Part 10

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._]