Part 18
_Julius_, finding his Letter made no Impression on the _Eusebians_, applied with several other Bishops to the Emperor _Constans_, who, at their Request proposed to his Brother _Constantius_ the assembling of an Oecumenical Council, in order to put an End to those unhappy Divisions. [Sidenote: _The Council of_ Sardica.] To this Proposal _Constantius_ agreed; and accordingly, by the Command of the two Princes, a numerous Council met in 347. at _Sardica_, the Metropolis of _Dacia_ in _Illyricum_[689]. _Julius_, apprehending it dangerous to abandon his Flock at that Juncture, did not assist in Person, but by his Deputies _Archidamus_ and _Philoxenes_, who signed in his Name[690]. The Orientals came, but withdrew soon after, upon the Council’s refusing to exclude _Athanasius_, and some others, whom they had condemned[691]. But by the orthodox Bishops, who remained, the Acts of the Council of _Rome_ were confirmed, _Athanasius_ and Three other Bishops declared innocent; and those, who had been placed in their room, not only deposed, but anathematized, and intirely cut off from the Communion of the Catholic Church[692]. The Council, before they broke up, writ several Letters; and, among the rest, one to the Emperors; one to the Bishop of _Rome_; and a circular Letter to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, acquainting them with what had passed, and exhorting them to join the Council, and declare to the World, that they accepted their Decrees by subscribing to them[693]. The circular Letter was subscribed first by the great _Osius_ Bishop of _Cordoua_, and in the Second place by the Pope’s Legates[694]. In their Letter to _Julius_ they beg him to notify their Decrees to the Bishops of _Sardinia_, _Sicily_, and _Italy_, lest any of them should receive Letters of Peace and Communion from the Bishops they had condemned[695]. In this Letter the Council says, or rather is made to say, That _it is very meet or reasonable, that all Bishops should acquaint their Head, that is, the See of St._ Peter, _with what passes in their respective Provinces_[696]. I agree with _Blondel_[697], that this Passage is foisted in; but cannot acquiesce to the only Reason he alleges to support his Opinion, _viz._ the Barbarity of the _Latin_ Expression (_valde congruentissimum est_); for such a Slip might easily escape Men wholly bent on defending the Truth, and speaking it; and besides, we are not certain, that this Letter was originally written in _Latin_. The want of Connexion between that Sentence, and what is said both before and after it, is, I think, a more convincing Proof of Forgery.
[Sidenote: _Canons of the Council of_ Sardica _relating to the Bishop of_ Rome.]
By the Council of _Sardica_ several Canons were made; but I shall only take notice of those that regard the Bishop of _Rome_. By the Third Canon in the _Greek_, or the Fourth in the _Latin_ Translation by _Isidorus_, it is ordered, that if any Bishop shall think himself unjustly condemned, his Judges shall acquaint the Bishop of _Rome_ therewith, who may either confirm the first Judgment, or order his Cause to be re-examined by such of the neighbouring Bishops as he shall think fit to name[698]. _Osius_, who was greatly addicted to the See of _Rome_, begged the Council to grant this Honour to the Memory of St. _Peter_. The Fourth Canon, according to the _Greek_, adds, That the See of the deposed Bishop shall remain vacant till his Cause shall be judged by the Bishop of _Rome_. By the Fifth Canon, which by some Mistake is the Seventh in _Dionysius Exiguus_, it is ordered, that if a Bishop, condemned in his own Province, shall chuse to be judged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and desires him to appoint some of his Presbyters to judge him in his Name, together with the Bishops, the Bishop of _Rome_ may grant him his Request. [Sidenote: _The Practice of appealing to the Pope first introduced._ _Several Circumstances concur in his Favour._] Thus was the pernicious Practice of appealing to the Pope first introduced and authorized. It must be observed, that the Oriental Bishops had all left the Council: those who remained were all zealous Opposers of _Arianism_. At the Head of their Party was the Bishop of _Rome_. In the Heat of their Zeal they thought they could not confer too much Power upon him; and so made a Concession intirely repugnant to the Discipline of the primitive Church, and which he could never have obtained, had not those Dispositions worked strongly in his Favour. This will not be surprising to those, who have attended to History, and seen how much the Ambition of Princes, and Heads of Factions, is often advanced beyond its due Bounds by the indiscreet Fervour of Party-Zeal. To the Council of _Sardica_, acting under this Influence, the See of _Rome_ is indebted for the so much boasted Privilege of receiving Appeals; and _Julius_ was very thankful for it. [Sidenote: _The Popes claim as their original Right, what was granted them as a Favour._] But his Successors, looking upon such an Obligation as a Diminution of their pretended Sovereignty, have had the Assurance to claim it as their original Right: but that such a Right was unknown to their great Friend _Osius_, to the Fathers of the Council, nay, and to the Pope himself, and his Legates, is manifest, since what they now claim as their original and inherent Right, was by _Osius_ begged of the Council as a Favour, and, as such, granted by the Council, and accepted by the Pope and his Legates. This Power of receiving Appeals, only with respect to the judging and deposing of Bishops, has been extended by the Popes to all Causes; and great Encouragement has been given to such as recurred to their Tribunal on the slightest Occasions. _Concerning Appeals in the smallest Causes, we would have you to know, that the same Regard is to be had to them, for how slight a Matter soever they be made, as if they were for a greater_, says Pope _Alexander_ III. in his Letter to the Bishop of _Worcester_[699]. The scandalous and intolerable Abuse of this Power in the Popes has obliged several Princes, even when Superstition most prevailed, to restrain their Subjects by severe Laws from recurring to _Rome_. Nay, other Councils of far greater Authority than that of _Sardica_, finding no other Means to put a Stop to the daily Encroachments of the See of _Rome_, have thought it necessary to revoke the Privilege, which that Council had too rashly granted, as we shall see in the Sequel of the present History.
