_Baronius_, finding he can neither disguise nor extenuate the Cruelties

committed by those who adhered to _Damasus_, is at a great deal of

Trouble to disculpate him, and lay the whole Blame on _Maximinus_, who,

as appears from History, discharged the Office of _Præfectus Annonæ_

from the Latter-end of the Year 367. to the Beginning of 370. and was

noted for his Cruelty. _Baronius_ is supported herein by the Authority

of _Jerom_ and _Ruffinus_, of whom the former writes, that _Damasus_

remained Conqueror, without hurting the Conquered[1000]; and the latter,

that the Cruelties practised by the Prefect _Maximinus_, who had

espoused the Cause of _Damasus_, upon those of the adverse Party,

rendered the Name of that virtuous Prelate odious, though he had no

Share in them[1001]. But who is to be charged with the Massacre in the

Basilic of _Sicinus_ or _Liberius_? On whom are the Murders to be laid,

committed there? _Maximinus_ was not then in Power, and perhaps not at

_Rome_. I cannot help thinking but _Damasus_ might at least have

restrained his Followers from such Excesses; and consequently, as he did

not, I cannot, with _Ruffinus_, conclude him to have had no Share in

them; I say, _at least restrained_; for I will not charge him with

heading and encouraging the riotous Multitude in that wicked Attempt,

upon the bare Authority of _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, both zealous

Partisans of _Ursinus_. But neither ought _Baronius_, _Bellarmine_,

_Davidius_, &c. upon the bare Testimony of Two Writers, no less sanguine

in the Cause of _Damasus_, suppose him to have been no-ways concerned in

those Disorders. The famous _Ammianus Marcellinus_, who lived at this

very time in _Rome_, and, as a Pagan, was no-ways concerned in the

Quarrel, nor more inclined to one Side than the other, assures us, that

both were equally ambitious of the Episcopal Dignity, and both equally

guilty[1002]. The Authority of a Writer, thus unbyassed, and in every

other respect unexceptionable, ought to be preferred, without the least

Hesitation, to that of any other, whom we have just Reason to suspect of

Partiality. _Jerom_ indeed speaks with more Modesty and Reserve than

_Ruffinus_, and those who have copied after him; for he only says, that

_Damasus_ did not hurt his Enemies after he had conquered them. But, in

relating the above-mentioned Massacre, and the Skirmishes that happened

before the Party of _Damasus_ prevailed, he always describes his

Partisans as the Aggressors, without ever pretending to excuse him, as

having no Share in those Riots; which he would not have failed to do,

had he not paid a greater Regard to Truth than _Ruffinus_ seems to have

done.

[Sidenote: _The Luxury of the Bishops of_ Rome.]

The Heathen _Marcellinus_, after telling us, that _Damasus_ and

_Ursinus_ aspired with equal Ambition to the Episcopal Chair, adds this

famous Remark, which I shall set down in his own Words: _I must own_,

says he, _that when I reflect on the Pomp attending that Dignity, I do

not at all wonder, that those, who are fond of Shew and Parade, should

scold, quarrel, fight, and strain every Nerve to attain it; since they

are sure, if they succeed, to be enriched with the Offerings of the

Ladies; to appear no more abroad on foot, but in stately Chariots, and

gorgeously attired; to keep costly and sumptuous Tables; nay, and to

surpass the Emperors themselves in the Splendor and Magnificence of

their Entertainments. But how happy would they be, if, despising the

Grandeur of the City, which they allege to excuse their Luxury, they

followed the Example of some Bishops in the Provinces, who, by the

Temperance and Frugality of their Diet, the Poverty and Plainness of

their Dress, the Modesty of their Looks fixed on the Ground, the Purity

of their Lives, and the Regularity of their whole Conduct, approve

themselves to the eternal God, and all his true Worshipers_[1003]! Thus

_Ammianus_. And that _Damasus_ was fond of all that Pomp, Grandeur, and

Parade, that he led such a voluptuous Life, as _Ammianus_ here so justly

censures and condemns in the Bishops of _Rome_, is not to be doubted,

since _Prætextatus_, a Man of the first Quality, honoured with the

greatest Employments of the Empire, and zealously attached to Paganism,

in conversing familiarly with him, used pleasantly to say, _Make me

Bishop of_ Rome, _and I'll immediately turn Christian_[1004]. But, as I

shall have Occasion to speak of this Subject hereafter, I shall only

observe here, that the Offerings of those devout Women, and other pious

Christians, were no better employed in the Days of _Damasus_, than the

immense Wealth, which the Church of _Rome_ acquired in After-Ages, by

the voluntary Contributions of all the Christian Nations, is disposed of

in ours. [Sidenote: _How the Oblations of the Faithful disposed of._]

With these Offerings the Bishops of _Rome_ used in more early Times, to

maintain the Poor of their own Church, and send the Overplus to other

Churches, where the Poor were numerous, and the Offerings small. Of this

generous Practice I have mentioned some Instances, that well deserve to

be recorded. But when Ambition began to take place of Charity, the Poor

were forgotten, and nothing thought of but splendid Equipages, numerous

Retinues, princely Apparel, sumptuous Tables, and whatever else could

feed the Vanity of these upstart Princes, and put them upon the Level

with the greatest Monarchs. To such Purposes were the Oblations of the

Faithful perverted. _Baronius_ takes it very much amiss of _Ammianus_,

that he should find Fault with the costly Tables and Entertainments of

the Popes, since it is manifest from St. _Austin_, that the Christians

at _Rome_, and, no doubt, the Pope with the rest, kept a rigorous Fast

Three Days in the Week[1005]; so that, in his Opinion, they ought not to

be blamed for rioting Four Days in the Week, provided they fasted Three.

But to this Doctrine _Ammianus_ was a Stranger, and therefore,

notwithstanding the Fasts they might keep, he justly censured their

expensive Tables and Banquets, as no-ways suited to their Profession and

Character.

[Sidenote: Ursinus _recalled by_ Valentinian;]

But to return to _Ursinus_; he had been banished _Rome_ by the Prefect

_Juventius_, before the 26th of _October_ 366. as I have related above;

but the Emperor _Valentinian_, who was at this time in _Gaul_, having,

at the Request of his Friends, granted him Leave to return, he entered

the City on the 15th of _September_ 367. in a kind of Triumph, being met

and received with loud Acclamations by those of his Party[1006]. At the

same time the Emperor directed a Rescript to _Prætextatus_, who had

succeeded _Juventius_ in the Prefecture of _Rome_, injoining him to

recall all those, who had been banned for the late Riots, and reinstate

them in their former Condition, after warning them, that if, for the

future, they disturbed the Peace of the Public, they should be punished

without Mercy[1007]. [Sidenote: _but banished anew_.] But

notwithstanding this Warning, new Disturbances must have happened, since

_Ursinus_ was, by an Order from the Emperor, banished again on the 16th

of _November_ of the same Year 367. together with Seven of his

Followers, who were all confined to different Places in _Gaul_, where

they continued till the Year 371[1008]. The Two Presbyters tell us, that

_Damasus_, having, with large Sums, gained the Ministers and Favourites

at Court, by their Means extorted from the Emperor the above-mentioned

Order. They add, that the Friends of _Ursinus_ were resolved to stand by

him; but that he, to prevent Bloodshed, delivered himself up into the

Hands of the Officers of Justice[1009]. However that be, by the

Banishment of _Ursinus_, and some of the leading Men of his Party,

Tranquillity was restored for a while, and the Disturbances composed,

says _Ammianus_, which the Christians had raised by quarreling among

themselves[1010].

[Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Rome _impowered by the Emperor to judge other

Bishops_.]

About this Time the Emperor _Valentinian_ enacted a Law, impowering the

Bishop of _Rome_ to examine and judge other Bishops, that religious and

ecclesiastical Disputes might not be decided by profane or secular

Judges, but by a _Pontiff of the same Religion, and his

Collegues_[1011]. A very imprudent Law, considering the Nature and

Consequences of such a Concession. The Bishops assembled in Council at

_Rome_, in 378. after declaring, in the strongest Terms, their

Approbation of this Law, agreed to present an Address to the Emperor

_Gratian_, wherein they earnestly recommended to him the Execution of

it, because it greatly redounded, say they, to the Honour of the sacred

Ministry; because the Judgment of Bishops was more sure and certain than

that of any Civil Magistrate; and, lastly, because it delivered the

Prelates of the Church from the just Concern they were under, to find

that they could not make their Innocence appear without Racks and

Tortures, which innocent Persons were put to by the Secular

Judges[1012]. This Exemption seems to have been understood by the

Council as extending to all Cases, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical. Be

that as it will, whatever Exemption was by the above-mentioned Law

granted to the Bishops, whatever Power was by that Law vested in the

Bishop of _Rome_, and his Collegues, the Council, with a due Sense of

Gratitude, acknowleged such Power and Immunity to be intirely owing to

the Indulgence of the Emperor: a plain Proof that the absurd and

chimerical Notion of a _Divine Right_ was not yet broached. The Bishops

chose rather to be judged by the Pope and his Collegues, that is, by

their own Brethren, than by Lay Judges, for the Reasons they allege in

their Address to _Gratian_. Hence they chearfully submitted to his

Judgment, and applauded every new Power that was granted him, as

redounding to the Honour of the Episcopal Order. But, alas! they were

not aware, that every new Power, yielded to the Bishop of _Rome_, was a

new Link added to the Chain they were forging, if not for themselves,

for those, at least, who were to succeed them. They little apprehended,

that the Bishop of _Rome_ would, in Process of Time, claim all the Power

vested in him, and his Collegues, as due to him alone, and that too by

_Divine Right_; that, in virtue of such a Claim, he would set up for

universal and sole Monarch of the Church, exercise an unbounded

Authority and Jurisdiction, and degrade all other Bishops from his

Collegues to his Vassals and Slaves. _Blondel_ is of Opinion, that the

Bishop of _Rome_ was, by that Law, only impowered to judge the Bishops

within the Limits of his Jurisdiction, that is, those of the

Suburbicarian Provinces[1013]. Others think that such a Power was only

for a time, and extended to those Bishops alone who were concerned in

the present Schism; which seems most probable, since _Valentinian_

declares, that he enacted the above-mentioned Law to settle the Church,

shaken by the Fury of the Schism[1014].

[Sidenote: _The Followers of_ Ursinus _driven out of_ Rome.]

_Ursinus_, and the leading Men of his Party, being driven out of the

City, the Inhabitants began to enjoy their former Peace and

Tranquillity. But yet his Followers continued to assemble in the

Cœmeteries of the Martyrs, and even kept Possession of a Church,

supposed to be that of St. _Agnes_, without the Walls[1015]. Of this

_Damasus_ took care to transmit an Account to the Emperor, in a

Memorial; who, fearing that, from such a Spark, the Fire might break out

again, which he had been striving to extinguish, injoined _Prætextatus_

to put _Damasus_ forthwith in Possession of that Church; and, in the

Execution of this Order, probably happened what we find related, perhaps

with some Exaggeration, by the Two Writers I have often quoted; for they

tell us, that one Day, while the Followers of _Ursinus_ were assembled,

in great Numbers, in the Church of _St. Agnes_, _Damasus_, falling

unexpectedly upon them with his Satellites, made a dreadful Havock of

the innocent and defenceless Multitude[1016]. After this Second Massacre

_Prætextatus_, to secure the Tranquillity of the City, sent several more

of the Party of _Ursinus_ into Exile. _Valentinian_, however, would not

consent to their being confined to any particular Place; but gave them

full Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out of

_Rome_[1017]. The two Writers add, that the Cruelties exercised in the

Church of _St. Agnes_ gave great Offence to the Bishops of _Italy_; and

that _Damasus_ having invited some of them to _Rome_, to solemnize with

him the Anniversary of his Consecration, he laid hold of that

Opportunity to solicit them with Intreaties, nay, and to tempt them with

Money, to condemn _Ursinus_; but all in vain; the Bishops equally

unmoved by his Prayers and Offers, refusing, with great Firmness and

Resolution, to condemn a Man whom they had not heard. _Marcellinus_ and

_Faustinus_ close their Preface with a short Account of themselves,

telling us, that the Presbyters of _Ursinus_’s Party were imprisoned,

racked, banished, dispersed, and sent into different Countries; and that

they themselves, who were of that Number, presented a Petition to the

Emperors, begging them to put a Stop to so cruel a Persecution[1018].

[Sidenote: Damasus _assembles a Council at_ Rome.]

_Damasus_ having thus, in the End, by the Favour of the Emperors,

intirely got the better of the adverse Party, and secured his Dignity,

he turned his Thoughts to Ecclesiastical Matters. In the West there

were now but Three Bishops, who still maintained the Doctrine of

_Arius_; _viz._ _Ursacius_ Bishop of _Singidunum_, _Valens_ of

_Mursa_, and _Auxentius_ of _Milan_. [Sidenote: Ursacius _and_

Valens _condemned_. Auxentius _why spared_.] _Damasus_, however,

convened a numerous Council at _Rome_; and there examined anew, and

anew condemned, the Tenets of _Arius_, and all who held them, namely

_Ursacius_ and _Valens_[1019]. _Auxentius_ was a pure, and no less

zealous, _Arian_, than either of these Two; but as he was in favour

with _Valentinian_, whom he had deceived by an equivocal Confession of

Faith, _Damasus_, and his Council, thought it adviseable not to name

him. The Council writ a synodal Letter to the other Bishops,

acquainting them with what had passed; which was answered by

_Athanasius_, and the Bishops of _Egypt_, then assembled at

_Alexandria_. In their Answer they thank _Damasus_ for condemning

_Ursacius_ and _Valens_; but, at the same time, express no small

Surprize to find, that _Auxentius_ was not yet deposed, tho’ guilty

not only of _Arianism_, but of many other Crimes, which they

enumerate[1020]. _Damasus_ and his Collegues paid, no doubt, great

Regard to the Remonstrances of _Athanasius_; but, as _Auxentius_ was

supported by the Emperor, and they were better Courtiers than

_Athanasius_, they never attempted to depose him; nay, they carried

their Complaisance so far as to condemn _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, as if

they had been the only _Arian_ Bishops in the West, without ever

naming _Auxentius_. He therefore kept, for many Years, quiet

Possession of the See he had usurped, and was at last deprived of it

by Death alone.

[Sidenote: _The Avarice of the_ Roman _Clergy restrained

by_ Valentinian.]

The many Abuses and Disorders, that reigned at this Time among the

Ecclesiastics of _Rome_, offered a larger Field to the Zeal of

_Damasus_, than the Heresy of _Arius_, now confined in the West to a

Corner of _Illyricum_. But he was by no means a fit Person to set up for

a Reformer of Manners, and the Evil required a more powerful Remedy than

he could apply. The Prelates of the Church, even the Bishops of _Rome_,

could yet only preach against Vice, admonish the Vicious, and inflict

ecclesiastical Censures on such as gave no Ear to their Admonitions: all

other Power was still lodged in Lay Hands, and only imparted to the

Ecclesiastics in some extraordinary Cases. The insatiable Avarice of the

_Roman_ Clergy, the mean and scandalous Arts they were daily practising

to circumvent the Orphans, plunder the Widows, and rob the lawful Heirs

of their just Inheritance, cried loudly for a Reform; but were Evils too

strong for the Curb of Exhortation, Admonition, or Censures merely

ecclesiastical; and _Damasus_ himself was not quite free from

Imputations of this Nature. It was therefore necessary, that the Secular

Power should interpose in Defence of the deluded Laity, against the

Craft and Rapines of the ravenous Clergy. [Sidenote: _Law enacted by

him._] A Law was accordingly enacted by the Emperor _Valentinian_, in

the Year 370. addressed to _Damasus_ Bishop of _Rome_, and read, on the

29th of _July_, in all the Churches of that City, strictly forbidding

the Ecclesiastics, and such as professed Celibacy, meaning the Monks, to

frequent the Houses of Orphans or Widows, or to accept from those, whom

they attended under the Veil of Religion, any thing whatsoever by way of

Donation, Legacy, or Feoffment in Trust. Whatever was thus given or

accepted, is declared forfeited to the public Treasury[1021].

This Law, taken in a literal Sense, only forbids the Ecclesiastics to

accept such Donations as were made by the Women whom they attended in

spiritual Matters as their Guides or Directors; but it was either

understood and interpreted as extending to all Donations from pious

Persons, or a new Law was made at this Time excluding the Ecclesiastics

from all such Donations, as plainly appears from _Jerom_ and _Ambrose_,

of whom the former, in one of his Letters, writes thus: [Sidenote: _The

Sentiments of St._ Jerom _and_ Ambrose _concerning this Law_.] _I am

ashamed to say it, the Priests of the Idols, the Stage-players,

Charioteers, Whores, are capable of inheriting Estates, and receiving

Legacies; from this common Privilege, Clerks alone, and Monks, are

debarred by Law; debarred, not under persecuting Tyrants, but Christian

Princes_[1022]. And _Ambrose_; _We are excluded by Laws, lately enacted,

from all Inheritances, Donations, and Legacies; yet we do not complain:

And why should we? By such Laws we only lose Wealth; and the Loss of

Wealth is no Loss to us. Estates are lawfully bequeathed to the

Ministers of the Heathen Temples; no Layman is excluded, let his

Condition be ever so low, let his Life be ever so scandalous: Clerks

alone are debarred of a Right common to the rest of Mankind. Let a

Christian Widow bequeath her whole Estate to a Pagan Priest, her Will is

good in Law; let her bequeath the least Share of it to a Minister of

God, her Will is null. I do not mention these Things by way of

Complaint, but only to let the World know, that I do not complain; for I

had rather we should want Money, than Virtue or Grace_[1023]. From these

Testimonies it is manifest, that either by the above-mentioned Law, or

by some other published at this Time, the Ecclesiastics were restrained

from receiving any Donations or Legacies whatever, by whomsoever

bequeathed: and that such a Law was absolutely necessary, is no less

manifest from the unquestionable Authority of _Jerom_, who lived at this

very Time in _Rome_, and describes, as an Eye-witness, the Arts that

were practised with great Success, by the _Roman_ Clergy, to circumvent

rich Widows, and old Men. _The Clerks_, says he, _who ought to instruct

and awe the Women with a grave and composed Behaviour, first kiss their

Heads, and then, stretching out their Hand, as it were to bestow a

Blessing, slily receive a Fee for their Salutation. The Women in the

mean time, elated with Pride in seeing themselves thus courted by the

Clergy, prefer the Freedom of Widowhood to the Subjection attending the

State of Matrimony. Some of the Clergy make it the whole Business and

Employment of their Lives to learn the Names of the Ladies, to find out

their Habitations, to study their Humour. One of these_ (perhaps

_Antimus_ or _Sophronius_, two Monkish Harpyes, of whom he speaks

elsewhere), _an Adept in the Art, rises with the Sun, settles the Order

of his Visits, acquaints himself with the shortest Ways, and almost

breaks into the Rooms of the Women before they are awake. If he sees any

curious Piece of Houshold Furniture, he extols, admires, and handles it;

and, sighing that he too should stand in need of such Trifles, in the

End, rather extorts it by Force, than obtains it by Goodwill, the Ladies

being afraid to disoblige the prating old Fellow, that is always running

about from House to House[1024]._ The same Writer, speaking elsewhere of

the Monks, displays the Arts which they practised to deceive, captivate,

and plunder, the rich Widows, and old Men; and adds, that, by professing

Poverty, they were become rich, and that the Church grieved to see many

acquire great Wealth by serving her, who had been Beggars, while they

lived in the World[1025]. So that the Monastic Profession was in those

early Times what it is now, a gainful Trade, under the Mask of Religion.

As for the mean, nay, and nauseous Offices, to which they were prompted

by their Avarice, and the greedy Expectation of Legacies, to submit,

about the childless old Men and Women in their Sickness, it would be

forgetting the Dignity of an Historian to mention them. The Reader will

find them described by _Jerom_, and perhaps too minutely, in the Letter

he writ to his Friend _Nepotian_[1026]. In the same Letter he informs

us, how the Wealth thus acquired was disposed of. _I_, says he, applying

to himself what he levelled at others, to render the Truth he spoke less

disagreeable; _I, who was born in a poor Country Cottage, who had scarce

Millet enough, and coarse Bread, to satiate my craving Stomach, now

despise the finest Flour, the choicest Honey, am well acquainted with

the different Kinds and Names of Fishes, and can tell by the Taste from

what Coast each Shell-fish was brought, from what Province each

Bird[1027]._ A Law was therefore necessary to restrain the insatiable

Avarice of the _Roman_ Clergy, and obviate the unhallowed Use they made

of the Wealth, which by such scandalous Means they had acquired. This

Law _Jerom_ calls a Caustic; and adds, that he does not complain of it,

but of the Sore that required it[1028]. However, that he complains, and

_Ambrose_ too, not only of the Sore, but the Caustic, is manifest from

their Words, and Manner of writing. To exaggerate the pretended

Hardship, they both observe, that the Pagan Priests lay under no such

Restraints: An unseasonable Observation! Since it shews the Difference

between the Pagan and Christian Priesthood in a mortifying Light. The

former gave no Occasion to such a Law, their Avarice wanted no such

Restraints; if it had, we may be sure they had met with no Quarter from

a Christian, nay, from an Orthodox Prince; and if he had spared them,

such Partiality had not been tamely put up, and passed over in Silence,

by the Ecclesiastical Writers of those Times, namely, by the Two I have

mentioned.

[Sidenote: _That Law probably not procured by_ Damasus.]

_Baronius_ is of Opinion, that the above-mentioned Law was procured by

_Damasus_, who, finding his Clergy no longer awed by the Spiritual

Sword, had recourse to the Temporal: for the Temporal, adds he, though

in the Emperor’s Hands, was given by our Saviour to St. _Peter_ and his

Successors, as well as the Spiritual[1029]. Thus he puts at once both

Swords into the Popes Hands, though he has not yet been able to allege

one single Instance of their having either. They got both, 'tis true, in

After-ages; and we shall see, in the Sequel of this History, how they

came by them. But that Law, says _Baronius_, was read in all the

Churches of _Rome_. And so have others been, when they concerned the

Clergy, and were addressed to, though not procured by, the Bishop of

that City[1030]. Besides, as _Damasus_ loved Pomp and Grandeur, it is

not at all probable, that he was instrumental in the enacting of a Law,

which deprived him of the main Fund to support them, the Generosity of

the _Roman_ Ladies.

[Sidenote: _It is extended to sacred Virgins, and to Bishops._]

Two Years after, that is, in 372. the Law I have mentioned above was

extended by the same Prince, _viz._ _Valentinian_, to the sacred Virgins

and Bishops, so as to exclude the former from the Right of giving, and

the latter from that of receiving, any thing whatsoever by way of

Donation, Legacy, _&c[1031]._ But this Law, with another still more

severe, published Twenty Years afterwards by the Emperor _Theodosius_,

was abrogated by the Emperor _Marcian_ in the Year 455. as I shall have

Occasion to relate hereafter. [Sidenote: _The primitive Rigour and

Discipline utterly neglected at_ Rome.] In the mean time I cannot help

observing with Astonishment, how early the primitive Rigour of

Discipline and Manners was utterly neglected and forgotten by the

Ecclesiastics of _Rome_; how early the most exorbitant Luxury, with all

the Vices attending it, was introduced among them, and the most

scandalous and unchristian Arts of acquiring Wealth universally

practised. They seem to have rivalled, in riotous living, the greatest

Epicures of Pagan _Rome_, when Luxury was there at the highest Pitch.

For _Jerom_, who was an Eye-witness of what he writ, reproaches the

_Roman_ Clergy with the same Excesses, which the Poet _Juvenal_ so

severely censured in the _Roman_ Nobility, under the Reign of

_Domitian_. And how much more worthy were the former of the severest

Censure, not only in regard of their Calling, and the Religion they

professed, teaching them to curb and subdue all irregular Passions and

Appetites, but from this aggravating Circumstance, that the Estates they

so squandered and wasted were not their own, but the Patrimony of the

Poor, the Substance of the Orphans, Widows, and unhappy Persons, whom,

under the Cloke of Religion, they robbed of their just Inheritance! And

herein they conformed to the Example of their Chief, who, finding an

inexhaustible Fund in the Generosity of the _Roman_ Ladies to support

his Extravagance, lived in that Pomp and Grandeur which _Ammianus_ has

described above.

[Sidenote: _The Orthodox persecuted in the East._]

But he was roused from the easy and indolent Life he led at _ Rome_, by

Letters from the famous _Basil_, lately raised to the See of _Cæsarea_

in _Cappadocia_, the Metropolis of _Pontus_, imploring his Assistance,

and that of the other Western Bishops, in the present unhappy Condition

of the Churches in the East. _Arianism_ was almost utterly extirpated in

the West under the Orthodox Emperor _Valentinian_, as I have observed

above; but in the East it triumphed under his Brother _Valens_, a most

zealous Favourer of the _Arians_, a most implacable Enemy to the

Orthodox, who were by him every-where driven from their Sees, and sent

into Exile: nay, he gave full Power to the _Arian_ Bishops and

Magistrates to imprison, fine, beat, rack, and banish, at Pleasure, such

of the Orthodox Clergy as they could not win over by more gentle

Methods. This Power they used so tyrannically, especially at

_Constantinople_, that the Clergy of that City resolved to apply to

_Valens_ himself for Relief, not doubting but the Miseries they groaned

under might, if duly represented, even move him to Compassion.

Accordingly they appointed Eighty of their Body, all Men of unblemished

Characters, and known Piety, to repair to _Nicomedia_, where that Prince

then was, and lay their Grievances before him. Upon their Arrival at

Court, they were introduced to the Emperor, who heard them with great

Attention, without shewing the least Emotion either of Resentment or

Compassion. However, as, upon his dismissing them, he immediately sent

for _Modestus_ the _Præfectus Prætorio_, they concluded that he had

given Ear to their just Complaints, and began to expect a speedy Redress

of their Grievances. [Sidenote: _Inhumanly treated by the

Emperor_Valens.] But the Charge he gave him, very different from what

they expected, was to dispatch them all without Mercy or Delay. The

Prefect, apprehending the Death of so many eminent Ecclesiastics might

occasion a Tumult in the City, gave out that the Emperor had ordered

them into Exile; and accordingly caused them to be put on board a

Vessel, in order to be conveyed, as he pretended, to the Place of their

Banishment. But the Vessel was no sooner out of Sight, than the

Mariners, pursuant to their private Instructions, set Fire to it, and,

betaking themselves to their Boat, left those they had on board to the

Mercy of the Flames and Waves[1032].

[Sidenote: _The Orthodox divided among themselves._]

But _Athanasius_, _Basil_, and the other Champions of the Orthodox

Party, were not so much alarmed at the cruel Persecution raised against

them by their Enemies, as at the unhappy Divisions that reigned at this

very time among themselves. It was to procure a Remedy for these

Divisions, to heal a dangerous Schism, that rent the Orthodox Party into

two opposite Factions, that _Basil_, by the Advice of _Athanasius_, writ

the above-mentioned Letter to _Damasus_, and that the Orthodox Bishops

of the East writ in common a Letter to all their Brethren in the West.

As this Schism did more Hurt to the Orthodox Cause than it was in the

Power of their Enemies to have done, I shall not think it foreign to my

Purpose to insert a succinct Account of its Rise and Progress.

[Sidenote: _What occasioned this Division._] _Eustathius_, the Orthodox

Bishop of _Antioch_, being deposed by the _Arians_ in 331. and one of

their own Party put in his room, the greater Part of the Clergy and

People of that City, acknowleging the new-chosen Bishop, and his _Arian_

Successors, assisted at their Assemblies, mixed with the _Arians_, and

received the Sacraments at their Hands, though they disagreed with them

in Belief. But some more zealous than the rest, refusing to own any

other Bishop so long as _Eustathius_ lived, held their Assemblies apart,

under the Direction of Presbyters animated with the like Zeal. These,

from their steady Attachment to _Eustathius_, were called _Eustathians_,

and with them alone _Athanasius_ communicated while he was at

_Antioch_[1033]. This Schism or Separation continued even after the

Death of _Eustathius_, those of his Party declining not only the

Communion of the _Arians_ and their Bishops, but of the Orthodox, who

communicated with them. In the Year 360. the See of _Antioch_ being

vacant, by the Translation of _Eudoxius_ the _Arian_ to that of

_Constantinople_, the _Arians_, and the Orthodox, who communicated with

them, chose with one Consent the famous _Meletius_ to succeed him. Both

Parties joyfully concurred in this Election; the Orthodox, because they

knew his Doctrine to be no less pure than his Manners; and the _Arians_,

because they hoped, by such a distinguishing Mark of their Friendship

and Esteem, to win him, and by his Means to gain over to their Party the

whole City of _Antioch_, nay, and the _Eustathians_ themselves[1034].

But they soon found, to their great Mortification, that the Orthodox

were better acquainted with _Meletius_ than they, that he was most

zealously attached to the Orthodox Party, and was not to be swayed by

Friendship or Enmity, by Hopes or Terrors. [Sidenote: Meletius _the

new Bishop of_ Antioch _declares in favour of the Orthodox_.] He was no

sooner installed, which Ceremony was performed with the greatest

Solemnity, than he loudly declared in favour of _Consubstantiality_, and

boldly cut off from his Communion, as rotten and incurable Members, all

who held the opposite Doctrine. The _Arians_ of _Antioch_ were

thunderstruck with the Boldness of the Attempt; the whole Party took the

Alarm; _Eudoxius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_, and the neighbouring

Bishops, forgetful of every thing else, hastened to _Antioch_; Hopes,

Fears, Prayers, Menaces, were successively employed, and nothing left

unattempted to divert, at least to allay, the impending Storm. But all

in vain; the Zeal of _Meletius_ was incapable of Controul: he openly

declared, that nothing should, nothing could, make him desist from, or

relent in, the Work he had undertaken, till he had utterly extirpated

the _Arian_ Heresy, without leaving the least Shoot of so poisonous a

Weed in the Field, which by Divine Appointment he was to guard and

cultivate[1035]. The _Arians_ finding him immovably fixed in his

Resolution, and, what doubled their Concern, the whole Party in imminent

Danger from one of their own chusing, they applied with better Success

to the Emperor _Constantius_; and, charging the new Bishop of _Antioch_

with _Sabellianism_, which Charge the credulous and unwary Prince

believed upon their Word, [Sidenote: _He is banished._] they extorted

from him a Rescript banishing _Meletius_ from _Antioch_ about Thirty

Days after his Installment, and confining him to _Melitene_ in

_Armenia_, his native City[1036]. _Euzoius_ was preferred in his room,

formerly the chief Favourite of _Arius_, and the most antient of all his

Disciples; for together with him he was condemned by the great Council

of _Nice_.

