Footnote 35:
Ibid. iv. 21.
Footnote 36:
Ad Rom. xvi. 3-15.
Footnote 37:
Ruffin. in præf. ad Clem. recogn.
Footnote 38:
Iren. apud Euseb. c. 5, 6.
Footnote 39:
Constit. Apost. 7. 46. Iren. 3. 3.
Footnote 40:
Epiph. hær. 7.
Footnote 41:
Euseb. l. iv. c. 2.
Footnote 42:
Chrys. tom. 8. p. 115.
Footnote 43:
Idem Eph. iv. 11.
Footnote 44:
Euseb. l. i. c. 12.
Footnote 45:
Heges. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 2.
Footnote 46:
Epiph. hær. 78.
Footnote 47:
Hier. de vir. ill.
Footnote 48:
Greg. p. 279.
Footnote 49:
Chrys. in Mat. hom. 33.
Footnote 50:
Grot. in Jac. i. 1.
Footnote 51:
Hamm. dissert. Ignat. 4. 3.
Footnote 52:
Val. in Euseb. 1. 12.
Footnote 53:
Blond. in epist. Clem. ad Jacob.
Footnote 54:
Wal. Mess. p. 20.
Footnote 55:
Aug. cont. Cres. l. 2. c. 37. Vide Pears. Ann. Paulin. p. 58.
Footnote 56:
Act. xxi. 20.
Footnote 57:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 58:
Idem ib. & Tertull. de præs. hæret. c. 32. Euseb. l. 3. c. 36.
Footnote 59:
Tertull. ib. c. 36.
Footnote 60:
Bartol. Antichitá sacre di Roma, p. 32.
Footnote 61:
Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.
Footnote 62:
Bell. de sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 4.
Footnote 63:
Idem ib. l. 2. c. 12.
Footnote 64:
Iren. apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 6. et Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.
Footnote 65:
Inn. I. apud Soz. l. 8. c. 26.
Footnote 66:
Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 17.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NERO, LINUS, VITELLIUS,
GALBA, _First_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. VESPASIAN,
OTHO, TITUS.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 66. Linus, _and not_ Clemens, _the Bishop of_
Rome.]
There is a great Disagreement among the Antients about the first Bishops
of _Rome_: _Tertullian_ makes _Clement_, whom he supposes to have been
ordained by St. _Peter_, the immediate _Successor of that Apostle_[67].
He was followed therein by _Ruffinus_[68], and _Ruffinus_ by the
_Latins_ in general; among whom that Opinion universally prevailed
towards the End of the Fourth Century. But _Jerom_, rejecting the
Opinion of the _Latins_, places _Linus_ immediately after the Apostles,
_Anacletus_ next to him, and _Clement_ in the third Place[69]. His
Opinion is supported by the Authority of _Irenæus_[70], _Eusebius_[71],
_Theodoret_[72], and likewise of _Epiphanius_[73], _Optatus
Milevitanus_[74], and St. _Augustin_[75], with this Difference, that
_Epiphanius_ gives the Name of _Cletus_ to the Successor of _Linus_, and
both _Optatus_ and St. _Augustin_ place him after _Clement_; but in this
they all agree, that _Linus_ was the first, after the Apostles, who
governed the Church of _Rome_. To the Authority of these Writers I may
add that of the Apostolic Constitutions, telling us, in express Terms,
that _Linus_ was ordained Bishop of _Rome_ by St. _Paul_[76]. [Sidenote:
_Whether_ Clement _appointed by St._ Peter _to succeed him_.] As to what
we read in _Tertullian_ and _Ruffinus_, _viz._ that _Clement_ was
ordained by St. _Peter_, and named to succeed him; Dr. _Hammond_
answers, That _Clement_ governed with Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction
the converted _Jews_, while _Linus_ and _Anacletus_ governed, with the
same Power, the converted Gentiles. He adds, That, upon the Death of
_Anacletus_, both Churches were united under him[77]. Thus he strives to
reconcile the Opinion of the _Latins_, placing _Clement_ immediately
after the Apostles, with that of the _Greeks_, allowing him only the
third Place: for, granting what he advances to be true, and Reasons are
not wanting to support it, _Clement_ was, agreeably to the Opinion of
the _Latins_, the immediate Successor of the Apostles, with respect to
the _Jews_; but, with respect to the Gentiles, he succeeded _Anacletus_,
agreeably to the Opinion of the _Greeks_[78]. This Answer _Cotelerius_
applauds as an ingenious, learned, and probable Solution; but, at the
same time, rejects it as contradicting, in his Opinion, the Apostolic
Constitutions, and not supported by the Authority of any antient
Writer[79]. The learned Dr. _Pearson_ will admit no Opinion that
supposes Two Bishops to have presided together in one City[80], that
being an Irregularity, according to St. _Cyprian_[81], _contrary to the
Ecclesiastic Disposition, contrary to the Evangelic Law, contrary to the
Rules of the Catholic Institution_, and condemned as such by the Council
of _Nice_[82]. It is very much to be doubted, as I have shewn above,
whether St. _Peter_ ever was at _Rome_, and consequently whether
_Clement_ was ordained, by him, Bishop of that City. His not succeeding
him is a Proof, that he was not; for who can imagine, that the People
and Clergy of those Days would have thought of chusing any other, or
that any other, though chosen, would have accepted of a Dignity, to
which _Clement_ had been named by St. _Peter_ himself, and which he was
actually possessed of at the Apostle’s Death? Be that as it will,
_Linus_ is now universally acknowleged both by the _Greeks_ and _Latins_
for the first Bishop of _Rome_.
As for the Life and Actions of _Linus_, all I can find in the Antients
concerning him, is, that it was he whom St. _Paul_ mentioned in his
Epistle to _Timothy_[83]; that, upon the Authority of the Apostolic
Constitutions, he was supposed, by some, to have been the Son of
_Claudia_, whom the Apostle mentions in the same Place[84]; and that his
Life and Conversation were much approved of by the People[85].
[Sidenote: Linus _no Martyr, tho’ placed among the Martyrs_.] The Church
of _Rome_ allows him, in the Canon of the Mass, a Place among the
Martyrs; but no mention is made of his having suffered for the Faith,
either in the antient Martyrologies, or in _Irenæus_, who, speaking of
him, and his immediate Successors, distinguishes none but _Telesphorus_
with the Title of Martyr. _Baronius_, determined to maintain, right or
wrong, the Credit of the sacred Canon, in Opposition to all the
Antients, nay, and to his own System, cuts off one Year from the
Pontificate of _Linus_, that he may place his Death under _Vespasian_,
and not, as _Eusebius_ has done[86], under _Titus_, in whose Reign he
owns none to have suffered for the Faith[87]. Had he remembered what he
must have read in _Tertullian_ and _Eusebius_, he had saved himself that
Trouble: for _Tertullian_ assures us, that _Vespasian_ made no Laws
against the Christians[88]; and _Eusebius_, that he did not molest them,
though he caused a diligent Search to be made after those who were of
the Race of _David_, which occasioned a dreadful Persecution against the
_Jews_[89]. _Linus_ governed the Church of _Rome_, according to
_Eusebius_[90] and _Epiphanius_[91], Twelve Years; so that, if we place,
with them, the Death of St. _Peter_ in 66. _Linus_ must have died in the
Year 78. of the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: _Books ascribed to him._] We
have, under the Name of _Linus_, Two Books of the Martyrdom of St.
_Peter_ and St. _Paul_[92]; but they are generally looked upon as
supposititious[93]. _Trithemius_ makes him the Author of the Life of St.
_Peter_, in which a particular Account was given of the Dispute between
that Apostle, and _Simon_ the Magician. This Piece has not reached our
Times, and was perhaps of the same Stamp with the other, since it is
never mentioned either by _Eusebius_, or St. _Jerom_. The Decrees, that
are ascribed to him, are no-where to be found, but in _Anastasius
Bibliothecarius_, and such-like Writers, whose Authority is of no Weight
in Matters so distant, unless supported by the Testimony of the
Antients.
-----
Footnote 67:
Tert. de præsc. hæret. c. 32.
Footnote 68:
Recog. p. 398.
Footnote 69:
Hier. vir. illust. c. 15.
Footnote 70:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 71:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 4. 21.
Footnote 72:
Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 21.
Footnote 73:
Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.
Footnote 74:
Optat. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 75:
Aug. ep. 165.
Footnote 76:
Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.
Footnote 77:
Hamm. l. 5. c. 1.
Footnote 78:
Idem ib. p. 247, 258.
Footnote 79:
Cotel. in not. Const. p. 298.
Footnote 80:
Pears. posthum. p. 159. 161.
Footnote 81:
Cypr. ep. 44. 46. 52. 55.
Footnote 82:
Syn. Nic. can. 8.
Footnote 83:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 2 Tim. iv. 21.
Footnote 84:
Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.
Footnote 85:
Tert. in Marc. c. 3.
Footnote 86:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 13.
Footnote 87:
Bar. annal. ad ann. 80.
Footnote 88:
Tert. apol. c. 5.
Footnote 89:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 12.
Footnote 90:
Idem ib. c. 13.
Footnote 91:
Epiph. l. 27. c. 6.
Footnote 92:
Bib. Patr. tom. 7.
Footnote 93:
Vide Baron. ad ann. 69. et Voss. Hist. Græc. l. 2. c. 9.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITUS CLETUS, _or_ ANACLETUS, DOMITIAN.
_Second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 78. ]
_Linus_ was succeeded by _Cletus_, or _Anacletus_, whom the _Greeks_
constantly style _Anencletus_, that is, _Irreprehensible_. An Opinion
has long obtained in the Church of _Rome_, distinguishing _Cletus_ and
_Anacletus_ as Two Popes, nay, as Two Saints; the Festival of the one
being kept on the 26th of _April_, and that of the other on the 23d of
_July_[94]. [Sidenote: Cletus _and_ Anacletus _not two, but one
Pope_.] But this Distinction is now given up by the most learned Men of
that Church, not only as groundless, but as plainly contradicting the
most celebrated Writers of Antiquity, _Irenæus_, _Eusebius_, and St.
_Jerom_, to whom we may add _Caius_, a Priest of _Rome_, who, writing in
the Beginning of the Third Century, reckoned _Victor_ the Thirteenth
Bishop of that City[95]. _Baronius_, however, spares no Pains to keep up
that Distinction; but alleges nothing to countenance it, except the Poem
against _Marcion_, ascribed to _Tertullian_, the Pontifical of
_Anastasius_, and some Martyrologies[96]. Who was the Author of that
Poem is not well known, but all agree, that it was not written by
_Tertullian_[97]. Besides, the Author, whoever he was, places both
_Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ before _Clement_; which _Baronius_ condemns as
a gross Mistake. As for the Pontifical, the Annalist often finds fault
with it; and complains, in this very Place, that _Anastasius_’s whole
Chronology is overcast with an impenetrable Mist[98]. The Martyrologies
he quotes are of too modern a Date to deserve any Regard, since none of
them were heard of before the Ninth Century[99]. [Sidenote: _How they
were first distinguished._] But how, says _Baronius_, was this
Distinction first introduced? We may, perhaps, account for it thus:
_Irenæus_, with all the _Greeks_, and St. _Jerom_, among the _Latins_,
place _Anacletus_, as we have observed above, before _Clement_; whereas
St. _Austin_ and _Optatus Milevitanus_ place him after. This, and his
being called _Cletus_ by _Epiphanius_, and in several Copies of
_Ruffinus_, might induce some to imagine, that as the Names and Places
were different, so were the Persons. Thus, as we conjecture, of one Pope
Two Popes were made, Two Saints, and Two Martyrs; for, in the Canon of
the Mass, he has a Place with _Linus_ among the Martyrs; though neither
was acknowleged for such by _Irenæus_, or any of the Antients; nay,
_Anacletus_ is said, in some Pontificals, to have _died in Peace_, that
is, according to the Phrase of those Days, of a natural Death[100].
_Bollandus_, after having much laboured, but laboured in vain, to
maintain the Distinction between _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_, yields at
last, and gives up the Point. But yet, unwilling to make the least
Alteration in the Catalogue of the Popes, which places, with the
Approbation of the Holy See, _Clement_ between _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_,
he strives to save it with a new and pretty extraordinary Invention; for
he pretends _Anacletus_ or _Cletus_ to have resigned the Chair to
_Clement_, and _Clement_, in his Turn, to have yielded it to him again.
Thus, according to him, though _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ are one and the
same Person, yet no Fault is to be found with the Catalogue; and
_Clement_ is rightly placed both after and before him[101]. This is a
Speculation of his own, altogether groundless, and therefore not worthy
of a Place here, were it not to shew what low Shifts and Subterfuges
even Men of Parts, in the Church of _Rome_, chuse to submit to, rather
than to yield to Reason, in Points that seem to derogate from the
Authority of that See. _Anacletus_ governed the Church Twelve Years,
according to _Eusebius_[102]; to which some add Two Months, some Three,
and some only one; so that he must have died in the Year 91. He is
supposed to have been buried next to St. _Peter_, in the _Vatican_,
where his supposed Body is shewn, and worshiped to this Day[103].
[Sidenote: _Decretals ascribed to him_.] We find, in the Collection of
_Isidorus Mercator_, Three Decretals, under the Name of _Cletus_; but
such Decretals as are anterior to the Pontificate of Pope _Syricius_,
who was elected in the Year 384 are now universally looked upon as
bare-faced Forgeries[104][N3].
-----
Footnote N3:
All the decretal Epistles of the Popes, before _Syricius_, are so
filled with Absurdities, Contradictions, Anachronisms, _&c._ that they
are now given up, even by the most sanguine Advocates for the Papal
Supremacy. And yet these very Decretals, absurd as they are, and
inconsistent with themselves, as well as with all the genuine Writings
of those Times, whether sacred or profane, were, for several Ages, the
main Stays of the whole Fabric of the Papal Power. By them that Power
was established; by them it was supported; for, in the Days of
Ignorance, they were universally received as the genuine Writings of
the antient Bishops of _Rome_, in whose Names they were published.
And, truly, were we to rank them, as they were ranked in the monkish
and ignorant Ages, with the Decisions of the Oecumenical Councils, and
the Canonical Books of the Scripture, no room would be left to
question any Branch of the unlimited Power claimed by the Popes. They
were held in the greatest Esteem and Veneration from the Beginning of
the 9th Century to the Time of the Reformation, when, upon the first
Dawn of Learning, the Cheat was discovered, and the Stays removed,
which till then had supported the unwieldy Edifice. But it was then in
a Condition to stand by itself, at least till new Frauds were devised
to prop it up; and this was accordingly done, without Loss of Time.
The Decretals of the first Popes are quoted by _Bellarmine_, to prove,
that the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome was universally acknowleged
in the earliest Times[N3.1]: but, at the same time, he owns, that _he
dares not affirm them to be of undoubted Authority_. And what can be
more absurd than to quote a Forgery, or what he himself owns may be a
Forgery, in Vindication of so darling a Point as _the Supremacy_? But
he did it for want of better Evidences, and must therefore be excused.
_Baronius_, ashamed to lay any Stress on such gross and palpable
Forgeries, contents himself with only saying, that the Popes had no
hand in forging them; and that they never made use of their Authority
to support their own. That they were concerned in, or privy to, the
forging of those Letters, I dare not affirm: but that they
countenanced them, as they did all other Forgeries tending to the
Advancement of their See; that they received them as genuine, and
endeavoured to impose them upon others; nay, that they made use of
them soon after their first Appearance in the World, to establish and
promote the Authority of their See; are undoubted Matters of Fact:
witness the Letter, which _Nicolas_ I. wrote, in the Year 865. to
_Hincmarus_ Archbishop of _Rheims_, and to the other Bishops of
_France_, who, refusing to comply with some exorbitant Demands of the
Pope, had rejected the Decretals, on which those Demands were founded,
as Writings that had been lately counterfeited. _Nicolas_, in his
Answer to them, maintains the Authenticity of those Letters, exhorts
all, who profess the Catholic Faith, to receive them _with due
Veneration_, and claims, in virtue of such sacred and authentic
Writings, an uncontrouled Authority over all the Churches of the
World, as lodged from the Beginning in his See[N3.2]. And was not this
making use of the supposed Authority of those Decretals to promote his
own? _Nicolas_ seems to have believed the Letters to be genuine: and,
if he did, he was certainly mistaken, and erred in proposing, as he
does, spurious Pieces for a _firm and strong Foundation_ of our
Belief, as well as our Practice. If he did not believe them to be
genuine, and yet endeavoured to persuade the Bishops of _France_ that
they were so; nay, and claimed, upon the Authority of such Pieces, a
Power over them, and their Churches; a worse Epithet would suit him
better than that of _fallible_, which is common to all Men.
The first who published these Decretals was, according to _Hincmarus_,
_Riculphus_ Bishop of _Mentz_, who was supposed to have brought them
from _Spain_; because the Name of _Isidore_ was prefixed to the
Collection, and a famous Writer of that Name, _viz._ _Isidore_ Bishop
of _Seville_, had flourished in _Spain_ some Centuries before. But
such a mean and scandalous Undertaking is altogether unworthy of so
great a Prelate; and besides the Author of the supposed Decretals has
copied, _verbatim_, some Passages from the Council of _Toledo_ in 675.
and from the Sixth Council in 681. whereas _Isidore_ of _Seville_ died
in 636. The learned _Ellies du Pin_ lays this Forgery at the Door of
some _German_ or _Frenchman_, the Letters being all written in the
Style of the _Germans_ and _French_, of the 9th Century, and many of
them addressed to Persons of these two Nations. _Hincmarus_ was
mistaken, in supposing the forged Decretals to have been first
published by _Riculphus_ of _Mentz_; for in some of them are found
Fragments of the Council held at _Paris_ in 829. and he died in 814.
They were first ushered into the World, and forged too, in all
likelihood, by one _Benedict_, Deacon of the Church of _Mentz_,
though, in his Preface to that Collection, he would fain make us
believe, that _Autcarius_, the Successor of _Riculphus_, found them in
the Archives of that Church, and that they had been placed there by
_Riculphus_, who had brought them from _Spain_. _Autcarius_, in whose
Time _Benedict_ published his Collection, is thought to have been
privy to the Imposture. The Name of _Isidore_, which was then very
common in _Spain_, was prefixed to it, to persuade the World, that the
Decretals were brought from that Country, and not forged at _Mentz_,
where they first appeared. However, they were suspected by some, even
in that dark Age, and absolutely rejected by _Hincmarus_ of _Rheims_,
as Writings of no Authority. But the Popes, whose Pretensions they
were calculated to favour, exerting all their Authority to bring them
into Repute, they were in the End universally received, and inserted
into all the Collections of Canons. At present they are so universally
exploded, that there is not a single Writer, no, not even in the
Church of _Rome_, who is not ashamed to patronize or defend them. But
the Work is done, for which they were intended; and now that the
Edifice can stand by itself, no matter what becomes of the Stays that
supported it, when it could not. These Decretals may be justly looked
upon as a standing Monument of the Ignorance, Superstition, and
Credulity, that universally prevailed in the Church, from the
Beginning of the Ninth Century to the Time of the Reformation. I shall
conclude with observing, that, from these Decretals, _Anastasius_ the
_Bibliothecarian_, and after him _Platina_, have chiefly copied what
they relate of the first Popes, supposing them to have really done
what, in those spurious Pieces, they are said to have done.
Footnote N3.1:
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14.
Footnote N3.2:
Nic. I. ep. 42.
-----
-----
Footnote 94:
Martyrol. Roman.
Footnote 95:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Pearson posthum. p. 147, 148.
Footnote 96:
Bar. ad ann. 69.
Footnote 97:
Halloix in vit. Iren. p. 646.
Footnote 98:
Bar. ad ann. 69.
Footnote 99:
Bolland. Pont. p. 217.
Footnote 100:
Vide Pears. posthum. p. 19.
Footnote 101:
Bolland. Pont. p. 217.
Footnote 102:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.
Footnote 103:
Bolland. 26 Apr. 410, 411.
Footnote 104:
Vide Card. Bon. liturg. l. 1. c. 3. et Natal. Alexand. hist. Eccles.
p. 743, &c.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMITIAN, CLEMENT, TRAJAN.
NERVA, _Third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 91. Clement _mentioned by St._ Paul.]
_Clement_, the Successor of _Anacletus_, is, according to _Origen_[105],
_Eusebius_[106], and all the Antients, the Person whom St. _Paul_, in
his Epistle to the _Philippians_[107], names among those who had
_laboured with him in the Gospel, and whose Names were in the_ _Book of
Life_. Hence _Chrysostom_ concludes, that, together with St. _Luke_ and
_Timothy_, he attended the Apostle of the Gentiles in all his
journeys[108]. _Irenæus_ assures us, that he had not only seen the
Apostles, and conversed with them; but that, when he was appointed
Bishop of _Rome_, he still heard their Voices sounding in his Ears,
still had before his Eyes the Rules and good Example they had given
him[109]. _Origen_ styles him _the Disciple of the Apostles_[110];
_Ruffinus, almost an Apostle_[111]; and _Clement_ of _Alexandria, an
Apostle_[112]. That he was well versed in every Branch of Learning,
especially in polite Literature, descended of a Senatorian Family, and
nearly related to the _Cæsars_, is what we read in _Eucherius_[113] and
_Nilus_[114], who seem to have followed therein the _Recognitions_, a
Book of no Authority. [Sidenote: _Some confound him with_ Flavius
Clemens.] _Eucherius_ perhaps confounded, as others have done, Pope
_Clement_ with _Flavius Clemens_, who was Son to _Flavius Sabinus_, the
only Brother of _Vespasian_, and suffered Death for the Christian
Religion in the Persecution of _Domitian_[115]; for Pope _Clement_ was,
as himself seems to insinuate, rather of the Race of _Jacob_ than of the
_Cæsars_[116]. [Sidenote: _Chosen Bishop of_ Rome.] Upon the Death of
_Anacletus_ he was unanimously chosen by the People and Clergy of _Rome_
to succeed him. He had been named, say some, to that Dignity by St.
_Peter_ himself, preferably to Linus and _Anacletus_[117]; but had
declined it, finding that the Faithful were not all equally disposed to
submit to the Judgment and Authority of St. _Peter_. He therefore
withdrew; and, as he was of a mild and pacific Disposition, led a
retired Life to the Death of _Anacletus_, when he was forced to accept
of the Dignity, which he had before declined. Thus _Ruffinus_, upon the
Authority of the _Recognitions_; which appears to me, I must own, a very
improbable Tale. During his Pontificate happened an impious and
detestable Division, to use his own Terms, among the Christians of
_Corinth_, which obliged them to have recourse to other Churches,
especially to that of _Rome_; [Sidenote: _His famous Epistle to the_
Corinthians.] and on this occasion was written that famous Epistle to
the _Corinthians_, so much magnified by the Antients and publicly read,
not only in the Church of _Corinth_, as _Dionysius_ assures us, who was
Bishop of that City in 180, but in many other Churches, to the Time of
_Eusebius_, and St. _Jerom_[118], and perhaps long after. It was by some
ranked among the Canonical Books of the Scripture, and by all reverenced
next to them[119]. It was written in the Name of the whole Church of
_Rome_, and to the whole Church it is, in express Terms, ascribed by
_Irenæus_[120], and _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, who calls it the Epistle
of the _Romans_ to the _Corinthians_[121]. However, it was composed by
_Clement_, in the Name of the Church; for, in the primitive Times,
Bishops did nothing by themselves, but every thing jointly with their
Churches: _We advise_, _We exhort_, _We recommend_, &c. was their usual
Style; which the Popes still observe, though they mean only themselves;
for they scorn to join either with the People or Clergy. The Style of
this excellent Letter is plain, clear, full of Energy, without any
useless Ornaments; and the Whole written with the Simplicity, as
_Photius_ observes[122], that the Church requires in Ecclesiastical
Writers. There is so great an Affinity, both as to the Sense and the
Words, between this Epistle, and the Epistle to the _Hebrews_, that some
have concluded _Clement_ to have been the Translator, nay, and the
Author of that Epistle[123]. [Sidenote: _Unjustly criticized by_
Photius.] In _Clement_’s Epistle _Photius_ discovers, as he thinks,
Three Faults; _viz._ that he supposes other Worlds beyond the Ocean;
that he speaks of the Phœnix as a real Bird; and that he uses Words
expressing the Humanity of our Saviour, and not his Divinity. But, as to
the first of these Objections, there can be no Difficulty now, that we
know for certain what was but doubtfully advanced by the Antients: in
speaking of the Phœnix he complies with the Opinion universally
received in those Days by the Learned, both among the Christians and
Pagans. As to the Third Objection, _Photius_ must not have observed,
that he styles our Saviour’s Sufferings, the _Sufferings of God_, which
was acknowleging his Divinity. [Sidenote: _Thought lost, but appears
again._] This Epistle, the most precious and valuable Treasure the
Church can boast, after the holy Scriptures, was for many Ages bewailed
as lost; but, in 1633. it was again restored to the Christian World, by
_Patricius Junius_, a _North Briton_, who published it from a
Manuscript, written by an _Egyptian_ Lady, named _Thecla_, about the
Time of the great Council of _Nice_, and afterwards brought over into
_England_[124]. That this Piece is genuine, appears from a great many
Passages quoted out of it by the Antients.
The most remarkable Event that happened in the Pontificate of _Clement_,
was the Persecution of _Domitian_; but what Part he bore in it we can
learn from no credible Author. [Sidenote: Clement _dies._] He died,
according to _Eusebius_[125], in the Third Year of _Trajan_’s Reign,
that is, in the 100th of the Christian Æra. In the Canon of the Mass he
has a Place, with his Two Predecessors, among the Martyrs; but
_Telesphorus_, the Seventh Bishop of _Rome_, is the first, as I have
observed above, who was acknowleged as such by _Irenæus_, whose
Authority is of far greater Weight than that of _Ruffinus_, or Pope
_Zosimus_, who suppose him to have died for the Confession of the
Faith[126]. [Sidenote: _His fabulous Acts._] In the Acts of _Clement_,
to which _Gregory_ of _Tours_ gave an intire Credit[127], and after him
many others, especially the Two credulous Annalists, _Baronius_[128],
and _Alford_[129] in his Annals of the _British_ Church, we read, that
_Clement_ was banished, by _Trajan_, into the _Chersonesus_, beyond the
_Euxine_ Sea; that there he caused a Fountain to spring up miraculously,
for the Relief of the Christians confined to the same unhospitable
Region; that he converted the whole Country to the Faith, which provoked
the Emperor to such a degree, that he ordered him to be thrown into the
Sea, with an Anchor fastened to his Neck. It is added, that, on the
Anniversary of his Death, the Sea retired to the Place where he had been
drowned, though Three long Miles from the Shore; that upon its retiring,
there appeared a most magnificent Temple, all of the finest Marble; and
in the Temple a stately Monument, in which was found the Body of the
Saint; that the Sea continued thus retiring every Year on the same Day,
not daring, for the Space of Seven Days, to return to its usual Bounds,
that the Christians might, at their Leisure, and without Apprehension of
Danger, perform their Devotions in Honour of the Saint. [Sidenote: _The
Miracles he wrought, unknown to_ Irenæus.] To crown the Whole, they add,
that, one Year, a Mother having heedlessly left her young Child in the
Temple, upon her Return, next Year, she found it not only alive, but in
perfect Health[130]. No Mention is made of such stupendous Miracles by
_Irenæus_, who was brought up under _Polycarp_, Bishop of _Smyrna_, in
_Asia_, at the very Time _Clement_ is supposed to have suffered, and who
speaks of him at Length. His Silence is a plain Demonstration, that they
were unknown to him; and they must have been known, had they been true.
[Sidenote: _Other Writings ascribed to_ Clement. _A second Letter to
the_ Corinthians. _Five other Letters._]
Besides the Letter to the _Corinthians_, of which I have spoken above,
several other Pieces are ascribed to _Clement_; _viz_. a second Letter
to the _Corinthians_; which is, without all Doubt, very antient; but
_Eusebius_ doubts whether it was written by _Clement_[131]; and both St.
_Jerom_[132], and _Photius_[133], absolutely reject it. Five other
Letters, placed among the Decretals, whereof the first, more antient
than the rest, was translated by _Ruffinus_, and is quoted by the
Council of _Vaison_, held in 442[134]. However, it is generally looked
upon as a spurious Piece; for the Author of it, whoever he was,
acquaints St. _James_, Bishop of _Jerusalem_, who died long before St.
_Peter_, with St. _Peter_’s Death[135]. [Sidenote: _His_ Itinerary.]
_Clement_’s Itinerary, which, in _Photius_’s Time, was prefixed, by way
of Preface, to the _Recognitions_[136]. The _Recognitions_, relating,
under the Name of _Clement_, the Actions of St. _Peter_, his Interview
with _Simon_ the Magician, how _Clement_ himself knew again his Father
and his Brothers, whom he had forgot; [Sidenote: _The_ Recognitions.]
whence the whole Work took the Name of _Recognitions_, that is, _of
knowing again_: it is likewise called the _Itinerary of St._ Peter, the
_Acts of St._ Peter, the _Acts of St._ Clement[137]. The _Recognitions_
are quoted by _Origen_[138], _Epiphanius_[139], and _Ruffinus_[140], as
the Work of _Clement_, but these Writers, at the same time, own them to
have been altered in several Places, and falsified by the Heretics; nay,
_Epiphanius_ tells us, that the _Ebionites_ scarce left any thing found
in them[141]. The Author was well versed in Philosophy, Mathematics,
Astrology, and most other Sciences, but not so well acquainted with the
Doctrine of the Church; whence his Work is absolutely rejected by
_Athanasius_[142]; and now generally looked upon as a Piece falsely
ascribed to _Clement_. [Sidenote: _St._ Peter_’s Dialogues with_
Apion.] St. _Peter_’s _Dialogues_ with _Apion_ were probably written in
the Third Century, and to gain Credit fathered upon _Clement_; for
_Eusebius_ writes, that there had lately appeared a long Work, under the
Name of _Clement_, containing Dialogues between St. _Peter_ and
_Apion_[143]. [Sidenote: _The Apostolic Constitutions._] As to the
_Apostolic Constitutions_, if that Work is different from _the Doctrine
of the Apostles_ mentioned by _Athanasius_ and _Eusebius_; _Epiphanius_
is the first who speaks of it: it appears at least, from _Dionysius_ of
_Alexandria_, that, in the Year 250. the Constitutions either had not
yet appeared, or were of no Repute in the Church[144]. _Epiphanius_
tells us, that many suspected them; but, as for himself, he received
them, since he found nothing in them repugnant to the Faith, or the
Discipline of the Church[145]. But as be quotes several Passages out of
them, which are not to be found now, we may well conclude, that, since
his Time, they have been either altered or curtailed. The _Greeks_
indeed, in the Second Canon of the Council, that, in 692. was held at
_Constantinople_, in a Tower of the Imperial Palace, called _Trullus_,
that is, the _Cupola_, declare, that they had been falsified, in several
Places, by the Heretics. _Photius_ thinks that, with respect to the
Style, they fall short of the _Recognitions_, but far excel them in the
Purity of the Doctrine, adding, at the same time, that it is no easy
Task to clear them from the Imputation of _Arianism_[146]. Dr. _Pearson_
takes them to be a Collection of several Pieces, published in the
earliest Times, under the Name of the Apostles, and containing, as was
pretended, the Instructions they had given[147]. _Albaspinæus_, Bishop
of _Orange_, thinks the Matter they contain excellent, and the Whole
agreeable to the Discipline observed by the _Greek_ Church, during the
Four first Centuries; bur nevertheless he looks upon them only as a
Collection of the different Customs, that were established, by degrees,
in the Church, and some of which were disputed even in the Fourth
Century[148]; so that they can by no means be ascribed either to the
Apostles, or to _Clement_. [Sidenote: _The Canons of the Apostles._] The
_Constitutions_ end with 85 Canons, long known by the Title of _The
Canons of the Apostles_; but, as they contain several things that were
not received in the Apostles Time, nor in _Clement_’s, the ablest
Critics are of Opinion, that they likewise are but a Collection of
several Decrees made in the first Ages of the Church, and that they were
not collected into one Body till the Third Century[149]. I don’t find
them quoted before the Council of _Constantinople_ in 394. The _Greeks_,
in the Council of the Year 692. mentioned above, bound themselves to the
Observance of them; but they are all rejected by Pope _Gelasius_:
however, _Dionysius Exiguus_ having, not long after, placed the first
Fifty at the Head of his Collection, they were received by degrees; but
the other Thirty-five have not been admitted to this Day.
Upon the Whole, of the many Writings ascribed to _Clement_, the first
Letter to the _Corinthians_ is the only one undoubtedly his: and what a
wide Difference appears, as to the Spirit and Style, between that
excellent Piece, and the Briefs, Bulls, Mandates, _&c._ of his
Successors: He does not command, but exhorts; he does not threaten, but
intreats; he does not thunder Anathema’s and Excommunications, but
employs the most mild and gentle Persuasives, even with the Authors of
the Schism. [Sidenote: Clement_’s Infallibility unknown to him, and to
the_ Corinthians.] Had he known himself to be the infallible and
unerring Judge of Controversies, from whose Tribunal lay no Appeal; had
the _Corinthians_ believed themselves bound, on Pain of Damnation, to
submit to his Decisions; there had been no Room for Reasons, Arguments,
and Persuasives; he ought to have exerted the Power, with which he was
vested, and put an End to all Disputes, in the peremptory Style of his
Successors, _We declare, and command all Men to comply with this our
Declaration, on pain of incurring the Indignation of the Almighty; and_,
as if that were not enough, _of his blessed Apostles_ Peter _and_ Paul.
But it was not till some Ages after, that the Popes found out their
Infallibility, or rather their flattering Divines found it out for them;
so that this invaluable Privilege lying dormant, Men were obliged, for a
long time, to make use of their Reason, in deciding religious
Controversies.
-----
Footnote 105:
Origen. in Jo. p. 143.
Footnote 106:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.
Footnote 107:
Philip. iv. 3.
Footnote 108:
Chrys. in Phil. hom. 13.
Footnote 109:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 110:
Orig. Pr. in l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 111:
Ruf. ad Orig. 195.
Footnote 112:
Clem. strom. 4.
Footnote 113:
Euch. ad Val. p. 19.
Footnote 114:
Nil. l. 2. ep. 49.
Footnote 115:
Dio, l. 65. Suet. in Dom. c. 15. Orig. in Cels. l. 1. p. 5.
Footnote 116:
Clem. ep. 1. c. 4.
Footnote 117:
Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.
Footnote 118:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.
Footnote 119:
Vide Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. et 38. et l. 4. c. 23.
Footnote 120:
Iren. ib.
Footnote 121:
Clem. strom. 5.
Footnote 122:
Phot. c. 126.
Footnote 123:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 38. et l. 6. c. 25. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.
Footnote 124:
Not. Jun. p. 3. Not. Cotel. p. 8.
Footnote 125:
Eus. l. 3. c. 34.
Footnote 126:
Ruf. Orig. t. 1. p. 778. Concil. per Lab. t. 2. p. 1558.
Footnote 127:
Greg. Tur. de glor. martyr. c. 35.
Footnote 128:
Bar. ad ann. 102.
Footnote 129:
Alf. ad ann. eund.
Footnote 130:
Greg. Tur. ib.
Footnote 131:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.
Footnote 132:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.
Footnote 133:
Phot. c. 113.
Footnote 134:
Concil. per Labb. t. 3. p. 1458.
Footnote 135:
Vide Blond. Decret. p. 25. 28.
Footnote 136:
Phot. c. 113.
Footnote 137:
Coteler. not. in script. Apost. p. 353.
Footnote 138:
Orig. Philocal. c. 23. p. 81, 82.
Footnote 139:
Epiph. hær. 30. c. 15.
Footnote 140:
Ruf. ad Orig. p. 195.
Footnote 141:
Epiph. hær. 30. p. 65.
Footnote 142:
Athan. sym. p. 154.
Footnote 143:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.
Footnote 144:
Ign. prol. c. 8. p. 54.
Footnote 145:
Epiph. hær. 76. p. 822.
Footnote 146:
Phot. c. 113.
Footnote 147:
Pears. in Ign. t. 1. p. 60, 61.
Footnote 148:
Alb. obser. l. 1. c. 3. p. 37, 38.
Footnote 149:
Idem ib. et Ign. prol. c. 15. p. 103.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAJAN EVARISTUS,
_Fourth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 100. ]
Clement was succeeded by _Evaristus_, _Evaristes_, or _Aristus_, as he
is called in the most antient Catalogue of the Popes[150], in the Third
Year of _Trajan_’s Reign, that is, in the Close of the First Century of
the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: Evaristus _governs Nine Years_.] He
governed about Nine Years, that is, to the Twelfth Year of _Trajan_, and
the 109th of Christ[151]. _Eusebius_, in his Chronicle, supposes him to
have died in the Year 107[152]; and, in his History, says, that his
Death happened about the Year 109[153]: but, in the Series and
Succession of the Popes, that Writer is every-where consistent with
himself in his History, and quite otherwise in his Chronicle. [Sidenote:
_Several things ascribed to him, without sufficient Foundation._]
Besides, the History ought to correct the Chronicle, as being posterior
to it. To _Evaristus_ are ascribed Two Decretals, the Distribution of
the Titles or Parishes of _Rome_, on which _Baronius_ makes a long
Descant[154], and an Order, that Bishops, when they preached, should be
always attended by Seven Deacons[155]. But these, and many other things
of the same Nature, we read only in _Baronius_, _Platina_, _Anastasius_,
_Ciaconius_, &c. and my Design is, as I have declared in the Preface, to
follow the Antients alone, in the History of the antient Popes; and
therefore I shall take no notice of what the Moderns advance, unless I
find it supported by the Authority of the original Writers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAJAN ALEXANDER, ADRIAN.
_Fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 109. ]
_Sixtus_ is placed, by _Optatus Milevitanus_[156], immediately after
_Evaristus_; but that is certainly a Mistake, owing, in all likelihood,
to those who transcribed him, since _Irenæus_[157], _Eusebius_[158],
_Epiphanius_[159], and even St. _Augustin_[160], who follows _Optatus_
in every thing else relating to the Popes, place _Alexander_ between
_Evaristus_ and _Sixtus_. _Irenæus_ reckons _Alexander_ the Fifth Bishop
of _Rome_; so that we agree with the most authentic and unexceptionable
Writer of Antiquity in excluding St. _Peter_, and supposing _Cletus_ and
_Anacletus_ to be one and the same Person[161]. _Alexander_ governed Ten
Years, and some Months; and died in the Third Year of _Adrian_, and 119
of Christ[162]. [Sidenote: Alexander _not a Martyr_.] We can learn
nothing of the Antients concerning him: he is worshiped indeed by the
Church of _Rome_ as a Martyr; but that Title is not given him by
_Irenæus_: and as for the Venerable _Bede_, who ranks him among the
Martyrs, he was led into that Mistake by _The Acts of St. Alexander_,
which, in the Opinion of Dr. _Pearson_, were composed in the Seventh
Century, but are now universally rejected as fabulous. [Sidenote: _The
Institution of Holy Water falsly ascribed to him._] _Platina_ ascribes
to Pope _Alexander_ the Institution of _Holy Water_[163], which
_Baronius_ takes very much amiss of him, since he thereby robs the
Apostles of an Honour due to them; for by the Apostles, in his Opinion,
was first introduced the Use of _Holy Water_[164]. But if we trace up
this _Holy Water_ to the Fountain-head, we shall find that it arises
from an unhallowed Spring, from the _Lustral Water_ of the Pagans; for
peace being restored to the Church by _Constantine_, the Christians
began, as a modern Writer well observes[165], to adopt the Ceremonies of
the _Gentiles_. Several Cities in _Italy_, _France_, _Germany_, _Spain_,
&c. pretend to have Reliques of this Pope, insomuch that, were they all
put together, they would form at least twenty intire Bodies[166].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN. SIXTUS,,
_Sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 119. ]
The Successor of _Alexander_ is named _Sixtus_ by _Optatus_[167], and
St. _Augustin_[168]; but by _Irenæus_[169], _Eusebius_[170],
_Epiphanius_[171], and _Jerom_[172], _Xystus_: which Word has some
Signification annexed to it in _Greek_; whereas _Sixtus_ has none either
in _Greek_ or _Latin_. He presided Ten Years according to
_Eusebius_[173], but not complete; for he was raised to the See in the
Third Year of _Adrian_, of Christ 119. and died in the Twelfth Year of
the same Prince, about the latter End of the Year of Christ 128[174]. He
is ranked among the Martyrs in the Canon of the Mass, and in all the
Martyrologies: but his immediate Successor is the first to whom that
Title is given by _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: _Decretals falsly ascribed to_
Sixtus.] To _Sixtus_ are ascribed two Decretals, but both forged in
latter Ages, as plainly appears from _De Marca_, from _Baluzius_, and,
above all, from the haughty Title of _Universal Bishop_, which _Sixtus_
is made to assume in one of them: a Title, as F. _Pagi_ is forced to
confess, unknown to the Bishops of the primitive and best Times[175].
_His Reliques._ The Title of _Universal_ would be better adapted to the
Reliques of this Pope, than to his Episcopacy; for they are dispersed
all over the Roman Catholic World: but _Baillet_ himself looks upon them
as false, and unworthy of the Worship that is paid to them, not
excepting even those that were given by _Clement_ X. to Cardinal _De
Retz_, who caused them to be placed with great Solemnity in the Abbey of
_St. Michael_ in _Lorrain_[176].
-----
Footnote 150:
Buch. p. 270.
Footnote 151:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 34.
Footnote 152:
Euseb. chron. l. 4. c. 1.
Footnote 153:
Idem, l. 3. c. 34.
Footnote 154:
Bar. ann. 112.
Footnote 155:
Idem, ann. 121.
Footnote 156:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 157:
Iren. l. 3. c. 6.
Footnote 158:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 1.
Footnote 159:
Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.
Footnote 160:
Aug. ep. 165.
Footnote 161:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 6.
Footnote 162:
Idem, l. 4. c. 5.
Footnote 163:
Platin. in ej. vit.
Footnote 164:
Bar. ad ann. 132. N. 3.
Footnote 165:
Le Sueur, hist. de l'Egl. & de l'Emp. ad ann. 108.
Footnote 166:
Vid. Bolland. 3 Maii, p. 370. & Baillet vies de Saints, 3 de Mai.
Footnote 167:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 168:
Aug. ep. 53.
Footnote 169:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 170:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 4.
Footnote 171:
Epiph. hær. 97. c. 6.
Footnote 172:
Hier. chron.
Footnote 173:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 174:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 4, & 5.
Footnote 175:
Pagi in vit. Sixt.
Footnote 176:
Baill. ib. 6. d'Avril.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN. TELESPHORUS, ANTONIUS PIUS.
_Seventh_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 128. ]
_Sixtus_ was succeeded by _Telesphorus_ (or, as some style him,
_Thelesphorus_), the Seventh Bishop of the See of _Rome_[177]. To him is
ascribed, in some Editions of the Chronicle of _Eusebius_, the
Institution of _Lent_[178]; but in none of the best Editions Mention is
made of such an Institution, and scarce in any Manuscripts[179].
_Baronius_ endeavours to prove, that this Fast was instituted by the
Apostles, and that _Telesphorus_ established it for ever by a Decree;
but his Arguments are so weak, that he deserves rather to be pitied than
answered. He introduces too early the Bishops of _Rome_ issuing Decrees,
and prescribing Laws to the whole Church. [Sidenote: Telesphorus _the
first Bishop of_ Rome _Martyr_.] _Telesphorus_ was the first Bishop of
_Rome_ who suffered Death for the Christian Religion, seeing _Irenæus_
distinguishes him with the Title of Martyr[180], which this Author gives
to none of his Predecessors; but, as to the Particulars of his Death,
the Antients have left us quite in the Dark. He suffered in the Eleventh
Year of his Pontificate, the First of _Antoninus Pius_, and 139 of
Christ[181].
-----
Footnote 177:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 4. c. 5.
Footnote 178:
Bar. ad ann. 154.
Footnote 179:
Not. Scal. in chron. 216. Not. Pont. in chron. p. 612.
Footnote 180:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 181:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 10.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONINUS PIUS. HYGINUS,,
_Eighth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 139. ]
_Hyginus_, the Successor of _Telesphorus_, governed the Church but Four
Years, and those not complete; for, in 142. we find _Pius_ already in
that See[182]. [Sidenote: _The Two Heretics_, Valentine _and_ Cerdo,
_come to_ Rome.] In his Time the two famous Heretics, _Valentine_ and
_Cerdo_, came to _Rome_; the former from _Egypt_, and the latter from
_Syria_, to display their new Doctrine in that great Metropolis.
_Hyginus_ no doubt opposed them with all the Zeal of a primitive Bishop;
but, in spite of his Zeal, they gained a great many Proselytes to their
heterodox Opinions[183]. His Infallibility, had it been then known and
believed, would have soon put a Stop to the growing Evil. The Church of
_Rome_ honours _Hyginus_ among her Martyrs; but none of the Antients
give him that Title. To him is ascribed the Use of Godfathers and
Godmothers in Baptism, and the Ceremony of Consecrating Churches; but
upon no better Grounds than the Two Decretals are fathered upon him,
which are, by all the Learned, rejected as spurious. _Hyginus_ died in
the Year 142. the Fourth or Fifth of _Antoninus Pius_; and is supposed
to have been buried near St. _Peter_[184].
-----
Footnote 182:
Idem, l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 183:
Iren. l. 3. c. 4. Philas. c. 44. Epiph. hær. 41. c. 1.
Footnote 184:
Bolland. April. p. 22.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONINUS PIUS. PIUS,
_Ninth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 142.
]
_Anicetus_ is placed next to _Hyginus_ by _Optatus_[185], St.
_Augustin_[186], and _Epiphanius_[187]: But who would not, with
_Eusebius_[188], rather follow _Irenæus_[189], and _Hegesippus_[190],
naming _Pius_ immediately after _Hyginus_, since the former wrote in the
Time of _Eleutherius_ the Second Bishop after _Anicetus_; and the latter
lived at _Rome_ in the Time of _Anicetus_, and continued there till the
Pontificate of _Eleutherius_.
[Sidenote: Marcion _comes to_ Rome.]
In the Time of _Pius_, _Marcion_, a Native of _Pontus_, and the Son of a
Bishop of the holy Catholic Church, says _Epiphanius_[191], being
excommunicated by his Father for debauching a Virgin, and finding he
could by no means prevail upon the venerable Prelate to receive him
again into the Church, abandoned his native City, supposed to be
_Sinope_, and fled to _Rome_. Upon his Arrival there, he applied to the
Elders of that Church, intreating them to admit him to their Communion.
But those holy Men, who had been taught by the Disciples of the
Apostles, instead of complying with his Request, returned him this
Answer; [Sidenote: _The Power of receiving Appeals disowned by
the Church of_ Rome.] We cannot admit you without Leave from your holy
Father; nor can we, as we are all united in the same Faith, and the same
Sentiments, undo what our holy Collegue your Father has done.--Thus
_Epiphanius_[192]. Had _Bellarmine_ lived in those Days, he had taught
them another Doctrine, a Doctrine which, however necessary, the Apostles
had forgot to deliver to their Disciples; _viz._ That the See of _Rome_
was raised above all other Sees; that the Appeals of the whole Catholic
Church were to be brought to it; that no Appeals were to be made from
it; that it was to judge of the whole Church, but be judged by none.
_Marcion_ did not apply to _Pius_, as the Reader must have observed, or
at least did not apply to him alone, but to the Elders, who disclaimed
all Power of reversing the Sentence of a particular Bishop or Judge. And
is not this an evident and incontestable Proof that the Power of
receiving Appeals was not known, or thought of, in those Days? And yet,
who would believe it? _Bellarmine_ has the Assurance to allege this very
Case as an Argument to prove in the Pope a Power of receiving
Appeals[193]. But what would become of this Prerogative, should the Pope
return the same Answer to every Appellant?
[Sidenote: Pius _no Martyr_.]
_Pius_ governed the Church for the Space of Fifteen Years, and died in
157. the Twentieth of _Antoninus_[194]. The _Roman_ Martyrology tells
us, that he was martyred in the Persecution of _Antoninus Pius_; but in
that Prince’s Reign there was no Persecution; nor is the Title of Martyr
given him by _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: _Writings ascribed to him._]
_Baronius_ ascribes to this Pope a Decree, commanding the Festival of
_Easter_ to be kept on _Sunday_, and quotes the Chronicle of
_Eusebius_[195]. This Decree is indeed mentioned in some Editions of
that Writer; but _Scaliger_ assures us, that no Mention is made of it in
any Manuscript Copy; and therefore he has left it out in his
Edition[196]. As to the Celebration of _Easter_, it is manifest from
_Irenæus_, that though _Pius_, as well as his Predecessors _Sixtus_,
_Telesphorus_ and _Hyginus_, differed from the Bishops of _Asia_, yet
they did not on that Account separate themselves from their
Communion[197]. On this Pope are fathered several spurious Pieces,
_viz._ some Decrees, Two Letters ranked among the Decretals, and Two
more written to _Justus_ Bishop of _Vienne_ in _Dauphiné_. The Decrees,
as well as the Decretals, are universally rejected; and yet F. _Pagi_
quotes one of them to prove the real Presence in the Sacrament[198]. The
two Letters to _Justus_ are deemed genuine by _Baronius_[199], by
Cardinal _Bona_[200], and by _Blondel_ in his Treatise of the
Sibyls[201], who nevertheless suspects them elsewhere[202]. On the other
hand, they are absolutely rejected as false by Dr. _Pearson_[203], by
_Cotelerius_[204], and _Natalis Alexander_[205], who discover several
Expressions in them that were not in Use till some Ages after, and a
great many Incoherences. To say with _Le Sueur_, That they were written
originally in _Greek_, and in latter Times translated into _Latin_[206],
is but a poor Evasion. As for the Fable of _Hermes_, the Brother of
_Pius_, who, by the Command of an Angel appearing to him in the Disguise
of a Shepherd, is said to have written a Book shewing, that _Easter_
ought to be kept on _Sunday_, I refer the Reader to _Platina_, and
such-like Writers.
-----
Footnote 185:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 186:
Aug. ep. 53.
Footnote 187:
Epiph. hær. 42.
Footnote 188:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.
Footnote 189:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 190:
Apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 22.
Footnote 191:
Epiph. hær. 42. c. 1.
Footnote 192:
Idem ib.
Footnote 193:
Bell. l. 2. c. 21.
Footnote 194:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 195:
Bar. ad ann. 159.
Footnote 196:
Euseb. chron. not. Scal. p. 119.
Footnote 197:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.
Footnote 198:
Pagi in Pio, n. 2.
Footnote 199:
Bar. ad ann. 166.
Footnote 200:
Bona rer. liturgic. l. 1. c. 3.
Footnote 201:
Blond. l. 2. c. 6.
Footnote 202:
Idem de la primauté.
Footnote 203:
Pears. in Ign. l. 2. p. 170.
Footnote 204:
Cotel. not. in script. Apost. p. 42, 43.
Footnote 205:
Nat. Alex. t. 1. p. 89.
Footnote 206:
Sueur. hist. de l'Egl. &c. ad ann. 149.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONINUS, ANICETUS, M. AURELIUS.
_Tenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 157. _St._ Polycarp _comes to_ Rome, _and
reclaims many from the Errors of_ Marcion.]
_Pius_ was succeeded by _Anicetus_, in whose Time _Valentine_ the
Heretic, who came to _Rome_ in the Pontificate of _Hyginus_, and had
gained many Proselytes under _Pius_, continued sowing his pestilential
Errors among the Members of that Church: but many whom he had seduced,
were reclaimed by St. _Polycarp_, formerly the Disciple of St. _John_
the Evangelist, and then Bishop of _Smyrna_. His declaring to them, that
the Doctrine taught by the Church was the Doctrine he had learnt of the
Apostles, made such an Impression on their Minds, that they abjured the
Errors of _Valentine_, and returned to the Communion of the
Faithful[207]. They preferred the bare Word of _Polycarp_, who claimed
no Infallibility, to the infallible Authority of _Hyginus_, _Pius_, and
_Anicetus_. This is a plain Proof, that the Popes had not yet begun to
exert their Infallibility; or, if they had, that it was not acknowleged.
What brought St. _Polycarp_ to _Rome_ was the Controversy about the
Celebration of _Easter_, which at this Time began to grow very warm
between the Eastern and Western Churches[208]. All the Churches of the
East, and amongst the rest that of _Smyrna_, kept _Easter_ on the 14th
Day of the Moon of the first Month, in Conformity to the Custom of the
_Jews_: on the other hand, _Anicetus_ would neither conform to that
Custom himself, nor suffer any under his Jurisdiction to conform to it,
obliging them to celebrate that Solemnity on the _Sunday_ next following
the 14th of the Moon. That this Dispute might not occasion a Schism in
the Church, _Polycarp_ undertook a Journey to _Rome_, in order to confer
with the Bishop of that City, who was the chief Opposer of the
_Quartodecimans_[209]. [Sidenote: Anicetus _and he disagree about
the Celebration of_ Easter, _but part without Breach of Charity_.] But
it happened in this, as it does in most religious Disputes, they parted,
each retaining his own Way of thinking; but at the same time, what
happens but seldom, without the least Breach of that Charity which is
the great and fundamental Law of our holy Religion. In Token whereof
they communicated together at the holy Sacrament; nay, _Anicetus_, out
of Respect to St. _Polycarp_, yielded to him the _Eucharist_[210]; that
is, gave him Leave to consecrate the _Eucharist_ in his own Church:
after which they parted in Peace, though both determined to follow the
antient Practice of their respective Churches[211]. St. _Polycarp_,
though well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Apostles, was a
Stranger, it seems, to that of _Bellarmine_, _Baronius_, &c. _viz._ that
the whole Catholic Church is bound to conform to the Rites, Ceremonies,
and Customs of the Church of _Rome_.
[Sidenote: Hegesippus _and St._ Justin _at_ Rome.]
In the Time of _Anicetus_, _Hegesippus_, and the celebrated Martyr St.
_Justin_, came to _Rome_, upon what Occasion is uncertain. The former
continuing there to the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, wrote a Book on
the Doctrine which in that Church had been conveyed down from the
Apostles to _Anicetus_, and was still observed, says he, in all its
original Purity[212]. The latter opposed with great Zeal _Marcion_, and
his Followers, publishing a Book against his pernicious Tenets, and
against Heresies in general[213]. It was at _Rome_ that he had frequent
Conferences with _Crescens_ the _Cynic_, a Man of some Note at that
Time; but, according to the Genius of his Sect, proud, surly, conceited,
and a declared Enemy to all who professed the Christian Religion, which
he painted in the blackest Colours[214]. The Malice of this _Cynic_
procured in the End for our zealous and learned Apologist what he had
long and most ardently wished, the Glory of sealing with his Blood the
Truth, which he had so strenuously defended and promoted with his
Pen[215]. He suffered under _Marcus Aurelius_ and _L. Verus_ about the
Year 167. towards the End of the Pontificate of _Anicetus_.
To this Pope are ascribed by _Anastasius_, _Platina_, _Ciaconius_, and
other modern Writers, several Ordinances and Decrees; but as they are
not mentioned by any of the Antients, we do not think them worthy of our
Notice. _Anicetus_ governed the Church, according to _Eusebius_[216],
Eleven Years, from the Year 157. to the 8th Year of _M. Aurelius_, that
is, to 168. of the Christian Æra. _Raban_, _Florus_, and _Anastasius_,
suppose him to have died for the Profession of the Faith; which was, it
seems, unknown to _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: Anicetus _not a Martyr_.] He was
buried, according to some, near St. _Peter_, in the _Vatican_, according
to others, in the Burying-place of _Calixtus_[217]; out of which, though
it is uncertain whether he was buried there or no, [Sidenote: _His
Reliques._] his Head was taken in 1590. and given by _Urban_ VII. to the
_Jesuits_ of _Munich_ in _Bavaria_, where it is yearly, with great
Solemnity, exposed to public Adoration on the 17th of _April_, the
Anniversary, as is supposed, of his Death: his Body was taken out of the
same Place in 1604. and given by _Clement_ VIII. to the Duke of
_Altaemps_, who caused it to be conveyed to the Chapel of his Palace in
_Rome_, and to be deposited there in a Marble Tomb, formerly the Tomb of
the Emperor _Alexander_; where it is worshiped to this Day.
-----
Footnote 207:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 1. c. 24.
Footnote 208:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 13.
Footnote 209:
Iren. apud Euseb. l. iv. c. 14.
Footnote 210:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 23, 24.
Footnote 211:
Idem ib.
Footnote 212:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 213:
Just. Apol. 2. p. 70.
Footnote 214:
Tatian. orat. cont. Græc. p. 160.
Footnote 215:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 16. Epiph. hær. 46. c. 1.
Footnote 216:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 19.
Footnote 217:
Vide Bolland. April 17, & 22.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
M. AURELIUS. SOTER,
_Eleventh_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 168. ]
_Soter_, the Successor of _Anicetus_, is highly commended on account of
his extensive Charity towards the Poor of other Churches, but more
especially towards those who were condemned for the Confession of their
Faith to work in the Mines[218]. [Sidenote: _His Charities to
the distressed Christians._] These he is said not only to have relieved
in their Distress with generous Gatherings made for that Purpose at
_Rome_, wherein he followed the Example of his Predecessors, but
moreover to have sent Letters to them in their afflicted Condition. This
we learn from a Letter of _Dionysius_, then Bishop of _Corinth_, which
was an Answer to a Letter from _Soter_, and the Church of _Rome_.
_Dionysius_ returns Thanks to the _Romans_, and their Bishop, for their
Generosity to the Poor of _Corinth_; acquaints _Soter_ that his Letter
had been publicly read; adds, that he shall cause it to be read for the
future; and closes his Epistle with great Encomiums on the _Romans_, who
had so generously contributed to the Support of the indigent
_Corinthians_[219]. This laudable Custom did not end with the Second
Century of the Church; for _Dionysius_ of _Alexandria_, writing about
the Year 254. to _Stephen_ Bishop of _Rome_, says, that all _Syria_ and
_Arabia_ felt the good Effects of the Generosity of the _Romans_[220].
And some Years after, that is, about the Year 260. Pope _Dionysius_
being informed, that the City of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_ had been
ruined by the Wars, and many Christians carried into Captivity, he sent
large Sums to ransom them, with a Letter to the Church of _Cæsarea_,
which was still read in St. _Basil_’s Time[221]. _Eusebius_ tells us,
that this Custom continued till the last Persecution[222]. How
differently the immense Revenues of the See of _Rome_ are employed now,
those know who have seen the extravagant Pomp, Luxury, and Parade of
that Court. [Sidenote: _The Heresy of_ Montanus _broached in his Time_.]
In the Year 171. the Fourth of _Soter_, was broached the Heresy of the
_Montanists_, so called from their Ringleader _Montanus_[223]. Against
these _Soter_ is said, by an anonymous Writer of some Antiquity, to have
composed a Book, which was answered, according to the same Writer, by
_Tertullian_, become the Defender of that Sect[224]: but, according to
the best Chronologists, _Tertullian_ did not turn _Montanist_ till many
Years after the Death of _Soter_; and, besides, both _Soter_’s Book, and
_Tertullian_’s Answer to it, were quite unknown to _Eusebius_, and even
to St. _Jerom_, who took great Delight in reading _Tertullian_. _Soter_
presided Eight Years, according to _Eusebius_[225]; that is, from the
Year 168. to 176. or to the Beginning of 177. the 17th Year of the Reign
of _M. Aurelius_. [Sidenote: _He did not die a Martyr._] The Title of
Martyr is given him by the modern Writers, but not by _Irenæus_, or any
of the Antients. To him are falsly ascribed Two Epistles, which have
been placed among the Decretals. Where he was buried is uncertain; but
his Body is worshiped, at present, in the Church of St. _Sylvester_ at
_Rome_, _and in the Cathedral of_ Toledo _in_ Spain[226].
-----
Footnote 218:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.
Footnote 219:
Idem ib.
Footnote 220:
Idem, l. 7. c. 5.
Footnote 221:
Basil. ep. 220.
Footnote 222:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.
Footnote 223:
Euseb. chron.
Footnote 224:
Auct. anonym. de hæres. Sirmund. edit. hær. 26. 86. p. 28. 79.
Footnote 225:
Euseb. l. 5. p. 153.
Footnote 226:
Bar. in martyrol. 22 April. et Bolland. ad eund. diem.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
M. AURELIUS, ELEUTHERIUS, COMMODUS.
_Twelfth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 176. ]
_Eleutherius_ was Deacon of the Church of _Rome_ in 168. when
_Hegesippus_ came to that City[227]; but _Soter_, the Successor of
_Anicetus_, being dead, he was chosen to govern the Church in his
room[228]. [Sidenote: _The Martyrs of_ Lions _write to_ Eleutherius.] It
is certain, that his Election was known in _Gaul_ before the Death of
the Martyrs of _Lions_, so famous in ecclesiastical History; for the
Controversy, which had been raised some Years before in the Churches of
_Asia_, by _Montanus_ and his Followers, concerning the prophetic
Spirit, to which they pretended, making at that time a great Noise in
the Church, the Martyrs of _Lions_, desirous to contribute, so far as in
them lay, to the public Peace, wrote Letters, from their Prisons, to the
Churches of _Asia_, and likewise to _Eleutherius_, Bishop of _Rome_,
declaring their Judgment and Opinion in the Case[229]: for great Honour
was paid, in those Times, to the Martyrs, and their Opinion was always
received with Esteem and Veneration. It were much to be wished, that
_Eusebius_ had set down their Opinion at Length; but he contents himself
only with saying, that it was intirely agreeable to true Piety, and to
the orthodox Faith[230]; which, in my Opinion, is enough to make us
reject the Notion of Dr. _Pearson_, who takes it for granted, that they
wrote in Favour of those Fanatics, and that for no other Reason but
because they are said, by _Eusebius_, to have written for the Peace of
the Church[231]. Was the admitting of false Prophets, and false
Prophecies, giving Peace to the Church? The same Writer adds, that
_Eleutherius_ was induced, by the Reverence and Regard he had for the
holy Martyrs, to receive the Prophecies of _Montanus_, and his Two
Prophetesses[232]. [Sidenote: Eleutherius _did not approve the
Prophecies of_ Montanus.] But herein I must beg Leave to disagree with
that learned Writer, and likewise with Dr. _Cave_[233]; for it was not,
in my Opinion, _Eleutherius_, but his Successor _Victor_, who received
the Prophecies of _Montanus_. _Tertullian_, the only Author who informs
us, that the Dreams of that Enthusiast were approved by the Bishop of
_Rome_, does not distinguish that Bishop by his Name; so that he is to
be found out only by Reasoning and Chronology. Now, on one hand, we read
in _Tertullian_, that _Montanus_ had been opposed by _the Predecessors_
of the Bishop, who embraced his Opinions[234]; and, on the other, in
_Eusebius_[235], that the Heresy of _Montanus_ was first broached in the
Year 171. the Eleventh of the Reign of _M. Aurelius_, and the Fourth of
the Pontificate of _Soter_, the immediate Predecessor of _Eleutherius_;
these Two therefore, and these alone, were the Bishops, who could oppose
_Montanus_; and, since the first Broaching of that Heresy, the only
Predecessors of the Bishop who embraced it. _Victor_, the Successor of
_Eleutherius_, was greatly provoked against the _Asiatic_ Bishops, on
account of their refusing to comply with the Custom of the Church of
_Rome_, in the Celebration of _Easter_; and therefore might, out of
Spite to them, approve of the Opinions which they had condemned: for
_Montanus_, and his Followers, had been already condemned, as _Eusebius_
informs us[236], by several Synods held in _Asia Minor_. [Sidenote:
_Councils held without consulting the Bishop of_ Rome.] No Opinion is
now deemed heretical, unless condemned by the Bishop of _Rome_, who
claims that Prerogative as peculiar to himself; but the Synods of
_Asia_, the first mentioned in History, after that of the Apostles at
_Jerusalem_, condemned the Opinions of _Montanus_, and cut him off from
their Communion, without consulting or even acquainting therewith, the
Bishop of _Rome_. But, to return to the Martyrs; some are of Opinion,
that they condemned, in their Letters, the Tenets of _Montanus_, and his
Followers; but, at the same time, wrote in their Favour, to far as to
intreat the Bishops of _Asia_, and _Eleutherius_ Bishop of _Rome_, to
treat them with Indulgence, and admit them, upon Repentance, to their
Communion[237]. This is but a bare Conjecture, not authorized by any of
the Antients; and we don’t find, that the _Montanists_ ever shewed the
least Inclination to return to the Communion of the Church.
[Sidenote: Florinus _and_ Blastus _broach their new Doctrine_.]
It was in the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, that _Florinus_ and
_Blastus_ first broached their new Doctrine; which was readily embraced
by many at _Rome_; for they were both Presbyters of that Church[238].
_Florinus_ was first one of the Emperor’s Officers in _Asia_, afterwards
the Disciple of St. _Polycarp_, then famous all over that Province; and,
lastly, Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_; but both he and _Blastus_
were degraded on account of their heretical Opinions, and cut off from
the Communion of the Faithful[239]. Against _Florinus_, _Irenæus_, then
Bishop of _Lions_, wrote a Letter, intituled, _Of Monarchy, or that God
is not the Author of Evil_[240]; and another Piece called, _De Ogdoede_,
that is, _of the Eight_; meaning, perhaps, the Eight _Eons_, or Persons
that composed the chimerical Divinity of the _Valentinians_; for
_Florinus_ fell at last into that Heresy[241]. Against _Blastus_, whom
_Pacian_ surnames the _Greek_[242], _Irenæus_ wrote a Book, intituled,
_Of Schism_[243]. _Ado_[244] and _Bede_[245] tell us, that _Eleutherius_
issued a Decree, ordaining _Easter_ to be kept on the _Sunday_ after the
14th of the first Moon; but as no mention is made of such a Decree, by
any Writer of those Times, their Authority is of no Weight.
[Sidenote: _The Conversion of_ Lucius, _a_ British _King_.]
_Lucius_, a _British_ King, is said, by _Bede_, to have written to Pope
_Eleutherius_, intreating him to send a proper Person into _Britain_, to
instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion; which the Pope
readily granted[246]. But as this is vouched only by _Bede_, who lived
many Ages after him, and by a Pontifical, supposed to have been written
about the Middle of the Sixth Century, what Credit the whole History of
_Lucius_ may deserve, I leave the Reader to judge. Such a remarkable
Event could not have escaped _Eusebius_, who, speaking of this very
Period of Time, tells us, that, at _Rome_, many Persons, eminent for
their Birth and Wealth, embraced the Christian Religion, with their
whole Families[247]. A solemn Embassy from a _British_ King, and his
Conversion, surely deserved a Place in the History of the Church.
[Sidenote: _The whole Account fabulous._] He informs us, that, in the
Reign of _Commodus_, and the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, the Christian
Religion enjoyed a profound Tranquillity all over the World; that it
flourished, and attracted, to use his Expression, the Minds of many
People[248]. Had he not here a favourable Opportunity of mentioning our
Royal Proselyte, who, in the Reign of _Commodus_, is supposed to have
written to _Eleutherius_, and by his means to have been converted to the
Christian Religion? To what can we ascribe the Silence of such an exact
and accurate Writer, concerning an Event which would have greatly
recommended both his History, and the Christian Religion? To an
invincible Antipathy, says the Jesuit _Alford_[249], which he bore to
the Name of _Britain_, and which was so prevalent in him, that he chose
rather to suppress the Conversion of _Lucius_ than mention it. But what
could thus set _Eusebius_ against _Britain_? Had he been ever injured by
the _Britons_? Does he not elsewhere mention both them and their
Country? This jesuitical, absurd, and groundless Speculation, which must
expose the Author of it to the Ridicule of every Reader, I should
perhaps have let pass unobserved, had he not in this very Place
insulted, beyond the Bounds of common Decency, the Reformers of
Religion, for rejecting some idle Ceremonies, which he supposes to have
been practised at the Conversion of _Lucius_. But, not to lay the whole
Stress on the Silence of _Eusebius_, and other antient Writers, to whom
King _Lucius_ was utterly unknown, why should he have been at the
Trouble of sending to _Rome_ for an Instructor? Were there not many in
his own Kingdom as capable of instructing him as any _Rome_ could send?
The Christian Religion had been planted in this Island long before the
Reign of _Lucius_, in the Time of the Apostles, as _Gildas_ seems to
insinuate[250], at least very early in the Second Century; for _Origen_,
who flourished in the Beginning of the Third, tells us, that the Virtue
of the Name of _Jesus_ had passed the Seas, to find out the _Britons_ in
another World[251].
[Sidenote: _Several Monkish Fables concerning King_ Lucius.]
The short Account, which _Bede_ gives us of the Embassy and Conversion
of King _Lucius_, has not only been greedily swallowed by the Monkish
Writers, who came after him, but has served as a Ground-plot to the
innumerable Fables with which they have filled this Part of their
Histories. They even tell us the Names of the Embassadors sent by
_Lucius_ to the Pope, and of the Legates _a Latere_ sent by the Pope to
_Lucius_. The former were _Elvanus_ and _Medwinus_, who, being ordained
Bishops by _Eleutherius_, returned to _Britain_, and greatly contributed
to the Conversion of this Island. These Fables gained Credit, by
Degrees, in those Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, insomuch that the
Two Embassadors were at last ranked among the Saints; and their Bodies,
where or when found, nobody knows, exposed to public Veneration, in the
Monastery of _Glassenbury_, on the First of _January_[252]. The Pope’s
Legates were _Fugacius_ and _Damianus_, who, as we are told, went back
to _Rome_, to obtain of _Eleutherius_ a Confirmation of what they had
done; and, from _Rome_, returned into _Britain_, with a Letter from the
Pope to King _Lucius_[253]. As for the King himself, he is said to have
quitted his Kingdom, and, turning Missionary, to have preached the
Gospel in _Germany_, especially at _Ausburgh_; to have travelled from
thence into the Country of the _Grisons_; and, lastly, to have been
ordained Bishop of _Coire_, their Metropolis; and to have died there a
Martyr[254]. To these Monkish Fables King _Lucius_ owes a Place among
the Saints; for on the Third of _December_ is kept, in the Church of
_Rome_, _the Festival of_ Lucius, _King of the_ Britons, _who died at_
Coire _in_ Germany[255]: these are the Words of the _Roman_ Martyrology;
but _Bede_ does not so much as mention him in his; a plain Proof, that
what is said of his Preaching, of his Martyrdom, _&c._ was invented
after that Writer’s Time. And yet _Alford_ has not only filled his
Annals with these, and suchlike fabulous Accounts, giving an intire
Credit to them, but inveighs, with great Acrimony, against those who
have not the Gift of Belief in the same Degree with himself, especially
against _Dempster_, telling, him, that till his Time the Conversion of
_Lucius_ had never been questioned by any Man of Sense or Learning[256].
And truly, the Story of King _Lucius_ has been credited even by the
greater Part of Protestant Writers, out of Respect to our venerable
Historian; but as he wrote many Ages after the pretended Conversion of
that Prince, and none of the Writers of those Days, whom such a
remarkable Event could hardly have escaped, give us the least Hint of
it, we may be well allowed to question the Whole, notwithstanding the
Authority of _Bede_, which can be of no Weight with respect to
Transactions that are said to have happened in Times so remote.
_Eleutherius_ governed, according to the best Chronologers, Fifteen
Years; and died in 192. the last of the Emperor _Commodus_[257]. To him
are ascribed a Decretal, addressed to the Bishops of _Gaul_, and a
Decree, declaring against _Montanus_, and his Followers, that no Food
was forbidden to the Christians; but both are deemed spurious. He was
buried, according to some, in the _Salarian Way_, according to others,
in the _Vatican_; but, in what Place soever he was buried, his Body is
now worshiped in the _Vatican_ at _Rome_, in the Cathedral of _Troia_ in
_Apulia_, and in several other Places[258]. The Title of Martyr is given
him by the Church of _Rome_, but not by any of the antient Writers.
Under him flourished _Hegesippus_, who wrote, in Five Books, an Account
of what had happened in the Church since our Saviour’s Death, to his
Time[259]. He came to _Rome_ in the Pontificate of _Anicetus_, who was
chosen in 157. and, remaining there to the Time of _Eleutherius_, who
succeeded _Anicetus_ and _Soter_ in 177. he wrote a Book on the Doctrine
received by Tradition in that Church[260]; but neither of these Works
has reached our Times.
-----
Footnote 227:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. Hier. vir. ill. c. 22.
Footnote 228:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 229:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 230:
Euseb. ib.
Footnote 231:
Pears. post. p. 255.
Footnote 232:
Idem ib.
Footnote 233:
Cave Lives of the Fathers, p. 164.
Footnote 234:
Tert. in Prax. c. 1.
Footnote 235:
Euseb. in chron.
Footnote 236:
Idem l. 5. c. 16. Con. per Labb. t. 1. p. 599.
Footnote 237:
Vide Dupin. Biblioth. p. 287.
Footnote 238:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 14.
Footnote 239:
Idem ib. c. 15, 20.
Footnote 240:
Idem ib.
Footnote 241:
Fleuri hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 26, 27. p. 395. 397.
Footnote 242:
Pacian. ep. 1.
Footnote 243:
Euseb. ib. c. 20.
Footnote 244:
Ado ad ann. 194.
Footnote 245:
Bed. chron. t. 2. p. 111.
Footnote 246:
Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 4. et chron. t. 2. p. 111.
Footnote 247:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 21.
Footnote 248:
Idem ib.
Footnote 249:
Annal. ad ann. 182. p. 140.
Footnote 250:
Gild. ex. c. 6. p. 116.
Footnote 251:
Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.
Footnote 252:
Vide Ush. Brit. eccles. antiq. c. 4. et Bolland. 1. Jan.
Footnote 253:
Bar. ad ann. 183. Bolland. 26 Maii. Ush. ib. p. 54. 102.
Footnote 254:
Vide Ush. ib. p. 137, 138.
Footnote 255:
Martyr. Rom. 3 Decem.
Footnote 256:
Alf. ad ann. 201. p. 201.
Footnote 257:
Euseb. chron. Florent. p. 811.
Footnote 258:
Bolland. 26 Maii, p. 364.
Footnote 259:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 22.
Footnote 260:
Idem ib. et Euseb. l. 4. c. 11, 22.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODUS, VICTOR, SEVERUS.
PERTINAX, _Thirteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 192. ]
_Victor_, the Successor of _Eleutherius_, is counted by a Writer, who at
this very time lived in _Rome_, the Thirteenth Bishop of that City[261]:
so that neither is St. _Peter_ reckoned among them, nor is _Cletus_
distinguished from _Anacletus_. [Sidenote: _The Heresy of_ Theodotus.]
In _Victor_’s Time a new Heresy was broached at _Rome_ by one
_Theodotus_ of _Byzantium_, denying the Divinity of _Christ_[262]. The
_Theodotians_ gave out, that _Victor_ favoured their Doctrine[263];
which he did, perhaps, at that Time[264]; though he cut them off
afterwards from his Communion. [Sidenote: Victor _approves the prophetic
Spirit of_ Montanus.] Be that as it will, he can by no means be cleared
from another Imputation, namely, that of owning and approving the
prophetic Spirit of _Montanus_, and his Two Prophetesses, _Prisca_ and
_Maximilla_: for _Tertullian_, his Contemporary, tells us, in express
Terms, that he received their Prophecies; that, upon receiving them, he
gave Letters of Peace to the Churches of _Asia_ and _Phrygia_; but that
one _Praxeas_, just come from those Parts, giving him a false Account of
those Prophets, and their Churches, and remonstrating, that by approving
them, he condemned his Predecessors, prevailed upon him to revoke the
Letters, which he had already written in their Behalf. [Sidenote: _His_
Infallibility, _how defended by_ Baronius _and_ Bellarmine.] Thus
_Tertullian_, who was then himself become a Follower of _Montanus_[265].
Here _Baronius_ and _Bellarmine_, the Two great Advocates for the Pope’s
Infallibility, are put to a Stand: they own, and cannot help owning,
that the Pope was deceived, and imposed upon; but, for all that, will
not give up his Infallibility. How great is the Power of Prejudice and
Prepossession! They find the Pope actually erring, and yet maintain,
that he cannot err. But this Apostacy from common Sense, if I may be
allowed the Expression, is not, perhaps, so much owing to Prejudice, as
to something worse; for no Prejudice, however prevalent, can withstand
the indisputable Evidence of plain Matters of Fact. It is no new thing,
says _Baronius_, nor what ought to cause in us the least Surprize, that
a Pope should be over-reached by Impostors[266]. A Pope over-reached in
Matters of Faith! What then becomes of Infallibility? or what is the Use
of it? But the _Montanists_, says _Bellarmine_[267], craftily concealed
from the Pope what was erroneous and heretical in their Prophecies; so
that he, discovering nothing in their Doctrine repugnant to that of the
Church, believed they had been unjustly accused to, and condemned by,
his Predecessors. But, in the first Place, _Tertullian_ tells us, in
express Terms, that the Prophecies of _Montanus_, and his Followers,
were approved by the Pope; whereas the Prophecies, which he is supposed
by _Bellarmine_ to have approved, were not the Prophecies of _Montanus_,
but others, quite different, and in every respect orthodox. In the
second Place, if _Victor_ believed, that the _Montanists_ had been
unjustly condemned by his Predecessors, he did not believe them
infallible; so that, in every Light, this Fact oversets the pretended
Infallibility. We may add, that, if the Pope’s Infallibility depends
upon a right Information, and neither he nor we can know whether he has
been rightly informed, his Infallibility is thereby rendered quite
useless; since, in every particular Case, we may doubt, and that Doubt
cannot be removed, whether the Information, upon which he acts, was
right, or no.
[Sidenote: _The famous Controversy about the Celebration of_
Easter.]
But what most of all distinguished the Pontificate of _Victor_ was, the
famous Controversy about the Celebration of _Easter_, between the
Eastern and Western Bishops; the former keeping that Solemnity on the
14th Day of the first Moon, on what Day soever of the Week it happened
to fall; and the latter putting it off till the _Sunday_ following.
This, surely, could not be a Point of any Consequence, since the
Apostles had not thought fit to settle any thing concerning it; nay, by
observing the Paschal Solemnity themselves, some on the one Day, and
some on the other, as it is manifest they did[268]; they plainly
declared, that it was quite indifferent on what Day it was observed.
Accordingly, from the Apostles Time to _Victor_’s, each Church had
followed the Custom and Practice established by their respective
Founders, without giving the least Disturbance to others, or being, on
that Account, disturbed by them[269]. Pope _Anicetus_ even suffered such
of the _Asiatics_ as happened to be at _Rome_, to celebrate _Easter_
after the manner of _Asia_[270]: _Soter_, indeed; and his Successor
_Eleutherius_, obliged those who lived at _Rome_ to conform to the
Custom of that Church; but that did not prevent their sending the
_Eucharist_, or Sacrament, to the Bishops who followed the opposite
Practice[271]; for a Custom then obtained among Bishops to send the
_Eucharist_ to each other, especially at _Easter_, in Token of Communion
and Peace; but this Custom was suppressed by the 14th Canon of the
Council held in the Fourth Century at _Laodicea_[272]. [Sidenote:
Victor_’s haughty Conduct_.] _Victor_, not satisfied with what his Two
immediate Predecessors had done, took upon him to impose the _Roman_
Custom on all the Churches that followed the contrary Practice.
[Sidenote: _Is opposed by the Bishop of_ Ephesus,] But, in this bold
Attempt, which we may call the first Essay of Papal Usurpation, he met
with a vigorous and truly Christian Opposition from _Polycrates_, at
that Time Bishop of _Ephesus_, and one of the most eminent Men in the
Church, both for Piety and Learning. He had studied, says
_Eusebius_[273], the Scriptures with great Attention, had conferred with
Christians from all Parts of the World, and had ever conformed his Life
to the Rules of the Gospel. _Jerom_ speaks of him as a Man of excellent
Parts, and one universally respected[274]. In the present Controversy,
he peremptorily refused to relinquish the Practice of his own Church,
which had been first introduced by the Apostles St. _John_ and St.
_Philip_, and had been handed down to him by Seven Bishops of his own
Family[275]. Hereupon _Victor_, impatient of Contradiction, wrote a
Letter, threatening to cut him off from his Communion, unless he
forthwith complied with the Practice of the Church of _Rome_[276].
[Sidenote: _and by a Council of all the Bishops of_ Asia minor.]
_Polycrates_, greatly surprised at the hasty Proceedings of his Fellow
Bishop, assembled in _Ephesus_ a Council of all the Bishops of _Asia
minor_, when it was unanimously resolved, that the Practice, which they
had received from their Predecessors, ought not to be changed[277].
Agreeably to this Resolution, _Polycrates_ writ to _Victor_, acquainting
him therewith; and, at the same time, modestly insinuating, that, as to
his Menaces, he had better forbear them, since they had no manner of
Effect upon him, or his Brethren[278]. [Sidenote: _He cuts them off from
his Communion._] Upon the Receipt of this Letter _Victor_, giving the
Reins to an impotent and ungovernable Passion, published bitter
invectives against all the Churches of _Asia_, declared them cut off
from his Communion, sent Letters of Excommunication to their respective
Bishops; and, at the same time, in order to have them cut off from the
Communion of the whole Church, writ to the other Bishops, exhorting them
to follow his Example, and forbear communicating with their refractory
Brethren of _Asia_[279]. They all complied, to be sure, with the Desire
of the Head of the Church, who had Power to command; but, out of his
great Moderation, chose to exhort and advise! [Sidenote: _No Regard had
to his Excommunication._] No; not one followed his Example, or Advice;
not one paid any sort of Regard to his Letters, or shewed the least
Inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable Attempt; but,
on the contrary, they all joined, as _Eusebius_ assures us[280], in
sharply censuring and rebuking him, as a Disturber of the Peace of the
Church. [Sidenote: _He is censured by_ Irenæus.] Among the rest
_Irenæus_, then Bishop of _Lions_, writ him an excellent Letter, putting
him in mind of the Moderation of his Predecessors, and telling him, that
though he agreed with him in the Main of the Controversy, yet he could
not approve of his cutting off whole Churches, for the Observance of
Customs, which they had received from their Ancestors. He writ, at the
same time, to many other Bishops[281], no doubt, to dissuade them from
joining the Bishop of _Rome_. However that be, it is certain, that, by
this means, the Storm was laid, a Calm was restored to the Church, and
the _Asiatics_ allowed to follow undisturbed their antient
Practice[282]. But Pope _Victor_, says _Baronius_[283], excommunicated
the _Asiatics_, which he would never have ventured to do, had he not
known, that he had Power and Jurisdiction over them. [Sidenote: _Had no
Power over the_ Asiatics.] The Argument may be thus retorted against
him: The _Asiatics_ made no Account of his Excommunication; which they
would not have ventured to do, had they not known, that he had no Power
nor Jurisdiction over them. Besides, _Victor_ did not excommunicate
them, as that Word is now understood; that is, he did not cut them off
from the Communion of the Catholic Church; for all the other Bishops
continued to communicate with them, as they had done before; he only
separated himself from their Communion; which was no more than every
Bishop had Power to do. _Victor_ being thus baffled in his Attempt, his
Successors took care not to revive the Controversy; so that the
_Asiatics_ peaceably followed their antient Practice till the Council of
_Nice_, which, out of Complaisance to _Constantine the Great_, ordered
the Solemnity of _Easter_ to be kept every-where on the same Day, after
the Custom of _Rome_[284].
This Dispute happened, not in the Reign of _Commodus_, as we read in the
_Synodicon_[285], but in the Fourth Year of the Reign of _Severus_, as
St. _Jerom_ informs us[286], of Christ 196. [Sidenote: Victor _dies_.]
_Victor_, of whom we find nothing else in the Antients worthy of Notice,
died Five Years after[287], that is, in the Ninth of the Emperor
_Severus_, and in the End of 201. or the Beginning of 202. of Christ,
having governed the Church Ten Years. He is named, by St. _Jerom_, the
first among the Ecclesiastical Authors that wrote in _Latin_[288].
[Sidenote: _His Works._] He published a Piece, on the Controversy about
the Celebration of _Easter_, and some other Books on religious Subjects,
which were still extant in St. _Jerom_’s Time[289]. [Sidenote: _Pieces
falsly ascribed to him._] As for the Two Decretals that are ascribed to
him, and the Two Letters to _Desiderius_ and _Paracoda_, both Bishops of
_Vienne_, they are universally rejected[290]. [Sidenote: _He is
sainted._] The Church of _Rome_ has placed _Victor_ among her Saints;
and truly, his Attempt, however unsuccessful, to promote the Power and
extend the Jurisdiction of that See, deserved no less a Reward.
-----
Footnote 261:
Vide Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.
Footnote 262:
Epiph. hær. 54. c. 1. Euseb. l. v. c. 28.
Footnote 263:
Euseb. ib.
Footnote 264:
Idem ib.
Footnote 265:
Tert. in Prax. c. 1.
Footnote 266:
Bar. ad ann. 173. n. 4.
Footnote 267:
Bell. de sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 8.
Footnote 268:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 23. 25. Socrat. l. 5. c. 21. Epiph. hær. 70. c. 10.
Footnote 269:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.
Footnote 270:
Idem ib.
Footnote 271:
Idem. ib. c. 20.
Footnote 272:
Concil. per Labb. t. 1. p. 150.
Footnote 273:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 22. et 24.
Footnote 274:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 45.
Footnote 275:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.
Footnote 276:
Idem ib.
Footnote 277:
Idem ib.
Footnote 278:
Idem ib. Hier. vir. ill. c. 45.
Footnote 279:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. Socrat. l. 5. c. 22.
Footnote 280:
Euseb. ib.
Footnote 281:
Euseb. ib. et Socrat. l. 5. c. 22.
Footnote 282:
Euseb. ib. Hier. vir. ill. c. 35. Phot. c. 120. Cypr. ep. 75. Anast.
p. 445.
Footnote 283:
Bar. ad ann. 198. n. 10.
Footnote 284:
Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 18. Soz. l. 1. c. 16. Concil. l. 3. c. 18,
19. p. 492.
Footnote 285:
Concil. Labb. t. 1. p. 601.
Footnote 286:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 43. et chron.
Footnote 287:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Hier. chron.
Footnote 288:
Hier. de vir. ill. c. 34. 40.
Footnote 289:
Idem ib.
Footnote 290:
Pears. posth. p. 91, 92. Bosquet. l. 3. c. 5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVERUS, ZEPHYRINUS, MACRINUS,
CARACALLA, _Fourteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. DIADUMENUS,
GETA, HELIOGABALUS.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 201. _A dreadful Persecution against the
Christians._]
In the first Year of the Pontificate of _Zephyrinus_, who succeeded
_Victor_, a dreadful Persecution was raised against the Christians by
the Emperor _Severus_, and carried on with great Cruelty in all Parts of
the Empire. _Zephyrinus_, however, had the good Luck to escape it, and
to see the Church, by the Death of that Prince, happily delivered from
the Evils, which the Rage of her foreign Enemies had brought upon her.
[Sidenote: Zephyrinus _opposes the_ Theodotian _Heretics_.] But her
domestic Enemies gave her no Respite; the _Theodotian_ Heretics
continued sowing, and not without Success, their pestilential Errors at
_Rome_. _Zephyrinus_, it seems, opposed them with great Vigour and Zeal;
for they reproached him, as we read in _Eusebius_[291], as the first who
had betrayed the Truth, by maintaining against them the Divinity of
_Christ_: hence he is ranked, by _Optatus_, with _Tertullian_,
_Victorinus_, &c. among those who have successfully defended the
Catholic Church[292]. _Baronius_, to extol _Zephyrinus_, ascribes to him
the first Condemnation of _Praxeas_[293], which was followed by a solemn
Retractation under his own Hand. But it was in _Africa_, and not at
_Rome_, that _Praxeas_ was condemned, as appeared plain to me, from the
Words of _Tertullian_[294], before I had seen either _Pamelius_ or
_Moreau_, who understood them in that Sense. _Praxeas_, as we have
observed above, had done an eminent Piece of Service to the Church of
_Rome_, by reclaiming Pope _Victor_ from the Heresy of _Montanus_: but
the Good he had done on that Occasion was over-balanced by the Mischief
his new Heresy occasioned both at _Rome_ and in _Africa_; for in both
Places he gained many Proselytes. [Sidenote: _The Heresy of_ Praxeas.]
He denied all Distinction of Persons in the Godhead, so that the Father
being, according to his Doctrine, the same Person with the Son, it was
he who took upon him human Nature, and suffered on the Cross; whence his
Followers were called _Patropassians_[295].
[Sidenote: Origen _at_ Rome.]
In the Pontificate of _Zephyrinus_, and, as _Eusebius_ seems to
insinuate, in the Beginning of the Reign of _Caracalla_, that is,
towards the Year 211 or 212. came to _Rome_ the celebrated _Origen_,
being desirous, as he himself declared, to see that Church, so venerable
for its Antiquity and Renown; but, after a very short Stay there, he
returned to _Alexandria_[296]. [Sidenote: _Famous Dispute, at_ Rome,
_between_ Caius _and_ Proclus.] About the same time happened, at _Rome_,
the famous Dispute between _Caius_, a Presbyter of that Church and
_Proclus_, a leading Man among the _Montanists_[297]. _Caius_ committed
to Writing the Reasons and Arguments on both Sides[298]: but that Piece
has not reached our Times, though it was well known to _Eusebius_, who
styles it a Dialogue[299] and likewise to _Theodoret_[300].
[Sidenote: Tertullian _falls off from the Church_.]
It was during the Pontificate of _Zephyrinus_ that _Tertullian_, the
great Defender of the Christian Religion, fell off from the Catholic
Church. His Fall, which was lamented by all the Faithful as a common
Loss, is ascribed, by St. _Jerom_, to the Envy and ill Usage he met with
from the _Roman_ Clergy[301]. [Sidenote: _The Titles of_ High Pontiff,
_&c. whether, and in what Sense, given by_ Tertullian _to the Bishop
of_ Rome.] But how ill soever he was used by them in those Days, he has
perhaps met with worse Treatment at their Hands in latter Times; for
they call upon him as an Evidence, to witness the Pope’s universal
Jurisdiction, and to confirm to him the haughty Titles, which he
assumes; but with how little Reason, will appear from the following
Relation: A Catholic Bishop had, by a public Declaration, admitted
Persons guilty of Adultery and Fornication to a Place among the
Penitents. As _Tertullian_ was a strict Observer of Rites and
Discipline, and a most zealous Asserter of the greatest Rigours of
Religion, he could not brook so much Moderation and Indulgence: and
therefore, in his Book _De Pudicitia_, which he wrote on that Occasion,
he extols the Severity of the antient Discipline, aggravates the
Greatness of those Offences, undertakes to confute the Arguments for
Remission and Indulgence; and, speaking of the above-mentioned
Declaration, he calls it _a peremptory Decree_, and styles the Bishop,
who made it, _high Pontiff_, and _Bishop of Bishops_[302]. Hence the
Advocates for the See of _Rome_ infer, that, even in those early Times,
such Titles were given to the Bishop of _Rome_, and that his Decrees
were even then deemed peremptory[303]. But in the first Place, it is
uncertain whether that Declaration was published by the Bishop of
_Rome_, or by some other great Bishop, perhaps of _Carthage_, of
_Alexandria_, or _Antioch_; for no Bishop is named by _Tertullian_. In
the second Place, it is evident from the Context, that, in the
above-mentioned Passage, _Tertullian_ speaks ironically; and
consequently all that can be inferred from thence is, that he gave those
Titles to the Catholic Bishop, whoever he was, by way of Derision; or if
the Bishop had assumed them in his Declaration, he took from thence
Occasion to expose his Vanity and Ambition. _Baronius_, and the
Flatterers of the Bishops of _Rome_, triumph in this Passage of
_Tertullian_; from which however nothing can be inferred in Favour of
that See, unless they prove, which they can never do, that the
above-mentioned Declaration or Decree was published by the Bishop of
_Rome_; that those Titles, which raise him above other Bishops, were
Part of the Decree; and lastly, that _Tertullian_ mentioned them as due
to him, and not by way of Sarcasm, ironically reflecting on his Pride
and Ambition.
As to the Actions of _Zephyrinus_, the Antients have left us quite in
the Dark; and we cannot depend on what we read in the modern Writers.
[Sidenote: Zephyrinus _not a Martyr_.] He governed about Seventeen
Years, and died in the first Year of _Heliogabalus_, and 218. of the
Christian Æra[304]. In the _Roman_ Martyrology he has a Place among the
Martyrs, which puts _Baronius_ himself to a Stand[305], since the Church
enjoyed a profound Tranquillity from the Death of _Severus_ to the End
of his Pontificate.
-----
Footnote 291:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.
Footnote 292:
Opt. l. 1. c. 37.
Footnote 293:
Bar. ad ann. 196. n. 20.
Footnote 294:
Tert.in Prax. c. 1. p. 634.
Footnote 295:
Caten. Græc, Patr. c. 53.
Footnote 296:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 14.
Footnote 297:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 14. Hier. vir. ill. c. 59.
Footnote 298:
Idem ib. c. 20.
Footnote 299:
Idem, l. 3. c. 31.
Footnote 300:
Theod. hæret. fab. l. 3. c. 2.
Footnote 301:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 53.
Footnote 302:
Tert. de Pudic. c. 1.
Footnote 303:
Bar. ad ann. 216. n. 5, 6, &c.
Footnote 304:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 21. & chron.
Footnote 305:
Bar. ad ann. 221. n. 1, 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HELIOGABALUS, CALLISTUS, ALEXANDER SEVERUS.
_Fifteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 219.
]
_Zephyrinus_ was succeeded by _Callistus_, or _Callixtus_, as he is
styled by _Optatus_[306], and St. _Austin_[307]. In his Time the Church
enjoyed a long, happy, and uninterrupted Peace, as _Tertullian_ calls
it[308], which lasted from the Death of _Severus_ in 211. to the Reign
of _Maximinus_ in 235. as did also the State from the Death of
_Macrinus_ in 218. to the Year 233. [Sidenote: _The Emperor_ Alexander
_favourable to the Christians_.] _Alexander_, who succeeded
_Heliogabalus_ in 222. proved extremely favourable to the Christians,
and even allowed them, if I mistake not the Meaning of a profane Writer,
the free Exercise of their Religion[309]: it is at least certain, that
he adjudged to them, against the Tavern-keepers, a Piece of Ground,
which it is pretended they had usurped upon the Public, laying, when he
gave Sentence in their Favour, that it was better God should be served
on it in any Manner, than that it should be occupied by
Tavern-keepers[310]; which was giving them Leave to serve God on it
after their own Manner. On this Spot of Ground _Baronius_ supposes
_Callistus_ to have built a Church in Honour of the Virgin _Mary_, known
at present by the Name of _Santa Maria in Trastevere_, that is, _Saint
Mary beyond the Tyber_[311]. But the Pontifical of _Damasus_, upon which
alone he sounds his Opinion, deserves no Credit, as I shall shew in the
Life of that Pope. _Callistus_ is said by _Anastasius_[312] to have
inclosed a large Piece of Ground on the _Appian_ Way, to serve as a
Burying-place for the Christians. [Sidenote: Callistus_’s
Burying-place_.] This Ground is frequently mentioned in the
Martyrologies, and described at Length by _Arringhus_, who tells us,
that 174,000 Martyrs, and 46 Popes, were buried in it[313]. Though
_Alexander_ was of all the Pagan Emperors the most favourable and
indulgent to the Christians, as is evident from all the antient Writers,
both Christians and Pagans, yet he is represented in the Martyrologies,
and in the Acts of some Martyrs, especially of _Callistus_, to which
_Bede_ gave an intire Credit[314], as the most barbarous and inhuman
Tyrant that ever shed Christian Blood. [Sidenote: _The Acts of_
Callistus _deserve no Credit_.] If we reject these Acts, and we must
either reject them, or the Authority of the most unexceptionable Writers
among the Antients, we expunge at once above 300 Martyrs out of the
Catalogue of Saints worshiped to this Day by the Church of _Rome_, upon
the bare Authority of such Acts. [Sidenote: _Many Saints out to be
expunged out of the Catalogue._] Among these are the Consul _Palmatius_,
with his Wife, his Children, and Forty-two of his Domestics; the Senator
_Simplicius_, with his Wife, and Sixty-eight of his Domestics: and, what
will be an irreparable Loss, the so much celebrated St. _Cæcilia_, in
whose Honour Churches have been erected in every Christian Kingdom.
_Baronius_, not presuming on one Side to question the Emperor
_Alexander_’s Kindness to the Christians, which would be giving the Lye
to all the Antients, but, on the other, looking upon it as a Sacrilege
to rob the Church of so many valuable Reliques, ascribes the cruel Usage
they are supposed to have met with in that Prince’s Reign, not to him,
but to _Ulpian_ the celebrated Civilian, who flourished under him[315].
But in those Acts the Martyrs are said to have suffered unheard of
Torments, there minutely described, by the express Command of the
Emperor _Alexander_. Besides, could _Alexander_ be said to have favoured
the Christians, could the Christians be said to have enjoyed a happy
Tranquillity under him, had one of his Officers persecuted them with the
utmost Cruelty in his Name, and by his Authority? _Baronius_, not
remembring, it seems, that in this Place he had charged _Ulpian_ with
all the Cruelties against the Christians, supposes elsewhere[316]
several Martyrs to have suffered in the Reign of _Alexander_, after the
Death of _Ulpian_. _Bede_, 'tis true, has followed these Acts; but they
are not on that Account at all the more credible, since he often follows
Pieces which are now universally given up as supposititious. The very
first Words of these Acts are sufficient to make us suspect the Truth of
them; for they begin thus; _in the Time of_ Macrinus _and_
Alexander--How come these two Princes to be joined together? _Macrinus_
reigned with his Son _Diadumenus_, and _Heliogabalus_ between them and
_Alexander_. Soon after the Consul _Palmatius_ is said to have been
condemned without any Form of Judgment, without so much as being heard;
whereas _Herodian_ assures us, that _Alexander_ was a strict Observer of
the Laws; and that no Criminal was condemned in his Reign, but according
to the usual Course of Law, and by Judges of the greatest
Integrity[317]. _Callistus_, if we give Credit to his Acts, was kept a
long time Prisoner in a private House, where he was every Day cruelly
beaten by the Emperor _Alexander_’s Orders, and at last thrown headlong
out of the Window into a Well. [Sidenote: Callistus _not a Martyr_.] The
Acts are evidently fabulous, but _Callistus_ nevertheless is worshiped
among the Martyrs; and the Waters of the Well, which is to be seen at
_Rome_ in the Church that bears his Name, are said to cure all sorts of
Diseases to this Day. He governed the Church Five Years, and died in the
Latter-end of the Year 223[318]. the Third of the Emperor _Alexander_.
His Body is exposed to public Adoration on the Tenth of _May_, in the
Church of St. _Mary_, beyond the _Tyber_, at _Rome_[319] and in that of
our Lady at _Rheims_[320]. Two Decretals are ascribed to _Callistus_,
and likewise the Institution of the Ember-Weeks, but without the lean
Foundation.
-----
Footnote 306:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 307:
Aug. ep. 53.
Footnote 308:
Tert. de cor. mil.
Footnote 309:
Lamprid. in vit. Alex. p. 121.
Footnote 310:
Idem ib. p. 131.
Footnote 311:
Bar. ad ann. 224. n. 4, 5.
Footnote 312:
Anast. in vit. Call.
Footnote 313:
Arring. l. 3. c. 11.
Footnote 314:
Bed. Martyr. 10 Maii, 14 Oct.
Footnote 315:
Bar. ad ann. 226. n. 4.
Footnote 316:
Idem ad ann. 232. n. 11.
Footnote 317:
Herod. l. vi. p. 575. 588.
Footnote 318:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 21. & in chron.
Footnote 319:
Bolland. 10. Maii, 498, 499.
Footnote 320:
Arring. l. 2. c. 12. Theod. l. 4. c. 1, 2. 6. 8.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER. URBANUS,
_Sixteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 223.
_The Acts of_ Urbanus _fabulous_.]
All I can find in the Antients concerning _Urban_, the Successor of
_Callistus_, is, that, during the whole Time of his Pontificate, both
Church and State enjoyed a profound Peace under the Emperor _Alexander_;
that he held the Chair near Seven Years, and died about the Middle of
the Year 230[321]. Great and wonderful Things are related of him in his
Acts, and in those of St. _Cecilia_, but such Acts[322] are evidently
fabulous, since, in Opposition to all the Antients, they represent the
Emperor _Alexander_ as a most cruel Persecutor of the Christian Name.
_Urban_ himself is supposed to have suffered under him, and placed
accordingly by the Church of _Rome_ among her Martyrs. His Body is now
worshiped in an Abbey of his Name in the Diocese of _Chalons_ on the
_Marne, and in the Church of St._ Cæcilia _at_ Rome[323].
-----
Footnote 321:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 26.
Footnote 322:
Bed. Martyr. & Boll. 25 Maii.
Footnote 323:
Eric. l. 1. c. 12. Bolland. 25 Maii.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER, PONTIANUS, MAXIMINUS.
_Seventeenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 230. ]
_Pontianus_ succeeded _Urban_ in 230. and governed, according to the
Pontifical of _Bucherius_[N4], Five Years, Two Months, and Seven Days;
that is, from the 22d of _July_ 230. to the 28th of _September_
235[324]. [Sidenote: Origen _deposed_.] In the Second Year of his
Pontificate, the famous _Origen_ was deposed and excommunicated by
_Demetrius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, and the Sentence approved of by most
other Bishops, especially by the Bishop of _Rome_, who assembled, it
seems, his Clergy on that Occasion: For what else could St. _Jerom_
mean, by telling us, that _Rome assembled her Senate against
Origen_[325]? [Sidenote: _The Persecution of_Maximinus.] The calm and
quiet Days, which the Church had for some Years enjoyed, especially
under _Alexander_, expired almost with the Pontificate of _Pontianus_;
for that excellent Prince being assassinated in the Month of _May_ 235.
_Maximinus_, who succeeded him, out of Hatred to him, began to persecute
with great Cruelty the Christians, whom he had so much favoured,
especially the Bishops[326]. [Sidenote: Pontianus _banished to_
Sardinia.] _Pontianus_ among the rest was banished _Rome_, and confined
to the unwholsome Island of _Sardinia_[327], where he died the same Year
on the 28th of _September_, but of what Kind of Death is not well
known[328].
-----
Footnote N4:
This Pontifical, well known to _Cuspinian_, _F. Petau_, and other
Chronologers, was published by _Bucherius_ the _Jesuit_, in 1633. with
the _Paschal Cycle of Victorius_. It is a Catalogue of the Bishops of
_Rome_, from the Foundation of that See to the Time of _Liberius_, who
was chosen in 352. As the Election of _Liberius_ is marked, and not
his Death, the Catalogue is supposed by some to have been written in
his Time. His Election is marked thus; _Liberius fuit temporibus
Constancii ex die_ xi. _Kalendas Junias in diem--a Consulibus
Constantio_ V. _& Constantio Cæsare_--By _Constantius Cæsar_ is meant
_Gallus_, the Son of _Julius Constantius_, who, by his Father
_Constantius Chlorus_, was Half-brother to _Constantine the Great_.
_Gallus_ was raised by the Emperor _Constantius_ to the Dignity of
_Cæsar_ in the Year 351. on which Occasion he gave him his own
Name[N4.1], and the following Year took him for his Collegue in his
Fifth Consulship, as appears from _Idatius_, from _Prosper_, and from
the _Alexandrian_ Chronicle. The above-mentioned Pontifical is very
faulty in the Times preceding the Pontificate of _Pontianus_, who was
chosen in 230. nay, if we believe _Bucherius_, _Anicetus_,
_Eleutherius_, and _Zephyrinus_, are omitted in it. I said, _If we
believe_ Bucherius; for _Bollandus_, another _Jesuit_, who perused the
same Manuscript, assures us, that he found there the Names of those
three Bishops, which _Bucherius_ assures us were not to be found
there[N4.2]. Which of the two _Jesuits_ is the honester is hard to
determine in any Case, but impossible in this, unless the original
Manuscript should be produced, which both perused. F. _Pagi_, the
_Franciscan_, seems to favour _Bucherius_; for he complains of
_Bollandus_ for interpolating the Manuscript, and not publishing it
with all its Faults and Charms, as _Bucherius_ had done. But then he
does not tell us, that he had seen the original Manuscript.
_Bollandus_ on the other hand complains of _Bucherius_ for
undervaluing such an unvaluable Piece; and settles by it his whole
Chronology of the Popes, pretending it to have been sent by Pope
_Damasus_ to St. _Jerom_[N4.3]. But for this the only Ground he has
are some Letters from _Damasus_ to St. _Jerom_, and from _Jerom_ to
_Damasus_, which, by the best Judges, are all thought supposititious.
But even allowing it to have been sent by _Damasus_ to St. _Jerom_,
that ought not to recommend it more to our Esteem than it did to his;
and he seems to have paid very little Regard to it: for in his Book of
_Illustrious Men_, which he wrote after the Death of _Damasus_, he
places _Clement_ after _Anacletus_, though that Pontifical puts
_Anacletus_ after _Clement_[N4.4]. What I have hitherto said is to be
understood with respect to the Times preceding the Pontificate of
_Pontianus_; for, from his Time, the Pontifical of _Bucherius_ is
almost quite exact to the End, that is, to the Election of _Liberius_;
and the more exact, the nearer it comes to his Time. I said _almost_,
for it is not even thenceforth free from all Faults; but it has fewer
than any other antient Record that has reached us; and it is on this
Consideration that, from the Time of _Pontianus_, I have preferred it
to all others. With respect to his Predecessors, I have adopted the
Chronology of _Eusebius_, where it does not appear that he was
mistaken; for that he was mistaken in some Points, is but too plain;
and, for aught we know, he may have been so in many others. But as in
those dark Times we have no authentic Records, no indisputable
Authorities, to depend on, I thought it more adviseable to tread in
the Footsteps of so famous and antient a Writer, than, by attempting
to open a new Way, perplex and confound both myself and the Reader, as
_Pearson_, _Dodwell_, and _Pagi_, have done. And it was not, I must
own, without some Concern, that I found a Man of Dr. _Pearson_’s
Learning reduced, by undervaluing the Authority of _Eusebius_, to take
for his Guide a Writer of no Authority at all, _viz._ _Eutychius_ of
_Alexandria_, who flourished so late as the Tenth Century, and is only
famous for his Blunders, even in what relates to his own Church. To
the Pontifical were annexed, in the same antient Manuscript, several
other small Pieces; _viz._ 1. A List of the Consuls from the Year 205.
to 354. with the Epacts, Bissextile Years, and the Day of the Week,
with which each Year began. There are some Mistakes in the Epacts, but
the rest is done with great Exactness. 2. Another List of the Consuls
and Governors of _Rome_, from the Year 254. to 354. 3. A short
Necrology of the Bishops of _Rome_, in which are marked, according to
the Order of the Months, the Day on which each of them died, and the
Place where he was buried. It begins with _Lucius_, and ends with
_Julius_. In this List, _Sixtus_ II. and _Marcellus_ are omitted; the
latter probably by a Mistake of the Transcriber, confounding him with
his Predecessor _Marcellinus_; and the former, perhaps, because he is
set down in the Calendar of Martyrs annexed to the Necrology. These
Pieces, as well as the Pontifical, all end at the Year 354. whence
Cardinal _Noris_[N4.5] and others are of Opinion, that they were
written that Year.
Footnote N4.1:
Aurel. Vict. p. 518. Socr. l. 2. c. 28.
Footnote N4.2:
Bolland. Apr. t. 1. p. 22-24.
Footnote N4.3:
Bolland. ib. p. 3. n. 10.
Footnote N4.4:
Hier. de vir. illustr. c. 15.
Footnote N4.5:
Fast. consular. p. 23.
-----
-----
Footnote 324:
Bolland. April. t. 1. p. 25.
Footnote 325:
Ruf. in Hier. l. 2. p. 225.
Footnote 326:
Oros. l. 7. c. 19.
Footnote 327:
Vide Hallo. vit. Orig. p. 20.
Footnote 328:
Vide Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 25.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMINUS. ANTERUS,
_Eighteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 235. ]
_Anterus_, the Successor of _Pontianus_, presided only One Month and Ten
Days, and died on the 3d of _January_ 236[329]. Some modern Writers
place one _Cyriacus_ between him and _Pontianus_; but their Opinion,
founded on the Authority of the fabulous Acts of St. _Ursula_, is
sufficiently confuted by _Eusebius_[330], _Optatus_[331], St.
_Augustin_[332], and _Nicephorus_[333], who all Name _Anterus_ as the
immediate Successor of _Pontianus_. [Sidenote: Anterus _probably dies a
Martyr_.] The Shortness of his Pontificate, and the cruel Persecution
carried on by _Maximinus_, give us room to believe, that he died a
Martyr, which Title is given him in the Martyrologies of St. _Jerom_ and
_Bede_[334].
-----
Footnote 329:
Boll. pont. p. 28-32.
Footnote 330:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 22.
Footnote 331:
Opt. contr. Par. l. 2.
Footnote 332:
Aug. eg. 165.
Footnote 333:
Niceph. chron.
Footnote 334:
Vide Flor. p. 995-997.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMINUS, FABIANUS, PHILIP,
GORDIAN, _Nineteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome DECIUS.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 236. ]
_Fabianus_, called by the _Greeks_, _Fabius_, by _Eutychius_[335], and
in the Chronicle of _Alexandria_, _Flavianus_[336], was, according to
_Eusebius_, miraculously chosen for Successor to _Anterus_; for he tells
us, [Sidenote: _His miraculous Election._] That the People and Clergy
being assembled in order to proceed to a new Election, a Dove,
unexpectedly appearing, settled, to the great Surprize of all present,
on the Head of _Fabianus_, who was not so much as thought of, being but
a Layman, as appears from the Account, and not an Inhabitant of _Rome_,
but just then come out of the Country. At this Prodigy the whole
Assembly cried out with one Voice, Fabianus _is our Bishop_; and,
crouding round him, placed him without further Delay on the Episcopal
Throne.--Thus _Eusebius_[337]: and to his Account is owing the modern
Notion, that the Pope is always chosen by the Holy Ghost. [Sidenote:
_Not all popes thus chosen._] _What happened in the Election of St._
Fabianus (says Cardinal _Cusani_) _happens in the Election of every
Pope. 'Tis true we do not see the Holy Ghost with our corporeal Eyes;
but we may and must see him, if we are not quite blind, with those of
the Mind. In vain therefore, O eminent Electors, are all your Intrigues;
the Person, on whose Head the heavenly Dove is pleased to perch, will,
in spite of them, be chosen[338]._ In the Sequel of this History, we
shall see such Monsters of Iniquity elected, and by such scandalous
Practices, that to imagine the Holy Ghost any-ways concerned in the
Election would be absolute Blasphemy.
[Sidenote: Fabianus _worthy of the Dignity to which he was raised_.]
As for _Fabianus_, he seems to have been well worthy of the Post to
which he was raised; for the famous Bishop of _Carthage_, St. _Cyprian_,
in Answer to the Letter, wherein the Clergy of _Rome_ gave him an
Account of the glorious Death of their Bishop, calls him _an excellent
Man_; and adds, that _the Glory of his Death had answered the Purity,
Holiness, and Integrity of his Life_[339]. [Sidenote: _Some of
his Regulations._] From the Pontifical of _Bucherius_ we learn, that he
appointed Seven Deacons over the Fourteen Regions, or Wards, into which
_Rome_ was then divided[340], to take care of the Poor, says
_Baronius_[341]. We read in other more modern Pontificals, that he named
Seven Subdeacons to overlook the Seven Notaries, who are supposed to
have been first appointed by Pope _Clement_, and whose Province it was
to commit to Writing the Actions and Speeches of the Martyrs. It is
manifest from St. _Cyprian_[342], as Dr. _Pearson_ well observes, that
in the Time of _Cornelius_, the Successor of _Fabianus_, the Church of
_Rome_ had Seven Subdeacons, to whom St. _Cyprian_ recommended the
strictest Exactness in marking the Day of each Martyr’s Death[343]. As
for taking down their Speeches, which some seem to object to, the Art of
writing in Short-hand was well known in those Times. _Eusebius_ tells
us, that by _Tiro_, _Cicero_’s Freed-man, were first invented certain
Marks, which stood not only for whole Words, but intire Sentences[344].
But this Invention is, by _Dio_, ascribed to _Mæcenas_, who ordered his
Freed-man _Aquila_ to make them known to all who cared to learn
them[345]. Of their wonderful Quickness in writing, with the Help of
these Marks, _Martial_ takes notice, in one of his Distichs, saying, How
fast soever the Tongue may run, the Hand runs faster[346].
[Sidenote: _Said to have converted the Emperor_ Philip.]
_Baronius_[347] and _Bollandus_[348] ascribe to _Fabianus_ the
Conversion of the Emperor _Philip_, and his Son; adding, from the Acts
of _Pontius_ the Martyr, that he pulled down the great Temple of the
_Romans_, that he dashed to Pieces their Idols, and converted the whole
City. What a Pity that such wonderful Feats should have been passed over
in Silence by _Eusebius_, and all the Antients! As for the Conversion of
_Philip_, and his Son, it is questioned by many, and very justly, the
Silence of _Eusebius_ alone being an unanswerable Evidence against it;
but all agree, that if he was instructed and converted by _Fabianus_, he
did no great Honour either to his Instructor, or his Religion. In the
Latter-end of the Year 249, the Emperor _Philip_ being killed by the
rebellious Soldiery at _Verona_, _Decius_, who was raised to the Empire
in his room, began his Reign with the most dreadful Persecution that had
ever yet afflicted the Church. [Sidenote: Fabianus _martyred in the
Persecution of_ Decius.] _Fabianus_ was one of the first that fell a
Victim to the implacable Hatred this Emperor bore to the Christian Name.
He was put to Death on the 20th of _January_ 250. while _Decius_ was
Consul the second time, together with _Gratus_, after having governed
the Church Fourteen Years, one Month, and Ten Days[349].
[Sidenote: _The See vacant._ Year of Christ 250. ]
The Death of _Fabianus_ was followed by a Vacancy, which lasted at least
Sixteen Months, the Christians being either imprisoned, or so dispersed,
that they could not assemble to chuse a new Bishop. During this
Interval, the Clergy, that is, the Presbyters and Deacons, took upon
themselves the Care and Administration of all Ecclesiastical Matters;
and, being informed by _Clementius_, Subdeacon of the Church of
_Carthage_, who came to _Rome_ about _Easter_ in 250. that St. _Cyprian_
had been obliged, by the Fury of the Persecution, to withdraw for a
while from his See, they writ to that Clergy, exhorting them to follow
their Example[350]. Several excellent Letters passed on this Occasion
between the Clergy of _Rome_, and St. _Cyprian_ and his Clergy,
especially concerning the Method they were to hold with the _Lapsed_;
that is, with those who had either obtained of the Pagan Magistrates
Protections, or _Libels of Safety_, whence they were called
_Libellatici_, or had actually sacrificed to Idols, and were thence
named _Sacrificati_. In one of these Letters, the _Roman_ Clergy, after
having maturely examined so material a Point, and advised not only with
the neighbouring Bishops, but with others, who, from the distant
Provinces, had fled for Concealment to _Rome_, declare it was their
Opinion, [Sidenote: _The Opinion of the_ Roman _Clergy concerning
the Lapsed_.] That such of the Lapsed as were at the Point of Death,
should, upon an unfeigned Repentance, be admitted to the Communion of
the Church, but that the Cause of others should be put off till the
Election of a new Bishop, when, together with him, with other Bishops,
with the Priests, Deacons, Confessors, and Laymen, who had stood firm,
they should take their Case into Consideration; adding, that a Crime
committed by many ought not to be judged by one; and that a Decree could
not be binding without the Consent and Approbation of many[351].
[Sidenote: _They disown the Pope’s Infallibility._] Could they in more
plain and express Terms disown the Infallibility of the Pope their
Bishop? Could they upon mature Deliberation write thus, and at the same
time believe his Judgment an infallible Rule? Such a Proposition would,
in these Days, be deemed heretical; and no Wonder; the Pope’s
Infallibility must be maintained at all Events; and to maintain it is
impossible, without condemning, as heretical, the Doctrine taught by the
Church in the first and purest Ages.
-----
Footnote 335:
Eutych. p. 384.
Footnote 336: