Stephen’s Conductdisapproved byDionysiusofAlexandria;

Dionysius, afterwards Pope, andPhilemon, both then Presbyters of the Church ofRome, acquainted, no doubt, byStephen’s Direction, the greatDionysius, Bishop ofAlexandria, with what had passed, hoping to gain him over to their Party, and extort from him an Approbation ofStephen’s Conduct: but that illustrious Prelate, foreseeing, and well weighing, the evil Consequences that might attend it, declared his Sentiments with all the Freedom and Zeal that became a Man of his Rank in the Church. He told them plainly, that the condemning a Practice, which had been established by so many Councils, was what he could by no means approve of; that an Affair of such Consequence required long and mature Deliberation; and that the deciding it over-hastily might raise eternal Disputes, and end at last in a Schism: he therefore beggedStephen, in a Letter, which he writ to him on this Occasion, that he would, upon Reflection, alter his Conduct; and in an Affair upon which so much depended, take different Measures from those which he had hitherto pursued[448]. AsStephenwrote toDionysius, so did St.CypriantoFirmilian, giving him a particular and candid Account both ofStephen’s Conduct and his own.Firmilianwas Bishop ofCæsareainCappadocia, and one of the most eminent Prelates at that Time in the Church both for Piety and Learning: he had a singular Veneration for St.Cyprian, maintained with great Zeal the same Cause, and consequently had been equally ill used and excommunicated byStephen. He therefore received with extraordinary Joy the Letter, which St.Cypriansent him byRogatianone of his Deacons, often read it with great Satisfaction[449], and answered it with a long Letter[450], which is still extant, though St.Cyprian’s to him has been lost long since.|and severely censuredbyFirmilian.|In this LetterFirmilian, amazed and provoked atStephen’s unaccountable Conduct, expresses his Detestation of it in sharper Terms than the Laws of Charity can well allow; for, not content to charge him with sacrificing the Peace of the Church to a petulant Humour, he compares him toJudas, and stigmatizes him with the Epithets of inhuman, audacious, insolent, wicked, impious Schismatic; forhe is a true Schismatic, saysFirmilian, who departs from the Unity of the Church, which thou hast done, OStephen;for, by attempting to separate others from thee, thou hast separated thyself from all other Churches. How much Sin hast thou heaped upon thyself by cutting thyself off from so many Flocks[451]!Firmilian’s Letter was translated intoLatinby St.Cyprianhimself, as is manifest from the Style. It was unknown, it seems, to St.Austin; for he never quotes it, nor, in confuting the Opinion of Sr.Cyprian, takes any notice of some Reasons alleged in that Letter to support it.

Stephendies, but nota Martyr.

There was no Hope of seeing an End put to this Dispute, so long asStephenlived; but he dying, his Successor, who was a Man of a quite different Temper, laid the Storm, which his furious and ungovernable Passion had raised. He died on the 2d ofAugust257. according to the most probable Opinion[452]. The Church ofRome, upon the Authority of his Acts, ranks him among the Martyrs; but that Honour is not paid him either by St.Austin, or byVincentius Lirinensis, who, naming him together with St.Cyprian, as they often do, give constantly the Title of Martyr to the latter, and never to the former.|His Acts fabulous.|As for his Acts, they flatly contradict, in several Points, the most unexceptionable Writers among the Antients[453], and therefore by no meansdeserve the Credit whichBaroniuswould have us give them[454]. EvenAnastasiusseems to have made no Account of them, if in his Time they were yet composed, which may be questioned; for the Account he gives us ofStephen’s Death differs widely from that which we read in those Acts[455]. But he had made a bold Attempt towards extending the Power and Authority of the See ofRome, and therefore was to be placed among the Saints for the Encouragement of others. To say he had merited that Honour by his Virtues, either as a Christian or a Bishop, had been carrying the Imposture too far: the only Means therefore left of making him a Saint, was to make him a Martyr, that, by his glorious Death, he might be thought to have deserved what it was manifest from the Records of those Times he had not deserved by his Christian Life. Hence Acts were forged, setting forth his heroic Confession of the Faith before the Emperor, his Sufferings on that Account, the stupendous Miracles he wrought,&c.which, however incredible, might, in Process of Time, by their Antiquity alone, gain Credit with the greater Part of Mankind.|His Reliques.|Stephenwas buried in the Cœmetery ofCallistus[456]; whence his Body was translated about the Year 762. byPaulI. to a Monastery ofGreekMonks, which that Pope had built inRome, as we read inAnastasius[457]. How it got from thence toTraniinApulianobody knows; but from that City it was conveyed with great Pomp in 1682. toPisainTuscany, where it is still worshiped in a Church bearing the pretended Saint’s Name[458]. According to the most probable Opinion,Stephengoverned Four Years, and about Six Months.

Year of Christ 257.bracketDionysiusofAlex-andriainterposes inthe famous Dispute.

Stephenbeing dead,SixtusorXystusII. a Deacon of the Church ofRome, was chosen to succeed him. As the late Dispute was not yet ended,DionysiusBishop ofAlexandriano sooner heard of his Promotion, than he began to press him with great Earnestness to relinquish the wild Pretensions of his Predecessor, and concur withthe other Bishops in restoring Peace and Tranquillity to the Church[459]. He writ Three Letters to him on the same Subject, whereof the last was fromDionysiusand the whole Church ofAlexandria, toSixtusand the whole Church ofRome[460]. He writ likewise toDionysiusandPhilemon, two Presbyters of the Church ofRome, whom we have mentioned above, and who uponStephen’s Death seem to have abandoned his Party; forDionysiusofAlexandria, in his first Letter toSixtus, writes, That these two Presbyters had been formerly ofStephen’s Opinion[461], a plain Indication that they were not then. The Bishop ofAlexandriahad at last the Satisfaction to see his pious Endeavours crowned with Success; for we find no farther Mention of this Dispute till it was revived by theDonatists.|Peace restored tothe Church by hismeans.|In what manner it ended, we are no-where told; but it is manifest from the Writers of those Times, that theAfricanandAsiaticBishops continued the same Practice of baptizing Heretics, till it was condemned by the two great Councils, ofArlesin 314. and ofNicein 325[462]. Whence we may well conclude, that the Terms proposed at the Beginning of the Dispute byDionysiusand St.Cyprianwere agreed to bySixtus,viz.That no Restraint should be laid on the Bishops of either Side, but that every one should be allowed to follow undisturbed which of the two Opinions he thought most agreeable to the Scripture and to Reason. This was allowing the Bishops to consult the Scriptures, and make use of their own Reason, in a Point already judged and decided by the Bishop ofRome. But the Successors ofSixtushave not been so complaisant; for they pretend, that a blind Faith ought to be yielded to all their Decisions as infallibly true, a blind Obedience to all their Decrees as unquestionably holy.

But now the Persecution, which had begun some Months before the Decease ofStephen, raged with more Violence than ever:|Valerianpersecutesthe Church.|ForValerianhaving, at the Instigation of anEgyptianMagician, changed the Kindness he once had for the Christians into an implacable Hatred, he ordered, by a Rescript to the Senate, all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be carefully sought for, and executed without Mercy[463].|Sixtusmartyred.|Pursuant to this Order,Sixtus, who among the first fell into the Hands of the Persecutors, was immediately either beheaded, as we read in the Pontifical ofBucherius[464], or crucified, as we are told byPrudentius[465];having held the Chair only Eleven Months, and some Days.Pontius, a Deacon of the Church ofCarthage, styles him a good andpacific Prelate[466], no doubt on account of his Conduct quite opposite to that of his ambitious and quarrelsome Predecessor[N8].

N8.Ruffinuspublished, under the Name ofSixtusBishop ofRome, the Book of aPythagoreanPhilosopher, namedSixtus. St.Jeromreproaches him in two Places with thatImposture, as he styles it, supposing him to have known the Work, which he ascribed to PopeSixtus, not to be his[1]. St.Austinwas imposed upon among the rest; for, in his Treatise ofNature and Grace, he quotes that Book as the Work of PopeSixtus; but he afterwards owned and corrected his Mistake[2]. It was ranked by PopeGelasiusamong the Books of Heretics; so that he supposed it to have been written by a Christian, which was more than he could know, there not being a single Word in it whence we can argue the Author to have believed in, or to have had any Knowlege of Christ: and it is on this Consideration that it has been thought unworthy of a Bishop of those times.1. Ep. ad Ctesiph. contr. Pelag. c. 22. & in cap. 18. Ezech.2. Aug. l. 2. retract. c. 42.

1. Ep. ad Ctesiph. contr. Pelag. c. 22. & in cap. 18. Ezech.

2. Aug. l. 2. retract. c. 42.

Year of Christ 258.bracketThe See vacant almosta whole Year.

Sixtusbeing dead, and the Christians prevented by the Persecution from assembling to chuse another in his room, the See remained vacant almost a whole Year, that is, from the 6th ofAugust258. to the 22d ofJuly259. whenDionysius, a Presbyter of the Church ofRome, whom we have mentioned above, was elected, to the great Satisfaction of the Faithful; for he was one of the most eminent Men of his Time both for Piety and Learning[467]. During his Pontificate, theGothsbroke into the Empire, over-ran allAsia Minor, and, having almost utterly destroyed the City ofCæsarea, they carried with them into Captivity most of its Christian Inhabitants.Firmilianwas then Bishop of the Place, who had censured the Conduct ofStephenwith so much Sharpness and Acrimony;|Dionysius’s Charity tothe distressed Chris-tians ofCæsarea.|but the Remembrance of what had passed on that unhappy Occasion had not that Effect onDionysius, which far less Provocations have had on many of his Successors; for he no sooner heard of the Distress that Church was in, than, laying hold of so favourable an Opportunity to exert his Charity, he writ aLetter to comfort them in their Calamity, and at the same time dispatched proper Persons with large Collections to ransom the Christians who had fallen into the Hands of theBarbarians[468]. The Letter, whichDionysiuswrote on this Occasion, was carefully kept in the Archives of the Church ofCæsarea, as an authentic Monument of his Goodness and Charity[469]. The greatDionysiusBishop ofAlexandriahaving, at this Time, composed a learned Treatise to prove againstSabelliusthe Distinction of the Divine Persons, some over-zealous Catholics, misconstruing several Passages in that Work, and concluding that he had run into the opposite Error, accused him to the Bishop ofRome, as if he denied the Son to be consubstantial with the Father[470].|DionysiusofAlex-andria,accused atRomeover him.|Hereupon the Bishop ofRome, having assembled a Council, acquaintedDionysiuswith the Sentiments of the other Bishops, and his own, expressing his Concern, that the Divinity of the Word should have been questioned by him, and at the same time desiring him to answer the Accusation[471]. ThisDionysiusreadily did in Four Books, which he styledConfutation and Apology; shewing therein that his Opinion was very different from what it had been represented atRome, and explaining those Passages which had given Ground for the Accusation. This Work he addressed to the Bishop ofRome[472]. HereBaroniusexults. Behold, says he, one of the most eminent Prelates of the Church, upon Suspicion of Heresy, arraigned atRome, judged atRome.|That argues noJurisdiction in theBishop ofRome.|Who does not see a supreme Tribunal erected there, to which all Causes must be brought; a sovereign Judge residing there, by whom all Persons must be absolved or condemned; is either blind and cannot see, or shuts his Eyes and will not see[473]. And does not the sharp-sighted Annalist himself see what every one the least conversant in Ecclesiastical History must see, if he is not either blind and cannot, or shuts his Eyes and will not see,viz.Bishops, when guilty, or only suspected of Heresy, accused to some of their Collegues, who neither had nor claimed any Jurisdiction over them? Thus was the famousPaulofSamosata, Bishop ofAntioch, at this very Time, accused by his whole Church, first toDionysiusBishop ofAlexandria, and soon after toFirmilianBishop ofCæsarea[474]. That such an Accusation argued any Jurisdiction in those Bishops over the Bishop ofAntioch, is whatBaroniushimself dares not affirm; and yet a likeAccusation brought toRomeis enough for him to transform that See into a supreme Tribunal; that Bishop, though far from such ambitious Thoughts, into a sovereign Judge. But the Bishop ofRome, saysBaronius, required ofDionysiusa Confession or Declaration of his Faith: And does not that argue Superiority and Jurisdiction?Baroniushimself knew it does not: for it is impossible he should not know, that when a Bishop was suspected of Heresy, all his Collegues had a Right to require of him Confession of his Faith, and not to communicate with him till they had received it.

PaulBishop ofAntiochcondemnedand deposed,

In the Time ofDionysiuswas held the famous Council ofAntioch, which condemned and deposedPaulBishop of that City, who denied the Distinction of the Divine Persons, and the Divinity ofChrist. Of the Deposition ofPaul, and the Election ofDamnus, who was placed in his room, Notice was immediately given to the whole Church, by a Synodal Letter addressed toDionysiusBishop ofRome, and toMaximus, who had succeeded the greatDionysiusin the See ofAlexandria[475]. And here it will not be foreign to my Purpose to observe, that the Bishop ofAntiochwas summoned to appear before the Council, and not at the supreme Tribunal erected byBaroniusatRome;|without the Consentor Knowlege of theBishop ofRome.|that he was condemned and deposed without the consent or Concurrence, nay, and without the Knowlege of the sovereign Judge residing atRome; that he did not appeal to him, which he certainly would have done, as he was a Man of unparalleled Impudence and Ambition, had such a Custom obtained in those Days; and lastly, that the Fathers of the Council writ to the Bishop ofRomein the same Manner as they did to other Bishops, letting him know, that for the future he was to communicate withDamnus, and not withPaul. All this is manifest from the Account which St.Basilgives us of that Council[476]. And yetBaroniusbrings in that Father, even on this Occasion, as an Evidence for the Papal Supremacy[N9].

N9. For by wrong pointing a Passage in theLatinTranslation of that Author, he makes him contradict himself, and ascribe the deposing ofPaultoDionysiusBishop ofRome, and the GreatDionysiusBishop ofAlexandria, though the latter was dead beforePaulwas deposed, as is evident from the Letter which was written by the Council on that Occasion, and is addressed toMaximusthe Successor ofDionysiusin the See ofAlexandria[1]. The Passage runs thus;Duo enimDionysiidiu ante eos septuaginta fuere, quiSamosatensemsustulere, quorum alterRomæ,alterAlexandriæPræsul erat[2]. The Meaning of St.Basilis, that the twoDionysius’sflourished before the Council ofAntioch, which consisted of Seventy Bishops, and deposedPaulofSamosata; that is, before the Second Council that was assembled against him; for another had been convened in the same City about eight Years before to depose him; but upon his pretending to renounce his Errors, the Sentence had been suspended. The above-quoted PassageBaroniusstops thus;Duo enimDionysiidiu ante eos septuaginta fuere; quiSamosatensemdeposuere, &c. so that the Relativequirefers, according to this Method of Pointing, to the TwoDionysius’s, and not to the Seventy Bishops: as if St.Basilhad said,The TwoDionysius’s, who deposedPaulofSamosata,flourished before the Council ofAntioch,which was composed of Seventy Bishops[3]. So thatPaulmust be twice deposed, St.Basilmust contradict himself, all the Writers of those Times must be arraigned as guilty of an unpardonable Omission, lest the Bishop ofRomeshould appear to have been, what he really was, an idle Spectator of a Transaction so famous in the History of the Church. A Writer of any Honour or Honesty had rather give up a Cause, than expose himself thus by attempting to defend it.1. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.2. Basil. de syn. p. 918.3. Bar. ad ann. 265. n. 10.

1. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.2. Basil. de syn. p. 918.

1. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.

2. Basil. de syn. p. 918.

3. Bar. ad ann. 265. n. 10.

From St.Basil,Baroniusruns to the EmperorAurelian, begging of a Pagan Prince what he could not extort from a Catholic Bishop, a Declaration and Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy.|Paulkeeps Possessionof the Bishop’sHabitation.|The Reader must know, thatPaulhaving kept, by Force, Possession of the Bishop’s Habitation in Defiance of the Council, the Catholic Bishops had recourse to the Emperor, who, after hearing both Parties with great Attention, adjudged the House to him, who should be acknowleged by the Bishop ofRome, and the other Bishops ofItaly[477]. ThisBaroniusinterprets as an open Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy; and that his Readers may not overlook it, as most of them would be apt to do, he takes care to bespeak their Attention, by marking it in the Margin with the following Words in Capitals,The EmperorAurelianacknowleges the Supremacy of the Church ofRome[478]. From this one would expect to findAureliannot only turned Christian, but prostrate at his Holiness’s Feet, and bowing down to kiss them: but our Annalist, to the great Disappointment of his Readers, after having thus raised their Attention, only repeats out ofEusebiusthe Sentence pronounced by the Emperor, which he would have us suppose with him to have been owing to the Knowlege that Prince had of the Pope’s Supremacy.|The Emperor’s Sen-tence whether favour-able to the Pretensionsof the See ofRome.|And why must the Pope’s Supremacy be brought in here rather than the Supremacy of the Bishops ofRavenna, ofMilan, ofAquileia, &c. and, above all, the Supremacy of the collective Body of theItalianBishops? for to them, and not to any particular Bishop, the Cause was referred by the Emperor. As for the Emperor’s Conduct on this Occasion, it may be thus accounted for: That just and wise Prince observed the Bishops in the East greatly animated againstPaul; and therefore apprehending them more sway’dby Passion and Prejudice than by Justice and Equity, he referred the Cause to the Bishops ofItaly, who, he thought, would judge more impartially, as being placed at a Distance, and not engaged, at least not so warmly, in the Dispute[479].|Dionysiusdies,|But this happened Two Years after the Death ofDionysius; for he died on the 26th ofDecember269.ClaudiusandPaternusbeing Consuls, after having governed the Church ofRomefor the Space of Ten Years, Five Months, and Four Days, according to the most probable Opinion[480]. As he died in the Reign ofClaudiusII. surnamedthe Gothic, who is represented in the Acts of some pretended Martyrs as an implacable Enemy to the Christian Name, he is in some Martyrologies honoured with the Title of Martyr;|not a Martyr.|but as neitherEusebius, nor any other antient Writer, takes notice of that Prince’s having ever persecuted or molested the Christians, those Acts ought to be looked upon as fabulous, andDionysiuswith 375 more expunged out of the Catalogue of Martyrs; though some of them, namely,Marcus,Priscus,Valentine, andQuirinus, are honoured by the Church ofRome, as Saints of the first Class, and have filled with their Reliques most of the Provinces ofEurope.

Year of Christ 269.bracketFelixdies a Martyrin the Persecution ofAurelian.

Dionysiuswas succeeded byFelix, in whose Time a furious Persecution being raised byAurelian, he may be supposed to have suffered among the rest, since he is distinguished by the Council ofEphesus[481], by St.Cyril[482], and byVincentius Lirinensis[483], with the Title of Martyr. He presided, according toEusebius[484],Syncellus[485], andEutychius[486], Five Years, to whichBaroniusadds Eleven Months, and Twenty-five Days[487]. He writ a Letter addressed toMaximusBishop ofAlexandria, which is quoted byCyril, and the Council ofEphesus[488]. The Acts of the Martyrs, who are supposed to have suffered underAurelian, are without all doubt supposititious; for inthem frequent Mention is made of the Emperor’s Son, whereas the Writers of those Times tell us in express Terms, that he had a Daughter, but no Male Issue[489].

Year of Christ 275.bracketEutychianusnotmartyred.

Felixbeing dead,Eutychianuswas chosen in his room in the very Beginning of the Year 275[490]. Several Things are said of him, byAnastasius, and other Writers of no Authority; but all I can learn of the Antients concerning him is, that he governed Eight Years, and Eleven Months[491]; and consequently died in the Close of the Year 283. He is honoured by the Church ofRomeas a Martyr, and said in theRomanMartyrology to have suffered underNumerian; but it is certain that in 283. whenEutychianusdied,Numerianwas not Emperor, but onlyCæsar, and at that very time engaged with his FatherCarusin a War with thePersiansin the East, where he was assassinated byAperhis Father-in-Law. As for his BrotherCarinus, who remained in the West, neither he, nor the two preceding Emperors,TacitusandProbus, ever gave the least Disturbance to the Christians; so that the Church ofRomemust be at the Trouble of finding out a distinct Place in Heaven from that of the Martyrs forEutychianus,Trophimus,Sabbacius, and the illustrious SenatorDorymedon, who are supposed to have suffered under those Princes.

Year of Christ 283.Vbracket

As little is said by the Antients ofCaiusas is said of his Predecessor. A few Days after the Death ofEutychianus,Caiuswas chosen to succeed him,CarusandCarinusbeing Consuls[492].|Caiusnot a Martyr,tho’ honoured asa Martyr.|He presided Twelve Years, Four Months, and Seven Days; that is, from the17th ofDecember283. to the 22d ofApril296.Caiustoo is counted by the Church ofRomeamong her Martyrs, upon the Authority ofBede, and of the Acts of St.Susanna, by which that Writer seems to have been misled. In those ActsCaiusis said to have suffered withSusannahis Niece, and many others, underNumerian: but that Prince in his Father’s Life-time had no great Power, being onlyCæsar, and very young, and was killed on his March out ofPersiasoon after his Father’s Death; so that he never reigned in the West, and but a very short time in the East.Caiustherefore could not suffer under him atRome, where his elder BrotherCarinusgoverned. But the Vulgar have a particular Veneration for Martyrs, and, what turns to a very good Account, are glad to purchase their Reliques at any rate.|The Church ofRomewhy so fond ofMartyrs.|The Church ofRometherefore, to provide herself with great Store of them, has multiplied beyond Belief the Number of her Martyrs; which she could not well do without multiplying at the same time the Number of the Persecutors of the Christian Religion. And hence it is that several Princes, who never molested, nay, who greatly favoured the Christians, have been by the Church ofRometransformed in her Martyrologies and Legends into Persecutors. As for the Acts of the supposed St.Susanna, they are full of Mistakes and Absurdities, and contradict the best Historians of those Times.

Year of Christ 296.bracketMarcellinusunjustlyaspersed by theChurch ofRome.

MarcellinussucceededCaiuson the 30th ofJune296. and governed Eight Years, Three Months, and Twenty-five Days, according to the most antient Records[493]: so that he must have died on the 24th ofOctober304. The Love of Truth, which an Historian ought never to swerve from, obliges me to undertake the Defence of this Pope against the Church ofRomeherself, and most of her Divines, who, joining theDonatistsofAfrica, have endeavoured to blacken his Memory with Aspersions equally wicked and groundless. For the Church ofRometells us, both in her Breviary and Martyrology, and her Divines must chime in with her, thatMarcellinusbeing apprehendedduring the Persecution ofDioclesian, he was persuaded by that Prince to deliver up the Holy Scripture to be burnt by the Pagans, agreeably to a late Edict, and at the same time to offer Incense to the Gods. This they found on the Acts of the Council ofSinuessa, which is supposed to have been summoned on that Occasion, and before whichMarcellinusis said to have been convicted by Seventy-two Witnesses of the above-mentioned Crimes. That such a scandalous Story, invented by theDonatistsofAfrica, as St.Austinaffirms[494], should not only have been credited, but industriously propagated, by the Successors ofMarcellinus, must seem very strange and surprising to those, who recollect with how much Zeal they have strove on other Occasions to conceal or excuse the least Imperfections in their Predecessors. If therefore they not only readily own the Apostasy ofMarcellinus, but are the first to divulge it, and take care to make it known in the Breviary to those who scarce know any thing else, we may be well assured there is a Snake hid in the Grass; the more as it is certain almost beyond doubt, that no such Council was ever held; and consequently that the Acts upon which alone that Apostasy is founded, are supposititious. To unravel the Whole, the Reader must know, that the Fall ofMarcellinusmade such a Noise in the Church, as we read in those Acts, that immediately a grand Council met, composed of no fewer than 300 Bishops. Before this CouncilMarcellinusappeared; but, at his first Appearance, the Bishops, struck with Horror at the very Thought of judging the Head of the Church, the Judge of all, cried out with one Voice,The first See is to be judged by nobody: accuse yourself, judge yourself, condemn yourself.|Their View, therein.|To this Testimony, so favourable to the ambitious Views of the Bishops ofRome, is intirely owing the Sanction which they have given to such Fables, highly injurious to the Memory of one of their best Predecessors. Without this Lenitive the Acts of the pretended Council ofSinuessa, supposing the Apostasy of a Pope, had been condemned; the Absurdities and Contradictions, which it is wholly made up of, had been set forth in a proper Light; and the Testimonies ofTheodoretand St.Austinhad been alleged to vindicate the Character ofMarcellinus:|Marcellinuscom-mended and vindicatedby the Antients.|for of these two Writers the former tells us, that he acquired great Glory by his Conduct during the Persecution[495]; and the latter, in writing againstPetiliantheDonatist, has the following Words:Why should I answer the Calumnies with which he loads the Bishops ofRome?Whyshould I clear them from the Crimes which he lays to their Charge?Marcellinus,and his PresbytersMelchiades, Marcellus,andSylvester,are accused by him as if they had delivered up the sacred Books, and offered Incense to the Gods: Are they therefore to be thought guilty? Does he prove what he advances against them? He brands them with the Epithets of wicked, and sacrilegious; but I say they are innocent: And why should I produce Reasons to support my Defence, since he brings none to make good his Charge[496]?But a solemn Declaration, thatthe See ofRomeis to be judged by nobody, made in those early Times, by 300 Bishops, carries with it such Marks of Truth, as quite invalidate the Testimonies ofTheodoretand St.Austin, and render the Apostasy ofMarcellinus, which gave room to that Declaration, undeniable! St.Austinlooks upon the Apostasy ofMarcellinus, and his PresbytersMelchiades,Marcellus, andSylvester, who were all afterwards Bishops ofRome, as a mere Calumny, as an Invention of theDonatists; but their Successors, trampling upon all Authority that stands in the Way of their Ambition, chuse rather to have Four of their Predecessors thought Apostates and Idolaters, than part with the Decree of that pretended Council, exalting them so high above all other Bishops.

The Acts of theCouncil ofSinuessafabulous.

IfMarcellinusacquired great Glory during the Persecution, asTheodoretassures us; if his Apostasy was a mere Calumny, broached by theDonatists, as we read in St.Austin; the pretended Council ofSinuessamust be given up, since it is supposed to have been assembled on occasion ofMarcellinus’s Fall: but, abstracting from the Fall ofMarcellinus, the Circumstances attending that Council are in themselves so absurd and incredible, that there needs no other Argument to convince a Man, who has any Understanding, and dares to use it, that no such Council ever was, or could be held.|No such Councilever held.|For who can conceive it possible, that, during the most cruel Persecution the Church ever suffered, 300 Bishops should assemble, not inRome, where they might more easily have met unobserved, but in a small Country Town, where a much less numerous Assembly must immediately have been observed and suspected? But, after the Death ofFabianus, saysBaronius[497], the Clergy ofRome, and the Bishops, met to chuse him a Successor, notwithstanding the Persecution that raged then. He ought to have saidsome Bishops, as St.Cypriandoes[498], whom hequotes; but I shall say so for him, that his Argument may appear in its full Strength, and save me the Trouble of answering it; for it will then run thus: Some Bishops, perhaps 15 or 20, met unobserved in the great and populous City ofRome:Ergo, 300 might meet unobserved in a small Country Town; for such wasSinuessa.

Back to Index Next