Spurious Piecesascribed toSylvester.

As for the Letter from the Council ofNicetoSylvester, his Answer, the Acts of a Council of 275 Bishops, supposed to have been held by him, at the Request of the Fathers ofNice, to confirm their Canons and Decrees[N12], his Letter to the Bishops ofGaul, in favourof the Church ofVienne; the Acts of Two other Councils, said to have been held by him atRome; they are all Pieces universally rejected by Men of Learning, and deemed no less fabulous than the Instrument ofConstantine’s Donation, and that Prince’s Journey withSylvesterto the Council ofNice, as it is related in the Acts of the latter, even in those whichF. Combesispublished in 1660. They are inGreek, and that Writer undertakes to defend them as genuine[656]; but we need no other Proof than the Account they give of that Journey, to conclude them incapable of being defended.Sylvesterdied on the 31st ofDecember335. after having governed the Church ofRomefor the Space of Twenty-one Years, and Eleven Months[657].

N12. The Style of the Letter from the Council toSylvesteris quite barbarous and unintelligible. It begins thus:Gloriam corroborata de Divinis Mysteriis. Ecclesiasticæ utilitatis quæ ad robur pertinent Ecclesiæ Catholicæ & Apostolicæ ad sedem tuamRomanamexplanata & de Græce redacta scribere confitemur--Nunc itaque ad vestræ sedis argumentum accurrimus roborari. The rest is written in the same Style; the Consuls are calledSovereigns, and the Letter is dated Five or Six Days after the Opening of the Council. The Design of the Impostor was, to make the Fathers ofNicerecur toSylvesterfor a Confirmation of their Decrees.Sylvester’s Answer is of a piece with the Letter of the Council; it supposes him to have added something to the Council; mentions the Cycle ofVictorinus, who was not born inSylvester’s Time, nor many Years after; and bears a false Date. As for the Council said, and by some still maintained, to have been held atRome, to confirm the Canons ofNice, it was utterly unknown to all the Antients. And who can believe, that none of the Antients should ever have heard of a Council held in the Metropolis of the Empire, and consisting, as we are told, of Two hundred and Seventy-five Bishops, or, if they had heard of it, that they would never have mentioned it? Besides, it is said to have been held atRome, in the Presence ofConstantine; and it is certain, that the Emperor was not inRomeat the Time the Council is supposed to have been held. The Canons, which are supposed to have been made on this Occasion, contain Regulations repugnant to the Practice of those Times, and which it was then impossible to observe. The first Canon relates to the Time whenEasterwas to be kept; but what is there determined no Man can know. The Second is no less unintelligible than the First:Ut unusquisque Episcopus rediens ad Parochiam suam Compaginem Salutationis plebi tuæ innotescat. These are the Words of this Canon. The Third forbids the Ecclesiastics to appear before secular Judges, let the Action be what it will; which is repugnant to the Discipline of those Times. The Fourth will have those, who enter themselves among the Clergy, to pass through all the Degrees, and fixes the Time which they are to continue in each Degree. They are to be Janitors or Door-keepers one Year, Lectors or Readers Twenty, Exorcists Ten, Acolytes Five, Subdeacons Five, Deacons Five, and Priests Six; so that none under Threescore could attain to the Episcopal Dignity; which is highly absurd in itself, and contrary to the Practice of those Times.

Year of Christ 336.bracket

Sylvesterwas succeeded byMark, on the 18th ofJanuary336. He is passed over byTheodoret[658], but named byOptatus[659],Ruffinus[660], St.Austin[661], St.Jerom[662], andSozomen[663]. We knownothing certain either of his Life or Administration.|The Bishop ofRomeordained by theBishop ofOstia.|Anastasiusindeed tells us, that by him the Bishop ofOstiawas first appointed to ordain the Bishop ofRome, and to carry thePalliumor Pall; whereBaroniusobserves, that the Pall is here mentioned for the First time[664]. ButAnastasiusis not a Writer we can depend upon. It is certain, however, that the Bishops ofOstiahave long enjoyed this Privilege; for it is mentioned by St.Austin[665], and likewise in a Memorial presented by the Clergy ofRomein 418. to the EmperorHonorius, on Occasion of the Election of PopeZosimus[666]. The Letter which the Bishops ofEgyptare said to have written to this Pope, and his Answer to them, are rejected even byBaronius[667], and very justly; for the Pope’s Answer is dated Eighteen Days after his Death. He died on the 7th ofOctoberthe same Year he had been chosen[668], and was buried in the Cœmetery ofBalbina, which was thenceforth called after his Name[669]. His Body is now worshiped in the Church of St.LaurenceatFlorence, though no Mention is made by any Writer of its having ever been translated thither[670].

Year of Christ 337.bracketFalsely said to haveheld a great CouncilatRome.

Upon the Death ofMarkthe See was vacant for the Space of Four Months, that is, to the 6th ofFebruary337. whenJuliuswas chosen[671]. He is said to have held a Council of an Hundred and Sixteen Bishops in theDecemberof the same Year[672]. But the Date of this Council putsBaroniusto a Stand; for in the Date are marked the Consuls, the Year of the Emperors, and the Indiction. Now, according to the Consuls, it must have been held in 337. according to the Year of the Emperors, in 340. and, according to the Indiction, in347. The Annalist spares neither his Words nor his Labour to solve, or rather to patch up, this Difficulty; but, being sensible, after a long, tedious, and puzzling Descant, that he labours in vain, he concludes, that the Text has been altered[673]. He might have saved himself a great deal of Trouble, by owning at once what has been plainly proved since byBlondel[674],viz.that no such Council was ever held.

WhenJuliuswas raised to the Pontificate, the celebratedAthanasius, Bishop ofAlexandria, lived in Banishment atTreves; but the Year following he was allowed to return to his Church by the Three Emperors,Constantine,Constantius, andConstans, who had succeeded their Father in 337.|TheArianswrite toJuliusagainstAthan-asius.|TheEusebians, that is, theArianFaction headed byEusebiusBishop ofNicomedia, at whose Instigation he had been banished byConstantine, alarmed at his Return, writ bitter Letters against him to the Three Princes, and likewise to the Bishop ofRome. To the latter they dispatched with their LettersMacariusa Presbyter, and the Two DeaconsMartyriusandHesychius.Athanasiusno sooner heard of this Embassy than he, in his Turn, dispatched some Presbyters to oppose the Attempts of his Enemies, and defend his Innocence against the Calumnies, which he well knew they were sent to spread against him, not only atRome, but all over the West[675].|They desireJuliusto assemble a Council.|Upon their Arrival,Macariusprivately withdrew fromRome, and the other Two were so confounded by the Deputies ofAthanasius, at a private Conference held before the Pope, that, to gain Time, they had no other Resource but to appeal to a Council, which they begged the Pope to assemble, and to give timely notice thereof both toAthanasiusand theEusebians. They bragged that, before the Council, they would make good the Charge they had brought againstAthanasius, and offered to takeJuliushimself for their Judge[676]. This Offer, we may be sure, was readily accepted by the Bishop ofRome, who immediately writ toAthanasiusinviting him to the Council, and at the same time desired the Deputies of theEusebiansto acquaint their Party, that, agreeably to their Request, a Council should be soon convened.Athanasius, upon the Receipt of the Pope’s Letter, set out, without Delay, forRome, where he arrived in the Latter end of the Year 339. After his Arrival the Bishop ofRomedispatchedElpidiusandPhiloxenes, Two of his Presbyters, with Letters to theEusebians, summoning them to the Council, which their Deputies had demanded,and acquainting them with the Time and Place in which it was to be held[677]. The Place wasRome, and the Time the Month ofJune341. according to the most probable Opinion.|They decline appear-ing at the Council ofRome;assemble oneatAntioch;and theredeposeAthanasius;|The other Bishops assembled at the Time appointed; but theEusebians, instead of appearing at the Council ofRome, which had been convened at their Request, assembled one atAntioch, and there, without waiting for the Determination ofJulius, whom they had chosen for their Judge, deposedAthanasius, and appointedGregoryBishop ofAlexandriain his room; nay, they even detained the Deputies sent by the Pope till the Time appointed for the Meeting of the Council was expired, that they might afterwards plead, as they did, the Shortness of the Term prescribed for them to meet in[678].