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