Part 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 352:

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

Footnote 353:

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

Footnote 354:

Cypr. ep. 52.

Footnote 355:

Idem ib.

Footnote 356:

Idem ep. 52.

Footnote 357:

Aur. Vict.

Footnote 358:

Idem ep. 42.

Footnote 359:

Nem. ep. 41, 42., 45.

Footnote 360:

Idem ep. 52. 54.

Footnote 361:

Idem ep. 68.

Footnote 362:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 363:

Pacian. ep. 3.

Footnote 364:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 24.

Footnote 365:

Theodoret. hær. fab. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 366:

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

Footnote 367:

Pacian. ep. 3.

Footnote 368:

Id. ib. & ep. 2.

Footnote 369:

Cyp. ep. 40. 49.

Footnote 370:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 371:

Theod. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 372:

Cyp. ep. 54.

Footnote 373:

Idem ib.

Footnote 374:

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

Footnote 375:

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

Footnote 376:

Cyp. ep. 67.

Footnote 377:

Idem ib.

Footnote 378:

Idem ep. 47. 79.

Footnote 379:

Idem ep. 44.

Footnote 380:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 46.

Footnote 381:

Cyp. ep. 48.

Footnote 382:

Idem ep. 49.

Footnote 383:

Buch. p. 271.

Footnote 384:

Cyp. ep. 23.

Footnote 385:

Idem ep. 26.

Footnote 386:

Idem ep. 48, 49.

Footnote 387:

Idem ep. 48.

Footnote 388:

Idem ep. 49.

Footnote 389:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 390:

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

Footnote 391:

Cyp. ep. 46.

Footnote 392:

Idem ep. 47.

Footnote 393:

Idem ep. 50.

Footnote 394:

Idem ep. 51.

Footnote 395:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 396:

Idem ib.

Footnote 397:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 398:

Idem ep. 55.

Footnote 399:

Idem ep. 54.

Footnote 400:

Idem ep. 57.

Footnote 401:

Buch. p. 271.

Footnote 402:

Hier. vit. Paul p. 237.

Footnote 403:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 67.

Footnote 404:

Flor. p. 828. 830.

Footnote 405:

Anast. c. 46. p. 27.

Footnote 406:

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

Footnote 407:

Euseb. 1. 6. c. 43.

Footnote 408:

Cypr. ep 58.

Footnote 409:

Idem ib.

Footnote 410:

Idem ep. 58.

Footnote 411:

Idem ib.

Footnote 412:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 2.

Footnote 413:

Cyp. ep. 67.

Footnote 414:

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

Footnote 415:

Cypr. ep. 67.

Footnote 416:

Idem ib.

Footnote 417:

Idem ib.

Footnote 418:

Cypr. ep. 70.

Footnote 419:

Cypr. ep. 68.

Footnote 420:

Idem ib.

Footnote 421:

Idem ib.

Footnote 422:

Idem ib.

Footnote 423:

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

Footnote 424:

Cyp. ep. 70. 73.

Footnote 425:

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

Footnote 426:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 427:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 428:

Basil. ep. 75.

Footnote 429:

Cyp. ep. 70.

Footnote 430:

Idem, ep. 71.

Footnote 431:

Idem, ep. 73.

Footnote 432:

Idem, ep. 72.

Footnote 433:

Idem ib.

Footnote 434:

Idem, ep. 73.

Footnote 435:

Idem, ib.

Footnote 436:

Hier. in Luc. c. 9.

Footnote 437:

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

Footnote 438:

Concil. p. 397.

Footnote 439:

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

Footnote 440:

Cyp. ep. 74.

Footnote 441:

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

Footnote 442:

Cyp. con. p. 397.

Footnote 443:

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

Footnote 444:

Cyp. conc. p. 403.

Footnote 445:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 446:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 447:

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

Footnote 448:

Euseb. l. 7. c. 5.

Footnote 449:

Cyp. ep. 75.

Footnote 450:

Cyp ib.

Footnote 451:

Id. ib.

Footnote 452:

Buch. cycl. p. 297.

Footnote 453:

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

Footnote 454:

Bar. ad ann. 259.

Footnote 455:

Anast. in vit. Vict.

Footnote 456:

Buch. cycl. p. 267.

Footnote 457:

Anast. c. 95.

Footnote 458:

Boll. Pont. p. 36.

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

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