dispatched Ten Deputies to acquaint the Emperor with what had passed,
pursuant to his express Command. The like Number was sent by the
_Arians_, who had assisted at the Council. These, traveling with great
Expedition, arrived at _Constantinople_, where the Court then was, some
time before the others; and, being immediately admitted to the Emperor,
they prejudiced him to such a Degree against the Orthodox Party, that he
would not so much as see their Deputies, pretending to be wholly taken
up with the Affairs of the State. They were therefore obliged to deliver
the Letter, which the Council had written on this Occasion, to one of
his Ministers[893]. They expected every Day to be admitted to an
Audience, or, at least, to receive an Answer, and be dismissed.
[Sidenote: _who leaves_ Constantinople _without seeing them_.] But,
after they had been thus kept for some time in Expectation, the Emperor
all on a sudden left _Constantinople_, in order to head his Army against
the _Barbarians_, who had broken into the Empire. He was no sooner gone
than one of the Ministers came to acquaint them, that it was the
Emperor’s Pleasure they should repair forthwith to _Adrianople_, and
there wait his Return[894]. However, before he set out, he writ to the
Council, giving them notice of his sudden Departure from
_Constantinople_; and alleging, by way of Excuse for not having seen or
heard their Deputies, the present Situation of public Affairs, which had
engrossed his whole Attention, whereas, the discussing and settling of
spiritual Affairs required a Mind quite free and disengaged from all
worldly Cares. [Sidenote: _He endeavours to tire their Patience
with Delays._] He concluded his short Letter with intreating them not to
think of separating till he was at Leisure to settle, in Conjunction
with them, Matters of so great Importance to the Church, and the whole
Christian World[895]. The Design of the most wicked _Constantius_, as
_Athanasius_ styles him[896], was to tire out the Bishops with such
Delays, hoping they would, in the End, chuse rather to sign the last
_Sirmian_ Confession, which he was bent upon establishing in the room of
the _Nicene_, than to be long kept, as it were, in Exile, at a Distance
from their Sees[897]. But this he could not compass for the present, the
Bishops declaring, in their Answer to his Letter, that they could not,
and hoped they never should, upon any Consideration whatsoever, depart
from what they had so unanimously settled and decreed[898]. _Socrates_
writes, that the Bishops, after having waited some time in vain for the
Emperor’s Answer to their Letter, left _Rimini_, and retired to their
respective Sees[899]. And here he ends his Account of that Council. It
were greatly to be wished, that nothing else could be said of it; but
several contemporary and unexceptionable Writers, and _Hilarius_ among
the rest[900], assure us, that _Constantius_ _changed at last the Faith
of the Western Bishops into Impiety_. Of this deplorable Change they
give us the following Account.
[Sidenote: _Their Deputies ordered to_ Nice _in_ Thrace;]
The _Arians_, taking Occasion from the last Letter of the Bishops at
_Rimini_ to incense _Constantius_ against them, prevailed upon him to
order their Deputies to a City in _Thrace_, known at that Time by the
Name of _Nice_, but formerly called _Ostudizus_, and placed by _Sanson_
a few Leagues to the East of _Adrianople_. This Place they chose, that
the Symbol, which they designed to impose upon them, might be confounded
by the ignorant People with that of the great Council of _Nice_ in
_Bithynia_[901]. The Deputies no sooner arrived there, than a Confession
of Faith was proposed to them intirely agreeable to the last made at
_Sirmium_, except that in this new Creed the Son was declared _like to
the Father_, without the Addition of the Words _in all Things_. This
they rejected at first with great Resolution and Intrepidity; but the
_Arians_ were no less resolute, and therefore left nothing unattempted
they could think of to carry their Point[902]. But finding Hope and
Fear, Threats and Promises, equally ineffectual, they proceeded at last
to open Force and Violence[903]. What Kind of Violence was employed
against them, the Author does not tell us; but _Marcellinus_ and
_Faustinus_ ascribe their retracting what they had declared to be holy,
and approving what they had condemned as impious, to the Love of their
Sees, and the Dread they were in of being driven from them[904].
[Sidenote: _where they sign the_ Sirmian _Confession_.] Be that as it
will, it is certain, that they yielded at last; that they accepted and
signed, without the least Limitation or Restriction, the above-mentioned
Confession of Faith; consented to the Suppression of the Word
_Consubstantial_; declared void and null all the Acts and Proceedings of
the Council of _Rimini_; anathematized, as heretical, all Opinions
contrary to the Doctrine contained in the said Confession; and, finally,
admitted to their Communion _Ursacius_, _Valens_, _Germinius_, and
_Caius_, whom they had not long before deposed as Heretics[905].
_Restitutus_, Bishop of _Carthage_, and one of the most eminent Prelates
at that Time in the Church, signed the first, and the other Deputies
after him, according to the Dignity of their Sees. The Emperor,
transported with Joy at the News of their Compliance, which he looked
upon as a signal Victory, gave them immediately Leave to return to
_Rimini_. At the same time he wrote to _Taurus_, charging him anew not
to suffer the Bishops to depart till they had all signed the same
Confession of Faith, and impowering him to send into Exile such as by
their Obstinacy should distinguish themselves above the rest, provided
they were not above Fifteen in Number[906]. [Sidenote: Constantius
_orders the Bishops at_ Rimini _to suppress the Words_ Substance
_and_ Consubstantial.] He likewise writ to the Bishops, commanding them,
on Pain of incurring his Indignation, to suppress for ever the Words
_Substance_ and _Consubstantial_, severely reprimanding them for
presuming to depose _Ursacius_ and his Collegues, and assuring them,
that they should not be allowed to return to their Sees, till they had
intitled themselves to his Favour by an intire and unreserved Compliance
with his Will[907]. To this Letter the _Arians_, who had assisted at the
Council, to the Number of Eighty, returned a most submissive Answer, and
even thanked the Emperor for the great Pains he took to establish the
true Doctrine[908]. However, _Taurus_ declared that he could by no means
suffer them to depart till the rest had agreed with them, and the whole
Assembly was of one Mind. The orthodox Bishops shewed at first some
Resolution, and even refused to communicate with their own Deputies. But
this Resolution soon vanished; they were eager to return to their Sees;
the Emperor was inflexible; _Taurus_ took care to render the Place both
inconvenient and disagreeable to them. [Sidenote: _The greater
Part yield._] Some therefore fell off, others followed their Example,
the rest began to waver, and, being so far got the better of, yielded
soon after, and went over to the _Arian_ Party in such Crouds, that in a
very short time the Number of the orthodox Bishops, who continued
steady, was reduced to 20[909]. At the Head of these was _Phœbadius_,
the celebrated Bishop of _Agen_, who seemed invincible; but nevertheless
was overcome in the End, not by the Menaces of the Emperor, or his
Prefect, but by the Craft and Subtilty of _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, who,
finding they could by no other Means prevail upon him to accept the
_Sirmian_ Confession, declared, that to put an End to the unhappy
Divisions that had so long rent the Church, they had at last resolved to
agree to such Alterations and Additions as should be judged proper and
necessary by him and his Collegues. This Declaration was received by all
with great Joy: _Phœbadius_ triumphed, thinking he had carried his
Point, and saved the Reputation of the Council. [Sidenote: _The others
imposed upon by the_ Arians.] To the Symbol were immediately added
several Anathemas against the _Arian_ Heresy, and an Article declaring
_the Son equal to the Father, without Beginning, and before all Time_.
When this Article was read, _Valens_ desired, that, in order to leave no
room for new Disputes or Chicanery, they would add, that _the Son was
not a Creature like other Creatures_[910]. This was evidently supposing
the Son to be a Creature only exalted above all other Creatures; so that
by admitting such an Article they condemned the Doctrine which they
designed to establish, and established that which they designed to
condemn. And yet of this neither was _Phœbadius_ aware, nor any of
his Party, as they afterwards solemnly declared[911]. A most
unaccountable Oversight, and hardly credible! But _Theodoret_[912],
_Ambrose_[913], _Sulpitius Severus_[914], and _Fulgentius_[915], took it
upon their Word, and so must we. Neither Party could brag of the
Victory; for the _Arians_ had anathematized the Heresy of _Arius_; and
on the other hand the orthodox Bishops had deliberately agreed to the
suppressing of the Words _Substance_ and _Consubstantial_, and
inadvertently acknowleged the Son to be a Creature; which was all the
_Arians_ aimed at, or could desire. The Council being thus ended, new
Deputies were sent to acquaint the Emperor with what had passed, who
being highly pleased with the Report made by _Ursacius_ and _Valens_
(for they were at the Head of the Deputation) immediately granted the
Bishops Leave to return to their respective Sees, after they had been
about Four Months at _Rimini_.
The Council no sooner broke up than the _Arians_ began to proclaim aloud
the Victory they had gained, bragging, that it had not been defined in
the Council of _Rimini_, that the Son was not a Creature, but only that
he was not like other Creatures; and declaring it was, and had always
been their Opinion, that the Son was no more like the Father, than a
Piece of Glass was like an Emerald[916]. [Sidenote: _They discover
their Mistake._] _Phœbadius_, and the other Bishops who had adhered
to him, were returned to their Sees with great Joy, flattering
themselves that they had sufficiently established the Catholic Doctrine,
and prevented all future Disputes: but, finding that the _Arians_
pretended their Tenets had been confirmed by this very Council, and
seriously reflecting on the Articles, which they themselves had agreed
to, they discovered at last how grosly they had been imposed upon, and
publicly retracted all they had said, done, or signed, repugnant to the
Truths of the Catholic Church[917]. However, _Gregory_ Bishop of
_Elvira_ refused to communicate with any of the Bishops who had assisted
at the Council of _Rimini_, and was on that account commended by
_Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_[918]. [Sidenote: _Are judged Guilty by the
exiled Bishops._] The exiled Bishops, and those who lay concealed,
agreed among themselves by Letters, to declare them for ever incapable
of performing any Episcopal or Sacerdotal Functions, and to admit them
to the Communion of the Church only in the Capacity of Laymen[919]. When
Peace was restored to the Church by the Death of _Constantius_ in 361.
most of the orthodox Bishops were for deposing all those of the Council
of _Rimini_, and placing others in their room. But this Sentence the
People would not suffer to be put in Execution, rising every-where in
Defence of their Pastors, and in some Places insulting, beating, and
even killing, those who came to depose them[920].
[Sidenote: _Great Disagreement in the Council of_ Seleucia.]
As for the Council of _Seleucia_, it met on the 27th of _September_ 359.
and consisted only of One hundred and Sixty Bishops, all _Arians_, or
_Semi-Arians_, except Twelve or Thirteen orthodox Bishops from
_Egypt_[921]. This Assembly _Gregory Nazianzen_ calls the _Tower_ of
_Calane_, or _Babel_, the Council of _Caiaphas_[922]. And indeed with a
great deal of Reason; for nothing was there seen but Tumult, Confusion,
and Disorder. The _Anomeans_ and _Semi-Arians_ appeared so
irreconcilably incensed against each other, and carried on their Debates
with so much Animosity and Bitterness, that the Quæstor _Leonas_, whom
the Emperor had appointed to assist at the Council, thinking it
impossible they should ever agree in any one Point, rose up at their
Fourth Meeting, while they were in the Heat of the Dispute, and,
withdrawing abruptly, put an End to that Session, nay, and to the
Council; for, being invited the next Day, the First of _October_, to the
Assembly, he refused to go, saying, that he did not conceive his
Presence to be at all necessary, since they might quarrel and scold as
much as they pleased without him[923]. This he did, says _Sozomen_, to
favour the _Anomeans_, who thence took Occasion to absent themselves
from the Council, which, as it was chiefly composed of _Semi-Arians_,
seemed determined to condemn their Doctrine[924]. [Sidenote: _The_
Semi-Arians _condemn and depose the_ Arians.] However, the _Semi-Arians_
met by themselves; and, finding they could by no means prevail upon the
_Anomeans_ to return to the Council, they condemned their Doctrine as
heretical and blasphemous, excommunicated and deposed the leading Men of
their Party, appointed others in their room, and gave Notice thereof to
their respective Churches[925]. Before they broke up, they dispatched
Ten Deputies to acquaint the Emperor with the Transactions of the
Council. But the Bishops whom they had deposed, arriving at Court before
them, and being by their Friends there immediately introduced to
_Constantius_, they prejudiced him against the Council of _Seleucia_ to
such a Degree, that it was some time before he could prevail upon
himself to hear the Deputies. [Sidenote: _They sign the last Confession
of_ Sirmium.] However, he heard them at last, and, by threatening them
with Exile if they did not comply, obliged them to sign the last
Confession of _Sirmium_, which had been rejected by the Council as
_Arian_[926]. In this he spent the whole Day, and great Part of the
Night, preceding the First of _January_, though he was obliged to make
the necessary Preparations for entering on that Day his Tenth Consulate
with the usual Pomp and Solemnity[927].
[Sidenote: _The_ Arians,_in their Turn, condemn and depose the_
Semi-Arians, _and also sign the last Confession of_ Sirmium.]
In the Beginning of the Year 360. the _Anomeans_ assembling by
themselves at _Constantinople_ as the _Semi-Arians_ had done at
_Seleucia_, in order to ingratiate themselves with the Emperor, not only
received the last _Sirmian_ Confession, but condemned all other
Confessions or Symbols that had been made till then, or should be made
for the future. They then declared all the Acts of the Council of
_Seleucia_ void and null; and, to be even with the _Semi-Arians_,
deposed, under various Pretences, such of their Party as had most
contributed to the deposing of them, and even prevailed upon the Emperor
to send them into Exile[928].
[Sidenote: _An Order from the Emperor injoining all Bishops to sign
the_ Sirmian _Confession_.]
They did not stop here, but obtained of _Constantius_ an Order, which
was published throughout the Empire, commanding all Bishops to sign the
_Sirmian_ Confession, on pain of forfeiting their Dignity, and being
sent into Exile[929][N18]. This Order was executed with the utmost
Rigour in all the Provinces of the Empire, and very few were found, who
did not sign with their Hands what they condemned in their Hearts[930].
Many, who till then had been thought invincible, were overcome, and
complied with the Times; and such as did not, were driven, without
Distinction, from their Sees, into Exile, and others appointed in their
room, the signing of that Confession being a Qualification indispensably
requisite both for obtaining and keeping the Episcopal Dignity[931].
Thus were all the Sees throughout the Empire filled with _Arians_,
insomuch that in the whole East not one orthodox Bishop was left, and in
the West but one, _viz._ _Gregory_ Bishop of _Elvira_ in _Andalusia_,
and he, in all Likelihood, obliged to absent himself from his Flock, and
lie concealed, as were probably Pope _Liberius_, and _Vincentius_ of
_Capua_, if what _Theodoret_ relates of them be true, _viz._ that they
never consented to the Decrees of _Rimini_[932], and thereby retrieved
the Reputation they had lost, the former by signing the _Sirmian_
Confession of the Year 357. and the other by communicating with the
_Arians_ in 353. as I have related above. [Sidenote: _It was
probably signed by_ Liberius.] But what _Theodoret_ writes may be justly
called in question; for it is not at all probable, that the Emperor, and
the _Arian_ Party, so warmly bent on establishing that Confession
throughout the Empire, would have suffered the Bishop of the Imperial
City, of the first See, to reject it, without deposing him, as they had
done the Bishops of all the other great Sees, and appointing another
more compliant in his room. This could not be prevented by his
concealing himself in the Caverns and Cœmeteries about _Rome_, as he
is said to have done in his Acts quoted by _Baronius_[933], though he
might by that means have escaped being sent into Exile. Besides, had he,
instead of complying with the Emperor’s express Command, withdrawn and
absconded, I cannot think that his Antagonist _Felix_, who was still
alive, and had done nothing we know of to disoblige the Emperor, and the
_Arian_ Party, by whom he had been formerly raised to that See, would
have neglected so favourable an Opportunity of recovering his antient
Dignity. If what _Theodoret_ says be true, _Gregory Nazianzen_ is highly
to blame for not excepting _Liberius_; when he writ, that the Bishops
either all complied, or were driven into Exile, excepting a few, who
were too insignificant to be taken notice of by the Emperor, or his
Ministers[934]. [Sidenote: Arianism _universally obtains_.] Be that as
it will, it is certain, that at this time the _Arian_ Doctrine
universally obtained; that the Face of the Church appeared quite
deformed and disfigured[935], that the whole World saw itself, with
Astonishment, all on a sudden become _Arian_[936]; that the Boat of St.
_Peter_, to use St. _Jerom_’s Expression, tossed by furious Winds, by
violent Storms, was upon the Point of sinking, and no Hopes of Safety
seemed to be left[937].
-----
Footnote N18:
This Confession is called sometimes the _Confession of_ Nice _in_
Thrace, and sometimes the _Confession of_ Rimini; but it differed from
both. By the Confession of _Nice_, the Son was acknowleged to be like
to the Father, without the Addition of the Words _in all Things_,
which were an essential Part of the last Confession of _Sirmium_. In
that of _Rimini_ the Son was said _not to be a Creature like other
Creatures_, and there were no such Words in the Confession of
_Sirmium_. But by all Three the Word _Consubstantial_ was rejected,
and no other would satisfy the Orthodox, acknowleging the Son to be
_of the same Substance with the Father_. Both the _Arians_ and
_Semi-Arians_ allowed the Son to be like to the Father: but that
Likeness was by them very differently understood and interpreted. The
_Arians_ held him to be _like_ rather by Grace than by Nature, and as
like as a Creature could be to the Creator[N18.1]. The _Semi-Arians_
confessed him to be like in _Nature_, in _Existence_, in _Essence_, in
_Substance_, and in _every thing else_. But the Orthodox maintained
him to be of the _same Substance_ with the Father, and consequently of
the _same Existence_, _Essence_, &c. and, to express this _Sameness_
or _Identity_, they chose the Word _Consubstantial_.
Footnote N18.1:
Ruff. l. 1. c. 25.
-----
The following Year 361. the _Anomeans_, not fully satisfied with the
Confession of Faith, which, at their Suggestion, the Emperor had taken
so much Pains to establish throughout the Empire, assembled, with his
Leave, at _Antioch_, and there drew up a new Symbol, or Creed, wherein
it was expresly said, that _the Son was in every thing unlike to the
Father_, and that _He was made out of nothing_. [Sidenote: Constantius
_designs to establish the Doctrine of the_ Pure Arians;] _Constantius_
had formerly expressed the greatest Abhorrence to this Doctrine, and had
even banished those who held, and refused to anathematize, such _impious
Blasphemies_, as he then styled them[938]. But, having lately changed
his Opinion, which was chiefly owing to the great Influence the Eunuch
_Eusebius_ had over him, he was now no less sanguine for the
_Unlikeness_ of the Son to the Father, than he had been hitherto for the
_Likeness_[939]. In order therefore to abolish the antient, and
establish this new Creed in its room, he appointed a Council to meet at
_Nice_ in _Bithynia_[940], which, without all Doubt, he would have
treated in the same manner as he had done that of _Rimini_. [Sidenote:
_but is prevented by Death_.] But, as the Bishops were preparing to set
out for the appointed Place, they were stopped by the sudden and
unexpected News of the Emperor’s Death, which put an End to all his
Councils, and was heard with equal Joy by those of the _Orthodox_ and
_Semi-Arian_ Party. He was succeeded by _Julian_, surnamed the
_Apostate_, who immediately recalled all those who had been banished by
_Constantius_ on account of their Religion[941]. [Sidenote: _The exiled
Bishops recalled by_ Julian.] Whatever was his Motive, the Church reaped
great Advantages from the Return of so many eminent Prelates, who, in
the worst of Times, had, with an invincible Firmness and Constancy,
stood up in her Defence. Among the rest returned, on this Occasion, the
famous _Meletius_ Bishop of _Antioch_, _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_,
_Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_, who had been all Three confined to the most
distant Parts of _Thebais_ in _Egypt_, _Cyril_ of _Jerusalem_,
_Pelagius_ of _Laodicea_ in _Phœnicia_, and, to the inexpressible Joy
of the Orthodox Party, their great Champion _Athanasius_ Bishop of
_Alexandria_[942], who immediately resumed, undisturbed, his Episcopal
Function; _George_, the Usurper of his See, having been assassinated a
little while before by the Pagans of _Alexandria_, on account of his
Avarice and Cruelty[943]. In other Places the Orthodox Bishops, finding
the _Arians_ in Possession of their Sees, contented themselves with
being acknowleged by those of their Communion, without attempting to
drive out their Antagonists, which would have created great Confusion,
and endless Disturbances in the Church. _Julian_ refused to interpose
his Authority in favour of either Party, saying, that as he was not so
well acquainted with the Nature of their Disputes as a just and
impartial Judge ought to be, he hoped they would excuse him, lest he
should be guilty of some Injustice, and settle Matters of such
Importance among themselves. _Athanasius_ entered _Alexandria_ in a kind
of Triumph, which is described in a lively manner by _Gregory
Nazianzen_, who seems to have pleased himself with displaying, in that
Description, all the Eloquence he was Master of[944].
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Alexandria.]
The Bishop of _Alexandria_ being thus reinstated, and again at full
Liberty to exert his Zeal for the Catholic Cause, his first Care was to
retrieve his fallen Brethren, and reunite them to the Church. With this
View he assembled, in 362. a Council at _Alexandria_, composed only of
Confessors, that is, of such Bishops as had chosen rather to forfeit
their Dignities and Sees, than receive or sign the _Arian_ Confession of
_Rimini_ or _Sirmium_. This was one of the most respectable Councils
that was ever held in the Church, not so much in regard of the Numbers
(for I find not above Twenty named) as of the Merit, Virtue, and
Sanctity of the Members that composed it. The chief Subject of their
Debates, or rather Inquiries, was to find out the most proper Means of
restoring Tranquillity to the Church, after so dreadful a Storm. Some,
and among the rest _Lucifer_ Bishop of _Cagliari_, who did not assist in
Person, but by his Deputies, the Two Deacons _Herennius_ and _Agapetus_,
were for deposing all those who had signed the Confession of _Rimini_,
and cutting them off from the Communion of the Church. But this
unseasonable Severity was condemned by the far greater Part, as tending
to raise a new Storm, and involve the Church in greater Troubles than
ever, which the Emperor _Julian_ would take care to improve, to the
total Ruin of the Christian Religion. _Athanasius_ therefore was for
using Severity only with the Authors, and chief Promoters, of the late
general Defection: and his Opinion prevailed; for a Decree was enacted,
importing, that the Authors of the late general Prevarication should,
even upon their Repentance, be received to the Communion of the Church
only in the Capacity of Laymen, but that the rest should be all kept in,
or restored to, their Sees, upon their publicly renouncing the _Arian_
Communion, and embracing the Faith of _Nice_[945]. [Sidenote: _A Schism
formed by_ Lucifer, _Bishop of_ Cagliari.] This Decree was every-where
received with the greatest Joy, the Bishop of _Cagliari_ being the only
Man, either in the East or West, who opposed it, and that with so much
Obstinacy, that, rather than yield, he chose to separate himself from
the Communion of the rest, and to form a new Schism, which bore his
Name, and soon gained a considerable Footing, especially in the West;
several Persons no less distinguished for Piety than Learning, and among
the rest _Gregory_, the famous Bishop of _Elvira_, having adopted the
Sentiments of a Man, who had suffered so much for the Purity of the
Faith. As _Lucifer_ is honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint, and
his Festival is kept on the 20th of _May_[946], _Baronius_ pretends,
that he abandoned his Schism, and returned to the Communion of the
Church, before his Death[947]. [Sidenote: _He never returned to the
Communion of the Church._] But his Contemporary _Ruffinus_, who probably
knew him, assures us, that he died in the Schism, which he had
formed[948]. _Jerom_ often speaks of his Schism, but no-where gives us
the least Hint of his having ever quitted it; which would have afforded
him a strong Argument against the _Luciferians_, and he would not have
failed to urge it, in the Book which he wrote to convince them of their
Error. That Writer speaks of _Lucifer_, on all Occasions, with the
greatest Respect, even in the Book which he writ against his Followers:
he owns, that his Intention was pure and upright; that it was not Pride,
Thirst after Glory, or a Desire of transmitting his Name to Posterity,
but a mistaken Zeal, that led him astray, and made him disapprove what
the others approved; he even distinguishes him with the Title of the
_Blessed Lucifer_[949]. And hence _Baronius_ concludes, that he returned
to the Communion of the Church; for otherwise, says the Annalist[950],
St. _Jerom_ had never given him the Title of _Blessed_, or _Saint_. But
that he did not return, is manifest, from the Silence of St. _Jerom_ on
that Head, and from the Authority of a contemporary Writer quoted above:
and hence I may draw a Conclusion far better grounded than that of
_Baronius_; _viz._ that St. _Jerom_ excused him on account of his good
Intention; and, consequently, that he did not hold the uncharitable
Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, excluding from Salvation all who die
out of her Communion, let their Intention be never so good. It is to be
observed, that the _Luciferians_ not only excluded from their Communion
those who had received the _Arian_ Confession, but all who communicated
with them, even after they had anathematized that Confession, and
publicly embraced the Faith of _Nice_.
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Alexandria _saves the Church from Ruin_.]
The Resolution taken by the Confessors in the Council of _Alexandria_,
is said to have saved the Church from utter Ruin. For had that
prevailed, which was urged with so much Warmth by _Lucifer_, the
Bishops, who had chosen rather to sign the _Arian_ Confession than
forfeit their Sees, would have kept them in Defiance of a Decree made by
a small Number of their Collegues, and in all Likelihood excommunicated
and deposed, in their Turn, those who had excommunicated and deposed
them: and, in that Case, the _Arian_ Party, comprehending almost all the
Bishops of the Church, must have prevailed. But as nothing was required
of them, to keep their Sees, besides their renouncing the Confession of
_Rimini_, which they had embraced, and embracing that of _Nice_, which
they had renounced, they readily complied with the Decree of the
Council; insomuch that the following Year 363. _Athanasius_, in a
Letter, which he wrote to the Emperor _Jovian_, immediately after the
Death of _Julian_, could assure that Prince, that the Faith of _Nice_
had been received, and was professed, in all the Provinces of the
Empire, which he enumerates; but omits those of _Thrace_, _Bithynia_,
and the _Hellespont_[951], the Bishops there still continuing
obstinately to maintain the Doctrine of _Arius_, and to reject the Faith
of _Nice_, as we learn from _Sozomen_[952], _Socrates_[953], and
_Basil_[954]; nay, at _Constantinople_, the Orthodox had but a small
Chapel to assemble in, all the Churches being in Possession of the
_Arians_, under _Eudoxius_, a leading Man among the _Pure Arians_,
who had usurped that See[955]. [Sidenote: _The Faith of_
Nice _everywhere established_.] For the better establishing of the
Orthodox Faith, after the violent Shock it had lately received, Councils
were held in several Provinces of the Empire[N19], and by all was
received the Faith of _Nice_, the Confession of _Rimini_ condemned, and
the Words _Substance_ and _Consubstantial_ re-established[956]. A very
strong Proof, that the Assent given before to the _Arian_ Doctrines had
been solely the Effect of Force, or of Interest, which being now
removed, and all left at Liberty to act as their Consciences only
directed, the Orthodox Faith prevailed as much as the other had done
under _Constantius_.
-----
Footnote N19:
The Bishops of _Gaul_ assembled at _Paris_ in 362. and, having first
owned their Crime, in approving and signing the Confession of
_Rimini_, they acknowleged the Three Persons of the Trinity to be of
the same Nature and Substance, and condemned _Ursacius_, _Valens_, and
_Auxentius_ the _Arian_ Bishop of _Milan_. This Council was convened
by St. _Hilarius_, Bishop of _Poitiers_; and a Letter, which the
Council writ on this Occasion, has been transmitted to us, among the
Fragments of his Works. He is said to have assembled several other
Councils in _Gaul_, for the re-establishing of the Faith of _Nice_,
which is all we know of them. The same Year 362. the Bishops of
_Italy_ assembling, declared void and null the Acts of the Council of
_Rimini_, embraced the Faith of _Nice_, and, with one Accord,
anathematized _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, as the leading Men of the
_Arian_ Party. There is, among the Fragments of St. _Hilarius_, a
Letter on this Subject, from the _Italian_ to the _Illyrian_ Bishops.
Where this Council was held I find no-where recorded. In the Year 363.
the Emperor _Jovian_ desiring to be instructed in the Faith of the
Catholic Church, by _Athanasius_ and the _Egyptian_ Bishops, who were
come to wait on him, they assembled in Council, and agreed to propose
no other Creed to him but that of _Nice_. At the same time they
condemned the Heresy of _Macedonius_, denying the Divinity of the Holy
Ghost. This Council is generally thought to have been held at
_Alexandria_. But, from the Letter, which they presented to the
Emperor, it appears to have consisted of some _Egyptian_ Bishops, who,
as it is there said, were appointed to represent all the others of the
same Province[N19.1]. Had the Council been held at _Alexandria_, they
had, I should think, been all present. It must therefore have
assembled in some Place out of _Egypt_; and where more likely than at
_Antioch_? For there the Emperor was this very Year, and there
_Athanasius_ waited on him. The same Year another Council was held at
_Antioch_, under _Melecius_ Bishop of that City. In that Council
_Acacius_, Bishop of _Cæsarea_ in _Pælestine_, who had been at the
Head of the _Arian_ Party, in the Latter-end of the Reign of
_Constantius_, and his Followers, commonly styled _Acacians_, embraced
the Faith of _Nice_, and admitted the Term _Consubstantial_. _Acacius_
had no other Faith but that of the Party which prevailed. Hence, in
the Time of _Jovian_, who favoured the Orthodox Party, he professed
the Faith of _Nice_; but Two Years after he had signed it, he joined
the _Arians_ anew, seeing them in great Favour with the Emperor
_Valens_. Several other Councils were held, from the Year 363. to 368.
of which we have no particular Account. For _Athanasius_ tells us, in
general Terms, that many Councils assembled in _France_, in _Spain_,
at _Rome_, in _Dalmatia_, in _Dardania_, in _Macedonia_, in _Epirus_,
in _Greece_, in _Candia_, and the other Islands, in _Sicily_, in
_Cyprus_, in _Lycia_, in _Isauria_, in _Egypt_, and in _Arabia_; and
that they all met to maintain the Orthodox Faith, the Faith of the
Council of _Nice_[N19.2]. In his Letter to the Emperor _Jovian_ he
assures him, that the Symbol of _Nice_ was received in the
above-mentioned Provinces, and besides, in _Britain_, in _Africa_, in
_Pamphylia_, in _Libya_, in _Pontus_, in _Cappadocia_, and in the
East, that is, in the Patriarchate of _Antioch_[N19.3]. But in the
Provinces of _Thrace_, of _Bithynia_, and the _Hellespont_, the
_Semi-Arians_ prevailed, till they were overpowered by the _Arians_,
strongly supported by the Emperor _Valens_, a most zealous Defender of
_Arianism_.
Footnote N19.1:
Theod. l. 4. c. 3.
Footnote N19.2:
Athan. de Afr. & ad Epict.
Footnote N19.3:
Id. ad Jov.
-----
[Sidenote: _A Council convened by the_ Semi-Arians.]
As every one was allowed by _Julian_ to believe what he pleased, and to
own his Belief, whatever it was, the _Semi-Arians_ convened a Council,
soon after the Death of _Constantius_, who, in the Latter-end of his
Life, had begun to persecute them as much as he had favoured them
before. This Council was composed of those chiefly who had assisted at
that of _Seleucia_, of which I have spoken above; and they all agreed to
condemn and anathematize the Doctrine of the _Pure Arians_, with the
Confession of _Rimini_, and to sign anew the Confession of _Antioch_,
establishing a Likeness in Substance between the Son and the Father.
Thus they pretended to keep a due Mean between the Two opposite
Extremes, of the Western Bishops, whose _Consubstantiality_, they said,
left no room for the Distinction of Persons; and of the _Pure Arians_,
who denied all Likeness[957]. [Sidenote: _The Sect of the_ Macedonians.]
It was after this Council that the _Semi-Arians_, separating themselves
from the Communion of the _Pure Arians_, began to form a distinct Sect,
and to be called _Macedonians_; which Name was given them from
_Macedonius_, late Bishop of _Constantinople_, but deposed by the _Pure
Arians_, in the Council they held in that City in 360. to make room for
their great Champion _Eudoxius_, translated formerly from _Germanicia_
to _Antioch_, and now from _Antioch_ to _Constantinople_. They were also
named _Marathonians_, from _Marathonius_, Bishop of _Nicomedia_, who,
together with _Macedonius_, was at the Head of the Party; and
_Pneumatomachi_, that is, Enemies to the Holy Ghost, whose Divinity they
denied, which was their chief, if not their only Error; for some are of
Opinion, that tho’ they rejected the Word _Consubstantial_, yet they
agreed with the Orthodox in the Meaning of it. They led very regular,
austere, and edifying Lives; and are, on that Score, highly commended
and extolled by _Gregory Nazianzen_[958]. No Wonder therefore, that they
soon spread all over the East, and gained every-where great Numbers of
Followers. At _Constantinople_, and in the neighbouring Cities and
Provinces, they were followed not only by the greater Part of the
People, but by some Persons of Distinction, by such as were most
remarkable for their Piety, by intire Monasteries, both of Men and
Women[959]. The Inhabitants of _Cyzicus_ in the _Propontis_ were almost
all of this Sect, and we are told of some Miracles wrought by a
_Macedonian_ of that Place[960], which _Baronius_ will not allow, though
as well attested as any he relates.
[Sidenote: _They are persecuted by the Emperor_ Valens.]
The Emperor _Valens_, who reigned in the East, which had been yielded to
him by his Brother _Valentinian_, when he took him for his Collegue in
the Empire, spared no Pains to reconcile this Sect with that of the
_Arians_, which he greatly favoured. But, finding them no less averse to
the _Arians_ than the Orthodox themselves, he began in the Year 366. to
persecute them with great Cruelty. To avoid this Persecution they
resolved to recur to the Emperor _Valentinian_, and, embracing the Faith
professed by him and the Western Bishops, to put themselves under his
Protection. Accordingly they dispatched Three of their Body, _viz._
_Eustathius_ Bishop of _Sebaste_, _Sylvanus_ of _Tarsus_, and
_Theophilus_ of _Castabala_, to acquaint the Emperor, in the Name of the
rest, with the Resolution they had taken, and implore his
Protection[961]. These, being informed, on their Arrival in _Italy_,
that _Valentinian_ was waging War with the Barbarians on the Borders of
_Gaul_, instead of repairing to him, which they apprehended might be
attended with no small Danger, went strait to _Rome_, and there
delivered to _Liberius_ Letters from their Brethren, directed to him,
and to the other Bishops of the West, whom they earnestly intreated to
use their Interest with the Emperor, in their Behalf, assuring them,
that they sincerely renounced the Errors they had hitherto held, and
embraced the Catholic Faith, as explained and defined by the Council of
_Nice_[962]. [Sidenote: _Deliver to_ Liberius _their Confession
of Faith_;] But _Liberius_, notwithstanding these Assurances, suspected
their Sincerity; and therefore could not, by any means, be prevailed
upon to communicate with them, or even to hear them, till they had
delivered to him a Confession of Faith, under their Hand, and in the
Name of the whole Party, wherein they anathematized those of _Rimini_,
and _Nice_ in _Bithynia_; condemned the Heresy of _Arius_, with all
other Heresies; and received the Definitions of the Council of _Nice_,
those particularly that related to _Consubstantiality_. To this
Confession they added a solemn Protestation, declaring themselves ready
to submit to the Sentence of such Judges as the Pope should think fit to
appoint, should they, or those by whom they had been sent, be ever for
the future accused or suspected of swerving in the least from the Faith
they now embraced and professed[963]. [Sidenote: _who admits them to his
Communion_.] In virtue of this Confession, whereof the Original was
carefully lodged in the Archives of the Church of _Rome_, _Liberius_
admitted the Deputies to his Communion; and, upon their Departure, writ,
in the Name of all the Bishops of _Italy_, and the West, to the
_Macedonian_ Bishops, of whom he names 59, signifying the great Joy,
which their Letters, and the Confession of Faith, signed by their
Deputies, had occasioned at _Rome_, and in all the Western Churches,
since by such a Confession they were all again happily united in one
Faith. In this Letter _Liberius_ assures them, that all the Bishops, who
had assisted at the Council of _Rimini_, had retracted the Doctrine,
which they had been forced to sign there; and were more than ever
incensed against the _Arians_, on account of the Violence, which, at
their Instigation, had been offered them[964]. The _Macedonians_
admitted the Divinity of the Son, but denied that of the Holy Ghost;
nay, this was their favourite Doctrine, and, as it were, the
Characteristic of their Sect; but _Liberius_, and the other Western
Bishops, not suspecting them of such an Error, which in all Likelihood
they had not yet publicly owned, admitted them to their Communion,
without examining them on that Head.
[Sidenote: Liberius _dies_.]
_Liberius_ died soon after, that is, on the 23d or 24th of
_September_, of the present Year 366. as we are told by _Marcellinus_
and _Faustinus_, whose Authority is preferable to that of any other,
since, at this very time, they lived at _Rome_[965]. He had been
chosen on the 22d of _May_ 352. so that he governed the Church of
_Rome_ Fourteen Years, Four Months, and a Day or Two. [Sidenote: _The
deplorable Condition of the Church in his Time._] _Liberius_ lived in
troublesome Times, the worst the Church had ever yet seen. She had Two
dangerous Enemies to contend with at the same time, the Power of the
Prince then on the Imperial Throne, and the Craft of a most subtle and
deceitful Party. The Prince employed all his Power to overcome, with
Oppression, those whom the Party could not over-reach with their
Craft; and the Party to over-reach with their Craft such as the Prince
could not overcome with Oppression. On the other hand, the Prelates,
even some who were reputed the Pillars of the Church, seemed to have
lost that Zeal, Firmness, and Intrepidity, which they had so
gloriously exerted under the Pagan Princes, and few were found among
them, whose Virtue was proof against the Loss of their Dignity, or
Exile. Hence the Defection became general, and the Orthodox Party was
brought so low, that it must have been utterly quashed, had
_Constantius_ lived a few Years longer. But Providence interposed;
_Constantius_ died while he was pursuing his Scheme with the greatest
Success; and _Julian_, his Successor, by betraying an equal Hatred and
Aversion to Christians of all Denominations, obliged them to forget
their Quarrels among themselves, to lay aside their Animosity against
each other, and to unite in their mutual Defence against him, as a
common Enemy. _Jovian_, who succeeded him, proved no less favourable
to the Orthodox, than _Constantius_ had been to the _Arians_. Many
therefore of the latter, and among the rest _Acacius_, who was at the
Head of the _Pure Arians_, to gain the Favour of the Emperor, publicly
renounced the Doctrine of _Arius_, and embraced that of _Nice_.
_Jovian_, after a short Reign of Seven Months and Twenty Days, was
succeeded by _Valentinian_, who continued to countenance the Orthodox,
as his Predecessor had done, though he did not use the _Arians_ with
that Rigour which some Zealots expected from a Confessor, which Title
he had deserved under _Julian_. However, as he professed the Orthodox
Faith, that Party universally prevailed; insomuch that, in a very
short time, no Traces of _Arianism_ were left in the West, except at
_Milan_, under the _Arian_ Bishop _Auxentius_, and in a few Cities of
_Illyricum_, where it was kept up by _Ursacius_, _Valens_,
_Germinius_, and their Disciples, till the following Century, when it
was every-where re-established there by the _Goths_.
[Sidenote: _By whom_ Arianism _was banished out of the West_.]
_Baronius_ ascribes to _Liberius_ the banishing of _Arianism_ out of the
West, and the establishing of the Orthodox Faith in its room; but that
Glory was owing, according to _Ruffinus_, to _Hilarius_ of _Poitiers_,
and _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, who, like the Two great Luminaries of the
Universe, to use his Words, enlightened with their Rays _Illyricum_,
_Gaul_, and _Italy_, dispelling every-where the Darkness of Heresy[966].
He minutely describes the great Success that attended them, with the
Difficulties and Obstructions they met with in so pious and commendable
an Undertaking[967]. But, as for _Liberius_, he does not so much as
mention him. And truly, from the Year 357. in which he fell, to his
admitting the _Macedonians_ to his Communion in 366. which was the last
of his Life, the only thing I find recorded of him in the Antients, is
his writing a Letter to the Catholic Bishops of _Italy_, wherein he
exhorts them to atone for their past Conduct by renouncing the Errors of
the _Arians_, and receiving anew the Symbol of _Nice_. He adds, that as
this is the only Atonement, which it has been thought proper to require
of them, they ought to exert their Zeal against the Authors of the Fault
they committed, in proportion to the Grief they must feel for committing
it[968]. This Letter has been transmitted to us among the Fragments of
_Hilarius_. [Sidenote: _Neither_ Vincentius _of_ Capua, _nor_
Liberius, _assisted at the Council of_ Rimini.] It is hard to guess what
could induce _Baronius_ to write so confidently as he does, that
_Vincentius_ of _Capua_ assisted at the Council of _Rimini_ with the
Character of the Pope’s Legate[969]. In what antient Author did he find
the least Intimation or distant Hint of such a Legation? _Vincentius_ of
_Capua_, though a Person of great Eminency, is not even mentioned by any
of the contemporary Writers, who relate the Transactions of that
Council, and name the chief Prelates who composed it. 'Tis true we read
of him, in one Author, that he never consented to the Confession of
_Rimini_[970]: but that is said of _Liberius_ too[971], whom _Baronius_
owns not to have been present at that Assembly.
[Sidenote: Liberius _is honoured as a Saint_.]
_Liberius_, notwithstanding his Fall, is honoured both by the _Latin_
and _Greek_ Churches as a Saint. By the former his Festival is kept on
the 23d of _September_, and by the latter on the 27th of _August_[972].
[Sidenote: _The Founding of the Church of_ St. Mary the Greater.] He
erected a Church on the _Esquiline_ Mount at _Rome_, which bore his
Name, and was called the _Basilic_ of Liberius, till it was consecrated
to the Virgin _Mary_ by _Sixtus_ III. when it took the Name of _Sancta
Maria Major_, or _Saint Mary the Greater_. It owes its Foundation, as is
universally believed in the Church of _Rome_, to the following Miracle.
A _Roman_ of the Patrician Order, and of Wealth equal to his Rank, named
_John_, having no Children, resolved to make a free Gift of his whole
Estate to the Virgin _Mary_. This Resolution he imparted to his Wife,
who consenting to it with great Alacrity, the Estate was immediately
made over to the holy Virgin, whom they thenceforth jointly intreated,
in their daily Prayers, to let them know by some Token in what Manner
she chose to dispose of it. Their Prayers were heard, and, on the Night
preceding the 5th of _August_, when the Heat is most violent at _Rome_,
a miraculous Snow fell from Heaven, which covered Part of the
_Esquiline_ Mount. The same Night the Patrician and his Wife were
admonished in a Dream to build a Church on the Spot of Ground which they
should find covered with Snow. Early next Morning they went to acquaint
Pope _Liberius_ with what had happened, whom they found to have had the
same Dream; so that no room being now left to doubt of the Revelation,
the Pope appointed a grand Procession of the whole Clergy, in which he
walked himself, attended by Crouds of People, to the above-mentioned
Mount; and there, having caused the Snow, which still lay unmelted, to
be removed, on the Spot, which it had covered, he laid the Foundation of
that magnificent Basilic, which was reared at the Expence of the
Patrician, and is now known by the Name of _Saint Mary the Greater_, and
_Saint Mary in the Snow_[973]. I should not have thought such an idle
Tale worthy of a Place in a grave History, were it not recorded in the
most authentic Book the Church of _Rome_ has after the Scripture, the
_Roman Breviary_, a Book approved and commended by the Council of
_Trent_, and by the special Bulls of Three Popes, _Pius_ V. _Clement_
VIII. and _Urban_ VIII. of whom the latter declares every thing it
contains to be extracted from antient and approved Authors, and to be
agreeable to Truth[974]. So that it would be less dangerous, at least in
_Italy_, to deny any Truth revealed in the Scripture, than to question
any Fable related in the _Breviary_. The Feast of _the Snow_, or _St.
Mary in the Snow_, is kept annually at _Rome_, on the 5th of _August_,
with the greatest Solemnity. The College of Cardinals assists that Day
at Divine Service in the Church of _Saint Mary the Greater_; and the
Pope, if not indisposed, or otherwise prevented, officiates in Person:
the _Primicerio_, or Dean of that Church, reads the Account, which I
have delivered above; and, that nothing may be wanting to complete the
Farce, Numbers of Children are employed, during the Service, to drop
Jessamins from the Gallery on the Congregation, in Remembrance and
Imitation of the miraculous Snow. And truly by Children alone such
Fables are proper to be acted and believed.
[Sidenote: _The Writings of_ Liberius.]
Several Pieces have reached our Times, which were either written by, or
have been falsly ascribed to, _Liberius_. Among the former are, his
Letter in Answer to the _Macedonian_ Bishops; another to the Catholic
Bishops of _Italy_; which have been both mentioned above; and a
Discourse, which he pronounced on _Christmas-day_ in the Church of St.
_Peter_, on Occasion of his giving the sacred Veil to _Marcellina_ the
Sister of St. _Ambrose_ when she embraced the State of Virginity. This
Discourse St. _Ambrose_ has inserted in his Third Book on Virgins, but
in his own Style, which is very different from that of _Liberius_, who
had not the Gift of Eloquence[975]. [Sidenote: _Writings falsly ascribed
to him._] Among the Pieces falsly ascribed to _Liberius_, most Men of
Learning reckon the Confession of Faith, written in _Greek_, which he is
supposed to have sent to _Athanasius_. This Piece _Baronius_ will, by
all means, have to be genuine; and the Use he makes of it is somewhat
extraordinary. The Council of _Alexandria_, to which the Church owed her
Safety, was convened by _Athanasius_, upon his Return from Exile, as I
have related above. By that small Assembly, consisting only of
Confessors, was enacted the famous Decree with respect to those, who had
communicated with the _Arians_, and signed the Confession of _Rimini_.
To that Decree the whole Church readily conformed; so that the Honour of
saving the Church was chiefly owing to _Athanasius_, and wholly to him
and the other Confessors. Of _Liberius_ not the least Mention is made;
so that he had no Share in that Glory. [Sidenote: _Strange
Conjectures of_ Baronius.] The _Annalist_ therefore, not being able to
bring in his Sovereign Pontiff upon the Authority of any Records now
extant, has recourse to those that probably never were; or, if they ever
were, are now no more. He supposes Part of the above-mentioned
Confession of Faith, sent by _Liberius_ to _Athanasius_, to be wanting;
and _Liberius_, in the Part that is wanting, to have impowered
_Athanasius_ to convene a Council, and to have appointed _Eusebius_ of
_Vercelli_, and _Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_, to assist at that Council with
the Character of his Legates. Such wild and extravagant Suppositions
require a very strong Proof to support them, some plausible Conjectures
at least to give them an Appearance of Truth. But that we must not
expect of _Baronius_. The only Argument, if it may be so called, which
he pretends to offer on this Occasion, is, that he cannot conceive
_Athanasius_, and the other holy Confessors, would have taken upon them
to act as they did, and enact a Decree extending to the whole Church,
had they not received such a Power from him, to whom all Power was
given[976], meaning the Pope. The other Pieces, falsly ascribed to
_Liberius_, are another Letter to _Athanasius_, and one to all the
Catholic Bishops; which are both reputed supposititious, being dated by
Consuls who never existed.
-----
Footnote 717:
Buch. cycl. p. 273.
Footnote 718:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 41.
Footnote 719:
Ath. ad Solit. p. 828. & Apol. 2. p. 674. Theod. l. 2. c. 10.
Footnote 720:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 36. 40.
Footnote 721:
Idem ib.
Footnote 722:
Idem ib.
Footnote 723:
Idem ib.
Footnote 724:
Bar. ad ann. 352. n. 12-20.
Footnote 725:
Hil. p. 1327. & Athan. vit. p. 51.
Footnote 726:
Ath. ad Solit. p. 829. Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159. Hil. frag. 2. p. 41.
47.
Footnote 727:
Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159.
Footnote 728:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 42. Ath. ap. 1. p. 691. Theod. l. 2. c. 17.
Footnote 729:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 6. & in Cons. l. 2. p. 119. Sulp. Sever. p. 157. Ath.
in Ar. or. 1. p. 291. ad Solit. p. 831. de fug. 703.
Footnote 730:
Sulp. Sever. p. 469. Hier. chron.
Footnote 731:
Bar. in martyr. 31. Aug.
Footnote 732:
Hil. frag. 47.
Footnote 733:
Id. ib.
Footnote 734:
Id. ib. p. 39. 43.
Footnote 735:
Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159. Hil. frag. 2. p. 43. Athan. ad Solit. p.
846.
Footnote 736:
Soz. p. 546, 547. Socr. l. 2. c. 36.
Footnote 737:
Athan. ad Sol. p. 838.
Footnote 738:
Ruff. l. 1. c. 20.
Footnote 739:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 834, 835. Ammian. l. 15. p. 47. Theod. l. 2. c.
13. & l. 15. p. 38. 41. 47.
Footnote 740:
Athan. & Theod. ib.
Footnote 741:
Athan. in Ar. or. 1. p. 290. Marcell. & Faustin. lib. prec. ad Theod.
p. 30.
Footnote 742:
Theod. l. 2. c. 13.
Footnote 743:
Id. ib.
Footnote 744:
Theod. l. 1. c. 13.
Footnote 745:
Id. ib.
Footnote 746:
Id. ib & Athan. ad Solit. p. 835.
Footnote 747:
Theod. l. 2. c. 13. Soz. l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 748:
Marc. & Faust. &c. p. 3. Hier. chron.
Footnote 749:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 861. Ruff. l. 1. c. 22.
Footnote 750:
Ath. ib. Hier. ep. 98. Soz. l. 4. c. 24. Socr. l. 2. c. 37.
Footnote 751:
Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 752:
Hier. chron. Marc. & Faust. p. 3.
Footnote 753:
Athan. ib. Theod. l. 2. c. 14. Ammian. l. 16. p. 72.
Footnote 754:
Ammian. l. 16. p. 69. 72. Idat. chron. Alex.
Footnote 755:
Theod. l. 2. c. 14. Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 756:
Amm. l. 16.
Footnote 757:
Theod. ib.
Footnote 758:
Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 160.
Footnote 759:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 27.
Footnote 760:
Soz. l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 761:
Idem ib.
Footnote 762:
Ath. ad Solit. p. 837.
Footnote 763:
Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 41.
Footnote 764:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 48. Hier. vir. il. c. 97.
Footnote 765:
Hil. ib.
Footnote 766:
Idem ib. p. 49.
Footnote 767:
Idem ib. p. 47, 48.
Footnote 768:
Idem ib.
Footnote 769:
Idem ib. p. 49.
Footnote 770:
Idem ib. p. 51.
Footnote 771:
Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 772:
Idem ib.
Footnote 773:
Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 46.
Footnote 774:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 97. & in chron.
Footnote 775:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 776:
Athan. ad Solit.
Footnote 777:
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 9.
Footnote 778:
Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 779:
Idem ib.
Footnote 780:
Hier. chron. Mar. & Faust. p. 4.
Footnote 781:
Idem ib.
Footnote 782:
Socr. l. 2. c. 37.
Footnote 783:
Anast. c. 37. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 31.
Footnote 784:
Theod. l. 2. c. 13. Philg. l. 4. c. 3.
Footnote 785:
Soz. l. 4. c. 15.
Footnote 786:
Marc. & Faust. p. 4.
Footnote 787:
Socrat. l. 2. c. 37.
Footnote 788:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 861.
Footnote 789:
Vide Bolland. Apr. t. 1. p. 31.
Footnote 790:
MS. p. 219.
Footnote 791:
Anast. c. 37. p. 22.
Footnote 792:
Idem ib. p. 21.
Footnote 793:
Leuchesini de infall. sed. Rom. p. 97. Rossi vicario di Cristo, p. 72.
Footnote 794:
Bar. ad ann. 557. n. 63.
Footnote 795:
Idem ib.
Footnote 796:
Id. ib. n. 64.
Footnote 797:
Id. ib.
Footnote 798:
Marcell. & Faust. p. 4.
Footnote 799:
Athan. de syn. p. 907.
Footnote 800:
Philost. i. 6. c. 6.
Footnote 801:
Chron. Alex. p. 684.
Footnote 802:
Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 65.
Footnote 803:
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 9.
Footnote 804:
Theodoret. p. 610.
Footnote 805:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 861.
Footnote 806:
Bell. ibid.
Footnote 807:
Lab. chron.
Footnote 808:
Bona, lit. l. 2. c. 11. p. 423.
Footnote 809:
Vide p. 78.
Footnote 810:
Lab. ibid.
Footnote 811:
Athan. ad Sol. p. 838.
Footnote 812:
Soz. l. 1. c. 16.
Footnote 813:
Id. ib.
Footnote 814:
Athan. ad Sol. p. 841.
Footnote 815:
Theod. l. 1. c. 6.
Footnote 816:
Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 63.
Footnote 817:
Concil. tom. 1. p. 969.
Footnote 818:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 838. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 63.
Footnote 819:
Ath. ib. apol. 2. p. 760. & alibi.
Footnote 820:
Euseb. ib. Socr. l. 1. c. 7.
Footnote 821:
Euseb. ib. l. 1. c. 7.
Footnote 822:
Zos. l. 2. p. 435.
Footnote 823:
Marc. & Faust. p. 34.
Footnote 824:
Ath. de fug. p. 704.
Footnote 825:
Aug. in Parm. l. 1. c. 8.
Footnote 826:
Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 73.
Footnote 827:
Socr. l. 1. c. 8.
Footnote 828:
Sulp. l. 2. c. 55. Theod. l. 2. c. 12.
Footnote 829:
Athan. fug. p. 703.
Footnote 830:
Athan. ad Sol. p. 837.
Footnote 831:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 16.
Footnote 832:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 837-841.
Footnote 833:
Id. ib. p. 838.
Footnote 834:
Id. ib. p. 838-840.
Footnote 835:
Athan. ib. p. 841. Sulp. l. 2. p. 162. Socr. l. 2. c. 31.
Footnote 836:
Ath. de fug. p. 704. Apol. 2. p. 807.
Footnote 837:
Id. ib. Socr. p. 127.
Footnote 838:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 841.
Footnote 839:
Ath. de fug. p. 704. & apol. 2. p. 807.
Footnote 840:
Id. ad Sol. p. 841.
Footnote 841:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 161, 162.
Footnote 842:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 841.
Footnote 843:
Phœbad. contr. Arian. p. 180.
Footnote 844:
Mar. & Faust. p. 34.
Footnote 845:
Hil. de syn. p. 124, 125. 133.
Footnote 846:
Vigil. in Eutychian. l. 5. n. 3.
Footnote 847:
Socr. l. 2. c. 31.
Footnote 848:
Soz. l. 4. c. 12.
Footnote 849:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 4.
Footnote 850:
Marcell. & Faust. p. 34.
Footnote 851:
Phœbad. p. 169.
Footnote 852:
Id. p. 180. Soz. l. 4. c. 12.
Footnote 853:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 161, 162.
Footnote 854:
Soz. ib.
Footnote 855:
Phœbad. p. 180.
Footnote 856:
Hil. syn. p. 133.
Footnote 857:
Idem ib. p. 137.
Footnote 858:
Ath. ad Sol. p. 141. & 842.
Footnote 859:
Idem ib.
Footnote 860:
Idem de frag. p. 704. & apol. 2. p. 807.
Footnote 861:
Vide Isidor. de vir. ill. in Osio, c. 1.
Footnote 862:
Menæa, p. 293.
Footnote 863:
Soz. l. 4. c. 16. & l. 3. c. 19. Ath. de syn. p. 873.
Footnote 864:
Greg. Nyss. de facto, p. 75.
Footnote 865:
Soz. ib.
Footnote 866:
Philost. l. 4. c. 20.
Footnote 867:
Soz. ib.
Footnote 868:
Theodor. l. 1. c. 22.
Footnote 869:
Soz. l. 4. c. 16. Ath. de syn. p. 869.
Footnote 870:
Ath. de syn. p. 870.
Footnote 871:
Ath. de syn. p. 873, 874. Soz. l. 4. c. 16.
Footnote 872:
Idem ib. & c. 17.
Footnote 873:
Soz. l. 4. c. 24.
Footnote 874:
Theod. l. 2. c. 21.
Footnote 875:
Socr. l. 2. c. 39. Soz. l. 4. c. 16.
Footnote 876:
Hil. de syn. p. 24.
Footnote 877:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 164.
Footnote 878:
Ath. de syn. p. 870.
Footnote 879:
Ammian. l. 21. p. 203.
Footnote 880:
Sulp. l. 4. c. 17.
Footnote 881:
Ath. de syn. p. 874. Sulp. l. 2. p. 162. Soz. p. 563.
Footnote 882:
Hier. p. 143. Sulp. p. 162.
Footnote 883:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 43, 44.
Footnote 884:
Idem ib. p. 46.
Footnote 885:
Ath. de syn. p. 876. Hil. frag. 1. p. 44. Epiph. hæres. 73. c. 22.
Footnote 886:
Hil. & Epiph. ib.
Footnote 887:
Idem ib.
Footnote 888:
Ath. de syn. p. 875.
Footnote 889:
Buch. cycl.
Footnote 890:
Ath. Soz. ib. Theod. l. 1. c. 15.
Footnote 891:
Ath. ib. p. 876. Soz. ib. Hil. frag. 2. p. 47, 48.
Footnote 892:
Ath. ib. Socr. l. 1. c. 37. Hil. frag. 2. p. 46.
Footnote 893:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 163. Ath. ad Afr. p. 934. Hil. frag. 2. p. 36.
Footnote 894:
Socr. ib. Ath. de syn. p. 930.
Footnote 895:
Ath. de syn. p. 929, 930.
Footnote 896:
Id. ib.
Footnote 897:
Theod. l. 2. c. 15, 16.
Footnote 898:
Id. ib.
Footnote 899:
Soc. l. 2. c. 37.
Footnote 900:
Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 113.
Footnote 901:
Theod. l. 2. c. 16. Hil. in ann. p. 122.
Footnote 902:
Id. ib.
Footnote 903:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 23.
Footnote 904:
Marc. & Faust. p. 25.
Footnote 905:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 36, 37. Theod. ib. Sulp. l. 2. p. 165.
Footnote 906:
Athan. ad Afr. p. 941. Sulp. p. 165. Marc. & Faust. p. 26. Hil. frag.
p. 37.
Footnote 907:
Ath. ib. p. 934.
Footnote 908:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 37, 38.
Footnote 909:
Sulp. p. 166.
Footnote 910:
Sulp. ib.
Footnote 911:
Theod. l. 1. c. 17.
Footnote 912:
Id. ib.
Footnote 913:
Ambros. de fid. l. 3. c. 7.
Footnote 914:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 166.
Footnote 915:
Fulg. in Pint. c. 3. p. 536.
Footnote 916:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 53, 54.
Footnote 917:
Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.
Footnote 918:
Hil. frag. 2. p. 4, 5.
Footnote 919:
Mar. & Faust. p. 47.
Footnote 920:
Hier. ib.
Footnote 921:
Ath. de syn. p. 881. Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 114.
Footnote 922:
Greg. Naz. or. 21. p. 386.
Footnote 923:
Socr. l. 2. c. 40.
Footnote 924:
Soz. l. 4. c. 22.
Footnote 925:
Id. ib. Sacr. l. 1. c. 40. Ath. de syn. p. 881. Basil. in Eunom. l. 1.
p. 697. Sulp. l. 1. p. 65.
Footnote 926:
Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 115. Soz. l. 4. c. 23. Basil. ep. 74.
Footnote 927:
Soz. l. 4. c. 24.
Footnote 928:
Socr. l. 2. c. 12. Soz. l. 4. c. 24. Philost. l. 5. c. 1.
Footnote 929:
Soz. l. 4. c. 26.
Footnote 930:
Greg. Naz. orat. 21. p. 387.
Footnote 931:
Id. ib.
Footnote 932:
Theod. l. 2. c. 17.
Footnote 933:
Bar. ad ann. 359. n. 48.
Footnote 934:
Greg. Naz. orat. 1. p. 387.
Footnote 935:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 21.
Footnote 936:
Hier. in Lucifer. p. 143. & in chron.
Footnote 937:
Idem ib.
Footnote 938:
Theod. l. 2. c. 23.
Footnote 939:
Socr. l. 2. c. 45. Ath. de syn. p. 906.
Footnote 940:
Philost. l. 6. c. 5.
Footnote 941:
Socr. l. 3. c. 1.
Footnote 942:
Theod. l. 3. c. 2. Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.
Footnote 943:
Ammian. l. 22. p. 223. Soz. l. 4. c. 30. Philost. l. 7. c. 2. Epiph.
p. 912.
Footnote 944:
Greg. Naz. 21.
Footnote 945:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 28. Ath. ad Ruf. t. 2. p. 41. Amb. de salv. p. 316. Aug.
ep. 50. Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.
Footnote 946:
Bolland. Maii 20. p. 207.
Footnote 947:
Bar. ad ann. 371. n. 132.
Footnote 948:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 30.
Footnote 949:
Hier. in Lucif. p. 144.
Footnote 950:
Bar. ad ann. 371. n. 132.
Footnote 951:
Ath. ad Jov. t. 1. p. 246.
Footnote 952:
Soz. l. 6. c. 10.
Footnote 953:
Socr. l. 4. c. 1.
Footnote 954:
Bas. ep. 75.
Footnote 955:
Socr. ib.
Footnote 956:
Ath. ad Asr. p. 931. & ad Epict. p. 582.
Footnote 957:
Soz. l. 5. c. 14.
Footnote 958:
Greg. Naz. orat. 44.
Footnote 959:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 25.
Footnote 960:
Socr. l. 2. c. 45. l. 4. c. 4. l. 5. c. 8.
Footnote 961:
Id. l. 4. c. 12. Soz. l. 6. c. 10.
Footnote 962:
Soz. Socr. ib.
Footnote 963:
Socr. ib.
Footnote 964:
Socr. l. 4. c. 12. Basil. ep. 82.
Footnote 965:
Marcell. & Faust. p. 4, 5.
Footnote 966:
Ruf. l. 3. c. 30, 31.
Footnote 967:
Idem ib.
Footnote 968:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 37, 38.
Footnote 969:
Bar. ad ann. 359. n. 3.
Footnote 970:
Theoph. l. 2. c. 13.
Footnote 971:
Id. ib.
Footnote 972:
Menæa, p. 293.
Footnote 973:
Breviar. Rom. 5 Aug.
Footnote 974:
Vide Bull. Urb. VIII. Breviario præfix.
Footnote 975:
Amb. de virg. l. 3. p. 437.
Footnote 976:
Bar. ad ann. 362. n. 206.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTINIAN, DAMASUS, GRATIAN,
VALENS, _Thirty-sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. THEODOSIUS.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 366. Damasus _a Native of_ Rome,]
_Liberius_ was succeeded by _Damasus_, whom the _Spanish_ Writers, upon
the Authority of _Anastasius_, suppose to have been a Native of
_Spain_[977]; though there is no room to doubt of his being born in
_Rome_, since it appears, from an Inscription quoted by _Baronius_[978],
that his Father had been Lector, Deacon, and Presbyter, of the Church of
St. _Laurence_ in that City, and consequently must have lived there from
his Youth. _Damasus_ had a Sister named _Irene_, who embraced the State
of Virginity, and died before she was Twenty, as we read in her
Epitaph[979]. It is not therefore probable, that her Death happened in
the Twelfth Year of her Brother’s Pontificate, as the _Spanish_ Author
of her Life tells us, he being then Seventy. _Damasus_ served, as his
Father had done, the Church of St. _Laurence_, till he was stricken in
Years; for he was upwards of Sixty when raised to the Episcopal Dignity.
[Sidenote: _and Deacon of that Church_.] He was Deacon of _Rome_ in 355.
when _Liberius_ was sent into Exile; on which Occasion he not only bound
himself, with the rest of the Clergy, by a solemn Oath not to acknowlege
any other Bishop so long as _Liberius_ lived, but attended him on his
Journey to the Place of his Banishment[980]. [Sidenote: _Whether he
abandoned_ Liberius,_and sided with_ Felix.] _Marcellinus_ and
_Faustinus_ seem to insinuate, that soon afterwards, giving way to his
Ambition, he forgot the Oath he had taken, abandoned _Liberius_, for
whom he had professed the greatest Friendship, and sided with _Felix_
his Antagonist[981]. But these Two Presbyters were zealous Partisans of
the Antipope _Ursinus_, of whom hereafter; and therefore we ought to be
very cautious of what they write to the Prejudice of _Damasus_. _Jerom_,
who lived then at _Rome_, and in great Intimacy with _Damasus_,
reproaches such of the Ecclesiastics as forsook _Liberius_, and joined
_Felix_, with the Breach of a most solemn Oath; styles them Perjurers,
Deserters, Time-servers, _&c._ which I cannot think he would have done
so freely, had _Damasus_ been one of the Number. I am therefore not a
little surprised, that _Baronius_ should blindly acquiesce to the
Accounts of the above-mentioned Writers, and, without further Inquiry,
condemn _Damasus_ as guilty of Perjury, by ranking him among the
Followers of _Felix_[982]. And yet the Annalist supposes him to have
been appointed Great Vicar of _Rome_ by _Liberius_, upon his withdrawing
from the City to avoid the Persecution raised by _Constantius_ after the
Council of _Rimini_[983]: so that, according to him, he must have
changed Sides anew, and, abandoning _Felix_, returned to _Liberius_,
which is representing him as a Man swayed by no other Principles but
those of Interest and Ambition, and therefore always siding with those
who were uppermost. This is all we know of _Damasus_ before his
Election.
[Sidenote: _He is chosen Bishop of_ Rome, _and likewise_ Ursinus.]
_Liberius_ dying on the 23d or 24th of _September_ 366. as I have
related above, great Disturbances were raised in _Rome_ by the Election
of Two Bishops to succeed him, _viz._ _Damasus_ and _Ursinus_, whom the
later Writers style _Ursicinus_, a Deacon of that Church. This double
Election gave Rise to a dangerous Schism, and a kind of Civil War,
within the Walls of the City, which did not end without a great deal of
Bloodshed. I shall impartially relate what I find concerning this
important Transaction in the contemporary Writers of either Side;
leaving the Reader to judge which of the Two Pretenders was the Cause of
so much Mischief, and which legally chosen. I shall begin with the
Account which _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, who were then at _Rome_,
give us of these Elections. They were both Presbyters of that Church,
but, being strict Followers of _Lucifer_ Bishop of _Cagliari_, of whom I
have spoken above, they and their whole Party were deemed Schismatics,
and consequently cruelly persecuted by the Catholic Bishops, especially
_Damasus_. Finding themselves thus oppressed, the Two Presbyters,
between 383. and 388. drew up a Petition in Behalf of themselves and
their afflicted Brethren, addressed to _Valentinian_ II. _Theodosius_,
and _Arcadius_, intreating those Princes to protect their Innocence, and
put a Stop to the unbridled Rage of their Enemies. With this Request the
Two Presbyters repaired to _Constantinople_, being driven from _Rome_ by
_Damasus_, and there presented it to _Theodosius_, who, pitying their
Condition, in his Rescript directed to _Cynegius_ the _Præfectus
Prætorio_, treated them as Catholics, granted them the free Exercise of
their Religion, and declared all those wicked Men, nay, and Heretics,
who had presumed, or should for the future presume, to persecute or
molest them[984]. In the Preface, prefixed to this Petition, I find the
following Account of both the above-mentioned Elections. _Ursinus_, say
they, was chosen in the Basilic of _Julius_ by the Deacons _Amantius_
and _Lupus_, and the People, who had continued in the Communion of
_Liberius_; but _Damasus_, by those who had adhered to _Felix_,
assembled for that Purpose in the Church of St. _Laurence_, called _in
Lucinis_. _Ursinus_ was ordained the first, by _Paul_ Bishop of
_Tivoli_; which _Damasus_, who had always panted after the Episcopal
Dignity, no sooner knew, than he hired a great Number of Chariot
drivers, and other such despicable Wretches, who, violently breaking
into the Basilic of _Julius_, massacred a great many People there. Seven
Days afterwards they made themselves Masters of the _Lateran_ Basilic,
and there was _Damasus_ ordained Bishop[985]. [Sidenote: _Different
Accounts of these Elections._] This Account charges _Damasus_ alone with
the Schism, and the Evils attending it. On the other hand, the Council
of _Rome_, held about Twelve Years after, lays the whole Blame on
_Ursinus_, who, say they, boldly attempted to usurp a Dignity, which on
no Score was due to him[986]; and that which met at _Aquileia_ in 381.
and consisted of all the most eminent Bishops of the West, ascribes to
_Ursinus_, and his Temerity, the many Calamities the Church had
suffered; paints him as a Man of no Credit, Character, or Reputation;
and adds, that he seized by Force what he had no Hopes of attaining by
lawful Means[987]. _Ambrose_ writes, that the Suffrage of Heaven
concurred in the Election of _Damasus_[988]. According to these
Authorities _Damasus_ was lawfully elected, and _Ursinus_ unlawfully. As
to the Particulars of his Election, _Jerom_, who perhaps was then at
_Rome_, tells us, that _Damasus_ was first chosen, and then _Ursinus_,
who, after his Election, seized by Force on the Basilic of
_Sicinus_[989], that is, according to the most probable Opinion, the
Basilic of _Liberius_, now _Saint Mary the Greater_. _Socrates_ says,
that _Ursinus_ having near as many Votes as _Damasus_, he was thereby
encouraged to hold separate Assemblies, and to get himself ordained in a
dark and retired Corner of the Basilic of _Sicinus_[990]. _Ruffinus_
assures us, that _Damasus_ was already ordained, when _Ursinus_,
transported with Rage at his being preferred to him, assembled a great
Number of seditious People, and, supported by them, caused himself, in
Defiance of the Canons of the Church, to be ordained, in the Basilic of
_Sicinus_, by _Paul_ Bishop of _Tivoli_; whereas the Bishops of _Rome_
were always ordained and consecrated by those of _Ostia_. After his
Consecration, continues this Author, he ordained several Persons; which
was adding a Sacrilege to his unlawful Election[991]. Both _Ruffinus_,
and _Socrates_, who follows him, were certainly mistaken as to the Place
of this Ordination, since we are told by _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_,
that _Ursinus_ was ordained, not in the Basilic of _Sicinus_, but in
that of _Julius_[992]. These Two Writers, who were in _Rome_ at the Time
of the Elections, tell us, in express Terms, that _Ursinus_ was chosen
before _Damasus_; and _Jerom_, who was probably in _Rome_ at the same
Time, assures us, in Terms no less express, that _Damasus_ was chosen
before _Ursinus_. The former were greatly addicted to _Ursinus_, and the
latter no less attached to _Damasus_. As for the Two Councils, which I
have quoted above, they were held some Years after, when the Party of
_Damasus_ had universally prevailed, and it was a Crime to acknowlege
_Ursinus_. _Jerom_ has been followed by most of the Writers who came
after, and the Authority of the other Two quite disregarded, for no
other Reason but because they were Schismatics; for they joined
_Lucifer_, as I have observed above, and refused to communicate with the
Bishops who had signed the Confession of _Rimini_, nay, and with those
who communicated with them.
[Sidenote: _Great Disturbances in_ Rome, _occasioned by this double
Election_.]
By this double Election the Citizens of _Rome_ saw themselves, before
they were aware, involved in a Civil War. The whole People were divided,
some siding with _Damasus_, and some with _Ursinus_; and neither of the
Competitors shewed the least Inclination to yield to the other. No Day
passed without Skirmishes and Bloodshed; insomuch that _Juventius_
Governor of the City, and _Julian_ the _Præfectus Annonæ_, to put a Stop
to the present, and prevent greater Disturbances, agreed to banish
_Ursinus_, whose Party seemed less powerful, together with his Two
Deacons _Amantius_ and _Lupus_. The Two Authors I have often quoted
write, that both _Juventius_ and _Julian_ were bribed by _Damasus_, who,
taking Advantage of the Absence of his Competitor, armed his Followers
with Clubs and Swords, hoping thus to intimidate the Friends of the
exiled Bishop, and bring them in the End to acknowlege him. Seven
Presbyters of the Party of _Ursinus_ were seized, at the Request of
_Damasus_, in order to be sent into Exile, but rescued by the People of
the same Party, and carried in Triumph to the Basilic of _Liberius_;
which _Damasus_ no sooner heard, than, arming all his Followers, both
Clergy and Laymen, with Clubs, Swords, Axes, _&c._ he marched at the
Head of the seditious and enraged Multitude to the Basilic, which he and
his Partisans immediately invested, and attacked with the utmost Fury.
[Sidenote: _Several Persons massacred._] It was set on fire in several
Places; the Doors were forced, the Roof uncovered, and thence Showers of
Tiles discharged on the People assembled there: great was the Massacre;
One hundred and Sixty Persons, Men and Women, were inhumanly murdered on
the Side of _Ursinus_, and a great many more wounded, some of whom died
of their Wounds. On the Side of _Damasus_ not one single Person was
killed. This Riot began on the 25th of _October_ 366. at Eight in the
Morning.
[Sidenote: _The Sedition becomes general._]
Thus the above-mentioned Writer[993] _Ruffinus_ writes in general Terms,
that the illegal Election of _Ursinus_, in Opposition to _Damasus_,
occasioned such a Tumult, or rather Civil War among the People, some
siding with the one, and some with the other, that the Places destined
for Prayer streamed with Human Blood[994]. The Heathen _Ammianus
Marcellinus_ assures us, that the Partisans of _Damasus_ and _Ursinus_
were so implacably incensed against each other, that several Persons
were wounded in the Quarrel, and some killed: nay, it is certain, adds
he, that in the Basilic of _Sicinus_ One hundred and Thirty-seven
Persons were found dead, all killed the same Day: but _Damasus_ in the
End, by the Efforts of his Party, got the better of his Antagonist[995].
_Jerom_, however partial, owns, that _Ursinus_ having got Possession of
the Basilic of _Sicinus_, the Partisans of _Damasus_ repaired thither in
Crouds, and that several Persons were thereupon inhumanly
massacred[996]. The Sedition became general, and the Seditious on either
Side so numerous and powerful, that _Juventius_, not thinking it
adviseable to punish, nor being able to appease, the enraged Populace,
abandoned the City, and retired to the Country[997]. He was perhaps for
_Ursinus_, whose Party being over-matched by that of _Damasus_, he might
not think it safe to continue in _Rome_. Three Days after the Massacre
in the Basilic of _Liberius_, that is, on the 28th of _October_, the
Partisans of _Ursinus_, say _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, assembling,
cried out aloud against _Damasus_, complaining of his Conduct, and
begging that a sufficient Number of Bishops might be convened, and the
Controversy referred to their Judgment and Decision[998]. _Damasus_ was
greatly favoured, and chiefly supported, by the _Roman_ Ladies, which
probably gave Occasion to the Charge of Adultery that was brought
against him. But _Jerom_, either to clear him of this Charge, or to
obviate the like Suspicions, naturally arising from his familiar
Conversation with the Female Sex, styles him a _Virgin Doctor of the
Virgin Church_[999].
[Sidenote: Damasus _not easily cleared from all Guilt_.]