By this double Election the Citizens of Rome saw themselves, before
they were aware, involved in a Civil War. The whole People
were divided, some siding with Damasus, and some with Ursinus;
and neither of the Competitors shewed the least Inclination to yield
to the other. No Day passed without Skirmishes and Bloodshed; insomuch
that Juventius Governor of the City, and Julian the Præfectus
Annonæ, to put a Stop to the present, and prevent greater Disturbances,
agreed to banish Ursinus, whose Party seemed less powerful,
together with his Two Deacons Amantius and Lupus. The Two
Authors I have often quoted write, that both Juventius and Julian
were bribed by Damasus, who, taking Advantage of the Absence of
his Competitor, armed his Followers with Clubs and Swords, hoping
thus to intimidate the Friends of the exiled Bishop, and bring them in
the End to acknowlege him. Seven Presbyters of the Party of Ursinus
were seized, at the Request of Damasus, in order to be sent into
Exile, but rescued by the People of the same Party, and carried in
Triumph to the Basilic of Liberius; which Damasus no sooner heard,
than, arming all his Followers, both Clergy and Laymen, with Clubs,
Swords, Axes, &c. he marched at the Head of the seditious and enraged
Multitude to the Basilic, which he and his Partisans immediately
invested, and attacked with the utmost Fury. |Several Persons
massacred.| It was set on fire in
several Places; the Doors were forced, the Roof uncovered, and
thence Showers of Tiles discharged on the People assembled there:
great was the Massacre; One hundred and Sixty Persons, Men and
Women, were inhumanly murdered on the Side of Ursinus, and a
great many more wounded, some of whom died of their Wounds.
On the Side of Damasus not one single Person was killed. This
Riot began on the 25th of October 366. at Eight in the Morning.
Thus the above-mentioned Writer[993] Ruffinus writes in general Terms, that the illegal Election of Ursinus, in Opposition to Damasus, occasioned such a Tumult, or rather Civil War among the People, some siding with the one, and some with the other, that the Places destined for Prayer streamed with Human Blood[994]. The Heathen Ammianus Marcellinus assures us, that the Partisans of Damasus and Ursinus were so implacably incensed against each other, that several Persons were wounded in the Quarrel, and some killed: nay, it is certain, adds he, that in the Basilic of Sicinus One hundred and Thirty-seven Persons were found dead, all killed the same Day: but Damasus in the End, by the Efforts of his Party, got the better of his Antagonist[995]. Jerom, however partial, owns, that Ursinus having got Possession of the Basilic of Sicinus, the Partisans of Damasus repaired thither in Crouds, and that several Persons were thereupon inhumanly massacred[996]. The Sedition became general, and the Seditious on either Side so numerous and powerful, that Juventius, not thinking it adviseable to punish, nor being able to appease, the enraged Populace, abandoned the City, and retired to the Country[997]. He was perhaps for Ursinus, whose Party being over-matched by that of Damasus, he might not think it safe to continue in Rome. Three Days after the Massacre in the Basilic of Liberius, that is, on the 28th of October, the Partisans of Ursinus, say Marcellinus and Faustinus, assembling, cried out aloud against Damasus, complaining of his Conduct, and begging that a sufficient Number of Bishops might be convened, and the Controversy referred to their Judgment and Decision[998]. Damasus was greatly favoured, and chiefly supported, by the Roman Ladies, which probably gave Occasion to the Charge of Adultery that was brought against him. But Jerom, either to clear him of this Charge, or to obviate the like Suspicions, naturally arising from his familiar Conversation with the Female Sex, styles him a Virgin Doctor of the Virgin Church[999].
Baronius, finding he can neither disguise nor extenuate the Cruelties committed by those who adhered to Damasus, is at a great deal of Trouble to disculpate him, and lay the whole Blame on Maximinus, who, as appears from History, discharged the Office of Præfectus Annonæ from the Latter-end of the Year 367. to the Beginning of 370. and was noted for his Cruelty. Baronius is supported herein by the Authority of Jerom and Ruffinus, of whom the former writes, that Damasus remained Conqueror, without hurting the Conquered[1000]; and the latter, that the Cruelties practised by the Prefect Maximinus, who had espoused the Cause of Damasus, upon those of the adverse Party, rendered the Name of that virtuous Prelate odious, though he had no Share in them[1001]. But who is to be charged with the Massacre in the Basilic of Sicinus or Liberius? On whom are the Murders to be laid, committed there? Maximinus was not then in Power, and perhaps not at Rome. I cannot help thinking but Damasus might at least have restrained his Followers from such Excesses; and consequently, as he did not, I cannot, with Ruffinus, conclude him to have had no Share in them; I say, at least restrained; for I will not charge him with heading and encouraging the riotous Multitude in that wicked Attempt, upon the bare Authority of Marcellinus and Faustinus, both zealous Partisans of Ursinus. But neither ought Baronius, Bellarmine, Davidius, &c. upon the bare Testimony of Two Writers, no less sanguine in the Cause of Damasus, suppose him to have been no-ways concerned in those Disorders. The famous Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived at this very time in Rome, and, as a Pagan, was no-ways concerned in the Quarrel, nor more inclined to one Side than the other, assures us, that both were equally ambitious of the Episcopal Dignity, and both equally guilty[1002]. The Authority of a Writer, thus unbyassed, and in every other respect unexceptionable, ought to be preferred, without the least Hesitation, to that of any other, whom we have just Reason to suspect of Partiality. Jerom indeed speaks with more Modesty and Reserve than Ruffinus, and those who have copied after him; for he only says, that Damasus did not hurt his Enemies after he had conquered them. But, in relating the above-mentioned Massacre, and the Skirmishes that happened before the Party of Damasus prevailed, he always describes his Partisans as the Aggressors, without ever pretending to excuse him, as having no Share in those Riots; which he would not have failed to do, had he not paid a greater Regard to Truth than Ruffinus seems to have done.
The Heathen Marcellinus, after telling us, that Damasus and Ursinus
aspired with equal Ambition to the Episcopal Chair, adds this
famous Remark, which I shall set down in his own Words: I must
own, says he, that when I reflect on the Pomp attending that Dignity,
I do not at all wonder, that those, who are fond of Shew and
Parade, should scold, quarrel, fight, and strain every Nerve to attain
it; since they are sure, if they succeed, to be enriched with the Offerings
of the Ladies; to appear no more abroad on foot, but in
stately Chariots, and gorgeously attired; to keep costly and sumptuous
Tables; nay, and to surpass the Emperors themselves in the Splendor
and Magnificence of their Entertainments. But how happy
would they be, if, despising the Grandeur of the City, which they
allege to excuse their Luxury, they followed the Example of some
Bishops in the Provinces, who, by the Temperance and Frugality of
their Diet, the Poverty and Plainness of their Dress, the Modesty
of their Looks fixed on the Ground, the Purity of their Lives, and
the Regularity of their whole Conduct, approve themselves to the
eternal God, and all his true Worshipers[1003]! Thus Ammianus. And
that Damasus was fond of all that Pomp, Grandeur, and Parade, that
he led such a voluptuous Life, as Ammianus here so justly censures
and condemns in the Bishops of Rome, is not to be doubted, since
Prætextatus, a Man of the first Quality, honoured with the greatest
Employments of the Empire, and zealously attached to Paganism, in
conversing familiarly with him, used pleasantly to say, Make me Bishop
of Rome, and I'll immediately turn Christian[1004]. But, as I shall
have Occasion to speak of this Subject hereafter, I shall only observe
here, that the Offerings of those devout Women, and other pious
Christians, were no better employed in the Days of Damasus, than
the immense Wealth, which the Church of Rome acquired in After-Ages,
by the voluntary Contributions of all the Christian Nations, is
disposed of in ours. |How the Oblations of
the Faithful disposed
of.| With these Offerings the Bishops of Rome used
in more early Times, to maintain the Poor of their own Church, and
send the Overplus to other Churches, where the Poor were numerous,
and the Offerings small. Of this generous Practice I have mentioned
some Instances, that well deserve to be recorded. But when Ambition
began to take place of Charity, the Poor were forgotten, and
nothing thought of but splendid Equipages, numerous Retinues,
princely Apparel, sumptuous Tables, and whatever else could feed
the Vanity of these upstart Princes, and put them upon the Level with
the greatest Monarchs. To such Purposes were the Oblations of the
Faithful perverted. Baronius takes it very much amiss of Ammianus,
that he should find Fault with the costly Tables and Entertainments
of the Popes, since it is manifest from St. Austin, that the Christians
at Rome, and, no doubt, the Pope with the rest, kept a rigorous Fast
Three Days in the Week[1005]; so that, in his Opinion, they ought not
to be blamed for rioting Four Days in the Week, provided they fasted
Three. But to this Doctrine Ammianus was a Stranger, and therefore,
notwithstanding the Fasts they might keep, he justly censured
their expensive Tables and Banquets, as no-ways suited to their Profession
and Character.
But to return to Ursinus; he had been banished Rome by the Prefect Juventius, before the 26th of October 366. as I have related above; but the Emperor Valentinian, who was at this time in Gaul, having, at the Request of his Friends, granted him Leave to return, he entered the City on the 15th of September 367. in a kind of Triumph, being met and received with loud Acclamations by those of his Party[1006]. At the same time the Emperor directed a Rescript to Prætextatus, who had succeeded Juventius in the Prefecture of Rome, injoining him to recall all those, who had been banned for the late Riots, and reinstate them in their former Condition, after warning them, that if, for the future, they disturbed the Peace of the Public, they should be punished without Mercy[1007]. |but banished anew.| But notwithstanding this Warning, new Disturbances must have happened, since Ursinus was, by an Order from the Emperor, banished again on the 16th of November of the same Year 367. together with Seven of his Followers, who were all confined to different Places in Gaul, where they continued till the Year 371[1008]. The Two Presbyters tell us, that Damasus, having, with large Sums, gained the Ministers and Favourites at Court, by their Means extorted from the Emperor the above-mentioned Order. They add, that the Friends of Ursinus were resolved to stand by him; but that he, to prevent Bloodshed, delivered himself up into the Hands of the Officers of Justice[1009]. However that be, by the Banishment of Ursinus, and some of the leading Men of his Party, Tranquillity was restored for a while, and the Disturbances composed, says Ammianus, which the Christians had raised by quarreling among themselves[1010].
About this Time the Emperor Valentinian enacted a Law, impowering the Bishop of Rome to examine and judge other Bishops, that religious and ecclesiastical Disputes might not be decided by profane or secular Judges, but by a Pontiff of the same Religion, and his Collegues[1011]. A very imprudent Law, considering the Nature and Consequences of such a Concession. The Bishops assembled in Council at Rome, in 378. after declaring, in the strongest Terms, their Approbation of this Law, agreed to present an Address to the Emperor Gratian, wherein they earnestly recommended to him the Execution of it, because it greatly redounded, say they, to the Honour of the sacred Ministry; because the Judgment of Bishops was more sure and certain than that of any Civil Magistrate; and, lastly, because it delivered the Prelates of the Church from the just Concern they were under, to find that they could not make their Innocence appear without Racks and Tortures, which innocent Persons were put to by the Secular Judges[1012]. This Exemption seems to have been understood by the Council as extending to all Cases, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical. Be that as it will, whatever Exemption was by the above-mentioned Law granted to the Bishops, whatever Power was by that Law vested in the Bishop of Rome, and his Collegues, the Council, with a due Sense of Gratitude, acknowleged such Power and Immunity to be intirely owing to the Indulgence of the Emperor: a plain Proof that the absurd and chimerical Notion of a Divine Right was not yet broached. The Bishops chose rather to be judged by the Pope and his Collegues, that is, by their own Brethren, than by Lay Judges, for the Reasons they allege in their Address to Gratian. Hence they chearfully submitted to his Judgment, and applauded every new Power that was granted him, as redounding to the Honour of the Episcopal Order. But, alas! they were not aware, that every new Power, yielded to the Bishop of Rome, was a new Link added to the Chain they were forging, if not for themselves, for those, at least, who were to succeed them. They little apprehended, that the Bishop of Rome would, in Process of Time, claim all the Power vested in him, and his Collegues, as due to him alone, and that too by Divine Right; that, in virtue of such a Claim, he would set up for universal and sole Monarch of the Church, exercise an unbounded Authority and Jurisdiction, and degrade all other Bishops from his Collegues to his Vassals and Slaves. Blondel is of Opinion, that the Bishop of Rome was, by that Law, only impowered to judge the Bishops within the Limits of his Jurisdiction, that is, those of the Suburbicarian Provinces[1013]. Others think that such a Power was only for a time, and extended to those Bishops alone who were concerned in the present Schism; which seems most probable, since Valentinian declares, that he enacted the above-mentioned Law to settle the Church, shaken by the Fury of the Schism[1014].
Ursinus, and the leading Men of his Party, being driven out of the City, the Inhabitants began to enjoy their former Peace and Tranquillity. But yet his Followers continued to assemble in the Cœmeteries of the Martyrs, and even kept Possession of a Church, supposed to be that of St. Agnes, without the Walls[1015]. Of this Damasus took care to transmit an Account to the Emperor, in a Memorial; who, fearing that, from such a Spark, the Fire might break out again, which he had been striving to extinguish, injoined Prætextatus to put Damasus forthwith in Possession of that Church; and, in the Execution of this Order, probably happened what we find related, perhaps with some Exaggeration, by the Two Writers I have often quoted; for they tell us, that one Day, while the Followers of Ursinus were assembled, in great Numbers, in the Church of St. Agnes, Damasus, falling unexpectedly upon them with his Satellites, made a dreadful Havock of the innocent and defenceless Multitude[1016]. After this Second Massacre Prætextatus, to secure the Tranquillity of the City, sent several more of the Party of Ursinus into Exile. Valentinian, however, would not consent to their being confined to any particular Place; but gave them full Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out of Rome[1017]. The two Writers add, that the Cruelties exercised in the Church of St. Agnes gave great Offence to the Bishops of Italy; and that Damasus having invited some of them to Rome, to solemnize with him the Anniversary of his Consecration, he laid hold of that Opportunity to solicit them with Intreaties, nay, and to tempt them with Money, to condemn Ursinus; but all in vain; the Bishops equally unmoved by his Prayers and Offers, refusing, with great Firmness and Resolution, to condemn a Man whom they had not heard. Marcellinus and Faustinus close their Preface with a short Account of themselves, telling us, that the Presbyters of Ursinus’s Party were imprisoned, racked, banished, dispersed, and sent into different Countries; and that they themselves, who were of that Number, presented a Petition to the Emperors, begging them to put a Stop to so cruel a Persecution[1018].
Damasus having thus, in the End, by the Favour of the Emperors,
intirely got the better of the adverse Party, and secured his Dignity,
he turned his Thoughts to Ecclesiastical Matters. In the West there
were now but Three Bishops, who still maintained the Doctrine of
Arius; viz. Ursacius Bishop of Singidunum, Valens of Mursa, and
Auxentius of Milan. |Ursacius and Valens
condemned.
Auxentius why spared.| Damasus, however, convened a numerous
Council at Rome; and there examined anew, and anew condemned,
the Tenets of Arius, and all who held them, namely Ursacius and
Valens[1019]. Auxentius was a pure, and no less zealous, Arian, than
either of these Two; but as he was in favour with Valentinian,
whom he had deceived by an equivocal Confession of Faith, Damasus,
and his Council, thought it adviseable not to name him. The
Council writ a synodal Letter to the other Bishops, acquainting them
with what had passed; which was answered by Athanasius, and the
Bishops of Egypt, then assembled at Alexandria. In their Answer
they thank Damasus for condemning Ursacius and Valens; but, at
the same time, express no small Surprize to find, that Auxentius was
not yet deposed, tho’ guilty not only of Arianism, but of many other
Crimes, which they enumerate[1020]. Damasus and his Collegues paid,
no doubt, great Regard to the Remonstrances of Athanasius; but, as
Auxentius was supported by the Emperor, and they were better
Courtiers than Athanasius, they never attempted to depose him; nay,
they carried their Complaisance so far as to condemn Ursacius and
Valens, as if they had been the only Arian Bishops in the West, without
ever naming Auxentius. He therefore kept, for many Years,
quiet Possession of the See he had usurped, and was at last deprived of
it by Death alone.
