Part 16

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._]

The new Dignities or Degrees, added to the antient Hierarchy of the Church, in the Fourth and following Centuries, were those of _Metropolitan_, _Primate_, _Archbishop_, _Exarch_, and _Patriarch_. The Title of _Metropolitan_ was given to the Bishop of the chief City of a Province, and likewise that of _Primate_, he being _primus_, or the first of the Province; for such was the original Signification of that Word in an Ecclesiastical Sense; but, in Process of Time, the Title of _Primate_ was restrained to the Bishops of some great Cities. On the contrary the Title of _Archbishop_ was originally bestowed on Metropolitans only of great Eminence and Distinction; but, in the Eighth Century, it began to be given indifferently to all Metropolitans, and even to some Bishops, distinguished by no other Title. As the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City, of a Province, was dignified with the Title of _Metropolitan_, so was the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City of a Diocese, with that of _Exarch_; which, however, we find sometimes given to Metropolitans. As for the Title of _Patriarch_, it was first common to all Bishops, but afterwards confined to the Exarchs; and lastly, to the Bishops of the Five following Cities, _viz._ _Rome_, _Constantinople_, _Antioch_, _Alexandria_, and _Jerusalem_. It was first bestowed on the Bishop of _Rome_, by the Council of _Chalcedon_[634], after it had been long common to all the Exarchs of the East, as the learned _Du Pin_ well observes[635].

[Sidenote: _The Rights and Privileges of Metropolitans._]

The Titles of Metropolitans, Primates, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, were not bare Names of Honour, but had several Rights and Prerogatives attending them. Thus the Metropolitans and Primates had, by their Prerogative, a Right to ordain the Bishops of their respective Provinces, to convene provincial Synods, and to have a general Superintendency or Inspection over the whole Province. The ordaining of Bishops was a Privilege common to the Metropolitan, with the other Bishops of the same Province; but with this Difference, that the Presence, or at least the Consent and Approbation of the Metropolitan was absolutely necessary; for, according to the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council of _Nice_, _He who was not ordained, or approved, by the Metropolitan, was not to be a Bishop_. This Privilege was confirmed to the Metropolitans by many subsequent Councils, namely, by those of _Arles_, _Laodicea_, _Carthage_, _Chalcedon_, _Ephesus_[636], and many others. However, in the Fifth Century, the Patriarchs of _Alexandria_ and _Constantinople_ began, in the East, to usurp this Prerogative, pretending, that no Bishops ought to be ordained in their respective Dioceses, without their Knowlege, Consent, and Approbation; and the Patriarch of _Rome_, still more ambitious and encroaching, claimed a Right to ordain the Bishops throughout all the Provinces of the West, which occasioned endless Disputes, as we shall see in the Sequel of this History. As to the Second Privilege peculiar to the Metropolitans, they had a Right to summon the Bishops of their respective Provinces to meet when they thought proper; to appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting; to punish such as did not, without just Cause, comply with their Summons; and to preside in the Assembly. The general Care and Inspection, which they were charged with over the whole Province, imported, First, That all Complaints against, all Contests with or between the Bishops of the Province, were to be brought to their Tribunal; and there heard, judged, and determined, not by the Metropolitan alone, but by him and the other Bishops of the Province, in a Provincial Synod. Innumerable Instances might be alleged of Bishops thus deposed by their Metropolitans. Secondly, The Metropolitans had a Right to receive Appeals from the Sentence of inferior Bishops, and with the other Bishops, to confirm or reverse their Decrees. And, lastly, each Metropolitan was to keep a watchful Eye over the Bishops of his Province, and take care that they discharged, as they ought, the Functions of their Office. These Privileges were, in express Terms, granted to the Metropolitans, by almost innumerable Councils, which it is needless, and would be too tedious, to name.

[Sidenote: _The Rights and Privileges of Patriarchs, or Exarchs._]

