Part 26

_Liberius_ dying on the 23d or 24th of _September_ 366. as I have related above, great Disturbances were raised in _Rome_ by the Election of Two Bishops to succeed him, _viz._ _Damasus_ and _Ursinus_, whom the later Writers style _Ursicinus_, a Deacon of that Church. This double Election gave Rise to a dangerous Schism, and a kind of Civil War, within the Walls of the City, which did not end without a great deal of Bloodshed. I shall impartially relate what I find concerning this important Transaction in the contemporary Writers of either Side; leaving the Reader to judge which of the Two Pretenders was the Cause of so much Mischief, and which legally chosen. I shall begin with the Account which _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, who were then at _Rome_, give us of these Elections. They were both Presbyters of that Church, but, being strict Followers of _Lucifer_ Bishop of _Cagliari_, of whom I have spoken above, they and their whole Party were deemed Schismatics, and consequently cruelly persecuted by the Catholic Bishops, especially _Damasus_. Finding themselves thus oppressed, the Two Presbyters, between 383. and 388. drew up a Petition in Behalf of themselves and their afflicted Brethren, addressed to _Valentinian_ II. _Theodosius_, and _Arcadius_, intreating those Princes to protect their Innocence, and put a Stop to the unbridled Rage of their Enemies. With this Request the Two Presbyters repaired to _Constantinople_, being driven from _Rome_ by _Damasus_, and there presented it to _Theodosius_, who, pitying their Condition, in his Rescript directed to _Cynegius_ the _Præfectus Prætorio_, treated them as Catholics, granted them the free Exercise of their Religion, and declared all those wicked Men, nay, and Heretics, who had presumed, or should for the future presume, to persecute or molest them[984]. In the Preface, prefixed to this Petition, I find the following Account of both the above-mentioned Elections. _Ursinus_, say they, was chosen in the Basilic of _Julius_ by the Deacons _Amantius_ and _Lupus_, and the People, who had continued in the Communion of _Liberius_; but _Damasus_, by those who had adhered to _Felix_, assembled for that Purpose in the Church of St. _Laurence_, called _in Lucinis_. _Ursinus_ was ordained the first, by _Paul_ Bishop of _Tivoli_; which _Damasus_, who had always panted after the Episcopal Dignity, no sooner knew, than he hired a great Number of Chariot drivers, and other such despicable Wretches, who, violently breaking into the Basilic of _Julius_, massacred a great many People there. Seven Days afterwards they made themselves Masters of the _Lateran_ Basilic, and there was _Damasus_ ordained Bishop[985]. [Sidenote: _Different Accounts of these Elections._] This Account charges _Damasus_ alone with the Schism, and the Evils attending it. On the other hand, the Council of _Rome_, held about Twelve Years after, lays the whole Blame on _Ursinus_, who, say they, boldly attempted to usurp a Dignity, which on no Score was due to him[986]; and that which met at _Aquileia_ in 381. and consisted of all the most eminent Bishops of the West, ascribes to _Ursinus_, and his Temerity, the many Calamities the Church had suffered; paints him as a Man of no Credit, Character, or Reputation; and adds, that he seized by Force what he had no Hopes of attaining by lawful Means[987]. _Ambrose_ writes, that the Suffrage of Heaven concurred in the Election of _Damasus_[988]. According to these Authorities _Damasus_ was lawfully elected, and _Ursinus_ unlawfully. As to the Particulars of his Election, _Jerom_, who perhaps was then at _Rome_, tells us, that _Damasus_ was first chosen, and then _Ursinus_, who, after his Election, seized by Force on the Basilic of _Sicinus_[989], that is, according to the most probable Opinion, the Basilic of _Liberius_, now _Saint Mary the Greater_. _Socrates_ says, that _Ursinus_ having near as many Votes as _Damasus_, he was thereby encouraged to hold separate Assemblies, and to get himself ordained in a dark and retired Corner of the Basilic of _Sicinus_[990]. _Ruffinus_ assures us, that _Damasus_ was already ordained, when _Ursinus_, transported with Rage at his being preferred to him, assembled a great Number of seditious People, and, supported by them, caused himself, in Defiance of the Canons of the Church, to be ordained, in the Basilic of _Sicinus_, by _Paul_ Bishop of _Tivoli_; whereas the Bishops of _Rome_ were always ordained and consecrated by those of _Ostia_. After his Consecration, continues this Author, he ordained several Persons; which was adding a Sacrilege to his unlawful Election[991]. Both _Ruffinus_, and _Socrates_, who follows him, were certainly mistaken as to the Place of this Ordination, since we are told by _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, that _Ursinus_ was ordained, not in the Basilic of _Sicinus_, but in that of _Julius_[992]. These Two Writers, who were in _Rome_ at the Time of the Elections, tell us, in express Terms, that _Ursinus_ was chosen before _Damasus_; and _Jerom_, who was probably in _Rome_ at the same Time, assures us, in Terms no less express, that _Damasus_ was chosen before _Ursinus_. The former were greatly addicted to _Ursinus_, and the latter no less attached to _Damasus_. As for the Two Councils, which I have quoted above, they were held some Years after, when the Party of _Damasus_ had universally prevailed, and it was a Crime to acknowlege _Ursinus_. _Jerom_ has been followed by most of the Writers who came after, and the Authority of the other Two quite disregarded, for no other Reason but because they were Schismatics; for they joined _Lucifer_, as I have observed above, and refused to communicate with the Bishops who had signed the Confession of _Rimini_, nay, and with those who communicated with them.

[Sidenote: _Great Disturbances in_ Rome, _occasioned by this double Election_.]

By this double Election the Citizens of _Rome_ saw themselves, before they were aware, involved in a Civil War. The whole People were divided, some siding with _Damasus_, and some with _Ursinus_; and neither of the Competitors shewed the least Inclination to yield to the other. No Day passed without Skirmishes and Bloodshed; insomuch that _Juventius_ Governor of the City, and _Julian_ the _Præfectus Annonæ_, to put a Stop to the present, and prevent greater Disturbances, agreed to banish _Ursinus_, whose Party seemed less powerful, together with his Two Deacons _Amantius_ and _Lupus_. The Two Authors I have often quoted write, that both _Juventius_ and _Julian_ were bribed by _Damasus_, who, taking Advantage of the Absence of his Competitor, armed his Followers with Clubs and Swords, hoping thus to intimidate the Friends of the exiled Bishop, and bring them in the End to acknowlege him. Seven Presbyters of the Party of _Ursinus_ were seized, at the Request of _Damasus_, in order to be sent into Exile, but rescued by the People of the same Party, and carried in Triumph to the Basilic of _Liberius_; which _Damasus_ no sooner heard, than, arming all his Followers, both Clergy and Laymen, with Clubs, Swords, Axes, _&c._ he marched at the Head of the seditious and enraged Multitude to the Basilic, which he and his Partisans immediately invested, and attacked with the utmost Fury. [Sidenote: _Several Persons massacred._] It was set on fire in several Places; the Doors were forced, the Roof uncovered, and thence Showers of Tiles discharged on the People assembled there: great was the Massacre; One hundred and Sixty Persons, Men and Women, were inhumanly murdered on the Side of _Ursinus_, and a great many more wounded, some of whom died of their Wounds. On the Side of _Damasus_ not one single Person was killed. This Riot began on the 25th of _October_ 366. at Eight in the Morning.

[Sidenote: _The Sedition becomes general._]

Thus the above-mentioned Writer[993] _Ruffinus_ writes in general Terms, that the illegal Election of _Ursinus_, in Opposition to _Damasus_, occasioned such a Tumult, or rather Civil War among the People, some siding with the one, and some with the other, that the Places destined for Prayer streamed with Human Blood[994]. The Heathen _Ammianus Marcellinus_ assures us, that the Partisans of _Damasus_ and _Ursinus_ were so implacably incensed against each other, that several Persons were wounded in the Quarrel, and some killed: nay, it is certain, adds he, that in the Basilic of _Sicinus_ One hundred and Thirty-seven Persons were found dead, all killed the same Day: but _Damasus_ in the End, by the Efforts of his Party, got the better of his Antagonist[995]. _Jerom_, however partial, owns, that _Ursinus_ having got Possession of the Basilic of _Sicinus_, the Partisans of _Damasus_ repaired thither in Crouds, and that several Persons were thereupon inhumanly massacred[996]. The Sedition became general, and the Seditious on either Side so numerous and powerful, that _Juventius_, not thinking it adviseable to punish, nor being able to appease, the enraged Populace, abandoned the City, and retired to the Country[997]. He was perhaps for _Ursinus_, whose Party being over-matched by that of _Damasus_, he might not think it safe to continue in _Rome_. Three Days after the Massacre in the Basilic of _Liberius_, that is, on the 28th of _October_, the Partisans of _Ursinus_, say _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, assembling, cried out aloud against _Damasus_, complaining of his Conduct, and begging that a sufficient Number of Bishops might be convened, and the Controversy referred to their Judgment and Decision[998]. _Damasus_ was greatly favoured, and chiefly supported, by the _Roman_ Ladies, which probably gave Occasion to the Charge of Adultery that was brought against him. But _Jerom_, either to clear him of this Charge, or to obviate the like Suspicions, naturally arising from his familiar Conversation with the Female Sex, styles him a _Virgin Doctor of the Virgin Church_[999].

[Sidenote: Damasus _not easily cleared from all Guilt_.]

_Baronius_, finding he can neither disguise nor extenuate the Cruelties committed by those who adhered to _Damasus_, is at a great deal of Trouble to disculpate him, and lay the whole Blame on _Maximinus_, who, as appears from History, discharged the Office of _Præfectus Annonæ_ from the Latter-end of the Year 367. to the Beginning of 370. and was noted for his Cruelty. _Baronius_ is supported herein by the Authority of _Jerom_ and _Ruffinus_, of whom the former writes, that _Damasus_ remained Conqueror, without hurting the Conquered[1000]; and the latter, that the Cruelties practised by the Prefect _Maximinus_, who had espoused the Cause of _Damasus_, upon those of the adverse Party, rendered the Name of that virtuous Prelate odious, though he had no Share in them[1001]. But who is to be charged with the Massacre in the Basilic of _Sicinus_ or _Liberius_? On whom are the Murders to be laid, committed there? _Maximinus_ was not then in Power, and perhaps not at _Rome_. I cannot help thinking but _Damasus_ might at least have restrained his Followers from such Excesses; and consequently, as he did not, I cannot, with _Ruffinus_, conclude him to have had no Share in them; I say, _at least restrained_; for I will not charge him with heading and encouraging the riotous Multitude in that wicked Attempt, upon the bare Authority of _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, both zealous Partisans of _Ursinus_. But neither ought _Baronius_, _Bellarmine_, _Davidius_, &c. upon the bare Testimony of Two Writers, no less sanguine in the Cause of _Damasus_, suppose him to have been no-ways concerned in those Disorders. The famous _Ammianus Marcellinus_, who lived at this very time in _Rome_, and, as a Pagan, was no-ways concerned in the Quarrel, nor more inclined to one Side than the other, assures us, that both were equally ambitious of the Episcopal Dignity, and both equally guilty[1002]. The Authority of a Writer, thus unbyassed, and in every other respect unexceptionable, ought to be preferred, without the least Hesitation, to that of any other, whom we have just Reason to suspect of Partiality. _Jerom_ indeed speaks with more Modesty and Reserve than _Ruffinus_, and those who have copied after him; for he only says, that _Damasus_ did not hurt his Enemies after he had conquered them. But, in relating the above-mentioned Massacre, and the Skirmishes that happened before the Party of _Damasus_ prevailed, he always describes his Partisans as the Aggressors, without ever pretending to excuse him, as having no Share in those Riots; which he would not have failed to do, had he not paid a greater Regard to Truth than _Ruffinus_ seems to have done.

[Sidenote: _The Luxury of the Bishops of_ Rome.]

The Heathen _Marcellinus_, after telling us, that _Damasus_ and _Ursinus_ aspired with equal Ambition to the Episcopal Chair, adds this famous Remark, which I shall set down in his own Words: _I must own_, says he, _that when I reflect on the Pomp attending that Dignity, I do not at all wonder, that those, who are fond of Shew and Parade, should scold, quarrel, fight, and strain every Nerve to attain it; since they are sure, if they succeed, to be enriched with the Offerings of the Ladies; to appear no more abroad on foot, but in stately Chariots, and gorgeously attired; to keep costly and sumptuous Tables; nay, and to surpass the Emperors themselves in the Splendor and Magnificence of their Entertainments. But how happy would they be, if, despising the Grandeur of the City, which they allege to excuse their Luxury, they followed the Example of some Bishops in the Provinces, who, by the Temperance and Frugality of their Diet, the Poverty and Plainness of their Dress, the Modesty of their Looks fixed on the Ground, the Purity of their Lives, and the Regularity of their whole Conduct, approve themselves to the eternal God, and all his true Worshipers_[1003]! Thus _Ammianus_. And that _Damasus_ was fond of all that Pomp, Grandeur, and Parade, that he led such a voluptuous Life, as _Ammianus_ here so justly censures and condemns in the Bishops of _Rome_, is not to be doubted, since _Prætextatus_, a Man of the first Quality, honoured with the greatest Employments of the Empire, and zealously attached to Paganism, in conversing familiarly with him, used pleasantly to say, _Make me Bishop of_ Rome, _and I'll immediately turn Christian_[1004]. But, as I shall have Occasion to speak of this Subject hereafter, I shall only observe here, that the Offerings of those devout Women, and other pious Christians, were no better employed in the Days of _Damasus_, than the immense Wealth, which the Church of _Rome_ acquired in After-Ages, by the voluntary Contributions of all the Christian Nations, is disposed of in ours. [Sidenote: _How the Oblations of the Faithful disposed of._] With these Offerings the Bishops of _Rome_ used in more early Times, to maintain the Poor of their own Church, and send the Overplus to other Churches, where the Poor were numerous, and the Offerings small. Of this generous Practice I have mentioned some Instances, that well deserve to be recorded. But when Ambition began to take place of Charity, the Poor were forgotten, and nothing thought of but splendid Equipages, numerous Retinues, princely Apparel, sumptuous Tables, and whatever else could feed the Vanity of these upstart Princes, and put them upon the Level with the greatest Monarchs. To such Purposes were the Oblations of the Faithful perverted. _Baronius_ takes it very much amiss of _Ammianus_, that he should find Fault with the costly Tables and Entertainments of the Popes, since it is manifest from St. _Austin_, that the Christians at _Rome_, and, no doubt, the Pope with the rest, kept a rigorous Fast Three Days in the Week[1005]; so that, in his Opinion, they ought not to be blamed for rioting Four Days in the Week, provided they fasted Three. But to this Doctrine _Ammianus_ was a Stranger, and therefore, notwithstanding the Fasts they might keep, he justly censured their expensive Tables and Banquets, as no-ways suited to their Profession and Character.

[Sidenote: Ursinus _recalled by_ Valentinian;]

But to return to _Ursinus_; he had been banished _Rome_ by the Prefect _Juventius_, before the 26th of _October_ 366. as I have related above; but the Emperor _Valentinian_, who was at this time in _Gaul_, having, at the Request of his Friends, granted him Leave to return, he entered the City on the 15th of _September_ 367. in a kind of Triumph, being met and received with loud Acclamations by those of his Party[1006]. At the same time the Emperor directed a Rescript to _Prætextatus_, who had succeeded _Juventius_ in the Prefecture of _Rome_, injoining him to recall all those, who had been banned for the late Riots, and reinstate them in their former Condition, after warning them, that if, for the future, they disturbed the Peace of the Public, they should be punished without Mercy[1007]. [Sidenote: _but banished anew_.] But notwithstanding this Warning, new Disturbances must have happened, since _Ursinus_ was, by an Order from the Emperor, banished again on the 16th of _November_ of the same Year 367. together with Seven of his Followers, who were all confined to different Places in _Gaul_, where they continued till the Year 371[1008]. The Two Presbyters tell us, that _Damasus_, having, with large Sums, gained the Ministers and Favourites at Court, by their Means extorted from the Emperor the above-mentioned Order. They add, that the Friends of _Ursinus_ were resolved to stand by him; but that he, to prevent Bloodshed, delivered himself up into the Hands of the Officers of Justice[1009]. However that be, by the Banishment of _Ursinus_, and some of the leading Men of his Party, Tranquillity was restored for a while, and the Disturbances composed, says _Ammianus_, which the Christians had raised by quarreling among themselves[1010].

[Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Rome _impowered by the Emperor to judge other Bishops_.]

About this Time the Emperor _Valentinian_ enacted a Law, impowering the Bishop of _Rome_ to examine and judge other Bishops, that religious and ecclesiastical Disputes might not be decided by profane or secular Judges, but by a _Pontiff of the same Religion, and his Collegues_[1011]. A very imprudent Law, considering the Nature and Consequences of such a Concession. The Bishops assembled in Council at _Rome_, in 378. after declaring, in the strongest Terms, their Approbation of this Law, agreed to present an Address to the Emperor _Gratian_, wherein they earnestly recommended to him the Execution of it, because it greatly redounded, say they, to the Honour of the sacred Ministry; because the Judgment of Bishops was more sure and certain than that of any Civil Magistrate; and, lastly, because it delivered the Prelates of the Church from the just Concern they were under, to find that they could not make their Innocence appear without Racks and Tortures, which innocent Persons were put to by the Secular Judges[1012]. This Exemption seems to have been understood by the Council as extending to all Cases, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical. Be that as it will, whatever Exemption was by the above-mentioned Law granted to the Bishops, whatever Power was by that Law vested in the Bishop of _Rome_, and his Collegues, the Council, with a due Sense of Gratitude, acknowleged such Power and Immunity to be intirely owing to the Indulgence of the Emperor: a plain Proof that the absurd and chimerical Notion of a _Divine Right_ was not yet broached. The Bishops chose rather to be judged by the Pope and his Collegues, that is, by their own Brethren, than by Lay Judges, for the Reasons they allege in their Address to _Gratian_. Hence they chearfully submitted to his Judgment, and applauded every new Power that was granted him, as redounding to the Honour of the Episcopal Order. But, alas! they were not aware, that every new Power, yielded to the Bishop of _Rome_, was a new Link added to the Chain they were forging, if not for themselves, for those, at least, who were to succeed them. They little apprehended, that the Bishop of _Rome_ would, in Process of Time, claim all the Power vested in him, and his Collegues, as due to him alone, and that too by _Divine Right_; that, in virtue of such a Claim, he would set up for universal and sole Monarch of the Church, exercise an unbounded Authority and Jurisdiction, and degrade all other Bishops from his Collegues to his Vassals and Slaves. _Blondel_ is of Opinion, that the Bishop of _Rome_ was, by that Law, only impowered to judge the Bishops within the Limits of his Jurisdiction, that is, those of the Suburbicarian Provinces[1013]. Others think that such a Power was only for a time, and extended to those Bishops alone who were concerned in the present Schism; which seems most probable, since _Valentinian_ declares, that he enacted the above-mentioned Law to settle the Church, shaken by the Fury of the Schism[1014].

[Sidenote: _The Followers of_ Ursinus _driven out of_ Rome.]

_Ursinus_, and the leading Men of his Party, being driven out of the City, the Inhabitants began to enjoy their former Peace and Tranquillity. But yet his Followers continued to assemble in the Cœmeteries of the Martyrs, and even kept Possession of a Church, supposed to be that of St. _Agnes_, without the Walls[1015]. Of this _Damasus_ took care to transmit an Account to the Emperor, in a Memorial; who, fearing that, from such a Spark, the Fire might break out again, which he had been striving to extinguish, injoined _Prætextatus_ to put _Damasus_ forthwith in Possession of that Church; and, in the Execution of this Order, probably happened what we find related, perhaps with some Exaggeration, by the Two Writers I have often quoted; for they tell us, that one Day, while the Followers of _Ursinus_ were assembled, in great Numbers, in the Church of _St. Agnes_, _Damasus_, falling unexpectedly upon them with his Satellites, made a dreadful Havock of the innocent and defenceless Multitude[1016]. After this Second Massacre _Prætextatus_, to secure the Tranquillity of the City, sent several more of the Party of _Ursinus_ into Exile. _Valentinian_, however, would not consent to their being confined to any particular Place; but gave them full Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out of _Rome_[1017]. The two Writers add, that the Cruelties exercised in the Church of _St. Agnes_ gave great Offence to the Bishops of _Italy_; and that _Damasus_ having invited some of them to _Rome_, to solemnize with him the Anniversary of his Consecration, he laid hold of that Opportunity to solicit them with Intreaties, nay, and to tempt them with Money, to condemn _Ursinus_; but all in vain; the Bishops equally unmoved by his Prayers and Offers, refusing, with great Firmness and Resolution, to condemn a Man whom they had not heard. _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_ close their Preface with a short Account of themselves, telling us, that the Presbyters of _Ursinus_’s Party were imprisoned, racked, banished, dispersed, and sent into different Countries; and that they themselves, who were of that Number, presented a Petition to the Emperors, begging them to put a Stop to so cruel a Persecution[1018].

[Sidenote: Damasus _assembles a Council at_ Rome.]