Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (3)

The Third Council of _Carthage_ having thus confirmed the Decrees of the Two former, notwithstanding the Threats and Menaces of the Bishop of _Rome_, it was thought adviseable for the Peace of the Church to acquaint him therewith; and at the same time to inform him more particularly of the Reasons, on which their Opinion was grounded. [Sidenote: _Deputies sent to_ Stephen, _how treated_.] Deputies were accordingly dispatched to _Rome_ for that Purpose; but _Stephen_ not only refused to see or hear them, but would not allow any of his Flock to correspond with them, to supply them with the Necessaries of Life, or even to admit them under the same Roof; excluding them not only from his Communion, but from common Hospitality, says, _Firmilian_, who wrote this very Year[445]. [Sidenote: _He excommunicates all who held the opposite Opinion._] He did not stop here; but, transported with Rage, or Zeal, as _Baronius_ is pleased to style it, he cut off from his Communion all the Bishops who had assisted at the Council, and all those who held the same Opinion, that is, the Bishops of _Africa_, _Numidia_, _Mauritania_, _Cilicia_, _Cappadocia_, _Galatia_, and _Egypt_[446]. But _Stephen_’s Anathemas proved, as those of _Victor_’s had done before, _bruta fulmina_; no Regard was had to them, no, not even by those of his own Party; who, by continuing in Communion with those whom he had cut off from his, sufficiently declared their Thoughts touching his rash and unchristian Conduct. This Dispute, says St. _Austin_, occasioned no Schism in the Church, the Bishops continuing united in Charity, notwithstanding their Disagreement in Opinion[447]. No Thanks to _Stephen_, who did all that lay in his Power to set the Bishops at Variance, and involve the whole Church in Confusion and Disorder: _The Peace of Christ_, continues St. _Austin_, _triumphed in their Hearts, and put a Stop to the growing Schism_; not in the Heart of _Stephen_, where Rage, Ambition, and Envy lodged; Guests incompatible with Peace and Charity; but in the Hearts of the other Bishops, who were thereby restrained from following his Example. How many Schisms had been prevented, had Bishops in After-ages trod in the Footsteps of those great Prelates!

[Sidenote: Stephen’_s Conduct disapproved by_ Dionysius _of_ Alexandria;]

_Dionysius_, afterwards Pope, and _Philemon_, both then Presbyters of the Church of _Rome_, acquainted, no doubt, by _Stephen_’s Direction, the great _Dionysius_, Bishop of _Alexandria_, with what had passed, hoping to gain him over to their Party, and extort from him an Approbation of _Stephen_’s Conduct: but that illustrious Prelate, foreseeing, and well weighing, the evil Consequences that might attend it, declared his Sentiments with all the Freedom and Zeal that became a Man of his Rank in the Church. He told them plainly, that the condemning a Practice, which had been established by so many Councils, was what he could by no means approve of; that an Affair of such Consequence required long and mature Deliberation; and that the deciding it over-hastily might raise eternal Disputes, and end at last in a Schism: he therefore begged _Stephen_, in a Letter, which he writ to him on this Occasion, that he would, upon Reflection, alter his Conduct; and in an Affair upon which so much depended, take different Measures from those which he had hitherto pursued[448]. As _Stephen_ wrote to _Dionysius_, so did St. _Cyprian_ to _Firmilian_, giving him a particular and candid Account both of _Stephen_’s Conduct and his own. _Firmilian_ was Bishop of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_, and one of the most eminent Prelates at that Time in the Church both for Piety and Learning: he had a singular Veneration for St. _Cyprian_, maintained with great Zeal the same Cause, and consequently had been equally ill used and excommunicated by _Stephen_. He therefore received with extraordinary Joy the Letter, which St. _Cyprian_ sent him by _Rogatian_ one of his Deacons, often read it with great Satisfaction[449], and answered it with a long Letter[450], which is still extant, though St. _Cyprian_’s to him has been lost long since. [Sidenote: _and severely censured by_ Firmilian.] In this Letter _Firmilian_, amazed and provoked at _Stephen_’s unaccountable Conduct, expresses his Detestation of it in sharper Terms than the Laws of Charity can well allow; for, not content to charge him with sacrificing the Peace of the Church to a petulant Humour, he compares him to _Judas_, and stigmatizes him with the Epithets of inhuman, audacious, insolent, wicked, impious Schismatic; for _he is a true Schismatic_, says _Firmilian, who departs from the Unity of the Church, which thou hast done, O_ Stephen; _for, by attempting to separate others from thee, thou hast separated thyself from all other Churches. How much Sin hast thou heaped upon thyself by cutting thyself off from so many Flocks[451]!_ _Firmilian_’s Letter was translated into _Latin_ by St. _Cyprian_ himself, as is manifest from the Style. It was unknown, it seems, to St. _Austin_; for he never quotes it, nor, in confuting the Opinion of Sr. _Cyprian_, takes any notice of some Reasons alleged in that Letter to support it.

[Sidenote: Stephen _dies, but not a Martyr_.]

There was no Hope of seeing an End put to this Dispute, so long as _Stephen_ lived; but he dying, his Successor, who was a Man of a quite different Temper, laid the Storm, which his furious and ungovernable Passion had raised. He died on the 2d of _August_ 257. according to the most probable Opinion[452]. The Church of _Rome_, upon the Authority of his Acts, ranks him among the Martyrs; but that Honour is not paid him either by St. _Austin_, or by _Vincentius Lirinensis_, who, naming him together with St. _Cyprian_, as they often do, give constantly the Title of Martyr to the latter, and never to the former. [Sidenote: _His Acts fabulous._] As for his Acts, they flatly contradict, in several Points, the most unexceptionable Writers among the Antients[453], and therefore by no means deserve the Credit which _Baronius_ would have us give them[454]. Even _Anastasius_ seems to have made no Account of them, if in his Time they were yet composed, which may be questioned; for the Account he gives us of _Stephen_’s Death differs widely from that which we read in those Acts[455]. But he had made a bold Attempt towards extending the Power and Authority of the See of _Rome_, and therefore was to be placed among the Saints for the Encouragement of others. To say he had merited that Honour by his Virtues, either as a Christian or a Bishop, had been carrying the Imposture too far: the only Means therefore left of making him a Saint, was to make him a Martyr, that, by his glorious Death, he might be thought to have deserved what it was manifest from the Records of those Times he had not deserved by his Christian Life. Hence Acts were forged, setting forth his heroic Confession of the Faith before the Emperor, his Sufferings on that Account, the stupendous Miracles he wrought, _&c._ which, however incredible, might, in Process of Time, by their Antiquity alone, gain Credit with the greater Part of Mankind. [Sidenote: _His Reliques._] _Stephen_ was buried in the Cœmetery of _Callistus_[456]; whence his Body was translated about the Year 762. by _Paul_ I. to a Monastery of _Greek_ Monks, which that Pope had built in _Rome_, as we read in _Anastasius_[457]. How it got from thence to _Trani_ in _Apulia_ nobody knows; but from that City it was conveyed with great Pomp in 1682. to _Pisa_ in _Tuscany_, where it is still worshiped in a Church bearing the pretended Saint’s Name[458]. According to the most probable Opinion, _Stephen_ governed Four Years, and about Six Months.

