1 Corinth. vii. 5.

Footnote 1433:

Holsten. Coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 49-51.

Footnote 1434:

Zos. l. 5. c. 40.

Footnote 1435:

Soz. l. 9. c. 6.

Footnote 1436:

Zos. l. 5. p. 819, 820. Soz. l. 9. c. 7.

Footnote 1437:

Hier. ep. 16.

Footnote 1438:

Vid. sup. p. 263-266.

Footnote 1439:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1271.

Footnote 1440:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1441:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1272-1276.

Footnote 1442:

Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.

Footnote 1443:

Theodoret. l. 5. c. 34.

Footnote 1444:

Niceph. l. 14. c. 27.

Footnote 1445:

Bar. ad ann. 48. n. 32.

Footnote 1446:

Niceph. c. 26.

Footnote 1447:

Idem, c. 27.

Footnote 1448:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1449:

See above, p. 105, & seq.

Footnote 1450:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1451:

Vid. Ell. Du Pin de antiq. eccles. disciplin. differt. prim. n. 12.

Footnote 1452:

Vide supra, p. 310.

Footnote 1453:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1265-1269.

Footnote 1454:

Vide Petr. de Marc. dissert. de primat. p. 227.

Footnote 1455:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1245. Ugh. t. 1. p. 676.

Footnote 1456:

Socrat. l. 6. c. 8.

Footnote 1457:

Greg. l. 7. ep. 64.

Footnote 1458:

Cypr. ep. 72.

Footnote 1459:

Aug. de diver. serm. 33.

Footnote 1460:

Vide Iren. l. 1. c. 21-24. & Epiph. hæres. 21-28. & 41, 42.

Footnote 1461:

Apost. const. can. 55.

Footnote 1462:

Aug. ep. 86.

Footnote 1463:

James v. 14, 15.

Footnote 1464:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1248.

Footnote 1465:

Conc. Trid. sess. 14. can. 1.

Footnote 1466:

Possid. Aug. vit. c. 18.

Footnote 1467:

Aug. ep. 95.

Footnote 1468:

Aug. ep. 90-95.

Footnote 1469:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1470:

Aug. ep. 93.

Footnote 1471:

Idem ep. 91. 93.

Footnote 1472:

Idem ep. 96.

Footnote 1473:

Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 25.

Footnote 1474:

Vide p. 121.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HONORIUS, ZOSIMUS, THEODOSIUS

_Fortieth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 417. ]

_Zosimus_, the Successor of _Innocent_, was, according to the

_Bibliothecarian_, a _Greek_ by Nation, and the Son of one

_Abraham_[1475]; which is all we know of him before his Election. He was

elected and ordained Six Days after the Death of his Predecessor, that

is, on the 18th of _March_ 417[N60].

-----

Footnote N60:

_Paschasinus_, Bishop of _Lilybæum_, observes, at the Year 443. that

in 417. when _Zosimus_ was Bishop of _Rome_, _Easter_, which ought to

have been kept on the 22d of _April_, was, by a Mistake, kept on the

25th of _March_[N60.1]; so that on the 25th of _March_, _Zosimus_ was

in Possession of the See; and consequently must have been chosen and

ordained on the 18th of that Month, the only _Sunday_ in 417. between

the 12th of _March_, when _Innocent_ died, and the 25th. For in those

Days Bishops were commonly ordained on _Sundays_, and it is very

certain, that _Zosimus_ was ordained on that Day, since he pretended

the Ordination of Two Bishops, whom he deposed, to be null, because

they had been ordained on another Day[N60.2]. _Theodoret_ makes

_Boniface_ the immediate Successor of _Innocent_[N60.3]. But all the

other Writers, without Exception, place _Zosimus_ between _Innocent_

and _Boniface_.

Footnote N60.1:

Leo, t. 1. p. 413.

Footnote N60.2:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1569.

Footnote N60.3:

Theod. l. 5. p. 751.

-----

[Sidenote: Pelagius, _his Country_, _Profession_, _Parts_, &c.]

The first thing that engaged the Attention of _Zosimus_, after his

Election, was the Heresy of _Pelagius_, and his chief Disciple

_Cælestius_, which, at that time, made a great Noise in the Church.

_Pelagius_ was by Birth a _Briton_, and a Monk by Profession; but one of

those who, parting with their Estates, and renouncing all worldly

Honours, lived an austere Life; but in no Community, and under no Rule.

Such a Monk was the famous _Paulinus_, such _Pammachius_, and such

probably _Pelagius_; for I do not find, in any antient Writer, that he

ever confined himself to a Monastery; nay, the wandering Life he led is

a strong Proof he never did[N61]. As to his Parts, _Jerom_, who could

never discover any thing commendable in those he opposed, speaks of him

with the greatest Contempt, as if he had no Genius, and but very little

Knowlege[1476]. But St. _Austin_, a more candid and less passionate

Writer, owns him to have been a Man of extraordinary good Sense, of a

very sprightly Genius, of great Penetration, and one who was not easily

overcome, but rather capable of maintaining, with the strongest Reasons

that could be offered, the Opinions which he once embraced[1477]. He

lived several Years at _Rome_, at least from the Year 400. to 411. and

was there well known, and greatly esteemed. For St. _Austin_, who first

heard of him, while he lived at _Rome_, spoke of him in the first Books,

which he writ against him, as of a Man, _who passed for a Saint, who had

made great Progress in Piety, whose Life was chaste, and Manners

blameless, who had sold and given to the Poor all he had_, &c[1478]. St.

_Paulinus_ and St. _Jerom_ seem to have once entertained a no less

favourable Opinion of him in these respects, than St. _Austin_ did; for

they too, in some of their Letters, speak of him with the greatest

Commendations. But he no sooner began to broach his new Doctrines than

he forfeited their good Opinion, and with it every Virtue which he had

formerly possessed; nay, they pretend that he abandoned himself, at

once, to immoderate Eating and Drinking, and to all manner of

Debauchery, passing his whole Time in Revels and Banquets, in caressing

and pampering his Body, which by that means, says _Jerom_, swelled to

such an exorbitant Size, that he was more capable of crushing his

Adversaries with the Weight of his Carcase than the Weight of his

Arguments[1479]. We shall find very few, if any at all, who, upon their

teaching Doctrines not approved by the Fathers, have not been

immediately transformed by them, out of their great Zeal for the Purity

of the Faith, into Monsters of Wickedness, though they themselves had,

perhaps, proposed them before for Patterns of every Christian Virtue. It

behoves us therefore to be very cautious in giving Credit to what they

say of those whom they style Heretics. With respect to _Pelagius_, St.

_Austin_, more moderate than the rest, does not charge him with any

Vices, but only ascribes to Hypocrisy the Virtues which he had admired

in him before[1480].

-----

Footnote N61:

He is commonly styled _Pelagius the Briton_, to distinguish him from

_Pelagius_ of _Tarento_, who lived about the same time[N61.1].

Footnote N61.1:

Aug. ep. 106. Prosp. contra Ingrat. l. 1. c. 1.

-----

[Sidenote: _Cælestius, his Family, Profession, Parts_, &c.]

_Cælestius_, the first and chief Disciple of _Pelagius_, was, according

to some, a Native of _Scotland_ or _Ireland_; according to others, of

_Campania_ in _Italy_[1481]; but, with respect to his Country, nothing

certain can be advanced. He was descended of an illustrious Family, and

had applied himself, from his Youth, to the Study of the Law, and made

some Figure at the Bar; but growing weary of that Profession, he retired

from the World, embraced a monastic Life, and lived some Years in a

Monastery[1482]. St. _Jerom_ speaks of him as a Man of no Genius or

Talents[1483]. But St. _Austin_ entertained a very different Opinion of

his Parts; for he commends him as a good Writer, as one who was

thoroughly acquainted with all the Subtilties of Logic, and whose

Talents would have proved very serviceable, could he have been retrieved

from his Errors[1484].

[Sidenote: _Their Doctrine._]

The Tenets of _Pelagius_ or _Cælestius_ (for those, who embraced them,

are styled indifferently _Pelagians_ and _Cælestians_) may be reduced to

the following Heads: 1. That we may, by our Free-will, without the Help

of Grace, do Good, and avoid Evil. 2. That if Grace were necessary for

either, God would be unjust in giving it to one, and denying it to

another. 3. That Faith, which is the first Step to our Justification,

depends upon our Free-will. 4. That the Sin of _Adam_ hurt none but him;

that Children are born in the State which he was in before the Fall;

that they are not delivered by Baptism from eternal Perdition, but,

without Baptism, partake of Life everlasting. By Life everlasting they

meant, a middle State between eternal Happiness and eternal Misery. 5.

That Grace is only necessary to render the Observance of the

Commandments more easy.

[Sidenote: _Both pass over into_ Africa.]

These Opinions _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ first broached at _Rome_,

about the Year 405. and gained there a great many Followers; more, says

St. _Austin_, than could be well imagined[1485]. They both left _Rome_

in 410. or 411. and, crossing over into _Africa_, infected many there,

says the same Author, especially at _Carthage_, with their new

Doctrine[1486]. [Sidenote: Pelagius _repairs to Palæstine_.] _Pelagius_,

after a short Stay at _Carthage_, went first into _Egypt_, and from

thence into _Palæstine_, where he continued a long time[1487].

_Cælestius_ remained at _Carthage_, hoping to be preferred there to the

Priesthood; but as he did not use the due Caution in propagating his

Doctrine in that City, he was soon discovered, and accused by one

_Paulinus_, a Deacon, before a Council, at which several Bishops were

present, and _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_ presided. [Sidenote: Cælestius

_accused and condemned in_ Africa.] The Charge brought against him was,

That he held the Sin of _Adam_ to have hurt him alone; that it could not

be imputed to his Descendents; and that no Sin was cancelled by Baptism.

These Tenets he did not own before the Council; but neither would he

disown or anathematize them; and therefore the Bishops, provoked at his

Obstinacy, not only condemned his Doctrine, but, at the same time, cut

him off, as an incorrigible Heretic, from the Communion of the

Church[1488]. [Sidenote: _Appeals to_ Rome, _but flies to_ Ephesus.]

From this Sentence _Cælestius_ appealed to the Judgment of _Innocent_,

then Bishop of _Rome_, summoning _Paulinus_, his Accuser, to make his

Charge good at that Tribunal. But _Cælestius_ himself laid, it seems, no

Stress on his Appeal; for, instead of repairing to _Rome_, he fled to

_Ephesus_[1489], where we shall leave him for the present.

[Sidenote: Pelagius _accused in_ Palæstine _by_ Heros _and_ Lazarus,

_two_ Gallican _Bishops_;]

_Pelagius_, in the mean time, was not idle in _Palæstine_, whither he

had retired, as I have said above; but, being countenanced by _John_

Bishop of _Jerusalem_, he gained daily such Numbers of Followers there,

that _Heros_ and _Lazarus_, Two Bishops of _Gaul_, whom I shall speak of

hereafter, happening to be then in _Palæstine_, thought it incumbent

upon them to accuse him to _Eulogius_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_, and

Metropolitan of _Palæstine_. They drew up a Writing accordingly,

containing the chief Heads of the Doctrine which _Pelagius_ taught,

together with the Articles, for which his Disciple _Cælestius_ had been

condemned by the Council of _Carthage_; and this Writing they presented

to _Eulogius_. Hereupon a Council was assembled soon after at

_Diospolis_, a City of _Palæstine_, known in Scripture by the Name of

_Lydda_. It consisted of Fourteen Bishops, and _Eulogius_ of _Cæsarea_

presided; but neither of the _Gallican_ Bishops was present, the one

being prevented by a dangerous Malady, and the other not chusing to

abandon him in that Condition. However, their Charge against _Pelagius_

was read, and he examined, by the Fathers of the Assembly, on the

Articles it contained. [Sidenote: _and absolved by the Council of_

Diospolis.] But as nobody appeared against him, as none of those Bishops

were sufficiently acquainted with the _Latin_ Tongue to understand his

Books, and he disowned some Propositions, explained others in a Catholic

Sense, and anathematized all who maintained Doctrines repugnant to those

of the Catholic Church, the Council pronounced, at the Suggestion of

_John_ of _Jerusalem_, the following Sentence: _Since the Monk_

Pelagius, _here present, has satisfied us, as to his Doctrine, and

anathematized with us whatever is contrary to the true Faith, we

acknowlege him to be in the Communion of the Church_[1490]. This Council

St. _Jerom_ styles, _The pitiful Synod of_ Diospolis[1491]. But St.

_Austin_, instead of insulting them, calls them _Holy and Catholic

Judges_; and will not answer, that he himself might not have been

deceived by the Artifices of _Pelagius_, had he been one of his

Judges[1492].

[Sidenote: _He is accused by_ Heros _and_ Lazarus _to the Bishops of_

Africa.]

_Heros_ and _Lazarus_, surprised to hear that the Fathers of the

Assembly had absolved _Pelagius_, and despairing of ever being able to

get him condemned in the East, where his Cause was openly espoused by

the Bishop of _Jerusalem_, resolved to apply to their Brethren in the

West, especially to the Bishops of _Africa_, who they well knew could

not be prejudiced in his Favour, since they had already condemned his

favourite Disciple _Cælestius_. Pursuant to this Resolution, they writ,

by the famous _Orosius_, who was returning from _Palæstine_ to _Africa_,

to the Bishops of that Province, accusing _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ as

the Authors of an _Execrable Sect_; giving them a particular Account of

what had passed in the Council of _Diospolis_, and acquainting them with

the wonderful Progress the new Heresy made in the East, especially in

_Palæstine_[1493].

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine of_ Pelagius _and_ Cælestius_ condemned

anew in_ Africa.]

These Letters were delivered by _Orosius_ to the Bishops of the Province

of _Carthage_, who, after having caused them to be read in the

Provincial Council, which was then sitting in that City, and, with them,

the Acts of the Council, which had been held Five Years before against

_Cælestius_, not only condemned the Doctrine ascribed to him and

_Pelagius_, but declared, that the same Sentence should be pronounced

against them, unless they anathematized, in the plainest and most

distinct Terms, the Errors with which they were charged[1494]. The

Example of the Bishops of _Africa_ was followed by those of _Numidia_,

assembled at _Milevum_, and by _Innocent_ Bishop of _Rome_, as I have

related above.

[Sidenote: _They appeal to_ Rome.]

This Condemnation, so solemn and general, was attended with the wished

for Effect. It greatly lessened the Reputation of _Pelagius_ and

_Cælestius_, staggered many of their Followers, and deterred others from

embracing their Doctrines. Of this both _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ were

well apprised; and, at the same time, sensible, that the only means of

retrieving their Credit, and maintaining the Ground they had gained, was

to justify themselves either to the Bishops of _Africa_, or to the

Bishop of _Rome_, they chose the latter, thinking it more easy to gain

over one than many. Besides, in _Africa_ they knew St. _Austin_, who was

in great Reputation there, and swayed all the Councils as he pleased, to

be their declared and irreconcileable Enemy; whereas they had many

Friends at _Rome_; and, among the rest, the Presbyter _Sixtus_, who was

afterwards raised to that See[1495]. In order, therefore, to persuade

the Bishop of _Rome_, as _Pelagius_ had done the Bishops of _Diospolis_,

that they had been falsly and maliciously accused, _Pelagius_ writ a

Letter to _Innocent_, whose Death he had not yet heard of, while

_Cælestius_, trusting to his Eloquence, and depending on the Favour

which the Bishops of _Rome_ had always shewn to those who recurred to

them, undertook a Journey to that City. He had fled from _Carthage_ to

_Ephesus_, as I have related above. On his Arrival in that City he was

well received by the Bishop of the Place, and even preferred, after he

had staid some time there, to the Priesthood. [Sidenote: Cælestius _is

driven from_ Ephesus _and_ Constantinople.] But, in the mean time, his

Doctrine giving Offence to some, while it was embraced by others, great

Disturbances arose; and he was, in the End, driven out of the City.

Being thus expelled from _Ephesus_, he repaired to _Constantinople_; but

he no sooner began to discover his Sentiments there, than _Atticus_, who

then held that See, and kept a watchful Eye over him, commanded him

forthwith to depart the City[1496]. [Sidenote: _Repairs to_ Rome

_and presents himself before_ Zosimus.] From _Constantinople_ he went

strait to _Rome_; and, finding that _Innocent_ was dead, he presented

himself before his Successor _Zosimus_, declaring, that he was come to

_Rome_, to defend his oppressed Innocence at the Tribunal of the

Apostolic See; not doubting but he should make it appear before so

knowing and unprejudiced a Judge, and confute the many groundless

Aspersions with which his Enemies had strove to blast his Reputation in

the Eyes of the whole Church: he complained of the Judgment given

against him by the _African_ Bishops about Six Years before; and,

pretending that his Accuser _Paulinus_, conscious of his Innocence, and

his own Guilt, had declined the Judgment of the Apostolic See, he

summoned him anew to appear, and make good the Charge which he had

brought against him. [Sidenote: _He delivers his Confession of Faith

to_ Zosimus;] At the same time he presented to _Zosimus_ a Request,

containing a Confession of his Faith, with long Descants on the Articles

of the Apostolic Symbol, concerning which his Orthodoxy had never been

questioned. But as to _Grace_ and _Original Sin_, he said, they were not

Matter of Faith; but that he was, nevertheless, ready to acquiesce, even

with respect to them, in the Judgment of the _Roman_ See[1497].

_Zosimus_ had at this Time some Affairs of the greater Importance on his

Hands[1498]; but, highly pleased with the pretended Submission of

_Cælestius_, and thinking this a favourable Opportunity of extending his

Authority, and drawing to the Tribunal of the Apostolic See Appeals in

Causes that had been judged and decided elsewhere, he postponed the

other Affairs to attend to this alone, in his Opinion, the most

important of all. A Day was appointed, without Loss of Time, for

_Cælestius_ to appear in the Church of St. _Clement_, and there give an

Account of his Faith. He appeared accordingly; and the Confession being

read, which he had delivered to _Zosimus_, he owned that, and no other,

to be his Faith. In that Confession he did not deny Original Sin, but

declared, in the clearest Terms, that he was in Doubt about it; and that

the Belief of Original Sin was no Article of the Catholic Faith.

[Sidenote: _which is approved by him_.] And yet such a Confession was

approved by _Zosimus_ as Catholic; which was approving, if not the

Doctrine, at least the Doubts which _Cælestius_ entertained of Original

Sin[1499]. [Sidenote: _The_ Roman Catholic _Divines strive in vain to

excuse_ Zosimus.] The _Roman Catholic_ Divines have taken great Pains to

clear _Zosimus_ from this Imputation; but have been attended with no

better Success than St. _Austin_ was before them. For that Father,

unwilling to condemn one of his Brethren, pretended that _Zosimus_, in

approving the Confession of _Cælestius_, did not declare his Doctrine to

be Catholic, but only the Disposition of his Mind to condemn whatever

should be found amiss in his Doctrine; for such a Disposition, says he,

makes a true Catholic[1500]: he might have added, _if sincere, and not

feigned_; for it was certainly feigned in _Cælestius_; and consequently

_Zosimus_ was no less mistaken in declaring his Disposition of Mind to

be Catholic, than if he had made such a Declaration with respect to his

Doctrine. St. _Austin_ himself was sensible of the Weakness of his Plea,

and therefore immediately added; _But, allowing the Doctrine of_

Pelagius _and_ Cælestius _to have been approved by the_ Roman _Church_,

_all we can infer from thence is, that the_ Roman _Clergy was guilty of

Prevarication_[1501]; an Inference which he seems to be no-way

solicitous about, though he could not have admitted it without giving up

the Question, if he had thought the Pope infallible.

[Sidenote: _His Haughty Letter to the_ African _Bishops in favour of_

Cælestius.]

_Zosimus_, however prejudiced in favour of _Cælestius_, did not take

upon him to restore him to the Communion of the Church, from which he

had been cut off by the Bishops of _Africa_ Six Years before, or to come

to any farther Resolution till he had imparted the Affair to them. He

writ accordingly to _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_, and to the other _African_

Bishops; not that he stood in need of their Advice, or wanted to be

directed by them, as he let them know in his Letter, but because he was

willing to hear what they had to object against one who had been first

accused at their Tribunal. He upbraids those Prelates, and with great

Bitterness and Acrimony, as if they had acted with too much Haste and

Precipitation in an Affair that required the most mature Deliberation.

As for _Heros_ and _Lazarus_, the two great Opposers of _Pelagius_ and

_Cælestius_, he inveighs against them with the most abusive Language

that an implacable Rage could suggest. He lets the _African_ Bishops

know, that if the Accusers of _Cælestius_ did not appear at _Rome_ in

Two Months, to make good their Charge against him, he would declare him

innocent, and admit him as a true Catholic to his Communion. He styles

all such Inquiries, that is, Inquiries concerning _Grace_ and _Original

Sin_, empty Speculations, and trifling Disputes, owing to a criminal

Curiosity, and an immoderate Desire of speaking and writing; in which

perhaps he was not much to blame: he closes his Letter with exhorting

them not to trust to their own Judgment, but to adhere in every thing to

the Scripture and Tradition[1502].

[Sidenote: _The Characters of_ Heros, Lazarus, _and_ Patroclus.]

As for _Heros_ and _Lazarus_, against whom _Zosimus_ chiefly vented his

Spleen, while he favoured _Cælestius_; St. _Prosper_ gives us, in his

Chronicle, the following Account of the former: “_Heros_, says he, was

Bishop of _Arles_, a holy Man, and the Disciple of St. _Martin_.

However, he was driven from his See by his own People, though quite

innocent, and not even accused of any Fault. In his room was placed one

_Patroculus_, an intimate Friend of Count _Constantius_, who at that

Time, bore a great Sway in the Empire, and whose favour they courted,

and hoped to earn by that Violence.” This happened in 412. All we know

of _Lazarus_ is, that he was ordained Bishop of _Aix_ in _Provence_, by

_Proculus_ Bishop of _Marseilles_, a Prelate of extraordinary Merit, as

appears from the high Commendations bestowed on him by the Council of

_Turin_[1503], by St. _Jerom_[1504], and by _Tiro Prosper_ in his

Chronicle. _Patroclus_, who was intruded in the room of _Heros_, is

painted by _Tiro Prosper_, a Writer no-ways prejudiced against the

_Pelagians_, or their Friends, as a Man of a most abandoned Life, and

one who turned the Episcopacy into a Trade, and sold the Priesthood to

all who had Money to purchase it[1505]. _Baronius_ interprets the

violent Death, which he suffered in 426. when he was barbarously

murdered by a Military Tribune, as a Punishment from Heaven for his

criminal Intrusion[1506]. Such were the Characters of _Heros_,

_Lazarus_, and _Patroclus_; and yet of the latter, who favoured the

_Pelagians_, _Zosimus_ entertained the highest Opinion, and often

commends him in his Letters as a Man of great Merit and Virtue.

[Sidenote: Heros _and_ Lazarus _falsly charged with many Crimes

by_ Zosimus.] But the Two former, who had distinguished themselves above

the rest in opposing the _Pelagians_, he most outrageously abuses,

styling them, in his Second Letter to the _African_ Bishops, _Two

Plagues_, who, with their nonsensical Whims, disturbed the Peace and

Tranquillity of the whole Church; _Whirlwinds and Storms_, that could

suffer none to enjoy any Quiet. He adds, that he was not at all

surprised at their wickedly attempting to defame with false Depositions,

and lying Evidences, a Layman, meaning _Pelagius_, who had served God so

long with an untainted Reputation, and shining Virtues, since they had

raised so many Storms in the Church, had contrived so many Plots,

employed so many Engines, to compass the Ruin of their Brethren and

Collegues in the Episcopacy[1507]. No Mention is made by the Historians

of those Times of any other Storms or Disturbances in the Churches of

_Gaul_, but such as were occasioned by the Expulsion of _Heros_, and the

Intrusion of _Patroclus_; and these _Patroclus_ probably exaggerated

beyond Measure, laying the whole Blame on _Heros_. For _Patroclus_ was

in _Rome_ at the very Time _Zosimus_ writ his Letter to the _African_

Bishops, fraught with Invectives against _Heros_ and _Lazarus_[1508]. In

the same Letter _Zosimus_ charges the Two Prelates with several other

Crimes; _viz._ that they had both been ordained against the _Canons_,

and against the Will of the People as well as the Clergy, whom, however,

they had forced by Chains, Prisons, Confiscations, and the Favour of the

Tyrant, meaning, no doubt, the Usurper _Constantine_, to consent in the

End to their Election; that _Lazarus_ had ascended the Episcopal Throne,

while his Hands were still reeking with innocent Blood, _&c._ But, had

they been guilty of such Excesses, would _Prosper_, who lived at this

very Time, and all the other Historians, have passed them over in

Silence? Would he have styled _Heros_ an holy Man? Would St. _Austin_

have called them both his holy Brethren[1509]? Would the Fathers of the

Council of _Carthage_ in 416. have acknowleged them for their

Fellow-Labourers and Collegues in the Priesthood[1510]? Would _Proculus_

of _Marseilles_, one of the most illustrious Prelates at that Time in

_Gaul_, have ordained _Lazarus_, while his Hands were still reeking with

innocent Blood? We may therefore, upon the Whole, agree here with

_Baronius_[1511], and ascribe the Crimes, of which the two Prelates were

arraigned by _Zosimus_, to the Suggestions of their Enemies, especially

of _Patroclus_, in whom _Zosimus_ reposed an intire Confidence.

[Sidenote: _They are both degraded and excommunicated by_ Zosimus.]

However that be, _Zosimus_, highly incensed against both, not only

declared them deposed, as Men unworthy of the Episcopal Dignity, but cut

them off from his Communion, _for many Reasons_, says he, _and, among

the rest, because they had deposed themselves_[1512].

[Sidenote: _The injustice of this Sentence._]

This Sentence he pronounced in their Absence, without even acquainting

them with the Crimes laid to their Charge; not reflecting, in the Height

of his Passion, that he was, at that very Time, complaining of the

_African_ Bishops for having condemned _Cælestius_ in his Absence,

reproaching them with too much Haste and Precipitation, and laying it

down as a Rule never to be swerved from, that no Man ought to be

condemned before he is heard, let the Crimes laid to his Charge be ever

so great. As for their _deposing themselves_, or voluntarily abdicating

their Dignity, it is very certain, if _Prosper_ is to be credited, that

_Heros_ did not abdicate, but was violently driven from his See. If

_Lazarus_ abdicated (for Cardinal _Noris_[1513] and others[1514] are of

Opinion he did not), that ought not to have been imputed to him as a

Crime, any more than it was to _Nazianzen_ Bishop of _Constantinople_,

and many others, who were not even censured by their Enemies on that

Account. [Sidenote: _The other Bishops make no Account of the Anathemas

of_ Zosimus.] The other Bishops seem to have made no Account of the

Anathemas of _Zosimus_; for they still continued to communicate with

them, and acknowlege them for their Collegues[1515]; the Name of _Heros_

was inserted into the Diptychs of the Church of _Arles_ after his Death;

and _Lazarus_ was, according to some, even restored to his See[1516].

[Sidenote: Pelagius _transmits to_ Zosimus _a Confession of his Faith_;]

Not long after _Zosimus_ had written the Letter, which I have mentioned

above, to the Bishops of _Africa_ in favour of _Cælestius_, he received

one from _Praylius_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, warmly recommending to him

the Cause of _Pelagius_; and another from _Pelagius_ himself, in his own

Vindication, and with it a Confession of his Faith. These Letters were

directed to _Innocent_; but he being dead before they reached _Rome_,

they were delivered to _Zosimus_. In the Confession of Faith _Pelagius_

owned, that _Baptism ought to be administered to Children as well as to

the Adult_; and that, _notwithstanding our Free-will, we want the

Assistance of Grace_[1517]. Neither of these Propositions was

inconsistent with, or repugnant to, his Doctrine; for though he denied

Original Sin, he allowed Baptism to be administred even to Children, but

_only for their Sanctification_. He admitted the Necessity of _Grace_,

but not Grace as that Word was understood by St. _Austin_, and the other

Bishops who opposed him; for by Grace he meant no more than the

Remission of Sins, Instruction, the Example of Christ. In this

Confession he did not disown any of his Tenets; but, not thinking it

safe or adviseable openly to own them, he industriously declined

explaining himself more distinctly on either of the above-mentioned

Heads. [Sidenote: _which he approves of_,] _Zosimus_, however, fully

satisfied with his Confession, and quite astonished (to use his own

Words) at the rash Proceedings of the _African_ Bishops, in condemning,

as Heretics, Men whose Doctrine was so sound and orthodox, immediately

transmitted to _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_, and his Collegues in _Africa_,

the Confession as well as the Letter which had been sent him by

_Pelagius_. On this Occasion he writ himself a second Letter to the

_African_ Bishops, which we may justly style a Panegyric on _Pelagius_

and _Cælestius_, and a bitter Invective against their Accusers, _Heros_

and _Lazarus_. [Sidenote: _and censures the_ African _Bishops

for condemning him_.] This Letter he concludes with exhorting the

Bishops of _Africa_ to the Love of Peace and Unity, and condemning, as

guilty of an Injustice unknown even to the Pagan _Romans_, those who

gave Judgment in the Absence of the Persons accused, what Crimes soever

were laid to their Charge[1518], as I have observed above.

[Sidenote: _The_ African _Bishops maintain their former Judgment_.]

The _African_ Bishops were no less surprised to find _Zosimus_ so warmly

engaged in favour of _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, than _Zosimus_ was

surprised at their having condemned them. However, they were determined

to stand to the Judgment which they had given, though sensible that such

a Determination would not fail to produce, if _Zosimus_ did not yield, a

Misunderstanding, and perhaps an intire Separation, between _Rome_ and

_Africa_. This St. _Austin_ seems chiefly to have apprehended, and to

have been resolved, if it should so happen, to abdicate and

retire[1519]. To prevent this Evil, which would have proved very

detrimental to the common Cause, many Letters passed between _Rome_ and

_Africa_[1520]: but as none of those that were written at this Juncture

by the _African_ Bishops have reached our Times, having been probably

destroyed by those whose Interest it was to destroy them; all we know

concerning this Affair is, that the _Africans_ maintained, with great

Steadiness, their former Judgment against the Pretensions of _Zosimus_;

and would never allow a Cause, that had been determined in _Africa_, to

be re-examined at _Rome_, the rather as _Innocent_, the Predecessor of

_Zosimus_, had concurred with them in condemning both _Cælestius_ and

his Doctrine[1521]. [Sidenote: Paulinus, _summoned to_ Rome, _refuses

to obey the Summons_.] The Letter from _Zosimus_ to the _African_

Bishops was carried by one _Basilius_, Subdeacon of _Rome_, who was

charged with a verbal Order for the Deacon _Paulinus_, the first who

accused _Cælestius_, to repair to _Rome_. To this Summons _Paulinus_

returned Answer, that as the Bishops of _Africa_ had condemned

_Cælestius_ upon his Accusation, it was no longer incumbent upon him,

but upon them, to shew that his Accusation was well grounded; and

therefore he could not conceive why _Zosimus_ should require him to take

a Journey to _Rome_[1522].

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Carthage _condemns anew the_

Pelagian _Doctrine without waiting for the Judgment of_ Zosimus.]

In the mean time _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_ was under the greatest

Apprehension, lest _Zosimus_ should be prevailed upon by _Cælestius_,

and the other _Pelagians_ at _Rome_, to take some hasty Step in their

favour. Having therefore assembled, with all possible Expedition, a

Council at _Carthage_, he first writ, in his own and their Name, to

_Zosimus_, earnestly intreating him to suspend all further Proceedings

in an Affair of such Moment, till he was more fully informed. This

Letter was written, and a Messenger dispatched with it to _Rome_, while

the Council was yet very thin; the Haste _Aurelius_ was in to stop the

Proceedings of _Zosimus_ not allowing him to wait the Arrival of all.

When the rest came, and they were in all Two hundred and Fourteen, they

unanimously confirmed their former Sentence, and, without waiting for

the Judgment of _Zosimus_, condemned anew the Doctrine of _Pelagius_ and

_Cælestius_[1523]. The Decrees which they made on this Occasion against

the _Pelagians_ were received, says _Prosper_, by _Rome_, by the

Emperors, no doubt, _Honorius_ and _Arcadius_, and by the whole

World[1524]. And yet, in the making of these Decrees, the Bishop of

_Rome_ had no Hand; so that it was not _Rome_, but _Africa_, it was not

the Pope, but the Bishops of _Africa_, or more truly St. _Austin_ (for

he governed intirely that Council), who taught the Church what she was

to believe, and what disbelieve, concerning _Grace_ and Original Sin.

One of these Decrees is related by _Prosper_[1525], wherein the Two

hundred and Fourteen Bishops declare, that _we are aided by Grace, not

only in the Knowlege, but in the Practice, of Virtue; and that without

it we can neither think, speak, or do any thing whatsoever that is pious

or holy_[1526]. This, and the other Decrees of the Council, were sent

immediately to _Rome_ by the Fathers, who composed them, with a Letter

for _Zosimus_, declaring that they were determined to adhere to the

Judgment, which his Predecessor _Innocent_ had formerly given against

_Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, till such time as both owned, and in the

most plain and unexceptionable Terms, the Necessity of Grace, and

abjured the opposite Doctrine. [Sidenote: _The Policy of the_ African

_Bishops_.] It was the Effect of a refined Policy in the _African_

Bishops not to mention their own Judgment, but to lay the whole Stress

on that of _Innocent_, though his was not only preceded, but produced,

or rather extorted, by theirs. They hoped that the Regard, which they

pretended to have for _Innocent_, would bring _Zosimus_ to a better

Temper, and divert him from absolving those whom his Predecessor had so

lately condemned. As _Zosimus_ had reproached them in his Letter for

believing too easily those who had appeared against _Cælestius_, they in

their turn represented to him, that he ought not so easily to have

believed _Cælestius_, and those who spoke in his Favour. In the same

Letter they gave him a particular Account of all that had passed in

_Africa_ concerning _Cælestius_. No wonder therefore, that _Zosimus_

should have complained of the Length of the Letter, calling it a Volume,

and saying,[1527] that _he had got through it at last_. With this Letter

_Marcellinus_, Subdeacon of the Church of _Carthage_, was dispatched to

_Rome_, and he arrived there in the Beginning of _March_ 418.

[Sidenote: Zosimus _begins to yield_.]

_Zosimus_ was alarmed at the Steadiness of the _Africans_. He plainly

saw from their Letter, and more plainly from their Decrees, that they

were determined not to yield; and therefore, apprehending the evil

Consequences that would infallibly attend his continuing to protect

_Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ against them, he resolved to yield, and

withdraw, by Degrees, his Protection from both. [Sidenote: _His boasting

Letter to the_ African _Bishops_.] Hence, in his Answer to the Council,

he contented himself with setting forth and boasting the Pre-eminence,

Authority, and Prerogatives of the Apostolic See; which however, more

modest than his Predecessor, he did not ascribe to Divine Institution,

but to the Canons of the Church, and Prescription. He tells the

_African_ Bishops, that though he is vested with a Power of judging all

Causes, though his Judgment is irreversible, yet he had chosen to

determine nothing without having first consulted them; and this he

dwells upon as an extraordinary Favour. He expresses great Surprize at

their seeming to be persuaded, that he had given an intire Credit to

_Cælestius_; assures them that he had not been so hasty, being well

apprised that the last and definitive Judgment ought not to be given but

with the greatest Caution, and after the most mature Deliberation; and

in the Close of his Letter lets them know, that, upon the Receipt of

their first Letter, he had suspended all further Proceedings; and, to

gratify them, left Things in the State they were in before[1528].

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine of_ Pelagius _condemned again in a Council

at_ Carthage.]

In the mean time the _African_ Bishops, assembling in Council at

_Carthage_, from all the Provinces of _Africa_, and some even from

_Spain_, the more effectually to oppose and defeat any further Attempts

of _Zosimus_, in favour of _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, condemned their

Doctrine anew, and more distinctly than they had hitherto done. This

Council met on the 1st of _May_ 418. consisted of 225 Bishops, and

enacted Eight Canons, anathematizing the _Pelagian_ Doctrine concerning

Grace and Original Sin[1529]. To these Eight Canons they added Ten more,

calculated to establish some Points of Discipline. Among the latter the

Ninth deserves particular Notice; for it is there decreed, That

Presbyters, Deacons, and inferior Clerks, if they complain of the

Judgment of their own Bishop, may appeal, with his Consent, to the

neighbouring Bishops, and from them to the Primate or Council of

_Africa_. [Sidenote: _Appeals beyond Sea forbidden by the Council, on

Pain of Excommunication._] _But, if any one should presume_, say they,

_to appeal beyond Sea, let no Man receive him to his Communion_[1530].

To this Decree _Gratian_ has added, to save the Jurisdiction of the

Pope, _unless they appeal to the See of_ Rome; than which nothing can be

more absurd, since it was to restrain the encroaching Power of the See

of _Rome_ that this Canon was made. We must not forget, that St.

_Austin_ was present at this Council, and signed this, as well as the

other Canons and Decrees, that were, on this Occasion, enacted by the

225 Bishops.

[Sidenote: _Law enacted by_ Honorius _against the_ Pelagians.]

The _Africans_ had dispatched, the Year before, the Bishop _Vindemialis_

to the Court of _Honorius_, with the Decrees of the Council held against

_Pelagius_, of which I have spoken above. And those Decrees the Emperor

not only approved, but enacted this Year 418. a severe Law against the

_Pelagians_, dated from _Ravenna_, the 30th of _April_, and addressed to

_Palladius_ then _Præfectus Prætorio_. _Honorius_ there declares, he had

been informed, that _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ taught, in Opposition to

the Authority of the Catholic Church, that God had created the first Man

mortal; that he would have died, whether he had or had not sinned; that

his Sin did not pass to his Descendents; and several other impious

Errors, that disturbed the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church. To put

a Stop therefore to the growing Evil, he commands _Pelagius_ and

_Cælestius_ to be driven from _Rome_; orders it to be every-where

notified, that all Persons shall be admitted before the Magistrates, as

Informers against those who are suspected of holding their wicked

Doctrines; and such as are found guilty shall be sent into Exile[1531].

In virtue of this Law, an Order was issued by the _Præfecti Prætorio_,

_viz._ by _Junius Quartus Palladius_ Prefect of _Italy_, _Monaxius_

Prefect of the East, and _Agricola_ Prefect of _Gaul_, commanding

_Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ to be driven out of _Rome_, and the

Accomplices of their Errors to be stript of their Estates, and condemned

to perpetual Banishment[1532]. A most barbarous Treatment for holding

Opinions, which, if erroneous, were certainly harmless. But it is usual

for a persecuting Spirit to be as violent upon the most unessential as

the most weighty Points: and the Rage of Disputation is never more keen,

than when the Disputants can hardly define what they quarrel about;

especially when the Sword of the Magistrate is drawn on that Side which

has least to say for itself in Reason and Argument. I do not affirm this

was the Case in the present Dispute; but this is certain, that if

_Pelagius_ went too far in his Opinion, so did his Opposers in theirs:

and so far his Conduct was infinitely better than theirs, that he

declared his own Notions to be Matters very indifferent to Catholic

Faith, and professed a general Assent to that Faith; whereas they

anathematized his Opinions as execrable Errors, and punished them with

all the Severity that the most implacable Malice could exert[N62].

-----

-----

[Sidenote: Zosimus _summons_ Cælestius _to appear before him, and

to condemn his Doctrine_.]

_Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ being thus condemned by the Decrees of the

_African_ Bishops, by the Law of the Emperor, and even by the Voice of

the People, or rather of the Populace, who were everywhere ready, but

no-where more than at _Rome_, to rise against the _Enemies of Grace_, as

they were styled, and their Abetters; _Zosimus_ thought it not safe to

afford them any further Protection, unless _Cælestius_, who was still at

_Rome_ (the Imperial Law not being yet published there), consented to

anathematize the Doctrines ascribed to him and _Pelagius_, in such clear

and precise Terms as should leave no room, even for his Enemies, to

question his Sincerity. He therefore appointed a Day for the _Roman_

Clergy, and the neighbouring Bishops, to assemble; and, acquainting

_Cælestius_ with this Resolution, he summoned him to appear at the Time

appointed, that, by condemning whatever he should be required to

condemn, he might be publicly restored to the Communion of the Church,

from which he had been cut off by the _African_ Bishops. [Sidenote:

Cælestius _instead of appearing retires from_ Rome.] _Cælestius_ was

greatly perplexed with this Summons: he conceived it impossible to

dissemble any longer his real Sentiments; but, at the same time,

thinking it base to renounce them, and foreseeing the Consequences that

would infallibly attend his avowing them, after he had been long in

Suspense what Expedient to resolve on, he concluded at last, that the

best and safest was, privately to withdraw from _Rome_, and keep himself

concealed till the present Storm was blown over. This Expedient he

chose, and put it in Execution with such Secrecy, that he was no more

heard of till Three Years after, when he appeared again in _Rome_[1533].

[Sidenote: Zosimus _condemns the Confession, which he had approved

before_.]

[Sidenote: _Excommunicates_ Pelagius _and_ Cælestius;]

In the mean time the appointed Day came; but _Cælestius_ did not appear:

he was summoned a new, and the Proceedings were adjourned for a few

Days; but as he still absented himself, and no Tidings could be heard of

him, _Zosimus_ was so provoked in seeing himself thus deluded, that,

without further Examination, he condemned the Confession of Faith, which

he had approved before; confirmed the Sentence of the _Africans_, which

he had so sharply censured; and, anathematizing the Doctrine both of

_Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, declared the one and the other cut off from

the Communion of the Church, if they did not publicly renounce and

abjure _the poisonous Tenets of their impious and abominable

Sect_[1534]. He did not stop here; but, to retrieve his Reputation,

which had suffered greatly on this Occasion, and to atone by an opposite

Zeal, for that which he had hitherto exerted in their Favour, he writ a

long circular Letter to all the Bishops, anathematizing the Doctrine of

_Pelagius_, and exhorting them to follow his Example. [Sidenote: _and

writes a circular Letter against them_.] Copies of this Letter were sent

into all the Provinces of the Christian World, and out of so great a

Number of Bishops Eighteen only were found, who refused to receive it,

and confirm, with their Subscriptions, the Anathemas it contained[1535].

[Sidenote: _Some Bishops refuse to sign it_,]

[Sidenote: _and send a Confession of their Faith to_Zosimus.]

As for the Eighteen Bishops, who refused to join the rest, they alleged,

that they could not, in Conscience, condemn any Man in his Absence, and

that it was but just they should first hear what he had to plead in his

Defence, quoting to that Purpose the very Passages of Scripture which

_Zosimus_ had quoted in his Letter to the _Africans_, censuring them for

condemning _Pelagius_ in his Absence. They added, that, as for

_Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, they had both condemned, in their Writings,

the Errors imputed to them; and therefore did not deserve, in their

Opinion, the Anathemas that _Rome_ and _Africa_ had, perhaps too

hastily, thundered against them. _Julian_, Bishop of _Eclana_ in

_Campania_, one of the Eighteen, and the most distinguished among them,

writ Two Letters on this Subject to _Zosimus_, one of which was signed

by them all, and contained a Confession of their Faith, agreeing, in the

most material Points, with the Confessions of _Pelagius_ and

_Cælestius_. For there they absolutely reject, and in the strongest

Terms, Original Sin, under the Name of _Natural Sin_; but allow (and in

this Article alone they differ from _Pelagius_) that by the Sin of

_Adam_ Death was let into the World. They intreat _Zosimus_ to acquaint

them with what should be found amiss in their Confession; but beg that

he would not think of employing Force, since no Force, but that of

Conviction, could produce in them a Change of Sentiments. They let him

know, in the End of their Letter, that they have already appealed to the

Judgment of an Oecumenical Council[1536]. [Sidenote: _They are condemned

and degraded by_ Zosimus.] _Zosimus_ was so provoked at this Appeal,

that, upon the Receipt of the Letter, he assembled, in great Haste, a

Council, consisting of the _Roman_ Clergy, and the neighbouring Bishops;

and, having caused the Letter to be read in their Presence, he condemned

anew _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, and with them _Julian_, and the other

Bishops, who signed it, declaring them guilty of the same Errors, and in

Consequence thereof degraded, as incorrigible Heretics, from the

Episcopal Dignity. [Sidenote: _They recur to the Emperor for a General

Council._] The Prelates, thus degraded, had recourse to the Emperor

_Honorius_, complaining of the undeserved Severity of _Zosimus_, and

intreating him to convene, by his Authority, an Oecumenical Council, to

the Judgment of which they were ready to submit both themselves and

their Doctrine. The Emperor seemed at first inclined to grant them their

Request. But Count _Valerius_, a great Friend of St. _Austin_, and then

very powerful at Court, not only diverted _Honorius_ from it, but

prevailed upon him to enact a Law, banishing from _Italy_ _Julian_, and

with him all the Bishops, whom _Zosimus_ had deposed[1537]. [Sidenote:

_Who issues several Laws against them._] This Law was soon followed by

another, commanding all Bishops to sign the Condemnation of _Pelagius_

and _Cælestius_, on Pain of Deposition, and perpetual Banishment[1538].

The _Pelagians_ interpreted their being refused a Council, as a Token of

Victory; whence _Julian_, in a Letter which he writ to his Friends in

_Rome_, insults his Adversaries, as if they had distrusted their Cause,

and therefore declined the Judgment of an Oecumenical Council[1539]. In

another Place he reproaches St. _Austin_, in particular, for courting

the Friendship of Men in Power, especially of Count _Valerius_, with no

other View but to crush, by their means, those whom he could not

convince. St. _Austin_ answered, _That Recourse indeed had been had to

Men in Power; but that the_ Pelagians _ought rather to be thankful, than

to complain, on that Score, since it was not to crush them, or to do

them the least Hurt_ (for they were only driven from their Sees, and

banished for Life), _that the Interest and Power of great Men had been

made use of, but merely to reclaim them from their sacrilegious

Temerity_[1540]. Might not a _Decius_, a _Dioclesian_, or any other

Persecutor of the Church, have used the same Plea to justify his

Persecution?

[Sidenote: _The_ Pelagian _Doctrine condemned by Two Councils in the

East_.]

About this time, that is, in the Latter-end of the Year 418. or the

Beginning of 419. the Doctrine of _Pelagius_ was condemned in a Council

held at _Antioch_, at which presided _Theodotius_ Bishop of that City;

and in another, that met about the Year 421. in _Cilicia_, under the

famous _Theodorus_ of _Mopsuestia_, who had been hitherto an avowed

Patron of the _Pelagians_, had received _Julian_ when driven out of

_Italy_, and even written a Book against St. _Austin_, in Defence of the

_Pelagian_ Doctrine[1541]. His Conversion was perhaps owing, as that of

many others certainly was, to the severe Laws enacted against the

_Pelagians_. Soon after the Council of _Antioch_, _Pelagius_, whom

_Jerom_ styles the _Second Catiline_, was driven from _Jerusalem_, where

he had lived a long time, and obliged to fly to some other Place for

Shelter[1542]. Whither he retired, or what became of him afterwards, is

not recorded. St. _Austin_ supposes both him and _Cælestius_ to have

been still alive, while he was writing against _Julian_, that is, about

the Year 421[1543]. [Sidenote: Pelagius _driven from_ Jerusalem.] As for

_Cælestius_, it appears from a Rescript, or rather a Letter, of the

Emperor _Constantius_ to _Volusianus_, Prefect of _Rome_, in 421. that

he was then in that City. [Sidenote: Cælestius _returns to_ Rome.] For

_Constantius_ writes to _Volusianus_, that though he had enacted some

Laws against the antient as well as the modern Heresies, yet he was

informed, that they made daily great Progress; and therefore, to prevent

the Disturbances that must arise from thence, he commands the Laws to be

put in Execution, and the Enemies of the true Religion to be carefully

sought for, especially _Cælestius_, and to be banished, if apprehended,

an Hundred Miles from _Rome_. [Sidenote: _Law issued against him._] To

this Letter the Emperor added, with his own Hand, by way of Postscript,

that the Reputation of _Volusianus_ depended on the punctual Execution

of this Order[1544]. In Obedience to the Emperor’s Commands,

_Volusianus_ issued a Proclamation, banishing _Cælestius_ an Hundred

Miles from _Rome_, and threatening with Proscription all who should

presume to conceal him[1545]. _Cælestius_ however appeared again in

_Rome_ Three Years after, and even applied to _Cælestine_, then in that

See, to have his Cause examined anew. _Is banished all_ Italy. But

_Cælestine_, rejecting his Request with Indignation, caused him to be

banished all _Italy_[1546]. From _Rome_ he repaired to _Constantinople_,

with _Julian_, and the other Bishops of the _Pelagian_ Party, who all

met there with a more kind Reception. [Sidenote: _Is driven from_

Constantinople _together with_ Julian, _and the other_ Pelagian

_Bishops_.] The Emperor _Theodosius_ the younger was even inclined to

assemble, at their Request, a great Council; and _Nestorius_, then

Bishop of _Constantinople_, writ to the Pope in their Favour. But, in

the mean time, _Marius Mercator_ having composed, and presented to the

Emperor, a Memorial against them, they were ordered by _Theodosius_, in

virtue of that Memorial, to depart the City[1547]. Of _Cælestius_ no

farther Mention is made by any of the Antients. As for _Julian_, he

wandered, for several Years, from Place to Place, being every-where

abhorred, detested, and driven out by the Populace, as if his Presence

had been enough to draw down from Heaven some remarkable Judgment upon

them. [Sidenote: Julian _dies in_ Sicily.] However, he found an Asylum

at last in a small Village of _Sicily_, where he earned a Livelihood by

keeping a School, till the Year 455. when he died, after he had divested

himself of all he had, to relieve the Poor of the Place in a great

Famine[1548]. He was a Man of a sprightly Genius, thoroughly acquainted

with the Scriptures, well versed in all the Branches of polite

Literature, especially in the _Greek_ and _Latin_ Poets, and once famous

among the Doctors of the Church[1549]. [Sidenote: _His Birth, Education,

&c._] He was descended from an illustrious Family. His Father was an

_Italian_ Bishop, for whom St. _Austin_, notwithstanding his

irreconcileable Aversion to the Son, professed the greatest Friendship

and Veneration[1550]. His Mother was a Lady of the first Quality, and

yet more commendable for her Virtue than her Birth[1551]. His Enemies,

envying him even his noble Descent, strove to rob him of that Honour,

small as it is, in Comparison of his other Endowments, by giving out,

that he was a supposititious Child[1552]. He was admitted by his Father

among the Clergy, when he was yet very young, and married, when he was

of a more mature Age, to a Lady named _Ja_, of a Senatorial, nay, of the

_Æmilian_ Family, and the Daughter of _Æmilius_ Bishop of

_Benevento_[1553]. St. _Paulinus_, Bishop of _Nola_, did not think it

beneath him to write an Epithalamium on this Occasion, of a most

singular kind; for he advises him and his Bride to continue Virgins, and

observe Continency[1554]. A very extraordinary Advice on a Wedding-Day!

That the married Couple agreed to it then, we are not told; but, not

long after, probably on the Death of his Wife, _Julian_ bound himself to

the Observance of Continency; for he was ordained Deacon, and soon after

raised to the See of _Eclana_[1555]. He had, long before, embraced the

_Pelagian_ Doctrine; and was so fully convinced of the Truth of it, that

he often declared, if _Pelagius_ himself should renounce his Doctrine,

yet he would not[1556]. These Sentiments he maintained to the last,

chusing rather to be driven from his See, and deprived of all the

Comforts of Life, than to abjure Opinions, which he thought true, or

admit Opinions, which he thought false. He was buried in the Place where

he died; and his Tomb was discovered in the Ninth Century, with the

following Epitaph; _Here rests in Peace_ Julian _a Catholic Bishop_.

From this Epitaph some have concluded, that he renounced at last the

_Pelagian_ Doctrine, and died a good Catholic. But they were not, it

seems, aware, that the _Pelagians_ constantly styled themselves

Catholics, stigmatizing St. _Austin_, and the rest who opposed them,

with the Name of _Manichees_.

[Sidenote: _The_ Semipelagian _Doctrine_.]

_Julian_ is supposed to have dissented in some Points from _Pelagius_,

in those especially that relate to Grace, and thereby to have

introduced, or laid down such Principles as naturally tended to

introduce, the _Semipelagian_ Doctrine; which may be reduced to the

following Heads: 1. That when the Truth has been sufficiently declared,

we may, by our own Free-will, without the Help of preventing Grace,

begin to believe it; so that the first Beginning of our Faith cannot be

properly called _a Gift of God_, but, _our own Act_. 2. That for all

other good Works Grace is necessary (and here they differed from the

_Pelagians_); but is never denied to a Man, who, by the good Use of his

Free-will, has begun to believe. Thus, according to them, Grace was the

Reward of Faith, and not Faith the Effect of Grace, which was the

Doctrine of St. _Austin_. 3. That, by Grace preceding our Merits, no

more can be meant, than the natural Grace and Bounty of God, given to

Man in his Reason, and the natural Faculties of his Soul; by the good

Use of which, he may render himself worthy of the extraordinary Grace

that is necessary for him to work out his Salvation. 4. That the

Children who die before they attain to the Years of Discretion, are

eternally rewarded or punished, according to the good or bad Life they

would have led, had they attained to the Years of Discretion. A most

impious Tenet! making God punish Sins with eternal Misery that were

never committed: yet not quite so impious as that of St. _Austin_; who,

without having recourse to the Supposition of Crimes foreseen, supposed

innocent Children to be eternally damned for a Crime committed by

_Adam_, if, by the Fault of their Parents, they were not baptized. Other

Tenets of the _Semipelagians_ were these: 5. That the Notion of Election

and Reprobation, independent on our Merits or Demerits, is maintaining a

fatal Necessity, is the Bane of all Virtue, and serves only to render

good Men remiss in working out their Salvation, and to drive Sinners to

Despair. [Sidenote: _The System of the_ Jesuits _founded on the_

Semipelagian _Doctrine_.] 6. That the Decrees of Election and

Reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of our good or evil

Works, as foreseen by God from all Eternity. On these Two last

Propositions the _Jesuits_ found their whole System of _Grace_ and

Free-will, agreeing therein with the _Semipelagians_ against the

_Jansenists_ and St. _Austin_; though, not daring to contradict _the

Doctor of Grace_, as he is styled, they pretend their Doctrine, and not

that of the _Jansenists_, to be the true Doctrine of St. _Austin_; which

has occasioned endless Disputes, and endless Volumes. The latter Popes

have all favoured the _Semipelagians_ or _Jesuits_ against the

_Jansenists_ and St. _Austin_; and _Clement_ XI. above all the rest, by

his famous Bull _Unigenitus_. But the Popes who lived nearer those

Times, especially _Gelasius_ and _Hormisda_, were all zealous Asserters

of the Doctrine of St. _Austin_; nay, _Hormisda_ declared the Doctrine

contained in the Books of that Father, namely, in those he writ on

_Predestination_ and _Perseverance_, to be the Doctrine of the Catholic

Church; which was declaring every true Catholic to be a

_Predestinarian_[1557]. For the Doctrine of Predestination (as

Predestination has been since understood by _Calvin_ and his Followers)

is there laid down in the plainest Terms; which so shocked some Persons,

otherwise eminent for their Piety, say _Prosper_ and _Hilarius_[1558],

that they could not help censuring it, as a Doctrine repugnant to the

Sense of the Church, and the Fathers; nay, as a Doctrine, which, were it

even true, ought not to be made public, since it was not necessary that

Men should know it; and if they did, it would render all Exhortations to

good Works vain and useless[1559]. But these, say the _Jesuits_,

pretending their System to be the pure Doctrine of St. _Austin_,

misunderstood that Father, as did _Faustus_ the famous Abbot of

_Lerins_, when he writ, _That if it be true, that some are predestined

to Life, and others to Destruction, as a certain holy Man_ (St.

_Austin_) _has said, we are not born to be judged, but we are judged

before we are born; so that there can be no Equity in the Day of

Judgment_[1560]. To speak impartially, it is no easy Matter to determine

what System St. _Austin_ had formed to himself, with respect to Grace,

Free-will, and Predestination: for, in one Place, he seems to reject and

condemn what he had been labouring to prove and establish in another.

Hence _Julian_, whose Understanding was far more methodical, used often

to quote him against himself, as the _Jesuits_ and _Jansenists_ still do

in maintaining their Systems, though diametrically opposite, to be

intirely agreeable to his Doctrine. He was apt to run into Extremes,

and, in confuting one Error, to lay a Foundation for many others. Hence

even his greatest Admirers are often at a Loss how to make him agree

either with the Church or himself. However, his great Knowlege in those

Days, his extraordinary Zeal for what he called the Catholic Doctrine,

and, above all, his heaping daily Volumes upon Volumes against all who

opposed it, so dazled the Understandings of the Popes themselves, that,

looking upon him as an inspired Writer, they suffered him to dictate

even to them, as if he had been Pope, and they common Bishops; as if

Infallibility had been transferred from _Rome_ to _Hippo_, and no longer

vested in them, but in him.

[Sidenote: Zosimus _quarrels with some Bishops of_ Gaul.]

But to return to _Zosimus_: As his Partiality to _Pelagius_ and

_Cælestius_ occasioned a Quarrel between him and the _African_ Bishops;

his Partiality to _Patroclus_, who had usurped the See of _Arles_, as I

have related above[1561], occasioned, in like manner, a Quarrel between

him and some Bishops of _Gaul_; and from the latter he reaped no more

Credit or Honour, than he had done from the former. [Sidenote: _The

Occasion of this Quarrel._] It arose on the following Occasion: The

Bishops of _Arles_ and _Vienne_ had been long contending for the

Metropolitan Dignity, and the Jurisdiction attending it, over the

Provinces of _Narbonne_ and _Vienne_: and the Decision of the

Controversy having been referred, some Years before, to a Council that

was held in _Turin_, it had been there decreed, that the Bishop who

should prove his City to be the Metropolis of those Provinces, according

to the Civil Division of the Empire, should enjoy the Metropolitan

Dignity, and the Privileges annexed to it; but, in the mean time, to

avoid any Breach of Charity, that both should exercise the Jurisdiction

of a Metropolitan over the Churches that were nearest to their

respective Cities[1562]. Thus Matters continued, till _Patroclus_

repairing to _Rome_, and there imposing upon _Zosimus_, who was quite

unacquainted with the Merits of the Cause, prevailed upon him, by

flattering his Vanity and Ambition, to decide, in his Favour, the

Controversy, which had been so long depending. _Zosimus_ censured very

severely, as I have observed above, the _African_ Bishops, for acting,

as he pretended, with too much Haste and Precipitation, in the Case of

_Cælestius_. But, surely, no Man ever deserved to be more justly

censured, on that score, than himself: for, not to mention the Case of

_Heros_ and _Lazarus_, whom he excommunicated and deposed in their

Absence, and without hearing what they had to plead in their Defence, he

took upon him to decide the present Controversy, which a Council had

left undetermined, upon the Information given him by one of the Parties

concerned, without hearing the other: for, giving an intire Credit to

all _Patroclus_ said, or could say, in Behalf of himself and his Church,

he writ a Letter, addressed to all the Bishops of _Gaul_, declaring,

that, for the future, he would receive no Bishops or Ecclesiastics

coming to _Rome_ from those Provinces, unless they brought with them

Letters of Communion, called _Formatæ_, from the Metropolitan of

_Arles_, and excommunicating those who should transgress this

Order[1563][N63]. The Privilege of granting the _Formatæ_ was only

personal; for _Zosimus_ did not grant it to the See of _Arles_, but to

_Patroclus_, whom he styles his _holy Brother, in Consideration of his

extraordinary Merit_. To such a Degree had he suffered himself to be

imposed upon, by a Man, who was the Disgrace of his Order[1564]. In the

same Letter he vests him, as Bishop of _Arles_, with a Metropolitan

Jurisdiction over the Province of _Vienne_ and the Two Provinces of

_Narbonne_, adjudges to his See all the Parishes and Territories that

had ever been subject to the City of _Arles_, and grants him a full

Power to decide and finally determine all Controversies that should

arise in the Three above-mentioned Provinces, provided they were not of

such Consequence as required them to be examined at _Rome_[1565]. The

only Reason _Zosimus_ alleges for thus exalting the See of _Arles_ to

the Prejudice of the See of _Vienne_, is, because _Trophimus_, the First

Bishop of _Arles_, had converted those Provinces to the Christian

Religion. A Reason both false and impertinent: false, because

_Trophimus_ flourished in the Year 250[1566]. and the Church of _Arles_

was famous as early as the Year 177. when they writ, with their Brethren

of _Lions_, to the Faithful in _Asia_[1567]: impertinent, because it was

to the Dignity of each City, and to nothing else, that the Dignity of

the Sees was owing. Hence the Council of _Turin_ wisely adjudged the

Metropolitan Dignity to him who should prove his City to be the civil

Metropolis, with respect to the contested Provinces, as I have observed

above. _Zosimus_, however, writ a Second Letter, which he addressed to

all the Bishops of _Gaul_, _Spain_, and _Africa_, confirming to the See

of _Arles_ all the Rights and Privileges which he had granted in his

First, and rejecting, with Scorn, the Decree of the Council of

_Turin_[1568].

-----

Footnote N63:

These Letters were given, in the primitive Times, to traveling

Ecclesiastics, that their Brethren, in the Places through which they

passed, knowing who they were, and whence they came, might admit them

to their Communion.

-----

[Sidenote: _He is opposed by the Bishops of_ Gaul;]

The Bishops of _Gaul_, _viz._ _Simplicius_ of _Vienne_, _Hilarius_ of

_Narbonne_, and _Proculus_ of _Marseilles_, amazed and astonished at the

Temerity of the Bishop of _Rome_, openly refused to acknowlege his

Authority, or submit to his Sentence. _Zosimus_, highly provoked at the

Opposition he met with, writ several threatening Letters to _Hilarius_

and _Proculus_, as if he were determined to cut them off from his

Communion, if they did not yield, and acknowlege _Patroclus_ for their

Metropolitan. As for _Simplicius_, he seems to have acted with less

Vigour on this Occasion than the other Two; and it was perhaps on that

Account that he has been sainted. _Hilarius_ too yielded at last, not to

the Menaces of _Zosimus_, which he made no Account of, but to those of

Count _Constantius_, the avowed Patron of _Patroclus_[1569], whom he

allowed, on that Consideration, to ordain a Bishop at _Lodeve_, within

the Limits of his Province, which was owning him for his Metropolitan.

But nothing could shake the Firmness and Constancy of _Proculus_.

_Zosimus_, thinking he could frighten him into a Compliance, began with

reproachful Language; from Reproaches he proceeded to Menaces; and from

Menaces, to summon him to _Rome_, to answer there for his presuming to

ordain Bishops in a Province (the _Second Narbonnese_) that had been

adjudged by the Apostolic See to the Metropolitan of _Arles_. [Sidenote:

_especially by_ Proculus _Bishop of_ Marseilles.] But _Proculus_ made

so little Account of his Reproaches, Menaces, and Summons, that I do not

even find he returned them an Answer. It is at least certain, that he

did not obey the Summons, and that he continued to exercise the same

Jurisdiction, which he had exercised before, opposing to the repeated

and peremptory Orders of _Zosimus_ a Canon of the Council of _Turin_,

appointing him Metropolitan of the _Narbonnensis Secunda_[1570].

_Zosimus_, transported with Rage in seeing his Authority thus slighted,

writ Three Letters, all dated the 29th of _September_ 417. _viz._ one to

the People and Clergy of the Province of _Vienne_, another to those of

the _Second Narbonnese_, and the third to _Patroclus_. In the Two former

he inveighs bitterly against _Proculus_, and confirms anew to

_Patroclus_ the Metropolitan Dignity and Jurisdiction, which have been

so unalterably intailed, says he, on the See of _Arles_, by the Decrees

of the Fathers and Councils, that it exceeds even the Power and

Authority of the _Roman_ Church to transfer them to, or intail them

upon, any other[1571]. This was disclaiming, in the plainest Terms, the

Power of dispensing with the Canons, which has since proved so

beneficial to the Apostolic See. And yet _Zosimus_ was acting the whole

Time in direct Opposition to the Fourth Canon of the Council of _Nice_,

vesting, as it was understood by the subsequent Councils, the Bishop of

each Metropolis with the Metropolitan Dignity and Jurisdiction over the

whole Province. _Zosimus_, in his Letter to _Patroclus_, encourages him

to resume and exercise, in spite of _Proculus_, the Metropolitan

Jurisdiction over the _Second Narbonnese_, which _Proculus_ had so

unjustly invaded and usurped. [Sidenote: Proculus _excommunicated and

deposed by_ Zosimus.] This _Patroclus_ durst not attempt, tho’ seconded

by the whole Power of the Apostolic See; which wrought the Pride,

Ambition,and Resentment of _Zosimus_ to such a Pitch, that, giving the

Reins to his Passion, he thundered the Sentence of Excommunication

against _Proculus_, declared him unworthy of, and degraded from, the

Episcopal Dignity, and committing the Church of _Marseilles_ to the Care

of _Patroclus_, commanded him to exercise there the Jurisdiction with

which he was vetted. The Power of the Apostolic See was now exhausted,

and, what drove _Zosimus_ almost to Despair, exhausted to no Effect: for

_Proculus_, to shew how little Regard he paid to the Sentence pronounced

against him at _Rome_, ordained a Bishop soon after he was acquainted

with it. [Sidenote: _But continues to discharge the Functions of his

Office._] _Zosimus_, sensible that the Authority of his See was here at

stake, would not abandon the Attempt. He writ Two Letters more on the

same Subject, one to _Patroclus_, exhorting him to exert, with Vigour

and Severity, the Power with which he was vested; and at the same time

commanding him to declare, in his Name, that he should never be

prevailed upon to acknowlege those whom _Proculus_ had ordained. The

other Letter was to the People, Clergy, and Magistrates of _Marseilles_;

stirring them up against _Proculus_, and encouraging them to drive him

out, and receive another in his room at the Hands of _Patroclus_. These

Letters occasioned great Disturbances in the Church of _Marseilles_,

which was now rent into Two opposite Parties, some refusing to

acknowlege _Proculus_, and others declaring that they would acknowlege

no other[1572]. But, in spite of the utmost Efforts of _Zosimus_, of

_Patroclus_, and their Partisans, _Proculus_ still kept his Ground,

still continued to exercise all Episcopal as well as Metropolitan

Functions, as he had formerly done. He thought even the Evils attending

a Schism of a less dangerous Tendency than those which he apprehended

from the Encroachments of the Bishops of _Rome_. [Sidenote: _His

Steadiness in opposing the Encroachments of_ Rome.] Had all the Prelates

thus stood up in Defence of their just Rights and Privileges against the

Papal Usurpations, the Church had never been reduced to that deplorable

Thraldom, which she groaned under for so many Ages. But, alas! there

have been in all Times but too many _Simplicius’s_, who, out of a

mistaken Principle, have chosen rather to yield to an encroaching Power,

than to raise Disturbances, and forego their own Ease, by withstanding

it; but too many _Patroclus’s_, who, to gratify their own Ambition, have

prostituted their sacred Dignity to the ambitious Views of the Pope, and

raised him, at the Expence of their own Order, that they might be raised

by him in their Turn. _Proculus_, though deposed, excommunicated,

calumniated, persecuted by _Zosimus_ and his Tools, kept to the last

Possession of his See; nay, and was acknowleged for lawful Bishop of

_Marseilles_, for Metropolitan of the _Second Narbonnese_, not only by

the Bishops of _Gaul_, but likewise by those of _Africa_[1573]. He was

still alive in 427. when he condemned the Monk _Leporius_ for

maintaining Christ to have been born Man only, but to have deserved, by

his good Works, to become God[1574]. The Encomiums bestowed on him by

the Council of _Turin_, by St. _Jerom_, and _Tiro Prosper_, as I have

observed above, are a sufficient Confutation of all the Calumnies

uttered against him by _Zosimus_, and the rest of his Enemies.

[Sidenote: Zosimus _dies_.]

The last Letters of _Zosimus_, that is, his Letters to _Patroclus_, and

the People of _Marseilles_, are dated the 5th of _March_ 418. and he

died in the Latter-end of the same Year, on the 26th of _December_, says

_Baronius_[1575], upon the Authority, we may suppose, of some antient

Pontifical[N64].

-----

Footnote N64:

He is said to have been buried near the Body of St. _Laurence_, on the

_Tiburtine_ Way, on the 25th or 26th of _December_, according to

_Anastasius_ the _Bibliothecarian_[N64.1]; but on the 27th, according

to an antient Pontifical, which agrees better with the Letters of

_Symmachus_ concerning the Election of his Successor _Boniface_: so

that he may have governed One Year Nine Months and Eight or Nine Days,

which is the Time that _Prosper_ allows him[N64.2].

Footnote N64.1:

Anast. c. 42.

Footnote N64.2:

Vide Pontaci not. in chron. Prosp. p. 777.

-----

The Distemper which he died of lasted a long time, and was attended with

such violent Fits, that he was often thought to be dead before he died.

It was during his Illness that he writ his last Letters; and yet they

are no less remarkable than the rest for that Fire and Vivacity, that

Strength of Expression, and even that Elegance and Purity of Diction,

that were peculiar to him. [Sidenote: _His Character._] He was a Man of

great Address in the Management of Affairs; well knew how to turn every

thing to his Advantage; and in the several Disputes which he engaged in,

he forgot nothing that could any ways distress those who opposed him. He

was apt to engage too rashly, giving an intire Credit to those who, by a

servile Submission, flattered his Ambition; and when he had once engaged

in a Cause, as he was of a haughty and imperious Temper, impatient of

Controul, passionate, headstrong, full of, and elated with, the Dignity

of the _Apostolic See_, it required the greatest Art and Address in his

Brethren to bring him into their Measures, and with-hold him from

raising fatal Divisions in the Church. His whole Conduct and Behaviour

towards them, the haughty and peremptory Style, which he assumed in

writing to them, sufficiently shew that he looked upon them as

infinitely below him, as bound to yield a blind Obedience to all his

Commands, and submit, without Reply, to all his Decisions: and it is not

to be doubted but, had he lived longer, and not met with the vigorous

Opposition which he did from the Bishop of _Marseilles_, he would have

made great Progress towards reducing his _Fellow-Ministers_ and

_Fellow-Labourers_, as they are styled by St. _Cyprian_, to that State

of Dependence, not to say Slavery, which in the End they have been

reduced to by his Successors. He was the first who made use of the

Expression, _For so it has pleased the Apostolic See_[1576], an

Expression which his Successors have all adopted, as the Language of the

highest Authority, and such as exempted them from giving any Account

either of their Actions, or of the Motives, that prompted them so to

act. But, to paint _Zosimus_ to the Life, we want no other Colours than

those, which the _African_ Bishops, who were but too well acquainted

with him, have furnished us with in the Letter which they writ to his

Successor _Boniface_. _We hope_, say they, _that since it has pleased

the Almighty to raise you to the Throne of the_ Roman _Church, we shall

no longer feel the Effects of that worldly Pride and Arrogance, which

ought never to have found room in the Church of Christ_[1577]. In the

same Letter they complain of their having been made to endure such

things as it was almost impossible for them to endure, which however

they were willing to forget. Hard indeed and tyrannical must the

Treatment have been, which they met with at the Hands of _Zosimus_,

since it could extort from so many venerable Prelates a Complaint of

this Nature, and that in a Letter to his immediate Successor. [Sidenote:

Zosimus _sainted by a Mistake of_ Baronius.] _Zosimus_ however has been

sainted, and is now worshiped by the Church of _Rome_ as a great Saint,

not so much in regard of his own Merits, as by a Blunder of _Baronius_

in revising and correcting the _Roman_ Martyrology. The Case is pretty

singular, and may not be thought quite unworthy of a Place here, by

reason of the Consequences, which every Protestant Reader may draw from

it. In the Martyrology of _Bede_ was marked, _St._ Zosimus _Martyr, who

suffered for the Confession of the Faith_. This Martyr an ignorant

Transcriber mistook for the Pope of the same Name, and, concerned to

find so little said of so great a Saint, set down all he knew of him.

This Copy _Baronius_ perused, and, reading there what the Transcriber

had added of his own, concluded the Saint mentioned in that Place to be

Pope _Zosimus_, and accordingly, upon the supposed Authority of _Bede_,

allotted him a Place among the other Saints in the _Roman_ Martyrology.

As for his being said to have suffered Martyrdom for the Confession of

the Faith, _Baronius_ ascribed that to the Ignorance of the Transcriber,

making but one Saint out of two, though they lived at so great a

Distance of Time from each other; for the Martyr lived in the earliest

Times, and is mentioned by St. _Polycarp_, who flourished Two hundred

Years and upwards before the Pontificate of _Zosimus_. To this double

Blunder of the Transcriber and _Baronius_ is _Zosimus_ indebted for the

Worship and Honours that are publicly paid him in the Church of _Rome_.

Indeed that Church is not more grosly deluded in paying an idolatrous

Worship to Saints, upon the Authority of her _Infallible Guide_, than in

the Objects to whom that Worship is paid[N65].

-----

Footnote N65:

_Bollandus_, to saint _Zosimus_ in a more honourable Way, supposes him

to have once had a Place in the Martyrology of St. _Jerom_; and

complains of those who have taken the Liberty to strike out his Name.

One would think he had found his Name in some Copy of that

Martyrology, or at least heard of it; but he ingenuously owns, that he

never found it there himself, nor heard of any who did; adding, that

nevertheless he is fully persuaded it was once there, and that he

cannot think otherwise; and it is upon his _not being able to think

otherwise_ that he founds his Supposition, his Complaints, and the

Saintship of _Zosimus_[N65.1]; which is allowing them to have no

Foundation at all.

-----

-----

Footnote N62:

_Honorius_ supposes, and likewise his Prefects, _Pelagius_ to have

been in _Rome_, when this law was enacted; but it is very certain,

that he was then in _Palæstine_.

Footnote N65.1:

Boll. conat. ad chronol. Pont. p. 61, 62.

Footnote 1475:

Anas. c. 42.

Footnote 1476:

Jans. Hist. Pel. p. 2.

Footnote 1477:

Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.

Footnote 1478:

Aug. ep. 95. Pecc. Orig. c. 8-21, &c.

Footnote 1479:

Hier. in Jer.

Footnote 1480:

Vide Jan. hist. Pel. 1. 6. c. 24.

Footnote 1481:

Hier. in Jer. et Gernerius in Mar. Mercat.

Footnote 1482:

Gennad. de script. eccles. c. 44.

Footnote 1483:

Hier. ad Ctesiph. c. 3.

Footnote 1484:

Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.

Footnote 1485:

Aug. ep. 89.

Footnote 1486:

Aug. de Gest. Pelag. c. 22.

Footnote 1487:

Aug. ibid.

Footnote 1488:

Aug. ep. 89. Mar. Mer. comm. c. 1.

Footnote 1489:

Aug. ib. et de Gest. Pel. c. 11. Mar. Mer. comm. c. 1. Oros. apol. p.

801.

Footnote 1490:

Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 6. 11. 20. 29, 30. 35. ep. 96. 106. Hier. ep. 79.

Footnote 1491:

Hier. ibid.

Footnote 1492:

Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 1. Vide Noris hist. Pel. l. 2. c. 8.

Footnote 1493:

Aug. ep. 90.

Footnote 1494:

Idem ibid. ep. 95.

Footnote 1495:

Aug. Pecc. Orig. c. 8. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. ep. 104, 105. Prosp. in

collat.

Footnote 1496:

Aug. ep. 90. 92. Hier. in Jer. Mercator. com. c. 1.

Footnote 1497:

Aug. Gr. Ch. c. 30. 33. Peccat. Orig. c. 23.

Footnote 1498:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 417.

Footnote 1499:

Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. & Pecc. Orig. c. 6.

Footnote 1500:

Idem ad Bon. ibid.

Footnote 1501:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1502:

Mercat. comm. c. 1. Vide Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 19, 20, &c.

Footnote 1503:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1115.

Footnote 1504:

Hier. ep. 4.

Footnote 1505:

Tiro Prosp. p. 51.

Footnote 1506:

Bar. ad ann. 426. n. 26.

Footnote 1507:

Bar. ibid.

Footnote 1508:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1571.

Footnote 1509:

Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 16.

Footnote 1510:

Idem ep. 90.

Footnote 1511:

Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 23.

Footnote 1512:

Bar. ibid. n. 27, 28, 29.

Footnote 1513:

Noris Hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 12.

Footnote 1514:

Gallia Christiana, t. 1. p. 2.

Footnote 1515:

Merc. comment. c. 3.

Footnote 1516:

Gall. Christ. ibid.

Footnote 1517:

Aug. Gr. Ch. c. 30. & Pecc. Orig. c. 18, 19.

Footnote 1518:

Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 25. 29.

Footnote 1519:

Hier. ep. 195. 209.

Footnote 1520:

Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.

Footnote 1521:

Aug. ib. & Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 4. & Quesnel. in Leon. opera, p. 676.

Footnote 1522:

Quesnel. ibid. p. 675.

Footnote 1523:

Prosp. chr. & in coll. c. 10.

Footnote 1524:

Prosp. chron. in Ingrat. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 1525:

Prosp. in Ingrat. l. 1. c. 3.

Footnote 1526:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1527:

Prosp. ibid. l. 1. c. 2. Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. & Pecc. Orig. c. 8.

Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 5. 12.

Footnote 1528:

Bar. ibid.

Footnote 1529:

Conc. l. 2. p. 1121. Aug. ep. 47.

Footnote 1530:

Conc. l. 2. p. 1064. Nor. hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 17.

Footnote 1531:

Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 20.

Footnote 1532:

Bar. ad ann. 420. n. 4. Nor. hist. Pel. p. 88.

Footnote 1533:

Aug. Pecc. orig. c. 8. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. Mar. Merc. comm. c. 1.

Footnote 1534:

Aug. Pecc. orig. c. 3, & 4. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.

Mercat. ubi supra. Prosp. chr. & Ingrat. l. 1. c. 3.

Footnote 1535:

Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. Conc. t. 3. p. 349. Prosp. chr. Merc. c. 3.

Footnote 1536:

Merc. subnot. p. 320-326.

Footnote 1537:

Aug. op. imperf. l. 1. c. 10. ad Val. p. 343. Conc. t. 2. p. 1558.

