The Fathers of the Council not only approved of the Bishop of
Cagliari’s Resolution, but appointed Eusebius of Vercelli, and Asterius
of Petra in Arabia, to assist him in so pious an Undertaking.
What seemed chiefly to obstruct the so much wished for Union, was
a great Attachment on one Side to Meletius, and an equal Obstinacy
on the other, in refusing to acknowlege one preferred by the Arians.
The Confessors therefore assembled in Alexandria (for of Confessors
alone that Assembly was composed) were of Opinion, that, if every
other Remedy proved ineffectual, their Deputies should apply to Meletius;
and, having persuaded him to resign his Dignity, chuse another
in his room, equally acceptable to both Parties. They did not
in the least doubt but Meletius would readily, nay, with great Joy,
sacrifice his Dignity, and every other private View, to the public
Tranquillity[1041]; so great was the Opinion they entertained of his Virtue.
Had this wise Resolution taken place, it had, in all Likelihood,
been attended with the desired Effect. |All Means of an
Accommodation cut
off by the imprudent
Conduct of the Bishop
of Cagliari.| But before the Deputies could
reach Antioch, Lucifer, more commendable for Zeal than Prudence,
had cut off all means of an Accommodation, by conferring, of his
own Authority, the Episcopal Dignity on the Presbyter Paulinus, who
was at the Head of the Eustathians, and had with more Warmth
than any other opposed Meletius, and those who adhered to him. He
was assisted in that irregular Ordination by Two other Confessors[1042];
viz. Gorgonius of Germanicia, and Cymatius of Gabala, or rather of
Paltos[1043]. This Step he took to oblige the Eustathians, when he found
that they could by no means be induced to acknowlege Meletius.
But, instead of closing, he thereby widened, the Breach, the Meletians
declaring, that they would never abandon a Bishop of their own Party,
to acknowlege one of another, chosen without their Consent, or
even their Knowlege[1044]. This unhappy Division, thus settled and confirmed
between the Two Orthodox Parties in Antioch, did not continue
long confined to that particular Church, but soon extended to
the Church universal; some owning Meletius for lawful Bishop of Antioch,
and others Paulinus. Athanasius communicated with Paulinus,
and not with Meletius; and his Example was followed by the
Bishops of Egypt, of Cyprus, and all the Bishops in the West[1045]. On
the other hand, all the Orthodox Bishops in the East, except Athanasius,
and those I have mentioned, espoused, with great Warmth, the
Cause of Meletius[1046]. They all continued, however, notwithstanding
this Disagreement, to communicate with each other, though with
some Indifference and Coldness. The Ordination of Paulinus gave
Rise to another Schism; for Eusebius of Vercelli, finding, on his Arrival
at Antioch, all Hopes of an Accommodation cut off, and no
room left for the Measures concerted and agreed to by the Council,
immediately quitted the City, without communicating with either
Party. This was condemning the Conduct of Lucifer; which he
could not brook; and therefore, full of Resentment, he renounced
the Communion of Eusebius, with whom he had hitherto lived in
the greatest Intimacy, and suffered together with him a most painful
Exile for the common Cause[1047].
Basil Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, one of the great Lights
of the Church, left nothing unattempted, which he apprehended
could any-ways contribute to the reuniting of the Orthodox among
themselves, and putting an End to the present Schism. But, despairing
at last of Success, and finding the Prelates in the East all warmly
engaged in the Dispute, some in favour of Meletius, and some of
Paulinus, he resolved to apply to the Bishop of Rome, who had not
yet declared for either of the Competitors, his Thoughts being wholly
employed in securing his Dignity against a Competitor at Home. He
writ therefore to Damasus, intreating him to dispatch Deputies into
the East, who, in Concert with the Prelates there, inclined to an
Accommodation, might settle the proper Means of accomplishing so
desirable a Work, and uniting in Charity those, who were already
united in Faith. He added, that it was from his Zeal alone they expected
Relief, from that Zeal which he had made so eminently appear
on other Occasions; that Dionysius, one of his Predecessors,
had afforded them a seasonable Assistance, when their Wants were less
pressing, and their Condition not so deplorable; and therefore that
there was no room left to doubt of his readily conforming to so
glorious an Example[1048]. With this Letter, and another from the Bishops
in the East, soliciting the Advice, Assistance, and Mediation of
their Collegues in the West, Dorotheus, Deacon of the Church of
Antioch, was dispatched into Italy: whence he returned in the Beginning
of the following Year 372. with an Answer from the Bishops
of Illyricum, Italy, and Gaul[1049]. |The haughty Conduct
of Damasus resented
by St. Basil.| But Damasus did not condescend
to return an Answer to Basil, or take the least Notice of his Letter;
which haughty Conduct he justly resented, and in pretty sharp Terms,
taxing Damasus, in one of his Letters[1050], with a Spirit of Pride and
Vanity, which made him overlook other Bishops as below his Attention,
and expect to be accosted by them with the meanest Flattery.
