Footnote 337:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 29.
Footnote 338:
Card. Cus. de meth. consistorii, c. 7. p. 85.
Footnote 339:
Cypr. ep. 4. & 31.
Footnote 340:
Buch. cycl. 271.
Footnote 341:
Bar. ad ann. 112. n. 9.
Footnote 342:
Cyp. ep. 37.
Footnote 343:
Pears. posth. p. 19.
Footnote 344:
Euseb. in chron.
Footnote 345:
Dio Olymp. 193. ann. 4.
Footnote 346:
Mart. l. 14.
Footnote 347:
Bar. ann. 246. n. 9.
Footnote 348:
Boll. 20. Jan. p. 253.
Footnote 349:
Buch. cycl. p. 267.
Footnote 350:
Cypr. ep. 3.
Footnote 351:
Idem ep. 31.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DECIUS, CORNELIUS, GALLUS.
_Twentieth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 251. ]
After the See had been vacant for the Space of Sixteen Months,
_Cornelius_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_, was at last
elected[352], on the 4th of _June_ 251. according to the most probable
Opinion[353]. [Sidenote: _The Character of_ Cornelius _by St._ Cyprian.]
He was, according to St. _Cyprian_[354], a Man of an unblemished
Character, and, on account of his peaceable Temper, his great Modesty,
his Integrity, and many other eminent Virtues, well worthy of the
Dignity to which he was raised. He did not attain at once, says the same
Writer, to the Height of the Priesthood, but after he had passed through
all the inferior Degrees, agreeably to the Discipline of the Church. He
was so far from using Intrigues, from intruding himself by Violence, as
some have done, that Violence was necessary to make him accept the
Dignity offered him. He was ordained Bishop, continues St. _Cyprian_, by
some of our Collegues, who, being then at _Rome_, conformed to the
Judgment of the whole People and Clergy[355]. As _Decius_ was still
alive, who had declared, that he had rather bear with a Competitor to
his Crown, than with a Bishop of _Rome_[356], the Christians, in all
Likelihood, laid hold of the Opportunity, which the Revolt of _Valens_
gave them, to chuse a new Bishop; for this very Year _Julius Valens_
revolting, caused himself to be proclaimed Emperor in _Rome_[357]; and
though he held the Empire but a very short time, yet his Revolt might
divert _Decius_ for a while from persecuting the Christians.
[Sidenote: Novatian]
Though _Cornelius_ was chosen by the unanimous Voice of the People and
Clergy, yet _Novatian_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_, who aspired
to the same Dignity, not only refused to acknowlege him; but having
gained a considerable Party among the People, Five Presbyters, and some
Confessors, he wrote in their Name and his own to St. _Cyprian_, and no
doubt to many other Bishops, laying heinous Crimes to the Charge of
_Cornelius_; namely, his having sued for a Protection from the Pagan
Magistrates, which was ranking him among the _Libellatici_, who were
excluded from all Dignities and Employments in the Church. St. _Cyprian_
having received this Letter, and at the same time one from _Cornelius_,
acquainting him with his Election, as was customary in those Times among
Bishops, he caused the one to be read in a full Assembly of the People
and Clergy, but suppressed the other, looking upon it as a scandalous
Libel[358]. [Sidenote: _St._ Cyprian _calls a Council_,] However, to
prevent the Calumnies and false Reports that might be spread abroad by
_Novatian_ and his Partisans, he assembled a Council of all the Bishops
of his Province, who, hearing of the Schism in the Church of _Rome_,
resolved to send thither two of their Body, who should carefully inform
themselves of what had passed in the late Election, and on their Return
make a faithful Report of all they had learnt. Pursuant to this
Resolution, _Caldonius_ and _Fortunatus_, Two _African_ Bishops, were
dispatched to _Rome_ with Letters from the Council to the Clergy of that
City, and to the Bishops who had been present at the Ordination of
_Cornelius_. The Bishops no sooner received these Letters than they
answered them, assuring their Brethren in _Africa_, that _Cornelius_ had
been lawfully chosen; and at the same time commending him as a Person,
on account of his extraordinary Piety, and exemplary Life, most worthy
of the Dignity to which he had been raised. [Sidenote: _which
acknowleges_ Cornelius.] Their Testimony was soon after confirmed by
_Caldonius_ and _Fortunatus_ returning from _Rome_, and like wise by
_Stephanius_ and _Pompeius_, Two _African_ Bishops, who had assisted at
the Ordination of _Cornelius_; so that he was universally acknowleged
all over _Africa_[359].
The _African_ Bishops no sooner acknowleged _Cornelius_ than they
acquainted him with the Resolutions, which they had taken in their late
Council, with respect to the Lapsed. [Sidenote: _Resolutions of
the Council of_ Africa _concerning the Lapsed_.] The Substance of these
was, That such as had yielded to the Fury of the Persecution ought not
to be abandoned, lest, giving themselves up to Despair, they should fall
into a total Apostasy; but should be re-admitted to the Union of the
Church upon a sincere Repentance, and after a long Penance; that the
Time of their Penance should be shortened, or prolonged, according to
the Nature of their Crimes; that is, the _Libellatici_ should have a
shorter Time assigned them; and the _Sacrificati_, called also
_Thurificati_, who had actually offered Sacrifice, or Frankincense, to
Idols, should not be admitted till they had expiated their Offence by a
very long Penance; but that both the _Libellatici_ and _Sacrificati_
should be taken in, before the Time of their Penance was expired, if at
the Point of Death, or even thought to be in Danger[360]. As to fallen
Bishops, they were to be dealt with in the same Manner; and, after due
Penance, or, as it is sometimes called, Satisfaction, be admitted only
in a Lay Capacity[361]. _Cornelius_ did not, upon the Receipt of these
Determinations or Decrees, step into his oracular Chair, and thence, as
an infallible Judge, condemn or approve them. Such arbitrary Proceedings
would not have been well relished by the Bishops of _Africa_, nor even
by his own Clergy, who not long before had declared, That _a Decree
could not be binding without the Consent and Approbation of many_.
[Sidenote: _Which are approved by the Council of_ Rome.] He therefore
acted on this Occasion as St. _Cyprian_ had done, as other Bishops did
afterwards; that is, he assembled a Council, which _Eusebius_ calls _a
great Council_[362]; for it consisted of Sixty Bishops, and a great
Number of Priests, Deacons, and Laymen, who, in those Times, were
admitted to all Councils[363]. By this Venerable Assembly were the
Decrees of the Council of _Africa_ examined and approved, and then sent
to be in like manner examined and approved by other Bishops, till the
whole Church had agreed to them[364].
[Sidenote: Novatian _excommunicated_.]
At the Council of _Rome_ assisted among other Presbyters _Novatian_: but
as he maintained, in Opposition to the whole Assembly, that the Lapsed
were to be admitted upon no Terms or Satisfaction whatsoever, but should
be left to the Divine Tribunal, he was himself cut off from that
Communion, which with an invincible Obstinacy he denied to others[365].
Provoked at this Sentence, he readily gave Ear to the Insinuations of
_Novatus_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Carthage_, who had fled from
thence to _Rome_, to avoid the Sentence of Excommunication, with which
he was threatened by St. _Cyprian_, and the other Bishops of _Africa_,
for his scandalous Doctrine, and irregular Practices[366]. _Pacianus_
paints him in the blacked Colours: [Sidenote: Novatus _his
Wicked ness_.] He stripped the Orphans, says he, plundered the Widows of
the Church of _Carthage_, and appropriated to himself the Money
belonging to the Poor and the Church[367]: He turned his Father out of
Doors, and let him die of Hunger in the Streets, and would not even be
at the Trouble of burying him after his Death. With a Kick in the Belly
he made his Wife miscarry, and bring forth a dead Child: whence
_Pacianus_ calls him a Traitor, an Assassin, the Murderer of his Father
and Child[368]. As for his Doctrine, he held, while at _Carthage_,
Tenets diametrically opposite to those he taught at _Rome_: for, at
_Carthage_, he was for admitting to the Communion of the Church not only
the Lapsed, but all other Sinners, let their Crimes be ever so heinous,
without any Sort of Penance; and, at _Rome_, for excluding them, let
their Penance be ever so long, let their Repentance be ever so
sincere[369]. At _Carthage_ he found _Felicissimus_, of whom I shall
speak hereafter, inclined to Lenity; and _Novatian_, at _Rome_, to
Severity: and therefore, as he was a Man of great Vanity, and no
Principles, he suited himself to the different Tempers of such as he
judged the most capable of raising him. [Sidenote: _He gains
many Followers, and some Confessors, to the Party of_ Novatian.] At
_Rome_, by a Pretence to an uncommon Sanctity and Severity, he gained a
great many Followers, and among them some Confessors lately delivered
out of Prison, from whom he extorted Letters directed to _Novatian_,
wherein they consented to the Ordination of the said _Novatian_. In
virtue of these Letters he was accordingly ordained, some say in
_Rome_[370], others in a neighbouring Village[371], by Three Bishops
sent for by _Novatus_ out of the Country for that Purpose, and quite
unacquainted with his Views. [Sidenote: Novatian _the first_ Anti-pope.]
Being thus ordained Bishop, he was set up by the Party against
_Cornelius_, whom they charged with relaxing the Discipline of the
Church, and communicating with the Lapsed, especially with one
_Trophimus_. This St. _Cyprian_ calls a false and groundless Charge;
for, as to _Trophimus_, though he was in the Number of the
_Thurificati_, that is, though he had offered Frankinsense to Idols, and
even persuaded his Flock (for he was a Presbyter, if not a Bishop) to
follow his Example, yet he had sufficiently atoned for his Crime, by a
sincere Repentance, by a long Penance, and, above all, by bringing back
his People with him, who would not have returned without him[372]. As
for the others, 'tis true, he communicated with some who had not
fulfilled the Time of Penance assigned them, but such only as, being
admitted at the Point of Death, had afterwards recovered; which can no
otherwise be avoided, says St. _Cyprian_[373], but by killing those to
whom we granted the Peace of the Church, when we apprehended them to be
in Danger. _Novatian_ having thus, by a pretended Zeal for the
Discipline of the Church, and the artful Insinuations of _Novatus_,
seduced a great many at _Rome_, who styled themselves the _Cathari_,
[Sidenote: _He acquaints the other Churches with his Ordination._] that
is, the pure, undefiled Party; he wrote in their and his own Name to the
other Churches, acquainting them with his Ordination, exhorting them not
to communicate with the Lapsed upon any Terms, and bitterly complaining
of the scandalous Lenity and Remisness of _Cornelius_[374]. At the same
time _Cornelius_ wrote to the other Bishops, giving them a faithful
Account of all that had happened at _Rome_, especially of the
uncanonical Ordination of _Novatian_. However, the Letters of
_Novatian_, signed by several Confessors, who were greatly respected in
those Days, made no small Impression on _Antonianus_ an _African_
Bishop, and _Fabius_ Bishop of _Antioch_[375], but quite gained over to
the Party _Marcianus_ Bishop of _Arles_[376]. [Sidenote: _His Deputies
rejected and excommunicated in_ Africa.] The other Bishops declared all
to a Man for _Cornelius_, especially St. _Cyprian_, and those of his
Province, who, being assembled in a Council when the Deputies of
_Novatian_ arrived, excommunicated without farther Examination both him
and them[377]; and well they might, since they had taken so much Pains
to inform themselves of the Lawfulness of _Cornelius_’s Election, as we
have related above. The Deputies, though thus rejected with Scorn and
Disgrace by the Council, did not abandon the Enterprize, but proselyting
from Town to Town, nay, from House to House, inveigled a great many,
under colour of communicating with the Confessors[378]. [Sidenote: _St._
Cyprian_endeavours to reclaim the Confessors_.] St. _Cyprian_
therefore, whose Zeal was not confined within the Bounds, however
extensive, of _Africa_, _Numidia_, and the Two _Mauritania_’s, to
withdraw this main Support from the Party, writ a short but nervous
Letter to the Confessors, deploring the Fault they had committed, by
consenting to the unlawful Ordination of _Novatian_, and exhorting them
to return with all Speed to the Catholic Church[379]. _Dionysius_ Bishop
of _Alexandria_ writ them a pathetic Letter to the same Purpose[380];
and these Letters had at last the desired Effect; but not before
_Novatus_, who had drawn them into the Schism, left _Rome_; which
happened on the following Occasion:
[Sidenote: Novatian _sends new Deputies into_ Africa.]
_Novatian_, being informed that the Deputies he had sent into _Africa_
were every-where rejected and despised, resolved to send others, whom he
judged, on account of their Rank and Authority, more capable of
promoting his Design[381]. The Persons he pitched upon were
_Nicostratus_, _Novatus_, _Evaristus_, _Primus_, and _Dionysius_. Of the
Two last I find no farther Mention made in History; of _Novatus_ I have
spoken above; and as for _Evaristus_ and _Nicostratus_, the former was a
Bishop, and is supposed to have been one of the Three that ordained
_Novatian_. _Nicostratus_ was a Deacon of the Church of _Rome_[382], and
had been imprisoned with the Two Presbyters _Moses_ and _Maximus_, for
the Confession of the Faith[383], which intitled him to a Place among
the Confessors.[Sidenote: _Their Characters._] To these Three St.
_Cyprian_ ascribes the excellent Letter, as he styles it, which the
Confessors of _Rome_ writ to those of _Carthage_[384]. He was likewise
one of the Confessors, who writ to St. _Cyprian_ himself, as appears
from the Title of that admirable Letter, which runs thus: _The
Presbyters_ Moses _and_ Maximus, _the Deacons_ Nicostratus _and_
Ruffinus, _and the other Confessors, who are with them, to Pope_
Cyprian[385]. [Sidenote: _The Name of Pope antiently common to all
Bishops._] We may here observe, by the way, that the Name of _Pope_,
which signifies no more than _Father_, was antiently common to all
Bishops; but was afterwards, by a special Decree of _Gregory_ VII.
appropriated to the Bishop of _Rome_. To return to _Nicostratus_, the
Character given him by St. _Cyprian_ and _Cornelius_, bespeaks him quite
unworthy of being joined with the others, who are named in that Letter,
and were all Men of great Piety: for he had squandered away the Money
belonging to the Church, that was lodged in his Hands, embezzled that of
the Widows and Orphans, and defrauded a Lady, who had trusted him with
the Management of her Affairs[386].
[Sidenote: _The Deputies are everywhere rejected in_ Africa.]
These new Deputies met with no better a Reception than the former had
done: for St. _Cyprian_, being informed of their Departure from _Rome_,
by the Confessor _Augendus_[387], and soon after of their Characters by
the Acolyte _Nicephorus_, both sent, for that Purpose, by
_Cornelius_[388], he acquainted therewith the other Catholic Bishops,
who, upon that Intelligence, rejected them with the greatest
Indignation, as Apostates, and Firebrands of Sedition. Hereupon the
Deputies having, by the Means and Contrivance of _Novatus_, procured
some of their Party to be ordained Bishops, and _Nicostratus_ among the
rest, they named them to the Sees of the Catholic Bishops; which bred
great Confusion and Disorder in the Church, it being a difficult Matter
for the Bishops in the distant Provinces to distinguish between their
lawful Brethren and the Intruders, and consequently to know whom they
should admit to, and whom they should exclude from their Communion. But
against this Evil a Remedy was found by St. _Cyprian_, and the other
_African_ Bishops, who, to arm him against the Craft and Arts of those
subtle Impostors, transmitted to him a List of all the Catholic Bishops
of that Province[389].
[Sidenote: _The Confessors return to the Communion of the Church._]
The Storm, which _Novatus_ had raised in _Rome_, was laid by his
Departure; for he was no sooner gone, than the Confessors, whom he had
seduced, _viz._ _Maximus_, _Urbanus_, _Sidonius_, and _Macarius_,
signified to _Cornelius_ their eager Desire of quitting his Party, and
returning to the Communion of the Church. _Cornelius_ questioned, at
first, their Sincerity; but, being convinced of it at last, he assembled
his Clergy, not caring to trust to his own Judgment, in order to advise
with them, in what manner he should proceed, in the present Case. At
this Council assisted, besides the _Roman_ Clergy, Five Bishops, who
either happened to be then at _Rome_; or, on this Occasion, had been
invited thither by _Cornelius_. They were scarce met, when the
Confessors, attended by a great Croud, appeared before them, testifying,
with a Flood of Tears, the Sincerity of their Repentance, and begging
they would forget their part criminal Conduct. [Sidenote: _How
received._] The Council did not think it adviseable to come to any
Resolution, till they had acquainted the People with the Request of the
Confessors; which they no sooner did, than the People flocked to the
Place, and, not upbraiding, but embracing, with Tears of Joy, their
retrieved Brethren, and with the same Tenderness as if they had been
just then delivered out of Prison, pointed out to the Council the Method
they were to pursue. Accordingly _Cornelius_, having, with the
Approbation of the Council, made them renounce the Errors of _Novatian_,
and acknowlege him for the only lawful Bishop of _Rome_, readmitted
them, without farther Satisfaction, to the Communion of the Church[390].
From this Account I should imagine, that those who accompanied the
Confessors, at their first appearing before the Council, were
_Novatians_, whom they had brought back with them; but I dare not affirm
it, since St. _Cyprian_, in his Answer to _Cornelius_, speaks only of
the Four above-mentioned Confessors. [Sidenote: Cornelius
_acquaints St._ Cyprian _with their Return_.] The Confessors being thus
returned, to the inexpressible Joy of the whole People, _Cornelius_,
impatient to impart the good News to St. _Cyprian_, writ to him, as soon
as the Council broke up, to acquaint him with what had happened, and
invite him to partake of the common Joy, to which he had so much
contributed[391]. With this Letter _Nicephorus_ the Acolyte embarked,
without Delay, for _Africa_; and thence returned soon after with an
Answer, wherein St. _Cyprian_ assured _Cornelius_, that, the Return of
the Confessors had caused an universal Joy in _Africa_, both for their
Sake, and because it might open the Eyes of many, and prove in the End
the Ruin of the schismatic Party[392]. The Confessors themselves writ to
St. _Cyprian_, upon their Return[393], who immediately answered
them[394]; and, in all Likelihood, to the other chief Bishops of the
Church; since _Eusebius_ informs us, that _Dionysius_, Bishop of
_Alexandria_, writ twice to them after their Return[395]. [Sidenote: _In
what manner_ Novatian _endeavoured to keep the rest steady_.]In the mean
time _Novatian_, seeing great Numbers, moved by the Example of the
Confessors, daily fall off from his Party, to keep the rest steady by
the most sacred Ties, used, in administring the Eucharist, to hold the
Hands of those who received it, with the holy Bread in them, between
his, and oblige them to swear, _by the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ_, that they would never abandon him, nor return to
_Cornelius_[396].
[Sidenote: _A Schism in the Church of_ Carthage.]
As the Church of _Rome_ was rent by the Schism of _Novatian_, so was the
Church of _Carthage_ by that of _Felicissimus_; and as the former, upon
his being excommunicated by _Cornelius_, and the Council of _Rome_, had
recourse to St. _Cyprian_, in like manner the latter, being cut off from
the Communion of the Church by St. _Cyprian_, and the Council of
_Carthage_, had recourse to _Cornelius_. But as the Doctrine of
_Felicissimus_, though diametrically opposite to that of _Novatian_, was
equally repugnant to the Catholic Truth, and to the Discipline
established in the Church, as I have observed above, he was at first
rejected by _Cornelius_, with great Steadiness and Resolution. But the
Bishop of _Rome_ had, at last, been frightened into a Compliance, had he
not been animated and encouraged by St. _Cyprian_: for the Followers of
_Felicissimus_ having, in Imitation of the _Novatians_, appointed one of
their own Faction, named _Fortunatus_, Bishop of _Carthage_,
_Felicissimus_ took upon himself to carry to _Cornelius_ the Letters of
the new and Third Bishop of that City. Accordingly he set out for
_Rome_, attended by a Troop of seditious, desperate, and abandoned Men,
says St. _Cyprian_[397]. _Cornelius_ rejected them at first with great
Firmness, and immediately acquainted St. _Cyprian_ with what had passed;
but _Felicissimus_ threatening to read publicly the Letters he had
brought, if _Cornelius_ did not receive them, and to discover many
scandalous Things, he was not a little intimidated. He therefore writ a
second Letter to St. _Cyprian_, but betrayed in it a great deal of Fear
and Weakness: however, the excellent Letter, which St. _Cyprian_ writ in
Answer to his, inspired him with new Vigour, and kept him steady[398].
[Sidenote: _The Persecution renewed by_ Gallus.]
In the mean time, _Decius_ being killed, the Persecution was carried on,
or rather renewed, with more Fury than ever, by _Gallus_ his Successor.
As the _Roman_ Empire was, at this Time, afflicted with a dreadful
Plague, _Gallus_, who, it seems, had not molested the Christians during
the first Months of his Reign[399], issued an Order, injoining Men of
all Ranks and Professions to offer Sacrifice to the Gods, hoping, by
that means, to appease their Wrath, and put a Stop to the raging Evil.
It was on Occasion of this Plague that St. _Cyprian_ writ his excellent
Discourse on _Mortality_, wherein he so eloquently teaches a Christian
to triumph over the Fears of Death, and shews with how little Reason we
mourn for those Friends and Relations who are snatched from us.
[Sidenote: Cornelius _apprehended_.] Such of the Christians as refused
to comply with the Emperor’s Edict, were either banished or executed.
_Cornelius_, among the rest, was apprehended at the first breaking out
of the Persecution, and made a glorious Confession of his Faith, as
appears from St. _Cyprian_, who, on that Occasion, writ him a Letter of
Congratulation[400]. What happened to him afterwards is uncertain; for
his Acts are evidently fabulous, though they have been received by
_Bede_, by _Ado_, by _Anastasius_, and many others, far more
considerable for their Number than their Authority. We read in the
Pontifical of _Bucherius_, that he was banished to _Centumcellæ_, now
_Civita-vecchia_, and died of a natural Death, according to the
Expression used there[401] (_Dormitionem accepit_). As to the Title of
Martyr, with which he is distinguished by St. _Jerom_[402], it was
antiently given to all those who, for the Confession of Faith, died in
Prison, which in all Likelihood happened to _Cornelius_[N5].
-----
Footnote N5:
_Cornelius_ is reckoned, by St. _Jerom_, among the Ecclesiastic
Writers, on account of the Four Letters, which he writ to _Fabius_
Bishop of _Antioch_, who seemed not to dislike the Tenets of
_Novatian_[N5.1]. He writ several other Letters, whereof Two are still
extant among those of St. _Cyprian_[N5.2]; and some Fragments of his
Fourth Letter to _Fabius_ have been transmitted to us by _Eusebius_.
As for the Letter to _Lupicinus_, Bishop of _Vienne_, which was found
in the Archives of that Church, and published by Father _du Bosc_, the
Cardinals _Baronius_[N5.3] and _Bona_[N5.4] think it genuine; but it
is, without all Doubt, supposititious: for, according to _Ado_ and
_Baronius_ himself[N5.5], _Florentius_, whom _Lupicinus_ is supposed
to have succeeded, was raised to that See in the Reign of _Maximus_,
or _Gordian_, about the Year 240. and held it till the Reign of
_Valerian_, and about the Year 258. so that in 252. when _Cornelius_
died, _Lupicinus_ was not yet Bishop. Besides, in the Title of the
Letter, which _Baronius_ has suppressed, _Lupicinus_ is styled
_Archbishop_; which Title was not known then, nor long after. The
Letter is therefore rejected by _Launoy_[N5.6], and Dr.
_Pearson_[N5.7], as a forged and spurious Piece. _Erasmus_ ascribes to
_Cornelius_ the Treatise on Charity[N5.8]; and _du Pin_ both that, and
the other on the public Shews, with the Discourse against
_Novatian_[N5.9], which are all to be found among St. _Cyprian_’s
Works.
Footnote N5.1:
Hier. vir. ill. c 66. p. 290.
Footnote N5.2:
Cypr. ep. 46. 48.
Footnote N5.3:
Bar. ad ann. 255. n. 47.
Footnote N5.4:
Bona lit. 1. c. 3. p. 13.
Footnote N5.5:
Bar. ad ann. 262. n. 58.
Footnote N5.6:
Laun. Ger. l. 4. c. 6.
Footnote N5.7:
Pears. Cyp. ann. p. 37.
Footnote N5.8:
Eras. Cyp. p. 417.
Footnote N5.9:
Du Pin, t. 1. p. 469.
-----
_Cornelius_ died on the same Day of the Month and the Week, on which St.
_Cyprian_ was martyred Six Years after[403]; that is, on the 14th of
_September_ 252. according to the most probable Opinion, having held the
Pontificate one Year, Three Months, and Ten Days. [Sidenote: _His
Reliques._] His Body is supposed to have been translated from
_Civita-vecchia_ to the Cemetery of _Callistus_; for near that Place
Pope _Leo_ I. is said to have built, in Honour of _Cornelius_, a
Basilic, or magnificent Church[404]. His Body was believed to be still
at _Rome_ in the End of the Eighth Century; for _Anastasius_ tells us,
that Pope _Adrian_ placed it in a Church, which he had built in
_Capracoro_[405]; but it was soon after removed from thence, and brought
into _France_, by _Charlemagne_, as _Pamelius_ assures us, upon the
Authority of a small Life of St. _Cyprian_, written, as he supposes, by
_Paulus Diaconus_[406][N6].
-----
Footnote N6:
There is a famous Abbey, bearing his Name, at _Compeigne_ in the Isle
of _France_, where his Reliques, and those of St. _Cyprian_, are
supposed to be kept in the same Shrine. But how can we reconcile this
with what we read in the Council of _Reims_, held in 1049. under _Leo_
IX. _viz._ that the Body of St. _Cornelius_ was removed by the Clergy
of _Compeigne_, from that City to _Reims_; and received there by the
Pope[N6.1]? But, on the other hand, the Council is contradicted by
_Aubertus de Mira_, who assures us, that, in 860. the Reliques of Pope
_Cornelius_ were translated from the Abbey of _Inde_, standing about
Four Miles South of _Aix la Chapelle_, to that of _Rosnay_, which is,
at present, a Collegiate Church in _Flanders_, between _Oudenarde_ and
_Tournay_. In this Church is still to be seen a Shrine, supposed to
contain, as appears from the Inscription, the Bones of St. _Cornelius_
and St. _Cyprian_[N6.2].
Footnote N6.1:
Conc. t. 9. p. 1033. 1042.
Footnote N6.2:
Vide Bolland. 12 Feb. p. 607. et Pamel, p. 23.
-----
_Eusebius_ observes, that, in the Time of _Cornelius_, the Church of
_Rome_ was in a most flourishing Condition; for, not to mention the
People, who were almost without Number, it consisted of 46 Presbyters, 7
Subdeacons, 42 Acolytes, 52 Exorcists, Lectors, and Janitors, or
Door-keepers, and 1500 Widows, and other Poor, who were all maintained
by the Alms and Offerings of the Faithful[407].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLUS, LUCIUS, VOLUSIANUS.
_Twenty-first_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 252. _He is banished._]
_Lucius_ was no sooner named to succeed _Cornelius_, than he was
apprehended, and sent, with many others, into Banishment; for St.
_Cyprian_ wrote him a Letter, in the Name of his Collegues, and his own,
congratulating him, at the same time, on his Promotion, and his Exile,
as appears from St. _Cyprian_’s Second Letter to him[408]; for his First
has not reached our Times. _Lucius_ had been but a very short time in
Banishment, when he was recalled, to the inexpressible Joy of his Flock,
who, it seems, crouded out to meet him[409]. On this Occasion St.
_Cyprian_ wrote him a Second Letter, still extant[410], wherein he
testifies the Joy with which the News of his Return had been received by
him, and his Brethren in _Africa_. [Sidenote: _Returns to_ Rome.] He
returned to _Rome_ during the Heat of the Persecution; but what
occasioned his Return, we are no-where told. St. _Cyprian_ says, in his
Second Letter to him, that he was perhaps recalled to be immolated in
the Sight of his Flock, that they might be animated and encouraged by
the Example of his Christian Constancy and Resolution[411]; which
happened accordingly; for he had not governed Eight whole Months, says
_Eusebius_[412], no, nor Six, according to the most probable Opinion,
but only Five, and a few Days, when he died a Martyr; for that Title is
given him by St. _Cyprian_[413]. [Sidenote: _and dies a Martyr._] He was
beheaded, say the Martyrologies; but on this Point the Antients are
silent; and his dying in Prison had given him a just Claim to that
Title. His Body is supposed to have been discovered intire, in the
Church of St. _Cæcilia_ at _Rome_, in 1599. though the Church of
_Roskild_, in the Isle of _Zeland_, had long before pretended to his
Head[414].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN,
_Twenty-second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 253. _The Bishops of_ Gaul _write to_
Stephen.]
_Stephen_, who succeeded _Lucius_, in 253. soon after his Election,
received a Letter from _Faustinus_, Bishop of _Lions_, written in the
Name of all his Collegues in _Gaul_, informing him, that _Marcian_,
Bishop of _Arles_, having embraced the Doctrine of _Novatian_, had
denied the Communion of the Church to the Lapsed, even at the Point of
Death. At the same time they writ to St. _Cyprian_, and on the same
Subject[415], not caring to come to any vigorous Resolution against
their Collegue, without the Advice and Approbation of other Bishops,
especially of _Rome_ and _Carthage_; the former being eminent for the
Dignity of his See, and the latter for his known Zeal, Piety, and
Learning. But _Faustinus_ did not find in the Bishop of _Rome_ the Zeal
he expected; and therefore he writ a second Letter to St. _Cyprian_,
exhorting him to animate the others by his Example[416]; which that
zealous Prelate did accordingly: for he writ immediately to _Stephen_,
pressing him to dispatch, without Delay, full and ample Letters to the
Bishops of _Gaul_; that, finding themselves thus backed and supported,
they might thereby be encouraged to depose _Marcian_, and name another
in his room. It is not to be doubted but the Bishop of _Carthage_, who
had the Welfare of the Church, at least, as much at Heart as the Bishop
of _Rome_, did himself what he encouraged the others to do; but I cannot
positively affirm it, since his Answer to _Faustinus_ is lost. As to the
Issue of this Affair, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark[N7].
-----
Footnote N7:
_Marcian_’s Name is not in the List of the Bishops of _Arles_,
published by F. _Mabillon_: whence some modern Writers have concluded,
that he was actually deposed; but that List is very imperfect, the
Names of many Bishops being wanting there, whom we certainly know to
have governed that Church.
-----
St. _Cyprian_ did not doubt in the least but that _Marcian_ would be
deposed; for, in his Letter to _Stephen_, he desires him to let him know
the Name of the Person who should be chosen in his room, that he may not
be at a Loss, to whom he should direct his Letters, and his
Brethren[417].
_Faustinus_, and the other Bishops of _Gaul_, did not apply, on this
Occasion, to _Stephen_ alone, but to him, and to St. _Cyprian_. Why then
should their applying to the Bishop of _Rome_ be construed, as it is, by
all the Roman Catholic Writers, into a tacit Acknowlegement of his
universal Jurisdiction, and not the like Construction be put on their
applying to the Bishop of _Carthage_? But, in Truth, neither can bear
such a Construction, since the Bishops of _Gaul_ did not refer the Cause
of _Marcian_ either to _Stephen_, or to St. _Cyprian_: they writ to both
only for their Advice and Approbation. _Stephen_ was backward, for
Reasons unknown to us, in giving his; and therefore St. _Cyprian_, in a
Letter, which he writ on this Occasion, pressed him to encourage with
his Letters the People of _Arles_, and the Bishops of _Gaul_, to depose
_Marcian_, and appoint another in his room[418]. Was not this plainly
acknowleging, not in the Bishop of _Rome_, but in the People and Clergy,
the Power of deposing one Bishop, and appointing another in his room?
[Sidenote: Stephen_’s rash Conduct_.]
But to return to _Stephen_: His rash Conduct had involved the Churches
of _Spain_ in endless Calamities, had not St. _Cyprian_, and the other
Bishops of _Africa_, zealously interposed. The Bishops of _Spain_,
having judged Two of their Collegues unworthy of the Episcopacy, _viz._
_Basilides_ of _Leon_ and _Astorga_, and _Martial_ of _Merida_, had
disposed of their Sees to others, appointing _Sabinus_ in the room of
the former, and _Felix_ in that of the latter. They were both
_Libellatici_, and guilty of many other Crimes, for which _Martial_ had
been deposed; but _Basilides_, returning to himself, and conscious of
his own Guilt, had voluntarily resigned, declaring he should think it a
great Happiness to be readmitted, after due Satisfaction, to the
Communion of the Church, even in the Capacity of a Layman. But, Ambition
getting the better of all his good Resolutions, he soon began to pant
after his former Condition; and, thinking the Favour and Interest of the
Bishop of _Rome_ might greatly contribute to his Re-establishment, he
undertook a Journey to that City; [Sidenote: _He suffers himself to be
imposed upon._] and there, as St. _Cyprian_ expresses himself, _imposed
upon our Collegue_ Stephen, _who lived at a great Distance, and was
ignorant of the Truth, seeking unjustly to be restored to his
Bishoprick, from which he had been justly deposed_[419]. Being thus
admitted to the Communion of the Bishop of _Rome_, he returned well
satisfied to _Spain_, and there exercised all Episcopal Functions, as he
had formerly done. St. _Cyprian_ does not tell us, in express Terms,
that _Martial_ too had recourse to _Rome_; but that he had, may,
perhaps, be gathered from his Words; for he writes, that,
notwithstanding the Craft and Deceit _Martial_ had used, probably in
imposing upon _Stephen_, he had not been able to preserve his
Episcopacy[420]. Besides, he acted as a Bishop after he had been deposed
by a Synod; which he would have hardly attempted, had he not been
countenanced by some Bishop of Rank and Dignity. Be that as it will, the
Churches of _Leon_, _Astorga_, and _Merida_, applied, in this their
Distress, to the Bishops of _Africa_, imploring, both by Letters and
Deputies, their Advice and Assistance. The Deputies were the Two new
Bishops _Felix_ and _Sabinus_; and their Deputation was backed by a
pressing Letter from _Felix_, Bishop of _Saragosa_, whom St. _Cyprian_
styles a Propagator of the Faith, and Defender of the Truth[421].
[Sidenote: Martial _of_ Merida _excommunicated by the Bishops of_
Africa, _tho’ admitted by_ Stephen _to his Communion_.] These Letters
being read at _Carthage_, in a Council of 28 Bishops, with St. _Cyprian_
at their Head, it was concluded, that _Basilides_ and _Martial_ ought
not to be acknowleged as Bishops; that it was not lawful to communicate
with them; that such Bishops as did, ought to be excommunicated
themselves; and, finally, that their imposing upon _Stephen_, instead of
giving them any kind of Right to the Sees they had forfeited by their
Wickedness, added to their Guilt. By the same Council, the Election of
_Sabinus_ and _Felix_ was confirmed, and they acknowleged by all the
_African_ Bishops as their Collegues[422].
[Sidenote: _Appeals to_ Rome, _no Proof of the Pope’s Supremacy_.]
It is surprising, that _Bellarmine_, _Baronius_, _Davidius_, and other
Advocates for the Pope’s Supremacy, should lay so much Stress as they
do, on the Recourse to _Rome_ of the Two deposed Bishops. If their
recurring, or appealing, as they are pleased to style it, to the Bishop
of _Rome_, is any Proof of his being acknowleged by them for the Head of
the Church, the Appeal of the other Bishops of _Spain_ from him to St.
_Cyprian_, and their acquiescing to his, and not to the Judgment of
_Stephen_, will be a stronger Proof of St. _Cyprian_’s being acknowleged
by them for the Head of the Church. Had _Basilides_ and _Martial_
recurred not to _Rome_, but to _Carthage_, had the Bishops of _Spain_
appealed from St. _Cyprian_ to _Stephen_, as they did from _Stephen_ to
St. _Cyprian_, and acquiesced to his Judgment, no Notice had been taken
of the Appeal of the Two Apostates; that only of the Catholic Bishops
had been set forth with great Pomp and Flourish of Words. But, as the
Case stands, they must be satisfied with the Evidence of the Apostates,
and leave the Catholic Bishops to bear Testimony for us, which we shall
not misuse; we shall not build upon it the Supremacy of the Church of
_Carthage_; we shall not set up St. _Cyprian_ for a Judge, to whose
Tribunal all Appeals must be brought; in short, we shall not make him an
universal Judge, an universal Pastor, a Pope; though, to the Testimony
of the _Spanish_ Bishops, that of _Gregory Nazianzene_ should be added,
and I defy the Champions for the See of _Rome_ to allege one in their
Favour more plain and expressive: _St._ Cyprian, says he, _presided not
only over the Church of_ Carthage, _or that of_ Africa, _on which he
reflected an extraordinary Lustre, but over all the West, nay, and over
all the Nations of the East, of the North, and the South_[423]. Had
_Gregory_ said as much of the Bishop of _Rome_, the Passage had been
employed as a Corner-stone to support the Pope’s universal Jurisdiction.
[Sidenote: _The famous Dispute about the Baptism of Heretics._]
Not long after the Affair of the _Spanish_ Bishops, that is, about the
Year 256. according to the most probable Opinion, happened the famous
Contest about the Baptism of Heretics, which rent the whole Church into
Two Parties, the one headed by St. _Cyprian_, and the other by
_Stephen_. St. _Cyprian_ maintained, that Baptism administred by
Heretics, was null and invalid; and, consequently, that such as came
over from them, from what Sect soever they came, ought to be baptized by
a Catholic Minister: he owned there was but one Baptism, and therefore
avoided the Word _Rebaptization_; but thought that Heretics had not the
Power of conferring it. [Sidenote: _Both Opinions erroneous._] On the
other hand, _Stephen_, and those who adhered to him, pretended, that
Baptism conferred by Heretics, of whatever Sect or Persuasion, was
valid; so that by avoiding one Error, they fell into another; for some
Heretics of those Times, namely, the _Montanists_ and _Marcionites_, did
not baptize, as is commanded by the Gospel, in the Name of the Three
Persons; whence their Baptism was declared null by Two Oecumenical
Councils, as I shall relate hereafter. I know great Pains have been
taken to excuse _Stephen_; but his own Words, quoted by St. _Cyprian_,
from his own Letter to him, can, in my Opinion, admit of no Dispute; for
he there forbids, in express Terms, the Baptizing of Heretics, _from
what Heresy soever they should come_[424]. And here we may observe, by
the way, that the whole Church erred, either at this Time, or
afterwards; for afterwards both Opinions were condemned, and both were
held at this Time, by the one or the other of the Two Parties, into
which the whole Church was divided. The Point in Dispute had been
canvassed long before, and differently settled in different Provinces.
The Churches of _Africa_ and _Numidia_ had formerly admitted Heretics,
without baptizing or rebaptizing them; but the contrary Practice was
established in a Council of the Bishops of these Two Provinces, summoned
about the Close of the Second Century, by _Agrippinus_ Bishop of
_Carthage_[425]. [Sidenote: _The Custom of baptizing Heretics practised
by several Churches, and established by Councils_.] The same Practice of
baptizing Heretics was followed by the Churches of _Cappadocia_, and the
other Provinces of _Asia_, as a Tradition handed down to them from the
Apostles Times; whence it was confirmed in a Council, which was held at
_Iconium_ in _Phrygia_, about the Year 230. and consisted of all the
Bishops of _Cappadocia_, _Galatia_, _Cilicia_, and the neighbouring
Provinces[426]. The same Practice was approved of by another Council,
assembled, much about the same time, at _Synnades_ in _Phrygia_[427].
