Zephyrinus

ON ST. ZEPHYRINUS, POPE,

AT ROME,

About the year CCXVIII.

HISTORICAL COLLECTION.

Zephyrinus, Pope, at Rome (St.)

BY J. P.

§ I. The beginning of his pontificate; whether the Saint was elected to it by a miracle; the Theodotians assailed by him; Natalis received into the Church; whether Tertullian was excommunicated by the Saint; the disputation of Gaius with Proclus.

Since the Acts of this holy Pontiff were either never written, or, if written, have at least not come to our knowledge, He began to sit in the year 201 or 202: we are compelled to supply this defect from elsewhere, and to gather together the things done by him which are recorded in various writers. He is said to have been a Roman by nation, of a father Abundantius,\ in the Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs in Papebroch, in his Attempt at a chronico-historical Catalogue of the same, page 26,\ and elsewhere. In marking the beginning of his pontificate authors do not agree. For Baronius sets it in the year 203; Antoine Pagi in his Critica, and his nephew François in his Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs, in the year 197; Papebroch, just mentioned, in the year 198; Labbe in his Chronological Compendium, in the year 201; Tillemont, volume 3 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 236, at the end of the year 201 or the beginning of 202; but in the chronological index to the same volume, page 784, in the year 202. But Eusebius, published by Valois, book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 28, page 196, writes thus to our purpose on occasion of St. Victor, who preceded our Saint in the See of Peter: Zephyrinus was substituted as his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus: which falls in the year of Christ 201. (Of St. Victor we have treated in volume VI of July, on the XXVIII day of that month, from page 534.) To us the reckoning of time which we have related from Eusebius seems the more probable, and we judged that we came nearer to it if we should attach the beginning of the Pontificate of St. Zephyrinus to the year of Christ 201, or 202, which last is definitely set down in the Chronicle of the same writer, which St. Jerome rendered into Latin and Joseph Scaliger published, page 172, where it is thus read: CCII. Zephyrinus, the fourteenth of the Roman Church, undertook the episcopate. But of the day of his ordination, and of the duration of his pontificate, etc., we shall treat below.

[2] by some it is said that a dove appeared at his election: As regards the election, Rufinus, book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 21, affirms that it is handed down by some that it came about through a prodigious apparition of the Holy Spirit, others attributing this deed to St. Fabian. Some, he says, relate that it was done in the case of this man, others in the case of Zephyrinus. Eusebius, book 6 of the cited History, chapter 29, page 229, attributes it to St. Fabian. For there, narrating how the Roman Pontiff was designated by divine power, he recounts the deed in these words: They say that this Fabian, after the death of Anteros, came to Rome from the country together with certain others of his household; and that while dwelling there, by the help of God's grace, beyond the expectation of all, he came to the lot of the pontificate. For when all the brethren had been gathered in the church for the ordaining of a successor, and very many were already conjecturing that certain illustrious and noble men were to be elected, no one thought even for a moment of Fabian, who was then present. Yet they relate that a dove, suddenly gliding down from on high, settled upon his head, which seemed to bear the image of the Holy Spirit, who of old had descended under the appearance of a dove upon the Savior. Moved by which spectacle, the people, stirred by the divine Spirit, with the utmost eagerness and with one consent all together began to cry out that he was worthy; and having straightway laid hold of him, they set him upon the sacerdotal chair. Consult, reader, what is contained concerning this miracle in our work under St. Fabian, Pope, on the XX day of January, volume 11 of that month, page 252. But we wished to make mention of this prodigy, even though we cannot yet determine to which of the said Pontiffs it belongs.

[3] this Pontiff seems strenuously In the first year of the pontificate of St. Zephyrinus, the tenth of the emperor Severus, edicts were published by this prince against the Church of God, which stirred up a horrible persecution; concerning which Eusebius may be consulted, book 6, chapters 1 and 2, pages 201, 202, and Tillemont, alleged before, from page 121. Upon this storm there followed a tranquillity after the death of Severus, which came about in the year 211. Meanwhile our holy Pontiff used that longed-for peace not only for guarding the deposit of the orthodox faith, but also for repressing the heretics. St. Victor, among the other struggles against the heresies then emerging which are everywhere attributed to him, left this above all worthy of record, that he both bravely undertook and gloriously carried through the contest against Theodotus, surnamed the Tanner, a Byzantine apostate, who blasphemed that Jesus Christ was not God but merely a man, as is narrated at greater length in our work in volume VI of July from page 536. But now, that the Theodotians, who after the death of the aforesaid Victor persisted in their error, were vigorously and strenuously assailed by St. Zephyrinus, seems probable from this, that they reproached him — with greater glory to him than they supposed — that he had been the first corrupter of the truth, as they would have it, while he defended the divinity of Jesus Christ against them, as Eusebius witnesses, book 5, chapter 28, page 195. Further, he says, in one of those authors whom he had said were unknown to him at the end of chapter 27, in a book elaborated against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata has in our times undertaken to renew, there is extant a certain narrative very suited to the history which we have in hand.

[4] For that author, showing that the above-said heresy, which said that Christ was a mere man, to have assailed had been brought in a few years before — since the leaders of that sect boasted that it was most ancient — after many other things adduced against their impious falsehood, relates these things word for word: For they affirm, he says, that all the ancients, and the Apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which are now said by them; and that the truth of the preaching was indeed guarded down to the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of the city of Rome from Peter; but that from the times of Zephyrinus, who succeeded Victor, the truth was adulterated: which error the same Eusebius afterward refutes. Add that St. Optatus, bishop of Milevis, who flourished in the fourth century, numbers St. Zephyrinus among the other defenders of the faith, speaking thus in book 1 against Parmenian, page 37 of the Paris edition of the year 1631: Marcion, Praxeas, Sabellius, Valentinus, and the rest were in their own times overcome by Victorinus of Poitiers, and Zephyrinus of the City, and Tertullian of Carthage, down to the Cataphrygians, and by other champions of the Catholic Church. Observe in passing that Urbicus here is the same as Romanus, in the same signification by which Rome is called by excellence the City. See Du Cange's Glossary in the new and enlarged edition.

[5] To return to the said Praxeas: Baronius

at the year of Christ 196, number 20, the Theodotian heretics. after he had in the preceding number described his deeds from Tertullian: From the testimony of the same Tertullian, he says, it is sufficiently clear that the same Praxeas, having been condemned at Rome (which Optatus of Milevis, against Parmenian, book 1, seems to affirm was done under Zephyrinus, Pope, the successor of Victor), repenting of the deed, recanted in a palinode. But whether these things came about under that Pontiff, or under Victor his predecessor; and likewise whether Praxeas, when he made that retractation, was at Rome or in Africa, does not seem altogether ascertained. Meanwhile there may be seen what the cited collector of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs records concerning this heresiarch of the Patripassians, page 74 and following; page 237, and in the notes, page 618; and in our work under St. Victor, page 537. Here for you are some memorials transmitted to posterity under the government of St. Zephyrinus.

[6] A certain Natalis, seduced by the Theodotians for a price, For while he was sitting there befell this history, most worthy of record, which Eusebius relates, book 5, chapter 28, pages 196 and 197: Further, that same man who composed the above-said book concerning the author of that heresy (of whom I spoke just now at number 4) adds also another matter transacted in the times of Zephyrinus, in these words: I will recall to the memory of many of our brethren, he says, a deed done in our own age. Which indeed, if it had been committed at Sodom, might, as I think, have provoked the very inhabitants to repentance. There was a certain man, Natalis by name, a confessor, who lived not so long ago, but in our own age. He was by chance drawn into fraud by Asclepiodotus and a certain other Theodotus, a banker. Now both were disciples of that Theodotus the tanner, who was the first, on account of this doctrine, or rather madness, to be removed from the communion of the Church by Victor, at that time, as I said, the Bishop.

[7] [is punished by God in a wonderful manner, and, repenting, is received by the Saint into the communion of the Church.] These persuaded Natalis that, upon receiving a salary, he should be made bishop of that heresy — on this condition, namely, that he should receive from them a hundred and fifty denarii a month. Having therefore joined their party, he was often rebuked by the Lord in dreams. For our most merciful God and Lord Jesus Christ was unwilling that he who had stood forth as a witness of his passion should perish outside the Church. But when Natalis neglected nocturnal visions of this kind — being ensnared by the honor of the first seat among them, and by the desire of base gain (which is destruction to many mortals) — at length he was beaten with scourges by holy angels through the whole night, and most grievously flogged; so that, rising at first dawn, he put on sackcloth, and, sprinkled with ashes, straightway with tears cast himself at the feet of the bishop Zephyrinus, falling before the steps not only of the clergy but also of the laity; and with his weeping he moved and shook the church of the merciful Christ, itself also merciful. And having used many prayers, and having shown also the weals of the stripes which he had endured for the confession of Christ, he was at last scarcely admitted to communion.

[8] Whether Tertullian In the time of our holy Pontiff the most celebrated Tertullian fell into the heresy of the Montanists; concerning which it may here be asked whether St. Zephyrinus deprived him of the communion of the Church. Baronius, at the year of Christ 215, having related that memorable disputation which was held at Rome, while the same Pontiff sat, as it were in the theater of the whole world, between Proclus or Proculus, one of the chief leaders of the heresy of the Montanists, on the one part, and on the other Gaius, a man of approved erudition, as it is fair to assert, in the Church, subjoins in the same place these words at number 4: These things having been transacted between Gaius and Proclus, when the positions of the Cataphrygians … had been effectually confuted and rendered utterly void, Tertullian, resisting on the opposite side, published several commentaries on the same argument for strengthening and firmly establishing them … But that Zephyrinus, after Proclus had been convicted, pronounced anathema against all the defenders of the false prophecy, and among others struck Tertullian himself with the same sentence, those words of his in the book On fasting (chapter 1 at the end) indicate, when he says: "They object novelty, therefore: let them prescribe concerning its unlawfulness, that it is either to be judged heresy, if it is human presumption, or to be pronounced false prophecy, if it is a spiritual declaration — while on either side we, who announce otherwise, hear ourselves anathema."

[9] But since to hear an anathema, and to be struck by it by name, are altogether different things, I for my part do not see that from Tertullian's words there is sufficiently well founded that conclusion which Baronius wished. struck with anathema by St. Zephyrinus: the disputation of Gaius with Proclus. Further, that this disputation of Gaius with Proclus was not transacted by word of mouth only, but was also drawn up in writing, Eusebius testifies, book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 25, page 67: But also a certain Gaius, a Catholic man, who flourished in the times of Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, in that book which he wrote against Proculus, the patron of the sect of the Cataphrygians, etc. St. Jerome, in the Ecclesiastical Library published by Miraeus, part 1, page 19, says: Gaius, under Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, that is, under the son of Severus, held a very notable disputation against Proculus, a follower of Montanus, charging him with rashness in defending the new prophecy. But it seemed good to annex these things to what was said above, which I noted in passing concerning that disputation, because it will be useful to remember them when we shall presently treat of the orthodoxy of St. Zephyrinus. But that famous and deplorable lapse of Tertullian, of which above, is set by Tillemont as having occurred before the year of Christ 207; while the disputation of Gaius with Proclus he attaches to the year 213, as may be seen in his chronological table at the end of the third volume of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs.

\ Otherwise Abundius*.

§ II. Whether St. Zephyrinus championed the heresy of Montanus, or in any way favored it; the decrees and letters which are attributed to him; his ordinations.

It is persuaded by various arguments To the first question, whether our most holy Pontiff was in any way a champion or favorer of the heresy of Montanus, I answer that he stood wholly immune from this most base stain. This argument I divide into various proofs; of which let the first be this, that while this Vicar of Christ on earth was sitting, there was held in the very city of Rome that most celebrated disputation of Gaius with Proclus, of which a little before, at numbers 8 and 9, it has been spoken. But would St. Zephyrinus have permitted that disputation, by which the Montanists were routed, if he had had even the least affinity with their errors? They do not cohere.

[11] The second proof is taken from the history of Natalis, that St. Zephyrinus which we related at numbers 6 and 7 from Eusebius. The third proof is from Optatus of Milevis, of whom it was treated at number 5. The fourth proof is concluded from this, that the holy Man published a decree against the heresy of Montanus, in which he invited adulterers to penance and promised them indulgence. The fact is related and proved in the words of Baronius at the year 216, from number 3: Tertullian, he says, took it the more grievously that against the new institution of the Pseudo-Paraclete,\ by which he forbade the lapsed to be received when penitent, the Roman Pontiff … had publicly published a decree by Apostolic authority, whereby it should be made known to all the faithful that the Catholic Church receives the lapsed when penitent, though they had been fornicators and adulterers … But what the decrees of the Roman Pontiff were (for he is to be thought no other than Zephyrinus), from what has been said by us above … let us now see. And a few words interposed, he thus recites the words of Tertullian: "I hear also that an edict\ has been set forth, and a peremptory one at that." But what was that edict? Presently, reciting it, he adds: "The Supreme Pontiff, forsooth, the bishop of bishops, says: I remit the offenses both of adultery and of fornication to those who have performed penance." And presently, other words of Tertullian against the same edict having been related, Baronius subjoins others from him: "But is this read in the Church, and pronounced in the Church, and is she a virgin? Far be it, far be such a proclamation from the spouse of Christ." Thus far he there.

[12] was altogether a stranger to the heresy of the Montanists: But now to what other person that edict could more fittingly and probably be attributed than to St. Zephyrinus, Pope, I do not indeed sufficiently see. For, 1. The title used here by Tertullian — whose is it, if it be not the Roman Pontiff's? 2. Although Tertullian left the name of that Pontiff unstated, yet since the notorious lapse of this man came about in the time of that Pope, from what has been said above at numbers 8 and 9, after which lapse Tertullian blurted out the above words — produce another Roman Pontiff to whom those words more probably belong, or admit with Baronius that they belong to St. Zephyrinus. 3. In Noël Alexandre, century 3, dissertation 1, after the words The Supreme Pontiff, forsooth, etc., I read this: That Zephyrinus is here reproached by Tertullian with these words, is the common opinion: so that it seems to me that Tillemont has here sought a knot in a bulrush, in his article on Zephyrinus, pages 232 and 238, when, having cited the same words of Tertullian, he writes that he sees nothing which compels this passage to be referred to the Pope rather than to any other bishop whatsoever. For, as regards the terms of Tertullian, he says, who calls that edict definitive, etc., little attention ought to be paid to the ironical style of that author, so that anyone should wish to infer anything from it. In the Work of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, which Pierre Coustant, a Benedictine monk, published, column 112, in his note upon St. Zephyrinus, the same author says: There are not wanting those who refer both passages to the bishop of Carthage, so that he was called by an exaggeration not unusual with Tertullian SUPREME PONTIFF and BISHOP OF BISHOPS. Treating of both passages of Tertullian from column 110, he indicates that the bishop whose name Tertullian passes over in silence … is reproached. But even though that bishop is not named, I do not sufficiently see that this stands in the way of both passages being more probably understood in their proper sense of St. Zephyrinus.

[13] objections are related; Thus far the orthodoxy of our most holy Pontiff has been sufficiently defended, as it appears to me at least, against his detractors. But the objections raised against it I relate and dissolve from the most eminent Bellarmine, who, in volume 1 of the Controversies, book 4, chapter 8, objects these things to himself: Zephyrinus, the successor of Victor, seems to have approved the heresy of Montanus. For Tertullian writes, in the book against Praxeas, that the Roman Pontiff, acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus, and from that acknowledgment bringing peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, was persuaded by Praxeas to revoke the letters of peace which he had already sent out. But it is established from the histories that at that time Zephyrinus was Pontiff at Rome. Wherefore Rhenanus, in his annotations upon Tertullian, sets at this place in the margin: The Roman bishop Montanizes. Nor can it be said that at that time the heresy of Montanus had not yet been condemned by the Church. For, as Tertullian there says, Praxeas persuaded the Pontiff to revoke the letters of peace chiefly for this reason, because his predecessors had already condemned that heresy.

[14] To these objections raised against himself the same most eminent Man replies as follows: and are dissolved I answer that Tertullian is not altogether to be believed in this part, since he himself was a Montanist. As

for a little before Artemon had falsely boasted that Victor, the Roman Pontiff, agreed with him, as we have shown from Eusebius: so now Tertullian the Montanist endeavors to draw the Roman Pontiff into the opinion of Montanus. Otherwise, why did neither Eusebius nor any other note this error in the Roman Pontiff?

[15] Yet because lies are for the most part wont to be founded upon something true, by Cardinal it is credible that the Pontiff Zephyrinus was persuaded by the Montanists that the doctrine of Montanus was not different from the doctrine of the Roman Church, and that therefore the same Pontiff wished to restore to them the peace which his predecessors had taken away: not indeed that he approved an error which his forebears had disapproved, but because he judged that the Montanists had been falsely accused of those errors. But this is not to err concerning the faith, nor to Montanize, as Rhenanus falsely says, but to err concerning a person. Which has befallen many other holy men. For Rufinus writes, book 10 of the History, chapter 11, that Arius, in order to persuade the emperor Constantine that he was a Catholic, wrote out his creed with such artifice that it was thought Catholic by the Catholics, and yet was recognized by his own party for what it was.

[16] And Leo, letter 86 to Nicetas of Aquileia, admonishes that bishop to bid the Pelagians returning to the Church abjure their heresy in the most open words, for this reason, that they are for the most part wont to deceive the Church by so composing the confession of their faith that they seem Catholics when they are not. Something of this kind seems to have befallen the Pontiff Zephyrinus also. Bellarmine. You have, reader, Bellarmine's answers in the cause of our Pontiff's orthodoxy; in which cause Gretser afterward defended the aforesaid author of the Controversies against the sectaries, volume 2 of the Defense of the same Controversies, book 4, chapter 8, columns 1041 and 1042; to which I send the curious reader, lest I be too long. It remains that I proceed to the other things which are attributed to St. Zephyrinus.

[17] In the first catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, which is contained in our work before the first volume of April, What things are obscure in the decrees of St. Zephyrinus, page XXIV, under the same St. Zephyrinus, these things are said: He appointed the presence of all clerics and lay faithful, whether a cleric, or a levite, or a priest were being ordained. And he made a constitution concerning the Church, that the ministers should carry glass patens before the priests in the church; that when the bishop celebrated Mass he should have all the priests standing before him, and that Masses should thus be celebrated — except when the bishop's right is concerned, so that the clergy alone should uphold it: all being present, from that consecration, from the hand of the bishop, the priest should receive the crown already consecrated, to be delivered to the people. The things which are obscure here Papebroch endeavored to explain thus, as best he might, in his Chronico-historical Attempt, page 27: First: that the GLASS PATENS which are commanded to be carried before the priest in the church either contain the eulogies, or else the particles to be consecrated for the communion of the people, such as were shortly after made of silver by St. Urban, Pope, and by others even of gold — for that use, namely, to which now serve those vessels of ours which we call ciboria. Wherefore Binius does not rightly recall us in this place to glass chalices. II. That the altar be so arranged that the celebrating bishop may have the clergy before him around the altar, and the people at his back, save where and when by a special right the contrary ought to be done.

[18] are elucidated by various explanations To which twofold use we see the altars of the Roman basilicas so arranged between the choir and the nave of the church, that if one celebrates on the one side he turns his back to the people; if on the other (which is now said to be lawful for the Pontiff alone), having his face always turned toward the people, he has no need to turn himself when he says Dominus vobiscum; and he has the clergy at his back as it were ministering to him. III. That from the hand of the consecrating bishop, not any DEACON, but a PRIEST should receive the CONSECRATED CROWN to be delivered to the people: in which place I am persuaded that the treatment is of the Eucharist itself to be exhibited to the people. For the bread which before the consecration was named THE CROWN OF THE OBLATION is here after it called THE CONSECRATED CROWN. Of the former appellation we have testimony in St. Gregory, book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 55, where a priest, thinking a soul that waited upon him in the bath — a soul there to be purged — to be a living man, such as it seemed to be, is said to have offered out of gratitude TWO CROWNS OF THE OBLATIONS which he had brought with him:

[19] are set forth: But she, denying that it was lawful for her to eat of that bread, which was holy, asked that he would offer that same bread for her to almighty God, that is, by consecrating it in the Mass: that so she might be loosed from her sins by that expiatory Sacrifice. But why it should be called a CROWN, let another divine. Thus far Papebroch. Further, it does not seem to me that any great divination is needed concerning the word crown. For the crown of the oblation, as Du Cange observes in his Glossary, is bread blessed in the manner of a crown, or made in a round form; and presently the same author adduces the place of Gregory indicated above, and briefly recites his words. But, this digression being dismissed, let us return to the first decree which was ascribed above to St. Zephyrinus, concerning the presence of the clergy, etc., at ordinations.

[20] [one decree does not seem to be his, but the Apostles'; while others are apocryphal.] Coustant, cited before, judges that decree to be Apostolic rather than Zephyrinian, discoursing of it thus: Of those decrees only the former seems to have been known to Isidore Mercator. At least we read this one alone inserted into the latter of the two letters which he ascribed to Zephyrinus; but even that we think is to be referred to the Apostles rather than to Zephyrinus. Certainly Clement, letter 1, number 44, says that they delivered this rule of the succession of bishops or ministers of the Church, "that when they should depart, other approved men should receive their ministry and office." To which, when he next subjoins, "Those, therefore, who were appointed by them, or afterward by other eminent men with the consent of the whole Church," he indicates that this rule for the ordaining of the ministers of the Church was laid down by the Apostles, that they should be ordained only with the consent and in the presence of the whole church. Nor, if we go to the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 4 (rather 6), shall we find that the seven deacons were created by them on any other principle. For "the twelve (Apostles), calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: Consider, brethren, men of good report from among you, whom we may appoint over this work." And presently it is added: "And the saying pleased all the multitude, and they chose Stephen," etc. "Then they set these before the sight of the Apostles; and praying, they laid hands upon them." We do not gainsay these reasonings of Coustant, and we think that that decree is to be adjudged away from St. Zephyrinus as its first author; even though it might perhaps have come about that he renewed, expressed afterward in other words, what before him was in use in the Church: concerning which matter, however, nothing at all is established. But the things which are said of him on this XXVI day of August in our manuscript Florarium — He appointed that all Christians of twelve years should receive the Eucharist on the day of Easter. And he made a statute that all the vessels of the altar should be of glass or of tin — these things, I say, we judge are to be held for apocryphal, until they be proved from ancient documents. The same we wish to be extended to what is said among the supplements to our Usuard on the XXVI day of August and the XX of December. Piazza in the Sacred Hemerology on the XXVI day of August indicates that it was instituted by this Pontiff that bishops might not be condemned in judgment without the leave of the Apostolic See: concerning which matter let him look to it himself. The Roman Breviary on the said day prescribes that the following be read concerning him: The same appointed that a patriarch, primate, or metropolitan should not pass sentence against a bishop unless supported by Apostolic authority.

[21] Two letters also are current under the name of the same holy Pontiff; the two letters attributed to him are apocryphal: but without sufficient foundation, since they seem to have been brought into the public light from no other quarter than from the notorious workshop of Isidore Mercator, or of some such fabulist. As regards the letters just mentioned, says Coustant, there is nothing in them why they should be separated from the rest of Isidore's wares: of what sort these are, the aforesaid author shows at length in his Preface, §10, page CXXV and following. But the trash of the aforesaid impostor has often been reprinted without any merit of its own, and is found among the compilers of the Councils. But if anyone shall wish to read the two letters of which here is the discourse, he will find them in Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, column 603 and following; but branded with a black mark in the margin as supposititious.

[22] Our catalogue, alleged above, attributes to our holy Pontiff four ordinations in the month of December, how many ordinations he made, is uncertain. fourteen priests, seven deacons, thirteen bishops in various places. In the numbers the text of Anastasius the Librarian, published at Rome in the year 1728, volume 1, page 17, differs greatly; but what is read in Labbe, column 602, agrees more nearly. But who here would look for the genuine reading, much less a proof of the fact? We pass on, therefore, to the other things which remain to be recorded concerning the most holy Man.

\* That is, of Montanus.

\ Read edictum*.

§ III. On what day the Saint was consecrated Pontiff; the year of his death; the time of his session; announcements from the sacred Fasti; whether he was a Martyr; his burial.

It is not known on what day the Saint was consecrated Pontiff: Among the differing opinions of various authors concerning the year in which St. Zephyrinus began to sit, that seemed to us the better above in §1 which sets the event in the year 201 or 202. But the day of his ordination, and other matters, we have deferred to this place. That day is marked in the cited Attempt in the Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs as the XI of June, on a Sunday. But with this neither does the year 198 concur, which is noted in the same catalogue, nor the XI day of June. In Labbe, in the Chronological Compendium, at the year 201, our Saint is written to have succeeded Victor from the VIII day of August; but François Pagi says on the seventh day of the same month, correcting Antoine Pagi in the Baronian Critique at the year 219, number 2, where, he says, for the seventh day of August the tenth day has crept in: but he will sweat much, in my judgment, and labor in vain, to show that the day which he notes is the true and genuine one. For the case stands thus, that the things which are current concerning it are too uncertain for anything certain to be determined. But if it were established that the holy Pontiff was consecrated on a Sunday, then that opinion would seem to be preferred to the others which should lay down that his consecration befell on the VIII day of August, because it falls in the year 202, which in Eusebius, as we indicated above, is in the Chronicle assigned to the pontificate undertaken by St. Zephyrinus. Thus far we have set out in the midst the various opinions of writers upon this argument, and we frankly profess that it is not in our power to teach the reader anything more certain, for want of documents from which this controversy might fitly be decided.

[24] the year of his death Great difficulties also entangle what is extant concerning the year of his death. For various

things are handed down among various writers. Baronius in the Annals affixes it to the year 221; the catalogue in the Attempt, to 217; as also Pagi in the Critique at the year 219, number 2, and likewise François Pagi in the Breviary. But Coustant, praised above, page 107, sets it at the end of the year 218; yet under those conditions which he adds, namely: If we suppose that he died, with Eusebius, in the first year of the emperor Antoninus Heliogabalus, and, with the older Martyrologists, on the XX day of December. Labbe in the aforesaid Compendium marks the year 219. But Eusebius, book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 21, page 223 of the edition indicated before, writes these words to our purpose: Antoninus (Heliogabalus) received the Roman principate. In the first year of his rule Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, departed this life, having held the priesthood for eighteen years (ὅλοις, that is, entire or completed, according to the Greek text; but the translator omitted this word in the Latin).

[25] is set differently by various writers: In the year 218 Heliogabalus began to reign; but on what day of that year, authors disagree. For Pagi, at the year 218, number 5, sets the XVI day of March; Labbe, just cited, the XVI day of May of the same year; Tillemont, volume 3 of the Emperors, page 146, affirms that he properly began to reign on the VII of June, and sets forth various observations to our purpose in volume 3 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, in the note upon St. Zephyrinus, page 671: where he says that that year ended on the VII day of June in the year 219, and that in fact that year is in the Chronicle of Eusebius, both according to the Latin copy and according to the Greek, attributed to the beginning of the pontificate of Callistus, who succeeded Zephyrinus; and therefore that he departed this life in the year 219 before the VII of June, and consequently that it must be that he began from the first months of the year 201. Nevertheless he adds that he believes what he had established in note 6 upon St. Victor, Pope, his predecessor, namely that Victor did not die before the end of the year 201; and that it is therefore necessary either that Eusebius should reckon the whole year 219 for the first of Heliogabalus, although in his Chronicle the whole is noted as the second; or that from Eusebius's expression ὅλοις ιη᾽ ἔτεσι it ought not to be believed that the eighteenth year is entire — as the cited collector of the Memoirs indicates that he has already seen on several other occasions. He affirms, therefore, that the latter must be said, if Zephyrinus did not begin to sit before the year 202, which he affirms to be probable enough; and that the former must also be said, or else that Eusebius must be confessed to have gone astray, if he did not die until the XXVI of August, on which Usuard, Ado, Anastasius (but in this last, that we may observe it in passing, we read not the day of his death but of his burial), and others assign his feast; or even if he did not die until the XX of December, on which it is noted in the Hieronymian Martyrologies, in Rabanus, Wandelbert, and some others.

[26] Nevertheless, he says, since the Chronicle of Eusebius joins the concurrence of the first year of Heliogabalus with the year of Christ 218, is variously set: he judges that it will perhaps be better to place the death of Zephyrinus from the XX day of December of that year: that this at least will be more serviceable to him for the following Pontiffs. And presently proceeding to the duration of his pontificate, by this means, he says, he would have governed only 17 years and a little more, if he began at the end of the year 201; or even somewhat less, if this did not happen until the year 202; and nevertheless Eusebius might have attributed to him 18 years begun, reckoning by consulates from the ninth year of Severus, which he joins with the year of Christ 201; Callistus might easily not have been elected until 15 days after Zephyrinus, and therefore in 219, as is read in the Chronicle of Eusebius. Add that they will have the years of this Chronicle to begin from the month of September, with the year of the Orientals. By these reasonings Tillemont laboriously endeavors to reconcile Eusebius, in appearance contrary to himself, to fix the year of our holy Pontiff's death and the duration of his session. But we, holding in a manner a middle way, have above assigned about the year 218 to his death.

[27] See now how greatly the Pontifical books — or the documents which treat of the Pontiffs — disagree in fixing the time of his session. but for how many months and days For in our work, before volume 1 of April, these things are found: He sat seventeen years, six months, ten days; but in Anastasius the Librarian, two months. In the Attempt: He sat XIX years, six months, X days. In one catalogue which Mabillon published, volume 3 of the Old Analecta of the earlier edition, page 426: He sat 18 years, 6 months, 5 days. Eutychius in his Annals, printed at Oxford in the year 1656, volume 1, page 367: He sat eighteen years. The Chronography of St. Nicephorus, printed at Paris with George Syncellus in the year 1652, page 411, marks 19 years. The same does Syncellus, pages 355 and 357: But according to Eusebius, as is wrongly added, XII. Finally, in the Pontifical Book under the name of Damasus, in Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, column 602: He sat eight years, seven months, ten days. But Binius, wishing to correct this faulty reckoning, in the same place, column 603, says: That he sat XVIII years and as many days, Eusebius is the author in the Chronicle; which opinion, as being more conformable to the Vatican indexes, Baronius follows at the year CCXXI, number 1, and rightly: because from the ninth year of the emperor Severus, in which he entered upon the pontificate, down to the second of Antoninus Elagabalus, in whose second year Eusebius testifies, book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 15, that he departed from life and from the pontificate, neither more nor fewer can be reckoned. But Binius says more than he can prove.

[28] he sat, cannot be closely defined; but he sat 18 years. These things having thus far been thus set forth, we consider, 1. that nothing sufficiently probable, much less ascertained, can be defined concerning the months and days for which St. Zephyrinus sat, since the day on which he began is altogether uncertain, nor is that more certain on which he ceased to govern, as is plain from the foregoing, in which so great a variety of documents begets inextricable difficulties, no vestige of antiquity being left us where we may set a firm and certain foot. We consider, 2., and we say, that we do not see what stands in the way of our extending the Saint's government to eighteen years, according to what has been set forth from the other authors just adduced — and indeed from Eusebius himself. And truly, what learned man is ignorant that now by years begun or not completed, now by years finished or full, one not rarely arrives at the just and true computation of years, and that chronologers at first sight differing among themselves are reconciled in this way, and brought back to the true reckoning of time? Concerning the years of his see, says Baronius at the year 221, number 1, writing of St. Zephyrinus, we rather acquiesce in Eusebius, who affirms in the Chronicle that he sat eighteen years, and that he departed this life in the second year of Elagabalus, which is more consonant with the Vatican Index than with the rest, which refer his death to other consuls and to other times. But although the same Eusebius elsewhere says that Zephyrinus died in the first year of Elagabalus, because the same year was the end of the first and the beginning of the second, he set it thus with no other account taken of months or days.

[29] The Martyrologists announce this Saint on various days: Here now for you, reader, are the announcements of the sacred Fasti on this XXVI day of August. The Little or Old Roman speaks thus, as briefly as may be: Of Zephyrinus, Pope. Ado: At Rome, of Saint Zephyrinus, Pope, who ruled the Church eight years, seven months, ten days. Usuard more prudently omitted this reckoning of years, which from what has been said above is certainly to be corrected (whatever be the case with the months and days), saying thus: At Rome, the birthday of blessed Zephyrinus, Pope. To these it will suffice to subjoin the modern Roman Martyrology, which relates him thus: At Rome, of Saint Zephyrinus, Pope and martyr. But on the XX day of December he is announced by the supplement to the Martyrology of Bede published by us before volume 11 of March, page XLI: At Rome, of Zephyrinus the bishop. That he is marked on that day also in the Hieronymian Martyrologies has been indicated in the observations upon our Usuard on the XXVI day of August. To the Hieronymian add Rabanus and Wandelbert. What more? The supplements to the said Usuard on both the days already designated may be consulted; and since the one is so different from the other, you will ask whether, and which, of them is the true and proper day of his death.

[30] Pagi in the Baronian Critique at the year 219, number 2, admits neither; which of them but both days, he says, are to be referred to his translations. Nor ought it to seem strange that he here takes refuge in translations, which we do not see to be solidly founded, since what he had premised in the same place altogether wavers: Since Callistus, he says, succeeded him on the eighteenth day of the month of July, as we shall see below, after the episcopate had been vacant five days, as the enlarged Chronicle of the ancient Pontiffs has it, Zephyrinus sat nineteen years, eleven months, five days, having died on the tenth day of July of the year CCXVII. For he had entered upon the pontificate in the year CXCVII, on the tenth day of August. But these things, I say, altogether waver, as is concluded from this, that in this matter the Pontifical books, and documents of that kind, and consequently the authors, waver; so that here the old proverb truly holds good: as many heads, so many opinions. But of the year of his death we have spoken above.

[31] But as to Pagi's wishing, to return to the earlier matter, that the XXVI day of August may have been the day of his death? and the XX of December should be days of translation, not of death, we can by no means approve it; and first indeed because none of the classic Martyrologists, whose announcements I have recited, used the word translation; which also I nowhere meet with in the supplements to Usuard designated above. Second, because it does not seem likely that no one at all out of so many Martyrologists, especially ancient ones, should have hit upon the true day of his death. Third, because each of the days already named is in possession from so many centuries now past. But which is the true and proper one, we have nothing whereby we may determine. Tillemont indeed inclines, as we saw before, to the XX day of December; but Papebroch in the Attempt, not so much setting as supposing the same day, recites this from the Hieronymian Martyrology at the XIII Kalends of January: At Rome, of Zephyrinus the bishop (in the printed text in Florentini it is written Zepherinus), and adds: Supposing which to be the proper day of his death, I ascribe the month of August to a translation afterward made. Baronius, at the year 221, number 1: On the twenty-sixth of the month of August Zephyrinus, Pope, … dies; on which day we too give him, following the Roman Martyrology according to custom. But since in the same he is marked with the title of martyr, let us inquire whether, and how far, this befits him.

[32] Baronius, just cited, doubted concerning this matter, More probably he was not a martyr recording these things at numbers 1 and 2: But whereas in the ancient monuments of the Roman Church — in those ecclesiastical records, I say, which the Martyrology

we name — it is read that Zephyrinus underwent martyrdom, this must surely have befallen him privately (as has often happened with others) in the peace of the Church. But perhaps that very cause of martyrdom offered may seem opportune, namely that he resisted Elagabalus, who desired (as we have said from Lampridius) to bring back the religion both of all others and also of the Christians under the worship of his own god Elagabalus. For the rest, whether this or some other cause preceded his undergoing of martyrdom, we know not; but this is not hidden from us (as we have said elsewhere), that of old our forebears were wont to call Martyrs all who on occasion of the Christian confession had endured any torments, although, surviving after the torments, they had closed their last day in peace. In various codices among the supplements to our Usuard, on the XXVI day of August and the XX of December, he is announced with the title of martyr. If the authority of Peter de Natalibus were greater, it would seem that he did not properly undergo martyrdom, because in book XI, chapter 30, number 18, he affirms that he rested in peace, which is not commonly said of Martyrs in the strict sense.

[33] in the strict sense: Tillemont in his notes upon St. Zephyrinus, page 238, cites from Florentini, page 1037, this announcement: At Rome, of Zephyrinus the bishop, which we too gave a little before; which, he says, might furnish some argument, but a weak one, for believing that he was a martyr. But there seems here to be no shadow of an argument: for this Bishop is the Pope, who as the Roman Bishop, or as the Bishop of bishops, may rightly be called the Bishop by antonomasia. He adds that another copy in the same place, page 1038, subjoins deposition, which is scarcely used except for simple confessors. But it seems to press more that not one of the ancient Martyrologists whose announcements we have recited calls him a martyr; which title the new Parisian Martyrology also omits on the XXVI day of August. These things, therefore, standing thus, it appears to us to come nearer to the truth if we hold that martyrdom in the strict sense does not befit St. Zephyrinus. Although, therefore, in the Roman Martyrology and in the Breviary the name of martyr is attributed to him, we have nevertheless omitted it in the title set before this Collection.

[34] the place of his burial. It remains that we speak of his burial. The Pontifical Book in the cited Labbe says: He was buried in his own cemetery, not far from the cemetery of Callistus, on the Appian Way, on the seventh of the Kalends of September. With which Anastasius the Librarian agrees. But the catalogue in the Attempt speaks somewhat otherwise: He was afterward buried or elevated in the cemetery of Calixtus on the Appian Way, on the XXVI of August, when he is honored. Before volume 1 of April, page XXIV: He was buried in his own cemetery, next to the cemetery of Calixtus, etc. Of which cemetery Aringhi treats, volume 1 of Rome Subterranean, book 3, chapter 11. Observe: in HIS OWN cemetery. St. Zephyrinus therefore had, according to what has been said, a cemetery of his own; which might have been so named either because he himself raised it for the burial of the Martyrs, or because he himself was buried in it. That cemetery, according to what has been said, adjoined the cemetery of Callistus; to which afterward, when it had been brought by the same Callistus into an ampler form, the other was added and united, as Aringhi writes, volume 1, book 3, chapter 13, page 474; of which indeed, as he adds, no vestiges, but only the name, survives. In Panciroli, Of the Hidden Treasures of the city of Rome, in the index of relics which is at the end of that book, three churches are said to have something of the body of St. Zephyrinus, namely St. Peter's in the Vatican, St. Sixtus, and St. Sylvester in Campo Marzio; but that it is said that the body is in each of those churches, Piazza observes in his Hemerology on this XXVI day of August.