Part 29

In the Year 374. or 375. _Damasus_ convened a great Council at _Rome_, in which the Errors of _Apollinaris_ were condemned; but neither was he nor any other named as the Broacher or Author of that Doctrine. [Sidenote: Damasus _imposed upon by_ Vitalis _one of his Disciples_.] The very Year that _Damasus_ condemned the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_, he was deceived and over-reached by one of the Disciples of that Heresiarch, named _Vitalis_. He was a Presbyter of the Church of _Antioch_, and of the Communion of _Meletius_, by whom he had been ordained; but afterwards, renouncing his Communion, he joined _Apollinaris_, and, being in high Esteem with the People, drew great Numbers over with him to that Side. Of these, called from him _Vitalians_, _Apollinaris_ some Years after appointed him Bishop, adding thereby a Fourth Party to the Three that already divided the Church of _Antioch_, _viz._ the _Arians_, _Paulinians_, and _Meletians_[1082]. Before he threw off the Mask, and publicly maintained the Tenets of _Apollinaris_, he strove to be admitted with his Followers to the Communion of _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, and of _Damasus_; and with this View he undertook a Journey to _Rome_ in the Year 375. As he had been suspected, and even accused, of holding the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_, _Damasus_ required of him, before he admitted him to his Communion, a Confession of his Faith, which he gave under his Hand, but in such Terms as bore a double Meaning. _Damasus_, however, well satisfied with it, gave him a Letter for _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, and sent him back to be admitted by that Bishop to the Communion of the Church[1083]. But _Damasus_ soon after, either upon his own Reflection, or at the Suggestion of others, apprehending himself imposed upon, writ another Letter to _Paulinus_, by the Presbyter _Petronius_, and afterwards a Third, which _Holstenius_ has inserted at Length in his _Roman Collection_[1084]. Together with this Letter _Damasus_ sent to _Paulinus_ a Confession of Faith, drawn up by a Council summoned for that Purpose, desiring him to admit none to his Communion, but such as should sign that Confession, and the Confession of _Nice_[1085]. To this Piece the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_ no doubt allude, in commending _Damasus_ for pointing out, in his Letters to _Paulinus_, the Rules all Catholics ought to be guided by in reasoning of the Mystery of the Incarnation[1086]. What _Baronius_ observes here is true, _viz._ that _Vitalis_, by the same ambiguous Confession of Faith, imposed upon _Gregory Nazianzen_, who received the _Apollinarists_ as Brethren, and not as Enemies[1087]. He adds, _And no Wonder that_ Vitalis _imposed upon_ Damasus, _since by the same Confession he imposed upon_ Gregory Nazianzen: he ought rather to have said, _No Wonder that he imposed upon_ Gregory, _who did not pretend to Infallibility, since he imposed upon_ Damasus, _who was infallible_. As _Vitalis_ refused to sign the Confession sent by _Damasus_, _Paulinus_ would not admit him to his Communion; upon which he pulled off the Mask, publicly renounced the Communion both of _Damasus_ and _Paulinus_, and, bidding Defiance to the Canons, accepted the Title and Dignity of Bishop of _Antioch_, offered him by _Apollinaris_. [Sidenote: Apollinaris _openly declares against the Church._] At the same time that Heresiarch, finding he could conceal himself no longer, openly declared, that he would communicate with none who held, that our Saviour had taken a human Soul, and human Understanding: which was separating himself from the Communion of the Catholic Church[1088]. It was long before it was believed in the Church that those Tenets had been broached, or were held, by _Apollinaris_: no Credit was given, at first, even to his Disciples, most People being inclined to think, that they were mistaken, and did not comprehend the sublime Thoughts of that great Man[1089]. But when no room was left for any further Doubt, the Surprize and Concern of the whole Catholic Party were equal to the high Opinion they had entertained of him till that Time[1090]. When _Epiphanius_ writ against the _Apollinarists_, he well knew _Apollinaris_ to be the Author of that Sect; for he reproaches him with this unwarrantable Separation from the Church; and yet he speaks of him with the greatest Respect; seems to think, that many Things had been unjustly fathered upon him; and takes a great deal of Pains to assure his Reader, that what he writes is Truth, and not Calumny proceeding from any private Pique, Malice, or Grudge[1091].