[Sidenote: _Great Divisions in that Church._]

The Orthodox, who had hitherto communicated with the _Arians_, were so

disobliged and scandalized at these Proceedings, that, in the End they

renounced the _Arian_ Communion; and, assembling by themselves, proposed

an Union with the _Eustathians_. But their Proposal was rejected by the

leading Men of that Party, alleging, that they could not admit them to

their Communion, because they had for so many Years communicated with

the _Arians_, received the Sacraments at their Hands, and still seemed

to acknowlege _Meletius_ as lawful Bishop, though he had been chosen by

the _Arian_ Faction: for the _Eustathians_, notwithstanding the heroic

Firmness of _Meletius_ in defending and promoting the common Cause,

refused to own him, for no other Reason but because the _Arians_ had had

a chief Share in his Election[1037]. As this Disagreement greatly

weakened the Orthodox Cause in _Antioch_, and might, in time, be

attended with fatal Consequences, no Pains were spared by the apostolic

Men of those Times, to induce the _Eustathians_ to abate somewhat of

their Zeal and Severity. As for the other Party, notwithstanding their

Attachment to _Meletius_, whence they had the Name of _Meletians_, they

were greatly inclined to an Accommodation, and seemed to court the

Communion of the _Eustathians_, almost upon any Terms. _Lucifer_, the

famous Bishop of _Cagliari_, on his Return from _Thebais_ in _Egypt_, to

which Place he had been confined by _Constantius_, was prompted by his

Zeal to take _Antioch_ in his Way, with a Design to mediate an

Accommodation between the dissenting Parties. Being arrived in that

City, he had several Conferences with the leading Men of the one and the

other Party; and, finding neither averse to an Accommodation, he

conceived great Hopes of succeeding in his Design; and therefore begged

the Fathers of the Council of _Alexandria_, which was already sitting,

and to which he had been invited by _Athanasius_, to dispense with his

assisting at that Assembly, since his Presence seemed more necessary at

_Antioch_. However, he appointed Two of his Deacons to be present as his

Deputies, injoining them to agree, in his Name, to the Decisions of the

Council[1038]. _Baronius_ owns here, which I cannot help observing by

the way, that _Lucifer_ never appeared in the Council of

_Alexandria_[1039]; forgetting, no doubt, what he elsewhere so

strenuously maintains[1040]; _viz._ that _Lucifer_ assisted at that

Assembly, in the Name of Pope _Liberius_, and as his Legate.

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Alexandria _strive to heal these

Divisions_.]

The Fathers of the Council not only approved of the Bishop of

_Cagliari_’s Resolution, but appointed _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, and

_Asterius_ of _Petra_ in _Arabia_, to assist him in so pious an

Undertaking. What seemed chiefly to obstruct the so much wished for

Union, was a great Attachment on one Side to _Meletius_, and an equal

Obstinacy on the other, in refusing to acknowlege one preferred by the

_Arians_. The Confessors therefore assembled in _Alexandria_ (for of

Confessors alone that Assembly was composed) were of Opinion, that, if

every other Remedy proved ineffectual, their Deputies should apply to

_Meletius_; and, having persuaded him to resign his Dignity, chuse

another in his room, equally acceptable to both Parties. They did not in

the least doubt but _Meletius_ would readily, nay, with great Joy,

sacrifice his Dignity, and every other private View, to the public

Tranquillity[1041]; so great was the Opinion they entertained of his

Virtue. Had this wise Resolution taken place, it had, in all Likelihood,

been attended with the desired Effect. [Sidenote: _All Means of

an Accommodation cut off by the imprudent Conduct of the Bishop of_

Cagliari.] But before the Deputies could reach _Antioch_, _Lucifer_,

more commendable for Zeal than Prudence, had cut off all means of an

Accommodation, by conferring, of his own Authority, the Episcopal

Dignity on the Presbyter _Paulinus_, who was at the Head of the

_Eustathians_, and had with more Warmth than any other opposed

_Meletius_, and those who adhered to him. He was assisted in that

irregular Ordination by Two other Confessors[1042]; _viz._ _Gorgonius_

of _Germanicia_, and _Cymatius_ of _Gabala_, or rather of

_Paltos_[1043]. This Step he took to oblige the _Eustathians_, when he

found that they could by no means be induced to acknowlege _Meletius_.

But, instead of closing, he thereby widened, the Breach, the _Meletians_

declaring, that they would never abandon a Bishop of their own Party, to

acknowlege one of another, chosen without their Consent, or even their

Knowlege[1044]. This unhappy Division, thus settled and confirmed

between the Two Orthodox Parties in _Antioch_, did not continue long

confined to that particular Church, but soon extended to the Church

universal; some owning _Meletius_ for lawful Bishop of _Antioch_, and

others _Paulinus_. _Athanasius_ communicated with _Paulinus_, and not

with _Meletius_; and his Example was followed by the Bishops of _Egypt_,

of _Cyprus_, and all the Bishops in the West[1045]. On the other hand,

all the Orthodox Bishops in the East, except _Athanasius_, and those I

have mentioned, espoused, with great Warmth, the Cause of

_Meletius_[1046]. They all continued, however, notwithstanding this

Disagreement, to communicate with each other, though with some

Indifference and Coldness. The Ordination of _Paulinus_ gave Rise to

another Schism; for _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, finding, on his Arrival at

_Antioch_, all Hopes of an Accommodation cut off, and no room left for

the Measures concerted and agreed to by the Council, immediately quitted

the City, without communicating with either Party. This was condemning

the Conduct of _Lucifer_; which he could not brook; and therefore, full

of Resentment, he renounced the Communion of _Eusebius_, with whom he

had hitherto lived in the greatest Intimacy, and suffered together with

him a most painful Exile for the common Cause[1047].

[Sidenote: _St._ Basil _Bishop of_ Cæsarea _applies to_ Damasus.]

_Basil_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_, one of the great Lights of

the Church, left nothing unattempted, which he apprehended could

any-ways contribute to the reuniting of the Orthodox among themselves,

and putting an End to the present Schism. But, despairing at last of

Success, and finding the Prelates in the East all warmly engaged in the

Dispute, some in favour of _Meletius_, and some of _Paulinus_, he

resolved to apply to the Bishop of _Rome_, who had not yet declared for

either of the Competitors, his Thoughts being wholly employed in

securing his Dignity against a Competitor at Home. He writ therefore to

_Damasus_, intreating him to dispatch Deputies into the East, who, in

Concert with the Prelates there, inclined to an Accommodation, might

settle the proper Means of accomplishing so desirable a Work, and

uniting in Charity those, who were already united in Faith. He added,

that it was from his Zeal alone they expected Relief, from that Zeal

which he had made so eminently appear on other Occasions; that

_Dionysius_, one of his Predecessors, had afforded them a seasonable

Assistance, when their Wants were less pressing, and their Condition not

so deplorable; and therefore that there was no room left to doubt of his

readily conforming to so glorious an Example[1048]. With this Letter,

and another from the Bishops in the East, soliciting the Advice,

Assistance, and Mediation of their Collegues in the West, _Dorotheus_,

Deacon of the Church of _Antioch_, was dispatched into _Italy_: whence

he returned in the Beginning of the following Year 372. with an Answer

from the Bishops of _Illyricum_, _Italy_, and _Gaul_[1049]. [Sidenote:

_The haughty Conduct of_ Damasus _resented by St._ Basil.] But _Damasus_

did not condescend to return an Answer to _Basil_, or take the least

Notice of his Letter; which haughty Conduct he justly resented, and in

pretty sharp Terms, taxing _Damasus_, in one of his Letters[1050], with

a Spirit of Pride and Vanity, which made him overlook other Bishops as

below his Attention, and expect to be accosted by them with the meanest

Flattery. But his thus disregarding the Request and Intreaties of the

Bishop of _Cæsarea_, was not owing to his Pride alone. He was so little

acquainted with the State of the Churches in the East, and what passed

there, that he looked upon _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Samosata_, and

_Meletius_, with whom _Basil_ lived in great Intimacy, as rank _Arians_,

tho’ they both lived at that very time in Exile, having been driven from

their Sees by the _Arians_, on account of the Zeal, which they had, with

an invincible Firmness, exerted in Defence of the Orthodox Faith[1051].

The Bishop of _Rome_ might, with very little Trouble, have been better

informed; but his Mind, it seems, was so deeply engaged in worldly

Affairs, and his Thoughts so taken up with State, Pomp, and Grandeur,

that he was never at Leisure to mind those Matters, which justly

claimed, and ought to have engrossed, his whole Attention. By him the

Western Bishops were led into the same Mistake concerning _Eusebius_ and

_Meletius_; and hence the Backwardness they shewed to correspond with

_Basil_, as if he designed to impose upon them, or was himself imposed

upon by others. [Sidenote: _St._ Basil _complains of_ Damasus, _and

the Western Bishops_.] Of this _Basil_ justly complained in a Letter he

writ to _Eusebius_ of _Samosata_. _If the Wrath of God_, says he, _is in

the End appeased, if Mercy takes place, what other Help do we stand in

need of? But, if his Anger continues, what Relief will the Pride of the

West afford us? They neither know the Truth, nor can they patiently bear

it. They are ever prepossessed with idle Jealousies, ever swayed by

groundless Surmises; and therefore act now the same Part they lately

acted in the Case of_ Marcellinus; _that is, they quarrel with those,

who inform them of the Truth, and, being left to themselves, they

introduce and establish Heresies. As for my own Part, I had once some

Thoughts of writing a private Letter to their Chief_ (that is, to

_Damasus_), _and, waving all Mention of Church Affairs, only tell him,

that they_ _neither know what passes here, nor take the right Method to

be informed; and that they ought not to oppress those who are already

humbled by Affliction, nor mistake Pride for Dignity, since that Sin

alone is capable of Setting a Man at Enmity with God_[1052]. From these

Words it is pretty plain, that the Notion of the Pope’s Infallibility

was not yet broached, or at least was not yet known to _Basil_. The

Bishop of the Metropolis of the Empire was deservedly looked upon, in

regard of the Dignity of his See, as the Chief and Head of all the

Western Bishops; and to him as such, not as an infallible and unerring

Judge, the Eastern Bishops frequently applied in the Disputes, that

happened to rise among them; so that all we can infer from their

applying to him is, that his Authority bore a great Sway; which was

owing to the Pre-eminence of his See, and not to any Power or

Prerogative peculiar to him, and superior to others.

[Sidenote: Damasus _takes on him the Office of Judge, being only

chosen Mediator_.]

It was long ere _Damasus_ could be brought to give any Attention to the

Affairs of the East; and when he did, it was only to add Fewel to the

Fire, which had lately begun to rage with great Violence. For, looking

upon the Office of a bare Mediator, which alone had been offered him, as

no-ways suitable to his Dignity, he arrogantly assumed that of a Judge,

and not only acknowleged _Paulinus_ for lawful Bishop of _Antioch_, but,

misled by false and groundless Reports, declared _Meletius_ a

Transgressor of the Canons, an Intruder, a Schismatic, and even an

Heretic[1053]; that _Meletius_, who had suffered Exile, and innumerable

Hardships, in Defence of the Orthodox Faith, who was then revered all

over the East, as a Man of extraordinary Sanctity, and is now honoured

by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint of the first Class. [Sidenote: _His

Conduct condemned by St._ Basil.] But his thus openly declaring in

favour of _Paulinus_, his treating in such a base and unworthy manner

one of the most eminent Prelates in the East, served only to engage the

Followers of _Meletius_ more warmly in his Cause; and the great _Basil_,

among the rest, who could not help censuring the Conduct of _Damasus_ as

rash, partial, and injudicious: he even repented his having ever applied

to him; for, in one of his Letters to _Eusebius_ of _Samosata_, he

expresses himself thus: _The Saying of_ Diomedes _occurs to my Mind_;

Intreaties are not to be used with _Achilles_, he is too haughty[1054];

_and truly the more you flatter haughty and insolent Men, the more

haughty and insolent they become_[1055]. As no Regard was had to the

Authority of _Damasus_, and the Western Bishops, who, following his

Example, acknowleged _Paulinus_, and not _Meletius_, the Orthodox

Bishops in the East not only continued divided among themselves, but a

new Division arose between the Western Bishops, and those of the Party

of _Meletius_, at the Head of which was _Basil_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_.

But, of these unhappy Divisions, so far as the Bishops of _Rome_ were

concerned in them, we shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.

[Sidenote: _New Disturbances raised in_ Rome, _by the Partisans

of_ Ursinus;]

_Damasus_ was far more successful in suppressing the Schism of

_Ursinus_, which about this time was revived at _Rome_. The Emperor

_Valentinian_, some time before, by a Rescript addressed to _Ampelius_

Governor, and _Maximinus_ Vicar of _Rome_, had allowed _Ursinus_, and

the leading Men of his Party, who had been confined with him to _Gaul_,

Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out of _Rome_,

and the Suburbicarian Provinces[1056]. This Indulgence shewn by the

Emperor to _Ursinus_, encouraged his Followers in _Rome_ to declare

openly in his Favour, and even to assemble apart from those who

communicated with _Damasus_. But, being therein opposed by the Party of

_Damasus_ with their usual Violence, new Disturbances arose, and the

City was upon the point of becoming again the Scene of a Civil War.

[Sidenote: _who are banished._] _Simplicius_, then Vicar of _Rome_, at

the Request of _Damasus_, gave the Emperor immediate Notice of the

approaching Danger; and the Emperor, in Answer to his Letter, sent him a

Rescript, commanding _all those who, in Contempt of Religion, held or

frequented unlawful Assemblies, to be banished an Hundred Miles from_

Rome, _that their Obstinacy might hurt none but themselves_[1057]. Thus

for the present a Stop was put to the Disorders that had begun to reign

in the City.

[Sidenote: _The_ Luciferians_ persecuted by_ Damasus.]

The two Presbyters _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_ pretend, that this Law

was levelled at the _Ursinians_ alone, but was interpreted by _Damasus_,

as comprehending the _Luciferians_, or the Followers of _Lucifer_ Bishop

of _Cagliari_, who, refusing to communicate with the Bishops who signed

the Confession of _Rimini_, and with all who communicated with them, had

separate Assemblies at _Rome_, and even a Bishop of their own, named

_Aurelius_. But _Damasus_, say they, using them, in virtue of the

above-mentioned Law, with no less Cruelty than he did the _Ursinians_,

they thenceforth assembled only in the Night, under a Presbyter, named

_Macarius_, of whose Sanity and Austerities they relate wonderful

Things. But Night and Darkness could not protect them against the

persecuting Spirit of _Damasus_, whose Clerks, breaking one Night in

upon them, while they were performing Divine Service in a private House,

dispersed the Congregation, seized _Macarius_, and dragging him along

with them over the sharp Flints, by which he was cruelly bruised, and

dangerously wounded in the Thigh, they kept him the remaining Part of

the Night closely confined. Next Morning he was carried before the

Judge, who, finding him inflexible in rejecting the Communion of

_Damasus_, condemned him to Exile; but the holy Presbyter, being arrived

at _Ostia_, died there of his Wounds[1058]. The same Authors add, that

_Damasus_ caused several Catholic Presbyters to be sent into Exile, and

some Laymen; but that _Aurelius_, the _Luciferian_ Bishop, in spite of

all his Efforts, continued in _Rome_ to the Hour of his Death[1059].

[Sidenote: Apollinaris _the Heresiarch. An Account of him._]

About this Time, that is, in the Year 377. a great Council was held at

_Rome_, in which the famous _Apollinaris_, Bishop of _Laodicea_ in

_Syria_, was condemned and deposed with his Two Disciples _Vitalis_ and

_Timotheus_. _Apollinaris_ was a Man of uncommon Parts, great

Penetration, universal Knowlege; and had at first been so zealous a

Defender of the Orthodox Faith, that he was looked upon by all,

particularly by _Epiphanius_ and _Athanasius_, as one of the great

Champions of that Cause[1060], and ranked by _Philostorgius_ with

_Basil_, and _Gregory Nazianzen_[1061]. He contracted a strict

Friendship with _Athanasius_, when that Prelate passed through

_Laodicea_ in 349. on his Return to _Egypt_, and ever after maintained a

close Correspondence with him, on which Account he was excommunicated by

_Gregory_ the _Arian_ Bishop of that City[1062]. When the _Arians_ began

to prevail in the East, _Apollinaris_ was cruelly persecuted by the Men

in Power of that Party, and at last driven into Exile[1063]. _Basil_

writ several Letters to him, and in those he writ to others, often

mentions him as a Person for whom he had the greatest Esteem[1064]. He

is said to have excelled in the Knowlege of the Scriptures, which he

publicly interpreted at _Antioch_, where he had _Jerom_ among the many

Disciples, who flocked from all Parts to hear him[1065]. But he was

equally versed in human Learning, especially in Poetry; and his Knowlege

in that Branch of Literature proved very useful in the Time of the

Emperor _Julian_. For that Prince having by a Law debarred the

Christians from perusing or studying the Pagan Authors, _Apollinaris_,

to supply the want of those Writers, composed several Pieces in

Imitation of them, and, among the rest, a Poem comprising the History of

the _Jews_ to the Time of _Saul_, and divided into Twenty-four Books,

which he distinguished by so many Letters of the _Greek_ Alphabet, as

_Homer_ had done[1066]. He likewise writ Comedies, Tragedies, Lyric

Verses, _&c._ imitating _Pindar_ in the latter, and _Menander_ and

_Euripides_ in the Two former[1067]. _Sozomen_ thinks his Compositions

fell in no respect short of the Works of the Antients; who, upon the

Whole, says he, were far inferior to him, since they excelled, each in

one Kind only, but he equally in all[1068]. The Tragedy, intituled,

_Christ suffering_, which is to be found among the Works of _Gregory

Nazianzen_, is by some ascribed to _Apollinaris_; but that Piece does

not at all answer the great Opinion _Sozomen_ seems to have entertained

of him. His Paraphrase in Hexameter Verse on the Psalms, the only intire

Work of his that has reached our Times, is an elegant, exact, and

sublime Translation of them, greatly commended and admired by the best

Judges[1069]. His Poetry proved very serviceable to him, when he began

to broach his Heresy; for great Numbers of People, especially Women,

embraced his Doctrine, being taken, and in a manner inchanted, with the

Sweetness of his Verses; for he composed a great many Songs and Odes

equally pious and elegant, adapted to all Occasions, and on all

Occasions sung with suitable Airs by his Followers[1070]. To these

_Gregory Nazianzen_ no doubt alludes, where he speaks of the Psalms of

the _Apollinarists_, to which the Psalms of _David_ had given place; of

those sweet and so much admired Verses, which were looked upon by them

as a Third Testament[1071]. It was chiefly to oppose the Progress

_Apollinaris_ made, by the insinuating Means of his Poetry, that

_Gregory Nazianzen_ applied himself to the same Study. About the Year

362. _Apollinaris_ was raised, in Consideration of his great Piety and

Learning, to the See of _Laodicea_ in _Syria_, in which City he was

born, according to the most probable Opinion, and had spent the greater

Part of his Life.

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine held by_ Apollinaris, _and his Disciples_.]

As for the Doctrine held by _Apollinaris_, and his Followers, called

from him _Apollinarists_; they maintained at first, that _Christ_ had

human Flesh, but not a human Soul, the Want of which was supplied,

according to them, by the Divinity. But being afterwards convinced, that

such a Doctrine was repugnant to several plain and express Passages of

Scripture, they abandoned it in Part, and, distinguishing, with some

Philosophers, the Soul, by which we live, from the Intelligence, by

which we reason, they allowed the former in our _Saviour_, but denied

the latter; the Operations of which, said they, were performed by the

Divinity[1072]. Thus they allowed him, says St. _Austin_, the Soul of a

Beast, but denied him that of a Man[1073]. By means of this Doctrine

they avoided the Absurdity with which they reproached the Catholics,

admitting in Christ, as they falsly imagined, Two opposite and distinct

Natures, without any Union or Subordination between them[1074]. The

Catholics indeed acknowleged Two distinct and complete Natures in

Christ; but at the same time maintained an Union between them, such an

Union as was admitted by the _Apollinarists_ between the Flesh and the

Divinity. The latter upbraided the Catholics with adoring a Man, styling

them _Anthropolaters_; and the Catholics reproached in their Turn

the _Apollinarists_ with adoring the Flesh, calling them

_Sarcolaters_[1075]. The _Apollinarists_ distinguished themselves from

the Catholics, by causing the following Words to be fixed on the Front

of their Houses; _We must not adore a Man that bears a God, but a God

that bears Flesh_. The Errors of the _Apollinarists_ were not only

concerning the Soul, but likewise the Body of our Saviour; for they

maintained, that his Body, like other Bodies only in Appearance, was

coeval with the Divinity, and of the same Substance with the eternal

Wisdom[1076]. Hence it followed, by a natural Consequence, that the Body

of our Saviour was impassible and immortal; that it was not taken of the

Virgin _Mary_; that he was not born of her; that his Birth, Passion,

Death, and Resurrection, were mere Illusions; or else, that the Divine

Nature was passible: both which Absurdities were admitted by some of the

Sects into which the _Apollinarists_ were afterwards divided[1077].

[Sidenote: Apollinaris _not known nor suspected to be the Author of

the Heresy he broached_.]

This Doctrine was first heard of in 362. and condemned the same Year in

the Council of _Alexandria_. In 373. it began to make a great Noise in

the Church; but it was not known even then by whom it had been broached:

for _Apollinaris_ was so far from owning himself the Author of those

Tenets, that, in one of his Letters to _Serapion_ Bishop of _Thmuis_ in

_Egypt_, which is still extant[1078], he expresses, in the strongest

Terms, his Approbation of a Letter from _Athanasius_ to _Epictetus_

Bishop of _Corinth_, confuting the very Errors he held; and at the same

time condemns the Folly of those, who maintained the Flesh to be

consubstantial to the Divine Nature. In another Letter to the same

_Serapion_, he owns the Body of our Saviour to have been taken of the

Virgin _Mary_, to have been formed in her Womb, and his Flesh to have

been of the same Substance with ours; adding, _And these are Truths not

to be called in question_[1079]. In a Third Letter he assures

_Serapion_, that he has ever denied in his Writings the Flesh of our

Saviour to have descended from Heaven, or to be of the same Substance

with the Divinity[1080]. _Apollinaris_, by thus publicly declaring

against the Doctrine, which at the same time he was privately

propagating, eluded the Vigilance of _Athanasius_ himself, who, in

confuting his Errors, never mentions his Name, nor seems to have

entertained the least Suspicion of him; nay, he recommended _Timotheus_,

a favourite Disciple of his, to _Damasus_, as a Person whose Orthodoxy

was not to be questioned; and as such he was received, not only by the

Bishop of _Rome_, but by all the Western Bishops, of whom he obtained

Letters, on his Return, directed to _Apollinaris_, as to a Bishop of the

Catholic Communion[1081].

[Sidenote: _His Errors condemned in a Council at_ Rome.]

In the Year 374. or 375. _Damasus_ convened a great Council at _Rome_,

in which the Errors of _Apollinaris_ were condemned; but neither was he

nor any other named as the Broacher or Author of that Doctrine.

[Sidenote: Damasus _imposed upon by_ Vitalis _one of his Disciples_.]

The very Year that _Damasus_ condemned the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_, he

was deceived and over-reached by one of the Disciples of that

Heresiarch, named _Vitalis_. He was a Presbyter of the Church of

_Antioch_, and of the Communion of _Meletius_, by whom he had been

ordained; but afterwards, renouncing his Communion, he joined

_Apollinaris_, and, being in high Esteem with the People, drew great

Numbers over with him to that Side. Of these, called from him

_Vitalians_, _Apollinaris_ some Years after appointed him Bishop, adding

thereby a Fourth Party to the Three that already divided the Church of

_Antioch_, _viz._ the _Arians_, _Paulinians_, and _Meletians_[1082].

Before he threw off the Mask, and publicly maintained the Tenets of

_Apollinaris_, he strove to be admitted with his Followers to the

Communion of _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, and of _Damasus_; and with this

View he undertook a Journey to _Rome_ in the Year 375. As he had been

suspected, and even accused, of holding the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_,

_Damasus_ required of him, before he admitted him to his Communion, a

Confession of his Faith, which he gave under his Hand, but in such Terms

as bore a double Meaning. _Damasus_, however, well satisfied with it,

gave him a Letter for _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, and sent him back to be

admitted by that Bishop to the Communion of the Church[1083]. But

_Damasus_ soon after, either upon his own Reflection, or at the

Suggestion of others, apprehending himself imposed upon, writ another

Letter to _Paulinus_, by the Presbyter _Petronius_, and afterwards a

Third, which _Holstenius_ has inserted at Length in his _Roman

Collection_[1084]. Together with this Letter _Damasus_ sent to

_Paulinus_ a Confession of Faith, drawn up by a Council summoned for

that Purpose, desiring him to admit none to his Communion, but such as

should sign that Confession, and the Confession of _Nice_[1085]. To this

Piece the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_ no doubt allude, in

commending _Damasus_ for pointing out, in his Letters to _Paulinus_, the

Rules all Catholics ought to be guided by in reasoning of the Mystery of

the Incarnation[1086]. What _Baronius_ observes here is true, _viz._

that _Vitalis_, by the same ambiguous Confession of Faith, imposed upon

_Gregory Nazianzen_, who received the _Apollinarists_ as Brethren, and

not as Enemies[1087]. He adds, _And no Wonder that_ Vitalis _imposed

upon_ Damasus, _since by the same Confession he imposed upon_ Gregory

Nazianzen: he ought rather to have said, _No Wonder that he imposed

upon_ Gregory, _who did not pretend to Infallibility, since he imposed

upon_ Damasus, _who was infallible_. As _Vitalis_ refused to sign the

Confession sent by _Damasus_, _Paulinus_ would not admit him to his

Communion; upon which he pulled off the Mask, publicly renounced the

Communion both of _Damasus_ and _Paulinus_, and, bidding Defiance to the

Canons, accepted the Title and Dignity of Bishop of _Antioch_, offered

him by _Apollinaris_. [Sidenote: Apollinaris _openly declares against

the Church._] At the same time that Heresiarch, finding he could conceal

himself no longer, openly declared, that he would communicate with none

who held, that our Saviour had taken a human Soul, and human

Understanding: which was separating himself from the Communion of the

Catholic Church[1088]. It was long before it was believed in the Church

that those Tenets had been broached, or were held, by _Apollinaris_: no

Credit was given, at first, even to his Disciples, most People being

inclined to think, that they were mistaken, and did not comprehend the

sublime Thoughts of that great Man[1089]. But when no room was left for

any further Doubt, the Surprize and Concern of the whole Catholic Party

were equal to the high Opinion they had entertained of him till that

Time[1090]. When _Epiphanius_ writ against the _Apollinarists_, he well

knew _Apollinaris_ to be the Author of that Sect; for he reproaches him

with this unwarrantable Separation from the Church; and yet he speaks of

him with the greatest Respect; seems to think, that many Things had been

unjustly fathered upon him; and takes a great deal of Pains to assure

his Reader, that what he writes is Truth, and not Calumny proceeding

from any private Pique, Malice, or Grudge[1091].

[Sidenote: _A great Schism in the Church._]

The Schism, which the establishing of a new Bishop occasioned in the

Church of _Antioch_, was not confined to that alone, but extended to

most other Churches, over which _Apollinaris_ appointed Bishops of his

own Sect, who held separate Assemblies, practised different Rites, and,

instead of the sacred Hymns commonly sung at Divine Service by the rest

of the Church, introduced Canticles composed by their Leader, and

containing the Substance of his Doctrine[1092]. The many perplexed

Questions and Difficulties, which he and his Emissaries were daily

starting about the Incarnation, bred such Confusion in the Minds of Men,

that many began to question the Truth of that Mystery[1093]. The

Objections they moved against our Saviour’s taking Flesh, and being born

of the Virgin _Mary_, seemed calculated merely to raise improper Ideas,

and sully the Thoughts of chaste Minds; for they themselves held his

Body to be coeval with the Divinity, and to have only been conveyed into

the World by means of the Virgin _Mary_[1094]. Their Doctrine was

applauded and received by many, and few who read their Books were

content with, or kept to the plain and antient Doctrine of the

Church[1095]. [Sidenote: Basil _recurs to the Western Bishops_;] _Basil_

therefore, and the other orthodox Bishops in the East, to put a Stop the

more effectually to the growing Evil, not only declaimed against it in

all their Writings, but dispatched the Two Presbyters _Dorotheus_ and

_Sanctissimus_ with Letters to _Damasus_, and the other Western Bishops,

intreating them to condemn without Delay the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_,

and _Apollinaris_ himself, since he had at last openly declared against

the Church, and owned himself the Author of the new Sect[1096].