The many Abuses and Disorders, that reigned at this Time among the Ecclesiastics of Rome, offered a larger Field to the Zeal of Damasus, than the Heresy of Arius, now confined in the West to a Corner of Illyricum. But he was by no means a fit Person to set up for a Reformer of Manners, and the Evil required a more powerful Remedy than he could apply. The Prelates of the Church, even the Bishops of Rome, could yet only preach against Vice, admonish the Vicious, and inflict ecclesiastical Censures on such as gave no Ear to their Admonitions: all other Power was still lodged in Lay Hands, and only imparted to the Ecclesiastics in some extraordinary Cases. The insatiable Avarice of the Roman Clergy,Clergy, the mean and scandalous Arts they were daily practising to circumvent the Orphans, plunder the Widows, and rob the lawful Heirs of their just Inheritance, cried loudly for a Reform; but were Evils too strong for the Curb of Exhortation, Admonition, or Censures merely ecclesiastical; and Damasus himself was not quite free from Imputations of this Nature. It was therefore necessary, that the Secular Power should interpose in Defence of the deluded Laity, against the Craft and Rapines of the ravenous Clergy. |Law enacted by him.| A Law was accordingly enacted by the Emperor Valentinian, in the Year 370. addressed to Damasus Bishop of Rome, and read, on the 29th of July, in all the Churches of that City, strictly forbidding the Ecclesiastics, and such as professed Celibacy, meaning the Monks, to frequent the Houses of Orphans or Widows, or to accept from those, whom they attended under the Veil of Religion, any thing whatsoever by way of Donation, Legacy, or Feoffment in Trust. Whatever was thus given or accepted, is declared forfeited to the public Treasury[1021].
This Law, taken in a literal Sense, only forbids the Ecclesiastics to
accept such Donations as were made by the Women whom they attended
in spiritual Matters as their Guides or Directors; but it was either
understood and interpreted as extending to all Donations from pious
Persons, or a new Law was made at this Time excluding the Ecclesiastics
from all such Donations, as plainly appears from Jerom and
Ambrose, of whom the former, in one of his Letters, writes thus:
|The Sentiments of St.
Jerom and Ambrose
concerning this Law.| I am ashamed to say it, the Priests of the Idols, the Stage-players,
Charioteers, Whores, are capable of inheriting Estates, and receiving
Legacies; from this common Privilege, Clerks alone, and Monks,
are debarred by Law; debarred, not under persecuting Tyrants, but
Christian Princes[1022]. And Ambrose; We are excluded by Laws,
lately enacted, from all Inheritances, Donations, and Legacies; yet
we do not complain: And why should we? By such Laws we only
lose Wealth; and the Loss of Wealth is no Loss to us. Estates are
lawfully bequeathed to the Ministers of the Heathen Temples; no
Layman is excluded, let his Condition be ever so low, let his Life
be ever so scandalous: Clerks alone are debarred of a Right common
to the rest of Mankind. Let a Christian Widow bequeath her
whole Estate to a Pagan Priest, her Will is good in Law; let her
bequeath the least Share of it to a Minister of God, her Will is
null. I do not mention these Things by way of Complaint, but only to
let the World know, that I do not complain; for I had rather we should
want Money, than Virtue or Grace[1023]. From these Testimonies it is
manifest, that either by the above-mentioned Law, or by some other
published at this Time, the Ecclesiastics were restrained from receiving
any Donations or Legacies whatever, by whomsoever bequeathed:
and that such a Law was absolutely necessary, is no less manifest from
the unquestionable Authority of Jerom, who lived at this very Time
in Rome, and describes, as an Eye-witness, the Arts that were practised
with great Success, by the Roman Clergy, to circumvent rich Widows,
and old Men. The Clerks, says he, who ought to instruct and awe
the Women with a grave and composed Behaviour, first kiss their
Heads, and then, stretching out their Hand, as it were to bestow a
Blessing, slily receive a Fee for their Salutation. The Women in the
mean time, elated with Pride in seeing themselves thus courted by the
Clergy, prefer the Freedom of Widowhood to the Subjection attending
the State of Matrimony. Some of the Clergy make it the whole
Business and Employment of their Lives to learn the Names of the
Ladies, to find out their Habitations, to study their Humour. One
of these (perhaps Antimus or Sophronius, two Monkish Harpyes, of
whom he speaks elsewhere), an Adept in the Art, rises with the
Sun, settles the Order of his Visits, acquaints himself with the
shortest Ways, and almost breaks into the Rooms of the Women before
they are awake. If he sees any curious Piece of Houshold Furniture,
he extols, admires, and handles it; and, sighing that he too should
stand in need of such Trifles, in the End, rather extorts it by Force,
than obtains it by Goodwill, the Ladies being afraid to disoblige the
prating old Fellow, that is always running about from House to
House[1024]. The same Writer, speaking elsewhere of the Monks, displays
the Arts which they practised to deceive, captivate, and plunder,
the rich Widows, and old Men; and adds, that, by professing Poverty,
they were become rich, and that the Church grieved to see many acquire
great Wealth by serving her, who had been Beggars, while they
lived in the World[1025]. So that the Monastic Profession was in those
early Times what it is now, a gainful Trade, under the Mask of Religion.
As for the mean, nay, and nauseous Offices, to which they
were prompted by their Avarice, and the greedy Expectation of Legacies,
to submit, about the childless old Men and Women in their
Sickness, it would be forgetting the Dignity of an Historian to mention
them. The Reader will find them described by Jerom, and perhaps
too minutely, in the Letter he writ to his Friend Nepotian[1026].
In the same Letter he informs us, how the Wealth thus acquired was
disposed of. I, says he, applying to himself what he levelled at
others, to render the Truth he spoke less disagreeable; I, who was
born in a poor Country Cottage, who had scarce Millet enough, and
coarse Bread, to satiate my craving Stomach, now despise the finest
Flour, the choicest Honey, am well acquainted with the different
Kinds and Names of Fishes, and can tell by the Taste from what
Coast each Shell-fish was brought, from what Province each Bird[1027].
A Law was therefore necessary to restrain the insatiable Avarice of the
Roman Clergy, and obviate the unhallowed Use they made of the
Wealth, which by such scandalous Means they had acquired. This
Law Jerom calls a Caustic; and adds, that he does not complain of
it, but of the Sore that required it[1028]. However, that he complains,
and Ambrose too, not only of the Sore, but the Caustic, is manifest
from their Words, and Manner of writing. To exaggerate the pretended
Hardship, they both observe, that the Pagan Priests lay under
no such Restraints: An unseasonable Observation! Since it shews the
Difference between the Pagan and Christian Priesthood in a mortifying
Light. The former gave no Occasion to such a Law, their Avarice
wanted no such Restraints; if it had, we may be sure they had met
with no Quarter from a Christian, nay, from an Orthodox Prince;
and if he had spared them, such Partiality had not been tamely put
up, and passed over in Silence, by the Ecclesiastical Writers of those
Times, namely, by the Two I have mentioned.
Baronius is of Opinion, that the above-mentioned Law was procured by Damasus, who, finding his Clergy no longer awed by the Spiritual Sword, had recourse to the Temporal: for the Temporal, adds he, though in the Emperor’s Hands, was given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his Successors, as well as the Spiritual[1029]. Thus he puts at once both Swords into the Popes Hands, though he has not yet been able to allege one single Instance of their having either. They got both, 'tis true, in After-ages; and we shall see, in the Sequel of this History, how they came by them. But that Law, says Baronius, was read in all the Churches of Rome. And so have others been, when they concerned the Clergy, and were addressed to, though not procured by, the Bishop of that City[1030]. Besides, as Damasus loved Pomp and Grandeur, it is not at all probable, that he was instrumental in the enacting of a Law, which deprived him of the main Fund to support them, the Generosity of the Roman Ladies.
Two Years after, that is, in 372. the Law I have mentioned above
was extended by the same Prince, viz. Valentinian, to the sacred
Virgins and Bishops, so as to exclude the former from the Right of
giving, and the latter from that of receiving, any thing whatsoever by
way of Donation, Legacy, &c[1031]. But this Law, with another still
more severe, published Twenty Years afterwards by the Emperor
Theodosius, was abrogated by the Emperor Marcian in the Year 455.
as I shall have Occasion to relate hereafter. |The primitive Rigour
and Discipline utterly
neglected at Rome.| In the mean time I cannot
help observing with Astonishment, how early the primitive Rigour
of Discipline and Manners was utterly neglected and forgotten by
the Ecclesiastics of Rome; how early the most exorbitant Luxury,
with all the Vices attending it, was introduced among them, and
the most scandalous and unchristian Arts of acquiring Wealth universally
practised. They seem to have rivalled, in riotous living, the
greatest Epicures of Pagan Rome, when Luxury was there at the highest
Pitch. For Jerom, who was an Eye-witness of what he writ, reproaches
the Roman Clergy with the same Excesses, which the Poet
Juvenal so severely censured in the Roman Nobility, under the Reign
of Domitian. And how much more worthy were the former of the
severest Censure, not only in regard of their Calling, and the Religion
they professed, teaching them to curb and subdue all irregular Passions
and Appetites, but from this aggravating Circumstance, that the Estates
they so squandered and wasted were not their own, but the Patrimony
of the Poor, the Substance of the Orphans, Widows, and unhappy
Persons, whom, under the Cloke of Religion, they robbed of their
just Inheritance! And herein they conformed to the Example of their
Chief, who, finding an inexhaustible Fund in the Generosity of the
Roman Ladies to support his Extravagance, lived in that Pomp and
Grandeur which Ammianus has described above.
But he was roused from the easy and indolent Life he led at Rome,
by Letters from the famous Basil, lately raised to the See of Cæsarea
in Cappadocia, the Metropolis of Pontus, imploring his Assistance,
and that of the other Western Bishops, in the present unhappy Condition
of the Churches in the East. Arianism was almost utterly extirpated
in the West under the Orthodox Emperor Valentinian, as I have
observed above; but in the East it triumphed under his Brother Valens,
a most zealous Favourer of the Arians, a most implacable Enemy to
the Orthodox, who were by him every-where driven from their Sees,
and sent into Exile: nay, he gave full Power to the Arian Bishops and
Magistrates to imprison, fine, beat, rack, and banish, at Pleasure,
such of the Orthodox Clergy as they could not win over by more gentle
Methods. This Power they used so tyrannically, especially at Constantinople,
that the Clergy of that City resolved to apply to Valens
himself for Relief, not doubting but the Miseries they groaned under
might, if duly represented, even move him to Compassion. Accordingly
they appointed Eighty of their Body, all Men of unblemished
Characters, and known Piety, to repair to Nicomedia, where that
Prince then was, and lay their Grievances before him. Upon their
Arrival at Court, they were introduced to the Emperor, who heard
them with great Attention, without shewing the least Emotion either
of Resentment or Compassion. However, as, upon his dismissing
them, he immediately sent for Modestus the Præfectus Prætorio, they
concluded that he had given Ear to their just Complaints, and began to
expect a speedy Redress of their Grievances. |Inhumanly treated by
the EmperorValens.| But the Charge he gave
him, very different from what they expected, was to dispatch them all
without Mercy or Delay. The Prefect, apprehending the Death of so
many eminent Ecclesiastics might occasion a Tumult in the City, gave
out that the Emperor had ordered them into Exile; and accordingly
caused them to be put on board a Vessel, in order to be conveyed, as
he pretended, to the Place of their Banishment. But the Vessel was
no sooner out of Sight, than the Mariners, pursuant to their private
Instructions, set Fire to it, and, betaking themselves to their Boat, left
those they had on board to the Mercy of the Flames and Waves[1032].
But Athanasius, Basil, and the other Champions of the Orthodox
Party, were not so much alarmed at the cruel Persecution raised
against them by their Enemies, as at the unhappy Divisions that reigned
at this very time among themselves. It was to procure a Remedy
for these Divisions, to heal a dangerous Schism, that rent the Orthodox
Party into two opposite Factions, that Basil, by the Advice of
AthanasiusAthanasius, writ the above-mentioned Letter to Damasus, and
that the Orthodox Bishops of the East writ in common a Letter to all
their Brethren in the West. As this Schism did more Hurt to the
Orthodox Cause than it was in the Power of their Enemies to have
done, I shall not think it foreign to my Purpose to insert a succinct
Account of its Rise and Progress. |What occasioned
this Division.| Eustathius, the Orthodox Bishop
of Antioch, being deposed by the Arians in 331. and one of their
own Party put in his room, the greater Part of the Clergy and People
of that City, acknowleging the new-chosen Bishop, and his Arian
Successors, assisted at their Assemblies, mixed with the Arians, and
received the Sacraments at their Hands, though they disagreed with
them in Belief. But some more zealous than the rest, refusing to own
any other Bishop so long as Eustathius lived, held their Assemblies
apart, under the Direction of Presbyters animated with the like Zeal.
These, from their steady Attachment to Eustathius, were called Eustathians,
and with them alone Athanasius communicated while he
was at Antioch[1033]. This Schism or Separation continued even after
the Death of Eustathius, those of his Party declining not only the
Communion of the Arians and their Bishops, but of the Orthodox, who
communicated with them. In the Year 360. the See of Antioch being
vacant, by the Translation of Eudoxius the Arian to that of Constantinople,
the Arians, and the Orthodox, who communicated with them,
chose with one Consent the famous Meletius to succeed him. Both
Parties joyfully concurred in this Election; the Orthodox, because they
knew his Doctrine to be no less pure than his Manners; and the Arians,
because they hoped, by such a distinguishing Mark of their Friendship
and Esteem, to win him, and by his Means to gain over to their Party
the whole City of Antioch, nay, and the Eustathians themselves[1034].
But they soon found, to their great Mortification, that the Orthodox
were better acquainted with Meletius than they, that he was most
zealously attached to the Orthodox Party, and was not to be swayed
by Friendship or Enmity, by Hopes or Terrors. |Meletius the new
Bishop of Antioch
declares in favour of
the Orthodox.| He was no sooner
installed, which Ceremony was performed with the greatest Solemnity,
than he loudly declared in favour of Consubstantiality, and
boldly cut off from his Communion, as rotten and incurable Members,
all who held the opposite Doctrine. The Arians of Antioch
were thunderstruck with the Boldness of the Attempt; the whole
Party took the Alarm; Eudoxius Bishop of Constantinople, and the
neighbouring Bishops, forgetful of every thing else, hastened to Antioch;
Hopes, Fears, Prayers, Menaces, were successively employed,
and nothing left unattempted to divert, at least to allay, the impending
Storm. But all in vain; the Zeal of Meletius was incapable of
Controul: he openly declared, that nothing should, nothing could,
make him desist from, or relent in, the Work he had undertaken, till
he had utterly extirpated the Arian Heresy, without leaving the least
Shoot of so poisonous a Weed in the Field, which by Divine Appointment
he was to guard and cultivate[1035]. The Arians finding him immovably
fixed in his Resolution, and, what doubled their Concern, the
whole Party in imminent Danger from one of their own chusing, they
applied with better Success to the Emperor Constantius; and, charging
the new Bishop of Antioch with Sabellianism, which Charge the credulous
and unwary Prince believed upon their Word, |He is banished.| they extorted
from him a Rescript banishing Meletius from Antioch about Thirty
Days after his Installment, and confining him to Melitene in Armenia,
his native City[1036]. Euzoius was preferred in his room, formerly
the chief Favourite of Arius, and the most antient of all his Disciples;
for together with him he was condemned by the great Council of
Nice.
The Orthodox, who had hitherto communicated with the Arians, were so disobliged and scandalized at these Proceedings, that, in the End they renounced the Arian Communion; and, assembling by themselves, proposed an Union with the Eustathians. But their Proposal was rejected by the leading Men of that Party, alleging, that they could not admit them to their Communion, because they had for so many Years communicated with the Arians, received the Sacraments at their Hands, and still seemed to acknowlege Meletius as lawful Bishop, though he had been chosen by the Arian Faction: for the Eustathians, notwithstanding the heroic Firmness of Meletius in defending and promoting the common Cause, refused to own him, for no other Reason but because the Arians had had a chief Share in his Election[1037]. As this Disagreement greatly weakened the Orthodox Cause in Antioch, and might, in time, be attended with fatal Consequences, no Pains were spared by the apostolic Men of those Times, to induce the Eustathians to abate somewhat of their Zeal and Severity. As for the other Party, notwithstanding their Attachment to Meletius, whence they had the Name of Meletians, they were greatly inclined to an Accommodation, and seemed to court the Communion of the Eustathians, almost upon any Terms. Lucifer, the famous Bishop of Cagliari, on his Return from Thebais in Egypt, to which Place he had been confined by Constantius, was prompted by his Zeal to take Antioch in his Way, with a Design to mediate an Accommodation between the dissenting Parties. Being arrived in that City, he had several Conferences with the leading Men of the one and the other Party; and, finding neither averse to an Accommodation, he conceived great Hopes of succeeding in his Design; and therefore begged the Fathers of the Council of Alexandria, which was already sitting, and to which he had been invited by Athanasius, to dispense with his assisting at that Assembly, since his Presence seemed more necessary at Antioch. However, he appointed Two of his Deacons to be present as his Deputies, injoining them to agree, in his Name, to the Decisions of the Council[1038]. Baronius owns here, which I cannot help observing by the way, that Lucifer never appeared in the Council of Alexandria[1039]; forgetting, no doubt, what he elsewhere so strenuously maintains[1040]; viz. that Lucifer assisted at that Assembly, in the Name of Pope Liberius, and as his Legate.