The many Absurditiescontained in the Actsof that Council.

This Council is supposed to have been held in a Grotto, or Cave, where there was no room but for 50 at a time; and yet they are all said to have been present whenMarcellinusowned his Crime, and divested himself of his Dignity. And what a despicable Figure does he make on that Occasion! At first he denies the Charge; but, being convicted by 72 Eye-witnesses, he owns it at last, but in Terms more becoming a School-boy, trembling at the Sight of a Rod, than a penitent Bishop, before so grave an Assembly. But the most remarkable Passage in that Piece is the Dispute betweenUrbanusHigh Pontiff ofJupiter, andMarcellinusHigh Pontiff of the Christians.Urbanus, to convince his Fellow-Pontiff that he ought not to scruple offering Incense toJupiter, alleges the Example of the Mages offering Incense toChrist.Marcellinusanswers, That the offering of Incense on that Occasion was mysterious; and unravels the Mystery. HereuponUrbanus, unacquainted with Mysteries, appeals to the Judgment of the EmperorsDioclesianandMaximian; to this AppealMarcellinusagrees; and the Controversy is referred by bothPontiffsto be decided by the Two Emperors. They, no doubt, gave Sentence in favour ofJupiterandUrbanus; and thenDioclesian, takingMarcellinuswith him into the Temple ofVesta, persuaded him there to offer Incense toJupiter,Hercules, andSaturn. How these Three Deities came to have a Place in the Temple ofVesta, the Compiler of these Acts alone knows. Such are the Absurdities and Contradictions, of which that Piece is wholly made up. But it flatters the Ambition of the Successors ofMarcellinus; on occasion of his Fall it exalts the See ofRomeabove all other Sees: its Authority therefore must not be called in question: all the Absurdities and Contradictions it contains, must be blindly believed; the Memory ofMarcellinusmost unjustly slandered; the Testimonies ofTheodoret, and St.Austin, clearing him from all Guilt, disregarded and rejected. And may not this be interpreted as a tacit Declaration, that they had rather he had been guilty than innocent, provided his Guilt could any-ways contribute to the Aggrandizing of their See? What can we think their Ambition will spare, since they have thus sacrificed to itthe Character of one of their Predecessors, whose Memory is revered by all Antiquity? The Church ofRomehonoursMarcellinusas a Saint; and, not withstanding his pretended Apostasy, allows him a Place amongst her Martyrs; probably by way of Reparation for the Injustice done him.|Marcellinusfalslysupposed to have dieda Martyr.|But his Martyrdom may be justly questioned; at least it seems to have been utterly unknown to St.Austin, who flourished not long after his Time, since he never mentions it, tho’ it would have afforded him the strongest Argument he could possibly use to silence theDonatists. His Martyrdom, 'tis true, is vouched byBede, who tells us, that he was beheaded atRome, byDioclesian’s Order; but that Historian is often led into gross Mistakes by a Pontifical, supposed to have been written in the Sixth Century, which he frequently copies, with all its Anachronisms, and other Faults.

Vacancy ofThree Years.

That, upon the Death ofMarcellinus, there happened a Vacancy of some Years, seems undeniable, since it is marked in the Pontificals, even in that ofBucherius[499], and mentioned by all those who, tillBaronius’s Time, have written the History of the Popes: but what at this time should occasion a Vacancy at least of Three Years, is what I will not take upon me to account for: the Persecution lasted but Two Years inItaly, according toEusebius[500], which expired soon after the Death ofMarcellinus: some pretend that it raged there so long asGaleriuswas Master of that Country. Be that as it will, it is certain, thatMaxentiususurped the Empire in 306. and that he not only favoured the Christians, but pretended to be of the same Religion himself; and yet the See remained vacant, according to the Pontifical ofBucherius[501], till the Tenth Consulate ofMaximian Hercules, and the Seventh ofMaximian Galerius, that is, till the Year 308.Baroniusindeed admits of no Vacancy; but, in Opposition to all those who have written before him, places the Election ofMarcellusimmediately after the Decease of his PredecessorMarcellinus[502]. This I should readily agree to, but for the Authority of the above-mentioned Pontifical, which had not yet appeared inBaronius’s Time, and is thought to have been written about the Year 354. As for the Chronicle ofEusebius, it can be here of no Weight on the one Side or the other, sinceMarcellusis there quite left out; and his SuccessorMelchiadesis said to have died beforeConstantinemadehimself Master ofRome; whereas it is certain, that, underMelchiades, a Council was held atRome, by that Prince’s Order, as we shall see hereafter.

Year of Christ 308.bracket

Upon the Death ofMarcellinus, the See remained vacant somewhat above Three Years and an half; that is, from the 24th ofOctober304. to the 19th ofMay308. whenMarcelluswas chosen in his room. Thus says the Pontifical ofBucherius, where, instead of Seven Years, which is a Mistake of the Transcribers, as is manifest from the Consulships mark’d there, we must read Three[503].|MarcellinusandMarcellusconfoundedby some Writers;|The Similitude of the Two Names has misled some Writers to confoundMarcellinuswithMarcellus; forEusebius, as well as St.Jerom, only mention the former; andTheodoret, omitting bothMarcellusandEusebius, who succeeded him, namesMelchiadesas the immediate Successor ofMarcellinus[504]; which has made Dr.Pearsondoubt, whetherMarcelluswas ever Bishop ofRome[505].|but distinguishedby others.|ButMarcellinusandMarcellusare evidently distinguished in the Pontifical ofBucherius, by the different Times, in which they governed, and the different Consuls, under whom their Government began and ended[506]. They are, besides, distinguished both byOptatus Milevitanus[507], and St.Austin[508], who speaks ofMarcellus, not only as a Presbyter of the Church ofRome, but as Bishop of that See. To these Testimonies I may add the Epitaph ofMarcellusby PopeDamasus, supposing him to have been Bishop ofRome[509].Damasusflourished about the Year 366. Many things are said ofMarcellus; but they are all founded either on his Acts, or the modern Pontificals, and consequently have no Foundation at all. PopeDamasus, in his Epitaph, tells us, that his Steadiness in keeping up the Discipline of the Church, and obliging such as had fallen, during the Persecution, to give due Satisfaction, stirred up against him a general Hatred, which, not confined to private Disputes and Invectives, ended in Tumults, Bloodshed,and Murders[510].|Marcellusis banished.|Damasusadds, thatthe Crime of one, who had renounced the Faith, while the Church enjoyed a profound Peace, induced the TyrantMaxentiusto sendMarcellusinto Banishment. But of these Transactions the Antients either have not thought fit to give us a more particular Account, or, if they did, their Writings have not reached our Times.Marcellusdied on the 16th ofJanuary310. having held the Pontificate One Year, Seven Months, and Twenty Days[511]; but whether he died in Banishment, or was recalled toRome, is uncertain.|His Acts are fabulous.|The Church ofRome, upon the Authority of his fabulous Acts, has added him, with many others, to the Number of her Martyrs: butMaxentius, who reigned atRomeduring his Pontificate, and under whom he is said to have suffered, had no sooner made himself Master of that City, than he put an End to the Persecution, as we are told, in express Terms, byEusebius[512].|His Reliques.|He is said to have been buried in the Cœmetery ofPriscilla, on theSalarianWay[513]: but his Body, like the Bodies of most other Saints, is now worshiped in several Places;viz.in a Church, bearing his Name, atRome; in the Abbey ofOmontinHainault, not far fromMaubeuge; atCluni, in a Parish-Church of the Diocese ofElneinRoussillon[514], &c.

Year of Christ 310.bracket

Marcelluswas succeeded byEusebius, who governed Seven Months, according toEusebius[515], but only Four Months and Sixteen Days according to the Pontifical ofBucherius[516].|Stands up in De-fence of the Discip-line of the Church,and is banished.|From an antient Epitaph on this Pope we learn, that he opposed, with great Vigour and Zeal, oneHeraclius, pretending that those who had fallen during the Persecution, ought to be readmitted to the Communion of the Church, without giving such Satisfaction as was then required; and that hereupon great Divisions happening among the People,Maxentius, to put an End to those Disturbances, banishedEusebiusintoSicily[517]. Many other things are said of him byAnastasius,Platina,Ciacconius, and such-like Writers; but what we read in them has no better Foundation than what is advanced byBaronius;viz.that he instructedEusebiusthe celebrated Bishop ofVercelli, and gave him his own Name[518]; which is founded on the Acts of that Bishop, now universally rejected as supposititious.

Year of Christ 311.bracket

Melchiades, orMiltiades, as he is called in the antient Manuscripts, was chosen to succeedEusebius, on the 2d ofJuly311. after a Vacancy of Nine Months, and upwards[519]; which Historians do not account for.|Constantinecon-verted to the Christ-ian Religion.His Edicts in favourof the Christians.|In his Time happened the ever memorable Conversion ofConstantineto the Christian Religion. That Prince, having overcome and utterly defeated the UsurperMaxentius, on the 28th ofOctober312. soon after issued an Edict, jointly withLicinius, who was upon the point of marrying his Sister, allowing the Christians the free Exercise of their Religion, and likewise the Liberty of building Churches[520]. By the same Edict he ordered the Places, where they had held their Assemblies before the Persecution, and which had been taken from them, to be restored[521]. He leftRomein the Beginning of the Year 313. and, arriving atMilan, he there issued a Second Edict, to correct some Mistakes that had given Offence in the former[522]. What these Mistakes were, we know not; for the Decree itself has not reached our Times; butValesiusconjectures, that the high Commendations bestowed on the Christian Religion alarmed the Pagans, imagining, that the Intention of the Two Princes was to suppress theirs; and likewise, that some Christians had taken Offence at the odious Name of Heretics; given in that Decree to the various Sects sprung from them[523]. Be that as it will, it is certain, that, by the Second Decree, an intire Liberty of Conscience was granted to all sorts of Persons, every one being allowed to honour and worship what Deity he pleased; and in what manner soever he thought best. The Second Edict strictly injoins all those, who had purchased of the Exchequer, or held by Grant, any Place formerlydestined for the Assemblies of the Christians, to restore them forthwith, and apply to the Exchequer; where they should be indemnified[524]. The same Year 313.Licinius, having gained a complete Victory overMaximinus, a sworn Enemy to the Christians, made himself Master ofNicomedia, and there caused the Edict ofMilanto be proclaimed, and set up in the Market-place, on the 13th ofJune[525]. Thus Peace was restored to the Church, in the East as well as in the West, after a most cruel and bloody Persecution of Ten Years, and almost Four Months; for the First Edict against the Christians had been published in that very City on the 24th ofFebruary303[526]

The Schism of theDonatistsinAfrica.

Another remarkable Incident of this Pontificate was, the famous Schism, formed inAfricaagainstCæcilianus, the Catholic Bishop ofCarthage; whereof a succinct Account will not be foreign to my Subject, asMelchiadeswas chiefly concerned in most of the Transactions relating to it. The first Decree against the Christians, published byDioclesian, which I have just now mentioned, ordered the Churches to be every-where laid level with the Ground, the Books of the Scripture to be carefully sought for, and publicly burnt; and that such Persons of Quality as should persist in the Profession of the Christian Faith, should be deemed infamous, and excluded from all Honours and Employments. This Edict was executed with such Rigour inAfrica, that it was a capital Crime in the Magistrates of the Cities, and punishable with Death, to shew any Mercy or Compassion to a Christian, who, owning he had the sacred Books, should refuse to deliver them into the Hands of the proper Officers.|Traditoreswho.|Those who, in Compliance with this Edict, delivered them up, which great Numbers did, were styledTraditores, a Name, which afterwards became famous in the History of the Church, by affording theDonatistsa plausible Pretence to separate themselves from the Communion of the Catholic Bishops[527]. Of this CrimeMensurius, Bishop ofCarthage, was falsly accused; but, though the Charge could not be proved against him, yet some of his Flock, encouraged byDonatus, Bishop ofCasænigræinNumidia, separated from his Communion[528].Mensuriusdying some Years after,Cæcilianus, Deacon of the Church ofCarthage, was chosen in his room, in Spite of the Cabals and Intrigues ofBotrusandCælesius, Two chief Presbyters, who aspired tothat Dignity.|The chief Authorsof the SchismagainstCæcilianus.|Cæcilianus, soon after his Election, summoned some Persons, in whose Custody his Predecessor had left the Money of the Church, to deliver it up to him: but they not only refused to comply with his Demand, but began to stir up the People, and form a Party against him.BotrusandCælesiuswere not idle on this Occasion; but, animated with Jealousy and Envy, lest no Art unpractised to blacken his Character, and discredit him with those who had preferred him to them. But the chief Support of this Faction wasLucilla, a Woman of great Quality, Wealth, and Interest, and an avowed Enemy toCæcilianus, who, while he was yet Deacon, had publicly reprimanded her for kissing the Relique of a Martyr, as she was upon the Point of receiving the Eucharist. An undeniable Proof, that the Worship of Reliques was at this time disapproved by the Church. Such Liberty taken with a Person of her Rank, was what she could not brook; and therefore she laid hold of the first Opportunity that offered, and no better could offer, to revenge the Affront[529]. It is not to be doubted but those, who had separated fromMensurius, joined this Faction; since the Second Schism owed its Origin to the First, as St.Austinsays, speaking of the Two Schisms underMensuriusandCæcilianus[530].

The Bishops ofNumidiasummonedto depose him.

The Schismatics, to give an Appearance of Justice and Authority to their Proceedings, summonedSecundusBishop ofTigisis, and the other Bishops ofNumidia, to deposeCæcilianus, and chuse another in his room; for the Bishops ofNumidiaclaimed the Privilege of assisting at the Election of the Bishop ofCarthage, and ordaining him after he was elected[531]. They readily complied with the Summons; but, upon their Arrival, they found, to their great Surprize, that the whole City, except a small Number of Schismatics, the avowed Enemies ofCæcilianus, communicated with him as their lawful Bishop[532]. They were 70 in Number; but as many of them wereTraditors, and some guilty of other enormous Crimes, as appears from the Acts of the Council ofCirtha[533], they were easily prevailed upon byLucilla, who is said to have spent an immense Sum on this Occasion[534], to declare the Election ofCæcilianusvoid, and the See ofCarthagevacant.|They declare hisElection null.|The only thing they could lay to his Chargewas, that he had been ordained byFelixBishop ofAptungus, whom they falsly accused as aTraditor.Cæcilianusrefused to Appear before them; and truly to trust himself to such an Assembly, had been acting a very imprudent Part; forPurpurius, Bishop ofLimata, had said,If he comes among us, instead of laying our Hands upon him, by way of Ordination, we ought to knock out his Brains, by way of Penance[535].

The Schismaticsseparate themselvesfrom the Communionof the Church.

The Party having thus declaredCæcilianusillegally elected and ordained, they separated themselves from his Communion, and from the Communion of all who communicated with him[536]; that is, from the Communion of the Catholic Church; forCæcilianuswas acknowleged by the other Bishops ofAfrica, by the Bishop ofRome, and by all the Bishops of the World, says St.Austin[537]. Such was the Rise of the famous Schism, which, for the Space of 300 Years, and upwards, occasioned great Disturbances in the Churches ofAfrica.|CalledDonatists,and from whom.|Donatus, Bishop ofCasænigræinNumidia, was the first Author of it, according to St.Austin[538]; but it was not from him, but fromDonatus, the Schismatic Bishop ofCarthage, that they took the Name ofDonatists; for, till his Time, they styled themselves the Party ofMajorinus[539], whom they chose and ordained Bishop ofCarthage, in the room ofCæcilianus; though he was then only Lector of that Church, and had been formerly one ofLucilla’s menial Servants[540]. To justify their Conduct, and their electing a new Bishop, they writ Letters to all the Churches ofAfrica, filled with Calumnies againstCæcilianus, and those who had ordained him. By these Letters great Numbers were imposed upon, and misled; insomuch that, the People being every-where divided, most Churches had Two Bishops, the one ordained byMajorinus, and the other byCæcilianus[541].

Edicts enacted byConstantine,in fav-our of the ChristianReligion.

About this time, that is, about the Year 313.Constantine, out of his Zeal for the Christian Religion, issued Two Decrees, addressed toAnulinus, Proconsul ofAfrica, the one commanding all the Places in that Province to be restored, which had once belonged to the Catholic Church, and might have been usurped during the Persecution[542]; and the other, exempting the Ecclesiastics from all civil Functions[543]. This Privilege was granted only to the Ecclesiastics of the Catholic Church, whereofCæcilianuswas the Head, as was expreslydeclared in the Edict; and therefore to him alone the Proconsul imparted it. It was a great Mortification to theDonatiststo see themselves thus disregarded by the Emperor: they therefore assembled a few Days after, and drawing up a Petition toConstantine, they delivered it, unsealed, toAnulinus, together with a Bundle of Papers, sealed up in a Leather Bag, with this Title:The Petition of the Catholic Church, containing the Crimes ofCæcilianus;by the Party ofMajorinus.|TheDonatistspetitionConstantine,that theDispute may be re-ferred to the BishopsofGaul.|The Substance of the Petition was, that the Controversy between them and the other Bishops ofAfricamight be referred to the Bishops ofGaul, who were free from the Imputation of having delivered up the sacred Books to the Pagans[544].Anulinusimmediately dispatched a Messenger to the Emperor, both with the Request, and the Papers, giving him, at the same time, by a Letter still extant[545], an Insight into the Dispute, that made so great a Noise inAfrica.Constantine, who was then inGaul, having received and read all those Pieces, expressed great Concern to find the Christians thus divided among themselves, and the Bishops at Variance with one another[546].|The Bishops namedbyConstantine.|However, he readily granted to theDonatiststhe Judges they demanded, naming, for that Purpose,MaternusBishop ofCologne,RheticiusBishop ofAutun, andMarinusBishop ofArles[547]; all Men of known Integrity, great Learning, and unblemished Characters. To these, by a Letter under his own Hand, he gave Notice of their new Commission; and, at the same time, for their better Information, he caused Copies to be transmitted to them, of all the Papers he had received fromAnulinus[548]. The Three Bishops were ordered to repair, with all Speed, toRome, and there, jointly withMelchiades, Bishop of that City, to sit as Judges of the Controversy.Cæcilianuslikewise was ordered toRome, and allowed to take with him Ten Bishops of his Party, such as he should judge the most capable of defending his Cause; and the same Liberty was granted to the adverse Party[549].|His Letter toMelchiades.|Constantine, in the Letter he writ on this Occasion toMelchiades, after appealing to him as a Witness of the Respect and Veneration he had for the Catholic Church, declares, he had nothing so much at Heart as to see her Members happily united: he therefore earnestly intreats him to examine the Affair with the utmost Attention, and, jointly with theBishops ofGaul, to judge it according to the strictest Laws of Justice and Equity[550]. In this LetterConstantinenames no other Judges but the Three Bishops ofGaul,Melchiades, and oneMark, supposed to have been Bishop ofMilan, whom he joins withMelchiades; but afterwards he ordered Seven more to be added to the Number, and as many as could soon and conveniently assemble; so that they were at last 19 in all[551].|The Council ofRome.|They met, for the first time, onFridaythe Second ofOctober313.ConstantineandLiciniusbeing the third time Consuls[552]. The Place they met in was the Apartment ofFausta, in theLateranPalace[553], she being then, in all Likelihood, absent inGaul, with the Emperor her Husband. Before this AssemblyCæcilianusappeared as the Person accused, andDonatusofCasænigræas the Accuser.|Cæcilianusabsolved,andDonatuscondemned.|They had but Three Meetings: in the First the Characters of the Accusers and Witnesses were strictly inquired into, and their Depositions heard; in the Second the Acts of the Council ofCarthage, which had condemnedCæcilianus, as I have related above, were examined; and in the lastCæcilianus, against whom nothing had been proved, was absolved, andDonatuscondemned as a Slanderer, and the chief Author of the Schism[554]. An Account of the Whole, together with the Acts of the Council, was immediately transmitted toConstantine, who began to flatter himself, that he had put an End to the Dispute; for he could not imagine, that theDonatistswould appeal from the Judgment of such unexceptionable Judges, of Judges whom they themselves had demanded. But the good Prince was yet a Stranger to the Nature of religious Disputes, to the Heat, Animosity, and enthusiastic Rancour, with which they are commonly carried on. Notwithstanding the Pains he took, and his Successors after him, and no Pains they spared, to heal these unhappy Divisions, they continued, to the great Scandal of the Pagans, rending the Church into most furious Parties and Factions, for the Space of near 300 Years.|Melchiadesdies.|The Council ofRomewas held in the Month ofOctober313, andMelchiadesdied on the Tenth ofJanuaryensuing,VolusianusandAnienusbeing Consuls, having presided for the Space of Two Years, Six Months, and Eight Days[555]. About an hundred Years after, theDonatistscharged him with having delivered up the sacred Books, and offered Incense to the Pagan Gods; but this St.Austincalls a groundless Charge, a mere Calumny, amalicious Invention of theDonatistsof his Time to justify the Conduct of their Predecessors, in appealing, as they did, from the Council ofRome, at whichMelchiadesassisted, and probably presided, as Bishop of the Imperial City[556].

Whether theLateranPalace was given byConstantinetoMelchiades.

Baronius, impatient to see the Pope raised to the Rank of a Prince, endeavours to prove, thatMelchiadeswas placed in that Station byConstantine, and argues thus: The Council ofRomewas held in theLateranPalace; therefore that Palace had been given byConstantinetoMelchiades, and belonged to him; for that an Assembly of Nineteen Bishops only should meet in so spacious a Place, can no otherwise be accounted for, but by supposing the Pope to have resided there. This he calls a Demonstration[557]. Having thus got him a Palace, and, no doubt, magnificently furnished, he finds no Difficulty in equipping him in every other respect as a Prince: For who can imagine, says he, thatConstantine, so pious, so generous a Prince, would have given to the Head of the Church a Royal Palace to live in, and not allow him at the same time a suitable Retinue, with suitable Appointments? To act otherwise, had not been honouring, but disgracing the Christian Religion, since its High Pontiff, stalking about all alone in a huge Palace, could be but an Object of Ridicule to the Pontiffs of the Pagan Superstition, who lived in magnificent Houses, with answerable Grandeur[558]. Thus is the Bishop metamorphosed at once into a Sovereign. But the Metamorphosis is somewhat premature. IfConstantine, yet aNeophyte, was not well acquainted with the true Spirit of the Christian Religion,Melchiadeswas; and therefore, had that Prince offered to distinguish him by any such Marks of worldly Grandeur, I do not question but, as he was a very good Man, he would have taken from thence an Opportunity of instructing him better in the Principles of his new Profession, and shewing him in what Contempt the Christian Prelates had, and he himself ought to have, all worldly Grandeur. But no such Offer was ever made or dreamt of: For what at length is all this founded on? On the Meeting of the Council in theLateranPalace. TheFrenchAcademy meet in theLouvre: Are they therefore Princes? And does notOptatus, of whom we have the whole Account, call it in express Terms the House ofFausta[559]?Faustaperhaps lived there, saysBaronius, during the long and flourishingReign of her FatherMaximian, and thence it might be called the House ofFausta. Thus in the End is his Demonstration dwindled away to a mere Conjecture, and a very groundless one too: But, waving that, why might notFaustacontinue in the same Palace after her Father’s Death, with her HusbandConstantine, when he was atRome, or alone, when she did not attend him in the Wars? The Annalist seems to have forgot thatFaustawasConstantine’s Wife. But after all, the Empress, as it appears to me, had only an Apartment in theLateran; for in this Sense I understandOptatussaying,The Council was held in the House, or Habitation, ofFaustain theLateran. But her being any-ways there excludesMelchiades. Their sitting in the Imperial Palace gave a kind of Authority and Sanction to their Decisions; and besides, there might not be room in the House ofMelchiades, if he had a House, for the Council, and those who were to attend it, they being in all Forty Bishops; so that we need not putMelchiadesin Possession of that Palace to account for the Council’s meeting in it, asBaroniushas done.

Year of Christ 314.bracketTheDonatistscom-plain of the CouncilofRome.

Sylvesterwas chosen in the room ofMelchiadeson the last ofJanuary314[560]. In his time were held the two great Councils ofArlesandNice. The former was convened byConstantine’s Order at the Request of theDonatists, who, instead of acquiescing to the Judgment of the Council ofRome, loudly complained to the Emperor of the Bishops who composed it, as partial, prejudiced, and over-hasty in deciding a Controversy of the greatest Importance[561].Constantineheard them with great Patience; and that he might leave them no Colour or Pretence whatsoever to continue in their Schism,|The Council ofArles.|he summoned a second Council to meet atArles, inviting several Bishops to it with most pathetic Letters under his own Hand, and ordering the Proconsuls and Governors of Provinces to acquaint the rest with his Desire and Intention.Chrestus, orCrescentius, Bishop ofSyracuse, was allowed, and so, without all doubt, were the rest,to bring two Presbyters with him, and three Attendants, as we learn from the Emperor’s Letter to him, which is still extant[562]. They were all to be supplied with Conveniences for traveling, and every thing else, at the public Expence. The Time appointed for their Meeting was the first ofAugust314. and on that Day they met accordingly[563], not from all Parts of the World, as we read in the Acts of the Second Council ofArles[564], but fromAfrica, and most other Provinces of the West.SylvesterBishop ofRomewas invited to it; but he excused himself on account of his Age, and sent in his room the two Presbyters,ClaudianusandVitus, withEugeniusandCyriacus, Deacons; the Bishop ofOstiasent likewise two Presbyters in his room[565].|Cæcilianusdeclaredinnocent.|By this AssemblyCæcilianuswas again declared innocent, and those who should falsly accuse their Brethren cut off from the Communion of the Church, without Hopes of being ever re-admitted, except at the Point of Death[566]. As to the schismatic Bishops, it was agreed, that such of them as abandoned the Schism should not forfeit their Dignity, but sit alternatively with the Catholic Bishop till one of them died[567]. The Council, before they broke up, acquainted the Bishop ofRomewith their Proceedings, and at the same time sent him the Decrees they had made concerning the Discipline of the Church, not to be confirmed by him, asBaroniuswould make us believe[568], but thatby his means, as he held larger Dioceses, they might be the sooner known. These are the very Words of the Council[569][N10].

N10. Several Canons were made by this Council relating to the Discipline of the Church. 1. It was ordained, thatEastershould be kept on the same Day, and on aSunday, by all the Churches in the World; and that the Bishop ofRomeshould acquaint the other Churches with the Day. But it was afterwards ordained, that the Bishop ofAlexandriashould fix the Day, and give timely notice of it to the Bishop ofRome, that by his means it might be notified to the whole Church. This Ordinance St.Cyrilseems to ascribe to the Council ofNice; for he says, that it wasso enacted by the Synod composed of all the Saints of the Earth; which, at the Time he writ, that is, about the Year 360. could be said of no other Synod but that ofNice. PopeLeo the Great, speaking of this Custom in a Letter to the EmperorMarcian, only says, that it wasestablished by the holy Fathers[1]. He meant, perhaps, the Fathers ofNice. But as they took no notice of such a Custom in their Letter to the Church ofEgypt, I cannot suppose it to have been introduced by them. The Care of fixing the Day, and acquainting the Bishop ofRomewith it, was probably committed to the Bishop ofAlexandria, because theEgyptianswere thought to be better acquainted with the Motions of the heavenly Bodies than any other Nation. In other Provinces the Bishops seem to have been utter Strangers to Astronomy, and to that Ignorance was chiefly owing their Disagreement with respect to the Celebration ofEaster. This Custom still obtained in the Fifth Century, as appears from a Letter ofLeo the Great, dated the 28th ofJuly454. For by that Letter he acquaints the Bishops ofGaulandSpain, that the following Year 455,Easterwould fall on the 24th ofApril,as it had been settled in the East[2]. Before his TimeInnocentI. being at a Loss to know on what DayEastershould be kept in 414. had recourse toAureliusBishop ofCarthage, intreating him to examine that Point in a Council, and let him know what they determined, that he might notify it, as was customary, to other Churches.Innocenthad quarreled, onChrysostom’s Account, with the Eastern Bishops; and therefore chose rather to be informed and directed by theAfricanBishops than by them. 2. It was decreed, that such as had been baptized by Heretics in the Name of the Trinity, should not be rebaptized, but admitted into the Church only by the Imposition of Hands. But to this Decree of the Council no greater Regard was paid, than had been paid in St.Cyprian’s Time to the Decisions of PopeStephen. For in the Year 370. the same Practice of rebaptizing Heretics still obtained in several Churches ofAfrica, as appears fromOptatus, who writ about that time. In the East some held, and some denied, the Validity of Baptism administred by an Heretic. Of the latter Opinion was the greatAthanasius, who flourished from the Year 326. to 373. and St.Basil, who writ about the Year 369. after examining, in his Letter toAmphilochus, the two opposite Practices, seems inclined to think the Baptism of Heretics null. According to the present Doctrine of the Church ofRome, Baptism, by whomsoever administred, whetherJew,Gentile, Heretic,Mohammedan, &c. whether Man or Woman, or even a Child, is valid, provided it be only administred with an Intention of administring it, without which every Sacrament, say they, is null. This Doctrine, with respect to the Intention, proves daily to timorous Consciences the Source of endless Doubts and Perplexities, which can never be removed: for tho’ they may know for certain, that the Ceremony was performed, yet they can never know whether or no it was performed with the due Intention. In Confession, for Instance, they may hear the Words of the Absolution pronounced by the Priest; but they know nothing of his Intention, of the Intention of the Minister who baptized him, of the Bishop who ordained him, of the Priest who baptized, or the Bishops who ordained that Bishop, and so up to the Apostles, by whom the first Bishops were ordained. Should the right Intention have been wanting in any of these; should the Priest, while he pronounces the Words of Absolution, have his Thoughts employed on some other Object, as it may easily happen; the penitent Sinner would depart from his Tribunal with the whole Load of his Sins, and be damned, notwithstanding his Repentance, for, or, more properly speaking, thro' want of Attention in the Priest. A most unchristian and impious Doctrine, placing our eternal Salvation in the Hands of others, and not in our own. 3. The Council decreed, that excommunicated Persons should be no-where absolved from the Excommunication but in the Places where they had been excommunicated. The Bishops ofRomedid not yet know, it seems, that they were vested with an unlimited Power of binding and loosening, of excommunicating and absolving, with respect to all Persons and Places; for hadSylvesterbut dreamt of such a Power, we may well suppose he would never have suffered it to be thus controuled. Several other Canons were made by this Council, in all Twenty-two; but it is foreign to my Purpose to take notice of them. I shall only observe, that the Council consisted of Thirty-three Bishops, and not of Two hundred, asBaroniussupposes, upon the Authority of St.Austin, whom he misunderstood; and thatMarinusBishop ofArlespresided, his Name being placed at the Head of the Subscriptions, and the Names ofSylvester’s Legates after his.1. Leo, ep. 94. c. 1.2. Leo, ep. 109.

1. Leo, ep. 94. c. 1.

2. Leo, ep. 109.

The other grand Council that was held during the Pontificate ofSylvesterwas that ofNice, so famous in the History of the Church:but the Bishop of the reigning City, saysEusebius[570], being prevented by his great Age from undertaking so long a Journey, he sentVitusandVincentius, TwoRomanPresbyters, to supply his room[571], with Orders to agree in his Name to the Decisions of the Council[572]. In Process of Time such Orders grew out of Date, and the modest Name ofRomanPresbyters, given to those who were sent by the Bishops ofRome, either to Councils or Princes, was changed into the lofty Title ofLegates a latere.|Osiusdid not assistat the Council ofNiceas the Pope’sLegate.|Baronius[573], and after him most Writers of the Church ofRome, maintainOsius, the celebrated Bishop ofCordoua, to have assisted, nay, and presided at the Council ofNiceas the Pope’s Legate.VitusandVincentius, say they, represented the Person of the Pope; butOsiusheld his Place, and the Place of all the Bishops of the West. ThatOsiusassisted at the Council with the Character of the Pope’s Legate, is affirmed, I own, byGelasiusofCyzicus, who flourished about the End of the Fifth Century[574]: butEusebius, who was present, mentions onlyVitusandVincentiusas sent thither bySylvester. In like manner all the Historians, who have written of that Council afterEusebiustill the Time ofGelasius, in naming those Two Presbyters andOsius, which they all do, constantly distinguish the former by the Title of the Deputies, the Representatives,&c.of the Bishop ofRome, and never the latter. Besides,VitusandVincentius, in subscribing to the Canons of the Council, declare, that they do itin the Name of the venerable Pope, or Father,Sylvester their Bishop[575]; whereasOsiussubscribes, like the other Bishops, in his own Name. As to his presiding at that great Assembly, his Name, 'tis true, is marked the first bySocrates[576], among those who subscribed to the Definitions and Canons of the Council; but yet I am inclined to believe that Honour not to have been conferred upon him, but uponEustathiusBishop ofAntioch;|Nor did he preside.|forJohn, Bishop of the same City, writing toProculusabout the Year 435. styles him the first of the Fathers assembled atNice[577], andFacunduscalls him the first of the Council[578]. In the Chronicle ofNicephorushe is styled the Head of the Fathers ofNice[579]: and fromTheodoretwe learn, that he sat the first on the Right-hand in the Assembly, and harangued the Emperor[580], which it was the President’s Province to do[N11].

Back to Index Next