Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (18)

As for the Eighteen Bishops, who refused to join the rest, they alleged, that they could not, in Conscience, condemn any Man in his Absence, and that it was but just they should first hear what he had to plead in his Defence, quoting to that Purpose the very Passages of Scripture which _Zosimus_ had quoted in his Letter to the _Africans_, censuring them for condemning _Pelagius_ in his Absence. They added, that, as for _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, they had both condemned, in their Writings, the Errors imputed to them; and therefore did not deserve, in their Opinion, the Anathemas that _Rome_ and _Africa_ had, perhaps too hastily, thundered against them. _Julian_, Bishop of _Eclana_ in _Campania_, one of the Eighteen, and the most distinguished among them, writ Two Letters on this Subject to _Zosimus_, one of which was signed by them all, and contained a Confession of their Faith, agreeing, in the most material Points, with the Confessions of _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_. For there they absolutely reject, and in the strongest Terms, Original Sin, under the Name of _Natural Sin_; but allow (and in this Article alone they differ from _Pelagius_) that by the Sin of _Adam_ Death was let into the World. They intreat _Zosimus_ to acquaint them with what should be found amiss in their Confession; but beg that he would not think of employing Force, since no Force, but that of Conviction, could produce in them a Change of Sentiments. They let him know, in the End of their Letter, that they have already appealed to the Judgment of an Oecumenical Council[1536]. [Sidenote: _They are condemned and degraded by_ Zosimus.] _Zosimus_ was so provoked at this Appeal, that, upon the Receipt of the Letter, he assembled, in great Haste, a Council, consisting of the _Roman_ Clergy, and the neighbouring Bishops; and, having caused the Letter to be read in their Presence, he condemned anew _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, and with them _Julian_, and the other Bishops, who signed it, declaring them guilty of the same Errors, and in Consequence thereof degraded, as incorrigible Heretics, from the Episcopal Dignity. [Sidenote: _They recur to the Emperor for a General Council._] The Prelates, thus degraded, had recourse to the Emperor _Honorius_, complaining of the undeserved Severity of _Zosimus_, and intreating him to convene, by his Authority, an Oecumenical Council, to the Judgment of which they were ready to submit both themselves and their Doctrine. The Emperor seemed at first inclined to grant them their Request. But Count _Valerius_, a great Friend of St. _Austin_, and then very powerful at Court, not only diverted _Honorius_ from it, but prevailed upon him to enact a Law, banishing from _Italy_ _Julian_, and with him all the Bishops, whom _Zosimus_ had deposed[1537]. [Sidenote: _Who issues several Laws against them._] This Law was soon followed by another, commanding all Bishops to sign the Condemnation of _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, on Pain of Deposition, and perpetual Banishment[1538]. The _Pelagians_ interpreted their being refused a Council, as a Token of Victory; whence _Julian_, in a Letter which he writ to his Friends in _Rome_, insults his Adversaries, as if they had distrusted their Cause, and therefore declined the Judgment of an Oecumenical Council[1539]. In another Place he reproaches St. _Austin_, in particular, for courting the Friendship of Men in Power, especially of Count _Valerius_, with no other View but to crush, by their means, those whom he could not convince. St. _Austin_ answered, _That Recourse indeed had been had to Men in Power; but that the_ Pelagians _ought rather to be thankful, than to complain, on that Score, since it was not to crush them, or to do them the least Hurt_ (for they were only driven from their Sees, and banished for Life), _that the Interest and Power of great Men had been made use of, but merely to reclaim them from their sacrilegious Temerity_[1540]. Might not a _Decius_, a _Dioclesian_, or any other Persecutor of the Church, have used the same Plea to justify his Persecution?

[Sidenote: _The_ Pelagian _Doctrine condemned by Two Councils in the East_.]

About this time, that is, in the Latter-end of the Year 418. or the Beginning of 419. the Doctrine of _Pelagius_ was condemned in a Council held at _Antioch_, at which presided _Theodotius_ Bishop of that City; and in another, that met about the Year 421. in _Cilicia_, under the famous _Theodorus_ of _Mopsuestia_, who had been hitherto an avowed Patron of the _Pelagians_, had received _Julian_ when driven out of _Italy_, and even written a Book against St. _Austin_, in Defence of the _Pelagian_ Doctrine[1541]. His Conversion was perhaps owing, as that of many others certainly was, to the severe Laws enacted against the _Pelagians_. Soon after the Council of _Antioch_, _Pelagius_, whom _Jerom_ styles the _Second Catiline_, was driven from _Jerusalem_, where he had lived a long time, and obliged to fly to some other Place for Shelter[1542]. Whither he retired, or what became of him afterwards, is not recorded. St. _Austin_ supposes both him and _Cælestius_ to have been still alive, while he was writing against _Julian_, that is, about the Year 421[1543]. [Sidenote: Pelagius _driven from_ Jerusalem.] As for _Cælestius_, it appears from a Rescript, or rather a Letter, of the Emperor _Constantius_ to _Volusianus_, Prefect of _Rome_, in 421. that he was then in that City. [Sidenote: Cælestius _returns to_ Rome.] For _Constantius_ writes to _Volusianus_, that though he had enacted some Laws against the antient as well as the modern Heresies, yet he was informed, that they made daily great Progress; and therefore, to prevent the Disturbances that must arise from thence, he commands the Laws to be put in Execution, and the Enemies of the true Religion to be carefully sought for, especially _Cælestius_, and to be banished, if apprehended, an Hundred Miles from _Rome_. [Sidenote: _Law issued against him._] To this Letter the Emperor added, with his own Hand, by way of Postscript, that the Reputation of _Volusianus_ depended on the punctual Execution of this Order[1544]. In Obedience to the Emperor’s Commands, _Volusianus_ issued a Proclamation, banishing _Cælestius_ an Hundred Miles from _Rome_, and threatening with Proscription all who should presume to conceal him[1545]. _Cælestius_ however appeared again in _Rome_ Three Years after, and even applied to _Cælestine_, then in that See, to have his Cause examined anew. _Is banished all_ Italy. But _Cælestine_, rejecting his Request with Indignation, caused him to be banished all _Italy_[1546]. From _Rome_ he repaired to _Constantinople_, with _Julian_, and the other Bishops of the _Pelagian_ Party, who all met there with a more kind Reception. [Sidenote: _Is driven from_ Constantinople _together with_ Julian, _and the other_ Pelagian _Bishops_.] The Emperor _Theodosius_ the younger was even inclined to assemble, at their Request, a great Council; and _Nestorius_, then Bishop of _Constantinople_, writ to the Pope in their Favour. But, in the mean time, _Marius Mercator_ having composed, and presented to the Emperor, a Memorial against them, they were ordered by _Theodosius_, in virtue of that Memorial, to depart the City[1547]. Of _Cælestius_ no farther Mention is made by any of the Antients. As for _Julian_, he wandered, for several Years, from Place to Place, being every-where abhorred, detested, and driven out by the Populace, as if his Presence had been enough to draw down from Heaven some remarkable Judgment upon them. [Sidenote: Julian _dies in_ Sicily.] However, he found an Asylum at last in a small Village of _Sicily_, where he earned a Livelihood by keeping a School, till the Year 455. when he died, after he had divested himself of all he had, to relieve the Poor of the Place in a great Famine[1548]. He was a Man of a sprightly Genius, thoroughly acquainted with the Scriptures, well versed in all the Branches of polite Literature, especially in the _Greek_ and _Latin_ Poets, and once famous among the Doctors of the Church[1549]. [Sidenote: _His Birth, Education, &c._] He was descended from an illustrious Family. His Father was an _Italian_ Bishop, for whom St. _Austin_, notwithstanding his irreconcileable Aversion to the Son, professed the greatest Friendship and Veneration[1550]. His Mother was a Lady of the first Quality, and yet more commendable for her Virtue than her Birth[1551]. His Enemies, envying him even his noble Descent, strove to rob him of that Honour, small as it is, in Comparison of his other Endowments, by giving out, that he was a supposititious Child[1552]. He was admitted by his Father among the Clergy, when he was yet very young, and married, when he was of a more mature Age, to a Lady named _Ja_, of a Senatorial, nay, of the _Æmilian_ Family, and the Daughter of _Æmilius_ Bishop of _Benevento_[1553]. St. _Paulinus_, Bishop of _Nola_, did not think it beneath him to write an Epithalamium on this Occasion, of a most singular kind; for he advises him and his Bride to continue Virgins, and observe Continency[1554]. A very extraordinary Advice on a Wedding-Day! That the married Couple agreed to it then, we are not told; but, not long after, probably on the Death of his Wife, _Julian_ bound himself to the Observance of Continency; for he was ordained Deacon, and soon after raised to the See of _Eclana_[1555]. He had, long before, embraced the _Pelagian_ Doctrine; and was so fully convinced of the Truth of it, that he often declared, if _Pelagius_ himself should renounce his Doctrine, yet he would not[1556]. These Sentiments he maintained to the last, chusing rather to be driven from his See, and deprived of all the Comforts of Life, than to abjure Opinions, which he thought true, or admit Opinions, which he thought false. He was buried in the Place where he died; and his Tomb was discovered in the Ninth Century, with the following Epitaph; _Here rests in Peace_ Julian _a Catholic Bishop_. From this Epitaph some have concluded, that he renounced at last the _Pelagian_ Doctrine, and died a good Catholic. But they were not, it seems, aware, that the _Pelagians_ constantly styled themselves Catholics, stigmatizing St. _Austin_, and the rest who opposed them, with the Name of _Manichees_.

[Sidenote: _The_ Semipelagian _Doctrine_.]

