Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (4)

Another remarkable Incident of this Pontificate was, the famous Schism, formed in _Africa_ against _Cæcilianus_, the Catholic Bishop of _Carthage_; whereof a succinct Account will not be foreign to my Subject, as _Melchiades_ was chiefly concerned in most of the Transactions relating to it. The first Decree against the Christians, published by _Dioclesian_, which I have just now mentioned, ordered the Churches to be every-where laid level with the Ground, the Books of the Scripture to be carefully sought for, and publicly burnt; and that such Persons of Quality as should persist in the Profession of the Christian Faith, should be deemed infamous, and excluded from all Honours and Employments. This Edict was executed with such Rigour in _Africa_, that it was a capital Crime in the Magistrates of the Cities, and punishable with Death, to shew any Mercy or Compassion to a Christian, who, owning he had the sacred Books, should refuse to deliver them into the Hands of the proper Officers. [Sidenote: Traditores _who_.] Those who, in Compliance with this Edict, delivered them up, which great Numbers did, were styled _Traditores_, a Name, which afterwards became famous in the History of the Church, by affording the _Donatists_ a plausible Pretence to separate themselves from the Communion of the Catholic Bishops[527]. Of this Crime _Mensurius_, Bishop of _Carthage_, was falsly accused; but, though the Charge could not be proved against him, yet some of his Flock, encouraged by _Donatus_, Bishop of _Casænigræ_ in _Numidia_, separated from his Communion[528]. _Mensurius_ dying some Years after, _Cæcilianus_, Deacon of the Church of _Carthage_, was chosen in his room, in Spite of the Cabals and Intrigues of _Botrus_ and _Cælesius_, Two chief Presbyters, who aspired to that Dignity. [Sidenote: _The chief Authors of the Schism against_ Cæcilianus.] _Cæcilianus_, soon after his Election, summoned some Persons, in whose Custody his Predecessor had left the Money of the Church, to deliver it up to him: but they not only refused to comply with his Demand, but began to stir up the People, and form a Party against him. _Botrus_ and _Cælesius_ were not idle on this Occasion; but, animated with Jealousy and Envy, lest no Art unpractised to blacken his Character, and discredit him with those who had preferred him to them. But the chief Support of this Faction was _Lucilla_, a Woman of great Quality, Wealth, and Interest, and an avowed Enemy to _Cæcilianus_, who, while he was yet Deacon, had publicly reprimanded her for kissing the Relique of a Martyr, as she was upon the Point of receiving the Eucharist. An undeniable Proof, that the Worship of Reliques was at this time disapproved by the Church. Such Liberty taken with a Person of her Rank, was what she could not brook; and therefore she laid hold of the first Opportunity that offered, and no better could offer, to revenge the Affront[529]. It is not to be doubted but those, who had separated from _Mensurius_, joined this Faction; since the Second Schism owed its Origin to the First, as St. _Austin_ says, speaking of the Two Schisms under _Mensurius_ and _Cæcilianus_[530].

[Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Numidia _summoned to depose him_.]

The Schismatics, to give an Appearance of Justice and Authority to their Proceedings, summoned _Secundus_ Bishop of _Tigisis_, and the other Bishops of _Numidia_, to depose _Cæcilianus_, and chuse another in his room; for the Bishops of _Numidia_ claimed the Privilege of assisting at the Election of the Bishop of _Carthage_, and ordaining him after he was elected[531]. They readily complied with the Summons; but, upon their Arrival, they found, to their great Surprize, that the whole City, except a small Number of Schismatics, the avowed Enemies of _Cæcilianus_, communicated with him as their lawful Bishop[532]. They were 70 in Number; but as many of them were _Traditors_, and some guilty of other enormous Crimes, as appears from the Acts of the Council of _Cirtha_[533], they were easily prevailed upon by _Lucilla_, who is said to have spent an immense Sum on this Occasion[534], to declare the Election of _Cæcilianus_ void, and the See of _Carthage_ vacant. [Sidenote: _They declare his Election null._] The only thing they could lay to his Charge was, that he had been ordained by _Felix_ Bishop of _Aptungus_, whom they falsly accused as a _Traditor_. _Cæcilianus_ refused to Appear before them; and truly to trust himself to such an Assembly, had been acting a very imprudent Part; for _Purpurius_, Bishop of _Limata_, had said, _If he comes among us, instead of laying our Hands upon him, by way of Ordination, we ought to knock out his Brains, by way of Penance_[535].

[Sidenote: _The Schismatics separate themselves from the Communion of the Church._]

The Party having thus declared _Cæcilianus_ illegally elected and ordained, they separated themselves from his Communion, and from the Communion of all who communicated with him[536]; that is, from the Communion of the Catholic Church; for _Cæcilianus_ was acknowleged by the other Bishops of _Africa_, by the Bishop of _Rome_, and by all the Bishops of the World, says St. _Austin_[537]. Such was the Rise of the famous Schism, which, for the Space of 300 Years, and upwards, occasioned great Disturbances in the Churches of _Africa_. [Sidenote: _Called_ Donatists, _and from whom_.] _Donatus_, Bishop of _Casænigræ_ in _Numidia_, was the first Author of it, according to St. _Austin_[538]; but it was not from him, but from _Donatus_, the Schismatic Bishop of _Carthage_, that they took the Name of _Donatists_; for, till his Time, they styled themselves the Party of _Majorinus_[539], whom they chose and ordained Bishop of _Carthage_, in the room of _Cæcilianus_; though he was then only Lector of that Church, and had been formerly one of _Lucilla_’s menial Servants[540]. To justify their Conduct, and their electing a new Bishop, they writ Letters to all the Churches of _Africa_, filled with Calumnies against _Cæcilianus_, and those who had ordained him. By these Letters great Numbers were imposed upon, and misled; insomuch that, the People being every-where divided, most Churches had Two Bishops, the one ordained by _Majorinus_, and the other by _Cæcilianus_[541].

[Sidenote: _Edicts enacted by_ Constantine, _in favour of the Christian Religion_.]

About this time, that is, about the Year 313. _Constantine_, out of his Zeal for the Christian Religion, issued Two Decrees, addressed to _Anulinus_, Proconsul of _Africa_, the one commanding all the Places in that Province to be restored, which had once belonged to the Catholic Church, and might have been usurped during the Persecution[542]; and the other, exempting the Ecclesiastics from all civil Functions[543]. This Privilege was granted only to the Ecclesiastics of the Catholic Church, whereof _Cæcilianus_ was the Head, as was expresly declared in the Edict; and therefore to him alone the Proconsul imparted it. It was a great Mortification to the _Donatists_ to see themselves thus disregarded by the Emperor: they therefore assembled a few Days after, and drawing up a Petition to _Constantine_, they delivered it, unsealed, to _Anulinus_, together with a Bundle of Papers, sealed up in a Leather Bag, with this Title: _The Petition of the Catholic Church, containing the Crimes of_ Cæcilianus; _by the Party of_ Majorinus. [Sidenote: _The_ Donatists _petition_ Constantine, _that the Dispute may be referred to the Bishops of_ Gaul.] The Substance of the Petition was, that the Controversy between them and the other Bishops of _Africa_ might be referred to the Bishops of _Gaul_, who were free from the Imputation of having delivered up the sacred Books to the Pagans[544]. _Anulinus_ immediately dispatched a Messenger to the Emperor, both with the Request, and the Papers, giving him, at the same time, by a Letter still extant[545], an Insight into the Dispute, that made so great a Noise in _Africa_. _Constantine_, who was then in _Gaul_, having received and read all those Pieces, expressed great Concern to find the Christians thus divided among themselves, and the Bishops at Variance with one another[546]. [Sidenote: _The Bishops named by_ Constantine.] However, he readily granted to the _Donatists_ the Judges they demanded, naming, for that Purpose, _Maternus_ Bishop of _Cologne_, _Rheticius_ Bishop of _Autun_, and _Marinus_ Bishop of _Arles_[547]; all Men of known Integrity, great Learning, and unblemished Characters. To these, by a Letter under his own Hand, he gave Notice of their new Commission; and, at the same time, for their better Information, he caused Copies to be transmitted to them, of all the Papers he had received from _Anulinus_[548]. The Three Bishops were ordered to repair, with all Speed, to _Rome_, and there, jointly with _Melchiades_, Bishop of that City, to sit as Judges of the Controversy. _Cæcilianus_ likewise was ordered to _Rome_, and allowed to take with him Ten Bishops of his Party, such as he should judge the most capable of defending his Cause; and the same Liberty was granted to the adverse Party[549]. [Sidenote: _His Letter to_ Melchiades.] _Constantine_, in the Letter he writ on this Occasion to _Melchiades_, after appealing to him as a Witness of the Respect and Veneration he had for the Catholic Church, declares, he had nothing so much at Heart as to see her Members happily united: he therefore earnestly intreats him to examine the Affair with the utmost Attention, and, jointly with the Bishops of _Gaul_, to judge it according to the strictest Laws of Justice and Equity[550]. In this Letter _Constantine_ names no other Judges but the Three Bishops of _Gaul_, _Melchiades_, and one _Mark_, supposed to have been Bishop of _Milan_, whom he joins with _Melchiades_; but afterwards he ordered Seven more to be added to the Number, and as many as could soon and conveniently assemble; so that they were at last 19 in all[551]. [Sidenote: _The Council of_ Rome.] They met, for the first time, on _Friday_ the Second of _October_ 313. _Constantine_ and _Licinius_ being the third time Consuls[552]. The Place they met in was the Apartment of _Fausta_, in the _Lateran_ Palace[553], she being then, in all Likelihood, absent in _Gaul_, with the Emperor her Husband. Before this Assembly _Cæcilianus_ appeared as the Person accused, and _Donatus_ of _Casænigræ_ as the Accuser. [Sidenote: Cæcilianus _absolved, and_ Donatus _condemned_.] They had but Three Meetings: in the First the Characters of the Accusers and Witnesses were strictly inquired into, and their Depositions heard; in the Second the Acts of the Council of _Carthage_, which had condemned _Cæcilianus_, as I have related above, were examined; and in the last _Cæcilianus_, against whom nothing had been proved, was absolved, and _Donatus_ condemned as a Slanderer, and the chief Author of the Schism[554]. An Account of the Whole, together with the Acts of the Council, was immediately transmitted to _Constantine_, who began to flatter himself, that he had put an End to the Dispute; for he could not imagine, that the _Donatists_ would appeal from the Judgment of such unexceptionable Judges, of Judges whom they themselves had demanded. But the good Prince was yet a Stranger to the Nature of religious Disputes, to the Heat, Animosity, and enthusiastic Rancour, with which they are commonly carried on. Notwithstanding the Pains he took, and his Successors after him, and no Pains they spared, to heal these unhappy Divisions, they continued, to the great Scandal of the Pagans, rending the Church into most furious Parties and Factions, for the Space of near 300 Years. [Sidenote: Melchiades _dies_.] The Council of _Rome_ was held in the Month of _October_ 313, and _Melchiades_ died on the Tenth of _January_ ensuing, _Volusianus_ and _Anienus_ being Consuls, having presided for the Space of Two Years, Six Months, and Eight Days[555]. About an hundred Years after, the _Donatists_ charged him with having delivered up the sacred Books, and offered Incense to the Pagan Gods; but this St. _Austin_ calls a groundless Charge, a mere Calumny, a malicious Invention of the _Donatists_ of his Time to justify the Conduct of their Predecessors, in appealing, as they did, from the Council of _Rome_, at which _Melchiades_ assisted, and probably presided, as Bishop of the Imperial City[556].

[Sidenote: _Whether the_ Lateran _Palace was given by_ Constantine _to_ Melchiades.]

_Baronius_, impatient to see the Pope raised to the Rank of a Prince, endeavours to prove, that _Melchiades_ was placed in that Station by _Constantine_, and argues thus: The Council of _Rome_ was held in the _Lateran_ Palace; therefore that Palace had been given by _Constantine_ to _Melchiades_, and belonged to him; for that an Assembly of Nineteen Bishops only should meet in so spacious a Place, can no otherwise be accounted for, but by supposing the Pope to have resided there. This he calls a Demonstration[557]. Having thus got him a Palace, and, no doubt, magnificently furnished, he finds no Difficulty in equipping him in every other respect as a Prince: For who can imagine, says he, that _Constantine_, so pious, so generous a Prince, would have given to the Head of the Church a Royal Palace to live in, and not allow him at the same time a suitable Retinue, with suitable Appointments? To act otherwise, had not been honouring, but disgracing the Christian Religion, since its High Pontiff, stalking about all alone in a huge Palace, could be but an Object of Ridicule to the Pontiffs of the Pagan Superstition, who lived in magnificent Houses, with answerable Grandeur[558]. Thus is the Bishop metamorphosed at once into a Sovereign. But the Metamorphosis is somewhat premature. If _Constantine_, yet a _Neophyte_, was not well acquainted with the true Spirit of the Christian Religion, _Melchiades_ was; and therefore, had that Prince offered to distinguish him by any such Marks of worldly Grandeur, I do not question but, as he was a very good Man, he would have taken from thence an Opportunity of instructing him better in the Principles of his new Profession, and shewing him in what Contempt the Christian Prelates had, and he himself ought to have, all worldly Grandeur. But no such Offer was ever made or dreamt of: For what at length is all this founded on? On the Meeting of the Council in the _Lateran_ Palace. The _French_ Academy meet in the _Louvre_: Are they therefore Princes? And does not _Optatus_, of whom we have the whole Account, call it in express Terms the House of _Fausta_[559]? _Fausta_ perhaps lived there, says _Baronius_, during the long and flourishing Reign of her Father _Maximian_, and thence it might be called the House of _Fausta_. Thus in the End is his Demonstration dwindled away to a mere Conjecture, and a very groundless one too: But, waving that, why might not _Fausta_ continue in the same Palace after her Father’s Death, with her Husband _Constantine_, when he was at _Rome_, or alone, when she did not attend him in the Wars? The Annalist seems to have forgot that _Fausta_ was _Constantine_’s Wife. But after all, the Empress, as it appears to me, had only an Apartment in the _Lateran_; for in this Sense I understand _Optatus_ saying, _The Council was held in the House, or Habitation, of_ Fausta _in the_ Lateran. But her being any-ways there excludes _Melchiades_. Their sitting in the Imperial Palace gave a kind of Authority and Sanction to their Decisions; and besides, there might not be room in the House of _Melchiades_, if he had a House, for the Council, and those who were to attend it, they being in all Forty Bishops; so that we need not put _Melchiades_ in Possession of that Palace to account for the Council’s meeting in it, as _Baronius_ has done.

-----

Footnote 519:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 520:

Euseb. l. 9. c. 9.

Footnote 521:

Idem l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 522:

Idem ib.

Footnote 523:

Val. in not. ad Euseb. hist. p. 195.

Footnote 524:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 525:

Lact. pers. c. 47, 48.

Footnote 526:

Idem ib.

Footnote 527:

Aug. l. 7. c. 2. Opt. l. 1. p. 39.

Footnote 528:

Aug. collat. Carth. die 3. c. 12. Vales. in not. ad Euseb. hist. p.
191.

Footnote 529:

Opt. l. 1. p. 41. Aug. Psal. Abced. p. 3. in Petil. c. 18. & contr.
epist. Parmen. p. 7.

Footnote 530:

Aug. coll. Carth. die 3. c. 12.

Footnote 531:

Aug. in Par. l. 1. c. 3. & Psal. Abced. p. 3. Opt. p. 41.

Footnote 532:

Opt. ib.

Footnote 533:

Aug. in Crese. l. 3. c. 26, 27, 29. & coll. die 3. c. 17. die 2. c.
14, &c.

Footnote 534:

Aug. in Gaud. l. 1. c. 37. ep. 162. & in Psal. 36. p. 119.

Footnote 535:

Opt. p. 41.

Footnote 536:

Aug. coll. die 3. c. 14.

Footnote 537:

Id. ep. 162.

Footnote 538:

In Joan. evang. tract. 69. p. 12.

Footnote 539:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 93.

Footnote 540:

Opt. l. 1. p. 42.

Footnote 541:

Aug. ep. 162.

Footnote 542:

Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 543:

Idem ib. c. 7. & Cod. Theod. 16. t. 2. l. 1. p. 20.

Footnote 544:

Aug. ep. 68. Vales. in not. ad hist. Euseb. p. 197.

Footnote 545:

Coll. Carth. in concil. per Steph. Baluz. c. 3. n. 216. 220. p. 578.

Footnote 546:

Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

Footnote 547:

Opt. ib. Aug. ep. 166.

Footnote 548:

Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 549:

Coll. Carth. p. 149.

Footnote 550:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 551:

Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

Footnote 552:

Aug. coll. Carth. die 3. c. 17. Opt. ib.

Footnote 553:

Opt. ib.

Footnote 554:

Coll. Carth. p. 149. & ep. 162. Opt. ib.

Footnote 555:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 556:

Aug. in Pet. p. 87. & in Par. c. 5. p. 8.

Footnote 557:

Bar. ad ann. 312. n. 82.

Footnote 558:

Id. ib. n. 85.

Footnote 559:

Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

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

CONSTANTINE. SYLVESTER,
_Thirty-second_ _BISHOP_ _of_
Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 314. _The_ Donatists _complain of the Council of_ Rome.]

_Sylvester_ was chosen in the room of _Melchiades_ on the last of _January_ 314[560]. In his time were held the two great Councils of _Arles_ and _Nice_. The former was convened by _Constantine_’s Order at the Request of the _Donatists_, who, instead of acquiescing to the Judgment of the Council of _Rome_, loudly complained to the Emperor of the Bishops who composed it, as partial, prejudiced, and over-hasty in deciding a Controversy of the greatest Importance[561]. _Constantine_ heard them with great Patience; and that he might leave them no Colour or Pretence whatsoever to continue in their Schism, [Sidenote: _The Council of_ Arles.] he summoned a second Council to meet at _Arles_, inviting several Bishops to it with most pathetic Letters under his own Hand, and ordering the Proconsuls and Governors of Provinces to acquaint the rest with his Desire and Intention. _Chrestus_, or _Crescentius_, Bishop of _Syracuse_, was allowed, and so, without all doubt, were the rest, to bring two Presbyters with him, and three Attendants, as we learn from the Emperor’s Letter to him, which is still extant[562]. They were all to be supplied with Conveniences for traveling, and every thing else, at the public Expence. The Time appointed for their Meeting was the first of _August_ 314. and on that Day they met accordingly[563], not from all Parts of the World, as we read in the Acts of the Second Council of _Arles_[564], but from _Africa_, and most other Provinces of the West. _Sylvester_ Bishop of _Rome_ was invited to it; but he excused himself on account of his Age, and sent in his room the two Presbyters, _Claudianus_ and _Vitus_, with _Eugenius_ and _Cyriacus_, Deacons; the Bishop of _Ostia_ sent likewise two Presbyters in his room[565]. [Sidenote: Cæcilianus _declared innocent._] By this Assembly _Cæcilianus_ was again declared innocent, and those who should falsly accuse their Brethren cut off from the Communion of the Church, without Hopes of being ever re-admitted, except at the Point of Death[566]. As to the schismatic Bishops, it was agreed, that such of them as abandoned the Schism should not forfeit their Dignity, but sit alternatively with the Catholic Bishop till one of them died[567]. The Council, before they broke up, acquainted the Bishop of _Rome_ with their Proceedings, and at the same time sent him the Decrees they had made concerning the Discipline of the Church, not to be confirmed by him, as _Baronius_ would make us believe[568], but that _by his means, as he held larger Dioceses, they might be the sooner known_. These are the very Words of the Council[569][N10].

-----

Footnote N10:

Several Canons were made by this Council relating to the Discipline of
the Church. 1. It was ordained, that _Easter_ should be kept on the
same Day, and on a _Sunday_, by all the Churches in the World; and
that the Bishop of _Rome_ should acquaint the other Churches with the
Day. But it was afterwards ordained, that the Bishop of _Alexandria_
should fix the Day, and give timely notice of it to the Bishop of
_Rome_, that by his means it might be notified to the whole Church.
This Ordinance St. _Cyril_ seems to ascribe to the Council of _Nice_;
for he says, that it was _so enacted by the Synod composed of all the
Saints of the Earth_; which, at the Time he writ, that is, about the
Year 360. could be said of no other Synod but that of _Nice_. Pope
_Leo the Great_, speaking of this Custom in a Letter to the Emperor
_Marcian_, only says, that it was _established by the holy
Fathers_[N10.1]. He meant, perhaps, the Fathers of _Nice_. But as they
took no notice of such a Custom in their Letter to the Church of
_Egypt_, I cannot suppose it to have been introduced by them. The Care
of fixing the Day, and acquainting the Bishop of _Rome_ with it, was
probably committed to the Bishop of _Alexandria_, because the
_Egyptians_ were thought to be better acquainted with the Motions of
the heavenly Bodies than any other Nation. In other Provinces the
Bishops seem to have been utter Strangers to Astronomy, and to that
Ignorance was chiefly owing their Disagreement with respect to the
Celebration of _Easter_. This Custom still obtained in the Fifth
Century, as appears from a Letter of _Leo the Great_, dated the 28th
of _July_ 454. For by that Letter he acquaints the Bishops of _Gaul_
and _Spain_, that the following Year 455, _Easter_ would fall on the
24th of _April_, _as it had been settled in the East_[N10.2]. Before
his Time _Innocent_ I. being at a Loss to know on what Day _Easter_
should be kept in 414. had recourse to _Aurelius_ Bishop of
_Carthage_, intreating him to examine that Point in a Council, and let
him know what they determined, that he might notify it, as was
customary, to other Churches. _Innocent_ had quarreled, on
_Chrysostom_’s Account, with the Eastern Bishops; and therefore chose
rather to be informed and directed by the _African_ Bishops than by
them. 2. It was decreed, that such as had been baptized by Heretics in
the Name of the Trinity, should not be rebaptized, but admitted into
the Church only by the Imposition of Hands. But to this Decree of the
Council no greater Regard was paid, than had been paid in St.
_Cyprian_’s Time to the Decisions of Pope _Stephen_. For in the Year
370. the same Practice of rebaptizing Heretics still obtained in
several Churches of _Africa_, as appears from _Optatus_, who writ
about that time. In the East some held, and some denied, the Validity
of Baptism administred by an Heretic. Of the latter Opinion was the
great _Athanasius_, who flourished from the Year 326. to 373. and St.
_Basil_, who writ about the Year 369. after examining, in his Letter
to _Amphilochus_, the two opposite Practices, seems inclined to think
the Baptism of Heretics null. According to the present Doctrine of the
Church of _Rome_, Baptism, by whomsoever administred, whether _Jew_,
_Gentile_, Heretic, _Mohammedan_, &c. whether Man or Woman, or even a
Child, is valid, provided it be only administred with an Intention of
administring it, without which every Sacrament, say they, is null.
This Doctrine, with respect to the Intention, proves daily to timorous
Consciences the Source of endless Doubts and Perplexities, which can
never be removed: for tho’ they may know for certain, that the
Ceremony was performed, yet they can never know whether or no it was
performed with the due Intention. In Confession, for Instance, they
may hear the Words of the Absolution pronounced by the Priest; but
they know nothing of his Intention, of the Intention of the Minister
who baptized him, of the Bishop who ordained him, of the Priest who
baptized, or the Bishops who ordained that Bishop, and so up to the
Apostles, by whom the first Bishops were ordained. Should the right
Intention have been wanting in any of these; should the Priest, while
he pronounces the Words of Absolution, have his Thoughts employed on
some other Object, as it may easily happen; the penitent Sinner would
depart from his Tribunal with the whole Load of his Sins, and be
damned, notwithstanding his Repentance, for, or, more properly
speaking, thro' want of Attention in the Priest. A most unchristian
and impious Doctrine, placing our eternal Salvation in the Hands of
others, and not in our own. 3. The Council decreed, that
excommunicated Persons should be no-where absolved from the
Excommunication but in the Places where they had been excommunicated.
The Bishops of _Rome_ did not yet know, it seems, that they were
vested with an unlimited Power of binding and loosening, of
excommunicating and absolving, with respect to all Persons and Places;
for had _Sylvester_ but dreamt of such a Power, we may well suppose he
would never have suffered it to be thus controuled. Several other
Canons were made by this Council, in all Twenty-two; but it is foreign
to my Purpose to take notice of them. I shall only observe, that the
Council consisted of Thirty-three Bishops, and not of Two hundred, as
_Baronius_ supposes, upon the Authority of St. _Austin_, whom he
misunderstood; and that _Marinus_ Bishop of _Arles_ presided, his Name
being placed at the Head of the Subscriptions, and the Names of
_Sylvester_’s Legates after his.

Footnote N10.1:

Leo, ep. 94. c. 1.

Footnote N10.2:

Leo, ep. 109.

-----

The other grand Council that was held during the Pontificate of _Sylvester_ was that of _Nice_, so famous in the History of the Church: but the Bishop of the reigning City, says _Eusebius_[570], being prevented by his great Age from undertaking so long a Journey, he sent _Vitus_ and _Vincentius_, Two _Roman_ Presbyters, to supply his room[571], with Orders to agree in his Name to the Decisions of the Council[572]. In Process of Time such Orders grew out of Date, and the modest Name of _Roman_ Presbyters, given to those who were sent by the Bishops of _Rome_, either to Councils or Princes, was changed into the lofty Title of _Legates a latere_. [Sidenote: Osius _did not assist at the Council of_ Nice _as the Pope’s Legate_.] _Baronius_[573], and after him most Writers of the Church of _Rome_, maintain _Osius_, the celebrated Bishop of _Cordoua_, to have assisted, nay, and presided at the Council of _Nice_ as the Pope’s Legate. _Vitus_ and _Vincentius_, say they, represented the Person of the Pope; but _Osius_ held his Place, and the Place of all the Bishops of the West. That _Osius_ assisted at the Council with the Character of the Pope’s Legate, is affirmed, I own, by _Gelasius_ of _Cyzicus_, who flourished about the End of the Fifth Century[574]: but _Eusebius_, who was present, mentions only _Vitus_ and _Vincentius_ as sent thither by _Sylvester_. In like manner all the Historians, who have written of that Council after _Eusebius_ till the Time of _Gelasius_, in naming those Two Presbyters and _Osius_, which they all do, constantly distinguish the former by the Title of the Deputies, the Representatives, _&c._ of the Bishop of _Rome_, and never the latter. Besides, _Vitus_ and _Vincentius_, in subscribing to the Canons of the Council, declare, that they do it _in the Name of the venerable Pope_, or Father, _Sylvester their Bishop_[575]; whereas _Osius_ subscribes, like the other Bishops, in his own Name. As to his presiding at that great Assembly, his Name, 'tis true, is marked the first by _Socrates_[576], among those who subscribed to the Definitions and Canons of the Council; but yet I am inclined to believe that Honour not to have been conferred upon him, but upon _Eustathius_ Bishop of _Antioch_; [Sidenote: _Nor did he preside._] for _John_, Bishop of the same City, writing to _Proculus_ about the Year 435. styles him the first of the Fathers assembled at _Nice_[577], and _Facundus_ calls him the first of the Council[578]. In the Chronicle of _Nicephorus_ he is styled the Head of the Fathers of _Nice_[579]: and from _Theodoret_ we learn, that he sat the first on the Right-hand in the Assembly, and harangued the Emperor[580], which it was the President’s Province to do[N11].

-----

Footnote N11:

The Title of President is given him in a Letter, which is commonly
ascribed to Pope _Felix_ III[N11.1]. But I am well apprised, that no
great Stress should be laid on that Piece, since some surmise it to
have been composed in the Eighth Century.

Footnote N11.1:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1072.

-----

The Honour of presiding belonged of Right to _Alexander_ Bishop of _Alexandria_; but he, it seems, declined it, perhaps to obviate the Complaints of the _Arians_, who looked upon him as a Party concerned, and one highly prejudiced against them. I know that the haranguing of _Constantine_ is ascribed to _Eusebius_ the Historian, in the Title of the Chapter in which he mentions it[581], that _Sozomen_ positively affirms it, and that the learned _Valesius_ thinks there is no room to doubt of it, since _Eusebius_ was the most eloquent Bishop of those Times; and besides, he himself tells us, that he pronounced a Speech in Praise of _Constantine_, on occasion of his entering into the Twentieth Year of his Reign, while he was sitting in the midst of the Ministers of God[582]; meaning thereby, no doubt, the Bishops assembled at _Nice_. [Sidenote: Eusebius _of_ Cæsarea _did not harangue the Emperor at the Opening of the Council_,] That _Eusebius_ harangued the Emperor before that venerable Assembly, is not at all to be questioned; but that the Bishops, who composed it, should have pitched upon one who was suspected, or rather convicted, of _Arianism_, to address the Emperor in their Name, at the Opening of the Council, seems to me highly improbable. The Orator, whoever he was, sat in the first Place, or at least in the second (that I may not quarrel with _Baronius_, who will have the Place on the Left-hand to have been the most honourable[583]): And what Right had the Bishop of _Cæsarea_ to that Honour? [Sidenote: _but on another Occasion_.] I may add, that a short Compliment, such as is that which the Presbyter _Gregory_ ascribes to _Eustathius_ of _Antioch_[584], had been far more proper on that Occasion than _Eusebius_’s long and tedious Panegyric, which therefore some suppose to have been pronounced on Occasion of the magnificent Entertainment which _Constantine_ gave the Bishops, as they were preparing to return to their respective Sees; for he then entered into the Twentieth Year of his Reign, which began on the 25th of _July_ 325. and it was on that Occasion that _Eusebius_ writ, and delivered his Panegyric before the Emperor, and the Fathers of the Council, as he himself declares[585]. To conclude, had _Eusebius_ been appointed by that great Assembly to address the Emperor in their Name, his Modesty had not prevented him from describing the Spokesman so as to leave no room to doubt on whom that Honour had been conferred.

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Nice _not convened by the Pope_.]

Before I dismiss this Subject, it may not be improper, nor foreign to my Purpose, to observe, that the Council of _Nice_, the first General or Oecumenical Council held in the Church, was convened by the Emperor, and not by the Bishop of _Rome_; that the Bishop of _Rome_ did not preside in it either in Person, or by his Legates, as they are pleased to style them; and consequently that the Privilege which they assumed in After-ages of assembling General Councils, and presiding in them, ought to be deemed a most insolent and unwarrantable Usurpation. [Sidenote: _The Council commands all Causes to be finally determined by Provincial Synods._] The Second Thing worthy of notice with respect to this Council is its Fifth Canon, commanding all Ecclesiastical Causes to be finally decided in each Province by a Provincial Synod. The Words of the Canon are clear in themselves, and besides have been understood in this Sense by all the Councils that were held, by all the Authors that writ, for several Ages after[586]; nay, it was understood in this Sense by some of the Popes themselves, namely, by _Innocent_ I. who, in one of his Letters to _Victricius_ Bishop of _Roan_, writes thus; _If any Controversy should arise among the Clerks, whether they be of an inferior or superior Rank, let it be decided, agreeably to the Council of_ Nice, _in an Assembly of the Bishops of the same Province_[587]. 'Tis true, he adds, _without prejudicing the Rights of the_ Roman _See_. But that Restriction is his own, and not the Council’s. Hence this Canon, directing all Causes to be thus tried, all Disputes to be thus ended, was often quoted on occasion of Appeals made to _Rome_, and employed as a Bulwark to restrain the incroaching Power of the Popes within due Bounds; but in Process of Time their Ambition, supported by the Favour of Princes, and the great Temporalities they acquired, bore all down before them.

[Sidenote: _The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy first formed._]

It was in the Pontificate of _Sylvester_, and under the benign Auspices of _Constantine_, that the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was first formed and settled in the Manner it continues to this Day; the new Form of Government, introduced by that Prince into the State, serving as a Model for the Government of the Church. In the Three first Centuries no other Hierarchy was known, no other Degrees thought of, but those of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Of these alone was composed the whole Body of the Clergy; but with this Difference, that the Bishop or Supervisor was the general Disposer and Manager of all Things within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, nothing being done there without his Consent and Approbation, and the Presbyters and Deacons his Assistants, or his Counsellors and Senate, as St. _Jerom_[588], and before him St. _Ignatius_[589], styled them. This Order was probably introduced, according to _Grotius_[590], in Imitation of the _Jewish_ Synagogues; for each Synagogue had its Ruler, who presided over the rest, its Pastors, and its Eleemosynaries; to the Ruler succeeded the Bishop, to the Pastors the Presbyters, and to the Eleemosynaries the Deacons. [Sidenote: _The Office and Duty of Bishops._] It was the Bishop’s Office and Duty to preach the Word[591], to pray with his People[592] to administer the Sacraments[593], to ordain Ministers[594], to excommunicate Offenders[595], to absolve Penitents[596], and to regulate and settle every thing relating to his particular Church[597], with the Consent and Concurrence of the Presbytery; for the Presbyters were his Counsellors or Senate, and, together with him, presided in the Consistories of those Times, as we learn from _Tertullian_ telling us, that in those Courts _approved Elders presided_[598]. Hence _Petrus de Marca_ concludes the original Government of the Church to have been mixt of Monarchy and Aristocracy; or, to use his own Words, the Monarchical Government of the Church to have been tempered with the Aristocratical. As the Bishop could not discharge, as he ought, the above-mentioned Functions, without residing among those who were committed to his Care, his Residence was deemed absolutely necessary, and Non-residence a most heinous Transgression; insomuch that St. _Cyprian_, enumerating the Sins that brought the Wrath of God upon the Church in the bloody Persecution of _Decius_, mentions Non-residence in the Bishops as one[599]. [Sidenote: _How chosen, and ordained._] Upon the Vacancy of a See a new Bishop was chosen in the room of the deceased in some Places by the Clergy and People of that Church alone, in others by the neighbouring Bishops, the People and the Clergy only expressing their Desire, and giving Testimony of the Life and Manners of the Person proposed, and in some by the joint Suffrages of the Clergy, of the People, and of the neighbouring Bishops. These three different Methods of electing we find practised at different Times with respect to the same Church; but on no Occasion was the Choice of the neighbouring Bishops sufficient without the Consent of the Clergy and People, nor the Election of the Clergy and People without the Approbation of the neighbouring Bishops. The Bishop being thus elected and confirmed, he was in the next Place ordained; and this Ceremony was performed by the neighbouring Bishops, in his own Church, and in the Presence of his Flock, by the Imposition of Hands. The new Bishop, agreeably to a Custom which obtained then, immediately gave Notice of his Promotion to other Bishops, especially to those of the greater Sees, who, by receiving and answering his Letters, were said to communicate with him, and to acknowlege him lawfully chosen.

[Sidenote: _The Office and Duty of Presbyters._]

In the Second Degree were the Presbyters or Priests, whose Office or Province it was to assist the Bishop in the Discharge of his Pastoral Commission, whence they are often styled the Bishop’s Assistants: with his Consent and Approbation they preached the Word, they prayed with the People, they administred the Sacraments, they absolved Penitents, and, in short, discharged every Office which the Bishop did, except those of ordaining, confirming, and excommunicating; I say, with the Bishop’s Consent and Approbation; for no spiritual Function could they perform without his Leave, as is manifest from _Tertullian_[600], _Origen_[601], St. _Cyprian_[602], and above all from St. _Ignatius_, in his famous Letter to the Church of _Smyrna_[603]. The Church, in those happy Days, admitted none to the sacred Functions, but such as were known by a long Trial to be well qualified for so great a Charge. [Sidenote: _Qualifications requisite in a Presbyter._] The Qualifications requisite in a Presbyter, so far as I can learn from the Antients, may be reduced to these Four Heads, his Condition in the World, his Conversation, his Learning, and his Age. He was not to be intangled with any worldly Affairs, with any secular Employments, but at perfect Liberty to apply himself wholly to the Functions of his Office[604]. He was to be of an unspotted and exemplary Life[605]; and therefore, before Ordination, he was proposed to the Presbytery and People for their Testimony and Approbation. He was to be well versed in the Scripture, and capable of teaching others, and instructing them in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion. As for human Learning, it was not required in a Presbyter; nay, by some it was condemned, particularly Logic and Philosophy, as in a manner inconsistent with Christianity[606], but at the same time highly commended and applauded by others as conducive to the right understanding of the Scripture, and necessary for confuting the Sophisms of Heretics[607]; whence Logic especially is recommended by _Clemens Alexandrinus_ to all Ecclesiastics, as _a Hedge to defend the Truth from being trod down by Sophists_[608]. As for the Age of a Presbyter, he was to be stricken in Years, as the very Name of a Presbyter or Elder sufficiently declares. However, if a young Man was endowed with extraordinary Gifts and Talents, his Age was dispensed with in respect both to the Sacerdotal and Episcopal Dignity. Thus was _Aurelius_, though young in Years, raised, in regard of his great Merit, to the Rank of a Presbyter, as we read in St. _Cyprian_[609]; and the Bishop of _Magnesia_, in St. _Ignatius_’s Time, was, it seems, but a young Man, since _Ignatius_, in his Letter to the _Magnesians_, exhorts them _not to despise their Bishop’s Age, but to yield him all due Respect and Reverence_[610]. These were the Qualifications requisite in a Candidate for the Ministry: if he was recommended by them (for no other Recommendation could avail him), he was admitted to holy Orders; if not, he was rejected as unfit for the sacred Function. The Person ordained was at Liberty to serve the Church where he had received his Orders, or any other where his Assistance might be wanted; for he was not ordained Minister of any particular Church, but of the Church universal.

[Sidenote: _The Institution and Office of Deacons._]

In the Third and last Degree were the Deacons, whose original Institution was to _serve Tables_, as we read in the _Acts_[611]; that is, to inspect the Poor, and relieve them by a proper Distribution of the Offerings made by the Faithful, which were committed to their Charge, though they could not dispose of them without the Bishop’s Knowlege[612]. They were ordained by the Imposition of Hands[613], and therefore deemed Ministers of the Altar, as well as Dispensers of Alms; and with a great deal of Reason, for they assisted the Bishops or Presbyters in administring the Eucharist, by delivering the Elements to the Communicants[614]; they carried the Eucharist to such as had not been able to assist with the rest at Divine Service[615]; they preached, and, in the Absence of the Bishop and Presbyters, conferred the Sacrament of Baptism[616]. [Sidenote: _Their Number._] The Presbyters of a Church were not confined to a set Number; but the Deacons were, no Church having more than Seven in the primitive Times, that being the original Number instituted by the Apostles. Thus the Church of _Rome_ had but Seven in the Times of Pope _Cornelius_[617], and Pope _Sixtus_ II[618], the Church of _Saragosa_ the same Number in the Time of _Vincentius_, who flourished under _Dioclesian_[619]. The Fourteenth Canon of the Council of _Neocæsarea_, or the Fifteenth, according to the _Greek_, forbids this Number to be inlarged, even in the greatest and most populous Cities[620]; whence St. _Jerom_ writes, that great Respect was paid to the Deacons, because they were few in Number[621].

[Sidenote: _Subdeacons_, _Acolytes_, _Readers_,3] &c.]

As for the Subdeacons, Acolytes, Lectors, Janitors, and Exorcists, they were not considered as any-ways belonging to the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, being employed only in the meaner Offices of the Church, by the due Discharge of which they were to give Proof of their Integrity and Attention, in order to be raised to a higher Degree; for in those Days very few, and none but upon some very extraordinary Occasion, arrived at once, or, as they call it, _per saltum_, at the Episcopal Dignity.

[Sidenote: _Each Church independent._]

During the Three first Centuries each Church was in a manner independent, that is, could make such Regulations relating to its Discipline and Government as were judged proper and expedient, without the Concurrence and Authority of other Churches[622]. However, in all Matters of Moment, the Bishops used to advise with one another, especially with those of the same Province, who frequently met to settle all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Limits. [Sidenote: _Frequent Synods held._] _Firmilian_, Bishop of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_, writes, that in his Province they met every Year[623]; and from the frequent Synods mentioned by St. _Cyprian_, we may conclude them to have been held in that Province at least once a Year. [Sidenote: _Of whom composed._] These Synods or Assemblies were composed of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Laymen, representing the People of their several Churches[624]. They met by their own Appointment and Authority, there being no Christian Magistrates in those Days to convene Synods. Being thus assembled, they chose in the first place one, and sometimes two Bishops, to preside[625]. [Sidenote: _The Method they held._] It was their Office and Duty to see the Point in question calmly and fairly debated, to sum up in each Debate what had been urged on both Sides, to take the Votes and Suffrages of the Members of the Synod, and last of all to give their own[626]. In these Assemblies all Ecclesiastical Affairs were settled by the Majority of Votes, and their Decrees and Decisions were binding with respect to those Churches whose Representatives were present[627]; but were not so with respect to other Churches.

[Sidenote: _The Ecclesiastical Policy adapted to the Civil._]

Such was the Hierarchy, such the Government of the Church, during the Three first Centuries. But in the Fourth and following Ages great Alterations were made in both, the Church adapting her Government to that of the State, namely, to the new Form of Government introduced by _Constantine_, who had settled her in Peace, and taken the Priesthood into his immediate Protection. For it was in his Reign that the Titles of _Patriarchs_, _Exarchs_, _Metropolitans_, were first heard of, or at least had any Power, Authority, or Privileges, annexed to them. That this Conformity between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Polity may appear more plainly, I shall premise a succinct Account of the former, as established by _Constantine_ throughout the Empire. That Prince divided the whole _Roman_ World into four Prefectures, _viz._ the _East_, _Illyricum_, _Gaul_, and _Italy_, which were governed by four Prefects, called _Præfecti Prætorio_. [Sidenote: _The new Form of Government introduced by_ Constantine.] Till his Time the whole Empire was governed under the Emperors by Two Prefects only, as _Zosimus_ informs us[628]; and this Division is supposed to have been made by _Constantine_, jealous of the too great Power of those Magistrates. Each Prefecture was subdivided into several Dioceses, and each Diocese into several Provinces. Thus the Prefecture of the _East_ contained Five Dioceses; _viz._ the _East_ divided into Ten Provinces, _Egypt_ into Six, _Pontus_ into Eleven, _Asia_ into Ten, and _Thrace_ into Six. Under the Prefecture of _Illyricum_ were Two Dioceses; _Macedon_, consisting of Eight Provinces; and _Dacia_, consisting of four. The Prefecture of _Gaul_ comprised Three Dioceses, _Gaul_ made up of Seventeen Provinces, _Spain_ of Seven, and _Britain_ of Five. The Prefecture of _Italy_ was divided into Two Vicarages or Lieutenancies; the one of _Rome_, comprehending Ten Provinces, under the Vicar of _Rome_, whence they were called _Suburbicarian_ Provinces; the other of _Italy_, containing Seven Provinces, governed by the Vicar of _Italy_, who resided at _Milan_, whence they were simply called Provinces of _Italy_. Under the Prefect of _Italy_ was likewise _West Africa_, and after _Constantine_’s Death _West Illyricum_. The Prefects had other Officers under them, by whom the Provinces were more immediately governed. These were, to name them according to their Rank and Dignity, Proconsuls, Vicars, Consulars, Correctors, and Presidents. Each Diocese had its Metropolis, and likewise each Province contained in the Diocese.

[Sidenote: _The Civil and Ecclesiastical Polity compared._]

Now, if we compare the Civil Polity, thus described, with the Ecclesiastical, we shall find them in most Places answering each other, in every respect, and one Bishop raised above the rest, according to the Rank that was given by this new Division to the City in which he presided. Thus, for Instance, the chief Cities of the Five Dioceses of the Oriental Prefecture were; _Antioch_, the Metropolis of the Oriental Diocese; _Alexandria_, of the _Egyptian_; _Ephesus_, of the _Asiatic_; _Cæsarea_, of the _Pontic_; and _Heraclea_, of the _Thracian_. Now the Bishops of these Cities, in regard of the Eminence of their Sees, were exalted above all other Bishops, and distinguished with the Title of Exarchs; nay, and by Degrees they acquired, not to say usurped, a kind of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Bishops of the inferior Sees, which was afterwards confirmed to them by several Councils. In like manner the Bishop of the Metropolis of each Province was, on account of the Dignity of his See, honoured with the Title of Metropolitan, to which were annexed several Privileges, of which I shall speak hereafter. When one Province was divided into Two, which often happened, the Ecclesiastical Polity was likewise altered, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis raised to the Dignity of a Metropolitan. Several Instances might be alleged of ambitious Bishops applying to the Emperors for a Division of the Province, that their City might acquire the Title of Metropolis, and they, of course, that of Metropolitans. When the City of _Byzantium_ was declared the Metropolis of another Empire, the Exarchate of _Heraclea_, the Metropolis of the _Thracian_ Diocese, was, by that Change, transferred from _Heraclea_ to the new Metropolis; so that the Bishop of _Heraclea_ became Suffragan to the Bishop of _Byzantium_, or, as it was then called, _Constantinople_, who, till that Time, had been Suffragan to him. Upon the Division of a Province, the Churches were likewise divided, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis acquired all the Privileges and Power of a Metropolitan over the Churches taken by the Change in the Civil Government from the antient Metropolis. But it was afterwards decreed, by the Council of _Chalcedon_, that if any City should be raised to the Dignity of a Metropolis, the Bishop of that City should enjoy the Title, but not the Privileges of a Metropolitan. Thus the Bishops of _Nice_ and _Berytus_ were honoured with the Title of Metropolitans, and took Place of all the other Bishops of those Provinces; but nevertheless continued to be Suffragans to their antient Metropolitans the Bishops of _Nicomedia_ and _Tyre_. For the same Reason several Bishops in the Kingdom of _Naples_ enjoy, to this Day, the Title of Metropolitans; but neither have, nor ever had, any Province or Suffragans. The above-mentioned Decree was enacted by the Council of _Chalcedon_, to prevent the Bishops from recurring, as they often did, to the Emperors,and to obviate the frequent Changes that were thereby introduced into the Church.

[Sidenote: _The Prefectures of_ Illyricum, Gaul, _and_ Spain.]

The Prefecture of _Illyricum_ had but one Exarch, the Bishop of _Thessalonica_, the Metropolis of the _Macedonian_ Diocese. In the Prefecture of _Gaul_ there was no Exarch, but in the Two Dioceses of _Gaul_ and _Spain_ as many Metropolitans as Provinces. Some there were, without all Doubt, in the Diocese of _Britain_, which was divided into Five Provinces, _viz._ _Maxima Cæsariensis_, _Britannia Prima_, _Britannia Secunda_, _Valentia_, and _Flavia Cæsariensis_. But in this Island an intire Change was made, by the _Saxons_, both in the Ecclesiastical and Civil Polity.

[Sidenote: _The Prefecture of_ Italy.]

Under the Prefect of _Italy_ were Three Dioceses, _viz._ _Italy_, _West Illyricum_, and _West Africa_. The Diocese of _Italy_ was divided into Two Vicarages, as I have observed above, and governed by Two Vicars; the one called the Vicar of _Rome_, and residing in that City, the other styled the Vicar of _Italy_, and residing at _Milan_. Under the former were Ten Provinces, _viz._ _Campania_, _Apulia_, _Lucania_, _Hetruria_, _Umbria_, _Picenum Suburbicarium_, _Sicily_, _Sardinia_, _Corsica_, and _Valeria_; and Seven under the latter, _viz._ _Liguria_, _Æmilia_, _Flaminia_ or _Picenum Annonarium_, _Venetia_, _Istria_, _Alpes Cottiæ_, and the Two _Rhætiæ_. [Sidenote: _The Ecclesiastical Polity there intirely agreeable to the Civil._] Such was the Civil Government of _Italy_, and intirely agreeable to the Civil was the Ecclesiastical. Thus the Bishop of _Rome_ enjoyed all the Privileges of a Metropolitan, with respect to the Bishops of the Provinces subject to the Vicar of that City, or the _Suburbicarian_ Provinces, as they are styled by _Ruffinus_. In like manner the Bishop of _Milan_ exercised the Power and Authority of a Metropolitan over all the Bishops under the Vicar of _Italy_. But the Power of both was confined within the Limits of their respective Vicarages. As neither had the Charge of a whole Diocese, they were not, like several Bishops in the East, distinguished with the Title of Exarch, which they had no Right to, but with that only of Metropolitan. However, the Power of the Bishop of _Rome_ far exceeded, within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, that of other Metropolitans, as I shall shew hereafter.

[Sidenote: _The Ecclesiastical Polity in_ Africa.]

In _Africa_ the Ecclesiastical Polity varied greatly from the Civil. _Carthage_ indeed, in the Proconsular Province of _Africa_, properly so called, was the Metropolis of all _West Africa_, and the Bishop of that City the Primate and Exarch. But in the other Five Provinces of that Diocese, _viz._ _Numidia_, the Two _Mauritanias_, _Cæsariensis_ and _Sitifensis_, _Tingitana_, _Bizacena_, and _Tripolitana_, the senior Bishop, in what City soever he presided, enjoyed the Title and Privileges of Metropolitan, Regard being had to his Seniority, or the Time of his Ordination, and none to the Dignity of his See. And hence it is that, at different times, we find Bishops of different Cities, within the same Province, acting as _Metropolitans_. Of _West Illyricum_, the Third Diocese under the Prefect of _Italy_, I shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.

[Sidenote: _The Dignities of_ Exarchs, Metropolitans, _&c. not of divine Institution_.]

Some Writers, namely _Petrus de Marca_, Archbishop of _Paris_[629], _Christianus Lupus_[630], _Emmanuel Schelstrat_[631], Two eminent Divines, the one of _Louvain_, the other of _Antwerp_, and _Leo Allatius_[632], have taken a great deal of Pains to prove, that these Ecclesiastical Dignities owe their Origin to _Christ_, or the Apostles. But their Arguments are unanswerably confuted by the learned _Ellies du Pin_[633]; and, besides, it is evident, from the intire Conformity which the Ecclesiastical Government had, in most Places, with the Political State of the Empire, as established by _Constantine_, that the Church, in forming the Hierarchy I have described, adopted his Plan; and consequently, that such Dignities are not of divine, but of human Institution. I might add, that it cannot be proved from Scripture, that the Apostles, in appointing Bishops, gave more Power to one than to another, or any Power at all to one over the others.

[Sidenote: _The new Dignities added to the antient Hierarchy of the Church._]