Footnote 1538:

Mer. Com. c. 3. Nor. hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 16.

Footnote 1539:

Aug. in Jul. l. 3. c. 1. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 24.

Footnote 1540:

Aug. op. imperf. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote 1541:

Merc. Comm. c. 3.

Footnote 1542:

Hier. ep. 55.

Footnote 1543:

Aug. in Jul. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 1544:

Bar. ad ann. 420. n. 2.

Footnote 1545:

Phot. c. 53.

Footnote 1546:

Prosp. in Coll. c. 41.

Footnote 1547:

Vid. Garn. in Mercat. p. 144.

Footnote 1548:

Gennad. c. 45.

Footnote 1549:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1550:

Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. & op. imperf. l. 1. c. 68.

Footnote 1551:

Merc. subnot. c. 4. Aug. op. imperf. p. 22.

Footnote 1552:

Merc. ib. p. 40.

Footnote 1553:

Paulin. car. 14.

Footnote 1554:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1555:

Aug. in Jul. l. 3. c. 21. et l. 4. c. 11. Mer. Comm. c. 3.

Footnote 1556:

Aug. ep. 106.

Footnote 1557:

Concil. t. 4. p. 1531.

Footnote 1558:

Prosp. et Hil. Literæ ad Aug. l. 7. p. 542. 546.

Footnote 1559:

Prosp. & Hil. ibid.

Footnote 1560:

Vide Sirmond. hist. prædest. c. 1, 2, &c.

Footnote 1561:

See p. 336, 337.

Footnote 1562:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1156.

Footnote 1563:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1567.

Footnote 1564:

See p. 337.

Footnote 1565:

Conc. ib. p. 1567-1569.

Footnote 1566:

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. l. 1. c. 30.

Footnote 1567:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 1.

Footnote 1568:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1568.

Footnote 1569:

Conc. ibid. p. 1581.

Footnote 1570:

Conc. ibid. p. 1155.

Footnote 1571:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1570.

Footnote 1572:

Conc. ibid. p. 1574.

Footnote 1573:

Du Pin, t. 3. p. 827.

Footnote 1574:

Cassian. incar. l. 1. c. 4.

Footnote 1575:

Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 72.

Footnote 1576:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1567.

Footnote 1577:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1141.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HONORIUS, BONIFACE, THEODOSIUS

_Forty-first_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 419. _Schism in the Church of_ Rome.]

_Zosimus_ being dead, great Disturbances arose about the Election of his

Successor. _Eulalius_, whom Authors distinguish with the Title of

Archdeacon, shutting himself up in the _Lateran_ with Part of the

People, and some Presbyters and Deacons, was there chosen by them in the

room of _Zosimus_. At the same time a great Number of the People, many

Presbyters, and some Bishops, assembling in the Church of St.

_Theodora_, named the Presbyter _Boniface_ to the vacant See. [Sidenote:

Boniface _and_ Eulalius _both chosen_.] Both were ordained the same Day

they were chosen; _Boniface_, by Nine Bishops, and in the Presence of

Seventy Presbyters; _Eulalius_, by Three Bishops only, and in the

Presence of a very small Number of Presbyters; but the Bishop of _Ostia_

was one of the Three; and he claimed, from a Custom which had long

obtained, the Right of ordaining the Bishop of _Rome_. [Sidenote: _The

Governor of_ Rome _and the Emperor favour_ Eulalius,] _Symmachus_,

Governor of the City, did all that lay in his Power to prevent this

double Election; but, not succeeding therein, he immediately dispatched

an Express to the Emperor _Honorius_, then at _Ravenna_, with a Letter

dated the 29th of _December_ 418. acquainting him with what had passed.

But his Account was not impartial: he represented _Eulalius_ as lawfully

chosen, and his Competitor as an Usurper. _Honorius_ therefore, by a

Rescript dated the 2d of _January_ 419. ordered him to persuade

_Boniface_ to retire from _Rome_, to use Force, if Persuasions did not

prevail, and to apprehend and punish the Ringleaders of the Sedition, if

any should be raised on that Occasion. With this Rescript the Emperor

dispatched _Aphrodisius_ a Tribune and Notary; and _Symmachus_, having

received it on the 6th of _January_, sent early next Morning his

Primiscrinius, or first Secretary, with an Order for _Boniface_ to

attend him, and hear what he had to impart to him in the Emperor’s Name,

letting him know, in the mean time, that he must not take upon him to

exercise any Episcopal Functions; for such was the Will and Pleasure of

the Emperor. This Order _Boniface_ received while he was holding an

Assembly in the Church of St. _Paul_ without the Walls; but paid no

Regard to it; nay, those who attended him, falling on the Secretary, who

brought it, treated him very roughly; which _Symmachus_ no sooner knew

than he caused the Gates of the City to be shut, and kept _Boniface_

out. [Sidenote: _who takes Possession of the Church of St._ Peter.] In

the mean time _Eulalius_, improving to his Advantage the Absence of his

Competitor, repaired to the Church of St. _Peter_, took Possession of it

amidst the loud Acclamations of his Partisans, and exercised there all

Episcopal Functions.

[Sidenote: _The Friends of_ Boniface _write to the Emperor_,]

The avowed Partiality of _Symmachus_ for _Eulalius_ left no room to

doubt but he had misinformed the Emperor. The Bishops therefore, with

the Presbyters and People, who had chosen _Boniface_, thought it their

Duty to transmit to him a candid and impartial Account of the late

Transactions: and this they did accordingly, intreating the Emperor at

the same time to revoke his former Order, and to summon both _Eulalius_

and _Boniface_ to Court, in order to try their Cause there. [Sidenote:

_who summons a Council to decide the Controversy_.] Their Request

appeared just; and _Honorius_, in Compliance with it, sent an Order to

_Symmachus_, dated the 13th of _January_ 419. commanding him to suspend

the Execution of his former Order, and to notify to the Two Competitors,

that they, and those who ordained them, must repair to _Ravenna_, on

Pain to him who should fail to appear there on the 8th of the ensuing

_February_, of having his Election declared null. Several Bishops were

summoned to attend at the same time, _Honorius_ thinking it proper, that

a Dispute of that Nature should be decided by none but Bishops. However,

to remove all Suspicion of Partiality on his Side, he would not allow

those to sit as Judges, who had been any-ways concerned in the Election

or Ordination of either of the Competitors. [Sidenote: _A more full

Council summoned._] The Bishops met; but not being able to agree among

themselves, _Honorius_ thought the Affair of such Importance, that he

put it off to the 13th of _June_, with a Design to have it decided then

in a full Council. He writ accordingly not only to the Bishops of

_Italy_, but to those too of _Gaul_ and _Africa_, inviting them to the

Council, and acquainting them with the Time and Place of its meeting. In

the mean while he strictly injoined both _Boniface_ and _Eulalius_ to

keep at a Distance from the City, lest their Presence should occasion

Disturbances there. But as _Easter_ approached, he appointed _Achilleus_

Bishop of _Spoleti_, who was of neither Party, to perform the Episcopal

Functions at _Rome_ during that Solemnity. [Sidenote: Eulalius _disobeys

the Emperor, and is driven from_ Rome.] This _Eulalius_ could not brook;

and therefore returning to _Rome_, in open Defiance of the Emperor’s

Orders, he assembled the People, seized on the _Lateran_, and shutting

the Doors against _Achilleus_, performed in that Basilic the Episcopal

Functions usual at _Easter_. The Emperor, being acquainted by

_Symmachus_ with what had passed, was so provoked at his Disobedience

and Temerity, that, by a Rescript dated from _Ravenna_ the 3d of

_April_, and received at _Rome_ on the 8th of the same Month, he

commanded _Symmachus_ to drive _Eulalius_ from the City, and to put

_Boniface_ in Possession of the disputed See; which was accordingly

done[N66].

-----

Footnote N66:

The original Copies of the Letters from _Symmachus_ to the Emperor,

and of the Emperor’s Rescripts to _Symmachus_, giving a full and

distinct Account of the present Schism, are lodged in the _Vatican_

Library, and have been thence copied by _Baronius_.[N66.1].

Footnote N66.1:

Bar. ad ann. 419. n. 1-42.

-----

[Sidenote: Boniface _indebted to the Emperor for his Dignity_.]

Thus was an End put to the Schism; thus was _Boniface_ placed on the

_Roman_ See, and vested with the Papal Dignity by the _Clemency of the

Emperor_, as _Largus_ Proconsul of _Africa_ expresses it in his Letter

to the Bishops of that Province[1578]; and not by the Authority of a

Council consisting of Two hundred and Fifty-two Bishops, which some have

brought down from the Clouds, without even letting us know where or when

they assembled[1579].

All we know of _Boniface_ before his Election is, that he was the Son of

one _Jucundus_ a Presbyter[1580], was stricken in Years, well versed in

the Ecclesiastical Laws, of an unblemished Character; and, what enhances

his Merit, chosen against his Will. [Sidenote: Boniface _applies to the

Emperor for a Law to restrain the Ambition of the Candidates to the

Papacy_.] Thus say his Friends, in the Letter which they writ in his

Behalf to the Emperor _Honorius_[1581]. His first Care, after he found

himself in the quiet Possession of his See, was to prevent for the

future, so far as in him lay, the Cabals and Intrigues that might be

formed at other Elections, as they had been at his, to the great

Disturbance of the City, and Scandal of the Christian Religion. With

this View he writ to the Emperor, intreating him to restrain, by some

severe Law, the Ambition of those who, trusting more to their Intrigues

than their Merit, aspired to a Dignity that was due to Merit alone[N67].

-----

Footnote N67:

This Letter bears Date the First of _July_ 419.

-----

[Sidenote: _His Law for that Purpose._]

The Emperor, in Compliance with so just a Demand, enacted a Law, well

calculated to prevent effectually the Evil complained of, and keep the

Ambition of the Candidates to the Papacy within due Bounds. For by this

Law, when Two Persons were chosen, neither was to hold the Dignity, but

the People and Clergy were to proceed to a new Election. This is the

first Instance, that occurs in History, of Princes intermeddling in the

Election of the Pope; an Evil, says F. _Pagi_, which, from small

Beginnings, grew to such a Height as to reflect great Shame and Disgrace

on the _Roman_ Church.[1582] But it must be observed, that the original

Evil was the Corruption, the Violence, and the many Disorders which the

Clergy and People were guilty of in those Elections. It was this which,

at the Request of the Pope himself, called on the Emperors to interpose

their Authority, as the only adequate Remedy to such Abuses. The

succeeding Emperors followed the Example of _Honorius_, and the _Gothic_

as well as the _Lombard_ Kings, the Example of the Emperors, as we shall

see in the Sequel of the present History.

[Sidenote: Boniface _free from Ambition_.]

_Boniface_ was naturally a Lover of Peace, and an Enemy to all Strife

and Contention. He did not claim, nor attempt to usurp, any new Power

over his Collegues; but yet he would not part with any his Predecessors

enjoyed, by what means soever they had acquired it; and those who

attempted to curtail the usurped Jurisdiction of the Apostolic See, met

with as vigorous an Opposition from him as they could have done either

from _Innocent_ or _Zosimus_. In short, he had not Ambition enough to

inlarge his Authority, but thought himself in Conscience obliged _to

maintain the just Rights_, as he styled and believed them, _of the See

in which it had pleased Divine Providence to place him, though unworthy

of so great an Honour_. [Sidenote: _Dispute between him and the Bishops

of_ Illyricum.] His Steadiness in asserting these Claims appeared

chiefly in the Dispute that arose between him and the Bishops of

_Illyricum_, over whom _Damasus_ had usurped, as I have related

elsewhere[1583], and his Successors maintained a particular Power and

Jurisdiction. The Transaction is thus related by the Writers of those

Times. The See of _Patræ_ in _Achaia_, one of the Provinces of

_Illyricum_, being vacant, the Bishop of _Corinth_, Metropolitan of that

Province, did all that lay in his Power to get _Perigenes_, a Presbyter

of an unexceptionable Character, chosen in the room of their deceased

Bishop. But his Endeavours proving unsuccessful, he returned to

_Corinth_, and died soon after. Upon his Death the People and Clergy of

_Corinth_, to honour his Memory, and shew the Regard they had for one

whom he had favoured, unanimously named _Perigenes_ to succeed him. But

as they apprehended some Opposition from the Bishops of the same

Province, they writ to _Boniface_, begging him to confirm their Election

with his Authority. _Boniface_ referred them to _Rufus_, then Bishop of

_Thessalonica_, and his Vicar in those Parts, declaring that, as for

himself, he had nothing to object either against their Election, or the

Person elected. _Rufus_ notified to the Bishops of the Province, and the

Metropolitans of the Diocese, the Approbation of _Boniface_, and his

own; but it was not received by all in the same manner. [Sidenote: _Law

of_ Theodosius _concerning Disputes that should arise in_ Illyricum.]

The greater Part indeed agreed to the Ordination of the new Bishop; but

some opposed it with great Warmth, prompted, most probably, by the

Jealousy they entertained of the growing Power of the See of _Rome_:

for, at their Request, a Law was published by the Emperor _Theodosius_,

dated the 14th of _July_ 421. commanding all Disputes, that should arise

in the Diocese of _Illyricum_, to be finally determined by the Bishops

of that Diocese, after they had consulted the Bishop of

_Constantinople_[1584]. This was taking those Provinces from the Bishop

of _Rome_, and, in some Degree, subjecting them to the Bishop of

_Constantinople_, or at least opening a Door for such a Subjection. The

Power of the Bishops of _Constantinople_ was already grown very

considerable, and their Ambition keeping Pace with that of the Bishops

of _Rome_, neither let any Opportunity slip of extending the

Jurisdiction of their own See at the Expence of the other. In the

present Case the Bishop of _Constantinople_, availing himself of the

Favour of the Emperor, and the Disagreement that reigned among the

_Illyrican_ Bishops, summoned, without Loss of Time, a Council to meet

at _Corinth_, and there to examine the Ordination of _Perigenes_, though

he had been ordained, and his Ordination approved of both by _Rufus_ and

_Boniface_. [Sidenote: _Three Letters of_ Boniface.] This Step, quite

unexpected, alarmed _Boniface_; he divested himself at once of his

pacific Disposition, and, assuming the Air and Style of Authority, he

writ Three Letters, all dated the same Day, _viz._ 11th of _March_ 422.

encouraging the Friends of the Apostolic See to maintain its Rights, and

threatening those who dared to invade them. [Sidenote: _He maintains,

with Authority, his pretended Rights._] The first was to _Rufus_ of

_Thessalonica_, whom he animates not to suffer any Innovations, but

vigorously to withstand those, who assumed an Authority that did not

become them, and to which they had no kind of Title or Claim, meaning,

no doubt, the Bishop of _Constantinople_. The Second Letter he writ to

the Bishops of _Thessaly_, exhorting them to acknowlege the Authority of

_Rufus_, and no other. The Third was addressed to the Bishops of

_Macedon_, _Achaia_, _Thessaly_, _Epirus_, and _Dacia_, who had been

summoned by the Bishop of _Constantinople_ to assemble at _Corinth_, and

there deliver their Opinion concerning the Ordination of _Perigenes_. In

this Letter he complains, in the strongest Terms, of so bold and daring

an Attempt, asking, in the Style of a Sovereign, _What Bishop shall

presume to question an Ordination approved by us? What Bishop could take

upon him to assemble a Council with that View and Intent? Read_, he

adds, _read the Canons, and there you will find, that the See of_ Rome

_is the First, the See of_ Alexandria _the Second, and that of_ Antioch

_the Third. These are the Three great Sees; these the Sees which the

Fathers have distinguished above the rest, with ample Privileges, and

extensive Jurisdiction._ Since he refers them to the Canons to shew,

that these Three Sees are superior to the See of _Constantinople_, both

in Dignity and Jurisdiction, it were to be wished he had, at the same

time, acquainted them by what Canons his Predecessors had exercised over

the Provinces of _Illyricum_ the Jurisdiction which he now so zealously

asserts. But that is more than it was in his Power to do. However, in

the present Letter, he threatens with Excommunication such of the

_Illyrican_ Bishops as shall, in Defiance of his Orders, comply with the

Summons which they have received, or presume to question the Ordination

of _Perigenes_. What was the Issue of this Dispute is not recorded by

any of the Antients; but a modern Historian[1585] informs us, that the

Emperor _Honorius_ interposing, at the Request of _Boniface_, in Behalf

of the See of _Rome_, prevailed upon _Theodosius_ to revoke his former

Law, and enact another in its room, confirming to the Apostolic See all

its antient Privileges, and injoining the _Præfectus Prætorio_ to see

the latter Law put in Execution. The Historian quotes this Law from the

Archives of the _Roman_ Church. But as it is not to be found either in

the _Theodosian_ or the _Justinian_ Code, its Authenticity may be justly

suspected.

[Sidenote: _He revokes the Privileges granted by_ Zosimus _to

the Church of_ Arles.]

The same Year 422. _Boniface_ gave a signal Instance of his Equity and

Love of Justice, which redounds greatly to his Honour, and therefore

ought not to be omitted. He was sensible, that his Predecessor

_Zosimus_, abusing his Authority, had acted in the Affair of the

_Gallican_ Bishops, in a most partial and arbitrary manner; that the See

of _Arles_ had no just Title to the many Privileges, which he had been

induced, by his Partiality for _Patroclus_, to heap on it, at the

Expence of Two other Sees; and, consequently, that it was incumbent upon

himself, now that he had the Power in his Hands, to rectify by a better

Use of it, what his Predecessor had done amiss. The Love of Justice

therefore prevailing in him over all other Considerations, he annulled,

by a Letter addressed to _Hilarius_ of _Narbonne_, whatever had been

done by _Zosimus_ in favour of the See of _Arles_, restored and

confirmed to the Sees of _Narbonne_ and _Vienne_ all the Rights and

Privileges, which they had been so unjustly divested of, and declaring

all the Grants and Concessions made to the See of _Arles_ repugnant to

the Canons, strictly injoined the Bishop of _Narbonne_ not to suffer his

Brother of _Arles_ to exercise, in virtue of them, any kind of Authority

within the Limits of his Jurisdiction[N68]. The Conduct of _Boniface_

was afterwards approved, and that of _Zosimus_ justly condemned, by Pope

_Leo the Great_, declaring in a Letter which he writ to the Bishops of

the Province of _Vienne_, that the Privileges, which the Apostolic See

had granted to _Patroclus_, were afterwards revoked _by a more equitable

Sentence_.

-----

Footnote N68:

This Letter is dated the 2d of _February_ 422.

-----

[Sidenote: _A remarkable Instance of his Moderation._]

One of the many Artifices, employed by the Popes to aggrandize their

See, was to raise Divisions among their Collegues, or to foment

underhand those that others had raised. For in such Divisions they never

stood neuter, but, taking Part in the Quarrel, nay, and making

themselves Principals, they warmly declared in favour of one Party

against the other, that, by supporting them, they might be in their Turn

supported by them in all their Pretensions. To this worldly Wisdom, this

wicked Policy, _Boniface_ was an utter Stranger: for he did not lay hold

of a very favourable Opportunity, which the Division, that reigned at

this time among the Bishops of _Gaul_, offered him, to improve his

Authority, and extend his Jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Dignity was

disputed there by the Bishops of _Vienne_, of _Narbonne_, and of

_Arles_, as I have observed above. During that Contest the Clergy of

_Valence_, quarreling with their Bishop _Maximus_, charged him with

several Crimes; but not caring to accuse him at the Tribunal of any of

the Three Competitors (for that had been acknowleging, in one of the

Three, the Metropolitan Jurisdiction then in Dispute), they arraigned

him at _Rome_, and summoned him to plead his Cause there before

_Boniface_. Most other Popes would have eagerly embraced such an

Opportunity of inlarging their Power; nay, and founded upon this

particular Case the general Right of judging, and finally determining,

all Causes of the like Nature. But _Boniface_ declared, in his Letter to

_Patroclus_, and the other Bishops of the Seven Provinces of _Gaul_,

that though _Maximus_ had been accused at his Tribunal, though he had

not appeared to clear himself from the Crimes laid to his Charge, and

might thereupon be thought guilty, and be justly condemned; yet he would

not take upon him to pronounce such a Sentence, because that Bishop

_ought, according to the Canons, to be judged and condemned, or

absolved, in his own Province_. An Instance of Moderation that reflects

no small Honour on the Memory of _Boniface_; the rather as he had before

his Eyes the recent Examples of _Innocent_ and _Zosimus_, the Two most

ambitious and arrogant Popes the Church had yet seen. He closes his

Letter with exhorting the Bishops of the Seven Provinces to assemble

against the First of _November_, that _Maximus_ may be cleared, if

innocent, or condemned, if guilty.

[Sidenote: _His Death._]

_Boniface_ died on the 4th of _November_ 422. having held the Chair 3

Years, 9 Months, and some Days. He was buried in the Cœmetery of the

Martyr St. _Felicitas_, on the _Salarian_ Way; where he is said to have

built an Oratory. He is worshiped by the Church of _Rome_ among her

Saints, an Honour which few of his Predecessors better deserved. But it

is a Wonder that the last Instance I have given of his Moderation, and

Regard to the Canons against the Claims of his See, did not exclude him

out of the Calendar. His Festival is kept on the 25th of _October_; and

_Bede_ quotes a Book of Miracles wrought by Pope _Boniface_[1586]; but

whether by the First Pope of that Name, or the Second, he does not

inform us, though he seems to give an intire Credit to every idle Tale

that Legend contained. And here I cannot help observing, by the way,

that the less necessary Miracles became, the more they were multiplied.

In _Bede_’s Time, and the Three preceding Centuries, Men were rather

inclined to believe too much than too little; and yet in no other Time

was there a greater Profusion of Miracles. From an antient Epitaph

quoted by _Baronius_[1587], it appears that _Boniface_ died very old;

that he had served the Church from his tender Years; that by his

engaging Behaviour he put an End to the Schism, and that he relieved

_Rome_ in the time of a Famine.

-----

Footnote 1578:

Bar. ib. n. 37.

Footnote 1579:

Vid. Bar. ib. n. 34. & Baillet. vies de saints, 25 Oct.

Footnote 1580:

Platina in Bon.

Footnote 1581:

Apud Bar. ann. 419. n. 8.

Footnote 1582:

Pagi, crit. hist. in annal. Bar.

Footnote 1583:

See p. 226, 227.

Footnote 1584:

Cod. Theod. l. 45. de Episcop. l. 6.

Footnote 1585:

Fleury hist. eccles. l. 24. n. 31.

Footnote 1586:

Bed. in collectan. in fin.

Footnote 1587:

Bar. ad ann. 423. n. 8, 9.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HONORIUS, CELESTINE, THEODOSIUS II.,

_Forty-second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. VALENTINIAN III.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 422. Celestine _chosen without Opposition_.]

Upon the Demise of _Boniface_, _Celestine_ was chosen in his room,

without the least Disturbance or Opposition. _Eulalius_ indeed, who was

still alive, and led a retired Life in the neighbouring Province of

_Campania_, was tempted by his Friends in _Rome_ to try his Fortune a

Second time; but he did not chuse to quit his Solitude, and involve both

himself and them in new Troubles. _Celestine_ was a Native of _Rome_,

the Son of one _Priscus_, and a Deacon, if not a Presbyter, at the Time

of his Election[1588].

[Sidenote: Antony, _one of St._ Austin’s _Disciples, appointed by

his Interest Bishop of_ Fussala.]

He was scarce warm in the Chair, when he received a Letter from St.

_Austin_ on the following Occasion. As the small Town, or rather Village

of _Fussala_, belonging to the Bishoprick of _Hippo_, the See of St.

_Austin_, stood at a great Distance from that City, the good Bishop

thought he could not better consult the spiritual Welfare of the

Inhabitants, who had but very lately abandoned the Party of the

_Donatists_, than by causing their Town to be erected into a separate

Bishoprick, and letting them have a Bishop of their own. This was indeed

abridging both his own Jurisdiction and Revenues; but as he had the Good

of the People more at Heart than either, he pursued his Scheme with

Success, and prevailed upon his Collegues in _Numidia_ to ordain a young

Man named _Antony_, whom he had brought up from his Infancy, the first

Bishop of the Place, though at that time only a Reader. This Promotion,

_per saltum_, as it is styled, was strictly forbidden by the Popes in

their Decretals; but to their Orders St. _Austin_ paid no greater Regard

than the other Bishops did, though he always spoke of them, and to them,

with all the Respect that was due to the first Bishop in the

West.[Sidenote: Antony_’s scandalous Behaviour_.] St. _Austin_ had soon

Occasion to repent his transgressing those Regulations, which, it must

be owned, are in themselves very wise: for _Antony_, who was but a

Youth, and had been kept by St. _Austin_ under great Restraint, no

sooner found himself free from all Controul, than abandoning himself

intirely to the Indulgence of his youthful Passions, he thereby

scandalized the new Catholics to such a Degree, that they let St.

_Austin_ know the Conduct of their Bishop, unless he was quickly

removed, would certainly drive them to the last Extremity; meaning,

perhaps, that they should be forced either to put him to Death, or to

join anew the _Donatists_, whom they had but lately forsaken. Such

Menaces alarmed St. _Austin_ no less than the Conduct of his favourite

Disciple surprised him. A Council was immediately summoned at his

Request by the Primate of _Numidia_; _Antony_ was ordered to attend it,

and the Inhabitants of _Fussala_ invited to lay their Complaints before

the Assembly. The Summons was complied with by all, and _Antony_, by a

great Number of Witnesses, convicted of Rapine, Violence, and Extortion.

But, because some capital Crimes laid to his Charge were not

sufficiently proved, the Fathers of the Council, out of an unseasonable

Compassion, contented themselves with only condemning him to restore to

the Inhabitants of _Fussala_ what he had with Violence taken from them.

[Sidenote: _He is deprived of the Administration, and all Jurisdiction,

by a Council._] They were even inclined to leave him in the quiet

Possession of his Church; but that being warmly opposed by the People,

they deprived him of the Administration, and of all Jurisdiction; but as

he still retained the Episcopal Dignity, they did not chuse to remove

him to another City to live there even as a private Person, lest they

should be thought to transgress the Rules of the Fathers forbidding

Translations[1589]. None could think so who were the least acquainted

with those Rules.

[Sidenote: _He appeals to_ Rome.]