Part 17
The Style of the Letter from the Council to _Sylvester_ is quite barbarous and unintelligible. It begins thus: _Gloriam corroborata de Divinis Mysteriis. Ecclesiasticæ utilitatis quæ ad robur pertinent Ecclesiæ Catholicæ & Apostolicæ ad sedem tuam_ Romanam _explanata & de Græce redacta scribere confitemur--Nunc itaque ad vestræ sedis argumentum accurrimus roborari_. The rest is written in the same Style; the Consuls are called _Sovereigns_, and the Letter is dated Five or Six Days after the Opening of the Council. The Design of the Impostor was, to make the Fathers of _Nice_ recur to _Sylvester_ for a Confirmation of their Decrees. _Sylvester_’s Answer is of a piece with the Letter of the Council; it supposes him to have added something to the Council; mentions the Cycle of _Victorinus_, who was not born in _Sylvester_’s Time, nor many Years after; and bears a false Date. As for the Council said, and by some still maintained, to have been held at _Rome_, to confirm the Canons of _Nice_, it was utterly unknown to all the Antients. And who can believe, that none of the Antients should ever have heard of a Council held in the Metropolis of the Empire, and consisting, as we are told, of Two hundred and Seventy-five Bishops, or, if they had heard of it, that they would never have mentioned it? Besides, it is said to have been held at _Rome_, in the Presence of _Constantine_; and it is certain, that the Emperor was not in _Rome_ at the Time the Council is supposed to have been held. The Canons, which are supposed to have been made on this Occasion, contain Regulations repugnant to the Practice of those Times, and which it was then impossible to observe. The first Canon relates to the Time when _Easter_ was to be kept; but what is there determined no Man can know. The Second is no less unintelligible than the First: _Ut unusquisque Episcopus rediens ad Parochiam suam Compaginem Salutationis plebi tuæ innotescat_. These are the Words of this Canon. The Third forbids the Ecclesiastics to appear before secular Judges, let the Action be what it will; which is repugnant to the Discipline of those Times. The Fourth will have those, who enter themselves among the Clergy, to pass through all the Degrees, and fixes the Time which they are to continue in each Degree. They are to be Janitors or Door-keepers one Year, Lectors or Readers Twenty, Exorcists Ten, Acolytes Five, Subdeacons Five, Deacons Five, and Priests Six; so that none under Threescore could attain to the Episcopal Dignity; which is highly absurd in itself, and contrary to the Practice of those Times.
Footnote 560:
Buch. p. 272.
Footnote 561:
Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.
Footnote 562:
Euseb. ib. & concil. t. 1. p. 157.
Footnote 563:
Euseb. & concil. ib.
Footnote 564:
Conc. Gen. t. 1. p. 106.
Footnote 565:
Concil. p. 1425.
Footnote 566:
Concil. ib.
Footnote 567:
Concil. ib.
Footnote 568:
Bar. ad ann. 314. n. 68.
Footnote 569:
Concil. p. 1425.
Footnote 570:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 7.
Footnote 571:
Soz. p. 430.
Footnote 572:
Theodoret. l. 1. c. 6.
Footnote 573:
Bar. ad ann. 326. n. 20.
Footnote 574:
Gal. Cyz. de Nic. concil. l. 2. c. 5. p. 68.
Footnote 575:
Con. t. 2. p. 50.
Footnote 576:
M Socr. l. 1. c. 23.
Footnote 577:
Facund. l. 8. c. 1.
Footnote 578:
Id. l. 2. c. 1.
Footnote 579:
Niceph. chron.
Footnote 580:
Theod. l. 1. c. 6.
Footnote 581:
Euseb. in vit. Const. l. 3. c. 11.
Footnote 582:
Euseb. l. 1. c. 1. Vales. in not. p. 223.
Footnote 583:
Bar. ad ann. 325. n. 56-59.
Footnote 584:
Surius, to Jul. p. 159.
Footnote 585:
Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 14.
Footnote 586:
Vide Elli. Du Pin de antiq. eccles. discip. p. 98, & seq.
Footnote 587:
Inn. in epist. ad Vict. c. 3.
Footnote 588:
Hier. in c. 2. Isal.
Footnote 589:
Vide Basil. ep. 319.
Footnote 590:
Grot. de imp. summ. potest. c. 11. n. 8.
Footnote 591:
Orig. in Ezek. hom. 3.
Footnote 592:
Justin. apol. 2. p 98.
Footnote 593:
Tert. de bapt. p. 602.
Footnote 594:
Idem ib. p. 99.
Footnote 595:
Cyp. ep. 38. p. 90.
Footnote 596:
Id. ep. 10. p. 30.
Footnote 597:
Tert. ib. p. 39.
Footnote 598:
Id. ib. p. 709.
Footnote 599:
Cyp. de laps. n. 4. p. 278.
Footnote 600:
Tertull. de bapt. p. 602.
Footnote 601:
Orig. hom. de Engast. vol. 1. p. 28.
Footnote 602:
Cyp. ep. 10. p. 29. ep. 11. p. 32. ep. 12. p. 37.
Footnote 603:
Ign. ad Smyrn. p. 6.
Footnote 604:
Cyp. ep. 66. p. 195. Tert. de præscript. p. 89.
Footnote 605:
Idem, ep. 68. p.201.
Footnote 606:
Tert. advers. Hermog. p. 266. & de præscript. p. 70, 71.
Footnote 607:
Orig. contra Cels. l. 6. p. 279. Clem. Alex. strom. l. 1. p. 207. l. 6. p. 472, &c.
Footnote 608:
Clem. Alex. strom. l. 6. p. 472.
Footnote 609:
Cyp. ep. 33. p. 76.
Footnote 610:
Ign. ep. ad Magnes. p. 31.
Footnote 611:
Acts. vi. 1, 2, 3, 4.
Footnote 612:
Const. Apost. l. 2; p. 31, 32.
Footnote 613:
Acts vi. 6.
Footnote 614:
Just. apol. 2. p. 97.
Footnote 615:
Idem ib. p. 98.
Footnote 616:
Tert. de bapt. p. 602.
Footnote 617:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.
Footnote 618:
Prud. de coron. mar. p. 71.
Footnote 619:
Idem ib. p. 91.
Footnote 620:
Conc. t. 1. p. 1448.
Footnote 621:
Hier. ep. 85.
Footnote 622:
Cyp. ep. 55, 72, 52.
Footnote 623:
Apud Cyp. ep. 75.
Footnote 624:
Cyp. ep. 14, 26, 31. Euseb. l. 5. c. 16. & l. 7. c. 30. Act. concil. Carth. apud Cyp. p. 443.
Footnote 625:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 23, & 24.
Footnote 626:
Act. concil. Carth. p. 443.
Footnote 627:
Cyp. ep. 59.
Footnote 628:
Zos. l. 2. p. 623.
Footnote 629:
Pet. de Mar. l. 6. deconc. c. 1.
Footnote 630:
Lup. can. 4. Nic. par. 1.
Footnote 631:
Schel. antiq. illust. part. 1. disser. 1. c. 3. art. 1.
Footnote 632:
Leo All. de eccl. occid. & orient. conses. l. 1. c. 2.
Footnote 633:
Du Pin de antiq. eccles. discip. diss. 1. n. 6.
Footnote 634:
Concil. t. 4. col. 58. Evagr. l. 2. c. 18.
Footnote 635:
Du Pin, c. 6. n. 5.
Footnote 636:
Conc. Arel. can. 50. Laod. can. 12. Carth. can. 12. Eph. act. 4, &c.
Footnote 637:
Vide Du Pin. dissert. i. n. 13.
Footnote 638:
Idem ib.
Footnote 639:
Leo, ep. 89.
Footnote 640:
Cod. Theod. l. 4. de navicul. & l. un. de his qui veniam ætat.]
Footnote 641:
Vide Petr.de Marca, l. 3. c. 12. l. 6. c. 6. Schelstrat. antiq. illustr. par. 2. dissert. 3. c. 8. Got. in chron. cod. Theod. ann. 324. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 4. c. 61.
Footnote 642:
Afflict. in constit. in prælud. quæst. 2. n. 2. & q. 20. n. 1. Tappia de jur. regni, l. 1. & de leg. l. 1. n. 6. Ponte de potest. Proreg. tit. II. n. 26.
Footnote 643:
Luch. de imp. potest. in Ital.
Footnote 644:
Theod. l. 1. c. 32.
Footnote 645:
Soz. l. 2. c. 34.
Footnote 646:
Socr. l. 1. c. 39.
Footnote 647:
Phot. cod. 127.
Footnote 648:
Ambros. serm. de obitu Theodos.
Footnote 649:
Hier. in chron.
Footnote 650:
Soz. l. 4. c. 18.
Footnote 651:
Schelst. antiq. illust. part. 2. dissert. 3. c. 6.
Footnote 652:
Aug. de hæres. c. 48.
Footnote 653:
Socr. l. 5. c. 6. Sozom. l. 7. c. 4.
Footnote 654:
Amb. orat. in fun. Val.
Footnote 655:
Greg. in orat. de bapt. Amb. in ser. de sanct. & alibi.
Footnote 656:
Comb. act. &c. p. 258.
Footnote 657:
Buch. cycl. p. 267. 273.f
CONSTANTINE. MARK, _Thirty-third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 336. ]
_Sylvester_ was succeeded by _Mark_, on the 18th of _January_ 336. He is passed over by _Theodoret_[658], but named by _Optatus_[659], _Ruffinus_[660], St. _Austin_[661], St. _Jerom_[662], and _Sozomen_[663]. We know nothing certain either of his Life or Administration. [Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Rome _ordained by the Bishop of_ Ostia.] _Anastasius_ indeed tells us, that by him the Bishop of _Ostia_ was first appointed to ordain the Bishop of _Rome_, and to carry the _Pallium_ or Pall; where _Baronius_ observes, that the Pall is here mentioned for the First time[664]. But _Anastasius_ is not a Writer we can depend upon. It is certain, however, that the Bishops of _Ostia_ have long enjoyed this Privilege; for it is mentioned by St. _Austin_[665], and likewise in a Memorial presented by the Clergy of _Rome_ in 418. to the Emperor _Honorius_, on Occasion of the Election of Pope _Zosimus_[666]. The Letter which the Bishops of _Egypt_ are said to have written to this Pope, and his Answer to them, are rejected even by _Baronius_[667], and very justly; for the Pope’s Answer is dated Eighteen Days after his Death. He died on the 7th of _October_ the same Year he had been chosen[668], and was buried in the Cœmetery of _Balbina_, which was thenceforth called after his Name[669]. His Body is now worshiped in the Church of St. _Laurence_ at _Florence_, though no Mention is made by any Writer of its having ever been translated thither[670].
Footnote 658:
Theod. l. 2. c. 12.
Footnote 659:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 660:
Ruffin. l. 10. c. 22.
Footnote 661:
Aug. ep. 165.
Footnote 662:
Hier. chron.
Footnote 663:
Soz. l. 2. C. 20.
Footnote 664:
Bar. ad ann. 336. n. 64.
Footnote 665:
Aug. coll. die 3. c. 16.
Footnote 666:
Vide Du Pin dissert. 1. n. 13.
Footnote 667:
Bar. ibid. n. 60, 61.
Footnote 668:
Soz. l. 2. c. 20. Hier. chron. Buch. p. 267. 273.
Footnote 669:
Front. cal. p. 141.
Footnote 670:
Bolland, Pont. p. 50.
CONSTANTINE, JULIUS, CONSTANTINE, and his Three _Thirty-fourth_ BISHOP _of_ CONSTANTIUS, Sons, Rome. and CONSTANS.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 337. _Falsely said to have held a great Council at_ Rome.]
Upon the Death of _Mark_ the See was vacant for the Space of Four Months, that is, to the 6th of _February_ 337. when _Julius_ was chosen[671]. He is said to have held a Council of an Hundred and Sixteen Bishops in the _December_ of the same Year[672]. But the Date of this Council puts _Baronius_ to a Stand; for in the Date are marked the Consuls, the Year of the Emperors, and the Indiction. Now, according to the Consuls, it must have been held in 337. according to the Year of the Emperors, in 340. and, according to the Indiction, in 347. The Annalist spares neither his Words nor his Labour to solve, or rather to patch up, this Difficulty; but, being sensible, after a long, tedious, and puzzling Descant, that he labours in vain, he concludes, that the Text has been altered[673]. He might have saved himself a great deal of Trouble, by owning at once what has been plainly proved since by _Blondel_[674], _viz._ that no such Council was ever held.
When _Julius_ was raised to the Pontificate, the celebrated _Athanasius_, Bishop of _Alexandria_, lived in Banishment at _Treves_; but the Year following he was allowed to return to his Church by the Three Emperors, _Constantine_, _Constantius_, and _Constans_, who had succeeded their Father in 337. [Sidenote: _The_ Arians _write to_ Julius _against_ Athanasius.] The _Eusebians_, that is, the _Arian_ Faction headed by _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Nicomedia_, at whose Instigation he had been banished by _Constantine_, alarmed at his Return, writ bitter Letters against him to the Three Princes, and likewise to the Bishop of _Rome_. To the latter they dispatched with their Letters _Macarius_ a Presbyter, and the Two Deacons _Martyrius_ and _Hesychius_. _Athanasius_ no sooner heard of this Embassy than he, in his Turn, dispatched some Presbyters to oppose the Attempts of his Enemies, and defend his Innocence against the Calumnies, which he well knew they were sent to spread against him, not only at _Rome_, but all over the West[675]. [Sidenote: _They desire_ Julius _to assemble a Council_.] Upon their Arrival, _Macarius_ privately withdrew from _Rome_, and the other Two were so confounded by the Deputies of _Athanasius_, at a private Conference held before the Pope, that, to gain Time, they had no other Resource but to appeal to a Council, which they begged the Pope to assemble, and to give timely notice thereof both to _Athanasius_ and the _Eusebians_. They bragged that, before the Council, they would make good the Charge they had brought against _Athanasius_, and offered to take _Julius_ himself for their Judge[676]. This Offer, we may be sure, was readily accepted by the Bishop of _Rome_, who immediately writ to _Athanasius_ inviting him to the Council, and at the same time desired the Deputies of the _Eusebians_ to acquaint their Party, that, agreeably to their Request, a Council should be soon convened. _Athanasius_, upon the Receipt of the Pope’s Letter, set out, without Delay, for _Rome_, where he arrived in the Latter end of the Year 339. After his Arrival the Bishop of _Rome_ dispatched _Elpidius_ and _Philoxenes_, Two of his Presbyters, with Letters to the _Eusebians_, summoning them to the Council, which their Deputies had demanded, and acquainting them with the Time and Place in which it was to be held[677]. The Place was _Rome_, and the Time the Month of _June_ 341. according to the most probable Opinion. [Sidenote: _They decline appearing at the Council of_ Rome; _assemble one at_ Antioch; _and there depose_ Athanasius;] The other Bishops assembled at the Time appointed; but the _Eusebians_, instead of appearing at the Council of _Rome_, which had been convened at their Request, assembled one at _Antioch_, and there, without waiting for the Determination of _Julius_, whom they had chosen for their Judge, deposed _Athanasius_, and appointed _Gregory_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ in his room; nay, they even detained the Deputies sent by the Pope till the Time appointed for the Meeting of the Council was expired, that they might afterwards plead, as they did, the Shortness of the Term prescribed for them to meet in[678]. [Sidenote: _who is declared innocent in the Council of_ Rome.] In the Council of _Rome_ the Cause of _Athanasius_ was examined, and he, after the strictest Scrutiny, declared innocent with one Voice by the Fifty Bishops who composed it[679]; so that _Julius_ and the rest continued to communicate with him as a Bishop[680], which was declaring him unlawfully deposed. Several other Bishops, who had been deposed by the _Arians_, came to lay their Complaints before the Council, and, among the rest, _Marcellus_ Bishop of _Ancyra_, and _Paul_ Bishop of _Constantinople_. The former had been condemned as an Heretic by a Council held at _Constantinople_ in 336. and consisting intirely of _Arian_ Bishops. As nobody appeared against him during the Fifteen Months he continued at _Rome_, and the Declaration of his Faith, which, at the Request of _Julius_, he gave under his own Hand, was judged quite orthodox by the Pope and the Council, he was readmitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church[681]. But whether they did not judge too favourably of his Belief, may be very much questioned: _Epiphanius_ at least was no-ways satisfied with it[682]. And truly it would be no easy Task to clear him from the Heresy of _Sabellius_ and _Samosatenus_, denying the Trinity of the Divine Persons[683]: but to examine so perplexed and intricate a Point, would be foreign to my Purpose. [Sidenote: _Neither_ Athanasius _nor any other Bishop restored by_ Julius.] _Socrates_[684] and _Sozomen_[685] write, that _Julius_, by the Authority of his See, reinstated all the Bishops who had been displaced by the _Arians_; that he supported and defended their Innocence with Letters full of Vigour and Liberty; severely reprimanded those who had deposed them; summoned some of them to appear at _Rome_, in a limited Time, to justify their Conduct; and, lastly, that he threatened to treat them as they deserved, if they did not forbear raising Disturbances in the Church. In virtue of these Letters, says _Socrates_, the Bishops were restored to their Sees. But _Sozomen_ names only _Athanasius_, and _Paul_ Bishop of _Constantinople_. It is surprising, that the Advocates for the See of _Rome_ should allege the Testimony of these two Writers, to prove that the Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_ was acknowleged by the Orientals; that his Jurisdiction was universal; when they themselves must know (for I cannot suppose them so ignorant as not to know) that the Historians whom they quote were grosly mistaken. For it is manifest from _Athanasius_[686], that _Julius_ writ only two Letters to the _Eusebians_; one before the Council met, inviting them to it; and the other, while the Council was still sitting, which I shall speak of hereafter; and in neither of these does _Julius_ take upon him either to threaten or command. The above-mentioned Historians seem to have jumbled these two Letters together, and to have made a Third out of them, with some Improvements of their own. As to his restoring the deposed Bishops to their Sees, it is certain he did not, since _Athanasius_ continued in the West till the Year 349. when he was restored by the Council of _Sardica_. _Paul_ indeed was reinstated sooner, but not till the See of _Constantinople_ became vacant by the Death of _Eusebius_, who had been translated from _Nicomedia_ to that City. I appeal to the _Roman_ Catholics themselves, and leave them to judge whether it is at all probable, that the Emperor _Constantius_, and the Oriental Bishops, incensed as they were against _Paul_ and _Athanasius_, whom they had condemned and deposed in Two Synods, should, out of Respect to the Pope, suffer them thus tamely to return to their Sees, and drive out those whom they had placed in their room. This had been owning themselves guilty, and reversing the Sentence they had but lately pronounced, which, as will appear, they were no-ways in an Humour to do.
[Sidenote: _The_ Eusebians _write to_ Julius;]
While the Council of _Rome_ was yet sitting, the Pope’s two Deputies, _Elpidius_ and _Philoxenes_, returning from the East, delivered to _Julius_ a Letter from the _Eusebians_, which may pass for a Master-piece of the Kind; for, without departing from, or intrenching upon, the Respect that was due to the Bishop of the Imperial City, they, at the same time, commend, censure, menace, and rally him in a most cruel Manner. They begin with alleging several frivolous Excuses for not appearing at the Council, such as the _Persian_ War, which, by the way, did not prevent their assembling at _Antioch_; the Shortness of the Term prescribed for their Meeting; the Pope’s writing only to some of them, and not to all, as he ought to have done; and finally, his writing to them in his own Name alone, which was tacitly taxing him with taking too much upon him. They then launch out ironically, it seems, into the highest Encomiums on the Church of _Rome_, styling her the first of all Churches, the School of the Apostles, the Metropolis of true Piety. However, the first Preachers of the Gospel, add they, came out of the East; and, after all, we ought to be looked upon as Inferiors to none, though perhaps we may not have such numerous and flourishing Churches as some have, since the want of Numbers may be abundantly supplied by the Piety of a few. As to Rank, we are all equal, the Greatness of the Cities, in which we preside, adding nothing to the Dignity we all enjoy. In the next place, they express great Concern at the little Regard shewn by some to the Decisions of Councils, which ought to be revered by all, and deemed immutable. This was modestly censuring the Pope for not acquiescing to the Decrees of the Councils of _Tyre_ and _Constantinople_ condemning _Athanasius_. [Sidenote: _and threaten to separate themselves from his Communion_.] In the End they allege several Things both against _Athanasius_, and _Marcellus_ Bishop of _Ancyra_; and conclude with telling _Julius_, that if he renounced all Correspondence and Intercourse with the Bishops they had deposed, and acknowleged those they had placed in their room, they would continue to communicate with him; but if he refused to comply with their Decisions and Decrees, they should think themselves obliged to act in a very different Manner[687]. _Julius_ was so mortified with this Letter, that he suppressed it for some time, hoping the _Eusebians_ would send Deputies, who, he presumed, would express their Sentiments by Word of Mouth, and in a different Style. But, none appearing, he was obliged to lay the Letter he had received before the Fathers of the Council, who, after expressing the greatest Indignation against the _Eusebians_, advised the Pope to answer it; which he did accordingly, by that excellent Letter, which has been preserved intire among the Works of _Athanasius_. [Sidenote: Julius_’s Answer to their Letter_.] He begins with complaining, in very modest Terms, of the Animosity they betrayed in their Letter, to which he thought he had given no Occasion; unless they had taken it amiss, that he had summoned them to the Council; which he could not persuade himself they did, since, at the Request of their Deputies, he had appointed the Council to meet, and, at their Request, invited them to it. As for the Regard due to the Decrees and Decisions of Councils, he told them, that they had trespassed the first against the Decrees of the Oecumenical Council of _Nice_, by admitting the _Arians_ to their Communion, which he conceived to be more criminal in them, than it was in him to receive _Athanasius_ and _Marcellus_. He reproaches them with another Transgression of the Canons of the Church, namely with that of passing from one Bishoprick to another, which _Eusebius_ had done. He then justifies his Conduct with regard to _Athanasius_ and _Marcellus_; exhorts the _Eusebians_, with great Zeal and Earnestness, to find out some Remedy against the Evils and Disorders that reigned in the East, which he describes at Length; and concludes with complaining of the Orientals for condemning and deposing Bishops, those especially of the Apostolic Sees, without the Concurrence or Knowlege of their Brethren in the West[688].