-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANTINE. MARK,
_Thirty-third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 336. ]
_Sylvester_ was succeeded by _Mark_, on the 18th of _January_ 336. He is
passed over by _Theodoret_[658], but named by _Optatus_[659],
_Ruffinus_[660], St. _Austin_[661], St. _Jerom_[662], and
_Sozomen_[663]. We know nothing certain either of his Life or
Administration. [Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Rome _ordained by the Bishop
of_ Ostia.] _Anastasius_ indeed tells us, that by him the Bishop of
_Ostia_ was first appointed to ordain the Bishop of _Rome_, and to carry
the _Pallium_ or Pall; where _Baronius_ observes, that the Pall is here
mentioned for the First time[664]. But _Anastasius_ is not a Writer we
can depend upon. It is certain, however, that the Bishops of _Ostia_
have long enjoyed this Privilege; for it is mentioned by St.
_Austin_[665], and likewise in a Memorial presented by the Clergy of
_Rome_ in 418. to the Emperor _Honorius_, on Occasion of the Election of
Pope _Zosimus_[666]. The Letter which the Bishops of _Egypt_ are said to
have written to this Pope, and his Answer to them, are rejected even by
_Baronius_[667], and very justly; for the Pope’s Answer is dated
Eighteen Days after his Death. He died on the 7th of _October_ the same
Year he had been chosen[668], and was buried in the Cœmetery of
_Balbina_, which was thenceforth called after his Name[669]. His Body is
now worshiped in the Church of St. _Laurence_ at _Florence_, though no
Mention is made by any Writer of its having ever been translated
thither[670].
-----
Footnote 658:
Theod. l. 2. c. 12.
Footnote 659:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 660:
Ruffin. l. 10. c. 22.
Footnote 661:
Aug. ep. 165.
Footnote 662:
Hier. chron.
Footnote 663:
Soz. l. 2. C. 20.
Footnote 664:
Bar. ad ann. 336. n. 64.
Footnote 665:
Aug. coll. die 3. c. 16.
Footnote 666:
Vide Du Pin dissert. 1. n. 13.
Footnote 667:
Bar. ibid. n. 60, 61.
Footnote 668:
Soz. l. 2. c. 20. Hier. chron. Buch. p. 267. 273.
Footnote 669:
Front. cal. p. 141.
Footnote 670:
Bolland, Pont. p. 50.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANTINE, JULIUS, CONSTANTINE,
and his Three _Thirty-fourth_ BISHOP _of_ CONSTANTIUS,
Sons, Rome. and CONSTANS.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 337. _Falsely said to have held a great
Council at_ Rome.]
Upon the Death of _Mark_ the See was vacant for the Space of Four
Months, that is, to the 6th of _February_ 337. when _Julius_ was
chosen[671]. He is said to have held a Council of an Hundred and Sixteen
Bishops in the _December_ of the same Year[672]. But the Date of this
Council puts _Baronius_ to a Stand; for in the Date are marked the
Consuls, the Year of the Emperors, and the Indiction. Now, according to
the Consuls, it must have been held in 337. according to the Year of the
Emperors, in 340. and, according to the Indiction, in 347. The Annalist
spares neither his Words nor his Labour to solve, or rather to patch up,
this Difficulty; but, being sensible, after a long, tedious, and
puzzling Descant, that he labours in vain, he concludes, that the Text
has been altered[673]. He might have saved himself a great deal of
Trouble, by owning at once what has been plainly proved since by
_Blondel_[674], _viz._ that no such Council was ever held.
When _Julius_ was raised to the Pontificate, the celebrated
_Athanasius_, Bishop of _Alexandria_, lived in Banishment at _Treves_;
but the Year following he was allowed to return to his Church by the
Three Emperors, _Constantine_, _Constantius_, and _Constans_, who had
succeeded their Father in 337. [Sidenote: _The_ Arians _write to_ Julius
_against_ Athanasius.] The _Eusebians_, that is, the _Arian_ Faction
headed by _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_, at whose Instigation he had
been banished by _Constantine_, alarmed at his Return, writ bitter
Letters against him to the Three Princes, and likewise to the Bishop of
_Rome_. To the latter they dispatched with their Letters _Macarius_ a
Presbyter, and the Two Deacons _Martyrius_ and _Hesychius_. _Athanasius_
no sooner heard of this Embassy than he, in his Turn, dispatched some
Presbyters to oppose the Attempts of his Enemies, and defend his
Innocence against the Calumnies, which he well knew they were sent to
spread against him, not only at _Rome_, but all over the West[675].
[Sidenote: _They desire_ Julius _to assemble a Council_.] Upon their
Arrival, _Macarius_ privately withdrew from _Rome_, and the other Two
were so confounded by the Deputies of _Athanasius_, at a private
Conference held before the Pope, that, to gain Time, they had no other
Resource but to appeal to a Council, which they begged the Pope to
assemble, and to give timely notice thereof both to _Athanasius_ and the
_Eusebians_. They bragged that, before the Council, they would make good
the Charge they had brought against _Athanasius_, and offered to take
_Julius_ himself for their Judge[676]. This Offer, we may be sure, was
readily accepted by the Bishop of _Rome_, who immediately writ to
_Athanasius_ inviting him to the Council, and at the same time desired
the Deputies of the _Eusebians_ to acquaint their Party, that, agreeably
to their Request, a Council should be soon convened. _Athanasius_, upon
the Receipt of the Pope’s Letter, set out, without Delay, for _Rome_,
where he arrived in the Latter end of the Year 339. After his Arrival
the Bishop of _Rome_ dispatched _Elpidius_ and _Philoxenes_, Two of his
Presbyters, with Letters to the _Eusebians_, summoning them to the
Council, which their Deputies had demanded, and acquainting them with
the Time and Place in which it was to be held[677]. The Place was
_Rome_, and the Time the Month of _June_ 341. according to the most
probable Opinion. [Sidenote: _They decline appearing at the Council
of_ Rome; _assemble one at_ Antioch; _and there depose_ Athanasius;] The
other Bishops assembled at the Time appointed; but the _Eusebians_,
instead of appearing at the Council of _Rome_, which had been convened
at their Request, assembled one at _Antioch_, and there, without waiting
for the Determination of _Julius_, whom they had chosen for their Judge,
deposed _Athanasius_, and appointed _Gregory_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ in
his room; nay, they even detained the Deputies sent by the Pope till the
Time appointed for the Meeting of the Council was expired, that they
might afterwards plead, as they did, the Shortness of the Term
prescribed for them to meet in[678]. [Sidenote: _who is
declared innocent in the Council of_ Rome.] In the Council of _Rome_ the
Cause of _Athanasius_ was examined, and he, after the strictest
Scrutiny, declared innocent with one Voice by the Fifty Bishops who
composed it[679]; so that _Julius_ and the rest continued to communicate
with him as a Bishop[680], which was declaring him unlawfully deposed.
Several other Bishops, who had been deposed by the _Arians_, came to lay
their Complaints before the Council, and, among the rest, _Marcellus_
Bishop of _Ancyra_, and _Paul_ Bishop of _Constantinople_. The former
had been condemned as an Heretic by a Council held at _Constantinople_
in 336. and consisting intirely of _Arian_ Bishops. As nobody appeared
against him during the Fifteen Months he continued at _Rome_, and the
Declaration of his Faith, which, at the Request of _Julius_, he gave
under his own Hand, was judged quite orthodox by the Pope and the
Council, he was readmitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church[681].
But whether they did not judge too favourably of his Belief, may be very
much questioned: _Epiphanius_ at least was no-ways satisfied with
it[682]. And truly it would be no easy Task to clear him from the Heresy
of _Sabellius_ and _Samosatenus_, denying the Trinity of the Divine
Persons[683]: but to examine so perplexed and intricate a Point, would
be foreign to my Purpose. [Sidenote: _Neither_ Athanasius _nor any
other Bishop restored by_ Julius.] _Socrates_[684] and _Sozomen_[685]
write, that _Julius_, by the Authority of his See, reinstated all the
Bishops who had been displaced by the _Arians_; that he supported and
defended their Innocence with Letters full of Vigour and Liberty;
severely reprimanded those who had deposed them; summoned some of them
to appear at _Rome_, in a limited Time, to justify their Conduct; and,
lastly, that he threatened to treat them as they deserved, if they did
not forbear raising Disturbances in the Church. In virtue of these
Letters, says _Socrates_, the Bishops were restored to their Sees. But
_Sozomen_ names only _Athanasius_, and _Paul_ Bishop of
_Constantinople_. It is surprising, that the Advocates for the See of
_Rome_ should allege the Testimony of these two Writers, to prove that
the Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_ was acknowleged by the Orientals;
that his Jurisdiction was universal; when they themselves must know (for
I cannot suppose them so ignorant as not to know) that the Historians
whom they quote were grosly mistaken. For it is manifest from
_Athanasius_[686], that _Julius_ writ only two Letters to the
_Eusebians_; one before the Council met, inviting them to it; and the
other, while the Council was still sitting, which I shall speak of
hereafter; and in neither of these does _Julius_ take upon him either to
threaten or command. The above-mentioned Historians seem to have jumbled
these two Letters together, and to have made a Third out of them, with
some Improvements of their own. As to his restoring the deposed Bishops
to their Sees, it is certain he did not, since _Athanasius_ continued in
the West till the Year 349. when he was restored by the Council of
_Sardica_. _Paul_ indeed was reinstated sooner, but not till the See of
_Constantinople_ became vacant by the Death of _Eusebius_, who had been
translated from _Nicomedia_ to that City. I appeal to the _Roman_
Catholics themselves, and leave them to judge whether it is at all
probable, that the Emperor _Constantius_, and the Oriental Bishops,
incensed as they were against _Paul_ and _Athanasius_, whom they had
condemned and deposed in Two Synods, should, out of Respect to the Pope,
suffer them thus tamely to return to their Sees, and drive out those
whom they had placed in their room. This had been owning themselves
guilty, and reversing the Sentence they had but lately pronounced,
which, as will appear, they were no-ways in an Humour to do.
[Sidenote: _The_ Eusebians _write to_ Julius;]
While the Council of _Rome_ was yet sitting, the Pope’s two Deputies,
_Elpidius_ and _Philoxenes_, returning from the East, delivered to
_Julius_ a Letter from the _Eusebians_, which may pass for a
Master-piece of the Kind; for, without departing from, or intrenching
upon, the Respect that was due to the Bishop of the Imperial City, they,
at the same time, commend, censure, menace, and rally him in a most
cruel Manner. They begin with alleging several frivolous Excuses for not
appearing at the Council, such as the _Persian_ War, which, by the way,
did not prevent their assembling at _Antioch_; the Shortness of the Term
prescribed for their Meeting; the Pope’s writing only to some of them,
and not to all, as he ought to have done; and finally, his writing to
them in his own Name alone, which was tacitly taxing him with taking too
much upon him. They then launch out ironically, it seems, into the
highest Encomiums on the Church of _Rome_, styling her the first of all
Churches, the School of the Apostles, the Metropolis of true Piety.
However, the first Preachers of the Gospel, add they, came out of the
East; and, after all, we ought to be looked upon as Inferiors to none,
though perhaps we may not have such numerous and flourishing Churches as
some have, since the want of Numbers may be abundantly supplied by the
Piety of a few. As to Rank, we are all equal, the Greatness of the
Cities, in which we preside, adding nothing to the Dignity we all enjoy.
In the next place, they express great Concern at the little Regard shewn
by some to the Decisions of Councils, which ought to be revered by all,
and deemed immutable. This was modestly censuring the Pope for not
acquiescing to the Decrees of the Councils of _Tyre_ and
_Constantinople_ condemning _Athanasius_. [Sidenote: _and threaten
to separate themselves from his Communion_.] In the End they allege
several Things both against _Athanasius_, and _Marcellus_ Bishop of
_Ancyra_; and conclude with telling _Julius_, that if he renounced all
Correspondence and Intercourse with the Bishops they had deposed, and
acknowleged those they had placed in their room, they would continue to
communicate with him; but if he refused to comply with their Decisions
and Decrees, they should think themselves obliged to act in a very
different Manner[687]. _Julius_ was so mortified with this Letter, that
he suppressed it for some time, hoping the _Eusebians_ would send
Deputies, who, he presumed, would express their Sentiments by Word of
Mouth, and in a different Style. But, none appearing, he was obliged to
lay the Letter he had received before the Fathers of the Council, who,
after expressing the greatest Indignation against the _Eusebians_,
advised the Pope to answer it; which he did accordingly, by that
excellent Letter, which has been preserved intire among the Works of
_Athanasius_. [Sidenote: Julius_’s Answer to their Letter_.] He begins
with complaining, in very modest Terms, of the Animosity they betrayed
in their Letter, to which he thought he had given no Occasion; unless
they had taken it amiss, that he had summoned them to the Council; which
he could not persuade himself they did, since, at the Request of their
Deputies, he had appointed the Council to meet, and, at their Request,
invited them to it. As for the Regard due to the Decrees and Decisions
of Councils, he told them, that they had trespassed the first against
the Decrees of the Oecumenical Council of _Nice_, by admitting the
_Arians_ to their Communion, which he conceived to be more criminal in
them, than it was in him to receive _Athanasius_ and _Marcellus_. He
reproaches them with another Transgression of the Canons of the Church,
namely with that of passing from one Bishoprick to another, which
_Eusebius_ had done. He then justifies his Conduct with regard to
_Athanasius_ and _Marcellus_; exhorts the _Eusebians_, with great Zeal
and Earnestness, to find out some Remedy against the Evils and Disorders
that reigned in the East, which he describes at Length; and concludes
with complaining of the Orientals for condemning and deposing Bishops,
those especially of the Apostolic Sees, without the Concurrence or
Knowlege of their Brethren in the West[688].
_Julius_, finding his Letter made no Impression on the _Eusebians_,
applied with several other Bishops to the Emperor _Constans_, who, at
their Request proposed to his Brother _Constantius_ the assembling of an
Oecumenical Council, in order to put an End to those unhappy Divisions.
