It was in the Time of _Anastasius_, and soon after his Election, that

the famous Dispute arose between _Jerom_ and _Ruffinus_, which was

afterwards carried on with a Warmth on both Sides quite unbecoming Men

of their Profession. Of this Quarrel, and the Part _Anastasius_ acted on

that Occasion, the Writers of those Times give us the following Account.

_Ruffinus_, a Presbyter of _Aquileia_, and a great Admirer of _Origen_,

having accompanied _Melania_, whom he had attended Twenty-five Years at

_Jerusalem_, on her Return to _Rome_ in the Time of _Syricius_, was

received there with extraordinary Marks of Esteem by the _Roman_ Clergy,

and _Syricius_ himself, as I have observed elsewhere[1352]. [Sidenote:

Ruffinus _translates_ Origen_’s_Periarchon.] Encouraged by the

Reception he met with, he continued a whole Year at _Rome_; and during

that Time published, but without putting his Name to it, a _Latin_

Translation of _Origen_’s _Periarchon_, or _Treatise of Principles_,

having first removed the Prejudice which some might entertain against

that Writer, by the Translation of an Apology, which the Martyr

_Pamphylus_ had composed in his Vindication, while he was in Prison. To

this Apology he added a Piece of his own, shewing that most of the

Errors ascribed to _Origen_ had been maliciously inserted into his Works

by his Enemies after his Death[1353]. In the Preface to the _Periarchon_

itself he also declared, that, in Imitation of a learned Brother,

meaning _Jerom_, who had translated above Seventy of _Origen_’s Books,

he had either corrected or suppressed such Errors as had appeared to him

repugnant to the Articles of the Catholic Faith[1354]. [Sidenote: _Many

at_ Rome _embrace the Errors of_ Origen.] The Work, thus recommended,

was received with uncommon Applause at _Rome_, and the Sentiments of

_Origen_ greedily embraced, and warmly maintained, by great Numbers of

the Clergy as well as the Laity, to whom _Origen_ had till then been, it

seems, utterly unknown. This happened in the Time of _Syricius_, who,

either not suspecting _Ruffinus_, as he had not put his Name to the

Translation, or perhaps not judging him worthy of Censure for barely

relating the Sentiments of another, or supposing that, agreeably to his

Preface, he had suppressed whatever was wrong in the original Work, gave

him Letters of Communion at his Departure from _Rome_: for he had no

sooner published his Translation than he left that City and returned to

_Aquileia_. _Syricius_ died soon after, and _Anastasius_ was no sooner

chosen in his room, than the famous _Roman_ Matron _Marcella_, offended

at the new Doctrines that began to prevail in _Rome_, applied to him,

pressing him to put a Stop to the growing Evil, and at the same time

accusing _Ruffinus_ as the Author of the Translation, to which alone it

was owing[1355]. [Sidenote: _Errors left in the Work, notwithstanding

the Corrections made by the Translator._] To make good this Charge,

she produced some Copies corrected with _Ruffinus_’s own Hand; and

several Persons appeared, who, having by her means been reclaimed from

the Errors of _Origen_, owned they had been led into them by the

Disciples of _Ruffinus_[1356]. This _Jerom_ cannot relate without

launching into the Praises of his Heroine _Marcella_, crying up her

Zeal, extolling her Courage and Resolution, in thus making head against

so numerous a Band, meaning the _Origenists_ in _Rome_, while the Clergy

declined that Trouble, or rather promoted the Doctrines they ought to

have opposed. But elsewhere he will not allow Women, under any Pretence

whatsoever, to concern themselves in religious Controversies. _To meddle

in Disputes concerning Faith or Religion, is not at all the Province_

(says he, with the Words of St. _Paul_) _of silly Women, laden with

Sins, led away with divers Lusts, ever learning, and never able to come

to the Knowlege of the Truth_[1357]. But he speaks here of _Melania_,

who was no less attached to _Ruffinus_ than _Marcella_ was to him.

[Sidenote: Jerom_’s Charge against_ Ruffinus.]

In the _Periarchon_ were contained, without all doubt, many unfound and

unwarrantable Notions, and _Ruffinus_ corrected those only that related

to the Trinity. _He corrected_, says _Jerom_, _what_ Origen _had

impiously written concerning the Trinity, being well apprised it would

have given great Offence at_ Rome. _But as to his other Errors, those

especially concerning the Fall of the Angels, and the first Man, the

Resurrection, the World or Worlds of_ Epicurus, _the Restoration of all

Things_, &c. _he either left them, as he found them in the Original, or

confirmed them with Reasons borrowed from the Comment of_ Didymus, _an

avowed Defender of_ Origen. _Thus he declared himself a Catholic with

respect to the Trinity; that in other Points the Reader might not be

aware of him as an Heretic_[1358].

[Sidenote: Ruffinus_’s Answers_.]

In Answer to this Charge, _Ruffinus_ declared, that it was never his

Intention to correct all the Errors that were ascribed to _Origen_; that

the Declaration he had made, in his Preface to the _Periarchon_, ought

to be restrained to those Errors only that related to the Trinity; and

that it was very uncharitable to judge of his Faith, from the Faith of

the Author he translated, and not from his own Words. He then declares

his Sentiments touching some particular Points, in which _Origen_ was

thought to differ from the Church; adding, that where _Origen_ differed

from the Catholic Church, he differed from _Origen_.

[Sidenote: Jerom _condemns_ Origen, _and inveighs against_ Ruffinus.]

_Anastasius_, notwithstanding the Solicitations of _Marcella_, declined

either proceeding against _Ruffinus_, or censuring his Translation, till

Two Years after, when _Jerom_, in a new Version which he published of

the same Work, undertook to prove, that several Opinions of _Origen_

were truly heretical, and as such ought to be condemned by the Church.

As to _Ruffinus_, he inveighed bitterly against him, as if he had

translated that Work with no other View but to propagate the Errors it

contained. Thus began the famous Quarrel between these Two Writers,

which occasioned no small Disturbance in the Church, some siding with

_Jerom_ against _Ruffinus_, and others with _Ruffinus_ against _Jerom_.

Among the former, the most sanguine were _Theophilus_ Bishop of

_Alexandria_, _Epiphanius_ Bishop of _Constantia_ in the Island of

_Cyprus_, and _Anastasius_ Bishop of _Rome_. _Theophilus_ not only

condemned in a Council, which he summoned for that Purpose, the Errors

of _Origen_, but _Origen_ himself, declaring him an Heretic, and

forbidding all under his Jurisdiction to read, or even keep his Works by

them; which is the first Instance we have of such Prohibitions.

[Sidenote: Origen _condemned by_ Anastasius _and several other

Bishops_.] His Example was followed by _Epiphanius_, _Anastasius_,

_Venerius_ Bishop of _Milan_, _Chromatius_ Bishop of _Aquileia_, and

several others. But some, and among the rest _John_ Bishop of

_Jerusalem_, and _Chrysostom_ then Bishop of _Constantinople_,

disapproving the rash Conduct of their Collegues, could by no means be

induced to confirm the Sentence they had pronounced; which _Epiphanius_

resented to such a Degree, that he immediately separated himself from

their Communion. _Sozomen_ adds, that he even refused to pray for young

_Theodosius_, while he was dangerously ill, because his Mother _Eudoxia_

would not banish from _Constantinople_ some Monks who had warmly

espoused the Cause of _Origen_[1359]. _Ruffinus_ ranks _Epiphanius_

among those Plagiaries, who, borrowing from _Origen_ all they said or

writ, cried down his Works, in order to deter others from reading them,

and consequently from discovering, that what was admired in them was not

their own[1360].

[Sidenote: Ruffinus _is summoned to_ Rome.]

_Origen_ being thus condemned as an Heretic, near 150 Years after his

Death, _Anastasius_, at the Instigation of _Marcella_, _Pammachius_,

_Oceanus_, and some other of _Jerom_’s Friends in _Rome_, writ to

_Ruffinus_, complaining of his Translation, and summoning him to appear,

and give an Account of his Faith. In Answer to this Letter, _Ruffinus_

sent him a Confession of Faith intirely agreeable to that of the

Catholic Church, adding, that he held no other; that his Faith had been

sufficiently tried in the Persecution of _Valens_; and that, as to the

Translation of _Origen_’s Work, he had there neither approved nor

disapproved, but barely related, the Sentiments of that Writer. He

modestly declined complying with the Summons calling him to _Rome_; and

concluded with declaring, that the Faith of the _Roman_ Church and his

were one and the same[1362][N42].

-----

Footnote N42:

The chief Errors of _Origen_ were concerning the Trinity, the

Resurrection of the Body, the Eternity of Hell-Torments, and the

Origin of Souls. If his Works were not interpolated by the Heretics,

as _Ruffinus_ pretended they were, it is no easy Matter to determine

what was his real Opinion with respect to the Trinity; for in some

Passages he seems to acknowlege an Equality, and in others to

establish an Inequality, between the Father and the Son. As to the

Resurrection, he was accused of not believing, that the Body, at least

the same Body, was to rise from the Dead. He denied the Eternity of

Hell-Torments, and held, that even the Devils would repent in the End,

and be saved. He maintained the Souls to have been created before the

World; to have been confined to the Bodies, which they animated, as so

many Prisons, to expiate there the Sins which they had committed; to

be in perpetual Motion passing from one Body to another, and at last

to become Angels. With the Three last Errors chiefly _Ruffinus_ was

charged by St. _Jerom_; and it was to clear himself from such an

Imputation, that, in his Answer to _Anastasius_ summoning him to

_Rome_, he declared his Belief with respect to those Articles, styling

his Answer on that Account an _Apology_. As to the Trinity, those whom

they called _Origenists_, were allowed, even by their Enemies, to be

quite orthodox in their Belief of that Mystery. Touching the

Resurrection, _Ruffinus_ declared and explained his Faith in such

clear Terms as ought to have left no room, even for St. _Jerom_, to

arraign him on that Head. He expressed himself in a manner no less

orthodox with respect to the Eternity of the Pains of Hell. But, as to

the Origin of Souls, he owns himself to be quite at a Loss what to

think, and what to determine, on that Subject, since no particular

Opinion had been yet settled by the Church, and the Ecclesiastical

Writers disagreed in that Point among themselves; some believing, with

_Tertullian_ and _Lactantius_, the Souls to have been formed with the

Bodies; and others maintaining, with _Origen_, that they were all

created before the World: as to himself, he declared, that he held

nothing for certain but what he was taught by the Church, _viz._ that

the Souls as well as the Bodies proceeded from God[N42.1]. This

_Jerom_ called a false, artful, and imposing Confession, as if

_Ruffinus_ did not believe what he professed in the most solemn Manner

to believe; and _Anastasius_, judging of his Faith not from his own

Words, but from those of _Jerom_, separated himself from his

Communion.

I cannot help observing here, that _Jerom_, whom nothing now will

satisfy but the Condemnation of _Origen_, used a few Years before to

inveigh with the same Gall and Bitterness against the Enemies of that

Writer as he does now against his Friends, condemning with as much

Acrimony those who accused him, as he now condemns those who excuse

him. _Origen_ had been condemned in his Life-time by _Demetrius_

Bishop of _Alexandria_, and by several other Bishops: and _Jerom_,

after telling us, in speaking of the Judgment that was given against

him, that he had written more Books than others had time to read; and

that in the Number of his Volumes he had surpassed _Varro_, and the

other most eloquent Writers both _Greek_ and _Latin_; adds, _But what

Reward did he receive for so much Toil and Labour? He was condemned by

the Bishop_ Demetrius; _and, if we except the Bishops of_ Palæstine,

Arabia, Phœnicia, _and_ Achaia, _he was condemned by all the rest.

Even_ Rome _assembled her Senate against him, not because he taught

any new Doctrines, or held any heretical Opinions, which those who

snarl at him, like so many mad Dogs, would fain make us believe; but

because they could not bear the bright Rays of his Eloquence and

Knowlege, and were forced to be dumb when he spoke_. This Passage is

quoted by _Ruffinus_, and _Jerom_ himself owns it to have been copied

from his Letter to _Paula_[N42.2].

By the Senate that _Rome_ assembled against _Origen_, _Jerom_ meant,

no doubt, the Bishop and Clergy of that City: and that he made no

Account of their Judgment, sufficiently appears from the contemptuous

and ironical Manner he speaks of it. However, that Father is brought

in by _Baronius_ as an Evidence for _Infallibility_, on account of the

Regard which he afterwards paid to the Judgment of _Anastasius_,

styling it _a decisive Sentence_. But _Jerom_ had then changed his

Opinion; and _Anastasius_ only condemned what he had condemned before;

so that from the great Regard which _Jerom_ shewed on that Occasion

for the Judgment of _Anastasius_, _Baronius_ can at most conclude,

that he thought the Popes infallible when they agreed with him; for

that he thought them fallible when they disagreed with him, is

manifest from his not acquiescing in the Judgment of another Pope

condemning _Origen_, when he himself had not yet condemned him.

Footnote N42.1:

Ruff. ad Anast. p. 202.

Footnote N42.2:

Hier. vir. illustr. c. 54. Ruff. l. 2. p. 225.

-----

[Sidenote: Anastasius _separates himself from his Communion_.]

But this Confession, however orthodox, did not satisfy _Anastasius_, or

rather _Jerom_ and his Friends in _Rome_. They continued, says

_Ruffinus_, the Persecution which they had so successfully begun, and

with their malicious Suggestions prevailed in the End on _Anastasius_ to

comply with their unjust Demands[1363]; that is, I suppose, to separate

himself from his Communion: for _Anastasius_, in his Answer to a Letter

which _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_ had writ in favour of _Ruffinus_,

acquaints that Prelate, that he had cut him off from his Communion, and

left him to be judged by God and his own Conscience. _As to_ Origen,

says he in the same Letter, _I knew not before who he was, nor what he

had writ_. Ruffinus _has translated him into our Language; and, in so

doing, what else could he have in view but to infect this Church with

his pernicious Doctrines? He has expressed his own Sentiments in

translating those of his Author; and is therefore no less guilty than

Origen himself, whom we have all condemned_[1364][N43].

-----

Footnote N43:

The same Charge lies against _Jerom_; nay, he was the more guilty of

the Two. For he had not only translated many of _Origen_’s Works,

containing Errors no less repugnant to the Catholic Truths than any in

the _Periarchon_, but had besides filled his Comments on the

Scripture, especially on the Epistle to the _Ephesians_, with the

worst of Origen’s Errors, _viz._ with those relating to the

Resurrection of the Body, to the Pre-existence of the Souls, and to

the Duration of Hell-Torments, as is manifest from the many Passages

quoted by _Ruffinus_ out of the Comments of that Father. _Jerom_ found

great Fault with _Ruffinus_, for not confuting the Errors which he

translated; concluding from thence, that he held the same Doctrines:

and yet he was himself so far from confuting in his Comments any of

_Origen_’s erroneous Opinions, that on the contrary he often delivered

them in such manner as made many, and St. _Austin_ among the rest,

believe them to be his own[N43.1]. Nay, in one Place he seems to own,

that he held some of _Origin_’s Errors[N43.2]: but ends what he there

writes of him thus; _If you believe me, I never was an_ Origenist;

_but if you absolutely insist upon my having been one, I now tell you,

that I am so no more; and it is to convince you of this, that I am

become the Accuser of_ Origen.

Footnote N43.1:

Hier. ep. 89.

Footnote N43.2:

Hier. ep. 65.

-----

In the same Letter _Anastasius_ mentions with great Joy a Decree of the

Emperors, that is, of _Arcadius_ and _Honorius_, forbidding the Works of

_Origen_, and imposing severe Penalties on such as should for the future

read or peruse them[N44].

-----

Footnote N44:

_Ruffinus_ pretended this Letter to be supposititious, and to have

been forged by St. _Jerom_, alleging, that he could not believe the

Bishop of _Rome_ capable of such a crying Piece of Injustice as to

condemn an innocent Man, and condemn him in his Absence. He added,

that if _Anastasius_ had ever written such a Letter to _John_ of

_Jerusalem_, _John_, with whom he lived in great Intimacy, would have

acquainted him with it, which he had not done. In Answer to this

Charge, _Jerom_ refers him to the Archives of the _Roman_

Church[N44.1]; and to _Jerom_ I refer the Jesuit _Halloix_, supposing

the Letter to have been feigned, tho’ not by St. _Jerom_, on account

of the following Words, that seem to wound the pretended Supremacy. _I

have intirely separated myself from him_, meaning _Ruffinus_: _I will

not even know where he is, or what he is doing: let him try, if he

pleases, to be absolved elsewhere_. So that _Anastasius_ thought he

might be absolved elsewhere, though condemned at _Rome_. This

_Halloix_, more jealous of the Papal Supremacy than the Pope himself,

will not allow, and therefore pretends the Letter to be

supposititious. But, since the Time of _Ruffinus_, none besides him

ever questioned its Authenticity.

Footnote N44.1:

Hier. in Ruff. l. 3. c. 5, & 6.

-----

[Sidenote: _The Condemnation of_ Origen _owing chiefly to the Bishop

of_ Alexandria.]

Such is the Account the contemporary Writers, and _Jerom_ himself, give

us of the Condemnation of _Origen_, and his Interpreter _Ruffinus_, very

different from that which we read in _Baronius_, introducing his _High

Pontiff Anastasius_ as acting the First Part on that Occasion; though

_Jerom_ tells us, in express Terms, that _Anastasius_ followed the

Example of _Theophilus_; that he condemned in the West, what had before

been condemned in the East[1365]; and that _Rome_ and all _Italy_ owed

their Deliverance to the Letters of _Theophilus_[1366]; meaning the

circular Letter, which _Theophilus_ writ to all the Catholic Bishops,

acquainting them that he had condemned _Origen_, and prohibited his

Books, and exhorting them to follow his Example[1367]. It was by this

Letter that _Anastasius_ was induced to condemn _Origen_: For what else

could _Jerom_ mean by saying, that _Rome_ and _Italy_ were, by the

Letters of _Theophilus_, delivered from the Errors of _Origen_?

_Baronius_ could not but know, that the Letter of _Theophilus_ was

addressed to all the Catholic Bishops, since it is styled by

_Theophilus_ himself, in a Letter he writ to _Epiphanius_[1368], and by

_Epiphanius_, in one of his Letters to _Jerom_[1369], _A general Letter

to all Catholics_; and yet the Annalist speaks of it as directed to

_Anastasius_ alone, in order to impose by that means on his Readers, and

persuade them, _that the Bishop of_ Alexandria _submitted the Sentence

he had pronounced to the Judgment of_ Anastasius, _being well apprised_,

that it _could be of no Weight unless confirmed by the first See_. Had

he been well apprised of this, I cannot think he would have pronounced

such a Sentence, as it is very certain he did, without the Authority,

the Advice, or even the Knowlege, of the _first See_.

[Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Aquileia _communicates with_ Ruffinus,

_though excommunicated by_ Anastasius.]

As to _Ruffinus_, _Anastasius_, it is true, separated himself from

his Communion; but did not excommunicate him, that is, as the Word

is now understood, did not cut him off from the Communion of the

Catholic Church, as _Baronius_ insinuates. The Power of

excommunicating him in this Sense was by the Canons vested in his

own Bishop; and it is manifest from _Jerom_, that _Chromatius_,

then Bishop of _Aquileia_, continued to communicate with him after

_Anastasius_ had renounced his Communion; nay, after _Chromatius_

himself had condemned _Origen_, and the _Origenists_[1370], that

is, those who held the Errors of _Origen_. A plain Proof, that the

Bishop of _Aquileia_ did not acquiesce in the Judgment of

_Anastasius_ in ranking _Ruffinus_ among them. And truly the only

Charge brought against him by _Anastasius_, in his Letter to

_John_ of _Jerusalem_, was his having translated _Origen_ into the

_Latin_ Tongue, without pointing out his Errors, or offering any

Arguments to confute them. Thence he was by _Jerom_ induced to

conclude, that _Ruffinus_ held the same Errors. [Sidenote:

Ruffinus _unjustly condemned_.] _What could_ Ruffinus _propose_,

says he in his Letter, _by translating_ Origen _into the_ Roman

_Language? Had he exposed the execrable Errors his Work contains,

and raised in his Readers that Indignation which the Author

deserves, I should rather have praised than blamed him. But he has

in his Mind consented to those Errors, and in translating the

Sentiments of_ Origen _expressed his own_[1371]. This _Ruffinus_

denied; declaring, with the Words of _Origen_, in his Preface to

the _Periarchon_[1372], that he embraced nothing as Truth, that

any-ways differed from the received Doctrines of the Catholic

Church: nay, he was so far from defending any of _Origen_’s

Errors, which seemed to him repugnant to the Catholic Truths, that

in the Apology he composed in Defence of that Writer, as well as

in the Preface which he prefixed to his Translation, he undertook

to prove, that those Errors were not his, but had been maliciously

inserted into his Works, either by his Enemies to eclipse his

Reputation, or by Heretics, who had fathered upon him their own

Doctrines, with a View of recommending them to the World by the

Authority of so great and so venerable a Name[1373]. He followed

therein the Example of the most eminent Writers, and the greatest

Lights of the Church, namely, of the Martyr _Pamphylus_[1374], of

_Athanasius_[1375], _Basil_[1376], his Brother _Gregory_ of

_Nyssa_[1377], _Gregory Nazianzen_[1378], and many others, who,

out of the great Regard they had for a Man of _Origen_’s Piety and

Learning, either ascribed to others the Errors they found in his

Works, or excused them, by putting on his Words the most

charitable Construction they could bear. [Sidenote: Origen

_excused by some of the Fathers, and once by_ Jerom _himself_.]

_Jerom_ himself had been formerly one of _Origen_’s greatest

Admirers, had translated above Seventy of his Books, and thought

he could not employ his Time better than in enriching the _Latin_

Tongue with the Works of _the best Writer and first Doctor of the

Church after the Apostles_[1379], as he then styled him. As

_Ruffinus_, in his Translation of the _Periarchon_, endeavoured to

excuse the Errors of _Origen_, so had _Jerom_ done before him in

translating his other Works, chusing rather to _veil and excuse_,

than expose the Faults of one whom in other respects he so much

admired[1380]. But this Admiration being afterwards changed into

an open and avowed Enmity, _the first Doctor of the Church after

the Apostles_ became at once not only an _heterodox_, but an

_impious Writer_; all who stood up in his Defence were arraigned

of the same _pestilential Doctrines_; and what was found amiss in

his Works was no longer _veiled_ or _excused_, but set out in the

worst Light[N45].

-----

Footnote N45:

Some of the Fathers would not allow even his Doctrine concerning the

Trinity to be heterodox. For some Passages being quoted out of his

Works by the _Arians_ to confirm their Opinions, _Basil_ and

_Nazianzen_ undertook to prove, from other Passages, that his

Sentiments with respect to the Trinity were quite orthodox; and that

the _Arians_ had either out of Malice misinterpreted, or out of

Ignorance misunderstood his Meaning, not being capable of fathoming

the Depth of his Thoughts[N45.1]. It must be owned, that _Origen_, in

several Places, speaks of the Trinity agreeably to the Sentiments of

the Church, acknowleging _the Son to have been from the Beginning in

the Father; to be the Image of the Father; to have been begotten by

him from all Eternity; to be the Wisdom of God; to be God, though not

the Source and Origin of the Divinity, as the Father, whom on that

Account he styles_ Autotheos; _to be above all Creatures; to have the

same Power as the Father, and to deserve the same Honour and Worship_.

But elsewhere he uses Expressions that can no-way bear an orthodox

Sense, _viz._ that _the_ Word _is an Hypostasis different from the

Father_; meaning by the Word _Hypostasis_, Nature and Substance; _that

the Father and Son are One by Concord and Union; that the Son is not

properly God, but called God, because he is the Image of the Divinity;

that the Word and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; that the

Father is greater than the Son; that the Son is inferior to the

Father, though far above all Creatures, as the Ray of the Sun is

inferior to the Sun_; and lastly, _that the Son is the Minister of the

Father_. In these Passages is contained a very different Doctrine from

that which is laid down in those I have quoted above: and hence some

of the Friends of _Origen_, and among the rest _Ruffinus_, concluded

the latter Passages to have been foisted in by the _Arians_, denying

the Divinity of the Word; while others, allowing them to be

_Origen_’s, undertook to explain them in a Catholic Sense, in

Opposition to the _Arians_ confirming their Doctrine with the

Authority of so eminent a Writer. But his Enemies, attending only to

the Passages where he seemed to establish an Inequality in the

Trinity, not only condemned him as an Heretic, but all who stood up in

his Defence, or attempted to interpret his Words in a Catholic Sense.

Footnote N45.1:

Socr. l. 4. c. 26.

-----

But what seems most of all surprising, and quite unaccountable, in the

Conduct of that Father, is, that though he had with so much Noise

procured _Origen_ to be condemned as an Heretic, and his Books to be

prohibited, particularly his _Periarchon_, or, as some will have it, the

_Periarchon_ alone, as containing most of his heretical Tenets; yet, in

a private Letter to _Paulinus_, he refers him to that very Piece for the

Decision of some Questions of the greatest Importance[1381]. But to

return to _Anastasius_:

[Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Africa _apply to_ Anastasius _and_ Venerius

_of_ Milan.]

The same Year 401. in which _Origen_ was condemned, the Churches of

_Africa_ being greatly distressed for want of Ecclesiastics, the Bishops

of the Province of _Carthage_, assembling under _Aurelius_ Bishop of

that City, resolved to dispatch one of their Body into _Italy_ to

acquaint _Anastasius_, and _Venerius_ Bishop of _Milan_, with the

Condition of the _African_ Churches, and implore their Assistance[1382].

Which of the Bishops was charged with this Legation, or what Success

attended it, we are no-where told. But as _Paulinus_, who afterwards

writ the Life of St. _Ambrose_, and belonged to the Church of _Milan_,

was at this Time sent into _Africa_, and continued there, some have not

improbably conjectured, that _Venerius_ at least assisted his Collegues

in _Africa_ with a Supply of as many Ecclesiastics as he could spare.

_Baronius_ supposes _Anastasius_ to have relieved those Churches with

the like Supply; but this Supposition he builds upon the paternal Care

which _Anastasius_ had, as _universal Pastor_, of all the Catholic

Churches[1383], which is building on a false Foundation.

[Sidenote: Anastasius _advises the Bishops of_ Africa _not to dissemble

the Cruelties of the_ Donatists.]

The same Year another Council was held at _Carthage_, consisting of all

the Bishops of _Africa_; and _Aurelius_, who presided in this, as he had

done in the former, opened it with reading a Letter from _Anastasius_,

exhorting the Bishops of _Africa_ no longer to dissemble the Cruelties

of the _Donatists_, who continued to use with great Barbarity the

Catholic Bishops and Clergy[1384]. The Fathers of the Council returned

_Anastasius_ Thanks for his Advice; but, not thinking it quite agreeable

to the true Spirit of Christianity, they declined complying with it.

[Sidenote: _Who refuse to comply with his Advice._] They knew that their

Persecutors, had they complained of their Cruelties to the Civil

Magistrate, would have been punished with Death, pursuant to a Law

enacted against them, Three Years before, by the Emperors _Arcadius_ and

_Honorius_[1385]. They therefore chose, notwithstanding the Advice of

_Anastasius_, rather to suffer with Patience a most cruel Persecution,

than redeem themselves from it at so dear a Rate[1386]. In the same

Council it was decreed among other things, that such of the _Donatist_

Clergy, as should return to the Church, might be admitted, if the

Bishop, who received them, thought it expedient, to the same Rank, which

they had enjoyed before their Conversion. As a Decree had been lately

enacted by _Anastasius_, and the other _Italian_ Bishops, excluding

converted Heretics from the Catholic Clergy[1387]; it was to acquaint

them with the Motives which had prompted the Fathers assembled at

_Carthage_, to admit the _Donatists_, that _Aurelius_ and his Collegues

writ to _Anastasius_; and not to beg of him a Dispensation in favour of

the converted _Donatists_, as is ridiculously supposed by

_Baronius_[1388].

[Sidenote: Anastasius _dies_.]

This is all I find recorded of _Anastasius_, by the antient Writers. He

died on the 27th of _April_ 402. after having held the See of _Rome_

Four Years, One Month, and Thirteen Days. [Sidenote: _Is greatly

commended by_ Jerom.] _Jerom_, with whom he sided against _Ruffinus_,

and the other Friends of _Origen_, distinguishes him with the Title of

an _eminent Man_; and adds, _that_ Rome _did not deserve to enjoy him

long, lest the Head of the World should be cut off under such a Bishop;

nay, he was snatched away_, says he, _lest he should strive to ward off,

with his Prayers, the Execution of the Sentence that was already

pronounced; the Lord saying to_ Jeremiah, _Pray not for this People for

their Good: when they fast, I will not hear their Cry_, &c[1389].

_Jerom_ speaks there of the Calamities that befel _Rome_ Seven Years

after, when it was taken by the _Goths_, under _Alaric_. _Theophilus_

Bishop of _Alexandria_, not only an avowed Enemy to _Origen_, but a

cruel Persecutor of all who stood up in his Defence, extols _Anastasius_

for his pastoral Care, and indefatigable Pains, in preserving and

maintaining the Purity of the Catholic Faith[1390]; alluding, no doubt,

to his acting in Concert with him, against _Origen_, and the pretended

_Origenists_. [Sidenote: _Is honoured as a Saint._] Be that as it will,

_Anastasius_ is now honoured as a Saint by the Church of _Rome_; and the

Honours paid him are chiefly owing to the Commendations of _Jerom_ and

_Theophilus_, whose Party he so warmly espoused. As to the Writings of

_Anastasius_, Mention is made, by _Jerom_, of several Letters written by

him on different Occasions; but that alone has reached our Times, which

he writ to _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, and some Fragments of another

to one _Ursinus_, on the _Incarnation_[N46].

-----

Footnote N46:

The Two Decretals that have been transmitted to us under his Name, are

evidently supposititious, the one being dated Fourteen Years before

his Election, and the other Fourteen years after his Death. One of

these pretended Decretals is addressed to the _German_ and

_Burgundian_ Bishops, tho’ nothing is more certain, than that the

_Burgundians_ were not converted to the Christian Religion till many

Years after his Death, till the Year 436. if _Socrates_ is to be

credited[N46.1]. They are both made up of several Passages taken from

the Letters of _Innocent_, _Leo_, _Gregory_, and others; and were, in

all Likelihood, forged, as many others have been, by _Isidorus

Mercator_.

Footnote N46.1:

Socr. l. 7. c. 30.

-----

[Sidenote: _An ill-timed Observation of_ Baronius.]

_Baronius_ observes, at the Death of _Syricius_[1391], that such Popes

as did not, through Sloth and Indolence, exert the due Zeal in

extirpating the heterodox Opinions that sprung up in the Church, that

is, such Popes as did not exterminate all, who differed in Opinion from

them, have been quickly cut off, to make room for other more zealous

Asserters of the Purity of the Faith. An ill-timed Observation! which I

might retort here, were I inclined to indulge such a Humour, since the

_indolent Syricius_ enjoyed his Dignity Thirteen Years (and not very

many have enjoyed it longer), and the _very zealous Anastasius_ only

Four.

-----

Footnote 1350:

Theod. l. 5. c. 24. Soz. l. 7. c. 34. Aug. de civ. Dei.

Footnote 1351:

Paul. ep. 16.

Footnote 1352:

Page 273.

Footnote 1353:

Hier. Apol. l. 2. ep. 75. & dial. advers. Pelag.

Footnote 1354:

Id. ap. 1. advers. Ruff.

Footnote 1355:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1356:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1357:

Id. & Ctesiphont. advers. Pelag. Tim. 2. c. iii. v. 6, 7.

Footnote 1358:

Id. apol. 1. advers. Ruff.

Footnote 1359:

Soz. l. 8. c. 15.

Footnote 1360:

Hier. in Ruff. l. 2. c. 6. l. 3. c. 7. & Ruff. ad Orig.

Footnote 1362:

Hier. in Ruff. c. 6, 7. ep. 16. 78.

Footnote 1363:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1364:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1194.

Footnote 1365:

Hier. ep. 78.

Footnote 1366:

Id. ep. 71.

Footnote 1367:

Id. ep. 6. 69, 70.

Footnote 1368:

Id. ep. 6.

Footnote 1369:

Id. ep. 73.

Footnote 1370:

Apol. l. 3. c. 1.

Footnote 1371:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1194.

Footnote 1372:

Præf. ad Periarch. p. 665.

Footnote 1373:

Apol. pro Orig. apud Hier. t. 4. p. 194, 195. & præf. ad Periarch.

Footnote 1374:

Phot. c. 118.

Footnote 1375:

Athan. de Nicæn. decret. p. 277. Concil. t. 5. p. 652. Phot. c. 232.

Footnote 1376:

Concil. t. 5. p. 653.

Footnote 1377:

Phot. c. 232. & Nyss. in Cant. t. 1. p. 473.

Footnote 1378:

Naz. or. 31.

Footnote 1379:

Hier. de nom. Heb. p. 299.

Footnote 1380:

Hier. ep. 65.

Footnote 1381:

Hier. ep. 153.

Footnote 1382:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1642.

Footnote 1383:

Bar. ad ann. 401. n. 7.

Footnote 1384:

Concil. t. 1. inter Concil. Afr. c. 33.

Footnote 1385:

Cod. Theod. l. 3. de episc. & cler. & Greg. l. 1. ep. 52.

Footnote 1386:

Aug. ep. 127.

Footnote 1387:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1642.

Footnote 1388:

Bar. ad ann. 401. n. 14.

Footnote 1389:

Hier. ep. 16. Jerem. c. xiv. ver. 11, 12.

Footnote 1390:

Justin. in ep. ad Menan.

Footnote 1391:

Ad ann. 397. num. 21.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCADIUS, INNOCENT, THEODOSIUS

HONORIUS, _Thirty-ninth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 402. _The Election of_ Innocent, _commended

by the Antients_.]

On the Demise of _Anastasius_, _Innocent_ was immediately, and with one

Consent, chosen by the Clergy, and the People[1392]. He was, according

to _Anastasius_[1393], a Native of _Albano_, and the Son of another

_Innocent_; but, according to _Jerom_, both the Son and Successor of

_Anastasius_[1394]. _Theodoret_ styles him a Man of great Address, and a

lively Genius[1395]; _Prosper_, a worthy Successor of St. _Peter_[1396];

and _Austin_ distinguishes him, after his Death, with the Title of the

_Blessed_ Innocent[1397]. _Orosius_ says, that God withdrew that holy

Bishop from _Rome_, when the City was taken, as he did _Lot_ from

_Sodom_[1398]; and _Jerom_, in writing to _Demetrias_, exhorts her to

adhere steadily to the Faith of _Innocent_[1399]. _Austin_, in the

Letter he writ to him in the Name of the Council of _Milevum_, ascribes

his Election to a particular Providence; and adds, that the Fathers of

the Council thought it a Duty incumbent upon them to suggest to him what

might be done for the Good of the Church, since they could not think him

capable of hearing any thing of that Nature with Contempt or

Indifference[1400].

[Sidenote: _He writes to_ Anysius _of_ Thessalonica.]

_Innocent_ was no sooner chosen and ordained, than he writ to _Anysius_

of _Thessalonica_, acquainting him with his Election, and charging him,

as his Three immediate Predecessors had done, with the Care of the

Churches of _East Illyricum_[1401]. In the End of the following Year

403. the Emperor _Honorius_ visited the City of _Rome_; and, during his

Stay there, _Innocent_ went frequently to wait on him, in order to

obtain, in Behalf of some Bishops, and other Ecclesiastics, an Exemption

from executing certain Civil Offices hereditary in their Families. He

succeeded in his Suit; but it cost him a great deal of Trouble and

Uneasiness[1402]. [Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Victricius.]

_Victricius_ Bishop of _Rouen_, who happened to be then at _Rome_,

having applied to him for Information, with respect to the Practice and

Discipline of the _Roman_ Church, _Innocent_, to gratify him, and _that

he might not seem to approve, by_ _his Silence, the Abuses that

prevailed in some Churches_, sent him a _Book of Rules_, as he styled

it, containing several Regulations, which had been originally

established, says he, by the Authority of the Apostles and Fathers, but

were now, in many Places, either quite unknown, or utterly neglected. He

therefore intreats _Victricius_ to communicate them to the neighbouring

Churches and Bishops, that they might be acquainted with the Discipline

of the _Roman_ Church, and conform to it in instructing the

new-converted Christians[1403].

[Sidenote: _The Articles it contains._]

This _Book of Rules_ contains Thirteen Regulations relating to different

Points of Discipline, whereof the First forbids, and declares

uncanonical, the Ordination of Bishops without the Knowlege and

Approbation of their Metropolitans. The Second excludes from the

Clerical Order such as have served, or shall continue to serve, in War

after Baptism. The Third orders all Differences and Disputes, arising

among the Ecclesiastics, to be decided by the Bishops of the Provinces,

_saving the Rights of the_ Roman _Church_[N47]; and commands those to be

deposed who shall recur to other Tribunals, except in Causes of the

greatest Importance, when, after the Bishops have given Sentence,

Recourse may be had to the Apostolical See, pursuant to the Order of the

Council, meaning, no doubt, the Council of _Sardica_[1404]. The Three

next relate to those who shall have married a Widow, a Woman that has

been divorced, or a second Wife, either before or after Baptism; and

they are all alike declared incapable of being ever admitted among the

Clergy. The Seventh forbids Bishops to ordain Clerks of another Church,

without the Permission of their own Bishops, or to admit those to serve

one Church, who have been deposed in another. The Eighth allows the

_Novatians_ and _Donatists_, who return to the Church, to be readmitted

by the bare Imposition of Hands; but subjects those to a long Penance,

who had quitted the Church to be rebaptized by them. The Ninth relates

to the Celibacy of the Priests and Deacons, who are debarred by it from

all Commerce with their Wives, after Ordination. The inferior Clergy

were allowed to marry; but _Innocent_, by the Tenth Article of the

present Letter, excepts those who, before they were admitted among the

Clergy, had lived in Monasteries, and professed Continence there; it

being fit, says he, they should observe in a higher Rank what they had

observed when only Monks. In the same Article he observes, that those,

who had lost their Virginity before Marriage, did not receive the

Blessing of the Church when they afterwards married; and that it was the

antient Practice of the Church, that such as had lost it before Baptism,

should promise, before they were admitted to the Clerical Order, never

to marry. The Eleventh forbids those to be ordained, who were not

exempted from all Civil Offices and Employments, such Offices diverting

them from the Functions of the Priesthood, and sometimes obliging them

to exhibit Shews and public Sports, of which the Devil was, without all

Doubt, the Author and Promoter. [Sidenote: Innocent _thinks the Marriage

of a Woman with another Man valid, while her Husband is still alive_.]

The Twelfth forbids Women, who have married a Second Husband, their

First being still alive, to be admitted to Repentance, or allowed to do

Penance, till one of the Two dies. The same Discipline is to be

observed, according to this Article, with respect to the Virgins, who,

after consecrating their Virginity to _Jesus Christ_, shall, either by a

public Marriage, or by private Fornication, violate the Faith they had

pledged to their immortal Spouse.

-----

Footnote N47:

In some Editions this Clause is wanting.

-----

[Sidenote: _The unchristian Severity of one of these Articles ill

excused by_ Baronius.]

_Baronius_[1405], to answer the Objections which some _Innovators_, as

he is pleased to style them, have offered against the unchristian

Severity of this Article, tells us, that the Repentance of such a Virgin

can by no means be sincere, so long as she continues with the Man she

married; which is quite foreign to the Purpose, since _Innocent_

excludes her from Repentance, not only so long as she lives with him,

but so long as he lives. _Innocent_ knew what _Baronius_ seems not to

have known; _viz._ that the Marriage of Virgins, however solemnly

consecrated, held good, even according to the Practice of the _Roman_

Church[1406]; and, consequently, that they could not abandon their

Husbands; and hence he would not admit them to Repentance, or the

Participation of the Sacred Mysteries, till the Death of their Husbands;

which was keeping them, as it were, in a State of Excommunication,

without any possible Means of redeeming themselves from it. And it is

this uncharitable Severity, which some Divines of the _Reformed

Churches_ have deservedly blamed. _Baronius_ stigmatizes such Marriages

with the Name of _Adultery_; but he confounds the Time of _Innocent_

with his own; for, in his Time, the Vow of Chastity was declared a true

Marriage; and, consequently, every subsequent Marriage void and null;

but, in _Innocent_’s Time, the Marriage of a sacred Virgin was held

valid, though commonly deemed sinful. Whether it be sinful or no, or

whether a Vow of that kind can be lawfully made, I shall not take upon

me to determine here; but I am very confident, that of most Persons, who

debar themselves by a solemn Vow from ever marrying, we may say, with

the Fathers of the Eighth Council of _Toledo_, that _they had better

break a Vow, which they had rashly made, than fill up, by observing it,

the Measure of their Sins_.

But to return to the Letter: The Thirteenth and last Article will have

those Virgins to do Penance for some time, who shall marry after having

promised to live Virgins, though they had not yet received the Sacred

Veil[1407]. This Letter has been inserted by _Dionysius Exiguus_, in his

Code of the _Roman_ Church, and is quoted by the Second Council of

_Tours_, held in 567[1408]. and by several other Councils[1409][N48].

-----

Footnote N48:

And yet some have been induced by the Date it bears, to question its

Authenticity. For it is dated the 15th of _February_ 404. Now, it is

manifest, say they, from the Letter itself, that _Victricius_ was at

_Rome_ while the Emperor _Honorius_ was there; and it is no less

certain, that _Honorius_ did not arrive at _Rome_ till the Month of

_December_ 403. If therefore _Victricius_ was at _Rome_ in _December_

403. it is not at all probable, that _Innocent_ should have written to

him on the 15th of _February_ 404. To solve this Difficulty, some

suppose _Victricius_ to have applied to _Innocent_, while he was still

at _Rome_; and _Innocent_, instead of informing him, as he might, by

Word of Mouth, to have given him in Writing the desired Instructions,

that, having thus more Weight, they might the more readily be complied

with by other Bishops. But it is manifest, from _Innocent_’s Words,

that his Letter was an Answer to one from _Victricius_; and we cannot

well suppose _Victricius_, who was at _Rome_ in _December_, to have

returned to _Rouen_, to have written from thence to _Innocent_, and

_Innocent_ to have returned him so full an Answer by the 15th of the

following _January_. We may conclude the Year to have been, by some

Mistake, altered, and 404. inserted in the Date instead of 405. since

the Letter could not be written earlier, as I have just observed, than

the Month of _January_ (if _January_ was the true Month) of the latter

Year; and we have no Reason to think it was written later. The Mistake

as to the Year might have been occasioned by the Transcriber’s

omitting P. C. _Post Consulatum Honorii_, and thereby confounding the

Year of the Emperor’s Sixth Consulship 404. with the Year after it

405.--Such Omissions frequently occur, and have led Writers, not aware

of them, into great Mistakes, in point of Chronology, or made them

suspect, nay, and condemn, as spurious, the most authentic Pieces of

History. This Letter, in some Editions, bears no Date; and F. _Labbé_

assures us, that he has seen a manuscript Copy of it, in which the

Date was wanting. Some therefore suppose the Date to have been

afterwards added, nay, and the whole Conclusion of the Letter. For

_Innocent_ closes it by saying, that the Observance of the Rules it

contains will banish all Ambition among the Bishops, compose all

Differences, prevent all Schisms, and leave no room for the Devil to

insult the Flock of Christ. A Conclusion taken probably from some

other Piece, and not at all adapted or applicable, with Truth, to

this.

-----

[Sidenote: _Letter of the Council of_ Carthage _to_ Innocent.]

In the Year 404. _Austin_ writ to _Innocent_, in the Name of the Bishops

assembled in Council at _Carthage_, intreating him to apply to

_Honorius_ for new Laws against the _Donatists_; whose Cruelties towards

the Orthodox, if not magnified by _Austin_[1410], are scarce to be

matched in History. The Emperor hearkened to _Innocent_’s Remonstrances,

and severe Laws being issued against them, they began by that means to

be convinced of their Errors, and to return daily in great Numbers to

the Unity of the Church. This is what we read in one of _Austin_’s

Letters[1411]; for the _Donatists_, as he would make us believe, finding

themselves persecuted, began to inquire, which they had never done

before, into the Grounds of the Religion, for which they suffered. This

Inquiry had the desired Effect; their Eyes were opened; they discovered

the Errors of their Sect; and, being sensible of their Folly in

foregoing any temporal Advantage, or exposing themselves to the least

Inconvenience, for the sake of such a Religion, they sincerely abjured

it, and zealously embraced the Catholic Faith. An ingenious Term, I must

own, to excuse, nay, and to authorize and sanctify, the greatest

Barbarities! But daily Experience teaches us, that Persecution has a

contrary Effect, and that the more Men are persecuted, the more

obstinately they adhere to the Opinions, however absurd, for which they

suffer; witness the great Number of Martyrs which almost every Church,

as well as the Catholic, can boast of. And, where it has not that

Effect, the most it can do is to make Men become Hypocrites, and profess

a Religion they do not believe; but scarce ever changes their Hearts, or

brings any to a sincere and efficacious Assent to a Faith which is thus

violently forced on their Minds.

[Sidenote: Innocent _writes to the Bishops of_ Spain.]

About the same time, or not long after, _Innocent_ writ to the Bishops

of _Spain_, and the chief Articles of his Letter were: 1. That they

ought to cut off from their Communion such of their Brethren as refused

to communicate with _Symphosius_, _Dictinius_, and other Bishops, who,

having renounced the Errors of _Priscillian_, had been readmitted to the

Communion of the Church by the Council held at _Toledo_, in the Year

400[1412]. 2. That those Bishops should be deposed who had been ordained

without the Knowlege or Consent of their Metropolitan. 3. That such as

presumed to ordain against the Canons should be likewise deposed, and

all who had been thus ordained by them.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom _Bishop of_ Constantinople _recurs to_ Innocent.]

_Chrysostom_, the celebrated Bishop of _Constantinople_, having been

unjustly deposed in 403 and driven from his See by _Theophilus_ Bishop

of _Alexandria_, and the Council _ad Quercum_, or at _the Oak_, near

_Chalcedon_, had, upon his Return to _Constantinople_, insisted upon a

Council being summoned, to make his Innocence the more plainly appear to

the World. This _Theophilus_, and the Bishops of his Party, not only

strenuously opposed, but, by the great Interest they had at Court,

prevailed upon the Emperor _Arcadius_ to drive him from _Constantinople_

a Second time, and banish him to _Cucusus_, an inhospitable Place in

_Cilicia_. The News of these last Proceedings had not yet reached

_Rome_, when _Theophilus_ sent one of his Lectors with a Letter to

_Innocent_, acquainting him, that he had deposed _Chrysostom_. As, in

this Letter, _Theophilus_ observed an intire Silence with respect to the

Motives that had prompted him to take such a Step, _Innocent_ prudently

forbore returning him an Answer. There happened to be then at _Rome_ a

Deacon of the Church of _Constantinople_, who, hearing what _Theophilus_

had written, went immediately, and warned _Innocent_ to be upon his

Guard, intreating him, at the same time, not to proceed but with the

utmost Caution, in so nice and important an Affair, and assuring him,

that the Truth could not remain long undiscovered. Accordingly, in Three

Days, _Pansovius_, and Three other Bishops, arrived at _Rome_, with

Three Letters for _Innocent_; _viz._ one from _Chrysostom_ himself,

another from the Bishops of his Communion, and the Third from the whole

Clergy of _Constantinople_. _Chrysostom_, in his Letter, which is still

to be seen in his Works, and in those of _Palladius_, who writ the

History of his Persecution, after giving _Innocent_ an Account of the

Storm his Enemies had raised against him, intreats him to declare such

wicked Proceedings void and null, to pronounce all who had any Share in

them punishable, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws, and to continue

to him the Marks of his Charity and Communion. In the Title and Close of

the Letter, he addresses himself to one, but every-where else to more

Persons, the Letter having been written, as appears from the Copy in

_Palladius_[1413], not to _Innocent_ alone, but to him, to _Venerius_ of

_Milan_, and _Chromatius_ of _Aquileia_, Bishops of the Three chief Sees

in the West.

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Answer to_ Chrysostom_’s Letter_.]

_Innocent_, acting with his usual Prudence and Circumspection, in his

Answer to the above-mentioned Letters, declared, that he admitted the

Bishops of both Parties to his Communion, from which he could exclude no

Man till he was lawfully judged and condemned; and that therefore, to

compose all Differences, and leave no room for Complaints on either

Side, it was fit a Council should be assembled, consisting of the

Western as well as the Eastern Bishops. The other Bishops of _Italy_, to

whom _Chrysostom_ had written, returned much the same Answer[1414],

following therein the Advice, which _Chrysostom_ himself had given to

the Bishops of his Party; _viz._ that they should communicate with his

Enemies, to prevent Divisions in the Church, but not sign his

Condemnation, because he did not think himself guilty[1415].

_Innocent_’s Answer to _Theophilus_ was in Words to the same Effect. His

Letter to _Chrysostom_ was carried into the East by _Demetrius_ Bishop

of _Pessinus_, who took care to shew it every-where, to the end it might

be every-where known, that the _Roman_ Church still communicated with

that holy Bishop[1416].

[Sidenote: Theophilus _writes to_ Innocent.]

A few Days after _Innocent_ had answered _Chrysostom_’s Letter,

_Petrus_, one of _Theophilus_’s Presbyters, and _Martyrius_ Deacon of

the Church of _Constantinople_, arrived at _Rome_, with Letters from

_Theophilus_, and the Acts of _Chrysostom_’s Deposition by the Council

_ad Quercum_. From these it appeared, that the Council had consisted of

Thirty-six Bishops, whereof Twenty-nine were _Egyptians_, and over these

_Theophilus_ had, as their Metropolitan, too great an Influence; that

_Chrysostom_ had been condemned without being heard, and that nothing

had been laid to his Charge, deserving so severe and exemplary a

Punishment. [Sidenote: Innocent_'s Answer to_ Theophilus.] _Innocent_

therefore, having read them, with the utmost Indignation, answered

_Theophilus_ in a few Words; that he was determined, as he had notified

to him by his former Letter, to communicate both with him and his

Brother _John_; that he could by no means depart from the Communion of

the latter, till he was lawfully judged and condemned; that a Council

was to be soon held, before which it was incumbent upon _Theophilus_ to

make good his Charge, and the Steps he had hitherto taken, by the Canons

and Decrees of the Council of _Nice_, since the _Roman_ Church admitted

no others[1417]. [Sidenote: _Letters from the Bishops of_

Chrysostom_’s Party to_ Innocent.] With this Letter _Petrus_ and

_Martyrius_ returned to _Constantinople_, whence arrived at _Rome_, soon

after their Departure from that City, _Theoctecnus_, a Presbyter of the

Church of _Constantinople_, and one of _Chrysostom_’s Friends, with

Letters from Twenty-five Bishops, informing _Innocent_, that

_Chrysostom_ had been driven a Second time from his See; that he had

been conducted by a Band of Soldiers to _Cucusus_, and confined to that

Place; and that the great Church had been consumed by Fire, the very Day

he was carried out of _Constantinople_. _Innocent_ was greatly affected

with this Account, and shed many Tears in reading it. But as these

Troubles and Disorders were fomented by some great Men at the Court

either of _Arcadius_ or _Honorius_, and a Misunderstanding was then

subsisting between the Two Brothers, or their Ministers, he concluded,

that his Endeavours towards the restoring of Peace and Unity would prove

unsuccessful, and might even blow the Fire, which already burnt with so

much Violence, into a greater Flame. [Sidenote: _Who sends Letters of

Communion to them._] On these Considerations he wisely forbore making

any Application for the present to _Honorius_, and only sent Letters of

Communion to _Chrysostom_, and the Bishops, who had espoused his

Cause[1418]. [Sidenote: _Letters from_ Acacius _to_ Innocent.] These

Letters were delivered to _Theoctecnus_, who was scarce gone, when one

_Paternus_, who styled himself a Presbyter of the Church of

_Constantinople_, arrived at _Rome_, with Letters from _Acacius_, who

had been intruded into the See of _Constantinople_, and from some other

Bishops of his Party, charging _Chrysostom_ with setting Fire to the

_Basilic_ or Great Church. So barefaced a Calumny provoked _Innocent_ to

such a Degree, that he would neither hear _Paternus_, nor return an

Answer to the Letters he had brought.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom_’s Friends cruelly persecuted_.]

In the mean time a most cruel Persecution was railed at

_Constantinople_, against _Chrysostom_’s Friends, refusing to

communicate with _Acacius_, _Theophilus_, and _Porphyrius_, who had

intruded himself into the vacant See of _Antioch_, and, in Defiance of

the Canons, maintained, by Force of Arms, the Dignity he had usurped.

This Persecution was carried on under a Christian Emperor, with as much

Cruelty as any had ever been under the most inveterate Enemies of the

Christian Name. The Pretence they made use of was to discover the

Authors of the late Fire; and as the Imperial Officers chiefly

suspected, or pretended to suspect, _Chrysostom_’s Friends, _Optatus_,

who was then Prefect or Governor of _Constantinople_, and a Pagan, laid

hold of that Opportunity to vent upon them the implacable Hatred he bore

to the Religion they professed. Many therefore, without Distinction of

Sex or Condition, were, by his Orders, dragged to the public Gaols, and

confined there to Dungeons; others tormented with such Barbarity as to

expire on the Rack; and great Numbers, after having undergone repeated

Tortures, stript of all their Effects, and banished to the most remote

and desolate Places of the Empire.

[Sidenote: _Two Edicts enacted against them._]

At the same time the Emperor _Arcadius_, strangely prepossessed against

_Chrysostom_, and those of his Communion, caused Two Edicts to be

published; the one directed to the Governors of the Provinces, whom he

strictly injoined not to suffer, in their respective Jurisdictions, any

private Assemblies or Meetings of Persons, who, despising the Churches,

worshiped elsewhere, lest they should seem to communicate with the _most

Reverend Prelates of the holy Law_, _Arsacius_, _Theophilus_, and

_Porphyrius_. The other commanded such Bishops as refused to communicate

with them, to be driven from their Sees, and their Effects to be seized.

The Persecution, which still raged, though it was soon after stopt at

the Remonstrances of _Studius_ the _Præfectus Prætorio_, and the

Severity, with which the Two Imperial Edicts were put in Execution,

drove great Numbers, both of the Clergy and Laity, from

_Constantinople_, and the Provinces subject to _Arcadius_. Among the

former were _Cyriacus_ Bishop of _Synnada_, _Eulysius_ of _Apamea_ in

_Bithynia_, _Palladius_ of _Helenopolis_, _Germanus_ a Presbyter, and

_Cassianus_ a Deacon, who afterwards embraced the Monastic Life, and

became famous for his Ascetic Writings. [Sidenote: _Several Bishops,

and the whole Clergy of_ Constantinople, _write to_ Innocent.]

_Eulysius_ brought Letters to _Innocent_ from Fifteen Bishops of

_Chrysostom_’s Communion, acquainting him with the deplorable State of

the _Constantinopolitan_ Church, and one from _Anysius_ of

_Thessalonica_, declaring, that in the present unhappy Divisions he had

resolved to conform intirely to the Sentiments of the _Roman_ Church.

_Germanus_ and _Cassianus_ likewise delivered Letters to _Innocent_,

written in the Name of the whole Clergy of _Constantinople_, and giving

him an Account of the Persecution that still raged, and of the cruel

Treatment their Bishop had met with[1419]. [Sidenote: _His Answer to

the Clergy._] _Innocent_, in his Answer to this Letter, expresses, in

the most pathetic Terms, his Concern for the unhappy State of that

Church, and their Sufferings; he encourages them to bear, with Patience,

their present Tribulation and Afflictions, nay, and with Joy, since it

is for the sake of Justice they suffer, and are thus persecuted; he

complains of the undue Deposition of his Collegue, and Installation of

another in his Life-time, which he shows to be against the Canons of the

Council of _Nice_, the only Canons admitted and obeyed by the _Roman_

Church: he concludes with informing them, that as he had always thought

it necessary, that an Oecumenical Council should assemble, he had long

considered, and was still considering, by what Means it might be

assembled, _since a Council, and nothing else, could appease so violent

a Storm_, and restore to the Church the so much wished for

Tranquillity[1420].

Two Presbyters in the mean time came to _Rome_ from the East,

_Domitianus_ of _Constantinople_, and _Vallagus_ of _Nisibis_ in

_Mesopotamia_, and brought with them the original Acts, which they had

purchased with a large Sum of the Imperial Officers, containing an

authentic Detail of the Cruelties which some Women of Quality had been

made to endure for not communicating with _Arsacius_, and the Bishops of

his Faction. [Sidenote: Innocent _applies to_ Honorius;] With these the

good Bishop was so deeply affected, that he could no longer forbear

applying to _Honorius_, who, at his Request, writ immediately to

_Arcadius_ a very pressing and friendly Letter in favour of

_Chrysostom_, and those of his Communion. At the same time he issued an

Order for convening a Council of the Western Bishops, who, meeting soon

after at _Rome_, drew up an Address, which they sent to _Ravenna_, where

the Emperor then was, earnestly intreating him to interpose anew his

good Offices with his Brother _Arcadius_, that an Oecumenical Council

might be allowed to assemble at _Thessalonica_, in order to compose the

present Differences, which had already produced a Misunderstanding

between the Eastern and Western Churches, and might in the End bring on

an intire Separation. [Sidenote: _who writes to_ Arcadius.]

_Honorius_, in Compliance with their Request, writ a Third Letter to

_Arcadius_ (for he had, it seems, written already a Second), and at the

same time one to _Innocent_, desiring him to appoint Five Bishops, Two

Presbyters of the _Roman_ Church, and One Deacon, to carry his Letter

into the East, thinking that such a Legation would add no small Weight

to his Mediation. The Letter to _Arcadius_ was in the following Terms:

[Sidenote: _His Letter._]

“This is the Third time I write to your Meekness (_ad Mansuetudinem

tuam_) intreating you to correct and rectify the iniquitous Proceedings

that have been carried on against _John_ Bishop of _Constantinople_. But

nothing, I find, has been hitherto done in his Behalf. Having therefore

much at Heart the Peace of the Church, which will be attended with that

of our Empire, I write to you anew by these holy Bishops and Presbyters,

earnestly desiring you to command the Eastern Bishops to assemble at

_Thessalonica_. The Western Bishops have sent Five of their Body, Two

Presbyters of the _Roman_ Church, and One Deacon, all Men of the

strictest Equity, and quite free from the Byass of Favour and Hatred.

These I beg you would receive with that Regard which is due to their

Rank and Merit: If they find _John_ to have been justly deposed, they

may separate me from his Communion; and you from the Communion of the

Orientals, if it appears that he has been unjustly deposed. The Western

Bishops have very plainly expressed their Sentiments, in the many

Letters they have written to me on the Subject of the present Dispute.

Of these I send you Two, the one from the Bishop of _Rome_, the other

from the Bishop of _Aquileia_; and with them the rest agree. One thing I

must above all beg of your Meekness; that you oblige _Theophilus_ of

_Alexandria_ to assist at the Council, how averse soever he may be to

it; for he is said to be the first and chief Author of the present

Calamities. Thus the Synod, meeting with no Delays or Obstructions, will

restore Peace and Tranquillity in our Days[1421].”

[Sidenote: _The Pope’s Legates not allowed to touch at_ Thessalonica.]

With these Letters the Legates set out from _Rome_, attended by the

above-mentioned Prelates _Demetrius_, _Cyriacus_, _Eulysius_, and

_Palladius_; and, sailing for _Greece_, put in at _Athens_, with a

Design to pursue their Voyage to _Thessalonica_, having Letters from

_Innocent_ to _Anysius_ Bishop of that City. But at _Athens_ they were,

to their great Surprize, stopt and detained by a Military Tribune, who

let them know, that they must not touch at _Thessalonica_; and at the

same time appointed a Centurion as a Guard over them, strictly injoining

him not to suffer them, under any Pretence whatsoever, to approach that

City. Soon after the Tribune parted them, and, putting them on board Two

Vessels, ordered the Mariners to convey them strait to _Constantinople_.

_Anysius_ communicated with _Chrysostom_, as I have observed above; and

it was, without all doubt, on this Consideration that the Legates were

not allowed to set foot in his Diocese. [Sidenote: _The hard Usage

they met with on their Journey_,] They arrived at _Constantinople_ the

Third Day after they had left _Athens_, but starved with Hunger; for the

Tribune had neither supplied them with Provisions when they embarked,

nor allowed them Time to supply themselves; so that they had tasted no

Kind of Victuals during the Three Days they were at Sea. [Sidenote: _and

at_ Constantinople.] On their Arrival at _Constantinople_, they were

not suffered to come ashore there, but ordered to a Castle on the

_Thracian_ Coast called _Athyra_, where they were all closely confined,

the Legates in one common Room, and the other Bishops in so many

separate Cells. As the People of _Constantinople_ were most zealously

attached to _Chrysostom_, the Emperor apprehended, and with a great deal

of Reason, that their entering the City, and conversing publicly there,

might be attended with uncommon Disturbances and Commotions; and

therefore thought it adviseable to keep them at a Distance, and under

Confinement. They had not been long thus confined, when they were

ordered, they knew not by whom, to deliver the Letters they had brought.

But neither by this Person, whoever he was, nor by several others, who

were successively sent on the same Errand, could they be prevailed upon

to part with them, alleging, that Letters from an Emperor ought to be

delivered to none but an Emperor.

As they continued firm and unshaken in this Resolution, one _Valerian_,

a Military Tribune, was at last called in, and ordered to employ the

Rhetoric peculiar to his Profession, since no other could prevail.

[Sidenote: _The Letters taken from them by Force._] _Valerian_

accordingly, after a short Preamble, proceeded to Violence; and, seizing

them, took the Letters by Force, having in the Struggle wounded one of

the Bishops in the Hand. The next Day they were visited by a Person,

who, without acquainting them who he was, or by whom sent, offered them

a very considerable Sum, on condition they would communicate with

_Atticus_, who, upon the Death of _Arsacius_, had, by the Bishops of his

Faction, been intruded in his room. [Sidenote: _They are put on board a

leaky Vessel_;] Upon their rejecting, as they did, with the utmost

Indignation, this Offer, _Valerian_, who was present, conducted them

under a strong Guard to the Sea-side, and there put them on board an old

leaky Vessel, having first, with a large Bribe, prevailed upon the

Commander, as they were informed, to engage his Word, that they should

not outlive that Voyage. [Sidenote: _but arrive safe in_ Italy.] They

outlived it however, and, having reached _Lampsacus_, they embarked on

board another Vessel, which landed them safe at _Otranto_. As for the

Eastern Bishops who had attended them from _Rome_, viz. _Cyriacus_,

_Eulysius_, _Palladius_, and _Demetrius_, after having been some time

kept under close Confinement at _Athyra_, they were banished to the most

remote and abandoned Places of the Empire. The other Bishops, who

refused to communicate with _Atticus_, _Theophilus_, and _Porphyrius_,

fared no better, being in like manner either driven into Banishment, or

obliged to abscond, and, under the Disguise of Mechanics, earn their

Livelihood by the meanest Professions. Many perished in the Places of

their Exile for want of Necessaries; and others were so cruelly

harassed, nay, and barbarously beaten, by the merciless Soldiery,

appointed to conduct them, that they died on the Road[1422]. Such were

the wretched Effects of that unchristian Principle of Persecution being

lawful to punish Error in religious Disputes, which all Sects of

Christians then held, and all suffered by in their Turns, as the

different Parties among them got the Civil Magistrate and Force on their

Side.

[Sidenote: Honorius _resolves to revenge the Affront offered to his

Embassadors, but is diverted from it_.]

_Honorius_, being informed of the base Treatment the Legates had met

with, though vested with the sacred Character of Embassadors, was so

provoked at such a notorious Violation of the Right of Nations, that he

resolved to make War on his Brother, and revenge it by Force of Arms.

But from this Resolution he was diverted by a threatened Invasion of the

_Barbarians_, and the seasonable Discovery of the famous _Stilicho_’s

Treachery, which obliged him to keep all his Troops in _Italy_, or the

adjoining Provinces. As for _Innocent_, finding the Mediation of

_Honorius_, which he had procured, prove unsuccessful, and no other

Means left of affording the least Relief to _Chrysostom_ and the other

persecuted Bishops, he resolved to make known to the World his

Abhorrence of the Evils, which it was not in his Power to redress; and

accordingly separated himself from the Communion of _Atticus_,

_Theophilus_, and _Porphyrius_, as the chief Authors of the present

Calamities[1423].

[Sidenote: Arcadius _and_ Eudoxia _not excommunicated by_ Innocent.]

_Baronius_, thinking it inconsistent with the Dignity of his High

Pontiff thus tamely to bear with the insulting Conduct of _Arcadius_,

would fain persuade us, that, after he had tried in vain all other

Methods of bringing the Emperor, and the Empress _Eudoxia_, to a Sense

of their Duty, he at last thought himself obliged to thunder against

both the tremendous Sentence of Excommunication, cutting them off as

rotten Members from the Body of the Faithful committed to his Care and

Direction. To prove this, he produces several Letters from _Innocent_ to

_Arcadius_, and from _Arcadius_ to _Innocent_, transcribed partly from

_Gennadius_, _Glycas_, and _Nicephorus_, and partly from the _Vatican_

Manuscripts[1424]. To enter into a critical Examination of those Pieces,

would be wasting Time, and tiring the Reader to no Purpose. I shall

therefore content myself with Three Observations, each of them

sufficient, in my Opinion, to make the World reject them all as mere

Forgeries. In the first place, the Silence of the Historians, who writ

at that Time, touching so remarkable and unprecedented an Event as the

Excommunication of an Emperor and an Empress, is an unanswerable

Confutation of every Proof that can be alleged to support the

Authenticity of the pretended Letters. For who can imagine, that the

Writers, who flourished then, and have transmitted to us most minute

Accounts of far less important Transactions both Civil and

Ecclesiastical, would have passed this over in Silence? In the Second

place, _Eudoxia_ is supposed, in all those Letters, to have outlived

_Chrysostom_; whereas it is certain, that she died in 404, four Years

before him. Lastly, In the above-mentioned Letter, _Arcadius_ is all

along supposed to have repented, and changed his Conduct towards

_Chrysostom_, to have persecuted his Enemies as he had formerly done his

Friends, and to have chiefly vented his Resentment on the first Author

of all the Disturbances, the Empress, who thereupon, out of Grief, Rage,

and Despair, fell into a dangerous Malady[1425]. But of all this not the

least Hint is to be met with in _Palladius_, who writ in the last Days

of the Life and Reign of _Arcadius_; nay, that Historian speaks of the

Friends of _Chrysostom_ as Men still under the Emperor’s Displeasure,

and feeling the dreadful Effects of it in the inhospitable Places, to

which they had been formerly confined.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom _did not appeal to the See of_ Rome.]

From the Conduct of _Chrysostom_ on this Occasion, the _Roman-Catholic_

Divines have taken a great deal of Pains to prove, that the Custom of

appealing to the See of _Rome_ obtained in his Time; that he actually

appealed to that See; and consequently, that the Prerogative of

receiving Appeals from all Parts, and finally deciding all

Controversies, claimed by the Bishops of _Rome_, was then acknowleged

even in the East. Nothing surely but the utmost Distress for want of

other Instances to prove their Assertion, could have tempted them to

make use of this; since, from the Conduct of _Chrysostom_ on this very

Occasion, nay, and from that of _Innocent_ too, if set in their true

Light, it may be undeniably made out, that this pretended Prerogative

was utterly unknown to both. The Fact stand thus, and thus it is related

by the Historians, who have transmitted it to us: _Chrysostom_ is

unjustly accused; the Bishop of _Alexandria_ takes upon him to inquire

into his Conduct; assembles a Council, consisting chiefly of _Egyptian_

Bishops, and summons _Chrysostom_ to appear before them: _Chrysostom_

pays no Regard to the Summons, protests against it, and will not allow

the Bishops assembled to have any Power or Authority over him, _since it

had been ordained by the Canons of the Church, that the Affairs of the

Provinces should be regulated by the Bishops of the Provinces; and it

was consequently very incongruous, that the Bishops of_ Thrace _should

be judged by those of_ Egypt[1426]. No Regard is had to his Protest,

none to the Canons upon which it was grounded: he is summoned anew; and,

not appearing within the limited Time, is judged, condemned, and

deposed. From this Sentence he appeals to a lawful Council; but, being,

notwithstanding his Appeal, driven from his See, he recurs at last to

the Western Bishops, namely, to _Innocent_ of _Rome_, _Venerius_ of

_Milan_, and _Chromatius_ of _Aquileia_, intreating them not to abandon

him in his Distress, nor exclude him from their Communion[1427], but to

procure by all means the assembling of a General Council, in order to

restore the Church to her former Tranquillity.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom _an utter Stranger to the Power of receiving

Appeals in the Bishops of_ Rome.]

Such was the Conduct of _Chrysostom_: and, from this Conduct, does it

not manifestly appear, that _Chrysostom_ was an utter Stranger to the

pretended Power in the Bishops of _Rome_ of receiving Appeals from all

other Tribunals, and finally determining all Controversies? Who can

think, that, had he been acquainted with such a Prerogative, he would,

when so unjustly oppressed, have appealed to a Council, which, he was

well apprised, would meet with great Obstructions, when he had, ready at

hand, a more certain and easy Method of finding Relief? Had he been

satisfied, that _Innocent_ had such a Privilege, is it likely he would

have written to him on so urgent an Occasion, without taking the least

Notice of it; that he would have contented himself with only intreating

him to procure the assembling of a General Council? Should a Bishop now,

apprehending himself injured by a National or Provincial Synod, appeal,

not to the Pope, but, as _Chrysostom_ did, to a General Council, he

would, by such an Appeal, draw upon himself the Indignation of the

_Roman_ See: for it would be thence concluded, and no Conclusion can be

more natural, that he did not acknowlege the Power of receiving

_Appeals_ claimed by that See.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom _never acknowleged such a Power_.]

But _Chrysostom_, say they, did acknowledge such a Power; for, in his

Letter to _Innocent_, he intreats him _to declare such wicked

Proceedings void and null, and to pronounce all, who had any Share in

them, punishable, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws_. But

_Chrysostom_ addresses himself here, not to _Innocent_ alone, as I have

already observed, but to him, in Conjunction with _Venerius_ of _Milan_,

and _Chromatius_ of _Aquileia_[1428]; nay, he addresses himself,

throughout the whole Letter, to more Persons than one; and yet

_Baronius_ has the Assurance to style the Letter an _Appeal_ to

_Innocent_[1429]. And why to him, and not to the other Two, since he

writ nothing to him but what he writ to them? [Sidenote: _The

Disingenuity of_ Bellarmine.] _Bellarmine_, finding some Expressions in

the above-mentioned Letter, which he thought might be so interpreted as

to favour and countenance the Pretensions of the See of _Rome_, had

_Chrysostom_ addressed himself to _Innocent_ alone, makes him

accordingly, by altering the Number in the Passage he quotes, address

himself to _Innocent_ alone[N49]; and then concludes, that even the

_Greeks_ acknowleged the Bishop of _Rome_ for their Supreme Judge[1430].

What must every impartial Man think of a Cause, that wants to be thus

defended? What of those, who thus defend it?

-----

Footnote N49:

He changes _obsecro ut scribatis_ into _obsecro ut scribas_.

-----

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Exuperius _Bishop of_ Toulouse.]

About this time, that is, in the Year 405. _Innocent_, being consulted

by _Exuperius_[N50] Bishop of _Toulouse_, concerning some Points of

Discipline, answered him by a Decretal, containing the following

Decisions: 1. That the Priests and Deacons, who were daily employed in

sacrificing or baptizing, were not to be allowed the Use of Matrimony;

that those, who were ignorant of the Decretal issued by _Syricius_,

might be forgiven, upon their promising thenceforth to live continent;

but, as to the rest, they should, as unworthy of Indulgence, be deposed.

The Second Article relates to those, who, after Baptism, had led a

wicked or sinful Life, and at the Point of Death desired the Communion.

_Innocent_ declares, that to such, according to the antient Discipline

of the Church, which was more severe, Repentance was granted, and not

the Communion; but, according to the present Practice, both were

granted. By Repentance is here meant, according to the most probable

Opinion, a Reconciliation with the Church; and, by the Communion, the

Eucharist, which the Thirteenth Canon of the Council of _Nice_ commands

to be given to all dying Persons who desire it. Some doubted whether it

was lawful for a Christian to discharge the Office of a Judge, in

criminal Cases. _Innocent_ therefore declares, in the Third Article,

that no Penance ought to be imposed upon those who had condemned

Criminals to the Rack, or even to Death, the Civil Power having been

established by God for the Punishment of Criminals. As Women were, it

seems, more frequently punished for Adultery than Men, some imagined

that Crime not to be alike punishable in both. This Notion _Innocent_

confutes in the Fourth Article; adding, that Women were more frequently

punished, merely because the Husbands were more forward in accusing

their Wives, than Wives were in accusing their Husbands. The Fifth

Article is a Confirmation of the Third; for it only absolves from all

Sins such as are obliged, by their Office, to prosecute or condemn

Criminals. The Sixth Article excludes from the Communion of the Church

all Men, who, after they have been parted from their Wives, marry other

Women; and all Women, who, after they have been parted from their

Husbands, marry other Men[N51]. The same Punishment is, by this Article,

inflicted on those who marry them, but not on their Parents or

Relations, provided they have been no-way accessory to that unlawful

Contract. The last Article contains a Catalogue of the Canonical Books

of Scripture, the same as are still acknowleged by the Church of _Rome_

as Canonical. In the same Article, some Books are pointed out, that

ought to be absolutely condemned and rejected[1431][N52]. These

Directions, or Instructions, _Innocent_ pretends to have drawn partly

from Scripture, and partly from Tradition; and thanks _Exuperius_,

because he had, by applying to him for a Solution to his Difficulties,

engaged him to examine them with Attention, and thereby given him an

Opportunity of learning what he had not known before. It is surprising

he should have mentioned the Scripture, since the very first Article,

debarring for ever married Men from the Use of Matrimony, is an open

Contradiction to the Directions given by St. _Paul_ to all married

Persons, without Restraint or Distinction; _Defraud you not one the

other, except it be with_ _Consent for a time_, &c. _and come together

again, that Satan tempt you not for your Incontinency_[1432].

-----

Footnote N50:

_Exuperius_ was, as we gather from _Ausonius_, a Native of

_Bourdeaux_, one of the greatest Orators of his Time, and had governed

_Spain_ in Quality of Prefect. He afterwards withdrew from the World;

embraced the Ecclesiastical State in the Place of his Nativity[N50.1];

and was, for his eminent Virtues, raised to the See of _Toulouse_. He

was chiefly commendable for his Charity to the Poor; though he

bestowed the greater Part of it on Objects, perhaps, of all, the least

worthy of his Compassion: for, by the Monk _Sisennius_, he sent

considerable Sums into the East, to be distributed there among the

Monks of _Egypt_ and _Palæstine_[N50.2]; which might have been better

employed at home, _Gaul_ being then threatened with an Invasion of the

_Vandals_, _Alans_, and other barbarous Nations; who, accordingly,

broke into that Province on the last Day of the Year 406. and made

themselves Masters of _Toulouse_ itself. It was, however, this

Kindness of _Exuperius_ to the Monks, that chiefly recommended him to

_Jerom_[N50.3], who often mentions him with the greatest

Commendations[N50.4], and even inscribed to him his Comment on

_Zechariah_.

Footnote N50.1:

Paulin. ep. 20.

Footnote N50.2:

Hier. præf. in lib. 1, 2, & 3. Zech. & ep. 152.

Footnote N50.3:

Idem ibid.

Footnote N51:

The matrimonial Bond is held, by the Church of _Rome_, indissoluble,

and a Separation only allowed as to Bed and Board, even in Cases of

Adultery; whence it follows, that so long as they both live, neither

can marry, without being guilty of Adultery. There are, however, some

_annulling Impediments_, as the Canonists style them, that is,

Circumstances rendering the Marriage-contract null; and if any of

these intervene, and is made to appear, the Parties are then declared

not to have been married; and, consequently, free to marry whom they

please. Till _Innocent_’s Time, Men, who had been parted from their

Wives convicted of Adultery, were allowed to marry again. This

_Epiphanius_ tells us in express Terms; adding, that, agreeably to

Scripture (no doubt to _Matt._ v. 32.), it could be no Crime to marry

again; that those who married again were not excluded, on that score,

from Life everlasting; and consequently ought not to be excluded from

the Communion of the Church[N51.1]. The Scope and Design of

_Epiphanius_, throughout his Work, was to acquaint us with the several

Heresies that sprung up in the Church, and to explain, in Opposition

to them, the Catholic Doctrines. It must therefore have been deemed a

Heresy in his Time, that is, towards the latter End of the Fourth

Century, to think the matrimonial Bond indissoluble, even in Cases of

Adultery, or to hold it unlawful for a Man to marry again, who had put

away his Wife _for the Cause of Fornication_. But the Heresy became

afterwards a Catholic Truth, and the Catholic Truth a Heresy. This

Change, however, was not so much owing to _Innocent_’s Decretal, as to

the Two Books, which St. _Austin_ writ about the Year 419. to prove,

that it is unlawful for a Husband, who has put away his Wife, even for

Adultery, or for a Wife who has been thus put away, to marry again,

while both are living. He founds his Opinion on that of St. _Paul_,

_The Wife is bound by the Law, as long as her Husband liveth_[N51.2].

But, instead of understanding that Passage with the Exception made by

our Saviour himself, _Whosoever shall put away his Wife, saving for

the Cause of Fornication_, &c. he endeavours, by many logical

Distinctions, and unnatural Interpretations, to remove that Exception,

though expressed by the Evangelist in the plainest Terms. He was

therein, no doubt, misled, by the groundless, but then reigning,

Notion, of an extraordinary Merit annexed to Celibacy; and therefore

ends his Word with exhorting the Husbands, who have put away their

Wives, to observe Continency, in Imitation of the Ecclesiastics, who

observe it (says he) with the greatest Exactness, though it was not by

their own Choice that some of them went into Orders. It may be

questioned, whether, even then, the Continence of the unmarried Clergy

was such as he represents it.

Footnote N51.1:

Epiph. hæref. 59.

Footnote N51.2: