N11. The Title of President is given him in a Letter, which is commonly ascribed to Pope Felix III[1]. But I am well apprised, that no great Stress should be laid on that Piece, since some surmise it to have been composed in the Eighth Century.
1. Concil. t. 1. p. 1072.
The Honour of presiding belonged of Right to Alexander Bishop of
Alexandria; but he, it seems, declined it, perhaps to obviate the
Complaints of the Arians, who looked upon him as a Party concerned,
and one highly prejudiced against them. I know that the
haranguing of Constantine is ascribed to Eusebius the Historian, in the
Title of the Chapter in which he mentions it[581], that Sozomen positively
affirms it, and that the learned Valesius thinks there is no room to
doubt of it, since Eusebius was the most eloquent Bishop of those
Times; and besides, he himself tells us, that he pronounced a Speech
in Praise of Constantine, on occasion of his entering into the Twentieth
Year of his Reign, while he was sitting in the midst of the Ministers of
God[582]; meaning thereby, no doubt, the Bishops assembled at Nice.
|Eusebius of Cæsarea
did not harangue the
Emperor at the Opening of the
Council,| That Eusebius harangued the Emperor before that venerable Assembly,
is not at all to be questioned; but that the Bishops, who composed it,
should have pitched upon one who was suspected, or rather convicted,
of Arianism, to address the Emperor in their Name, at the Opening
of the Council, seems to me highly improbable. The Orator, whoever
he was, sat in the first Place, or at least in the second (that I
may not quarrel with Baronius, who will have the Place on the Left-hand
to have been the most honourable[583]): And what Right had the
Bishop of Cæsarea to that Honour? |but on another
Occasion.| I may add, that a short Compliment,
such as is that which the Presbyter Gregory ascribes to Eustathius
of Antioch[584], had been far more proper on that Occasion than
Eusebius’s long and tedious Panegyric, which therefore some suppose
to have been pronounced on Occasion of the magnificent Entertainment
which Constantine gave the Bishops, as they were preparing to
return to their respective Sees; for he then entered into the Twentieth
Year of his Reign, which began on the 25th of July 325. and it was
on that Occasion that Eusebius writ, and delivered his Panegyric
before the Emperor, and the Fathers of the Council, as he himself
declares[585]. To conclude, had Eusebius been appointed by that great
Assembly to address the Emperor in their Name, his Modesty had not
prevented him from describing the Spokesman so as to leave no room
to doubt on whom that Honour had been conferred.
Before I dismiss this Subject, it may not be improper, nor foreign
to my Purpose, to observe, that the Council of Nice, the first General
or Oecumenical Council held in the Church, was convened by the Emperor,
and not by the Bishop of Rome; that the Bishop of Rome did
not preside in it either in Person, or by his Legates, as they are pleased
to style them; and consequently that the Privilege which they assumed
in After-ages of assembling General Councils, and presiding in them,
ought to be deemed a most insolent and unwarrantable Usurpation.
|The Council commands all Causes
to be finally de-
termined by Prov-
incial Synods.| The Second Thing worthy of notice with respect to this Council is
its Fifth Canon, commanding all Ecclesiastical Causes to be finally
decided in each Province by a Provincial Synod. The Words of the
Canon are clear in themselves, and besides have been understood in
this Sense by all the Councils that were held, by all the Authors that
writ, for several Ages after[586]; nay, it was understood in this Sense
by some of the Popes themselves, namely, by Innocent I. who, in one
of his Letters to Victricius Bishop of Roan, writes thus; If any Controversy
should arise among the Clerks, whether they be of an inferior
or superior Rank, let it be decided, agreeably to the Council of Nice,
in an Assembly of the Bishops of the same Province[587]. 'Tis true, he
adds, without prejudicing the Rights of the Roman See. But that
Restriction is his own, and not the Council’s. Hence this Canon,
directing all Causes to be thus tried, all Disputes to be thus ended,
was often quoted on occasion of Appeals made to Rome, and employed
as a Bulwark to restrain the incroaching Power of the Popes
within due Bounds; but in Process of Time their Ambition, supported
by the Favour of Princes, and the great Temporalities they acquired,
bore all down before them.
It was in the Pontificate of Sylvester, and under the benign Auspices
of Constantine, that the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was first formed and
settled in the Manner it continues to this Day; the new Form of Government,
introduced by that Prince into the State, serving as a Model
for the Government of the Church. In the Three first Centuries no
other Hierarchy was known, no other Degrees thought of, but those
of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Of these alone was composed
the whole Body of the Clergy; but with this Difference, that the
Bishop or Supervisor was the general Disposer and Manager of all
Things within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, nothing being done there
without his Consent and Approbation, and the Presbyters and Deacons
his Assistants, or his Counsellors and Senate, as St. Jerom[588], and
before him St. Ignatius[589], styled them. This Order was probably introduced,
according to Grotius[590], in Imitation of the Jewish Synagogues;
for each Synagogue had its Ruler, who presided over the rest,
its Pastors, and its Eleemosynaries; to the Ruler succeeded the Bishop,
to the Pastors the Presbyters, and to the Eleemosynaries the Deacons.
|The Office and
Duty of Bishops.| It was the Bishop’s Office and Duty to preach the Word[591], to pray with
his People[592] to administer the Sacraments[593], to ordain Ministers[594], to
excommunicate Offenders[595], to absolve Penitents[596], and to regulate
and settle every thing relating to his particular Church[597], with the
Consent and Concurrence of the Presbytery; for the Presbyters were
his Counsellors or Senate, and, together with him, presided in the
Consistories of those Times, as we learn from Tertullian telling us,
that in those Courts approved Elders presided[598]. Hence Petrus de
Marca concludes the original Government of the Church to have been
mixt of Monarchy and Aristocracy; or, to use his own Words, the
Monarchical Government of the Church to have been tempered with
the Aristocratical. As the Bishop could not discharge, as he ought,
the above-mentioned Functions, without residing among those who
were committed to his Care, his Residence was deemed absolutely
necessary, and Non-residence a most heinous Transgression; insomuch
that St. Cyprian, enumerating the Sins that brought the Wrath of
God upon the Church in the bloody Persecution of Decius, mentions
Non-residence in the Bishops as one[599]. |How chosen,
and ordained.| Upon the Vacancy of a See
a new Bishop was chosen in the room of the deceased in some Places
by the Clergy and People of that Church alone, in others by the
neighbouring Bishops, the People and the Clergy only expressing their
Desire, and giving Testimony of the Life and Manners of the Person
proposed, and in some by the joint Suffrages of the Clergy, of the
People, and of the neighbouring Bishops. These three different Methods
of electing we find practised at different Times with respect to
the same Church; but on no Occasion was the Choice of the neighbouring
Bishops sufficient without the Consent of the Clergy and
People, nor the Election of the Clergy and People without the Approbation
of the neighbouring Bishops. The Bishop being thus elected
and confirmed, he was in the next Place ordained; and this Ceremony
was performed by the neighbouring Bishops, in his own Church, and
in the Presence of his Flock, by the Imposition of Hands. The
new Bishop, agreeably to a Custom which obtained then, immediately
gave Notice of his Promotion to other Bishops, especially to those
of the greater Sees, who, by receiving and answering his Letters,
were said to communicate with him, and to acknowlege him lawfully
chosen.
In the Second Degree were the Presbyters or Priests, whose Office
or Province it was to assist the Bishop in the Discharge of his Pastoral
Commission, whence they are often styled the Bishop’s Assistants:
with his Consent and Approbation they preached the Word, they
prayed with the People, they administred the Sacraments, they absolved
Penitents, and, in short, discharged every Office which the
Bishop did, except those of ordaining, confirming, and excommunicating;
I say, with the Bishop’s Consent and Approbation; for no
spiritual Function could they perform without his Leave, as is manifest
from Tertullian[600], Origen[601], St. Cyprian[602], and above all from
St. Ignatius, in his famous Letter to the Church of Smyrna[603]. The
Church, in those happy Days, admitted none to the sacred Functions,
but such as were known by a long Trial to be well qualified for so
great a Charge. |Qualifications re-
quisite in a Presbyter.| The Qualifications requisite in a Presbyter, so far as
I can learn from the Antients, may be reduced to these Four Heads,
his Condition in the World, his Conversation, his Learning, and his
Age. He was not to be intangled with any worldly Affairs, with any
secular Employments, but at perfect Liberty to apply himself wholly
to the Functions of his Office[604]. He was to be of an unspotted and
exemplary Life[605]; and therefore, before Ordination, he was proposed
to the Presbytery and People for their Testimony and Approbation.
He was to be well versed in the Scripture, and capable of teaching
others, and instructing them in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion.
As for human Learning, it was not required in a Presbyter;
nay, by some it was condemned, particularly Logic and Philosophy,
as in a manner inconsistent with Christianity[606], but at the same time
highly commended and applauded by others as conducive to the right
understanding of the Scripture, and necessary for confuting the Sophisms
of Heretics[607]; whence Logic especially is recommended by
Clemens Alexandrinus to all Ecclesiastics, as a Hedge to defend the
Truth from being trod down by Sophists[608]. As for the Age of a Presbyter,
he was to be stricken in Years, as the very Name of a Presbyter
or Elder sufficiently declares. However, if a young Man was endowed
with extraordinary Gifts and Talents, his Age was dispensed
with in respect both to the Sacerdotal and Episcopal Dignity. Thus
was Aurelius, though young in Years, raised, in regard of his great
Merit, to the Rank of a Presbyter, as we read in St. Cyprian[609]; and
the Bishop of Magnesia, in St. Ignatius’s Time, was, it seems, but
a young Man, since Ignatius, in his Letter to the Magnesians, exhorts
them not to despise their Bishop’s Age, but to yield him all due Respect
and Reverence[610]. These were the Qualifications requisite in a
Candidate for the Ministry: if he was recommended by them (for no
other Recommendation could avail him), he was admitted to holy
Orders; if not, he was rejected as unfit for the sacred Function. The
Person ordained was at Liberty to serve the Church where he had
received his Orders, or any other where his Assistance might be wanted;
for he was not ordained Minister of any particular Church, but of the
Church universal.
In the Third and last Degree were the Deacons, whose original Institution was to serve Tables, as we read in the Acts[611]; that is, to inspect the Poor, and relieve them by a proper Distribution of the Offerings made by the Faithful, which were committed to their Charge, though they could not dispose of them without the Bishop’s Knowlege[612]. They were ordained by the Imposition of Hands[613], and therefore deemed Ministers of the Altar, as well as Dispensers of Alms; and with a great deal of Reason, for they assisted the Bishops or Presbyters in administring the Eucharist, by delivering the Elements to the Communicants[614]; they carried the Eucharist to such as had not been able to assist with the rest at Divine Service[615]; they preached, and, in the Absence of the Bishop and Presbyters, conferred the Sacrament of Baptism[616]. |Their Number.| The Presbyters of a Church were not confined to a set Number; but the Deacons were, no Church having more than Seven in the primitive Times, that being the original Number instituted by the Apostles. Thus the Church of Rome had but Seven in the Times of Pope Cornelius[617], and Pope Sixtus II[618], the Church of Saragosa the same Number in the Time of Vincentius, who flourished under Dioclesian[619]. The Fourteenth Canon of the Council of Neocæsarea, or the Fifteenth, according to the Greek, forbids this Number to be inlarged, even in the greatest and most populous Cities[620]; whence St. Jerom writes, that great Respect was paid to the Deacons, because they were few in Number[621].
As for the Subdeacons, Acolytes, Lectors, Janitors, and Exorcists, they were not considered as any-ways belonging to the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, being employed only in the meaner Offices of the Church, by the due Discharge of which they were to give Proof of their Integrity and Attention, in order to be raised to a higher Degree; for in those Days very few, and none but upon some very extraordinary Occasion, arrived at once, or, as they call it, per saltum, at the Episcopal Dignity.
During the Three first Centuries each Church was in a manner independent, that is, could make such Regulations relating to its Discipline and Government as were judged proper and expedient, without the Concurrence and Authority of other Churches[622]. However, in all Matters of Moment, the Bishops used to advise with one another, especially with those of the same Province, who frequently met to settle all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Limits. |Frequent Synods held.| Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, writes, that in his Province they met every Year[623]; and from the frequent Synods mentioned by St. Cyprian, we may conclude them to have been held in that Province at least once a Year. |Of whom composed.| These Synods or Assemblies were composed of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Laymen, representing the People of their several Churches[624]. They met by their own Appointment and Authority, there being no Christian Magistrates in those Days to convene Synods. Being thus assembled, they chose in the first place one, and sometimes two Bishops, to preside[625]. |The Method they held.| It was their Office and Duty to see the Point in question calmly and fairly debated, to sum up in each Debate what had been urged on both Sides, to take the Votes and Suffrages of the Members of the Synod, and last of all to give their own[626]. In these Assemblies all Ecclesiastical Affairs were settled by the Majority of Votes, and their Decrees and Decisions were binding with respect to those Churches whose Representatives were present[627]; but were not so with respect to other Churches.
Such was the Hierarchy, such the Government of the Church, during
the Three first Centuries. But in the Fourth and following Ages great
Alterations were made in both, the Church adapting her Government
to that of the State, namely, to the new Form of Government introduced
by Constantine, who had settled her in Peace, and taken the
Priesthood into his immediate Protection. For it was in his Reign
that the Titles of Patriarchs, Exarchs, Metropolitans, were first heard
of, or at least had any Power, Authority, or Privileges, annexed to
them. That this Conformity between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Polity
may appear more plainly, I shall premise a succinct Account of the
former, as established by Constantine throughout the Empire. That
Prince divided the whole Roman World into four Prefectures, viz.
the East, Illyricum, Gaul, and Italy, which were governed by four
Prefects, called Præfecti Prætorio. |The new Form of
Government intro-
duced by Con-
stantine.| Till his Time the whole Empire
was governed under the Emperors by Two Prefects only, as Zosimus
informs us[628]; and this Division is supposed to have been made by
Constantine, jealous of the too great Power of those Magistrates. Each
Prefecture was subdivided into several Dioceses, and each Diocese into
several Provinces. Thus the Prefecture of the East contained Five
Dioceses; viz. the East divided into Ten Provinces, Egypt into Six,
Pontus into Eleven, Asia into Ten, and Thrace into Six. Under
the Prefecture of Illyricum were Two Dioceses; Macedon, consisting
of Eight Provinces; and Dacia, consisting of four. The Prefecture
of Gaul comprised Three Dioceses, Gaul made up of Seventeen
Provinces, Spain of Seven, and Britain of Five. The Prefecture
of Italy was divided into Two Vicarages or Lieutenancies; the one of
Rome, comprehending Ten Provinces, under the Vicar of Rome,
whence they were called Suburbicarian Provinces; the other of Italy,
containing Seven Provinces, governed by the Vicar of Italy, who resided
at Milan, whence they were simply called Provinces of Italy.
Under the Prefect of Italy was likewise West Africa, and after Constantine’s
Death West Illyricum. The Prefects had other Officers
under them, by whom the Provinces were more immediately governed.
These were, to name them according to their Rank and Dignity,
Proconsuls, Vicars, Consulars, Correctors, and Presidents. Each
Diocese had its Metropolis, and likewise each Province contained in
the Diocese.
Now, if we compare the Civil Polity, thus described, with the Ecclesiastical, we shall find them in most Places answering each other, in every respect, and one Bishop raised above the rest, according to the Rank that was given by this new Division to the City in which he presided. Thus, for Instance, the chief Cities of the Five Dioceses of the Oriental Prefecture were; Antioch, the Metropolis of the Oriental Diocese; Alexandria, of the Egyptian; Ephesus, of the Asiatic; Cæsarea, of the Pontic; and Heraclea, of the Thracian. Now the Bishops of these Cities, in regard of the Eminence of their Sees, were exalted above all other Bishops, and distinguished with the Title of Exarchs; nay, and by Degrees they acquired, not to say usurped, a kind of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Bishops of the inferior Sees, which was afterwards confirmed to them by several Councils. In like manner the Bishop of the Metropolis of each Province was, on account of the Dignity of his See, honoured with the Title of Metropolitan, to which were annexed several Privileges, of which I shall speak hereafter. When one Province was divided into Two, which often happened, the Ecclesiastical Polity was likewise altered, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis raised to the Dignity of a Metropolitan. Several Instances might be alleged of ambitious Bishops applying to the Emperors for a Division of the Province, that their City might acquire the Title of Metropolis, and they, of course, that of Metropolitans. When the City of Byzantium was declared the Metropolis of another Empire, the Exarchate of Heraclea, the Metropolis of the Thracian Diocese, was, by that Change, transferred from Heraclea to the new Metropolis; so that the Bishop of Heraclea became Suffragan to the Bishop of Byzantium, or, as it was then called, Constantinople, who, till that Time, had been Suffragan to him. Upon the Division of a Province, the Churches were likewise divided, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis acquired all the Privileges and Power of a Metropolitan over the Churches taken by the Change in the Civil Government from the antient Metropolis. But it was afterwards decreed, by the Council of Chalcedon, that if any City should be raised to the Dignity of a Metropolis, the Bishop of that City should enjoy the Title, but not the Privileges of a Metropolitan. Thus the Bishops of Nice and Berytus were honoured with the Title of Metropolitans, and took Place of all the other Bishops of those Provinces; but nevertheless continued to be Suffragans to their antient Metropolitans the Bishops of Nicomedia and Tyre. For the same Reason several Bishops in the Kingdom of Naples enjoy, to this Day, the Title of Metropolitans; but neither have, nor ever had, any Province or Suffragans. The above-mentioned Decree was enacted by the Council of Chalcedon, to prevent the Bishops from recurring, as they often did, to the Emperors,and to obviate the frequent Changes that were thereby introduced into the Church.
The Prefecture of Illyricum had but one Exarch, the Bishop of Thessalonica, the Metropolis of the Macedonian Diocese. In the Prefecture of Gaul there was no Exarch, but in the Two Dioceses of Gaul and Spain as many Metropolitans as Provinces. Some there were, without all Doubt, in the Diocese of Britain, which was divided into Five Provinces, viz. Maxima Cæsariensis, Britannia Prima, Britannia Secunda, Valentia, and Flavia Cæsariensis. But in this Island an intire Change was made, by the Saxons, both in the Ecclesiastical and Civil Polity.
Under the Prefect of Italy were Three Dioceses, viz. Italy, West
Illyricum, and West Africa. The Diocese of Italy was divided into
Two Vicarages, as I have observed above, and governed by Two Vicars;
the one called the Vicar of Rome, and residing in that City,
the other styled the Vicar of Italy, and residing at Milan. Under
the former were Ten Provinces, viz. Campania, Apulia, Lucania,
Hetruria, Umbria, Picenum Suburbicarium, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica,
and Valeria; and Seven under the latter, viz. Liguria, Æmilia,
Flaminia or Picenum Annonarium, Venetia, Istria, Alpes Cottiæ, and
the Two Rhætiæ. |The Ecclesiastical
Polity there intirely
agreeable to the Civil.| Such was the Civil Government of Italy, and intirely
agreeable to the Civil was the Ecclesiastical. Thus the Bishop of
Rome enjoyed all the Privileges of a Metropolitan, with respect to
the Bishops of the Provinces subject to the Vicar of that City, or
the Suburbicarian Provinces, as they are styled by Ruffinus. In like
manner the Bishop of Milan exercised the Power and Authority of
a Metropolitan over all the Bishops under the Vicar of Italy. But the
Power of both was confined within the Limits of their respective
Vicarages. As neither had the Charge of a whole Diocese, they were
not, like several Bishops in the East, distinguished with the Title of
Exarch, which they had no Right to, but with that only of Metropolitan.
However, the Power of the Bishop of Rome far exceeded,
within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, that of other Metropolitans, as
I shall shew hereafter.
In Africa the Ecclesiastical Polity varied greatly from the Civil. Carthage indeed, in the Proconsular Province of Africa, properly so called, was the Metropolis of all West Africa, and the Bishop of that City the Primate and Exarch. But in the other Five Provinces of that Diocese, viz. Numidia, the Two Mauritanias, Cæsariensis and Sitifensis, Tingitana, Bizacena, and Tripolitana, the senior Bishop, in what City soever he presided, enjoyed the Title and Privileges of Metropolitan, Regard being had to his Seniority, or the Time of his Ordination, and none to the Dignity of his See. And hence it is that, at different times, we find Bishops of different Cities, within the same Province, acting as Metropolitans. Of West Illyricum, the Third Diocese under the Prefect of Italy, I shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.
Some Writers, namely Petrus de Marca, Archbishop of Paris[629], Christianus Lupus[630], Emmanuel Schelstrat[631], Two eminent Divines, the one of Louvain, the other of Antwerp, and Leo Allatius[632], have taken a great deal of Pains to prove, that these Ecclesiastical Dignities owe their Origin to Christ, or the Apostles. But their Arguments are unanswerably confuted by the learned Ellies du Pin[633]; and, besides, it is evident, from the intire Conformity which the Ecclesiastical Government had, in most Places, with the Political State of the Empire, as established by Constantine, that the Church, in forming the Hierarchy I have described, adopted his Plan; and consequently, that such Dignities are not of divine, but of human Institution. I might add, that it cannot be proved from Scripture, that the Apostles, in appointing Bishops, gave more Power to one than to another, or any Power at all to one over the others.
The new Dignities or Degrees, added to the antient Hierarchy of the Church, in the Fourth and following Centuries, were those of Metropolitan, Primate, Archbishop, Exarch, and Patriarch. The Title of Metropolitan was given to the Bishop of the chief City of a Province, and likewise that of Primate, he being primus, or the first of the Province; for such was the original Signification of that Word in an Ecclesiastical Sense; but, in Process of Time, the Title of Primate was restrained to the Bishops of some great Cities. On the contrary the Title of Archbishop was originally bestowed on Metropolitans only of great Eminence and Distinction; but, in the Eighth Century, it began to be given indifferently to all Metropolitans, and even to some Bishops, distinguished by no other Title. As the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City, of a Province, was dignified with the Title of Metropolitan, so was the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City of a Diocese, with that of Exarch; which, however, we find sometimes given to Metropolitans. As for the Title of Patriarch, it was first common to all Bishops, but afterwards confined to the Exarchs; and lastly, to the Bishops of the Five following Cities, viz. Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. It was first bestowed on the Bishop of Rome, by the Council of Chalcedon[634], after it had been long common to all the Exarchs of the East, as the learned Du Pin well observes[635].
The Titles of Metropolitans, Primates, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, were not bare Names of Honour, but had several Rights and Prerogatives attending them. Thus the Metropolitans and Primates had, by their Prerogative, a Right to ordain the Bishops of their respective Provinces, to convene provincial Synods, and to have a general Superintendency or Inspection over the whole Province. The ordaining of Bishops was a Privilege common to the Metropolitan, with the other Bishops of the same Province; but with this Difference, that the Presence, or at least the Consent and Approbation of the Metropolitan was absolutely necessary; for, according to the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council of Nice, He who was not ordained, or approved, by the Metropolitan, was not to be a Bishop. This Privilege was confirmed to the Metropolitans by many subsequent Councils, namely, by those of Arles, Laodicea, Carthage, Chalcedon, Ephesus[636], and many others. However, in the Fifth Century, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople began, in the East, to usurp this Prerogative, pretending, that no Bishops ought to be ordained in their respective Dioceses, without their Knowlege, Consent, and Approbation; and the Patriarch of Rome, still more ambitious and encroaching, claimed a Right to ordain the Bishops throughout all the Provinces of the West, which occasioned endless Disputes, as we shall see in the Sequel of this History. As to the Second Privilege peculiar to the Metropolitans, they had a Right to summon the Bishops of their respective Provinces to meet when they thought proper; to appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting; to punish such as did not, without just Cause, comply with their Summons; and to preside in the Assembly. The general Care and Inspection, which they were charged with over the whole Province, imported, First, That all Complaints against, all Contests with or between the Bishops of the Province, were to be brought to their Tribunal; and there heard, judged, and determined, not by the Metropolitan alone, but by him and the other Bishops of the Province, in a Provincial Synod. Innumerable Instances might be alleged of Bishops thus deposed by their Metropolitans. Secondly, The Metropolitans had a Right to receive Appeals from the Sentence of inferior Bishops, and with the other Bishops, to confirm or reverse their Decrees. And, lastly, each Metropolitan was to keep a watchful Eye over the Bishops of his Province, and take care that they discharged, as they ought, the Functions of their Office. These Privileges were, in express Terms, granted to the Metropolitans, by almost innumerable Councils, which it is needless, and would be too tedious, to name.
As for the Patriarchs, or Exarchs; by their Prerogative, they were
impowered to ordain the Metropolitans, to convene Diocesan Synods,
and to have a general Superintendency over their respective Dioceses,
such as the Metropolitans had over their respective Provinces. |The Bishop of Rome
not a Patriarch.| The
Bishop of Rome had not the Charge of a whole Diocese, and therefore
was not, properly speaking, Exarch or Patriarch: his Jurisdiction
did not extend beyond the Limits of the Vicarage of Rome, or the Suburbicarian
Provinces; and no Instance can be produced of Metropolitans
or Bishops ordained by him, out of those Provinces, till the
Time of Valentinian III. Even in the Vicarage of Italy the Metropolitans
of each Province ordained all the Bishops, and were themselves
ordained by the Bishops of the Province. But over the Suburbicarian
Provinces the Bishop of Rome exercised greater Power and Authority,
than the Exarchs of the East did over the Provinces of their
Dioceses; for the latter left the Ordination of the Bishops to their
Metropolitans, whereas the former ordained not only the Bishops of
the Metropolitan Cities, but all those of the fore-mentioned Provinces:
and the Reason of this was, because these Provinces had no
Metropolitans, to whom the Ordination of Bishops would of Right
have belonged; so that the Prerogatives of the Metropolitans were
all vested in the Bishop of Rome alone. |The Bishops of Rome
have no Right to
ordain the Metro-
politans.| As there were no Exarchs
or Patriarchs in the West, the Bishops of each Province were, by
several Councils, vested with the Power of ordaining their own Metropolitans;
and that they were thus ordained in Gaul, Spain, and
West Africa, is so manifest as to admit of no Dispute[637]. And yet the
Sticklers for the See of Rome pretend the Bishops of that City to have a
divine and inherent Right of ordaining all the Metropolitans throughout
the Christian World, by themselves, their Vicars, or Delegates.
To maintain this chimerical Right against the uncontestable Evidence
of Facts, they tell us, that the Popes, for some Ages, neglected to exert
the Power they had[638]. But from this Charge all Mankind will clear
them, it being but too well known, that they never neglected the
least Opportunity of exerting to the utmost the Power they had, and
usurping the Power they had not. But, Cavils aside, it is evident
beyond Dispute, that the Popes never knew, nor dreamt of, any such
Right or Prerogative, till they were told of it by their flattering Divines;
at least Pope Leo, surnamed the Great, did not; for in one
of his Letters to the Bishops of Gaul he disclaims, in express Terms,
the Right of ordaining the Bishops of that Diocese[639]. To conclude,
the Bishop of Rome was the only Metropolitan in that Vicarage; and,
as such, had a Right to ordain all the Bishops of the Suburbicarian
Provinces, or the Provinces subject to the Vicar of Rome; but, for
a considerable Tract of Time, there is no Instance of their ordaining
either Bishops or Metropolitans out of that District.
As for the Title of Archbishop, it is in itself a bare Name of Honour; whence, in some Countries, especially in Italy, several are distinguished with that Title, who indeed take place of, but have no Power or Authority over, other Bishops. And thus far of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as settled in the Fourth and following Centuries, of the different Degrees that compose it, and the Prerogatives peculiar to each Degree, the Knowlege whereof is absolutely necessary for the right understanding of the many Contests and Disputes in point of Jurisdiction, which I shall have Occasion to touch upon in the Sequel of this History; for it was not at once, but by Degrees, and not without great Opposition, that the Bishops of Rome, extending their Authority beyond the Limits of that Vicarage, which was at that time the Boundary of their Jurisdiction, acquired the unlimited Power they now enjoy, with the arrogant Title of Universal Bishop.
But to return to Sylvester, in whose Pontificate this great Change
began; I need not employ many Words to shew the Forgery of the
so much boasted Donation of all Italy, supposed to have been made
by Constantine to Sylvester, in the Spring of the Year 324. Four Days
after he had been baptized by that Pontiff, since the Instrument of
that Donation is now looked upon as supposititious, by all who have
the least Tincture of Learning. The Arguments they allege against it
are: 1. That more than Twelve Copies of that Instrument are still
extant, all differing from one another. 2. That it evidently appears,
from Two Constitutions of Constantine, still to be seen in the Theodosian
Code[640], that he was not at Rome, but at Thessalonica, in the
Spring of the Year 324. 3. That neither Eusebius, who has given us
a very minute and particular Account of the Actions of that Prince,
nor any other contemporary Writer, has so much as hinted at so
memorable a Fact. 4. That all the antient Writers, both Greek and
Latin, agree, that Constantine was not baptized at Rome, but at
Nicomedia, when he lay at the Point of Death[641]. Let those, who
stand up in Defence of that Donation, give satisfactory Answers to
these Reasons, and I shall conclude with them, that Italy being, by
such a Donation, disjoined from the Empire, the Emperors who succeeded
Constantine, had no Claim or Title to that Country; that
none of their Constitutions were binding there; and consequently
that, by the Inhabitants of Italy, Recourse ought to be had, in all
Cases, not to the Civil, but to the Canon Law: for such pernicious
Doctrines have been broached, published, and maintained, as natural
Deductions from Constantine’s great Generosity to Sylvester[642]. In
Rome is still to be seen, in a most sumptuous Chapel, close to the
Lateran, the Baptistery or Font in which Constantine is said to have
been baptized. The Chapel is adorned with noble Paintings, representing
that august Ceremony, as performed by Sylvester, in the magnificent
Drapery, and stately Apparel, of the present Popes. Four
Days after this Ceremony, Constantine, sensible of his Obligations to
Sylvester, rewarded him for his Trouble with a Fee, as Luchesini the
Scolopian expresses it, answering in some Degree to the Greatness of
the Favour he had received at his Hands; a Fee worthy of so great a
Prince, of so great a Pope[643]. |Constantine baptized
at Nicomedia, and
not at Rome.| The Fee, which that Writer, otherwise
a Man of Learning, makes a long and tedious Descant upon,
was no less than the City of Rome, and all Italy. That Constantine
was baptized at Nicomedia, and not at Rome, is affirmed, in express
Terms, by Theodoret[644], Sozomen[645], Socrates[646], and Photius[647], among
the Greeks; and, among the Latins, by St. Ambrose[648], St. Jerom[649],
and the Council of Rimini[650]. Emmanuel Schelstrat, on one Side,
ashamed to reject, or even to question such Authorities, but, on the
other, unwilling to rob Sylvester of that Glory, will have Constantine
to have been baptized in both Places. It is well known, says
he, that Constantine, in the Latter-end of his Life, was greatly biassed
in favour of the Arians, and their Tenets. Now a Practice obtained
among them of rebaptizing such as came over to their Sect from
the Catholic Church; and, to conform to this Custom, Constantine
was, in all Likelihood, prevailed upon by Eusebius, the Arian Bishop
of Nicomedia, who assisted him on his Death-bed[651]. Thus Schelstrat.
But it is certain, that, in Constantine’s Time, the Arians allowed the
Validity of Baptism administred by the Catholics; for, long after, we
find St. Austin upbraiding them with the Practice of rebaptizing, as a
Novelty lately introduced among them[652]. Besides, who is so little
versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that, in those
early Times, a very bad Custom universally prevailed, at least among
Persons of Distinction, who embraced the Christian Religion, namely,
that of putting off their Baptism to their Death-bed, or till they were
upon the Point of exposing themselves to some great Danger? Thus
Theodosius the Great, though he had not only openly professed the
Christian Religion, but given many Instances of an extraordinary
Piety, yet did not chuse to be baptized till he fell dangerously ill
at Thessalonica[653]. In like manner Valentinian II delayed his Baptism
till the Approach of a Battle with the Barbarians, when he sent,
in great Haste, for St. Ambrose to administer that Sacrament to him.
But while the good Bishop was crossing the Alps, on his Way to
Vienne, where the Emperor then was, he received the melancholy
News of his having been inhumanly murdered by some of his own
Officers, at the Instigation of Arbogastus. His Death was greatly
lamented by St. Ambrose, who, in the elegant Oration, which he pronounced
on Occasion of his Obsequies, maintained, that the fervent
Desire of Baptism had the same Effect as the Sacrament itself; and
consequently, that the Sins of the deceased Prince being thereby cancelled,
it was not to be doubted, but from this Life he had passed
to eternal Bliss[654]. Innumerable Instances of the same Nature occur
in History, which were, it seems, utterly unknown to the Author
of the Acts of Pope Sylvester, upon whose sole Authority the Fable
has been credited of Constantine’s receiving Baptism at the Hands of
Sylvester, soon after his Conversion. That Impostor, whoever he was,
is supposed to have lived in the Eighth Century, long after the Custom
of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death had been utterly abolished.
|What gave Count-
enance to the Custom
of deferring Baptism
to the Point of Death.|
What gave Countenance to such a Custom, was an Opinion
then generally received, and still held by the Church of Rome; viz.
That by the Waters of the sacred Font Men were washed clean, not
only from the original, but from all other Sins. This proved a great
Encouragement to Vice when Piety began (and it began but too
early) to decay among Christians; and therefore the Fathers of the
Church, especially Basil, his Brother Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Ambrose[655],
employed all the Oratory they were Masters of, in crying down such
a pernicious and wicked Custom, as they style it; so that it was at
last quite laid aside. Whether Confession ought not, on the same
Account, to be put down, I shall leave the Reader to judge; and only
observe here, by the way, that had the Virtue and Efficacy, ascribed
now to Confession, been known in those Times, Sinners needed not
have delayed Baptism to the Point of Death, since their Sins had
been no less effectually cancelled by Confession, than by Baptism.