The History of the Popes: From the Foundation of the See of Rome, to the Present Time, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1 (part 1 of 3)

The History of the Popes: From the Foundation of the See of Rome, to the Present Time, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects. Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as italic. The text also affected the now obsolete ‘long s’ (ſ). All of been replaced with the modern ‘s’.

Each article is marked with a sidenote indicating the year a Pope assumed the office. These notes are underscored with a large horizontal brace, which is not reproduced here.

Marginal ‘sidenotes’ are marked as ‘[Sidenote: text]’ They appear either preceding a paragraph, or, when they annotate text within a paragraph, approximately where they occur in the original, usually on a sentence break.

The original text does not include a Table of Contents. The following has been constructed for ease of navigation

St. PETER LINUS, First Bishop of Rome, CE 66. CLETUS or ANACLETUS Second Bishop of Rome, CE 78. CLEMENT, Third Bishop of Rome, CE 91. EVARISTUS Fourth Bishop of Rome, CE 100. ALEXANDER, Fifth Bishop of Rome, CE 109. SIXTUS, Fourth Bishop of Rome, CE 119. TELESPHORUS, Seventh Bishop of Rome, CE 128. HYGINUS, Eighth Bishop of Rome, CE 139. PIUS, Ninth Bishop of Rome, CE 142. ANICETUS, Tenth Bishop of Rome, CE 157. SOTER, Eleventh Bishop of Rome, CE 168. ELEUTHERIUS, Twelfth Bishop of Rome, CE 176. VICTOR, Thirteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 192. ZEPHYRINUS, Fourteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 201. CALLISTUS, Fifteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 219. URBANUS, Sixteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 223. PONTIANUS, Seventeenth Bishop of Rome, CE 230. ANTERUS, Eighteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 235. FABIANUS, Nineteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 236. CORNELIUS, Twentieth Bishop of Rome, CE 251. LUCIUS, Twenty-first Bishop of Rome, CE 252. STEPHEN, Twenty-second Bishop of Rome, CE 253. SIXTUS II. Twenty-third Bishop of Rome, CE 257. DIONYSIUS, Twenty-fourth Bishop of Rome, CE 258. FELIX, Twenty-fifth Bishop of Rome, CE 269. EUTYCHIANUS, Twenty-sixth Bishop of Rome, CE 275. CAIUS, Twenty-seventh Bishop of Rome, CE 283. MARCELLINUS, Twenty-eighth Bishop of Rome, CE 296. MARCELLUS, Twenty-ninth Bishop of Rome, CE 308. EUSEBIUS, Thirtieth Bishop of Rome, CE 310. MELCHIADES, Thirty-first Bishop of Rome, CE 311. SYLVESTER, Thirty-second Bishop of Rome, CE 314. MARK, Thirty-third Bishop of Rome, CE 336. JULIUS, Thirty-fourth Bishop of Rome, CE 337. LIBERIUS, Thirty-fifth Bishop of Rome, CE 352. DAMASUS, Thirty-sixth Bishop of Rome, CE 366. SYRICIUS, Thirty-seventh BISHOP of Rome, CE 384. ANASTASIUS, Thirty-eighth Bishop of Rome, CE 398. INNOCENT, Thirty-ninth Bishop of Rome, CE 402. ZOSIMUS, Fortieth Bishop of Rome, CE 417. BONIFACE, Forty-first Bishop of Rome, CE 419. CELESTINE, Forty-second Bishop of Rome, CE 422.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE HISTORY OF THE POPES,

FROM THE Foundation of the SEE of ROME,

TO THE

PRESENT TIME.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOL. I.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By ARCHIBALD BOWER, Esq;

Heretofore Public Professor of Rhetoric, History, and Philosophy, _in the Universities of_ Rome, Fermo, and Macerata,

And, in the latter Place, Counsellor of the Inquisition.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The THIRD EDITION.

LONDON: Printed for the AUTHOR.

---

M. DCC. L.

TO THE

KING

SIR,

It is not only as having the Happiness to be Your subject, that I beg Your permission to lay this Book at Your feet. In whatever part of the world I had been born, or had resided, I should have desired to present it to Your Majesty, as the Great Protector of the Reformed Religion, and worthily filling that Throne, which, above any in Europe, is the chief Bulwark against the Papal Power, and all its pernicious attendants. The wonderful rise, and monstrous growth of that Power, almost to the ruin of all true Religion, and all the Civil rights of mankind, will be delineated in the course of this Work, which I flatter myself may be of some Use to the Protestant Cause. For, next to the light of the Gospel, there is nothing that Popery has more to fear, than that of historical Truth: It is a test which the pretensions and doctrines of Rome can never abide; and therefore she has used her utmost endeavours, not only to lock up the Gospel from the eyes of the Laity, and prefer her own Comments, Decrees, and Traditions, to the authority of the Scriptures, but to corrupt, disguise, and falsify History, in which necessary business her ablest pens have been employed. To take off those disguises, and discover those falsehoods, is consequently a task becoming the zeal of a good Protestant; and my intention at least, though not my performance encourages me to hope for Your Majesty’s Gracious Protection.

In the latter part of this History I shall have often the pleasure to shew, how great an Instrument under GOD the Power and Strength of this kingdom has been, to maintain and support the Reformation all over Europe. But I must also shew with concern, that from the death of our wise Queen Elizabeth, the Princes of the House of Stuart, instead of pursuing that glorious Plan, which she had traced out, were either remiss in the cause, or wholly forsook it; so that had not the Revolution providentially happened, and in consequence of it, the House of Brunswick been called to the Throne of these kingdoms, the Reformed Religion would, in all probability, have not only been lost in Great Britain, or at least under a fate of severe persecution, but would have been in great danger every-where else, from such a change in the Balance of Power as that event must have produced. The support of Your Royal Family is therefore most necessary, even upon motives of self-preservation, to every Protestant both here and abroad. May a due sense of that important connection between Your safety and Theirs, be always kept alive in their minds. May our Holy Religion continue to flourish under Your Majesty’s Care, and that of Your Royal Posterity, to the latest times. May neither the open attacks, nor secret machinations of Rome prevail against it. And may it produce all the Fruits that ought to spring from it, the truly-christian spirit of Toleration, universal charity, good morals, good learning, freedom of thought, and candour of mind. I need add no other wishes or prayers to these: They comprehend all happiness to Your Majesty, to Your Royal Family, and to my Country; and they come from the heart of,

Sir, Your Majesty’s Most Loyal, Most Faithful, And most devoted Subject,

ARCHIBALD BOWER.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE PREFACE

The Work, which I now offer to the Public, I undertook some years since at Rome, and brought it down to the Pontificate of Victor, that is, to the close of the Second Century. As I was then a most zealous champion for the Pope’s Supremacy, which was held as an article of Faith by the body I belonged to, my chief design, when I engaged in such a work, was, to ascertain that Supremacy, by shewing, century by century, that, from the Apostles times to the present, it had ever been acknowleged by the Catholic Church. But alas! I soon perceived, that I had undertaken more than it was in my power to perform. Nay, while, in order to support and maintain this cause, I examined, with particular attention, the writings of the Apostles, and of the many pious and learned men who had flourished in the three first centuries of the church, I was so far from finding any thing that seemed the least to countenance such a doctrine, that, on the contrary, it appeared evident, beyond all dispute, that, during the above-mentioned period of time, it had been utterly unknown to the Christian world. In spite then of my endeavours to the contrary, Reason getting the better of the strongest prejudices, I began to look upon the Pope’s Supremacy, not only as a prerogative quite chimerical, but as the most impudent attempt that had ever been made: I say, in spite of my endeavours to the contrary; for I was very unwilling to give up a point, upon which I had been taught by Bellarmine, that the whole of Christianity depended[1]; especially in a country, where a man cannot help being afraid even of his own thoughts, since, upon the least suspicion of his only calling in question any of the received opinions, he may depend upon his being soon convinced by more cogent arguments, than any in Mood and Figure. But great is the power of truth; and at last it prevailed: I became a proselyte to the opinion which I had proposed to confute; and sincerely abjured, in my mind, that which I had ignorantly undertaken to defend.

Being thus fully convinced, that the Pope’s so much boasted Supremacy was a bold and ungodly usurpation, I could not help censuring with myself the men of learning, who had countenanced such a pretension, especially the two great champions of the Papal power Bellarmine and Baronius. Did they not see what every man, who but dips into the primitive writers, must see; what is obvious to common sense? The poor shifts they are often put to, their ridiculous evasions and cavils, their unmeaning distinctions, their wresting several passages, contrary to the plain and natural meaning of the authors they quote, and, above all, their unsatisfactory answers to the objections of the adverse party, shew but too plainly, that they wrote not from conviction, nor aimed at truth, but, perhaps, at the red Hat, which was afterwards bestowed upon them, as a reward for betraying the truth. Few have written in defence of the Pope’s Supremacy, that have not been preferred; and none perhaps who had not preferment in view. Æneas Sylvius, afterwards Pius II. being asked, before he was raised to the Papal Chair, How it happened, that, in all disputes between the Popes and the Councils, many Divines sided with the former, and very few with the latter? Because the Popes, answered he, have benefices to give, and the Councils have none. Had he been asked the same question after he was Pope, he would not perhaps have returned the same answer; but said, upon his being put in mind of it, as Gregory XIII. did afterwards on a like occasion, that, being raised higher, he saw better and farther. Those therefore who have stood up in defence of the liberty of the Church against Papal Usurpation, cannot be supposed to have had any other inducement to espouse the cause of truth, but truth itself. And this some have had the Christian courage to do even in Italy, and almost in the Pope’s hearing, at the peril of their liberty, of their lives, of all that was dear to them; as I shall have occasion to shew hereafter. But to return, in the mean time, to the present History: I no sooner found myself in a Country where truth might be uttered without danger, than I resolved to resume and pursue, in my native tongue, as soon as I recovered the use of it, the work I had begun in a foreign language. On the one side I saw the only obstruction to an undertaking, which had already cost me no small pains and labour, happily removed; while I flattered myself on the other, that as a complete History of the Popes was still wanting, such a performance might meet with a favourable reception from the public. I am well apprised, that others have, at different times, and in different languages, treated the same subject: but whether any of their several works may deserve the name of a complete, or even of a tolerable History, I leave those to judge who have perused them; and shall only say in respect to myself; that, instead of diverting me from undertaking the same province, they have more than any thing else encouraged me to it. Anastasius and Platina, the two Classics, as they are deemed, in this branch of History, have indeed given us the Lives of the Popes, from the foundation of the See of Rome to their times, but in so broken, imperfect, and unsatisfactory a manner, that from them we learn but very little, even concerning those of whom they have said most. It was not their design to write a History, but only to draw, as it were in miniature, the portraits of the Roman Bishops, by relating, in a summary way, such of their actions, as appeared to them most worthy of being recorded; and, to say the truth, they have both betrayed no less want of discernment in chusing what they should relate, than of exactness in relating what they had chosen.

Anastasius the Monk, surnamed Bibliothecarius, that is, Library-keeper, Secretary, and Chancellor of the Church of Rome (for all these employments antiently centred in one person, and were comprised under the common name of Bibliothecarius) flourished in the ninth century, under Nicolas I. Adrian II. and John VIII. He wrote a succinct account of the Bishops, who governed the Church of Rome, from St. Peter to Nicolas I. who died in 867. But the memoirs he made use of were none of the best. In his time the world was over-run with forged or corrupted Pontificals, Martyrologies, Legends, &c. which were then no less universally received, than they have been since rejected by the learned of all persuasions. However, that from these the Bibliothecarian borrowed the greater part of his materials, at least for the six first centuries, is but too apparent from his overlooking, nay, and often contradicting, the unexceptionable testimonies of contemporary writers; as will be seen in the sequel of the present History. As therefore the records, which he copied, are so justly suspected, and his own authority can be of no weight with respect to those distant times, the reader must not be surprised to find, that, in this History, I have paid no manner of regard to an author, who has been hitherto blindly followed by those, who have written on the same subject. There may indeed be some truth in what he relates; but his frequent mistakes render that truth too precarious to be relied on, unless confirmed by the concurring testimonies of other more credible and less credulous authors. However, in the times less remote from his own, I shall readily allow his authority its due weight; the rather, as he seems not to have written with a design of imposing upon others, but to have been imposed upon himself by frauds and forgeries; for he wrote in an age, when the world lay involved in the thickest mist of ignorance, when superstition and credulity triumphed without controul, and spurious pieces, filled with idle and improbable stories, had thrust every grave writer, nay, and the Gospels themselves, out of doors.

Platina, so called from the Latin name of Piadena, a village in the Cremonese, the place of his nativity (for his true name was Battista, or Bartolomeo Sacchi) flourished six hundred years after Anastasius, that is, in the fifteenth century, under Calixtus III. Pius II. Paul II. and Sixtus IV. Under Pius II. he was Secretary of the Datary, the office where vacant benefices are disposed of; but, being dismissed by Paul II. tho’ he had purchased the place, in the height of his resentment, he appealed to the future Council. What he suffered under that Pope, first in prison, and afterwards on the rack, we shall hear from himself, in a more proper place. Sixtus IV. the successor of Paul, well apprised of his innocence, took him into favour, and, having enlarged, endowed, and enriched the Vatican library with a great number of valuable books, in different languages, he committed the care of them to him. It was probably at this time that he wrote, or rather transcribed, the Lives of the Popes from St. Peter, whom he supposes the founder of that See, to Paul II. who died in 1471. I say transcribed; for, if we except the few Popes who lived in or near his own times, viz. Eugene IV. Nicolas V. Calixtus III. Pius II. and Paul II. he copied, almost verbatim, all he has said of the rest, only interweaving now and then the profane history with the ecclesiastic[2]. The Lives of the fourteen succeeding Popes, from Paul II. to Pius V. elected in 1566. were compiled by Onuphrius Panvinius, of the Augustin order, a man more commendable for his learning, than for his candor and veracity. These are, as we may style them, the original compilers of the Lives of the Popes: Platina adopted Anastasius’s concise method of writing, and Panvinius, Platina’s, contenting themselves with bare hints; and thereby putting their readers to the trouble of consulting other writers, in order to gratify the curiosity they had raised. Much has been said of the Popes by other Historians, but very little by their own, as the learned Pagi observed, after comparing the authors I have mentioned, with the contemporary Historians of other nations. I might well add, that the very little they have said has been thought too much; whence some of them, and Platina in particular, have been made, in all their Editions since the middle of the sixteenth century, to speak with more reserve, and to suppress or disguise some truths they had formerly told.

As for those who in later times have engaged in the same province, we need only dip into their works to be satisfied, that to search out truth was not their business. Some are all praise and panegyric, others all satire and gall: some have made it their study to excuse the worst of Popes, others to arraign the best. That many of the Popes have been wicked men, abandonedly wicked, is undeniable, notwithstanding the pains that have been taken to extenuate their crimes; but neither are there wanting some good men among them, of innocent lives, and unblemished characters, whose only crime is their having been Popes; and to misrepresent or misconstrue the virtuous actions of these, as some have done, is no less blameable in an Historian, than to dissemble or gloss over the criminal actions of the others. This partiality may be easily accounted for with respect to one great period of the present History. During the quarrels and wars between the Popes and Emperors, which lasted many years, and occasioned, in seventy-eight battles, the destruction of an infinite number of innocent people, two powerful factions reigned, as is well known, both in Germany and Italy, distinguished by the names of Guelphs and Ghibbelines; the former being zealously attached to the Papal and the latter to the Imperial interest. In the midst of these distractions few writers stood neuter, but, siding, according to their different interests or inclinations, with one party or the other, drew their pens, each against the head of the party he opposed, with more rage than the soldiers did their swords. And hence it is, that we find the same facts related by contemporary authors with such different circumstances; the same persons, the Emperors especially and the Popes, painted in such different colours. Of this very few Writers in the later times have been aware; and therefore have, as their bias led them to favour one cause more than the other, adopted as undoubted truths the many groundless aspersions and undeserved reproaches which party zeal had suggested to the Ghibbelines against the Popes, or to the Guelphs against the Emperors. I wish I could intirely clear an eminent Italian historian of our own times from this imputation.

But, after all, as it was not merely with a view to supply the want of a complete History of the Popes, that I formerly undertook so laborious a task; neither is it now with that view alone I resume it. What I proposed to myself, when I first undertook it, I have said already; but, being convinced that I laboured in vain, and convinced by such evidence as the strongest prejudice could not withstand, I thought it a duty owing to truth, to set it forth to others in the same irresistible light; and to defend, at least with as much zeal, the best of causes, as I had done the worst. A disloyal subject, who had taken up arms against his lawful Sovereign, would not be thought intirely to comply with his duty, by only laying them down: he ought, if actuated by a true spirit of loyalty, and truly convinced of the badness of his cause, to range himself under the banners of his injured Lord, and devote to his service and defence the sword he had drawn against him. By a like obligation, a writer, who has, even ignorantly, combated truth, is bound, not only to lay down his pen, as soon as he finds himself engaged in a bad cause, but, when occasion offers, to turn against error in favour of truth the very weapon he had employed against truth in favour of error.

But to give the reader some account of the History itself, and the method I have pursued in delivering it: I have intituled it, The History of the Popes; but might as well have styled it, The History of Popery; since it not only contains an account of the Lives and Actions of the Popes, but of every Popish tenet; when, by whom, on what occasion, and to serve what purpose, each of them was broached; those more especially which relate to the Pope as Christ’s Vicar upon earth, as the Supreme Head of the Church, as an Infallible Guide to salvation; for these are the prerogatives he claims, as entailed upon, and inseparable from the Roman See. But that no such doctrines were known in the first and purest ages of Christianity; that the Bishop of Rome was then, nay, and thought himself, upon the level with other Bishops; that the Catholic Church acknowleged no power, authority, or jurisdiction in the Bishop of Rome, but what was common to him with all other Bishops, will appear so plain from the following History, that I can hardly conceive it possible for any man, however prejudiced in favour of the Papal Power, and Popish Religion, to peruse it without abjuring the one and the other: I am but too well apprised of the strength of prejudice; but, strong as it is, it can never be proof against plain matter of fact. For who can believe, for instance, in the Pope’s Infallibility, who can help looking upon such an article of belief as the grossest affront that ever was offered to human understanding, when he reads of a Liberius admitting and signing the Arian creed, or confession of faith, declared heretical by all his Successors; of an Honorius condemned by the Fathers of the sixth Oecumenical Council, as an organ of the devil, for holding the heresy of the Monothelites; of John XXII. preaching up and propagating, both by his Missionaries and his Legates a latere, a doctrine, which he himself retracted on his death-bed; of seven Popes[3] cursing and damning, in emulation of one anther, all who denied a certain tenet[4], and another Pope[5] as heartily cursing and damning all who maintained it, nay and recurring to the Ultima Ratio of the later Popes, the Fagot, in order to root out of the Church (these are his very words) so pestilential, erroneous, heretical, and blasphemous a doctrine? This occasioned great scandal in the Church, insomuch that some even took the liberty to represent to his Holiness, that the Decrees and Constitutions of one Pope could not be reversed by another. The Pope replied (and what other reply could he make?) That they were mistaken, since it might be proved by innumerable instances, that what had been decreed wrong or amiss by one Pope or Council, could be rectified and amended by another. This answer silenced them at once, says our Historian: And well it might; I am only surprised, that the word Infallibility has ever been since heard of. The Franciscan Friers, who had occasioned the dispute, paid dear for it: As they continued to plead the Infallibility of seven Popes against that of one, and obstinately adhered to their doctrine, Pope John, losing all patience, ordered all to be burnt alive, who did not receive his Constitution; which was done accordingly, and many of those unhappy wretches chose rather to expire in the flames than to yield. These remarkable transactions are related by several contemporary writers of unquestionable authority, and among the rest by Nicolaus Eymericus, who was Inquisitor of the province of Tarragon, and has inserted them in his Directorium Inquisitorum[6]. Other facts without number, of the same nature, and alike irreconcileable with the other prerogatives claimed by the Popes, as well as with the chief articles of the Roman Catholic religion, will occur in this History, and all so well attested, that nothing, I think, can withstand the force of Truth thus displayed. Logical arguments and controversial reasoning cannot be well adapted to every understanding, and therefore are not always attended with the desired effect, however skilfully managed; but historical facts lie level to the meanest capacities, and the consequences thence deducible are to the meanest capacities plain and obvious. It is true, the Sticklers for the See of Rome have endeavoured to darken the clearest facts, since they could not deny them, as being vouched by their own approved authors; but they have done it in so aukward a manner, with such absurd, ridiculous, and unintelligible interpretations, comments, distinctions, &c. that, were it not well known it was their interest to defend that cause, one would be apt to think they intended rather to ridicule than defend it.

But if the Popes were originally mere Bishops, upon the level with other Bishops; if they had no power but what was common to them with all other Bishops; by what means could they thus exalt themselves above their Collegues, nay, above all that is called God? What could induce their Collegues, and with them the greater part of the Christian world, to acknowlege such an unheard-of power, and submit to a yoke of all others the most heavy and tyrannical? For an answer to these questions I refer the reader to the following History, where he will find every branch of power, authority, or jurisdiction claimed by the Popes, traced from its first origin, and the various steps pointed out, by which they raised themselves from the lowest beginnings to the highest pitch of greatness; which is opening a school of the most refined policy, that ever was known or practised upon earth. In this respect we must own the Popes to have been, generally speaking, men of extraordinary talents, the ablest Politicians we read of in History, Statesmen fit to govern the world, and equal to the vast dominion they grasped at; a Dominion over the Minds as well as the Bodies and Estates of mankind; a Dominion, of all that ever were formed, the most wide and extensive, as knowing no other Bounds but those of the Earth; nay, and not even those, since these mighty Princes claim to themselves all power in Heaven as well as in Earth, all power over the Dead as well as the Living. To establish the spiritual part of this wondrous Authority upon the Gospel of Christ, which contradicts it in every line, was an undertaking of no little difficulty, and that required no common skill: to establish the temporal dominion without a fleet, without an army; to subject to it not only the ignorant and superstitious multitude, but Kings themselves, nay and to prevail upon them to employ both their arms and their interest in promoting a power evidently derogatory to and inconsistent with their own; was a work not to be accomplished but by men of superior talents, thoroughly acquainted with all the arts of insinuation and address, and steady in pursuing, by the best concerted measures, the great point that they constantly had in their view.

Two things, however, concurred to facilitate, in some degree, the establishing the one and the other; viz. the profound ignorance of the times, and the matchless cunning of the persons employed by the Popes as their Emissaries and Agents; without which helps no imposture was ever carried on with success.

It was in the night, while men slept, while the earth was overspread with the darken night of ignorance, that the enemy came, and sowed his tares. From the Beginning of the Seventh Century to the time of the Reformation, Letters were utterly neglected; and in proportion to that neglect, Credulity and Superstition, the inseparable companions of Ignorance, prevailed among the Laity even of the highest ranks: the little knowlege that still remained (and very little did remain) was wholly confined to the Clergy, chiefly to the Monks, men most zealously attached to the interest of the Pope, as well knowing, that by promoting his interest, they promoted at the same time their own. It was in this period of time, in this long darkness of ignorance, credulity, and superstition, that the Pope and his Agents introduced maxims and notions concerning the Papal Prerogatives, very different from those which the world had entertained to that time. In the beginning of the Seventh Century, that is, in the year 606. Pope Boniface III. a man of great address, having craftily insinuated himself into the favour of Phocas, obtained of that Traitor and Murderer[7], the famous Rescript settling the Supremacy on the See of Rome, in opposition to the claim of the Patriarch of Constantinople. As Phocas bore an irreconcileable hatred to Cyriacus, who was then vested with the Patriarchal dignity, he was the more easily prevailed upon to decide the Controversy, which had already lasted a long time between the two Sees, in favour of the See of Rome. If this hatred in the Usurper was owing to the zeal of Cyriacus in laying before him the enormity of his crime, and exhorting him to repentance, Boniface, nay and his predecessor St. Gregory the Great[8], knew better how to make their court to men in power, than to take the least notice of their sins, however public, or mention Repentance in their hearing. Be that as it will, it is certain, that to this monster of wickedness the Church of Rome owes her Supremacy. And it was this Grant from Phocas, that more than any thing else inspired the Bishops of Rome with pride and presumption; which increasing as their power increased, they were carried by degrees to all the excesses an unbounded ambition can suggest, when free from all Curb of Conscience, Morality, and Religion.

Yet, after all, the Supremacy granted by Phocas was but a Supremacy of Order and Dignity; it gave no new power to the Bishop of Rome, but only raised him above his Collegues, especially his Rival, the Patriarch of Constantinople; and made him, as some express it, the First amongst his Equals. But his Successors, thirsting after power, and scorning to hold their dignity by so precarious a tenure as the Emperor’s pleasure, which might hereafter revoke the decision of Phocas, and give the Precedence in rank to Constantinople instead of Rome, began to disown the favour they had received, to set up for themselves, and to claim the Supremacy, as inherent by Divine Right in their See, and derived from St. Peter, as Chief of the Apostles, and Head of the Church. Thus was the foundation of the Supremacy changed; and wisely changed, according to the rules of human policy. The old foundation was no-ways proportioned to the immense superstructure, which they now began to design; since they could claim but very little power, if any at all, in virtue of the Emperor’s Grant. But the new foundation was capable of bearing whatever the most unbounded and aspiring ambition could build on it. Besides, the Bishop of Rome could not challenge, by a Rescript of the Roman Emperor, any Superiority over the Churches, that had no Dependence on the Roman Empire. But a Supremacy, inherent by Divine Right in the Papal Dignity, raised him at once above all the Bishops of the Catholic Church. What therefore now remained was, to improve this extensive Supremacy into a no less extensive Power and Jurisdiction. And here no time was lost, many circumstances concurring to promote and forward the execution of their attempt. Besides the ignorance of the times, and the influence of the Monks, which operated strongly in their behalf, the Princes of Europe were quarrelling among themselves about the Western parts of the Roman Empire, and all glad to purchase, at any rate, the friendship of the Bishop of Rome, who, after the famous Donation of Pepin in 754. had taken great state upon him, and bore a considerable sway in all public affairs. As for the Bishops, and the rest of the Secular Clergy, they looked upon the Pope, especially after he had added the Sword to the Keys, as their protector and defender; and were on that consideration disposed to concur in strengthening his power, and rendering it formidable, tho’ at the expence of their own; chusing rather to subject themselves to an Ecclesiastical master, than to submit to the Civil authority. I might add, that some now began to mind the Fleece more than the Flock; and with That it was some time before the Popes thought it proper to meddle; but, when they did, they soon retrieved, by the haste that they made, the time they had lost.

Yet I do not believe, that they designed at first to run those lengths, or carry the Papal Prerogative to that extravagant height they afterwards did. The success, that attended them in the pursuit of one claim, encouraged them to set up and pursue another. Of this no one can doubt, who peruses with the least attention the Records of those Ages, and compares the Popes in the beginning of the Seventh Century with the Popes in the latter end of the Eleventh. We shall find them, in the first-mentioned period of time, submitting with all humility to Princes; claiming no kind of authority or jurisdiction whatsoever but in virtue of the Canons of Councils, or the Rescripts of Emperors; glorying, or pretending to glory, in the humble title of Servants of Servants; acknowlegeing themselves Subjects and Vassals of the Emperors, and patiently waiting the will and pleasure of their liege Lords to take upon them the Episcopal dignity, or exercise the functions of that office. Such were the Bishops of Rome in the beginning of the Seventh Century. How different from those in the latter end of the Eleventh! They were then vested with the Plenitude of all power, both Spiritual and Temporal; above Councils, and uncontrouled by their Canons; the fountain of all pastoral jurisdiction and authority; and, by Divine Sanction, impowered to enact, establish, abrogate, suspend, all Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions: they were then become Lords and Masters, the most haughty and imperious Lords, the most severe Masters, mankind had ever groaned under: they no more begged, but dispensed titles, boasting a power of setting up Kings, and pulling them down at pleasure; of calling them to an account, absolving their subjects from their allegiance, divesting them of their dominions, and treating in every respect as their slaves and vassals, those, whom one of their best and greatest Predecessors[9] had acknowleged superior to all Men, and thought himself in duty bound to obey. This Plenitude of power, as they style it, was not acquired at once, but by degrees, as I have observed above; some of the Popes being more, and some less active, crafty, and aspiring. But what is very remarkable, of the one hundred and fourteen between Boniface III. who laid the foundation of the Papal grandeur, and Gregory VII. who raised it to the highest pitch, not one ever lost an inch of ground his Predecessors had gained. And thus, by constantly acquiring, and never parting with what they had acquired, nay, and tying the hands of their Successors by the irreversible entail of a Divine Right, they became the sole Spiritual Lords, and had almost made themselves the greatest Temporal Lords of the whole Christian world.

But by what particular means they rose to such an height of grandeur and majesty, by what artifices and subtle contrivances they maintained what they had usurped, and strove to retrieve what they had lost, when it pleased Divine Providence to check and restrain within more narrow bounds their overgrown power, the reader will learn from the following History. Some of the arts they have made use of, are of the most refined, and some of the blackest nature; and both I have endeavoured, in this work, to set forth in their truest light, without disguise or exaggeration; those more especially which the Popes and their Agents have formerly employed, and still employ, to bring anew under their yoke, such nations as have had the Christian courage to shake it off, and assert that Liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free. If I shall be so happy as thereby to keep awake and alive, in the breast of every true Englishman, that noble ardour, which has, on a late occasion, exerted itself in so distinguished a manner; if it shall please Heaven to second my Undertaking so far, as to alarm by it those Protestants (I wish I might not say those many Protestants) who are not aware of, nor sufficiently guarded against, the crafty insinuations, the secret views and attempts of the Papal Emissaries; I shall think the time and pains it has cost me abundantly paid.

I am well apprised of the reception a work of this nature must meet with, and of the treatment its author must expect, both at home and abroad, from the Popish Zealots. But let them vent their zeal in what manner they please, I shall neither answer nor relent their reproaches and censures, however malignant and groundless: nay, I shall hear them with as much pleasure and satisfaction as I should the praises and commendations of others; it being no less meritorious in a writer to have displeased the enemies of Truth, than to have pleased the friends. And these, I flatter myself, will find no great room for censure: it would grieve me if they should, since I have done all that lay in my power to leave none. I have advanced nothing for which I have not sufficient vouchers: and these I have taken care to quote in the margin, that the reader, by recurring to the places pointed out in each author, may be convinced of my sincerity and candor. I have always preferred the contemporary writers, when equally credible, to those who wrote after, tho’ not without taking notice of their disagreement; and such as flourished nearest the times when the transactions happened, which they relate, to those who lived at a greater distance. Pursuant to this Rule, in delivering the Lives of the Bishops who governed the Church of Rome during the First Ages of Christianity, I have confined myself wholly to the Primitive writers, trusting no Modern any farther, than as he wrote from the Antients. From these there is no Appeal; it is by them, and them alone, that the Papal Supremacy must stand or fall. If they have all conspired to misrepresent the sense of the ages in which they lived (and it is only by this hypothesis that the Supremacy can be supported), in what other monuments shall we search for it?

The Partiality, which I have so much complained of above in the works of others, I have taken all possible care to avoid in my own; checking the very first emotions of that zeal, which, on my reflecting how long, and how grosly I had been imposed upon, would, if not carefully watched, have proved as strong a biass in me against the Pope, and the Popish Religion, as the opposite zeal has proved for them in others. The vices and vicious actions of the bad Popes I have not dissembled; but neither have I magnified them: the virtues and commendable actions of the good Popes I have neither lessened nor misconstrued; nay, I have more than once justified the conduct and character of some pious men among them, greatly injured by their own Historians, because they lived, and suffered mankind to live, in peace; applying themselves solely, as it became good Bishops, to the discharge of their Pastoral duty. These their Historians have strangely misrepresented, measuring the merit of each Pope by the great Things they atchieved, no matter by what means, for the exaltation of their See; which, in other terms, is measuring their Merit by their Pride and Ambition.

The Length of this History requires, I presume, no Apology. Every one knows, that the Popes acted, for several ages, as the Umpires of Europe, or rather as the Sovereigns; several Princes being actually their vassals, and the rest affecting to pay them the same respect as if they were. This emboldened them to intermeddle in the public affairs of each State and Kingdom; insomuch that no remarkable event happened, no revolution, no change of government or constitution, which they did not either promote or oppose, as it suited their interest, with too many of them the only standard of right and wrong; and their authority, through the ignorance, credulity, and superstition of those unhappy times, was, generally speaking, of such weight, as to turn the scale into which it was thrown. Besides, they had, in every Kingdom and Nation, their Legates or Vicars, who, together with the Clergy, formed, as it were, a separate State, and one Kingdom or Empire within another. These, at the instigation of the Popes, their Lords and Masters, were constantly encroaching on the Civil Authority and Jurisdiction, on the Rights of the People, and Prerogatives of Princes. Hence arose innumerable Disputes, which, if Princes did not comply with their demands, ended in Anathemas, Interdicts, Civil Wars, Rebellions, private Assassinations, and public Massacres. Those who are versed in the Histories of other Nations, as well as in that of our own, and know what a considerable part the detail of these fatal disputes takes up in the particular Histories of each State and Kingdom, will not find fault with the Length of this, which, if complete, and as such I offer it to the public, must comprise them all. Besides, I have given a summary account of the many Heresies that have sprung up in the Church; of the Councils that have been held; of the religious and military Orders; of their Founders, institutions, fundamental laws, &c.; subjects all, in some degree, connected with the History of the Popes.

I do not doubt, but this Work will meet with a favourable Reception from Protestants of all denominations; such a Reception, I mean, as is due to Truth. It will, I flatter myself, retard, at least, the daily increase of the Papal interest in these happy Kingdoms. As for the Roman Catholics here, would they but lay aside their prejudices, so far as to peruse it with the least degree of candor and attention, I am confident Truth would exert its power no less efficaciously upon some of them, than it has done upon me. They cannot surely be more biassed in favour of the errors they had been brought up in, than I was. In them Truth has but one enemy to contend with, Education; in me it had two, Education and Interest; and the latter is but too often the more powerful of the two. What I forfeited by adhering to Truth, most of the Roman Catholics in England well know; and I am very confident none of them can say, that I have ever yet reaped, or sought to reap, the least temporal benefit from it. If therefore the Power of Truth, when duly displayed, is so great, as to triumph thus over the combined force of Education and Interest, we may well hope, that it will, at least in some, triumph over Education alone: I most heartily wish it may in all.

-----

Footnote 1:

Bellar. Præf. de Sum. Pont.

Footnote 2:

The authors he thus copied were Anastasius Bibliothecarius, from St. Peter, or rather Linus, to Nicolas I. Gulielmus, likewise Bibliothecarius, from Nicolas I. to Alexander II. Pandulphus Pisanus, from Alexander II. to Honorius II. Martinus Polonus, from Honorius II. to Honorius IV. Theodorus of Niem, from Honorius IV. to Urban VI. and from Urban VI. to Martin V. who died in 1431, other writers, whose works are extant, but their names unknown. He likewise borrowed a great deal of Ptolemæus Lucensis, a Dominican Frier, who flourished, and compiled the Lives of the Popes, in the time of Boniface VIII. chosen in the year 1294.

Footnote 3:

Gregory IX. Innocent IV. Alexander IV. Nicolas III. Martin IV. Nicolas IV. Clement V.

Footnote 4:

That the Franciscan Friers had no property, in common or in private; a question, if any ever was, de lana caprina. What was it to mankind? what to the Christian Religion, whether a few Friers had, or had not any property? No man was the better for believing they had, no man the worse for believing they had not. And yet to read the bulls of the Popes one would think, that the whole of Christianity had been at stake.

Footnote 5:

John XXII.

Footnote 6:

Direct. Inquis. part. ii. quæst. 51. See also Antoninus in his Summa theologiæ, part. iv. tit. ii. c. 7. num. 5. Petrus Alliacus Cameracensis; Continuator Nangii ad ann. 1333; Joannes Gerso in Ser. de Fest. Paschat. Longus in Monas. Cicestr. Chronic. and Gobelinus Cosmodromii ætat. vi. c. 71.

Footnote 7:

Phocas settled himself on the Imperial throne by the murder of Mauritius, his lawful sovereign, and the massacre of his six children, and of all his friends and relations. Five of his children he caused to be inhumanly butchered in the presence of their father.

Footnote 8:

Gregory styles him a most pious and religious Prince; caused his image, and that of his wife Leontia, who was no better than he, to be lodged in an oratory at Rome; and, congratulating him on his advancement to the throne, ascribes it to a particular Providence.

Footnote 9:

Gregory the Great.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE HISTORY OF THE POPES, OR BISHOPS of ROME

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

St. PETER

It is out of some Regard to an antient Tradition, that I have placed St. Peter at the Head of the Bishops of Rome, though I am well apprised, that this, like most other Traditions, will hardly stand the Test of a strict and impartial Examination. [Sidenote: That St. Peter was ever at Rome, known only by Tradition.] To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat Tradition as we do a notorious and known Lyer, to whom we give no Credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some Person of undoubted Veracity. If it is affirmed by him alone, we can at most but suspend our Belief, not rejecting it as false, because a Lyer may sometimes speak Truth; but we cannot, upon his bare Authority, admit it as true. Now that St. Peter was at Rome, that he was Bishop of Rome, we are told by Tradition alone, which, at the same time, tells us of so many strange Circumstances attending his coming to that Metropolis, his staying in it, his withdrawing from it, &c. that, in the Opinion of every unprejudiced Man, the Whole must favour strongly of Romance. [Sidenote: Tradition not to be depended upon.] Thus we are told, that St. Peter went to Rome chiefly to oppose Simon, the celebrated Magician; that, at their first Interview, at which Nero himself was present, he flew up into the Air, in the Sight of the Emperor, and the whole City; but that the Devil, who had thus raised him, struck with Dread and Terror at the Name of Jesus, whom the Apostle invoked, let him fall to the Ground, by which Fall he broke his Legs. Should you question the Truth of this Tradition at Rome, they would shew you the Prints of St. Peter’s Knees in the Stone, on which he kneeled on this Occasion, and another Stone still dyed with the Blood of the Magician[N1].

-----

Footnote N1:

This Account seems to have been borrowed from Suetonius, who speaks of a Person that, in the public Sports, undertook to fly in the Presence of the Emperor Nero; but, on his first Attempt, fell to the Ground; by which Fall his Blood sprung out with such Violence, that it reached the Emperor’s Canopy [N1.1].

Footnote N1.1:

Suet. l. 6. c. 12.

-----

[Sidenote: Fabulous Accounts of St. Peter.]

The Romans, as we are told, highly incensed against him for thus maiming, and bringing to Disgrace, one to whom they paid divine Honours, vowed his Destruction; whereupon the Apostle thought it adviseable to retire for a while from the City, and had already reached the Gate, when, to his great Surprize, he met our Saviour coming in, as he went out, who, upon St. Peter’s asking him where he was going, returned this Answer, I am going to Rome to be crucified anew: which, as St. Peter understood it, was upbraiding him with his Flight; whereupon he turned back, and was soon after seized by the provoked Romans, and, by an Order from the Emperor, crucified. These, and a thousand like Stories, however fabulous and romantic they may seem, we cannot, without great Incoherency, reject, if we admit St. Peter to have been at Rome; since the Whole is equally vouched by the same Authority, and has been upon the same Authority equally believed by those, who are called in by the Advocates for the See of Rome, to witness St. Peter’s having preached the Gospel in that City. [Sidenote: The greatest Men imposed upon by false Traditions.] These are Arnobius[10], Cyril of Jerusalem[11], Eusebius[12], Irenæus[13], Tertullian[14], Jerom[15], and Justin the Martyr[16]. These have all supposed St. Peter to have been at Rome, and, together with St. Paul, to have planted Christianity in that great Metropolis of the World; but this they took upon Tradition, and consequently their Authority is of no greater Weight than Tradition itself, which had they duly examined, they would not perhaps have so readily pinned their Faith upon it. False and lying Traditions are of an early Date, and the greatest Men have, out of a pious Credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them. How many Traditions, after having reigned for Ages without Controul, were upon the Reformation, when Men took the Liberty to examine what they believed, rejected by the Church, ashamed to own them, and degraded into popular Errors! But that of St. Peter’s having been at Rome, and the first Bishop of that City, was a Tradition of too great Consequence not to be maintained at all Events, since upon that chiefly was founded the Claim of his pretended Successors to an uncontrouled Authority, and universal Jurisdiction; a Foundation infinitely too weak for such an immense Superstructure.

[Sidenote: How little regard paid to them by some Popes.]

And here I cannot help observing the little Regard that the Popes themselves have shewn to Tradition, though received by the greatest Lights of the Church, when it did not promote the Honour or Interest of their See. Of this we have a glaring Instance in a parallel Case; for as St. Peter, according to Tradition, travelled to Rome, so did St. Paul, according to Tradition, travel into Spain: the former Tradition was received by the Writers I have quoted above, and the latter by some of the same Writers, viz. by Cyril of Jerusalem[17], and Jerom[18], and by Athanasius[19], Chrysostom[20], Theodoret[21], Gregory the Great[22], and many others; yet such a Tradition was rejected, perhaps justly, by Pope Innocent I. who would not allow St. Paul to have ever been in Spain[23]. Have we not an equal Right to question, or even to deny, St. Peter’s having ever been at Rome? Are not the Authorities at least equal on both Sides? Why then must the Travels of one Apostle be looked upon as an Article of Faith, and those of the other be deemed fabulous?

[Sidenote: No Mention in the Scripture of St. Peter_’s having ever been at_ Rome.]

And truly, if we examine narrowly into this matter, the former Tradition will appear no less groundless to us, than the latter did to that Pope: for, in the first place, neither St. Peter himself, nor any of the Sacred Writers, give us the least Hint or Intimation of his having ever been at Rome. We are told of his being at Antioch, at Jerusalem, at Corinth, at Babylon[24]; but of the great Metropolis of the Empire, where he is supposed to have fixed his See, not the least Mention is made. And may we not from that Silence question, to say no more, his having ever been there? I know that by Babylon, from whence St. Peter wrote his first Epistle[25], Eusebius,[26] Jerom[27], the Venerable Bede[28], Oecumenius[29], and Grotius[30], understood Rome; but this is a bare Conjecture, and no better grounded than that of others, who thought that by Babylon was meant Jerusalem[31]. The learned Doctor Pearson, Bishop of Chester, seeing no Occasion here to recur to a figurative Sense, is of Opinion, that the above-mentioned Epistle was written not from Babylon in Chaldæa, which then lay in Ruins, but from Babylon in Egypt; and no Man has taken more Pains to make the World believe, that St. Peter preached at Rome, and founded that See[32]. But, in this Controversy, the Silence of St. Paul in particular, if duly attended to, must be thought, by every unbiassed Man, a far more convincing Proof of St. Peter’s not having been at Rome, than all the Authorities that have been yet alleged, are of his having been there. [Sidenote: St. Paul, in the many Letters he wrote from Rome, never mentions St. Peter.] For that Apostle, while at Rome, had frequent Opportunities of mentioning his fellow Apostle, and fellow Labourer; and yet, naming several others, he is quite silent as to him. From Rome he wrote to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Philemon, without ever mentioning Peter, or sending any Salutation from him; nay, it is certain, that St. Peter was not at Rome when the Apostle of the Gentiles wrote to the Colossians; for, mentioning Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus, he adds, These alone, my Fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God, who have been a Comfort unto me[33]. Peter was not there, when St. Paul wrote his second Epistle to Timothy, where he says, At my first Answer no Man stood with me, but all Men forsook me[34]: nor was he there immediately before St. Paul’s Death, when the Time of his Departure was at hand; for he tells Timothy, that all the Brethren did salute him; and, naming Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia[35], he omits Peter, whom we may thence conclude not to have been there. And yet it is a received Tradition in the Church of Rome, that St. Peter was then not only in that Metropolis, but confined and bound in the same Prison with St. Paul. As that Apostle, in writing from Rome, sends no Salutations from Peter, so in writing to Rome he greets many others, but never mentions him[36]. Now who would not sooner chuse to reject such Traditions, than to suppose St. Paul guilty of such an unfriendly and unaccountable Omission?

[Sidenote: St. Peter, though at Rome, not Bishop of Rome.>]

From what has been hitherto said, every impartial Judge must conclude, that it is, at least, very much to be doubted whether St. Peter was ever at Rome; but, allowing him to have been there, it still remains to be proved, that he was Bishop of that See. This the Sticklers for the Papal Authority spare no Pains to make out, being well apprised, that the Whole of their Cause lies here at stake; and yet I find nothing alleged by them in so material a Point, but a few misinterpreted Passages out of the Ecclesiastical Writers: for the right understanding of which it is to be observed, that such of the Antients as called Peter Bishop of Rome, and Rome the Place, the Chair, the See of Peter, meant no more than that he was Superintendent of that Church, that he founded it by converting Men to the Faith, and erected the Episcopal Chair, by appointing the first Bishops. That this was their true Meaning, is apparent from what we read in Ruffinus; who, having mentioned Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as succeeding each other in the See of Rome, while Peter was still alive, thus accounts for their Episcopacy: They were, says he, appointed Bishops by Peter, to the end that, they taking upon them the Episcopal Charge, he might be at Leisure to discharge the Duties of his Apostolical Office. And this, he tells us, was not a Notion of his own, but the common Opinion[37]. Irenæus speaks to the same Purpose: The Apostles, says he, founding that Church, delivered the Episcopal Office into the Hands of Linus[38]. Hence the most antient Writers, who lived nearest the Fountain of Tradition, never stile St. Peter Bishop of Rome, but only say, that, by ordaining Bishops, he founded that Church[39]. [Sidenote: In what sense St. Peter and St. Paul stiled Bishops of Rome.] St. Peter therefore was not Bishop of Rome in the strict Sense, to which that Word is now confined, but in the more large Sense, of which I have taken notice above: and in that St. Paul has as good a Claim to the high-sounding Titles of Pope, Bishop of Rome, &c. as St. Peter, since, together with him, he is said to have founded that Church. The Popes indeed will not allow him that Honour, nor condescend to reckon him among their Predecessors; but Epiphanius and Eusebius have been more complaisant; of whom the former says, Peter and Paul were the first at Rome, both Bishops and Apostles[40]; and the latter speaking of the Succession of the Bishops of Rome, Alexander derived his Succession in the fifth Place from Peter and Paul[41]. Both therefore were Bishops of Rome, or neither; both in the Sense of the antient Writers, but neither in that, which is now annexed to the Word Bishop. [Sidenote: The Duties of a Bishop and an Apostle inconsistent.] And truly the Office of an Apostle, and that of a Bishop, as the Word is now understood, are incompatible. An Apostle, says Chrysostom[42], is charged with the Instruction not of any particular Nation or City, but of the whole World; but a Bishop must reside, says the same Writer[43], and be employed in one Place: and therefore St. Peter, who knew these two Duties to be inconsistent, if he was ever at Rome, committed there, as he did in other Places, the Episcopal Charge to others, and pursued his Apostolical Office, which required a more extensive Care.

[Sidenote: Whether James the Apostle was Bishop of Jerusalem.]

But St. James, say the Popish Writers, though an Apostle, was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem; and why might not St. Peter, though an Apostle, undertake the Episcopacy of Rome? It is surprising they should lay so much Stress as they do on this Objection, since they must know it to be grounded on an Uncertainty; as Eusebius the greatest Antiquary of former Times[44], Hegesippus the most antient Historian[45], Epiphanius[46], Jerom[47] Gregory of Nysse[48], Chrysostom[49], and many others, reckon James Bishop of Jerusalem, not among the Apostles, but the Seventy Disciples. Of the same Opinion among the Moderns, are Grotius[50], Dr. Hammond[51], Valesius[52], Blondel[53], and Salmasius[54]. The last of these saying, after his positive and confident manner, It is certain that he was not one of the Twelve, I may at least say, it is not certain that he was; and consequently the Objection can be of no considerable Weight. But allowing him to have been one of the Twelve, as some of the Antients seem to think[55], there was a special Reason, why one of the Apostles should be appointed to reside at Jerusalem, that City being the Metropolis, the Fountain, the Centre of the Christian Religion; our Faith had there had its Birth; the Church was there very numerous, consisting of many Thousands of believing Jews[56]; and thither resorted great Numbers of those of that Nation, who were converted to Christ in other Countries. On these Considerations it might seem expedient, that a Person of the greatest Authority should preside there. But there was no special Reason why an Apostle should constantly reside at any other Place, nor does it appear that any did: St. Peter especially could not reside at any one Place, since to him, as the Apostle of the Circumcision, was committed the Charge of converting the dispersed Jews in all Parts of the World.

[Sidenote: What meant by the Apostolic See, Chair, Throne, &c.]

As for the Appellations of the Apostolic See, Chair, Throne, &c. given by the Antients to the See of Rome, they import no more than that it was erected by an Apostle; for they are bestowed indiscriminately on all the Sees, in which Bishops had been placed by the Apostles; viz. of Ephesus[57], of Smyrna[58], of Alexandria[59], of Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi[59], &c. The Title of Apostolic See, common to many, was, in Process of Time, by the Ambition of the Bishops of Rome, appropriated to their own. They had, as they thought, till the Year 1662. a pregnant Proof not only of St. Peter’s erecting their Chair, but of his sitting in it himself; for till that Year, the very Chair, on which they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was shewn and exposed to public Adoration on the 18th of January, the Festival of the said Chair. But while it was cleaning, in order to be set up in some conspicuous Place of the Vatican, the Twelve Labours of Hercules unluckily appeared engraved on it. Our Worship however, says Giacomo Bartolini, who was present at this Discovery, and relates it, was not misplaced, since it was not to the Wood we paid it; but to the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter[60]. An Author of no mean Character, unwilling to give up the holy Chair, even after this Discovery, as having a Place and a peculiar Solemnity among the other Saints, has attempted to explain the Labours of Hercules in a mystical Sense, as Emblems representing the future Exploits of the Popes[61]. But the ridiculous and distorted Conceits of that Writer are not worthy our Notice, tho’ by Clement X. they were judged not unworthy of a Reward.

[Sidenote: St. Peter how, or by whom, placed in the See of Rome.]

But to return to our Subject; it may be inquired, If St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, who placed him in that See? Did our Lord appoint him? Did the Apostles name him? Did the People chuse him? Did he assume it himself? To these Queries no Answers have been yet given, but such as are so ridiculously weak, that it is not worth my while to relate them, nor the Reader’s to hear them. Bellarmine, in one Place, positively affirms, that God commanded St. Peter to fix his See at Rome[62]; but elsewhere contents himself with saying, It is not improbable that God commanded St. Peter to fix his See at Rome[63]. Is it is no more than not improbable, it is uncertain; it may be a mere Conjecture, a Dream.

[Sidenote: Other Bishops of Rome appointed by St. Peter.]

St. Peter, either alone, or jointly with St. Paul, as we read in Irenæus, and in the Apostolical Constitutions[64], appointed other Bishops of Rome. Now, when he appointed others, did he resign his Episcopacy, or retain it? If he resigned it, he did not die Bishop of Rome; which shakes the very Foundation of the Pope’s Claim to Supremacy: if he retained it, there were Two Bishops on the same See at one time; which Pope Innocent I. in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople, condemned as an Irregularity never known till his Time[65]: he did not, it seems, recollect that it had been practised by his Predecessor Pope Peter. Theodoret tells us, in his Ecclesiastical History, that when the Emperor Constantius would have had Felix to sit in the See of Rome, together with Liberius, upon the Return of the latter from Banishment, the People of Rome would not content to it, crying out, One God, one Christ, one Bishop. Felix died soon after, and upon his Death Theodoret makes the following Remark: It was, says he, a special Providence, that Peter_’s Throne might not suffer Infamy, being held by Two Prelates_[66]. He did not consider, or rather did not believe, that it had been held by St. Peter and St. Paul, by St. Pater and by Linus.

[Sidenote: St. Peter Bishop at Rome, not of Rome.]

To conclude, St. Peter was perhaps Bishop at Rome, not of Rome[N2]. He was Bishop at Rome, if he ever was there, being, in virtue of his Apostleship, impowered to discharge, at Rome, and every-where else, all Episcopal Functions; but was not specially Bishop of Rome, or any other Place; that is, he did not take upon him the Charge of any particular Bishop, the Administration of any particular Bishoprick, that being inconsistent both with the Dignity and Office of an Apostle, or universal Bishop.

-----

Footnote N2:

'Tis a Distinction made by a Pope, King in Etruria, not of Etruria.

-----

Footnote 10:

Arnob. l. 2. in Gent.

Footnote 11:

Cyril. catech. 6.

Footnote 12:

Euseb. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote 13:

Iren. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 14:

Tert. de anim. c. 24.

Footnote 15:

Hier. de vir. illustr. c. 2.

Footnote 16:

Justin. apol. 2.

Footnote 17:

Cyr. cat. 17.

Footnote 18:

Hier. in Isai. xi. 14.

Footnote 19:

Athan. ad Drac.

Footnote 20:

Chrys. ad Hebr. præf.

Footnote 21:

Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 17.

Footnote 22:

Greg. in Joh. xxiii. 22.

Footnote 23:

Concil. tom. 2. p. 1245.

Footnote 24:

Act. xi. 2. xv. 7. Gal. i. 18. ii. 9. Gal. ii. 11. 1 Pet. v. 13. 1 Cor. i. 12.

Footnote 25:

1 Pet. v. 13.

Footnote 26:

Euseb. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 27:

Hier. vir. illust. c. 8.

Footnote 28:

Bed. tom. 5. p. 713.

Footnote 29:

Oecu. p. 526.

Footnote 30:

Grot. synops. in Pet.

Footnote 31:

Vide Grot. ib. p. 1541.

Footnote 32:

Pears. oper. posth. p. 56, & seq.

Footnote 33:

Coloss. iv. 11.

Footnote 34:

2 Tim. iv. 6.

Footnote 35:

Ibid. iv. 21.

Footnote 36:

Ad Rom. xvi. 3-15.

Footnote 37:

Ruffin. in præf. ad Clem. recogn.

Footnote 38:

Iren. apud Euseb. c. 5, 6.

Footnote 39:

Constit. Apost. 7. 46. Iren. 3. 3.

Footnote 40:

Epiph. hær. 7.

Footnote 41:

Euseb. l. iv. c. 2.

Footnote 42:

Chrys. tom. 8. p. 115.

Footnote 43:

Idem Eph. iv. 11.

Footnote 44:

Euseb. l. i. c. 12.

Footnote 45:

Heges. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 2.

Footnote 46:

Epiph. hær. 78.

Footnote 47:

Hier. de vir. ill.

Footnote 48:

Greg. p. 279.

Footnote 49:

Chrys. in Mat. hom. 33.

Footnote 50:

Grot. in Jac. i. 1.

Footnote 51:

Hamm. dissert. Ignat. 4. 3.

Footnote 52:

Val. in Euseb. 1. 12.

Footnote 53:

Blond. in epist. Clem. ad Jacob.

Footnote 54:

Wal. Mess. p. 20.

Footnote 55:

Aug. cont. Cres. l. 2. c. 37. Vide Pears. Ann. Paulin. p. 58.

Footnote 56:

Act. xxi. 20.

Footnote 57:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 58:

Idem ib. & Tertull. de præs. hæret. c. 32. Euseb. l. 3. c. 36.

Footnote 59:

Tertull. ib. c. 36.

Footnote 60:

Bartol. Antichitá sacre di Roma, p. 32.

Footnote 61:

Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.

Footnote 62:

Bell. de sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 4.

Footnote 63:

Idem ib. l. 2. c. 12.

Footnote 64:

Iren. apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 6. et Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 65:

Inn. I. apud Soz. l. 8. c. 26.

Footnote 66:

Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 17.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NERO, LINUS, VITELLIUS, GALBA, First BISHOP of Rome. VESPASIAN, OTHO, TITUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 66. Linus, and not Clemens, the Bishop of Rome.]

There is a great Disagreement among the Antients about the first Bishops of Rome: Tertullian makes Clement, whom he supposes to have been ordained by St. Peter, the immediate Successor of that Apostle[67]. He was followed therein by Ruffinus[68], and Ruffinus by the Latins in general; among whom that Opinion universally prevailed towards the End of the Fourth Century. But Jerom, rejecting the Opinion of the Latins, places Linus immediately after the Apostles, Anacletus next to him, and Clement in the third Place[69]. His Opinion is supported by the Authority of Irenæus[70], Eusebius[71], Theodoret[72], and likewise of Epiphanius[73], Optatus Milevitanus[74], and St. Augustin[75], with this Difference, that Epiphanius gives the Name of Cletus to the Successor of Linus, and both Optatus and St. Augustin place him after Clement; but in this they all agree, that Linus was the first, after the Apostles, who governed the Church of Rome. To the Authority of these Writers I may add that of the Apostolic Constitutions, telling us, in express Terms, that Linus was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Paul[76]. [Sidenote: Whether Clement appointed by St. Peter to succeed him.] As to what we read in Tertullian and Ruffinus, viz. that Clement was ordained by St. Peter, and named to succeed him; Dr. Hammond answers, That Clement governed with Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction the converted Jews, while Linus and Anacletus governed, with the same Power, the converted Gentiles. He adds, That, upon the Death of Anacletus, both Churches were united under him[77]. Thus he strives to reconcile the Opinion of the Latins, placing Clement immediately after the Apostles, with that of the Greeks, allowing him only the third Place: for, granting what he advances to be true, and Reasons are not wanting to support it, Clement was, agreeably to the Opinion of the Latins, the immediate Successor of the Apostles, with respect to the Jews; but, with respect to the Gentiles, he succeeded Anacletus, agreeably to the Opinion of the Greeks[78]. This Answer Cotelerius applauds as an ingenious, learned, and probable Solution; but, at the same time, rejects it as contradicting, in his Opinion, the Apostolic Constitutions, and not supported by the Authority of any antient Writer[79]. The learned Dr. Pearson will admit no Opinion that supposes Two Bishops to have presided together in one City[80], that being an Irregularity, according to St. Cyprian[81], contrary to the Ecclesiastic Disposition, contrary to the Evangelic Law, contrary to the Rules of the Catholic Institution, and condemned as such by the Council of Nice[82]. It is very much to be doubted, as I have shewn above, whether St. Peter ever was at Rome, and consequently whether Clement was ordained, by him, Bishop of that City. His not succeeding him is a Proof, that he was not; for who can imagine, that the People and Clergy of those Days would have thought of chusing any other, or that any other, though chosen, would have accepted of a Dignity, to which Clement had been named by St. Peter himself, and which he was actually possessed of at the Apostle’s Death? Be that as it will, Linus is now universally acknowleged both by the Greeks and Latins for the first Bishop of Rome.

As for the Life and Actions of Linus, all I can find in the Antients concerning him, is, that it was he whom St. Paul mentioned in his Epistle to Timothy[83]; that, upon the Authority of the Apostolic Constitutions, he was supposed, by some, to have been the Son of Claudia, whom the Apostle mentions in the same Place[84]; and that his Life and Conversation were much approved of by the People[85]. [Sidenote: Linus no Martyr, tho’ placed among the Martyrs.] The Church of Rome allows him, in the Canon of the Mass, a Place among the Martyrs; but no mention is made of his having suffered for the Faith, either in the antient Martyrologies, or in Irenæus, who, speaking of him, and his immediate Successors, distinguishes none but Telesphorus with the Title of Martyr. Baronius, determined to maintain, right or wrong, the Credit of the sacred Canon, in Opposition to all the Antients, nay, and to his own System, cuts off one Year from the Pontificate of Linus, that he may place his Death under Vespasian, and not, as Eusebius has done[86], under Titus, in whose Reign he owns none to have suffered for the Faith[87]. Had he remembered what he must have read in Tertullian and Eusebius, he had saved himself that Trouble: for Tertullian assures us, that Vespasian made no Laws against the Christians[88]; and Eusebius, that he did not molest them, though he caused a diligent Search to be made after those who were of the Race of David, which occasioned a dreadful Persecution against the Jews[89]. Linus governed the Church of Rome, according to Eusebius[90] and Epiphanius[91], Twelve Years; so that, if we place, with them, the Death of St. Peter in 66. Linus must have died in the Year 78. of the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: Books ascribed to him.] We have, under the Name of Linus, Two Books of the Martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul[92]; but they are generally looked upon as supposititious[93]. Trithemius makes him the Author of the Life of St. Peter, in which a particular Account was given of the Dispute between that Apostle, and Simon the Magician. This Piece has not reached our Times, and was perhaps of the same Stamp with the other, since it is never mentioned either by Eusebius, or St. Jerom. The Decrees, that are ascribed to him, are no-where to be found, but in Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and such-like Writers, whose Authority is of no Weight in Matters so distant, unless supported by the Testimony of the Antients.

-----

Footnote 67:

Tert. de præsc. hæret. c. 32.

Footnote 68:

Recog. p. 398.

Footnote 69:

Hier. vir. illust. c. 15.

Footnote 70:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 71:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 4. 21.

Footnote 72:

Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 21.

Footnote 73:

Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 74:

Optat. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 75:

Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 76:

Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 77:

Hamm. l. 5. c. 1.

Footnote 78:

Idem ib. p. 247, 258.

Footnote 79:

Cotel. in not. Const. p. 298.

Footnote 80:

Pears. posthum. p. 159. 161.

Footnote 81:

Cypr. ep. 44. 46. 52. 55.

Footnote 82:

Syn. Nic. can. 8.

Footnote 83:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 2 Tim. iv. 21.

Footnote 84:

Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 85:

Tert. in Marc. c. 3.

Footnote 86:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 13.

Footnote 87:

Bar. annal. ad ann. 80.

Footnote 88:

Tert. apol. c. 5.

Footnote 89:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 12.

Footnote 90:

Idem ib. c. 13.

Footnote 91:

Epiph. l. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 92:

Bib. Patr. tom. 7.

Footnote 93:

Vide Baron. ad ann. 69. et Voss. Hist. Græc. l. 2. c. 9.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TITUS CLETUS, or ANACLETUS, DOMITIAN. Second BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 78. ]

Linus was succeeded by Cletus, or Anacletus, whom the Greeks constantly style Anencletus, that is, Irreprehensible. An Opinion has long obtained in the Church of Rome, distinguishing Cletus and Anacletus as Two Popes, nay, as Two Saints; the Festival of the one being kept on the 26th of April, and that of the other on the 23d of July[94]. [Sidenote: Cletus and Anacletus not two, but one Pope.] But this Distinction is now given up by the most learned Men of that Church, not only as groundless, but as plainly contradicting the most celebrated Writers of Antiquity, Irenæus, Eusebius, and St. Jerom, to whom we may add Caius, a Priest of Rome, who, writing in the Beginning of the Third Century, reckoned Victor the Thirteenth Bishop of that City[95]. Baronius, however, spares no Pains to keep up that Distinction; but alleges nothing to countenance it, except the Poem against Marcion, ascribed to Tertullian, the Pontifical of Anastasius, and some Martyrologies[96]. Who was the Author of that Poem is not well known, but all agree, that it was not written by Tertullian[97]. Besides, the Author, whoever he was, places both Cletus and Anacletus before Clement; which Baronius condemns as a gross Mistake. As for the Pontifical, the Annalist often finds fault with it; and complains, in this very Place, that Anastasius’s whole Chronology is overcast with an impenetrable Mist[98]. The Martyrologies he quotes are of too modern a Date to deserve any Regard, since none of them were heard of before the Ninth Century[99]. [Sidenote: How they were first distinguished.] But how, says Baronius, was this Distinction first introduced? We may, perhaps, account for it thus: Irenæus, with all the Greeks, and St. Jerom, among the Latins, place Anacletus, as we have observed above, before Clement; whereas St. Austin and Optatus Milevitanus place him after. This, and his being called Cletus by Epiphanius, and in several Copies of Ruffinus, might induce some to imagine, that as the Names and Places were different, so were the Persons. Thus, as we conjecture, of one Pope Two Popes were made, Two Saints, and Two Martyrs; for, in the Canon of the Mass, he has a Place with Linus among the Martyrs; though neither was acknowleged for such by Irenæus, or any of the Antients; nay, Anacletus is said, in some Pontificals, to have died in Peace, that is, according to the Phrase of those Days, of a natural Death[100]. Bollandus, after having much laboured, but laboured in vain, to maintain the Distinction between Cletus and Anacletus, yields at last, and gives up the Point. But yet, unwilling to make the least Alteration in the Catalogue of the Popes, which places, with the Approbation of the Holy See, Clement between Cletus and Anacletus, he strives to save it with a new and pretty extraordinary Invention; for he pretends Anacletus or Cletus to have resigned the Chair to Clement, and Clement, in his Turn, to have yielded it to him again. Thus, according to him, though Cletus and Anacletus are one and the same Person, yet no Fault is to be found with the Catalogue; and Clement is rightly placed both after and before him[101]. This is a Speculation of his own, altogether groundless, and therefore not worthy of a Place here, were it not to shew what low Shifts and Subterfuges even Men of Parts, in the Church of Rome, chuse to submit to, rather than to yield to Reason, in Points that seem to derogate from the Authority of that See. Anacletus governed the Church Twelve Years, according to Eusebius[102]; to which some add Two Months, some Three, and some only one; so that he must have died in the Year 91. He is supposed to have been buried next to St. Peter, in the Vatican, where his supposed Body is shewn, and worshiped to this Day[103]. [Sidenote: Decretals ascribed to him.] We find, in the Collection of Isidorus Mercator, Three Decretals, under the Name of Cletus; but such Decretals as are anterior to the Pontificate of Pope Syricius, who was elected in the Year 384 are now universally looked upon as bare-faced Forgeries[104][N3].

-----

Footnote N3:

All the decretal Epistles of the Popes, before Syricius, are so filled with Absurdities, Contradictions, Anachronisms, &c. that they are now given up, even by the most sanguine Advocates for the Papal Supremacy. And yet these very Decretals, absurd as they are, and inconsistent with themselves, as well as with all the genuine Writings of those Times, whether sacred or profane, were, for several Ages, the main Stays of the whole Fabric of the Papal Power. By them that Power was established; by them it was supported; for, in the Days of Ignorance, they were universally received as the genuine Writings of the antient Bishops of Rome, in whose Names they were published. And, truly, were we to rank them, as they were ranked in the monkish and ignorant Ages, with the Decisions of the Oecumenical Councils, and the Canonical Books of the Scripture, no room would be left to question any Branch of the unlimited Power claimed by the Popes. They were held in the greatest Esteem and Veneration from the Beginning of the 9th Century to the Time of the Reformation, when, upon the first Dawn of Learning, the Cheat was discovered, and the Stays removed, which till then had supported the unwieldy Edifice. But it was then in a Condition to stand by itself, at least till new Frauds were devised to prop it up; and this was accordingly done, without Loss of Time.

The Decretals of the first Popes are quoted by Bellarmine, to prove, that the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome was universally acknowleged in the earliest Times[N3.1]: but, at the same time, he owns, that he dares not affirm them to be of undoubted Authority. And what can be more absurd than to quote a Forgery, or what he himself owns may be a Forgery, in Vindication of so darling a Point as the Supremacy? But he did it for want of better Evidences, and must therefore be excused. Baronius, ashamed to lay any Stress on such gross and palpable Forgeries, contents himself with only saying, that the Popes had no hand in forging them; and that they never made use of their Authority to support their own. That they were concerned in, or privy to, the forging of those Letters, I dare not affirm: but that they countenanced them, as they did all other Forgeries tending to the Advancement of their See; that they received them as genuine, and endeavoured to impose them upon others; nay, that they made use of them soon after their first Appearance in the World, to establish and promote the Authority of their See; are undoubted Matters of Fact: witness the Letter, which Nicolas I. wrote, in the Year 865. to Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims, and to the other Bishops of France, who, refusing to comply with some exorbitant Demands of the Pope, had rejected the Decretals, on which those Demands were founded, as Writings that had been lately counterfeited. Nicolas, in his Answer to them, maintains the Authenticity of those Letters, exhorts all, who profess the Catholic Faith, to receive them with due Veneration, and claims, in virtue of such sacred and authentic Writings, an uncontrouled Authority over all the Churches of the World, as lodged from the Beginning in his See[N3.2]. And was not this making use of the supposed Authority of those Decretals to promote his own? Nicolas seems to have believed the Letters to be genuine: and, if he did, he was certainly mistaken, and erred in proposing, as he does, spurious Pieces for a firm and strong Foundation of our Belief, as well as our Practice. If he did not believe them to be genuine, and yet endeavoured to persuade the Bishops of France that they were so; nay, and claimed, upon the Authority of such Pieces, a Power over them, and their Churches; a worse Epithet would suit him better than that of fallible, which is common to all Men.

The first who published these Decretals was, according to Hincmarus, Riculphus Bishop of Mentz, who was supposed to have brought them from Spain; because the Name of Isidore was prefixed to the Collection, and a famous Writer of that Name, viz. Isidore Bishop of Seville, had flourished in Spain some Centuries before. But such a mean and scandalous Undertaking is altogether unworthy of so great a Prelate; and besides the Author of the supposed Decretals has copied, verbatim, some Passages from the Council of Toledo in 675. and from the Sixth Council in 681. whereas Isidore of Seville died in 636. The learned Ellies du Pin lays this Forgery at the Door of some German or Frenchman, the Letters being all written in the Style of the Germans and French, of the 9th Century, and many of them addressed to Persons of these two Nations. Hincmarus was mistaken, in supposing the forged Decretals to have been first published by Riculphus of Mentz; for in some of them are found Fragments of the Council held at Paris in 829. and he died in 814. They were first ushered into the World, and forged too, in all likelihood, by one Benedict, Deacon of the Church of Mentz, though, in his Preface to that Collection, he would fain make us believe, that Autcarius, the Successor of Riculphus, found them in the Archives of that Church, and that they had been placed there by Riculphus, who had brought them from Spain. Autcarius, in whose Time Benedict published his Collection, is thought to have been privy to the Imposture. The Name of Isidore, which was then very common in Spain, was prefixed to it, to persuade the World, that the Decretals were brought from that Country, and not forged at Mentz, where they first appeared. However, they were suspected by some, even in that dark Age, and absolutely rejected by Hincmarus of Rheims, as Writings of no Authority. But the Popes, whose Pretensions they were calculated to favour, exerting all their Authority to bring them into Repute, they were in the End universally received, and inserted into all the Collections of Canons. At present they are so universally exploded, that there is not a single Writer, no, not even in the Church of Rome, who is not ashamed to patronize or defend them. But the Work is done, for which they were intended; and now that the Edifice can stand by itself, no matter what becomes of the Stays that supported it, when it could not. These Decretals may be justly looked upon as a standing Monument of the Ignorance, Superstition, and Credulity, that universally prevailed in the Church, from the Beginning of the Ninth Century to the Time of the Reformation. I shall conclude with observing, that, from these Decretals, Anastasius the Bibliothecarian, and after him Platina, have chiefly copied what they relate of the first Popes, supposing them to have really done what, in those spurious Pieces, they are said to have done.

Footnote N3.1:

Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote N3.2:

Nic. I. ep. 42.

-----

-----

Footnote 94:

Martyrol. Roman.

Footnote 95:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Pearson posthum. p. 147, 148.

Footnote 96:

Bar. ad ann. 69.

Footnote 97:

Halloix in vit. Iren. p. 646.

Footnote 98:

Bar. ad ann. 69.

Footnote 99:

Bolland. Pont. p. 217.

Footnote 100:

Vide Pears. posthum. p. 19.

Footnote 101:

Bolland. Pont. p. 217.

Footnote 102:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.

Footnote 103:

Bolland. 26 Apr. 410, 411.

Footnote 104:

Vide Card. Bon. liturg. l. 1. c. 3. et Natal. Alexand. hist. Eccles. p. 743, &c.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DOMITIAN, CLEMENT, TRAJAN. NERVA, Third BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 91. Clement mentioned by St. Paul.]

Clement, the Successor of Anacletus, is, according to Origen[105], Eusebius[106], and all the Antients, the Person whom St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Philippians[107], names among those who had laboured with him in the Gospel, and whose Names were in the Book of Life. Hence Chrysostom concludes, that, together with St. Luke and Timothy, he attended the Apostle of the Gentiles in all his journeys[108]. Irenæus assures us, that he had not only seen the Apostles, and conversed with them; but that, when he was appointed Bishop of Rome, he still heard their Voices sounding in his Ears, still had before his Eyes the Rules and good Example they had given him[109]. Origen styles him the Disciple of the Apostles[110]; Ruffinus, almost an Apostle[111]; and Clement of Alexandria, an Apostle[112]. That he was well versed in every Branch of Learning, especially in polite Literature, descended of a Senatorian Family, and nearly related to the Cæsars, is what we read in Eucherius[113] and Nilus[114], who seem to have followed therein the Recognitions, a Book of no Authority. [Sidenote: Some confound him with Flavius Clemens.] Eucherius perhaps confounded, as others have done, Pope Clement with Flavius Clemens, who was Son to Flavius Sabinus, the only Brother of Vespasian, and suffered Death for the Christian Religion in the Persecution of Domitian[115]; for Pope Clement was, as himself seems to insinuate, rather of the Race of Jacob than of the Cæsars[116]. [Sidenote: Chosen Bishop of Rome.] Upon the Death of Anacletus he was unanimously chosen by the People and Clergy of Rome to succeed him. He had been named, say some, to that Dignity by St. Peter himself, preferably to Linus and Anacletus[117]; but had declined it, finding that the Faithful were not all equally disposed to submit to the Judgment and Authority of St. Peter. He therefore withdrew; and, as he was of a mild and pacific Disposition, led a retired Life to the Death of Anacletus, when he was forced to accept of the Dignity, which he had before declined. Thus Ruffinus, upon the Authority of the Recognitions; which appears to me, I must own, a very improbable Tale. During his Pontificate happened an impious and detestable Division, to use his own Terms, among the Christians of Corinth, which obliged them to have recourse to other Churches, especially to that of Rome; [Sidenote: His famous Epistle to the Corinthians.] and on this occasion was written that famous Epistle to the Corinthians, so much magnified by the Antients and publicly read, not only in the Church of Corinth, as Dionysius assures us, who was Bishop of that City in 180, but in many other Churches, to the Time of Eusebius, and St. Jerom[118], and perhaps long after. It was by some ranked among the Canonical Books of the Scripture, and by all reverenced next to them[119]. It was written in the Name of the whole Church of Rome, and to the whole Church it is, in express Terms, ascribed by Irenæus[120], and Clement of Alexandria, who calls it the Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians[121]. However, it was composed by Clement, in the Name of the Church; for, in the primitive Times, Bishops did nothing by themselves, but every thing jointly with their Churches: We advise, We exhort, We recommend, &c. was their usual Style; which the Popes still observe, though they mean only themselves; for they scorn to join either with the People or Clergy. The Style of this excellent Letter is plain, clear, full of Energy, without any useless Ornaments; and the Whole written with the Simplicity, as Photius observes[122], that the Church requires in Ecclesiastical Writers. There is so great an Affinity, both as to the Sense and the Words, between this Epistle, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, that some have concluded Clement to have been the Translator, nay, and the Author of that Epistle[123]. [Sidenote: Unjustly criticized by Photius.] In Clement’s Epistle Photius discovers, as he thinks, Three Faults; viz. that he supposes other Worlds beyond the Ocean; that he speaks of the Phœnix as a real Bird; and that he uses Words expressing the Humanity of our Saviour, and not his Divinity. But, as to the first of these Objections, there can be no Difficulty now, that we know for certain what was but doubtfully advanced by the Antients: in speaking of the Phœnix he complies with the Opinion universally received in those Days by the Learned, both among the Christians and Pagans. As to the Third Objection, Photius must not have observed, that he styles our Saviour’s Sufferings, the Sufferings of God, which was acknowleging his Divinity. [Sidenote: Thought lost, but appears again.] This Epistle, the most precious and valuable Treasure the Church can boast, after the holy Scriptures, was for many Ages bewailed as lost; but, in 1633. it was again restored to the Christian World, by Patricius Junius, a North Briton, who published it from a Manuscript, written by an Egyptian Lady, named Thecla, about the Time of the great Council of Nice, and afterwards brought over into England[124]. That this Piece is genuine, appears from a great many Passages quoted out of it by the Antients.

The most remarkable Event that happened in the Pontificate of Clement, was the Persecution of Domitian; but what Part he bore in it we can learn from no credible Author. [Sidenote: Clement dies.] He died, according to Eusebius[125], in the Third Year of Trajan’s Reign, that is, in the 100th of the Christian Æra. In the Canon of the Mass he has a Place, with his Two Predecessors, among the Martyrs; but Telesphorus, the Seventh Bishop of Rome, is the first, as I have observed above, who was acknowleged as such by Irenæus, whose Authority is of far greater Weight than that of Ruffinus, or Pope Zosimus, who suppose him to have died for the Confession of the Faith[126]. [Sidenote: His fabulous Acts.] In the Acts of Clement, to which Gregory of Tours gave an intire Credit[127], and after him many others, especially the Two credulous Annalists, Baronius[128], and Alford[129] in his Annals of the British Church, we read, that Clement was banished, by Trajan, into the Chersonesus, beyond the Euxine Sea; that there he caused a Fountain to spring up miraculously, for the Relief of the Christians confined to the same unhospitable Region; that he converted the whole Country to the Faith, which provoked the Emperor to such a degree, that he ordered him to be thrown into the Sea, with an Anchor fastened to his Neck. It is added, that, on the Anniversary of his Death, the Sea retired to the Place where he had been drowned, though Three long Miles from the Shore; that upon its retiring, there appeared a most magnificent Temple, all of the finest Marble; and in the Temple a stately Monument, in which was found the Body of the Saint; that the Sea continued thus retiring every Year on the same Day, not daring, for the Space of Seven Days, to return to its usual Bounds, that the Christians might, at their Leisure, and without Apprehension of Danger, perform their Devotions in Honour of the Saint. [Sidenote: The Miracles he wrought, unknown to Irenæus.] To crown the Whole, they add, that, one Year, a Mother having heedlessly left her young Child in the Temple, upon her Return, next Year, she found it not only alive, but in perfect Health[130]. No Mention is made of such stupendous Miracles by Irenæus, who was brought up under Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, in Asia, at the very Time Clement is supposed to have suffered, and who speaks of him at Length. His Silence is a plain Demonstration, that they were unknown to him; and they must have been known, had they been true.

[Sidenote: Other Writings ascribed to Clement. A second Letter to the Corinthians. Five other Letters.]

Besides the Letter to the Corinthians, of which I have spoken above, several other Pieces are ascribed to Clement; viz. a second Letter to the Corinthians; which is, without all Doubt, very antient; but Eusebius doubts whether it was written by Clement[131]; and both St. Jerom[132], and Photius[133], absolutely reject it. Five other Letters, placed among the Decretals, whereof the first, more antient than the rest, was translated by Ruffinus, and is quoted by the Council of Vaison, held in 442[134]. However, it is generally looked upon as a spurious Piece; for the Author of it, whoever he was, acquaints St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, who died long before St. Peter, with St. Peter’s Death[135]. [Sidenote: His Itinerary.] Clement’s Itinerary, which, in Photius’s Time, was prefixed, by way of Preface, to the Recognitions[136]. The Recognitions, relating, under the Name of Clement, the Actions of St. Peter, his Interview with Simon the Magician, how Clement himself knew again his Father and his Brothers, whom he had forgot; [Sidenote: The Recognitions.] whence the whole Work took the Name of Recognitions, that is, of knowing again: it is likewise called the Itinerary of St. Peter, the Acts of St. Peter, the Acts of St. Clement[137]. The Recognitions are quoted by Origen[138], Epiphanius[139], and Ruffinus[140], as the Work of Clement, but these Writers, at the same time, own them to have been altered in several Places, and falsified by the Heretics; nay, Epiphanius tells us, that the Ebionites scarce left any thing found in them[141]. The Author was well versed in Philosophy, Mathematics, Astrology, and most other Sciences, but not so well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church; whence his Work is absolutely rejected by Athanasius[142]; and now generally looked upon as a Piece falsely ascribed to Clement. [Sidenote: St. Peter_’s Dialogues with_ Apion.] St. Peter’s Dialogues with Apion were probably written in the Third Century, and to gain Credit fathered upon Clement; for Eusebius writes, that there had lately appeared a long Work, under the Name of Clement, containing Dialogues between St. Peter and Apion[143]. [Sidenote: The Apostolic Constitutions.] As to the Apostolic Constitutions, if that Work is different from the Doctrine of the Apostles mentioned by Athanasius and Eusebius; Epiphanius is the first who speaks of it: it appears at least, from Dionysius of Alexandria, that, in the Year 250. the Constitutions either had not yet appeared, or were of no Repute in the Church[144]. Epiphanius tells us, that many suspected them; but, as for himself, he received them, since he found nothing in them repugnant to the Faith, or the Discipline of the Church[145]. But as be quotes several Passages out of them, which are not to be found now, we may well conclude, that, since his Time, they have been either altered or curtailed. The Greeks indeed, in the Second Canon of the Council, that, in 692. was held at Constantinople, in a Tower of the Imperial Palace, called Trullus, that is, the Cupola, declare, that they had been falsified, in several Places, by the Heretics. Photius thinks that, with respect to the Style, they fall short of the Recognitions, but far excel them in the Purity of the Doctrine, adding, at the same time, that it is no easy Task to clear them from the Imputation of Arianism[146]. Dr. Pearson takes them to be a Collection of several Pieces, published in the earliest Times, under the Name of the Apostles, and containing, as was pretended, the Instructions they had given[147]. Albaspinæus, Bishop of Orange, thinks the Matter they contain excellent, and the Whole agreeable to the Discipline observed by the Greek Church, during the Four first Centuries; bur nevertheless he looks upon them only as a Collection of the different Customs, that were established, by degrees, in the Church, and some of which were disputed even in the Fourth Century[148]; so that they can by no means be ascribed either to the Apostles, or to Clement. [Sidenote: The Canons of the Apostles.] The Constitutions end with 85 Canons, long known by the Title of The Canons of the Apostles; but, as they contain several things that were not received in the Apostles Time, nor in Clement’s, the ablest Critics are of Opinion, that they likewise are but a Collection of several Decrees made in the first Ages of the Church, and that they were not collected into one Body till the Third Century[149]. I don’t find them quoted before the Council of Constantinople in 394. The Greeks, in the Council of the Year 692. mentioned above, bound themselves to the Observance of them; but they are all rejected by Pope Gelasius: however, Dionysius Exiguus having, not long after, placed the first Fifty at the Head of his Collection, they were received by degrees; but the other Thirty-five have not been admitted to this Day.

Upon the Whole, of the many Writings ascribed to Clement, the first Letter to the Corinthians is the only one undoubtedly his: and what a wide Difference appears, as to the Spirit and Style, between that excellent Piece, and the Briefs, Bulls, Mandates, &c. of his Successors: He does not command, but exhorts; he does not threaten, but intreats; he does not thunder Anathema’s and Excommunications, but employs the most mild and gentle Persuasives, even with the Authors of the Schism. [Sidenote: Clement_’s Infallibility unknown to him, and to the_ Corinthians.] Had he known himself to be the infallible and unerring Judge of Controversies, from whose Tribunal lay no Appeal; had the Corinthians believed themselves bound, on Pain of Damnation, to submit to his Decisions; there had been no Room for Reasons, Arguments, and Persuasives; he ought to have exerted the Power, with which he was vested, and put an End to all Disputes, in the peremptory Style of his Successors, We declare, and command all Men to comply with this our Declaration, on pain of incurring the Indignation of the Almighty; and, as if that were not enough, of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. But it was not till some Ages after, that the Popes found out their Infallibility, or rather their flattering Divines found it out for them; so that this invaluable Privilege lying dormant, Men were obliged, for a long time, to make use of their Reason, in deciding religious Controversies.

-----

Footnote 105:

Origen. in Jo. p. 143.

Footnote 106:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.

Footnote 107:

Philip. iv. 3.

Footnote 108:

Chrys. in Phil. hom. 13.

Footnote 109:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 110:

Orig. Pr. in l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 111:

Ruf. ad Orig. 195.

Footnote 112:

Clem. strom. 4.

Footnote 113:

Euch. ad Val. p. 19.

Footnote 114:

Nil. l. 2. ep. 49.

Footnote 115:

Dio, l. 65. Suet. in Dom. c. 15. Orig. in Cels. l. 1. p. 5.

Footnote 116:

Clem. ep. 1. c. 4.

Footnote 117:

Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 118:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 119:

Vide Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. et 38. et l. 4. c. 23.

Footnote 120:

Iren. ib.

Footnote 121:

Clem. strom. 5.

Footnote 122:

Phot. c. 126.

Footnote 123:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 38. et l. 6. c. 25. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 124:

Not. Jun. p. 3. Not. Cotel. p. 8.

Footnote 125:

Eus. l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 126:

Ruf. Orig. t. 1. p. 778. Concil. per Lab. t. 2. p. 1558.

Footnote 127:

Greg. Tur. de glor. martyr. c. 35.

Footnote 128:

Bar. ad ann. 102.

Footnote 129:

Alf. ad ann. eund.

Footnote 130:

Greg. Tur. ib.

Footnote 131:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.

Footnote 132:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 133:

Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 134:

Concil. per Labb. t. 3. p. 1458.

Footnote 135:

Vide Blond. Decret. p. 25. 28.

Footnote 136:

Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 137:

Coteler. not. in script. Apost. p. 353.

Footnote 138:

Orig. Philocal. c. 23. p. 81, 82.

Footnote 139:

Epiph. hær. 30. c. 15.

Footnote 140:

Ruf. ad Orig. p. 195.

Footnote 141:

Epiph. hær. 30. p. 65.

Footnote 142:

Athan. sym. p. 154.

Footnote 143:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.

Footnote 144:

Ign. prol. c. 8. p. 54.

Footnote 145:

Epiph. hær. 76. p. 822.

Footnote 146:

Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 147:

Pears. in Ign. t. 1. p. 60, 61.

Footnote 148:

Alb. obser. l. 1. c. 3. p. 37, 38.

Footnote 149:

Idem ib. et Ign. prol. c. 15. p. 103.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TRAJAN EVARISTUS, Fourth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 100. ]

Clement was succeeded by Evaristus, Evaristes, or Aristus, as he is called in the most antient Catalogue of the Popes[150], in the Third Year of Trajan’s Reign, that is, in the Close of the First Century of the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: Evaristus governs Nine Years.] He governed about Nine Years, that is, to the Twelfth Year of Trajan, and the 109th of Christ[151]. Eusebius, in his Chronicle, supposes him to have died in the Year 107[152]; and, in his History, says, that his Death happened about the Year 109[153]: but, in the Series and Succession of the Popes, that Writer is every-where consistent with himself in his History, and quite otherwise in his Chronicle. [Sidenote: Several things ascribed to him, without sufficient Foundation.] Besides, the History ought to correct the Chronicle, as being posterior to it. To Evaristus are ascribed Two Decretals, the Distribution of the Titles or Parishes of Rome, on which Baronius makes a long Descant[154], and an Order, that Bishops, when they preached, should be always attended by Seven Deacons[155]. But these, and many other things of the same Nature, we read only in Baronius, Platina, Anastasius, Ciaconius, &c. and my Design is, as I have declared in the Preface, to follow the Antients alone, in the History of the antient Popes; and therefore I shall take no notice of what the Moderns advance, unless I find it supported by the Authority of the original Writers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TRAJAN ALEXANDER, ADRIAN. Fifth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 109. ]

Sixtus is placed, by Optatus Milevitanus[156], immediately after Evaristus; but that is certainly a Mistake, owing, in all likelihood, to those who transcribed him, since Irenæus[157], Eusebius[158], Epiphanius[159], and even St. Augustin[160], who follows Optatus in every thing else relating to the Popes, place Alexander between Evaristus and Sixtus. Irenæus reckons Alexander the Fifth Bishop of Rome; so that we agree with the most authentic and unexceptionable Writer of Antiquity in excluding St. Peter, and supposing Cletus and Anacletus to be one and the same Person[161]. Alexander governed Ten Years, and some Months; and died in the Third Year of Adrian, and 119 of Christ[162]. [Sidenote: Alexander not a Martyr.] We can learn nothing of the Antients concerning him: he is worshiped indeed by the Church of Rome as a Martyr; but that Title is not given him by Irenæus: and as for the Venerable Bede, who ranks him among the Martyrs, he was led into that Mistake by The Acts of St. Alexander, which, in the Opinion of Dr. Pearson, were composed in the Seventh Century, but are now universally rejected as fabulous. [Sidenote: The Institution of Holy Water falsly ascribed to him.] Platina ascribes to Pope Alexander the Institution of Holy Water[163], which Baronius takes very much amiss of him, since he thereby robs the Apostles of an Honour due to them; for by the Apostles, in his Opinion, was first introduced the Use of Holy Water[164]. But if we trace up this Holy Water to the Fountain-head, we shall find that it arises from an unhallowed Spring, from the Lustral Water of the Pagans; for peace being restored to the Church by Constantine, the Christians began, as a modern Writer well observes[165], to adopt the Ceremonies of the Gentiles. Several Cities in Italy, France, Germany, Spain, &c. pretend to have Reliques of this Pope, insomuch that, were they all put together, they would form at least twenty intire Bodies[166].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ADRIAN. SIXTUS,, Sixth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 119. ]

The Successor of Alexander is named Sixtus by Optatus[167], and St. Augustin[168]; but by Irenæus[169], Eusebius[170], Epiphanius[171], and Jerom[172], Xystus: which Word has some Signification annexed to it in Greek; whereas Sixtus has none either in Greek or Latin. He presided Ten Years according to Eusebius[173], but not complete; for he was raised to the See in the Third Year of Adrian, of Christ 119. and died in the Twelfth Year of the same Prince, about the latter End of the Year of Christ 128[174]. He is ranked among the Martyrs in the Canon of the Mass, and in all the Martyrologies: but his immediate Successor is the first to whom that Title is given by Irenæus. [Sidenote: Decretals falsly ascribed to Sixtus.] To Sixtus are ascribed two Decretals, but both forged in latter Ages, as plainly appears from De Marca, from Baluzius, and, above all, from the haughty Title of Universal Bishop, which Sixtus is made to assume in one of them: a Title, as F. Pagi is forced to confess, unknown to the Bishops of the primitive and best Times[175]. His Reliques. The Title of Universal would be better adapted to the Reliques of this Pope, than to his Episcopacy; for they are dispersed all over the Roman Catholic World: but Baillet himself looks upon them as false, and unworthy of the Worship that is paid to them, not excepting even those that were given by Clement X. to Cardinal De Retz, who caused them to be placed with great Solemnity in the Abbey of St. Michael in Lorrain[176].

-----

Footnote 150:

Buch. p. 270.

Footnote 151:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 152:

Euseb. chron. l. 4. c. 1.

Footnote 153:

Idem, l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 154:

Bar. ann. 112.

Footnote 155:

Idem, ann. 121.

Footnote 156:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 157:

Iren. l. 3. c. 6.

Footnote 158:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 1.

Footnote 159:

Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 160:

Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 161:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 6.

Footnote 162:

Idem, l. 4. c. 5.

Footnote 163:

Platin. in ej. vit.

Footnote 164:

Bar. ad ann. 132. N. 3.

Footnote 165:

Le Sueur, hist. de l'Egl. & de l'Emp. ad ann. 108.

Footnote 166:

Vid. Bolland. 3 Maii, p. 370. & Baillet vies de Saints, 3 de Mai.

Footnote 167:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 168:

Aug. ep. 53.

Footnote 169:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 170:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 4.

Footnote 171:

Epiph. hær. 97. c. 6.

Footnote 172:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 173:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 174:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 4, & 5.

Footnote 175:

Pagi in vit. Sixt.

Footnote 176:

Baill. ib. 6. d'Avril.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ADRIAN. TELESPHORUS, ANTONIUS PIUS. Seventh BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 128. ]

Sixtus was succeeded by Telesphorus (or, as some style him, Thelesphorus), the Seventh Bishop of the See of Rome[177]. To him is ascribed, in some Editions of the Chronicle of Eusebius, the Institution of Lent[178]; but in none of the best Editions Mention is made of such an Institution, and scarce in any Manuscripts[179]. Baronius endeavours to prove, that this Fast was instituted by the Apostles, and that Telesphorus established it for ever by a Decree; but his Arguments are so weak, that he deserves rather to be pitied than answered. He introduces too early the Bishops of Rome issuing Decrees, and prescribing Laws to the whole Church. [Sidenote: Telesphorus the first Bishop of Rome Martyr.] Telesphorus was the first Bishop of Rome who suffered Death for the Christian Religion, seeing Irenæus distinguishes him with the Title of Martyr[180], which this Author gives to none of his Predecessors; but, as to the Particulars of his Death, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark. He suffered in the Eleventh Year of his Pontificate, the First of Antoninus Pius, and 139 of Christ[181].

-----

Footnote 177:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 4. c. 5.

Footnote 178:

Bar. ad ann. 154.

Footnote 179:

Not. Scal. in chron. 216. Not. Pont. in chron. p. 612.

Footnote 180:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 181:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 10.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANTONINUS PIUS. HYGINUS,, Eighth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 139. ]

Hyginus, the Successor of Telesphorus, governed the Church but Four Years, and those not complete; for, in 142. we find Pius already in that See[182]. [Sidenote: The Two Heretics, Valentine and Cerdo, come to Rome.] In his Time the two famous Heretics, Valentine and Cerdo, came to Rome; the former from Egypt, and the latter from Syria, to display their new Doctrine in that great Metropolis. Hyginus no doubt opposed them with all the Zeal of a primitive Bishop; but, in spite of his Zeal, they gained a great many Proselytes to their heterodox Opinions[183]. His Infallibility, had it been then known and believed, would have soon put a Stop to the growing Evil. The Church of Rome honours Hyginus among her Martyrs; but none of the Antients give him that Title. To him is ascribed the Use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism, and the Ceremony of Consecrating Churches; but upon no better Grounds than the Two Decretals are fathered upon him, which are, by all the Learned, rejected as spurious. Hyginus died in the Year 142. the Fourth or Fifth of Antoninus Pius; and is supposed to have been buried near St. Peter[184].

-----

Footnote 182:

Idem, l. 4. c. 11.

Footnote 183:

Iren. l. 3. c. 4. Philas. c. 44. Epiph. hær. 41. c. 1.

Footnote 184:

Bolland. April. p. 22.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANTONINUS PIUS. PIUS, Ninth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 142. ]

Anicetus is placed next to Hyginus by Optatus[185], St. Augustin[186], and Epiphanius[187]: But who would not, with Eusebius[188], rather follow Irenæus[189], and Hegesippus[190], naming Pius immediately after Hyginus, since the former wrote in the Time of Eleutherius the Second Bishop after Anicetus; and the latter lived at Rome in the Time of Anicetus, and continued there till the Pontificate of Eleutherius.

[Sidenote: Marcion comes to Rome.]

In the Time of Pius, Marcion, a Native of Pontus, and the Son of a Bishop of the holy Catholic Church, says Epiphanius[191], being excommunicated by his Father for debauching a Virgin, and finding he could by no means prevail upon the venerable Prelate to receive him again into the Church, abandoned his native City, supposed to be Sinope, and fled to Rome. Upon his Arrival there, he applied to the Elders of that Church, intreating them to admit him to their Communion. But those holy Men, who had been taught by the Disciples of the Apostles, instead of complying with his Request, returned him this Answer; [Sidenote: The Power of receiving Appeals disowned by the Church of Rome.] We cannot admit you without Leave from your holy Father; nor can we, as we are all united in the same Faith, and the same Sentiments, undo what our holy Collegue your Father has done.--Thus Epiphanius[192]. Had Bellarmine lived in those Days, he had taught them another Doctrine, a Doctrine which, however necessary, the Apostles had forgot to deliver to their Disciples; viz. That the See of Rome was raised above all other Sees; that the Appeals of the whole Catholic Church were to be brought to it; that no Appeals were to be made from it; that it was to judge of the whole Church, but be judged by none. Marcion did not apply to Pius, as the Reader must have observed, or at least did not apply to him alone, but to the Elders, who disclaimed all Power of reversing the Sentence of a particular Bishop or Judge. And is not this an evident and incontestable Proof that the Power of receiving Appeals was not known, or thought of, in those Days? And yet, who would believe it? Bellarmine has the Assurance to allege this very Case as an Argument to prove in the Pope a Power of receiving Appeals[193]. But what would become of this Prerogative, should the Pope return the same Answer to every Appellant?

[Sidenote: Pius no Martyr.]

Pius governed the Church for the Space of Fifteen Years, and died in 157. the Twentieth of Antoninus[194]. The Roman Martyrology tells us, that he was martyred in the Persecution of Antoninus Pius; but in that Prince’s Reign there was no Persecution; nor is the Title of Martyr given him by Irenæus. [Sidenote: Writings ascribed to him.] Baronius ascribes to this Pope a Decree, commanding the Festival of Easter to be kept on Sunday, and quotes the Chronicle of Eusebius[195]. This Decree is indeed mentioned in some Editions of that Writer; but Scaliger assures us, that no Mention is made of it in any Manuscript Copy; and therefore he has left it out in his Edition[196]. As to the Celebration of Easter, it is manifest from Irenæus, that though Pius, as well as his Predecessors Sixtus, Telesphorus and Hyginus, differed from the Bishops of Asia, yet they did not on that Account separate themselves from their Communion[197]. On this Pope are fathered several spurious Pieces, viz. some Decrees, Two Letters ranked among the Decretals, and Two more written to Justus Bishop of Vienne in Dauphiné. The Decrees, as well as the Decretals, are universally rejected; and yet F. Pagi quotes one of them to prove the real Presence in the Sacrament[198]. The two Letters to Justus are deemed genuine by Baronius[199], by Cardinal Bona[200], and by Blondel in his Treatise of the Sibyls[201], who nevertheless suspects them elsewhere[202]. On the other hand, they are absolutely rejected as false by Dr. Pearson[203], by Cotelerius[204], and Natalis Alexander[205], who discover several Expressions in them that were not in Use till some Ages after, and a great many Incoherences. To say with Le Sueur, That they were written originally in Greek, and in latter Times translated into Latin[206], is but a poor Evasion. As for the Fable of Hermes, the Brother of Pius, who, by the Command of an Angel appearing to him in the Disguise of a Shepherd, is said to have written a Book shewing, that Easter ought to be kept on Sunday, I refer the Reader to Platina, and such-like Writers.

-----

Footnote 185:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 186:

Aug. ep. 53.

Footnote 187:

Epiph. hær. 42.

Footnote 188:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 189:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 190:

Apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 22.

Footnote 191:

Epiph. hær. 42. c. 1.

Footnote 192:

Idem ib.

Footnote 193:

Bell. l. 2. c. 21.

Footnote 194:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.

Footnote 195:

Bar. ad ann. 159.

Footnote 196:

Euseb. chron. not. Scal. p. 119.

Footnote 197:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 198:

Pagi in Pio, n. 2.

Footnote 199:

Bar. ad ann. 166.

Footnote 200:

Bona rer. liturgic. l. 1. c. 3.

Footnote 201:

Blond. l. 2. c. 6.

Footnote 202:

Idem de la primauté.

Footnote 203:

Pears. in Ign. l. 2. p. 170.

Footnote 204:

Cotel. not. in script. Apost. p. 42, 43.

Footnote 205:

Nat. Alex. t. 1. p. 89.

Footnote 206:

Sueur. hist. de l'Egl. &c. ad ann. 149.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANTONINUS, ANICETUS, M. AURELIUS. Tenth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 157. St. Polycarp comes to Rome, and reclaims many from the Errors of Marcion.]

Pius was succeeded by Anicetus, in whose Time Valentine the Heretic, who came to Rome in the Pontificate of Hyginus, and had gained many Proselytes under Pius, continued sowing his pestilential Errors among the Members of that Church: but many whom he had seduced, were reclaimed by St. Polycarp, formerly the Disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and then Bishop of Smyrna. His declaring to them, that the Doctrine taught by the Church was the Doctrine he had learnt of the Apostles, made such an Impression on their Minds, that they abjured the Errors of Valentine, and returned to the Communion of the Faithful[207]. They preferred the bare Word of Polycarp, who claimed no Infallibility, to the infallible Authority of Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. This is a plain Proof, that the Popes had not yet begun to exert their Infallibility; or, if they had, that it was not acknowleged. What brought St. Polycarp to Rome was the Controversy about the Celebration of Easter, which at this Time began to grow very warm between the Eastern and Western Churches[208]. All the Churches of the East, and amongst the rest that of Smyrna, kept Easter on the 14th Day of the Moon of the first Month, in Conformity to the Custom of the Jews: on the other hand, Anicetus would neither conform to that Custom himself, nor suffer any under his Jurisdiction to conform to it, obliging them to celebrate that Solemnity on the Sunday next following the 14th of the Moon. That this Dispute might not occasion a Schism in the Church, Polycarp undertook a Journey to Rome, in order to confer with the Bishop of that City, who was the chief Opposer of the Quartodecimans[209]. [Sidenote: Anicetus and he disagree about the Celebration of Easter, but part without Breach of Charity.] But it happened in this, as it does in most religious Disputes, they parted, each retaining his own Way of thinking; but at the same time, what happens but seldom, without the least Breach of that Charity which is the great and fundamental Law of our holy Religion. In Token whereof they communicated together at the holy Sacrament; nay, Anicetus, out of Respect to St. Polycarp, yielded to him the Eucharist[210]; that is, gave him Leave to consecrate the Eucharist in his own Church: after which they parted in Peace, though both determined to follow the antient Practice of their respective Churches[211]. St. Polycarp, though well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Apostles, was a Stranger, it seems, to that of Bellarmine, Baronius, &c. viz. that the whole Catholic Church is bound to conform to the Rites, Ceremonies, and Customs of the Church of Rome.

[Sidenote: Hegesippus and St. Justin at Rome.]

In the Time of Anicetus, Hegesippus, and the celebrated Martyr St. Justin, came to Rome, upon what Occasion is uncertain. The former continuing there to the Pontificate of Eleutherius, wrote a Book on the Doctrine which in that Church had been conveyed down from the Apostles to Anicetus, and was still observed, says he, in all its original Purity[212]. The latter opposed with great Zeal Marcion, and his Followers, publishing a Book against his pernicious Tenets, and against Heresies in general[213]. It was at Rome that he had frequent Conferences with Crescens the Cynic, a Man of some Note at that Time; but, according to the Genius of his Sect, proud, surly, conceited, and a declared Enemy to all who professed the Christian Religion, which he painted in the blackest Colours[214]. The Malice of this Cynic procured in the End for our zealous and learned Apologist what he had long and most ardently wished, the Glory of sealing with his Blood the Truth, which he had so strenuously defended and promoted with his Pen[215]. He suffered under Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus about the Year 167. towards the End of the Pontificate of Anicetus.

To this Pope are ascribed by Anastasius, Platina, Ciaconius, and other modern Writers, several Ordinances and Decrees; but as they are not mentioned by any of the Antients, we do not think them worthy of our Notice. Anicetus governed the Church, according to Eusebius[216], Eleven Years, from the Year 157. to the 8th Year of M. Aurelius, that is, to 168. of the Christian Æra. Raban, Florus, and Anastasius, suppose him to have died for the Profession of the Faith; which was, it seems, unknown to Irenæus. [Sidenote: Anicetus not a Martyr.] He was buried, according to some, near St. Peter, in the Vatican, according to others, in the Burying-place of Calixtus[217]; out of which, though it is uncertain whether he was buried there or no, [Sidenote: His Reliques.] his Head was taken in 1590. and given by Urban VII. to the Jesuits of Munich in Bavaria, where it is yearly, with great Solemnity, exposed to public Adoration on the 17th of April, the Anniversary, as is supposed, of his Death: his Body was taken out of the same Place in 1604. and given by Clement VIII. to the Duke of Altaemps, who caused it to be conveyed to the Chapel of his Palace in Rome, and to be deposited there in a Marble Tomb, formerly the Tomb of the Emperor Alexander; where it is worshiped to this Day.

-----

Footnote 207:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 1. c. 24.

Footnote 208:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 13.

Footnote 209:

Iren. apud Euseb. l. iv. c. 14.

Footnote 210:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 23, 24.

Footnote 211:

Idem ib.

Footnote 212:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.

Footnote 213:

Just. Apol. 2. p. 70.

Footnote 214:

Tatian. orat. cont. Græc. p. 160.

Footnote 215:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 16. Epiph. hær. 46. c. 1.

Footnote 216:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 19.

Footnote 217:

Vide Bolland. April 17, & 22.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

M. AURELIUS. SOTER, Eleventh BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 168. ]

Soter, the Successor of Anicetus, is highly commended on account of his extensive Charity towards the Poor of other Churches, but more especially towards those who were condemned for the Confession of their Faith to work in the Mines[218]. [Sidenote: His Charities to the distressed Christians.] These he is said not only to have relieved in their Distress with generous Gatherings made for that Purpose at Rome, wherein he followed the Example of his Predecessors, but moreover to have sent Letters to them in their afflicted Condition. This we learn from a Letter of Dionysius, then Bishop of Corinth, which was an Answer to a Letter from Soter, and the Church of Rome. Dionysius returns Thanks to the Romans, and their Bishop, for their Generosity to the Poor of Corinth; acquaints Soter that his Letter had been publicly read; adds, that he shall cause it to be read for the future; and closes his Epistle with great Encomiums on the Romans, who had so generously contributed to the Support of the indigent Corinthians[219]. This laudable Custom did not end with the Second Century of the Church; for Dionysius of Alexandria, writing about the Year 254. to Stephen Bishop of Rome, says, that all Syria and Arabia felt the good Effects of the Generosity of the Romans[220]. And some Years after, that is, about the Year 260. Pope Dionysius being informed, that the City of Cæsarea in Cappadocia had been ruined by the Wars, and many Christians carried into Captivity, he sent large Sums to ransom them, with a Letter to the Church of Cæsarea, which was still read in St. Basil’s Time[221]. Eusebius tells us, that this Custom continued till the last Persecution[222]. How differently the immense Revenues of the See of Rome are employed now, those know who have seen the extravagant Pomp, Luxury, and Parade of that Court. [Sidenote: The Heresy of Montanus broached in his Time.] In the Year 171. the Fourth of Soter, was broached the Heresy of the Montanists, so called from their Ringleader Montanus[223]. Against these Soter is said, by an anonymous Writer of some Antiquity, to have composed a Book, which was answered, according to the same Writer, by Tertullian, become the Defender of that Sect[224]: but, according to the best Chronologists, Tertullian did not turn Montanist till many Years after the Death of Soter; and, besides, both Soter’s Book, and Tertullian’s Answer to it, were quite unknown to Eusebius, and even to St. Jerom, who took great Delight in reading Tertullian. Soter presided Eight Years, according to Eusebius[225]; that is, from the Year 168. to 176. or to the Beginning of 177. the 17th Year of the Reign of M. Aurelius. [Sidenote: He did not die a Martyr.] The Title of Martyr is given him by the modern Writers, but not by Irenæus, or any of the Antients. To him are falsly ascribed Two Epistles, which have been placed among the Decretals. Where he was buried is uncertain; but his Body is worshiped, at present, in the Church of St. Sylvester at Rome, and in the Cathedral of Toledo in Spain[226].

-----

Footnote 218:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.

Footnote 219:

Idem ib.

Footnote 220:

Idem, l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 221:

Basil. ep. 220.

Footnote 222:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.

Footnote 223:

Euseb. chron.

Footnote 224:

Auct. anonym. de hæres. Sirmund. edit. hær. 26. 86. p. 28. 79.

Footnote 225:

Euseb. l. 5. p. 153.

Footnote 226:

Bar. in martyrol. 22 April. et Bolland. ad eund. diem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

M. AURELIUS, ELEUTHERIUS, COMMODUS. Twelfth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 176. ]

Eleutherius was Deacon of the Church of Rome in 168. when Hegesippus came to that City[227]; but Soter, the Successor of Anicetus, being dead, he was chosen to govern the Church in his room[228]. [Sidenote: The Martyrs of Lions write to Eleutherius.] It is certain, that his Election was known in Gaul before the Death of the Martyrs of Lions, so famous in ecclesiastical History; for the Controversy, which had been raised some Years before in the Churches of Asia, by Montanus and his Followers, concerning the prophetic Spirit, to which they pretended, making at that time a great Noise in the Church, the Martyrs of Lions, desirous to contribute, so far as in them lay, to the public Peace, wrote Letters, from their Prisons, to the Churches of Asia, and likewise to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, declaring their Judgment and Opinion in the Case[229]: for great Honour was paid, in those Times, to the Martyrs, and their Opinion was always received with Esteem and Veneration. It were much to be wished, that Eusebius had set down their Opinion at Length; but he contents himself only with saying, that it was intirely agreeable to true Piety, and to the orthodox Faith[230]; which, in my Opinion, is enough to make us reject the Notion of Dr. Pearson, who takes it for granted, that they wrote in Favour of those Fanatics, and that for no other Reason but because they are said, by Eusebius, to have written for the Peace of the Church[231]. Was the admitting of false Prophets, and false Prophecies, giving Peace to the Church? The same Writer adds, that Eleutherius was induced, by the Reverence and Regard he had for the holy Martyrs, to receive the Prophecies of Montanus, and his Two Prophetesses[232]. [Sidenote: Eleutherius did not approve the Prophecies of Montanus.] But herein I must beg Leave to disagree with that learned Writer, and likewise with Dr. Cave[233]; for it was not, in my Opinion, Eleutherius, but his Successor Victor, who received the Prophecies of Montanus. Tertullian, the only Author who informs us, that the Dreams of that Enthusiast were approved by the Bishop of Rome, does not distinguish that Bishop by his Name; so that he is to be found out only by Reasoning and Chronology. Now, on one hand, we read in Tertullian, that Montanus had been opposed by the Predecessors of the Bishop, who embraced his Opinions[234]; and, on the other, in Eusebius[235], that the Heresy of Montanus was first broached in the Year 171. the Eleventh of the Reign of M. Aurelius, and the Fourth of the Pontificate of Soter, the immediate Predecessor of Eleutherius; these Two therefore, and these alone, were the Bishops, who could oppose Montanus; and, since the first Broaching of that Heresy, the only Predecessors of the Bishop who embraced it. Victor, the Successor of Eleutherius, was greatly provoked against the Asiatic Bishops, on account of their refusing to comply with the Custom of the Church of Rome, in the Celebration of Easter; and therefore might, out of Spite to them, approve of the Opinions which they had condemned: for Montanus, and his Followers, had been already condemned, as Eusebius informs us[236], by several Synods held in Asia Minor. [Sidenote: Councils held without consulting the Bishop of Rome.] No Opinion is now deemed heretical, unless condemned by the Bishop of Rome, who claims that Prerogative as peculiar to himself; but the Synods of Asia, the first mentioned in History, after that of the Apostles at Jerusalem, condemned the Opinions of Montanus, and cut him off from their Communion, without consulting or even acquainting therewith, the Bishop of Rome. But, to return to the Martyrs; some are of Opinion, that they condemned, in their Letters, the Tenets of Montanus, and his Followers; but, at the same time, wrote in their Favour, to far as to intreat the Bishops of Asia, and Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, to treat them with Indulgence, and admit them, upon Repentance, to their Communion[237]. This is but a bare Conjecture, not authorized by any of the Antients; and we don’t find, that the Montanists ever shewed the least Inclination to return to the Communion of the Church.

[Sidenote: Florinus and Blastus broach their new Doctrine.]

It was in the Pontificate of Eleutherius, that Florinus and Blastus first broached their new Doctrine; which was readily embraced by many at Rome; for they were both Presbyters of that Church[238]. Florinus was first one of the Emperor’s Officers in Asia, afterwards the Disciple of St. Polycarp, then famous all over that Province; and, lastly, Presbyter of the Church of Rome; but both he and Blastus were degraded on account of their heretical Opinions, and cut off from the Communion of the Faithful[239]. Against Florinus, Irenæus, then Bishop of Lions, wrote a Letter, intituled, Of Monarchy, or that God is not the Author of Evil[240]; and another Piece called, De Ogdoede, that is, of the Eight; meaning, perhaps, the Eight Eons, or Persons that composed the chimerical Divinity of the Valentinians; for Florinus fell at last into that Heresy[241]. Against Blastus, whom Pacian surnames the Greek[242], Irenæus wrote a Book, intituled, Of Schism[243]. Ado[244] and Bede[245] tell us, that Eleutherius issued a Decree, ordaining Easter to be kept on the Sunday after the 14th of the first Moon; but as no mention is made of such a Decree, by any Writer of those Times, their Authority is of no Weight.

[Sidenote: The Conversion of Lucius, a British King.]

Lucius, a British King, is said, by Bede, to have written to Pope Eleutherius, intreating him to send a proper Person into Britain, to instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion; which the Pope readily granted[246]. But as this is vouched only by Bede, who lived many Ages after him, and by a Pontifical, supposed to have been written about the Middle of the Sixth Century, what Credit the whole History of Lucius may deserve, I leave the Reader to judge. Such a remarkable Event could not have escaped Eusebius, who, speaking of this very Period of Time, tells us, that, at Rome, many Persons, eminent for their Birth and Wealth, embraced the Christian Religion, with their whole Families[247]. A solemn Embassy from a British King, and his Conversion, surely deserved a Place in the History of the Church. [Sidenote: The whole Account fabulous.] He informs us, that, in the Reign of Commodus, and the Pontificate of Eleutherius, the Christian Religion enjoyed a profound Tranquillity all over the World; that it flourished, and attracted, to use his Expression, the Minds of many People[248]. Had he not here a favourable Opportunity of mentioning our Royal Proselyte, who, in the Reign of Commodus, is supposed to have written to Eleutherius, and by his means to have been converted to the Christian Religion? To what can we ascribe the Silence of such an exact and accurate Writer, concerning an Event which would have greatly recommended both his History, and the Christian Religion? To an invincible Antipathy, says the Jesuit Alford[249], which he bore to the Name of Britain, and which was so prevalent in him, that he chose rather to suppress the Conversion of Lucius than mention it. But what could thus set Eusebius against Britain? Had he been ever injured by the Britons? Does he not elsewhere mention both them and their Country? This jesuitical, absurd, and groundless Speculation, which must expose the Author of it to the Ridicule of every Reader, I should perhaps have let pass unobserved, had he not in this very Place insulted, beyond the Bounds of common Decency, the Reformers of Religion, for rejecting some idle Ceremonies, which he supposes to have been practised at the Conversion of Lucius. But, not to lay the whole Stress on the Silence of Eusebius, and other antient Writers, to whom King Lucius was utterly unknown, why should he have been at the Trouble of sending to Rome for an Instructor? Were there not many in his own Kingdom as capable of instructing him as any Rome could send? The Christian Religion had been planted in this Island long before the Reign of Lucius, in the Time of the Apostles, as Gildas seems to insinuate[250], at least very early in the Second Century; for Origen, who flourished in the Beginning of the Third, tells us, that the Virtue of the Name of Jesus had passed the Seas, to find out the Britons in another World[251].

[Sidenote: Several Monkish Fables concerning King Lucius.]

The short Account, which Bede gives us of the Embassy and Conversion of King Lucius, has not only been greedily swallowed by the Monkish Writers, who came after him, but has served as a Ground-plot to the innumerable Fables with which they have filled this Part of their Histories. They even tell us the Names of the Embassadors sent by Lucius to the Pope, and of the Legates a Latere sent by the Pope to Lucius. The former were Elvanus and Medwinus, who, being ordained Bishops by Eleutherius, returned to Britain, and greatly contributed to the Conversion of this Island. These Fables gained Credit, by Degrees, in those Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, insomuch that the Two Embassadors were at last ranked among the Saints; and their Bodies, where or when found, nobody knows, exposed to public Veneration, in the Monastery of Glassenbury, on the First of January[252]. The Pope’s Legates were Fugacius and Damianus, who, as we are told, went back to Rome, to obtain of Eleutherius a Confirmation of what they had done; and, from Rome, returned into Britain, with a Letter from the Pope to King Lucius[253]. As for the King himself, he is said to have quitted his Kingdom, and, turning Missionary, to have preached the Gospel in Germany, especially at Ausburgh; to have travelled from thence into the Country of the Grisons; and, lastly, to have been ordained Bishop of Coire, their Metropolis; and to have died there a Martyr[254]. To these Monkish Fables King Lucius owes a Place among the Saints; for on the Third of December is kept, in the Church of Rome, the Festival of Lucius, King of the Britons, who died at Coire in Germany[255]: these are the Words of the Roman Martyrology; but Bede does not so much as mention him in his; a plain Proof, that what is said of his Preaching, of his Martyrdom, &c. was invented after that Writer’s Time. And yet Alford has not only filled his Annals with these, and suchlike fabulous Accounts, giving an intire Credit to them, but inveighs, with great Acrimony, against those who have not the Gift of Belief in the same Degree with himself, especially against Dempster, telling, him, that till his Time the Conversion of Lucius had never been questioned by any Man of Sense or Learning[256]. And truly, the Story of King Lucius has been credited even by the greater Part of Protestant Writers, out of Respect to our venerable Historian; but as he wrote many Ages after the pretended Conversion of that Prince, and none of the Writers of those Days, whom such a remarkable Event could hardly have escaped, give us the least Hint of it, we may be well allowed to question the Whole, notwithstanding the Authority of Bede, which can be of no Weight with respect to Transactions that are said to have happened in Times so remote.

Eleutherius governed, according to the best Chronologers, Fifteen Years; and died in 192. the last of the Emperor Commodus[257]. To him are ascribed a Decretal, addressed to the Bishops of Gaul, and a Decree, declaring against Montanus, and his Followers, that no Food was forbidden to the Christians; but both are deemed spurious. He was buried, according to some, in the Salarian Way, according to others, in the Vatican; but, in what Place soever he was buried, his Body is now worshiped in the Vatican at Rome, in the Cathedral of Troia in Apulia, and in several other Places[258]. The Title of Martyr is given him by the Church of Rome, but not by any of the antient Writers. Under him flourished Hegesippus, who wrote, in Five Books, an Account of what had happened in the Church since our Saviour’s Death, to his Time[259]. He came to Rome in the Pontificate of Anicetus, who was chosen in 157. and, remaining there to the Time of Eleutherius, who succeeded Anicetus and Soter in 177. he wrote a Book on the Doctrine received by Tradition in that Church[260]; but neither of these Works has reached our Times.

-----

Footnote 227:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. Hier. vir. ill. c. 22.

Footnote 228:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 229:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 230:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 231:

Pears. post. p. 255.

Footnote 232:

Idem ib.

Footnote 233:

Cave Lives of the Fathers, p. 164.

Footnote 234:

Tert. in Prax. c. 1.

Footnote 235:

Euseb. in chron.

Footnote 236:

Idem l. 5. c. 16. Con. per Labb. t. 1. p. 599.

Footnote 237:

Vide Dupin. Biblioth. p. 287.

Footnote 238:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 14.

Footnote 239:

Idem ib. c. 15, 20.

Footnote 240:

Idem ib.

Footnote 241:

Fleuri hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 26, 27. p. 395. 397.

Footnote 242:

Pacian. ep. 1.

Footnote 243:

Euseb. ib. c. 20.

Footnote 244:

Ado ad ann. 194.

Footnote 245:

Bed. chron. t. 2. p. 111.

Footnote 246:

Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 4. et chron. t. 2. p. 111.

Footnote 247:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 21.

Footnote 248:

Idem ib.

Footnote 249:

Annal. ad ann. 182. p. 140.

Footnote 250:

Gild. ex. c. 6. p. 116.

Footnote 251:

Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.

Footnote 252:

Vide Ush. Brit. eccles. antiq. c. 4. et Bolland. 1. Jan.

Footnote 253:

Bar. ad ann. 183. Bolland. 26 Maii. Ush. ib. p. 54. 102.

Footnote 254:

Vide Ush. ib. p. 137, 138.

Footnote 255:

Martyr. Rom. 3 Decem.

Footnote 256:

Alf. ad ann. 201. p. 201.

Footnote 257:

Euseb. chron. Florent. p. 811.

Footnote 258:

Bolland. 26 Maii, p. 364.

Footnote 259:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 22.

Footnote 260:

Idem ib. et Euseb. l. 4. c. 11, 22.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODUS, VICTOR, SEVERUS. PERTINAX, Thirteenth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 192. ]

Victor, the Successor of Eleutherius, is counted by a Writer, who at this very time lived in Rome, the Thirteenth Bishop of that City[261]: so that neither is St. Peter reckoned among them, nor is Cletus distinguished from Anacletus. [Sidenote: The Heresy of Theodotus.] In Victor’s Time a new Heresy was broached at Rome by one Theodotus of Byzantium, denying the Divinity of Christ[262]. The Theodotians gave out, that Victor favoured their Doctrine[263]; which he did, perhaps, at that Time[264]; though he cut them off afterwards from his Communion. [Sidenote: Victor approves the prophetic Spirit of Montanus.] Be that as it will, he can by no means be cleared from another Imputation, namely, that of owning and approving the prophetic Spirit of Montanus, and his Two Prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla: for Tertullian, his Contemporary, tells us, in express Terms, that he received their Prophecies; that, upon receiving them, he gave Letters of Peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia; but that one Praxeas, just come from those Parts, giving him a false Account of those Prophets, and their Churches, and remonstrating, that by approving them, he condemned his Predecessors, prevailed upon him to revoke the Letters, which he had already written in their Behalf. [Sidenote: His Infallibility, how defended by Baronius and Bellarmine.] Thus Tertullian, who was then himself become a Follower of Montanus[265]. Here Baronius and Bellarmine, the Two great Advocates for the Pope’s Infallibility, are put to a Stand: they own, and cannot help owning, that the Pope was deceived, and imposed upon; but, for all that, will not give up his Infallibility. How great is the Power of Prejudice and Prepossession! They find the Pope actually erring, and yet maintain, that he cannot err. But this Apostacy from common Sense, if I may be allowed the Expression, is not, perhaps, so much owing to Prejudice, as to something worse; for no Prejudice, however prevalent, can withstand the indisputable Evidence of plain Matters of Fact. It is no new thing, says Baronius, nor what ought to cause in us the least Surprize, that a Pope should be over-reached by Impostors[266]. A Pope over-reached in Matters of Faith! What then becomes of Infallibility? or what is the Use of it? But the Montanists, says Bellarmine[267], craftily concealed from the Pope what was erroneous and heretical in their Prophecies; so that he, discovering nothing in their Doctrine repugnant to that of the Church, believed they had been unjustly accused to, and condemned by, his Predecessors. But, in the first Place, Tertullian tells us, in express Terms, that the Prophecies of Montanus, and his Followers, were approved by the Pope; whereas the Prophecies, which he is supposed by Bellarmine to have approved, were not the Prophecies of Montanus, but others, quite different, and in every respect orthodox. In the second Place, if Victor believed, that the Montanists had been unjustly condemned by his Predecessors, he did not believe them infallible; so that, in every Light, this Fact oversets the pretended Infallibility. We may add, that, if the Pope’s Infallibility depends upon a right Information, and neither he nor we can know whether he has been rightly informed, his Infallibility is thereby rendered quite useless; since, in every particular Case, we may doubt, and that Doubt cannot be removed, whether the Information, upon which he acts, was right, or no.

[Sidenote: The famous Controversy about the Celebration of Easter.]

But what most of all distinguished the Pontificate of Victor was, the famous Controversy about the Celebration of Easter, between the Eastern and Western Bishops; the former keeping that Solemnity on the 14th Day of the first Moon, on what Day soever of the Week it happened to fall; and the latter putting it off till the Sunday following. This, surely, could not be a Point of any Consequence, since the Apostles had not thought fit to settle any thing concerning it; nay, by observing the Paschal Solemnity themselves, some on the one Day, and some on the other, as it is manifest they did[268]; they plainly declared, that it was quite indifferent on what Day it was observed. Accordingly, from the Apostles Time to Victor’s, each Church had followed the Custom and Practice established by their respective Founders, without giving the least Disturbance to others, or being, on that Account, disturbed by them[269]. Pope Anicetus even suffered such of the Asiatics as happened to be at Rome, to celebrate Easter after the manner of Asia[270]: Soter, indeed; and his Successor Eleutherius, obliged those who lived at Rome to conform to the Custom of that Church; but that did not prevent their sending the Eucharist, or Sacrament, to the Bishops who followed the opposite Practice[271]; for a Custom then obtained among Bishops to send the Eucharist to each other, especially at Easter, in Token of Communion and Peace; but this Custom was suppressed by the 14th Canon of the Council held in the Fourth Century at Laodicea[272]. [Sidenote: Victor_’s haughty Conduct_.] Victor, not satisfied with what his Two immediate Predecessors had done, took upon him to impose the Roman Custom on all the Churches that followed the contrary Practice. [Sidenote: Is opposed by the Bishop of Ephesus,] But, in this bold Attempt, which we may call the first Essay of Papal Usurpation, he met with a vigorous and truly Christian Opposition from Polycrates, at that Time Bishop of Ephesus, and one of the most eminent Men in the Church, both for Piety and Learning. He had studied, says Eusebius[273], the Scriptures with great Attention, had conferred with Christians from all Parts of the World, and had ever conformed his Life to the Rules of the Gospel. Jerom speaks of him as a Man of excellent Parts, and one universally respected[274]. In the present Controversy, he peremptorily refused to relinquish the Practice of his own Church, which had been first introduced by the Apostles St. John and St. Philip, and had been handed down to him by Seven Bishops of his own Family[275]. Hereupon Victor, impatient of Contradiction, wrote a Letter, threatening to cut him off from his Communion, unless he forthwith complied with the Practice of the Church of Rome[276]. [Sidenote: and by a Council of all the Bishops of Asia minor.] Polycrates, greatly surprised at the hasty Proceedings of his Fellow Bishop, assembled in Ephesus a Council of all the Bishops of Asia minor, when it was unanimously resolved, that the Practice, which they had received from their Predecessors, ought not to be changed[277]. Agreeably to this Resolution, Polycrates writ to Victor, acquainting him therewith; and, at the same time, modestly insinuating, that, as to his Menaces, he had better forbear them, since they had no manner of Effect upon him, or his Brethren[278]. [Sidenote: He cuts them off from his Communion.] Upon the Receipt of this Letter Victor, giving the Reins to an impotent and ungovernable Passion, published bitter invectives against all the Churches of Asia, declared them cut off from his Communion, sent Letters of Excommunication to their respective Bishops; and, at the same time, in order to have them cut off from the Communion of the whole Church, writ to the other Bishops, exhorting them to follow his Example, and forbear communicating with their refractory Brethren of Asia[279]. They all complied, to be sure, with the Desire of the Head of the Church, who had Power to command; but, out of his great Moderation, chose to exhort and advise! [Sidenote: No Regard had to his Excommunication.] No; not one followed his Example, or Advice; not one paid any sort of Regard to his Letters, or shewed the least Inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable Attempt; but, on the contrary, they all joined, as Eusebius assures us[280], in sharply censuring and rebuking him, as a Disturber of the Peace of the Church. [Sidenote: He is censured by Irenæus.] Among the rest Irenæus, then Bishop of Lions, writ him an excellent Letter, putting him in mind of the Moderation of his Predecessors, and telling him, that though he agreed with him in the Main of the Controversy, yet he could not approve of his cutting off whole Churches, for the Observance of Customs, which they had received from their Ancestors. He writ, at the same time, to many other Bishops[281], no doubt, to dissuade them from joining the Bishop of Rome. However that be, it is certain, that, by this means, the Storm was laid, a Calm was restored to the Church, and the Asiatics allowed to follow undisturbed their antient Practice[282]. But Pope Victor, says Baronius[283], excommunicated the Asiatics, which he would never have ventured to do, had he not known, that he had Power and Jurisdiction over them. [Sidenote: Had no Power over the Asiatics.] The Argument may be thus retorted against him: The Asiatics made no Account of his Excommunication; which they would not have ventured to do, had they not known, that he had no Power nor Jurisdiction over them. Besides, Victor did not excommunicate them, as that Word is now understood; that is, he did not cut them off from the Communion of the Catholic Church; for all the other Bishops continued to communicate with them, as they had done before; he only separated himself from their Communion; which was no more than every Bishop had Power to do. Victor being thus baffled in his Attempt, his Successors took care not to revive the Controversy; so that the Asiatics peaceably followed their antient Practice till the Council of Nice, which, out of Complaisance to Constantine the Great, ordered the Solemnity of Easter to be kept every-where on the same Day, after the Custom of Rome[284].

This Dispute happened, not in the Reign of Commodus, as we read in the Synodicon[285], but in the Fourth Year of the Reign of Severus, as St. Jerom informs us[286], of Christ 196. [Sidenote: Victor dies.] Victor, of whom we find nothing else in the Antients worthy of Notice, died Five Years after[287], that is, in the Ninth of the Emperor Severus, and in the End of 201. or the Beginning of 202. of Christ, having governed the Church Ten Years. He is named, by St. Jerom, the first among the Ecclesiastical Authors that wrote in Latin[288]. [Sidenote: His Works.] He published a Piece, on the Controversy about the Celebration of Easter, and some other Books on religious Subjects, which were still extant in St. Jerom’s Time[289]. [Sidenote: Pieces falsly ascribed to him.] As for the Two Decretals that are ascribed to him, and the Two Letters to Desiderius and Paracoda, both Bishops of Vienne, they are universally rejected[290]. [Sidenote: He is sainted.] The Church of Rome has placed Victor among her Saints; and truly, his Attempt, however unsuccessful, to promote the Power and extend the Jurisdiction of that See, deserved no less a Reward.

-----

Footnote 261:

Vide Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.

Footnote 262:

Epiph. hær. 54. c. 1. Euseb. l. v. c. 28.

Footnote 263:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 264:

Idem ib.

Footnote 265:

Tert. in Prax. c. 1.

Footnote 266:

Bar. ad ann. 173. n. 4.

Footnote 267:

Bell. de sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 8.

Footnote 268:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 23. 25. Socrat. l. 5. c. 21. Epiph. hær. 70. c. 10.

Footnote 269:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 270:

Idem ib.

Footnote 271:

Idem. ib. c. 20.

Footnote 272:

Concil. per Labb. t. 1. p. 150.

Footnote 273:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 22. et 24.

Footnote 274:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 45.

Footnote 275:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 276:

Idem ib.

Footnote 277:

Idem ib.

Footnote 278:

Idem ib. Hier. vir. ill. c. 45.

Footnote 279:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. Socrat. l. 5. c. 22.

Footnote 280:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 281:

Euseb. ib. et Socrat. l. 5. c. 22.

Footnote 282:

Euseb. ib. Hier. vir. ill. c. 35. Phot. c. 120. Cypr. ep. 75. Anast. p. 445.

Footnote 283:

Bar. ad ann. 198. n. 10.

Footnote 284:

Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 18. Soz. l. 1. c. 16. Concil. l. 3. c. 18, 19. p. 492.

Footnote 285:

Concil. Labb. t. 1. p. 601.

Footnote 286:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 43. et chron.

Footnote 287:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Hier. chron.

Footnote 288:

Hier. de vir. ill. c. 34. 40.

Footnote 289:

Idem ib.

Footnote 290:

Pears. posth. p. 91, 92. Bosquet. l. 3. c. 5.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SEVERUS, ZEPHYRINUS, MACRINUS, CARACALLA, Fourteenth BISHOP of Rome. DIADUMENUS, GETA, HELIOGABALUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 201. A dreadful Persecution against the Christians.]

In the first Year of the Pontificate of Zephyrinus, who succeeded Victor, a dreadful Persecution was raised against the Christians by the Emperor Severus, and carried on with great Cruelty in all Parts of the Empire. Zephyrinus, however, had the good Luck to escape it, and to see the Church, by the Death of that Prince, happily delivered from the Evils, which the Rage of her foreign Enemies had brought upon her. [Sidenote: Zephyrinus opposes the Theodotian Heretics.] But her domestic Enemies gave her no Respite; the Theodotian Heretics continued sowing, and not without Success, their pestilential Errors at Rome. Zephyrinus, it seems, opposed them with great Vigour and Zeal; for they reproached him, as we read in Eusebius[291], as the first who had betrayed the Truth, by maintaining against them the Divinity of Christ: hence he is ranked, by Optatus, with Tertullian, Victorinus, &c. among those who have successfully defended the Catholic Church[292]. Baronius, to extol Zephyrinus, ascribes to him the first Condemnation of Praxeas[293], which was followed by a solemn Retractation under his own Hand. But it was in Africa, and not at Rome, that Praxeas was condemned, as appeared plain to me, from the Words of Tertullian[294], before I had seen either Pamelius or Moreau, who understood them in that Sense. Praxeas, as we have observed above, had done an eminent Piece of Service to the Church of Rome, by reclaiming Pope Victor from the Heresy of Montanus: but the Good he had done on that Occasion was over-balanced by the Mischief his new Heresy occasioned both at Rome and in Africa; for in both Places he gained many Proselytes. [Sidenote: The Heresy of Praxeas.] He denied all Distinction of Persons in the Godhead, so that the Father being, according to his Doctrine, the same Person with the Son, it was he who took upon him human Nature, and suffered on the Cross; whence his Followers were called Patropassians[295].

[Sidenote: Origen at Rome.]

In the Pontificate of Zephyrinus, and, as Eusebius seems to insinuate, in the Beginning of the Reign of Caracalla, that is, towards the Year 211 or 212. came to Rome the celebrated Origen, being desirous, as he himself declared, to see that Church, so venerable for its Antiquity and Renown; but, after a very short Stay there, he returned to Alexandria[296]. [Sidenote: Famous Dispute, at Rome, between Caius and Proclus.] About the same time happened, at Rome, the famous Dispute between Caius, a Presbyter of that Church and Proclus, a leading Man among the Montanists[297]. Caius committed to Writing the Reasons and Arguments on both Sides[298]: but that Piece has not reached our Times, though it was well known to Eusebius, who styles it a Dialogue[299] and likewise to Theodoret[300].

[Sidenote: Tertullian falls off from the Church.]

It was during the Pontificate of Zephyrinus that Tertullian, the great Defender of the Christian Religion, fell off from the Catholic Church. His Fall, which was lamented by all the Faithful as a common Loss, is ascribed, by St. Jerom, to the Envy and ill Usage he met with from the Roman Clergy[301]. [Sidenote: The Titles of High Pontiff, &c. whether, and in what Sense, given by Tertullian to the Bishop of Rome.] But how ill soever he was used by them in those Days, he has perhaps met with worse Treatment at their Hands in latter Times; for they call upon him as an Evidence, to witness the Pope’s universal Jurisdiction, and to confirm to him the haughty Titles, which he assumes; but with how little Reason, will appear from the following Relation: A Catholic Bishop had, by a public Declaration, admitted Persons guilty of Adultery and Fornication to a Place among the Penitents. As Tertullian was a strict Observer of Rites and Discipline, and a most zealous Asserter of the greatest Rigours of Religion, he could not brook so much Moderation and Indulgence: and therefore, in his Book De Pudicitia, which he wrote on that Occasion, he extols the Severity of the antient Discipline, aggravates the Greatness of those Offences, undertakes to confute the Arguments for Remission and Indulgence; and, speaking of the above-mentioned Declaration, he calls it a peremptory Decree, and styles the Bishop, who made it, high Pontiff, and Bishop of Bishops[302]. Hence the Advocates for the See of Rome infer, that, even in those early Times, such Titles were given to the Bishop of Rome, and that his Decrees were even then deemed peremptory[303]. But in the first Place, it is uncertain whether that Declaration was published by the Bishop of Rome, or by some other great Bishop, perhaps of Carthage, of Alexandria, or Antioch; for no Bishop is named by Tertullian. In the second Place, it is evident from the Context, that, in the above-mentioned Passage, Tertullian speaks ironically; and consequently all that can be inferred from thence is, that he gave those Titles to the Catholic Bishop, whoever he was, by way of Derision; or if the Bishop had assumed them in his Declaration, he took from thence Occasion to expose his Vanity and Ambition. Baronius, and the Flatterers of the Bishops of Rome, triumph in this Passage of Tertullian; from which however nothing can be inferred in Favour of that See, unless they prove, which they can never do, that the above-mentioned Declaration or Decree was published by the Bishop of Rome; that those Titles, which raise him above other Bishops, were Part of the Decree; and lastly, that Tertullian mentioned them as due to him, and not by way of Sarcasm, ironically reflecting on his Pride and Ambition.

As to the Actions of Zephyrinus, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark; and we cannot depend on what we read in the modern Writers. [Sidenote: Zephyrinus not a Martyr.] He governed about Seventeen Years, and died in the first Year of Heliogabalus, and 218. of the Christian Æra[304]. In the Roman Martyrology he has a Place among the Martyrs, which puts Baronius himself to a Stand[305], since the Church enjoyed a profound Tranquillity from the Death of Severus to the End of his Pontificate.

-----

Footnote 291:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.

Footnote 292:

Opt. l. 1. c. 37.

Footnote 293:

Bar. ad ann. 196. n. 20.

Footnote 294:

Tert.in Prax. c. 1. p. 634.

Footnote 295:

Caten. Græc, Patr. c. 53.

Footnote 296:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 14.

Footnote 297:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 14. Hier. vir. ill. c. 59.

Footnote 298:

Idem ib. c. 20.

Footnote 299:

Idem, l. 3. c. 31.

Footnote 300:

Theod. hæret. fab. l. 3. c. 2.

Footnote 301:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 53.

Footnote 302:

Tert. de Pudic. c. 1.

Footnote 303:

Bar. ad ann. 216. n. 5, 6, &c.

Footnote 304:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 21. & chron.

Footnote 305:

Bar. ad ann. 221. n. 1, 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HELIOGABALUS, CALLISTUS, ALEXANDER SEVERUS. Fifteenth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 219. ]

Zephyrinus was succeeded by Callistus, or Callixtus, as he is styled by Optatus[306], and St. Austin[307]. In his Time the Church enjoyed a long, happy, and uninterrupted Peace, as Tertullian calls it[308], which lasted from the Death of Severus in 211. to the Reign of Maximinus in 235. as did also the State from the Death of Macrinus in 218. to the Year 233. [Sidenote: The Emperor Alexander favourable to the Christians.] Alexander, who succeeded Heliogabalus in 222. proved extremely favourable to the Christians, and even allowed them, if I mistake not the Meaning of a profane Writer, the free Exercise of their Religion[309]: it is at least certain, that he adjudged to them, against the Tavern-keepers, a Piece of Ground, which it is pretended they had usurped upon the Public, laying, when he gave Sentence in their Favour, that it was better God should be served on it in any Manner, than that it should be occupied by Tavern-keepers[310]; which was giving them Leave to serve God on it after their own Manner. On this Spot of Ground Baronius supposes Callistus to have built a Church in Honour of the Virgin Mary, known at present by the Name of Santa Maria in Trastevere, that is, Saint Mary beyond the Tyber[311]. But the Pontifical of Damasus, upon which alone he sounds his Opinion, deserves no Credit, as I shall shew in the Life of that Pope. Callistus is said by Anastasius[312] to have inclosed a large Piece of Ground on the Appian Way, to serve as a Burying-place for the Christians. [Sidenote: Callistus_’s Burying-place_.] This Ground is frequently mentioned in the Martyrologies, and described at Length by Arringhus, who tells us, that 174,000 Martyrs, and 46 Popes, were buried in it[313]. Though Alexander was of all the Pagan Emperors the most favourable and indulgent to the Christians, as is evident from all the antient Writers, both Christians and Pagans, yet he is represented in the Martyrologies, and in the Acts of some Martyrs, especially of Callistus, to which Bede gave an intire Credit[314], as the most barbarous and inhuman Tyrant that ever shed Christian Blood. [Sidenote: The Acts of Callistus deserve no Credit.] If we reject these Acts, and we must either reject them, or the Authority of the most unexceptionable Writers among the Antients, we expunge at once above 300 Martyrs out of the Catalogue of Saints worshiped to this Day by the Church of Rome, upon the bare Authority of such Acts. [Sidenote: Many Saints out to be expunged out of the Catalogue.] Among these are the Consul Palmatius, with his Wife, his Children, and Forty-two of his Domestics; the Senator Simplicius, with his Wife, and Sixty-eight of his Domestics: and, what will be an irreparable Loss, the so much celebrated St. Cæcilia, in whose Honour Churches have been erected in every Christian Kingdom. Baronius, not presuming on one Side to question the Emperor Alexander’s Kindness to the Christians, which would be giving the Lye to all the Antients, but, on the other, looking upon it as a Sacrilege to rob the Church of so many valuable Reliques, ascribes the cruel Usage they are supposed to have met with in that Prince’s Reign, not to him, but to Ulpian the celebrated Civilian, who flourished under him[315]. But in those Acts the Martyrs are said to have suffered unheard of Torments, there minutely described, by the express Command of the Emperor Alexander. Besides, could Alexander be said to have favoured the Christians, could the Christians be said to have enjoyed a happy Tranquillity under him, had one of his Officers persecuted them with the utmost Cruelty in his Name, and by his Authority? Baronius, not remembring, it seems, that in this Place he had charged Ulpian with all the Cruelties against the Christians, supposes elsewhere[316] several Martyrs to have suffered in the Reign of Alexander, after the Death of Ulpian. Bede, 'tis true, has followed these Acts; but they are not on that Account at all the more credible, since he often follows Pieces which are now universally given up as supposititious. The very first Words of these Acts are sufficient to make us suspect the Truth of them; for they begin thus; in the Time of Macrinus and Alexander--How come these two Princes to be joined together? Macrinus reigned with his Son Diadumenus, and Heliogabalus between them and Alexander. Soon after the Consul Palmatius is said to have been condemned without any Form of Judgment, without so much as being heard; whereas Herodian assures us, that Alexander was a strict Observer of the Laws; and that no Criminal was condemned in his Reign, but according to the usual Course of Law, and by Judges of the greatest Integrity[317]. Callistus, if we give Credit to his Acts, was kept a long time Prisoner in a private House, where he was every Day cruelly beaten by the Emperor Alexander’s Orders, and at last thrown headlong out of the Window into a Well. [Sidenote: Callistus not a Martyr.] The Acts are evidently fabulous, but Callistus nevertheless is worshiped among the Martyrs; and the Waters of the Well, which is to be seen at Rome in the Church that bears his Name, are said to cure all sorts of Diseases to this Day. He governed the Church Five Years, and died in the Latter-end of the Year 223[318]. the Third of the Emperor Alexander. His Body is exposed to public Adoration on the Tenth of May, in the Church of St. Mary, beyond the Tyber, at Rome[319] and in that of our Lady at Rheims[320]. Two Decretals are ascribed to Callistus, and likewise the Institution of the Ember-Weeks, but without the lean Foundation.

-----

Footnote 306:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 307:

Aug. ep. 53.

Footnote 308:

Tert. de cor. mil.

Footnote 309:

Lamprid. in vit. Alex. p. 121.

Footnote 310:

Idem ib. p. 131.

Footnote 311:

Bar. ad ann. 224. n. 4, 5.

Footnote 312:

Anast. in vit. Call.

Footnote 313:

Arring. l. 3. c. 11.

Footnote 314:

Bed. Martyr. 10 Maii, 14 Oct.

Footnote 315:

Bar. ad ann. 226. n. 4.

Footnote 316:

Idem ad ann. 232. n. 11.

Footnote 317:

Herod. l. vi. p. 575. 588.

Footnote 318:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 21. & in chron.

Footnote 319:

Bolland. 10. Maii, 498, 499.

Footnote 320:

Arring. l. 2. c. 12. Theod. l. 4. c. 1, 2. 6. 8.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ALEXANDER. URBANUS, Sixteenth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 223. The Acts of Urbanus fabulous.]

All I can find in the Antients concerning Urban, the Successor of Callistus, is, that, during the whole Time of his Pontificate, both Church and State enjoyed a profound Peace under the Emperor Alexander; that he held the Chair near Seven Years, and died about the Middle of the Year 230[321]. Great and wonderful Things are related of him in his Acts, and in those of St. Cecilia, but such Acts[322] are evidently fabulous, since, in Opposition to all the Antients, they represent the Emperor Alexander as a most cruel Persecutor of the Christian Name. Urban himself is supposed to have suffered under him, and placed accordingly by the Church of Rome among her Martyrs. His Body is now worshiped in an Abbey of his Name in the Diocese of Chalons on the Marne, and in the Church of St. Cæcilia at Rome[323].

-----

Footnote 321:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 26.

Footnote 322:

Bed. Martyr. & Boll. 25 Maii.

Footnote 323:

Eric. l. 1. c. 12. Bolland. 25 Maii.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ALEXANDER, PONTIANUS, MAXIMINUS. Seventeenth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 230. ]

Pontianus succeeded Urban in 230. and governed, according to the Pontifical of Bucherius[N4], Five Years, Two Months, and Seven Days; that is, from the 22d of July 230. to the 28th of September 235[324]. [Sidenote: Origen deposed.] In the Second Year of his Pontificate, the famous Origen was deposed and excommunicated by Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria, and the Sentence approved of by most other Bishops, especially by the Bishop of Rome, who assembled, it seems, his Clergy on that Occasion: For what else could St. Jerom mean, by telling us, that Rome assembled her Senate against Origen[325]? [Sidenote: _The Persecution of_Maximinus.] The calm and quiet Days, which the Church had for some Years enjoyed, especially under Alexander, expired almost with the Pontificate of Pontianus; for that excellent Prince being assassinated in the Month of May 235. Maximinus, who succeeded him, out of Hatred to him, began to persecute with great Cruelty the Christians, whom he had so much favoured, especially the Bishops[326]. [Sidenote: Pontianus banished to Sardinia.] Pontianus among the rest was banished Rome, and confined to the unwholsome Island of Sardinia[327], where he died the same Year on the 28th of September, but of what Kind of Death is not well known[328].

-----

Footnote N4:

This Pontifical, well known to Cuspinian, F. Petau, and other Chronologers, was published by Bucherius the Jesuit, in 1633. with the Paschal Cycle of Victorius. It is a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, from the Foundation of that See to the Time of Liberius, who was chosen in 352. As the Election of Liberius is marked, and not his Death, the Catalogue is supposed by some to have been written in his Time. His Election is marked thus; Liberius fuit temporibus Constancii ex die xi. Kalendas Junias in diem--a Consulibus Constantio V. & Constantio Cæsare--By Constantius Cæsar is meant Gallus, the Son of Julius Constantius, who, by his Father Constantius Chlorus, was Half-brother to Constantine the Great. Gallus was raised by the Emperor Constantius to the Dignity of Cæsar in the Year 351. on which Occasion he gave him his own Name[N4.1], and the following Year took him for his Collegue in his Fifth Consulship, as appears from Idatius, from Prosper, and from the Alexandrian Chronicle. The above-mentioned Pontifical is very faulty in the Times preceding the Pontificate of Pontianus, who was chosen in 230. nay, if we believe Bucherius, Anicetus, Eleutherius, and Zephyrinus, are omitted in it. I said, If we believe Bucherius; for Bollandus, another Jesuit, who perused the same Manuscript, assures us, that he found there the Names of those three Bishops, which Bucherius assures us were not to be found there[N4.2]. Which of the two Jesuits is the honester is hard to determine in any Case, but impossible in this, unless the original Manuscript should be produced, which both perused. F. Pagi, the Franciscan, seems to favour Bucherius; for he complains of Bollandus for interpolating the Manuscript, and not publishing it with all its Faults and Charms, as Bucherius had done. But then he does not tell us, that he had seen the original Manuscript. Bollandus on the other hand complains of Bucherius for undervaluing such an unvaluable Piece; and settles by it his whole Chronology of the Popes, pretending it to have been sent by Pope Damasus to St. Jerom[N4.3]. But for this the only Ground he has are some Letters from Damasus to St. Jerom, and from Jerom to Damasus, which, by the best Judges, are all thought supposititious. But even allowing it to have been sent by Damasus to St. Jerom, that ought not to recommend it more to our Esteem than it did to his; and he seems to have paid very little Regard to it: for in his Book of Illustrious Men, which he wrote after the Death of Damasus, he places Clement after Anacletus, though that Pontifical puts Anacletus after Clement[N4.4]. What I have hitherto said is to be understood with respect to the Times preceding the Pontificate of Pontianus; for, from his Time, the Pontifical of Bucherius is almost quite exact to the End, that is, to the Election of Liberius; and the more exact, the nearer it comes to his Time. I said almost, for it is not even thenceforth free from all Faults; but it has fewer than any other antient Record that has reached us; and it is on this Consideration that, from the Time of Pontianus, I have preferred it to all others. With respect to his Predecessors, I have adopted the Chronology of Eusebius, where it does not appear that he was mistaken; for that he was mistaken in some Points, is but too plain; and, for aught we know, he may have been so in many others. But as in those dark Times we have no authentic Records, no indisputable Authorities, to depend on, I thought it more adviseable to tread in the Footsteps of so famous and antient a Writer, than, by attempting to open a new Way, perplex and confound both myself and the Reader, as Pearson, Dodwell, and Pagi, have done. And it was not, I must own, without some Concern, that I found a Man of Dr. Pearson’s Learning reduced, by undervaluing the Authority of Eusebius, to take for his Guide a Writer of no Authority at all, viz. Eutychius of Alexandria, who flourished so late as the Tenth Century, and is only famous for his Blunders, even in what relates to his own Church. To the Pontifical were annexed, in the same antient Manuscript, several other small Pieces; viz. 1. A List of the Consuls from the Year 205. to 354. with the Epacts, Bissextile Years, and the Day of the Week, with which each Year began. There are some Mistakes in the Epacts, but the rest is done with great Exactness. 2. Another List of the Consuls and Governors of Rome, from the Year 254. to 354. 3. A short Necrology of the Bishops of Rome, in which are marked, according to the Order of the Months, the Day on which each of them died, and the Place where he was buried. It begins with Lucius, and ends with Julius. In this List, Sixtus II. and Marcellus are omitted; the latter probably by a Mistake of the Transcriber, confounding him with his Predecessor Marcellinus; and the former, perhaps, because he is set down in the Calendar of Martyrs annexed to the Necrology. These Pieces, as well as the Pontifical, all end at the Year 354. whence Cardinal Noris[N4.5] and others are of Opinion, that they were written that Year.

Footnote N4.1:

Aurel. Vict. p. 518. Socr. l. 2. c. 28.

Footnote N4.2:

Bolland. Apr. t. 1. p. 22-24.

Footnote N4.3:

Bolland. ib. p. 3. n. 10.

Footnote N4.4:

Hier. de vir. illustr. c. 15.

Footnote N4.5:

Fast. consular. p. 23.

-----

-----

Footnote 324:

Bolland. April. t. 1. p. 25.

Footnote 325:

Ruf. in Hier. l. 2. p. 225.

Footnote 326:

Oros. l. 7. c. 19.

Footnote 327:

Vide Hallo. vit. Orig. p. 20.

Footnote 328:

Vide Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 25.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMINUS. ANTERUS, Eighteenth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 235. ]

Anterus, the Successor of Pontianus, presided only One Month and Ten Days, and died on the 3d of January 236[329]. Some modern Writers place one Cyriacus between him and Pontianus; but their Opinion, founded on the Authority of the fabulous Acts of St. Ursula, is sufficiently confuted by Eusebius[330], Optatus[331], St. Augustin[332], and Nicephorus[333], who all Name Anterus as the immediate Successor of Pontianus. [Sidenote: Anterus probably dies a Martyr.] The Shortness of his Pontificate, and the cruel Persecution carried on by Maximinus, give us room to believe, that he died a Martyr, which Title is given him in the Martyrologies of St. Jerom and Bede[334].

-----

Footnote 329:

Boll. pont. p. 28-32.

Footnote 330:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 22.

Footnote 331:

Opt. contr. Par. l. 2.

Footnote 332:

Aug. eg. 165.

Footnote 333:

Niceph. chron.

Footnote 334:

Vide Flor. p. 995-997.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMINUS, FABIANUS, PHILIP, GORDIAN, Nineteenth BISHOP of Rome DECIUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 236. ]

Fabianus, called by the Greeks, Fabius, by Eutychius[335], and in the Chronicle of Alexandria, Flavianus[336], was, according to Eusebius, miraculously chosen for Successor to Anterus; for he tells us, [Sidenote: His miraculous Election.] That the People and Clergy being assembled in order to proceed to a new Election, a Dove, unexpectedly appearing, settled, to the great Surprize of all present, on the Head of Fabianus, who was not so much as thought of, being but a Layman, as appears from the Account, and not an Inhabitant of Rome, but just then come out of the Country. At this Prodigy the whole Assembly cried out with one Voice, Fabianus is our Bishop; and, crouding round him, placed him without further Delay on the Episcopal Throne.--Thus Eusebius[337]: and to his Account is owing the modern Notion, that the Pope is always chosen by the Holy Ghost. [Sidenote: Not all popes thus chosen.] What happened in the Election of St. Fabianus (says Cardinal Cusani) happens in the Election of every Pope. 'Tis true we do not see the Holy Ghost with our corporeal Eyes; but we may and must see him, if we are not quite blind, with those of the Mind. In vain therefore, O eminent Electors, are all your Intrigues; the Person, on whose Head the heavenly Dove is pleased to perch, will, in spite of them, be chosen[338]. In the Sequel of this History, we shall see such Monsters of Iniquity elected, and by such scandalous Practices, that to imagine the Holy Ghost any-ways concerned in the Election would be absolute Blasphemy.

[Sidenote: Fabianus worthy of the Dignity to which he was raised.]

As for Fabianus, he seems to have been well worthy of the Post to which he was raised; for the famous Bishop of Carthage, St. Cyprian, in Answer to the Letter, wherein the Clergy of Rome gave him an Account of the glorious Death of their Bishop, calls him an excellent Man; and adds, that the Glory of his Death had answered the Purity, Holiness, and Integrity of his Life[339]. [Sidenote: Some of his Regulations.] From the Pontifical of Bucherius we learn, that he appointed Seven Deacons over the Fourteen Regions, or Wards, into which Rome was then divided[340], to take care of the Poor, says Baronius[341]. We read in other more modern Pontificals, that he named Seven Subdeacons to overlook the Seven Notaries, who are supposed to have been first appointed by Pope Clement, and whose Province it was to commit to Writing the Actions and Speeches of the Martyrs. It is manifest from St. Cyprian[342], as Dr. Pearson well observes, that in the Time of Cornelius, the Successor of Fabianus, the Church of Rome had Seven Subdeacons, to whom St. Cyprian recommended the strictest Exactness in marking the Day of each Martyr’s Death[343]. As for taking down their Speeches, which some seem to object to, the Art of writing in Short-hand was well known in those Times. Eusebius tells us, that by Tiro, Cicero’s Freed-man, were first invented certain Marks, which stood not only for whole Words, but intire Sentences[344]. But this Invention is, by Dio, ascribed to Mæcenas, who ordered his Freed-man Aquila to make them known to all who cared to learn them[345]. Of their wonderful Quickness in writing, with the Help of these Marks, Martial takes notice, in one of his Distichs, saying, How fast soever the Tongue may run, the Hand runs faster[346].

[Sidenote: Said to have converted the Emperor Philip.]

Baronius[347] and Bollandus[348] ascribe to Fabianus the Conversion of the Emperor Philip, and his Son; adding, from the Acts of Pontius the Martyr, that he pulled down the great Temple of the Romans, that he dashed to Pieces their Idols, and converted the whole City. What a Pity that such wonderful Feats should have been passed over in Silence by Eusebius, and all the Antients! As for the Conversion of Philip, and his Son, it is questioned by many, and very justly, the Silence of Eusebius alone being an unanswerable Evidence against it; but all agree, that if he was instructed and converted by Fabianus, he did no great Honour either to his Instructor, or his Religion. In the Latter-end of the Year 249, the Emperor Philip being killed by the rebellious Soldiery at Verona, Decius, who was raised to the Empire in his room, began his Reign with the most dreadful Persecution that had ever yet afflicted the Church. [Sidenote: Fabianus martyred in the Persecution of Decius.] Fabianus was one of the first that fell a Victim to the implacable Hatred this Emperor bore to the Christian Name. He was put to Death on the 20th of January 250. while Decius was Consul the second time, together with Gratus, after having governed the Church Fourteen Years, one Month, and Ten Days[349].

[Sidenote: The See vacant. Year of Christ 250. ]

The Death of Fabianus was followed by a Vacancy, which lasted at least Sixteen Months, the Christians being either imprisoned, or so dispersed, that they could not assemble to chuse a new Bishop. During this Interval, the Clergy, that is, the Presbyters and Deacons, took upon themselves the Care and Administration of all Ecclesiastical Matters; and, being informed by Clementius, Subdeacon of the Church of Carthage, who came to Rome about Easter in 250. that St. Cyprian had been obliged, by the Fury of the Persecution, to withdraw for a while from his See, they writ to that Clergy, exhorting them to follow their Example[350]. Several excellent Letters passed on this Occasion between the Clergy of Rome, and St. Cyprian and his Clergy, especially concerning the Method they were to hold with the Lapsed; that is, with those who had either obtained of the Pagan Magistrates Protections, or Libels of Safety, whence they were called Libellatici, or had actually sacrificed to Idols, and were thence named Sacrificati. In one of these Letters, the Roman Clergy, after having maturely examined so material a Point, and advised not only with the neighbouring Bishops, but with others, who, from the distant Provinces, had fled for Concealment to Rome, declare it was their Opinion, [Sidenote: The Opinion of the Roman Clergy concerning the Lapsed.] That such of the Lapsed as were at the Point of Death, should, upon an unfeigned Repentance, be admitted to the Communion of the Church, but that the Cause of others should be put off till the Election of a new Bishop, when, together with him, with other Bishops, with the Priests, Deacons, Confessors, and Laymen, who had stood firm, they should take their Case into Consideration; adding, that a Crime committed by many ought not to be judged by one; and that a Decree could not be binding without the Consent and Approbation of many[351]. [Sidenote: They disown the Pope’s Infallibility.] Could they in more plain and express Terms disown the Infallibility of the Pope their Bishop? Could they upon mature Deliberation write thus, and at the same time believe his Judgment an infallible Rule? Such a Proposition would, in these Days, be deemed heretical; and no Wonder; the Pope’s Infallibility must be maintained at all Events; and to maintain it is impossible, without condemning, as heretical, the Doctrine taught by the Church in the first and purest Ages.

-----

Footnote 335:

Eutych. p. 384.

Footnote 336:

Chron. Al. p. 630

Footnote 337:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 29.

Footnote 338:

Card. Cus. de meth. consistorii, c. 7. p. 85.

Footnote 339:

Cypr. ep. 4. & 31.

Footnote 340:

Buch. cycl. 271.

Footnote 341:

Bar. ad ann. 112. n. 9.

Footnote 342:

Cyp. ep. 37.

Footnote 343:

Pears. posth. p. 19.

Footnote 344:

Euseb. in chron.

Footnote 345:

Dio Olymp. 193. ann. 4.

Footnote 346:

Mart. l. 14.

Footnote 347:

Bar. ann. 246. n. 9.

Footnote 348:

Boll. 20. Jan. p. 253.

Footnote 349:

Buch. cycl. p. 267.

Footnote 350:

Cypr. ep. 3.

Footnote 351:

Idem ep. 31.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DECIUS, CORNELIUS, GALLUS. Twentieth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 251. ]

After the See had been vacant for the Space of Sixteen Months, Cornelius, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, was at last elected[352], on the 4th of June 251. according to the most probable Opinion[353]. [Sidenote: The Character of Cornelius by St. Cyprian.] He was, according to St. Cyprian[354], a Man of an unblemished Character, and, on account of his peaceable Temper, his great Modesty, his Integrity, and many other eminent Virtues, well worthy of the Dignity to which he was raised. He did not attain at once, says the same Writer, to the Height of the Priesthood, but after he had passed through all the inferior Degrees, agreeably to the Discipline of the Church. He was so far from using Intrigues, from intruding himself by Violence, as some have done, that Violence was necessary to make him accept the Dignity offered him. He was ordained Bishop, continues St. Cyprian, by some of our Collegues, who, being then at Rome, conformed to the Judgment of the whole People and Clergy[355]. As Decius was still alive, who had declared, that he had rather bear with a Competitor to his Crown, than with a Bishop of Rome[356], the Christians, in all Likelihood, laid hold of the Opportunity, which the Revolt of Valens gave them, to chuse a new Bishop; for this very Year Julius Valens revolting, caused himself to be proclaimed Emperor in Rome[357]; and though he held the Empire but a very short time, yet his Revolt might divert Decius for a while from persecuting the Christians.

[Sidenote: Novatian]

Though Cornelius was chosen by the unanimous Voice of the People and Clergy, yet Novatian, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, who aspired to the same Dignity, not only refused to acknowlege him; but having gained a considerable Party among the People, Five Presbyters, and some Confessors, he wrote in their Name and his own to St. Cyprian, and no doubt to many other Bishops, laying heinous Crimes to the Charge of Cornelius; namely, his having sued for a Protection from the Pagan Magistrates, which was ranking him among the Libellatici, who were excluded from all Dignities and Employments in the Church. St. Cyprian having received this Letter, and at the same time one from Cornelius, acquainting him with his Election, as was customary in those Times among Bishops, he caused the one to be read in a full Assembly of the People and Clergy, but suppressed the other, looking upon it as a scandalous Libel[358]. [Sidenote: St. Cyprian calls a Council,] However, to prevent the Calumnies and false Reports that might be spread abroad by Novatian and his Partisans, he assembled a Council of all the Bishops of his Province, who, hearing of the Schism in the Church of Rome, resolved to send thither two of their Body, who should carefully inform themselves of what had passed in the late Election, and on their Return make a faithful Report of all they had learnt. Pursuant to this Resolution, Caldonius and Fortunatus, Two African Bishops, were dispatched to Rome with Letters from the Council to the Clergy of that City, and to the Bishops who had been present at the Ordination of Cornelius. The Bishops no sooner received these Letters than they answered them, assuring their Brethren in Africa, that Cornelius had been lawfully chosen; and at the same time commending him as a Person, on account of his extraordinary Piety, and exemplary Life, most worthy of the Dignity to which he had been raised. [Sidenote: which acknowleges Cornelius.] Their Testimony was soon after confirmed by Caldonius and Fortunatus returning from Rome, and like wise by Stephanius and Pompeius, Two African Bishops, who had assisted at the Ordination of Cornelius; so that he was universally acknowleged all over Africa[359].

The African Bishops no sooner acknowleged Cornelius than they acquainted him with the Resolutions, which they had taken in their late Council, with respect to the Lapsed. [Sidenote: Resolutions of the Council of Africa concerning the Lapsed.] The Substance of these was, That such as had yielded to the Fury of the Persecution ought not to be abandoned, lest, giving themselves up to Despair, they should fall into a total Apostasy; but should be re-admitted to the Union of the Church upon a sincere Repentance, and after a long Penance; that the Time of their Penance should be shortened, or prolonged, according to the Nature of their Crimes; that is, the Libellatici should have a shorter Time assigned them; and the Sacrificati, called also Thurificati, who had actually offered Sacrifice, or Frankincense, to Idols, should not be admitted till they had expiated their Offence by a very long Penance; but that both the Libellatici and Sacrificati should be taken in, before the Time of their Penance was expired, if at the Point of Death, or even thought to be in Danger[360]. As to fallen Bishops, they were to be dealt with in the same Manner; and, after due Penance, or, as it is sometimes called, Satisfaction, be admitted only in a Lay Capacity[361]. Cornelius did not, upon the Receipt of these Determinations or Decrees, step into his oracular Chair, and thence, as an infallible Judge, condemn or approve them. Such arbitrary Proceedings would not have been well relished by the Bishops of Africa, nor even by his own Clergy, who not long before had declared, That a Decree could not be binding without the Consent and Approbation of many. [Sidenote: Which are approved by the Council of Rome.] He therefore acted on this Occasion as St. Cyprian had done, as other Bishops did afterwards; that is, he assembled a Council, which Eusebius calls a great Council[362]; for it consisted of Sixty Bishops, and a great Number of Priests, Deacons, and Laymen, who, in those Times, were admitted to all Councils[363]. By this Venerable Assembly were the Decrees of the Council of Africa examined and approved, and then sent to be in like manner examined and approved by other Bishops, till the whole Church had agreed to them[364].

[Sidenote: Novatian excommunicated.]

At the Council of Rome assisted among other Presbyters Novatian: but as he maintained, in Opposition to the whole Assembly, that the Lapsed were to be admitted upon no Terms or Satisfaction whatsoever, but should be left to the Divine Tribunal, he was himself cut off from that Communion, which with an invincible Obstinacy he denied to others[365]. Provoked at this Sentence, he readily gave Ear to the Insinuations of Novatus, a Presbyter of the Church of Carthage, who had fled from thence to Rome, to avoid the Sentence of Excommunication, with which he was threatened by St. Cyprian, and the other Bishops of Africa, for his scandalous Doctrine, and irregular Practices[366]. Pacianus paints him in the blacked Colours: [Sidenote: Novatus his Wicked ness.] He stripped the Orphans, says he, plundered the Widows of the Church of Carthage, and appropriated to himself the Money belonging to the Poor and the Church[367]: He turned his Father out of Doors, and let him die of Hunger in the Streets, and would not even be at the Trouble of burying him after his Death. With a Kick in the Belly he made his Wife miscarry, and bring forth a dead Child: whence Pacianus calls him a Traitor, an Assassin, the Murderer of his Father and Child[368]. As for his Doctrine, he held, while at Carthage, Tenets diametrically opposite to those he taught at Rome: for, at Carthage, he was for admitting to the Communion of the Church not only the Lapsed, but all other Sinners, let their Crimes be ever so heinous, without any Sort of Penance; and, at Rome, for excluding them, let their Penance be ever so long, let their Repentance be ever so sincere[369]. At Carthage he found Felicissimus, of whom I shall speak hereafter, inclined to Lenity; and Novatian, at Rome, to Severity: and therefore, as he was a Man of great Vanity, and no Principles, he suited himself to the different Tempers of such as he judged the most capable of raising him. [Sidenote: He gains many Followers, and some Confessors, to the Party of Novatian.] At Rome, by a Pretence to an uncommon Sanctity and Severity, he gained a great many Followers, and among them some Confessors lately delivered out of Prison, from whom he extorted Letters directed to Novatian, wherein they consented to the Ordination of the said Novatian. In virtue of these Letters he was accordingly ordained, some say in Rome[370], others in a neighbouring Village[371], by Three Bishops sent for by Novatus out of the Country for that Purpose, and quite unacquainted with his Views. [Sidenote: Novatian the first Anti-pope.] Being thus ordained Bishop, he was set up by the Party against Cornelius, whom they charged with relaxing the Discipline of the Church, and communicating with the Lapsed, especially with one Trophimus. This St. Cyprian calls a false and groundless Charge; for, as to Trophimus, though he was in the Number of the Thurificati, that is, though he had offered Frankinsense to Idols, and even persuaded his Flock (for he was a Presbyter, if not a Bishop) to follow his Example, yet he had sufficiently atoned for his Crime, by a sincere Repentance, by a long Penance, and, above all, by bringing back his People with him, who would not have returned without him[372]. As for the others, 'tis true, he communicated with some who had not fulfilled the Time of Penance assigned them, but such only as, being admitted at the Point of Death, had afterwards recovered; which can no otherwise be avoided, says St. Cyprian[373], but by killing those to whom we granted the Peace of the Church, when we apprehended them to be in Danger. Novatian having thus, by a pretended Zeal for the Discipline of the Church, and the artful Insinuations of Novatus, seduced a great many at Rome, who styled themselves the Cathari, [Sidenote: He acquaints the other Churches with his Ordination.] that is, the pure, undefiled Party; he wrote in their and his own Name to the other Churches, acquainting them with his Ordination, exhorting them not to communicate with the Lapsed upon any Terms, and bitterly complaining of the scandalous Lenity and Remisness of Cornelius[374]. At the same time Cornelius wrote to the other Bishops, giving them a faithful Account of all that had happened at Rome, especially of the uncanonical Ordination of Novatian. However, the Letters of Novatian, signed by several Confessors, who were greatly respected in those Days, made no small Impression on Antonianus an African Bishop, and Fabius Bishop of Antioch[375], but quite gained over to the Party Marcianus Bishop of Arles[376]. [Sidenote: His Deputies rejected and excommunicated in Africa.] The other Bishops declared all to a Man for Cornelius, especially St. Cyprian, and those of his Province, who, being assembled in a Council when the Deputies of Novatian arrived, excommunicated without farther Examination both him and them[377]; and well they might, since they had taken so much Pains to inform themselves of the Lawfulness of Cornelius’s Election, as we have related above. The Deputies, though thus rejected with Scorn and Disgrace by the Council, did not abandon the Enterprize, but proselyting from Town to Town, nay, from House to House, inveigled a great many, under colour of communicating with the Confessors[378]. [Sidenote: St. Cyprian_endeavours to reclaim the Confessors_.] St. Cyprian therefore, whose Zeal was not confined within the Bounds, however extensive, of Africa, Numidia, and the Two Mauritania’s, to withdraw this main Support from the Party, writ a short but nervous Letter to the Confessors, deploring the Fault they had committed, by consenting to the unlawful Ordination of Novatian, and exhorting them to return with all Speed to the Catholic Church[379]. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria writ them a pathetic Letter to the same Purpose[380]; and these Letters had at last the desired Effect; but not before Novatus, who had drawn them into the Schism, left Rome; which happened on the following Occasion:

[Sidenote: Novatian sends new Deputies into Africa.]

Novatian, being informed that the Deputies he had sent into Africa were every-where rejected and despised, resolved to send others, whom he judged, on account of their Rank and Authority, more capable of promoting his Design[381]. The Persons he pitched upon were Nicostratus, Novatus, Evaristus, Primus, and Dionysius. Of the Two last I find no farther Mention made in History; of Novatus I have spoken above; and as for Evaristus and Nicostratus, the former was a Bishop, and is supposed to have been one of the Three that ordained Novatian. Nicostratus was a Deacon of the Church of Rome[382], and had been imprisoned with the Two Presbyters Moses and Maximus, for the Confession of the Faith[383], which intitled him to a Place among the Confessors.[Sidenote: Their Characters.] To these Three St. Cyprian ascribes the excellent Letter, as he styles it, which the Confessors of Rome writ to those of Carthage[384]. He was likewise one of the Confessors, who writ to St. Cyprian himself, as appears from the Title of that admirable Letter, which runs thus: The Presbyters Moses and Maximus, the Deacons Nicostratus and Ruffinus, and the other Confessors, who are with them, to Pope Cyprian[385]. [Sidenote: The Name of Pope antiently common to all Bishops.] We may here observe, by the way, that the Name of Pope, which signifies no more than Father, was antiently common to all Bishops; but was afterwards, by a special Decree of Gregory VII. appropriated to the Bishop of Rome. To return to Nicostratus, the Character given him by St. Cyprian and Cornelius, bespeaks him quite unworthy of being joined with the others, who are named in that Letter, and were all Men of great Piety: for he had squandered away the Money belonging to the Church, that was lodged in his Hands, embezzled that of the Widows and Orphans, and defrauded a Lady, who had trusted him with the Management of her Affairs[386].

[Sidenote: The Deputies are everywhere rejected in Africa.]

These new Deputies met with no better a Reception than the former had done: for St. Cyprian, being informed of their Departure from Rome, by the Confessor Augendus[387], and soon after of their Characters by the Acolyte Nicephorus, both sent, for that Purpose, by Cornelius[388], he acquainted therewith the other Catholic Bishops, who, upon that Intelligence, rejected them with the greatest Indignation, as Apostates, and Firebrands of Sedition. Hereupon the Deputies having, by the Means and Contrivance of Novatus, procured some of their Party to be ordained Bishops, and Nicostratus among the rest, they named them to the Sees of the Catholic Bishops; which bred great Confusion and Disorder in the Church, it being a difficult Matter for the Bishops in the distant Provinces to distinguish between their lawful Brethren and the Intruders, and consequently to know whom they should admit to, and whom they should exclude from their Communion. But against this Evil a Remedy was found by St. Cyprian, and the other African Bishops, who, to arm him against the Craft and Arts of those subtle Impostors, transmitted to him a List of all the Catholic Bishops of that Province[389].

[Sidenote: The Confessors return to the Communion of the Church.]

The Storm, which Novatus had raised in Rome, was laid by his Departure; for he was no sooner gone, than the Confessors, whom he had seduced, viz. Maximus, Urbanus, Sidonius, and Macarius, signified to Cornelius their eager Desire of quitting his Party, and returning to the Communion of the Church. Cornelius questioned, at first, their Sincerity; but, being convinced of it at last, he assembled his Clergy, not caring to trust to his own Judgment, in order to advise with them, in what manner he should proceed, in the present Case. At this Council assisted, besides the Roman Clergy, Five Bishops, who either happened to be then at Rome; or, on this Occasion, had been invited thither by Cornelius. They were scarce met, when the Confessors, attended by a great Croud, appeared before them, testifying, with a Flood of Tears, the Sincerity of their Repentance, and begging they would forget their part criminal Conduct. [Sidenote: How received.] The Council did not think it adviseable to come to any Resolution, till they had acquainted the People with the Request of the Confessors; which they no sooner did, than the People flocked to the Place, and, not upbraiding, but embracing, with Tears of Joy, their retrieved Brethren, and with the same Tenderness as if they had been just then delivered out of Prison, pointed out to the Council the Method they were to pursue. Accordingly Cornelius, having, with the Approbation of the Council, made them renounce the Errors of Novatian, and acknowlege him for the only lawful Bishop of Rome, readmitted them, without farther Satisfaction, to the Communion of the Church[390]. From this Account I should imagine, that those who accompanied the Confessors, at their first appearing before the Council, were Novatians, whom they had brought back with them; but I dare not affirm it, since St. Cyprian, in his Answer to Cornelius, speaks only of the Four above-mentioned Confessors. [Sidenote: Cornelius acquaints St. Cyprian with their Return.] The Confessors being thus returned, to the inexpressible Joy of the whole People, Cornelius, impatient to impart the good News to St. Cyprian, writ to him, as soon as the Council broke up, to acquaint him with what had happened, and invite him to partake of the common Joy, to which he had so much contributed[391]. With this Letter Nicephorus the Acolyte embarked, without Delay, for Africa; and thence returned soon after with an Answer, wherein St. Cyprian assured Cornelius, that, the Return of the Confessors had caused an universal Joy in Africa, both for their Sake, and because it might open the Eyes of many, and prove in the End the Ruin of the schismatic Party[392]. The Confessors themselves writ to St. Cyprian, upon their Return[393], who immediately answered them[394]; and, in all Likelihood, to the other chief Bishops of the Church; since Eusebius informs us, that Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, writ twice to them after their Return[395]. [Sidenote: In what manner Novatian endeavoured to keep the rest steady.]In the mean time Novatian, seeing great Numbers, moved by the Example of the Confessors, daily fall off from his Party, to keep the rest steady by the most sacred Ties, used, in administring the Eucharist, to hold the Hands of those who received it, with the holy Bread in them, between his, and oblige them to swear, by the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they would never abandon him, nor return to Cornelius[396].

[Sidenote: A Schism in the Church of Carthage.]

As the Church of Rome was rent by the Schism of Novatian, so was the Church of Carthage by that of Felicissimus; and as the former, upon his being excommunicated by Cornelius, and the Council of Rome, had recourse to St. Cyprian, in like manner the latter, being cut off from the Communion of the Church by St. Cyprian, and the Council of Carthage, had recourse to Cornelius. But as the Doctrine of Felicissimus, though diametrically opposite to that of Novatian, was equally repugnant to the Catholic Truth, and to the Discipline established in the Church, as I have observed above, he was at first rejected by Cornelius, with great Steadiness and Resolution. But the Bishop of Rome had, at last, been frightened into a Compliance, had he not been animated and encouraged by St. Cyprian: for the Followers of Felicissimus having, in Imitation of the Novatians, appointed one of their own Faction, named Fortunatus, Bishop of Carthage, Felicissimus took upon himself to carry to Cornelius the Letters of the new and Third Bishop of that City. Accordingly he set out for Rome, attended by a Troop of seditious, desperate, and abandoned Men, says St. Cyprian[397]. Cornelius rejected them at first with great Firmness, and immediately acquainted St. Cyprian with what had passed; but Felicissimus threatening to read publicly the Letters he had brought, if Cornelius did not receive them, and to discover many scandalous Things, he was not a little intimidated. He therefore writ a second Letter to St. Cyprian, but betrayed in it a great deal of Fear and Weakness: however, the excellent Letter, which St. Cyprian writ in Answer to his, inspired him with new Vigour, and kept him steady[398].

[Sidenote: The Persecution renewed by Gallus.]

In the mean time, Decius being killed, the Persecution was carried on, or rather renewed, with more Fury than ever, by Gallus his Successor. As the Roman Empire was, at this Time, afflicted with a dreadful Plague, Gallus, who, it seems, had not molested the Christians during the first Months of his Reign[399], issued an Order, injoining Men of all Ranks and Professions to offer Sacrifice to the Gods, hoping, by that means, to appease their Wrath, and put a Stop to the raging Evil. It was on Occasion of this Plague that St. Cyprian writ his excellent Discourse on Mortality, wherein he so eloquently teaches a Christian to triumph over the Fears of Death, and shews with how little Reason we mourn for those Friends and Relations who are snatched from us. [Sidenote: Cornelius apprehended.] Such of the Christians as refused to comply with the Emperor’s Edict, were either banished or executed. Cornelius, among the rest, was apprehended at the first breaking out of the Persecution, and made a glorious Confession of his Faith, as appears from St. Cyprian, who, on that Occasion, writ him a Letter of Congratulation[400]. What happened to him afterwards is uncertain; for his Acts are evidently fabulous, though they have been received by Bede, by Ado, by Anastasius, and many others, far more considerable for their Number than their Authority. We read in the Pontifical of Bucherius, that he was banished to Centumcellæ, now Civita-vecchia, and died of a natural Death, according to the Expression used there[401] (Dormitionem accepit). As to the Title of Martyr, with which he is distinguished by St. Jerom[402], it was antiently given to all those who, for the Confession of Faith, died in Prison, which in all Likelihood happened to Cornelius[N5].

-----

Footnote N5:

Cornelius is reckoned, by St. Jerom, among the Ecclesiastic Writers, on account of the Four Letters, which he writ to Fabius Bishop of Antioch, who seemed not to dislike the Tenets of Novatian[N5.1]. He writ several other Letters, whereof Two are still extant among those of St. Cyprian[N5.2]; and some Fragments of his Fourth Letter to Fabius have been transmitted to us by Eusebius. As for the Letter to Lupicinus, Bishop of Vienne, which was found in the Archives of that Church, and published by Father du Bosc, the Cardinals Baronius[N5.3] and Bona[N5.4] think it genuine; but it is, without all Doubt, supposititious: for, according to Ado and Baronius himself[N5.5], Florentius, whom Lupicinus is supposed to have succeeded, was raised to that See in the Reign of Maximus, or Gordian, about the Year 240. and held it till the Reign of Valerian, and about the Year 258. so that in 252. when Cornelius died, Lupicinus was not yet Bishop. Besides, in the Title of the Letter, which Baronius has suppressed, Lupicinus is styled Archbishop; which Title was not known then, nor long after. The Letter is therefore rejected by Launoy[N5.6], and Dr. Pearson[N5.7], as a forged and spurious Piece. Erasmus ascribes to Cornelius the Treatise on Charity[N5.8]; and du Pin both that, and the other on the public Shews, with the Discourse against Novatian[N5.9], which are all to be found among St. Cyprian’s Works.

Footnote N5.1:

Hier. vir. ill. c 66. p. 290.

Footnote N5.2:

Cypr. ep. 46. 48.

Footnote N5.3:

Bar. ad ann. 255. n. 47.

Footnote N5.4:

Bona lit. 1. c. 3. p. 13.

Footnote N5.5:

Bar. ad ann. 262. n. 58.

Footnote N5.6:

Laun. Ger. l. 4. c. 6.

Footnote N5.7:

Pears. Cyp. ann. p. 37.

Footnote N5.8:

Eras. Cyp. p. 417.

Footnote N5.9:

Du Pin, t. 1. p. 469.

-----

Cornelius died on the same Day of the Month and the Week, on which St. Cyprian was martyred Six Years after[403]; that is, on the 14th of September 252. according to the most probable Opinion, having held the Pontificate one Year, Three Months, and Ten Days. [Sidenote: His Reliques.] His Body is supposed to have been translated from Civita-vecchia to the Cemetery of Callistus; for near that Place Pope Leo I. is said to have built, in Honour of Cornelius, a Basilic, or magnificent Church[404]. His Body was believed to be still at Rome in the End of the Eighth Century; for Anastasius tells us, that Pope Adrian placed it in a Church, which he had built in Capracoro[405]; but it was soon after removed from thence, and brought into France, by Charlemagne, as Pamelius assures us, upon the Authority of a small Life of St. Cyprian, written, as he supposes, by Paulus Diaconus[406][N6].

-----

Footnote N6:

There is a famous Abbey, bearing his Name, at Compeigne in the Isle of France, where his Reliques, and those of St. Cyprian, are supposed to be kept in the same Shrine. But how can we reconcile this with what we read in the Council of Reims, held in 1049. under Leo IX. viz. that the Body of St. Cornelius was removed by the Clergy of Compeigne, from that City to Reims; and received there by the Pope[N6.1]? But, on the other hand, the Council is contradicted by Aubertus de Mira, who assures us, that, in 860. the Reliques of Pope Cornelius were translated from the Abbey of Inde, standing about Four Miles South of Aix la Chapelle, to that of Rosnay, which is, at present, a Collegiate Church in Flanders, between Oudenarde and Tournay. In this Church is still to be seen a Shrine, supposed to contain, as appears from the Inscription, the Bones of St. Cornelius and St. Cyprian[N6.2].

Footnote N6.1:

Conc. t. 9. p. 1033. 1042.

Footnote N6.2:

Vide Bolland. 12 Feb. p. 607. et Pamel, p. 23.

-----

Eusebius observes, that, in the Time of Cornelius, the Church of Rome was in a most flourishing Condition; for, not to mention the People, who were almost without Number, it consisted of 46 Presbyters, 7 Subdeacons, 42 Acolytes, 52 Exorcists, Lectors, and Janitors, or Door-keepers, and 1500 Widows, and other Poor, who were all maintained by the Alms and Offerings of the Faithful[407].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GALLUS, LUCIUS, VOLUSIANUS. Twenty-first BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 252. He is banished.]

Lucius was no sooner named to succeed Cornelius, than he was apprehended, and sent, with many others, into Banishment; for St. Cyprian wrote him a Letter, in the Name of his Collegues, and his own, congratulating him, at the same time, on his Promotion, and his Exile, as appears from St. Cyprian’s Second Letter to him[408]; for his First has not reached our Times. Lucius had been but a very short time in Banishment, when he was recalled, to the inexpressible Joy of his Flock, who, it seems, crouded out to meet him[409]. On this Occasion St. Cyprian wrote him a Second Letter, still extant[410], wherein he testifies the Joy with which the News of his Return had been received by him, and his Brethren in Africa. [Sidenote: Returns to Rome.] He returned to Rome during the Heat of the Persecution; but what occasioned his Return, we are no-where told. St. Cyprian says, in his Second Letter to him, that he was perhaps recalled to be immolated in the Sight of his Flock, that they might be animated and encouraged by the Example of his Christian Constancy and Resolution[411]; which happened accordingly; for he had not governed Eight whole Months, says Eusebius[412], no, nor Six, according to the most probable Opinion, but only Five, and a few Days, when he died a Martyr; for that Title is given him by St. Cyprian[413]. [Sidenote: and dies a Martyr.] He was beheaded, say the Martyrologies; but on this Point the Antients are silent; and his dying in Prison had given him a just Claim to that Title. His Body is supposed to have been discovered intire, in the Church of St. Cæcilia at Rome, in 1599. though the Church of Roskild, in the Isle of Zeland, had long before pretended to his Head[414].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

STEPHEN, Twenty-second BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 253. The Bishops of Gaul write to Stephen.]

Stephen, who succeeded Lucius, in 253. soon after his Election, received a Letter from Faustinus, Bishop of Lions, written in the Name of all his Collegues in Gaul, informing him, that Marcian, Bishop of Arles, having embraced the Doctrine of Novatian, had denied the Communion of the Church to the Lapsed, even at the Point of Death. At the same time they writ to St. Cyprian, and on the same Subject[415], not caring to come to any vigorous Resolution against their Collegue, without the Advice and Approbation of other Bishops, especially of Rome and Carthage; the former being eminent for the Dignity of his See, and the latter for his known Zeal, Piety, and Learning. But Faustinus did not find in the Bishop of Rome the Zeal he expected; and therefore he writ a second Letter to St. Cyprian, exhorting him to animate the others by his Example[416]; which that zealous Prelate did accordingly: for he writ immediately to Stephen, pressing him to dispatch, without Delay, full and ample Letters to the Bishops of Gaul; that, finding themselves thus backed and supported, they might thereby be encouraged to depose Marcian, and name another in his room. It is not to be doubted but the Bishop of Carthage, who had the Welfare of the Church, at least, as much at Heart as the Bishop of Rome, did himself what he encouraged the others to do; but I cannot positively affirm it, since his Answer to Faustinus is lost. As to the Issue of this Affair, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark[N7].

-----

Footnote N7:

Marcian’s Name is not in the List of the Bishops of Arles, published by F. Mabillon: whence some modern Writers have concluded, that he was actually deposed; but that List is very imperfect, the Names of many Bishops being wanting there, whom we certainly know to have governed that Church.

-----

St. Cyprian did not doubt in the least but that Marcian would be deposed; for, in his Letter to Stephen, he desires him to let him know the Name of the Person who should be chosen in his room, that he may not be at a Loss, to whom he should direct his Letters, and his Brethren[417].

Faustinus, and the other Bishops of Gaul, did not apply, on this Occasion, to Stephen alone, but to him, and to St. Cyprian. Why then should their applying to the Bishop of Rome be construed, as it is, by all the Roman Catholic Writers, into a tacit Acknowlegement of his universal Jurisdiction, and not the like Construction be put on their applying to the Bishop of Carthage? But, in Truth, neither can bear such a Construction, since the Bishops of Gaul did not refer the Cause of Marcian either to Stephen, or to St. Cyprian: they writ to both only for their Advice and Approbation. Stephen was backward, for Reasons unknown to us, in giving his; and therefore St. Cyprian, in a Letter, which he writ on this Occasion, pressed him to encourage with his Letters the People of Arles, and the Bishops of Gaul, to depose Marcian, and appoint another in his room[418]. Was not this plainly acknowleging, not in the Bishop of Rome, but in the People and Clergy, the Power of deposing one Bishop, and appointing another in his room?

[Sidenote: Stephen_’s rash Conduct_.]

But to return to Stephen: His rash Conduct had involved the Churches of Spain in endless Calamities, had not St. Cyprian, and the other Bishops of Africa, zealously interposed. The Bishops of Spain, having judged Two of their Collegues unworthy of the Episcopacy, viz. Basilides of Leon and Astorga, and Martial of Merida, had disposed of their Sees to others, appointing Sabinus in the room of the former, and Felix in that of the latter. They were both Libellatici, and guilty of many other Crimes, for which Martial had been deposed; but Basilides, returning to himself, and conscious of his own Guilt, had voluntarily resigned, declaring he should think it a great Happiness to be readmitted, after due Satisfaction, to the Communion of the Church, even in the Capacity of a Layman. But, Ambition getting the better of all his good Resolutions, he soon began to pant after his former Condition; and, thinking the Favour and Interest of the Bishop of Rome might greatly contribute to his Re-establishment, he undertook a Journey to that City; [Sidenote: He suffers himself to be imposed upon.] and there, as St. Cyprian expresses himself, imposed upon our Collegue Stephen, who lived at a great Distance, and was ignorant of the Truth, seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bishoprick, from which he had been justly deposed[419]. Being thus admitted to the Communion of the Bishop of Rome, he returned well satisfied to Spain, and there exercised all Episcopal Functions, as he had formerly done. St. Cyprian does not tell us, in express Terms, that Martial too had recourse to Rome; but that he had, may, perhaps, be gathered from his Words; for he writes, that, notwithstanding the Craft and Deceit Martial had used, probably in imposing upon Stephen, he had not been able to preserve his Episcopacy[420]. Besides, he acted as a Bishop after he had been deposed by a Synod; which he would have hardly attempted, had he not been countenanced by some Bishop of Rank and Dignity. Be that as it will, the Churches of Leon, Astorga, and Merida, applied, in this their Distress, to the Bishops of Africa, imploring, both by Letters and Deputies, their Advice and Assistance. The Deputies were the Two new Bishops Felix and Sabinus; and their Deputation was backed by a pressing Letter from Felix, Bishop of Saragosa, whom St. Cyprian styles a Propagator of the Faith, and Defender of the Truth[421]. [Sidenote: Martial of Merida excommunicated by the Bishops of Africa, tho’ admitted by Stephen to his Communion.] These Letters being read at Carthage, in a Council of 28 Bishops, with St. Cyprian at their Head, it was concluded, that Basilides and Martial ought not to be acknowleged as Bishops; that it was not lawful to communicate with them; that such Bishops as did, ought to be excommunicated themselves; and, finally, that their imposing upon Stephen, instead of giving them any kind of Right to the Sees they had forfeited by their Wickedness, added to their Guilt. By the same Council, the Election of Sabinus and Felix was confirmed, and they acknowleged by all the African Bishops as their Collegues[422].

[Sidenote: Appeals to Rome, no Proof of the Pope’s Supremacy.]

It is surprising, that Bellarmine, Baronius, Davidius, and other Advocates for the Pope’s Supremacy, should lay so much Stress as they do, on the Recourse to Rome of the Two deposed Bishops. If their recurring, or appealing, as they are pleased to style it, to the Bishop of Rome, is any Proof of his being acknowleged by them for the Head of the Church, the Appeal of the other Bishops of Spain from him to St. Cyprian, and their acquiescing to his, and not to the Judgment of Stephen, will be a stronger Proof of St. Cyprian’s being acknowleged by them for the Head of the Church. Had Basilides and Martial recurred not to Rome, but to Carthage, had the Bishops of Spain appealed from St. Cyprian to Stephen, as they did from Stephen to St. Cyprian, and acquiesced to his Judgment, no Notice had been taken of the Appeal of the Two Apostates; that only of the Catholic Bishops had been set forth with great Pomp and Flourish of Words. But, as the Case stands, they must be satisfied with the Evidence of the Apostates, and leave the Catholic Bishops to bear Testimony for us, which we shall not misuse; we shall not build upon it the Supremacy of the Church of Carthage; we shall not set up St. Cyprian for a Judge, to whose Tribunal all Appeals must be brought; in short, we shall not make him an universal Judge, an universal Pastor, a Pope; though, to the Testimony of the Spanish Bishops, that of Gregory Nazianzene should be added, and I defy the Champions for the See of Rome to allege one in their Favour more plain and expressive: St. Cyprian, says he, presided not only over the Church of Carthage, or that of Africa, on which he reflected an extraordinary Lustre, but over all the West, nay, and over all the Nations of the East, of the North, and the South[423]. Had Gregory said as much of the Bishop of Rome, the Passage had been employed as a Corner-stone to support the Pope’s universal Jurisdiction.

[Sidenote: The famous Dispute about the Baptism of Heretics.]

Not long after the Affair of the Spanish Bishops, that is, about the Year 256. according to the most probable Opinion, happened the famous Contest about the Baptism of Heretics, which rent the whole Church into Two Parties, the one headed by St. Cyprian, and the other by Stephen. St. Cyprian maintained, that Baptism administred by Heretics, was null and invalid; and, consequently, that such as came over from them, from what Sect soever they came, ought to be baptized by a Catholic Minister: he owned there was but one Baptism, and therefore avoided the Word Rebaptization; but thought that Heretics had not the Power of conferring it. [Sidenote: Both Opinions erroneous.] On the other hand, Stephen, and those who adhered to him, pretended, that Baptism conferred by Heretics, of whatever Sect or Persuasion, was valid; so that by avoiding one Error, they fell into another; for some Heretics of those Times, namely, the Montanists and Marcionites, did not baptize, as is commanded by the Gospel, in the Name of the Three Persons; whence their Baptism was declared null by Two Oecumenical Councils, as I shall relate hereafter. I know great Pains have been taken to excuse Stephen; but his own Words, quoted by St. Cyprian, from his own Letter to him, can, in my Opinion, admit of no Dispute; for he there forbids, in express Terms, the Baptizing of Heretics, from what Heresy soever they should come[424]. And here we may observe, by the way, that the whole Church erred, either at this Time, or afterwards; for afterwards both Opinions were condemned, and both were held at this Time, by the one or the other of the Two Parties, into which the whole Church was divided. The Point in Dispute had been canvassed long before, and differently settled in different Provinces. The Churches of Africa and Numidia had formerly admitted Heretics, without baptizing or rebaptizing them; but the contrary Practice was established in a Council of the Bishops of these Two Provinces, summoned about the Close of the Second Century, by Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage[425]. [Sidenote: The Custom of baptizing Heretics practised by several Churches, and established by Councils.] The same Practice of baptizing Heretics was followed by the Churches of Cappadocia, and the other Provinces of Asia, as a Tradition handed down to them from the Apostles Times; whence it was confirmed in a Council, which was held at Iconium in Phrygia, about the Year 230. and consisted of all the Bishops of Cappadocia, Galatia, Cilicia, and the neighbouring Provinces[426]. The same Practice was approved of by another Council, assembled, much about the same time, at Synnades in Phrygia[427]. The Bishops of Pontus and Egypt agreed, it seems, with those of Cappadocia and Galatia[428]; but all the other Bishops, especially those of Italy, Gaul, and Spain, held the contrary Opinion, and followed the opposite Practice. This Disagreement, both in Opinion and Practice, had hitherto created no Disturbance in the Church, each Bishop conforming to the Custom of his particular Church, as received by Tradition, or settled by Synods, without censuring those who disagreed with him, or being censured by them. [Sidenote: It is confirm’d by two Councils held by St. Cyprian;] But the Question was now revived by Eighteen Bishops of Numidia, who writ to a Council, held at this time by St. Cyprian, to know whether they had done well in rebaptizing Heretics, agreeably to the antient Practice of their respective Churches. What raised this Doubt now, we know not; but it is certain, the Council answered, that they ought to follow the Practice which they had hitherto observed[429]. The same Answer was returned by St. Cyprian, to Quintus Bishop of Mauritania, who had asked the same Question[430]. Soon after, another Council was held at Carthage, composed of 71 Bishops, wherein the Decrees of the former Council, concerning the Baptism of Heretics, were confirmed; and besides, it was ordained, that such Presbyters and Deacons as had received Ordination at the Hands of Heretics, or who, after receiving Orders in the Church, had fallen into Heresy, should be admitted to Communion only as Laymen[431]. [Sidenote: who acquaints Stephen with their Decrees.] The Council, by a synodal Letter, acquainted Stephen with these Resolutions, hoping he would approve and embrace them; but at the same time declaring, that if any Bishop should think fit to reject them, and follow different Opinions, agreeably to the Liberty they all claimed, no Breach of Peace and Unity should thence follow on their Side[432]. With this Letter St. Cyprian sent those he had written to Quintus, and to the Bishops of Numidia[433].

[Sidenote: St. Cyprian_’s famous letter to_ Jubaianus.]

It was after this Council, and before Stephen’s Answer, that St. Cyprian wrote the famous Letter to Jubaianus, who was a Bishop; but in what Province, or of what City, we know not. Jubaianus had, by a Letter, asked St. Cyprian’s Opinion about the Baptizing of Heretics; and, at the same time, sent him the Copy of a Letter, which he had received; wherein many Reasons were alleged to prove, that Baptism, by whomsoever administred, not even the Marcionites excepted, ought to be deemed valid. The Author of this Letter inveighs bitterly against St. Cyprian, and those of his Party, styling them Betrayers of the Truth, and Enemies to the Peace and Unity of the Church[434]. Baronius, and likewise Pamelius, ascribe that Piece to Stephen, not apprised that they must consequently own the Doctrine held by Stephen to have been no less erroneous than that which was held by St. Cyprian, if the Doctrine of the Church be true, as I have observed above. But we have not sufficient Grounds to suppose Stephen the Author of it, since many besides him writ in favour of that Opinion. St. Cyprian, in Answer to Jubaianus, sent him his Letter to Quintus, that of the first Council to the Bishops of Numidia; and, moreover, wrote him a long Letter, with a great many Arguments in favour of his Opinion, and the Answers to what was objected against it; especially in the Letter, whereof Jubaianus had transmitted him a Copy[435]. [Sidenote: His Desire to live in Peace and Unity with those who held the opposite Opinion.] He ends his Letter by a most solemn Protestation of Unity and Charity with those who should differ from him; which is related at Length by St. Jerom[436], and likewise by St. Austin, who tells us, that he was never tired with reading over and over again those Words of Peace and Charity, breathing nothing but the sweetest Odour of that Union, in which the holy Prelate anxiously sought to live with his Brethren[437]. To this Letter Jubaianus returned Answer, that he had fully convinced him, and that he willingly embraced his Opinion[438]. In that Letter St. Cyprian seems to have mustered all the Arguments that could be alleged in favour of his Opinion; and therefore St. Austin has employed his Third, Fourth, and Fifth Books on Baptism, in confuting them.

We have hitherto seen with how much Temper, Moderation, and Candor, the Dispute was managed on St. Cyprian’s Side: he determined nothing without the Advice and Approbation of his Collegues assembled in Council; the Determinations of the Council he imparted to other Bishops, leaving them at full Liberty to embrace or reject them, and declaring, that no Disagreement in Opinion should occasion in him the least Breach of Charity. How different was the Conduct of the Bishop of Rome! [Sidenote: Stephen_’s Pride and Arrogance_.] He condescended, indeed, to answer the synodal Letter of the African Bishops; but did it with that Pride and Arrogance, that in After-ages became the Characteristic of his Successors. He begins with the Dignity of his See, and his pretended Succession to St. Peter, which he takes care to put them in mind of: in the next Place, he rejects their Decrees with the utmost Indignation, and attempts to confute the Arguments alleged to support them: he then proceeds to Commands and Menaces, ordering St. Cyprian to quit his Opinion, and threatening to cut off, from the Communion of the Church, all those who should presume to differ from him, and rebaptize Heretics: he concludes his Letter with a bitter Invective against St. Cyprian, branding that great Luminary of the Church with the reproachful Names of false Christ, false Apostle, deceitful Workman[439]. Such was Pope Stephen’s Answer to a most respectful Letter from a Council of 71 Bishops. Pompeius, Bishop of Sabrata in the Tripolitana, hearing of this Letter, and being desirous to peruse it, as he had done all the rest on the same Subject, [Sidenote: He is severely censured by St. Cyprian.] St. Cyprian, in Compliance with his Desire, sent him a Copy of it; and at the same time writ him a Letter, wherein he treats Stephen, upon the just Provocation he had given him, with more than ordinary Sharpness and Acrimony, charging him with Pride and Impertinence, with Self-contradiction and Ignorance, with Indiscretion, Obstinacy, Childishness; nay, he styles him a Favourer and Abetter of Heretics against the Church of God[440]. St. Cyprian was more provoked at Stephen’s abusive Language, than moved either by his Authority or Menaces. St. Austin supposes the Opinion he held to have been false and erroneous; and yet owns, that he was not obliged to yield to the Authority of Stephen, nor give up the Point, till he was convinced by dint of Reason, or by the Decision of an Oecumenical Council[441]. [Sidenote: St. Cyprian assembles a great Council at Carthage;] However, as St. Cyprian sought nothing but Truth, upon the Receipt of Stephen’s Letter, he summoned a great Council, in order to have the Question canvassed anew, and examined with more Care and Attention. The Council met accordingly, on the First of September 256. consisting of 85 Bishops, a great Number of Presbyters and Deacons, and a considerable Part of the People[442]. To this Assembly were read the Letter of Jubaianus to St. Cyprian, his Answer to it, and Jubaianus’s Reply; with the Letter of the former Council to Stephen, and Stephen’s Answer to the Council. These Pieces being read, St. Cyprian made a short Discourse, exhorting his Collegues to speak their Mind freely: the Words he used on this Occasion alluded, without Doubt, to the Pride and Arrogance of the Bishop of Rome; Let none of us, says he, set up for the Bishop of Bishops; let none of us presume to reduce our Collegues by a tyrannical Fear to the Necessity of obeying: he concluded with protesting anew, in the most solemn manner, that he left every one the full Liberty of following what Opinion he liked best; and that no Man should, on that score, be judged by him, or separated from his Communion[443]. [Sidenote: which confirms the antient Practice.] The Discourse being finished, each Bishop delivered his Opinion, and St. Cyprian the last, all approving, with one Consent, the Baptizing of Heretics. Pamelius and others count 87 Bishops present at the Council, because Natalis of Oea spoke for the Two other Bishops of Libya Tripolitana, viz. Pompeius of Sabrata, and Dioga of Leptis the Great[444], who were absent.

The Third Council of Carthage having thus confirmed the Decrees of the Two former, notwithstanding the Threats and Menaces of the Bishop of Rome, it was thought adviseable for the Peace of the Church to acquaint him therewith; and at the same time to inform him more particularly of the Reasons, on which their Opinion was grounded. [Sidenote: Deputies sent to Stephen, how treated.] Deputies were accordingly dispatched to Rome for that Purpose; but Stephen not only refused to see or hear them, but would not allow any of his Flock to correspond with them, to supply them with the Necessaries of Life, or even to admit them under the same Roof; excluding them not only from his Communion, but from common Hospitality, says, Firmilian, who wrote this very Year[445]. [Sidenote: He excommunicates all who held the opposite Opinion.] He did not stop here; but, transported with Rage, or Zeal, as Baronius is pleased to style it, he cut off from his Communion all the Bishops who had assisted at the Council, and all those who held the same Opinion, that is, the Bishops of Africa, Numidia, Mauritania, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, and Egypt[446]. But Stephen’s Anathemas proved, as those of Victor’s had done before, bruta fulmina; no Regard was had to them, no, not even by those of his own Party; who, by continuing in Communion with those whom he had cut off from his, sufficiently declared their Thoughts touching his rash and unchristian Conduct. This Dispute, says St. Austin, occasioned no Schism in the Church, the Bishops continuing united in Charity, notwithstanding their Disagreement in Opinion[447]. No Thanks to Stephen, who did all that lay in his Power to set the Bishops at Variance, and involve the whole Church in Confusion and Disorder: The Peace of Christ, continues St. Austin, triumphed in their Hearts, and put a Stop to the growing Schism; not in the Heart of Stephen, where Rage, Ambition, and Envy lodged; Guests incompatible with Peace and Charity; but in the Hearts of the other Bishops, who were thereby restrained from following his Example. How many Schisms had been prevented, had Bishops in After-ages trod in the Footsteps of those great Prelates!

[Sidenote: Stephen’s Conduct disapproved by Dionysius of Alexandria;]

Dionysius, afterwards Pope, and Philemon, both then Presbyters of the Church of Rome, acquainted, no doubt, by Stephen’s Direction, the great Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, with what had passed, hoping to gain him over to their Party, and extort from him an Approbation of Stephen’s Conduct: but that illustrious Prelate, foreseeing, and well weighing, the evil Consequences that might attend it, declared his Sentiments with all the Freedom and Zeal that became a Man of his Rank in the Church. He told them plainly, that the condemning a Practice, which had been established by so many Councils, was what he could by no means approve of; that an Affair of such Consequence required long and mature Deliberation; and that the deciding it over-hastily might raise eternal Disputes, and end at last in a Schism: he therefore begged Stephen, in a Letter, which he writ to him on this Occasion, that he would, upon Reflection, alter his Conduct; and in an Affair upon which so much depended, take different Measures from those which he had hitherto pursued[448]. As Stephen wrote to Dionysius, so did St. Cyprian to Firmilian, giving him a particular and candid Account both of Stephen’s Conduct and his own. Firmilian was Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and one of the most eminent Prelates at that Time in the Church both for Piety and Learning: he had a singular Veneration for St. Cyprian, maintained with great Zeal the same Cause, and consequently had been equally ill used and excommunicated by Stephen. He therefore received with extraordinary Joy the Letter, which St. Cyprian sent him by Rogatian one of his Deacons, often read it with great Satisfaction[449], and answered it with a long Letter[450], which is still extant, though St. Cyprian’s to him has been lost long since. [Sidenote: and severely censured by Firmilian.] In this Letter Firmilian, amazed and provoked at Stephen’s unaccountable Conduct, expresses his Detestation of it in sharper Terms than the Laws of Charity can well allow; for, not content to charge him with sacrificing the Peace of the Church to a petulant Humour, he compares him to Judas, and stigmatizes him with the Epithets of inhuman, audacious, insolent, wicked, impious Schismatic; for he is a true Schismatic, says Firmilian, who departs from the Unity of the Church, which thou hast done, O Stephen; for, by attempting to separate others from thee, thou hast separated thyself from all other Churches. How much Sin hast thou heaped upon thyself by cutting thyself off from so many Flocks[451]! Firmilian’s Letter was translated into Latin by St. Cyprian himself, as is manifest from the Style. It was unknown, it seems, to St. Austin; for he never quotes it, nor, in confuting the Opinion of Sr. Cyprian, takes any notice of some Reasons alleged in that Letter to support it.

[Sidenote: Stephen dies, but not a Martyr.]

There was no Hope of seeing an End put to this Dispute, so long as Stephen lived; but he dying, his Successor, who was a Man of a quite different Temper, laid the Storm, which his furious and ungovernable Passion had raised. He died on the 2d of August 257. according to the most probable Opinion[452]. The Church of Rome, upon the Authority of his Acts, ranks him among the Martyrs; but that Honour is not paid him either by St. Austin, or by Vincentius Lirinensis, who, naming him together with St. Cyprian, as they often do, give constantly the Title of Martyr to the latter, and never to the former. [Sidenote: His Acts fabulous.] As for his Acts, they flatly contradict, in several Points, the most unexceptionable Writers among the Antients[453], and therefore by no means deserve the Credit which Baronius would have us give them[454]. Even Anastasius seems to have made no Account of them, if in his Time they were yet composed, which may be questioned; for the Account he gives us of Stephen’s Death differs widely from that which we read in those Acts[455]. But he had made a bold Attempt towards extending the Power and Authority of the See of Rome, and therefore was to be placed among the Saints for the Encouragement of others. To say he had merited that Honour by his Virtues, either as a Christian or a Bishop, had been carrying the Imposture too far: the only Means therefore left of making him a Saint, was to make him a Martyr, that, by his glorious Death, he might be thought to have deserved what it was manifest from the Records of those Times he had not deserved by his Christian Life. Hence Acts were forged, setting forth his heroic Confession of the Faith before the Emperor, his Sufferings on that Account, the stupendous Miracles he wrought, &c. which, however incredible, might, in Process of Time, by their Antiquity alone, gain Credit with the greater Part of Mankind. [Sidenote: His Reliques.] Stephen was buried in the Cœmetery of Callistus[456]; whence his Body was translated about the Year 762. by Paul I. to a Monastery of Greek Monks, which that Pope had built in Rome, as we read in Anastasius[457]. How it got from thence to Trani in Apulia nobody knows; but from that City it was conveyed with great Pomp in 1682. to Pisa in Tuscany, where it is still worshiped in a Church bearing the pretended Saint’s Name[458]. According to the most probable Opinion, Stephen governed Four Years, and about Six Months.

-----

Footnote 352:

Euseb. chron. & l. 6. c. 33. Opt. l. 2. Aug. ep. 165, &c.

Footnote 353:

Vide Pears. Cyp. an. p. 29. n. 6.

Footnote 354:

Cypr. ep. 52.

Footnote 355:

Idem ib.

Footnote 356:

Idem ep. 52.

Footnote 357:

Aur. Vict.

Footnote 358:

Idem ep. 42.

Footnote 359:

Nem. ep. 41, 42., 45.

Footnote 360:

Idem ep. 52. 54.

Footnote 361:

Idem ep. 68.

Footnote 362:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 363:

Pacian. ep. 3.

Footnote 364:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 24.

Footnote 365:

Theodoret. hær. fab. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 366:

Pacian. ep. 3. Hier. vir. ill. c. 70. Cypr. ep. 49.

Footnote 367:

Pacian. ep. 3.

Footnote 368:

Id. ib. & ep. 2.

Footnote 369:

Cyp. ep. 40. 49.

Footnote 370:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 371:

Theod. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 372:

Cyp. ep. 54.

Footnote 373:

Idem ib.

Footnote 374:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 45. Socrat. l. 4. c. 28. Hier. vir. ill. c. 69.

Footnote 375:

Cyp. ep. 52. Euseb. l. 6. c. 44.

Footnote 376:

Cyp. ep. 67.

Footnote 377:

Idem ib.

Footnote 378:

Idem ep. 47. 79.

Footnote 379:

Idem ep. 44.

Footnote 380:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 46.

Footnote 381:

Cyp. ep. 48.

Footnote 382:

Idem ep. 49.

Footnote 383:

Buch. p. 271.

Footnote 384:

Cyp. ep. 23.

Footnote 385:

Idem ep. 26.

Footnote 386:

Idem ep. 48, 49.

Footnote 387:

Idem ep. 48.

Footnote 388:

Idem ep. 49.

Footnote 389:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 390:

Idem ep. 46. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 391:

Cyp. ep. 46.

Footnote 392:

Idem ep. 47.

Footnote 393:

Idem ep. 50.

Footnote 394:

Idem ep. 51.

Footnote 395:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 396:

Idem ib.

Footnote 397:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 398:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 399:

Idem ep. 54.

Footnote 400:

Idem ep. 57.

Footnote 401:

Buch. p. 271.

Footnote 402:

Hier. vit. Paul p. 237.

Footnote 403:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 67.

Footnote 404:

Flor. p. 828. 830.

Footnote 405:

Anast. c. 46. p. 27.

Footnote 406:

Pamel. prolog. in S. Cyp. p. 19.

Footnote 407:

Euseb. 1. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 408:

Cypr. ep 58.

Footnote 409:

Idem ib.

Footnote 410:

Idem ep. 58.

Footnote 411:

Idem ib.

Footnote 412:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 2.

Footnote 413:

Cyp. ep. 67.

Footnote 414:

Bolland. 4. Mart. p. 301, 302.

Footnote 415:

Cypr. ep. 67.

Footnote 416:

Idem ib.

Footnote 417:

Idem ib.

Footnote 418:

Cypr. ep. 70.

Footnote 419:

Cypr. ep. 68.

Footnote 420:

Idem ib.

Footnote 421:

Idem ib.

Footnote 422:

Idem ib.

Footnote 423:

Greg. Naz. orat. 18. p. 281.

Footnote 424:

Cyp. ep. 70. 73.

Footnote 425:

Cyp. ep. 70. 73. Aug. bapt. l. 2. c. 7, & 8.

Footnote 426:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 427:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 428:

Basil. ep. 75.

Footnote 429:

Cyp. ep. 70.

Footnote 430:

Idem, ep. 71.

Footnote 431:

Idem, ep. 73.

Footnote 432:

Idem, ep. 72.

Footnote 433:

Idem ib.

Footnote 434:

Idem, ep. 73.

Footnote 435:

Idem, ib.

Footnote 436:

Hier. in Luc. c. 9.

Footnote 437:

Aug. bapt. l. 4. c. 8.

Footnote 438:

Concil. p. 397.

Footnote 439:

Cyp. ep. 74. Euseb. l. 7. c. 3. Aug. bapt. l. 2. c. 7.

Footnote 440:

Cyp. ep. 74.

Footnote 441:

Aug. de bapt. l. 1. c. 7. 18. & l. 2. c. 8. 15.

Footnote 442:

Cyp. con. p. 397.

Footnote 443:

Idem ib. Aug. de bapt. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 444:

Cyp. conc. p. 403.

Footnote 445:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 446:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 447:

Aug. bapt. l. 5. c. 25.

Footnote 448:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 449:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 450:

Cyp ib.

Footnote 451:

Id. ib.

Footnote 452:

Buch. cycl. p. 297.

Footnote 453:

Pears. annal. Cyp. p. 57, 58.

Footnote 454:

Bar. ad ann. 259.

Footnote 455:

Anast. in vit. Vict.

Footnote 456:

Buch. cycl. p. 267.

Footnote 457:

Anast. c. 95.

Footnote 458:

Boll. Pont. p. 36.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

VALERIAN, SIXTUS II. GALLIENUS. Twenty-third BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 257. Dionysius of Alexandria interposes in the famous Dispute.]

Stephen being dead, Sixtus or Xystus II. a Deacon of the Church of Rome, was chosen to succeed him. As the late Dispute was not yet ended, Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria no sooner heard of his Promotion, than he began to press him with great Earnestness to relinquish the wild Pretensions of his Predecessor, and concur with the other Bishops in restoring Peace and Tranquillity to the Church[459]. He writ Three Letters to him on the same Subject, whereof the last was from Dionysius and the whole Church of Alexandria, to Sixtus and the whole Church of Rome[460]. He writ likewise to Dionysius and Philemon, two Presbyters of the Church of Rome, whom we have mentioned above, and who upon Stephen’s Death seem to have abandoned his Party; for Dionysius of Alexandria, in his first Letter to Sixtus, writes, That these two Presbyters had been formerly of Stephen’s Opinion[461], a plain Indication that they were not then. The Bishop of Alexandria had at last the Satisfaction to see his pious Endeavours crowned with Success; for we find no farther Mention of this Dispute till it was revived by the Donatists. [Sidenote: Peace restored to the Church by his means.] In what manner it ended, we are no-where told; but it is manifest from the Writers of those Times, that the African and Asiatic Bishops continued the same Practice of baptizing Heretics, till it was condemned by the two great Councils, of Arles in 314. and of Nice in 325[462]. Whence we may well conclude, that the Terms proposed at the Beginning of the Dispute by Dionysius and St. Cyprian were agreed to by Sixtus, viz. That no Restraint should be laid on the Bishops of either Side, but that every one should be allowed to follow undisturbed which of the two Opinions he thought most agreeable to the Scripture and to Reason. This was allowing the Bishops to consult the Scriptures, and make use of their own Reason, in a Point already judged and decided by the Bishop of Rome. But the Successors of Sixtus have not been so complaisant; for they pretend, that a blind Faith ought to be yielded to all their Decisions as infallibly true, a blind Obedience to all their Decrees as unquestionably holy.

But now the Persecution, which had begun some Months before the Decease of Stephen, raged with more Violence than ever: [Sidenote: Valerian persecutes the Church.] For Valerian having, at the Instigation of an Egyptian Magician, changed the Kindness he once had for the Christians into an implacable Hatred, he ordered, by a Rescript to the Senate, all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be carefully sought for, and executed without Mercy[463]. [Sidenote: Sixtus martyred.] Pursuant to this Order, Sixtus, who among the first fell into the Hands of the Persecutors, was immediately either beheaded, as we read in the Pontifical of Bucherius[464], or crucified, as we are told by Prudentius[465]; having held the Chair only Eleven Months, and some Days. Pontius, a Deacon of the Church of Carthage, styles him a good and pacific Prelate[466], no doubt on account of his Conduct quite opposite to that of his ambitious and quarrelsome Predecessor[N8].

-----

Footnote N8:

Ruffinus published, under the Name of Sixtus Bishop of Rome, the Book of a Pythagorean Philosopher, named Sixtus. St. Jerom reproaches him in two Places with that Imposture, as he styles it, supposing him to have known the Work, which he ascribed to Pope Sixtus, not to be his[N8.1]. St. Austin was imposed upon among the rest; for, in his Treatise of Nature and Grace, he quotes that Book as the Work of Pope Sixtus; but he afterwards owned and corrected his Mistake[N8.2]. It was ranked by Pope Gelasius among the Books of Heretics; so that he supposed it to have been written by a Christian, which was more than he could know, there not being a single Word in it whence we can argue the Author to have believed in, or to have had any Knowlege of Christ: and it is on this Consideration that it has been thought unworthy of a Bishop of those times.

Footnote N8.1:

Ep. ad Ctesiph. contr. Pelag. c. 22. & in cap. 18. Ezech.

Footnote N8.2:

Aug. l. 2. retract. c. 42.

-----

-----

Footnote 459:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 5. 9.

Footnote 460:

Idem c. 9.

Footnote 461:

Idem c. 5.

Footnote 462:

Cyp. ep. 77. Basil. can. 47. & ep. 8. conc. Arel. can. 8.

Footnote 463:

Cyp. ep. 82.

Footnote 464:

Buch. p. 268.

Footnote 465:

Prud. de coron. martyr. p. 71.

Footnote 466:

Pont. in vit. S. Cyp. p. 8.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GALLIENUS, DIONYSIUS, CLAUDIUS II. Twenty-fourth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 258. The See vacant almost a whole Year.]

Sixtus being dead, and the Christians prevented by the Persecution from assembling to chuse another in his room, the See remained vacant almost a whole Year, that is, from the 6th of August 258. to the 22d of July 259. when Dionysius, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, whom we have mentioned above, was elected, to the great Satisfaction of the Faithful; for he was one of the most eminent Men of his Time both for Piety and Learning[467]. During his Pontificate, the Goths broke into the Empire, over-ran all Asia Minor, and, having almost utterly destroyed the City of Cæsarea, they carried with them into Captivity most of its Christian Inhabitants. Firmilian was then Bishop of the Place, who had censured the Conduct of Stephen with so much Sharpness and Acrimony; [Sidenote: Dionysius_’s Charity to the distressed Christians of_ Cæsarea.] but the Remembrance of what had passed on that unhappy Occasion had not that Effect on Dionysius, which far less Provocations have had on many of his Successors; for he no sooner heard of the Distress that Church was in, than, laying hold of so favourable an Opportunity to exert his Charity, he writ a Letter to comfort them in their Calamity, and at the same time dispatched proper Persons with large Collections to ransom the Christians who had fallen into the Hands of the Barbarians[468]. The Letter, which Dionysius wrote on this Occasion, was carefully kept in the Archives of the Church of Cæsarea, as an authentic Monument of his Goodness and Charity[469]. The great Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria having, at this Time, composed a learned Treatise to prove against Sabellius the Distinction of the Divine Persons, some over-zealous Catholics, misconstruing several Passages in that Work, and concluding that he had run into the opposite Error, accused him to the Bishop of Rome, as if he denied the Son to be consubstantial with the Father[470]. [Sidenote: Dionysius of Alexandria, accused at Rome over him.] Hereupon the Bishop of Rome, having assembled a Council, acquainted Dionysius with the Sentiments of the other Bishops, and his own, expressing his Concern, that the Divinity of the Word should have been questioned by him, and at the same time desiring him to answer the Accusation[471]. This Dionysius readily did in Four Books, which he styled Confutation and Apology; shewing therein that his Opinion was very different from what it had been represented at Rome, and explaining those Passages which had given Ground for the Accusation. This Work he addressed to the Bishop of Rome[472]. Here Baronius exults. Behold, says he, one of the most eminent Prelates of the Church, upon Suspicion of Heresy, arraigned at Rome, judged at Rome. [Sidenote: That argues no Jurisdiction in the Bishop of Rome.] Who does not see a supreme Tribunal erected there, to which all Causes must be brought; a sovereign Judge residing there, by whom all Persons must be absolved or condemned; is either blind and cannot see, or shuts his Eyes and will not see[473]. And does not the sharp-sighted Annalist himself see what every one the least conversant in Ecclesiastical History must see, if he is not either blind and cannot, or shuts his Eyes and will not see, viz. Bishops, when guilty, or only suspected of Heresy, accused to some of their Collegues, who neither had nor claimed any Jurisdiction over them? Thus was the famous Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, at this very Time, accused by his whole Church, first to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, and soon after to Firmilian Bishop of Cæsarea[474]. That such an Accusation argued any Jurisdiction in those Bishops over the Bishop of Antioch, is what Baronius himself dares not affirm; and yet a like Accusation brought to Rome is enough for him to transform that See into a supreme Tribunal; that Bishop, though far from such ambitious Thoughts, into a sovereign Judge. But the Bishop of Rome, says Baronius, required of Dionysius a Confession or Declaration of his Faith: And does not that argue Superiority and Jurisdiction? Baronius himself knew it does not: for it is impossible he should not know, that when a Bishop was suspected of Heresy, all his Collegues had a Right to require of him Confession of his Faith, and not to communicate with him till they had received it.

[Sidenote: Paul Bishop of Antioch condemned and deposed,]

In the Time of Dionysius was held the famous Council of Antioch, which condemned and deposed Paul Bishop of that City, who denied the Distinction of the Divine Persons, and the Divinity of Christ. Of the Deposition of Paul, and the Election of Damnus, who was placed in his room, Notice was immediately given to the whole Church, by a Synodal Letter addressed to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and to Maximus, who had succeeded the great Dionysius in the See of Alexandria[475]. And here it will not be foreign to my Purpose to observe, that the Bishop of Antioch was summoned to appear before the Council, and not at the supreme Tribunal erected by Baronius at Rome; [Sidenote: without the Consent or Knowlege of the Bishop of Rome.] that he was condemned and deposed without the consent or Concurrence, nay, and without the Knowlege of the sovereign Judge residing at Rome; that he did not appeal to him, which he certainly would have done, as he was a Man of unparalleled Impudence and Ambition, had such a Custom obtained in those Days; and lastly, that the Fathers of the Council writ to the Bishop of Rome in the same Manner as they did to other Bishops, letting him know, that for the future he was to communicate with Damnus, and not with Paul. All this is manifest from the Account which St. Basil gives us of that Council[476]. And yet Baronius brings in that Father, even on this Occasion, as an Evidence for the Papal Supremacy[N9].

-----

Footnote N9:

For by wrong pointing a Passage in the Latin Translation of that Author, he makes him contradict himself, and ascribe the deposing of Paul to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and the Great Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, though the latter was dead before Paul was deposed, as is evident from the Letter which was written by the Council on that Occasion, and is addressed to Maximus the Successor of Dionysius in the See of Alexandria[N9.1]. The Passage runs thus; Duo enim Dionysii diu ante eos septuaginta fuere, qui Samosatensem sustulere, quorum alter Romæ, alter Alexandriæ Præsul erat[N9.2]. The Meaning of St. Basil is, that the two Dionysius’s flourished before the Council of Antioch, which consisted of Seventy Bishops, and deposed Paul of Samosata; that is, before the Second Council that was assembled against him; for another had been convened in the same City about eight Years before to depose him; but upon his pretending to renounce his Errors, the Sentence had been suspended. The above-quoted Passage Baronius stops thus; Duo enim Dionysii diu ante eos septuaginta fuere; qui Samosatensem deposuere, &c. so that the Relative qui refers, according to this Method of Pointing, to the Two Dionysius’s, and not to the Seventy Bishops: as if St. Basil had said, The Two Dionysius_’s, who deposed_ Paul of Samosata, flourished before the Council of Antioch, which was composed of Seventy Bishops[N9.3]. So that Paul must be twice deposed, St. Basil must contradict himself, all the Writers of those Times must be arraigned as guilty of an unpardonable Omission, lest the Bishop of Rome should appear to have been, what he really was, an idle Spectator of a Transaction so famous in the History of the Church. A Writer of any Honour or Honesty had rather give up a Cause, than expose himself thus by attempting to defend it.

Footnote N9.1:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.

Footnote N9.2:

Basil. de syn. p. 918.

Footnote N9.3:

Bar. ad ann. 265. n. 10.

-----

From St. Basil, Baronius runs to the Emperor Aurelian, begging of a Pagan Prince what he could not extort from a Catholic Bishop, a Declaration and Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: Paul keeps Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation.] The Reader must know, that Paul having kept, by Force, Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation in Defiance of the Council, the Catholic Bishops had recourse to the Emperor, who, after hearing both Parties with great Attention, adjudged the House to him, who should be acknowleged by the Bishop of Rome, and the other Bishops of Italy[477]. This Baronius interprets as an open Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy; and that his Readers may not overlook it, as most of them would be apt to do, he takes care to bespeak their Attention, by marking it in the Margin with the following Words in Capitals, The Emperor Aurelian acknowleges the Supremacy of the Church of Rome[478]. From this one would expect to find Aurelian not only turned Christian, but prostrate at his Holiness’s Feet, and bowing down to kiss them: but our Annalist, to the great Disappointment of his Readers, after having thus raised their Attention, only repeats out of Eusebius the Sentence pronounced by the Emperor, which he would have us suppose with him to have been owing to the Knowlege that Prince had of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: The Emperor’s Sentence whether favourable to the Pretensions of the See of Rome.] And why must the Pope’s Supremacy be brought in here rather than the Supremacy of the Bishops of Ravenna, of Milan, of Aquileia, &c. and, above all, the Supremacy of the collective Body of the Italian Bishops? for to them, and not to any particular Bishop, the Cause was referred by the Emperor. As for the Emperor’s Conduct on this Occasion, it may be thus accounted for: That just and wise Prince observed the Bishops in the East greatly animated against Paul; and therefore apprehending them more sway’d by Passion and Prejudice than by Justice and Equity, he referred the Cause to the Bishops of Italy, who, he thought, would judge more impartially, as being placed at a Distance, and not engaged, at least not so warmly, in the Dispute[479]. [Sidenote: Dionysius dies,] But this happened Two Years after the Death of Dionysius; for he died on the 26th of December 269. Claudius and Paternus being Consuls, after having governed the Church of Rome for the Space of Ten Years, Five Months, and Four Days, according to the most probable Opinion[480]. As he died in the Reign of Claudius II. surnamed the Gothic, who is represented in the Acts of some pretended Martyrs as an implacable Enemy to the Christian Name, he is in some Martyrologies honoured with the Title of Martyr; [Sidenote: not a Martyr.] but as neither Eusebius, nor any other antient Writer, takes notice of that Prince’s having ever persecuted or molested the Christians, those Acts ought to be looked upon as fabulous, and Dionysius with 375 more expunged out of the Catalogue of Martyrs; though some of them, namely, Marcus, Priscus, Valentine, and Quirinus, are honoured by the Church of Rome, as Saints of the first Class, and have filled with their Reliques most of the Provinces of Europe.

-----

Footnote 467:

Basil. ep. 220. & de Sp. Sanct. c. 29. Euseb. l. 7. c. 7. Athan. de Syn. ep. 918.

Footnote 468:

Basil. ib.

Footnote 469:

Idem ib.

Footnote 470:

Athan. pro sent. Dion. Alex. p. 558.

Footnote 471:

Idem ib. & de syn. 918, 919.

Footnote 472:

Athan. ib. p. 558, 559.

Footnote 473:

Bar. ad ann. 263. n. 50.

Footnote 474:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 27.

Footnote 475:

Idem l. 7. c. 30.

Footnote 476:

Basil. de synod.

Footnote 477:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 24.

Footnote 478:

Bar. ad ann. 272. n. 10.

Footnote 479:

Vide Du Pin de antiq. ecc. discip. dissert. 2. p. 156.

Footnote 480:

Buch. p. 272.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CLAUDIUS II. FELIX, AURELIAN. Twenty-fifth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 269. Felix dies a Martyr in the Persecution of Aurelian.]

Dionysius was succeeded by Felix, in whose Time a furious Persecution being raised by Aurelian, he may be supposed to have suffered among the rest, since he is distinguished by the Council of Ephesus[481], by St. Cyril[482], and by Vincentius Lirinensis[483], with the Title of Martyr. He presided, according to Eusebius[484], Syncellus[485], and Eutychius[486], Five Years, to which Baronius adds Eleven Months, and Twenty-five Days[487]. He writ a Letter addressed to Maximus Bishop of Alexandria, which is quoted by Cyril, and the Council of Ephesus[488]. The Acts of the Martyrs, who are supposed to have suffered under Aurelian, are without all doubt supposititious; for in them frequent Mention is made of the Emperor’s Son, whereas the Writers of those Times tell us in express Terms, that he had a Daughter, but no Male Issue[489].

-----

Footnote 481:

Conc. t. 3. p. 511.

Footnote 482:

Cyr. ib.

Footnote 483:

Vin. Lirin. c. 42.

Footnote 484:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 32.

Footnote 485:

Sync. p. 385.

Footnote 486:

Eutych. p. 400.

Footnote 487:

Buch. 272.

Footnote 488:

Conc. t. 3. p. 511. 851.

Footnote 489:

Aur. vit. p. 223.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AURELIAN, EUTYCHIANUS, PROBUS, TACITUS, Twenty-sixth BISHOP of Rome. CARUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 275. Eutychianus not martyred.]

Felix being dead, Eutychianus was chosen in his room in the very Beginning of the Year 275[490]. Several Things are said of him, by Anastasius, and other Writers of no Authority; but all I can learn of the Antients concerning him is, that he governed Eight Years, and Eleven Months[491]; and consequently died in the Close of the Year 283. He is honoured by the Church of Rome as a Martyr, and said in the Roman Martyrology to have suffered under Numerian; but it is certain that in 283. when Eutychianus died, Numerian was not Emperor, but only Cæsar, and at that very time engaged with his Father Carus in a War with the Persians in the East, where he was assassinated by Aper his Father-in-Law. As for his Brother Carinus, who remained in the West, neither he, nor the two preceding Emperors, Tacitus and Probus, ever gave the least Disturbance to the Christians; so that the Church of Rome must be at the Trouble of finding out a distinct Place in Heaven from that of the Martyrs for Eutychianus, Trophimus, Sabbacius, and the illustrious Senator Dorymedon, who are supposed to have suffered under those Princes.

-----

Footnote 490:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 32. Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 491:

Buch. ib.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CARUS, CAIUS, DIOCLETIAN, CARINUS, Twenty-seventh BISHOP of MAXIMIAN. NUMERIAN, Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 283.V]

As little is said by the Antients of Caius as is said of his Predecessor. A few Days after the Death of Eutychianus, Caius was chosen to succeed him, Carus and Carinus being Consuls[492]. [Sidenote: Caius not a Martyr, tho’ honoured as a Martyr.] He presided Twelve Years, Four Months, and Seven Days; that is, from the 17th of December 283. to the 22d of April 296. Caius too is counted by the Church of Rome among her Martyrs, upon the Authority of Bede, and of the Acts of St. Susanna, by which that Writer seems to have been misled. In those Acts Caius is said to have suffered with Susanna his Niece, and many others, under Numerian: but that Prince in his Father’s Life-time had no great Power, being only Cæsar, and very young, and was killed on his March out of Persia soon after his Father’s Death; so that he never reigned in the West, and but a very short time in the East. Caius therefore could not suffer under him at Rome, where his elder Brother Carinus governed. But the Vulgar have a particular Veneration for Martyrs, and, what turns to a very good Account, are glad to purchase their Reliques at any rate. [Sidenote: The Church of Rome why so fond of Martyrs.] The Church of Rome therefore, to provide herself with great Store of them, has multiplied beyond Belief the Number of her Martyrs; which she could not well do without multiplying at the same time the Number of the Persecutors of the Christian Religion. And hence it is that several Princes, who never molested, nay, who greatly favoured the Christians, have been by the Church of Rome transformed in her Martyrologies and Legends into Persecutors. As for the Acts of the supposed St. Susanna, they are full of Mistakes and Absurdities, and contradict the best Historians of those Times.

-----

Footnote 492:

Idem ib.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DIOCLESIAN, MARCELLINUS, CONSTANTIUS, MAXIMIAN, Twenty-eighth BISHOP of GALERIUS. Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 296. Marcellinus unjustly aspersed by the Church of Rome.]

Marcellinus succeeded Caius on the 30th of June 296. and governed Eight Years, Three Months, and Twenty-five Days, according to the most antient Records[493]: so that he must have died on the 24th of October 304. The Love of Truth, which an Historian ought never to swerve from, obliges me to undertake the Defence of this Pope against the Church of Rome herself, and most of her Divines, who, joining the Donatists of Africa, have endeavoured to blacken his Memory with Aspersions equally wicked and groundless. For the Church of Rome tells us, both in her Breviary and Martyrology, and her Divines must chime in with her, that Marcellinus being apprehended during the Persecution of Dioclesian, he was persuaded by that Prince to deliver up the Holy Scripture to be burnt by the Pagans, agreeably to a late Edict, and at the same time to offer Incense to the Gods. This they found on the Acts of the Council of Sinuessa, which is supposed to have been summoned on that Occasion, and before which Marcellinus is said to have been convicted by Seventy-two Witnesses of the above-mentioned Crimes. That such a scandalous Story, invented by the Donatists of Africa, as St. Austin affirms[494], should not only have been credited, but industriously propagated, by the Successors of Marcellinus, must seem very strange and surprising to those, who recollect with how much Zeal they have strove on other Occasions to conceal or excuse the least Imperfections in their Predecessors. If therefore they not only readily own the Apostasy of Marcellinus, but are the first to divulge it, and take care to make it known in the Breviary to those who scarce know any thing else, we may be well assured there is a Snake hid in the Grass; the more as it is certain almost beyond doubt, that no such Council was ever held; and consequently that the Acts upon which alone that Apostasy is founded, are supposititious. To unravel the Whole, the Reader must know, that the Fall of Marcellinus made such a Noise in the Church, as we read in those Acts, that immediately a grand Council met, composed of no fewer than 300 Bishops. Before this Council Marcellinus appeared; but, at his first Appearance, the Bishops, struck with Horror at the very Thought of judging the Head of the Church, the Judge of all, cried out with one Voice, The first See is to be judged by nobody: accuse yourself, judge yourself, condemn yourself. [Sidenote: Their View, therein.] To this Testimony, so favourable to the ambitious Views of the Bishops of Rome, is intirely owing the Sanction which they have given to such Fables, highly injurious to the Memory of one of their best Predecessors. Without this Lenitive the Acts of the pretended Council of Sinuessa, supposing the Apostasy of a Pope, had been condemned; the Absurdities and Contradictions, which it is wholly made up of, had been set forth in a proper Light; and the Testimonies of Theodoret and St. Austin had been alleged to vindicate the Character of Marcellinus: [Sidenote: Marcellinus commended and vindicated by the Antients.] for of these two Writers the former tells us, that he acquired great Glory by his Conduct during the Persecution[495]; and the latter, in writing against Petilian the Donatist, has the following Words: Why should I answer the Calumnies with which he loads the Bishops of Rome? Why should I clear them from the Crimes which he lays to their Charge? Marcellinus, and his Presbyters Melchiades, Marcellus, and Sylvester, are accused by him as if they had delivered up the sacred Books, and offered Incense to the Gods: Are they therefore to be thought guilty? Does he prove what he advances against them? He brands them with the Epithets of wicked, and sacrilegious; but I say they are innocent: And why should I produce Reasons to support my Defence, since he brings none to make good his Charge[496]? But a solemn Declaration, that the See of Rome is to be judged by nobody, made in those early Times, by 300 Bishops, carries with it such Marks of Truth, as quite invalidate the Testimonies of Theodoret and St. Austin, and render the Apostasy of Marcellinus, which gave room to that Declaration, undeniable! St. Austin looks upon the Apostasy of Marcellinus, and his Presbyters Melchiades, Marcellus, and Sylvester, who were all afterwards Bishops of Rome, as a mere Calumny, as an Invention of the Donatists; but their Successors, trampling upon all Authority that stands in the Way of their Ambition, chuse rather to have Four of their Predecessors thought Apostates and Idolaters, than part with the Decree of that pretended Council, exalting them so high above all other Bishops.

[Sidenote: The Acts of the Council of Sinuessa fabulous.]

If Marcellinus acquired great Glory during the Persecution, as Theodoret assures us; if his Apostasy was a mere Calumny, broached by the Donatists, as we read in St. Austin; the pretended Council of Sinuessa must be given up, since it is supposed to have been assembled on occasion of Marcellinus’s Fall: but, abstracting from the Fall of Marcellinus, the Circumstances attending that Council are in themselves so absurd and incredible, that there needs no other Argument to convince a Man, who has any Understanding, and dares to use it, that no such Council ever was, or could be held. [Sidenote: No such Council ever held.] For who can conceive it possible, that, during the most cruel Persecution the Church ever suffered, 300 Bishops should assemble, not in Rome, where they might more easily have met unobserved, but in a small Country Town, where a much less numerous Assembly must immediately have been observed and suspected? But, after the Death of Fabianus, says Baronius[497], the Clergy of Rome, and the Bishops, met to chuse him a Successor, notwithstanding the Persecution that raged then. He ought to have said some Bishops, as St. Cyprian does[498], whom he quotes; but I shall say so for him, that his Argument may appear in its full Strength, and save me the Trouble of answering it; for it will then run thus: Some Bishops, perhaps 15 or 20, met unobserved in the great and populous City of Rome: Ergo, 300 might meet unobserved in a small Country Town; for such was Sinuessa.

[Sidenote: The many Absurdities contained in the Acts of 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 when Marcellinus owned 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 between Urbanus High Pontiff of Jupiter, and Marcellinus High Pontiff of the Christians. Urbanus, to convince his Fellow-Pontiff that he ought not to scruple offering Incense to Jupiter, alleges the Example of the Mages offering Incense to Christ. Marcellinus answers, That the offering of Incense on that Occasion was mysterious; and unravels the Mystery. Hereupon Urbanus, unacquainted with Mysteries, appeals to the Judgment of the Emperors Dioclesian and Maximian; to this Appeal Marcellinus agrees; and the Controversy is referred by both Pontiffs to be decided by the Two Emperors. They, no doubt, gave Sentence in favour of Jupiter and Urbanus; and then Dioclesian, taking Marcellinus with him into the Temple of Vesta, persuaded him there to offer Incense to Jupiter, Hercules, and Saturn. How these Three Deities came to have a Place in the Temple of Vesta, 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 of Marcellinus; on occasion of his Fall it exalts the See of Rome above 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 of Marcellinus most unjustly slandered; the Testimonies of Theodoret, 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 it the Character of one of their Predecessors, whose Memory is revered by all Antiquity? The Church of Rome honours Marcellinus as 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. [Sidenote: Marcellinus falsly supposed to have died a 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 the Donatists. His Martyrdom, 'tis true, is vouched by Bede, who tells us, that he was beheaded at Rome, by Dioclesian’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.

[Sidenote: Vacancy of Three Years.]

That, upon the Death of Marcellinus, there happened a Vacancy of some Years, seems undeniable, since it is marked in the Pontificals, even in that of Bucherius[499], and mentioned by all those who, till Baronius’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 in Italy, according to Eusebius[500], which expired soon after the Death of Marcellinus: some pretend that it raged there so long as Galerius was Master of that Country. Be that as it will, it is certain, that Maxentius usurped 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 of Bucherius[501], till the Tenth Consulate of Maximian Hercules, and the Seventh of Maximian Galerius, that is, till the Year 308. Baronius indeed admits of no Vacancy; but, in Opposition to all those who have written before him, places the Election of Marcellus immediately after the Decease of his Predecessor Marcellinus[502]. This I should readily agree to, but for the Authority of the above-mentioned Pontifical, which had not yet appeared in Baronius’s Time, and is thought to have been written about the Year 354. As for the Chronicle of Eusebius, it can be here of no Weight on the one Side or the other, since Marcellus is there quite left out; and his Successor Melchiades is said to have died before Constantine made himself Master of Rome; whereas it is certain, that, under Melchiades, a Council was held at Rome, by that Prince’s Order, as we shall see hereafter.

-----

Footnote 493:

Buch. cycl. p. 272.

Footnote 494:

Aug. de bapt. c. 10.

Footnote 495:

Theod. l. 1. c. 2. p. 524.

Footnote 496:

Aug. in Pet. c. 16. t. 7. p. 87.

Footnote 497:

Bar. ad ann. 303. n. 102. 105.

Footnote 498:

Cyp. ep. 31.

Footnote 499:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 500:

Euseb. l. 8. c. 14.

Footnote 501:

Buch. ib.

Footnote 502:

Bar. ad ann. 304. n. 26, 27.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMIAN, MARCELLUS, GALERIUS, CONSTANTIUS, Twenty-ninth BISHOP of Rome. CONSTANTINE.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 308. ]

Upon the Death of Marcellinus, the See remained vacant somewhat above Three Years and an half; that is, from the 24th of October 304. to the 19th of May 308. when Marcellus was chosen in his room. Thus says the Pontifical of Bucherius, 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]. [Sidenote: Marcellinus and Marcellus confounded by some Writers;] The Similitude of the Two Names has misled some Writers to confound Marcellinus with Marcellus; for Eusebius, as well as St. Jerom, only mention the former; and Theodoret, omitting both Marcellus and Eusebius, who succeeded him, names Melchiades as the immediate Successor of Marcellinus[504]; which has made Dr. Pearson doubt, whether Marcellus was ever Bishop of Rome[505]. [Sidenote: but distinguished by others.] But Marcellinus and Marcellus are evidently distinguished in the Pontifical of Bucherius, 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 by Optatus Milevitanus[507], and St. Austin[508], who speaks of Marcellus, not only as a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, but as Bishop of that See. To these Testimonies I may add the Epitaph of Marcellus by Pope Damasus, supposing him to have been Bishop of Rome[509]. Damasus flourished about the Year 366. Many things are said of Marcellus; but they are all founded either on his Acts, or the modern Pontificals, and consequently have no Foundation at all. Pope Damasus, 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]. [Sidenote: Marcellus is banished.] Damasus adds, that the Crime of one, who had renounced the Faith, while the Church enjoyed a profound Peace, induced the Tyrant Maxentius to send Marcellus into 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. Marcellus died on the 16th of January 310. having held the Pontificate One Year, Seven Months, and Twenty Days[511]; but whether he died in Banishment, or was recalled to Rome, is uncertain. [Sidenote: His Acts are fabulous.] The Church of Rome, upon the Authority of his fabulous Acts, has added him, with many others, to the Number of her Martyrs: but Maxentius, who reigned at Rome during 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, by Eusebius[512]. [Sidenote: His Reliques.] He is said to have been buried in the Cœmetery of Priscilla, on the Salarian Way[513]: but his Body, like the Bodies of most other Saints, is now worshiped in several Places; viz. in a Church, bearing his Name, at Rome; in the Abbey of Omont in Hainault, not far from Maubeuge; at Cluni, in a Parish-Church of the Diocese of Elne in Roussillon[514], &c.

-----

Footnote 503:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 504:

Theod. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 505:

Pears. post. 109.

Footnote 506:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 507:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 508:

Aug. ep. 165. & in Petil. c. 16. p. 87.

Footnote 509:

Vide Bolland. 16. Jan. p. 5.

Footnote 510:

Bar. ad ann. 309.

Footnote 511:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 512:

Euseb. l. 8. c. 14.

Footnote 513:

Boll. Jan. 16. p. 5.

Footnote 514:

Idem, & Flor. in Martyr. Hier. p. 256, 257.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTANTINE, EUSEBIUS, LICINIUS. Thirtieth BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 310. ]

Marcellus was succeeded by Eusebius, who governed Seven Months, according to Eusebius[515], but only Four Months and Sixteen Days according to the Pontifical of Bucherius[516]. [Sidenote: Stands up in Defence of the Discipline of the Church, and is banished.] From an antient Epitaph on this Pope we learn, that he opposed, with great Vigour and Zeal, one Heraclius, 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, banished Eusebius into Sicily[517]. Many other things are said of him by Anastasius, Platina, Ciacconius, and such-like Writers; but what we read in them has no better Foundation than what is advanced by Baronius; viz. that he instructed Eusebius the celebrated Bishop of Vercelli, and gave him his own Name[518]; which is founded on the Acts of that Bishop, now universally rejected as supposititious.

-----

Footnote 515:

Euseb. chron.

Footnote 516:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 517:

Bar. ad ann. 311.

Footnote 518:

Idem ib. n. 42.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTANTINE, MELCHIADES, LICINIUS. Thirty-first BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 311. ]

Melchiades, or Miltiades, as he is called in the antient Manuscripts, was chosen to succeed Eusebius, on the 2d of July 311. after a Vacancy of Nine Months, and upwards [519]; which Historians do not account for. [Sidenote: Constantine converted to the Christian Religion. His Edicts in favour of the Christians.] In his Time happened the ever memorable Conversion of Constantine to the Christian Religion. That Prince, having overcome and utterly defeated the Usurper Maxentius, on the 28th of October 312. soon after issued an Edict, jointly with Licinius, 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 left Rome in the Beginning of the Year 313. and, arriving at Milan, 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; but Valesius conjectures, 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 formerly destined 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 over Maximinus, a sworn Enemy to the Christians, made himself Master of Nicomedia, and there caused the Edict of Milan to be proclaimed, and set up in the Market-place, on the 13th of June[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 of February 303[526]

[Sidenote: The Schism of the Donatists in Africa.]

Another remarkable Incident of this Pontificate was, the famous Schism, formed in Africa against Cæcilianus, the Catholic Bishop of Carthage; whereof a succinct Account will not be foreign to my Subject, as Melchiades was chiefly concerned in most of the Transactions relating to it. The first Decree against the Christians, published by Dioclesian, 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 in Africa, 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. [Sidenote: Traditores who.] Those who, in Compliance with this Edict, delivered them up, which great Numbers did, were styled Traditores, a Name, which afterwards became famous in the History of the Church, by affording the Donatists a plausible Pretence to separate themselves from the Communion of the Catholic Bishops[527]. Of this Crime Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage, was falsly accused; but, though the Charge could not be proved against him, yet some of his Flock, encouraged by Donatus, Bishop of Casænigræ in Numidia, separated from his Communion[528]. Mensurius dying some Years after, Cæcilianus, Deacon of the Church of Carthage, was chosen in his room, in Spite of the Cabals and Intrigues of Botrus and Cælesius, Two chief Presbyters, who aspired to that Dignity. [Sidenote: The chief Authors of the Schism against Cæcilianus.] 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. Botrus and Cælesius were 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 was Lucilla, a Woman of great Quality, Wealth, and Interest, and an avowed Enemy to Cæcilianus, 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 from Mensurius, joined this Faction; since the Second Schism owed its Origin to the First, as St. Austin says, speaking of the Two Schisms under Mensurius and Cæcilianus[530].

[Sidenote: The Bishops of Numidia summoned to depose him.]

The Schismatics, to give an Appearance of Justice and Authority to their Proceedings, summoned Secundus Bishop of Tigisis, and the other Bishops of Numidia, to depose Cæcilianus, and chuse another in his room; for the Bishops of Numidia claimed the Privilege of assisting at the Election of the Bishop of Carthage, 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 of Cæcilianus, communicated with him as their lawful Bishop[532]. They were 70 in Number; but as many of them were Traditors, and some guilty of other enormous Crimes, as appears from the Acts of the Council of Cirtha[533], they were easily prevailed upon by Lucilla, who is said to have spent an immense Sum on this Occasion[534], to declare the Election of Cæcilianus void, and the See of Carthage vacant. [Sidenote: They declare his Election null.] The only thing they could lay to his Charge was, that he had been ordained by Felix Bishop of Aptungus, whom they falsly accused as a Traditor. Cæcilianus refused to Appear before them; and truly to trust himself to such an Assembly, had been acting a very imprudent Part; for Purpurius, Bishop of Limata, 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].

[Sidenote: The Schismatics separate themselves from the Communion of the Church.]

The Party having thus declared Cæcilianus illegally 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; for Cæcilianus was acknowleged by the other Bishops of Africa, by the Bishop of Rome, 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 of Africa. [Sidenote: Called Donatists, and from whom.] Donatus, Bishop of Casænigræ in Numidia, was the first Author of it, according to St. Austin[538]; but it was not from him, but from Donatus, the Schismatic Bishop of Carthage, that they took the Name of Donatists; for, till his Time, they styled themselves the Party of Majorinus[539], whom they chose and ordained Bishop of Carthage, in the room of Cæcilianus; though he was then only Lector of that Church, and had been formerly one of Lucilla’s menial Servants[540]. To justify their Conduct, and their electing a new Bishop, they writ Letters to all the Churches of Africa, filled with Calumnies against Cæcilianus, 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 by Majorinus, and the other by Cæcilianus[541].

[Sidenote: Edicts enacted by Constantine, _in favour of the Christian Religion_.]

About this time, that is, about the Year 313. Constantine, out of his Zeal for the Christian Religion, issued Two Decrees, addressed to Anulinus, Proconsul of Africa, 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, whereof Cæcilianus was the Head, as was expresly declared in the Edict; and therefore to him alone the Proconsul imparted it. It was a great Mortification to the Donatists to see themselves thus disregarded by the Emperor: they therefore assembled a few Days after, and drawing up a Petition to Constantine, they delivered it, unsealed, to Anulinus, together with a Bundle of Papers, sealed up in a Leather Bag, with this Title: The Petition of the Catholic Church, containing the Crimes of Cæcilianus; by the Party of Majorinus. [Sidenote: The Donatists petition Constantine, that the Dispute may be referred to the Bishops of Gaul.] The Substance of the Petition was, that the Controversy between them and the other Bishops of Africa might be referred to the Bishops of Gaul, who were free from the Imputation of having delivered up the sacred Books to the Pagans[544]. Anulinus immediately 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 in Africa. Constantine, who was then in Gaul, 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]. [Sidenote: The Bishops named by Constantine.] However, he readily granted to the Donatists the Judges they demanded, naming, for that Purpose, Maternus Bishop of Cologne, Rheticius Bishop of Autun, and Marinus Bishop of Arles[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 from Anulinus[548]. The Three Bishops were ordered to repair, with all Speed, to Rome, and there, jointly with Melchiades, Bishop of that City, to sit as Judges of the Controversy. Cæcilianus likewise was ordered to Rome, 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]. [Sidenote: His Letter to Melchiades.] Constantine, in the Letter he writ on this Occasion to Melchiades, 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 the Bishops of Gaul, to judge it according to the strictest Laws of Justice and Equity[550]. In this Letter Constantine names no other Judges but the Three Bishops of Gaul, Melchiades, and one Mark, supposed to have been Bishop of Milan, whom he joins with Melchiades; 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]. [Sidenote: The Council of Rome.] They met, for the first time, on Friday the Second of October 313. Constantine and Licinius being the third time Consuls[552]. The Place they met in was the Apartment of Fausta, in the Lateran Palace[553], she being then, in all Likelihood, absent in Gaul, with the Emperor her Husband. Before this Assembly Cæcilianus appeared as the Person accused, and Donatus of Casænigræ as the Accuser. [Sidenote: Cæcilianus absolved, and Donatus condemned.] 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 of Carthage, which had condemned Cæcilianus, as I have related above, were examined; and in the last Cæcilianus, against whom nothing had been proved, was absolved, and Donatus condemned 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 to Constantine, who began to flatter himself, that he had put an End to the Dispute; for he could not imagine, that the Donatists would 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. [Sidenote: Melchiades dies.] The Council of Rome was held in the Month of October 313, and Melchiades died on the Tenth of January ensuing, Volusianus and Anienus being Consuls, having presided for the Space of Two Years, Six Months, and Eight Days[555]. About an hundred Years after, the Donatists charged him with having delivered up the sacred Books, and offered Incense to the Pagan Gods; but this St. Austin calls a groundless Charge, a mere Calumny, a malicious Invention of the Donatists of his Time to justify the Conduct of their Predecessors, in appealing, as they did, from the Council of Rome, at which Melchiades assisted, and probably presided, as Bishop of the Imperial City[556].

[Sidenote: Whether the Lateran Palace was given by Constantine to Melchiades.]

Baronius, impatient to see the Pope raised to the Rank of a Prince, endeavours to prove, that Melchiades was placed in that Station by Constantine, and argues thus: The Council of Rome was held in the Lateran Palace; therefore that Palace had been given by Constantine to Melchiades, 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, that Constantine, 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. If Constantine, yet a Neophyte, was not well acquainted with the true Spirit of the Christian Religion, Melchiades was; 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 the Lateran Palace. The French Academy meet in the Louvre: Are they therefore Princes? And does not Optatus, of whom we have the whole Account, call it in express Terms the House of Fausta[559]? Fausta perhaps lived there, says Baronius, during the long and flourishing Reign of her Father Maximian, and thence it might be called the House of Fausta. Thus in the End is his Demonstration dwindled away to a mere Conjecture, and a very groundless one too: But, waving that, why might not Fausta continue in the same Palace after her Father’s Death, with her Husband Constantine, when he was at Rome, or alone, when she did not attend him in the Wars? The Annalist seems to have forgot that Fausta was Constantine’s Wife. But after all, the Empress, as it appears to me, had only an Apartment in the Lateran; for in this Sense I understand Optatus saying, The Council was held in the House, or Habitation, of Fausta in the Lateran. But her being any-ways there excludes Melchiades. 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 of Melchiades, 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 put Melchiades in Possession of that Palace to account for the Council’s meeting in it, as Baronius has done.

-----

Footnote 519:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 520:

Euseb. l. 9. c. 9.

Footnote 521:

Idem l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 522:

Idem ib.

Footnote 523:

Val. in not. ad Euseb. hist. p. 195.

Footnote 524:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 525:

Lact. pers. c. 47, 48.

Footnote 526:

Idem ib.

Footnote 527:

Aug. l. 7. c. 2. Opt. l. 1. p. 39.

Footnote 528:

Aug. collat. Carth. die 3. c. 12. Vales. in not. ad Euseb. hist. p. 191.

Footnote 529:

Opt. l. 1. p. 41. Aug. Psal. Abced. p. 3. in Petil. c. 18. & contr. epist. Parmen. p. 7.

Footnote 530:

Aug. coll. Carth. die 3. c. 12.

Footnote 531:

Aug. in Par. l. 1. c. 3. & Psal. Abced. p. 3. Opt. p. 41.

Footnote 532:

Opt. ib.

Footnote 533:

Aug. in Crese. l. 3. c. 26, 27, 29. & coll. die 3. c. 17. die 2. c. 14, &c.

Footnote 534:

Aug. in Gaud. l. 1. c. 37. ep. 162. & in Psal. 36. p. 119.

Footnote 535:

Opt. p. 41.

Footnote 536:

Aug. coll. die 3. c. 14.

Footnote 537:

Id. ep. 162.

Footnote 538:

In Joan. evang. tract. 69. p. 12.

Footnote 539:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 93.

Footnote 540:

Opt. l. 1. p. 42.

Footnote 541:

Aug. ep. 162.

Footnote 542:

Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 543:

Idem ib. c. 7. & Cod. Theod. 16. t. 2. l. 1. p. 20.

Footnote 544:

Aug. ep. 68. Vales. in not. ad hist. Euseb. p. 197.

Footnote 545:

Coll. Carth. in concil. per Steph. Baluz. c. 3. n. 216. 220. p. 578.

Footnote 546:

Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

Footnote 547:

Opt. ib. Aug. ep. 166.

Footnote 548:

Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 549:

Coll. Carth. p. 149.

Footnote 550:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 551:

Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

Footnote 552:

Aug. coll. Carth. die 3. c. 17. Opt. ib.

Footnote 553:

Opt. ib.

Footnote 554:

Coll. Carth. p. 149. & ep. 162. Opt. ib.

Footnote 555:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 556:

Aug. in Pet. p. 87. & in Par. c. 5. p. 8.

Footnote 557:

Bar. ad ann. 312. n. 82.

Footnote 558:

Id. ib. n. 85.

Footnote 559:

Opt. l. 1. p. 44.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTANTINE. SYLVESTER, Thirty-second BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 314. The Donatists _complain of the Council of_ Rome.]

Sylvester was chosen in the room of Melchiades on the last of January 314[560]. In his time were held the two great Councils of Arles and Nice. The former was convened by Constantine’s Order at the Request of the Donatists, who, instead of acquiescing to the Judgment of the Council of Rome, 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]. Constantine heard them with great Patience; and that he might leave them no Colour or Pretence whatsoever to continue in their Schism, [Sidenote: The Council of Arles.] he summoned a second Council to meet at Arles, 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, or Crescentius, Bishop of Syracuse, 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 of August 314. 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 of Arles[564], but from Africa, and most other Provinces of the West. Sylvester Bishop of Rome was invited to it; but he excused himself on account of his Age, and sent in his room the two Presbyters, Claudianus and Vitus, with Eugenius and Cyriacus, Deacons; the Bishop of Ostia sent likewise two Presbyters in his room[565]. [Sidenote: Cæcilianus declared innocent.] By this Assembly Cæcilianus was 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 of Rome with 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, as Baronius would make us believe[568], but that by his means, as he held larger Dioceses, they might be the sooner known. These are the very Words of the Council[569][N10].

-----

Footnote N10:

Several Canons were made by this Council relating to the Discipline of the Church. 1. It was ordained, that Easter should be kept on the same Day, and on a Sunday, by all the Churches in the World; and that the Bishop of Rome should acquaint the other Churches with the Day. But it was afterwards ordained, that the Bishop of Alexandria should fix the Day, and give timely notice of it to the Bishop of Rome, that by his means it might be notified to the whole Church. This Ordinance St. Cyril seems to ascribe to the Council of Nice; for he says, that it was so 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 of Nice. Pope Leo the Great, speaking of this Custom in a Letter to the Emperor Marcian, only says, that it was established by the holy Fathers[N10.1]. He meant, perhaps, the Fathers of Nice. But as they took no notice of such a Custom in their Letter to the Church of Egypt, I cannot suppose it to have been introduced by them. The Care of fixing the Day, and acquainting the Bishop of Rome with it, was probably committed to the Bishop of Alexandria, because the Egyptians were 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 of Easter. This Custom still obtained in the Fifth Century, as appears from a Letter of Leo the Great, dated the 28th of July 454. For by that Letter he acquaints the Bishops of Gaul and Spain, that the following Year 455, Easter would fall on the 24th of April, as it had been settled in the East[N10.2]. Before his Time Innocent I. being at a Loss to know on what Day Easter should be kept in 414. had recourse to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, 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. Innocent had quarreled, on Chrysostom’s Account, with the Eastern Bishops; and therefore chose rather to be informed and directed by the African Bishops 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 Pope Stephen. For in the Year 370. the same Practice of rebaptizing Heretics still obtained in several Churches of Africa, as appears from Optatus, 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 great Athanasius, who flourished from the Year 326. to 373. and St. Basil, who writ about the Year 369. after examining, in his Letter to Amphilochus, the two opposite Practices, seems inclined to think the Baptism of Heretics null. According to the present Doctrine of the Church of Rome, Baptism, by whomsoever administred, whether Jew, 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 of Rome did 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 had Sylvester but 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, as Baronius supposes, upon the Authority of St. Austin, whom he misunderstood; and that Marinus Bishop of Arles presided, his Name being placed at the Head of the Subscriptions, and the Names of Sylvester’s Legates after his.

Footnote N10.1:

Leo, ep. 94. c. 1.

Footnote N10.2:

Leo, ep. 109.

-----

The other grand Council that was held during the Pontificate of Sylvester was that of Nice, so famous in the History of the Church: but the Bishop of the reigning City, says Eusebius[570], being prevented by his great Age from undertaking so long a Journey, he sent Vitus and Vincentius, Two Roman Presbyters, 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 of Roman Presbyters, given to those who were sent by the Bishops of Rome, either to Councils or Princes, was changed into the lofty Title of Legates a latere. [Sidenote: Osius did not assist at the Council of Nice as the Pope’s Legate.] Baronius[573], and after him most Writers of the Church of Rome, maintain Osius, the celebrated Bishop of Cordoua, to have assisted, nay, and presided at the Council of Nice as the Pope’s Legate. Vitus and Vincentius, say they, represented the Person of the Pope; but Osius held his Place, and the Place of all the Bishops of the West. That Osius assisted at the Council with the Character of the Pope’s Legate, is affirmed, I own, by Gelasius of Cyzicus, who flourished about the End of the Fifth Century[574]: but Eusebius, who was present, mentions only Vitus and Vincentius as sent thither by Sylvester. In like manner all the Historians, who have written of that Council after Eusebius till the Time of Gelasius, in naming those Two Presbyters and Osius, which they all do, constantly distinguish the former by the Title of the Deputies, the Representatives, &c. of the Bishop of Rome, and never the latter. Besides, Vitus and Vincentius, in subscribing to the Canons of the Council, declare, that they do it in the Name of the venerable Pope, or Father, Sylvester their Bishop[575]; whereas Osius subscribes, like the other Bishops, in his own Name. As to his presiding at that great Assembly, his Name, 'tis true, is marked the first by Socrates[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 upon Eustathius Bishop of Antioch; [Sidenote: Nor did he preside.] for John, Bishop of the same City, writing to Proculus about the Year 435. styles him the first of the Fathers assembled at Nice[577], and Facundus calls him the first of the Council[578]. In the Chronicle of Nicephorus he is styled the Head of the Fathers of Nice[579]: and from Theodoret we 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].

-----

Footnote N11:

The Title of President is given him in a Letter, which is commonly ascribed to Pope Felix III[N11.1]. But I am well apprised, that no great Stress should be laid on that Piece, since some surmise it to have been composed in the Eighth Century.

Footnote N11.1:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1072.

-----

The Honour of presiding belonged of Right to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria; but he, it seems, declined it, perhaps to obviate the Complaints of the Arians, who looked upon him as a Party concerned, and one highly prejudiced against them. I know that the haranguing of Constantine is ascribed to Eusebius the Historian, in the Title of the Chapter in which he mentions it[581], that Sozomen positively affirms it, and that the learned Valesius thinks there is no room to doubt of it, since Eusebius was the most eloquent Bishop of those Times; and besides, he himself tells us, that he pronounced a Speech in Praise of Constantine, on occasion of his entering into the Twentieth Year of his Reign, while he was sitting in the midst of the Ministers of God[582]; meaning thereby, no doubt, the Bishops assembled at Nice. [Sidenote: Eusebius of Cæsarea did not harangue the Emperor at the Opening of the Council,] That Eusebius harangued the Emperor before that venerable Assembly, is not at all to be questioned; but that the Bishops, who composed it, should have pitched upon one who was suspected, or rather convicted, of Arianism, to address the Emperor in their Name, at the Opening of the Council, seems to me highly improbable. The Orator, whoever he was, sat in the first Place, or at least in the second (that I may not quarrel with Baronius, who will have the Place on the Left-hand to have been the most honourable[583]): And what Right had the Bishop of Cæsarea to that Honour? [Sidenote: but on another Occasion.] I may add, that a short Compliment, such as is that which the Presbyter Gregory ascribes to Eustathius of Antioch[584], had been far more proper on that Occasion than Eusebius’s long and tedious Panegyric, which therefore some suppose to have been pronounced on Occasion of the magnificent Entertainment which Constantine gave the Bishops, as they were preparing to return to their respective Sees; for he then entered into the Twentieth Year of his Reign, which began on the 25th of July 325. and it was on that Occasion that Eusebius writ, and delivered his Panegyric before the Emperor, and the Fathers of the Council, as he himself declares[585]. To conclude, had Eusebius been appointed by that great Assembly to address the Emperor in their Name, his Modesty had not prevented him from describing the Spokesman so as to leave no room to doubt on whom that Honour had been conferred.

[Sidenote: The Council of Nice not convened by the Pope.]

Before I dismiss this Subject, it may not be improper, nor foreign to my Purpose, to observe, that the Council of Nice, the first General or Oecumenical Council held in the Church, was convened by the Emperor, and not by the Bishop of Rome; that the Bishop of Rome did not preside in it either in Person, or by his Legates, as they are pleased to style them; and consequently that the Privilege which they assumed in After-ages of assembling General Councils, and presiding in them, ought to be deemed a most insolent and unwarrantable Usurpation. [Sidenote: The Council commands all Causes to be finally determined by Provincial Synods.] The Second Thing worthy of notice with respect to this Council is its Fifth Canon, commanding all Ecclesiastical Causes to be finally decided in each Province by a Provincial Synod. The Words of the Canon are clear in themselves, and besides have been understood in this Sense by all the Councils that were held, by all the Authors that writ, for several Ages after[586]; nay, it was understood in this Sense by some of the Popes themselves, namely, by Innocent I. who, in one of his Letters to Victricius Bishop of Roan, writes thus; If any Controversy should arise among the Clerks, whether they be of an inferior or superior Rank, let it be decided, agreeably to the Council of Nice, in an Assembly of the Bishops of the same Province[587]. 'Tis true, he adds, without prejudicing the Rights of the Roman See. But that Restriction is his own, and not the Council’s. Hence this Canon, directing all Causes to be thus tried, all Disputes to be thus ended, was often quoted on occasion of Appeals made to Rome, and employed as a Bulwark to restrain the incroaching Power of the Popes within due Bounds; but in Process of Time their Ambition, supported by the Favour of Princes, and the great Temporalities they acquired, bore all down before them.

[Sidenote: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy first formed.]

It was in the Pontificate of Sylvester, and under the benign Auspices of Constantine, that the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was first formed and settled in the Manner it continues to this Day; the new Form of Government, introduced by that Prince into the State, serving as a Model for the Government of the Church. In the Three first Centuries no other Hierarchy was known, no other Degrees thought of, but those of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Of these alone was composed the whole Body of the Clergy; but with this Difference, that the Bishop or Supervisor was the general Disposer and Manager of all Things within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, nothing being done there without his Consent and Approbation, and the Presbyters and Deacons his Assistants, or his Counsellors and Senate, as St. Jerom[588], and before him St. Ignatius[589], styled them. This Order was probably introduced, according to Grotius[590], in Imitation of the Jewish Synagogues; for each Synagogue had its Ruler, who presided over the rest, its Pastors, and its Eleemosynaries; to the Ruler succeeded the Bishop, to the Pastors the Presbyters, and to the Eleemosynaries the Deacons. [Sidenote: The Office and Duty of Bishops.] It was the Bishop’s Office and Duty to preach the Word[591], to pray with his People[592] to administer the Sacraments[593], to ordain Ministers[594], to excommunicate Offenders[595], to absolve Penitents[596], and to regulate and settle every thing relating to his particular Church[597], with the Consent and Concurrence of the Presbytery; for the Presbyters were his Counsellors or Senate, and, together with him, presided in the Consistories of those Times, as we learn from Tertullian telling us, that in those Courts approved Elders presided[598]. Hence Petrus de Marca concludes the original Government of the Church to have been mixt of Monarchy and Aristocracy; or, to use his own Words, the Monarchical Government of the Church to have been tempered with the Aristocratical. As the Bishop could not discharge, as he ought, the above-mentioned Functions, without residing among those who were committed to his Care, his Residence was deemed absolutely necessary, and Non-residence a most heinous Transgression; insomuch that St. Cyprian, enumerating the Sins that brought the Wrath of God upon the Church in the bloody Persecution of Decius, mentions Non-residence in the Bishops as one[599]. [Sidenote: How chosen, and ordained.] Upon the Vacancy of a See a new Bishop was chosen in the room of the deceased in some Places by the Clergy and People of that Church alone, in others by the neighbouring Bishops, the People and the Clergy only expressing their Desire, and giving Testimony of the Life and Manners of the Person proposed, and in some by the joint Suffrages of the Clergy, of the People, and of the neighbouring Bishops. These three different Methods of electing we find practised at different Times with respect to the same Church; but on no Occasion was the Choice of the neighbouring Bishops sufficient without the Consent of the Clergy and People, nor the Election of the Clergy and People without the Approbation of the neighbouring Bishops. The Bishop being thus elected and confirmed, he was in the next Place ordained; and this Ceremony was performed by the neighbouring Bishops, in his own Church, and in the Presence of his Flock, by the Imposition of Hands. The new Bishop, agreeably to a Custom which obtained then, immediately gave Notice of his Promotion to other Bishops, especially to those of the greater Sees, who, by receiving and answering his Letters, were said to communicate with him, and to acknowlege him lawfully chosen.

[Sidenote: The Office and Duty of Presbyters.]

In the Second Degree were the Presbyters or Priests, whose Office or Province it was to assist the Bishop in the Discharge of his Pastoral Commission, whence they are often styled the Bishop’s Assistants: with his Consent and Approbation they preached the Word, they prayed with the People, they administred the Sacraments, they absolved Penitents, and, in short, discharged every Office which the Bishop did, except those of ordaining, confirming, and excommunicating; I say, with the Bishop’s Consent and Approbation; for no spiritual Function could they perform without his Leave, as is manifest from Tertullian[600], Origen[601], St. Cyprian[602], and above all from St. Ignatius, in his famous Letter to the Church of Smyrna[603]. The Church, in those happy Days, admitted none to the sacred Functions, but such as were known by a long Trial to be well qualified for so great a Charge. [Sidenote: Qualifications requisite in a Presbyter.] The Qualifications requisite in a Presbyter, so far as I can learn from the Antients, may be reduced to these Four Heads, his Condition in the World, his Conversation, his Learning, and his Age. He was not to be intangled with any worldly Affairs, with any secular Employments, but at perfect Liberty to apply himself wholly to the Functions of his Office[604]. He was to be of an unspotted and exemplary Life[605]; and therefore, before Ordination, he was proposed to the Presbytery and People for their Testimony and Approbation. He was to be well versed in the Scripture, and capable of teaching others, and instructing them in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion. As for human Learning, it was not required in a Presbyter; nay, by some it was condemned, particularly Logic and Philosophy, as in a manner inconsistent with Christianity[606], but at the same time highly commended and applauded by others as conducive to the right understanding of the Scripture, and necessary for confuting the Sophisms of Heretics[607]; whence Logic especially is recommended by Clemens Alexandrinus to all Ecclesiastics, as a Hedge to defend the Truth from being trod down by Sophists[608]. As for the Age of a Presbyter, he was to be stricken in Years, as the very Name of a Presbyter or Elder sufficiently declares. However, if a young Man was endowed with extraordinary Gifts and Talents, his Age was dispensed with in respect both to the Sacerdotal and Episcopal Dignity. Thus was Aurelius, though young in Years, raised, in regard of his great Merit, to the Rank of a Presbyter, as we read in St. Cyprian[609]; and the Bishop of Magnesia, in St. Ignatius’s Time, was, it seems, but a young Man, since Ignatius, in his Letter to the Magnesians, exhorts them not to despise their Bishop’s Age, but to yield him all due Respect and Reverence[610]. These were the Qualifications requisite in a Candidate for the Ministry: if he was recommended by them (for no other Recommendation could avail him), he was admitted to holy Orders; if not, he was rejected as unfit for the sacred Function. The Person ordained was at Liberty to serve the Church where he had received his Orders, or any other where his Assistance might be wanted; for he was not ordained Minister of any particular Church, but of the Church universal.

[Sidenote: The Institution and Office of Deacons.]

In the Third and last Degree were the Deacons, whose original Institution was to serve Tables, as we read in the Acts[611]; that is, to inspect the Poor, and relieve them by a proper Distribution of the Offerings made by the Faithful, which were committed to their Charge, though they could not dispose of them without the Bishop’s Knowlege[612]. They were ordained by the Imposition of Hands[613], and therefore deemed Ministers of the Altar, as well as Dispensers of Alms; and with a great deal of Reason, for they assisted the Bishops or Presbyters in administring the Eucharist, by delivering the Elements to the Communicants[614]; they carried the Eucharist to such as had not been able to assist with the rest at Divine Service[615]; they preached, and, in the Absence of the Bishop and Presbyters, conferred the Sacrament of Baptism[616]. [Sidenote: Their Number.] The Presbyters of a Church were not confined to a set Number; but the Deacons were, no Church having more than Seven in the primitive Times, that being the original Number instituted by the Apostles. Thus the Church of Rome had but Seven in the Times of Pope Cornelius[617], and Pope Sixtus II[618], the Church of Saragosa the same Number in the Time of Vincentius, who flourished under Dioclesian[619]. The Fourteenth Canon of the Council of Neocæsarea, or the Fifteenth, according to the Greek, forbids this Number to be inlarged, even in the greatest and most populous Cities[620]; whence St. Jerom writes, that great Respect was paid to the Deacons, because they were few in Number[621].

[Sidenote: Subdeacons, Acolytes, Readers,3] &c.]

As for the Subdeacons, Acolytes, Lectors, Janitors, and Exorcists, they were not considered as any-ways belonging to the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, being employed only in the meaner Offices of the Church, by the due Discharge of which they were to give Proof of their Integrity and Attention, in order to be raised to a higher Degree; for in those Days very few, and none but upon some very extraordinary Occasion, arrived at once, or, as they call it, per saltum, at the Episcopal Dignity.

[Sidenote: Each Church independent.]

During the Three first Centuries each Church was in a manner independent, that is, could make such Regulations relating to its Discipline and Government as were judged proper and expedient, without the Concurrence and Authority of other Churches[622]. However, in all Matters of Moment, the Bishops used to advise with one another, especially with those of the same Province, who frequently met to settle all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Limits. [Sidenote: Frequent Synods held.] Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, writes, that in his Province they met every Year[623]; and from the frequent Synods mentioned by St. Cyprian, we may conclude them to have been held in that Province at least once a Year. [Sidenote: Of whom composed.] These Synods or Assemblies were composed of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Laymen, representing the People of their several Churches[624]. They met by their own Appointment and Authority, there being no Christian Magistrates in those Days to convene Synods. Being thus assembled, they chose in the first place one, and sometimes two Bishops, to preside[625]. [Sidenote: The Method they held.] It was their Office and Duty to see the Point in question calmly and fairly debated, to sum up in each Debate what had been urged on both Sides, to take the Votes and Suffrages of the Members of the Synod, and last of all to give their own[626]. In these Assemblies all Ecclesiastical Affairs were settled by the Majority of Votes, and their Decrees and Decisions were binding with respect to those Churches whose Representatives were present[627]; but were not so with respect to other Churches.

[Sidenote: The Ecclesiastical Policy adapted to the Civil.]

Such was the Hierarchy, such the Government of the Church, during the Three first Centuries. But in the Fourth and following Ages great Alterations were made in both, the Church adapting her Government to that of the State, namely, to the new Form of Government introduced by Constantine, who had settled her in Peace, and taken the Priesthood into his immediate Protection. For it was in his Reign that the Titles of Patriarchs, Exarchs, Metropolitans, were first heard of, or at least had any Power, Authority, or Privileges, annexed to them. That this Conformity between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Polity may appear more plainly, I shall premise a succinct Account of the former, as established by Constantine throughout the Empire. That Prince divided the whole Roman World into four Prefectures, viz. the East, Illyricum, Gaul, and Italy, which were governed by four Prefects, called Præfecti Prætorio. [Sidenote: The new Form of Government introduced by Constantine.] Till his Time the whole Empire was governed under the Emperors by Two Prefects only, as Zosimus informs us[628]; and this Division is supposed to have been made by Constantine, jealous of the too great Power of those Magistrates. Each Prefecture was subdivided into several Dioceses, and each Diocese into several Provinces. Thus the Prefecture of the East contained Five Dioceses; viz. the East divided into Ten Provinces, Egypt into Six, Pontus into Eleven, Asia into Ten, and Thrace into Six. Under the Prefecture of Illyricum were Two Dioceses; Macedon, consisting of Eight Provinces; and Dacia, consisting of four. The Prefecture of Gaul comprised Three Dioceses, Gaul made up of Seventeen Provinces, Spain of Seven, and Britain of Five. The Prefecture of Italy was divided into Two Vicarages or Lieutenancies; the one of Rome, comprehending Ten Provinces, under the Vicar of Rome, whence they were called Suburbicarian Provinces; the other of Italy, containing Seven Provinces, governed by the Vicar of Italy, who resided at Milan, whence they were simply called Provinces of Italy. Under the Prefect of Italy was likewise West Africa, and after Constantine’s Death West Illyricum. The Prefects had other Officers under them, by whom the Provinces were more immediately governed. These were, to name them according to their Rank and Dignity, Proconsuls, Vicars, Consulars, Correctors, and Presidents. Each Diocese had its Metropolis, and likewise each Province contained in the Diocese.

[Sidenote: The Civil and Ecclesiastical Polity compared.]

Now, if we compare the Civil Polity, thus described, with the Ecclesiastical, we shall find them in most Places answering each other, in every respect, and one Bishop raised above the rest, according to the Rank that was given by this new Division to the City in which he presided. Thus, for Instance, the chief Cities of the Five Dioceses of the Oriental Prefecture were; Antioch, the Metropolis of the Oriental Diocese; Alexandria, of the Egyptian; Ephesus, of the Asiatic; Cæsarea, of the Pontic; and Heraclea, of the Thracian. Now the Bishops of these Cities, in regard of the Eminence of their Sees, were exalted above all other Bishops, and distinguished with the Title of Exarchs; nay, and by Degrees they acquired, not to say usurped, a kind of Authority and Jurisdiction over the Bishops of the inferior Sees, which was afterwards confirmed to them by several Councils. In like manner the Bishop of the Metropolis of each Province was, on account of the Dignity of his See, honoured with the Title of Metropolitan, to which were annexed several Privileges, of which I shall speak hereafter. When one Province was divided into Two, which often happened, the Ecclesiastical Polity was likewise altered, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis raised to the Dignity of a Metropolitan. Several Instances might be alleged of ambitious Bishops applying to the Emperors for a Division of the Province, that their City might acquire the Title of Metropolis, and they, of course, that of Metropolitans. When the City of Byzantium was declared the Metropolis of another Empire, the Exarchate of Heraclea, the Metropolis of the Thracian Diocese, was, by that Change, transferred from Heraclea to the new Metropolis; so that the Bishop of Heraclea became Suffragan to the Bishop of Byzantium, or, as it was then called, Constantinople, who, till that Time, had been Suffragan to him. Upon the Division of a Province, the Churches were likewise divided, and the Bishop of the new Metropolis acquired all the Privileges and Power of a Metropolitan over the Churches taken by the Change in the Civil Government from the antient Metropolis. But it was afterwards decreed, by the Council of Chalcedon, that if any City should be raised to the Dignity of a Metropolis, the Bishop of that City should enjoy the Title, but not the Privileges of a Metropolitan. Thus the Bishops of Nice and Berytus were honoured with the Title of Metropolitans, and took Place of all the other Bishops of those Provinces; but nevertheless continued to be Suffragans to their antient Metropolitans the Bishops of Nicomedia and Tyre. For the same Reason several Bishops in the Kingdom of Naples enjoy, to this Day, the Title of Metropolitans; but neither have, nor ever had, any Province or Suffragans. The above-mentioned Decree was enacted by the Council of Chalcedon, to prevent the Bishops from recurring, as they often did, to the Emperors,and to obviate the frequent Changes that were thereby introduced into the Church.

[Sidenote: The Prefectures of Illyricum, Gaul, and Spain.]

The Prefecture of Illyricum had but one Exarch, the Bishop of Thessalonica, the Metropolis of the Macedonian Diocese. In the Prefecture of Gaul there was no Exarch, but in the Two Dioceses of Gaul and Spain as many Metropolitans as Provinces. Some there were, without all Doubt, in the Diocese of Britain, which was divided into Five Provinces, viz. Maxima Cæsariensis, Britannia Prima, Britannia Secunda, Valentia, and Flavia Cæsariensis. But in this Island an intire Change was made, by the Saxons, both in the Ecclesiastical and Civil Polity.

[Sidenote: The Prefecture of Italy.]

Under the Prefect of Italy were Three Dioceses, viz. Italy, West Illyricum, and West Africa. The Diocese of Italy was divided into Two Vicarages, as I have observed above, and governed by Two Vicars; the one called the Vicar of Rome, and residing in that City, the other styled the Vicar of Italy, and residing at Milan. Under the former were Ten Provinces, viz. Campania, Apulia, Lucania, Hetruria, Umbria, Picenum Suburbicarium, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and Valeria; and Seven under the latter, viz. Liguria, Æmilia, Flaminia or Picenum Annonarium, Venetia, Istria, Alpes Cottiæ, and the Two Rhætiæ. [Sidenote: The Ecclesiastical Polity there intirely agreeable to the Civil.] Such was the Civil Government of Italy, and intirely agreeable to the Civil was the Ecclesiastical. Thus the Bishop of Rome enjoyed all the Privileges of a Metropolitan, with respect to the Bishops of the Provinces subject to the Vicar of that City, or the Suburbicarian Provinces, as they are styled by Ruffinus. In like manner the Bishop of Milan exercised the Power and Authority of a Metropolitan over all the Bishops under the Vicar of Italy. But the Power of both was confined within the Limits of their respective Vicarages. As neither had the Charge of a whole Diocese, they were not, like several Bishops in the East, distinguished with the Title of Exarch, which they had no Right to, but with that only of Metropolitan. However, the Power of the Bishop of Rome far exceeded, within the Bounds of his Jurisdiction, that of other Metropolitans, as I shall shew hereafter.

[Sidenote: The Ecclesiastical Polity in Africa.]

In Africa the Ecclesiastical Polity varied greatly from the Civil. Carthage indeed, in the Proconsular Province of Africa, properly so called, was the Metropolis of all West Africa, and the Bishop of that City the Primate and Exarch. But in the other Five Provinces of that Diocese, viz. Numidia, the Two Mauritanias, Cæsariensis and Sitifensis, Tingitana, Bizacena, and Tripolitana, the senior Bishop, in what City soever he presided, enjoyed the Title and Privileges of Metropolitan, Regard being had to his Seniority, or the Time of his Ordination, and none to the Dignity of his See. And hence it is that, at different times, we find Bishops of different Cities, within the same Province, acting as Metropolitans. Of West Illyricum, the Third Diocese under the Prefect of Italy, I shall have Occasion to speak hereafter.

[Sidenote: The Dignities of Exarchs, Metropolitans, &c. not of divine Institution.]

Some Writers, namely Petrus de Marca, Archbishop of Paris[629], Christianus Lupus[630], Emmanuel Schelstrat[631], Two eminent Divines, the one of Louvain, the other of Antwerp, and Leo Allatius[632], have taken a great deal of Pains to prove, that these Ecclesiastical Dignities owe their Origin to Christ, or the Apostles. But their Arguments are unanswerably confuted by the learned Ellies du Pin[633]; and, besides, it is evident, from the intire Conformity which the Ecclesiastical Government had, in most Places, with the Political State of the Empire, as established by Constantine, that the Church, in forming the Hierarchy I have described, adopted his Plan; and consequently, that such Dignities are not of divine, but of human Institution. I might add, that it cannot be proved from Scripture, that the Apostles, in appointing Bishops, gave more Power to one than to another, or any Power at all to one over the others.

[Sidenote: The new Dignities added to the antient Hierarchy of the Church.]

The new Dignities or Degrees, added to the antient Hierarchy of the Church, in the Fourth and following Centuries, were those of Metropolitan, Primate, Archbishop, Exarch, and Patriarch. The Title of Metropolitan was given to the Bishop of the chief City of a Province, and likewise that of Primate, he being primus, or the first of the Province; for such was the original Signification of that Word in an Ecclesiastical Sense; but, in Process of Time, the Title of Primate was restrained to the Bishops of some great Cities. On the contrary the Title of Archbishop was originally bestowed on Metropolitans only of great Eminence and Distinction; but, in the Eighth Century, it began to be given indifferently to all Metropolitans, and even to some Bishops, distinguished by no other Title. As the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City, of a Province, was dignified with the Title of Metropolitan, so was the Bishop of the Metropolis, or chief City of a Diocese, with that of Exarch; which, however, we find sometimes given to Metropolitans. As for the Title of Patriarch, it was first common to all Bishops, but afterwards confined to the Exarchs; and lastly, to the Bishops of the Five following Cities, viz. Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. It was first bestowed on the Bishop of Rome, by the Council of Chalcedon[634], after it had been long common to all the Exarchs of the East, as the learned Du Pin well observes[635].

[Sidenote: The Rights and Privileges of Metropolitans.]

The Titles of Metropolitans, Primates, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, were not bare Names of Honour, but had several Rights and Prerogatives attending them. Thus the Metropolitans and Primates had, by their Prerogative, a Right to ordain the Bishops of their respective Provinces, to convene provincial Synods, and to have a general Superintendency or Inspection over the whole Province. The ordaining of Bishops was a Privilege common to the Metropolitan, with the other Bishops of the same Province; but with this Difference, that the Presence, or at least the Consent and Approbation of the Metropolitan was absolutely necessary; for, according to the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council of Nice, He who was not ordained, or approved, by the Metropolitan, was not to be a Bishop. This Privilege was confirmed to the Metropolitans by many subsequent Councils, namely, by those of Arles, Laodicea, Carthage, Chalcedon, Ephesus[636], and many others. However, in the Fifth Century, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople began, in the East, to usurp this Prerogative, pretending, that no Bishops ought to be ordained in their respective Dioceses, without their Knowlege, Consent, and Approbation; and the Patriarch of Rome, still more ambitious and encroaching, claimed a Right to ordain the Bishops throughout all the Provinces of the West, which occasioned endless Disputes, as we shall see in the Sequel of this History. As to the Second Privilege peculiar to the Metropolitans, they had a Right to summon the Bishops of their respective Provinces to meet when they thought proper; to appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting; to punish such as did not, without just Cause, comply with their Summons; and to preside in the Assembly. The general Care and Inspection, which they were charged with over the whole Province, imported, First, That all Complaints against, all Contests with or between the Bishops of the Province, were to be brought to their Tribunal; and there heard, judged, and determined, not by the Metropolitan alone, but by him and the other Bishops of the Province, in a Provincial Synod. Innumerable Instances might be alleged of Bishops thus deposed by their Metropolitans. Secondly, The Metropolitans had a Right to receive Appeals from the Sentence of inferior Bishops, and with the other Bishops, to confirm or reverse their Decrees. And, lastly, each Metropolitan was to keep a watchful Eye over the Bishops of his Province, and take care that they discharged, as they ought, the Functions of their Office. These Privileges were, in express Terms, granted to the Metropolitans, by almost innumerable Councils, which it is needless, and would be too tedious, to name.

[Sidenote: The Rights and Privileges of Patriarchs, or Exarchs.]

As for the Patriarchs, or Exarchs; by their Prerogative, they were impowered to ordain the Metropolitans, to convene Diocesan Synods, and to have a general Superintendency over their respective Dioceses, such as the Metropolitans had over their respective Provinces. [Sidenote: The Bishop of Rome not a Patriarch.] The Bishop of Rome had not the Charge of a whole Diocese, and therefore was not, properly speaking, Exarch or Patriarch: his Jurisdiction did not extend beyond the Limits of the Vicarage of Rome, or the Suburbicarian Provinces; and no Instance can be produced of Metropolitans or Bishops ordained by him, out of those Provinces, till the Time of Valentinian III. Even in the Vicarage of Italy the Metropolitans of each Province ordained all the Bishops, and were themselves ordained by the Bishops of the Province. But over the Suburbicarian Provinces the Bishop of Rome exercised greater Power and Authority, than the Exarchs of the East did over the Provinces of their Dioceses; for the latter left the Ordination of the Bishops to their Metropolitans, whereas the former ordained not only the Bishops of the Metropolitan Cities, but all those of the fore-mentioned Provinces: and the Reason of this was, because these Provinces had no Metropolitans, to whom the Ordination of Bishops would of Right have belonged; so that the Prerogatives of the Metropolitans were all vested in the Bishop of Rome alone. [Sidenote: The Bishops of Rome have no Right to ordain the Metropolitans.] As there were no Exarchs or Patriarchs in the West, the Bishops of each Province were, by several Councils, vested with the Power of ordaining their own Metropolitans; and that they were thus ordained in Gaul, Spain, and West Africa, is so manifest as to admit of no Dispute[637]. And yet the Sticklers for the See of Rome pretend the Bishops of that City to have a divine and inherent Right of ordaining all the Metropolitans throughout the Christian World, by themselves, their Vicars, or Delegates. To maintain this chimerical Right against the uncontestable Evidence of Facts, they tell us, that the Popes, for some Ages, neglected to exert the Power they had[638]. But from this Charge all Mankind will clear them, it being but too well known, that they never neglected the least Opportunity of exerting to the utmost the Power they had, and usurping the Power they had not. But, Cavils aside, it is evident beyond Dispute, that the Popes never knew, nor dreamt of, any such Right or Prerogative, till they were told of it by their flattering Divines; at least Pope Leo, surnamed the Great, did not; for in one of his Letters to the Bishops of Gaul he disclaims, in express Terms, the Right of ordaining the Bishops of that Diocese[639]. To conclude, the Bishop of Rome was the only Metropolitan in that Vicarage; and, as such, had a Right to ordain all the Bishops of the Suburbicarian Provinces, or the Provinces subject to the Vicar of Rome; but, for a considerable Tract of Time, there is no Instance of their ordaining either Bishops or Metropolitans out of that District.

[Sidenote: The Title of Archbishop _in itself a bare Name of Honour_.]

As for the Title of Archbishop, it is in itself a bare Name of Honour; whence, in some Countries, especially in Italy, several are distinguished with that Title, who indeed take place of, but have no Power or Authority over, other Bishops. And thus far of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as settled in the Fourth and following Centuries, of the different Degrees that compose it, and the Prerogatives peculiar to each Degree, the Knowlege whereof is absolutely necessary for the right understanding of the many Contests and Disputes in point of Jurisdiction, which I shall have Occasion to touch upon in the Sequel of this History; for it was not at once, but by Degrees, and not without great Opposition, that the Bishops of Rome, extending their Authority beyond the Limits of that Vicarage, which was at that time the Boundary of their Jurisdiction, acquired the unlimited Power they now enjoy, with the arrogant Title of Universal Bishop.

[Sidenote: The Donation of all Italy made by Constantine to the Pope, a Forgery.]

But to return to Sylvester, in whose Pontificate this great Change began; I need not employ many Words to shew the Forgery of the so much boasted Donation of all Italy, supposed to have been made by Constantine to Sylvester, in the Spring of the Year 324. Four Days after he had been baptized by that Pontiff, since the Instrument of that Donation is now looked upon as supposititious, by all who have the least Tincture of Learning. The Arguments they allege against it are: 1. That more than Twelve Copies of that Instrument are still extant, all differing from one another. 2. That it evidently appears, from Two Constitutions of Constantine, still to be seen in the Theodosian Code[640], that he was not at Rome, but at Thessalonica, in the Spring of the Year 324. 3. That neither Eusebius, who has given us a very minute and particular Account of the Actions of that Prince, nor any other contemporary Writer, has so much as hinted at so memorable a Fact. 4. That all the antient Writers, both Greek and Latin, agree, that Constantine was not baptized at Rome, but at Nicomedia, when he lay at the Point of Death[641]. Let those, who stand up in Defence of that Donation, give satisfactory Answers to these Reasons, and I shall conclude with them, that Italy being, by such a Donation, disjoined from the Empire, the Emperors who succeeded Constantine, had no Claim or Title to that Country; that none of their Constitutions were binding there; and consequently that, by the Inhabitants of Italy, Recourse ought to be had, in all Cases, not to the Civil, but to the Canon Law: for such pernicious Doctrines have been broached, published, and maintained, as natural Deductions from Constantine’s great Generosity to Sylvester[642]. In Rome is still to be seen, in a most sumptuous Chapel, close to the Lateran, the Baptistery or Font in which Constantine is said to have been baptized. The Chapel is adorned with noble Paintings, representing that august Ceremony, as performed by Sylvester, in the magnificent Drapery, and stately Apparel, of the present Popes. Four Days after this Ceremony, Constantine, sensible of his Obligations to Sylvester, rewarded him for his Trouble with a Fee, as Luchesini the Scolopian expresses it, answering in some Degree to the Greatness of the Favour he had received at his Hands; a Fee worthy of so great a Prince, of so great a Pope[643]. [Sidenote: Constantine baptized at Nicomedia, and not at Rome.] The Fee, which that Writer, otherwise a Man of Learning, makes a long and tedious Descant upon, was no less than the City of Rome, and all Italy. That Constantine was baptized at Nicomedia, and not at Rome, is affirmed, in express Terms, by Theodoret[644], Sozomen[645], Socrates[646], and Photius[647], among the Greeks; and, among the Latins, by St. Ambrose[648], St. Jerom[649], and the Council of Rimini[650]. Emmanuel Schelstrat, on one Side, ashamed to reject, or even to question such Authorities, but, on the other, unwilling to rob Sylvester of that Glory, will have Constantine to have been baptized in both Places. It is well known, says he, that Constantine, in the Latter-end of his Life, was greatly biassed in favour of the Arians, and their Tenets. Now a Practice obtained among them of rebaptizing such as came over to their Sect from the Catholic Church; and, to conform to this Custom, Constantine was, in all Likelihood, prevailed upon by Eusebius, the Arian Bishop of Nicomedia, who assisted him on his Death-bed[651]. Thus Schelstrat. But it is certain, that, in Constantine’s Time, the Arians allowed the Validity of Baptism administred by the Catholics; for, long after, we find St. Austin upbraiding them with the Practice of rebaptizing, as a Novelty lately introduced among them[652]. Besides, who is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that, in those early Times, a very bad Custom universally prevailed, at least among Persons of Distinction, who embraced the Christian Religion, namely, that of putting off their Baptism to their Death-bed, or till they were upon the Point of exposing themselves to some great Danger? Thus Theodosius the Great, though he had not only openly professed the Christian Religion, but given many Instances of an extraordinary Piety, yet did not chuse to be baptized till he fell dangerously ill at Thessalonica[653]. In like manner Valentinian II delayed his Baptism till the Approach of a Battle with the Barbarians, when he sent, in great Haste, for St. Ambrose to administer that Sacrament to him. But while the good Bishop was crossing the Alps, on his Way to Vienne, where the Emperor then was, he received the melancholy News of his having been inhumanly murdered by some of his own Officers, at the Instigation of Arbogastus. His Death was greatly lamented by St. Ambrose, who, in the elegant Oration, which he pronounced on Occasion of his Obsequies, maintained, that the fervent Desire of Baptism had the same Effect as the Sacrament itself; and consequently, that the Sins of the deceased Prince being thereby cancelled, it was not to be doubted, but from this Life he had passed to eternal Bliss[654]. Innumerable Instances of the same Nature occur in History, which were, it seems, utterly unknown to the Author of the Acts of Pope Sylvester, upon whose sole Authority the Fable has been credited of Constantine’s receiving Baptism at the Hands of Sylvester, soon after his Conversion. That Impostor, whoever he was, is supposed to have lived in the Eighth Century, long after the Custom of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death had been utterly abolished. [Sidenote: What gave Countenance to the Custom of deferring Baptism to the Point of Death.] What gave Countenance to such a Custom, was an Opinion then generally received, and still held by the Church of Rome; viz. That by the Waters of the sacred Font Men were washed clean, not only from the original, but from all other Sins. This proved a great Encouragement to Vice when Piety began (and it began but too early) to decay among Christians; and therefore the Fathers of the Church, especially Basil, his Brother Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Ambrose[655], employed all the Oratory they were Masters of, in crying down such a pernicious and wicked Custom, as they style it; so that it was at last quite laid aside. Whether Confession ought not, on the same Account, to be put down, I shall leave the Reader to judge; and only observe here, by the way, that had the Virtue and Efficacy, ascribed now to Confession, been known in those Times, Sinners needed not have delayed Baptism to the Point of Death, since their Sins had been no less effectually cancelled by Confession, than by Baptism.

[Sidenote: Spurious Pieces ascribed to Sylvester.]

As for the Letter from the Council of Nice to Sylvester, his Answer, the Acts of a Council of 275 Bishops, supposed to have been held by him, at the Request of the Fathers of Nice, to confirm their Canons and Decrees[N12], his Letter to the Bishops of Gaul, in favour of the Church of Vienne; the Acts of Two other Councils, said to have been held by him at Rome; they are all Pieces universally rejected by Men of Learning, and deemed no less fabulous than the Instrument of Constantine’s Donation, and that Prince’s Journey with Sylvester to the Council of Nice, as it is related in the Acts of the latter, even in those which F. Combesis published in 1660. They are in Greek, 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. Sylvester died on the 31st of December 335. after having governed the Church of Rome for the Space of Twenty-one Years, and Eleven Months[657].

-----

Footnote N12:

The Style of the Letter from the Council to Sylvester is quite barbarous and unintelligible. It begins thus: Gloriam corroborata de Divinis Mysteriis. Ecclesiasticæ utilitatis quæ ad robur pertinent Ecclesiæ Catholicæ & Apostolicæ ad sedem tuam Romanam explanata & de Græce redacta scribere confitemur--Nunc itaque ad vestræ sedis argumentum accurrimus roborari. The rest is written in the same Style; the Consuls are called Sovereigns, 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 of Nice recur to Sylvester for 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 of Victorinus, who was not born in Sylvester’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 at Rome, to confirm the Canons of Nice, 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 at Rome, in the Presence of Constantine; and it is certain, that the Emperor was not in Rome at 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 when Easter was 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.

-----

-----

Footnote 560:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 561:

Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 562:

Euseb. ib. & concil. t. 1. p. 157.

Footnote 563:

Euseb. & concil. ib.

Footnote 564:

Conc. Gen. t. 1. p. 106.

Footnote 565:

Concil. p. 1425.

Footnote 566:

Concil. ib.

Footnote 567:

Concil. ib.

Footnote 568:

Bar. ad ann. 314. n. 68.

Footnote 569:

Concil. p. 1425.

Footnote 570:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 7.

Footnote 571:

Soz. p. 430.

Footnote 572:

Theodoret. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 573:

Bar. ad ann. 326. n. 20.

Footnote 574:

Gal. Cyz. de Nic. concil. l. 2. c. 5. p. 68.

Footnote 575:

Con. t. 2. p. 50.

Footnote 576:

M Socr. l. 1. c. 23.

Footnote 577:

Facund. l. 8. c. 1.

Footnote 578:

Id. l. 2. c. 1.

Footnote 579:

Niceph. chron.

Footnote 580:

Theod. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 581:

Euseb. in vit. Const. l. 3. c. 11.

Footnote 582:

Euseb. l. 1. c. 1. Vales. in not. p. 223.

Footnote 583:

Bar. ad ann. 325. n. 56-59.

Footnote 584:

Surius, to Jul. p. 159.

Footnote 585:

Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 14.

Footnote 586:

Vide Elli. Du Pin de antiq. eccles. discip. p. 98, & seq.

Footnote 587:

Inn. in epist. ad Vict. c. 3.

Footnote 588:

Hier. in c. 2. Isal.

Footnote 589:

Vide Basil. ep. 319.

Footnote 590:

Grot. de imp. summ. potest. c. 11. n. 8.

Footnote 591:

Orig. in Ezek. hom. 3.

Footnote 592:

Justin. apol. 2. p 98.

Footnote 593:

Tert. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 594:

Idem ib. p. 99.

Footnote 595:

Cyp. ep. 38. p. 90.

Footnote 596:

Id. ep. 10. p. 30.

Footnote 597:

Tert. ib. p. 39.

Footnote 598:

Id. ib. p. 709.

Footnote 599:

Cyp. de laps. n. 4. p. 278.

Footnote 600:

Tertull. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 601:

Orig. hom. de Engast. vol. 1. p. 28.

Footnote 602:

Cyp. ep. 10. p. 29. ep. 11. p. 32. ep. 12. p. 37.

Footnote 603:

Ign. ad Smyrn. p. 6.

Footnote 604:

Cyp. ep. 66. p. 195. Tert. de præscript. p. 89.

Footnote 605:

Idem, ep. 68. p.201.

Footnote 606:

Tert. advers. Hermog. p. 266. & de præscript. p. 70, 71.

Footnote 607:

Orig. contra Cels. l. 6. p. 279. Clem. Alex. strom. l. 1. p. 207. l. 6. p. 472, &c.

Footnote 608:

Clem. Alex. strom. l. 6. p. 472.

Footnote 609:

Cyp. ep. 33. p. 76.

Footnote 610:

Ign. ep. ad Magnes. p. 31.

Footnote 611:

Acts. vi. 1, 2, 3, 4.

Footnote 612:

Const. Apost. l. 2; p. 31, 32.

Footnote 613:

Acts vi. 6.

Footnote 614:

Just. apol. 2. p. 97.

Footnote 615:

Idem ib. p. 98.

Footnote 616:

Tert. de bapt. p. 602.

Footnote 617:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 618:

Prud. de coron. mar. p. 71.

Footnote 619:

Idem ib. p. 91.

Footnote 620:

Conc. t. 1. p. 1448.

Footnote 621:

Hier. ep. 85.

Footnote 622:

Cyp. ep. 55, 72, 52.

Footnote 623:

Apud Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 624:

Cyp. ep. 14, 26, 31. Euseb. l. 5. c. 16. & l. 7. c. 30. Act. concil. Carth. apud Cyp. p. 443.

Footnote 625:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 23, & 24.

Footnote 626:

Act. concil. Carth. p. 443.

Footnote 627:

Cyp. ep. 59.

Footnote 628:

Zos. l. 2. p. 623.

Footnote 629:

Pet. de Mar. l. 6. deconc. c. 1.

Footnote 630:

Lup. can. 4. Nic. par. 1.

Footnote 631:

Schel. antiq. illust. part. 1. disser. 1. c. 3. art. 1.

Footnote 632:

Leo All. de eccl. occid. & orient. conses. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 633:

Du Pin de antiq. eccles. discip. diss. 1. n. 6.

Footnote 634:

Concil. t. 4. col. 58. Evagr. l. 2. c. 18.

Footnote 635:

Du Pin, c. 6. n. 5.

Footnote 636:

Conc. Arel. can. 50. Laod. can. 12. Carth. can. 12. Eph. act. 4, &c.

Footnote 637:

Vide Du Pin. dissert. i. n. 13.

Footnote 638:

Idem ib.

Footnote 639:

Leo, ep. 89.

Footnote 640:

Cod. Theod. l. 4. de navicul. & l. un. de his qui veniam ætat.]

Footnote 641:

Vide Petr.de Marca, l. 3. c. 12. l. 6. c. 6. Schelstrat. antiq. illustr. par. 2. dissert. 3. c. 8. Got. in chron. cod. Theod. ann. 324. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 4. c. 61.

Footnote 642:

Afflict. in constit. in prælud. quæst. 2. n. 2. & q. 20. n. 1. Tappia de jur. regni, l. 1. & de leg. l. 1. n. 6. Ponte de potest. Proreg. tit. II. n. 26.

Footnote 643:

Luch. de imp. potest. in Ital.

Footnote 644:

Theod. l. 1. c. 32.

Footnote 645:

Soz. l. 2. c. 34.

Footnote 646:

Socr. l. 1. c. 39.

Footnote 647:

Phot. cod. 127.

Footnote 648:

Ambros. serm. de obitu Theodos.

Footnote 649:

Hier. in chron.

Footnote 650:

Soz. l. 4. c. 18.

Footnote 651:

Schelst. antiq. illust. part. 2. dissert. 3. c. 6.

Footnote 652:

Aug. de hæres. c. 48.

Footnote 653:

Socr. l. 5. c. 6. Sozom. l. 7. c. 4.

Footnote 654:

Amb. orat. in fun. Val.

Footnote 655:

Greg. in orat. de bapt. Amb. in ser. de sanct. & alibi.

Footnote 656:

Comb. act. &c. p. 258.

Footnote 657:

Buch. cycl. p. 267. 273.f

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTANTINE. MARK, Thirty-third BISHOP of Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 336. ]

Sylvester was succeeded by Mark, on the 18th of January 336. He is passed over by Theodoret[658], but named by Optatus[659], Ruffinus[660], St. Austin[661], St. Jerom[662], and Sozomen[663]. We know nothing certain either of his Life or Administration. [Sidenote: The Bishop of Rome ordained by the Bishop of Ostia.] Anastasius indeed tells us, that by him the Bishop of Ostia was first appointed to ordain the Bishop of Rome, and to carry the Pallium or Pall; where Baronius observes, that the Pall is here mentioned for the First time[664]. But Anastasius is not a Writer we can depend upon. It is certain, however, that the Bishops of Ostia have long enjoyed this Privilege; for it is mentioned by St. Austin[665], and likewise in a Memorial presented by the Clergy of Rome in 418. to the Emperor Honorius, on Occasion of the Election of Pope Zosimus[666]. The Letter which the Bishops of Egypt are said to have written to this Pope, and his Answer to them, are rejected even by Baronius[667], and very justly; for the Pope’s Answer is dated Eighteen Days after his Death. He died on the 7th of October the same Year he had been chosen[668], and was buried in the Cœmetery of Balbina, which was thenceforth called after his Name[669]. His Body is now worshiped in the Church of St. Laurence at Florence, though no Mention is made by any Writer of its having ever been translated thither[670].

-----

Footnote 658:

Theod. l. 2. c. 12.

Footnote 659:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 660:

Ruffin. l. 10. c. 22.

Footnote 661:

Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 662:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 663:

Soz. l. 2. C. 20.

Footnote 664:

Bar. ad ann. 336. n. 64.

Footnote 665:

Aug. coll. die 3. c. 16.

Footnote 666:

Vide Du Pin dissert. 1. n. 13.

Footnote 667:

Bar. ibid. n. 60, 61.

Footnote 668:

Soz. l. 2. c. 20. Hier. chron. Buch. p. 267. 273.

Footnote 669:

Front. cal. p. 141.

Footnote 670:

Bolland, Pont. p. 50.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTANTINE, JULIUS, CONSTANTINE, and his Three Thirty-fourth BISHOP of CONSTANTIUS, Sons, Rome. and CONSTANS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 337. Falsely said to have held a great Council at Rome.]

Upon the Death of Mark the See was vacant for the Space of Four Months, that is, to the 6th of February 337. when Julius was chosen[671]. He is said to have held a Council of an Hundred and Sixteen Bishops in the December of the same Year[672]. But the Date of this Council puts Baronius to 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, in 347. 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 by Blondel[674], viz. that no such Council was ever held.

When Julius was raised to the Pontificate, the celebrated Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, lived in Banishment at Treves; but the Year following he was allowed to return to his Church by the Three Emperors, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, who had succeeded their Father in 337. [Sidenote: The Arians write to Julius against Athanasius.] The Eusebians, that is, the Arian Faction headed by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, at whose Instigation he had been banished by Constantine, alarmed at his Return, writ bitter Letters against him to the Three Princes, and likewise to the Bishop of Rome. To the latter they dispatched with their Letters Macarius a Presbyter, and the Two Deacons Martyrius and Hesychius. Athanasius no 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 at Rome, but all over the West[675]. [Sidenote: They desire Julius to assemble a Council.] Upon their Arrival, Macarius privately withdrew from Rome, and the other Two were so confounded by the Deputies of Athanasius, 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 to Athanasius and the Eusebians. They bragged that, before the Council, they would make good the Charge they had brought against Athanasius, and offered to take Julius himself for their Judge[676]. This Offer, we may be sure, was readily accepted by the Bishop of Rome, who immediately writ to Athanasius inviting him to the Council, and at the same time desired the Deputies of the Eusebians to 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, for Rome, where he arrived in the Latter end of the Year 339. After his Arrival the Bishop of Rome dispatched Elpidius and Philoxenes, Two of his Presbyters, with Letters to the Eusebians, 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 was Rome, and the Time the Month of June 341. according to the most probable Opinion. [Sidenote: They decline appearing at the Council of Rome; assemble one at Antioch; and there depose Athanasius;] The other Bishops assembled at the Time appointed; but the Eusebians, instead of appearing at the Council of Rome, which had been convened at their Request, assembled one at Antioch, and there, without waiting for the Determination of Julius, whom they had chosen for their Judge, deposed Athanasius, and appointed Gregory Bishop of Alexandria in 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]. [Sidenote: who is declared innocent in the Council of Rome.] In the Council of Rome the Cause of Athanasius was examined, and he, after the strictest Scrutiny, declared innocent with one Voice by the Fifty Bishops who composed it[679]; so that Julius and 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 the Arians, came to lay their Complaints before the Council, and, among the rest, Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, and Paul Bishop of Constantinople. The former had been condemned as an Heretic by a Council held at Constantinople in 336. and consisting intirely of Arian Bishops. As nobody appeared against him during the Fifteen Months he continued at Rome, and the Declaration of his Faith, which, at the Request of Julius, 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: Epiphanius at least was no-ways satisfied with it[682]. And truly it would be no easy Task to clear him from the Heresy of Sabellius and Samosatenus, denying the Trinity of the Divine Persons[683]: but to examine so perplexed and intricate a Point, would be foreign to my Purpose. [Sidenote: Neither Athanasius nor any other Bishop restored by Julius.] Socrates[684] and Sozomen[685] write, that Julius, by the Authority of his See, reinstated all the Bishops who had been displaced by the Arians; that he supported and defended their Innocence with Letters full of Vigour and Liberty; severely reprimanded those who had deposed them; summoned some of them to appear at Rome, 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, says Socrates, the Bishops were restored to their Sees. But Sozomen names only Athanasius, and Paul Bishop of Constantinople. It is surprising, that the Advocates for the See of Rome should allege the Testimony of these two Writers, to prove that the Authority of the Bishop of Rome was 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 from Athanasius[686], that Julius writ only two Letters to the Eusebians; 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 does Julius take 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, since Athanasius continued in the West till the Year 349. when he was restored by the Council of Sardica. Paul indeed was reinstated sooner, but not till the See of Constantinople became vacant by the Death of Eusebius, who had been translated from Nicomedia to that City. I appeal to the Roman Catholics themselves, and leave them to judge whether it is at all probable, that the Emperor Constantius, and the Oriental Bishops, incensed as they were against Paul and Athanasius, 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.

[Sidenote: The Eusebians write to Julius;]

While the Council of Rome was yet sitting, the Pope’s two Deputies, Elpidius and Philoxenes, returning from the East, delivered to Julius a Letter from the Eusebians, 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 for not appearing at the Council, such as the Persian War, which, by the way, did not prevent their assembling at Antioch; 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 of Rome, 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 of Tyre and Constantinople condemning Athanasius. [Sidenote: and threaten to separate themselves from his Communion.] In the End they allege several Things both against Athanasius, and Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra; and conclude with telling Julius, 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]. Julius was so mortified with this Letter, that he suppressed it for some time, hoping the Eusebians would 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 the Eusebians, advised the Pope to answer it; which he did accordingly, by that excellent Letter, which has been preserved intire among the Works of Athanasius. [Sidenote: Julius_’s Answer to 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 summoned them 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 of Nice, by admitting the Arians to their Communion, which he conceived to be more criminal in them, than it was in him to receive Athanasius and Marcellus. He reproaches them with another Transgression of the Canons of the Church, namely with that of passing from one Bishoprick to another, which Eusebius had done. He then justifies his Conduct with regard to Athanasius and Marcellus; exhorts the Eusebians, 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 the Eusebians, applied with several other Bishops to the Emperor Constans, who, at their Request proposed to his Brother Constantius the assembling of an Oecumenical Council, in order to put an End to those unhappy Divisions. [Sidenote: The Council of Sardica.] To this Proposal Constantius agreed; and accordingly, by the Command of the two Princes, a numerous Council met in 347. at Sardica, the Metropolis of Dacia in Illyricum[689]. Julius, apprehending it dangerous to abandon his Flock at that Juncture, did not assist in Person, but by his Deputies Archidamus and Philoxenes, who signed in his Name[690]. The Orientals came, but withdrew soon after, upon the Council’s refusing to exclude Athanasius, and some others, whom they had condemned[691]. But by the orthodox Bishops, who remained, the Acts of the Council of Rome were confirmed, Athanasius and 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 of Rome; and a circular Letter 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 great Osius Bishop of Cordoua, and in the Second place by the Pope’s Legates[694]. In their Letter to Julius they beg him to notify their Decrees to the Bishops of Sardinia, Sicily, and Italy, 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, That it 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 with Blondel[697], that this Passage is foisted in; but cannot acquiesce to the only Reason he alleges to support his Opinion, viz. the Barbarity of the Latin Expression (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 in Latin. 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.

[Sidenote: Canons of the Council of Sardica relating to the Bishop of Rome.]

By the Council of Sardica several Canons were made; but I shall only take notice of those that regard the Bishop of Rome. By the Third Canon in the Greek, or the Fourth in the Latin Translation by Isidorus, it is ordered, that if any Bishop shall think himself unjustly condemned, his Judges shall acquaint the Bishop of Rome therewith, who may either confirm the first Judgment, or order his Cause to be re-examined by such of the neighbouring Bishops as he shall think fit to name[698]. Osius, who was greatly addicted to the See of Rome, begged the Council to grant this Honour to the Memory of St. Peter. The Fourth Canon, according to the Greek, adds, That the See of the deposed Bishop shall remain vacant till his Cause shall be judged by the Bishop of Rome. By the Fifth Canon, which by some Mistake is the Seventh in Dionysius Exiguus, it is ordered, that if a Bishop, condemned in his own Province, shall chuse to be judged by the Bishop of Rome, and desires him to appoint some of his Presbyters to judge him in his Name, together with the Bishops, the Bishop of Rome may grant him his Request. [Sidenote: The Practice of appealing to the Pope first introduced. Several Circumstances concur in his Favour.] Thus was the pernicious Practice of appealing to the Pope first introduced and authorized. It must be observed, that the Oriental Bishops had all left the Council: those who remained were all zealous Opposers of Arianism. At the Head of their Party was the Bishop of Rome. 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 of Sardica, acting under this Influence, the See of Rome is indebted for the so much boasted Privilege of receiving Appeals; and Julius was very thankful for it. [Sidenote: The Popes claim as their original Right, what was granted them as a Favour.] 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 Friend Osius, 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 by Osius begged 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 Pope Alexander III. in his Letter to the Bishop of Worcester[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 to Rome. Nay, other Councils of far greater Authority than that of Sardica, finding no other Means to put a Stop to the daily Encroachments of the See of Rome, 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.

[Sidenote: Decrees of the Council of Antioch revoked by the Council of Sardica.]

It had been decreed but Six Years before, by the Council of Antioch, that, if the Bishops of the same Province disagreed in judging one of their 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. [Sidenote: The Pope has no Power to summon Bishops to Rome.] But yet this Council, however favourable to the Pope, did not grant him the Power of summoning Bishops to Rome, 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.

[Sidenote: Osius did not preside at the Council of Sardica as the Pope’s Legate.]

At this Council the Pope’s Legates assisted; but Osius presided, as we are told in express Terms by Theodoret[700], by Sozomen[701], and by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon[702]. Besides, his Name is the first in the Subscriptions, as they have been transmitted to us by Athanasius, who assures us, that Osius was 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 of De Marca, and the other Popish Writers, pretending, without the least Foundation, that Osius presided in the Name of Julius.

[Sidenote: The Council of Sardica a Council of no 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 of Africa; and that they were not inserted by the Council of Chalcedon into the Code of Canons approved by them, as Rules to be universally observed: so that, after all, the so much boasted Council of Sardica is 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 of Sardica as the Canons of Nice.

[Sidenote: Athanasius retires to Naissus.]

Athanasius, though declared innocent by the Council, did not think it adviseable to return to his See, being informed, that the Eusebians had prevailed upon the Emperor Constantius to issue an Order, impowering and commanding the Magistrates of Alexandria to put him to Death, without further Tryal, in what Place soever he should be found within the Precincts of that Jurisdiction[703]. [Sidenote: Is recalled by Constantius.] He therefore retired to Naissus in Upper Dacia, and there continued from the year 347. to 349. when Constantius chose 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 to Rome, to take his Leave of that Church, and his great Protector Julius, who, on that Occasion, writ an excellent Letter of Congratulation to the Presbyters, Deacons, and People of Alexandria. Of this Letter we have Two Copies, the one in Socrates[705], and the other in Athanasius[706]. The former contains great Commendations of that Prelate, which, out of Modesty, were, as I conjecture, omitted by him.

[Sidenote: Ursacius and Valens retract all they had said against Athanasius.]

Julius had, soon after, the Satisfaction of receiving a solemn Retractation made by Ursacius Bishop of Singidunum, and Valens Bishop of Mursus, Two of Athanasius’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 of Arius, and all who held or defended his Tenets. This Act Valens writ with his own Hand, and Ursacius signed it; whereupon they were both admitted by Julius to the Communion of the Church[707][N13]. This Retraction, though not at all sincere, but merely owing to Policy, greatly contributed to the Justification of Athanasius. I find nothing else in the Antients, concerning Julius, worthy of Notice. [Sidenote: Julius dies.] He died on the 12th of April 352. having governed the Church of Rome Fifteen Years, Two Months, and Six Days[708]. He is said to have been buried in the Cœmetery of Callistus, on the Aurelian Way, where he had built a Church[709], and to have been removed from thence in 817. by Pope Paschal I. to the Church of St. Praxedes, and again from that, by Innocent II. in 1140. to St. Mary’s beyond the Tyber[710]. Bede, whom the Authors of the modern Pontificals have followed, tells us, in his Martyrology[711], that Julius was sent into Banishment, where he suffered much for the Space of Ten Months, till the Death of Constantius, a zealous Promoter of Arianism. [Sidenote: Julius was not banished by Constantius.] But that Historian was certainly mistaken, since Constantius was never Master of Rome in Julius’s Time, and his Brother Constans was a great Friend to Julius, and all the orthodox Bishops. [Sidenote: Spurious Pieces ascribed to him.] Of the many Writings ascribed to Julius, none, except his Two Letters, are authentic, the one to the Eusebians, and the other to the Church of Alexandria, of which we have spoken above. Leontius of Byzantium mentions Seven Epistles, which, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, were ascribed to Julius[712]; but, at the same time, he assures us, that they were not written by him, but by Apollinaris the Heresiarch; and the Monks of Palæstine, in the Account they gave of the Eutychians, in the Time of the Emperor Anastasius, assure us, that they seduced great Numbers of People, by ascribing the Works of Apollinaris to the Fathers, namely to Athanasius, to Gregory Nazienzen, and to Julius[713]. Gennadius ascribes to Julius a Letter to Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, greatly favouring of the Heresy of Eutyches and Timotheus[714]; but Leontius of Byzantium evidently proves that Letter to have been written by Apollinaris; and as his it is quoted by his Two Disciples Valentine and Timotheus[715]. The Orientals have a Liturgy, which they suppose to have been composed by Julius: this Supposition, however groundless, shews him to have been in great Repute in those Parts[716].

-----

Footnote N13:

Ursacius and Valens first abjured, or rather pretended to abjure, their Errors at Milan, before the Council, that at this Time was sitting there. From Milan they repaired to Rome, and there abjured anew their Errors, in the Presence of Julius, and the whole Roman Church. Here Baronius observes, that as this was a Matter of too great Moment to be finally decided by the Council of Milan, though the Roman Presbyters were present, they sent them to Julius, 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 at Rome[N13.1]. But, in the first Place, they were not sent by the Council; but went to Rome of their own Accord, as Osius assures us, in express Terms, Illi ultre Romam venerunt[N13.2]. In the second Place, the Matter was finally determined by the Council of Milan; for the Council received their Recantation, and restored them to the Communion of the Church. And what else was to be done? what else could Julius do? But if the Matter was finally determined by the Council, what could induce them, says Baronius, to travel to Rome, and abjure anew their Heresy there? The Answer is obvious: They had imposed upon the Council by a pretended Abjuration, and went to Rome to impose, in like manner, on Julius, and obtain by that means his Communion; which they did accordingly, notwithstanding his Infallibility. Besides, as both Athanasius and his Enemies had referred their Cause to the Arbitration of Julius, he was the fittest Person to receive the Retraction of the false Evidence, which they had formerly given. As to the Custom, mentioned by Baronius, that eminent Heretics should abjure their Heresies only at Rome, 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, the Arian Bishops, that is, Bishops guilty of the same Heresy as Ursacius and Valens, abjured their Errors before the Council that was held at Jerusalem in 335. There they renounced their Heresy; there they were all restored to the Communion of the Church, without going, or offering to go, to Rome. And many of those Bishops were surely more eminent Heretics than either Ursacius or Valens.

Footnote N13.1:

Bar. ad ann. 350. n. 23.

Footnote N13.2:

Apud Ath. ad Solitar.

-----

-----

Footnote 671:

Buch. p. 273.

Footnote 672:

Concil. tom. 2. p. 527.

Footnote 673:

Bar. ad ann. 337. n. 67.

Footnote 674:

Blond. decret. p. 451.

Footnote 675:

Athan. apol. 2. p. 741-745.

Footnote 676:

Id. ib.

Footnote 677:

Id. ib. Socr. l. 2. c. 15. Soz. l. 3. c. 8.

Footnote 678:

Athan. ib. p. 744. & ad Solit. p. 816.

Footnote 679:

Id. ib. p. 748.

Footnote 680:

Idem ib. Hil. frag. p. 26.

Footnote 681:

Id. ib. p. 750.

Footnote 682:

Epiph. 72. c. 4.

Footnote 683:

Vide Petav. dog. t. 2. l. 1. c. 13. Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. p. 46.

Footnote 684:

Socr. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 685:

Soz. l. 3. c. 8.

Footnote 686:

Athan. ap. 2. p. 739.

Footnote 687:

Id. ib. p. 740-749. & ad Solit. p. 816. Soz. l. 3. c. 8. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43. Hil. frag. p. 25.

Footnote 688:

Athan. ib. p. 740-753.

Footnote 689:

Athan. ib. p. 761. Socr. l. 1. c. 20. Hil. frag 2. p. 7. Soz. l. 3. c. 12, &c.

Footnote 690:

Athan. ib. p. 767.

Footnote 691:

Athan. ad Solit. p. 819. Hil. frag. 2. p. 22.

Footnote 692:

Athan. ib. p. 766. & ad Sol. p. 820. Theod. l. 2. c. 6. Hil. frag. 1. p. 18.

Footnote 693:

Athan. ib.

Footnote 694:

Id. ib. p. 767.

Footnote 695:

Hil. frag. 1. p. 15, 16.

Footnote 696:

Id. ibid.

Footnote 697:

Blond. prim. p. 106.

Footnote 698:

Concil. t. 2. p. 652.

Footnote 699:

In decret. Greg. l. 2. tit. 28. c. 11.

Footnote 700:

Theodoret. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 701:

Soz. l. 3. c. 11.

Footnote 702:

Concil. l. 4. p. 825.

Footnote 703:

Ath. apol. 2. p. 271. & ad Sol. p. 820.

Footnote 704:

Idem ad Sol. p. 822. Ruf. l. 1. c. 19. Theod. l. 2. c. 6.

Footnote 705:

Socr. l. 2. c. 23.

Footnote 706:

Athan. apol. 2. p. 770.

Footnote 707:

Ath. ad Solit. p. 826. & Apol. 2. p. 776. Hil. frag. 1. p. 24-26.

Footnote 708:

Buch. cycl. 267. 273.

Footnote 709:

Idem ib.

Footnote 710:

Bolland. 12 Apr. p. 86. n. 14.

Footnote 711:

Bed. martyr. p. 83.

Footnote 712:

Leont. sect. 8. p. 526.

Footnote 713:

Evagr. l. 3. c. 31.

Footnote 714:

Gen. c. 2.

Footnote 715:

Leont. ib.

Footnote 716:

Bona lit. 1. c. 9. p. 64.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTANTIUS, LIBERIUS, JOVIAN, JULIAN, Thirty-fifth BISHOP of Rome. VALERIAN.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 352. Liberius his own Panegyrist.]

Liberius was chosen on the 22d of May 352. in the room of Julius[717]. He had trampled under-foot (to use his own Terms) all worldly things, to observe the Gospel, and obey the Dictates of his Faith. He had been employed, before his Election, in several Ecclesiastical Ministries, and discharged them with Reputation, though he was not conscious to himself of having ever done the least Thing for the sake of Praise and Glory. He was at last raised to the Episcopal Dignity, but much against his Will, as he calls God and the Church to witness. He protests, that it was his ardent and only Wish, that he might keep himself pure and undefiled in the Administration of his new Dignity, that he might inviolably maintain and defend the Faith, which he had received from his illustrious Predecessors, among whom were many Martyrs[718]. [Sidenote: No easy Matter to form a true Idea of his Character.] Were we to judge of his Conduct from his Words, we should equal him to the best of his Predecessors; but there appears, throughout his whole Administration, such an odd Mixture of opposite Qualities, that it is no easy Matter to form a true Idea of his Character: at one time we shall find him bold, intrepid, and inflexible; at another timorous, faint-hearted, and compliant; insomuch that one can hardly conceive him to be the same Man. The latter Qualities he betrayed in the very Beginning of his Pontificate, by separating himself from the Communion of Athanasius. Constans, the great Support of the Orthodox Party, being murdered, and Constantius upon the Point of becoming Master of Rome, by a complete Victory he had gained over the Two Brothers Magnentius and Decentius, the Eusebians thought this a proper Juncture to try whether the Fear of that Prince had not rendered Julius somewhat more tractable. For Constantius was more incensed than ever against Athanasius, being assured by the Eusebians, to whom he gave an intire Credit, that he had influenced his Brother to threaten him with a Civil War[719]. [Sidenote: The Eusebians write a second Letter to Julius against Athanasius:] They writ therefore to Julius a second Letter, filled with new Complaints and Calumnies against Athanasius; but Julius dying in the mean time, their Letter, together with another to the same Purpose from the Arians of Alexandria, was delivered to Liberius, who caused them both to be publicly read in a full Assembly of the People, and in the Council, which was then sitting at Rome[720]. [Sidenote: which is answered by Liberius:] His Answer to these Letters has not reached our Times; but a Copy of the Letter, which he writ on that Occasion to Athanasius, has, to his eternal Disgrace, been transmitted to us, among the Fragments of Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers. [Sidenote: who summons Athanasius to Rome.] In that Letter he summons him to appear forthwith at Rome, to clear himself there of the heavy Accusations brought against him; and threatens to cut him off from the Communion of that Church, if he refused to comply with the Summons[721]. With this Letter he dispatched Three of his Presbyters, Lucius, Paulus, and Ælianus; strictly injoining them, by all means, to prevail upon Athanasius to repair, without Delay, to Rome[722]. This Conduct, so very different from that of his Predecessor, was, no doubt, owing to the Dread he was in of the Emperor Constantius, by this Time probably Master of Rome, and all Italy; for what else could tempt or induce him to act so preposterously? Be that as it will, Athanasius was greatly surprised and concerned to find himself so unworthily treated and threatened by the Bishop of Rome; but did not think himself, on that Account, obliged to abandon his Flock. He remained therefore in Alexandria; but begged his Collegues in Egypt to write in his Favour to the Pope; which they did accordingly. [Sidenote: Liberius communicates with the Arians, and excommunicates Athanasius.] But Liberius wanted to ingratiate himself with the Arians, and, by their means, with the Emperor; and therefore, without any Regard to the Testimony of the Orthodox Bishops, or the known Innocence of the oppressed Athanasius, he writ to the Eusebians, acquainting them, that he communicated with them; but, as to Athanasius, he had cut him off from his Communion, and from that of his Church[723]. [Sidenote: His Letter to them not supposititious.] Baronius[724], and after him the Benedictines, in their last Edition of the Works of Hilarius and Athanasius[725], maintain this Letter of Liberius to have been forged by the Arians, and inserted into the Works of Hilarius. But they allege no convincing Reason why the other Pieces, among which it has been conveyed to us, should be admitted as genuine, and this alone rejected as supposititious. Athanasius, indeed, never reproached the Bishop of Rome with his scandalous Conduct, as they observe; but may not that be ascribed to his Moderation? The more, as he was sensible, that Liberius acted thus not out of Ill-will, but Fear. As to the want of Connexion between that Letter and the Pieces preceding and following it, I should not have expected such an Objection from any who had ever perused the Fragments of that Writer, which every one knows to have been patched together without any Regard to Time or Order[N14].

-----

Footnote N14:

Thus the very Letter of Liberius is put in the Place where the Letter of the Council of Sardica to the Emperor Constantius ought to have been, as is manifest from what is said immediately before it. A few Lines after, instead of the Letter from the Council of Egypt to Liberius, which Hilarius promises, we find one from Liberius to the Bishops of Italy, written after the Death of Constantius upon a quite different Subject. What comes immediately after the Letter of Liberius to the Eusebians, ought, in all Likelihood, to have been placed after the above-mentioned Letter of the Council of Sardica to Constantius: for to me it appears no less improbable than it does or can do to Baronius[N14.1], that Hilarius, a most zealous Stickler for the Orthodox Faith, should approve of the Pope’s scandalous Letter, tending utterly to subvert it, and express his Approbation in these Terms; What is there in this Letter that is not holy? What is there that does not proceed from the Fear of God? However, I cannot conclude, and much less demonstratively, with the Annalist, that the Letter has been forged by the Arians. All I think can be inferred from thence is, that the Letters, like most other Pieces there, have been misplaced; and that the above-mentioned Words of Hilarius ought to be put after the Letter of the Council to Constantius, and not after that of Liberius to the Arians.

Footnote N14.1:

Bar. ad ann. 352. n. 13.

-----

[Sidenote: The Council of Arles.]

In the mean time Constantius, now in quiet Possession of the whole Empire by the Death of Magnentius, who, after his Defeat, had laid violent Hands on himself, summoned a Council to meet at Arles. At this Council Liberius did not assist in Person, but by his Legates, Vincentius Bishop of Capua, and Marcellus Bishop of Campania, who, together with some others, had been sent by Liberius some time before to meet the Emperor at Arles, and beg him in the Pope’s Name to assemble a Council at Aquileia[726]. As the Bishop of Capua was a Man of great Parts, and long Experience, Liberius reposed an intire Confidence in him, not doubting but he would maintain the Dignity of his Legation, and support the Innocency of Athanasius with that Firmness which he had shewn on several other Occasions [N15].

-----

Footnote N15:

For Liberius, ashamed of what he had done against Athanasius, not only readmitted him soon after to his own Communion, but with great Zeal undertook his Defence.

-----

As the Council consisted chiefly of Arians, their great Point in view was, to extort from the Italian Bishops a solemn Condemnation of Athanasius. [Sidenote: The Emperor’s Edict.] This therefore was in the first place proposed in the Council; and, because the orthodox Bishops would not consent to it, an Edict was issued by the Emperor, sentencing all those to Exile who should refuse to sign the Condemnation of Athanasius[727]. [Sidenote: The Pope’s Legates sign the Condemnation of Athanasius.] The boasted Firmness and Constancy of Vincentius were not Proof against such a Trial. He did all that lay in his Power to divert the Emperor from the Execution of a Decree utterly inconsistent with the Liberty of a Council; but finding him deaf to all Remonstrances, he began to capitulate, offering to sign the Condemnation of Athanasius, on condition the Eusebians signed that of Arius, and publicly abjured his Doctrine. This he thought would be some Alleviation of his Guilt, and therefore the Proposal which he had made by Word of Mouth he gave in Writing to the Heads of the Arian Faction, signed by himself and his Fellow-legates. But the Arians, too well acquainted with their Weakness to grant them any Terms, peremptorily insisted upon their condemning Athanasius, and referring the Cause and Doctrine of Arius to a more proper Juncture. Vincentius and his Collegues, finding the Enemies of Athanasius thus inflexible, and, on the other hand, determined at all Events to keep their Bishopricks, and avoid the Hardships of a painful Exile, complied at last, and yielded to the troublesome Times, to use their softening Expression[728]. They were the more inexcuseable, as they had before their Eyes the Example of a great Prelate, whose Constancy was proof against all the Threats and Menaces of a provoked Prince. This was the celebrated Paulinus Bishop of Treves, who, after perusing the Formulary, drawn up by the Eusebians, to be signed by him and the other Bishops, rejected it with the utmost Indignation, declaring that nothing they could do should ever induce him to betray the Truth, and his own Conscience, by setting his Hand to such a scandalous Piece. The Eusebians left no Art unattempted to gain him, as they had done the Pope’s Legates, but finding he was a Man of a quite different Disposition, and despairing of being ever able to prevail upon him either by Hopes or Fear, they at last had recourse to the Emperor, who, putting his Decree in Execution, sent him into Exile; and in order to tire out his Patience, ordered him to be constantly conveyed from one inhospitable Place to another. [Sidenote: The glorious Behaviour of Paulinus.] But in every Place Paulinus was the same, the Conscience of his suffering for the sake of Justice enabling him to bear, not only with Patience, but Chearfulness, the inexpressible Hardships he underwent[729]. He died in Phrygia in the Fifth Year of his Exile[730], that is, in 358. But his Body is supposed to have been discovered in a Church of his Name at Treves, in the Year 1071[731]. How and when it was conveyed thither, let those inquire who adore it.

To return to Liberius, he was so sensibly affected with the Fall of Vincentius and his Collegues, that he wished for an Opportunity of losing his Life in so good a Cause, and washing out with his Blood the Stain which the scandalous Conduct of his Legates had brought upon his Character[732]. Thus he expresses himself in the Letter, which he writ on that Occasion to the great Friend of his See Osius[733]. However, in the Height of his Affliction, he found great Relief in the Courage and Steadiness of Cæcilianus Bishop of Spoleto, of Eusebius Bishop of Vercelli, and of Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia. The latter advised the Pope to demand of the Emperor another Council, and generously took upon himself to go to Arles, where Constantius then was, and make that Demand. Liberius readily accepted his Offer, and named Pancratius and Hilarius for his Collegues, the one a Presbyter, the other a Deacon of the Church of Rome. [Sidenote: Liberius writes to the Emperor for another Council;] By these he writ an excellent Letter to the Emperor, wherein, with the Liberty that became a Catholic Bishop, but at the same time with all the Respect that is due from a Subject to his Sovereign, he justifies his Conduct in the Defence of Athanasius, lays open the Arts and Views of the adverse Party, and begs that a new Council might be assembled, there being no other Means to put a Stop to so many Evils, and restore Peace and Tranquillity to the Catholic Church[734]. At the same time Liberius writ to Eusebius Bishop of Vercelli, and Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia, intreating them to assist his Legates with their Advice, and even with their Presence, should it be thought necessary. The Three Legates, on their Arrival at Vercelli, in their Way to Arles, were not only kindly received, but joined by Eusebius, who repaired with them to the Emperor. [Sidenote: which is granted, and assembles at Milan.] As the Arians were no-ways averse to the Proposal, nay, had even solicited the Emperor to convene a new Council, the Request of the Legates met with no Difficulty; so that a Council was appointed to meet at Milan, where it met accordingly in the Beginning of the Year 355[735]. We are told, that it consisted of Three hundred Western Bishops, and that from the East there came but very few[736]. But Constantius and his Army may be said to have supplied their room. For the Council no sooner met, than the Emperor absolutely insisted upon their signing the Condemnation of Athænasius, and an Edict, containing the chief Tenets of Arius, which had been published in his Name. But in this Attempt he met with a vigorous Opposition from Dionysius Bishop of Milan, Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and the Two other Legates, Pancratius and Hilarius; which provoked him to such a Degree, that he was upon the Point of commanding them to be executed upon the Spot as Rebels. [Sidenote: Some Bishops banished.] But, upon second Thoughts, he contented himself with sending them into Exile, Dionysius into Cappadocia, or Armenia, where he died a few Years after, Eusebius to Scythopolis in Palestine, and Lucifer to Germanicia in Syria. To what Place Pancratius and Hilarius were confined, we know not; but the latter was most cruelly whipped before he was banished[737]. As for the other Bishops, I shall only say, with Ruffinus[738], that, out of Three hundred, Dionysius, Lucifer, and Eusebius, alone shewed a Firmness and Intrepidity becoming Men of their Rank and Dignity. Among the rest Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia signed the Condemnation of Athanasius; which greatly added to the Grief and Concern of Liberius, who, till that Time, had entertained the highest Opinion of him.

And now Constantius had the Satisfaction of seeing Athanasius condemned by the far greater Part of the Western Bishops. But the Bishop of Rome still declared openly in his Favour, and did all that lay in his Power to gain others to his Party. [Sidenote: Constantius endeavours in vain to gain Liberius;] To deprive him therefore of so powerful a Protector, the Emperor resolved to spare no Cost nor Labour. With this View he dispatched to Rome the Eunuch Eusebius, his great Chamberlain, with rich Presents in one Hand, and a threatening Letter in the other: but with an invincible Firmness Liberius withstood both; so that the Eunuch, who was himself a sworn Enemy to Athanasius, returned to Court baffled and disappointed; and there, by the Account he gave of his unsuccessful Embassy, added new Fuel to the Fire, which burnt already with great Violence. The Emperor, who pretended to govern the Church no less despotically than he did the State, transported with Rage at the stout Opposition he met with from the Bishop of Rome, immediately dispatched an Order to Leoncius, Prefect of that City, injoining him to apprehend Liberius, and send him under a strong Guard to Court. [Sidenote: who is sent Prisoner to Milan.] Pursuant to this Order, Liberius was seized in the Night-time, lest the People, by whom he was greatly beloved, should attempt his Rescue, and conveyed to Milan, where the Court then resided[739]. Soon after his Arrival he was brought before the Emperor, when, undaunted and unawed by the Presence of so great a Prince, he spoke with all the Liberty of an Apostle, and with all the Eloquence of a great Orator[740]. [Sidenote: His Interview with the Emperor.] At this Interview were present Eusebius the Eunuch, and Epictetus Bishop of Centumcellæ, now Civita Vecchia, who, for his ready Compliance with the Emperor’s Will, had been raised by him to great Preferments[741]. The latter told Liberius, when he had ended the excellent Speech he made before the Emperor, That he had indeed expressed great Zeal for the Purity of the Faith, and the Liberty of Councils; but the Whole was mere Mummery; and that he only wanted to be looked upon by his Party as a Person of some Significancy, and to brag among the Senators, on his Return to Rome, that he had had the Honour to dispute with the Emperor[742]. The Eunuch too thought he must speak, but it was only to betray his Ignorance; for he reproached Liberius with defending Athanasius, who had been condemned, he said, as an Heretic, by the Council of Nice[743]. As for Constantius, the only Reply he made to the Reasons alleged by Liberius in favour of Athanasius, and the Faith of Nice, was, That the wicked and impious Athanasius, as he styled him, had been condemned by the whole World; that, by his arrogant Conduct, he had provoked all Mankind, and himself in particular, by constantly stirring up his Brother against him; that therefore he looked upon the Defeat of Magnentius and Sylvanus, who had attempted to bereave him of his Crown, as less important to him than the deposing and condemning of a Man, by whom he had been so highly injured[744]. In answer to this, Liberius begged, that, of all Men, he would not chuse Bishops for the Instruments of his private Revenge. Constantius made no Reply, but only told him, that he must either sign the Condemnation of Athanasius, or be sent into Exile; and that he allowed him Three Days to deliberate which of the Two he would chuse. [Sidenote: His Steadiness.] Liberius answered, with great Intrepidity, that he had already chosen, and was resolved; that in Three Days he should not change his Resolution; and therefore the Emperor might send him that Minute to what Place soever he pleased[745]. The Three Days were not yet expired when the Emperor sent for him anew to Court, hoping the Fear of Banishment had softened him, as it had done most others, into a Compliance. But he found him unalterably fixed in the same Resolution; and therefore, despairing of being ever able to succeed in his Attempt, he ordered him to be conveyed forthwith to Berœa in Thrace[746]. [Sidenote: He is banished to Berœa in Thrace.] Liberius had not yet left the Palace, when the Emperor sent him a Present of Five hundred Pieces of Gold to defray his Charges: which he sent back by the same Person who brought them, saying, that the Emperor might want Money to pay his Troops. The like Sum was sent him by the Empress Eusebia; which, with the same Answer, he desired might be conveyed to the Emperor, adding, that if he knew not how to employ that Sum better, he might bestow it on Epictetus, or Auxentius the Arian Bishop of Milan, who would be very thankful for it[747]. He left Milan Three Days after, and set out for the Place of his Exile. His Fate was no sooner known at Rome, than the Clergy, assembling the People, bound themselves by a solemn Oath, in their Presence, not to acknowlege any other for their Bishop so long as Liberius lived[748].

[Sidenote: Felix is chosen in his room.]

Liberius being thus driven from his See, another was placed on it in his room; and the Person, whom the Emperor and the Arian Faction pitched upon, was one Felix, then only Deacon of the Church of Rome[749]. But the Clergy could not proceed to a new Election, without an open Violation of the Oath they had taken; the People began to mutiny, and, assembling in Crouds, would suffer none of the Arian Faction to enter their Churches. The Imperial Palace therefore served instead of a Church; Three of the Emperor’s Eunuchs represented the People; and Three Bishops, Slaves of the Court, viz. Epictetus of Centumcellæ, Acacius of Cæsarea, and Basilius of Ancyra, ordained the new-elected Bishop[750]. Thus was Felix chosen, and thus ordained. As Liberius was greatly beloved by the People, chiefly on account of his vigorous Opposition to Constantius, the Intrusion of Felix occasioned a great Sedition, in which many lost their Lives[751]. The Clergy were not so zealous in the Cause as the People; for great Numbers of them, unmindful of the Oath they had taken, were by degrees reconciled to Felix, and communicated with him[752]; whereas the People continued to abhor and avoid him at least till the Year 357. When Constantius came to Rome[753]. [Sidenote: Constantius goes to Rome.] For that Prince, being desirous to see the Metropolis of his Empire, undertook a Journey to Rome in the above-mentioned Year, and entered it in Triumph on the 28th of April[754]. During his short Stay in that City, the Roman Ladies gave a signal Instance of the Zeal and Affection they still retained for their exiled Bishop. They thought a more favourable Opportunity could never offer to solicit the Emperor for his Return; and therefore, by a private Agreement among themselves, they pressed their Husbands, with great Earnestness, to lay hold of it, threatening to abandon them, if they did not, and repairing to their Bishop to share with him the Hardships of his Exile. The Husbands, unmoved by such Menaces, which they well knew would never take place, answered, that by such an Application they might incur the Displeasure of the Prince, which would prove fatal to them, as well as to the Person in whose Behalf they interposed; whereas, should they themselves take such a pious and commendable Office upon them, the Respect due to their Sex would, in all Likelihood, extort from the Prince the desired Favour, at least it would restrain his Resentment, and stifle all Thoughts of Revenge. The Proposal was universally applauded by the Ladies, unwilling to expose their Husbands to the dire Effects of the Emperor’s Indignation. [Sidenote: The Roman Ladies intercede for Liberius.] On an appointed Day therefore, attiring themselves in an Apparel suitable to their Rank, that the Emperor in seeing them might know who they were, and treat them accordingly, they repaired to Court; and being immediately admitted to the Prince’s Presence, they conjured him, with Tears in their Eyes, to take Pity of that great City, of that numerous Flock, bereft of its Pastor, and, in his Absence, devoured by ravenous Wolves. This was not at all a courtly Language: however, Constantius, without betraying the least Emotion, said, I thought you had a Pastor. Is not Felix as capable of discharging the Pastoral Office as any other? Felix, replied they, is detested, and avoided by all. [Sidenote: The Emperor promises to recall him.] At these Words the Emperor first looked grave; but, immediately changing his Gravity into a Smile, If so, said he, with great Complaisance, you must have Liberius again: I shall, without Delay, dispatch the proper Orders for his Return. An Edict was accordingly issued the very next Day, recalling Liberius to govern the Church jointly with Felix; for Constantius thought it inconsistent with his Honour, and the Imperial Dignity, to drive Felix from the See, on which he himself had placed him.

[Sidenote: The Edict recalling him to govern jointly with Felix, raillied by the Roman People.]

When this Edict was read, in the Presence of the Emperor, to the People assembled in the Circus, they applauded it at first, by way of Raillery, saying, That since the Spectators, at the public Sports, were divided into Two Parties, it was just and reasonable there should be Two Bishops to head them. The Multitude, not satisfied with thus pleasantly expressing their Dissatisfaction, cried out, immediately after, with one Voice, There is but One God, One Christ, One Bishop[755]. And yet the Emperor was rather delighted than displeased with the Humour of the People, and the Liberty they took; for to what happened on this Occasion Ammianus Marcellinus probably alludes, where he writes, that Constantius, in exhibiting public Sports at Rome, was pleased with the Liberty they took to railly him, knowing it did not proceed from Pride or Ill-nature[756]. Theodoret tells us, that to Acclamations so worthy of the Roman Piety the Emperor granted the Return of Liberius[757]; and with him agree Sulpitius Severus[758], and Ruffinus[759]. But Sozomen[760], and all the Writers of those Times, assure us, that his Return did not happen this, but the following Year 358. when he bought it dear, by signing the Condemnation of Athanasius, and the Symbol or Creed, composed by the Semi-Arians at Sirmium, now Sirmish in Sclavonia. Constantius, at the Request of the Roman Ladies and People, promised to recall him, as I have related; but it was on Condition, says Sozomen[761], that he should agree with the Bishops of the Court, that is, with the Semi-Arians. The Firmness which Liberius had hitherto shewn, left no room to doubt of his rejecting such a Proposal with the greatest Indignation. But he now felt what before he had only beheld at a Distance: he began to compare the Ease and Plenty in which he had lived at Rome, with the Inconveniencies and Hardships of his present Exile. Besides, from the Menaces thrown out against him by the Emperor’s Officers, he apprehended his Life to be in Danger[762]. 'Tis true, he had wished for an Opportunity of shedding his Blood in so good a Cause, as I have related above. But who is not brave at a Distance from Danger? The Jealousy he had of Felix, who, sitting in his Chair, acted the High Pontiff at Rome, was the Dalila, says Baronius[763], speaking of his signing the Condemnation of Athanasius, who bereft this Samson of all his Strength and Courage. [Sidenote: Liberius signs the Condemnation of Athanasius, and embraces the Doctrine of Sirmium.] However that be, it is certain, that the Strength and Courage, which he had with great Glory exerted on other Occasions, vanished at once. For he not only signed the Condemnation of Athanasius, but moreover approved and received as Catholic, the Confession or Symbol of Sirmium[764]. Thus, to ingratiate himself with the Emperor, and return to Rome, did Liberius abandon, at last, his persecuted Friend, renounce the Catholic Faith, and solemnly promise to maintain inviolable the Doctrine of Sirmium[765]. As he was impatient to be reinstated in his See, he took care immediately to acquaint the Emperor with the Steps he had taken. With this Letter he dispatched Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia, charging him to solicit Constantius for his Return, since he had done all he had required of him[766]. Constantius took no Notice of, nor returned any Answer to, this Letter. On the other hand, Liberius was heartily sick of his Exile, heartily sick of suffering for the sake of Justice. [Sidenote: His Letter to the Eastern Bishops.] In Hopes therefore of putting a speedy End to his Exile, and the Hardships attending it, he writ in a most submissive and cringing Style to the Eastern Bishops, assuring them, that it was merely out of Respect to his Predecessor Julius, and to maintain his Judgment, that he had undertaken the Defence of Athanasius; that as soon as it had pleased God to open his Eyes, and discover to him how justly he had been condemned, he had separated himself from his Communion, and joined them; that all their Decrees concerning him should be inviolably observed by the Apostolic See, as indeed they ought to be; that he sincerely and willingly received the true Catholic and Orthodox Faith, as it had been expounded and defined by several of his Brethren and Collegues at Sirmium, and had been proposed to him by his Collegue Demophilus; that he received every Article of that Symbol, and had nothing to object against any. This remarkable Letter he concludes thus: And now that I agree with you in every Point, let me earnestly intreat your Holinesses to employ your joint Interest in my Behalf, that I may be recalled from Banishment, and suffered to return to the See, which God has been pleased to commit to my Care[767]. [Sidenote: He is anathematized by Hilarius. His Letter to the Bishops at Court;] This Letter has been conveyed to us by the great Hilarius, Bishop of Poitiers, who, in relating it, not able to restrain the just Indignation it kindled in his Breast, interrupts the Recital Three times, to anathematize the Author of it, the prevaricating Liberius, as he styles him[768]. He writ likewise to Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, who bore great Sway at Court, and were at the Head of the Arian Faction in the West, to acquaint them, that he communicated with them, and also with Auxentius and Epictetus, Two of the most inveterate Enemies the Orthodox had; and that whoever did not communicate with them, that is, every Catholic Bishop, was cut off from his Communion. These Words Hilarius cannot repeat without anathematizing anew Liberius, and all the Arians with him. In the same Letter he lets them know, that he has separated himself from the Communion of Athanasius, late Bishop of Alexandria, acknowleging him, by that Expression, lawfully deposed. He declares, in the Beginning of his Letter, and calls God to witness, that it is not by Compulsion, but merely for the sake of Peace and Charity, far preferable to Martyrdom itself, that he writes to them. He conjures them, by the omnipotent God, by his Son Jesus, by the Holy Ghost, to intercede for him with the Emperor, that, by his Return, Peace and Tranquillity may be restored to the Church committed to his Care; assuring them, that the Zeal they exert in so pious, so just a Cause, will meet with a proportionable Reward in Heaven[769].

As the Emperor had not yet taken the least Notice of his Letter; as the Eastern Bishops, as well as the Bishops at Court, did not act, as he thought, with all the Zeal and Expedition he expected, and his ready Compliance well deserved; [Sidenote: and to Vincentius, Bishop of Capua.] he writ a Third Letter, directed to Vincentius, Bishop of Capua, acquainting him, that he had abandoned the Defence of Athanasius, and desiring him to give Notice thereof to all the Bishops of Campania; and, at the same time, to use his utmost Endeavours to persuade them to dispatch some of their Body with a Letter, in their common Name, to the Emperor, begging Constantius to deliver him, without further Delay, from his present most melancholy and deplorable Situation. To this Letter he adds the following Paragraph, in his own Hand: We live in Peace with all the Bishops of the East, and with you. As for me, I have discharged my Conscience before God. Will you suffer me to perish in my present Exile? The same God will judge us both[770]. The Bishop of Capua had been formerly sent by Liberius to the Council of Arles, with the Character of his Legate, as I have observed above, and had there signed the Condemnation of Athanasius; on which Occasion Liberius wished for an Opportunity of washing out, with his own Blood, the Stain which the Conduct of his Legate had brought upon his Character. But his only Wish now was to see himself delivered from his painful Exile, and restored to his former State, upon any Terms. Vincentius, touched with his Complaints, prevailed upon the Bishops of Campania to send a solemn Deputation to the Emperor in his Behalf; which Constantius complied with, so far as to recall him from the Place of his Exile to Sirmium, where the Court then was[771]. [Sidenote: He is recalled from his Banishment to Sirmium.] Upon his Arrival there, Constantius, who had lately embraced the Doctrine of the Semi-Arians, taking Advantage of his Weakness, and of the eager Desire he had betrayed of returning to his See, obliged him, as well as the Bishops of the Court, and Four African Bishops, who happened to be then at Sirmium, to sign the same Doctrine[772]. [Sidenote: He signs the Doctrine of the Semi-Arians.] Thus did the infallible Liberius sign, and embrace, at least in Appearance, both the Arian and Semi-Arian Heresy; the Arian at Berœa, the Place of his Exile, and the Semi-Arian at Sirmium. That the Confession he signed at Berœa was Arian, cannot be doubted; for it was the Second of Sirmium, which all agree to have been Arian[N16]. Besides, it was proposed to him by Demophilus Bishop of Berœa, who was a most zealous Stickler for Arianism, and greatly attached to Ursacius and Valens, the Two leading Men among the Arians in the West; and it is not at all probable, that he would have required Liberius to sign a Doctrine different from that which he himself held.

-----

Footnote N16:

Three Councils were held at Sirmium, one in 349. another in 352. and the Third in 357. In the First, Photinus, Bishop of that City, was condemned, for reviving the Heresy of Paul of Samosata. This Council was intirely composed of the Western Bishops, who attempted to depose Photinus, but were vigorously opposed by the People. The Second Council of Sirmium was convened by the Emperor Constantius, and consisted of the Eastern Bishops only, who condemned anew, and deposed Photinus. By this Council a Symbol, or Creed, was composed, which has been transmitted to us in Greek by St. Athanasius, and in Latin by St. Hilarius; and is intirely Orthodox. In the Third Council of Sirmium a new Creed was composed by Potamius Bishop of Lisbone, and signed by Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, and the other Bishops there present. This Creed was altogether Arian; for not only the Word Consubstantial was rejected by it, but the Son was declared to be unlike the Father in Essence, to be less than the Father, and to have had a Beginning. And it was this Second Symbol of Sirmium that Liberius signed at Berœa. Upon his Arrival at Sirmium he found there Basilius of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and the other Semi-Arian Bishops, who were lately come from the Council of Ancyra, where they had condemned the Doctrine of the Pure Arians, and established that of the Semi-Arians, holding the Son to be like the Father in Nature and Essence, but not Consubstantial, or of the same Substance. And this Doctrine Liberius signed out of Complaisance to the Emperor, that nothing might obstruct his Return to Rome. He signed it in a kind of Council, consisting of the Semi-Arian Bishops, whom I have mentioned above.

-----

The Advocates for the Pope’s Infallibility are here quite at a Loss what to say in Defence of that Prerogative. That Liberius signed the Condemnation of Athanasius, that he communicated with the Arians, and, what above all galls them, that he received the Sirmian Confession of Faith as Catholic and Orthodox, are undeniable Matters of Fact. To reconcile them with Infallibility, is what they have been long drudging at: and to what pitiful Shifts, what eluding and unmeaning Distinctions, have they not been obliged to recur! Like a Man struggling for Life in deep Water, and catching at every Twig to save it, they flounce from Quibble to Quibble, from one Subterfuge to another, but all in vain; sink they must, and their Infallibility with them. To shew their Distress, I shall briefly transcribe what I find offered on this Occasion, by the most learned among them, in Defence of the Cause they have undertaken. [Sidenote: What alleged by Baronius in his Defence;] Baronius[773], after relating and owning the above-mentioned Facts, addresses his Readers thus: We have hitherto sailed among dangerous Rocks, among treacherous Sholes; but fear not, I shall at last pilot you safe into the Port of Truth. Then, dropping his Allegory, he makes a long Descant to prove, that the Sirmian Confession of Faith, signed by Liberius, was, in every Article, Catholic and Orthodox. A rare Pilot indeed! If this (to pursue his Allegory) is the Port of Truth, who can help pitying Jerom, Hilarius, Athanasius, and in short all the Antients? for they certainly missed it, and, falling in among those dangerous Rocks, those treacherous Sholes, which Baronius had the Skill and good Luck to avoid, were there unfortunately shipwrecked. For Jerom says, in express Terms, and in Two Places[774], that Liberius signed an Heresy; Hilarius, that he approved of the Arian Perfidy[775]; Athanasius, that he joined the Arians[776]; and all the Antients, that he apostatized from the Faith: nay, Liberius himself, in his Letter to the Orientals, which is still to be seen, under his own Hand, in the Vatican Library, gives them Notice, that in all things he agrees with Demophilus, a most zealous Arian, and with them; which Words Hilarius could not repeat without anathematizing him. It is therefore manifest, beyond all Dispute, that the Confession of Faith, signed by Liberius, was not Catholic, but Arian. Of this Baronius himself was, without doubt, well apprised, and into this Port he had piloted his Reader, had Truth alone been his Land-mark. [Sidenote: and by Bellarmine.] Bellarmine, the other great Stickler for Infallibility, pursues a different Method, but with worse Success, in my Opinion, than his Fellow-Champion Baronius; for, by striving to support that chimerical Prerogative, he evidently oversets it. The Pope, according to him, may sign and receive heretical Opinions, as Liberius did, without prejudicing in the least his Infallibility, provided he does not internally assent to them[777]; so that the so much boasted Infallibility is by him reduced at last to this; that the Pope cannot internally assent to an Error: which is confining his Infallibility to himself, and consequently disqualifying him for the Office of a Teacher. Infallibility, even thus curtailed, is, no doubt, a most valuable Treasure to the Owner, but of no more Use to the rest of Mankind than a Treasure concealed under-ground; and, on that very Account, it ought in common Sense to be exploded. But it is scarce worth the while to quarrel with Bellarmine about it, since he cannot be so unreasonable as to require us, in virtue of such a Prerogative, to pay any Regard to the Decisions of the Pope, till such time, at least, as we know them to be agreeable to his private Opinion: and this is what we can never know, since every Pope may, like Liberius, externally admit an Opinion as true; and, at the same time, internally reject it as false.

[Sidenote: Liberius returns to Rome.]

But, to return to Liberius; he was at last, in regard of his ready Compliance with the Will of the Emperor, allowed to return to Rome; but on Condition, that he should govern jointly with Felix[778]. Letters were accordingly dispatched both to Felix, and the Roman Clergy, to acquaint them therewith. Sozomen seems to insinuate, that they both governed thus for some time[779]. [Sidenote: Felix is driven out.] But, according to St. Jerom, and the Two Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus, who lived then at Rome, and were Eye-witnesses of what they relate, Felix was driven not only from the See, but out of the City, as soon as Liberius entered it; which he did on the 2d of August 358. in a kind of Triumph, being met and received by the whole People, with loud Acclamations of Joy[780]. Felix returned soon after, at the Instigation of a few of the Ecclesiastics, who had, contrary to their Oath, adhered to him; and even attempted to perform Divine Service in the Basilic of Julius, beyond the Tiber; but the enraged Multitude drove him out a second time, and, with him, all the Ecclesiastics, who had acknowleged him[781]. Socrates writes, that the Emperor himself was in the End obliged to give him up, and consent to his Expulsion[782]. Mention is made in the Pontificals of a bloody Persecution, raised in Rome by Liberius, and his Party, against the Partisans of Felix, who, it is said, were inhumanly murdered in the Streets, in the Baths, in all public Places, and even in the Churches[783]. But as none of the Antients take the least Notice of such Cruelties, I will not charge Liberius with them, upon the bare Authority of such Records. Felix, being driven from Rome, withdrew to a small Estate he had on the Road to Porto, and there spent the remaining Part of his Life in Retirement[784]. Sozomen supposes him to have died soon after[785]. But the Two Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus, who must have been better informed, assure us, that he lived Seven Years after the Return of Liberius, and died on the 22d of November 365[786].

[Sidenote: The Judgment of the Antients concerning Felix.]

Concerning Felix, all the Antients agree, that he was unlawfully elected and ordained; that he communicated with the Arians; that, to ingratiate himself with them, and the Emperor, he signed the Condemnation of Athanasius; that he was guilty of Perjury in accepting the Episcopal Dignity, having bound himself, with the rest of the Clergy, by a solemn Oath, to acknowlege no other Bishop while Liberius lived; and, lastly, that he strove to keep Possession of the Roman See, after the Return of the lawful Bishop, and to sit in it, together with him, in open Defiance of the Canons of the Church. Socrates adds, that he not only communicated with the Arians, but was infected with the Arian Heresy[787]. Athanasius styles him a Monster, raised to the See of Rome by the Malice of Antichrist, one worthy of those who raised him, and in every respect well qualified for the Execution of their wicked Designs[788]. [Sidenote: He is honoured by the Church of Rome as a Saint and a Martyr.] And yet this Heretic, this Monster, this Intruder, or Antipope, is honoured (the Reader will be surprised to hear it, is honoured) by the Church of Rome as a Saint; nay, as a Martyr; and his Festival is kept to this Day, on the 29th of July. This Honour was conferred on him in the Ages of Darkness and Ignorance, upon the Authority of his fabulous Acts, and a more fabulous Pontifical, from which his Acts seem to have been copied. In the Pontifical it is said, that Felix declared Constantius, who had been twice baptized, an Heretic; and was therefore, by an Order from the incensed Emperor, apprehended, and privately beheaded, with many Ecclesiastics and Laymen, under the Walls of Rome, on the 11th of November. It is added, that the Presbyter Damasus privately conveyed his Body to a Church, which Felix had built, and there interred it; and that, upon his Death, the See remained vacant for the Space of Thirty-eight Days[789]. [Sidenote: His fabulous Acts.] In the Acts of Felix we read, that Constantius was rebaptized by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia; that Felix having, on that Account, declared him an Heretic, he was driven from the See of Rome, and Liberius replaced on it; that Felix thereupon retired into the Country, but was brought back by the Emperor’s Orders, and beheaded on the 10th of November; that his Body was interred on the 20th of the same Month in a Church, which he had built while he was a Presbyter: And we keep his Festival, adds the Author, on the 29th of July[790]. Anastasius has copied the Pontifical Word for Word, except that he pretends Felix to have been beheaded at Cora, in the Campagna of Rome[791]; though he has told us, in the foregoing Page, that he died in Peace, a Phrase never used in speaking of Martyrs, on the 29th of July, at his Estate on the Road to Porto[792]. The City of Cere, now Cerventera, in Tuscany, honours Felix to this Day, as their chief Patron or Protector. In those dark Times Legends alone were in request, and all other Books, even the Scripture itself, quite out of Date, and neglected. [Sidenote: How he came to be honoured as a Saint.] No Wonder therefore that such Absurdities, however inconsistent with History, were swallowed without straining; and Felix, for his pretended Zeal and Constancy, ranked among the holy Martyrs. For I may venture to affirm, that the most learned Men, at that time, in the Church, knew nothing of Felix but what they had learned from his fabulous Acts, and from the above-mentioned Pontifical. That I may not be thought to exaggerate, I shall allege one Instance of the Ignorance of past Times: Gulielmus a Sancto Amore, one of the most learned Men of the 13th Century, knew that, in the Time of Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers, a Pope, with most of the Bishops, had fallen into Heresy. He did not even pretend to be so well versed in History as to know for certain who the Pope was; but, indulging a Conjecture, which he thought probable enough, he named Anastasius II. who died in 498. about 150 Years after the Time of Hilarius: so that he was an utter Stranger to the History of Pope Liberius, and consequently to that of the Antipope Felix. Had it not been for the like Ignorance in more early Times, the Apotheosis of our pretended Martyr had never taken place. [Sidenote: His Sanctity called in question;] Be that as it will, during the Ages of Darkness he held undisturbed the Rank, to which he had been thus raised: but when the Dawn of Knowlege began to appear, and it was discovered at last from contemporary and unexceptionable Writers, who Felix was, the Church of Rome was ashamed to own him among her Saints. On the other hand, to degrade him had been giving a fatal Blow to the Pope’s Authority, and rendering it for ever precarious, in so material a Point as that of Canonization. Felix therefore was, at all Events, to keep his Place in Heaven; his Sanctity was to be confirmed, and the World imposed upon by some Contrivance or other, capable of utterly defeating the Testimony of the Antients.

This Point being settled, to prevent all Suspicion of Deceit, or underhand Dealings, Pope Gregory XIII. declared, in 1582. his Intention of having the Cause of Felix impartially examined. [Sidenote: and his Cause reexamined.] In order to ? this, he appointed Baronius, employed at that Time in reforming the Roman Martyrology, to put in Writing whatever could be objected against Felix, and Cardinal Santorio to answer his Objections, and collect likewise in Writing all that could be said in favour of his new Client, that the Pope might be thoroughly acquainted with the Merits of the Cause before he came to a final Decision. This Conduct in Gregory has been censured by some over-zealous Divines of the Church of Rome, as if he had thereby given the World Occasion to think that he questioned the Infallibility of his Predecessors, who had honoured Felix as a Saint[793]. But Gregory well knew what he was doing, and how the Whole would end. In Compliance with his Orders, Baronius writ a Dissertation, which he himself calls a Volume, and not a short one[794], to prove that Felix was neither a Saint nor a Martyr. As he had Truth on his Side, Cardinal Santorio, though a Man of Learning, could neither answer his Arguments, nor offer any thing in so desperate a Cause worthy of himself. He often addressed himself in his Prayers to his Client, intreating him to undertake his own Cause, by suggesting to him what might be alleged in his Defence. But the Client was no less at a Stand than the Advocate. Some other Person therefore must interpose: And whom did the carrying or losing such a Cause more nearly concern than the Pope, since his Authority in a most essential Point was at Stake? This was a nice Affair, and to be managed with great Art and Dexterity. Gregory, therefore, having often heard both Sides, in a full Congregation of Cardinals, without betraying the least Partiality for Felix, appointed them to meet for the last time on the 28th of July, the Eve of the pretended Saint’s Festival, judging that the most proper Time to play off with good Success the Trick, which he had kept the whole Time in petto. [Sidenote: His Sanctity and Martyrdom confirmed by the Discovery of his Body.] The Cardinals met on the Day appointed; Baronius quite silenced his Adversary; the whole Assembly was fully convinced, that Felix was no Saint, no Martyr; the Pope himself seemed to fall in with the rest, and accordingly rose up to declare, as was thought, the unhappy Felix fallen from Heaven; when a great Noise was all on a sudden heard at the Door, and immediately a Messenger entered, who, after uttering these Words, Holy Felix, pray for us, acquainted the Pope and the Cardinals, that the Body of Felix was just discovered. Hereupon they all repaired in great Haste to the Church of Cosmas and Damianus, where the miraculous Discovery had been made; and there saw, in a Marble Coffin of an extraordinary Size, on one Side the Bodies of Mark, Marcellianus, and Tranquillinus; and on the other that of Felix, with this Inscription on a Stone that lay by it, The Body of Saint Felix, who condemned Constantius[795]. Hereupon the Te Deum was sung with great Solemnity for the Triumph of Truth: Felix was declared worthy of the Veneration and Worship that had till then been paid him, and a Place was allowed him among the other Saints in the Roman Martyrology, where it is said, that he was driven from his See for defending the Catholic Faith, by Constantius an Arian Emperor, and privately put to Death at Cere, now Cervetera, in Tuscany. Baronius, transported with Joy, as he himself declares[796], at so miraculous and seasonable a Discovery, immediately yielded, not to his Antagonist Santorio, but to Felix, who had evidently interposed; and, taking that Interposition for a satisfactory Answer to all his Arguments, he immediately retracted whatever he had said, and consigned to the Flames whatever he had written in Opposition to Felix[797]. Thus, to maintain a chimerical Prerogative, they sport with Truth; betray into Error those who confide in them; and, turning the worst of Men into Saints, honour Vice with the greatest Reward they can bestow on Virtue.

[Sidenote: His Legend proved to be fabulous.]

That this pretended Discovery was nothing but a Contrivance to confirm the Martyrdom of Felix, and impose upon the World, is manifest; and that the Pontifical, and his Acts, on which his Martyrdom was originally founded, were a no less palpable and gross Imposition, may be easily demonstrated. For, in the first place, Marcellinus and Faustinus, who lived in the Time of Felix and Liberius at Rome, tell us, in express Terms, that Felix, who had been substituted to Liberius, died on the 22d of November 365[798]. that is, Four Years after the Death of Constantius, by whom he is said, in his Acts, and in the Pontifical, to have been martyred. Athanasius assures us[799], and with him agree Philostorgius[800], and the Chronicle of Alexandria[801], that Constantius was not baptized till at the Point of Death, when he received that Sacrament at the Hands of Euzoius, the Arian Bishop of Antioch. And yet both the Acts of Felix, and the Pontifical, will have him to have been twice baptized before his Death; for it was on this Account that Felix is said to have declared him an Heretic. This Declaration Baronius improves into a solemn Excommunication; and, being become, after the above-mentioned Discovery, a most zealous Advocate for Felix, tells us, that the holy Martyr was no sooner placed on the Throne of St. Peter, than, changing his Conduct, he separated himself from the Communion of those by whom he had been raised, and boldly thundered an Anathema against the Emperor himself[802]. [Sidenote: He did not excommunicate Constantius.] What a Pity that Athanasius was not better acquainted with the Conduct of Felix! for if he had, he would never have styled him a Monster placed on the See of Rome by the Malice of Antichrist. Such an Attempt, unheard of till that Time, must have made a great Noise; and yet I find it was heard by none but Baronius, who lived at so great a Distance. I may add, that there was no room for an Excommunication against Constantius, who was still a Catechumen, and consequently did not partake of the sacred Mysteries.

[Sidenote: Whether a lawful Pope or an Antipope.]

The Roman Catholic Writers, to save the Credit of Felix, maintain him to have been, at least for some time, lawful Pope. But, to confute whatever has been or can be said by them in his Favour, without entering into a Detail of the many sophistical and unconclusive Arguments, false Assertions, and groundless Suppositions, with which they endeavour to disguise the Truth, and confound their Readers, I argue thus: That Liberius was lawfully chosen, and Felix unlawfully, is past all Dispute. Now, upon the Fall of Liberius, either there was, or there was not, a new Election: if there was not, Liberius continued to be lawful Bishop; or if by his Fall he forfeited his Dignity, as some think he did, the See became vacant; for nothing subsequent to the unlawful Election of Felix could render it lawful. If there was a new Election, and Felix was lawfully chosen, Liberius from that Minute either ceased to be Pope, or there were two lawful Popes at a time. The latter they will not admit, lest they should turn the Church into a Monster with Two Heads. They must therefore allow Felix to have been lawful Pope, and Liberius an Antipope, till the See became vacant by the Death of the former. [Sidenote: Felix an Antipope.] But on the other hand, this new Election is quite groundless, highly improbable, and absolutely repugnant to what we read in the antient and contemporary Writers. It is quite groundless; for though Bellarmine speaks of a new Election with as much Confidence as if he had been one of the Electors[803], yet we find not the least Hint of it in any of the Writers of those Times, who would not have passed over in Silence so remarkable an Event, had it come to their Knowlege. It is highly improbable; for Liberius was greatly beloved by the whole People, and the far greater Part of the Clergy, and Felix hated to such a Degree, that of all the Inhabitants of Rome, not one ever appeared in the Church while he was in it[804]; nay, he was by all avoided, even in the Streets and other public Places, as if he had carried about with him a Contagion[805]. Is it not therefore altogether improbable, that the People and Clergy should depose the Man, whom in a manner they adored, for communicating with the Arians, and appoint one in his room, who likewise communicated with them, and was universally detested, avoided, and abhorred? And yet all this is gravely supposed by Bellarmine[806]. Lastly, the Election of Felix is repugnant to what we read in the antient Writers, who all speak of him as an Antipope, and an Intruder. Optatus, who lived at that very Time, and St. Austin, who flourished soon after, have not allowed him a Place in their Catalogues of the Bishops of Rome. Theodoret takes no notice of him in his Catalogue of the Bishops of the chief Cities. St. Jerom and Prosper count Liberius the Thirty-fourth Bishop of Rome, and Damasus, who succeeded him, the Thirty-fifth; a plain Indication that they did not look upon Felix as lawful Bishop. Among the Moderns, Onuphrius Panvinius, in his Lives of the Popes, printed in 1557. some Years before the Discovery of Felix’s Body, calls Novatian the First Antipope, and Felix the Second. But his Book was prohibited in 1583. the Year after the Second Canonization of Felix. The Writers, who came after, took Warning; and such of them as thought it base to concur in deceiving Mankind, since it was not safe to undeceive them, chose to wave this Subject, but not without giving some broad Hints of what they believed in their Hearts. Thus F. Labbé[807], and Cardinal Bona[808], take no notice of this Felix, but call Pope Felix, who was raised to the See of Rome in 485. the Second Pope of that Name. Felix I. was martyred under Aurelian in 274. as we have related elsewhere[809]. F. Labbé, at the Death of Felix II. which happened in 492. adds, that he was the Third of that Name, according to Baronius[810]. [Sidenote: Acknowleged as such by some Roman Catholic Writers.] Had Felix never been canonized, no Man would have been so regardless of his own Reputation as to undertake his Defence; but Gregory having declared him a Saint, and, by such a Declaration, linked his Cause with Infallibility in a most essential Point, the hired Champions of that See found themselves under an indispensable Obligation of entering the Lists; which I need not say they have done to no Purpose.

[Sidenote: The Emperor undertakes the establishing of Arianism.]

The Fall of the Bishop of Rome, who was at the Head of the Orthodox Party, inspired the Emperor with great Hopes of succeeding in the Design he had formed of utterly abolishing the Orthodox Faith: he found there were but few Bishops whose Virtue was Proof against the Frowns and Resentment of the Court. In the Council held at Arles in 353. they had all to a Man chosen rather to communicate with the Arians, than be driven from their Sees: in that which was convened Two Years after, at Milan, only Three Bishops were found, viz. Dionysius Bishop of that City, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Eusebius of Vercelli, who, equally unmoved by Threats and Promises, had maintained the Truth with the Loss of their Dignity. The Example of the Bishop of Rome had been followed by the far greater Part of the Bishops of Italy. But what above all encouraged the Emperor to pursue the Scheme he had so much at heart, was the Fall of the celebrated Osius Bishop of Cordoua, in the Hundredth Year of his Age, and Sixty-second of his Episcopacy. As the Name of Osius is one of the most famous in the Ecclesiastical History of those Times, and his Fall is alleged by the Antients as a memorable Instance of the Weakness of human Nature, however strengthened and improved by a long Practice of the most eminent Virtues, a succinct Account of so remarkable an Event will not, I hope, be unacceptable to the Reader, or thought foreign to the Subject in hand.

[Sidenote: A succinct Account of the Life of Osius Bishop of Cordoua.]

Osius was a Native of Spain[811], born, according to some, in Cordoua, about the Year 256. and raised, in regard of his extraordinary Merit, to the See of that City in 295[812]. He was even then conspicuous for the Firmness of his Faith, and the Purity of his Life, says Sozomen[813]. Athanasius, who was well acquainted with him, speaks of him with the greatest Respect and Esteem, calling him a Man truly holy, according to the Greek Signification of his Name; one in whose Conduct even his most inveterate Enemies could discover nothing that was not commendable, his Life being irreprehensible, and his Reputation unspotted[814]. Theodoret[815], and Eusebius[816], extol him on Account of his extraordinary Prudence, Wisdom, and Learning, which gave great Weight to his Opinion in the many Councils at which he assisted, and often presided. In the Year 300. he was present at the Council of Eliberis, or Illeberis, in Spain, famous for the Severity of its Canons; and, in all Likelihood, made even then a considerable Figure; since, in the Acts of that Council, he is named in the Second Place after Felix of Acci, now Guadix, in Andalusia, who probably presided[817]. [Sidenote: He is imprisoned under Maximian for the Confession of the Faith.] Three Years after broke out the Persecution of Maximian Hercules, in which Osius distinguished himself by his Zeal, his Constancy, and his Sufferings; for, having with great Intrepidity confessed his Faith before the Pagan Magistrates, he was by them imprisoned, and kept under a very close and painful Confinement for the Space of Two Years, that is, from the Year 303. to 305. when, upon the Abdication of Maximian and Dioclesian, he was set at Liberty by Constantius Chlorus, the Father of Constantine the Great[818]. He is honoured by Athanasius[819], by the Council of Sardica, and by most of the Antients, with the Title of Confessor, which was given to such as had suffered Imprisonment, Torments, or Exile, but had not died, for the Confession of the Faith. He was highly esteemed and revered by Constantine, not only as a Confessor, but as a Person of extraordinary Wisdom and Probity[820]; whence he is thought to have been one of the Prelates whom that Prince consulted in 311[821]. and kept with him to instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion. [Sidenote: He instructs Constantine.] Some think that Osius was meant by the Egyptian Priest come from Spain, to whom Zosimus ascribes the Change made by Constantine in point of Religion[822]. The Church of Cordoua was, out of Regard to him, enriched by Constantine with many valuable Presents, whence he is said to have been very rich[823]. But what Use he made of his Wealth we may learn from Athanasius, who assures us, that no one in Want ever applied to him without being relieved, and receiving the Supply he demanded[824]. In the famous Dispute, which I have taken notice of in its proper Place, between Cæcilianus and the Donatists of Africa, Osius undertook, with great Zeal, the Defence of the former, and prevailed in the End upon Constantine to espouse his Cause, and declare against the Donatists[825], whom he thenceforth punished with great Severity, taking their Churches from them, and sending the most obstinate among them into Exile. Constantine being become Master of the East in the Year 323. his first Care was to put an End to the unhappy Divisions that reigned in those Churches about the Celebration of Easter, and some other controverted Points. [Sidenote: He is sent by him to compose some Disputes there.] With this View he dispatched Osius into the East, who, upon his Arrival there, summoned a Council to meet at Alexandria, which, under his Influence, condemned the Heresy of Sabellius, put a Stop to the Schism of one Colluthus, and greatly allayed the Animosity of the contending Parties about the Day on which Easter was to be kept[826]. On his Return to Court, the Account he gave of the Arians, whose Heresy he had endeavoured in vain to suppress, made so deep an Impression in the Mind of the Emperor, that, for a long time, he continued highly prejudiced against them[827]. It was at the Suggestion of Osius that Constantine assembled the Council of Nice in 325. at which he assisted, and distinguished himself above the rest[828]; for of all Councils he was the Head and Leader, as Athanasius styles him[829]. [Sidenote: He assists at the Council of Nice and draws up the Nicene Creed.] By him was worded and drawn up the famous Nicene Symbol or Creed, as we are told in express Terms by Athanasius[830]. He presided at the Council of Sardica, which, at his Request, was assembled by the Emperor Constans in 347[831]. From that Council he retired to his Bishoprick, and continued there undisturbed till the Year 355. when Constantius seeing himself Master of the West, as well as of the East, undertook to oblige all the Bishops to condemn Athanasius, whose Cause was looked upon as inseparable from that of the Orthodox Faith. As Osius had on all Occasions declared highly in his Favour, and the Example of a Prelate so venerable for his Age, for the glorious Title of Confessor, and the Figure he had made for many Years in the Church, greatly prejudiced the World against the Enemies of the persecuted Bishop, the Emperor resolved to deprive, if possible, the Orthodox Party of so powerful a Support. [Sidenote: Constantius attempts in vain to gain him over to the Arian Party.] With this View he ordered Osius to repair to Milan, where the Court then was, well knowing that he was not, like most other Bishops, to be terrified with threatening Letters. Osius, in Compliance with the Emperor’s Orders, set out without Delay from Cordoua, notwithstanding his great Age; and, arriving at Milan, was there received by the Emperor with all the Respect that was due to the Father of Bishops, as he was styled. Constantius entertained him for some Days with the utmost Civility, hoping by that means to bring him into his Views; but he no sooner named Athanasius to him, than the zealous Prelate, well knowing the Drift of his Discourse, and armed against all Temptations, interrupted him with declaring, that he was ready to sacrifice not one, but a Thousand Lives, in so just a Cause; nay, he even reprimanded the Emperor with great Freedom, who, out of an awful Reverence for a Prelate of his Years, Authority, and Figure, heard him with great Patience, and not only forbore offering him any Violence, but gave him Leave to return unmolested to his See[832].

[Sidenote: His second Attempt to gain him.]

The mild Treatment Osius met with gave great Uneasiness to the Arian Party, especially to the Two Bishops, Ursacius and Valens, who thereupon never ceased soliciting the Emperor to proceed with Vigour against the only Man, who, they said, was capable of obstructing his great and pious Designs. They were powerfully seconded by the Eunuchs, who prevailed in the End upon the Emperor, as they bore a great Sway at Court, to try anew the Firmness and Constancy of so celebrated a Champion. Constantius therefore writ several Letters to him, treating him in some with great Respect, and styling him his Father, but menacing him in others, and naming to him the Bishops, whom he had banished for refusing to condemn a Man whom most Bishops, and several Councils, had already condemned[833]. [Sidenote: His Letter to the Emperor.] Osius, inflexible and unmoved, answered the Emperor by a Letter worthy of himself, and the great Reputation he had acquired. It has been conveyed to us by Athanasius, and nothing can be said stronger in that Bishop’s Defence; for he there shews unanswerably, that, whatever Crimes might be alleged against him, his only Guilt was a steady Adherence to the Faith of Nice[834]. [Sidenote: He is sent to Sirmium.] But Constantius, without hearkening to the Reasons he urged in Justification of his own and Athanasius’s Conduct, without paying the least Regard to the earnest Prayers and Intreaties, to the paternal Exhortations and Admonitions, of so venerable a Prelate, ordered him to quit his See forthwith, and repair to Sirmium, where he was kept a whole Year in a kind of Exile. But, unaffected with the many Hardships he suffered there, with the Loss of his Dignity, with the inhuman Treatment of his Relations, who were all persecuted, stripped of their Estates, and reduced to Beggary on his Account, Osius still stood up in Defence of Athanasius, still rejected with Indignation the Proposals of his Enemies[835], striving to induce him at least to communicate with them. They therefore resolved to proceed to open Force, and either to gain over to their Party a Man of his Figure and Rank, or, by removing him out of the Way, to deprive the Orthodox of their main Support[836]. [Sidenote: Confined and racked.] Accordingly, with the Emperor’s Consent and Approbation, they caused him first to be closely confined, and afterwards to be cruelly beaten; and lastly to be put to the Rack, and most inhumanly tortured, as if he had been the worst of Criminals[837]. [Sidenote: He yields at last.] Even against such exquisite Torments the Firmness of his Mind was proof for some time; but the Weakness of his Body obliged him in a manner to yield at last, and communicate with Ursacius and Valens[838]. Athanasius seems to insinuate in some Places, that he signed his Condemnation[839]; but in another he expresly denies it[840]. Sulpitius Severus thinks he was guilty of no other Crime but that of communicating with the Arians[841]. Athanasius only says, that he consented to communicate with Ursacius and Valens[842]. [Sidenote: He signs the Sirmian Confession of Faith.] However, that he did not stop there, but signed the Arian Confession of Sirmium, is but too manifest from several unexceptionable and contemporary Writers. Phœbadius Bishop of Agen, in France, in his Answer written at this very Time to the Arians, bragging that their Doctrine had been approved and embraced by the great Osius, allows the Fact; but adds, that he was induced thereunto by Force, and not Conviction[843]. Marcellinus and Faustinus, who writ at the same time, say, that Osius set his Hand, but never yielded his Heart, to the Arian Impiety[844]. Nay, Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers supposes the Sirmian Confession of Faith to have been drawn up by Osius and Potamus; for he often calls it, The Heresy, the Blasphemies, the wild and mad Conceits of Osius and Potamus[845]. Vigilius Tapsensis ranks Osius with Ursacius, and the other wicked Men, who composed the sacrilegious Confession of Sirmium[846]. Socrates writes, that he signed the Sirmian Symbol[847]; Sozomen, that he consented to the Suppression of the Words Omoousion, and Omoiousion[848]; and Eusebius of Vercelli bestows high Encomiums on Gregory Bishop of Elvira, for opposing the great Transgressor Osius[849]. Potamus, whom I have mentioned above, was Bishop of Lisbone, and a most sanguine Stickler for the Orthodox Party; but upon the Emperor’s yielding to him some Lands of the Imperial Demesne, that lay very convenient for him, he changed Sides, and became a most zealous Champion of the Arian Doctrine[850]; insomuch that he is ranked by Phœbadius with Ursacius and Valens, the Two great Apostles of the Arians[851].

[Sidenote: The Arians Triumph.]

The Fall of the great Osius, whom the Orthodox Party looked upon as their invincible Hero, surprised the whole World[852]. Some could not believe it; others ascribed it to his great Age, which might have weakened his Judgment[853]. It was immediately published all over the East, and great Rejoicings were made on the Occasion, by the Bishops in those Parts, who looked upon such a Conquest as a signal Victory over the Orthodox[854]. Phœbadius tells us, that the chief Argument alleged by the Arians, in favour of their Doctrine, against the Bishops of Gaul, was the Conversion of Osius, as they styled it[855]. Here Davidius pleases himself with ridiculing, and indeed very justly, this and several other Conversions, greatly boasted by the Arians; but he must give me Leave to put him in mind, that he ridicules, at the same time, the many Conversions which his Church is constantly boasting, since most of them, especially those thus made in the new World, have been owing to Arguments of the same Nature as that of Osius, and other Arian Proselytes, and were not perhaps at all more sincere. [Sidenote: Hilarius not well informed as to the Circumstances of his Fall.] Hilarius, Bishop of Poitiers, who lived at this time in Exile, amidst the Arians in Phrygia, seems not to be well informed as to the Circumstances of the Fall of Osius; else he had made some Allowance for the barbarous and inhuman Treatment the unhappy Prelate met with, and not reflected on him with so much Bitterness and Severity, saying, that it had pleased God to prolong his Life till he fell, that the World might know what he had been before he fell[856]. That a Man in the Hundredth Year of his Age should yield to most exquisite and repeated Torments, is not at all to be wondered at; and therefore had Hilarius been better informed, he had rather pitied than reproached him. But the Arians, among whom he lived, took care to conceal whatever could any ways depreciate their boasted Victory: at least that Hilarius was a Stranger to what Osius had suffered, is manifest, from his ascribing the Fall of that great Prelate not to the Cruelty of his Enemies, but to the too great Love he had for his Sepulchre[857], meaning, I suppose, the Desire he had of dying in his native Country, and not in Exile.

[Sidenote: He is restored to his See.]

Osius having thus gratified the Emperor, by communicating with the Arians, and signing the Sirmian Confession of Faith, he was immediately reinstated in his See, and suffered to return to his native Country, where he gave some Trouble, it seems, to the Orthodox Bishops; for Gregory Bishop of Elvira is highly commended by Eusebius of Vercelli, who lived then in Exile, for opposing the Transgressor Osius, as I have observed above. The unfortunate Prelate did not live long after his Fall, but died in the Latter-end of the same Year 357. according to the most probable Opinion. He did not forget the Crime he had committed, says Athanasius[858]; but grievously complained, at the Point of Death, of the Violence that had been offered him, anathematized the Heresy of Arius, and exhorted, as by his last Will, all Mankind to reject it[859]. To his Repentance Athanasius, no doubt, alludes, where he writes, that Osius yielded only for a time[860]; which he says of no other, not even of Liberius. As for the Account, which some Writers give of his tragical End[861], it is not worthy of Notice. The Greek Church honours him as a Saint, and his Festival is kept on the 27th of August[862]; but they are certainly mistaken in supposing him to have died in Banishment. The Case of Osius deserves, without all Doubt, to be greatly pitied. But it would be still more worthy of our Pity and Compassion, had he been himself an Enemy to all Persecution. But it must be observed, that he was the Author and Promoter of the First Christian Persecution. For it was he who first stirred up Constantine against the Donatists; many of whom were sent into Exile, and some even sentenced to Death, nay, and led to the Place of Execution. I dare not interpret the very severe Treatment he met with, or his Fall and Apostasy, as a Judgment; but cannot help thinking him, on that Consideration, less worthy of our Compassion and Concern, than a Man of his Years and Merit would otherwise have been.

[Sidenote: Constantius appoints a Council to meet at Nicomedia;]

Constantius, having thus gained over to the Heterodox Party the celebrated Bishop of Cordoua, and sent those into Exile, whom he apprehended most capable of traversing his Design, resolved to assemble a Council, not doubting but he should be able, by some means or other, to prevail upon the Members, that composed it, to approve and embrace the Doctrine, which he was labouring with indefatigable Pains to establish. Accordingly he writ to the chief Bishops of each Province, injoining them to meet in the Name of the rest, at an appointed Time, in the City of Nicomedia[863]. [Sidenote: which City is destroyed by an Earthquake.] In Compliance with his Orders the Bishops immediately set out; but, while they were on the Road, they were stopped by the News that was brought them of the utter Destruction of the City of Nicomedia by a sudden and most dreadful Earthquake. This public Calamity happened on the 24th of August 358[864]. and the Arians, in the Account which they transmitted of it to Court, assured the Emperor, that several Bishops, who were for Consubstantiality, had been buried under the Ruins of the great Church[865]. It was probably, by this Account, that Philostorgius was deceived and misled, when he writ, that Fifteen Bishops, who were all Defenders of Consubstantiality, were crushed to Pieces by the Fall of the Church, together with Cecrops Bishop of the City[866]. But Sozomen assures us, that, when the Church fell, there was not a single Person in it; and that Two Bishops only perished in the Earthquake, viz. Cecrops, who was an Arian, and a Bishop of Bosporus[867]. [Sidenote: The Council appointed to meet at Nice.] This Misfortune obliged the Emperor to change the Place of the Council; and accordingly Letters were immediately dispatched to all the Bishops, ordering them to repair to Nice, which City was suggested to him by Basilius, the Semi-Arian Bishop of Ancyra, with a Design, says Theodoret[868], to eclipse the Glory and Authority of the First Council by the Confusion of Two. Be that as it will, the Bishops were ordered to meet there early in the Summer of the Year 359. Such as were not in a Condition to undertake such a Journey, on account of their Age or Infirmities, were to send Priests or Deacons, as their Deputies, to vote and act in their Name; and the Council was strictly injoined to transmit to the Emperor such Decrees as they should enact, that he might examine them, and see whether they were agreeable to Scripture: for this Purpose Ten Deputies were to be appointed by the Bishops of the East, and the like Number by those of the West[869]. [Sidenote: Two Councils appointed to meet instead of one.] But while the World was expecting to see a second Oecumenical Council assembled at Nice, the Emperor all on a sudden changed his Mind, and instead of one, resolved to convene Two, the one in the East, and the other in the West[870]. This Change was owing to the Intrigues of the Anomeans, or Pure Arians, who, finding the far greater Part of the Bishops either for the Orthodox Faith of Nice, or, the Semi-Arian, as established in a Council at Antioch, concluded, that there would be no Means to divert them, when assembled together, from condemning their Doctrine; whereas if they were divided, they did not despair of being able to manage both Assemblies, or at least one of the Two[871]. This Design of dividing the Council they privately imparted to the Eunuch Eusebius, their great Friend, and the Emperor’s chief Favourite, who, highly applauding the Scheme, took upon him to get it approved by Constantius. [Sidenote: The Occasion of this Change.] And this he easily effected, by representing, that a General Council would put the Bishops to greater Trouble and Inconveniences than most of them could well bear, and, at the same time, the Treasury to an immense Charge; for on such Occasions their Expences were defrayed by the Emperor[872]. He therefore advised him to assemble Two Councils at the same time, one in the East, and the other in the West, which, he said, would be less troublesome to the Bishops, and less expensive to the Exchequer. To these Reasons Constantius acquiesced; but, as he was a zealous Semi-Arian, Eusebius kept him in the Dark, as to the true Motive of such a Change. Thus was Constantius, and thus have many Princes been, since his Time, led, as it were, hoodwinked, by some in whom they reposed an intire Confidence, into Measures tending to promote Designs quite opposite to their own.

[Sidenote: Rimini chosen for the Western Bishops;]

This Point being settled, to the great Satisfaction of the Anomeans, Ariminum, now Rimini, on the Adriatic Sea, was thought the most proper Place for the Western Bishops to meet at. But the City of Nice, where the General Council was to assemble, having suffered much by the late Earthquake, the Emperor desired the Eastern Bishops might not meet there, but in whatever other Place they should agree among themselves to be the most proper and convenient[873]. This Theodoret ascribes to a particular Providence, that would not suffer the great Council of Nice to be ever confounded with a Conventicle of Heretics[874]. [Sidenote: and Seleucia in Isauria for those of the East.] As the Bishops could not agree about the Place, and it was not at all probable they should, the Emperor, by the Advice of a few, who were then with him at Sirmium, named the City of Seleucia in Isauria[875]. And now that the Place was settled for both Councils, Constantius issued an Order, injoining not only the chief Bishops of each Province, as he had done the Year before, but all, without Exception, to repair to one of the Two[876]; nay, he dispatched Officers into the Provinces, with a strict Charge to see his Order punctually obeyed, and put in Execution[877]. The Bishops therefore set out from all Parts; the public Carriages, Roads, and Houses, were every-where crouded with them; which gave great Offence to the Catechumens, and no small Diversion to the Pagans, who thought it equally strange and ridiculous, that Men, who had been brought up from their Infancy in the Christian Religion, and whose Business it was to instruct others in that Belief, should be constantly hurrying, in their old Age, from one Place to another, to know what they themselves should believe[878]. Ammianus Marcellinus complains, that the necessary Funds for the Maintenance of the public Carriages were quite drained and exhausted, by the roaming about of the Christian Bishops[879]. Their Charges were defrayed by the Emperor, as I have observed above; but the Bishops of Gaul and Britain, that they might be the more independent, insisted upon travelling at their own Expence; only Three of the latter, not having wherewithal to support themselves, chose rather to be obliged to the Emperor than burdensome to their Collegues, who generously offered to contribute to their Maintenance, every one according to his Ability[880].

The Western Bishops, that is, those of Illyricum, Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Britain, being assembled at Rimini, in all 400 and upwards[881], the Emperor writ to Taurus, the Præfectus Prætorio of Italy, charging him to be present at all the Debates, and not to suffer the Bishops to separate, till, in Points of Faith, they had all agreed: if he succeeded therein, he was to be rewarded with the Consular Dignity[882]. [Sidenote: The Emperor’s Letter to the Western Bishops.] At the same time he writ to the Bishops, injoining them to treat only of such Matters as related to the Faith, Unity, and Order of the Church, and forbidding them to meddle, on any Pretence whatsoever, with what concerned the Eastern Bishops, who, he said, would take care to settle their own Affairs, since they were met for that Purpose[883]. This was to prevent their entering upon the Cause of Athanasius, whom he well knew the Western Bishops would have declared innocent. The Emperor’s Letter is dated the 27th of May 359[884]. At this Council Restitutus Bishop of Carthage is supposed to have presided, as he was, both for Piety and Learning, the most conspicuous in the Assembly. [Sidenote: The Arians propose a new Confession drawn up at Sirmium;] At their first Meeting, the Two Arian Bishops, Ursacius and Valens, appeared with a Paper in their Hands, containing a new Confession of Faith, composed lately at Sirmium by the Emperor, by a small Number of Arian and Semi-Arian Bishops, and several Presbyters and Deacons, who, after a Debate, which lasted the whole Day, had at length agreed to suppress the Word Consubstantial; and introduce the Word like in its room; so that the Son was no more to be said consubstantial, but like to the Father in all Things; the Three last Words Constantius added, and, by obliging all who were present to sign them, defeated, say the Semi-Arians, the wicked Designs of the Heretics, meaning the Pure Arians[885]. However, excepting those Words, the whole Confession was thought to favour their Doctrine[886]; whence the Semi-Arians held out till Night, when the Emperor, well satisfied with the Words like in all things, obliged them to sign it. This Confession of Faith was drawn up, and signed, on the Eve of Pentecost[887], that is, on the 22d or 23d of May 359[888]. Easter having fallen that Year on the 4th of April[889][N17]. Ursacius and Valens read it to the Council, adding, when they had done, that it had been approved of by the Emperor, and therefore that they ought all to be satisfied with it, without recurring to any other Councils or Creeds, without demanding any other Confession of the Heretics, or inquiring too narrowly into their Doctrine and Opinions, which would be attended with much Trouble, endless Disputes, and eternal Divisions; that the Catholic Truths, which all Men were bound to believe, ought not to be darkened with Metaphysical Terms, but expressed by Words, which all Men understood; and, lastly, that it was quite idle to quarrel and make so much Noise about a Word (meaning the Word consubstantial) which none of the inspired Writers had thought fit to make use of in explaining the Mysteries of our holy Religion[890]. What Answer the Council returned, I can find no-where recorded. But a Motion being made soon after to condemn and anathematize the Arian and all other Heresies, Ursacius and his Party opposed it; which alarmed the Orthodox Bishops, concluding from thence, that whatever Expressions they made use of, their Belief was different from that of the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: which is rejected;] They therefore resolved to hearken to them no longer; and accordingly, without the least Regard to their Remonstrances and Protestations, they condemned, with one Consent, all Heresies in general, and that of Arius in particular; declared heretical the Confession of Faith presented by Ursacius and Valens; confirmed that of Nice, and ordered the Word consubstantial to be retained, since the true Meaning of it might be sufficiently gathered from several Passages in Scripture[891]. [Sidenote: and they condemned and deposed.] They did not stop here; but, transported with Zeal on the Arians attempting to impose upon them by a Second Confession of Faith, they declared them all, and their Leaders Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, and Caius, by Name, ignorant and deceitful Men, Impostors, Heretics, deposed them in the Council, and signed all to a Man this Declaration on the 21st of July of the present Year 359[892].

-----

Footnote N17:

It was signed by the few Bishops, who were present, and by a good Number of Presbyters and Deacons. The Bishops were Marcus of Arethusa, George, who had been intruded into the See of Alexandria, Basilius of Ancyra, Germinius of Sirmium, Hypatianus of Heraclea, Valens, Ursacius, and Pancratius of Pelusium[N17.1]. Valens, in signing it, added to his Name these Words; I believe the Son to be like to the Father. He was unwilling to acknowlege the Son like to the Father in all things, agreeably to the Confession, which he was to sign, and therefore suppressed these Words. But the Emperor insisting upon his adding them, he took his Will for the Rule of his Faith, and added them accordingly. Basilius of Ancyra, suspecting some Meaning contrary to the Doctrine which he held, to lie concealed and disguised under those Words, declared, that he understood by them a Likeness in Substance, in Existence, and in Essence; and that he signed in this, and no other Sense, the present Symbol. Not satisfied with this Declaration, he writ, some time after, an Exposition of the Faith that was professed by him, and the other Semi-Arian Bishops. This Exposition is, by Epiphanius, styled a Letter, and was placed by him after the circular Letter of the Council of Ancyra. The present Confession of Sirmium is commonly styled the Third, but was, properly speaking, the Fourth: For before this, Three different Symbols had been composed at Sirmium; viz. one intirely Orthodox, in 351. another altogether Arian, in 357. a Third Semi-Arian, in 358. and the present in 359. The Second Liberius signed at Berœa, and the Third at Sirmium, upon his Arrival in that City.

Footnote N17.1:

Athan. de syn. p. 873. Epi. 73. c. 22. Socr. l. 2. c. 29.

-----

[Sidenote: Deputies sent by the Council to the Emperor;]

With this Act they put an End to the Sessions, and immediately dispatched Ten Deputies to acquaint the Emperor with what had passed, pursuant to his express Command. The like Number was sent by the Arians, who had assisted at the Council. These, traveling with great Expedition, arrived at Constantinople, where the Court then was, some time before the others; and, being immediately admitted to the Emperor, they prejudiced him to such a Degree against the Orthodox Party, that he would not so much as see their Deputies, pretending to be wholly taken up with the Affairs of the State. They were therefore obliged to deliver the Letter, which the Council had written on this Occasion, to one of his Ministers[893]. They expected every Day to be admitted to an Audience, or, at least, to receive an Answer, and be dismissed. [Sidenote: who leaves Constantinople without seeing them.] But, after they had been thus kept for some time in Expectation, the Emperor all on a sudden left Constantinople, in order to head his Army against the Barbarians, who had broken into the Empire. He was no sooner gone than one of the Ministers came to acquaint them, that it was the Emperor’s Pleasure they should repair forthwith to Adrianople, and there wait his Return[894]. However, before he set out, he writ to the Council, giving them notice of his sudden Departure from Constantinople; and alleging, by way of Excuse for not having seen or heard their Deputies, the present Situation of public Affairs, which had engrossed his whole Attention, whereas, the discussing and settling of spiritual Affairs required a Mind quite free and disengaged from all worldly Cares. [Sidenote: He endeavours to tire their Patience with Delays.] He concluded his short Letter with intreating them not to think of separating till he was at Leisure to settle, in Conjunction with them, Matters of so great Importance to the Church, and the whole Christian World[895]. The Design of the most wicked Constantius, as Athanasius styles him[896], was to tire out the Bishops with such Delays, hoping they would, in the End, chuse rather to sign the last Sirmian Confession, which he was bent upon establishing in the room of the Nicene, than to be long kept, as it were, in Exile, at a Distance from their Sees[897]. But this he could not compass for the present, the Bishops declaring, in their Answer to his Letter, that they could not, and hoped they never should, upon any Consideration whatsoever, depart from what they had so unanimously settled and decreed[898]. Socrates writes, that the Bishops, after having waited some time in vain for the Emperor’s Answer to their Letter, left Rimini, and retired to their respective Sees[899]. And here he ends his Account of that Council. It were greatly to be wished, that nothing else could be said of it; but several contemporary and unexceptionable Writers, and Hilarius among the rest[900], assure us, that Constantius changed at last the Faith of the Western Bishops into Impiety. Of this deplorable Change they give us the following Account.

[Sidenote: Their Deputies ordered to Nice in Thrace;]

The Arians, taking Occasion from the last Letter of the Bishops at Rimini to incense Constantius against them, prevailed upon him to order their Deputies to a City in Thrace, known at that Time by the Name of Nice, but formerly called Ostudizus, and placed by Sanson a few Leagues to the East of Adrianople. This Place they chose, that the Symbol, which they designed to impose upon them, might be confounded by the ignorant People with that of the great Council of Nice in Bithynia[901]. The Deputies no sooner arrived there, than a Confession of Faith was proposed to them intirely agreeable to the last made at Sirmium, except that in this new Creed the Son was declared like to the Father, without the Addition of the Words in all Things. This they rejected at first with great Resolution and Intrepidity; but the Arians were no less resolute, and therefore left nothing unattempted they could think of to carry their Point[902]. But finding Hope and Fear, Threats and Promises, equally ineffectual, they proceeded at last to open Force and Violence[903]. What Kind of Violence was employed against them, the Author does not tell us; but Marcellinus and Faustinus ascribe their retracting what they had declared to be holy, and approving what they had condemned as impious, to the Love of their Sees, and the Dread they were in of being driven from them[904]. [Sidenote: where they sign the Sirmian Confession.] Be that as it will, it is certain, that they yielded at last; that they accepted and signed, without the least Limitation or Restriction, the above-mentioned Confession of Faith; consented to the Suppression of the Word Consubstantial; declared void and null all the Acts and Proceedings of the Council of Rimini; anathematized, as heretical, all Opinions contrary to the Doctrine contained in the said Confession; and, finally, admitted to their Communion Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, and Caius, whom they had not long before deposed as Heretics[905]. Restitutus, Bishop of Carthage, and one of the most eminent Prelates at that Time in the Church, signed the first, and the other Deputies after him, according to the Dignity of their Sees. The Emperor, transported with Joy at the News of their Compliance, which he looked upon as a signal Victory, gave them immediately Leave to return to Rimini. At the same time he wrote to Taurus, charging him anew not to suffer the Bishops to depart till they had all signed the same Confession of Faith, and impowering him to send into Exile such as by their Obstinacy should distinguish themselves above the rest, provided they were not above Fifteen in Number[906]. [Sidenote: Constantius orders the Bishops at Rimini to suppress the Words Substance and Consubstantial.] He likewise writ to the Bishops, commanding them, on Pain of incurring his Indignation, to suppress for ever the Words Substance and Consubstantial, severely reprimanding them for presuming to depose Ursacius and his Collegues, and assuring them, that they should not be allowed to return to their Sees, till they had intitled themselves to his Favour by an intire and unreserved Compliance with his Will[907]. To this Letter the Arians, who had assisted at the Council, to the Number of Eighty, returned a most submissive Answer, and even thanked the Emperor for the great Pains he took to establish the true Doctrine[908]. However, Taurus declared that he could by no means suffer them to depart till the rest had agreed with them, and the whole Assembly was of one Mind. The orthodox Bishops shewed at first some Resolution, and even refused to communicate with their own Deputies. But this Resolution soon vanished; they were eager to return to their Sees; the Emperor was inflexible; Taurus took care to render the Place both inconvenient and disagreeable to them. [Sidenote: The greater Part yield.] Some therefore fell off, others followed their Example, the rest began to waver, and, being so far got the better of, yielded soon after, and went over to the Arian Party in such Crouds, that in a very short time the Number of the orthodox Bishops, who continued steady, was reduced to 20[909]. At the Head of these was Phœbadius, the celebrated Bishop of Agen, who seemed invincible; but nevertheless was overcome in the End, not by the Menaces of the Emperor, or his Prefect, but by the Craft and Subtilty of Ursacius and Valens, who, finding they could by no other Means prevail upon him to accept the Sirmian Confession, declared, that to put an End to the unhappy Divisions that had so long rent the Church, they had at last resolved to agree to such Alterations and Additions as should be judged proper and necessary by him and his Collegues. This Declaration was received by all with great Joy: Phœbadius triumphed, thinking he had carried his Point, and saved the Reputation of the Council. [Sidenote: The others imposed upon by the Arians.] To the Symbol were immediately added several Anathemas against the Arian Heresy, and an Article declaring the Son equal to the Father, without Beginning, and before all Time. When this Article was read, Valens desired, that, in order to leave no room for new Disputes or Chicanery, they would add, that the Son was not a Creature like other Creatures[910]. This was evidently supposing the Son to be a Creature only exalted above all other Creatures; so that by admitting such an Article they condemned the Doctrine which they designed to establish, and established that which they designed to condemn. And yet of this neither was Phœbadius aware, nor any of his Party, as they afterwards solemnly declared[911]. A most unaccountable Oversight, and hardly credible! But Theodoret[912], Ambrose[913], Sulpitius Severus[914], and Fulgentius[915], took it upon their Word, and so must we. Neither Party could brag of the Victory; for the Arians had anathematized the Heresy of Arius; and on the other hand the orthodox Bishops had deliberately agreed to the suppressing of the Words Substance and Consubstantial, and inadvertently acknowleged the Son to be a Creature; which was all the Arians aimed at, or could desire. The Council being thus ended, new Deputies were sent to acquaint the Emperor with what had passed, who being highly pleased with the Report made by Ursacius and Valens (for they were at the Head of the Deputation) immediately granted the Bishops Leave to return to their respective Sees, after they had been about Four Months at Rimini.

The Council no sooner broke up than the Arians began to proclaim aloud the Victory they had gained, bragging, that it had not been defined in the Council of Rimini, that the Son was not a Creature, but only that he was not like other Creatures; and declaring it was, and had always been their Opinion, that the Son was no more like the Father, than a Piece of Glass was like an Emerald[916]. [Sidenote: They discover their Mistake.] Phœbadius, and the other Bishops who had adhered to him, were returned to their Sees with great Joy, flattering themselves that they had sufficiently established the Catholic Doctrine, and prevented all future Disputes: but, finding that the Arians pretended their Tenets had been confirmed by this very Council, and seriously reflecting on the Articles, which they themselves had agreed to, they discovered at last how grosly they had been imposed upon, and publicly retracted all they had said, done, or signed, repugnant to the Truths of the Catholic Church[917]. However, Gregory Bishop of Elvira refused to communicate with any of the Bishops who had assisted at the Council of Rimini, and was on that account commended by Eusebius of Vercelli[918]. [Sidenote: Are judged Guilty by the exiled Bishops.] The exiled Bishops, and those who lay concealed, agreed among themselves by Letters, to declare them for ever incapable of performing any Episcopal or Sacerdotal Functions, and to admit them to the Communion of the Church only in the Capacity of Laymen[919]. When Peace was restored to the Church by the Death of Constantius in 361. most of the orthodox Bishops were for deposing all those of the Council of Rimini, and placing others in their room. But this Sentence the People would not suffer to be put in Execution, rising every-where in Defence of their Pastors, and in some Places insulting, beating, and even killing, those who came to depose them[920].

[Sidenote: Great Disagreement in the Council of Seleucia.]

As for the Council of Seleucia, it met on the 27th of September 359. and consisted only of One hundred and Sixty Bishops, all Arians, or Semi-Arians, except Twelve or Thirteen orthodox Bishops from Egypt[921]. This Assembly Gregory Nazianzen calls the Tower of Calane, or Babel, the Council of Caiaphas[922]. And indeed with a great deal of Reason; for nothing was there seen but Tumult, Confusion, and Disorder. The Anomeans and Semi-Arians appeared so irreconcilably incensed against each other, and carried on their Debates with so much Animosity and Bitterness, that the Quæstor Leonas, whom the Emperor had appointed to assist at the Council, thinking it impossible they should ever agree in any one Point, rose up at their Fourth Meeting, while they were in the Heat of the Dispute, and, withdrawing abruptly, put an End to that Session, nay, and to the Council; for, being invited the next Day, the First of October, to the Assembly, he refused to go, saying, that he did not conceive his Presence to be at all necessary, since they might quarrel and scold as much as they pleased without him[923]. This he did, says Sozomen, to favour the Anomeans, who thence took Occasion to absent themselves from the Council, which, as it was chiefly composed of Semi-Arians, seemed determined to condemn their Doctrine[924]. [Sidenote: The Semi-Arians condemn and depose the Arians.] However, the Semi-Arians met by themselves; and, finding they could by no means prevail upon the Anomeans to return to the Council, they condemned their Doctrine as heretical and blasphemous, excommunicated and deposed the leading Men of their Party, appointed others in their room, and gave Notice thereof to their respective Churches[925]. Before they broke up, they dispatched Ten Deputies to acquaint the Emperor with the Transactions of the Council. But the Bishops whom they had deposed, arriving at Court before them, and being by their Friends there immediately introduced to Constantius, they prejudiced him against the Council of Seleucia to such a Degree, that it was some time before he could prevail upon himself to hear the Deputies. [Sidenote: They sign the last Confession of Sirmium.] However, he heard them at last, and, by threatening them with Exile if they did not comply, obliged them to sign the last Confession of Sirmium, which had been rejected by the Council as Arian[926]. In this he spent the whole Day, and great Part of the Night, preceding the First of January, though he was obliged to make the necessary Preparations for entering on that Day his Tenth Consulate with the usual Pomp and Solemnity[927].

[Sidenote: The Arians,in their Turn, condemn and depose the Semi-Arians, and also sign the last Confession of Sirmium.]

In the Beginning of the Year 360. the Anomeans assembling by themselves at Constantinople as the Semi-Arians had done at Seleucia, in order to ingratiate themselves with the Emperor, not only received the last Sirmian Confession, but condemned all other Confessions or Symbols that had been made till then, or should be made for the future. They then declared all the Acts of the Council of Seleucia void and null; and, to be even with the Semi-Arians, deposed, under various Pretences, such of their Party as had most contributed to the deposing of them, and even prevailed upon the Emperor to send them into Exile[928].

[Sidenote: An Order from the Emperor injoining all Bishops to sign the Sirmian Confession.]

They did not stop here, but obtained of Constantius an Order, which was published throughout the Empire, commanding all Bishops to sign the Sirmian Confession, on pain of forfeiting their Dignity, and being sent into Exile[929][N18]. This Order was executed with the utmost Rigour in all the Provinces of the Empire, and very few were found, who did not sign with their Hands what they condemned in their Hearts[930]. Many, who till then had been thought invincible, were overcome, and complied with the Times; and such as did not, were driven, without Distinction, from their Sees, into Exile, and others appointed in their room, the signing of that Confession being a Qualification indispensably requisite both for obtaining and keeping the Episcopal Dignity[931]. Thus were all the Sees throughout the Empire filled with Arians, insomuch that in the whole East not one orthodox Bishop was left, and in the West but one, viz. Gregory Bishop of Elvira in Andalusia, and he, in all Likelihood, obliged to absent himself from his Flock, and lie concealed, as were probably Pope Liberius, and Vincentius of Capua, if what Theodoret relates of them be true, viz. that they never consented to the Decrees of Rimini[932], and thereby retrieved the Reputation they had lost, the former by signing the Sirmian Confession of the Year 357. and the other by communicating with the Arians in 353. as I have related above. [Sidenote: It was probably signed by Liberius.] But what Theodoret writes may be justly called in question; for it is not at all probable, that the Emperor, and the Arian Party, so warmly bent on establishing that Confession throughout the Empire, would have suffered the Bishop of the Imperial City, of the first See, to reject it, without deposing him, as they had done the Bishops of all the other great Sees, and appointing another more compliant in his room. This could not be prevented by his concealing himself in the Caverns and Cœmeteries about Rome, as he is said to have done in his Acts quoted by Baronius[933], though he might by that means have escaped being sent into Exile. Besides, had he, instead of complying with the Emperor’s express Command, withdrawn and absconded, I cannot think that his Antagonist Felix, who was still alive, and had done nothing we know of to disoblige the Emperor, and the Arian Party, by whom he had been formerly raised to that See, would have neglected so favourable an Opportunity of recovering his antient Dignity. If what Theodoret says be true, Gregory Nazianzen is highly to blame for not excepting Liberius; when he writ, that the Bishops either all complied, or were driven into Exile, excepting a few, who were too insignificant to be taken notice of by the Emperor, or his Ministers[934]. [Sidenote: Arianism universally obtains.] Be that as it will, it is certain, that at this time the Arian Doctrine universally obtained; that the Face of the Church appeared quite deformed and disfigured[935], that the whole World saw itself, with Astonishment, all on a sudden become Arian[936]; that the Boat of St. Peter, to use St. Jerom’s Expression, tossed by furious Winds, by violent Storms, was upon the Point of sinking, and no Hopes of Safety seemed to be left[937].

-----

Footnote N18:

This Confession is called sometimes the Confession of Nice in Thrace, and sometimes the Confession of Rimini; but it differed from both. By the Confession of Nice, the Son was acknowleged to be like to the Father, without the Addition of the Words in all Things, which were an essential Part of the last Confession of Sirmium. In that of Rimini the Son was said not to be a Creature like other Creatures, and there were no such Words in the Confession of Sirmium. But by all Three the Word Consubstantial was rejected, and no other would satisfy the Orthodox, acknowleging the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father. Both the Arians and Semi-Arians allowed the Son to be like to the Father: but that Likeness was by them very differently understood and interpreted. The Arians held him to be like rather by Grace than by Nature, and as like as a Creature could be to the Creator[N18.1]. The Semi-Arians confessed him to be like in Nature, in Existence, in Essence, in Substance, and in every thing else. But the Orthodox maintained him to be of the same Substance with the Father, and consequently of the same Existence, Essence, &c. and, to express this Sameness or Identity, they chose the Word Consubstantial.

Footnote N18.1:

Ruff. l. 1. c. 25.

-----

The following Year 361. the Anomeans, not fully satisfied with the Confession of Faith, which, at their Suggestion, the Emperor had taken so much Pains to establish throughout the Empire, assembled, with his Leave, at Antioch, and there drew up a new Symbol, or Creed, wherein it was expresly said, that the Son was in every thing unlike to the Father, and that He was made out of nothing. [Sidenote: Constantius designs to establish the Doctrine of the Pure Arians;] Constantius had formerly expressed the greatest Abhorrence to this Doctrine, and had even banished those who held, and refused to anathematize, such impious Blasphemies, as he then styled them[938]. But, having lately changed his Opinion, which was chiefly owing to the great Influence the Eunuch Eusebius had over him, he was now no less sanguine for the Unlikeness of the Son to the Father, than he had been hitherto for the Likeness[939]. In order therefore to abolish the antient, and establish this new Creed in its room, he appointed a Council to meet at Nice in Bithynia[940], which, without all Doubt, he would have treated in the same manner as he had done that of Rimini. [Sidenote: but is prevented by Death.] But, as the Bishops were preparing to set out for the appointed Place, they were stopped by the sudden and unexpected News of the Emperor’s Death, which put an End to all his Councils, and was heard with equal Joy by those of the Orthodox and Semi-Arian Party. He was succeeded by Julian, surnamed the Apostate, who immediately recalled all those who had been banished by Constantius on account of their Religion[941]. [Sidenote: The exiled Bishops recalled by Julian.] Whatever was his Motive, the Church reaped great Advantages from the Return of so many eminent Prelates, who, in the worst of Times, had, with an invincible Firmness and Constancy, stood up in her Defence. Among the rest returned, on this Occasion, the famous Meletius Bishop of Antioch, Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, who had been all Three confined to the most distant Parts of Thebais in Egypt, Cyril of Jerusalem, Pelagius of Laodicea in Phœnicia, and, to the inexpressible Joy of the Orthodox Party, their great Champion Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria[942], who immediately resumed, undisturbed, his Episcopal Function; George, the Usurper of his See, having been assassinated a little while before by the Pagans of Alexandria, on account of his Avarice and Cruelty[943]. In other Places the Orthodox Bishops, finding the Arians in Possession of their Sees, contented themselves with being acknowleged by those of their Communion, without attempting to drive out their Antagonists, which would have created great Confusion, and endless Disturbances in the Church. Julian refused to interpose his Authority in favour of either Party, saying, that as he was not so well acquainted with the Nature of their Disputes as a just and impartial Judge ought to be, he hoped they would excuse him, lest he should be guilty of some Injustice, and settle Matters of such Importance among themselves. Athanasius entered Alexandria in a kind of Triumph, which is described in a lively manner by Gregory Nazianzen, who seems to have pleased himself with displaying, in that Description, all the Eloquence he was Master of[944].

[Sidenote: The Council of Alexandria.]

The Bishop of Alexandria being thus reinstated, and again at full Liberty to exert his Zeal for the Catholic Cause, his first Care was to retrieve his fallen Brethren, and reunite them to the Church. With this View he assembled, in 362. a Council at Alexandria, composed only of Confessors, that is, of such Bishops as had chosen rather to forfeit their Dignities and Sees, than receive or sign the Arian Confession of Rimini or Sirmium. This was one of the most respectable Councils that was ever held in the Church, not so much in regard of the Numbers (for I find not above Twenty named) as of the Merit, Virtue, and Sanctity of the Members that composed it. The chief Subject of their Debates, or rather Inquiries, was to find out the most proper Means of restoring Tranquillity to the Church, after so dreadful a Storm. Some, and among the rest Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari, who did not assist in Person, but by his Deputies, the Two Deacons Herennius and Agapetus, were for deposing all those who had signed the Confession of Rimini, and cutting them off from the Communion of the Church. But this unseasonable Severity was condemned by the far greater Part, as tending to raise a new Storm, and involve the Church in greater Troubles than ever, which the Emperor Julian would take care to improve, to the total Ruin of the Christian Religion. Athanasius therefore was for using Severity only with the Authors, and chief Promoters, of the late general Defection: and his Opinion prevailed; for a Decree was enacted, importing, that the Authors of the late general Prevarication should, even upon their Repentance, be received to the Communion of the Church only in the Capacity of Laymen, but that the rest should be all kept in, or restored to, their Sees, upon their publicly renouncing the Arian Communion, and embracing the Faith of Nice[945]. [Sidenote: A Schism formed by Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari.] This Decree was every-where received with the greatest Joy, the Bishop of Cagliari being the only Man, either in the East or West, who opposed it, and that with so much Obstinacy, that, rather than yield, he chose to separate himself from the Communion of the rest, and to form a new Schism, which bore his Name, and soon gained a considerable Footing, especially in the West; several Persons no less distinguished for Piety than Learning, and among the rest Gregory, the famous Bishop of Elvira, having adopted the Sentiments of a Man, who had suffered so much for the Purity of the Faith. As Lucifer is honoured by the Church of Rome as a Saint, and his Festival is kept on the 20th of May[946], Baronius pretends, that he abandoned his Schism, and returned to the Communion of the Church, before his Death[947]. [Sidenote: He never returned to the Communion of the Church.] But his Contemporary Ruffinus, who probably knew him, assures us, that he died in the Schism, which he had formed[948]. Jerom often speaks of his Schism, but no-where gives us the least Hint of his having ever quitted it; which would have afforded him a strong Argument against the Luciferians, and he would not have failed to urge it, in the Book which he wrote to convince them of their Error. That Writer speaks of Lucifer, on all Occasions, with the greatest Respect, even in the Book which he writ against his Followers: he owns, that his Intention was pure and upright; that it was not Pride, Thirst after Glory, or a Desire of transmitting his Name to Posterity, but a mistaken Zeal, that led him astray, and made him disapprove what the others approved; he even distinguishes him with the Title of the Blessed Lucifer[949]. And hence Baronius concludes, that he returned to the Communion of the Church; for otherwise, says the Annalist[950], St. Jerom had never given him the Title of Blessed, or Saint. But that he did not return, is manifest, from the Silence of St. Jerom on that Head, and from the Authority of a contemporary Writer quoted above: and hence I may draw a Conclusion far better grounded than that of Baronius; viz. that St. Jerom excused him on account of his good Intention; and, consequently, that he did not hold the uncharitable Doctrine of the Church of Rome, excluding from Salvation all who die out of her Communion, let their Intention be never so good. It is to be observed, that the Luciferians not only excluded from their Communion those who had received the Arian Confession, but all who communicated with them, even after they had anathematized that Confession, and publicly embraced the Faith of Nice.

[Sidenote: The Council of Alexandria saves the Church from Ruin.]

The Resolution taken by the Confessors in the Council of Alexandria, is said to have saved the Church from utter Ruin. For had that prevailed, which was urged with so much Warmth by Lucifer, the Bishops, who had chosen rather to sign the Arian Confession than forfeit their Sees, would have kept them in Defiance of a Decree made by a small Number of their Collegues, and in all Likelihood excommunicated and deposed, in their Turn, those who had excommunicated and deposed them: and, in that Case, the Arian Party, comprehending almost all the Bishops of the Church, must have prevailed. But as nothing was required of them, to keep their Sees, besides their renouncing the Confession of Rimini, which they had embraced, and embracing that of Nice, which they had renounced, they readily complied with the Decree of the Council; insomuch that the following Year 363. Athanasius, in a Letter, which he wrote to the Emperor Jovian, immediately after the Death of Julian, could assure that Prince, that the Faith of Nice had been received, and was professed, in all the Provinces of the Empire, which he enumerates; but omits those of Thrace, Bithynia, and the Hellespont[951], the Bishops there still continuing obstinately to maintain the Doctrine of Arius, and to reject the Faith of Nice, as we learn from Sozomen[952], Socrates[953], and Basil[954]; nay, at Constantinople, the Orthodox had but a small Chapel to assemble in, all the Churches being in Possession of the Arians, under Eudoxius, a leading Man among the Pure Arians, who had usurped that See[955]. [Sidenote: The Faith of Nice everywhere established.] For the better establishing of the Orthodox Faith, after the violent Shock it had lately received, Councils were held in several Provinces of the Empire[N19], and by all was received the Faith of Nice, the Confession of Rimini condemned, and the Words Substance and Consubstantial re-established[956]. A very strong Proof, that the Assent given before to the Arian Doctrines had been solely the Effect of Force, or of Interest, which being now removed, and all left at Liberty to act as their Consciences only directed, the Orthodox Faith prevailed as much as the other had done under Constantius.

-----

Footnote N19:

The Bishops of Gaul assembled at Paris in 362. and, having first owned their Crime, in approving and signing the Confession of Rimini, they acknowleged the Three Persons of the Trinity to be of the same Nature and Substance, and condemned Ursacius, Valens, and Auxentius the Arian Bishop of Milan. This Council was convened by St. Hilarius, Bishop of Poitiers; and a Letter, which the Council writ on this Occasion, has been transmitted to us, among the Fragments of his Works. He is said to have assembled several other Councils in Gaul, for the re-establishing of the Faith of Nice, which is all we know of them. The same Year 362. the Bishops of Italy assembling, declared void and null the Acts of the Council of Rimini, embraced the Faith of Nice, and, with one Accord, anathematized Ursacius and Valens, as the leading Men of the Arian Party. There is, among the Fragments of St. Hilarius, a Letter on this Subject, from the Italian to the Illyrian Bishops. Where this Council was held I find no-where recorded. In the Year 363. the Emperor Jovian desiring to be instructed in the Faith of the Catholic Church, by Athanasius and the Egyptian Bishops, who were come to wait on him, they assembled in Council, and agreed to propose no other Creed to him but that of Nice. At the same time they condemned the Heresy of Macedonius, denying the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. This Council is generally thought to have been held at Alexandria. But, from the Letter, which they presented to the Emperor, it appears to have consisted of some Egyptian Bishops, who, as it is there said, were appointed to represent all the others of the same Province[N19.1]. Had the Council been held at Alexandria, they had, I should think, been all present. It must therefore have assembled in some Place out of Egypt; and where more likely than at Antioch? For there the Emperor was this very Year, and there Athanasius waited on him. The same Year another Council was held at Antioch, under Melecius Bishop of that City. In that Council Acacius, Bishop of Cæsarea in Pælestine, who had been at the Head of the Arian Party, in the Latter-end of the Reign of Constantius, and his Followers, commonly styled Acacians, embraced the Faith of Nice, and admitted the Term Consubstantial. Acacius had no other Faith but that of the Party which prevailed. Hence, in the Time of Jovian, who favoured the Orthodox Party, he professed the Faith of Nice; but Two Years after he had signed it, he joined the Arians anew, seeing them in great Favour with the Emperor Valens. Several other Councils were held, from the Year 363. to 368. of which we have no particular Account. For Athanasius tells us, in general Terms, that many Councils assembled in France, in Spain, at Rome, in Dalmatia, in Dardania, in Macedonia, in Epirus, in Greece, in Candia, and the other Islands, in Sicily, in Cyprus, in Lycia, in Isauria, in Egypt, and in Arabia; and that they all met to maintain the Orthodox Faith, the Faith of the Council of Nice[N19.2]. In his Letter to the Emperor Jovian he assures him, that the Symbol of Nice was received in the above-mentioned Provinces, and besides, in Britain, in Africa, in Pamphylia, in Libya, in Pontus, in Cappadocia, and in the East, that is, in the Patriarchate of Antioch[N19.3]. But in the Provinces of Thrace, of Bithynia, and the Hellespont, the Semi-Arians prevailed, till they were overpowered by the Arians, strongly supported by the Emperor Valens, a most zealous Defender of Arianism.

Footnote N19.1:

Theod. l. 4. c. 3.

Footnote N19.2:

Athan. de Afr. & ad Epict.

Footnote N19.3:

Id. ad Jov.

-----

[Sidenote: A Council convened by the Semi-Arians.]

As every one was allowed by Julian to believe what he pleased, and to own his Belief, whatever it was, the Semi-Arians convened a Council, soon after the Death of Constantius, who, in the Latter-end of his Life, had begun to persecute them as much as he had favoured them before. This Council was composed of those chiefly who had assisted at that of Seleucia, of which I have spoken above; and they all agreed to condemn and anathematize the Doctrine of the Pure Arians, with the Confession of Rimini, and to sign anew the Confession of Antioch, establishing a Likeness in Substance between the Son and the Father. Thus they pretended to keep a due Mean between the Two opposite Extremes, of the Western Bishops, whose Consubstantiality, they said, left no room for the Distinction of Persons; and of the Pure Arians, who denied all Likeness[957]. [Sidenote: The Sect of the Macedonians.] It was after this Council that the Semi-Arians, separating themselves from the Communion of the Pure Arians, began to form a distinct Sect, and to be called Macedonians; which Name was given them from Macedonius, late Bishop of Constantinople, but deposed by the Pure Arians, in the Council they held in that City in 360. to make room for their great Champion Eudoxius, translated formerly from Germanicia to Antioch, and now from Antioch to Constantinople. They were also named Marathonians, from Marathonius, Bishop of Nicomedia, who, together with Macedonius, was at the Head of the Party; and Pneumatomachi, that is, Enemies to the Holy Ghost, whose Divinity they denied, which was their chief, if not their only Error; for some are of Opinion, that tho’ they rejected the Word Consubstantial, yet they agreed with the Orthodox in the Meaning of it. They led very regular, austere, and edifying Lives; and are, on that Score, highly commended and extolled by Gregory Nazianzen[958]. No Wonder therefore, that they soon spread all over the East, and gained every-where great Numbers of Followers. At Constantinople, and in the neighbouring Cities and Provinces, they were followed not only by the greater Part of the People, but by some Persons of Distinction, by such as were most remarkable for their Piety, by intire Monasteries, both of Men and Women[959]. The Inhabitants of Cyzicus in the Propontis were almost all of this Sect, and we are told of some Miracles wrought by a Macedonian of that Place[960], which Baronius will not allow, though as well attested as any he relates.

[Sidenote: They are persecuted by the Emperor Valens.]

The Emperor Valens, who reigned in the East, which had been yielded to him by his Brother Valentinian, when he took him for his Collegue in the Empire, spared no Pains to reconcile this Sect with that of the Arians, which he greatly favoured. But, finding them no less averse to the Arians than the Orthodox themselves, he began in the Year 366. to persecute them with great Cruelty. To avoid this Persecution they resolved to recur to the Emperor Valentinian, and, embracing the Faith professed by him and the Western Bishops, to put themselves under his Protection. Accordingly they dispatched Three of their Body, viz. Eustathius Bishop of Sebaste, Sylvanus of Tarsus, and Theophilus of Castabala, to acquaint the Emperor, in the Name of the rest, with the Resolution they had taken, and implore his Protection[961]. These, being informed, on their Arrival in Italy, that Valentinian was waging War with the Barbarians on the Borders of Gaul, instead of repairing to him, which they apprehended might be attended with no small Danger, went strait to Rome, and there delivered to Liberius Letters from their Brethren, directed to him, and to the other Bishops of the West, whom they earnestly intreated to use their Interest with the Emperor, in their Behalf, assuring them, that they sincerely renounced the Errors they had hitherto held, and embraced the Catholic Faith, as explained and defined by the Council of Nice[962]. [Sidenote: Deliver to Liberius their Confession of Faith;] But Liberius, notwithstanding these Assurances, suspected their Sincerity; and therefore could not, by any means, be prevailed upon to communicate with them, or even to hear them, till they had delivered to him a Confession of Faith, under their Hand, and in the Name of the whole Party, wherein they anathematized those of Rimini, and Nice in Bithynia; condemned the Heresy of Arius, with all other Heresies; and received the Definitions of the Council of Nice, those particularly that related to Consubstantiality. To this Confession they added a solemn Protestation, declaring themselves ready to submit to the Sentence of such Judges as the Pope should think fit to appoint, should they, or those by whom they had been sent, be ever for the future accused or suspected of swerving in the least from the Faith they now embraced and professed[963]. [Sidenote: who admits them to his Communion.] In virtue of this Confession, whereof the Original was carefully lodged in the Archives of the Church of Rome, Liberius admitted the Deputies to his Communion; and, upon their Departure, writ, in the Name of all the Bishops of Italy, and the West, to the Macedonian Bishops, of whom he names 59, signifying the great Joy, which their Letters, and the Confession of Faith, signed by their Deputies, had occasioned at Rome, and in all the Western Churches, since by such a Confession they were all again happily united in one Faith. In this Letter Liberius assures them, that all the Bishops, who had assisted at the Council of Rimini, had retracted the Doctrine, which they had been forced to sign there; and were more than ever incensed against the Arians, on account of the Violence, which, at their Instigation, had been offered them[964]. The Macedonians admitted the Divinity of the Son, but denied that of the Holy Ghost; nay, this was their favourite Doctrine, and, as it were, the Characteristic of their Sect; but Liberius, and the other Western Bishops, not suspecting them of such an Error, which in all Likelihood they had not yet publicly owned, admitted them to their Communion, without examining them on that Head.

[Sidenote: Liberius dies.]

Liberius died soon after, that is, on the 23d or 24th of September, of the present Year 366. as we are told by Marcellinus and Faustinus, whose Authority is preferable to that of any other, since, at this very time, they lived at Rome[965]. He had been chosen on the 22d of May 352. so that he governed the Church of Rome Fourteen Years, Four Months, and a Day or Two. [Sidenote: The deplorable Condition of the Church in his Time.] Liberius lived in troublesome Times, the worst the Church had ever yet seen. She had Two dangerous Enemies to contend with at the same time, the Power of the Prince then on the Imperial Throne, and the Craft of a most subtle and deceitful Party. The Prince employed all his Power to overcome, with Oppression, those whom the Party could not over-reach with their Craft; and the Party to over-reach with their Craft such as the Prince could not overcome with Oppression. On the other hand, the Prelates, even some who were reputed the Pillars of the Church, seemed to have lost that Zeal, Firmness, and Intrepidity, which they had so gloriously exerted under the Pagan Princes, and few were found among them, whose Virtue was proof against the Loss of their Dignity, or Exile. Hence the Defection became general, and the Orthodox Party was brought so low, that it must have been utterly quashed, had Constantius lived a few Years longer. But Providence interposed; Constantius died while he was pursuing his Scheme with the greatest Success; and Julian, his Successor, by betraying an equal Hatred and Aversion to Christians of all Denominations, obliged them to forget their Quarrels among themselves, to lay aside their Animosity against each other, and to unite in their mutual Defence against him, as a common Enemy. Jovian, who succeeded him, proved no less favourable to the Orthodox, than Constantius had been to the Arians. Many therefore of the latter, and among the rest Acacius, who was at the Head of the Pure Arians, to gain the Favour of the Emperor, publicly renounced the Doctrine of Arius, and embraced that of Nice. Jovian, after a short Reign of Seven Months and Twenty Days, was succeeded by Valentinian, who continued to countenance the Orthodox, as his Predecessor had done, though he did not use the Arians with that Rigour which some Zealots expected from a Confessor, which Title he had deserved under Julian. However, as he professed the Orthodox Faith, that Party universally prevailed; insomuch that, in a very short time, no Traces of Arianism were left in the West, except at Milan, under the Arian Bishop Auxentius, and in a few Cities of Illyricum, where it was kept up by Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, and their Disciples, till the following Century, when it was every-where re-established there by the Goths.

[Sidenote: By whom Arianism was banished out of the West.]

Baronius ascribes to Liberius the banishing of Arianism out of the West, and the establishing of the Orthodox Faith in its room; but that Glory was owing, according to Ruffinus, to Hilarius of Poitiers, and Eusebius of Vercelli, who, like the Two great Luminaries of the Universe, to use his Words, enlightened with their Rays Illyricum, Gaul, and Italy, dispelling every-where the Darkness of Heresy[966]. He minutely describes the great Success that attended them, with the Difficulties and Obstructions they met with in so pious and commendable an Undertaking[967]. But, as for Liberius, he does not so much as mention him. And truly, from the Year 357. in which he fell, to his admitting the Macedonians to his Communion in 366. which was the last of his Life, the only thing I find recorded of him in the Antients, is his writing a Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Italy, wherein he exhorts them to atone for their past Conduct by renouncing the Errors of the Arians, and receiving anew the Symbol of Nice. He adds, that as this is the only Atonement, which it has been thought proper to require of them, they ought to exert their Zeal against the Authors of the Fault they committed, in proportion to the Grief they must feel for committing it[968]. This Letter has been transmitted to us among the Fragments of Hilarius. [Sidenote: Neither Vincentius of Capua, nor Liberius, assisted at the Council of Rimini.] It is hard to guess what could induce Baronius to write so confidently as he does, that Vincentius of Capua assisted at the Council of Rimini with the Character of the Pope’s Legate[969]. In what antient Author did he find the least Intimation or distant Hint of such a Legation? Vincentius of Capua, though a Person of great Eminency, is not even mentioned by any of the contemporary Writers, who relate the Transactions of that Council, and name the chief Prelates who composed it. 'Tis true we read of him, in one Author, that he never consented to the Confession of Rimini[970]: but that is said of Liberius too[971], whom Baronius owns not to have been present at that Assembly.

[Sidenote: Liberius is honoured as a Saint.]

Liberius, notwithstanding his Fall, is honoured both by the Latin and Greek Churches as a Saint. By the former his Festival is kept on the 23d of September, and by the latter on the 27th of August[972]. [Sidenote: The Founding of the Church of St. Mary the Greater.] He erected a Church on the Esquiline Mount at Rome, which bore his Name, and was called the Basilic of Liberius, till it was consecrated to the Virgin Mary by Sixtus III. when it took the Name of Sancta Maria Major, or Saint Mary the Greater. It owes its Foundation, as is universally believed in the Church of Rome, to the following Miracle. A Roman of the Patrician Order, and of Wealth equal to his Rank, named John, having no Children, resolved to make a free Gift of his whole Estate to the Virgin Mary. This Resolution he imparted to his Wife, who consenting to it with great Alacrity, the Estate was immediately made over to the holy Virgin, whom they thenceforth jointly intreated, in their daily Prayers, to let them know by some Token in what Manner she chose to dispose of it. Their Prayers were heard, and, on the Night preceding the 5th of August, when the Heat is most violent at Rome, a miraculous Snow fell from Heaven, which covered Part of the Esquiline Mount. The same Night the Patrician and his Wife were admonished in a Dream to build a Church on the Spot of Ground which they should find covered with Snow. Early next Morning they went to acquaint Pope Liberius with what had happened, whom they found to have had the same Dream; so that no room being now left to doubt of the Revelation, the Pope appointed a grand Procession of the whole Clergy, in which he walked himself, attended by Crouds of People, to the above-mentioned Mount; and there, having caused the Snow, which still lay unmelted, to be removed, on the Spot, which it had covered, he laid the Foundation of that magnificent Basilic, which was reared at the Expence of the Patrician, and is now known by the Name of Saint Mary the Greater, and Saint Mary in the Snow[973]. I should not have thought such an idle Tale worthy of a Place in a grave History, were it not recorded in the most authentic Book the Church of Rome has after the Scripture, the Roman Breviary, a Book approved and commended by the Council of Trent, and by the special Bulls of Three Popes, Pius V. Clement VIII. and Urban VIII. of whom the latter declares every thing it contains to be extracted from antient and approved Authors, and to be agreeable to Truth[974]. So that it would be less dangerous, at least in Italy, to deny any Truth revealed in the Scripture, than to question any Fable related in the Breviary. The Feast of the Snow, or St. Mary in the Snow, is kept annually at Rome, on the 5th of August, with the greatest Solemnity. The College of Cardinals assists that Day at Divine Service in the Church of Saint Mary the Greater; and the Pope, if not indisposed, or otherwise prevented, officiates in Person: the Primicerio, or Dean of that Church, reads the Account, which I have delivered above; and, that nothing may be wanting to complete the Farce, Numbers of Children are employed, during the Service, to drop Jessamins from the Gallery on the Congregation, in Remembrance and Imitation of the miraculous Snow. And truly by Children alone such Fables are proper to be acted and believed.