N29.Baroniuspretends it was on this Occasion thatTheodosiusenacted the Law, dated fromVeronathe 3d ofSeptemberof the present Year 390. commanding all, who professed a monastic Life, to quit the Cities, and retire, pursuant to their Profession, into the Deserts[1]. But that it was made on a very different Occasion, it will fall in my way to shew hereafter.1. Bar. ad ann. 390. n. 47, 48.
N29.Baroniuspretends it was on this Occasion thatTheodosiusenacted the Law, dated fromVeronathe 3d ofSeptemberof the present Year 390. commanding all, who professed a monastic Life, to quit the Cities, and retire, pursuant to their Profession, into the Deserts[1]. But that it was made on a very different Occasion, it will fall in my way to shew hereafter.
N29.Baroniuspretends it was on this Occasion thatTheodosiusenacted the Law, dated fromVeronathe 3d ofSeptemberof the present Year 390. commanding all, who professed a monastic Life, to quit the Cities, and retire, pursuant to their Profession, into the Deserts[1]. But that it was made on a very different Occasion, it will fall in my way to shew hereafter.
1. Bar. ad ann. 390. n. 47, 48.
1. Bar. ad ann. 390. n. 47, 48.
1. Bar. ad ann. 390. n. 47, 48.
The Letter ofSyriciuswas answered byAmbrose, and signed by him, and several other Bishops, who were still atMilan, where they had met to condemnIthacius, and his Adherents, for having been accessary to the Death ofPriscillian. In their Answer they commend the Pastoral Vigilance ofSyricius, and, having briefly declared their Opinion against the other Tenets ofJovinian, dwell on what he had advanced against the Virginity of the VirginMary. But they seem to have mistaken his Meaning, in charging him withManicheism, and supposing him to have held, that our Saviour did not assume a real Body: for he held no such Doctrine, but only charged the Catholics with it, asAustintells us in express Terms[1287]. It is surprising, that such a Question should have thus employed the Thoughts and Attention of so many venerable Prelates, and created such Feuds and Animosities in the Church. Both Parties agreed, that the VirginMaryhad brought forth her Son without the Co-operation or Intercourse of Man; and in that Sense alone she is styled a Virgin.
Law enacted againstJovinian,and his Followers.
FromMilan Jovinianreturned to the Neighbourhood ofRome, where his Followers continued to assemble, under his Direction, till the Year 398. when the EmperorHonorius, giving Ear to the Complaints of the neighbouring Bishops, enacted a Law, commanding him and his Accomplices to be beaten with Whips armed with Lead, and transported into different Islands[1288].Jovinianhimself was confined to the Isle ofBoas, on the Coast ofDalmatia[1289], where he gave up the Ghost, about the Year 406. in the Midst of the Mirth and Jollityof a Banquet, saysJerom, adding that he was revived inVigilantius, asEuphorbuswas formerly inPythagoras[1290]. Some ofJerom’s Friends inRomesent him the Book, whichJovinianhad composed to explain and defend his Doctrine, begging him to confute it. He readily complied with their Request, and ended his Work in the Year 392. It consisted of Two Books, but met with a very indifferent Reception atRome. For though he declared from the Beginning, that it was not his Intention to condemn Marriage, and that he had an utter Abhorrence to the Errors ofMarcion, ofTatian, and theManichees, holding Marriage to be sinful; yet the disparaging Terms he made use of in speaking of Marriage, gave great Offence, even to those who professed Continency[N30].
N30. This inducedPammachiusto purchase all the Copies of it he could get, and send them back to the Author, acquainting him in a friendly manner with what had chiefly given Offence[1]. ThisJeromtook as a Token of the most sincere Friendship; and therefore, not satisfied with acknowleging the Obligation he had laid on him, and commending his Conduct as worthy of his great Prudence, and answerable to the Affection which it was owing to, he immediately set about the Apology whichPammachiushad advised him to write, and inscribed it to him[2].1. Ex Ruff. p. 231. & ep. 52.2. Hier. ep. 51, 52.
N30. This inducedPammachiusto purchase all the Copies of it he could get, and send them back to the Author, acquainting him in a friendly manner with what had chiefly given Offence[1]. ThisJeromtook as a Token of the most sincere Friendship; and therefore, not satisfied with acknowleging the Obligation he had laid on him, and commending his Conduct as worthy of his great Prudence, and answerable to the Affection which it was owing to, he immediately set about the Apology whichPammachiushad advised him to write, and inscribed it to him[2].
N30. This inducedPammachiusto purchase all the Copies of it he could get, and send them back to the Author, acquainting him in a friendly manner with what had chiefly given Offence[1]. ThisJeromtook as a Token of the most sincere Friendship; and therefore, not satisfied with acknowleging the Obligation he had laid on him, and commending his Conduct as worthy of his great Prudence, and answerable to the Affection which it was owing to, he immediately set about the Apology whichPammachiushad advised him to write, and inscribed it to him[2].
1. Ex Ruff. p. 231. & ep. 52.
1. Ex Ruff. p. 231. & ep. 52.
1. Ex Ruff. p. 231. & ep. 52.
2. Hier. ep. 51, 52.
2. Hier. ep. 51, 52.
2. Hier. ep. 51, 52.
Notwithstanding the Severity of the Law I have mentioned above, some still continued to hold, and privately to propagate, the Doctrine ofJovinian, which inducedAustinto compose his Treatise on the Advantages of Marriage and Virginity; a Performance far more judicious than that ofJerom, who has taken great Pains to disparage and cry down Marriage, the better to extol Virginity, as if he could not commend the one without condemning the other.Austin, on the contrary, begins his Work with great Encomiums on Matrimony, to which, however commendable, in the End he prefers Virginity. But after all, the Reasons alleged by the one as well as the other, are, if duly weighed, but empty and unconclusive Speculations.
New Disturbances in the Church ofAntioch.
The following Year, 391. a great Council was convened atCapua, chiefly with a View to restore Peace to the Church ofAntioch, and put an End to the Schism, which had long prevailed there, and had occasioned almost an intire Separation between the East and the West, as I have related elsewhere[1291].Paulinus, who was acknowleged for lawful Bishop of that City by Part of the Catholics there, by the Bishops ofEgypt,Arabia,Cyprus, by the Bishop ofRome, and allthe Western Bishops, died about the Year 388[1292]. But the unhappy Division, which had reigned during his Life, continued to reign even after his Death. ForPaulinus, by a most unaccountable Conduct, and a most notorious and open Violation of the Canons, took upon him not only to appoint himself a Successor before he died, but to ordain him alone. The Person whom he thus both named and ordained, was oneEvagrius, a Presbyter, with whom he had always lived in close Friendship[1293]; and who on that Account was, notwithstanding his illegal Election and Ordination, acknowleged byPaulinus’s Party for Bishop ofAntioch.Theodoretwrites, that the Bishop ofRome, with the other Western Bishops, and those ofEgypt, embraced his Communion[1294]. ButAmbroseassures us, that the Bishops ofEgyptstood neuter, suspending all Communication both withEvagrius, and his CompetitorFlavianus; and speaks in such manner of both, as gives us room to suppose that he himself communicated with neither.Both rely more on the Invalidity of their Competitor’s Ordination, says he,than on the Validity of their own. It is therefore with Reason thatFlavianusdeclines a fair Tryal, and not without Reason thatEvagriusdoes not demand one[1295]. The Example ofAmbrosewas, in all Likelihood, followed by the Bishop ofRome, and the other Western Bishops; orAmbrose, perhaps, conformed to theirs[N31].
N31. A modern Writer will have it by all means, thatSyriciuscommunicated withEvagrius[1], because he had always opposedFlavianus, as his Predecessors had done. But surely from his espousing the Cause ofPaulinus, who was legally chosen, againstFlavianus, whose Election was contested, we cannot well conclude, that, in Opposition to him, he likewise took the Part of one whose Election was indisputably illegal. It is far more probable, that he communicated with neither.1. M. Launoy, ep. 7. p. 10.
N31. A modern Writer will have it by all means, thatSyriciuscommunicated withEvagrius[1], because he had always opposedFlavianus, as his Predecessors had done. But surely from his espousing the Cause ofPaulinus, who was legally chosen, againstFlavianus, whose Election was contested, we cannot well conclude, that, in Opposition to him, he likewise took the Part of one whose Election was indisputably illegal. It is far more probable, that he communicated with neither.
N31. A modern Writer will have it by all means, thatSyriciuscommunicated withEvagrius[1], because he had always opposedFlavianus, as his Predecessors had done. But surely from his espousing the Cause ofPaulinus, who was legally chosen, againstFlavianus, whose Election was contested, we cannot well conclude, that, in Opposition to him, he likewise took the Part of one whose Election was indisputably illegal. It is far more probable, that he communicated with neither.
1. M. Launoy, ep. 7. p. 10.
1. M. Launoy, ep. 7. p. 10.
All the Bishops ofIllyricum, upon the Death ofPaulinus, admittedFlavianus, and notEvagrius, to their Communion, if we may depend uponTheodoret[1296]. As this new Election occasioned unheard-of Disturbances in the Church ofAntioch, as the Division still continued between the East and the West, the Western Bishops had frequent Recourse to the EmperorTheodosius, during the Three Years he passed in the West, pressing him to oblige, by his Imperial Authority, bothFlavianusandEvagriusto submit their Cause to the Judgment of aCouncil, that should be held inItaly.Theodosiusconsented at last to their Request, namedCapuafor the Place where the Council should meet, and took upon him to obligeFlavianusto repair thither at the Time appointed. Soon after, that is, about the 14th ofJuly391. he leftItaly, where he had continued ever since the Year 388. settling youngValentinianon the Throne, and set out forConstantinople, into which City he made his Entry on the 10th ofNovember. Before his Departure fromItalyhe had writ toFlavianus, commanding him to repair toConstantinople, and wait his Arrival there.Flavianusreadily complied with the Emperor’s Orders, and appeared at Court the Day after his Arrival. But when the Prince acquainted him with the Promise he had made to the Western Bishops, and desired him to prepare for the Journey, which he did in a very obliging Manner,Flavianusrepresented to him the Inconveniences, attending so long a Journey at that Season of the Year, and begged he would give him Leave to put it off to the Spring, when he would not fail to obey his Orders. The Emperor, seeing him stricken in Years, thought the Excuse just and reasonable; and therefore, out of Compassion and Good nature, allowed him for the present to return to his See[1297]. Thus didFlavianus, by the Indulgence of the Emperor, avoid the Judgment of the Western Bishops, who wisely forbore meddling with so nice a Subject in his Absence, though his Competitor was present.
The Council ofCapua.
The Council ofCapuamet in the Latter-end of the Year 391. and was it seems, a very numerous Assembly, since it is styled, in the Canons of the Church ofAfrica,a full Council[1298]. But whether it was composed of all the Western Bishops, or only of the Bishops ofItaly, is uncertain, and cannot be determined from the Words ofAmbrose,We all met[1299], which may be equally understood of both. As the Acts of this Council have not reached our Times, we do not even know who presided at it, some conferring that Honour onAmbrose[1300], some onSyricius[1301], and some on both[1302]. ThatSyriciuspresided, or even assisted, in Person, is not at all probable; for in the Times I am now writing of, the Bishops ofRomehad begun to affect Grandeur; and, under Pretence that their Presence was necessary in the great Metropolis of the Empire, to assist or preside in Councils held elsewhere by their Deputies or Legates, as they are now styled.ThatSyriciusassisted, by his Deputies, at the Council ofCapua, I do not doubt, since the Council was composed, at least, of all the Bishops ofItaly, andSyriciusowned himself bound by their Decrees[1303]. But thatAmbrosepresided, seems undeniable, since by him, and him alone, the Whole was conducted and managed[N32].
N32.Baronius, without the least Foundation in History, supposesAmbroseto have acted as the Pope’s Legate. But it is the Custom of that Writer to vest every eminent and distinguished Prelate with the Legatine Dignity on such Occasions, and then pass upon his Readers the Deference and Regard shewn to their Merit for a Tribute paid to the Bishops ofRome.
N32.Baronius, without the least Foundation in History, supposesAmbroseto have acted as the Pope’s Legate. But it is the Custom of that Writer to vest every eminent and distinguished Prelate with the Legatine Dignity on such Occasions, and then pass upon his Readers the Deference and Regard shewn to their Merit for a Tribute paid to the Bishops ofRome.
N32.Baronius, without the least Foundation in History, supposesAmbroseto have acted as the Pope’s Legate. But it is the Custom of that Writer to vest every eminent and distinguished Prelate with the Legatine Dignity on such Occasions, and then pass upon his Readers the Deference and Regard shewn to their Merit for a Tribute paid to the Bishops ofRome.
The Council avoided deciding, and even taking into Consideration, the Affair ofFlavianusandEvagrius, in the Absence of the former, though they had chiefly met for that Purpose. However, to re-establish the Tranquillity of the Church, they agreed to renew their Correspondence with, and grant their Communion to, all the Catholic Bishops of the East.|The Difference be-tween the Two Com-petitors to the SeeofAntiochrefered,by the Council, tothe Bishops ofEgypt.|As for the Difference between the Two Competitors for the See ofAntioch, they committed the discussing and deciding it toTheophylusBishop ofAlexandria, and the other Bishops ofEgypt, as the most proper Judges, since they communicated with neither, and therefore could not be suspected to favour the one more than the other[1304]. The Bishop ofAlexandriaimmediately acquaintedFlavianuswith the Resolution of the Council, summoning him, at the same time, to appear, in Compliance therewith, before the Bishops ofEgypt, who were soon to assemble, in order to put the Decree of that venerable Assembly in Execution.|Flavianusrefuses tocomply with the De-cree of the Council.|ButFlavianus, instead of obeying the Summons, and paying the Regard that was thought due to the Decree of so numerous a Council, refused to stir fromAntioch, pleading a Rescript, which he had extorted fromTheodosius, commanding the Western Bishops to repair into the East, and there examine the Affair in a new Council. ThisTheophylusdid not expect, and therefore being at a Loss how to conduct himself on such an Emergency, he gaveAmbroseimmediate Notice of the Summons he had sent, and the Answer he had received.Ambrosehad nothing so much at Heart as to restore Peace and Tranquillity to the Church ofAntioch; and from the Regard which the Council had shewn toFlavianus, as well as the Impartiality with which they had acted with respect to both, he had promised himself Success in so pious an Undertaking. It was therefore with the utmostConcern that he saw his Endeavours thus unexpectedly defeated, and all Hopes of accomplishing what he had undertaken, vanish at once. He had but too much Reason to resent such an affronting Conduct, which did not so much affect the Council in general, as him in particular, since it was at his Motion, that the Council took the above-mentioned Resolution. That, however, did not tempt him to depart from the Neutrality he had embraced, and declare forEvagrius: he still maintained the same Impartiality, and refused to communicate with either.|Ambrose’s Mod-eration and Impartiality.|In his Answer toTheophylus, he desires him, without betraying the least Emotion of Anger or Resentment, to summonFlavianusonce more, directing him, at the same time, to communicate with all the Catholic Bishops of the East, pursuant to the Decree of the Council, whether he complied with this Second Summons or no; and to acquaint the Bishop ofRomewith what he had done, that, the Whole being approved by that Church, as he did not question but it would, the whole Church might be happily of one Mind, and reap the Fruit of his Labour[1305].
Syriciuswrites to the Emperor.
Syricius, and in all LikelihoodAmbrosetoo, wrote toTheodosius, pressing him to sendFlavianustoRome[N33], if he did not approve of his being judged by the Bishop ofAlexandria.Syricius, in his Letter, tells the Emperor, that he well knew how to deal with Tyrants, who revolted from him, and how to chastise them; but suffered those to go unpunished, who despised the Laws ofChrist[1306][N34].
N33. That is, into the West; for thusTheodoretconstantly expresses the West.N34.Theodorettells us, thatDamasus,Syricius, andAnastasiusthe Successor ofSyricius, wrote to the EmperorTheodosiusabout the Dispute betweenFlavianusandEvagrius. A gross Mistake! sinceDamasuswas dead long before the Election ofEvagrius, andTheodosiusbefore that ofAnastasius.
N33. That is, into the West; for thusTheodoretconstantly expresses the West.
N33. That is, into the West; for thusTheodoretconstantly expresses the West.
N34.Theodorettells us, thatDamasus,Syricius, andAnastasiusthe Successor ofSyricius, wrote to the EmperorTheodosiusabout the Dispute betweenFlavianusandEvagrius. A gross Mistake! sinceDamasuswas dead long before the Election ofEvagrius, andTheodosiusbefore that ofAnastasius.
N34.Theodorettells us, thatDamasus,Syricius, andAnastasiusthe Successor ofSyricius, wrote to the EmperorTheodosiusabout the Dispute betweenFlavianusandEvagrius. A gross Mistake! sinceDamasuswas dead long before the Election ofEvagrius, andTheodosiusbefore that ofAnastasius.
Theodosius, in Compliance with the Request ofSyricius, made in the Name of all the Western Bishops, sent anew forFlavianus, and told him, that he must, by all means, either repair toRome, or submit his Cause to the Judgment of the Bishops ofEgypt.|Flavianusready toresign his Dignity,rather than to submitto the Judgment of theEgyptianor WesternBishops.|But he was determined, saysTheodoret, to relinquish his Dignity rather than to suffer the Western Bishops, or those ofEgypt, to examine and decide whether he had a Right to it or no; and, by that means, to hold it of them. He therefore answered the Emperor, with great Calmness and Respect, in the following Terms:Sir, if my Faith is not thought Orthodox, or my Conduct not worthy of a Catholic Bishop,I am willing to be judged by those who accuse me, and ready to submit to the Sentence they shall pronounce. But, if all this Noise is made merely for the sake of my Dignity, from this Moment I resign every Preferment I enjoy in the Church, to those whom nothing but Preferment can silence. You may therefore dispose of the See ofAntioch,now vacant, to whom you please.Theodosius, pleased with this Answer, and thinkingFlavianus, the more ready he was to give up his Dignity, the more worthy to hold it, ordered him to return toAntioch, and resume the Government of his Church; nor did he ever afterwards give the least Attention to the pressing and repeated Instances ofSyricius, and his Collegues in the West[1307].
Flavianusdid notacknowlege inSyr-iciusthe Powerclaimed by his Suc-cessors.
From the whole Conduct ofFlavianusit is manifest, that he did not acknowlege any extraordinary Power inSyricius, much less that Power, which has been claimed by his Successors, of disposing, by Divine Right, of all Bishopricks, of placing and displacing Bishops, at Pleasure, throughout the Christian World. This Power, though evidently usurped, and utterly unknown even in the End of the Fourth Century, Bishops are now obliged to own in their very Titles, styling themselves Bishops of such a Place,by the Grace of God, and of the Apostolic See.Flavianuswas content withthe Grace of God; and, as for theGrace of the Apostolic See, he gave himself no Trouble about it. And yetFlavianusis honoured by the Church ofRomeas a Saint; and his Festival kept on the 26th ofSeptember. And truly, if we may depend upon the Testimony of the most authentic and unexceptionable Writers of those Times, we shall hardly find one in theRomanCalendar more worthy of that Honour. The famousJohn Chrysostom, who was one of his Presbyters before his Promotion to the See ofConstantinople, has filled his Homilies with the Praises ofthe great Flavianus, as he styles him. His distinguished Merit, eminent Virtues, and extraordinary Piety, seem to have beenChrysostom’s favourite Topic; and these Encomiums he bestowed upon him, while he was still alive. After his Death he was distinguished by the Council ofChalcedon, with the Title ofthe blessed Flavianus[1308]; and by that of the East, held underJohnofAntioch, ranked among the brightest Luminaries, the most illustrious Prelates, and the greatest Saints of the Church[1309].Theodoretnever names him without adding to his Name some Epithet, denoting his extraordinary Merit, such asthe great, the holy, the admirableFlavianus. As therefore no room is left to doubt of his extraordinary Piety and Merit, we may well conclude, from his absolutely refusing to submit his Cause to the Judgment ofSyricius, and the other Bishops of the West, that he did not acknowlege either in him or them a Power to judge him. This Refusal did not, in the Eyes ofChrysostom, and other great Men, detract in the least from his Merit, nor lessen the high Opinion they entertained of his Sanctity. A plain Indication that they did not think his Conduct reprehensible, and consequently did not acknowlege, more than he, that Power which is now one main Article of theRoman Catholic Creed.
The Communionbetween the East andthe West renewed.
AsFlavianusdeclined the Judgment of theWesternas well as theEgyptianBishops, and the Emperor gave no farther Ear to their Remonstrances and Complaints, the Resolution taken by the Council ofCapuawas put in Execution; which was, to renew the Communion and good Understanding between the East and the West, and abandon the Church ofAntiochto its Schism, which, after so many promising Remedies applied in vain, began now to be deemed an incurable Evil[1310].
Bonosusaccusedbefore the Council.
The Council ofCapua, after the above-mentioned Resolution concerning the Difference betweenFlavianusandEvagrius, heard a Charge brought by some Bishops againstBonosus, Bishop ofNaissusinDacia, according to some, or, as others will have it, ofSardica, the Metropolis of that Province. He was accused of a Crime against the Canons of the Church and the Law of God[1311], and likewise of Heresy.|His Errors.|The Crime is not specified; but as for the Heresy, I gather fromAustin, that he held the Son to be inferior to the Father[1312]; and fromAmbrose, that he taught, the VirginMaryhad had other Children after the Birth ofChrist[1313].|The judging of hisCause committed bythe Council to theneighbouring Bish-ops, who condemn him.|He had, it seems, been condemned byDamasus, who died in 384[1314]. but still held his See, and was not driven from it, even by the Council ofCapua. For the Fathers of that Assembly committed the hearing and judging of his Cause to the Bishops in his Neighbourhood, chiefly to those ofMacedon, under their MetropolitanAnysius, Bishop ofThessalonica[1315]. The neighbouring Bishops assembled, pursuant to the Order of the Council; andBonosus, as well as his Accusers, appearing before them, they found the Charge so well supported, that they immediately forbid him to enter his Church; which was suspending himfrom all Episcopal Functions.Bonosuscomplained loudly of this Sentence, and even advised with the Bishop ofMilan, whether he might not, in Defiance of a Judgment so rash and immature, still exercise the Functions of his Office, and, in case of Opposition, repel Force with Force.Ambroseexhorted him, in the strongest Terms, to acquiesce to the Sentence, to conduct himself with the Prudence, Temper, and Moderation, that became a Bishop; and, above all, not to undertake any thing that might be interpreted as a Contempt of the Authority of his Judges, since he could not contemn their Authority, without contemning at the same time that of the Council, which had appointed them[1316]. In the mean time the Bishops ofMacedon, having more leisurely examined the Cause ofBonosus, wrote toSyricius, referring the Decision to him, and declaring theirAbhorrence of the detestable Error, that the VirginMaryhad other Children besides Christ. If this was an Error, which may well be doubted, it was one that did no-way affect the Christian Faith, and therefore did not deserve such a severe Condemnation: but as it thwarted the favourable Opinions then entertained in the Church concerning Virginity, it is no Wonder that it should meet with so rough a Treatment[N35].
N35. That the VirginMaryhad other Children besides Christ, was not a new Opinion. It was taught byHelvidiusin 383. and long before him byTertullian, asJeromhimself is forced to own in the Treatise which he wrote againstHelvidius: nay, in the Time ofEpiphanius, who flourished from the Year 366. to 403. that Opinion universally prevailed inArabia, as appears from the Letter which he wrote in Confutation of it, and addressed to all the Christians dwelling inArabia, from the Presbyters down to the Catechumens. In that Letter he styles those who denied the perpetual Virginity of the VirginMary,Antidicomarianites; and ranks them, though their Opinion had not yet been condemned by the Church, sometimes among the Heretics, and sometimes among the Schismatics. But in the same Letter he censures, with no less Severity, those who adored her, styling the Worship that was paid heran idolatrous Heresy; which was taxing those who paid it both with Heresy and Idolatry; and from neither will the unmeaning Terms ofLatria,Dulia,Hyperdulia, &c. invented and used by the Schoolmen to express different Degrees of Worship, excuse the present Practice of the Church ofRome.Epiphaniuswas unacquainted with such Terms, as well as with the different Degrees of Worship answering them; and therefore called the Meeting of certain Women, on a stated Day, to offer a Cake to the VirginMary, and eat it together in her Honour (whence they had the Name ofCollyridians),a Folly repugnant to Religion, an Illusion of the Devil, a robbing God of the Honour that was due to him, an idolatrous Heresy[1]. These Women came from the Northern Provinces ofScythiaintoThrace, probably about the Year 372. whenAthanaricKing of theGothsdrove all the Christians out of his Dominions. FromThracethey wandered intoArabia; and there, in Opposition to theAntidicomarianites, introduced the above-mentioned idolatrous Practice. This is the first Instance of any Worship paid to the VirginMary; and to those Women the extravagant Worship that is still paid her by the Church ofRome, owes its Rise. Some of these Women took upon them to act, at their Meetings, as Priestesses. ThisEpiphaniusstyles an abominable Abuse, Women being so utterly incapable, says he, of performing any Ecclesiastical Functions, that our Saviour did not grant even to his Mother the Power of baptizing[2].1. Epiph. hær. 78, 79.2. Idem ibid.
N35. That the VirginMaryhad other Children besides Christ, was not a new Opinion. It was taught byHelvidiusin 383. and long before him byTertullian, asJeromhimself is forced to own in the Treatise which he wrote againstHelvidius: nay, in the Time ofEpiphanius, who flourished from the Year 366. to 403. that Opinion universally prevailed inArabia, as appears from the Letter which he wrote in Confutation of it, and addressed to all the Christians dwelling inArabia, from the Presbyters down to the Catechumens. In that Letter he styles those who denied the perpetual Virginity of the VirginMary,Antidicomarianites; and ranks them, though their Opinion had not yet been condemned by the Church, sometimes among the Heretics, and sometimes among the Schismatics. But in the same Letter he censures, with no less Severity, those who adored her, styling the Worship that was paid heran idolatrous Heresy; which was taxing those who paid it both with Heresy and Idolatry; and from neither will the unmeaning Terms ofLatria,Dulia,Hyperdulia, &c. invented and used by the Schoolmen to express different Degrees of Worship, excuse the present Practice of the Church ofRome.Epiphaniuswas unacquainted with such Terms, as well as with the different Degrees of Worship answering them; and therefore called the Meeting of certain Women, on a stated Day, to offer a Cake to the VirginMary, and eat it together in her Honour (whence they had the Name ofCollyridians),a Folly repugnant to Religion, an Illusion of the Devil, a robbing God of the Honour that was due to him, an idolatrous Heresy[1]. These Women came from the Northern Provinces ofScythiaintoThrace, probably about the Year 372. whenAthanaricKing of theGothsdrove all the Christians out of his Dominions. FromThracethey wandered intoArabia; and there, in Opposition to theAntidicomarianites, introduced the above-mentioned idolatrous Practice. This is the first Instance of any Worship paid to the VirginMary; and to those Women the extravagant Worship that is still paid her by the Church ofRome, owes its Rise. Some of these Women took upon them to act, at their Meetings, as Priestesses. ThisEpiphaniusstyles an abominable Abuse, Women being so utterly incapable, says he, of performing any Ecclesiastical Functions, that our Saviour did not grant even to his Mother the Power of baptizing[2].
N35. That the VirginMaryhad other Children besides Christ, was not a new Opinion. It was taught byHelvidiusin 383. and long before him byTertullian, asJeromhimself is forced to own in the Treatise which he wrote againstHelvidius: nay, in the Time ofEpiphanius, who flourished from the Year 366. to 403. that Opinion universally prevailed inArabia, as appears from the Letter which he wrote in Confutation of it, and addressed to all the Christians dwelling inArabia, from the Presbyters down to the Catechumens. In that Letter he styles those who denied the perpetual Virginity of the VirginMary,Antidicomarianites; and ranks them, though their Opinion had not yet been condemned by the Church, sometimes among the Heretics, and sometimes among the Schismatics. But in the same Letter he censures, with no less Severity, those who adored her, styling the Worship that was paid heran idolatrous Heresy; which was taxing those who paid it both with Heresy and Idolatry; and from neither will the unmeaning Terms ofLatria,Dulia,Hyperdulia, &c. invented and used by the Schoolmen to express different Degrees of Worship, excuse the present Practice of the Church ofRome.Epiphaniuswas unacquainted with such Terms, as well as with the different Degrees of Worship answering them; and therefore called the Meeting of certain Women, on a stated Day, to offer a Cake to the VirginMary, and eat it together in her Honour (whence they had the Name ofCollyridians),a Folly repugnant to Religion, an Illusion of the Devil, a robbing God of the Honour that was due to him, an idolatrous Heresy[1]. These Women came from the Northern Provinces ofScythiaintoThrace, probably about the Year 372. whenAthanaricKing of theGothsdrove all the Christians out of his Dominions. FromThracethey wandered intoArabia; and there, in Opposition to theAntidicomarianites, introduced the above-mentioned idolatrous Practice. This is the first Instance of any Worship paid to the VirginMary; and to those Women the extravagant Worship that is still paid her by the Church ofRome, owes its Rise. Some of these Women took upon them to act, at their Meetings, as Priestesses. ThisEpiphaniusstyles an abominable Abuse, Women being so utterly incapable, says he, of performing any Ecclesiastical Functions, that our Saviour did not grant even to his Mother the Power of baptizing[2].
1. Epiph. hær. 78, 79.
1. Epiph. hær. 78, 79.
1. Epiph. hær. 78, 79.
2. Idem ibid.
2. Idem ibid.
2. Idem ibid.
Syricius, in his Answer to the Bishops ofMacedon, approves their Sentiments; and employs almost his whole Letter to shew, that the VirginMarywas always a Virgin: but as for the Cause ofBonosus, he tells them, thatit was not lawful for him to judge it, since that Province had been committed to them by the Council ofCapua[1317]. And was not this disclaiming, in the most plain and explicit Terms he possibly could, that Power which his Successors challenge, and have almost overturned the Christian Religion to maintain[N36]?
N36. Such a Letter, we may be sure, has not been tamely received by the Partisans ofRome. Some of them have rejected it as forged and surreptitious, for no other Reason, but becauseSyriciusis there made to disclaim a Power which he undoubtedly had. But this is evidently begging the Question[1]. Others, finding it conveyed to us amongstAmbrose’s Letters, have ascribed it to him, by prefixing his Name to it. ButAmbroseis unluckily named, and spoken of, in the Body of the Letter: whenceBaroniushimself allows it not to be his[2]. The Style afforded great Matter of Dispute, some thinking it like, and others unlike, to the Style ofSyricius: but more than the Style, the Title;ToTheophilusandAnysius. The former was Bishop ofAlexandria: And how came he to be any-ways concerned in the Cause ofBonosus? If that Name was common to him with some Bishops ofMacedon, how came that Bishop to be named beforeAnysiushis Metropolitan[3]? In the Height of these Disputes,Holsteniuspublished the above-mentioned Letter atRome, under the Name ofSyricius, from a very antient and authentic Manuscript, with the following Title,ToAnysiusand the other Bishops ofIllyricum[4]. This turned the Controversy into another Chanel; for the Dispute was no more concerning the Authenticit, but the Sense, of the Letter, which the Sticklers for the See ofRomebegan to think very different from the Sense that the Words ofSyriciushad conveyed to them before; nay, those who had rejected the Letter as spurious, for no other Reason but becauseSyriciuswas there made to disown a Power which he undoubtedly had, were not ashamed now to maintain, that he disowned no such Power. Some of them have a particular Faculty or Talent at making Authors say what they never thought or dreamt of; nay, at making them affirm what they flatly deny, and deny what they positively affirm. But they have not been so successful on this as on several other Occasions. The Words ofSyriciusare too plain and precise to admit of any plausible, or even probable, Misinterpretation. To avoid therefore the tiresome and unnecessary Task of confuting the forced Interpretations they have put on the Words ofSyricius, I refer the Reader to his Letter, which is the Fifth amongstAmbrose’s Letters; and leave him to judge, whether it was possible for him to disclaim, in Terms less liable to Misinterpretations, the Power of judging a Cause committed by a Council to the Judgment of others, which was disclaiming, in other Words, that universal Jurisdiction, which his Successors have usurped, and pretend to exercise by Divine Right.1. David. p. 562, 563.2. Bar. ad ann. 389. n. 76.3. Vid. Blond. primau. p. 236.4. Holst. coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 189.
N36. Such a Letter, we may be sure, has not been tamely received by the Partisans ofRome. Some of them have rejected it as forged and surreptitious, for no other Reason, but becauseSyriciusis there made to disclaim a Power which he undoubtedly had. But this is evidently begging the Question[1]. Others, finding it conveyed to us amongstAmbrose’s Letters, have ascribed it to him, by prefixing his Name to it. ButAmbroseis unluckily named, and spoken of, in the Body of the Letter: whenceBaroniushimself allows it not to be his[2]. The Style afforded great Matter of Dispute, some thinking it like, and others unlike, to the Style ofSyricius: but more than the Style, the Title;ToTheophilusandAnysius. The former was Bishop ofAlexandria: And how came he to be any-ways concerned in the Cause ofBonosus? If that Name was common to him with some Bishops ofMacedon, how came that Bishop to be named beforeAnysiushis Metropolitan[3]? In the Height of these Disputes,Holsteniuspublished the above-mentioned Letter atRome, under the Name ofSyricius, from a very antient and authentic Manuscript, with the following Title,ToAnysiusand the other Bishops ofIllyricum[4]. This turned the Controversy into another Chanel; for the Dispute was no more concerning the Authenticit, but the Sense, of the Letter, which the Sticklers for the See ofRomebegan to think very different from the Sense that the Words ofSyriciushad conveyed to them before; nay, those who had rejected the Letter as spurious, for no other Reason but becauseSyriciuswas there made to disown a Power which he undoubtedly had, were not ashamed now to maintain, that he disowned no such Power. Some of them have a particular Faculty or Talent at making Authors say what they never thought or dreamt of; nay, at making them affirm what they flatly deny, and deny what they positively affirm. But they have not been so successful on this as on several other Occasions. The Words ofSyriciusare too plain and precise to admit of any plausible, or even probable, Misinterpretation. To avoid therefore the tiresome and unnecessary Task of confuting the forced Interpretations they have put on the Words ofSyricius, I refer the Reader to his Letter, which is the Fifth amongstAmbrose’s Letters; and leave him to judge, whether it was possible for him to disclaim, in Terms less liable to Misinterpretations, the Power of judging a Cause committed by a Council to the Judgment of others, which was disclaiming, in other Words, that universal Jurisdiction, which his Successors have usurped, and pretend to exercise by Divine Right.
N36. Such a Letter, we may be sure, has not been tamely received by the Partisans ofRome. Some of them have rejected it as forged and surreptitious, for no other Reason, but becauseSyriciusis there made to disclaim a Power which he undoubtedly had. But this is evidently begging the Question[1]. Others, finding it conveyed to us amongstAmbrose’s Letters, have ascribed it to him, by prefixing his Name to it. ButAmbroseis unluckily named, and spoken of, in the Body of the Letter: whenceBaroniushimself allows it not to be his[2]. The Style afforded great Matter of Dispute, some thinking it like, and others unlike, to the Style ofSyricius: but more than the Style, the Title;ToTheophilusandAnysius. The former was Bishop ofAlexandria: And how came he to be any-ways concerned in the Cause ofBonosus? If that Name was common to him with some Bishops ofMacedon, how came that Bishop to be named beforeAnysiushis Metropolitan[3]? In the Height of these Disputes,Holsteniuspublished the above-mentioned Letter atRome, under the Name ofSyricius, from a very antient and authentic Manuscript, with the following Title,ToAnysiusand the other Bishops ofIllyricum[4]. This turned the Controversy into another Chanel; for the Dispute was no more concerning the Authenticit, but the Sense, of the Letter, which the Sticklers for the See ofRomebegan to think very different from the Sense that the Words ofSyriciushad conveyed to them before; nay, those who had rejected the Letter as spurious, for no other Reason but becauseSyriciuswas there made to disown a Power which he undoubtedly had, were not ashamed now to maintain, that he disowned no such Power. Some of them have a particular Faculty or Talent at making Authors say what they never thought or dreamt of; nay, at making them affirm what they flatly deny, and deny what they positively affirm. But they have not been so successful on this as on several other Occasions. The Words ofSyriciusare too plain and precise to admit of any plausible, or even probable, Misinterpretation. To avoid therefore the tiresome and unnecessary Task of confuting the forced Interpretations they have put on the Words ofSyricius, I refer the Reader to his Letter, which is the Fifth amongstAmbrose’s Letters; and leave him to judge, whether it was possible for him to disclaim, in Terms less liable to Misinterpretations, the Power of judging a Cause committed by a Council to the Judgment of others, which was disclaiming, in other Words, that universal Jurisdiction, which his Successors have usurped, and pretend to exercise by Divine Right.
1. David. p. 562, 563.2. Bar. ad ann. 389. n. 76.
1. David. p. 562, 563.
1. David. p. 562, 563.
2. Bar. ad ann. 389. n. 76.
2. Bar. ad ann. 389. n. 76.
3. Vid. Blond. primau. p. 236.4. Holst. coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 189.
3. Vid. Blond. primau. p. 236.
3. Vid. Blond. primau. p. 236.
4. Holst. coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 189.
4. Holst. coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 189.
Bonosusexercises theEpiscopal Functionsafter his Condem-nation.
AsSyriciusdeclined the judging ofBonosus, his Cause was in the End decided, and he condemned byAnysiusand the other Bishops, to whom that Judgment had been committed by the Council ofCapua. It was at the same time decreed, that those who had been ordained by him after the first Sentence, that is, after his Suspension, should retain the Degrees to which he had raised them. This Indulgence was shewn, as is declared in the Decree, contrary to the common Rule,on account of the present Necessity; that is, lest they should adhere toBonosus, and form a Schism[1318].|He ordains some byforce.|Bonosus, though thus condemned, continued to exercise the Episcopal Functions, and, holding separate Assemblies, to ordain, without Examination or Distinction, all who presented themselves to him: nay, he is even charged with dragging some by open Force to his Conventicle, and ordaining them there against their Will[1319]: a kind of Rape never heard of before. What Advantage he could propose to himself or others in so doing, we are not told, and it is not easy to guess. The Bishops ofMacedonallowed even those, who were thus ordained, to keep their respective Degrees in the Catholic Church, upon their only receiving the Benediction of a lawful Bishop. Hence those, who found themselves excluded by the Church from holy Orders, on account of their scandalous Lives, applied toBonosus, pretending to espouse his Party, but left him as soon as they had obtained the Degree they wanted[1320].Bonosusdied about the Year 410. but his Doctrine did not die with him, being maintained by some Two hundred Years after his Death[N37].
N37. His Followers were known by the Name ofBonosiacsorBonosians; and Mention is made of them by PopeGregory, towards the Latter-end of the Sixth Century[1]. That Pope writes, as does likewiseGennadius[2], that the Church rejected their Baptism, because they did not baptize in the Name of the Three Divine Persons. But the Council ofArles, held in 452. by the Seventeenth Canon, commands theBonosiansto be received into the Church by the holy Unction, the Imposition of Hands, and a Confession of Faith,it being certain, that they baptize in the Name of the Trinity[3]. It is to be observed, that several Writers have confounded theBonosianswith thePhotinians, who did not baptize in the Name of the Three Persons; and by them bothGregoryandGennadiuswere misled[4].1. Greg. l. 9. ep. 61.2. Id. ib. Genn. dog. c. 52.3. Avit. frag. p. 188.4. Vide Concil. t. 2. p. 1270. & t. 3 p. 663. & t. 4. p. 1013.
N37. His Followers were known by the Name ofBonosiacsorBonosians; and Mention is made of them by PopeGregory, towards the Latter-end of the Sixth Century[1]. That Pope writes, as does likewiseGennadius[2], that the Church rejected their Baptism, because they did not baptize in the Name of the Three Divine Persons. But the Council ofArles, held in 452. by the Seventeenth Canon, commands theBonosiansto be received into the Church by the holy Unction, the Imposition of Hands, and a Confession of Faith,it being certain, that they baptize in the Name of the Trinity[3]. It is to be observed, that several Writers have confounded theBonosianswith thePhotinians, who did not baptize in the Name of the Three Persons; and by them bothGregoryandGennadiuswere misled[4].
N37. His Followers were known by the Name ofBonosiacsorBonosians; and Mention is made of them by PopeGregory, towards the Latter-end of the Sixth Century[1]. That Pope writes, as does likewiseGennadius[2], that the Church rejected their Baptism, because they did not baptize in the Name of the Three Divine Persons. But the Council ofArles, held in 452. by the Seventeenth Canon, commands theBonosiansto be received into the Church by the holy Unction, the Imposition of Hands, and a Confession of Faith,it being certain, that they baptize in the Name of the Trinity[3]. It is to be observed, that several Writers have confounded theBonosianswith thePhotinians, who did not baptize in the Name of the Three Persons; and by them bothGregoryandGennadiuswere misled[4].
1. Greg. l. 9. ep. 61.2. Id. ib. Genn. dog. c. 52.
1. Greg. l. 9. ep. 61.
1. Greg. l. 9. ep. 61.
2. Id. ib. Genn. dog. c. 52.
2. Id. ib. Genn. dog. c. 52.
3. Avit. frag. p. 188.4. Vide Concil. t. 2. p. 1270. & t. 3 p. 663. & t. 4. p. 1013.
3. Avit. frag. p. 188.
3. Avit. frag. p. 188.
4. Vide Concil. t. 2. p. 1270. & t. 3 p. 663. & t. 4. p. 1013.
4. Vide Concil. t. 2. p. 1270. & t. 3 p. 663. & t. 4. p. 1013.
An End put to the Schism ofAntioch.
Syriciushad, in the last Year of his Life, the Satisfaction of seeing an End put at length to the Schism ofAntioch, which I have had so frequent Occasion to speak of; and the East and West, after so long a Misunderstanding, or rather Separation, happily reunited. This greatWork was accomplished in the following Manner:Evagrius, the Successor ofPaulinus, dying not long after his Promotion,Flavianusemployed all the Credit and Interest he had at Court, and with the Clergy ofAntioch, to prevent the Election of a new Bishop in the room of the deceased: and so far his Endeavours proved successful. But he could by no means gain theEustathians, who continued to assemble apart, or prevail either upon the Bishops ofEgypt, orSyricius, and the other Western Bishops, to admit him to their Communion, though he had no Competitor, whose Cause they could espouse against him. Thus, through the inflexible Obstinacy of theEgyptianand Western Bishops, was Discord kept alive, and a kind of Schism fomented among the Prelates and Members of the Catholic Church, saysSozomen[1321]. In this Situation Affairs continued from the Year 392. in whichEvagriusdied, to the Year 398. when the famousJohn Chrysostom, Presbyter of the Church ofAntioch, was, in regard of his extraordinary Merit, preferred to the See ofConstantinople. No sooner was he placed in that high Station, than his generous Disposition, above all little Piques and Jealousies, his Zeal for the Welfare of the Church in general, and the tender Regard he had for that ofAntiochin particular, prompted him to employ all the Credit and Authority, which his new Dignity gave him, in bringing about an intire Reconciliation between the East and the West, and restoring the Church ofAntiochto the Communion of those Churches, from which it had been so long separated[1322].|Chrysostomstudies to reconcile the Eastern and Western Bishops.|Chrysostomhad been consecrated byTheophilusBishop ofAlexandria, whom the Council ofCapuahad appointed to decide, with the other Bishops ofEgypt, the Difference betweenFlavianusandEvagrius, as I have related above. To him therefore, before he leftConstantinopleto return toEgypt, the new Bishop of that City, impatient to see so great a Work brought to a happy Issue, imparted his Intention of attempting a Reconciliation betweenFlavianusandSyriciusBishop ofRome, earnestly intreating him to second and promote with his Endeavours an Undertaking truly worthy of the Two first Bishops of the East.
FlavianusandTheo-philusreconciled.
There had subsisted a Misunderstanding betweenTheophilusandFlavianusever since the Year 391. when the Council ofCapuawas held.Flavianushad refused to submit his Cause to the Judgment ofTheophilus, pursuant to the Resolution of that Council; which he had highly resented; and, in the Height of his Resentment, as he wasa Man of a fiery and choleric Temper, he had written toFlavianusin a very haughty and imperious Style. To these LettersNestorius, no doubt, alludes, where he tells us, thatEgyptcould not, by her menacing Letters, though written in the Style, and with all the Haughtiness, of an imperious Tyrant, move or terrify the blessedFlavianus[1323]. It was necessary, in the first place, to remove the Misunderstanding which had so long subsisted between these Two Prelates; and in thisChrysostommet with no Difficulty or Obstruction,Theophilusreadily agreeing to the Terms he proposed in the Name ofFlavianus, andFlavianusratifying them, upon the first Notice, without the least Exception or Limitation.|Chrysostomattemptsa ReconciliationbetweenFlavianusandSyricius.|What these Terms were, we are no-where told; but it is certain, that, all Disputes being thereby composed, the Bishops ofAlexandriaandAntiochwere intirely reconciled, and the Communion between them renewed, to the great Satisfaction of both[1324]. The next Thing to be attempted, and, as was apprehended, the most difficult to be accomplished, was the reconciling ofSyriciuswith the Bishop ofAntioch, who had now held that See Seventeen Years, but had not been able, notwithstanding the great Character he bore, to obtain the Communion ofSyricius, or any of his Predecessors, on account of their strong Prejudice against him, as well as his PredecessorMeletius, and their obstinate Attachment to the contrary Party, in Opposition to the far greater Part of the Eastern Bishops.|His prudent Conduct.|But the Zeal ofChrysostomwas Proof against all Difficulties. Not despairing therefore of Success, he took the most effectual Means a consummate Prudence could dictate, to obtain it, advising the Bishops ofAntiochandAlexandriato acquaint the Bishop ofRome, by a solemn Embassy, with their Reconciliation, and at the same time to beg, in the Name ofFlavianus, the Communion of that See. This he knew would flatter the Vanity ofSyricius, and be of more Weight than any Remonstrances they could make. They readily fell in with the Proposal, and Deputies were immediately chosen to put it in Execution. These wereAcaciusBishop ofBerœa,DemetriusofPessinus, and several other Bishops, withIsidorusPresbyter and Hospitaler of the Church ofAlexandria, and a great Number of Presbyters and Deacons of the Church ofAntioch.Acacius, who was at the Head of this Deputation, was charged byChrysostomto present toSyriciusthe Decree of his Election to the See ofConstantinople[1325]. That so greatan Honour might not be conferred in vain on the See ofRome, it was thought adviseable to acquaintSyriciuswith their Design, before they set out, and to be well assured of a kind Reception on their Arrival in the West.|SyriciusandFlav-ianusreconciled.|They gave him accordingly early Notice of their Intention, and he, taken with the Bait, readily promised to settle every thing to their Satisfaction[1326]; which he did accordingly, receiving them, on their Arrival atRome, with the greatest Marks of Respect and Esteem, and admittingFlavianusto his Communion. FromRomethe Deputies repaired intoEgypt, where all the Bishops, following the Example ofTheophilusandSyricius, acknowlegedFlavianusfor lawful Bishop ofAntioch, and, assembling in Council, with great Solemnity, embraced his Communion.|The Misunderstand-ing between the Eastand the West intirelyremoved.|FromEgyptthe Deputies set out forAntioch, and there, by delivering toFlavianusLetters of Communion from the Western andEgyptianBishops, completed the great Work, and with it their Deputation[1327]. Thus was an End put, at last, to the Schism ofAntioch; and, after so many Years of Strife and Contention, a perfect Harmony and good Understanding were settled anew between the East and the West[N38].