_Julian_ is supposed to have dissented in some Points from _Pelagius_, in those especially that relate to Grace, and thereby to have introduced, or laid down such Principles as naturally tended to introduce, the _Semipelagian_ Doctrine; which may be reduced to the following Heads: 1. That when the Truth has been sufficiently declared, we may, by our own Free-will, without the Help of preventing Grace, begin to believe it; so that the first Beginning of our Faith cannot be properly called _a Gift of God_, but, _our own Act_. 2. That for all other good Works Grace is necessary (and here they differed from the _Pelagians_); but is never denied to a Man, who, by the good Use of his Free-will, has begun to believe. Thus, according to them, Grace was the Reward of Faith, and not Faith the Effect of Grace, which was the Doctrine of St. _Austin_. 3. That, by Grace preceding our Merits, no more can be meant, than the natural Grace and Bounty of God, given to Man in his Reason, and the natural Faculties of his Soul; by the good Use of which, he may render himself worthy of the extraordinary Grace that is necessary for him to work out his Salvation. 4. That the Children who die before they attain to the Years of Discretion, are eternally rewarded or punished, according to the good or bad Life they would have led, had they attained to the Years of Discretion. A most impious Tenet! making God punish Sins with eternal Misery that were never committed: yet not quite so impious as that of St. _Austin_; who, without having recourse to the Supposition of Crimes foreseen, supposed innocent Children to be eternally damned for a Crime committed by _Adam_, if, by the Fault of their Parents, they were not baptized. Other Tenets of the _Semipelagians_ were these: 5. That the Notion of Election and Reprobation, independent on our Merits or Demerits, is maintaining a fatal Necessity, is the Bane of all Virtue, and serves only to render good Men remiss in working out their Salvation, and to drive Sinners to Despair. [Sidenote: _The System of the_ Jesuits _founded on the_ Semipelagian _Doctrine_.] 6. That the Decrees of Election and Reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of our good or evil Works, as foreseen by God from all Eternity. On these Two last Propositions the _Jesuits_ found their whole System of _Grace_ and Free-will, agreeing therein with the _Semipelagians_ against the _Jansenists_ and St. _Austin_; though, not daring to contradict _the Doctor of Grace_, as he is styled, they pretend their Doctrine, and not that of the _Jansenists_, to be the true Doctrine of St. _Austin_; which has occasioned endless Disputes, and endless Volumes. The latter Popes have all favoured the _Semipelagians_ or _Jesuits_ against the _Jansenists_ and St. _Austin_; and _Clement_ XI. above all the rest, by his famous Bull _Unigenitus_. But the Popes who lived nearer those Times, especially _Gelasius_ and _Hormisda_, were all zealous Asserters of the Doctrine of St. _Austin_; nay, _Hormisda_ declared the Doctrine contained in the Books of that Father, namely, in those he writ on _Predestination_ and _Perseverance_, to be the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; which was declaring every true Catholic to be a _Predestinarian_[1557]. For the Doctrine of Predestination (as Predestination has been since understood by _Calvin_ and his Followers) is there laid down in the plainest Terms; which so shocked some Persons, otherwise eminent for their Piety, say _Prosper_ and _Hilarius_[1558], that they could not help censuring it, as a Doctrine repugnant to the Sense of the Church, and the Fathers; nay, as a Doctrine, which, were it even true, ought not to be made public, since it was not necessary that Men should know it; and if they did, it would render all Exhortations to good Works vain and useless[1559]. But these, say the _Jesuits_, pretending their System to be the pure Doctrine of St. _Austin_, misunderstood that Father, as did _Faustus_ the famous Abbot of _Lerins_, when he writ, _That if it be true, that some are predestined to Life, and others to Destruction, as a certain holy Man_ (St. _Austin_) _has said, we are not born to be judged, but we are judged before we are born; so that there can be no Equity in the Day of Judgment_[1560]. To speak impartially, it is no easy Matter to determine what System St. _Austin_ had formed to himself, with respect to Grace, Free-will, and Predestination: for, in one Place, he seems to reject and condemn what he had been labouring to prove and establish in another. Hence _Julian_, whose Understanding was far more methodical, used often to quote him against himself, as the _Jesuits_ and _Jansenists_ still do in maintaining their Systems, though diametrically opposite, to be intirely agreeable to his Doctrine. He was apt to run into Extremes, and, in confuting one Error, to lay a Foundation for many others. Hence even his greatest Admirers are often at a Loss how to make him agree either with the Church or himself. However, his great Knowlege in those Days, his extraordinary Zeal for what he called the Catholic Doctrine, and, above all, his heaping daily Volumes upon Volumes against all who opposed it, so dazled the Understandings of the Popes themselves, that, looking upon him as an inspired Writer, they suffered him to dictate even to them, as if he had been Pope, and they common Bishops; as if Infallibility had been transferred from _Rome_ to _Hippo_, and no longer vested in them, but in him.

[Sidenote: Zosimus _quarrels with some Bishops of_ Gaul.]

But to return to _Zosimus_: As his Partiality to _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ occasioned a Quarrel between him and the _African_ Bishops; his Partiality to _Patroclus_, who had usurped the See of _Arles_, as I have related above[1561], occasioned, in like manner, a Quarrel between him and some Bishops of _Gaul_; and from the latter he reaped no more Credit or Honour, than he had done from the former. [Sidenote: _The Occasion of this Quarrel._] It arose on the following Occasion: The Bishops of _Arles_ and _Vienne_ had been long contending for the Metropolitan Dignity, and the Jurisdiction attending it, over the Provinces of _Narbonne_ and _Vienne_: and the Decision of the Controversy having been referred, some Years before, to a Council that was held in _Turin_, it had been there decreed, that the Bishop who should prove his City to be the Metropolis of those Provinces, according to the Civil Division of the Empire, should enjoy the Metropolitan Dignity, and the Privileges annexed to it; but, in the mean time, to avoid any Breach of Charity, that both should exercise the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan over the Churches that were nearest to their respective Cities[1562]. Thus Matters continued, till _Patroclus_ repairing to _Rome_, and there imposing upon _Zosimus_, who was quite unacquainted with the Merits of the Cause, prevailed upon him, by flattering his Vanity and Ambition, to decide, in his Favour, the Controversy, which had been so long depending. _Zosimus_ censured very severely, as I have observed above, the _African_ Bishops, for acting, as he pretended, with too much Haste and Precipitation, in the Case of _Cælestius_. But, surely, no Man ever deserved to be more justly censured, on that score, than himself: for, not to mention the Case of _Heros_ and _Lazarus_, whom he excommunicated and deposed in their Absence, and without hearing what they had to plead in their Defence, he took upon him to decide the present Controversy, which a Council had left undetermined, upon the Information given him by one of the Parties concerned, without hearing the other: for, giving an intire Credit to all _Patroclus_ said, or could say, in Behalf of himself and his Church, he writ a Letter, addressed to all the Bishops of _Gaul_, declaring, that, for the future, he would receive no Bishops or Ecclesiastics coming to _Rome_ from those Provinces, unless they brought with them Letters of Communion, called _Formatæ_, from the Metropolitan of _Arles_, and excommunicating those who should transgress this Order[1563][N63]. The Privilege of granting the _Formatæ_ was only personal; for _Zosimus_ did not grant it to the See of _Arles_, but to _Patroclus_, whom he styles his _holy Brother, in Consideration of his extraordinary Merit_. To such a Degree had he suffered himself to be imposed upon, by a Man, who was the Disgrace of his Order[1564]. In the same Letter he vests him, as Bishop of _Arles_, with a Metropolitan Jurisdiction over the Province of _Vienne_ and the Two Provinces of _Narbonne_, adjudges to his See all the Parishes and Territories that had ever been subject to the City of _Arles_, and grants him a full Power to decide and finally determine all Controversies that should arise in the Three above-mentioned Provinces, provided they were not of such Consequence as required them to be examined at _Rome_[1565]. The only Reason _Zosimus_ alleges for thus exalting the See of _Arles_ to the Prejudice of the See of _Vienne_, is, because _Trophimus_, the First Bishop of _Arles_, had converted those Provinces to the Christian Religion. A Reason both false and impertinent: false, because _Trophimus_ flourished in the Year 250[1566]. and the Church of _Arles_ was famous as early as the Year 177. when they writ, with their Brethren of _Lions_, to the Faithful in _Asia_[1567]: impertinent, because it was to the Dignity of each City, and to nothing else, that the Dignity of the Sees was owing. Hence the Council of _Turin_ wisely adjudged the Metropolitan Dignity to him who should prove his City to be the civil Metropolis, with respect to the contested Provinces, as I have observed above. _Zosimus_, however, writ a Second Letter, which he addressed to all the Bishops of _Gaul_, _Spain_, and _Africa_, confirming to the See of _Arles_ all the Rights and Privileges which he had granted in his First, and rejecting, with Scorn, the Decree of the Council of _Turin_[1568].

-----

Footnote N63:

These Letters were given, in the primitive Times, to traveling
Ecclesiastics, that their Brethren, in the Places through which they
passed, knowing who they were, and whence they came, might admit them
to their Communion.

-----

[Sidenote: _He is opposed by the Bishops of_ Gaul;]

The Bishops of _Gaul_, _viz._ _Simplicius_ of _Vienne_, _Hilarius_ of _Narbonne_, and _Proculus_ of _Marseilles_, amazed and astonished at the Temerity of the Bishop of _Rome_, openly refused to acknowlege his Authority, or submit to his Sentence. _Zosimus_, highly provoked at the Opposition he met with, writ several threatening Letters to _Hilarius_ and _Proculus_, as if he were determined to cut them off from his Communion, if they did not yield, and acknowlege _Patroclus_ for their Metropolitan. As for _Simplicius_, he seems to have acted with less Vigour on this Occasion than the other Two; and it was perhaps on that Account that he has been sainted. _Hilarius_ too yielded at last, not to the Menaces of _Zosimus_, which he made no Account of, but to those of Count _Constantius_, the avowed Patron of _Patroclus_[1569], whom he allowed, on that Consideration, to ordain a Bishop at _Lodeve_, within the Limits of his Province, which was owning him for his Metropolitan. But nothing could shake the Firmness and Constancy of _Proculus_. _Zosimus_, thinking he could frighten him into a Compliance, began with reproachful Language; from Reproaches he proceeded to Menaces; and from Menaces, to summon him to _Rome_, to answer there for his presuming to ordain Bishops in a Province (the _Second Narbonnese_) that had been adjudged by the Apostolic See to the Metropolitan of _Arles_. [Sidenote: _especially by_ Proculus _Bishop of_ Marseilles.] But _Proculus_ made so little Account of his Reproaches, Menaces, and Summons, that I do not even find he returned them an Answer. It is at least certain, that he did not obey the Summons, and that he continued to exercise the same Jurisdiction, which he had exercised before, opposing to the repeated and peremptory Orders of _Zosimus_ a Canon of the Council of _Turin_, appointing him Metropolitan of the _Narbonnensis Secunda_[1570]. _Zosimus_, transported with Rage in seeing his Authority thus slighted, writ Three Letters, all dated the 29th of _September_ 417. _viz._ one to the People and Clergy of the Province of _Vienne_, another to those of the _Second Narbonnese_, and the third to _Patroclus_. In the Two former he inveighs bitterly against _Proculus_, and confirms anew to _Patroclus_ the Metropolitan Dignity and Jurisdiction, which have been so unalterably intailed, says he, on the See of _Arles_, by the Decrees of the Fathers and Councils, that it exceeds even the Power and Authority of the _Roman_ Church to transfer them to, or intail them upon, any other[1571]. This was disclaiming, in the plainest Terms, the Power of dispensing with the Canons, which has since proved so beneficial to the Apostolic See. And yet _Zosimus_ was acting the whole Time in direct Opposition to the Fourth Canon of the Council of _Nice_, vesting, as it was understood by the subsequent Councils, the Bishop of each Metropolis with the Metropolitan Dignity and Jurisdiction over the whole Province. _Zosimus_, in his Letter to _Patroclus_, encourages him to resume and exercise, in spite of _Proculus_, the Metropolitan Jurisdiction over the _Second Narbonnese_, which _Proculus_ had so unjustly invaded and usurped. [Sidenote: Proculus _excommunicated and deposed by_ Zosimus.] This _Patroclus_ durst not attempt, tho’ seconded by the whole Power of the Apostolic See; which wrought the Pride, Ambition,and Resentment of _Zosimus_ to such a Pitch, that, giving the Reins to his Passion, he thundered the Sentence of Excommunication against _Proculus_, declared him unworthy of, and degraded from, the Episcopal Dignity, and committing the Church of _Marseilles_ to the Care of _Patroclus_, commanded him to exercise there the Jurisdiction with which he was vetted. The Power of the Apostolic See was now exhausted, and, what drove _Zosimus_ almost to Despair, exhausted to no Effect: for _Proculus_, to shew how little Regard he paid to the Sentence pronounced against him at _Rome_, ordained a Bishop soon after he was acquainted with it. [Sidenote: _But continues to discharge the Functions of his Office._] _Zosimus_, sensible that the Authority of his See was here at stake, would not abandon the Attempt. He writ Two Letters more on the same Subject, one to _Patroclus_, exhorting him to exert, with Vigour and Severity, the Power with which he was vested; and at the same time commanding him to declare, in his Name, that he should never be prevailed upon to acknowlege those whom _Proculus_ had ordained. The other Letter was to the People, Clergy, and Magistrates of _Marseilles_; stirring them up against _Proculus_, and encouraging them to drive him out, and receive another in his room at the Hands of _Patroclus_. These Letters occasioned great Disturbances in the Church of _Marseilles_, which was now rent into Two opposite Parties, some refusing to acknowlege _Proculus_, and others declaring that they would acknowlege no other[1572]. But, in spite of the utmost Efforts of _Zosimus_, of _Patroclus_, and their Partisans, _Proculus_ still kept his Ground, still continued to exercise all Episcopal as well as Metropolitan Functions, as he had formerly done. He thought even the Evils attending a Schism of a less dangerous Tendency than those which he apprehended from the Encroachments of the Bishops of _Rome_. [Sidenote: _His Steadiness in opposing the Encroachments of_ Rome.] Had all the Prelates thus stood up in Defence of their just Rights and Privileges against the Papal Usurpations, the Church had never been reduced to that deplorable Thraldom, which she groaned under for so many Ages. But, alas! there have been in all Times but too many _Simplicius’s_, who, out of a mistaken Principle, have chosen rather to yield to an encroaching Power, than to raise Disturbances, and forego their own Ease, by withstanding it; but too many _Patroclus’s_, who, to gratify their own Ambition, have prostituted their sacred Dignity to the ambitious Views of the Pope, and raised him, at the Expence of their own Order, that they might be raised by him in their Turn. _Proculus_, though deposed, excommunicated, calumniated, persecuted by _Zosimus_ and his Tools, kept to the last Possession of his See; nay, and was acknowleged for lawful Bishop of _Marseilles_, for Metropolitan of the _Second Narbonnese_, not only by the Bishops of _Gaul_, but likewise by those of _Africa_[1573]. He was still alive in 427. when he condemned the Monk _Leporius_ for maintaining Christ to have been born Man only, but to have deserved, by his good Works, to become God[1574]. The Encomiums bestowed on him by the Council of _Turin_, by St. _Jerom_, and _Tiro Prosper_, as I have observed above, are a sufficient Confutation of all the Calumnies uttered against him by _Zosimus_, and the rest of his Enemies.

[Sidenote: Zosimus _dies_.]

The last Letters of _Zosimus_, that is, his Letters to _Patroclus_, and the People of _Marseilles_, are dated the 5th of _March_ 418. and he died in the Latter-end of the same Year, on the 26th of _December_, says _Baronius_[1575], upon the Authority, we may suppose, of some antient Pontifical[N64].

-----

Footnote N64:

He is said to have been buried near the Body of St. _Laurence_, on the
_Tiburtine_ Way, on the 25th or 26th of _December_, according to
_Anastasius_ the _Bibliothecarian_[N64.1]; but on the 27th, according
to an antient Pontifical, which agrees better with the Letters of
_Symmachus_ concerning the Election of his Successor _Boniface_: so
that he may have governed One Year Nine Months and Eight or Nine Days,
which is the Time that _Prosper_ allows him[N64.2].

Footnote N64.1:

Anast. c. 42.

Footnote N64.2:

Vide Pontaci not. in chron. Prosp. p. 777.

-----

The Distemper which he died of lasted a long time, and was attended with such violent Fits, that he was often thought to be dead before he died. It was during his Illness that he writ his last Letters; and yet they are no less remarkable than the rest for that Fire and Vivacity, that Strength of Expression, and even that Elegance and Purity of Diction, that were peculiar to him. [Sidenote: _His Character._] He was a Man of great Address in the Management of Affairs; well knew how to turn every thing to his Advantage; and in the several Disputes which he engaged in, he forgot nothing that could any ways distress those who opposed him. He was apt to engage too rashly, giving an intire Credit to those who, by a servile Submission, flattered his Ambition; and when he had once engaged in a Cause, as he was of a haughty and imperious Temper, impatient of Controul, passionate, headstrong, full of, and elated with, the Dignity of the _Apostolic See_, it required the greatest Art and Address in his Brethren to bring him into their Measures, and with-hold him from raising fatal Divisions in the Church. His whole Conduct and Behaviour towards them, the haughty and peremptory Style, which he assumed in writing to them, sufficiently shew that he looked upon them as infinitely below him, as bound to yield a blind Obedience to all his Commands, and submit, without Reply, to all his Decisions: and it is not to be doubted but, had he lived longer, and not met with the vigorous Opposition which he did from the Bishop of _Marseilles_, he would have made great Progress towards reducing his _Fellow-Ministers_ and _Fellow-Labourers_, as they are styled by St. _Cyprian_, to that State of Dependence, not to say Slavery, which in the End they have been reduced to by his Successors. He was the first who made use of the Expression, _For so it has pleased the Apostolic See_[1576], an Expression which his Successors have all adopted, as the Language of the highest Authority, and such as exempted them from giving any Account either of their Actions, or of the Motives, that prompted them so to act. But, to paint _Zosimus_ to the Life, we want no other Colours than those, which the _African_ Bishops, who were but too well acquainted with him, have furnished us with in the Letter which they writ to his Successor _Boniface_. _We hope_, say they, _that since it has pleased the Almighty to raise you to the Throne of the_ Roman _Church, we shall no longer feel the Effects of that worldly Pride and Arrogance, which ought never to have found room in the Church of Christ_[1577]. In the same Letter they complain of their having been made to endure such things as it was almost impossible for them to endure, which however they were willing to forget. Hard indeed and tyrannical must the Treatment have been, which they met with at the Hands of _Zosimus_, since it could extort from so many venerable Prelates a Complaint of this Nature, and that in a Letter to his immediate Successor. [Sidenote: Zosimus _sainted by a Mistake of_ Baronius.] _Zosimus_ however has been sainted, and is now worshiped by the Church of _Rome_ as a great Saint, not so much in regard of his own Merits, as by a Blunder of _Baronius_ in revising and correcting the _Roman_ Martyrology. The Case is pretty singular, and may not be thought quite unworthy of a Place here, by reason of the Consequences, which every Protestant Reader may draw from it. In the Martyrology of _Bede_ was marked, _St._ Zosimus _Martyr, who suffered for the Confession of the Faith_. This Martyr an ignorant Transcriber mistook for the Pope of the same Name, and, concerned to find so little said of so great a Saint, set down all he knew of him. This Copy _Baronius_ perused, and, reading there what the Transcriber had added of his own, concluded the Saint mentioned in that Place to be Pope _Zosimus_, and accordingly, upon the supposed Authority of _Bede_, allotted him a Place among the other Saints in the _Roman_ Martyrology. As for his being said to have suffered Martyrdom for the Confession of the Faith, _Baronius_ ascribed that to the Ignorance of the Transcriber, making but one Saint out of two, though they lived at so great a Distance of Time from each other; for the Martyr lived in the earliest Times, and is mentioned by St. _Polycarp_, who flourished Two hundred Years and upwards before the Pontificate of _Zosimus_. To this double Blunder of the Transcriber and _Baronius_ is _Zosimus_ indebted for the Worship and Honours that are publicly paid him in the Church of _Rome_. Indeed that Church is not more grosly deluded in paying an idolatrous Worship to Saints, upon the Authority of her _Infallible Guide_, than in the Objects to whom that Worship is paid[N65].

-----

Footnote N65:

_Bollandus_, to saint _Zosimus_ in a more honourable Way, supposes him
to have once had a Place in the Martyrology of St. _Jerom_; and
complains of those who have taken the Liberty to strike out his Name.
One would think he had found his Name in some Copy of that
Martyrology, or at least heard of it; but he ingenuously owns, that he
never found it there himself, nor heard of any who did; adding, that
nevertheless he is fully persuaded it was once there, and that he
cannot think otherwise; and it is upon his _not being able to think
otherwise_ that he founds his Supposition, his Complaints, and the
Saintship of _Zosimus_[N65.1]; which is allowing them to have no
Foundation at all.

-----

-----

Footnote N62:

_Honorius_ supposes, and likewise his Prefects, _Pelagius_ to have
been in _Rome_, when this law was enacted; but it is very certain,
that he was then in _Palæstine_.

Footnote N65.1:

Boll. conat. ad chronol. Pont. p. 61, 62.

Footnote 1475:

Anas. c. 42.

Footnote 1476:

Jans. Hist. Pel. p. 2.

Footnote 1477:

Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.

Footnote 1478:

Aug. ep. 95. Pecc. Orig. c. 8-21, &c.

Footnote 1479:

Hier. in Jer.

Footnote 1480:

Vide Jan. hist. Pel. 1. 6. c. 24.

Footnote 1481:

Hier. in Jer. et Gernerius in Mar. Mercat.

Footnote 1482:

Gennad. de script. eccles. c. 44.

Footnote 1483:

Hier. ad Ctesiph. c. 3.

Footnote 1484:

Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.

Footnote 1485:

Aug. ep. 89.

Footnote 1486:

Aug. de Gest. Pelag. c. 22.

Footnote 1487:

Aug. ibid.

Footnote 1488:

Aug. ep. 89. Mar. Mer. comm. c. 1.

Footnote 1489:

Aug. ib. et de Gest. Pel. c. 11. Mar. Mer. comm. c. 1. Oros. apol. p.
801.

Footnote 1490:

Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 6. 11. 20. 29, 30. 35. ep. 96. 106. Hier. ep. 79.

Footnote 1491:

Hier. ibid.

Footnote 1492:

Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 1. Vide Noris hist. Pel. l. 2. c. 8.

Footnote 1493:

Aug. ep. 90.

Footnote 1494:

Idem ibid. ep. 95.

Footnote 1495:

Aug. Pecc. Orig. c. 8. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. ep. 104, 105. Prosp. in
collat.

Footnote 1496:

Aug. ep. 90. 92. Hier. in Jer. Mercator. com. c. 1.

Footnote 1497:

Aug. Gr. Ch. c. 30. 33. Peccat. Orig. c. 23.

Footnote 1498:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 417.

Footnote 1499:

Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. & Pecc. Orig. c. 6.

Footnote 1500:

Idem ad Bon. ibid.

Footnote 1501:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1502:

Mercat. comm. c. 1. Vide Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 19, 20, &c.

Footnote 1503:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1115.

Footnote 1504:

Hier. ep. 4.

Footnote 1505:

Tiro Prosp. p. 51.

Footnote 1506:

Bar. ad ann. 426. n. 26.

Footnote 1507:

Bar. ibid.

Footnote 1508:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1571.

Footnote 1509:

Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 16.

Footnote 1510:

Idem ep. 90.

Footnote 1511:

Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 23.

Footnote 1512:

Bar. ibid. n. 27, 28, 29.

Footnote 1513:

Noris Hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 12.

Footnote 1514:

Gallia Christiana, t. 1. p. 2.

Footnote 1515:

Merc. comment. c. 3.

Footnote 1516:

Gall. Christ. ibid.

Footnote 1517:

Aug. Gr. Ch. c. 30. & Pecc. Orig. c. 18, 19.

Footnote 1518:

Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 25. 29.

Footnote 1519:

Hier. ep. 195. 209.

Footnote 1520:

Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.

Footnote 1521:

Aug. ib. & Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 4. & Quesnel. in Leon. opera, p. 676.

Footnote 1522:

Quesnel. ibid. p. 675.

Footnote 1523:

Prosp. chr. & in coll. c. 10.

Footnote 1524:

Prosp. chron. in Ingrat. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 1525:

Prosp. in Ingrat. l. 1. c. 3.

Footnote 1526:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1527:

Prosp. ibid. l. 1. c. 2. Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. & Pecc. Orig. c. 8.
Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 5. 12.

Footnote 1528:

Bar. ibid.

Footnote 1529:

Conc. l. 2. p. 1121. Aug. ep. 47.

Footnote 1530:

Conc. l. 2. p. 1064. Nor. hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 17.

Footnote 1531:

Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 20.

Footnote 1532:

Bar. ad ann. 420. n. 4. Nor. hist. Pel. p. 88.

Footnote 1533:

Aug. Pecc. orig. c. 8. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. Mar. Merc. comm. c. 1.

Footnote 1534:

Aug. Pecc. orig. c. 3, & 4. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.
Mercat. ubi supra. Prosp. chr. & Ingrat. l. 1. c. 3.

Footnote 1535:

Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. Conc. t. 3. p. 349. Prosp. chr. Merc. c. 3.

Footnote 1536:

Merc. subnot. p. 320-326.

Footnote 1537:

Aug. op. imperf. l. 1. c. 10. ad Val. p. 343. Conc. t. 2. p. 1558.

Footnote 1538:

Mer. Com. c. 3. Nor. hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 16.

Footnote 1539:

Aug. in Jul. l. 3. c. 1. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 24.

Footnote 1540:

Aug. op. imperf. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote 1541:

Merc. Comm. c. 3.

Footnote 1542:

Hier. ep. 55.

Footnote 1543:

Aug. in Jul. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 1544:

Bar. ad ann. 420. n. 2.

Footnote 1545:

Phot. c. 53.

Footnote 1546:

Prosp. in Coll. c. 41.

Footnote 1547:

Vid. Garn. in Mercat. p. 144.

Footnote 1548:

Gennad. c. 45.

Footnote 1549:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1550:

Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. & op. imperf. l. 1. c. 68.

Footnote 1551:

Merc. subnot. c. 4. Aug. op. imperf. p. 22.

Footnote 1552:

Merc. ib. p. 40.

Footnote 1553:

Paulin. car. 14.

Footnote 1554:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1555:

Aug. in Jul. l. 3. c. 21. et l. 4. c. 11. Mer. Comm. c. 3.

Footnote 1556:

Aug. ep. 106.

Footnote 1557:

Concil. t. 4. p. 1531.

Footnote 1558:

Prosp. et Hil. Literæ ad Aug. l. 7. p. 542. 546.

Footnote 1559:

Prosp. & Hil. ibid.

Footnote 1560:

Vide Sirmond. hist. prædest. c. 1, 2, &c.

Footnote 1561:

See p. 336, 337.

Footnote 1562:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1156.

Footnote 1563:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1567.

Footnote 1564:

See p. 337.

Footnote 1565:

Conc. ib. p. 1567-1569.

Footnote 1566:

Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. l. 1. c. 30.

Footnote 1567:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 1.

Footnote 1568:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1568.

Footnote 1569:

Conc. ibid. p. 1581.

Footnote 1570:

Conc. ibid. p. 1155.

Footnote 1571:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1570.

Footnote 1572:

Conc. ibid. p. 1574.

Footnote 1573:

Du Pin, t. 3. p. 827.

Footnote 1574:

Cassian. incar. l. 1. c. 4.

Footnote 1575:

Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 72.

Footnote 1576:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1567.

Footnote 1577:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1141.

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

HONORIUS, BONIFACE, THEODOSIUS
_Forty-first_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 419. _Schism in the Church of_ Rome.]

_Zosimus_ being dead, great Disturbances arose about the Election of his Successor. _Eulalius_, whom Authors distinguish with the Title of Archdeacon, shutting himself up in the _Lateran_ with Part of the People, and some Presbyters and Deacons, was there chosen by them in the room of _Zosimus_. At the same time a great Number of the People, many Presbyters, and some Bishops, assembling in the Church of St. _Theodora_, named the Presbyter _Boniface_ to the vacant See. [Sidenote: Boniface _and_ Eulalius _both chosen_.] Both were ordained the same Day they were chosen; _Boniface_, by Nine Bishops, and in the Presence of Seventy Presbyters; _Eulalius_, by Three Bishops only, and in the Presence of a very small Number of Presbyters; but the Bishop of _Ostia_ was one of the Three; and he claimed, from a Custom which had long obtained, the Right of ordaining the Bishop of _Rome_. [Sidenote: _The Governor of_ Rome _and the Emperor favour_ Eulalius,] _Symmachus_, Governor of the City, did all that lay in his Power to prevent this double Election; but, not succeeding therein, he immediately dispatched an Express to the Emperor _Honorius_, then at _Ravenna_, with a Letter dated the 29th of _December_ 418. acquainting him with what had passed. But his Account was not impartial: he represented _Eulalius_ as lawfully chosen, and his Competitor as an Usurper. _Honorius_ therefore, by a Rescript dated the 2d of _January_ 419. ordered him to persuade _Boniface_ to retire from _Rome_, to use Force, if Persuasions did not prevail, and to apprehend and punish the Ringleaders of the Sedition, if any should be raised on that Occasion. With this Rescript the Emperor dispatched _Aphrodisius_ a Tribune and Notary; and _Symmachus_, having received it on the 6th of _January_, sent early next Morning his Primiscrinius, or first Secretary, with an Order for _Boniface_ to attend him, and hear what he had to impart to him in the Emperor’s Name, letting him know, in the mean time, that he must not take upon him to exercise any Episcopal Functions; for such was the Will and Pleasure of the Emperor. This Order _Boniface_ received while he was holding an Assembly in the Church of St. _Paul_ without the Walls; but paid no Regard to it; nay, those who attended him, falling on the Secretary, who brought it, treated him very roughly; which _Symmachus_ no sooner knew than he caused the Gates of the City to be shut, and kept _Boniface_ out. [Sidenote: _who takes Possession of the Church of St._ Peter.] In the mean time _Eulalius_, improving to his Advantage the Absence of his Competitor, repaired to the Church of St. _Peter_, took Possession of it amidst the loud Acclamations of his Partisans, and exercised there all Episcopal Functions.

