ON ST. FIRMILIAN, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, AT CAESAREA IN CAPPADOCIA,
IN THE YEAR CCLXIX.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Firmilian, confessor and bishop, at Caesarea in Cappadocia (S.)
BY B. B.
§ I. St. Firmilian, a most distinguished man, had sprung from a noble family among the Cappadocians. He was a disciple of Origen, to whom he brought his friend St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Around the year 232 he is made bishop of Caesarea.
The Greeks adorn St. Firmilian with the highest praises. St. Firmilian, a very distinguished man, Eusebius, where he speaks of the bishops who had assembled at Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata, says [Ecclesiastical history. book VII, chapter 28, page 278. Edit. Valesii. Mainz 1672.]: Among whom there were especially eminent τούτων οἵ μάλιστα διέπρεπον Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea of the Cappadocians, Gregory (Thaumaturgus) and Athenodorus, brothers, bishops of the churches in Pontus, etc. Elsewhere Eusebius had already used the same word διέπρεπε in speaking of Firmilian Book VI, chapter 26, page 228.: There flourished at that time. And in the fourth century Rufinus had translated Ruffinus Frobeni, page 148.: At the same time there was among the bishops the magnificent Firmilian, of the city of Caesarea of the Cappadocian race. And Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in a letter to Pope Dionysius, in the same Eusebius Book VII, chapter V, page 251.: Know, brother, … that all the prelates everywhere (throughout the East) think one and the same thing… namely Demetrian bishop of Antioch… and finally Firmilian with all Cappadocia. For I have named only the more illustrious bishops, lest perhaps our letter be made too prolix and the speech too troublesome. Thus too Gregory of Nyssa in the Life of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus Migne, Patrologia græca, volume 46, column 906.: After (Thaumaturgus), … had fallen in with Firmilian … similar in character and talent, as he showed in his later life, when he was the ornament of the church of the Caesareans. And in the fifth century Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, writes in the Compendium of heretical fables Ibid. volume 83, column 394.: Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, an illustrious man and one who excelled in both kinds of knowledge, both external and divine. Here too may be referred what is read in the acts of SS. Capitolina and Eroteis. She, being questioned about her parents, replies: You indeed, O judge, thinking earthly things, look up to my carnal race, and suppose that my ancestors are dishonored by me, because I fight for the faith of Christ: but I especially admire those whom they brought forth not only as martyrs, but as teachers and heralds of the divine word, like certain noble and beautiful branches. Of whom that great Firmilian, detesting your insane error, and giving faith to the evangelical preaching, as leader showed the way to the light of the sun of justice to those whom unbelief makes blind and was made shepherd of this flock (of Caesarea). Clinging to whose footsteps I will confess the Lord… Christ the king of kings. As regards the kinship, it has been said in the Acts of those holy martyrs (on the preceding day and in this volume p. 211) that it is rather to be understood in a certain mystical sense. We pass over other testimonies of this kind from the Greeks, which would be found without difficulty, that we may come to Baronius, who proclaims no lesser things of Firmilian, while yet condemning (as was proper) the part which he played in the question of the Baptism of heretics, on which matter there will be fuller treatment below. Great indeed (the words are those of Baronius At the year 258, number XLVII.) was the offense which the shipwreck of Firmilian brought to all the churches, who both in doctrine and in sanctity of morals seemed second to almost none of those times. Whom afterwards, brought back to a better harvest and restored to catholic communion and having died piously and holily in the peace of the church, the Greeks worship and venerate. And yet Baronius did not wish his name to be inscribed in the Roman Martyrology, as will be seen elsewhere. These things being premised, we undertake to narrate in order and, as far as is permitted, to elucidate the deeds of St. Firmilian, beginning from his birth.
[2] originating from Cappadocia, of noble family, he was a disciple of Origen. He originated from Cappadocia and indeed was born of a noble family. St. Gregory of Nyssa testifies this expressly, a few of whose words I recited in the preceding number from the Life of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea; but here I set down the whole passage: After (Gregory), having run through all the disciplines of external wisdom, had fallen in with a certain Firmilian, a patrician Cappadocian ἐνέτυχε Φιρμιλιανῷ τινι τῶν εὐπατριδῶν Καππαδόκῃ, similar in character and talent, as he showed in his later life, when he was the ornament of the church of the Caesareans, and had laid open to his friend the design of his mind and the purpose of his life, which looked to God, that is; and had understood that his zeal agreed in the same desire; leaving all study of external philosophy, he goes together with him to him who at that time was the prince of the philosophy of the Christians (and he was Origen, etc. Migne, as above, volume 46, column 906.). From which words they commonly infer that Firmilian sprang from heathen parents and was converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by Origen. Nyssen seems moreover to indicate that both, namely Firmilian and Thaumaturgus, went to Origen together and indeed then for the first time, and began to be instructed by him in the Christian discipline; which you could scarcely reconcile with the rest of the history. St. Gregory, on the authority of Tillemont Mémoires, volume IV, page 773, likewise page 320 and following., met Origen at Caesarea around the year 231, and remained with him until nearly the year 235, to whom he afterwards returned in the year 237, and in the following year received baptism. Now Eusebius writes Hist. eccles. book V, chapter 25, page 228. that under the tenth year of the emperor Alexander Severus there flourished διέπρεπε… Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea among the Cappadocians. Since Alexander obtained the empire in the year 222 Art de vérifier les dates, page 343., the tenth year of his empire corresponds to the year of Christ 232. If you should object that Firmilian is called bishop by Eusebius, not because he then already shone with that dignity, but by prolepsis or anticipation, inasmuch as he presided over the church of Caesarea for many years and indeed with distinguished praise; I should not altogether deny it, although the other opinion is far more probable; but even if this too were granted, I should not plainly perceive how he could have flourished at that time, if he had only recently begun to be instructed in the Christian disciplines.
[3] Bishop of Caesarea of the Cappadocians, more probably around the year 232, For the rest it is established that the beginning of the episcopate of St. Firmilian is not to be removed far from the tenth year of Alexander. It will be helpful to have set the entire passage of Eusebius before the eyes. This was the tenth year of the aforesaid emperor Alexander (that is, in the year of Christ 232), when Origen, about to move from the city of Alexandria to Caesarea, left the school for instructing the faithful of that place to Heraclas. Nor long afterwards Demetrius, bishop of the Alexandrians, died, having administered the church for forty-three years. In his place Heraclas succeeded. There flourished at that time Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea among the Cappadocians. And these things Eusebius, in the interpretation of Henri de Valois, book IV, chapters XXVI and XXVII Page 228.. In the following chapter he begins: Meanwhile the emperor Alexander, who had reigned thirteen years, having been slain, Maximin succeeds in his place Ibidem.. So these things are briefly said of the things done under Alexander from the tenth year of his empire, of Christ 232, to the thirteenth year, of Christ 235, in which on the 19th of March near Mainz he was in fact slaughtered in a mutiny of the soldiers Art. de vérif. page 343.; nor yet does Eusebius define what was done in each of those years, but sets forth in summary what happened in the whole four-year span. In this interval of time, then, Origen moved from Alexandria to Caesarea; Demetrius died; in his place Heraclas succeeded; Firmilian flourished. It is certain, further, from these things that Origen betook himself to Caesarea in the year 231 or the following, namely before the death of St. Demetrius, who forced him to leave Alexandria; and the death of St. Demetrius
is not to be removed beyond the year 232, as Solerius has it in the Patriarchs of Alexandria Acta SS. volume V of June, page 24*. and Hubens in the Acts of St. Demetrius at the 9th day of October Ibid. volume IV of Oct. page 856.. His successor St. Heraclas, on the witness of the same Solerius both in the place cited above and in the Acts at the 14th day of July Ibid. volume III of July, page 646., ascended the chair of Alexandria in the year 231, or, as others prefer, the following. But Firmilian … bishop flourished at that time; certainly not before the tenth year of Alexander, nor after his thirteenth year; more probably, from the context of Eusebius, around the earlier. Michael Lequien seems to agree, where he treats of the province of Cappadocia I: From being a disciple of Origen, he says Oriens Christianus, volume I, column 369., he was created bishop of Caesarea around the 13th year of the emperor Alexander Severus or of Christ 233, at which time Heraclas presided over the church of Alexandria, as Eusebius hints. Yet that the 13th year of Alexander may fall in the year of Christ 233, only the full years of this emperor are to be counted, leaving out the first, or 222, in which he began the empire on the 11th of March, and the last, or 235, in which he ceased on the 19th of the same month Compare Art de vérif. as above.. There agree Valesius Notes on book VII, chapter 7, of Eusebius, page 143., Tillemont Mém. volume IV, page 309., Pagi At the year 258 of Baronius, number XIV and following., tying the beginnings of the episcopate of St. Firmilian to the year 231.
[4] he induces St. Gregory Thaumaturgus to go to Origen. From these things moreover it results, as I noted above, that Firmilian was a hearer of Origen long before St. Gregory went to him at the persuasion of his friend. For if he had first met Origen together with Thaumaturgus (around the year 231, as we have said), St. Firmilian would be found promoted to the miter when he had scarcely begun to study divine things, indeed probably not even initiated by baptism. For the rest from the words of Nyssen, weighed more deeply, it does indeed result that Thaumaturgus was then brought to Origen by his friend Firmilian, but not at all that the latter had not earlier given his labor to that prince of philosophy. So then, to draw together what has been said in a few words: Firmilian, a noble Cappadocian, instructed in divine things by Origen (to whom he thereafter remained perpetually most devoted), is initiated by baptism. Made bishop of Caesarea more probably around the year 232, near the beginning of his government he brought Gregory Thaumaturgus, sprung from the same homeland, to Origen, then staying at Caesarea of the Cappadocians, by whom he, taught piety, some years later illustrated the see of Neocaesarea, and indeed the whole church of God, by doctrine, prodigies and sanctity. His Acts will be given at the 17th day of November, on which his festal memory recurs.
§ II. Of the synod of Iconium, at which St. Firmilian was present. At what time it was held. A brief notice of the city of Iconium and of its See.
The synod of Iconium What has been said of the beginning of the episcopate of St. Firmilian is confirmed from the synod of Iconium, at which it is scarcely doubtful that he was present. Of this synod St. Dionysius of Alexandria makes express mention in Eusebius (it is known that his writings, a few fragments excepted, have not come down to us). Namely in a letter (I use the words of Eusebius Hist. book VII, chapter 7, page 253.) written to Philemon, presbyter of the Roman church, on baptism, Dionysius has this: I have learned this besides, that this custom of rebaptizing heretics was not now for the first time brought in by the Africans alone, but that also much earlier, in the times of earlier bishops, in the most populous churches and in the councils of the brothers at Iconium and Synnada … the same was enacted. This passage of Eusebius Rufinus renders more briefly: In that same little book too Dionysius mentions that it was not then for the first time decreed by the bishops in Africa concerning rebaptizing heretics, but that already before this was treated in some churches and councils of bishops, as at Iconium and other places. Thus in the Rufinus of Froben, Basel 1535 Pages 161 and 162.. (On the editions of the Rufinian version see, if you please, the Latin Patrology of Migne, from the recension of Schönemann Volume XXI. column 21 and following.). Compare Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter IX.) But Firmilian himself speaks more explicitly of the council of Iconium in the letter to St. Cyprian, concerning which the question will return below whether it is genuine or not. Now Firmilian says Works of St. Cyprian, Epist. 75, column 304. Edit. Venice 1728.: All of which we long ago at Iconium, which is a place of Phrygia, gathered together, there coming together persons from Galatia and Cilicia and the other nearest regions, confirmed, etc. And again below Ibid. column 309.: Very many of us, coming together at Iconium, treated most diligently and confirmed that the baptism which is set up outside the church is altogether to be repudiated. From which testimonies the holding of a council at Iconium is openly established. Whence Marcellinus Molkenbuhr, who asserts it to be fictitious, asserts also that the letter which is carried about under the name of Firmilian is forged Two dissertations on St. Firmilian. I. page VIII., and he strives with every effort to prove this in a special dissertation, of which more will have to be said. As regards Eusebius, the letter of St. Dionysius, he says Ibid. page 14., as it is now read in Eusebius, I shall show on another occasion to be interpolated; he thus denies that a council was held at Iconium, because he supposes spurious the two testimonies brought forward by us. The diligent man has gained few followers, especially where he discourses on the interpolation of Eusebius. I should not think, then, that that synod of Iconium can seriously be called into doubt, which the learned commonly admit without scruple. Dom Remi Ceillier suspects Autheurs sacres, volume III, page 563. that St. Augustine spoke of this synod, when he wrote in book III against Cresconius: Accordingly if it must now be altogether believed that this seemed good to fifty bishops of the Orientals, etc. And if this be so, Baillet Vies des Saints, volume V, page 411. and Dusmenil Doctrina et disciplina ecclesiæ, volume I, page 354. rightly judged that fifty bishops came together at Iconium. Which Hefele too judges likely Conciliengeschichte, volume I, page 98 and following..
[5] St. Firmilian was present, It is also the common opinion that Firmilian was present at it. Valesius hesitated a little: for on the words all of which we long ago he notes Annotationes in Eusebium, page 143.: Where the pronoun "we" is to be taken not of the person of Firmilian himself, but rather of his predecessors. He gives no other reason, except that Firmilian himself most manifestly indicates the antiquity of this synod. The letter of Firmilian is judged to have been written around the year 256; the synod, as I shall presently show, was held around the year 232; it could rightly, then, be said to have been held long ago; and nothing prevents Firmilian's having been present, who could have been already bishop at that time, and indeed more probably was. For the rest Valesius added Ibidem.: Someone will say that Firmilian in both places (the two passages recited above) speaks of himself, and that accordingly he was present at the synod of Iconium. So be it: let him have been present … since it so pleases: for I would not wish to deny it too stubbornly. I add that besides Valesius I have found no one who doubted it. But at least, says Lequien Oriens Christianus, volume I, column 369., Firmilian himself in the letter to Cyprian of Carthage testifies that he was one of the bishops who, gathered from Galatia and Phrygia at Iconium, then a town of Phrygia or rather of Pisidia, long ago proscribed the baptism given by the heretics of those times. Indeed, on what credit I do not know, he says elsewhere Col. [ .] that the synod was convened by Firmilian; and hence perhaps it is that it has come into the mind of someone that he presided. Of the synod of Synnada, which St. Dionysius mentions, nothing in particular has become known to us Ceillier as above., nor does Firmilian mention it, perhaps because the memory of it was already obsolete; and therefore Döllinger reckons [Hippolitus und Kallistus, page 191 and following. Compare Hefele Conciliengeschichte, volume I, page 99.] that it was held nearly ten years before the episcopate of Firmilian, perhaps at the same time as Agrippinus held his at Carthage on the question of rebaptism, namely between the year 218 and the year 222.
[6] held around the year 232. As regards the time at which they came together at Iconium, Baronius judges that it took place under Pope Stephen. Cabassut agrees: In nearly the same times, he says Notitia ecclesiastica, page 67, in folio., when Stephen was supreme pontiff, two synods in the parts of Asia had decreed this same thing, on rebaptizing heretics of whatever kind, at Iconium and Synnada around the year 256, of which St. Dionysius and Eusebius, book VII, chapter VII, have made mention. Pagi observes At the year 258 of Baronius, of Pagi 255. that Baronius was deceived, because he did not distinguish the time at which the question of rebaptizing was first agitated from that at which it began to stir up disturbances in the church. The first took place before the pontificate of Stephen, whether in Africa under Agrippinus, or in the East, when the councils of Iconium and Synnada were held; the second without doubt came about in the present year (255) or at latest the following, Stephen administering the church. And more exactly Valesius, in the place cited: This however I constantly affirm, that this synod of Iconium was held long before the times of Pope Stephen. For both Firmilian, writing to Cyprian, who then presided over the church of Carthage, expressly affirms that the synod of Iconium had been gathered "long ago." And Dionysius of Alexandria in the letter to Philemon … which he wrote at the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Xystus, testifies that that synod was held πρὸ πολλοῦ κατᾶ τοῦς πρὸ ἡμῶν ἐπισκόπους. Near the last times of Alexander Severus, then, this synod seems to have been gathered. At which time indeed Firmilian had been recently promoted to the priesthood of the church of Caesarea, as Eusebius teaches in book VI. Wherefore I cannot agree with Baronius and Binius, who placed the synod of Iconium in the year of Christ 258, which is the second year of Pope Stephen. Let us note however in passing (since it matters little to us) that St. Stephen was crowned with martyrdom on the second day of August in the year 257, as the more approved opinion of the learned has it. See our Acts at the aforesaid day [Volume I of Aug. page 114 and following. Compare Art de vérifier les dates, page 233.]. This then is certain, as it seems at least to me, that they came together at Iconium long before Stephen sat on the Roman chair, and gave to St. Cyprian and his followers the celebrated rescript. But in what year was the synod held? For there is an interval of very many years between the beginning of the episcopate of St. Firmilian and the time at which he sent his letter to the bishop of Carthage. The learned go in different directions. Lequien leaves the matter undecided Oriens Ch. volume I, column 369.; near the last times of Alexander
Severus, Valesius Annotationes, page 143., Pagi At the year of Baronius 258, number XVI. and Baillet Vies des Saints, 28 Oct.; around the year 230 or 231, Tillemont Mém. volume IV, page 140. and Ceillier Autheurs, volume III, page 304 and following.; the Benedictines Art de vérifier les dates, page 171. hesitate between Valesius and Tillemont, whose opinion, they say, and rightly indeed, scarcely differs; Charles Joseph Hefele holds the same Conciliengeschichte, volume I, page 98., seeing no reason why it should not be permitted to bind the holding of the council of Iconium with Valesius and Pagi to the year 230 or 235, or to some year between them. Since, he says, the letter of Firmilian was written around the middle of the third century; and he declares that the synod was held "long ago"; it does not seem absurd that it took place nearly twenty years before. The same results from the words of Dionysius to Stephen πρὸ πολλοῦ. Thus too Döllinger inclines to about the year 231 Hyppolitus und Kallistus. page 192.. Adhering to none of these, Moroni writes Dizionario under the word Iconio, volume XXXIII, page 268.: in the year 231 or 235 or even 256 the assembly of Iconium was held. Writers of better mark, then, agree sufficiently on the last times of Severus. The same seems to me to result not obscurely from the letter of St. Firmilian to Cyprian, where he testifies that nearly twenty-two years before, in the times after the emperor Alexander, many conflicts and pressures occurred there (in Cappadocia) Migne, Patrologia, volume III, column 1163.. Since the letter was written in the year 256, it is clear that those calamities are to be ascribed to about the year 234; at which time Maximin succeeded Alexander and held the empire for three years. Since he was from the beginning to the end of his government perpetually most hostile to Christians and especially to bishops (as Eusebius expressly has it Hist. eccles. book VI, chapter 28.), it is not likely that they could easily have come together at Iconium at that time; which on the contrary could very easily have been done under Alexander, constantly friendly to Christians. And hence again we come down on the last times of this emperor. Compare Hefele Conciliengeschichte as above., who argues in the same way from the letter of St. Firmilian. In the margin I have written around the year 232, because this, by an obvious calculation, falls in the tenth year of Severus, in which Eusebius testifies that Firmilian already flourished. And this is enough on a question which it is not given to define with entire certainty from express testimonies of the ancients.
[8] Notice of the city of Iconium, It is certain that Iconium properly belongs to Lycaonia; so commonly Pliny, Ptolemy, Strabo, Stephen of Byzantium and others. See Cellarius [Notitia orbis antiqui, volume II, page 172 and following. Edit. Schwartz. Leipzig 1773.]. Sometimes it is called a town of Pisidia, as in Ammianus Marcellinus, book XIV, chapter II Amm. Marcel. Gronovii, page 9. Leiden 1693.. Holstenius notes, however, that it is very customary for authors to confuse the borders of these provinces Notæ et castigationes in Stephanum Byzantinum, page 145., so that one attributes to Pisidia what another attributes to Lycaonia, and vice versa. Why should we not say the same also of Phrygia, with which Lycaonia is similarly seen on maps to be contiguous? On the witness of Cellarius As above, page 171.: Lycaonia contained between Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Pisidia and Phrygia. And a little more explicitly Lequien Oriens Christianus, volume I, columns 1065 and 66.: Lycaonia properly so called was a region contiguous with Phrygia, Pisidia, Isauria, Cataonia, Cappadocia and Galatia, existing in their midst. As then others could say that Iconium was situated in Pisidia, so Firmilian could say in Phrygia. Many centuries before him Xenophon wrote of Cyrus: He sets out for Iconium, the last city of Phrygia τῆς Φρυγίας πόλιν ἐσχάτην. from there through Lycaonia … he made his way [Ἀνάβασις book I, chapter 11. Opera Xenoph. page 189 and following. Didot. Paris. 1853.]. For the rest the very situation of the city gave a handle for its being ascribed now to one, now to another region. For thus Basil of Seleucia has it [Besilius Seleuciensis de Vita S. Theclæ, book I. Migne, Patrol. græca. volume LXXXV, column 481 and following.]: Πόλις δὲ ἀὐτη Λυκαονίας, τῆς μεν ἐῷας οὐ πολλὐ ἀπέχουσα, τῇ δὲ Ἀσιανῶν μαλλόν τὶ προσορμίζουσα, καὶ τῆς Πισιδῶν καὶ Φρυγῶν χώρας ἐν προοιμίῳ κειμένη. That city (Iconium) is of Lycaonia, not far distant from the East: yet approaching more toward Asia, and lying at the very entrance of the Pisidians and Phrygians. And these things suffice to explain how Firmilian called Iconium a place of Phrygia, without its being necessary to suppose that the city at that time belonged to this province; which indeed I find proved by no suitable testimony. Whence Conrad Mannert: Iconium, he says Geographie der Griechen und Römer, volume VI, part II, page 195., a most ancient city and in the age of the Persians, as results from Xenophon, belonging to eastern Phrygia, is held by later writers to be the metropolis of Lycaonia. Now Iconium is for Pliny a most celebrated city Hist. nat. book V, Harduin. volume I, page 588 in quarto.; for Strabo a well-founded town πολίχνιον εὖ συνῳκισμένον Book XII, page 822. Oxford 1807., which Cellarius translates As above, page 172. a small town, yet well built. From the Acts of the apostles we learn Chapter XIV. that St. Paul stayed for some time at Iconium; and the city is signified, as Cellarius says, as great and populous, inasmuch as it had a great multitude of Jews and Greeks. As regards times nearer to us, according to Ritter Ritter, klein Asien, volume I, page 70., Konia (Iconium), formerly the celebrated seat of the Seljuk Sultans, and earlier the ancient metropolis of Lycaonia, is still today a principal station of travelling troops, commonly called caravans. And the distinguished Charles Texier, who himself visited the region, observes that the city, after it had come into the power of the Turks, was at first rather finely enlarged and adorned Asie mineure (Univers), page 518 and following. Paris 1862.; but then little by little declined. He praises the present suburbs, and presents the ruins, still remarkable, of the ancient palace of the Sultans, which rose in the navel of the city Ibid. pages 661 – 663.. Now the ancient Iconium is called Konieh, and is the head of the province of the same name in the Asiatic empire of the Turks. It numbers about 30,000 inhabitants [De Rienzi, dictionnaire usuel et scientifique de geographie. Edition 5 under the word Konieh.]. It is also called Konia, Cogni. Whence Lequien: There stands to this day, he says Oriens Ch. volume I, column 1067., the city "Iconium" and it is commonly called "Cogni"; so perhaps it was in the last century, but in ours the more excellent geographers say Konieh, in some places Conieh, a word slightly twisted from Iconium.
[9] the metropolis of Lycaonia. The church of Iconium possessed metropolitan rights from the age of the apostles; which however were from time to time diminished Ibidem.. In the notices of the bishoprics of Lycaonia that of Iconium is placed in the first place, as metropolitan; and the province of Lycaonia, whose metropolis is Iconium, comes in order XII under the patriarch of Constantinople. And the prelate of Iconium, says the Lequien mentioned, under the emperor Valens, bore the care of the churches of Pamphylia, Pisidia and Lycaonia, as though Iconium were the metropolis and head of Lycaonia and also of the other two. Wherefore in the Latin index of the fathers of the synod of Nicaea, the mention of the province of Lycaonia being omitted, the first of the bishops of "Pisidia" is "Eulalius of Iconium," and presently the bishops of Pisidia and Lycaonia are listed mixed in the same series. This jurisdiction did not continually exist circumscribed by the same limits, as may be seen in the writer mentioned, and at the time of the council which Firmilian mentions, Celsus seems to have held the miter of Iconium, who, Eusebius reports, asked Paulinus, a layman, to instruct the faithful of his church Hist. book VI, chapter 19, page 222.. Among the other metropolitans of Iconium (they are perpetually so named) the most celebrated is St. Amphilochius, to whom St. Basil the Great wrote several letters or treatises. In the eleventh century, Iconium with all that region having been occupied by the Mohammedan barbarians, and the empire of the Seljuks having been established around the year 1074, the church of Iconium nearly ceased altogether, as did almost all the others of that Anatolian tract, whose metropolitans were created at Constantinople; and that what was necessary for sustenance might be available to them, it was enacted by a constitution of the emperor Alexius Comnenus that they should be given prefectures of monasteries, fraternities and other offices of sacred houses Oriens Christ. volume I, column 1068.. In our days Iconium is an archiepiscopal title in the parts of the infidels, which, among others, Gregory XVI conferred in the year 1842 on the Most Reverend John de Geissel, who from being bishop of Speyer was made archbishop of Iconium and, with the consent of the Most Reverend Droste Vischering, coadjutor of Cologne with future succession; whence he ascended this chair, the titular having died, on the 11th day of January 1845. He was enrolled among the cardinals of the Holy Roman church in the year 1850; he died on the 8th of September in the year 1864. A truly most illustrious prelate, who deserved exceedingly well of the church in most difficult times [Moroni under the word Iconio. Likewise Kersten, journal historique, volume XXXI, page 302 and following.].
§ III. St. Firmilian visits Origen, and provides for his safety under the persecution of Maximin. How bitter the times were, and how brilliantly the virtue of the holy Bishop of Caesarea shone forth.
[Perpetually devoted to Origen, he visits him and protects him under the persecution of Maximin.] We said above at number 2 that St. Firmilian was instructed by Origen in divine things and indeed converted to the faith; we added that at his instigation St. Gregory Thaumaturgus gave himself to the discipline of the same master; and that Origen himself near the beginning of the episcopate of Firmilian, forced by the patriarch Demetrius to leave Alexandria, moved to Caesarea of the Cappadocians, and there, as earlier at Alexandria, held a school, and this at the call of the same Firmilian. Whence Eusebius Hist. eccles. book VI, chapter 27, page 228.: He was of such a favorable mind toward Origen that now he called him into his province for the benefit of the churches; now he set out as far as Judaea to visit him, and remained with him for some time, in order to gain a greater knowledge of divine things. Nor less expressly St. Jerome in the book on Illustrious Men, chapter LIV Migne, Patrol. lat. volume XXIII. column 605.: How great was the glory of Origen appears from this, that Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, with all Cappadocia invited him and held him long, and afterwards, coming into Palestine on the occasion of the holy places, was long taught by him at Caesarea (of Palestine) in the holy Scriptures, or, as Eusebius speaks, gained a greater knowledge. From which words of Jerome we learn that St. Firmilian went on pilgrimage to the holy places, and used this occasion to hear his beloved master at Caesarea of Palestine, and doubtless also in the very city of Jerusalem. For Eusebius, in the place cited, adds: But also Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine
the bishop, listening perpetually to Origen himself as their master, left to him alone the interpretation of sacred Scripture and all the rest of the office of ecclesiastical doctrine. And these so many and so great testimonies of benevolence and respect plainly demonstrate that those bishops did not agree with Demetrius, who had determined so bitterly against Origen, indeed, in the judgment of St. Jerome, raged against him with such great madness As above.. There is no room for doubting that Firmilian remained devoted to Origen until the latter's death, which took place in the year 253; whence it is clear that the disciple survived his master by only a few years, since he met his last day in the year 259, as will be said below. Tillemont judges Mémoires, volume IV, page 311. that Origen lay hidden with Firmilian during the whole three years for which the persecution of the emperor Maximin lasted, namely from the year 235 to the year 238 Art de vérif. les dates, page 343.. Eusebius seems at first sight to stand in the way, where he writes Hist. eccl. book VI, chapter 28, page 228. that Maximin, having stirred up a persecution, ordered only the prelates of the churches τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἄρχοντας to be killed, as being the authors of the evangelical preaching; yet since he adds: At which time Origen composed the book on Martyrdom, which he dedicated to Ambrose and to Protectus, presbyter of the church of Caesarea, because both had undergone no slight peril in that persecution, it is understood that presbyters too were not in safety; it was accordingly for Origen to provide for himself. For the rest from the dedication of the aforesaid book the opinion or conjecture of Tillemont is confirmed.
[11] The fortitude of St. Firmilian stands out amid the calamities, And these things took place at the beginning of the episcopate of St. Firmilian, which, since it was troubled by many and great calamities, especially under the rule of Maximin, there is no doubt but that among these things the fortitude, prudence and other virtues of the Holy Prelate shone forth brilliantly, and won him so great an esteem among all the best men that he was numbered among the most excellent and most holy pontiffs of his age. It will be helpful, accordingly, to set down a passage from his letter to Cyprian, where the most wretched state of things is explained and set as if before the eyes. For nearly twenty-two years ago, in the times after the emperor Alexander, many conflicts and pressures occurred there, either in common for all men, or privately for Christians; there were also very many and frequent earthquakes, so that they overthrew many things through Cappadocia and through Pontus, and certain cities too, received into the depth, were swallowed by a chasm of the burst soil, so that from this there arose also a grievous persecution against us of the Christian name. Which, arising suddenly after a long past age of peace, was made the more terrible by the unexpected and unaccustomed evil for disturbing our people. Serenianus was then governor in our province, a bitter and dreadful persecutor. And when the faithful were placed in this disturbance, and were fleeing hither and thither for fear of the persecution, and leaving their homelands, and passing into other parts of the regions (for there was the means of passing over, because that persecution was not through the whole world, but local), there suddenly emerged there a certain woman, who, placed in ecstasy, presented herself as a prophetess, and acted as though full of the Holy Spirit.
[12] by which he testifies that the church was then vehemently pressed. And she was so carried by the assault of the chief demons that for a long time she disturbed and deceived the brotherhood; and accomplishing certain wonderful and portentous things, she promised also that she would make the earth to be moved. Not that the demon had such great power, or was able by a command to move the earth or to shake the element; but because the wicked spirit sometimes, foreknowing and understanding that an earthquake was to come, pretended that he would do what he saw was to come. By which lies and boastings he had subdued the mind of each, so that they obeyed him, and followed wherever he commanded and led: and he made that woman go in the raw winter with bare feet through rough snows, and not to be troubled or harmed in any way by that running about: she said too that she was hastening into Judaea and to Jerusalem, feigning as though she had come from there. He deceived also one of the presbyters, a rustic, and likewise another, a deacon, so that they had intercourse with the same woman, which was detected a little later. For suddenly there appeared before her one of the exorcists, a proved man and one who had always conducted himself well with regard to religious discipline, who, stirred also by the exhortation of very many brothers, who were themselves present, strong and laudable in the faith, raised himself up to refute that wicked spirit; who with subtle deceit had even a little before foretold this, that a certain adversary and unbelieving tempter would come. Yet that exorcist, inspired by the grace of God, resisted strongly, and showed that he who was earlier thought holy was a most wicked spirit. But that woman, who earlier by the illusions and deceits of the demon undertook many things for the deception of the faithful, among the other things by which she had deceived very many, frequently dared this too, that by an invocation not contemptible she pretended to sanctify the bread and to make the eucharist, and offered the sacrifice to the Lord not without the sacrament of the customary preaching; she also baptized many, using the customary and lawful words of the interrogation, so that she seemed to differ in nothing from the Ecclesiastical rule. Thus from the recension of John Fell, bishop of Oxford Pages 222 and following. Bremen 1690.. Firmilian gave this letter to Cyprian, as is agreed among the learned, around the year 256; since then the afflictions and pressures which he mentions took place nearly twenty-two years before and in the times after Alexander, he openly designates the beginning of the empire of Maximin, who it is established succeeded Alexander when he was slain around the year 235. Compare Eusebius, book VI, chapter XXVIII.
§ IV. As the schism of Novatian grows strong, the bishops come together around the year 252 at Antioch, among whom St. Firmilian. What was done by them becomes known from the Synodal Libellus, the credibility of which is weighed. St. Firmilian rejoices greatly at the restored peace.
He sat in the synod of Antioch We know of nothing else done by Firmilian from this time down to St. Cornelius the pope, who, created pontiff in the year 251, underwent martyrdom in the following one, after he had sat one year and some months Art de vérifier les dates, page 242.. Now Eusebius narrates Hist. eccles. book VI, last chapter, page 247. that St. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Cornelius, bishop of the city of Rome, whose letter written against Novatus (rather Novatian) he had received. In which letter indeed he indicates that he had been invited by Helenus, bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, and by the others who had come together with him: namely Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Theoctistus, bishop of the province of Palestine, to come to the synod of Antioch, in which certain persons were trying to confirm the schism of Novatus (Novatian). Thus far Eusebius, who, like the Greeks generally, deceived by the similarity of the names, confused Novatus and Novatian. Compare Valesius Annotationes, page 128.. They are however different. Novatus, a presbyter of Carthage, guilty of very grave crimes, when he foresaw that he would shortly be condemned by the bishops, set out secretly for Rome, where he was the author to Novatian, a Roman presbyter, of stirring up a schism. So Pagi in the Breviarium Volume I, page 36.. This Novatian then, taking ill the election of Cornelius, by spreading calumnies drew to his side some confessors who had endured chains in the recent persecution of Decius, and through three bishops, forced by violence and fraud, was ordained Roman pontiff, and thus first stirred up in the Roman church a schism, which lasted until the pontificate of Celestine Ibid.. To the schism, as is wont to happen, he added a heresy, which, taking its name from its author, was called that of the Novatians, who called themselves and their own Cathars or pure, and rebaptized whoever came to them having been dipped in the orthodox churches; indeed they rejected every baptism other than their own as sacrilegious and empty Cabassutius Notitia ecclesiastica, page 62.; they carried about besides other errors from others See Natalis Alexander, volume IV, page 6 and following.. Nor did the sect grow strong only at Rome, but also in Africa, and indeed it found favorers even in the East. And hence it is that among those who strenuously fought Novatian there stand out especially St. Cyprian and St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Several letters of the latter Eusebius praises and partly recites in his Ecclesiastical History, among which one or two written to Fabius patriarch of Antioch, who, on the witness of Eusebius Hist. eccl. book VI, chapter 46, page 246., inclined in some way to the schism ὑποκατακλινομένῳ πῶς τῷ σχίσματι. I wonder that these four words are passed over in the Latin version of Valesius, which our Boschius too has already observed in the Patriarchs of Antioch Acta SS. volume IV of July, page 22.. To the same Fabius St. Cornelius the pope gave altogether four letters on this subject, as Eusebius and St. Jerome teach. And by these letters, adds Boschius, if Fabius himself was not bent to the side of Cornelius and of all the churches, this certainly was effected, that he took care to appoint a council at Antioch on that matter. And this is the synod of which we are treating and at which St. Firmilian was present.
[14] around the year 252, Now Boschius judges that the synod was appointed by Fabius for this reason, that Dionysius in the same letter indicates that Demetrian succeeded Fabius on his death; from which place, he says, you may not rashly draw out that the synod was decreed and appointed before Fabius died. For he does not hint that he was called to the council and informed of the death of Fabius by the same persons or at the same time; but he writes as if this (that is the death of Fabius) took place later than that (the calling of the synod) Compare Acts of St. Dionysius, volume II of Oct. page 32. and following.. Certainly it is not rash so to think; yet it is only a conjecture. St. Dionysius could certainly have informed Cornelius of the synod, even if it had been appointed by Demetrian, and then have made mention of the death of Fabius, and not indeed in the proper words of Dionysius; but after reciting the place in the letter which pertains to the council, he adds: Dionysius writes also that it had been announced to him that Fabius had indeed met his last day, and that Demetrian had been established in his place as bishop of the church of Antioch. Which indeed may be taken in this sense, that the message of the death of Fabius came to Dionysius before he was invited to the council. Indeed it seems more likely that that message was sent to Alexandria not by the three named bishops, but by the presbytery of Antioch or by Demetrian himself. Finally, besides two small fragments (the second on the martyrdom of a certain Alexander) inserted in the history of Eusebius, the letter of Dionysius has not come down to us Compare Migne, Patrol. græca, volume XVIII, column 1311., from the context of which the matter would have to be decided. Cornelius Byeus in the Acts of St. Dionysius of Alexandria judges the opinion of Boschius very likely; but that it is hardly credible that it was held by Demetrian on the mere convocation by Fabius, no new convocation having gone before Acta SS. volume II of Oct. page 34.. However that may be, whether the appointment was made by
Fabius or not, it was held at the beginning of the pontificate of Demetrian, who took up the government of the church of Antioch in the first year of the emperors Gallus and Volusian, of Christ 252 Boschius as above..
[15] on the schism of Novatian, What was done in the synod is little or scarcely established. Whence Mansi Concilia, volume I, page 871.: We owe the first notice of this synod to Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria… But the author of the Synodicon adds that Novatus was deposed in it. I set down the whole passage of the synodal libellus: A divine and sacred provincial synod gathered at Antioch by Demetrius, its most holy bishop, which deposed Novatus Ναύατον (rather Novatian), as one who patronized sinners. So Labbe Volume I, column 719. Likewise Fabricius Bibl. Græca, page 366.. Now Charles Hefele notes Conciliengeschichte, volume I, page 85 and following. Edit. 1855.: This "synodal libellus," also called "synodicon," contains brief notices of one hundred and fifty-eight councils, which were held in the first nine centuries of the church, namely down to the eighth ecumenical, begun in the year 869 and finished in the following. The libellus was brought from the Peloponnese in the sixteenth century by Andreas Darmarius, and sold to Pappus, a theologian of Strasbourg, who published it in Latin and Greek in the year 1601. Afterwards it was inserted in the volumes of the Councils. Harduin reprinted it entire in one tenor in volume V, page 1491 and following; Mansi (likewise Labbe) divided it up in order of time, and listed each item at its year. Compare Fabricius, from whom this notice has been summarily drawn Bibliotheca Græca, volume XII, page 358 and following. Harles., who also inserted the whole Libellus in his work. Nor does the learned Hefele attribute great authority to the libellus, since a little later he declares As above page 105. that it is very doubtful whether a synod against the Novatians came together at Antioch at that time, since this is established for us from the libellus alone. It seems to me, however, that it results clearly from Eusebius too that the synod was gathered, where he says: That Dionysius was invited by Helenus … and the others who had come together with him to come to the synod, in which certain persons were trying to confirm the schism of Novatus. So this historical fact rests at least on a double testimony. The libellus asserts that Novatian was deposed there, which perhaps, says Mansi, in the place cited, that author (of the libellus) took from the letter of the same Dionysius written to Dionysius, then indeed a presbyter of the city of Rome; but who somewhat later was established as bishop of the same city in the year 259. Eusebius reports a fragment from that letter, book VII, chapter VIII Eusebius, page 254., in these words: "For we rightly turn away from Novatian, as one who has split the church, and has drawn some of the brothers to impiety and blasphemy," etc. And thus indeed Mansi by conjecture. This moreover is certain, that in the ninth century, in which the libellus is supposed to have been written, many documents survived which afterwards perished. Why should the author not have found in these what he so expressly affirms of the deposition of Novatian? Let the learned reader judge, clear and suitable testimonies from antiquity being lacking, if anything can even probably be determined.
[16] and he rejoiced greatly at the peace restored a little later. Now we know that around the year 256 all the churches of the East everywhere, the fury of persecution having now softened, detesting the turbulent novelty of Novatus (Novatian), entered into peace among themselves. These things Eusebius Ibidem book VII, chapter 4, page 251., bringing forward in proof a letter of St. Dionysius to St. Stephen the pope, which it is not right to pass over here either, as being exceedingly honorable to St. Firmilian: Know, brother, that all the churches through the East and those placed beyond, which earlier were torn apart, have now at length returned to unity; and that all the prelates of the churches everywhere think one and the same thing, and exult with incredible joy on account of the peace unexpectedly restored: namely Demetrian bishop of Antioch, Theoctistus of Caesarea, Mazabanes of Aelia after the death of Alexander, Marinus of Tyre, Heliodorus of Laodicea after the death of Thelymidres; Helenus of Tarsus and all the churches of Cilicia; and finally Firmilian with all Cappadocia. For I have named only the more illustrious bishops, lest perhaps our letter be made too prolix and the speech too troublesome. All the provinces of the Syrias indeed with Arabia…; Mesopotamia too, Pontus and Bithynia; and to finish in a word, all everywhere on earth leap for gladness, and give thanks to God on account of this concord and fraternal charity. That so great a good was procured in great part by the labor and industry of Firmilian, not one person will doubt who has recalled to his mind how far the bishop of Neocaesarea excelled in reputation for virtue and wisdom among all in the East; and accordingly that what St. Dionysius relates of the gladness and exultation on account of the restored peace pertains to him in a peculiar manner.
§ V. The dissension on the validity of baptism among heretics is set out in summary. The question was stirred up in the East long before the times of St. Stephen; under his pontificate it blazed up into a very grave disagreement, as is proved from the letters of St. Dionysius of Alexandria.
The question of Baptism in Africa, set out in summary, both from others We have come to the cause which, as it stirred up for Firmilian many and most bitter troubles, so also cast doubt whether he was cut off from the bosom of the church. Namely in the question of the baptism of heretics, vehemently agitated a little after the middle of the third century, he openly adhered to St. Cyprian of Carthage, to whom he wrote a letter so virulent and even insulting against St. Stephen the Roman pontiff that to many, from this head alone, it has seemed of suspect credit, and indeed altogether spurious. But of this more broadly below. Since in the Acts of St. Cyprian at the 14th day of September there has been said by Suyskens, diligently and accurately, what concerns that most celebrated contention, it remains for us here to treat of those things which pertain peculiarly to St. Firmilian. Yet there must first be recalled to memory, in a few words and in summary, what was done and undertaken in Africa, that the way may be made smoother for what is to be said of the East and of Firmilian. Tertullian seems first of all to have touched the question, where in the book on Baptism, chapter XV: There is not the same God, he says Migne, Patrol lat. volume I, column 1216., for us and for them (the heretics), nor one Christ, that is the same; and therefore neither is there one baptism, because it is not the same, which since they do not have it rightly, without doubt they do not have it. Then around the year 215 Agrippinus, prelate of Carthage, having convoked a council of the Africans, decreed that any persons baptized by heretics were in no way to be admitted to the church, unless they should receive baptism anew in the church Compare Cabassutius, Notitia ecclesiastica, page 69.. From then on the question seems to have been laid to sleep, until under Pope Stephen it blazed up far more vehemently, St. Cyprian sitting at Carthage, who not only defended the erroneous opinion most sharply by writings, but also in a space of nearly a year and a half celebrated three synods; the first in the year 255, at which there were present thirty or thirty-one bishops Ibid. page 67.; the second in the following year, to which there came together seventy-one prelates, to confirm what had been enacted in the earlier one concerning repudiating the baptism of heretics Ibid. page 296.; and Cyprian wrote in his own name and that of the synod to St. Stephen, indicating what had been decreed by the African fathers. But the Roman pontiff rejected the sanction of the synod: and he forbade that anyone should dare to depart from the apostolic tradition: Let nothing be innovated except what has been handed down Ibid. page 297.. Not bearing this with equanimity, Cyprian penned a sharper letter against Stephen, in which he does not fear to accuse him of pride, inexperience, imprudence, etc.; and he appointed and held a third council on the kalends of September of the same year 256, there being present from Africa, Numidia and Mauritania eighty-seven bishops in all, who approved the decrees of the earlier assemblies. From this synod Suyskens judges Volume IV of Sept. page 303. Compare Tillemont Mémoires, volume IV and page 155. that the legates were sent to Rome, and not from the other or second, as Maran thought. The legation by no means obtained the outcome intended by the Africans: for, on the witness of Firmilian, Stephen, forewarned of their arrival, forbade them all hospitality and shelter of Christians, and was unwilling to admit them to common conference Ibid. page 304..
[18] and from St. Firmilian; But let us hear Firmilian himself. Having recited the words of the Apostle to the Ephesians IV. 1.: I therefore *, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you, etc., he continues in this manner Works of St. Cyprian, epist. 75, toward the end.: How diligently has he fulfilled these commands and saving admonitions of the Apostle, keeping in the first place humility of mind and gentleness? For what is more humble or more gentle than to have disagreed with so many bishops through the whole world; breaking peace with each by a different kind of discord, now with the Orientals (which we trust is not hidden from you either), now with you who are in the south? By whom he received the legates, bishops, patiently enough and gently, so as not to admit them to the speech of common conference; and, still mindful moreover of love and charity, commanded the whole brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house; so that to those who came not only peace and communion, but even shelter and hospitality should be denied. This is to have kept the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, to cut oneself off from the unity of charity and to make oneself a stranger in all things to the brothers, and to rebel against the sacrament and the faith with the fury of contumacious discord. From this and other similar passages of the letter Suyskens rightly, in my opinion, concludes against Baronius and Natalis Alexander that those legates came from Africa, and not, as those men would have it, from the East, namely after the holding of the council of Iconium, which they wrongly tie to the year 256, as we have demonstrated above. But where Firmilian brings in Stephen as breaking peace now with the Orientals (which we trust is not hidden from you either), now with you who are in the south, he certainly shows that rescripts had already earlier come from Rome against the same error stalking in the churches of the East; and this is what pertains especially to us.
[19] likewise in the East before Stephen, We learn, again from Firmilian, that the baptism of heretics had been repudiated there from all past time. It will be helpful to have set down the whole passage: But as regards refuting the custom which they seem to oppose to the truth; who is so vain as to prefer custom to truth? Or who, having perceived the light, would not forsake the darkness? Unless indeed the most ancient custom helps the Jews too in anything, at the coming of Christ, that is of truth, in that, the new way of truth being left, they remained in their old state. Here certainly Firmilian confuses custom with apostolic tradition, from which Stephen affirmed that one must not depart, and most deservedly and rightly so, as, when minds had afterwards calmed, all unanimously recognized. Firmilian adds next that it is indeed the case with the Africans, as he set out above, that when the light has been perceived the darkness is to be left, since they themselves at least at one time, namely after Agrippinus, approved the baptism of heretics;
but not at all with the Orientals, who perpetually rejected it. Which indeed, he says, you Africans can say against Stephen, that having known the truth you have left the error of custom. But we join custom also to truth, and to the custom of the Romans we oppose a custom, but of truth, holding from the beginning that which was handed down by Christ and by the apostles. Nor do we remember that this began at any time among us, since it has always been observed there that we should know only one church of God, and should reckon holy baptism to belong only to the holy church. Certain persons indeed doubted about the baptism of those who, even if they do not, as we (others read and if See Baluze. annotation 32 on this letter.), receive the new prophets, yet seem to know the same Father and Son with us; very many of us coming together at Iconium treated most diligently; and confirmed that every baptism whatever which is set up outside the church is altogether to be repudiated. So, as I have noted, on the witness of Firmilian (nor do I see why in this matter we should altogether reject his testimony) perpetually or at least from time immemorial in those tracts baptism conferred outside the church was held to be of no validity. Nor is any graver dispute known to have arisen at any time before Stephen, but when certain persons had at one time doubted, at Iconium and Synnada, namely around the year 232, and indeed among very many others, on the witness of Dionysius of Alexandria Hist. eccl. book VII, chapter 7, page 254., the ancient custom was sedulously examined and confirmed.
[20] under whom there arose a dissension But under Stephen, not only in Africa, but also in the East, the question was agitated with great commotions of minds, as is demonstrated enough and more than enough from the letters both of Firmilian and of St. Cyprian. Eusebius also gives proof: To this Stephen, he says Ibid. chapters II and III, page 251., Dionysius penned the first of the letters which were written on baptism, since at that time τηνικάδε no slight controversy had arisen, whether those who are converted from any heresy ought to be purged by baptism, for the ancient custom had grown strong that in the case of men of this kind only the imposition of hands with prayers should be used. First of all Cyprian, who at that time ruled the church of Carthage, judged that they were to be admitted only when first cleansed from error by baptism. But Stephen, thinking that nothing should be innovated against the tradition which had prevailed already from the remotest times, took this very gravely. Where Eusebius says that an ancient custom had grown strong of not baptizing heretics, he seems to be understood of the Romans and Africans, not of Cappadocia and the other neighboring regions; otherwise he would not only openly contradict Firmilian, but would also not be consistent with himself, since he teaches below that at Iconium and Synnada the contrary doctrine was enacted, namely that those coming from heresy to the church are to be baptized. Perhaps, however, this is his meaning, that there existed the ancient custom of the church viewed universally of not baptizing men of this kind, although in certain provinces something else was practiced; and that there had never been a sharper contest on this subject before Stephen. Thus all would agree well enough. For the rest, what is to be noted well, he does not write of this question in one tenor, but in scattered fashion and almost solely from the letters of St. Dionysius, patriarch of Alexandria, of which he either only briefly indicates the subject, or recites only some parts. And hence it comes about that perspicuity is lacking to the narrative, and indeed that it appears, and in fact is, obscure and involved. Nor do I find it anywhere plainly declared what he himself thinks on the question. Suyskens too, our predecessor, observes in the Acts of St. Cyprian Volume IV of Sept. day 14, page 293. that his opinion is not rightly, or rather obscurely, set out by Eusebius; from whose words it would seem that the holy doctor held that heretics are to be purged from error or heresy by baptism; whereas he says they are to be baptized for this reason, that outside the church no baptism could be had: for he carefully abstains from the word rebaptized: such persons, he says Epist. to Quintus Migne, volume III column 1104., we say are not rebaptized among us but baptized; and again To Jubaianus. Migne, column 1110: And thereby not rebaptized, but baptized, whoever, etc. Finally from the version of Valesius, which I have set down above, it would follow that the controversy on baptism was stirred up in Africa by St. Cyprian first of all; whence Gerard John Vossius charges Eusebius with error, since it is established that Agrippinus was a patron of the same opinion long before Cyprian. But Valesius in this place is not accurate enough. In the Greek one reads: πρῶτος τῶν τότε Κυπριανὸς τῆς κατὰ Καρχηδόνα παροικίας Ποιμὴν …, ἡγεῖτο, that is, first of all at that time τῶν τότε Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, judged. Wherefore John of Chester: Certainly, he says Annales Cyprianici, at the year 256, § VI., πρῶτος τῶν τότε signifies in Greek nothing else than "first of those who at that time existed" or "flourished." The sense then is that Cyprian was the first who under Stephen brought forward and sustained this error. These things, adds the bishop of Chester, are plain from our version, which learned men have not hitherto seen. Valesius, perhaps because he saw that something else was to be inferred from his version, observes in the annotations: Cyprian was not the first author of this opinion, but long before him Agrippinus… had decreed that heretics were to be rebaptized. And this in general on the question that arose among the Orientals.
[21] very grave, But how sharply it was disputed, and with how great a commotion of minds it was contested, shines forth from other letters of St. Dionysius, which Eusebius praises to the number of six. The first, of which mention was made above, is to Stephen; three to his successor in the Roman chair Xystus; one to Philemon, a Roman presbyter, another to Dionysius, then also a presbyter, afterwards supreme pontiff. A little otherwise St. Jerome in the Catalogue, §69: To Xystus, who had succeeded Stephen, two letters; and to Philemon and to Dionysius, presbyters of the Roman church, two letters. He omits, then, the letter to Stephen and another to Xystus. For the rest all have perished, except the fragments inserted by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History, which you will find reprinted without any supplement partly in the Greek Patrology Migne, volume XVII, column 1313 and following., partly in the Latin Volume V, column 96 and following.. These things noted beforehand, let us return to Eusebius. When Stephen had ruled the church for two years, Xystus succeeded in his place. To him Dionysius wrote the second letter on baptism, in which he sets forth the opinion and judgment of Stephen and at the same time of the other bishops; writing thus of Stephen: Earlier indeed he had written a letter concerning Helenus and Firmilian, and finally all the priests established through Cilicia, Cappadocia and all the neighboring provinces, that he would withdraw from their communion for this reason, that they baptized heretics. And see the gravity of the affair. For in truth in very great councils of bishops, as I hear, it was decreed that those who come from the heretics to the catholic church should first be made catechumens, and then should be purged by baptism from the filth of the old and impure leaven. On all these things, then, I sent a letter to him (Stephen), asking and beseeching that he should not persevere in the way of severity he had begun.
[22] as is established from the letters of St. Dionysius of Alexandria. The dissension, then, was very grave, by which chiefly Cappadocia, Cilicia and all the neighboring provinces were disturbed. But what those very great councils were of which St. Dionysius speaks is unknown; surely he understands others besides that of Iconium and that of Synnada, since he writes elsewhere: I have learned this besides, that this custom was not first brought in by the Africans alone, but that also much earlier it was enacted at Iconium and Synnada and among very many others. Dionysius adds in the aforesaid letter to Xystus: But to our dearest brothers and fellow presbyters also, Dionysius (afterwards supreme pontiff) and Philemon, who earlier thought the same as Stephen, and had written to me on the same matters, I wrote earlier indeed briefly, but now in more words. What the word earlier means (which troubles some) would have to be judged from the whole letter, not from fragments of this kind. Someone might not absurdly say that those men earlier judged with Stephen that there was need of severity against the authors or patrons and propagators of the error, and therefore that all to a man were to be excluded or deprived of communion, but that afterwards under Xystus, a pontiff of milder character, they preferred kinder counsels, such as the holy patriarch of Alexandria had wished from the beginning to be applied, as he expressly professes in the third letter, which is to Philemon. For after the words recited above on the assemblies of Iconium, Synnada and others, he subjoins Euseb. chapter VII, page 254.: Whose opinions and statutes I for my part would not wish to overturn, nor to stir them up to quarrels and contentions, for it is written: You shall not change the boundaries of your neighbor, which your parents have established. Which plainly demonstrate that according to his opinion one should not have recourse to harsher remedies. The fourth letter, says Eusebius Ibidem., was written to Dionysius, then indeed a presbyter of the city of Rome, who some time later οὐκ εἰς μακρόν was established as bishop of that city …, namely in the year 259, when he succeeded Xystus, who had succeeded Stephen in the year 257. What the letter contained on baptism Eusebius is silent; it is likely that it looked to the same end as the preceding one to Philemon. Toward the end it treats of Novatian. Compare number 15. The fifth and sixth are to Xystus; of the former I shall speak more broadly below. The sixth (by an error or a misprint Valesius says the fifth Ibidem chapter IX, at the end.), as Eusebius again has it, was directed in the name of himself (the patriarch Dionysius) and of the church which he ruled to Xystus and the church of the city of Rome; in which he set up a very lengthy disputation on the proposed question. It is indeed to be regretted that it was entirely passed over by Eusebius, since it has not come down to us from elsewhere either. And these things on the controversy, as far as is established from the letters of St. Dionysius, which if they existed entire would doubtless teach us more, and would not leave us hesitating in doubt what that most holy man thought; namely whether baptism conferred outside the church was valid or not. But of this I shall speak more broadly elsewhere.
Annotations* Itaque. Therefore.
§ VI. Of the letter of St. Firmilian, bitter beyond all measure, and even insulting to St. Stephen. Whether the latter's immoderate severity could have given a handle to such great heat of anger.
Firmilian, approached through Rogatian the deacon by St. Cyprian, The gravity of the dissension is demonstrated more clearly still from the letters of SS. Cyprian and Firmilian. Namely Stephen, as Boschius has it in his Acts at the second day of August Acta SS. volume I of August, page 117., gave a letter to Cyprian and the Orientals, which he thus concludes: If anyone therefore comes to us from whatever heresy, let nothing be innovated except what has been handed down, that a hand be laid on him for penance, etc. See the Letter of Cyprian to Pompey. Which precept indeed,
adds Boschius, that they might feel it to be most weighty, he both joined to it all his authority and threatened, not without sharp but just reproof, an armed severity if they should neglect it: for he commanded as "bishop of bishops" and as "holding the succession of Peter, on which the foundations of the church are laid." On receiving this reply of Stephen, St. Cyprian appointed a third synod at Carthage; and when this had been held he sent legates to the City, whom Stephen would not even admit to his sight. See number 18. When Cyprian had learned this, moved more bitterly and perhaps fearing lest so open an indignation of the Roman pontiff should break out into a greater evil, he resolved to call the Orientals to the aid of his cause. So he dispatched Rogatian with a letter to Firmilian: for he was by no means ignorant that he flourished with especial praise among his own; more probably he also knew that he had been approached by Stephen at least with the threat of exclusion. For the words of Firmilian reported at number 18 suggest this: What more humble … than breaking peace with each by a different kind of discord; now with the Orientals (which we trust is not hidden from you either), now with you who are in the south.
[24] he sends a letter to him, The letter of Cyprian to Firmilian is lost; but that it was sharp and bitter is established from his replies, surely far sharper and more bitter. This is the beginning: Firmilian to Cyprian his brother in the Lord, greeting. We have received through Rogatian our dearest deacon, sent by you, the letter which you wrote to us, most beloved brother; and we have given the greatest thanks to the Lord on this account, that it has come about that we who are separated from each other in body are so united in spirit, as though we held not only one region, but lived together in one and the same house. Then he openly accuses Stephen of breaking the peace (who however does not seem, as I shall show below, to have gone beyond threats), and thus pours forth the feelings of an embittered mind: Except that we can give thanks to Stephen in this, that through his inhumanity it has now come about that we have received proof of your faith and wisdom. But if we have received this favor of benefit on account of Stephen, it does not at once follow that Stephen has done anything worthy of benefit and thanks. For neither can Judas too, by his perfidy and betrayal, by which he acted wickedly toward the saviour, seem worthy as though he himself had furnished the cause of such great goods … that by the passion of the Lord the world should be freed. Let these things meanwhile which have been done by Stephen be passed over, lest, while we mention his audacity and insolence, we bring on ourselves a longer sadness over the things wickedly done by him. Then after he has said that not all that has been handed down is equally observed at Rome and at Jerusalem, for example in celebrating Easter, and yet that on account of these things there has been no departure from peace and unity, he adds: Which Stephen has now dared to do, breaking against you the peace which his predecessors always kept with you in mutual love and honor, defaming moreover Peter and Paul, the blessed apostles, as though they themselves had handed this down. But yet they did hand it down, since the universal church has recognized that the opinion of St. Stephen, whom Firmilian so unworthily tears to pieces, descends from apostolic tradition.
[25] altogether insulting to St. Stephen; And again: And I in this respect am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so glories in the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the foundations of the church are laid, should bring in many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches, while he defends by his authority that baptism is there. For those who are baptized without doubt fill up the number of the church. And he who approves their baptism affirms that the church also is there from the baptized. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian rock is obscured by him and in some way abolished, who thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle professes that the Jews, however blind with ignorance and bound by a most grave crime, have a zeal for God: Stephen, who proclaims that he holds the chair of Peter by succession, is stirred by no zeal against heretics. Who reading these things would not be indignant, not undeservedly now, but most justly and deservedly, against him who was not ashamed to bring forward, or rather to blurt out, such things against a pontiff, a defender of sound doctrine? To this, namely, men otherwise good and excellent are carried away, when once they have slackened the reins to the motions of an ungoverned mind. The other place, where Firmilian inveighs against Stephen, who had refused to admit the African legates, I reported at number 18. Finally the letter is concluded in this manner: It is manifest that baptism cannot be common to us and to heretics, with whom nothing at all is common. And yet Stephen is not ashamed to furnish patronage to such persons against the church, and for the sake of asserting heretics to tear apart the brotherhood, and moreover to call Cyprian a false Christ and a false apostle and a deceitful worker. Who, conscious that all these things are in himself, has got in first, so as to object falsely to another what he himself ought deservedly to hear. And I have recited these things at more length, both because they were uttered by Firmilian, and because they prove clearly to what point the dissension boiled up, and how grave the disagreement was. And this is that famous letter, which some have pronounced spurious and foisted, as altogether unworthy of a man, I will not say holy, but even merely sensible; others (most of them less fair toward the apostolic see) allege that the author burst into such great vehemence because he had been exasperated by the inopportune and immoderate severity of St. Stephen. Let us weigh both.
[25] without however his having used immoderate severity, as is proved If these things are to be believed, says the anonymous author of an excellent historical-dogmatic dissertation Migne, Patrologia latin. volume III, column 1289., because Firmilian blurted them out, it will now have to be believed that Stephen was audacious, insolent, wicked, manifestly foolish, worse than all heretics, to be compared with Judas the betrayer of Christ, etc. For all these things, to omit others, Firmilian poured out in that letter. These things show a man so agitated and moved by bile that he could not attend to truth, equity, religion and charity, and they accordingly take away all credit from Firmilian writing to Cyprian. And in truth all antiquity held the things which Firmilian objects against Stephen as pure and rotten fictions. Which indeed I judge to be most truly said, and the author in the course of the dissertation proves it by many and irrefragable testimonies, showing that none of the ancients said such things against Stephen, and indeed that they approved him with one voice, if you except those against whom he was vindicating the apostolic tradition. A far different road was followed by Launoy, Baillet, Tillemont, Gervaise and other men of the same school, whom the aforesaid author calls Neoterics. For all these, in order to free Firmilian from blame or at least to excuse him, inveigh with all their strength against Stephen. If you listen to them, Stephen acted altogether unworthily toward Cyprian, wrote him a proud letter, full of insults; he affects pride and domination, and things similar to these Ibid, column 1281 and following.. Certainly if the holy Pontiff had shown himself such in the letters, which have perished, we should have this at least in some way indicated either by Augustine, who everywhere appears most favorably inclined toward St. Cyprian, or by Jerome, who indeed was not accustomed to spare words, or by any other ancient writer. Aptly then the anonymous author Ibid. column 1298 and following.: Consult Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea (we have brought forward their words above), Jerome, Augustine, Vincent of Lérins, Facundus of Hermiane, Ven. Bede, Nicephorus Callistus, George Syncellus; let the writings of the Donatists themselves too be turned over, and whoever else there may be who have spoken of the question agitated between Stephen and Cyprian concerning the baptism of heretics. They surely were not ignorant of what was done on either side in this dissension… Yet no one charges Stephen, I do not say with inhumanity or tyranny, but with even the least severity toward Cyprian or others; no one has been able to detect anything in Stephen's manner of acting which seemed to him worthy of any censure or animadversion. And certainly if the said writers had observed any such thing, they surely would not have suppressed it, nor would they have spared Stephen any more than Cyprian, whose so great merits they recognized and proclaimed; in whom however they did not fear to show that there was something to blame, something to correct. Nor should you suppose these things lightly asserted; for the testimonies of each are brought forward there, no less suitable than clear and perspicuous, in which we read indeed that Stephen was gravely angered, but no word is added by which they disapprove of this. We set down one or two.
[26] from the testimonies of ancient writers, St. Augustine against Petilian: Stephen, he says De uno baptismo, chapter 14., judged that the baptism of Christ was to be repeated in no one, and was gravely angry at those who did this; but Cyprian supposed that those baptized in heresy or schism, as not having the baptism of Christ, were to be baptized in the catholic church. And weighing the letter of Cyprian to Pompey, in which alone indeed he rebukes Stephen: Those things, he says De Baptismo contra Donat. book V, chapter 25., which he (Cyprian) in his anger poured out against Stephen, I do not wish to go over again; for there is no need of it: for those same things are said which have already been sufficiently discussed, and it is better to pass over what held the danger of a pernicious dissension. The Anonymous adds As above column 1302.: By these words does Augustine show that he supports Cyprian in carping at the manly manner of acting of Stephen? And Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians At the end. Opera (Martianay) vol. IV. column 305 — Paris. 1706.: Let him read the letters of Blessed Cyprian, in which he tears at Stephen, bishop of the city of Rome, and the error of inveterate custom. He whom he says was torn by Cyprian, neither here nor anywhere else does he indicate that the latter was offended by him; which surely, if he had thought it, he would not have passed over, given his character. Thus too Vincent of Lérins in the fifth century Commonitorium, chapter 9.: Stephen, prelate of the apostolic see, resisted with his other colleagues indeed, but yet before the others; judging it, as I think, fitting that he should surpass all the rest as much in devotion of faith as he excelled in the authority of his place. And let these things suffice. He who wishes for more, let him go to the Acts and monuments of the most celebrated disputation on the baptism of heretics in the Latin Patrology Migne, volume III, columns 1009 – 1478.. The ancients, then, with one voice praise the zeal of St. Stephen, his fortitude in defending the apostolic tradition; no one reproves, no one carps. For my part I suppose that he took it very ill that men held in such esteem among their own should obstinately adhere to an erroneous opinion, and was gravely angered at them; and surely not undeservedly, and therefore commanded that they should return to sounder counsels, otherwise that they would be excluded, or deprived of his communion; which precept indeed, that they might feel it to be most weighty, he both joined to it all his authority and threatened, not without sharp but just reproof, an armed severity if they should neglect it.
as I have already reported above from Boschius Volume I of Aug. page 117.. I should not think that anything else can be asserted without rashness, either of the letter or of the deeds of that pontiff. Compare § X.
[27] by which certainly one must stand, Since then, as I have noted several times, the letters of St. Stephen have not come down to us, from which indeed his manner of acting would have to be determined, there remains only this, that from the writings of contemporaries and of others who come nearer to his times we should learn what was his measure in his letters. Now, as results perspicuously from what has been brought forward, there was nothing in these which would have permitted Firmilian to be so vehement. What then? Saving the reverence due to the holy Prelate, as Coustant wisely has it [Dissertatio de Stephani papæ sententia circa receptionem hæreticorum. Patrologia lat. volume III, column 1268.], it must be observed that he so conducted himself in this affair that there falls on him the suspicion of a mind a little (a word certainly too kind) over-vehement, unable either to hold to measure or to contain his speech by the fair laws of accurate truth. Further he speaks as though the whole world were conspiring with him, and a very tiny portion were clinging to Stephen. Nor is he ashamed to say to the first prelate of the church, who with the bishops of the whole world was vindicating the apostolic tradition: "You are worse than all the heretics." And he who is convicted of having exceeded measure in these things you may deservedly suspect to have been carried away by the same impulse of mind to exceed in what he narrates of the African legates. An exasperated man is easy and prone to accept all things which favor a preoccupied mind, even from a single rumor, although we experience that rumor often deceives, and, while it passes through the mouths of many, carries things otherwise than they were done. It is very probable, and indeed in my opinion certain, that the letters of St. Cyprian (to which without doubt were joined the acts of the councils of Carthage and other things of that kind and in particular a copy of the letter to Jubaianus) which Rogatian the deacon had brought, were similar to the letter of the same holy doctor to Pompey, and therefore written in a sharper style; and that they accordingly goaded with new spurs the mind of Firmilian, already so greatly moved. Nothing was gentler and more placable than Cyprian …; but yet that he sometimes passed from that highest gentleness to a more vehement defense of his cause is perceived from the letter to Pompey. It seems however that what offended Cyprian and Firmilian above all was that Stephen thought (who may rightly rebuke him in this matter?) that rebaptizers should be excluded. Thus Baluze On Epist. 75 note 47. Patrol. lat. volume III, column 1176, who, clinging to the opinion common in his age, supposed that the vehemence of the letter of Pope Stephen was the cause why Cyprian and Firmilian wrote so vehemently against him, and that they were therefore less to blame.
[28] and Firmilian is not to be absolved of blame. For the rest, even if, against the testimonies of the ancients, we should grant that Stephen was both vehement and bitter, Firmilian would not on that account surely be free of blame, writing back in a far more vehement and bitter style, since, on the witness of Augustine, Cyprian is worthy of reprehension, who yet restrained himself much better. It is certain then that Firmilian did not keep measure, that carried away by heat he leapt beyond all limits of the true and just, that he burst out into insults and calumnies, so that there is not one sensible man who does not judge this to be borne with indignation, or who would judge the writer to be freed from all blame. Whence not undeservedly Baronius Annales at the year 258, number XLIV, volume III, page 60.: You may see a man already before agitated against Stephen, because… he had been deprived of communion by him (this however is very doubtful, as I shall show elsewhere), on receipt of the letter of Cyprian, complaining likewise of the same, as by a violent added blast of winds, once kindled by the fire of anger, more vehemently inflamed. To lessen the blame he adds: I may opportunely say that of Gregory Nazianzen: "Not only the base and common, but even all the most excellent men Momus sometimes touches, so that it belongs to God alone to be altogether free of every sin and disturbance of mind." And aiming at the same thing Maran Migne, Patrol. lat. volume IV, folio 162.: As he wrote in haste many things fell from him said too angrily against Stephen, which perhaps Firmilian, in his exceptional moderation of mind, would have amended, had not Rogatian, impatient of delay, snatched away the space for rereading the letter, as was proper. Most bring forward similar things, in order to excuse the writer at least in some way. But others, because they judge that so great a heat of anger cannot fall on a man otherwise exceedingly illustrious and truly holy, deny that the letter was written by Firmilian. By what reasoning this can be sustained, let us see.
§ VII On the same letter, which the learned commonly affirm to be genuine; Missorius denies it, whose opinion is weighed.
The learned commonly affirm it to be genuine; Morel first committed the letter to print in his edition of the works of St. Cyprian, at Paris in the year 1564 [See Schönemann, Bibliotheca Patrum latinorum, volume I, pages 103 and 122. Leipzig 1792.]; Paul Manutius had omitted it in the Roman edition of the preceding year, although it was not unknown to him, but he, with Latinius, his collaborator, detested the petulance of Firmilian Ibid. page 121. In the footsteps of Morel all the editors of the same works thereafter followed, and surely not few in number Compare ibid. page 122 and following.. Whence Baluze Migne as above, column 1153.: Afterwards Pamelius, who had found it in six ancient codices, reprinted it, hinting however, from the affection he had toward the Christian and ecclesiastical commonwealth, that he would have omitted it, because it was written a little more vehemently and bitterly than befits a bishop, had it not already been published by Morel. And from this it appears that no doubt about its genuineness occurred to Pamelius; otherwise he would certainly not have committed the letter to print. Namely, Baluze continues, the Romans and Pamelius were moved by the free style of Firmilian and his heat of anger against Pope Stephen, who thought differently from him. But if they had attentively considered how great and how vehement the feelings are wont to be when it is a question of the cause of religion and faith … they would surely have pardoned this heat of anger in Firmilian, nor would they on that account have thought that this illustrious monument of ecclesiastical antiquity should be condemned to darkness, in which indeed there are very many things of great moment which we should be lacking today, with great loss to our affairs, as Sirmond judged in a similar subject, bringing to light the little book of prayers of Marcellinus and Faustinus against Pope Damasus. Nor would that care of the Romans or of Pamelius have prevented, in this light of letters, that letter from coming forth to the public. For since it is certain that it was published from an old book by Morel, and that it also existed in six codices seen by Pamelius, in those in which it was found by Latinius, in seven which the English used in their edition, in ten with which I compared the works of St. Cyprian; it is manifest that it could not always have lain hidden, even if Morel had not published it. The letter of Firmilian, then, has been found in twenty-six manuscript codices. Which argument for the genuineness of the letter will surely be reckoned very solid and not easily to be refuted. Wherefore again the Baluze mentioned As above, column 1176. says that no one before Lupus took this upon himself, that he dared to say the letter was false, or doubted of its authority. Nor should you think that Lupus raised the question at length, which he touches only in passing. Indeed he does not doubt whether the letter is true or not; but only whether Stephen called Cyprian a false Christ, a false apostle, etc., as, he says [Scholion IV on Tertullian's book on Prescription. Works of Christian Lupus, volume IX, page 67. Venice 1727.], St. Firmilian affirms in his famous letter …; of the truth of which however I hesitate. For the peaceful Cyprian did not break the clasp of orthodox communion and fraternity, and Stephen never ejected him or suspended him from the church … And St. Firmilian, while he was on account of the hardness of his mind suspended from Roman communion (this is wrongly asserted), was rather free in speaking and in inflaming Cyprian. The last words plainly explain the mind of the author and reveal that he has no doubt of the genuineness of the letter, but only of the aforesaid so insulting appellations. So Baluze needs correction, likewise Missorius Page 146 and following., of whom we must now treat. And thus Lupus in the sixteenth century.
[30] Missorius denies it; first from various conjectures, But in the following century two champions, diligent men, both of the family of St. Francis, Raymond Missorius, a Conventual, and Marcellinus Molkenbuhr, of the stricter observance, advanced more strongly into the battle line, each publishing a dissertation of no slight length, the one in the year 1733, the other in the year 1790; the aim of both was the same, namely to demonstrate that the letter is altogether to be denied to Firmilian, as forged by a Donatist. And Missorius indeed, to begin with him, opens his mind in these words [Critical dissertation on the letter to Pompey, among the Cyprianic ones LXXIV, against the decree of St. Stephen I, pope, on not repeating the baptism of heretics (there is set before it a dissertation on the letter of St. Firmilian), page 1. Venice 1733.]: I set about weighing the letter of St. Firmilian, of all those which exist among the Cyprianic ones the most celebrated and best known. This then I shall so weigh as to demonstrate, no less solidly than openly, that it was forged by a most petulant man, indeed a Donatist, and attributed with the highest injury to the most holy Firmilian. And after a few things interposed Ibid. page 2.: I divide the Dissertation into three heads … in the first I bring forward those conjectures which affect and infect the whole letter of Firmilian; in the second I copy out its principal places (indeed even the whole letter), to which I subjoin critical notes; in the third finally I gather all the arguments by which the ancient credit of that same letter might be reconciled from the opposing side, which, objected by me against myself, I beat back according to my strength. Thus he, clearly and perspicuously. First then let us see the conjectures: for Missorius himself does not suppose that he is bringing forward anything else. The letter was unknown to Erasmus Ibidem., it is opposed to the great reputation for sanctity that exists of Firmilian Ibid. page 3., it stains the credit of Firmilian Ibid. page 10.. This kind of argument, which refers to the sharper and more bitter style, was weighed in a few words above, where we saw that neither Baronius nor anyone else before Missorius was moved enough by this to deny credit to the letter. The letters sent out are lacking Page 13.; so be it; what follows from that? The Greek copy of the Firmilian letter is lacking. It derogates much from the charity of Cyprian if he published the reply of Firmilian to the crowd, much more even if he turned it into Latin Page 14.. Of this I shall treat elsewhere. From what has thus far been brought forward no one will easily suppose that Missorius has demonstrated, no less solidly than openly, that the letter is forged. The question of the style will return in the following §.
[31] then from the silence of the ancients, Let us proceed to other things of somewhat greater weight. It is demonstrated to be foisted from the highest and perpetual silence of the writers, both Cyprian
's contemporaries and later ones, yet most ancient; and first of St. Dionysius of Alexandria Page 18.; then of Eusebius of Caesarea Page 22.; then of St. Augustine Ibidem.; afterwards of the Donatists Page 24.; then of St. Cyprian himself Page 25.; lastly of the third council of Carthage, which is shown to have been held after receipt of the letter of Firmilian Pages 26 – 37.. To these things we reply that an argument drawn from the silence of writers is, as they say, negative, and not effective for proving: for, the genuineness of the letter standing, those writers could have had countless reasons, today entirely unknown to us, which gave cause to their silence. Add that not all the works of those authors have come down to us, and that accordingly it is not established whether in the lost ones mention was made or not of the letter, which holds especially for Dionysius of Alexandria, of whom few things survive, and these very mutilated. Compare number 21. What of the fact that Augustine himself openly declares that he did not know all the things that then appeared. For not all things, he says Book 2 on Baptism, chapter IV. Migne, volume XLIII, column 129., that were done at that time among the bishops could be committed to memory and letters, nor do we know all that have been committed. As regards Eusebius, he indeed mentions St. Cyprian and the Africans, but he is wholly occupied with the dissension stirred up among the Orientals, and not even that at length, but very compendiously, and almost solely from the letters of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, of which he recites fragments. See numbers 21 and 22. Finally Missorius expressly asserts that on occasion of the heresy of the Cataphrygians and Paulianists the HISTORY of the anabaptism of the Orientals and Africans was FORGED by Eusebius of Caesarea Page 40 and following..
[32] especially of St. Cyprian in the third council of Carthage; Missorius understood that the silence of Cyprian and of the third council of Carthage could have weight only on condition that the letter of Firmilian was given before the holding of this council, and therefore he bends every effort to prove that this in fact occurred. But the contrary opinion is far more common and more probable, namely that Rogatian the deacon was sent into the East by Cyprian after the holding of the third council at Carthage on the kalends of September in the year 256; not later … because it was held in the lifetime of Stephen, who died in the following year on the 2nd day of August; and that it is not to be placed earlier is persuaded by the few things which, after the holding of the council, passed between St. Stephen and Cyprian concerning this controversy Acts of St. Cyprian, volume IV of Sept. page 301.. There agree on the year Maran Life of St. Cyprian. Migne, volume IV, column 161., Tillemont mémoires, volume IV, page 153., Pagi At the year of Baronius 259, number XVI., Pearson Annales Cyprianici at the year 256, number IX., Natalis Alexander Historia ecclesiastica, volume IV, page 11. Venice 1778., Schönemann Bibliotheca Patrum latt. volume I, page 98., Charles Hefele Conciliengeschichte, volume I, page 112. Edit. 1855. and others generally. From this council (as again the more common opinion holds Acts of St. Cyprian, page 303 and following.) legates were sent to Stephen; since they were not received, Cyprian directed his deacon to Firmilian with a letter, to which he added his other one to Jubaianus (for Firmilian reported some words of it) and doubtless also the acts of the councils and other things pertaining to the question in controversy.
[33] but this was held before the letter of St. Firmilian, From these things one may infer that Rogatian did not set out from Carthage before the month of September, St. Stephen sitting at Rome, who the letter of the latter expressly testifies was also among the living, while Firmilian was answering Cyprian. So that there may then be time for the going and returning of the deacon, we must refer the reply of the bishop of Caesarea to the end of the year, which moreover shines forth perspicuously from Firmilian himself. But since, he says Migne volume III, column 1158., that legate sent by you was hastening to return to you and the winter season was pressing, we have written back to your writings as much as we could. And again Col. [ .]: Let us run through briefly also the other things which have been said by you copiously and very fully, Rogatian, our dearest deacon, hastening greatly back to you. The year 256 too Firmilian designates not obscurely, in the following place Col. [ .]: For nearly twenty-two years ago, in the times after the emperor Alexander, many conflicts and pressures occurred there, either in common for all men, or privately for Christians; there were also very many and frequent earthquakes, so that through Cappadocia and through Pontus they overthrew many things, and certain cities too, received into the depth, were swallowed by a chasm of the burst soil, so that from this there arose also a grievous persecution against us of the Christian name, which, arising suddenly after a long past age of peace, was made the more terrible by the unexpected and unaccustomed evil for disturbing our people. Serenianus was then governor in our province, a bitter and dreadful persecutor. Since the slaughter of Alexander falls in the year 235, the twenty-second year from his death is the year 256 [Acts of St. Cyprian, volume IV of Sept. page 307. Pearson, pages 56 – 57. Maran Life of St. Cyprian. Migne, volume IV, column 161. Tillemont, volume IV, page 310]. Certainly, as Pearson has it in the place cited, Maximin, having seized the empire, at once carried on a persecution against the Christians… This very time then is indicated accurately enough by Firmilian, as he wrote (namely the twenty-second year from the beginning of the empire of Maximin), which can fit no earlier one; much less a later, since in the following year (257), long before the beginning of winter, both the persecution arose and Stephen died, etc. Pagi agrees At the year of Baronius 259, number XVII.: The emperor Alexander was slain in the month of March of the two hundred and thirty-fifth year. Wherefore Firmilian counts those twenty-two years, incomplete on both ends, as whole, which can in no way be understood of the following year, since in that year (257) the persecution arose, etc., as above.
[34] written at the end of the year 256. It is then a plainly probable opinion, and indeed far more likely than others, that the letter was written, as we have said, at the end of the year 256. They object that, if this be admitted, sufficient time is not found for the legates sent by the third council to reach Rome and return from there; and after this for Rogatian to proceed to Caesarea to Firmilian, and to bring his replies to Carthage. For all these things must have happened from the beginning of the month of September (namely after the dissolution of the council) to the end of December. Suyskens, our predecessor, replies in the Acts of St. Cyprian Page 306.: The crossing from Carthage to Rome is not so great but that the same legates, any delay of whom at Rome would have been plainly useless, could easily have been back in Africa before the end of September, and so also in the same month Rogatian the deacon could have been sent to Firmilian at Caesarea of the Cappadocians, and have arrived there toward the end of October or the beginning of November, and, winter having already begun, have wished to return soon. Winter having already begun, I say: for it is nowhere said that Rogatian arrived there before winter. I subjoin the words of Firmilian: But since that legate (etc., as above). These signify the beginning of winter as well as the end of autumn, and we can interpret them thus, that Rogatian hastened to return to Africa, lest the winter already then begun, growing heavier, should, if not preclude his return, at least make it more troublesome. Nor is the conjecture indeed absurd. Yet there is no need that Cyprian should have awaited the return of the legates in order to be informed of the outcome of the matter at Rome: for he could have learned this by other means, and have sent his deacon at once into the East; nor in our opinion is it necessary that he should have been back in Africa before the end of the year, but it suffices that he should have committed himself to the road, about to return to Carthage. Finally account must be taken of regions, since winter does not everywhere set in on the same day, or even in the same month. Compare § VIII toward the end.
[35] some contradicting in vain, And this on the year in which the letter of St. Firmilian seems to us more probably to have been written. Others have fixed others, because they had not rightly defined to what year the martyrdom of St. Stephen is to be ascribed. Thus Morcelli Annales ecclesiæ Africanæ. Migne, volume III, column 1462.: In this year (255), he says, Stephen, having discharged the pontificate for two years, died on the 4th day before the Nones (that is the second day of Dec.), (rather in the year 257, having discharged the pontificate for four years Art de vérifier les dates, page 243., as we have said elsewhere). Whence Morcelli was forced to ascribe the dissension on baptism to the year 254 and the following, which strays altogether from the truth, and can in no way be reconciled with the rest of the history of that age Compare Maran. Migne, volume IV, column 161.. Something similar occurs in Le Cointe; he indeed assigns the true time to the Firmilian writing, namely the year 256: but he would have it given after the first council of Carthage. Let us hear Pearson, on whose credit let the opinion of Le Cointe rest. Le Cointe, he says Annales Cyprianici at the year 256, page 56., determines that this third council was not held before the following year; while however he rightly observes that in this year (256) Firmilian gave his letter to Cyprian. For he thinks that immediately after the first council Rogatian was sent with a letter to Firmilian. Which opinion is at odds with all these letters of Cyprian (of which Pearson treats in this place). For immediately after the first council Cyprian had not yet written to Stephen on the baptism of heretics, still less Stephen to Cyprian, much less Jubaianus, yet the letters of all of whom were sent to Firmilian, as is clear from his reply.
[36] who moreover err concerning the legation sent by the Africans to St. Stephen. Before we set an end to the disputation, it will be helpful to have noted that different persons have held different opinions about the time at which the legation mentioned by Firmilian was sent to Rome. Maran refers it to the second council of Carthage. To this time, he says Migne, volume IV, column 157., I am forced to refer the legation of bishops whom the African council sent to Stephen, and he labors much to satisfy Tillemont, who opposes him, whose principal argument is this, that Cyprian in the third council of Carthage said nothing of these injuries against the legates. Whence the most learned writer concludes that the legation is to be placed after the third council Ibid. column 159. Tillemont mémoires, volume IV, page 155., and most rightly indeed in my opinion. For who would persuade himself that Cyprian, so greatly stirred against Stephen at that time, complained not at all of such great (if we altogether believe Firmilian) harshness and inhumanity of the pope toward the legates, when he expostulates bitterly and vehemently about many other things, certainly of less moment? Nor does the reply of Maran seem suitable, rather very weak, namely that this silence is to be attributed to the gentleness, which was very great in Cyprian. Other things surely speaks
St. Augustine, where he speaks of those things which he poured out in anger against Stephen, and which held the danger of a pernicious dissension. Whence aptly Suyskens Volume IV of Sept. page 305.: If however these things are rightly reconciled with his very great gentleness, I do not see why he should have had a scruple about mentioning that severity of the Roman pontiff, which certainly he could have done with less suspicion of a disturbed mind than that with which he wrote the letter to Pompey, as will appear to one reading it. Baronius At the year 258, number XVI., whom Fr. Natalis Alexander followed [Historia eccl. at the third century, dissertation XII, art. 1. Proposition II, volume IV, page 93 and following. Venice 1778.], supposes that the legates of whom Firmilian speaks came not from Carthage but from Iconium, and that this mission was therefore not of the Africans but of the Orientals. But first, we demonstrated against Baronius and others at number 7 that the synod of Iconium was held long before the time of Stephen. Next Firmilian manifestly points to the Africans, which is placed beyond all doubt by the context of the whole letter Compare Suyskens, page 304.. Morcelli denies Annales ecclesiæ Africanæ at the year 254. Migne, volume III, column 1134. that legates were ever sent; nor is it to be wondered at, since apart from the letter of Cyprian to Magnus he declares the rest on this question to be forged, agreeing in nearly everything with Missorius, whose dissertations he praises here and there.
[37] The chronological order of the deeds is presented in summary, From this disagreement of so many men of great name among the learned we must conclude that not everything is clear that pertains to the series or chronology of the deeds in this celebrated disputation; indeed that many things remain obscure or doubtful. I judge that they are more probably to be ordered thus. In the year 255, around the autumn, the first council of Carthage; in the year 256, before the feast of Easter, the second council, from which a synodal letter was directed to Stephen, who disapproved the opinion of the Africans, as he had already that of the Orientals, and threatened them with exclusion if they persisted in it. In the same year on the kalends of September the second council and the legation sent to the City and not received by Stephen. On learning this Cyprian, deputing his deacon Rogatian, gave a letter to Firmilian, who at once replied to it. At the beginning of the year 257 the persecution arose under Valerian, and Stephen was crowned with martyrdom, and Cyprian punished with exile. Whence the dissension too fell silent, and was little by little laid to sleep, the catholic world finally approving the opinion of St. Stephen. It seems however that the Orientals persisted longer in their opinion, as appears from certain places of St. Basil the Great, who was bishop of the same church of Caesarea of the Cappadocians, and of others. See below § XI.
[38] and the disputation on the silence of the ancients is concluded. So, to conclude what has been said in a few words, if the reply of Firmilian reached the hands of St. Cyprian only at the end of the year 256 or when the following one had already begun, it is not strange that the holy doctor nowhere mentions it, since in the year 257, as we have just said and as Pagi rightly notes in the place cited, the persecution arose, and Stephen died, and Cyprian was punished with exile, and from then on the dissension fell silent. Finally, to pass over nothing, who would dare to assert with Missorius that the letter was unknown to the Donatists, because they are not known to have brought it forward? For first, what writings of those sectaries have come down to us, and how faithful, how genuine? How many have perished, and was there no mention of the letter in these? Moreover we know the principal tenets of the Donatists from Augustine alone; and he declares against Cresconius that whatever they may object from the letters of Cyprian and of certain Orientals does not hinder the cause, and therefore he omits it (see the following § at the beginning). And in another place he no less expressly professes that he is unwilling to go over again what Cyprian in his anger poured out. I should not think, then, that the opinion of Missorius from the silence of the ancients is in the least proved. Nor after him would you find many who have denied credit to the letter from this head (see below); but those who hold it false so judge chiefly because the style is more vehement and more bitter than befits a holy prelate. But of these things in the following §, after I shall have spoken of St. Augustine, on whom before all else the adversaries rely.
§ VIII. On the same subject. Whether St. Augustine mentioned the Firmilian letter, and whether he held it suspect? Whether it is to be rejected, because written in a more bitter and even insulting style toward St. Stephen the pope? What Fr. Marcellinus Molkenbuhr, likewise Alber, and very recently the Most Reverend archbishop of Nisibis think.
[Whether St. Augustine mentioned the letter or not, nothing can be inferred against its credit.] They object two things from St. Augustine; one, that he nowhere makes mention of the letter of St. Firmilian; the other, that he hints that the letters of St. Cyprian on the baptism of heretics are suspect to him, which surely must be said likewise of the replies of the bishop of Caesarea. As regards the first, in very truth most judge that the holy doctor nowhere mentions them. There is however a place from which the contrary seems to result. For he writes in book III against Cresconius, chapter I: Whatever you have thought fit to insert from the letters of Cyprian and of certain Orientals, that it pleased them to disapprove of baptism given among heretics and schismatics … in no way hinders our cause. And the Maurist editors note: He treats perhaps of the letter of Firmilian, addressed to Cyprian and published among the Cyprianic ones. Nor is this indeed devoid of likelihood. To what else could Augustine be looking? But let it be a conjecture; certainly it is no less probable than the conjectures of Missorius. Tillemont stands in the way mémoires volume IV, page 158. (for whom the letter is otherwise genuine), for this reason, that if it had been known to him Augustine would not have failed to refute what Firmilian relates of the immemorial custom of baptizing heretics, which he testifies prevailed among the Orientals. For if he had known this, he certainly would not have concealed it, given the candor of mind which he everywhere displays. But do we not learn from Augustine himself the reason of that deep silence? Those things, he says Book V on baptism, chapter 251., which Cyprian in his anger poured out against Stephen I do not wish to go over again; for there is no need of it. It is better to pass over what held the danger of a pernicious dissension. Which holds by at least equal right for Firmilian. However that may be; whether he mentioned the letter or not, you will have inferred nothing against its credit: for if the former, the objection of Missorius sought from silence falls from the foundations; if the latter, either he did not mention it because he had not seen the letter; but Augustine himself testifies that he did not know everything that was then committed to writing, without however charging these things with falsity or forgery; or if he knew it and passed over it, was it not because he was unwilling to go over again what had held the danger of a pernicious dissension?
[40] [The same holy doctor seems indeed, where he disputes against the Donatists, to hold the letters suspect;] The second is graver and therefore to be weighed and considered more diligently by us. Namely in many places St. Augustine seems to doubt of the genuineness of the letters of St. Cyprian on the baptism of heretics, teaching at the same time that there were not lacking in his age those who held them forged. But first let us note that the holy doctor in those places is acting against the schismatic Donatists, and refuting them by the example and writings of St. Cyprian, who not only perpetually remained in unity, but always magnificently defended it. And when they objected his letters and acts against Stephen, he replies with the best right that these things in no way hinder the cause …, if, he says [Against Cresconius, book III, chapter 1. Patrologia lat. volume XXXIII, column 495 and following.], we retain the church, which Cyprian did not desert. Since then the hinge of the question turned on unity, and there were not lacking those who, for their veneration of the holy martyr, would hardly admit such great bitterness toward Blessed Stephen, and therefore suspected that his works on baptism were forged or interpolated by adversaries, he therefore abstracts from the genuineness of the writings or sometimes leaves it undecided; granted, that is, but not conceded, and ad hominem, as the schools speak. Hence the locutions: Either Cyprian or whoever wrote that letter; likewise: The council of Cyprian, which either did not take place, or was overcome by the other members of unity, from whom he was not divided Ibid. column 465.. And similarly elsewhere. But it is otherwise where the principal question refers to the genuineness or authenticity of the writings. For then he opens his mind perspicuously and with no hesitation, declaring that the letters are not to be denied to Cyprian. Thus in the letter to Vincent: Now that Cyprian, he says Migne. Patrol. volume XXXIII, column 340., thought otherwise of baptism than the form and custom of the church held is found not in the canonical writings, but in his own letters and those of the council; but that he corrected that opinion is not found; yet it is not incongruous to suppose of such a man that he did correct it, and perhaps it was suppressed by those who delighted too much in this error, and were unwilling to lack so great a patronage, as it were. Then coming to the doubts of some, of which I have spoken, he continues in this manner: Although there are not lacking those who contend that Cyprian did not at all think this, but that it was forged under his name by presumptuous men and liars. Nor does he deny that it was possible: For the integrity and knowledge of the letters of one bishop, however illustrious, could not be guarded in the way that canonical Scripture is guarded by the letters of so many tongues and by the order and succession of ecclesiastical celebration; against which however there were not lacking those who forged many things under the names of the apostles; in vain indeed, because it is so commended, so celebrated, so known; but what the attempt of impious audacity could do against letters not founded on canonical authority, it has demonstrated even from this, that it did not fail to raise itself up even against those which have been strengthened by the mass of such great knowledge.
[41] [but elsewhere, where he explains his mind expressly, he asserts them to be genuine.] What then does Augustine think? Does he adhere to those who contend that the letters are forged? Did he at least hesitate in doubt? By no means. We however, he adds, for two reasons do not deny that Cyprian thought this: both because his style has a certain proper countenance by which it can be recognized; and because there our cause is shown to be the more invincible against you, and the presumption of your separation, namely lest you should be stained by the sins of others, is overturned with all ease, when it appears in the letters of Cyprian that the sacraments were shared with sinners, when those were admitted to the church who according to your opinion, and as you would have it, his, did not have baptism, and yet that the church did not perish, but that the Lord's wheat, spread through the whole world, remained in the dignity of its kind. Finally, to the argument which he uses very often against the Donatist adversaries, he concludes: Further Cyprian either did not at all think what you recite that he thought; or corrected this afterwards; or covered this blemish, as it were, of his most candid breast with the abundance of charity, while the unity of the church
growing through the whole world he both most copiously defended and most perseveringly held to the bond of peace, and finally washed away by the shedding of his blood, as the holy doctor has it elsewhere. This place is decisive to me, and I have therefore thought it should be set down entire. For there the question is treated not incidentally, but principally or, as is commonly said, professedly; and the mind of Augustine is clearly opened, namely that, although others doubt, or even hold a certain negative opinion, he himself holds that the letters were not forged, and so are by no means to be denied to Cyprian. Whoever reads attentively and candidly, setting aside every preconceived opinion, the place of Augustine mentioned will surely marvel to hear Missorius saying Page 275.: Hence if I pronounce the letter to Pompey forged, with whom, pray, do I dare this? With Augustine, of course. To prove which he discourses at length on I know not what hypothetical system and another absolute one; and he arrives at length by subtleties of this kind at affirming that Augustine denies what Augustine himself expressly professes that he does not deny. After this everyone sees how rightly and prudently Baluze said Migne, Patrologia lat. volume III, column 1176.: Certainly this ease of accusing the writings of the ancients of falsity is very rash. For if everyone is permitted to follow empty conjectures of this kind; there will be no monument of antiquity which escapes unjust suspicions. By this method, to be sure, each will brand with the mark of falsity whatever writings oppose his opinion or tenets; nor will there be need of a great effort to pronounce with Harduin the Aeneid of Virgil and the Odes of Horace forged by monks of the middle age.
[42] [From the bitterness of the style Missorius and certain others call the letter foisted,] Wherefore, leaving aside subtleties of this kind, some are found agreeing with Missorius, but only from this head, that they could not understand how it could have come about that a bishop, whose merits are acknowledged by all and altogether excellent, should burst out into so bitter and insulting a heat of anger. Thus in the Annals of the African church Morcelli, who had at hand the dissertation of Missorius, indeed hints at the silence of Dionysius, Eusebius and Augustine; but the certain reason for rejecting the writing for him is this; that they (the letters) are of such a kind as not a holy man, commended by many, but a worthless and infamous heretic could have written: so insulting and wicked are they against Stephen, the successor of the apostle Peter. For my part I should judge that they came from the same person who also forged the letter of Cyprian to Pompey Migne, Patrol. lat. volume III, column 1463.. And rightly indeed in this; for he who has rejected the one, I do not know how he could approve the other. Indeed he must charge many other things with falsity. And in very truth Missorius published another dissertation, in which (as the title has it) he now for the first time denies to Cyprian and attributes to the Donatists the letter of Cyprian to Pompey together with five others and the third council of Carthage, hitherto held as Cyprianic. And surely not undeservedly, if the letter of Firmilian is to be rejected because insulting to Stephen, so also the letters of Cyprian. Whence again Morcelli Ibid. column 1461.: But that Cyprian … so blazed up as suddenly to forget all those things which he had publicly professed, that he with his colleagues did violence to no one, gave law to no one… this indeed I cannot at all be brought to believe. For they are no light things which he is charged with having committed against Stephen. For if the letter reported to have been sent to Pompey, bishop of Sabrata, is to be ascribed to Cyprian, he not only did not acquiesce in the judgment of Stephen, but also stirred up others against him; he charged him… with error, as though "he were trying to assert the cause of the heretics against the Christians and against the church of God"; he affirmed that many things had been written by him "inexpertly and improvidently," and which were either "proud, or not pertinent to the matter, or contrary to himself." He called a "harsh obstinacy" of Stephen what would be constancy, and he was the instigator to bishops of turning away from the doctrine of Stephen. "On account of which, he says, leaving error let us follow the truth." Which indeed do not depart greatly from the style of Firmilian, so that it is not strange that he, a man of more ardent temperament, by this letter (for there is no reason why we should doubt that a copy of it was forwarded by Cyprian through Rogatian) blazed up more and more and sharpened his pen.
[43] but in vain. What then? Surely Firmilian is to be blamed, and not lightly, as we saw above at number 29, where we cited among others Baronius, who certainly did not spare words; and yet neither he, nor the learned men whom we praised in the same place, held the letter to be forged. For they saw that, if it were lawful so to determine for such a reason, many other things would have to be struck from the roll of genuine works, first of all all the letters of St. Cyprian on the same subject, likewise the councils of Carthage; and very many things of that kind, genuine by the common vote of the learned. To no one is unknown the controversy that boiled up around the beginning of the seventeenth century between Bossuet and Fénelon, and was agitated with the more vehement motions of minds. Suppose that these things had happened several centuries earlier and before the use of the art of printing; would not, if the genuineness of writings is to be judged from the vehemence or asperity of diction, the things then published by those eminent men be judged spurious and forged? Who would believe that Fénelon, whose mildness and charity are proclaimed by all, wrote pages so pungent and stinging and biting against the bishop of Meaux, and even insinuated that he was guilty of breaking the sacramental seal (using an ambiguous word [OEuvres de Bossuet. Remarques sur la reponse a la Relation sur le Quietisme, art. 1, § III, volume XXX, page 15 and following. Edit. Lebel 1817.])? Who would believe that the other so virulently, so verbosely, so proudly and even unjustly tore to pieces the prelate of Cambrai, as to call him the Montanus of a new Priscilla? Let the books and pamphlets be read that were scattered on both sides to the public, not without offense; and, unless I am greatly mistaken, nearly all to a man, from the principles and rules of criticism put together by Missorius and some others for their own use, will be judged spurious and forged by the enemies of the church. Would not Telemachus likewise be denied to the same Fénelon, as a writing unworthy of so holy and so chaste a prelate? So true is that which Baluze noted, namely that if it were lawful to indulge in conjectures and rules of this kind, you could easily shake every monument of antiquity.
[44] The dissertation of Fr. Marcellinus Molkenbuhr Thus far I have disputed against Missorius alone, that the discourse might run clearer and more readily. Some things must be added concerning Fr. Marcellinus Molkenbuhr, who, as I said at number 31, about half a century later revived, not to say warmed over, the conjectures and tenets of Missorius: for he repeats the same things in a different form; except that, walking along the roads laid by his predecessor, he has advanced much farther. For (and in this he is consistent with himself) he asserts that not only the letters of SS. Firmilian and Cyprian, and the councils of Carthage, but moreover very many other things are forged or interpolated. Indeed he thinks he has demonstrated that the Cephas rebuked by Paul is not Peter the Apostle; and that the latter never sat at Antioch Two dissertations on St. Firmilian, etc. Preface, page 1., which latter seemed so absurd to the Migne editors that they thought the following note should be added: Let it rest altogether with this author, that opinion which he professes concerning the Antiochene episcopate of St. Peter, to which neither other catholic writers nor we have any mind to adhere. After a few things interposed Molkenbuhr continues: I have come to this, that I have recognized from several indications that some works which are ascribed to ancient authors are respectively foisted or mutilated or interpolated, and indeed such works as those from which most grave and most intricate controversies have arisen, no less in dogmatic Theology than in ecclesiastical history and chronology and also patrology, notably of the first four centuries. I cannot but publish my thoughts in so arduous a matter. I make a beginning from the letter ascribed to Firmilian, which of all that exist among the Cyprianic ones is the most celebrated of all. In the near future I shall subject to criticism also the canonical letters of St. Basil the Great to Amphilochius; and other things. Fr. Marcellinus kept his word in several dissertations, attempting to detract that credit from the works mentioned. Finally, he adds, I shall also show that the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius of Caesarea is interpolated on the point of the most celebrated controversy on rebaptism between St. Stephen the pope and St. Firmilian, and also of the celebration of Easter between St. Victor the pope and Polycrates and Irenaeus; he acts accordingly a little more mildly toward Eusebius than Missorius, who pronounces forged by him what is read there on the Baptism of heretics. That the book of this Eusebius, I again use the words of Molkenbuhr, entitled: "Life of Constantine the Great" has been mutilated, I have already indicated elsewhere [Six assertions on fasts and abstinences against the theologian of Mainz, §39. Paderborn 1785.]. I shall make mention also of the orthodoxy of St. Dionysius of Alexandria and that he never favored the rebaptizers; moreover that in this cause the Catalogue of St. Jerome on Illustrious Men has been badly corrupted… And I shall examine the letters of St. Cyprian, and consequently I shall touch also the African councils which are said to have been held in the cause of rebaptism against the definition of St. Stephen the pope, and the rest: a most ample field, surrounded and planted on every side with thorns; which nevertheless the author entered and measured out intrepidly, with his critical sickle not only mowing down the thorns, but also cutting off the works themselves at the root, tearing them up or extirpating them.
[45] is refuted; likewise Alber. For the rest Fr. Marcellinus uses the same arguments as Missorius, as much extrinsic, as he speaks, as intrinsic. The former are taken from the silence of the ancients and from St. Augustine; the latter from the vehemence of the writing. Of which enough and more than enough has been said by us. Since however he determines that credit is to be denied to the letter also on account of the errors with which, in his opinion, it teems, it will be helpful to weigh this difficulty (hitherto passed over) in a few words. Molkenbuhr says Two dissertations, page 12.: The letter is detected from intrinsic marks to be either suspect or even openly foisted. For it contains very many things respectively either heretical, or next to heresy, historically false, incompatible with geography and chronology, and others unworthy of Firmilian, which he undertakes to prove in a long series of pages Pages 12-62., dissecting the letter into parts and setting them down one after the other. Missorius has similar things Pages 112 – 147.. Surely no one expects from us that we should refute each of the things objected by them, which would be both very long and foreign to our aim, and moreover altogether superfluous. To these I reply one thing: the letter was read through, with the eyes of a lynx indeed, and most accurately weighed by learned men, by whom, as we have said, it is judged genuine; and none of these detected the heresies which they object; only Baronius judged Firmilian to be infected with the error of the Quartodecimans; but he did not prove it sufficiently: for, a benign interpretation, as they say, being applied, that place of the letter is easily explained in a better sense. For the rest of how much weight in this matter is the opinion of the most learned
Cardinal Baronius, who held the letter to be genuine, everyone sees. As regards finally the things historically false and incompatible with geography and chronology, you will not find a single one among the holy fathers and ecclesiastical writers who is immune from blemishes of this kind. Near the beginning of the current century another defender of the same opinion came forward, of whom it will be enough to have noted the following from John Baptist Palma: The truth of this history, he says [Lectures on ecclesiastical history, which J. B. Palma, Roman priest, professor of ecclesiastical history, gave in the Urban college of the Sacred Congregation for the propagation of the faith and in the pontifical Roman seminary, volume I, part I. page 123. Rome 1838.], and of the monuments regarding it was also attacked in volume I of the dissertations "on select subjects of ecclesiastical history," published in the year 1820, by John Nepomucene Alber, of the order of the Pious Schools of the Mother of God, professor of Sacred Theology and biblical Archaeology in the University of Pest. We, having refuted the principal things which he argues, shall show that this opinion is false, by which it is determined that the history of the controversy concerning repeating the baptism of heretics, and the monuments pertaining to it, ought to be rejected. The work of Alber, which I remember having seen at another time, is not at hand for me. For the rest it results clearly from the replies of Palma that the writer of Pest followed the footsteps of Missorius and Molkenbuhr, and brought forward nothing new.
[46] The opinion of the Most Reverend archbishop of Nisibis is set forth, We had written these things, indeed had nearly finished the whole Commentary, when there came to hand the book of the Most Reverend Vincent Tizzani, canon of the Lateran and archbishop of Nisibis (formerly, as he himself somewhere professes, a disciple of John B. Palma), published in the year 1862 in the Italian language La celebre contesa fra S. Stefano e S. Cipriano. Rome Salviucci 1862., and in the current year 1866 translated into French with the approval of the author, printed at Paris [La célèbre contestation entre S. Etienne et S. Cyprien par Mgr Vincent Tizzani, de l'ordre des chanoines de Latran, archevêque de Nisibe, traduit de l'italien par M. l'abbé Ranvier, prêtre du diocèse de Versailles, et approuvé par l'auteur. Paris 1866.]. This is his opinion. There was never any dissension on baptism between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian and the Africans. The letters of the latter on that question are forged; the decree of St. Stephen, as far as it regards Africa, is forged; the acts of the council of Carthage are forged. It is otherwise with the East; there the question was vehemently agitated; begun at Iconium in the year 234, it broke out more ardently under the aforesaid Roman pontiff; who, when he had decreed that nothing should be changed, was openly resisted by the prelates, of whom the principal was Firmilian; and of the Africans none intervened except St. Dionysius of Alexandria, not for the sake of defending error, but of conciliating peace. Thereafter the rumor of the Eastern dissension, spread through Africa, grew widely by the arts of the Donatists; and they, confusing the very sharp dispute of the Orientals with the peaceful custom of the Africans (for this the Most Reverend prelate admits under Cyprian), depraved the history, so as to bring in the bishop of Carthage contending with Stephen. So they composed letters in his name, and likewise acts of a council; and this the more easily because at that time their schism was strong and the archives of Africa had been burned by the Circumcellions Ibid. art. XXXII, pages 309 – 311..
[48] [and the reasons are weighed, first those drawn from intrinsic marks, against the letters of St. Cyprian] To prove which the distinguished author uses the method of Missorius. First he sets up Criteria, seven in number, not greatly different from the axioms and theorems of the latter, and indeed the rules of Molkenbuhr Art. IV-XII, pages 49-72.. Then he denies to Cyprian each of the letters on baptism, as forged by the Donatists (and so also the decree of St. Stephen), which he holds to be such from intrinsic marks Art. XIII-XX, pages 72-158.. Before we proceed further, it will be helpful to have heard the distinguished Freppel. From the extrinsic marks the principal difficulty, he says [Saint Cyprien et l'église d'Afrique au III siècle. Cours d'éloquence sacrée, fait à la Sorbonne pendant l'année 1863-1864, par M. l'abbé Freppel, professeur à la faculté de théologie de Paris, page 433 and following. Paris 1865.], objected is this, namely that St. Cyprian does not reason rightly where he would have the baptism of heretics to be null, falsely interprets several places of the sacred Letters, manifestly contradicts himself, etc. But what follows from that? Will it seem strange to anyone that a writer, while he patronizes an error, should reason preposterously, be vehemently deceived, not be consistent with himself? It would rather be to be wondered at if it were not so. Nor are even the most learned men immune from a stain of this kind. For the rest the reasons brought forward by St. Cyprian are far from being light, since St. Augustine confesses, after reading through the letter to Jubaianus, that he "would have gone over to the same opinion, had not so great an authority" "called him back." Another objection, and one often repeated, is, namely, that there was no reason why bishops should ask the opinion of Cyprian, which they already held as plainly known. Freppel replies: That nothing prevents Quintus, Jubaianus and the bishops of Numidia from having desired to be more fully instructed on the mind of so great a doctor, and to have his opinion confirmed by new arguments. Finally he adds that the opposing opinion rests on a double conjecture: The one, that there were at that time no bishops who did not agree with Cyprian; for this indeed would have to be proved; certainly something else results from the letter to Quintus At the beginning.: But certain of our colleagues prefer to give honor to heretics rather than to agree with us. They will perhaps reply that this indeed is false, and that among many other things they call those letters forged on this account too. So be it; but certainly the genuineness of a work is not shattered by a pure and simple conjecture, which moreover the Freppel mentioned, and rightly in my opinion, declares false. The other conjecture is that Cyprian could not but have been persuaded that the question pertained to the faith; but, as again Freppel says, from very many testimonies, and these plainly express, it is established that each was free to opine what pleased him more, since the question pertained to discipline, not to the faith. Compare below number 66 and following.
[49] and of St. Firmilian; After this the Most Reverend prelate treats in article XXI, divided into three paragraphs, of the letter of St. Firmilian Pages 159-195.; of which § I presents a summary Pages 159 – 164.; § II has critical observations Pages 164-181.: namely the letter is very long, since it takes up in all 803 lines, of 85 letters each, in the Venetian edition of Baluze of the year 1758 Page 165.; it was unknown to Erasmus; it is said to have been written originally in Greek, which no one has ever seen; Cyprian does not mention it, although it is reported to have been written three years before his martyrdom; nor does St. Dionysius of Alexandria mention it; he indeed excuses St. Firmilian, but his letters, recited by Eusebius, were written before the Cyprianic question; likewise Eusebius, Augustine, the Donatists (and these indeed are merely negative); finally Cyprian did not write to Firmilian, therefore he did not reply; Moreover the letter is unworthy of a bishop; and so was not given by Firmilian, but forged by the Donatists. In which I find nothing that we have not already seen above in Missorius and Molkenbuhr, and there is accordingly no need to reply anew. § III is entitled: From the 1st day of September to the 21st day of December there is not found sufficient time for accomplishing the things that are said Pages 181-200.. The first mark of time is had from the third council of Carthage, held on the kalends of September; the other the distinguished writer deduces from Firmilian, who teaches that Rogatian the deacon hastened his return, because the winter season was pressing; and he concedes that this began at Caesarea, as at Rome, on the 21st of December Page 186.; wherefore Rogatian must have departed at least on the preceding day, certainly after a delay of at least fifteen days Page 187., otherwise Firmilian could neither have read the letter of Cyprian nor given his own. From these things it results that the deacon reached Caesarea on the fifth or sixth of December, and did not set out from Carthage before the sixth of October: for it is a journey of sixty days from here to there Pages 170 and 187.. There passed by, then, from the 1st of September, on which the council was begun Page 187. (so the author asserts or supposes, and does not prove), to the sixth of October, on which Rogatian was sent, thirty-seven days, whereas at least forty-four would have been necessary to accomplish those things which by the consent of all took place in this interval of time Ibid. page 191 and following.: Namely there was need of at least 10 days for holding the council; 8 for the legates to cross from Carthage to Rome; 15 for accomplishing their business there; again 8 for the return to Carthage, 3 finally in which Cyprian might prepare the letter to Firmilian. Whence Rogatian could not have committed himself to the road before the 14th of October nor reached Caesarea before the same day of December; and since he departed from there at the very latest on the 20th of the same month, it follows that there was no time for Firmilian to write a very long letter, which is demonstrated by this alone to be foisted. I think this the sum of paragraph III, which I have tried to render briefly indeed, but also accurately. Let the learned reader see what he may legitimately infer from conjectural numbers of this kind. Certainly others could set others according to the need of their cause, and with no less right. Further, is it in no way lawful to prolong that winter season beyond the 21st of December? For the other things pertaining to this see number 35.
[50] then from extrinsic marks: These things set out, the distinguished writer passes to the extrinsic marks, and says in article XXII that there do not exist manuscript works of St. Cyprian older than the fifth century or the year 400; and so going up from here to the year of his martyrdom or the year 259, there is an interval of one hundred and forty-one years, in which the fable of the dissension could have been prepared; whence thus too the authority of the manuscripts, to which Baluze attributes so much weight, falls. By this method certainly I do not know whether there is any monument of antiquity that would stand unshaken. In article XXIII, where it treats of his character, the holy doctor is shown to have been peaceful in few things, humble, full of charity; who then would believe that he burst out into such great anger, pride, bitterness? Augustine believed it: the things, he says, which he poured out in anger. Finally in articles XXIV and XXV Cyprian is proved from genuine writings to have been before all else a lover of unity and zealous for it; but the letters display something altogether different; nor is he known to have retracted his opinion. Augustine replies that he remained perpetually in unity. For the rest the question was judged to pertain to discipline; accordingly, even if he had persisted in his opinion, nothing would prevent his being venerated in the church as a martyr; indeed, in the judgment of Augustine, he washed away the blemish with his blood. But of this below, where I shall inquire concerning the retractation of St. Firmilian, § XI.
[51] chiefly from the silence or testimony of the ancients; In what follows the author weighs the testimonies of the ancient writers, whom in article XXXI, by way of recapitulation, he distributes in four troops Page 301 and following.. They are: 1° those contemporary with St. Cyprian: Pontius, Dionysius of Alexandria,
and perhaps the Anonymous on Rebaptism; 2° Donatus (from whom the schism had its name) and Eusebius; these two were about fifty years after Cyprian and are held to be near him in time; 3° Optatus of Milevis and Basil, more recent than the two earlier ones by nearly a whole century; 4° Jerome and Augustine. Of these, he says, Pontius is silent in the Life of St. Cyprian (but, as Freppel rightly observes S. Cyprien etc. page 437., he likewise passes over many other things); silent too are Donatus and Optatus; Dionysius of Alexandria mentions the Eastern dissension, not at all the African La célèbre contestation art. XXVII., and so too Eusebius: for chapter III of book VII, where there is mention of St. Cyprian, is apocryphal Ibid. page 281.. St. Basil speaks of the opinion of Firmilian and Cyprian, but is altogether ignorant of the contention as also of the decree of St. Stephen; had he known of it, he would not have dared to declare the baptism of heretics null; finally, the contemporary Africans being silent, the testimony of a foreigner, and not near in time, however great a man, lacks weight Art. XXVIII.. It is true that St. Jerome treated of the dissension in several places Art. XXIX.; but first he too is no contemporary witness; next he relies on the letters of St. Cyprian to Stephen and Jubaianus, which are apocryphal; likewise on Dionysius of Alexandria, whose letters he either did not read, or at least not attentively enough; on the canonical letter of St. Basil to Amphilochius, which if he had even lightly examined he would never have written that Dionysius of Alexandria inclined to the opinion of St. Cyprian. Jerome therefore erred. There remains St. Augustine Art. XXX.; and he treats at length of the dissension; he weighs the documents, brings forward the council of Carthage, refutes the Donatists from the letters of St. Cyprian; but again he relies on false or badly understood documents; nor is he a contemporary; finally he doubts; which doubt plainly demonstrates the cause of the Most Reverend prelate, and indeed opened the way for his writing.
[52] from which however nothing seems legitimately to be inferred. It is clear that the primary argument of the author is drawn from the silence of the natives and of contemporary writers. If, he says Page 302., the African dissension truly existed, how would all the Africans, Augustine excepted, have passed it over? And again Page 303.: The silence of contemporaries who, for the need of the cause, ought to have spoken, either has weight or it does not: If the first, the African dissension is foisted; if the second, historical truth is destitute of every solid foundation; and either we go off into a supine scepticism, or we must approve both the trash of story-tellers, and the fictions of anyone with idle time on his hands, and the most absurd rumors spread among the crowd. But it is to be well noted that those contemporary natives are reduced almost to Pontius alone. Three indeed are marked: Pontius, Dionysius of Alexandria and perhaps the Anonymous. He then is doubtful, both because it is not established whether he is a contemporary: for it is not agreed among the learned at what time the book on rebaptism appeared; and because he seems not to have been altogether silent, where he says: And therefore it was boasted that some things had been written and written back on this new question Page 300.. St. Dionysius, who sat at the far edge of Africa, neighboring on Asia Minor, is to be numbered rather with the Orientals than with the Africans, whence the prelate of Nisibis himself approves the Eastern dissension, because he judges his testimony suitable, and indeed his alone. There remains only Pontius, the most illustrious writer of the Cyprianic Life, who if he is silent on our question, as Freppel aptly says S. Cyprien etc. page 437., passes over many other things too, for example the schisms of Novatus and Felicissimus, which stirred up the greatest troubles for the holy doctor. Finally Optatus of Milevis is an African but no contemporary. Of Eusebius, the Donatists, Basil, Jerome and Augustine I have spoken in §§ VII and VIII. This one thing I add from the often-mentioned Freppel: in order to defend their opinion the adversaries are forced, he says S. Cyprien etc, page 436., to give credence to those who are silent, and to deny it to those who speak.
[53] The patrons of the opposing opinion disagree not a little among themselves. For the rest, as could easily be observed in the foregoing, the Most Reverend prelate differs not a little from Missorius and Molkenbuhr. He admits the Eastern dissension and holds a single passage of Eusebius apocryphal; Missorius asserts that the history … of the anabaptism of the Orientals and Africans was forged by Eusebius of Caesarea, Molkenbuhr that it was interpolated; he judges the canonical letter of St. Basil genuine, nor does he admit that St. Jerome has been depraved; for Missorius either the letter of Basil is depraved, or certainly he was carried away and deceived by the history of Eusebius of Caesarea; Molkenbuhr affirms that three canonical letters of St. Basil the Great to Amphilochius are fictitious and that St. Jerome has been interpolated. The adversaries, then, do not agree among themselves. A kingdom divided against itself.
§ IX. Again on the letter. Whether it was written in Greek by St. Firmilian, and rendered into Latin by St. Cyprian. The disputation on the genuineness of the letter is concluded.
[The letter was written in Greek; was it translated into Latin by Cyprian? Most affirm it;] Since the letter of St. Firmilian is genuine for us, it remains that we inquire briefly in what language it was first written and by whom it was translated into Latin. That this letter was written in Greek by Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, and also translated into Latin by Cyprian, the style sufficiently shows, although the word Firmilian betrays a Latin origin. So Rigault [Works of St. Cyprian revised by John bishop of Oxford, page 217, note 1. Bremen 1690.]. To what the latter words tend I do not well see. Does the learned man perhaps wish to hint that it would not be altogether absurd if someone should conjecture from the name that Firmilian wrote in Latin? And if this was his meaning, I do not know whether he ever found even one among the literati agreeing with him. For it is not enough that the author of the letter was not ignorant of the Latin language, but in addition he must have been not much inferior to Cyprian in the art of writing. Finally one can have a Latin origin, and not speak Latin. For the rest Maran chimes in with Rigault Migne, volume IV, column 162 and following.: This letter of Firmilian, which exists rendered into Latin among the Cyprianic ones as LXXV, so savors of the style of Cyprian that it seems to have had no other interpreter. The faithful interpreter retained in some places the character of the Greek language, some of which he presents. Tillemont Mémoires, volume IV, page 313. and others generally think similarly. And certainly that proper countenance from which, in the judgment of Augustine, the style of St. Cyprian can be recognized is by no means lacking in the letter of St. Firmilian. Yet not a few oppose this, among whom Suyskens, our predecessor, in the Acts of St. Cyprian at the 14th day of September. I shall not easily allow myself, he says Volume IV of Sept. page 306., to be persuaded that the said letter was made from Greek into Latin by St. Cyprian as interpreter, as some (indeed very many) have thought is to be gathered from the mere likeness of style; for although it must be confessed that the holy prelate in the present dissension sometimes, out of human frailty, wrote rather harshly of St. Stephen, I do not however suppose that he was willing to expend his labor so that the reproaches of the angry Firmilian against the same St. Stephen, rendered into Latin, might be spread more widely. Hence I wonder the more that this also pleased Maran, to whom the gentleness of the holy prelate in these very contentions seemed so great that he affirms that to it is without doubt to be attributed that he was unwilling to make any word of the severity of St. Stephen in rejecting the African legates in the letters to Jubaianus (these, according to our chronology, and indeed that of Suyskens himself Ibid. page 298., were given before the third council and therefore before the legation) and to Pompey, and also in the third council of Carthage, all of which he places before the letter of Firmilian. Moreover it does not appear likely enough that St. Cyprian should be the interpreter of a letter in which it is denied, as if from his mind and opinion, that there existed heretics in the times of the apostles, since he himself in the letter to Pompey had asserted the contrary, and had said only that afterwards "sharper" ones also burst forth than those whom the Apostles condemned.
[55] Suyskens denies it; whose one Two things then moved Suyskens: first that he could not easily believe that labor was expended by Cyprian in order that the reproaches of Firmilian against Stephen might be spread more widely; the other that the latter openly denies that there were heretics in the time of the apostles, not so the other. Others will perhaps reply that Cyprian by no means spread the reproaches more widely, since the letter, on account of the dissension being laid to sleep, especially with the onset of the persecution of Valerian, lay hidden, preserved in the archives, and that it is not even proved that it was endowed with Latinity by Cyprian for this reason, that it might at once be made public; and finally that the letter of the prelate of Caesarea does not greatly differ from the letter to Pompey, which Suyskens too has. Firmilian, he says Ibid. page 306., repeated and approved the arguments brought forward by Cyprian in the letter to Pompey against St. Stephen, and added besides some things which seemed to him to serve his purpose. And Firmilian himself Migne, volume III, column 1157.: We indeed have taken up the things written by you as though our own; nor have we read them in passing, but, often repeated, we have committed them to memory. Nor does it stand in the way of saving utility either to go over the same things again for confirming the truth, or also to add some things for heaping up the proof. Hence Suyskens shrewdly observes As above. that Cyprian committed to Rogatian a letter to be brought to Firmilian, in which he either recited his letter written to Pompey against St. Stephen (it is known that this letter is lost, if indeed it was given), or certainly transmitted it together with it; what Cyprian then poured out in anger, Firmilian, by nature more wrathful and vehement, blurted out. What of the fact that to the most holy and excellent prelate of Carthage so injurious a heat of anger of Firmilian (which he himself, more peaceful, could not but perceive in translating the letter) perhaps opened his eyes, so that he recognized the danger of a pernicious dissension, and therefore resolved, at least for the time, to set an end to the disputation?
[56] and the other reason are weighed; The other concerns heretics in the times of the apostles, of whom, in the judgment of Suyskens, Firmilian affirms that there were none, Cyprian asserting the contrary. It will be helpful to have placed the words of both before the eyes. Cyprian to Pompey: So that no one ought, he says Migne, volume III, column 1130 and following., to defame the Apostles, as though they approved the baptisms of heretics, or communicated with them without the baptism of the church, when the apostles wrote such things of heretics (which the holy Doctor recites below in the same place), AND THIS WHEN THE SHARPER PLAGUES OF HERESY HAD NOT YET BURST FORTH; and not yet had Marcion of Pontus emerged from Pontus, whose master Cerdon came to Rome under Hyginus, then bishop, who was ninth in the city… And if it is established that heresies afterwards existed more numerous and worse, etc. He does not then deny that there were heretics under the apostles; but, as it seems at least to me, hints that they were few, and certainly afterwards more numerous and sharper and worse. Let us hear Firmilian too Ibid. column 1158.: As regards what Stephen said (but how and to what extent he said it would have to be defined from his letters, which are lost), as though
the apostles forbade those who come from heresy to be baptized, and handed this down to be kept by posterity, you have replied most fully that no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles handed this down, since it is established that the execrable and detestable heresies themselves existed afterwards, as both Marcion, the disciple of Cerdon, is found long after the apostles … to have brought in a sacrilegious tradition against God; and Apelles too, agreeing with his blasphemy, added many other things … hostile to the truth; but also the time of Valentinus and Basilides is manifest, that they too rebelled after the Apostles and after a long age…. Thus far nothing, apart from amplification and some exaggeration, plainly differs from Cyprian. But he adds: But it is established that the other heretics introduced their depraved sects and perverse inventions AFTERWARDS, as each was led by error. Must that afterwards necessarily be referred to the apostles? Is it not rather to those who came forth after Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides? For my part I do not see what prevents our so taking it. And this being set down, the objection of Suyskens vanishes. But let us grant that it is referred to the Apostles. Is the version on that account to be denied to Cyprian, because Firmilian is found to have advanced beyond his opinion in this single phrase? Let those more sharp-sighted decide; but, until a clearer light arises, I should not dare to assent to our predecessor, whose diligence, industry and prudence in illustrating the Acts of St. Cyprian everyone certainly esteems greatly.
[57] What Missorius, Molkenbuhr, etc. say. For the rest it is consequent that all those who, on account of the vehemence of diction, hold the letters of St. Cyprian on baptism themselves to be either suspect or false should contend with much stronger reason that the letter of Firmilian was not rendered into Latin by him, and should indignantly protest against those who have dared even to suspect this. Let Missorius be an example Page 14.: Where does the Greek copy exist? Nowhere … By whom was it translated into Latin? That Cyprian translated it, they say, the style shows. Let the style show it indeed, which anyone else could have imitated; but the purpose, but the prudence, but the love of peace and unity do not show it. How aptly can that saying of Terence be inverted: From bad Greek he has made very bad Latin. For what cause was there why he should translate the Greek letter of Firmilian into Latin? Since he had of himself stated his cause amply enough, copiously and elegantly, etc. After other things of that kind he exclaims Page 18.: See to what at last this anxious observation of critics otherwise most learned comes, that in order to save the style, they infect the sanctity and the faith. And Molkenbuhr Page 4, likewise Migne, volume III, column 1363.: Cave says: The letter of Firmilian was translated into Latin, as it seems, by Cyprian, whose style it plainly savors. The same had already long ago been opined among the catholics by the distinguished Pamelius. But 1° if the letter of Firmilian had already in the third century become known in Latin, how could it have happened that it was never cited by authors of the third, fourth and fifth century? … 2° If the letter savors of the style of Cyprian; therefore it shows first that its origin was Latin: for Cyprian was a Latin. How light these replies are there is no need to demonstrate. He adds Page 5.: The Latinity and style so (as will appear to one who reads it again) sink, that it is altogether unworthy of St. Cyprian, whether as author or as interpreter; which, so far as is established to me, Fr. Marcellinus alone has brought forward. A little before he had said: Let us admit that the same author who fabricated the letters commonly called Cyprianic also composed the Firmilian letter, because in both the style is altogether the same, except that in the Firmilian or last one he vomited out with full cheeks against St. Stephen the pope all the insults that even a buffoon could find. Compare § number 43 and following.
[58] Conclusion. These men, namely, in their ardent affection toward the catholic church and the holy see, thought that the most suitable method of defending both was if the springs from which adversaries, whether heretics or unbelievers, derived their objections could be dried up, by demonstrating that the monuments, with the aid of which they carried on the war, were fictitious or false. The will is certainly to be praised; the aim most worthy of catholic and learned men; but one must walk on right and good roads; otherwise you will not only not snatch arms from the enemies, but will indeed hand over new ones. And in very truth if it is permitted to us to tear down by conjectures and subtleties monuments which raise some difficulty; the same will have to be conceded to adversaries where, using similar arts, they strike from the sacred canon books that do not please them, and allege that writings of the ancient fathers, which excellently establish the apostolic tradition, are either forged, or mutilated or interpolated. Every learned man must have before his eyes that saying of Quintilian: One writes to narrate, not to prove. Namely let historical facts be brought forward as they are held from suitable testimonies; nor let the writer toil over whether they help or hurt his tenets; but before all else let its place be given to truth in the narrative. And this is what our predecessors perpetually sought, and what we likewise aim at, that by reasons certain and suited and proper to each matter we may prudently separate the true from the false. What have the unbelievers not undertaken in recent times against the historical credit of the sacred Scriptures? What did the Magdeburg centuriators not undertake formerly against the credit of the councils and the universal catholic tradition? But because they used arms not properly their own, their attempts therefore fell vain, and historical truth remained unmoved. I should think, then, that Missorius and others are to be altogether forsaken, both because the arguments on which they rely are neither suitable nor solid; and because against them holds the axiom: he who proves too much; since by their method of reasoning not only is the credit of the letter of Firmilian and of some of St. Cyprian overturned, but several writings too of Eusebius, and of Basil and of Jerome would have to be numbered among the apocrypha, and in the same way very many others could very easily be shaken; so that it would be all over with the most illustrious springs of historical truth. For the rest few, indeed very few, are found to have subscribed to tenets of this kind. Certainly all the editors of the aforesaid writers, for instance the Maurists, Vallarsi, Valesius, etc., list among the genuine works what Missorius and other teachers of the same opinion charge either with falsity or with interpolation.
§ X. Whether St. Firmilian was ever cut off from the body of the church, and whether he was deprived of the particular communion of St. Stephen? It is certain that he died in the peace of the church.
Baronius asserts that St. Firmilian was excommunicated by St. Stephen; It is very probable that St. Firmilian was never cut off from the peace of the church. Baronius indeed supposed that the Prelate of Caesarea was actually excommunicated by St. Stephen the Roman pontiff, but he did not bring those reasons which would sufficiently prove the opinion [Baronius Annals at the year 258, number XV, volume III, page 52. Lucca 1738. Likewise number XLIII and following, page 59 and following.]. Whence Pagi Ibid. at the year of Baronius 259, of Pagi 256, number XII, page 66.: The learned do not admit what Baronius writes, namely that Stephen excommunicated Firmilian with his fellow bishops. Thus too the other Pagi in the Breviarium Volume I, page 38.. Baronius, namely, distinguishes the cause of St. Firmilian from the cause of St. Cyprian; and he pronounces the former excluded; but not the latter. Firmilian indeed thought, he says As above, page 60., from the complaints of Cyprian against Stephen, that the same had been done with him as had been done with himself and his colleagues. But the cause of both was not equal. For those (whom he supposes to have come together at Iconium at this time) could seem worthy of a more severe animadversion not only because they were the authors of the contention that had arisen; but also because, no account being taken of their elders, they had firmly sealed by the vote of all a decree against the ancient custom. Baronius, namely, is occupied with a false supposition, since he holds that the synod of Iconium was then held, and that legates were sent from it to Stephen. Both are altogether false. Compare numbers 7 and 37. Moreover he partly refuses, partly admits the testimony of Firmilian: for he expressly asserts that Cyprian and the Africans were no less excluded than the Orientals. For he brings in Stephen as breaking peace with each by a different kind of discord; now with the Orientals (which we trust is not hidden from you either), now with you who are in the south. Baronius replies that Firmilian was moved by the complaints of St. Cyprian to think so; Pagi, that he amplified the matter in the manner of orators. And Fr. Alexander Volume IV, page 94.: For such is the character of angry men, that in speaking or writing they increase injuries inflicted on them, true or presumed, and proclaim them greater than they really are, in order to stir up hatred against their rivals and to bring on envy. Whence the Tragedian sang in the Thyestes: "An angry man speaks nothing but monsters." Cabassut hesitates somewhat: Firmilian, he says Notitia ecclesiæ, page 67., gravely complains that he was cast down by Stephen from the communion of the church. And it could certainly have happened that he separated him alone from the assembly of the faithful in order to strike terror into others, daring no such thing against Dionysius … or against Cyprian … fearing the imminent danger, if so many churches, and prelates of such esteem, should be made outsiders to communion. Perhaps too Firmilian, carried away by the heat of anger, exaggerates the severity of Stephen's threat, as though it had been actually fulfilled, as exceeding measure. Yet Cyprian himself, although he complains rather harshly of Stephen …, and Augustine, who so often and so at length disputes of these things here and there, and Eusebius have no word whatever of excommunication. Thus Cabassut, manifestly inclining to the opinion opposed to Baronius.
[60] but wrongly, For he, in order to say that Firmilian was excommunicated with the Orientals, relies before the others, not to say solely, on Eusebius, or on these words of St. Dionysius of Alexandria reported by him Hist. eccles, book VII, chapter V, page 252.: Stephen had earlier written a letter concerning Helenus, concerning Firmilian, concerning all the bishops who were from Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and from all the peoples who were neighboring; that he would not hold any communion at all with them either for that reason: for they (he says) rebaptize heretics. Thus from the version used by Baronius Annal. page 52.. But otherwise Henri de Valois: And that for that reason he would withdraw from their communion, which seems more consonant with the Greek ὡς οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις κοινωσήσων, for by the word κοινωσὴσων not the present but the future tense is more rightly indicated. Pearson agrees Annales Cyprianici year 256, number V, page 54.. Pagi adds: For Stephen did not break peace either with the Africans or with the Orientals, but only threatened that he would break peace with them, as Dionysius of Alexandria expressly testifies: that he … would withdraw from their communion, or as Pearson has it, would not have communion with them. Pagi adds also other reasons in the same place: Certainly that Stephen did not proceed beyond threats appears from this, that Dionysius of Alexandria after his death wrote again to Pope Xystus, that his opinion on that matter
he might ask. For Dionysius inclined rather to the opinion of the Africans and Orientals. But of Dionysius I shall speak more broadly elsewhere. And again Pagi from the letter of Firmilian: But if Stephen had brought forth a sentence of excommunication against them, he would surely not have broken peace with both "by a different kind," but in one and the same way, namely by a sentence of excommunication, he would have struck both Africans and Orientals, says Valesius in the Notes on the cited place of Eusebius. It will be helpful to have set down some things from Valesius. After reciting the words of Firmilian on the legates of Cyprian, to whom not only peace and communion, but even shelter and hospitality were denied, if credit be given to Firmilian, he notes Annotationes on book VII, page 141.: These things indeed greatly exaggerate the matter. But I deny that in those words any indication of an excommunication brought forth by Stephen is found (Valesius here too, it seems to me, exaggerates the matter a little). Stephen was indeed gravely moved and took it ill that the African synod had determined against the received custom of the whole church that heretics were to be rebaptized, and had dared to decree a matter of such weight and moment without first consulting the bishop of the city of Rome, etc. Tillemont [Mémoires, volume IV, pages 156 and 631. Compare Coustant de Stephani sententia, § VII, Migne, volume III, column 1269.], not without a raised eyebrow, carps at Baronius, not because he asserts that Firmilian was excluded, but because he exempts Cyprian from the censure passed; of which there appears to him no other reason except that the cardinal held him worthy of greater respect than the other, although he too was a man distinguished among few. And this from those men against the opinion of Baronius. Let us proceed to other things.
[61] as St. Augustine testifies, That they were not excluded St. Augustine teaches in several places, whose judgment on this question, if not decisive, everyone will surely hold to be at least of the greatest weight. And first in book V, chapter 25 on Baptism Migne, volume XLII, column 194.: But Stephen had thought that those too were to be excluded who tried to tear up the ancient custom on receiving heretics; he (Cyprian) however, moved by the difficulty of the question itself, and most abundantly endowed with the holy bowels of charity, thought that one must remain in unity with those who thought differently. Thus although he was indignant with more agitation, yet fraternally, the peace of Christ nevertheless conquered in their hearts, so that in such a dispute no evil of schism arose between them. Fr. Natalis Alexander comments on these words in this way Volume IV, page 93.: But peace between Stephen and Cyprian would have been broken if Stephen had pierced Cyprian and the bishops adhering to him with anathema. It is more probable, then, that St. Cyprian and his fellow bishops were not excommunicated by St. Stephen. From which it is proved that neither was Firmilian with his Orientals in fact excluded from communion. For St. Cyprian always communicated with Firmilian, gave letters to him, transmitted his councils to him. Further he would not have communicated with him if he had really been cut off from ecclesiastical unity: for what would this have been other than to withdraw from the communion of the apostolic see and of Stephen, than to break peace with him, than to divide unity? Nor can it be said that St. Cyprian indeed was not excommunicated; but that Firmilian was really cut off from communion. For the cause of Firmilian and Cyprian was one; each judged that heretics were to be rebaptized, each defended his opinion with equal ardor, equal contention of mind, equal pertinacity, equal commotion against Stephen: it is not likely, then, that Stephen deprived Firmilian of communion with his Orientals, and permitted Cyprian with the Africans to enjoy peace and communion. It is confirmed. St. Augustine, who often relates that the Eastern bishops agreed with Cyprian in the cause of repeating baptism, nowhere even lightly hints that they were cut off from the church; which however would have been a splendid and robust argument against the Donatists. Thus far Fr. Alexander. Here is another place of St. Augustine no less perspicuous, in the book on the one baptism against Petilian Migne, volume XLIII, in column 607.: Since then Stephen (whom Petilian himself mentions among those who held the episcopate of the Roman church unblemished) not only did not rebaptize heretics, but even judged that those who did this or decreed that it be done were to be excommunicated, as the letters of other bishops and of Cyprian himself show (what do Missorius and those adhering to him say to this?), yet Cyprian remained with him in the peace of unity. Thomassin observes [Dissertatio in synodos de baptismo hæreticorum § XXX, Migne, volume III, column 1235.]: He judged that they were to be excommunicated, he did not excommunicate them. Further if Cyprian remained in peace, why not others too, whose condition was plainly equal? Perhaps from this place Baronius thought Cyprian should be excepted, to whom, since he adds the Africans, why not also the Orientals and Firmilian, whose letter Stephen without doubt neither saw nor knew? Compare number 55. It would be easy to gather many other things from St. Augustine in confirmation; but I think it superfluous, since they are found in the treatises commonly met with on this contention. See, if you please, Thomassin in the place cited; likewise Coustant De Stephani papæ sententia, Migne, volume III, column 1268 and following., Suyskens Acts of St. Cyprian, volume IV of Sept. page 309 and following. and others.
[62] (Tillemont contradicting in vain) Tillemont Mémoires, volume IV, page 150 and following. says that from these and similar words of St. Augustine it results that Cyprian did not break with Stephen, but not likewise the latter with him; so that Stephen truly excommunicated Cyprian and others, but neither he nor those who thought the same with him separated themselves from the communion of the others, and thus remained in peace with him who declared peace broken. So peace on the part of Cyprian, war on the part of Stephen. The one repelled, the other refused to be repelled. Wherefore Suyskens wisely and acutely enough: Wonderful indeed, he says Volume IV of Sept. page 310., is this catholic peace and communion, where one separates himself from the other by excommunication. Certainly this was unknown to St. Augustine, who in book V on Baptism, chapter XVII, concedes indeed that the good can have peace toward the bad, but cannot hold it with those who have broken it. The holy doctor treats there of this same controversy, and of peace nevertheless preserved, and speaks thus: "He (Cyprian) saw and perceived that those too who think differently can so think with charity intact; for he would not say that he held divine concord and the peace of the Lord with evil men; for a good man can have peace toward evil men; but he cannot hold with them that which they themselves do not hold." And what else, pray, is it to "hold peace with someone, than" to remain with him in peace, "than" to persist with him in the communion of catholic unity," which Augustine above expressly asserts that St. Cyprian did with St. Stephen? (Compare n. 66 and following.) These things certainly pertain more nearly to St. Cyprian, yet why they could not probably be applied to Firmilian, whose cause was altogether equal, I for my part do not plainly perceive, since from his letter, however bitter and sharp, there shines forth the same love of unity and peace as in the letters of St. Cyprian; and, by the consent of all, so bitter an indignation of both had its origin chiefly in this, that he indicated that they were to be separated from his communion unless they returned to sounder doctrine. Compare n. 68.
[63] and others Nor does Augustine alone teach that Stephen did not proceed beyond threats, but it results also from others. The anonymous author of the book on Rebaptism Migne, volume III, columns 1183 – 1204. nowhere mentions a censure passed. This book Tillemont, Ceillier and Galland judge to have been written not only while Cyprian was still alive, but also against the bishop of Carthage himself, as is in the Prolegomena Ibid. column 1179.. And St. Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians: But, he says Martianay, volume IV column 304., if they wish … to bring forward what Blessed Cyprian left in his letters on rebaptizing heretics; let them know that he published these things not with anathema on those who were unwilling to follow him, since he remained in communion with those who had opposed his opinion. Perhaps Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, looked to this place of Jerome, where he wrote against Mocianus Migne, Patrol. lat. volume LXVII, column 864.: Blessed Stephen too, prelate of the apostolic see, when he learned that St. Cyprian and other African bishops had decreed concerning baptizing all heretics, although, as has been said, they had brought forth such an opinion with no anathema interposed, and not against any older decrees of a general council or conniving with heretics, yet at once declared to him that if they dared this they would be driven from the church. That these things may be rightly understood it is to be noted that Facundus, earlier well deserving of the catholic cause [Compare Baron. at the year 547, number 34 and following, number 41 and following.], on account of his pertinacious defense of the three Chapters, which the fifth ecumenical synod had condemned, was punished with exile, and began to fight among the schismatics, where, as Galland has it As above, column: 523., he also wrote the book against Mocianus or Mutianus Scholasticus, who with the best right had refuted the African prelates, because for the cause of the three Chapters they had separated themselves from Pope Vigilius and from the church after his "Judicatum." This too must be recalled to mind, that before the definition of the aforesaid fifth synod, it was the persuasion of very many, and even of Vigilius himself (as is clear from the Constitutum), that either the persons or the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, of Theodoret of Cyrus, and of Ibas (these were the authors of the Chapters) could not easily be condemned without injury to the council of Chalcedon See Natalis Alexander, volume V, page 351.. These things noted beforehand, everyone sees how aptly Coustant writes at the aforesaid place Migne, volume III, column 1270.: Speaking thus Facundus could, I think, bring forward nothing clearer to teach that only threats of excommunication were aimed by Stephen at those who rebaptized heretics. And in very truth he says that they would have to be driven out if with anathema interposed, etc., they had brought forth the opinion; but no anathema was interposed.
[64] the objections of Mansi From all these things it is probable, as the learned too commonly judge, that Stephen aimed threats, not however excommunication, at those who baptized heretics coming to the church. There are however those who determine otherwise. Besides Tillemont, of whom above, we have John Dominic Mansi, whose opinion, that it may stand for others, we set down a little more explicitly. He then in the Animadversions on the history of Fr. Alexander proposes Volume IV, page 95. Venice 1778.: It is more probable that St. Cyprian, Firmilian, etc., were excommunicated by Stephen the Roman pontiff. And he proves it in this way: So openly Firmilian writes to St. Cyprian that Pope Stephen had broken peace, and had accordingly deprived them of his communion,
that it seems not to be doubted that after the threats he at length pronounced the sentence of excommunication against them. (Mansi then admits that threats were first aimed; but adds that the sentence followed afterwards; whether he demonstrates it, let the learned judge.) "In very many other provinces too," he says, "many things are varied according to the diversity of places and names, and yet on this account there has been no departure from the peace and unity of the catholic church. Which Stephen has now dared to do, breaking against you the peace which his predecessors always kept with you in mutual love and honor" Migne, volume III, column 1159.. Firmilian then complains that Stephen at that time separated Cyprian and others from peace and unity, which his predecessors had not earlier done on account of other varieties, and accordingly openly affirms that they were cut off from the Roman church by excommunication. But that reply of Natalis (which is also that of Baronius, Valesius, etc.) seems altogether futile, by which he says that Firmilian described a threatened excommunication with the same characters as if it had really been passed, because he took up his pen with a mind somewhat angered against Stephen. Futile, I say, altogether to me is a reply of this kind, because Firmilian would at once be convicted of having forgotten all the rules of Christian living and honesty, if, in order to stir up hatred against Stephen, he had lied in so grave a matter, and had said that what Stephen was only threatening was already done, and had written of the injury as already inflicted… And indeed who, pray, would think that, if Stephen had stopped within mere threats, he would have compared him to the traitor Judas, and charged him with insolence, wickedness, folly, etc.? These surely are the words of one who, bearing impatiently a wound received, blazes up against him who inflicted the mortal wound, etc. Why should he not declare the whole letter spurious? Certainly so Missorius and others determined from the same argument. Mansi says that his words are confirmed by the testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria, whose words he recites from the version of Baronius (see number 60): That he would not hold communion with them either for that reason. Whence: Since Cyprian labored under the same error as those bishops of whom Dionysius speaks, as he says with Firmilian, etc., that Stephen broke communion for that reason, there is no ground for saying that he preserved it with Cyprian. The letter of Dionysius we examined above in § V.
[65] are weighed. Mansi relies on these two testimonies only; and since the honest man saw that other things besides were brought forward by Fr. Alexander, he thinks he must add: Yet, I confess, those places of the Fathers which Natalis reports (and we in part have reported, others being added besides) raise no small difficulty, in which they assert that in this dissension unity and communion were preserved, and accordingly that St. Cyprian "remained in communion with those who opposed his opinion," as St. Jerome wrote… If we wish to reconcile these things with what we have observed from Firmilian, who openly confesses that unity and peace were really torn between Stephen and the rebaptizers, whom Dionysius of Alexandria too supports, we must say that the excommunication passed by Stephen was removed by him or by Xystus his successor. Which is a mere conjecture, resting on no express testimonies, so that it seems to have been devised for the use of the Mansian opinion. There is however one thing which certainly, had he known it, would not have been passed over by Mansi, as favoring his opinion above all; wherefore I will set it down. Namely the Synodal Libellus, of which we spoke at number 15, lists a Roman council held under St. Stephen, and indeed in plainly these words Migne, volume III, column 1011.: A divine and sacred provincial synod, gathered at Rome by Stephen, holy martyr and pope; which renounced those who in the African synod had without reason granted that those be rebaptized who came from any heresy whatever to the catholic church. ἀπωκηρύξασα τους … ἐπικεχειρήκοτας ἀναβαπτίζειν κ. τ. λ. It is clear that here a censure passed is openly signified. Certainly if the authority of the Libellus were unshaken, the matter would be concluded; but, as we have seen, its sole testimony does not suffice, in the judgment of the learned, for us to assert that a council was held of which there is nowhere else any mention. Fabricius indeed wrote Biblioth. græc. volume XII, page 567. Harles.: The Roman council of Pope Stephen against the rebaptizers, which Cyprian mentions, Epist. 74, to Pompey, Eusebius, book VII, 3; Vincent of Lérins and the Old Synodicon (that is our libellus). Compare Baluze. But Harles adds: But Walch … demonstrates more fully that the Roman council of Stephen is plainly fictitious, and that Baluze … Harduin … and Fabricius wrongly interpreted the narrative of Cyprian, Eusebius and Vincent of Lérins. The Benedictines too list this synod under the year 256, and indeed midway between the second and third councils of Carthage under Cyprian Art de vérif. les dates p. 171., of which they relate these things: St. Stephen refuses to communicate with the legates of St. Cyprian, and condemns the definition of the two preceding councils (so they suppose that the legates were sent after the second, wrongly indeed in our opinion), declaring that baptism conferred by heretics is valid. Which must have been drawn from a preposterous interpretation of Cyprian and of Eusebius and of the man of Lérins; certainly from where else they would come I do not know. There is certainly nothing of the kind in the Libellus.
[66] [One can be separated from communion, without being cut off from the body of the church,] From what has been said in this paragraph it appears that all whom we have thus far praised held that Stephen at least threatened Cyprian and Firmilian with an excommunication by which they would be cut off from the peace or unity of the church; and that this was also the opinion of the ancients, for instance of Augustine etc., does not appear to be doubted, from their testimonies recited above. There is however another thing which we propose, whether for solving or for elucidating the question, somewhat timidly indeed, since one must depart from the beaten road. Let the fair reader judge. Namely even if it were granted that St. Stephen proceeded beyond threats and in fact deprived St. Firmilian with the Orientals of his communion, as also St. Cyprian with the Africans; it would not yet follow that both the one and the other were separated from the body of the church or outside unity. For a double exclusion or deprivation of communion can be distinguished. The one constitutes true excommunication and cutting off from the body of the church; the other only interrupts the mutual commerce between churches or even persons, and is not to be equated with anathema. There are not lacking traces of a distinction of this kind in ecclesiastical antiquity. When in the second century the question of the celebration of Easter was agitated, St. Victor I, pope, says Dumesnil Doctrina et disciplina ecclesiæ. volume I, page 215., deprives the Asiatics of his communion, but did not hurl the anathema of excommunication; which two things are very different among the ancients. Hence, as St. Epiphanius reports, the Orientals, torn from the Occidentals, accepted no letters of peace from each other. I subjoin the place of St. Epiphanius Heresy 70. Migne, Patrol. græca, volume XLII, column 555.. Nor is it unknown to learned men how often at different times various tumults and contentions of ecclesiastical discipline have arisen concerning its (Easter's) celebration, especially in the age of Polycarp and Victor, when the Orientals, torn from the Occidentals, accepted no letters of peace from each other.
[67] [as is established from the history of the dissension on the celebration of Easter, under Victor I, pope,] Whence too Benedict Palma Prælectiones, volume I, page 105.: This only seems certain, both from the fervor of the controversy itself and from the testimony of Epiphanius in heresy 70, that on this account there was such indignation between the Orientals and Occidentals "that they accepted no letters of peace from each other." And a little below Page 109.: It must be added that Victor … only denied letters of peace to the Asians for some time, which however was not long. And more distinctly Cajetan Moroni Dizionario under the word Scommunica, volume LXII, page 213.: Pope Victor I excommunicated the Quartodecimans or deprived the Asiatics of his particular communion, interrupting with them the commerce of apostolic letters, which are called letters of peace, and he was ready to cut them off from the body of the church, in which chiefly excommunication consisted, but, the bishops and St. Irenaeus interceding, he did not proceed beyond threats; indeed he seems to have received them into his communion. There was then a certain kind of lesser excommunication, as Fr. Natalis Alexander notes Hist. eccles. fifth century, part II, diss. 20, volume V, page 260., by which they were neither separated from the body of the church, nor placed outside the state of salvation, but only deprived of certain honors and appendages of ecclesiastical communion, namely formed letters and other things of this kind. It will be profitable to have observed from Bingham [Origines sive antiquitates ecclesiasticæ, volume I, page 106 and following. Halle 1724.] that those letters were of different kinds according to the different occasion or condition of the men who received them. In general they were referred to three classes: for they were either "commendatory letters" or "communicatory" or "dimissory." Letters of the first class … were given to men of more illustrious condition or even to men of this kind whose reputation had been called into question, or to clerics who had to set out into foreign regions. Letters of the second kind were imparted to all those who were in the communion of the church, and cultivated peace with it, whence they were also called "pacific" and "ecclesiastical" and sometimes "canonical." The third kind was given only to clerics, when they went from their diocese to another …; which they testified that they did with the peace of their bishop; whence they were called "dimissory" and similarly sometimes "pacific." All these they called by the general name "formed," because they were written in a peculiar form, with singular signs and characters.
[68] [likewise from what was done in the cause of St. John Chrysostom under Innocent I.] What has been said of that lesser or particular or partial excommunication is confirmed from the acts under St. Innocent I in the cause of St. John Chrysostom. It is to be noted, says Fr. Natalis Alexander As above, page 139., that at that time the communion of the Eastern church with the Western was rather suspended than broken, and that that affair did not proceed to schism, but only the commerce of formed letters was interrupted; and the learned man judges this proved chiefly because by the mere sending of legates and formed letters communion was restored between Orientals and Occidentals, as is gathered from the letters of St. Innocent, parts of which Fr. Alexander recites; we subjoin the same from a more correct edition of the same pontiff. Letter XXI to Acacius, bishop of Beroea, has this Migne, Patrol. lat. volume XX, column 544.: Whence we have transmitted to your unanimity these (letters) to be delivered to our most excellent brother and fellow bishop Alexander (of Antioch). Namely that if all enmities, all rivalry both on account of the name of the holy and wonderful bishop John, and concerning all the sharers of the same communion, have departed from your spirit, you may receive these letters of our fellowship, dearest brother. Now Coustant notes Ibid. column 542, note e.: This Acacius Palladius is wont to list first among the enemies of John Chrysostom and the principal actors of the tragedy stirred up against him. For which reason, that by
Innocent he had deserved to be suspended: which is to be understood in such a way that Innocent's COMMUNION WITH HIM WAS SUSPENDED, NOT THAT HE FORBADE HIM HIS OFFICE; he was not then separated from the body of the church, nor struck by anathema, neither he nor the other actors of the aforesaid tragedy. The same results from letter XIX to the Alexander of Antioch mentioned, where these things are read Ibidem.: We have received the writings of Bishop Acacius, since they were presented with yours, lest through injury to you he who had been suspended by us (in the sense in which I said above from Coustant) should be repudiated; and yet we have determined abundantly enough in the acts, as you will kindly take care to read over again, what ought to be observed in his person; that if he shall ask to be a sharer in all your counsels and in acts so holy, there may be furnished to the old man (Acacius) by your favor and our judgment THE GRACE OF COMMUNION AND OF LETTERS EXTENDED BY US. Things similar to these are gathered from other letters on the same subject (which see in the Patrology in the place cited). Whence Fr. Alexander rightly, in my opinion, concludes: That dissension, then, had joined to it only the suspension of commerce, of legates, of apostolic and formed letters, not the infliction of anathema. Hence the Occidentals throughout the whole time of that dissension fostered communion with those who were joined in communion with the Orientals, and thus mediately communicated with the Orientals themselves. Hence the apostolic see did not order the names of Theophilus, of Arsacius (he had been put in the place of St. Chrysostom driven from his see) and of others to be struck from the sacred diptychs. Then he adds: Yet this suspension of communion and partial (so to speak) excommunication was no light evil, especially to men such as St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian were, lovers of unity and zealous for it; so that from this might be understood their so great commotion, which we have seen, even if they were judged to be deprived only of the particular communion of St. Stephen. Compare number 61.
[69] Did the same perhaps hold in the question of baptism under Pope Stephen? Certainly to one diligently considering what is found to have been done at that time, indications of that lesser excommunication occur; so that there seems to hold what we noted above from Moroni of the Quartodecimans in the time of St. Victor I, pope; namely that Firmilian and Cyprian with their own were to be deprived, or were deprived, by St. Stephen of his particular communion, by interrupting the mutual commerce whether of letters or of legates (it is expressly established from the letter of Firmilian that these were refused); but not by cutting them off from the body of the church. Nor is it anywhere related either that the prelates, whether Oriental or African, were forbidden their office, or that their names were struck from the sacred diptychs, etc. In this way the dissension on baptism, which, as is established both from what has been said and from what is to be said, pertained, in the mind of those resisting, not to the faith but to discipline, would have had far less danger, nor would it furnish any material to adversaries for attacking the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff. And let these things suffice for the present; perhaps there will be occasion at another time of speaking more explicitly on the same subject. St. Augustine seems (I confess) to stand in the way of this opinion, who surely would not have labored so much to show that St. Cyprian was never separated from the peace of the church, if he had supposed that only a lesser or partial excommunication was aimed at by St. Stephen. Yet if his words, as also those of others (Firmilian perhaps excepted), recited here and there in our commentary, are attentively weighed, they seem to me capable of being understood of it.
[70] St. Firmilian died in the peace of the church. But if it is only probable that Firmilian was not excluded; it is certain that he died in unity, whether because he was never cut off from it (as appears more likely to us), or because he returned to sounder views; or finally because the pope wished communion to be suspended and not broken, in the sense in which we have just spoken [Compare Acta SS. volume I of August, page 53* and following. In the Patriarchs of Constantinople]. One may trust Baronius, who not only censures Firmilian most sharply for the injuries uttered against Stephen, but also because he stood on the side of the Quartodecimans, and he infers this from the letter where Firmilian, he says At the year 258, XLVI, page 60., calumniated the Roman church, because it did not observe all that had been handed down from the origin by the apostles, namely because it celebrated Easter on a different day from that which had been instituted by the apostles; who does not see that he stood on the side of the Quartodecimans? For the rest no one else, so far as I know, has branded Firmilian with this mark. And surely the words of the Bishop of Caesarea can be interpreted in a kinder sense. However that may be, a little below Baronius asserts Ibid. following number. that no suspicion can creep in that he persevered in schism and excommunication and so likewise died. Then he adds: This is the most thoroughly tested testimony of his orthodoxy, even if others were lacking, that in that celebrated assembly of catholic bishops at Antioch he himself sat with others against Paul of Samosata. Moreover in the synodal letter of the other council, likewise gathered at Antioch against the same Paul, Firmilian, then deceased, is called a man of blessed memory. But if he had died excommunicated, he surely would not have been worthy of such an appellation, nor would the Greek church have celebrated his memory in the menology Compare Pagi, at the year of Baronius 259, number XII.. Whence again Baronius: Whom afterwards, brought back to a better harvest and restored to catholic communion and having died piously and holily in the peace of the church, the Greeks worship and venerate. Of his natal day we shall speak elsewhere.
§ XI. St. Firmilian does not seem to have retracted his opinion on the baptism of heretics. Whether St. Dionysius of Alexandria adhered to it, as St. Jerome expressly relates.
Did St. Firmilian revoke his error? Several affirm it; There remains another question: Did St. Firmilian then, who from what has been said certainly died in the peace of the church, revoke his opinion? As to St. Cyprian, St. Augustine certainly did not know; but that he corrected that opinion is not found, as he repeats several times. See the Acts of St. Cyprian, §44 Volume IV of Sept. page 312.. St. Jerome holds the contrary of the Africans; for thus he has it in the Dialogue against the Luciferians Number 23. Migne, volume XXIII, column 177.: Blessed Cyprian tried to flee the broken cisterns and not to drink of foreign water; and therefore, disapproving of the baptism of heretics, he directed to Stephen … an African synod on this matter, but his attempt was in vain. Finally those very bishops who had determined with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, having returned to the ancient custom, issued a new decree. Which in the obvious sense signify that the bishops who in the African synod had thought with Cyprian, by a new decree issued, came to their senses, and that St. Cyprian too did so Suyskens does not at all doubt, although St. Jerome does not expressly say this of him Volume IV of Sept. page 312.. It is certain that the new decree was not known to St. Augustine: for where he asks whether Cyprian with the council of his province yielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been laid open, he says [Book II on Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 4. Migne, volume XLIII, column 129.]: Perhaps it was done; but we do not know. For not all things that were done at that time among the bishops could be committed to memory and letters, nor do we know all that have been committed. Therefore Tillemont doubts mémoires, volume IV, page 161. whether St. Jerome was not looking to the council of Arles held in the year 314 in the cause of Caecilian of Carthage and the Donatists Fabricius Bibliotheca Græca, volume XII, page 572., at which surely very many African bishops were present, not indeed those very persons who had determined with St. Cyprian, but prelates of the same sees. Nor is the conjecture altogether absurd. Suyskens replies in the place cited, among other things Page 314.: Why could there not have come to the hands of St. Jerome and of the Venerable Bede what St. Augustine had not found? But whether Bede altogether agrees with Jerome, as our predecessor thought, let the reader judge from his words: He (Cyprian), he says Book of various questions Question 5. Migne, volume XCIII, column 458., with his fellow bishops who were in Africa determined against the custom of the church that heretics were to be rebaptized; but … soon he merited to be corrected, and to be brought back to the universal norm of the holy church by the instruction of spiritual men. So he relates that he came to his senses, he does not mention the decree. Moreover the various questions are judged among the doubtful and spurious works of Bede. It is then the opinion of Suyskens that St. Cyprian with the Africans revoked his error, not indeed in the lifetime of Stephen, as Baronius would have it, but under Xystus, the successor of Stephen Acts of St. Cyprian, page 313.. And if this really be so, is it not likely that St. Firmilian with the Orientals did the same? Which moreover Cresconius expressly testifies in St. Augustine: But your (Cresconius's) ancestors, to whom you have given such testimony, "that they were separated from the communion of the Orientals for this reason, because they rescinded their judgment, by which it had pleased them that one ought on this question of baptism to agree with Cyprian and that African council," acted against Cyprian. Thus Augustine [Against Cresconius, book III, chapter 2. Migne, volume XLIII, column 496 and following.]. Behold here, exclaims Suyskens Page 312., Cresconius himself, although he pertinaciously rejected the baptism of heretics, and therefore gloried in the authority both of St. Cyprian and of the Eastern bishops, could not however but confess the palinode of the latter. And yet this testimony did not seem decisive to Augustine, as appears from his reply: Accordingly, he says, if it must now be altogether believed of fifty bishops of the Orientals (perhaps gathered at Iconium, compare number 5), as of seventy Africans or even somewhat more, against so many thousands of bishops, to whom this error was displeasing through the whole world; why should we not rather say that those few Orientals themselves CORRECTED their judgment, not, as you speak, RESCINDED it? Namely corrected in this sense, in the mind of Augustine, that they forbore from disputation, yet did not revoke or rescind their opinion.
[72] others deny it, So Fr. Alexander understood Augustine (nor does Mansi contradict him), when in a singular proposition he determines Volume IV, page 96. that Firmilian and the other Orientals did not lay aside their error … in the time of Dionysius of Alexandria, who died in the year 264 or the following Tillemont. Mémoires, volume IV, page 285.. The proposition is against Baronius, who wrongly referred to the rebaptizers what Dionysius writes of the pacified dissension of the Novatians Compare Acts of St. Cyprian, page 313.; but he, says Fr. Alexander, writing to Xystus the successor of Stephen, openly supports those who judged the baptism conferred by heretics to be null. That opinion, then, the Orientals had not laid aside. For how would he have assented to that opinion on account of the authority of the "very great" (as he says) "councils" … if those very prelates who had been present at these councils had already then rescinded their decrees …? Thus he; but of Dionysius more broadly below. Next Fr. Alexander brings forward for his opinion St. Basil, who in canonical letter I to
Amphilochius testifies Migne, patrologia græca, volume XXXII, column 663 and following. that Firmilian was of the opinion that the Cathars or Novatians, the Encratites, the offshoot of the Marcionists, the Hydroparastatae, a kind of Encratites, as also the following Compare Pluquet dictionnaire des heresies. Migne Encyclopedie., the Apotactites, were to be rebaptized. He adds the words of Basil taken from canon I: It seemed good to the ancients, I mean Cyprian and our Firmilian, to subject all these to one vote, Cathars and Encratites and Hydroparastatae, because the beginning of separation was indeed made through schism; and those who had separated themselves from the church no longer had in themselves the grace of the Holy Spirit. So from the version in Migne Col. 667.; a little otherwise Fr. Alexander. And this is the very cause on account of which Cyprian and Firmilian deny that the baptism not only of heretics, but also of schismatics is not valid.
[73] relying on the canonical letters of St. Basil; For the rest many things are contained in this first canon (which is lengthy enough); whence various persons comment variously, as may be seen in the Annotations on the aforesaid letter. This moreover is beyond doubt, that the baptism of heretics, namely of those who have been altogether cut off and estranged in the faith itself Col. 666., is null for the holy doctor, and that therefore they are to be dipped when they come to the church. Whence in the same canon he once and again reproves St. Dionysius of Alexandria because he held the baptism of the Pepuzians, that is of the Montanists, as ratified; and in the second canonical letter to the same Amphilochius, canon XLVII Ibid. column 730., he says of the Encratites, Saccophori and Apotactites: We rebaptize such persons by one reason. See the Annotation of the Maurists on this canon, where they observe that the common text of Basil is to be emended, so that this canon may agree with the earlier one, as regards the Novatians or Cathars. Compare also Cabassut Notitia ecclesiastica, page 68., who supposes that in the mind of Basil schismatics are to be washed with a new baptism, without however his wishing to tear up another custom if perhaps one exists elsewhere. Yet Basil, to the words just reported from canon XLVII, adds: But if among you rebaptism is forbidden as also among the Romans, for the sake of some economy, yet let our reason hold force, namely that rebaptism be applied. But indeed, continues Cabassut, Basil declares that all who have been baptized by heretics … are to be initiated by a new baptism, all indeed in common, but especially those who have erred concerning the persons of the divine Trinity, such as he says the Pepusians are, that is the Montanists. It is manifest from these things that St. Basil thought not much differently, if indeed differently, from the tenets of Firmilian. Whence, to come to our matter, Fr. Alexander: There flourished then in the time of Basil the Great in Cappadocia and the neighboring regions the custom of rebaptizing many (at least) heretics, even if they had been baptized in the form of the church (lest anyone cavil). But if Firmilian had once abjured that error, in order that he might be restored to ecclesiastical unity (as Baronius feigns, indeed judges), how would Basil not have recognized this, who himself too was a Cappadocian and bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, as Firmilian nearly 150 years before? How would he not have found out from the monuments of that church a palinode so solemnly proclaimed? How would he have complied with a custom already anciently abrogated? Nor indeed do the observations of Fr. Alexander lack their weight. There is added St. Athanasius, who, with the canon of Nicaea, not only condemns the baptism of the Paulianists or Samosatenes, but, beyond the aforesaid canon, also that of the Arians, and of very many other heretics, because they think perversely of the Trinity, although they feign to name the name of the Father and of the Son … Ibidem. A little otherwise the Maurists translate: Even if they pretend to utter the name of the Father and of the Son … Second oration against the Arians. Migne, Patrol. Græc. volume XXVI, column 238..
[74] the opinion of these seems the more probable. Whence again it seems that the Orientals did not abjure the error before the times of Athanasius. For the rest in the opinion which determines that no censure was passed on Firmilian, or that he was deprived only of particular communion; it is more easily understood that he thereafter indeed fell silent, yet persisted in his opinion, which he judged to pertain not to the faith, but to discipline, or, as Basil speaks, to a certain economy. And that it is really so Fr. Alexander, among others, undertook to prove with special titles Volume IV, page 98., with whom Mansi agrees in the animadversions Ibid. page 100 and following., supporting his opinion with new arguments, especially against Bossuet, who in the famous Defense of the Declaration of the Gallican clergy (if indeed this is to be attributed to him, which many doubt [See Card. de Bausset: Vie de Bossuet, volume II, Pieces justificatives I, æuvres de Bossuet volume 45.]) tries with all his strength to prove the contrary, namely in order to shake the infallibility of the supreme pontiff [Defensio declarationis cleri Gallicani, book IX, chapter IV and following. OEuvres de Bossuet, volume XXXIII, page 19 and following. Edit. Lebel, in octavo 1818.]. It is then more probable to me that St. Firmilian did not revoke his error.
[75] [That St. Dionysius of Alexandria did not agree with St. Firmilian his letters suggest,] I have said that after the letter was written by St. Firmilian at the end of the year 256, the dissension fell silent, on account of the persecution of Valerian coming on in the following year, in which St. Stephen was punished with death, St. Cyprian with exile. Number 34. In place of Stephen was put St. Xystus, a good and peaceful man, who did not renew the threats aimed by his predecessor, and indeed strove by calmer counsels to soothe minds formerly stirred up. This is certain, that after the aforesaid year 256 nothing occurs in the ecclesiastical Annals by which the contention on the baptism of heretics is signified to have been revived among catholic bishops. Indeed the contrary results from Dionysius of Alexandria, of whom, since mention of him has often been made in what precedes, we judge that some things should here be said more explicitly. The principal question is whether he agreed with St. Firmilian on the baptism of heretics. St. Jerome expressly affirms it; likewise St. Basil, if we listen to Cabassut. Dionysius writes in the first letter to Xystus, in Eusebius Hist. eccles. book VII, chapter V, page 252., treating of the rescript of Stephen: See the gravity of the affair. For in truth in very great councils of bishops, as I hear, it was decreed that heretics … should be purged by baptism. On all these things I wrote to him (Stephen), asking and beseeching, which do not seem to be taken in any other sense, except that he entreated Stephen not to come to extremes, that is to exclusion. He testifies likewise Ibidem. that he wrote to Philemon and Dionysius, Roman presbyters, who had earlier thought with Stephen, namely that sharper remedies were needed. Nor in these do I find anything that forces, or indeed suggests, that Dionysius of Alexandria favored the opinion of St. Firmilian. In the letter to Philemon he says Hist. eccles. book VII, chapter V, page 253. that first he received from Heraclas, his predecessor in the see of Alexandria, this rule and form, that those who after baptism had passed over to heretics, when they returned to the church, had no need at all of a repeated baptism; since they had already earlier received the Holy Spirit from it. But what of those first baptized in heresy or schism? This, he says, I learned besides, that this custom was not now for the first time brought in by the Africans alone; but that also much earlier… it was enacted in the councils of the brothers at Iconium and Synnada and among very many others. That the question here is of baptism conferred by heretics or schismatics, which is accordingly to be repeated, appears from the mere comparison of the Africans, whose opinion is very well known, and of the Orientals. What then of Dionysius? Whose opinions and statutes, he thus continues, I for my part would not wish to overturn, nor to stir them up to quarrels and contentions. So he does not wish to overthrow statutes of this kind; but does he approve them? I should not dare to affirm it. Indeed since he pronounces so expressly that the former are not to be rebaptized, namely those who, having received baptism in the church, afterwards fell away from it; but concerning the others judges only that quarrels are not to be stirred up, may we not infer that he did not approve the opinion of the Africans and therefore of the Orientals? (Compare § V, where we treated more broadly of the letters of St. Dionysius on baptism.)
[76] especially of the second to St. Xystus the pope; Which indeed seems to be confirmed from another letter of his, in which he consults St. Xystus the pope as to what is to be done with a man who, fearing that he had not rightly received baptism among heretics, was afraid to approach the sacred table. This man however St. Dionysius does not dare to initiate by a new baptism; but asks of Xystus what, pray, is to be done. Surely if Dionysius had held all baptism conferred by heretics as null, there would not appear any reason why he should hesitate and have recourse to the Roman pontiff. Either then he never agreed with the error of the Africans and Orientals, or he at least afterwards departed from their opinion. But let us see the fragment of the letter itself, though somewhat long, as it is recited by Eusebius. There exists, he says Ibid. chapter IX, page 254., a fifth letter too of the same (Dionysius) to Xystus… In which, after he has discoursed much against the heretics, he narrates that something of this kind happened in his age. For truly, he says, I have need, brother, of your counsel. A certain one of the brothers who come together to the church, long held as a faithful man, and who before my ordination, and unless I am mistaken before the episcopate of Heraclas himself too, had been a sharer in the assembly of the faithful; when he had been present at the baptism of those who were recently being baptized and had heard their questions and answers; came to me weeping and groaning over his lot. And falling at my feet he began to confess and to swear that the baptism with which he had been initiated among heretics was not of this kind, nor had anything in common with this of ours. For that it was full of blasphemy and impiety. And he said that his mind was pricked with a most bitter sense of pain, and that he did not dare even to raise his eyes to God; as one who had been initiated with those wicked words and ceremonies. Accordingly he begged that he might be granted this most pure laver, and the truest adoption and grace. Which I indeed did not dare to do; but I said that his long communion sufficed for this. For one who has frequently heard the thanksgiving, and who with the others has answered amen; who has stood at the sacred table and has stretched out his hands to receive the sacred food; who has taken it, and has been a sharer for a very long time of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, him I should not dare to renew from the beginning. Further I ordered that he should be of good courage and should approach the participation of the Lord's body with firm faith, full of good hope. But he makes no end of grieving, and shudders altogether at approaching the table, and scarcely, when asked, can bear to be present at the prayers. So it is expressly asserted that this man was initiated by baptism among heretics; and yet Dionysius does not dare to renew him from the beginning. Certainly if his custom (indeed that of the Alexandrian church) had been to rebaptize any heretics, he would not have hesitated in any doubt. Yet he hesitates. Why? Unless because from what has been said
of that man he doubted whether the due form of words had been applied to the sacrament, and on account of the contention so recently agitated shrank from renewing him from the beginning while this doubt hung, lest he should give a handle to the suspicion that he judged heretics to be rebaptized?
[77] something else seems to result from St. Basil For the rest since from the straits of the aforesaid man the Montanists or Pepuzians are not obscurely signified, it is easy enough to argue that St. Basil looked to this, when, as we see, he wonders that it escaped St. Dionysius that the baptism of the Pepuzians has no validity Migne, patrol. græc. volume XXXII, column 264.. And again in the same canon I Ibid. column 667.: By what reason then is their baptism to be admitted, since they baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla (not that they named these, but that they understood them under the appellation of the Holy Spirit Ibid. column 668, note.. For those have not been baptized who have been baptized into what has not been handed down to us. Wherefore even if this escaped the great Dionysius, we need not keep the imitation of his error. Does Cabassut rightly say from these things Notitia ecclesiastica, page 68. that the place of Basil (the first recited by us) gives certain proof that Dionysius at length acquiesced in the tenets of Pope Stephen? I for my part do not see it. For it would have to be proved that he earlier thought otherwise, which is by no means held from Basil. Compare the Observations of Mansi on the history of Fr. Alexander, where Volume IV, page 96. against him he determines that Dionysius of Alexandria is not to be numbered with those who washed again in baptism those whom heretics baptized. First he weighs the aforesaid place of St. Basil, who wonders only at this, that St. Dionysius did not see the emptiness of the baptism of the Montanists, who in the judgment of the same Basil did not keep the form. From this interpretation Mansi thinks (but how truly?) that nothing can be deduced from canon I against his opinion, and indeed that it is proved from it. Then he argues the same from the silence of Cyprian and Firmilian, who would not have failed to invoke the authority of so great a man, if he had favored them. Finally it is established that Dionysius interceded with SS. Stephen and Xystus; and he would have been an inept conciliator of peace, if he had adhered to the error of the rebaptizers.
[78] and especially from St. Jerome And yet it is not to be denied that the testimony of St. Jerome is of great moment, who plainly asserts that Dionysius thought with Cyprian. He (Dionysius), he says De viris illustribus, chapter 69. Migne, volume XXXII, column 677 and following., agreeing in the doctrine of Cyprian and the African synod on rebaptizing heretics, sent very many letters to different persons, which exist to this day. The holy doctor, then, had at hand the entire monuments (and surely no one should hold this light), while there are available to us only a few fragments of them, recited by Eusebius. Mansi replies: I think the holy doctor was deceived by this reason, that Dionysius in the letter to Philemon says that he does not condemn the rebaptizers, nor make their opinion null. But Dionysius so spoke, not because he agreed with the rebaptizers, since St. Basil mentioned above so clearly asserts that the baptism of heretics was not disapproved by Dionysius: but because, since he believed that this controversy pertained not to a dogma of faith, but to mere discipline, he thought that the rebaptizers were not to be condemned by him, bringing forward that saying of Solomon: "You shall not change the boundaries which your fathers have set." To say what I think, it seems to me, standing by the fragments of the letters, more probable that neither St. Dionysius nor the Alexandrians agreed in the doctrine of Firmilian, and that the place of Basil can be interpreted in this sense; but that the assertion of St. Jerome stands in the way; and that the solution of the difficulty proposed by Mansi, insisting on the fragments, is certainly not to be despised, and yet not altogether suitable, because the entire monuments, which it was given to Jerome to use, are lacking to us. Further, if he once adhered to the error, it is altogether certain that he came to his senses, since he is read inscribed in the calendars of the saints by the vote of both churches, Greek and Latin Roman Martyrology 17 Nov.. And this is enough for our aim. Perhaps a new light will have arisen for the hagiographers who succeed us, who will have to illustrate the Acts of the holy patriarch of Alexandria at the 17th day of November, on which his festal memory is celebrated.
§ XII. St. Firmilian is renowned for his virtues both under the persecution of Valerian and under the rule of Gallienus. Since in the time of the latter Cappadocia, ravaged by the barbarians, was dreadfully afflicted, St. Dionysius the pope consoles the bishops of that province by a letter.
Under the persecution of Valerian, Valerian, having obtained the rule in the year 253 around the month of August, at first favored Christians more than anyone among all his predecessors, not even excepting Philip, who most reckon professed the faith of Christ. But at the instigation of a certain Macrian, given to magic arts and dear beyond most to the emperor, he changed, as hostile afterwards as he had been friendly before, and stirred up a most atrocious persecution, which is commonly reckoned eighth in order and raged for nearly three and a half years. It seems to have begun at Rome toward the end of the year 256; and the general edicts are referred to the following one, begun but not far advanced [Tillemont, Mémoires, volume IV, pages 1 – 3. Compare Baronius at the year 257, number VI and following. Eusebius book VII, chapter X, page 255 and following.]. Of the savagery of this persecution we have a contemporary and indeed an eye witness, namely St. Dionysius of Alexandria, of whom frequent mention has been made by us. And since what he writes pertains to the East and therefore to St. Firmilian, it is by no means to be passed over here. Let us hear Eusebius Ibid. page 257: Of the bitterness of that persecution, what and how great things he himself with others endured for the worship of the true God, the words of the same Dionysius teach, in which he replies to a certain Germanus, a bishop of that time, who was trying to calumniate him. And first narrating what happened to him: I came, he says, to Aemilian the prefect, not alone, but accompanied by Maximus my fellow presbyter, and by Faustus, Eusebius and Chaeremon, deacons. One also of the Roman brothers who were then present came in with us. Now Aemilian did not say to me at first: Do not hold assemblies (namely by the imperial edicts it was chiefly provided that Christians should not hold assemblies and enter cemeteries to celebrate the mysteries Tillemont Mém. volume IV, page 4.): For this was to him superfluous and last… For he did not at all care that I should not gather others; but he was aiming at this, that we ourselves should not be Christians. And he ordered me to desist from that worship; thinking, to be sure, that if I had fallen away from that worship, the others would follow my example (and therefore governors and prefects sought above all to attack bishops). I replied… One must obey God rather than men… After these things he ordered us to go away to a certain village, near the desert, called Cephro Κεφρώ. Then he was banished to Colluthion, a place in the prefecture of Mareotis See the annotations of Valesius, page 147 and following..
[80] which St. Dionysius of Alexandria testifies was most atrocious, Then he adds: How many can he (Germanus) enumerate as I can, sentences of judges, confiscations, proscriptions, plunderings of goods; casting off of dignities, contempt of worldly glory, disdain of praises from prefects and decurions of prefects; and finally the bearing of threats aimed in my presence, of outcries, of perils, of persecutions, of flight, of hardships and of evils of every kind; such as are those which happened to us under Decius and Sabinus (namely under the Decian persecution) and those which to this very day have happened to us under Aemilian: And in another letter to Domitius and Didymus Dionysius, the words are those of Eusebius, again mentions some things pertaining to that persecution thus: To list ours by name is superfluous, since they are very many and unknown to you. It is fitting that you know this only in general, that men and women, youths and old men, girls and old women, soldiers and civilians; from every kind of men and age, some having overcome in the contest the blows of scourges, others the edge of the sword, others fires, have borne off crowns. To some indeed a very long space of time was not enough for them to seem acceptable to God. And again a little below: For to this very day the prefect does not cease partly to kill most cruelly those of ours who are brought before him, partly to tear them with tortures, partly to waste them with the filth of prison and chains, forbidding anyone to go to them; and searching whether anyone may perhaps be seen to go to them. Yet God from the alacrity and kindness of the brothers assiduously furnishes solace to the afflicted.
[81] the virtue of St. Firmilian shone forth. And these and other things which follow in the same place Eusebius expressly refers to the persecution of Valerian; and he adds Chapter XIV, page 262.: At the same time Xystus still presided over the Roman church, and Demetrian ruled that of Antioch after the death of Fabius; at Caesarea of Cappadocia Firmilian; in Pontus Gregory and his brother Athenodorus, etc. So that it is not doubtful that St. Firmilian in the midst of these so stormy waves held the helm of his church with a strong and manly hand, although nothing in particular of his deeds around this time has come down to us. Valesius indeed notes Annotationes, page 148. that of the things reported above from the letters of St. Dionysius many took place under Decius, and accordingly that Eusebius is deceived, when he ascribes them universally to the persecution of Valerian. But even if we should admit that Eusebius was somewhat deceived (which I should not so easily grant), it is clear that this was his mind, that the things which he relates suit in part the time of both the one emperor and the other. Which certainly suffices for us. For the rest does not Dionysius himself say: Such as are those which happened to us under Decius and Sabinus, and those which to this very day have happened to us under Aemilian?
[82] By the incursion of the barbarians After the most wretched disaster of Valerian (captured by Sapor in the year 260) peace indeed was given to the church by Gallienus, who, as Eusebius has it Hist. eccles. book VII, chapter XIII, page 262., obtaining the empire alone, behaved more moderately, and by edicts sent out calmed the persecution stirred up against ours; and by a rescript given commanded that the prelates of our religion should thereafter securely fulfill their office; and by another permitted the bishops to recover the places of their cemeteries. But this storm being calmed, another and no light one arose for St. Firmilian from elsewhere, the barbarians bursting in and stalking on every side. Namely, as Orosius writes Hist. book VII, chapter 22. Migne, Patrol. lat. volume XXXI, column 118., there are suddenly loosed on every side, by the permission of God, the peoples placed around and left for this purpose (the barbarians), and with slackened reins they are borne into all the territories of the Romans. The Germans, having penetrated the Alps, Rhaetia and all Italy, reach as far as Ravenna. The Alamanni, wandering through the Gauls, cross even into Italy. Greece, Macedonia, Pontus, Asia are destroyed by the inundation of the Goths (Scythians)… And lest any part of the Roman body should perhaps be free of this tearing apart, there conspire within tyrants (they are commonly, but not truly, reported as thirty in number, in different parts either others after others the empire from Gallienus, sunk in delights
trying to snatch [Compare Spondanus. Epitome of Baronius, year 262, volume I, page 284. Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, volume III, pages 182 and 290. Brussels 1732 in folio.]); civil wars rise up, very much Roman blood is shed everywhere, Romans and barbarians raging. Add to these famine, plague, earthquakes [Euseb. book VII, chapter XI and following, page 266 and following. Tillemont as above, page 179.]. All which evils our writers everywhere relate were sent from heaven in vengeance for the persecution stirred up by Valerian Orosius as above, and others..
[83] Cappadocia, afflicted with innumerable evils, It is manifest first of all that Cappadocia was subject to the common fate; next it is established that, while Valerian still governed, around the year 259, the Scythians, who are also called Goths, ravaged that province. And when, says Zosimus Corpus Scriptt. hist. Byzantinæ. Zosimus, page 34. Bonn 1837., they had harassed Nicaea and Cius and Apamea and Prusa by the same incursions… they went to Cyzicus… Valerian, having understood what was being done in Bithynia… himself advanced from Antioch as far as Cappadocia, and, the towns having been only worn down by his passage, drew back. And in the last times of Gallienus we see the same barbarians again devastating Cappadocia, storming many cities, leading away innumerable Christians reduced to captivity Tillemont. Hist. des Emp. volume III, page 192 and following.. And hence to these barbarians, as also to others elsewhere, an occasion was offered of knowing and embracing the catholic truth; God so disposing that from evils a more precious good should arise Orosius as above. Sozomen, book II, chapter 2, and others generally.. But we have another also, and a most illustrious, witness of those calamities, namely St. Basil the Great, who nearly a century after the death of Firmilian began to rule the church of Caesarea. He, in the letter which is LXX in order, asks Pope Damasus to bring aid, after the example of the preceding Roman pontiffs, to laboring Cappadocia. For we ask nothing at all new (the words are those of Basil Migne, patrol. græca, volume XXXII, column 433.), but what was customary both with other blessed men beloved of God of old and especially with you. For we know from the series of memory, instructed by questioning our fathers and by letters still preserved among us, that that most blessed bishop Dionysius, who shone among you both by right faith and by other virtues, visited our church of Caesarea, and consoled our fathers by letter, and sent those who should redeem the captive brothers. But now the state of our affairs is more difficult and sadder, and needs greater care. For we do not bewail the demolition of earthly buildings but the destruction of churches; nor the servitude of bodies, but we see the captivity of souls being daily accomplished by the champions of heresy. Wherefore, etc. The Maurist editors observe: The calamity mentioned by Basil took place under Gallienus, when the Scythians were laying waste Cappadocia and the neighboring regions, as Sozomen testifies, book II, chapter VI.
[84] under the emperor Gallienus, And this opinion is very probable to me. Certainly they took place between the month of July of the year 259 and December of the year 269; for in the latter St. Dionysius died, in the former he obtained the supreme pontificate Art de vérifier les dates, page 243.. There is then an interval of about ten years, in which there are contained first the last times of Valerian, who more probably at the end of the year 260 or the beginning of the following fell into the hands of Sapor [Ibid. page 344. Eckhel Doct. numorum, volume VII, page 387. Tillemont, Hist. des Emper. volume III, page 290 and following, note XI; likewise, pages 168 and 317.], Pagi prefers the preceding year At the year of Baronius 262, of Pagi 259, number X. and others others, 256, etc. Compare Tillemont in the place cited, note XI. Eckhel as above.; then those eight years, as is commonly judged, in which Gallienus, from the captivity of his father Valerian, held power alone until the month of March in the year 268 [Tillemont ibid. page 195 and following. Eckhel, page 394. Art de vérifier les dates, page 345.]; finally two years and a little more, in which Claudius Gothicus ruled, namely from the month of March of the said year 268 to the year 270 around the month of April, in which he died of plague at Sirmium Tillemont. page 204. Eckhel, page 471.. These things premised, let us see to the rule of which of those three the calamities of which St. Basil treats are more suitably to be ascribed. I for my part should not think that in the reign of Valerian Dionysius could have brought aid such as is described by Basil to the people of Caesarea; both because he had been recently created pontiff, and because at Rome as elsewhere the persecution was raging horribly. Add, from what has been said of the captivity of Valerian, that it is doubtful whether this happened already before the election of St. Dionysius. Finally the means of laying waste and ravaging Asia, and of leading away captives in so great a number, seems to have been made available to the barbarians only after the Persian disaster. It is otherwise with Gallienus, who, as Eckhel speaks Page 394., seemed called not to rule the commonwealth, but to sloth and intemperance of pleasures; at which time the empire divided among so many tyrants, the incursions of barbarians bursting in on every side, plague … demanded a strong, lofty mind, born to sudden counsels; so that under so sluggish and dissolute a prince, amid so many and so great civil commotions, the barbarians could easily wander ravaging through the provinces.
[85] a sluggish and dissolute prince, Whence briefly Dumesnil Doctrina et disciplina ecclesiæ, volume I, page 380.: As Gallienus melted away in luxury and pleasures, public affairs being neglected, the Roman world was overwhelmed by immense disasters. There are indeed those who bring forward milder things of Gallienus, perhaps for this reason, that by rescinding or revoking the edicts of Valerian he restored peace to the church [Compare Eusebius. hist. book VII, chapter 23. Likewise Tillemont as above, page 181.]. Yet this is certain, that he was slothful and intemperate and lustful and incredibly impious toward his parent, so that with dry eyes he saw his father captive among the Persians and treated in unworthy ways Eckhel, volume VII, page 394., and by his sluggishness and depraved lusts brought the greatest evils on the empire Tillemont. Mémoires, volume IV, page 25.. But as regards Claudius, he, by the unanimous consent of historians, on account of integrity of morals, justice, frugality, warlike virtue, deserved an exceptional place among the most praised princes. These things thus Eckhel As above, page 491., who does not seem to wish to count it altogether a fault in him that he conspired in the slaying of Gallienus: It is not so much to be wondered, he says Page 395., that a prince unworthy of this name was at some time cut down by his own, as that so late a Hercules was found to tame this monster. Tillemont agrees concerning the gifts of Claudius, which he enumerates from the testimonies of ancient writers Hist. des Emp. volume III, page 197.. Baronius very much dissents, asserting that Claudius was most hostile to Christians, and prevented by wars from raging sooner against them; but that he raged afterwards, even promulgating an edict At the year 269 and following, volume III, pages 164 and 166.. So likewise Spondanus in the Epitome Volume I, page 288.. But Pagi proves At the year of Baronius 269, of Pagi 268, number IV and following. that Baronius was deceived by certain acts of martyrs either false or not well understood by him, and that no persecution was stirred up under the rule of Claudius. For the rest no one has ever denied that the barbarians were checked under his rule; that the Goths were conquered in an atrocious battle in Moesia, whence he was also called Gothicus, and in the following year were destroyed by slaughter within the hiding places of Haemus Eckhel, page 471.. It is then very likely that the calamities which Basil mentions belong to the rule of Gallienus, not however to his last times or around the year 266, as Tillemont seems to opine Hist. des Emp. page 192 and following.. For it is established that the East was pacified long before, the Persians having been put to flight and conquered by Odenathus, whom on that account Gallienus named Augustus in the year 264; in this, says Dodwell [Successio sedis Alexandrinæ, dissertatio singularis, chapter V, page 69. Pearsonii opera posthuma editore Dodwello. London 1688.], Dionysius of Alexandria was called to the first synod in the cause of the Samosatene, at a time certainly pacified and so suitable for gathering synods. That peace was with difficulty at length… established in that year of Odenathus, the Persians having been routed, and Odenathus having at last been accepted by Gallienus into a sharing of the empire [Compare Eckhel, volume VII, pages 393 and 489. Tillemont. Hist. des Emp. volume III, pages 191 – 93. Art. de vérifier les dates, page 344.]. I for my part should think that the Cappadocians, having obtained quieter times under this prince, fled to St. Dionysius the pope, that he might come in aid for repairing earthly buildings and for bringing back Christians from the captivity of the barbarians.
[86] St. Dionysius the pope gave a letter to St. Firmilian and the other bishops. Since then amid those hardships St. Dionysius the pope, as St. Basil asserts, visited the church of Caesarea and consoled the fathers by letter, it is clear that this was done under the pontificate of St. Firmilian. Dionysius ascended the Roman see, as we have already hinted, on the 22nd day of July in the year 259, and died on the 26th day of December in the year 269, after a rule of ten years, five months, four days Ibid. page 243.; and so he died nearly two months before St. Firmilian, whose death, as we shall say below, falls on the 28th day of October of the same year 269. During the whole time, then, in which St. Dionysius presided at Rome, St. Firmilian sat at Caesarea of the Cappadocians, the miter of which he had obtained long before, namely around the year 232. See number 3. Whence it results that the letter which Basil mentions was given to St. Firmilian. For how could it be that the Roman pontiff visited the church of Caesarea by letter, and consoled its fathers, unless it is understood to have been written to the metropolitan of that same church and to his colleagues in the episcopate? For the rest in whatever year of his rule, whether under Valerian, or under Gallienus or Claudius, Dionysius wrote the letter mentioned by St. Basil, it was certainly given while St. Firmilian presided. Indeed if anyone should wish (and yet I do not see on what valid foundation he would rely) that Dionysius approached the Cappadocians by writing before he ascended the chair of the supreme priesthood and was as yet only a Roman presbyter (compare number 21), nevertheless it would be established that this was done while Firmilian sat, who, on the witness of Eusebius, in the tenth year of Alexander Severus, that is around the year of Christ 232, already flourished as bishop (number 3). Nothing then seems to prevent us from supposing that the letter of Dionysius was sent to St. Firmilian. And hence a new argument comes forward, that he departed from among the living in the peace of the church; indeed that long before his death he was restored to Roman communion, if indeed he was ever cut off from it. See § X.
§ XIII. Paul of Samosata spreads an impious doctrine about Christ. Several, more probably three, councils are gathered against him at Antioch. St. Firmilian was present at the earlier ones and perhaps even presided.
As Paul of Samosata spread an impious doctrine about Christ, It remains to speak of the part which St. Firmilian had, toward the end of his life, in the condemnation of Paul of Samosata, of whom, that the way may be smoother for what follows, it will be expedient to touch on some things in summary. Paul, I use the words of Mosheim [De rebus christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum, page 701 and following. Helmstedt 1753.], a Samosatene by homeland, bishop of the church of Antioch, a man not indeed unlearned, nor abandoned by talent, but windy, proud, adorned also, which was singular, with a civil office in the commonwealth, namely of ducenarian procurator, which kind of judges had been instituted by Augustus, and was named from the two hundred sesterces which they received in place of an annual salary Ibid. page 704. Compare Eusebius. page 280.. The ancients, continues the writer mentioned, explain his opinion on the divine nature and on the saviour Jesus Christ so variously and inconstantly that the investigation of it is very difficult, namely so that each and all of the heads of his errors and his subtleties may be defined. The sum came down to this, that, as Eusebius has it Book VII, chapter 27, page 277., he began to think too abjectly and humbly of Christ, as though he had had nothing above the common nature of men. And a little more explicitly Graveson Hist. eccles. volume I. page 34. Augsburg 1727.: He dared to assert that Christ did not always exist, nor existed before the Virgin Mary, and accordingly that he was not God, but purely and simply a man. Hence came forth the sect of the Paulianists. More on the doctrine of Paul see, if you please, in Fr. Alexander [At the third century, chapter III, art. VIII, §§1 and 2, volume IV, page 16.]. Mosheim adds: Dionysius of Alexandria first wrote against him; afterwards some councils were gathered against him at Antioch. In the last of these, which seems to have come together in A.D. CCLXIX, a certain Malchion, an eloquent and subtle man, dragged him with such power from the hiding places into which he had earlier thrown himself, that the man's error was open to all. And since he was unwilling to renounce it, he was cast down by common vote from the office of prelate, and from the fellowship of sacred things. Paul resisted this decree, relying on the favor of Zenobia, queen of the Palmyrenes…, and was unwilling to leave the buildings in which he lived and in which the church was accustomed to gather. But this … queen having been conquered by the emperor Aurelian in A.D. CCLXXII, he was at last forced by him to yield the place.
[88] at least two councils, As regards the councils, there is no agreement among the learned concerning either the number or the time. Pearson See Tillemont mémoires, volume IV, page 666. admits only one; others two, as the Benedictines Art de vérifier les dates, page 172. and Pagi At the year of Baron. 272, of Pagi 271, number 2., Cabassut Notitia conciliorum, page 26., Fr. Alexander Volume IV, page 16.; three Tillemont As above, page 296 and following., Hefele Conciliengeschichte, volume I, page 131 and following., Dodwell, of whom below. Since St. Firmilian was present at one or the other, and perhaps even presided; and since as he was betaking himself to the last he was carried off by death on the way, we must treat of them a little more explicitly, all the more because from the time at which the last was held the year of the holy Prelate's death is to be defined. And first that three were held, as it seems at least to me, is clear from the Synodal letter of the last, a great part of which Eusebius recites Hist. book VII, chapter 30, page 279 and following.; where one reads expressly: But Firmilian, when he had twice come to Antioch, condemned indeed, etc. And after a few things interposed: Now too Firmilian was about to come to Antioch, and had already reached Tarsus… But when we had already come together … while we were awaiting his arrival, he departed from among the living. He had then come twice, and was about to come a third time. What clearer could you seek? Surely the testimony of the Synodal letter, as most certain and most faithful, prevails over any other. And so if the history of Eusebius should be found less perspicuous, or even doubtful or incomplete, it would have to be elucidated from the Synodal letter, not the latter from it. Nor does Eusebius plainly, or rather in any way, dissent. He says in chapter XXVII Page 277.: The pastors of the churches … all came together to Antioch against the devastator of the Lord's flock. In the following chapter, having set down the names of the more illustrious of these, he declares in summary what was done against Paul. Then he begins chapter XXX: In the times of this one (the emperor Aurelian) the last τελευταίης synod was gathered. So he defines nothing about the number; indeed the word τελευταίής hints that the bishops were gathered several times, which certainly we are not forced to take in the sense of former and latter. Now he says: All therefore coming together at various times, in different ways and often, many disputations and questions were agitated in each session Chapter 28.. Hence Valesius infers, with whom Hefele sufficiently agrees Volume I, page 139 and following., both that several synods were gathered at different times, and that in each synod there were several sessions or actions Valesius annotationes in Hist. eccl. Eusebii, page 155.. I confess that the words of Eusebius reported above, if they are taken separately, can so be understood; but he who shall have read his whole narrative (which we subjoin in the following number) will be persuaded, as I think, that there it is a question, in the mind of the writer, of one and the same council, to which, since the bishops approached at various times and in different ways, and came together often among themselves, many disputations and questions were agitated.
[89] indeed three are held at Antioch. It seems certain to me, then, that by Eusebius the acts of only one and another council (which he calls the last) were described in summary or in part; and yet it does not follow that only two were held. Indeed from the Synodal letter of the last, recited in another place, we know that Firmilian came to Antioch twice, and that he died when he was proceeding to the same place a third time to the new synod already gathered. Someone will perhaps reply that it is indeed certain that St. Firmilian came to Antioch twice, but why not during the same assembly? Which is a mere conjecture, not easily to be reconciled with the obvious sense of the words. Nor is it the established custom that a prelate heavy with years should go and return on a long road on repeated occasions to be present at the same gathering. So it would have to be proved by a firm argument that St. Firmilian acted against the common custom among men. Whence stands its probability for the opinion of Tillemont, Hefele, Ceillier Autheurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques, volume III, page 306. and others, namely that besides the two expressly mentioned by Eusebius, a third was gathered, and this midway between the two earlier ones; and that the silence of Eusebius does not stand in the way. As regards Paul, in the first he concealed his perverse doctrine, which in the second he promised that he would retract Hefele, page 133.; in the third, because he was found pertinacious, he was cut off. These things from the narrative of Eusebius. Whence too Dodwell briefly and neatly Dissertatio singularis, chapter VI, page 71.: I am so far from the opinion of that very great man Pearson, or John of Chester, who recognizes a single synod in the cause of the Samosatene, that I judge that three are to be recognized. The first was that at which there were present not only Firmilian but also Gregory Thaumaturgus… The second another at which Firmilian was present, whom the fathers of the third synod of Antioch, who were present together with him, testify came to Antioch twice; from being present at the third synod Firmilian was prevented by his death: for he died at Tarsus on the journey. For the rest Theodoret seems to me to favor this opinion altogether, whose words are therefore to be partly subjoined. He says [Hæreticarum fabularum, book II, chapter 8. Migne, Patrol. Græc. volume LXXXII, column 595.]: These (the bishops named by Eusebius: Firmilian, Gregory, etc.), since many had come together, presided over the others. And first indeed they tried by persuasions and counsels to lead Paul away from his depraved opinion. But after he had openly denied that he thought any such thing, and said that he followed the apostolic doctrines, praising the Lord for the concord they returned to their flocks. But as time went on, report again, pervading all shores, announced to all the depravity of Paul. But not even so did the most praised Fathers easily proceed to cutting off the man; but first indeed they tried to heal the disease by letters, and when they perceived that the evil was incurable, they hastened AGAIN to Antioch with an eager mind, and applied gentle medicines, both exhorting, and recalling to memory the agreements made. After this, seeing both that he denied it, and that the accusers were pressing and promising that they would convict him, they came together into a council… Then accordingly, a concordant sentence being passed against him, they deservedly struck him from the sacred catalogues. So first they came together, and, concord having been made, as they thought, departed; then they hastened again to Antioch, trying to persuade Paul to follow sounder counsels, and returned to their own, as is plainly established of St. Firmilian. Finally they came together into a council and pronounced anathema on the pertinacious heretic. Behold three distinct assemblies.
[90] The first council Who first and why came together at Antioch, and what they accomplished, Eusebius is the authority, from whose spring all thereafter have drawn. Now this is what he has Hist. book VII, chapters 27 and 28, page 277 and following.: When then Xystus had presided over the Roman church for eleven (rather not even three complete Valesius, annotationes, page 155. Art de vérifier les dates, page 243.) years, Dionysius succeeded in his place… At about the same time, Demetrian having died at Antioch, Paul of Samosata took up the episcopate. Since he had begun, against the doctrine of the church, to think too abjectly and humbly of Christ, as though he had had nothing above the common nature of men; Dionysius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, asked to come to the council, deferred his arrival, alleging old age and bodily infirmity. For the rest what he himself thought on this question he indicated by letters. (Labbe recites a very long letter of Dionysius Concilia, volume I, pages 849-894., which he refers to this council, first published and endowed with Latinity by Francis Turrianus, S. J. It contains among other things ten Questions of Paul with as many Replies of St. Dionysius; but it is foisted Hefele, volume I, page 133. Other letters of the same, praised here by Eusebius, have perished.) But, Eusebius continues, the other pastors of the churches, roused from every side, as against a devastator of the Lord's flock, all came together to Antioch. Among whom there were especially eminent Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea of the Cappadocians; Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, bishops of the churches in Pontus; Helenus too of Tarsus and Nicomas of Iconium, prelates. But also Hymenaeus, who ruled the church of Jerusalem and Theotecnus, who administered that of Caesarea neighboring it. Maximus moreover, who governed the church of Bostra with firm praise, and countless others (of undetermined number μυρίουστε
ἄλλους), who flocked there together with presbyters and deacons, it would be no difficulty to list. But those whom I have named were held illustrious before the others. All therefore coming together at various times, in different ways and often, many disputations and questions were agitated in each session; while on the one side Paul of Samosata was still striving to hide the novelty of his doctrine, on the other the priests were laboring to lay bare and bring into the open his heresy and blasphemy against Christ. Thus Eusebius, adding a little after from the Synodal letter that Firmilian and other fathers were deceived by the heretic, who concealed his doctrine; wherefore, as Theodoret has it, praising the Lord for the concord they returned to their flocks. See the preceding number.
[91] and what part St. Firmilian had in it; What part St. Firmilian had there Eusebius teaches from the Synodal letter of the last council Book VII, chapter 30.: But Firmilian, when he had twice come to Antioch, condemned indeed the novelty of the doctrine brought in by him, as we testify who were present, and many others know very well as we do. But when he had promised that he would change his opinion, Firmilian, believing him, and hoping that the matter could be excellently settled without any reproach and loss to our religion, deferred his sentence; deceived, namely, by a man who denied his God and Lord, and who had violated the faith which he earlier professed. For the honest man, incapable of fraud and guile, shrank from holding as suspect the word given by a bishop. Some suppose that St. Firmilian presided over the gathering, for this reason, as it seems, that he is named first by Eusebius: among whom there were especially eminent Firmilian… Gregory, Athenodorus, etc. Which reason indeed is by no means firm: for in this place Eusebius, listing the more illustrious bishops, in no way looked to the order in which they sat. Certainly Nicomas, prelate of Iconium, is named there before Hymenaeus of Jerusalem; but the latter, according to the dignity of his church, preceded him and many others in bench. Tillemont reckons mémoires, volume IV, page 664 and following. that Helenus of Tarsus presided over this one, as he also presided over the last, as is established from its Synodal letter, where he is named in the first place. Theodoret (see n. 89) lists those more illustrious bishops in another order: Among those, he says, who came together, the first place was held by Gregory Thaumaturgus and Athenodorus his brother, and Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, an illustrious man and one who excelled in both kinds of knowledge, both external and divine; and Helenus moreover, ruling the metropolis of the Cilicians. These, since many had come together, presided over the others, so that from the list of these it seems impossible to gather which of them presided over the assembly.
[92] and in what year it was held. There is sufficient agreement among the learned about the time at which this council was held; namely in the year 264 or the following Hefele, volume I, page 132. Pagi at his year 265, number IV., as results from the death of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, which took place during this council; to which he was called and did not come because he was heavy with age and infirm of body. By most the death of this holy man is assigned to the 10th of September of the year 264 [Tillemont mémoires, volume IV, pages 285 and 662. Dodwell diss. sing, page 68 and following. Art de vérifier les dates, page 242.]. Our Solerius in the Patriarchs of Alexandria prefers the 9th of March of the following year Volume V of June, page 29* and following.. In this opinion nothing prevents our saying that the council was begun in the waning or the end of the year 264, and finished in the following one not far advanced. For the rest the question will come to be examined more diligently at the 17th day of November, on which St. Dionysius is inscribed in the Roman Martyrology. Labbe dissents, tying the synod to the year 266; not earlier, because Hymenaeus, bishop of Jerusalem, was present; and he, on the witness of Eusebius in the Chronicle, ascended that see in the 12th year of Gallienus; not later, because, again on the authority of Eusebius in the History, Dionysius did not live beyond the 12th year of the aforesaid emperor Gallienus Concilia, volume I, column 843.. As regards Hymenaeus, Tillemont replies As above, page 295. that the Chronicle of Eusebius, or rather of St. Jerome, is to be emended or explained from his History, where it is expressly related that Hymenaeus was present at the first synod, and it is hinted that he received the miter of Jerusalem around the time at which Gallienus, Valerian being captive, gave peace back to the church, and so around the year 260 Hist. eccl. book VII, chapter XIV. page 263.. Papebroch indeed also in the Patriarchs of Jerusalem marks Volume IV of May, page XIV. that Hymenaeus sat from the year 266; but he passes over the year of the death of two predecessors, Alexander and Marabanes; moreover he relies on the Chronicle, whether of Eusebius or of Jerome; of how little authority this is, where it is a question of accurately defining years, everyone knows Compare Tillemont mémoires, volume IV, page 666.. Finally the Chronicle, which our learned predecessor had at hand from the recension of Pontac or Scaliger, places the beginning of the episcopate of Hymenaeus indeed in the XIIIth year of Gallienus, of Christ 266 Eusebius Scaligeri, page 176.; but in the more correct editions of the same work not in the same way. Vallarsi Works of St. Jerome. Migne, volume XXVII, column 651.: In the 12th year of Gallienus Hymenaeus holds the episcopate of Jerusalem, in the year of Christ 268; Angelo Mai Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, volume VIII, page 394.: in the 13th year of Gallienus, of Christ 269. And from these things it appears sufficiently again that nothing certain can be drawn from the Chronicle for our purpose. All things being weighed, then, the opinion is preferred by me of those who from the death of St. Dionysius of Alexandria hold that the first council was held in the year 264 or the following; if however Solerius rightly defined the day and year of the death of St. Dionysius, namely the 9th of March 265 (which will have to be seen in the Acts at the 17th day of November), it would rather have to be said that the synod was gathered toward the end of the year 265, and dissolved in the following. Pearson, who would have a single one held in this cause, and that in the year 266, in which he holds also that Paul of Samosata was deposed, was left behind even by his own disciple and praiser Dodwell. See number 89. Compare Tillemont As above, page 666 and following.. And this on the first council.
[93] On the second council, over which St. Firmilian perhaps presided. Of the second we have few things to say besides what we have reported at numbers 88 and 89 from Eusebius and Theodoret. To this Tillemont judges Ibid. page 665. to belong what is read in the Synodal letter of St. Firmilian, namely that he was deceived by Paul, promising that he would change his opinion. The reason of Tillemont is that, according to Eusebius, Paul in the earlier synod, using pretense, concealed the novelty of his doctrine, and thus denied that he thought perversely, wherefore the fathers departed praising the Lord for the concord; it must be then that in the other Synod, convicted of impious error, he promised that he would change his opinion; deceived then by this pledge, Firmilian thought that the man should be dealt with more kindly, and drew the other fathers to his opinion; whence he seems to have had the principal part in that gathering (of other bishops the Synodal letter is silent), and indeed perhaps presided. There is certainly nothing that plainly opposes this opinion; yet since Eusebius presents the acts of the earlier council in summary and incompletely; and recites the Synodal letter of the last only in part, and no greater light is had from Theodoret; one may conjecture, but not assert, that St. Firmilian held the first bench among the gathered prelates. The time of this council is unknown; certainly between the year 264 and the year 269, in which we shall see the third gathered.
§ XIV. Of the year in which the last synod of Antioch was held. From the death of St. Dionysius the time is defined, and hence the year of the death of St. Firmilian. His cult. His writings.
[In what year the third was gathered and completed is to be defined from the death of St. Dionysius the pope;] Since St. Firmilian was not present at this council (for as he was hastening to it, already gathered, he met his last day on the journey), this one thing is to be sought by us, namely at what time it was held, that from this we may define the day of the Holy Prelate's death. Different persons tie this synod to different years. Baronius to the year 272, Pearson to the year 266, and so forth. Critics of better mark agree on the year 269. The matter depends on the death of St. Dionysius the pope, to whom the Synodal letter is directed: for it begins thus: To Dionysius (the pope) and Maximus (of Alexandria) and to all fellow ministers throughout the whole world…, Helenus and Hymenaeus … to their dearest brothers in the Lord, greeting Eus. book VII, chapter 30, page 279.. So the synod was gathered while St. Dionysius sat at Rome, who since he departed from among the living in the aforesaid year 269, it is clear that the bishops came together at Antioch in the same year.
[95] [and this took place in the month of December in the year 269, as results from the ancient catalogues,] That this was the year of his death is proved by the ancient Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs brought forward by Henschen Acta SS. April. volume I, pages I – XXXVII.. And the first indeed, to be far preferred to the others Ibid. page II., has this Ibid. page XXVII.: Dionysius eight years, two months, four days. He was in the times of Gallienus from the eleventh day before the kalends of August, Aemilian and Bassus being consuls, until the seventh day before the kalends of January, Claudius and Paternus being consuls. Another catalogue from the mss. of the queen of Sweden, though deservedly inferior to the first, yet greatly esteemed by Henschen, lists in this way Ibid. page XXVIII.: Dionysius … sat five years, two months, four days. He was in the times of Gallienus from the eleventh day before the kalends of August, Aemilian and Bassus being consuls, until the 6th day before the kalends of January and in the consulship of Claudius and Paternus. Henschen notes: The consuls accurately noted indicate the years of his sitting. These reported were, "Fulvius Aemilian and Pomponius Bassus" in the year CCLIX, when on the 12th day of July Dionysius was created pontiff; and "the emperor Claudius II and Ovinius Paternus" in the year CCLXIX, in which the same Dionysius died on the 26th of December… He sat then ten years, five months, four days; which are variously assigned by various persons with many faults, but from the consuls, generally added in all, the true time of the sitting is received and established. Papebroch agrees plainly in the Critical-Historical Attempt Propylæum Maji, page 38 and following.. In the same years the aforesaid two consulships are placed by the consular calendars accurately published by more recent persons Art de vérifier les dates, page 331.; likewise Eckhel Doctrina numorum, volume VII, page 471., etc. It will be helpful to have recalled to memory what Baronius wisely notes in the preface to the Annals, namely that to designate the times of each of the pontiffs through the consulships is the royal road; and at the year LXIX, number XXXVI: Times numbered by consuls are to be accepted with more willing ears, since this is more frequent than others,
and the chronography which is drawn from the consular calendars is known to be freer and truer, and has been received into more frequent use. Certainly when we sometimes find ancient monuments in the old writers to be marked with the consuls, we are affected with great joy, just as if some longed-for torch shone before one wandering in darkness. Thus Baronius, who however did not take sufficient care to use that torch for the first pontiffs. From these things, then, the death of St. Dionysius the pope took place in the year 269 and indeed on the 26th of December. So too both Pagis [Breviarium, volume I, page 45. Critica at the year 271, of Baronius 272, number IX.], Hefele Volume I, page 135., Bower [Unpartheische historie der Römischen Päpste, volume I, page 124. Magdeburg and Leipzig 1768.], Tillemont mémoires volume IV, page 343 and following; likewise, page 671, note II., and, what you may wonder at, Pearson himself, although he ascribes the council (he admits one only) to the year 266, but he says that for the year of the death of Dionysius one must stand by the Catalogues, namely those mentioned above. There dissent Baronius At the year 272, number XXI., Ciacconius and Oldoinus Volume I, page 179. Rome 1677., Novaes Vite etc., volume I, page 89., etc.; these hold that Dionysius died in 272. Baronius, says Pagi Critica as above., believed that Dionysius died when Aurelian had obtained the empire; but it took place under Claudius, and the year of the death of Dionysius (269) ought to be beyond controversy.
[96] and it is confirmed from the libellus of the clergy of Constantinople; From these things there flows the legitimate conclusion that the third Council was gathered in the year 259, and perhaps completed, since the Synodal letter is addressed to St. Dionysius. It is confirmed from the Libellus of protest of the clergy of Constantinople publicly set forth in the church: That Nestorius is of the same opinion with Paul of Samosata, condemned one hundred and sixty years ago. Pagi asserts At his year 271, number II. that the Libellus was written in the year 429; if from this number the aforesaid one hundred and sixty years are taken away, we come down on the year 269. A little otherwise Valesius in the Annotations On chapter XIX, page 155.. For the rest in writings of this kind numbers are for the most part marked not altogether accurate, but, as they say, round; nor all years complete; so that it is not strange that different persons deduce different things from them. But a firm argument for our opinion is furnished by the death of St. Dionysius, from which the year 269 is demonstrated.
[97] the difficulties are solved. But if you should object that the council, according to Eusebius, was held in the times of Aurelian, who began to reign in the year 270, in the month of March Henschen, volume I of April. page XXVIII or rather in April or May [Art de vérifier les dates, page 346. Tillemont, Hist. des emper. volume III, page 301.] (for there is more than one difficulty in fixing accurately the limits of the empire of Aurelian Eckhel, volume VII, page 485 and following. Tillemont as above.), Henschen replies in the place cited that the name of Aurelian was not rightly set down by Eusebius, by an error indeed to be pardoned, since the distance between the death of Dionysius and the beginning of Aurelian is scarcely three (or about four) months. So too Papebroch, but less indulgently: Baronius thinks, he says Conatus critico-historicus, page *38. Propylæum Maji., that the death of Dionysius is to be ascribed to the rule of Aurelian on account of the letter of the church of Antioch given to him, as Eusebius judges… But the letter itself does not mention Aurelian; this conjecture about the time of Aurelian can then also be ascribed without scruple to the other hallucinations of Eusebius concerning Roman affairs. Others say that the council was indeed begun under Claudius, in the year 269, but continued and completed under Aurelian in the following year; and that the message of the death of Dionysius had not yet been brought to the Fathers of Antioch, when they wrote their Synodal letter. Nor indeed does this opinion lack likelihood. Others finally would have it with Pagi Critica at his year 271, number IV. that Eusebius signifies nothing else than that Paul, already convicted and condemned in the second (for us third) council of Antioch, gathered in the reign of Claudius, was thrust out of the church of Antioch in the times of Aurelian, namely after Zenobia had been conquered (or a little earlier, namely when the city had been stormed). For, as Eusebius has it Hist. book VII, chapter 30, page 282., when Paul had fallen from the right faith and at the same time from the episcopate, Domnus, as has been said (in the Synodal letter, to which Eusebius subjoined the words which we recite), took up the administration of the church of Antioch. But when Paul was in no way willing to leave the house of the church, the emperor Aurelian, being appealed to, judged this affair most rightly, commanding the house to be handed over to those to whom the Italian prelates of the Christian religion and the bishop of Rome should write. In this way the man mentioned above was thrust from the church with the highest disgrace by the secular power. And this opinion too can be admitted. There is then a threefold reply to the difficulty arising from Eusebius. Both of the latter are plainly probable, and equal to solving the knot; the second is preferred by me, as being more simple. For the rest whichever you prefer, this is beyond controversy, that the council was at least gathered and begun in the year 269; which suffices for us for establishing the year of the death of St. Firmilian.
[98] Firmilian died in the year 269. And in very truth the fathers of Antioch plainly testify in their Synodal letter, in Eusebius Ibid. page 280., that St. Firmilian committed himself to the road, in order to come to Antioch to be present at the synod, but failed on the way. Now too, they say, Firmilian was about to come to Antioch and had already reached Tarsus (which is a town of Cilicia). For he had earlier experienced the wickedness of the man. But when we had already come together; meanwhile, while we were sending for him, while we were awaiting his arrival, he departed from among the living. From which it is manifest that his death is to be placed near the beginning of the council. And since the natal day of St. Firmilian is mentioned in the calendars (as we shall soon see) at the 28th of October, Pagi rightly supposed that the synod was held in the autumn of the aforesaid year 269; in which opinion nothing prevents its having been dissolved before the end of December, and the death of St. Dionysius having been unknown to the gathered bishops, and their addressing the Synodal letter to him.
[99] The opinion of Molkenbuhr is set forth Marcellinus Molkenbuhr, of whom more has already been said elsewhere, contends that the death of St. Firmilian is not to be placed before the year of Christ 272, and accordingly he published a singular dissertation (which is the second on our holy Prelate) on the year of the death of St. Firmilian, in which Paul of Samosata was deposed, and the third synod of Antioch, or the most celebrated, was held against Paul. He concludes his opinion in a single proposition, which he states in these words: The most celebrated synod of Antioch, in which Paul of Samosata was deposed, was not held before the year 272. To prove which: Eusebius, he says, a witness above all exception, expressly relates that that Synod was held under the emperor Aurelian. The place from book VII of the Eusebian History is added, and Fr. Marcellinus subjoins: But Aurelian did not obtain the scepter of the Romans before the year 270, as Pagi and all the others confess; indeed he did not obtain the whole Eastern empire, in which Antioch was situated, before the end of the year 272; since Queen Zenobia, who had patronized Paul of Samosata, from the year 267 usurped for herself by force a part of the Eastern empire for about the fifth year, held Antioch; but Aurelian in the year 272, as Pagi would have it, routed the army of Zenobia, recovered Antioch, etc. From these things he infers that the Synod which Eusebius describes as gathered under Aurelian did not come together before the year 272, in which it became free for catholics to accuse, condemn, depose Paul at Antioch. Why not even earlier? For no one ever accused Zenobia of meddling in matters of religion, or of hindering catholic bishops from peacefully discharging their office [Compare Tillemont. Hist. des emper. volume III, page 209, likewise page 210 and following. Eckhel, volume VII, page 490.]. This one thing is objected against her in the cause of Paul, namely that he, condemned and deprived, relying on the patronage of the queen, refused to leave the house of the church. Now Fr. Marcellinus concludes: But since Firmilian is reported to have died on the 28th day of October in the menology of the Greeks, and the sentence of deposition against Paul was not brought forth until after the death of Firmilian had become known, hence it is necessary that the Synod was prolonged at least until the end of that year. So, to embrace this opinion in a few words, on the witness of Eusebius the Synod was held under Aurelian; he did not possess the East before the year 272, where Zenobia reigned, who, as favoring Paul, would not have permitted the bishops to come together against him; which latter indeed Fr. Marcellinus supposes as gratuitously as falsely; yet from these things he supposes that the arguments of Pagi and others are altogether shattered, except that one which is drawn from the death of St. Dionysius.
[100] and it is refuted You will ask, he says, how then is the following chronological knot solved: The aforesaid Synod sent the acts of the council to Rome to Pope Dionysius, as Eusebius teaches, who saw, read and copied the acts? But Pope Dionysius died before the year 270, as Pseudo-Damasus, the Pontifical book, and various catalogues have it. But there is nothing in these which hinders in the least, if you listen to our writer: That knot, he says, is easily cut. The aforesaid anonymous authors, as is unknown to no learned man, teem with many chronological errors as regards the first four centuries (be it so, but very many things are most rightly brought forward by the same, on the witness of Henschen, Papebroch, Pagi, etc.); before them is to be preferred one named witness, Eusebius, who in the Chronicle as well as in his History, book VII, chapter XXX (where namely the Synodal letter is recited), testifies that Pope Dionysius survived after the times of Aurelian, who was not killed before the year 275. But first is it unknown to any learned man that Eusebius both in the History and in the Chronicle teems with many chronological errors, especially as regards Roman affairs? Next I do not know whether Fr. Marcellinus so much as glanced at the Chronicle, otherwise he would have discovered in this place not one but many and most patent hallucinations or contradictions. And in very truth the Chronicle marks the death of Dionysius under the emperor Probus, in the year 279: Felix (successor of Dionysius), XXV, holds the episcopate of the Roman church for 5 years From the edition of Vallarsi. Migne, volume XXVII.; and lest you should suspect that his pontificate perhaps began earlier, Eusebius himself stands in the way, who at the year 267 under Gallienus had noted: Dionysius, XXIV, is established as bishop of the Roman church for 12 years; and before him, namely at the year 258: Xystus, XXIII, holds the episcopate of the Roman church for 8 years; but to him in the History there are attributed eleven years Book VII, chapter 27. ἔτεσιν ἔνδεκα, so that from this one error alone the whole computation of the Chronicle falls. For the rest Xystus is known to have presided neither for eight years, nor for ten, but at most for one year; nor are twelve to be given to Dionysius in the pontificate, but ten and in addition months
some. So Eusebius is to be forsaken, unless we are to ruin the whole chronology of the Roman pontiffs established by the learned. The spring of the hallucinations lies hidden partly in this, that the Chronicle is arranged by Olympiads, and years from the founding of the City, the consulships being neglected, which, as Baronius has it, are a torch shining before one in the midst of darkness. Nevertheless, if you listen to Fr. Marcellinus: One witness, Eusebius, is to be preferred. An excellent method surely, easy indeed and exceedingly convenient for cutting knots! Does Eusebius favor? He is a witness above all exception; does he dissent? He has been interpolated, or, as Missorius prefers, he lied, compare §§ VII and VIII. Finally Fr. Molkenbuhr denies (nor is he much to be reproved in this) that anything is proved from the Libellus of protest, whose numbers can be referred as well to the year 272 and even to the year 275 as to the year 269. He concludes the whole disputation with the following corollary: Since then the last synod of Antioch, in which Paul was deposed, was not held before the year 272; it follows that St. Firmilian survived until this year. In his honor let these things be written. Would that it were true.
[101] His memory in the sacred calendars of the Greeks, Of his cult we may be very brief, since besides the memorial in the calendars of both churches, Latin and Greek, there is scarcely anything for us to list. The printed Menaea Venice 1845. at this day, the 28th of October, mention St. Firmilian in these words: On the same day the memorial of our holy father Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, and of Melchion the sophist, presbyter of Antioch, who deposed (rather confounded καθεῖλον) Paul of Samosata. So from the version of Sirleto in Canisius Thesaurus, volume III, part II. page 482.. And there are added according to custom some verses:
Εἰρηνικῶς θνήσκουσιν εἰρήνης τέκνα
Φιρμιλιανός καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Μελχίων.
Peacefully die the sons of peace,
Firmilian and with him Melchion.
Of Melchion Eusebius narrates: But chiefly a certain Malchion Μαλχίων (so in Valesius), a most eloquent man, refuted him (Paul) and confuted him as he desired to lie hidden δίηλεγξε, inasmuch as he had presided over the sophistic school at Antioch; and who on account of the genuineness of his Christian faith had obtained the honor of the presbyterate in the church of that place. He then, having undertaken a disputation against Paul, the notaries taking down everything (which disputation indeed still exists), alone of all was able to lay bare the hidden opinions and frauds of the man. These things were done in the last or third synod, and so in the absence of St. Firmilian, who, hastening to Antioch, closed his day on the journey. Where then the menaea join both, and relate that Paul was deposed by them, they are to be understood in a broad sense; namely that both strenuously contended against the heresiarch. On St. Malchion see below on the following page. St. Firmilian had already died when the sentence was passed against Paul. Similarly Fr. Martinov in the Graeco-Slavic Year, 28 Oct.: St. Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, and Melchion the sophist, presbyter of Antioch, from the Greek Menaea, the Mazarin mss., likewise the mss. of Sirmond or of Clermont, and of the Ambrosian library of Milan, besides Sirleto and the printed Menaea. The Oriens Christianus Lequien, volume I, column 369.: Finally in the waning of the year 269 he closed his last day at Tarsus in Cilicia. Whose memory the Greeks commemorate on the 28th day of August, certainly by a fault for October. The name of St. Firmilian is wanting in the menology of Basil, in the marble calendar of Naples (in Angelo Mai Vett. Scriptt. nova coll. volume V pages 58 to 64), in the calendar of Constantinople, in the Muscovite-Greek ephemerides, the Capponian tables and generally in other monuments of that kind, besides those which we have listed above.
[102] of the Latins. The same holds in the Latin calendars; few have St. Firmilian inscribed; very many pass over him: the Hieronymian, Bede, Florus, Ado, Usuard and his auctaria, Rabanus; likewise Galesinius, Maurolycus and finally the Roman are silent; add the martyrology of the African church, put together by Morcelli Africa Christiana, volume II, at the end, pages 359 – 376., etc. Ferrarius mentions him at 28 Oct. in the General Catalogue, repeating the words of Sirleto; likewise Castellanus with this encomium: Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea of the Cappadocians, celebrated for his learning; who received Origen in hospitality during the whole time that the persecution of Maximin lasted. There may be added the hagiological Dictionary of Migne. And if Baronius did not inscribe St. Firmilian in the martyrology (certainly on account of the letter excessively injurious to St. Stephen the pope), nevertheless he speaks magnificently of him in the Annals: Who, he says At the year 258, number XLVII,, in both doctrine and sanctity of morals was second to almost none. Whom … having died piously and holily in the peace of the church, the Greeks worship and venerate; whose natal day, like those of other saints, recorded in the menology, they celebrate with an anniversary memorial. Which testimony certainly can and ought rightly to be opposed to some who think not fairly enough of Firmilian, because he is not read inserted in the Roman calendars.
[103] On the writings of St. Firmilian. It is certain that St. Firmilian, besides the letter on baptism, also wrote other things. For St. Basil the Great plainly teaches this in the book on the Holy Spirit Migne, Patrol. græca, volume XXXII, column 207.: That this faith was also that of our Firmilian the books which he left testify. That they were unknown to St. Jerome they commonly argue from his passing over our Bishop in the Catalogue of writers. But whether it is lawful so to infer from this silence, let others see. I for my part would not wish to affirm so much. However that may be, only the letter to Cyprian survives; unless perhaps someone should attribute to him the very brief history of St. Cyril the boy, crowned with martyrdom at Caesarea of the Cappadocians, which, as being well written, says Tillemont Mémoires, volume IV, page 313., is not unworthy of the holy Prelate Compare Ceillier, Autheurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques, volume III, page 306.. Ruinart preceded Tillemont in these words Acta sincera martyrum, page 345 and following. Amsterdam 1713.: For the rest, if one may indulge in conjectures, we attribute this passion of Blessed Cyril, which is written in the manner of a letter, to St. Firmilian, the celebrated bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, although to affirm this constantly we await more certain arguments. But why Tillemont asserts that the letter is well written, I do not know whence he drew it; certainly not from our Henschen, who first published it in the Acts of the Saints at the 29th day of May Volume VII of May, page 17.. For the learned and excellent predecessor notes: We have certain Acts in the manner of a letter, which would that we had found somewhere in its Greek and original phrasing: for both he who translated it into Latin used a rather uncultivated style, and those who copied it seem also to have made it much more barbarous, since they did not sufficiently grasp what they were copying. Yet receive it in its Latin text, as we received it, moderately smoothed by conjecture, lest so gaping a barbarism should altogether overturn your stomach. Thus Henschen, who, as a man of most moderate character, is accustomed to temper his style, so that this so great indignation of his must have been moved by an incredibly depraved reading.