Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (8)

As for the Council of _Seleucia_, it met on the 27th of _September_ 359. and consisted only of One hundred and Sixty Bishops, all _Arians_, or _Semi-Arians_, except Twelve or Thirteen orthodox Bishops from _Egypt_[921]. This Assembly _Gregory Nazianzen_ calls the _Tower_ of _Calane_, or _Babel_, the Council of _Caiaphas_[922]. And indeed with a great deal of Reason; for nothing was there seen but Tumult, Confusion, and Disorder. The _Anomeans_ and _Semi-Arians_ appeared so irreconcilably incensed against each other, and carried on their Debates with so much Animosity and Bitterness, that the Quæstor _Leonas_, whom the Emperor had appointed to assist at the Council, thinking it impossible they should ever agree in any one Point, rose up at their Fourth Meeting, while they were in the Heat of the Dispute, and, withdrawing abruptly, put an End to that Session, nay, and to the Council; for, being invited the next Day, the First of _October_, to the Assembly, he refused to go, saying, that he did not conceive his Presence to be at all necessary, since they might quarrel and scold as much as they pleased without him[923]. This he did, says _Sozomen_, to favour the _Anomeans_, who thence took Occasion to absent themselves from the Council, which, as it was chiefly composed of _Semi-Arians_, seemed determined to condemn their Doctrine[924]. [Sidenote: _The_ Semi-Arians _condemn and depose the_ Arians.] However, the _Semi-Arians_ met by themselves; and, finding they could by no means prevail upon the _Anomeans_ to return to the Council, they condemned their Doctrine as heretical and blasphemous, excommunicated and deposed the leading Men of their Party, appointed others in their room, and gave Notice thereof to their respective Churches[925]. Before they broke up, they dispatched Ten Deputies to acquaint the Emperor with the Transactions of the Council. But the Bishops whom they had deposed, arriving at Court before them, and being by their Friends there immediately introduced to _Constantius_, they prejudiced him against the Council of _Seleucia_ to such a Degree, that it was some time before he could prevail upon himself to hear the Deputies. [Sidenote: _They sign the last Confession of_ Sirmium.] However, he heard them at last, and, by threatening them with Exile if they did not comply, obliged them to sign the last Confession of _Sirmium_, which had been rejected by the Council as _Arian_[926]. In this he spent the whole Day, and great Part of the Night, preceding the First of _January_, though he was obliged to make the necessary Preparations for entering on that Day his Tenth Consulate with the usual Pomp and Solemnity[927].

[Sidenote: _The_ Arians,_in their Turn, condemn and depose the_ Semi-Arians, _and also sign the last Confession of_ Sirmium.]

In the Beginning of the Year 360. the _Anomeans_ assembling by themselves at _Constantinople_ as the _Semi-Arians_ had done at _Seleucia_, in order to ingratiate themselves with the Emperor, not only received the last _Sirmian_ Confession, but condemned all other Confessions or Symbols that had been made till then, or should be made for the future. They then declared all the Acts of the Council of _Seleucia_ void and null; and, to be even with the _Semi-Arians_, deposed, under various Pretences, such of their Party as had most contributed to the deposing of them, and even prevailed upon the Emperor to send them into Exile[928].

[Sidenote: _An Order from the Emperor injoining all Bishops to sign the_ Sirmian _Confession_.]

They did not stop here, but obtained of _Constantius_ an Order, which was published throughout the Empire, commanding all Bishops to sign the _Sirmian_ Confession, on pain of forfeiting their Dignity, and being sent into Exile[929][N18]. This Order was executed with the utmost Rigour in all the Provinces of the Empire, and very few were found, who did not sign with their Hands what they condemned in their Hearts[930]. Many, who till then had been thought invincible, were overcome, and complied with the Times; and such as did not, were driven, without Distinction, from their Sees, into Exile, and others appointed in their room, the signing of that Confession being a Qualification indispensably requisite both for obtaining and keeping the Episcopal Dignity[931]. Thus were all the Sees throughout the Empire filled with _Arians_, insomuch that in the whole East not one orthodox Bishop was left, and in the West but one, _viz._ _Gregory_ Bishop of _Elvira_ in _Andalusia_, and he, in all Likelihood, obliged to absent himself from his Flock, and lie concealed, as were probably Pope _Liberius_, and _Vincentius_ of _Capua_, if what _Theodoret_ relates of them be true, _viz._ that they never consented to the Decrees of _Rimini_[932], and thereby retrieved the Reputation they had lost, the former by signing the _Sirmian_ Confession of the Year 357. and the other by communicating with the _Arians_ in 353. as I have related above. [Sidenote: _It was probably signed by_ Liberius.] But what _Theodoret_ writes may be justly called in question; for it is not at all probable, that the Emperor, and the _Arian_ Party, so warmly bent on establishing that Confession throughout the Empire, would have suffered the Bishop of the Imperial City, of the first See, to reject it, without deposing him, as they had done the Bishops of all the other great Sees, and appointing another more compliant in his room. This could not be prevented by his concealing himself in the Caverns and Cœmeteries about _Rome_, as he is said to have done in his Acts quoted by _Baronius_[933], though he might by that means have escaped being sent into Exile. Besides, had he, instead of complying with the Emperor’s express Command, withdrawn and absconded, I cannot think that his Antagonist _Felix_, who was still alive, and had done nothing we know of to disoblige the Emperor, and the _Arian_ Party, by whom he had been formerly raised to that See, would have neglected so favourable an Opportunity of recovering his antient Dignity. If what _Theodoret_ says be true, _Gregory Nazianzen_ is highly to blame for not excepting _Liberius_; when he writ, that the Bishops either all complied, or were driven into Exile, excepting a few, who were too insignificant to be taken notice of by the Emperor, or his Ministers[934]. [Sidenote: Arianism _universally obtains_.] Be that as it will, it is certain, that at this time the _Arian_ Doctrine universally obtained; that the Face of the Church appeared quite deformed and disfigured[935], that the whole World saw itself, with Astonishment, all on a sudden become _Arian_[936]; that the Boat of St. _Peter_, to use St. _Jerom_’s Expression, tossed by furious Winds, by violent Storms, was upon the Point of sinking, and no Hopes of Safety seemed to be left[937].

-----

Footnote N18:

This Confession is called sometimes the _Confession of_ Nice _in_
Thrace, and sometimes the _Confession of_ Rimini; but it differed from
both. By the Confession of _Nice_, the Son was acknowleged to be like
to the Father, without the Addition of the Words _in all Things_,
which were an essential Part of the last Confession of _Sirmium_. In
that of _Rimini_ the Son was said _not to be a Creature like other
Creatures_, and there were no such Words in the Confession of
_Sirmium_. But by all Three the Word _Consubstantial_ was rejected,
and no other would satisfy the Orthodox, acknowleging the Son to be
_of the same Substance with the Father_. Both the _Arians_ and
_Semi-Arians_ allowed the Son to be like to the Father: but that
Likeness was by them very differently understood and interpreted. The
_Arians_ held him to be _like_ rather by Grace than by Nature, and as
like as a Creature could be to the Creator[N18.1]. The _Semi-Arians_
confessed him to be like in _Nature_, in _Existence_, in _Essence_, in
_Substance_, and in _every thing else_. But the Orthodox maintained
him to be of the _same Substance_ with the Father, and consequently of
the _same Existence_, _Essence_, &c. and, to express this _Sameness_
or _Identity_, they chose the Word _Consubstantial_.

Footnote N18.1:

Ruff. l. 1. c. 25.

-----

The following Year 361. the _Anomeans_, not fully satisfied with the Confession of Faith, which, at their Suggestion, the Emperor had taken so much Pains to establish throughout the Empire, assembled, with his Leave, at _Antioch_, and there drew up a new Symbol, or Creed, wherein it was expresly said, that _the Son was in every thing unlike to the Father_, and that _He was made out of nothing_. [Sidenote: Constantius _designs to establish the Doctrine of the_ Pure Arians;] _Constantius_ had formerly expressed the greatest Abhorrence to this Doctrine, and had even banished those who held, and refused to anathematize, such _impious Blasphemies_, as he then styled them[938]. But, having lately changed his Opinion, which was chiefly owing to the great Influence the Eunuch _Eusebius_ had over him, he was now no less sanguine for the _Unlikeness_ of the Son to the Father, than he had been hitherto for the _Likeness_[939]. In order therefore to abolish the antient, and establish this new Creed in its room, he appointed a Council to meet at _Nice_ in _Bithynia_[940], which, without all Doubt, he would have treated in the same manner as he had done that of _Rimini_. [Sidenote: _but is prevented by Death_.] But, as the Bishops were preparing to set out for the appointed Place, they were stopped by the sudden and unexpected News of the Emperor’s Death, which put an End to all his Councils, and was heard with equal Joy by those of the _Orthodox_ and _Semi-Arian_ Party. He was succeeded by _Julian_, surnamed the _Apostate_, who immediately recalled all those who had been banished by _Constantius_ on account of their Religion[941]. [Sidenote: _The exiled Bishops recalled by_ Julian.] Whatever was his Motive, the Church reaped great Advantages from the Return of so many eminent Prelates, who, in the worst of Times, had, with an invincible Firmness and Constancy, stood up in her Defence. Among the rest returned, on this Occasion, the famous _Meletius_ Bishop of _Antioch_, _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, _Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_, who had been all Three confined to the most distant Parts of _Thebais_ in _Egypt_, _Cyril_ of _Jerusalem_, _Pelagius_ of _Laodicea_ in _Phœnicia_, and, to the inexpressible Joy of the Orthodox Party, their great Champion _Athanasius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_[942], who immediately resumed, undisturbed, his Episcopal Function; _George_, the Usurper of his See, having been assassinated a little while before by the Pagans of _Alexandria_, on account of his Avarice and Cruelty[943]. In other Places the Orthodox Bishops, finding the _Arians_ in Possession of their Sees, contented themselves with being acknowleged by those of their Communion, without attempting to drive out their Antagonists, which would have created great Confusion, and endless Disturbances in the Church. _Julian_ refused to interpose his Authority in favour of either Party, saying, that as he was not so well acquainted with the Nature of their Disputes as a just and impartial Judge ought to be, he hoped they would excuse him, lest he should be guilty of some Injustice, and settle Matters of such Importance among themselves. _Athanasius_ entered _Alexandria_ in a kind of Triumph, which is described in a lively manner by _Gregory Nazianzen_, who seems to have pleased himself with displaying, in that Description, all the Eloquence he was Master of[944].

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Alexandria.]

The Bishop of _Alexandria_ being thus reinstated, and again at full Liberty to exert his Zeal for the Catholic Cause, his first Care was to retrieve his fallen Brethren, and reunite them to the Church. With this View he assembled, in 362. a Council at _Alexandria_, composed only of Confessors, that is, of such Bishops as had chosen rather to forfeit their Dignities and Sees, than receive or sign the _Arian_ Confession of _Rimini_ or _Sirmium_. This was one of the most respectable Councils that was ever held in the Church, not so much in regard of the Numbers (for I find not above Twenty named) as of the Merit, Virtue, and Sanctity of the Members that composed it. The chief Subject of their Debates, or rather Inquiries, was to find out the most proper Means of restoring Tranquillity to the Church, after so dreadful a Storm. Some, and among the rest _Lucifer_ Bishop of _Cagliari_, who did not assist in Person, but by his Deputies, the Two Deacons _Herennius_ and _Agapetus_, were for deposing all those who had signed the Confession of _Rimini_, and cutting them off from the Communion of the Church. But this unseasonable Severity was condemned by the far greater Part, as tending to raise a new Storm, and involve the Church in greater Troubles than ever, which the Emperor _Julian_ would take care to improve, to the total Ruin of the Christian Religion. _Athanasius_ therefore was for using Severity only with the Authors, and chief Promoters, of the late general Defection: and his Opinion prevailed; for a Decree was enacted, importing, that the Authors of the late general Prevarication should, even upon their Repentance, be received to the Communion of the Church only in the Capacity of Laymen, but that the rest should be all kept in, or restored to, their Sees, upon their publicly renouncing the _Arian_ Communion, and embracing the Faith of _Nice_[945]. [Sidenote: _A Schism formed by_ Lucifer, _Bishop of_ Cagliari.] This Decree was every-where received with the greatest Joy, the Bishop of _Cagliari_ being the only Man, either in the East or West, who opposed it, and that with so much Obstinacy, that, rather than yield, he chose to separate himself from the Communion of the rest, and to form a new Schism, which bore his Name, and soon gained a considerable Footing, especially in the West; several Persons no less distinguished for Piety than Learning, and among the rest _Gregory_, the famous Bishop of _Elvira_, having adopted the Sentiments of a Man, who had suffered so much for the Purity of the Faith. As _Lucifer_ is honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint, and his Festival is kept on the 20th of _May_[946], _Baronius_ pretends, that he abandoned his Schism, and returned to the Communion of the Church, before his Death[947]. [Sidenote: _He never returned to the Communion of the Church._] But his Contemporary _Ruffinus_, who probably knew him, assures us, that he died in the Schism, which he had formed[948]. _Jerom_ often speaks of his Schism, but no-where gives us the least Hint of his having ever quitted it; which would have afforded him a strong Argument against the _Luciferians_, and he would not have failed to urge it, in the Book which he wrote to convince them of their Error. That Writer speaks of _Lucifer_, on all Occasions, with the greatest Respect, even in the Book which he writ against his Followers: he owns, that his Intention was pure and upright; that it was not Pride, Thirst after Glory, or a Desire of transmitting his Name to Posterity, but a mistaken Zeal, that led him astray, and made him disapprove what the others approved; he even distinguishes him with the Title of the _Blessed Lucifer_[949]. And hence _Baronius_ concludes, that he returned to the Communion of the Church; for otherwise, says the Annalist[950], St. _Jerom_ had never given him the Title of _Blessed_, or _Saint_. But that he did not return, is manifest, from the Silence of St. _Jerom_ on that Head, and from the Authority of a contemporary Writer quoted above: and hence I may draw a Conclusion far better grounded than that of _Baronius_; _viz._ that St. _Jerom_ excused him on account of his good Intention; and, consequently, that he did not hold the uncharitable Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, excluding from Salvation all who die out of her Communion, let their Intention be never so good. It is to be observed, that the _Luciferians_ not only excluded from their Communion those who had received the _Arian_ Confession, but all who communicated with them, even after they had anathematized that Confession, and publicly embraced the Faith of _Nice_.

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Alexandria _saves the Church from Ruin_.]

The Resolution taken by the Confessors in the Council of _Alexandria_, is said to have saved the Church from utter Ruin. For had that prevailed, which was urged with so much Warmth by _Lucifer_, the Bishops, who had chosen rather to sign the _Arian_ Confession than forfeit their Sees, would have kept them in Defiance of a Decree made by a small Number of their Collegues, and in all Likelihood excommunicated and deposed, in their Turn, those who had excommunicated and deposed them: and, in that Case, the _Arian_ Party, comprehending almost all the Bishops of the Church, must have prevailed. But as nothing was required of them, to keep their Sees, besides their renouncing the Confession of _Rimini_, which they had embraced, and embracing that of _Nice_, which they had renounced, they readily complied with the Decree of the Council; insomuch that the following Year 363. _Athanasius_, in a Letter, which he wrote to the Emperor _Jovian_, immediately after the Death of _Julian_, could assure that Prince, that the Faith of _Nice_ had been received, and was professed, in all the Provinces of the Empire, which he enumerates; but omits those of _Thrace_, _Bithynia_, and the _Hellespont_[951], the Bishops there still continuing obstinately to maintain the Doctrine of _Arius_, and to reject the Faith of _Nice_, as we learn from _Sozomen_[952], _Socrates_[953], and _Basil_[954]; nay, at _Constantinople_, the Orthodox had but a small Chapel to assemble in, all the Churches being in Possession of the _Arians_, under _Eudoxius_, a leading Man among the _Pure Arians_, who had usurped that See[955]. [Sidenote: _The Faith of_ Nice _everywhere established_.] For the better establishing of the Orthodox Faith, after the violent Shock it had lately received, Councils were held in several Provinces of the Empire[N19], and by all was received the Faith of _Nice_, the Confession of _Rimini_ condemned, and the Words _Substance_ and _Consubstantial_ re-established[956]. A very strong Proof, that the Assent given before to the _Arian_ Doctrines had been solely the Effect of Force, or of Interest, which being now removed, and all left at Liberty to act as their Consciences only directed, the Orthodox Faith prevailed as much as the other had done under _Constantius_.

-----

Footnote N19:

The Bishops of _Gaul_ assembled at _Paris_ in 362. and, having first
owned their Crime, in approving and signing the Confession of
_Rimini_, they acknowleged the Three Persons of the Trinity to be of
the same Nature and Substance, and condemned _Ursacius_, _Valens_, and
_Auxentius_ the _Arian_ Bishop of _Milan_. This Council was convened
by St. _Hilarius_, Bishop of _Poitiers_; and a Letter, which the
Council writ on this Occasion, has been transmitted to us, among the
Fragments of his Works. He is said to have assembled several other
Councils in _Gaul_, for the re-establishing of the Faith of _Nice_,
which is all we know of them. The same Year 362. the Bishops of
_Italy_ assembling, declared void and null the Acts of the Council of
_Rimini_, embraced the Faith of _Nice_, and, with one Accord,
anathematized _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, as the leading Men of the
_Arian_ Party. There is, among the Fragments of St. _Hilarius_, a
Letter on this Subject, from the _Italian_ to the _Illyrian_ Bishops.
Where this Council was held I find no-where recorded. In the Year 363.
the Emperor _Jovian_ desiring to be instructed in the Faith of the
Catholic Church, by _Athanasius_ and the _Egyptian_ Bishops, who were
come to wait on him, they assembled in Council, and agreed to propose
no other Creed to him but that of _Nice_. At the same time they
condemned the Heresy of _Macedonius_, denying the Divinity of the Holy
Ghost. This Council is generally thought to have been held at
_Alexandria_. But, from the Letter, which they presented to the
Emperor, it appears to have consisted of some _Egyptian_ Bishops, who,
as it is there said, were appointed to represent all the others of the
same Province[N19.1]. Had the Council been held at _Alexandria_, they
had, I should think, been all present. It must therefore have
assembled in some Place out of _Egypt_; and where more likely than at
_Antioch_? For there the Emperor was this very Year, and there
_Athanasius_ waited on him. The same Year another Council was held at
_Antioch_, under _Melecius_ Bishop of that City. In that Council
_Acacius_, Bishop of _Cæsarea_ in _Pælestine_, who had been at the
Head of the _Arian_ Party, in the Latter-end of the Reign of
_Constantius_, and his Followers, commonly styled _Acacians_, embraced
the Faith of _Nice_, and admitted the Term _Consubstantial_. _Acacius_
had no other Faith but that of the Party which prevailed. Hence, in
the Time of _Jovian_, who favoured the Orthodox Party, he professed
the Faith of _Nice_; but Two Years after he had signed it, he joined
the _Arians_ anew, seeing them in great Favour with the Emperor
_Valens_. Several other Councils were held, from the Year 363. to 368.
of which we have no particular Account. For _Athanasius_ tells us, in
general Terms, that many Councils assembled in _France_, in _Spain_,
at _Rome_, in _Dalmatia_, in _Dardania_, in _Macedonia_, in _Epirus_,
in _Greece_, in _Candia_, and the other Islands, in _Sicily_, in
_Cyprus_, in _Lycia_, in _Isauria_, in _Egypt_, and in _Arabia_; and
that they all met to maintain the Orthodox Faith, the Faith of the
Council of _Nice_[N19.2]. In his Letter to the Emperor _Jovian_ he
assures him, that the Symbol of _Nice_ was received in the
above-mentioned Provinces, and besides, in _Britain_, in _Africa_, in
_Pamphylia_, in _Libya_, in _Pontus_, in _Cappadocia_, and in the
East, that is, in the Patriarchate of _Antioch_[N19.3]. But in the
Provinces of _Thrace_, of _Bithynia_, and the _Hellespont_, the
_Semi-Arians_ prevailed, till they were overpowered by the _Arians_,
strongly supported by the Emperor _Valens_, a most zealous Defender of
_Arianism_.

