The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of the Popes: From the Foundation of the See of Rome, to the Present Time, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. Title: The History of the Popes: From the Foundation of the See of Rome, to the Present Time, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1 Author: Archibald Bower Release date: September 29, 2020 [eBook #63336] Language: English Credits: 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.) *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF THE POPES: FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE SEE OF ROME, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 3RD ED. VOL. 1 *** 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_ *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF THE POPES: FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE SEE OF ROME, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 3RD ED. VOL. 1 *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.