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Sardica.] To this Proposal _Constantius_
agreed; and accordingly, by the Command of the two Princes, a numerous
Council met in 347. at _Sardica_, the Metropolis of _Dacia_ in
_Illyricum_[689]. _Julius_, apprehending it dangerous to abandon his
Flock at that Juncture, did not assist in Person, but by his Deputies
_Archidamus_ and _Philoxenes_, who signed in his Name[690]. The
Orientals came, but withdrew soon after, upon the Council’s refusing to
exclude _Athanasius_, and some others, whom they had condemned[691]. But
by the orthodox Bishops, who remained, the Acts of the Council of _Rome_
were confirmed, _Athanasius_ and Three other Bishops declared innocent;
and those, who had been placed in their room, not only deposed, but
anathematized, and intirely cut off from the Communion of the Catholic
Church[692]. The Council, before they broke up, writ several Letters;
and, among the rest, one to the Emperors; one to the Bishop of _Rome_;
and a circular Letter to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church,
acquainting them with what had passed, and exhorting them to join the
Council, and declare to the World, that they accepted their Decrees by
subscribing to them[693]. The circular Letter was subscribed first by
the great _Osius_ Bishop of _Cordoua_, and in the Second place by the
Pope’s Legates[694]. In their Letter to _Julius_ they beg him to notify
their Decrees to the Bishops of _Sardinia_, _Sicily_, and _Italy_, lest
any of them should receive Letters of Peace and Communion from the
Bishops they had condemned[695]. In this Letter the Council says, or
rather is made to say, That _it is very meet or reasonable, that all
Bishops should acquaint their Head, that is, the See of St._ Peter,
_with what passes in their respective Provinces_[696]. I agree with
_Blondel_[697], that this Passage is foisted in; but cannot acquiesce to
the only Reason he alleges to support his Opinion, _viz._ the Barbarity
of the _Latin_ Expression (_valde congruentissimum est_); for such a
Slip might easily escape Men wholly bent on defending the Truth, and
speaking it; and besides, we are not certain, that this Letter was
originally written in _Latin_. The want of Connexion between that
Sentence, and what is said both before and after it, is, I think, a more
convincing Proof of Forgery.
[Sidenote: _Canons of the Council of_ Sardica _relating to the Bishop
of_ Rome.]
By the Council of _Sardica_ several Canons were made; but I shall only
take notice of those that regard the Bishop of _Rome_. By the Third
Canon in the _Greek_, or the Fourth in the _Latin_ Translation by
_Isidorus_, it is ordered, that if any Bishop shall think himself
unjustly condemned, his Judges shall acquaint the Bishop of _Rome_
therewith, who may either confirm the first Judgment, or order his Cause
to be re-examined by such of the neighbouring Bishops as he shall think
fit to name[698]. _Osius_, who was greatly addicted to the See of
_Rome_, begged the Council to grant this Honour to the Memory of St.
_Peter_. The Fourth Canon, according to the _Greek_, adds, That the See
of the deposed Bishop shall remain vacant till his Cause shall be judged
by the Bishop of _Rome_. By the Fifth Canon, which by some Mistake is
the Seventh in _Dionysius Exiguus_, it is ordered, that if a Bishop,
condemned in his own Province, shall chuse to be judged by the Bishop of
_Rome_, and desires him to appoint some of his Presbyters to judge him
in his Name, together with the Bishops, the Bishop of _Rome_ may grant
him his Request. [Sidenote: _The Practice of appealing to the
Pope first introduced._ _Several Circumstances concur in his Favour._]
Thus was the pernicious Practice of appealing to the Pope first
introduced and authorized. It must be observed, that the Oriental
Bishops had all left the Council: those who remained were all zealous
Opposers of _Arianism_. At the Head of their Party was the Bishop of
_Rome_. In the Heat of their Zeal they thought they could not confer too
much Power upon him; and so made a Concession intirely repugnant to the
Discipline of the primitive Church, and which he could never have
obtained, had not those Dispositions worked strongly in his Favour. This
will not be surprising to those, who have attended to History, and seen
how much the Ambition of Princes, and Heads of Factions, is often
advanced beyond its due Bounds by the indiscreet Fervour of Party-Zeal.
To the Council of _Sardica_, acting under this Influence, the See of
_Rome_ is indebted for the so much boasted Privilege of receiving
Appeals; and _Julius_ was very thankful for it. [Sidenote: _The Popes
claim as their original Right, what was granted them as a Favour._] But
his Successors, looking upon such an Obligation as a Diminution of their
pretended Sovereignty, have had the Assurance to claim it as their
original Right: but that such a Right was unknown to their great Friend
_Osius_, to the Fathers of the Council, nay, and to the Pope himself,
and his Legates, is manifest, since what they now claim as their
original and inherent Right, was by _Osius_ begged of the Council as a
Favour, and, as such, granted by the Council, and accepted by the Pope
and his Legates. This Power of receiving Appeals, only with respect to
the judging and deposing of Bishops, has been extended by the Popes to
all Causes; and great Encouragement has been given to such as recurred
to their Tribunal on the slightest Occasions. _Concerning Appeals in the
smallest Causes, we would have you to know, that the same Regard is to
be had to them, for how slight a Matter soever they be made, as if they
were for a greater_, says Pope _Alexander_ III. in his Letter to the
Bishop of _Worcester_[699]. The scandalous and intolerable Abuse of this
Power in the Popes has obliged several Princes, even when Superstition
most prevailed, to restrain their Subjects by severe Laws from recurring
to _Rome_. Nay, other Councils of far greater Authority than that of
_Sardica_, finding no other Means to put a Stop to the daily
Encroachments of the See of _Rome_, have thought it necessary to revoke
the Privilege, which that Council had too rashly granted, as we shall
see in the Sequel of the present History.
[Sidenote: _Decrees of the Council of_ Antioch _revoked by the Council
of_ Sardica.]
It had been decreed but Six Years before, by the Council of _Antioch_,
that, if the Bishops of the same Province disagreed in judging one of
their Brethren, the Metropolitan might call in those of the neighbouring
Province to judge with them; but if they agreed, and were unanimous
either in condemning or absolving, their Judgment should be
irreversible. Both these Decrees were revoked by the present Council,
though intirely agreeable to the antient Practice and Discipline of the
Church. [Sidenote: _The Pope has no Power to summon Bishops to_ Rome.]
But yet this Council, however favourable to the Pope, did not grant him
the Power of summoning Bishops to _Rome_, in order to be judged there by
him. He was only impowered to examine the Judgment given in the
Province; and, in case he found it to be wrong, to order another in the
same Province, to invite to this new Synod the Bishops of the next
Province, and to send his Legates to it as he thought fit.
[Sidenote: Osius _did not preside at the Council of_ Sardica _as the
Pope’s Legate_.]
At this Council the Pope’s Legates assisted; but Osius presided, as we
are told in express Terms by _Theodoret_[700], by _Sozomen_[701], and by
the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_[702]. Besides, his Name is the
first in the Subscriptions, as they have been transmitted to us by
_Athanasius_, who assures us, that _Osius_ was the Chief, and presided
in all the Councils at which he assisted. He signed the first, and in
his own Name: after him signed the Legates, not in their own, but in the
Pope’s Name; _Julius Romæ per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros_;
which is a sufficient Confutation of _De Marca_, and the other Popish
Writers, pretending, without the least Foundation, that _Osius_ presided
in the Name of _Julius_.
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Sardica _a Council of no great Authority_.]
It is to be observed, that the Canons of this Council were never
received in the East, nor even in the West by the Bishops of _Africa_;
and that they were not inserted by the Council of _Chalcedon_ into the
Code of Canons approved by them, as Rules to be universally observed: so
that, after all, the so much boasted Council of _Sardica_ is a Council
of no great Authority. Of this the Popes themselves were well apprised;
and therefore, recurring to Fraud, attempted, as we shall see hereafter,
to impose upon the World the Canons of _Sardica_ as the Canons of
_Nice_.
[Sidenote: Athanasius _retires to_ Naissus.]
_Athanasius_, though declared innocent by the Council, did not think it
adviseable to return to his See, being informed, that the _Eusebians_
had prevailed upon the Emperor _Constantius_ to issue an Order,
impowering and commanding the Magistrates of _Alexandria_ to put him to
Death, without further Tryal, in what Place soever he should be found
within the Precincts of that Jurisdiction[703]. [Sidenote: _Is recalled
by_ Constantius.] He therefore retired to _Naissus_ in _Upper Dacia_,
and there continued from the year 347. to 349. when _Constantius_ chose
rather to recall him, and the other exiled Bishops, than engage in a
Civil War, with which he was threatened by his Brother, if he did
not[704]. Before his Departure for the East he went to _Rome_, to take
his Leave of that Church, and his great Protector _Julius_, who, on that
Occasion, writ an excellent Letter of Congratulation to the Presbyters,
Deacons, and People of _Alexandria_. Of this Letter we have Two Copies,
the one in _Socrates_[705], and the other in _Athanasius_[706]. The
former contains great Commendations of that Prelate, which, out of
Modesty, were, as I conjecture, omitted by him.
[Sidenote: Ursacius _and_ Valens _retract all they had said
against_ Athanasius.]
_Julius_ had, soon after, the Satisfaction of receiving a solemn
Retractation made by _Ursacius_ Bishop of _Singidunum_, and _Valens_
Bishop of _Mursus_, Two of _Athanasius_’s most inveterate Enemies,
publicly owning, that whatever they had said or written against him was
utterly false, groundless, and invented out of pure Malice: at the same
time they embraced his Communion, and anathematized the Heresy of
_Arius_, and all who held or defended his Tenets. This Act _Valens_ writ
with his own Hand, and _Ursacius_ signed it; whereupon they were both
admitted by _Julius_ to the Communion of the Church[707][N13]. This
Retraction, though not at all sincere, but merely owing to Policy,
greatly contributed to the Justification of _Athanasius_. I find nothing
else in the Antients, concerning _Julius_, worthy of Notice. [Sidenote:
Julius _dies_.] He died on the 12th of _April_ 352. having governed the
Church of _Rome_ Fifteen Years, Two Months, and Six Days[708]. He is
said to have been buried in the Cœmetery of _Callistus_, on the
_Aurelian_ Way, where he had built a Church[709], and to have been
removed from thence in 817. by Pope _Paschal_ I. to the Church of St.
_Praxedes_, and again from that, by _Innocent_ II. in 1140. to _St.
Mary’s_ beyond the _Tyber_[710]. _Bede_, whom the Authors of the modern
Pontificals have followed, tells us, in his Martyrology[711], that
_Julius_ was sent into Banishment, where he suffered much for the Space
of Ten Months, till the Death of _Constantius_, a zealous Promoter of
_Arianism_. [Sidenote: Julius _was not banished by_ Constantius.] But
that Historian was certainly mistaken, since _Constantius_ was never
Master of _Rome_ in _Julius_’s Time, and his Brother _Constans_ was a
great Friend to _Julius_, and all the orthodox Bishops. [Sidenote:
_Spurious Pieces ascribed to him._] Of the many Writings ascribed to
_Julius_, none, except his Two Letters, are authentic, the one to the
_Eusebians_, and the other to the Church of _Alexandria_, of which we
have spoken above. _Leontius_ of _Byzantium_ mentions Seven Epistles,
which, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, were ascribed to
_Julius_[712]; but, at the same time, he assures us, that they were not
written by him, but by _Apollinaris_ the Heresiarch; and the Monks of
_Palæstine_, in the Account they gave of the _Eutychians_, in the Time
of the Emperor _Anastasius_, assure us, that they seduced great Numbers
of People, by ascribing the Works of _Apollinaris_ to the Fathers,
namely to _Athanasius_, to _Gregory Nazienzen_, and to _Julius_[713].
_Gennadius_ ascribes to _Julius_ a Letter to _Dionysius_ Bishop of
_Corinth_, greatly favouring of the Heresy of _Eutyches_ and
_Timotheus_[714]; but _Leontius_ of _Byzantium_ evidently proves that
Letter to have been written by _Apollinaris_; and as his it is quoted by
his Two Disciples _Valentine_ and _Timotheus_[715]. The Orientals have a
Liturgy, which they suppose to have been composed by _Julius_: this
Supposition, however groundless, shews him to have been in great Repute
in those Parts[716].
-----
Footnote N13:
_Ursacius_ and _Valens_ first abjured, or rather pretended to abjure,
their Errors at _Milan_, before the Council, that at this Time was
sitting there. From _Milan_ they repaired to _Rome_, and there abjured
anew their Errors, in the Presence of _Julius_, and the whole _Roman_
Church. Here _Baronius_ observes, _that as this was a Matter of too
great Moment to be finally decided by the Council of_ Milan, _though
the_ Roman _Presbyters were present, they sent them to_ Julius, _that
they might abjure their Errors in his Presence, agreeably to the
antient Custom of the Catholic Church_; viz. _that eminent Heretics
should abjure their Heresies only at_ Rome[N13.1]. But, in the first
Place, they were not sent by the Council; but went to _Rome_ of their
own Accord, as _Osius_ assures us, in express Terms, _Illi ultre Romam
venerunt_[N13.2]. In the second Place, the Matter was finally
determined by the Council of _Milan_; for the Council received their
Recantation, and restored them to the Communion of the Church. And
what else was to be done? what else could _Julius_ do? But if the
Matter was finally determined by the Council, what could induce them,
says _Baronius_, to travel to _Rome_, and abjure anew their Heresy
there? The Answer is obvious: They had imposed upon the Council by a
pretended Abjuration, and went to _Rome_ to impose, in like manner, on
_Julius_, and obtain by that means his Communion; which they did
accordingly, notwithstanding his _Infallibility_. Besides, as both
_Athanasius_ and his Enemies had referred their Cause to the
Arbitration of _Julius_, he was the fittest Person to receive the
Retraction of the false Evidence, which they had formerly given. As to
the Custom, mentioned by _Baronius_, that _eminent Heretics should
abjure their Heresies only at_ Rome, no Man can be so little versed in
Ecclesiastical History as not to know, that no such Custom ever
obtained in the Catholic Church. Not to recur to more antient Times,
the _Arian_ Bishops, that is, Bishops guilty of the same Heresy as
_Ursacius_ and _Valens_, abjured their Errors before the Council that
was held at _Jerusalem_ in 335. There they renounced their Heresy;
there they were all restored to the Communion of the Church, without
going, or offering to go, to _Rome_. And many of those Bishops were
surely more eminent Heretics than either _Ursacius_ or _Valens_.
Footnote N13.1:
Bar. ad ann. 350. n. 23.
Footnote N13.2:
Apud Ath. ad Solitar.
-----
-----
Footnote 671:
Buch. p. 273.
Footnote 672:
Concil. tom. 2. p. 527.
Footnote 673:
Bar. ad ann. 337. n. 67.
Footnote 674:
Blond. decret. p. 451.
Footnote 675:
Athan. apol. 2. p. 741-745.
Footnote 676:
Id. ib.
Footnote 677:
Id. ib. Socr. l. 2. c. 15. Soz. l. 3. c. 8.
Footnote 678:
Athan. ib. p. 744. & ad Solit. p. 816.
Footnote 679:
Id. ib. p. 748.
Footnote 680:
Idem ib. Hil. frag. p. 26.
Footnote 681:
Id. ib. p. 750.
Footnote 682:
Epiph. 72. c. 4.
Footnote 683:
Vide Petav. dog. t. 2. l. 1. c. 13. Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. p. 46.
Footnote 684:
Socr. l. 2. c. 15.
Footnote 685:
Soz. l. 3. c. 8.
Footnote 686:
Athan. ap. 2. p. 739.
Footnote 687:
Id. ib. p. 740-749. & ad Solit. p. 816. Soz. l. 3. c. 8. Euseb. l. 6.
c. 43. Hil. frag. p. 25.
Footnote 688:
Athan. ib. p. 740-753.
Footnote 689:
Athan. ib. p. 761. Socr. l. 1. c. 20. Hil. frag 2. p. 7. Soz. l. 3. c.
12, &c.
Footnote 690:
Athan. ib. p. 767.
Footnote 691:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 819. Hil. frag. 2. p. 22.
Footnote 692:
Athan. ib. p. 766. & ad Sol. p. 820. Theod. l. 2. c. 6. Hil. frag. 1.
p. 18.
Footnote 693:
Athan. ib.
Footnote 694:
Id. ib. p. 767.
Footnote 695:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 15, 16.
Footnote 696:
Id. ibid.
Footnote 697:
Blond. prim. p. 106.
Footnote 698:
Concil. t. 2. p. 652.
Footnote 699:
In decret. Greg. l. 2. tit. 28. c. 11.
Footnote 700:
Theodoret. l. 2. c. 15.
Footnote 701:
Soz. l. 3. c. 11.
Footnote 702:
Concil. l. 4. p. 825.
Footnote 703:
Ath. apol. 2. p. 271. & ad Sol. p. 820.
Footnote 704:
Idem ad Sol. p. 822. Ruf. l. 1. c. 19. Theod. l. 2. c. 6.
Footnote 705:
Socr. l. 2. c. 23.
Footnote 706:
Athan. apol. 2. p. 770.
Footnote 707:
Ath. ad Solit. p. 826. & Apol. 2. p. 776. Hil. frag. 1. p. 24-26.
Footnote 708:
Buch. cycl. 267. 273.
Footnote 709:
Idem ib.
Footnote 710:
Bolland. 12 Apr. p. 86. n. 14.
Footnote 711:
Bed. martyr. p. 83.
Footnote 712:
Leont. sect. 8. p. 526.
Footnote 713:
Evagr. l. 3. c. 31.
Footnote 714:
Gen. c. 2.
Footnote 715:
Leont. ib.
Footnote 716:
Bona lit. 1. c. 9. p. 64.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANTIUS, LIBERIUS, JOVIAN,
JULIAN, _Thirty-fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. VALERIAN.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 352. Liberius _his own Panegyrist_.]
_Liberius_ was chosen on the 22d of _May_ 352. in the room of
_Julius_[717]. He had trampled under-foot (to use his own Terms) all
worldly things, to observe the Gospel, and obey the Dictates of his
Faith. He had been employed, before his Election, in several
Ecclesiastical Ministries, and discharged them with Reputation, though
he was not conscious to himself of having ever done the least Thing for
the sake of Praise and Glory. He was at last raised to the Episcopal
Dignity, but much against his Will, as he calls God and the Church to
witness. He protests, that it was his ardent and only Wish, that he
might keep himself pure and undefiled in the Administration of his new
Dignity, that he might inviolably maintain and defend the Faith, which
he had received from his illustrious Predecessors, among whom were many
Martyrs[718]. [Sidenote: _No easy Matter to form a true Idea of his
Character._] Were we to judge of his Conduct from his Words, we should
equal him to the best of his Predecessors; but there appears, throughout
his whole Administration, such an odd Mixture of opposite Qualities,
that it is no easy Matter to form a true Idea of his Character: at one
time we shall find him bold, intrepid, and inflexible; at another
timorous, faint-hearted, and compliant; insomuch that one can hardly
conceive him to be the same Man. The latter Qualities he betrayed in the
very Beginning of his Pontificate, by separating himself from the
Communion of _Athanasius_. _Constans_, the great Support of the Orthodox
Party, being murdered, and _Constantius_ upon the Point of becoming
Master of _Rome_, by a complete Victory he had gained over the Two
Brothers _Magnentius_ and _Decentius_, the _Eusebians_ thought this a
proper Juncture to try whether the Fear of that Prince had not rendered
_Julius_ somewhat more tractable. For _Constantius_ was more incensed
than ever against _Athanasius_, being assured by the _Eusebians_, to
whom he gave an intire Credit, that he had influenced his Brother to
threaten him with a Civil War[719]. [Sidenote: _The_ Eusebians _write a
second Letter to_ Julius _against_ Athanasius:] They writ therefore to
_Julius_ a second Letter, filled with new Complaints and Calumnies
against _Athanasius_; but _Julius_ dying in the mean time, their Letter,
together with another to the same Purpose from the _Arians_ of
_Alexandria_, was delivered to _Liberius_, who caused them both to be
publicly read in a full Assembly of the People, and in the Council,
which was then sitting at _Rome_[720]. [Sidenote: _which is answered by_
Liberius:] His Answer to these Letters has not reached our Times; but a
Copy of the Letter, which he writ on that Occasion to _Athanasius_, has,
to his eternal Disgrace, been transmitted to us, among the Fragments of
_Hilarius_ Bishop of _Poitiers_. [Sidenote: _who summons_ Athanasius
_to_ Rome.] In that Letter he summons him to appear forthwith at _Rome_,
to clear himself there of the heavy Accusations brought against him; and
threatens to cut him off from the Communion of that Church, if he
refused to comply with the Summons[721]. With this Letter he dispatched
Three of his Presbyters, _Lucius_, _Paulus_, and _Ælianus_; strictly
injoining them, by all means, to prevail upon _Athanasius_ to repair,
without Delay, to _Rome_[722]. This Conduct, so very different from that
of his Predecessor, was, no doubt, owing to the Dread he was in of the
Emperor _Constantius_, by this Time probably Master of _Rome_, and all
_Italy_; for what else could tempt or induce him to act so
preposterously? Be that as it will, _Athanasius_ was greatly surprised
and concerned to find himself so unworthily treated and threatened by
the Bishop of _Rome_; but did not think himself, on that Account,
obliged to abandon his Flock. He remained therefore in _Alexandria_; but
begged his Collegues in _Egypt_ to write in his Favour to the Pope;
which they did accordingly. [Sidenote: Liberius _communicates with
the_ Arians, _and excommunicates_ Athanasius.] But _Liberius_ wanted to
ingratiate himself with the _Arians_, and, by their means, with the
Emperor; and therefore, without any Regard to the Testimony of the
Orthodox Bishops, or the known Innocence of the oppressed _Athanasius_,
he writ to the _Eusebians_, acquainting them, that he communicated with
them; but, as to _Athanasius_, he had cut him off from his Communion,
and from that of his Church[723]. [Sidenote: _His Letter to them not
supposititious._] _Baronius_[724], and after him the _Benedictines_, in
their last Edition of the Works of _Hilarius_ and _Athanasius_[725],
maintain this Letter of _Liberius_ to have been forged by the _Arians_,
and inserted into the Works of _Hilarius_. But they allege no convincing
Reason why the other Pieces, among which it has been conveyed to us,
should be admitted as genuine, and this alone rejected as
supposititious. _Athanasius_, indeed, never reproached the Bishop of
_Rome_ with his scandalous Conduct, as they observe; but may not that be
ascribed to his Moderation? The more, as he was sensible, that
_Liberius_ acted thus not out of Ill-will, but Fear. As to the want of
Connexion between that Letter and the Pieces preceding and following it,
I should not have expected such an Objection from any who had ever
perused the Fragments of that Writer, which every one knows to have been
patched together without any Regard to Time or Order[N14].
-----
Footnote N14:
Thus the very Letter of _Liberius_ is put in the Place where the
Letter of the Council of _Sardica_ to the Emperor _Constantius_ ought
to have been, as is manifest from what is said immediately before it.
A few Lines after, instead of the Letter from the Council of _Egypt_
to _Liberius_, which _Hilarius_ promises, we find one from _Liberius_
to the Bishops of _Italy_, written after the Death of _Constantius_
upon a quite different Subject. What comes immediately after the
Letter of _Liberius_ to the _Eusebians_, ought, in all Likelihood, to
have been placed after the above-mentioned Letter of the Council of
_Sardica_ to _Constantius_: for to me it appears no less improbable
than it does or can do to _Baronius_[N14.1], that _Hilarius_, a most
zealous Stickler for the Orthodox Faith, should approve of the Pope’s
scandalous Letter, tending utterly to subvert it, and express his
Approbation in these Terms; _What is there in this Letter that is not
holy? What is there that does not proceed from the Fear of God?_
However, I cannot conclude, and much less demonstratively, with the
Annalist, that the Letter has been forged by the _Arians_. All I think
can be inferred from thence is, that the Letters, like most other
Pieces there, have been misplaced; and that the above-mentioned Words
of _Hilarius_ ought to be put after the Letter of the Council to
_Constantius_, and not after that of _Liberius_ to the _Arians_.
Footnote N14.1:
Bar. ad ann. 352. n. 13.
-----
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Arles.]
In the mean time _Constantius_, now in quiet Possession of the whole
Empire by the Death of _Magnentius_, who, after his Defeat, had laid
violent Hands on himself, summoned a Council to meet at _Arles_. At this
Council _Liberius_ did not assist in Person, but by his Legates,
_Vincentius_ Bishop of _Capua_, and _Marcellus_ Bishop of _Campania_,
who, together with some others, had been sent by _Liberius_ some time
before to meet the Emperor at _Arles_, and beg him in the Pope’s Name to
assemble a Council at _Aquileia_[726]. As the Bishop of _Capua_ was a
Man of great Parts, and long Experience, _Liberius_ reposed an intire
Confidence in him, not doubting but he would maintain the Dignity of his
Legation, and support the Innocency of _Athanasius_ with that Firmness
which he had shewn on several other Occasions [N15].
-----
Footnote N15:
For _Liberius_, ashamed of what he had done against _Athanasius_, not
only readmitted him soon after to his own Communion, but with great
Zeal undertook his Defence.
-----
As the Council consisted chiefly of _Arians_, their great Point in view
was, to extort from the _Italian_ Bishops a solemn Condemnation of
_Athanasius_. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Edict._] This therefore was in
the first place proposed in the Council; and, because the orthodox
Bishops would not consent to it, an Edict was issued by the Emperor,
sentencing all those to Exile who should refuse to sign the Condemnation
of _Athanasius_[727]. [Sidenote: _The Pope’s Legates sign the
Condemnation of_ Athanasius.] The boasted Firmness and Constancy of
_Vincentius_ were not Proof against such a Trial. He did all that lay in
his Power to divert the Emperor from the Execution of a Decree utterly
inconsistent with the Liberty of a Council; but finding him deaf to all
Remonstrances, he began to capitulate, offering to sign the Condemnation
of _Athanasius_, on condition the _Eusebians_ signed that of _Arius_,
and publicly abjured his Doctrine. This he thought would be some
Alleviation of his Guilt, and therefore the Proposal which he had made
by Word of Mouth he gave in Writing to the Heads of the _Arian_ Faction,
signed by himself and his Fellow-legates. But the _Arians_, too well
acquainted with their Weakness to grant them any Terms, peremptorily
insisted upon their condemning _Athanasius_, and referring the Cause and
Doctrine of _Arius_ to a more proper Juncture. _Vincentius_ and his
Collegues, finding the Enemies of _Athanasius_ thus inflexible, and, on
the other hand, determined at all Events to keep their Bishopricks, and
avoid the Hardships of a painful Exile, complied at last, and _yielded
to the troublesome Times_, to use their softening Expression[728]. They
were the more inexcuseable, as they had before their Eyes the Example of
a great Prelate, whose Constancy was proof against all the Threats and
Menaces of a provoked Prince. This was the celebrated _Paulinus_ Bishop
of _Treves_, who, after perusing the Formulary, drawn up by the
_Eusebians_, to be signed by him and the other Bishops, rejected it with
the utmost Indignation, declaring that nothing they could do should ever
induce him to betray the Truth, and his own Conscience, by setting his
Hand to such a scandalous Piece. The _Eusebians_ left no Art unattempted
to gain him, as they had done the Pope’s Legates, but finding he was a
Man of a quite different Disposition, and despairing of being ever able
to prevail upon him either by Hopes or Fear, they at last had recourse
to the Emperor, who, putting his Decree in Execution, sent him into
Exile; and in order to tire out his Patience, ordered him to be
constantly conveyed from one inhospitable Place to another. [Sidenote:
_The glorious Behaviour of_ Paulinus.] But in every Place _Paulinus_ was
the same, the Conscience of his suffering for the sake of Justice
enabling him to bear, not only with Patience, but Chearfulness, the
inexpressible Hardships he underwent[729]. He died in _Phrygia_ in the
Fifth Year of his Exile[730], that is, in 358. But his Body is supposed
to have been discovered in a Church of his Name at _Treves_, in the Year
1071[731]. How and when it was conveyed thither, let those inquire who
adore it.