[Sidenote: _The Friends of_ Boniface _write to the Emperor_,]

The avowed Partiality of _Symmachus_ for _Eulalius_ left no room to doubt but he had misinformed the Emperor. The Bishops therefore, with the Presbyters and People, who had chosen _Boniface_, thought it their Duty to transmit to him a candid and impartial Account of the late Transactions: and this they did accordingly, intreating the Emperor at the same time to revoke his former Order, and to summon both _Eulalius_ and _Boniface_ to Court, in order to try their Cause there. [Sidenote: _who summons a Council to decide the Controversy_.] Their Request appeared just; and _Honorius_, in Compliance with it, sent an Order to _Symmachus_, dated the 13th of _January_ 419. commanding him to suspend the Execution of his former Order, and to notify to the Two Competitors, that they, and those who ordained them, must repair to _Ravenna_, on Pain to him who should fail to appear there on the 8th of the ensuing _February_, of having his Election declared null. Several Bishops were summoned to attend at the same time, _Honorius_ thinking it proper, that a Dispute of that Nature should be decided by none but Bishops. However, to remove all Suspicion of Partiality on his Side, he would not allow those to sit as Judges, who had been any-ways concerned in the Election or Ordination of either of the Competitors. [Sidenote: _A more full Council summoned._] The Bishops met; but not being able to agree among themselves, _Honorius_ thought the Affair of such Importance, that he put it off to the 13th of _June_, with a Design to have it decided then in a full Council. He writ accordingly not only to the Bishops of _Italy_, but to those too of _Gaul_ and _Africa_, inviting them to the Council, and acquainting them with the Time and Place of its meeting. In the mean while he strictly injoined both _Boniface_ and _Eulalius_ to keep at a Distance from the City, lest their Presence should occasion Disturbances there. But as _Easter_ approached, he appointed _Achilleus_ Bishop of _Spoleti_, who was of neither Party, to perform the Episcopal Functions at _Rome_ during that Solemnity. [Sidenote: Eulalius _disobeys the Emperor, and is driven from_ Rome.] This _Eulalius_ could not brook; and therefore returning to _Rome_, in open Defiance of the Emperor’s Orders, he assembled the People, seized on the _Lateran_, and shutting the Doors against _Achilleus_, performed in that Basilic the Episcopal Functions usual at _Easter_. The Emperor, being acquainted by _Symmachus_ with what had passed, was so provoked at his Disobedience and Temerity, that, by a Rescript dated from _Ravenna_ the 3d of _April_, and received at _Rome_ on the 8th of the same Month, he commanded _Symmachus_ to drive _Eulalius_ from the City, and to put _Boniface_ in Possession of the disputed See; which was accordingly done[N66].

-----

Footnote N66:

The original Copies of the Letters from _Symmachus_ to the Emperor,
and of the Emperor’s Rescripts to _Symmachus_, giving a full and
distinct Account of the present Schism, are lodged in the _Vatican_
Library, and have been thence copied by _Baronius_.[N66.1].

Footnote N66.1:

Bar. ad ann. 419. n. 1-42.

-----

[Sidenote: Boniface _indebted to the Emperor for his Dignity_.]

Thus was an End put to the Schism; thus was _Boniface_ placed on the _Roman_ See, and vested with the Papal Dignity by the _Clemency of the Emperor_, as _Largus_ Proconsul of _Africa_ expresses it in his Letter to the Bishops of that Province[1578]; and not by the Authority of a Council consisting of Two hundred and Fifty-two Bishops, which some have brought down from the Clouds, without even letting us know where or when they assembled[1579].

All we know of _Boniface_ before his Election is, that he was the Son of one _Jucundus_ a Presbyter[1580], was stricken in Years, well versed in the Ecclesiastical Laws, of an unblemished Character; and, what enhances his Merit, chosen against his Will. [Sidenote: Boniface _applies to the Emperor for a Law to restrain the Ambition of the Candidates to the Papacy_.] Thus say his Friends, in the Letter which they writ in his Behalf to the Emperor _Honorius_[1581]. His first Care, after he found himself in the quiet Possession of his See, was to prevent for the future, so far as in him lay, the Cabals and Intrigues that might be formed at other Elections, as they had been at his, to the great Disturbance of the City, and Scandal of the Christian Religion. With this View he writ to the Emperor, intreating him to restrain, by some severe Law, the Ambition of those who, trusting more to their Intrigues than their Merit, aspired to a Dignity that was due to Merit alone[N67].

-----

Footnote N67:

This Letter bears Date the First of _July_ 419.

-----

[Sidenote: _His Law for that Purpose._]

The Emperor, in Compliance with so just a Demand, enacted a Law, well calculated to prevent effectually the Evil complained of, and keep the Ambition of the Candidates to the Papacy within due Bounds. For by this Law, when Two Persons were chosen, neither was to hold the Dignity, but the People and Clergy were to proceed to a new Election. This is the first Instance, that occurs in History, of Princes intermeddling in the Election of the Pope; an Evil, says F. _Pagi_, which, from small Beginnings, grew to such a Height as to reflect great Shame and Disgrace on the _Roman_ Church.[1582] But it must be observed, that the original Evil was the Corruption, the Violence, and the many Disorders which the Clergy and People were guilty of in those Elections. It was this which, at the Request of the Pope himself, called on the Emperors to interpose their Authority, as the only adequate Remedy to such Abuses. The succeeding Emperors followed the Example of _Honorius_, and the _Gothic_ as well as the _Lombard_ Kings, the Example of the Emperors, as we shall see in the Sequel of the present History.

[Sidenote: Boniface _free from Ambition_.]