The Confessors returnto the Communion ofthe Church.

The Storm, whichNovatushad raised inRome, was laid by his Departure; for he was no sooner gone, than the Confessors, whom he had seduced,viz.Maximus,Urbanus,Sidonius, andMacarius, signified toCorneliustheir eager Desire of quitting his Party, and returning to the Communion of the Church.Corneliusquestioned, at first, their Sincerity; but, being convinced of it at last, he assembled his Clergy, not caring to trust to his own Judgment, in order to advise with them, in what manner he should proceed, in the present Case. At this Council assisted, besides theRomanClergy, Five Bishops, who either happened to be then atRome; or, on this Occasion, had been invited thither byCornelius. They were scarce met, when the Confessors, attended by a great Croud, appeared before them, testifying, with a Flood of Tears, the Sincerity of their Repentance, and begging they would forget their part criminal Conduct.|How received.|The Council did not think it adviseable to come to any Resolution, till they had acquainted the People with the Request of the Confessors; which they no sooner did, than the People flocked to the Place, and, not upbraiding, but embracing, with Tears of Joy, their retrieved Brethren, and with the same Tenderness as if they had been just then delivered out of Prison, pointed out to the Council the Method they were to pursue. AccordinglyCornelius, having, with the Approbation of the Council, made them renounce the Errors ofNovatian, and acknowlege him for the only lawful Bishop ofRome, readmitted them, without farther Satisfaction, to the Communion of the Church[390]. From this Account I should imagine, that those who accompanied the Confessors, at their first appearing before the Council, wereNovatians, whom they had brought back with them; but I dare not affirm it, since St.Cyprian, in his Answer toCornelius, speaks only of the Four above-mentioned Confessors.|CorneliusacquaintsSt.Cyprianwiththeir Return.|The Confessors being thus returned, to the inexpressible Joy of the whole People,Cornelius, impatient to impart the good News to St.Cyprian, writ to him, as soon as the Council broke up, to acquaint him with what had happened, and invite him to partake of the common Joy, to which he had so much contributed[391]. With this LetterNicephorusthe Acolyte embarked, without Delay, forAfrica; and thence returned soon after with an Answer, wherein St.CyprianassuredCornelius, that, the Return of the Confessors had caused an universal Joy inAfrica, both for their Sake, and because it might open the Eyes of many, and prove in the End the Ruin of the schismatic Party[392]. The Confessors themselves writ to St.Cyprian, upon their Return[393], who immediately answered them[394]; and, in all Likelihood, to the other chief Bishops of the Church; sinceEusebiusinforms us, thatDionysius, Bishop ofAlexandria, writ twice to them after their Return[395].|In what mannerNovatianendeavouredto keep the reststeady.|In the mean timeNovatian, seeing great Numbers, moved by the Example of the Confessors, daily fall off from his Party, to keep the rest steady by the most sacred Ties, used, in administring the Eucharist, to hold the Hands of those who received it, with the holy Bread in them, between his, and oblige them to swear,by the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they would never abandon him, nor return toCornelius[396].

A Schism in theChurch ofCarthage.

As the Church ofRomewas rent by the Schism ofNovatian, so was the Church ofCarthageby that ofFelicissimus; and as the former, upon his being excommunicated byCornelius, and the Council ofRome, had recourse to St.Cyprian, in like manner the latter, being cut off from the Communion of the Church by St.Cyprian, and the Council ofCarthage, had recourse toCornelius. But as the Doctrine ofFelicissimus, though diametrically opposite to that ofNovatian, was equally repugnant to the Catholic Truth, and to the Discipline established in the Church, as I have observed above, he was at first rejected byCornelius, with great Steadiness and Resolution. But the Bishop ofRomehad, at last, been frightened into a Compliance, had he not been animated and encouraged by St.Cyprian: for the Followers ofFelicissimushaving, in Imitation of theNovatians, appointed one of their own Faction, namedFortunatus, Bishop ofCarthage,Felicissimustook upon himself to carry toCorneliusthe Letters of the new and Third Bishop of that City. Accordingly he set out forRome, attended by a Troop of seditious, desperate, and abandoned Men, says St.Cyprian[397].Corneliusrejected them at first with great Firmness, and immediately acquainted St.Cyprianwith what had passed; butFelicissimusthreatening to read publicly the Letters he had brought, ifCorneliusdid not receive them, and todiscover many scandalous Things, he was not a little intimidated. He therefore writ a second Letter to St.Cyprian, but betrayed in it a great deal of Fear and Weakness: however, the excellent Letter, which St.Cyprianwrit in Answer to his, inspired him with new Vigour, and kept him steady[398].

