Part 15

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 In Process of Time such Orders grew out of Date, and the modest Name of _Roman_ Presbyters, given to those who were sent by the Bishops of _Rome_, either to Councils or Princes, was changed into the lofty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._]