Baring-Gould’s sources: Roman Martyrology, “ At Rome S. Cyrilla the Virgin, daughter of S. Tryphonia, who suffered under Claudius.” But the Martyrologium Parvum has, “ At Rome Cyrilla, daughter of Decius Caesar; ” so Ado, Usuardus, Wandelbert, &c.] The Itinerary of Rome, written between theyears 625-638, 1 says that in the cemetery of the Via Roman tana is the church of S. Hippolytus and of Concordia, and in another recess S. Tryphonia, queen and martyr, and Cyrilla her daughter and martyr, whom Menius Decius slew. William of Malmesbury says much the same: “Near the Via Tiburtina reposes S. Laurence in his church,... and not far off is the basilica of S. Hippolytus, where he reposes with his family, in number 18(28). And there rest the blessed Triphonia, wife of Decius, and her daughter Cyrilla, and Concordia the nurse of Hippolytus.” Nothing is known of Cyrilla except what is told us in the fabulous acts of S. Laurence, that Decius having slain Laurence, was possessed with the devil and died. This so frightened his wife Tryphonia and his daughter Cyrilla, that they believed in Christ and were baptized. Tryphonia died of the excitement seven days after. Claudius then ordered the execution of Cyrilla.

This ridiculous nonsense hardly deserves consideration. It is needless to say that it is utterly unhistorical. The Acts of S. Laurence are a poor and foolish romance without the 1 Roma, sotterranea, t. i. p. 144.

merit even of being interesting. Probably Cyrilla and Tryphonia are the creations of imagination. Certainly Decius [Roman emperor 249–251, who ordered everyone to sacrifice to the gods] had no wife and daughter of those names. Their bodies were dug up by Pope Paul I., in the 8th century. They are now in the church of S. Martin [St. Martin of Tours (d. 397), soldier turned bishop] in Montibus.

S. FIRMILIAN, B. OF CiESAREA. [Greek Menseas and Menologies, African Martyrology, Martyrology of Jerome, Bede [English monk and historian (d. 735)], Floras, Ado, Hrabanus; but omitted from the Modern Roman Martyrology by Baronius [Cardinal Baronius (d. 1607), church historian who edited the Roman Martyrology] because of his letter to Pope Stephen.] S. Firmilian was a native of Cappadocia [a region of central Turkey], of noble birth, and a student of philosophy under Origen at Caesarea.1 Firmilian became bishop of Caesarea about 232. He induced Gregory, afterwards Bishop of Neocaesarea, commonly called Thaumaturgus, or the Wonderworker, to become a disciple of that remarkable teacher. About 232, not long after Firmilian was made bishop, a synod was held at Tanium, at which he was present, on the vexed question of the re-baptizing of heretics.

The first synod of whicli we know anything, held in the 3rd century, was one convoked by Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of the bishops of Africa and Numidia, at that city. S. Cyprian speaks of this synod in his 71st and 73rd letters, saying therein that the bishops present had unanimously declared void baptism conferred by heretics. The date when this synod took place can be fixed by means of the Philosophumena of S. Hippolytus as taking place between 218 and 222. This work relates that the practice of re-baptizing those who had received heretical baptism was 1 S. Gregor. Nyss. op., Migne Patr. Grsec. t. xlvi. coL 906. •S'. Firmilian.

introduced by Pope S. Callixtus in several churches in relation with him. The reference is doubtless to Agrippinus and his synod of Carthage; for S. Augustine and S. Vincent of Lerins expressly state that Agrippinus was the first to introduce the practice of re-baptizing. The synod of Carthage therefore took place in the reign of Callixtus I., between 218 and 222. This date agrees well with the fact that Tertullian was the first Christian writer to declare invalid the baptism of heretics; and one may presume that his book “ De Baptismo ” exercised some influence on the conclusions of the Council of Carthage.

