Footnote N52:
These were several Books, styled _The Acts of the Apostles_, forged by
_Leucius_, _Nezocharis_, and _Leonides_, and ascribed by them to some
of the Apostles. _Leucius_ was, by Sect, a _Manichee_, as appears from
_Austin_, who confuted his Books[N52.1]. _Nezocharis_ and _Leonides_
are, by _Innocent_, styled Philosophers. The Books of _Leucius_, in
the latter End of the present Century, were anew declared Apocryphal
by Pope _Gelasius_: _The Books_, says he in one of his Decretals,
_composed by_ Leucius, _a Disciples of the Devil, are all
Apocryphal_[N52.2].
Footnote N52.1:
Aug. de fide contra Manich.
Footnote N52.2:
Gelas. in Decretal. de lib. Apocryph.
-----
[Sidenote: _His Letter to_ Anysius _of_ Thessalonica.]
As the Bishops of _Rome_ had, ever since the time of _Damasus_, taken
upon them to appoint the Bishop of _Thessalonica_ their Vicar for
_East-Illyricum_, _Innocent_ no sooner heard, that _Rufus_ had been
promoted to that See, vacant by the Death of _Anysius_, than he let all
the Bishops in those Parts know, by a Circular Letter, probably directed
to _Rufus_ himself, that he conferred on him the same Dignity which his
Predecessors had conferred on the other Bishops of _Thessalonica_. He
writ, at the same time, a private Letter to _Rufus_, containing some
Instructions relating to the Exercise of his Vicarious Power, and, with
them, the Names of the Provinces which he was to govern, as his Vicar
and First Primate; but without intrenching, adds _Innocent_, upon the
Rights and Privileges of the Primate or Metropolitan of each Province.
In this Letter he takes great Care, that _Rufus_ should not forget he is
indebted for such a Power to the See of _Rome_; for that he frequently
repeats, as if he entertained some Jealousy of _Rufus_, or apprehended
that he might claim such a Power, as Bishop of _Thessalonica_, that City
being, according to the Civil Division of the Empire, on which the
Ecclesiastical was ingrafted, the Metropolis of _East-Illyricum_[1433].
[Sidenote: Rome _reduced to great Streights by_ Alaric.]
The same Year 407. the Emperor _Honorius_ visited the City of _Rome_,
and continued there till the Month of _May_ of the Year 408. On the 23d
of the following _August_, _Stilicho_ was killed; and _Alaric_ the
_Goth_, entering _Italy_ soon after his Death, appeared before _Rome_,
and laid close Siege to that City in the latter End of the same Year. As
no Provisions could be conveyed into the Place, all the Avenues being
shut up, and well guarded, a Famine soon ensued, and upon the Famine a
Plague, which daily swept off great Numbers of the Inhabitants. In this
Extremity, such of the Senators as still adhered to the Pagan
Superstitions, promising themselves Relief from the Gods of their
Ancestors, resolved to implore their Protection, by solemn Sacrifices
offered up to them in the Capitol, and other public Places of the City.
[Sidenote: _The_ Pagan _Superstitions connived at by_ Innocent.] This
Resolution, says _Zosimus_[1434], they imparted to _Innocent_, then
Bishop of _Rome_, who, sacrificing his private Opinion to the public
Welfare, agreed to it, on Condition that the Ceremony should be
privately performed. Of these Sacrifices _Sozomen_ too takes particular
Notice[1435]; but makes no Mention of _Innocent_; which has induced some
to suspect the Veracity of _Zosimus_, who was, as is well known, a sworn
Enemy to the Christian Religion. But that those Sacrifices were
performed, is affirmed both by him and _Sozomen_; and it is not at all
probable, that _Pompeianus_, who was then Governor of _Rome_, and a
Christian, would have suffered them, without the Consent and Approbation
of _Innocent_. However that be, I see not why _Baronius_ should be so
provoked against _Zosimus_, for making _Innocent_ thus connive at the
superstitious Worship of the Gentiles, since his Successors have always
allowed, and do still allow, even in _Rome_ itself, the free Exercise of
the _Jewish_ Worship.
[Sidenote: Innocent _leaves_ Rome, _and repairs to the Emperor at_
Ravenna.]
_Rome_ being reduced to the last Extremity, Deputies were, in the End,
sent out to treat with _Alaric_, who, hearkening to their Proposals,
raised the Siege, upon their paying to him Five thousand Pounds Weight
of Gold, Thirty thousand of Silver, Four thousand Silk Garments, Three
thousand Skins of Purple Dye, and as many Pounds of Pepper. At the same
time the _Romans_ engaged to mediate a Peace between him and _Honorius_:
but the Emperor refusing to comply with the Terms that were proposed,
though no-ways unreasonable, the _Roman_ Senate sent Two solemn
Deputations to _Ravenna_, where _Honorius_ then resided, to lay before
him the Danger to which he exposed the Empire, and persuade him to
accept the Conditions offered him both by them and by _Alaric_. As the
First Deputation proved unsuccessful, _Innocent_, thinking his Presence
might give some Weight to the Negotiations, left _Rome_, and, together
with the Deputies, repaired to _Ravenna_. Thus he escaped the
Mortification of seeing the City of _Rome_ taken and plundered by the
Barbarians[1436]. For, _Honorius_ still rejecting the Terms of Peace,
_Alaric_ returned with his Army before _Rome_; and, having made himself
Master of it on the 24th of _August_ of the Year 410. treated the great
Metropolis of the Empire no better, if _Jerom_ may be credited, than the
_Greeks_ are said to have treated antient _Troy_[1437].
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Marcianus, _Bishop of_ Naissus.]
While _Innocent_ continued at _Ravenna_, he writ to _Marcianus_ Bishop
of _Naissus_, a City in _Mœsia_, concerning the Ecclesiastics of his
Diocese, who had been ordained by _Bonosus_, of whom we have spoken
above[1438]. In that Letter, _Innocent_ declares, that _Marcianus_ ought
to admit to his Communion, and even restore to their Churches, those
Ecclesiastics, who, having adhered to _Bonosus_ after his Condemnation,
were willing to return, provided they had been ordained by him before
his Condemnation. One of these, by Name _Rusticus_, to remove all Doubt
concerning the Validity of his Ordination, had caused himself to be
reordained by a Catholic Bishop; and this Reordination _Innocent_
condemns, in the same Letter, as highly criminal[1439].
[Sidenote: _His Letter to_ Aurelius _of_ Carthage.]
In the Year 412. _Innocent_ writ to _Aurelius_ Bishop of _Carthage_,
whom he seems to have greatly honoured and esteemed, concerning the Day
on which _Easter_ was to be kept in the Year 414. He acquaints
_Aurelius_, that the 16th Day of the Moon of _March_ would fall that
Year on the 22d of the Month, and the 23d of the Moon on the 29th of the
Month; and consequently that, in his Opinion, _Easter_ ought to be kept
on the 22d of _March_. However, he desires _Aurelius_ to discuss that
Point in the Council of the _African_ Bishops, that was in a short time
to be held at _Carthage_; and to let him know, whether they approved of
such a Regulation, or what they objected against it, that he might
solemnly notify by his Letters, according to Custom, the Day, on which
_Easter_ was to be celebrated[1440]. Their thus notifying to the other
Bishops the Day on which _Easter_ was to be kept, was no Argument of
Power; but it gave them an Air of Pre-eminence, which they dextrously
improved into Power.
[Sidenote: _The Letter of the Bishops of_ Macedon _to_ Innocent.]
In the Year 414. _Vitalis_, Archdeacon probably of _Thessalonica_,
arrived at _Rome_, with Letters for _Innocent_, from the Bishops of
_Macedon_, touching certain Points of Discipline which, it seems, they
had referred to him, and he had decided before. In this Letter they
represent to him, in the first Place, that, according to the Custom and
Practice of their Churches, the marrying a Widow was no Bar or
Impediment to Orders, or even to the Episcopal Dignity; and that to
marry one Wife before, and a Second after, Baptism, was not, with them,
deemed Bigamy. Then passing to those, who had been ordained by
_Bonosus_, they declare it as their Opinion, that nothing more could be
required than the Blessing of a lawful Bishop to re-admit them to the
Functions of their Office. They conclude with begging Leave to raise to
the Episcopal Dignity one _Photinus_, who had been condemned by the
Predecessors of _Innocent_, and to depose a Deacon, by Name
_Eustatius_[1441].
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Answer_.]
This Letter _Innocent_ answered, almost in the Style and Language of a
modern Pope. He begins with expressing his Surprize at the Affront they
offered to the Apostolic See, by calling in Doubt what he had already
decided. He then answers, one by one, the Heads of their Letter, with
all the Authority of an unerring Judge, though neither he, nor any of
his Predecessors, had ever yet claimed, or thought of claiming, such a
Prerogative. He absolutely condemns the Practice of admitting to Orders
such as had married Widows, because that was forbidden, says he, by
_Moses_ to the High Priest of the _Jews_; which was tacitly declaring
the _Levitical_ Laws to be still, in some Degree, binding with respect
to the Christian Clergy. He adds, that if any such had been ordained, it
was the general Practice of all the Churches, both in the East and West,
to depose them[N53]. [Sidenote: Innocent _declares Orders conferred by
Heretics to be null_.] As for those who had married but one of their Two
Wives after Baptism, _Innocent_ declares them equally incapable of being
ordained as if they had married both[N54]. As to the Ecclesiastics
ordained by _Bonosus_, _Innocent_ not only excludes them from the
Ministry, but endeavours to prove in general, that Orders, when
conferred by Heretics, are null, borrowing, for that Purpose, of St.
_Cyprian_, all the Arguments which that Father had made use of to prove
a no less erroneous Opinion; _viz._ the Nullity of Baptism, when
conferred by Heretics[N55].
-----
Footnote N53:
Such a Practice, however general, could have no other Foundation but
the same unwarrantable Notion: I say, unwarrantable; for what can be
more so than to exclude, as _Innocent_ does, even from the lowest
Degrees in the Church, a Man who had married a Widow, because the
High-Priest of the _Jews_ was not allowed to marry one, though all
other Priests were, under that Law, free from such a Restraint?
Footnote N54:
_Jerom_ held the contrary Opinion, and maintained it in one of his
Letters[N54.1], with Reasons, that appeared to _Baronius almost
unanswerable_[N54.2], that is, no otherwise answerable than by the
_Ipse dixit_ of _Innocent_, which, with him, stood in the room of
Reason.
Footnote N54.1:
Hier. ep. 83.
Footnote N54.2:
Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 60.
Footnote N55:
He was, it seems, no Logician; else, to prove his Opinion, he had
never made use of Arguments, that equally proved, and had been
calculated to prove, an erroneous Opinion, an Opinion long before
condemned by all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, and very lately
by himself, in a Letter to _Alexander_ Bishop of _Antioch_, where he
maintains the Validity of Baptism conferred by an _Arian_[N55.1].
Footnote N55.1:
Inn. ep. 18.
-----
[Sidenote: _Which Opinion has been since declared heretical._]
The Opinion, which he endeavours to establish here, has been since
condemned as heretical, by several of his Successors, and is now held as
such by the whole Church; which has cut out a great deal of Work for the
Champions of Infallibility. They plainly see (and who can read
_Innocent_’s Letter without seeing?), that the Reasons which he made use
of were all calculated to prove the Nullity of Ordination by the Hands
of an Heretic; but nevertheless pretend, that whatever their seeming
Purport may be, _Innocent_ employed them only to prove, that an
heretical Bishop had not the Power of conferring Grace, and with it the
Right of exercising lawfully the Functions of his Office[1442]. But who
can believe any Man, endowed with the least Share of common Sense,
capable of arguing so absurdly? If his Meaning may be thus wrested, in
spite of his Words, to a Catholic Sense, whose Meaning may not?
[Sidenote: Innocent _owns the Holy See to have been imposed upon_.]
With respect to _Photinus_, _Innocent_ declares himself very unwilling
to blame, or give Occasion to the World to think that he blamed, the
Conduct of his Predecessors, who had condemned _Photinus_; but
nevertheless, since so many Prelates had made it appear by their joint
Testimonies, that the Holy See had been imposed upon by false and
groundless Reports, he agrees to his Promotion. As to the Deacon
_Eustatius_, he lets them know, that, whatever Reports may have been
spread to his Prejudice, he is well assured both of his Probity, and the
Purity of his Faith, and therefore cannot consent to his Deposition. In
the End of his Letter, he complains of the Bishops of _Macedon_ for not
paying due Regard to the Testimony of the _Roman_ Church, in behalf of
the Two Subdeacons _Dizonianus_ and _Cyriacus_.
[Sidenote: _The Misunderstanding between the Eastern and Western
Churches continues after the Death of_ Chrysostom.]
We have observed above, that _Chrysostom_ being driven from the See of
_Constantinople_ into Exile, _Innocent_, and with him most of the
Western Bishops, had espoused his Cause with great Warmth; but, finding
that all their Endeavours in his Behalf proved unsuccessful, they at
last separated themselves from the Communion of _Atticus_ of
_Constantinople_, _Porphyrius_ of _Antioch_, and _Theophilus_ of
_Alexandria_. In the Year 407. _Chrysostom_ died at _Cumana_ in
_Pontus_; but with him did not die the Animosities, which his Deposition
had occasioned between the Churches of the East and the West. _Atticus_
indeed thought nothing could now obstruct the wished-for Union; and
therefore, as soon as _Chrysostom_’s Death was known, he applied to
_Rome_, desiring the Communion of that Church. But he was greatly
surprised, when he understood, that _Innocent_, instead of readily
granting him his Request, insisted upon his first acknowleging
_Chrysostom_ to have been, and to have died, lawful Bishop of
_Constantinople_, by inrolling his Name in the Diptychs[N56], with the
Names of other Bishops of that City. This Demand seemed to _Atticus_
highly unreasonable; for it was obliging him to acknowlege his own
Election to have been null. He therefore peremptorily refused to comply
with it; but nevertheless continued soliciting, by means of his Friends
at _Rome_, a Reconciliation with that Church[1443]. But _Innocent_ was
inflexible; he was determined at all Events to carry his Point, and
therefore would hearken to no other Terms till that was complied with.
The Eastern Bishops followed the Example of _Atticus_; the Western that
of _Innocent_. And thus were the Separation, and the Animosities
attending it, continued Seven Years longer, each Party bitterly
inveighing, in the mean time, against the Authors of the Divisions, and
each expressing a most earnest Desire of a Reconciliation.
-----
Footnote N56:
The Diptychs were Tables, in which were inrolled the Names of all
those who died in the Communion of the Church. The Bishops were placed
there by themselves; and of all Commemoration was made by the Deacon
in the Time of the Service.
-----
[Sidenote: _The Churches of_ Antioch _and_ Rome _reconciled_.]
At length _Porphyrius_ of _Antioch_, one of _Chrysostom_’s most
inveterate Enemies, dying in the Year 413. or 414. _Alexander_, who till
then had led a monastic Life, was chosen in his room by the unanimous
Consent of the People and Clergy. As he was fully convinced of
_Chrysostom_’s Innocence, and the Malice of his Enemies, he no sooner
found himself vested with that Dignity, than he caused the deceased
Prelate’s Name to be inserted in the Diptychs of his Church, and the Two
Bishops _Helpidius_ and _Pappus_ to be restored to their Sees, from
which they had been driven for refusing to renounce his Communion, and
to communicate with his Enemies. After this _Alexander_ sent a solemn
Deputation to _Rome_, at the Head of which was, it seems, the famous
_Cassian_, to acquaint _Innocent_ with his Promotion, to inform him of
what he had done, and thereupon to renew the Union between the Two
Churches. _Alexander_, who entertained a sincere Desire of seeing Peace
and Concord restored between the East and the West, did not doubt but
the Example of his Church would be followed by many others, and a Way,
by that Means, be paved to a general Pacification. _Innocent_ received
the Deputation with the greatest Marks of Joy, admitted _Alexander_ to
his Communion, and, with the Consent and Approbation of Twenty-Four
other Bishops, declared the Church of _Antioch_ again united to that of
_Rome_.
[Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Antioch _strives to reconcile the Churches
of_ Rome _and_ Constantinople.]
Several other Bishops, moved partly by the Example, and partly by the
Letters and Exhortations of the Bishop of _Antioch_, yielded to
_Innocent_, and submitted to the Terms he required. But _Atticus_ still
adhered to his former Resolution, and, to gain him, _Alexander_, who
spared no Pains to complete the Work he had begun, repaired in Person to
_Constantinople_. But he acted there with such Indiscretion as rendered
that haughty Prelate more averse, than he had ever yet been, to an
Accommodation on the Terms proposed by _Innocent_. For all other Means
he could think of, to compass his Design, proving unsuccessful, he
resolved in the End to apply to the Populace, who, as he well knew, had
been most zealously attached to _Chrysostom_ during his Life, and
revered him as a Saint after his Death. [Sidenote: _His
imprudent Conduct._] Suffering therefore his Zeal to get the better of
his Prudence, and of every Consideration Prudence could suggest, he
began to harangue the Multitude, and inflame them with seditious
Speeches against _Atticus_, as carrying, even beyond the Grave, his
Hatred and Malice against their holy Bishop. The Populace heard him with
Attention, applauded his Zeal, and, full of Rage against _Atticus_,
demanded, in a tumultuous manner, that the Name of so holy, so great and
deserving a Prelate, might be inrolled, without further Delay, in the
Diptychs. But their Clamours and Threats made no more Impression on the
Mind of _Atticus_ than the Reasons of _Alexander_; he withstood both;
and the Bishop of _Antioch_, finding all his Attempts thus shamefully
baffled, returned to his See, with the Mortification of having only
widened the Breach, which he intended to close, between the Churches of
_Rome_ and _Constantinople_[1444]. _Baronius_ supposes _Alexander_ to
have acted on this Occasion as _Innocent_’s Legate[1445]. But I find
nothing in the Antients to countenance such a Supposition, besides his
haughty Behaviour, and his pursuing, by the most unwarrantable Methods,
what he had in View.
[Sidenote: _The Name of_ Chrysostom _inrolled in the Diptychs by the
Bishop of_ Constantinople.]
_Atticus_, however, allowed, in the End, _Chrysostom_’s Name to be
inserted in the Diptychs; but whether he did it by Choice or Compulsion,
is uncertain; for, in one of his Letters, he writes, that he could no
longer withstand the Threats and Violence of the enraged
Multitude[1446]; and in another, that he had done it to comply with the
Will of the Emperors, and to conform to the Sentiments of his Brethren,
both in the East and the West[1447]. However that be, it is certain,
that he never changed his Sentiments with respect to _Chrysostom_, as is
manifest from his declaring, after he had placed his Name in the
Diptychs, that he thereby meant no more than to own, that he had been
once Bishop of _Constantinople_; but that he still adhered to the
Judgment that was given against him. With this, however, _Innocent_ was
satisfied; and so is _Baronius_.
[Sidenote: _The Two Churches re-united at last._]
_Alexander_ maintained ever after a close Correspondence with
_Innocent_, courting his Favour with the most servile Submissions,
recurring to him in every momentous Affair relating to his Church, and
suffering himself to be blindly guided by his Counsels. In one of his
Letters he consulted him, it seems, concerning the Prerogatives of his
See, and the Extent of his Jurisdiction; and nothing can be more subtle
than _Innocent_’s Answer. [Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Alexander
_of_ Antioch.] For after a long Preamble on the Dignity of the See of
_Antioch_, he craftily insinuates all the Privileges and Prerogatives
annexed to it to be owing not to the Dignity of the City, but to the
Dignity of the See, as having been once the See of St. _Peter_. He adds,
that on this Consideration it had been distinguished with an extensive
Jurisdiction, and that it yielded to that of _Rome_ itself only because
St. _Peter_ had accomplished there what he had begun at _Antioch_[1448].
[Sidenote: _The Prerogatives of the See of_ Rome _owing to the City, and
not to St._ Peter.] What _Innocent_ proposed to himself by thus exalting
the See of _Antioch_, by deriving the Privileges, Prerogatives, and
Jurisdiction, of that See from St. _Peter_, is obvious. If they were
owing not to the City, but to St. _Peter_, as _Innocent_ affirms, those
enjoyed by the See of _Rome_ were, in like manner, owing to St. _Peter_,
and not to the City. This Notion, now first started by _Innocent_, was
not suffered to drop; but, being greedily embraced by his Successors, it
was, in Process of Time, improved by them into a general Plea for all
their exorbitant Claims. And thus _Innocent_ may be justly said to have
pointed out the Ground on which the unwieldy Fabric of the Papal Power
was afterwards built. But if it be true, as _Innocent_ pretends, that
the See of _Antioch_ owed its Dignity to St. _Peter_, and not to the
City, how will he account for its being ranked under that of
_Alexandria_, which was neither founded, nor had ever been honoured, by
that Apostle? But not to waste Time in combating such a groundless
Notion, nothing is more certain, than that the Disposition and Division
of the Church was founded upon, and intirely agreeable to, the
Disposition and Division of the Empire[1449]; and consequently that as
no Regard was had to St. _Peter_, or any other Apostle, in the Civil,
none could be had in the Ecclesiastical, Polity. And hence it naturally
follows, that as _Rome_ was the first City of the Empire, _Alexandria_
the Second, and _Antioch_ the Third, the Sees should be ranked in the
same Order; and in the same Order they were ranked accordingly, though
the See of _Alexandria_ was founded only by a Disciple of St. _Peter_,
and that of _Antioch_ was supposed to have been founded by St. _Peter_
himself.
[Sidenote: _The Division of the Church founded on the Division of the
Empire._]
This Division of the Church took place soon after the Division of the
Empire made by _Constantine the Great_, on which it was founded. It was
first introduced by Custom, but afterwards confirmed by several
Councils; and in none of them is there a Word of St. _Peter_. As
therefore the Bishop of _Alexandria_ preceded in Rank the Bishop of
_Antioch_, for no other Reason but because the City of _Alexandria_
preceded in Dignity the City of _Antioch_, according to the secular
Constitutions of the Empire; so the Bishop of _Rome_ preceded in Rank
all other Bishops, for no other Reason but because the City of _Rome_,
as the Seat of the Empire, preceded in Dignity all other Cities.
[Sidenote: Innocent _encourages the Bishop of_ Antioch _to invade the
Rights of the Metropolitans_.]
But to return to _Innocent_: In the same Letter to _Alexander_ he
observes, that the Bishop of _Antioch_ did not preside over a single
Province, but a whole Diocese; and therefore advises him not only to
maintain the Right he had of ordaining the Metropolitans, but not to
suffer other Bishops in the Provinces under his Jurisdiction, however
distant, to be ordained without his Consent and Approbation. He adds,
that, with respect to the Bishops of the less remote Provinces, he might
reserve to himself the Right of ordaining them[1450]. This was
encouraging the Bishop of _Antioch_ to invade and usurp the undoubted
Rights of the Metropolitans, in open Defiance of the Fourth and Sixth
Canons of the Council of _Nice_, which were afterwards confirmed by
almost innumerable other Councils, all granting to the Metropolitans the
Power of ordaining the Bishops of their respective Provinces jointly
with the Bishops of the same Province, without ever once mentioning the
Patriarch or Head of the Diocese[1451]. But of this Right the Bishops of
_Rome_ had deprived the Metropolitans under their Jurisdiction as early
at least as the Time of _Syricius_; for that Pope, in the Letter which
he writ to _Anysius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_, appointing him his Vicar
for _East-Illyricum_, charges him not to suffer any Bishops to be
ordained in those Provinces without his Consent and Approbation.
_Innocent_ maintained what his Predecessors had usurped; and, to
countenance their Usurpation and his own, he encourages, by this Letter,
the Bishop of _Antioch_ to pursue the same Conduct with respect to the
Metropolitans of his Diocese. The Example of the Bishops of _Rome_ was,
in Process of Time, followed by those of _Constantinople_, who, rivaling
them in Pride and Ambition, not only usurped the Power of ordaining all
the Bishops of their Diocese, but, by the Interest they had at Court,
obtained an Imperial Rescript, confirming to them the Power which they
had usurped. But they were soon obliged to part with it, though thus
guaranteed, by the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_ impowering, by
their Twenty-eighth Canon, the Bishops of _Constantinople_ to ordain the
Metropolitans in the Dioceses of _Pontus_, _Asia_, and _Thrace_; but at
the same time ascertaining to the Metropolitans the Right of ordaining
the Bishops of their respective Provinces. But the Bishops of _Rome_,
ever determined to part with no Power, however acquired, found means not
only to elude the Decrees of this and several other Councils,
ascertaining the Rights of the Metropolitans in the plainest Terms, but
to improve, by daily Incroachments, their usurped Jurisdiction, as I
shall have frequent Occasion to observe in the Sequel of this History.
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter occasions great Disputes between
the Bishops of_Antioch _and those of_ Cyprus.]
_Innocent_ complains, in the next Article of his Letter, of a Custom
that obtained in the Island of _Cyprus_. It was one of the chief
Privileges of the Patriarch, or Bishop, who presided over a whole
Diocese, to ordain the Metropolitans of the Provinces comprised under
his Diocese. But the Metropolitan of _Cyprus_ was ordained by the
Bishops of that Island without the Consent, or even the Privity, of the
Bishop of _Antioch_, though _Cyprus_ belonged to his Province, according
to the Civil Division of the Empire. This Custom _Innocent_ condemns, as
repugnant to the Canons of the Council of _Nice_; adding, that it was
first introduced in the unhappy Times when _Arianism_ prevailed all over
_Syria_, the Bishops of _Cyprus_ refusing then to acknowlege those of
_Antioch_, who were infected with that Heresy. This Article proved the
Source of endless Disputes between the Bishops of _Antioch_ and those of
_Cyprus_; the former pretending, that the Power of ordaining the
Metropolitan of _Cyprus_ was lodged in them, and the latter opposing
with great Warmth such a Pretension. [Sidenote: _Which are in the
End decided in favour of the latter._] The Controversy was at length
referred to the Council of _Ephesus_; and the Fathers of that numerous
Assembly, having heard and examined with great Attention the Pleas of
both Parties, condemned in the strongest Terms the Pretension of the
Bishops of _Antioch_, as repugnant to the antient Canons, that is, to
those very Canons, on which, at the Suggestion of _Innocent_, they had
founded it. And here I cannot help observing, by the way, that the
Bishops of _Antioch_ never thought of alleging, in support of their
Claim, the Authority of _Innocent_, which they would certainly have
done, had they not been well apprised, that no Regard would have been
paid to it by the Fathers of the Council. As for what _Innocent_ adds
concerning the Time and Manner in which the Custom he complains of was
introduced, he must certainly have been no less mistaken in those
Particulars, than he was in the Sense and Meaning of the Canons of
_Nice_. For who can imagine, that the _Arian_ Bishops, at the Time
_Arianism_ prevailed, that is, when they had the greatest Interest at
Court, and the Orthodox had none, would have suffered the Bishops of
_Cyprus_ to withdraw themselves, contrary to the established Laws of the
Church, from their Jurisdiction, for no other Reason, but because the
Bishops of _Antioch_ professed the Doctrine of _Arius_?
_Alexander_, in his Letter to _Innocent_, had asked him, Whether Two
Metropolitan Sees should be erected in one Province, which had been
divided by the Emperors into Two? _Innocent_ replies, That the Concerns
of the Church being different from those of the State, the Church ought
to adhere to the antient Rule. [Sidenote: _Alterations in the State
generally attended with the like Alterations in the Church._] However,
it is plain from History, that such Alterations in the State were,
generally speaking, attended with the like Alterations in the Church;
insomuch that when the Bishop of any considerable City wanted to be
raised to the Dignity of a Metropolitan, the most expeditious Way of
gratifying his Ambition was, to apply to the Emperor for a Division of
the Province; that his City being advanced, by such a Division, to the
Rank of a Metropolis, he might, by the same Means, be preferred to that
of a Metropolitan. Of mere Bishops, thus raised to the Dignity of
Metropolitans, without any Regard to _Innocent_’s Letter, or, as it is
styled, Decretal, several Instances occur in History.
_Innocent_, in the End of his Letter, declares it as his Opinion, that
such Ecclesiastics as had renounced _Arianism_, or any other Heresy,
with a Desire of being received into the Church, ought not to be
admitted as Ecclesiastics, but only as Laymen. [Sidenote: _Ecclesiastics
ordained by Heretics to be admitted into the Church only as Laymen._]
This Doctrine is intirely agreeable to the erroneous Doctrine concerning
the Invalidity of Ordination by the Hands of an Heretic, which we have
heard him labour to establish in his Letter to the Bishops of
_Macedon_[1452]. He concludes this Letter with intreating the Bishop of
_Antioch_ to cause it to be read in a Council, or to see that Copies of
it be transmitted to all the Bishops of his Diocese, that all may agree
in observing the Instructions which it contains[1453].
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to the Bishop of_ Eugubium.]
But of all _Innocent_’s Letters, that which he writ to _Decentius_
Bishop of _Eugubium_ (a City still known by the same Name in the Duchy
of _Urbino_) is by far the most worthy of Notice, whether we consider
the Doctrine which he there lays down, or the Principles on which he
founds it. As to the Doctrine, it may be reduced to the Two following
Heads; _viz._ That all the Churches in the West are bound to adopt, and
strictly to observe, every Practice and Custom observed by the _Roman_
Church; and that the Customs of all other Churches, differing from those
of the _Roman_ Church, are but Corruptions of the antient Tradition,
Deviations from the Practice of the Primitive Times, and insufferable
Abuses. As for the Principles on which he founds this Doctrine, they
are, to say no more, of a Piece with the Doctrine itself. For he
pretends, 1. That no Apostle, besides St. _Peter_, ever preached in the
West. He ought, with St. _Peter_, to have at least excepted St. _Paul_;
and, no doubt, would, had not his Memory failed him, as well as his
Infallibility. [Sidenote: _All Churches ought, according to him,
to conform to the Customs of the_ Roman _Church_.] He supposes, in the
Second place, That all the Churches in the West were founded by St.
_Peter_, or by some of his Successors; and consequently, that they ought
to conform to the Customs of the _Roman_ Church, since to that Church
they owe their Origin. But that the Church of _Lyons_, not to mention
others, was founded by Preachers sent thither out of _Asia_ by St.
_Polycarp_, and not by St. _Peter_, or any of his Successors, is
affirmed by all the Antients, and allowed by the most learned among the
Moderns; though some of them pretend, without the least Foundation, the
Whole to have been done by the Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_[1454].
_Innocent_ pretends, in the Third place, every Point of Discipline and
Ecclesiastical Polity to have been settled by the Apostles, and whatever
was settled at _Rome_ by St. _Peter_ to have been there strictly
observed ever since his Time, without the least Addition or Diminution.
He concludes this Part of his Letter with laying it down as a general
Maxim, That it is unlawful for any Bishop to make the least Alterations
in the Discipline of his Church, or even to introduce into one Church a
Custom or Practice observed by another[1455]. This nevertheless is what
all Bishops have done, and even those of _Rome_, both before and after
_Innocent_’s Time, and consequently what they thought it lawful to do.
[Sidenote: _Some Customs of the_ Roman _Church borrowed of other
Churches_.] The Psalmody, for Instance (and innumerable other Instances
might be alleged), or the singing of Psalms in the Churches, was not
instituted by any of the Apostles but first introduced by St. _Ignatius_
into the Church of _Antioch_[1456], whence it spread in a very short
time to all the Churches in the East, those Bishops no more scrupling to
adopt, than _Ignatius_ had scrupled to introduce, so laudable a
Practice. Of the Eastern Churches it was borrowed by the Church of
_Milan_, and of the Church of _Milan_ by that of _Rome_, long before
_Innocent_’s Time; which plainly shews, that his Predecessors held not
that Doctrine, no more than one of the best of his Successors, St.
_Gregory the Great_, who openly approves of some Customs, that were
first unknown to, but afterwards adopted by his Church[1457]. Upon the
Whole, it is evident, that _Innocent_ was grosly mistaken, not only with
respect to this Point, but likewise in asserting, that whatever had been
settled at _Rome_ by St. _Peter_, was still observed there without the
least _Addition or Diminution_.
[Sidenote: _The Ceremony of anointing those who are confirmed._]
The remaining Part of _Innocent_’s Letter relates to some particular
Ceremonies and Customs, especially to the Ceremony of confirming those
who were baptized, and the Custom of fasting on _Saturdays_. With
respect to the former, he informs _Decentius_, that, according to the
Custom of the Church, founded on the Practice of the Apostles, the
Bishop alone can anoint on the Forehead those who have been baptized,
and give them the Holy Ghost; and that the Priests can only anoint other
Parts, the Episcopal Power not having been granted to them, though they
partake of the Priesthood[N57].
-----
Footnote N57:
The Ceremony of anointing with Oil the Forehead, and likewise the
Organs of the Five Senses, in those who had been baptized, is
undoubtedly very antient. _Tertullian_, who lived in the Latter-end of
the Second Century, speaks of it as a Ceremony universally practised
and established[N57.1]. St. _Cyprian_[N57.2], who flourished Fifty
Years after, St. _Ambrose_[N57.3], St. _Austin_[N57.4], St.
_Jerom_[N57.5], and the other Fathers, describe it as a Ceremony, by
which the Holy Ghost was given to those who had been baptized, and
consequently which none but Bishops could administer, they being the
Successors of the Apostles, to whom alone that Power was granted. For
the Fathers, generally speaking, and other antient Writers, suppose
this, and the Imposition of Hands, by which the Holy Ghost was given
by the Apostles to those who were baptized[N57.6], to be one and the
same Ceremony. The Oil employed on this Occasion was, as early as the
Third Century, solemnly consecrated, kept in the Churches or Places
where the Faithful met, and held by them in great Veneration[N57.7].
This gave Rise, in the following Century, to many superstitious
Practices, and Miracles were said to have been wrought by the _holy
Oil_, to warrant such Practices, and confound those who thought it
unlawful to comply with them. A very remarkable Miracle of this Nature
is gravely related by _Optatus Milevitanus_[N57.8], who writ about the
middle of the Fourth Century. But, in the Time of the Apostles, the
Whole of this Ceremony consisted in the Imposition of Hands: _Then
laid they their Hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost_. Not
a Word of _Oil_, of _Chrism_, of _Unction_, of _signing with Oil on
the Forehead_ in the Form of a _Cross_, and much less of a _Blow_
given by the Bishop on the Cheek to the Person that is confirmed,
though these are now all deemed, in the Church of _Rome_, material
Parts of this Ceremony. As such Rites were unknown to, and unpractised
by, the Apostles, it matters little how early they were introduced
after their Time. And here I cannot help observing, that the _Roman
Catholics_ themselves have not thought fit to adopt all the Ceremonies
used on this Occasion, and recommended by the Fathers. For, in
_Innocent_’s Time, the Person confirmed was not only anointed on the
Forehead, but on other Parts; on the Forehead by the Bishop, on other
Parts by the Priests. The other Parts were, as we gather from _Cyril_
Bishop of _Jerusalem_[N57.9], the Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Hands, and
Feet. The anointing of these Parts was, in the Opinion of that Father,
no less fraught with Mysteries than the anointing of the Forehead; and
yet the former Unction, notwithstanding its Antiquity, and all the
Mysteries it symbolized, has been long since omitted, as altogether
unnecessary. They might in like manner have omitted all the rest, and
contented themselves, as the Apostles did, with the bare Imposition of
Hands.
Footnote N57.1:
Tert. de resur. carnis.
Footnote N57.2:
Cypr. ep. 72, 73.
Footnote N57.3:
Ambr. de sacram. l. 3. c. 2.
Footnote N57.4:
Aug. contra Petil. l. 1. c. 104. de baptis. l. 3. c. 16. In ep. 1.
Joan. tract. 3. & de diver. ser. 33.
Footnote N57.5:
Hier. contra Luciferian.
Footnote N57.6:
Act. viii. 15-17.
Footnote N57.7:
Cyp. ep. 70. & de oper. card. & unct. Chris.
Footnote N57.8:
Optat. Milev. contra Parm. l. 2.
Footnote N57.9:
Cyril. Catech. mystag. 3.
-----
[Sidenote: Confirmation _not a Sacrament_.]
The _Roman Catholics_, finding this Ceremony, now known by the Name of
_Confirmation_, styled a _Sacrament_ by St. _Cyprian_[1458], and St.
_Austin_[1459], have thereupon raised it to that Rank, not reflecting
that the antient Writers frequently make use of that Word to express no
more than a _sacred Ceremony_, or Mystery. And truly were they to reckon
among their _Sacraments_ all the Ceremonies which the Fathers and other
Christian Writers have distinguished with that Title, their Number would
amount to Seventy rather than to Seven.
[Sidenote: _Why deemed formerly unlawful to fast on_ Sunday _or_
Saturday.]
With respect to the other Point, those who are ever so little versed in
the Writings of the Fathers, must know, that from the earliest Times it
was deemed unlawful, nay, and highly criminal, for a Christian to fast
on _Sunday_ or _Saturday_; on _Sunday_, because those Heretics, who
denied the Resurrection of our Saviour, fasted on that Day, in
Opposition to the Orthodox, who, believing it, solemnized the _Sunday_,
the Day on which it happened, with Feasting and Rejoicings; on
_Saturday_, because other Heretics holding the God of the _Jews_, and
the Author of their Law, to be an evil Spirit, whom Christ came to
destroy, fasted on the Seventh Day, thinking that by fasting they
vilified the God of the _Jews_ as much as the _Jews_ honoured him by
feasting[1460]. Among the antient Canons, known by the Name of the
_Apostolic Constitutions_, we read the following Ordinance: _If a Clerk
shall be found to have fasted on a_ Sunday _or a_ Saturday, _let him be
deposed; if a Layman, let him be cut off from the Communion of the
Faithful_[1461]. But that Canon must be understood only with respect to
the East; for there was broached, and there chiefly prevailed, the
Heresy that first introduced such a Practice. But in the West, where
that Heresy was scarce known, some Churches, and the _Roman_ in
particular, observed both _Fridays_ and _Saturdays_ as Fast-days.
[Sidenote: Friday _from the earliest Times a Fast-day_.] The _Friday_
was, from the earliest Times, a Fast-day with all Churches, both in the
East and the West; the _Saturday_ was only in the West, and even there
with very few Churches, which had borrowed that Custom of the _Roman_
Church, as we are informed by St. _Austin_[1462]. _Innocent_ therefore,
desirous of establishing in all other Churches the Custom that obtained
in his own, undertakes to prove, first, That all may, and, secondly,
That all ought to observe _Saturday_ as a Fast. [Sidenote: Saturday _a
Fast-day in the_ Roman _Church_.] That all may, he proves well enough;
but the Reasons he offers to shew that they all ought, _viz._ _Because
Christ lay in the Sepulchre the_ Saturday _as well as the_ Friday, _and
the Apostles fasted_, as he supposes, _on both Days_, are manifestly
unconclusive as to any Obligation. Besides, it was not because Christ
lay in the Sepulchre, or because the Apostles fasted, but because Christ
was crucified on a _Friday_, that a Fast was appointed to be observed on
that Day. In Process of Time, the Custom of sanctifying both Days with a
Fast took place in most of the Western Churches; and this Custom has
been made in latter times a general Law, and one of the Commandments of
the Church, which all _Roman Catholics_ are bound to obey on Pain of
Damnation. However, the Severity of it is so far relaxed, that, as they
are only required to abstain from Meat, the utmost Riot and Epicurism in
other Kinds of Food, and in Wine, may be, and are indulged on their
Fast-days.
[Sidenote: _The Ceremony of anointing the Sick with Oil._]
The last Article of _Innocent_’s Letter relates to the Ceremony of
anointing the Sick with Oil, agreeably to that of St. _James_, _Is any
sick among you_, &c.[1463]? As the Apostle directs the Faithful to _call
for the Elders of the Church_; some took from thence Occasion to
question whether Bishops were impowered to perform that Ceremony.
Innocent therefore answers _Decentius_, who had proposed the Question,
that there can be no room to doubt whether or no the Bishops have such a
Power, since the Priests can have none, which the Bishops have not, of
whom they receive all their Power. It is true, says _Innocent_, that St.
_James_ ordered the Faithful to call for the Elders, and not for the
Bishops; but that was because he knew that the Bishops could not have so
much Leisure from other important Duties as the Priests. He adds, that
this Unction must not be applied to Penitents; that the Oil used in it
must be blessed by the Bishop; and when it is thus blessed, not the
Presbyters only, but all the Faithful, may anoint with it both
themselves and others. The Power of anointing, St. _James_ confined to
the Elders or Priests, and that is the present Doctrine of the Church of
_Rome_, though _Innocent_ extended such a Power to all the Faithful.
This Ceremony, now known by the Name of _Extreme Unction_, was, in
_Innocent_’s Time, _a kind of Sacrament_; for so he styles it[1464]. But
it is now a true _Sacrament_, and such it was declared by the Council of
_Trent_[1465].
[Sidenote: _Letters from the Councils of_ Carthage _and_
Milevum _to_ Innocent.]
In the Year 416. _Innocent_ received Three Letters from the _African_
Bishops; _viz._ one from the Bishops of _Africa_, properly so called,
assembled at _Carthage_; another from those of _Numidia_, assembled at
_Milevum_; and a Third from St. _Austin_, signed by him and Four other
Bishops. The Two Councils writ to acquaint _Innocent_, that they had
condemned _Pelagius_ and his Disciple _Cælestius_, of whose Opinions I
shall speak hereafter, and desire him to add the Authority of the
Apostolic See to their Decrees. The Letter from St. _Austin_, and the
Four other Bishops, was to inform _Innocent_, in a friendly manner, that
he was suspected of countenancing those Heretics, and favouring their
Doctrine. This Suspicion they themselves seem not to have thought quite
groundless: for _Possidius_, one of the Bishops who subscribed the
Letter, writes, that the _African_ Bishops took a great deal of Pains to
convince _Innocent_, and his Successor _Zosimus_, that the Doctrine of
_Pelagius_ was erroneous and heretical, knowing that his Followers were
striving to infect the Apostolic See itself with their poisonous
Tenets[1466]. They strove in vain, says _Baronius_; and perhaps they
did; but the _African_ Bishops had never taken so much Pains to guard
the Apostolic See against that Infection, had they not thought it
capable of being infected. The Five Bishops sent to _Innocent_, together
with their Letter, St. _Austin_’s Answer to a Letter which he had
received from _Pelagius_, his Confutation of a Book composed by that
Heretic, and the Book itself, with the Passages marked in it that gave
most Offence, and claimed a particular Attention, lest he should
overlook them[1467]. This was not treating him as an infallible
Judge[N58].
-----
Footnote N58:
_Baronius_ observes here, that their informing him by a private
Letter, and not by a public one from the Council, of the Suspicions
that some entertained of him, was a Mark of the great Respect and
Veneration, they had for the Bishop of _Rome_, whose Nakedness they
were unwilling, as it became dutiful Children, to expose to the Eyes
of the World[N58.1]. And who told _Baronius_, that, in the like
Circumstances, they would not have shewn the same Respect for any
other Bishop? He had better have observed, and the Observation is more
obvious, that his being suspected at all evidently proves the
_Infallibility_ of the Apostolic See not to have been, in those Days,
an Article of the Catholic Faith.
Footnote N58.1:
Bar. ad ann. 416. n. 11.
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Answer to the Councils_.]
The Letters from the Council of _Carthage_, from that of _Milevum_, and
from the Five Bishops, were brought to _Rome_ by _Julius_, Bishop of
some City in _Africa_; and, by the same _Julius_, _Innocent_ answered
them with Three Letters, all dated the 27th of _January_ of the Year
417. The First, which is addressed to _Aurelius_, probably Bishop of
_Carthage_, and to the other Bishops of that Assembly, he begins with
commending them for their Zeal, their Pastoral Vigilance, and the Regard
they had shewn for the _Apostolic See_. [Sidenote: _He claims the first
a Divine Right of finally deciding all Controversies._] He thence takes
an Opportunity to resume his usual and favourite Subject, the Dignity,
Pre-eminence, and Authority of that See; roundly asserting, that _all
Ecclesiastical Matters throughout the World are, by Divine Right, to be
referred to the Apostolic See, before they are finally decided in the
Provinces_. This was indeed a very bold Claim, and a direct asserting to
himself the Universal Supremacy attained by his Successors. But it was
yet too early for such a Claim to be granted; and it is plain the
_African_ Bishops had no Idea of this Divine Right. For, had they
entertained any such Notion, they surely would never have presumed
finally to condemn and anathematize, as they did, _Pelagius_ and
_Cælestius_, without consulting at least the Apostolic See: neither
would they have written to _Innocent_ in the Style they did, after they
had condemned them: for, in their Letter, they did not leave him at
Liberty to approve or disapprove of what they had done; but only desire
him to join his Authority to theirs, which they well knew he could not
refuse to do, without confirming the Suspicion of his countenancing the
_Pelagians_, and their Doctrine. [Sidenote: _Which is not acknowledged
by the_ African _nor the_ Numidian _Bishops_.] _We have anathematized_
Pelagius _and Cælestius_, say the Fathers of the Council of _Carthage_,
_and thought fit to acquaint you with it, that to the Decrees of our
Mediocrity might be added the Authority of the Apostolic See_. This is a
modest Style, and respectful to the See of _Rome_; but it is that of Men
who plainly thought they had a Right to act in this Matter, by their own
Judgment and Power, without waiting for the Award of that See, as they
ought to have done, is they had allowed of _Innocent_’s Claim. In like
manner the Council of _Milevum_, after informing _Innocent_ of the
Sentence, which they had pronounced against the Two above-mentioned
Heretics, adds; _And this Error and Impiety, which has every-where so
many Followers and Abetters, ought also to be anathematized and
condemned by the Apostolic See_[1468]; which was putting _Innocent_ in
mind of what he ought to do, and not consulting him what they should do.
[Sidenote: _An Instance of_ Innocent_’s great Subtlety and Address_.]
This Conduct of the _African_ Bishops gave _Innocent_ no small
Uneasiness. He was at a Loss what to do at so critical a Juncture. For
to approve of a Conduct, so derogatory to the pretended Dignity of his
See, was giving up his Claim to the _Divine Right_ of finally deciding
all Ecclesiastical Controversies. To disapprove it, was confirming the
Suspicion of his countenancing the Doctrine which they had condemned.
But _Innocent_ was a Man of great Subtlety and Address; and he found
out, at last, an Expedient to extricate himself out of that Perplexity,
and gratify the Fathers of both Councils, without either approving or
condemning their past Conduct. The only thing they required of him was
to join his Authority with theirs, in condemning the _Pelagian_ Heresy;
and that he readily did. But, lest in so doing he should seem to approve
of their having condemned it without first consulting him, in his Answer
to their Letters, he supposes them to have actually consulted him; nay,
to have referred to him the final Decision of that Controversy; and,
agreeably to that Supposition, he commends them for the Deference they
had thereby shewn to the Apostolic See. _You have well observed_, says
he, _the Ordinances of the antient Fathers, and not trampled under-foot
what they, not in human Wisdom, but by Divine Order, have established_;
viz. _That whatever is done in Places, however remote, should, for a
final Conclusion, be referred to the Apostolic See_. And again, _You
have had due Regard to the Honour of the Apostolic See, I mean of him
who has the Charge and Care of all Churches, in consulting him in these
Perplexities, and intricate Cases_[1469]. Thus did _Innocent_ maintain
his Claim, and, at the same time, avoid quarrelling, at an improper
Season, with those who had acted in direct Opposition to it. A necessary
Policy in the first setting up of such extravagant and groundless
Pretensions.
[Sidenote: _He excommunicates_ Cælestius _and_ Pelagius.]
In the present Letter he not only approves of the Judgment given against
_Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ by the _African_ Bishops, but alleges several
Reasons in Confutation of the Doctrines they taught; and concludes, by
declaring them cut off from the Communion of the Church, agreeably to
the Sentence of the _African_ Bishops, as Men not only unworthy of that
Communion, but of human Society, and even of Life[1470]. The same things
he repeats in his Answer to the Bishops of _Numidia_; but he seems there
to have been sensible, upon a more cool Consideration, that, in his
Letter to the Council of _Carthage_, he had strained his Prerogative too
high; and therefore in this he confines to Matters of _Faith_ the
general Maxim, which he had laid down, concerning the Obligation of
referring all Ecclesiastical Matters, for a final Decision, to the
Apostolic See. In the same Letter he endeavours to confute, in
particular, the Doctrine of _Pelagius_, allowing Children, who die
without Baptism, to partake of eternal Life[1471]. In his Answer to the
Five Bishops, he refers them for his real Sentiments, concerning the
Doctrine of _Pelagius_, to the other Two Letters, adding, that he had
read the Book of _Pelagius_, which they had sent him, and found nothing
in it that he liked, or rather that he did not dislike[1472][N59].
-----
Footnote N59:
That the _Pelagian_ Heresy was first condemned by the _African_
Bishops, is a Fact so well attested, that one would think it
impossible it should ever have come into any Man’s Thoughts to call it
in question. And yet _Baronius_, upon the Authority of a very doubtful
Passage out of St. _Prosper_, a contemporary Writer, roundly asserts
that Heresy to have been first condemned, not by the _African_
Bishops, but by _Innocent_[N59.1]. The Words of _Prosper_
are:--_Pestem subeuntem prima recidit sedes Roma Petri_[N59.2]. These
Words are variously interpreted by the Learned; but all agree in
rejecting the Interpretation of _Baronius_, as making[N59.3] _Prosper_
contradict a known Truth.
Footnote N59.1:
Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 26.
Footnote N59.2:
Prosp. de Ingratis, l. 1. c. 2.
Footnote N59.3:
Vide Jansenium de Hær. Pelag. p. 16. Merc. t. 1. p. 9.
-----
[Sidenote: Cælestius _condemned by the_ African _Bishops,
notwithstanding his Appeal to_ Rome.]
_Cælestius_ had been condemned by a Council held at _Carthage_ in the
Year 412. and probably consisting of the same Bishops who composed that
of the Year 416. From their Sentence he appealed, as _Baronius_
observes[1473], to the See of _Rome_, summoning his Accuser _Paulinus_
to appear at the same Tribunal. But all we can infer from thence is,
that either _Innocent_ did not receive the Appeal, or, if he did, that
the _African_ Bishops made no Account of it, since they condemned him
anew, without waiting for the Judgment of _Innocent_, to whom he had
appealed.
[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Jerom.]
_Innocent_ writ Two Letters more, a little before his Death, one of
which was to St. _Jerom_, comforting him in his Distress. For some who
favoured _Pelagius_, provoked at _Jerom_’s repeated Invectives against
him, had set Fire to his Monastery at _Bethlehem_, and burnt it down to
the Ground, agreeably to the Spirit and Methods in which religious
Controversies were now carried on. Their Design was to have burnt
_Jerom_ himself; but he had the good Luck to escape out of the Flames,
and save himself in a strong Tower. The Two noble Virgins, _Eustochium_
and her Niece _Paula_, who led a retired Life under the Direction of
_Jerom_, met with no better Treatment. For those Fanatics, breaking into
the House where they lived, beat some of their Attendants in their
Presence, killed others, and threatened them with Fire and Destruction.
With this they acquainted _Innocent_, who thereupon writ to _Jerom_,
offering to exert _the whole Authority of the Apostolic See_ against the
Authors of such Excesses, provided he knew who they were: for the Two
Virgins had concealed their Names, probably to prevent his exerting that
Authority, which they had Reason to apprehend would be attended with
greater Evils.
_Innocent_ adds, that so long as the Authors and Promoters of those
unheard of Barbarities are unknown, he can only condole with those who
have suffered by them; but, if they were accused in due Form, at his
Tribunal, he would not fail to appoint proper Judges to try them; which,
by the way, he had no Right to do.
[Sidenote: _His Letter to_ John _of_ Jerusalem.]
_Innocent_’s other Letter is to _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, who hated
_Jerom_ on account of his Inveteracy against _Origen_, and was suspected
to connive at the cruel Treatment he and his Followers had met with. Him
therefore _Innocent_ reprimands very severely, for suffering such
enormous Abuses within the Limits of his Jurisdiction. In his Letter he
gives him the Title of _well-beloved Brother_; but, at the same time,
treats him with more Haughtiness than was becoming even in a Superior,
though he neither had, nor could claim by the Canons, any kind of
Jurisdiction or Authority over him.
[Sidenote: Innocent _dies_.]
These Letters _Innocent_ writ in the Latter-end of _January_, and died
on the 12th of _March_ of the same Year 417. having governed the _Roman_
Church near Fifteen Years; for his Predecessor _Anastasius_ died on the
27th of _April_ 402. and he was chosen soon after his Decease, as I have
observed above. He was generally esteemed a Man of good Parts, and well
acquainted with the Laws and Traditions of the Church. [Sidenote: _The
See of_ Rome _greatly indebted to him for its Grandeur_.] Hence he was
frequently consulted by the Western, and sometimes by the Eastern
Bishops, in Points both of Faith and Discipline. Of this general Esteem,
and the Deference that was thereupon paid to his Decisions, he took
Advantage to lay down, with an Air of Authority, and as undoubted
Truths, many false, groundless, and dangerous Maxims, all tending to the
Diminution of the Episcopal Power, and the Advancement of the Papal.
_The Dignity of the Apostolic See_ was, as we have seen, the Burden of
almost all his Letters; he even improved it into a Claim of Supremacy;
and we may say, with great Truth, that to him the See of _Rome_ was more
indebted for the Grandeur it afterwards gained, than to all his
Predecessors together. He formed the Plan of that Spiritual Monarchy,
which they, by constant Application, established at last, in spite of
the many almost insurmountable Difficulties, which they had to contend
with. He was the first who, changing the antient Foundation of the
Primacy, claimed it as the Successor of St. _Peter_, _the Prince of the
Apostles_, as he is styled, and not as the Bishop of the first City,
though on that Consideration alone it had been granted by the Councils.
I said _Primacy_, because the Word _Supremacy_ was utterly unknown in
those Days. The Council of _Sardica_, held in the Year 347. had allowed,
in some Cases, and under several Restrictions, Appeals to be made to the
See of _Rome_, as has been observed elsewhere[1474]. But _Innocent_,
scorning to owe any Branch of his Authority to that, or any other
Council, claimed, by _Divine Right_, the Power of finally deciding all
Ecclesiastical Controversies and Disputes; which was claiming, by Divine
Right, an unlimited Jurisdiction. It is true, no Regard was had to such
Claims; nor indeed did _Innocent_ dare to pursue them, being well
apprised of the Opposition he would meet with, if he should then have
made such an Attempt. He therefore wisely contented himself with laying
Foundations, and thought it a great Advance, as it certainly was, to
have openly asserted such Notions, and brought the Ears of Men to endure
them, if not their Minds. Had he gone farther, he would have been
stopped in his Career, and it might have proved fatal to the Power of
_Rome_ before it was come to an Age of Maturity; but that he went thus
far was of great Benefit to it, because it made a Beginning, and
furnished his Successors with a Pretence to plead some Antiquity for the
Opinions and Principles upon which they proceeded.
[Sidenote: _His Decretals often quoted by the Popish Divines._]
Accordingly the Decretals of _Innocent_ are frequently quoted by the
Advocates for the See of _Rome_, to shew how early the Popes claimed, by
Divine Right, and as Successors of St. _Peter_, an universal Authority
and Jurisdiction. But if the Principles, on which they founded their
Claims, were false in _Innocent_’s Time, they are still so in ours; if
no Account was then made of such Claims (and that none was made, I have
sufficiently shewn), no Account ought to be made of them now; no more
than if they were dated but Yesterday. Nor, indeed, ought the Beginning
of the Fifth Century to be esteemed an early Time in the Christian
Church. Great Corruptions were then crept into it; and, with regard to
the Point in Question, it was very late. For had the Bishop of _Rome_
been supreme Head of the Church, in Right of St. _Peter_, how came that
Supremacy to be unknown, and unheard of, for above Four hundred Years?
If the Four first Centuries could not discover it, on what new Light was
it revealed to the Fifth?
[Sidenote: _Is sainted._]
_Innocent_ has been inrolled, by his Successors, in the Catalogue of
Saints; and he is now adored in the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint of the
first Rate; an Honour which, it must be confessed, he better deserved at
their Hands, in their Estimation of Merit, than any of his Predecessors,
or any of his Successors, except _Gregory_ the VIIth.
-----
Footnote N50.4:
Idem ep. 410, 411.
Footnote 1392:
Collect. Rem. ab Holsten. p. 45.
Footnote 1393:
Anast. c. 41.
Footnote 1394:
Hier. ep. 8.
Footnote 1395:
Theod. l. 5. c. 35.
Footnote 1396:
Prosp. in Col. c. 10.
Footnote 1397:
Pec. orig. c. 9.
Footnote 1398:
Oros. l. 7. c. 39.
Footnote 1399:
Hier. ubi supra.
Footnote 1400:
Aug. ep. 92.
Footnote 1401:
Coll. Rom. p. 46, 47.
Footnote 1402:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1252.
Footnote 1403:
Ibid. p. 1249.
Footnote 1404:
See above, p. 120, 121.
Footnote 1405:
Bar. ad ann. 404. num. 130.
Footnote 1406:
See Natal. Alex. hist. eccles. t. 10. p. 14.
Footnote 1407:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1249-1252.
Footnote 1408:
Concil. t. 5. p. 858. & 866.
Footnote 1409:
See Blond. Decr. p. 55.
Footnote 1410:
Aug. cp. 50.
Footnote 1411:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1412:
See above, p. 247.
Footnote 1413:
Pall. Dial. c. 2.
Footnote 1414:
Idem ib. c. 8.
Footnote 1415:
Idem ib.
Footnote 1416:
Idem ib. c. 3.
Footnote 1417:
Idem ib.
Footnote 1418:
Pallad. ibid. c. 2.
Footnote 1419:
Pall. ubi supra. Soz. l. 8. c. 26. Hist. Lausiac, c. 121.
Footnote 1420:
Soz. ubi supra, & ep. Rom. Pont. Inn. 15.
Footnote 1421:
Pall. ibid.
Footnote 1422:
Pall. in dial. ubi supra.
Footnote 1423:
Idem ibidem.
Footnote 1424:
Bar. ann. 407. n. 19-22.
Footnote 1425:
Vid. Bar. ubi sup. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. & Glyc. l. 4. p. 259, 260.
Footnote 1426:
Chrysos. ep. 122.
Footnote 1427:
Pall. dial. 2.
Footnote 1428:
Idem ibid.
Footnote 1429:
Bar. ad ann. 404. n. 20.
Footnote 1430:
Bell. Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 15.
Footnote 1431:
Conc. t. 2. p. 1254-1256.
Footnote 1432: