Part 14

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.