From these Pieces, which are still extant, it is manifest beyond all
Dispute, as the Reader must have observed, that, in the Year 378.
when this Council was held, no Prerogative was yet discovered in the
Pope, peculiar to him, and not common to all Bishops, besides that
of Rank, which arose from the Dignity of his See, that is, from his
being Bishop of the Metropolis of the Empire; for, in that respect
alone, the Bishops, who composed the Council, acknowleged him to
be above them; nay, by declaring themselves, in express Terms, equal
to him as to the Ministry, they seem to have taken particular Care,
that no Room or Pretence should be left for his claiming a Superiority
in any other respect. And how great would their Surprize have
been, had Damasus, in hearing that Part of their Address to the
Emperor, started up, and, protesting against it, as derogatory to his
Prerogative, declared, that, to him all Power was given in Heaven
and on Earth; that, so far from being equal to him, they, and all
other Bishops, were but his Deputies and Delegates; that the Power,
Authority, and Jurisdiction, which they enjoyed, were derived to
them from the Plenitude of his! Had he talked in this Strain, the
whole Council would have concluded him delirious. And yet these
are the Sentiments of his Successors; these the very Words, with
which they and their Divines have expressed them[1126]; so that it is now
reckoned Heresy not to believe what in the Fourth Century it had
been deemed Madness to have gravely uttered. |The Power he now
claims unknown in the
Time of Damasus.| It would perhaps
have seemed still more strange and surprising to the Fathers of the
Council, however prejudiced in his Favour, if Damasus, instead of
gratefully acknowleging their Regard for him in petitioning the Emperor,
that he might not be judged by the Civil Magistrate, but either
by a Council, or the Emperor himself, had severely rebuked them as
Strangers to, or Betrayers of, his inherent Right, acquainting them,
that, in virtue thereof, all Men were to be judged by him, but himself
by no Man[1127]; that the greatest Monarchs were his Slaves and
Vassals, and he King of Kings, Monarch of the World, sole Lord
and Governor both in Spirituals and Temporals[1128]; that he was appointed
Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms[1129]; that his Power
excelled all Powers[1130]; that it was necessary to Salvation for every
human Creature to be subject to him[1131]. And yet these are the Notions,
that have been uttered by his Successors, and the very Terms
in which they were uttered. In the Age I am now writing of, they
had been looked upon no otherwise than the Ravings of a distempered
Brain; but they are now held by the Church of Rome, and her Divines,
as Oracles, and inserted as such into her Canons. Bellarmine
owns, that, in the Fourth Century, the Pope was still subject
to the Emperors, nay, and to the Civil Magistrate, without the least
Distinction between him and other Vassals. But this Subjection, says
he, in his Apology against King James[1132], the Emperors exacted by
Force, because the Power of the Pope was not known to them. Nor
to any body else, he might have added, since the Writers of those
Times seem to have been no better acquainted with the Power of
the Pope than the Emperors; at least, they take no Notice of it, even
in describing, as some of them have done, the State of the Church
at the time they writ, and relating the Customs, Laws, and Practices,
that then obtained. Besides, how could the Power of the Pope
be unknown to the Christian Emperors, if it was one of the chief
Tenets of the Christian Doctrine? Neither Damasus, nor any of his
Predecessors, can be justly charged with Bashfulness, in acquainting the
World with the Power they had or claimed. We may further observe
here, that the Emperor requires the Bishop of Rome, in judging
according to the Power granted him, to act with the Advice of Five
or Seven other Bishops: a plain Proof, that he was as little acquainted
with the Pope’s Infallibility, as with his Power.
The Council of the Italian Bishops, assembled at Rome, no sooner
broke up, than the Emissaries and Partisans of Ursinus began to raise
new Disturbances in that City, by stirring up the Pagans against Damasus,
and, at the same time, charging him with things, to use the Expression
of the Council of Aquileia, not fit to be uttered by a Bishop,
nor heard by such an Emperor as Gratian[1133]. Anastasius writes, that he
was accused of Adultery by the Two Deacons Concordus and Callistus[1134].
And truly, that some Crime of that Nature was laid to his Charge, is
pretty plain, from the Terms in which it was expressed by the Council.
Valerian, then Governor of Rome, immediately acquainted the
Emperor with the Accusation[1135]; but what Part Gratian acted on this
Occasion, we are not told by any antient Writer. We read in the Pontificals,
and most of the modern Writers, that the Cause was referred
by the Emperor to the Council then sitting at Aquileia; and that
Damasus was declared innocent by all the Bishops who composed it.
|The Council of
Aquileia writes to the
Emperor in his
Behalf.| But, as neither is related by any credible Author, I am inclined to
believe, that Gratian took no Notice of the Charge, in Compliance
with the Request of the Bishops assembled at Aquileia; for, by a
Letter, they earnestly intreated him not to hearken to Ursinus, because
his giving ear to him would occasion endless Disturbances in
Rome; and, besides, they could by no means communicate with a
Man who thus wickedly aspired to a Dignity, to which he had no
Claim or Title; who, by his scandalous Behaviour, had incurred the
Hatred of all good Christians; who had impiously joined the Arians,
and, together with them, attempted to disturb the Quiet of the Catholic
Church of Milan[1136].
Towards the Latter end of the Pontificate of Damasus, Two great
Councils were held, the one at Constantinople in 381. and the other
at Rome in 382. The former was assembled by the Emperor Theodosius,
who, after having put the Orthodox in Possession of the
Churches, which till his Time had been held by the Arians in the
East, where he reigned, summoned all the Bishops within his Dominions
to meet at Constantinople, in order to deliberate about the most
proper Means of restoring an intire Tranquillity to the Church, rent
and disturbed not only by several Sects of Heretics, but by the Divisions
that reigned among the Orthodox themselves, by that especially of
Antioch, the most antient of all, which, from that Church, had
spread all over the Empire, and occasioned rather an intire Separation,
than a Misunderstanding between the East and the West, the former
communicating with Meletius, and the latter with Paulinus, as I
have related above. In this Council many weighty Matters were
transacted, and several Canons established, some of which, namely,
the Second and Third, deserve to be taken Notice of here. For, by
the Second, the Council renewed and confirmed the antient Law of
the Church, authorized by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Canons of
the Council of Nice, commanding the Bishops of each Province to be
ordained by those of the same Province, and such of the neighbouring
Provinces, as they should think fit to call in; directing all Ecclesiastical
Matters to be settled, all Disputes to be finally decided by a Council
composed of the Bishops of the Province, or at least of the Diocese,
that is, of all the Provinces under the same Vicar; and strictly forbidding
the Bishops of one Diocese to concern themselves, under any
Colour or Pretence whatsoever, with what happens in another[1137]. |which revokes the
Privilege granted to
the See of Rome
by the Council of
Sardica.| By
this Canon the Privilege, formerly granted to the See of Rome by the
Council of Sardica, was revoked, and all Appeals from the Council
of the Diocese forbidden. By the Third Canon the See of ConstantinopleConstantinople
is declared first in Rank and Dignity after that of Rome[1138].
Some Greek Writers have pretended, that, by this Canon, the Two
Sees were declared in every respect equal; but that Zonaras himself
owns to be false and groundless[1139]. It is to be observed, that the
Council of Constantinople gave Rank and Honour to that See, but no
Jurisdiction. It was to the Council of Chalcedon that the Bishops of
Constantinople owed their Authority and Jurisdiction; for by that
Council they were impowered to ordain the Metropolitans of the
Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace[1140]. The Reasons alleged by
Baronius to prove the Third Canon of the Council of Constantinople
supposititious[1141], are quite frivolous; and it is certain beyond all Dispute,
that the Bishops of that City maintained ever after the Rank,
which the above-mentioned Canon had given them. In a short time
the Bishop of Constantinople, taking Advantage of that Canon, and
of the Deference that is naturally paid to the Bishop of the Imperial
City, extended his Jurisdiction over all the neighbouring Provinces,
nay, and over the whole Eastern Empire, as we shall observe in the
Sequel of this History.
The Canons of this Council were, without all doubt, sent, according to Custom, to the Western Bishops for their Approbation, probably with the Letter which the Council writ to them concerning the Heresy of Apollinaris[1142]. And yet Pope Leo the Great writes, that the Third Canon was never notified to the Church of Rome[1143]; and Gregory the Great, that the Canon condemning the Eudoxians, which was the first, had never been received at Rome[1144]: but Gregory perhaps meant nothing else, than that the Canon he mentions was of no Authority at Rome. As for Leo, it is hard to conceive what he meant by saying, that the Third Canon was not known to the Church of Rome; for he could not but know, that the Bishop of Constantinople held the Second Rank in the Church, and the First in the East, since his own Legates, whose Conduct he intirely approved of, owned him to have an indisputable Right to that Rank; nay, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylæum in Phrygia maintained, that it was with the Consent and Approbation of Leo himself that the See of Constantinople enjoyed that Honour.
The Authority of this Council has ever been great among the Greeks,
who style it an Oecumenical Council, and had often recourse to it as
such in the Council of Chalcedon[1145]. The Bishops of the Hellespont
speak of it with the greatest Respect and Reverence, in a Letter they
writ to the Emperor Leo[1146]. |and the Latins.| As for the Latins, I find a great Disagreement
among the Popes themselves concerning the Authority of
this Council; nay, the greatest of them all disagrees even with himself
about it. The Legates of Pope Leo rejected its Canons, alleging
that they had never been inserted in the Book of the Canons[1147]. In
like manner the Popes Simplicius and Felix II. speaking of the Councils
which they received, name those only of Nice, Ephesus, and
Chalcedon[1148]. Gregory the Great writes, that the Church of Rome had
neither the Acts nor the Canons of the Council of Constantinople;
that the Condemnation of the Macedonians was the only thing done
by that Council which they admitted; and that as to other Heresies
condemned there, they rejected them, as having been condemned before
by other Councils[1149]. But he declares elsewhere, and often repeats
it, that he received the Four Oecumenical Councils, as he did
the Four Gospels[1150], naming the Council of Constantinople in the Second
Place. |The Popes at Var-
iance among and with
themselves about it.| In the same Manner, and with the same Words, were
the Four Oecumenical Councils received by Gelasius, and several Popes
before him, as well as by Martin I. and several others after him:
so that the Council of Constantinople is, according to some Popes, of
equal Authority with the Gospel; according to others, of no Authority
at all: nay, it is thus by the same Pope at one time extolled, at
another undervalued. Let Baronius and Bellarmine reconcile these
Contradictions, if they can.
That this Council was assembled by the Emperor Theodosius, is affirmed by all the Writers who speak of it[1151], nay, and by the Bishops who composed it[1152]. And yet Baronius has the Assurance to assert, as a Thing not to be questioned, that it was convened by Damasus[1153], which none of the Antients have so much as once named: and this Assertion he founds upon the Authority of the universally exploded Acts of Damasus; of certain Manuscripts, which he knows very little of, and nobody else any thing; and of a Passage in the Acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council, where it is said, that Theodosius and Damasus opposed with great Firmness the Macedonian Heresy; whence the Annalist concludes, by what Rules of Logic I leave the Reader to find out, that the Council, which condemned the Heresy of Macedonius, was convened by the Authority of Damasus, backed by that of the Emperor[1154]. Christianus Lupus, more honest than Baronius, tho’ no less attached to the See of Rome, ingenuously owns, that the Council was assembled by the Emperor alone; but adds, that Damasus confirmed it[1155]; which is true, if he means no more than that Damasus accepted the Decrees made by the Council; for it was not his, but the Emperor’s Approbation, that gave them a Sanction; and accordingly they writ, not to him, but to the Emperor, acquainting him; by whose Command they had been called together, with the Decrees they had made, and requesting him to confirm them with his Seal and Sentence[1156]. This Council consisted of an Hundred and Fifty Bishops, among whom were Thirty-six Macedonians, whom Theodosius had particularly summoned, hoping to reunite them with the Catholics[1157]. No mention is made of Letters or Deputies sent either by Damasus, or by any of the Western Bishops; and Theodoret assures us in Two different Places[1158], that Theodosius only assembled the Eastern Bishops. Meletius of Antioch presided; for Gregory of Nyssa styled him in full Council, our Father and Head[1159]. Upon his Death (for he died while the Council was sitting) that Honour was conferred on Gregory Nazianzen, appointed by the Emperor and the Council Bishop of Constantinople[1160]; but he resigning, soon after, his new Dignity, his Successor Nectarius was named to preside in his room[1161].
One of the chief Motives that induced Theodosius to assemble so
numerous a Council at Constantinople, was, to hear what Remedy they
could suggest against the Schism of the Church of Antioch, which
caused such Jealousies between the East and the West as seemed to
forebode an imminent Rupture[1162]. But before the Fathers of the Council
entered upon that important Subject, Meletius died; and his Death,
which ought to have put an End to the present Disturbances, served
only to increase them, and engage the contending Parties more warmly
in the Dispute. It had been agreed by Meletius and Paulinus, that
the Survivor should be sole Bishop of all the Orthodox at Antioch[1163].