But his thus disregarding the Request and Intreaties of the Bishop of
Cæsarea, was not owing to his Pride alone. He was so little acquainted
with the State of the Churches in the East, and what passed
there, that he looked upon Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, and Meletius,
with whom Basil lived in great Intimacy, as rank Arians, tho’
they both lived at that very time in Exile, having been driven from
their Sees by the Arians, on account of the Zeal, which they had,
with an invincible Firmness, exerted in Defence of the Orthodox
Faith[1051]. The Bishop of Rome might, with very little Trouble, have
been better informed; but his Mind, it seems, was so deeply engaged
in worldly Affairs, and his Thoughts so taken up with State, Pomp,
and Grandeur, that he was never at Leisure to mind those Matters,
which justly claimed, and ought to have engrossed, his whole Attention.
By him the Western Bishops were led into the same Mistake
concerning Eusebius and Meletius; and hence the Backwardness they
shewed to correspond with Basil, as if he designed to impose upon
them, or was himself imposed upon by others. |St. Basil complains of
Damasus, and the
Western Bishops.| Of this Basil justly
complained in a Letter he writ to Eusebius of Samosata. If the
Wrath of God, says he, is in the End appeased, if Mercy takes
place, what other Help do we stand in need of? But, if his Anger
continues, what Relief will the Pride of the West afford us? They
neither know the Truth, nor can they patiently bear it. They are
ever prepossessed with idle Jealousies, ever swayed by groundless Surmises;
and therefore act now the same Part they lately acted in the
Case of Marcellinus; that is, they quarrel with those, who inform
them of the Truth, and, being left to themselves, they introduce and
establish Heresies. As for my own Part, I had once some Thoughts
of writing a private Letter to their Chief (that is, to Damasus), and,
waving all Mention of Church Affairs, only tell him, that they
neither know what passes here, nor take the right Method to be informed;
and that they ought not to oppress those who are already
humbled by Affliction, nor mistake Pride for Dignity, since that Sin
alone is capable of Setting a Man at Enmity with God[1052]. From these
Words it is pretty plain, that the Notion of the Pope’s Infallibility was
not yet broached, or at least was not yet known to Basil. The Bishop
of the Metropolis of the Empire was deservedly looked upon, in regard
of the Dignity of his See, as the Chief and Head of all the Western
Bishops; and to him as such, not as an infallible and unerring Judge,
the Eastern Bishops frequently applied in the Disputes, that happened
to rise among them; so that all we can infer from their applying to
him is, that his Authority bore a great Sway; which was owing to
the Pre-eminence of his See, and not to any Power or Prerogative
peculiar to him, and superior to others.
It was long ere Damasus could be brought to give any Attention
to the Affairs of the East; and when he did, it was only to add
Fewel to the Fire, which had lately begun to rage with great Violence.
For, looking upon the Office of a bare Mediator, which alone
had been offered him, as no-ways suitable to his Dignity, he arrogantly
assumed that of a Judge, and not only acknowleged Paulinus
for lawful Bishop of Antioch, but, misled by false and groundless Reports,
declared Meletius a Transgressor of the Canons, an Intruder, a
Schismatic, and even an Heretic[1053]; that Meletius, who had suffered
Exile, and innumerable Hardships, in Defence of the Orthodox Faith,
who was then revered all over the East, as a Man of extraordinary
Sanctity, and is now honoured by the Church of Rome as a Saint of
the first Class. |His Conduct con-
demned by St. Basil.| But his thus openly declaring in favour of Paulinus,
his treating in such a base and unworthy manner one of the most
eminent Prelates in the East, served only to engage the Followers of
Meletius more warmly in his Cause; and the great Basil, among the
rest, who could not help censuring the Conduct of Damasus as rash,
partial, and injudicious: he even repented his having ever applied to
him; for, in one of his Letters to Eusebius of Samosata, he expresses
himself thus: The Saying of Diomedes occurs to my Mind; Intreaties
are not to be used with Achilles, he is too haughty[1054]; and
truly the more you flatter haughty and insolent Men, the more
haughty and insolent they become[1055]. As no Regard was had to the
Authority of Damasus, and the Western Bishops, who, following his
Example, acknowleged Paulinus, and not Meletius, the Orthodox
Bishops in the East not only continued divided among themselves, but
a new Division arose between the Western Bishops, and those of the
Party of Meletius, at the Head of which was Basil Bishop of Cæsarea.
