Part 48
He is said to have been buried near the Body of St. _Laurence_, on the _Tiburtine_ Way, on the 25th or 26th of _December_, according to _Anastasius_ the _Bibliothecarian_[N64.1]; but on the 27th, according to an antient Pontifical, which agrees better with the Letters of _Symmachus_ concerning the Election of his Successor _Boniface_: so that he may have governed One Year Nine Months and Eight or Nine Days, which is the Time that _Prosper_ allows him[N64.2].
Footnote N64.1:
Anast. c. 42.
Footnote N64.2:
Vide Pontaci not. in chron. Prosp. p. 777.
The Distemper which he died of lasted a long time, and was attended with such violent Fits, that he was often thought to be dead before he died. It was during his Illness that he writ his last Letters; and yet they are no less remarkable than the rest for that Fire and Vivacity, that Strength of Expression, and even that Elegance and Purity of Diction, that were peculiar to him. [Sidenote: _His Character._] He was a Man of great Address in the Management of Affairs; well knew how to turn every thing to his Advantage; and in the several Disputes which he engaged in, he forgot nothing that could any ways distress those who opposed him. He was apt to engage too rashly, giving an intire Credit to those who, by a servile Submission, flattered his Ambition; and when he had once engaged in a Cause, as he was of a haughty and imperious Temper, impatient of Controul, passionate, headstrong, full of, and elated with, the Dignity of the _Apostolic See_, it required the greatest Art and Address in his Brethren to bring him into their Measures, and with-hold him from raising fatal Divisions in the Church. His whole Conduct and Behaviour towards them, the haughty and peremptory Style, which he assumed in writing to them, sufficiently shew that he looked upon them as infinitely below him, as bound to yield a blind Obedience to all his Commands, and submit, without Reply, to all his Decisions: and it is not to be doubted but, had he lived longer, and not met with the vigorous Opposition which he did from the Bishop of _Marseilles_, he would have made great Progress towards reducing his _Fellow-Ministers_ and _Fellow-Labourers_, as they are styled by St. _Cyprian_, to that State of Dependence, not to say Slavery, which in the End they have been reduced to by his Successors. He was the first who made use of the Expression, _For so it has pleased the Apostolic See_[1576], an Expression which his Successors have all adopted, as the Language of the highest Authority, and such as exempted them from giving any Account either of their Actions, or of the Motives, that prompted them so to act. But, to paint _Zosimus_ to the Life, we want no other Colours than those, which the _African_ Bishops, who were but too well acquainted with him, have furnished us with in the Letter which they writ to his Successor _Boniface_. _We hope_, say they, _that since it has pleased the Almighty to raise you to the Throne of the_ Roman _Church, we shall no longer feel the Effects of that worldly Pride and Arrogance, which ought never to have found room in the Church of Christ_[1577]. In the same Letter they complain of their having been made to endure such things as it was almost impossible for them to endure, which however they were willing to forget. Hard indeed and tyrannical must the Treatment have been, which they met with at the Hands of _Zosimus_, since it could extort from so many venerable Prelates a Complaint of this Nature, and that in a Letter to his immediate Successor. [Sidenote: Zosimus _sainted by a Mistake of_ Baronius.] _Zosimus_ however has been sainted, and is now worshiped by the Church of _Rome_ as a great Saint, not so much in regard of his own Merits, as by a Blunder of _Baronius_ in revising and correcting the _Roman_ Martyrology. The Case is pretty singular, and may not be thought quite unworthy of a Place here, by reason of the Consequences, which every Protestant Reader may draw from it. In the Martyrology of _Bede_ was marked, _St._ Zosimus _Martyr, who suffered for the Confession of the Faith_. This Martyr an ignorant Transcriber mistook for the Pope of the same Name, and, concerned to find so little said of so great a Saint, set down all he knew of him. This Copy _Baronius_ perused, and, reading there what the Transcriber had added of his own, concluded the Saint mentioned in that Place to be Pope _Zosimus_, and accordingly, upon the supposed Authority of _Bede_, allotted him a Place among the other Saints in the _Roman_ Martyrology. As for his being said to have suffered Martyrdom for the Confession of the Faith, _Baronius_ ascribed that to the Ignorance of the Transcriber, making but one Saint out of two, though they lived at so great a Distance of Time from each other; for the Martyr lived in the earliest Times, and is mentioned by St. _Polycarp_, who flourished Two hundred Years and upwards before the Pontificate of _Zosimus_. To this double Blunder of the Transcriber and _Baronius_ is _Zosimus_ indebted for the Worship and Honours that are publicly paid him in the Church of _Rome_. Indeed that Church is not more grosly deluded in paying an idolatrous Worship to Saints, upon the Authority of her _Infallible Guide_, than in the Objects to whom that Worship is paid[N65].
Footnote N65:
_Bollandus_, to saint _Zosimus_ in a more honourable Way, supposes him to have once had a Place in the Martyrology of St. _Jerom_; and complains of those who have taken the Liberty to strike out his Name. One would think he had found his Name in some Copy of that Martyrology, or at least heard of it; but he ingenuously owns, that he never found it there himself, nor heard of any who did; adding, that nevertheless he is fully persuaded it was once there, and that he cannot think otherwise; and it is upon his _not being able to think otherwise_ that he founds his Supposition, his Complaints, and the Saintship of _Zosimus_[N65.1]; which is allowing them to have no Foundation at all.
Footnote N62:
_Honorius_ supposes, and likewise his Prefects, _Pelagius_ to have been in _Rome_, when this law was enacted; but it is very certain, that he was then in _Palæstine_.
Footnote N65.1:
Boll. conat. ad chronol. Pont. p. 61, 62.
Footnote 1475:
Anas. c. 42.
Footnote 1476:
Jans. Hist. Pel. p. 2.
Footnote 1477:
Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.
Footnote 1478:
Aug. ep. 95. Pecc. Orig. c. 8-21, &c.
Footnote 1479:
Hier. in Jer.
Footnote 1480:
Vide Jan. hist. Pel. 1. 6. c. 24.
Footnote 1481:
Hier. in Jer. et Gernerius in Mar. Mercat.
Footnote 1482:
Gennad. de script. eccles. c. 44.
Footnote 1483:
Hier. ad Ctesiph. c. 3.
Footnote 1484:
Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.
Footnote 1485:
Aug. ep. 89.
Footnote 1486:
Aug. de Gest. Pelag. c. 22.
Footnote 1487:
Aug. ibid.
Footnote 1488:
Aug. ep. 89. Mar. Mer. comm. c. 1.
Footnote 1489:
Aug. ib. et de Gest. Pel. c. 11. Mar. Mer. comm. c. 1. Oros. apol. p. 801.
Footnote 1490:
Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 6. 11. 20. 29, 30. 35. ep. 96. 106. Hier. ep. 79.
Footnote 1491:
Hier. ibid.
Footnote 1492:
Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 1. Vide Noris hist. Pel. l. 2. c. 8.
Footnote 1493:
Aug. ep. 90.
Footnote 1494:
Idem ibid. ep. 95.
Footnote 1495:
Aug. Pecc. Orig. c. 8. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. ep. 104, 105. Prosp. in collat.
Footnote 1496:
Aug. ep. 90. 92. Hier. in Jer. Mercator. com. c. 1.
Footnote 1497:
Aug. Gr. Ch. c. 30. 33. Peccat. Orig. c. 23.
Footnote 1498:
Vide Bar. ad ann. 417.
Footnote 1499:
Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. & Pecc. Orig. c. 6.
Footnote 1500:
Idem ad Bon. ibid.
Footnote 1501:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1502:
Mercat. comm. c. 1. Vide Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 19, 20, &c.
Footnote 1503:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1115.
Footnote 1504:
Hier. ep. 4.
Footnote 1505:
Tiro Prosp. p. 51.
Footnote 1506:
Bar. ad ann. 426. n. 26.
Footnote 1507:
Bar. ibid.
Footnote 1508:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1571.
Footnote 1509:
Aug. Gest. Pel. c. 16.
Footnote 1510:
Idem ep. 90.
Footnote 1511:
Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 23.
Footnote 1512:
Bar. ibid. n. 27, 28, 29.
Footnote 1513:
Noris Hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 12.
Footnote 1514:
Gallia Christiana, t. 1. p. 2.
Footnote 1515:
Merc. comment. c. 3.
