St. PETER

It is out of some Regard to an antient Tradition, that I have placed St. Peter at the Head of the Bishops of Rome, though I am well apprised, that this, like most other Traditions, will hardly stand the Test of a strict and impartial Examination. |That St. Peter was ever at Rome, known only by Tradition.| To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat Tradition as we do a notorious and known Lyer, to whom we give no Credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some Person of undoubted Veracity. If it is affirmed by him alone, we can at most but suspend our Belief, not rejecting it as false, because a Lyer may sometimes speak Truth; but we cannot, upon his bare Authority, admit it as true. Now that St. Peter was at Rome, that he was Bishop of Rome, we are told by Tradition alone, which, at the same time, tells us of so many strange Circumstances attending his coming to that Metropolis, his staying in it, his withdrawing from it, &c. that, in the Opinion of every unprejudiced Man, the Whole must favour strongly of Romance. |Tradition not to be depended upon.| Thus we are told, that St. Peter went to Rome chiefly to 2oppose Simon, the celebrated Magician; that, at their first Interview, at which Nero himself was present, he flew up into the Air, in the Sight of the Emperor, and the whole City; but that the Devil, who had thus raised him, struck with Dread and Terror at the Name of Jesus, whom the Apostle invoked, let him fall to the Ground, by which Fall he broke his Legs. Should you question the Truth of this Tradition at Rome, they would shew you the Prints of St. Peter’s Knees in the Stone, on which he kneeled on this Occasion, and another Stone still dyed with the Blood of the Magician^[N1].

Fabulous Accounts of St. Peter.

The Romans, as we are told, highly incensed against him for thus maiming, and bringing to Disgrace, one to whom they paid divine Honours, vowed his Destruction; whereupon the Apostle thought it adviseable to retire for a while from the City, and had already reached the Gate, when, to his great Surprize, he met our Saviour coming in, as he went out, who, upon St. Peter’s asking him where he was going, returned this Answer, I am going to Rome to be crucified anew: which, as St. Peter understood it, was upbraiding him with his Flight; whereupon he turned back, and was soon after seized by the provoked Romans, and, by an Order from the Emperor, crucified. These, and a thousand like Stories, however fabulous and romantic they may seem, we cannot, without great Incoherency, reject, if we admit St. Peter to have been at Rome; since the Whole is equally vouched by the same Authority, and has been upon the same Authority equally believed by those, who are called in by the Advocates for the See of Rome, to witness St. Peter’s having preached the Gospel in that City. |The greatest Men imposed upon by false Traditions.| These are Arnobius^[10], Cyril of Jerusalem^[11], Eusebius^[12], Irenæus^[13], Tertullian^[14], Jerom^[15], and Justin the Martyr^[16]. These have all supposed St. Peter to have been at Rome, and, together with St. Paul, to have planted Christianity in that great Metropolis of the World; but this they took upon Tradition, and consequently their Authority is of no greater Weight than Tradition itself, which had they duly examined, they would not perhaps have so readily 3pinned their Faith upon it. False and lying Traditions are of an early Date, and the greatest Men have, out of a pious Credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them. How many Traditions, after having reigned for Ages without Controul, were upon the Reformation, when Men took the Liberty to examine what they believed, rejected by the Church, ashamed to own them, and degraded into popular Errors! But that of St. Peter’s having been at Rome, and the first Bishop of that City, was a Tradition of too great Consequence not to be maintained at all Events, since upon that chiefly was founded the Claim of his pretended Successors to an uncontrouled Authority, and universal Jurisdiction; a Foundation infinitely too weak for such an immense Superstructure.

How little regard paid to them by some Popes.

And here I cannot help observing the little Regard that the Popes themselves have shewn to Tradition, though received by the greatest Lights of the Church, when it did not promote the Honour or Interest of their See. Of this we have a glaring Instance in a parallel Case; for as St. Peter, according to Tradition, travelled to Rome, so did St. Paul, according to Tradition, travel into Spain: the former Tradition was received by the Writers I have quoted above, and the latter by some of the same Writers, viz. by Cyril of Jerusalem^[17], and Jerom^[18], and by Athanasius^[19], Chrysostom^[20], Theodoret^[21], Gregory the Great^[22], and many others; yet such a Tradition was rejected, perhaps justly, by Pope Innocent I. who would not allow St. Paul to have ever been in Spain^[23]. Have we not an equal Right to question, or even to deny, St. Peter’s having ever been at Rome? Are not the Authorities at least equal on both Sides? Why then must the Travels of one Apostle be looked upon as an Article of Faith, and those of the other be deemed fabulous?

No Mention in the Scripture of St. Peter’s having ever been at Rome.

And truly, if we examine narrowly into this matter, the former Tradition will appear no less groundless to us, than the latter did to that Pope: for, in the first place, neither St. Peter himself, nor any of the Sacred Writers, give us the least Hint or Intimation of his having ever been at Rome. We are told of his being at Antioch, at Jerusalem, at Corinth, at Babylon^[24]; but of the great Metropolis of the Empire, where he is supposed to have fixed his See, not the 4least Mention is made. And may we not from that Silence question, to say no more, his having ever been there? I know that by Babylon, from whence St. Peter wrote his first Epistle^[25], Eusebius,^[26] Jerom^[27], the Venerable Bede^[28], Oecumenius^[29], and Grotius^[30], understood Rome; but this is a bare Conjecture, and no better grounded than that of others, who thought that by Babylon was meant Jerusalem^[31]. The learned Doctor Pearson, Bishop of Chester, seeing no Occasion here to recur to a figurative Sense, is of Opinion, that the above-mentioned Epistle was written not from Babylon in Chaldæa, which then lay in Ruins, but from Babylon in Egypt; and no Man has taken more Pains to make the World believe, that St. Peter preached at Rome, and founded that See^[32]. But, in this Controversy, the Silence of St. Paul in particular, if duly attended to, must be thought, by every unbiassed Man, a far more convincing Proof of St. Peter’s not having been at Rome, than all the Authorities that have been yet alleged, are of his having been there. |St. Paul, in the many Letters he wrote from Rome, never mentions St. Peter.| For that Apostle, while at Rome, had frequent Opportunities of mentioning his fellow Apostle, and fellow Labourer; and yet, naming several others, he is quite silent as to him. From Rome he wrote to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Philemon, without ever mentioning Peter, or sending any Salutation from him; nay, it is certain, that St. Peter was not at Rome when the Apostle of the Gentiles wrote to the Colossians; for, mentioning Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus, he adds, These alone, my Fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God, who have been a Comfort unto me^[33]. Peter was not there, when St. Paul wrote his second Epistle to Timothy, where he says, At my first Answer no Man stood with me, but all Men forsook me^[34]: nor was he there immediately before St. Paul’s Death, when the Time of his Departure was at hand; for he tells Timothy, that all the Brethren did salute him; and, naming Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia^[35], he omits Peter, whom we may thence conclude not to have been there. And yet it is a received Tradition in the Church of Rome, that St. Peter was then not only in that Metropolis, but confined and bound in the same Prison with St. Paul. As that Apostle, 5in writing from Rome, sends no Salutations from Peter, so in writing to Rome he greets many others, but never mentions him^[36]. Now who would not sooner chuse to reject such Traditions, than to suppose St. Paul guilty of such an unfriendly and unaccountable Omission?

St. Peter, though at Rome, not Bishop of Rome.>

From what has been hitherto said, every impartial Judge must conclude, that it is, at least, very much to be doubted whether St. Peter was ever at Rome; but, allowing him to have been there, it still remains to be proved, that he was Bishop of that See. This the Sticklers for the Papal Authority spare no Pains to make out, being well apprised, that the Whole of their Cause lies here at stake; and yet I find nothing alleged by them in so material a Point, but a few misinterpreted Passages out of the Ecclesiastical Writers: for the right understanding of which it is to be observed, that such of the Antients as called Peter Bishop of Rome, and Rome the Place, the Chair, the See of Peter, meant no more than that he was Superintendent of that Church, that he founded it by converting Men to the Faith, and erected the Episcopal Chair, by appointing the first Bishops. That this was their true Meaning, is apparent from what we read in Ruffinus; who, having mentioned Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as succeeding each other in the See of Rome, while Peter was still alive, thus accounts for their Episcopacy: They were, says he, appointed Bishops by Peter, to the end that, they taking upon them the Episcopal Charge, he might be at Leisure to discharge the Duties of his Apostolical Office. And this, he tells us, was not a Notion of his own, but the common Opinion^[37]. Irenæus speaks to the same Purpose: The Apostles, says he, founding that Church, delivered the Episcopal Office into the Hands of Linus^[38]. Hence the most antient Writers, who lived nearest the Fountain of Tradition, never stile St. Peter Bishop of Rome, but only say, that, by ordaining Bishops, he founded that Church^[39]. |In what sense St. Peter and St. Paul stiled Bishops of Rome.| St. Peter therefore was not Bishop of Rome in the strict Sense, to which that Word is now confined, but in the more large Sense, of which I have taken notice above: and in that St. Paul has as good a Claim to the high-sounding Titles of Pope, Bishop of Rome, &c. as St. Peter, since, together with him, he is said to have founded that Church. The Popes indeed will not allow him that Honour, nor condescend to reckon 6him among their Predecessors; but Epiphanius and Eusebius have been more complaisant; of whom the former says, Peter and Paul were the first at Rome, both Bishops and Apostles^[40]; and the latter speaking of the Succession of the Bishops of Rome, Alexander derived his Succession in the fifth Place from Peter and Paul^[41]. Both therefore were Bishops of Rome, or neither; both in the Sense of the antient Writers, but neither in that, which is now annexed to the Word Bishop. |The Duties of a Bishop and an Apostle incon- sistent.| And truly the Office of an Apostle, and that of a Bishop, as the Word is now understood, are incompatible. An Apostle, says Chrysostom^[42], is charged with the Instruction not of any particular Nation or City, but of the whole World; but a Bishop must reside, says the same Writer^[43], and be employed in one Place: and therefore St. Peter, who knew these two Duties to be inconsistent, if he was ever at Rome, committed there, as he did in other Places, the Episcopal Charge to others, and pursued his Apostolical Office, which required a more extensive Care.

Whether James the Apostle was Bishop of Jerusalem.

But St. James, say the Popish Writers, though an Apostle, was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem; and why might not St. Peter, though an Apostle, undertake the Episcopacy of Rome? It is surprising they should lay so much Stress as they do on this Objection, since they must know it to be grounded on an Uncertainty; as Eusebius the greatest Antiquary of former Times^[44], Hegesippus the most antient Historian^[45], Epiphanius^[46], Jerom^[47] Gregory of Nysse^[48], Chrysostom^[49], and many others, reckon James Bishop of Jerusalem, not among the Apostles, but the Seventy Disciples. Of the same Opinion among the Moderns, are Grotius^[50], Dr. Hammond^[51], Valesius^[52], Blondel^[53], and Salmasius^[54]. The last of these saying, after his positive and confident manner, It is certain that he was not one of the Twelve, I may at least say, it is not certain that he was; and consequently the Objection can be of no considerable Weight. But allowing him to have been one of the Twelve, as some of the Antients seem to think^[55], there was a special Reason, why one of the Apostles should be appointed to reside at Jerusalem, that City being the Metropolis, the Fountain, the Centre of the Christian Religion; our Faith had 7there had its Birth; the Church was there very numerous, consisting of many Thousands of believing Jews^[56]; and thither resorted great Numbers of those of that Nation, who were converted to Christ in other Countries. On these Considerations it might seem expedient, that a Person of the greatest Authority should preside there. But there was no special Reason why an Apostle should constantly reside at any other Place, nor does it appear that any did: St. Peter especially could not reside at any one Place, since to him, as the Apostle of the Circumcision, was committed the Charge of converting the dispersed Jews in all Parts of the World.

What meant by the Apostolic See, Chair, Throne, &c.

As for the Appellations of the Apostolic See, Chair, Throne, &c. given by the Antients to the See of Rome, they import no more than that it was erected by an Apostle; for they are bestowed indiscriminately on all the Sees, in which Bishops had been placed by the Apostles; viz. of Ephesus^[57], of Smyrna^[58], of Alexandria^[59], of Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi^[59], &c. The Title of Apostolic See, common to many, was, in Process of Time, by the Ambition of the Bishops of Rome, appropriated to their own. They had, as they thought, till the Year 1662. a pregnant Proof not only of St. Peter’s erecting their Chair, but of his sitting in it himself; for till that Year, the very Chair, on which they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was shewn and exposed to public Adoration on the 18th of January, the Festival of the said Chair. But while it was cleaning, in order to be set up in some conspicuous Place of the Vatican, the Twelve Labours of Hercules unluckily appeared engraved on it. Our Worship however, says Giacomo Bartolini, who was present at this Discovery, and relates it, was not misplaced, since it was not to the Wood we paid it; but to the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter^[60]. An Author of no mean Character, unwilling to give up the holy Chair, even after this Discovery, as having a Place and a peculiar Solemnity among the other Saints, has attempted to explain the Labours of Hercules in a mystical Sense, as Emblems representing the future Exploits of the Popes^[61]. But the ridiculous and distorted Conceits of that Writer are not worthy our Notice, tho’ by Clement X. they were judged not unworthy of a Reward.

St. Peter how, or by whom, placed in the See of Rome.

8But to return to our Subject; it may be inquired, If St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, who placed him in that See? Did our Lord appoint him? Did the Apostles name him? Did the People chuse him? Did he assume it himself? To these Queries no Answers have been yet given, but such as are so ridiculously weak, that it is not worth my while to relate them, nor the Reader’s to hear them. Bellarmine, in one Place, positively affirms, that God commanded St. Peter to fix his See at Rome^[62]; but elsewhere contents himself with saying, It is not improbable that God commanded St. Peter to fix his See at Rome^[63]. Is it is no more than not improbable, it is uncertain; it may be a mere Conjecture, a Dream.

Other Bishops of Rome appointed by St. Peter.

St. Peter, either alone, or jointly with St. Paul, as we read in Irenæus, and in the Apostolical Constitutions^[64], appointed other Bishops of Rome. Now, when he appointed others, did he resign his Episcopacy, or retain it? If he resigned it, he did not die Bishop of Rome; which shakes the very Foundation of the Pope’s Claim to Supremacy: if he retained it, there were Two Bishops on the same See at one time; which Pope Innocent I. in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople, condemned as an Irregularity never known till his Time^[65]: he did not, it seems, recollect that it had been practised by his Predecessor Pope Peter. Theodoret tells us, in his Ecclesiastical History, that when the Emperor Constantius would have had Felix to sit in the See of Rome, together with Liberius, upon the Return of the latter from Banishment, the People of Rome would not content to it, crying out, One God, one Christ, one Bishop. Felix died soon after, and upon his Death Theodoret makes the following Remark: It was, says he, a special Providence, that Peter’s Throne might not suffer Infamy, being held by Two Prelates^[66]. He did not consider, or rather did not believe, that it had been held by St. Peter and St. Paul, by St. Pater and by Linus.

St. Peter Bishop at Rome, not of Rome.

To conclude, St. Peter was perhaps Bishop at Rome, not of Rome^[N2]. He was Bishop at Rome, if he ever was there, being, in virtue of his Apostleship, impowered to discharge, at Rome, and every-where else, all Episcopal Functions; but was not specially Bishop of Rome, or any other Place; that is, he did not take upon him the Charge of 9any particular Bishop, the Administration of any particular Bishoprick, that being inconsistent both with the Dignity and Office of an Apostle, or universal Bishop.

Nero, Galba, Otho, LINUS, First Bishop of Rome. Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus.

Year of Christ 66. Linus, and not Clemens, the Bishop of Rome.

There is a great Disagreement among the Antients about the first Bishops of Rome: Tertullian makes Clement, whom he supposes to have been ordained by St. Peter, the immediate Successor of that Apostle^[67]. He was followed therein by Ruffinus^[68], and Ruffinus by the Latins in general; among whom that Opinion universally prevailed towards the End of the Fourth Century. But Jerom, rejecting the Opinion of the Latins, places Linus immediately after the Apostles, Anacletus next to him, and Clement in the third Place^[69]. His Opinion is supported by the Authority of Irenæus^[70], Eusebius^[71], Theodoret^[72], and likewise of Epiphanius^[73], Optatus Milevitanus^[74], and St. Augustin^[75], with this Difference, that Epiphanius gives the Name of Cletus to the Successor of Linus, and both Optatus and St. Augustin place him after Clement; but in this they all agree, that Linus was the first, after the Apostles, who governed the Church of Rome. To the Authority of these Writers I may add that of the Apostolic Constitutions, telling us, in express Terms, that Linus was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Paul^[76]. |Whether Clement appointed by St. Peter to succeed him.| As to what we read in Tertullian and Ruffinus, viz. that Clement was ordained by St. Peter, and named to succeed him; Dr. Hammond answers, That Clement governed with Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction the converted Jews, while Linus and Anacletus governed, with the same Power, the converted Gentiles. He adds, That, upon the Death of Anacletus, both Churches were united under him^[77]. Thus he strives to reconcile the Opinion of the Latins, placing Clement immediately after the Apostles, with that of the Greeks, allowing him only 10the third Place: for, granting what he advances to be true, and Reasons are not wanting to support it, Clement was, agreeably to the Opinion of the Latins, the immediate Successor of the Apostles, with respect to the Jews; but, with respect to the Gentiles, he succeeded Anacletus, agreeably to the Opinion of the Greeks^[78]. This Answer Cotelerius applauds as an ingenious, learned, and probable Solution; but, at the same time, rejects it as contradicting, in his Opinion, the Apostolic Constitutions, and not supported by the Authority of any antient Writer^[79]. The learned Dr. Pearson will admit no Opinion that supposes Two Bishops to have presided together in one City^[80], that being an Irregularity, according to St. Cyprian^[81], contrary to the Ecclesiastic Disposition, contrary to the Evangelic Law, contrary to the Rules of the Catholic Institution, and condemned as such by the Council of Nice^[82]. It is very much to be doubted, as I have shewn above, whether St. Peter ever was at Rome, and consequently whether Clement was ordained, by him, Bishop of that City. His not succeeding him is a Proof, that he was not; for who can imagine, that the People and Clergy of those Days would have thought of chusing any other, or that any other, though chosen, would have accepted of a Dignity, to which Clement had been named by St. Peter himself, and which he was actually possessed of at the Apostle’s Death? Be that as it will, Linus is now universally acknowleged both by the Greeks and Latins for the first Bishop of Rome.

As for the Life and Actions of Linus, all I can find in the Antients concerning him, is, that it was he whom St. Paul mentioned in his Epistle to Timothy^[83]; that, upon the Authority of the Apostolic Constitutions, he was supposed, by some, to have been the Son of Claudia, whom the Apostle mentions in the same Place^[84]; and that his Life and Conversation were much approved of by the People^[85]. |Linus no Martyr, tho’ placed among the Martyrs.| The Church of Rome allows him, in the Canon of the Mass, a Place among the Martyrs; but no mention is made of his having suffered for the Faith, either in the antient Martyrologies, or in Irenæus, who, speaking of him, and his immediate Successors, distinguishes none but Telesphorus with the Title of Martyr. Baronius, determined to maintain, right or wrong, the Credit of the sacred 11Canon, in Opposition to all the Antients, nay, and to his own System, cuts off one Year from the Pontificate of Linus, that he may place his Death under Vespasian, and not, as Eusebius has done^[86], under Titus, in whose Reign he owns none to have suffered for the Faith^[87]. Had he remembered what he must have read in Tertullian and Eusebius, he had saved himself that Trouble: for Tertullian assures us, that Vespasian made no Laws against the Christians^[88]; and Eusebius, that he did not molest them, though he caused a diligent Search to be made after those who were of the Race of David, which occasioned a dreadful Persecution against the Jews^[89]. Linus governed the Church of Rome, according to Eusebius^[90] and Epiphanius^[91], Twelve Years; so that, if we place, with them, the Death of St. Peter in 66. Linus must have died in the Year 78. of the Christian Æra. |Books ascribed to him.| We have, under the Name of Linus, Two Books of the Martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul^[92]; but they are generally looked upon as supposititious^[93]. Trithemius makes him the Author of the Life of St. Peter, in which a particular Account was given of the Dispute between that Apostle, and Simon the Magician. This Piece has not reached our Times, and was perhaps of the same Stamp with the other, since it is never mentioned either by Eusebius, or St. Jerom. The Decrees, that are ascribed to him, are no-where to be found, but in Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and such-like Writers, whose Authority is of no Weight in Matters so distant, unless supported by the Testimony of the Antients.

Titus CLETUS, or ANACLETUS, Second Bishop of Rome. Domitian.

Year of Christ 78.

Linus was succeeded by Cletus, or Anacletus, whom the Greeks constantly style Anencletus, that is, Irreprehensible. An Opinion has long obtained in the Church of Rome, distinguishing Cletus and Anacletus as Two Popes, nay, as Two Saints; the 12Festival of the one being kept on the 26th of April, and that of the other on the 23d of July^[94]. |Cletus and Ana- cletus not two, but one Pope.| But this Distinction is now given up by the most learned Men of that Church, not only as groundless, but as plainly contradicting the most celebrated Writers of Antiquity, Irenæus, Eusebius, and St. Jerom, to whom we may add Caius, a Priest of Rome, who, writing in the Beginning of the Third Century, reckoned Victor the Thirteenth Bishop of that City^[95]. Baronius, however, spares no Pains to keep up that Distinction; but alleges nothing to countenance it, except the Poem against Marcion, ascribed to Tertullian, the Pontifical of Anastasius, and some Martyrologies^[96]. Who was the Author of that Poem is not well known, but all agree, that it was not written by Tertullian^[97]. Besides, the Author, whoever he was, places both Cletus and Anacletus before Clement; which Baronius condemns as a gross Mistake. As for the Pontifical, the Annalist often finds fault with it; and complains, in this very Place, that Anastasius’s whole Chronology is overcast with an impenetrable Mist^[98]. The Martyrologies he quotes are of too modern a Date to deserve any Regard, since none of them were heard of before the Ninth Century^[99]. |How they were first disting- uished.| But how, says Baronius, was this Distinction first introduced? We may, perhaps, account for it thus: Irenæus, with all the Greeks, and St. Jerom, among the Latins, place Anacletus, as we have observed above, before Clement; whereas St. Austin and Optatus Milevitanus place him after. This, and his being called Cletus by Epiphanius, and in several Copies of Ruffinus, might induce some to imagine, that as the Names and Places were different, so were the Persons. Thus, as we conjecture, of one Pope Two Popes were made, Two Saints, and Two Martyrs; for, in the Canon of the Mass, he has a Place with Linus among the Martyrs; though neither was acknowleged for such by Irenæus, or any of the Antients; nay, Anacletus is said, in some Pontificals, to have died in Peace, that is, according to the Phrase of those Days, of a natural Death^[100]. Bollandus, after having much laboured, but laboured in vain, to maintain the Distinction between Cletus and Anacletus, yields at last, and gives up the Point. But yet, unwilling to make the least Alteration in the Catalogue of the Popes, which places, with the Approbation of the Holy See, Clement between Cletus 13and Anacletus, he strives to save it with a new and pretty extraordinary Invention; for he pretends Anacletus or Cletus to have resigned the Chair to Clement, and Clement, in his Turn, to have yielded it to him again. Thus, according to him, though Cletus and Anacletus are one and the same Person, yet no Fault is to be found with the Catalogue; and Clement is rightly placed both after and before him^[101]. This is a Speculation of his own, altogether groundless, and therefore not worthy of a Place here, were it not to shew what low Shifts and Subterfuges even Men of Parts, in the Church of Rome, chuse to submit to, rather than to yield to Reason, in Points that seem to derogate from the Authority of that See. Anacletus governed the Church Twelve Years, according to Eusebius^[102]; to which some add Two Months, some Three, and some only one; so that he must have died in the Year 91. He is supposed to have been buried next to St. Peter, in the Vatican, where his supposed Body is shewn, and worshiped to this Day^[103]. |Decretals ascribed to him.| We find, in the Collection of Isidorus Mercator, Three Decretals, under the Name of Cletus; but such Decretals as are anterior to the Pontificate of Pope Syricius, who was elected in the Year 384 are now universally looked upon as bare-faced Forgeries^[104][N3].

14

Domitian, Nerva, CLEMENT, Third Bishop of Rome. Trajan.

Year of Christ 91. Clement mentioned by St. Paul.

Clement, the Successor of Anacletus, is, according to Origen^[105], Eusebius^[106], and all the Antients, the Person whom St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Philippians^[107], names among those who had laboured with him in the Gospel, and whose Names were in the 15Book of Life. Hence Chrysostom concludes, that, together with St. Luke and Timothy, he attended the Apostle of the Gentiles in all his journeys^[108]. Irenæus assures us, that he had not only seen the Apostles, and conversed with them; but that, when he was appointed Bishop of Rome, he still heard their Voices sounding in his Ears, still had before his Eyes the Rules and good Example they had given him^[109]. Origen styles him the Disciple of the Apostles^[110]; Ruffinus, almost an Apostle^[111]; and Clement of Alexandria, an Apostle^[112]. That he was well versed in every Branch of Learning, especially in polite Literature, descended of a Senatorian Family, and nearly related to the Cæsars, is what we read in Eucherius^[113] and Nilus^[114], who seem to have followed therein the Recognitions, a Book of no Authority. |Some confound him with Flav- ius Clemens.| Eucherius perhaps confounded, as others have done, Pope Clement with Flavius Clemens, who was Son to Flavius Sabinus, the only Brother of Vespasian, and suffered Death for the Christian Religion in the Persecution of Domitian^[115]; for Pope Clement was, as himself seems to insinuate, rather of the Race of Jacob than of the Cæsars^[116]. |Chosen Bishop of Rome.| Upon the Death of Anacletus he was unanimously chosen by the People and Clergy of Rome to succeed him. He had been named, say some, to that Dignity by St. Peter himself, preferably 16to Linus and Anacletus^[117]; but had declined it, finding that the Faithful were not all equally disposed to submit to the Judgment and Authority of St. Peter. He therefore withdrew; and, as he was of a mild and pacific Disposition, led a retired Life to the Death of Anacletus, when he was forced to accept of the Dignity, which he had before declined. Thus Ruffinus, upon the Authority of the Recognitions; which appears to me, I must own, a very improbable Tale. During his Pontificate happened an impious and detestable Division, to use his own Terms, among the Christians of Corinth, which obliged them to have recourse to other Churches, especially to that of Rome; |His famous Epistle to the Corinthians.| and on this occasion was written that famous Epistle to the Corinthians, so much magnified by the Antients and publicly read, not only in the Church of Corinth, as Dionysius assures us, who was Bishop of that City in 180, but in many other Churches, to the Time of Eusebius, and St. Jerom^[118], and perhaps long after. It was by some ranked among the Canonical Books of the Scripture, and by all reverenced next to them^[119]. It was written in the Name of the whole Church of Rome, and to the whole Church it is, in express Terms, ascribed by Irenæus^[120], and Clement of Alexandria, who calls it the Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians^[121]. However, it was composed by Clement, in the Name of the Church; for, in the primitive Times, Bishops did nothing by themselves, but every thing jointly with their Churches: We advise, We exhort, We recommend, &c. was their usual Style; which the Popes still observe, though they mean only themselves; for they scorn to join either with the People or Clergy. The Style of this excellent Letter is plain, clear, full of Energy, without any useless Ornaments; and the Whole written with the Simplicity, as Photius observes^[122], that the Church requires in Ecclesiastical Writers. There is so great an Affinity, both as to the Sense and the Words, between this Epistle, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, that some have concluded Clement to have been the Translator, nay, and the Author of that Epistle^[123]. |Unjustly criticized by Photius.| In Clement’s Epistle Photius discovers, as he thinks, Three Faults; viz. that he supposes other Worlds beyond the Ocean; that he speaks of the Phœnix as a real Bird; and that he uses Words expressing the Humanity of our Saviour, and not his Divinity. But, as 17to the first of these Objections, there can be no Difficulty now, that we know for certain what was but doubtfully advanced by the Antients: in speaking of the Phœnix he complies with the Opinion universally received in those Days by the Learned, both among the Christians and Pagans. As to the Third Objection, Photius must not have observed, that he styles our Saviour’s Sufferings, the Sufferings of God, which was acknowleging his Divinity. |Thought lost, but appears again.| This Epistle, the most precious and valuable Treasure the Church can boast, after the holy Scriptures, was for many Ages bewailed as lost; but, in 1633. it was again restored to the Christian World, by Patricius Junius, a North Briton, who published it from a Manuscript, written by an Egyptian Lady, named Thecla, about the Time of the great Council of Nice, and afterwards brought over into England^[124]. That this Piece is genuine, appears from a great many Passages quoted out of it by the Antients.

The most remarkable Event that happened in the Pontificate of Clement, was the Persecution of Domitian; but what Part he bore in it we can learn from no credible Author. |Clement dies.| He died, according to Eusebius^[125], in the Third Year of Trajan’s Reign, that is, in the 100th of the Christian Æra. In the Canon of the Mass he has a Place, with his Two Predecessors, among the Martyrs; but Telesphorus, the Seventh Bishop of Rome, is the first, as I have observed above, who was acknowleged as such by Irenæus, whose Authority is of far greater Weight than that of Ruffinus, or Pope Zosimus, who suppose him to have died for the Confession of the Faith^[126]. |His fabulous Acts.| In the Acts of Clement, to which Gregory of Tours gave an intire Credit^[127], and after him many others, especially the Two credulous Annalists, Baronius^[128], and Alford^[129] in his Annals of the British Church, we read, that Clement was banished, by Trajan, into the Chersonesus, beyond the Euxine Sea; that there he caused a Fountain to spring up miraculously, for the Relief of the Christians confined to the same unhospitable Region; that he converted the whole Country to the Faith, which provoked the Emperor to such a degree, that he ordered him to be thrown into the Sea, with an Anchor fastened to his Neck. It is added, that, on the Anniversary of his Death, the Sea retired to the Place where he had been drowned, though Three long Miles 18from the Shore; that upon its retiring, there appeared a most magnificent Temple, all of the finest Marble; and in the Temple a stately Monument, in which was found the Body of the Saint; that the Sea continued thus retiring every Year on the same Day, not daring, for the Space of Seven Days, to return to its usual Bounds, that the Christians might, at their Leisure, and without Apprehension of Danger, perform their Devotions in Honour of the Saint. |The Miracles he wrought, unknown to Irenæus.| To crown the Whole, they add, that, one Year, a Mother having heedlessly left her young Child in the Temple, upon her Return, next Year, she found it not only alive, but in perfect Health^[130]. No Mention is made of such stupendous Miracles by Irenæus, who was brought up under Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, in Asia, at the very Time Clement is supposed to have suffered, and who speaks of him at Length. His Silence is a plain Demonstration, that they were unknown to him; and they must have been known, had they been true.

Other Writings ascribed to Clement. A second Letter to the Corinthians. Five other Letters.

Besides the Letter to the Corinthians, of which I have spoken above, several other Pieces are ascribed to Clement; viz. a second Letter to the Corinthians; which is, without all Doubt, very antient; but Eusebius doubts whether it was written by Clement^[131]; and both St. Jerom^[132], and Photius^[133], absolutely reject it. Five other Letters, placed among the Decretals, whereof the first, more antient than the rest, was translated by Ruffinus, and is quoted by the Council of Vaison, held in 442^[134]. However, it is generally looked upon as a spurious Piece; for the Author of it, whoever he was, acquaints St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, who died long before St. Peter, with St. Peter’s Death^[135]. |His Itinerary.| Clement’s Itinerary, which, in Photius’s Time, was prefixed, by way of Preface, to the Recognitions^[136]. The Recognitions, relating, under the Name of Clement, the Actions of St. Peter, his Interview with Simon the Magician, how Clement himself knew again his Father and his Brothers, whom he had forgot; |The Recognitions.| whence the whole Work took the Name of Recognitions, that is, of knowing again: it is likewise called the Itinerary of St. Peter, the Acts of St. Peter, the Acts of St. Clement^[137]. The Recognitions are quoted by Origen^[138], Epiphanius^[139], and Ruffinus^[140], as the Work of Clement, but these Writers, at the same time, own them to have been altered 19in several Places, and falsified by the Heretics; nay, Epiphanius tells us, that the Ebionites scarce left any thing found in them^[141]. The Author was well versed in Philosophy, Mathematics, Astrology, and most other Sciences, but not so well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church; whence his Work is absolutely rejected by Athanasius^[142]; and now generally looked upon as a Piece falsely ascribed to Clement. |St. Peter’s Dia- logues with Apion.| St. Peter’s Dialogues with Apion were probably written in the Third Century, and to gain Credit fathered upon Clement; for Eusebius writes, that there had lately appeared a long Work, under the Name of Clement, containing Dialogues between St. Peter and Apion^[143]. |The Apostolic Constitutions.| As to the Apostolic Constitutions, if that Work is different from the Doctrine of the Apostles mentioned by Athanasius and Eusebius; Epiphanius is the first who speaks of it: it appears at least, from Dionysius of Alexandria, that, in the Year 250. the Constitutions either had not yet appeared, or were of no Repute in the Church^[144]. Epiphanius tells us, that many suspected them; but, as for himself, he received them, since he found nothing in them repugnant to the Faith, or the Discipline of the Church^[145]. But as be quotes several Passages out of them, which are not to be found now, we may well conclude, that, since his Time, they have been either altered or curtailed. The Greeks indeed, in the Second Canon of the Council, that, in 692. was held at Constantinople, in a Tower of the Imperial Palace, called Trullus, that is, the Cupola, declare, that they had been falsified, in several Places, by the Heretics. Photius thinks that, with respect to the Style, they fall short of the Recognitions, but far excel them in the Purity of the Doctrine, adding, at the same time, that it is no easy Task to clear them from the Imputation of Arianism^[146]. Dr. Pearson takes them to be a Collection of several Pieces, published in the earliest Times, under the Name of the Apostles, and containing, as was pretended, the Instructions they had given^[147]. Albaspinæus, Bishop of Orange, thinks the Matter they contain excellent, and the Whole agreeable to the Discipline observed by the Greek Church, during the Four first Centuries; bur nevertheless he looks upon them only as a Collection of the different Customs, that were established, by degrees, in the Church, and some of which were disputed even in the Fourth Century^[148]; so 20that they can by no means be ascribed either to the Apostles, or to Clement. |The Canons of the Apostles.| The Constitutions end with 85 Canons, long known by the Title of The Canons of the Apostles; but, as they contain several things that were not received in the Apostles Time, nor in Clement’s, the ablest Critics are of Opinion, that they likewise are but a Collection of several Decrees made in the first Ages of the Church, and that they were not collected into one Body till the Third Century^[149]. I don’t find them quoted before the Council of Constantinople in 394. The Greeks, in the Council of the Year 692. mentioned above, bound themselves to the Observance of them; but they are all rejected by Pope Gelasius: however, Dionysius Exiguus having, not long after, placed the first Fifty at the Head of his Collection, they were received by degrees; but the other Thirty-five have not been admitted to this Day.

Upon the Whole, of the many Writings ascribed to Clement, the first Letter to the Corinthians is the only one undoubtedly his: and what a wide Difference appears, as to the Spirit and Style, between that excellent Piece, and the Briefs, Bulls, Mandates, &c. of his Successors: He does not command, but exhorts; he does not threaten, but intreats; he does not thunder Anathema’s and Excommunications, but employs the most mild and gentle Persuasives, even with the Authors of the Schism. |Clement’s Infal- libility unknown to him, and to the Corinthians.| Had he known himself to be the infallible and unerring Judge of Controversies, from whose Tribunal lay no Appeal; had the Corinthians believed themselves bound, on Pain of Damnation, to submit to his Decisions; there had been no Room for Reasons, Arguments, and Persuasives; he ought to have exerted the Power, with which he was vested, and put an End to all Disputes, in the peremptory Style of his Successors, We declare, and command all Men to comply with this our Declaration, on pain of incurring the Indignation of the Almighty; and, as if that were not enough, of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. But it was not till some Ages after, that the Popes found out their Infallibility, or rather their flattering Divines found it out for them; so that this invaluable Privilege lying dormant, Men were obliged, for a long time, to make use of their Reason, in deciding religious Controversies.

21

Trajan EVARISTUS, Fourth Bishop of Rome.

Year of Christ 100.

Clement was succeeded by Evaristus, Evaristes, or Aristus, as he is called in the most antient Catalogue of the Popes^[150], in the Third Year of Trajan’s Reign, that is, in the Close of the First Century of the Christian Æra. |Evaristus governs Nine Years.| He governed about Nine Years, that is, to the Twelfth Year of Trajan, and the 109th of Christ^[151]. Eusebius, in his Chronicle, supposes him to have died in the Year 107^[152]; and, in his History, says, that his Death happened about the Year 109^[153]: but, in the Series and Succession of the Popes, that Writer is every-where consistent with himself in his History, and quite otherwise in his Chronicle. |Several things as- cribed to him, without sufficient Foundation.| Besides, the History ought to correct the Chronicle, as being posterior to it. To Evaristus are ascribed Two Decretals, the Distribution of the Titles or Parishes of Rome, on which Baronius makes a long Descant^[154], and an Order, that Bishops, when they preached, should be always attended by Seven Deacons^[155]. But these, and many other things of the same Nature, we read only in Baronius, Platina, Anastasius, Ciaconius, &c. and my Design is, as I have declared in the Preface, to follow the Antients alone, in the History of the antient Popes; and therefore I shall take no notice of what the Moderns advance, unless I find it supported by the Authority of the original Writers.

Trajan ALEXANDER, Fifth Bishop of Rome. Adrian.

Year of Christ 109.

Sixtus is placed, by Optatus Milevitanus^[156], immediately after Evaristus; but that is certainly a Mistake, owing, in all likelihood, to those who transcribed him, since Irenæus^[157], Eusebius^[158], Epiphanius^[159], and even St. Augustin^[160], who follows Optatus in every thing else relating to the Popes, place Alexander between Evaristus and Sixtus. Irenæus reckons Alexander the Fifth Bishop of Rome; so 22that we agree with the most authentic and unexceptionable Writer of Antiquity in excluding St. Peter, and supposing Cletus and Anacletus to be one and the same Person^[161]. Alexander governed Ten Years, and some Months; and died in the Third Year of Adrian, and 119 of Christ^[162]. |Alexander not a Martyr.| We can learn nothing of the Antients concerning him: he is worshiped indeed by the Church of Rome as a Martyr; but that Title is not given him by Irenæus: and as for the Venerable Bede, who ranks him among the Martyrs, he was led into that Mistake by The Acts of St. Alexander, which, in the Opinion of Dr. Pearson, were composed in the Seventh Century, but are now universally rejected as fabulous. |The Institution of Holy Water falsly ascribed to him.| Platina ascribes to Pope Alexander the Institution of Holy Water^[163], which Baronius takes very much amiss of him, since he thereby robs the Apostles of an Honour due to them; for by the Apostles, in his Opinion, was first introduced the Use of Holy Water^[164]. But if we trace up this Holy Water to the Fountain-head, we shall find that it arises from an unhallowed Spring, from the Lustral Water of the Pagans; for peace being restored to the Church by Constantine, the Christians began, as a modern Writer well observes^[165], to adopt the Ceremonies of the Gentiles. Several Cities in Italy, France, Germany, Spain, &c. pretend to have Reliques of this Pope, insomuch that, were they all put together, they would form at least twenty intire Bodies^[166].

Adrian. SIXTUS,, Sixth Bishop of Rome.

Year of Christ 119.

The Successor of Alexander is named Sixtus by Optatus^[167], and St. Augustin^[168]; but by Irenæus^[169], Eusebius^[170], Epiphanius^[171], and Jerom^[172], Xystus: which Word has some Signification annexed to it in Greek; whereas Sixtus has none either in Greek or Latin. He presided Ten Years according to Eusebius^[173], but not complete; for he was raised to the See in the Third Year of Adrian, of Christ 119. and died in the Twelfth Year of the same Prince, about the latter End 23of the Year of Christ 128^[174]. He is ranked among the Martyrs in the Canon of the Mass, and in all the Martyrologies: but his immediate Successor is the first to whom that Title is given by Irenæus. |Decretals falsly ascribed to Sixtus.| To Sixtus are ascribed two Decretals, but both forged in latter Ages, as plainly appears from De Marca, from Baluzius, and, above all, from the haughty Title of Universal Bishop, which Sixtus is made to assume in one of them: a Title, as F. Pagi is forced to confess, unknown to the Bishops of the primitive and best Times^[175]. His Reliques. The Title of Universal would be better adapted to the Reliques of this Pope, than to his Episcopacy; for they are dispersed all over the Roman Catholic World: but Baillet himself looks upon them as false, and unworthy of the Worship that is paid to them, not excepting even those that were given by Clement X. to Cardinal De Retz, who caused them to be placed with great Solemnity in the Abbey of St. Michael in Lorrain^[176].

Adrian. TELESPHORUS, Seventh Bishop of Rome. Antonius Pius.

Year of Christ 128.

Sixtus was succeeded by Telesphorus (or, as some style him, Thelesphorus), the Seventh Bishop of the See of Rome^[177]. To him is ascribed, in some Editions of the Chronicle of Eusebius, the Institution of Lent^[178]; but in none of the best Editions Mention is made of such an Institution, and scarce in any Manuscripts^[179]. Baronius endeavours to prove, that this Fast was instituted by the Apostles, and that Telesphorus established it for ever by a Decree; but his Arguments are so weak, that he deserves rather to be pitied than answered. He introduces too early the Bishops of Rome issuing Decrees, and prescribing Laws to the whole Church. |Telesphorus the first Bishop of Rome Martyr.| Telesphorus was the first Bishop of Rome who suffered Death for the Christian Religion, seeing Irenæus distinguishes him with the Title of Martyr^[180], which this Author gives to none of his Predecessors; but, as to the Particulars of his Death, the 24Antients have left us quite in the Dark. He suffered in the Eleventh Year of his Pontificate, the First of Antoninus Pius, and 139 of Christ^[181].

Antoninus Pius. HYGINUS,, Eighth Bishop of Rome.

Year of Christ 139.

Hyginus, the Successor of Telesphorus, governed the Church but Four Years, and those not complete; for, in 142. we find Pius already in that See^[182]. |The Two Heretics, Valentine and Cerdo, come to Rome.| In his Time the two famous Heretics, Valentine and Cerdo, came to Rome; the former from Egypt, and the latter from Syria, to display their new Doctrine in that great Metropolis. Hyginus no doubt opposed them with all the Zeal of a primitive Bishop; but, in spite of his Zeal, they gained a great many Proselytes to their heterodox Opinions^[183]. His Infallibility, had it been then known and believed, would have soon put a Stop to the growing Evil. The Church of Rome honours Hyginus among her Martyrs; but none of the Antients give him that Title. To him is ascribed the Use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism, and the Ceremony of Consecrating Churches; but upon no better Grounds than the Two Decretals are fathered upon him, which are, by all the Learned, rejected as spurious. Hyginus died in the Year 142. the Fourth or Fifth of Antoninus Pius; and is supposed to have been buried near St. Peter^[184].

Antoninus Pius. PIUS, Ninth Bishop of Rome.

Year of Christ 142.

Anicetus is placed next to Hyginus by Optatus^[185], St. Augustin^[186], and Epiphanius^[187]: But who would not, with Eusebius^[188], rather follow Irenæus^[189], and Hegesippus^[190], naming Pius immediately after Hyginus, since the former wrote in the Time of Eleutherius the Second 25Bishop after Anicetus; and the latter lived at Rome in the Time of Anicetus, and continued there till the Pontificate of Eleutherius.

Marcion comes to Rome.

In the Time of Pius, Marcion, a Native of Pontus, and the Son of a Bishop of the holy Catholic Church, says Epiphanius^[191], being excommunicated by his Father for debauching a Virgin, and finding he could by no means prevail upon the venerable Prelate to receive him again into the Church, abandoned his native City, supposed to be Sinope, and fled to Rome. Upon his Arrival there, he applied to the Elders of that Church, intreating them to admit him to their Communion. But those holy Men, who had been taught by the Disciples of the Apostles, instead of complying with his Request, returned him this Answer; |The Power of receiving Appeals disowned by the Church of Rome.| We cannot admit you without Leave from your holy Father; nor can we, as we are all united in the same Faith, and the same Sentiments, undo what our holy Collegue your Father has done.--Thus Epiphanius^[192]. Had Bellarmine lived in those Days, he had taught them another Doctrine, a Doctrine which, however necessary, the Apostles had forgot to deliver to their Disciples; viz. That the See of Rome was raised above all other Sees; that the Appeals of the whole Catholic Church were to be brought to it; that no Appeals were to be made from it; that it was to judge of the whole Church, but be judged by none. Marcion did not apply to Pius, as the Reader must have observed, or at least did not apply to him alone, but to the Elders, who disclaimed all Power of reversing the Sentence of a particular Bishop or Judge. And is not this an evident and incontestable Proof that the Power of receiving Appeals was not known, or thought of, in those Days? And yet, who would believe it? Bellarmine has the Assurance to allege this very Case as an Argument to prove in the Pope a Power of receiving Appeals^[193]. But what would become of this Prerogative, should the Pope return the same Answer to every Appellant?

Pius no Martyr.

Pius governed the Church for the Space of Fifteen Years, and died in 157. the Twentieth of Antoninus^[194]. The Roman Martyrology tells us, that he was martyred in the Persecution of Antoninus Pius; but in that Prince’s Reign there was no Persecution; nor is the Title of Martyr given him by Irenæus. |Writings ascribed to him.| Baronius ascribes to this Pope a Decree, commanding the Festival of Easter to be kept on Sunday, and quotes the Chronicle of Eusebius^[195]. This Decree is indeed mentioned 26in some Editions of that Writer; but Scaliger assures us, that no Mention is made of it in any Manuscript Copy; and therefore he has left it out in his Edition^[196]. As to the Celebration of Easter, it is manifest from Irenæus, that though Pius, as well as his Predecessors Sixtus, Telesphorus and Hyginus, differed from the Bishops of Asia, yet they did not on that Account separate themselves from their Communion^[197]. On this Pope are fathered several spurious Pieces, viz. some Decrees, Two Letters ranked among the Decretals, and Two more written to Justus Bishop of Vienne in Dauphiné. The Decrees, as well as the Decretals, are universally rejected; and yet F. Pagi quotes one of them to prove the real Presence in the Sacrament^[198]. The two Letters to Justus are deemed genuine by Baronius^[199], by Cardinal Bona^[200], and by Blondel in his Treatise of the Sibyls^[201], who nevertheless suspects them elsewhere^[202]. On the other hand, they are absolutely rejected as false by Dr. Pearson^[203], by Cotelerius^[204], and Natalis Alexander^[205], who discover several Expressions in them that were not in Use till some Ages after, and a great many Incoherences. To say with Le Sueur, That they were written originally in Greek, and in latter Times translated into Latin^[206], is but a poor Evasion. As for the Fable of Hermes, the Brother of Pius, who, by the Command of an Angel appearing to him in the Disguise of a Shepherd, is said to have written a Book shewing, that Easter ought to be kept on Sunday, I refer the Reader to Platina, and such-like Writers.

Antoninus, ANICETUS, Tenth Bishop of Rome. M. Aurelius.

Year of Christ 157. St. Polycarp comes to Rome, and re- claims many from the Errors of Marcion.

Pius was succeeded by Anicetus, in whose Time Valentine the Heretic, who came to Rome in the Pontificate of Hyginus, and had gained many Proselytes under Pius, continued sowing his pestilential Errors among the Members of that Church: but many whom he had seduced, were reclaimed by St. Polycarp, formerly the Disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and then Bishop of Smyrna. His declaring to 27them, that the Doctrine taught by the Church was the Doctrine he had learnt of the Apostles, made such an Impression on their Minds, that they abjured the Errors of Valentine, and returned to the Communion of the Faithful^[207]. They preferred the bare Word of Polycarp, who claimed no Infallibility, to the infallible Authority of Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. This is a plain Proof, that the Popes had not yet begun to exert their Infallibility; or, if they had, that it was not acknowleged. What brought St. Polycarp to Rome was the Controversy about the Celebration of Easter, which at this Time began to grow very warm between the Eastern and Western Churches^[208]. All the Churches of the East, and amongst the rest that of Smyrna, kept Easter on the 14th Day of the Moon of the first Month, in Conformity to the Custom of the Jews: on the other hand, Anicetus would neither conform to that Custom himself, nor suffer any under his Jurisdiction to conform to it, obliging them to celebrate that Solemnity on the Sunday next following the 14th of the Moon. That this Dispute might not occasion a Schism in the Church, Polycarp undertook a Journey to Rome, in order to confer with the Bishop of that City, who was the chief Opposer of the Quartodecimans^[209]. |Anicetus and he disagree about the Celebration of Easter, but part without Breach of Charity.| But it happened in this, as it does in most religious Disputes, they parted, each retaining his own Way of thinking; but at the same time, what happens but seldom, without the least Breach of that Charity which is the great and fundamental Law of our holy Religion. In Token whereof they communicated together at the holy Sacrament; nay, Anicetus, out of Respect to St. Polycarp, yielded to him the Eucharist^[210]; that is, gave him Leave to consecrate the Eucharist in his own Church: after which they parted in Peace, though both determined to follow the antient Practice of their respective Churches^[211]. St. Polycarp, though well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Apostles, was a Stranger, it seems, to that of Bellarmine, Baronius, &c. viz. that the whole Catholic Church is bound to conform to the Rites, Ceremonies, and Customs of the Church of Rome.

Hegesippus and St. Justin at Rome.

In the Time of Anicetus, Hegesippus, and the celebrated Martyr St. Justin, came to Rome, upon what Occasion is uncertain. The former continuing there to the Pontificate of Eleutherius, wrote a Book on the Doctrine which in that Church had been conveyed down from the Apostles to Anicetus, and was still observed, says he, in all its 28original Purity^[212]. The latter opposed with great Zeal Marcion, and his Followers, publishing a Book against his pernicious Tenets, and against Heresies in general^[213]. It was at Rome that he had frequent Conferences with Crescens the Cynic, a Man of some Note at that Time; but, according to the Genius of his Sect, proud, surly, conceited, and a declared Enemy to all who professed the Christian Religion, which he painted in the blackest Colours^[214]. The Malice of this Cynic procured in the End for our zealous and learned Apologist what he had long and most ardently wished, the Glory of sealing with his Blood the Truth, which he had so strenuously defended and promoted with his Pen^[215]. He suffered under Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus about the Year 167. towards the End of the Pontificate of Anicetus.

To this Pope are ascribed by Anastasius, Platina, Ciaconius, and other modern Writers, several Ordinances and Decrees; but as they are not mentioned by any of the Antients, we do not think them worthy of our Notice. Anicetus governed the Church, according to Eusebius^[216], Eleven Years, from the Year 157. to the 8th Year of M. Aurelius, that is, to 168. of the Christian Æra. Raban, Florus, and Anastasius, suppose him to have died for the Profession of the Faith; which was, it seems, unknown to Irenæus. |Anicetus not a Martyr.| He was buried, according to some, near St. Peter, in the Vatican, according to others, in the Burying-place of Calixtus^[217]; out of which, though it is uncertain whether he was buried there or no, |His Reliques.| his Head was taken in 1590. and given by Urban VII. to the Jesuits of Munich in Bavaria, where it is yearly, with great Solemnity, exposed to public Adoration on the 17th of April, the Anniversary, as is supposed, of his Death: his Body was taken out of the same Place in 1604. and given by Clement VIII. to the Duke of Altaemps, who caused it to be conveyed to the Chapel of his Palace in Rome, and to be deposited there in a Marble Tomb, formerly the Tomb of the Emperor Alexander; where it is worshiped to this Day.

29

M. Aurelius. SOTER, Eleventh Bishop of Rome.

Year of Christ 168.

Soter, the Successor of Anicetus, is highly commended on account of his extensive Charity towards the Poor of other Churches, but more especially towards those who were condemned for the Confession of their Faith to work in the Mines^[218]. |His Charities to the distressed Christians.| These he is said not only to have relieved in their Distress with generous Gatherings made for that Purpose at Rome, wherein he followed the Example of his Predecessors, but moreover to have sent Letters to them in their afflicted Condition. This we learn from a Letter of Dionysius, then Bishop of Corinth, which was an Answer to a Letter from Soter, and the Church of Rome. Dionysius returns Thanks to the Romans, and their Bishop, for their Generosity to the Poor of Corinth; acquaints Soter that his Letter had been publicly read; adds, that he shall cause it to be read for the future; and closes his Epistle with great Encomiums on the Romans, who had so generously contributed to the Support of the indigent Corinthians^[219]. This laudable Custom did not end with the Second Century of the Church; for Dionysius of Alexandria, writing about the Year 254. to Stephen Bishop of Rome, says, that all Syria and Arabia felt the good Effects of the Generosity of the Romans^[220]. And some Years after, that is, about the Year 260. Pope Dionysius being informed, that the City of Cæsarea in Cappadocia had been ruined by the Wars, and many Christians carried into Captivity, he sent large Sums to ransom them, with a Letter to the Church of Cæsarea, which was still read in St. Basil’s Time^[221]. Eusebius tells us, that this Custom continued till the last Persecution^[222]. How differently the immense Revenues of the See of Rome are employed now, those know who have seen the extravagant Pomp, Luxury, and Parade of that Court. |The Heresy of Montanus broached in his Time.| In the Year 171. the Fourth of Soter, was broached the Heresy of the Montanists, so called from their Ringleader Montanus^[223]. Against these Soter is said, by an anonymous Writer of some Antiquity, to have composed a Book, which was answered, according to the same Writer, by Tertullian, become 30the Defender of that Sect^[224]: but, according to the best Chronologists, Tertullian did not turn Montanist till many Years after the Death of Soter; and, besides, both Soter’s Book, and Tertullian’s Answer to it, were quite unknown to Eusebius, and even to St. Jerom, who took great Delight in reading Tertullian. Soter presided Eight Years, according to Eusebius^[225]; that is, from the Year 168. to 176. or to the Beginning of 177. the 17th Year of the Reign of M. Aurelius. |He did not die a Martyr.| The Title of Martyr is given him by the modern Writers, but not by Irenæus, or any of the Antients. To him are falsly ascribed Two Epistles, which have been placed among the Decretals. Where he was buried is uncertain; but his Body is worshiped, at present, in the Church of St. Sylvester at Rome, and in the Cathedral of Toledo in Spain^[226].

M. Aurelius, ELEUTHERIUS, Twelfth Bishop of Rome. Commodus.

Year of Christ 176.

Eleutherius was Deacon of the Church of Rome in 168. when Hegesippus came to that City^[227]; but Soter, the Successor of Anicetus, being dead, he was chosen to govern the Church in his room^[228]. |The Martyrs of Lions write to Eleutherius.| It is certain, that his Election was known in Gaul before the Death of the Martyrs of Lions, so famous in ecclesiastical History; for the Controversy, which had been raised some Years before in the Churches of Asia, by Montanus and his Followers, concerning the prophetic Spirit, to which they pretended, making at that time a great Noise in the Church, the Martyrs of Lions, desirous to contribute, so far as in them lay, to the public Peace, wrote Letters, from their Prisons, to the Churches of Asia, and likewise to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, declaring their Judgment and Opinion in the Case^[229]: for great Honour was paid, in those Times, to the Martyrs, and their Opinion was always received with Esteem and Veneration. It were much to be wished, that Eusebius had set down their Opinion at Length; but he contents himself only with saying, that it was intirely agreeable to true Piety, and to the orthodox 31Faith^[230]; which, in my Opinion, is enough to make us reject the Notion of Dr. Pearson, who takes it for granted, that they wrote in Favour of those Fanatics, and that for no other Reason but because they are said, by Eusebius, to have written for the Peace of the Church^[231]. Was the admitting of false Prophets, and false Prophecies, giving Peace to the Church? The same Writer adds, that Eleutherius was induced, by the Reverence and Regard he had for the holy Martyrs, to receive the Prophecies of Montanus, and his Two Prophetesses^[232]. |Eleutherius did not approve the Proph- ecies of Montanus.| But herein I must beg Leave to disagree with that learned Writer, and likewise with Dr. Cave^[233]; for it was not, in my Opinion, Eleutherius, but his Successor Victor, who received the Prophecies of Montanus. Tertullian, the only Author who informs us, that the Dreams of that Enthusiast were approved by the Bishop of Rome, does not distinguish that Bishop by his Name; so that he is to be found out only by Reasoning and Chronology. Now, on one hand, we read in Tertullian, that Montanus had been opposed by the Predecessors of the Bishop, who embraced his Opinions^[234]; and, on the other, in Eusebius^[235], that the Heresy of Montanus was first broached in the Year 171. the Eleventh of the Reign of M. Aurelius, and the Fourth of the Pontificate of Soter, the immediate Predecessor of Eleutherius; these Two therefore, and these alone, were the Bishops, who could oppose Montanus; and, since the first Broaching of that Heresy, the only Predecessors of the Bishop who embraced it. Victor, the Successor of Eleutherius, was greatly provoked against the Asiatic Bishops, on account of their refusing to comply with the Custom of the Church of Rome, in the Celebration of Easter; and therefore might, out of Spite to them, approve of the Opinions which they had condemned: for Montanus, and his Followers, had been already condemned, as Eusebius informs us^[236], by several Synods held in Asia Minor. |Councils held without consulting the Bishop of Rome.| No Opinion is now deemed heretical, unless condemned by the Bishop of Rome, who claims that Prerogative as peculiar to himself; but the Synods of Asia, the first mentioned in History, after that of the Apostles at Jerusalem, condemned the Opinions of Montanus, and cut him off from their Communion, without consulting or even acquainting therewith, the Bishop of Rome. But, to return to the Martyrs; some are of Opinion, that they condemned, in their 32Letters, the Tenets of Montanus, and his Followers; but, at the same time, wrote in their Favour, to far as to intreat the Bishops of Asia, and Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, to treat them with Indulgence, and admit them, upon Repentance, to their Communion^[237]. This is but a bare Conjecture, not authorized by any of the Antients; and we don’t find, that the Montanists ever shewed the least Inclination to return to the Communion of the Church.

Florinus and Blastus broach their new Doctrine.

It was in the Pontificate of Eleutherius, that Florinus and Blastus first broached their new Doctrine; which was readily embraced by many at Rome; for they were both Presbyters of that Church^[238]. Florinus was first one of the Emperor’s Officers in Asia, afterwards the Disciple of St. Polycarp, then famous all over that Province; and, lastly, Presbyter of the Church of Rome; but both he and Blastus were degraded on account of their heretical Opinions, and cut off from the Communion of the Faithful^[239]. Against Florinus, Irenæus, then Bishop of Lions, wrote a Letter, intituled, Of Monarchy, or that God is not the Author of Evil^[240]; and another Piece called, De Ogdoede, that is, of the Eight; meaning, perhaps, the Eight Eons, or Persons that composed the chimerical Divinity of the Valentinians; for Florinus fell at last into that Heresy^[241]. Against Blastus, whom Pacian surnames the Greek^[242], Irenæus wrote a Book, intituled, Of Schism^[243]. Ado^[244] and Bede^[245] tell us, that Eleutherius issued a Decree, ordaining Easter to be kept on the Sunday after the 14th of the first Moon; but as no mention is made of such a Decree, by any Writer of those Times, their Authority is of no Weight.

The Conversion of Lucius, a British King.

Lucius, a British King, is said, by Bede, to have written to Pope Eleutherius, intreating him to send a proper Person into Britain, to instruct him in the Mysteries of the Christian Religion; which the Pope readily granted^[246]. But as this is vouched only by Bede, who lived many Ages after him, and by a Pontifical, supposed to have been written about the Middle of the Sixth Century, what Credit the whole History of Lucius may deserve, I leave the Reader to judge. Such a remarkable Event could not have escaped Eusebius, who, speaking of this very Period of Time, tells us, that, at Rome, many Persons, eminent for their Birth and Wealth, embraced the Christian 33Religion, with their whole Families^[247]. A solemn Embassy from a British King, and his Conversion, surely deserved a Place in the History of the Church. |The whole Account fabulous.| He informs us, that, in the Reign of Commodus, and the Pontificate of Eleutherius, the Christian Religion enjoyed a profound Tranquillity all over the World; that it flourished, and attracted, to use his Expression, the Minds of many People^[248]. Had he not here a favourable Opportunity of mentioning our Royal Proselyte, who, in the Reign of Commodus, is supposed to have written to Eleutherius, and by his means to have been converted to the Christian Religion? To what can we ascribe the Silence of such an exact and accurate Writer, concerning an Event which would have greatly recommended both his History, and the Christian Religion? To an invincible Antipathy, says the Jesuit Alford^[249], which he bore to the Name of Britain, and which was so prevalent in him, that he chose rather to suppress the Conversion of Lucius than mention it. But what could thus set Eusebius against Britain? Had he been ever injured by the Britons? Does he not elsewhere mention both them and their Country? This jesuitical, absurd, and groundless Speculation, which must expose the Author of it to the Ridicule of every Reader, I should perhaps have let pass unobserved, had he not in this very Place insulted, beyond the Bounds of common Decency, the Reformers of Religion, for rejecting some idle Ceremonies, which he supposes to have been practised at the Conversion of Lucius. But, not to lay the whole Stress on the Silence of Eusebius, and other antient Writers, to whom King Lucius was utterly unknown, why should he have been at the Trouble of sending to Rome for an Instructor? Were there not many in his own Kingdom as capable of instructing him as any Rome could send? The Christian Religion had been planted in this Island long before the Reign of Lucius, in the Time of the Apostles, as Gildas seems to insinuate^[250], at least very early in the Second Century; for Origen, who flourished in the Beginning of the Third, tells us, that the Virtue of the Name of Jesus had passed the Seas, to find out the Britons in another World^[251].

Several Monkish Fables concerning King Lucius.

The short Account, which Bede gives us of the Embassy and Conversion of King Lucius, has not only been greedily swallowed by the Monkish Writers, who came after him, but has served as a Ground-plot to the innumerable Fables with which they have filled this Part 34of their Histories. They even tell us the Names of the Embassadors sent by Lucius to the Pope, and of the Legates a Latere sent by the Pope to Lucius. The former were Elvanus and Medwinus, who, being ordained Bishops by Eleutherius, returned to Britain, and greatly contributed to the Conversion of this Island. These Fables gained Credit, by Degrees, in those Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, insomuch that the Two Embassadors were at last ranked among the Saints; and their Bodies, where or when found, nobody knows, exposed to public Veneration, in the Monastery of Glassenbury, on the First of January^[252]. The Pope’s Legates were Fugacius and DamianusDamianus, who, as we are told, went back to Rome, to obtain of Eleutherius a Confirmation of what they had done; and, from Rome, returned into Britain, with a Letter from the Pope to King Lucius^[253]. As for the King himself, he is said to have quitted his Kingdom, and, turning Missionary, to have preached the Gospel in Germany, especially at Ausburgh; to have travelled from thence into the Country of the Grisons; and, lastly, to have been ordained Bishop of Coire, their Metropolis; and to have died there a Martyr^[254]. To these Monkish Fables King Lucius owes a Place among the Saints; for on the Third of December is kept, in the Church of Rome, the Festival of Lucius, King of the Britons, who died at Coire in Germany^[255]: these are the Words of the Roman Martyrology; but Bede does not so much as mention him in his; a plain Proof, that what is said of his Preaching, of his Martyrdom, &c. was invented after that Writer’s Time. And yet Alford has not only filled his Annals with these, and suchlike fabulous Accounts, giving an intire Credit to them, but inveighs, with great Acrimony, against those who have not the Gift of Belief in the same Degree with himself, especially against Dempster, telling, him, that till his Time the Conversion of Lucius had never been questioned by any Man of Sense or Learning^[256]. And truly, the Story of King Lucius has been credited even by the greater Part of Protestant Writers, out of Respect to our venerable Historian; but as he wrote many Ages after the pretended Conversion of that Prince, and none of the Writers of those Days, whom such a remarkable Event could hardly have escaped, give us the least Hint of it, we may be well allowed to question the Whole, notwithstanding the Authority 35of Bede, which can be of no Weight with respect to Transactions that are said to have happened in Times so remote.

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

Commodus, Pertinax, VICTOR, Thirteenth Bishop of Rome. Severus.

Year of Christ 192.

Victor, the Successor of Eleutherius, is counted by a Writer, who at this very time lived in Rome, the Thirteenth Bishop of that City^[261]: so that neither is St. Peter reckoned among them, nor is Cletus distinguished from Anacletus. |The Heresy of Theodotus.| In Victor’s Time a new Heresy was broached at Rome by one Theodotus of Byzantium, denying the Divinity of Christ^[262]. The Theodotians gave out, that Victor favoured their Doctrine^[263]; which he did, perhaps, at that Time^[264]; though he cut them off afterwards from his Communion. |Victor approves the prophetic Spirit of Montanus.| Be that as it will, he can by no means be cleared from another Imputation, namely, that of owning and approving the prophetic Spirit of Montanus, and his Two Prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla: for Tertullian, 36his Contemporary, tells us, in express Terms, that he received their Prophecies; that, upon receiving them, he gave Letters of Peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia; but that one Praxeas, just come from those Parts, giving him a false Account of those Prophets, and their Churches, and remonstrating, that by approving them, he condemned his Predecessors, prevailed upon him to revoke the Letters, which he had already written in their Behalf. |His Infallibility, how defended by Baronius and Bellarmine.| Thus Tertullian, who was then himself become a Follower of Montanus^[265]. Here Baronius and Bellarmine, the Two great Advocates for the Pope’s Infallibility, are put to a Stand: they own, and cannot help owning, that the Pope was deceived, and imposed upon; but, for all that, will not give up his Infallibility. How great is the Power of Prejudice and Prepossession! They find the Pope actually erring, and yet maintain, that he cannot err. But this Apostacy from common Sense, if I may be allowed the Expression, is not, perhaps, so much owing to Prejudice, as to something worse; for no Prejudice, however prevalent, can withstand the indisputable Evidence of plain Matters of Fact. It is no new thing, says Baronius, nor what ought to cause in us the least Surprize, that a Pope should be over-reached by Impostors^[266]. A Pope over-reached in Matters of Faith! What then becomes of Infallibility? or what is the Use of it? But the Montanists, says Bellarmine^[267], craftily concealed from the Pope what was erroneous and heretical in their Prophecies; so that he, discovering nothing in their Doctrine repugnant to that of the Church, believed they had been unjustly accused to, and condemned by, his Predecessors. But, in the first Place, Tertullian tells us, in express Terms, that the Prophecies of Montanus, and his Followers, were approved by the Pope; whereas the Prophecies, which he is supposed by Bellarmine to have approved, were not the Prophecies of Montanus, but others, quite different, and in every respect orthodox. In the second Place, if Victor believed, that the Montanists had been unjustly condemned by his Predecessors, he did not believe them infallible; so that, in every Light, this Fact oversets the pretended Infallibility. We may add, that, if the Pope’s Infallibility depends upon a right Information, and neither he nor we can know whether he has been rightly informed, his Infallibility is thereby rendered quite useless; since, in every particular Case, we may 37doubt, 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 of Easter.

But what most of all distinguished the Pontificate of Victor was, the famous Controversy about the Celebration of Easter, between the Eastern and Western Bishops; the former keeping that Solemnity on the 14th Day of the first Moon, on what Day soever of the Week it happened to fall; and the latter putting it off till the Sunday following. This, surely, could not be a Point of any Consequence, since the Apostles had not thought fit to settle any thing concerning it; nay, by observing the Paschal Solemnity themselves, some on the one Day, and some on the other, as it is manifest they did^[268]; they plainly declared, that it was quite indifferent on what Day it was observed. Accordingly, from the Apostles Time to Victor’s, each Church had followed the Custom and Practice established by their respective Founders, without giving the least Disturbance to others, or being, on that Account, disturbed by them^[269]. Pope Anicetus even suffered such of the Asiatics as happened to be at Rome, to celebrate Easter after the manner of Asia^[270]: Soter, indeed; and his Successor Eleutherius, obliged those who lived at Rome to conform to the Custom of that Church; but that did not prevent their sending the Eucharist, or Sacrament, to the Bishops who followed the opposite Practice^[271]; for a Custom then obtained among Bishops to send the Eucharist to each other, especially at Easter, in Token of Communion and Peace; but this Custom was suppressed by the 14th Canon of the Council held in the Fourth Century at Laodicea^[272]. |Victor’s haughty Conduct.| Victor, not satisfied with what his Two immediate Predecessors had done, took upon him to impose the Roman Custom on all the Churches that followed the contrary Practice. |Is opposed by the Bishop of Ephesus,| But, in this bold Attempt, which we may call the first Essay of Papal Usurpation, he met with a vigorous and truly Christian Opposition from Polycrates, at that Time Bishop of Ephesus, and one of the most eminent Men in the Church, both for Piety and Learning. He had studied, says Eusebius^[273], the Scriptures with great Attention, had conferred with Christians from all Parts of the World, and had ever conformed his Life to the Rules of the Gospel. Jerom speaks of him as a Man of excellent Parts, and one universally respected^[274]. In the present Controversy, he peremptorily refused 38to relinquish the Practice of his own Church, which had been first introduced by the Apostles St. John and St. Philip, and had been handed down to him by Seven Bishops of his own Family^[275]. Hereupon Victor, impatient of Contradiction, wrote a Letter, threatening to cut him off from his Communion, unless he forthwith complied with the Practice of the Church of Rome^[276]. |and by a Council of all the Bishops of Asia minor.| Polycrates, greatly surprised at the hasty Proceedings of his Fellow Bishop, assembled in Ephesus a Council of all the Bishops of Asia minor, when it was unanimously resolved, that the Practice, which they had received from their Predecessors, ought not to be changed^[277]. AgreeablyAgreeably to this Resolution, Polycrates writ to Victor, acquainting him therewith; and, at the same time, modestly insinuating, that, as to his Menaces, he had better forbear them, since they had no manner of Effect upon him, or his Brethren^[278]. |He cuts them off from his Communion.| Upon the Receipt of this Letter Victor, giving the Reins to an impotent and ungovernable Passion, published bitter invectives against all the Churches of Asia, declared them cut off from his Communion, sent Letters of Excommunication to their respective Bishops; and, at the same time, in order to have them cut off from the Communion of the whole Church, writ to the other Bishops, exhorting them to follow his Example, and forbear communicating with their refractory Brethren of Asia^[279]. They all complied, to be sure, with the Desire of the Head of the Church, who had Power to command; but, out of his great Moderation, chose to exhort and advise! |No Regard had to his Excommunication.| No; not one followed his Example, or Advice; not one paid any sort of Regard to his Letters, or shewed the least Inclination to second him in such a rash and uncharitable Attempt; but, on the contrary, they all joined, as Eusebius assures us^[280], in sharply censuring and rebuking him, as a Disturber of the Peace of the Church. |He is censured by Irenæus.| Among the rest Irenæus, then Bishop of Lions, writ him an excellent Letter, putting him in mind of the Moderation of his Predecessors, and telling him, that though he agreed with him in the Main of the Controversy, yet he could not approve of his cutting off whole Churches, for the Observance of Customs, which they had received from their Ancestors. He writ, at the same time, to many other Bishops^[281], no doubt, to dissuade them from joining the Bishop of Rome. However that be, it is certain, that, by this means, the 39Storm was laid, a Calm was restored to the Church, and the Asiatics allowed to follow undisturbed their antient Practice^[282]. But Pope Victor, says Baronius^[283], excommunicated the Asiatics, which he would never have ventured to do, had he not known, that he had Power and Jurisdiction over them. |Had no Power over the Asiatics.| The Argument may be thus retorted against him: The Asiatics made no Account of his Excommunication; which they would not have ventured to do, had they not known, that he had no Power nor Jurisdiction over them. Besides, Victor did not excommunicate them, as that Word is now understood; that is, he did not cut them off from the Communion of the Catholic Church; for all the other Bishops continued to communicate with them, as they had done before; he only separated himself from their Communion; which was no more than every Bishop had Power to do. Victor being thus baffled in his Attempt, his Successors took care not to revive the Controversy; so that the Asiatics peaceably followed their antient Practice till the Council of Nice, which, out of Complaisance to Constantine the Great, ordered the Solemnity of Easter to be kept every-where on the same Day, after the Custom of Rome^[284].

This Dispute happened, not in the Reign of Commodus, as we read in the Synodicon^[285], but in the Fourth Year of the Reign of Severus, as St. Jerom informs us^[286], of Christ 196. |Victor dies.| Victor, of whom we find nothing else in the Antients worthy of Notice, died Five Years after^[287], that is, in the Ninth of the Emperor Severus, and in the End of 201. or the Beginning of 202. of Christ, having governed the Church Ten Years. He is named, by St. Jerom, the first among the Ecclesiastical Authors that wrote in Latin^[288]. |His Works.| He published a Piece, on the Controversy about the Celebration of Easter, and some other Books on religious Subjects, which were still extant in St. Jerom’s Time^[289]. |Pieces falsly ascribed to him.| As for the Two Decretals that are ascribed to him, and the Two Letters to Desiderius and Paracoda, both Bishops of Vienne, they are universally rejected^[290]. |He is sainted.| The Church of Rome has placed Victor among her Saints; and truly, his Attempt, however unsuccessful, to promote the Power and extend the Jurisdiction of that See, deserved no less a Reward.

40

Severus, Caracalla, Geta, ZEPHYRINUS, Fourteenth Bishop of Rome. Macrinus, Diadumenus, Heliogabalus.

Year of Christ 201. A dreadful Per- secution against the Christians.

In the first Year of the Pontificate of Zephyrinus, who succeeded Victor, a dreadful Persecution was raised against the Christians by the Emperor Severus, 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. |Zephyrinus opposes the Theodotian Heretics.| But her domestic Enemies gave her no Respite; the Theodotian Heretics continued sowing, and not without Success, their pestilential Errors at Rome. Zephyrinus, it seems, opposed them with great Vigour and Zeal; for they reproached him, as we read in Eusebius^[291], as the first who had betrayed the Truth, by maintaining against them the Divinity of Christ: hence he is ranked, by Optatus, with Tertullian, Victorinus, &c. among those who have successfully defended the Catholic Church^[292]. Baronius, to extol Zephyrinus, ascribes to him the first Condemnation of Praxeas^[293], which was followed by a solemn Retractation under his own Hand. But it was in Africa, and not at Rome, that Praxeas was condemned, as appeared plain to me, from the Words of Tertullian^[294], before I had seen either Pamelius or Moreau, who understood them in that Sense. Praxeas, as we have observed above, had done an eminent Piece of Service to the Church of Rome, by reclaiming Pope Victor from the Heresy of Montanus: but the Good he had done on that Occasion was over-balanced by the Mischief his new Heresy occasioned both at Rome and in Africa; for in both Places he gained many Proselytes. |The Heresy of Praxeas.| 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 called Patropassians^[295].

Origen at Rome.

In the Pontificate of Zephyrinus, and, as Eusebius seems to insinuate, in the Beginning of the Reign of Caracalla, that is, towards the Year 211 or 212. came to Rome the celebrated Origen, being 41desirous, as he himself declared, to see that Church, so venerable for its Antiquity and Renown; but, after a very short Stay there, he returned to Alexandria^[296]. |Famous Dispute, at Rome, between Caius and Proclus.| About the same time happened, at Rome, the famous Dispute between Caius, a Presbyter of that Church and Proclus, a leading Man among the Montanists^[297]. Caius committed to Writing the Reasons and Arguments on both Sides^[298]: but that Piece has not reached our Times, though it was well known to Eusebius, who styles it a Dialogue^[299] and likewise to Theodoret^[300].

Tertullian falls off from the Church.

It was during the Pontificate of Zephyrinus that Tertullian, 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 the Roman Clergy^[301]. |The Titles of High Pontiff, &c. whether, and in what Sense, given by Tertullian to the Bishop of Rome.| 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. As Tertullian was 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 Book De 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 it a peremptory Decree, and styles the Bishop, who made it, high Pontiff, and Bishop of Bishops^[302]. Hence the Advocates for the See of Rome infer, that, even in those early Times, such Titles were given to the Bishop of Rome, 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 of Rome, or by some other great Bishop, perhaps of Carthage, of Alexandria, or Antioch; for no Bishop is named by Tertullian. In the second Place, it is evident from the Context, that, in the above-mentioned Passage, Tertullian 42speaks 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 of Rome, triumph in this Passage of Tertullian; 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 of Rome; that those Titles, which raise him above other Bishops, were Part of the Decree; and lastly, that Tertullian mentioned them as due to him, and not by way of Sarcasm, ironically reflecting on his Pride and Ambition.

As to the Actions of Zephyrinus, the Antients have left us quite in the Dark; and we cannot depend on what we read in the modern Writers. |Zephyrinus not a Martyr.| He governed about Seventeen Years, and died in the first Year of Heliogabalus, and 218. of the Christian Æra^[304]. In the Roman Martyrology he has a Place among the Martyrs, which puts Baronius himself to a Stand^[305], since the Church enjoyed a profound Tranquillity from the Death of Severus to the End of his Pontificate.

Heliogabalus, CALLISTUS, Fifteenth Bishop of Rome. Alexander Severus.

Year of Christ 219.

Zephyrinus was succeeded by Callistus, or Callixtus, as he is styled by Optatus^[306], and St. Austin^[307]. In his Time the Church enjoyed a long, happy, and uninterrupted Peace, as Tertullian calls it^[308], which lasted from the Death of Severus in 211. to the Reign of Maximinus in 235. as did also the State from the Death of Macrinus in 218. to the Year 233. |The Emperor Alex- ander favourable to the Christians.| Alexander, who succeeded Heliogabalus in 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 they 43had 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 Ground Baronius supposes Callistus to have built a Church in Honour of the Virgin Mary, known at present by the Name of Santa Maria in Trastevere, that is, Saint Mary beyond the Tyber^[311]. But the Pontifical of Damasus, upon which alone he sounds his Opinion, deserves no Credit, as I shall shew in the Life of that Pope. Callistus is said by Anastasius^[312] to have inclosed a large Piece of Ground on the Appian Way, 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 by Arringhus, who tells us, that 174,000 Martyrs, and 46 Popes, were buried in it^[313]. Though Alexander was 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 of Callistus, to which Bede gave an intire Credit^[314], as the most barbarous and inhuman Tyrant that ever shed Christian Blood. |The Acts of Callistus deserve 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 of Rome, upon the bare Authority of such Acts. |Many Saints out to be expunged out of the Catalogue.| Among these are the Consul Palmatius, with his Wife, his Children, and Forty-two of his Domestics; the Senator Simplicius, 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 Emperor Alexander’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 to Ulpian the celebrated Civilian, who flourished under him^[315]. But in those Acts the Martyrs are said to have suffered unheard of Torments, there minutely described, 44by the express Command of the Emperor Alexander. Besides, could Alexander be 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 charged Ulpian with all the Cruelties against the Christians, supposes elsewhere^[316] several Martyrs to have suffered in the Reign of Alexander, after the Death of Ulpian. 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 of Macrinus and Alexander--How come these two Princes to be joined together? Macrinus reigned with his Son Diadumenus, and Heliogabalus between them and Alexander. Soon after the Consul Palmatius is said to have been condemned without any Form of Judgment, without so much as being heard; whereas Herodian assures us, that Alexander was 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 Emperor Alexander’s Orders, and at last thrown headlong out of the Window into a Well. |Callistus not a Martyr.| The Acts are evidently fabulous, but Callistus nevertheless is worshiped among the Martyrs; and the Waters of the Well, which is to be seen at Rome in 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 Emperor Alexander. His Body is exposed to public Adoration on the Tenth of May, in the Church of St. Mary, beyond the Tyber, at Rome^[319] and in that of our Lady at Rheims^[320]. Two Decretals are ascribed to Callistus, and likewise the Institution of the Ember-Weeks, but without the lean Foundation.