-----

Footnote 352:

Euseb. chron. & l. 6. c. 33. Opt. l. 2. Aug. ep. 165, &c.

Footnote 353:

Vide Pears. Cyp. an. p. 29. n. 6.

Footnote 354:

Cypr. ep. 52.

Footnote 355:

Idem ib.

Footnote 356:

Idem ep. 52.

Footnote 357:

Aur. Vict.

Footnote 358:

Idem ep. 42.

Footnote 359:

Nem. ep. 41, 42., 45.

Footnote 360:

Idem ep. 52. 54.

Footnote 361:

Idem ep. 68.

Footnote 362:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 363:

Pacian. ep. 3.

Footnote 364:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 24.

Footnote 365:

Theodoret. hær. fab. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 366:

Pacian. ep. 3. Hier. vir. ill. c. 70. Cypr. ep. 49.

Footnote 367:

Pacian. ep. 3.

Footnote 368:

Id. ib. & ep. 2.

Footnote 369:

Cyp. ep. 40. 49.

Footnote 370:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 371:

Theod. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 372:

Cyp. ep. 54.

Footnote 373:

Idem ib.

Footnote 374:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 45. Socrat. l. 4. c. 28. Hier. vir. ill. c. 69.

Footnote 375:

Cyp. ep. 52. Euseb. l. 6. c. 44.

Footnote 376:

Cyp. ep. 67.

Footnote 377:

Idem ib.

Footnote 378:

Idem ep. 47. 79.

Footnote 379:

Idem ep. 44.

Footnote 380:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 46.

Footnote 381:

Cyp. ep. 48.

Footnote 382:

Idem ep. 49.

Footnote 383:

Buch. p. 271.

Footnote 384:

Cyp. ep. 23.

Footnote 385:

Idem ep. 26.

Footnote 386:

Idem ep. 48, 49.

Footnote 387:

Idem ep. 48.

Footnote 388:

Idem ep. 49.

Footnote 389:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 390:

Idem ep. 46. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 391:

Cyp. ep. 46.

Footnote 392:

Idem ep. 47.

Footnote 393:

Idem ep. 50.

Footnote 394:

Idem ep. 51.

Footnote 395:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 396:

Idem ib.

Footnote 397:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 398:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 399:

Idem ep. 54.

Footnote 400:

Idem ep. 57.

Footnote 401:

Buch. p. 271.

Footnote 402:

Hier. vit. Paul p. 237.

Footnote 403:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 67.

Footnote 404:

Flor. p. 828. 830.

Footnote 405:

Anast. c. 46. p. 27.

Footnote 406:

Pamel. prolog. in S. Cyp. p. 19.

Footnote 407:

Euseb. 1. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 408:

Cypr. ep 58.

Footnote 409:

Idem ib.

Footnote 410:

Idem ep. 58.

Footnote 411:

Idem ib.

Footnote 412:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 2.

Footnote 413:

Cyp. ep. 67.

Footnote 414:

Bolland. 4. Mart. p. 301, 302.

Footnote 415:

Cypr. ep. 67.

Footnote 416:

Idem ib.

Footnote 417:

Idem ib.

Footnote 418:

Cypr. ep. 70.

Footnote 419:

Cypr. ep. 68.

Footnote 420:

Idem ib.

Footnote 421:

Idem ib.

Footnote 422:

Idem ib.

Footnote 423:

Greg. Naz. orat. 18. p. 281.

Footnote 424:

Cyp. ep. 70. 73.

Footnote 425:

Cyp. ep. 70. 73. Aug. bapt. l. 2. c. 7, & 8.

Footnote 426:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 427:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 428:

Basil. ep. 75.

Footnote 429:

Cyp. ep. 70.

Footnote 430:

Idem, ep. 71.

Footnote 431:

Idem, ep. 73.

Footnote 432:

Idem, ep. 72.

Footnote 433:

Idem ib.

Footnote 434:

Idem, ep. 73.

Footnote 435:

Idem, ib.

Footnote 436:

Hier. in Luc. c. 9.

Footnote 437:

Aug. bapt. l. 4. c. 8.

Footnote 438:

Concil. p. 397.

Footnote 439:

Cyp. ep. 74. Euseb. l. 7. c. 3. Aug. bapt. l. 2. c. 7.

Footnote 440:

Cyp. ep. 74.

Footnote 441:

Aug. de bapt. l. 1. c. 7. 18. & l. 2. c. 8. 15.

Footnote 442:

Cyp. con. p. 397.

Footnote 443:

Idem ib. Aug. de bapt. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 444:

Cyp. conc. p. 403.

Footnote 445:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 446:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 447:

Aug. bapt. l. 5. c. 25.

Footnote 448:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 449:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 450:

Cyp ib.

Footnote 451:

Id. ib.

Footnote 452:

Buch. cycl. p. 297.

Footnote 453:

Pears. annal. Cyp. p. 57, 58.

Footnote 454:

Bar. ad ann. 259.

Footnote 455:

Anast. in vit. Vict.

Footnote 456:

Buch. cycl. p. 267.

Footnote 457:

Anast. c. 95.

Footnote 458:

Boll. Pont. p. 36.

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

VALERIAN, SIXTUS II. GALLIENUS.
_Twenty-third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 257. Dionysius _of_ Alexandria _interposes in the famous Dispute_.]

_Stephen_ being dead, _Sixtus_ or _Xystus_ II. a Deacon of the Church of _Rome_, was chosen to succeed him. As the late Dispute was not yet ended, _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ no sooner heard of his Promotion, than he began to press him with great Earnestness to relinquish the wild Pretensions of his Predecessor, and concur with the other Bishops in restoring Peace and Tranquillity to the Church[459]. He writ Three Letters to him on the same Subject, whereof the last was from _Dionysius_ and the whole Church of _Alexandria_, to _Sixtus_ and the whole Church of _Rome_[460]. He writ likewise to _Dionysius_ and _Philemon_, two Presbyters of the Church of _Rome_, whom we have mentioned above, and who upon _Stephen_’s Death seem to have abandoned his Party; for _Dionysius_ of _Alexandria_, in his first Letter to _Sixtus_, writes, That these two Presbyters had been formerly of _Stephen_’s Opinion[461], a plain Indication that they were not then. The Bishop of _Alexandria_ had at last the Satisfaction to see his pious Endeavours crowned with Success; for we find no farther Mention of this Dispute till it was revived by the _Donatists_. [Sidenote: _Peace restored to the Church by his means._] In what manner it ended, we are no-where told; but it is manifest from the Writers of those Times, that the _African_ and _Asiatic_ Bishops continued the same Practice of baptizing Heretics, till it was condemned by the two great Councils, of _Arles_ in 314. and of _Nice_ in 325[462]. Whence we may well conclude, that the Terms proposed at the Beginning of the Dispute by _Dionysius_ and St. _Cyprian_ were agreed to by _Sixtus_, _viz._ That no Restraint should be laid on the Bishops of either Side, but that every one should be allowed to follow undisturbed which of the two Opinions he thought most agreeable to the Scripture and to Reason. This was allowing the Bishops to consult the Scriptures, and make use of their own Reason, in a Point already judged and decided by the Bishop of _Rome_. But the Successors of _Sixtus_ have not been so complaisant; for they pretend, that a blind Faith ought to be yielded to all their Decisions as infallibly true, a blind Obedience to all their Decrees as unquestionably holy.

But now the Persecution, which had begun some Months before the Decease of _Stephen_, raged with more Violence than ever: [Sidenote: Valerian _persecutes the Church_.] For _Valerian_ having, at the Instigation of an _Egyptian_ Magician, changed the Kindness he once had for the Christians into an implacable Hatred, he ordered, by a Rescript to the Senate, all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be carefully sought for, and executed without Mercy[463]. [Sidenote: Sixtus _martyred_.] Pursuant to this Order, _Sixtus_, who among the first fell into the Hands of the Persecutors, was immediately either beheaded, as we read in the Pontifical of _Bucherius_[464], or crucified, as we are told by _Prudentius_[465]; having held the Chair only Eleven Months, and some Days. _Pontius_, a Deacon of the Church of _Carthage_, styles him a good and _pacific Prelate_[466], no doubt on account of his Conduct quite opposite to that of his ambitious and quarrelsome Predecessor[N8].

-----

Footnote N8:

_Ruffinus_ published, under the Name of _Sixtus_ Bishop of _Rome_, the
Book of a _Pythagorean_ Philosopher, named _Sixtus_. St. _Jerom_
reproaches him in two Places with that _Imposture_, as he styles it,
supposing him to have known the Work, which he ascribed to Pope
_Sixtus_, not to be his[N8.1]. St. _Austin_ was imposed upon among the
rest; for, in his Treatise of _Nature and Grace_, he quotes that Book
as the Work of Pope _Sixtus_; but he afterwards owned and corrected
his Mistake[N8.2]. It was ranked by Pope _Gelasius_ among the Books of
Heretics; so that he supposed it to have been written by a Christian,
which was more than he could know, there not being a single Word in it
whence we can argue the Author to have believed in, or to have had any
Knowlege of Christ: and it is on this Consideration that it has been
thought unworthy of a Bishop of those times.

Footnote N8.1:

Ep. ad Ctesiph. contr. Pelag. c. 22. & in cap. 18. Ezech.

Footnote N8.2:

Aug. l. 2. retract. c. 42.

-----

-----

Footnote 459:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 5. 9.

Footnote 460:

Idem c. 9.

Footnote 461:

Idem c. 5.

Footnote 462:

Cyp. ep. 77. Basil. can. 47. & ep. 8. conc. Arel. can. 8.

Footnote 463:

Cyp. ep. 82.

Footnote 464:

Buch. p. 268.

Footnote 465:

Prud. de coron. martyr. p. 71.

Footnote 466:

Pont. in vit. S. Cyp. p. 8.

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

GALLIENUS, DIONYSIUS, CLAUDIUS II.
_Twenty-fourth_ BISHOP _of_
Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 258. _The See vacant almost a whole Year._]

_Sixtus_ being dead, and the Christians prevented by the Persecution from assembling to chuse another in his room, the See remained vacant almost a whole Year, that is, from the 6th of _August_ 258. to the 22d of _July_ 259. when _Dionysius_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_, whom we have mentioned above, was elected, to the great Satisfaction of the Faithful; for he was one of the most eminent Men of his Time both for Piety and Learning[467]. During his Pontificate, the _Goths_ broke into the Empire, over-ran all _Asia Minor_, and, having almost utterly destroyed the City of _Cæsarea_, they carried with them into Captivity most of its Christian Inhabitants. _Firmilian_ was then Bishop of the Place, who had censured the Conduct of _Stephen_ with so much Sharpness and Acrimony; [Sidenote: Dionysius_’s Charity to the distressed Christians of_ Cæsarea.] but the Remembrance of what had passed on that unhappy Occasion had not that Effect on _Dionysius_, which far less Provocations have had on many of his Successors; for he no sooner heard of the Distress that Church was in, than, laying hold of so favourable an Opportunity to exert his Charity, he writ a Letter to comfort them in their Calamity, and at the same time dispatched proper Persons with large Collections to ransom the Christians who had fallen into the Hands of the _Barbarians_[468]. The Letter, which _Dionysius_ wrote on this Occasion, was carefully kept in the Archives of the Church of _Cæsarea_, as an authentic Monument of his Goodness and Charity[469]. The great _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_ having, at this Time, composed a learned Treatise to prove against _Sabellius_ the Distinction of the Divine Persons, some over-zealous Catholics, misconstruing several Passages in that Work, and concluding that he had run into the opposite Error, accused him to the Bishop of _Rome_, as if he denied the Son to be consubstantial with the Father[470]. [Sidenote: Dionysius _of_ Alexandria, _accused at_ Rome _over him_.] Hereupon the Bishop of _Rome_, having assembled a Council, acquainted _Dionysius_ with the Sentiments of the other Bishops, and his own, expressing his Concern, that the Divinity of the Word should have been questioned by him, and at the same time desiring him to answer the Accusation[471]. This _Dionysius_ readily did in Four Books, which he styled _Confutation and Apology_; shewing therein that his Opinion was very different from what it had been represented at _Rome_, and explaining those Passages which had given Ground for the Accusation. This Work he addressed to the Bishop of _Rome_[472]. Here _Baronius_ exults. Behold, says he, one of the most eminent Prelates of the Church, upon Suspicion of Heresy, arraigned at _Rome_, judged at _Rome_. [Sidenote: _That argues no Jurisdiction in the Bishop of_ Rome.] Who does not see a supreme Tribunal erected there, to which all Causes must be brought; a sovereign Judge residing there, by whom all Persons must be absolved or condemned; is either blind and cannot see, or shuts his Eyes and will not see[473]. And does not the sharp-sighted Annalist himself see what every one the least conversant in Ecclesiastical History must see, if he is not either blind and cannot, or shuts his Eyes and will not see, _viz._ Bishops, when guilty, or only suspected of Heresy, accused to some of their Collegues, who neither had nor claimed any Jurisdiction over them? Thus was the famous _Paul_ of _Samosata_, Bishop of _Antioch_, at this very Time, accused by his whole Church, first to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, and soon after to _Firmilian_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_[474]. That such an Accusation argued any Jurisdiction in those Bishops over the Bishop of _Antioch_, is what _Baronius_ himself dares not affirm; and yet a like Accusation brought to _Rome_ is enough for him to transform that See into a supreme Tribunal; that Bishop, though far from such ambitious Thoughts, into a sovereign Judge. But the Bishop of _Rome_, says _Baronius_, required of _Dionysius_ a Confession or Declaration of his Faith: And does not that argue Superiority and Jurisdiction? _Baronius_ himself knew it does not: for it is impossible he should not know, that when a Bishop was suspected of Heresy, all his Collegues had a Right to require of him Confession of his Faith, and not to communicate with him till they had received it.

[Sidenote: Paul _Bishop of_ Antioch _condemned and deposed_,]

In the Time of _Dionysius_ was held the famous Council of _Antioch_, which condemned and deposed _Paul_ Bishop of that City, who denied the Distinction of the Divine Persons, and the Divinity of _Christ_. Of the Deposition of _Paul_, and the Election of _Damnus_, who was placed in his room, Notice was immediately given to the whole Church, by a Synodal Letter addressed to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Rome_, and to _Maximus_, who had succeeded the great _Dionysius_ in the See of _Alexandria_[475]. And here it will not be foreign to my Purpose to observe, that the Bishop of _Antioch_ was summoned to appear before the Council, and not at the supreme Tribunal erected by _Baronius_ at _Rome_; [Sidenote: _without the Consent or Knowlege of the Bishop of_ Rome.] that he was condemned and deposed without the consent or Concurrence, nay, and without the Knowlege of the sovereign Judge residing at _Rome_; that he did not appeal to him, which he certainly would have done, as he was a Man of unparalleled Impudence and Ambition, had such a Custom obtained in those Days; and lastly, that the Fathers of the Council writ to the Bishop of _Rome_ in the same Manner as they did to other Bishops, letting him know, that for the future he was to communicate with _Damnus_, and not with _Paul_. All this is manifest from the Account which St. _Basil_ gives us of that Council[476]. And yet _Baronius_ brings in that Father, even on this Occasion, as an Evidence for the Papal Supremacy[N9].

-----

Footnote N9:

For by wrong pointing a Passage in the _Latin_ Translation of that
Author, he makes him contradict himself, and ascribe the deposing of
_Paul_ to _Dionysius_ Bishop of _Rome_, and the Great _Dionysius_
Bishop of _Alexandria_, though the latter was dead before _Paul_ was
deposed, as is evident from the Letter which was written by the
Council on that Occasion, and is addressed to _Maximus_ the Successor
of _Dionysius_ in the See of _Alexandria_[N9.1]. The Passage runs
thus; _Duo enim_ Dionysii _diu ante eos septuaginta fuere, qui_
Samosatensem _sustulere, quorum alter_ Romæ, _alter_ Alexandriæ
_Præsul erat_[N9.2]. The Meaning of St. _Basil_ is, that the two
_Dionysius’s_ flourished before the Council of _Antioch_, which
consisted of Seventy Bishops, and deposed _Paul_ of _Samosata_; that
is, before the Second Council that was assembled against him; for
another had been convened in the same City about eight Years before to
depose him; but upon his pretending to renounce his Errors, the
Sentence had been suspended. The above-quoted Passage _Baronius_ stops
thus; _Duo enim_ Dionysii _diu ante eos septuaginta fuere; qui_
Samosatensem _deposuere_, &c. so that the Relative _qui_ refers,
according to this Method of Pointing, to the Two _Dionysius’s_, and
not to the Seventy Bishops: as if St. _Basil_ had said, _The Two_
Dionysius_’s, who deposed_ Paul _of_ Samosata, _flourished before the
Council of_ Antioch, _which was composed of Seventy Bishops_[N9.3]. So
that _Paul_ must be twice deposed, St. _Basil_ must contradict
himself, all the Writers of those Times must be arraigned as guilty of
an unpardonable Omission, lest the Bishop of _Rome_ should appear to
have been, what he really was, an idle Spectator of a Transaction so
famous in the History of the Church. A Writer of any Honour or Honesty
had rather give up a Cause, than expose himself thus by attempting to
defend it.

Footnote N9.1:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.

Footnote N9.2:

Basil. de syn. p. 918.

Footnote N9.3:

Bar. ad ann. 265. n. 10.

-----

From St. _Basil_, _Baronius_ runs to the Emperor _Aurelian_, begging of a Pagan Prince what he could not extort from a Catholic Bishop, a Declaration and Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: Paul _keeps Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation_.] The Reader must know, that _Paul_ having kept, by Force, Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation in Defiance of the Council, the Catholic Bishops had recourse to the Emperor, who, after hearing both Parties with great Attention, adjudged the House to him, who should be acknowleged by the Bishop of _Rome_, and the other Bishops of _Italy_[477]. This _Baronius_ interprets as an open Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy; and that his Readers may not overlook it, as most of them would be apt to do, he takes care to bespeak their Attention, by marking it in the Margin with the following Words in Capitals, _The Emperor_ Aurelian _acknowleges the Supremacy of the Church of_ Rome[478]. From this one would expect to find _Aurelian_ not only turned Christian, but prostrate at his Holiness’s Feet, and bowing down to kiss them: but our Annalist, to the great Disappointment of his Readers, after having thus raised their Attention, only repeats out of _Eusebius_ the Sentence pronounced by the Emperor, which he would have us suppose with him to have been owing to the Knowlege that Prince had of the Pope’s Supremacy. [Sidenote: _The Emperor’s Sentence whether favourable to the Pretensions of the See of_ Rome.] And why must the Pope’s Supremacy be brought in here rather than the Supremacy of the Bishops of _Ravenna_, of _Milan_, of _Aquileia_, &c. and, above all, the Supremacy of the collective Body of the _Italian_ Bishops? for to them, and not to any particular Bishop, the Cause was referred by the Emperor. As for the Emperor’s Conduct on this Occasion, it may be thus accounted for: That just and wise Prince observed the Bishops in the East greatly animated against _Paul_; and therefore apprehending them more sway’d by Passion and Prejudice than by Justice and Equity, he referred the Cause to the Bishops of _Italy_, who, he thought, would judge more impartially, as being placed at a Distance, and not engaged, at least not so warmly, in the Dispute[479]. [Sidenote: Dionysius _dies_,] But this happened Two Years after the Death of _Dionysius_; for he died on the 26th of _December_ 269. _Claudius_ and _Paternus_ being Consuls, after having governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Ten Years, Five Months, and Four Days, according to the most probable Opinion[480]. As he died in the Reign of _Claudius_ II. surnamed _the Gothic_, who is represented in the Acts of some pretended Martyrs as an implacable Enemy to the Christian Name, he is in some Martyrologies honoured with the Title of Martyr; [Sidenote: _not a Martyr_.] but as neither _Eusebius_, nor any other antient Writer, takes notice of that Prince’s having ever persecuted or molested the Christians, those Acts ought to be looked upon as fabulous, and _Dionysius_ with 375 more expunged out of the Catalogue of Martyrs; though some of them, namely, _Marcus_, _Priscus_, _Valentine_, and _Quirinus_, are honoured by the Church of _Rome_, as Saints of the first Class, and have filled with their Reliques most of the Provinces of _Europe_.

-----

Footnote 467:

Basil. ep. 220. & de Sp. Sanct. c. 29. Euseb. l. 7. c. 7. Athan. de
Syn. ep. 918.

Footnote 468:

Basil. ib.

Footnote 469:

Idem ib.

Footnote 470:

Athan. pro sent. Dion. Alex. p. 558.

Footnote 471:

Idem ib. & de syn. 918, 919.

Footnote 472:

Athan. ib. p. 558, 559.

Footnote 473:

Bar. ad ann. 263. n. 50.

Footnote 474:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 27.

Footnote 475:

Idem l. 7. c. 30.

Footnote 476:

Basil. de synod.

Footnote 477:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 24.

Footnote 478:

Bar. ad ann. 272. n. 10.

Footnote 479:

Vide Du Pin de antiq. ecc. discip. dissert. 2. p. 156.

Footnote 480:

Buch. p. 272.

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

CLAUDIUS II. FELIX, AURELIAN.
_Twenty-fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 269. Felix _dies a Martyr in the Persecution of_ Aurelian.]

_Dionysius_ was succeeded by _Felix_, in whose Time a furious Persecution being raised by _Aurelian_, he may be supposed to have suffered among the rest, since he is distinguished by the Council of _Ephesus_[481], by St. _Cyril_[482], and by _Vincentius Lirinensis_[483], with the Title of Martyr. He presided, according to _Eusebius_[484], _Syncellus_[485], and _Eutychius_[486], Five Years, to which _Baronius_ adds Eleven Months, and Twenty-five Days[487]. He writ a Letter addressed to _Maximus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, which is quoted by _Cyril_, and the Council of _Ephesus_[488]. The Acts of the Martyrs, who are supposed to have suffered under _Aurelian_, are without all doubt supposititious; for in them frequent Mention is made of the Emperor’s Son, whereas the Writers of those Times tell us in express Terms, that he had a Daughter, but no Male Issue[489].

-----

Footnote 481:

Conc. t. 3. p. 511.

Footnote 482:

Cyr. ib.

Footnote 483:

Vin. Lirin. c. 42.

Footnote 484:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 32.

Footnote 485:

Sync. p. 385.

Footnote 486:

Eutych. p. 400.

Footnote 487:

Buch. 272.

Footnote 488:

Conc. t. 3. p. 511. 851.

Footnote 489:

Aur. vit. p. 223.

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

AURELIAN, EUTYCHIANUS, PROBUS, TACITUS, _Twenty-sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. CARUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 275. Eutychianus _not martyred_.]

_Felix_ being dead, _Eutychianus_ was chosen in his room in the very Beginning of the Year 275[490]. Several Things are said of him, by _Anastasius_, and other Writers of no Authority; but all I can learn of the Antients concerning him is, that he governed Eight Years, and Eleven Months[491]; and consequently died in the Close of the Year 283. He is honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Martyr, and said in the _Roman_ Martyrology to have suffered under _Numerian_; but it is certain that in 283. when _Eutychianus_ died, _Numerian_ was not Emperor, but only _Cæsar_, and at that very time engaged with his Father _Carus_ in a War with the _Persians_ in the East, where he was assassinated by _Aper_ his Father-in-Law. As for his Brother _Carinus_, who remained in the West, neither he, nor the two preceding Emperors, _Tacitus_ and _Probus_, ever gave the least Disturbance to the Christians; so that the Church of _Rome_ must be at the Trouble of finding out a distinct Place in Heaven from that of the Martyrs for _Eutychianus_, _Trophimus_, _Sabbacius_, and the illustrious Senator _Dorymedon_, who are supposed to have suffered under those Princes.

-----

Footnote 490:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 32. Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 491:

Buch. ib.

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

CARUS, CAIUS, DIOCLETIAN, CARINUS, _Twenty-seventh_ BISHOP _of_ MAXIMIAN. NUMERIAN, Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 283.V]

As little is said by the Antients of _Caius_ as is said of his Predecessor. A few Days after the Death of _Eutychianus_, _Caius_ was chosen to succeed him, _Carus_ and _Carinus_ being Consuls[492]. [Sidenote: Caius _not a Martyr, tho’ honoured as a Martyr_.] He presided Twelve Years, Four Months, and Seven Days; that is, from the 17th of _December_ 283. to the 22d of _April_ 296. _Caius_ too is counted by the Church of _Rome_ among her Martyrs, upon the Authority of _Bede_, and of the Acts of St. _Susanna_, by which that Writer seems to have been misled. In those Acts _Caius_ is said to have suffered with _Susanna_ his Niece, and many others, under _Numerian_: but that Prince in his Father’s Life-time had no great Power, being only _Cæsar_, and very young, and was killed on his March out of _Persia_ soon after his Father’s Death; so that he never reigned in the West, and but a very short time in the East. _Caius_ therefore could not suffer under him at _Rome_, where his elder Brother _Carinus_ governed. But the Vulgar have a particular Veneration for Martyrs, and, what turns to a very good Account, are glad to purchase their Reliques at any rate. [Sidenote: _The Church of_ Rome _why so fond of Martyrs_.] The Church of _Rome_ therefore, to provide herself with great Store of them, has multiplied beyond Belief the Number of her Martyrs; which she could not well do without multiplying at the same time the Number of the Persecutors of the Christian Religion. And hence it is that several Princes, who never molested, nay, who greatly favoured the Christians, have been by the Church of _Rome_ transformed in her Martyrologies and Legends into Persecutors. As for the Acts of the supposed St. _Susanna_, they are full of Mistakes and Absurdities, and contradict the best Historians of those Times.

-----

Footnote 492:

Idem ib.

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

DIOCLESIAN, MARCELLINUS, CONSTANTIUS, MAXIMIAN, _Twenty-eighth_ BISHOP _of_ GALERIUS. Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 296. Marcellinus _unjustly aspersed by the Church of_ Rome.]

_Marcellinus_ succeeded _Caius_ on the 30th of _June_ 296. and governed Eight Years, Three Months, and Twenty-five Days, according to the most antient Records[493]: so that he must have died on the 24th of _October_ 304. The Love of Truth, which an Historian ought never to swerve from, obliges me to undertake the Defence of this Pope against the Church of _Rome_ herself, and most of her Divines, who, joining the _Donatists_ of _Africa_, have endeavoured to blacken his Memory with Aspersions equally wicked and groundless. For the Church of _Rome_ tells us, both in her Breviary and Martyrology, and her Divines must chime in with her, that _Marcellinus_ being apprehended during the Persecution of _Dioclesian_, he was persuaded by that Prince to deliver up the Holy Scripture to be burnt by the Pagans, agreeably to a late Edict, and at the same time to offer Incense to the Gods. This they found on the Acts of the Council of _Sinuessa_, which is supposed to have been summoned on that Occasion, and before which _Marcellinus_ is said to have been convicted by Seventy-two Witnesses of the above-mentioned Crimes. That such a scandalous Story, invented by the _Donatists_ of _Africa_, as St. _Austin_ affirms[494], should not only have been credited, but industriously propagated, by the Successors of _Marcellinus_, must seem very strange and surprising to those, who recollect with how much Zeal they have strove on other Occasions to conceal or excuse the least Imperfections in their Predecessors. If therefore they not only readily own the Apostasy of _Marcellinus_, but are the first to divulge it, and take care to make it known in the Breviary to those who scarce know any thing else, we may be well assured there is a Snake hid in the Grass; the more as it is certain almost beyond doubt, that no such Council was ever held; and consequently that the Acts upon which alone that Apostasy is founded, are supposititious. To unravel the Whole, the Reader must know, that the Fall of _Marcellinus_ made such a Noise in the Church, as we read in those Acts, that immediately a grand Council met, composed of no fewer than 300 Bishops. Before this Council _Marcellinus_ appeared; but, at his first Appearance, the Bishops, struck with Horror at the very Thought of judging the Head of the Church, the Judge of all, cried out with one Voice, _The first See is to be judged by nobody: accuse yourself, judge yourself, condemn yourself_. [Sidenote: _Their View, therein._] To this Testimony, so favourable to the ambitious Views of the Bishops of _Rome_, is intirely owing the Sanction which they have given to such Fables, highly injurious to the Memory of one of their best Predecessors. Without this Lenitive the Acts of the pretended Council of _Sinuessa_, supposing the Apostasy of a Pope, had been condemned; the Absurdities and Contradictions, which it is wholly made up of, had been set forth in a proper Light; and the Testimonies of _Theodoret_ and St. _Austin_ had been alleged to vindicate the Character of _Marcellinus_: [Sidenote: Marcellinus _commended and vindicated by the Antients_.] for of these two Writers the former tells us, that he acquired great Glory by his Conduct during the Persecution[495]; and the latter, in writing against _Petilian_ the _Donatist_, has the following Words: _Why should I answer the Calumnies with which he loads the Bishops of_ Rome? _Why should I clear them from the Crimes which he lays to their Charge?_ Marcellinus, _and his Presbyters_ Melchiades, Marcellus, _and_ Sylvester, _are accused by him as if they had delivered up the sacred Books, and offered Incense to the Gods: Are they therefore to be thought guilty? Does he prove what he advances against them? He brands them with the Epithets of wicked, and sacrilegious; but I say they are innocent: And why should I produce Reasons to support my Defence, since he brings none to make good his Charge[496]?_ But a solemn Declaration, that _the See of_ Rome _is to be judged by nobody_, made in those early Times, by 300 Bishops, carries with it such Marks of Truth, as quite invalidate the Testimonies of _Theodoret_ and St. _Austin_, and render the Apostasy of _Marcellinus_, which gave room to that Declaration, undeniable! St. _Austin_ looks upon the Apostasy of _Marcellinus_, and his Presbyters _Melchiades_, _Marcellus_, and _Sylvester_, who were all afterwards Bishops of _Rome_, as a mere Calumny, as an Invention of the _Donatists_; but their Successors, trampling upon all Authority that stands in the Way of their Ambition, chuse rather to have Four of their Predecessors thought Apostates and Idolaters, than part with the Decree of that pretended Council, exalting them so high above all other Bishops.

[Sidenote: _The Acts of the Council of_ Sinuessa _fabulous_.]

If _Marcellinus_ acquired great Glory during the Persecution, as _Theodoret_ assures us; if his Apostasy was a mere Calumny, broached by the _Donatists_, as we read in St. _Austin_; the pretended Council of _Sinuessa_ must be given up, since it is supposed to have been assembled on occasion of _Marcellinus_’s Fall: but, abstracting from the Fall of _Marcellinus_, the Circumstances attending that Council are in themselves so absurd and incredible, that there needs no other Argument to convince a Man, who has any Understanding, and dares to use it, that no such Council ever was, or could be held. [Sidenote: _No such Council ever held._] For who can conceive it possible, that, during the most cruel Persecution the Church ever suffered, 300 Bishops should assemble, not in _Rome_, where they might more easily have met unobserved, but in a small Country Town, where a much less numerous Assembly must immediately have been observed and suspected? But, after the Death of _Fabianus_, says _Baronius_[497], the Clergy of _Rome_, and the Bishops, met to chuse him a Successor, notwithstanding the Persecution that raged then. He ought to have said _some Bishops_, as St. _Cyprian_ does[498], whom he quotes; but I shall say so for him, that his Argument may appear in its full Strength, and save me the Trouble of answering it; for it will then run thus: Some Bishops, perhaps 15 or 20, met unobserved in the great and populous City of _Rome_: _Ergo_, 300 might meet unobserved in a small Country Town; for such was _Sinuessa_.

[Sidenote: _The many Absurdities contained in the Acts of that Council._]

This Council is supposed to have been held in a Grotto, or Cave, where there was no room but for 50 at a time; and yet they are all said to have been present when _Marcellinus_ owned his Crime, and divested himself of his Dignity. And what a despicable Figure does he make on that Occasion! At first he denies the Charge; but, being convicted by 72 Eye-witnesses, he owns it at last, but in Terms more becoming a School-boy, trembling at the Sight of a Rod, than a penitent Bishop, before so grave an Assembly. But the most remarkable Passage in that Piece is the Dispute between _Urbanus_ High Pontiff of _Jupiter_, and _Marcellinus_ High Pontiff of the Christians. _Urbanus_, to convince his Fellow-Pontiff that he ought not to scruple offering Incense to _Jupiter_, alleges the Example of the Mages offering Incense to _Christ_. _Marcellinus_ answers, That the offering of Incense on that Occasion was mysterious; and unravels the Mystery. Hereupon _Urbanus_, unacquainted with Mysteries, appeals to the Judgment of the Emperors _Dioclesian_ and _Maximian_; to this Appeal _Marcellinus_ agrees; and the Controversy is referred by both _Pontiffs_ to be decided by the Two Emperors. They, no doubt, gave Sentence in favour of _Jupiter_ and _Urbanus_; and then _Dioclesian_, taking _Marcellinus_ with him into the Temple of _Vesta_, persuaded him there to offer Incense to _Jupiter_, _Hercules_, and _Saturn_. How these Three Deities came to have a Place in the Temple of _Vesta_, the Compiler of these Acts alone knows. Such are the Absurdities and Contradictions, of which that Piece is wholly made up. But it flatters the Ambition of the Successors of _Marcellinus_; on occasion of his Fall it exalts the See of _Rome_ above all other Sees: its Authority therefore must not be called in question: all the Absurdities and Contradictions it contains, must be blindly believed; the Memory of _Marcellinus_ most unjustly slandered; the Testimonies of _Theodoret_, and St. _Austin_, clearing him from all Guilt, disregarded and rejected. And may not this be interpreted as a tacit Declaration, that they had rather he had been guilty than innocent, provided his Guilt could any-ways contribute to the Aggrandizing of their See? What can we think their Ambition will spare, since they have thus sacrificed to it the Character of one of their Predecessors, whose Memory is revered by all Antiquity? The Church of _Rome_ honours _Marcellinus_ as a Saint; and, not withstanding his pretended Apostasy, allows him a Place amongst her Martyrs; probably by way of Reparation for the Injustice done him. [Sidenote: Marcellinus _falsly supposed to have died a Martyr_.] But his Martyrdom may be justly questioned; at least it seems to have been utterly unknown to St. _Austin_, who flourished not long after his Time, since he never mentions it, tho’ it would have afforded him the strongest Argument he could possibly use to silence the _Donatists_. His Martyrdom, 'tis true, is vouched by _Bede_, who tells us, that he was beheaded at _Rome_, by _Dioclesian_’s Order; but that Historian is often led into gross Mistakes by a Pontifical, supposed to have been written in the Sixth Century, which he frequently copies, with all its Anachronisms, and other Faults.

[Sidenote: _Vacancy of Three Years._]

That, upon the Death of _Marcellinus_, there happened a Vacancy of some Years, seems undeniable, since it is marked in the Pontificals, even in that of _Bucherius_[499], and mentioned by all those who, till _Baronius_’s Time, have written the History of the Popes: but what at this time should occasion a Vacancy at least of Three Years, is what I will not take upon me to account for: the Persecution lasted but Two Years in _Italy_, according to _Eusebius_[500], which expired soon after the Death of _Marcellinus_: some pretend that it raged there so long as _Galerius_ was Master of that Country. Be that as it will, it is certain, that _Maxentius_ usurped the Empire in 306. and that he not only favoured the Christians, but pretended to be of the same Religion himself; and yet the See remained vacant, according to the Pontifical of _Bucherius_[501], till the Tenth Consulate of _Maximian Hercules_, and the Seventh of _Maximian Galerius_, that is, till the Year 308. _Baronius_ indeed admits of no Vacancy; but, in Opposition to all those who have written before him, places the Election of _Marcellus_ immediately after the Decease of his Predecessor _Marcellinus_[502]. This I should readily agree to, but for the Authority of the above-mentioned Pontifical, which had not yet appeared in _Baronius_’s Time, and is thought to have been written about the Year 354. As for the Chronicle of _Eusebius_, it can be here of no Weight on the one Side or the other, since _Marcellus_ is there quite left out; and his Successor _Melchiades_ is said to have died before _Constantine_ made himself Master of _Rome_; whereas it is certain, that, under _Melchiades_, a Council was held at _Rome_, by that Prince’s Order, as we shall see hereafter.

-----

Footnote 493:

Buch. cycl. p. 272.

Footnote 494:

Aug. de bapt. c. 10.

Footnote 495:

Theod. l. 1. c. 2. p. 524.

Footnote 496:

Aug. in Pet. c. 16. t. 7. p. 87.

Footnote 497:

Bar. ad ann. 303. n. 102. 105.

Footnote 498:

Cyp. ep. 31.

Footnote 499:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 500:

Euseb. l. 8. c. 14.

Footnote 501:

Buch. ib.

Footnote 502:

Bar. ad ann. 304. n. 26, 27.

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

MAXIMIAN, MARCELLUS, GALERIUS, CONSTANTIUS, _Twenty-ninth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. CONSTANTINE.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 308. ]

Upon the Death of _Marcellinus_, the See remained vacant somewhat above Three Years and an half; that is, from the 24th of _October_ 304. to the 19th of _May_ 308. when _Marcellus_ was chosen in his room. Thus says the Pontifical of _Bucherius_, where, instead of Seven Years, which is a Mistake of the Transcribers, as is manifest from the Consulships mark’d there, we must read Three[503]. [Sidenote: Marcellinus _and_ Marcellus _confounded by some Writers_;] The Similitude of the Two Names has misled some Writers to confound _Marcellinus_ with _Marcellus_; for _Eusebius_, as well as St. _Jerom_, only mention the former; and _Theodoret_, omitting both _Marcellus_ and _Eusebius_, who succeeded him, names _Melchiades_ as the immediate Successor of _Marcellinus_[504]; which has made Dr. _Pearson_ doubt, whether _Marcellus_ was ever Bishop of _Rome_[505]. [Sidenote: _but distinguished by others_.] But _Marcellinus_ and _Marcellus_ are evidently distinguished in the Pontifical of _Bucherius_, by the different Times, in which they governed, and the different Consuls, under whom their Government began and ended[506]. They are, besides, distinguished both by _Optatus Milevitanus_[507], and St. _Austin_[508], who speaks of _Marcellus_, not only as a Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_, but as Bishop of that See. To these Testimonies I may add the Epitaph of _Marcellus_ by Pope _Damasus_, supposing him to have been Bishop of _Rome_[509]. _Damasus_ flourished about the Year 366. Many things are said of _Marcellus_; but they are all founded either on his Acts, or the modern Pontificals, and consequently have no Foundation at all. Pope _Damasus_, in his Epitaph, tells us, that his Steadiness in keeping up the Discipline of the Church, and obliging such as had fallen, during the Persecution, to give due Satisfaction, stirred up against him a general Hatred, which, not confined to private Disputes and Invectives, ended in Tumults, Bloodshed, and Murders[510]. [Sidenote: Marcellus _is banished_.] _Damasus_ adds, that _the Crime of one, who had renounced the Faith, while the Church enjoyed a profound Peace, induced the Tyrant_ Maxentius _to send_ Marcellus _into Banishment_. But of these Transactions the Antients either have not thought fit to give us a more particular Account, or, if they did, their Writings have not reached our Times. _Marcellus_ died on the 16th of _January_ 310. having held the Pontificate One Year, Seven Months, and Twenty Days[511]; but whether he died in Banishment, or was recalled to _Rome_, is uncertain. [Sidenote: _His Acts are fabulous._] The Church of _Rome_, upon the Authority of his fabulous Acts, has added him, with many others, to the Number of her Martyrs: but _Maxentius_, who reigned at _Rome_ during his Pontificate, and under whom he is said to have suffered, had no sooner made himself Master of that City, than he put an End to the Persecution, as we are told, in express Terms, by _Eusebius_[512]. [Sidenote: _His Reliques._] He is said to have been buried in the Cœmetery of _Priscilla_, on the _Salarian_ Way[513]: but his Body, like the Bodies of most other Saints, is now worshiped in several Places; _viz._ in a Church, bearing his Name, at _Rome_; in the Abbey of _Omont_ in _Hainault_, not far from _Maubeuge_; at _Cluni_, in a Parish-Church of the Diocese of _Elne_ in _Roussillon_[514], &c.

-----

Footnote 503:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 504:

Theod. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 505:

Pears. post. 109.

Footnote 506:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 507:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 508:

Aug. ep. 165. & in Petil. c. 16. p. 87.

Footnote 509:

Vide Bolland. 16. Jan. p. 5.

Footnote 510:

Bar. ad ann. 309.

Footnote 511:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 512:

Euseb. l. 8. c. 14.

Footnote 513:

Boll. Jan. 16. p. 5.

Footnote 514:

Idem, & Flor. in Martyr. Hier. p. 256, 257.

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

CONSTANTINE, EUSEBIUS, LICINIUS.
_Thirtieth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 310. ]

_Marcellus_ was succeeded by _Eusebius_, who governed Seven Months, according to _Eusebius_[515], but only Four Months and Sixteen Days according to the Pontifical of _Bucherius_[516]. [Sidenote: _Stands up in Defence of the Discipline of the Church, and is banished._] From an antient Epitaph on this Pope we learn, that he opposed, with great Vigour and Zeal, one _Heraclius_, pretending that those who had fallen during the Persecution, ought to be readmitted to the Communion of the Church, without giving such Satisfaction as was then required; and that hereupon great Divisions happening among the People, _Maxentius_, to put an End to those Disturbances, banished _Eusebius_ into _Sicily_[517]. Many other things are said of him by _Anastasius_, _Platina_, _Ciacconius_, and such-like Writers; but what we read in them has no better Foundation than what is advanced by _Baronius_; _viz._ that he instructed _Eusebius_ the celebrated Bishop of _Vercelli_, and gave him his own Name[518]; which is founded on the Acts of that Bishop, now universally rejected as supposititious.

-----

Footnote 515:

Euseb. chron.

Footnote 516:

Buch. p. 272.

Footnote 517:

Bar. ad ann. 311.

Footnote 518:

Idem ib. n. 42.

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

CONSTANTINE, MELCHIADES, LICINIUS.
_Thirty-first_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 311. ]

_Melchiades_, or _Miltiades_, as he is called in the antient Manuscripts, was chosen to succeed _Eusebius_, on the 2d of _July_ 311. after a Vacancy of Nine Months, and upwards [519]; which Historians do not account for. [Sidenote: Constantine _converted to the Christian Religion_. _His Edicts in favour of the Christians._] In his Time happened the ever memorable Conversion of _Constantine_ to the Christian Religion. That Prince, having overcome and utterly defeated the Usurper _Maxentius_, on the 28th of _October_ 312. soon after issued an Edict, jointly with _Licinius_, who was upon the point of marrying his Sister, allowing the Christians the free Exercise of their Religion, and likewise the Liberty of building Churches[520]. By the same Edict he ordered the Places, where they had held their Assemblies before the Persecution, and which had been taken from them, to be restored[521]. He left _Rome_ in the Beginning of the Year 313. and, arriving at _Milan_, he there issued a Second Edict, to correct some Mistakes that had given Offence in the former[522]. What these Mistakes were, we know not; for the Decree itself has not reached our Times; but _Valesius_ conjectures, that the high Commendations bestowed on the Christian Religion alarmed the Pagans, imagining, that the Intention of the Two Princes was to suppress theirs; and likewise, that some Christians had taken Offence at the odious Name of Heretics; given in that Decree to the various Sects sprung from them[523]. Be that as it will, it is certain, that, by the Second Decree, an intire Liberty of Conscience was granted to all sorts of Persons, every one being allowed to honour and worship what Deity he pleased; and in what manner soever he thought best. The Second Edict strictly injoins all those, who had purchased of the Exchequer, or held by Grant, any Place formerly destined for the Assemblies of the Christians, to restore them forthwith, and apply to the Exchequer; where they should be indemnified[524]. The same Year 313. _Licinius_, having gained a complete Victory over _Maximinus_, a sworn Enemy to the Christians, made himself Master of _Nicomedia_, and there caused the Edict of _Milan_ to be proclaimed, and set up in the Market-place, on the 13th of _June_[525]. Thus Peace was restored to the Church, in the East as well as in the West, after a most cruel and bloody Persecution of Ten Years, and almost Four Months; for the First Edict against the Christians had been published in that very City on the 24th of _February_ 303[526]

[Sidenote: _The Schism of the_ Donatists _in_ Africa.]