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: