Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (10)

_Basil_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_, one of the great Lights of the Church, left nothing unattempted, which he apprehended could any-ways contribute to the reuniting of the Orthodox among themselves, and putting an End to the present Schism. But, despairing at last of Success, and finding the Prelates in the East all warmly engaged in the Dispute, some in favour of _Meletius_, and some of _Paulinus_, he resolved to apply to the Bishop of _Rome_, who had not yet declared for either of the Competitors, his Thoughts being wholly employed in securing his Dignity against a Competitor at Home. He writ therefore to _Damasus_, intreating him to dispatch Deputies into the East, who, in Concert with the Prelates there, inclined to an Accommodation, might settle the proper Means of accomplishing so desirable a Work, and uniting in Charity those, who were already united in Faith. He added, that it was from his Zeal alone they expected Relief, from that Zeal which he had made so eminently appear on other Occasions; that _Dionysius_, one of his Predecessors, had afforded them a seasonable Assistance, when their Wants were less pressing, and their Condition not so deplorable; and therefore that there was no room left to doubt of his readily conforming to so glorious an Example[1048]. With this Letter, and another from the Bishops in the East, soliciting the Advice, Assistance, and Mediation of their Collegues in the West, _Dorotheus_, Deacon of the Church of _Antioch_, was dispatched into _Italy_: whence he returned in the Beginning of the following Year 372. with an Answer from the Bishops of _Illyricum_, _Italy_, and _Gaul_[1049]. [Sidenote: _The haughty Conduct of_ Damasus _resented by St._ Basil.] But _Damasus_ did not condescend to return an Answer to _Basil_, or take the least Notice of his Letter; which haughty Conduct he justly resented, and in pretty sharp Terms, taxing _Damasus_, in one of his Letters[1050], with a Spirit of Pride and Vanity, which made him overlook other Bishops as below his Attention, and expect to be accosted by them with the meanest Flattery. But his thus disregarding the Request and Intreaties of the Bishop of _Cæsarea_, was not owing to his Pride alone. He was so little acquainted with the State of the Churches in the East, and what passed there, that he looked upon _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Samosata_, and _Meletius_, with whom _Basil_ lived in great Intimacy, as rank _Arians_, tho’ they both lived at that very time in Exile, having been driven from their Sees by the _Arians_, on account of the Zeal, which they had, with an invincible Firmness, exerted in Defence of the Orthodox Faith[1051]. The Bishop of _Rome_ might, with very little Trouble, have been better informed; but his Mind, it seems, was so deeply engaged in worldly Affairs, and his Thoughts so taken up with State, Pomp, and Grandeur, that he was never at Leisure to mind those Matters, which justly claimed, and ought to have engrossed, his whole Attention. By him the Western Bishops were led into the same Mistake concerning _Eusebius_ and _Meletius_; and hence the Backwardness they shewed to correspond with _Basil_, as if he designed to impose upon them, or was himself imposed upon by others. [Sidenote: _St._ Basil _complains of_ Damasus, _and the Western Bishops_.] Of this _Basil_ justly complained in a Letter he writ to _Eusebius_ of _Samosata_. _If the Wrath of God_, says he, _is in the End appeased, if Mercy takes place, what other Help do we stand in need of? But, if his Anger continues, what Relief will the Pride of the West afford us? They neither know the Truth, nor can they patiently bear it. They are ever prepossessed with idle Jealousies, ever swayed by groundless Surmises; and therefore act now the same Part they lately acted in the Case of_ Marcellinus; _that is, they quarrel with those, who inform them of the Truth, and, being left to themselves, they introduce and establish Heresies. As for my own Part, I had once some Thoughts of writing a private Letter to their Chief_ (that is, to _Damasus_), _and, waving all Mention of Church Affairs, only tell him, that they_ _neither know what passes here, nor take the right Method to be informed; and that they ought not to oppress those who are already humbled by Affliction, nor mistake Pride for Dignity, since that Sin alone is capable of Setting a Man at Enmity with God_[1052]. From these Words it is pretty plain, that the Notion of the Pope’s Infallibility was not yet broached, or at least was not yet known to _Basil_. The Bishop of the Metropolis of the Empire was deservedly looked upon, in regard of the Dignity of his See, as the Chief and Head of all the Western Bishops; and to him as such, not as an infallible and unerring Judge, the Eastern Bishops frequently applied in the Disputes, that happened to rise among them; so that all we can infer from their applying to him is, that his Authority bore a great Sway; which was owing to the Pre-eminence of his See, and not to any Power or Prerogative peculiar to him, and superior to others.

[Sidenote: Damasus _takes on him the Office of Judge, being only chosen Mediator_.]

It was long ere _Damasus_ could be brought to give any Attention to the Affairs of the East; and when he did, it was only to add Fewel to the Fire, which had lately begun to rage with great Violence. For, looking upon the Office of a bare Mediator, which alone had been offered him, as no-ways suitable to his Dignity, he arrogantly assumed that of a Judge, and not only acknowleged _Paulinus_ for lawful Bishop of _Antioch_, but, misled by false and groundless Reports, declared _Meletius_ a Transgressor of the Canons, an Intruder, a Schismatic, and even an Heretic[1053]; that _Meletius_, who had suffered Exile, and innumerable Hardships, in Defence of the Orthodox Faith, who was then revered all over the East, as a Man of extraordinary Sanctity, and is now honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint of the first Class. [Sidenote: _His Conduct condemned by St._ Basil.] But his thus openly declaring in favour of _Paulinus_, his treating in such a base and unworthy manner one of the most eminent Prelates in the East, served only to engage the Followers of _Meletius_ more warmly in his Cause; and the great _Basil_, among the rest, who could not help censuring the Conduct of _Damasus_ as rash, partial, and injudicious: he even repented his having ever applied to him; for, in one of his Letters to _Eusebius_ of _Samosata_, he expresses himself thus: _The Saying of_ Diomedes _occurs to my Mind_; Intreaties are not to be used with _Achilles_, he is too haughty[1054]; _and truly the more you flatter haughty and insolent Men, the more haughty and insolent they become_[1055]. As no Regard was had to the Authority of _Damasus_, and the Western Bishops, who, following his Example, acknowleged _Paulinus_, and not _Meletius_, the Orthodox Bishops in the East not only continued divided among themselves, but a new Division arose between the Western Bishops, and those of the Party of _Meletius_, at the Head of which was _Basil_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_. But, of these unhappy Divisions, so far as the Bishops of _Rome_ were concerned in them, we shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.

[Sidenote: _New Disturbances raised in_ Rome, _by the Partisans of_ Ursinus;]

_Damasus_ was far more successful in suppressing the Schism of _Ursinus_, which about this time was revived at _Rome_. The Emperor _Valentinian_, some time before, by a Rescript addressed to _Ampelius_ Governor, and _Maximinus_ Vicar of _Rome_, had allowed _Ursinus_, and the leading Men of his Party, who had been confined with him to _Gaul_, Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out of _Rome_, and the Suburbicarian Provinces[1056]. This Indulgence shewn by the Emperor to _Ursinus_, encouraged his Followers in _Rome_ to declare openly in his Favour, and even to assemble apart from those who communicated with _Damasus_. But, being therein opposed by the Party of _Damasus_ with their usual Violence, new Disturbances arose, and the City was upon the point of becoming again the Scene of a Civil War. [Sidenote: _who are banished._] _Simplicius_, then Vicar of _Rome_, at the Request of _Damasus_, gave the Emperor immediate Notice of the approaching Danger; and the Emperor, in Answer to his Letter, sent him a Rescript, commanding _all those who, in Contempt of Religion, held or frequented unlawful Assemblies, to be banished an Hundred Miles from_ Rome, _that their Obstinacy might hurt none but themselves_[1057]. Thus for the present a Stop was put to the Disorders that had begun to reign in the City.

[Sidenote: _The_ Luciferians_ persecuted by_ Damasus.]

The two Presbyters _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_ pretend, that this Law was levelled at the _Ursinians_ alone, but was interpreted by _Damasus_, as comprehending the _Luciferians_, or the Followers of _Lucifer_ Bishop of _Cagliari_, who, refusing to communicate with the Bishops who signed the Confession of _Rimini_, and with all who communicated with them, had separate Assemblies at _Rome_, and even a Bishop of their own, named _Aurelius_. But _Damasus_, say they, using them, in virtue of the above-mentioned Law, with no less Cruelty than he did the _Ursinians_, they thenceforth assembled only in the Night, under a Presbyter, named _Macarius_, of whose Sanity and Austerities they relate wonderful Things. But Night and Darkness could not protect them against the persecuting Spirit of _Damasus_, whose Clerks, breaking one Night in upon them, while they were performing Divine Service in a private House, dispersed the Congregation, seized _Macarius_, and dragging him along with them over the sharp Flints, by which he was cruelly bruised, and dangerously wounded in the Thigh, they kept him the remaining Part of the Night closely confined. Next Morning he was carried before the Judge, who, finding him inflexible in rejecting the Communion of _Damasus_, condemned him to Exile; but the holy Presbyter, being arrived at _Ostia_, died there of his Wounds[1058]. The same Authors add, that _Damasus_ caused several Catholic Presbyters to be sent into Exile, and some Laymen; but that _Aurelius_, the _Luciferian_ Bishop, in spite of all his Efforts, continued in _Rome_ to the Hour of his Death[1059].

[Sidenote: Apollinaris _the Heresiarch. An Account of him._]

About this Time, that is, in the Year 377. a great Council was held at _Rome_, in which the famous _Apollinaris_, Bishop of _Laodicea_ in _Syria_, was condemned and deposed with his Two Disciples _Vitalis_ and _Timotheus_. _Apollinaris_ was a Man of uncommon Parts, great Penetration, universal Knowlege; and had at first been so zealous a Defender of the Orthodox Faith, that he was looked upon by all, particularly by _Epiphanius_ and _Athanasius_, as one of the great Champions of that Cause[1060], and ranked by _Philostorgius_ with _Basil_, and _Gregory Nazianzen_[1061]. He contracted a strict Friendship with _Athanasius_, when that Prelate passed through _Laodicea_ in 349. on his Return to _Egypt_, and ever after maintained a close Correspondence with him, on which Account he was excommunicated by _Gregory_ the _Arian_ Bishop of that City[1062]. When the _Arians_ began to prevail in the East, _Apollinaris_ was cruelly persecuted by the Men in Power of that Party, and at last driven into Exile[1063]. _Basil_ writ several Letters to him, and in those he writ to others, often mentions him as a Person for whom he had the greatest Esteem[1064]. He is said to have excelled in the Knowlege of the Scriptures, which he publicly interpreted at _Antioch_, where he had _Jerom_ among the many Disciples, who flocked from all Parts to hear him[1065]. But he was equally versed in human Learning, especially in Poetry; and his Knowlege in that Branch of Literature proved very useful in the Time of the Emperor _Julian_. For that Prince having by a Law debarred the Christians from perusing or studying the Pagan Authors, _Apollinaris_, to supply the want of those Writers, composed several Pieces in Imitation of them, and, among the rest, a Poem comprising the History of the _Jews_ to the Time of _Saul_, and divided into Twenty-four Books, which he distinguished by so many Letters of the _Greek_ Alphabet, as _Homer_ had done[1066]. He likewise writ Comedies, Tragedies, Lyric Verses, _&c._ imitating _Pindar_ in the latter, and _Menander_ and _Euripides_ in the Two former[1067]. _Sozomen_ thinks his Compositions fell in no respect short of the Works of the Antients; who, upon the Whole, says he, were far inferior to him, since they excelled, each in one Kind only, but he equally in all[1068]. The Tragedy, intituled, _Christ suffering_, which is to be found among the Works of _Gregory Nazianzen_, is by some ascribed to _Apollinaris_; but that Piece does not at all answer the great Opinion _Sozomen_ seems to have entertained of him. His Paraphrase in Hexameter Verse on the Psalms, the only intire Work of his that has reached our Times, is an elegant, exact, and sublime Translation of them, greatly commended and admired by the best Judges[1069]. His Poetry proved very serviceable to him, when he began to broach his Heresy; for great Numbers of People, especially Women, embraced his Doctrine, being taken, and in a manner inchanted, with the Sweetness of his Verses; for he composed a great many Songs and Odes equally pious and elegant, adapted to all Occasions, and on all Occasions sung with suitable Airs by his Followers[1070]. To these _Gregory Nazianzen_ no doubt alludes, where he speaks of the Psalms of the _Apollinarists_, to which the Psalms of _David_ had given place; of those sweet and so much admired Verses, which were looked upon by them as a Third Testament[1071]. It was chiefly to oppose the Progress _Apollinaris_ made, by the insinuating Means of his Poetry, that _Gregory Nazianzen_ applied himself to the same Study. About the Year 362. _Apollinaris_ was raised, in Consideration of his great Piety and Learning, to the See of _Laodicea_ in _Syria_, in which City he was born, according to the most probable Opinion, and had spent the greater Part of his Life.

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine held by_ Apollinaris, _and his Disciples_.]

As for the Doctrine held by _Apollinaris_, and his Followers, called from him _Apollinarists_; they maintained at first, that _Christ_ had human Flesh, but not a human Soul, the Want of which was supplied, according to them, by the Divinity. But being afterwards convinced, that such a Doctrine was repugnant to several plain and express Passages of Scripture, they abandoned it in Part, and, distinguishing, with some Philosophers, the Soul, by which we live, from the Intelligence, by which we reason, they allowed the former in our _Saviour_, but denied the latter; the Operations of which, said they, were performed by the Divinity[1072]. Thus they allowed him, says St. _Austin_, the Soul of a Beast, but denied him that of a Man[1073]. By means of this Doctrine they avoided the Absurdity with which they reproached the Catholics, admitting in Christ, as they falsly imagined, Two opposite and distinct Natures, without any Union or Subordination between them[1074]. The Catholics indeed acknowleged Two distinct and complete Natures in Christ; but at the same time maintained an Union between them, such an Union as was admitted by the _Apollinarists_ between the Flesh and the Divinity. The latter upbraided the Catholics with adoring a Man, styling them _Anthropolaters_; and the Catholics reproached in their Turn the _Apollinarists_ with adoring the Flesh, calling them _Sarcolaters_[1075]. The _Apollinarists_ distinguished themselves from the Catholics, by causing the following Words to be fixed on the Front of their Houses; _We must not adore a Man that bears a God, but a God that bears Flesh_. The Errors of the _Apollinarists_ were not only concerning the Soul, but likewise the Body of our Saviour; for they maintained, that his Body, like other Bodies only in Appearance, was coeval with the Divinity, and of the same Substance with the eternal Wisdom[1076]. Hence it followed, by a natural Consequence, that the Body of our Saviour was impassible and immortal; that it was not taken of the Virgin _Mary_; that he was not born of her; that his Birth, Passion, Death, and Resurrection, were mere Illusions; or else, that the Divine Nature was passible: both which Absurdities were admitted by some of the Sects into which the _Apollinarists_ were afterwards divided[1077].

[Sidenote: Apollinaris _not known nor suspected to be the Author of the Heresy he broached_.]

This Doctrine was first heard of in 362. and condemned the same Year in the Council of _Alexandria_. In 373. it began to make a great Noise in the Church; but it was not known even then by whom it had been broached: for _Apollinaris_ was so far from owning himself the Author of those Tenets, that, in one of his Letters to _Serapion_ Bishop of _Thmuis_ in _Egypt_, which is still extant[1078], he expresses, in the strongest Terms, his Approbation of a Letter from _Athanasius_ to _Epictetus_ Bishop of _Corinth_, confuting the very Errors he held; and at the same time condemns the Folly of those, who maintained the Flesh to be consubstantial to the Divine Nature. In another Letter to the same _Serapion_, he owns the Body of our Saviour to have been taken of the Virgin _Mary_, to have been formed in her Womb, and his Flesh to have been of the same Substance with ours; adding, _And these are Truths not to be called in question_[1079]. In a Third Letter he assures _Serapion_, that he has ever denied in his Writings the Flesh of our Saviour to have descended from Heaven, or to be of the same Substance with the Divinity[1080]. _Apollinaris_, by thus publicly declaring against the Doctrine, which at the same time he was privately propagating, eluded the Vigilance of _Athanasius_ himself, who, in confuting his Errors, never mentions his Name, nor seems to have entertained the least Suspicion of him; nay, he recommended _Timotheus_, a favourite Disciple of his, to _Damasus_, as a Person whose Orthodoxy was not to be questioned; and as such he was received, not only by the Bishop of _Rome_, but by all the Western Bishops, of whom he obtained Letters, on his Return, directed to _Apollinaris_, as to a Bishop of the Catholic Communion[1081].

[Sidenote: _His Errors condemned in a Council at_ Rome.]

In the Year 374. or 375. _Damasus_ convened a great Council at _Rome_, in which the Errors of _Apollinaris_ were condemned; but neither was he nor any other named as the Broacher or Author of that Doctrine. [Sidenote: Damasus _imposed upon by_ Vitalis _one of his Disciples_.] The very Year that _Damasus_ condemned the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_, he was deceived and over-reached by one of the Disciples of that Heresiarch, named _Vitalis_. He was a Presbyter of the Church of _Antioch_, and of the Communion of _Meletius_, by whom he had been ordained; but afterwards, renouncing his Communion, he joined _Apollinaris_, and, being in high Esteem with the People, drew great Numbers over with him to that Side. Of these, called from him _Vitalians_, _Apollinaris_ some Years after appointed him Bishop, adding thereby a Fourth Party to the Three that already divided the Church of _Antioch_, _viz._ the _Arians_, _Paulinians_, and _Meletians_[1082]. Before he threw off the Mask, and publicly maintained the Tenets of _Apollinaris_, he strove to be admitted with his Followers to the Communion of _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, and of _Damasus_; and with this View he undertook a Journey to _Rome_ in the Year 375. As he had been suspected, and even accused, of holding the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_, _Damasus_ required of him, before he admitted him to his Communion, a Confession of his Faith, which he gave under his Hand, but in such Terms as bore a double Meaning. _Damasus_, however, well satisfied with it, gave him a Letter for _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, and sent him back to be admitted by that Bishop to the Communion of the Church[1083]. But _Damasus_ soon after, either upon his own Reflection, or at the Suggestion of others, apprehending himself imposed upon, writ another Letter to _Paulinus_, by the Presbyter _Petronius_, and afterwards a Third, which _Holstenius_ has inserted at Length in his _Roman Collection_[1084]. Together with this Letter _Damasus_ sent to _Paulinus_ a Confession of Faith, drawn up by a Council summoned for that Purpose, desiring him to admit none to his Communion, but such as should sign that Confession, and the Confession of _Nice_[1085]. To this Piece the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_ no doubt allude, in commending _Damasus_ for pointing out, in his Letters to _Paulinus_, the Rules all Catholics ought to be guided by in reasoning of the Mystery of the Incarnation[1086]. What _Baronius_ observes here is true, _viz._ that _Vitalis_, by the same ambiguous Confession of Faith, imposed upon _Gregory Nazianzen_, who received the _Apollinarists_ as Brethren, and not as Enemies[1087]. He adds, _And no Wonder that_ Vitalis _imposed upon_ Damasus, _since by the same Confession he imposed upon_ Gregory Nazianzen: he ought rather to have said, _No Wonder that he imposed upon_ Gregory, _who did not pretend to Infallibility, since he imposed upon_ Damasus, _who was infallible_. As _Vitalis_ refused to sign the Confession sent by _Damasus_, _Paulinus_ would not admit him to his Communion; upon which he pulled off the Mask, publicly renounced the Communion both of _Damasus_ and _Paulinus_, and, bidding Defiance to the Canons, accepted the Title and Dignity of Bishop of _Antioch_, offered him by _Apollinaris_. [Sidenote: Apollinaris _openly declares against the Church._] At the same time that Heresiarch, finding he could conceal himself no longer, openly declared, that he would communicate with none who held, that our Saviour had taken a human Soul, and human Understanding: which was separating himself from the Communion of the Catholic Church[1088]. It was long before it was believed in the Church that those Tenets had been broached, or were held, by _Apollinaris_: no Credit was given, at first, even to his Disciples, most People being inclined to think, that they were mistaken, and did not comprehend the sublime Thoughts of that great Man[1089]. But when no room was left for any further Doubt, the Surprize and Concern of the whole Catholic Party were equal to the high Opinion they had entertained of him till that Time[1090]. When _Epiphanius_ writ against the _Apollinarists_, he well knew _Apollinaris_ to be the Author of that Sect; for he reproaches him with this unwarrantable Separation from the Church; and yet he speaks of him with the greatest Respect; seems to think, that many Things had been unjustly fathered upon him; and takes a great deal of Pains to assure his Reader, that what he writes is Truth, and not Calumny proceeding from any private Pique, Malice, or Grudge[1091].

[Sidenote: _A great Schism in the Church._]

The Schism, which the establishing of a new Bishop occasioned in the Church of _Antioch_, was not confined to that alone, but extended to most other Churches, over which _Apollinaris_ appointed Bishops of his own Sect, who held separate Assemblies, practised different Rites, and, instead of the sacred Hymns commonly sung at Divine Service by the rest of the Church, introduced Canticles composed by their Leader, and containing the Substance of his Doctrine[1092]. The many perplexed Questions and Difficulties, which he and his Emissaries were daily starting about the Incarnation, bred such Confusion in the Minds of Men, that many began to question the Truth of that Mystery[1093]. The Objections they moved against our Saviour’s taking Flesh, and being born of the Virgin _Mary_, seemed calculated merely to raise improper Ideas, and sully the Thoughts of chaste Minds; for they themselves held his Body to be coeval with the Divinity, and to have only been conveyed into the World by means of the Virgin _Mary_[1094]. Their Doctrine was applauded and received by many, and few who read their Books were content with, or kept to the plain and antient Doctrine of the Church[1095]. [Sidenote: Basil _recurs to the Western Bishops_;] _Basil_ therefore, and the other orthodox Bishops in the East, to put a Stop the more effectually to the growing Evil, not only declaimed against it in all their Writings, but dispatched the Two Presbyters _Dorotheus_ and _Sanctissimus_ with Letters to _Damasus_, and the other Western Bishops, intreating them to condemn without Delay the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_, and _Apollinaris_ himself, since he had at last openly declared against the Church, and owned himself the Author of the new Sect[1096]. [Sidenote: _who condemn the Doctrine of_ Apollinaris, _and depose him with_ Vitelis _and_ Timotheus.] In Compliance with this Request, a great Council was convened at _Rome_ the following Year 378. in which _Apollinaris_ was not only condemned with great Solemnity, but deposed, with his Two favourite Disciples, _Vitalis_ and _Timotheus_; the former Bishop of the _Apollinarists_ at _Antioch_, and the latter at _Berytus_ in _Phœnicia_[1097]. By the same Council it was defined, that _Jesus_ was true Man, and true God; and whoever maintained or asserted any thing to be wanting either to his Humanity or Divinity, was declared an Enemy to the Church[1098]. _Vitalis_ had deceived _Damasus_, as I have observed above, by a Confession of Faith, in which, under equivocal Terms, he had artfully concealed his Heresy. The Bishop of _Rome_ therefore, now undeceived, caused the Confession he had formerly approved of to be anathematized by the Council, together with its Author, exerting himself, says _Gregory Nazianzen_, with so much the more Vigour against them, as they had formerly taken Advantage of his Candour and Sincerity to impose upon him[1099]. _Gregory Nazianzen_ therefore supposes, that the Pope could be imposed upon in a Matter concerning the Faith. Indeed the Sticklers for Infallibility must either give up that Prerogative, or allow all the Fathers to have talked Nonsense.

[Sidenote: _A Mistake of_ Baronius.]

_Baronius_ is certainly mistaken, and so was _Ruffinus_[1100], whom he follows, in asserting the Heresy of _Apollinaris_ to have been first condemned by the Council of _Rome_, since it is manifest, that the Doctrine of that Heresiarch had been condemned long before by _Athanasius_, _Basil_, and _Epiphanius_, in their Writings, and by the Council held at _Alexandria_ in 362. But _Ruffinus_ probably meant no more, than that those Errors were first condemned by the Council of _Rome_, under the Name, and together with the Person, of _Apollinaris_; which is undeniable. [Sidenote: _Another Mistake of the same Writer._] I cannot help observing here another Mistake of _Baronius_, pretending that _Damasus_ (for whatever was done by the Council is by him ascribed to _Damasus_ alone) in condemning _Apollinaris_ condemned all the Errors he held; and consequently the Opinion of the _Millenarians_, holding that _Christ_ was to return upon the Earth, and reign over the Faithful a Thousand Years before the End of the World. [Sidenote: _The Doctrine of the_ Millenarians _held by the greatest Men in the Church_.] This Opinion was first broached about the Year 118. by _Papias_ Bishop of _Hierapolis_, a Man of great Piety, honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint[1101]. He declares, in the few Fragments of his Works, which have been conveyed to us by _Eusebius_[1102], that, as he lived near the Times of the Apostles, he made it his chief Business to learn of their Disciples whatever they could recollect to have been done or said by them, on different Occasions, that was not recorded in Holy Writ. Thus he learned the above-mentioned Doctrine[1103], which, upon the Authority of such a Tradition, countenanced by some Passages in the _Revelations_[1104], and one Text in St. _Paul_, was embraced and held by the most eminent Men for Piety and Learning, at that time, in the Church; and, among the rest, by _Irenæus_, and _Justin_ the Martyr. And yet such a Doctrine is now rank Heresy in the Church of _Rome_. But, by declaring it such, have they not overset their own System, which places Tradition upon a Level with the Canonical Books of the Scripture? [Sidenote: _How little Tradition to be depended upon._] Can they allege a more antient Tradition, one more universally received, or equally countenanced by Scripture, in favour of the many traditional Articles of Faith, which they have obtruded upon the World? _Papias_ declares, he received the above-mentioned Doctrine of those who had learned it immediately of the Apostles. If such a Tradition be rejected as false, what other has a Right to be admitted as true? If we deny or question St. _Peter_’s having been at _Rome_, Tradition, and the Authority of _Irenæus_ (for all the others have copied from him), are immediately produced against us. But what Weight either ought to bear, the Case before us sufficiently demonstrates.

To return to _Apollinaris_: It is very certain, that he held and taught the Doctrine of the _Millenarians_; but it is no less certain, that such a Doctrine was not condemned, as _Baronius_ pretends[1105], by the Council of _Rome_ in 378. since many eminent Men in the Church held it, and _Sulpitius Severus_ among the rest, after that Council, without being deemed Heretics on that score. [Sidenote: _The_ Apollinarists _condemned by several Councils_.] The Sentence pronounced against _Apollinaris_, and his Disciples, by the Council of _Rome_, was confirmed by a Council held the same Year at _Alexandria_[1106], by an Oecumenical Council assembled at _Constantinople_ in 381. and by the Council of _Antioch_ in 379[1107]. However, the _Apollinarists_, though thus condemned and deposed by all the Councils of the East and West, as we read in _Gregory Nazianzen_[1108], still kept their Ground, till Recourse was had to the Secular Power. [Sidenote: _Penal Laws enacted against them._] For the Emperor _Theodosius_, at the Request of _Nectarius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_, enacted a Law, dated the Tenth of _March_ 388. forbidding the _Apollinarists_ to hold Assemblies, to have any Ecclesiastics or Bishops, or to dwell in the Cities[1109]. As this Law was executed with the utmost Rigour, at least against the leading Men of the Party, who were banished the Cities, and confined to the Deserts[1110], the _Apollinarists_ were in a few Years reduced to a very small Number, when they begged to be admitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church, which was in the End granted them by _Theodotus_[1111], who governed the Church of _Antioch_, from the Year 416. to 428. But as their Conversion was owing not to Conviction, but Persecution, they still held in their Hearts the same Sentiments, which ever must happen in the like Case; nay, and privately instilled their Errors into the Minds of many, whose Faith had been, till that time, untainted[1112]. It was to these pretended Catholics, or disguised _Apollinarists_, that the _Eutychian_ Heresy, and that of the _Monothelites_, of whom I shall speak hereafter, owed their Birth[1113]. Hence the Emperor _Marcian_, by an Edict in 455. declared the _Eutychians_ to be _Apollinarists_, and consequently liable to the same Penalties[1114]. As for _Apollinaris_ himself, he died about the Year 392. having maintained, to the Hour of his Death, the same Sentiments, in which he had lived; and, with them, the same outward Appearance, at least, of a most holy and exemplary Life[1115]; which is all the Authors of those Times Will allow him.

[Sidenote: _New Disturbances raised by_ Ursinus.]

While _Damasus_, and the other Western Bishops, were wholly intent upon suppressing the Heresy of _Apollinaris_, and restoring the Eastern Churches to their former Tranquillity, the Antipope _Ursinus_, laying hold of that Opportunity, arrived privately at _Milan_, and there joined the _Arians_, upon their promising to support him with the whole Power of their Party[1116]. But _Ambrose_, who then governed that Church, and kept a watchful Eye over the Flock committed to his Care, gave immediate Notice of their clandestine Meetings, and pernicious Designs, to the Emperor _Gratian_, who soon after ordered _Ursinus_ to quit _Italy_, and confined him to _Cologne_[1117]. During his Exile his Partisans were not idle; they found the Emperor _Gratian_, who in 375. had succeeded his Father _Valentinian_ I. warmly engaged in favour of _Damasus_: they well knew, that so long as he continued in that Disposition, it would be in vain to solicit the Return of _Ursinus_, or to put up any Petition in his Behalf. [Sidenote: Damasus _falsly accused, but cleared by the Emperor_.] In order therefore to estrange the Mind of the Emperor from _Damasus_, they suborned a _Jew_, named _Isaac_, who had embraced the Christian Religion, but was then returned to Judaism, to accuse him before the Civil Magistrate of an heinous Crime, which I find not specified by any of the Antients. But the Emperor, taking upon himself the judging of that Cause, soon discovered the Innocence of the Accused, and the Malice of the Accuser; and therefore, honourably acquitting the former, and punishing the latter according to his Deserts, confined him to a Corner of _Spain_[1118].

This Attempt on the Reputation of _Damasus_ was not the only Thing that gave him great Uneasiness at this time. The Emperor _Valentinian_ had transferred, as I have related above, the Power of judging Bishops, such at least as were concerned in the Schism of _Ursinus_, from the Civil Magistrate to the Bishop of _Rome_. [Sidenote: _Some Bishops, deposed by_ Damasus, _keep their Sees_.] But several Bishops, though deposed by him, still maintained themselves in their Sees, with open Force, in Defiance of his Sentence, and the Imperial Law. Among these were the Bishop of _Parma_, and _Florentius_ Bishop of _Puzzuolo_, who, for their Attachment to _Ursinus_, had been both deposed by _Damasus_, and other Bishops assembled at _Rome_[1119]. The _Donatists_ too, notwithstanding the severe Laws enacted against them by several Emperors, had got Footing in _Italy_, and in _Rome_ itself, where they were known by the Names of _Montenenses_, and _Rupenses_, on account of their assembling in a Church or Oratory, which they had among the neighbouring Rocks and Mountains[1120]. They had a Bishop of their own, either sent from _Africa_, or ordained by Bishops sent from thence for that Purpose. _Claudian_, who governed them at this time, was their Fifth Bishop of _Rome_[1121]. The Emperor ordered him to be sent back to _Africa_, whence he came. But though he had been several times imprisoned, in order to oblige him by that means to return, he could not even so be prevailed upon to abandon his Flock; but continued at _Rome_, perverting many there, and rebaptizing all he could pervert[1122]. [Sidenote: _The_ Italian _Bishops recur to the Emperor_.] To put a Stop to these Evils, the Bishops of _Italy_, assembling at _Rome_, had recourse to the Emperor _Gratian_, acquainting him with the Conduct of the contumacious Bishops, and earnestly intreating him to cause the Law, commanding the Bishops to be judged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and not by the Civil Magistrate, which he himself had enacted with his Father, to be put in Execution. By that Law, the Emperor, in all Likelihood, only intended to confirm, with respect to the Bishop of _Rome_, the Canons of the Church, appointing the Metropolitan, with his Council, Judge of the Bishops of his Province in Ecclesiastical Causes. But the Bishops, assembled on this Occasion at _Rome_, attempted to extend the Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_, far beyond the Bounds to which the Emperors and Canons had confined it. [Sidenote: _Their letter to him._] For, in their Letter to _Gratian_, they suggested the following Regulations as necessary for the Tranquillity of the Church, and intreated him to establish them by Law: 1. That if any, who had been condemned by the Bishop of _Rome_, or other Catholic Bishops, should, after such Condemnation, presume to keep their Churches, they should be banished from the Territories of the Cities, where they had been Bishops. 2. That such as should refuse, when lawfully summoned, to appear before the Bishops, should be obliged, by the Prefect of _Italy_, or his Vicar, to repair to _Rome_, to be judged there. 3. That, if the accused Bishop resided in a distant Province, he should be obliged, by the Judges of the Place, to appear before his Metropolitan; and, if his Metropolitan was suspected as partial, or prejudiced against him, he might be allowed to appeal to the Bishop of _Rome_, or to a Council of Fifteen neighbouring Bishops; but, if the Accused was himself a Metropolitan, he should either repair to _Rome_, or appear before such Judges as the Bishop of _Rome_ should appoint; and, when thus condemned, submit to the Sentence[1123]. [Sidenote: _What they demand in particular for the Bishop of_ Rome.] In Behalf of the Bishop of _Rome_ in particular they begged, in the same Letter, that, as he _was above other Bishops by the Prerogative of the Apostolic See, though upon a Level with them as to the Ministry_, he might not be obliged to appear before the Civil Magistrate, since other Bishops had been exempted from their Jurisdiction, but before a Council, or that the Emperor would reserve to himself the Cognisance of what concerned him, leaving to the ordinary Judges the Power of examining Facts and Witnesses, but not the Authority of pronouncing Sentence[1124]. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Answer._] What Answer the Emperor returned to the Council, we know not; but, in a Rescript, addressed to the Vicar _Aquilinus_, after summing up the Heads of the Letter from the Council, and severely reprimanding his Officers for their Neglect, in not causing the Imperial Law to be put in Execution, he confirms the Rescript address’d to _Simplicius_, which I have mentioned above; commands the Bishop of _Parma_, _Florentius_ of _Puzzuolo_, and _Claudian_ the _Donatist_, with all those who shall be condemned by the Councils, as Disturbers of the Quiet of the Church, to be driven from their Dioceses, and banished an Hundred Miles from _Rome_: he grants all the Council had desired, with respect to the judging of Bishops; but requires the Bishop of _Rome_ to act with the Advice of Five or Seven other Bishops; and, lastly, he forbids Persons of infamous Characters, or known Slanderers, to be admitted as Informers or Witnesses against Bishops[1125]. In this Rescript he takes no notice of what the Council had asked for the Bishop of _Rome_ in particular.

[Sidenote: _In what Sense the Pope above other Bishops._]

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. [Sidenote: _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.

[Sidenote: _A new Accusation brought against_ Damasus.]

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. [Sidenote: _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].

[Sidenote: _A great Council assembled at_ Constantinople, _by the Emperor_ Theodosius.]

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]. [Sidenote: _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 _Constantinople_ 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.

[Sidenote: _The Council writes to the Western Bishops._]

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.

[Sidenote: _The Authority of this Council among the_ Greeks,]

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]. [Sidenote: _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. [Sidenote: _The Popes at Variance 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.

[Sidenote: _This Council was assembled by the Emperor, and not by_ Damasus.]

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].