The great Origen gave rise to two synods at Alexandria. Having been called about 228 into Achaia, Origen passed through Palestine, and was ordained priest at Caesarea by his friend Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, Bishop of Caesarea, although two objections stood against his receiving sacred orders from them— he belonged to another diocese, and he was a self-made eunuch. Demetrius of Alexandria, the diocesan bishop of Origen, was highly dissatisfied at this step, and on the return of Origen to Alexandria expressed his displeasure, and recalled to him the fact of his mutilation.1 But his chief opposition to Origen was on account of the doctrines contained in his books, “De Principiis” and the “Stromata.” Origen finding it impossible to remain at Alexandria subject to the displeasure of the bishop, departed. Demetrius gathered a synod of Egyptian bishops and priests of Alexandria in 231, which declared Origen unworthy to teach, and excluded him from the church of Alexandria. Demetrius presided at a second synod at Alexandria in which Origen was declared deprived of his sacerdotal dignity; and an encyclical published by Demetrius announced these resolutions to all the provinces. About this time, probably in 232, a synod was held at Iconium, which, like that of Carthage under Agrippinus, declared invalid every baptism administered by heretics. The fullest account we have of this council is given in a letter addressed by S. Firmilian to S. Cyprian of Carthage, and which is preserved among the letters of the latter. It says: “Some of the faithful having raised doubts relative to the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we decided, some time ago, in a council held at Iconium in Phrygia with the bishops of Galatia, Cilicia, and the neighbouring provinces, that the ancient practice (of holding invalid baptism administered by heretics) should be maintained and supported.0 At the end of the letter we read * “ Amongst us, as we have only recognized one Church, so have we only acknowledged the one baptism of this Church. Some having had doubts on the validity of the baptism conferred by those who admit new prophets (the Montanists), but who seem to adore the same Father and the same Son as we, we met in great numbers at Iconium; we examined the question very carefully, and we decided that every baptism outside the Church ought to be rejected.” From a passage in the third chapter of S. Augustine’s third book against Cresconius, it would seem that the Council of Iconium consisted of fifty Eastern prelates.

When Origen left Alexandria, at the invitation of S. Firmilian he took up his abode at Caesarea in Cappadocia. He held him in the greatest honour, as did also Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine, who regarded him as a master, and listened to his interpretation of Scripture with enthusiasm. In 235 the persecution ol Maximinus broke out, and lasted till 238. A letter of S. Firmilian to S. Cyprian gives an account of the distress of the Church in Cappadocia and Pontus [a region on the Black Sea coast of Turkey] during this trying season. There had been repeated earthquakes in Asia Oct. a&] Firmilian. 689 Minor, he says, so serious that whole cities had been ruined and engulfed. This excited the people against the Christians, who attributed these disasters to the anger of the gods because their worship was deserted for that of Christ. The Governor of Cappadocia, Serenianus, shared the prejudices of the common people, and persecuted the Church with relentless animosity. Nor was this all. The believers were seduced by a woman who feigned herself to be a prophetess, went into raptures, and professed herself inspired by the Divine Spirit. She drew away one priest and a deacon, and great numbers of the laity; and carried her infatuation to the extent of baptizing her disciples and consecrating the Eucharist. At last an exorcist opposed her, and his ceremonial rites and denunciations of the unclean spirit, which he was determined to believe possessed her, so scared the woman, that in a revulsion of feeling she confessed she was the agent of diabolical inspiration.

We hear nothing more of S. Firmilian till the time oi S. Cornelius, created Bishop of Rome in 251, who suffered martyrdom in the following year. Eusebius [Eusebius of Caesarea (d. c. 339), the first historian of the Church] says that Dionysius of Alexandria “ wrote to Cornelius of Rome in answer to an epistle from him against Novatus (Novatian); in which answer he shows that he had been invited by Helenus, Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, and the rest that were collected with him, viz., Firmilian, bishop in Cappadocia, and Theoctistus of Palestine, that he should meet them at the Council of Antioch, where certain persons were trying to establish the schism of Novatus (Novatian).” 1 The question of the baptism of heretics was again revived in 255, when, some African bishops being of opinion that those who joined the Church from heretical sects should not be rebaptized, eighteen Numidian bishops who were of a different opinion asked the synod of Carthage to give a decision on iji if t the question. This synod was presided over by S. Cyprian, and was composed of thirty-one bishops. The 70th letter of S. Cyprian is, in fact, the reply of the synod to the question of the Numidian bishops. It informs them that “ their opinion on the baptism of heretics is perfectly just; that no one can be baptized outside the Church, as there is but one baptism, and that is into the Church.”

