Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (11)

One of the chief Motives that induced _Theodosius_ to assemble so numerous a Council at _Constantinople_, was, to hear what Remedy they could suggest against the Schism of the Church of _Antioch_, which caused such Jealousies between the East and the West as seemed to forebode an imminent Rupture[1162]. But before the Fathers of the Council entered upon that important Subject, _Meletius_ died; and his Death, which ought to have put an End to the present Disturbances, served only to increase them, and engage the contending Parties more warmly in the Dispute. It had been agreed by _Meletius_ and _Paulinus_, that the Survivor should be sole Bishop of all the Orthodox at _Antioch_[1163]. _Socrates_ and _Sozomen_ add[1164], that Six Presbyters, who it was most likely might be one Day raised to that See, bound themselves by a solemn Oath not to vote for any other, nor to accept themselves the Episcopal Dignity, so long as either of the Two lived. [Sidenote: _The Disturbances in the Church of_ Antioch _increased_.] However, _Meletius_ was no sooner dead, than some of the Prelates present at the Council moved for chusing him a Successor, which occasioned many long and warm Debates. _Gregory Nazianzen_, elected Bishop of _Constantinople_ a few Days before, exerted all his Eloquence to divert the Council from a Resolution, which, he said, would prove fatal to the Church, and kindle a Flame, which perhaps it might never be in their Power to extinguish[1165]. Several other Prelates, Enemies to Strife and Contention, falling in with _Gregory_, spoke to the same Purpose, exhorting their Collegues, with great Zeal and Eloquence, to put an End at last to the unhappy Divisions that had so long rent the Church, by allowing _Paulinus_, already stricken in Years, to govern peaceably the remaining Part of his Life[1166]. But the far greater Part were for a new Election, offering no other Reason to recommend such a Step, but that the East, where our Saviour had appeared, ought not to yield to the West[1167]. So that the Resolution of giving a Successor to _Meletius_ was taken merely out of Pique to the Western Bishops, who, having the Bishop of _Rome_ at their Head, had begun to treat their Brethren in the East with great Haughtiness, and assume an Air of Authority that did not become them; but that had been better resented on any other Occasion than on this.

[Sidenote: Flavianus _ordained Bishop of_ Antioch.]

The Resolution being taken, _Flavianus_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Antioch_, was named by the Council, and, with the Approbation of the Emperor, and of all the _Meletians_ at _Antioch_, ordained in that City. He is commended by the Writers who lived in or near those Times, as a Man of an exemplary Life, and extraordinary Piety, as a zealous Defender of the Orthodox Faith, and Opposer of the _Arian_ Heresy, as a Mirror of every Sacerdotal Virtue; and, barring the Right of _Paulinus_, the most worthy and deserving Person the Council could name to succeed the great _Meletius_[1168]. These, and other like Encomiums, bestowed upon _Flavianus_ by the Writers of those Times, leave no room to doubt but _Socrates_ and _Sozomen_ were misinformed in naming him among the Six Presbyters who took the Oath I have mentioned above; the rather as no notice is taken of such an Oath by his most inveterate Enemies, in the many Disputes that arose about his Ordination. [Sidenote: Greg. Nazianzen _resigns the Bishoprick of_ Constantinople.] _Gregory Nazianzen_, who had been lately preferred to the See of _Constantinople_, and had accepted that Dignity with no other View, but to remove all Jealousies, and restore a good Understanding between the East and the West, being sensible that the electing of a new Bishop in the room of _Meletius_ would widen the Breach, and obstruct all possible Means of an Accommodation, resigned his Dignity, and, to the inexpressible Grief of his Flock, retired both from the Council and City[1169]. In one of his Orations[1170], he ascribes this Resolution to the Divisions that reigned among the Bishops, declaring that he was quite tired with their constant quarreling and bickering among themselves, and comparing them to Children at Play; whom to join in their childish Diversions, would be degrading a serious Character. [Sidenote: Nectarius _is chosen in his room_.] Upon the Resignation of _Gregory, Nectarius_ was chosen to succeed him; but, as to the Particulars of his Election, they are variously related by Authors, and foreign to my Purpose. He was a Native of _Tarsus_ in _Cilicia_, descended of an illustrious and senatorial Family, but at the Time of his Election still a Layman, and Prætor of _Constantinople_; nay, he had not been baptized[1171].

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Aquileia _writes to_ Theodosius _in favour of_ Paulinus.]

The same Year that the Eastern Bishops met at _Constantinople_, by the Command of _Theodosius_, the Western Bishops met at _Aquileia_, by the Command of _Gratian_. While the latter were yet sitting, News was brought of the Death of _Meletius_, and at the same time they received certain Intelligence of the Resolution which the Council of _Constantinople_ had taken of appointing him a Successor. Hereupon having dispatched the Business for which they had met, and condemned _Palladius_ and _Secundianus_, the only Two _Arian_ Bishops now in the West, they dispatched some Presbyters into the East, with a Letter to the Emperor _Theodosius_, wherein, after expressing the Joy it had given them to hear that the Orthodox in those Parts were at last happily delivered from the Oppression of the _Arians_, they complained of the Hardships _Paulinus_ had met with, whom they had always acknowleged as lawful Bishop of _Antioch_, put the Emperor in mind of the Agreement between _Paulinus_ and _Meletius_, and concluded with intreating him to assemble an Oecumenical Council at _Alexandria_, as the only Means of restoring Tranquillity to the Church, and settling a perfect Harmony amongst her Members[1172]. Before this Letter reached the Emperor, the Council of _Constantinople_ was concluded, and the Bishops returned to their respective Sees. However, _Theodosius_ recalled some of them, in order to govern himself by their Advice in granting or denying the Western Bishops their Request[1173]. [Sidenote: _And the Bishops of_ Italy _in favour of_ Maximus.] But the Election of _Flavianus_ being in the mean time known in the West, the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Italy_, them assembled in Council with _Ambrose_ Bishop of _Milan_ at their Head, writ a long Letter to _Theodosius_ complaining of that Election, openly espousing at the same time the Cause of _Maximus_ against _Nectarius_, the new Bishop of _Constantinople_, and threatening to separate themselves intirely from the Communion of the Eastern Bishops, unless _Maximus_ was acknowleged lawful Bishop of that City, or at least an Oecumenical Council was assembled to examine the Claims of the Two Competitors, and to confirm with their joint Suffrages the disputed Dignity to him, who had the best[1174]. They also desired, in the same Letter, to have the Contest between _Paulinus_ and _Flavianus_ decided.

[Sidenote: _Who_ Maximus _was, and how chosen Bishop of_ Constantinople.]

_Maximus_, surnamed the _Cynic_, because he had from his Youth professed the Philosophy, and wore the Habit, of that Sect, was a Man of a most infamous Character, and had been publicly whipt in _Egypt_, his native Country, and confined to the City of _Oasis_, for Crimes not to be mentioned[1175]. Being released from his Banishment, he wandered all over the East, and was every where equally abhorred and detested on account of his matchless Impudence and scandalous Manners[1176]. At last he repaired to _Constantinople_, where he had not been long, when, by one of the boldest Attempts mentioned in History, he caused himself to be installed and ordained Bishop of that City: for the Doors of the Church being broken open in the Dead of the Night, by a Band of _Egyptian_ Mariners, he was placed on the Episcopal Chair in the profane Dress of a _Cynic_, by some Bishops whom his Friends had sent out of _Egypt_ for that Purpose. But the People, and some of the Clergy, in the adjoining Houses, being alarmed at the Noise, and crouding to see what occasioned it, _Maximus_ and his unhallowed Crew thought fit to withdraw, and complete the Ceremony in a Place better adapted to such a Scene of Profaneness, the House of a Player on the Flute[1177]. _Maximus_, thus ordained, in equal Defiance of the Imperial Laws and Canons of the Church, had the Assurance to claim the See of _Constantinople_ as his Right, and to protest against the Election of _Gregory Nazianzen_, and likewise of _Nectarius_, who was chosen upon the Resignation of _Gregory_, tho’ they had both been named to that Dignity by the Council of _Constantinople_, that is, by all the Eastern Bishops. But no Regard being had to his Protest, nay, his Ordination being declared null by the Council, and he driven out of the City by the Populace, and rejected with Indignation by the Emperor, he had recourse to the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Italy_, then assembled in Council with _Ambrose_ Bishop of _Milan_ at their Head, as I have observed above. [Sidenote: _He is acknowleged by_ Ambrose, _and the_ Italian _Bishops_.] These giving an intire Credit to the Accounts of the lying and deceitful _Cynic_, as they were quite unacquainted with what had passed in the East, not only admitted him to their Communion, but, without farther Inquiry or Examination, acknowleged him for lawful Bishop of _Constantinople_, and writ the above-mentioned Letter to _Theodosius_ in his Behalf[1178]. We must not confound this Council with that of _Aquileia_, as I find most Writers have done: for the latter was composed of almost all the Western Bishops under _Valerian_ Bishop of the Place; whereas the Council I am now speaking of, consisted only of the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Italy_, under the Bishop of _Milan_ their Metropolitan. It is surprising that _Ambrose_, and the other Bishops of that Council, should not have been better informed with respect to the Ordination of _Maximus_, since _Acholius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_, with Five other Bishops of _Macedon_, had, at least a Year before, transmitted to _Damasus_ a minute Account of it, agreeing in every Particular with that which I have given above from _Gregory Nazianzen_[1179]. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Answer to their Letter._] The Letter from the Council caused no small Surprize in _Theodosius_: he was sensible they had suffered themselves to be grosly imposed upon; but, not judging it necessary to undeceive them, he only told them, in his Answer to their Letter, that the Reasons they alleged did not seem sufficient to him for assembling an Oecumenical Council, and giving so much Trouble to the Prelates of the Church; that they were not to concern themselves with what happened in the East, nor remove the Bounds, that had been wisely placed by their Fore-fathers between the East and the West; and that, as to the Affair of _Maximus_, by espousing his Cause they had betrayed either an unwarrantable Animosity against the Orientals, or an inexcusable Credulity in giving Credit to false and groundless Reports[1180].

[Sidenote: _A Council of all the Western Bishops assembled at_ Rome.]

Upon the Receipt of this Letter, the _Italian_ Bishops, finding _Theodosius_ no ways disposed to assemble an Oecumenical Council, applied to _Gratian_, who not only granted them Leave to meet at _Rome_, the Place they chose, but dispatched Letters to all the Bishops both in the East and West, giving them Notice of the Time and Place, in which the Council was to be held, and inviting them to it[1181]. But of all the Eastern Bishops, Two only complied with this Invitation; _viz._ _Epiphanius_ Bishop of _Salamis_ in the Island of _Cyprus_, and _Paulinus_, whom all the West acknowleged for lawful Bishop of _Antioch_. The Western Bishops were all present, either in Person, or by their Deputies; and _Damasus_ presided[1182]. But, as to the Transactions of this great Assembly, we are almost intirely in the Dark; for all we know of them is, that they unanimously agreed not to communicate with _Flavianus_, the new Bishop of _Antioch_, nor with _Diodorus_ of _Tarsus_, or _Acacius_ of _Berœa_, who had been chiefly instrumental in his Promotion; that they condemned the Heresy of _Apollinaris_; and that, at the Request of _Damasus_, a Confession of Faith was drawn up by _Jerom_, and approved by the Council, which the _Apollinarists_ were to sign, upon their being re-admitted to the Communion of the Church[1183]. As for _Maximus_, they seem to have abandoned his Cause, being, in all Likelihood, undeceived, with respect to his Ordination, by _Acholius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_, and St. _Jerom_, who assisted at the Council, and could not be Strangers to the Character of _Maximus_, nor unacquainted with the scandalous Methods by which he had attained the Episcopal Dignity.

[Sidenote: _The Misunderstanding between the East and the West increased._]

The Resolution they took not to communicate with _Flavianus_, whose Election, though imprudently made, was undoubtedly Canonical, and had been approved and confirmed by the Oecumenical Council of _Constantinople_, not only increased the Jealousies and Misunderstanding between the East and the West, but occasioned a great Disagreement, and endless Quarrels, among the Eastern Bishops themselves. For those who acknowleged _Paulinus_, _viz._ the Bishops of _Egypt_, of the Island of _Cyprus_, of _Arabia_, insisted upon the Deposition of _Flavianus_[1184]. _Nestorius_ mentions some Letters, written by the Bishops of _Egypt_ against _Flavianus_, with great Virulency, and a _tyrannical Spirit_, to use his Expression[1185]. On the other hand, the Bishops of _Syria_, of _Palæstine_, of _Phœnicia_, _Armenia_, _Cappadocia_, _Galatia_, _Pontus_, _Asia_, and _Thrace_, not only maintained, with equal Warmth, the Election of _Flavianus_, but began to treat their Brethren in the East, who had joined the Western Bishops against them, as Schismatics, as Betrayers of their Trust, as Transgressors of the Canons of _Nice_, commanding the Elections and Ordinations of each Province to be made and performed by the Bishops of the same Province, and all Disputes concerning them to be finally decided in the Place where they had begun[1186]. This Schism occasioned great Confusion in the Church, which continued till the Year 398, when _Chrysostom_, after having, with indefatigable Pains, long laboured in vain to bring about an Accommodation between the East and the West, had at last, soon after his Promotion to the See of _Constantinople_, the Satisfaction of seeing his pious Endeavours crowned with Success, as I shall relate in a more proper Place.

[Sidenote: _No Regard paid by the Eastern Bishops to the Judgment of the Pope._]

From this whole Account it is manifest, as the Reader must have observed, that the Orientals paid no manner of Regard either to the Judgment of the Bishop of _Rome_, or to that of the whole Body of the Western Bishops, assembled in Council under him. For though they well knew the Bishop of _Rome_, and his Collegues in the West, to be warmly engaged in favour of _Paulinus_, yet they refused to acknowlege him, even after the Death of _Meletius_; and therefore raised _Flavianus_ to the See of _Antioch_, in the room of _Meletius_, and confirmed that Election in an Oecumenical Council. The Western Bishops exclaimed against it, desiring it might be referred to the Decision of a General Council. But not even to that Demand would the Orientals agree, thinking, as they declared in their Answer, that there was no Occasion for a Council, since _Flavianus_ had been chosen and ordained by the Bishops of the Diocese, which was all the Canons of _Nice_ required. They therefore exhorted them to divest themselves of all Prejudices, to sacrifice all private Affections to the Peace and Unity of the Church, and to put an End to the present, and prevent all future, Disputes, by approving, with their joint Suffrages, an Election which had been approved and confirmed by an Oecumenical Council[1187].

[Sidenote: _The Custom of appointing Vicars introduced by_ Damasus, _and on what Occasion_.]

To return to _Damasus_: He was the first who introduced the Custom, which his Successors took care to improve, of conferring on certain Bishops the Title of their Vicars, pretending thereby to impart to them an extraordinary Power, enabling them to perform several Things, which they could not perform in virtue of their own. _Acholius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_ was the first who enjoyed this Title, being, by _Damasus_, appointed his Vicar in _East Illyricum_, on the following Occasion: _Illyricum_, comprising all antient _Greece_, and many Provinces on the _Danube_, whereof _Sirmium_ was the Capital, had, ever since the Time of _Constantine_, belonged to the Western Empire. But, in the Year 379. _Dacia_ and _Greece_ were, by _Gratian_, disjoined from the more Westerly Provinces, and added, in favour of _Theodosius_, to the Eastern Empire, being known by the Name of _East Illyricum_, whereof _Thessalonica_, the Metropolis of _Macedon_, was the chief City. The Bishops of _Rome_, as presiding in the Metropolis of the Empire, had begun to claim a kind of Jurisdiction, or rather Inspection in Ecclesiastical Matters, over all the Provinces of the Western Empire; which was the first great Step by which they ascended to the Supremacy they afterwards claimed and established. This _Damasus_ was unwilling to resign with respect to _Illyricum_, even after that Country was dismembered from the Western, and added to the Eastern Empire. In order therefore to maintain his Claim, he appointed _Acholius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_ to act in his stead, vesting in him the Power which he pretended to have over those Provinces. Upon the Death of _Acholius_ he conferred the same Dignity on his Successor _Anysius_, as did the following Popes on the succeeding Bishops of _Thessalonica_, who, by thus supporting the Pretensions of _Rome_, became the first Bishops, and, in a manner, the Patriarchs, of _East Illyricum_; for they are sometimes distinguished with that Title. This, however, was not done without Opposition, the other Metropolitans not readily acknowleging for their Superior one who, till that time, had been their Equal[1188]. _Syricius_, who succeeded _Damasus_, inlarging the Power claimed by his Predecessor, decreed, that no Bishop should be ordained in _East Illyricum_ without the Consent and Approbation of the Bishop of _Thessalonica_[1189]. But it was some time before this Decree took place. Pope _Innocent_ I. writes, that his Predecessors committed to the Care of _Acholius_, _Achaia_, _Thessaly_, the Two _Epirus’s_, _Candia_, the Two _Dacia’s_, _Mœsia_, _Dardania_, and _Prævalitana_, now Part of _Albania_, impowering him to judge and decide the Controversies that might arise there, and appointing him to be _the first among the Primates, without prejudicing the Primacy of those Churches_[1190]. Thus were the Bishops of _Thessalonica_ first appointed Vicars or Vicegerents of the Bishops of _Rome_, probably in the Year 382. for in that Year _Acholius_ assisted at the Council of _Rome_, and it was, in all Likelihood, on that Occasion that _Damasus_ vested him with this new Dignity. [Sidenote: _The Institution of Vicars improved by the succeeding Popes._] The Contrivance of _Damasus_ was notably improved by his Successors, who, in order to extend and inlarge their Authority, conferred the Title of their Vicars, and the pretended Power annexed to it, on the most eminent Prelates of other Provinces and Kingdoms, engaging them thereby to depend upon them, and to promote the Authority of their See, to the utter Suppression of the antient Rights and Liberties both of Bishops and Synods. This Dignity was for the most part annexed to certain Sees, but sometimes conferred on particular Persons. Thus was _Austin_ appointed the Pope’s Vicar in _England_, _Boniface_ in _Germany_; and both, in virtue of the Power which they pretended to have been imparted to them with that Title, usurped and exercised an Authority above that of Metropolitans. The Institution of Vicars was, by the succeeding Popes, improved into that of Legates, or, to use _De Marca_’s Expression, the latter Institution was grafted on the former[1191]. [Sidenote: _Legates vested with greater Power than Vicars._] The Legates were vested with a far greater Power than the Vicars, or, as Pope _Leo_ expresses it, _were admitted to a far greater Share of his Care, though not to the Plenitude of his Power_[1192]. They were sent on proper Occasions into all Countries, and never failed exerting, to the utmost Stretch, their boasted Power, oppressing, in virtue of their paramount Authority, the Clergy as well as the People, and extorting from both large Sums, to support the Pomp and Luxury in which they lived.

The Custom of appointing Vicars and Legates may well be alleged as a remarkable Instance of the Craft and Policy of the Popes, since, of all the Methods they ever devised (and many they have devised) to extend and establish their Power, none has better answered their ambitious Views. But how _Bellarmine_ could lay so much Stress upon it as he does[1193], to prove, that the Pope has, by _Divine Right_, a sovereign Authority and Jurisdiction over all the Churches of the Earth, is unconceivable. [Sidenote: _The sending Legates no Proof of the Pope’s universal Jurisdiction._] For it is certain, beyond all Dispute, that such a Custom had never been heard of till the Time of _Damasus_, that is, till the Latter-end of the Fourth Century, when it was first introduced, upon the dismembering of _East Illyricum_, by _Gratian_, from the Western Empire. _Damasus_ did not even then claim that sovereign and unlimited Power, with which _Bellarmine_ is pleased to vest him, but only a kind of Inspection over the Provinces of the Western Empire, as Bishop of the first See. [Sidenote: _The Disingenuity of_ Bellarmine.] And here I cannot help observing the Disingenuity of _Bellarmine_, who, in speaking of this Institution, expresses himself thus: Leo _appointed_ Anastiasius _Bishop of_ Thessalonica _his Vicar in the East, in the same manner as the Predecessors of_ Anastasius _had been Vicars to the Predecessors of_ Leo[1194]. From these Words every Reader would naturally conclude, and _Bellarmine_ designs they should, that the Bishops of _Thessalonica_ had been the Pope’s Vicars from the Beginning, or Time out of Mind; whereas it is certain, that this Institution had taken place but a few Years before. Pope _Leo_ I. in conferring on _Anastasius_ the _Vicariate Dignity of his See_, as he styles it, declared, that he followed therein the Example of his Predecessor _Syricius_[1195], _who first appointed_ Anysius _to act in his stead_. But he was doubly mistaken; for these Vicars were first instituted, as is notorious, by _Damasus_, and not by _Syricius_; and it was not by _Syricius_, but by _Damasus_, that _Anysius_ was vested with that Dignity[1196]. The Bishop of _Thessalonica_ is styled, by the antient Writers, the Pope’s Vicar in _East Illyricum_, which is manifestly confining his Vicariate Jurisdiction to that District; but _Bellarmine_ extends it at once all over the East, by distinguishing him with the Title of _the Popes Vicar for the East_[1197]. But how little Regard was paid to the Pope’s Authority in the East, I have sufficiently shewn above.

I find nothing else in the antient Writers concerning _Damasus_ worthy of Notice, besides his generously undertaking the Defence of _Symmachus_, who, being Prefect of _Rome_ in 384. the last Year of _Damasus_’s Life, and a _sworn_ Enemy to the Christians, was falsly accused to the Emperor, as if he had with great Cruelty persecuted and oppressed them. But _Damasus_ had the Generosity to take his Part, and clear him, by a Letter he writ to the Emperor, from that Charge[1198]. [Sidenote: Damasus _dies_.] This was one of the last Actions of _Damasus_’s Life; for he died this Year on the 10th or 11th of _December_, being then in the Eightieth Year of his Age, after he had governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Eighteen Years, and about Two Months[1199]. He was buried, according to _Anastasius_[1200], near his Mother and Sister, in a Church which he had built at the Catacombs, on the Way to _Ardea_; whence that Place, though Part of the Cœmetery of _Calixtus_, is by some called the Cœmetery of _Damasus_[1201]. He proposed at first being buried near the Remains of St. _Sixtus_, and his Companions; but afterwards changed his Mind, lest he should disturb the Ashes of the Saints[1202]. He caused the Church of St. _Laurence_, near the Theatre of _Pompey_, probably that which his Father and he himself had formerly served, to be rebuilt, inlarged, and embellished; Whence it is still known by the joint Titles of St. _Laurence_ and _Damasus_[1203]. In that Church his Body is worshiped to this Day. But, how or when it was removed thither, nobody knows[1204]. [Sidenote: _The Decrees ascribed to him suppositious._] Several Decrees are ascribed to _Damasus_ by _Gratian_, _Ivo_ of _Chartres_, _Anastasius_, and others, but all evidently forged by some Impostor blindly addicted to the See of _Rome_, and quite unacquainted with the Discipline of the Church in the Fourth Century. In one of them a Canon is quoted from the Council of Nice, forbidding the Laity to eat or drink of any thing that was _offered to the holy Priests_, because none but the _Jewish_ Priests were allowed to eat of the Bread that was offered on the Altar. We know of no such Canon; and besides, it is not at all probable, that the Council of _Nice_ would have restrained the Clergy from sharing at least with the Poor what was offered them. In another of these Decrees the Paying of Tythes is commanded, on pain of Excommunication; whereas it might be easily made appear, that, in the Fourth Century, the Offerings destined for the Maintenance of the Clergy were still voluntary. Another Decree supposes, that, by an antient Custom, all Metropolitans swore Fealty to the Apostolic See, and could ordain no Bishops till they had received the Pall from _Rome_. For the Sake of this, _Baronius_ admits all the rest: but of such a Custom not the least Mention, or distant Hint, is to be met with in any antient Writer.

[Sidenote: _His Writings in Prose and Verse._]

_Damasus_ is ranked by _Jerom_[1205] among the Ecclesiastical Writers, on account of the many small Pieces he writ, chiefly in Verse; for he had a particular Genius for Poetry, and was no despicable Poet, if some Compositions ascribed to him were truly his. He writ several Books, both in Prose and Verse, in Commendation of Virginity; but neither that, nor any of his other Works, has reached our Times, besides some Letters, and a few Epitaphs, Inscriptions, and Epigrams, which have been carefully collected by _Baronius_[1206], though it may be justly questioned whether the several Pieces ascribed to him by that Writer were written by him. A short History of the first Popes, styled, _The Pontifical of_ Damasus, and published together with the Councils, has long passed for the Work of _Damasus_; but now even _Baronius_ owns it not to be his; and most Critics are of Opinion, that it was written after the Time of _Gregory the Great_; nay, some ascribe it to _Anastasius Bibliothecarius_, who flourished in the Ninth Century[1207]. As for his Letters, those to _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_, to _Stephen_, styled, _Archbishop of the Council of_ Mauritania, to _Prosper_ Primate of _Numidia_, to the Bishops of _Italy_, are all spurious, as well as the Letters to which some of them are Answers, and supposed to have been forged by that notorious Impostor _Isidorus Mercator_[1208]. His genuine Letters are the Two, that are to be found among the Works of _Jerom_, to whom they were written; Two to _Acholius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_, published by _Holstenius_ in his _Collection of the antient Monuments of the Church of_ Rome[1209]; a Letter of great Length to _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, whereof the chief Heads are set down by _Theodoret_ in his History, as are likewise those of his Letter to the Orientals concerning _Timotheus_, the favourite Disciple of _Apollinaris_. Several Letters from the Councils, that were held in _Rome_ in his Time, and at which he presided, are still extant, and may well be ascribed to him. The Two Letters to _Jerom_ are well worth perusing, being written in a pure, easy, and elegant Style, and with a great deal of Spirit, Vivacity, and even Gaiety, though _Damasus_ was then much advanced in Years, and overburdened with Cares and Business[1210]. In one of them he declares, that his only Delight was to read the Scriptures; and that all other Books, however well written, gave him rather Disgust than Pleasure. _Jerom_ returned to _Rome_ from the East in 382. with _Epiphanius_ Bishop of _Salamis_, and _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, to assist at the Council held there. [Sidenote: Jerom _kept at_ Rome, _and employed by him_.] The other Two returned to their Sees; but _Jerom_ continued at _Rome_, being kept there by _Damasus_, who employed him in answering the Letters he received from the Councils of several Churches applying to him for his Advice[1211]. _Damasus_, taken with his Learning and Erudition, and chiefly with the Knowlege he had of the Scripture, had long before lived in great Intimacy with him, and upon his leaving _Rome_ writ frequent Letters to him, not thinking it beneath the Rank he held in the Church to consult him as his Master about the true Meaning of some difficult Passages in holy Writ[1212]. Thus in one of his Letters he desires him to explain the Parable of the Prodigal Son[1213], and in another to interpret the Word _Hosanna_, which he says was differently interpreted by different Writers, who seemed to contradict each other[1214]. In Compliance with this Request, _Jerom_ writ the Piece on that Subject, which is still extant. It was likewise at the Desire of _Damasus_ that he corrected the _Latin_ Version of the New Testament, and revised at _Rome_ the _Latin_ Version of the Psalms, comparing it with the _Greek_ Text of the _Septuagint_. But as to the Letter, with which _Damasus_ is supposed to have encouraged him to undertake that Work, it is evidently supposititious, and altogether unworthy of him.

[Sidenote: _Psalmody falsly ascribed to him._]

_Anastasius_ ascribes to _Damasus_ the Custom of Singing, instead of Reading, the Psalms at Divine Service[1215]. But it is manifest from _Austin_, that this Practice was brought from the East, and first complied with by the Church of _Milan_[1216], in the Year 386. that is, Two Years after the Death of _Damasus_. So long as _Damasus_ lived, _Jerom_ continued at _Rome_; but as, by his Learning and exemplary Life, he was an Eye-sore to the lewd, ignorant, and haughty Clergy of _Rome_, or as he styles them, _the Senate of Pharisees_[1217], he thought it adviseable to abandon the City upon the Death of his great Friend and Protector, and retire to _Jerusalem_, hoping to find there that Quiet and Tranquillity which he despaired of being able to enjoy while he dwelt with _the Scarlet Whore_[1218], that is, while he lived at _Rome_. [Sidenote: _His Character._] As for the Character of _Damasus_; _Jerom_ styles him, _a Virgin Doctor of the Virgin Church_; and, in his Letter to _Eustochium_, _a Man of great Excellence_. _Theodoret_ commends him as a Man of a holy Life, as one who declined no Fatigue or Labour to support and maintain the Doctrine of the Apostles, and who struck the _Arians_ with Terror, though he attacked them at a Distance[1219]. Elsewhere he calls him the _famous Damasus_[1220], and places him at the Head of the most celebrated Teachers of Truth, who, till his Time, had appeared in the West[1221]. That _Greek_ Writer could not be biassed in his Favour, though _Jerom_ perhaps was. The Orientals declared, in 431. that they followed the Example of _Damasus_, and other Persons eminent for Learning[1222]; and the Council of _Chalcedon_, speaking of his Letter to _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, styles him the Honour and Glory of _Rome_ for Piety and Justice[1223]. The Church of _Rome_ honours him as a Saint, and his Festival is kept in some Places on the 10th, in others on the 11th of _December_. But, after all, that he got the Pontificate by the most horrible Violence and Bloodshed; that he lived in great State; that he had frequent and grand Entertainments; that he kept a Table, which, in Sumptuousness, vied with the Tables of the Emperors themselves; and all this at the Expence of the _Roman_ Ladies, whose generous Contributions might have been applied to better Uses; is affirmed by contemporary and unexceptionable Writers. It is likewise manifest from the Letters of _Jerom_, that in his Time the Discipline of the Church was greatly relaxed; that the Observance of the primitive Canons was almost utterly neglected; and that Luxury, Ignorance, and Debauchery, universally prevailed among the Ecclesiastics at _Rome_. And this Charge against his Clergy in some degree recoils upon him, since he appears to have carried the Papal Authority farther than any of his Predecessors, and therefore might have restrained and corrected them. Whether his Sanctity may not from all this be justly questioned, notwithstanding the favourable Testimony of some antient Writers, I leave the Reader to judge.

-----

Footnote 977:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 978:

Bar. 384. 16. in appar. ad annal.

Footnote 979:

Boll. 21 Feb. p. 244.

Footnote 980:

Marcell. & Faust. p. 3.

Footnote 981:

Id. p. 3-5.

Footnote 982:

Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 60. & ad ann. 367. n. 8.

Footnote 983:

Id. ad ann. 359. n. 48.

Footnote 984:

Marc. & Faust. p. 18. 100. 103. Gennad. c. 16.

Footnote 985:

Marc. & Faust. p. 5, 6.

Footnote 986:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 8.

Footnote 987:

Ibid. p. 68, 69. 71.

Footnote 988:

Amb. ep. 11. tom. 5.

Footnote 989:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 990:

Socr. l. 4. c. 24.

Footnote 991:

Ruff. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 992:

Marc. & Faust. p. 5, 6.

Footnote 993:

Id. p. 6, 7.

Footnote 994:

Ruff. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 995:

Ammian. Mar. l. 27. p. 337.

Footnote 996:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 997:

Ammian. ib.

Footnote 998:

Marc. & Faust. p. 9.

Footnote 999:

Hier. ep. 5. t. 2.

Footnote 1000:

Hier. ep. 49.

Footnote 1001:

Ruf. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 1002:

Ammian. l. 27. p. 337.

Footnote 1003:

Idem ib. p. 337, 338.

Footnote 1004:

Hier. ep. 61. t. 2.

Footnote 1005:

Aug. ep. 86. Bar. ann. 367. n. 10.

Footnote 1006:

Marc. & Faust. p. 6-9.

Footnote 1007:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 368. n. 4.

Footnote 1008:

Marc. & Faust. p. 9, 10.

Footnote 1009:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1010:

Ammian. l. 27. p. 349.

Footnote 1011:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 80.

Footnote 1012:

Id. p. 81.

Footnote 1013:

Blond. Prim. p. 165.

Footnote 1014:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 80.

Footnote 1015:

Marc. & Faust. p. 10 Bar. ad ann. 368.

Footnote 1016:

Id. p. 10, 11.

Footnote 1017:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 368. n. 3.

Footnote 1018:

Marc. & Faust. p. 11, 12.

Footnote 1019:

Ath. ad Afr. p. 931.

Footnote 1020:

Id. ib. p. 931-941.

Footnote 1021:

Cod. Theod. 16. t. 2 l. 20 p. 48.

Footnote 1022:

Hier. ep. 2. p. 13.

Footnote 1023:

Amb. ep. 12. t. 5. p. 200.

Footnote 1024:

Hier. ep. 22.