Socrates and Sozomen add[1164], that Six Presbyters, who it was most
likely might be one Day raised to that See, bound themselves by a
solemn Oath not to vote for any other, nor to accept themselves the
Episcopal Dignity, so long as either of the Two lived. |The Disturbances in
the Church of Antioch
increased.| However,
Meletius was no sooner dead, than some of the Prelates present at the
Council moved for chusing him a Successor, which occasioned many
long and warm Debates. Gregory Nazianzen, elected Bishop of
Constantinople a few Days before, exerted all his Eloquence to divert
the Council from a Resolution, which, he said, would prove fatal to
the Church, and kindle a Flame, which perhaps it might never be in
their Power to extinguish[1165]. Several other Prelates, Enemies to Strife
and Contention, falling in with Gregory, spoke to the same Purpose,
exhorting their Collegues, with great Zeal and Eloquence, to put an
End at last to the unhappy Divisions that had so long rent the Church,
by allowing Paulinus, already stricken in Years, to govern peaceably
the remaining Part of his Life[1166]. But the far greater Part were for a
new Election, offering no other Reason to recommend such a Step,
but that the East, where our Saviour had appeared, ought not to yield
to the West[1167]. So that the Resolution of giving a Successor to Meletius
was taken merely out of Pique to the Western Bishops, who,
having the Bishop of Rome at their Head, had begun to treat their
Brethren in the East with great Haughtiness, and assume an Air of
Authority that did not become them; but that had been better resented
on any other Occasion than on this.
The Resolution being taken, Flavianus, a Presbyter of the Church
of Antioch, was named by the Council, and, with the Approbation
of the Emperor, and of all the Meletians at Antioch, ordained in that
City. He is commended by the Writers who lived in or near those
Times, as a Man of an exemplary Life, and extraordinary Piety, as
a zealous Defender of the Orthodox Faith, and Opposer of the Arian
Heresy, as a Mirror of every Sacerdotal Virtue; and, barring the
Right of Paulinus, the most worthy and deserving Person the Council
could name to succeed the great Meletius[1168]. These, and other like
Encomiums, bestowed upon Flavianus by the Writers of those Times,
leave no room to doubt but Socrates and Sozomen were misinformed
in naming him among the Six Presbyters who took the Oath I have
mentioned above; the rather as no notice is taken of such an Oath by
his most inveterate Enemies, in the many Disputes that arose about
his Ordination. |Greg. Nazianzen
resigns the Bishoprick
of Constantinople.| Gregory Nazianzen, who had been lately preferred
to the See of Constantinople, and had accepted that Dignity with no
other View, but to remove all Jealousies, and restore a good Understanding
between the East and the West, being sensible that the electing
of a new Bishop in the room of Meletius would widen the Breach,
and obstruct all possible Means of an Accommodation, resigned his
Dignity, and, to the inexpressible Grief of his Flock, retired both
from the Council and City[1169]. In one of his Orations[1170], he ascribes
this Resolution to the Divisions that reigned among the Bishops, declaring
that he was quite tired with their constant quarreling and bickering
among themselves, and comparing them to Children at Play;
whom to join in their childish Diversions, would be degrading a serious
Character. |Nectarius is chosen in
his room.| Upon the Resignation of Gregory, Nectarius was chosen
to succeed him; but, as to the Particulars of his Election, they are
variously related by Authors, and foreign to my Purpose. He was a Native
of Tarsus in Cilicia, descended of an illustrious and senatorial
Family, but at the Time of his Election still a Layman, and Prætor of
Constantinople; nay, he had not been baptized[1171].
The same Year that the Eastern Bishops met at Constantinople, by
the Command of Theodosius, the Western Bishops met at Aquileia,
by the Command of Gratian. While the latter were yet sitting,
News was brought of the Death of Meletius, and at the same time
they received certain Intelligence of the Resolution which the Council
of Constantinople had taken of appointing him a Successor. Hereupon
having dispatched the Business for which they had met, and condemned
Palladius and Secundianus, the only Two Arian Bishops
now in the West, they dispatched some Presbyters into the East, with
a Letter to the Emperor Theodosius, wherein, after expressing the Joy
it had given them to hear that the Orthodox in those Parts were at
last happily delivered from the Oppression of the Arians, they complained
of the Hardships Paulinus had met with, whom they had
always acknowleged as lawful Bishop of Antioch, put the Emperor
in mind of the Agreement between Paulinus and Meletius, and concluded
with intreating him to assemble an Oecumenical Council at
Alexandria, as the only Means of restoring Tranquillity to the Church,
and settling a perfect Harmony amongst her Members[1172]. Before this
Letter reached the Emperor, the Council of Constantinople was concluded,
and the Bishops returned to their respective Sees. However,
Theodosius recalled some of them, in order to govern himself by their
Advice in granting or denying the Western Bishops their Request[1173].
|And the Bishops of
Italy in favour of
Maximus.|
But the Election of Flavianus being in the mean time known in the
West, the Bishops of the Vicariate of Italy, them assembled in Council
with Ambrose Bishop of Milan at their Head, writ a long Letter
to Theodosius complaining of that Election, openly espousing at the
same time the Cause of Maximus against Nectarius, the new Bishop
of Constantinople, and threatening to separate themselves intirely from
the Communion of the Eastern Bishops, unless Maximus was acknowleged
lawful Bishop of that City, or at least an Oecumenical Council
was assembled to examine the Claims of the Two Competitors, and
to confirm with their joint Suffrages the disputed Dignity to him, who
had the best[1174]. They also desired, in the same Letter, to have the
Contest between Paulinus and Flavianus decided.
Maximus, surnamed the Cynic, because he had from his Youth
professed the Philosophy, and wore the Habit, of that Sect, was a Man
of a most infamous Character, and had been publicly whipt in Egypt,
his native Country, and confined to the City of Oasis, for Crimes not
to be mentioned[1175]. Being released from his Banishment, he wandered
all over the East, and was every where equally abhorred and
detested on account of his matchless Impudence and scandalous Manners[1176].
At last he repaired to Constantinople, where he had not been
long, when, by one of the boldest Attempts mentioned in History,
he caused himself to be installed and ordained Bishop of that City:
for the Doors of the Church being broken open in the Dead of the
Night, by a Band of Egyptian Mariners, he was placed on the Episcopal
Chair in the profane Dress of a Cynic, by some Bishops whom
his Friends had sent out of Egypt for that Purpose. But the People,
and some of the Clergy, in the adjoining Houses, being alarmed at
the Noise, and crouding to see what occasioned it, Maximus and his
unhallowed Crew thought fit to withdraw, and complete the Ceremony
in a Place better adapted to such a Scene of Profaneness, the
House of a Player on the Flute[1177]. Maximus, thus ordained, in equal
Defiance of the Imperial Laws and Canons of the Church, had the
Assurance to claim the See of Constantinople as his Right, and to protest
against the Election of Gregory Nazianzen, and likewise of Nectarius,
who was chosen upon the Resignation of Gregory, tho’ they
had both been named to that Dignity by the Council of Constantinople,
that is, by all the Eastern Bishops. But no Regard being had
to his Protest, nay, his Ordination being declared null by the Council,
and he driven out of the City by the Populace, and rejected with
Indignation by the Emperor, he had recourse to the Bishops of the
Vicariate of Italy, then assembled in Council with Ambrose Bishop
of Milan at their Head, as I have observed above. |He is acknowleged by
Ambrose, and the
Italian Bishops.| These giving an
intire Credit to the Accounts of the lying and deceitful Cynic, as they
were quite unacquainted with what had passed in the East, not only
admitted him to their Communion, but, without farther Inquiry or Examination,
acknowleged him for lawful Bishop of Constantinople, and
writ the above-mentioned Letter to Theodosius in his Behalf[1178]. We
must not confound this Council with that of Aquileia, as I find most
Writers have done: for the latter was composed of almost all the
Western Bishops under Valerian Bishop of the Place; whereas the
Council I am now speaking of, consisted only of the Bishops of the
Vicariate of Italy, under the Bishop of Milan their Metropolitan.
It is surprising that Ambrose, and the other Bishops of that Council,
should not have been better informed with respect to the Ordination
of Maximus, since Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica, with Five
other Bishops of Macedon, had, at least a Year before, transmitted to
Damasus a minute Account of it, agreeing in every Particular with
that which I have given above from Gregory Nazianzen[1179]. |The Emperor’s Ans-
wer to their Letter.| The
Letter from the Council caused no small Surprize in Theodosius:
he was sensible they had suffered themselves to be grosly imposed
upon; but, not judging it necessary to undeceive them, he only told
them, in his Answer to their Letter, that the Reasons they alleged
did not seem sufficient to him for assembling an Oecumenical Council,
and giving so much Trouble to the Prelates of the Church; that
they were not to concern themselves with what happened in the East,
nor remove the Bounds, that had been wisely placed by their Fore-fathers
between the East and the West; and that, as to the Affair of
Maximus, by espousing his Cause they had betrayed either an unwarrantable
Animosity against the Orientals, or an inexcusable Credulity
in giving Credit to false and groundless Reports[1180].
Upon the Receipt of this Letter, the Italian Bishops, finding Theodosius no ways disposed to assemble an Oecumenical Council, applied to Gratian, who not only granted them Leave to meet at Rome, the Place they chose, but dispatched Letters to all the Bishops both in the East and West, giving them Notice of the Time and Place, in which the Council was to be held, and inviting them to it[1181]. But of all the Eastern Bishops, Two only complied with this Invitation; viz. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis in the Island of Cyprus, and Paulinus, whom all the West acknowleged for lawful Bishop of Antioch. The Western Bishops were all present, either in Person, or by their Deputies; and Damasus presided[1182]. But, as to the Transactions of this great Assembly, we are almost intirely in the Dark; for all we know of them is, that they unanimously agreed not to communicate with Flavianus, the new Bishop of Antioch, nor with Diodorus of Tarsus, or Acacius of Berœa, who had been chiefly instrumental in his Promotion; that they condemned the Heresy of Apollinaris; and that, at the Request of Damasus, a Confession of Faith was drawn up by Jerom, and approved by the Council, which the Apollinarists were to sign, upon their being re-admitted to the Communion of the Church[1183]. As for Maximus, they seem to have abandoned his Cause, being, in all Likelihood, undeceived, with respect to his Ordination, by Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica, and St. Jerom, who assisted at the Council, and could not be Strangers to the Character of Maximus, nor unacquainted with the scandalous Methods by which he had attained the Episcopal Dignity.
The Resolution they took not to communicate with Flavianus, whose Election, though imprudently made, was undoubtedly Canonical, and had been approved and confirmed by the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople, not only increased the Jealousies and Misunderstanding between the East and the West, but occasioned a great Disagreement, and endless Quarrels, among the Eastern Bishops themselves. For those who acknowleged Paulinus, viz. the Bishops of Egypt, of the Island of Cyprus, of Arabia, insisted upon the Deposition of Flavianus[1184]. Nestorius mentions some Letters, written by the Bishops of Egypt against Flavianus, with great Virulency, and a tyrannical Spirit, to use his Expression[1185]. On the other hand, the Bishops of Syria, of Palæstine, of Phœnicia, Armenia, Cappadocia, Galatia, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, not only maintained, with equal Warmth, the Election of Flavianus, but began to treat their Brethren in the East, who had joined the Western Bishops against them, as Schismatics, as Betrayers of their Trust, as Transgressors of the Canons of Nice, commanding the Elections and Ordinations of each Province to be made and performed by the Bishops of the same Province, and all Disputes concerning them to be finally decided in the Place where they had begun[1186]. This Schism occasioned great Confusion in the Church, which continued till the Year 398, when Chrysostom, after having, with indefatigable Pains, long laboured in vain to bring about an Accommodation between the East and the West, had at last, soon after his Promotion to the See of Constantinople, the Satisfaction of seeing his pious Endeavours crowned with Success, as I shall relate in a more proper Place.
From this whole Account it is manifest, as the Reader must have observed, that the Orientals paid no manner of Regard either to the Judgment of the Bishop of Rome, or to that of the whole Body of the Western Bishops, assembled in Council under him. For though they well knew the Bishop of Rome, and his Collegues in the West, to be warmly engaged in favour of Paulinus, yet they refused to acknowlege him, even after the Death of Meletius; and therefore raised Flavianus to the See of Antioch, in the room of Meletius, and confirmed that Election in an Oecumenical Council. The Western Bishops exclaimed against it, desiring it might be referred to the Decision of a General Council. But not even to that Demand would the Orientals agree, thinking, as they declared in their Answer, that there was no Occasion for a Council, since Flavianus had been chosen and ordained by the Bishops of the Diocese, which was all the Canons of Nice required. They therefore exhorted them to divest themselves of all Prejudices, to sacrifice all private Affections to the Peace and Unity of the Church, and to put an End to the present, and prevent all future, Disputes, by approving, with their joint Suffrages, an Election which had been approved and confirmed by an Oecumenical Council[1187].
To return to Damasus: He was the first who introduced the Custom,
which his Successors took care to improve, of conferring on
certain Bishops the Title of their Vicars, pretending thereby to impart
to them an extraordinary Power, enabling them to perform
several Things, which they could not perform in virtue of their own.
Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica was the first who enjoyed this Title,
being, by Damasus, appointed his Vicar in East Illyricum, on the
following Occasion: Illyricum, comprising all antient Greece, and
many Provinces on the Danube, whereof Sirmium was the Capital,
had, ever since the Time of Constantine, belonged to the Western
Empire. But, in the Year 379. Dacia and Greece were, by Gratian,
disjoined from the more Westerly Provinces, and added, in favour of
Theodosius, to the Eastern Empire, being known by the Name of
East Illyricum, whereof Thessalonica, the Metropolis of Macedon,
was the chief City. The Bishops of Rome, as presiding in the Metropolis
of the Empire, had begun to claim a kind of Jurisdiction,
or rather Inspection in Ecclesiastical Matters, over all the Provinces of
the Western Empire; which was the first great Step by which they
ascended to the Supremacy they afterwards claimed and established.
This Damasus was unwilling to resign with respect to Illyricum, even
after that Country was dismembered from the Western, and added to
the Eastern Empire. In order therefore to maintain his Claim, he
appointed Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica to act in his stead, vesting
in him the Power which he pretended to have over those Provinces.
Upon the Death of Acholius he conferred the same Dignity on his
Successor Anysius, as did the following Popes on the succeeding Bishops
of Thessalonica, who, by thus supporting the Pretensions of
Rome, became the first Bishops, and, in a manner, the Patriarchs, of
East Illyricum; for they are sometimes distinguished with that Title.
This, however, was not done without Opposition, the other Metropolitans
not readily acknowleging for their Superior one who, till
that time, had been their Equal[1188]. Syricius, who succeeded Damasus,
inlarging the Power claimed by his Predecessor, decreed, that no
Bishop should be ordained in East Illyricum without the Consent and
Approbation of the Bishop of Thessalonica[1189]. But it was some time
before this Decree took place. Pope Innocent I. writes, that his Predecessors
committed to the Care of Acholius, Achaia, Thessaly, the
Two Epirus’s, Candia, the Two Dacia’s, Mœsia, Dardania, and
Prævalitana, now Part of Albania, impowering him to judge and
decide the Controversies that might arise there, and appointing him
to be the first among the Primates, without prejudicing the Primacy
of those Churches[1190]. Thus were the Bishops of Thessalonica first appointed
Vicars or Vicegerents of the Bishops of Rome, probably in
the Year 382. for in that Year Acholius assisted at the Council of
Rome, and it was, in all Likelihood, on that Occasion that Damasus
vested him with this new Dignity. |The Institution of Vicars improved by the succeeding Popes.| The Contrivance of Damasus
was notably improved by his Successors, who, in order to extend and
inlarge their Authority, conferred the Title of their Vicars, and the
pretended Power annexed to it, on the most eminent Prelates of
other Provinces and Kingdoms, engaging them thereby to depend
upon them, and to promote the Authority of their See, to the utter
Suppression of the antient Rights and Liberties both of Bishops and
Synods. This Dignity was for the most part annexed to certain Sees,
but sometimes conferred on particular Persons. Thus was Austin
appointed the Pope’s Vicar in England, Boniface in Germany; and
both, in virtue of the Power which they pretended to have been imparted
to them with that Title, usurped and exercised an Authority
above that of Metropolitans. The Institution of Vicars was, by the
succeeding Popes, improved into that of Legates, or, to use De
Marca’s Expression, the latter Institution was grafted on the former[1191].
|Legates vested with
greater Power than
Vicars.| The Legates were vested with a far greater Power than the Vicars, or,
as Pope Leo expresses it, were admitted to a far greater Share of his
Care, though not to the Plenitude of his Power[1192]. They were sent
on proper Occasions into all Countries, and never failed exerting, to
the utmost Stretch, their boasted Power, oppressing, in virtue of their
paramount Authority, the Clergy as well as the People, and extorting
from both large Sums, to support the Pomp and Luxury in which
they lived.
The Custom of appointing Vicars and Legates may well be alleged
as a remarkable Instance of the Craft and Policy of the Popes, since,
of all the Methods they ever devised (and many they have devised)
to extend and establish their Power, none has better answered their
ambitious Views. But how Bellarmine could lay so much Stress
upon it as he does[1193], to prove, that the Pope has, by Divine Right,
a sovereign Authority and Jurisdiction over all the Churches of the
Earth, is unconceivable. |The sending Legates
no Proof of the Pope’s
universal Jurisdiction.| For it is certain, beyond all Dispute, that
such a Custom had never been heard of till the Time of Damasus,
that is, till the Latter-end of the Fourth Century, when it was first introduced,
upon the dismembering of East Illyricum, by Gratian, from
the Western Empire. Damasus did not even then claim that sovereign
and unlimited Power, with which Bellarmine is pleased to vest
him, but only a kind of Inspection over the Provinces of the Western
Empire, as Bishop of the first See. |The Disingenuity of
Bellarmine.| And here I cannot help observing
the Disingenuity of Bellarmine, who, in speaking of this Institution,
expresses himself thus: Leo appointed Anastiasius Bishop of Thessalonica
his Vicar in the East, in the same manner as the Predecessors
of Anastasius had been Vicars to the Predecessors of Leo[1194].
From these Words every Reader would naturally conclude, and Bellarmine
designs they should, that the Bishops of Thessalonica had been
the Pope’s Vicars from the Beginning, or Time out of Mind; whereas
it is certain, that this Institution had taken place but a few Years before.
Pope Leo I. in conferring on Anastasius the Vicariate Dignity
of his See, as he styles it, declared, that he followed therein the Example
of his Predecessor Syricius[1195], who first appointed Anysius to act
in his stead. But he was doubly mistaken; for these Vicars were first
instituted, as is notorious, by Damasus, and not by Syricius; and it
was not by Syricius, but by Damasus, that Anysius was vested with
that Dignity[1196]. The Bishop of Thessalonica is styled, by the antient
Writers, the Pope’s Vicar in East Illyricum, which is manifestly confining
his Vicariate Jurisdiction to that District; but Bellarmine extends
it at once all over the East, by distinguishing him with the Title of
the Popes Vicar for the East[1197]. But how little Regard was paid to
the Pope’s Authority in the East, I have sufficiently shewn above.
I find nothing else in the antient Writers concerning Damasus
worthy of Notice, besides his generously undertaking the Defence of
Symmachus, who, being Prefect of Rome in 384. the last Year of Damasus’s
Life, and a sworn Enemy to the Christians, was falsly accused
to the Emperor, as if he had with great Cruelty persecuted and oppressed
them. But Damasus had the Generosity to take his Part, and
clear him, by a Letter he writ to the Emperor, from that Charge[1198].
|Damasus dies.| This was one of the last Actions of Damasus’s Life; for he died this
Year on the 10th or 11th of December, being then in the Eightieth
Year of his Age, after he had governed the Church of Rome for the
Space of Eighteen Years, and about Two Months[1199]. He was buried,
according to Anastasius[1200], near his Mother and Sister, in a Church
which he had built at the Catacombs, on the Way to Ardea; whence
that Place, though Part of the Cœmetery of Calixtus, is by some
called the Cœmetery of Damasus[1201]. He proposed at first being buried
near the Remains of St. Sixtus, and his Companions; but afterwards
changed his Mind, lest he should disturb the Ashes of the Saints[1202].
He caused the Church of St. Laurence, near the Theatre of Pompey,
probably that which his Father and he himself had formerly served,
to be rebuilt, inlarged, and embellished; Whence it is still known by
the joint Titles of St. Laurence and Damasus[1203]. In that Church his
Body is worshiped to this Day. But, how or when it was removed
thither, nobody knows[1204]. |The Decrees ascribed
to him suppositious.| Several Decrees are ascribed to Damasus
by Gratian, Ivo of Chartres, Anastasius, and others, but all evidently
forged by some Impostor blindly addicted to the See of Rome, and
quite unacquainted with the Discipline of the Church in the Fourth
Century. In one of them a Canon is quoted from the Council of
Nice, forbidding the Laity to eat or drink of any thing that was offered
to the holy Priests, because none but the Jewish Priests were allowed
to eat of the Bread that was offered on the Altar. We know of no such
Canon; and besides, it is not at all probable, that the Council of Nice
would have restrained the Clergy from sharing at least with the Poor
what was offered them. In another of these Decrees the Paying of
Tythes is commanded, on pain of Excommunication; whereas it
might be easily made appear, that, in the Fourth Century, the Offerings
destined for the Maintenance of the Clergy were still voluntary.
Another Decree supposes, that, by an antient Custom, all Metropolitans
swore Fealty to the Apostolic See, and could ordain no Bishops
till they had received the Pall from Rome. For the Sake of this, Baronius
admits all the rest: but of such a Custom not the least Mention,
or distant Hint, is to be met with in any antient Writer.