Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (1)

_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.]