Catalogus Romanorum Pontificum [ex Canonem Paschalem]

PREFACE

An excerpt from the fourth chapter of the cited work, presenting preliminary notions composed in the French language.

Having examined the earlier monuments concerning the succession of the Roman pontiffs, the most learned authors undertake to illuminate the catalog in question in the following manner.

Until now we have not been able to consult the archives of the Roman Church itself concerning the succession of the pontiffs. The ravages of the persecutions and still more the injury of the times have deprived us of all documents earlier than the fourth century, but not without a profound design of divine Providence. It was fitting that the first page of the annals of the Apostolic See, missing from its own archives, should be found again in the traditions of all the Churches, and that even before Christian Rome had found the leisure to compose its domestic chronicles, the ecclesiastical histories should bear witness to its lofty action over the churches during three centuries.

The peace given to Christianity by Constantine brought, among other advantages, that of a tranquil stability by whose aid it became possible to draw up records and to gather a thousand traditions whose titles the persecution of Diocletian had caused to perish, or which at least, for want of being registered in the more general chronicles, ran the risk of disappearing together with the isolated monuments on which they rested. The existence of the Christians was no longer furtive and hurried; they now dwelt at rest in a world which until then they had only traversed in all haste: the Church had a place, and the first place, in the annals of humanity. This was the idea that Eusebius wished to convey in his Chronicle, where he groups around sacred and ecclesiastical history the eras, the olympiads, the kingdoms, the dynasties, so that it is a marvel to see all the records of the earth exhaust themselves one after another, while the Jewish Church, and then the Christian Church, pass majestically through the ages.

On all sides people were setting themselves to the search for origins and antiquities, and, as we have seen above, the West wished to have its own Latin version of the Chronicle of Eusebius, while waiting until it could itself explore on a grand scale the science of times. A reason that moved Christians no less powerfully to this kind of labor was the reckoning of the feast of Easter, a question of the highest religious interest in all ages, but especially then, when it had been the object of sharp controversies, and which for its solution required profound investigations in chronology as well as learned astronomical observations. Thus it was that, from the preceding century, Saint Hippolytus, in composing his Paschal Cycle, had been led to set down his researches in a veritable Chronicle. Everything therefore converged at that time to urge Christians to collect their primitive monuments; it is also the age in which was drawn up the Chronicle that forms the subject of this chapter.

In 1634, Father Gilles Boucher, a learned Jesuit, published at Antwerp a celebrated commentary on the Paschal Cycle of Victorius of Aquitaine, and among the monuments he inserted in that work, five chronological opuscules of the highest interest are especially noteworthy, which the author attested he had extracted from one and the same manuscript. The first was a continuation of the Consular Fasti from Antoninus secundus and Geta up to Constantius Augustus septimo and Constantius Caesar tertio. The second was a list of the Prefects of Rome from Lollianus, in office under the consulate of Valerianus secundus and Gallienus, up to Vitrasius Orifitus under that of the two Constantiuses named above; which comes to the year 354. The third, an ancient Ecclesiastical Calendar containing the feast and the day of death of several holy martyrs and bishops of Rome, of whom the last is Pope Saint Julius, who died in the year 352. The fourth is the Chronicle of the Popes, which is the subject of this chapter, and which runs up to Liberius, whose accession it announces under the consuls Constantius quinto and Constantius Caesar, without marking his death, which occurred in the year 366, because doubtless he was still living. The fifth, finally, is an ancient civil Calendar which marks the births of the principal Caesars, and stops at Constantius, who is there qualified not as Divus like the others, but as Dominus, as still living at the moment when this calendar was drawn up.

It is known that Constantius died in 361. Thus, therefore, these five monuments must have been written within the space of about ten years, namely, from the year to the year 364. It is clear that they lend mutual support to one another, and that, if one cannot determine the author who composed them, one must at least recognize, with Father Boucher and the generality of the learned, that their era is incontestably fixed in the middle of the fourth century.

Of these five monuments, the fourth is the only one that must occupy us especially. It contains the names of the Popes from Saint Peter to Liberius, with their years distinguished by the consuls and certain other particulars whose authenticity we shall discuss later. In a word, this monument is of truly grave importance, and merits all our attention; for, by the admission of Pearson, "if any certainty of these times can be found among the Latin chronologists, it is in this ancient catalogue that it must be sought.

However, before examining what degree of confidence we ought to give to that famous chronicle, which we shall henceforth call the Catalogue of Liberius, for the reason that it stops at that Pope, we shall devote a few pages to setting forth the history of its discovery and publication.

This precious monument, which had remained in manuscript until 1634, when Father Boucher published it for the first time, had already before that time attracted the attention of scholars who had found themselves in a position to consult it. The first whom we find to have made use of it is Spiesshammer, better known in the world of scholarship under the name Cuspinian. In his commentary on the Chronicle of Cassiodorus, he used it on account of the consular fasti which it contains, and inserted it almost entire, but in parts, into his commentary as he had need of it. He calls it a very ancient opuscule, and speaks in various places of the four others which were joined to it, and which Father Boucher likewise published. The manuscript of Cuspinian, which seems to have been the original of the various copies of which we shall speak, would, it appears, have been originally in the hands of a privy councillor of the Catholic king whom Father Boucher names in Latin Assonvillius, who had received it from Jean Brenner, secretary of the same prince, and a member of the senate of Luxembourg.

Be that as it may, that original manuscript has long since ceased to exist.

Henschenius claimed that Onuphrius Panvinius had also had the catalogue of Liberius in his hands when he was working at Rome on the consular Fasti, around the middle of the sixteenth century; Pagi believed the same thing, as he explains in his Critique of Baronius, but both were mistaken. Emmanuel de Schelstrate attests in his great work on Ecclesiastical Antiquity that he found in the Vatican Library, over which he was placed in charge toward the end of the seventeenth century, an index of the books and manuscripts that Panvinius had used in his work on the consular fasti, and he declares that no other catalogue of the Popes is mentioned there than the Liber pontificalis.

Now here is something more certain. Around the year 1620, Nicolas Fabry de Peiresc, counselor in the parliament of Aix, a man of genuine erudition, received from a magistrate of Arras communication of a precious manuscript on which was found the catalogue of Liberius, together with the four other minor works, monuments whose importance Peiresc extols in a letter that Pagi has inserted in substance at the place in his Critique that we have already cited.

Peiresc, who, in accordance with the express intention of his correspondent at Arras, was only to make a copy of the manuscript and then send it back, faithfully fulfilled this twofold condition, but he did not let the public enjoy the fruit of this discovery.

Pagi also speaks of two other copies of the catalogue of Liberius that were said to have existed in manuscript at Paris during the course of the seventeenth century: one in the library of the Canons Regular of Saint-Victor, listed in the catalogue under this title: Chronica Damasi; but it had since disappeared, without anyone knowing what had become of it; the other in the library of the Jesuits of the college of Louis-le-Grand, where it had been deposited by Father Sirmond. It was moreover in every respect in agreement with the one published by the Bollandists, according to the attestation that Father Hardouin himself made to Father Pagi.

Father Boucher is therefore the first who, not content to make use of the precious monument that concerns us, thought to admit the public into his confidence by publishing separately and in full the famous catalogue of which Cuspinien had inserted only detached fragments in the work we have cited. In October 1632, having come from Liége to Antwerp to treat with the house of Plantin for the printing of his treatise De Doctrina temporum, he naturally found himself in contact with Father Bollandus. The latter, with the intention of aiding his confrere in the explanation of the cycle of Victorius, which was the object of this publication, communicated to him a copy taken formerly by Father Rosweid from the manuscript that Cuspinien had had in his hands, and this copy contained precisely the five chronological opuscules that concern us. The original was from that time lost; but Father Boucher nonetheless believed he ought to give in full, in his work on Victorius, these various pieces, and it was through him that the learned world truly came into possession of them.

In 1675, a new edition of the catalogue of Liberius appeared at Antwerp, prepared by Father Henschenius and placed at the head of the first volume for April of the Acta Sanctorum. In this new edition, which was repeated word for word by Father Papebrock in his Conatus chronologico-historicus ad catalogum Pontificum Romanorum, certain variants were noticed that were rather serious when compared with the text published by Father Boucher. Pagi seems to want to attribute them to corrections that Henschenius would have permitted himself to make to the reading of the manuscript; but this conjecture appears to lose much of its importance if it is demonstrated that Father Boucher had established his text not only from the manuscript of the Bollandists, but also from another that is preserved in the imperial library of Vienna. In that case, Henschenius and Papebrock, publishing their Antwerp manuscript accurately, would by that very fact have had to present in their reading some differences from the one that would have been prepared from two manuscripts instead of one.

As for the manuscripts of the catalogue of Liberius preserved in the library of Vienna, among the Latin manuscripts, no. 56, it was published by Schelstrate in his De Doctrina temporum, p. 243. Commentar, de Augustissima Bibliotheca Vindo Antiquitas illustrata, and one cannot fail to be struck by the identity that prevails between its text and that of Father Boucher. They also have this in common, that they supply in the same manner several lacunae that are found in the edition of Henschenius. It is therefore impossible that Father Boucher, whose scholarly connections were very extensive, did not have communication of the manuscript of Vienna: otherwise, how would his divergences from that of Antwerp be found to reproduce the very words of the former? Lambecius had claimed that the manuscript of Vienna was the most ancient of all, and that the one which Cuspinian had used was only a copy of it. Schelstrate, aided by Father Conrad Janning, one of the Bollandists, has refuted the illustrious bibliographer. These two scholars proved that the manuscript of Vienna was not more than three or four hundred years old, and that it was, as well as that of Antwerp, a copy of an older original. Now this original manuscript, the source of those of Antwerp and Vienna, is it indeed the one that Cuspinian and Peiresc had in their hands? We can scarcely doubt it. The P.

Did Boucher himself not have it at his disposal, rather than the copy from the library of Vienna? We are not quite sure what to answer to this question. All that is certain is that these various copies, divergent, it is true, in some non-essential details, and in agreement on almost the whole of the ensemble, at the same time as they demonstrate the existence of a common original, make it clear that they must not be believed to be the work of a forger. And so it never entered anyone's mind to believe that the Chronicle of Liberius had been fabricated at will.

Besides Schelstrate, who reproduced the text of this little work, following the manuscript of Vienna, in his first volume of the Antiquitas illustrata, and Henschenius at the head of the first volume of April of the Acta Sanctorum, we know of no others besides du Cange, in the supporting documents of the Chronicon paschale, and Bianchini, at the head of the second volume of the edition of Anastasius, who made themselves editors of the catalogue of Liberius; and even these last two contented themselves with simply reproducing the text, such as it is given by Father Boucher.

We therefore reduce the editions properly so called to three, namely: that of Father Boucher, that of Father Henschenius, and that of Schelstrate; and so that the reader may be able to weigh their authority, we set all three before him below at a single glance, together with the notes with which the three learned editors to whom we owe them have enriched them.

In the year of the Lord 258. The catalogue of the Roman pontiffs described under Liberius;

to which are added, in place of confirmation, two martyrologies of the Roman church, and also the most ancient calendar of the church of Carthage.

(From a work published a few years ago, entitled: Origins of the Roman Church, by the members of the community of Solesmes)

The catalogue of the Roman pontiffs described under Liberius. The catalogue of the Roman pontiffs.

The reading of Gilles Boucher.

Commentary on the Paschal Canon of Victorius of Aquitaine, p. 269, Antwerp, Plantin, 1634.

This catalogue is more confused and corrupt down to Callistus; after him it is somewhat clearer, especially after Lucius.

In the reign of Tiberius Caesar, our Lord Jesus Christ suffered, in the consulship of the two Gemini, on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, and after his ascension the most blessed Peter undertook the episcopate. From that time it is set out in succession who was bishop, and for how many years he presided, or under which emperor.

PETER, twenty-five years, one month, nine days. He was in the times of Tiberius Caesar, and Caius, and Tiberius Claudius, and Nero, from the consulship of Vinicius and Longinus up to that of Nero and Vetus. He suffered with Paul on the third day before the Kalends of July, in the consulship of the two, under Nero.

LINUS, twelve years, four months, twelve days. He was in the times of Nero, from the consulship of Saturninus and Scipio up to that of Capito and Rufus.

CLEMENT, nine years, eleven months, twelve days. He was in the times of Galba and Vespasian, from the consulship of Trachalus and Italicus up to that of Vespasian for the sixth time and Titus.

(Clement is placed after Cletus by Eusebius and Baronius.)

CLETUS: six years, two months, ten days. He was in the times of Vespasian and Titus, and the beginning of Domitian, from the consulship of Vespasian VIII and Domitian V, to Domitian IX and Rufus.

ANACLETUS: twelve years, ten months, three days. He was in the times of Domitian, from the consulship of Domitian X and Sabinus, to Domitian XVII and Clement.

EVARISTUS: thirteen years, seven months, two days. He was in the latest times of Domitian, and of Nerva, and of Trajan; from the consulship of Valens and Verus, to Gallus and Bradua.

ALEXANDER: seven years, two months, one day. He was in the times of Trajan, from the consulship of Palma and Tullus to Velianus and Vetus.

SIXTUS: ten years, three months, twenty-one days. He was in the times of Hadrian, from the consulship of Niger and Apronianus, to Verus III and Ambibulus.

TELESPHORUS: eleven years, three months, three days. He was in the times of Antoninus Macrinus, from the consulship of Titianus and Gallicanus, to Caesar and Balbinus.

HYGINUS: twelve years, three months, six days. He was in the times of Verus, from the consulship of Gallicanus and Vetus, up to Praesens and Rufinus.

(Here Anicetus is missing, to whom they give nearly eight years.)

Pius: twenty years, four months, twenty-one days. He was in the times of Antoninus Pius, from the consulship of Clarus and Severus, up to the two Augusti. Under his episcopate his brother Hermes wrote a book, in which is set down and contained what the Angel commanded him when he came to him in the guise of a shepherd.

SOTER: nine years, three months, two days. He was in the times of Antoninus and Commodus, from the consulship of Verus and Erennianus, up to Paternus and Bradua.

(Again Eleutherius is missing, whom they hold to have sat fifteen years.)

VICTOR: nine years, two months, ten days. From the consulship of Saturninus and Gallus, up to Praesens and Extricatus.

(Likewise Zephyrinus is missing, to whom they give eighteen years.)

CALLISTUS: five years, two months, ten days. He was in the times of Macrinus and Elagabalus, from the consulship of Antoninus and Adventus, up to Antoninus III and Alexander.

URBANUS: eight years, eleven months, twelve days. He was in the times of Alexander, from the consulship of Maximus and Aelianus, up to Agricola and Clementinus.

PONTIANUS: five years, two months, seven days. He was in the times of Alexander, from the consulship of Pompeianus and Pelignianus. At that time Nepotianus the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter were deported as exiles to the harmful island of Sardinia, in the consulship of Severus and Quintianus. On that same island he was stripped of his office on the fourth day before the Kalends of December, in the consulship of the aforementioned.

ANTEROS: one month, ten days. He sleeps in peace on the third day before the Nones of January, in the consulship of Maximus and Africanus.

FABIANUS: fourteen years, one month, ten days. He was in the times of Maximinus, and Gordian, and Philip. From the consulship of Maximinus and Africanus, up to Decius II and Gratus. He suffered on the twelfth day before the Kalends of February. He divided the regions among the deacons, and he ordered many works to be built throughout the cemeteries. After his passion, Moyses and Maximus the presbyters, and Nicostratus the deacon, were seized and sent into prison. At that time Novatus came from Africa, and he separated Novatian from the Church, and certain confessors, after Moyses died in prison, who was there eleven months, eleven days.

CORNELIUS: two years, three months, ten days. From the consulships of Decius IV and Decius II up to Gallus and Volusianus. During his episcopate Novatus ordained Novatian outside the Church in the city of Rome, and Nicostratus in Africa. After this was done, the Confessors who had separated themselves from Cornelius, together with the presbyter Maximus, who was with Moses, returned to the Church; after this they were expelled to Centumcellae. There he received his dormition in glory.

LUCIUS: three years, eight months, ten days. He was in the times of Gallus and Volusianus, up to Valerianus III and Gallienus II. He was an exile, and afterwards, by the will of God, he returned to the Church unharmed, on the third day before the Nones of March, in the consulships of SS.

STEPHEN: four years, two months, twenty-one days. He was in the times of Valerianus and Gallienus, from the consulship of Volusianus and Maximinus, up to Valerianus III and Gallienus II.

SIXTUS: two years, eleven months, six days. He began from the consulship of Maximus and Glabrio, up to Tusceus and Bassus; and he suffered on the eighth day before the Ides of August, from the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus, up to the twelfth day before the Kalends of August, in the consulships of Aemilianus and Bassus.

DIONYSIUS: eight years, two months, four days. He was in the times of Gallienus, from the eleventh day before the Kalends of August, with Aemilianus and Bassus as consuls, up to the seventh day before the Kalends of January, with Claudius and Paternus as consuls.

FELIX: five years, eleven months, twenty-five days. He was in the times of Claudius and Aurelian, from the consulship of Claudius and Paternus up to the consulship of Aurelian II and Capitolinus.

EUTYCHIANUS: eight years, eleven months, three days. He was in the times of Aurelian, from the consulship of Aurelian III and Marcellinus up to the seventh day before the Ides of December, with Carus II and Carinus as consuls.

CAIUS: twelve years, four months, seven days. He was in the times of Carus and Carinus, from the sixteenth day before the Kalends of January, with Carus II and Carinus as consuls, up to the tenth day before the Kalends of May, with Diocletian VI and Constantius II as consuls.

MARCELLINUS: eight years, three months, twenty-five days. He was in the times of Diocletian and Maximian, from the day before the Kalends of July, from the consulship of Diocletian VI and Constantius II, up to the consulship of Diocletian IX and Maximian VIII. At that time there was a persecution, and the episcopate ceased for seven years, six months, twenty-five days.

MARCELLUS: one year, seven months, twenty days. He was in the times of Maxentius, from the tenth consulship and the second of Maximianus, up to after the tenth consulship and the seventh.

EUSEBIUS: four months, sixteen days, from the fourteenth day before the Kalends of May, up to the sixteenth day before the Kalends of September.

MILTIADES: three years, six months, nine days, from the sixth day before the Nones of July, from the eighth consulship of Maximianus alone, which was in the month of September, with Volusianus and Rufinus as consuls, up to the third day before the Ides of January, with Volusianus and Annianus as consuls.

SILVESTER: twenty-one years, eleven months. He was in the times of Constantine, from the consulship of Velusianus and Annianus, from the day before the Kalends of February, up to the day of the Kalends of January, with Constantius and Albinus as consuls.

MARCUS: eight months, twenty days. And he too was in the times of Constantine, with Nepotianus and Facundus as consuls, from the fifteenth day before the Kalends of February, up to the day of the Nones of October, with the aforementioned consuls.

JULIUS: fifteen years, one month, eleven days. He was in the times of Constantine, from the consulship of Felicianus and Titianus, from the eighth day before the Ides of February, to the day before the Ides of April, in the consulship of Constantius for the fifth time and Constantius Caesar. He made many buildings: a basilica on the Via Portensis, at the third milestone; a basilica on the Via Flaminia, at the second milestone, which is called that of Valentinus; the Julian basilica, which is in the seventh region, next to the forum of the deified Trajan; a basilica across the Tiber, in the fourteenth region, next to Callistus; a basilica on the Via Aurelia, at the third milestone, at Callistus.

LIBERIUS was in the times of Constantius, from the eleventh day before the Kalends of June, to the day...... in the consulship of Constantius for the fifth time and Constantius Caesar.

(Almost all these little works end with these consuls, from which it appears that they were written in this year, 354 of Christ, or thereabouts.)

READING OF P. GODOFREDUS HENSCHENIUS.

Acta Sanctorum, April, volume I. — Preliminary dissertation on the old catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs, taken from the most ancient manuscript codices, page 4.

Under the emperor Tiberius Caesar our Lord Jesus Christ suffered, in the consulship of the two Gemini, on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, and after his ascension, the most blessed Peter received the episcopate. From that time it was arranged by succession who was bishop, and for how many years he presided, or under which emperor.

Peter: twenty-five years, one month, nine days. He was in the times of Tiberius Caesar, and Caius, and Tiberius Claudius, and Nero; from the consulship of Vinicius and Longinus, up to that of Nerva and Vestinus. He suffered with Paul on the third day before the Kalends of July, in the consulship aforesaid, under the emperor Nero.

Linus: twelve years, four months, ten days. He was in the times of Nero, from the consulship of Saturninus and Scipio up to that of Capito and Rufus.

Clemens: nine years, eleven months, twelve days. He was in the times of Galba and Vespasian, from the consulship of Trachalus and Italicus, up to the seventh consulship of Vespasian and that of Titus.

Cletus, six years, two months, seven days. He was in the times of Vespasian and Titus, and the beginning of Domitian, from the consuls Vespasian VIII and Domitian VI, up to Domitian IX and Rufus.

Anacletus, twelve years, ten months, three days. He was in the times of Domitian, from the consuls Domitian X and Sabinus, up to Domitian XVII and Clement.

Evaristus, thirteen years, seven months, two days. He was in the latest times of Domitian, and of Nerva and Trajan; from the consulship of Valens and Verus, up to Gallus and Bradua.

Alexander, eight years, two months, one day. He was in the times of Trajan, from the consulship of Palma and Tullus, up to Aelianus and Vetus.

Sixtus, ten years, three months, twenty-one days. He was in the times of Hadrian, from the consulship of Niger and Apronianus, up to Verus III and Ambibulus.

Telesphorus, eleven years, three months, three days. He was in the times of Hadrian, from the consulship of Titianus and Gallicanus, up to Caesar and Balbinus.

Hyginus, twelve years, three months, six days. He was in the times........

Anicetus, ..... years, from the consulship of Gallicanus and Vetus, up to Praesens and Rufinus.

Pius, fifteen years, four months, twenty days. He was in the times of Antoninus Pius, from the consulship of Clarus and Severus up to the two Augusti. During his episcopate his brother Hermes wrote a book, in which is set down and contained what the angel commanded him when he came to him in the guise of a baker.

Soter, nine years, three months, two days. He was in the times..........

Eleutherius, ..... years. He was in the times of Antoninus and Commodus, from the consulship of Verus and Herennianus, up to Paternus and Bradua.

Victor, nine years, two months, ten days................

Zephyrinus, ..... years. From the consulship of Saturninus and Gallus, up to Praesens and Extricatus.

Callistus, five years, two months, ten days. He was in the times of Macrinus and Elagabalus, from the consulship of Antoninus and Adventus, up to Antoninus III and Alexander.

Urbanus, eight years, eleven months, twelve days. He was in the times of Alexander, from the consulship of Maximus and Aelianus, up to Agricola and Clementinus.

Pontianus, five years, two months, seven days. He was in the times of Alexander, from the consulship of Pompeianus and Pelignianus. At that time Pontianus the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter were deported as exiles to the harmful island of Sardinia, in the consulship of Severus and Quintianus. On that same island he was stripped of his office on the fourth day before the Kalends of October, and in his place Anteros was ordained on the eleventh day before the Kalends of December, in the consulships written above.

Anteros, one month, ten days. He fell asleep on the third day before the Nones of January, in the consulship of Maximinus and Africanus.

Fabianus, fourteen years, eleven months, ten days. He was in the times of Maximinus and Gordian and Philip, from the consulship of Maximinus and Africanus, up to Decius II and Gratus. He suffered on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of February. He divided the regions among the deacons, and ordered many works to be built throughout the cemeteries. After his passion, Moyses and Maximus the presbyters and Nicostratus the deacon were arrested and sent into prison. At that time Novatus came over from Africa, and separated Novatian and certain confessors from the Church, after Moyses had died in prison; he was there eleven months, eleven days.

Cornelius, two years, three months, ten days, from the consulships of Decius II and Decius, up to Gallus and Volusianus. During his episcopate Novatus ordained Novatian outside the Church in the city of Rome, and Nicostratus in Africa, this having been done. The confessors who separated themselves from Cornelius, with the presbyter Maximus, who was with Moses, returned to the Church. After this, expelled to Centumcellae, he there received his dormition in glory.

Lucius, three years, eight months, ten days. He was in the times of Gallus and Volusianus, up to Valerianus III and Gallienus II. This man was an exile and afterwards, by the will of God, returned to the Church. He died on the third day before the Nones of March, in the consulships written above.

Stephen, four years, two months, twenty-one days. He was in the times of Valerianus and Gallienus, from the consulship of Volusianus and Maximinus, up to Valerianus III and Gallienus II.

Sixtus, two years, eleven months, six days. He began from the consulship of Maximus and Glabrio, up to Tuscus and Bassus, and he suffered on the eighth day before the Ides of August; and the presbyters presided from the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus up to the twelfth day before the Kalends of August, in the consulships of Aemilianus and Bassus.

Dionysius, eight years, two months, four days. He was in the times of Gallienus, from the eleventh day before the Kalends of August, in the consulship of Aemilianus and Bassus, up to the seventh day before the Kalends of January, in the consulship of Claudius and Paternus.

Felix, five years, eleven months, twenty-five days. He was in the times of Claudius and Aurelian, from the consulship of Claudius and Paternus, up to the consulship of Aurelian II and Capitolinus.

Eutychianus, eight years, eleven months, three days. He was in the times of Aurelian, from the consulship of Aurelian III and Marcellinus, up to the seventh day before the Ides of December, in the consulship of Carus II and Carinus.

Caius, twelve years, four months, seven days. He was in the times of Carus and Carinus, from the sixteenth day before the Kalends of January, in the consulship of Carus II and Carinus, up to the tenth day before the Kalends of May, in the consulship of Diocletian VI and Constantius II.

Marcellinus, eight years, three months, twenty-five days. He was in the times of Diocletian and Maximian, from the day before the Kalends of July, in the consulship of Diocletian VI and Constantius II, up to the consulship of Diocletian IX and Maximian VIII. At that time there was a persecution, and the episcopate ceased for four years, six months, twenty-five days.

Marcellus, one year, seven months, twenty days. He was in the times of Maxentius, from the consulship of Maximianus Herculius for the tenth time and Maximianus Galerius for the seventh, up to after the tenth and seventh consulships.

Eusebius, four months, sixteen days, from the fourteenth day before the Kalends of May up to the sixteenth day before the Kalends of September.

Miltiades, three years, six months, nine days, and on the sixth day before the Nones of July, from the consulship of Maximianus for the eighth time alone, which was in the month of September, with Volusianus and Rufinus, up to the third day before the Ides of January, with Volusianus and Anianus as consuls.

Silvester, twenty-one years, eleven months. He was in the times of Constantine, from the consulship of Volusianus and Anianus, from the day before the Kalends of February, up to the day before the Kalends of January, with Constantine and Albinus as consuls.

Marcus, eight months, twenty days. He was in the times of Constantine, with Nepotianus and Facundus as consuls; from the fifteenth day before the Kalends of February, up to the day of the Nones of October, with the aforementioned consuls.

Julian, fifteen years, two months, six days. He was in the times of Constans, from the consulship of Felicianus and Titianus, from the eighth day before the Ides of February, to the day before the Ides of April, with Constantius for the fifth time and Constantius Caesar as consuls. He made many buildings: a basilica on the Portuensian road, at the third milestone; a basilica on the Flaminian road, at the second milestone, which is called the Valentinian; the Julian basilica, which is in the seventh region, next to the forum of the Divine Trajan; a basilica across the Tiber, in the fourteenth region, next to Callistus; a basilica on the Aurelian road, at the third milestone, at Callistus.

Liberius was in the times of Constantius, from the eleventh day before the Kalends of June, to the day..... by the consuls Constantius for the fifth time and Constantius Caesar.

THE READING OF EMMANUEL SCHELSTRAT.

The Antiquity of the Church Illustrated, volume I, page 402.

According to the older catalogue of the Imperial Library, from the manuscript exemplar and the edition of Cuspinianus.

While Tiberius Caesar was emperor, our Lord Jesus Christ suffered under the two Geminus consuls, on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, and after his ascension the most blessed Peter received the episcopate. From that time it has been set down in succession who was bishop, how many years he presided, or under which emperor.

Peter, twenty-five years, one month, nine days. He was in the times of Tiberius Caesar, and Caius, and Tiberius Claudius, and Nero, from the consulship of Vinicius and Longinus, up to that of Nero and Vetus; and he suffered with Paul on the third day before the Kalends of July, in the consulships written above, with Nero as emperor.

Linus, twelve years, four months, twelve days. He was in the times of Nero, from the consulship of Saturninus and Scipio, up to that of Capito and Rufus.

Clemens, nine years, eleven months, twelve days. He was in the times of Galba and Vespasian, from the consulship of Trachalus and Italicus, up to the seventh consulship of Vespasian and that of Titus.

(Clemens is placed third, Cletus fourth, but by what reasoning is unknown: since the canon of the Mass sets forth the Tradition of the Roman Church in these words: of Linus, of Cletus, of Clemens.)

Cletus, six years, two months, ten days. He was in the times of Vespasian and Titus, and at the beginning of Domitian, from the consuls Vespasian (eighth time) and Domitian (fifth time), up to Domitian (ninth time) and Rufus.

Anacletus, twelve years, ten months, three days. He was in the times of Domitian, from the consulship of Domitian X and Sabinus, up to Domitian XVII and Clemens.

Evaristus, thirteen years, seven months, two days. He was in the latest times of Domitian, and of Nerva, and of Trajan, from the consulship of Valens and Verus, up to Gallus and Bradua.

Alexander, seven years, two months, one day. He was in the times of Trajan, from the consulship of Palma and Tullus, up to Aelianus and Vetus.

Sixtus, ten years, three months, twenty-one days. He was in the times of Hadrian, from the consulship of Niger and Apronianus, up to Veronius and Ambibulus.

Telesphorus, eleven years, three months, three days. He was in the times of Antoninus Macrinus, from the consulship of Titianus and Gallicanus, up to Caesar and Albinus.

Hyginus, twelve years, three months, six days. He was in the times of...

Anicetus, ... years, from the consulship of Gallicanus and Vetus, up to Praesens and Rufinus.

Pius, twenty years, four months, twenty-one days. He was in the times of Antoninus Pius, from the consulship of Clarus and Severus, up to the two Augusti. Under his episcopate his brother Hermes wrote a book, in which is contained the commandment that the Angel gave him when he came to him in the guise of a shepherd. Soter, nine years, three months. He was in the times of 5............................

Eleutherius, ..... years. He was in the times of Antoninus Commodus, from the consulship of Verus and Erenianus, up to Paternus and Bradua.

Victor, ten years, two months, ten days.............................

Zephyrinus, ..... years, from the consulship of Saturninus and Gallus, up to Praesens and Extricatus.

Callistus, 5 years, 2 months, 10 days. He was in the times of Macrinus and Heliogabalus, from the consulship of Antoninus and Adventus, up to Antoninus III and Alexander.

Urbanus, eight years, 11 months, 12 days. He was in the times of Alexander, from the consulship of Maximus and Aelianus, up to Agricola and Clementinus.

Pontianus, five years, two months, seven days. He was in the times of Alexander, from the consulship of Pompeianus and Pelignianus. At that time Pontianus the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter were deported as exiles to the harmful island of Sardinia, in the consulship of Severus and Quintinus: on that same island he was stripped of his office on the fourth day before the Kalends of October, and in his place Anteros was ordained on the eleventh day before the Kalends of December, in the consulships written above.

Anteros, one month, ten days. He fell asleep on the third day before the Nones of January, in the consulship of Maximinus and Africanus.

Fabianus, fourteen years, one month, ten days. He was in the times of Maximinus, and Gordian, and Philip, from the consulship of Maximinus and Africanus, up to that of Decius the second time and Gratus. He suffered on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of February. He divided the regions among the deacons, and ordered many structures to be built throughout the cemeteries. After his passion, Moyses and Maximus the presbyters and Nicostratus the deacon were arrested and sent to prison. At that time Novatus came from Africa, and separated Novatian from the Church, and certain confessors, after Moyses had died, who was there eleven months, eleven days.

Cornelius, two years, three months, ten days, from the consulships of Decius IV and Decius II to Gallus and Volusianus. During his episcopate, Novatus ordained Novatian outside the Church in the city of Rome, and Nicostratus in Africa. After this was done, the confessors who had separated themselves from Cornelius with Maximus the presbyter, who had been with Moses, returned to the Church. After this, driven out to Centumcellae, he there received his dormition in glory.

Lucius, three years, eight months, ten days. He was in the times of Gallus and Volusianus, up to Valerianus III and Gallienus II. He was an exile, and afterwards, by the will of God, he returned to the Church unharmed. He died on the Nones of March, in the consulships written above.

Stephen, four years, two months, twenty-one days. He was in the times of Valerianus and Gallienus, from the consulship of Volusianus and Maximinus, up to Valerianus III and Gallienus II.

Sixtus, two years, eleven months, six days. He began from the consulship of Maximus and Glabrio, up to Tuscu and Bassus, and he suffered on the eighth day before the Ides of August.......... from the consulship of Tuscu and Bassus, up to the day twelve days before the Kalends of August, in the consulships of Aemilianus and Bassus.

Dionysius, eight years, two months, four days. He was in the times of Gallienus, from the eleventh day before the Kalends of August, with Aemilianus and Bassus as consuls, up to the seventh day before the Kalends of January, with Claudius and Paternus as consuls.

Felix, five years, eleven months, twenty-five days. He was in the times of Claudius and Aurelian, from the consulship of Claudius and Paternus up to the consulship of Aurelian II and Capitolinus.

Eutychianus, eight years, eleven months, three days. He was in the times of Aurelian III and Marcellinus, up to the fourth day before the Ides of December, with Carus II and Carinus as consuls.

Caius, twelve years, four months, seven days. He was in the times of Carus and Carinus, from the sixteenth day before the Kalends of January, with Carus II and Carinus as consuls, up to the tenth day before the Kalends of May, with Diocletian VI and Constantius II as consuls.

Marcellinus, eight years, three months, twenty-five days. He was in the times of Diocletian and Maximian, from the day before the Kalends of July, from the consulship of Diocletian VI and Constantius II, up to the consulship of Diocletian IX and Maximian VIII. At that time there was a persecution, and the episcopate ceased for seven years, six months, twenty-five days.

Marcellus, one year, six months, twenty days. He was in the times of Maxentius, from the consulate of Maximian Herculius (his tenth) and Maximian Galerius (his seventh), up to after the tenth and seventh consulates.

Eusebius, four months, sixteen days, from the fourteenth day before the Kalends of May, up to the sixteenth day before the Kalends of September.

Miltiades, three years, six months, eight days, from the sixth day before the Nones of July; from the consulate of Maximian alone (his eighth), which was in the month of September, with Volusianus and Rufinus as consuls, up to the third day before the Ides of January, with Volusianus and Anianus as consuls.

Sylvester, twenty-one years, eleven months. He was in the times of Constantine, from the consulate of Volusianus and Anianus, and on the day before the Kalends of February, up to the day before the Kalends of January, with Constantine and Albinus as consuls.

Marcus, eight months, twenty days. He was in the times of Constantine, with Nepotianus and Facundus as consuls, from the fifteenth day before the Kalends of February up to the day of the Nones of October, with the aforesaid consuls.

Julius, fifteen years, one month, eleven days. He was in the times of Constantine, from the consulate of Felicianus and Titianus, from the eighth day before the Ides of February, to the day before the Ides of April, in the consulship of Constantius V and Constantius Caesar. He made many buildings—the basilica on the Via Portuensis at the third milestone; the basilica on the Via Flaminia at the second milestone, which is called that of Valentinus; the Julian basilica, which is in the seventh region, next to the forum of the deified Trajan; the basilica across the Tiber, in the fourteenth region, next to Calistus; the basilica on the Via Aurelia, at the third milestone, at Calistus.

Liberius was in the times of Constantine, from the eleventh day before the Kalends of June, to the day ... by the consuls Constantius V and Constantius Caesar.

A TREATISE COMPOSED IN FRENCH. ON THE EPOCH, AUTHOR, AND AUTHORITY OF THE PRECEDING CATALOGUE.

After they had placed this catalogue before the eyes of the reader, the learned Benedictines add the following: Such is the Chronicle of the Roman Pontiffs known under the name of the catalogue of Liberius. Before establishing its authority, we must first examine the epoch at which it was composed, and the author to whom it might be possible to attribute it.

Of all the scholars who have dealt with this monument, we know of none but Dodwell who wished to make it later than the time of Liberius, and he was refuted by Tillemont himself. Not to mention the argument that must naturally be drawn from the coincidence of the date of this monument with the four other small works that accompany it in the various manuscripts—a circumstance that by itself suffices to fix its date—since there is nothing in the text of the catalogue that contradicts this antiquity, does this chronicle not irrefutably bear the date of its composition in these last lines: Liberius was in the times of Constantius, from the eleventh day before the Kalends of June, to the day ... by the consuls Constantius V and Caesar.

"This ending," as Tillemont says, "befits far less a copyist halted by some accident than an author who knew the beginning of Liberius but did not know its end, because it had not yet arrived.

But there is another argument even more invincible. Besides the catalogue of the Popes said to be of Liberius, there exists another composed in the sixth century and stopping at Felix IV. Now this second catalogue, which Dodwell would have pass for the most ancient, while that of Liberius would be only its abridgment—this second catalogue, we say, inserts verbatim the consular fasti established in the first for the years of each Pope, and, having reached the time of Liberius, it ceases to give them, supplies them in no way, and does not resume them until more than a century after the time at which the Liberian Chronicle stops. Why, unless because the monument it was transcribing did not go beyond the consulate of Constance quinto and Constance Caesar? Now what can this monument be, if not the one that is the subject of the present discussion? It is therefore earlier than the Chronicle of Felix IV, of which it alone can even explain the strange lacuna. Pearson did not fear to make this remark, and Tillemont, almost as severe in the examination of Catholic traditions, judiciously observes that Dodwell's conjectures to make the catalogue of Liberius a simple abridgment of monuments of the sixth century are overturned by the experience of critics, who, he says, have always observed that works of this kind go rather in increasing than in diminishing, as is seen by experience.

The question of who is the author of the catalogue of Liberius is far from being as easy to clarify. Henschenius claimed that the first part of the Chronicle, which runs from Saint Peter to Saint Urban, was written by Saint Anteros, and the rest, up to Liberius, by Saint Damasus. Papebrock, in his Conatus Chronico-historicus ad Catalogos Romanorum Pontificum, went even further, seeking to prove that the second part of this Catalogue shows traces of four different hands. Schelstrate vigorously combats this system, which seems to us also to concede far too much to conjecture; but if we are inclined to follow this author when he shows that the compilers of this Catalogue cannot be named with precision, nor multiplied thus at fancy, without running the risk of proceeding somewhat at random, it appears to us that his arguments for proving the identity of style in all the parts of this Chronicle are far from conclusive. When one looks closely at it, it is difficult not to perceive in the different parts a great diversity of form; but would it not be possible to explain this by considering the monument as the assemblage, the compilation of notes or memoranda written at several periods?

Nothing resembles more closely a series of inscriptions recorded one after another than this Catalogue, which presents unity only in the thought that presided over its arrangement in the manner of a Chronicle.

Now who would have been the redactor, the compiler of this whole? Tillemont and Pagi would readily attribute the honor to Saint Damasus, and we are very much inclined to range ourselves on that side. However, we do not base our opinion on the two famous letters, one of which is attributed to this holy Pope and the other to Saint Jerome, and which have stirred scholars who have judged them in various directions. They appear today to be abandoned by everyone, and yet, in our view, the arguments produced in their favor by Ciampini in his Examen Libri Pontificalis are far from contemptible. Be that as it may, we refrain from citing them in this discussion, contenting ourselves with placing them in a note before the reader's eyes, so as to omit nothing of all that can make our work on the origins of the Papacy more complete.

If, then, we attribute to Saint Damasus the composition of the catalogue of Liberius, it is not on the faith of these two letters, but on the testimony of many authors who, from about the seventh or eighth century onward, never ceased to regard this Pope as the author of a Chronicle of the Roman Pontiffs. Since we cannot make Saint Damasus the author of the Liber Pontificalis, nor even of the Catalogue of Felix IV, monuments of a style too different from his own, we are essentially led to leave him the Chronicle of Liberius. Here again, though by a wholly different route, we shall find ourselves in agreement with Tillemont, who expresses himself thus in the passage we cited above: "I do not see why it is said that it is falsely that this catalogue is attributed to Saint Damasus, and why he could not have drawn it up, being a deacon in 353, when Pope Liberius was banished, and the catalogue appears to have been made in the year 354, under Pope Liberius.

It is in vain that Dom Ceilier objects that, in the notice of the writings of Saint Damasus, Saint Jerome does not name this Catalogue; for this Catalogue, which moreover seems to have been drawn up only out of an interest of locality, is not truly a book, and it is natural to suppose that it did not penetrate as far as the East, where Saint Jerome was writing, when one sees that even in the West it was only in the sixteenth century that people began to concern themselves with it. Dom Ceilier's other difficulty, that Saint Damasus did not put his name to this little work, as he did to almost all his epigrams and inscriptions, is no more serious. First, it is already to concede that he did not put it to everything that came from his pen; next, how would Saint Damasus have thought to put his name at the head of a Chronicle which is nothing other than the two-page compilation of a series of notes and inscriptions? Let us conclude, then, that the view which makes this holy Pope the author of the Chronicle of Liberius is supported on solid foundations. Another question, far more grave, that of the truth of the facts contained in this catalogue, now demands all our attention.

The facts contained in the Catalogue of Liberius are simply the consular fasti corresponding to the accession and the death of each Pope, the count of the years, months, and days of his pontificate, and finally a few historical details, few in number and very brief, as has been noted above. We shall examine in turn what degree of authority we ought to give to these various details. Let us begin with the consular fasti.

Once the antiquity of the Catalogue of Liberius has been established, it seems evident to us that a true authority must be recognized in the consular indications it contains, unless two things can be demonstrated, namely: that the Christians of Rome, who, as cannot be doubted from all that we have proved in the preceding chapters, had preserved the names of their bishops, did not use the consular fasti to mark the years of their episcopate; and, secondly, that, if they did so use them, it would have been impossible to gather the monuments of this kind drawn up by them during the first three centuries. Now we defy anyone whomsoever to produce the slightest proof in support of these two assertions, and yet one would have to begin by demonstrating them before attacking the authority of the Catalogue of Liberius regarding the truth of the consular computations it contains.

Meanwhile, we hope to prove that both of the opposing theses are certain.

First, the Christians of Rome used the consular fasti to count the years of the Popes. Our readers cannot be unaware that throughout the whole duration of the Roman Empire, the most usual and most national way of measuring time and ordering historical events was by the consuls. Not only was this usage accepted for matters concerning public order, but the circumstances of private life were subject to it as well; contracts between private individuals, everything, down to the most familiar details of the household, received this sanction just as did the very acts of the governing power. Thus laws and custom had established it in concert; and perhaps this usage was observed all the more willingly because, while it offered a means of recalling events less abstract than reckoning by numerals, it flattered the pride of private individuals by associating in some way the events of their existence with the destinies of the empire.

Christianity found this practice established when it appeared in this world; and since it presented nothing contrary to its doctrines or its morality, the first faithful, who were accustomed to employ it in civil life to give authority to their acts, must naturally have carried it over, with all its advantages, into the reckoning of religion. For what could there have been for them more important, more worthy of memory, than the succession and the years of the successors of Saint Peter, in whom that apostle continued always to teach and to govern the Church? Was there a subject more worthy of stirring that sentiment of nationality which a society always feels more strongly in proportion to the degree of spiritualism it professes, than the desire to preserve pure and certain the annals of these Pontiffs, so humble, so obscure, and yet depositaries of an authority whose effects, as may be seen in several examples in Eusebius, resounded to the farthest extremities of the East, and whose power, however buried it was beneath the vaults of subterranean Rome, rose by the third century to be rival enough of the Caesars that a Decius feared it as he would a competitor for the empire?

Let us not doubt that the Christians did well to preserve the memory of the heads of the Church by what they did every day in the interest of their domestic affairs; and even if the last traces of it were erased today, let us not be so ignorant of human nature as to believe that the first Christians would have let pass so much glory, and a glory so pure, without doing anything to preserve its memory.

Will it be said that this manner of reckoning by the consuls seemed to them too profane, too secular, even contrary to the austere dignity of a religion which took note of the particularities of the present life only in order to despise them? To this we will answer that, far from it, Christianity made it a kind of duty for them to employ this mode of computation. No one, doubtless, is ignorant of the sovereign respect which the first faithful had for the holy Scriptures, the zeal they applied to reproduce its genius and its circumstances in their habits, in their language. Not only did the ceremonies of worship take their origin from it, but the customs of private life were, as it were, imbued with it: they thought and expressed themselves only through these divine books. Their style and their images adorned the writings of the Tertullians and the Origens, at the same time as their sentences reinforced the already so sublime replies of the martyrs.

Now these books themselves, wholly heavenly and wholly supernatural, did not disdain to use, in the reckoning of divine events, the method in use for earthly calculations. They proceeded by the guidance of the records of humanity as by the light of a torch, and the word of God borrowed, so to speak, its certainty of fact from the events of this mortal dwelling-place.

To recall but a few examples here, opening first the Old Testament, at the section of the prophecies—those wholly spiritual phenomena of the first infusion of the divine Word by the Holy Spirit into humanity—you will find there the passing years of the kings of the earth attached as a necessary seal to the oracles of eternal Wisdom. Let us choose among a thousand examples: "The vision of Isaiah son of Amos concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." Further on: "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne," etc. "The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests who were in Anathoth, in the land of Benjamin. The word of the Lord came to him in the days of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. The word that was given to Jeremiah concerning the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, which is the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.

In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream, etc. In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar. In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the race of the Medes, who reigned over the empire of the Chaldeans, etc. In the third year of Cyrus king of the Persians, the word was revealed to Daniel, etc. This is surely enough, and we may dispense with citing the minor prophets, who furnish a far greater number of examples of this particularity. Let us pass on to the New Testament.

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, etc. Thus begins the narrative of the gospel history in Saint Luke. In the following chapter: In those days an edict went out from Caesar Augustus for the enrollment of the whole world. This enrollment was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Saint Matthew, speaking of the coming of the magi: When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi came from the East to Jerusalem.

Saint Luke, wishing to announce the preaching of Saint John, the solemn prelude to that of Christ, also determines its date by that of the princes of the time: In the fifteenth year of the empire of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Philip his brother tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias of Abilene, under the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came to John the son of Zacharias, in the desert, etc.

This is certainly more than enough to excuse the first Christians in their own eyes, when they used the consular fasti to fix the years of the Roman Pontiffs; and so that no one may think that these observations are the fruit of a systematic inquiry more ingenious than conclusive, we do not resist the desire to cite here the following passage of Saint Ambrose, who saw the matter from the same point of view, and who comments as follows on one of the texts we have just cited: "The enrollment of which Saint Luke speaks took place when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, as if the Evangelist wished to set upon his book, as a seal, a kind of consular indication. For if consuls are marked on contracts of purchase, what is more just than to employ this reckoning of time to fix the date of the universal redemption?

Here you have everything that is customarily set down for contracts: ordinarily, the name of the holder of sovereign authority is placed there, the day, the place, the cause, the witnesses. Christ likewise willed to make these various marks serve to certify his nativity and his generation according to the flesh, he who said to his apostles: Be witnesses to me in the presence of Jerusalem.

There is therefore no reason to be surprised that the first faithful carried over into the facts of religion a manner of reckoning which the genius of the sacred books rendered sacred to them, while at the same time the customs of the age left them no other at their disposal. Thus is explained this passage of Tertullian, in the book On the Crown of the Soldier: The common people have their festivals and their crowns, sometimes in honor of the fortune of the princes, sometimes for the particular solemnities of the city, and luxury is the substance of all these public joys. You, Christian, are a stranger to this world, a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem, as the Apostle says: Our city is in heaven. But do you not also have your lists? Do you not also have your fasti?

After having shown that the existence of Christian fasti during the first three centuries presents nothing that is not very natural, we shall have no difficulty in showing that they could still be read in those which the Christians of Rome would have drawn up for the years of the popes. A single reason would have made this reading impossible: it would be the case in which they had all perished before that time, but this supposition is inadmissible. Doubtless the persecutions, especially the last, destroyed a great quantity of monuments; but the small number that has remained to us, and which must necessarily have been still more considerable in the fourth century, suffices to prove that not everything had perished: we shall strengthen by facts these conjectures, which are moreover unassailable.

Let us take as an example the Acts of the Martyrs, monuments so important in the customs of the primitive Church, and on which the Christians would naturally have inscribed the consuls to fix the date of the glorious confession. Everyone knows that the greater part of these precious acts has been lost; but such is the certainty of our assertion that a single glance at the remnants that have remained to us will suffice to show to the least clear-sighted that in the time of Liberius one could far better still establish, with the aid of the consular torch, the ecclesiastical acts of the three preceding centuries.

We shall not cite here the acts of the martyrs judged authentic by the Bollandists in their immense compilation, nor in several other collections later than that of Dom Ruinart; let us stop simply at the collection of the latter as the most widespread, and let us read there at once what could far better still be read in the fourth century on so many monuments which time and the negligence of those who should have better preserved them, together with the ravages of the barbarians, have caused to disappear from the earth. Let us take at random from the Acta sincera of the learned and most impartial Benedictine.

In the year of Jesus Christ 107, the acts of Saint Ignatius of Antioch: Facta autem sunt haec die ante XIII Kalendas Januarias, praesidentibus apud Romanos Syrio et Senecio secundo. In the year 200, the proconsular acts of the Scillitan martyrs: In diebus illis praesidente bis Claudiano consule XVI Kal. August. In the year 250, the martyrdom of St. Pionius: Acta sunt haec sub Proconsule Julio Proclo et Quintiliano consule, Imperatore Gaio, mense quinto, Traiano Decio et Vizeto Grato, et, ut Romani dicunt, IIII Idus Martii, et, ut Asiani dicunt, mense sexto, die sabbati, hora decima. In the year 258, the proconsular acts of Saint Cyprian: Imperatore Valeriano quartum et Gallieno tertium Consulibus, tertio Kalendarum Septembrium, etc.

In the year 259, the acts of the holy martyrs Fructuosus, Augurius, and Eulogius: in the consulship of the emperors Valerian and Gallienus, and of Aemilianus and Bassus, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of February, on the Lord's Day, etc. In the year 285, the acts of the holy martyrs Claudius and Asterius: this passion was held in the city of Aegea, under the governor Lysias, on the tenth day before the Kalends of September, in the consulship of Augustus and Aristobulus, etc. In the year 295, the acts of St. Maximilian: in the consulship of Tuscus and Anullinus, on the fourth day before the Ides of March, at Teveste, etc. In the year 303, the acts of St. Felix the bishop: in the consulship of Diocletian Augustus for the eighth time and Maximian Augustus for the seventh time, etc. In the year 304, the acts of the holy Agape, Chionia, Irene, etc., in the consulship of Diocletian Augustus for the ninth time and Maximian Augustus for the eighth time, on the Kalends of April, etc. In the same year, the acts of St. Euplus the deacon: in the consulship of Diocletian for the ninth time and Maximian for the eighth time, on the day before the Ides of August, in the city of Catania, etc.

We stop here at last; but we wished to put the reader in a position to judge for himself that the most exacting criticism could not reject the consular chronology of the Catalogue of Liberius for the sole reason that this little work was composed only in the fourth century. Now the Catalogue of Liberius does not confine itself to indicating the consuls corresponding to the accession and death of the Roman Pontiffs; it also gives the years, months, and days of their reigns. Let us now examine the certainty of these details.

After having made the reader observe that these assignments of years, months, and days must have been more exposed to the errors of copyists over the centuries than even the consular fasti themselves, and that consequently we do not intend to vouch for all the figures with which the Catalogue of Liberius is filled, we say that nothing is less surprising in itself than the preservation of these chronological details at Rome in the fourth century. Have not the monumenta of history—and Dodwell himself has conceded it—preserved, despite the distance of time, the years, months, and days of the emperors? To do the same in the chronicle of the Popes, whose years were already determined by the consuls, were such great efforts therefore required?

And when the bulky writings of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen passed through such disastrous storms safe and sound, was it so impracticable to save the page on which had been written the years, days, and months during which about thirty bishops had sat, especially when the content of that page was so popular that it was, for that very reason, impossible for it to be lost?

For the facts come here again in support of what one might call our conjectures, and in this way. Is it not true that if we can prove that the Christians naturally knew the day of the death of most of the ancient Popes, it was for that very reason easy for them to reckon not only the years of their pontificate already designated by the consuls, but even in a certain manner the months and the days, independently of the records that the Church must have kept concerning all these things? Now no one can call this into doubt, with the slightest tincture of ecclesiastical antiquity. From the very origin of Christianity, the day of the death of the saints was consecrated by a feast in their honor under the beautiful name of birth, Natalis, preserved in the Roman liturgy.

Thus, from the year 107, in the circular letter sent around Rome to announce the confession of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, the Churches were told: "We indicate to you the day and the time, so that on the anniversary of his martyrdom we may all assemble in honor of so generous an athlete and witness of Christ." Such was the apostolic tradition. When the Roman Church addressed a message to the other Churches to notify them of the sublime death of its Pontiff, it never failed to transmit at the same time, so that it might be recorded, the day on which the sacrifice had been offered. "You will know," writes Saint Cyprian to Successus, one of the bishops of his province, "you will know that Sixtus was put to death in the cemetery, on the eighth day before the ides of August."

There was preserved therefore at Rome, by means of the memoirs and commemorations of the martyrs, the precise day on which each Pope had ended his course; and this is the place to set before the reader the famous ecclesiastical calendar of the Roman Church, which, drawn up also around the year 354, was part of the four short works that Cuspinian and Father Boucher found in the same manuscript beside the Catalogue of Liberius. In it will be seen the anniversaries of the various martyrs whose feast Christian Rome celebrated in the fourth century, and the inspection of this monument will contribute not a little to making the truth of our assertions palpable.

We give this calendar, not according to Dom Ruinart, who merely reproduced the reading of Father Boucher, but according to Father Conrad Janning, who published it without changing anything from the original reading, as Father Boucher had done in certain places.

THE DEPOSITION OF BISHOPS.

The sixth day before the Kalends of January.

The third day before the Kalends of January.

The day before the Kalends of January.

The fourth day before the Ides of January.

The eighteenth day before the Kalends of February.

The third day before the Nones of March.

The tenth day before the Kalends of May.

The fourth day before the Nones of August.

The sixth day before the Kalends of October.

The sixth day before the Ides of December.

The Nones of October.

The day before the Ides of April.

Of Dionysius, in the cemetery of Callistus.

Of Felix, in the cemetery of Callistus.

Of Silvester, in the cemetery of Priscilla.

Of Miltiades, in the cemetery of Callistus.

Of Marcellinus, in the cemetery of Priscilla.

Of Lucius, in the cemetery of Callistus.

Of Gaius, in the cemetery of Callistus.

Of Stephen, in the cemetery of Callistus.

Of Eusebius, in the cemetery of Callistus.

Of Eutychianus, in the cemetery of Callistus.

Of Mark, in the cemetery of Balbina.

Of Julius, on the Via Aurelia, at the third milestone, in the cemetery of Callistus.

THE DEPOSITION OF MARTYRS.

The eighth day before the Kalends of January. Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.

IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY.

The thirteenth day before the Kalends of February: Fabian, at Callistus's; and Sebastian, in the Catacombs.

The twelfth day before the Kalends of February: Agnes, on the Nomentan Way.

IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY.

The eighth day before the Ides: the Nativity of Peter at the Chair.

IN THE MONTH OF MARCH.

The Nones of March: Perpetua and Felicitas, in Africa.

IN THE MONTH

The fourteenth day before the Kalends of June: Parthenius and Calocerus, at Callistus's, in the consulship of Diocletian for the eighth time and Maximian for the eighth time.

IN THE MONTH OF JUNE.

The third day before the Kalends of July: Peter, in the Catacombs; and Paul, on the Ostian Way; in the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus.

IN THE MONTH OF JULY.

The sixth day before the Ides: Felix and Philip, at Priscilla's; and among the Jordani, Martial, Vitalis, Alexander; and at Maximus's, Silanus—this martyr Silanus Novalis stole away; and at Praetextatus's, Januarius.

The third day before the Kalends of August: Abdo and Semnes, at Pontianus's, which is at the Ursus Pileatus.

IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST.

The eighth day before the Ides of August: Sixtus, at Callistus's; and at Praetextatus's, Agapitus and Felicissimus.

The seventh day before the Ides of August: Secundus, Carpophorus, Victorinus, and Severianus, on the Alban Way and the Ostian Way.

The sixth day before the Ides of August: Cyriacus, Largus, Crescentianus, Memmia, Julianus, and Ixmaracdus at the Ballistaria.

The fourth day before the Ides of August: Laurentius, on the Tiburtine Way.

The same day of August: Hippolytus, on the Tiburtine Way; and Pontianus, at the Callistus cemetery.

The eleventh day before the Kalends of September: Timotheus, on the Ostian Way.

The fifth day before the Kalends of September: Hermes, at the Basilica, on the Old Salarian Way.

IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER.

The Nones of September: Acontius, at the Portus; and Nonnus and Herculanus and Taurinus.

The fifth day before the Ides of September: Gorgonius, on the Labican Way.

The third day before the Ides of September: Protus and Jacinthus, at the Basilica.

The eighteenth day before the Kalends of October: Cyprian, in Africa; at Rome he is celebrated at the Callistus cemetery.

The Kalends of October: Basilla, on the Old Salarian Way; in the consulship of Diocletian for the ninth time and Maximian for the eighth.

IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER.

The day before the Ides of October: Callistus, on the Aurelian Way at the third milestone.

IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER.

The sixth day before the Ides of November: Clement, Sempronianus, Clavus, Nitratus, at the comitatum.

The third day before the Kalends of December: Saturninus, at the Traso.

IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER.

The Ides of December: Aristo, in Pontus. Dom Mabillon published in the third volume of his Analecta a calendar of the same kind and almost of the same age, for the use of the Church of Carthage. We reproduce it below in a note as a supplement to that of Rome. The reader will thereby be able to judge how, by means of the comparison of the calendars of the various churches, it became easy to compose that famous martyrology of the Roman Church of which Saint Gregory the Great speaks to Eulogius, and in which he expressly says that one found the precise day on which each martyr had suffered.

Finally, all those details that we take pleasure in accumulating will have abundantly served to prove that one could not without temerity claim that it was impossible in the fourth century to determine in detail the petty circumstances of the time of each pontificate: we shall now answer our Protestant adversaries.

The first objection, which is common to Dodwell and Pearson, is that Saint Irenaeus and Saint Epiphanius, who cited the succession of the Roman Pontiffs in their treatises against the heretics, and Eusebius, Rufinus, Saint Prosper, and the other historians and chroniclers who inserted it into their accounts, none of them determined in the same detail as the Catalogue of Liberius the years, months, and days of the see of these bishops of Rome. Nothing is easier to answer than this difficulty. Why would the holy doctors Irenaeus and Epiphanius, to whom Saint Optatus and Saint Augustine could also have been joined, have cited so minutely to the heretics the months and days of the Roman Pontiffs, when they needed only to show their succession simply in order to stop the mouth of all innovators?

As for the chroniclers, who does not see that this detail, so multiplied with months and days, would have made them depart from the kind of work they had undertaken, which consists solely in tracing the principal chronological lines and not at all in probing these particularities in different cases? Finally, even if the nature of the historical work that Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret had imposed upon themselves had required them to enter into those minutiae that a chronicle must neglect, what wonder is it that these authors should have been ignorant of them in the East where they were writing, while Rome kept these domestic traditions with complete certainty?

Pearson, who was struck as we were by the argument that can be formed in favor of the computations of months and days in the Catalogue of Liberius from the consideration of the customs of the ancient Church, which carefully preserved the anniversary memorials of the martyrs, makes every effort to escape the consequences that we draw from it.

He regards the Roman calendar that we have just cited as a very respectable monument and highly important for the chronology of the Popes, since it contains the days of their Deposition; but he launches into a wholly gratuitous assertion when he claims that the author of the Catalogue of Liberius had no other records for drawing up the account of the months and days that he assigned to the various Popes, and that, since this calendar, according to Pearson, contains the Deposition of only twelve Popes, from Saint Lucius to Saint Julius, the compiler of the Catalogue must necessarily have taken from his own imagination the circumstances of time that he attributed to the preceding pontificates.

We answer first that it is not accurate to count only twelve Depositions of Bishops in the calendar, when on closer examination it is easy to find four others under the title of Depositions of the martyrs, namely of Saint Fabian, XIII Kal. Feb.; of Saint Sixtus, VIII Id. Aug.; of Saint Callixtus, Pridie Id. Nov.; and of Saint Clement, V Id. Nov. So sixteen in all, to which we would be entitled to add further Saint Peter, whose day of martyrdom is marked III Kal. Jul.

Now, because this precious calendar has come down to us, is it sensible to conclude that it was the only indication that could be found in the third century concerning the days of the deaths of thirty Popes who had sat until then, and can this wholly gratuitous negative conjecture prevail over the weighty reasons by which we have sought to demonstrate to the reader's good sense that a religious institution as strong and as powerful as the Roman Church must have had, after three centuries of duration, records somewhat more extensive and detailed than those which we can today set down in two pages?

The author of the Catalogue of Liberius will have had the calendar in his hands and will have used it to compose his chronicle, Pearson tells us. For our part, we would just as readily say that these two small works were composed simultaneously from earlier records; for the author of the Catalogue of Liberius could not have taken from the calendar the consular fasti that he uses, since they were not in it, but on the other hand the author of the calendar could well have written the dates of death of the sovereign Pontiffs according to the catalogue; although, however, we do not claim to affirm this, but simply to oppose a probability to an assertion devoid of any shadow of plausibility.

But Pearson further says that from the annals of the see of Rome itself one can draw certain proof that whatever is authentic in the fasti of the papacy of the first three centuries is found in the Calendarium of Father Boucher; for the twelve bishops whose date of deposition is given as certain are later than Fabian, who established the notaries and founded, in the middle of the third century, the archives of the Roman Church, which until then it had not had.

Since we shall establish in the following volume that the institution of the notaries of the apostolic see dates from the first century, and not from the third, and that we cannot enter upon this interesting discussion here, we shall confine ourselves to repeating what we have already had occasion to remark several times, namely, that notes on the names, years, months, and days of the bishops of Rome did not form so considerable a work that one is obliged to imagine a body of notaries officially occupied in accomplishing it; that it cannot be supposed without absurdity that the Roman Church, which even then played so great a role, as is seen from the affair of the Pascha, and which addressed such powerful epistles to the other Churches, from the time of Saint Clement, would have passed more than two centuries without having even thought of creating for its own needs any kind of archives; so that Saint Fabian, called to govern it, would have found it mute concerning all its past, so fertile, so glorious nevertheless, without memories or writings or monuments—in a word, known to all the churches, according to Saint Irenaeus, and not knowing itself. In truth, the learned Anglican counts far too much on the simplicity of his readers, and we cannot wonder enough that the paradoxes of his work were not sooner refuted by Catholic authors.

However, since there is never an error that has not had its more or less well-founded pretext, we will readily acknowledge that from about the time of Saint Fabian, that is to say from the middle of the third century, one finds in the Catalogue of Liberius more that is positive in the details, dates less fluctuating but more precise and more circumstantial. It is evident that from that time more care was put into the drafting of the memorials, and that the improvements of the holy Pope produced their fruit in the archives of the Apostolic See. For his part, the author of the catalogue recorded the monuments as he found them, in their more or less disparate form, without attempting to give his work a unity of color that a forger would not have failed to seek; and this brings us back once more to our conclusion, that in the assignment he made of the years, months, and days of each Pope, while his authority cannot fail to be very great, his good faith remains fully to be established.

We have only a few words to say on the authenticity of the facts inserted beyond the chronological notices in the Catalogue of Liberius. First, they are very few in number. At the pontificate of Saint Pius, there is a note on Hermas, the author of the book of the Shepherd, who is said to have been the brother of this Pope. This book is certainly by Hermas and still exists. The kinship of its author with Saint Pius is a question debated among scholars. In the entry for Saint Pontian, there are a few lines in which it is said that he was relegated to Sardinia and was martyred there. Nothing is less suspect than this tradition, so simple and so unambitiously told. On Saint Fabian, it is said that he divided the regions among the deacons and had constructions made in the cemeteries. We will prove later the certainty of this information. What is said of Moyses, Maximus, and Nicostratus, as well as of Novatus and Novatian, is abundantly supported by the letters of Saint Cyprian. One can verify at the same source the facts alleged at the pontificate of Saint Cornelius. The note on the exile and return of Saint Lucius likewise offers no matter for dispute. No one doubts the persecution of Diocletian and Maximian, of which mention is made in the entry for Saint Marcellus.

Finally, nothing is easier to justify than the details inserted in the pontificate of Saint Julius concerning the construction of the basilicas which acknowledge him as their founder.

We end here what we had to say on the Catalogue of Liberius; and at the same time we feel the need to repeat that, if we present this monument as ancient and venerable, we are far from concealing the imperfections it contains. Some of these must be charged to the copyists, others must be attributed to the injury of time; several perhaps which will have come from the insufficiency of the records, which, in such and such a circumstance, the compiler will have sought to supply by conjectures more or less fortunate. The assignment of the consuls to certain pontificates is evidently faulty and several times throws a certain confusion into the years. Besides the general explanations we have just given, we are rather fond of the system of Father Henschenius, who conjectures that several times persons elevated to the papacy having been for some years vicars of their predecessor, as Saint Clement was of Saint Lin and Saint Clet, the year of their episcopal ordination will have been confused with that of their accession to the Holy See, and it would not have taken more than this to engender a confusion become almost irremediable through the lapse of time.

In the same way, by moderately adopting another idea of the learned Jesuit—strongly opposed by Father Pagi on the ground that it is false in its generality—we could explain certain errors made regarding days and months by means of a common mistake that would have caused the day of the death of this or that Pope to be taken for that of his burial, entered in the calendar for one reason or another. For the rest, we leave these hypotheses for what they are; but since we must sometimes combat and reform the Catalogue of Liberius in certain details, we owed the public this frank explanation, which in no way weakens in our eyes the importance of this monument, one of the most authentic of all Christian antiquity.