Part 13

_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.]

Another remarkable Incident of this Pontificate was, the famous Schism, formed in _Africa_ against _Cæcilianus_, the Catholic Bishop of _Carthage_; whereof a succinct Account will not be foreign to my Subject, as _Melchiades_ was chiefly concerned in most of the Transactions relating to it. The first Decree against the Christians, published by _Dioclesian_, which I have just now mentioned, ordered the Churches to be every-where laid level with the Ground, the Books of the Scripture to be carefully sought for, and publicly burnt; and that such Persons of Quality as should persist in the Profession of the Christian Faith, should be deemed infamous, and excluded from all Honours and Employments. This Edict was executed with such Rigour in _Africa_, that it was a capital Crime in the Magistrates of the Cities, and punishable with Death, to shew any Mercy or Compassion to a Christian, who, owning he had the sacred Books, should refuse to deliver them into the Hands of the proper Officers. [Sidenote: Traditores _who_.] Those who, in Compliance with this Edict, delivered them up, which great Numbers did, were styled _Traditores_, a Name, which afterwards became famous in the History of the Church, by affording the _Donatists_ a plausible Pretence to separate themselves from the Communion of the Catholic Bishops[527]. Of this Crime _Mensurius_, Bishop of _Carthage_, was falsly accused; but, though the Charge could not be proved against him, yet some of his Flock, encouraged by _Donatus_, Bishop of _Casænigræ_ in _Numidia_, separated from his Communion[528]. _Mensurius_ dying some Years after, _Cæcilianus_, Deacon of the Church of _Carthage_, was chosen in his room, in Spite of the Cabals and Intrigues of _Botrus_ and _Cælesius_, Two chief Presbyters, who aspired to that Dignity. [Sidenote: _The chief Authors of the Schism against_ Cæcilianus.] _Cæcilianus_, soon after his Election, summoned some Persons, in whose Custody his Predecessor had left the Money of the Church, to deliver it up to him: but they not only refused to comply with his Demand, but began to stir up the People, and form a Party against him. _Botrus_ and _Cælesius_ were not idle on this Occasion; but, animated with Jealousy and Envy, lest no Art unpractised to blacken his Character, and discredit him with those who had preferred him to them. But the chief Support of this Faction was _Lucilla_, a Woman of great Quality, Wealth, and Interest, and an avowed Enemy to _Cæcilianus_, who, while he was yet Deacon, had publicly reprimanded her for kissing the Relique of a Martyr, as she was upon the Point of receiving the Eucharist. An undeniable Proof, that the Worship of Reliques was at this time disapproved by the Church. Such Liberty taken with a Person of her Rank, was what she could not brook; and therefore she laid hold of the first Opportunity that offered, and no better could offer, to revenge the Affront[529]. It is not to be doubted but those, who had separated from _Mensurius_, joined this Faction; since the Second Schism owed its Origin to the First, as St. _Austin_ says, speaking of the Two Schisms under _Mensurius_ and _Cæcilianus_[530].

[Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Numidia _summoned to depose him_.]