[Sidenote: _Decrees of the Council of_ Antioch _revoked by the Council of_ Sardica.]
It had been decreed but Six Years before, by the Council of _Antioch_, that, if the Bishops of the same Province disagreed in judging one of their Brethren, the Metropolitan might call in those of the neighbouring Province to judge with them; but if they agreed, and were unanimous either in condemning or absolving, their Judgment should be irreversible. Both these Decrees were revoked by the present Council, though intirely agreeable to the antient Practice and Discipline of the Church. [Sidenote: _The Pope has no Power to summon Bishops to_ Rome.] But yet this Council, however favourable to the Pope, did not grant him the Power of summoning Bishops to _Rome_, in order to be judged there by him. He was only impowered to examine the Judgment given in the Province; and, in case he found it to be wrong, to order another in the same Province, to invite to this new Synod the Bishops of the next Province, and to send his Legates to it as he thought fit.
[Sidenote: Osius _did not preside at the Council of_ Sardica _as the Pope’s Legate_.]
At this Council the Pope’s Legates assisted; but Osius presided, as we are told in express Terms by _Theodoret_[700], by _Sozomen_[701], and by the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_[702]. Besides, his Name is the first in the Subscriptions, as they have been transmitted to us by _Athanasius_, who assures us, that _Osius_ was the Chief, and presided in all the Councils at which he assisted. He signed the first, and in his own Name: after him signed the Legates, not in their own, but in the Pope’s Name; _Julius Romæ per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros_; which is a sufficient Confutation of _De Marca_, and the other Popish Writers, pretending, without the least Foundation, that _Osius_ presided in the Name of _Julius_.
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Sardica _a Council of no great Authority_.]
It is to be observed, that the Canons of this Council were never received in the East, nor even in the West by the Bishops of _Africa_; and that they were not inserted by the Council of _Chalcedon_ into the Code of Canons approved by them, as Rules to be universally observed: so that, after all, the so much boasted Council of _Sardica_ is a Council of no great Authority. Of this the Popes themselves were well apprised; and therefore, recurring to Fraud, attempted, as we shall see hereafter, to impose upon the World the Canons of _Sardica_ as the Canons of _Nice_.
[Sidenote: Athanasius _retires to_ Naissus.]
_Athanasius_, though declared innocent by the Council, did not think it adviseable to return to his See, being informed, that the _Eusebians_ had prevailed upon the Emperor _Constantius_ to issue an Order, impowering and commanding the Magistrates of _Alexandria_ to put him to Death, without further Tryal, in what Place soever he should be found within the Precincts of that Jurisdiction[703]. [Sidenote: _Is recalled by_ Constantius.] He therefore retired to _Naissus_ in _Upper Dacia_, and there continued from the year 347. to 349. when _Constantius_ chose rather to recall him, and the other exiled Bishops, than engage in a Civil War, with which he was threatened by his Brother, if he did not[704]. Before his Departure for the East he went to _Rome_, to take his Leave of that Church, and his great Protector _Julius_, who, on that Occasion, writ an excellent Letter of Congratulation to the Presbyters, Deacons, and People of _Alexandria_. Of this Letter we have Two Copies, the one in _Socrates_[705], and the other in _Athanasius_[706]. The former contains great Commendations of that Prelate, which, out of Modesty, were, as I conjecture, omitted by him.
[Sidenote: Ursacius _and_ Valens _retract all they had said against_ Athanasius.]
_Julius_ had, soon after, the Satisfaction of receiving a solemn Retractation made by _Ursacius_ Bishop of _Singidunum_, and _Valens_ Bishop of _Mursus_, Two of _Athanasius_’s most inveterate Enemies, publicly owning, that whatever they had said or written against him was utterly false, groundless, and invented out of pure Malice: at the same time they embraced his Communion, and anathematized the Heresy of _Arius_, and all who held or defended his Tenets. This Act _Valens_ writ with his own Hand, and _Ursacius_ signed it; whereupon they were both admitted by _Julius_ to the Communion of the Church[707][N13]. This Retraction, though not at all sincere, but merely owing to Policy, greatly contributed to the Justification of _Athanasius_. I find nothing else in the Antients, concerning _Julius_, worthy of Notice. [Sidenote: Julius _dies_.] He died on the 12th of _April_ 352. having governed the Church of _Rome_ Fifteen Years, Two Months, and Six Days[708]. He is said to have been buried in the Cœmetery of _Callistus_, on the _Aurelian_ Way, where he had built a Church[709], and to have been removed from thence in 817. by Pope _Paschal_ I. to the Church of St. _Praxedes_, and again from that, by _Innocent_ II. in 1140. to _St. Mary’s_ beyond the _Tyber_[710]. _Bede_, whom the Authors of the modern Pontificals have followed, tells us, in his Martyrology[711], that _Julius_ was sent into Banishment, where he suffered much for the Space of Ten Months, till the Death of _Constantius_, a zealous Promoter of _Arianism_. [Sidenote: Julius _was not banished by_ Constantius.] But that Historian was certainly mistaken, since _Constantius_ was never Master of _Rome_ in _Julius_’s Time, and his Brother _Constans_ was a great Friend to _Julius_, and all the orthodox Bishops. [Sidenote: _Spurious Pieces ascribed to him._] Of the many Writings ascribed to _Julius_, none, except his Two Letters, are authentic, the one to the _Eusebians_, and the other to the Church of _Alexandria_, of which we have spoken above. _Leontius_ of _Byzantium_ mentions Seven Epistles, which, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, were ascribed to _Julius_[712]; but, at the same time, he assures us, that they were not written by him, but by _Apollinaris_ the Heresiarch; and the Monks of _Palæstine_, in the Account they gave of the _Eutychians_, in the Time of the Emperor _Anastasius_, assure us, that they seduced great Numbers of People, by ascribing the Works of _Apollinaris_ to the Fathers, namely to _Athanasius_, to _Gregory Nazienzen_, and to _Julius_[713]. _Gennadius_ ascribes to _Julius_ a Letter to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Corinth_, greatly favouring of the Heresy of _Eutyches_ and _Timotheus_[714]; but _Leontius_ of _Byzantium_ evidently proves that Letter to have been written by _Apollinaris_; and as his it is quoted by his Two Disciples _Valentine_ and _Timotheus_[715]. The Orientals have a Liturgy, which they suppose to have been composed by _Julius_: this Supposition, however groundless, shews him to have been in great Repute in those Parts[716].
Footnote N13:
_Ursacius_ and _Valens_ first abjured, or rather pretended to abjure, their Errors at _Milan_, before the Council, that at this Time was sitting there. From _Milan_ they repaired to _Rome_, and there abjured anew their Errors, in the Presence of _Julius_, and the whole _Roman_ Church. Here _Baronius_ observes, _that as this was a Matter of too great Moment to be finally decided by the Council of_ Milan, _though the_ Roman _Presbyters were present, they sent them to_ Julius, _that they might abjure their Errors in his Presence, agreeably to the antient Custom of the Catholic Church_; viz. _that eminent Heretics should abjure their Heresies only at_ Rome[N13.1]. But, in the first Place, they were not sent by the Council; but went to _Rome_ of their own Accord, as _Osius_ assures us, in express Terms, _Illi ultre Romam venerunt_[N13.2]. In the second Place, the Matter was finally determined by the Council of _Milan_; for the Council received their Recantation, and restored them to the Communion of the Church. And what else was to be done? what else could _Julius_ do? But if the Matter was finally determined by the Council, what could induce them, says _Baronius_, to travel to _Rome_, and abjure anew their Heresy there? The Answer is obvious: They had imposed upon the Council by a pretended Abjuration, and went to _Rome_ to impose, in like manner, on _Julius_, and obtain by that means his Communion; which they did accordingly, notwithstanding his _Infallibility_. Besides, as both _Athanasius_ and his Enemies had referred their Cause to the Arbitration of _Julius_, he was the fittest Person to receive the Retraction of the false Evidence, which they had formerly given. As to the Custom, mentioned by _Baronius_, that _eminent Heretics should abjure their Heresies only at_ Rome, no Man can be so little versed in Ecclesiastical History as not to know, that no such Custom ever obtained in the Catholic Church. Not to recur to more antient Times, the _Arian_ Bishops, that is, Bishops guilty of the same Heresy as _Ursacius_ and _Valens_, abjured their Errors before the Council that was held at _Jerusalem_ in 335. There they renounced their Heresy; there they were all restored to the Communion of the Church, without going, or offering to go, to _Rome_. And many of those Bishops were surely more eminent Heretics than either _Ursacius_ or _Valens_.
Footnote N13.1:
Bar. ad ann. 350. n. 23.
Footnote N13.2:
Apud Ath. ad Solitar.
Footnote 671:
Buch. p. 273.
Footnote 672:
Concil. tom. 2. p. 527.
Footnote 673:
Bar. ad ann. 337. n. 67.
Footnote 674:
Blond. decret. p. 451.
Footnote 675:
Athan. apol. 2. p. 741-745.
Footnote 676:
Id. ib.
Footnote 677:
Id. ib. Socr. l. 2. c. 15. Soz. l. 3. c. 8.
Footnote 678:
Athan. ib. p. 744. & ad Solit. p. 816.
Footnote 679:
Id. ib. p. 748.
Footnote 680:
Idem ib. Hil. frag. p. 26.
Footnote 681:
Id. ib. p. 750.
Footnote 682:
Epiph. 72. c. 4.
Footnote 683:
Vide Petav. dog. t. 2. l. 1. c. 13. Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. p. 46.
Footnote 684:
Socr. l. 2. c. 15.
Footnote 685:
Soz. l. 3. c. 8.
Footnote 686:
Athan. ap. 2. p. 739.
Footnote 687:
Id. ib. p. 740-749. & ad Solit. p. 816. Soz. l. 3. c. 8. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43. Hil. frag. p. 25.
Footnote 688:
Athan. ib. p. 740-753.
Footnote 689:
Athan. ib. p. 761. Socr. l. 1. c. 20. Hil. frag 2. p. 7. Soz. l. 3. c. 12, &c.
Footnote 690:
Athan. ib. p. 767.
Footnote 691:
Athan. ad Solit. p. 819. Hil. frag. 2. p. 22.
Footnote 692:
Athan. ib. p. 766. & ad Sol. p. 820. Theod. l. 2. c. 6. Hil. frag. 1. p. 18.
Footnote 693:
Athan. ib.
Footnote 694:
Id. ib. p. 767.
Footnote 695:
Hil. frag. 1. p. 15, 16.
Footnote 696:
Id. ibid.
Footnote 697:
Blond. prim. p. 106.
Footnote 698:
Concil. t. 2. p. 652.
Footnote 699:
In decret. Greg. l. 2. tit. 28. c. 11.
Footnote 700:
Theodoret. l. 2. c. 15.
Footnote 701:
Soz. l. 3. c. 11.
Footnote 702:
Concil. l. 4. p. 825.
Footnote 703:
Ath. apol. 2. p. 271. & ad Sol. p. 820.
Footnote 704:
Idem ad Sol. p. 822. Ruf. l. 1. c. 19. Theod. l. 2. c. 6.
Footnote 705:
Socr. l. 2. c. 23.
Footnote 706:
Athan. apol. 2. p. 770.
Footnote 707:
Ath. ad Solit. p. 826. & Apol. 2. p. 776. Hil. frag. 1. p. 24-26.
Footnote 708:
Buch. cycl. 267. 273.
Footnote 709:
Idem ib.
Footnote 710:
Bolland. 12 Apr. p. 86. n. 14.
Footnote 711:
Bed. martyr. p. 83.
Footnote 712:
Leont. sect. 8. p. 526.
Footnote 713:
Evagr. l. 3. c. 31.
Footnote 714:
Gen. c. 2.
Footnote 715:
Leont. ib.
Footnote 716:
Bona lit. 1. c. 9. p. 64.
CONSTANTIUS, LIBERIUS, JOVIAN, JULIAN, _Thirty-fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. VALERIAN.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 352. Liberius _his own Panegyrist_.]
_Liberius_ was chosen on the 22d of _May_ 352. in the room of _Julius_[717]. He had trampled under-foot (to use his own Terms) all worldly things, to observe the Gospel, and obey the Dictates of his Faith. He had been employed, before his Election, in several Ecclesiastical Ministries, and discharged them with Reputation, though he was not conscious to himself of having ever done the least Thing for the sake of Praise and Glory. He was at last raised to the Episcopal Dignity, but much against his Will, as he calls God and the Church to witness. He protests, that it was his ardent and only Wish, that he might keep himself pure and undefiled in the Administration of his new Dignity, that he might inviolably maintain and defend the Faith, which he had received from his illustrious Predecessors, among whom were many Martyrs[718]. [Sidenote: _No easy Matter to form a true Idea of his Character._] Were we to judge of his Conduct from his Words, we should equal him to the best of his Predecessors; but there appears, throughout his whole Administration, such an odd Mixture of opposite Qualities, that it is no easy Matter to form a true Idea of his Character: at one time we shall find him bold, intrepid, and inflexible; at another timorous, faint-hearted, and compliant; insomuch that one can hardly conceive him to be the same Man. The latter Qualities he betrayed in the very Beginning of his Pontificate, by separating himself from the Communion of _Athanasius_. _Constans_, the great Support of the Orthodox Party, being murdered, and _Constantius_ upon the Point of becoming Master of _Rome_, by a complete Victory he had gained over the Two Brothers _Magnentius_ and _Decentius_, the _Eusebians_ thought this a proper Juncture to try whether the Fear of that Prince had not rendered _Julius_ somewhat more tractable. For _Constantius_ was more incensed than ever against _Athanasius_, being assured by the _Eusebians_, to whom he gave an intire Credit, that he had influenced his Brother to threaten him with a Civil War[719]. [Sidenote: _The_ Eusebians _write a second Letter to_ Julius _against_ Athanasius:] They writ therefore to _Julius_ a second Letter, filled with new Complaints and Calumnies against _Athanasius_; but _Julius_ dying in the mean time, their Letter, together with another to the same Purpose from the _Arians_ of _Alexandria_, was delivered to _Liberius_, who caused them both to be publicly read in a full Assembly of the People, and in the Council, which was then sitting at _Rome_[720]. [Sidenote: _which is answered by_ Liberius:] His Answer to these Letters has not reached our Times; but a Copy of the Letter, which he writ on that Occasion to _Athanasius_, has, to his eternal Disgrace, been transmitted to us, among the Fragments of _Hilarius_ Bishop of _Poitiers_. [Sidenote: _who summons_ Athanasius _to_ Rome.] In that Letter he summons him to appear forthwith at _Rome_, to clear himself there of the heavy Accusations brought against him; and threatens to cut him off from the Communion of that Church, if he refused to comply with the Summons[721]. With this Letter he dispatched Three of his Presbyters, _Lucius_, _Paulus_, and _Ælianus_; strictly injoining them, by all means, to prevail upon _Athanasius_ to repair, without Delay, to _Rome_[722]. This Conduct, so very different from that of his Predecessor, was, no doubt, owing to the Dread he was in of the Emperor _Constantius_, by this Time probably Master of _Rome_, and all _Italy_; for what else could tempt or induce him to act so preposterously? Be that as it will, _Athanasius_ was greatly surprised and concerned to find himself so unworthily treated and threatened by the Bishop of _Rome_; but did not think himself, on that Account, obliged to abandon his Flock. He remained therefore in _Alexandria_; but begged his Collegues in _Egypt_ to write in his Favour to the Pope; which they did accordingly. [Sidenote: Liberius _communicates with the_ Arians, _and excommunicates_ Athanasius.] But _Liberius_ wanted to ingratiate himself with the _Arians_, and, by their means, with the Emperor; and therefore, without any Regard to the Testimony of the Orthodox Bishops, or the known Innocence of the oppressed _Athanasius_, he writ to the _Eusebians_, acquainting them, that he communicated with them; but, as to _Athanasius_, he had cut him off from his Communion, and from that of his Church[723]. [Sidenote: _His Letter to them not supposititious._] _Baronius_[724], and after him the _Benedictines_, in their last Edition of the Works of _Hilarius_ and _Athanasius_[725], maintain this Letter of _Liberius_ to have been forged by the _Arians_, and inserted into the Works of _Hilarius_. But they allege no convincing Reason why the other Pieces, among which it has been conveyed to us, should be admitted as genuine, and this alone rejected as supposititious. _Athanasius_, indeed, never reproached the Bishop of _Rome_ with his scandalous Conduct, as they observe; but may not that be ascribed to his Moderation? The more, as he was sensible, that _Liberius_ acted thus not out of Ill-will, but Fear. As to the want of Connexion between that Letter and the Pieces preceding and following it, I should not have expected such an Objection from any who had ever perused the Fragments of that Writer, which every one knows to have been patched together without any Regard to Time or Order[N14].
Footnote N14: