Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (2)

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

[Sidenote: _The See vacant._ Year of Christ 250. ]

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

-----

Footnote 335:

Eutych. p. 384.

Footnote 336:

Chron. Al. p. 630

Footnote 337:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 29.

Footnote 338:

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

Footnote 339:

Cypr. ep. 4. & 31.

Footnote 340:

Buch. cycl. 271.

Footnote 341:

Bar. ad ann. 112. n. 9.

Footnote 342:

Cyp. ep. 37.

Footnote 343:

Pears. posth. p. 19.

Footnote 344:

Euseb. in chron.

Footnote 345:

Dio Olymp. 193. ann. 4.

Footnote 346:

Mart. l. 14.

Footnote 347:

Bar. ann. 246. n. 9.

Footnote 348:

Boll. 20. Jan. p. 253.

Footnote 349:

Buch. cycl. p. 267.

Footnote 350:

Cypr. ep. 3.

Footnote 351:

Idem ep. 31.

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

DECIUS, CORNELIUS, GALLUS.
_Twentieth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 251. ]

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

[Sidenote: Novatian]

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

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

[Sidenote: Novatian _excommunicated_.]

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

[Sidenote: Novatian _sends new Deputies into_ Africa.]

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

[Sidenote: _The Deputies are everywhere rejected in_ Africa.]

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

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

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

[Sidenote: _A Schism in the Church of_ Carthage.]

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

[Sidenote: _The Persecution renewed by_ Gallus.]

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

-----

Footnote N5:

_Cornelius_ is reckoned, by St. _Jerom_, among the Ecclesiastic
Writers, on account of the Four Letters, which he writ to _Fabius_
Bishop of _Antioch_, who seemed not to dislike the Tenets of
_Novatian_[N5.1]. He writ several other Letters, whereof Two are still
extant among those of St. _Cyprian_[N5.2]; and some Fragments of his
Fourth Letter to _Fabius_ have been transmitted to us by _Eusebius_.
As for the Letter to _Lupicinus_, Bishop of _Vienne_, which was found
in the Archives of that Church, and published by Father _du Bosc_, the
Cardinals _Baronius_[N5.3] and _Bona_[N5.4] think it genuine; but it
is, without all Doubt, supposititious: for, according to _Ado_ and
_Baronius_ himself[N5.5], _Florentius_, whom _Lupicinus_ is supposed
to have succeeded, was raised to that See in the Reign of _Maximus_,
or _Gordian_, about the Year 240. and held it till the Reign of
_Valerian_, and about the Year 258. so that in 252. when _Cornelius_
died, _Lupicinus_ was not yet Bishop. Besides, in the Title of the
Letter, which _Baronius_ has suppressed, _Lupicinus_ is styled
_Archbishop_; which Title was not known then, nor long after. The
Letter is therefore rejected by _Launoy_[N5.6], and Dr.
_Pearson_[N5.7], as a forged and spurious Piece. _Erasmus_ ascribes to
_Cornelius_ the Treatise on Charity[N5.8]; and _du Pin_ both that, and
the other on the public Shews, with the Discourse against
_Novatian_[N5.9], which are all to be found among St. _Cyprian_’s
Works.

Footnote N5.1:

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

Footnote N5.2:

Cypr. ep. 46. 48.

Footnote N5.3:

Bar. ad ann. 255. n. 47.

Footnote N5.4:

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

Footnote N5.5:

Bar. ad ann. 262. n. 58.

Footnote N5.6:

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

Footnote N5.7:

Pears. Cyp. ann. p. 37.

Footnote N5.8:

Eras. Cyp. p. 417.

Footnote N5.9:

Du Pin, t. 1. p. 469.

-----

_Cornelius_ died on the same Day of the Month and the Week, on which St. _Cyprian_ was martyred Six Years after[403]; that is, on the 14th of _September_ 252. according to the most probable Opinion, having held the Pontificate one Year, Three Months, and Ten Days. [Sidenote: _His Reliques._] His Body is supposed to have been translated from _Civita-vecchia_ to the Cemetery of _Callistus_; for near that Place Pope _Leo_ I. is said to have built, in Honour of _Cornelius_, a Basilic, or magnificent Church[404]. His Body was believed to be still at _Rome_ in the End of the Eighth Century; for _Anastasius_ tells us, that Pope _Adrian_ placed it in a Church, which he had built in _Capracoro_[405]; but it was soon after removed from thence, and brought into _France_, by _Charlemagne_, as _Pamelius_ assures us, upon the Authority of a small Life of St. _Cyprian_, written, as he supposes, by _Paulus Diaconus_[406][N6].

-----

Footnote N6:

There is a famous Abbey, bearing his Name, at _Compeigne_ in the Isle
of _France_, where his Reliques, and those of St. _Cyprian_, are
supposed to be kept in the same Shrine. But how can we reconcile this
with what we read in the Council of _Reims_, held in 1049. under _Leo_
IX. _viz._ that the Body of St. _Cornelius_ was removed by the Clergy
of _Compeigne_, from that City to _Reims_; and received there by the
Pope[N6.1]? But, on the other hand, the Council is contradicted by
_Aubertus de Mira_, who assures us, that, in 860. the Reliques of Pope
_Cornelius_ were translated from the Abbey of _Inde_, standing about
Four Miles South of _Aix la Chapelle_, to that of _Rosnay_, which is,
at present, a Collegiate Church in _Flanders_, between _Oudenarde_ and
_Tournay_. In this Church is still to be seen a Shrine, supposed to
contain, as appears from the Inscription, the Bones of St. _Cornelius_
and St. _Cyprian_[N6.2].

