Part 30

From these Pieces, which are still extant, it is manifest beyond all Dispute, as the Reader must have observed, that, in the Year 378. when this Council was held, no Prerogative was yet discovered in the Pope, peculiar to him, and not common to all Bishops, besides that of Rank, which arose from the Dignity of his See, that is, from his being Bishop of the Metropolis of the Empire; for, in that respect alone, the Bishops, who composed the Council, acknowleged him _to be above them_; nay, by declaring themselves, in express Terms, _equal to him as to the Ministry_, they seem to have taken particular Care, that no Room or Pretence should be left for his claiming a Superiority in any other respect. And how great would their Surprize have been, had _Damasus_, in hearing that Part of their Address to the Emperor, started up, and, protesting against it, as derogatory to his Prerogative, declared, that, _to him all Power was given in Heaven and on Earth_; that, _so far from being equal to him, they, and all other Bishops, were but his Deputies and Delegates_; that _the Power, Authority, and Jurisdiction, which they enjoyed, were derived to them from the Plenitude of his_! Had he talked in this Strain, the whole Council would have concluded him delirious. And yet these are the Sentiments of his Successors; these the very Words, with which they and their Divines have expressed them[1126]; so that it is now reckoned Heresy not to believe what in the Fourth Century it had been deemed Madness to have gravely uttered. [Sidenote: _The Power he now claims unknown in the Time of_ Damasus.] It would perhaps have seemed still more strange and surprising to the Fathers of the Council, however prejudiced in his Favour, if _Damasus_, instead of gratefully acknowleging their Regard for him in petitioning the Emperor, that he might not be judged by the Civil Magistrate, but either by a Council, or the Emperor himself, had severely rebuked them as Strangers to, or Betrayers of, his inherent Right, acquainting them, that, in virtue thereof, _all Men were to be judged by him, but himself by no Man_[1127]; that _the greatest Monarchs were his Slaves and Vassals, and he King of Kings, Monarch of the World, sole Lord and Governor both in Spirituals and Temporals_[1128]; that _he was appointed Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms_[1129]; that _his Power excelled all Powers_[1130]; that _it was necessary to Salvation for every human Creature to be subject to him_[1131]. And yet these are the Notions, that have been uttered by his Successors, and the very Terms in which they were uttered. In the Age I am now writing of, they had been looked upon no otherwise than the Ravings of a distempered Brain; but they are now held by the Church of _Rome_, and her Divines, as Oracles, and inserted as such into her Canons. _Bellarmine_ owns, that, in the Fourth Century, the Pope was still subject to the Emperors, nay, and to the Civil Magistrate, without the least Distinction between him and other Vassals. _But this Subjection_, says he, in his Apology against King _James_[1132], _the Emperors exacted by Force, because the Power of the Pope was not known to them_. Nor to any body else, he might have added, since the Writers of those Times seem to have been no better acquainted with the Power of the Pope than the Emperors; at least, they take no Notice of it, even in describing, as some of them have done, the State of the Church at the time they writ, and relating the Customs, Laws, and Practices, that then obtained. Besides, how could the Power of the Pope be unknown to the Christian Emperors, if it was one of the chief Tenets of the Christian Doctrine? Neither _Damasus_, nor any of his Predecessors, can be justly charged with Bashfulness, in acquainting the World with the Power they had or claimed. We may further observe here, that the Emperor requires the Bishop of _Rome_, in judging according to the Power granted him, to act with the Advice of Five or Seven other Bishops: a plain Proof, that he was as little acquainted with the Pope’s Infallibility, as with his Power.

[Sidenote: _A new Accusation brought against_ Damasus.]

The Council of the _Italian_ Bishops, assembled at _Rome_, no sooner broke up, than the Emissaries and Partisans of _Ursinus_ began to raise new Disturbances in that City, by stirring up the Pagans against _Damasus_, and, at the same time, charging him _with things_, to use the Expression of the Council of _Aquileia_, _not fit to be uttered by a Bishop, nor heard by such an Emperor as_ Gratian[1133]. _Anastasius_ writes, that he was accused of Adultery by the Two Deacons _Concordus_ and _Callistus_[1134]. And truly, that some Crime of that Nature was laid to his Charge, is pretty plain, from the Terms in which it was expressed by the Council. _Valerian_, then Governor of _Rome_, immediately acquainted the Emperor with the Accusation[1135]; but what Part _Gratian_ acted on this Occasion, we are not told by any antient Writer. We read in the Pontificals, and most of the modern Writers, that the Cause was referred by the Emperor to the Council then sitting at _Aquileia_; and that _Damasus_ was declared innocent by all the Bishops who composed it. [Sidenote: _The Council of_ Aquileia _writes to the Emperor in his Behalf_.] But, as neither is related by any credible Author, I am inclined to believe, that _Gratian_ took no Notice of the Charge, in Compliance with the Request of the Bishops assembled at _Aquileia_; for, by a Letter, they earnestly intreated him not to hearken to _Ursinus_, because his giving ear to him would occasion endless Disturbances in _Rome_; and, besides, they could by no means communicate with a Man who thus wickedly aspired to a Dignity, to which he had no Claim or Title; who, by his scandalous Behaviour, had incurred the Hatred of all good Christians; who had impiously joined the _Arians_, and, together with them, attempted to disturb the Quiet of the Catholic Church of _Milan_[1136].

[Sidenote: _A great Council assembled at_ Constantinople, _by the Emperor_ Theodosius.]

Towards the Latter end of the Pontificate of _Damasus_, Two great Councils were held, the one at _Constantinople_ in 381. and the other at _Rome_ in 382. The former was assembled by the Emperor _Theodosius_, who, after having put the Orthodox in Possession of the Churches, which till his Time had been held by the _Arians_ in the East, where he reigned, summoned all the Bishops within his Dominions to meet at _Constantinople_, in order to deliberate about the most proper Means of restoring an intire Tranquillity to the Church, rent and disturbed not only by several Sects of Heretics, but by the Divisions that reigned among the Orthodox themselves, by that especially of _Antioch_, the most antient of all, which, from that Church, had spread all over the Empire, and occasioned rather an intire Separation, than a Misunderstanding between the East and the West, the former communicating with _Meletius_, and the latter with _Paulinus_, as I have related above. In this Council many weighty Matters were transacted, and several Canons established, some of which, namely, the Second and Third, deserve to be taken Notice of here. For, by the Second, _the Council renewed and confirmed the antient Law of the Church, authorized by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Canons of the Council of_ Nice, commanding the Bishops of each Province to be ordained by those of the same Province, and such of the neighbouring Provinces, as they should think fit to call in; directing all Ecclesiastical Matters to be settled, all Disputes to be finally decided by a Council composed of the Bishops of the Province, or at least of the Diocese, that is, of all the Provinces under the same Vicar; and strictly forbidding the Bishops of one Diocese to concern themselves, under any Colour or Pretence whatsoever, with what happens in another[1137]. [Sidenote: _which revokes the Privilege granted to the See of_ Rome _by the Council of_ Sardica.] By this Canon the Privilege, formerly granted to the See of _Rome_ by the Council of _Sardica_, was revoked, and all Appeals from the Council of the Diocese forbidden. By the Third Canon the See of _Constantinople_ is declared first in Rank and Dignity after that of _Rome_[1138]. Some _Greek_ Writers have pretended, that, by this Canon, the Two Sees were declared in every respect equal; but that _Zonaras_ himself owns to be false and groundless[1139]. It is to be observed, that the Council of _Constantinople_ gave Rank and Honour to that See, but no Jurisdiction. It was to the Council of _Chalcedon_ that the Bishops of _Constantinople_ owed their Authority and Jurisdiction; for by that Council they were impowered to ordain the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of _Pontus_, _Asia_, and _Thrace_[1140]. The Reasons alleged by _Baronius_ to prove the Third Canon of the Council of _Constantinople_ supposititious[1141], are quite frivolous; and it is certain beyond all Dispute, that the Bishops of that City maintained ever after the Rank, which the above-mentioned Canon had given them. In a short time the Bishop of _Constantinople_, taking Advantage of that Canon, and of the Deference that is naturally paid to the Bishop of the Imperial City, extended his Jurisdiction over all the neighbouring Provinces, nay, and over the whole Eastern Empire, as we shall observe in the Sequel of this History.

[Sidenote: _The Council writes to the Western Bishops._]

The Canons of this Council were, without all doubt, sent, according to Custom, to the Western Bishops for their Approbation, probably with the Letter which the Council writ to them concerning the Heresy of _Apollinaris_[1142]. And yet Pope _Leo_ the Great writes, that the Third Canon was never notified to the Church of _Rome_[1143]; and _Gregory_ the Great, that the Canon condemning the _Eudoxians_, which was the first, had never been received at _Rome_[1144]: but _Gregory_ perhaps meant nothing else, than that the Canon he mentions was of no Authority at _Rome_. As for _Leo_, it is hard to conceive what he meant by saying, that the Third Canon was not known to the Church of _Rome_; for he could not but know, that the Bishop of _Constantinople_ held the Second Rank in the Church, and the First in the East, since his own Legates, whose Conduct he intirely approved of, owned him to have an indisputable Right to that Rank; nay, _Eusebius_ Bishop of _Dorylæum_ in _Phrygia_ maintained, that it was with the Consent and Approbation of _Leo_ himself that the See of _Constantinople_ enjoyed that Honour.

[Sidenote: _The Authority of this Council among the_ Greeks,]

The Authority of this Council has ever been great among the _Greeks_, who style it an Oecumenical Council, and had often recourse to it as such in the Council of _Chalcedon_[1145]. The Bishops of the _Hellespont_ speak of it with the greatest Respect and Reverence, in a Letter they writ to the Emperor _Leo_[1146]. [Sidenote: _and the_ Latins.] As for the _Latins_, I find a great Disagreement among the Popes themselves concerning the Authority of this Council; nay, the greatest of them all disagrees even with himself about it. The Legates of Pope _Leo_ rejected its Canons, alleging that they had never been inserted in the Book of the Canons[1147]. In like manner the Popes _Simplicius_ and _Felix_ II. speaking of the Councils which they received, name those only of _Nice_, _Ephesus_, and _Chalcedon_[1148]. _Gregory the Great_ writes, that the Church of _Rome_ had neither the Acts nor the Canons of the Council of _Constantinople_; that the Condemnation of the _Macedonians_ was the only thing done by that Council which they admitted; and that as to other Heresies condemned there, they rejected them, as having been condemned before by other Councils[1149]. But he declares elsewhere, and often repeats it, that he received the Four Oecumenical Councils, as he did the Four Gospels[1150], naming the Council of _Constantinople_ in the Second Place. [Sidenote: _The Popes at Variance among and with themselves about it._] In the same Manner, and with the same Words, were the Four Oecumenical Councils received by _Gelasius_, and several Popes before him, as well as by _Martin_ I. and several others after him: so that the Council of _Constantinople_ is, according to some Popes, of equal Authority with the Gospel; according to others, of no Authority at all: nay, it is thus by the same Pope at one time extolled, at another undervalued. Let _Baronius_ and _Bellarmine_ reconcile these Contradictions, if they can.

[Sidenote: _This Council was assembled by the Emperor, and not by_ Damasus.]