The Persecutionrenewed byGallus.

In the mean time,Deciusbeing killed, the Persecution was carried on, or rather renewed, with more Fury than ever, byGallushis Successor. As theRomanEmpire was, at this Time, afflicted with a dreadful Plague,Gallus, who, it seems, had not molested the Christians during the first Months of his Reign[399], issued an Order, injoining Men of all Ranks and Professions to offer Sacrifice to the Gods, hoping, by that means, to appease their Wrath, and put a Stop to the raging Evil. It was on Occasion of this Plague that St.Cyprianwrit his excellent Discourse onMortality, wherein he so eloquently teaches a Christian to triumph over the Fears of Death, and shews with how little Reason we mourn for those Friends and Relations who are snatched from us.|Corneliusapprehended.|Such of the Christians as refused to comply with the Emperor’s Edict, were either banished or executed.Cornelius, among the rest, was apprehended at the first breaking out of the Persecution, and made a glorious Confession of his Faith, as appears from St.Cyprian, who, on that Occasion, writ him a Letter of Congratulation[400]. What happened to him afterwards is uncertain; for his Acts are evidently fabulous, though they have been received byBede, byAdo, byAnastasius, and many others, far more considerable for their Number than their Authority. We read in the Pontifical ofBucherius, that he was banished toCentumcellæ, nowCivita-vecchia, and died of a natural Death, according to the Expression used there[401](Dormitionem accepit). As to the Title of Martyr, with which he is distinguished by St.Jerom[402], it was antiently given to all those who, for the Confession of Faith, died in Prison, which in all Likelihood happened toCornelius[N5].

N5.Corneliusis reckoned, by St.Jerom, among the Ecclesiastic Writers, on account of the Four Letters, which he writ toFabiusBishop ofAntioch, who seemed not to dislike the Tenets ofNovatian[1]. He writ several other Letters, whereof Two are still extant among those of St.Cyprian[2]; and some Fragments of his Fourth Letter toFabiushave been transmitted to us byEusebius. As for the Letter toLupicinus, Bishop ofVienne, which was found in the Archives of that Church, and published by Fatherdu Bosc, the CardinalsBaronius[3]andBona[4]think it genuine; but it is, without all Doubt, supposititious: for, according toAdoandBaroniushimself[5],Florentius, whomLupicinusis supposed to have succeeded, was raised to that See in the Reign ofMaximus, orGordian, about the Year 240. and held it till the Reign ofValerian, and about the Year 258. so that in 252. whenCorneliusdied,Lupicinuswas not yet Bishop. Besides, in the Title of the Letter, whichBaroniushas suppressed,Lupicinusis styledArchbishop; which Title was not known then, nor long after. The Letter is therefore rejected byLaunoy[6], and Dr.Pearson[7], as a forged and spurious Piece.Erasmusascribes toCorneliusthe Treatise on Charity[8]; anddu Pinboth that, and the other on the public Shews, with the Discourse againstNovatian[9], which are all to be found among St.Cyprian’s Works.1. Hier. vir. ill. c 66. p. 290.2. Cypr. ep. 46. 48.3. Bar. ad ann. 255. n. 47.4. Bona lit. 1. c. 3. p. 13.5. Bar. ad ann. 262. n. 58.6. Laun. Ger. l. 4. c. 6.7. Pears. Cyp. ann. p. 37.8. Eras. Cyp. p. 417.9. Du Pin, t. 1. p. 469.

1. Hier. vir. ill. c 66. p. 290.2. Cypr. ep. 46. 48.3. Bar. ad ann. 255. n. 47.4. Bona lit. 1. c. 3. p. 13.5. Bar. ad ann. 262. n. 58.

1. Hier. vir. ill. c 66. p. 290.

2. Cypr. ep. 46. 48.

3. Bar. ad ann. 255. n. 47.

4. Bona lit. 1. c. 3. p. 13.

5. Bar. ad ann. 262. n. 58.

6. Laun. Ger. l. 4. c. 6.7. Pears. Cyp. ann. p. 37.8. Eras. Cyp. p. 417.9. Du Pin, t. 1. p. 469.

6. Laun. Ger. l. 4. c. 6.

7. Pears. Cyp. ann. p. 37.

8. Eras. Cyp. p. 417.

9. Du Pin, t. 1. p. 469.

Corneliusdied on the same Day of the Month and the Week, on which St.Cyprianwas martyred Six Years after[403]; that is, on the 14th ofSeptember252. according to the most probable Opinion, having held the Pontificate one Year, Three Months, and Ten Days.|His Reliques.|His Body is supposed to have been translated fromCivita-vecchiato the Cemetery ofCallistus; for near that Place PopeLeoI. is said to have built, in Honour ofCornelius, a Basilic, or magnificent Church[404]. His Body was believed to be still atRomein the End of the Eighth Century; forAnastasiustells us, that PopeAdrianplaced it in a Church, which he had built inCapracoro[405]; but it was soon after removed from thence, and brought intoFrance, byCharlemagne, asPameliusassures us, upon the Authority of a small Life of St.Cyprian, written, as he supposes, byPaulus Diaconus[406][N6].

N6. There is a famous Abbey, bearing his Name, atCompeignein the Isle ofFrance, where his Reliques, and those of St.Cyprian, are supposed to be kept in the same Shrine. But how can we reconcile this with what we read in the Council ofReims, held in 1049. underLeoIX.viz.that the Body of St.Corneliuswas removed by the Clergy ofCompeigne, from that City toReims; and received there by the Pope[1]? But, on the other hand, the Council is contradicted byAubertus de Mira, who assures us, that, in 860. the Reliques of PopeCorneliuswere translated from the Abbey ofInde, standing about Four Miles South ofAix la Chapelle, to that ofRosnay, which is, at present, a Collegiate Church inFlanders, betweenOudenardeandTournay. In this Church is still to be seen a Shrine, supposed to contain, as appears from the Inscription, the Bones of St.Corneliusand St.Cyprian[2].1. Conc. t. 9. p. 1033. 1042.2. Vide Bolland. 12 Feb. p. 607. et Pamel, p. 23.

1. Conc. t. 9. p. 1033. 1042.

2. Vide Bolland. 12 Feb. p. 607. et Pamel, p. 23.

Eusebiusobserves, that, in the Time ofCornelius, the Church ofRomewas in a most flourishing Condition; for, not to mention the People, who were almost without Number, it consisted of 46 Presbyters, 7 Subdeacons, 42 Acolytes, 52 Exorcists, Lectors, and Janitors, or Door-keepers, and 1500 Widows, and other Poor, who were all maintained by the Alms and Offerings of the Faithful[407].

Year of Christ 252.bracketHe is banished.

Luciuswas no sooner named to succeedCornelius, than he was apprehended, and sent, with many others, into Banishment; for St.Cyprianwrote him a Letter, in the Name of his Collegues, and his own, congratulating him, at the same time, on his Promotion, and his Exile, as appears from St.Cyprian’s Second Letter to him[408]; for his First has not reached our Times.Luciushad been but a very short time in Banishment, when he was recalled, to the inexpressible Joy of his Flock, who, it seems, crouded out to meet him[409]. On this Occasion St.Cyprianwrote him a Second Letter, still extant[410], wherein he testifies the Joy with which the News of his Return had been received by him, and his Brethren inAfrica.|Returns toRome.|He returned toRomeduring the Heat of the Persecution; but what occasioned his Return, we are no-where told. St.Cypriansays, in his Second Letter to him, that he was perhaps recalled to be immolated in the Sight of his Flock, that they might be animated and encouraged by the Example of his Christian Constancy and Resolution[411]; which happened accordingly; for he had not governed Eight whole Months, saysEusebius[412], no, nor Six, according to the most probable Opinion, but only Five, and a few Days, when he died a Martyr; for that Title is given him by St.Cyprian[413].|and dies a Martyr.|He was beheaded, say the Martyrologies; but on this Point the Antients are silent; and his dying in Prison had given him a just Claim to that Title. His Body is supposed to have been discovered intire, in the Church of St.CæciliaatRome, in 1599. though the Church ofRoskild, in the Isle ofZeland, had long before pretended to his Head[414].

STEPHEN,Twenty-secondBishopofRome.

STEPHEN,

Twenty-secondBishopofRome.

Year of Christ 253.bracketThe Bishops ofGaulwrite toStephen.

Stephen, who succeededLucius, in 253. soon after his Election, received a Letter fromFaustinus, Bishop ofLions, written in the Name of all his Collegues inGaul, informing him, thatMarcian, Bishop ofArles, having embraced the Doctrine ofNovatian, had denied the Communion of the Church to the Lapsed, even at the Point of Death. At the same time they writ to St.Cyprian, and on the same Subject[415], not caring to come to any vigorous Resolution against their Collegue, without the Advice and Approbation of other Bishops, especially ofRomeandCarthage; the former being eminent for the Dignity of his See, and the latter for his known Zeal, Piety, and Learning. ButFaustinusdid not find in the Bishop ofRomethe Zeal he expected; and therefore he writ a second Letter to St.Cyprian, exhorting him to animate the others by his Example[416]; which that zealous Prelate did accordingly: for he writ immediately toStephen, pressing him to dispatch, without Delay, full and ample Letters to the Bishops ofGaul; that, finding themselves thus backed and supported, they might thereby be encouraged to deposeMarcian, and name another in his room. It is not to be doubted but the Bishop ofCarthage, who had the Welfare of the Church, at least, as much at Heart as the Bishop ofRome, did himself what he encouraged the others to do; but I cannot positively affirm it, since his Answer toFaustinusis lost. As to the Issue of this Affair, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark[N7].

N7.Marcian’s Name is not in the List of the Bishops ofArles, published by F.Mabillon: whence some modern Writers have concluded, that he was actually deposed; but that List is very imperfect, the Names of many Bishops being wanting there, whom we certainly know to have governed that Church.

St.Cypriandid not doubt in the least but thatMarcianwould be deposed; for, in his Letter toStephen, he desires him to let him know the Name of the Person who should be chosen in his room, that he may not be at a Loss, to whom he should direct his Letters, and his Brethren[417].

Faustinus, and the other Bishops ofGaul, did not apply, on this Occasion, toStephenalone, but to him, and to St.Cyprian. Why then should their applying to the Bishop ofRomebe construed, as it is, by all the Roman Catholic Writers, into a tacit Acknowlegement of his universal Jurisdiction, and not the like Construction be put on their applying to the Bishop ofCarthage? But, in Truth, neither can bear such a Construction, since the Bishops ofGauldid not refer the Cause ofMarcianeither toStephen, or to St.Cyprian: they writ to both only for their Advice and Approbation.Stephenwas backward, for Reasons unknown to us, in giving his; and therefore St.Cyprian, in a Letter, which he writ on this Occasion, pressed him to encourage with his Letters the People ofArles, and the Bishops ofGaul, to deposeMarcian, and appoint another in his room[418]. Was not this plainly acknowleging, not in the Bishop ofRome, but in the People and Clergy, the Power of deposing one Bishop, and appointing another in his room?

Stephen’s rash Con-duct.

But to return toStephen: His rash Conduct had involved the Churches ofSpainin endless Calamities, had not St.Cyprian, and the other Bishops ofAfrica, zealously interposed. The Bishops ofSpain, having judged Two of their Collegues unworthy of the Episcopacy,viz.BasilidesofLeonandAstorga, andMartialofMerida, had disposed of their Sees to others, appointingSabinusin the room of the former, andFelixin that of the latter. They were bothLibellatici, and guilty of many other Crimes, for whichMartialhad been deposed; butBasilides, returning to himself, and conscious of his own Guilt, had voluntarily resigned, declaring he should think it a great Happiness to be readmitted, after due Satisfaction, to the Communion of the Church, even in the Capacity of a Layman. But, Ambition getting the better of all his good Resolutions, he soon began to pant after his former Condition; and, thinking the Favour and Interest of the Bishop ofRomemight greatly contribute to his Re-establishment, he undertook a Journey to that City;|He suffers himselfto be imposed upon.|and there, as St.Cyprianexpresses himself,imposed upon our CollegueStephen,who lived at a great Distance, and was ignorant of the Truth, seeking unjustly to be restored to his Bishoprick, from which he had been justly deposed[419]. Being thus admitted to the Communion of the Bishop ofRome, he returned well satisfied toSpain, and there exercised all Episcopal Functions, as he had formerly done. St.Cypriandoes nottell us, in express Terms, thatMartialtoo had recourse toRome; but that he had, may, perhaps, be gathered from his Words; for he writes, that, notwithstanding the Craft and DeceitMartialhad used, probably in imposing uponStephen, he had not been able to preserve his Episcopacy[420]. Besides, he acted as a Bishop after he had been deposed by a Synod; which he would have hardly attempted, had he not been countenanced by some Bishop of Rank and Dignity. Be that as it will, the Churches ofLeon,Astorga, andMerida, applied, in this their Distress, to the Bishops ofAfrica, imploring, both by Letters and Deputies, their Advice and Assistance. The Deputies were the Two new BishopsFelixandSabinus; and their Deputation was backed by a pressing Letter fromFelix, Bishop ofSaragosa, whom St.Cyprianstyles a Propagator of the Faith, and Defender of the Truth[421].|MartialofMeridaexcommunicated bythe Bishops ofAfrica,tho’ admitted byStephento hisCommunion.|These Letters being read atCarthage, in a Council of 28 Bishops, with St.Cyprianat their Head, it was concluded, thatBasilidesandMartialought not to be acknowleged as Bishops; that it was not lawful to communicate with them; that such Bishops as did, ought to be excommunicated themselves; and, finally, that their imposing uponStephen, instead of giving them any kind of Right to the Sees they had forfeited by their Wickedness, added to their Guilt. By the same Council, the Election ofSabinusandFelixwas confirmed, and they acknowleged by all theAfricanBishops as their Collegues[422].

Appeals toRome,no Proof of the Pope’sSupremacy.

It is surprising, thatBellarmine,Baronius,Davidius, and other Advocates for the Pope’s Supremacy, should lay so much Stress as they do, on the Recourse toRomeof the Two deposed Bishops. If their recurring, or appealing, as they are pleased to style it, to the Bishop ofRome, is any Proof of his being acknowleged by them for the Head of the Church, the Appeal of the other Bishops ofSpainfrom him to St.Cyprian, and their acquiescing to his, and not to the Judgment ofStephen, will be a stronger Proof of St.Cyprian’s being acknowleged by them for the Head of the Church. HadBasilidesandMartialrecurred not toRome, but toCarthage, had the Bishops ofSpainappealed from St.CypriantoStephen, as they did fromStephento St.Cyprian, and acquiesced to his Judgment, no Notice had been taken of the Appeal of the Two Apostates; that only of the Catholic Bishops had been set forth with great Pomp and Flourish ofWords. But, as the Case stands, they must be satisfied with the Evidence of the Apostates, and leave the Catholic Bishops to bear Testimony for us, which we shall not misuse; we shall not build upon it the Supremacy of the Church ofCarthage; we shall not set up St.Cyprianfor a Judge, to whose Tribunal all Appeals must be brought; in short, we shall not make him an universal Judge, an universal Pastor, a Pope; though, to the Testimony of theSpanishBishops, that ofGregory Nazianzeneshould be added, and I defy the Champions for the See ofRometo allege one in their Favour more plain and expressive:St.Cyprian, says he,presided not only over the Church ofCarthage,or that ofAfrica,on which he reflected an extraordinary Lustre, but over all the West, nay, and over all the Nations of the East, of the North, and the South[423]. HadGregorysaid as much of the Bishop ofRome, the Passage had been employed as a Corner-stone to support the Pope’s universal Jurisdiction.

The famous Disputeabout the Baptismof Heretics.

Not long after the Affair of theSpanishBishops, that is, about the Year 256. according to the most probable Opinion, happened the famous Contest about the Baptism of Heretics, which rent the whole Church into Two Parties, the one headed by St.Cyprian, and the other byStephen. St.Cyprianmaintained, that Baptism administred by Heretics, was null and invalid; and, consequently, that such as came over from them, from what Sect soever they came, ought to be baptized by a Catholic Minister: he owned there was but one Baptism, and therefore avoided the WordRebaptization; but thought that Heretics had not the Power of conferring it.|Both Opinionserroneous.|On the other hand,Stephen, and those who adhered to him, pretended, that Baptism conferred by Heretics, of whatever Sect or Persuasion, was valid; so that by avoiding one Error, they fell into another; for some Heretics of those Times, namely, theMontanistsandMarcionites, did not baptize, as is commanded by the Gospel, in the Name of the Three Persons; whence their Baptism was declared null by Two Oecumenical Councils, as I shall relate hereafter. I know great Pains have been taken to excuseStephen; but his own Words, quoted by St.Cyprian, from his own Letter to him, can, in my Opinion, admit of no Dispute; for he there forbids, in express Terms, the Baptizing of Heretics,from what Heresy soever they should come[424]. And here we may observe, by the way, that the whole Church erred,either at this Time, or afterwards; for afterwards both Opinions were condemned, and both were held at this Time, by the one or the other of the Two Parties, into which the whole Church was divided. The Point in Dispute had been canvassed long before, and differently settled in different Provinces. The Churches ofAfricaandNumidiahad formerly admitted Heretics, without baptizing or rebaptizing them; but the contrary Practice was established in a Council of the Bishops of these Two Provinces, summoned about the Close of the Second Century, byAgrippinusBishop ofCarthage[425].|The Custom ofbaptizing Hereticspractised by severalChurches, andestablished byCouncils.|The same Practice of baptizing Heretics was followed by the Churches ofCappadocia, and the other Provinces ofAsia, as a Tradition handed down to them from the Apostles Times; whence it was confirmed in a Council, which was held atIconiuminPhrygia, about the Year 230. and consisted of all the Bishops ofCappadocia,Galatia,Cilicia, and the neighbouring Provinces[426]. The same Practice was approved of by another Council, assembled, much about the same time, atSynnadesinPhrygia[427]. The Bishops ofPontusandEgyptagreed, it seems, with those ofCappadociaandGalatia[428]; but all the other Bishops, especially those ofItaly,Gaul, andSpain, held the contrary Opinion, and followed the opposite Practice. This Disagreement, both in Opinion and Practice, had hitherto created no Disturbance in the Church, each Bishop conforming to the Custom of his particular Church, as received by Tradition, or settled by Synods, without censuring those who disagreed with him, or being censured by them.|It is confirm’dby two Councils heldby St.Cyprian;|But the Question was now revived by Eighteen Bishops ofNumidia, who writ to a Council, held at this time by St.Cyprian, to know whether they had done well in rebaptizing Heretics, agreeably to the antient Practice of their respective Churches. What raised this Doubt now, we know not; but it is certain, the Council answered, that they ought to follow the Practice which they had hitherto observed[429]. The same Answer was returned by St.Cyprian, toQuintusBishop ofMauritania, who had asked the same Question[430]. Soon after, another Council was held atCarthage, composed of 71 Bishops, wherein the Decrees of the former Council, concerning the Baptism of Heretics, were confirmed; and besides, it was ordained, that such Presbyters and Deacons as had received Ordination at the Hands of Heretics, or who, after receiving Orders in the Church, had fallen intoHeresy, should be admitted to Communion only as Laymen[431].|who acquaintsStephenwith theirDecrees.|The Council, by a synodal Letter, acquaintedStephenwith these Resolutions, hoping he would approve and embrace them; but at the same time declaring, that if any Bishop should think fit to reject them, and follow different Opinions, agreeably to the Liberty they all claimed, no Breach of Peace and Unity should thence follow on their Side[432]. With this Letter St.Cypriansent those he had written toQuintus, and to the Bishops ofNumidia[433].

St.Cyprian’s famousletter toJubaianus.

It was after this Council, and beforeStephen’s Answer, that St.Cyprianwrote the famous Letter toJubaianus, who was a Bishop; but in what Province, or of what City, we know not.Jubaianushad, by a Letter, asked St.Cyprian’s Opinion about the Baptizing of Heretics; and, at the same time, sent him the Copy of a Letter, which he had received; wherein many Reasons were alleged to prove, that Baptism, by whomsoever administred, not even theMarcionitesexcepted, ought to be deemed valid. The Author of this Letter inveighs bitterly against St.Cyprian, and those of his Party, styling them Betrayers of the Truth, and Enemies to the Peace and Unity of the Church[434].Baronius, and likewisePamelius, ascribe that Piece toStephen, not apprised that they must consequently own the Doctrine held byStephento have been no less erroneous than that which was held by St.Cyprian, if the Doctrine of the Church be true, as I have observed above. But we have not sufficient Grounds to supposeStephenthe Author of it, since many besides him writ in favour of that Opinion. St.Cyprian, in Answer toJubaianusJubaianus, sent him his Letter toQuintus, that of the first Council to the Bishops ofNumidia; and, moreover, wrote him a long Letter, with a great many Arguments in favour of his Opinion, and the Answers to what was objected against it; especially in the Letter, whereofJubaianushad transmitted him a Copy[435].|His Desire tolive in Peace andUnity with those whoheld the oppositeOpinion.|He ends his Letter by a most solemn Protestation of Unity and Charity with those who should differ from him; which is related at Length by St.Jerom[436], and likewise by St.Austin, who tells us, that he was never tired with reading over and over again those Words of Peace and Charity, breathing nothing but the sweetest Odour of that Union, in which the holy Prelate anxiously sought to live with his Brethren[437]. To this LetterJubaianusreturned Answer, that he had fully convinced him, and thathe willingly embraced his Opinion[438]. In that Letter St.Cyprianseems to have mustered all the Arguments that could be alleged in favour of his Opinion; and therefore St.Austinhas employed his Third, Fourth, and Fifth Books on Baptism, in confuting them.

We have hitherto seen with how much Temper, Moderation, and Candor, the Dispute was managed on St.Cyprian’s Side: he determined nothing without the Advice and Approbation of his Collegues assembled in Council; the Determinations of the Council he imparted to other Bishops, leaving them at full Liberty to embrace or reject them, and declaring, that no Disagreement in Opinion should occasion in him the least Breach of Charity. How different was the Conduct of the Bishop ofRome!|Stephen’s Prideand Arrogance.|He condescended, indeed, to answer the synodal Letter of theAfricanBishops; but did it with that Pride and Arrogance, that in After-ages became the Characteristic of his Successors. He begins with the Dignity of his See, and his pretended Succession to St.Peter, which he takes care to put them in mind of: in the next Place, he rejects their Decrees with the utmost Indignation, and attempts to confute the Arguments alleged to support them: he then proceeds to Commands and Menaces, ordering St.Cyprianto quit his Opinion, and threatening to cut off, from the Communion of the Church, all those who should presume to differ from him, and rebaptize Heretics: he concludes his Letter with a bitter Invective against St.Cyprian, branding that great Luminary of the Church with the reproachful Names offalse Christ,false Apostle,deceitful Workman[439]. Such was PopeStephen’s Answer to a most respectful Letter from a Council of 71 Bishops.Pompeius, Bishop ofSabratain theTripolitana, hearing of this Letter, and being desirous to peruse it, as he had done all the rest on the same Subject,|He is severelycensured by St.Cyprian.|St.Cyprian, in Compliance with his Desire, sent him a Copy of it; and at the same time writ him a Letter, wherein he treatsStephen, upon the just Provocation he had given him, with more than ordinary Sharpness and Acrimony, charging him withPride and Impertinence, withSelf-contradiction and Ignorance, withIndiscretion,Obstinacy,Childishness; nay, he styles him aFavourer and Abetter of Heretics against the Church of God[440]. St.Cyprianwas more provoked atStephen’s abusive Language, than moved either by his Authority or Menaces. St.Austinsupposes the Opinion he heldto have been false and erroneous; and yet owns, that he was not obliged to yield to the Authority ofStephen, nor give up the Point, till he was convinced by dint of Reason, or by the Decision of an Oecumenical Council[441].|St.Cyprianassembles a greatCouncil atCarthage;|However, as St.Cypriansought nothing but Truth, upon the Receipt ofStephen’s Letter, he summoned a great Council, in order to have the Question canvassed anew, and examined with more Care and Attention. The Council met accordingly, on the First ofSeptember256. consisting of 85 Bishops, a great Number of Presbyters and Deacons, and a considerable Part of the People[442]. To this Assembly were read the Letter ofJubaianusto St.Cyprian, his Answer to it, andJubaianus’s Reply; with the Letter of the former Council toStephen, andStephen’s Answer to the Council. These Pieces being read, St.Cyprianmade a short Discourse, exhorting his Collegues to speak their Mind freely: the Words he used on this Occasion alluded, without Doubt, to the Pride and Arrogance of the Bishop ofRome;Let none of us, says he,set up for the Bishop of Bishops; let none of us presume to reduce our Collegues by a tyrannical Fear to the Necessity of obeying: he concluded with protesting anew, in the most solemn manner, that he left every one the full Liberty of following what Opinion he liked best; and that no Man should, on that score, be judged by him, or separated from his Communion[443].|which confirms theantient Practice.|The Discourse being finished, each Bishop delivered his Opinion, and St.Cyprianthe last, all approving, with one Consent, the Baptizing of Heretics.Pameliusand others count 87 Bishops present at the Council, becauseNatalisofOeaspoke for the Two other Bishops ofLibya Tripolitana, viz.PompeiusofSabrata, andDiogaofLeptis the Great[444], who were absent.

The Third Council ofCarthagehaving thus confirmed the Decrees of the Two former, notwithstanding the Threats and Menaces of the Bishop ofRome, it was thought adviseable for the Peace of the Church to acquaint him therewith; and at the same time to inform him more particularly of the Reasons, on which their Opinion was grounded.|Deputies senttoStephen,howtreated.|Deputies were accordingly dispatched toRomefor that Purpose; butStephennot only refused to see or hear them, but would not allow any of his Flock to correspond with them, to supply them with the Necessaries of Life, or even to admit them under the same Roof; excluding them not only from his Communion,but from common Hospitality, says,Firmilian, who wrote this very Year[445].|He excommunicatesall who held theopposite Opinion.|He did not stop here; but, transported with Rage, or Zeal, asBaroniusis pleased to style it, he cut off from his Communion all the Bishops who had assisted at the Council, and all those who held the same Opinion, that is, the Bishops ofAfrica,Numidia,Mauritania,Cilicia,Cappadocia,Galatia, andEgypt[446]. ButStephen’s Anathemas proved, as those ofVictor’s had done before,bruta fulmina; no Regard was had to them, no, not even by those of his own Party; who, by continuing in Communion with those whom he had cut off from his, sufficiently declared their Thoughts touching his rash and unchristian Conduct. This Dispute, says St.Austin, occasioned no Schism in the Church, the Bishops continuing united in Charity, notwithstanding their Disagreement in Opinion[447]. No Thanks toStephen, who did all that lay in his Power to set the Bishops at Variance, and involve the whole Church in Confusion and Disorder:The Peace of Christ, continues St.Austin,triumphed in their Hearts, and put a Stop to the growing Schism; not in the Heart ofStephen, where Rage, Ambition, and Envy lodged; Guests incompatible with Peace and Charity; but in the Hearts of the other Bishops, who were thereby restrained from following his Example. How many Schisms had been prevented, had Bishops in After-ages trod in the Footsteps of those great Prelates!

Back to Index Next