Footnote N19.1:

Theod. l. 4. c. 3.

Footnote N19.2:

Athan. de Afr. & ad Epict.

Footnote N19.3:

Id. ad Jov.

-----

[Sidenote: _A Council convened by the_ Semi-Arians.]

As every one was allowed by _Julian_ to believe what he pleased, and to own his Belief, whatever it was, the _Semi-Arians_ convened a Council, soon after the Death of _Constantius_, who, in the Latter-end of his Life, had begun to persecute them as much as he had favoured them before. This Council was composed of those chiefly who had assisted at that of _Seleucia_, of which I have spoken above; and they all agreed to condemn and anathematize the Doctrine of the _Pure Arians_, with the Confession of _Rimini_, and to sign anew the Confession of _Antioch_, establishing a Likeness in Substance between the Son and the Father. Thus they pretended to keep a due Mean between the Two opposite Extremes, of the Western Bishops, whose _Consubstantiality_, they said, left no room for the Distinction of Persons; and of the _Pure Arians_, who denied all Likeness[957]. [Sidenote: _The Sect of the_ Macedonians.] It was after this Council that the _Semi-Arians_, separating themselves from the Communion of the _Pure Arians_, began to form a distinct Sect, and to be called _Macedonians_; which Name was given them from _Macedonius_, late Bishop of _Constantinople_, but deposed by the _Pure Arians_, in the Council they held in that City in 360. to make room for their great Champion _Eudoxius_, translated formerly from _Germanicia_ to _Antioch_, and now from _Antioch_ to _Constantinople_. They were also named _Marathonians_, from _Marathonius_, Bishop of _Nicomedia_, who, together with _Macedonius_, was at the Head of the Party; and _Pneumatomachi_, that is, Enemies to the Holy Ghost, whose Divinity they denied, which was their chief, if not their only Error; for some are of Opinion, that tho’ they rejected the Word _Consubstantial_, yet they agreed with the Orthodox in the Meaning of it. They led very regular, austere, and edifying Lives; and are, on that Score, highly commended and extolled by _Gregory Nazianzen_[958]. No Wonder therefore, that they soon spread all over the East, and gained every-where great Numbers of Followers. At _Constantinople_, and in the neighbouring Cities and Provinces, they were followed not only by the greater Part of the People, but by some Persons of Distinction, by such as were most remarkable for their Piety, by intire Monasteries, both of Men and Women[959]. The Inhabitants of _Cyzicus_ in the _Propontis_ were almost all of this Sect, and we are told of some Miracles wrought by a _Macedonian_ of that Place[960], which _Baronius_ will not allow, though as well attested as any he relates.

[Sidenote: _They are persecuted by the Emperor_ Valens.]

The Emperor _Valens_, who reigned in the East, which had been yielded to him by his Brother _Valentinian_, when he took him for his Collegue in the Empire, spared no Pains to reconcile this Sect with that of the _Arians_, which he greatly favoured. But, finding them no less averse to the _Arians_ than the Orthodox themselves, he began in the Year 366. to persecute them with great Cruelty. To avoid this Persecution they resolved to recur to the Emperor _Valentinian_, and, embracing the Faith professed by him and the Western Bishops, to put themselves under his Protection. Accordingly they dispatched Three of their Body, _viz._ _Eustathius_ Bishop of _Sebaste_, _Sylvanus_ of _Tarsus_, and _Theophilus_ of _Castabala_, to acquaint the Emperor, in the Name of the rest, with the Resolution they had taken, and implore his Protection[961]. These, being informed, on their Arrival in _Italy_, that _Valentinian_ was waging War with the Barbarians on the Borders of _Gaul_, instead of repairing to him, which they apprehended might be attended with no small Danger, went strait to _Rome_, and there delivered to _Liberius_ Letters from their Brethren, directed to him, and to the other Bishops of the West, whom they earnestly intreated to use their Interest with the Emperor, in their Behalf, assuring them, that they sincerely renounced the Errors they had hitherto held, and embraced the Catholic Faith, as explained and defined by the Council of _Nice_[962]. [Sidenote: _Deliver to_ Liberius _their Confession of Faith_;] But _Liberius_, notwithstanding these Assurances, suspected their Sincerity; and therefore could not, by any means, be prevailed upon to communicate with them, or even to hear them, till they had delivered to him a Confession of Faith, under their Hand, and in the Name of the whole Party, wherein they anathematized those of _Rimini_, and _Nice_ in _Bithynia_; condemned the Heresy of _Arius_, with all other Heresies; and received the Definitions of the Council of _Nice_, those particularly that related to _Consubstantiality_. To this Confession they added a solemn Protestation, declaring themselves ready to submit to the Sentence of such Judges as the Pope should think fit to appoint, should they, or those by whom they had been sent, be ever for the future accused or suspected of swerving in the least from the Faith they now embraced and professed[963]. [Sidenote: _who admits them to his Communion_.] In virtue of this Confession, whereof the Original was carefully lodged in the Archives of the Church of _Rome_, _Liberius_ admitted the Deputies to his Communion; and, upon their Departure, writ, in the Name of all the Bishops of _Italy_, and the West, to the _Macedonian_ Bishops, of whom he names 59, signifying the great Joy, which their Letters, and the Confession of Faith, signed by their Deputies, had occasioned at _Rome_, and in all the Western Churches, since by such a Confession they were all again happily united in one Faith. In this Letter _Liberius_ assures them, that all the Bishops, who had assisted at the Council of _Rimini_, had retracted the Doctrine, which they had been forced to sign there; and were more than ever incensed against the _Arians_, on account of the Violence, which, at their Instigation, had been offered them[964]. The _Macedonians_ admitted the Divinity of the Son, but denied that of the Holy Ghost; nay, this was their favourite Doctrine, and, as it were, the Characteristic of their Sect; but _Liberius_, and the other Western Bishops, not suspecting them of such an Error, which in all Likelihood they had not yet publicly owned, admitted them to their Communion, without examining them on that Head.

[Sidenote: Liberius _dies_.]

_Liberius_ died soon after, that is, on the 23d or 24th of _September_, of the present Year 366. as we are told by _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, whose Authority is preferable to that of any other, since, at this very time, they lived at _Rome_[965]. He had been chosen on the 22d of _May_ 352. so that he governed the Church of _Rome_ Fourteen Years, Four Months, and a Day or Two. [Sidenote: _The deplorable Condition of the Church in his Time._] _Liberius_ lived in troublesome Times, the worst the Church had ever yet seen. She had Two dangerous Enemies to contend with at the same time, the Power of the Prince then on the Imperial Throne, and the Craft of a most subtle and deceitful Party. The Prince employed all his Power to overcome, with Oppression, those whom the Party could not over-reach with their Craft; and the Party to over-reach with their Craft such as the Prince could not overcome with Oppression. On the other hand, the Prelates, even some who were reputed the Pillars of the Church, seemed to have lost that Zeal, Firmness, and Intrepidity, which they had so gloriously exerted under the Pagan Princes, and few were found among them, whose Virtue was proof against the Loss of their Dignity, or Exile. Hence the Defection became general, and the Orthodox Party was brought so low, that it must have been utterly quashed, had _Constantius_ lived a few Years longer. But Providence interposed; _Constantius_ died while he was pursuing his Scheme with the greatest Success; and _Julian_, his Successor, by betraying an equal Hatred and Aversion to Christians of all Denominations, obliged them to forget their Quarrels among themselves, to lay aside their Animosity against each other, and to unite in their mutual Defence against him, as a common Enemy. _Jovian_, who succeeded him, proved no less favourable to the Orthodox, than _Constantius_ had been to the _Arians_. Many therefore of the latter, and among the rest _Acacius_, who was at the Head of the _Pure Arians_, to gain the Favour of the Emperor, publicly renounced the Doctrine of _Arius_, and embraced that of _Nice_. _Jovian_, after a short Reign of Seven Months and Twenty Days, was succeeded by _Valentinian_, who continued to countenance the Orthodox, as his Predecessor had done, though he did not use the _Arians_ with that Rigour which some Zealots expected from a Confessor, which Title he had deserved under _Julian_. However, as he professed the Orthodox Faith, that Party universally prevailed; insomuch that, in a very short time, no Traces of _Arianism_ were left in the West, except at _Milan_, under the _Arian_ Bishop _Auxentius_, and in a few Cities of _Illyricum_, where it was kept up by _Ursacius_, _Valens_, _Germinius_, and their Disciples, till the following Century, when it was every-where re-established there by the _Goths_.

[Sidenote: _By whom_ Arianism _was banished out of the West_.]

_Baronius_ ascribes to _Liberius_ the banishing of _Arianism_ out of the West, and the establishing of the Orthodox Faith in its room; but that Glory was owing, according to _Ruffinus_, to _Hilarius_ of _Poitiers_, and _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, who, like the Two great Luminaries of the Universe, to use his Words, enlightened with their Rays _Illyricum_, _Gaul_, and _Italy_, dispelling every-where the Darkness of Heresy[966]. He minutely describes the great Success that attended them, with the Difficulties and Obstructions they met with in so pious and commendable an Undertaking[967]. But, as for _Liberius_, he does not so much as mention him. And truly, from the Year 357. in which he fell, to his admitting the _Macedonians_ to his Communion in 366. which was the last of his Life, the only thing I find recorded of him in the Antients, is his writing a Letter to the Catholic Bishops of _Italy_, wherein he exhorts them to atone for their past Conduct by renouncing the Errors of the _Arians_, and receiving anew the Symbol of _Nice_. He adds, that as this is the only Atonement, which it has been thought proper to require of them, they ought to exert their Zeal against the Authors of the Fault they committed, in proportion to the Grief they must feel for committing it[968]. This Letter has been transmitted to us among the Fragments of _Hilarius_. [Sidenote: _Neither_ Vincentius _of_ Capua, _nor_ Liberius, _assisted at the Council of_ Rimini.] It is hard to guess what could induce _Baronius_ to write so confidently as he does, that _Vincentius_ of _Capua_ assisted at the Council of _Rimini_ with the Character of the Pope’s Legate[969]. In what antient Author did he find the least Intimation or distant Hint of such a Legation? _Vincentius_ of _Capua_, though a Person of great Eminency, is not even mentioned by any of the contemporary Writers, who relate the Transactions of that Council, and name the chief Prelates who composed it. 'Tis true we read of him, in one Author, that he never consented to the Confession of _Rimini_[970]: but that is said of _Liberius_ too[971], whom _Baronius_ owns not to have been present at that Assembly.

[Sidenote: Liberius _is honoured as a Saint_.]

_Liberius_, notwithstanding his Fall, is honoured both by the _Latin_ and _Greek_ Churches as a Saint. By the former his Festival is kept on the 23d of _September_, and by the latter on the 27th of _August_[972]. [Sidenote: _The Founding of the Church of_ St. Mary the Greater.] He erected a Church on the _Esquiline_ Mount at _Rome_, which bore his Name, and was called the _Basilic_ of Liberius, till it was consecrated to the Virgin _Mary_ by _Sixtus_ III. when it took the Name of _Sancta Maria Major_, or _Saint Mary the Greater_. It owes its Foundation, as is universally believed in the Church of _Rome_, to the following Miracle. A _Roman_ of the Patrician Order, and of Wealth equal to his Rank, named _John_, having no Children, resolved to make a free Gift of his whole Estate to the Virgin _Mary_. This Resolution he imparted to his Wife, who consenting to it with great Alacrity, the Estate was immediately made over to the holy Virgin, whom they thenceforth jointly intreated, in their daily Prayers, to let them know by some Token in what Manner she chose to dispose of it. Their Prayers were heard, and, on the Night preceding the 5th of _August_, when the Heat is most violent at _Rome_, a miraculous Snow fell from Heaven, which covered Part of the _Esquiline_ Mount. The same Night the Patrician and his Wife were admonished in a Dream to build a Church on the Spot of Ground which they should find covered with Snow. Early next Morning they went to acquaint Pope _Liberius_ with what had happened, whom they found to have had the same Dream; so that no room being now left to doubt of the Revelation, the Pope appointed a grand Procession of the whole Clergy, in which he walked himself, attended by Crouds of People, to the above-mentioned Mount; and there, having caused the Snow, which still lay unmelted, to be removed, on the Spot, which it had covered, he laid the Foundation of that magnificent Basilic, which was reared at the Expence of the Patrician, and is now known by the Name of _Saint Mary the Greater_, and _Saint Mary in the Snow_[973]. I should not have thought such an idle Tale worthy of a Place in a grave History, were it not recorded in the most authentic Book the Church of _Rome_ has after the Scripture, the _Roman Breviary_, a Book approved and commended by the Council of _Trent_, and by the special Bulls of Three Popes, _Pius_ V. _Clement_ VIII. and _Urban_ VIII. of whom the latter declares every thing it contains to be extracted from antient and approved Authors, and to be agreeable to Truth[974]. So that it would be less dangerous, at least in _Italy_, to deny any Truth revealed in the Scripture, than to question any Fable related in the _Breviary_. The Feast of _the Snow_, or _St. Mary in the Snow_, is kept annually at _Rome_, on the 5th of _August_, with the greatest Solemnity. The College of Cardinals assists that Day at Divine Service in the Church of _Saint Mary the Greater_; and the Pope, if not indisposed, or otherwise prevented, officiates in Person: the _Primicerio_, or Dean of that Church, reads the Account, which I have delivered above; and, that nothing may be wanting to complete the Farce, Numbers of Children are employed, during the Service, to drop Jessamins from the Gallery on the Congregation, in Remembrance and Imitation of the miraculous Snow. And truly by Children alone such Fables are proper to be acted and believed.

