Part 6
_Sixtus_ was succeeded by _Telesphorus_ (or, as some style him, _Thelesphorus_), the Seventh Bishop of the See of _Rome_[177]. To him is ascribed, in some Editions of the Chronicle of _Eusebius_, the Institution of _Lent_[178]; but in none of the best Editions Mention is made of such an Institution, and scarce in any Manuscripts[179]. _Baronius_ endeavours to prove, that this Fast was instituted by the Apostles, and that _Telesphorus_ established it for ever by a Decree; but his Arguments are so weak, that he deserves rather to be pitied than answered. He introduces too early the Bishops of _Rome_ issuing Decrees, and prescribing Laws to the whole Church. [Sidenote: Telesphorus _the first Bishop of_ Rome _Martyr_.] _Telesphorus_ was the first Bishop of _Rome_ who suffered Death for the Christian Religion, seeing _Irenæus_ distinguishes him with the Title of Martyr[180], which this Author gives to none of his Predecessors; but, as to the Particulars of his Death, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark. He suffered in the Eleventh Year of his Pontificate, the First of _Antoninus Pius_, and 139 of Christ[181].
Footnote 177:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 4. c. 5.
Footnote 178:
Bar. ad ann. 154.
Footnote 179:
Not. Scal. in chron. 216. Not. Pont. in chron. p. 612.
Footnote 180:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 181:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 10.
ANTONINUS PIUS. HYGINUS,, _Eighth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 139. ]
_Hyginus_, the Successor of _Telesphorus_, governed the Church but Four Years, and those not complete; for, in 142. we find _Pius_ already in that See[182]. [Sidenote: _The Two Heretics_, Valentine _and_ Cerdo, _come to_ Rome.] In his Time the two famous Heretics, _Valentine_ and _Cerdo_, came to _Rome_; the former from _Egypt_, and the latter from _Syria_, to display their new Doctrine in that great Metropolis. _Hyginus_ no doubt opposed them with all the Zeal of a primitive Bishop; but, in spite of his Zeal, they gained a great many Proselytes to their heterodox Opinions[183]. His Infallibility, had it been then known and believed, would have soon put a Stop to the growing Evil. The Church of _Rome_ honours _Hyginus_ among her Martyrs; but none of the Antients give him that Title. To him is ascribed the Use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism, and the Ceremony of Consecrating Churches; but upon no better Grounds than the Two Decretals are fathered upon him, which are, by all the Learned, rejected as spurious. _Hyginus_ died in the Year 142. the Fourth or Fifth of _Antoninus Pius_; and is supposed to have been buried near St. _Peter_[184].
Footnote 182:
Idem, l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 183:
Iren. l. 3. c. 4. Philas. c. 44. Epiph. hær. 41. c. 1.
Footnote 184:
Bolland. April. p. 22.
ANTONINUS PIUS. PIUS, _Ninth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 142. ]
_Anicetus_ is placed next to _Hyginus_ by _Optatus_[185], St. _Augustin_[186], and _Epiphanius_[187]: But who would not, with _Eusebius_[188], rather follow _Irenæus_[189], and _Hegesippus_[190], naming _Pius_ immediately after _Hyginus_, since the former wrote in the Time of _Eleutherius_ the Second Bishop after _Anicetus_; and the latter lived at _Rome_ in the Time of _Anicetus_, and continued there till the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_.
[Sidenote: Marcion _comes to_ Rome.]
In the Time of _Pius_, _Marcion_, a Native of _Pontus_, and the Son of a Bishop of the holy Catholic Church, says _Epiphanius_[191], being excommunicated by his Father for debauching a Virgin, and finding he could by no means prevail upon the venerable Prelate to receive him again into the Church, abandoned his native City, supposed to be _Sinope_, and fled to _Rome_. Upon his Arrival there, he applied to the Elders of that Church, intreating them to admit him to their Communion. But those holy Men, who had been taught by the Disciples of the Apostles, instead of complying with his Request, returned him this Answer; [Sidenote: _The Power of receiving Appeals disowned by the Church of_ Rome.] We cannot admit you without Leave from your holy Father; nor can we, as we are all united in the same Faith, and the same Sentiments, undo what our holy Collegue your Father has done.--Thus _Epiphanius_[192]. Had _Bellarmine_ lived in those Days, he had taught them another Doctrine, a Doctrine which, however necessary, the Apostles had forgot to deliver to their Disciples; _viz._ That the See of _Rome_ was raised above all other Sees; that the Appeals of the whole Catholic Church were to be brought to it; that no Appeals were to be made from it; that it was to judge of the whole Church, but be judged by none. _Marcion_ did not apply to _Pius_, as the Reader must have observed, or at least did not apply to him alone, but to the Elders, who disclaimed all Power of reversing the Sentence of a particular Bishop or Judge. And is not this an evident and incontestable Proof that the Power of receiving Appeals was not known, or thought of, in those Days? And yet, who would believe it? _Bellarmine_ has the Assurance to allege this very Case as an Argument to prove in the Pope a Power of receiving Appeals[193]. But what would become of this Prerogative, should the Pope return the same Answer to every Appellant?
[Sidenote: Pius _no Martyr_.]
_Pius_ governed the Church for the Space of Fifteen Years, and died in 157. the Twentieth of _Antoninus_[194]. The _Roman_ Martyrology tells us, that he was martyred in the Persecution of _Antoninus Pius_; but in that Prince’s Reign there was no Persecution; nor is the Title of Martyr given him by _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: _Writings ascribed to him._] _Baronius_ ascribes to this Pope a Decree, commanding the Festival of _Easter_ to be kept on _Sunday_, and quotes the Chronicle of _Eusebius_[195]. This Decree is indeed mentioned in some Editions of that Writer; but _Scaliger_ assures us, that no Mention is made of it in any Manuscript Copy; and therefore he has left it out in his Edition[196]. As to the Celebration of _Easter_, it is manifest from _Irenæus_, that though _Pius_, as well as his Predecessors _Sixtus_, _Telesphorus_ and _Hyginus_, differed from the Bishops of _Asia_, yet they did not on that Account separate themselves from their Communion[197]. On this Pope are fathered several spurious Pieces, _viz._ some Decrees, Two Letters ranked among the Decretals, and Two more written to _Justus_ Bishop of _Vienne_ in _Dauphiné_. The Decrees, as well as the Decretals, are universally rejected; and yet F. _Pagi_ quotes one of them to prove the real Presence in the Sacrament[198]. The two Letters to _Justus_ are deemed genuine by _Baronius_[199], by Cardinal _Bona_[200], and by _Blondel_ in his Treatise of the Sibyls[201], who nevertheless suspects them elsewhere[202]. On the other hand, they are absolutely rejected as false by Dr. _Pearson_[203], by _Cotelerius_[204], and _Natalis Alexander_[205], who discover several Expressions in them that were not in Use till some Ages after, and a great many Incoherences. To say with _Le Sueur_, That they were written originally in _Greek_, and in latter Times translated into _Latin_[206], is but a poor Evasion. As for the Fable of _Hermes_, the Brother of _Pius_, who, by the Command of an Angel appearing to him in the Disguise of a Shepherd, is said to have written a Book shewing, that _Easter_ ought to be kept on _Sunday_, I refer the Reader to _Platina_, and such-like Writers.
Footnote 185:
Opt. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 186:
Aug. ep. 53.
Footnote 187:
Epiph. hær. 42.
Footnote 188:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.
Footnote 189:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 190:
Apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 22.
Footnote 191:
Epiph. hær. 42. c. 1.
Footnote 192:
Idem ib.
Footnote 193:
Bell. l. 2. c. 21.
Footnote 194:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 195:
Bar. ad ann. 159.
Footnote 196:
Euseb. chron. not. Scal. p. 119.
Footnote 197:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.
Footnote 198:
Pagi in Pio, n. 2.
Footnote 199:
Bar. ad ann. 166.
Footnote 200:
Bona rer. liturgic. l. 1. c. 3.
Footnote 201:
Blond. l. 2. c. 6.
Footnote 202:
Idem de la primauté.
Footnote 203:
Pears. in Ign. l. 2. p. 170.
Footnote 204:
Cotel. not. in script. Apost. p. 42, 43.
Footnote 205:
Nat. Alex. t. 1. p. 89.
Footnote 206:
Sueur. hist. de l'Egl. &c. ad ann. 149.
ANTONINUS, ANICETUS, M. AURELIUS. _Tenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 157. _St._ Polycarp _comes to_ Rome, _and reclaims many from the Errors of_ Marcion.]
_Pius_ was succeeded by _Anicetus_, in whose Time _Valentine_ the Heretic, who came to _Rome_ in the Pontificate of _Hyginus_, and had gained many Proselytes under _Pius_, continued sowing his pestilential Errors among the Members of that Church: but many whom he had seduced, were reclaimed by St. _Polycarp_, formerly the Disciple of St. _John_ the Evangelist, and then Bishop of _Smyrna_. His declaring to them, that the Doctrine taught by the Church was the Doctrine he had learnt of the Apostles, made such an Impression on their Minds, that they abjured the Errors of _Valentine_, and returned to the Communion of the Faithful[207]. They preferred the bare Word of _Polycarp_, who claimed no Infallibility, to the infallible Authority of _Hyginus_, _Pius_, and _Anicetus_. This is a plain Proof, that the Popes had not yet begun to exert their Infallibility; or, if they had, that it was not acknowleged. What brought St. _Polycarp_ to _Rome_ was the Controversy about the Celebration of _Easter_, which at this Time began to grow very warm between the Eastern and Western Churches[208]. All the Churches of the East, and amongst the rest that of _Smyrna_, kept _Easter_ on the 14th Day of the Moon of the first Month, in Conformity to the Custom of the _Jews_: on the other hand, _Anicetus_ would neither conform to that Custom himself, nor suffer any under his Jurisdiction to conform to it, obliging them to celebrate that Solemnity on the _Sunday_ next following the 14th of the Moon. That this Dispute might not occasion a Schism in the Church, _Polycarp_ undertook a Journey to _Rome_, in order to confer with the Bishop of that City, who was the chief Opposer of the _Quartodecimans_[209]. [Sidenote: Anicetus _and he disagree about the Celebration of_ Easter, _but part without Breach of Charity_.] But it happened in this, as it does in most religious Disputes, they parted, each retaining his own Way of thinking; but at the same time, what happens but seldom, without the least Breach of that Charity which is the great and fundamental Law of our holy Religion. In Token whereof they communicated together at the holy Sacrament; nay, _Anicetus_, out of Respect to St. _Polycarp_, yielded to him the _Eucharist_[210]; that is, gave him Leave to consecrate the _Eucharist_ in his own Church: after which they parted in Peace, though both determined to follow the antient Practice of their respective Churches[211]. St. _Polycarp_, though well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Apostles, was a Stranger, it seems, to that of _Bellarmine_, _Baronius_, &c. _viz._ that the whole Catholic Church is bound to conform to the Rites, Ceremonies, and Customs of the Church of _Rome_.
[Sidenote: Hegesippus _and St._ Justin _at_ Rome.]
In the Time of _Anicetus_, _Hegesippus_, and the celebrated Martyr St. _Justin_, came to _Rome_, upon what Occasion is uncertain. The former continuing there to the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, wrote a Book on the Doctrine which in that Church had been conveyed down from the Apostles to _Anicetus_, and was still observed, says he, in all its original Purity[212]. The latter opposed with great Zeal _Marcion_, and his Followers, publishing a Book against his pernicious Tenets, and against Heresies in general[213]. It was at _Rome_ that he had frequent Conferences with _Crescens_ the _Cynic_, a Man of some Note at that Time; but, according to the Genius of his Sect, proud, surly, conceited, and a declared Enemy to all who professed the Christian Religion, which he painted in the blackest Colours[214]. The Malice of this _Cynic_ procured in the End for our zealous and learned Apologist what he had long and most ardently wished, the Glory of sealing with his Blood the Truth, which he had so strenuously defended and promoted with his Pen[215]. He suffered under _Marcus Aurelius_ and _L. Verus_ about the Year 167. towards the End of the Pontificate of _Anicetus_.
To this Pope are ascribed by _Anastasius_, _Platina_, _Ciaconius_, and other modern Writers, several Ordinances and Decrees; but as they are not mentioned by any of the Antients, we do not think them worthy of our Notice. _Anicetus_ governed the Church, according to _Eusebius_[216], Eleven Years, from the Year 157. to the 8th Year of _M. Aurelius_, that is, to 168. of the Christian Æra. _Raban_, _Florus_, and _Anastasius_, suppose him to have died for the Profession of the Faith; which was, it seems, unknown to _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: Anicetus _not a Martyr_.] He was buried, according to some, near St. _Peter_, in the _Vatican_, according to others, in the Burying-place of _Calixtus_[217]; out of which, though it is uncertain whether he was buried there or no, [Sidenote: _His Reliques._] his Head was taken in 1590. and given by _Urban_ VII. to the _Jesuits_ of _Munich_ in _Bavaria_, where it is yearly, with great Solemnity, exposed to public Adoration on the 17th of _April_, the Anniversary, as is supposed, of his Death: his Body was taken out of the same Place in 1604. and given by _Clement_ VIII. to the Duke of _Altaemps_, who caused it to be conveyed to the Chapel of his Palace in _Rome_, and to be deposited there in a Marble Tomb, formerly the Tomb of the Emperor _Alexander_; where it is worshiped to this Day.
Footnote 207:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 1. c. 24.
Footnote 208:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 13.
Footnote 209:
Iren. apud Euseb. l. iv. c. 14.
Footnote 210:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 23, 24.
Footnote 211:
Idem ib.
Footnote 212:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 11.
Footnote 213:
Just. Apol. 2. p. 70.
Footnote 214:
Tatian. orat. cont. Græc. p. 160.
Footnote 215:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 16. Epiph. hær. 46. c. 1.
Footnote 216:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 19.
Footnote 217:
Vide Bolland. April 17, & 22.
M. AURELIUS. SOTER, _Eleventh_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 168. ]
_Soter_, the Successor of _Anicetus_, is highly commended on account of his extensive Charity towards the Poor of other Churches, but more especially towards those who were condemned for the Confession of their Faith to work in the Mines[218]. [Sidenote: _His Charities to the distressed Christians._] These he is said not only to have relieved in their Distress with generous Gatherings made for that Purpose at _Rome_, wherein he followed the Example of his Predecessors, but moreover to have sent Letters to them in their afflicted Condition. This we learn from a Letter of _Dionysius_, then Bishop of _Corinth_, which was an Answer to a Letter from _Soter_, and the Church of _Rome_. _Dionysius_ returns Thanks to the _Romans_, and their Bishop, for their Generosity to the Poor of _Corinth_; acquaints _Soter_ that his Letter had been publicly read; adds, that he shall cause it to be read for the future; and closes his Epistle with great Encomiums on the _Romans_, who had so generously contributed to the Support of the indigent _Corinthians_[219]. This laudable Custom did not end with the Second Century of the Church; for _Dionysius_ of _Alexandria_, writing about the Year 254. to _Stephen_ Bishop of _Rome_, says, that all _Syria_ and _Arabia_ felt the good Effects of the Generosity of the _Romans_[220]. And some Years after, that is, about the Year 260. Pope _Dionysius_ being informed, that the City of _Cæsarea_ in _Cappadocia_ had been ruined by the Wars, and many Christians carried into Captivity, he sent large Sums to ransom them, with a Letter to the Church of _Cæsarea_, which was still read in St. _Basil_’s Time[221]. _Eusebius_ tells us, that this Custom continued till the last Persecution[222]. How differently the immense Revenues of the See of _Rome_ are employed now, those know who have seen the extravagant Pomp, Luxury, and Parade of that Court. [Sidenote: _The Heresy of_ Montanus _broached in his Time_.] In the Year 171. the Fourth of _Soter_, was broached the Heresy of the _Montanists_, so called from their Ringleader _Montanus_[223]. Against these _Soter_ is said, by an anonymous Writer of some Antiquity, to have composed a Book, which was answered, according to the same Writer, by _Tertullian_, become the Defender of that Sect[224]: but, according to the best Chronologists, _Tertullian_ did not turn _Montanist_ till many Years after the Death of _Soter_; and, besides, both _Soter_’s Book, and _Tertullian_’s Answer to it, were quite unknown to _Eusebius_, and even to St. _Jerom_, who took great Delight in reading _Tertullian_. _Soter_ presided Eight Years, according to _Eusebius_[225]; that is, from the Year 168. to 176. or to the Beginning of 177. the 17th Year of the Reign of _M. Aurelius_. [Sidenote: _He did not die a Martyr._] The Title of Martyr is given him by the modern Writers, but not by _Irenæus_, or any of the Antients. To him are falsly ascribed Two Epistles, which have been placed among the Decretals. Where he was buried is uncertain; but his Body is worshiped, at present, in the Church of St. _Sylvester_ at _Rome_, _and in the Cathedral of_ Toledo _in_ Spain[226].
Footnote 218:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.
Footnote 219:
Idem ib.
Footnote 220:
Idem, l. 7. c. 5.
Footnote 221:
Basil. ep. 220.
Footnote 222:
Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.
Footnote 223:
Euseb. chron.
Footnote 224:
Auct. anonym. de hæres. Sirmund. edit. hær. 26. 86. p. 28. 79.
Footnote 225:
Euseb. l. 5. p. 153.
Footnote 226:
Bar. in martyrol. 22 April. et Bolland. ad eund. diem.
M. AURELIUS, ELEUTHERIUS, COMMODUS. _Twelfth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 176. ]
_Eleutherius_ was Deacon of the Church of _Rome_ in 168. when _Hegesippus_ came to that City[227]; but _Soter_, the Successor of _Anicetus_, being dead, he was chosen to govern the Church in his room[228]. [Sidenote: _The Martyrs of_ Lions _write to_ Eleutherius.] It is certain, that his Election was known in _Gaul_ before the Death of the Martyrs of _Lions_, so famous in ecclesiastical History; for the Controversy, which had been raised some Years before in the Churches of _Asia_, by _Montanus_ and his Followers, concerning the prophetic Spirit, to which they pretended, making at that time a great Noise in the Church, the Martyrs of _Lions_, desirous to contribute, so far as in them lay, to the public Peace, wrote Letters, from their Prisons, to the Churches of _Asia_, and likewise to _Eleutherius_, Bishop of _Rome_, declaring their Judgment and Opinion in the Case[229]: for great Honour was paid, in those Times, to the Martyrs, and their Opinion was always received with Esteem and Veneration. It were much to be wished, that _Eusebius_ had set down their Opinion at Length; but he contents himself only with saying, that it was intirely agreeable to true Piety, and to the orthodox Faith[230]; which, in my Opinion, is enough to make us reject the Notion of Dr. _Pearson_, who takes it for granted, that they wrote in Favour of those Fanatics, and that for no other Reason but because they are said, by _Eusebius_, to have written for the Peace of the Church[231]. Was the admitting of false Prophets, and false Prophecies, giving Peace to the Church? The same Writer adds, that _Eleutherius_ was induced, by the Reverence and Regard he had for the holy Martyrs, to receive the Prophecies of _Montanus_, and his Two Prophetesses[232]. [Sidenote: Eleutherius _did not approve the Prophecies of_ Montanus.] But herein I must beg Leave to disagree with that learned Writer, and likewise with Dr. _Cave_[233]; for it was not, in my Opinion, _Eleutherius_, but his Successor _Victor_, who received the Prophecies of _Montanus_. _Tertullian_, the only Author who informs us, that the Dreams of that Enthusiast were approved by the Bishop of _Rome_, does not distinguish that Bishop by his Name; so that he is to be found out only by Reasoning and Chronology. Now, on one hand, we read in _Tertullian_, that _Montanus_ had been opposed by _the Predecessors_ of the Bishop, who embraced his Opinions[234]; and, on the other, in _Eusebius_[235], that the Heresy of _Montanus_ was first broached in the Year 171. the Eleventh of the Reign of _M. Aurelius_, and the Fourth of the Pontificate of _Soter_, the immediate Predecessor of _Eleutherius_; these Two therefore, and these alone, were the Bishops, who could oppose _Montanus_; and, since the first Broaching of that Heresy, the only Predecessors of the Bishop who embraced it. _Victor_, the Successor of _Eleutherius_, was greatly provoked against the _Asiatic_ Bishops, on account of their refusing to comply with the Custom of the Church of _Rome_, in the Celebration of _Easter_; and therefore might, out of Spite to them, approve of the Opinions which they had condemned: for _Montanus_, and his Followers, had been already condemned, as _Eusebius_ informs us[236], by several Synods held in _Asia Minor_. [Sidenote: _Councils held without consulting the Bishop of_ Rome.] No Opinion is now deemed heretical, unless condemned by the Bishop of _Rome_, who claims that Prerogative as peculiar to himself; but the Synods of _Asia_, the first mentioned in History, after that of the Apostles at _Jerusalem_, condemned the Opinions of _Montanus_, and cut him off from their Communion, without consulting or even acquainting therewith, the Bishop of _Rome_. But, to return to the Martyrs; some are of Opinion, that they condemned, in their Letters, the Tenets of _Montanus_, and his Followers; but, at the same time, wrote in their Favour, to far as to intreat the Bishops of _Asia_, and _Eleutherius_ Bishop of _Rome_, to treat them with Indulgence, and admit them, upon Repentance, to their Communion[237]. This is but a bare Conjecture, not authorized by any of the Antients; and we don’t find, that the _Montanists_ ever shewed the least Inclination to return to the Communion of the Church.
[Sidenote: Florinus _and_ Blastus _broach their new Doctrine_.]