[Sidenote: _A great Schism in the Church._]

The Schism, which the establishing of a new Bishop occasioned in the Church of _Antioch_, was not confined to that alone, but extended to most other Churches, over which _Apollinaris_ appointed Bishops of his own Sect, who held separate Assemblies, practised different Rites, and, instead of the sacred Hymns commonly sung at Divine Service by the rest of the Church, introduced Canticles composed by their Leader, and containing the Substance of his Doctrine[1092]. The many perplexed Questions and Difficulties, which he and his Emissaries were daily starting about the Incarnation, bred such Confusion in the Minds of Men, that many began to question the Truth of that Mystery[1093]. The Objections they moved against our Saviour’s taking Flesh, and being born of the Virgin _Mary_, seemed calculated merely to raise improper Ideas, and sully the Thoughts of chaste Minds; for they themselves held his Body to be coeval with the Divinity, and to have only been conveyed into the World by means of the Virgin _Mary_[1094]. Their Doctrine was applauded and received by many, and few who read their Books were content with, or kept to the plain and antient Doctrine of the Church[1095]. [Sidenote: Basil _recurs to the Western Bishops_;] _Basil_ therefore, and the other orthodox Bishops in the East, to put a Stop the more effectually to the growing Evil, not only declaimed against it in all their Writings, but dispatched the Two Presbyters _Dorotheus_ and _Sanctissimus_ with Letters to _Damasus_, and the other Western Bishops, intreating them to condemn without Delay the Doctrine of _Apollinaris_, and _Apollinaris_ himself, since he had at last openly declared against the Church, and owned himself the Author of the new Sect[1096]. [Sidenote: _who condemn the Doctrine of_ Apollinaris, _and depose him with_ Vitelis _and_ Timotheus.] In Compliance with this Request, a great Council was convened at _Rome_ the following Year 378. in which _Apollinaris_ was not only condemned with great Solemnity, but deposed, with his Two favourite Disciples, _Vitalis_ and _Timotheus_; the former Bishop of the _Apollinarists_ at _Antioch_, and the latter at _Berytus_ in _Phœnicia_[1097]. By the same Council it was defined, that _Jesus_ was true Man, and true God; and whoever maintained or asserted any thing to be wanting either to his Humanity or Divinity, was declared an Enemy to the Church[1098]. _Vitalis_ had deceived _Damasus_, as I have observed above, by a Confession of Faith, in which, under equivocal Terms, he had artfully concealed his Heresy. The Bishop of _Rome_ therefore, now undeceived, caused the Confession he had formerly approved of to be anathematized by the Council, together with its Author, exerting himself, says _Gregory Nazianzen_, with so much the more Vigour against them, as they had formerly taken Advantage of his Candour and Sincerity to impose upon him[1099]. _Gregory Nazianzen_ therefore supposes, that the Pope could be imposed upon in a Matter concerning the Faith. Indeed the Sticklers for Infallibility must either give up that Prerogative, or allow all the Fathers to have talked Nonsense.

[Sidenote: _A Mistake of_ Baronius.]

_Baronius_ is certainly mistaken, and so was _Ruffinus_[1100], whom he follows, in asserting the Heresy of _Apollinaris_ to have been first condemned by the Council of _Rome_, since it is manifest, that the Doctrine of that Heresiarch had been condemned long before by _Athanasius_, _Basil_, and _Epiphanius_, in their Writings, and by the Council held at _Alexandria_ in 362. But _Ruffinus_ probably meant no more, than that those Errors were first condemned by the Council of _Rome_, under the Name, and together with the Person, of _Apollinaris_; which is undeniable. [Sidenote: _Another Mistake of the same Writer._] I cannot help observing here another Mistake of _Baronius_, pretending that _Damasus_ (for whatever was done by the Council is by him ascribed to _Damasus_ alone) in condemning _Apollinaris_ condemned all the Errors he held; and consequently the Opinion of the _Millenarians_, holding that _Christ_ was to return upon the Earth, and reign over the Faithful a Thousand Years before the End of the World. [Sidenote: _The Doctrine of the_ Millenarians _held by the greatest Men in the Church_.] This Opinion was first broached about the Year 118. by _Papias_ Bishop of _Hierapolis_, a Man of great Piety, honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint[1101]. He declares, in the few Fragments of his Works, which have been conveyed to us by _Eusebius_[1102], that, as he lived near the Times of the Apostles, he made it his chief Business to learn of their Disciples whatever they could recollect to have been done or said by them, on different Occasions, that was not recorded in Holy Writ. Thus he learned the above-mentioned Doctrine[1103], which, upon the Authority of such a Tradition, countenanced by some Passages in the _Revelations_[1104], and one Text in St. _Paul_, was embraced and held by the most eminent Men for Piety and Learning, at that time, in the Church; and, among the rest, by _Irenæus_, and _Justin_ the Martyr. And yet such a Doctrine is now rank Heresy in the Church of _Rome_. But, by declaring it such, have they not overset their own System, which places Tradition upon a Level with the Canonical Books of the Scripture? [Sidenote: _How little Tradition to be depended upon._] Can they allege a more antient Tradition, one more universally received, or equally countenanced by Scripture, in favour of the many traditional Articles of Faith, which they have obtruded upon the World? _Papias_ declares, he received the above-mentioned Doctrine of those who had learned it immediately of the Apostles. If such a Tradition be rejected as false, what other has a Right to be admitted as true? If we deny or question St. _Peter_’s having been at _Rome_, Tradition, and the Authority of _Irenæus_ (for all the others have copied from him), are immediately produced against us. But what Weight either ought to bear, the Case before us sufficiently demonstrates.

To return to _Apollinaris_: It is very certain, that he held and taught the Doctrine of the _Millenarians_; but it is no less certain, that such a Doctrine was not condemned, as _Baronius_ pretends[1105], by the Council of _Rome_ in 378. since many eminent Men in the Church held it, and _Sulpitius Severus_ among the rest, after that Council, without being deemed Heretics on that score. [Sidenote: _The_ Apollinarists _condemned by several Councils_.] The Sentence pronounced against _Apollinaris_, and his Disciples, by the Council of _Rome_, was confirmed by a Council held the same Year at _Alexandria_[1106], by an Oecumenical Council assembled at _Constantinople_ in 381. and by the Council of _Antioch_ in 379[1107]. However, the _Apollinarists_, though thus condemned and deposed by all the Councils of the East and West, as we read in _Gregory Nazianzen_[1108], still kept their Ground, till Recourse was had to the Secular Power. [Sidenote: _Penal Laws enacted against them._] For the Emperor _Theodosius_, at the Request of _Nectarius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_, enacted a Law, dated the Tenth of _March_ 388. forbidding the _Apollinarists_ to hold Assemblies, to have any Ecclesiastics or Bishops, or to dwell in the Cities[1109]. As this Law was executed with the utmost Rigour, at least against the leading Men of the Party, who were banished the Cities, and confined to the Deserts[1110], the _Apollinarists_ were in a few Years reduced to a very small Number, when they begged to be admitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church, which was in the End granted them by _Theodotus_[1111], who governed the Church of _Antioch_, from the Year 416. to 428. But as their Conversion was owing not to Conviction, but Persecution, they still held in their Hearts the same Sentiments, which ever must happen in the like Case; nay, and privately instilled their Errors into the Minds of many, whose Faith had been, till that time, untainted[1112]. It was to these pretended Catholics, or disguised _Apollinarists_, that the _Eutychian_ Heresy, and that of the _Monothelites_, of whom I shall speak hereafter, owed their Birth[1113]. Hence the Emperor _Marcian_, by an Edict in 455. declared the _Eutychians_ to be _Apollinarists_, and consequently liable to the same Penalties[1114]. As for _Apollinaris_ himself, he died about the Year 392. having maintained, to the Hour of his Death, the same Sentiments, in which he had lived; and, with them, the same outward Appearance, at least, of a most holy and exemplary Life[1115]; which is all the Authors of those Times Will allow him.

[Sidenote: _New Disturbances raised by_ Ursinus.]

While _Damasus_, and the other Western Bishops, were wholly intent upon suppressing the Heresy of _Apollinaris_, and restoring the Eastern Churches to their former Tranquillity, the Antipope _Ursinus_, laying hold of that Opportunity, arrived privately at _Milan_, and there joined the _Arians_, upon their promising to support him with the whole Power of their Party[1116]. But _Ambrose_, who then governed that Church, and kept a watchful Eye over the Flock committed to his Care, gave immediate Notice of their clandestine Meetings, and pernicious Designs, to the Emperor _Gratian_, who soon after ordered _Ursinus_ to quit _Italy_, and confined him to _Cologne_[1117]. During his Exile his Partisans were not idle; they found the Emperor _Gratian_, who in 375. had succeeded his Father _Valentinian_ I. warmly engaged in favour of _Damasus_: they well knew, that so long as he continued in that Disposition, it would be in vain to solicit the Return of _Ursinus_, or to put up any Petition in his Behalf. [Sidenote: Damasus _falsly accused, but cleared by the Emperor_.] In order therefore to estrange the Mind of the Emperor from _Damasus_, they suborned a _Jew_, named _Isaac_, who had embraced the Christian Religion, but was then returned to Judaism, to accuse him before the Civil Magistrate of an heinous Crime, which I find not specified by any of the Antients. But the Emperor, taking upon himself the judging of that Cause, soon discovered the Innocence of the Accused, and the Malice of the Accuser; and therefore, honourably acquitting the former, and punishing the latter according to his Deserts, confined him to a Corner of _Spain_[1118].

This Attempt on the Reputation of _Damasus_ was not the only Thing that gave him great Uneasiness at this time. The Emperor _Valentinian_ had transferred, as I have related above, the Power of judging Bishops, such at least as were concerned in the Schism of _Ursinus_, from the Civil Magistrate to the Bishop of _Rome_. [Sidenote: _Some Bishops, deposed by_ Damasus, _keep their Sees_.] But several Bishops, though deposed by him, still maintained themselves in their Sees, with open Force, in Defiance of his Sentence, and the Imperial Law. Among these were the Bishop of _Parma_, and _Florentius_ Bishop of _Puzzuolo_, who, for their Attachment to _Ursinus_, had been both deposed by _Damasus_, and other Bishops assembled at _Rome_[1119]. The _Donatists_ too, notwithstanding the severe Laws enacted against them by several Emperors, had got Footing in _Italy_, and in _Rome_ itself, where they were known by the Names of _Montenenses_, and _Rupenses_, on account of their assembling in a Church or Oratory, which they had among the neighbouring Rocks and Mountains[1120]. They had a Bishop of their own, either sent from _Africa_, or ordained by Bishops sent from thence for that Purpose. _Claudian_, who governed them at this time, was their Fifth Bishop of _Rome_[1121]. The Emperor ordered him to be sent back to _Africa_, whence he came. But though he had been several times imprisoned, in order to oblige him by that means to return, he could not even so be prevailed upon to abandon his Flock; but continued at _Rome_, perverting many there, and rebaptizing all he could pervert[1122]. [Sidenote: _The_ Italian _Bishops recur to the Emperor_.] To put a Stop to these Evils, the Bishops of _Italy_, assembling at _Rome_, had recourse to the Emperor _Gratian_, acquainting him with the Conduct of the contumacious Bishops, and earnestly intreating him to cause the Law, commanding the Bishops to be judged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and not by the Civil Magistrate, which he himself had enacted with his Father, to be put in Execution. By that Law, the Emperor, in all Likelihood, only intended to confirm, with respect to the Bishop of _Rome_, the Canons of the Church, appointing the Metropolitan, with his Council, Judge of the Bishops of his Province in Ecclesiastical Causes. But the Bishops, assembled on this Occasion at _Rome_, attempted to extend the Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_, far beyond the Bounds to which the Emperors and Canons had confined it. [Sidenote: _Their letter to him._] For, in their Letter to _Gratian_, they suggested the following Regulations as necessary for the Tranquillity of the Church, and intreated him to establish them by Law: 1. That if any, who had been condemned by the Bishop of _Rome_, or other Catholic Bishops, should, after such Condemnation, presume to keep their Churches, they should be banished from the Territories of the Cities, where they had been Bishops. 2. That such as should refuse, when lawfully summoned, to appear before the Bishops, should be obliged, by the Prefect of _Italy_, or his Vicar, to repair to _Rome_, to be judged there. 3. That, if the accused Bishop resided in a distant Province, he should be obliged, by the Judges of the Place, to appear before his Metropolitan; and, if his Metropolitan was suspected as partial, or prejudiced against him, he might be allowed to appeal to the Bishop of _Rome_, or to a Council of Fifteen neighbouring Bishops; but, if the Accused was himself a Metropolitan, he should either repair to _Rome_, or appear before such Judges as the Bishop of _Rome_ should appoint; and, when thus condemned, submit to the Sentence[1123]. [Sidenote: _What they demand in particular for the Bishop of_ Rome.] In Behalf of the Bishop of _Rome_ in particular they begged, in the same Letter, that, as he _was above other Bishops by the Prerogative of the Apostolic See, though upon a Level with them as to the Ministry_, he might not be obliged to appear before the Civil Magistrate, since other Bishops had been exempted from their Jurisdiction, but before a Council, or that the Emperor would reserve to himself the Cognisance of what concerned him, leaving to the ordinary Judges the Power of examining Facts and Witnesses, but not the Authority of pronouncing Sentence[1124]. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Answer._] What Answer the Emperor returned to the Council, we know not; but, in a Rescript, addressed to the Vicar _Aquilinus_, after summing up the Heads of the Letter from the Council, and severely reprimanding his Officers for their Neglect, in not causing the Imperial Law to be put in Execution, he confirms the Rescript address’d to _Simplicius_, which I have mentioned above; commands the Bishop of _Parma_, _Florentius_ of _Puzzuolo_, and _Claudian_ the _Donatist_, with all those who shall be condemned by the Councils, as Disturbers of the Quiet of the Church, to be driven from their Dioceses, and banished an Hundred Miles from _Rome_: he grants all the Council had desired, with respect to the judging of Bishops; but requires the Bishop of _Rome_ to act with the Advice of Five or Seven other Bishops; and, lastly, he forbids Persons of infamous Characters, or known Slanderers, to be admitted as Informers or Witnesses against Bishops[1125]. In this Rescript he takes no notice of what the Council had asked for the Bishop of _Rome_ in particular.

[Sidenote: _In what Sense the Pope above other Bishops._]