But, of these unhappy Divisions, so far as the Bishops of Rome were
concerned in them, we shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.
Damasus was far more successful in suppressing the Schism of Ursinus, which about this time was revived at Rome. The Emperor Valentinian, some time before, by a Rescript addressed to Ampelius Governor, and Maximinus Vicar of Rome, had allowed Ursinus, and the leading Men of his Party, who had been confined with him to Gaul, Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out of Rome, and the Suburbicarian Provinces[1056]. This Indulgence shewn by the Emperor to Ursinus, encouraged his Followers in Rome to declare openly in his Favour, and even to assemble apart from those who communicated with Damasus. But, being therein opposed by the Party of Damasus with their usual Violence, new Disturbances arose, and the City was upon the point of becoming again the Scene of a Civil War. |who are banished.| Simplicius, then Vicar of Rome, at the Request of Damasus, gave the Emperor immediate Notice of the approaching Danger; and the Emperor, in Answer to his Letter, sent him a Rescript, commanding all those who, in Contempt of Religion, held or frequented unlawful Assemblies, to be banished an Hundred Miles from Rome, that their Obstinacy might hurt none but themselves[1057]. Thus for the present a Stop was put to the Disorders that had begun to reign in the City.
The two Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus pretend, that this Law was levelled at the Ursinians alone, but was interpreted by Damasus, as comprehending the Luciferians, or the Followers of Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari, who, refusing to communicate with the Bishops who signed the Confession of Rimini, and with all who communicated with them, had separate Assemblies at Rome, and even a Bishop of their own, named Aurelius. But Damasus, say they, using them, in virtue of the above-mentioned Law, with no less Cruelty than he did the Ursinians, they thenceforth assembled only in the Night, under a Presbyter, named Macarius, of whose Sanity and Austerities they relate wonderful Things. But Night and Darkness could not protect them against the persecuting Spirit of Damasus, whose Clerks, breaking one Night in upon them, while they were performing Divine Service in a private House, dispersed the Congregation, seized Macarius, and dragging him along with them over the sharp Flints, by which he was cruelly bruised, and dangerously wounded in the Thigh, they kept him the remaining Part of the Night closely confined. Next Morning he was carried before the Judge, who, finding him inflexible in rejecting the Communion of Damasus, condemned him to Exile; but the holy Presbyter, being arrived at Ostia, died there of his Wounds[1058]. The same Authors add, that Damasus caused several Catholic Presbyters to be sent into Exile, and some Laymen; but that Aurelius, the Luciferian Bishop, in spite of all his Efforts, continued in Rome to the Hour of his Death[1059].
About this Time, that is, in the Year 377. a great Council was held at Rome, in which the famous Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, was condemned and deposed with his Two Disciples Vitalis and Timotheus. Apollinaris was a Man of uncommon Parts, great Penetration, universal Knowlege; and had at first been so zealous a Defender of the Orthodox Faith, that he was looked upon by all, particularly by Epiphanius and Athanasius, as one of the great Champions of that Cause[1060], and ranked by Philostorgius with Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen[1061]. He contracted a strict Friendship with Athanasius, when that Prelate passed through Laodicea in 349. on his Return to Egypt, and ever after maintained a close Correspondence with him, on which Account he was excommunicated by Gregory the Arian Bishop of that City[1062]. When the Arians began to prevail in the East, Apollinaris was cruelly persecuted by the Men in Power of that Party, and at last driven into Exile[1063]. Basil writ several Letters to him, and in those he writ to others, often mentions him as a Person for whom he had the greatest Esteem[1064]. He is said to have excelled in the Knowlege of the Scriptures, which he publicly interpreted at Antioch, where he had Jerom among the many Disciples, who flocked from all Parts to hear him[1065]. But he was equally versed in human Learning, especially in Poetry; and his Knowlege in that Branch of Literature proved very useful in the Time of the Emperor Julian. For that Prince having by a Law debarred the Christians from perusing or studying the Pagan Authors, Apollinaris, to supply the want of those Writers, composed several Pieces in Imitation of them, and, among the rest, a Poem comprising the History of the Jews to the Time of Saul, and divided into Twenty-four Books, which he distinguished by so many Letters of the Greek Alphabet, as Homer had done[1066]. He likewise writ Comedies, Tragedies, Lyric Verses, &c. imitating Pindar in the latter, and Menander and Euripides in the Two former[1067]. Sozomen thinks his Compositions fell in no respect short of the Works of the Antients; who, upon the Whole, says he, were far inferior to him, since they excelled, each in one Kind only, but he equally in all[1068]. The Tragedy, intituled, Christ suffering, which is to be found among the Works of Gregory Nazianzen, is by some ascribed to Apollinaris; but that Piece does not at all answer the great Opinion Sozomen seems to have entertained of him. His Paraphrase in Hexameter Verse on the Psalms, the only intire Work of his that has reached our Times, is an elegant, exact, and sublime Translation of them, greatly commended and admired by the best Judges[1069]. His Poetry proved very serviceable to him, when he began to broach his Heresy; for great Numbers of People, especially Women, embraced his Doctrine, being taken, and in a manner inchanted, with the Sweetness of his Verses; for he composed a great many Songs and Odes equally pious and elegant, adapted to all Occasions, and on all Occasions sung with suitable Airs by his Followers[1070]. To these Gregory Nazianzen no doubt alludes, where he speaks of the Psalms of the Apollinarists, to which the Psalms of David had given place; of those sweet and so much admired Verses, which were looked upon by them as a Third Testament[1071]. It was chiefly to oppose the Progress Apollinaris made, by the insinuating Means of his Poetry, that Gregory Nazianzen applied himself to the same Study. About the Year 362. Apollinaris was raised, in Consideration of his great Piety and Learning, to the See of Laodicea in Syria, in which City he was born, according to the most probable Opinion, and had spent the greater Part of his Life.
As for the Doctrine held by Apollinaris, and his Followers, called from him Apollinarists; they maintained at first, that Christ had human Flesh, but not a human Soul, the Want of which was supplied, according to them, by the Divinity. But being afterwards convinced, that such a Doctrine was repugnant to several plain and express Passages of Scripture, they abandoned it in Part, and, distinguishing, with some Philosophers, the Soul, by which we live, from the Intelligence, by which we reason, they allowed the former in our Saviour, but denied the latter; the Operations of which, said they, were performed by the Divinity[1072]. Thus they allowed him, says St. Austin, the Soul of a Beast, but denied him that of a Man[1073]. By means of this Doctrine they avoided the Absurdity with which they reproached the Catholics, admitting in Christ, as they falsly imagined, Two opposite and distinct Natures, without any Union or Subordination between them[1074]. The Catholics indeed acknowleged Two distinct and complete Natures in Christ; but at the same time maintained an Union between them, such an Union as was admitted by the Apollinarists between the Flesh and the Divinity. The latter upbraided the Catholics with adoring a Man, styling them Anthropolaters; and the Catholics reproached in their Turn the Apollinarists with adoring the Flesh, calling them Sarcolaters[1075]. The Apollinarists distinguished themselves from the Catholics, by causing the following Words to be fixed on the Front of their Houses; We must not adore a Man that bears a God, but a God that bears Flesh. The Errors of the Apollinarists were not only concerning the Soul, but likewise the Body of our Saviour; for they maintained, that his Body, like other Bodies only in Appearance, was coeval with the Divinity, and of the same Substance with the eternal Wisdom[1076]. Hence it followed, by a natural Consequence, that the Body of our Saviour was impassible and immortal; that it was not taken of the Virgin Mary; that he was not born of her; that his Birth, Passion, Death, and Resurrection, were mere Illusions; or else, that the Divine Nature was passible: both which Absurdities were admitted by some of the Sects into which the Apollinarists were afterwards divided[1077].
This Doctrine was first heard of in 362. and condemned the same Year in the Council of Alexandria. In 373. it began to make a great Noise in the Church; but it was not known even then by whom it had been broached: for Apollinaris was so far from owning himself the Author of those Tenets, that, in one of his Letters to Serapion Bishop of Thmuis in Egypt, which is still extant[1078], he expresses, in the strongest Terms, his Approbation of a Letter from Athanasius to Epictetus Bishop of Corinth, confuting the very Errors he held; and at the same time condemns the Folly of those, who maintained the Flesh to be consubstantial to the Divine Nature. In another Letter to the same Serapion, he owns the Body of our Saviour to have been taken of the Virgin Mary, to have been formed in her Womb, and his Flesh to have been of the same Substance with ours; adding, And these are Truths not to be called in question[1079]. In a Third Letter he assures Serapion, that he has ever denied in his Writings the Flesh of our Saviour to have descended from Heaven, or to be of the same Substance with the Divinity[1080]. Apollinaris, by thus publicly declaring against the Doctrine, which at the same time he was privately propagating, eluded the Vigilance of Athanasius himself, who, in confuting his Errors, never mentions his Name, nor seems to have entertained the least Suspicion of him; nay, he recommended Timotheus, a favourite Disciple of his, to Damasus, as a Person whose Orthodoxy was not to be questioned; and as such he was received, not only by the Bishop of Rome, but by all the Western Bishops, of whom he obtained Letters, on his Return, directed to Apollinaris, as to a Bishop of the Catholic Communion[1081].