The Bishops of _Pontus_ and _Egypt_ agreed, it seems, with those of
_Cappadocia_ and _Galatia_[428]; but all the other Bishops, especially
those of _Italy_, _Gaul_, and _Spain_, held the contrary Opinion, and
followed the opposite Practice. This Disagreement, both in Opinion and
Practice, had hitherto created no Disturbance in the Church, each Bishop
conforming to the Custom of his particular Church, as received by
Tradition, or settled by Synods, without censuring those who disagreed
with him, or being censured by them. [Sidenote: _It is confirm’d by two
Councils held by St._ Cyprian;] But the Question was now revived by
Eighteen Bishops of _Numidia_, who writ to a Council, held at this time
by St. _Cyprian_, to know whether they had done well in rebaptizing
Heretics, agreeably to the antient Practice of their respective
Churches. What raised this Doubt now, we know not; but it is certain,
the Council answered, that they ought to follow the Practice which they
had hitherto observed[429]. The same Answer was returned by St.
_Cyprian_, to _Quintus_ Bishop of _Mauritania_, who had asked the same
Question[430]. Soon after, another Council was held at _Carthage_,
composed of 71 Bishops, wherein the Decrees of the former Council,
concerning the Baptism of Heretics, were confirmed; and besides, it was
ordained, that such Presbyters and Deacons as had received Ordination at
the Hands of Heretics, or who, after receiving Orders in the Church, had
fallen into Heresy, should be admitted to Communion only as Laymen[431].
[Sidenote: _who acquaints_ Stephen _with their Decrees_.] The Council,
by a synodal Letter, acquainted _Stephen_ with these Resolutions, hoping
he would approve and embrace them; but at the same time declaring, that
if any Bishop should think fit to reject them, and follow different
Opinions, agreeably to the Liberty they all claimed, no Breach of Peace
and Unity should thence follow on their Side[432]. With this Letter St.
_Cyprian_ sent those he had written to _Quintus_, and to the Bishops of
_Numidia_[433].
[Sidenote: _St._ Cyprian_’s famous letter to_ Jubaianus.]
It was after this Council, and before _Stephen_’s Answer, that St.
_Cyprian_ wrote the famous Letter to _Jubaianus_, who was a Bishop; but
in what Province, or of what City, we know not. _Jubaianus_ had, by a
Letter, asked St. _Cyprian_’s Opinion about the Baptizing of Heretics;
and, at the same time, sent him the Copy of a Letter, which he had
received; wherein many Reasons were alleged to prove, that Baptism, by
whomsoever administred, not even the _Marcionites_ excepted, ought to be
deemed valid. The Author of this Letter inveighs bitterly against St.
_Cyprian_, and those of his Party, styling them Betrayers of the Truth,
and Enemies to the Peace and Unity of the Church[434]. _Baronius_, and
likewise _Pamelius_, ascribe that Piece to _Stephen_, not apprised that
they must consequently own the Doctrine held by _Stephen_ to have been
no less erroneous than that which was held by St. _Cyprian_, if the
Doctrine of the Church be true, as I have observed above. But we have
not sufficient Grounds to suppose _Stephen_ the Author of it, since many
besides him writ in favour of that Opinion. St. _Cyprian_, in Answer to
_Jubaianus_, sent him his Letter to _Quintus_, that of the first Council
to the Bishops of _Numidia_; and, moreover, wrote him a long Letter,
with a great many Arguments in favour of his Opinion, and the Answers to
what was objected against it; especially in the Letter, whereof
_Jubaianus_ had transmitted him a Copy[435]. [Sidenote: _His Desire
to live in Peace and Unity with those who held the opposite Opinion._]
He ends his Letter by a most solemn Protestation of Unity and Charity
with those who should differ from him; which is related at Length by St.
_Jerom_[436], and likewise by St. _Austin_, who tells us, that he was
never tired with reading over and over again those Words of Peace and
Charity, breathing nothing but the sweetest Odour of that Union, in
which the holy Prelate anxiously sought to live with his Brethren[437].
To this Letter _Jubaianus_ returned Answer, that he had fully convinced
him, and that he willingly embraced his Opinion[438]. In that Letter St.
_Cyprian_ seems to have mustered all the Arguments that could be alleged
in favour of his Opinion; and therefore St. _Austin_ has employed his
Third, Fourth, and Fifth Books on Baptism, in confuting them.
We have hitherto seen with how much Temper, Moderation, and Candor, the
Dispute was managed on St. _Cyprian_’s Side: he determined nothing
without the Advice and Approbation of his Collegues assembled in
Council; the Determinations of the Council he imparted to other Bishops,
leaving them at full Liberty to embrace or reject them, and declaring,
that no Disagreement in Opinion should occasion in him the least Breach
of Charity. How different was the Conduct of the Bishop of _Rome_!
[Sidenote: Stephen_’s Pride and Arrogance_.] He condescended, indeed, to
answer the synodal Letter of the _African_ Bishops; but did it with that
Pride and Arrogance, that in After-ages became the Characteristic of his
Successors. He begins with the Dignity of his See, and his pretended
Succession to St. _Peter_, which he takes care to put them in mind of:
in the next Place, he rejects their Decrees with the utmost Indignation,
and attempts to confute the Arguments alleged to support them: he then
proceeds to Commands and Menaces, ordering St. _Cyprian_ to quit his
Opinion, and threatening to cut off, from the Communion of the Church,
all those who should presume to differ from him, and rebaptize Heretics:
he concludes his Letter with a bitter Invective against St. _Cyprian_,
branding that great Luminary of the Church with the reproachful Names of
_false Christ_, _false Apostle_, _deceitful Workman_[439]. Such was Pope
_Stephen_’s Answer to a most respectful Letter from a Council of 71
Bishops. _Pompeius_, Bishop of _Sabrata_ in the _Tripolitana_, hearing
of this Letter, and being desirous to peruse it, as he had done all the
rest on the same Subject, [Sidenote: _He is severely censured by
St._ Cyprian.] St. _Cyprian_, in Compliance with his Desire, sent him a
Copy of it; and at the same time writ him a Letter, wherein he treats
_Stephen_, upon the just Provocation he had given him, with more than
ordinary Sharpness and Acrimony, charging him with _Pride and
Impertinence_, with _Self-contradiction and Ignorance_, with
_Indiscretion_, _Obstinacy_, _Childishness_; nay, he styles him a
_Favourer and Abetter of Heretics against the Church of God_[440]. St.
_Cyprian_ was more provoked at _Stephen_’s abusive Language, than moved
either by his Authority or Menaces. St. _Austin_ supposes the Opinion he
held to have been false and erroneous; and yet owns, that he was not
obliged to yield to the Authority of _Stephen_, nor give up the Point,
till he was convinced by dint of Reason, or by the Decision of an
Oecumenical Council[441]. [Sidenote: _St._ Cyprian _assembles a
great Council at_ Carthage;] However, as St. _Cyprian_ sought nothing
but Truth, upon the Receipt of _Stephen_’s Letter, he summoned a great
Council, in order to have the Question canvassed anew, and examined with
more Care and Attention. The Council met accordingly, on the First of
_September_ 256. consisting of 85 Bishops, a great Number of Presbyters
and Deacons, and a considerable Part of the People[442]. To this
Assembly were read the Letter of _Jubaianus_ to St. _Cyprian_, his
Answer to it, and _Jubaianus_’s Reply; with the Letter of the former
Council to _Stephen_, and _Stephen_’s Answer to the Council. These
Pieces being read, St. _Cyprian_ made a short Discourse, exhorting his
Collegues to speak their Mind freely: the Words he used on this Occasion
alluded, without Doubt, to the Pride and Arrogance of the Bishop of
_Rome_; _Let none of us_, says he, _set up for the Bishop of Bishops;
let none of us presume to reduce our Collegues by a tyrannical Fear to
the Necessity of obeying_: he concluded with protesting anew, in the
most solemn manner, that he left every one the full Liberty of following
what Opinion he liked best; and that no Man should, on that score, be
judged by him, or separated from his Communion[443]. [Sidenote: _which
confirms the antient Practice_.] The Discourse being finished, each
Bishop delivered his Opinion, and St. _Cyprian_ the last, all approving,
with one Consent, the Baptizing of Heretics. _Pamelius_ and others count
87 Bishops present at the Council, because _Natalis_ of _Oea_ spoke for
the Two other Bishops of _Libya Tripolitana_, viz. _Pompeius_ of
_Sabrata_, and _Dioga_ of _Leptis the Great_[444], who were absent.
The Third Council of _Carthage_ having thus confirmed the Decrees of the
Two former, notwithstanding the Threats and Menaces of the Bishop of
_Rome_, it was thought adviseable for the Peace of the Church to
acquaint him therewith; and at the same time to inform him more
particularly of the Reasons, on which their Opinion was grounded.
[Sidenote: _Deputies sent to_ Stephen, _how treated_.] Deputies were
accordingly dispatched to _Rome_ for that Purpose; but _Stephen_ not
only refused to see or hear them, but would not allow any of his Flock
to correspond with them, to supply them with the Necessaries of Life, or
even to admit them under the same Roof; excluding them not only from his
Communion, but from common Hospitality, says, _Firmilian_, who wrote
this very Year[445]. [Sidenote: _He excommunicates all who held
the opposite Opinion._] He did not stop here; but, transported with
Rage, or Zeal, as _Baronius_ is pleased to style it, he cut off from his
Communion all the Bishops who had assisted at the Council, and all those
who held the same Opinion, that is, the Bishops of _Africa_, _Numidia_,
_Mauritania_, _Cilicia_, _Cappadocia_, _Galatia_, and _Egypt_[446]. But
_Stephen_’s Anathemas proved, as those of _Victor_’s had done before,
_bruta fulmina_; no Regard was had to them, no, not even by those of his
own Party; who, by continuing in Communion with those whom he had cut
off from his, sufficiently declared their Thoughts touching his rash and
unchristian Conduct. This Dispute, says St. _Austin_, occasioned no
Schism in the Church, the Bishops continuing united in Charity,
notwithstanding their Disagreement in Opinion[447]. No Thanks to
_Stephen_, who did all that lay in his Power to set the Bishops at
Variance, and involve the whole Church in Confusion and Disorder: _The
Peace of Christ_, continues St. _Austin_, _triumphed in their Hearts,
and put a Stop to the growing Schism_; not in the Heart of _Stephen_,
where Rage, Ambition, and Envy lodged; Guests incompatible with Peace
and Charity; but in the Hearts of the other Bishops, who were thereby
restrained from following his Example. How many Schisms had been
prevented, had Bishops in After-ages trod in the Footsteps of those
great Prelates!
[Sidenote: Stephen’_s Conduct disapproved by_ Dionysius
_of_ Alexandria;]
_Dionysius_, afterwards Pope, and _Philemon_, both then Presbyters of
the Church of _Rome_, acquainted, no doubt, by _Stephen_’s Direction,
the great _Dionysius_, Bishop of _Alexandria_, with what had passed,
hoping to gain him over to their Party, and extort from him an
Approbation of _Stephen_’s Conduct: but that illustrious Prelate,
foreseeing, and well weighing, the evil Consequences that might attend
it, declared his Sentiments with all the Freedom and Zeal that became a
Man of his Rank in the Church. He told them plainly, that the condemning
a Practice, which had been established by so many Councils, was what he
could by no means approve of; that an Affair of such Consequence
required long and mature Deliberation; and that the deciding it
over-hastily might raise eternal Disputes, and end at last in a Schism:
he therefore begged _Stephen_, in a Letter, which he writ to him on this
Occasion, that he would, upon Reflection, alter his Conduct; and in an
Affair upon which so much depended, take different Measures from those
which he had hitherto pursued[448]. As _Stephen_ wrote to _Dionysius_,
so did St. _Cyprian_ to _Firmilian_, giving him a particular and candid
Account both of _Stephen_’s Conduct and his own. _Firmilian_ was Bishop
of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_, and one of the most eminent Prelates at
that Time in the Church both for Piety and Learning: he had a singular
Veneration for St. _Cyprian_, maintained with great Zeal the same Cause,
and consequently had been equally ill used and excommunicated by
_Stephen_. He therefore received with extraordinary Joy the Letter,
which St. _Cyprian_ sent him by _Rogatian_ one of his Deacons, often
read it with great Satisfaction[449], and answered it with a long
Letter[450], which is still extant, though St. _Cyprian_’s to him has
been lost long since. [Sidenote: _and severely censured by_ Firmilian.]
In this Letter _Firmilian_, amazed and provoked at _Stephen_’s
unaccountable Conduct, expresses his Detestation of it in sharper Terms
than the Laws of Charity can well allow; for, not content to charge him
with sacrificing the Peace of the Church to a petulant Humour, he
compares him to _Judas_, and stigmatizes him with the Epithets of
inhuman, audacious, insolent, wicked, impious Schismatic; for _he is a
true Schismatic_, says _Firmilian, who departs from the Unity of the
Church, which thou hast done, O_ Stephen; _for, by attempting to
separate others from thee, thou hast separated thyself from all other
Churches. How much Sin hast thou heaped upon thyself by cutting thyself
off from so many Flocks[451]!_ _Firmilian_’s Letter was translated into
_Latin_ by St. _Cyprian_ himself, as is manifest from the Style. It was
unknown, it seems, to St. _Austin_; for he never quotes it, nor, in
confuting the Opinion of Sr. _Cyprian_, takes any notice of some Reasons
alleged in that Letter to support it.
[Sidenote: Stephen _dies, but not a Martyr_.]
There was no Hope of seeing an End put to this Dispute, so long as
_Stephen_ lived; but he dying, his Successor, who was a Man of a quite
different Temper, laid the Storm, which his furious and ungovernable
Passion had raised. He died on the 2d of _August_ 257. according to the
most probable Opinion[452]. The Church of _Rome_, upon the Authority of
his Acts, ranks him among the Martyrs; but that Honour is not paid him
either by St. _Austin_, or by _Vincentius Lirinensis_, who, naming him
together with St. _Cyprian_, as they often do, give constantly the Title
of Martyr to the latter, and never to the former. [Sidenote: _His Acts
fabulous._] As for his Acts, they flatly contradict, in several Points,
the most unexceptionable Writers among the Antients[453], and therefore
by no means deserve the Credit which _Baronius_ would have us give
them[454]. Even _Anastasius_ seems to have made no Account of them, if
in his Time they were yet composed, which may be questioned; for the
Account he gives us of _Stephen_’s Death differs widely from that which
we read in those Acts[455]. But he had made a bold Attempt towards
extending the Power and Authority of the See of _Rome_, and therefore
was to be placed among the Saints for the Encouragement of others. To
say he had merited that Honour by his Virtues, either as a Christian or
a Bishop, had been carrying the Imposture too far: the only Means
therefore left of making him a Saint, was to make him a Martyr, that, by
his glorious Death, he might be thought to have deserved what it was
manifest from the Records of those Times he had not deserved by his
Christian Life. Hence Acts were forged, setting forth his heroic
Confession of the Faith before the Emperor, his Sufferings on that
Account, the stupendous Miracles he wrought, _&c._ which, however
incredible, might, in Process of Time, by their Antiquity alone, gain
Credit with the greater Part of Mankind. [Sidenote: _His Reliques._]
_Stephen_ was buried in the Cœmetery of _Callistus_[456]; whence his
Body was translated about the Year 762. by _Paul_ I. to a Monastery of
_Greek_ Monks, which that Pope had built in _Rome_, as we read in
_Anastasius_[457]. How it got from thence to _Trani_ in _Apulia_ nobody
knows; but from that City it was conveyed with great Pomp in 1682. to
_Pisa_ in _Tuscany_, where it is still worshiped in a Church bearing the
pretended Saint’s Name[458]. According to the most probable Opinion,
_Stephen_ governed Four Years, and about Six Months.
-----
Footnote 352:
Euseb. chron. & l. 6. c. 33. Opt. l. 2. Aug. ep. 165, &c.
Footnote 353:
Vide Pears. Cyp. an. p. 29. n. 6.
Footnote 354:
Cypr. ep. 52.
Footnote 355:
Idem ib.
Footnote 356:
Idem ep. 52.
Footnote 357:
Aur. Vict.
Footnote 358:
Idem ep. 42.
Footnote 359:
Nem. ep. 41, 42., 45.
Footnote 360:
Idem ep. 52. 54.
Footnote 361:
Idem ep. 68.
Footnote 362:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.
Footnote 363:
Pacian. ep. 3.
Footnote 364:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 24.
Footnote 365:
Theodoret. hær. fab. l. 3. c. 5.
Footnote 366:
Pacian. ep. 3. Hier. vir. ill. c. 70. Cypr. ep. 49.
Footnote 367:
Pacian. ep. 3.
Footnote 368:
Id. ib. & ep. 2.
Footnote 369:
Cyp. ep. 40. 49.
Footnote 370:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.
Footnote 371:
Theod. l. 3. c. 5.
Footnote 372:
Cyp. ep. 54.
Footnote 373:
Idem ib.
Footnote 374:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 45. Socrat. l. 4. c. 28. Hier. vir. ill. c. 69.
Footnote 375:
Cyp. ep. 52. Euseb. l. 6. c. 44.
Footnote 376:
Cyp. ep. 67.
Footnote 377:
Idem ib.
Footnote 378:
Idem ep. 47. 79.
Footnote 379:
Idem ep. 44.
Footnote 380:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 46.
Footnote 381:
Cyp. ep. 48.
Footnote 382:
Idem ep. 49.
Footnote 383:
Buch. p. 271.
Footnote 384:
Cyp. ep. 23.
Footnote 385:
Idem ep. 26.
Footnote 386:
Idem ep. 48, 49.
Footnote 387:
Idem ep. 48.
Footnote 388:
Idem ep. 49.
Footnote 389:
Idem ep. 55.
Footnote 390:
Idem ep. 46. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.
Footnote 391:
Cyp. ep. 46.
Footnote 392:
Idem ep. 47.
Footnote 393:
Idem ep. 50.
Footnote 394:
Idem ep. 51.
Footnote 395:
Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.
Footnote 396:
Idem ib.
Footnote 397:
Idem ep. 55.
Footnote 398:
Idem ep. 55.
Footnote 399:
Idem ep. 54.
Footnote 400:
Idem ep. 57.
Footnote 401:
Buch. p. 271.
Footnote 402:
Hier. vit. Paul p. 237.
Footnote 403:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 67.
Footnote 404:
Flor. p. 828. 830.
Footnote 405:
Anast. c. 46. p. 27.
Footnote 406:
Pamel. prolog. in S. Cyp. p. 19.
Footnote 407:
Euseb. 1. 6. c. 43.
Footnote 408:
Cypr. ep 58.
Footnote 409:
Idem ib.
Footnote 410:
Idem ep. 58.
Footnote 411:
Idem ib.
Footnote 412:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 2.
Footnote 413:
Cyp. ep. 67.
Footnote 414:
Bolland. 4. Mart. p. 301, 302.
Footnote 415:
Cypr. ep. 67.
Footnote 416:
Idem ib.
Footnote 417:
Idem ib.
Footnote 418:
Cypr. ep. 70.
Footnote 419:
Cypr. ep. 68.
Footnote 420:
Idem ib.
Footnote 421:
Idem ib.
Footnote 422:
Idem ib.
Footnote 423:
Greg. Naz. orat. 18. p. 281.
Footnote 424:
Cyp. ep. 70. 73.
Footnote 425:
Cyp. ep. 70. 73. Aug. bapt. l. 2. c. 7, & 8.
Footnote 426:
Cyp. ep. 75.
Footnote 427:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 7.
Footnote 428:
Basil. ep. 75.
Footnote 429:
Cyp. ep. 70.
Footnote 430:
Idem, ep. 71.
Footnote 431:
Idem, ep. 73.
Footnote 432:
Idem, ep. 72.
Footnote 433:
Idem ib.
Footnote 434:
Idem, ep. 73.
Footnote 435:
Idem, ib.
Footnote 436:
Hier. in Luc. c. 9.
Footnote 437:
Aug. bapt. l. 4. c. 8.
Footnote 438:
Concil. p. 397.
Footnote 439:
Cyp. ep. 74. Euseb. l. 7. c. 3. Aug. bapt. l. 2. c. 7.
Footnote 440:
Cyp. ep. 74.
Footnote 441:
Aug. de bapt. l. 1. c. 7. 18. & l. 2. c. 8. 15.
Footnote 442:
Cyp. con. p. 397.
Footnote 443:
Idem ib. Aug. de bapt. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 444:
Cyp. conc. p. 403.
Footnote 445:
Cyp. ep. 75.
Footnote 446:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.
Footnote 447:
Aug. bapt. l. 5. c. 25.
Footnote 448:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.
Footnote 449:
Cyp. ep. 75.
Footnote 450:
Cyp ib.
Footnote 451:
Id. ib.
Footnote 452:
Buch. cycl. p. 297.
Footnote 453:
Pears. annal. Cyp. p. 57, 58.
Footnote 454:
Bar. ad ann. 259.
Footnote 455:
Anast. in vit. Vict.
Footnote 456:
Buch. cycl. p. 267.
Footnote 457:
Anast. c. 95.
Footnote 458:
Boll. Pont. p. 36.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIAN, SIXTUS II. GALLIENUS.
_Twenty-third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 257. Dionysius _of_ Alexandria _interposes
in the famous Dispute_.]
_Stephen_ being dead, _Sixtus_ or _Xystus_ II. a Deacon of the Church of
_Rome_, was chosen to succeed him. As the late Dispute was not yet
ended, _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ no sooner heard of his
Promotion, than he began to press him with great Earnestness to
relinquish the wild Pretensions of his Predecessor, and concur with the
other Bishops in restoring Peace and Tranquillity to the Church[459]. He
writ Three Letters to him on the same Subject, whereof the last was from
_Dionysius_ and the whole Church of _Alexandria_, to _Sixtus_ and the
whole Church of _Rome_[460]. He writ likewise to _Dionysius_ and
_Philemon_, two Presbyters of the Church of _Rome_, whom we have
mentioned above, and who upon _Stephen_’s Death seem to have abandoned
his Party; for _Dionysius_ of _Alexandria_, in his first Letter to
_Sixtus_, writes, That these two Presbyters had been formerly of
_Stephen_’s Opinion[461], a plain Indication that they were not then.
The Bishop of _Alexandria_ had at last the Satisfaction to see his pious
Endeavours crowned with Success; for we find no farther Mention of this
Dispute till it was revived by the _Donatists_. [Sidenote: _Peace
restored to the Church by his means._] In what manner it ended, we are
no-where told; but it is manifest from the Writers of those Times, that
the _African_ and _Asiatic_ Bishops continued the same Practice of
baptizing Heretics, till it was condemned by the two great Councils, of
_Arles_ in 314. and of _Nice_ in 325[462]. Whence we may well conclude,
that the Terms proposed at the Beginning of the Dispute by _Dionysius_
and St. _Cyprian_ were agreed to by _Sixtus_, _viz._ That no Restraint
should be laid on the Bishops of either Side, but that every one should
be allowed to follow undisturbed which of the two Opinions he thought
most agreeable to the Scripture and to Reason. This was allowing the
Bishops to consult the Scriptures, and make use of their own Reason, in
a Point already judged and decided by the Bishop of _Rome_. But the
Successors of _Sixtus_ have not been so complaisant; for they pretend,
that a blind Faith ought to be yielded to all their Decisions as
infallibly true, a blind Obedience to all their Decrees as
unquestionably holy.
But now the Persecution, which had begun some Months before the Decease
of _Stephen_, raged with more Violence than ever: [Sidenote: Valerian
_persecutes the Church_.] For _Valerian_ having, at the Instigation of
an _Egyptian_ Magician, changed the Kindness he once had for the
Christians into an implacable Hatred, he ordered, by a Rescript to the
Senate, all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be carefully sought for,
and executed without Mercy[463]. [Sidenote: Sixtus _martyred_.] Pursuant
to this Order, _Sixtus_, who among the first fell into the Hands of the
Persecutors, was immediately either beheaded, as we read in the
Pontifical of _Bucherius_[464], or crucified, as we are told by
_Prudentius_[465]; having held the Chair only Eleven Months, and some
Days. _Pontius_, a Deacon of the Church of _Carthage_, styles him a good
and _pacific Prelate_[466], no doubt on account of his Conduct quite
opposite to that of his ambitious and quarrelsome Predecessor[N8].
-----
Footnote N8:
_Ruffinus_ published, under the Name of _Sixtus_ Bishop of _Rome_, the
Book of a _Pythagorean_ Philosopher, named _Sixtus_. St. _Jerom_
reproaches him in two Places with that _Imposture_, as he styles it,
supposing him to have known the Work, which he ascribed to Pope
_Sixtus_, not to be his[N8.1]. St. _Austin_ was imposed upon among the
rest; for, in his Treatise of _Nature and Grace_, he quotes that Book
as the Work of Pope _Sixtus_; but he afterwards owned and corrected
his Mistake[N8.2]. It was ranked by Pope _Gelasius_ among the Books of
Heretics; so that he supposed it to have been written by a Christian,
which was more than he could know, there not being a single Word in it
whence we can argue the Author to have believed in, or to have had any
Knowlege of Christ: and it is on this Consideration that it has been
thought unworthy of a Bishop of those times.
Footnote N8.1:
Ep. ad Ctesiph. contr. Pelag. c. 22. & in cap. 18. Ezech.
Footnote N8.2:
Aug. l. 2. retract. c. 42.
-----
-----
Footnote 459:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 5. 9.
Footnote 460:
Idem c. 9.
Footnote 461:
Idem c. 5.
Footnote 462:
Cyp. ep. 77. Basil. can. 47. & ep. 8. conc. Arel. can. 8.
Footnote 463:
Cyp. ep. 82.
Footnote 464:
Buch. p. 268.
Footnote 465:
Prud. de coron. martyr. p. 71.
Footnote 466:
Pont. in vit. S. Cyp. p. 8.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLIENUS, DIONYSIUS, CLAUDIUS II.
_Twenty-fourth_ BISHOP _of_
Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 258. _The See vacant almost a whole Year._]
_Sixtus_ being dead, and the Christians prevented by the Persecution
from assembling to chuse another in his room, the See remained vacant
almost a whole Year, that is, from the 6th of _August_ 258. to the 22d
of _July_ 259. when _Dionysius_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_,
whom we have mentioned above, was elected, to the great Satisfaction of
the Faithful; for he was one of the most eminent Men of his Time both
for Piety and Learning[467]. During his Pontificate, the _Goths_ broke
into the Empire, over-ran all _Asia Minor_, and, having almost utterly
destroyed the City of _Cæsarea_, they carried with them into Captivity
most of its Christian Inhabitants. _Firmilian_ was then Bishop of the
Place, who had censured the Conduct of _Stephen_ with so much Sharpness
and Acrimony; [Sidenote: Dionysius_’s Charity to the distressed
Christians of_ Cæsarea.] but the Remembrance of what had passed on
that unhappy Occasion had not that Effect on _Dionysius_, which far less
Provocations have had on many of his Successors; for he no sooner heard
of the Distress that Church was in, than, laying hold of so favourable
an Opportunity to exert his Charity, he writ a Letter to comfort them in
their Calamity, and at the same time dispatched proper Persons with
large Collections to ransom the Christians who had fallen into the Hands
of the _Barbarians_[468]. The Letter, which _Dionysius_ wrote on this
Occasion, was carefully kept in the Archives of the Church of _Cæsarea_,
as an authentic Monument of his Goodness and Charity[469]. The great
_Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ having, at this Time, composed a
learned Treatise to prove against _Sabellius_ the Distinction of the
Divine Persons, some over-zealous Catholics, misconstruing several
Passages in that Work, and concluding that he had run into the opposite
Error, accused him to the Bishop of _Rome_, as if he denied the Son to
be consubstantial with the Father[470]. [Sidenote: Dionysius _of_
Alexandria, _accused at_ Rome _over him_.] Hereupon the Bishop of
_Rome_, having assembled a Council, acquainted _Dionysius_ with the
Sentiments of the other Bishops, and his own, expressing his Concern,
that the Divinity of the Word should have been questioned by him, and at
the same time desiring him to answer the Accusation[471]. This
_Dionysius_ readily did in Four Books, which he styled _Confutation and
Apology_; shewing therein that his Opinion was very different from what
it had been represented at _Rome_, and explaining those Passages which
had given Ground for the Accusation. This Work he addressed to the
Bishop of _Rome_[472]. Here _Baronius_ exults. Behold, says he, one of
the most eminent Prelates of the Church, upon Suspicion of Heresy,
arraigned at _Rome_, judged at _Rome_. [Sidenote: _That argues
no Jurisdiction in the Bishop of_ Rome.] Who does not see a supreme
Tribunal erected there, to which all Causes must be brought; a sovereign
Judge residing there, by whom all Persons must be absolved or condemned;
is either blind and cannot see, or shuts his Eyes and will not see[473].
And does not the sharp-sighted Annalist himself see what every one the
least conversant in Ecclesiastical History must see, if he is not either
blind and cannot, or shuts his Eyes and will not see, _viz._ Bishops,
when guilty, or only suspected of Heresy, accused to some of their
Collegues, who neither had nor claimed any Jurisdiction over them? Thus
was the famous _Paul_ of _Samosata_, Bishop of _Antioch_, at this very
Time, accused by his whole Church, first to _Dionysius_ Bishop of
_Alexandria_, and soon after to _Firmilian_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_[474].
That such an Accusation argued any Jurisdiction in those Bishops over
the Bishop of _Antioch_, is what _Baronius_ himself dares not affirm;
and yet a like Accusation brought to _Rome_ is enough for him to
transform that See into a supreme Tribunal; that Bishop, though far from
such ambitious Thoughts, into a sovereign Judge. But the Bishop of
_Rome_, says _Baronius_, required of _Dionysius_ a Confession or
Declaration of his Faith: And does not that argue Superiority and
Jurisdiction? _Baronius_ himself knew it does not: for it is impossible
he should not know, that when a Bishop was suspected of Heresy, all his
Collegues had a Right to require of him Confession of his Faith, and not
to communicate with him till they had received it.
[Sidenote: Paul _Bishop of_ Antioch _condemned and deposed_,]
In the Time of _Dionysius_ was held the famous Council of _Antioch_,
which condemned and deposed _Paul_ Bishop of that City, who denied the
Distinction of the Divine Persons, and the Divinity of _Christ_. Of the
Deposition of _Paul_, and the Election of _Damnus_, who was placed in
his room, Notice was immediately given to the whole Church, by a Synodal
Letter addressed to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Rome_, and to _Maximus_, who
had succeeded the great _Dionysius_ in the See of _Alexandria_[475]. And
here it will not be foreign to my Purpose to observe, that the Bishop of
_Antioch_ was summoned to appear before the Council, and not at the
supreme Tribunal erected by _Baronius_ at _Rome_; [Sidenote: _without
the Consent or Knowlege of the Bishop of_ Rome.] that he was condemned
and deposed without the consent or Concurrence, nay, and without the
Knowlege of the sovereign Judge residing at _Rome_; that he did not
appeal to him, which he certainly would have done, as he was a Man of
unparalleled Impudence and Ambition, had such a Custom obtained in those
Days; and lastly, that the Fathers of the Council writ to the Bishop of
_Rome_ in the same Manner as they did to other Bishops, letting him
know, that for the future he was to communicate with _Damnus_, and not
with _Paul_. All this is manifest from the Account which St. _Basil_
gives us of that Council[476]. And yet _Baronius_ brings in that Father,
even on this Occasion, as an Evidence for the Papal Supremacy[N9].
-----
Footnote N9:
For by wrong pointing a Passage in the _Latin_ Translation of that
Author, he makes him contradict himself, and ascribe the deposing of
_Paul_ to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Rome_, and the Great _Dionysius_
Bishop of _Alexandria_, though the latter was dead before _Paul_ was
deposed, as is evident from the Letter which was written by the
Council on that Occasion, and is addressed to _Maximus_ the Successor
of _Dionysius_ in the See of _Alexandria_[N9.1]. The Passage runs
thus; _Duo enim_ Dionysii _diu ante eos septuaginta fuere, qui_
Samosatensem _sustulere, quorum alter_ Romæ, _alter_ Alexandriæ
_Præsul erat_[N9.2]. The Meaning of St. _Basil_ is, that the two
_Dionysius’s_ flourished before the Council of _Antioch_, which
consisted of Seventy Bishops, and deposed _Paul_ of _Samosata_; that
is, before the Second Council that was assembled against him; for
another had been convened in the same City about eight Years before to
depose him; but upon his pretending to renounce his Errors, the
Sentence had been suspended. The above-quoted Passage _Baronius_ stops
thus; _Duo enim_ Dionysii _diu ante eos septuaginta fuere; qui_
Samosatensem _deposuere_, &c. so that the Relative _qui_ refers,
according to this Method of Pointing, to the Two _Dionysius’s_, and
not to the Seventy Bishops: as if St. _Basil_ had said, _The Two_
Dionysius_’s, who deposed_ Paul _of_ Samosata, _flourished before the
Council of_ Antioch, _which was composed of Seventy Bishops_[N9.3]. So
that _Paul_ must be twice deposed, St. _Basil_ must contradict
himself, all the Writers of those Times must be arraigned as guilty of
an unpardonable Omission, lest the Bishop of _Rome_ should appear to
have been, what he really was, an idle Spectator of a Transaction so
famous in the History of the Church. A Writer of any Honour or Honesty
had rather give up a Cause, than expose himself thus by attempting to
defend it.
Footnote N9.1:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.
Footnote N9.2:
Basil. de syn. p. 918.
Footnote N9.3:
Bar. ad ann. 265. n. 10.
-----
From St. _Basil_, _Baronius_ runs to the Emperor _Aurelian_, begging of
a Pagan Prince what he could not extort from a Catholic Bishop, a
Declaration and Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: Paul
_keeps Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation_.] The Reader must know,
that _Paul_ having kept, by Force, Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation
in Defiance of the Council, the Catholic Bishops had recourse to the
Emperor, who, after hearing both Parties with great Attention, adjudged
the House to him, who should be acknowleged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and
the other Bishops of _Italy_[477]. This _Baronius_ interprets as an open
Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy; and that his Readers may not
overlook it, as most of them would be apt to do, he takes care to
bespeak their Attention, by marking it in the Margin with the following
Words in Capitals, _The Emperor_ Aurelian _acknowleges the Supremacy of
the Church of_ Rome[478]. From this one would expect to find _Aurelian_
not only turned Christian, but prostrate at his Holiness’s Feet, and
bowing down to kiss them: but our Annalist, to the great Disappointment
of his Readers, after having thus raised their Attention, only repeats
out of _Eusebius_ the Sentence pronounced by the Emperor, which he would
have us suppose with him to have been owing to the Knowlege that Prince
had of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Sentence
whether favourable to the Pretensions of the See of_ Rome.] And why
must the Pope’s Supremacy be brought in here rather than the Supremacy
of the Bishops of _Ravenna_, of _Milan_, of _Aquileia_, &c. and, above
all, the Supremacy of the collective Body of the _Italian_ Bishops? for
to them, and not to any particular Bishop, the Cause was referred by the
Emperor. As for the Emperor’s Conduct on this Occasion, it may be thus
accounted for: That just and wise Prince observed the Bishops in the
East greatly animated against _Paul_; and therefore apprehending them
more sway’d by Passion and Prejudice than by Justice and Equity, he
referred the Cause to the Bishops of _Italy_, who, he thought, would
judge more impartially, as being placed at a Distance, and not engaged,
at least not so warmly, in the Dispute[479]. [Sidenote: Dionysius
_dies_,] But this happened Two Years after the Death of _Dionysius_; for
he died on the 26th of _December_ 269. _Claudius_ and _Paternus_ being
Consuls, after having governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Ten
Years, Five Months, and Four Days, according to the most probable
Opinion[480]. As he died in the Reign of _Claudius_ II. surnamed _the
Gothic_, who is represented in the Acts of some pretended Martyrs as an
implacable Enemy to the Christian Name, he is in some Martyrologies
honoured with the Title of Martyr; [Sidenote: _not a Martyr_.] but as
neither _Eusebius_, nor any other antient Writer, takes notice of that
Prince’s having ever persecuted or molested the Christians, those Acts
ought to be looked upon as fabulous, and _Dionysius_ with 375 more
expunged out of the Catalogue of Martyrs; though some of them, namely,
_Marcus_, _Priscus_, _Valentine_, and _Quirinus_, are honoured by the
Church of _Rome_, as Saints of the first Class, and have filled with
their Reliques most of the Provinces of _Europe_.
-----
Footnote 467:
Basil. ep. 220. & de Sp. Sanct. c. 29. Euseb. l. 7. c. 7. Athan. de
Syn. ep. 918.
Footnote 468:
Basil. ib.
Footnote 469:
Idem ib.
Footnote 470:
Athan. pro sent. Dion. Alex. p. 558.
Footnote 471:
Idem ib. & de syn. 918, 919.
Footnote 472:
Athan. ib. p. 558, 559.
Footnote 473:
Bar. ad ann. 263. n. 50.
Footnote 474:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 27.
Footnote 475:
Idem l. 7. c. 30.
Footnote 476:
Basil. de synod.
Footnote 477:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 24.
Footnote 478:
Bar. ad ann. 272. n. 10.
Footnote 479:
Vide Du Pin de antiq. ecc. discip. dissert. 2. p. 156.
Footnote 480:
Buch. p. 272.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIUS II. FELIX, AURELIAN.
_Twenty-fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 269. Felix _dies a Martyr in the Persecution
of_ Aurelian.]
_Dionysius_ was succeeded by _Felix_, in whose Time a furious
Persecution being raised by _Aurelian_, he may be supposed to have
suffered among the rest, since he is distinguished by the Council of
_Ephesus_[481], by St. _Cyril_[482], and by _Vincentius
Lirinensis_[483], with the Title of Martyr. He presided, according to
_Eusebius_[484], _Syncellus_[485], and _Eutychius_[486], Five Years, to
which _Baronius_ adds Eleven Months, and Twenty-five Days[487]. He writ
a Letter addressed to _Maximus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, which is quoted
by _Cyril_, and the Council of _Ephesus_[488]. The Acts of the Martyrs,
who are supposed to have suffered under _Aurelian_, are without all
doubt supposititious; for in them frequent Mention is made of the
Emperor’s Son, whereas the Writers of those Times tell us in express
Terms, that he had a Daughter, but no Male Issue[489].
-----
Footnote 481:
Conc. t. 3. p. 511.
Footnote 482:
Cyr. ib.
Footnote 483:
Vin. Lirin. c. 42.
Footnote 484:
Euseb. l. 7. c. 32.
Footnote 485:
Sync. p. 385.
Footnote 486:
Eutych. p. 400.
Footnote 487:
Buch. 272.
Footnote 488:
Conc. t. 3. p. 511. 851.
Footnote 489:
Aur. vit. p. 223.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AURELIAN, EUTYCHIANUS, PROBUS,
TACITUS, _Twenty-sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. CARUS.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 275. Eutychianus _not martyred_.]