Dionysius, afterwards Pope, and Philemon, both then Presbyters of
the Church of Rome, acquainted, no doubt, by Stephen’s Direction,
the great Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, with what had passed,
hoping to gain him over to their Party, and extort from him an Approbation
of Stephen’s Conduct: but that illustrious Prelate, foreseeing,
and well weighing, the evil Consequences that might attend it,
declared his Sentiments with all the Freedom and Zeal that became
a Man of his Rank in the Church. He told them plainly, that the
condemning a Practice, which had been established by so many Councils,
was what he could by no means approve of; that an Affair of
such Consequence required long and mature Deliberation; and that
the deciding it over-hastily might raise eternal Disputes, and end at
last in a Schism: he therefore begged Stephen, in a Letter, which he
writ to him on this Occasion, that he would, upon Reflection, alter
his Conduct; and in an Affair upon which so much depended, take
different Measures from those which he had hitherto pursued[448]. As
Stephen wrote to Dionysius, so did St. Cyprian to Firmilian, giving
him a particular and candid Account both of Stephen’s Conduct and
his own. Firmilian was Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and one
of the most eminent Prelates at that Time in the Church both for Piety
and Learning: he had a singular Veneration for St. Cyprian, maintained
with great Zeal the same Cause, and consequently had been
equally ill used and excommunicated by Stephen. He therefore
received with extraordinary Joy the Letter, which St. Cyprian sent him
by Rogatian one of his Deacons, often read it with great Satisfaction[449],
and answered it with a long Letter[450], which is still extant, though
St. Cyprian’s to him has been lost long since. |and severely censured
by Firmilian.| In this Letter Firmilian,
amazed and provoked at Stephen’s unaccountable Conduct, expresses
his Detestation of it in sharper Terms than the Laws of Charity can
well allow; for, not content to charge him with sacrificing the Peace
of the Church to a petulant Humour, he compares him to Judas, and
stigmatizes him with the Epithets of inhuman, audacious, insolent,
wicked, impious Schismatic; for he is a true Schismatic, says Firmilian,
who departs from the Unity of the Church, which thou hast
done, O Stephen; for, by attempting to separate others from thee,
thou hast separated thyself from all other Churches. How much Sin
hast thou heaped upon thyself by cutting thyself off from so many
Flocks[451]! Firmilian’s Letter was translated into Latin by St. Cyprian
himself, as is manifest from the Style. It was unknown, it seems, to
St. Austin; for he never quotes it, nor, in confuting the Opinion of
Sr. Cyprian, takes any notice of some Reasons alleged in that Letter
to support it.
There was no Hope of seeing an End put to this Dispute, so long as Stephen lived; but he dying, his Successor, who was a Man of a quite different Temper, laid the Storm, which his furious and ungovernable Passion had raised. He died on the 2d of August 257. according to the most probable Opinion[452]. The Church of Rome, upon the Authority of his Acts, ranks him among the Martyrs; but that Honour is not paid him either by St. Austin, or by Vincentius Lirinensis, who, naming him together with St. Cyprian, as they often do, give constantly the Title of Martyr to the latter, and never to the former. |His Acts fabulous.| As for his Acts, they flatly contradict, in several Points, the most unexceptionable Writers among the Antients[453], and therefore by no means deserve the Credit which Baronius would have us give them[454]. Even Anastasius seems to have made no Account of them, if in his Time they were yet composed, which may be questioned; for the Account he gives us of Stephen’s Death differs widely from that which we read in those Acts[455]. But he had made a bold Attempt towards extending the Power and Authority of the See of Rome, and therefore was to be placed among the Saints for the Encouragement of others. To say he had merited that Honour by his Virtues, either as a Christian or a Bishop, had been carrying the Imposture too far: the only Means therefore left of making him a Saint, was to make him a Martyr, that, by his glorious Death, he might be thought to have deserved what it was manifest from the Records of those Times he had not deserved by his Christian Life. Hence Acts were forged, setting forth his heroic Confession of the Faith before the Emperor, his Sufferings on that Account, the stupendous Miracles he wrought, &c. which, however incredible, might, in Process of Time, by their Antiquity alone, gain Credit with the greater Part of Mankind. |His Reliques.| Stephen was buried in the Cœmetery of Callistus[456]; whence his Body was translated about the Year 762. by Paul I. to a Monastery of Greek Monks, which that Pope had built in Rome, as we read in Anastasius[457]. How it got from thence to Trani in Apulia nobody knows; but from that City it was conveyed with great Pomp in 1682. to Pisa in Tuscany, where it is still worshiped in a Church bearing the pretended Saint’s Name[458]. According to the most probable Opinion, Stephen governed Four Years, and about Six Months.
| Valerian, | SIXTUS II. Twenty-third Bishop of Rome. |
Gallienus. |
Stephen being dead, Sixtus or Xystus II. a Deacon of the
Church of Rome, was chosen to succeed him. As the late Dispute
was not yet ended, Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria no sooner heard
of his Promotion, than he began to press him with great Earnestness to
relinquish the wild Pretensions of his Predecessor, and concur with
the other Bishops in restoring Peace and Tranquillity to the Church[459].
He writ Three Letters to him on the same Subject, whereof the
last was from Dionysius and the whole Church of Alexandria, to
Sixtus and the whole Church of Rome[460]. He writ likewise to Dionysius
and Philemon, two Presbyters of the Church of Rome, whom
we have mentioned above, and who upon Stephen’s Death seem to
have abandoned his Party; for Dionysius of Alexandria, in his first
Letter to Sixtus, writes, That these two Presbyters had been formerly
of Stephen’s Opinion[461], a plain Indication that they were not then.
The Bishop of Alexandria had at last the Satisfaction to see his pious
Endeavours crowned with Success; for we find no farther Mention
of this Dispute till it was revived by the Donatists. |Peace restored to
the Church by his
means.| In what
manner it ended, we are no-where told; but it is manifest from the
Writers of those Times, that the African and Asiatic Bishops continued
the same Practice of baptizing Heretics, till it was condemned
by the two great Councils, of Arles in 314. and of Nice in 325[462].
Whence we may well conclude, that the Terms proposed at the Beginning
of the Dispute by Dionysius and St. Cyprian were agreed to
by Sixtus, viz. That no Restraint should be laid on the Bishops of
either Side, but that every one should be allowed to follow undisturbed
which of the two Opinions he thought most agreeable to the Scripture
and to Reason. This was allowing the Bishops to consult the
Scriptures, and make use of their own Reason, in a Point already
judged and decided by the Bishop of Rome. But the Successors of
Sixtus have not been so complaisant; for they pretend, that a blind
Faith ought to be yielded to all their Decisions as infallibly true, a
blind Obedience to all their Decrees as unquestionably holy.
But now the Persecution, which had begun some Months before the
Decease of Stephen, raged with more Violence than ever: |Valerian persecutes
the Church.| For Valerian
having, at the Instigation of an Egyptian Magician, changed the
Kindness he once had for the Christians into an implacable Hatred, he
ordered, by a Rescript to the Senate, all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,
to be carefully sought for, and executed without Mercy[463]. |Sixtus martyred.| Pursuant
to this Order, Sixtus, who among the first fell into the Hands of the
Persecutors, was immediately either beheaded, as we read in the Pontifical
of Bucherius[464], or crucified, as we are told by Prudentius[465];
having held the Chair only Eleven Months, and some Days. Pontius,
a Deacon of the Church of Carthage, styles him a good and pacific
Prelate[466], no doubt on account of his Conduct quite opposite to that
of his ambitious and quarrelsome Predecessor[N8].
N8. Ruffinus published, under the Name of Sixtus Bishop of Rome, the Book of a Pythagorean Philosopher, named Sixtus. St. Jerom reproaches him in two Places with that Imposture, as he styles it, supposing him to have known the Work, which he ascribed to Pope Sixtus, not to be his[1]. St. Austin was imposed upon among the rest; for, in his Treatise of Nature and Grace, he quotes that Book as the Work of Pope Sixtus; but he afterwards owned and corrected his Mistake[2]. It was ranked by Pope Gelasius among the Books of Heretics; so that he supposed it to have been written by a Christian, which was more than he could know, there not being a single Word in it whence we can argue the Author to have believed in, or to have had any Knowlege of Christ: and it is on this Consideration that it has been thought unworthy of a Bishop of those times.
1. Ep. ad Ctesiph. contr. Pelag. c. 22. & in cap. 18. Ezech.
2. Aug. l. 2. retract. c. 42.
| Gallienus, | DIONYSIUS, Twenty-fourth Bishop of Rome. |
Claudius II. |
Sixtus being dead, and the Christians prevented by the Persecution
from assembling to chuse another in his room, the See remained
vacant almost a whole Year, that is, from the 6th of August 258. to
the 22d of July 259. when Dionysius, a Presbyter of the Church of
Rome, whom we have mentioned above, was elected, to the great
Satisfaction of the Faithful; for he was one of the most eminent Men
of his Time both for Piety and Learning[467]. During his Pontificate,
the Goths broke into the Empire, over-ran all Asia Minor, and, having
almost utterly destroyed the City of Cæsarea, they carried with them
into Captivity most of its Christian Inhabitants. Firmilian was then
Bishop of the Place, who had censured the Conduct of Stephen with
so much Sharpness and Acrimony; |Dionysius’s Charity to
the distressed Chris-
tians of Cæsarea.| but the Remembrance of what
had passed on that unhappy Occasion had not that Effect on Dionysius,
which far less Provocations have had on many of his Successors; for
he no sooner heard of the Distress that Church was in, than, laying
hold of so favourable an Opportunity to exert his Charity, he writ a
Letter to comfort them in their Calamity, and at the same time
dispatched proper Persons with large Collections to ransom the Christians
who had fallen into the Hands of the Barbarians[468]. The Letter,
which Dionysius wrote on this Occasion, was carefully kept in the
Archives of the Church of Cæsarea, as an authentic Monument of
his Goodness and Charity[469]. The great Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria
having, at this Time, composed a learned Treatise to prove
against Sabellius the Distinction of the Divine Persons, some over-zealous
Catholics, misconstruing several Passages in that Work, and
concluding that he had run into the opposite Error, accused him to
the Bishop of Rome, as if he denied the Son to be consubstantial with
the Father[470]. |Dionysius of Alex-
andria, accused at
Rome over him.| Hereupon the Bishop of Rome, having assembled a
Council, acquainted Dionysius with the Sentiments of the other
Bishops, and his own, expressing his Concern, that the Divinity of
the Word should have been questioned by him, and at the same time
desiring him to answer the Accusation[471]. This Dionysius readily did
in Four Books, which he styled Confutation and Apology; shewing
therein that his Opinion was very different from what it had been represented
at Rome, and explaining those Passages which had given Ground
for the Accusation. This Work he addressed to the Bishop of Rome[472].
Here Baronius exults. Behold, says he, one of the most eminent
Prelates of the Church, upon Suspicion of Heresy, arraigned at Rome,
judged at Rome. |That argues no
Jurisdiction in the
Bishop of Rome.| Who does not see a supreme Tribunal erected there,
to which all Causes must be brought; a sovereign Judge residing there,
by whom all Persons must be absolved or condemned; is either blind
and cannot see, or shuts his Eyes and will not see[473]. And does not
the sharp-sighted Annalist himself see what every one the least conversant
in Ecclesiastical History must see, if he is not either blind and
cannot, or shuts his Eyes and will not see, viz. Bishops, when guilty,
or only suspected of Heresy, accused to some of their Collegues,
who neither had nor claimed any Jurisdiction over them? Thus was
the famous Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, at this very Time,
accused by his whole Church, first to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria,
and soon after to Firmilian Bishop of Cæsarea[474]. That such an Accusation
argued any Jurisdiction in those Bishops over the Bishop of
Antioch, is what Baronius himself dares not affirm; and yet a like
Accusation brought to Rome is enough for him to transform that See
into a supreme Tribunal; that Bishop, though far from such ambitious
Thoughts, into a sovereign Judge. But the Bishop of Rome, says
Baronius, required of Dionysius a Confession or Declaration of his
Faith: And does not that argue Superiority and Jurisdiction? Baronius
himself knew it does not: for it is impossible he should not know,
that when a Bishop was suspected of Heresy, all his Collegues had a
Right to require of him Confession of his Faith, and not to communicate
with him till they had received it.
In the Time of Dionysius was held the famous Council of Antioch,
which condemned and deposed Paul Bishop of that City, who denied
the Distinction of the Divine Persons, and the Divinity of Christ.
Of the Deposition of Paul, and the Election of Damnus, who was
placed in his room, Notice was immediately given to the whole
Church, by a Synodal Letter addressed to Dionysius Bishop of Rome,
and to Maximus, who had succeeded the great Dionysius in the See
of Alexandria[475]. And here it will not be foreign to my Purpose to
observe, that the Bishop of Antioch was summoned to appear before
the Council, and not at the supreme Tribunal erected by Baronius at
Rome; |without the Consent
or Knowlege of the
Bishop of Rome.| that he was condemned and deposed without the consent or
Concurrence, nay, and without the Knowlege of the sovereign Judge
residing at Rome; that he did not appeal to him, which he certainly
would have done, as he was a Man of unparalleled Impudence and
Ambition, had such a Custom obtained in those Days; and lastly, that
the Fathers of the Council writ to the Bishop of Rome in the same
Manner as they did to other Bishops, letting him know, that for the
future he was to communicate with Damnus, and not with Paul. All
this is manifest from the Account which St. Basil gives us of that
Council[476]. And yet Baronius brings in that Father, even on this Occasion,
as an Evidence for the Papal Supremacy[N9].
N9. For by wrong pointing a Passage in the Latin Translation of that Author, he makes him contradict himself, and ascribe the deposing of Paul to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and the Great Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, though the latter was dead before Paul was deposed, as is evident from the Letter which was written by the Council on that Occasion, and is addressed to Maximus the Successor of Dionysius in the See of Alexandria[1]. The Passage runs thus; Duo enim Dionysii diu ante eos septuaginta fuere, qui Samosatensem sustulere, quorum alter Romæ, alter Alexandriæ Præsul erat[2]. The Meaning of St. Basil is, that the two Dionysius’s flourished before the Council of Antioch, which consisted of Seventy Bishops, and deposed Paul of Samosata; that is, before the Second Council that was assembled against him; for another had been convened in the same City about eight Years before to depose him; but upon his pretending to renounce his Errors, the Sentence had been suspended. The above-quoted Passage Baronius stops thus; Duo enim Dionysii diu ante eos septuaginta fuere; qui Samosatensem deposuere, &c. so that the Relative qui refers, according to this Method of Pointing, to the Two Dionysius’s, and not to the Seventy Bishops: as if St. Basil had said, The Two Dionysius’s, who deposed Paul of Samosata, flourished before the Council of Antioch, which was composed of Seventy Bishops[3]. So that Paul must be twice deposed, St. Basil must contradict himself, all the Writers of those Times must be arraigned as guilty of an unpardonable Omission, lest the Bishop of Rome should appear to have been, what he really was, an idle Spectator of a Transaction so famous in the History of the Church. A Writer of any Honour or Honesty had rather give up a Cause, than expose himself thus by attempting to defend it.
3. Bar. ad ann. 265. n. 10.
From St. Basil, Baronius runs to the Emperor Aurelian, begging
of a Pagan Prince what he could not extort from a Catholic Bishop,
a Declaration and Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy. |Paul keeps Possession
of the Bishop’s
Habitation.| The
Reader must know, that Paul having kept, by Force, Possession of the
Bishop’s Habitation in Defiance of the Council, the Catholic Bishops
had recourse to the Emperor, who, after hearing both Parties with
great Attention, adjudged the House to him, who should be acknowleged
by the Bishop of Rome, and the other Bishops of Italy[477]. This
Baronius interprets as an open Acknowlegement of the Pope’s Supremacy;
and that his Readers may not overlook it, as most of them
would be apt to do, he takes care to bespeak their Attention, by
marking it in the Margin with the following Words in Capitals, The
Emperor Aurelian acknowleges the Supremacy of the Church of
Rome[478]. From this one would expect to find Aurelian not only
turned Christian, but prostrate at his Holiness’s Feet, and bowing
down to kiss them: but our Annalist, to the great Disappointment of
his Readers, after having thus raised their Attention, only repeats out
of Eusebius the Sentence pronounced by the Emperor, which he
would have us suppose with him to have been owing to the Knowlege
that Prince had of the Pope’s Supremacy. |The Emperor’s Sen-
tence whether favour-
able to the Pretensions
of the See of Rome.| And why must the Pope’s
Supremacy be brought in here rather than the Supremacy of the Bishops
of Ravenna, of Milan, of Aquileia, &c. and, above all, the Supremacy
of the collective Body of the Italian Bishops? for to them, and not
to any particular Bishop, the Cause was referred by the Emperor. As
for the Emperor’s Conduct on this Occasion, it may be thus accounted
for: That just and wise Prince observed the Bishops in the East greatly
animated against Paul; and therefore apprehending them more sway’d
by Passion and Prejudice than by Justice and Equity, he referred the
Cause to the Bishops of Italy, who, he thought, would judge more
impartially, as being placed at a Distance, and not engaged, at least
not so warmly, in the Dispute[479]. |Dionysius dies,| But this happened Two Years after
the Death of Dionysius; for he died on the 26th of December 269.
Claudius and Paternus being Consuls, after having governed the
Church of Rome for the Space of Ten Years, Five Months, and Four
Days, according to the most probable Opinion[480]. As he died in the
Reign of Claudius II. surnamed the Gothic, who is represented in the
Acts of some pretended Martyrs as an implacable Enemy to the Christian
Name, he is in some Martyrologies honoured with the Title of
Martyr; |not a Martyr.| but as neither Eusebius, nor any other antient Writer, takes
notice of that Prince’s having ever persecuted or molested the Christians,
those Acts ought to be looked upon as fabulous, and Dionysius
with 375 more expunged out of the Catalogue of Martyrs; though
some of them, namely, Marcus, Priscus, Valentine, and Quirinus, are
honoured by the Church of Rome, as Saints of the first Class, and
have filled with their Reliques most of the Provinces of Europe.
| Claudius II. | FELIX, Twenty-fifth Bishop of Rome. |
Aurelian. |
Dionysius was succeeded by Felix, in whose Time a furious Persecution being raised by Aurelian, he may be supposed to have suffered among the rest, since he is distinguished by the Council of Ephesus[481], by St. Cyril[482], and by Vincentius Lirinensis[483], with the Title of Martyr. He presided, according to Eusebius[484], Syncellus[485], and Eutychius[486], Five Years, to which Baronius adds Eleven Months, and Twenty-five Days[487]. He writ a Letter addressed to Maximus Bishop of Alexandria, which is quoted by Cyril, and the Council of Ephesus[488]. The Acts of the Martyrs, who are supposed to have suffered under Aurelian, are without all doubt supposititious; for in them frequent Mention is made of the Emperor’s Son, whereas the Writers of those Times tell us in express Terms, that he had a Daughter, but no Male Issue[489].
| Aurelian, Tacitus, |
EUTYCHIANUS, Twenty-sixth Bishop of Rome. |
Probus, Carus. |
Felix being dead, Eutychianus was chosen in his room in the very Beginning of the Year 275[490]. Several Things are said of him, by Anastasius, and other Writers of no Authority; but all I can learn of the Antients concerning him is, that he governed Eight Years, and Eleven Months[491]; and consequently died in the Close of the Year 283. He is honoured by the Church of Rome as a Martyr, and said in the Roman Martyrology to have suffered under Numerian; but it is certain that in 283. when Eutychianus died, Numerian was not Emperor, but only Cæsar, and at that very time engaged with his Father Carus in a War with the Persians in the East, where he was assassinated by Aper his Father-in-Law. As for his Brother Carinus, who remained in the West, neither he, nor the two preceding Emperors, Tacitus and Probus, ever gave the least Disturbance to the Christians; so that the Church of Rome must be at the Trouble of finding out a distinct Place in Heaven from that of the Martyrs for Eutychianus, Trophimus, Sabbacius, and the illustrious Senator Dorymedon, who are supposed to have suffered under those Princes.
| Carus, Carinus, Numerian, |
CAIUS, Twenty-seventh Bishop of Rome. |
Diocletian, Maximian. |
As little is said by the Antients of Caius as is said of his Predecessor.
A few Days after the Death of Eutychianus, Caius was
chosen to succeed him, Carus and Carinus being Consuls[492]. |Caius not a Martyr,
tho’ honoured as
a Martyr.| He presided
Twelve Years, Four Months, and Seven Days; that is, from the
17th of December 283. to the 22d of April 296. Caius too is counted
by the Church of Rome among her Martyrs, upon the Authority of
Bede, and of the Acts of St. Susanna, by which that Writer seems
to have been misled. In those Acts Caius is said to have suffered
with Susanna his Niece, and many others, under Numerian: but
that Prince in his Father’s Life-time had no great Power, being only
Cæsar, and very young, and was killed on his March out of Persia
soon after his Father’s Death; so that he never reigned in the West,
and but a very short time in the East. Caius therefore could not suffer
under him at Rome, where his elder Brother Carinus governed. But
the Vulgar have a particular Veneration for Martyrs, and, what turns
to a very good Account, are glad to purchase their Reliques at any
rate. |The Church of Rome
why so fond of
Martyrs.| The Church of Rome therefore, to provide herself with great
Store of them, has multiplied beyond Belief the Number of her Martyrs;
which she could not well do without multiplying at the same
time the Number of the Persecutors of the Christian Religion. And
hence it is that several Princes, who never molested, nay, who greatly
favoured the Christians, have been by the Church of Rome transformed
in her Martyrologies and Legends into Persecutors. As for the Acts
of the supposed St. Susanna, they are full of Mistakes and Absurdities,
and contradict the best Historians of those Times.
| Dioclesian, Maximian, |
MARCELLINUS, Twenty-eighth Bishop of Rome. |
Constantius, Galerius. |
Marcellinus succeeded Caius on the 30th of June 296.
and governed Eight Years, Three Months, and Twenty-five Days,
according to the most antient Records[493]: so that he must have died on
the 24th of October 304. The Love of Truth, which an Historian
ought never to swerve from, obliges me to undertake the Defence of
this Pope against the Church of Rome herself, and most of her Divines,
who, joining the Donatists of Africa, have endeavoured to blacken
his Memory with Aspersions equally wicked and groundless. For the
Church of Rome tells us, both in her Breviary and Martyrology, and
her Divines must chime in with her, that Marcellinus being apprehended
during the Persecution of Dioclesian, he was persuaded by
that Prince to deliver up the Holy Scripture to be burnt by the Pagans,
agreeably to a late Edict, and at the same time to offer Incense to the
Gods. This they found on the Acts of the Council of Sinuessa,
which is supposed to have been summoned on that Occasion, and before
which Marcellinus is said to have been convicted by Seventy-two
Witnesses of the above-mentioned Crimes. That such a scandalous
Story, invented by the Donatists of Africa, as St. Austin affirms[494],
should not only have been credited, but industriously propagated, by
the Successors of Marcellinus, must seem very strange and surprising
to those, who recollect with how much Zeal they have strove on other
Occasions to conceal or excuse the least Imperfections in their Predecessors.
If therefore they not only readily own the Apostasy of
Marcellinus, but are the first to divulge it, and take care to make it
known in the Breviary to those who scarce know any thing else, we
may be well assured there is a Snake hid in the Grass; the more as it
is certain almost beyond doubt, that no such Council was ever held;
and consequently that the Acts upon which alone that Apostasy is
founded, are supposititious. To unravel the Whole, the Reader must
know, that the Fall of Marcellinus made such a Noise in the Church,
as we read in those Acts, that immediately a grand Council met, composed
of no fewer than 300 Bishops. Before this Council Marcellinus
appeared; but, at his first Appearance, the Bishops, struck with Horror
at the very Thought of judging the Head of the Church, the Judge of
all, cried out with one Voice, The first See is to be judged by nobody:
accuse yourself, judge yourself, condemn yourself. |Their View, therein.| To this Testimony,
so favourable to the ambitious Views of the Bishops of Rome, is intirely
owing the Sanction which they have given to such Fables, highly
injurious to the Memory of one of their best Predecessors. Without
this Lenitive the Acts of the pretended Council of Sinuessa, supposing
the Apostasy of a Pope, had been condemned; the Absurdities and
Contradictions, which it is wholly made up of, had been set forth in a
proper Light; and the Testimonies of Theodoret and St. Austin had
been alleged to vindicate the Character of Marcellinus: |Marcellinus com-
mended and vindicated
by the Antients.| for of these two
Writers the former tells us, that he acquired great Glory by his Conduct
during the Persecution[495]; and the latter, in writing against Petilian
the Donatist, has the following Words: Why should I answer
the Calumnies with which he loads the Bishops of Rome? Why
should I clear them from the Crimes which he lays to their Charge?
Marcellinus, and his Presbyters Melchiades, Marcellus, and Sylvester,
are accused by him as if they had delivered up the sacred Books, and
offered Incense to the Gods: Are they therefore to be thought guilty?
Does he prove what he advances against them? He brands them
with the Epithets of wicked, and sacrilegious; but I say they are
innocent: And why should I produce Reasons to support my Defence,
since he brings none to make good his Charge[496]? But a solemn Declaration,
that the See of Rome is to be judged by nobody, made in
those early Times, by 300 Bishops, carries with it such Marks of
Truth, as quite invalidate the Testimonies of Theodoret and St. Austin,
and render the Apostasy of Marcellinus, which gave room to that
Declaration, undeniable! St. Austin looks upon the Apostasy of Marcellinus,
and his Presbyters Melchiades, Marcellus, and Sylvester, who
were all afterwards Bishops of Rome, as a mere Calumny, as an Invention
of the Donatists; but their Successors, trampling upon all Authority
that stands in the Way of their Ambition, chuse rather to have
Four of their Predecessors thought Apostates and Idolaters, than part
with the Decree of that pretended Council, exalting them so high
above all other Bishops.
If Marcellinus acquired great Glory during the Persecution, as
Theodoret assures us; if his Apostasy was a mere Calumny, broached
by the Donatists, as we read in St. Austin; the pretended Council of
Sinuessa must be given up, since it is supposed to have been assembled
on occasion of Marcellinus’s Fall: but, abstracting from the Fall of
Marcellinus, the Circumstances attending that Council are in themselves
so absurd and incredible, that there needs no other Argument
to convince a Man, who has any Understanding, and dares to use it,
that no such Council ever was, or could be held. |No such Council
ever held.| For who can conceive
it possible, that, during the most cruel Persecution the Church
ever suffered, 300 Bishops should assemble, not in Rome, where they
might more easily have met unobserved, but in a small Country
Town, where a much less numerous Assembly must immediately have
been observed and suspected? But, after the Death of Fabianus, says
Baronius[497], the Clergy of Rome, and the Bishops, met to chuse him
a Successor, notwithstanding the Persecution that raged then. He
ought to have said some Bishops, as St. Cyprian does[498], whom he
quotes; but I shall say so for him, that his Argument may appear in
its full Strength, and save me the Trouble of answering it; for it
will then run thus: Some Bishops, perhaps 15 or 20, met unobserved
in the great and populous City of Rome: Ergo, 300 might meet
unobserved in a small Country Town; for such was Sinuessa.