|who is declaredinnocent in theCouncil ofRome.|In the Council ofRomethe Cause ofAthanasiuswas examined, and he, after the strictest Scrutiny, declared innocent with one Voice by the Fifty Bishops who composed it[679]; so thatJuliusand the rest continued to communicate with him as a Bishop[680], which was declaring him unlawfully deposed. Several other Bishops, who had been deposed by theArians, came to lay their Complaints before the Council, and, among the rest,MarcellusBishop ofAncyra, andPaulBishop ofConstantinople. The former had been condemned as an Heretic by a Council held atConstantinoplein 336. and consisting intirely ofArianBishops. As nobody appeared against him during the Fifteen Months he continued atRome, and the Declaration of his Faith, which, at the Request ofJulius, he gave under his own Hand, was judged quite orthodox by the Pope and the Council, he was readmitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church[681]. But whether they did not judge too favourably of his Belief, may be very much questioned:Epiphaniusat least was no-ways satisfied with it[682]. And truly it would be no easy Task to clear him from the Heresy ofSabelliusandSamosatenus, denying the Trinity of the Divine Persons[683]: but to examine so perplexed and intricate a Point, would be foreign to my Purpose.|NeitherAthanasiusnor any otherBishop restored byJulius.|Socrates[684]andSozomen[685]write, thatJulius, by the Authority of his See, reinstated all the Bishops who had been displaced by theArians; that he supported and defended their Innocence with Letters full of Vigour and Liberty; severely reprimanded those who had deposed them; summoned someof them to appear atRome, in a limited Time, to justify their Conduct; and, lastly, that he threatened to treat them as they deserved, if they did not forbear raising Disturbances in the Church. In virtue of these Letters, saysSocrates, the Bishops were restored to their Sees. ButSozomennames onlyAthanasius, andPaulBishop ofConstantinople. It is surprising, that the Advocates for the See ofRomeshould allege the Testimony of these two Writers, to prove that the Authority of the Bishop ofRomewas acknowleged by the Orientals; that his Jurisdiction was universal; when they themselves must know (for I cannot suppose them so ignorant as not to know) that the Historians whom they quote were grosly mistaken. For it is manifest fromAthanasius[686], thatJuliuswrit only two Letters to theEusebians; one before the Council met, inviting them to it; and the other, while the Council was still sitting, which I shall speak of hereafter; and in neither of these doesJuliustake upon him either to threaten or command. The above-mentioned Historians seem to have jumbled these two Letters together, and to have made a Third out of them, with some Improvements of their own. As to his restoring the deposed Bishops to their Sees, it is certain he did not, sinceAthanasiuscontinued in the West till the Year 349. when he was restored by the Council ofSardica.Paulindeed was reinstated sooner, but not till the See ofConstantinoplebecame vacant by the Death ofEusebius, who had been translated fromNicomediato that City. I appeal to theRomanCatholics themselves, and leave them to judge whether it is at all probable, that the EmperorConstantius, and the Oriental Bishops, incensed as they were againstPaulandAthanasius, whom they had condemned and deposed in Two Synods, should, out of Respect to the Pope, suffer them thus tamely to return to their Sees, and drive out those whom they had placed in their room. This had been owning themselves guilty, and reversing the Sentence they had but lately pronounced, which, as will appear, they were no-ways in an Humour to do.

TheEusebianswritetoJulius;

While the Council ofRomewas yet sitting, the Pope’s two Deputies,ElpidiusandPhiloxenes, returning from the East, delivered toJuliusa Letter from theEusebians, which may pass for a Master-piece of the Kind; for, without departing from, or intrenching upon, the Respect that was due to the Bishop of the Imperial City, they, at the same time, commend, censure, menace, and rally him in a most cruel Manner. They begin with alleging several frivolous Excuses fornot appearing at the Council, such as thePersianWar, which, by the way, did not prevent their assembling atAntioch; the Shortness of the Term prescribed for their Meeting; the Pope’s writing only to some of them, and not to all, as he ought to have done; and finally, his writing to them in his own Name alone, which was tacitly taxing him with taking too much upon him. They then launch out ironically, it seems, into the highest Encomiums on the Church ofRome, styling her the first of all Churches, the School of the Apostles, the Metropolis of true Piety. However, the first Preachers of the Gospel, add they, came out of the East; and, after all, we ought to be looked upon as Inferiors to none, though perhaps we may not have such numerous and flourishing Churches as some have, since the want of Numbers may be abundantly supplied by the Piety of a few. As to Rank, we are all equal, the Greatness of the Cities, in which we preside, adding nothing to the Dignity we all enjoy. In the next place, they express great Concern at the little Regard shewn by some to the Decisions of Councils, which ought to be revered by all, and deemed immutable. This was modestly censuring the Pope for not acquiescing to the Decrees of the Councils ofTyreandConstantinoplecondemningAthanasius.|and threaten toseparate themselvesfrom his Communion.|In the End they allege several Things both againstAthanasius, andMarcellusBishop ofAncyra; and conclude with tellingJulius, that if he renounced all Correspondence and Intercourse with the Bishops they had deposed, and acknowleged those they had placed in their room, they would continue to communicate with him; but if he refused to comply with their Decisions and Decrees, they should think themselves obliged to act in a very different Manner[687].Juliuswas so mortified with this Letter, that he suppressed it for some time, hoping theEusebianswould send Deputies, who, he presumed, would express their Sentiments by Word of Mouth, and in a different Style. But, none appearing, he was obliged to lay the Letter he had received before the Fathers of the Council, who, after expressing the greatest Indignation against theEusebians, advised the Pope to answer it; which he did accordingly, by that excellent Letter, which has been preserved intire among the Works ofAthanasius.|Julius’s Answerto their Letter.|He begins with complaining, in very modest Terms, of the Animosity they betrayed in their Letter, to which he thought he had given no Occasion; unless they had taken it amiss, that he had summonedthem to the Council; which he could not persuade himself they did, since, at the Request of their Deputies, he had appointed the Council to meet, and, at their Request, invited them to it. As for the Regard due to the Decrees and Decisions of Councils, he told them, that they had trespassed the first against the Decrees of the Oecumenical Council ofNice, by admitting theAriansto their Communion, which he conceived to be more criminal in them, than it was in him to receiveAthanasiusandMarcellus. He reproaches them with another Transgression of the Canons of the Church, namely with that of passing from one Bishoprick to another, whichEusebiushad done. He then justifies his Conduct with regard toAthanasiusandMarcellus; exhorts theEusebians, with great Zeal and Earnestness, to find out some Remedy against the Evils and Disorders that reigned in the East, which he describes at Length; and concludes with complaining of the Orientals for condemning and deposing Bishops, those especially of the Apostolic Sees, without the Concurrence or Knowlege of their Brethren in the West[688].

Julius, finding his Letter made no Impression on theEusebians, applied with several other Bishops to the EmperorConstans, who, at their Request proposed to his BrotherConstantiusthe assembling of an Oecumenical Council, in order to put an End to those unhappy Divisions.|The Council ofSardica.|To this ProposalConstantiusagreed; and accordingly, by the Command of the two Princes, a numerous Council met in 347. atSardica, the Metropolis ofDaciainIllyricum[689].Julius, apprehending it dangerous to abandon his Flock at that Juncture, did not assist in Person, but by his DeputiesArchidamusandPhiloxenes, who signed in his Name[690]. The Orientals came, but withdrew soon after, upon the Council’s refusing to excludeAthanasius, and some others, whom they had condemned[691]. But by the orthodox Bishops, who remained, the Acts of the Council ofRomewere confirmed,Athanasiusand Three other Bishops declared innocent; and those, who had been placed in their room, not only deposed, but anathematized, and intirely cut off from the Communion of the Catholic Church[692]. The Council, before they broke up, writ several Letters; and, among the rest, one to the Emperors; one to the Bishop ofRome; and a circularLetter to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, acquainting them with what had passed, and exhorting them to join the Council, and declare to the World, that they accepted their Decrees by subscribing to them[693]. The circular Letter was subscribed first by the greatOsiusBishop ofCordoua, and in the Second place by the Pope’s Legates[694]. In their Letter toJuliusthey beg him to notify their Decrees to the Bishops ofSardinia,Sicily, andItaly, lest any of them should receive Letters of Peace and Communion from the Bishops they had condemned[695]. In this Letter the Council says, or rather is made to say, Thatit is very meet or reasonable, that all Bishops should acquaint their Head, that is, the See of St.Peter,with what passes in their respective Provinces[696]. I agree withBlondel[697], that this Passage is foisted in; but cannot acquiesce to the only Reason he alleges to support his Opinion,viz.the Barbarity of theLatinExpression (valde congruentissimum est); for such a Slip might easily escape Men wholly bent on defending the Truth, and speaking it; and besides, we are not certain, that this Letter was originally written inLatin. The want of Connexion between that Sentence, and what is said both before and after it, is, I think, a more convincing Proof of Forgery.

Canons of the CouncilofSardicarelating tothe Bishop ofRome.

By the Council ofSardicaseveral Canons were made; but I shall only take notice of those that regard the Bishop ofRome. By the Third Canon in theGreek, or the Fourth in theLatinTranslation byIsidorus, it is ordered, that if any Bishop shall think himself unjustly condemned, his Judges shall acquaint the Bishop ofRometherewith, who may either confirm the first Judgment, or order his Cause to be re-examined by such of the neighbouring Bishops asheheshall think fit to name[698].Osius, who was greatly addicted to the See ofRome, begged the Council to grant this Honour to the Memory of St.Peter. The Fourth Canon, according to theGreek, adds, That the See of the deposed Bishop shall remain vacant till his Cause shall be judged by the Bishop ofRome. By the Fifth Canon, which by some Mistake is the Seventh inDionysius Exiguus, it is ordered, that if a Bishop, condemned in his own Province, shall chuse to be judged by the Bishop ofRome, and desires him to appoint some of his Presbyters to judge him in his Name, together with the Bishops, the Bishop ofRomemay grant him his Request.|The Practice of ap-pealing to the Popefirst introduced.Several Circumstancesconcur in his Favour.|Thus was the pernicious Practice of appealing to the Pope first introduced and authorized. It must beobserved, that the Oriental Bishops had all left the Council: those who remained were all zealous Opposers ofArianism. At the Head of their Party was the Bishop ofRome. In the Heat of their Zeal they thought they could not confer too much Power upon him; and so made a Concession intirely repugnant to the Discipline of the primitive Church, and which he could never have obtained, had not those Dispositions worked strongly in his Favour. This will not be surprising to those, who have attended to History, and seen how much the Ambition of Princes, and Heads of Factions, is often advanced beyond its due Bounds by the indiscreet Fervour of Party-Zeal. To the Council ofSardica, acting under this Influence, the See ofRomeis indebted for the so much boasted Privilege of receiving Appeals; andJuliuswas very thankful for it.|The Popes claimas their originalRight, what wasgranted them as aFavour.|But his Successors, looking upon such an Obligation as a Diminution of their pretended Sovereignty, have had the Assurance to claim it as their original Right: but that such a Right was unknown to their great FriendOsius, to the Fathers of the Council, nay, and to the Pope himself, and his Legates, is manifest, since what they now claim as their original and inherent Right, was byOsiusbegged of the Council as a Favour, and, as such, granted by the Council, and accepted by the Pope and his Legates. This Power of receiving Appeals, only with respect to the judging and deposing of Bishops, has been extended by the Popes to all Causes; and great Encouragement has been given to such as recurred to their Tribunal on the slightest Occasions.Concerning Appeals in the smallest Causes, we would have you to know, that the same Regard is to be had to them, for how slight a Matter soever they be made, as if they were for a greater, says PopeAlexanderIII. in his Letter to the Bishop ofWorcester[699]. The scandalous and intolerable Abuse of this Power in the Popes has obliged several Princes, even when Superstition most prevailed, to restrain their Subjects by severe Laws from recurring toRome. Nay, other Councils of far greater Authority than that ofSardica, finding no other Means to put a Stop to the daily Encroachments of the See ofRome, have thought it necessary to revoke the Privilege, which that Council had too rashly granted, as we shall see in the Sequel of the present History.

Decrees of theCouncil ofAntiochrevoked by theCouncil ofSardica.

It had been decreed but Six Years before, by the Council ofAntioch, that, if the Bishops of the same Province disagreed in judging one oftheir Brethren, the Metropolitan might call in those of the neighbouring Province to judge with them; but if they agreed, and were unanimous either in condemning or absolving, their Judgment should be irreversible. Both these Decrees were revoked by the present Council, though intirely agreeable to the antient Practice and Discipline of the Church.|The Pope has noPower to summonBishops toRome.|But yet this Council, however favourable to the Pope, did not grant him the Power of summoning Bishops toRome, in order to be judged there by him. He was only impowered to examine the Judgment given in the Province; and, in case he found it to be wrong, to order another in the same Province, to invite to this new Synod the Bishops of the next Province, and to send his Legates to it as he thought fit.

Osiusdid not presideat the Council ofSardicaas the Pope’sLegate.

At this Council the Pope’s Legates assisted; but Osius presided, as we are told in express Terms byTheodoret[700], bySozomen[701], and by the Fathers of the Council ofChalcedon[702]. Besides, his Name is the first in the Subscriptions, as they have been transmitted to us byAthanasius, who assures us, thatOsiuswas the Chief, and presided in all the Councils at which he assisted. He signed the first, and in his own Name: after him signed the Legates, not in their own, but in the Pope’s Name;Julius Romæ per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros; which is a sufficient Confutation ofDe Marca, and the other Popish Writers, pretending, without the least Foundation, thatOsiuspresided in the Name ofJulius.

The Council ofSardicaa Council ofno great Authority.

It is to be observed, that the Canons of this Council were never received in the East, nor even in the West by the Bishops ofAfrica; and that they were not inserted by the Council ofChalcedoninto the Code of Canons approved by them, as Rules to be universally observed: so that, after all, the so much boasted Council ofSardicais a Council of no great Authority. Of this the Popes themselves were well apprised; and therefore, recurring to Fraud, attempted, as we shall see hereafter, to impose upon the World the Canons ofSardicaas the Canons ofNice.

Athanasiusretires toNaissus.

Athanasius, though declared innocent by the Council, did not think it adviseable to return to his See, being informed, that theEusebianshad prevailed upon the EmperorConstantiusto issue an Order, impowering and commanding the Magistrates ofAlexandriato put him to Death, without further Tryal, in what Place soever he shouldbe found within the Precincts of that Jurisdiction[703].|Is recalled byConstantius.|He therefore retired toNaissusinUpper Dacia, and there continued from the year 347. to 349. whenConstantiuschose rather to recall him, and the other exiled Bishops, than engage in a Civil War, with which he was threatened by his Brother, if he did not[704]. Before his Departure for the East he went toRome, to take his Leave of that Church, and his great ProtectorJulius, who, on that Occasion, writ an excellent Letter of Congratulation to the Presbyters, Deacons, and People ofAlexandria. Of this Letter we have Two Copies, the one inSocrates[705], and the other inAthanasius[706]. The former contains great Commendations of that Prelate, which, out of Modesty, were, as I conjecture, omitted by him.

UrsaciusandValensretract all they hadsaid againstAthanasius.

Juliushad, soon after, the Satisfaction of receiving a solemn Retractation made byUrsaciusBishop ofSingidunum, andValensBishop ofMursus, Two ofAthanasius’s most inveterate Enemies, publicly owning, that whatever they had said or written against him was utterly false, groundless, and invented out of pure Malice: at the same time they embraced his Communion, and anathematized the Heresy ofArius, and all who held or defended his Tenets. This ActValenswrit with his own Hand, andUrsaciussigned it; whereupon they were both admitted byJuliusto the Communion of the Church[707][N13]. This Retraction,though not at all sincere, but merely owing to Policy, greatly contributed to the Justification ofAthanasius. I find nothing else in the Antients, concerningJulius, worthy of Notice.|Juliusdies.|He died on the 12th ofApril352. having governed the Church ofRomeFifteen Years, Two Months, and Six Days[708]. He is said to have been buried in the Cœmetery ofCallistus, on theAurelianWay, where he had built a Church[709], and to have been removed from thence in 817. by PopePaschalI. to the Church of St.Praxedes, and again from that, byInnocentII. in 1140. toSt. Mary’sbeyond theTyber[710].Bede, whom the Authors of the modern Pontificals have followed, tells us, in his Martyrology[711], thatJuliuswas sent into Banishment, where he suffered much for the Space of Ten Months, till the Death ofConstantius, a zealous Promoter ofArianism.|Juliuswas notbanished byConstantius.|But that Historian was certainly mistaken, sinceConstantiuswas never Master ofRomeinJulius’s Time, and his BrotherConstanswas a great Friend toJulius, and all the orthodox Bishops.|Spurious Piecesascribed to him.|Of the many Writings ascribed toJulius, none, except his Two Letters, are authentic, the one to theEusebians, and the other to the Church ofAlexandria, of which we have spoken above.LeontiusofByzantiummentions Seven Epistles, which, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, were ascribed toJulius[712]; but, at the same time, he assures us, that they were not written by him, but byApollinaristhe Heresiarch; and the Monks ofPalæstine, in the Account they gave of theEutychians, in the Time of the EmperorAnastasius, assure us, that they seduced great Numbers of People, by ascribing the Works ofApollinaristo the Fathers, namely toAthanasius, toGregory Nazienzen, and toJulius[713].Gennadiusascribes toJuliusa Letter toDionysiusBishop ofCorinth, greatly favouring of the Heresy ofEutychesandTimotheus[714];butLeontiusofByzantiumevidently proves that Letter to have been written byApollinaris; and as his it is quoted by his Two DisciplesValentineandTimotheus[715]. The Orientals have a Liturgy, which they suppose to have been composed byJulius: this Supposition, however groundless, shews him to have been in great Repute in those Parts[716].

N13.UrsaciusandValensfirst abjured, or rather pretended to abjure, their Errors atMilan, before the Council, that at this Time was sitting there. FromMilanthey repaired toRome, and there abjured anew their Errors, in the Presence ofJulius, and the wholeRomanChurch. HereBaroniusobserves,that as this was a Matter of too great Moment to be finally decided by the Council ofMilan,though theRomanPresbyters were present, they sent them toJulius,that they might abjure their Errors in his Presence, agreeably to the antient Custom of the Catholic Church; viz.that eminent Heretics should abjure their Heresies only atRome[1]. But, in the first Place, they were not sent by the Council; but went toRomeof their own Accord, asOsiusassures us, in express Terms,Illi ultre Romam venerunt[2]. In the second Place, the Matter was finally determined by the Council ofMilan; for the Council received their Recantation, and restored them to the Communion of the Church. And what else was to be done? what else couldJuliusdo? But if the Matter was finally determined by the Council, what could induce them, saysBaronius, to travel toRome, and abjure anew their Heresy there? The Answer is obvious: They had imposed upon the Council by a pretended Abjuration, and went toRometo impose, in like manner, onJulius, and obtain by that means his Communion; which they did accordingly, notwithstanding hisInfallibility. Besides, as bothAthanasiusand his Enemies had referred their Cause to the Arbitration ofJulius, he was the fittest Person to receive the Retraction of the false Evidence, which they had formerly given. As to the Custom, mentioned byBaronius, thateminent Heretics should abjure their Heresies only atRome, no Man can be so little versed in Ecclesiastical History as not to know, that no such Custom ever obtained in the Catholic Church. Not to recur to more antient Times, theArianBishops, that is, Bishops guilty of the same Heresy asUrsaciusandValens, abjured their Errors before the Council that was held atJerusalemin 335. There they renounced their Heresy; there they were all restored to the Communion of the Church, without going, or offering to go, toRome. And many of those Bishops were surely more eminent Heretics than eitherUrsaciusorValens.1. Bar. ad ann. 350. n. 23.2. Apud Ath. ad Solitar.

1. Bar. ad ann. 350. n. 23.

2. Apud Ath. ad Solitar.

Back to Index Next