  Opt. ib.

Footnote 533:

  Aug. in Crese. l. 3. c. 26, 27, 29. & coll. die 3. c. 17. die 2. c.
  14, &c.

Footnote 534:

  Aug. in Gaud. l. 1. c. 37. ep. 162. & in Psal. 36. p. 119.

Footnote 535:

  Opt. p. 41.

Footnote 536:

  Aug. coll. die 3. c. 14.

Footnote 537:

  Id. ep. 162.

Footnote 538:

  In Joan. evang. tract. 69. p. 12.

Footnote 539:

  Hier. vir. ill. c. 93.

Footnote 540:

  Opt. l. 1. p. 42.

Footnote 541:

  Aug. ep. 162.

Footnote 542:

  Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 543:

  Idem ib. c. 7. & Cod. Theod. 16. t. 2. l. 1. p. 20.

Footnote 544:

  Aug. ep. 68. Vales. in not. ad hist. Euseb. p. 197.

Footnote 545:

  Coll. Carth. in concil. per Steph. Baluz. c. 3. n. 216. 220. p. 578.

Footnote 546:

  Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

Footnote 547:

  Opt. ib. Aug. ep. 166.

Footnote 548:

  Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 549:

  Coll. Carth. p. 149.

Footnote 550:

  Euseb. ib.

Footnote 551:

  Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

Footnote 552:

  Aug. coll. Carth. die 3. c. 17. Opt. ib.

Footnote 553:

  Opt. ib.

Footnote 554:

  Coll. Carth. p. 149. & ep. 162. Opt. ib.

Footnote 555:

  Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 556:

  Aug. in Pet. p. 87. & in Par. c. 5. p. 8.

Footnote 557:

  Bar. ad ann. 312. n. 82.

Footnote 558:

  Id. ib. n. 85.

Footnote 559:

  Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 CONSTANTINE.                  SYLVESTER,
                     _Thirty-second_ _BISHOP_ _of_
                                 Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 314.  _The_ Donatists _complain of the
Council of_ Rome.]

_Sylvester_ was chosen in the room of _Melchiades_ on the last of
_January_ 314[560]. In his time were held the two great Councils of
_Arles_ and _Nice_. The former was convened by _Constantine_’s Order at
the Request of the _Donatists_, who, instead of acquiescing to the
Judgment of the Council of _Rome_, loudly complained to the Emperor of
the Bishops who composed it, as partial, prejudiced, and over-hasty in
deciding a Controversy of the greatest Importance[561]. _Constantine_
heard them with great Patience; and that he might leave them no Colour
or Pretence whatsoever to continue in their Schism, [Sidenote: _The
Council of_ Arles.] he summoned a second Council to meet at _Arles_,
inviting several Bishops to it with most pathetic Letters under his own
Hand, and ordering the Proconsuls and Governors of Provinces to acquaint
the rest with his Desire and Intention. _Chrestus_, or _Crescentius_,
Bishop of _Syracuse_, was allowed, and so, without all doubt, were the
rest, to bring two Presbyters with him, and three Attendants, as we
learn from the Emperor’s Letter to him, which is still extant[562]. They
were all to be supplied with Conveniences for traveling, and every thing
else, at the public Expence. The Time appointed for their Meeting was
the first of _August_ 314. and on that Day they met accordingly[563],
not from all Parts of the World, as we read in the Acts of the Second
Council of _Arles_[564], but from _Africa_, and most other Provinces of
the West. _Sylvester_ Bishop of _Rome_ was invited to it; but he excused
himself on account of his Age, and sent in his room the two Presbyters,
_Claudianus_ and _Vitus_, with _Eugenius_ and _Cyriacus_, Deacons; the
Bishop of _Ostia_ sent likewise two Presbyters in his room[565].
[Sidenote: Cæcilianus _declared innocent._] By this Assembly
_Cæcilianus_ was again declared innocent, and those who should falsly
accuse their Brethren cut off from the Communion of the Church, without
Hopes of being ever re-admitted, except at the Point of Death[566]. As
to the schismatic Bishops, it was agreed, that such of them as abandoned
the Schism should not forfeit their Dignity, but sit alternatively with
the Catholic Bishop till one of them died[567]. The Council, before they
broke up, acquainted the Bishop of _Rome_ with their Proceedings, and at
the same time sent him the Decrees they had made concerning the
Discipline of the Church, not to be confirmed by him, as _Baronius_
would make us believe[568], but that _by his means, as he held larger
Dioceses, they might be the sooner known_. These are the very Words of
the Council[569][N10].

-----

Footnote N10:

  Several Canons were made by this Council relating to the Discipline of
  the Church. 1. It was ordained, that _Easter_ should be kept on the
  same Day, and on a _Sunday_, by all the Churches in the World; and
  that the Bishop of _Rome_ should acquaint the other Churches with the
  Day. But it was afterwards ordained, that the Bishop of _Alexandria_
  should fix the Day, and give timely notice of it to the Bishop of
  _Rome_, that by his means it might be notified to the whole Church.
  This Ordinance St. _Cyril_ seems to ascribe to the Council of _Nice_;
  for he says, that it was _so enacted by the Synod composed of all the
  Saints of the Earth_; which, at the Time he writ, that is, about the
  Year 360. could be said of no other Synod but that of _Nice_. Pope
  _Leo the Great_, speaking of this Custom in a Letter to the Emperor
  _Marcian_, only says, that it was _established by the holy
  Fathers_[N10.1]. He meant, perhaps, the Fathers of _Nice_. But as they
  took no notice of such a Custom in their Letter to the Church of
  _Egypt_, I cannot suppose it to have been introduced by them. The Care
  of fixing the Day, and acquainting the Bishop of _Rome_ with it, was
  probably committed to the Bishop of _Alexandria_, because the
  _Egyptians_ were thought to be better acquainted with the Motions of
  the heavenly Bodies than any other Nation. In other Provinces the
  Bishops seem to have been utter Strangers to Astronomy, and to that
  Ignorance was chiefly owing their Disagreement with respect to the
  Celebration of _Easter_. This Custom still obtained in the Fifth
  Century, as appears from a Letter of _Leo the Great_, dated the 28th
  of _July_ 454. For by that Letter he acquaints the Bishops of _Gaul_
  and _Spain_, that the following Year 455, _Easter_ would fall on the
  24th of _April_, _as it had been settled in the East_[N10.2]. Before
  his Time _Innocent_ I. being at a Loss to know on what Day _Easter_
  should be kept in 414. had recourse to _Aurelius_ Bishop of
  _Carthage_, intreating him to examine that Point in a Council, and let
  him know what they determined, that he might notify it, as was
  customary, to other Churches. _Innocent_ had quarreled, on
  _Chrysostom_’s Account, with the Eastern Bishops; and therefore chose
  rather to be informed and directed by the _African_ Bishops than by
  them. 2. It was decreed, that such as had been baptized by Heretics in
  the Name of the Trinity, should not be rebaptized, but admitted into
  the Church only by the Imposition of Hands. But to this Decree of the
  Council no greater Regard was paid, than had been paid in St.
  _Cyprian_’s Time to the Decisions of Pope _Stephen_. For in the Year
  370. the same Practice of rebaptizing Heretics still obtained in
  several Churches of _Africa_, as appears from _Optatus_, who writ
  about that time. In the East some held, and some denied, the Validity
  of Baptism administred by an Heretic. Of the latter Opinion was the
  great _Athanasius_, who flourished from the Year 326. to 373. and St.
  _Basil_, who writ about the Year 369. after examining, in his Letter
  to _Amphilochus_, the two opposite Practices, seems inclined to think
  the Baptism of Heretics null. According to the present Doctrine of the
  Church of _Rome_, Baptism, by whomsoever administred, whether _Jew_,
  _Gentile_, Heretic, _Mohammedan_, &c. whether Man or Woman, or even a
  Child, is valid, provided it be only administred with an Intention of
  administring it, without which every Sacrament, say they, is null.
  This Doctrine, with respect to the Intention, proves daily to timorous
  Consciences the Source of endless Doubts and Perplexities, which can
  never be removed: for tho’ they may know for certain, that the
  Ceremony was performed, yet they can never know whether or no it was
  performed with the due Intention. In Confession, for Instance, they
  may hear the Words of the Absolution pronounced by the Priest; but
  they know nothing of his Intention, of the Intention of the Minister
  who baptized him, of the Bishop who ordained him, of the Priest who
  baptized, or the Bishops who ordained that Bishop, and so up to the
  Apostles, by whom the first Bishops were ordained. Should the right
  Intention have been wanting in any of these; should the Priest, while
  he pronounces the Words of Absolution, have his Thoughts employed on
  some other Object, as it may easily happen; the penitent Sinner would
  depart from his Tribunal with the whole Load of his Sins, and be
  damned, notwithstanding his Repentance, for, or, more properly
  speaking, thro' want of Attention in the Priest. A most unchristian
  and impious Doctrine, placing our eternal Salvation in the Hands of
  others, and not in our own. 3. The Council decreed, that
  excommunicated Persons should be no-where absolved from the
  Excommunication but in the Places where they had been excommunicated.
  The Bishops of _Rome_ did not yet know, it seems, that they were
  vested with an unlimited Power of binding and loosening, of
  excommunicating and absolving, with respect to all Persons and Places;
  for had _Sylvester_ but dreamt of such a Power, we may well suppose he
  would never have suffered it to be thus controuled. Several other
  Canons were made by this Council, in all Twenty-two; but it is foreign
  to my Purpose to take notice of them. I shall only observe, that the
  Council consisted of Thirty-three Bishops, and not of Two hundred, as
  _Baronius_ supposes, upon the Authority of St. _Austin_, whom he
  misunderstood; and that _Marinus_ Bishop of _Arles_ presided, his Name
  being placed at the Head of the Subscriptions, and the Names of
  _Sylvester_’s Legates after his.

Footnote N10.1:

  Leo, ep. 94. c. 1.

Footnote N10.2:

  Leo, ep. 109.

-----

The other grand Council that was held during the Pontificate of
_Sylvester_ was that of _Nice_, so famous in the History of the Church:
but the Bishop of the reigning City, says _Eusebius_[570], being
prevented by his great Age from undertaking so long a Journey, he sent
_Vitus_ and _Vincentius_, Two _Roman_ Presbyters, to supply his
room[571], with Orders to agree in his Name to the Decisions of the
Council[572]. In Process of Time such Orders grew out of Date, and the
modest Name of _Roman_ Presbyters, given to those who were sent by the
Bishops of _Rome_, either to Councils or Princes, was changed into the
lofty Title of _Legates a latere_. [Sidenote: Osius _did not assist at
the Council of_ Nice _as the Pope’s Legate_.] _Baronius_[573], and after
him most Writers of the Church of _Rome_, maintain _Osius_, the
celebrated Bishop of _Cordoua_, to have assisted, nay, and presided at
the Council of _Nice_ as the Pope’s Legate. _Vitus_ and _Vincentius_,
say they, represented the Person of the Pope; but _Osius_ held his
Place, and the Place of all the Bishops of the West. That _Osius_
assisted at the Council with the Character of the Pope’s Legate, is
affirmed, I own, by _Gelasius_ of _Cyzicus_, who flourished about the
End of the Fifth Century[574]: but _Eusebius_, who was present, mentions
only _Vitus_ and _Vincentius_ as sent thither by _Sylvester_. In like
manner all the Historians, who have written of that Council after
_Eusebius_ till the Time of _Gelasius_, in naming those Two Presbyters
and _Osius_, which they all do, constantly distinguish the former by the
Title of the Deputies, the Representatives, _&c._ of the Bishop of
_Rome_, and never the latter. Besides, _Vitus_ and _Vincentius_, in
subscribing to the Canons of the Council, declare, that they do it _in
the Name of the venerable Pope_, or Father, _Sylvester their
Bishop_[575]; whereas _Osius_ subscribes, like the other Bishops, in his
own Name. As to his presiding at that great Assembly, his Name, 'tis
true, is marked the first by _Socrates_[576], among those who subscribed
to the Definitions and Canons of the Council; but yet I am inclined to
believe that Honour not to have been conferred upon him, but upon
_Eustathius_ Bishop of _Antioch_; [Sidenote: _Nor did he preside._] for
_John_, Bishop of the same City, writing to _Proculus_ about the Year
435. styles him the first of the Fathers assembled at _Nice_[577], and
_Facundus_ calls him the first of the Council[578]. In the Chronicle of
_Nicephorus_ he is styled the Head of the Fathers of _Nice_[579]: and
from _Theodoret_ we learn, that he sat the first on the Right-hand in
the Assembly, and harangued the Emperor[580], which it was the
President’s Province to do[N11].

-----

Footnote N11:

  The Title of President is given him in a Letter, which is commonly
  ascribed to Pope _Felix_ III[N11.1]. But I am well apprised, that no
  great Stress should be laid on that Piece, since some surmise it to
  have been composed in the Eighth Century.

Footnote N11.1:

  Concil. t. 1. p. 1072.

-----

The Honour of presiding belonged of Right to _Alexander_ Bishop of
_Alexandria_; but he, it seems, declined it, perhaps to obviate the
Complaints of the _Arians_, who looked upon him as a Party concerned,
and one highly prejudiced against them. I know that the haranguing of
_Constantine_ is ascribed to _Eusebius_ the Historian, in the Title of
the Chapter in which he mentions it[581], that _Sozomen_ positively
affirms it, and that the learned _Valesius_ thinks there is no room to
doubt of it, since _Eusebius_ was the most eloquent Bishop of those
Times; and besides, he himself tells us, that he pronounced a Speech in
Praise of _Constantine_, on occasion of his entering into the Twentieth
Year of his Reign, while he was sitting in the midst of the Ministers of
God[582]; meaning thereby, no doubt, the Bishops assembled at _Nice_.
[Sidenote: Eusebius _of_ Cæsarea _did not harangue the Emperor at the
Opening of the Council_,] That _Eusebius_ harangued the Emperor before
that venerable Assembly, is not at all to be questioned; but that the
Bishops, who composed it, should have pitched upon one who was
suspected, or rather convicted, of _Arianism_, to address the Emperor in
their Name, at the Opening of the Council, seems to me highly
improbable. The Orator, whoever he was, sat in the first Place, or at
least in the second (that I may not quarrel with _Baronius_, who will
have the Place on the Left-hand to have been the most honourable[583]):
And what Right had the Bishop of _Cæsarea_ to that Honour? [Sidenote:
_but on another Occasion_.] I may add, that a short Compliment, such as
is that which the Presbyter _Gregory_ ascribes to _Eustathius_ of
_Antioch_[584], had been far more proper on that Occasion than
_Eusebius_’s long and tedious Panegyric, which therefore some suppose to
have been pronounced on Occasion of the magnificent Entertainment which
_Constantine_ gave the Bishops, as they were preparing to return to
their respective Sees; for he then entered into the Twentieth Year of
his Reign, which began on the 25th of _July_ 325. and it was on that
Occasion that _Eusebius_ writ, and delivered his Panegyric before the
Emperor, and the Fathers of the Council, as he himself declares[585]. To
conclude, had _Eusebius_ been appointed by that great Assembly to
address the Emperor in their Name, his Modesty had not prevented him
from describing the Spokesman so as to leave no room to doubt on whom
that Honour had been conferred.

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Nice _not convened by the Pope_.]

Before I dismiss this Subject, it may not be improper, nor foreign to my
Purpose, to observe, that the Council of _Nice_, the first General or
Oecumenical Council held in the Church, was convened by the Emperor, and
not by the Bishop of _Rome_; that the Bishop of _Rome_ did not preside
in it either in Person, or by his Legates, as they are pleased to style
them; and consequently that the Privilege which they assumed in
After-ages of assembling General Councils, and presiding in them, ought
to be deemed a most insolent and unwarrantable Usurpation. [Sidenote:
_The Council commands all Causes to be finally determined by
Provincial Synods._] The Second Thing worthy of notice with respect to
this Council is its Fifth Canon, commanding all Ecclesiastical Causes to
be finally decided in each Province by a Provincial Synod. The Words of
the Canon are clear in themselves, and besides have been understood in
this Sense by all the Councils that were held, by all the Authors that
writ, for several Ages after[586]; nay, it was understood in this Sense
by some of the Popes themselves, namely, by _Innocent_ I. who, in one of
his Letters to _Victricius_ Bishop of _Roan_, writes thus; _If any
Controversy should arise among the Clerks, whether they be of an
inferior or superior Rank, let it be decided, agreeably to the Council
of_ Nice, _in an Assembly of the Bishops of the same Province_[587].
'Tis true, he adds, _without prejudicing the Rights of the_ Roman _See_.
But that Restriction is his own, and not the Council’s. Hence this
Canon, directing all Causes to be thus tried, all Disputes to be thus
ended, was often quoted on occasion of Appeals made to _Rome_, and
employed as a Bulwark to restrain the incroaching Power of the Popes
within due Bounds; but in Process of Time their Ambition, supported by
the Favour of Princes, and the great Temporalities they acquired, bore
all down before them.

[Sidenote: _The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy first formed._]

It was in the Pontificate of _Sylvester_, and under the benign Auspices
of _Constantine_, that the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was first formed and
settled in the Manner it continues to this Day; the new Form of
Government, introduced by that Prince into the State, serving as a Model
for the Government of the Church. In the Three first Centuries no other
Hierarchy was known, no other Degrees thought of, but those of Bishops,
Presbyters, and Deacons. Of these alone was composed the whole Body of
the Clergy; but with this Difference, that the Bishop or Supervisor was
the general Disposer and Manager of all Things within the Bounds of his
Jurisdiction, nothing being done there without his Consent and
Approbation, and the Presbyters and Deacons his Assistants, or his
Counsellors and Senate, as St. _Jerom_[588], and before him St.
_Ignatius_[589], styled them. This Order was probably introduced,
according to _Grotius_[590], in Imitation of the _Jewish_ Synagogues;
for each Synagogue had its Ruler, who presided over the rest, its
Pastors, and its Eleemosynaries; to the Ruler succeeded the Bishop, to
the Pastors the Presbyters, and to the Eleemosynaries the Deacons.
[Sidenote: _The Office and Duty of Bishops._] It was the Bishop’s Office
and Duty to preach the Word[591], to pray with his People[592] to
administer the Sacraments[593], to ordain Ministers[594], to
excommunicate Offenders[595], to absolve Penitents[596], and to regulate
and settle every thing relating to his particular Church[597], with the
Consent and Concurrence of the Presbytery; for the Presbyters were his
Counsellors or Senate, and, together with him, presided in the
Consistories of those Times, as we learn from _Tertullian_ telling us,
that in those Courts _approved Elders presided_[598]. Hence _Petrus de
Marca_ concludes the original Government of the Church to have been mixt
of Monarchy and Aristocracy; or, to use his own Words, the Monarchical
Government of the Church to have been tempered with the Aristocratical.
As the Bishop could not discharge, as he ought, the above-mentioned
Functions, without residing among those who were committed to his Care,
his Residence was deemed absolutely necessary, and Non-residence a most
heinous Transgression; insomuch that St. _Cyprian_, enumerating the Sins
that brought the Wrath of God upon the Church in the bloody Persecution
of _Decius_, mentions Non-residence in the Bishops as one[599].
[Sidenote: _How chosen, and ordained._] Upon the Vacancy of a See a new
Bishop was chosen in the room of the deceased in some Places by the
Clergy and People of that Church alone, in others by the neighbouring
Bishops, the People and the Clergy only expressing their Desire, and
giving Testimony of the Life and Manners of the Person proposed, and in
some by the joint Suffrages of the Clergy, of the People, and of the
neighbouring Bishops. These three different Methods of electing we find
practised at different Times with respect to the same Church; but on no
Occasion was the Choice of the neighbouring Bishops sufficient without
the Consent of the Clergy and People, nor the Election of the Clergy and
People without the Approbation of the neighbouring Bishops. The Bishop
being thus elected and confirmed, he was in the next Place ordained; and
this Ceremony was performed by the neighbouring Bishops, in his own
Church, and in the Presence of his Flock, by the Imposition of Hands.
The new Bishop, agreeably to a Custom which obtained then, immediately
gave Notice of his Promotion to other Bishops, especially to those of
the greater Sees, who, by receiving and answering his Letters, were said
to communicate with him, and to acknowlege him lawfully chosen.

[Sidenote: _The Office and Duty of Presbyters._]

In the Second Degree were the Presbyters or Priests, whose Office or
Province it was to assist the Bishop in the Discharge of his Pastoral
Commission, whence they are often styled the Bishop’s Assistants: with
his Consent and Approbation they preached the Word, they prayed with the
People, they administred the Sacraments, they absolved Penitents, and,
in short, discharged every Office which the Bishop did, except those of
ordaining, confirming, and excommunicating; I say, with the Bishop’s
Consent and Approbation; for no spiritual Function could they perform
without his Leave, as is manifest from _Tertullian_[600], _Origen_[601],
St. _Cyprian_[602], and above all from St. _Ignatius_, in his famous
Letter to the Church of _Smyrna_[603]. The Church, in those happy Days,
admitted none to the sacred Functions, but such as were known by a long
Trial to be well qualified for so great a Charge. [Sidenote:
_Qualifications requisite in a Presbyter._] The Qualifications
requisite in a Presbyter, so far as I can learn from the Antients, may
be reduced to these Four Heads, his Condition in the World, his
Conversation, his Learning, and his Age. He was not to be intangled with
any worldly Affairs, with any secular Employments, but at perfect
Liberty to apply himself wholly to the Functions of his Office[604]. He
was to be of an unspotted and exemplary Life[605]; and therefore, before
Ordination, he was proposed to the Presbytery and People for their
Testimony and Approbation. He was to be well versed in the Scripture,
and capable of teaching others, and instructing them in the Mysteries of
the Christian Religion. As for human Learning, it was not required in a
Presbyter; nay, by some it was condemned, particularly Logic and
Philosophy, as in a manner inconsistent with Christianity[606], but at
the same time highly commended and applauded by others as conducive to
the right understanding of the Scripture, and necessary for confuting
the Sophisms of Heretics[607]; whence Logic especially is recommended by
_Clemens Alexandrinus_ to all Ecclesiastics, as _a Hedge to defend the
Truth from being trod down by Sophists_[608]. As for the Age of a
Presbyter, he was to be stricken in Years, as the very Name of a
Presbyter or Elder sufficiently declares. However, if a young Man was
endowed with extraordinary Gifts and Talents, his Age was dispensed with
in respect both to the Sacerdotal and Episcopal Dignity. Thus was
_Aurelius_, though young in Years, raised, in regard of his great Merit,
to the Rank of a Presbyter, as we read in St. _Cyprian_[609]; and the
Bishop of _Magnesia_, in St. _Ignatius_’s Time, was, it seems, but a
young Man, since _Ignatius_, in his Letter to the _Magnesians_, exhorts
them _not to despise their Bishop’s Age, but to yield him all due
Respect and Reverence_[610]. These were the Qualifications requisite in
a Candidate for the Ministry: if he was recommended by them (for no
other Recommendation could avail him), he was admitted to holy Orders;
if not, he was rejected as unfit for the sacred Function. The Person
ordained was at Liberty to serve the Church where he had received his
Orders, or any other where his Assistance might be wanted; for he was
not ordained Minister of any particular Church, but of the Church
universal.

[Sidenote: _The Institution and Office of Deacons._]

In the Third and last Degree were the Deacons, whose original
Institution was to _serve Tables_, as we read in the _Acts_[611]; that
is, to inspect the Poor, and relieve them by a proper Distribution of
the Offerings made by the Faithful, which were committed to their
Charge, though they could not dispose of them without the Bishop’s
Knowlege[612]. They were ordained by the Imposition of Hands[613], and
therefore deemed Ministers of the Altar, as well as Dispensers of Alms;
and with a great deal of Reason, for they assisted the Bishops or
Presbyters in administring the Eucharist, by delivering the Elements to
the Communicants[614]; they carried the Eucharist to such as had not
been able to assist with the rest at Divine Service[615]; they preached,
and, in the Absence of the Bishop and Presbyters, conferred the
Sacrament of Baptism[616]. [Sidenote: _Their Number._] The Presbyters of
a Church were not confined to a set Number; but the Deacons were, no
Church having more than Seven in the primitive Times, that being the
original Number instituted by the Apostles. Thus the Church of _Rome_
had but Seven in the Times of Pope _Cornelius_[617], and Pope _Sixtus_
II[618], the Church of _Saragosa_ the same Number in the Time of
_Vincentius_, who flourished under _Dioclesian_[619]. The Fourteenth
Canon of the Council of _Neocæsarea_, or the Fifteenth, according to the
_Greek_, forbids this Number to be inlarged, even in the greatest and
most populous Cities[620]; whence St. _Jerom_ writes, that great Respect
was paid to the Deacons, because they were few in Number[621].

[Sidenote: _Subdeacons_, _Acolytes_, _Readers_,3] &c.]

As for the Subdeacons, Acolytes, Lectors, Janitors, and Exorcists, they
were not considered as any-ways belonging to the Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy, being employed only in the meaner Offices of the Church, by
the due Discharge of which they were to give Proof of their Integrity
and Attention, in order to be raised to a higher Degree; for in those
Days very few, and none but upon some very extraordinary Occasion,
arrived at once, or, as they call it, _per saltum_, at the Episcopal
Dignity.

[Sidenote: _Each Church independent._]

During the Three first Centuries each Church was in a manner
independent, that is, could make such Regulations relating to its
Discipline and Government as were judged proper and expedient, without
the Concurrence and Authority of other Churches[622]. However, in all
Matters of Moment, the Bishops used to advise with one another,
especially with those of the same Province, who frequently met to settle
all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Limits. [Sidenote:
_Frequent Synods held._] _Firmilian_, Bishop of _Cæsarea_ in
_Cappadocia_, writes, that in his Province they met every Year[623]; and
from the frequent Synods mentioned by St. _Cyprian_, we may conclude
them to have been held in that Province at least once a Year. [Sidenote:
_Of whom composed._] These Synods or Assemblies were composed of
Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Laymen, representing the People of
their several Churches[624]. They met by their own Appointment and
Authority, there being no Christian Magistrates in those Days to convene
Synods. Being thus assembled, they chose in the first place one, and
sometimes two Bishops, to preside[625]. [Sidenote: _The Method they
held._] It was their Office and Duty to see the Point in question calmly
and fairly debated, to sum up in each Debate what had been urged on both
Sides, to take the Votes and Suffrages of the Members of the Synod, and
last of all to give their own[626]. In these Assemblies all
Ecclesiastical Affairs were settled by the Majority of Votes, and their
Decrees and Decisions were binding with respect to those Churches whose
Representatives were present[627]; but were not so with respect to other
Churches.

[Sidenote: _The Ecclesiastical Policy adapted to the Civil._]

Such was the Hierarchy, such the Government of the Church, during the
Three first Centuries. But in the Fourth and following Ages great
Alterations were made in both, the Church adapting her Government to
that of the State, namely, to the new Form of Government introduced by
_Constantine_, who had settled her in Peace, and taken the Priesthood
into his immediate Protection. For it was in his Reign that the Titles
of _Patriarchs_, _Exarchs_, _Metropolitans_, were first heard of, or at
least had any Power, Authority, or Privileges, annexed to them. That
this Conformity between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Polity may appear
more plainly, I shall premise a succinct Account of the former, as
established by _Constantine_ throughout the Empire. That Prince divided
the whole _Roman_ World into four Prefectures, _viz._ the _East_,
_Illyricum_, _Gaul_, and _Italy_, which were governed by four Prefects,
called _Præfecti Prætorio_. [Sidenote: _The new Form of Government
introduced by_ Constantine.] Till his Time the whole Empire was
governed under the Emperors by Two Prefects only, as _Zosimus_ informs
us[628]; and this Division is supposed to have been made by
_Constantine_, jealous of the too great Power of those Magistrates. Each
Prefecture was subdivided into several Dioceses, and each Diocese into
several Provinces. Thus the Prefecture of the _East_ contained Five
Dioceses; _viz._ the _East_ divided into Ten Provinces, _Egypt_ into
Six, _Pontus_ into Eleven, _Asia_ into Ten, and _Thrace_ into Six. Under
the Prefecture of _Illyricum_ were Two Dioceses; _Macedon_, consisting
of Eight Provinces; and _Dacia_, consisting of four. The Prefecture of
_Gaul_ comprised Three Dioceses, _Gaul_ made up of Seventeen Provinces,
_Spain_ of Seven, and _Britain_ of Five. The Prefecture of _Italy_ was
divided into Two Vicarages or Lieutenancies; the one of _Rome_,
comprehending Ten Provinces, under the Vicar of _Rome_, whence they were
called _Suburbicarian_ Provinces; the other of _Italy_, containing Seven
Provinces, governed by the Vicar of _Italy_, who resided at _Milan_,
whence they were simply called Provinces of _Italy_. Under the Prefect
of _Italy_ was likewise _West Africa_, and after _Constantine_’s Death
_West Illyricum_. The Prefects had other Officers under them, by whom
the Provinces were more immediately governed. These were, to name them
according to their Rank and Dignity, Proconsuls, Vicars, Consulars,
Correctors, and Presidents. Each Diocese had its Metropolis, and
likewise each Province contained in the Diocese.

[Sidenote: _The Civil and Ecclesiastical Polity compared._]

Now, if we compare the Civil Polity, thus described, with the
Ecclesiastical, we shall find them in most Places answering each other,
in every respect, and one Bishop raised above the rest, according to the
Rank that was given by this new Division to the City in which he
presided. Thus, for Instance, the chief Cities of the Five Dioceses of
the Oriental Prefecture were; _Antioch_, the Metropolis of the Oriental
Diocese; _Alexandria_, of the _Egyptian_; _Ephesus_, of the _Asiatic_;
_Cæsarea_, of the _Pontic_; and _Heraclea_, of the _Thracian_. Now the
Bishops of these Cities, in regard of the Eminence of their Sees, were
exalted above all other Bishops, and distinguished with the Title of
Exarchs; nay, and by Degrees they acquired, not to say usurped, a kind
of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Bishops of the inferior Sees,
which was afterwards confirmed to them by several Councils. In like
manner the Bishop of the Metropolis of each Province was, on account of
the Dignity of his See, honoured with the Title of Metropolitan, to
which were annexed several Privileges, of which I shall speak hereafter.
When one Province was divided into Two, which often happened, the
Ecclesiastical Polity was likewise altered, and the Bishop of the new
Metropolis raised to the Dignity of a Metropolitan. Several Instances
might be alleged of ambitious Bishops applying to the Emperors for a
Division of the Province, that their City might acquire the Title of
Metropolis, and they, of course, that of Metropolitans. When the City of
_Byzantium_ was declared the Metropolis of another Empire, the Exarchate
of _Heraclea_, the Metropolis of the _Thracian_ Diocese, was, by that
Change, transferred from _Heraclea_ to the new Metropolis; so that the
Bishop of _Heraclea_ became Suffragan to the Bishop of _Byzantium_, or,
as it was then called, _Constantinople_, who, till that Time, had been
Suffragan to him. Upon the Division of a Province, the Churches were
likewise divided, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis acquired all the
Privileges and Power of a Metropolitan over the Churches taken by the
Change in the Civil Government from the antient Metropolis. But it was
afterwards decreed, by the Council of _Chalcedon_, that if any City
should be raised to the Dignity of a Metropolis, the Bishop of that City
should enjoy the Title, but not the Privileges of a Metropolitan. Thus
the Bishops of _Nice_ and _Berytus_ were honoured with the Title of
Metropolitans, and took Place of all the other Bishops of those
Provinces; but nevertheless continued to be Suffragans to their antient
Metropolitans the Bishops of _Nicomedia_ and _Tyre_. For the same Reason
several Bishops in the Kingdom of _Naples_ enjoy, to this Day, the Title
of Metropolitans; but neither have, nor ever had, any Province or
Suffragans. The above-mentioned Decree was enacted by the Council of
_Chalcedon_, to prevent the Bishops from recurring, as they often did,
to the Emperors,and to obviate the frequent Changes that were thereby
introduced into the Church.

[Sidenote: _The Prefectures of_ Illyricum, Gaul, _and_ Spain.]

The Prefecture of _Illyricum_ had but one Exarch, the Bishop of
_Thessalonica_, the Metropolis of the _Macedonian_ Diocese. In the
Prefecture of _Gaul_ there was no Exarch, but in the Two Dioceses of
_Gaul_ and _Spain_ as many Metropolitans as Provinces. Some there were,
without all Doubt, in the Diocese of _Britain_, which was divided into
Five Provinces, _viz._ _Maxima Cæsariensis_, _Britannia Prima_,
_Britannia Secunda_, _Valentia_, and _Flavia Cæsariensis_. But in this
Island an intire Change was made, by the _Saxons_, both in the
Ecclesiastical and Civil Polity.

[Sidenote: _The Prefecture of_ Italy.]

Under the Prefect of _Italy_ were Three Dioceses, _viz._ _Italy_, _West
Illyricum_, and _West Africa_. The Diocese of _Italy_ was divided into
Two Vicarages, as I have observed above, and governed by Two Vicars; the
one called the Vicar of _Rome_, and residing in that City, the other
styled the Vicar of _Italy_, and residing at _Milan_. Under the former
were Ten Provinces, _viz._ _Campania_, _Apulia_, _Lucania_, _Hetruria_,
_Umbria_, _Picenum Suburbicarium_, _Sicily_, _Sardinia_, _Corsica_, and
_Valeria_; and Seven under the latter, _viz._ _Liguria_, _Æmilia_,
_Flaminia_ or _Picenum Annonarium_, _Venetia_, _Istria_, _Alpes Cottiæ_,
and the Two _Rhætiæ_. [Sidenote: _The Ecclesiastical Polity there
intirely agreeable to the Civil._] Such was the Civil Government of
_Italy_, and intirely agreeable to the Civil was the Ecclesiastical.
Thus the Bishop of _Rome_ enjoyed all the Privileges of a Metropolitan,
with respect to the Bishops of the Provinces subject to the Vicar of
that City, or the _Suburbicarian_ Provinces, as they are styled by
_Ruffinus_. In like manner the Bishop of _Milan_ exercised the Power and
Authority of a Metropolitan over all the Bishops under the Vicar of
_Italy_. But the Power of both was confined within the Limits of their
respective Vicarages. As neither had the Charge of a whole Diocese, they
were not, like several Bishops in the East, distinguished with the Title
of Exarch, which they had no Right to, but with that only of
Metropolitan. However, the Power of the Bishop of _Rome_ far exceeded,
within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, that of other Metropolitans, as I
shall shew hereafter.

[Sidenote: _The Ecclesiastical Polity in_ Africa.]

In _Africa_ the Ecclesiastical Polity varied greatly from the Civil.
_Carthage_ indeed, in the Proconsular Province of _Africa_, properly so
called, was the Metropolis of all _West Africa_, and the Bishop of that
City the Primate and Exarch. But in the other Five Provinces of that
Diocese, _viz._ _Numidia_, the Two _Mauritanias_, _Cæsariensis_ and
_Sitifensis_, _Tingitana_, _Bizacena_, and _Tripolitana_, the senior
Bishop, in what City soever he presided, enjoyed the Title and
Privileges of Metropolitan, Regard being had to his Seniority, or the
Time of his Ordination, and none to the Dignity of his See. And hence it
is that, at different times, we find Bishops of different Cities, within
the same Province, acting as _Metropolitans_. Of _West Illyricum_, the
Third Diocese under the Prefect of _Italy_, I shall have Occasion to
speak hereafter.

[Sidenote: _The Dignities of_ Exarchs, Metropolitans, _&c. not
of divine Institution_.]

Some Writers, namely _Petrus de Marca_, Archbishop of _Paris_[629],
_Christianus Lupus_[630], _Emmanuel Schelstrat_[631], Two eminent
Divines, the one of _Louvain_, the other of _Antwerp_, and _Leo
Allatius_[632], have taken a great deal of Pains to prove, that these
Ecclesiastical Dignities owe their Origin to _Christ_, or the Apostles.
But their Arguments are unanswerably confuted by the learned _Ellies du
Pin_[633]; and, besides, it is evident, from the intire Conformity which
the Ecclesiastical Government had, in most Places, with the Political
State of the Empire, as established by _Constantine_, that the Church,
in forming the Hierarchy I have described, adopted his Plan; and
consequently, that such Dignities are not of divine, but of human
Institution. I might add, that it cannot be proved from Scripture, that
the Apostles, in appointing Bishops, gave more Power to one than to
another, or any Power at all to one over the others.

[Sidenote: _The new Dignities added to the antient Hierarchy of
the Church._]

The new Dignities or Degrees, added to the antient Hierarchy of the
Church, in the Fourth and following Centuries, were those of
_Metropolitan_, _Primate_, _Archbishop_, _Exarch_, and _Patriarch_. The
Title of _Metropolitan_ was given to the Bishop of the chief City of a
Province, and likewise that of _Primate_, he being _primus_, or the
first of the Province; for such was the original Signification of that
Word in an Ecclesiastical Sense; but, in Process of Time, the Title of
_Primate_ was restrained to the Bishops of some great Cities. On the
contrary the Title of _Archbishop_ was originally bestowed on
Metropolitans only of great Eminence and Distinction; but, in the Eighth
Century, it began to be given indifferently to all Metropolitans, and
even to some Bishops, distinguished by no other Title. As the Bishop of
the Metropolis, or chief City, of a Province, was dignified with the
Title of _Metropolitan_, so was the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief
City of a Diocese, with that of _Exarch_; which, however, we find
sometimes given to Metropolitans. As for the Title of _Patriarch_, it
was first common to all Bishops, but afterwards confined to the Exarchs;
and lastly, to the Bishops of the Five following Cities, _viz._ _Rome_,
_Constantinople_, _Antioch_, _Alexandria_, and _Jerusalem_. It was first
bestowed on the Bishop of _Rome_, by the Council of _Chalcedon_[634],
after it had been long common to all the Exarchs of the East, as the
learned _Du Pin_ well observes[635].

[Sidenote: _The Rights and Privileges of Metropolitans._]

The Titles of Metropolitans, Primates, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, were not
bare Names of Honour, but had several Rights and Prerogatives attending
them. Thus the Metropolitans and Primates had, by their Prerogative, a
Right to ordain the Bishops of their respective Provinces, to convene
provincial Synods, and to have a general Superintendency or Inspection
over the whole Province. The ordaining of Bishops was a Privilege common
to the Metropolitan, with the other Bishops of the same Province; but
with this Difference, that the Presence, or at least the Consent and
Approbation of the Metropolitan was absolutely necessary; for, according
to the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council of _Nice_, _He who was not
ordained, or approved, by the Metropolitan, was not to be a Bishop_.
This Privilege was confirmed to the Metropolitans by many subsequent
Councils, namely, by those of _Arles_, _Laodicea_, _Carthage_,
_Chalcedon_, _Ephesus_[636], and many others. However, in the Fifth
Century, the Patriarchs of _Alexandria_ and _Constantinople_ began, in
the East, to usurp this Prerogative, pretending, that no Bishops ought
to be ordained in their respective Dioceses, without their Knowlege,
Consent, and Approbation; and the Patriarch of _Rome_, still more
ambitious and encroaching, claimed a Right to ordain the Bishops
throughout all the Provinces of the West, which occasioned endless
Disputes, as we shall see in the Sequel of this History. As to the
Second Privilege peculiar to the Metropolitans, they had a Right to
summon the Bishops of their respective Provinces to meet when they
thought proper; to appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting; to
punish such as did not, without just Cause, comply with their Summons;
and to preside in the Assembly. The general Care and Inspection, which
they were charged with over the whole Province, imported, First, That
all Complaints against, all Contests with or between the Bishops of the
Province, were to be brought to their Tribunal; and there heard, judged,
and determined, not by the Metropolitan alone, but by him and the other
Bishops of the Province, in a Provincial Synod. Innumerable Instances
might be alleged of Bishops thus deposed by their Metropolitans.
Secondly, The Metropolitans had a Right to receive Appeals from the
Sentence of inferior Bishops, and with the other Bishops, to confirm or
reverse their Decrees. And, lastly, each Metropolitan was to keep a
watchful Eye over the Bishops of his Province, and take care that they
discharged, as they ought, the Functions of their Office. These
Privileges were, in express Terms, granted to the Metropolitans, by
almost innumerable Councils, which it is needless, and would be too
tedious, to name.

[Sidenote: _The Rights and Privileges of Patriarchs, or Exarchs._]

As for the Patriarchs, or Exarchs; by their Prerogative, they were
impowered to ordain the Metropolitans, to convene Diocesan Synods, and
to have a general Superintendency over their respective Dioceses, such
as the Metropolitans had over their respective Provinces. [Sidenote:
_The Bishop of_ Rome _not a Patriarch_.] The Bishop of _Rome_ had not
the Charge of a whole Diocese, and therefore was not, properly speaking,
Exarch or Patriarch: his Jurisdiction did not extend beyond the Limits
of the Vicarage of _Rome_, or the Suburbicarian Provinces; and no
Instance can be produced of Metropolitans or Bishops ordained by him,
out of those Provinces, till the Time of _Valentinian_ III. Even in the
Vicarage of _Italy_ the Metropolitans of each Province ordained all the
Bishops, and were themselves ordained by the Bishops of the Province.
But over the Suburbicarian Provinces the Bishop of _Rome_ exercised
greater Power and Authority, than the Exarchs of the East did over the
Provinces of their Dioceses; for the latter left the Ordination of the
Bishops to their Metropolitans, whereas the former ordained not only the
Bishops of the Metropolitan Cities, but all those of the fore-mentioned
Provinces: and the Reason of this was, because these Provinces had no
Metropolitans, to whom the Ordination of Bishops would of Right have
belonged; so that the Prerogatives of the Metropolitans were all vested
in the Bishop of _Rome_ alone. [Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Rome _have no
Right to ordain the Metropolitans_.] As there were no Exarchs or
Patriarchs in the West, the Bishops of each Province were, by several
Councils, vested with the Power of ordaining their own Metropolitans;
and that they were thus ordained in _Gaul_, _Spain_, and _West Africa_,
is so manifest as to admit of no Dispute[637]. And yet the Sticklers for
the See of _Rome_ pretend the Bishops of that City to have a divine and
inherent Right of ordaining all the Metropolitans throughout the
Christian World, by themselves, their Vicars, or Delegates. To maintain
this chimerical Right against the uncontestable Evidence of Facts, they
tell us, that the Popes, for some Ages, neglected to exert the Power
they had[638]. But from this Charge all Mankind will clear them, it
being but too well known, that they never neglected the least
Opportunity of exerting to the utmost the Power they had, and usurping
the Power they had not. But, Cavils aside, it is evident beyond Dispute,
that the Popes never knew, nor dreamt of, any such Right or Prerogative,
till they were told of it by their flattering Divines; at least Pope
_Leo_, surnamed _the Great_, did not; for in one of his Letters to the
Bishops of _Gaul_ he disclaims, in express Terms, the Right of ordaining
the Bishops of that Diocese[639]. To conclude, the Bishop of _Rome_ was
the only Metropolitan in that Vicarage; and, as such, had a Right to
ordain all the Bishops of the Suburbicarian Provinces, or the Provinces
subject to the Vicar of _Rome_; but, for a considerable Tract of Time,
there is no Instance of their ordaining either Bishops or Metropolitans
out of that District.

[Sidenote: _The Title of_ Archbishop _in itself a bare Name of
Honour_.]

As for the Title of Archbishop, it is in itself a bare Name of Honour;
whence, in some Countries, especially in _Italy_, several are
distinguished with that Title, who indeed take place of, but have no
Power or Authority over, other Bishops. And thus far of the
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as settled in the Fourth and following
Centuries, of the different Degrees that compose it, and the
Prerogatives peculiar to each Degree, the Knowlege whereof is absolutely
necessary for the right understanding of the many Contests and Disputes
in point of Jurisdiction, which I shall have Occasion to touch upon in
the Sequel of this History; for it was not at once, but by Degrees, and
not without great Opposition, that the Bishops of _Rome_, extending
their Authority beyond the Limits of that Vicarage, which was at that
time the Boundary of their Jurisdiction, acquired the unlimited Power
they now enjoy, with the arrogant Title of _Universal Bishop_.

[Sidenote: _The Donation of all_ Italy _made by_ Constantine _to
the Pope, a Forgery_.]

But to return to _Sylvester_, in whose Pontificate this great Change
began; I need not employ many Words to shew the Forgery of the so much
boasted Donation of all _Italy_, supposed to have been made by
_Constantine_ to _Sylvester_, in the Spring of the Year 324. Four Days
after he had been baptized by that Pontiff, since the Instrument of that
Donation is now looked upon as supposititious, by all who have the least
Tincture of Learning. The Arguments they allege against it are: 1. That
more than Twelve Copies of that Instrument are still extant, all
differing from one another. 2. That it evidently appears, from Two
Constitutions of _Constantine_, still to be seen in the _Theodosian_
Code[640], that he was not at _Rome_, but at _Thessalonica_, in the
Spring of the Year 324. 3. That neither _Eusebius_, who has given us a
very minute and particular Account of the Actions of that Prince, nor
any other contemporary Writer, has so much as hinted at so memorable a
Fact. 4. That all the antient Writers, both _Greek_ and _Latin_, agree,
that _Constantine_ was not baptized at _Rome_, but at _Nicomedia_, when
he lay at the Point of Death[641]. Let those, who stand up in Defence of
that Donation, give satisfactory Answers to these Reasons, and I shall
conclude with them, that _Italy_ being, by such a Donation, disjoined
from the Empire, the Emperors who succeeded _Constantine_, had no Claim
or Title to that Country; that none of their Constitutions were binding
there; and consequently that, by the Inhabitants of _Italy_, Recourse
ought to be had, in all Cases, not to the Civil, but to the Canon Law:
for such pernicious Doctrines have been broached, published, and
maintained, as natural Deductions from _Constantine_’s great Generosity
to _Sylvester_[642]. In _Rome_ is still to be seen, in a most sumptuous
Chapel, close to the _Lateran_, the Baptistery or Font in which
_Constantine_ is said to have been baptized. The Chapel is adorned with
noble Paintings, representing that august Ceremony, as performed by
_Sylvester_, in the magnificent Drapery, and stately Apparel, of the
present Popes. Four Days after this Ceremony, _Constantine_, sensible of
his Obligations to _Sylvester_, rewarded him for his Trouble with a Fee,
as _Luchesini_ the _Scolopian_ expresses it, answering in some Degree to
the Greatness of the Favour he had received at his Hands; a Fee worthy
of so great a Prince, of so great a Pope[643]. [Sidenote: Constantine
_baptized at_ Nicomedia, _and not at_ Rome.] The Fee, which that Writer,
otherwise a Man of Learning, makes a long and tedious Descant upon, was
no less than the City of _Rome_, and all _Italy_. That _Constantine_ was
baptized at _Nicomedia_, and not at _Rome_, is affirmed, in express
Terms, by _Theodoret_[644], _Sozomen_[645], _Socrates_[646], and
_Photius_[647], among the _Greeks_; and, among the _Latins_, by St.
_Ambrose_[648], St. _Jerom_[649], and the Council of _Rimini_[650].
_Emmanuel Schelstrat_, on one Side, ashamed to reject, or even to
question such Authorities, but, on the other, unwilling to rob
_Sylvester_ of that Glory, will have _Constantine_ to have been baptized
in both Places. It is well known, says he, that _Constantine_, in the
Latter-end of his Life, was greatly biassed in favour of the _Arians_,
and their Tenets. Now a Practice obtained among them of rebaptizing such
as came over to their Sect from the Catholic Church; and, to conform to
this Custom, _Constantine_ was, in all Likelihood, prevailed upon by
_Eusebius_, the _Arian_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_, who assisted him on his
Death-bed[651]. Thus _Schelstrat_. But it is certain, that, in
_Constantine_’s Time, the _Arians_ allowed the Validity of Baptism
administred by the Catholics; for, long after, we find St. _Austin_
upbraiding them with the Practice of rebaptizing, as a Novelty lately
introduced among them[652]. Besides, who is so little versed in the
History of the Church, as not to know, that, in those early Times, a
very bad Custom universally prevailed, at least among Persons of
Distinction, who embraced the Christian Religion, namely, that of
putting off their Baptism to their Death-bed, or till they were upon the
Point of exposing themselves to some great Danger? Thus _Theodosius the
Great_, though he had not only openly professed the Christian Religion,
but given many Instances of an extraordinary Piety, yet did not chuse to
be baptized till he fell dangerously ill at _Thessalonica_[653]. In like
manner _Valentinian_ II delayed his Baptism till the Approach of a
Battle with the Barbarians, when he sent, in great Haste, for St.
_Ambrose_ to administer that Sacrament to him. But while the good Bishop
was crossing the _Alps_, on his Way to _Vienne_, where the Emperor then
was, he received the melancholy News of his having been inhumanly
murdered by some of his own Officers, at the Instigation of
_Arbogastus_. His Death was greatly lamented by St. _Ambrose_, who, in
the elegant Oration, which he pronounced on Occasion of his Obsequies,
maintained, that the fervent Desire of Baptism had the same Effect as
the Sacrament itself; and consequently, that the Sins of the deceased
Prince being thereby cancelled, it was not to be doubted, but from this
Life he had passed to eternal Bliss[654]. Innumerable Instances of the
same Nature occur in History, which were, it seems, utterly unknown to
the Author of the Acts of Pope _Sylvester_, upon whose sole Authority
the Fable has been credited of _Constantine_’s receiving Baptism at the
Hands of _Sylvester_, soon after his Conversion. That Impostor, whoever
he was, is supposed to have lived in the Eighth Century, long after the
Custom of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death had been utterly
abolished. [Sidenote: _What gave Countenance to the Custom of
deferring Baptism to the Point of Death._] What gave Countenance to such
a Custom, was an Opinion then generally received, and still held by the
Church of _Rome_; _viz._ That by the Waters of the sacred Font Men were
washed clean, not only from the original, but from all other Sins. This
proved a great Encouragement to Vice when Piety began (and it began but
too early) to decay among Christians; and therefore the Fathers of the
Church, especially _Basil_, his Brother _Gregory_ of _Nyssa_, and St.
_Ambrose_[655], employed all the Oratory they were Masters of, in crying
down such a pernicious and wicked Custom, as they style it; so that it
was at last quite laid aside. Whether Confession ought not, on the same
Account, to be put down, I shall leave the Reader to judge; and only
observe here, by the way, that had the Virtue and Efficacy, ascribed now
to Confession, been known in those Times, Sinners needed not have
delayed Baptism to the Point of Death, since their Sins had been no less
effectually cancelled by Confession, than by Baptism.

[Sidenote: _Spurious Pieces ascribed to_ Sylvester.]

As for the Letter from the Council of _Nice_ to _Sylvester_, his Answer,
the Acts of a Council of 275 Bishops, supposed to have been held by him,
at the Request of the Fathers of _Nice_, to confirm their Canons and
Decrees[N12], his Letter to the Bishops of _Gaul_, in favour of the
Church of _Vienne_; the Acts of Two other Councils, said to have been
held by him at _Rome_; they are all Pieces universally rejected by Men
of Learning, and deemed no less fabulous than the Instrument of
_Constantine_’s Donation, and that Prince’s Journey with _Sylvester_ to
the Council of _Nice_, as it is related in the Acts of the latter, even
in those which _F. Combesis_ published in 1660. They are in _Greek_, and
that Writer undertakes to defend them as genuine[656]; but we need no
other Proof than the Account they give of that Journey, to conclude them
incapable of being defended. _Sylvester_ died on the 31st of _December_
335. after having governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of
Twenty-one Years, and Eleven Months[657].

-----

Footnote N12:

  The Style of the Letter from the Council to _Sylvester_ is quite
  barbarous and unintelligible. It begins thus: _Gloriam corroborata de
  Divinis Mysteriis. Ecclesiasticæ utilitatis quæ ad robur pertinent
  Ecclesiæ Catholicæ & Apostolicæ ad sedem tuam_ Romanam _explanata & de
  Græce redacta scribere confitemur--Nunc itaque ad vestræ sedis
  argumentum accurrimus roborari_. The rest is written in the same
  Style; the Consuls are called _Sovereigns_, and the Letter is dated
  Five or Six Days after the Opening of the Council. The Design of the
  Impostor was, to make the Fathers of _Nice_ recur to _Sylvester_ for a
  Confirmation of their Decrees. _Sylvester_’s Answer is of a piece with
  the Letter of the Council; it supposes him to have added something to
  the Council; mentions the Cycle of _Victorinus_, who was not born in
  _Sylvester_’s Time, nor many Years after; and bears a false Date. As
  for the Council said, and by some still maintained, to have been held
  at _Rome_, to confirm the Canons of _Nice_, it was utterly unknown to
  all the Antients. And who can believe, that none of the Antients
  should ever have heard of a Council held in the Metropolis of the
  Empire, and consisting, as we are told, of Two hundred and
  Seventy-five Bishops, or, if they had heard of it, that they would
  never have mentioned it? Besides, it is said to have been held at
  _Rome_, in the Presence of _Constantine_; and it is certain, that the
  Emperor was not in _Rome_ at the Time the Council is supposed to have
  been held. The Canons, which are supposed to have been made on this
  Occasion, contain Regulations repugnant to the Practice of those
  Times, and which it was then impossible to observe. The first Canon
  relates to the Time when _Easter_ was to be kept; but what is there
  determined no Man can know. The Second is no less unintelligible than
  the First: _Ut unusquisque Episcopus rediens ad Parochiam suam
  Compaginem Salutationis plebi tuæ innotescat_. These are the Words of
  this Canon. The Third forbids the Ecclesiastics to appear before
  secular Judges, let the Action be what it will; which is repugnant to
  the Discipline of those Times. The Fourth will have those, who enter
  themselves among the Clergy, to pass through all the Degrees, and
  fixes the Time which they are to continue in each Degree. They are to
  be Janitors or Door-keepers one Year, Lectors or Readers Twenty,
  Exorcists Ten, Acolytes Five, Subdeacons Five, Deacons Five, and
  Priests Six; so that none under Threescore could attain to the
  Episcopal Dignity; which is highly absurd in itself, and contrary to
  the Practice of those Times.

-----

-----

Footnote 560:

  Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 561:

  Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 562:

  Euseb. ib. & concil. t. 1. p. 157.

Footnote 563:

  Euseb. & concil. ib.

Footnote 564:

  Conc. Gen. t. 1. p. 106.

Footnote 565:

  Concil. p. 1425.

Footnote 566:

  Concil. ib.

Footnote 567:

  Concil. ib.

Footnote 568:

  Bar. ad ann. 314. n. 68.

Footnote 569:

  Concil. p. 1425.

Footnote 570:

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 7.

Footnote 571:

  Soz. p. 430.

Footnote 572:

  Theodoret. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 573:

  Bar. ad ann. 326. n. 20.

Footnote 574:

  Gal. Cyz. de Nic. concil. l. 2. c. 5. p. 68.

Footnote 575:

  Con. t. 2. p. 50.

Footnote 576:

  M Socr. l. 1. c. 23.

Footnote 577:

  Facund. l. 8. c. 1.

Footnote 578:

  Id. l. 2. c. 1.

Footnote 579:

  Niceph. chron.

Footnote 580:

  Theod. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 581:

  Euseb. in vit. Const. l. 3. c. 11.

Footnote 582:

  Euseb. l. 1. c. 1. Vales. in not. p. 223.

Footnote 583:

  Bar. ad ann. 325. n. 56-59.

Footnote 584:

  Surius, to Jul. p. 159.

Footnote 585:

  Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 14.

Footnote 586:

  Vide Elli. Du Pin de antiq. eccles. discip. p. 98, & seq.

Footnote 587:

  Inn. in epist. ad Vict. c. 3.

Footnote 588:

  Hier. in c. 2. Isal.

Footnote 589:

  Vide Basil. ep. 319.

Footnote 590:

  Grot. de imp. summ. potest. c. 11. n. 8.

Footnote 591:

  Orig. in Ezek. hom. 3.

Footnote 592:

  Justin. apol. 2. p 98.

Footnote 593:

  Tert. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 594:

  Idem ib. p. 99.

Footnote 595:

  Cyp. ep. 38. p. 90.

Footnote 596:

  Id. ep. 10. p. 30.

Footnote 597:

  Tert. ib. p. 39.

Footnote 598:

  Id. ib. p. 709.

Footnote 599:

  Cyp. de laps. n. 4. p. 278.

Footnote 600:

  Tertull. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 601:

  Orig. hom. de Engast. vol. 1. p. 28.

Footnote 602:

  Cyp. ep. 10. p. 29. ep. 11. p. 32. ep. 12. p. 37.

Footnote 603:

  Ign. ad Smyrn. p. 6.

Footnote 604:

  Cyp. ep. 66. p. 195. Tert. de præscript. p. 89.

Footnote 605:

  Idem, ep. 68. p.201.

Footnote 606:

  Tert. advers. Hermog. p. 266. & de præscript. p. 70, 71.

Footnote 607:

  Orig. contra Cels. l. 6. p. 279. Clem. Alex. strom. l. 1. p. 207. l.
  6. p. 472, &c.

Footnote 608:

  Clem. Alex. strom. l. 6. p. 472.

Footnote 609:

  Cyp. ep. 33. p. 76.

Footnote 610:

  Ign. ep. ad Magnes. p. 31.

Footnote 611:

  Acts. vi. 1, 2, 3, 4.

Footnote 612:

  Const. Apost. l. 2; p. 31, 32.

Footnote 613:

  Acts vi. 6.

Footnote 614:

  Just. apol. 2. p. 97.

Footnote 615:

  Idem ib. p. 98.

Footnote 616:

  Tert. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 617:

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 618:

  Prud. de coron. mar. p. 71.

Footnote 619:

  Idem ib. p. 91.

Footnote 620:

  Conc. t. 1. p. 1448.

Footnote 621:

  Hier. ep. 85.

Footnote 622:

  Cyp. ep. 55, 72, 52.

Footnote 623:

  Apud Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 624:

  Cyp. ep. 14, 26, 31. Euseb. l. 5. c. 16. & l. 7. c. 30. Act. concil.
  Carth. apud Cyp. p. 443.

Footnote 625:

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 23, & 24.

Footnote 626:

  Act. concil. Carth. p. 443.

Footnote 627:

  Cyp. ep. 59.

Footnote 628:

  Zos. l. 2. p. 623.

Footnote 629:

  Pet. de Mar. l. 6. deconc. c. 1.

Footnote 630:

  Lup. can. 4. Nic. par. 1.

Footnote 631:

  Schel. antiq. illust. part. 1. disser. 1. c. 3. art. 1.

Footnote 632:

  Leo All. de eccl. occid. & orient. conses. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 633:

  Du Pin de antiq. eccles. discip. diss. 1. n. 6.

Footnote 634:

  Concil. t. 4. col. 58. Evagr. l. 2. c. 18.

Footnote 635:

  Du Pin, c. 6. n. 5.

Footnote 636:

  Conc. Arel. can. 50. Laod. can. 12. Carth. can. 12. Eph. act. 4, &c.

Footnote 637:

  Vide Du Pin. dissert. i. n. 13.

Footnote 638:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 639:

  Leo, ep. 89.

Footnote 640:

  Cod. Theod. l. 4. de navicul. & l. un. de his qui veniam ætat.]

Footnote 641:

  Vide Petr.de Marca, l. 3. c. 12. l. 6. c. 6. Schelstrat. antiq.
  illustr. par. 2. dissert. 3. c. 8. Got. in chron. cod. Theod. ann.
  324. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 4. c. 61.

Footnote 642:

  Afflict. in constit. in prælud. quæst. 2. n. 2. & q. 20. n. 1. Tappia
  de jur. regni, l. 1. & de leg. l. 1. n. 6. Ponte de potest. Proreg.
  tit. II. n. 26.

Footnote 643:

  Luch. de imp. potest. in Ital.

Footnote 644:

  Theod. l. 1. c. 32.

Footnote 645:

  Soz. l. 2. c. 34.

Footnote 646:

  Socr. l. 1. c. 39.

Footnote 647:

  Phot. cod. 127.

Footnote 648:

  Ambros. serm. de obitu Theodos.

Footnote 649:

  Hier. in chron.

Footnote 650:

  Soz. l. 4. c. 18.

Footnote 651:

  Schelst. antiq. illust. part. 2. dissert. 3. c. 6.

Footnote 652:

  Aug. de hæres. c. 48.

Footnote 653:

  Socr. l. 5. c. 6. Sozom. l. 7. c. 4.

Footnote 654:

  Amb. orat. in fun. Val.

Footnote 655:

  Greg. in orat. de bapt. Amb. in ser. de sanct. & alibi.

Footnote 656:

  Comb. act. &c. p. 258.

Footnote 657:

  Buch. cycl. p. 267. 273.f

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 CONSTANTINE.                    MARK,
                    _Thirty-third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 336. ]

_Sylvester_ was succeeded by _Mark_, on the 18th of _January_ 336. He is
passed over by _Theodoret_[658], but named by _Optatus_[659],
_Ruffinus_[660], St. _Austin_[661], St. _Jerom_[662], and
_Sozomen_[663]. We know nothing certain either of his Life or
Administration. [Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Rome _ordained by the Bishop
of_ Ostia.] _Anastasius_ indeed tells us, that by him the Bishop of
_Ostia_ was first appointed to ordain the Bishop of _Rome_, and to carry
the _Pallium_ or Pall; where _Baronius_ observes, that the Pall is here
mentioned for the First time[664]. But _Anastasius_ is not a Writer we
can depend upon. It is certain, however, that the Bishops of _Ostia_
have long enjoyed this Privilege; for it is mentioned by St.
_Austin_[665], and likewise in a Memorial presented by the Clergy of
_Rome_ in 418. to the Emperor _Honorius_, on Occasion of the Election of
Pope _Zosimus_[666]. The Letter which the Bishops of _Egypt_ are said to
have written to this Pope, and his Answer to them, are rejected even by
_Baronius_[667], and very justly; for the Pope’s Answer is dated
Eighteen Days after his Death. He died on the 7th of _October_ the same
Year he had been chosen[668], and was buried in the Cœmetery of
_Balbina_, which was thenceforth called after his Name[669]. His Body is
now worshiped in the Church of St. _Laurence_ at _Florence_, though no
Mention is made by any Writer of its having ever been translated
thither[670].

-----

Footnote 658:

  Theod. l. 2. c. 12.

Footnote 659:

  Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 660:

  Ruffin. l. 10. c. 22.

Footnote 661:

  Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 662:

  Hier. chron.

Footnote 663:

  Soz. l. 2. C. 20.

Footnote 664:

  Bar. ad ann. 336. n. 64.

Footnote 665:

  Aug. coll. die 3. c. 16.

Footnote 666:

  Vide Du Pin dissert. 1. n. 13.

Footnote 667:

  Bar. ibid. n. 60, 61.

Footnote 668:

  Soz. l. 2. c. 20. Hier. chron. Buch. p. 267. 273.

Footnote 669:

  Front. cal. p. 141.

Footnote 670:

  Bolland, Pont. p. 50.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 CONSTANTINE,                   JULIUS,                    CONSTANTINE,
 and his Three        _Thirty-fourth_ BISHOP _of_          CONSTANTIUS,
 Sons,                           Rome.                    and CONSTANS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 337.  _Falsely said to have held a great
Council at_ Rome.]

Upon the Death of _Mark_ the See was vacant for the Space of Four
Months, that is, to the 6th of _February_ 337. when _Julius_ was
chosen[671]. He is said to have held a Council of an Hundred and Sixteen
Bishops in the _December_ of the same Year[672]. But the Date of this
Council puts _Baronius_ to a Stand; for in the Date are marked the
Consuls, the Year of the Emperors, and the Indiction. Now, according to
the Consuls, it must have been held in 337. according to the Year of the
Emperors, in 340. and, according to the Indiction, in 347. The Annalist
spares neither his Words nor his Labour to solve, or rather to patch up,
this Difficulty; but, being sensible, after a long, tedious, and
puzzling Descant, that he labours in vain, he concludes, that the Text
has been altered[673]. He might have saved himself a great deal of
Trouble, by owning at once what has been plainly proved since by
_Blondel_[674], _viz._ that no such Council was ever held.

When _Julius_ was raised to the Pontificate, the celebrated
_Athanasius_, Bishop of _Alexandria_, lived in Banishment at _Treves_;
but the Year following he was allowed to return to his Church by the
Three Emperors, _Constantine_, _Constantius_, and _Constans_, who had
succeeded their Father in 337. [Sidenote: _The_ Arians _write to_ Julius
_against_ Athanasius.] The _Eusebians_, that is, the _Arian_ Faction
headed by _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_, at whose Instigation he had
been banished by _Constantine_, alarmed at his Return, writ bitter
Letters against him to the Three Princes, and likewise to the Bishop of
_Rome_. To the latter they dispatched with their Letters _Macarius_ a
Presbyter, and the Two Deacons _Martyrius_ and _Hesychius_. _Athanasius_
no sooner heard of this Embassy than he, in his Turn, dispatched some
Presbyters to oppose the Attempts of his Enemies, and defend his
Innocence against the Calumnies, which he well knew they were sent to
spread against him, not only at _Rome_, but all over the West[675].
[Sidenote: _They desire_ Julius _to assemble a Council_.] Upon their
Arrival, _Macarius_ privately withdrew from _Rome_, and the other Two
were so confounded by the Deputies of _Athanasius_, at a private
Conference held before the Pope, that, to gain Time, they had no other
Resource but to appeal to a Council, which they begged the Pope to
assemble, and to give timely notice thereof both to _Athanasius_ and the
_Eusebians_. They bragged that, before the Council, they would make good
the Charge they had brought against _Athanasius_, and offered to take
_Julius_ himself for their Judge[676]. This Offer, we may be sure, was
readily accepted by the Bishop of _Rome_, who immediately writ to
_Athanasius_ inviting him to the Council, and at the same time desired
the Deputies of the _Eusebians_ to acquaint their Party, that, agreeably
to their Request, a Council should be soon convened. _Athanasius_, upon
the Receipt of the Pope’s Letter, set out, without Delay, for _Rome_,
where he arrived in the Latter end of the Year 339. After his Arrival
the Bishop of _Rome_ dispatched _Elpidius_ and _Philoxenes_, Two of his
Presbyters, with Letters to the _Eusebians_, summoning them to the
Council, which their Deputies had demanded, and acquainting them with
the Time and Place in which it was to be held[677]. The Place was
_Rome_, and the Time the Month of _June_ 341. according to the most
probable Opinion. [Sidenote: _They decline appearing at the Council
of_ Rome; _assemble one at_ Antioch; _and there depose_ Athanasius;] The
other Bishops assembled at the Time appointed; but the _Eusebians_,
instead of appearing at the Council of _Rome_, which had been convened
at their Request, assembled one at _Antioch_, and there, without waiting
for the Determination of _Julius_, whom they had chosen for their Judge,
deposed _Athanasius_, and appointed _Gregory_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ in
his room; nay, they even detained the Deputies sent by the Pope till the
Time appointed for the Meeting of the Council was expired, that they
might afterwards plead, as they did, the Shortness of the Term
prescribed for them to meet in[678]. [Sidenote: _who is
declared innocent in the Council of_ Rome.] In the Council of _Rome_ the
Cause of _Athanasius_ was examined, and he, after the strictest
Scrutiny, declared innocent with one Voice by the Fifty Bishops who
composed it[679]; so that _Julius_ and the rest continued to communicate
with him as a Bishop[680], which was declaring him unlawfully deposed.
Several other Bishops, who had been deposed by the _Arians_, came to lay
their Complaints before the Council, and, among the rest, _Marcellus_
Bishop of _Ancyra_, and _Paul_ Bishop of _Constantinople_. The former
had been condemned as an Heretic by a Council held at _Constantinople_
in 336. and consisting intirely of _Arian_ Bishops. As nobody appeared
against him during the Fifteen Months he continued at _Rome_, and the
Declaration of his Faith, which, at the Request of _Julius_, he gave
under his own Hand, was judged quite orthodox by the Pope and the
Council, he was readmitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church[681].
But whether they did not judge too favourably of his Belief, may be very
much questioned: _Epiphanius_ at least was no-ways satisfied with
it[682]. And truly it would be no easy Task to clear him from the Heresy
of _Sabellius_ and _Samosatenus_, denying the Trinity of the Divine
Persons[683]: but to examine so perplexed and intricate a Point, would
be foreign to my Purpose. [Sidenote: _Neither_ Athanasius _nor any
other Bishop restored by_ Julius.] _Socrates_[684] and _Sozomen_[685]
write, that _Julius_, by the Authority of his See, reinstated all the
Bishops who had been displaced by the _Arians_; that he supported and
defended their Innocence with Letters full of Vigour and Liberty;
severely reprimanded those who had deposed them; summoned some of them
to appear at _Rome_, in a limited Time, to justify their Conduct; and,
lastly, that he threatened to treat them as they deserved, if they did
not forbear raising Disturbances in the Church. In virtue of these
Letters, says _Socrates_, the Bishops were restored to their Sees. But
_Sozomen_ names only _Athanasius_, and _Paul_ Bishop of
_Constantinople_. It is surprising, that the Advocates for the See of
_Rome_ should allege the Testimony of these two Writers, to prove that
the Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_ was acknowleged by the Orientals;
that his Jurisdiction was universal; when they themselves must know (for
I cannot suppose them so ignorant as not to know) that the Historians
whom they quote were grosly mistaken. For it is manifest from
_Athanasius_[686], that _Julius_ writ only two Letters to the
_Eusebians_; one before the Council met, inviting them to it; and the
other, while the Council was still sitting, which I shall speak of
hereafter; and in neither of these does _Julius_ take upon him either to
threaten or command. The above-mentioned Historians seem to have jumbled
these two Letters together, and to have made a Third out of them, with
some Improvements of their own. As to his restoring the deposed Bishops
to their Sees, it is certain he did not, since _Athanasius_ continued in
the West till the Year 349. when he was restored by the Council of
_Sardica_. _Paul_ indeed was reinstated sooner, but not till the See of
_Constantinople_ became vacant by the Death of _Eusebius_, who had been
translated from _Nicomedia_ to that City. I appeal to the _Roman_
Catholics themselves, and leave them to judge whether it is at all
probable, that the Emperor _Constantius_, and the Oriental Bishops,
incensed as they were against _Paul_ and _Athanasius_, whom they had
condemned and deposed in Two Synods, should, out of Respect to the Pope,
suffer them thus tamely to return to their Sees, and drive out those
whom they had placed in their room. This had been owning themselves
guilty, and reversing the Sentence they had but lately pronounced,
which, as will appear, they were no-ways in an Humour to do.

[Sidenote: _The_ Eusebians _write to_ Julius;]

While the Council of _Rome_ was yet sitting, the Pope’s two Deputies,
_Elpidius_ and _Philoxenes_, returning from the East, delivered to
_Julius_ a Letter from the _Eusebians_, which may pass for a
Master-piece of the Kind; for, without departing from, or intrenching
upon, the Respect that was due to the Bishop of the Imperial City, they,
at the same time, commend, censure, menace, and rally him in a most
cruel Manner. They begin with alleging several frivolous Excuses for not
appearing at the Council, such as the _Persian_ War, which, by the way,
did not prevent their assembling at _Antioch_; the Shortness of the Term
prescribed for their Meeting; the Pope’s writing only to some of them,
and not to all, as he ought to have done; and finally, his writing to
them in his own Name alone, which was tacitly taxing him with taking too
much upon him. They then launch out ironically, it seems, into the
highest Encomiums on the Church of _Rome_, styling her the first of all
Churches, the School of the Apostles, the Metropolis of true Piety.
However, the first Preachers of the Gospel, add they, came out of the
East; and, after all, we ought to be looked upon as Inferiors to none,
though perhaps we may not have such numerous and flourishing Churches as
some have, since the want of Numbers may be abundantly supplied by the
Piety of a few. As to Rank, we are all equal, the Greatness of the
Cities, in which we preside, adding nothing to the Dignity we all enjoy.
In the next place, they express great Concern at the little Regard shewn
by some to the Decisions of Councils, which ought to be revered by all,
and deemed immutable. This was modestly censuring the Pope for not
acquiescing to the Decrees of the Councils of _Tyre_ and
_Constantinople_ condemning _Athanasius_. [Sidenote: _and threaten
to separate themselves from his Communion_.] In the End they allege
several Things both against _Athanasius_, and _Marcellus_ Bishop of
_Ancyra_; and conclude with telling _Julius_, that if he renounced all
Correspondence and Intercourse with the Bishops they had deposed, and
acknowleged those they had placed in their room, they would continue to
communicate with him; but if he refused to comply with their Decisions
and Decrees, they should think themselves obliged to act in a very
different Manner[687]. _Julius_ was so mortified with this Letter, that
he suppressed it for some time, hoping the _Eusebians_ would send
Deputies, who, he presumed, would express their Sentiments by Word of
Mouth, and in a different Style. But, none appearing, he was obliged to
lay the Letter he had received before the Fathers of the Council, who,
after expressing the greatest Indignation against the _Eusebians_,
advised the Pope to answer it; which he did accordingly, by that
excellent Letter, which has been preserved intire among the Works of
_Athanasius_. [Sidenote: Julius_’s Answer  to their Letter_.] He begins
with complaining, in very modest Terms, of the Animosity they betrayed
in their Letter, to which he thought he had given no Occasion; unless
they had taken it amiss, that he had summoned them to the Council; which
he could not persuade himself they did, since, at the Request of their
Deputies, he had appointed the Council to meet, and, at their Request,
invited them to it. As for the Regard due to the Decrees and Decisions
of Councils, he told them, that they had trespassed the first against
the Decrees of the Oecumenical Council of _Nice_, by admitting the
_Arians_ to their Communion, which he conceived to be more criminal in
them, than it was in him to receive _Athanasius_ and _Marcellus_. He
reproaches them with another Transgression of the Canons of the Church,
namely with that of passing from one Bishoprick to another, which
_Eusebius_ had done. He then justifies his Conduct with regard to
_Athanasius_ and _Marcellus_; exhorts the _Eusebians_, with great Zeal
and Earnestness, to find out some Remedy against the Evils and Disorders
that reigned in the East, which he describes at Length; and concludes
with complaining of the Orientals for condemning and deposing Bishops,
those especially of the Apostolic Sees, without the Concurrence or
Knowlege of their Brethren in the West[688].

_Julius_, finding his Letter made no Impression on the _Eusebians_,
applied with several other Bishops to the Emperor _Constans_, who, at
their Request proposed to his Brother _Constantius_ the assembling of an
Oecumenical Council, in order to put an End to those unhappy Divisions.
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Sardica.] To this Proposal _Constantius_
agreed; and accordingly, by the Command of the two Princes, a numerous
Council met in 347. at _Sardica_, the Metropolis of _Dacia_ in
_Illyricum_[689]. _Julius_, apprehending it dangerous to abandon his
Flock at that Juncture, did not assist in Person, but by his Deputies
_Archidamus_ and _Philoxenes_, who signed in his Name[690]. The
Orientals came, but withdrew soon after, upon the Council’s refusing to
exclude _Athanasius_, and some others, whom they had condemned[691]. But
by the orthodox Bishops, who remained, the Acts of the Council of _Rome_
were confirmed, _Athanasius_ and Three other Bishops declared innocent;
and those, who had been placed in their room, not only deposed, but
anathematized, and intirely cut off from the Communion of the Catholic
Church[692]. The Council, before they broke up, writ several Letters;
and, among the rest, one to the Emperors; one to the Bishop of _Rome_;
and a circular Letter to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church,
acquainting them with what had passed, and exhorting them to join the
Council, and declare to the World, that they accepted their Decrees by
subscribing to them[693]. The circular Letter was subscribed first by
the great _Osius_ Bishop of _Cordoua_, and in the Second place by the
Pope’s Legates[694]. In their Letter to _Julius_ they beg him to notify
their Decrees to the Bishops of _Sardinia_, _Sicily_, and _Italy_, lest
any of them should receive Letters of Peace and Communion from the
Bishops they had condemned[695]. In this Letter the Council says, or
rather is made to say, That _it is very meet or reasonable, that all
Bishops should acquaint their Head, that is, the See of St._ Peter,
_with what passes in their respective Provinces_[696]. I agree with
_Blondel_[697], that this Passage is foisted in; but cannot acquiesce to
the only Reason he alleges to support his Opinion, _viz._ the Barbarity
of the _Latin_ Expression (_valde congruentissimum est_); for such a
Slip might easily escape Men wholly bent on defending the Truth, and
speaking it; and besides, we are not certain, that this Letter was
originally written in _Latin_. The want of Connexion between that
Sentence, and what is said both before and after it, is, I think, a more
convincing Proof of Forgery.

[Sidenote: _Canons of the Council of_ Sardica _relating to the Bishop
of_ Rome.]

By the Council of _Sardica_ several Canons were made; but I shall only
take notice of those that regard the Bishop of _Rome_. By the Third
Canon in the _Greek_, or the Fourth in the _Latin_ Translation by
_Isidorus_, it is ordered, that if any Bishop shall think himself
unjustly condemned, his Judges shall acquaint the Bishop of _Rome_
therewith, who may either confirm the first Judgment, or order his Cause
to be re-examined by such of the neighbouring Bishops as he shall think
fit to name[698]. _Osius_, who was greatly addicted to the See of
_Rome_, begged the Council to grant this Honour to the Memory of St.
_Peter_. The Fourth Canon, according to the _Greek_, adds, That the See
of the deposed Bishop shall remain vacant till his Cause shall be judged
by the Bishop of _Rome_. By the Fifth Canon, which by some Mistake is
the Seventh in _Dionysius Exiguus_, it is ordered, that if a Bishop,
condemned in his own Province, shall chuse to be judged by the Bishop of
_Rome_, and desires him to appoint some of his Presbyters to judge him
in his Name, together with the Bishops, the Bishop of _Rome_ may grant
him his Request. [Sidenote: _The Practice of appealing to the
Pope first introduced._  _Several Circumstances concur in his Favour._]
Thus was the pernicious Practice of appealing to the Pope first
introduced and authorized. It must be observed, that the Oriental
Bishops had all left the Council: those who remained were all zealous
Opposers of _Arianism_. At the Head of their Party was the Bishop of
_Rome_. In the Heat of their Zeal they thought they could not confer too
much Power upon him; and so made a Concession intirely repugnant to the
Discipline of the primitive Church, and which he could never have
obtained, had not those Dispositions worked strongly in his Favour. This
will not be surprising to those, who have attended to History, and seen
how much the Ambition of Princes, and Heads of Factions, is often
advanced beyond its due Bounds by the indiscreet Fervour of Party-Zeal.
To the Council of _Sardica_, acting under this Influence, the See of
_Rome_ is indebted for the so much boasted Privilege of receiving
Appeals; and _Julius_ was very thankful for it. [Sidenote: _The Popes
claim as their original Right, what was granted them as a Favour._] But
his Successors, looking upon such an Obligation as a Diminution of their
pretended Sovereignty, have had the Assurance to claim it as their
original Right: but that such a Right was unknown to their great Friend
_Osius_, to the Fathers of the Council, nay, and to the Pope himself,
and his Legates, is manifest, since what they now claim as their
original and inherent Right, was by _Osius_ begged of the Council as a
Favour, and, as such, granted by the Council, and accepted by the Pope
and his Legates. This Power of receiving Appeals, only with respect to
the judging and deposing of Bishops, has been extended by the Popes to
all Causes; and great Encouragement has been given to such as recurred
to their Tribunal on the slightest Occasions. _Concerning Appeals in the
smallest Causes, we would have you to know, that the same Regard is to
be had to them, for how slight a Matter soever they be made, as if they
were for a greater_, says Pope _Alexander_ III. in his Letter to the
Bishop of _Worcester_[699]. The scandalous and intolerable Abuse of this
Power in the Popes has obliged several Princes, even when Superstition
most prevailed, to restrain their Subjects by severe Laws from recurring
to _Rome_. Nay, other Councils of far greater Authority than that of
_Sardica_, finding no other Means to put a Stop to the daily
Encroachments of the See of _Rome_, have thought it necessary to revoke
the Privilege, which that Council had too rashly granted, as we shall
see in the Sequel of the present History.

[Sidenote: _Decrees of the Council of_ Antioch _revoked by the Council
of_ Sardica.]

It had been decreed but Six Years before, by the Council of _Antioch_,
that, if the Bishops of the same Province disagreed in judging one of
their Brethren, the Metropolitan might call in those of the neighbouring
Province to judge with them; but if they agreed, and were unanimous
either in condemning or absolving, their Judgment should be
irreversible. Both these Decrees were revoked by the present Council,
though intirely agreeable to the antient Practice and Discipline of the
Church. [Sidenote: _The Pope has no Power to summon Bishops to_ Rome.]
But yet this Council, however favourable to the Pope, did not grant him
the Power of summoning Bishops to _Rome_, in order to be judged there by
him. He was only impowered to examine the Judgment given in the
Province; and, in case he found it to be wrong, to order another in the
same Province, to invite to this new Synod the Bishops of the next
Province, and to send his Legates to it as he thought fit.

[Sidenote: Osius _did not preside at the Council of_ Sardica _as the
Pope’s Legate_.]

At this Council the Pope’s Legates assisted; but Osius presided, as we
are told in express Terms by _Theodoret_[700], by _Sozomen_[701], and by
the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_[702]. Besides, his Name is the
first in the Subscriptions, as they have been transmitted to us by
_Athanasius_, who assures us, that _Osius_ was the Chief, and presided
in all the Councils at which he assisted. He signed the first, and in
his own Name: after him signed the Legates, not in their own, but in the
Pope’s Name; _Julius Romæ per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros_;
which is a sufficient Confutation of _De Marca_, and the other Popish
Writers, pretending, without the least Foundation, that _Osius_ presided
in the Name of _Julius_.

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Sardica _a Council of no great Authority_.]

It is to be observed, that the Canons of this Council were never
received in the East, nor even in the West by the Bishops of _Africa_;
and that they were not inserted by the Council of _Chalcedon_ into the
Code of Canons approved by them, as Rules to be universally observed: so
that, after all, the so much boasted Council of _Sardica_ is a Council
of no great Authority. Of this the Popes themselves were well apprised;
and therefore, recurring to Fraud, attempted, as we shall see hereafter,
to impose upon the World the Canons of _Sardica_ as the Canons of
_Nice_.

[Sidenote: Athanasius _retires to_ Naissus.]

_Athanasius_, though declared innocent by the Council, did not think it
adviseable to return to his See, being informed, that the _Eusebians_
had prevailed upon the Emperor _Constantius_ to issue an Order,
impowering and commanding the Magistrates of _Alexandria_ to put him to
Death, without further Tryal, in what Place soever he should be found
within the Precincts of that Jurisdiction[703]. [Sidenote: _Is recalled
by_ Constantius.] He therefore retired to _Naissus_ in _Upper Dacia_,
and there continued from the year 347. to 349. when _Constantius_ chose
rather to recall him, and the other exiled Bishops, than engage in a
Civil War, with which he was threatened by his Brother, if he did
not[704]. Before his Departure for the East he went to _Rome_, to take
his Leave of that Church, and his great Protector _Julius_, who, on that
Occasion, writ an excellent Letter of Congratulation to the Presbyters,
Deacons, and People of _Alexandria_. Of this Letter we have Two Copies,
the one in _Socrates_[705], and the other in _Athanasius_[706]. The
former contains great Commendations of that Prelate, which, out of
Modesty, were, as I conjecture, omitted by him.

[Sidenote: Ursacius _and_ Valens _retract all they had said
against_ Athanasius.]

_Julius_ had, soon after, the Satisfaction of receiving a solemn
Retractation made by _Ursacius_ Bishop of _Singidunum_, and _Valens_
Bishop of _Mursus_, Two of _Athanasius_’s most inveterate Enemies,
publicly owning, that whatever they had said or written against him was
utterly false, groundless, and invented out of pure Malice: at the same
time they embraced his Communion, and anathematized the Heresy of
_Arius_, and all who held or defended his Tenets. This Act _Valens_ writ
with his own Hand, and _Ursacius_ signed it; whereupon they were both
admitted by _Julius_ to the Communion of the Church[707][N13]. This
Retraction, though not at all sincere, but merely owing to Policy,
greatly contributed to the Justification of _Athanasius_. I find nothing
else in the Antients, concerning _Julius_, worthy of Notice. [Sidenote:
Julius _dies_.] He died on the 12th of _April_ 352. having governed the
Church of _Rome_ Fifteen Years, Two Months, and Six Days[708]. He is
said to have been buried in the Cœmetery of _Callistus_, on the
_Aurelian_ Way, where he had built a Church[709], and to have been
removed from thence in 817. by Pope _Paschal_ I. to the Church of St.
_Praxedes_, and again from that, by _Innocent_ II. in 1140. to _St.
Mary’s_ beyond the _Tyber_[710]. _Bede_, whom the Authors of the modern
Pontificals have followed, tells us, in his Martyrology[711], that
_Julius_ was sent into Banishment, where he suffered much for the Space
of Ten Months, till the Death of _Constantius_, a zealous Promoter of
_Arianism_. [Sidenote: Julius _was not banished by_ Constantius.] But
that Historian was certainly mistaken, since _Constantius_ was never
Master of _Rome_ in _Julius_’s Time, and his Brother _Constans_ was a
great Friend to _Julius_, and all the orthodox Bishops. [Sidenote:
_Spurious Pieces ascribed to him._] Of the many Writings ascribed to
_Julius_, none, except his Two Letters, are authentic, the one to the
_Eusebians_, and the other to the Church of _Alexandria_, of which we
have spoken above. _Leontius_ of _Byzantium_ mentions Seven Epistles,
which, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, were ascribed to
_Julius_[712]; but, at the same time, he assures us, that they were not
written by him, but by _Apollinaris_ the Heresiarch; and the Monks of
_Palæstine_, in the Account they gave of the _Eutychians_, in the Time
of the Emperor _Anastasius_, assure us, that they seduced great Numbers
of People, by ascribing the Works of _Apollinaris_ to the Fathers,
namely to _Athanasius_, to _Gregory Nazienzen_, and to _Julius_[713].
_Gennadius_ ascribes to _Julius_ a Letter to _Dionysius_ Bishop of
_Corinth_, greatly favouring of the Heresy of _Eutyches_ and
_Timotheus_[714]; but _Leontius_ of _Byzantium_ evidently proves that
Letter to have been written by _Apollinaris_; and as his it is quoted by
his Two Disciples _Valentine_ and _Timotheus_[715]. The Orientals have a
Liturgy, which they suppose to have been composed by _Julius_: this
Supposition, however groundless, shews him to have been in great Repute
in those Parts[716].

-----

Footnote N13:

  _Ursacius_ and _Valens_ first abjured, or rather pretended to abjure,
  their Errors at _Milan_, before the Council, that at this Time was
  sitting there. From _Milan_ they repaired to _Rome_, and there abjured
  anew their Errors, in the Presence of _Julius_, and the whole _Roman_
  Church. Here _Baronius_ observes, _that as this was a Matter of too
  great Moment to be finally decided by the Council of_ Milan, _though
  the_ Roman _Presbyters were present, they sent them to_ Julius, _that
  they might abjure their Errors in his Presence, agreeably to the
  antient Custom of the Catholic Church_; viz. _that eminent Heretics
  should abjure their Heresies only at_ Rome[N13.1]. But, in the first
  Place, they were not sent by the Council; but went to _Rome_ of their
  own Accord, as _Osius_ assures us, in express Terms, _Illi ultre Romam
  venerunt_[N13.2]. In the second Place, the Matter was finally
  determined by the Council of _Milan_; for the Council received their
  Recantation, and restored them to the Communion of the Church. And
  what else was to be done? what else could _Julius_ do? But if the
  Matter was finally determined by the Council, what could induce them,
  says _Baronius_, to travel to _Rome_, and abjure anew their Heresy
  there? The Answer is obvious: They had imposed upon the Council by a
  pretended Abjuration, and went to _Rome_ to impose, in like manner, on
  _Julius_, and obtain by that means his Communion; which they did
  accordingly, notwithstanding his _Infallibility_. Besides, as both
  _Athanasius_ and his Enemies had referred their Cause to the
  Arbitration of _Julius_, he was the fittest Person to receive the
  Retraction of the false Evidence, which they had formerly given. As to
  the Custom, mentioned by _Baronius_, that _eminent Heretics should
  abjure their Heresies only at_ Rome, no Man can be so little versed in
  Ecclesiastical History as not to know, that no such Custom ever
  obtained in the Catholic Church. Not to recur to more antient Times,
  the _Arian_ Bishops, that is, Bishops guilty of the same Heresy as
  _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, abjured their Errors before the Council that
  was held at _Jerusalem_ in 335. There they renounced their Heresy;
  there they were all restored to the Communion of the Church, without
  going, or offering to go, to _Rome_. And many of those Bishops were
  surely more eminent Heretics than either _Ursacius_ or _Valens_.

Footnote N13.1:

  Bar. ad ann. 350. n. 23.

Footnote N13.2:

  Apud Ath. ad Solitar.

-----

-----

Footnote 671:

  Buch. p. 273.

Footnote 672:

  Concil. tom. 2. p. 527.

Footnote 673:

  Bar. ad ann. 337. n. 67.

Footnote 674:

  Blond. decret. p. 451.

Footnote 675:

  Athan. apol. 2. p. 741-745.

Footnote 676:

  Id. ib.

Footnote 677:

  Id. ib. Socr. l. 2. c. 15. Soz. l. 3. c. 8.

Footnote 678:

  Athan. ib. p. 744. & ad Solit. p. 816.

Footnote 679:

  Id. ib. p. 748.

Footnote 680:

  Idem ib. Hil. frag. p. 26.

Footnote 681:

  Id. ib. p. 750.

Footnote 682:

  Epiph. 72. c. 4.

Footnote 683:

  Vide Petav. dog. t. 2. l. 1. c. 13. Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. p. 46.

Footnote 684:

  Socr. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 685:

  Soz. l. 3. c. 8.

Footnote 686:

  Athan. ap. 2. p. 739.

Footnote 687:

  Id. ib. p. 740-749. & ad Solit. p. 816. Soz. l. 3. c. 8. Euseb. l. 6.
  c. 43. Hil. frag. p. 25.

Footnote 688:

  Athan. ib. p. 740-753.

Footnote 689:

  Athan. ib. p. 761. Socr. l. 1. c. 20. Hil. frag 2. p. 7. Soz. l. 3. c.
  12, &c.

Footnote 690:

  Athan. ib. p. 767.

Footnote 691:

  Athan. ad Solit. p. 819. Hil. frag. 2. p. 22.

Footnote 692:

  Athan. ib. p. 766. & ad Sol. p. 820. Theod. l. 2. c. 6. Hil. frag. 1.
  p. 18.

Footnote 693:

  Athan. ib.

Footnote 694:

  Id. ib. p. 767.

Footnote 695:

  Hil. frag. 1. p. 15, 16.

Footnote 696:

  Id. ibid.

Footnote 697:

  Blond. prim. p. 106.

Footnote 698:

  Concil. t. 2. p. 652.

Footnote 699:

  In decret. Greg. l. 2. tit. 28. c. 11.

Footnote 700:

  Theodoret. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 701:

  Soz. l. 3. c. 11.

Footnote 702:

  Concil. l. 4. p. 825.

Footnote 703:

  Ath. apol. 2. p. 271. & ad Sol. p. 820.

Footnote 704:

  Idem ad Sol. p. 822. Ruf. l. 1. c. 19. Theod. l. 2. c. 6.

Footnote 705:

  Socr. l. 2. c. 23.

Footnote 706:

  Athan. apol. 2. p. 770.

Footnote 707:

  Ath. ad Solit. p. 826. & Apol. 2. p. 776. Hil. frag. 1. p. 24-26.

Footnote 708:

  Buch. cycl. 267. 273.

Footnote 709:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 710:

  Bolland. 12 Apr. p. 86. n. 14.

Footnote 711:

  Bed. martyr. p. 83.

Footnote 712:

  Leont. sect. 8. p. 526.

Footnote 713:

  Evagr. l. 3. c. 31.

Footnote 714:

  Gen. c. 2.

Footnote 715:

  Leont. ib.

Footnote 716:

  Bona lit. 1. c. 9. p. 64.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 CONSTANTIUS,                  LIBERIUS,                        JOVIAN,
 JULIAN,            _Thirty-fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.          VALERIAN.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 352.  Liberius _his own Panegyrist_.]

_Liberius_ was chosen on the 22d of _May_ 352. in the room of
_Julius_[717]. He had trampled under-foot (to use his own Terms) all
worldly things, to observe the Gospel, and obey the Dictates of his
Faith. He had been employed, before his Election, in several
Ecclesiastical Ministries, and discharged them with Reputation, though
he was not conscious to himself of having ever done the least Thing for
the sake of Praise and Glory. He was at last raised to the Episcopal
Dignity, but much against his Will, as he calls God and the Church to
witness. He protests, that it was his ardent and only Wish, that he
might keep himself pure and undefiled in the Administration of his new
Dignity, that he might inviolably maintain and defend the Faith, which
he had received from his illustrious Predecessors, among whom were many
Martyrs[718]. [Sidenote: _No easy Matter to form a true Idea of his
Character._] Were we to judge of his Conduct from his Words, we should
equal him to the best of his Predecessors; but there appears, throughout
his whole Administration, such an odd Mixture of opposite Qualities,
that it is no easy Matter to form a true Idea of his Character: at one
time we shall find him bold, intrepid, and inflexible; at another
timorous, faint-hearted, and compliant; insomuch that one can hardly
conceive him to be the same Man. The latter Qualities he betrayed in the
very Beginning of his Pontificate, by separating himself from the
Communion of _Athanasius_. _Constans_, the great Support of the Orthodox
Party, being murdered, and _Constantius_ upon the Point of becoming
Master of _Rome_, by a complete Victory he had gained over the Two
Brothers _Magnentius_ and _Decentius_, the _Eusebians_ thought this a
proper Juncture to try whether the Fear of that Prince had not rendered
_Julius_ somewhat more tractable. For _Constantius_ was more incensed
than ever against _Athanasius_, being assured by the _Eusebians_, to
whom he gave an intire Credit, that he had influenced his Brother to
threaten him with a Civil War[719]. [Sidenote: _The_ Eusebians _write a
second Letter to_ Julius _against_ Athanasius:] They writ therefore to
_Julius_ a second Letter, filled with new Complaints and Calumnies
against _Athanasius_; but _Julius_ dying in the mean time, their Letter,
together with another to the same Purpose from the _Arians_ of
_Alexandria_, was delivered to _Liberius_, who caused them both to be
publicly read in a full Assembly of the People, and in the Council,
which was then sitting at _Rome_[720]. [Sidenote: _which is answered by_
Liberius:] His Answer to these Letters has not reached our Times; but a
Copy of the Letter, which he writ on that Occasion to _Athanasius_, has,
to his eternal Disgrace, been transmitted to us, among the Fragments of
_Hilarius_ Bishop of _Poitiers_. [Sidenote: _who summons_ Athanasius
_to_ Rome.] In that Letter he summons him to appear forthwith at _Rome_,
to clear himself there of the heavy Accusations brought against him; and
threatens to cut him off from the Communion of that Church, if he
refused to comply with the Summons[721]. With this Letter he dispatched
Three of his Presbyters, _Lucius_, _Paulus_, and _Ælianus_; strictly
injoining them, by all means, to prevail upon _Athanasius_ to repair,
without Delay, to _Rome_[722]. This Conduct, so very different from that
of his Predecessor, was, no doubt, owing to the Dread he was in of the
Emperor _Constantius_, by this Time probably Master of _Rome_, and all
_Italy_; for what else could tempt or induce him to act so
preposterously? Be that as it will, _Athanasius_ was greatly surprised
and concerned to find himself so unworthily treated and threatened by
the Bishop of _Rome_; but did not think himself, on that Account,
obliged to abandon his Flock. He remained therefore in _Alexandria_; but
begged his Collegues in _Egypt_ to write in his Favour to the Pope;
which they did accordingly. [Sidenote: Liberius _communicates with
the_ Arians, _and excommunicates_ Athanasius.] But _Liberius_ wanted to
ingratiate himself with the _Arians_, and, by their means, with the
Emperor; and therefore, without any Regard to the Testimony of the
Orthodox Bishops, or the known Innocence of the oppressed _Athanasius_,
he writ to the _Eusebians_, acquainting them, that he communicated with
them; but, as to _Athanasius_, he had cut him off from his Communion,
and from that of his Church[723]. [Sidenote: _His Letter to them not
supposititious._] _Baronius_[724], and after him the _Benedictines_, in
their last Edition of the Works of _Hilarius_ and _Athanasius_[725],
maintain this Letter of _Liberius_ to have been forged by the _Arians_,
and inserted into the Works of _Hilarius_. But they allege no convincing
Reason why the other Pieces, among which it has been conveyed to us,
should be admitted as genuine, and this alone rejected as
supposititious. _Athanasius_, indeed, never reproached the Bishop of
_Rome_ with his scandalous Conduct, as they observe; but may not that be
ascribed to his Moderation? The more, as he was sensible, that
_Liberius_ acted thus not out of Ill-will, but Fear. As to the want of
Connexion between that Letter and the Pieces preceding and following it,
I should not have expected such an Objection from any who had ever
perused the Fragments of that Writer, which every one knows to have been
patched together without any Regard to Time or Order[N14].

-----

Footnote N14:

  Thus the very Letter of _Liberius_ is put in the Place where the
  Letter of the Council of _Sardica_ to the Emperor _Constantius_ ought
  to have been, as is manifest from what is said immediately before it.
  A few Lines after, instead of the Letter from the Council of _Egypt_
  to _Liberius_, which _Hilarius_ promises, we find one from _Liberius_
  to the Bishops of _Italy_, written after the Death of _Constantius_
  upon a quite different Subject. What comes immediately after the
  Letter of _Liberius_ to the _Eusebians_, ought, in all Likelihood, to
  have been placed after the above-mentioned Letter of the Council of
  _Sardica_ to _Constantius_: for to me it appears no less improbable
  than it does or can do to _Baronius_[N14.1], that _Hilarius_, a most
  zealous Stickler for the Orthodox Faith, should approve of the Pope’s
  scandalous Letter, tending utterly to subvert it, and express his
  Approbation in these Terms; _What is there in this Letter that is not
  holy? What is there that does not proceed from the Fear of God?_
  However, I cannot conclude, and much less demonstratively, with the
  Annalist, that the Letter has been forged by the _Arians_. All I think
  can be inferred from thence is, that the Letters, like most other
  Pieces there, have been misplaced; and that the above-mentioned Words
  of _Hilarius_ ought to be put after the Letter of the Council to
  _Constantius_, and not after that of _Liberius_ to the _Arians_.

Footnote N14.1:

  Bar. ad ann. 352. n. 13.

-----

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Arles.]

In the mean time _Constantius_, now in quiet Possession of the whole
Empire by the Death of _Magnentius_, who, after his Defeat, had laid
violent Hands on himself, summoned a Council to meet at _Arles_. At this
Council _Liberius_ did not assist in Person, but by his Legates,
_Vincentius_ Bishop of _Capua_, and _Marcellus_ Bishop of _Campania_,
who, together with some others, had been sent by _Liberius_ some time
before to meet the Emperor at _Arles_, and beg him in the Pope’s Name to
assemble a Council at _Aquileia_[726]. As the Bishop of _Capua_ was a
Man of great Parts, and long Experience, _Liberius_ reposed an intire
Confidence in him, not doubting but he would maintain the Dignity of his
Legation, and support the Innocency of _Athanasius_ with that Firmness
which he had shewn on several other Occasions [N15].

-----

Footnote N15:

  For _Liberius_, ashamed of what he had done against _Athanasius_, not
  only readmitted him soon after to his own Communion, but with great
  Zeal undertook his Defence.

-----

As the Council consisted chiefly of _Arians_, their great Point in view
was, to extort from the _Italian_ Bishops a solemn Condemnation of
_Athanasius_. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Edict._] This therefore was in
the first place proposed in the Council; and, because the orthodox
Bishops would not consent to it, an Edict was issued by the Emperor,
sentencing all those to Exile who should refuse to sign the Condemnation
of _Athanasius_[727]. [Sidenote: _The Pope’s Legates sign the
Condemnation of_ Athanasius.] The boasted Firmness and Constancy of
_Vincentius_ were not Proof against such a Trial. He did all that lay in
his Power to divert the Emperor from the Execution of a Decree utterly
inconsistent with the Liberty of a Council; but finding him deaf to all
Remonstrances, he began to capitulate, offering to sign the Condemnation
of _Athanasius_, on condition the _Eusebians_ signed that of _Arius_,
and publicly abjured his Doctrine. This he thought would be some
Alleviation of his Guilt, and therefore the Proposal which he had made
by Word of Mouth he gave in Writing to the Heads of the _Arian_ Faction,
signed by himself and his Fellow-legates. But the _Arians_, too well
acquainted with their Weakness to grant them any Terms, peremptorily
insisted upon their condemning _Athanasius_, and referring the Cause and
Doctrine of _Arius_ to a more proper Juncture. _Vincentius_ and his
Collegues, finding the Enemies of _Athanasius_ thus inflexible, and, on
the other hand, determined at all Events to keep their Bishopricks, and
avoid the Hardships of a painful Exile, complied at last, and _yielded
to the troublesome Times_, to use their softening Expression[728]. They
were the more inexcuseable, as they had before their Eyes the Example of
a great Prelate, whose Constancy was proof against all the Threats and
Menaces of a provoked Prince. This was the celebrated _Paulinus_ Bishop
of _Treves_, who, after perusing the Formulary, drawn up by the
_Eusebians_, to be signed by him and the other Bishops, rejected it with
the utmost Indignation, declaring that nothing they could do should ever
induce him to betray the Truth, and his own Conscience, by setting his
Hand to such a scandalous Piece. The _Eusebians_ left no Art unattempted
to gain him, as they had done the Pope’s Legates, but finding he was a
Man of a quite different Disposition, and despairing of being ever able
to prevail upon him either by Hopes or Fear, they at last had recourse
to the Emperor, who, putting his Decree in Execution, sent him into
Exile; and in order to tire out his Patience, ordered him to be
constantly conveyed from one inhospitable Place to another. [Sidenote:
_The glorious Behaviour of_ Paulinus.] But in every Place _Paulinus_ was
the same, the Conscience of his suffering for the sake of Justice
enabling him to bear, not only with Patience, but Chearfulness, the
inexpressible Hardships he underwent[729]. He died in _Phrygia_ in the
Fifth Year of his Exile[730], that is, in 358. But his Body is supposed
to have been discovered in a Church of his Name at _Treves_, in the Year
1071[731]. How and when it was conveyed thither, let those inquire who
adore it.

To return to _Liberius_, he was so sensibly affected with the Fall of
_Vincentius_ and his Collegues, that he wished for an Opportunity of
losing his Life in so good a Cause, and washing out with his Blood the
Stain which the scandalous Conduct of his Legates had brought upon his
Character[732]. Thus he expresses himself in the Letter, which he writ
on that Occasion to the great Friend of his See _Osius_[733]. However,
in the Height of his Affliction, he found great Relief in the Courage
and Steadiness of _Cæcilianus_ Bishop of _Spoleto_, of _Eusebius_ Bishop
of _Vercelli_, and of _Lucifer_ Bishop of _Cagliari_ in _Sardinia_. The
latter advised the Pope to demand of the Emperor another Council, and
generously took upon himself to go to _Arles_, where _Constantius_ then
was, and make that Demand. _Liberius_ readily accepted his Offer, and
named _Pancratius_ and _Hilarius_ for his Collegues, the one a
Presbyter, the other a Deacon of the Church of _Rome_. [Sidenote:
Liberius _writes to the Emperor for another Council_;] By these he
writ an excellent Letter to the Emperor, wherein, with the Liberty that
became a Catholic Bishop, but at the same time with all the Respect that
is due from a Subject to his Sovereign, he justifies his Conduct in the
Defence of _Athanasius_, lays open the Arts and Views of the adverse
Party, and begs that a new Council might be assembled, there being no
other Means to put a Stop to so many Evils, and restore Peace and
Tranquillity to the Catholic Church[734]. At the same time _Liberius_
writ to _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Vercelli_, and _Fortunatianus_ Bishop of
_Aquileia_, intreating them to assist his Legates with their Advice, and
even with their Presence, should it be thought necessary. The Three
Legates, on their Arrival at _Vercelli_, in their Way to _Arles_, were
not only kindly received, but joined by _Eusebius_, who repaired with
them to the Emperor. [Sidenote: _which is granted, and assembles at_
Milan.] As the _Arians_ were no-ways averse to the Proposal, nay, had
even solicited the Emperor to convene a new Council, the Request of the
Legates met with no Difficulty; so that a Council was appointed to meet
at _Milan_, where it met accordingly in the Beginning of the Year
355[735]. We are told, that it consisted of Three hundred Western
Bishops, and that from the East there came but very few[736]. But
_Constantius_ and his Army may be said to have supplied their room. For
the Council no sooner met, than the Emperor absolutely insisted upon
their signing the Condemnation of _Athænasius_, and an Edict, containing
the chief Tenets of _Arius_, which had been published in his Name. But
in this Attempt he met with a vigorous Opposition from _Dionysius_
Bishop of _Milan_, _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, _Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_,
and the Two other Legates, _Pancratius_ and _Hilarius_; which provoked
him to such a Degree, that he was upon the Point of commanding them to
be executed upon the Spot as Rebels. [Sidenote: _Some Bishops
banished._] But, upon second Thoughts, he contented himself with sending
them into Exile, _Dionysius_ into _Cappadocia_, or _Armenia_, where he
died a few Years after, _Eusebius_ to _Scythopolis_ in _Palestine_, and
_Lucifer_ to _Germanicia_ in _Syria_. To what Place _Pancratius_ and
_Hilarius_ were confined, we know not; but the latter was most cruelly
whipped before he was banished[737]. As for the other Bishops, I shall
only say, with _Ruffinus_[738], that, out of Three hundred, _Dionysius_,
_Lucifer_, and _Eusebius_, alone shewed a Firmness and Intrepidity
becoming Men of their Rank and Dignity. Among the rest _Fortunatianus_
Bishop of _Aquileia_ signed the Condemnation of _Athanasius_; which
greatly added to the Grief and Concern of _Liberius_, who, till that
Time, had entertained the highest Opinion of him.

And now _Constantius_ had the Satisfaction of seeing _Athanasius_
condemned by the far greater Part of the Western Bishops. But the Bishop
of _Rome_ still declared openly in his Favour, and did all that lay in
his Power to gain others to his Party. [Sidenote: Constantius
_endeavours in vain to gain_ Liberius;] To deprive him therefore of so
powerful a Protector, the Emperor resolved to spare no Cost nor Labour.
With this View he dispatched to _Rome_ the Eunuch _Eusebius_, his great
Chamberlain, with rich Presents in one Hand, and a threatening Letter in
the other: but with an invincible Firmness _Liberius_ withstood both; so
that the Eunuch, who was himself a sworn Enemy to _Athanasius_, returned
to Court baffled and disappointed; and there, by the Account he gave of
his unsuccessful Embassy, added new Fuel to the Fire, which burnt
already with great Violence. The Emperor, who pretended to govern the
Church no less despotically than he did the State, transported with Rage
at the stout Opposition he met with from the Bishop of _Rome_,
immediately dispatched an Order to _Leoncius_, Prefect of that City,
injoining him to apprehend _Liberius_, and send him under a strong Guard
to Court. [Sidenote: _who is sent Prisoner to_ Milan.] Pursuant to
this Order, _Liberius_ was seized in the Night-time, lest the People, by
whom he was greatly beloved, should attempt his Rescue, and conveyed to
_Milan_, where the Court then resided[739]. Soon after his Arrival he
was brought before the Emperor, when, undaunted and unawed by the
Presence of so great a Prince, he spoke with all the Liberty of an
Apostle, and with all the Eloquence of a great Orator[740]. [Sidenote:
_His Interview with the Emperor._] At this Interview were present
_Eusebius_ the Eunuch, and _Epictetus_ Bishop of _Centumcellæ_, now
_Civita Vecchia_, who, for his ready Compliance with the Emperor’s Will,
had been raised by him to great Preferments[741]. The latter told
_Liberius_, when he had ended the excellent Speech he made before the
Emperor, That he had indeed expressed great Zeal for the Purity of the
Faith, and the Liberty of Councils; but the Whole was mere Mummery; and
that he only wanted to be looked upon by his Party as a Person of some
Significancy, and to brag among the Senators, on his Return to _Rome_,
that he had had the Honour to dispute with the Emperor[742]. The Eunuch
too thought he must speak, but it was only to betray his Ignorance; for
he reproached _Liberius_ with defending _Athanasius_, who had been
condemned, he said, as an Heretic, by the Council of _Nice_[743]. As for
_Constantius_, the only Reply he made to the Reasons alleged by
_Liberius_ in favour of _Athanasius_, and the Faith of _Nice_, was, That
the wicked and impious _Athanasius_, as he styled him, had been
condemned by the whole World; that, by his arrogant Conduct, he had
provoked all Mankind, and himself in particular, by constantly stirring
up his Brother against him; that therefore he looked upon the Defeat of
_Magnentius_ and _Sylvanus_, who had attempted to bereave him of his
Crown, as less important to him than the deposing and condemning of a
Man, by whom he had been so highly injured[744]. In answer to this,
_Liberius_ begged, that, of all Men, he would not chuse Bishops for the
Instruments of his private Revenge. _Constantius_ made no Reply, but
only told him, that he must either sign the Condemnation of
_Athanasius_, or be sent into Exile; and that he allowed him Three Days
to deliberate which of the Two he would chuse. [Sidenote: _His
Steadiness._] _Liberius_ answered, with great Intrepidity, that he had
already chosen, and was resolved; that in Three Days he should not
change his Resolution; and therefore the Emperor might send him that
Minute to what Place soever he pleased[745]. The Three Days were not yet
expired when the Emperor sent for him anew to Court, hoping the Fear of
Banishment had softened him, as it had done most others, into a
Compliance. But he found him unalterably fixed in the same Resolution;
and therefore, despairing of being ever able to succeed in his Attempt,
he ordered him to be conveyed forthwith to _Berœa_ in _Thrace_[746].
[Sidenote: _He is banished to_ Berœa _in_ Thrace.] _Liberius_ had not
yet left the Palace, when the Emperor sent him a Present of Five hundred
Pieces of Gold to defray his Charges: which he sent back by the same
Person who brought them, saying, that the Emperor might want Money to
pay his Troops. The like Sum was sent him by the Empress _Eusebia_;
which, with the same Answer, he desired might be conveyed to the
Emperor, adding, that if he knew not how to employ that Sum better, he
might bestow it on _Epictetus_, or _Auxentius_ the _Arian_ Bishop of
_Milan_, who would be very thankful for it[747]. He left _Milan_ Three
Days after, and set out for the Place of his Exile. His Fate was no
sooner known at _Rome_, than the Clergy, assembling the People, bound
themselves by a solemn Oath, in their Presence, not to acknowlege any
other for their Bishop so long as _Liberius_ lived[748].

[Sidenote: Felix _is chosen in his room._]

_Liberius_ being thus driven from his See, another was placed on it in
his room; and the Person, whom the Emperor and the _Arian_ Faction
pitched upon, was one _Felix_, then only Deacon of the Church of
_Rome_[749]. But the Clergy could not proceed to a new Election, without
an open Violation of the Oath they had taken; the People began to
mutiny, and, assembling in Crouds, would suffer none of the _Arian_
Faction to enter their Churches. The Imperial Palace therefore served
instead of a Church; Three of the Emperor’s Eunuchs represented the
People; and Three Bishops, Slaves of the Court, _viz._ _Epictetus_ of
_Centumcellæ_, _Acacius_ of _Cæsarea_, and _Basilius_ of _Ancyra_,
ordained the new-elected Bishop[750]. Thus was _Felix_ chosen, and thus
ordained. As _Liberius_ was greatly beloved by the People, chiefly on
account of his vigorous Opposition to _Constantius_, the Intrusion of
_Felix_ occasioned a great Sedition, in which many lost their
Lives[751]. The Clergy were not so zealous in the Cause as the People;
for great Numbers of them, unmindful of the Oath they had taken, were by
degrees reconciled to _Felix_, and communicated with him[752]; whereas
the People continued to abhor and avoid him at least till the Year 357.
When _Constantius_ came to _Rome_[753]. [Sidenote: Constantius _goes to_
Rome.] For that Prince, being desirous to see the Metropolis of his
Empire, undertook a Journey to _Rome_ in the above-mentioned Year, and
entered it in Triumph on the 28th of _April_[754]. During his short Stay
in that City, the _Roman_ Ladies gave a signal Instance of the Zeal and
Affection they still retained for their exiled Bishop. They thought a
more favourable Opportunity could never offer to solicit the Emperor for
his Return; and therefore, by a private Agreement among themselves, they
pressed their Husbands, with great Earnestness, to lay hold of it,
threatening to abandon them, if they did not, and repairing to their
Bishop to share with him the Hardships of his Exile. The Husbands,
unmoved by such Menaces, which they well knew would never take place,
answered, that by such an Application they might incur the Displeasure
of the Prince, which would prove fatal to them, as well as to the Person
in whose Behalf they interposed; whereas, should they themselves take
such a pious and commendable Office upon them, the Respect due to their
Sex would, in all Likelihood, extort from the Prince the desired Favour,
at least it would restrain his Resentment, and stifle all Thoughts of
Revenge. The Proposal was universally applauded by the Ladies, unwilling
to expose their Husbands to the dire Effects of the Emperor’s
Indignation. [Sidenote: _The_ Roman _Ladies intercede for_ Liberius.] On
an appointed Day therefore, attiring themselves in an Apparel suitable
to their Rank, that the Emperor in seeing them might know who they were,
and treat them accordingly, they repaired to Court; and being
immediately admitted to the Prince’s Presence, they conjured him, with
Tears in their Eyes, to take Pity of that great City, of that numerous
Flock, bereft of its Pastor, and, in his Absence, devoured by ravenous
Wolves. This was not at all a courtly Language: however, _Constantius_,
without betraying the least Emotion, said, _I thought you had a Pastor.
Is not_ Felix _as capable of discharging the Pastoral Office as any
other?_ Felix, replied they, _is detested, and avoided by all_.
[Sidenote: _The Emperor promises to recall him._] At these Words the
Emperor first looked grave; but, immediately changing his Gravity into a
Smile, _If so_, said he, with great Complaisance, _you must have_
Liberius _again: I shall, without Delay, dispatch the proper Orders for
his Return_. An Edict was accordingly issued the very next Day,
recalling _Liberius_ to govern the Church jointly with _Felix_; for
_Constantius_ thought it inconsistent with his Honour, and the Imperial
Dignity, to drive _Felix_ from the See, on which he himself had placed
him.

[Sidenote: _The Edict recalling him to govern jointly with_ Felix,
_raillied by the_ Roman _People._]

When this Edict was read, in the Presence of the Emperor, to the People
assembled in the _Circus_, they applauded it at first, by way of
Raillery, saying, That since the Spectators, at the public Sports, were
divided into Two Parties, it was just and reasonable there should be Two
Bishops to head them. The Multitude, not satisfied with thus pleasantly
expressing their Dissatisfaction, cried out, immediately after, with one
Voice, _There is but One God, One Christ, One Bishop_[755]. And yet the
Emperor was rather delighted than displeased with the Humour of the
People, and the Liberty they took; for to what happened on this Occasion
_Ammianus Marcellinus_ probably alludes, where he writes, that
_Constantius_, in exhibiting public Sports at _Rome_, was pleased with
the Liberty they took to railly him, knowing it did not proceed from
Pride or Ill-nature[756]. _Theodoret_ tells us, that to Acclamations so
worthy of the _Roman_ Piety the Emperor granted the Return of
_Liberius_[757]; and with him agree _Sulpitius Severus_[758], and
_Ruffinus_[759]. But _Sozomen_[760], and all the Writers of those Times,
assure us, that his Return did not happen this, but the following Year
358. when he bought it dear, by signing the Condemnation of
_Athanasius_, and the Symbol or Creed, composed by the _Semi-Arians_ at
_Sirmium_, now _Sirmish_ in _Sclavonia_. _Constantius_, at the Request
of the _Roman_ Ladies and People, promised to recall him, as I have
related; but it was on Condition, says _Sozomen_[761], that he should
agree with the Bishops of the Court, that is, with the _Semi-Arians_.
The Firmness which _Liberius_ had hitherto shewn, left no room to doubt
of his rejecting such a Proposal with the greatest Indignation. But he
now felt what before he had only beheld at a Distance: he began to
compare the Ease and Plenty in which he had lived at _Rome_, with the
Inconveniencies and Hardships of his present Exile. Besides, from the
Menaces thrown out against him by the Emperor’s Officers, he apprehended
his Life to be in Danger[762]. 'Tis true, he had wished for an
Opportunity of shedding his Blood in so good a Cause, as I have related
above. But who is not brave at a Distance from Danger? The Jealousy he
had of _Felix_, who, sitting in his Chair, acted the High Pontiff at
_Rome_, was the _Dalila_, says _Baronius_[763], speaking of his signing
the Condemnation of _Athanasius_, who bereft this _Samson_ of all his
Strength and Courage. [Sidenote: Liberius _signs the Condemnation of_
Athanasius, _and embraces the Doctrine of_ Sirmium.] However that be,
it is certain, that the Strength and Courage, which he had with great
Glory exerted on other Occasions, vanished at once. For he not only
signed the Condemnation of _Athanasius_, but moreover approved and
received as Catholic, the Confession or Symbol of _Sirmium_[764]. Thus,
to ingratiate himself with the Emperor, and return to _Rome_, did
_Liberius_ abandon, at last, his persecuted Friend, renounce the
Catholic Faith, and solemnly promise to maintain inviolable the Doctrine
of _Sirmium_[765]. As he was impatient to be reinstated in his See, he
took care immediately to acquaint the Emperor with the Steps he had
taken. With this Letter he dispatched _Fortunatianus_ Bishop of
_Aquileia_, charging him to solicit _Constantius_ for his Return, since
he had done all he had required of him[766]. _Constantius_ took no
Notice of, nor returned any Answer to, this Letter. On the other hand,
_Liberius_ was heartily sick of his Exile, heartily sick of suffering
for the sake of Justice. [Sidenote: _His Letter to the Eastern
Bishops._] In Hopes therefore of putting a speedy End to his Exile, and
the Hardships attending it, he writ in a most submissive and cringing
Style to the Eastern Bishops, assuring them, that it was merely out of
Respect to his Predecessor _Julius_, and to maintain his Judgment, that
he had undertaken the Defence of _Athanasius_; that as soon as it had
pleased God to open his Eyes, and discover to him how justly he had been
condemned, he had separated himself from his Communion, and joined them;
that all their Decrees concerning him should be inviolably observed by
the Apostolic See, as indeed they ought to be; that he sincerely and
willingly received the true Catholic and Orthodox Faith, as it had been
expounded and defined by several of his Brethren and Collegues at
_Sirmium_, and had been proposed to him by his Collegue _Demophilus_;
that he received every Article of that Symbol, and had nothing to object
against any. This remarkable Letter he concludes thus: _And now that I
agree with you in every Point, let me earnestly intreat your Holinesses
to employ your joint Interest in my Behalf, that I may be recalled from
Banishment, and suffered to return to the See, which God has been
pleased to commit to my Care_[767]. [Sidenote: _He is anathematized by_
Hilarius. _His Letter to the Bishops at Court_;] This Letter has been
conveyed to us by the great _Hilarius_, Bishop of _Poitiers_, who, in
relating it, not able to restrain the just Indignation it kindled in his
Breast, interrupts the Recital Three times, to anathematize the Author
of it, the _prevaricating Liberius_, as he styles him[768]. He writ
likewise to _Ursacius_, _Valens_, and _Germinius_, who bore great Sway
at Court, and were at the Head of the _Arian_ Faction in the West, to
acquaint them, that he communicated with them, and also with _Auxentius_
and _Epictetus_, Two of the most inveterate Enemies the Orthodox had;
and that whoever did not communicate with them, that is, every Catholic
Bishop, was cut off from his Communion. These Words _Hilarius_ cannot
repeat without anathematizing anew _Liberius_, and all the _Arians_ with
him. In the same Letter he lets them know, that he has separated himself
from the Communion of _Athanasius_, _late Bishop of_ Alexandria,
acknowleging him, by that Expression, lawfully deposed. He declares, in
the Beginning of his Letter, and calls God to witness, that it is not by
Compulsion, but merely for the sake of Peace and Charity, far preferable
to Martyrdom itself, that he writes to them. He conjures them, by the
omnipotent God, by his Son _Jesus_, by the Holy Ghost, to intercede for
him with the Emperor, that, by his Return, Peace and Tranquillity may be
restored to the Church committed to his Care; assuring them, that the
Zeal they exert in so pious, so just a Cause, will meet with a
proportionable Reward in Heaven[769].

As the Emperor had not yet taken the least Notice of his Letter; as the
Eastern Bishops, as well as the Bishops at Court, did not act, as he
thought, with all the Zeal and Expedition he expected, and his ready
Compliance well deserved; [Sidenote: _and to_ Vincentius, _Bishop of_
Capua.] he writ a Third Letter, directed to _Vincentius_, Bishop of
_Capua_, acquainting him, that he had abandoned the Defence of
_Athanasius_, and desiring him to give Notice thereof to all the Bishops
of _Campania_; and, at the same time, to use his utmost Endeavours to
persuade them to dispatch some of their Body with a Letter, in their
common Name, to the Emperor, begging _Constantius_ to deliver him,
without further Delay, from his present most melancholy and deplorable
Situation. To this Letter he adds the following Paragraph, in his own
Hand: _We live in Peace with all the Bishops of the East, and with you.
As for me, I have discharged my Conscience before God. Will you suffer
me to perish in my present Exile? The same God will judge us both_[770].
The Bishop of _Capua_ had been formerly sent by _Liberius_ to the
Council of _Arles_, with the Character of his Legate, as I have observed
above, and had there signed the Condemnation of _Athanasius_; on which
Occasion _Liberius_ wished for an Opportunity of washing out, with his
own Blood, the Stain which the Conduct of his Legate had brought upon
his Character. But his only Wish now was to see himself delivered from
his painful Exile, and restored to his former State, upon any Terms.
_Vincentius_, touched with his Complaints, prevailed upon the Bishops of
_Campania_ to send a solemn Deputation to the Emperor in his Behalf;
which _Constantius_ complied with, so far as to recall him from the
Place of his Exile to _Sirmium_, where the Court then was[771].
[Sidenote: _He is recalled from his Banishment to_ Sirmium.] Upon his
Arrival there, _Constantius_, who had lately embraced the Doctrine of
the _Semi-Arians_, taking Advantage of his Weakness, and of the eager
Desire he had betrayed of returning to his See, obliged him, as well as
the Bishops of the Court, and Four _African_ Bishops, who happened to be
then at _Sirmium_, to sign the same Doctrine[772]. [Sidenote: _He signs
the Doctrine of the_ Semi-Arians.] Thus did the infallible _Liberius_
sign, and embrace, at least in Appearance, both the _Arian_ and
_Semi-Arian_ Heresy; the _Arian_ at _Berœa_, the Place of his Exile,
and the _Semi-Arian_ at _Sirmium_. That the Confession he signed at
_Berœa_ was _Arian_, cannot be doubted; for it was the Second of
_Sirmium_, which all agree to have been _Arian_[N16]. Besides, it was
proposed to him by _Demophilus_ Bishop of _Berœa_, who was a most
zealous Stickler for _Arianism_, and greatly attached to _Ursacius_ and
_Valens_, the Two leading Men among the _Arians_ in the West; and it is
not at all probable, that he would have required _Liberius_ to sign a
Doctrine different from that which he himself held.

-----

Footnote N16:

  Three Councils were held at _Sirmium_, one in 349. another in 352. and
  the Third in 357. In the First, _Photinus_, Bishop of that City, was
  condemned, for reviving the Heresy of _Paul_ of _Samosata_. This
  Council was intirely composed of the Western Bishops, who attempted to
  depose _Photinus_, but were vigorously opposed by the People. The
  Second Council of _Sirmium_ was convened by the Emperor _Constantius_,
  and consisted of the Eastern Bishops only, who condemned anew, and
  deposed _Photinus_. By this Council a Symbol, or Creed, was composed,
  which has been transmitted to us in _Greek_ by St. _Athanasius_, and
  in _Latin_ by St. _Hilarius_; and is intirely Orthodox. In the Third
  Council of _Sirmium_ a new Creed was composed by _Potamius_ Bishop of
  _Lisbone_, and signed by _Ursacius_, _Valens_, _Germinius_, and the
  other Bishops there present. This Creed was altogether _Arian_; for
  not only the Word _Consubstantial_ was rejected by it, but the Son was
  declared to be unlike the Father in Essence, to be less than the
  Father, and to have had a Beginning. And it was this Second Symbol of
  _Sirmium_ that _Liberius_ signed at _Berœa_. Upon his Arrival at
  _Sirmium_ he found there _Basilius_ of _Ancyra_, _Eleusius_ of
  _Cyzicus_, and the other _Semi-Arian_ Bishops, who were lately come
  from the Council of _Ancyra_, where they had condemned the Doctrine of
  the _Pure Arians_, and established that of the _Semi-Arians_, holding
  the Son to be like the Father in Nature and Essence, but not
  _Consubstantial_, or of the same Substance. And this Doctrine
  _Liberius_ signed out of Complaisance to the Emperor, that nothing
  might obstruct his Return to _Rome_. He signed it in a kind of
  Council, consisting of the _Semi-Arian_ Bishops, whom I have mentioned
  above.

-----

The Advocates for the Pope’s Infallibility are here quite at a Loss what
to say in Defence of that Prerogative. That _Liberius_ signed the
Condemnation of _Athanasius_, that he communicated with the _Arians_,
and, what above all galls them, that he received the _Sirmian_
Confession of Faith as Catholic and Orthodox, are undeniable Matters of
Fact. To reconcile them with Infallibility, is what they have been long
drudging at: and to what pitiful Shifts, what eluding and unmeaning
Distinctions, have they not been obliged to recur! Like a Man struggling
for Life in deep Water, and catching at every Twig to save it, they
flounce from Quibble to Quibble, from one Subterfuge to another, but all
in vain; sink they must, and their Infallibility with them. To shew
their Distress, I shall briefly transcribe what I find offered on this
Occasion, by the most learned among them, in Defence of the Cause they
have undertaken. [Sidenote: _What alleged by_ Baronius _in
his Defence_;] _Baronius_[773], after relating and owning the
above-mentioned Facts, addresses his Readers thus: _We have hitherto
sailed among dangerous Rocks, among treacherous Sholes; but fear not, I
shall at last pilot you safe into the Port of Truth_. Then, dropping his
Allegory, he makes a long Descant to prove, that the _Sirmian_
Confession of Faith, signed by _Liberius_, was, in every Article,
Catholic and Orthodox. A rare Pilot indeed! If this (to pursue his
Allegory) is _the Port of Truth_, who can help pitying _Jerom_,
_Hilarius_, _Athanasius_, and in short all the Antients? for they
certainly missed it, and, falling in among those _dangerous Rocks, those
treacherous Sholes_, which _Baronius_ had the Skill and good Luck to
avoid, were there unfortunately shipwrecked. For _Jerom_ says, in
express Terms, and in Two Places[774], that _Liberius_ signed an Heresy;
_Hilarius_, that he approved of the _Arian_ Perfidy[775]; _Athanasius_,
that he joined the _Arians_[776]; and all the Antients, that he
apostatized from the Faith: nay, _Liberius_ himself, in his Letter to
the Orientals, which is still to be seen, under his own Hand, in the
_Vatican_ Library, gives them Notice, that _in all things_ he agrees
with _Demophilus_, a most zealous _Arian_, and with them; which Words
_Hilarius_ could not repeat without anathematizing him. It is therefore
manifest, beyond all Dispute, that the Confession of Faith, signed by
_Liberius_, was not Catholic, but _Arian_. Of this _Baronius_ himself
was, without doubt, well apprised, and into this Port he had piloted his
Reader, had Truth alone been his Land-mark. [Sidenote: _and by_
Bellarmine.] _Bellarmine_, the other great Stickler for Infallibility,
pursues a different Method, but with worse Success, in my Opinion, than
his Fellow-Champion _Baronius_; for, by striving to support that
chimerical Prerogative, he evidently oversets it. The Pope, according to
him, may sign and receive heretical Opinions, as _Liberius_ did, without
prejudicing in the least his Infallibility, provided he does not
internally assent to them[777]; so that the so much boasted
Infallibility is by him reduced at last to this; that the Pope cannot
internally assent to an Error: which is confining his Infallibility to
himself, and consequently disqualifying him for the Office of a Teacher.
Infallibility, even thus curtailed, is, no doubt, a most valuable
Treasure to the Owner, but of no more Use to the rest of Mankind than a
Treasure concealed under-ground; and, on that very Account, it ought in
common Sense to be exploded. But it is scarce worth the while to quarrel
with _Bellarmine_ about it, since he cannot be so unreasonable as to
require us, in virtue of such a Prerogative, to pay any Regard to the
Decisions of the Pope, till such time, at least, as we know them to be
agreeable to his private Opinion: and this is what we can never know,
since every Pope may, like _Liberius_, externally admit an Opinion as
true; and, at the same time, internally reject it as false.

[Sidenote: Liberius _returns to_ Rome.]

But, to return to _Liberius_; he was at last, in regard of his ready
Compliance with the Will of the Emperor, allowed to return to _Rome_;
but on Condition, that he should govern jointly with _Felix_[778].
Letters were accordingly dispatched both to _Felix_, and the _Roman_
Clergy, to acquaint them therewith. _Sozomen_ seems to insinuate, that
they both governed thus for some time[779]. [Sidenote: Felix _is driven
out._] But, according to St. _Jerom_, and the Two Presbyters
_Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, who lived then at _Rome_, and were
Eye-witnesses of what they relate, _Felix_ was driven not only from the
See, but out of the City, as soon as _Liberius_ entered it; which he did
on the 2d of _August_ 358. in a kind of Triumph, being met and received
by the whole People, with loud Acclamations of Joy[780]. _Felix_
returned soon after, at the Instigation of a few of the Ecclesiastics,
who had, contrary to their Oath, adhered to him; and even attempted to
perform Divine Service in the Basilic of _Julius_, beyond the _Tiber_;
but the enraged Multitude drove him out a second time, and, with him,
all the Ecclesiastics, who had acknowleged him[781]. _Socrates_ writes,
that the Emperor himself was in the End obliged to give him up, and
consent to his Expulsion[782]. Mention is made in the Pontificals of a
bloody Persecution, raised in _Rome_ by _Liberius_, and his Party,
against the Partisans of _Felix_, who, it is said, were inhumanly
murdered in the Streets, in the Baths, in all public Places, and even in
the Churches[783]. But as none of the Antients take the least Notice of
such Cruelties, I will not charge _Liberius_ with them, upon the bare
Authority of such Records. _Felix_, being driven from _Rome_, withdrew
to a small Estate he had on the Road to _Porto_, and there spent the
remaining Part of his Life in Retirement[784]. _Sozomen_ supposes him to
have died soon after[785]. But the Two Presbyters _Marcellinus_ and
_Faustinus_, who must have been better informed, assure us, that he
lived Seven Years after the Return of _Liberius_, and died on the 22d of
_November_ 365[786].

[Sidenote: _The Judgment of the Antients concerning_ Felix.]

Concerning _Felix_, all the Antients agree, that he was unlawfully
elected and ordained; that he communicated with the _Arians_; that, to
ingratiate himself with them, and the Emperor, he signed the
Condemnation of _Athanasius_; that he was guilty of Perjury in accepting
the Episcopal Dignity, having bound himself, with the rest of the
Clergy, by a solemn Oath, to acknowlege no other Bishop while _Liberius_
lived; and, lastly, that he strove to keep Possession of the _Roman_
See, after the Return of the lawful Bishop, and to sit in it, together
with him, in open Defiance of the Canons of the Church. _Socrates_ adds,
that he not only communicated with the _Arians_, but was infected with
the _Arian_ Heresy[787]. _Athanasius_ styles him _a Monster, raised to
the See of_ Rome _by the Malice of Antichrist, one worthy of those who
raised him, and in every respect well qualified for the Execution of
their wicked Designs_[788]. [Sidenote: _He is honoured by the Church of_
Rome _as a Saint and a Martyr._] And yet this Heretic, this Monster,
this Intruder, or Antipope, is honoured (the Reader will be surprised to
hear it, is honoured) by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint; nay, as a
Martyr; and his Festival is kept to this Day, on the 29th of _July_.
This Honour was conferred on him in the Ages of Darkness and Ignorance,
upon the Authority of his fabulous Acts, and a more fabulous Pontifical,
from which his Acts seem to have been copied. In the Pontifical it is
said, that _Felix_ declared _Constantius_, who had been twice baptized,
an Heretic; and was therefore, by an Order from the incensed Emperor,
apprehended, and privately beheaded, with many Ecclesiastics and Laymen,
under the Walls of _Rome_, on the 11th of _November_. It is added, that
the Presbyter _Damasus_ privately conveyed his Body to a Church, which
_Felix_ had built, and there interred it; and that, upon his Death, the
See remained vacant for the Space of Thirty-eight Days[789]. [Sidenote:
_His fabulous Acts._] In the Acts of _Felix_ we read, that _Constantius_
was rebaptized by _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_; that _Felix_ having,
on that Account, declared him an Heretic, he was driven from the See of
_Rome_, and _Liberius_ replaced on it; that _Felix_ thereupon retired
into the Country, but was brought back by the Emperor’s Orders, and
beheaded on the 10th of _November_; that his Body was interred on the
20th of the same Month in a Church, which he had built while he was a
Presbyter: And we keep his Festival, adds the Author, on the 29th of
_July_[790]. _Anastasius_ has copied the Pontifical Word for Word,
except that he pretends _Felix_ to have been beheaded at _Cora_, in the
_Campagna_ of _Rome_[791]; though he has told us, in the foregoing Page,
that he _died in Peace_, a Phrase never used in speaking of Martyrs, on
the 29th of _July_, at his Estate on the Road to _Porto_[792]. The City
of _Cere_, now _Cerventera_, in _Tuscany_, honours _Felix_ to this Day,
as their chief Patron or Protector. In those dark Times Legends alone
were in request, and all other Books, even the Scripture itself, quite
out of Date, and neglected. [Sidenote: _How he came to be honoured as a
Saint._] No Wonder therefore that such Absurdities, however inconsistent
with History, were swallowed without straining; and _Felix_, for his
pretended Zeal and Constancy, ranked among the holy Martyrs. For I may
venture to affirm, that the most learned Men, at that time, in the
Church, knew nothing of _Felix_ but what they had learned from his
fabulous Acts, and from the above-mentioned Pontifical. That I may not
be thought to exaggerate, I shall allege one Instance of the Ignorance
of past Times: _Gulielmus a Sancto Amore_, one of the most learned Men
of the 13th Century, knew that, in the Time of _Hilarius_ Bishop of
_Poitiers_, a Pope, with most of the Bishops, had fallen into Heresy. He
did not even pretend to be so well versed in History as to know for
certain who the Pope was; but, indulging a Conjecture, which he thought
probable enough, he named _Anastasius_ II. who died in 498. about 150
Years after the Time of _Hilarius_: so that he was an utter Stranger to
the History of Pope _Liberius_, and consequently to that of the Antipope
_Felix_. Had it not been for the like Ignorance in more early Times, the
Apotheosis of our pretended Martyr had never taken place. [Sidenote:
_His Sanctity called in question;_] Be that as it will, during the Ages
of Darkness he held undisturbed the Rank, to which he had been thus
raised: but when the Dawn of Knowlege began to appear, and it was
discovered at last from contemporary and unexceptionable Writers, who
_Felix_ was, the Church of _Rome_ was ashamed to own him among her
Saints. On the other hand, to degrade him had been giving a fatal Blow
to the Pope’s Authority, and rendering it for ever precarious, in so
material a Point as that of Canonization. _Felix_ therefore was, at all
Events, to keep his Place in Heaven; his Sanctity was to be confirmed,
and the World imposed upon by some Contrivance or other, capable of
utterly defeating the Testimony of the Antients.

This Point being settled, to prevent all Suspicion of Deceit, or
underhand Dealings, Pope _Gregory_ XIII. declared, in 1582. his
Intention of having the Cause of _Felix_ impartially examined.
[Sidenote: _and his Cause reexamined._] In order to ? this, he
appointed _Baronius_, employed at that Time in reforming the _Roman_
Martyrology, to put in Writing whatever could be objected against
_Felix_, and Cardinal _Santorio_ to answer his Objections, and collect
likewise in Writing all that could be said in favour of his new Client,
that the Pope might be thoroughly acquainted with the Merits of the
Cause before he came to a final Decision. This Conduct in _Gregory_ has
been censured by some over-zealous Divines of the Church of _Rome_, as
if he had thereby given the World Occasion to think that he questioned
the Infallibility of his Predecessors, who had honoured _Felix_ as a
Saint[793]. But _Gregory_ well knew what he was doing, and how the Whole
would end. In Compliance with his Orders, _Baronius_ writ a
Dissertation, which he himself calls a Volume, and not a short one[794],
to prove that _Felix_ was neither a Saint nor a Martyr. As he had Truth
on his Side, Cardinal _Santorio_, though a Man of Learning, could
neither answer his Arguments, nor offer any thing in so desperate a
Cause worthy of himself. He often addressed himself in his Prayers to
his Client, intreating him to undertake his own Cause, by suggesting to
him what might be alleged in his Defence. But the Client was no less at
a Stand than the Advocate. Some other Person therefore must interpose:
And whom did the carrying or losing such a Cause more nearly concern
than the Pope, since his Authority in a most essential Point was at
Stake? This was a nice Affair, and to be managed with great Art and
Dexterity. _Gregory_, therefore, having often heard both Sides, in a
full Congregation of Cardinals, without betraying the least Partiality
for _Felix_, appointed them to meet for the last time on the 28th of
_July_, the Eve of the pretended Saint’s Festival, judging that the most
proper Time to play off with good Success the Trick, which he had kept
the whole Time _in petto_. [Sidenote: _His Sanctity and Martyrdom
confirmed by the Discovery of his Body._] The Cardinals met on the Day
appointed; _Baronius_ quite silenced his Adversary; the whole Assembly
was fully convinced, that _Felix_ was no Saint, no Martyr; the Pope
himself seemed to fall in with the rest, and accordingly rose up to
declare, as was thought, the unhappy _Felix_ fallen from Heaven; when a
great Noise was all on a sudden heard at the Door, and immediately a
Messenger entered, who, after uttering these Words, _Holy_ Felix, _pray
for us_, acquainted the Pope and the Cardinals, that the Body of _Felix_
was just discovered. Hereupon they all repaired in great Haste to the
Church of _Cosmas_ and _Damianus_, where the miraculous Discovery had
been made; and there saw, in a Marble Coffin of an extraordinary Size,
on one Side the Bodies of _Mark_, _Marcellianus_, and _Tranquillinus_;
and on the other that of _Felix_, with this Inscription on a Stone that
lay by it, _The Body of Saint_ Felix, _who condemned_ Constantius[795].
Hereupon the _Te Deum_ was sung with great Solemnity for the Triumph of
Truth: _Felix_ was declared worthy of the Veneration and Worship that
had till then been paid him, and a Place was allowed him among the other
Saints in the _Roman_ Martyrology, where it is said, that _he was driven
from his See for defending the Catholic Faith, by_ Constantius _an_
Arian _Emperor, and privately put to Death at_ Cere, _now_ Cervetera,
_in_ Tuscany. _Baronius_, transported with Joy, as he himself
declares[796], at so miraculous and seasonable a Discovery, immediately
yielded, not to his Antagonist _Santorio_, but to _Felix_, who had
evidently interposed; and, taking that Interposition for a satisfactory
Answer to all his Arguments, he immediately retracted whatever he had
said, and consigned to the Flames whatever he had written in Opposition
to _Felix_[797]. Thus, to maintain a chimerical Prerogative, they sport
with Truth; betray into Error those who confide in them; and, turning
the worst of Men into Saints, honour Vice with the greatest Reward they
can bestow on Virtue.

[Sidenote: _His Legend proved to be fabulous._]

That this pretended Discovery was nothing but a Contrivance to confirm
the Martyrdom of _Felix_, and impose upon the World, is manifest; and
that the Pontifical, and his Acts, on which his Martyrdom was originally
founded, were a no less palpable and gross Imposition, may be easily
demonstrated. For, in the first place, _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_,
who lived in the Time of _Felix_ and _Liberius_ at _Rome_, tell us, in
express Terms, that _Felix, who had been substituted to_ Liberius, _died
on the 22d of_ November 365[798]. that is, Four Years after the Death of
_Constantius_, by whom he is said, in his Acts, and in the Pontifical,
to have been martyred. _Athanasius_ assures us[799], and with him agree
_Philostorgius_[800], and the Chronicle of _Alexandria_[801], that
_Constantius_ was not baptized till at the Point of Death, when he
received that Sacrament at the Hands of _Euzoius_, the _Arian_ Bishop of
_Antioch_. And yet both the Acts of _Felix_, and the Pontifical, will
have him to have been twice baptized before his Death; for it was on
this Account that _Felix_ is said to have declared him an Heretic. This
Declaration _Baronius_ improves into a solemn Excommunication; and,
being become, after the above-mentioned Discovery, a most zealous
Advocate for _Felix_, tells us, that the holy Martyr was no sooner
placed on the Throne of St. _Peter_, than, changing his Conduct, he
separated himself from the Communion of those by whom he had been
raised, and boldly thundered an Anathema against the Emperor
himself[802]. [Sidenote: _He did not excommunicate_ Constantius.] What
a Pity that _Athanasius_ was not better acquainted with the Conduct of
_Felix_! for if he had, he would never have styled him _a Monster placed
on the See of_ Rome _by the Malice of Antichrist_. Such an Attempt,
unheard of till that Time, must have made a great Noise; and yet I find
it was heard by none but _Baronius_, who lived at so great a Distance. I
may add, that there was no room for an Excommunication against
_Constantius_, who was still a Catechumen, and consequently did not
partake of the sacred Mysteries.

[Sidenote: _Whether a lawful Pope or an Antipope._]

The _Roman_ Catholic Writers, to save the Credit of _Felix_, maintain
him to have been, at least for some time, lawful Pope. But, to confute
whatever has been or can be said by them in his Favour, without entering
into a Detail of the many sophistical and unconclusive Arguments, false
Assertions, and groundless Suppositions, with which they endeavour to
disguise the Truth, and confound their Readers, I argue thus: That
_Liberius_ was lawfully chosen, and _Felix_ unlawfully, is past all
Dispute. Now, upon the Fall of _Liberius_, either there was, or there
was not, a new Election: if there was not, _Liberius_ continued to be
lawful Bishop; or if by his Fall he forfeited his Dignity, as some think
he did, the See became vacant; for nothing subsequent to the unlawful
Election of _Felix_ could render it lawful. If there was a new Election,
and _Felix_ was lawfully chosen, _Liberius_ from that Minute either
ceased to be Pope, or there were two lawful Popes at a time. The latter
they will not admit, lest they should turn the Church into a Monster
with Two Heads. They must therefore allow _Felix_ to have been lawful
Pope, and _Liberius_ an Antipope, till the See became vacant by the
Death of the former. [Sidenote: Felix _an Antipope._] But on the other
hand, this new Election is quite groundless, highly improbable, and
absolutely repugnant to what we read in the antient and contemporary
Writers. It is quite groundless; for though _Bellarmine_ speaks of a new
Election with as much Confidence as if he had been one of the
Electors[803], yet we find not the least Hint of it in any of the
Writers of those Times, who would not have passed over in Silence so
remarkable an Event, had it come to their Knowlege. It is highly
improbable; for _Liberius_ was greatly beloved by the whole People, and
the far greater Part of the Clergy, and _Felix_ hated to such a Degree,
that of all the Inhabitants of _Rome_, not one ever appeared in the
Church while he was in it[804]; nay, he was by all avoided, even in the
Streets and other public Places, as if he had carried about with him a
Contagion[805]. Is it not therefore altogether improbable, that the
People and Clergy should depose the Man, whom in a manner they adored,
for communicating with the _Arians_, and appoint one in his room, who
likewise communicated with them, and was universally detested, avoided,
and abhorred? And yet all this is gravely supposed by _Bellarmine_[806].
Lastly, the Election of _Felix_ is repugnant to what we read in the
antient Writers, who all speak of him as an Antipope, and an Intruder.
_Optatus_, who lived at that very Time, and St. _Austin_, who flourished
soon after, have not allowed him a Place in their Catalogues of the
Bishops of _Rome_. _Theodoret_ takes no notice of him in his Catalogue
of the Bishops of the chief Cities. St. _Jerom_ and _Prosper_ count
_Liberius_ the Thirty-fourth Bishop of _Rome_, and _Damasus_, who
succeeded him, the Thirty-fifth; a plain Indication that they did not
look upon _Felix_ as lawful Bishop. Among the Moderns, _Onuphrius
Panvinius_, in his Lives of the Popes, printed in 1557. some Years
before the Discovery of _Felix_’s Body, calls _Novatian_ the First
Antipope, and _Felix_ the Second. But his Book was prohibited in 1583.
the Year after the Second Canonization of _Felix_. The Writers, who came
after, took Warning; and such of them as thought it base to concur in
deceiving Mankind, since it was not safe to undeceive them, chose to
wave this Subject, but not without giving some broad Hints of what they
believed in their Hearts. Thus F. _Labbé_[807], and Cardinal
_Bona_[808], take no notice of this _Felix_, but call Pope _Felix_, who
was raised to the See of _Rome_ in 485. the Second Pope of that Name.
_Felix_ I. was martyred under _Aurelian_ in 274. as we have related
elsewhere[809]. F. _Labbé_, at the Death of _Felix_ II. which happened
in 492. adds, that he was the Third of that Name, according to
_Baronius_[810]. [Sidenote: _Acknowleged as such by some_
Roman _Catholic Writers_.] Had _Felix_ never been canonized, no Man
would have been so regardless of his own Reputation as to undertake his
Defence; but _Gregory_ having declared him a Saint, and, by such a
Declaration, linked his Cause with Infallibility in a most essential
Point, the hired Champions of that See found themselves under an
indispensable Obligation of entering the Lists; which I need not say
they have done to no Purpose.

[Sidenote: _The Emperor undertakes the establishing of_ Arianism.]

The Fall of the Bishop of _Rome_, who was at the Head of the Orthodox
Party, inspired the Emperor with great Hopes of succeeding in the Design
he had formed of utterly abolishing the Orthodox Faith: he found there
were but few Bishops whose Virtue was Proof against the Frowns and
Resentment of the Court. In the Council held at _Arles_ in 353. they had
all to a Man chosen rather to communicate with the _Arians_, than be
driven from their Sees: in that which was convened Two Years after, at
_Milan_, only Three Bishops were found, _viz._ _Dionysius_ Bishop of
that City, _Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_, and _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, who,
equally unmoved by Threats and Promises, had maintained the Truth with
the Loss of their Dignity. The Example of the Bishop of _Rome_ had been
followed by the far greater Part of the Bishops of _Italy_. But what
above all encouraged the Emperor to pursue the Scheme he had so much at
heart, was the Fall of the celebrated _Osius_ Bishop of _Cordoua_, in
the Hundredth Year of his Age, and Sixty-second of his Episcopacy. As
the Name of _Osius_ is one of the most famous in the Ecclesiastical
History of those Times, and his Fall is alleged by the Antients as a
memorable Instance of the Weakness of human Nature, however strengthened
and improved by a long Practice of the most eminent Virtues, a succinct
Account of so remarkable an Event will not, I hope, be unacceptable to
the Reader, or thought foreign to the Subject in hand.

[Sidenote: _A succinct Account of the Life of_ Osius _Bishop of_
Cordoua.]

_Osius_ was a Native of _Spain_[811], born, according to some, in
_Cordoua_, about the Year 256. and raised, in regard of his
extraordinary Merit, to the See of that City in 295[812]. He was even
then conspicuous for the Firmness of his Faith, and the Purity of his
Life, says _Sozomen_[813]. _Athanasius_, who was well acquainted with
him, speaks of him with the greatest Respect and Esteem, calling him a
Man truly holy, according to the _Greek_ Signification of his Name; one
in whose Conduct even his most inveterate Enemies could discover nothing
that was not commendable, his Life being irreprehensible, and his
Reputation unspotted[814]. _Theodoret_[815], and _Eusebius_[816], extol
him on Account of his extraordinary Prudence, Wisdom, and Learning,
which gave great Weight to his Opinion in the many Councils at which he
assisted, and often presided. In the Year 300. he was present at the
Council of _Eliberis_, or _Illeberis_, in _Spain_, famous for the
Severity of its Canons; and, in all Likelihood, made even then a
considerable Figure; since, in the Acts of that Council, he is named in
the Second Place after _Felix_ of _Acci_, now _Guadix_, in _Andalusia_,
who probably presided[817]. [Sidenote: _He is imprisoned under_ Maximian
_for the Confession of the Faith_.] Three Years after broke out the
Persecution of _Maximian Hercules_, in which _Osius_ distinguished
himself by his Zeal, his Constancy, and his Sufferings; for, having with
great Intrepidity confessed his Faith before the Pagan Magistrates, he
was by them imprisoned, and kept under a very close and painful
Confinement for the Space of Two Years, that is, from the Year 303. to
305. when, upon the Abdication of _Maximian_ and _Dioclesian_, he was
set at Liberty by _Constantius Chlorus_, the Father of _Constantine the
Great_[818]. He is honoured by _Athanasius_[819], by the Council of
_Sardica_, and by most of the Antients, with the Title of _Confessor_,
which was given to such as had suffered Imprisonment, Torments, or
Exile, but had not died, for the Confession of the Faith. He was highly
esteemed and revered by _Constantine_, not only as a Confessor, but as a
Person of extraordinary Wisdom and Probity[820]; whence he is thought to
have been one of the Prelates whom that Prince consulted in 311[821].
and kept with him to instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian
Religion. [Sidenote: _He instructs_ Constantine.] Some think that
_Osius_ was meant by the _Egyptian_ Priest come from _Spain_, to whom
_Zosimus_ ascribes the Change made by _Constantine_ in point of
Religion[822]. The Church of _Cordoua_ was, out of Regard to him,
enriched by _Constantine_ with many valuable Presents, whence he is said
to have been very rich[823]. But what Use he made of his Wealth we may
learn from _Athanasius_, who assures us, that no one in Want ever
applied to him without being relieved, and receiving the Supply he
demanded[824]. In the famous Dispute, which I have taken notice of in
its proper Place, between _Cæcilianus_ and the _Donatists_ of _Africa_,
_Osius_ undertook, with great Zeal, the Defence of the former, and
prevailed in the End upon _Constantine_ to espouse his Cause, and
declare against the _Donatists_[825], whom he thenceforth punished with
great Severity, taking their Churches from them, and sending the most
obstinate among them into Exile. _Constantine_ being become Master of
the East in the Year 323. his first Care was to put an End to the
unhappy Divisions that reigned in those Churches about the Celebration
of _Easter_, and some other controverted Points. [Sidenote: _He is sent
by him to compose some Disputes there._] With this View he dispatched
_Osius_ into the East, who, upon his Arrival there, summoned a Council
to meet at _Alexandria_, which, under his Influence, condemned the
Heresy of _Sabellius_, put a Stop to the Schism of one _Colluthus_, and
greatly allayed the Animosity of the contending Parties about the Day on
which _Easter_ was to be kept[826]. On his Return to Court, the Account
he gave of the _Arians_, whose Heresy he had endeavoured in vain to
suppress, made so deep an Impression in the Mind of the Emperor, that,
for a long time, he continued highly prejudiced against them[827]. It
was at the Suggestion of _Osius_ that _Constantine_ assembled the
Council of _Nice_ in 325. at which he assisted, and distinguished
himself above the rest[828]; for of all Councils he was the Head and
Leader, as _Athanasius_ styles him[829]. [Sidenote: _He assists at
the Council of_ Nice _and draws up the_ Nicene _Creed_.] By him was
worded and drawn up the famous _Nicene_ Symbol or Creed, as we are told
in express Terms by _Athanasius_[830]. He presided at the Council of
_Sardica_, which, at his Request, was assembled by the Emperor
_Constans_ in 347[831]. From that Council he retired to his Bishoprick,
and continued there undisturbed till the Year 355. when _Constantius_
seeing himself Master of the West, as well as of the East, undertook to
oblige all the Bishops to condemn _Athanasius_, whose Cause was looked
upon as inseparable from that of the Orthodox Faith. As _Osius_ had on
all Occasions declared highly in his Favour, and the Example of a
Prelate so venerable for his Age, for the glorious Title of Confessor,
and the Figure he had made for many Years in the Church, greatly
prejudiced the World against the Enemies of the persecuted Bishop, the
Emperor resolved to deprive, if possible, the Orthodox Party of so
powerful a Support. [Sidenote: Constantius _attempts in vain to gain
him over to the_ Arian _Party_.] With this View he ordered _Osius_ to
repair to _Milan_, where the Court then was, well knowing that he was
not, like most other Bishops, to be terrified with threatening Letters.
_Osius_, in Compliance with the Emperor’s Orders, set out without Delay
from _Cordoua_, notwithstanding his great Age; and, arriving at _Milan_,
was there received by the Emperor with all the Respect that was due to
the _Father of Bishops_, as he was styled. _Constantius_ entertained him
for some Days with the utmost Civility, hoping by that means to bring
him into his Views; but he no sooner named _Athanasius_ to him, than the
zealous Prelate, well knowing the Drift of his Discourse, and armed
against all Temptations, interrupted him with declaring, that he was
ready to sacrifice not one, but a Thousand Lives, in so just a Cause;
nay, he even reprimanded the Emperor with great Freedom, who, out of an
awful Reverence for a Prelate of his Years, Authority, and Figure, heard
him with great Patience, and not only forbore offering him any Violence,
but gave him Leave to return unmolested to his See[832].

[Sidenote: _His second Attempt to gain him._]

The mild Treatment _Osius_ met with gave great Uneasiness to the _Arian_
Party, especially to the Two Bishops, _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, who
thereupon never ceased soliciting the Emperor to proceed with Vigour
against the only Man, who, they said, was capable of obstructing his
great and pious Designs. They were powerfully seconded by the Eunuchs,
who prevailed in the End upon the Emperor, as they bore a great Sway at
Court, to try anew the Firmness and Constancy of so celebrated a
Champion. _Constantius_ therefore writ several Letters to him, treating
him in some with great Respect, and styling him his Father, but menacing
him in others, and naming to him the Bishops, whom he had banished for
refusing to condemn a Man whom most Bishops, and several Councils, had
already condemned[833]. [Sidenote: _His Letter to the Emperor._]
_Osius_, inflexible and unmoved, answered the Emperor by a Letter worthy
of himself, and the great Reputation he had acquired. It has been
conveyed to us by _Athanasius_, and nothing can be said stronger in that
Bishop’s Defence; for he there shews unanswerably, that, whatever Crimes
might be alleged against him, his only Guilt was a steady Adherence to
the Faith of _Nice_[834]. [Sidenote: _He is sent to_ Sirmium.] But
_Constantius_, without hearkening to the Reasons he urged in
Justification of his own and _Athanasius_’s Conduct, without paying the
least Regard to the earnest Prayers and Intreaties, to the paternal
Exhortations and Admonitions, of so venerable a Prelate, ordered him to
quit his See forthwith, and repair to _Sirmium_, where he was kept a
whole Year in a kind of Exile. But, unaffected with the many Hardships
he suffered there, with the Loss of his Dignity, with the inhuman
Treatment of his Relations, who were all persecuted, stripped of their
Estates, and reduced to Beggary on his Account, _Osius_ still stood up
in Defence of _Athanasius_, still rejected with Indignation the
Proposals of his Enemies[835], striving to induce him at least to
communicate with them. They therefore resolved to proceed to open Force,
and either to gain over to their Party a Man of his Figure and Rank, or,
by removing him out of the Way, to deprive the Orthodox of their main
Support[836]. [Sidenote: _Confined and racked._] Accordingly, with the
Emperor’s Consent and Approbation, they caused him first to be closely
confined, and afterwards to be cruelly beaten; and lastly to be put to
the Rack, and most inhumanly tortured, as if he had been the worst of
Criminals[837]. [Sidenote: _He yields at last._] Even against such
exquisite Torments the Firmness of his Mind was proof for some time; but
the Weakness of his Body obliged him in a manner to yield at last, and
communicate with _Ursacius_ and _Valens_[838]. _Athanasius_ seems to
insinuate in some Places, that he signed his Condemnation[839]; but in
another he expresly denies it[840]. _Sulpitius Severus_ thinks he was
guilty of no other Crime but that of communicating with the
_Arians_[841]. _Athanasius_ only says, that he consented to communicate
with _Ursacius_ and _Valens_[842]. [Sidenote: _He signs the_
Sirmian _Confession of Faith_.] However, that he did not stop there, but
signed the _Arian_ Confession of _Sirmium_, is but too manifest from
several unexceptionable and contemporary Writers. _Phœbadius_ Bishop
of _Agen_, in _France_, in his Answer written at this very Time to the
_Arians_, bragging that their Doctrine had been approved and embraced by
the great _Osius_, allows the Fact; but adds, that he was induced
thereunto by Force, and not Conviction[843]. _Marcellinus_ and
_Faustinus_, who writ at the same time, say, that _Osius_ set his Hand,
but never yielded his Heart, to the _Arian_ Impiety[844]. Nay,
_Hilarius_ Bishop of _Poitiers_ supposes the _Sirmian_ Confession of
Faith to have been drawn up by _Osius_ and _Potamus_; for he often calls
it, _The Heresy, the Blasphemies, the wild and mad Conceits of_ Osius
_and_ Potamus[845]. _Vigilius Tapsensis_ ranks _Osius_ with _Ursacius,
and the other wicked Men, who composed the sacrilegious Confession of_
Sirmium[846]. _Socrates_ writes, that he signed the _Sirmian_
Symbol[847]; _Sozomen_, that he consented to the Suppression of the
Words _Omoousion_, and _Omoiousion_[848]; and _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_
bestows high Encomiums on _Gregory_ Bishop of _Elvira_, for opposing the
great _Transgressor_ Osius[849]. _Potamus_, whom I have mentioned above,
was Bishop of _Lisbone_, and a most sanguine Stickler for the Orthodox
Party; but upon the Emperor’s yielding to him some Lands of the Imperial
Demesne, that lay very convenient for him, he changed Sides, and became
a most zealous Champion of the _Arian_ Doctrine[850]; insomuch that he
is ranked by _Phœbadius_ with _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, the Two great
Apostles of the _Arians_[851].

[Sidenote: _The_ Arians _Triumph_.]

The Fall of the great _Osius_, whom the Orthodox Party looked upon as
their invincible Hero, surprised the whole World[852]. Some could not
believe it; others ascribed it to his great Age, which might have
weakened his Judgment[853]. It was immediately published all over the
East, and great Rejoicings were made on the Occasion, by the Bishops in
those Parts, who looked upon such a Conquest as a signal Victory over
the Orthodox[854]. _Phœbadius_ tells us, that the chief Argument
alleged by the _Arians_, in favour of their Doctrine, against the
Bishops of _Gaul_, was _the Conversion of_ Osius, as they styled
it[855]. Here _Davidius_ pleases himself with ridiculing, and indeed
very justly, this and several other Conversions, greatly boasted by the
_Arians_; but he must give me Leave to put him in mind, that he
ridicules, at the same time, the many Conversions which his Church is
constantly boasting, since most of them, especially those thus made in
the new World, have been owing to Arguments of the same Nature as that
of _Osius_, and other _Arian_ Proselytes, and were not perhaps at all
more sincere. [Sidenote: Hilarius _not well informed as to
the Circumstances of his Fall_.] _Hilarius_, Bishop of _Poitiers_, who
lived at this time in Exile, amidst the _Arians_ in _Phrygia_, seems not
to be well informed as to the Circumstances of the Fall of _Osius_; else
he had made some Allowance for the barbarous and inhuman Treatment the
unhappy Prelate met with, and not reflected on him with so much
Bitterness and Severity, saying, that it had pleased God to prolong his
Life till he fell, that the World might know what he had been before he
fell[856]. That a Man in the Hundredth Year of his Age should yield to
most exquisite and repeated Torments, is not at all to be wondered at;
and therefore had _Hilarius_ been better informed, he had rather pitied
than reproached him. But the _Arians_, among whom he lived, took care to
conceal whatever could any ways depreciate their boasted Victory: at
least that _Hilarius_ was a Stranger to what _Osius_ had suffered, is
manifest, from his ascribing the Fall of that great Prelate not to the
Cruelty of his Enemies, but to the too great Love he had for his
Sepulchre[857], meaning, I suppose, the Desire he had of dying in his
native Country, and not in Exile.

[Sidenote: _He is restored to his See._]

_Osius_ having thus gratified the Emperor, by communicating with the
_Arians_, and signing the _Sirmian_ Confession of Faith, he was
immediately reinstated in his See, and suffered to return to his native
Country, where he gave some Trouble, it seems, to the Orthodox Bishops;
for _Gregory_ Bishop of _Elvira_ is highly commended by _Eusebius_ of
_Vercelli_, who lived then in Exile, _for opposing the Transgressor_
Osius, as I have observed above. The unfortunate Prelate did not live
long after his Fall, but died in the Latter-end of the same Year 357.
according to the most probable Opinion. He did not forget the Crime he
had committed, says _Athanasius_[858]; but grievously complained, at the
Point of Death, of the Violence that had been offered him, anathematized
the Heresy of _Arius_, and exhorted, as by his last Will, all Mankind to
reject it[859]. To his Repentance _Athanasius_, no doubt, alludes, where
he writes, that _Osius_ yielded only for a time[860]; which he says of
no other, not even of _Liberius_. As for the Account, which some Writers
give of his tragical End[861], it is not worthy of Notice. The _Greek_
Church honours him as a Saint, and his Festival is kept on the 27th of
_August_[862]; but they are certainly mistaken in supposing him to have
died in Banishment. The Case of _Osius_ deserves, without all Doubt, to
be greatly pitied. But it would be still more worthy of our Pity and
Compassion, had he been himself an Enemy to all Persecution. But it must
be observed, that he was the Author and Promoter of the First Christian
Persecution. For it was he who first stirred up _Constantine_ against
the _Donatists_; many of whom were sent into Exile, and some even
sentenced to Death, nay, and led to the Place of Execution. I dare not
interpret the very severe Treatment he met with, or his Fall and
Apostasy, as a Judgment; but cannot help thinking him, on that
Consideration, less worthy of our Compassion and Concern, than a Man of
his Years and Merit would otherwise have been.

[Sidenote: Constantius _appoints a Council to meet at_ Nicomedia;]

_Constantius_, having thus gained over to the Heterodox Party the
celebrated Bishop of _Cordoua_, and sent those into Exile, whom he
apprehended most capable of traversing his Design, resolved to assemble
a Council, not doubting but he should be able, by some means or other,
to prevail upon the Members, that composed it, to approve and embrace
the Doctrine, which he was labouring with indefatigable Pains to
establish. Accordingly he writ to the chief Bishops of each Province,
injoining them to meet in the Name of the rest, at an appointed Time, in
the City of _Nicomedia_[863]. [Sidenote: _which City is destroyed by an
Earthquake_.] In Compliance with his Orders the Bishops immediately set
out; but, while they were on the Road, they were stopped by the News
that was brought them of the utter Destruction of the City of
_Nicomedia_ by a sudden and most dreadful Earthquake. This public
Calamity happened on the 24th of _August_ 358[864]. and the _Arians_, in
the Account which they transmitted of it to Court, assured the Emperor,
that several Bishops, who were for _Consubstantiality_, had been buried
under the Ruins of the great Church[865]. It was probably, by this
Account, that _Philostorgius_ was deceived and misled, when he writ,
that Fifteen Bishops, who were all Defenders of _Consubstantiality_,
were crushed to Pieces by the Fall of the Church, together with
_Cecrops_ Bishop of the City[866]. But _Sozomen_ assures us, that, when
the Church fell, there was not a single Person in it; and that Two
Bishops only perished in the Earthquake, _viz._ _Cecrops_, who was an
_Arian_, and a Bishop of _Bosporus_[867]. [Sidenote: _The Council
appointed to meet at_ Nice.] This Misfortune obliged the Emperor to
change the Place of the Council; and accordingly Letters were
immediately dispatched to all the Bishops, ordering them to repair to
_Nice_, which City was suggested to him by _Basilius_, the _Semi-Arian_
Bishop of _Ancyra_, with a Design, says _Theodoret_[868], to eclipse the
Glory and Authority of the First Council by the Confusion of Two. Be
that as it will, the Bishops were ordered to meet there early in the
Summer of the Year 359. Such as were not in a Condition to undertake
such a Journey, on account of their Age or Infirmities, were to send
Priests or Deacons, as their Deputies, to vote and act in their Name;
and the Council was strictly injoined to transmit to the Emperor such
Decrees as they should enact, that he might examine them, and see
whether they were agreeable to Scripture: for this Purpose Ten Deputies
were to be appointed by the Bishops of the East, and the like Number by
those of the West[869]. [Sidenote: _Two Councils appointed to
meet instead of one._] But while the World was expecting to see a second
Oecumenical Council assembled at _Nice_, the Emperor all on a sudden
changed his Mind, and instead of one, resolved to convene Two, the one
in the East, and the other in the West[870]. This Change was owing to
the Intrigues of the _Anomeans_, or _Pure Arians_, who, finding the far
greater Part of the Bishops either for the Orthodox Faith of _Nice_, or,
the _Semi-Arian_, as established in a Council at _Antioch_, concluded,
that there would be no Means to divert them, when assembled together,
from condemning their Doctrine; whereas if they were divided, they did
not despair of being able to manage both Assemblies, or at least one of
the Two[871]. This Design of dividing the Council they privately
imparted to the Eunuch _Eusebius_, their great Friend, and the Emperor’s
chief Favourite, who, highly applauding the Scheme, took upon him to get
it approved by _Constantius_. [Sidenote: _The Occasion of this Change._]
And this he easily effected, by representing, that a General Council
would put the Bishops to greater Trouble and Inconveniences than most of
them could well bear, and, at the same time, the Treasury to an immense
Charge; for on such Occasions their Expences were defrayed by the
Emperor[872]. He therefore advised him to assemble Two Councils at the
same time, one in the East, and the other in the West, which, he said,
would be less troublesome to the Bishops, and less expensive to the
Exchequer. To these Reasons _Constantius_ acquiesced; but, as he was a
zealous _Semi-Arian_, _Eusebius_ kept him in the Dark, as to the true
Motive of such a Change. Thus was _Constantius_, and thus have many
Princes been, since his Time, led, as it were, hoodwinked, by some in
whom they reposed an intire Confidence, into Measures tending to promote
Designs quite opposite to their own.

[Sidenote: Rimini _chosen for the Western Bishops_;]

This Point being settled, to the great Satisfaction of the _Anomeans_,
_Ariminum_, now _Rimini_, on the _Adriatic_ Sea, was thought the most
proper Place for the Western Bishops to meet at. But the City of _Nice_,
where the General Council was to assemble, having suffered much by the
late Earthquake, the Emperor desired the Eastern Bishops might not meet
there, but in whatever other Place they should agree among themselves to
be the most proper and convenient[873]. This _Theodoret_ ascribes to a
particular Providence, that would not suffer the great Council of _Nice_
to be ever confounded with a Conventicle of Heretics[874]. [Sidenote:
_and_ Seleucia _in_ Isauria _for those of the East_.] As the Bishops
could not agree about the Place, and it was not at all probable they
should, the Emperor, by the Advice of a few, who were then with him at
_Sirmium_, named the City of _Seleucia_ in _Isauria_[875]. And now that
the Place was settled for both Councils, _Constantius_ issued an Order,
injoining not only the chief Bishops of each Province, as he had done
the Year before, but all, without Exception, to repair to one of the
Two[876]; nay, he dispatched Officers into the Provinces, with a strict
Charge to see his Order punctually obeyed, and put in Execution[877].
The Bishops therefore set out from all Parts; the public Carriages,
Roads, and Houses, were every-where crouded with them; which gave great
Offence to the Catechumens, and no small Diversion to the Pagans, who
thought it equally strange and ridiculous, that Men, who had been
brought up from their Infancy in the Christian Religion, and whose
Business it was to instruct others in that Belief, should be constantly
hurrying, in their old Age, from one Place to another, to know what they
themselves should believe[878]. _Ammianus Marcellinus_ complains, that
the necessary Funds for the Maintenance of the public Carriages were
quite drained and exhausted, by the roaming about of the Christian
Bishops[879]. Their Charges were defrayed by the Emperor, as I have
observed above; but the Bishops of _Gaul_ and _Britain_, that they might
be the more independent, insisted upon travelling at their own Expence;
only Three of the latter, not having wherewithal to support themselves,
chose rather to be obliged to the Emperor than burdensome to their
Collegues, who generously offered to contribute to their Maintenance,
every one according to his Ability[880].

The Western Bishops, that is, those of _Illyricum_, _Italy_, _Africa_,
_Spain_, _Gaul_, and _Britain_, being assembled at _Rimini_, in all 400
and upwards[881], the Emperor writ to _Taurus_, the _Præfectus Prætorio_
of _Italy_, charging him to be present at all the Debates, and not to
suffer the Bishops to separate, till, in Points of Faith, they had all
agreed: if he succeeded therein, he was to be rewarded with the Consular
Dignity[882]. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Letter to the Western Bishops._]
At the same time he writ to the Bishops, injoining them to treat only of
such Matters as related to the Faith, Unity, and Order of the Church,
and forbidding them to meddle, on any Pretence whatsoever, with what
concerned the Eastern Bishops, who, he said, would take care to settle
their own Affairs, since they were met for that Purpose[883]. This was
to prevent their entering upon the Cause of _Athanasius_, whom he well
knew the Western Bishops would have declared innocent. The Emperor’s
Letter is dated the 27th of May 359[884]. At this Council _Restitutus_
Bishop of _Carthage_ is supposed to have presided, as he was, both for
Piety and Learning, the most conspicuous in the Assembly. [Sidenote:
_The_ Arians _propose a new Confession drawn up at_ Sirmium;] At their
first Meeting, the Two _Arian_ Bishops, _Ursacius_ and _Valens_,
appeared with a Paper in their Hands, containing a new Confession of
Faith, composed lately at _Sirmium_ by the Emperor, by a small Number of
_Arian_ and _Semi-Arian_ Bishops, and several Presbyters and Deacons,
who, after a Debate, which lasted the whole Day, had at length agreed to
suppress the Word _Consubstantial_; and introduce the Word _like_ in its
room; so that the Son was no more to be said _consubstantial_, but _like
to the Father in all Things_; the Three last Words _Constantius_ added,
and, by obliging all who were present to sign them, defeated, say the
_Semi-Arians_, the wicked Designs of the Heretics, meaning the _Pure
Arians_[885]. However, excepting those Words, the whole Confession was
thought to favour their Doctrine[886]; whence the _Semi-Arians_ held out
till Night, when the Emperor, well satisfied with the Words _like in all
things_, obliged them to sign it. This Confession of Faith was drawn up,
and signed, on the Eve of _Pentecost_[887], that is, on the 22d or 23d
of _May_ 359[888]. _Easter_ having fallen that Year on the 4th of
_April_[889][N17]. _Ursacius_ and _Valens_ read it to the Council,
adding, when they had done, that it had been approved of by the Emperor,
and therefore that they ought all to be satisfied with it, without
recurring to any other Councils or Creeds, without demanding any other
Confession of the Heretics, or inquiring too narrowly into their
Doctrine and Opinions, which would be attended with much Trouble,
endless Disputes, and eternal Divisions; that the Catholic Truths, which
all Men were bound to believe, ought not to be darkened with
Metaphysical Terms, but expressed by Words, which all Men understood;
and, lastly, that it was quite idle to quarrel and make so much Noise
about a Word (meaning the Word _consubstantial_) which none of the
inspired Writers had thought fit to make use of in explaining the
Mysteries of our holy Religion[890]. What Answer the Council returned, I
can find no-where recorded. But a Motion being made soon after to
condemn and anathematize the _Arian_ and all other Heresies, _Ursacius_
and his Party opposed it; which alarmed the Orthodox Bishops, concluding
from thence, that whatever Expressions they made use of, their Belief
was different from that of the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: _which is
rejected_;] They therefore resolved to hearken to them no longer; and
accordingly, without the least Regard to their Remonstrances and
Protestations, they condemned, with one Consent, all Heresies in
general, and that of _Arius_ in particular; declared heretical the
Confession of Faith presented by _Ursacius_ and _Valens_; confirmed that
of _Nice_, and ordered the Word _consubstantial_ to be retained, since
the true Meaning of it might be sufficiently gathered from several
Passages in Scripture[891]. [Sidenote: _and they condemned and
deposed_.] They did not stop here; but, transported with Zeal on the
_Arians_ attempting to impose upon them by a Second Confession of Faith,
they declared them all, and their Leaders _Ursacius_, _Valens_,
_Germinius_, and _Caius_, by Name, ignorant and deceitful Men,
Impostors, Heretics, deposed them in the Council, and signed all to a
Man this Declaration on the 21st of _July_ of the present Year 359[892].

-----

Footnote N17:

  It was signed by the few Bishops, who were present, and by a good
  Number of Presbyters and Deacons. The Bishops were _Marcus_ of
  _Arethusa_, _George_, who had been intruded into the See of
  _Alexandria_, _Basilius_ of _Ancyra_, _Germinius_ of _Sirmium_,
  _Hypatianus_ of _Heraclea_, _Valens_, _Ursacius_, and _Pancratius_ of
  _Pelusium_[N17.1]. _Valens_, in signing it, added to his Name these
  Words; _I believe the Son to be like to the Father_. He was unwilling
  to acknowlege the Son like to the Father _in all things_, agreeably to
  the Confession, which he was to sign, and therefore suppressed these
  Words. But the Emperor insisting upon his adding them, he took his
  Will for the Rule of his Faith, and added them accordingly. _Basilius_
  of _Ancyra_, suspecting some Meaning contrary to the Doctrine which he
  held, to lie concealed and disguised under those Words, declared, that
  he understood by them a Likeness in _Substance_, in _Existence_, and
  in _Essence_; and that he signed in this, and no other Sense, the
  present Symbol. Not satisfied with this Declaration, he writ, some
  time after, an Exposition of the Faith that was professed by him, and
  the other _Semi-Arian_ Bishops. This Exposition is, by _Epiphanius_,
  styled a Letter, and was placed by him after the circular Letter of
  the Council of _Ancyra_. The present Confession of _Sirmium_ is
  commonly styled the Third, but was, properly speaking, the Fourth: For
  before this, Three different Symbols had been composed at _Sirmium_;
  _viz._ one intirely Orthodox, in 351. another altogether _Arian_, in
  357. a Third _Semi-Arian_, in 358. and the present in 359. The Second
  _Liberius_ signed at _Berœa_, and the Third at _Sirmium_, upon his
  Arrival in that City.

Footnote N17.1:

  Athan. de syn. p. 873. Epi. 73. c. 22. Socr. l. 2. c. 29.

-----

[Sidenote: _Deputies sent by the Council to the Emperor_;]

With this Act they put an End to the Sessions, and immediately
dispatched Ten Deputies to acquaint the Emperor with what had passed,
pursuant to his express Command. The like Number was sent by the
_Arians_, who had assisted at the Council. These, traveling with great
Expedition, arrived at _Constantinople_, where the Court then was, some
time before the others; and, being immediately admitted to the Emperor,
they prejudiced him to such a Degree against the Orthodox Party, that he
would not so much as see their Deputies, pretending to be wholly taken
up with the Affairs of the State. They were therefore obliged to deliver
the Letter, which the Council had written on this Occasion, to one of
his Ministers[893]. They expected every Day to be admitted to an
Audience, or, at least, to receive an Answer, and be dismissed.
[Sidenote: _who leaves_ Constantinople _without seeing them_.] But,
after they had been thus kept for some time in Expectation, the Emperor
all on a sudden left _Constantinople_, in order to head his Army against
the _Barbarians_, who had broken into the Empire. He was no sooner gone
than one of the Ministers came to acquaint them, that it was the
Emperor’s Pleasure they should repair forthwith to _Adrianople_, and
there wait his Return[894]. However, before he set out, he writ to the
Council, giving them notice of his sudden Departure from
_Constantinople_; and alleging, by way of Excuse for not having seen or
heard their Deputies, the present Situation of public Affairs, which had
engrossed his whole Attention, whereas, the discussing and settling of
spiritual Affairs required a Mind quite free and disengaged from all
worldly Cares. [Sidenote: _He endeavours to tire their Patience
with Delays._] He concluded his short Letter with intreating them not to
think of separating till he was at Leisure to settle, in Conjunction
with them, Matters of so great Importance to the Church, and the whole
Christian World[895]. The Design of the most wicked _Constantius_, as
_Athanasius_ styles him[896], was to tire out the Bishops with such
Delays, hoping they would, in the End, chuse rather to sign the last
_Sirmian_ Confession, which he was bent upon establishing in the room of
the _Nicene_, than to be long kept, as it were, in Exile, at a Distance
from their Sees[897]. But this he could not compass for the present, the
Bishops declaring, in their Answer to his Letter, that they could not,
and hoped they never should, upon any Consideration whatsoever, depart
from what they had so unanimously settled and decreed[898]. _Socrates_
writes, that the Bishops, after having waited some time in vain for the
Emperor’s Answer to their Letter, left _Rimini_, and retired to their
respective Sees[899]. And here he ends his Account of that Council. It
were greatly to be wished, that nothing else could be said of it; but
several contemporary and unexceptionable Writers, and _Hilarius_ among
the rest[900], assure us, that _Constantius_ _changed at last the Faith
of the Western Bishops into Impiety_. Of this deplorable Change they
give us the following Account.

[Sidenote: _Their Deputies ordered to_ Nice _in_ Thrace;]

The _Arians_, taking Occasion from the last Letter of the Bishops at
_Rimini_ to incense _Constantius_ against them, prevailed upon him to
order their Deputies to a City in _Thrace_, known at that Time by the
Name of _Nice_, but formerly called _Ostudizus_, and placed by _Sanson_
a few Leagues to the East of _Adrianople_. This Place they chose, that
the Symbol, which they designed to impose upon them, might be confounded
by the ignorant People with that of the great Council of _Nice_ in
_Bithynia_[901]. The Deputies no sooner arrived there, than a Confession
of Faith was proposed to them intirely agreeable to the last made at
_Sirmium_, except that in this new Creed the Son was declared _like to
the Father_, without the Addition of the Words _in all Things_. This
they rejected at first with great Resolution and Intrepidity; but the
_Arians_ were no less resolute, and therefore left nothing unattempted
they could think of to carry their Point[902]. But finding Hope and
Fear, Threats and Promises, equally ineffectual, they proceeded at last
to open Force and Violence[903]. What Kind of Violence was employed
against them, the Author does not tell us; but _Marcellinus_ and
_Faustinus_ ascribe their retracting what they had declared to be holy,
and approving what they had condemned as impious, to the Love of their
Sees, and the Dread they were in of being driven from them[904].
[Sidenote: _where they sign the_ Sirmian _Confession_.] Be that as it
will, it is certain, that they yielded at last; that they accepted and
signed, without the least Limitation or Restriction, the above-mentioned
Confession of Faith; consented to the Suppression of the Word
_Consubstantial_; declared void and null all the Acts and Proceedings of
the Council of _Rimini_; anathematized, as heretical, all Opinions
contrary to the Doctrine contained in the said Confession; and, finally,
admitted to their Communion _Ursacius_, _Valens_, _Germinius_, and
_Caius_, whom they had not long before deposed as Heretics[905].
_Restitutus_, Bishop of _Carthage_, and one of the most eminent Prelates
at that Time in the Church, signed the first, and the other Deputies
after him, according to the Dignity of their Sees. The Emperor,
transported with Joy at the News of their Compliance, which he looked
upon as a signal Victory, gave them immediately Leave to return to
_Rimini_. At the same time he wrote to _Taurus_, charging him anew not
to suffer the Bishops to depart till they had all signed the same
Confession of Faith, and impowering him to send into Exile such as by
their Obstinacy should distinguish themselves above the rest, provided
they were not above Fifteen in Number[906]. [Sidenote: Constantius
_orders the Bishops at_ Rimini _to suppress the Words_ Substance
_and_ Consubstantial.] He likewise writ to the Bishops, commanding them,
on Pain of incurring his Indignation, to suppress for ever the Words
_Substance_ and _Consubstantial_, severely reprimanding them for
presuming to depose _Ursacius_ and his Collegues, and assuring them,
that they should not be allowed to return to their Sees, till they had
intitled themselves to his Favour by an intire and unreserved Compliance
with his Will[907]. To this Letter the _Arians_, who had assisted at the
Council, to the Number of Eighty, returned a most submissive Answer, and
even thanked the Emperor for the great Pains he took to establish the
true Doctrine[908]. However, _Taurus_ declared that he could by no means
suffer them to depart till the rest had agreed with them, and the whole
Assembly was of one Mind. The orthodox Bishops shewed at first some
Resolution, and even refused to communicate with their own Deputies. But
this Resolution soon vanished; they were eager to return to their Sees;
the Emperor was inflexible; _Taurus_ took care to render the Place both
inconvenient and disagreeable to them. [Sidenote: _The greater
Part yield._] Some therefore fell off, others followed their Example,
the rest began to waver, and, being so far got the better of, yielded
soon after, and went over to the _Arian_ Party in such Crouds, that in a
very short time the Number of the orthodox Bishops, who continued
steady, was reduced to 20[909]. At the Head of these was _Phœbadius_,
the celebrated Bishop of _Agen_, who seemed invincible; but nevertheless
was overcome in the End, not by the Menaces of the Emperor, or his
Prefect, but by the Craft and Subtilty of _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, who,
finding they could by no other Means prevail upon him to accept the
_Sirmian_ Confession, declared, that to put an End to the unhappy
Divisions that had so long rent the Church, they had at last resolved to
agree to such Alterations and Additions as should be judged proper and
necessary by him and his Collegues. This Declaration was received by all
with great Joy: _Phœbadius_ triumphed, thinking he had carried his
Point, and saved the Reputation of the Council. [Sidenote: _The others
imposed upon by the_ Arians.] To the Symbol were immediately added
several Anathemas against the _Arian_ Heresy, and an Article declaring
_the Son equal to the Father, without Beginning, and before all Time_.
When this Article was read, _Valens_ desired, that, in order to leave no
room for new Disputes or Chicanery, they would add, that _the Son was
not a Creature like other Creatures_[910]. This was evidently supposing
the Son to be a Creature only exalted above all other Creatures; so that
by admitting such an Article they condemned the Doctrine which they
designed to establish, and established that which they designed to
condemn. And yet of this neither was _Phœbadius_ aware, nor any of
his Party, as they afterwards solemnly declared[911]. A most
unaccountable Oversight, and hardly credible! But _Theodoret_[912],
_Ambrose_[913], _Sulpitius Severus_[914], and _Fulgentius_[915], took it
upon their Word, and so must we. Neither Party could brag of the
Victory; for the _Arians_ had anathematized the Heresy of _Arius_; and
on the other hand the orthodox Bishops had deliberately agreed to the
suppressing of the Words _Substance_ and _Consubstantial_, and
inadvertently acknowleged the Son to be a Creature; which was all the
_Arians_ aimed at, or could desire. The Council being thus ended, new
Deputies were sent to acquaint the Emperor with what had passed, who
being highly pleased with the Report made by _Ursacius_ and _Valens_
(for they were at the Head of the Deputation) immediately granted the
Bishops Leave to return to their respective Sees, after they had been
about Four Months at _Rimini_.

The Council no sooner broke up than the _Arians_ began to proclaim aloud
the Victory they had gained, bragging, that it had not been defined in
the Council of _Rimini_, that the Son was not a Creature, but only that
he was not like other Creatures; and declaring it was, and had always
been their Opinion, that the Son was no more like the Father, than a
Piece of Glass was like an Emerald[916]. [Sidenote: _They discover
their Mistake._] _Phœbadius_, and the other Bishops who had adhered
to him, were returned to their Sees with great Joy, flattering
themselves that they had sufficiently established the Catholic Doctrine,
and prevented all future Disputes: but, finding that the _Arians_
pretended their Tenets had been confirmed by this very Council, and
seriously reflecting on the Articles, which they themselves had agreed
to, they discovered at last how grosly they had been imposed upon, and
publicly retracted all they had said, done, or signed, repugnant to the
Truths of the Catholic Church[917]. However, _Gregory_ Bishop of
_Elvira_ refused to communicate with any of the Bishops who had assisted
at the Council of _Rimini_, and was on that account commended by
_Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_[918]. [Sidenote: _Are judged Guilty by the
exiled Bishops._] The exiled Bishops, and those who lay concealed,
agreed among themselves by Letters, to declare them for ever incapable
of performing any Episcopal or Sacerdotal Functions, and to admit them
to the Communion of the Church only in the Capacity of Laymen[919]. When
Peace was restored to the Church by the Death of _Constantius_ in 361.
most of the orthodox Bishops were for deposing all those of the Council
of _Rimini_, and placing others in their room. But this Sentence the
People would not suffer to be put in Execution, rising every-where in
Defence of their Pastors, and in some Places insulting, beating, and
even killing, those who came to depose them[920].

[Sidenote: _Great Disagreement in the Council of_ Seleucia.]

As for the Council of _Seleucia_, it met on the 27th of _September_ 359.
and consisted only of One hundred and Sixty Bishops, all _Arians_, or
_Semi-Arians_, except Twelve or Thirteen orthodox Bishops from
_Egypt_[921]. This Assembly _Gregory Nazianzen_ calls the _Tower_ of
_Calane_, or _Babel_, the Council of _Caiaphas_[922]. And indeed with a
great deal of Reason; for nothing was there seen but Tumult, Confusion,
and Disorder. The _Anomeans_ and _Semi-Arians_ appeared so
irreconcilably incensed against each other, and carried on their Debates
with so much Animosity and Bitterness, that the Quæstor _Leonas_, whom
the Emperor had appointed to assist at the Council, thinking it
impossible they should ever agree in any one Point, rose up at their
Fourth Meeting, while they were in the Heat of the Dispute, and,
withdrawing abruptly, put an End to that Session, nay, and to the
Council; for, being invited the next Day, the First of _October_, to the
Assembly, he refused to go, saying, that he did not conceive his
Presence to be at all necessary, since they might quarrel and scold as
much as they pleased without him[923]. This he did, says _Sozomen_, to
favour the _Anomeans_, who thence took Occasion to absent themselves
from the Council, which, as it was chiefly composed of _Semi-Arians_,
seemed determined to condemn their Doctrine[924]. [Sidenote: _The_
Semi-Arians _condemn and depose the_ Arians.] However, the _Semi-Arians_
met by themselves; and, finding they could by no means prevail upon the
_Anomeans_ to return to the Council, they condemned their Doctrine as
heretical and blasphemous, excommunicated and deposed the leading Men of
their Party, appointed others in their room, and gave Notice thereof to
their respective Churches[925]. Before they broke up, they dispatched
Ten Deputies to acquaint the Emperor with the Transactions of the
Council. But the Bishops whom they had deposed, arriving at Court before
them, and being by their Friends there immediately introduced to
_Constantius_, they prejudiced him against the Council of _Seleucia_ to
such a Degree, that it was some time before he could prevail upon
himself to hear the Deputies. [Sidenote: _They sign the last Confession
of_ Sirmium.] However, he heard them at last, and, by threatening them
with Exile if they did not comply, obliged them to sign the last
Confession of _Sirmium_, which had been rejected by the Council as
_Arian_[926]. In this he spent the whole Day, and great Part of the
Night, preceding the First of _January_, though he was obliged to make
the necessary Preparations for entering on that Day his Tenth Consulate
with the usual Pomp and Solemnity[927].

[Sidenote: _The_ Arians,_in their Turn, condemn and depose the_
Semi-Arians,  _and also sign the last Confession of_ Sirmium.]

In the Beginning of the Year 360. the _Anomeans_ assembling by
themselves at _Constantinople_ as the _Semi-Arians_ had done at
_Seleucia_, in order to ingratiate themselves with the Emperor, not only
received the last _Sirmian_ Confession, but condemned all other
Confessions or Symbols that had been made till then, or should be made
for the future. They then declared all the Acts of the Council of
_Seleucia_ void and null; and, to be even with the _Semi-Arians_,
deposed, under various Pretences, such of their Party as had most
contributed to the deposing of them, and even prevailed upon the Emperor
to send them into Exile[928].

[Sidenote: _An Order from the Emperor injoining all Bishops to sign
the_ Sirmian _Confession_.]

They did not stop here, but obtained of _Constantius_ an Order, which
was published throughout the Empire, commanding all Bishops to sign the
_Sirmian_ Confession, on pain of forfeiting their Dignity, and being
sent into Exile[929][N18]. This Order was executed with the utmost
Rigour in all the Provinces of the Empire, and very few were found, who
did not sign with their Hands what they condemned in their Hearts[930].
Many, who till then had been thought invincible, were overcome, and
complied with the Times; and such as did not, were driven, without
Distinction, from their Sees, into Exile, and others appointed in their
room, the signing of that Confession being a Qualification indispensably
requisite both for obtaining and keeping the Episcopal Dignity[931].
Thus were all the Sees throughout the Empire filled with _Arians_,
insomuch that in the whole East not one orthodox Bishop was left, and in
the West but one, _viz._ _Gregory_ Bishop of _Elvira_ in _Andalusia_,
and he, in all Likelihood, obliged to absent himself from his Flock, and
lie concealed, as were probably Pope _Liberius_, and _Vincentius_ of
_Capua_, if what _Theodoret_ relates of them be true, _viz._ that they
never consented to the Decrees of _Rimini_[932], and thereby retrieved
the Reputation they had lost, the former by signing the _Sirmian_
Confession of the Year 357. and the other by communicating with the
_Arians_ in 353. as I have related above. [Sidenote: _It was
probably signed by_ Liberius.] But what _Theodoret_ writes may be justly
called in question; for it is not at all probable, that the Emperor, and
the _Arian_ Party, so warmly bent on establishing that Confession
throughout the Empire, would have suffered the Bishop of the Imperial
City, of the first See, to reject it, without deposing him, as they had
done the Bishops of all the other great Sees, and appointing another
more compliant in his room. This could not be prevented by his
concealing himself in the Caverns and Cœmeteries about _Rome_, as he
is said to have done in his Acts quoted by _Baronius_[933], though he
might by that means have escaped being sent into Exile. Besides, had he,
instead of complying with the Emperor’s express Command, withdrawn and
absconded, I cannot think that his Antagonist _Felix_, who was still
alive, and had done nothing we know of to disoblige the Emperor, and the
_Arian_ Party, by whom he had been formerly raised to that See, would
have neglected so favourable an Opportunity of recovering his antient
Dignity. If what _Theodoret_ says be true, _Gregory Nazianzen_ is highly
to blame for not excepting _Liberius_; when he writ, that the Bishops
either all complied, or were driven into Exile, excepting a few, who
were too insignificant to be taken notice of by the Emperor, or his
Ministers[934]. [Sidenote: Arianism _universally obtains_.] Be that as
it will, it is certain, that at this time the _Arian_ Doctrine
universally obtained; that the Face of the Church appeared quite
deformed and disfigured[935], that the whole World saw itself, with
Astonishment, all on a sudden become _Arian_[936]; that the Boat of St.
_Peter_, to use St. _Jerom_’s Expression, tossed by furious Winds, by
violent Storms, was upon the Point of sinking, and no Hopes of Safety
seemed to be left[937].

-----

Footnote N18:

  This Confession is called sometimes the _Confession of_ Nice _in_
  Thrace, and sometimes the _Confession of_ Rimini; but it differed from
  both. By the Confession of _Nice_, the Son was acknowleged to be like
  to the Father, without the Addition of the Words _in all Things_,
  which were an essential Part of the last Confession of _Sirmium_. In
  that of _Rimini_ the Son was said _not to be a Creature like other
  Creatures_, and there were no such Words in the Confession of
  _Sirmium_. But by all Three the Word _Consubstantial_ was rejected,
  and no other would satisfy the Orthodox, acknowleging the Son to be
  _of the same Substance with the Father_. Both the _Arians_ and
  _Semi-Arians_ allowed the Son to be like to the Father: but that
  Likeness was by them very differently understood and interpreted. The
  _Arians_ held him to be _like_ rather by Grace than by Nature, and as
  like as a Creature could be to the Creator[N18.1]. The _Semi-Arians_
  confessed him to be like in _Nature_, in _Existence_, in _Essence_, in
  _Substance_, and in _every thing else_. But the Orthodox maintained
  him to be of the _same Substance_ with the Father, and consequently of
  the _same Existence_, _Essence_, &c. and, to express this _Sameness_
  or _Identity_, they chose the Word _Consubstantial_.

Footnote N18.1:

  Ruff. l. 1. c. 25.

-----

The following Year 361. the _Anomeans_, not fully satisfied with the
Confession of Faith, which, at their Suggestion, the Emperor had taken
so much Pains to establish throughout the Empire, assembled, with his
Leave, at _Antioch_, and there drew up a new Symbol, or Creed, wherein
it was expresly said, that _the Son was in every thing unlike to the
Father_, and that _He was made out of nothing_. [Sidenote: Constantius
_designs to establish the Doctrine of the_ Pure Arians;] _Constantius_
had formerly expressed the greatest Abhorrence to this Doctrine, and had
even banished those who held, and refused to anathematize, such _impious
Blasphemies_, as he then styled them[938]. But, having lately changed
his Opinion, which was chiefly owing to the great Influence the Eunuch
_Eusebius_ had over him, he was now no less sanguine for the
_Unlikeness_ of the Son to the Father, than he had been hitherto for the
_Likeness_[939]. In order therefore to abolish the antient, and
establish this new Creed in its room, he appointed a Council to meet at
_Nice_ in _Bithynia_[940], which, without all Doubt, he would have
treated in the same manner as he had done that of _Rimini_. [Sidenote:
_but is prevented by Death_.] But, as the Bishops were preparing to set
out for the appointed Place, they were stopped by the sudden and
unexpected News of the Emperor’s Death, which put an End to all his
Councils, and was heard with equal Joy by those of the _Orthodox_ and
_Semi-Arian_ Party. He was succeeded by _Julian_, surnamed the
_Apostate_, who immediately recalled all those who had been banished by
_Constantius_ on account of their Religion[941]. [Sidenote: _The exiled
Bishops recalled by_ Julian.] Whatever was his Motive, the Church reaped
great Advantages from the Return of so many eminent Prelates, who, in
the worst of Times, had, with an invincible Firmness and Constancy,
stood up in her Defence. Among the rest returned, on this Occasion, the
famous _Meletius_ Bishop of _Antioch_, _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_,
_Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_, who had been all Three confined to the most
distant Parts of _Thebais_ in _Egypt_, _Cyril_ of _Jerusalem_,
_Pelagius_ of _Laodicea_ in _Phœnicia_, and, to the inexpressible Joy
of the Orthodox Party, their great Champion _Athanasius_ Bishop of
_Alexandria_[942], who immediately resumed, undisturbed, his Episcopal
Function; _George_, the Usurper of his See, having been assassinated a
little while before by the Pagans of _Alexandria_, on account of his
Avarice and Cruelty[943]. In other Places the Orthodox Bishops, finding
the _Arians_ in Possession of their Sees, contented themselves with
being acknowleged by those of their Communion, without attempting to
drive out their Antagonists, which would have created great Confusion,
and endless Disturbances in the Church. _Julian_ refused to interpose
his Authority in favour of either Party, saying, that as he was not so
well acquainted with the Nature of their Disputes as a just and
impartial Judge ought to be, he hoped they would excuse him, lest he
should be guilty of some Injustice, and settle Matters of such
Importance among themselves. _Athanasius_ entered _Alexandria_ in a kind
of Triumph, which is described in a lively manner by _Gregory
Nazianzen_, who seems to have pleased himself with displaying, in that
Description, all the Eloquence he was Master of[944].

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Alexandria.]

The Bishop of _Alexandria_ being thus reinstated, and again at full
Liberty to exert his Zeal for the Catholic Cause, his first Care was to
retrieve his fallen Brethren, and reunite them to the Church. With this
View he assembled, in 362. a Council at _Alexandria_, composed only of
Confessors, that is, of such Bishops as had chosen rather to forfeit
their Dignities and Sees, than receive or sign the _Arian_ Confession of
_Rimini_ or _Sirmium_. This was one of the most respectable Councils
that was ever held in the Church, not so much in regard of the Numbers
(for I find not above Twenty named) as of the Merit, Virtue, and
Sanctity of the Members that composed it. The chief Subject of their
Debates, or rather Inquiries, was to find out the most proper Means of
restoring Tranquillity to the Church, after so dreadful a Storm. Some,
and among the rest _Lucifer_ Bishop of _Cagliari_, who did not assist in
Person, but by his Deputies, the Two Deacons _Herennius_ and _Agapetus_,
were for deposing all those who had signed the Confession of _Rimini_,
and cutting them off from the Communion of the Church. But this
unseasonable Severity was condemned by the far greater Part, as tending
to raise a new Storm, and involve the Church in greater Troubles than
ever, which the Emperor _Julian_ would take care to improve, to the
total Ruin of the Christian Religion. _Athanasius_ therefore was for
using Severity only with the Authors, and chief Promoters, of the late
general Defection: and his Opinion prevailed; for a Decree was enacted,
importing, that the Authors of the late general Prevarication should,
even upon their Repentance, be received to the Communion of the Church
only in the Capacity of Laymen, but that the rest should be all kept in,
or restored to, their Sees, upon their publicly renouncing the _Arian_
Communion, and embracing the Faith of _Nice_[945]. [Sidenote: _A Schism
formed by_ Lucifer, _Bishop of_ Cagliari.] This Decree was every-where
received with the greatest Joy, the Bishop of _Cagliari_ being the only
Man, either in the East or West, who opposed it, and that with so much
Obstinacy, that, rather than yield, he chose to separate himself from
the Communion of the rest, and to form a new Schism, which bore his
Name, and soon gained a considerable Footing, especially in the West;
several Persons no less distinguished for Piety than Learning, and among
the rest _Gregory_, the famous Bishop of _Elvira_, having adopted the
Sentiments of a Man, who had suffered so much for the Purity of the
Faith. As _Lucifer_ is honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint, and
his Festival is kept on the 20th of _May_[946], _Baronius_ pretends,
that he abandoned his Schism, and returned to the Communion of the
Church, before his Death[947]. [Sidenote: _He never returned to the
Communion of the Church._] But his Contemporary _Ruffinus_, who probably
knew him, assures us, that he died in the Schism, which he had
formed[948]. _Jerom_ often speaks of his Schism, but no-where gives us
the least Hint of his having ever quitted it; which would have afforded
him a strong Argument against the _Luciferians_, and he would not have
failed to urge it, in the Book which he wrote to convince them of their
Error. That Writer speaks of _Lucifer_, on all Occasions, with the
greatest Respect, even in the Book which he writ against his Followers:
he owns, that his Intention was pure and upright; that it was not Pride,
Thirst after Glory, or a Desire of transmitting his Name to Posterity,
but a mistaken Zeal, that led him astray, and made him disapprove what
the others approved; he even distinguishes him with the Title of the
_Blessed Lucifer_[949]. And hence _Baronius_ concludes, that he returned
to the Communion of the Church; for otherwise, says the Annalist[950],
St. _Jerom_ had never given him the Title of _Blessed_, or _Saint_. But
that he did not return, is manifest, from the Silence of St. _Jerom_ on
that Head, and from the Authority of a contemporary Writer quoted above:
and hence I may draw a Conclusion far better grounded than that of
_Baronius_; _viz._ that St. _Jerom_ excused him on account of his good
Intention; and, consequently, that he did not hold the uncharitable
Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, excluding from Salvation all who die
out of her Communion, let their Intention be never so good. It is to be
observed, that the _Luciferians_ not only excluded from their Communion
those who had received the _Arian_ Confession, but all who communicated
with them, even after they had anathematized that Confession, and
publicly embraced the Faith of _Nice_.

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Alexandria _saves the Church from Ruin_.]

The Resolution taken by the Confessors in the Council of _Alexandria_,
is said to have saved the Church from utter Ruin. For had that
prevailed, which was urged with so much Warmth by _Lucifer_, the
Bishops, who had chosen rather to sign the _Arian_ Confession than
forfeit their Sees, would have kept them in Defiance of a Decree made by
a small Number of their Collegues, and in all Likelihood excommunicated
and deposed, in their Turn, those who had excommunicated and deposed
them: and, in that Case, the _Arian_ Party, comprehending almost all the
Bishops of the Church, must have prevailed. But as nothing was required
of them, to keep their Sees, besides their renouncing the Confession of
_Rimini_, which they had embraced, and embracing that of _Nice_, which
they had renounced, they readily complied with the Decree of the
Council; insomuch that the following Year 363. _Athanasius_, in a
Letter, which he wrote to the Emperor _Jovian_, immediately after the
Death of _Julian_, could assure that Prince, that the Faith of _Nice_
had been received, and was professed, in all the Provinces of the
Empire, which he enumerates; but omits those of _Thrace_, _Bithynia_,
and the _Hellespont_[951], the Bishops there still continuing
obstinately to maintain the Doctrine of _Arius_, and to reject the Faith
of _Nice_, as we learn from _Sozomen_[952], _Socrates_[953], and
_Basil_[954]; nay, at _Constantinople_, the Orthodox had but a small
Chapel to assemble in, all the Churches being in Possession of the
_Arians_, under _Eudoxius_, a leading Man among the _Pure Arians_,
who had usurped that See[955]. [Sidenote: _The Faith of_
Nice _everywhere established_.] For the better establishing of the
Orthodox Faith, after the violent Shock it had lately received, Councils
were held in several Provinces of the Empire[N19], and by all was
received the Faith of _Nice_, the Confession of _Rimini_ condemned, and
the Words _Substance_ and _Consubstantial_ re-established[956]. A very
strong Proof, that the Assent given before to the _Arian_ Doctrines had
been solely the Effect of Force, or of Interest, which being now
removed, and all left at Liberty to act as their Consciences only
directed, the Orthodox Faith prevailed as much as the other had done
under _Constantius_.

-----

Footnote N19:

  The Bishops of _Gaul_ assembled at _Paris_ in 362. and, having first
  owned their Crime, in approving and signing the Confession of
  _Rimini_, they acknowleged the Three Persons of the Trinity to be of
  the same Nature and Substance, and condemned _Ursacius_, _Valens_, and
  _Auxentius_ the _Arian_ Bishop of _Milan_. This Council was convened
  by St. _Hilarius_, Bishop of _Poitiers_; and a Letter, which the
  Council writ on this Occasion, has been transmitted to us, among the
  Fragments of his Works. He is said to have assembled several other
  Councils in _Gaul_, for the re-establishing of the Faith of _Nice_,
  which is all we know of them. The same Year 362. the Bishops of
  _Italy_ assembling, declared void and null the Acts of the Council of
  _Rimini_, embraced the Faith of _Nice_, and, with one Accord,
  anathematized _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, as the leading Men of the
  _Arian_ Party. There is, among the Fragments of St. _Hilarius_, a
  Letter on this Subject, from the _Italian_ to the _Illyrian_ Bishops.
  Where this Council was held I find no-where recorded. In the Year 363.
  the Emperor _Jovian_ desiring to be instructed in the Faith of the
  Catholic Church, by _Athanasius_ and the _Egyptian_ Bishops, who were
  come to wait on him, they assembled in Council, and agreed to propose
  no other Creed to him but that of _Nice_. At the same time they
  condemned the Heresy of _Macedonius_, denying the Divinity of the Holy
  Ghost. This Council is generally thought to have been held at
  _Alexandria_. But, from the Letter, which they presented to the
  Emperor, it appears to have consisted of some _Egyptian_ Bishops, who,
  as it is there said, were appointed to represent all the others of the
  same Province[N19.1]. Had the Council been held at _Alexandria_, they
  had, I should think, been all present. It must therefore have
  assembled in some Place out of _Egypt_; and where more likely than at
  _Antioch_? For there the Emperor was this very Year, and there
  _Athanasius_ waited on him. The same Year another Council was held at
  _Antioch_, under _Melecius_ Bishop of that City. In that Council
  _Acacius_, Bishop of _Cæsarea_ in _Pælestine_, who had been at the
  Head of the _Arian_ Party, in the Latter-end of the Reign of
  _Constantius_, and his Followers, commonly styled _Acacians_, embraced
  the Faith of _Nice_, and admitted the Term _Consubstantial_. _Acacius_
  had no other Faith but that of the Party which prevailed. Hence, in
  the Time of _Jovian_, who favoured the Orthodox Party, he professed
  the Faith of _Nice_; but Two Years after he had signed it, he joined
  the _Arians_ anew, seeing them in great Favour with the Emperor
  _Valens_. Several other Councils were held, from the Year 363. to 368.
  of which we have no particular Account. For _Athanasius_ tells us, in
  general Terms, that many Councils assembled in _France_, in _Spain_,
  at _Rome_, in _Dalmatia_, in _Dardania_, in _Macedonia_, in _Epirus_,
  in _Greece_, in _Candia_, and the other Islands, in _Sicily_, in
  _Cyprus_, in _Lycia_, in _Isauria_, in _Egypt_, and in _Arabia_; and
  that they all met to maintain the Orthodox Faith, the Faith of the
  Council of _Nice_[N19.2]. In his Letter to the Emperor _Jovian_ he
  assures him, that the Symbol of _Nice_ was received in the
  above-mentioned Provinces, and besides, in _Britain_, in _Africa_, in
  _Pamphylia_, in _Libya_, in _Pontus_, in _Cappadocia_, and in the
  East, that is, in the Patriarchate of _Antioch_[N19.3]. But in the
  Provinces of _Thrace_, of _Bithynia_, and the _Hellespont_, the
  _Semi-Arians_ prevailed, till they were overpowered by the _Arians_,
  strongly supported by the Emperor _Valens_, a most zealous Defender of
  _Arianism_.

Footnote N19.1:

  Theod. l. 4. c. 3.

Footnote N19.2:

  Athan. de Afr. & ad Epict.

Footnote N19.3:

  Id. ad Jov.

-----

[Sidenote: _A Council convened by the_ Semi-Arians.]

As every one was allowed by _Julian_ to believe what he pleased, and to
own his Belief, whatever it was, the _Semi-Arians_ convened a Council,
soon after the Death of _Constantius_, who, in the Latter-end of his
Life, had begun to persecute them as much as he had favoured them
before. This Council was composed of those chiefly who had assisted at
that of _Seleucia_, of which I have spoken above; and they all agreed to
condemn and anathematize the Doctrine of the _Pure Arians_, with the
Confession of _Rimini_, and to sign anew the Confession of _Antioch_,
establishing a Likeness in Substance between the Son and the Father.
Thus they pretended to keep a due Mean between the Two opposite
Extremes, of the Western Bishops, whose _Consubstantiality_, they said,
left no room for the Distinction of Persons; and of the _Pure Arians_,
who denied all Likeness[957]. [Sidenote: _The Sect of the_ Macedonians.]
It was after this Council that the _Semi-Arians_, separating themselves
from the Communion of the _Pure Arians_, began to form a distinct Sect,
and to be called _Macedonians_; which Name was given them from
_Macedonius_, late Bishop of _Constantinople_, but deposed by the _Pure
Arians_, in the Council they held in that City in 360. to make room for
their great Champion _Eudoxius_, translated formerly from _Germanicia_
to _Antioch_, and now from _Antioch_ to _Constantinople_. They were also
named _Marathonians_, from _Marathonius_, Bishop of _Nicomedia_, who,
together with _Macedonius_, was at the Head of the Party; and
_Pneumatomachi_, that is, Enemies to the Holy Ghost, whose Divinity they
denied, which was their chief, if not their only Error; for some are of
Opinion, that tho’ they rejected the Word _Consubstantial_, yet they
agreed with the Orthodox in the Meaning of it. They led very regular,
austere, and edifying Lives; and are, on that Score, highly commended
and extolled by _Gregory Nazianzen_[958]. No Wonder therefore, that they
soon spread all over the East, and gained every-where great Numbers of
Followers. At _Constantinople_, and in the neighbouring Cities and
Provinces, they were followed not only by the greater Part of the
People, but by some Persons of Distinction, by such as were most
remarkable for their Piety, by intire Monasteries, both of Men and
Women[959]. The Inhabitants of _Cyzicus_ in the _Propontis_ were almost
all of this Sect, and we are told of some Miracles wrought by a
_Macedonian_ of that Place[960], which _Baronius_ will not allow, though
as well attested as any he relates.

[Sidenote: _They are persecuted by the Emperor_ Valens.]

The Emperor _Valens_, who reigned in the East, which had been yielded to
him by his Brother _Valentinian_, when he took him for his Collegue in
the Empire, spared no Pains to reconcile this Sect with that of the
_Arians_, which he greatly favoured. But, finding them no less averse to
the _Arians_ than the Orthodox themselves, he began in the Year 366. to
persecute them with great Cruelty. To avoid this Persecution they
resolved to recur to the Emperor _Valentinian_, and, embracing the Faith
professed by him and the Western Bishops, to put themselves under his
Protection. Accordingly they dispatched Three of their Body, _viz._
_Eustathius_ Bishop of _Sebaste_, _Sylvanus_ of _Tarsus_, and
_Theophilus_ of _Castabala_, to acquaint the Emperor, in the Name of the
rest, with the Resolution they had taken, and implore his
Protection[961]. These, being informed, on their Arrival in _Italy_,
that _Valentinian_ was waging War with the Barbarians on the Borders of
_Gaul_, instead of repairing to him, which they apprehended might be
attended with no small Danger, went strait to _Rome_, and there
delivered to _Liberius_ Letters from their Brethren, directed to him,
and to the other Bishops of the West, whom they earnestly intreated to
use their Interest with the Emperor, in their Behalf, assuring them,
that they sincerely renounced the Errors they had hitherto held, and
embraced the Catholic Faith, as explained and defined by the Council of
_Nice_[962]. [Sidenote: _Deliver to_ Liberius _their Confession
of Faith_;] But _Liberius_, notwithstanding these Assurances, suspected
their Sincerity; and therefore could not, by any means, be prevailed
upon to communicate with them, or even to hear them, till they had
delivered to him a Confession of Faith, under their Hand, and in the
Name of the whole Party, wherein they anathematized those of _Rimini_,
and _Nice_ in _Bithynia_; condemned the Heresy of _Arius_, with all
other Heresies; and received the Definitions of the Council of _Nice_,
those particularly that related to _Consubstantiality_. To this
Confession they added a solemn Protestation, declaring themselves ready
to submit to the Sentence of such Judges as the Pope should think fit to
appoint, should they, or those by whom they had been sent, be ever for
the future accused or suspected of swerving in the least from the Faith
they now embraced and professed[963]. [Sidenote: _who admits them to his
Communion_.] In virtue of this Confession, whereof the Original was
carefully lodged in the Archives of the Church of _Rome_, _Liberius_
admitted the Deputies to his Communion; and, upon their Departure, writ,
in the Name of all the Bishops of _Italy_, and the West, to the
_Macedonian_ Bishops, of whom he names 59, signifying the great Joy,
which their Letters, and the Confession of Faith, signed by their
Deputies, had occasioned at _Rome_, and in all the Western Churches,
since by such a Confession they were all again happily united in one
Faith. In this Letter _Liberius_ assures them, that all the Bishops, who
had assisted at the Council of _Rimini_, had retracted the Doctrine,
which they had been forced to sign there; and were more than ever
incensed against the _Arians_, on account of the Violence, which, at
their Instigation, had been offered them[964]. The _Macedonians_
admitted the Divinity of the Son, but denied that of the Holy Ghost;
nay, this was their favourite Doctrine, and, as it were, the
Characteristic of their Sect; but _Liberius_, and the other Western
Bishops, not suspecting them of such an Error, which in all Likelihood
they had not yet publicly owned, admitted them to their Communion,
without examining them on that Head.

[Sidenote: Liberius _dies_.]

_Liberius_ died soon after, that is, on the 23d or 24th of
_September_, of the present Year 366. as we are told by _Marcellinus_
and _Faustinus_, whose Authority is preferable to that of any other,
since, at this very time, they lived at _Rome_[965]. He had been
chosen on the 22d of _May_ 352. so that he governed the Church of
_Rome_ Fourteen Years, Four Months, and a Day or Two. [Sidenote: _The
deplorable Condition of the Church in his Time._] _Liberius_ lived in
troublesome Times, the worst the Church had ever yet seen. She had Two
dangerous Enemies to contend with at the same time, the Power of the
Prince then on the Imperial Throne, and the Craft of a most subtle and
deceitful Party. The Prince employed all his Power to overcome, with
Oppression, those whom the Party could not over-reach with their
Craft; and the Party to over-reach with their Craft such as the Prince
could not overcome with Oppression. On the other hand, the Prelates,
even some who were reputed the Pillars of the Church, seemed to have
lost that Zeal, Firmness, and Intrepidity, which they had so
gloriously exerted under the Pagan Princes, and few were found among
them, whose Virtue was proof against the Loss of their Dignity, or
Exile. Hence the Defection became general, and the Orthodox Party was
brought so low, that it must have been utterly quashed, had
_Constantius_ lived a few Years longer. But Providence interposed;
_Constantius_ died while he was pursuing his Scheme with the greatest
Success; and _Julian_, his Successor, by betraying an equal Hatred and
Aversion to Christians of all Denominations, obliged them to forget
their Quarrels among themselves, to lay aside their Animosity against
each other, and to unite in their mutual Defence against him, as a
common Enemy. _Jovian_, who succeeded him, proved no less favourable
to the Orthodox, than _Constantius_ had been to the _Arians_. Many
therefore of the latter, and among the rest _Acacius_, who was at the
Head of the _Pure Arians_, to gain the Favour of the Emperor, publicly
renounced the Doctrine of _Arius_, and embraced that of _Nice_.
_Jovian_, after a short Reign of Seven Months and Twenty Days, was
succeeded by _Valentinian_, who continued to countenance the Orthodox,
as his Predecessor had done, though he did not use the _Arians_ with
that Rigour which some Zealots expected from a Confessor, which Title
he had deserved under _Julian_. However, as he professed the Orthodox
Faith, that Party universally prevailed; insomuch that, in a very
short time, no Traces of _Arianism_ were left in the West, except at
_Milan_, under the _Arian_ Bishop _Auxentius_, and in a few Cities of
_Illyricum_, where it was kept up by _Ursacius_, _Valens_,
_Germinius_, and their Disciples, till the following Century, when it
was every-where re-established there by the _Goths_.

[Sidenote: _By whom_ Arianism _was banished out of the West_.]

_Baronius_ ascribes to _Liberius_ the banishing of _Arianism_ out of the
West, and the establishing of the Orthodox Faith in its room; but that
Glory was owing, according to _Ruffinus_, to _Hilarius_ of _Poitiers_,
and _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, who, like the Two great Luminaries of the
Universe, to use his Words, enlightened with their Rays _Illyricum_,
_Gaul_, and _Italy_, dispelling every-where the Darkness of Heresy[966].
He minutely describes the great Success that attended them, with the
Difficulties and Obstructions they met with in so pious and commendable
an Undertaking[967]. But, as for _Liberius_, he does not so much as
mention him. And truly, from the Year 357. in which he fell, to his
admitting the _Macedonians_ to his Communion in 366. which was the last
of his Life, the only thing I find recorded of him in the Antients, is
his writing a Letter to the Catholic Bishops of _Italy_, wherein he
exhorts them to atone for their past Conduct by renouncing the Errors of
the _Arians_, and receiving anew the Symbol of _Nice_. He adds, that as
this is the only Atonement, which it has been thought proper to require
of them, they ought to exert their Zeal against the Authors of the Fault
they committed, in proportion to the Grief they must feel for committing
it[968]. This Letter has been transmitted to us among the Fragments of
_Hilarius_. [Sidenote: _Neither_ Vincentius _of_ Capua, _nor_
Liberius, _assisted at the Council of_ Rimini.] It is hard to guess what
could induce _Baronius_ to write so confidently as he does, that
_Vincentius_ of _Capua_ assisted at the Council of _Rimini_ with the
Character of the Pope’s Legate[969]. In what antient Author did he find
the least Intimation or distant Hint of such a Legation? _Vincentius_ of
_Capua_, though a Person of great Eminency, is not even mentioned by any
of the contemporary Writers, who relate the Transactions of that
Council, and name the chief Prelates who composed it. 'Tis true we read
of him, in one Author, that he never consented to the Confession of
_Rimini_[970]: but that is said of _Liberius_ too[971], whom _Baronius_
owns not to have been present at that Assembly.

[Sidenote: Liberius _is honoured as a Saint_.]

_Liberius_, notwithstanding his Fall, is honoured both by the _Latin_
and _Greek_ Churches as a Saint. By the former his Festival is kept on
the 23d of _September_, and by the latter on the 27th of _August_[972].
[Sidenote: _The Founding of the Church of_ St. Mary the Greater.] He
erected a Church on the _Esquiline_ Mount at _Rome_, which bore his
Name, and was called the _Basilic_ of Liberius, till it was consecrated
to the Virgin _Mary_ by _Sixtus_ III. when it took the Name of _Sancta
Maria Major_, or _Saint Mary the Greater_. It owes its Foundation, as is
universally believed in the Church of _Rome_, to the following Miracle.
A _Roman_ of the Patrician Order, and of Wealth equal to his Rank, named
_John_, having no Children, resolved to make a free Gift of his whole
Estate to the Virgin _Mary_. This Resolution he imparted to his Wife,
who consenting to it with great Alacrity, the Estate was immediately
made over to the holy Virgin, whom they thenceforth jointly intreated,
in their daily Prayers, to let them know by some Token in what Manner
she chose to dispose of it. Their Prayers were heard, and, on the Night
preceding the 5th of _August_, when the Heat is most violent at _Rome_,
a miraculous Snow fell from Heaven, which covered Part of the
_Esquiline_ Mount. The same Night the Patrician and his Wife were
admonished in a Dream to build a Church on the Spot of Ground which they
should find covered with Snow. Early next Morning they went to acquaint
Pope _Liberius_ with what had happened, whom they found to have had the
same Dream; so that no room being now left to doubt of the Revelation,
the Pope appointed a grand Procession of the whole Clergy, in which he
walked himself, attended by Crouds of People, to the above-mentioned
Mount; and there, having caused the Snow, which still lay unmelted, to
be removed, on the Spot, which it had covered, he laid the Foundation of
that magnificent Basilic, which was reared at the Expence of the
Patrician, and is now known by the Name of _Saint Mary the Greater_, and
_Saint Mary in the Snow_[973]. I should not have thought such an idle
Tale worthy of a Place in a grave History, were it not recorded in the
most authentic Book the Church of _Rome_ has after the Scripture, the
_Roman Breviary_, a Book approved and commended by the Council of
_Trent_, and by the special Bulls of Three Popes, _Pius_ V. _Clement_
VIII. and _Urban_ VIII. of whom the latter declares every thing it
contains to be extracted from antient and approved Authors, and to be
agreeable to Truth[974]. So that it would be less dangerous, at least in
_Italy_, to deny any Truth revealed in the Scripture, than to question
any Fable related in the _Breviary_. The Feast of _the Snow_, or _St.
Mary in the Snow_, is kept annually at _Rome_, on the 5th of _August_,
with the greatest Solemnity. The College of Cardinals assists that Day
at Divine Service in the Church of _Saint Mary the Greater_; and the
Pope, if not indisposed, or otherwise prevented, officiates in Person:
the _Primicerio_, or Dean of that Church, reads the Account, which I
have delivered above; and, that nothing may be wanting to complete the
Farce, Numbers of Children are employed, during the Service, to drop
Jessamins from the Gallery on the Congregation, in Remembrance and
Imitation of the miraculous Snow. And truly by Children alone such
Fables are proper to be acted and believed.

[Sidenote: _The Writings of_ Liberius.]

Several Pieces have reached our Times, which were either written by, or
have been falsly ascribed to, _Liberius_. Among the former are, his
Letter in Answer to the _Macedonian_ Bishops; another to the Catholic
Bishops of _Italy_; which have been both mentioned above; and a
Discourse, which he pronounced on _Christmas-day_ in the Church of St.
_Peter_, on Occasion of his giving the sacred Veil to _Marcellina_ the
Sister of St. _Ambrose_ when she embraced the State of Virginity. This
Discourse St. _Ambrose_ has inserted in his Third Book on Virgins, but
in his own Style, which is very different from that of _Liberius_, who
had not the Gift of Eloquence[975]. [Sidenote: _Writings falsly ascribed
to him._] Among the Pieces falsly ascribed to _Liberius_, most Men of
Learning reckon the Confession of Faith, written in _Greek_, which he is
supposed to have sent to _Athanasius_. This Piece _Baronius_ will, by
all means, have to be genuine; and the Use he makes of it is somewhat
extraordinary. The Council of _Alexandria_, to which the Church owed her
Safety, was convened by _Athanasius_, upon his Return from Exile, as I
have related above. By that small Assembly, consisting only of
Confessors, was enacted the famous Decree with respect to those, who had
communicated with the _Arians_, and signed the Confession of _Rimini_.
To that Decree the whole Church readily conformed; so that the Honour of
saving the Church was chiefly owing to _Athanasius_, and wholly to him
and the other Confessors. Of _Liberius_ not the least Mention is made;
so that he had no Share in that Glory. [Sidenote: _Strange
Conjectures of_ Baronius.] The _Annalist_ therefore, not being able to
bring in his Sovereign Pontiff upon the Authority of any Records now
extant, has recourse to those that probably never were; or, if they ever
were, are now no more. He supposes Part of the above-mentioned
Confession of Faith, sent by _Liberius_ to _Athanasius_, to be wanting;
and _Liberius_, in the Part that is wanting, to have impowered
_Athanasius_ to convene a Council, and to have appointed _Eusebius_ of
_Vercelli_, and _Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_, to assist at that Council with
the Character of his Legates. Such wild and extravagant Suppositions
require a very strong Proof to support them, some plausible Conjectures
at least to give them an Appearance of Truth. But that we must not
expect of _Baronius_. The only Argument, if it may be so called, which
he pretends to offer on this Occasion, is, that he cannot conceive
_Athanasius_, and the other holy Confessors, would have taken upon them
to act as they did, and enact a Decree extending to the whole Church,
had they not received such a Power from him, to whom all Power was
given[976], meaning the Pope. The other Pieces, falsly ascribed to
_Liberius_, are another Letter to _Athanasius_, and one to all the
Catholic Bishops; which are both reputed supposititious, being dated by
Consuls who never existed.

-----

Footnote 717:

  Buch. cycl. p. 273.

Footnote 718:

  Hil. frag. 2. p. 41.

Footnote 719:

  Ath. ad Solit. p. 828. & Apol. 2. p. 674. Theod. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 720:

  Hil. frag. 1. p. 36. 40.

Footnote 721:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 722:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 723:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 724:

  Bar. ad ann. 352. n. 12-20.

Footnote 725:

  Hil. p. 1327. & Athan. vit. p. 51.

Footnote 726:

  Ath. ad Solit. p. 829. Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159. Hil. frag. 2. p. 41.
  47.

Footnote 727:

  Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159.

Footnote 728:

  Hil. frag. 2. p. 42. Ath. ap. 1. p. 691. Theod. l. 2. c. 17.

Footnote 729:

  Hil. frag. 1. p. 6. & in Cons. l. 2. p. 119. Sulp. Sever. p. 157. Ath.
  in Ar. or. 1. p. 291. ad Solit. p. 831. de fug. 703.

Footnote 730:

  Sulp. Sever. p. 469. Hier. chron.

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.

[Sidenote: Boniface _free from Ambition_.]

_Boniface_ was naturally a Lover of Peace, and an Enemy to all Strife
and Contention. He did not claim, nor attempt to usurp, any new Power
over his Collegues; but yet he would not part with any his Predecessors
enjoyed, by what means soever they had acquired it; and those who
attempted to curtail the usurped Jurisdiction of the Apostolic See, met
with as vigorous an Opposition from him as they could have done either
from _Innocent_ or _Zosimus_. In short, he had not Ambition enough to
inlarge his Authority, but thought himself in Conscience obliged _to
maintain the just Rights_, as he styled and believed them, _of the See
in which it had pleased Divine Providence to place him, though unworthy
of so great an Honour_. [Sidenote: _Dispute between him and the Bishops
of_ Illyricum.] His Steadiness in asserting these Claims appeared
chiefly in the Dispute that arose between him and the Bishops of
_Illyricum_, over whom _Damasus_ had usurped, as I have related
elsewhere[1583], and his Successors maintained a particular Power and
Jurisdiction. The Transaction is thus related by the Writers of those
Times. The See of _Patræ_ in _Achaia_, one of the Provinces of
_Illyricum_, being vacant, the Bishop of _Corinth_, Metropolitan of that
Province, did all that lay in his Power to get _Perigenes_, a Presbyter
of an unexceptionable Character, chosen in the room of their deceased
Bishop. But his Endeavours proving unsuccessful, he returned to
_Corinth_, and died soon after. Upon his Death the People and Clergy of
_Corinth_, to honour his Memory, and shew the Regard they had for one
whom he had favoured, unanimously named _Perigenes_ to succeed him. But
as they apprehended some Opposition from the Bishops of the same
Province, they writ to _Boniface_, begging him to confirm their Election
with his Authority. _Boniface_ referred them to _Rufus_, then Bishop of
_Thessalonica_, and his Vicar in those Parts, declaring that, as for
himself, he had nothing to object either against their Election, or the
Person elected. _Rufus_ notified to the Bishops of the Province, and the
Metropolitans of the Diocese, the Approbation of _Boniface_, and his
own; but it was not received by all in the same manner. [Sidenote: _Law
of_ Theodosius _concerning Disputes that should arise in_ Illyricum.]
The greater Part indeed agreed to the Ordination of the new Bishop; but
some opposed it with great Warmth, prompted, most probably, by the
Jealousy they entertained of the growing Power of the See of _Rome_:
for, at their Request, a Law was published by the Emperor _Theodosius_,
dated the 14th of _July_ 421. commanding all Disputes, that should arise
in the Diocese of _Illyricum_, to be finally determined by the Bishops
of that Diocese, after they had consulted the Bishop of
_Constantinople_[1584]. This was taking those Provinces from the Bishop
of _Rome_, and, in some Degree, subjecting them to the Bishop of
_Constantinople_, or at least opening a Door for such a Subjection. The
Power of the Bishops of _Constantinople_ was already grown very
considerable, and their Ambition keeping Pace with that of the Bishops
of _Rome_, neither let any Opportunity slip of extending the
Jurisdiction of their own See at the Expence of the other. In the
present Case the Bishop of _Constantinople_, availing himself of the
Favour of the Emperor, and the Disagreement that reigned among the
_Illyrican_ Bishops, summoned, without Loss of Time, a Council to meet
at _Corinth_, and there to examine the Ordination of _Perigenes_, though
he had been ordained, and his Ordination approved of both by _Rufus_ and
_Boniface_. [Sidenote: _Three Letters of_ Boniface.] This Step, quite
unexpected, alarmed _Boniface_; he divested himself at once of his
pacific Disposition, and, assuming the Air and Style of Authority, he
writ Three Letters, all dated the same Day, _viz._ 11th of _March_ 422.
encouraging the Friends of the Apostolic See to maintain its Rights, and
threatening those who dared to invade them. [Sidenote: _He maintains,
with Authority, his pretended Rights._] The first was to _Rufus_ of
_Thessalonica_, whom he animates not to suffer any Innovations, but
vigorously to withstand those, who assumed an Authority that did not
become them, and to which they had no kind of Title or Claim, meaning,
no doubt, the Bishop of _Constantinople_. The Second Letter he writ to
the Bishops of _Thessaly_, exhorting them to acknowlege the Authority of
_Rufus_, and no other. The Third was addressed to the Bishops of
_Macedon_, _Achaia_, _Thessaly_, _Epirus_, and _Dacia_, who had been
summoned by the Bishop of _Constantinople_ to assemble at _Corinth_, and
there deliver their Opinion concerning the Ordination of _Perigenes_. In
this Letter he complains, in the strongest Terms, of so bold and daring
an Attempt, asking, in the Style of a Sovereign, _What Bishop shall
presume to question an Ordination approved by us? What Bishop could take
upon him to assemble a Council with that View and Intent? Read_, he
adds, _read the Canons, and there you will find, that the See of_ Rome
_is the First, the See of_ Alexandria _the Second, and that of_ Antioch
_the Third. These are the Three great Sees; these the Sees which the
Fathers have distinguished above the rest, with ample Privileges, and
extensive Jurisdiction._ Since he refers them to the Canons to shew,
that these Three Sees are superior to the See of _Constantinople_, both
in Dignity and Jurisdiction, it were to be wished he had, at the same
time, acquainted them by what Canons his Predecessors had exercised over
the Provinces of _Illyricum_ the Jurisdiction which he now so zealously
asserts. But that is more than it was in his Power to do. However, in
the present Letter, he threatens with Excommunication such of the
_Illyrican_ Bishops as shall, in Defiance of his Orders, comply with the
Summons which they have received, or presume to question the Ordination
of _Perigenes_. What was the Issue of this Dispute is not recorded by
any of the Antients; but a modern Historian[1585] informs us, that the
Emperor _Honorius_ interposing, at the Request of _Boniface_, in Behalf
of the See of _Rome_, prevailed upon _Theodosius_ to revoke his former
Law, and enact another in its room, confirming to the Apostolic See all
its antient Privileges, and injoining the _Præfectus Prætorio_ to see
the latter Law put in Execution. The Historian quotes this Law from the
Archives of the _Roman_ Church. But as it is not to be found either in
the _Theodosian_ or the _Justinian_ Code, its Authenticity may be justly
suspected.

[Sidenote: _He revokes the Privileges granted by_ Zosimus _to
the Church of_ Arles.]

The same Year 422. _Boniface_ gave a signal Instance of his Equity and
Love of Justice, which redounds greatly to his Honour, and therefore
ought not to be omitted. He was sensible, that his Predecessor
_Zosimus_, abusing his Authority, had acted in the Affair of the
_Gallican_ Bishops, in a most partial and arbitrary manner; that the See
of _Arles_ had no just Title to the many Privileges, which he had been
induced, by his Partiality for _Patroclus_, to heap on it, at the
Expence of Two other Sees; and, consequently, that it was incumbent upon
himself, now that he had the Power in his Hands, to rectify by a better
Use of it, what his Predecessor had done amiss. The Love of Justice
therefore prevailing in him over all other Considerations, he annulled,
by a Letter addressed to _Hilarius_ of _Narbonne_, whatever had been
done by _Zosimus_ in favour of the See of _Arles_, restored and
confirmed to the Sees of _Narbonne_ and _Vienne_ all the Rights and
Privileges, which they had been so unjustly divested of, and declaring
all the Grants and Concessions made to the See of _Arles_ repugnant to
the Canons, strictly injoined the Bishop of _Narbonne_ not to suffer his
Brother of _Arles_ to exercise, in virtue of them, any kind of Authority
within the Limits of his Jurisdiction[N68]. The Conduct of _Boniface_
was afterwards approved, and that of _Zosimus_ justly condemned, by Pope
_Leo the Great_, declaring in a Letter which he writ to the Bishops of
the Province of _Vienne_, that the Privileges, which the Apostolic See
had granted to _Patroclus_, were afterwards revoked _by a more equitable
Sentence_.

-----

Footnote N68:

  This Letter is dated the 2d of _February_ 422.

-----

[Sidenote: _A remarkable Instance of his Moderation._]

One of the many Artifices, employed by the Popes to aggrandize their
See, was to raise Divisions among their Collegues, or to foment
underhand those that others had raised. For in such Divisions they never
stood neuter, but, taking Part in the Quarrel, nay, and making
themselves Principals, they warmly declared in favour of one Party
against the other, that, by supporting them, they might be in their Turn
supported by them in all their Pretensions. To this worldly Wisdom, this
wicked Policy, _Boniface_ was an utter Stranger: for he did not lay hold
of a very favourable Opportunity, which the Division, that reigned at
this time among the Bishops of _Gaul_, offered him, to improve his
Authority, and extend his Jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Dignity was
disputed there by the Bishops of _Vienne_, of _Narbonne_, and of
_Arles_, as I have observed above. During that Contest the Clergy of
_Valence_, quarreling with their Bishop _Maximus_, charged him with
several Crimes; but not caring to accuse him at the Tribunal of any of
the Three Competitors (for that had been acknowleging, in one of the
Three, the Metropolitan Jurisdiction then in Dispute), they arraigned
him at _Rome_, and summoned him to plead his Cause there before
_Boniface_. Most other Popes would have eagerly embraced such an
Opportunity of inlarging their Power; nay, and founded upon this
particular Case the general Right of judging, and finally determining,
all Causes of the like Nature. But _Boniface_ declared, in his Letter to
_Patroclus_, and the other Bishops of the Seven Provinces of _Gaul_,
that though _Maximus_ had been accused at his Tribunal, though he had
not appeared to clear himself from the Crimes laid to his Charge, and
might thereupon be thought guilty, and be justly condemned; yet he would
not take upon him to pronounce such a Sentence, because that Bishop
_ought, according to the Canons, to be judged and condemned, or
absolved, in his own Province_. An Instance of Moderation that reflects
no small Honour on the Memory of _Boniface_; the rather as he had before
his Eyes the recent Examples of _Innocent_ and _Zosimus_, the Two most
ambitious and arrogant Popes the Church had yet seen. He closes his
Letter with exhorting the Bishops of the Seven Provinces to assemble
against the First of _November_, that _Maximus_ may be cleared, if
innocent, or condemned, if guilty.

[Sidenote: _His Death._]

_Boniface_ died on the 4th of _November_ 422. having held the Chair 3
Years, 9 Months, and some Days. He was buried in the Cœmetery of the
Martyr St. _Felicitas_, on the _Salarian_ Way; where he is said to have
built an Oratory. He is worshiped by the Church of _Rome_ among her
Saints, an Honour which few of his Predecessors better deserved. But it
is a Wonder that the last Instance I have given of his Moderation, and
Regard to the Canons against the Claims of his See, did not exclude him
out of the Calendar. His Festival is kept on the 25th of _October_; and
_Bede_ quotes a Book of Miracles wrought by Pope _Boniface_[1586]; but
whether by the First Pope of that Name, or the Second, he does not
inform us, though he seems to give an intire Credit to every idle Tale
that Legend contained. And here I cannot help observing, by the way,
that the less necessary Miracles became, the more they were multiplied.
In _Bede_’s Time, and the Three preceding Centuries, Men were rather
inclined to believe too much than too little; and yet in no other Time
was there a greater Profusion of Miracles. From an antient Epitaph
quoted by _Baronius_[1587], it appears that _Boniface_ died very old;
that he had served the Church from his tender Years; that by his
engaging Behaviour he put an End to the Schism, and that he relieved
_Rome_ in the time of a Famine.

-----

Footnote 1578:

  Bar. ib. n. 37.

Footnote 1579:

  Vid. Bar. ib. n. 34. & Baillet. vies de saints, 25 Oct.

Footnote 1580:

  Platina in Bon.

Footnote 1581:

  Apud Bar. ann. 419. n. 8.

Footnote 1582:

  Pagi, crit. hist. in annal. Bar.

Footnote 1583:

  See p. 226, 227.

Footnote 1584:

  Cod. Theod. l. 45. de Episcop. l. 6.

Footnote 1585:

  Fleury hist. eccles. l. 24. n. 31.

Footnote 1586:

  Bed. in collectan. in fin.

Footnote 1587:

  Bar. ad ann. 423. n. 8, 9.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 HONORIUS,                     CELESTINE,               THEODOSIUS II.,
                    _Forty-second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.   VALENTINIAN III.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 422.  Celestine _chosen without Opposition_.]

Upon the Demise of _Boniface_, _Celestine_ was chosen in his room,
without the least Disturbance or Opposition. _Eulalius_ indeed, who was
still alive, and led a retired Life in the neighbouring Province of
_Campania_, was tempted by his Friends in _Rome_ to try his Fortune a
Second time; but he did not chuse to quit his Solitude, and involve both
himself and them in new Troubles. _Celestine_ was a Native of _Rome_,
the Son of one _Priscus_, and a Deacon, if not a Presbyter, at the Time
of his Election[1588].

[Sidenote: Antony, _one of St._ Austin’s _Disciples, appointed by
his Interest Bishop of_ Fussala.]

He was scarce warm in the Chair, when he received a Letter from St.
_Austin_ on the following Occasion. As the small Town, or rather Village
of _Fussala_, belonging to the Bishoprick of _Hippo_, the See of St.
_Austin_, stood at a great Distance from that City, the good Bishop
thought he could not better consult the spiritual Welfare of the
Inhabitants, who had but very lately abandoned the Party of the
_Donatists_, than by causing their Town to be erected into a separate
Bishoprick, and letting them have a Bishop of their own. This was indeed
abridging both his own Jurisdiction and Revenues; but as he had the Good
of the People more at Heart than either, he pursued his Scheme with
Success, and prevailed upon his Collegues in _Numidia_ to ordain a young
Man named _Antony_, whom he had brought up from his Infancy, the first
Bishop of the Place, though at that time only a Reader. This Promotion,
_per saltum_, as it is styled, was strictly forbidden by the Popes in
their Decretals; but to their Orders St. _Austin_ paid no greater Regard
than the other Bishops did, though he always spoke of them, and to them,
with all the Respect that was due to the first Bishop in the
West.[Sidenote: Antony_’s scandalous Behaviour_.] St. _Austin_ had soon
Occasion to repent his transgressing those Regulations, which, it must
be owned, are in themselves very wise: for _Antony_, who was but a
Youth, and had been kept by St. _Austin_ under great Restraint, no
sooner found himself free from all Controul, than abandoning himself
intirely to the Indulgence of his youthful Passions, he thereby
scandalized the new Catholics to such a Degree, that they let St.
_Austin_ know the Conduct of their Bishop, unless he was quickly
removed, would certainly drive them to the last Extremity; meaning,
perhaps, that they should be forced either to put him to Death, or to
join anew the _Donatists_, whom they had but lately forsaken. Such
Menaces alarmed St. _Austin_ no less than the Conduct of his favourite
Disciple surprised him. A Council was immediately summoned at his
Request by the Primate of _Numidia_; _Antony_ was ordered to attend it,
and the Inhabitants of _Fussala_ invited to lay their Complaints before
the Assembly. The Summons was complied with by all, and _Antony_, by a
great Number of Witnesses, convicted of Rapine, Violence, and Extortion.
But, because some capital Crimes laid to his Charge were not
sufficiently proved, the Fathers of the Council, out of an unseasonable
Compassion, contented themselves with only condemning him to restore to
the Inhabitants of _Fussala_ what he had with Violence taken from them.
[Sidenote: _He is deprived of the Administration, and all Jurisdiction,
by a Council._] They were even inclined to leave him in the quiet
Possession of his Church; but that being warmly opposed by the People,
they deprived him of the Administration, and of all Jurisdiction; but as
he still retained the Episcopal Dignity, they did not chuse to remove
him to another City to live there even as a private Person, lest they
should be thought to transgress the Rules of the Fathers forbidding
Translations[1589]. None could think so who were the least acquainted
with those Rules.

[Sidenote: _He appeals to_ Rome.]

_Antony_ satisfied, pursuant to his Sentence, the Inhabitants of
_Fussala_, whom he had wronged. But pretending that he had been unjustly
deprived of his Bishoprick, he resolved to appeal to _Rome_. He was
sensible that his appealing at this Juncture, when the Point of Appeals
was warmly disputed, as I shall relate hereafter, was Merit enough to
recommend him to the Favour of that See. However, not trusting to that
alone, as _Boniface_ was still alive, he first engaged in his Favour his
own Primate, the Primate of _Numidia_, who, having been excused on
account of his great Age from assisting at the Council, was not well
acquainted with what had passed there. [Sidenote: _Prevails upon the
Primate to write in his Behalf to_ Rome.] Him therefore he easily
persuaded, that he had been very ill used by the Council: _For had they
thought me guilty_, said he, _of the Rapine and Extortions, that were
laid to my Charge, they ought, and, without all doubt, would have
deposed me: they have not deposed me; and therefore did not, as is
manifest, think me guilty. If I did not deserve to be degraded from my
Dignity, I did not deserve to be driven from my See._ Thus he artfully
turned the Mercy that had been shewn him against those who had shewn it;
and, having by that means imposed upon the Primate, persuaded him to
write a Letter in his Behalf to _Boniface_. [Sidenote: _How received by_
Boniface.] With this Letter he repaired to _Rome_, but did not meet
there with the Reception he expected: for all he could obtain of
_Boniface_ was a Letter to the Bishops of _Numidia_, requiring them to
reinstate him in his See, _provided he had represented Matters as they
truly were_. This conditional Request _Antony_, on his Return to
_Africa_, improved, it seems, into an absolute Command: for he
threatened the People of _Fussala_ with a Visit from the Imperial Troops
and Commissaries, if they did not receive him as their lawful Bishop, in
Compliance with the Orders of the Apostolic See[1590]. [Sidenote: _The
People of_ Fussala _write against him to_ Celestine.] In the mean time
_Boniface_ dying, and _Celestine_ being chosen in his room, the People
of _Fussala_ apprehending, as St. _Austin_ writes, greater Evils from a
Catholic Bishop, after their Return to the Church, than they had done
from a Catholic Emperor during their Separation, writ a most pathetic
Letter to the new Pope, intreating him to pity their Condition, to curb
_Antony_ in his unchristian Attempts, and to redeem them, by his
Authority, from the Calamities which they had Reason to apprehend from
that Prelate’s Cruelty and Ambition. In the same Letter they imputed all
their Misfortunes to _Austin_, who had set over them such a Bishop.
[Sidenote: _Are seconded by St._ Austin.] And this _Austin_ was so far
from taking amiss, that he owned the Charge, and even backed their
Request with a Letter of his own, conjuring _Celestine_, by the Memory
of St. _Peter_, _who abhorred all Violence and Tyranny_, not to use
either with the People of _Fussala_, who, he said, had but too much
Reason not to submit tamely to the galling Yoke from which they had been
so lately delivered. He adds, that if, in spite of all his Endeavours
and Remonstrances, he should still have the Mortification to see the
Church of _Fussala_ plundered and tyrannically oppressed by one whom he
had raised to that See, he should think himself obliged to atone for the
Share which he had in his Crimes, by resigning his own[1591]. [Sidenote:
Celestine _acquiesces in the Sentence of the Council of_ Numidia.]
_Celestine_ was so affected with these Letters, that he immediately
acquiesced in the Sentence of the Council of _Numidia_; and the new
Bishoprick of _Fussala_ being suppressed, that Town, with its District,
was again subjected to the See of _Hippo_. From these Letters, that were
written by the _Africans_ on this Occasion, it appears, that the Bishops
of _Rome_ used, in those Days, to send some of their Ecclesiastics into
_Africa_, to see the Sentences, which they had given, executed there;
and that those Ecclesiastics came with Orders from the Court for the
Civil Magistrates to assist them, where their Assistance should be
required, or thought necessary.

[Sidenote: _An End put to the Schism formed by_ Eulalius.]

The Schism formed by _Eulalius_ was not, it seems, yet quite extinct in
_Rome_ in the Year 425. for I find a Law of that Year, dated the 17th of
_July_, and addressed to _Faustus_ Prefect of the City, commanding all
_Manichees_, Heretics, Schismatics, and Sects of every Denomination, to
be driven out of _Rome_; but more especially those, who, separating
themselves from the Communion of the _Venerable Pope_, kept alive a
dangerous Schism. Over these _Faustus_ is injoined to keep a watchful
Eye, to summon them to communicate with _Celestine_, and, if they did
not comply with the Summons in Twenty Days, to banish them an Hundred
Miles from _Rome_[1592]. This Law was issued by _Placidia_, who, upon
the Death of her Brother _Honorius_, which happened in the Month of
_August_ 423. and that of the Usurper _John_, killed in 425, governed
the Western Empire, as Guardian to her Son _Valentinian_ III. The Law
she issued, probably put an End to the Schism; for no further Mention is
made of it by any Historian.

It was in the Time of _Celestine_, and the following Year 426. the
Fourth of his Pontificate, that the Bishops of _Africa_, quite tired out
with the daily Encroachments of the Bishops of _Rome_, and not able to
brook the despotic and arbitrary Power which they had begun to exercise
over them, took the no less laudable than necessary Resolution of
breaking their Chains before they were thoroughly riveted, and asserting
their antient Liberty, by effectually removing what had endangered it,
the pernicious Abuse of appealing to _Rome_. [Sidenote: Apiarius, _a
Presbyter of_ Sicca, _appeals to_ Rome.] The Incident, which gave
Occasion to that Resolution, was the Appeal of a Presbyter of _Sicca_,
named _Apiarius_, who, being convicted of many Crimes, and thereupon
degraded and excommunicated by his own Bishop _Urbanus_, appealed to
_Zosimus_ then Bishop of _Rome_. [Sidenote: Zosimus _restores him to the
Rank from which he had been degraded_.] _Zosimus_, who missed no
Opportunity of acquiring new Power, or improving the Power which he had
acquired, not only received the Appeal, but, without ever hearing the
other Side, restored _Apiarius_ both to his Rank, and the Communion of
the Church. This was the boldest Attempt that had yet been made upon the
Rights and Liberties of the _African_ Churches; and therefore the
Bishops in those Parts, all uniting in a Cause that was common to all,
loudly complained of such an arbitrary Act, as an open Violation of the
Canons of the Church, forbidding those, who had been excluded from the
Communion by their own Bishop, to be admitted to it by any other[1593].
_Zosimus_, finding the _African_ Bishops had taken the Alarm, and were
determined to restrain his Power within the Limits prescribed to it by
the Canons, and, on the other hand, being well apprised, that he could
allege no Canons, that had ever been received by them, to countenance
the Power which he claimed, and had exercised, thought it would be no
great Crime to recur to Fraud on so urgent an Occasion. [Sidenote: _To
support his Pretensions, endeavours to impose upon the_ African _Bishops
the Canons of_ Sardica _for the Canons of_ Nice.] Agreeably to this
Scheme, he caused Two Canons to be transcribed from the Council of
_Sardica_; the one allowing Presbyters and Deacons, when rashly
excommunicated by their own Bishops, to appeal to the neighbouring
Bishops; and the other, authorizing the Appeal of all Bishops to the
Bishop of _Rome_. Had the _Africans_ received these Canons, he intended
to have justified, by the former, his judging and absolving _Apiarius_,
notwithstanding the Distance between _Rome_ and _Numidia_; and, in
virtue of the latter, to get the Canon revoked, which the _African_
Bishops had lately made, forbidding, on Pain of Excommunication, Appeals
_beyond Sea_; that is, to _Rome_. Nothing less than an intire Subjection
of the _African_ Churches to the See of _Rome_ would satisfy the
boundless Ambition of _Zosimus_; and such a Subjection would infallibly
have ensued, had the Two above-mentioned Canons been received by the
_African_ Bishops in the Sense which _Zosimus_ did, and seemed
determined to make others, put upon them. But the main Point was, to
persuade the Bishops of _Africa_ to admit such Canons, especially at so
critical a Juncture. The Council of _Sardica_ had never been received
there: nay, they were, it seems, at this very Time, utter Strangers both
to that Council and its Canons; so that it was useless to quote them as
such. Of this _Zosimus_ was aware; and therefore, as he stuck at nothing
that stood in the way of his Ambition, he resolved, by one of the most
impudent and barefaced Impostures recorded in History, to try whether he
could not impose upon the Bishops of _Africa_ the Canons of _Sardica_
for the Canons of _Nice_. [Sidenote: _With this View he sends a Solemn
Embassy into_ Africa.] With this knavish View, and to render the
Imposture more solemn, and less suspected, he dispatched into _Africa_
Three Legates, _viz._ _Faustinus_ Bishop of _Potentia_ in _Picenum_, and
Two _Roman_ Presbyters, _Philippus_ and _Asellus_. Their Instructions,
contained in a Letter addressed to themselves, were, to require of the
_African_ Bishops a strict Observance of the Two above-mentioned Canons
of _Nice_; to complain of their repairing so often to Court; and to
desire them not to communicate with _Urbanus_ of _Sicca_, who had
deposed _Apiarius_, or even to send him to _Rome_, if he refused to
correct what he had done amiss[1594]; that is, we may suppose, if he did
not restore _Apiarius_ to his Rank, and the Communion of the Church.

With these Instructions the Legates set out for _Africa_, where they no
sooner arrived, than a Council was convened, at which assisted, among
the rest, _Alypius_ Bishop of _Tagaste_, St. _Austin_’s great Friend,
and _Aurelius_ Bishop of _Carthage_. When the Legates first appeared
before the Council, the Bishops desired them to lay their Instructions
before the Assembly; which they were at first unwilling to do,
contenting themselves with declaring their Commission by Word of Mouth.
But the _Africans_ knowing whom they had to deal with, and thereupon
pressing them to communicate their Instructions is Writing, they
complied at last, and produced the Letter I have mentioned above, which
was immediately registred. [Sidenote: _The Surprize of the_ African
_Bishops on this Occasion_.] When it was publicly read, it is impossible
to conceive the Surprize and Astonishment that appeared in the whole
Assembly. They had never heard of those Canons; and to find them thus
confidently ascribed to the Council of _Nice_, was what appeared to them
strange beyond Expression. Warm Disputes arose, of which, however, we
know no Particulars. Several different _Greek_ Copies, several _Latin_
Copies, were sent for, and carefully examined and compared; but no such
Canons could be found there. However, as the Legates continued to
maintain, with an unparalleled Impudence, the disputed Canons of _Nice_,
the Council agreed to observe them, till they had, by a more diligent
Inquiry, discovered the Truth[1595].

They continued their Sessions; but as they were few in Number, as the
Point in Dispute was of the utmost Consequence, and nearly affected all
the Bishops of _Africa_, they thought it should be communicated to all;
and that, without the Concurrence of all, no Resolution should be taken.
[Sidenote: _A General Council assembled at_ Carthage.] A General Council
was accordingly assembled at _Carthage_, consisting of Two hundred and
Seventeen Bishops, from the different Provinces of _Africa_. They met,
for the first time, on the 25th of _May_ 419. _Faustinus_ being placed
next after _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_, and _Valentine_ Primate of
_Numidia_, and the Two Presbyters _Philippus_ and _Asellus_ after the
other Bishops. Being all seated, _Aurelius_ moved, that the Canons of
_Nice_ might be read, from the Copies which they had of that Council in
_Africa_. [Sidenote: _The Conduct of_ Faustinus, _the Pope’s Legate, on
this Occasion_.] But this was warmly opposed by _Faustinus_, insisting
upon their reading, in the first place, his Instructions, and coming to
some Resolution concerning the Observance of the Canons of _Nice_, which
he was charged by the Apostolic See to require of them. _It matters
not_, said he, _whether or no those Canons are to be found in your
Copies, or, indeed, in any other. You must know, that the Canons and
Ordinances of_ Nice, _which have been handed down to us by Tradition,
and established by Custom, are no less binding than those that have been
conveyed to us in Writing_. To this Speech the Bishops returned no
Answer; without doubt, because they thought it deserved none. However,
at his Request, his Instructions were read, and warm Debates ensued.
[Sidenote: _The Resolution taken by the Council._] _Alypius_ was of
Opinion, that since the disputed Canons were not to be found in any of
their Copies, Messengers and Letters should be immediately dispatched to
the Bishops of _Constantinople_, _Alexandria_, and _Antioch_, for
authentic Copies of the Acts and Canons of _Nice_. This Proposal
_Faustinus_ highly resented, as an Outrage offered to the Apostolic See,
which, he said, was thereby arraigned of Fraud and Forgery. He therefore
advised them to write to _Boniface_, who, by this time, had succeeded
_Zosimus_, and, leaving to him the Care of examining the Authority of
those Canons, submit the Whole to his Judgment, to his known Prudence
and Discretion. He added, that by acting otherwise they might give
Occasion to great Divisions and Disturbances in the Church. _Aurelius_,
not to exasperate the Legate, whom he found to be a Man of a haughty,
imperious, and intractable Temper, made no other Reply, but _that they
would write to_ Boniface. St. _Austin_ promised to observe those Canons
so long as it could be reasonably supposed that they were the Canons of
_Nice_. The other Bishops made the same Promise; which was confirming
the Resolution the Council had taken the Year before. Here the Legate
exaggerated anew the Affront they offered to the _Roman_ Church; adding,
that the only Reparation they could make, for questioning the
Authenticity of Canons proposed by her, was to leave the deciding of
that Point to her, and acquiesce in her Judgment. But the Warmth, the
Earnestness, the Passion which he betrayed in his Speech, and in his
whole Conduct, served only to heighten the Jealousy, and confirm the
Suspicions, of the _African_ Bishops. It was therefore universally
agreed, in spite of the Remonstrances, Intreaties, and Menaces of the
Legate, that _Aurelius_ should write to the Bishops of _Constantinople_,
_Alexandria_, and _Antioch_, for authentic Copies of the Canons of
_Nice_: that if the Canons, quoted by _Faustinus_, were found in those
Copies, they should be punctually observed; if not, that a new Council
should be convened, and such Resolutions taken, as the Fathers, who
composed it, should think proper[1596].

[Sidenote: _The Affair of_ Apiarius, _how settled by the Council._]

Matters being thus settled, with respect to the pretended Canons of
_Nice_, concerning Appeals, the Council took next into Consideration the
Case of _Apiarius_ which had given Occasion to the present Dispute
between _Rome_ and _Africa_; and it was agreed, that _Apiarius_ should
make the due Submission to his Bishop, and there upon be re-admitted to
his Communion, and restored to his Rank. However, as he had given great
Offence to the People of _Sicca_, by his scandalous Life, he was
ordered, by the Council, to quit that City; but, at the same time,
allowed to exercise the Functions of his Office in any other
Place[1597]. This Medium the Council wisely chose between the Two
opposite Sentences; that of _Urbanus_ excommunicating and deposing him,
and that of _Zosimus_ restoring him to the Communion and the Priesthood.
Such was the Issue of the Appeal of _Apiarius_: and I leave the Reader
to judge, whether _Baronius_ should boast of it as he does. And now
nothing remained, but to acquaint _Boniface_ with the Acts and
Resolutions of the Council; and this was done accordingly by a Letter,
which they all signed, and delivered to the Legates. In that Letter they
begged _Boniface_ to procure, from the East, authentic Copies of the
Canons of _Nice_, promising to observe the Canons in Dispute, till such
Copies were procured; but this upon Condition, that if those Canons were
not found to be genuine, they should recover their antient Privileges,
and not be forced to _submit to a Yoke, which Ambition alone could
impose_[1598].

[Sidenote: _The_ African _Bishops write into the East for authentic
Copies of the Council of_ Nice.]

With this Letter the Three Legates set out from _Africa_, on their
Return to _Rome_. Upon their Departure, the _African_ Bishops writ,
agreeably to the Resolution they had taken, to _Atticus_ of
_Constantinople_, and _Cyril_ of _Alexandria_, begging they would cause
to be transcribed, and sent into _Africa_, the most authentic Copies
they had of the Canons of _Nice_. With this Request the Two Bishops
readily complied; and the same Year 419. the Messengers sent to
_Alexandria_ and _Constantinople_ returned with the wished-for Copies,
and very friendly and obliging Answers, which are still extant[1599],
from _Cyril_ and _Atticus_, addressed _to_ Aurelius, _to_ Valentine,
_and to all the Bishops of_ Africa _assembled at_ Carthage. As for the
Bisop of _Antioch_, the _Africans_ probably did not write to him; at
least, they had no Answer from him[N69]. [Sidenote: _The pretended
Canons not found in those Copies, and the Dispute dropt by_ Boniface.]
They immediately compared the Two Copies, sent them from the East, with
their own, especially with that which _Cæcilianus_ of _Carthage_ had
brought with him from _Nice_, where he had assisted at the Council; and
found them agree in every Particular, without any Trace of the Canons
that _Zosimus_ had produced: upon which they dispatched the same
Ecclesiastics with them to _Rome_, whom they had sent into the East.
_Boniface_, who was an Enemy to all Fraud and Imposition, acquiesced;
the Dispute was dropped; so that the Canon, which the _African_ Bishops
had lately made, forbidding Appeals to _Rome_, and _Zosimus_ had thus
fraudulently attempted to defeat, remained in its full Vigour; and the
Churches of _Africa_ were suffered quietly to enjoy their antient Rights
and Privileges, so long as _Boniface_ lived. But in the Pontificate of
his Successor _Celestine_, the Storm broke out anew.

-----

Footnote N69:

  It is very observable, that the _Alexandrian_ Copy was originally sent
  from _Rome_ by _Marcus_ Bishop of that City, upon a Complaint made by
  the _Egyptian_ Bishops, that the _Arians_ had burnt all the Copies of
  the Council of _Nice_ that were then found in _Alexandria_.

-----

[Sidenote: _The Power of receiving Appeals claimed by the Popes only
as granted by the Canons._]

It may not be improper here to observe, that _Zosimus_, though wholly
bent on exalting his See, and straining every Prerogative to the highest
Pitch, yet did not presume to exalt it above the Canons; did not claim
the disputed Power of receiving Appeals, of judging, deciding, _&c._
independently of the Canons. And was not this owning himself, but for
the Canons, to be upon the Level with the other Bishops his Collegues;
at least in respect to this Point? Is not the scandalous Method, which
he took on this Occasion to extend his own Power, and curtail that of
the _African_ Bishops, a Demonstration of his deriving his Claim from
the Canons alone? Could there ever offer a better Opportunity, could
there ever occur a more urgent Necessity, of asserting a _Divine Right_?
As _Zosimus_ therefore never asserted, nor even mentioned, such a Right,
we may well conclude, that he either had no Notion of it, or did not
think it sufficiently grounded to be of any Use in the present Dispute.
And yet this _Divine Right_ of receiving Appeals from all Parts of the
World, of constituting, confirming, judging, censuring, suspending,
deposing, removing, restoring Bishops, and all other Ecclesiastics, is
now held, as an Article of Faith, by all true _Roman_ Catholics;
insomuch that to dispute such an Article, would be no less dangerous, in
Countries where the Inquisition prevails, than to dispute any Article of
the _Apostolic_ or _Nicene_ Creed. It is true, _Innocent_ the First, as
the Advocates for the See of _Rome_ observe, had claimed, by _Divine
Right_, the Power of finally deciding all Controversies. But he himself
seems to have been sensible, that he had gone too far, For what else
could have induced him to restrain that Claim, as soon as he had set it
up, to _Matters of Faith alone_[1600]? Had _Zosimus_ thought the general
Claim capable of being maintained, he need not have recurred, as he did,
to Fraud and Imposture. The Pretensions of _Innocent_, in their utmost
Extent, were indeed renewed, in Process of Time, by his Successors; but
not till the intolerable Abuse, which they made of the Power granted
them by the Canons of _Sardica_, on which they founded all their
Usurpations, obliged other Councils to revoke those Canons; and then it
was, that, no other Means being left of maintaining their ill-gotten
Power, they revived the Claim of _Innocent_, and, challenging no longer
by the Canons, but by _Divine Right_, the Prerogative of receiving
Appeals, they put it out of the Power of all future Councils to abridge
or restrain it.

[Sidenote: _Whether_ Zosimus _ignorantly mistook the Canons of_
Sardica _for those of_ Nice.]

The Three Cardinals _Baronius_, _Bellarmine_, and _Noris_, thinking the
Imputation of Ignorance less injurious to the Memory of _Zosimus_, less
derogatory to the Dignity of the Apostolic See, than that of Fraud and
Imposture, suppose him to have ignorantly mistaken the Canons of
_Sardica_ for the Canons of _Nice_; which is supposing, that in the
whole Archives of the _Roman_ Church there was not a single genuine Copy
of the Council of _Nice_, or that _Zosimus_ had never perused it; and to
suppose either is highly absurd. Besides, the whole Conduct of the
Legate, the Pains he took to divert the _African_ Bishops from
consulting other Copies, and, when he could not prevail, his recurring
to _unwritten_ Canons; and, as that too proved ineffectual, his striving
by all possible means to persuade the _Africans_ to leave to the Pope
the Care of examining other Copies, and to acquiesce, without any
further Inquiry, in what should thereupon be determined by him; plainly
shews, that the Legate was privy to the Fraud, and apprehended a
Detection.

[Sidenote: Apiarius _excommunicated anew. He appeals again to_
Rome, _and is restored by_ Celestine, _and sent back attended by the
Legate_ Faustinus.]

_Apiarius_, being obliged to quit _Sicca_, as I have related above,
retired to _Tabraca_, another City of _Numidia_, and led there so
scandalous a Life, that he was excommunicated anew. Hereupon he appealed
again to _Rome_, and _Celestine_, which is very surprising,
notwithstanding the vigorous Opposition which his Predecessors had, but
very lately, met with from the _African_ Bishops, in attempting to
restore this very Presbyter, not only declared him innocent, and
admitted him to his Communion, but sent him back into _Africa_, attended
by the Legate _Faustinus_, who was ordered to see him reinstated. The
_Africans_ were but too well acquainted already with the Presumption and
Arrogance of the Bishops of _Rome_; and yet such an insolent Act quite
surprised them. For _Celestine_ had neither examined the Crimes, which
_Apiarius_ was charged with, nor heard the Witnesses, nor even
condescended to let them know, that he intended to judge him anew. He
writ, indeed, Two Letters to them on this Occasion, but which seemed
merely designed to insult them: for, by the First, he gave them Notice
of the Arrival of _Apiarius_ at _Rome_, which, he said, had given him
great Joy; and by the Second, which was brought by _Faustinus_, he
acquainted them, that he was overjoyed to have found him innocent. From
this despotic and extraordinary way of acting, the _African_ Bishops
concluded, that _Celestine_ was determined to keep no Measures with
them, and that nothing less than an intire Subjection of the _African_
Churches to the See of _Rome_ would satisfy his Ambition. But they were
resolved to maintain, at all Events, the Liberty wherewith Christ had
made them free. [Sidenote: _A General Council assembled._ Apiarius
_appears before it, with_ Faustinus.] A General Council was therefore
assembled, and _Apiarius_ summoned to attend. He obeyed the Summons, and
appeared before the Council at the Time appointed, but in Company with
_Faustinus_, shewing thereby, that he placed greater Confidence in him
than in his own Innocence. _Faustinus_ spoke first, and pressed, with
great Warmth, the Fathers of the Assembly to re-admit _Apiarius_ to
their Communion, since he had been declared innocent by the Apostolic
See, and admitted by _Celestine_ to the Communion of the _Roman_ Church.
The Bishops replied, that in _Africa_ _Apiarius_ had been found guilty,
and that in _Africa_ his Innocence must be made to appear, before they
could receive him again to their Communion. [Sidenote: _The Legate’s
insolent Conduct._] As they stuck to this Point, _Faustinus_ undertook
his Cause; but, instead of proving, as he had promised to do, or even
attempting to prove his Innocence, he inveighed, from the Beginning of
his Speech to the End, and in very harsh and opprobrious Language,
against the Council, and all the Members, who composed it. [Sidenote:
Apiarius _pleads his own Cause_.] _Apiarius_ was sensible, that the
Speech of _Faustinus_, instead of reconciling the _African_ Bishops to
him, had incensed them more than ever against him; and therefore
thinking it adviseable to take the Cause into his own Hands, he stood up
as soon as the other had done; and, with a Modesty capable, as he
thought, of atoning for the Insolence of _Faustinus_, endeavoured to
clear himself from the Crimes that had been laid to his Charge.
[Sidenote: Faustinus _assists him_.] When he had spoken, the Witnesses
against him were heard; and the Tryal lasted Three whole Days,
_Apiarius_ striving, with great Art and Subtilty, to invalidate the
Depositions, and _Faustinus_ prompting him when he was at a Stand. He
might, perhaps, have escaped Condemnation, partly by his own Craft and
Address, partly by the powerful Protection of the Bishop of _Rome_, had
he been able to withstand the Stings of his own Conscience. [Sidenote:
Apiarius, _struck with sudden Remorse, owns the Crimes laid to his
Charge_.] But, on the Fourth Day, when _Faustinus_ began to triumph as
sure of Victory, _Apiarius_, struck with sudden Remorse, damped at once
all his Joy, by voluntarily owning, to the great Surprize of all
present, and the unspeakable Confusion of _Faustinus_, every Crime with
which he had been charged. Those Crimes the Fathers have thought fit to
wrap in Oblivion; and indeed it was not proper, that Posterity should
know them; since they were _heinous, incredible, such as ought not to be
mentioned, and drew Sighs and Tears from the whole Assembly_[1601]. And
this is the Man whom Two Popes, both now worshiped as Saints in the
Church of _Rome_, absolved as innocent; and, as innocent, would have
supported with Force and Violence, had not Providence almost
miraculously interposed, to prevent the Evils that would have ensued.
They could not but know, that _Apiarius_ was guilty; at least they did
not know, that he was innocent. But as he had been declared guilty in
_Africa_, their declaring him innocent, whether he was so or not, gave
them an Opportunity of renewing the Attempts of the Apostolic See on the
Liberties of the _African_ Churches; and it was, no doubt, with this
View that they absolved and restored him. But, as he was not hardened
enough in Iniquity for their Purpose, he owned himself guilty, in spite
of their Judgment declaring him innocent, and thereby defeated their
Schemes for the present. For the _Africans_, now sensible that there was
no Wickedness which the Bishops of _Rome_ would not countenance, in
order to establish their Power in _Africa_, to the utter Subversion of
all Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline there, thought themselves bound,
as they tendered the Welfare, Peace, and Tranquillity of the Churches
committed to their Care, to act with that Vigour and Steadiness, which
so urgent an Occasion seemed to require. [Sidenote: _The_ African
_Bishops renew the Canon forbidding Appeals to_ Rome.] Accordingly they
first absolutely cut off _Apiarius_ from the Communion of the Church;
then renewed, in stronger Terms than ever, the Canon, which had given so
great Offence at _Rome_, prohibiting, on Pain of Excommunication,
Appeals _beyond Sea_, under any Pretence whatsoever; and this
Prohibition they extended to Ecclesiastics of all Conditions and Ranks.
_Faustinus_ blustered, vapoured, threatened; but all in vain. The
Bishops not only signed, all to a Man, the above-mentioned Canon, but
writ a Synodal Letter to _Celestine_, acquainting him with what had
passed in the Case of _Apiarius_, and earnestly intreating him not to
give Ear for the future to those, who should have recourse to him from
_Africa_, nor receive to his Communion such as they had excluded from
theirs: [Sidenote: _Their Letter to_ Celestine.] _For we must let your
Venerableness_ (Venerabilitas tua) _know_, say they, _that it has been
so established by the Council of_ Nice. _And though Mention is there
made of Clerks only, and Laymen; yet there is no room to doubt but it
was their Intention, that such a Regulation should extend to Bishops
too; and it would be a great Irregularity, should your Holiness_ (a
Title then common to all Bishops) _over-hastily and unduly admit to your
Communion Bishops, who have been excommunicated in their own Provinces.
Your Holiness therefore must not receive the Presbyters, and other
Clerks, who, to avoid the Punishment, which they deserve, recur to you;
the rather as we know of no Constitutions thus derogatory to the
Authority of our Churches; and the Council of_ Nice _has subjected the
Bishops themselves to the judgment of their Metropolitan. The Fathers of
that Council have decreed, with great Wisdom and Equity, that all
Disputes should be finally determined in the Places where they began,
being sensible, that the Grace of the Holy Spirit, necessary for judging
rightly, would not be wanting in any Province; especially as every Man,
who thinks himself injured, may apply for Redress, if he pleases, to the
Synod of his own Province, or to a national Council. Would it not be
Presumption in any of us to suppose or imagine, that God will inspire a
particular Person with the Spirit of Justice, and refuse it to many
Bishops assembled in Council? And how can a Judgment, given out of the
Country, and beyond Sea, be right, where the necessary Witnesses cannot
be present, by reason of their Sex, of their Age, or of some other
Impediment? As for your sending Legates, we find no such Ordinance in
any Council, nor in the Writings of the Fathers. As for what you have
sent us by our Collegue_ Faustinus, _as a Canon of the Council of_ Nice,
_we must let you know, that no such Canon is to be found in the genuine
and uncorrupt Copies of that Council, which have been transcribed and
sent us by our Fellow-Bishop_ Cyril _of_ Alexandria, _and the Reverend_
Atticus _of_ Constantinople. _Those Copies we sent to_ Boniface, _your
Predecessor of worthy Memory. We therefore earnestly beg you would send
no more Legates, nor Ecclesiastics, to execute your Judgments here, lest
you should seem to introduce worldly Pride and Arrogance_ (typhum
sæculi) _into the Church of Christ._ They conclude with intreating him
not to suffer _Faustinus_ to continue any longer among them[1602].
_Celestine_, finding the Spirit with which they acted, and sensible that
it would be useless to employ Force at this Juncture, thought it
advisable to acquiesce for the present, and wait till a more favourable
Opportunity should offer for him, or his Successors, to renew the
Attempt[N70].

-----

Footnote N70:

  _Schelstrate_ would make us believe, that _Gregory the Great_
  prevailed upon the _African_ Bishops to revoke the Canon forbidding
  the Presbyters and inferior Clergy to appeal to _Rome_[N70.1]; and
  _Davidius_, That the _Africans_ changed their Minds with respect to
  the Appeals of Bishops, as soon as they were informed, that such
  Appeals had been allowed, and approved of, by the Council of
  _Sardica_[N70.2]. But neither alleges any solid Reason, or even
  Conjecture, to prove Facts of such Importance; nay, what _Davidius_
  advances is certainly false, since the Canons forbidding all Appeals
  to _Rome_, made at this time, were still quoted among the other Canons
  of the _African Collection_ in 825. and confirmed by a Council held at
  _Carthage_ that Year[N70.3]. Some pretend that _Celestine_ separated
  himself on this Occasion from the _African_ Bishops, and that this
  Separation continued between their Churches, and that of _Rome_, till
  the Beginning of the VIIth Century, when _Eulalius_ of _Carthage_, and
  his Collegues, desirous of putting an End to the Schism, revoked all
  the Canons that had been made in 426. derogatory to the Rights of the
  _Roman_ See[N70.4]. This they advance upon the Authority of a Piece
  commonly ascribed to Pope _Boniface_ II. But that Piece is so
  evidently supposititious, that _Baronius_ himself is forced to give it
  up.

Footnote N70.1:

  Schel. Eccles. Afric. p. 50.

Footnote N70.2:

  Dav. jugemens Canoniques des Evesques, p. 663, 664.

Footnote N70.3:

  Concil. t. 4. p. 1636.

Footnote N70.4:

  Van. Espen. in Can. p. 216.

-----

[Sidenote: Celestine _declares Translations lawful_.]

The following Year 427. _Sisinius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_ being
dead, the Bishops in those Parts were for appointing _Proculus_ in his
room. But, as _Proculus_ had been ordained before, though never
installed Bishop of _Cyzicus_, they were under some Apprehension, lest
his Promotion to the See of _Constantinople_ should be deemed a Breach
of the Canons forbidding Translations. But _Celestine_, whom they
consulted on this Occasion, delivered them from that Apprehension,
declaring, in a Letter, which he writ at this time to _Cyril_ of
_Alexandria_, _John_ of _Antioch_, and _Rufus_ of _Thessalonica_, that
they might safely place on one See a Bishop named to another, nay, and a
Bishop who actually governed another[1603]; that is, he declared
Translations lawful[N71].

-----

Footnote N71:

  Against Translations there may be Reasons in Policy; but there can be
  none in Conscience; and none that are at all to the Purpose, have been
  alleged either by the Councils, or Fathers, though the former have
  exerted all their Authority to prevent them, and the latter all their
  Oratory to make them appear criminal. The Councils of _Arles_, of
  _Nice_, of _Alexandria_, of _Sardica_, of _Chalcedon_, of _Antioch_,
  forbid them on the severest Penalties the Church could inflict. The
  Council of _Sardica_, by its First Canon deprived such Bishops, as
  should change their Churches, even of the Lay-Communion: and because
  some pleaded, or at least the Council apprehended they might plead,
  the Desire and Request of the People; to leave no room for such an
  Excuse, the Council by its Second Canon deprived those, who should
  allege it, of the Lay-Communion, even at the Point of Death[N71.1].
  The Council of _Alexandria_, under St. _Athanasius_, in their Epistle
  to all the Catholic Bishops, speak thus of _Eusebius_, who had been
  translated from _Berytus_ to _Nicomedia_: Eusebius _did not reflect on
  the Admonition of the Apostle, Art thou bound to a Wife? Do not seek
  to be loosed. For if it be said of a Woman, how much more of a Church?
  To which if one is tied, he ought not to seek another; that he may not
  be likewise found an Adulterer, according to the Scripture_[N71.2].
  What Analogy between a Wife, and a Bishoprick? The Bishops of that
  Assembly were even of Opinion, that _Eusebius_, by abandoning his
  former Church had annulled his Episcopacy. In the Synod under _Mennas_
  it was laid to the Charge of _Anthimus_, that being Bishop of
  _Trebisond_, he had _adulterously_ seized on the See of
  _Constantinople_[N71.3]. In the same Strain have the Fathers declaimed
  against Translations, whenever an Opportunity offered of bringing in
  that favourite Topic; for the Canons and Decisions of the Councils
  were only the private Opinions of the major Part of the Bishops, who
  composed them. They generally inveigh against that _adulterous
  Traffick_, as if they supposed a Bishop to be married to the Church,
  which he was ordained to serve, or tied to it by Bonds no less
  indissoluble than a Husband to his Wife: And it was upon that
  Supposition, that they charged with Adultery those, who passed from
  one Church to another. But that Supposition none of them have been
  able to make good either from Scripture or Reason. As for the Command
  of the Apostle in his Letter to _Timothy_, _A Bishop must be the
  Husband of one Wife_, which some of them have interpreted as levelled
  against Translations; the far greater Part both of the Fathers and
  Councils have in that Passage understood the Word _Wife_, not in a
  metaphorical, but a natural Sense, and thereupon excluded from the
  Episcopal Dignity such as had been twice married. But allowing St.
  _Paul_ to have meant a _Church_ by the Word _Wife_, the most obvious
  and natural Interpretation we can give to his Words, is, that he there
  forbids Pluralities of Bishopricks, which were once very common in the
  Church of _Rome_.

  But whatever Reasons the Fathers and Councils may have alleged, or
  could allege, against Translations, they have themselves defeated them
  all by the contrary Practice. For some of the greatest Saints, and
  Lights of the Church, have been either translated, or approved and
  promoted the Translations of others. The famous _Methodius_, who
  suffered under _Diocletian_ in the Year 311. or 312. passed from the
  See of _Olympus_ in _Lycia_ to that of _Tyre_[N71.4]. _Eustathius_,
  who is supposed to have presided at the Council of _Nice_, was
  translated from _Berœa_ to _Antioch_, that is, from a small See to
  the second in the East[N71.5]; nay, _Sozomen_ ascribes this
  Translation to the Council of _Nice_ itself[N71.6]. _Syderius_, Bishop
  of _Erythra_ in _Libya_, was translated by _Athanasius_ to
  _Ptolemais_, the Metropolis of the whole _Pentapolis_[N71.7].
  _Euphronius_ Bishop of _Colonia_, a small Town on the Borders of
  _Armenia_, was by a Synod, consisting of all the Orthodox Bishops of
  that Province, translated to the Metropolitan See of _Nicopolis_; that
  Translation was highly applauded by St. _Basil_, who thought it owing
  not to human Prudence, but to a particular Inspiration of the Holy
  Ghost[N71.8]; the _Arians_ being very powerful in that City, and no
  Man more fit to make head against them than _Euphronius_. The
  Inhabitants of _Colonia_ were very unwilling to part with their
  Bishop; and the Ecclesiastics there even threatened to join the
  _Arian_ Party, if _Euphronius_ was taken from them[N71.9]. But they
  were in the End prevailed upon by St. _Basil_ to acquiesce in the Will
  of God, who, said he, had inspired the Prelates with such a
  Resolution[N71.10]. From these (and many other Instances might be
  alleged) it is manifest, that the Fathers spoke like mere Declaimers,
  when they compared a Bishop, who left one Church, and took another, to
  a Husband, who abandoned his Wife, and married another Woman. But
  indeed they only inveighed thus, generally speaking, against
  Translations, when the Persons translated were of the Party, which
  they opposed; it was then Adultery, it was forfeiting the Episcopal
  Dignity, to pass from one Church to another. But when they
  apprehended, that such Changes could any-ways promote the Cause which
  they had espoused and maintained, those Changes were thereby
  sanctified, and owing to a particular Inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

  Pope _Gelasius_ II. excused Translations by the Example of St.
  _Peter_. _Who dares to maintain_, says he, _that St._ Peter, _the
  Prince of the Apostles, was to blame, for changing the See of_ Antioch
  _for that of_ Rome[N71.11]? And who dares to maintain, that any Bishop
  is to blame for doing what the Prince of the Apostles had done before
  him? But were there no other Instances, besides that of St. _Peter_,
  to give a Sanction to Translations, I should readily grant them never
  to have been allowed in the Church. For St. _Peter_ never was Bishop
  of _Rome_, as I have shewn already[N71.12]; and some of the Reasons,
  proving him never to have been Bishop of _Rome_, make equally against
  his pretended Episcopacy of _Antioch_. Most of the Ecclesiastical
  Writers indeed suppose him to have been Bishop of _Antioch_; but St.
  _Luke_ is quite silent on that Head, though within the Compass of his
  History, as _Jerom_ observed[N71.13]; and his Silence ought to be of
  more Weight, than the Authority of Writers, who lived some Ages after.
  _Origen_, who flourished in the Third Century, was the first who
  mentioned St. _Peter_’s See of _Antioch_, saying, It was held by
  _Ignatius_ after him[N71.14]. _Origen_ was copied by _Eusebius_, and
  _Eusebius_ by those, who came after him.

  On Translations a modern Writer of the Court of _Rome_ reasons thus:
  “Translations have been severely censured by the Fathers, and often
  condemned both by the Popes and the Councils. But neither can the
  Councils tie the Hands of the Popes, nor can one Pope tie the Hands of
  another. The Power of dispensing with all canonical Impediments the
  Popes hold by Divine Right; which therefore can only be restrained by
  divine Authority. However, Translations ought not to be allowed, but
  on most urgent Occasions; and it is in order to prevent them, that the
  Popes have adopted the wise Regulations of some well-governed
  Republics, where certain Goods are not prohibited, but loaded with
  such Customs as are next to a Prohibition[N71.15].” The Canons were
  made for the Good of the Church, and the People; and therefore cannot
  be binding when they oppose either. Hence it follows, that there being
  in such Cases no Room left for a Dispensation, nothing ought in
  Justice to be exacted for it. And yet, let the Occasion be ever so
  urgent, a very considerable Sum must be paid into the Apostolic
  Chamber for the pretended Dispensation. If the Occasion is not urgent,
  they allow the Canons to be binding; and what can induce the Popes to
  dispense with them, but that, which one of them taxed those Bishops
  with, who seek Translations, _Avarice, filthy Lucre, and an ungodly
  Desire of greater Wealth_[N71.16]? as if the Canons had been made with
  no other View but to give the Popes an Opportunity of filling their
  Coffers by granting Leave to transgress them.

Footnote N71.1:

  Concil. t. 2. p. 628.

Footnote N71.2:

  Syn. Alex. apud Athan. apol. 2.

Footnote N71.3:

  Concil. sub Menn. p. 9.

Footnote N71.4:

  Hier. vir. ill. c. 83. Socr. l. 6. c. 13.

Footnote N71.5:

  Theod. l. 1. c. 6. Theoph. Eutych. & alii.

Footnote N71.6:

  Soz. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote N71.7:

  Synes. ep. 67.

Footnote N71.8:

  Basil. ep. 292.

Footnote N71.9:

  Id. ibid.

Footnote N71.10:

  Id. ibid. & ep. 290. 293.

Footnote N71.11:

  Gelas. II. ep. 1.

Footnote N71.12:

  See above, p. 5.

Footnote N71.13:

  Hier. in Gal. ii.

Footnote N71.14:

  Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.

Footnote N71.15:

  Contius de Curia Romana.

Footnote N71.16:

  Anast. ep. 2.

-----

[Sidenote: _His Letter to the Metropolitans of_ Illyricum.]

The same Year _Celestine_ writ to _Perigenes_ of _Corinth_, _Donatus_ of
_Nicopolis_ in _Epirus_, and _Basil_ of _Larissa_ in _Thessaly_, all
Three Metropolitans of _Illyricum_, recommending to them an intire
Submission to the See of _Rome_, and to that of _Thessalonica_; _Rufus_,
who presided there, having been appointed by him to determine, in his
Name, all Disputes that might arise among them. He lets them know, that,
in virtue of the Submission, which they owed to the See of
_Thessalonica_, and he required of them, they were to ordain no Bishops,
assemble no Councils, without the Knowledge and Consent of _Rufus_;
which was restraining to the See of _Thessalonica_, that is, engrossing
to himself (for the Bishop of _Thessalonica_ acted only as his Vicar),
the Privileges, which the Council of _Nice_ had granted to all
Metropolitans. It is observable, that in this very Letter _Celestine_
affects an intire Obedience to the Canons of the Church. _We ought_,
says he, _to subject our Will to the Rules, and not the Rules to our
Will; we ought to conform to the Canons, and strictly observe what they
prescribe_[1604]. But he did not govern himself by this Maxim upon other
Occasions.

[Sidenote: _He complains of several Abuses that prevailed in
some Churches of_ Gaul.]

The following Year 428, he wrote a long Letter to the Bishops of the
Provinces of _Vienne_ and _Narbonne_, against several Abuses that
prevailed in those Parts. This Letter he begins quite in the Style of a
modern Pope: _As I am_, says he, _appointed by God to watch over his
Church, it is incumbent upon me every-where to root out evil Practices,
and introduce good ones in their room; for my Pastoral Vigilance is
restrained by no Bounds, but extends to all Places, where Christ is
known and adored_. Thus, under the Name of _Pastoral Vigilance_ he
extends, at once, his Authority and Jurisdiction over all the Churches
of the Christian World. The first Abuse he complains of was a particular
Dress assumed by some Bishops, wearing, in Imitation of the Monks, a
Cloke and Girdle. [Sidenote: _Bishops not distinguished formerly by
their Dress from the Laity._] With this Novelty _Celestine_ finds great
Fault, and exhorts the Bishops to distinguish themselves from the People
by their Doctrine, and not by their Garments, by the Sanctity of their
Manners, and not by the Mode of their Dress, by the internal Purity of
their Souls, and not by the external Attire of their Bodies. What a
large Field would the so many different and ridiculous Habits of the
Monks and Friers, the costly Attire of Bishops and Cardinals, and, above
all, the gorgeous and stately Apparel of _Celestine_’s own Successors,
have opened for his Zeal, had he lived in our Days! He pleasantly adds,
that if they understood, in a literal Sense, the Words of our Saviour,
_Let your Loins be girded about_[1605], they ought to interpret other
Passages after the same manner, and never appear without Lamps and
Staves in their Hands. And was not this condemning, at least ridiculing,
the Monkish Habits, an essential Part of which is the Girdle[N72]? The
other Abuses, which _Celestine_ wanted to have redressed, have nothing
new in them, or that has not been mentioned before in this History; and
therefore I omit repeating them here.

-----

Footnote N72:

  From this Passage it is manifest, that in those Days the Bishops, and
  other Ecclesiastics, were not yet distinguished by their Dress from
  the Laity, at least when they were not actually discharging the
  Functions of their Office. Whether they used even then any particular
  Dress or Attire, may be justly questioned. _Dionysius Exiguus_ thinks
  they did not[N72.1]; and F. _Sirmond_ is of the same Opinion. For,
  according to _Sirmond_, the Ecclesiastics used no other Dress in the
  Church, but that which they wore daily out of the Church. However, as
  they reserved the best Habits they had for the Sacred Functions, and
  used them on no other Occasion, when Modes in Dress began to alter,
  the Fashion changed before they were worn out. Thus, by Degrees, the
  Dress, which they used in the Church, varied from their common Dress,
  as well as from that of the People; the new Habits for the Service of
  the Church being made after the Mode of the antient, in which they
  were accustomed to perform their Functions. _Anastasius_, _Platina_,
  and _Baronius_, give us particular Accounts, I may say, the History of
  every Part of the Mass-Priest’s Dress, instituted, according to them,
  and used long before this time.

Footnote N72.1:

  Biblioth. Jur. Can. per Justel. t. 1. p. 210.

-----

[Sidenote: _The_ Pelagian _Doctrine prevails in_ Britain.]

About this time the _Pelagian_ Doctrine began to prevail, almost
universally, in _Britain_, being preached here either by the Natives,
who had adhered to their Countryman _Pelagius_ abroad, and were returned
home, or by others, who, finding themselves, in virtue of the Imperial
Laws, every-where persecuted on the Continent, had fled to this Island
for Shelter. The leading Man of the Party here was one _Agricola_, the
Son of a _British_ Bishop named _Severianus_[1606]. But that
_Severianus_ himself, or any of his Collegues, countenanced their
Doctrine, is not touched by any of the Antients. _Fastidius_ indeed, a
_British_ Writer, who flourished at this time, betrays, in his Writings,
a strong Byas to the _Pelagian_ Tenets. But it may be justly questioned
whether he was a Bishop. For in the Treatise which he wrote on the
Duties of a Christian Life, he makes Excuses for taking upon him to
instruct others; which a Bishop would hardly have done, that being his
Province and Duty[N73]. However, if the _British_ Bishops did not
countenance the _Pelagian_ Doctrine, neither did they oppose it, at
least with the Vigour they might; else it had never made, in so short a
time, the Progress it did. [Sidenote: _The_ Britons _recur to the_
Gallican _Bishops, who send_ Germanus _and_ Lupus _into_ Britain.] The
Catholics, having no Prospect of Relief from their own Pastors, had
recourse to those of _Gaul_; who, being affected with their Complaints,
immediately summoned a great Council, and chose, with one Voice, St.
_Germanus_ Bishop of _Auxerre_, and St. _Lupus_ Bishop of _Troyes_, to
pass over into _Britain_, and there maintain the Catholic Cause[1607].
Thus _Constantius_, a Presbyter of _Lyons_, who lived in this Century,
and after him _Bede_. But _Prosper_, who flourished likewise in this
Century, writes, that the Two Prelates were sent into _Britain_ by
_Celestine_[1608]. The _Gallican_ Bishops, perhaps, acquainted the Pope
with the Choice they had made, and he approved it; which was enough for
_Prosper_, a notorious Flatterer of the Popes, to ascribe the Whole to
_Celestine_. [Sidenote: _Their Journey._] The Two Missionaries set out
for _Britain_ in the Latter-end of the Year 429. and, passing through
_Paris_, had an Interview there with the famous St. _Genevieve_, who, at
the Persuasion of St. _Germanus_, to whom her future Sanctity was
revealed, promised to consecrate her Virginity to _Jesus Christ_. From
_Paris_ they pursued their Journey to the Sea-side, and embarqued; but
were very near being cast away by a Storm, before they reached the
_British_ Coast. This Storm the Author supposes to have been raised by
the Devil; but we may more reasonably suppose it to have been raised by
himself, that he might have an Opportunity of displaying the Power of
his Imagination in describing it, and make room for the Miracle by which
it was laid. [Sidenote: _Miracles wrought by them on the Sea, and after
their Landing._] For St. _Germanus_, who had slept the whole time, being
awaked by the Mariners just as the Vessel was on the point of sinking,
first reprimanded the Sea, as _Neptune_ did of old the Winds, for
attempting to defeat their pious Undertaking; and then pouring into it a
few Drops of Oil, asswaged at once the Fury of the Waves, and
miraculously restored the wished for Calm. Upon their Landing, the
People flocked to them from all Parts; and, being convinced of the Truth
which they preached, by the Miracles which they wrought, abjured daily
by Thousands the _Pelagian_ Doctrine, which they had so rashly embraced.
But their Teachers and Leaders kept out of the Way: they were unwilling
to enter the Lists with Men, whom Heaven had endowed with such
miraculous Powers. However, as the Whole of their Cause was now at
stake, they agreed, at last, to meet the Two Prelates, and met them
accordingly. But this Meeting proved fatal to the _Pelagian_ Cause; for
the _Pelagians_ declining to undertake the Cure of a blind Girl that was
presented to them, St. _Germanus_, by applying to her Eyes some
Reliques, which he always carried about with him, cured her at once of
her Blindness, and with her the whole Island[1609]. [Sidenote: _The
whole Island reclaimed._] But these Miracles were soon forgotten:
according to the same Author, the _Pelagian_ Heresy took root again, and
new Miracles were wanted to check its Growth. [Sidenote: Germanus
_returns anew, and utterly roots out the_ Pelagian _Heresy_.] _Germanus_
therefore, in the Year 447. returned to _Britain_; exerted here anew his
wonder-working Power, confounded his Antagonists, and, not leaving
behind him the least Shoot of so poisonous a Weed, returned in Triumph
to _Gaul_[1610]. In his second Journey into _Britain_ he is said to have
been attended by St. _Severus_, Bishop of _Treves_.

-----

Footnote N73:

  Besides, the _Benedictines_, in their Edition of the Works of St.
  _Austin_, assure us, that, in a very antient Manuscript Copy of
  _Gennadius_, _Fastidius_ is not styled Bishop, the Word _Bishop_ being
  added to the original Copy in a much fresher Hand. And yet most of our
  modern Writers not only suppose him to have been Bishop, but Bishop of
  _London_[N73.1].

Footnote N73.1:

  Vid. Miræum in not. ad Gennad.

-----

[Sidenote: _Beginning of the Dispute between_ Nestorius _and St._
Cyril.]

The following Year, 430. is one of the most remarkable Years in the
Annals of the Church. For it was in that Year that the famous Dispute
began between _Nestorius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_, and St. _Cyril_
Bishop of _Alexandria_, which rent the whole Church into Two opposite
and irreconcileable Factions. [Sidenote: _What occasioned this
Dispute._] What gave Occasion to that Dispute was, the Title of _Mother
of God_, which began at this time to be commonly given to the Virgin
_Mary_. Such a Title _Nestorius_ thought very improper, derogatory to
the Majesty of the Eternal Creator, and only calculated to lead the
Unwary into gross Mistakes concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation,
and the Nature of Christ. For he argued, that it could not be said,
without a kind of Blasphemy, that _God was born of a Woman_, that _God
had suffered_, that _God had died_, nor, consequently, that _the Virgin_
Mary _was the Mother of God. We must not imagine_, said he, _that God,
or the Word, was born of the Virgin_ Mary; _but we ought to believe,
that God, or the Word, was united to him, who was born of the Virgin_
Mary[1611]. The Title of _Mother of Christ_ was that which he thought
should be given to the Virgin, as containing all that was meant by the
other, without the Impropriety and Offence of the Expression, and
without Danger of confounding the Divine Nature of Christ with the
Human. This Doctrine was received, and maintained with great Warmth by
some, both Ecclesiastics and Laymen, and with no less Warmth opposed by
others. The latter thought it was calling in question the Divinity of
Christ, and degrading the Virgin _Mary_, to rob her of the glorious
Title of the _Mother of God_; and her Glory was now become one of their
highest Concerns. [Sidenote: _The Characters of_ Cyril _and_ Nestorius.]
At the Head of these was St. _Cyril_, a Man of a most haughty and
imperious Temper, impatient of Contradiction, obstinately wedded to his
own Opinion, passionate, revengeful, and more eagerly bent, at least in
the present Dispute, upon conquering his Adversary, than discovering the
Truth. In some of there Qualities he was well matched by _Nestorius_;
but the latter was not so eager for Victory, so tenacious of his own
Opinion, or rather of his own Terms (for the whole Dispute was about
Terms), as not to be ready to explain them; which had he been allowed to
do, an End had been put at once to the Quarrel. But _Cyril_ would
hearken to no Explanations. [Sidenote: Cyril _will not allow_ Nestorius
_to explain his Meaning. He defames him, and writes against him to the
Emperor._] He peremptorily required _Nestorius_ to acknowlege and
confess the Virgin _Mary_ to be the _Mother of God_, without any
Distinction or Explanation; and because he would not comply, he defamed
him all over the East, as a Reviver of the Heresy of _Paul_ of
_Samosata_, denying the real Union between the Human and the Divine
Nature in the Person of Christ; stirred up the People of
_Constantinople_, his own Flock, against him; and spared no Pains to
discredit him with the Emperor, and other great Persons at Court. For he
writ Three Letters to Court; one to the Emperor _Theodosius_, to his
Wife _Eudoxia_, and to his Sister _Pulcheria_; another _to the Queen’s
Virgins, and Brides of Christ_, that is, to _Pulcheria_ and her Sisters;
and a third _to the Empresses_, that is, to _Eudoxia_ and _Pulcheria_.
The Purport of these Letters was to prove, that the Virgin _Mary_ was,
and ought to be styled, the _Mother of God_; that to dispute such a
Title was rank Heresy; and that whoever disputed it was unworthy of the
Protection of the Imperial Family.

_Nestorius_, being now sensible, that _Cyril_ was determined to keep no
Measures with him, resolved, in his Turn, to keep none with one, who had
given him so great Provocation. [Sidenote: Nestorius _excommunicates and
deposes those who side with_ Cyril. _Causes some of them to be
imprisoned and whipt._] He therefore assembled a Council at
_Constantinople_, and there, with the unanimous Consent of the Bishops,
who composed it, he solemnly excommunicated the Laymen, and deposed the
Ecclesiastics, who rejected his Doctrine[1612]. He did not stop here;
but caused several Ecclesiastics, Monks, and Laymen, the Friends of
_Cyril_, to be apprehended, to be dragged to the public Prison, and to
be there whipt very severely, as Disturbers of the public Peace, and
Sowers of Heresy and Sedition. What chiefly provoked him, was a Paper
posted up in a public Place of the City, declaring him a Heretic, and
guilty of the Heresy formerly held by _Paul_ of _Samosata_, denying a
true Union between the Word and the Humanity in the Person of Christ;
which was one of the many Calumnies broached against him by _Cyril_ to
blacken his Reputation.

Thus were the Christians in the East divided into two opposite Parties,
irreconcileably incensed against each other, and reviling each other
with all the opprobrious Names Malice and Rage could suggest. [Sidenote:
Nestorius _strives to gain_ Celestine _and the Western Bishops_.] But
_Cyril_’s Party was by far the most numerous and powerful. _Nestorius_
therefore, having strove in vain to strengthen his Party in the East,
resolved in the End to try the West, being well apprised, that the
Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_, and the other Western Bishops, would
be abundantly sufficient to turn the Scale. He therefore writ a long
Letter to _Celestine_, acquainting him with what had passed in the East,
and explaining, without the least Disguise or Equivocation, the Doctrine
he held; nay, he sent him all the Homilies, which he had preached on
that Subject. In this Letter he owns his irreconcileable Aversion to the
Words _Mother of God_, as raising Ideas, especially in the Minds of the
Vulgar, inconsistent with the Majesty of the Supreme Being. He adds,
that by disputing the Title of _Mother of God_, he only meant, that the
Word was not born of the Virgin _Mary_[1613].

[Sidenote: Cyril _writes to_ Celestine, _and sends him the Homilies
of_ Nestorius, _with his own Comments upon them_.]

St. _Cyril_, being informed that _Nestorius_ had written to _Celestine_,
summoned a Council at _Alexandria_; and, by their Advice, writ the
famous Letter to _Celestine_, which has reached our Times. In that
Letter he acquaints him with the State of Affairs in the East, and the
Disturbances raised there by _Nestorius_, as if himself had been no-ways
concerned in them; tells him that it is absolutely necessary, that all
the Bishops of the Church should unite as one Man against that Prelate;
that the Bishops in the East are well disposed to join in the common
Cause; and that they only waited to know from him, whether they were to
communicate with _Nestorius_, or openly renounce his Communion. At the
same time _Cyril_ sent to _Rome_ the Homilies of _Nestorius_, the
Letters which he had written to him, his Answers, and with them a
Writing containing the Sentiments of the Fathers concerning the Mystery
of the Incarnation. For the Gospel, the _Testimony of Christ_, was
already laid aside, and the Testimony of Men taken, in most Disputes,
for the Rule and Standard of the Christian Belief. [Sidenote: _The
Popish Writers have no Occasion to boast of the Recourse had by_ Cyril
_to_ Celestine.] The _Roman Catholics_ have no Reason to boast, as they
do, of the Recourse had by St. _Cyril_ on this Occasion to the Pope. For
_Posidonius_, one of _Cyril_’s Deacons, who was dispatched with the
above-mentioned Papers to _Rome_, was directed, in his private
Instructions, not to deliver them, but to bring them back to
_Alexandria_, if he found that _Nestorius_ had not applied to
_Celestine_[1614]; so that if _Nestorius_ had not recurred to the Pope,
_Cyril_ never would. _Posidonius_ found, upon Inquiry, that _Nestorius_
had written to _Celestine_; and therefore delivered to him, pursuant to
his Instructions, all the Papers with which he was charged. _Cyril_ writ
in _Latin_, and even caused the Homilies of _Nestorius_ to be translated
into that Language, with his own Comments upon them; whereas _Nestorius_
had sent them in the original _Greek_, and writ his Letters in the same
Tongue; which had obliged _Celestine_ to send them into _Gaul_, to be
translated there by the famous _Cassian_, who was a Native of _Thrace_,
and lived then at _Marseilles_, there being none, it seems, in _Rome_ or
_Italy_, sufficiently qualified for that Task. _Cyril_ having thus got
the Start of his Antagonist, though he writ the last, _Celestine_ was,
by his Writings, prejudiced to such a Degree against _Nestorius_, before
he had heard what he had to offer in his Defence, that all he did or
could offer afterwards availed him nothing. _Celestine_ indeed perused
all his Papers as soon as they were translated and sent back from
_Gaul_, but perused them with the strong Prejudices which he had imbibed
from the Writings of _Cyril_; so that he discovered in each Homily, nay,
in every Line, _Heresies_, _Impieties_, and _Blasphemies_, not to be
uttered or heard.

[Sidenote: Nestorius _condemned by a Council held at_ Rome.]

A Council was therefore assembled at _Rome_, to condemn, rather than to
examine, the _new Doctrine_. At this Council assisted most of the
Western Bishops[1615]; _Celestine_ presided; the Homilies were read, and
with them the Letters both of _Cyril_ and _Nestorius_. _Celestine_ made
a long Speech, to prove not only by the Passages which _Cyril_ had
suggested to him out of the Fathers, but by others from St. _Hilarius_,
from Pope _Damasus_, and from a Hymn which St. _Ambrose_ had caused to
be yearly sung by his People on _Christmas-Day_, that _the Virgin_ Mary
_was truly the Mother of God_[1616]. When he had done, _Nestorius_ was
declared the Author of a _new and very dangerous Heresy_, _Cyril_ was
highly extolled for opposing it, his Doctrine was applauded by all as
strictly orthodox, and Sentence of Deposition pronounced against such
Ecclesiastics as should refuse to sign it.

[Sidenote: Celestine _acquaints_ Nestorius _with the Judgment of
the Western Bishops_.]

Before the Council broke up, _Celestine_ writ to _Nestorius_,
acquainting him with the judgment of the Western Bishops upon this
Dispute; and at the same time warning him, that if, in the Term of Ten
Days after the Receipt of that Letter, he did not publicly condemn the
Doctrine which he had hitherto taught, and teach the Doctrine which he
had hitherto condemned, he should be deposed without any further Delay,
and cut off from the Communion of the Church[1617]. This Letter is dated
the 11th of _August_ of this Year 430. He writ several other Letters,
all bearing the same Date, _viz._ one to _Cyril_; one to the Clergy,
Monks, and People of _Constantinople_; one to each of the Bishops of the
chief Sees; and one to the Church of _Antioch_. All these Letters were
to the same Effect, _viz._ to acquaint those, to whom they were
addressed, with the Sentence pronounced by the Council of _Rome_ against
_Nestorius_, and encourage them to be assisting in the Execution of it.
[Sidenote: Celestine _appoints_ Cyril _his Vicegerent_.] His Letter to
_Cyril_ deserves particular Notice: for he there appoints him to act in
the present Affair, that is, in excommunicating and deposing
_Nestorius_, as _his Vicegerent, in the Name, and with the Authority, of
his See_[1618]. It must be observed here, that the Bishops of _Rome_,
neither alone, nor jointly with the whole Body of the Western Bishops,
had, or even claimed at this time, the Power of deposing the Bishop of
_Constantinople_, or indeed any other Bishop in the East, without the
Consent and Concurrence of the Eastern Bishops. This _Cyril_ well knew;
and therefore, lest _Celestine_ should, on that Consideration, decline
giving Judgment against _Nestorius_, he made him believe, that the
Eastern Bishops were all disposed to join against the pretended
Heresiarch; that they waited only his Determination, and were ready to
concur, to a Man, in executing the Judgment which he should give. This
was making _Celestine_ believe, that the Eastern Bishops had chosen him
for their Judge in the present Dispute, and agreed to acquiesce in his
Decision. It was upon this Presumption that _Celestine_ pronounced the
above-mentioned Sentence against _Nestorius_, and appointed _Cyril_ to
act in his room, with the Authority which he falsely supposed to have
been granted him on this Occasion. [Sidenote: _He is imposed upon by_
Cyril.] I say, _falsely_; for what _Cyril_ writ to him was absolutely
false, _viz._ that all the Bishops in the East were ready to join him
against _Nestorius_, and concur in executing the Sentence which he
should pronounce. Several Bishops had declared for _Nestorius_, and not
one, that we know of, against him, at the time _Cyril_ writ, besides
_Cyril_ himself, and the other _Egyptian_ Bishops, who were intirely
governed by him; nay, the Sentence pronounced at _Rome_ was Matter of
great Surprize to all, but more especially to _John_ of _Antioch_, and
_Juvenal_ of _Jerusalem_, who could not help censuring, with some
Sharpness, the Western Bishops, as acting rashly in an Affair that
required the most mature Deliberation. But _Cyril_ was chiefly to blame,
who, to engage the Western Bishops on his Side, and by their means
compass the Ruin of his Antagonist, had represented the State of Affairs
very differently from what it really was.

It was doubtless a very extraordinary Thing for a Bishop of _Alexandria_
to accept the Commission of Vicegerent or Deputy to the Bishop of
_Rome_; and _Celestine_ would hardly have thought of offering him such a
Commission, if he had not been sensible that, from the Heat of his
Passion upon this Occasion, he would be willing to act in any Capacity,
that would impower him to hurt his Antagonist. So ably did the Popes,
from the earliest times, avail themselves of every Circumstance that
could give them the Means to promote and extend their Jurisdiction!

[Sidenote: Cyril _sends_ Celestine_’s Letter to_ Nestorius;]

The above-mentioned Letters from _Celestine_ were all sent to _Cyril_,
who was to convey them to those they were addressed to; which he did
accordingly, accompanying them with Letters of his own, all calculated
to inflame his Collegues and the rest of the Clergy, as well as the
Laity, against _Nestorius_, as an Enemy to _the Mother of God_ and the
Catholic Church. As for the Letter to _Nestorius_ himself, he dispatched
Four Bishops with it to _Constantinople_, who chose to deliver it to him
while he was assisting at Divine Service, in the great Church, with his
Clergy, and many Persons of Distinction belonging to the Court. His View
in this was to render their Legation the more solemn, and thereby alarm
the Populace, who hitherto had taken no Part in the Quarrel. [Sidenote:
_and requires him to retract his pretended Errors, on pain of being
deposed._] With _Celestine_’s Letter they delivered to him one from
_Cyril_, peremptorily requiring him to retract his Errors, to confirm
his Retractation with a solemn Oath, and publicly to anathematize Twelve
Propositions contained in the Letter. and extracted out of his Works.
_Cyril_ let him know, that if he did not comply with his Demand, before
the time prefixed by _Celestine_ was expired, he would take care to have
the Sentence of the Western Bishops executed with the utmost Rigour and
Severity. _Nestorius_ received the Letters, and desired the Legates to
meet him the next Day at his own House; but when they came, he did not
admit them; nor did he return any Answer either to _Celestine_ or
_Cyril_. [Sidenote: Nestorius _inclined to yield for the sake of
Peace_.] However, in a Sermon which he preached Six Days after, that is,
on _Saturday_ the 13th of _December_, he declared, that, to maintain the
Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, to put an End to the present
Dispute, which might be attended with greater Evils than his Enemies
seemed to be aware of, he was ready to grant the Title of _Mother of
God_ to the Virgin _Mary_, _provided nothing else was thereby meant_;
but that _the Man born of her was united to the Divinity_[1619]. This
Sermon, and another which he preached the next Day, the 14th of
_December_, on the same Subject, he sent to _John_ Bishop of _Antioch_,
one of the most eminent Prelates both for Piety and Learning at that
time in the Church. _John_ perused them with great Attention, and
finding nothing in them that was not, in his Opinion, intirely agreeable
to the Catholic Doctrine, he concluded the present Dispute to be happily
ended. But _Cyril_ was not yet satisfied; he peremptorily required
_Nestorius_ to anathematize the Twelve Propositions which I have
mentioned above; and to anathematize them was, in the Opinion of the
Bishop of _Antioch_, and of almost all the Bishops of his Patriarchate,
anathematizing the Doctrine of the Church, and approving that of the
_Apollinarists_, which had been condemned by the Church. [Sidenote: _The
Doctrine of_ Cyril _judged impious by the Orientals_.] For _Cyril_, in
combating the Distinction maintained by _Nestorius_ between the Two
Natures in Christ, seemed to have run headlong into the opposite
Doctrine confounding the Two Natures; insomuch that _John_ of _Antioch_
thought himself not only obliged to warn his Collegues in the East, by a
circular Letter, against such _impious Doctrines_, but to cause them to
be confuted in Writing, by Two of the most learned Prelates of his
Patriarchate[1620]. They were answered by _Cyril_, incapable of
yielding, or ever giving up a Cause, which he had once undertaken to
defend. Thus a new Quarrel broke out between _Cyril_ and the Bishops of
the Patriarchate of _Antioch_, of which it is foreign to my Purpose to
give here an Account.

[Sidenote: _An Oecumenical Council summoned by the Emperor to meet at_
Ephesus.]

_Nestorius_, foreseeing the Storm that the Dispute between him and
_Cyril_ was likely to raise in the Church, had, in order to prevent it,
applied to the Emperor _Theodosius_ for the assembling an Oecumenical
Council, even before he received the Letters of _Celestine_ and _Cyril_,
which I have mentioned above; and, upon his Application, the Emperor had
summoned a Council to meet at _Ephesus_ by _Whitsuntide_ of the
following Year 431. The Letter, which _Theodosius_ writ on that
Occasion, was dated the 19th of _November_ 430. and addressed to all the
Metropolitans, who were thereby injoined to attend at the Place and Time
appointed, and bring with them such of their Suffragans as might be well
spared from the Service of the Churches in their respective Provinces.
[Sidenote: _His Letter to_ Cyril.] Besides the circular Letter to all
Metropolitans in common, _Theodosius_ writ to _Cyril_ in particular, to
let him know that he looked upon him as the sole Author of the present
Disturbances, and therefore expected that he would not fail to attend
the Council at the time appointed; that from him he would admit of no
Excuse; that his punctual Compliance with the present Order was the only
means of regaining his Favour, and inclining him to think that it was
not any private Pique, or Animosity, but a Persuasion that he was
defending the Truth, which had prompted him to act, as he had hitherto
done, so contrary to all the Rules of Modesty and Discretion. In the
same Letter he reproaches _Cyril_, and in the sharpest Terms, with
Pride, Arrogance, and Presumption; and even charges him with having
attempted to sow Divisions in the Imperial Family. But this Charge was
groundless, having no other Foundation, but _Cyril_’s having written
apart to _Pulcheria_ and her Sisters, which the Emperor supposed to have
been done with a Design to raise a Misunderstanding between him and
them[1621].

[Sidenote: _Irregular Proceedings of the Council._]

The Council met at the Time and Place appointed, pursuant to the
Emperor’s Orders. But every thing was transacted in that Assembly so
contrary to all the Rules of Justice, and even of Decency, with so much
Prejudice and Animosity, that they seemed to be all actuated by the
Spirit of _Cyril_, and to have met with no other View than to gratify
his private Passion and Revenge. _Cyril_ presided, who was the Party
concerned, and the avowed Enemy of _Nestorius_. They began their
Sessions before the Arrival of _John_ of _Antioch_, and the Bishops of
that Patriarchate, who were supposed to favour _Nestorius_, though they
had certain Intelligence of their being within a sew Days Journey of
_Ephesus_; nay, they would not even wait for the Pope’s Legates, and a
good Number of Bishops who were coming from _Italy_, and the Island of
_Sicily_. _Nestorius_, and Count _Candidianus_, whom the Emperor had
sent to assist at the Council in his Name, earnestly begged them to put
off the Sessions only for Four Days longer, assuring them that _John_
and his Suffragans would reach _Ephesus_ within that Time. But all in
vain: they were determined to condemn _Nestorius_, right or wrong; and
therefore could by no means be prevailed upon to wait the Arrival of
those who, they apprehended, would oppose, and perhaps might intirely
defeat the End for which alone they seemed to believe they had been
assembled. _Nestorius_ was summoned to appear the very next Day, and
clear himself before the Council of the impious Doctrine with which he
was charged. He refused to comply till the Orientals, that is, those of
the Patriarchate of _Antioch_, were arrived; and, upon that Refusal, the
Council met very early next Morning, read all his Letters and Homilies,
condemned the Doctrine they contained, approved the Doctrine of _Cyril_,
whose Letters were likewise read; and closed this very remarkable
Session with pronouncing Sentence of Deposition and Excommunication
against _Nestorius_, in the following Terms; [Sidenote: _The Sentence
they pronounced against_ Nestorius.] _Our Lord Jesus Christ, against
whom the most wicked_ Nestorius _has leveled his Blasphemies, declares
him, by the Mouth of this Council, deprived of the Episcopal Dignity,
and cut off from the Communion of the Episcopal Order_[1622]. This
Sentence was signed by all the Bishops who were present, pasted up in
the most public Places of _Ephesus_, and notified to all the Inhabitants
by the Criers of the City. It was no sooner known than the whole City
resounded with loud Shouts of Joy, the Streets were illuminated, and the
People, crouding to the Church where the Council was held, attended the
Bishops, with lighted Torches in their Hands, and great Acclamations, to
their respective Habitations, the Women walking before them, and burning
Perfumes[1623]. It had been as dangerous for _Nestorius_ to shew himself
in _Ephesus_, at this Juncture, as it was formerly for St. _Paul_, the
_Ephesians_ being no less devoted now to the Virgin _Mary_ than they
were in the Apostle’s Time to their great _Diana_, and their
Superstition no less mischievous, though the Object was changed. The
Virgin _Mary_ was the Patroness of _Ephesus_, the _Ephesians_ believing
then that they possessed her Body. But it is now believed by the Church
of _Rome_, that she was taken up Soul and Body into Heaven, and the
Festival of her _Assumption_ is kept with great Solemnity on the 15th of
_August_, being preceded by a Vigil or Fast. [Sidenote: _In what terms
they acquainted_ Nestorius _with the Sentence pronounced against him_.]
The Council took care to acquaint _Nestorius_ with the Sentence which
they had pronounced against him; and the Note, which they writ to him on
that Occasion, shews but too plainly, that they were swayed in all they
did by Passion alone. For the Note was thus directed; _To_ Nestorius _a
second_ Judas[1624].

Such is the Account which the Antients give us of the First Oecumenical
Council of _Ephesus_, one of the Four, which _Gregory the Great_
received with as much Veneration as the Four Gospels[1625]. [Sidenote:
_The Council of_ Ephesus _unworthy of that Name_.] But notwithstanding
his Authority, we may, perhaps, with more Truth, apply to this Council
than to any other what _Nazianzen_ writ of the Councils of his Time;
_viz._ that _he had never seen an Assembly of Bishops that ended well_;
that, _by assembling, they had always heightened rather than cured the
Evil_; that _in such Assemblies, Passion, Jealousy, Prejudice, Envy, the
Desire of Victory generally prevailed_; and that _those who took upon
them to judge others, were, generally speaking, swayed by some private
Grudge, their Zeal being owing more to the Ill-will which they bore to
the Criminals, than the Aversion which they had to their Crimes_[1626].
As to the present Assembly, it may be justly questioned whether it
deserves the Name of a Council, or ought not rather to be styled a
seditious and tumultuary Conventicle of Men, assembled with no other
View but to revenge the private Quarrel of their Head and Leader. For
they met against the Will of the Imperial Commissioner Count
_Candidianus_, who represented the Person of the Emperor; nay, upon his
acquainting them, that it was the Will of the Emperor they should wait
the Arrival of the Oriental and Western Bishops, they drove him by Force
out of the Assembly. [Sidenote: _Is protested against by the Imperial
Commissioner and Seventy-six Bishops._] _Candidianus_, seeing the
Emperor’s Orders thus trampled under foot by the riotous Bishops,
entered a Protest against their Proceedings, and declared them null.
This Protest was addressed, _To_ Cyril, _and the Bishops assembled with
him_[1627]. _Nestorius_ likewise, Seven Bishops who were assembled with
him, and Sixty-eight more, all protested against the Meeting of the
Council till the Arrival of the Orientals: so that Seventy-six Bishops,
who were then actually in _Ephesus_, protested against, and absented
themselves from the Council. [Sidenote: _They act contrary to all Rules
of Justice and Religion._] As therefore neither the Orientals, nor the
Western Bishops, were yet come, the Assembly was composed only of
_Egyptians_ and _Asiatics_, who were intirely devoted to _Cyril_. But
how irregular soever their Meeting was, their Method of acting, after
they met, was no less irregular. _Cyril_, who was the Party concerned,
and the avowed Enemy of _Nestorius_, received the Depositions against
him, examined the Witnesses, gave what Explication he pleased to his
Words, and delivered his Opinion the first; which was acting in open
Contradiction to the known Laws of Justice and Religion. In the first
Session several Things were transacted, that might have given full
Employment for several Sessions. How could they examine, in so short a
time, the Twelve Propositions which _Cyril_ required _Nestorius_ to
anathematize, Propositions that were capable of so many different
Interpretations, that were afterwards so differently interpreted, and
occasioned endless Quarrels and Disputes, some admitting them as
Catholic, and rejecting the opposite Propositions as heretical; others
admitting the opposite Propositions as Catholic, and rejecting them as
heretical, without being able to agree in any thing else but in
anathematizing and cursing each other? How could they compare the many
Passages out of the Homilies of _Nestorius_, with the different
Contexts, in order to find out his true Meaning? To examine so many
different Propositions, all relating to a Subject above our
Comprehension, and in Terms hardly intelligible to the most speculative
Understanding, to declare which were Heterodox, and which Orthodox,
which were agreeable, and which disagreeable, to the Doctrine of the
Fathers (for the Scripture was out of the Question), and all this in a
few Hours, was, it must be owned, a most wondrous Performance. But the
Orientals were at hand: _John_ of _Antioch_ was a Man of great Credit:
it was apprehended, that the many Bishops, who were then in _Ephesus_,
and had absented themselves from the Council, might join him, and he
_Nestorius_. Dispatch was therefore to be used, and the Business of many
Sessions transacted in one, that _Cyril_ might have his full Revenge
before their Arrival.

[Sidenote: _The Conduct of_ Cyril _sharply censured by his greatest
Friends_.]

It was in this Light that the Conduct of _Cyril_ and the other Bishops
appeared to St. _Isidore_ of _Pelusium_, a Prelate of great Learning and
Sagacity, and one who professed a particular Friendship for _Cyril_.
For, being informed of what had passed at _Ephesus_, he was so shocked
at the Conduct of his Friend, that he could not help censuring it with
great Severity. _Your Conduct_, said he, in a private Letter to him,
_and the Tragedy which you have lately acted at_ Ephesus, _are Matter of
great Surprise to some, and Diversion to others. It is publicly said,
that you sought only to be revenged on your Enemies, and that you have
therein imitated your Uncle_ Theophilus; _and, indeed, though the
Persons accused may be different, the Conduct of the Accusers is the
same. You had better have continued quiet, than revenged your private
Injuries at the Expence of the public Peace, and Tranquillity of the
Church, by sowing Dissensions among her Members, under the Colour of
Piety and Religion_[1628]. _Theophilus_, whom _Isidore_ mentions in his
Letter, was Bishop of _Alexandria_, Uncle to _Cyril_, and at the Head of
the Faction that deposed _Chrysostom_[1629].

[Sidenote: _The Orientals arrive._]

Five Days after the Deposition of _Nestorius_, _John_ of _Antioch_ and
the Orientals arrived; and great was their Surprize, when they were
informed by Count _Candidianus_, who came to wait on them, of what had
passed. _John_ had always advised _Nestorius_ to allow the Title of
_Mother of God_ to the Virgin _Mary_, for the sake of Peace; but could
not think him an Heretic for disputing it. But, as to the Doctrine of
_Cyril_, he looked upon it as rank _Apollinarism_; and, as such, had
caused it to be confuted. [Sidenote: _They insist upon the Points that
had been so hastily decided, to be examined anew. Which being refused
by_ Cyril, _they assemble apart_.] No wonder, therefore, if, upon
hearing that the Doctrine of _Cyril_ had been declared Catholic, that
the Doctrine of _Nestorius_ had been condemned as Heretical, and he
excommunicated and deposed for holding it, he insisted, as he did, upon
their agreeing to have those Points examined anew, and more maturely,
before he would assist at the Council. This Demand he thought the more
reasonable, as _Cyril_ had assured him, by a Letter dated but Two Days
before the Meeting of the Council, that they should not meet till his
Arrival. But _Cyril_, as we may well imagine, would by no means consent
to it; which so provoked _John_, that, after several expostulatory
Letters between him and _Cyril_, he assembled, at last, his Orientals
apart, and, with them, such as adhered to him, about Fifty in all. In
this new Council, the Proceedings of the other were examined; and, being
found repugnant to the Canons, and owing merely to Rancour and Passion,
they were, by the whole Assembly, with one Voice, declared null.
[Sidenote: _The Two Councils anathematize and excommunicate
one another._] The Orientals did not stop here; but, after a strict
Examination of the Doctrine of _Cyril_, they declared it Heretical; and,
in virtue of that Declaration, pronounced Sentence of Excommunication
and Deposition against him, against _Memnon_ Bishop of _Ephesus_, a
zealous Stickler for his Doctrine, and against all the Bishops who
should communicate with either, till they had publicly retracted their
Errors. The Blow was soon returned by _Cyril_, and those who sided with
him; the Orientals were all declared _Nestorians_, and, with
_Nestorius_, deposed, excommunicated, anathematized. [Sidenote: _Both
recur to the Emperor._] War being thus declared between the Two
Councils, Expresses were immediately dispatched, by both, to the
Emperor, and their Friends at Court; for they were both sensible, that
the Doctrine of those, who had most Friends there, would, in the End,
prove the most Orthodox. The Emperor read, with great Attention, the
Accounts transmitted to him by both Parties, and would have approved and
confirmed the Proceedings of the Orientals, had he not been diverted
from it, first by his Physician named _John_, and afterwards by
_Acacius_ Bishop of _Berœa_, who happened to be then at Court.
[Sidenote: _He approves the Deposition of_ Nestorius, Cyril,
_and_ Memnon.] For the present _Theodosius_ contented himself with
approving the Deposition of _Nestorius_, of _Cyril_, and of _Memnon_,
who, he said, well deserved such a Punishment, as being the chief
Authors of the present Disturbances; _for, as to their Faith_, he added,
_I believe they are all Three alike Orthodox_. Which was true; and more
than both Councils had been able to find out.

[Sidenote: _All three arrested by the Emperor’s Order, who endeavours,
in vain, to reconcile the Bishops_.]

The Emperor, having taken this Resolution, dispatched Count _John_ to
_Ephesus_, with Orders to drive the Three Incendiaries, _Nestorius_,
_Cyril_, and _Memnon_, out of the City, and persuade the Bishops to
assemble in One Council. Count _John_, soon after his Arrival, caused
the Three Bishops to be arrested and confined; but could by no means
bring about an Accommodation between the Two Parties; the Orientals
obstinately refusing to communicate with the Friends of _Cyril_, till
they had anathematized his Doctrine; and his Friends no less obstinately
requiring the Orientals to anathematize the Doctrine of _Nestorius_,
before they would communicate with them; so that _John_ was obliged in
the End, notwithstanding all the Pains he took, to acquaint the Emperor,
that he had found the Minds of the Bishops so soured and exasperated
against one another, that it was impossible ever to reconcile them.
[Sidenote: _He orders both Councils to send a certain Number of Deputies
to_ Constantinople.] The Emperor, upon the Receipt of his Letter,
dispatched an Order to both Councils, injoining them to send a certain
Number of Deputies, both the same Number, to _Constantinople_, where he
proposed to have the Points in Dispute impartially examined. In
Compliance with this Order, the Two Councils sent each Eight Deputies,
who immediately set out, with proper Instructions, for _Constantinople_;
but, arriving at _Chalcedon_, on the opposite Side of the _Bosporus_,
they were stopped there, by an Order from the Emperor, it not being
thought safe for the Orientals to enter _Constantinople_, the Monks, who
were very numerous in that City, having prejudiced the Populace against
them. [Sidenote: _He hears them at_ Chalcedon.] They arrived at
_Chalcedon_ in the latter End of _August_; and, on the 4th of
_September_, the Emperor came to the Palace of _Ruffinus_, in that
Neighbourhood, and there heard both Parties, with great Patience.
[Sidenote: _Is, at first, favourable to the Orientals and_ Nestorius;
_but afterwards declares against them_.] He was, at first, so
favourable to the Orientals, that they thought themselves sure of
Victory; and even writ to their Friends at _Ephesus_, desiring them to
thank him for the Kindness he had shewn them. But, to their great
Surprize, the Face of Affairs changed at once. They had been already
admitted Four times to the Emperor’s Presence, and heard by him with
much Kindness: but, in the Fifth Audience, which they thought would
complete their Triumph, the Emperor, after receiving them with great
Coolness, told them, abruptly, that they had better admit both _Memnon_
and _Cyril_ to their Communion, and abandon the Defence of _Nestorius_.
They were thunderstruck with such a Proposal, and strongly remonstrated
against it. But _Theodosius_, deaf to their Remonstrances, returned the
next Day to _Constantinople_, carrying with him the Deputies of the
adverse Party, in order to have a new Bishop ordained by them, in the
room of _Nestorius_. Soon after his Return, he issued an Edict,
declaring _Nestorius_ justly deposed, reinstating _Cyril_ and _Memnon_
in their Sees, and giving all the other Bishops Leave to return to their
respective Churches, they being all alike Orthodox[1630]. This was
declaring the Council dissolved; and it was dissolved accordingly; but
the Disturbances which it occasioned, were not composed till many Years
after.

[Sidenote: _To what this Change was owing_.]

The sudden Change in the Emperor, with respect to the Orientals, is
ascribed by _Acacius_ Bishop of _Berœa_, to the Gold that _Cyril_
caused to be prodigally distributed, on this Occasion, among the
Courtiers. For _Acacius_ writes, that one of the Eunuchs of the Court,
by Name _Scholasticus_, dying possessed of great Wealth, the Emperor
found a Note among his Papers, acknowleging the Receipt of large Sums
remitted to him by _Paul_, _Cyril_’s Nephew, in _Cyril_’s Name[1631]. It
is true, we are not bound to give Credit to _Acacius_, as _Du Pin_
observes. But in what other Manner can we account for so sudden a
Change, for such an inconsistent Method of acting? The Emperor thinks
both Parties equally Orthodox, and yet declares _Nestorius_ justly
deposed, and restores _Cyril_ and _Memnon_ to their Sees; and that soon
after he had appeared more favourable to the Friends of _Nestorius_ than
to those of _Cyril_. To what else could this be owing, if it was not the
Effect of Bribery?

The Pope’s Legates, _viz._ _Arcadius_, _Projectus_, and _Philippus_, the
two former Bishops, and the latter a Presbyter, did not arrive at
_Ephesus_ till some time after the Condemnation of _Nestorius_; but they
signed the Judgment that had been given against him, being directed by
_Celestine_ to _agree in all things with_ Cyril. [Sidenote: Cyril _did
not preside as the Pope’s Legate_.] _Cyril_ presided as Bishop of
_Alexandria_, the first See after that of _Rome_. While he was absent,
_Juvenal_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_ supplied his room; a plain Proof, that
he did not preside as the Pope’s Legate; for if he had, his room would
not have been supplied by the Bishop of _Jerusalem_, but by Them.
Besides, if _Cyril_ had been vested with the Character of the Pope’s
Legate, what Occasion had there been to send Three more? [Sidenote: _The
Council assembled without the Approbation of the Pope._] _Bellarmine_
and _Baronius_ both allow this Council to have been assembled by the
Emperor; but with the previous Approbation, say they, and by the Advice
of _Celestine_. That the Council was convened by the Emperor, is past
all doubt, it being said, and repeated above twenty times in the Acts,
that _they were assembled by the Will of the most religious Emperors_.
But of _Celestine_ not the least mention is ever made by any of the
Fathers, not even by _Cyril_. The above-mentioned Writers found their
Assertion on a Letter of St. _Austin_, and on the Acts of St.
_Petronius_. But both these Pieces are now universally rejected as
supposititious.

[Sidenote: _The whole Dispute about Words._]

As to the Dispute, which occasioned the assembling of this Council, the
contending Parties seem to have agreed in the Substance, and to have
only quarreled about Words: at least the Emperor thought so, as I have
observed above; and, what is more, _Nestorius_ himself. For in the
Letter which he writ to _Celestine_, acquainting him with the Resolution
_Theodosius_ had taken of assembling a Council, he only told him, that
it was for some important Affairs of the Church; adding, that as to the
Dispute between him and the Bishop of _Alexandria_, it was not a Matter
of such mighty Moment, as to require the Decision of an Oecumenical
Council. And truly both _Nestorius_ and _Cyril_, so far as we can judge
from their own Words, acknowleged One Person in Christ, and Two Natures,
the Natures distinct, but inseparably united; which was the Catholic
Belief. Now the Subject of the Dispute was, whether, in virtue of that
Union between the Human and Divine Nature, the Properties of the former
might, or might not, be ascribed to God, and those of the latter to Man.
The Negative was maintained by _Nestorius_, and the Affirmative by
_Cyril_; the one rejecting as blasphemous, and the other admitting as
orthodox, the following Expressions; _God was born_, _God suffered_,
_God died_, Mary _was the Mother of God_; which was plainly disputing
about Words only, or Expressions. It is true, _Cyril_ charged
_Nestorius_ with the Doctrine of _Paul_ of _Samosata_, for rejecting
them; and _Nestorius_, _Cyril_ with that of _Apollinaris_, for admitting
them; but neither owned the Tenets, that were by the other ascribed to
him: so that _Cyril_ was only a Heretic of _Nestorius_’s making, and
_Nestorius_ of _Cyril_’s: _Nestorius_ acknowleged a real Union between
the Two Natures in Christ, and _Cyril_ a real Distinction. But they did
not, and, perhaps, when they were once warmed with disputing, would not,
understand one another. [Sidenote: Nestorianism _an imaginary Heresy_.]
_Nestorianism_, says a modern _Roman Catholic_ Writer[1632], _is but an
imaginary Heresy. Had_ Nestorius _and St._ Cyril _understood one
another, they had agreed, and prevented the Scandal which their
quarreling brought on the Church. But the_ Greeks _have always been
great Disputants; and it was by them that most of the first Heresies
were broached. The Subject of their Disputes was, generally speaking,
some metaphysical Speculation; and their Method of handling it arrant
Chicanery. From equivocal Terms they drew false Inferences, and from
Inferences passed to Injuries. Thus they became irreconcileable Enemies,
and, forgetting Truth, sought only to hurt one another. Had they but
coolly explained their Thoughts, they had found that in most Cases no
room was left, on either Side, for the Imputation of Heresy._

[Sidenote: Nestorius _and_ Cyril _agree in the Substance_.]

In the present Dispute _Cyril_, the more to oppose, or rather to
provoke, _Nestorius_, affected to use, on all Occasions, not only the
Expressions, which I have mentioned above, but others that seem to
involve a still more apparent Contradiction; _viz._ _The Eternal was
born in Time, the Impassible suffered, the Immortal died, Life died._ At
these Expressions the Orientals were no less shocked than _Nestorius_;
and therefore separating themselves from the Communion of _Cyril_, whom
they concluded to have fallen into the Errors of _Apollinaris_, they
insisted upon his either condemning or explaining the Expressions he
used, before they would admit him to their Communion, or any, who
communicated with him. He chose the latter; and then it appeared, that
they had been all fighting the whole time in the Dark; for by those
Expressions _Cyril_ meant no more, than that Christ, who was God, was
born, suffered, and died; that _Mary_ was the Mother of Christ, who was
God; the very Doctrine and Expressions which _Nestorius_ had been all
along contending for, and _Cyril_ had been combating with so much
Warmth. But _Nestorius_ was already deposed by the Faction of _Cyril_,
and _Maximus_ chosen and ordained Bishop of _Constantinople_ in his
room.

[Sidenote: _What meant by the Communication of Idioms._]

The Expressions of _Cyril_ were approved by the Council of _Ephesus_,
and have therefore been adopted by the Church of _Rome_. But her
Schoolmen, well apprised of the Objections to which they are liable, to
excuse them from Blasphemy, have been obliged to recur to what they call
a _Communication of Idioms_, in virtue of which the Properties of both
Natures, say they, may be ascribed to the _Hypostasis_ or Person, in
whom both Natures were united. Thus we may say, according to them, _God
was born_, _God suffered_, because the Person, who was God, _was born_,
and _suffered_. Thus indeed they excuse the Expressions of _Cyril_ from
Blasphemy: but still it must be owned, that the Expressions used by
_Nestorius_, _Christ was born_, _Christ suffered_, _Christ died_, were
at least far more proper. [Sidenote: _The Expressions of_ Nestorius
_more proper than those of_ Cyril.] For, after all, this
_Communication of Idioms_ is, in Fact, nothing else but a rhetorical
Figure: so that _Cyril_ spoke like an Orator, and _Nestorius_ like a
Philosopher: the Expressions of the former were, in a strict Sense,
false and blasphemous; those of the latter, in the strictest Sense, true
and orthodox. Tropes and Figures serve only to disguise the Truth, to
lead Men into Errors, and therefore ought to be laid aside by all who
seriously inquire after Truth, or explain it to others. I shall conclude
with observing, that if by a _Communication of Idioms_ the Properties of
the Human and Divine Nature may be ascribed to the Person, in whom those
two Natures were united; the Properties of the Body and Soul might, by a
like Communication, be ascribed to the Person, in whom the Body and Soul
are united: so that it might be said, with as much Propriety, _Man is
immortal_, _Man will never die_, because the Soul is immortal, and will
never die, as _God was mortal_, _God died_, because the Humanity was
mortal and died. The Case is parallel, and the _Communication of Idioms_
must justify both Expressions, or neither.

[Sidenote: _A particular Reason for rejecting the Title of_ Mother of
God.]

As to the Title of _Mother of God_, to which _Nestorius_ had a more than
ordinary Aversion, he seems to have rejected it on a particular Account;
for the same Reason that induced _Clement_ XI. to suppress the Title of
_Grandmother of God_, which, in his time, began to be commonly given to
St. _Anne_; _viz._ because _it was offensive to pious Ears_; _piarum
aurium offensiva_. If the Virgin _Mary_ was the Mother, St. _Anne_ was,
as properly speaking, the Grandmother of God. Why then should the Mother
be robbed of so glorious a Title, while the Daughter is suffered to
enjoy it? Why should _Nestorius_ be deemed a Heretic for denying it to
the Daughter, rather than _Clement_ for denying it to the Mother? The
one was as offensive to the Ears of _Nestorius_, as the other could
possibly be to the Ears of _Clement_. However, the former did not
consult his Ears alone, but his Reason too, as has been shewn above;
whereas the latter must have consulted his Ears only, there being no
Shadow of Reason, why the one Title should be allowed, and not the
other.

[Sidenote: _The Fate of_ Nestorius.]

As for _Nestorius_, he received an Order from the Emperor, while the
Council was still sitting, commanding him to quit _Ephesus_, and retire
to the Monastery of St. _Euprepius_ in the Suburbs of _Antioch_, where
he had led a monastic Life before he was raised to the See of
_Constantinople_. [Sidenote: _He is ordered to return to his
Monastery._] This Order he received with great Joy, having often
declared, that he wished for nothing so much as to spend his Life in
Solitude and Retirement, far from the Troubles that threatened the
Church[1633]. In the Letter, which he writ to _Antiochus_ the _Præfectus
Prætorio_, by whom the Emperor’s Order was communicated to him, he told
him, that to be thus deposed, for standing up in Defence of the Orthodox
Faith, was a greater Honour than he had ever presumed to aspire to, or
hoped to attain. The only Favour he begged of _Antiochus_ was, that he
would employ his whole Interest at Court, in order to obtain public
Letters of the Emperor, that might be read in all the Churches,
condemning the Doctrine of _Cyril_[1634]. [Sidenote: _Is banished
into_Arabia, _at the Request of_ Celestine, _and the Bishops of
his Party_.] The following Year 432. _Celestine_ writ a very pressing
Letter to _Theodosius_, dated the 15th of _March_, conjuring him, as he
tendered the Purity of the Faith, to confine _Nestorius_ to some
uninhabited Place, where it might not be in his Power to infect others
with his pestilential Doctrine; which was begging the Emperor to drive
him out, like a wild Beast, from human Society, to perish in a Desart.
He writ, at the same time, a circular Letter to the Bishops in those
Parts, exhorting them to second him with all their Power and Interest at
Court[1635]. _Theodosius_, hearkening only to the Impulses of his own
Good-nature, withstood all the Solicitations of _Nestorius_’s Enemies,
for Four Years. But, in the End, being made to believe, that by shewing
Mercy to such an obstinate Heretic, he rendered himself unworthy of
Mercy; and that to treat him with Severity was the most effectual Means
of drawing down the Blessings of Heaven upon himself, and the Empire;
his Good-nature yielded, and he issued an Order, addressed to _Isidore_,
then the _Præfectus Prætorio_, injoining him to cause _Nestorius_ to be
conveyed to _Petra_ in _Arabia_, to end his Days there, by way of
Atonement for the Mischief he had done. With him were banished, to the
same Place, Count _Irenæus_, his great Friend and Protector, and
_Photius_, a Presbyter of _Constantinople_, who had written in his
Defence against _Cyril_[1636]. [Sidenote: _His Books forbidden, and
ordered to be burnt._] The same Year the Emperor issued an Edict, dated
the 30th of _July_, commanding the Disciples of _Nestorius_ to be called
_Simonians_[N74]; his Books to be everywhere sought for, and publicly
burnt; and all Persons, in whose Possession they were, to deliver them
up to the Magistrates. By the same Edict the _Nestorians_ were forbidden
to hold any Assemblies in the Cities, Villages, or in the Fields, and
the Places were confiscated, where such Assemblies should be held, as
well as the Estates of those who should frequent them[1637]. This Edict
was published both in _Greek_ and in _Latin_, that it might be
understood by the Subjects of both Empires.

-----

Footnote N74:

  The Emperor ordered them to be so called, merely to render them
  odious; for there was not the least Affinity between the Heresy of
  _Simon_ the Magician, and the Doctrine that was ascribed to
  _Nestorius_. In this _Theodosius_ followed the Example of his
  Predecessor _Constantine_, who to disgrace the _Arians_, and prejudice
  the Populace against them, ordered them to be called _Porphyrians_.
  For when a Man was once declared a Heretic, all Means of rendering him
  infamous were deemed just and lawful. But neither Edict ever took
  place.

-----

[Sidenote: _Is frequently removed from one Place to another._]

The Enemies of _Nestorius_ were not yet satisfied; they thought his
Confinement to _Petra_ too mild a Punishment; and therefore, before he
had been long there, they prevailed upon the Emperor to remove him
from _Petra_ to _Oasis_, in the Desarts between _Egypt_ and _Libya_, a
Place to which the greatest Criminals were usually confined in those
Days[1638]. He was still in _Oasis_, when _Socrates_ wrote, that is,
in 439[1639]. but the Town being soon after surprised by the
Barbarians, named _Blemmyes_, he was carried by them into Captivity,
but set again at Liberty, and even informed by them, that the Town
would, in a short time, be attacked anew by another Clan of
Barbarians. Upon this Information he withdrew to the City of
_Panopolis_, and immediately acquainted the Governor of _Thebais_ with
the Motives that had induced him to quit the Place, which he had been
confined to by the Imperial Edict, intreating _his Highness_
(_Celsitudinem tuam_) to notify them to the Emperor, and suffer him to
continue there till his Pleasure was known. But the Governor happened
to be a zealous Catholic, or rather a true Courtier; and therefore,
without waiting for the Emperor’s Order, he sent a Band of Soldiers to
convey, or rather to drag him to _Elephantine_, on the most distant
Borders of his Government. This the Governor seems to have done on
purpose to destroy him, and thereby ingratiate himself both with the
Church, and the Court. For the Soldiers he employed on this Occasion,
were not _Romans_, but _Barbarians_; and when they were got above
half-way to _Elephantine_, they were injoined, by a Counter-order from
him, to bring their Prisoner back to _Panopolis_ with all possible
Expedition. [Sidenote: _Treated with great Barbarity._] As he was
hurried on by the merciless Barbarians, notwithstanding his old Age,
the Weakness attending it, and the Hurts he received from a Fall, he
arrived at _Panopolis_, quite spent, and so worn out with the Fatigues
of that painful Journey, that no one thought he could outlive it many
Days. But the Governor was impatient to hear the News of his Death;
and therefore, before he could recruit his Strength, quite exhausted
by this Journey, he obliged him to undertake another, ordering him to
repair, without Delay, to a certain Place within the Territory of
_Panopolis_. As he outlived this Journey too, the Governor, bent on
having the Merit and Glory of destroying the pretended Heresiarch,
ordered him immediately to undertake a Fourth; and this put an End to
all his Troubles. [Sidenote: _His Death._] For Nature sinking under
the Fatigues he was forced to undergo, without Intermission or
Respite, his Strength quite failed him, and he died[1640][N75].

-----

Footnote N75:

  An anonymous Writer, quoted by _Evagrius_[N75.1], relates, that before
  _Nestorius_ died, his Tongue was devoured by Vermin, which he
  interprets as a Punishment justly inflicted on him for the Blasphemies
  he supposes him to have uttered. This Account _Evagrius_ seems not to
  have credited; but _Theodorus_ the Reader, _Theophanes_, and
  _Theodoret_, have taken it upon the Word of the anonymous Writer, by
  whom it was probably invented to render the Name of the pretended
  _Heresiarch_ odious to Posterity.

Footnote N75.1:

  Evag. l. 1, c. 7.

-----

[Sidenote: Nestorius _himself a cruel Persecutor_.]

Such were the Sufferings, such was the End, of the famous _Nestorius_;
and both reflect no small Disgrace on the Ecclesiastics of those Times,
especially on _Celestine_ and _Cyril_; for by them this cruel
Persecution was raised, and by them it was carried on; the Laymen being
only the Ministers of their Cruelty and Revenge. Such a Treatment was
quite undeserved by _Nestorius_, with respect to his Doctrine, as I have
shewn already, but was not so, it must be owned, in another respect: for
he was himself a most furious Persecutor of all those, who had the
Misfortune to be stigmatized with the Name of Heretics; and it is not to
be doubted, but _Cyril_ would have met with the same Treatment at his
Hands, had his Party prevailed, as he did at _Cyril_’s. In the Sermon,
which he preached on the very Day of his Ordination, he thus addressed
the Emperor, who was present: _Make the Orthodox Faith, O mighty Prince,
reign alone on the Earth; and I will make you reign in Heaven. Lend me
your Assistance to exterminate the Heretics, and I will lend you mine to
exterminate the_ Persians[1641]. This was proclaiming War against all
who dissented from him; and the War, thus proclaimed, he began without
Loss of Time, and pursued with the utmost Fury, causing the Imperial
Laws against Heretics to be vigorously executed, and stirring up the
Mob, not only in _Constantinople_, but in the neighbouring Provinces,
against Dissenters of all Denominations. This occasioned an universal
Confusion, and, in some Places, a great deal of Bloodshed; insomuch that
the Emperor was obliged to interpose his Authority, and protect, to a
certain Degree, as Friends to the State, those whom the Bishop was for
exterminating as Enemies to the Church. I will not presume to interpret
the Severity that was practised upon him, as a Judgment from Heaven for
the Severity which he had practised upon others; agreeably to those
Words of our Saviour, _With what Measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you_[1642]; but I cannot help looking upon the Treatment he met with,
however severe, as a just and well-deserved Retaliation; and upon him as
a Man altogether unworthy of our Compassion.

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine of the_ Jansenists _approved by_ Celestine.]

But to return to _Celestine_: In the Year 431. he writ to the _Gallican_
Bishops, exhorting them to stand up in Defence of the Doctrine of St.
_Austin_, and to silence, with their Authority, all who opposed it: for
it was opposed by many, among the rest, by the famous _Cassian_, as
utterly inconsistent with Merit and Freewill. To this Letter are
commonly annexed Nine Articles concerning Grace and Freewill; and, in
these Articles styled there, _The Authorities of the Bishops of the Holy
Apostolic See_, is contained, in the most plain and express Terms, the
Doctrine of the _Jansenists_, condemned in our Days by the famous Bull
_Unigenitus_ of _Clement_ XI[1643]. It is true, some pretend those
Articles to be falsly ascribed to _Celestine_. But they have passed for
his, ever since the Sixth to the present Century: they have been placed
among his Decrees, by _Dionysius Exiguus_; were quoted as his by _Petrus
Diaconus_ in 519. by _Cresconius_ an _African_ Bishop towards the End of
the Sixth Century, and by all, who have had Occasion to mention them
since that time.

[Sidenote: Palladius _the First Bishop of_ Ireland.]

The same Year died St. _Palladius_, the First Bishop of _Ireland_. He
belonged to the _Roman_ Church, and had been sent by _Celestine_ some
Years before into _Britain_, to stop the Progress of the _Pelagian_
Heresy in this Island. From _Britain_ he had passed over into
_Ireland_[N76]; and, having converted there some of the Inhabitants, he
returned to _Rome_, to beg of _Celestine_, that a Bishop might be sent
thither. _Celestine_ complied with his Request, ordained him First
Bishop of _Ireland_, and sent him back into that Island. Thus _Prosper_,
who lived at this very time[o]. The _Irish_ Writers tell us, that,
finding their Countrymen, whose Conversion was reserved by Heaven for
St. _Patric_, very obstinate, he abandoned the Island, and died in the
Country of the _Picts_, that is, in _Scotland_, on his Return to
_Rome_[1644]. His Body indeed was long worshiped in _Scotland_; but that
is no Proof of his having been ever there[N77].

-----

Footnote N76:

  _Prosper_ writes, that he was sent _ad Scotos_; whence the _Scotch_
  Writers conclude him to have been sent into _Scotland_, and the
  _Scots_ have long looked upon him as the Apostle of their Nation. But
  that he was sent into _Ireland_, and not into _Scotland_, is manifest
  from _Prosper_’s own Words. For speaking of _Celestine_, by whom
  _Palladius_ was sent into _Britain_ to make head against the
  _Pelagians_; _while he endeavoured_, says he, _to maintain the_ Roman
  _Island Catholic, he made a barbarous Island Christian_[N76.1]. The
  Island therefore, which he _made Christian_, was a different Island
  from that of _Britain_; and consequently could not be _Scotland_. The
  Inhabitants of _Ireland_ began, as early as the Fourth Century, to be
  known by the Name of _Scoti_ or _Scots_; so that _Scoti_ and _Hiberni_
  were but different Names of one and the same People. It is true, that
  St. _Patric_, in such of his Writings, as have been judged by the
  Critics the most authentic, seems to distinguish the _Scoti_ from the
  _Hiberni_: but that Distinction is only with respect to Merit and
  Rank; for he speaks constantly of the former as Men of a superior Rank
  to the latter. And indeed the Name _Hibernus_, tho’ more antient by
  many Ages than that of _Scotus_, appears to have been in great
  Contempt among the neighbouring Nations in St. _Patric_’s Time[N76.2].
  The _Hiberni_ were perhaps the Mechanics, and the _Scoti_ the Gentry,
  or Men who followed more noble Professions. By the latter was
  afterwards founded the Kingdom of _Scotland_. _Bollandus_ is of
  Opinion, that the _Hiberni_ came originally from _Britain_, and were
  the first Inhabitants of _Ireland_; and that the _Scoti_, a more
  warlike Race, come from some other Country, subdued the _Hiberni_, as
  the _Saxons_ did the _Britons_[N76.3].

Footnote N76.1:

  Prosp. in Col. p. 410.

Footnote N76.2:

  Boll. 17. Martii.

Footnote N76.3:

  Boll. ibid.

Footnote N77:

  The learned Archbishop _Usher_ will not allow _Palladius_ to have been
  the First Bishop of _Ireland_; alleging against that Opinion several
  Fragments out of the Lives of _Irish_ Saints, some of whom are said to
  have been Bishops, and to have converted many of their own Countrymen,
  as early as the Middle of the Fourth Century[N77.1]. From the
  Fragments he produces I cannot judge of the Pieces themselves. But
  _Bollandus_, who seems to have perused them, maintains them to be of
  no earlier a Date than the Twelfth Century; and most of them to be
  fabulous, which indeed he proves undeniably by several Passages quoted
  from them[N77.2]. And can the Authority of such Pieces invalidate, or
  indeed any-ways affect the Authority of _Prosper_, who tells us in
  express Terms, that _Palladius_ was ordained by _Celestine_, _the
  First Bishop of_ Ireland? As for what the Primate offers to elude the
  Authority of _Prosper_, it is scarce worthy of Notice; _viz._ that the
  Word _Primus_ is not to be found in the Edition of that Writer by _Du
  Chesne_. For it is to be found, as _Usher_ himself owns, in all the
  other Editions, and even in _Bede_, as well as in every other Author,
  who has copied _Prosper_’s Chronicle.

Footnote N77.1:

  Ush. Brit. eccl. ant. p. 781-794.

Footnote N77.2:

  Boll. 17. Martii.

-----

The same Writers tell us, that St. _Patric_ was at _Rome_, when
_Celestine_ received the News of the Death of _Palladius_; and that
thereupon he ordained him Bishop, on the 30th of _July_ 432. about a
Year after the Ordination of _Palladius_, whose room he was sent over to
supply[1645]. But that they are therein mistaken, and that St. _Patric_
was not ordained till many Years after the Death of _Celestine_, I shall
shew hereafter.

_Celestine_ did not long outlive _Palladius_; for he died the following
Year 432. on the 26th of _July_, having governed the _Roman_ Church Nine
Years, Ten Months, and Seventeen Days[1646]. Both he and _Cyril_ have
been sainted, merely in Consideration of their extraordinary Feats
against _Nestorius_, and those who adhered to him; for Cruelty to
Heretics was now a cardinal Virtue, capable of atoning for the greatest
Crimes. As for _Cyril_, he had no better Title to that Honour, than the
Monk _Ammonius_, whom he sainted, and publicly commended as a holy
Martyr, because he died on the Rack for having attempted, at the Head of
Five hundred riotous Monks, to assassinate, and dangerously wounded,
_Orestes_ the Governor of _Alexandria_, in a Quarrel between him and
_Cyril_[N78]. _Celestine_ was buried in the Cœmetery of _Priscilla_,
where he is said to have caused the History of the Council of _Ephesus_
to be painted[1647]. In the Year 820. Pope _Pascal_ I. caused his Body
to be translated to the Church of St. _Praxedes_. And it is still
worshiped both there and in the Cathedral of _Mantua_[1648].

-----

Footnote N78:

  _The Bishops of_ Alexandria _had begun_, says _Socrates_[N78.1], _to
  exceed the Limits of the Ecclesiastical Power, and intermeddle in
  Civil Affairs, imitating therein the Bishop of_ Rome, _whose sacred
  Authority had long_ _since been changed into Dominion and Empire_. The
  Governors of _Alexandria_, looking upon the Increase of the Episcopal
  Power, as a Diminution of the Civil, watched all Opportunities of
  mortifying the Bishops, in order to restrain them within the Limits of
  the spiritual, and prevent their encroaching on the temporal
  Jurisdiction. But _Cyril_, from the very Beginning of his Episcopacy,
  bid Defiance to the civil Power, acting in such Manner as shewed but
  too plainly, that he would be kept within no Bounds. For soon after
  his Installation, he caused, by his own Authority, the Churches, which
  the _Novatians_ were allowed to have in _Alexandria_, to be shut up,
  seized on the sacred Utensils, and plundering the House of their
  Bishop _Theopemptus_, drove him out of the City, stript of every thing
  he possessed[[N78.2]. Not long after, the _Jews_, who were very
  numerous in _Alexandria_, having one Night treacherously murdered
  several Christians there, _Cyril_ next Morning, by Break of Day, put
  himself at the Head of the Christian Mob, and without the Knowlege of
  the Governor took Possession of the Synagogue, drove the _Jews_ out of
  _Alexandria_, pillaged their Houses, and allowed the Christians, who
  were concerned with him in the Riot, to appropriate to themselves all
  their Effects. This the Governor highly resented, and not only rebuked
  _Cyril_ very severely for thus entrenching on his Jurisdiction, and
  usurping a Power that did not become him; but writ to the Emperor,
  complaining of him for snatching the Sword of Justice from him to put
  it into the Hands of the undiscerning Multitude. This occasioned a
  Misunderstanding, or rather an avowed Enmity, between _Cyril_ and
  _Orestes_. With the former sided the Clergy, the greater Part of the
  Mob, and the Monks; with the latter the Soldiery, and the better Sort
  of the Citizens. As the two Parties were strangely animated against
  each other, there happened daily Skirmishes in the Streets of
  _Alexandria_. For the _Alexandrians_, as _Socrates_ observes[[N78.3],
  and is well known, were of all People the most seditious and
  ungovernable. The Friends of the Governor, generally speaking, made
  their Party good, having the Soldiery on their Side. But one Day as
  _Orestes_ was going out in his Chariot, attended by his Guards, he
  found himself very unexpectedly surrounded by no fewer than Five
  hundred Monks come from the Mountains of _Nitria_. The Monks were, in
  those Days, the standing Army of the Bishops; but are now of the Popes
  alone, who being sensible how serviceable such a formidable Corps
  might prove to the Apostolic See, not only against the Laity, but the
  Bishops themselves, exempted them from their Jurisdiction, and made
  them immediately dependent on themselves. But of the monkish Orders,
  their Founders and Institutions, I shall speak at Length on occasion
  of their being first taken by the Popes into their Service. The
  _Nitrian_ Monks in the Service of _Cyril_, having surrounded the
  Governor’s Chariot, first dispersed, with several Vollies of Stones,
  the small Guard that attended it, then falling upon him, dangerously
  wounded him, and seemed determined to put an End to the Quarrel
  between him and _Cyril_, by putting an End to his Life. But the
  Citizens, alarmed at his Danger, flew to his Rescue, put the cowardly
  Monks to flight at their first Appearance, and having seized on the
  Monk _Ammonius_, by whom _Orestes_ had been wounded, delivered him
  into his Hands. The Governor, to deter others from the like Attempts,
  and to mortify _Cyril_, whom he well knew to be at the Bottom of the
  Plot, caused the Monk to be tortured with so much Severity, that he
  expired on the Rack. But _Cyril_, partly out of Spite to the Governor,
  and partly to reward the Zeal, which the Monk had exerted in
  attempting to assassinate his Antagonist, caused him to be honoured as
  a holy Martyr, under the Name of _Thaumasius_, being himself ashamed
  to pay him that Honour under the Name of _Ammonius_[[N78.4]. The
  Partisans of _Cyril_, alike mortified and enraged at the Death of
  _Ammonius_, resolved, at all Events, to revenge it; and the Person
  they singled out among the Friends of _Orestes_ to wreak their Rage
  and Revenge on, was one, who, of all the Inhabitants of that populous
  City, deserved it the least. This was the famous, and so much
  celebrated, _Hypatia_, the Wonder of her Age for Beauty, Virtue, and
  Knowlege. She kept a public School of Philosophy in _Alexandria_,
  where she was born; and her Reputation was so great, that not only
  Disciples flocked from all Parts to hear her; but the greatest
  Philosophers used to consult her, as an Oracle, with respect to the
  most intricate and abstruse Points of Astronomy, Geometry, and the
  _Platonic_ Philosophy, which she was particularly well versed
  in[[N78.5]. Tho' she was very beautiful, and freely conversed with Men
  of all Ranks, yet those she conversed with were so awed by her known
  Virtue and Modesty, that none, but one of her own Disciples, ever
  presumed to shew in her Presence the least Symptom of Passion or
  Tenderness; and him she soon cured[[N78.6]. _Orestes_ entertained the
  highest Opinion of her Abilities, often consulted her, as the other
  Governors had done before him, and in all perplexed Cases governed
  himself by her Advice. As she was the Person in _Alexandria_, whom he
  most valued, and in whose Company he took the greatest Delight, the
  Friends of _Cyril_, to wound him in the most tender and sensible Part,
  entered into a Conspiracy to destroy the innocent Lady, and by her
  Death deprive him of that Comfort. This barbarous Resolution being
  taken, as she was one Day returning Home in her Chariot, a Band of the
  Dregs of the People, encouraged and headed by one of _Cyril_’s
  Ecclesiastics named _Peter_, attacked her in her Chariot, pulled her
  violently out of it, and throwing her on the Ground, dragged her to
  the great Church called _Cæsareum_. There they stript her naked, and
  with sharp Tiles, either brought with them, or found there, continued
  cutting, mangling, and tearing her Flesh, she bearing it with the
  greatest Firmness and Constancy, till Nature yielding to Pain, she
  expired under their Hands. Her Death did not satisfy their Rage and
  Fury. They tore her Body in Pieces, dragged her mangled Limbs, with a
  thousand Outrages, through all the Streets of _Alexandria_, and then,
  gathering them together, burnt them in a Place called
  _Cineron_[[N78.7]. Such was the End of the famous _Hypatia_, the most
  learned Person of the Age she lived in, and one of the best, tho’ not
  a Christian. Who could believe Christians, nay, Ecclesiastics, not to
  say Bishops, capable in those early Times of such Barbarities? The
  Account which I have given from _Socrates_ of the tragical End of
  _Hypatia_, is confirmed by _Damascius_ in his Life of _Isidorus_ the
  Philosopher, written towards the End of the present Century[[N78.8].
  He makes _Cyril_ the Author of that barbarous Murder. But _Damascius_,
  say _Du Pin_ and _Tillemont_, was a Pagan, and therefore deserves no
  Credit. I wish it could not be made out so easily as it may, that,
  tho’ a Pagan, he deserves to be credited on this Occasion. The Mob was
  headed, in perpetrating that horrid Murder, by one of _Cyril_’s
  Ecclesiastics; and I do not find, that he was ever punished, or even
  reprimanded, by his Bishop, on that Score. When the Emperor was first
  acquainted by _Orestes_, with what had happened, he expressed the
  greatest Indignation and a firm Resolution to punish the Offenders
  with the utmost Severity. But _Edesius_, a Deacon of the Church of
  _Alexandria_, who resided at _Constantinople_, with the Character of
  _Cyril_’s Nuncio, having gained over the Ministers, with the large
  Sums that were remitted to him (not by the Mob, or the Ecclesiastic
  who headed them; for he was only a Reader), the Emperor was not only
  appeased, but prevailed upon to grant a general Pardon to all, who
  were concerned in that Riot[[N78.9]. But, by pardoning them, he drew
  down Vengeance from Heaven upon himself, says the Historian, and was
  deservedly punished in the Persons of those, who were most dear to
  him[[N78.10]. He alludes perhaps to the unhappy End of _Valentinian_
  III. his Cousin and Son-in-law, who was murdered on the 17th of
  _March_ 455. and to the Misfortunes, which the whole Imperial Family
  was involved in after his Death.

  The Church of _Rome_, which has sainted this Man, may think herself
  concerned in Honour to justify all his Proceedings; but surely the
  Church of _England_ is not. I shall not therefore attempt such a
  Vindication; but having truly and faithfully related the Facts from a
  contemporary Historian, shall leave the Character of _Cyril_ to be
  judged of from them, and content myself with wishing, that one, whose
  Zeal for the Christian Religion was sometimes meritorious, had better
  understood the true Bounds of that Zeal, and the true Spirit of that
  Religion, than he appears to have done upon many Occasions.

Footnote N78.1:

  Socr. 1. 7. c. 7.

Footnote N78.2:

  Id. ibid.

Footnote N78.3:

  Socr. l. 7. c. 13.

Footnote N78.4:

  Socr. l. 7. c. 14.

Footnote N78.5:

  Soc. ibid. Theophan. p. 70, 71. Suid. p. 976, 977.

Footnote N78.6:

  Socr. et Suid. ibid.

Footnote N78.7:

  Socr. l. 7. c. 14.

Footnote N78.8:

  Suid. p. 977.

Footnote N78.9:

  Suid. p. 977. Socr. ibid.

Footnote N78.10:

  Socr. ibid.

-----

Thus far the History of the Popes has been merely Ecclesiastical, and
therefore less entertaining: but, in the next Volume, the Affairs of the
Church will begin very soon to be so interwoven with those of the State,
as to render the History both Ecclesiastic and Civil. The Popes will
soon make a very different Figure from that which they have hitherto
made; no longer mere Bishops, but Bishops and Princes; and the Bishop
almost intirely lost in the Prince; no longer contending only with their
Collegues for Spiritual Power and Jurisdiction, but, at the same time,
with the greatest Monarchs for Dominion and Empire; nay, employing the
Sword as well as the Keys, and heading, as directed by their Ambition or
Interest, both Councils and Armies. We shall see the Western Empire
utterly extinct, and _Italy_ successively invaded, and partly held by
the _Heruli_, by the _Goths_, by the _Greeks_, the _Lombards_, the
_French_, the _Italians_, the _Germans_, and the _Normans_; and the
Popes managing their Affairs, in all these Revolutions, with so much Art
and Address, as to reap, from most of them, some considerable Advantage
for themselves. Events more interesting, though, in reality, not more
important, than those which the present Volume relates; and which, to
the very End of this History, will be succeeded by others, equally
proper to excite the Attention even of such Readers as seek for
Amusement alone.

-----

Footnote 1588:

  Vid. Noris hist. Pel. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 1589:

  Aug. ep. 261. de civ. Dei, l. 22. c. 8.

Footnote 1590:

   Aug. ep. 261.

Footnote 1591:

  Aug. ibid.

Footnote 1592:

  Cod. Theod. t. 6, p. 184.

Footnote 1593:

  Concil. t. 2. p. 1048. Bar. ad ann. 419. n. 60.

Footnote 1594:

  Concil. t. 2. p. 1137-1144.

Footnote 1595:

  Concil. t. 2. p. 1144-1148.

Footnote 1596:

  Conc. t. 2. p. 1145-1149.

Footnote 1597:

  Concil. t. 2. p. 1137-1145.

Footnote 1598:

  Ibid. p. 1137-1141.

Footnote 1599:

  Ibid. t. 2. p. 1144.

Footnote 1600:

  See p. 342.

Footnote 1601:

  Concil. t. 2. p. 1145-1148.

Footnote 1602:

  Concil. t. 2. p. 1148, 1149.

Footnote 1603:

  Socr. l. 7. c. 29.

Footnote 1604:

  Coll. Rom. per Holsten. p. 85-87.

Footnote 1605:

  Luke xii. 25.

Footnote 1606:

  Prosp. chr.

Footnote 1607:

  Constant. l. 1. c. 19. apud Surium, l. 4.

Footnote 1608:

  Prosp. chron.

Footnote 1609:

  Constant. ubi supra.

Footnote 1610:

  Constant. vit. S. Ger. l. 2. c. 1. apud Sur. t. 3. 30. Julii.

Footnote 1611:

  Concil. t. 3. p. 1124. Cyr. ep. 38. Petav. dog. theolog. t. 4. l. 1.
  c. 7.

Footnote 1612:

  Concil. t. 3. p. 327.

Footnote 1613:

  Conc. t. 3. p. 349-356.

Footnote 1614:

  Concil. t. 3. p. 346. & concil. app. per Balus. p. 45.

Footnote 1615:

  Mercat. t. 1. p. 71.

Footnote 1616:

  Concil. t. 3. p. 379. Arnobii Junioris cum Serap. conflict. p. 548.

Footnote 1617:

  Concil. t. 3. p. 374-376.

Footnote 1618:

  Ibid. p. 349.

Footnote 1619:

  Concil. t. 3. p. 395-410. Socr. l. 7. c. 34.

Footnote 1620:

  Concil. t. 3. p. 1150. Liberat. c. 4.

Footnote 1621:

  Liberat. c. 4. Concil. t. 3. p. 434.

Footnote 1622:

  Concil. ibid. p. 534.

Footnote 1623:

  Concil. ibid. p.534-547.

Footnote 1624:

  Concil. t. 1. p. 560.

Footnote 1625:

  Greg. l. 1. ep. 24.

Footnote 1626:

  Naz. ep. 55.

Footnote 1627:

  Concil. ibid. p. 702.

Footnote 1628:

  Ibid. Pel. l. 2. ep. 110.

Footnote 1629:

  See above, p. 294.

Footnote 1630:

  Concil. t. 3. p. 727-730. Cotel. Monum. Eccl. Græc. p. 41.

Footnote 1631:

  Lup. divers. ep. c. 41.

Footnote 1632:

  M. Simon. hist. crit. de la creance et des coutûmes des Nations du
  Levant.

Footnote 1633:

  Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Concil. t. 3. p. 744.

Footnote 1634:

  Concil. app. p. 108.

Footnote 1635:

  Concil. l. 3. p. 1070, 1071.

Footnote 1636:

  Concil. ib. p. 1058, 1059. & ap. p. 884.

Footnote 1637:

  Cod. Theod. t. 6. p. 190. Concil. t. 3. p. 1200.

Footnote 1638:

  Socr. l. 7. c. 34.

Footnote 1639:

  Idem ib.

Footnote 1640:

  Evagr. l. 1, c. 7.

Footnote 1641:

  Socr. l. 7. c. 29.

Footnote 1642:

  Mark iv. 24.

Footnote 1643:

  See the Works of St. Leo, by F. Quesnel, and Du Pin, Biblioth. eccl.
  t. 3. part 2.

Footnote 1644:

  Vid. Boll. 17. Martii.

Footnote 1645:

  Id. ibid.

Footnote 1646:

  Prosper, ann. 432.

Footnote 1647:

  Anast. p. 547.

Footnote 1648:

  Boll. Apr. 6.




                    _The_ END _of the_ FIRST VOLUME.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Transcriber’s Note

The system of footnotes is somewhat complicated. Notes on the main text
are lettered ‘a’ to ‘z’ (skipping ‘j’ and ‘v’), and repeat that pattern
from page to page, beginning anew on each section. These attributive
notes nearly always serve simply to designate sources. There are 78
longer explanatory notes which are lettered with uppercase characters,
always beginning with ‘A’ and only proceeding to ‘B’, etc., if they
appear on the same page. These notes are themselves annotated with
internally numbered subnotes.

 [a]        The lower-case lettered footnotes, used to refer to sources,
              have been moved to the end of each article, and have been
              resequenced for uniqueness.

 [A]        The uppercase lettered footnotes, used for supplementary
              comments, have been moved, when necessary, to follow the
              paragraph where they are referenced. A number of those
              notes had numbered footnotes of their own. These have been
              kept with the note itself. The supplementary notes have
              been resequenced as well, and prefixed with an ‘N’.

 (1)        The numbered subnotes have been renumbered sequentially
              within the note, including the note’s designation. For
              example ‘N47.1’ is the first subnote for the N47
              supplemental note.

The word ‘acknowledge’ appears most regularly as ‘acknowlege’, but the
two instances of the more modern spelling are retained.

On p. 66, the anchor for footnote 429 (‘o’ in the original) is missing.
It has been placed based upon its appearance in other editions.

An italic font was used to denote emphasized terms, proper names,
non-English words and phrases, Latin abbreviations, as well as the text
of quotations and sidenotes. Within quoted (and italicized) text, proper
names are given in the default font.

Spelling and punctuation has been retained, with only a few exceptions.
Those errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected,
and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the
original. Errors within footnotes include the page that the note appears
on in the original, the original footnote designation, and the line
within the note.

  viii.26  _so pestilential, errone[e/o]us, heretical,    Replaced.
           and blasphemous_

  ix.8     paid[ ]dear for it                             Inserted.

  34.10    _Fugacius_ and _Damia[n]us_                    Restored.

  38.11    Agreeab[l]y to this Resolution                 Restored.

  67.25    in Answer to _Jubaian[n/u]s_                   Inverted.

  121.26   as [s]he shall think fit                       Removed.

  143.32   In order to [] this                            Missing
                                                          verb.

  172.35   extolled by _Greg[o]ry Nazianzen_              Restored.

  190.11   of the _Roman_ Clergy[,]                       Added.

  195.20   by the Advice of _A[ub/th]anasius_             Replaced.

  217.23   the See of _Constan[stan]tinople_              Removed.

  270.2    and united in Com[m]union                      Inserted.

  281A.21  exp[ati/iat]e there the Sins                   Transposed.

  310A.5   to exclude, a[t/s] _Innocent_ does,            Replaced.

  323.26   a Divine Right of finally decid[e]ing          Removed.

  336.35   In his room was placed one _Patroculus_        _sic_