Part 12

_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.]