As for the Patriarchs, or Exarchs; by their Prerogative, they were impowered to ordain the Metropolitans, to convene Diocesan Synods, and to have a general Superintendency over their respective Dioceses, such as the Metropolitans had over their respective Provinces. [Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Rome _not a Patriarch_.] The Bishop of _Rome_ had not the Charge of a whole Diocese, and therefore was not, properly speaking, Exarch or Patriarch: his Jurisdiction did not extend beyond the Limits of the Vicarage of _Rome_, or the Suburbicarian Provinces; and no Instance can be produced of Metropolitans or Bishops ordained by him, out of those Provinces, till the Time of _Valentinian_ III. Even in the Vicarage of _Italy_ the Metropolitans of each Province ordained all the Bishops, and were themselves ordained by the Bishops of the Province. But over the Suburbicarian Provinces the Bishop of _Rome_ exercised greater Power and Authority, than the Exarchs of the East did over the Provinces of their Dioceses; for the latter left the Ordination of the Bishops to their Metropolitans, whereas the former ordained not only the Bishops of the Metropolitan Cities, but all those of the fore-mentioned Provinces: and the Reason of this was, because these Provinces had no Metropolitans, to whom the Ordination of Bishops would of Right have belonged; so that the Prerogatives of the Metropolitans were all vested in the Bishop of _Rome_ alone. [Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Rome _have no Right to ordain the Metropolitans_.] As there were no Exarchs or Patriarchs in the West, the Bishops of each Province were, by several Councils, vested with the Power of ordaining their own Metropolitans; and that they were thus ordained in _Gaul_, _Spain_, and _West Africa_, is so manifest as to admit of no Dispute[637]. And yet the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_ pretend the Bishops of that City to have a divine and inherent Right of ordaining all the Metropolitans throughout the Christian World, by themselves, their Vicars, or Delegates. To maintain this chimerical Right against the uncontestable Evidence of Facts, they tell us, that the Popes, for some Ages, neglected to exert the Power they had[638]. But from this Charge all Mankind will clear them, it being but too well known, that they never neglected the least Opportunity of exerting to the utmost the Power they had, and usurping the Power they had not. But, Cavils aside, it is evident beyond Dispute, that the Popes never knew, nor dreamt of, any such Right or Prerogative, till they were told of it by their flattering Divines; at least Pope _Leo_, surnamed _the Great_, did not; for in one of his Letters to the Bishops of _Gaul_ he disclaims, in express Terms, the Right of ordaining the Bishops of that Diocese[639]. To conclude, the Bishop of _Rome_ was the only Metropolitan in that Vicarage; and, as such, had a Right to ordain all the Bishops of the Suburbicarian Provinces, or the Provinces subject to the Vicar of _Rome_; but, for a considerable Tract of Time, there is no Instance of their ordaining either Bishops or Metropolitans out of that District.

[Sidenote: _The Title of_ Archbishop _in itself a bare Name of Honour_.]

As for the Title of Archbishop, it is in itself a bare Name of Honour; whence, in some Countries, especially in _Italy_, several are distinguished with that Title, who indeed take place of, but have no Power or Authority over, other Bishops. And thus far of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as settled in the Fourth and following Centuries, of the different Degrees that compose it, and the Prerogatives peculiar to each Degree, the Knowlege whereof is absolutely necessary for the right understanding of the many Contests and Disputes in point of Jurisdiction, which I shall have Occasion to touch upon in the Sequel of this History; for it was not at once, but by Degrees, and not without great Opposition, that the Bishops of _Rome_, extending their Authority beyond the Limits of that Vicarage, which was at that time the Boundary of their Jurisdiction, acquired the unlimited Power they now enjoy, with the arrogant Title of _Universal Bishop_.

[Sidenote: _The Donation of all_ Italy _made by_ Constantine _to the Pope, a Forgery_.]

But to return to _Sylvester_, in whose Pontificate this great Change began; I need not employ many Words to shew the Forgery of the so much boasted Donation of all _Italy_, supposed to have been made by _Constantine_ to _Sylvester_, in the Spring of the Year 324. Four Days after he had been baptized by that Pontiff, since the Instrument of that Donation is now looked upon as supposititious, by all who have the least Tincture of Learning. The Arguments they allege against it are: 1. That more than Twelve Copies of that Instrument are still extant, all differing from one another. 2. That it evidently appears, from Two Constitutions of _Constantine_, still to be seen in the _Theodosian_ Code[640], that he was not at _Rome_, but at _Thessalonica_, in the Spring of the Year 324. 3. That neither _Eusebius_, who has given us a very minute and particular Account of the Actions of that Prince, nor any other contemporary Writer, has so much as hinted at so memorable a Fact. 4. That all the antient Writers, both _Greek_ and _Latin_, agree, that _Constantine_ was not baptized at _Rome_, but at _Nicomedia_, when he lay at the Point of Death[641]. Let those, who stand up in Defence of that Donation, give satisfactory Answers to these Reasons, and I shall conclude with them, that _Italy_ being, by such a Donation, disjoined from the Empire, the Emperors who succeeded _Constantine_, had no Claim or Title to that Country; that none of their Constitutions were binding there; and consequently that, by the Inhabitants of _Italy_, Recourse ought to be had, in all Cases, not to the Civil, but to the Canon Law: for such pernicious Doctrines have been broached, published, and maintained, as natural Deductions from _Constantine_’s great Generosity to _Sylvester_[642]. In _Rome_ is still to be seen, in a most sumptuous Chapel, close to the _Lateran_, the Baptistery or Font in which _Constantine_ is said to have been baptized. The Chapel is adorned with noble Paintings, representing that august Ceremony, as performed by _Sylvester_, in the magnificent Drapery, and stately Apparel, of the present Popes. Four Days after this Ceremony, _Constantine_, sensible of his Obligations to _Sylvester_, rewarded him for his Trouble with a Fee, as _Luchesini_ the _Scolopian_ expresses it, answering in some Degree to the Greatness of the Favour he had received at his Hands; a Fee worthy of so great a Prince, of so great a Pope[643]. [Sidenote: Constantine _baptized at_ Nicomedia, _and not at_ Rome.] The Fee, which that Writer, otherwise a Man of Learning, makes a long and tedious Descant upon, was no less than the City of _Rome_, and all _Italy_. That _Constantine_ was baptized at _Nicomedia_, and not at _Rome_, is affirmed, in express Terms, by _Theodoret_[644], _Sozomen_[645], _Socrates_[646], and _Photius_[647], among the _Greeks_; and, among the _Latins_, by St. _Ambrose_[648], St. _Jerom_[649], and the Council of _Rimini_[650]. _Emmanuel Schelstrat_, on one Side, ashamed to reject, or even to question such Authorities, but, on the other, unwilling to rob _Sylvester_ of that Glory, will have _Constantine_ to have been baptized in both Places. It is well known, says he, that _Constantine_, in the Latter-end of his Life, was greatly biassed in favour of the _Arians_, and their Tenets. Now a Practice obtained among them of rebaptizing such as came over to their Sect from the Catholic Church; and, to conform to this Custom, _Constantine_ was, in all Likelihood, prevailed upon by _Eusebius_, the _Arian_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_, who assisted him on his Death-bed[651]. Thus _Schelstrat_. But it is certain, that, in _Constantine_’s Time, the _Arians_ allowed the Validity of Baptism administred by the Catholics; for, long after, we find St. _Austin_ upbraiding them with the Practice of rebaptizing, as a Novelty lately introduced among them[652]. Besides, who is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that, in those early Times, a very bad Custom universally prevailed, at least among Persons of Distinction, who embraced the Christian Religion, namely, that of putting off their Baptism to their Death-bed, or till they were upon the Point of exposing themselves to some great Danger? Thus _Theodosius the Great_, though he had not only openly professed the Christian Religion, but given many Instances of an extraordinary Piety, yet did not chuse to be baptized till he fell dangerously ill at _Thessalonica_[653]. In like manner _Valentinian_ II delayed his Baptism till the Approach of a Battle with the Barbarians, when he sent, in great Haste, for St. _Ambrose_ to administer that Sacrament to him. But while the good Bishop was crossing the _Alps_, on his Way to _Vienne_, where the Emperor then was, he received the melancholy News of his having been inhumanly murdered by some of his own Officers, at the Instigation of _Arbogastus_. His Death was greatly lamented by St. _Ambrose_, who, in the elegant Oration, which he pronounced on Occasion of his Obsequies, maintained, that the fervent Desire of Baptism had the same Effect as the Sacrament itself; and consequently, that the Sins of the deceased Prince being thereby cancelled, it was not to be doubted, but from this Life he had passed to eternal Bliss[654]. Innumerable Instances of the same Nature occur in History, which were, it seems, utterly unknown to the Author of the Acts of Pope _Sylvester_, upon whose sole Authority the Fable has been credited of _Constantine_’s receiving Baptism at the Hands of _Sylvester_, soon after his Conversion. That Impostor, whoever he was, is supposed to have lived in the Eighth Century, long after the Custom of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death had been utterly abolished. [Sidenote: _What gave Countenance to the Custom of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death._] What gave Countenance to such a Custom, was an Opinion then generally received, and still held by the Church of _Rome_; _viz._ That by the Waters of the sacred Font Men were washed clean, not only from the original, but from all other Sins. This proved a great Encouragement to Vice when Piety began (and it began but too early) to decay among Christians; and therefore the Fathers of the Church, especially _Basil_, his Brother _Gregory_ of _Nyssa_, and St. _Ambrose_[655], employed all the Oratory they were Masters of, in crying down such a pernicious and wicked Custom, as they style it; so that it was at last quite laid aside. Whether Confession ought not, on the same Account, to be put down, I shall leave the Reader to judge; and only observe here, by the way, that had the Virtue and Efficacy, ascribed now to Confession, been known in those Times, Sinners needed not have delayed Baptism to the Point of Death, since their Sins had been no less effectually cancelled by Confession, than by Baptism.

[Sidenote: _Spurious Pieces ascribed to_ Sylvester.]

As for the Letter from the Council of _Nice_ to _Sylvester_, his Answer, the Acts of a Council of 275 Bishops, supposed to have been held by him, at the Request of the Fathers of _Nice_, to confirm their Canons and Decrees[N12], his Letter to the Bishops of _Gaul_, in favour of the Church of _Vienne_; the Acts of Two other Councils, said to have been held by him at _Rome_; they are all Pieces universally rejected by Men of Learning, and deemed no less fabulous than the Instrument of _Constantine_’s Donation, and that Prince’s Journey with _Sylvester_ to the Council of _Nice_, as it is related in the Acts of the latter, even in those which _F. Combesis_ published in 1660. They are in _Greek_, and that Writer undertakes to defend them as genuine[656]; but we need no other Proof than the Account they give of that Journey, to conclude them incapable of being defended. _Sylvester_ died on the 31st of _December_ 335. after having governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Twenty-one Years, and Eleven Months[657].

Footnote N12: