Part 7

It was in the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, that _Florinus_ and _Blastus_ first broached their new Doctrine; which was readily embraced by many at _Rome_; for they were both Presbyters of that Church[238]. _Florinus_ was first one of the Emperor’s Officers in _Asia_, afterwards the Disciple of St. _Polycarp_, then famous all over that Province; and, lastly, Presbyter of the Church of _Rome_; but both he and _Blastus_ were degraded on account of their heretical Opinions, and cut off from the Communion of the Faithful[239]. Against _Florinus_, _Irenæus_, then Bishop of _Lions_, wrote a Letter, intituled, _Of Monarchy, or that God is not the Author of Evil_[240]; and another Piece called, _De Ogdoede_, that is, _of the Eight_; meaning, perhaps, the Eight _Eons_, or Persons that composed the chimerical Divinity of the _Valentinians_; for _Florinus_ fell at last into that Heresy[241]. Against _Blastus_, whom _Pacian_ surnames the _Greek_[242], _Irenæus_ wrote a Book, intituled, _Of Schism_[243]. _Ado_[244] and _Bede_[245] tell us, that _Eleutherius_ issued a Decree, ordaining _Easter_ to be kept on the _Sunday_ after the 14th of the first Moon; but as no mention is made of such a Decree, by any Writer of those Times, their Authority is of no Weight.

[Sidenote: _The Conversion of_ Lucius, _a_ British _King_.]

_Lucius_, a _British_ King, is said, by _Bede_, to have written to Pope _Eleutherius_, intreating him to send a proper Person into _Britain_, to instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion; which the Pope readily granted[246]. But as this is vouched only by _Bede_, who lived many Ages after him, and by a Pontifical, supposed to have been written about the Middle of the Sixth Century, what Credit the whole History of _Lucius_ may deserve, I leave the Reader to judge. Such a remarkable Event could not have escaped _Eusebius_, who, speaking of this very Period of Time, tells us, that, at _Rome_, many Persons, eminent for their Birth and Wealth, embraced the Christian Religion, with their whole Families[247]. A solemn Embassy from a _British_ King, and his Conversion, surely deserved a Place in the History of the Church. [Sidenote: _The whole Account fabulous._] He informs us, that, in the Reign of _Commodus_, and the Pontificate of _Eleutherius_, the Christian Religion enjoyed a profound Tranquillity all over the World; that it flourished, and attracted, to use his Expression, the Minds of many People[248]. Had he not here a favourable Opportunity of mentioning our Royal Proselyte, who, in the Reign of _Commodus_, is supposed to have written to _Eleutherius_, and by his means to have been converted to the Christian Religion? To what can we ascribe the Silence of such an exact and accurate Writer, concerning an Event which would have greatly recommended both his History, and the Christian Religion? To an invincible Antipathy, says the Jesuit _Alford_[249], which he bore to the Name of _Britain_, and which was so prevalent in him, that he chose rather to suppress the Conversion of _Lucius_ than mention it. But what could thus set _Eusebius_ against _Britain_? Had he been ever injured by the _Britons_? Does he not elsewhere mention both them and their Country? This jesuitical, absurd, and groundless Speculation, which must expose the Author of it to the Ridicule of every Reader, I should perhaps have let pass unobserved, had he not in this very Place insulted, beyond the Bounds of common Decency, the Reformers of Religion, for rejecting some idle Ceremonies, which he supposes to have been practised at the Conversion of _Lucius_. But, not to lay the whole Stress on the Silence of _Eusebius_, and other antient Writers, to whom King _Lucius_ was utterly unknown, why should he have been at the Trouble of sending to _Rome_ for an Instructor? Were there not many in his own Kingdom as capable of instructing him as any _Rome_ could send? The Christian Religion had been planted in this Island long before the Reign of _Lucius_, in the Time of the Apostles, as _Gildas_ seems to insinuate[250], at least very early in the Second Century; for _Origen_, who flourished in the Beginning of the Third, tells us, that the Virtue of the Name of _Jesus_ had passed the Seas, to find out the _Britons_ in another World[251].

[Sidenote: _Several Monkish Fables concerning King_ Lucius.]

The short Account, which _Bede_ gives us of the Embassy and Conversion of King _Lucius_, has not only been greedily swallowed by the Monkish Writers, who came after him, but has served as a Ground-plot to the innumerable Fables with which they have filled this Part of their Histories. They even tell us the Names of the Embassadors sent by _Lucius_ to the Pope, and of the Legates _a Latere_ sent by the Pope to _Lucius_. The former were _Elvanus_ and _Medwinus_, who, being ordained Bishops by _Eleutherius_, returned to _Britain_, and greatly contributed to the Conversion of this Island. These Fables gained Credit, by Degrees, in those Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, insomuch that the Two Embassadors were at last ranked among the Saints; and their Bodies, where or when found, nobody knows, exposed to public Veneration, in the Monastery of _Glassenbury_, on the First of _January_[252]. The Pope’s Legates were _Fugacius_ and _Damianus_, who, as we are told, went back to _Rome_, to obtain of _Eleutherius_ a Confirmation of what they had done; and, from _Rome_, returned into _Britain_, with a Letter from the Pope to King _Lucius_[253]. As for the King himself, he is said to have quitted his Kingdom, and, turning Missionary, to have preached the Gospel in _Germany_, especially at _Ausburgh_; to have travelled from thence into the Country of the _Grisons_; and, lastly, to have been ordained Bishop of _Coire_, their Metropolis; and to have died there a Martyr[254]. To these Monkish Fables King _Lucius_ owes a Place among the Saints; for on the Third of _December_ is kept, in the Church of _Rome_, _the Festival of_ Lucius, _King of the_ Britons, _who died at_ Coire _in_ Germany[255]: these are the Words of the _Roman_ Martyrology; but _Bede_ does not so much as mention him in his; a plain Proof, that what is said of his Preaching, of his Martyrdom, _&c._ was invented after that Writer’s Time. And yet _Alford_ has not only filled his Annals with these, and suchlike fabulous Accounts, giving an intire Credit to them, but inveighs, with great Acrimony, against those who have not the Gift of Belief in the same Degree with himself, especially against _Dempster_, telling, him, that till his Time the Conversion of _Lucius_ had never been questioned by any Man of Sense or Learning[256]. And truly, the Story of King _Lucius_ has been credited even by the greater Part of Protestant Writers, out of Respect to our venerable Historian; but as he wrote many Ages after the pretended Conversion of that Prince, and none of the Writers of those Days, whom such a remarkable Event could hardly have escaped, give us the least Hint of it, we may be well allowed to question the Whole, notwithstanding the Authority of _Bede_, which can be of no Weight with respect to Transactions that are said to have happened in Times so remote.

_Eleutherius_ governed, according to the best Chronologers, Fifteen Years; and died in 192. the last of the Emperor _Commodus_[257]. To him are ascribed a Decretal, addressed to the Bishops of _Gaul_, and a Decree, declaring against _Montanus_, and his Followers, that no Food was forbidden to the Christians; but both are deemed spurious. He was buried, according to some, in the _Salarian Way_, according to others, in the _Vatican_; but, in what Place soever he was buried, his Body is now worshiped in the _Vatican_ at _Rome_, in the Cathedral of _Troia_ in _Apulia_, and in several other Places[258]. The Title of Martyr is given him by the Church of _Rome_, but not by any of the antient Writers. Under him flourished _Hegesippus_, who wrote, in Five Books, an Account of what had happened in the Church since our Saviour’s Death, to his Time[259]. He came to _Rome_ in the Pontificate of _Anicetus_, who was chosen in 157. and, remaining there to the Time of _Eleutherius_, who succeeded _Anicetus_ and _Soter_ in 177. he wrote a Book on the Doctrine received by Tradition in that Church[260]; but neither of these Works has reached our Times.

Footnote 227:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. Hier. vir. ill. c. 22.

Footnote 228:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 229:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 230:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 231:

Pears. post. p. 255.

Footnote 232:

Idem ib.

Footnote 233:

Cave Lives of the Fathers, p. 164.

Footnote 234:

Tert. in Prax. c. 1.

Footnote 235:

Euseb. in chron.

Footnote 236:

Idem l. 5. c. 16. Con. per Labb. t. 1. p. 599.

Footnote 237:

Vide Dupin. Biblioth. p. 287.

Footnote 238:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 14.

Footnote 239:

Idem ib. c. 15, 20.

Footnote 240:

Idem ib.

Footnote 241:

Fleuri hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 26, 27. p. 395. 397.

Footnote 242:

Pacian. ep. 1.

Footnote 243:

Euseb. ib. c. 20.

Footnote 244:

Ado ad ann. 194.

Footnote 245:

Bed. chron. t. 2. p. 111.

Footnote 246:

Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 4. et chron. t. 2. p. 111.

Footnote 247:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 21.

Footnote 248:

Idem ib.

Footnote 249:

Annal. ad ann. 182. p. 140.

Footnote 250:

Gild. ex. c. 6. p. 116.

Footnote 251:

Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.

Footnote 252:

Vide Ush. Brit. eccles. antiq. c. 4. et Bolland. 1. Jan.

Footnote 253:

Bar. ad ann. 183. Bolland. 26 Maii. Ush. ib. p. 54. 102.

Footnote 254:

Vide Ush. ib. p. 137, 138.

Footnote 255:

Martyr. Rom. 3 Decem.

Footnote 256:

Alf. ad ann. 201. p. 201.

Footnote 257:

Euseb. chron. Florent. p. 811.

Footnote 258:

Bolland. 26 Maii, p. 364.

Footnote 259:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 22.

Footnote 260:

Idem ib. et Euseb. l. 4. c. 11, 22.

COMMODUS, VICTOR, SEVERUS. PERTINAX, _Thirteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 192. ]

_Victor_, the Successor of _Eleutherius_, is counted by a Writer, who at this very time lived in _Rome_, the Thirteenth Bishop of that City[261]: so that neither is St. _Peter_ reckoned among them, nor is _Cletus_ distinguished from _Anacletus_. [Sidenote: _The Heresy of_ Theodotus.] In _Victor_’s Time a new Heresy was broached at _Rome_ by one _Theodotus_ of _Byzantium_, denying the Divinity of _Christ_[262]. The _Theodotians_ gave out, that _Victor_ favoured their Doctrine[263]; which he did, perhaps, at that Time[264]; though he cut them off afterwards from his Communion. [Sidenote: Victor _approves the prophetic Spirit of_ Montanus.] Be that as it will, he can by no means be cleared from another Imputation, namely, that of owning and approving the prophetic Spirit of _Montanus_, and his Two Prophetesses, _Prisca_ and _Maximilla_: for _Tertullian_, his Contemporary, tells us, in express Terms, that he received their Prophecies; that, upon receiving them, he gave Letters of Peace to the Churches of _Asia_ and _Phrygia_; but that one _Praxeas_, just come from those Parts, giving him a false Account of those Prophets, and their Churches, and remonstrating, that by approving them, he condemned his Predecessors, prevailed upon him to revoke the Letters, which he had already written in their Behalf. [Sidenote: _His_ Infallibility, _how defended by_ Baronius _and_ Bellarmine.] Thus _Tertullian_, who was then himself become a Follower of _Montanus_[265]. Here _Baronius_ and _Bellarmine_, the Two great Advocates for the Pope’s Infallibility, are put to a Stand: they own, and cannot help owning, that the Pope was deceived, and imposed upon; but, for all that, will not give up his Infallibility. How great is the Power of Prejudice and Prepossession! They find the Pope actually erring, and yet maintain, that he cannot err. But this Apostacy from common Sense, if I may be allowed the Expression, is not, perhaps, so much owing to Prejudice, as to something worse; for no Prejudice, however prevalent, can withstand the indisputable Evidence of plain Matters of Fact. It is no new thing, says _Baronius_, nor what ought to cause in us the least Surprize, that a Pope should be over-reached by Impostors[266]. A Pope over-reached in Matters of Faith! What then becomes of Infallibility? or what is the Use of it? But the _Montanists_, says _Bellarmine_[267], craftily concealed from the Pope what was erroneous and heretical in their Prophecies; so that he, discovering nothing in their Doctrine repugnant to that of the Church, believed they had been unjustly accused to, and condemned by, his Predecessors. But, in the first Place, _Tertullian_ tells us, in express Terms, that the Prophecies of _Montanus_, and his Followers, were approved by the Pope; whereas the Prophecies, which he is supposed by _Bellarmine_ to have approved, were not the Prophecies of _Montanus_, but others, quite different, and in every respect orthodox. In the second Place, if _Victor_ believed, that the _Montanists_ had been unjustly condemned by his Predecessors, he did not believe them infallible; so that, in every Light, this Fact oversets the pretended Infallibility. We may add, that, if the Pope’s Infallibility depends upon a right Information, and neither he nor we can know whether he has been rightly informed, his Infallibility is thereby rendered quite useless; since, in every particular Case, we may doubt, and that Doubt cannot be removed, whether the Information, upon which he acts, was right, or no.

[Sidenote: _The famous Controversy about the Celebration of_ Easter.]

But what most of all distinguished the Pontificate of _Victor_ was, the famous Controversy about the Celebration of _Easter_, between the Eastern and Western Bishops; the former keeping that Solemnity on the 14th Day of the first Moon, on what Day soever of the Week it happened to fall; and the latter putting it off till the _Sunday_ following. This, surely, could not be a Point of any Consequence, since the Apostles had not thought fit to settle any thing concerning it; nay, by observing the Paschal Solemnity themselves, some on the one Day, and some on the other, as it is manifest they did[268]; they plainly declared, that it was quite indifferent on what Day it was observed. Accordingly, from the Apostles Time to _Victor_’s, each Church had followed the Custom and Practice established by their respective Founders, without giving the least Disturbance to others, or being, on that Account, disturbed by them[269]. Pope _Anicetus_ even suffered such of the _Asiatics_ as happened to be at _Rome_, to celebrate _Easter_ after the manner of _Asia_[270]: _Soter_, indeed; and his Successor _Eleutherius_, obliged those who lived at _Rome_ to conform to the Custom of that Church; but that did not prevent their sending the _Eucharist_, or Sacrament, to the Bishops who followed the opposite Practice[271]; for a Custom then obtained among Bishops to send the _Eucharist_ to each other, especially at _Easter_, in Token of Communion and Peace; but this Custom was suppressed by the 14th Canon of the Council held in the Fourth Century at _Laodicea_[272]. [Sidenote: Victor_’s haughty Conduct_.] _Victor_, not satisfied with what his Two immediate Predecessors had done, took upon him to impose the _Roman_ Custom on all the Churches that followed the contrary Practice. [Sidenote: _Is opposed by the Bishop of_ Ephesus,] But, in this bold Attempt, which we may call the first Essay of Papal Usurpation, he met with a vigorous and truly Christian Opposition from _Polycrates_, at that Time Bishop of _Ephesus_, and one of the most eminent Men in the Church, both for Piety and Learning. He had studied, says _Eusebius_[273], the Scriptures with great Attention, had conferred with Christians from all Parts of the World, and had ever conformed his Life to the Rules of the Gospel. _Jerom_ speaks of him as a Man of excellent Parts, and one universally respected[274]. In the present Controversy, he peremptorily refused to relinquish the Practice of his own Church, which had been first introduced by the Apostles St. _John_ and St. _Philip_, and had been handed down to him by Seven Bishops of his own Family[275]. Hereupon _Victor_, impatient of Contradiction, wrote a Letter, threatening to cut him off from his Communion, unless he forthwith complied with the Practice of the Church of _Rome_[276]. [Sidenote: _and by a Council of all the Bishops of_ Asia minor.] _Polycrates_, greatly surprised at the hasty Proceedings of his Fellow Bishop, assembled in _Ephesus_ a Council of all the Bishops of _Asia minor_, when it was unanimously resolved, that the Practice, which they had received from their Predecessors, ought not to be changed[277]. Agreeably to this Resolution, _Polycrates_ writ to _Victor_, acquainting him therewith; and, at the same time, modestly insinuating, that, as to his Menaces, he had better forbear them, since they had no manner of Effect upon him, or his Brethren[278]. [Sidenote: _He cuts them off from his Communion._] Upon the Receipt of this Letter _Victor_, giving the Reins to an impotent and ungovernable Passion, published bitter invectives against all the Churches of _Asia_, declared them cut off from his Communion, sent Letters of Excommunication to their respective Bishops; and, at the same time, in order to have them cut off from the Communion of the whole Church, writ to the other Bishops, exhorting them to follow his Example, and forbear communicating with their refractory Brethren of _Asia_[279]. They all complied, to be sure, with the Desire of the Head of the Church, who had Power to command; but, out of his great Moderation, chose to exhort and advise! [Sidenote: _No Regard had to his Excommunication._] No; not one followed his Example, or Advice; not one paid any sort of Regard to his Letters, or shewed the least Inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable Attempt; but, on the contrary, they all joined, as _Eusebius_ assures us[280], in sharply censuring and rebuking him, as a Disturber of the Peace of the Church. [Sidenote: _He is censured by_ Irenæus.] Among the rest _Irenæus_, then Bishop of _Lions_, writ him an excellent Letter, putting him in mind of the Moderation of his Predecessors, and telling him, that though he agreed with him in the Main of the Controversy, yet he could not approve of his cutting off whole Churches, for the Observance of Customs, which they had received from their Ancestors. He writ, at the same time, to many other Bishops[281], no doubt, to dissuade them from joining the Bishop of _Rome_. However that be, it is certain, that, by this means, the Storm was laid, a Calm was restored to the Church, and the _Asiatics_ allowed to follow undisturbed their antient Practice[282]. But Pope _Victor_, says _Baronius_[283], excommunicated the _Asiatics_, which he would never have ventured to do, had he not known, that he had Power and Jurisdiction over them. [Sidenote: _Had no Power over the_ Asiatics.] The Argument may be thus retorted against him: The _Asiatics_ made no Account of his Excommunication; which they would not have ventured to do, had they not known, that he had no Power nor Jurisdiction over them. Besides, _Victor_ did not excommunicate them, as that Word is now understood; that is, he did not cut them off from the Communion of the Catholic Church; for all the other Bishops continued to communicate with them, as they had done before; he only separated himself from their Communion; which was no more than every Bishop had Power to do. _Victor_ being thus baffled in his Attempt, his Successors took care not to revive the Controversy; so that the _Asiatics_ peaceably followed their antient Practice till the Council of _Nice_, which, out of Complaisance to _Constantine the Great_, ordered the Solemnity of _Easter_ to be kept every-where on the same Day, after the Custom of _Rome_[284].

This Dispute happened, not in the Reign of _Commodus_, as we read in the _Synodicon_[285], but in the Fourth Year of the Reign of _Severus_, as St. _Jerom_ informs us[286], of Christ 196. [Sidenote: Victor _dies_.] _Victor_, of whom we find nothing else in the Antients worthy of Notice, died Five Years after[287], that is, in the Ninth of the Emperor _Severus_, and in the End of 201. or the Beginning of 202. of Christ, having governed the Church Ten Years. He is named, by St. _Jerom_, the first among the Ecclesiastical Authors that wrote in _Latin_[288]. [Sidenote: _His Works._] He published a Piece, on the Controversy about the Celebration of _Easter_, and some other Books on religious Subjects, which were still extant in St. _Jerom_’s Time[289]. [Sidenote: _Pieces falsly ascribed to him._] As for the Two Decretals that are ascribed to him, and the Two Letters to _Desiderius_ and _Paracoda_, both Bishops of _Vienne_, they are universally rejected[290]. [Sidenote: _He is sainted._] The Church of _Rome_ has placed _Victor_ among her Saints; and truly, his Attempt, however unsuccessful, to promote the Power and extend the Jurisdiction of that See, deserved no less a Reward.

Footnote 261:

Vide Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.

Footnote 262:

Epiph. hær. 54. c. 1. Euseb. l. v. c. 28.

Footnote 263:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 264:

Idem ib.

Footnote 265:

Tert. in Prax. c. 1.

Footnote 266:

Bar. ad ann. 173. n. 4.

Footnote 267:

Bell. de sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 8.

Footnote 268:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 23. 25. Socrat. l. 5. c. 21. Epiph. hær. 70. c. 10.

Footnote 269:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 270:

Idem ib.

Footnote 271:

Idem. ib. c. 20.

Footnote 272:

Concil. per Labb. t. 1. p. 150.

Footnote 273:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 22. et 24.

Footnote 274:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 45.

Footnote 275:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote 276:

Idem ib.

Footnote 277:

Idem ib.

Footnote 278:

Idem ib. Hier. vir. ill. c. 45.

Footnote 279:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. Socrat. l. 5. c. 22.

Footnote 280:

Euseb. ib.

Footnote 281:

Euseb. ib. et Socrat. l. 5. c. 22.

Footnote 282:

Euseb. ib. Hier. vir. ill. c. 35. Phot. c. 120. Cypr. ep. 75. Anast. p. 445.

Footnote 283:

Bar. ad ann. 198. n. 10.

Footnote 284:

Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 18. Soz. l. 1. c. 16. Concil. l. 3. c. 18, 19. p. 492.

Footnote 285:

Concil. Labb. t. 1. p. 601.

Footnote 286:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 43. et chron.

Footnote 287:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Hier. chron.

Footnote 288:

Hier. de vir. ill. c. 34. 40.

Footnote 289:

Idem ib.

Footnote 290:

Pears. posth. p. 91, 92. Bosquet. l. 3. c. 5.

SEVERUS, ZEPHYRINUS, MACRINUS, CARACALLA, _Fourteenth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. DIADUMENUS, GETA, HELIOGABALUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 201. _A dreadful Persecution against the Christians._]