Footnote 1025:

Id. ep. 3.

Footnote 1026:

Id. ep. 2.

Footnote 1027:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1028:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1029:

Bar. ad ann. 370. n. 118.

Footnote 1030:

Vide Cod. Theod. t. 6. p. 50.

Footnote 1031:

Cod. Theod. nov. 16. t. 2. l. 22. p. 50.

Footnote 1032:

Socr. l. 4. c. 15. Soz. l. 6. c. 13. Theod. l. 4. c. 21. Naz. or. 20.

Footnote 1033:

Socr. l. 2. c. 45. Theod. l. 2. c. 27. ep. 73. c. 28. Hier. chron.

Footnote 1034:

Soz. l. 4. c. 28.

Footnote 1035:

Chrys. or. 45.

Footnote 1036:

Chrys. ib. Epiph. c. 38. Soz. l. 4. c. 28. Theod. l. 2. c. 27.
Philost. l. 5. c. 5.

Footnote 1037:

Socr. l. 2. c. 44. Theod. l. 3. c. 12.

Footnote 1038:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 20. Socr. l. 3. c. 6.

Footnote 1039:

Bar. ad ann. 362. n. 180.

Footnote 1040:

Id. ib. n. 206.

Footnote 1041:

Athan. de Ant. p. 574-577.

Footnote 1042:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 1043:

Ath. ep. ad Solit. & de Antioch. Eccl. p. 580.

Footnote 1044:

Ruf. l. i. c. 27. Theod. l. 3. c. 2.

Footnote 1045:

Id. ib. c. 30.

Footnote 1046:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1047:

Id. ib. Theod. l. 3. c. 2.

Footnote 1048:

Basil. ep. 320.

Footnote 1049:

Id. ep. 2. 73.

Footnote 1050:

Id. ep. 250.

Footnote 1051:

Id. ep. 321.

Footnote 1052:

Id. ep. 8.

Footnote 1053:

Id. ep. 10.

Footnote 1054:

Hom. Il. 9. ver. 694.

Footnote 1055:

Basil. ep. 10.

Footnote 1056:

Cod. Theod. 9. t. 29. l. 1. p. 221.

Footnote 1057:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 91.

Footnote 1058:

Marc. & Faust. p. 65-69.

Footnote 1059:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1060:

Basil. ep. 293. Epiph. 77. c. 24. Hier. vir. ill. c. 104.

Footnote 1061:

Suidas, p. 273.

Footnote 1062:

Soz. l. 6. c. 25.

Footnote 1063:

Nil. l. 1. ep. 257.

Footnote 1064:

Basil. ep. 82.

Footnote 1065:

Hier. ep. 65.

Footnote 1066:

Soz. l. 5. c. 18.

Footnote 1067:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1068:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1069:

Voss. poet. Græc. c. 9. p. 76. Baillet. t. 6. p. 453. 455.

Footnote 1070:

Soz. l. 6. c. 25.

Footnote 1071:

Naz. or. 52. p. 745.

Footnote 1072:

Epiph. 77. c. 23. Theod. hær. 4. c. 8. Ath. de incar. p. 615. Nem. l.
1. p. 710. Naz. orat. 46. p. 722.

Footnote 1073:

Aug. in Jo. hom. 47.

Footnote 1074:

Naz. or. 52. p. 749.

Footnote 1075:

Nys. in Apol. l. 2. p. 47. Naz. car. 146.

Footnote 1076:

Athan. ad Epiph. 582. Aug. pers. c. 24. & hær. 55. Theod. l. 5. c. 3.
Naz. or. 51.

Footnote 1077:

Ath. ib. p. 583. Naz. or. 46. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257. Theod. l. 5. c. 3.

Footnote 1078:

Leont. p. 1031.

Footnote 1079:

Id. p. 1032.

Footnote 1080:

Id. p. 1035.

Footnote 1081:

Id. p. 1042.

Footnote 1082:

Ep. 77. c. 20. Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Soz. l. 6. c. 25. Chron. Alex. p.
688.

Footnote 1083:

Epiph. 77. c. 20. Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Naz. or. 52.

Footnote 1084:

Vet. Rom. eccles. mon. collect. p. 181.

Footnote 1085:

Ib. p. 180. & Theod. l. 5. c. 10.

Footnote 1086:

Conc. t. 4. p. 826.

Footnote 1087:

Naz. or. 51.

Footnote 1088:

Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Facund. l. 4. c. 2.

Footnote 1089:

Nil. ep. 257.

Footnote 1090:

Basil. ep. 293. Epiph. 77. c. 34.

Footnote 1091:

Epiph. 66. c. 20. 77. c. 2.

Footnote 1092:

Basil. ep. 293. Soz. l. 6. c. 25.

Footnote 1093:

Basil. ib.

Footnote 1094:

Naz. or. 46, & 5. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257.

Footnote 1095:

Basil. ep. 74.

Footnote 1096:

Id. ep. 74.

Footnote 1097:

Ruff. l. 2. c. 20. Soz. l. 6. c. 25.

Footnote 1098:

Ruff. ib. Theod. p. 719. Concil. t. 5. p. 741. Leon. Sulp. p. 1042.
Phot. p. 231.

Footnote 1099:

Greg. Naz. or. 52.

Footnote 1100:

Ruff. ib.

Footnote 1101:

Martyrol. Rom. 22 Feb.

Footnote 1102:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 33.

Footnote 1103:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1104:

Revel. c. xx.

Footnote 1105:

Bar. ad ann. 118. n. 2. & 373. n. 14.

Footnote 1106:

Ruf. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 1107:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 99. Prædestinat. de hæres. c. 55.

Footnote 1108:

Naz. ep. 77.

Footnote 1109:

Cod. Theod. 16. t. 5. l. 14. p. 130.

Footnote 1110:

Soz. l. 6. c. 26.

Footnote 1111:

Theod. l. 5. c. 3.

Footnote 1112:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1113:

Leo, ep. 134. c. 2. Pet. dog. t. 4. p. 24.

Footnote 1114:

Conc. t. 4. p. 886, 887.

Footnote 1115:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 104. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257. Greg. Nyss. in Eph. t. 3.
p. 609.

Footnote 1116:

Amb. ep. 4.

Footnote 1117:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 82. 92.

Footnote 1118:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 84-92.

Footnote 1119:

Ib. p. 82-93.

Footnote 1120:

Opt. l. 2. p. 49. Aug. de Unit. c. 3. t. 7. & ep. Hier. 165. chron.

Footnote 1121:

Opt. l. 2. p. 49.

Footnote 1122:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 83, 84.

Footnote 1123:

Ibid. p. 85-87.

Footnote 1124:

Ibid. p. 87-89.

Footnote 1125:

Ibid. p. 90, 91.

Footnote 1126:

Bellar. de summ. Pont. l. 4. c. 24. Aug. Triumph. de potest. Eccles.
in præf. ad Joh. XXII. Concil. Later. sub Leone X.

Footnote 1127:

Grat. dist. 40. c. 6.

Footnote 1128:

Bonif. VIII. in ap. ad Mart. Polon. & Conc. Vienn. p. 909.

Footnote 1129:

Pius V. in Bull. apud Cam. ad ann. 1570.

Footnote 1130:

Sixt. V. in Bull. contr. Hen. Navar.

Footnote 1131:

Bonif. VIII. extrav. com. l. 1. tit. 8. c. 1.

Footnote 1132:

Bellar. ap. p. 202.

Footnote 1133:

Amb. ep. 4.

Footnote 1134:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 1135:

Cod. Theod. ch. p. 104.

Footnote 1136:

Amb. ib.

Footnote 1137:

Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 9. Concil. t. 2. p.
947.

Footnote 1138:

Concil. ib.

Footnote 1139:

Zon. in can. p. 70. 72.

Footnote 1140:

Concil. t. 4. p. 795-798.

Footnote 1141:

Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 37, 38.

Footnote 1142:

Concil. t. 4. p. 826.

Footnote 1143:

Leo, ep. 53. c. 5.

Footnote 1144:

Greg. 5. ep. 31.

Footnote 1145:

Theod. l. 5. c. 9.

Footnote 1146:

Conc. t. 4. p. 945.

Footnote 1147:

Conc. t. 4. p. 809. Marca de concord. sacerd. & imp. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 1148:

Lup. ep. 53. c. 5.

Footnote 1149:

Greg. l. 6. ep. 31.

Footnote 1150:

Id. l. 1. ep. 24.

Footnote 1151:

Theod. l. 5. c. 6. Naz. or. 14. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 1152:

Ep. syn. conc. t. 1. p. 872.

Footnote 1153:

Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 20.

Footnote 1154:

Id. ib. n. 19.

Footnote 1155:

Lup. notæ in can. 1, 2. p. 74.

Footnote 1156:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 281. n. 37.

Footnote 1157:

Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 1158:

Theod. l. 5. c. 2. 6, & 7.

Footnote 1159:

Nyss. de Mel. p. 587.

Footnote 1160:

Id. ib. p. 589. & Naz. car. 1. p. 27.

Footnote 1161:

Vide Lup. t. 1. p. 275.

Footnote 1162:

Theod. l. 5. c. 6.

Footnote 1163:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 76, 77.

Footnote 1164:

Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3.

Footnote 1165:

Naz. car. 1. p. 24-26.

Footnote 1166:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1167:

Id. ib. p. 27.

Footnote 1168:

Vide Theod. l. 5. c. 9. & Cod. Theod. ap. p. 164.

Footnote 1169:

Naz. ep. 15.

Footnote 1170:

Id. or. 32.

Footnote 1171:

Theod. l. 5. c. 8. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Ruff. l. 2. c. 21. Soz. l. 7. c.
8, & 10.

Footnote 1172:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 75-78. Theodor. l. 5. c. 9.

Footnote 1173:

Theodor. l. 5. c. 9.

Footnote 1174:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 103-107.

Footnote 1175:

Naz. or. 23. & car. 148.

Footnote 1176:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1177:

Id. car. 1. p. 14, 15. & or. 28.

Footnote 1178:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 104-107.

Footnote 1179:

Vide Holsten. coll. vet. Rom. eccles. monument. p. 37-40.

Footnote 1180:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 99-101.

Footnote 1181:

Hier. ep. 27. Theod. l. 5. c. 9.

Footnote 1182:

Hier. ep. 16. Theodor. l. 5. c. 9. Ambr. ep. 22.

Footnote 1183:

Soz. l. 7. c. 11. Holst. coll. t. 2. p. 37. Ruf. de orig. lib.
adulter. p. 197.

Footnote 1184:

Theodor. l. 5. c. 23. Socr. l. 5. c. 10.

Footnote 1185:

Mercat. opera, t. 2. p. 86. n. 5.

Footnote 1186:

Soz. l. 7. c. 11. Theodor. l. 5. c. 23.

Footnote 1187:

Theodor. l. 5. c. 8.

Footnote 1188:

Vide Christ. Lup. de Rom. Apell. p. 627, 628.

Footnote 1189:

Coll. Rom. Holsten. p. 43.

Footnote 1190:

Ibid. p. 48, 49.

Footnote 1191:

De Marc. concord. sacerd. & imp. l. 6. c. 5.

Footnote 1192:

Leo, ep. 48.

Footnote 1193:

Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 1194:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1195:

Coll. Rom. Holsten. p. 145.

Footnote 1196:

Ibid. p. 46-49.

Footnote 1197:

Bell. ib.

Footnote 1198:

Sym. l. 10 ep. 34.

Footnote 1199:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 103.

Footnote 1200:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 1201:

Aring. l. 3. c. 12. n. 16.

Footnote 1202:

Vide Bar. in app. ann. 384. n. 25.

Footnote 1203:

Front. cal. p. 50. Bar. ad ann. 384. n. 16.

Footnote 1204:

Aring. l. 3. c. 12.

Footnote 1205:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 103.

Footnote 1206:

Bar. ad ann. 584. n. 21.

Footnote 1207:

Bolland. propyl. p. 59.

Footnote 1208:

Id. ib. & Du Pin. Biblioth. p. 459.

Footnote 1209:

Holsten coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 37, & 180.

Footnote 1210:

Hier. ep. 124, & 144.

Footnote 1211:

Id. ep. 11. Ruff. de Orig. p. 197.

Footnote 1212:

Hier. ep. 144.

Footnote 1213:

Id. ep. 146.

Footnote 1214:

Id. ep. 144.

Footnote 1215:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 1216:

Aug. confess. l. 9. c. 7.

Footnote 1217:

Hier. in præf. version. Did. de Spir. Sanct.

Footnote 1218:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1219:

Theod. l. 5. c. 2. & l. 4. c. 27.

Footnote 1220:

Id. ep. 144.

Footnote 1221:

Id. ep. 145.

Footnote 1222:

Concil. t. 3. p. 740.

Footnote 1223:

Concil. t. 4. p. 82.

VALENTINIAN, SYRICIUS, ARCADIUS, THEODOSIUS, _Thirty-seventh_ BISHOP _of_ HONORIUS. Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 384. ]

_Syricius_, the Successor of _Damasus_, according to the Pontificals, and some antient Monuments quoted and received by _Baronius_[1224], was a Native of _Rome_, the Son of one _Tiburtius_, had been first Reader, and afterwards Deacon, under _Liberius_, and, upon his Death, had zealously espoused the Cause of _Damasus_ against _Ursinus_ and his Party. _Damasus_ being dead, he was chosen in his room by the unanimous Acclamations of the whole _Roman_ People, being at that time Presbyter of the Church known by the Title of _the Pastor_, perhaps the most antient Church in _Rome_[1225]. _Ursinus_, who was still alive, did not fail, upon the Vacancy of the See, to revive his former Claim; but he was rejected with Scorn and Indignation. _Valentinian_ the younger, who then reigned in _Italy_ under the Direction of his Mother _Justina_, received the News of this Election with great Joy; and, concluding from the Unanimity of the Electors, the Worth and Merit of the Person elected, confirmed _Syricius_ in his new Dignity, by a Rescript dated the 23d of _February_, and directed to _Piaianus_, at that Time either Prefect or Vicar of _Rome_[1226][N20].

-----

Footnote N20:

_Damasus_ died on the 10th or 11th of _December_ 384. as I have
related above; and _Syricius_ was chosen the same Year, as we read in
the Chronicle of _Prosper_. _Anastasius_ therefore, and the Author of
the Pontifical published by _Bollandus_, as well as _Baronius_, were
certainly mistaken in affirming, upon what Grounds I know not, that,
upon the Death of _Damasus_, the See remained vacant for the Space of
31 or 36 Days[N20.1].

Footnote N20.1:

Anast. p. 21. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32. Bar. ib. n. 5.

-----

[Sidenote: _His Answer to_ Himerius _Bishop of_ Tarragon.]

The first Thing I read of _Syricius_ is his answering a Letter or Relation which _Himerius_, Bishop of _Tarragon_ in _Spain_, had sent to _Damasus_ by _Bassianus_, a Presbyter of that Church, requiring the Advice of the Church of _Rome_ concerning some Points of Discipline, and certain Abuses that prevailed in _Spain_. _Damasus_ being dead before the Arrival of _Bassianus_, _Syricius_, who had succeeded him, caused this Relation or Letter to be read, and carefully examined, in an Assembly of his Brethren, that is, perhaps, of the Bishops who had assisted at his Ordination; and, having maturely weighed and considered every Article, he first acquainted _Himerius_ with his Promotion, and then returned to each the following Answers[1227]. The First was concerning the Sacrament of Baptism, which was by some Bishops of _Spain_ rejected as null and invalid, when conferred by an _Arian_ Minister. In Opposition to them, _Syricius_ alleges the Authority of _Liberius_, and of the Council of _Nice_, the Practice of the Church of _Rome_, and that of all other Churches both in the East and West[1228]. _Isidorus_ of _Seville_ takes particular notice of this Point of Discipline, which he says was established by the Letter of _Syricius_[1229]. By the Second Article he forbids the Sacrament of Baptism to be administred at _Christmas_, or the _Epiphany_, on the Feasts of the Apostles or Martyrs, or at any other Time but _Easter_, and during the _Pentecost_ of that Festival, meaning, in all Likelihood, all _Easter_ time, or the Fifty Days between _Easter_ and _Pentecost_, or _Whitsuntide_; for such, adds he, is the Practice of the Church of _Rome_, and of all other Churches. From this Rule, however, he excepts Children, and all Persons, who are any-ways in Danger[1230]. By the Third Article, he forbids granting the Grace of Reconciliation to Apostates, that is, forgiving and readmitting them to the Communion of the Church, except at the Point of Death[1231]. By the Fourth, a Woman, who, being betrothed to one Man, has received the Priest’s Blessing to marry him, is debarred from marrying another. The Fifth Article commands all Persons, who, being guilty of a Crime, have performed Penance for it, to be treated as the Apostates, if they relapse into the same Crime; and the Sixth, all religious Persons, whether Men or Women, guilty of Fornication, to be dealt with in the same Manner, and, moreover, to be excluded from partaking of the sacred Mysteries, that is, of the Eucharist, except at the Point of Death[1232]. How different is the present Practice of the Church of _Rome_ from that of the same Church in the Fourth Century! which was perhaps even too severe.

[Sidenote: _Priests and Deacons obliged to observe Celibacy._]

_Syricius_, by the Seventh Article of his Letter, obliges all Priests and Deacons to observe Celibacy; and as some had not paid due Obedience to that Command of the Church, he allows those who should acknowlege their Fault, and plead Ignorance, to continue in their Rank, though without Hopes of rising: but as for those who should presume to defend this Abuse as lawful, he declares them deposed and degraded from the Rank they held in the Church[1233]: Pope _Innocent_ I. writing to _Exuperius_ Bishop of _Toulouse_, quotes and transcribes great Part of this Article[1234]. The Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Articles describe at length the Life which those ought to have led, who are raised by the Clergy and People to the Episcopal Dignity, and the Steps or Degrees by which they should ascend to it. They ought first to have been Readers; at the Age of Thirty, Acolytes, Subdeacons, and Deacons; Five Years after, Presbyters; and in that Degree they were to continue Ten Years before they could be chosen Bishops. Those who had been married to Two Wives, or to a Widow, are absolutely excluded from ever sitting in the Episcopal See. Even the Lectors are forbidden, on pain of Deposition, to marry twice, or to marry a Widow[1235]. These, and several other less important Regulations, _Syricius_ delivers as general Rules to be inviolably observed by all Churches, often declaring, that those who do not readily comply with them shall be separated from his Communion by the Sentence of a Synod, and strictly injoining the chief Prelates of each Province to take care they be punctually observed within the Bounds of their respective Jurisdictions, on Pain of being deposed, and treated as they deserve. He therefore desires _Himerius_ to notify his Letter, not only to all the Bishops of his Diocese or Province, but likewise to those of _Carthagena_, _Bætica_, _Lusitania_, _Galicia_, and to all the neighbouring Bishops, meaning perhaps those of _Gaul_; for _Innocent_ I. supposes the Decrees of his Predecessor _Syricius_ to be known to _Exuperius_ of _Toulouse_[1236]; and in all Likelihood they were so to others in that Country.

This Letter is the First of all the Decretals acknowleged, by the Learned, to be genuine, and likewise the First in all the antient Collections of the Canons of the _Latin_ Church. It is quoted by _Innocent_ I. and _Isidore_ of _Seville_, and is the only Letter of the many ascribed to _Syricius_, that _Dionysius Exiguus_ has inserted in his Collection. It is to be found in Father _Quesnel_’s _Roman Code_[1237]; and _Cresconius_ quotes no other Decrees of _Syricius_ but what are taken from this Letter. It is dated the Third of the Ides of _February_, that is, the Eleventh of that Month 385. _Arcadius_ and _Bauto_ being Consuls[N21].

-----

Footnote N21: