The Council ofAlexandriastriveto heal these Divisions.
The Fathers of the Council not only approved of the Bishop ofCagliari’s Resolution, but appointedEusebiusofVercelli, andAsteriusofPetrainArabia, to assist him in so pious an Undertaking. What seemed chiefly to obstruct the so much wished for Union, was a great Attachment on one Side toMeletius, and an equal Obstinacy on the other, in refusing to acknowlege one preferred by theArians. The Confessors therefore assembled inAlexandria(for of Confessors alone that Assembly was composed) were of Opinion, that, if every other Remedy proved ineffectual, their Deputies should apply toMeletius; and, having persuaded him to resign his Dignity, chuse another in his room, equally acceptable to both Parties. They did not in the least doubt butMeletiuswould readily, nay, with great Joy, sacrifice his Dignity, and every other private View, to the public Tranquillity[1041]; so great was the Opinion they entertained of his Virtue. Had this wise Resolution taken place, it had, in all Likelihood, been attended with the desired Effect.|All Means of anAccommodation cutoff by the imprudentConduct of the BishopofCagliari.|But before the Deputies could reachAntioch,Lucifer, more commendable for Zeal than Prudence, had cut off all means of an Accommodation, by conferring, of his own Authority, the Episcopal Dignity on the PresbyterPaulinus, who was at the Head of theEustathians, and had with more Warmth than any other opposedMeletius, and those who adhered to him. He was assisted in that irregular Ordination by Two other Confessors[1042];viz.GorgoniusofGermanicia, andCymatiusofGabala, or rather ofPaltos[1043]. This Step he took to oblige theEustathians, when he found that they could by no means be induced to acknowlegeMeletius. But, instead of closing, he thereby widened, the Breach, theMeletiansdeclaring, that they would never abandon a Bishop of their own Party, to acknowlege one of another, chosen without their Consent, or even their Knowlege[1044]. This unhappy Division, thus settled and confirmed between the Two Orthodox Parties inAntioch, did not continue long confined to that particular Church, but soon extended to the Church universal; some owningMeletiusfor lawful Bishop ofAntioch, and othersPaulinus.Athanasiuscommunicated withPaulinus,and not withMeletius; and his Example was followed by the Bishops ofEgypt, ofCyprus, and all the Bishops in the West[1045]. On the other hand, all the Orthodox Bishops in the East, exceptAthanasius, and those I have mentioned, espoused, with great Warmth, the Cause ofMeletius[1046]. They all continued, however, notwithstanding this Disagreement, to communicate with each other, though with some Indifference and Coldness. The Ordination ofPaulinusgave Rise to another Schism; forEusebiusofVercelli, finding, on his Arrival atAntioch, all Hopes of an Accommodation cut off, and no room left for the Measures concerted and agreed to by the Council, immediately quitted the City, without communicating with either Party. This was condemning the Conduct ofLucifer; which he could not brook; and therefore, full of Resentment, he renounced the Communion ofEusebius, with whom he had hitherto lived in the greatest Intimacy, and suffered together with him a most painful Exile for the common Cause[1047].
St.BasilBishop ofCæsareaapplies toDamasus.
BasilBishop ofCæsareainCappadocia, one of the great Lights of the Church, left nothing unattempted, which he apprehended could any-ways contribute to the reuniting of the Orthodox among themselves, and putting an End to the present Schism. But, despairing at last of Success, and finding the Prelates in the East all warmly engaged in the Dispute, some in favour ofMeletius, and some ofPaulinus, he resolved to apply to the Bishop ofRome, who had not yet declared for either of the Competitors, his Thoughts being wholly employed in securing his Dignity against a Competitor at Home. He writ therefore toDamasus, intreating him to dispatch Deputies into the East, who, in Concert with the Prelates there, inclined to an Accommodation, might settle the proper Means of accomplishing so desirable a Work, and uniting in Charity those, who were already united in Faith. He added, that it was from his Zeal alone they expected Relief, from that Zeal which he had made so eminently appear on other Occasions; thatDionysius, one of his Predecessors, had afforded them a seasonable Assistance, when their Wants were less pressing, and their Condition not so deplorable; and therefore that there was no room left to doubt of his readily conforming to so glorious an Example[1048]. With this Letter, and another from the Bishops in the East, soliciting the Advice, Assistance, and Mediation oftheir Collegues in the West,Dorotheus, Deacon of the Church ofAntioch, was dispatched intoItaly: whence he returned in the Beginning of the following Year 372. with an Answer from the Bishops ofIllyricum,Italy, andGaul[1049].|The haughty ConductofDamasusresentedby St.Basil.|ButDamasusdid not condescend to return an Answer toBasil, or take the least Notice of his Letter; which haughty Conduct he justly resented, and in pretty sharp Terms, taxingDamasus, in one of his Letters[1050], with a Spirit of Pride and Vanity, which made him overlook other Bishops as below his Attention, and expect to be accosted by them with the meanest Flattery. But his thus disregarding the Request and Intreaties of the Bishop ofCæsarea, was not owing to his Pride alone. He was so little acquainted with the State of the Churches in the East, and what passed there, that he looked uponEusebiusBishop ofSamosata, andMeletius, with whomBasillived in great Intimacy, as rankArians, tho’ they both lived at that very time in Exile, having been driven from their Sees by theArians, on account of the Zeal, which they had, with an invincible Firmness, exerted in Defence of the Orthodox Faith[1051]. The Bishop ofRomemight, with very little Trouble, have been better informed; but his Mind, it seems, was so deeply engaged in worldly Affairs, and his Thoughts so taken up with State, Pomp, and Grandeur, that he was never at Leisure to mind those Matters, which justly claimed, and ought to have engrossed, his whole Attention. By him the Western Bishops were led into the same Mistake concerningEusebiusandMeletius; and hence the Backwardness they shewed to correspond withBasil, as if he designed to impose upon them, or was himself imposed upon by others.|St.Basilcomplains ofDamasus,and theWestern Bishops.|Of thisBasiljustly complained in a Letter he writ toEusebiusofSamosata.If the Wrath of God, says he,is in the End appeased, if Mercy takes place, what other Help do we stand in need of? But, if his Anger continues, what Relief will the Pride of the West afford us? They neither know the Truth, nor can they patiently bear it. They are ever prepossessed with idle Jealousies, ever swayed by groundless Surmises; and therefore act now the same Part they lately acted in the Case ofMarcellinus;that is, they quarrel with those, who inform them of the Truth, and, being left to themselves, they introduce and establish Heresies. As for my own Part, I had once some Thoughts of writing a private Letter to their Chief(that is, toDamasus),and, waving all Mention of Church Affairs, only tell him, that theyneither know what passes here, nor take the right Method to be informed; and that they ought not to oppress those who are already humbled by Affliction, nor mistake Pride for Dignity, since that Sin alone is capable of Setting a Man at Enmity with God[1052]. From these Words it is pretty plain, that the Notion of the Pope’s Infallibility was not yet broached, or at least was not yet known toBasil. The Bishop of the Metropolis of the Empire was deservedly looked upon, in regard of the Dignity of his See, as the Chief and Head of all the Western Bishops; and to him as such, not as an infallible and unerring Judge, the Eastern Bishops frequently applied in the Disputes, that happened to rise among them; so that all we can infer from their applying to him is, that his Authority bore a great Sway; which was owing to the Pre-eminence of his See, and not to any Power or Prerogative peculiar to him, and superior to others.
Damasustakes on himthe Office of Judge,being only chosenMediator.
It was long ereDamasuscould be brought to give any Attention to the Affairs of the East; and when he did, it was only to add Fewel to the Fire, which had lately begun to rage with great Violence. For, looking upon the Office of a bare Mediator, which alone had been offered him, as no-ways suitable to his Dignity, he arrogantly assumed that of a Judge, and not only acknowlegedPaulinusfor lawful Bishop ofAntioch, but, misled by false and groundless Reports, declaredMeletiusa Transgressor of the Canons, an Intruder, a Schismatic, and even an Heretic[1053]; thatMeletius, who had suffered Exile, and innumerable Hardships, in Defence of the Orthodox Faith, who was then revered all over the East, as a Man of extraordinary Sanctity, and is now honoured by the Church ofRomeas a Saint of the first Class.|His Conduct con-demned by St.Basil.|But his thus openly declaring in favour ofPaulinus, his treating in such a base and unworthy manner one of the most eminent Prelates in the East, served only to engage the Followers ofMeletiusmore warmly in his Cause; and the greatBasil, among the rest, who could not help censuring the Conduct ofDamasusas rash, partial, and injudicious: he even repented his having ever applied to him; for, in one of his Letters toEusebiusofSamosata, he expresses himself thus:The Saying ofDiomedesoccurs to my Mind; Intreaties are not to be used withAchilles, he is too haughty[1054];and truly the more you flatter haughty and insolent Men, the more haughty and insolent they become[1055]. As no Regard was had to theAuthority ofDamasus, and the Western Bishops, who, following his Example, acknowlegedPaulinus, and notMeletius, the Orthodox Bishops in the East not only continued divided among themselves, but a new Division arose between the Western Bishops, and those of the Party ofMeletius, at the Head of which wasBasilBishop ofCæsarea. But, of these unhappy Divisions, so far as the Bishops ofRomewere concerned in them, we shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.
New Disturbancesraised inRome,bythe Partisans ofUrsinus;
Damasuswas far more successful in suppressing the Schism ofUrsinus, which about this time was revived atRome. The EmperorValentinian, some time before, by a Rescript addressed toAmpeliusGovernor, andMaximinusVicar ofRome, had allowedUrsinus, and the leading Men of his Party, who had been confined with him toGaul, Liberty to live where they pleased, provided they kept out ofRome, and the Suburbicarian Provinces[1056]. This Indulgence shewn by the Emperor toUrsinus, encouraged his Followers inRometo declare openly in his Favour, and even to assemble apart from those who communicated withDamasus. But, being therein opposed by the Party ofDamasuswith their usual Violence, new Disturbances arose, and the City was upon the point of becoming again the Scene of a Civil War.|who are banished.|Simplicius, then Vicar ofRome, at the Request ofDamasus, gave the Emperor immediate Notice of the approaching Danger; and the Emperor, in Answer to his Letter, sent him a Rescript, commandingall those who, in Contempt of Religion, held or frequented unlawful Assemblies, to be banished an Hundred Miles fromRome,that their Obstinacy might hurt none but themselves[1057]. Thus for the present a Stop was put to the Disorders that had begun to reign in the City.
TheLuciferiansper-secuted byDamasus.
The two PresbytersMarcellinusandFaustinuspretend, that this Law was levelled at theUrsiniansalone, but was interpreted byDamasus, as comprehending theLuciferians, or the Followers ofLuciferBishop ofCagliari, who, refusing to communicate with the Bishops who signed the Confession ofRimini, and with all who communicated with them, had separate Assemblies atRome, and even a Bishop of their own, namedAurelius. ButDamasus, say they, using them, in virtue of the above-mentioned Law, with no less Cruelty than he did theUrsinians, they thenceforth assembled only in the Night, under a Presbyter, namedMacarius, of whose Sanity andAusterities they relate wonderful Things. But Night and Darkness could not protect them against the persecuting Spirit ofDamasus, whose Clerks, breaking one Night in upon them, while they were performing Divine Service in a private House, dispersed the Congregation, seizedMacarius, and dragging him along with them over the sharp Flints, by which he was cruelly bruised, and dangerously wounded in the Thigh, they kept him the remaining Part of the Night closely confined. Next Morning he was carried before the Judge, who, finding him inflexible in rejecting the Communion ofDamasus, condemned him to Exile; but the holy Presbyter, being arrived atOstia, died there of his Wounds[1058]. The same Authors add, thatDamasuscaused several Catholic Presbyters to be sent into Exile, and some Laymen; but thatAurelius, theLuciferianBishop, in spite of all his Efforts, continued inRometo the Hour of his Death[1059].
ApollinaristheHeresiarch. AnAccount of him.
About this Time, that is, in the Year 377. a great Council was held atRome, in which the famousApollinaris, Bishop ofLaodiceainSyria, was condemned and deposed with his Two DisciplesVitalisandTimotheus.Apollinariswas a Man of uncommon Parts, great Penetration, universal Knowlege; and had at first been so zealous a Defender of the Orthodox Faith, that he was looked upon by all, particularly byEpiphaniusandAthanasius, as one of the great Champions of that Cause[1060], and ranked byPhilostorgiuswithBasil, andGregory Nazianzen[1061]. He contracted a strict Friendship withAthanasius, when that Prelate passed throughLaodiceain 349. on his Return toEgypt, and ever after maintained a close Correspondence with him, on which Account he was excommunicated byGregorytheArianBishop of that City[1062]. When theAriansbegan to prevail in the East,Apollinariswas cruelly persecuted by the Men in Power of that Party, and at last driven into Exile[1063].Basilwrit several Letters to him, and in those he writ to others, often mentions him as a Person for whom he had the greatest Esteem[1064]. He is said to have excelled in the Knowlege of the Scriptures, which he publicly interpreted atAntioch, where he hadJeromamong the many Disciples, who flocked from all Parts to hear him[1065]. But he was equally versed in human Learning, especially in Poetry; and his Knowlege in that Branch of Literature proved very useful in the Time of the EmperorJulian. For that Prince havingby a Law debarred the Christians from perusing or studying the Pagan Authors,Apollinaris, to supply the want of those Writers, composed several Pieces in Imitation of them, and, among the rest, a Poem comprising the History of theJewsto the Time ofSaul, and divided into Twenty-four Books, which he distinguished by so many Letters of theGreekAlphabet, asHomerhad done[1066]. He likewise writ Comedies, Tragedies, Lyric Verses,&c.imitatingPindarin the latter, andMenanderandEuripidesin the Two former[1067].Sozomenthinks his Compositions fell in no respect short of the Works of the Antients; who, upon the Whole, says he, were far inferior to him, since they excelled, each in one Kind only, but he equally in all[1068]. The Tragedy, intituled,Christ suffering, which is to be found among the Works ofGregory Nazianzen, is by some ascribed toApollinaris; but that Piece does not at all answer the great OpinionSozomenseems to have entertained of him. His Paraphrase in Hexameter Verse on the Psalms, the only intire Work of his that has reached our Times, is an elegant, exact, and sublime Translation of them, greatly commended and admired by the best Judges[1069]. His Poetry proved very serviceable to him, when he began to broach his Heresy; for great Numbers of People, especially Women, embraced his Doctrine, being taken, and in a manner inchanted, with the Sweetness of his Verses; for he composed a great many Songs and Odes equally pious and elegant, adapted to all Occasions, and on all Occasions sung with suitable Airs by his Followers[1070]. To theseGregory Nazianzenno doubt alludes, where he speaks of the Psalms of theApollinarists, to which the Psalms ofDavidhad given place; of those sweet and so much admired Verses, which were looked upon by them as a Third Testament[1071]. It was chiefly to oppose the ProgressApollinarismade, by the insinuating Means of his Poetry, thatGregory Nazianzenapplied himself to the same Study. About the Year 362.Apollinariswas raised, in Consideration of his great Piety and Learning, to the See ofLaodiceainSyria, in which City he was born, according to the most probable Opinion, and had spent the greater Part of his Life.
The Doctrine held byApollinaris,and hisDisciples.
As for the Doctrine held byApollinaris, and his Followers, called from himApollinarists; they maintained at first, thatChristhad human Flesh, but not a human Soul, the Want of which was supplied,according to them, by the Divinity. But being afterwards convinced, that such a Doctrine was repugnant to several plain and express Passages of Scripture, they abandoned it in Part, and, distinguishing, with some Philosophers, the Soul, by which we live, from the Intelligence, by which we reason, they allowed the former in ourSaviour, but denied the latter; the Operations of which, said they, were performed by the Divinity[1072]. Thus they allowed him, says St.Austin, the Soul of a Beast, but denied him that of a Man[1073]. By means of this Doctrine they avoided the Absurdity with which they reproached the Catholics, admitting in Christ, as they falsly imagined, Two opposite and distinct Natures, without any Union or Subordination between them[1074]. The Catholics indeed acknowleged Two distinct and complete Natures in Christ; but at the same time maintained an Union between them, such an Union as was admitted by theApollinaristsbetween the Flesh and the Divinity. The latter upbraided the Catholics with adoring a Man, styling themAnthropolaters; and the Catholics reproached in their Turn theApollinaristswith adoring the Flesh, calling themSarcolaters[1075]. TheApollinaristsdistinguished themselves from the Catholics, by causing the following Words to be fixed on the Front of their Houses;We must not adore a Man that bears a God, but a God that bears Flesh. The Errors of theApollinaristswere not only concerning the Soul, but likewise the Body of our Saviour; for they maintained, that his Body, like other Bodies only in Appearance, was coeval with the Divinity, and of the same Substance with the eternal Wisdom[1076]. Hence it followed, by a natural Consequence, that the Body of our Saviour was impassible and immortal; that it was not taken of the VirginMary; that he was not born of her; that his Birth, Passion, Death, and Resurrection, were mere Illusions; or else, that the Divine Nature was passible: both which Absurdities were admitted by some of the Sects into which theApollinaristswere afterwards divided[1077].
Apollinarisnot knownnor suspected to bethe Author of theHeresy he broached.
This Doctrine was first heard of in 362. and condemned the same Year in the Council ofAlexandria. In 373. it began to make a great Noise in the Church; but it was not known even then by whom it had been broached: forApollinariswas so far from owning himselfthe Author of those Tenets, that, in one of his Letters toSerapionBishop ofThmuisinEgypt, which is still extant[1078], he expresses, in the strongest Terms, his Approbation of a Letter fromAthanasiustoEpictetusBishop ofCorinth, confuting the very Errors he held; and at the same time condemns the Folly of those, who maintained the Flesh to be consubstantial to the Divine Nature. In another Letter to the sameSerapion, he owns the Body of our Saviour to have been taken of the VirginMary, to have been formed in her Womb, and his Flesh to have been of the same Substance with ours; adding,And these are Truths not to be called in question[1079]. In a Third Letter he assuresSerapion, that he has ever denied in his Writings the Flesh of our Saviour to have descended from Heaven, or to be of the same Substance with the Divinity[1080].Apollinaris, by thus publicly declaring against the Doctrine, which at the same time he was privately propagating, eluded the Vigilance ofAthanasiushimself, who, in confuting his Errors, never mentions his Name, nor seems to have entertained the least Suspicion of him; nay, he recommendedTimotheus, a favourite Disciple of his, toDamasus, as a Person whose Orthodoxy was not to be questioned; and as such he was received, not only by the Bishop ofRome, but by all the Western Bishops, of whom he obtained Letters, on his Return, directed toApollinaris, as to a Bishop of the Catholic Communion[1081].
His Errors con-demned in a CouncilatRome.
In the Year 374. or 375.Damasusconvened a great Council atRome, in which the Errors ofApollinariswere condemned; but neither was he nor any other named as the Broacher or Author of that Doctrine.|Damasusimposedupon byVitalisoneof his Disciples.|The very Year thatDamasuscondemned the Doctrine ofApollinaris, he was deceived and over-reached by one of the Disciples of that Heresiarch, namedVitalis. He was a Presbyter of the Church ofAntioch, and of the Communion ofMeletius, by whom he had been ordained; but afterwards, renouncing his Communion, he joinedApollinaris, and, being in high Esteem with the People, drew great Numbers over with him to that Side. Of these, called from himVitalians,Apollinarissome Years after appointed him Bishop, adding thereby a Fourth Party to the Three that already divided the Church ofAntioch,viz.theArians,Paulinians, andMeletians[1082]. Before he threw off the Mask, and publicly maintained the Tenets ofApollinaris, he strove to be admitted with his Followers to the CommunionofPaulinusofAntioch, and ofDamasus; and with this View he undertook a Journey toRomein the Year 375. As he had been suspected, and even accused, of holding the Doctrine ofApollinaris,Damasusrequired 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 forPaulinusofAntioch, and sent him back to be admitted by that Bishop to the Communion of the Church[1083]. ButDamasussoon after, either upon his own Reflection, or at the Suggestion of others, apprehending himself imposed upon, writ another Letter toPaulinus, by the PresbyterPetronius, and afterwards a Third, whichHolsteniushas inserted at Length in hisRoman Collection[1084]. Together with this LetterDamasussent toPaulinusa 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 ofNice[1085]. To this Piece the Fathers of the Council ofChalcedonno doubt allude, in commendingDamasusfor pointing out, in his Letters toPaulinus, the Rules all Catholics ought to be guided by in reasoning of the Mystery of the Incarnation[1086]. WhatBaroniusobserves here is true,viz.thatVitalis, by the same ambiguous Confession of Faith, imposed uponGregory Nazianzen, who received theApollinaristsas Brethren, and not as Enemies[1087]. He adds,And no Wonder thatVitalisimposed uponDamasus,since by the same Confession he imposed uponGregory Nazianzen: he ought rather to have said,No Wonder that he imposed uponGregory,who did not pretend to Infallibility, since he imposed uponDamasus,who was infallible. AsVitalisrefused to sign the Confession sent byDamasus,Paulinuswould not admit him to his Communion; upon which he pulled off the Mask, publicly renounced the Communion both ofDamasusandPaulinus, and, bidding Defiance to the Canons, accepted the Title and Dignity of Bishop ofAntioch, offered him byApollinaris.|Apollinarisopenly de-clares against theChurch.|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, byApollinaris: 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]. WhenEpiphaniuswrit against theApollinarists, he well knewApollinaristo 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].
A great Schism in theChurch.
The Schism, which the establishing of a new Bishop occasioned in the Church ofAntioch, was not confined to that alone, but extended to most other Churches, over whichApollinarisappointed 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 VirginMary, 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 VirginMary[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].|Basilrecurs to theWestern Bishops;|Basiltherefore, 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 PresbytersDorotheusandSanctissimuswith Letters toDamasus, and the other Western Bishops, intreating them to condemnwithout Delay the Doctrine ofApollinaris, andApollinarishimself, since he had at last openly declared against the Church, and owned himself the Author of the new Sect[1096].|who condemn theDoctrine ofApol-linaris,and deposehim withVitelisandTimotheus.|In Compliance with this Request, a great Council was convened atRomethe following Year 378. in whichApollinariswas not only condemned with great Solemnity, but deposed, with his Two favourite Disciples,VitalisandTimotheus; the former Bishop of theApollinaristsatAntioch, and the latter atBerytusinPhœnicia[1097]. By the same Council it was defined, thatJesuswas 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].Vitalishad deceivedDamasus, as I have observed above, by a Confession of Faith, in which, under equivocal Terms, he had artfully concealed his Heresy. The Bishop ofRometherefore, now undeceived, caused the Confession he had formerly approved of to be anathematized by the Council, together with its Author, exerting himself, saysGregory 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 Nazianzentherefore 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.
A Mistake ofBaronius.
Baroniusis certainly mistaken, and so wasRuffinus[1100], whom he follows, in asserting the Heresy ofApollinaristo have been first condemned by the Council ofRome, since it is manifest, that the Doctrine of that Heresiarch had been condemned long before byAthanasius,Basil, andEpiphanius, in their Writings, and by the Council held atAlexandriain 362. ButRuffinusprobably meant no more, than that those Errors were first condemned by the Council ofRome, under the Name, and together with the Person, ofApollinaris; which is undeniable.|Another Mistake ofthe same Writer.|I cannot help observing here another Mistake ofBaronius, pretending thatDamasus(for whatever was done by the Council is by him ascribed toDamasusalone) in condemningApollinariscondemned all the Errors he held; and consequently the Opinion of theMillenarians, holding thatChristwas to return upon the Earth, and reign over the Faithful a Thousand Years before the End of the World.|The Doctrine of theMillenariansheld bythe greatest Men inthe Church.|This Opinion was first broached about the Year 118. byPapiasBishop ofHierapolis, a Man of great Piety, honoured by the Church ofRomeas a Saint[1101]. He declares, in the few Fragments of his Works, which have been conveyed to us byEusebius[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 theRevelations[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, byIrenæus, andJustinthe Martyr. And yet such a Doctrine is now rank Heresy in the Church ofRome. 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?|How little Tradition tobe 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?Papiasdeclares, 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 atRome, Tradition, and the Authority ofIrenæus(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 toApollinaris: It is very certain, that he held and taught the Doctrine of theMillenarians; but it is no less certain, that such a Doctrine was not condemned, asBaroniuspretends[1105], by the Council ofRomein 378. since many eminent Men in the Church held it, andSulpitius Severusamong the rest, after that Council, without being deemed Heretics on that score.|TheApollinaristscon-demned by severalCouncils.|The Sentence pronounced againstApollinaris, and his Disciples, by the Council ofRome, was confirmed by a Council held the same Year atAlexandria[1106], by an Oecumenical Council assembled atConstantinoplein 381. and by the Council ofAntiochin 379[1107]. However, theApollinarists, thoughthus condemned and deposed by all the Councils of the East and West, as we read inGregory Nazianzen[1108], still kept their Ground, till Recourse was had to the Secular Power.|Penal Laws enactedagainst them.|For the EmperorTheodosius, at the Request ofNectariusBishop ofConstantinople, enacted a Law, dated the Tenth ofMarch388. forbidding theApollinariststo 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], theApollinaristswere 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 byTheodotus[1111], who governed the Church ofAntioch, 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 disguisedApollinarists, that theEutychianHeresy, and that of theMonothelites, of whom I shall speak hereafter, owed their Birth[1113]. Hence the EmperorMarcian, by an Edict in 455. declared theEutychiansto beApollinarists, and consequently liable to the same Penalties[1114]. As forApollinarishimself, 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.
New Disturbancesraised byUrsinus.
WhileDamasus, and the other Western Bishops, were wholly intent upon suppressing the Heresy ofApollinaris, and restoring the Eastern Churches to their former Tranquillity, the AntipopeUrsinus, laying hold of that Opportunity, arrived privately atMilan, and there joined theArians, upon their promising to support him with the whole Power of their Party[1116]. ButAmbrose, 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 EmperorGratian, who soon after orderedUrsinusto quitItaly, and confined him toCologne[1117]. During his Exile his Partisans were not idle; they found the EmperorGratian, who in 375. had succeeded his FatherValentinianI. warmly engaged in favour ofDamasus: they well knew, that so long as he continued in that Disposition, it would be in vain to solicit the Return ofUrsinus, or to put up any Petition in his Behalf.|Damasusfalsly ac-cused, but cleared bythe Emperor.|In order therefore to estrange the Mind of the Emperor fromDamasus, they suborned aJew, namedIsaac, 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 ofSpain[1118].
This Attempt on the Reputation ofDamasuswas not the only Thing that gave him great Uneasiness at this time. The EmperorValentinianhad transferred, as I have related above, the Power of judging Bishops, such at least as were concerned in the Schism ofUrsinus, from the Civil Magistrate to the Bishop ofRome.|Some Bishops, de-posed byDamasus,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 ofParma, andFlorentiusBishop ofPuzzuolo, who, for their Attachment toUrsinus, had been both deposed byDamasus, and other Bishops assembled atRome[1119]. TheDonatiststoo, notwithstanding the severe Laws enacted against them by several Emperors, had got Footing inItaly, and inRomeitself, where they were known by the Names ofMontenenses, andRupenses, 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 fromAfrica, or ordained by Bishops sent from thence for that Purpose.Claudian, who governed them at this time, was their Fifth Bishop ofRome[1121]. The Emperor ordered him to be sent back toAfrica, whence he came. But though he had been several times imprisoned, in order to oblige him by that means to return, he could not evenso be prevailed upon to abandon his Flock; but continued atRome, perverting many there, and rebaptizing all he could pervert[1122].|TheItalianBishopsrecur to the Emperor.|To put a Stop to these Evils, the Bishops ofItaly, assembling atRome, had recourse to the EmperorGratian, 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 ofRome, 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 ofRome, 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 atRome, attempted to extend the Authority of the Bishop ofRome, far beyond the Bounds to which the Emperors and Canons had confined it.|Their letter to him.|For, in their Letter toGratian, 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 ofRome, 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 ofItaly, or his Vicar, to repair toRome, 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 ofRome, or to a Council of Fifteen neighbouring Bishops; but, if the Accused was himself a Metropolitan, he should either repair toRome, or appear before such Judges as the Bishop ofRomeshould appoint; and, when thus condemned, submit to the Sentence[1123].|What they demand inparticular for theBishop ofRome.|In Behalf of the Bishop ofRomein particular they begged, in the same Letter, that, as hewas 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 thePower of examining Facts and Witnesses, but not the Authority of pronouncing Sentence[1124].|The Emperor’sAnswer.|What Answer the Emperor returned to the Council, we know not; but, in a Rescript, addressed to the VicarAquilinus, 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 toSimplicius, which I have mentioned above; commands the Bishop ofParma,FlorentiusofPuzzuolo, andClaudiantheDonatist, 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 fromRome: he grants all the Council had desired, with respect to the judging of Bishops; but requires the Bishop ofRometo 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 ofRomein particular.