That this Council was assembled by the Emperor _Theodosius_, is affirmed by all the Writers who speak of it[1151], nay, and by the Bishops who composed it[1152]. And yet _Baronius_ has the Assurance to assert, _as a Thing not to be questioned_, that it was convened by _Damasus_[1153], which none of the Antients have so much as once named: and this Assertion he founds upon the Authority of the universally exploded Acts of _Damasus_; of certain Manuscripts, which he knows very little of, and nobody else any thing; and of a Passage in the Acts of the Sixth Oecumenical Council, where it is said, that _Theodosius_ and _Damasus_ opposed with great Firmness the _Macedonian_ Heresy; whence the Annalist concludes, by what Rules of Logic I leave the Reader to find out, that the Council, which condemned the Heresy of _Macedonius_, was convened by the Authority of _Damasus_, backed by that of the Emperor[1154]. _Christianus Lupus_, more honest than _Baronius_, tho’ no less attached to the See of _Rome_, ingenuously owns, that the Council was assembled by the Emperor alone; but adds, that _Damasus_ confirmed it[1155]; which is true, if he means no more than that _Damasus_ accepted the Decrees made by the Council; for it was not his, but the Emperor’s Approbation, that gave them a Sanction; and accordingly they writ, not to him, but to the Emperor, acquainting him; _by whose Command they had been called together_, with the Decrees they had made, and requesting him to confirm them _with his Seal and Sentence_[1156]. This Council consisted of an Hundred and Fifty Bishops, among whom were Thirty-six _Macedonians_, whom _Theodosius_ had particularly summoned, hoping to reunite them with the Catholics[1157]. No mention is made of Letters or Deputies sent either by _Damasus_, or by any of the Western Bishops; and _Theodoret_ assures us in Two different Places[1158], that _Theodosius_ only assembled the Eastern Bishops. _Meletius_ of _Antioch_ presided; for _Gregory_ of _Nyssa_ styled him in full Council, _our Father and Head_[1159]. Upon his Death (for he died while the Council was sitting) that Honour was conferred on _Gregory Nazianzen_, appointed by the Emperor and the Council Bishop of _Constantinople_[1160]; but he resigning, soon after, his new Dignity, his Successor _Nectarius_ was named to preside in his room[1161].

One of the chief Motives that induced _Theodosius_ to assemble so numerous a Council at _Constantinople_, was, to hear what Remedy they could suggest against the Schism of the Church of _Antioch_, which caused such Jealousies between the East and the West as seemed to forebode an imminent Rupture[1162]. But before the Fathers of the Council entered upon that important Subject, _Meletius_ died; and his Death, which ought to have put an End to the present Disturbances, served only to increase them, and engage the contending Parties more warmly in the Dispute. It had been agreed by _Meletius_ and _Paulinus_, that the Survivor should be sole Bishop of all the Orthodox at _Antioch_[1163]. _Socrates_ and _Sozomen_ add[1164], that Six Presbyters, who it was most likely might be one Day raised to that See, bound themselves by a solemn Oath not to vote for any other, nor to accept themselves the Episcopal Dignity, so long as either of the Two lived. [Sidenote: _The Disturbances in the Church of_ Antioch _increased_.] However, _Meletius_ was no sooner dead, than some of the Prelates present at the Council moved for chusing him a Successor, which occasioned many long and warm Debates. _Gregory Nazianzen_, elected Bishop of _Constantinople_ a few Days before, exerted all his Eloquence to divert the Council from a Resolution, which, he said, would prove fatal to the Church, and kindle a Flame, which perhaps it might never be in their Power to extinguish[1165]. Several other Prelates, Enemies to Strife and Contention, falling in with _Gregory_, spoke to the same Purpose, exhorting their Collegues, with great Zeal and Eloquence, to put an End at last to the unhappy Divisions that had so long rent the Church, by allowing _Paulinus_, already stricken in Years, to govern peaceably the remaining Part of his Life[1166]. But the far greater Part were for a new Election, offering no other Reason to recommend such a Step, but that the East, where our Saviour had appeared, ought not to yield to the West[1167]. So that the Resolution of giving a Successor to _Meletius_ was taken merely out of Pique to the Western Bishops, who, having the Bishop of _Rome_ at their Head, had begun to treat their Brethren in the East with great Haughtiness, and assume an Air of Authority that did not become them; but that had been better resented on any other Occasion than on this.

[Sidenote: Flavianus _ordained Bishop of_ Antioch.]

The Resolution being taken, _Flavianus_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Antioch_, was named by the Council, and, with the Approbation of the Emperor, and of all the _Meletians_ at _Antioch_, ordained in that City. He is commended by the Writers who lived in or near those Times, as a Man of an exemplary Life, and extraordinary Piety, as a zealous Defender of the Orthodox Faith, and Opposer of the _Arian_ Heresy, as a Mirror of every Sacerdotal Virtue; and, barring the Right of _Paulinus_, the most worthy and deserving Person the Council could name to succeed the great _Meletius_[1168]. These, and other like Encomiums, bestowed upon _Flavianus_ by the Writers of those Times, leave no room to doubt but _Socrates_ and _Sozomen_ were misinformed in naming him among the Six Presbyters who took the Oath I have mentioned above; the rather as no notice is taken of such an Oath by his most inveterate Enemies, in the many Disputes that arose about his Ordination. [Sidenote: Greg. Nazianzen _resigns the Bishoprick of_ Constantinople.] _Gregory Nazianzen_, who had been lately preferred to the See of _Constantinople_, and had accepted that Dignity with no other View, but to remove all Jealousies, and restore a good Understanding between the East and the West, being sensible that the electing of a new Bishop in the room of _Meletius_ would widen the Breach, and obstruct all possible Means of an Accommodation, resigned his Dignity, and, to the inexpressible Grief of his Flock, retired both from the Council and City[1169]. In one of his Orations[1170], he ascribes this Resolution to the Divisions that reigned among the Bishops, declaring that he was quite tired with their constant quarreling and bickering among themselves, and comparing them to Children at Play; whom to join in their childish Diversions, would be degrading a serious Character. [Sidenote: Nectarius _is chosen in his room_.] Upon the Resignation of _Gregory, Nectarius_ was chosen to succeed him; but, as to the Particulars of his Election, they are variously related by Authors, and foreign to my Purpose. He was a Native of _Tarsus_ in _Cilicia_, descended of an illustrious and senatorial Family, but at the Time of his Election still a Layman, and Prætor of _Constantinople_; nay, he had not been baptized[1171].

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Aquileia _writes to_ Theodosius _in favour of_ Paulinus.]

The same Year that the Eastern Bishops met at _Constantinople_, by the Command of _Theodosius_, the Western Bishops met at _Aquileia_, by the Command of _Gratian_. While the latter were yet sitting, News was brought of the Death of _Meletius_, and at the same time they received certain Intelligence of the Resolution which the Council of _Constantinople_ had taken of appointing him a Successor. Hereupon having dispatched the Business for which they had met, and condemned _Palladius_ and _Secundianus_, the only Two _Arian_ Bishops now in the West, they dispatched some Presbyters into the East, with a Letter to the Emperor _Theodosius_, wherein, after expressing the Joy it had given them to hear that the Orthodox in those Parts were at last happily delivered from the Oppression of the _Arians_, they complained of the Hardships _Paulinus_ had met with, whom they had always acknowleged as lawful Bishop of _Antioch_, put the Emperor in mind of the Agreement between _Paulinus_ and _Meletius_, and concluded with intreating him to assemble an Oecumenical Council at _Alexandria_, as the only Means of restoring Tranquillity to the Church, and settling a perfect Harmony amongst her Members[1172]. Before this Letter reached the Emperor, the Council of _Constantinople_ was concluded, and the Bishops returned to their respective Sees. However, _Theodosius_ recalled some of them, in order to govern himself by their Advice in granting or denying the Western Bishops their Request[1173]. [Sidenote: _And the Bishops of_ Italy _in favour of_ Maximus.] But the Election of _Flavianus_ being in the mean time known in the West, the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Italy_, them assembled in Council with _Ambrose_ Bishop of _Milan_ at their Head, writ a long Letter to _Theodosius_ complaining of that Election, openly espousing at the same time the Cause of _Maximus_ against _Nectarius_, the new Bishop of _Constantinople_, and threatening to separate themselves intirely from the Communion of the Eastern Bishops, unless _Maximus_ was acknowleged lawful Bishop of that City, or at least an Oecumenical Council was assembled to examine the Claims of the Two Competitors, and to confirm with their joint Suffrages the disputed Dignity to him, who had the best[1174]. They also desired, in the same Letter, to have the Contest between _Paulinus_ and _Flavianus_ decided.

[Sidenote: _Who_ Maximus _was, and how chosen Bishop of_ Constantinople.]