[Sidenote: _The Writings of_ Liberius.]

Several Pieces have reached our Times, which were either written by, or have been falsly ascribed to, _Liberius_. Among the former are, his Letter in Answer to the _Macedonian_ Bishops; another to the Catholic Bishops of _Italy_; which have been both mentioned above; and a Discourse, which he pronounced on _Christmas-day_ in the Church of St. _Peter_, on Occasion of his giving the sacred Veil to _Marcellina_ the Sister of St. _Ambrose_ when she embraced the State of Virginity. This Discourse St. _Ambrose_ has inserted in his Third Book on Virgins, but in his own Style, which is very different from that of _Liberius_, who had not the Gift of Eloquence[975]. [Sidenote: _Writings falsly ascribed to him._] Among the Pieces falsly ascribed to _Liberius_, most Men of Learning reckon the Confession of Faith, written in _Greek_, which he is supposed to have sent to _Athanasius_. This Piece _Baronius_ will, by all means, have to be genuine; and the Use he makes of it is somewhat extraordinary. The Council of _Alexandria_, to which the Church owed her Safety, was convened by _Athanasius_, upon his Return from Exile, as I have related above. By that small Assembly, consisting only of Confessors, was enacted the famous Decree with respect to those, who had communicated with the _Arians_, and signed the Confession of _Rimini_. To that Decree the whole Church readily conformed; so that the Honour of saving the Church was chiefly owing to _Athanasius_, and wholly to him and the other Confessors. Of _Liberius_ not the least Mention is made; so that he had no Share in that Glory. [Sidenote: _Strange Conjectures of_ Baronius.] The _Annalist_ therefore, not being able to bring in his Sovereign Pontiff upon the Authority of any Records now extant, has recourse to those that probably never were; or, if they ever were, are now no more. He supposes Part of the above-mentioned Confession of Faith, sent by _Liberius_ to _Athanasius_, to be wanting; and _Liberius_, in the Part that is wanting, to have impowered _Athanasius_ to convene a Council, and to have appointed _Eusebius_ of _Vercelli_, and _Lucifer_ of _Cagliari_, to assist at that Council with the Character of his Legates. Such wild and extravagant Suppositions require a very strong Proof to support them, some plausible Conjectures at least to give them an Appearance of Truth. But that we must not expect of _Baronius_. The only Argument, if it may be so called, which he pretends to offer on this Occasion, is, that he cannot conceive _Athanasius_, and the other holy Confessors, would have taken upon them to act as they did, and enact a Decree extending to the whole Church, had they not received such a Power from him, to whom all Power was given[976], meaning the Pope. The other Pieces, falsly ascribed to _Liberius_, are another Letter to _Athanasius_, and one to all the Catholic Bishops; which are both reputed supposititious, being dated by Consuls who never existed.

-----

Footnote 717:

Buch. cycl. p. 273.

Footnote 718:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 41.

Footnote 719:

Ath. ad Solit. p. 828. & Apol. 2. p. 674. Theod. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 720:

Hil. frag. 1. p. 36. 40.

Footnote 721:

Idem ib.

Footnote 722:

Idem ib.

Footnote 723:

Idem ib.

Footnote 724:

Bar. ad ann. 352. n. 12-20.

Footnote 725:

Hil. p. 1327. & Athan. vit. p. 51.

Footnote 726:

Ath. ad Solit. p. 829. Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159. Hil. frag. 2. p. 41.
47.

Footnote 727:

Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159.

Footnote 728:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 42. Ath. ap. 1. p. 691. Theod. l. 2. c. 17.

Footnote 729:

Hil. frag. 1. p. 6. & in Cons. l. 2. p. 119. Sulp. Sever. p. 157. Ath.
in Ar. or. 1. p. 291. ad Solit. p. 831. de fug. 703.

Footnote 730:

Sulp. Sever. p. 469. Hier. chron.

Footnote 731:

Bar. in martyr. 31. Aug.

Footnote 732:

Hil. frag. 47.

Footnote 733:

Id. ib.

Footnote 734:

Id. ib. p. 39. 43.

Footnote 735:

Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 159. Hil. frag. 2. p. 43. Athan. ad Solit. p.
846.

Footnote 736:

Soz. p. 546, 547. Socr. l. 2. c. 36.

Footnote 737:

Athan. ad Sol. p. 838.

Footnote 738:

Ruff. l. 1. c. 20.

Footnote 739:

Athan. ad Solit. p. 834, 835. Ammian. l. 15. p. 47. Theod. l. 2. c.
13. & l. 15. p. 38. 41. 47.

Footnote 740:

Athan. & Theod. ib.

Footnote 741:

Athan. in Ar. or. 1. p. 290. Marcell. & Faustin. lib. prec. ad Theod.
p. 30.

Footnote 742:

Theod. l. 2. c. 13.

Footnote 743:

Id. ib.

Footnote 744:

Theod. l. 1. c. 13.

Footnote 745:

Id. ib.

Footnote 746:

Id. ib & Athan. ad Solit. p. 835.

Footnote 747:

Theod. l. 2. c. 13. Soz. l. 4. c. 11.

Footnote 748:

Marc. & Faust. &c. p. 3. Hier. chron.

Footnote 749:

Athan. ad Solit. p. 861. Ruff. l. 1. c. 22.

Footnote 750:

Ath. ib. Hier. ep. 98. Soz. l. 4. c. 24. Socr. l. 2. c. 37.

Footnote 751:

Soz. l. 4. c. 15.

Footnote 752:

Hier. chron. Marc. & Faust. p. 3.

Footnote 753:

Athan. ib. Theod. l. 2. c. 14. Ammian. l. 16. p. 72.

Footnote 754:

Ammian. l. 16. p. 69. 72. Idat. chron. Alex.

Footnote 755:

Theod. l. 2. c. 14. Soz. l. 4. c. 15.

Footnote 756:

Amm. l. 16.

Footnote 757:

Theod. ib.

Footnote 758:

Sulp. Sever. l. 2. p. 160.

Footnote 759:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 27.

Footnote 760:

Soz. l. 4. c. 11.

Footnote 761:

Idem ib.

Footnote 762:

Ath. ad Solit. p. 837.

Footnote 763:

Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 41.

Footnote 764:

Hil. frag. 1. p. 48. Hier. vir. il. c. 97.

Footnote 765:

Hil. ib.

Footnote 766:

Idem ib. p. 49.

Footnote 767:

Idem ib. p. 47, 48.

Footnote 768:

Idem ib.

Footnote 769:

Idem ib. p. 49.

Footnote 770:

Idem ib. p. 51.

Footnote 771:

Soz. l. 4. c. 15.

Footnote 772:

Idem ib.

Footnote 773:

Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 46.

Footnote 774:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 97. & in chron.

Footnote 775:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 776:

Athan. ad Solit.

Footnote 777:

Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 9.

Footnote 778:

Soz. l. 4. c. 15.

Footnote 779:

Idem ib.

Footnote 780:

Hier. chron. Mar. & Faust. p. 4.

Footnote 781:

Idem ib.

Footnote 782:

Socr. l. 2. c. 37.

Footnote 783:

Anast. c. 37. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 31.

Footnote 784:

Theod. l. 2. c. 13. Philg. l. 4. c. 3.

Footnote 785:

Soz. l. 4. c. 15.

Footnote 786:

Marc. & Faust. p. 4.

Footnote 787:

Socrat. l. 2. c. 37.

Footnote 788:

Athan. ad Solit. p. 861.

Footnote 789:

Vide Bolland. Apr. t. 1. p. 31.

Footnote 790:

MS. p. 219.

Footnote 791:

Anast. c. 37. p. 22.

Footnote 792:

Idem ib. p. 21.

Footnote 793:

Leuchesini de infall. sed. Rom. p. 97. Rossi vicario di Cristo, p. 72.

Footnote 794:

Bar. ad ann. 557. n. 63.

Footnote 795:

Idem ib.

Footnote 796:

Id. ib. n. 64.

Footnote 797:

Id. ib.

Footnote 798:

Marcell. & Faust. p. 4.

Footnote 799:

Athan. de syn. p. 907.

Footnote 800:

Philost. i. 6. c. 6.

Footnote 801:

Chron. Alex. p. 684.

Footnote 802:

Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 65.

Footnote 803:

Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 9.

Footnote 804:

Theodoret. p. 610.

Footnote 805:

Athan. ad Solit. p. 861.

Footnote 806:

Bell. ibid.

Footnote 807:

Lab. chron.

Footnote 808:

Bona, lit. l. 2. c. 11. p. 423.

Footnote 809:

Vide p. 78.

Footnote 810:

Lab. ibid.

Footnote 811:

Athan. ad Sol. p. 838.

Footnote 812:

Soz. l. 1. c. 16.

Footnote 813:

Id. ib.

Footnote 814:

Athan. ad Sol. p. 841.

Footnote 815:

Theod. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 816:

Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 63.

Footnote 817:

Concil. tom. 1. p. 969.

Footnote 818:

Ath. ad Sol. p. 838. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 63.

Footnote 819:

Ath. ib. apol. 2. p. 760. & alibi.

Footnote 820:

Euseb. ib. Socr. l. 1. c. 7.

Footnote 821:

Euseb. ib. l. 1. c. 7.

Footnote 822:

Zos. l. 2. p. 435.

Footnote 823:

Marc. & Faust. p. 34.

Footnote 824:

Ath. de fug. p. 704.

Footnote 825:

Aug. in Parm. l. 1. c. 8.

Footnote 826:

Euseb. vit. Const. l. 2. c. 73.

Footnote 827:

Socr. l. 1. c. 8.

Footnote 828:

Sulp. l. 2. c. 55. Theod. l. 2. c. 12.

Footnote 829:

Athan. fug. p. 703.

Footnote 830:

Athan. ad Sol. p. 837.

Footnote 831:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 16.

Footnote 832:

Ath. ad Sol. p. 837-841.

Footnote 833:

Id. ib. p. 838.

Footnote 834:

Id. ib. p. 838-840.

Footnote 835:

Athan. ib. p. 841. Sulp. l. 2. p. 162. Socr. l. 2. c. 31.

Footnote 836:

Ath. de fug. p. 704. Apol. 2. p. 807.

Footnote 837:

Id. ib. Socr. p. 127.

Footnote 838:

Ath. ad Sol. p. 841.

Footnote 839:

Ath. de fug. p. 704. & apol. 2. p. 807.

Footnote 840:

Id. ad Sol. p. 841.

Footnote 841:

Sulp. l. 2. p. 161, 162.

Footnote 842:

Ath. ad Sol. p. 841.

Footnote 843:

Phœbad. contr. Arian. p. 180.

Footnote 844:

Mar. & Faust. p. 34.

Footnote 845:

Hil. de syn. p. 124, 125. 133.

Footnote 846:

Vigil. in Eutychian. l. 5. n. 3.

Footnote 847:

Socr. l. 2. c. 31.

Footnote 848:

Soz. l. 4. c. 12.

Footnote 849:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 4.

Footnote 850:

Marcell. & Faust. p. 34.

Footnote 851:

Phœbad. p. 169.

Footnote 852:

Id. p. 180. Soz. l. 4. c. 12.

Footnote 853:

Sulp. l. 2. p. 161, 162.

Footnote 854:

Soz. ib.

Footnote 855:

Phœbad. p. 180.

Footnote 856:

Hil. syn. p. 133.

Footnote 857:

Idem ib. p. 137.

Footnote 858:

Ath. ad Sol. p. 141. & 842.

Footnote 859:

Idem ib.

Footnote 860:

Idem de frag. p. 704. & apol. 2. p. 807.

Footnote 861:

Vide Isidor. de vir. ill. in Osio, c. 1.

Footnote 862:

Menæa, p. 293.

Footnote 863:

Soz. l. 4. c. 16. & l. 3. c. 19. Ath. de syn. p. 873.

Footnote 864:

Greg. Nyss. de facto, p. 75.

Footnote 865:

Soz. ib.

Footnote 866:

Philost. l. 4. c. 20.

Footnote 867:

Soz. ib.

Footnote 868:

Theodor. l. 1. c. 22.

Footnote 869:

Soz. l. 4. c. 16. Ath. de syn. p. 869.

Footnote 870:

Ath. de syn. p. 870.

Footnote 871:

Ath. de syn. p. 873, 874. Soz. l. 4. c. 16.

Footnote 872:

Idem ib. & c. 17.

Footnote 873:

Soz. l. 4. c. 24.

Footnote 874:

Theod. l. 2. c. 21.

Footnote 875:

Socr. l. 2. c. 39. Soz. l. 4. c. 16.

Footnote 876:

Hil. de syn. p. 24.

Footnote 877:

Sulp. l. 2. p. 164.

Footnote 878:

Ath. de syn. p. 870.

Footnote 879:

Ammian. l. 21. p. 203.

Footnote 880:

Sulp. l. 4. c. 17.

Footnote 881:

Ath. de syn. p. 874. Sulp. l. 2. p. 162. Soz. p. 563.

Footnote 882:

Hier. p. 143. Sulp. p. 162.

Footnote 883:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 43, 44.

Footnote 884:

Idem ib. p. 46.

Footnote 885:

Ath. de syn. p. 876. Hil. frag. 1. p. 44. Epiph. hæres. 73. c. 22.

Footnote 886:

Hil. & Epiph. ib.

Footnote 887:

Idem ib.

Footnote 888:

Ath. de syn. p. 875.

Footnote 889:

Buch. cycl.

Footnote 890:

Ath. Soz. ib. Theod. l. 1. c. 15.

Footnote 891:

Ath. ib. p. 876. Soz. ib. Hil. frag. 2. p. 47, 48.

Footnote 892:

Ath. ib. Socr. l. 1. c. 37. Hil. frag. 2. p. 46.

Footnote 893:

Sulp. l. 2. p. 163. Ath. ad Afr. p. 934. Hil. frag. 2. p. 36.

Footnote 894:

Socr. ib. Ath. de syn. p. 930.

Footnote 895:

Ath. de syn. p. 929, 930.

Footnote 896:

Id. ib.

Footnote 897:

Theod. l. 2. c. 15, 16.

Footnote 898:

Id. ib.

Footnote 899:

Soc. l. 2. c. 37.

Footnote 900:

Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 113.

Footnote 901:

Theod. l. 2. c. 16. Hil. in ann. p. 122.

Footnote 902:

Id. ib.

Footnote 903:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 23.

Footnote 904:

Marc. & Faust. p. 25.

Footnote 905:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 36, 37. Theod. ib. Sulp. l. 2. p. 165.

Footnote 906:

Athan. ad Afr. p. 941. Sulp. p. 165. Marc. & Faust. p. 26. Hil. frag.
p. 37.

Footnote 907:

Ath. ib. p. 934.

Footnote 908:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 37, 38.

Footnote 909:

Sulp. p. 166.

Footnote 910:

Sulp. ib.

Footnote 911:

Theod. l. 1. c. 17.

Footnote 912:

Id. ib.

Footnote 913:

Ambros. de fid. l. 3. c. 7.

Footnote 914:

Sulp. l. 2. p. 166.

Footnote 915:

Fulg. in Pint. c. 3. p. 536.

Footnote 916:

Hil. frag. 1. p. 53, 54.

Footnote 917:

Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.

Footnote 918:

Hil. frag. 2. p. 4, 5.

Footnote 919:

Mar. & Faust. p. 47.

Footnote 920:

Hier. ib.

Footnote 921:

Ath. de syn. p. 881. Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 114.

Footnote 922:

Greg. Naz. or. 21. p. 386.

Footnote 923:

Socr. l. 2. c. 40.

Footnote 924:

Soz. l. 4. c. 22.

Footnote 925:

Id. ib. Sacr. l. 1. c. 40. Ath. de syn. p. 881. Basil. in Eunom. l. 1.
p. 697. Sulp. l. 1. p. 65.

Footnote 926:

Hil. in cons. l. 1. p. 115. Soz. l. 4. c. 23. Basil. ep. 74.

Footnote 927:

Soz. l. 4. c. 24.

Footnote 928:

Socr. l. 2. c. 12. Soz. l. 4. c. 24. Philost. l. 5. c. 1.

Footnote 929:

Soz. l. 4. c. 26.

Footnote 930:

Greg. Naz. orat. 21. p. 387.

Footnote 931:

Id. ib.

Footnote 932:

Theod. l. 2. c. 17.

Footnote 933:

Bar. ad ann. 359. n. 48.

Footnote 934:

Greg. Naz. orat. 1. p. 387.

Footnote 935:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 21.

Footnote 936:

Hier. in Lucifer. p. 143. & in chron.

Footnote 937:

Idem ib.

Footnote 938:

Theod. l. 2. c. 23.

Footnote 939:

Socr. l. 2. c. 45. Ath. de syn. p. 906.

Footnote 940:

Philost. l. 6. c. 5.

Footnote 941:

Socr. l. 3. c. 1.

Footnote 942:

Theod. l. 3. c. 2. Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.

Footnote 943:

Ammian. l. 22. p. 223. Soz. l. 4. c. 30. Philost. l. 7. c. 2. Epiph.
p. 912.

Footnote 944:

Greg. Naz. 21.

Footnote 945:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 28. Ath. ad Ruf. t. 2. p. 41. Amb. de salv. p. 316. Aug.
ep. 50. Hier. in Lucif. c. 7.

Footnote 946:

Bolland. Maii 20. p. 207.

Footnote 947:

Bar. ad ann. 371. n. 132.

Footnote 948:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 30.

Footnote 949:

Hier. in Lucif. p. 144.

Footnote 950:

Bar. ad ann. 371. n. 132.

Footnote 951:

Ath. ad Jov. t. 1. p. 246.

Footnote 952:

Soz. l. 6. c. 10.

Footnote 953:

Socr. l. 4. c. 1.

Footnote 954:

Bas. ep. 75.

Footnote 955:

Socr. ib.

Footnote 956:

Ath. ad Asr. p. 931. & ad Epict. p. 582.

Footnote 957:

Soz. l. 5. c. 14.

Footnote 958:

Greg. Naz. orat. 44.

Footnote 959:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 25.

Footnote 960:

Socr. l. 2. c. 45. l. 4. c. 4. l. 5. c. 8.

Footnote 961:

Id. l. 4. c. 12. Soz. l. 6. c. 10.

Footnote 962:

Soz. Socr. ib.

Footnote 963:

Socr. ib.

Footnote 964:

Socr. l. 4. c. 12. Basil. ep. 82.

Footnote 965:

Marcell. & Faust. p. 4, 5.

Footnote 966:

Ruf. l. 3. c. 30, 31.

Footnote 967:

Idem ib.

Footnote 968:

Hil. frag. 1. p. 37, 38.

Footnote 969:

Bar. ad ann. 359. n. 3.

Footnote 970:

Theoph. l. 2. c. 13.

Footnote 971:

Id. ib.

Footnote 972:

Menæa, p. 293.

Footnote 973:

Breviar. Rom. 5 Aug.

Footnote 974:

Vide Bull. Urb. VIII. Breviario præfix.

Footnote 975:

Amb. de virg. l. 3. p. 437.

Footnote 976:

Bar. ad ann. 362. n. 206.

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

VALENTINIAN, DAMASUS, GRATIAN, VALENS, _Thirty-sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. THEODOSIUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 366. Damasus _a Native of_ Rome,]