Part 5
_Clement_, the Successor of _Anacletus_, is, according to _Origen_[105], _Eusebius_[106], and all the Antients, the Person whom St. _Paul_, in his Epistle to the _Philippians_[107], names among those who had _laboured with him in the Gospel, and whose Names were in the_ _Book of Life_. Hence _Chrysostom_ concludes, that, together with St. _Luke_ and _Timothy_, he attended the Apostle of the Gentiles in all his journeys[108]. _Irenæus_ assures us, that he had not only seen the Apostles, and conversed with them; but that, when he was appointed Bishop of _Rome_, he still heard their Voices sounding in his Ears, still had before his Eyes the Rules and good Example they had given him[109]. _Origen_ styles him _the Disciple of the Apostles_[110]; _Ruffinus, almost an Apostle_[111]; and _Clement_ of _Alexandria, an Apostle_[112]. That he was well versed in every Branch of Learning, especially in polite Literature, descended of a Senatorian Family, and nearly related to the _Cæsars_, is what we read in _Eucherius_[113] and _Nilus_[114], who seem to have followed therein the _Recognitions_, a Book of no Authority. [Sidenote: _Some confound him with_ Flavius Clemens.] _Eucherius_ perhaps confounded, as others have done, Pope _Clement_ with _Flavius Clemens_, who was Son to _Flavius Sabinus_, the only Brother of _Vespasian_, and suffered Death for the Christian Religion in the Persecution of _Domitian_[115]; for Pope _Clement_ was, as himself seems to insinuate, rather of the Race of _Jacob_ than of the _Cæsars_[116]. [Sidenote: _Chosen Bishop of_ Rome.] Upon the Death of _Anacletus_ he was unanimously chosen by the People and Clergy of _Rome_ to succeed him. He had been named, say some, to that Dignity by St. _Peter_ himself, preferably to Linus and _Anacletus_[117]; but had declined it, finding that the Faithful were not all equally disposed to submit to the Judgment and Authority of St. _Peter_. He therefore withdrew; and, as he was of a mild and pacific Disposition, led a retired Life to the Death of _Anacletus_, when he was forced to accept of the Dignity, which he had before declined. Thus _Ruffinus_, upon the Authority of the _Recognitions_; which appears to me, I must own, a very improbable Tale. During his Pontificate happened an impious and detestable Division, to use his own Terms, among the Christians of _Corinth_, which obliged them to have recourse to other Churches, especially to that of _Rome_; [Sidenote: _His famous Epistle to the_ Corinthians.] and on this occasion was written that famous Epistle to the _Corinthians_, so much magnified by the Antients and publicly read, not only in the Church of _Corinth_, as _Dionysius_ assures us, who was Bishop of that City in 180, but in many other Churches, to the Time of _Eusebius_, and St. _Jerom_[118], and perhaps long after. It was by some ranked among the Canonical Books of the Scripture, and by all reverenced next to them[119]. It was written in the Name of the whole Church of _Rome_, and to the whole Church it is, in express Terms, ascribed by _Irenæus_[120], and _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, who calls it the Epistle of the _Romans_ to the _Corinthians_[121]. However, it was composed by _Clement_, in the Name of the Church; for, in the primitive Times, Bishops did nothing by themselves, but every thing jointly with their Churches: _We advise_, _We exhort_, _We recommend_, &c. was their usual Style; which the Popes still observe, though they mean only themselves; for they scorn to join either with the People or Clergy. The Style of this excellent Letter is plain, clear, full of Energy, without any useless Ornaments; and the Whole written with the Simplicity, as _Photius_ observes[122], that the Church requires in Ecclesiastical Writers. There is so great an Affinity, both as to the Sense and the Words, between this Epistle, and the Epistle to the _Hebrews_, that some have concluded _Clement_ to have been the Translator, nay, and the Author of that Epistle[123]. [Sidenote: _Unjustly criticized by_ Photius.] In _Clement_’s Epistle _Photius_ discovers, as he thinks, Three Faults; _viz._ that he supposes other Worlds beyond the Ocean; that he speaks of the Phœnix as a real Bird; and that he uses Words expressing the Humanity of our Saviour, and not his Divinity. But, as to the first of these Objections, there can be no Difficulty now, that we know for certain what was but doubtfully advanced by the Antients: in speaking of the Phœnix he complies with the Opinion universally received in those Days by the Learned, both among the Christians and Pagans. As to the Third Objection, _Photius_ must not have observed, that he styles our Saviour’s Sufferings, the _Sufferings of God_, which was acknowleging his Divinity. [Sidenote: _Thought lost, but appears again._] This Epistle, the most precious and valuable Treasure the Church can boast, after the holy Scriptures, was for many Ages bewailed as lost; but, in 1633. it was again restored to the Christian World, by _Patricius Junius_, a _North Briton_, who published it from a Manuscript, written by an _Egyptian_ Lady, named _Thecla_, about the Time of the great Council of _Nice_, and afterwards brought over into _England_[124]. That this Piece is genuine, appears from a great many Passages quoted out of it by the Antients.
The most remarkable Event that happened in the Pontificate of _Clement_, was the Persecution of _Domitian_; but what Part he bore in it we can learn from no credible Author. [Sidenote: Clement _dies._] He died, according to _Eusebius_[125], in the Third Year of _Trajan_’s Reign, that is, in the 100th of the Christian Æra. In the Canon of the Mass he has a Place, with his Two Predecessors, among the Martyrs; but _Telesphorus_, the Seventh Bishop of _Rome_, is the first, as I have observed above, who was acknowleged as such by _Irenæus_, whose Authority is of far greater Weight than that of _Ruffinus_, or Pope _Zosimus_, who suppose him to have died for the Confession of the Faith[126]. [Sidenote: _His fabulous Acts._] In the Acts of _Clement_, to which _Gregory_ of _Tours_ gave an intire Credit[127], and after him many others, especially the Two credulous Annalists, _Baronius_[128], and _Alford_[129] in his Annals of the _British_ Church, we read, that _Clement_ was banished, by _Trajan_, into the _Chersonesus_, beyond the _Euxine_ Sea; that there he caused a Fountain to spring up miraculously, for the Relief of the Christians confined to the same unhospitable Region; that he converted the whole Country to the Faith, which provoked the Emperor to such a degree, that he ordered him to be thrown into the Sea, with an Anchor fastened to his Neck. It is added, that, on the Anniversary of his Death, the Sea retired to the Place where he had been drowned, though Three long Miles from the Shore; that upon its retiring, there appeared a most magnificent Temple, all of the finest Marble; and in the Temple a stately Monument, in which was found the Body of the Saint; that the Sea continued thus retiring every Year on the same Day, not daring, for the Space of Seven Days, to return to its usual Bounds, that the Christians might, at their Leisure, and without Apprehension of Danger, perform their Devotions in Honour of the Saint. [Sidenote: _The Miracles he wrought, unknown to_ Irenæus.] To crown the Whole, they add, that, one Year, a Mother having heedlessly left her young Child in the Temple, upon her Return, next Year, she found it not only alive, but in perfect Health[130]. No Mention is made of such stupendous Miracles by _Irenæus_, who was brought up under _Polycarp_, Bishop of _Smyrna_, in _Asia_, at the very Time _Clement_ is supposed to have suffered, and who speaks of him at Length. His Silence is a plain Demonstration, that they were unknown to him; and they must have been known, had they been true.
[Sidenote: _Other Writings ascribed to_ Clement. _A second Letter to the_ Corinthians. _Five other Letters._]
Besides the Letter to the _Corinthians_, of which I have spoken above, several other Pieces are ascribed to _Clement_; _viz_. a second Letter to the _Corinthians_; which is, without all Doubt, very antient; but _Eusebius_ doubts whether it was written by _Clement_[131]; and both St. _Jerom_[132], and _Photius_[133], absolutely reject it. Five other Letters, placed among the Decretals, whereof the first, more antient than the rest, was translated by _Ruffinus_, and is quoted by the Council of _Vaison_, held in 442[134]. However, it is generally looked upon as a spurious Piece; for the Author of it, whoever he was, acquaints St. _James_, Bishop of _Jerusalem_, who died long before St. _Peter_, with St. _Peter_’s Death[135]. [Sidenote: _His_ Itinerary.] _Clement_’s Itinerary, which, in _Photius_’s Time, was prefixed, by way of Preface, to the _Recognitions_[136]. The _Recognitions_, relating, under the Name of _Clement_, the Actions of St. _Peter_, his Interview with _Simon_ the Magician, how _Clement_ himself knew again his Father and his Brothers, whom he had forgot; [Sidenote: _The_ Recognitions.] whence the whole Work took the Name of _Recognitions_, that is, _of knowing again_: it is likewise called the _Itinerary of St._ Peter, the _Acts of St._ Peter, the _Acts of St._ Clement[137]. The _Recognitions_ are quoted by _Origen_[138], _Epiphanius_[139], and _Ruffinus_[140], as the Work of _Clement_, but these Writers, at the same time, own them to have been altered in several Places, and falsified by the Heretics; nay, _Epiphanius_ tells us, that the _Ebionites_ scarce left any thing found in them[141]. The Author was well versed in Philosophy, Mathematics, Astrology, and most other Sciences, but not so well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church; whence his Work is absolutely rejected by _Athanasius_[142]; and now generally looked upon as a Piece falsely ascribed to _Clement_. [Sidenote: _St._ Peter_’s Dialogues with_ Apion.] St. _Peter_’s _Dialogues_ with _Apion_ were probably written in the Third Century, and to gain Credit fathered upon _Clement_; for _Eusebius_ writes, that there had lately appeared a long Work, under the Name of _Clement_, containing Dialogues between St. _Peter_ and _Apion_[143]. [Sidenote: _The Apostolic Constitutions._] As to the _Apostolic Constitutions_, if that Work is different from _the Doctrine of the Apostles_ mentioned by _Athanasius_ and _Eusebius_; _Epiphanius_ is the first who speaks of it: it appears at least, from _Dionysius_ of _Alexandria_, that, in the Year 250. the Constitutions either had not yet appeared, or were of no Repute in the Church[144]. _Epiphanius_ tells us, that many suspected them; but, as for himself, he received them, since he found nothing in them repugnant to the Faith, or the Discipline of the Church[145]. But as be quotes several Passages out of them, which are not to be found now, we may well conclude, that, since his Time, they have been either altered or curtailed. The _Greeks_ indeed, in the Second Canon of the Council, that, in 692. was held at _Constantinople_, in a Tower of the Imperial Palace, called _Trullus_, that is, the _Cupola_, declare, that they had been falsified, in several Places, by the Heretics. _Photius_ thinks that, with respect to the Style, they fall short of the _Recognitions_, but far excel them in the Purity of the Doctrine, adding, at the same time, that it is no easy Task to clear them from the Imputation of _Arianism_[146]. Dr. _Pearson_ takes them to be a Collection of several Pieces, published in the earliest Times, under the Name of the Apostles, and containing, as was pretended, the Instructions they had given[147]. _Albaspinæus_, Bishop of _Orange_, thinks the Matter they contain excellent, and the Whole agreeable to the Discipline observed by the _Greek_ Church, during the Four first Centuries; bur nevertheless he looks upon them only as a Collection of the different Customs, that were established, by degrees, in the Church, and some of which were disputed even in the Fourth Century[148]; so that they can by no means be ascribed either to the Apostles, or to _Clement_. [Sidenote: _The Canons of the Apostles._] The _Constitutions_ end with 85 Canons, long known by the Title of _The Canons of the Apostles_; but, as they contain several things that were not received in the Apostles Time, nor in _Clement_’s, the ablest Critics are of Opinion, that they likewise are but a Collection of several Decrees made in the first Ages of the Church, and that they were not collected into one Body till the Third Century[149]. I don’t find them quoted before the Council of _Constantinople_ in 394. The _Greeks_, in the Council of the Year 692. mentioned above, bound themselves to the Observance of them; but they are all rejected by Pope _Gelasius_: however, _Dionysius Exiguus_ having, not long after, placed the first Fifty at the Head of his Collection, they were received by degrees; but the other Thirty-five have not been admitted to this Day.
Upon the Whole, of the many Writings ascribed to _Clement_, the first Letter to the _Corinthians_ is the only one undoubtedly his: and what a wide Difference appears, as to the Spirit and Style, between that excellent Piece, and the Briefs, Bulls, Mandates, _&c._ of his Successors: He does not command, but exhorts; he does not threaten, but intreats; he does not thunder Anathema’s and Excommunications, but employs the most mild and gentle Persuasives, even with the Authors of the Schism. [Sidenote: Clement_’s Infallibility unknown to him, and to the_ Corinthians.] Had he known himself to be the infallible and unerring Judge of Controversies, from whose Tribunal lay no Appeal; had the _Corinthians_ believed themselves bound, on Pain of Damnation, to submit to his Decisions; there had been no Room for Reasons, Arguments, and Persuasives; he ought to have exerted the Power, with which he was vested, and put an End to all Disputes, in the peremptory Style of his Successors, _We declare, and command all Men to comply with this our Declaration, on pain of incurring the Indignation of the Almighty; and_, as if that were not enough, _of his blessed Apostles_ Peter _and_ Paul. But it was not till some Ages after, that the Popes found out their Infallibility, or rather their flattering Divines found it out for them; so that this invaluable Privilege lying dormant, Men were obliged, for a long time, to make use of their Reason, in deciding religious Controversies.
Footnote 105:
Origen. in Jo. p. 143.
Footnote 106:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.
Footnote 107:
Philip. iv. 3.
Footnote 108:
Chrys. in Phil. hom. 13.
Footnote 109:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 110:
Orig. Pr. in l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 111:
Ruf. ad Orig. 195.
Footnote 112:
Clem. strom. 4.
Footnote 113:
Euch. ad Val. p. 19.
Footnote 114:
Nil. l. 2. ep. 49.
Footnote 115:
Dio, l. 65. Suet. in Dom. c. 15. Orig. in Cels. l. 1. p. 5.
Footnote 116:
Clem. ep. 1. c. 4.
Footnote 117:
Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.
Footnote 118:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.
Footnote 119:
Vide Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. et 38. et l. 4. c. 23.
Footnote 120:
Iren. ib.
Footnote 121:
Clem. strom. 5.
Footnote 122:
Phot. c. 126.
Footnote 123:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 38. et l. 6. c. 25. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.
Footnote 124:
Not. Jun. p. 3. Not. Cotel. p. 8.
Footnote 125:
Eus. l. 3. c. 34.
Footnote 126:
Ruf. Orig. t. 1. p. 778. Concil. per Lab. t. 2. p. 1558.
Footnote 127:
Greg. Tur. de glor. martyr. c. 35.
Footnote 128:
Bar. ad ann. 102.
Footnote 129:
Alf. ad ann. eund.
Footnote 130:
Greg. Tur. ib.
Footnote 131:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.
Footnote 132:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.
Footnote 133:
Phot. c. 113.
Footnote 134:
Concil. per Labb. t. 3. p. 1458.
Footnote 135:
Vide Blond. Decret. p. 25. 28.
Footnote 136:
Phot. c. 113.
Footnote 137:
Coteler. not. in script. Apost. p. 353.
Footnote 138:
Orig. Philocal. c. 23. p. 81, 82.
Footnote 139:
Epiph. hær. 30. c. 15.
Footnote 140:
Ruf. ad Orig. p. 195.
Footnote 141:
Epiph. hær. 30. p. 65.
Footnote 142:
Athan. sym. p. 154.
Footnote 143:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.
Footnote 144:
Ign. prol. c. 8. p. 54.
Footnote 145:
Epiph. hær. 76. p. 822.
Footnote 146:
Phot. c. 113.
Footnote 147:
Pears. in Ign. t. 1. p. 60, 61.
Footnote 148:
Alb. obser. l. 1. c. 3. p. 37, 38.
Footnote 149:
Idem ib. et Ign. prol. c. 15. p. 103.
TRAJAN EVARISTUS, _Fourth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 100. ]
Clement was succeeded by _Evaristus_, _Evaristes_, or _Aristus_, as he is called in the most antient Catalogue of the Popes[150], in the Third Year of _Trajan_’s Reign, that is, in the Close of the First Century of the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: Evaristus _governs Nine Years_.] He governed about Nine Years, that is, to the Twelfth Year of _Trajan_, and the 109th of Christ[151]. _Eusebius_, in his Chronicle, supposes him to have died in the Year 107[152]; and, in his History, says, that his Death happened about the Year 109[153]: but, in the Series and Succession of the Popes, that Writer is every-where consistent with himself in his History, and quite otherwise in his Chronicle. [Sidenote: _Several things ascribed to him, without sufficient Foundation._] Besides, the History ought to correct the Chronicle, as being posterior to it. To _Evaristus_ are ascribed Two Decretals, the Distribution of the Titles or Parishes of _Rome_, on which _Baronius_ makes a long Descant[154], and an Order, that Bishops, when they preached, should be always attended by Seven Deacons[155]. But these, and many other things of the same Nature, we read only in _Baronius_, _Platina_, _Anastasius_, _Ciaconius_, &c. and my Design is, as I have declared in the Preface, to follow the Antients alone, in the History of the antient Popes; and therefore I shall take no notice of what the Moderns advance, unless I find it supported by the Authority of the original Writers.
TRAJAN ALEXANDER, ADRIAN. _Fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 109. ]
_Sixtus_ is placed, by _Optatus Milevitanus_[156], immediately after _Evaristus_; but that is certainly a Mistake, owing, in all likelihood, to those who transcribed him, since _Irenæus_[157], _Eusebius_[158], _Epiphanius_[159], and even St. _Augustin_[160], who follows _Optatus_ in every thing else relating to the Popes, place _Alexander_ between _Evaristus_ and _Sixtus_. _Irenæus_ reckons _Alexander_ the Fifth Bishop of _Rome_; so that we agree with the most authentic and unexceptionable Writer of Antiquity in excluding St. _Peter_, and supposing _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ to be one and the same Person[161]. _Alexander_ governed Ten Years, and some Months; and died in the Third Year of _Adrian_, and 119 of Christ[162]. [Sidenote: Alexander _not a Martyr_.] We can learn nothing of the Antients concerning him: he is worshiped indeed by the Church of _Rome_ as a Martyr; but that Title is not given him by _Irenæus_: and as for the Venerable _Bede_, who ranks him among the Martyrs, he was led into that Mistake by _The Acts of St. Alexander_, which, in the Opinion of Dr. _Pearson_, were composed in the Seventh Century, but are now universally rejected as fabulous. [Sidenote: _The Institution of Holy Water falsly ascribed to him._] _Platina_ ascribes to Pope _Alexander_ the Institution of _Holy Water_[163], which _Baronius_ takes very much amiss of him, since he thereby robs the Apostles of an Honour due to them; for by the Apostles, in his Opinion, was first introduced the Use of _Holy Water_[164]. But if we trace up this _Holy Water_ to the Fountain-head, we shall find that it arises from an unhallowed Spring, from the _Lustral Water_ of the Pagans; for peace being restored to the Church by _Constantine_, the Christians began, as a modern Writer well observes[165], to adopt the Ceremonies of the _Gentiles_. Several Cities in _Italy_, _France_, _Germany_, _Spain_, &c. pretend to have Reliques of this Pope, insomuch that, were they all put together, they would form at least twenty intire Bodies[166].
ADRIAN. SIXTUS,, _Sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 119. ]
The Successor of _Alexander_ is named _Sixtus_ by _Optatus_[167], and St. _Augustin_[168]; but by _Irenæus_[169], _Eusebius_[170], _Epiphanius_[171], and _Jerom_[172], _Xystus_: which Word has some Signification annexed to it in _Greek_; whereas _Sixtus_ has none either in _Greek_ or _Latin_. He presided Ten Years according to _Eusebius_[173], but not complete; for he was raised to the See in the Third Year of _Adrian_, of Christ 119. and died in the Twelfth Year of the same Prince, about the latter End of the Year of Christ 128[174]. He is ranked among the Martyrs in the Canon of the Mass, and in all the Martyrologies: but his immediate Successor is the first to whom that Title is given by _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: _Decretals falsly ascribed to_ Sixtus.] To _Sixtus_ are ascribed two Decretals, but both forged in latter Ages, as plainly appears from _De Marca_, from _Baluzius_, and, above all, from the haughty Title of _Universal Bishop_, which _Sixtus_ is made to assume in one of them: a Title, as F. _Pagi_ is forced to confess, unknown to the Bishops of the primitive and best Times[175]. _His Reliques._ The Title of _Universal_ would be better adapted to the Reliques of this Pope, than to his Episcopacy; for they are dispersed all over the Roman Catholic World: but _Baillet_ himself looks upon them as false, and unworthy of the Worship that is paid to them, not excepting even those that were given by _Clement_ X. to Cardinal _De Retz_, who caused them to be placed with great Solemnity in the Abbey of _St. Michael_ in _Lorrain_[176].
Footnote 150:
Buch. p. 270.
Footnote 151:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 34.
Footnote 152:
Euseb. chron. l. 4. c. 1.
Footnote 153:
Idem, l. 3. c. 34.
Footnote 154:
Bar. ann. 112.
Footnote 155:
Idem, ann. 121.
Footnote 156:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 157:
Iren. l. 3. c. 6.
Footnote 158:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 1.
Footnote 159:
Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.
Footnote 160:
Aug. ep. 165.
Footnote 161:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 6.
Footnote 162:
Idem, l. 4. c. 5.
Footnote 163:
Platin. in ej. vit.
Footnote 164:
Bar. ad ann. 132. N. 3.
Footnote 165:
Le Sueur, hist. de l'Egl. & de l'Emp. ad ann. 108.
Footnote 166:
Vid. Bolland. 3 Maii, p. 370. & Baillet vies de Saints, 3 de Mai.
Footnote 167:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 168:
Aug. ep. 53.
Footnote 169:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 170:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 4.
Footnote 171:
Epiph. hær. 97. c. 6.
Footnote 172:
Hier. chron.
Footnote 173:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 174:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 4, & 5.
Footnote 175:
Pagi in vit. Sixt.
Footnote 176:
Baill. ib. 6. d'Avril.
ADRIAN. TELESPHORUS, ANTONIUS PIUS. _Seventh_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 128. ]