N11. The Title of President is given him in a Letter, which is commonly ascribed to PopeFelixIII[1]. But I am well apprised, that no great Stress should be laid on that Piece, since some surmise it to have been composed in the Eighth Century.1. Concil. t. 1. p. 1072.
N11. The Title of President is given him in a Letter, which is commonly ascribed to PopeFelixIII[1]. But I am well apprised, that no great Stress should be laid on that Piece, since some surmise it to have been composed in the Eighth Century.
N11. The Title of President is given him in a Letter, which is commonly ascribed to PopeFelixIII[1]. But I am well apprised, that no great Stress should be laid on that Piece, since some surmise it to have been composed in the Eighth Century.
1. Concil. t. 1. p. 1072.
1. Concil. t. 1. p. 1072.
The Honour of presiding belonged of Right toAlexanderBishop ofAlexandria; but he, it seems, declined it, perhaps to obviate the Complaints of theArians, who looked upon him as a Party concerned, and one highly prejudiced against them. I know that the haranguing ofConstantineis ascribed toEusebiusthe Historian, in the Title of the Chapter in which he mentions it[581], thatSozomenpositively affirms it, and that the learnedValesiusthinks there is no room to doubt of it, sinceEusebiuswas the most eloquent Bishop of those Times; and besides, he himself tells us, that he pronounced a Speech in Praise ofConstantine, on occasion of his entering into the Twentieth Year of his Reign, while he was sitting in the midst of the Ministers of God[582]; meaning thereby, no doubt, the Bishops assembled atNice.|EusebiusofCæsareadid not harangue theEmperor at the Opening of theCouncil,|ThatEusebiusharangued the Emperor before that venerable Assembly, is not at all to be questioned; but that the Bishops, who composed it, should have pitched upon one who was suspected, or rather convicted, ofArianism, to address the Emperor in their Name, at the Opening of the Council, seems to me highly improbable. The Orator, whoever he was, sat in the first Place, or at least in the second (that I may not quarrel withBaronius, who will have the Place on the Left-hand to have been the most honourable[583]): And what Right had the Bishop ofCæsareato that Honour?|but on anotherOccasion.|I may add, that a short Compliment, such as is that which the PresbyterGregoryascribes toEustathiusofAntioch[584], had been far more proper on that Occasion thanEusebius’s long and tedious Panegyric, which therefore some suppose to have been pronounced on Occasion of the magnificent Entertainment whichConstantinegave the Bishops, as they were preparing to return to their respective Sees; for he then entered into the Twentieth Year of his Reign, which began on the 25th ofJuly325. and it was on that Occasion thatEusebiuswrit, and delivered his Panegyric before the Emperor, and the Fathers of the Council, as he himself declares[585]. To conclude, hadEusebiusbeen appointed by that great Assembly to address the Emperor in their Name, his Modesty had not prevented him from describing the Spokesman so as to leave no room to doubt on whom that Honour had been conferred.
The Council ofNicenot convened by thePope.
Before I dismiss this Subject, it may not be improper, nor foreign to my Purpose, to observe, that the Council ofNice, the first Generalor Oecumenical Council held in the Church, was convened by the Emperor, and not by the Bishop ofRome; that the Bishop ofRomedid not preside in it either in Person, or by his Legates, as they are pleased to style them; and consequently that the Privilege which they assumed in After-ages of assembling General Councils, and presiding in them, ought to be deemed a most insolent and unwarrantable Usurpation.|The Council commands all Causesto be finally de-termined by Prov-incial Synods.|The Second Thing worthy of notice with respect to this Council is its Fifth Canon, commanding all Ecclesiastical Causes to be finally decided in each Province by a Provincial Synod. The Words of the Canon are clear in themselves, and besides have been understood in this Sense by all the Councils that were held, by all the Authors that writ, for several Ages after[586]; nay, it was understood in this Sense by some of the Popes themselves, namely, byInnocentI. who, in one of his Letters toVictriciusBishop ofRoan, writes thus;If any Controversy should arise among the Clerks, whether they be of an inferior or superior Rank, let it be decided, agreeably to the Council ofNice,in an Assembly of the Bishops of the same Province[587]. 'Tis true, he adds,without prejudicing the Rights of theRomanSee. But that Restriction is his own, and not the Council’s. Hence this Canon, directing all Causes to be thus tried, all Disputes to be thus ended, was often quoted on occasion of Appeals made toRome, and employed as a Bulwark to restrain the incroaching Power of the Popes within due Bounds; but in Process of Time their Ambition, supported by the Favour of Princes, and the great Temporalities they acquired, bore all down before them.
The EcclesiasticalHierarchy firstformed.
It was in the Pontificate ofSylvester, and under the benign Auspices ofConstantine, that the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was first formed and settled in the Manner it continues to this Day; the new Form of Government, introduced by that Prince into the State, serving as a Model for the Government of the Church. In the Three first Centuries no other Hierarchy was known, no other Degrees thought of, but those of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Of these alone was composed the whole Body of the Clergy; but with this Difference, that the Bishop or Supervisor was the general Disposer and Manager of all Things within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, nothing being done there without his Consent and Approbation, and the Presbyters and Deaconshis Assistants, or his Counsellors and Senate, as St.Jerom[588], and before him St.Ignatius[589], styled them. This Order was probably introduced, according toGrotius[590], in Imitation of theJewishSynagogues; for each Synagogue had its Ruler, who presided over the rest, its Pastors, and its Eleemosynaries; to the Ruler succeeded the Bishop, to the Pastors the Presbyters, and to the Eleemosynaries the Deacons.|The Office andDuty of Bishops.|It was the Bishop’s Office and Duty to preach the Word[591], to pray with his People[592]to administer the Sacraments[593], to ordain Ministers[594], to excommunicate Offenders[595], to absolve Penitents[596], and to regulate and settle every thing relating to his particular Church[597], with the Consent and Concurrence of the Presbytery; for the Presbyters were his Counsellors or Senate, and, together with him, presided in the Consistories of those Times, as we learn fromTertulliantelling us, that in those Courtsapproved Elders presided[598]. HencePetrus de Marcaconcludes the original Government of the Church to have been mixt of Monarchy and Aristocracy; or, to use his own Words, the Monarchical Government of the Church to have been tempered with the Aristocratical. As the Bishop could not discharge, as he ought, the above-mentioned Functions, without residing among those who were committed to his Care, his Residence was deemed absolutely necessary, and Non-residence a most heinous Transgression; insomuch that St.Cyprian, enumerating the Sins that brought the Wrath of God upon the Church in the bloody Persecution ofDecius, mentions Non-residence in the Bishops as one[599].|How chosen,and ordained.|Upon the Vacancy of a See a new Bishop was chosen in the room of the deceased in some Places by the Clergy and People of that Church alone, in others by the neighbouring Bishops, the People and the Clergy only expressing their Desire, and giving Testimony of the Life and Manners of the Person proposed, and in some by the joint Suffrages of the Clergy, of the People, and of the neighbouring Bishops. These three different Methods of electing we find practised at different Times with respect to the same Church; but on no Occasion was the Choice of the neighbouring Bishops sufficient without the Consent of the Clergy and People, nor the Election of the Clergy and People without the Approbation of the neighbouring Bishops. The Bishop being thus electedand confirmed, he was in the next Place ordained; and this Ceremony was performed by the neighbouring Bishops, in his own Church, and in the Presence of his Flock, by the Imposition of Hands. The new Bishop, agreeably to a Custom which obtained then, immediately gave Notice of his Promotion to other Bishops, especially to those of the greater Sees, who, by receiving and answering his Letters, were said to communicate with him, and to acknowlege him lawfully chosen.
The Office and Dutyof Presbyters.
In the Second Degree were the Presbyters or Priests, whose Office or Province it was to assist the Bishop in the Discharge of his Pastoral Commission, whence they are often styled the Bishop’s Assistants: with his Consent and Approbation they preached the Word, they prayed with the People, they administred the Sacraments, they absolved Penitents, and, in short, discharged every Office which the Bishop did, except those of ordaining, confirming, and excommunicating; I say, with the Bishop’s Consent and Approbation; for no spiritual Function could they perform without his Leave, as is manifest fromTertullian[600],Origen[601], St.Cyprian[602], and above all from St.Ignatius, in his famous Letter to the Church ofSmyrna[603]. The Church, in those happy Days, admitted none to the sacred Functions, but such as were known by a long Trial to be well qualified for so great a Charge.|Qualifications re-quisite in a Presbyter.|The Qualifications requisite in a Presbyter, so far as I can learn from the Antients, may be reduced to these Four Heads, his Condition in the World, his Conversation, his Learning, and his Age. He was not to be intangled with any worldly Affairs, with any secular Employments, but at perfect Liberty to apply himself wholly to the Functions of his Office[604]. He was to be of an unspotted and exemplary Life[605]; and therefore, before Ordination, he was proposed to the Presbytery and People for their Testimony and Approbation. He was to be well versed in the Scripture, and capable of teaching others, and instructing them in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion. As for human Learning, it was not required in a Presbyter; nay, by some it was condemned, particularly Logic and Philosophy, as in a manner inconsistent with Christianity[606], but at the same time highly commended and applauded by others as conducive to the right understanding of the Scripture, and necessary for confuting the Sophismsof Heretics[607]; whence Logic especially is recommended byClemens Alexandrinusto all Ecclesiastics, asa Hedge to defend the Truth from being trod down by Sophists[608]. As for the Age of a Presbyter, he was to be stricken in Years, as the very Name of a Presbyter or Elder sufficiently declares. However, if a young Man was endowed with extraordinary Gifts and Talents, his Age was dispensed with in respect both to the Sacerdotal and Episcopal Dignity. Thus wasAurelius, though young in Years, raised, in regard of his great Merit, to the Rank of a Presbyter, as we read in St.Cyprian[609]; and the Bishop ofMagnesia, in St.Ignatius’s Time, was, it seems, but a young Man, sinceIgnatius, in his Letter to theMagnesians, exhorts themnot to despise their Bishop’s Age, but to yield him all due Respect and Reverence[610]. These were the Qualifications requisite in a Candidate for the Ministry: if he was recommended by them (for no other Recommendation could avail him), he was admitted to holy Orders; if not, he was rejected as unfit for the sacred Function. The Person ordained was at Liberty to serve the Church where he had received his Orders, or any other where his Assistance might be wanted; for he was not ordained Minister of any particular Church, but of the Church universal.
The Institution andOffice of Deacons.
In the Third and last Degree were the Deacons, whose original Institution was toserve Tables, as we read in theActs[611]; that is, to inspect the Poor, and relieve them by a proper Distribution of the Offerings made by the Faithful, which were committed to their Charge, though they could not dispose of them without the Bishop’s Knowlege[612]. They were ordained by the Imposition of Hands[613], and therefore deemed Ministers of the Altar, as well as Dispensers of Alms; and with a great deal of Reason, for they assisted the Bishops or Presbyters in administring the Eucharist, by delivering the Elements to the Communicants[614]; they carried the Eucharist to such as had not been able to assist with the rest at Divine Service[615]; they preached, and, in the Absence of the Bishop and Presbyters, conferred the Sacrament of Baptism[616].|Their Number.|The Presbyters of a Church were not confined to a set Number; but the Deacons were, no Church having more than Sevenin the primitive Times, that being the original Number instituted by the Apostles. Thus the Church ofRomehad but Seven in the Times of PopeCornelius[617], and PopeSixtusII[618], the Church ofSaragosathe same Number in the Time ofVincentius, who flourished underDioclesian[619]. The Fourteenth Canon of the Council ofNeocæsarea, or the Fifteenth, according to theGreek, forbids this Number to be inlarged, even in the greatest and most populous Cities[620]; whence St.Jeromwrites, that great Respect was paid to the Deacons, because they were few in Number[621].
Subdeacons,Acolytes,Readers,3] &c.
As for the Subdeacons, Acolytes, Lectors, Janitors, and Exorcists, they were not considered as any-ways belonging to the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, being employed only in the meaner Offices of the Church, by the due Discharge of which they were to give Proof of their Integrity and Attention, in order to be raised to a higher Degree; for in those Days very few, and none but upon some very extraordinary Occasion, arrived at once, or, as they call it,per saltum, at the Episcopal Dignity.
Each Church inde-pendent.
During the Three first Centuries each Church was in a manner independent, that is, could make such Regulations relating to its Discipline and Government as were judged proper and expedient, without the Concurrence and Authority of other Churches[622]. However, in all Matters of Moment, the Bishops used to advise with one another, especially with those of the same Province, who frequently met to settle all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Limits.|Frequent Synods held.|Firmilian, Bishop ofCæsareainCappadocia, writes, that in his Province they met every Year[623]; and from the frequent Synods mentioned by St.Cyprian, we may conclude them to have been held in that Province at least once a Year.|Of whom composed.|These Synods or Assemblies were composed of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Laymen, representing the People of their several Churches[624]. They met by their own Appointment and Authority, there being no Christian Magistrates in those Days to convene Synods. Being thus assembled, they chose in the first place one, and sometimes two Bishops, to preside[625].|The Method they held.|It was their Office and Duty to see the Point in question calmly and fairly debated, to sum up in each Debate what had been urged on both Sides, to takethe Votes and Suffrages of the Members of the Synod, and last of all to give their own[626]. In these Assemblies all Ecclesiastical Affairs were settled by the Majority of Votes, and their Decrees and Decisions were binding with respect to those Churches whose Representatives were present[627]; but were not so with respect to other Churches.
The EcclesiasticalPolicy adapted tothe Civil.
Such was the Hierarchy, such the Government of the Church, during the Three first Centuries. But in the Fourth and following Ages great Alterations were made in both, the Church adapting her Government to that of the State, namely, to the new Form of Government introduced byConstantine, who had settled her in Peace, and taken the Priesthood into his immediate Protection. For it was in his Reign that the Titles ofPatriarchs,Exarchs,Metropolitans, were first heard of, or at least had any Power, Authority, or Privileges, annexed to them. That this Conformity between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Polity may appear more plainly, I shall premise a succinct Account of the former, as established byConstantinethroughout the Empire. That Prince divided the wholeRomanWorld into four Prefectures,viz.theEast,Illyricum,Gaul, andItaly, which were governed by four Prefects, calledPræfecti Prætorio.|The new Form ofGovernment intro-duced byCon-stantine.|Till his Time the whole Empire was governed under the Emperors by Two Prefects only, asZosimusinforms us[628]; and this Division is supposed to have been made byConstantine, jealous of the too great Power of those Magistrates. Each Prefecture was subdivided into several Dioceses, and each Diocese into several Provinces. Thus the Prefecture of theEastcontained Five Dioceses;viz.theEastdivided into Ten Provinces,Egyptinto Six,Pontusinto Eleven,Asiainto Ten, andThraceinto Six. Under the Prefecture ofIllyricumwere Two Dioceses;Macedon, consisting of Eight Provinces; andDacia, consisting of four. The Prefecture ofGaulcomprised Three Dioceses,Gaulmade up of Seventeen Provinces,Spainof Seven, andBritainof Five. The Prefecture ofItalywas divided into Two Vicarages or Lieutenancies; the one ofRome, comprehending Ten Provinces, under the Vicar ofRome, whence they were calledSuburbicarianProvinces; the other ofItaly, containing Seven Provinces, governed by the Vicar ofItaly, who resided atMilan, whence they were simply called Provinces ofItaly. Under the Prefect ofItalywas likewiseWest Africa, and afterConstantine’s DeathWest Illyricum. The Prefects had other Officers under them, by whom the Provinces were more immediately governed.These were, to name them according to their Rank and Dignity, Proconsuls, Vicars, Consulars, Correctors, and Presidents. Each Diocese had its Metropolis, and likewise each Province contained in the Diocese.
The Civil andEcclesiasticalPolity compared.
Now, if we compare the Civil Polity, thus described, with the Ecclesiastical, we shall find them in most Places answering each other, in every respect, and one Bishop raised above the rest, according to the Rank that was given by this new Division to the City in which he presided. Thus, for Instance, the chief Cities of the Five Dioceses of the Oriental Prefecture were;Antioch, the Metropolis of the Oriental Diocese;Alexandria, of theEgyptian;Ephesus, of theAsiatic;Cæsarea, of thePontic; andHeraclea, of theThracian. Now the Bishops of these Cities, in regard of the Eminence of their Sees, were exalted above all other Bishops, and distinguished with the Title of Exarchs; nay, and by Degrees they acquired, not to say usurped, a kind of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Bishops of the inferior Sees, which was afterwards confirmed to them by several Councils. In like manner the Bishop of the Metropolis of each Province was, on account of the Dignity of his See, honoured with the Title of Metropolitan, to which were annexed several Privileges, of which I shall speak hereafter. When one Province was divided into Two, which often happened, the Ecclesiastical Polity was likewise altered, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis raised to the Dignity of a Metropolitan. Several Instances might be alleged of ambitious Bishops applying to the Emperors for a Division of the Province, that their City might acquire the Title of Metropolis, and they, of course, that of Metropolitans. When the City ofByzantiumwas declared the Metropolis of another Empire, the Exarchate ofHeraclea, the Metropolis of theThracianDiocese, was, by that Change, transferred fromHeracleato the new Metropolis; so that the Bishop ofHeracleabecame Suffragan to the Bishop ofByzantium, or, as it was then called,Constantinople, who, till that Time, had been Suffragan to him. Upon the Division of a Province, the Churches were likewise divided, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis acquired all the Privileges and Power of a Metropolitan over the Churches taken by the Change in the Civil Government from the antient Metropolis. But it was afterwards decreed, by the Council ofChalcedon, that if any City should be raised to the Dignity of a Metropolis, the Bishop of that City should enjoy the Title, but not the Privileges of a Metropolitan. Thus the Bishops ofNiceandBerytuswere honoured with the Title of Metropolitans, and took Placeof all the other Bishops of those Provinces; but nevertheless continued to be Suffragans to their antient Metropolitans the Bishops ofNicomediaandTyre. For the same Reason several Bishops in the Kingdom ofNaplesenjoy, to this Day, the Title of Metropolitans; but neither have, nor ever had, any Province or Suffragans. The above-mentioned Decree was enacted by the Council ofChalcedon, to prevent the Bishops from recurring, as they often did, to the Emperors,and to obviate the frequent Changes that were thereby introduced into the Church.
The Prefectures ofIllyricum, Gaul,andSpain.
The Prefecture ofIllyricumhad but one Exarch, the Bishop ofThessalonica, the Metropolis of theMacedonianDiocese. In the Prefecture ofGaulthere was no Exarch, but in the Two Dioceses ofGaulandSpainas many Metropolitans as Provinces. Some there were, without all Doubt, in the Diocese ofBritain, which was divided into Five Provinces,viz.Maxima Cæsariensis,Britannia Prima,Britannia Secunda,Valentia, andFlavia Cæsariensis. But in this Island an intire Change was made, by theSaxons, both in the Ecclesiastical and Civil Polity.
The Prefecture ofItaly.
Under the Prefect ofItalywere Three Dioceses,viz.Italy,West Illyricum, andWest Africa. The Diocese ofItalywas divided into Two Vicarages, as I have observed above, and governed by Two Vicars; the one called the Vicar ofRome, and residing in that City, the other styled the Vicar ofItaly, and residing atMilan. Under the former were Ten Provinces,viz.Campania,Apulia,Lucania,Hetruria,Umbria,Picenum Suburbicarium,Sicily,Sardinia,Corsica, andValeria; and Seven under the latter,viz.Liguria,Æmilia,FlaminiaorPicenum Annonarium,Venetia,Istria,Alpes Cottiæ, and the TwoRhætiæ.|The EcclesiasticalPolity there intirelyagreeable to the Civil.|Such was the Civil Government ofItaly, and intirely agreeable to the Civil was the Ecclesiastical. Thus the Bishop ofRomeenjoyed all the Privileges of a Metropolitan, with respect to the Bishops of the Provinces subject to the Vicar of that City, or theSuburbicarianProvinces, as they are styled byRuffinus. In like manner the Bishop ofMilanexercised the Power and Authority of a Metropolitan over all the Bishops under the Vicar ofItaly. But the Power of both was confined within the Limits of their respective Vicarages. As neither had the Charge of a whole Diocese, they were not, like several Bishops in the East, distinguished with the Title of Exarch, which they had no Right to, but with that only of Metropolitan. However, the Power of the Bishop ofRomefar exceeded, within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, that of other Metropolitans, as I shall shew hereafter.
The EcclesiasticalPolity inAfrica.
InAfricathe Ecclesiastical Polity varied greatly from the Civil.Carthageindeed, in the Proconsular Province ofAfrica, properly so called, was the Metropolis of allWest Africa, and the Bishop of that City the Primate and Exarch. But in the other Five Provinces of that Diocese,viz.Numidia, the TwoMauritanias,CæsariensisandSitifensis,Tingitana,Bizacena, andTripolitana, the senior Bishop, in what City soever he presided, enjoyed the Title and Privileges of Metropolitan, Regard being had to his Seniority, or the Time of his Ordination, and none to the Dignity of his See. And hence it is that, at different times, we find Bishops of different Cities, within the same Province, acting asMetropolitans. OfWest Illyricum, the Third Diocese under the Prefect ofItaly, I shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.
The Dignities ofExarchs, Metropol-itans,&c. not ofdivine Institution.
Some Writers, namelyPetrus de Marca, Archbishop ofParis[629],Christianus Lupus[630],Emmanuel Schelstrat[631], Two eminent Divines, the one ofLouvain, the other ofAntwerp, andLeo Allatius[632], have taken a great deal of Pains to prove, that these Ecclesiastical Dignities owe their Origin toChrist, or the Apostles. But their Arguments are unanswerably confuted by the learnedEllies du Pin[633]; and, besides, it is evident, from the intire Conformity which the Ecclesiastical Government had, in most Places, with the Political State of the Empire, as established byConstantine, that the Church, in forming the Hierarchy I have described, adopted his Plan; and consequently, that such Dignities are not of divine, but of human Institution. I might add, that it cannot be proved from Scripture, that the Apostles, in appointing Bishops, gave more Power to one than to another, or any Power at all to one over the others.
The new Dignitiesadded to the antientHierarchy of theChurch.
The new Dignities or Degrees, added to the antient Hierarchy of the Church, in the Fourth and following Centuries, were those ofMetropolitan,Primate,Archbishop,Exarch, andPatriarch. The Title ofMetropolitanwas given to the Bishop of the chief City of a Province, and likewise that ofPrimate, he beingprimus, or the first of the Province; for such was the original Signification of that Word in an Ecclesiastical Sense; but, in Process of Time, the Title ofPrimatewas restrained to the Bishops of some great Cities. On the contrary the Title ofArchbishopwas originally bestowed on Metropolitansonly of great Eminence and Distinction; but, in the Eighth Century, it began to be given indifferently to all Metropolitans, and even to some Bishops, distinguished by no other Title. As the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City, of a Province, was dignified with the Title ofMetropolitan, so was the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City of a Diocese, with that ofExarch; which, however, we find sometimes given to Metropolitans. As for the Title ofPatriarch, it was first common to all Bishops, but afterwards confined to the Exarchs; and lastly, to the Bishops of the Five following Cities,viz.Rome,Constantinople,Antioch,Alexandria, andJerusalem. It was first bestowed on the Bishop ofRome, by the Council ofChalcedon[634], after it had been long common to all the Exarchs of the East, as the learnedDu Pinwell observes[635].
The Rights and Priv-ileges of Metropolitans.
The Titles of Metropolitans, Primates, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, were not bare Names of Honour, but had several Rights and Prerogatives attending them. Thus the Metropolitans and Primates had, by their Prerogative, a Right to ordain the Bishops of their respective Provinces, to convene provincial Synods, and to have a general Superintendency or Inspection over the whole Province. The ordaining of Bishops was a Privilege common to the Metropolitan, with the other Bishops of the same Province; but with this Difference, that the Presence, or at least the Consent and Approbation of the Metropolitan was absolutely necessary; for, according to the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council ofNice,He who was not ordained, or approved, by the Metropolitan, was not to be a Bishop. This Privilege was confirmed to the Metropolitans by many subsequent Councils, namely, by those ofArles,Laodicea,Carthage,Chalcedon,Ephesus[636], and many others. However, in the Fifth Century, the Patriarchs ofAlexandriaandConstantinoplebegan, in the East, to usurp this Prerogative, pretending, that no Bishops ought to be ordained in their respective Dioceses, without their Knowlege, Consent, and Approbation; and the Patriarch ofRome, still more ambitious and encroaching, claimed a Right to ordain the Bishops throughout all the Provinces of the West, which occasioned endless Disputes, as we shall see in the Sequel of this History. As to the Second Privilege peculiar to the Metropolitans, they had a Right to summon theBishops of their respective Provinces to meet when they thought proper; to appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting; to punish such as did not, without just Cause, comply with their Summons; and to preside in the Assembly. The general Care and Inspection, which they were charged with over the whole Province, imported, First, That all Complaints against, all Contests with or between the Bishops of the Province, were to be brought to their Tribunal; and there heard, judged, and determined, not by the Metropolitan alone, but by him and the other Bishops of the Province, in a Provincial Synod. Innumerable Instances might be alleged of Bishops thus deposed by their Metropolitans. Secondly, The Metropolitans had a Right to receive Appeals from the Sentence of inferior Bishops, and with the other Bishops, to confirm or reverse their Decrees. And, lastly, each Metropolitan was to keep a watchful Eye over the Bishops of his Province, and take care that they discharged, as they ought, the Functions of their Office. These Privileges were, in express Terms, granted to the Metropolitans, by almost innumerable Councils, which it is needless, and would be too tedious, to name.
The Rights and Priv-ileges of Patriarchs,or Exarchs.
As for the Patriarchs, or Exarchs; by their Prerogative, they were impowered to ordain the Metropolitans, to convene Diocesan Synods, and to have a general Superintendency over their respective Dioceses, such as the Metropolitans had over their respective Provinces.|The Bishop ofRomenot a Patriarch.|The Bishop ofRomehad not the Charge of a whole Diocese, and therefore was not, properly speaking, Exarch or Patriarch: his Jurisdiction did not extend beyond the Limits of the Vicarage ofRome, or the Suburbicarian Provinces; and no Instance can be produced of Metropolitans or Bishops ordained by him, out of those Provinces, till the Time ofValentinianIII. Even in the Vicarage ofItalythe Metropolitans of each Province ordained all the Bishops, and were themselves ordained by the Bishops of the Province. But over the Suburbicarian Provinces the Bishop ofRomeexercised greater Power and Authority, than the Exarchs of the East did over the Provinces of their Dioceses; for the latter left the Ordination of the Bishops to their Metropolitans, whereas the former ordained not only the Bishops of the Metropolitan Cities, but all those of the fore-mentioned Provinces: and the Reason of this was, because these Provinces had no Metropolitans, to whom the Ordination of Bishops would of Right have belonged; so that the Prerogatives of the Metropolitans were all vested in the Bishop ofRomealone.|The Bishops ofRomehave no Right toordain the Metro-politans.|As there were no Exarchsor Patriarchs in the West, the Bishops of each Province were, by several Councils, vested with the Power of ordaining their own Metropolitans; and that they were thus ordained inGaul,Spain, andWest Africa, is so manifest as to admit of no Dispute[637]. And yet the Sticklers for the See ofRomepretend the Bishops of that City to have a divine and inherent Right of ordaining all the Metropolitans throughout the Christian World, by themselves, their Vicars, or Delegates. To maintain this chimerical Right against the uncontestable Evidence of Facts, they tell us, that the Popes, for some Ages, neglected to exert the Power they had[638]. But from this Charge all Mankind will clear them, it being but too well known, that they never neglected the least Opportunity of exerting to the utmost the Power they had, and usurping the Power they had not. But, Cavils aside, it is evident beyond Dispute, that the Popes never knew, nor dreamt of, any such Right or Prerogative, till they were told of it by their flattering Divines; at least PopeLeo, surnamedthe Great, did not; for in one of his Letters to the Bishops ofGaulhe disclaims, in express Terms, the Right of ordaining the Bishops of that Diocese[639]. To conclude, the Bishop ofRomewas the only Metropolitan in that Vicarage; and, as such, had a Right to ordain all the Bishops of the Suburbicarian Provinces, or the Provinces subject to the Vicar ofRome; but, for a considerable Tract of Time, there is no Instance of their ordaining either Bishops or Metropolitans out of that District.
The Title ofArch-bishopin itself a bareName of Honour.
As for the Title of Archbishop, it is in itself a bare Name of Honour; whence, in some Countries, especially inItaly, several are distinguished with that Title, who indeed take place of, but have no Power or Authority over, other Bishops. And thus far of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as settled in the Fourth and following Centuries, of the different Degrees that compose it, and the Prerogatives peculiar to each Degree, the Knowlege whereof is absolutely necessary for the right understanding of the many Contests and Disputes in point of Jurisdiction, which I shall have Occasion to touch upon in the Sequel of this History; for it was not at once, but by Degrees, and not without great Opposition, that the Bishops ofRome, extending their Authority beyond the Limits of that Vicarage, which was at that time the Boundary of their Jurisdiction, acquired the unlimited Power they now enjoy, with the arrogant Title ofUniversal Bishop.
The Donation of allItalymade byConstantineto thePope, a Forgery.
But to return toSylvester, in whose Pontificate this great Change began; I need not employ many Words to shew the Forgery of the so much boasted Donation of allItaly, supposed to have been made byConstantinetoSylvester, in the Spring of the Year 324. Four Days after he had been baptized by that Pontiff, since the Instrument of that Donation is now looked upon as supposititious, by all who have the least Tincture of Learning. The Arguments they allege against it are: 1. That more than Twelve Copies of that Instrument are still extant, all differing from one another. 2. That it evidently appears, from Two Constitutions ofConstantine, still to be seen in theTheodosianCode[640], that he was not atRome, but atThessalonica, in the Spring of the Year 324. 3. That neitherEusebius, who has given us a very minute and particular Account of the Actions of that Prince, nor any other contemporary Writer, has so much as hinted at so memorable a Fact. 4. That all the antient Writers, bothGreekandLatin, agree, thatConstantinewas not baptized atRome, but atNicomedia, when he lay at the Point of Death[641]. Let those, who stand up in Defence of that Donation, give satisfactory Answers to these Reasons, and I shall conclude with them, thatItalybeing, by such a Donation, disjoined from the Empire, the Emperors who succeededConstantine, had no Claim or Title to that Country; that none of their Constitutions were binding there; and consequently that, by the Inhabitants ofItaly, Recourse ought to be had, in all Cases, not to the Civil, but to the Canon Law: for such pernicious Doctrines have been broached, published, and maintained, as natural Deductions fromConstantine’s great Generosity toSylvester[642]. InRomeis still to be seen, in a most sumptuous Chapel, close to theLateran, the Baptistery or Font in whichConstantineis said to have been baptized. The Chapel is adorned with noble Paintings, representing that august Ceremony, as performed bySylvester, in the magnificent Drapery, and stately Apparel, of the present Popes. Four Days after this Ceremony,Constantine, sensible of his Obligations toSylvester, rewarded him for his Trouble with a Fee, asLuchesinitheScolopianexpresses it, answering in some Degree to the Greatness of the Favour he had received at his Hands; a Fee worthy of so great aPrince, of so great a Pope[643].|ConstantinebaptizedatNicomedia,andnot atRome.|The Fee, which that Writer, otherwise a Man of Learning, makes a long and tedious Descant upon, was no less than the City ofRome, and allItaly. ThatConstantinewas baptized atNicomedia, and not atRome, is affirmed, in express Terms, byTheodoret[644],Sozomen[645],Socrates[646], andPhotius[647], among theGreeks; and, among theLatins, by St.Ambrose[648], St.Jerom[649], and the Council ofRimini[650].Emmanuel Schelstrat, on one Side, ashamed to reject, or even to question such Authorities, but, on the other, unwilling to robSylvesterof that Glory, will haveConstantineto have been baptized in both Places. It is well known, says he, thatConstantine, in the Latter-end of his Life, was greatly biassed in favour of theArians, and their Tenets. Now a Practice obtained among them of rebaptizing such as came over to their Sect from the Catholic Church; and, to conform to this Custom,Constantinewas, in all Likelihood, prevailed upon byEusebius, theArianBishop ofNicomedia, who assisted him on his Death-bed[651]. ThusSchelstrat. But it is certain, that, inConstantine’s Time, theAriansallowed the Validity of Baptism administred by the Catholics; for, long after, we find St.Austinupbraiding them with the Practice of rebaptizing, as a Novelty lately introduced among them[652]. Besides, who is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that, in those early Times, a very bad Custom universally prevailed, at least among Persons of Distinction, who embraced the Christian Religion, namely, that of putting off their Baptism to their Death-bed, or till they were upon the Point of exposing themselves to some great Danger? ThusTheodosius the Great, though he had not only openly professed the Christian Religion, but given many Instances of an extraordinary Piety, yet did not chuse to be baptized till he fell dangerously ill atThessalonica[653]. In like mannerValentinianII delayed his Baptism till the Approach of a Battle with the Barbarians, when he sent, in great Haste, for St.Ambroseto administer that Sacrament to him. But while the good Bishop was crossing theAlps, on his Way toVienne, where the Emperor then was, he received the melancholy News of his having been inhumanly murdered by some of his own Officers, at the Instigation ofArbogastus. His Death was greatlylamented by St.Ambrose, who, in the elegant Oration, which he pronounced on Occasion of his Obsequies, maintained, that the fervent Desire of Baptism had the same Effect as the Sacrament itself; and consequently, that the Sins of the deceased Prince being thereby cancelled, it was not to be doubted, but from this Life he had passed to eternal Bliss[654]. Innumerable Instances of the same Nature occur in History, which were, it seems, utterly unknown to the Author of the Acts of PopeSylvester, upon whose sole Authority the Fable has been credited ofConstantine’s receiving Baptism at the Hands ofSylvester, soon after his Conversion. That Impostor, whoever he was, is supposed to have lived in the Eighth Century, long after the Custom of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death had been utterly abolished.|What gave Count-enance to the Customof deferring Baptismto the Point of Death.|What gave Countenance to such a Custom, was an Opinion then generally received, and still held by the Church ofRome;viz.That by the Waters of the sacred Font Men were washed clean, not only from the original, but from all other Sins. This proved a great Encouragement to Vice when Piety began (and it began but too early) to decay among Christians; and therefore the Fathers of the Church, especiallyBasil, his BrotherGregoryofNyssa, and St.Ambrose[655], employed all the Oratory they were Masters of, in crying down such a pernicious and wicked Custom, as they style it; so that it was at last quite laid aside. Whether Confession ought not, on the same Account, to be put down, I shall leave the Reader to judge; and only observe here, by the way, that had the Virtue and Efficacy, ascribed now to Confession, been known in those Times, Sinners needed not have delayed Baptism to the Point of Death, since their Sins had been no less effectually cancelled by Confession, than by Baptism.