[Sidenote: _who condemn the Doctrine of_ Apollinaris, _and depose him

with_ Vitelis _and_ Timotheus.] In Compliance with this Request, a great

Council was convened at _Rome_ the following Year 378. in which

_Apollinaris_ was not only condemned with great Solemnity, but deposed,

with his Two favourite Disciples, _Vitalis_ and _Timotheus_; the former

Bishop of the _Apollinarists_ at _Antioch_, and the latter at _Berytus_

in _Phœnicia_[1097]. By the same Council it was defined, that _Jesus_

was true Man, and true God; and whoever maintained or asserted any thing

to be wanting either to his Humanity or Divinity, was declared an Enemy

to the Church[1098]. _Vitalis_ had deceived _Damasus_, as I have

observed above, by a Confession of Faith, in which, under equivocal

Terms, he had artfully concealed his Heresy. The Bishop of _Rome_

therefore, now undeceived, caused the Confession he had formerly

approved of to be anathematized by the Council, together with its

Author, exerting himself, says _Gregory Nazianzen_, with so much the

more Vigour against them, as they had formerly taken Advantage of his

Candour and Sincerity to impose upon him[1099]. _Gregory Nazianzen_

therefore supposes, that the Pope could be imposed upon in a Matter

concerning the Faith. Indeed the Sticklers for Infallibility must either

give up that Prerogative, or allow all the Fathers to have talked

Nonsense.

[Sidenote: _A Mistake of_ Baronius.]

_Baronius_ is certainly mistaken, and so was _Ruffinus_[1100], whom he

follows, in asserting the Heresy of _Apollinaris_ to have been first

condemned by the Council of _Rome_, since it is manifest, that the

Doctrine of that Heresiarch had been condemned long before by

_Athanasius_, _Basil_, and _Epiphanius_, in their Writings, and by the

Council held at _Alexandria_ in 362. But _Ruffinus_ probably meant no

more, than that those Errors were first condemned by the Council of

_Rome_, under the Name, and together with the Person, of _Apollinaris_;

which is undeniable. [Sidenote: _Another Mistake of the same Writer._] I

cannot help observing here another Mistake of _Baronius_, pretending

that _Damasus_ (for whatever was done by the Council is by him ascribed

to _Damasus_ alone) in condemning _Apollinaris_ condemned all the Errors

he held; and consequently the Opinion of the _Millenarians_, holding

that _Christ_ was to return upon the Earth, and reign over the Faithful

a Thousand Years before the End of the World. [Sidenote: _The Doctrine

of the_ Millenarians _held by the greatest Men in the Church_.] This

Opinion was first broached about the Year 118. by _Papias_ Bishop of

_Hierapolis_, a Man of great Piety, honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as

a Saint[1101]. He declares, in the few Fragments of his Works, which

have been conveyed to us by _Eusebius_[1102], that, as he lived near the

Times of the Apostles, he made it his chief Business to learn of their

Disciples whatever they could recollect to have been done or said by

them, on different Occasions, that was not recorded in Holy Writ. Thus

he learned the above-mentioned Doctrine[1103], which, upon the Authority

of such a Tradition, countenanced by some Passages in the

_Revelations_[1104], and one Text in St. _Paul_, was embraced and held

by the most eminent Men for Piety and Learning, at that time, in the

Church; and, among the rest, by _Irenæus_, and _Justin_ the Martyr. And

yet such a Doctrine is now rank Heresy in the Church of _Rome_. But, by

declaring it such, have they not overset their own System, which places

Tradition upon a Level with the Canonical Books of the Scripture?

[Sidenote: _How little Tradition to be depended upon._] Can they allege

a more antient Tradition, one more universally received, or equally

countenanced by Scripture, in favour of the many traditional Articles of

Faith, which they have obtruded upon the World? _Papias_ declares, he

received the above-mentioned Doctrine of those who had learned it

immediately of the Apostles. If such a Tradition be rejected as false,

what other has a Right to be admitted as true? If we deny or question

St. _Peter_’s having been at _Rome_, Tradition, and the Authority of

_Irenæus_ (for all the others have copied from him), are immediately

produced against us. But what Weight either ought to bear, the Case

before us sufficiently demonstrates.

To return to _Apollinaris_: It is very certain, that he held and taught

the Doctrine of the _Millenarians_; but it is no less certain, that such

a Doctrine was not condemned, as _Baronius_ pretends[1105], by the

Council of _Rome_ in 378. since many eminent Men in the Church held it,

and _Sulpitius Severus_ among the rest, after that Council, without

being deemed Heretics on that score. [Sidenote: _The_ Apollinarists

_condemned by several Councils_.] The Sentence pronounced against

_Apollinaris_, and his Disciples, by the Council of _Rome_, was

confirmed by a Council held the same Year at _Alexandria_[1106], by an

Oecumenical Council assembled at _Constantinople_ in 381. and by the

Council of _Antioch_ in 379[1107]. However, the _Apollinarists_, though

thus condemned and deposed by all the Councils of the East and West, as

we read in _Gregory Nazianzen_[1108], still kept their Ground, till

Recourse was had to the Secular Power. [Sidenote: _Penal Laws

enacted against them._] For the Emperor _Theodosius_, at the Request of

_Nectarius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_, enacted a Law, dated the Tenth

of _March_ 388. forbidding the _Apollinarists_ to hold Assemblies, to

have any Ecclesiastics or Bishops, or to dwell in the Cities[1109]. As

this Law was executed with the utmost Rigour, at least against the

leading Men of the Party, who were banished the Cities, and confined to

the Deserts[1110], the _Apollinarists_ were in a few Years reduced to a

very small Number, when they begged to be admitted to the Communion of

the Catholic Church, which was in the End granted them by

_Theodotus_[1111], who governed the Church of _Antioch_, from the Year

416. to 428. But as their Conversion was owing not to Conviction, but

Persecution, they still held in their Hearts the same Sentiments, which

ever must happen in the like Case; nay, and privately instilled their

Errors into the Minds of many, whose Faith had been, till that time,

untainted[1112]. It was to these pretended Catholics, or disguised

_Apollinarists_, that the _Eutychian_ Heresy, and that of the

_Monothelites_, of whom I shall speak hereafter, owed their Birth[1113].

Hence the Emperor _Marcian_, by an Edict in 455. declared the

_Eutychians_ to be _Apollinarists_, and consequently liable to the same

Penalties[1114]. As for _Apollinaris_ himself, he died about the Year

392. having maintained, to the Hour of his Death, the same Sentiments,

in which he had lived; and, with them, the same outward Appearance, at

least, of a most holy and exemplary Life[1115]; which is all the Authors

of those Times Will allow him.

[Sidenote: _New Disturbances raised by_ Ursinus.]

While _Damasus_, and the other Western Bishops, were wholly intent upon

suppressing the Heresy of _Apollinaris_, and restoring the Eastern

Churches to their former Tranquillity, the Antipope _Ursinus_, laying

hold of that Opportunity, arrived privately at _Milan_, and there joined

the _Arians_, upon their promising to support him with the whole Power

of their Party[1116]. But _Ambrose_, who then governed that Church, and

kept a watchful Eye over the Flock committed to his Care, gave immediate

Notice of their clandestine Meetings, and pernicious Designs, to the

Emperor _Gratian_, who soon after ordered _Ursinus_ to quit _Italy_, and

confined him to _Cologne_[1117]. During his Exile his Partisans were not

idle; they found the Emperor _Gratian_, who in 375. had succeeded his

Father _Valentinian_ I. warmly engaged in favour of _Damasus_: they well

knew, that so long as he continued in that Disposition, it would be in

vain to solicit the Return of _Ursinus_, or to put up any Petition in

his Behalf. [Sidenote: Damasus _falsly accused, but cleared by the

Emperor_.] In order therefore to estrange the Mind of the Emperor from

_Damasus_, they suborned a _Jew_, named _Isaac_, who had embraced the

Christian Religion, but was then returned to Judaism, to accuse him

before the Civil Magistrate of an heinous Crime, which I find not

specified by any of the Antients. But the Emperor, taking upon himself

the judging of that Cause, soon discovered the Innocence of the Accused,

and the Malice of the Accuser; and therefore, honourably acquitting the

former, and punishing the latter according to his Deserts, confined him

to a Corner of _Spain_[1118].

This Attempt on the Reputation of _Damasus_ was not the only Thing that

gave him great Uneasiness at this time. The Emperor _Valentinian_ had

transferred, as I have related above, the Power of judging Bishops, such

at least as were concerned in the Schism of _Ursinus_, from the Civil

Magistrate to the Bishop of _Rome_. [Sidenote: _Some Bishops, deposed

by_ Damasus, _keep their Sees_.] But several Bishops, though deposed by

him, still maintained themselves in their Sees, with open Force, in

Defiance of his Sentence, and the Imperial Law. Among these were the

Bishop of _Parma_, and _Florentius_ Bishop of _Puzzuolo_, who, for their

Attachment to _Ursinus_, had been both deposed by _Damasus_, and other

Bishops assembled at _Rome_[1119]. The _Donatists_ too, notwithstanding

the severe Laws enacted against them by several Emperors, had got

Footing in _Italy_, and in _Rome_ itself, where they were known by the

Names of _Montenenses_, and _Rupenses_, on account of their assembling

in a Church or Oratory, which they had among the neighbouring Rocks and

Mountains[1120]. They had a Bishop of their own, either sent from

_Africa_, or ordained by Bishops sent from thence for that Purpose.

_Claudian_, who governed them at this time, was their Fifth Bishop of

_Rome_[1121]. The Emperor ordered him to be sent back to _Africa_,

whence he came. But though he had been several times imprisoned, in

order to oblige him by that means to return, he could not even so be

prevailed upon to abandon his Flock; but continued at _Rome_, perverting

many there, and rebaptizing all he could pervert[1122]. [Sidenote: _The_

Italian _Bishops recur to the Emperor_.] To put a Stop to these Evils,

the Bishops of _Italy_, assembling at _Rome_, had recourse to the

Emperor _Gratian_, acquainting him with the Conduct of the contumacious

Bishops, and earnestly intreating him to cause the Law, commanding the

Bishops to be judged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and not by the Civil

Magistrate, which he himself had enacted with his Father, to be put in

Execution. By that Law, the Emperor, in all Likelihood, only intended to

confirm, with respect to the Bishop of _Rome_, the Canons of the Church,

appointing the Metropolitan, with his Council, Judge of the Bishops of

his Province in Ecclesiastical Causes. But the Bishops, assembled on

this Occasion at _Rome_, attempted to extend the Authority of the Bishop

of _Rome_, far beyond the Bounds to which the Emperors and Canons had

confined it. [Sidenote: _Their letter to him._] For, in their Letter to

_Gratian_, they suggested the following Regulations as necessary for the

Tranquillity of the Church, and intreated him to establish them by Law:

1. That if any, who had been condemned by the Bishop of _Rome_, or other

Catholic Bishops, should, after such Condemnation, presume to keep their

Churches, they should be banished from the Territories of the Cities,

where they had been Bishops. 2. That such as should refuse, when

lawfully summoned, to appear before the Bishops, should be obliged, by

the Prefect of _Italy_, or his Vicar, to repair to _Rome_, to be judged

there. 3. That, if the accused Bishop resided in a distant Province, he

should be obliged, by the Judges of the Place, to appear before his

Metropolitan; and, if his Metropolitan was suspected as partial, or

prejudiced against him, he might be allowed to appeal to the Bishop of

_Rome_, or to a Council of Fifteen neighbouring Bishops; but, if the

Accused was himself a Metropolitan, he should either repair to _Rome_,

or appear before such Judges as the Bishop of _Rome_ should appoint;

and, when thus condemned, submit to the Sentence[1123]. [Sidenote: _What

they demand in particular for the Bishop of_ Rome.] In Behalf of the

Bishop of _Rome_ in particular they begged, in the same Letter, that, as

he _was above other Bishops by the Prerogative of the Apostolic See,

though upon a Level with them as to the Ministry_, he might not be

obliged to appear before the Civil Magistrate, since other Bishops had

been exempted from their Jurisdiction, but before a Council, or that the

Emperor would reserve to himself the Cognisance of what concerned him,

leaving to the ordinary Judges the Power of examining Facts and

Witnesses, but not the Authority of pronouncing Sentence[1124].

[Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Answer._] What Answer the Emperor returned to

the Council, we know not; but, in a Rescript, addressed to the Vicar

_Aquilinus_, after summing up the Heads of the Letter from the Council,

and severely reprimanding his Officers for their Neglect, in not causing

the Imperial Law to be put in Execution, he confirms the Rescript

address’d to _Simplicius_, which I have mentioned above; commands the

Bishop of _Parma_, _Florentius_ of _Puzzuolo_, and _Claudian_ the

_Donatist_, with all those who shall be condemned by the Councils, as

Disturbers of the Quiet of the Church, to be driven from their Dioceses,

and banished an Hundred Miles from _Rome_: he grants all the Council had

desired, with respect to the judging of Bishops; but requires the Bishop

of _Rome_ to act with the Advice of Five or Seven other Bishops; and,

lastly, he forbids Persons of infamous Characters, or known Slanderers,

to be admitted as Informers or Witnesses against Bishops[1125]. In this

Rescript he takes no notice of what the Council had asked for the Bishop

of _Rome_ in particular.

[Sidenote: _In what Sense the Pope above other Bishops._]

From these Pieces, which are still extant, it is manifest beyond all

Dispute, as the Reader must have observed, that, in the Year 378. when

this Council was held, no Prerogative was yet discovered in the Pope,

peculiar to him, and not common to all Bishops, besides that of Rank,

which arose from the Dignity of his See, that is, from his being Bishop

of the Metropolis of the Empire; for, in that respect alone, the

Bishops, who composed the Council, acknowleged him _to be above them_;

nay, by declaring themselves, in express Terms, _equal to him as to the

Ministry_, they seem to have taken particular Care, that no Room or

Pretence should be left for his claiming a Superiority in any other

respect. And how great would their Surprize have been, had _Damasus_, in

hearing that Part of their Address to the Emperor, started up, and,

protesting against it, as derogatory to his Prerogative, declared, that,

_to him all Power was given in Heaven and on Earth_; that, _so far from

being equal to him, they, and all other Bishops, were but his Deputies

and Delegates_; that _the Power, Authority, and Jurisdiction, which they

enjoyed, were derived to them from the Plenitude of his_! Had he talked

in this Strain, the whole Council would have concluded him delirious.

And yet these are the Sentiments of his Successors; these the very

Words, with which they and their Divines have expressed them[1126]; so

that it is now reckoned Heresy not to believe what in the Fourth Century

it had been deemed Madness to have gravely uttered. [Sidenote: _The

Power he now claims unknown in the Time of_ Damasus.] It would perhaps

have seemed still more strange and surprising to the Fathers of the

Council, however prejudiced in his Favour, if _Damasus_, instead of

gratefully acknowleging their Regard for him in petitioning the Emperor,

that he might not be judged by the Civil Magistrate, but either by a

Council, or the Emperor himself, had severely rebuked them as Strangers

to, or Betrayers of, his inherent Right, acquainting them, that, in

virtue thereof, _all Men were to be judged by him, but himself by no

Man_[1127]; that _the greatest Monarchs were his Slaves and Vassals, and

he King of Kings, Monarch of the World, sole Lord and Governor both in

Spirituals and Temporals_[1128]; that _he was appointed Prince over all

Nations and Kingdoms_[1129]; that _his Power excelled all Powers_[1130];

that _it was necessary to Salvation for every human Creature to be

subject to him_[1131]. And yet these are the Notions, that have been

uttered by his Successors, and the very Terms in which they were

uttered. In the Age I am now writing of, they had been looked upon no

otherwise than the Ravings of a distempered Brain; but they are now held

by the Church of _Rome_, and her Divines, as Oracles, and inserted as

such into her Canons. _Bellarmine_ owns, that, in the Fourth Century,

the Pope was still subject to the Emperors, nay, and to the Civil

Magistrate, without the least Distinction between him and other Vassals.

_But this Subjection_, says he, in his Apology against King

_James_[1132], _the Emperors exacted by Force, because the Power of the

Pope was not known to them_. Nor to any body else, he might have added,

since the Writers of those Times seem to have been no better acquainted

with the Power of the Pope than the Emperors; at least, they take no

Notice of it, even in describing, as some of them have done, the State

of the Church at the time they writ, and relating the Customs, Laws, and

Practices, that then obtained. Besides, how could the Power of the Pope

be unknown to the Christian Emperors, if it was one of the chief Tenets

of the Christian Doctrine? Neither _Damasus_, nor any of his

Predecessors, can be justly charged with Bashfulness, in acquainting the

World with the Power they had or claimed. We may further observe here,

that the Emperor requires the Bishop of _Rome_, in judging according to

the Power granted him, to act with the Advice of Five or Seven other

Bishops: a plain Proof, that he was as little acquainted with the Pope’s

Infallibility, as with his Power.

[Sidenote: _A new Accusation brought against_ Damasus.]

The Council of the _Italian_ Bishops, assembled at _Rome_, no sooner

broke up, than the Emissaries and Partisans of _Ursinus_ began to raise

new Disturbances in that City, by stirring up the Pagans against

_Damasus_, and, at the same time, charging him _with things_, to use the

Expression of the Council of _Aquileia_, _not fit to be uttered by a

Bishop, nor heard by such an Emperor as_ Gratian[1133]. _Anastasius_

writes, that he was accused of Adultery by the Two Deacons _Concordus_

and _Callistus_[1134]. And truly, that some Crime of that Nature was

laid to his Charge, is pretty plain, from the Terms in which it was

expressed by the Council. _Valerian_, then Governor of _Rome_,

immediately acquainted the Emperor with the Accusation[1135]; but what

Part _Gratian_ acted on this Occasion, we are not told by any antient

Writer. We read in the Pontificals, and most of the modern Writers, that

the Cause was referred by the Emperor to the Council then sitting at

_Aquileia_; and that _Damasus_ was declared innocent by all the Bishops

who composed it. [Sidenote: _The Council of_ Aquileia _writes to

the Emperor in his Behalf_.] But, as neither is related by any credible

Author, I am inclined to believe, that _Gratian_ took no Notice of the

Charge, in Compliance with the Request of the Bishops assembled at

_Aquileia_; for, by a Letter, they earnestly intreated him not to

hearken to _Ursinus_, because his giving ear to him would occasion

endless Disturbances in _Rome_; and, besides, they could by no means

communicate with a Man who thus wickedly aspired to a Dignity, to which

he had no Claim or Title; who, by his scandalous Behaviour, had incurred

the Hatred of all good Christians; who had impiously joined the

_Arians_, and, together with them, attempted to disturb the Quiet of the

Catholic Church of _Milan_[1136].

[Sidenote: _A great Council assembled at_ Constantinople, _by

the Emperor_ Theodosius.]

Towards the Latter end of the Pontificate of _Damasus_, Two great

Councils were held, the one at _Constantinople_ in 381. and the other at

_Rome_ in 382. The former was assembled by the Emperor _Theodosius_,

who, after having put the Orthodox in Possession of the Churches, which

till his Time had been held by the _Arians_ in the East, where he

reigned, summoned all the Bishops within his Dominions to meet at

_Constantinople_, in order to deliberate about the most proper Means of

restoring an intire Tranquillity to the Church, rent and disturbed not

only by several Sects of Heretics, but by the Divisions that reigned

among the Orthodox themselves, by that especially of _Antioch_, the most

antient of all, which, from that Church, had spread all over the Empire,

and occasioned rather an intire Separation, than a Misunderstanding

between the East and the West, the former communicating with _Meletius_,

and the latter with _Paulinus_, as I have related above. In this Council

many weighty Matters were transacted, and several Canons established,

some of which, namely, the Second and Third, deserve to be taken Notice

of here. For, by the Second, _the Council renewed and confirmed the

antient Law of the Church, authorized by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth

Canons of the Council of_ Nice, commanding the Bishops of each Province

to be ordained by those of the same Province, and such of the

neighbouring Provinces, as they should think fit to call in; directing

all Ecclesiastical Matters to be settled, all Disputes to be finally

decided by a Council composed of the Bishops of the Province, or at

least of the Diocese, that is, of all the Provinces under the same

Vicar; and strictly forbidding the Bishops of one Diocese to concern

themselves, under any Colour or Pretence whatsoever, with what happens

in another[1137]. [Sidenote: _which revokes the Privilege granted to the

See of_ Rome _by the Council of_ Sardica.] By this Canon the Privilege,

formerly granted to the See of _Rome_ by the Council of _Sardica_, was

revoked, and all Appeals from the Council of the Diocese forbidden. By

the Third Canon the See of _Constantinople_ is declared first in Rank

and Dignity after that of _Rome_[1138]. Some _Greek_ Writers have

pretended, that, by this Canon, the Two Sees were declared in every

respect equal; but that _Zonaras_ himself owns to be false and

groundless[1139]. It is to be observed, that the Council of

_Constantinople_ gave Rank and Honour to that See, but no Jurisdiction.

It was to the Council of _Chalcedon_ that the Bishops of

_Constantinople_ owed their Authority and Jurisdiction; for by that

Council they were impowered to ordain the Metropolitans of the Dioceses

of _Pontus_, _Asia_, and _Thrace_[1140]. The Reasons alleged by

_Baronius_ to prove the Third Canon of the Council of _Constantinople_

supposititious[1141], are quite frivolous; and it is certain beyond all

Dispute, that the Bishops of that City maintained ever after the Rank,

which the above-mentioned Canon had given them. In a short time the

Bishop of _Constantinople_, taking Advantage of that Canon, and of the

Deference that is naturally paid to the Bishop of the Imperial City,

extended his Jurisdiction over all the neighbouring Provinces, nay, and

over the whole Eastern Empire, as we shall observe in the Sequel of this

History.

[Sidenote: _The Council writes to the Western Bishops._]

The Canons of this Council were, without all doubt, sent, according to

Custom, to the Western Bishops for their Approbation, probably with the

Letter which the Council writ to them concerning the Heresy of

_Apollinaris_[1142]. And yet Pope _Leo_ the Great writes, that the Third

Canon was never notified to the Church of _Rome_[1143]; and _Gregory_

the Great, that the Canon condemning the _Eudoxians_, which was the

first, had never been received at _Rome_[1144]: but _Gregory_ perhaps

meant nothing else, than that the Canon he mentions was of no Authority

at _Rome_. As for _Leo_, it is hard to conceive what he meant by saying,

that the Third Canon was not known to the Church of _Rome_; for he could

not but know, that the Bishop of _Constantinople_ held the Second Rank

in the Church, and the First in the East, since his own Legates, whose

Conduct he intirely approved of, owned him to have an indisputable Right

to that Rank; nay, _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Dorylæum_ in _Phrygia_

maintained, that it was with the Consent and Approbation of _Leo_

himself that the See of _Constantinople_ enjoyed that Honour.

[Sidenote: _The Authority of this Council among the_ Greeks,]

The Authority of this Council has ever been great among the _Greeks_,

who style it an Oecumenical Council, and had often recourse to it as

such in the Council of _Chalcedon_[1145]. The Bishops of the

_Hellespont_ speak of it with the greatest Respect and Reverence, in a

Letter they writ to the Emperor _Leo_[1146]. [Sidenote: _and the_

Latins.] As for the _Latins_, I find a great Disagreement among the

Popes themselves concerning the Authority of this Council; nay, the

greatest of them all disagrees even with himself about it. The Legates

of Pope _Leo_ rejected its Canons, alleging that they had never been

inserted in the Book of the Canons[1147]. In like manner the Popes

_Simplicius_ and _Felix_ II. speaking of the Councils which they

received, name those only of _Nice_, _Ephesus_, and _Chalcedon_[1148].

_Gregory the Great_ writes, that the Church of _Rome_ had neither the

Acts nor the Canons of the Council of _Constantinople_; that the

Condemnation of the _Macedonians_ was the only thing done by that

Council which they admitted; and that as to other Heresies condemned

there, they rejected them, as having been condemned before by other

Councils[1149]. But he declares elsewhere, and often repeats it, that he

received the Four Oecumenical Councils, as he did the Four

Gospels[1150], naming the Council of _Constantinople_ in the Second

Place. [Sidenote: _The Popes at Variance among and with themselves

about it._] In the same Manner, and with the same Words, were the Four

Oecumenical Councils received by _Gelasius_, and several Popes before

him, as well as by _Martin_ I. and several others after him: so that the

Council of _Constantinople_ is, according to some Popes, of equal

Authority with the Gospel; according to others, of no Authority at all:

nay, it is thus by the same Pope at one time extolled, at another

undervalued. Let _Baronius_ and _Bellarmine_ reconcile these

Contradictions, if they can.

[Sidenote: _This Council was assembled by the Emperor, and not

by_ Damasus.]

That this Council was assembled by the Emperor _Theodosius_, is affirmed

by all the Writers who speak of it[1151], nay, and by the Bishops who

composed it[1152]. And yet _Baronius_ has the Assurance to assert, _as a

Thing not to be questioned_, that it was convened by _Damasus_[1153],

which none of the Antients have so much as once named: and this

Assertion he founds upon the Authority of the universally exploded Acts

of _Damasus_; of certain Manuscripts, which he knows very little of, and

nobody else any thing; and of a Passage in the Acts of the Sixth

Oecumenical Council, where it is said, that _Theodosius_ and _Damasus_

opposed with great Firmness the _Macedonian_ Heresy; whence the Annalist

concludes, by what Rules of Logic I leave the Reader to find out, that

the Council, which condemned the Heresy of _Macedonius_, was convened by

the Authority of _Damasus_, backed by that of the Emperor[1154].

_Christianus Lupus_, more honest than _Baronius_, tho’ no less attached

to the See of _Rome_, ingenuously owns, that the Council was assembled

by the Emperor alone; but adds, that _Damasus_ confirmed it[1155]; which

is true, if he means no more than that _Damasus_ accepted the Decrees

made by the Council; for it was not his, but the Emperor’s Approbation,

that gave them a Sanction; and accordingly they writ, not to him, but to

the Emperor, acquainting him; _by whose Command they had been called

together_, with the Decrees they had made, and requesting him to confirm

them _with his Seal and Sentence_[1156]. This Council consisted of an

Hundred and Fifty Bishops, among whom were Thirty-six _Macedonians_,

whom _Theodosius_ had particularly summoned, hoping to reunite them with

the Catholics[1157]. No mention is made of Letters or Deputies sent

either by _Damasus_, or by any of the Western Bishops; and _Theodoret_

assures us in Two different Places[1158], that _Theodosius_ only

assembled the Eastern Bishops. _Meletius_ of _Antioch_ presided; for

_Gregory_ of _Nyssa_ styled him in full Council, _our Father and

Head_[1159]. Upon his Death (for he died while the Council was sitting)

that Honour was conferred on _Gregory Nazianzen_, appointed by the

Emperor and the Council Bishop of _Constantinople_[1160]; but he

resigning, soon after, his new Dignity, his Successor _Nectarius_ was

named to preside in his room[1161].

One of the chief Motives that induced _Theodosius_ to assemble so

numerous a Council at _Constantinople_, was, to hear what Remedy they

could suggest against the Schism of the Church of _Antioch_, which

caused such Jealousies between the East and the West as seemed to

forebode an imminent Rupture[1162]. But before the Fathers of the

Council entered upon that important Subject, _Meletius_ died; and his

Death, which ought to have put an End to the present Disturbances,

served only to increase them, and engage the contending Parties more

warmly in the Dispute. It had been agreed by _Meletius_ and

_Paulinus_, that the Survivor should be sole Bishop of all the

Orthodox at _Antioch_[1163]. _Socrates_ and _Sozomen_ add[1164], that

Six Presbyters, who it was most likely might be one Day raised to that

See, bound themselves by a solemn Oath not to vote for any other, nor

to accept themselves the Episcopal Dignity, so long as either of the

Two lived. [Sidenote: _The Disturbances in the Church of_

Antioch _increased_.] However, _Meletius_ was no sooner dead, than

some of the Prelates present at the Council moved for chusing him a

Successor, which occasioned many long and warm Debates. _Gregory

Nazianzen_, elected Bishop of _Constantinople_ a few Days before,

exerted all his Eloquence to divert the Council from a Resolution,

which, he said, would prove fatal to the Church, and kindle a Flame,

which perhaps it might never be in their Power to extinguish[1165].

Several other Prelates, Enemies to Strife and Contention, falling in

with _Gregory_, spoke to the same Purpose, exhorting their Collegues,

with great Zeal and Eloquence, to put an End at last to the unhappy

Divisions that had so long rent the Church, by allowing _Paulinus_,

already stricken in Years, to govern peaceably the remaining Part of

his Life[1166]. But the far greater Part were for a new Election,

offering no other Reason to recommend such a Step, but that the East,

where our Saviour had appeared, ought not to yield to the West[1167].

So that the Resolution of giving a Successor to _Meletius_ was taken

merely out of Pique to the Western Bishops, who, having the Bishop of

_Rome_ at their Head, had begun to treat their Brethren in the East

with great Haughtiness, and assume an Air of Authority that did not

become them; but that had been better resented on any other Occasion

than on this.

[Sidenote: Flavianus _ordained Bishop of_ Antioch.]

The Resolution being taken, _Flavianus_, a Presbyter of the Church of

_Antioch_, was named by the Council, and, with the Approbation of the

Emperor, and of all the _Meletians_ at _Antioch_, ordained in that City.

He is commended by the Writers who lived in or near those Times, as a

Man of an exemplary Life, and extraordinary Piety, as a zealous Defender

of the Orthodox Faith, and Opposer of the _Arian_ Heresy, as a Mirror of

every Sacerdotal Virtue; and, barring the Right of _Paulinus_, the most

worthy and deserving Person the Council could name to succeed the great

_Meletius_[1168]. These, and other like Encomiums, bestowed upon

_Flavianus_ by the Writers of those Times, leave no room to doubt but

_Socrates_ and _Sozomen_ were misinformed in naming him among the Six

Presbyters who took the Oath I have mentioned above; the rather as no

notice is taken of such an Oath by his most inveterate Enemies, in the

many Disputes that arose about his Ordination. [Sidenote: Greg.

Nazianzen _resigns the Bishoprick of_ Constantinople.] _Gregory

Nazianzen_, who had been lately preferred to the See of

_Constantinople_, and had accepted that Dignity with no other View, but

to remove all Jealousies, and restore a good Understanding between the

East and the West, being sensible that the electing of a new Bishop in

the room of _Meletius_ would widen the Breach, and obstruct all possible

Means of an Accommodation, resigned his Dignity, and, to the

inexpressible Grief of his Flock, retired both from the Council and

City[1169]. In one of his Orations[1170], he ascribes this Resolution to

the Divisions that reigned among the Bishops, declaring that he was

quite tired with their constant quarreling and bickering among

themselves, and comparing them to Children at Play; whom to join in

their childish Diversions, would be degrading a serious Character.

[Sidenote: Nectarius _is chosen in his room_.] Upon the Resignation of

_Gregory, Nectarius_ was chosen to succeed him; but, as to the

Particulars of his Election, they are variously related by Authors, and

foreign to my Purpose. He was a Native of _Tarsus_ in _Cilicia_,

descended of an illustrious and senatorial Family, but at the Time of

his Election still a Layman, and Prætor of _Constantinople_; nay, he had

not been baptized[1171].

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Aquileia _writes to_ Theodosius _in

favour of_ Paulinus.]

The same Year that the Eastern Bishops met at _Constantinople_, by the

Command of _Theodosius_, the Western Bishops met at _Aquileia_, by the

Command of _Gratian_. While the latter were yet sitting, News was

brought of the Death of _Meletius_, and at the same time they received

certain Intelligence of the Resolution which the Council of

_Constantinople_ had taken of appointing him a Successor. Hereupon

having dispatched the Business for which they had met, and condemned

_Palladius_ and _Secundianus_, the only Two _Arian_ Bishops now in the

West, they dispatched some Presbyters into the East, with a Letter to

the Emperor _Theodosius_, wherein, after expressing the Joy it had given

them to hear that the Orthodox in those Parts were at last happily

delivered from the Oppression of the _Arians_, they complained of the

Hardships _Paulinus_ had met with, whom they had always acknowleged as

lawful Bishop of _Antioch_, put the Emperor in mind of the Agreement

between _Paulinus_ and _Meletius_, and concluded with intreating him to

assemble an Oecumenical Council at _Alexandria_, as the only Means of

restoring Tranquillity to the Church, and settling a perfect Harmony

amongst her Members[1172]. Before this Letter reached the Emperor, the

Council of _Constantinople_ was concluded, and the Bishops returned to

their respective Sees. However, _Theodosius_ recalled some of them, in

order to govern himself by their Advice in granting or denying the

Western Bishops their Request[1173]. [Sidenote: _And the Bishops

of_ Italy _in favour of_ Maximus.] But the Election of _Flavianus_ being

in the mean time known in the West, the Bishops of the Vicariate of

_Italy_, them assembled in Council with _Ambrose_ Bishop of _Milan_ at

their Head, writ a long Letter to _Theodosius_ complaining of that

Election, openly espousing at the same time the Cause of _Maximus_

against _Nectarius_, the new Bishop of _Constantinople_, and threatening

to separate themselves intirely from the Communion of the Eastern

Bishops, unless _Maximus_ was acknowleged lawful Bishop of that City, or

at least an Oecumenical Council was assembled to examine the Claims of

the Two Competitors, and to confirm with their joint Suffrages the

disputed Dignity to him, who had the best[1174]. They also desired, in

the same Letter, to have the Contest between _Paulinus_ and _Flavianus_

decided.

[Sidenote: _Who_ Maximus _was, and how chosen Bishop of_

Constantinople.]

_Maximus_, surnamed the _Cynic_, because he had from his Youth professed

the Philosophy, and wore the Habit, of that Sect, was a Man of a most

infamous Character, and had been publicly whipt in _Egypt_, his native

Country, and confined to the City of _Oasis_, for Crimes not to be

mentioned[1175]. Being released from his Banishment, he wandered all

over the East, and was every where equally abhorred and detested on

account of his matchless Impudence and scandalous Manners[1176]. At last

he repaired to _Constantinople_, where he had not been long, when, by

one of the boldest Attempts mentioned in History, he caused himself to

be installed and ordained Bishop of that City: for the Doors of the

Church being broken open in the Dead of the Night, by a Band of

_Egyptian_ Mariners, he was placed on the Episcopal Chair in the profane

Dress of a _Cynic_, by some Bishops whom his Friends had sent out of

_Egypt_ for that Purpose. But the People, and some of the Clergy, in the

adjoining Houses, being alarmed at the Noise, and crouding to see what

occasioned it, _Maximus_ and his unhallowed Crew thought fit to

withdraw, and complete the Ceremony in a Place better adapted to such a

Scene of Profaneness, the House of a Player on the Flute[1177].

_Maximus_, thus ordained, in equal Defiance of the Imperial Laws and

Canons of the Church, had the Assurance to claim the See of

_Constantinople_ as his Right, and to protest against the Election of

_Gregory Nazianzen_, and likewise of _Nectarius_, who was chosen upon

the Resignation of _Gregory_, tho’ they had both been named to that

Dignity by the Council of _Constantinople_, that is, by all the Eastern

Bishops. But no Regard being had to his Protest, nay, his Ordination

being declared null by the Council, and he driven out of the City by the

Populace, and rejected with Indignation by the Emperor, he had recourse

to the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Italy_, then assembled in Council

with _Ambrose_ Bishop of _Milan_ at their Head, as I have observed

above. [Sidenote: _He is acknowleged by_ Ambrose, _and the_ Italian

_Bishops_.] These giving an intire Credit to the Accounts of the lying

and deceitful _Cynic_, as they were quite unacquainted with what had

passed in the East, not only admitted him to their Communion, but,

without farther Inquiry or Examination, acknowleged him for lawful

Bishop of _Constantinople_, and writ the above-mentioned Letter to

_Theodosius_ in his Behalf[1178]. We must not confound this Council with

that of _Aquileia_, as I find most Writers have done: for the latter was

composed of almost all the Western Bishops under _Valerian_ Bishop of

the Place; whereas the Council I am now speaking of, consisted only of

the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Italy_, under the Bishop of _Milan_

their Metropolitan. It is surprising that _Ambrose_, and the other

Bishops of that Council, should not have been better informed with

respect to the Ordination of _Maximus_, since _Acholius_ Bishop of

_Thessalonica_, with Five other Bishops of _Macedon_, had, at least a

Year before, transmitted to _Damasus_ a minute Account of it, agreeing

in every Particular with that which I have given above from _Gregory

Nazianzen_[1179]. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Answer to their Letter._]

The Letter from the Council caused no small Surprize in _Theodosius_: he

was sensible they had suffered themselves to be grosly imposed upon;

but, not judging it necessary to undeceive them, he only told them, in

his Answer to their Letter, that the Reasons they alleged did not seem

sufficient to him for assembling an Oecumenical Council, and giving so

much Trouble to the Prelates of the Church; that they were not to

concern themselves with what happened in the East, nor remove the

Bounds, that had been wisely placed by their Fore-fathers between the

East and the West; and that, as to the Affair of _Maximus_, by espousing

his Cause they had betrayed either an unwarrantable Animosity against

the Orientals, or an inexcusable Credulity in giving Credit to false and

groundless Reports[1180].

[Sidenote: _A Council of all the Western Bishops assembled at_ Rome.]

Upon the Receipt of this Letter, the _Italian_ Bishops, finding

_Theodosius_ no ways disposed to assemble an Oecumenical Council,

applied to _Gratian_, who not only granted them Leave to meet at _Rome_,

the Place they chose, but dispatched Letters to all the Bishops both in

the East and West, giving them Notice of the Time and Place, in which

the Council was to be held, and inviting them to it[1181]. But of all

the Eastern Bishops, Two only complied with this Invitation; _viz._

_Epiphanius_ Bishop of _Salamis_ in the Island of _Cyprus_, and

_Paulinus_, whom all the West acknowleged for lawful Bishop of

_Antioch_. The Western Bishops were all present, either in Person, or by

their Deputies; and _Damasus_ presided[1182]. But, as to the

Transactions of this great Assembly, we are almost intirely in the Dark;

for all we know of them is, that they unanimously agreed not to

communicate with _Flavianus_, the new Bishop of _Antioch_, nor with

_Diodorus_ of _Tarsus_, or _Acacius_ of _Berœa_, who had been chiefly

instrumental in his Promotion; that they condemned the Heresy of

_Apollinaris_; and that, at the Request of _Damasus_, a Confession of

Faith was drawn up by _Jerom_, and approved by the Council, which the

_Apollinarists_ were to sign, upon their being re-admitted to the

Communion of the Church[1183]. As for _Maximus_, they seem to have

abandoned his Cause, being, in all Likelihood, undeceived, with respect

to his Ordination, by _Acholius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_, and St.

_Jerom_, who assisted at the Council, and could not be Strangers to the

Character of _Maximus_, nor unacquainted with the scandalous Methods by

which he had attained the Episcopal Dignity.

[Sidenote: _The Misunderstanding between the East and the West

increased._]

The Resolution they took not to communicate with _Flavianus_, whose

Election, though imprudently made, was undoubtedly Canonical, and had

been approved and confirmed by the Oecumenical Council of

_Constantinople_, not only increased the Jealousies and

Misunderstanding between the East and the West, but occasioned a great

Disagreement, and endless Quarrels, among the Eastern Bishops

themselves. For those who acknowleged _Paulinus_, _viz._ the Bishops

of _Egypt_, of the Island of _Cyprus_, of _Arabia_, insisted upon the

Deposition of _Flavianus_[1184]. _Nestorius_ mentions some Letters,

written by the Bishops of _Egypt_ against _Flavianus_, with great

Virulency, and a _tyrannical Spirit_, to use his Expression[1185]. On

the other hand, the Bishops of _Syria_, of _Palæstine_, of

_Phœnicia_, _Armenia_, _Cappadocia_, _Galatia_, _Pontus_, _Asia_,

and _Thrace_, not only maintained, with equal Warmth, the Election of

_Flavianus_, but began to treat their Brethren in the East, who had

joined the Western Bishops against them, as Schismatics, as Betrayers

of their Trust, as Transgressors of the Canons of _Nice_, commanding

the Elections and Ordinations of each Province to be made and

performed by the Bishops of the same Province, and all Disputes

concerning them to be finally decided in the Place where they had

begun[1186]. This Schism occasioned great Confusion in the Church,

which continued till the Year 398, when _Chrysostom_, after having,

with indefatigable Pains, long laboured in vain to bring about an

Accommodation between the East and the West, had at last, soon after

his Promotion to the See of _Constantinople_, the Satisfaction of

seeing his pious Endeavours crowned with Success, as I shall relate in

a more proper Place.

[Sidenote: _No Regard paid by the Eastern Bishops to the Judgment of the

Pope._]

From this whole Account it is manifest, as the Reader must have

observed, that the Orientals paid no manner of Regard either to the

Judgment of the Bishop of _Rome_, or to that of the whole Body of the

Western Bishops, assembled in Council under him. For though they well

knew the Bishop of _Rome_, and his Collegues in the West, to be warmly

engaged in favour of _Paulinus_, yet they refused to acknowlege him,

even after the Death of _Meletius_; and therefore raised _Flavianus_ to

the See of _Antioch_, in the room of _Meletius_, and confirmed that

Election in an Oecumenical Council. The Western Bishops exclaimed

against it, desiring it might be referred to the Decision of a General

Council. But not even to that Demand would the Orientals agree,

thinking, as they declared in their Answer, that there was no Occasion

for a Council, since _Flavianus_ had been chosen and ordained by the

Bishops of the Diocese, which was all the Canons of _Nice_ required.

They therefore exhorted them to divest themselves of all Prejudices, to

sacrifice all private Affections to the Peace and Unity of the Church,

and to put an End to the present, and prevent all future, Disputes, by

approving, with their joint Suffrages, an Election which had been

approved and confirmed by an Oecumenical Council[1187].

[Sidenote: _The Custom of appointing Vicars introduced by_

Damasus, _and on what Occasion_.]

To return to _Damasus_: He was the first who introduced the Custom,

which his Successors took care to improve, of conferring on certain

Bishops the Title of their Vicars, pretending thereby to impart to them

an extraordinary Power, enabling them to perform several Things, which

they could not perform in virtue of their own. _Acholius_ Bishop of

_Thessalonica_ was the first who enjoyed this Title, being, by

_Damasus_, appointed his Vicar in _East Illyricum_, on the following

Occasion: _Illyricum_, comprising all antient _Greece_, and many

Provinces on the _Danube_, whereof _Sirmium_ was the Capital, had, ever

since the Time of _Constantine_, belonged to the Western Empire. But, in

the Year 379. _Dacia_ and _Greece_ were, by _Gratian_, disjoined from

the more Westerly Provinces, and added, in favour of _Theodosius_, to

the Eastern Empire, being known by the Name of _East Illyricum_, whereof

_Thessalonica_, the Metropolis of _Macedon_, was the chief City. The

Bishops of _Rome_, as presiding in the Metropolis of the Empire, had

begun to claim a kind of Jurisdiction, or rather Inspection in

Ecclesiastical Matters, over all the Provinces of the Western Empire;

which was the first great Step by which they ascended to the Supremacy

they afterwards claimed and established. This _Damasus_ was unwilling to

resign with respect to _Illyricum_, even after that Country was

dismembered from the Western, and added to the Eastern Empire. In order

therefore to maintain his Claim, he appointed _Acholius_ Bishop of

_Thessalonica_ to act in his stead, vesting in him the Power which he

pretended to have over those Provinces. Upon the Death of _Acholius_ he

conferred the same Dignity on his Successor _Anysius_, as did the

following Popes on the succeeding Bishops of _Thessalonica_, who, by

thus supporting the Pretensions of _Rome_, became the first Bishops,

and, in a manner, the Patriarchs, of _East Illyricum_; for they are

sometimes distinguished with that Title. This, however, was not done

without Opposition, the other Metropolitans not readily acknowleging for

their Superior one who, till that time, had been their Equal[1188].

_Syricius_, who succeeded _Damasus_, inlarging the Power claimed by his

Predecessor, decreed, that no Bishop should be ordained in _East

Illyricum_ without the Consent and Approbation of the Bishop of

_Thessalonica_[1189]. But it was some time before this Decree took

place. Pope _Innocent_ I. writes, that his Predecessors committed to the

Care of _Acholius_, _Achaia_, _Thessaly_, the Two _Epirus’s_, _Candia_,

the Two _Dacia’s_, _Mœsia_, _Dardania_, and _Prævalitana_, now Part

of _Albania_, impowering him to judge and decide the Controversies that

might arise there, and appointing him to be _the first among the

Primates, without prejudicing the Primacy of those Churches_[1190]. Thus

were the Bishops of _Thessalonica_ first appointed Vicars or Vicegerents

of the Bishops of _Rome_, probably in the Year 382. for in that Year

_Acholius_ assisted at the Council of _Rome_, and it was, in all

Likelihood, on that Occasion that _Damasus_ vested him with this new

Dignity. [Sidenote: _The Institution of Vicars improved by the

succeeding Popes._] The Contrivance of _Damasus_ was notably improved by

his Successors, who, in order to extend and inlarge their Authority,

conferred the Title of their Vicars, and the pretended Power annexed to

it, on the most eminent Prelates of other Provinces and Kingdoms,

engaging them thereby to depend upon them, and to promote the Authority

of their See, to the utter Suppression of the antient Rights and

Liberties both of Bishops and Synods. This Dignity was for the most part

annexed to certain Sees, but sometimes conferred on particular Persons.

Thus was _Austin_ appointed the Pope’s Vicar in _England_, _Boniface_ in

_Germany_; and both, in virtue of the Power which they pretended to have

been imparted to them with that Title, usurped and exercised an

Authority above that of Metropolitans. The Institution of Vicars was, by

the succeeding Popes, improved into that of Legates, or, to use _De

Marca_’s Expression, the latter Institution was grafted on the

former[1191]. [Sidenote: _Legates vested with greater Power

than Vicars._] The Legates were vested with a far greater Power than the

Vicars, or, as Pope _Leo_ expresses it, _were admitted to a far greater

Share of his Care, though not to the Plenitude of his Power_[1192]. They

were sent on proper Occasions into all Countries, and never failed

exerting, to the utmost Stretch, their boasted Power, oppressing, in

virtue of their paramount Authority, the Clergy as well as the People,

and extorting from both large Sums, to support the Pomp and Luxury in

which they lived.

The Custom of appointing Vicars and Legates may well be alleged as a

remarkable Instance of the Craft and Policy of the Popes, since, of all

the Methods they ever devised (and many they have devised) to extend and

establish their Power, none has better answered their ambitious Views.

But how _Bellarmine_ could lay so much Stress upon it as he does[1193],

to prove, that the Pope has, by _Divine Right_, a sovereign Authority

and Jurisdiction over all the Churches of the Earth, is unconceivable.

[Sidenote: _The sending Legates no Proof of the Pope’s universal

Jurisdiction._] For it is certain, beyond all Dispute, that such a

Custom had never been heard of till the Time of _Damasus_, that is, till

the Latter-end of the Fourth Century, when it was first introduced, upon

the dismembering of _East Illyricum_, by _Gratian_, from the Western

Empire. _Damasus_ did not even then claim that sovereign and unlimited

Power, with which _Bellarmine_ is pleased to vest him, but only a kind

of Inspection over the Provinces of the Western Empire, as Bishop of the

first See. [Sidenote: _The Disingenuity of_ Bellarmine.] And here I

cannot help observing the Disingenuity of _Bellarmine_, who, in speaking

of this Institution, expresses himself thus: Leo _appointed_ Anastiasius

_Bishop of_ Thessalonica _his Vicar in the East, in the same manner as

the Predecessors of_ Anastasius _had been Vicars to the Predecessors of_

Leo[1194]. From these Words every Reader would naturally conclude, and

_Bellarmine_ designs they should, that the Bishops of _Thessalonica_ had

been the Pope’s Vicars from the Beginning, or Time out of Mind; whereas

it is certain, that this Institution had taken place but a few Years

before. Pope _Leo_ I. in conferring on _Anastasius_ the _Vicariate

Dignity of his See_, as he styles it, declared, that he followed therein

the Example of his Predecessor _Syricius_[1195], _who first appointed_

Anysius _to act in his stead_. But he was doubly mistaken; for these

Vicars were first instituted, as is notorious, by _Damasus_, and not by

_Syricius_; and it was not by _Syricius_, but by _Damasus_, that

_Anysius_ was vested with that Dignity[1196]. The Bishop of

_Thessalonica_ is styled, by the antient Writers, the Pope’s Vicar in

_East Illyricum_, which is manifestly confining his Vicariate

Jurisdiction to that District; but _Bellarmine_ extends it at once all

over the East, by distinguishing him with the Title of _the Popes Vicar

for the East_[1197]. But how little Regard was paid to the Pope’s

Authority in the East, I have sufficiently shewn above.

I find nothing else in the antient Writers concerning _Damasus_ worthy

of Notice, besides his generously undertaking the Defence of

_Symmachus_, who, being Prefect of _Rome_ in 384. the last Year of

_Damasus_’s Life, and a _sworn_ Enemy to the Christians, was falsly

accused to the Emperor, as if he had with great Cruelty persecuted and

oppressed them. But _Damasus_ had the Generosity to take his Part, and

clear him, by a Letter he writ to the Emperor, from that Charge[1198].

[Sidenote: Damasus _dies_.] This was one of the last Actions of

_Damasus_’s Life; for he died this Year on the 10th or 11th of

_December_, being then in the Eightieth Year of his Age, after he had

governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Eighteen Years, and about

Two Months[1199]. He was buried, according to _Anastasius_[1200], near

his Mother and Sister, in a Church which he had built at the Catacombs,

on the Way to _Ardea_; whence that Place, though Part of the Cœmetery

of _Calixtus_, is by some called the Cœmetery of _Damasus_[1201]. He

proposed at first being buried near the Remains of St. _Sixtus_, and his

Companions; but afterwards changed his Mind, lest he should disturb the

Ashes of the Saints[1202]. He caused the Church of St. _Laurence_, near

the Theatre of _Pompey_, probably that which his Father and he himself

had formerly served, to be rebuilt, inlarged, and embellished; Whence it

is still known by the joint Titles of St. _Laurence_ and

_Damasus_[1203]. In that Church his Body is worshiped to this Day. But,

how or when it was removed thither, nobody knows[1204]. [Sidenote: _The

Decrees ascribed to him suppositious._] Several Decrees are ascribed to

_Damasus_ by _Gratian_, _Ivo_ of _Chartres_, _Anastasius_, and others,

but all evidently forged by some Impostor blindly addicted to the See of

_Rome_, and quite unacquainted with the Discipline of the Church in the

Fourth Century. In one of them a Canon is quoted from the Council of

Nice, forbidding the Laity to eat or drink of any thing that was

_offered to the holy Priests_, because none but the _Jewish_ Priests

were allowed to eat of the Bread that was offered on the Altar. We know

of no such Canon; and besides, it is not at all probable, that the

Council of _Nice_ would have restrained the Clergy from sharing at least

with the Poor what was offered them. In another of these Decrees the

Paying of Tythes is commanded, on pain of Excommunication; whereas it

might be easily made appear, that, in the Fourth Century, the Offerings

destined for the Maintenance of the Clergy were still voluntary. Another

Decree supposes, that, by an antient Custom, all Metropolitans swore

Fealty to the Apostolic See, and could ordain no Bishops till they had

received the Pall from _Rome_. For the Sake of this, _Baronius_ admits

all the rest: but of such a Custom not the least Mention, or distant

Hint, is to be met with in any antient Writer.

[Sidenote: _His Writings in Prose and Verse._]

_Damasus_ is ranked by _Jerom_[1205] among the Ecclesiastical Writers,

on account of the many small Pieces he writ, chiefly in Verse; for he

had a particular Genius for Poetry, and was no despicable Poet, if some

Compositions ascribed to him were truly his. He writ several Books, both

in Prose and Verse, in Commendation of Virginity; but neither that, nor

any of his other Works, has reached our Times, besides some Letters, and

a few Epitaphs, Inscriptions, and Epigrams, which have been carefully

collected by _Baronius_[1206], though it may be justly questioned

whether the several Pieces ascribed to him by that Writer were written

by him. A short History of the first Popes, styled, _The Pontifical of_

Damasus, and published together with the Councils, has long passed for

the Work of _Damasus_; but now even _Baronius_ owns it not to be his;

and most Critics are of Opinion, that it was written after the Time of

_Gregory the Great_; nay, some ascribe it to _Anastasius

Bibliothecarius_, who flourished in the Ninth Century[1207]. As for his

Letters, those to _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_, to _Stephen_, styled,

_Archbishop of the Council of_ Mauritania, to _Prosper_ Primate of

_Numidia_, to the Bishops of _Italy_, are all spurious, as well as the

Letters to which some of them are Answers, and supposed to have been

forged by that notorious Impostor _Isidorus Mercator_[1208]. His genuine

Letters are the Two, that are to be found among the Works of _Jerom_, to

whom they were written; Two to _Acholius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_,

published by _Holstenius_ in his _Collection of the antient Monuments of

the Church of_ Rome[1209]; a Letter of great Length to _Paulinus_ of

_Antioch_, whereof the chief Heads are set down by _Theodoret_ in his

History, as are likewise those of his Letter to the Orientals concerning

_Timotheus_, the favourite Disciple of _Apollinaris_. Several Letters

from the Councils, that were held in _Rome_ in his Time, and at which he

presided, are still extant, and may well be ascribed to him. The Two

Letters to _Jerom_ are well worth perusing, being written in a pure,

easy, and elegant Style, and with a great deal of Spirit, Vivacity, and

even Gaiety, though _Damasus_ was then much advanced in Years, and

overburdened with Cares and Business[1210]. In one of them he declares,

that his only Delight was to read the Scriptures; and that all other

Books, however well written, gave him rather Disgust than Pleasure.

_Jerom_ returned to _Rome_ from the East in 382. with _Epiphanius_

Bishop of _Salamis_, and _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, to assist at the

Council held there. [Sidenote: Jerom _kept at_ Rome, _and employed by

him_.] The other Two returned to their Sees; but _Jerom_ continued at

_Rome_, being kept there by _Damasus_, who employed him in answering the

Letters he received from the Councils of several Churches applying to

him for his Advice[1211]. _Damasus_, taken with his Learning and

Erudition, and chiefly with the Knowlege he had of the Scripture, had

long before lived in great Intimacy with him, and upon his leaving

_Rome_ writ frequent Letters to him, not thinking it beneath the Rank he

held in the Church to consult him as his Master about the true Meaning

of some difficult Passages in holy Writ[1212]. Thus in one of his

Letters he desires him to explain the Parable of the Prodigal Son[1213],

and in another to interpret the Word _Hosanna_, which he says was

differently interpreted by different Writers, who seemed to contradict

each other[1214]. In Compliance with this Request, _Jerom_ writ the

Piece on that Subject, which is still extant. It was likewise at the

Desire of _Damasus_ that he corrected the _Latin_ Version of the New

Testament, and revised at _Rome_ the _Latin_ Version of the Psalms,

comparing it with the _Greek_ Text of the _Septuagint_. But as to the

Letter, with which _Damasus_ is supposed to have encouraged him to

undertake that Work, it is evidently supposititious, and altogether

unworthy of him.

[Sidenote: _Psalmody falsly ascribed to him._]

_Anastasius_ ascribes to _Damasus_ the Custom of Singing, instead of

Reading, the Psalms at Divine Service[1215]. But it is manifest from

_Austin_, that this Practice was brought from the East, and first

complied with by the Church of _Milan_[1216], in the Year 386. that is,

Two Years after the Death of _Damasus_. So long as _Damasus_ lived,

_Jerom_ continued at _Rome_; but as, by his Learning and exemplary Life,

he was an Eye-sore to the lewd, ignorant, and haughty Clergy of _Rome_,

or as he styles them, _the Senate of Pharisees_[1217], he thought it

adviseable to abandon the City upon the Death of his great Friend and

Protector, and retire to _Jerusalem_, hoping to find there that Quiet

and Tranquillity which he despaired of being able to enjoy while he

dwelt with _the Scarlet Whore_[1218], that is, while he lived at _Rome_.

[Sidenote: _His Character._] As for the Character of _Damasus_; _Jerom_

styles him, _a Virgin Doctor of the Virgin Church_; and, in his Letter

to _Eustochium_, _a Man of great Excellence_. _Theodoret_ commends him

as a Man of a holy Life, as one who declined no Fatigue or Labour to

support and maintain the Doctrine of the Apostles, and who struck the

_Arians_ with Terror, though he attacked them at a Distance[1219].

Elsewhere he calls him the _famous Damasus_[1220], and places him at the

Head of the most celebrated Teachers of Truth, who, till his Time, had

appeared in the West[1221]. That _Greek_ Writer could not be biassed in

his Favour, though _Jerom_ perhaps was. The Orientals declared, in 431.

that they followed the Example of _Damasus_, and other Persons eminent

for Learning[1222]; and the Council of _Chalcedon_, speaking of his

Letter to _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, styles him the Honour and Glory of

_Rome_ for Piety and Justice[1223]. The Church of _Rome_ honours him as

a Saint, and his Festival is kept in some Places on the 10th, in others

on the 11th of _December_. But, after all, that he got the Pontificate

by the most horrible Violence and Bloodshed; that he lived in great

State; that he had frequent and grand Entertainments; that he kept a

Table, which, in Sumptuousness, vied with the Tables of the Emperors

themselves; and all this at the Expence of the _Roman_ Ladies, whose

generous Contributions might have been applied to better Uses; is

affirmed by contemporary and unexceptionable Writers. It is likewise

manifest from the Letters of _Jerom_, that in his Time the Discipline of

the Church was greatly relaxed; that the Observance of the primitive

Canons was almost utterly neglected; and that Luxury, Ignorance, and

Debauchery, universally prevailed among the Ecclesiastics at _Rome_. And

this Charge against his Clergy in some degree recoils upon him, since he

appears to have carried the Papal Authority farther than any of his

Predecessors, and therefore might have restrained and corrected them.

Whether his Sanctity may not from all this be justly questioned,

notwithstanding the favourable Testimony of some antient Writers, I

leave the Reader to judge.

-----

Footnote 977:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 978:

Bar. 384. 16. in appar. ad annal.

Footnote 979:

Boll. 21 Feb. p. 244.

Footnote 980:

Marcell. & Faust. p. 3.

Footnote 981:

Id. p. 3-5.

Footnote 982:

Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 60. & ad ann. 367. n. 8.

Footnote 983:

Id. ad ann. 359. n. 48.

Footnote 984:

Marc. & Faust. p. 18. 100. 103. Gennad. c. 16.

Footnote 985:

Marc. & Faust. p. 5, 6.

Footnote 986:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 8.

Footnote 987:

Ibid. p. 68, 69. 71.

Footnote 988:

Amb. ep. 11. tom. 5.

Footnote 989:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 990:

Socr. l. 4. c. 24.

Footnote 991:

Ruff. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 992:

Marc. & Faust. p. 5, 6.

Footnote 993:

Id. p. 6, 7.

Footnote 994:

Ruff. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 995:

Ammian. Mar. l. 27. p. 337.

Footnote 996:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 997:

Ammian. ib.

Footnote 998:

Marc. & Faust. p. 9.

Footnote 999:

Hier. ep. 5. t. 2.

Footnote 1000:

Hier. ep. 49.

Footnote 1001:

Ruf. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 1002:

Ammian. l. 27. p. 337.

Footnote 1003:

Idem ib. p. 337, 338.

Footnote 1004:

Hier. ep. 61. t. 2.

Footnote 1005:

Aug. ep. 86. Bar. ann. 367. n. 10.

Footnote 1006:

Marc. & Faust. p. 6-9.

Footnote 1007:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 368. n. 4.

Footnote 1008:

Marc. & Faust. p. 9, 10.

Footnote 1009:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1010:

Ammian. l. 27. p. 349.

Footnote 1011:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 80.

Footnote 1012:

Id. p. 81.

Footnote 1013:

Blond. Prim. p. 165.

Footnote 1014:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 80.

Footnote 1015:

Marc. & Faust. p. 10 Bar. ad ann. 368.

Footnote 1016:

Id. p. 10, 11.

Footnote 1017:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 368. n. 3.

Footnote 1018:

Marc. & Faust. p. 11, 12.

Footnote 1019:

Ath. ad Afr. p. 931.