Soon after, however, in 256, a far larger council was held at Carthage on the same subject, attended by seventy-one bishops. A synodal letter was written by the assembly, addressed to Pope Stephen, in which it was laid down that “ he who abandoned a sect must be rebaptized, ” and adding that “ it did not suffice to lay hands on such converts for the reception of the Holy Ghost, if they did not also receive the baptism of the Church.” At the close of the letter the synod expresses its hope that Stephen will assent to their decision; too often, the letter adds, one does not like to renounce an opinion one has defended, and more than one bishop, without breaking with his colleagues, will be tempted, no doubt, to persevere in the custom he has embraced; the synod has no intention of doing violence to anyone, or of prescribing a universal law, as every bishop can make his own will prevail in the Church for which he must render an account to God.

When the legates of the Carthaginian synod came to Rome, Pope Stephen showed great indignation at the decision; he refused even to see and listen to them, would not admit them to communion, forbade the faithful from receiving them into their houses and showing them the ordinary rites of hospitality, and did not hesitate to call S. Cyprian a false Christian, a false apostle, a deceitful worker. Pope Stephen emphatically pronounced his opinion that the baptism of heretics was valid, and against the practice of reiterating the sacrament on those who had already received heretical S. Firmilian.

baptism. On receiving the letter of Stephen containing this violent expression of anger and opinion, S. Cyprian summoned a third council at Carthage. It was composed of eighty-seven bishops of proconsular Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, of many priests and deacons, and a crowd of laity. The acts of this synod exist. It opened on September 1, but the year is not indicated; it was probably 256. The Bishop of Carthage required each bishop present to express freely his opinion on the baptism of heretics; he declared that no person should be judged or excommunicated for differences of opinion; for, added he, with scarce veiled reference to Stephen of Rome, no one in this assembly gives himself out to be episcopus episcoporum, or dreams of constraining his colleagues to yield to him by inspiring them with tyrannical fear.

Thereupon the bishops gave their votes in hierarchical order, Cyprian last, and all with one consent decided that baptism conferred by heretics was invalid, and that for admission into the Church those who had received heretical baptism must submit to be rebaptized. About this time Cyprian sent his deacon Rogatian with a letter to Firmilian, to inform him of the decision come to in Africa on this question. He communicated to him at the same time, apparently, the acts and documents relating to this affair.

Firmilian hastened to express his full agreement with Cyprian in a letter which still exists. This letter, moreover, contains an expression of his unbounded indignation at the conduct of Pope Stephen, who had threatened to excommunicate the Churches of Asia Minor if they adopted the same practice.

Firmilian says plainly that Stephen separated himself from the other churches, and not these churches from him. He calls the Pope a schismatic, inasmuch as he had withdrawn from the unity of the Church;l and by allowing the baptism of heretics, he had shown himself to be worse than all heretics.3 He speaks of his just indignation being excited by the plain and palpable folly of Stephen, who boasted of his episcopal rank and succession from S. Peter:3 as for this latter pretension, he intimates that at Rome things are done which have no tradition to support them, and are yet given out as reposing on apostolic authority.4 The Alexandrian Church appears also to have agreed with Cyprian rather than with the Bishop of Rome. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Stephen; and though his letter is lost, he seems to have exhorted him to moderation, and to have told him that the few decisions which were on record pronounced heretical baptisms to be invalid. His letter, perhaps, produced some impression at Rome, for two of Stephen’s clergy wrote to consult him upon the subject, and received letters in reply; from which we may infer that even at Rome the conduct of the Pope was not considered quite satisfactory. The breaking out of the persecution of Valerian [Roman emperor 253–260, who persecuted bishops and clergy] and the martyrdom of Stephen put an end to the contest. When the storm was passed, Dionysius of Alexandria wrote: “ All the Churches throughout the East, and farther, that were formerly divided, have been united again. All the bishops, also, are everywhere in harmony, rejoicing exceedingly at the peace which has been established beyond expectation. These are Demetrianus of Antioch, Theoctistus of Caesarea, Mazabanes of^Elia, Marinus of Tyre, Heliodorus of Laodicea, Helenus of 1 “ Peccatum quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te a tot gregibus scidisti ? Excidisti enim te ipsum, noli te fallere. Si quidem ille est vere schismaticus, qui se a communione ecclesiasticac unitatis apostatam fecerit. Dum enim putas omnes a te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti.” 3 “ Quin immo tu hacreticis omnibus pejor es." 3 “ Atque ego in hac parte juste indignor ad hanc tam apertam et manifestam Stephani stultitiam, quod qui sic de episcopatus sui loco gloriatur, et de successione Petri tenere contendit.”

4 “ Eos autem qui Rom* sunt non ea in omnibus observare qu* sint ab origine tradita. et frustra apostolorum auctoritatem p rw tend ere. M ifc — Oct. *8.] S.Ftmiilian. 693 I Tarsus, and all the Churches of Cilicia, Firrailian, and all Cappadocia; for I have mentioned only the more distinguished of the bishops by name.”1 [ The restoration of peace after persecution brought speedily j a renewal of troubles within. * Paul, a native of Samosata, was at this time Bishop of \ Antioch, having succeeded Demetrianus in 260. If we may [ believe the account which was given of him by the bishops j his contemporaries, he was rapacious and fraudulent in j amassing wealth, and his moral conduct was believed to be not free from suspicion. But what was as serious and more dangerous, was the fact that Paul taught doctrines concerning the nature of our Blessed Lord which savoured strongly of heresy.

Sabellius had sought to fortify the idea of the unity of the Godhead in the doctrine of the Trinity by suppressing the difference of Persons, and admitting in place of Persons three modes of operation and manifestations of the activity of the One God. Paul of Samosata took an opposite line. He separated the Persons, especially the Father from the Son, by a chasm. He, like Sabellius, confounded the Persons, for he regarded the Logos as an emanation from God, not as a Personality. He admitted that Jesus was miraculously bom of a Virgin, but not that He was incarnate God; he taught that He was a supereminently distinguished man, penetrated by the Logos, the Spirit of God, which sanctified Him, and made Him even worthy to bear the divine Name. He added that, as the Logos is not a person, so the Holy Spirit is only an impersonal divine virtue belonging to the Father, and only intellectually distinguishable from Him. His impiety became most extravagant as his views met with opposition and condemnation, for he forbade the singing of hymns in honour of Jesus Christ.

VOL. XII. 22 That the bishop of so great a see as Antioch should be accused of heresy was a new event ip the annals of the Church, The matter demanded investigation of the most solemn description. A council was summoned to meet at Antioch, and hear the explanations of Paul. In 264 or 265 a large number of the bishops of Asia, notably S. Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, S. Gregory the Wonder-worker and his brother Athenodorus of Pontus, Archbishop Helenus of Tarsus, Nicomas of Iconium, Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Caesarea in Palestine,1 and many other bishops, priests, and deacons assembled at Antioch. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria had been invited, but his age and infirmity prevented him from attending, and he died shortly after. He, however, addressed a letter to Paul of Samosata condemnatory of his errors, as he had formerly condemned those of Sabellius.

The council dealt most tenderly with the Bishop of Antioch, and showed an earnest desire not to proceed to extremities, but to forbear in love. Paul skilfully enveloped his doctrine in a cloud of Platonic expressions, which bewildered the bishops, and led them to believe that his doctrine had been misstated or exaggerated in the form in which it had been reported to them. He entirely disclaimed those tenets which had been imputed to him. The council separated, thanking God that concord was re-established and a scandal averted. But before long they were again obliged to assemble at Antioch. Firmilian appears to have presided at the former council, he certainly did so at the second. The date of this second synod is not known. It condemned explicitly the doctrine of Paul, who promised to renounce his errors; and deceived by his promises, Firmilian and the other bishops withdrew, leaving him still in possession of the see.

teenus ui 26a S. Malchion. 695 But Paul did not fulfil his engagement and retract his errors; for soon the rumour spread that he was teaching them with renewed energy. The bishops, however, did not wish immediately to cut him off from the communion of the Church; they sought again with patience and forbearance to draw him back to the right way, and for this purpose addressed him a letter. It was only when this tentative failed that a third council was convoked to assemble at Antioch at the close of the year 269.

S. Firmilian started from Caesarea to attend it, but died at Tarsus, on his way, of extreme old age. Baronius, disliking the tenour and temper of his letter to Stephen of Rome, cut his name out of the Sacred Kalendar of the West.