In the Year 374. or 375. Damasus convened a great Council at
Rome, in which the Errors of Apollinaris were condemned; but neither
was he nor any other named as the Broacher or Author of that
Doctrine. |Damasus imposed
upon by Vitalis one
of his Disciples.| The very Year that Damasus condemned the Doctrine of
Apollinaris, he was deceived and over-reached by one of the Disciples
of that Heresiarch, named Vitalis. He was a Presbyter of the Church
of Antioch, and of the Communion of Meletius, by whom he had
been ordained; but afterwards, renouncing his Communion, he joined
Apollinaris, and, being in high Esteem with the People, drew great
Numbers over with him to that Side. Of these, called from him
Vitalians, Apollinaris some Years after appointed him Bishop, adding
thereby a Fourth Party to the Three that already divided the Church
of Antioch, viz. the Arians, Paulinians, and Meletians[1082]. Before
he threw off the Mask, and publicly maintained the Tenets of Apollinaris,
he strove to be admitted with his Followers to the Communion
of Paulinus of Antioch, and of Damasus; and with this
View he undertook a Journey to Rome in the Year 375. As he had
been suspected, and even accused, of holding the Doctrine of Apollinaris,
Damasus required of him, before he admitted him to his Communion,
a Confession of his Faith, which he gave under his Hand,
but in such Terms as bore a double Meaning. Damasus, however,
well satisfied with it, gave him a Letter for Paulinus of Antioch, and
sent him back to be admitted by that Bishop to the Communion of
the Church[1083]. But Damasus soon after, either upon his own Reflection,
or at the Suggestion of others, apprehending himself imposed
upon, writ another Letter to Paulinus, by the Presbyter Petronius,
and afterwards a Third, which Holstenius has inserted at Length in
his Roman Collection[1084]. Together with this Letter Damasus sent to
Paulinus a Confession of Faith, drawn up by a Council summoned
for that Purpose, desiring him to admit none to his Communion,
but such as should sign that Confession, and the Confession of Nice[1085].
To this Piece the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon no doubt allude,
in commending Damasus for pointing out, in his Letters to Paulinus,
the Rules all Catholics ought to be guided by in reasoning of
the Mystery of the Incarnation[1086]. What Baronius observes here is true,
viz. that Vitalis, by the same ambiguous Confession of Faith, imposed
upon Gregory Nazianzen, who received the Apollinarists as
Brethren, and not as Enemies[1087]. He adds, And no Wonder that Vitalis
imposed upon Damasus, since by the same Confession he imposed
upon Gregory Nazianzen: he ought rather to have said, No Wonder
that he imposed upon Gregory, who did not pretend to Infallibility,
since he imposed upon Damasus, who was infallible. As Vitalis refused
to sign the Confession sent by Damasus, Paulinus would not
admit him to his Communion; upon which he pulled off the Mask,
publicly renounced the Communion both of Damasus and Paulinus,
and, bidding Defiance to the Canons, accepted the Title and Dignity
of Bishop of Antioch, offered him by Apollinaris. |Apollinaris openly de-
clares against the
Church.| At the same time
that Heresiarch, finding he could conceal himself no longer, openly
declared, that he would communicate with none who held, that our
Saviour had taken a human Soul, and human Understanding: which
was separating himself from the Communion of the Catholic Church[1088].
It was long before it was believed in the Church that those Tenets had
been broached, or were held, by Apollinaris: no Credit was given,
at first, even to his Disciples, most People being inclined to think, that
they were mistaken, and did not comprehend the sublime Thoughts
of that great Man[1089]. But when no room was left for any further
Doubt, the Surprize and Concern of the whole Catholic Party were
equal to the high Opinion they had entertained of him till that Time[1090].
When Epiphanius writ against the Apollinarists, he well knew Apollinaris
to be the Author of that Sect; for he reproaches him with
this unwarrantable Separation from the Church; and yet he speaks of
him with the greatest Respect; seems to think, that many Things
had been unjustly fathered upon him; and takes a great deal of Pains
to assure his Reader, that what he writes is Truth, and not Calumny
proceeding from any private Pique, Malice, or Grudge[1091].
The Schism, which the establishing of a new Bishop occasioned in
the Church of Antioch, was not confined to that alone, but extended
to most other Churches, over which Apollinaris appointed Bishops
of his own Sect, who held separate Assemblies, practised different Rites,
and, instead of the sacred Hymns commonly sung at Divine Service
by the rest of the Church, introduced Canticles composed by their
Leader, and containing the Substance of his Doctrine[1092]. The many
perplexed Questions and Difficulties, which he and his Emissaries were
daily starting about the Incarnation, bred such Confusion in the Minds
of Men, that many began to question the Truth of that Mystery[1093].
The Objections they moved against our Saviour’s taking Flesh, and
being born of the Virgin Mary, seemed calculated merely to raise
improper Ideas, and sully the Thoughts of chaste Minds; for they
themselves held his Body to be coeval with the Divinity, and to have
only been conveyed into the World by means of the Virgin Mary[1094].
Their Doctrine was applauded and received by many, and few who
read their Books were content with, or kept to the plain and antient
Doctrine of the Church[1095]. |Basil recurs to the
Western Bishops;| Basil therefore, and the other orthodox
Bishops in the East, to put a Stop the more effectually to the growing
Evil, not only declaimed against it in all their Writings, but dispatched
the Two Presbyters Dorotheus and Sanctissimus with Letters to Damasus,
and the other Western Bishops, intreating them to condemn
without Delay the Doctrine of Apollinaris, and Apollinaris himself,
since he had at last openly declared against the Church, and owned
himself the Author of the new Sect[1096]. |who condemn the
Doctrine of Apol-
linaris, and depose
him with Vitelis
and Timotheus.| In Compliance with this Request,
a great Council was convened at Rome the following Year 378.
in which Apollinaris was not only condemned with great Solemnity,
but deposed, with his Two favourite Disciples, Vitalis and Timotheus;
the former Bishop of the Apollinarists at Antioch, and the
latter at Berytus in Phœnicia[1097]. By the same Council it was defined,
that Jesus was true Man, and true God; and whoever maintained
or asserted any thing to be wanting either to his Humanity or Divinity,
was declared an Enemy to the Church[1098]. Vitalis had deceived Damasus,
as I have observed above, by a Confession of Faith, in which,
under equivocal Terms, he had artfully concealed his Heresy. The
Bishop of Rome therefore, now undeceived, caused the Confession he
had formerly approved of to be anathematized by the Council, together
with its Author, exerting himself, says Gregory Nazianzen, with
so much the more Vigour against them, as they had formerly taken
Advantage of his Candour and Sincerity to impose upon him[1099].
Gregory Nazianzen therefore supposes, that the Pope could be imposed
upon in a Matter concerning the Faith. Indeed the Sticklers
for Infallibility must either give up that Prerogative, or allow all the
Fathers to have talked Nonsense.
Baronius is certainly mistaken, and so was Ruffinus[1100], whom he
follows, in asserting the Heresy of Apollinaris to have been first condemned
by the Council of Rome, since it is manifest, that the Doctrine
of that Heresiarch had been condemned long before by Athanasius,
Basil, and Epiphanius, in their Writings, and by the Council held at
Alexandria in 362. But Ruffinus probably meant no more, than that
those Errors were first condemned by the Council of Rome, under the
Name, and together with the Person, of Apollinaris; which is undeniable.
|Another Mistake of
the same Writer.| I cannot help observing here another Mistake of Baronius,
pretending that Damasus (for whatever was done by the Council is
by him ascribed to Damasus alone) in condemning Apollinaris condemned
all the Errors he held; and consequently the Opinion of the
Millenarians, holding that Christ was to return upon the Earth, and
reign over the Faithful a Thousand Years before the End of the World.
|The Doctrine of the
Millenarians held by
the greatest Men in
the Church.|
This Opinion was first broached about the Year 118. by Papias Bishop
of Hierapolis, a Man of great Piety, honoured by the Church
of Rome as a Saint[1101]. He declares, in the few Fragments of his
Works, which have been conveyed to us by Eusebius[1102], that, as he
lived near the Times of the Apostles, he made it his chief Business to
learn of their Disciples whatever they could recollect to have been
done or said by them, on different Occasions, that was not recorded
in Holy Writ. Thus he learned the above-mentioned Doctrine[1103],
which, upon the Authority of such a Tradition, countenanced by
some Passages in the Revelations[1104], and one Text in St. Paul, was
embraced and held by the most eminent Men for Piety and Learning,
at that time, in the Church; and, among the rest, by Irenæus,
and Justin the Martyr. And yet such a Doctrine is now rank Heresy
in the Church of Rome. But, by declaring it such, have they not
overset their own System, which places Tradition upon a Level with
the Canonical Books of the Scripture? |How little Tradition to
be depended upon.| Can they allege a more antient
Tradition, one more universally received, or equally countenanced
by Scripture, in favour of the many traditional Articles
of Faith, which they have obtruded upon the World? Papias declares,
he received the above-mentioned Doctrine of those who had
learned it immediately of the Apostles. If such a Tradition be rejected
as false, what other has a Right to be admitted as true? If we
deny or question St. Peter’s having been at Rome, Tradition, and
the Authority of Irenæus (for all the others have copied from him),
are immediately produced against us. But what Weight either ought
to bear, the Case before us sufficiently demonstrates.
To return to Apollinaris: It is very certain, that he held and
taught the Doctrine of the Millenarians; but it is no less certain,
that such a Doctrine was not condemned, as Baronius pretends[1105], by
the Council of Rome in 378. since many eminent Men in the Church
held it, and Sulpitius Severus among the rest, after that Council, without
being deemed Heretics on that score. |The Apollinarists con-
demned by several
Councils.| The Sentence pronounced
against Apollinaris, and his Disciples, by the Council of Rome, was
confirmed by a Council held the same Year at Alexandria[1106], by an
Oecumenical Council assembled at Constantinople in 381. and by the
Council of Antioch in 379[1107]. However, the Apollinarists, though
thus condemned and deposed by all the Councils of the East and
West, as we read in Gregory Nazianzen[1108], still kept their Ground,
till Recourse was had to the Secular Power. |Penal Laws enacted
against them.| For the Emperor Theodosius,
at the Request of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople, enacted
a Law, dated the Tenth of March 388. forbidding the Apollinarists
to hold Assemblies, to have any Ecclesiastics or Bishops, or to dwell
in the Cities[1109]. As this Law was executed with the utmost Rigour,
at least against the leading Men of the Party, who were banished the
Cities, and confined to the Deserts[1110], the Apollinarists were in a few
Years reduced to a very small Number, when they begged to be admitted
to the Communion of the Catholic Church, which was in
the End granted them by Theodotus[1111], who governed the Church of
Antioch, from the Year 416. to 428. But as their Conversion was
owing not to Conviction, but Persecution, they still held in their
Hearts the same Sentiments, which ever must happen in the like Case;
nay, and privately instilled their Errors into the Minds of many, whose
Faith had been, till that time, untainted[1112]. It was to these pretended
Catholics, or disguised Apollinarists, that the Eutychian Heresy, and
that of the Monothelites, of whom I shall speak hereafter, owed their
Birth[1113]. Hence the Emperor Marcian, by an Edict in 455. declared
the Eutychians to be Apollinarists, and consequently liable to the
same Penalties[1114]. As for Apollinaris himself, he died about the Year
392. having maintained, to the Hour of his Death, the same Sentiments,
in which he had lived; and, with them, the same outward
Appearance, at least, of a most holy and exemplary Life[1115]; which is all
the Authors of those Times Will allow him.
While Damasus, and the other Western Bishops, were wholly intent
upon suppressing the Heresy of Apollinaris, and restoring the
Eastern Churches to their former Tranquillity, the Antipope Ursinus,
laying hold of that Opportunity, arrived privately at Milan, and there
joined the Arians, upon their promising to support him with the
whole Power of their Party[1116]. But Ambrose, who then governed that
Church, and kept a watchful Eye over the Flock committed to his
Care, gave immediate Notice of their clandestine Meetings, and pernicious
Designs, to the Emperor Gratian, who soon after ordered Ursinus
to quit Italy, and confined him to Cologne[1117]. During his Exile
his Partisans were not idle; they found the Emperor Gratian, who
in 375. had succeeded his Father Valentinian I. warmly engaged in
favour of Damasus: they well knew, that so long as he continued
in that Disposition, it would be in vain to solicit the Return of
Ursinus, or to put up any Petition in his Behalf. |Damasus falsly ac-
cused, but cleared by
the Emperor.| In order therefore to
estrange the Mind of the Emperor from Damasus, they suborned a
Jew, named Isaac, who had embraced the Christian Religion, but
was then returned to Judaism, to accuse him before the Civil Magistrate
of an heinous Crime, which I find not specified by any of the
Antients. But the Emperor, taking upon himself the judging of that
Cause, soon discovered the Innocence of the Accused, and the Malice
of the Accuser; and therefore, honourably acquitting the former,
and punishing the latter according to his Deserts, confined him to a
Corner of Spain[1118].
This Attempt on the Reputation of Damasus was not the only
Thing that gave him great Uneasiness at this time. The Emperor
Valentinian had transferred, as I have related above, the Power of
judging Bishops, such at least as were concerned in the Schism of
Ursinus, from the Civil Magistrate to the Bishop of Rome. |Some Bishops, de-
posed by Damasus,
keep their Sees.| But several
Bishops, though deposed by him, still maintained themselves in
their Sees, with open Force, in Defiance of his Sentence, and the
Imperial Law. Among these were the Bishop of Parma, and Florentius
Bishop of Puzzuolo, who, for their Attachment to Ursinus,
had been both deposed by Damasus, and other Bishops assembled at
Rome[1119]. The Donatists too, notwithstanding the severe Laws enacted
against them by several Emperors, had got Footing in Italy,
and in Rome itself, where they were known by the Names of Montenenses,
and Rupenses, on account of their assembling in a Church
or Oratory, which they had among the neighbouring Rocks and
Mountains[1120]. They had a Bishop of their own, either sent from
Africa, or ordained by Bishops sent from thence for that Purpose.
Claudian, who governed them at this time, was their Fifth Bishop of
Rome[1121]. The Emperor ordered him to be sent back to Africa,
whence he came. But though he had been several times imprisoned,
in order to oblige him by that means to return, he could not even
so be prevailed upon to abandon his Flock; but continued at Rome,
perverting many there, and rebaptizing all he could pervert[1122]. |The Italian Bishops
recur to the Emperor.| To
put a Stop to these Evils, the Bishops of Italy, assembling at Rome,
had recourse to the Emperor Gratian, acquainting him with the
Conduct of the contumacious Bishops, and earnestly intreating him
to cause the Law, commanding the Bishops to be judged by the Bishop
of Rome, and not by the Civil Magistrate, which he himself had
enacted with his Father, to be put in Execution. By that Law, the
Emperor, in all Likelihood, only intended to confirm, with respect
to the Bishop of Rome, the Canons of the Church, appointing the
Metropolitan, with his Council, Judge of the Bishops of his Province
in Ecclesiastical Causes. But the Bishops, assembled on this Occasion
at Rome, attempted to extend the Authority of the Bishop of Rome,
far beyond the Bounds to which the Emperors and Canons had confined
it. |Their letter to him.| For, in their Letter to Gratian, they suggested the following
Regulations as necessary for the Tranquillity of the Church, and
intreated him to establish them by Law: 1. That if any, who had
been condemned by the Bishop of Rome, or other Catholic Bishops,
should, after such Condemnation, presume to keep their Churches,
they should be banished from the Territories of the Cities, where
they had been Bishops. 2. That such as should refuse, when lawfully
summoned, to appear before the Bishops, should be obliged, by the
Prefect of Italy, or his Vicar, to repair to Rome, to be judged there.
3. That, if the accused Bishop resided in a distant Province, he should
be obliged, by the Judges of the Place, to appear before his Metropolitan;
and, if his Metropolitan was suspected as partial, or prejudiced
against him, he might be allowed to appeal to the Bishop of
Rome, or to a Council of Fifteen neighbouring Bishops; but, if the
Accused was himself a Metropolitan, he should either repair to Rome,
or appear before such Judges as the Bishop of Rome should appoint;
and, when thus condemned, submit to the Sentence[1123]. |What they demand in
particular for the
Bishop of Rome.| In Behalf
of the Bishop of Rome in particular they begged, in the same Letter,
that, as he was above other Bishops by the Prerogative of the Apostolic
See, though upon a Level with them as to the Ministry, he
might not be obliged to appear before the Civil Magistrate, since
other Bishops had been exempted from their Jurisdiction, but before
a Council, or that the Emperor would reserve to himself the Cognisance
of what concerned him, leaving to the ordinary Judges the
Power of examining Facts and Witnesses, but not the Authority of
pronouncing Sentence[1124]. |The Emperor’s
Answer.| What Answer the Emperor returned to the
Council, we know not; but, in a Rescript, addressed to the Vicar
Aquilinus, after summing up the Heads of the Letter from the
Council, and severely reprimanding his Officers for their Neglect, in
not causing the Imperial Law to be put in Execution, he confirms the
Rescript address’d to Simplicius, which I have mentioned above;
commands the Bishop of Parma, Florentius of Puzzuolo, and Claudian
the Donatist, with all those who shall be condemned by the
Councils, as Disturbers of the Quiet of the Church, to be driven from
their Dioceses, and banished an Hundred Miles from Rome: he grants
all the Council had desired, with respect to the judging of Bishops;
but requires the Bishop of Rome to act with the Advice of Five or
Seven other Bishops; and, lastly, he forbids Persons of infamous Characters,
or known Slanderers, to be admitted as Informers or Witnesses
against Bishops[1125]. In this Rescript he takes no notice of what
the Council had asked for the Bishop of Rome in particular.