Year of Christ 176.bracket
Eleutheriuswas Deacon of the Church ofRomein 168. whenHegesippuscame to that City[227]; butSoter, the Successor ofAnicetus, being dead, he was chosen to govern the Church in his room[228].|The Martyrs ofLionswrite toEleutherius.|It is certain, that his Election was known inGaulbefore the Death of the Martyrs ofLions, so famous in ecclesiastical History; for the Controversy, which had been raised some Years before in the Churches ofAsia, byMontanusand his Followers, concerning the prophetic Spirit, to which they pretended, making at that time a great Noise in the Church, the Martyrs ofLions, desirous to contribute, so far as in them lay, to the public Peace, wrote Letters, from their Prisons, to the Churches ofAsia, and likewise toEleutherius, Bishop ofRome, 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, thatEusebiushad set down their Opinion at Length; but he contents himself only with saying, that it was intirely agreeable to true Piety, and to the orthodoxFaith[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, byEusebius, 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, thatEleutheriuswas induced, by the Reverence and Regard he had for the holy Martyrs, to receive the Prophecies ofMontanus, and his Two Prophetesses[232].|Eleutheriusdid notapprove the Proph-ecies ofMontanus.|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 SuccessorVictor, who received the Prophecies ofMontanus.Tertullian, the only Author who informs us, that the Dreams of that Enthusiast were approved by the Bishop ofRome, 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 inTertullian, thatMontanushad been opposed bythe Predecessorsof the Bishop, who embraced his Opinions[234]; and, on the other, inEusebius[235], that the Heresy ofMontanuswas first broached in the Year 171. the Eleventh of the Reign ofM. Aurelius, and the Fourth of the Pontificate ofSoter, the immediate Predecessor ofEleutherius; these Two therefore, and these alone, were the Bishops, who could opposeMontanus; and, since the first Broaching of that Heresy, the only Predecessors of the Bishop who embraced it.Victor, the Successor ofEleutherius, was greatly provoked against theAsiaticBishops, on account of their refusing to comply with the Custom of the Church ofRome, in the Celebration ofEaster; and therefore might, out of Spite to them, approve of the Opinions which they had condemned: forMontanus, and his Followers, had been already condemned, asEusebiusinforms us[236], by several Synods held inAsia Minor.|Councils held withoutconsulting the BishopofRome.|No Opinion is now deemed heretical, unless condemned by the Bishop ofRome, who claims that Prerogative as peculiar to himself; but the Synods ofAsia, the first mentioned in History, after that of the Apostles atJerusalem, condemned the Opinions ofMontanus, and cut him off from their Communion, without consulting or even acquainting therewith, the Bishop ofRome. But, to return to the Martyrs; some are of Opinion, that they condemned, in theirLetters, the Tenets ofMontanus, and his Followers; but, at the same time, wrote in their Favour, to far as to intreat the Bishops ofAsia, andEleutheriusBishop ofRome, 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 theMontanistsever shewed the least Inclination to return to the Communion of the Church.
FlorinusandBlastusbroach their newDoctrine.
It was in the Pontificate ofEleutherius, thatFlorinusandBlastusfirst broached their new Doctrine; which was readily embraced by many atRome; for they were both Presbyters of that Church[238].Florinuswas first one of the Emperor’s Officers inAsia, afterwards the Disciple of St.Polycarp, then famous all over that Province; and, lastly, Presbyter of the Church ofRome; but both he andBlastuswere degraded on account of their heretical Opinions, and cut off from the Communion of the Faithful[239]. AgainstFlorinus,Irenæus, then Bishop ofLions, 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 EightEons, or Persons that composed the chimerical Divinity of theValentinians; forFlorinusfell at last into that Heresy[241]. AgainstBlastus, whomPaciansurnames theGreek[242],Irenæuswrote a Book, intituled,Of Schism[243].Ado[244]andBede[245]tell us, thatEleutheriusissued a Decree, ordainingEasterto be kept on theSundayafter 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.
The Conversion ofLucius,aBritishKing.
Lucius, aBritishKing, is said, byBede, to have written to PopeEleutherius, intreating him to send a proper Person intoBritain, to instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion; which the Pope readily granted[246]. But as this is vouched only byBede, 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 ofLuciusmay deserve, I leave the Reader to judge. Such a remarkable Event could not have escapedEusebius, who, speaking of this very Period of Time, tells us, that, atRome, many Persons, eminent for their Birth and Wealth, embraced the ChristianReligion, with their whole Families[247]. A solemn Embassy from aBritishKing, and his Conversion, surely deserved a Place in the History of the Church.|The whole Accountfabulous.|He informs us, that, in the Reign ofCommodus, and the Pontificate ofEleutherius, 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 ofCommodus, is supposed to have written toEleutherius, 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 JesuitAlford[249], which he bore to the Name ofBritain, and which was so prevalent in him, that he chose rather to suppress the Conversion ofLuciusthan mention it. But what could thus setEusebiusagainstBritain? Had he been ever injured by theBritons? 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 ofLucius. But, not to lay the whole Stress on the Silence ofEusebius, and other antient Writers, to whom KingLuciuswas utterly unknown, why should he have been at the Trouble of sending toRomefor an Instructor? Were there not many in his own Kingdom as capable of instructing him as anyRomecould send? The Christian Religion had been planted in this Island long before the Reign ofLucius, in the Time of the Apostles, asGildasseems to insinuate[250], at least very early in the Second Century; forOrigen, who flourished in the Beginning of the Third, tells us, that the Virtue of the Name ofJesushad passed the Seas, to find out theBritonsin another World[251].
Several MonkishFables concerningKingLucius.
The short Account, whichBedegives us of the Embassy and Conversion of KingLucius, 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 Partof their Histories. They even tell us the Names of the Embassadors sent byLuciusto the Pope, and of the Legatesa Lateresent by the Pope toLucius. The former wereElvanusandMedwinus, who, being ordained Bishops byEleutherius, returned toBritain, 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 ofGlassenbury, on the First ofJanuary[252]. The Pope’s Legates wereFugaciusandDamianusDamianus, who, as we are told, went back toRome, to obtain ofEleutheriusa Confirmation of what they had done; and, fromRome, returned intoBritain, with a Letter from the Pope to KingLucius[253]. As for the King himself, he is said to have quitted his Kingdom, and, turning Missionary, to have preached the Gospel inGermany, especially atAusburgh; to have travelled from thence into the Country of theGrisons; and, lastly, to have been ordained Bishop ofCoire, their Metropolis; and to have died there a Martyr[254]. To these Monkish Fables KingLuciusowes a Place among the Saints; for on the Third ofDecemberis kept, in the Church ofRome,the Festival ofLucius,King of theBritons,who died atCoireinGermany[255]: these are the Words of theRomanMartyrology; butBededoes 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 yetAlfordhas 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 againstDempster, telling, him, that till his Time the Conversion ofLuciushad never been questioned by any Man of Sense or Learning[256]. And truly, the Story of KingLuciushas 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 AuthorityofBede, which can be of no Weight with respect to Transactions that are said to have happened in Times so remote.
Eleutheriusgoverned, according to the best Chronologers, Fifteen Years; and died in 192. the last of the EmperorCommodus[257]. To him are ascribed a Decretal, addressed to the Bishops ofGaul, and a Decree, declaring againstMontanus, and his Followers, that no Food was forbidden to the Christians; but both are deemed spurious. He was buried, according to some, in theSalarian Way, according to others, in theVatican; but, in what Place soever he was buried, his Body is now worshiped in theVaticanatRome, in the Cathedral ofTroiainApulia, and in several other Places[258]. The Title of Martyr is given him by the Church ofRome, but not by any of the antient Writers. Under him flourishedHegesippus, 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 toRomein the Pontificate ofAnicetus, who was chosen in 157. and, remaining there to the Time ofEleutherius, who succeededAnicetusandSoterin 177. he wrote a Book on the Doctrine received by Tradition in that Church[260]; but neither of these Works has reached our Times.
Year of Christ 192.bracket
Victor, the Successor ofEleutherius, is counted by a Writer, who at this very time lived inRome, the Thirteenth Bishop of that City[261]: so that neither is St.Peterreckoned among them, nor isCletusdistinguished fromAnacletus.|The Heresy ofTheodotus.|InVictor’s Time a new Heresy was broached atRomeby oneTheodotusofByzantium, denying the Divinity ofChrist[262]. TheTheodotiansgave out, thatVictorfavoured their Doctrine[263]; which he did, perhaps, at that Time[264]; though he cut them off afterwards from his Communion.|Victorapprovesthe prophetic SpiritofMontanus.|Be that as it will, he can by no means be cleared from another Imputation, namely, that of owning and approving the prophetic Spirit ofMontanus, and his Two Prophetesses,PriscaandMaximilla: forTertullian,his Contemporary, tells us, in express Terms, that he received their Prophecies; that, upon receiving them, he gave Letters of Peace to the Churches ofAsiaandPhrygia; but that onePraxeas, 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.|HisInfallibility,how defended byBaroniusandBellarmine.|ThusTertullian, who was then himself become a Follower ofMontanus[265]. HereBaroniusandBellarmine, 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, saysBaronius, 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 theMontanists, saysBellarmine[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,Tertulliantells us, in express Terms, that the Prophecies ofMontanus, and his Followers, were approved by the Pope; whereas the Prophecies, which he is supposed byBellarmineto have approved, were not the Prophecies ofMontanus, but others, quite different, and in every respect orthodox. In the second Place, ifVictorbelieved, that theMontanistshad 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 maydoubt, and that Doubt cannot be removed, whether the Information, upon which he acts, was right, or no.
The famous Contro-versy about the Cele-bration ofEaster.
But what most of all distinguished the Pontificate ofVictorwas, the famous Controversy about the Celebration ofEaster, 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 theSundayfollowing. 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 toVictor’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]. PopeAnicetuseven suffered such of theAsiaticsas happened to be atRome, to celebrateEasterafter the manner ofAsia[270]:Soter, indeed; and his SuccessorEleutherius, obliged those who lived atRometo conform to the Custom of that Church; but that did not prevent their sending theEucharist, or Sacrament, to the Bishops who followed the opposite Practice[271]; for a Custom then obtained among Bishops to send theEucharistto each other, especially atEaster, in Token of Communion and Peace; but this Custom was suppressed by the 14th Canon of the Council held in the Fourth Century atLaodicea[272].|Victor’s haughtyConduct.|Victor, not satisfied with what his Two immediate Predecessors had done, took upon him to impose theRomanCustom on all the Churches that followed the contrary Practice.|Is opposed by theBishop ofEphesus,|But, in this bold Attempt, which we may call the first Essay of Papal Usurpation, he met with a vigorous and truly Christian Opposition fromPolycrates, at that Time Bishop ofEphesus, and one of the most eminent Men in the Church, both for Piety and Learning. He had studied, saysEusebius[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.Jeromspeaks of him as a Man of excellent Parts, and one universally respected[274]. In the present Controversy, he peremptorily refusedto relinquish the Practice of his own Church, which had been first introduced by the Apostles St.Johnand St.Philip, and had been handed down to him by Seven Bishops of his own Family[275]. HereuponVictor, impatient of Contradiction, wrote a Letter, threatening to cut him off from his Communion, unless he forthwith complied with the Practice of the Church ofRome[276].|and by a Council ofall the Bishops ofAsia minor.|Polycrates, greatly surprised at the hasty Proceedings of his Fellow Bishop, assembled inEphesusa Council of all the Bishops ofAsia minor, when it was unanimously resolved, that the Practice, which they had received from their Predecessors, ought not to be changed[277].AgreeablyAgreeablyto this Resolution,Polycrateswrit toVictor, 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].|He cuts them offfrom his Communion.|Upon the Receipt of this LetterVictor, giving the Reins to an impotent and ungovernable Passion, published bitter invectives against all the Churches ofAsia, 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 ofAsia[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!|No Regard had tohis 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, asEusebiusassures us[280], in sharply censuring and rebuking him, as a Disturber of the Peace of the Church.|He is censured byIrenæus.|Among the restIrenæus, then Bishop ofLions, 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 ofRome. However that be, it is certain, that, by this means, theStorm was laid, a Calm was restored to the Church, and theAsiaticsallowed to follow undisturbed their antient Practice[282]. But PopeVictor, saysBaronius[283], excommunicated theAsiatics, which he would never have ventured to do, had he not known, that he had Power and Jurisdiction over them.|Had no Power overtheAsiatics.|The Argument may be thus retorted against him: TheAsiaticsmade 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,Victordid 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.Victorbeing thus baffled in his Attempt, his Successors took care not to revive the Controversy; so that theAsiaticspeaceably followed their antient Practice till the Council ofNice, which, out of Complaisance toConstantine the Great, ordered the Solemnity ofEasterto be kept every-where on the same Day, after the Custom ofRome[284].
This Dispute happened, not in the Reign ofCommodus, as we read in theSynodicon[285], but in the Fourth Year of the Reign ofSeverus, as St.Jerominforms us[286], of Christ 196.|Victordies.|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 EmperorSeverus, 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 inLatin[288].|His Works.|He published a Piece, on the Controversy about the Celebration ofEaster, and some other Books on religious Subjects, which were still extant in St.Jerom’s Time[289].|Pieces falslyascribed to him.|As for the Two Decretals that are ascribed to him, and the Two Letters toDesideriusandParacoda, both Bishops ofVienne, they are universally rejected[290].|He is sainted.|The Church ofRomehas placedVictoramong her Saints; and truly, his Attempt, however unsuccessful, to promote the Power and extend the Jurisdiction of that See, deserved no less a Reward.
Year of Christ 201.bracketA dreadful Per-secution againstthe Christians.
In the first Year of the Pontificate ofZephyrinus, who succeededVictor, a dreadful Persecution was raised against the Christians by the EmperorSeverus, and carried on with great Cruelty in all Parts of the Empire.Zephyrinus, however, had the good Luck to escape it, and to see the Church, by the Death of that Prince, happily delivered from the Evils, which the Rage of her foreign Enemies had brought upon her.|ZephyrinusopposestheTheodotianHeretics.|But her domestic Enemies gave her no Respite; theTheodotianHeretics continued sowing, and not without Success, their pestilential Errors atRome.Zephyrinus, it seems, opposed them with great Vigour and Zeal; for they reproached him, as we read inEusebius[291], as the first who had betrayed the Truth, by maintaining against them the Divinity ofChrist: hence he is ranked, byOptatus, withTertullian,Victorinus, &c. among those who have successfully defended the Catholic Church[292].Baronius, to extolZephyrinus, ascribes to him the first Condemnation ofPraxeas[293], which was followed by a solemn Retractation under his own Hand. But it was inAfrica, and not atRome, thatPraxeaswas condemned, as appeared plain to me, from the Words ofTertullian[294], before I had seen eitherPameliusorMoreau, who understood them in that Sense.Praxeas, as we have observed above, had done an eminent Piece of Service to the Church ofRome, by reclaiming PopeVictorfrom the Heresy ofMontanus: but the Good he had done on that Occasion was over-balanced by the Mischief his new Heresy occasioned both atRomeand inAfrica; for in both Places he gained many Proselytes.|The Heresy ofPraxeas.|He denied all Distinction of Persons in the Godhead, so that the Father being, according to his Doctrine, the same Person with the Son, it was he who took upon him human Nature, and suffered on the Cross; whence his Followers were calledPatropassians[295].
OrigenatRome.
In the Pontificate ofZephyrinus, and, asEusebiusseems to insinuate, in the Beginning of the Reign ofCaracalla, that is, towards the Year 211 or 212. came toRomethe celebratedOrigen, beingdesirous, as he himself declared, to see that Church, so venerable for its Antiquity and Renown; but, after a very short Stay there, he returned toAlexandria[296].|Famous Dispute, atRome,betweenCaiusandProclus.|About the same time happened, atRome, the famous Dispute betweenCaius, a Presbyter of that Church andProclus, a leading Man among theMontanists[297].Caiuscommitted to Writing the Reasons and Arguments on both Sides[298]: but that Piece has not reached our Times, though it was well known toEusebius, who styles it a Dialogue[299]and likewise toTheodoret[300].
Tertullianfallsoff from the Church.
It was during the Pontificate ofZephyrinusthatTertullian, the great Defender of the Christian Religion, fell off from the Catholic Church. His Fall, which was lamented by all the Faithful as a common Loss, is ascribed, by St.Jerom, to the Envy and ill Usage he met with from theRomanClergy[301].|The Titles ofHighPontiff,&c. whether,and in what Sense,given byTertullianto the Bishop ofRome.|But how ill soever he was used by them in those Days, he has perhaps met with worse Treatment at their Hands in latter Times; for they call upon him as an Evidence, to witness the Pope’s universal Jurisdiction, and to confirm to him the haughty Titles, which he assumes; but with how little Reason, will appear from the following Relation: A Catholic Bishop had, by a public Declaration, admitted Persons guilty of Adultery and Fornication to a Place among the Penitents. AsTertullianwas a strict Observer of Rites and Discipline, and a most zealous Asserter of the greatest Rigours of Religion, he could not brook so much Moderation and Indulgence: and therefore, in his BookDe Pudicitia, which he wrote on that Occasion, he extols the Severity of the antient Discipline, aggravates the Greatness of those Offences, undertakes to confute the Arguments for Remission and Indulgence; and, speaking of the above-mentioned Declaration, he calls ita peremptory Decree, and styles the Bishop, who made it,high Pontiff, andBishop of Bishops[302]. Hence the Advocates for the See ofRomeinfer, that, even in those early Times, such Titles were given to the Bishop ofRome, and that his Decrees were even then deemed peremptory[303]. But in the first Place, it is uncertain whether that Declaration was published by the Bishop ofRome, or by some other great Bishop, perhaps ofCarthage, ofAlexandria, orAntioch; for no Bishop is named byTertullian. In the second Place, it is evident from the Context, that, in the above-mentioned Passage,Tertullianspeaks ironically; and consequently all that can be inferred from thence is, that he gave those Titles to the Catholic Bishop, whoever he was, by way of Derision; or if the Bishop had assumed them in his Declaration, he took from thence Occasion to expose his Vanity and Ambition.Baronius, and the Flatterers of the Bishops ofRome, triumph in this Passage ofTertullian; from which however nothing can be inferred in Favour of that See, unless they prove, which they can never do, that the above-mentioned Declaration or Decree was published by the Bishop ofRome; that those Titles, which raise him above other Bishops, were Part of the Decree; and lastly, thatTertullianmentioned them as due to him, and not by way of Sarcasm, ironically reflecting on his Pride and Ambition.
As to the Actions ofZephyrinus, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark; and we cannot depend on what we read in the modern Writers.|Zephyrinusnot a Martyr.|He governed about Seventeen Years, and died in the first Year ofHeliogabalus, and 218. of the Christian Æra[304]. In theRomanMartyrology he has a Place among the Martyrs, which putsBaroniushimself to a Stand[305], since the Church enjoyed a profound Tranquillity from the Death ofSeverusto the End of his Pontificate.
Year of Christ 219.bracket
Zephyrinuswas succeeded byCallistus, orCallixtus, as he is styled byOptatus[306], and St.Austin[307]. In his Time the Church enjoyed a long, happy, and uninterrupted Peace, asTertulliancalls it[308], which lasted from the Death ofSeverusin 211. to the Reign ofMaximinusin 235. as did also the State from the Death ofMacrinusin 218. to the Year 233.|The EmperorAlex-anderfavourable tothe Christians.|Alexander, who succeededHeliogabalusin 222. proved extremely favourable to the Christians, and even allowed them, if I mistake not the Meaning of a profane Writer, the free Exercise of their Religion[309]: it is at least certain, that he adjudged to them, against the Tavern-keepers, a Piece of Ground, which it is pretended theyhad usurped upon the Public, laying, when he gave Sentence in their Favour, that it was better God should be served on it in any Manner, than that it should be occupied by Tavern-keepers[310]; which was giving them Leave to serve God on it after their own Manner. On this Spot of GroundBaroniussupposesCallistusto have built a Church in Honour of the VirginMary, known at present by the Name ofSanta Maria in Trastevere, that is,Saint Mary beyond the Tyber[311]. But the Pontifical ofDamasus, upon which alone he sounds his Opinion, deserves no Credit, as I shall shew in the Life of that Pope.Callistusis said byAnastasius[312]to have inclosed a large Piece of Ground on theAppianWay, to serve as a Burying-place for the Christians.|Callistus’s Burying-place.|This Ground is frequently mentioned in the Martyrologies, and described at Length byArringhus, who tells us, that 174,000 Martyrs, and 46 Popes, were buried in it[313]. ThoughAlexanderwas of all the Pagan Emperors the most favourable and indulgent to the Christians, as is evident from all the antient Writers, both Christians and Pagans, yet he is represented in the Martyrologies, and in the Acts of some Martyrs, especially ofCallistus, to whichBedegave an intire Credit[314], as the most barbarous and inhuman Tyrant that ever shed Christian Blood.|The Acts ofCallistusdeserve no Credit.|If we reject these Acts, and we must either reject them, or the Authority of the most unexceptionable Writers among the Antients, we expunge at once above 300 Martyrs out of the Catalogue of Saints worshiped to this Day by the Church ofRome, upon the bare Authority of such Acts.|Many Saints out tobe expunged out ofthe Catalogue.|Among these are the ConsulPalmatius, with his Wife, his Children, and Forty-two of his Domestics; the SenatorSimplicius, with his Wife, and Sixty-eight of his Domestics: and, what will be an irreparable Loss, the so much celebrated St.Cæcilia, in whose Honour Churches have been erected in every Christian Kingdom.Baronius, not presuming on one Side to question the EmperorAlexander’s Kindness to the Christians, which would be giving the Lye to all the Antients, but, on the other, looking upon it as a Sacrilege to rob the Church of so many valuable Reliques, ascribes the cruel Usage they are supposed to have met with in that Prince’s Reign, not to him, but toUlpianthe celebrated Civilian, who flourished under him[315]. But in those Acts the Martyrs are said to have suffered unheard of Torments, there minutely described,by the express Command of the EmperorAlexander. Besides, couldAlexanderbe said to have favoured the Christians, could the Christians be said to have enjoyed a happy Tranquillity under him, had one of his Officers persecuted them with the utmost Cruelty in his Name, and by his Authority?Baronius, not remembring, it seems, that in this Place he had chargedUlpianwith all the Cruelties against the Christians, supposes elsewhere[316]several Martyrs to have suffered in the Reign ofAlexander, after the Death ofUlpian.Bede, 'tis true, has followed these Acts; but they are not on that Account at all the more credible, since he often follows Pieces which are now universally given up as supposititious. The very first Words of these Acts are sufficient to make us suspect the Truth of them; for they begin thus;in the Time ofMacrinusandAlexander--How come these two Princes to be joined together?Macrinusreigned with his SonDiadumenus, andHeliogabalusbetween them andAlexander. Soon after the ConsulPalmatiusis said to have been condemned without any Form of Judgment, without so much as being heard; whereasHerodianassures us, thatAlexanderwas a strict Observer of the Laws; and that no Criminal was condemned in his Reign, but according to the usual Course of Law, and by Judges of the greatest Integrity[317].Callistus, if we give Credit to his Acts, was kept a long time Prisoner in a private House, where he was every Day cruelly beaten by the EmperorAlexander’s Orders, and at last thrown headlong out of the Window into a Well.|Callistusnot a Martyr.|The Acts are evidently fabulous, butCallistusnevertheless is worshiped among the Martyrs; and the Waters of the Well, which is to be seen atRomein the Church that bears his Name, are said to cure all sorts of Diseases to this Day. He governed the Church Five Years, and died in the Latter-end of the Year 223[318]. the Third of the EmperorAlexander. His Body is exposed to public Adoration on the Tenth ofMay, in the Church of St.Mary, beyond theTyber, atRome[319]and in that of our Lady atRheims[320]. Two Decretals are ascribed toCallistus, and likewise the Institution of the Ember-Weeks, but without the lean Foundation.