To return to _Liberius_, he was so sensibly affected with the Fall of
_Vincentius_ and his Collegues, that he wished for an Opportunity of
losing his Life in so good a Cause, and washing out with his Blood the
Stain which the scandalous Conduct of his Legates had brought upon his
Character[732]. Thus he expresses himself in the Letter, which he writ
on that Occasion to the great Friend of his See _Osius_[733]. However,
in the Height of his Affliction, he found great Relief in the Courage
and Steadiness of _Cæcilianus_ Bishop of _Spoleto_, of _Eusebius_ Bishop
of _Vercelli_, and of _Lucifer_ Bishop of _Cagliari_ in _Sardinia_. The
latter advised the Pope to demand of the Emperor another Council, and
generously took upon himself to go to _Arles_, where _Constantius_ then
was, and make that Demand. _Liberius_ readily accepted his Offer, and
named _Pancratius_ and _Hilarius_ for his Collegues, the one a
Presbyter, the other a Deacon of the Church of _Rome_. [Sidenote:
Liberius _writes to the Emperor for another Council_;] By these he
writ an excellent Letter to the Emperor, wherein, with the Liberty that
became a Catholic Bishop, but at the same time with all the Respect that
is due from a Subject to his Sovereign, he justifies his Conduct in the
Defence of _Athanasius_, lays open the Arts and Views of the adverse
Party, and begs that a new Council might be assembled, there being no
other Means to put a Stop to so many Evils, and restore Peace and
Tranquillity to the Catholic Church[734]. At the same time _Liberius_
writ to _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Vercelli_, and _Fortunatianus_ Bishop of
_Aquileia_, intreating them to assist his Legates with their Advice, and
even with their Presence, should it be thought necessary. The Three
Legates, on their Arrival at _Vercelli_, in their Way to _Arles_, were
not only kindly received, but joined by _Eusebius_, who repaired with
them to the Emperor. [Sidenote: _which is granted, and assembles at_
Milan.] As the _Arians_ were no-ways averse to the Proposal, nay, had
even solicited the Emperor to convene a new Council, the Request of the
Legates met with no Difficulty; so that a Council was appointed to meet
at _Milan_, where it met accordingly in the Beginning of the Year
355[735]. We are told, that it consisted of Three hundred Western
Bishops, and that from the East there came but very few[736]. But
_Constantius_ and his Army may be said to have supplied their room. For
the Council no sooner met, than the Emperor absolutely insisted upon
their signing the Condemnation of _Athænasius_, and an Edict, containing
the chief Tenets of _Arius_, which had been published in his Name. But
in this Attempt he met with a vigorous Opposition from _Dionysius_
Bishop of _Milan_, _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, _Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_,
and the Two other Legates, _Pancratius_ and _Hilarius_; which provoked
him to such a Degree, that he was upon the Point of commanding them to
be executed upon the Spot as Rebels. [Sidenote: _Some Bishops
banished._] But, upon second Thoughts, he contented himself with sending
them into Exile, _Dionysius_ into _Cappadocia_, or _Armenia_, where he
died a few Years after, _Eusebius_ to _Scythopolis_ in _Palestine_, and
_Lucifer_ to _Germanicia_ in _Syria_. To what Place _Pancratius_ and
_Hilarius_ were confined, we know not; but the latter was most cruelly
whipped before he was banished[737]. As for the other Bishops, I shall
only say, with _Ruffinus_[738], that, out of Three hundred, _Dionysius_,
_Lucifer_, and _Eusebius_, alone shewed a Firmness and Intrepidity
becoming Men of their Rank and Dignity. Among the rest _Fortunatianus_
Bishop of _Aquileia_ signed the Condemnation of _Athanasius_; which
greatly added to the Grief and Concern of _Liberius_, who, till that
Time, had entertained the highest Opinion of him.
And now _Constantius_ had the Satisfaction of seeing _Athanasius_
condemned by the far greater Part of the Western Bishops. But the Bishop
of _Rome_ still declared openly in his Favour, and did all that lay in
his Power to gain others to his Party. [Sidenote: Constantius
_endeavours in vain to gain_ Liberius;] To deprive him therefore of so
powerful a Protector, the Emperor resolved to spare no Cost nor Labour.
With this View he dispatched to _Rome_ the Eunuch _Eusebius_, his great
Chamberlain, with rich Presents in one Hand, and a threatening Letter in
the other: but with an invincible Firmness _Liberius_ withstood both; so
that the Eunuch, who was himself a sworn Enemy to _Athanasius_, returned
to Court baffled and disappointed; and there, by the Account he gave of
his unsuccessful Embassy, added new Fuel to the Fire, which burnt
already with great Violence. The Emperor, who pretended to govern the
Church no less despotically than he did the State, transported with Rage
at the stout Opposition he met with from the Bishop of _Rome_,
immediately dispatched an Order to _Leoncius_, Prefect of that City,
injoining him to apprehend _Liberius_, and send him under a strong Guard
to Court. [Sidenote: _who is sent Prisoner to_ Milan.] Pursuant to
this Order, _Liberius_ was seized in the Night-time, lest the People, by
whom he was greatly beloved, should attempt his Rescue, and conveyed to
_Milan_, where the Court then resided[739]. Soon after his Arrival he
was brought before the Emperor, when, undaunted and unawed by the
Presence of so great a Prince, he spoke with all the Liberty of an
Apostle, and with all the Eloquence of a great Orator[740]. [Sidenote:
_His Interview with the Emperor._] At this Interview were present
_Eusebius_ the Eunuch, and _Epictetus_ Bishop of _Centumcellæ_, now
_Civita Vecchia_, who, for his ready Compliance with the Emperor’s Will,
had been raised by him to great Preferments[741]. The latter told
_Liberius_, when he had ended the excellent Speech he made before the
Emperor, That he had indeed expressed great Zeal for the Purity of the
Faith, and the Liberty of Councils; but the Whole was mere Mummery; and
that he only wanted to be looked upon by his Party as a Person of some
Significancy, and to brag among the Senators, on his Return to _Rome_,
that he had had the Honour to dispute with the Emperor[742]. The Eunuch
too thought he must speak, but it was only to betray his Ignorance; for
he reproached _Liberius_ with defending _Athanasius_, who had been
condemned, he said, as an Heretic, by the Council of _Nice_[743]. As for
_Constantius_, the only Reply he made to the Reasons alleged by
_Liberius_ in favour of _Athanasius_, and the Faith of _Nice_, was, That
the wicked and impious _Athanasius_, as he styled him, had been
condemned by the whole World; that, by his arrogant Conduct, he had
provoked all Mankind, and himself in particular, by constantly stirring
up his Brother against him; that therefore he looked upon the Defeat of
_Magnentius_ and _Sylvanus_, who had attempted to bereave him of his
Crown, as less important to him than the deposing and condemning of a
Man, by whom he had been so highly injured[744]. In answer to this,
_Liberius_ begged, that, of all Men, he would not chuse Bishops for the
Instruments of his private Revenge. _Constantius_ made no Reply, but
only told him, that he must either sign the Condemnation of
_Athanasius_, or be sent into Exile; and that he allowed him Three Days
to deliberate which of the Two he would chuse. [Sidenote: _His
Steadiness._] _Liberius_ answered, with great Intrepidity, that he had
already chosen, and was resolved; that in Three Days he should not
change his Resolution; and therefore the Emperor might send him that
Minute to what Place soever he pleased[745]. The Three Days were not yet
expired when the Emperor sent for him anew to Court, hoping the Fear of
Banishment had softened him, as it had done most others, into a
Compliance. But he found him unalterably fixed in the same Resolution;
and therefore, despairing of being ever able to succeed in his Attempt,
he ordered him to be conveyed forthwith to _Berœa_ in _Thrace_[746].
[Sidenote: _He is banished to_ Berœa _in_ Thrace.] _Liberius_ had not
yet left the Palace, when the Emperor sent him a Present of Five hundred
Pieces of Gold to defray his Charges: which he sent back by the same
Person who brought them, saying, that the Emperor might want Money to
pay his Troops. The like Sum was sent him by the Empress _Eusebia_;
which, with the same Answer, he desired might be conveyed to the
Emperor, adding, that if he knew not how to employ that Sum better, he
might bestow it on _Epictetus_, or _Auxentius_ the _Arian_ Bishop of
_Milan_, who would be very thankful for it[747]. He left _Milan_ Three
Days after, and set out for the Place of his Exile. His Fate was no
sooner known at _Rome_, than the Clergy, assembling the People, bound
themselves by a solemn Oath, in their Presence, not to acknowlege any
other for their Bishop so long as _Liberius_ lived[748].
[Sidenote: Felix _is chosen in his room._]
_Liberius_ being thus driven from his See, another was placed on it in
his room; and the Person, whom the Emperor and the _Arian_ Faction
pitched upon, was one _Felix_, then only Deacon of the Church of
_Rome_[749]. But the Clergy could not proceed to a new Election, without
an open Violation of the Oath they had taken; the People began to
mutiny, and, assembling in Crouds, would suffer none of the _Arian_
Faction to enter their Churches. The Imperial Palace therefore served
instead of a Church; Three of the Emperor’s Eunuchs represented the
People; and Three Bishops, Slaves of the Court, _viz._ _Epictetus_ of
_Centumcellæ_, _Acacius_ of _Cæsarea_, and _Basilius_ of _Ancyra_,
ordained the new-elected Bishop[750]. Thus was _Felix_ chosen, and thus
ordained. As _Liberius_ was greatly beloved by the People, chiefly on
account of his vigorous Opposition to _Constantius_, the Intrusion of
_Felix_ occasioned a great Sedition, in which many lost their
Lives[751]. The Clergy were not so zealous in the Cause as the People;
for great Numbers of them, unmindful of the Oath they had taken, were by
degrees reconciled to _Felix_, and communicated with him[752]; whereas
the People continued to abhor and avoid him at least till the Year 357.
When _Constantius_ came to _Rome_[753]. [Sidenote: Constantius _goes to_
Rome.] For that Prince, being desirous to see the Metropolis of his
Empire, undertook a Journey to _Rome_ in the above-mentioned Year, and
entered it in Triumph on the 28th of _April_[754]. During his short Stay
in that City, the _Roman_ Ladies gave a signal Instance of the Zeal and
Affection they still retained for their exiled Bishop. They thought a
more favourable Opportunity could never offer to solicit the Emperor for
his Return; and therefore, by a private Agreement among themselves, they
pressed their Husbands, with great Earnestness, to lay hold of it,
threatening to abandon them, if they did not, and repairing to their
Bishop to share with him the Hardships of his Exile. The Husbands,
unmoved by such Menaces, which they well knew would never take place,
answered, that by such an Application they might incur the Displeasure
of the Prince, which would prove fatal to them, as well as to the Person
in whose Behalf they interposed; whereas, should they themselves take
such a pious and commendable Office upon them, the Respect due to their
Sex would, in all Likelihood, extort from the Prince the desired Favour,
at least it would restrain his Resentment, and stifle all Thoughts of
Revenge. The Proposal was universally applauded by the Ladies, unwilling
to expose their Husbands to the dire Effects of the Emperor’s
Indignation. [Sidenote: _The_ Roman _Ladies intercede for_ Liberius.] On
an appointed Day therefore, attiring themselves in an Apparel suitable
to their Rank, that the Emperor in seeing them might know who they were,
and treat them accordingly, they repaired to Court; and being
immediately admitted to the Prince’s Presence, they conjured him, with
Tears in their Eyes, to take Pity of that great City, of that numerous
Flock, bereft of its Pastor, and, in his Absence, devoured by ravenous
Wolves. This was not at all a courtly Language: however, _Constantius_,
without betraying the least Emotion, said, _I thought you had a Pastor.
Is not_ Felix _as capable of discharging the Pastoral Office as any
other?_ Felix, replied they, _is detested, and avoided by all_.
[Sidenote: _The Emperor promises to recall him._] At these Words the
Emperor first looked grave; but, immediately changing his Gravity into a
Smile, _If so_, said he, with great Complaisance, _you must have_
Liberius _again: I shall, without Delay, dispatch the proper Orders for
his Return_. An Edict was accordingly issued the very next Day,
recalling _Liberius_ to govern the Church jointly with _Felix_; for
_Constantius_ thought it inconsistent with his Honour, and the Imperial
Dignity, to drive _Felix_ from the See, on which he himself had placed
him.
[Sidenote: _The Edict recalling him to govern jointly with_ Felix,
_raillied by the_ Roman _People._]
When this Edict was read, in the Presence of the Emperor, to the People
assembled in the _Circus_, they applauded it at first, by way of
Raillery, saying, That since the Spectators, at the public Sports, were
divided into Two Parties, it was just and reasonable there should be Two
Bishops to head them. The Multitude, not satisfied with thus pleasantly
expressing their Dissatisfaction, cried out, immediately after, with one
Voice, _There is but One God, One Christ, One Bishop_[755]. And yet the
Emperor was rather delighted than displeased with the Humour of the
People, and the Liberty they took; for to what happened on this Occasion
_Ammianus Marcellinus_ probably alludes, where he writes, that
_Constantius_, in exhibiting public Sports at _Rome_, was pleased with
the Liberty they took to railly him, knowing it did not proceed from
Pride or Ill-nature[756]. _Theodoret_ tells us, that to Acclamations so
worthy of the _Roman_ Piety the Emperor granted the Return of
_Liberius_[757]; and with him agree _Sulpitius Severus_[758], and
_Ruffinus_[759]. But _Sozomen_[760], and all the Writers of those Times,
assure us, that his Return did not happen this, but the following Year
358. when he bought it dear, by signing the Condemnation of
_Athanasius_, and the Symbol or Creed, composed by the _Semi-Arians_ at
_Sirmium_, now _Sirmish_ in _Sclavonia_. _Constantius_, at the Request
of the _Roman_ Ladies and People, promised to recall him, as I have
related; but it was on Condition, says _Sozomen_[761], that he should
agree with the Bishops of the Court, that is, with the _Semi-Arians_.
The Firmness which _Liberius_ had hitherto shewn, left no room to doubt
of his rejecting such a Proposal with the greatest Indignation. But he
now felt what before he had only beheld at a Distance: he began to
compare the Ease and Plenty in which he had lived at _Rome_, with the
Inconveniencies and Hardships of his present Exile. Besides, from the
Menaces thrown out against him by the Emperor’s Officers, he apprehended
his Life to be in Danger[762]. 'Tis true, he had wished for an
Opportunity of shedding his Blood in so good a Cause, as I have related
above. But who is not brave at a Distance from Danger? The Jealousy he
had of _Felix_, who, sitting in his Chair, acted the High Pontiff at
_Rome_, was the _Dalila_, says _Baronius_[763], speaking of his signing
the Condemnation of _Athanasius_, who bereft this _Samson_ of all his
Strength and Courage. [Sidenote: Liberius _signs the Condemnation of_
Athanasius, _and embraces the Doctrine of_ Sirmium.] However that be,
it is certain, that the Strength and Courage, which he had with great
Glory exerted on other Occasions, vanished at once. For he not only
signed the Condemnation of _Athanasius_, but moreover approved and
received as Catholic, the Confession or Symbol of _Sirmium_[764]. Thus,
to ingratiate himself with the Emperor, and return to _Rome_, did
_Liberius_ abandon, at last, his persecuted Friend, renounce the
Catholic Faith, and solemnly promise to maintain inviolable the Doctrine
of _Sirmium_[765]. As he was impatient to be reinstated in his See, he
took care immediately to acquaint the Emperor with the Steps he had
taken. With this Letter he dispatched _Fortunatianus_ Bishop of
_Aquileia_, charging him to solicit _Constantius_ for his Return, since
he had done all he had required of him[766]. _Constantius_ took no
Notice of, nor returned any Answer to, this Letter. On the other hand,
_Liberius_ was heartily sick of his Exile, heartily sick of suffering
for the sake of Justice. [Sidenote: _His Letter to the Eastern
Bishops._] In Hopes therefore of putting a speedy End to his Exile, and
the Hardships attending it, he writ in a most submissive and cringing
Style to the Eastern Bishops, assuring them, that it was merely out of
Respect to his Predecessor _Julius_, and to maintain his Judgment, that
he had undertaken the Defence of _Athanasius_; that as soon as it had
pleased God to open his Eyes, and discover to him how justly he had been
condemned, he had separated himself from his Communion, and joined them;
that all their Decrees concerning him should be inviolably observed by
the Apostolic See, as indeed they ought to be; that he sincerely and
willingly received the true Catholic and Orthodox Faith, as it had been
expounded and defined by several of his Brethren and Collegues at
_Sirmium_, and had been proposed to him by his Collegue _Demophilus_;
that he received every Article of that Symbol, and had nothing to object
against any. This remarkable Letter he concludes thus: _And now that I
agree with you in every Point, let me earnestly intreat your Holinesses
to employ your joint Interest in my Behalf, that I may be recalled from
Banishment, and suffered to return to the See, which God has been
pleased to commit to my Care_[767]. [Sidenote: _He is anathematized by_
Hilarius. _His Letter to the Bishops at Court_;] This Letter has been
conveyed to us by the great _Hilarius_, Bishop of _Poitiers_, who, in
relating it, not able to restrain the just Indignation it kindled in his
Breast, interrupts the Recital Three times, to anathematize the Author
of it, the _prevaricating Liberius_, as he styles him[768]. He writ
likewise to _Ursacius_, _Valens_, and _Germinius_, who bore great Sway
at Court, and were at the Head of the _Arian_ Faction in the West, to
acquaint them, that he communicated with them, and also with _Auxentius_
and _Epictetus_, Two of the most inveterate Enemies the Orthodox had;
and that whoever did not communicate with them, that is, every Catholic
Bishop, was cut off from his Communion. These Words _Hilarius_ cannot
repeat without anathematizing anew _Liberius_, and all the _Arians_ with
him. In the same Letter he lets them know, that he has separated himself
from the Communion of _Athanasius_, _late Bishop of_ Alexandria,
acknowleging him, by that Expression, lawfully deposed. He declares, in
the Beginning of his Letter, and calls God to witness, that it is not by
Compulsion, but merely for the sake of Peace and Charity, far preferable
to Martyrdom itself, that he writes to them. He conjures them, by the
omnipotent God, by his Son _Jesus_, by the Holy Ghost, to intercede for
him with the Emperor, that, by his Return, Peace and Tranquillity may be
restored to the Church committed to his Care; assuring them, that the
Zeal they exert in so pious, so just a Cause, will meet with a
proportionable Reward in Heaven[769].
As the Emperor had not yet taken the least Notice of his Letter; as the
Eastern Bishops, as well as the Bishops at Court, did not act, as he
thought, with all the Zeal and Expedition he expected, and his ready
Compliance well deserved; [Sidenote: _and to_ Vincentius, _Bishop of_
Capua.] he writ a Third Letter, directed to _Vincentius_, Bishop of
_Capua_, acquainting him, that he had abandoned the Defence of
_Athanasius_, and desiring him to give Notice thereof to all the Bishops
of _Campania_; and, at the same time, to use his utmost Endeavours to
persuade them to dispatch some of their Body with a Letter, in their
common Name, to the Emperor, begging _Constantius_ to deliver him,
without further Delay, from his present most melancholy and deplorable
Situation. To this Letter he adds the following Paragraph, in his own
Hand: _We live in Peace with all the Bishops of the East, and with you.
As for me, I have discharged my Conscience before God. Will you suffer
me to perish in my present Exile? The same God will judge us both_[770].
The Bishop of _Capua_ had been formerly sent by _Liberius_ to the
Council of _Arles_, with the Character of his Legate, as I have observed
above, and had there signed the Condemnation of _Athanasius_; on which
Occasion _Liberius_ wished for an Opportunity of washing out, with his
own Blood, the Stain which the Conduct of his Legate had brought upon
his Character. But his only Wish now was to see himself delivered from
his painful Exile, and restored to his former State, upon any Terms.
_Vincentius_, touched with his Complaints, prevailed upon the Bishops of
_Campania_ to send a solemn Deputation to the Emperor in his Behalf;
which _Constantius_ complied with, so far as to recall him from the
Place of his Exile to _Sirmium_, where the Court then was[771].
[Sidenote: _He is recalled from his Banishment to_ Sirmium.] Upon his
Arrival there, _Constantius_, who had lately embraced the Doctrine of
the _Semi-Arians_, taking Advantage of his Weakness, and of the eager
Desire he had betrayed of returning to his See, obliged him, as well as
the Bishops of the Court, and Four _African_ Bishops, who happened to be
then at _Sirmium_, to sign the same Doctrine[772]. [Sidenote: _He signs
the Doctrine of the_ Semi-Arians.] Thus did the infallible _Liberius_
sign, and embrace, at least in Appearance, both the _Arian_ and
_Semi-Arian_ Heresy; the _Arian_ at _Berœa_, the Place of his Exile,
and the _Semi-Arian_ at _Sirmium_. That the Confession he signed at
_Berœa_ was _Arian_, cannot be doubted; for it was the Second of
_Sirmium_, which all agree to have been _Arian_[N16]. Besides, it was
proposed to him by _Demophilus_ Bishop of _Berœa_, who was a most
zealous Stickler for _Arianism_, and greatly attached to _Ursacius_ and
_Valens_, the Two leading Men among the _Arians_ in the West; and it is
not at all probable, that he would have required _Liberius_ to sign a
Doctrine different from that which he himself held.
-----
Footnote N16:
Three Councils were held at _Sirmium_, one in 349. another in 352. and
the Third in 357. In the First, _Photinus_, Bishop of that City, was
condemned, for reviving the Heresy of _Paul_ of _Samosata_. This
Council was intirely composed of the Western Bishops, who attempted to
depose _Photinus_, but were vigorously opposed by the People. The
Second Council of _Sirmium_ was convened by the Emperor _Constantius_,
and consisted of the Eastern Bishops only, who condemned anew, and
deposed _Photinus_. By this Council a Symbol, or Creed, was composed,
which has been transmitted to us in _Greek_ by St. _Athanasius_, and
in _Latin_ by St. _Hilarius_; and is intirely Orthodox. In the Third
Council of _Sirmium_ a new Creed was composed by _Potamius_ Bishop of
_Lisbone_, and signed by _Ursacius_, _Valens_, _Germinius_, and the
other Bishops there present. This Creed was altogether _Arian_; for
not only the Word _Consubstantial_ was rejected by it, but the Son was
declared to be unlike the Father in Essence, to be less than the
Father, and to have had a Beginning. And it was this Second Symbol of
_Sirmium_ that _Liberius_ signed at _Berœa_. Upon his Arrival at
_Sirmium_ he found there _Basilius_ of _Ancyra_, _Eleusius_ of
_Cyzicus_, and the other _Semi-Arian_ Bishops, who were lately come
from the Council of _Ancyra_, where they had condemned the Doctrine of
the _Pure Arians_, and established that of the _Semi-Arians_, holding
the Son to be like the Father in Nature and Essence, but not
_Consubstantial_, or of the same Substance. And this Doctrine
_Liberius_ signed out of Complaisance to the Emperor, that nothing
might obstruct his Return to _Rome_. He signed it in a kind of
Council, consisting of the _Semi-Arian_ Bishops, whom I have mentioned
above.
-----
The Advocates for the Pope’s Infallibility are here quite at a Loss what
to say in Defence of that Prerogative. That _Liberius_ signed the
Condemnation of _Athanasius_, that he communicated with the _Arians_,
and, what above all galls them, that he received the _Sirmian_
Confession of Faith as Catholic and Orthodox, are undeniable Matters of
Fact. To reconcile them with Infallibility, is what they have been long
drudging at: and to what pitiful Shifts, what eluding and unmeaning
Distinctions, have they not been obliged to recur! Like a Man struggling
for Life in deep Water, and catching at every Twig to save it, they
flounce from Quibble to Quibble, from one Subterfuge to another, but all
in vain; sink they must, and their Infallibility with them. To shew
their Distress, I shall briefly transcribe what I find offered on this
Occasion, by the most learned among them, in Defence of the Cause they
have undertaken. [Sidenote: _What alleged by_ Baronius _in
his Defence_;] _Baronius_[773], after relating and owning the
above-mentioned Facts, addresses his Readers thus: _We have hitherto
sailed among dangerous Rocks, among treacherous Sholes; but fear not, I
shall at last pilot you safe into the Port of Truth_. Then, dropping his
Allegory, he makes a long Descant to prove, that the _Sirmian_
Confession of Faith, signed by _Liberius_, was, in every Article,
Catholic and Orthodox. A rare Pilot indeed! If this (to pursue his
Allegory) is _the Port of Truth_, who can help pitying _Jerom_,
_Hilarius_, _Athanasius_, and in short all the Antients? for they
certainly missed it, and, falling in among those _dangerous Rocks, those
treacherous Sholes_, which _Baronius_ had the Skill and good Luck to
avoid, were there unfortunately shipwrecked. For _Jerom_ says, in
express Terms, and in Two Places[774], that _Liberius_ signed an Heresy;
_Hilarius_, that he approved of the _Arian_ Perfidy[775]; _Athanasius_,
that he joined the _Arians_[776]; and all the Antients, that he
apostatized from the Faith: nay, _Liberius_ himself, in his Letter to
the Orientals, which is still to be seen, under his own Hand, in the
_Vatican_ Library, gives them Notice, that _in all things_ he agrees
with _Demophilus_, a most zealous _Arian_, and with them; which Words
_Hilarius_ could not repeat without anathematizing him. It is therefore
manifest, beyond all Dispute, that the Confession of Faith, signed by
_Liberius_, was not Catholic, but _Arian_. Of this _Baronius_ himself
was, without doubt, well apprised, and into this Port he had piloted his
Reader, had Truth alone been his Land-mark. [Sidenote: _and by_
Bellarmine.] _Bellarmine_, the other great Stickler for Infallibility,
pursues a different Method, but with worse Success, in my Opinion, than
his Fellow-Champion _Baronius_; for, by striving to support that
chimerical Prerogative, he evidently oversets it. The Pope, according to
him, may sign and receive heretical Opinions, as _Liberius_ did, without
prejudicing in the least his Infallibility, provided he does not
internally assent to them[777]; so that the so much boasted
Infallibility is by him reduced at last to this; that the Pope cannot
internally assent to an Error: which is confining his Infallibility to
himself, and consequently disqualifying him for the Office of a Teacher.
Infallibility, even thus curtailed, is, no doubt, a most valuable
Treasure to the Owner, but of no more Use to the rest of Mankind than a
Treasure concealed under-ground; and, on that very Account, it ought in
common Sense to be exploded. But it is scarce worth the while to quarrel
with _Bellarmine_ about it, since he cannot be so unreasonable as to
require us, in virtue of such a Prerogative, to pay any Regard to the
Decisions of the Pope, till such time, at least, as we know them to be
agreeable to his private Opinion: and this is what we can never know,
since every Pope may, like _Liberius_, externally admit an Opinion as
true; and, at the same time, internally reject it as false.
[Sidenote: Liberius _returns to_ Rome.]
But, to return to _Liberius_; he was at last, in regard of his ready
Compliance with the Will of the Emperor, allowed to return to _Rome_;
but on Condition, that he should govern jointly with _Felix_[778].
Letters were accordingly dispatched both to _Felix_, and the _Roman_
Clergy, to acquaint them therewith. _Sozomen_ seems to insinuate, that
they both governed thus for some time[779]. [Sidenote: Felix _is driven
out._] But, according to St. _Jerom_, and the Two Presbyters
_Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, who lived then at _Rome_, and were
Eye-witnesses of what they relate, _Felix_ was driven not only from the
See, but out of the City, as soon as _Liberius_ entered it; which he did
on the 2d of _August_ 358. in a kind of Triumph, being met and received
by the whole People, with loud Acclamations of Joy[780]. _Felix_
returned soon after, at the Instigation of a few of the Ecclesiastics,
who had, contrary to their Oath, adhered to him; and even attempted to
perform Divine Service in the Basilic of _Julius_, beyond the _Tiber_;
but the enraged Multitude drove him out a second time, and, with him,
all the Ecclesiastics, who had acknowleged him[781]. _Socrates_ writes,
that the Emperor himself was in the End obliged to give him up, and
consent to his Expulsion[782]. Mention is made in the Pontificals of a
bloody Persecution, raised in _Rome_ by _Liberius_, and his Party,
against the Partisans of _Felix_, who, it is said, were inhumanly
murdered in the Streets, in the Baths, in all public Places, and even in
the Churches[783]. But as none of the Antients take the least Notice of
such Cruelties, I will not charge _Liberius_ with them, upon the bare
Authority of such Records. _Felix_, being driven from _Rome_, withdrew
to a small Estate he had on the Road to _Porto_, and there spent the
remaining Part of his Life in Retirement[784]. _Sozomen_ supposes him to
have died soon after[785]. But the Two Presbyters _Marcellinus_ and
_Faustinus_, who must have been better informed, assure us, that he
lived Seven Years after the Return of _Liberius_, and died on the 22d of
_November_ 365[786].
[Sidenote: _The Judgment of the Antients concerning_ Felix.]
Concerning _Felix_, all the Antients agree, that he was unlawfully
elected and ordained; that he communicated with the _Arians_; that, to
ingratiate himself with them, and the Emperor, he signed the
Condemnation of _Athanasius_; that he was guilty of Perjury in accepting
the Episcopal Dignity, having bound himself, with the rest of the
Clergy, by a solemn Oath, to acknowlege no other Bishop while _Liberius_
lived; and, lastly, that he strove to keep Possession of the _Roman_
See, after the Return of the lawful Bishop, and to sit in it, together
with him, in open Defiance of the Canons of the Church. _Socrates_ adds,
that he not only communicated with the _Arians_, but was infected with
the _Arian_ Heresy[787]. _Athanasius_ styles him _a Monster, raised to
the See of_ Rome _by the Malice of Antichrist, one worthy of those who
raised him, and in every respect well qualified for the Execution of
their wicked Designs_[788]. [Sidenote: _He is honoured by the Church of_
Rome _as a Saint and a Martyr._] And yet this Heretic, this Monster,
this Intruder, or Antipope, is honoured (the Reader will be surprised to
hear it, is honoured) by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint; nay, as a
Martyr; and his Festival is kept to this Day, on the 29th of _July_.
This Honour was conferred on him in the Ages of Darkness and Ignorance,
upon the Authority of his fabulous Acts, and a more fabulous Pontifical,
from which his Acts seem to have been copied. In the Pontifical it is
said, that _Felix_ declared _Constantius_, who had been twice baptized,
an Heretic; and was therefore, by an Order from the incensed Emperor,
apprehended, and privately beheaded, with many Ecclesiastics and Laymen,
under the Walls of _Rome_, on the 11th of _November_. It is added, that
the Presbyter _Damasus_ privately conveyed his Body to a Church, which
_Felix_ had built, and there interred it; and that, upon his Death, the
See remained vacant for the Space of Thirty-eight Days[789]. [Sidenote:
_His fabulous Acts._] In the Acts of _Felix_ we read, that _Constantius_
was rebaptized by _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_; that _Felix_ having,
on that Account, declared him an Heretic, he was driven from the See of
_Rome_, and _Liberius_ replaced on it; that _Felix_ thereupon retired
into the Country, but was brought back by the Emperor’s Orders, and
beheaded on the 10th of _November_; that his Body was interred on the
20th of the same Month in a Church, which he had built while he was a
Presbyter: And we keep his Festival, adds the Author, on the 29th of
_July_[790]. _Anastasius_ has copied the Pontifical Word for Word,
except that he pretends _Felix_ to have been beheaded at _Cora_, in the
_Campagna_ of _Rome_[791]; though he has told us, in the foregoing Page,
that he _died in Peace_, a Phrase never used in speaking of Martyrs, on
the 29th of _July_, at his Estate on the Road to _Porto_[792]. The City
of _Cere_, now _Cerventera_, in _Tuscany_, honours _Felix_ to this Day,
as their chief Patron or Protector. In those dark Times Legends alone
were in request, and all other Books, even the Scripture itself, quite
out of Date, and neglected. [Sidenote: _How he came to be honoured as a
Saint._] No Wonder therefore that such Absurdities, however inconsistent
with History, were swallowed without straining; and _Felix_, for his
pretended Zeal and Constancy, ranked among the holy Martyrs. For I may
venture to affirm, that the most learned Men, at that time, in the
Church, knew nothing of _Felix_ but what they had learned from his
fabulous Acts, and from the above-mentioned Pontifical. That I may not
be thought to exaggerate, I shall allege one Instance of the Ignorance
of past Times: _Gulielmus a Sancto Amore_, one of the most learned Men
of the 13th Century, knew that, in the Time of _Hilarius_ Bishop of
_Poitiers_, a Pope, with most of the Bishops, had fallen into Heresy. He
did not even pretend to be so well versed in History as to know for
certain who the Pope was; but, indulging a Conjecture, which he thought
probable enough, he named _Anastasius_ II. who died in 498. about 150
Years after the Time of _Hilarius_: so that he was an utter Stranger to
the History of Pope _Liberius_, and consequently to that of the Antipope
_Felix_. Had it not been for the like Ignorance in more early Times, the
Apotheosis of our pretended Martyr had never taken place. [Sidenote:
_His Sanctity called in question;_] Be that as it will, during the Ages
of Darkness he held undisturbed the Rank, to which he had been thus
raised: but when the Dawn of Knowlege began to appear, and it was
discovered at last from contemporary and unexceptionable Writers, who
_Felix_ was, the Church of _Rome_ was ashamed to own him among her
Saints. On the other hand, to degrade him had been giving a fatal Blow
to the Pope’s Authority, and rendering it for ever precarious, in so
material a Point as that of Canonization. _Felix_ therefore was, at all
Events, to keep his Place in Heaven; his Sanctity was to be confirmed,
and the World imposed upon by some Contrivance or other, capable of
utterly defeating the Testimony of the Antients.
This Point being settled, to prevent all Suspicion of Deceit, or
underhand Dealings, Pope _Gregory_ XIII. declared, in 1582. his
Intention of having the Cause of _Felix_ impartially examined.
[Sidenote: _and his Cause reexamined._] In order to ? this, he
appointed _Baronius_, employed at that Time in reforming the _Roman_
Martyrology, to put in Writing whatever could be objected against
_Felix_, and Cardinal _Santorio_ to answer his Objections, and collect
likewise in Writing all that could be said in favour of his new Client,
that the Pope might be thoroughly acquainted with the Merits of the
Cause before he came to a final Decision. This Conduct in _Gregory_ has
been censured by some over-zealous Divines of the Church of _Rome_, as
if he had thereby given the World Occasion to think that he questioned
the Infallibility of his Predecessors, who had honoured _Felix_ as a
Saint[793]. But _Gregory_ well knew what he was doing, and how the Whole
would end. In Compliance with his Orders, _Baronius_ writ a
Dissertation, which he himself calls a Volume, and not a short one[794],
to prove that _Felix_ was neither a Saint nor a Martyr. As he had Truth
on his Side, Cardinal _Santorio_, though a Man of Learning, could
neither answer his Arguments, nor offer any thing in so desperate a
Cause worthy of himself. He often addressed himself in his Prayers to
his Client, intreating him to undertake his own Cause, by suggesting to
him what might be alleged in his Defence. But the Client was no less at
a Stand than the Advocate. Some other Person therefore must interpose:
And whom did the carrying or losing such a Cause more nearly concern
than the Pope, since his Authority in a most essential Point was at
Stake? This was a nice Affair, and to be managed with great Art and
Dexterity. _Gregory_, therefore, having often heard both Sides, in a
full Congregation of Cardinals, without betraying the least Partiality
for _Felix_, appointed them to meet for the last time on the 28th of
_July_, the Eve of the pretended Saint’s Festival, judging that the most
proper Time to play off with good Success the Trick, which he had kept
the whole Time _in petto_. [Sidenote: _His Sanctity and Martyrdom
confirmed by the Discovery of his Body._] The Cardinals met on the Day
appointed; _Baronius_ quite silenced his Adversary; the whole Assembly
was fully convinced, that _Felix_ was no Saint, no Martyr; the Pope
himself seemed to fall in with the rest, and accordingly rose up to
declare, as was thought, the unhappy _Felix_ fallen from Heaven; when a
great Noise was all on a sudden heard at the Door, and immediately a
Messenger entered, who, after uttering these Words, _Holy_ Felix, _pray
for us_, acquainted the Pope and the Cardinals, that the Body of _Felix_
was just discovered. Hereupon they all repaired in great Haste to the
Church of _Cosmas_ and _Damianus_, where the miraculous Discovery had
been made; and there saw, in a Marble Coffin of an extraordinary Size,
on one Side the Bodies of _Mark_, _Marcellianus_, and _Tranquillinus_;
and on the other that of _Felix_, with this Inscription on a Stone that
lay by it, _The Body of Saint_ Felix, _who condemned_ Constantius[795].
Hereupon the _Te Deum_ was sung with great Solemnity for the Triumph of
Truth: _Felix_ was declared worthy of the Veneration and Worship that
had till then been paid him, and a Place was allowed him among the other
Saints in the _Roman_ Martyrology, where it is said, that _he was driven
from his See for defending the Catholic Faith, by_ Constantius _an_
Arian _Emperor, and privately put to Death at_ Cere, _now_ Cervetera,
_in_ Tuscany. _Baronius_, transported with Joy, as he himself
declares[796], at so miraculous and seasonable a Discovery, immediately
yielded, not to his Antagonist _Santorio_, but to _Felix_, who had
evidently interposed; and, taking that Interposition for a satisfactory
Answer to all his Arguments, he immediately retracted whatever he had
said, and consigned to the Flames whatever he had written in Opposition
to _Felix_[797]. Thus, to maintain a chimerical Prerogative, they sport
with Truth; betray into Error those who confide in them; and, turning
the worst of Men into Saints, honour Vice with the greatest Reward they
can bestow on Virtue.
[Sidenote: _His Legend proved to be fabulous._]
That this pretended Discovery was nothing but a Contrivance to confirm
the Martyrdom of _Felix_, and impose upon the World, is manifest; and
that the Pontifical, and his Acts, on which his Martyrdom was originally
founded, were a no less palpable and gross Imposition, may be easily
demonstrated. For, in the first place, _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_,
who lived in the Time of _Felix_ and _Liberius_ at _Rome_, tell us, in
express Terms, that _Felix, who had been substituted to_ Liberius, _died
on the 22d of_ November 365[798]. that is, Four Years after the Death of
_Constantius_, by whom he is said, in his Acts, and in the Pontifical,
to have been martyred. _Athanasius_ assures us[799], and with him agree
_Philostorgius_[800], and the Chronicle of _Alexandria_[801], that
_Constantius_ was not baptized till at the Point of Death, when he
received that Sacrament at the Hands of _Euzoius_, the _Arian_ Bishop of
_Antioch_. And yet both the Acts of _Felix_, and the Pontifical, will
have him to have been twice baptized before his Death; for it was on
this Account that _Felix_ is said to have declared him an Heretic. This
Declaration _Baronius_ improves into a solemn Excommunication; and,
being become, after the above-mentioned Discovery, a most zealous
Advocate for _Felix_, tells us, that the holy Martyr was no sooner
placed on the Throne of St. _Peter_, than, changing his Conduct, he
separated himself from the Communion of those by whom he had been
raised, and boldly thundered an Anathema against the Emperor
himself[802]. [Sidenote: _He did not excommunicate_ Constantius.] What
a Pity that _Athanasius_ was not better acquainted with the Conduct of
_Felix_! for if he had, he would never have styled him _a Monster placed
on the See of_ Rome _by the Malice of Antichrist_. Such an Attempt,
unheard of till that Time, must have made a great Noise; and yet I find
it was heard by none but _Baronius_, who lived at so great a Distance. I
may add, that there was no room for an Excommunication against
_Constantius_, who was still a Catechumen, and consequently did not
partake of the sacred Mysteries.
[Sidenote: _Whether a lawful Pope or an Antipope._]
The _Roman_ Catholic Writers, to save the Credit of _Felix_, maintain
him to have been, at least for some time, lawful Pope. But, to confute
whatever has been or can be said by them in his Favour, without entering
into a Detail of the many sophistical and unconclusive Arguments, false
Assertions, and groundless Suppositions, with which they endeavour to
disguise the Truth, and confound their Readers, I argue thus: That
_Liberius_ was lawfully chosen, and _Felix_ unlawfully, is past all
Dispute. Now, upon the Fall of _Liberius_, either there was, or there
was not, a new Election: if there was not, _Liberius_ continued to be
lawful Bishop; or if by his Fall he forfeited his Dignity, as some think
he did, the See became vacant; for nothing subsequent to the unlawful
Election of _Felix_ could render it lawful. If there was a new Election,
and _Felix_ was lawfully chosen, _Liberius_ from that Minute either
ceased to be Pope, or there were two lawful Popes at a time. The latter
they will not admit, lest they should turn the Church into a Monster
with Two Heads. They must therefore allow _Felix_ to have been lawful
Pope, and _Liberius_ an Antipope, till the See became vacant by the
Death of the former. [Sidenote: Felix _an Antipope._] But on the other
hand, this new Election is quite groundless, highly improbable, and
absolutely repugnant to what we read in the antient and contemporary
Writers. It is quite groundless; for though _Bellarmine_ speaks of a new
Election with as much Confidence as if he had been one of the
Electors[803], yet we find not the least Hint of it in any of the
Writers of those Times, who would not have passed over in Silence so
remarkable an Event, had it come to their Knowlege. It is highly
improbable; for _Liberius_ was greatly beloved by the whole People, and
the far greater Part of the Clergy, and _Felix_ hated to such a Degree,
that of all the Inhabitants of _Rome_, not one ever appeared in the
Church while he was in it[804]; nay, he was by all avoided, even in the
Streets and other public Places, as if he had carried about with him a
Contagion[805]. Is it not therefore altogether improbable, that the
People and Clergy should depose the Man, whom in a manner they adored,
for communicating with the _Arians_, and appoint one in his room, who
likewise communicated with them, and was universally detested, avoided,
and abhorred? And yet all this is gravely supposed by _Bellarmine_[806].
Lastly, the Election of _Felix_ is repugnant to what we read in the
antient Writers, who all speak of him as an Antipope, and an Intruder.
_Optatus_, who lived at that very Time, and St. _Austin_, who flourished
soon after, have not allowed him a Place in their Catalogues of the
Bishops of _Rome_. _Theodoret_ takes no notice of him in his Catalogue
of the Bishops of the chief Cities. St. _Jerom_ and _Prosper_ count
_Liberius_ the Thirty-fourth Bishop of _Rome_, and _Damasus_, who
succeeded him, the Thirty-fifth; a plain Indication that they did not
look upon _Felix_ as lawful Bishop. Among the Moderns, _Onuphrius
Panvinius_, in his Lives of the Popes, printed in 1557. some Years
before the Discovery of _Felix_’s Body, calls _Novatian_ the First
Antipope, and _Felix_ the Second. But his Book was prohibited in 1583.
the Year after the Second Canonization of _Felix_. The Writers, who came
after, took Warning; and such of them as thought it base to concur in
deceiving Mankind, since it was not safe to undeceive them, chose to
wave this Subject, but not without giving some broad Hints of what they
believed in their Hearts. Thus F. _Labbé_[807], and Cardinal
_Bona_[808], take no notice of this _Felix_, but call Pope _Felix_, who
was raised to the See of _Rome_ in 485. the Second Pope of that Name.
_Felix_ I. was martyred under _Aurelian_ in 274. as we have related
elsewhere[809]. F. _Labbé_, at the Death of _Felix_ II. which happened
in 492. adds, that he was the Third of that Name, according to
_Baronius_[810]. [Sidenote: _Acknowleged as such by some_
Roman _Catholic Writers_.] Had _Felix_ never been canonized, no Man
would have been so regardless of his own Reputation as to undertake his
Defence; but _Gregory_ having declared him a Saint, and, by such a
Declaration, linked his Cause with Infallibility in a most essential
Point, the hired Champions of that See found themselves under an
indispensable Obligation of entering the Lists; which I need not say
they have done to no Purpose.
[Sidenote: _The Emperor undertakes the establishing of_ Arianism.]
The Fall of the Bishop of _Rome_, who was at the Head of the Orthodox
Party, inspired the Emperor with great Hopes of succeeding in the Design
he had formed of utterly abolishing the Orthodox Faith: he found there
were but few Bishops whose Virtue was Proof against the Frowns and
Resentment of the Court. In the Council held at _Arles_ in 353. they had
all to a Man chosen rather to communicate with the _Arians_, than be
driven from their Sees: in that which was convened Two Years after, at
_Milan_, only Three Bishops were found, _viz._ _Dionysius_ Bishop of
that City, _Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_, and _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, who,
equally unmoved by Threats and Promises, had maintained the Truth with
the Loss of their Dignity. The Example of the Bishop of _Rome_ had been
followed by the far greater Part of the Bishops of _Italy_. But what
above all encouraged the Emperor to pursue the Scheme he had so much at
heart, was the Fall of the celebrated _Osius_ Bishop of _Cordoua_, in
the Hundredth Year of his Age, and Sixty-second of his Episcopacy. As
the Name of _Osius_ is one of the most famous in the Ecclesiastical
History of those Times, and his Fall is alleged by the Antients as a
memorable Instance of the Weakness of human Nature, however strengthened
and improved by a long Practice of the most eminent Virtues, a succinct
Account of so remarkable an Event will not, I hope, be unacceptable to
the Reader, or thought foreign to the Subject in hand.
[Sidenote: _A succinct Account of the Life of_ Osius _Bishop of_
Cordoua.]
_Osius_ was a Native of _Spain_[811], born, according to some, in
_Cordoua_, about the Year 256. and raised, in regard of his
extraordinary Merit, to the See of that City in 295[812]. He was even
then conspicuous for the Firmness of his Faith, and the Purity of his
Life, says _Sozomen_[813]. _Athanasius_, who was well acquainted with
him, speaks of him with the greatest Respect and Esteem, calling him a
Man truly holy, according to the _Greek_ Signification of his Name; one
in whose Conduct even his most inveterate Enemies could discover nothing
that was not commendable, his Life being irreprehensible, and his
Reputation unspotted[814]. _Theodoret_[815], and _Eusebius_[816], extol
him on Account of his extraordinary Prudence, Wisdom, and Learning,
which gave great Weight to his Opinion in the many Councils at which he
assisted, and often presided. In the Year 300. he was present at the
Council of _Eliberis_, or _Illeberis_, in _Spain_, famous for the
Severity of its Canons; and, in all Likelihood, made even then a
considerable Figure; since, in the Acts of that Council, he is named in
the Second Place after _Felix_ of _Acci_, now _Guadix_, in _Andalusia_,
who probably presided[817]. [Sidenote: _He is imprisoned under_ Maximian
_for the Confession of the Faith_.] Three Years after broke out the
Persecution of _Maximian Hercules_, in which _Osius_ distinguished
himself by his Zeal, his Constancy, and his Sufferings; for, having with
great Intrepidity confessed his Faith before the Pagan Magistrates, he
was by them imprisoned, and kept under a very close and painful
Confinement for the Space of Two Years, that is, from the Year 303. to
305. when, upon the Abdication of _Maximian_ and _Dioclesian_, he was
set at Liberty by _Constantius Chlorus_, the Father of _Constantine the
Great_[818]. He is honoured by _Athanasius_[819], by the Council of
_Sardica_, and by most of the Antients, with the Title of _Confessor_,
which was given to such as had suffered Imprisonment, Torments, or
Exile, but had not died, for the Confession of the Faith. He was highly
esteemed and revered by _Constantine_, not only as a Confessor, but as a
Person of extraordinary Wisdom and Probity[820]; whence he is thought to
have been one of the Prelates whom that Prince consulted in 311[821].
and kept with him to instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian
Religion. [Sidenote: _He instructs_ Constantine.] Some think that
_Osius_ was meant by the _Egyptian_ Priest come from _Spain_, to whom
_Zosimus_ ascribes the Change made by _Constantine_ in point of
Religion[822]. The Church of _Cordoua_ was, out of Regard to him,
enriched by _Constantine_ with many valuable Presents, whence he is said
to have been very rich[823]. But what Use he made of his Wealth we may
learn from _Athanasius_, who assures us, that no one in Want ever
applied to him without being relieved, and receiving the Supply he
demanded[824]. In the famous Dispute, which I have taken notice of in
its proper Place, between _Cæcilianus_ and the _Donatists_ of _Africa_,
_Osius_ undertook, with great Zeal, the Defence of the former, and
prevailed in the End upon _Constantine_ to espouse his Cause, and
declare against the _Donatists_[825], whom he thenceforth punished with
great Severity, taking their Churches from them, and sending the most
obstinate among them into Exile. _Constantine_ being become Master of
the East in the Year 323. his first Care was to put an End to the
unhappy Divisions that reigned in those Churches about the Celebration
of _Easter_, and some other controverted Points. [Sidenote: _He is sent
by him to compose some Disputes there._] With this View he dispatched
_Osius_ into the East, who, upon his Arrival there, summoned a Council
to meet at _Alexandria_, which, under his Influence, condemned the
Heresy of _Sabellius_, put a Stop to the Schism of one _Colluthus_, and
greatly allayed the Animosity of the contending Parties about the Day on
which _Easter_ was to be kept[826]. On his Return to Court, the Account
he gave of the _Arians_, whose Heresy he had endeavoured in vain to
suppress, made so deep an Impression in the Mind of the Emperor, that,
for a long time, he continued highly prejudiced against them[827]. It
was at the Suggestion of _Osius_ that _Constantine_ assembled the
Council of _Nice_ in 325. at which he assisted, and distinguished
himself above the rest[828]; for of all Councils he was the Head and
Leader, as _Athanasius_ styles him[829]. [Sidenote: _He assists at
the Council of_ Nice _and draws up the_ Nicene _Creed_.] By him was
worded and drawn up the famous _Nicene_ Symbol or Creed, as we are told
in express Terms by _Athanasius_[830]. He presided at the Council of
_Sardica_, which, at his Request, was assembled by the Emperor
_Constans_ in 347[831]. From that Council he retired to his Bishoprick,
and continued there undisturbed till the Year 355. when _Constantius_
seeing himself Master of the West, as well as of the East, undertook to
oblige all the Bishops to condemn _Athanasius_, whose Cause was looked
upon as inseparable from that of the Orthodox Faith. As _Osius_ had on
all Occasions declared highly in his Favour, and the Example of a
Prelate so venerable for his Age, for the glorious Title of Confessor,
and the Figure he had made for many Years in the Church, greatly
prejudiced the World against the Enemies of the persecuted Bishop, the
Emperor resolved to deprive, if possible, the Orthodox Party of so
powerful a Support. [Sidenote: Constantius _attempts in vain to gain
him over to the_ Arian _Party_.] With this View he ordered _Osius_ to
repair to _Milan_, where the Court then was, well knowing that he was
not, like most other Bishops, to be terrified with threatening Letters.
_Osius_, in Compliance with the Emperor’s Orders, set out without Delay
from _Cordoua_, notwithstanding his great Age; and, arriving at _Milan_,
was there received by the Emperor with all the Respect that was due to
the _Father of Bishops_, as he was styled. _Constantius_ entertained him
for some Days with the utmost Civility, hoping by that means to bring
him into his Views; but he no sooner named _Athanasius_ to him, than the
zealous Prelate, well knowing the Drift of his Discourse, and armed
against all Temptations, interrupted him with declaring, that he was
ready to sacrifice not one, but a Thousand Lives, in so just a Cause;
nay, he even reprimanded the Emperor with great Freedom, who, out of an
awful Reverence for a Prelate of his Years, Authority, and Figure, heard
him with great Patience, and not only forbore offering him any Violence,
but gave him Leave to return unmolested to his See[832].
[Sidenote: _His second Attempt to gain him._]
The mild Treatment _Osius_ met with gave great Uneasiness to the _Arian_
Party, especially to the Two Bishops, _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, who
thereupon never ceased soliciting the Emperor to proceed with Vigour
against the only Man, who, they said, was capable of obstructing his
great and pious Designs. They were powerfully seconded by the Eunuchs,
who prevailed in the End upon the Emperor, as they bore a great Sway at
Court, to try anew the Firmness and Constancy of so celebrated a
Champion. _Constantius_ therefore writ several Letters to him, treating
him in some with great Respect, and styling him his Father, but menacing
him in others, and naming to him the Bishops, whom he had banished for
refusing to condemn a Man whom most Bishops, and several Councils, had
already condemned[833]. [Sidenote: _His Letter to the Emperor._]
_Osius_, inflexible and unmoved, answered the Emperor by a Letter worthy
of himself, and the great Reputation he had acquired. It has been
conveyed to us by _Athanasius_, and nothing can be said stronger in that
Bishop’s Defence; for he there shews unanswerably, that, whatever Crimes
might be alleged against him, his only Guilt was a steady Adherence to
the Faith of _Nice_[834]. [Sidenote: _He is sent to_ Sirmium.] But
_Constantius_, without hearkening to the Reasons he urged in
Justification of his own and _Athanasius_’s Conduct, without paying the
least Regard to the earnest Prayers and Intreaties, to the paternal
Exhortations and Admonitions, of so venerable a Prelate, ordered him to
quit his See forthwith, and repair to _Sirmium_, where he was kept a
whole Year in a kind of Exile. But, unaffected with the many Hardships
he suffered there, with the Loss of his Dignity, with the inhuman
Treatment of his Relations, who were all persecuted, stripped of their
Estates, and reduced to Beggary on his Account, _Osius_ still stood up
in Defence of _Athanasius_, still rejected with Indignation the
Proposals of his Enemies[835], striving to induce him at least to
communicate with them. They therefore resolved to proceed to open Force,
and either to gain over to their Party a Man of his Figure and Rank, or,
by removing him out of the Way, to deprive the Orthodox of their main
Support[836]. [Sidenote: _Confined and racked._] Accordingly, with the
Emperor’s Consent and Approbation, they caused him first to be closely
confined, and afterwards to be cruelly beaten; and lastly to be put to
the Rack, and most inhumanly tortured, as if he had been the worst of
Criminals[837]. [Sidenote: _He yields at last._] Even against such
exquisite Torments the Firmness of his Mind was proof for some time; but
the Weakness of his Body obliged him in a manner to yield at last, and
communicate with _Ursacius_ and _Valens_[838]. _Athanasius_ seems to
insinuate in some Places, that he signed his Condemnation[839]; but in
another he expresly denies it[840]. _Sulpitius Severus_ thinks he was
guilty of no other Crime but that of communicating with the
_Arians_[841]. _Athanasius_ only says, that he consented to communicate
with _Ursacius_ and _Valens_[842]. [Sidenote: _He signs the_
Sirmian _Confession of Faith_.] However, that he did not stop there, but
signed the _Arian_ Confession of _Sirmium_, is but too manifest from
several unexceptionable and contemporary Writers. _Phœbadius_ Bishop
of _Agen_, in _France_, in his Answer written at this very Time to the
_Arians_, bragging that their Doctrine had been approved and embraced by
the great _Osius_, allows the Fact; but adds, that he was induced
thereunto by Force, and not Conviction[843]. _Marcellinus_ and
_Faustinus_, who writ at the same time, say, that _Osius_ set his Hand,
but never yielded his Heart, to the _Arian_ Impiety[844]. Nay,
_Hilarius_ Bishop of _Poitiers_ supposes the _Sirmian_ Confession of
Faith to have been drawn up by _Osius_ and _Potamus_; for he often calls
it, _The Heresy, the Blasphemies, the wild and mad Conceits of_ Osius
_and_ Potamus[845]. _Vigilius Tapsensis_ ranks _Osius_ with _Ursacius,
and the other wicked Men, who composed the sacrilegious Confession of_
Sirmium[846]. _Socrates_ writes, that he signed the _Sirmian_
Symbol[847]; _Sozomen_, that he consented to the Suppression of the
Words _Omoousion_, and _Omoiousion_[848]; and _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_
bestows high Encomiums on _Gregory_ Bishop of _Elvira_, for opposing the
great _Transgressor_ Osius[849]. _Potamus_, whom I have mentioned above,
was Bishop of _Lisbone_, and a most sanguine Stickler for the Orthodox
Party; but upon the Emperor’s yielding to him some Lands of the Imperial
Demesne, that lay very convenient for him, he changed Sides, and became
a most zealous Champion of the _Arian_ Doctrine[850]; insomuch that he
is ranked by _Phœbadius_ with _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, the Two great
Apostles of the _Arians_[851].
[Sidenote: _The_ Arians _Triumph_.]
The Fall of the great _Osius_, whom the Orthodox Party looked upon as
their invincible Hero, surprised the whole World[852]. Some could not
believe it; others ascribed it to his great Age, which might have
weakened his Judgment[853]. It was immediately published all over the
East, and great Rejoicings were made on the Occasion, by the Bishops in
those Parts, who looked upon such a Conquest as a signal Victory over
the Orthodox[854]. _Phœbadius_ tells us, that the chief Argument
alleged by the _Arians_, in favour of their Doctrine, against the
Bishops of _Gaul_, was _the Conversion of_ Osius, as they styled
it[855]. Here _Davidius_ pleases himself with ridiculing, and indeed
very justly, this and several other Conversions, greatly boasted by the
_Arians_; but he must give me Leave to put him in mind, that he
ridicules, at the same time, the many Conversions which his Church is
constantly boasting, since most of them, especially those thus made in
the new World, have been owing to Arguments of the same Nature as that
of _Osius_, and other _Arian_ Proselytes, and were not perhaps at all
more sincere. [Sidenote: Hilarius _not well informed as to
the Circumstances of his Fall_.] _Hilarius_, Bishop of _Poitiers_, who
lived at this time in Exile, amidst the _Arians_ in _Phrygia_, seems not
to be well informed as to the Circumstances of the Fall of _Osius_; else
he had made some Allowance for the barbarous and inhuman Treatment the
unhappy Prelate met with, and not reflected on him with so much
Bitterness and Severity, saying, that it had pleased God to prolong his
Life till he fell, that the World might know what he had been before he
fell[856]. That a Man in the Hundredth Year of his Age should yield to
most exquisite and repeated Torments, is not at all to be wondered at;
and therefore had _Hilarius_ been better informed, he had rather pitied
than reproached him. But the _Arians_, among whom he lived, took care to
conceal whatever could any ways depreciate their boasted Victory: at
least that _Hilarius_ was a Stranger to what _Osius_ had suffered, is
manifest, from his ascribing the Fall of that great Prelate not to the
Cruelty of his Enemies, but to the too great Love he had for his
Sepulchre[857], meaning, I suppose, the Desire he had of dying in his
native Country, and not in Exile.
[Sidenote: _He is restored to his See._]
_Osius_ having thus gratified the Emperor, by communicating with the
_Arians_, and signing the _Sirmian_ Confession of Faith, he was
immediately reinstated in his See, and suffered to return to his native
Country, where he gave some Trouble, it seems, to the Orthodox Bishops;
for _Gregory_ Bishop of _Elvira_ is highly commended by _Eusebius_ of
_Vercelli_, who lived then in Exile, _for opposing the Transgressor_
Osius, as I have observed above. The unfortunate Prelate did not live
long after his Fall, but died in the Latter-end of the same Year 357.
according to the most probable Opinion. He did not forget the Crime he
had committed, says _Athanasius_[858]; but grievously complained, at the
Point of Death, of the Violence that had been offered him, anathematized
the Heresy of _Arius_, and exhorted, as by his last Will, all Mankind to
reject it[859]. To his Repentance _Athanasius_, no doubt, alludes, where
he writes, that _Osius_ yielded only for a time[860]; which he says of
no other, not even of _Liberius_. As for the Account, which some Writers
give of his tragical End[861], it is not worthy of Notice. The _Greek_
Church honours him as a Saint, and his Festival is kept on the 27th of
_August_[862]; but they are certainly mistaken in supposing him to have
died in Banishment. The Case of _Osius_ deserves, without all Doubt, to
be greatly pitied. But it would be still more worthy of our Pity and
Compassion, had he been himself an Enemy to all Persecution. But it must
be observed, that he was the Author and Promoter of the First Christian
Persecution. For it was he who first stirred up _Constantine_ against
the _Donatists_; many of whom were sent into Exile, and some even
sentenced to Death, nay, and led to the Place of Execution. I dare not
interpret the very severe Treatment he met with, or his Fall and
Apostasy, as a Judgment; but cannot help thinking him, on that
Consideration, less worthy of our Compassion and Concern, than a Man of
his Years and Merit would otherwise have been.
[Sidenote: Constantius _appoints a Council to meet at_ Nicomedia;]
_Constantius_, having thus gained over to the Heterodox Party the
celebrated Bishop of _Cordoua_, and sent those into Exile, whom he
apprehended most capable of traversing his Design, resolved to assemble
a Council, not doubting but he should be able, by some means or other,
to prevail upon the Members, that composed it, to approve and embrace
the Doctrine, which he was labouring with indefatigable Pains to
establish. Accordingly he writ to the chief Bishops of each Province,
injoining them to meet in the Name of the rest, at an appointed Time, in
the City of _Nicomedia_[863]. [Sidenote: _which City is destroyed by an
Earthquake_.] In Compliance with his Orders the Bishops immediately set
out; but, while they were on the Road, they were stopped by the News
that was brought them of the utter Destruction of the City of
_Nicomedia_ by a sudden and most dreadful Earthquake. This public
Calamity happened on the 24th of _August_ 358[864]. and the _Arians_, in
the Account which they transmitted of it to Court, assured the Emperor,
that several Bishops, who were for _Consubstantiality_, had been buried
under the Ruins of the great Church[865]. It was probably, by this
Account, that _Philostorgius_ was deceived and misled, when he writ,
that Fifteen Bishops, who were all Defenders of _Consubstantiality_,
were crushed to Pieces by the Fall of the Church, together with
_Cecrops_ Bishop of the City[866]. But _Sozomen_ assures us, that, when
the Church fell, there was not a single Person in it; and that Two
Bishops only perished in the Earthquake, _viz._ _Cecrops_, who was an
_Arian_, and a Bishop of _Bosporus_[867]. [Sidenote: _The Council
appointed to meet at_ Nice.] This Misfortune obliged the Emperor to
change the Place of the Council; and accordingly Letters were
immediately dispatched to all the Bishops, ordering them to repair to
_Nice_, which City was suggested to him by _Basilius_, the _Semi-Arian_
Bishop of _Ancyra_, with a Design, says _Theodoret_[868], to eclipse the
Glory and Authority of the First Council by the Confusion of Two. Be
that as it will, the Bishops were ordered to meet there early in the
Summer of the Year 359. Such as were not in a Condition to undertake
such a Journey, on account of their Age or Infirmities, were to send
Priests or Deacons, as their Deputies, to vote and act in their Name;
and the Council was strictly injoined to transmit to the Emperor such
Decrees as they should enact, that he might examine them, and see
whether they were agreeable to Scripture: for this Purpose Ten Deputies
were to be appointed by the Bishops of the East, and the like Number by
those of the West[869]. [Sidenote: _Two Councils appointed to
meet instead of one._] But while the World was expecting to see a second
Oecumenical Council assembled at _Nice_, the Emperor all on a sudden
changed his Mind, and instead of one, resolved to convene Two, the one
in the East, and the other in the West[870]. This Change was owing to
the Intrigues of the _Anomeans_, or _Pure Arians_, who, finding the far
greater Part of the Bishops either for the Orthodox Faith of _Nice_, or,
the _Semi-Arian_, as established in a Council at _Antioch_, concluded,
that there would be no Means to divert them, when assembled together,
from condemning their Doctrine; whereas if they were divided, they did
not despair of being able to manage both Assemblies, or at least one of
the Two[871]. This Design of dividing the Council they privately
imparted to the Eunuch _Eusebius_, their great Friend, and the Emperor’s
chief Favourite, who, highly applauding the Scheme, took upon him to get
it approved by _Constantius_. [Sidenote: _The Occasion of this Change._]
And this he easily effected, by representing, that a General Council
would put the Bishops to greater Trouble and Inconveniences than most of
them could well bear, and, at the same time, the Treasury to an immense
Charge; for on such Occasions their Expences were defrayed by the
Emperor[872]. He therefore advised him to assemble Two Councils at the
same time, one in the East, and the other in the West, which, he said,
would be less troublesome to the Bishops, and less expensive to the
Exchequer. To these Reasons _Constantius_ acquiesced; but, as he was a
zealous _Semi-Arian_, _Eusebius_ kept him in the Dark, as to the true
Motive of such a Change. Thus was _Constantius_, and thus have many
Princes been, since his Time, led, as it were, hoodwinked, by some in
whom they reposed an intire Confidence, into Measures tending to promote
Designs quite opposite to their own.
[Sidenote: Rimini _chosen for the Western Bishops_;]
This Point being settled, to the great Satisfaction of the _Anomeans_,
_Ariminum_, now _Rimini_, on the _Adriatic_ Sea, was thought the most
proper Place for the Western Bishops to meet at. But the City of _Nice_,
where the General Council was to assemble, having suffered much by the
late Earthquake, the Emperor desired the Eastern Bishops might not meet
there, but in whatever other Place they should agree among themselves to
be the most proper and convenient[873]. This _Theodoret_ ascribes to a
particular Providence, that would not suffer the great Council of _Nice_
to be ever confounded with a Conventicle of Heretics[874]. [Sidenote:
_and_ Seleucia _in_ Isauria _for those of the East_.] As the Bishops
could not agree about the Place, and it was not at all probable they
should, the Emperor, by the Advice of a few, who were then with him at
_Sirmium_, named the City of _Seleucia_ in _Isauria_[875]. And now that
the Place was settled for both Councils, _Constantius_ issued an Order,
injoining not only the chief Bishops of each Province, as he had done
the Year before, but all, without Exception, to repair to one of the
Two[876]; nay, he dispatched Officers into the Provinces, with a strict
Charge to see his Order punctually obeyed, and put in Execution[877].
The Bishops therefore set out from all Parts; the public Carriages,
Roads, and Houses, were every-where crouded with them; which gave great
Offence to the Catechumens, and no small Diversion to the Pagans, who
thought it equally strange and ridiculous, that Men, who had been
brought up from their Infancy in the Christian Religion, and whose
Business it was to instruct others in that Belief, should be constantly
hurrying, in their old Age, from one Place to another, to know what they
themselves should believe[878]. _Ammianus Marcellinus_ complains, that
the necessary Funds for the Maintenance of the public Carriages were
quite drained and exhausted, by the roaming about of the Christian
Bishops[879]. Their Charges were defrayed by the Emperor, as I have
observed above; but the Bishops of _Gaul_ and _Britain_, that they might
be the more independent, insisted upon travelling at their own Expence;
only Three of the latter, not having wherewithal to support themselves,
chose rather to be obliged to the Emperor than burdensome to their
Collegues, who generously offered to contribute to their Maintenance,
every one according to his Ability[880].
The Western Bishops, that is, those of _Illyricum_, _Italy_, _Africa_,
_Spain_, _Gaul_, and _Britain_, being assembled at _Rimini_, in all 400
and upwards[881], the Emperor writ to _Taurus_, the _Præfectus Prætorio_
of _Italy_, charging him to be present at all the Debates, and not to
suffer the Bishops to separate, till, in Points of Faith, they had all
agreed: if he succeeded therein, he was to be rewarded with the Consular
Dignity[882]. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Letter to the Western Bishops._]
At the same time he writ to the Bishops, injoining them to treat only of
such Matters as related to the Faith, Unity, and Order of the Church,
and forbidding them to meddle, on any Pretence whatsoever, with what
concerned the Eastern Bishops, who, he said, would take care to settle
their own Affairs, since they were met for that Purpose[883]. This was
to prevent their entering upon the Cause of _Athanasius_, whom he well
knew the Western Bishops would have declared innocent. The Emperor’s
Letter is dated the 27th of May 359[884]. At this Council _Restitutus_
Bishop of _Carthage_ is supposed to have presided, as he was, both for
Piety and Learning, the most conspicuous in the Assembly. [Sidenote:
_The_ Arians _propose a new Confession drawn up at_ Sirmium;] At their
first Meeting, the Two _Arian_ Bishops, _Ursacius_ and _Valens_,
appeared with a Paper in their Hands, containing a new Confession of
Faith, composed lately at _Sirmium_ by the Emperor, by a small Number of
_Arian_ and _Semi-Arian_ Bishops, and several Presbyters and Deacons,
who, after a Debate, which lasted the whole Day, had at length agreed to
suppress the Word _Consubstantial_; and introduce the Word _like_ in its
room; so that the Son was no more to be said _consubstantial_, but _like
to the Father in all Things_; the Three last Words _Constantius_ added,
and, by obliging all who were present to sign them, defeated, say the
_Semi-Arians_, the wicked Designs of the Heretics, meaning the _Pure
Arians_[885]. However, excepting those Words, the whole Confession was
thought to favour their Doctrine[886]; whence the _Semi-Arians_ held out
till Night, when the Emperor, well satisfied with the Words _like in all
things_, obliged them to sign it. This Confession of Faith was drawn up,
and signed, on the Eve of _Pentecost_[887], that is, on the 22d or 23d
of _May_ 359[888]. _Easter_ having fallen that Year on the 4th of
_April_[889][N17]. _Ursacius_ and _Valens_ read it to the Council,
adding, when they had done, that it had been approved of by the Emperor,
and therefore that they ought all to be satisfied with it, without
recurring to any other Councils or Creeds, without demanding any other
Confession of the Heretics, or inquiring too narrowly into their
Doctrine and Opinions, which would be attended with much Trouble,
endless Disputes, and eternal Divisions; that the Catholic Truths, which
all Men were bound to believe, ought not to be darkened with
Metaphysical Terms, but expressed by Words, which all Men understood;
and, lastly, that it was quite idle to quarrel and make so much Noise
about a Word (meaning the Word _consubstantial_) which none of the
inspired Writers had thought fit to make use of in explaining the
Mysteries of our holy Religion[890]. What Answer the Council returned, I
can find no-where recorded. But a Motion being made soon after to
condemn and anathematize the _Arian_ and all other Heresies, _Ursacius_
and his Party opposed it; which alarmed the Orthodox Bishops, concluding
from thence, that whatever Expressions they made use of, their Belief
was different from that of the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: _which is
rejected_;] They therefore resolved to hearken to them no longer; and
accordingly, without the least Regard to their Remonstrances and
Protestations, they condemned, with one Consent, all Heresies in
general, and that of _Arius_ in particular; declared heretical the
Confession of Faith presented by _Ursacius_ and _Valens_; confirmed that
of _Nice_, and ordered the Word _consubstantial_ to be retained, since
the true Meaning of it might be sufficiently gathered from several
Passages in Scripture[891]. [Sidenote: _and they condemned and
deposed_.] They did not stop here; but, transported with Zeal on the
_Arians_ attempting to impose upon them by a Second Confession of Faith,
they declared them all, and their Leaders _Ursacius_, _Valens_,
_Germinius_, and _Caius_, by Name, ignorant and deceitful Men,
Impostors, Heretics, deposed them in the Council, and signed all to a
Man this Declaration on the 21st of _July_ of the present Year 359[892].
-----
Footnote N17:
It was signed by the few Bishops, who were present, and by a good
Number of Presbyters and Deacons. The Bishops were _Marcus_ of
_Arethusa_, _George_, who had been intruded into the See of
_Alexandria_, _Basilius_ of _Ancyra_, _Germinius_ of _Sirmium_,
_Hypatianus_ of _Heraclea_, _Valens_, _Ursacius_, and _Pancratius_ of
_Pelusium_[N17.1]. _Valens_, in signing it, added to his Name these
Words; _I believe the Son to be like to the Father_. He was unwilling
to acknowlege the Son like to the Father _in all things_, agreeably to
the Confession, which he was to sign, and therefore suppressed these
Words. But the Emperor insisting upon his adding them, he took his
Will for the Rule of his Faith, and added them accordingly. _Basilius_
of _Ancyra_, suspecting some Meaning contrary to the Doctrine which he
held, to lie concealed and disguised under those Words, declared, that
he understood by them a Likeness in _Substance_, in _Existence_, and
in _Essence_; and that he signed in this, and no other Sense, the
present Symbol. Not satisfied with this Declaration, he writ, some
time after, an Exposition of the Faith that was professed by him, and
the other _Semi-Arian_ Bishops. This Exposition is, by _Epiphanius_,
styled a Letter, and was placed by him after the circular Letter of
the Council of _Ancyra_. The present Confession of _Sirmium_ is
commonly styled the Third, but was, properly speaking, the Fourth: For
before this, Three different Symbols had been composed at _Sirmium_;
_viz._ one intirely Orthodox, in 351. another altogether _Arian_, in
357. a Third _Semi-Arian_, in 358. and the present in 359. The Second
_Liberius_ signed at _Berœa_, and the Third at _Sirmium_, upon his
Arrival in that City.
Footnote N17.1:
Athan. de syn. p. 873. Epi. 73. c. 22. Socr. l. 2. c. 29.
-----
[Sidenote: _Deputies sent by the Council to the Emperor_;]