Footnote 1516:
Gall. Christ. ibid.
Footnote 1517:
Aug. Gr. Ch. c. 30. & Pecc. Orig. c. 18, 19.
Footnote 1518:
Bar. ad ann. 417. n. 25. 29.
Footnote 1519:
Hier. ep. 195. 209.
Footnote 1520:
Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3.
Footnote 1521:
Aug. ib. & Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 4. & Quesnel. in Leon. opera, p. 676.
Footnote 1522:
Quesnel. ibid. p. 675.
Footnote 1523:
Prosp. chr. & in coll. c. 10.
Footnote 1524:
Prosp. chron. in Ingrat. l. 1. c. 2.
Footnote 1525:
Prosp. in Ingrat. l. 1. c. 3.
Footnote 1526:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1527:
Prosp. ibid. l. 1. c. 2. Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. & Pecc. Orig. c. 8. Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 5. 12.
Footnote 1528:
Bar. ibid.
Footnote 1529:
Conc. l. 2. p. 1121. Aug. ep. 47.
Footnote 1530:
Conc. l. 2. p. 1064. Nor. hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 17.
Footnote 1531:
Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 20.
Footnote 1532:
Bar. ad ann. 420. n. 4. Nor. hist. Pel. p. 88.
Footnote 1533:
Aug. Pecc. orig. c. 8. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. Mar. Merc. comm. c. 1.
Footnote 1534:
Aug. Pecc. orig. c. 3, & 4. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 3. Mercat. ubi supra. Prosp. chr. & Ingrat. l. 1. c. 3.
Footnote 1535:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. Conc. t. 3. p. 349. Prosp. chr. Merc. c. 3.
Footnote 1536:
Merc. subnot. p. 320-326.
Footnote 1537:
Aug. op. imperf. l. 1. c. 10. ad Val. p. 343. Conc. t. 2. p. 1558.
Footnote 1538:
Mer. Com. c. 3. Nor. hist. Pel. l. 1. c. 16.
Footnote 1539:
Aug. in Jul. l. 3. c. 1. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 24.
Footnote 1540:
Aug. op. imperf. l. 2. c. 14.
Footnote 1541:
Merc. Comm. c. 3.
Footnote 1542:
Hier. ep. 55.
Footnote 1543:
Aug. in Jul. l. 2. c. 10.
Footnote 1544:
Bar. ad ann. 420. n. 2.
Footnote 1545:
Phot. c. 53.
Footnote 1546:
Prosp. in Coll. c. 41.
Footnote 1547:
Vid. Garn. in Mercat. p. 144.
Footnote 1548:
Gennad. c. 45.
Footnote 1549:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1550:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 4. & op. imperf. l. 1. c. 68.
Footnote 1551:
Merc. subnot. c. 4. Aug. op. imperf. p. 22.
Footnote 1552:
Merc. ib. p. 40.
Footnote 1553:
Paulin. car. 14.
Footnote 1554:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1555:
Aug. in Jul. l. 3. c. 21. et l. 4. c. 11. Mer. Comm. c. 3.
Footnote 1556:
Aug. ep. 106.
Footnote 1557:
Concil. t. 4. p. 1531.
Footnote 1558:
Prosp. et Hil. Literæ ad Aug. l. 7. p. 542. 546.
Footnote 1559:
Prosp. & Hil. ibid.
Footnote 1560:
Vide Sirmond. hist. prædest. c. 1, 2, &c.
Footnote 1561:
See p. 336, 337.
Footnote 1562:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1156.
Footnote 1563:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1567.
Footnote 1564:
See p. 337.
Footnote 1565:
Conc. ib. p. 1567-1569.
Footnote 1566:
Greg. Tur. hist. Franc. l. 1. c. 30.
Footnote 1567:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 1.
Footnote 1568:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1568.
Footnote 1569:
Conc. ibid. p. 1581.
Footnote 1570:
Conc. ibid. p. 1155.
Footnote 1571:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1570.
Footnote 1572:
Conc. ibid. p. 1574.
Footnote 1573:
Du Pin, t. 3. p. 827.
Footnote 1574:
Cassian. incar. l. 1. c. 4.
Footnote 1575:
Bar. ad ann. 418. n. 72.
Footnote 1576:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1567.