Footnote N6.1:

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

Footnote N6.2:

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

-----

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

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

GALLUS, LUCIUS, VOLUSIANUS.
_Twenty-first_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 252. _He is banished._]

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

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

STEPHEN,
_Twenty-second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 253. _The Bishops of_ Gaul _write to_ Stephen.]

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

-----

Footnote N7:

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

-----

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

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

[Sidenote: Stephen_’s rash Conduct_.]

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

[Sidenote: _Appeals to_ Rome, _no Proof of the Pope’s Supremacy_.]

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

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

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

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

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

We have hitherto seen with how much Temper, Moderation, and Candor, the Dispute was managed on St. _Cyprian_’s Side: he determined nothing without the Advice and Approbation of his Collegues assembled in Council; the Determinations of the Council he imparted to other Bishops, leaving them at full Liberty to embrace or reject them, and declaring, that no Disagreement in Opinion should occasion in him the least Breach of Charity. How different was the Conduct of the Bishop of _Rome_! [Sidenote: Stephen_’s Pride and Arrogance_.] He condescended, indeed, to answer the synodal Letter of the _African_ Bishops; but did it with that Pride and Arrogance, that in After-ages became the Characteristic of his Successors. He begins with the Dignity of his See, and his pretended Succession to St. _Peter_, which he takes care to put them in mind of: in the next Place, he rejects their Decrees with the utmost Indignation, and attempts to confute the Arguments alleged to support them: he then proceeds to Commands and Menaces, ordering St. _Cyprian_ to quit his Opinion, and threatening to cut off, from the Communion of the Church, all those who should presume to differ from him, and rebaptize Heretics: he concludes his Letter with a bitter Invective against St. _Cyprian_, branding that great Luminary of the Church with the reproachful Names of _false Christ_, _false Apostle_, _deceitful Workman_[439]. Such was Pope _Stephen_’s Answer to a most respectful Letter from a Council of 71 Bishops. _Pompeius_, Bishop of _Sabrata_ in the _Tripolitana_, hearing of this Letter, and being desirous to peruse it, as he had done all the rest on the same Subject, [Sidenote: _He is severely censured by St._ Cyprian.] St. _Cyprian_, in Compliance with his Desire, sent him a Copy of it; and at the same time writ him a Letter, wherein he treats _Stephen_, upon the just Provocation he had given him, with more than ordinary Sharpness and Acrimony, charging him with _Pride and Impertinence_, with _Self-contradiction and Ignorance_, with _Indiscretion_, _Obstinacy_, _Childishness_; nay, he styles him a _Favourer and Abetter of Heretics against the Church of God_[440]. St. _Cyprian_ was more provoked at _Stephen_’s abusive Language, than moved either by his Authority or Menaces. St. _Austin_ supposes the Opinion he held to have been false and erroneous; and yet owns, that he was not obliged to yield to the Authority of _Stephen_, nor give up the Point, till he was convinced by dint of Reason, or by the Decision of an Oecumenical Council[441]. [Sidenote: _St._ Cyprian _assembles a great Council at_ Carthage;] However, as St. _Cyprian_ sought nothing but Truth, upon the Receipt of _Stephen_’s Letter, he summoned a great Council, in order to have the Question canvassed anew, and examined with more Care and Attention. The Council met accordingly, on the First of _September_ 256. consisting of 85 Bishops, a great Number of Presbyters and Deacons, and a considerable Part of the People[442]. To this Assembly were read the Letter of _Jubaianus_ to St. _Cyprian_, his Answer to it, and _Jubaianus_’s Reply; with the Letter of the former Council to _Stephen_, and _Stephen_’s Answer to the Council. These Pieces being read, St. _Cyprian_ made a short Discourse, exhorting his Collegues to speak their Mind freely: the Words he used on this Occasion alluded, without Doubt, to the Pride and Arrogance of the Bishop of _Rome_; _Let none of us_, says he, _set up for the Bishop of Bishops; let none of us presume to reduce our Collegues by a tyrannical Fear to the Necessity of obeying_: he concluded with protesting anew, in the most solemn manner, that he left every one the full Liberty of following what Opinion he liked best; and that no Man should, on that score, be judged by him, or separated from his Communion[443]. [Sidenote: _which confirms the antient Practice_.] The Discourse being finished, each Bishop delivered his Opinion, and St. _Cyprian_ the last, all approving, with one Consent, the Baptizing of Heretics. _Pamelius_ and others count 87 Bishops present at the Council, because _Natalis_ of _Oea_ spoke for the Two other Bishops of _Libya Tripolitana_, viz. _Pompeius_ of _Sabrata_, and _Dioga_ of _Leptis the Great_[444], who were absent.