Footnote 1577:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1141.
HONORIUS, BONIFACE, THEODOSIUS _Forty-first_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 419. _Schism in the Church of_ Rome.]
_Zosimus_ being dead, great Disturbances arose about the Election of his Successor. _Eulalius_, whom Authors distinguish with the Title of Archdeacon, shutting himself up in the _Lateran_ with Part of the People, and some Presbyters and Deacons, was there chosen by them in the room of _Zosimus_. At the same time a great Number of the People, many Presbyters, and some Bishops, assembling in the Church of St. _Theodora_, named the Presbyter _Boniface_ to the vacant See. [Sidenote: Boniface _and_ Eulalius _both chosen_.] Both were ordained the same Day they were chosen; _Boniface_, by Nine Bishops, and in the Presence of Seventy Presbyters; _Eulalius_, by Three Bishops only, and in the Presence of a very small Number of Presbyters; but the Bishop of _Ostia_ was one of the Three; and he claimed, from a Custom which had long obtained, the Right of ordaining the Bishop of _Rome_. [Sidenote: _The Governor of_ Rome _and the Emperor favour_ Eulalius,] _Symmachus_, Governor of the City, did all that lay in his Power to prevent this double Election; but, not succeeding therein, he immediately dispatched an Express to the Emperor _Honorius_, then at _Ravenna_, with a Letter dated the 29th of _December_ 418. acquainting him with what had passed. But his Account was not impartial: he represented _Eulalius_ as lawfully chosen, and his Competitor as an Usurper. _Honorius_ therefore, by a Rescript dated the 2d of _January_ 419. ordered him to persuade _Boniface_ to retire from _Rome_, to use Force, if Persuasions did not prevail, and to apprehend and punish the Ringleaders of the Sedition, if any should be raised on that Occasion. With this Rescript the Emperor dispatched _Aphrodisius_ a Tribune and Notary; and _Symmachus_, having received it on the 6th of _January_, sent early next Morning his Primiscrinius, or first Secretary, with an Order for _Boniface_ to attend him, and hear what he had to impart to him in the Emperor’s Name, letting him know, in the mean time, that he must not take upon him to exercise any Episcopal Functions; for such was the Will and Pleasure of the Emperor. This Order _Boniface_ received while he was holding an Assembly in the Church of St. _Paul_ without the Walls; but paid no Regard to it; nay, those who attended him, falling on the Secretary, who brought it, treated him very roughly; which _Symmachus_ no sooner knew than he caused the Gates of the City to be shut, and kept _Boniface_ out. [Sidenote: _who takes Possession of the Church of St._ Peter.] In the mean time _Eulalius_, improving to his Advantage the Absence of his Competitor, repaired to the Church of St. _Peter_, took Possession of it amidst the loud Acclamations of his Partisans, and exercised there all Episcopal Functions.
[Sidenote: _The Friends of_ Boniface _write to the Emperor_,]
The avowed Partiality of _Symmachus_ for _Eulalius_ left no room to doubt but he had misinformed the Emperor. The Bishops therefore, with the Presbyters and People, who had chosen _Boniface_, thought it their Duty to transmit to him a candid and impartial Account of the late Transactions: and this they did accordingly, intreating the Emperor at the same time to revoke his former Order, and to summon both _Eulalius_ and _Boniface_ to Court, in order to try their Cause there. [Sidenote: _who summons a Council to decide the Controversy_.] Their Request appeared just; and _Honorius_, in Compliance with it, sent an Order to _Symmachus_, dated the 13th of _January_ 419. commanding him to suspend the Execution of his former Order, and to notify to the Two Competitors, that they, and those who ordained them, must repair to _Ravenna_, on Pain to him who should fail to appear there on the 8th of the ensuing _February_, of having his Election declared null. Several Bishops were summoned to attend at the same time, _Honorius_ thinking it proper, that a Dispute of that Nature should be decided by none but Bishops. However, to remove all Suspicion of Partiality on his Side, he would not allow those to sit as Judges, who had been any-ways concerned in the Election or Ordination of either of the Competitors. [Sidenote: _A more full Council summoned._] The Bishops met; but not being able to agree among themselves, _Honorius_ thought the Affair of such Importance, that he put it off to the 13th of _June_, with a Design to have it decided then in a full Council. He writ accordingly not only to the Bishops of _Italy_, but to those too of _Gaul_ and _Africa_, inviting them to the Council, and acquainting them with the Time and Place of its meeting. In the mean while he strictly injoined both _Boniface_ and _Eulalius_ to keep at a Distance from the City, lest their Presence should occasion Disturbances there. But as _Easter_ approached, he appointed _Achilleus_ Bishop of _Spoleti_, who was of neither Party, to perform the Episcopal Functions at _Rome_ during that Solemnity. [Sidenote: Eulalius _disobeys the Emperor, and is driven from_ Rome.] This _Eulalius_ could not brook; and therefore returning to _Rome_, in open Defiance of the Emperor’s Orders, he assembled the People, seized on the _Lateran_, and shutting the Doors against _Achilleus_, performed in that Basilic the Episcopal Functions usual at _Easter_. The Emperor, being acquainted by _Symmachus_ with what had passed, was so provoked at his Disobedience and Temerity, that, by a Rescript dated from _Ravenna_ the 3d of _April_, and received at _Rome_ on the 8th of the same Month, he commanded _Symmachus_ to drive _Eulalius_ from the City, and to put _Boniface_ in Possession of the disputed See; which was accordingly done[N66].
Footnote N66:
The original Copies of the Letters from _Symmachus_ to the Emperor, and of the Emperor’s Rescripts to _Symmachus_, giving a full and distinct Account of the present Schism, are lodged in the _Vatican_ Library, and have been thence copied by _Baronius_.[N66.1].
Footnote N66.1:
Bar. ad ann. 419. n. 1-42.
[Sidenote: Boniface _indebted to the Emperor for his Dignity_.]
Thus was an End put to the Schism; thus was _Boniface_ placed on the _Roman_ See, and vested with the Papal Dignity by the _Clemency of the Emperor_, as _Largus_ Proconsul of _Africa_ expresses it in his Letter to the Bishops of that Province[1578]; and not by the Authority of a Council consisting of Two hundred and Fifty-two Bishops, which some have brought down from the Clouds, without even letting us know where or when they assembled[1579].
All we know of _Boniface_ before his Election is, that he was the Son of one _Jucundus_ a Presbyter[1580], was stricken in Years, well versed in the Ecclesiastical Laws, of an unblemished Character; and, what enhances his Merit, chosen against his Will. [Sidenote: Boniface _applies to the Emperor for a Law to restrain the Ambition of the Candidates to the Papacy_.] Thus say his Friends, in the Letter which they writ in his Behalf to the Emperor _Honorius_[1581]. His first Care, after he found himself in the quiet Possession of his See, was to prevent for the future, so far as in him lay, the Cabals and Intrigues that might be formed at other Elections, as they had been at his, to the great Disturbance of the City, and Scandal of the Christian Religion. With this View he writ to the Emperor, intreating him to restrain, by some severe Law, the Ambition of those who, trusting more to their Intrigues than their Merit, aspired to a Dignity that was due to Merit alone[N67].
Footnote N67:
This Letter bears Date the First of _July_ 419.
[Sidenote: _His Law for that Purpose._]
The Emperor, in Compliance with so just a Demand, enacted a Law, well calculated to prevent effectually the Evil complained of, and keep the Ambition of the Candidates to the Papacy within due Bounds. For by this Law, when Two Persons were chosen, neither was to hold the Dignity, but the People and Clergy were to proceed to a new Election. This is the first Instance, that occurs in History, of Princes intermeddling in the Election of the Pope; an Evil, says F. _Pagi_, which, from small Beginnings, grew to such a Height as to reflect great Shame and Disgrace on the _Roman_ Church.[1582] But it must be observed, that the original Evil was the Corruption, the Violence, and the many Disorders which the Clergy and People were guilty of in those Elections. It was this which, at the Request of the Pope himself, called on the Emperors to interpose their Authority, as the only adequate Remedy to such Abuses. The succeeding Emperors followed the Example of _Honorius_, and the _Gothic_ as well as the _Lombard_ Kings, the Example of the Emperors, as we shall see in the Sequel of the present History.
[Sidenote: Boniface _free from Ambition_.]