Innocent’s Letter toMarcianus,Bishop ofNaissus.
WhileInnocentcontinued atRavenna, he writ toMarcianusBishop ofNaissus, a City inMœsia, concerning the Ecclesiastics of his Diocese, who had been ordained byBonosus, of whom we have spoken above[1438]. In that Letter,Innocentdeclares, thatMarcianusought to admit to his Communion, and even restore to their Churches, those Ecclesiastics, who, having adhered toBonosusafter his Condemnation, were willing to return, provided they had been ordained by him before his Condemnation. One of these, by NameRusticus, to remove all Doubt concerning the Validity of his Ordination, had caused himself to be reordained by a Catholic Bishop; and this ReordinationInnocentcondemns, in the same Letter, as highly criminal[1439].
His Letter toAureliusofCarthage.
In the Year 412.Innocentwrit toAureliusBishop ofCarthage, whom he seems to have greatly honoured and esteemed, concerning the Day on whichEasterwas to be kept in the Year 414. He acquaintsAurelius, that the 16th Day of the Moon ofMarchwould 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,Easterought to be kept on the 22d ofMarch. However, he desiresAureliusto discuss that Point in the Council of theAfricanBishops, that was in a short time to be held atCarthage; 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 whichEasterwas to be celebrated[1440]. Their thus notifying to the other Bishops the Day on whichEasterwas to be kept, was no Argument of Power; but it gave them an Air of Pre-eminence, which they dextrously improved into Power.
The Letter of theBishops ofMacedontoInnocent.
In the Year 414.Vitalis, Archdeacon probably ofThessalonica, arrived atRome, with Letters forInnocent, from the Bishops ofMacedon, 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 byBonosus, 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 onePhotinus, who had been condemned by the Predecessors ofInnocent, and to depose a Deacon, by NameEustatius[1441].
Innocent’s Answer.
This LetterInnocentanswered, 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, byMosesto the High Priest of theJews; which was tacitly declaring theLeviticalLaws 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].|Innocentdeclares Or-ders conferred by Hereticsto be null.|As for those who had married but one of their Two Wives after Baptism,Innocentdeclares them equally incapable of being ordained as if they had married both[N54]. As to the Ecclesiastics ordained byBonosus,Innocentnot 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].
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,asasInnocentdoes, even from the lowest Degrees in the Church, a Man who had married a Widow, because the High-Priest of theJewswas not allowed to marry one, though all other Priests were, under that Law, free from such a Restraint?N54.Jeromheld the contrary Opinion, and maintained it in one of his Letters[1], with Reasons, that appeared toBaronius almost unanswerable[2], that is, no otherwise answerable than by theIpse dixitofInnocent, which, with him, stood in the room of Reason.1. Hier. ep. 83.2. Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 60.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 toAlexanderBishop ofAntioch, where he maintains the Validity of Baptism conferred by anArian[1].1. Inn. ep. 18.
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,asasInnocentdoes, even from the lowest Degrees in the Church, a Man who had married a Widow, because the High-Priest of theJewswas not allowed to marry one, though all other Priests were, under that Law, free from such a Restraint?
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,asasInnocentdoes, even from the lowest Degrees in the Church, a Man who had married a Widow, because the High-Priest of theJewswas not allowed to marry one, though all other Priests were, under that Law, free from such a Restraint?
N54.Jeromheld the contrary Opinion, and maintained it in one of his Letters[1], with Reasons, that appeared toBaronius almost unanswerable[2], that is, no otherwise answerable than by theIpse dixitofInnocent, which, with him, stood in the room of Reason.
N54.Jeromheld the contrary Opinion, and maintained it in one of his Letters[1], with Reasons, that appeared toBaronius almost unanswerable[2], that is, no otherwise answerable than by theIpse dixitofInnocent, which, with him, stood in the room of Reason.
1. Hier. ep. 83.
1. Hier. ep. 83.
1. Hier. ep. 83.
2. Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 60.
2. Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 60.
2. Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 60.
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 toAlexanderBishop ofAntioch, where he maintains the Validity of Baptism conferred by anArian[1].
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 toAlexanderBishop ofAntioch, where he maintains the Validity of Baptism conferred by anArian[1].
1. Inn. ep. 18.
1. Inn. ep. 18.
Which Opinion hasbeen since declaredheretical.
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 readInnocent’s Letter without seeing?), that the Reasons whichhe 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,Innocentemployed 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?
Innocentowns theHoly See to havebeen imposed upon.
With respect toPhotinus,Innocentdeclares himself very unwilling to blame, or give Occasion to the World to think that he blamed, the Conduct of his Predecessors, who had condemnedPhotinus; 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 DeaconEustatius, 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 ofMacedonfor not paying due Regard to the Testimony of theRomanChurch, in behalf of the Two SubdeaconsDizonianusandCyriacus.
The Misunderstanding between the Eastern and Western Churches continues after the Death ofChrysostom.
We have observed above, thatChrysostombeing driven from the See ofConstantinopleinto 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 ofAtticusofConstantinople,PorphyriusofAntioch, andTheophilusofAlexandria. In the Year 407.Chrysostomdied atCumanainPontus; but with him did not die the Animosities, which his Deposition had occasioned between the Churches of the East and the West.Atticusindeed thought nothing could now obstruct the wished-for Union; and therefore, as soon asChrysostom’s Death was known, he applied toRome, desiring the Communion of that Church. But he was greatly surprised, when he understood, thatInnocent, instead of readily granting him his Request, insisted upon his first acknowlegingChrysostomto have been, and to have died, lawful Bishop ofConstantinople,by inrolling his Name in the Diptychs[N56], with the Names of other Bishops of that City. This Demand seemed toAtticushighly 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 atRome, a Reconciliation with that Church[1443]. ButInnocentwas 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 ofAtticus; the Western that ofInnocent. 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.
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.
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.
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.
The Churches ofAntiochandRomereconciled.
At lengthPorphyriusofAntioch, one ofChrysostom’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 ofChrysostom’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 BishopsHelpidiusandPappusto be restored to their Sees, from which they had been driven for refusing to renounce his Communion, and to communicate with his Enemies. After thisAlexandersent a solemn Deputation toRome, at the Head of which was, it seems, the famousCassian, to acquaintInnocentwith 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.Innocentreceived the Deputation with the greatest Marks of Joy, admittedAlexanderto his Communion, and, with the Consent and Approbation of Twenty-Fourother Bishops, declared the Church ofAntiochagain united to that ofRome.
The Bishop ofAntiochstrives to reconcile the Churches ofRomeandConstantinople.
Several other Bishops, moved partly by the Example, and partly by the Letters and Exhortations of the Bishop ofAntioch, yielded toInnocent, and submitted to the Terms he required. ButAtticusstill adhered to his former Resolution, and, to gain him,Alexander, who spared no Pains to complete the Work he had begun, repaired in Person toConstantinople. 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 byInnocent. 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 toChrysostomduring his Life, and revered him as a Saint after his Death.|His imprudentConduct.|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 againstAtticus, 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 againstAtticus, 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 ofAtticusthan the Reasons ofAlexander; he withstood both; and the Bishop ofAntioch, 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 ofRomeandConstantinople[1444].BaroniussupposesAlexanderto have acted on this Occasion asInnocent’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.
The Name ofChryso-stominrolled in theDiptychs by the Bish-op ofConstantinople.
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 withthe 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 toChrysostom, 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 ofConstantinople; but that he still adhered to the Judgment that was given against him. With this, however,Innocentwas satisfied; and so isBaronius.
The Two Churchesre-united at last.
Alexandermaintained ever after a close Correspondence withInnocent, 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 thanInnocent’s Answer.|Innocent’s Letter toAlexanderofAnt-ioch.|For after a long Preamble on the Dignity of the See ofAntioch, 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 ofRomeitself only because St.Peterhad accomplished there what he had begun atAntioch[1448].|The Prerogatives of the See ofRomeowing to the City, and not to St.Peter.|WhatInnocentproposed to himself by thus exalting the See ofAntioch, 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, asInnocentaffirms, those enjoyed by the See ofRomewere, in like manner, owing to St.Peter, and not to the City. This Notion, now first started byInnocent, 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 thusInnocentmay 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, asInnocentpretends, that the See ofAntiochowed its Dignity to St.Peter, and not to the City, how will he account for its being ranked under that ofAlexandria, 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 Divisionof 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 asRomewas the first City of the Empire,Alexandriathe Second, andAntiochthe Third, the Sees should be ranked in the same Order; and in the same Order they were ranked accordingly, though the See ofAlexandriawas founded only by a Disciple of St.Peter, and that ofAntiochwas supposed to have been founded by St.Peterhimself.
The Division of theChurch founded on theDivision of the Empire.
This Division of the Church took place soon after the Division of the Empire made byConstantine 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 ofAlexandriapreceded in Rank the Bishop ofAntioch, for no other Reason but because the City ofAlexandriapreceded in Dignity the City ofAntioch, according to the secular Constitutions of the Empire; so the Bishop ofRomepreceded in Rank all other Bishops, for no other Reason but because the City ofRome, as the Seat of the Empire, preceded in Dignity all other Cities.
Innocentencour-ages the BishopofAntiochtoinvade the Rightsof the Metropol-itans.
But to return toInnocent: In the same Letter toAlexanderhe observes, that the Bishop ofAntiochdid 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 ofAntiochto invade and usurp the undoubted Rights of the Metropolitans, in open Defiance of the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council ofNice, 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 BishopsofRomehad deprived the Metropolitans under their Jurisdiction as early at least as the Time ofSyricius; for that Pope, in the Letter which he writ toAnysiusBishop ofThessalonica, appointing him his Vicar forEast-Illyricum, charges him not to suffer any Bishops to be ordained in those Provinces without his Consent and Approbation.Innocentmaintained what his Predecessors had usurped; and, to countenance their Usurpation and his own, he encourages, by this Letter, the Bishop ofAntiochto pursue the same Conduct with respect to the Metropolitans of his Diocese. The Example of the Bishops ofRomewas, in Process of Time, followed by those ofConstantinople, 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 ofChalcedonimpowering, by their Twenty-eighth Canon, the Bishops ofConstantinopleto ordain the Metropolitans in the Dioceses ofPontus,Asia, andThrace; but at the same time ascertaining to the Metropolitans the Right of ordaining the Bishops of their respective Provinces. But the Bishops ofRome, 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.
Innocent’s Letteroccasions greatDisputes between theBishops ofAntiochand those ofCyprus.
Innocentcomplains, in the next Article of his Letter, of a Custom that obtained in the Island ofCyprus. 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 ofCypruswas ordained by the Bishops of that Island without the Consent, or even the Privity, of the Bishop ofAntioch, thoughCyprusbelonged to his Province, according to the Civil Division of the Empire. This CustomInnocentcondemns, as repugnant to the Canons of the Council ofNice; adding, that it was first introduced in the unhappy Times whenArianismprevailed all overSyria, the Bishops ofCyprusrefusing then to acknowlege those ofAntioch, who were infected with that Heresy. This Article proved the Source of endless Disputes between the Bishops ofAntiochand those ofCyprus; the former pretending, that the Power of ordaining the Metropolitan ofCypruswas lodged in them, and the latter opposingwith great Warmth such a Pretension.|Which are in the Enddecided in favour ofthe latter.|The Controversy was at length referred to the Council ofEphesus; 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 ofAntioch, as repugnant to the antient Canons, that is, to those very Canons, on which, at the Suggestion ofInnocent, they had founded it. And here I cannot help observing, by the way, that the Bishops ofAntiochnever thought of alleging, in support of their Claim, the Authority ofInnocent, 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 whatInnocentadds 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 ofNice. For who can imagine, that theArianBishops, at the TimeArianismprevailed, that is, when they had the greatest Interest at Court, and the Orthodox had none, would have suffered the Bishops ofCyprusto withdraw themselves, contrary to the established Laws of the Church, from their Jurisdiction, for no other Reason, but because the Bishops ofAntiochprofessed the Doctrine ofArius?
Alexander, in his Letter toInnocent, had asked him, Whether Two Metropolitan Sees should be erected in one Province, which had been divided by the Emperors into Two?Innocentreplies, That the Concerns of the Church being different from those of the State, the Church ought to adhere to the antient Rule.|Alterations in theState generally at-tended with the likeAlterations in theChurch.|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 toInnocent’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 renouncedArianism, or any other Heresy,with a Desire of being received into the Church, ought not to be admitted as Ecclesiastics, but only as Laymen.|Ecclesiastics ordainedby Heretics to be ad-mitted into the Churchonly 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 ofMacedon[1452]. He concludes this Letter with intreating the Bishop ofAntiochto 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].
Innocent’s Letter tothe Bishop ofEugub-ium.
But of allInnocent’s Letters, that which he writ toDecentiusBishop ofEugubium(a City still known by the same Name in the Duchy ofUrbino) 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 theRomanChurch; and that the Customs of all other Churches, differing from those of theRomanChurch, 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.|All Churches ought,according to him, toconform to the Cus-toms of theRomanChurch.|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 theRomanChurch, since to that Church they owe their Origin. But that the Church ofLyons, not to mention others, was founded by Preachers sent thither out ofAsiaby 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 ofRome[1454].Innocentpretends, in the Third place, every Point of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Polity to have been settled by the Apostles, and whatever was settled atRomeby St.Peterto have been there strictly observed ever since hisTime, 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 ofRome, both before and afterInnocent’s Time, and consequently what they thought it lawful to do.|Some Customs of theRomanChurch bor-rowed 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.Ignatiusinto the Church ofAntioch[1456], whence it spread in a very short time to all the Churches in the East, those Bishops no more scrupling to adopt, thanIgnatiushad scrupled to introduce, so laudable a Practice. Of the Eastern Churches it was borrowed by the Church ofMilan, and of the Church ofMilanby that ofRome, long beforeInnocent’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, thatInnocentwas grosly mistaken, not only with respect to this Point, but likewise in asserting, that whatever had been settled atRomeby St.Peter, was still observed there without the leastAddition or Diminution.
The Ceremony ofanointing those whoare confirmed.
The remaining Part ofInnocent’s Letter relates to some particular Ceremonies and Customs, especially to the Ceremony of confirming those who were baptized, and the Custom of fasting onSaturdays. With respect to the former, he informsDecentius, 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].
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[1]. St.Cyprian[2], who flourished Fifty Years after, St.Ambrose[3], St.Austin[4], St.Jerom[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[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[7]. This gave Rise, in the following Century, to many superstitious Practices, and Miracles were said to have been wrought by theholy 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 byOptatus Milevitanus[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 ofOil, ofChrism, ofUnction, ofsigning with Oil on the Foreheadin the Form of aCross, and much less of aBlowgiven by the Bishop on the Cheek to the Person that is confirmed, though these are now all deemed, in the Church ofRome, 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 theRoman Catholicsthemselves have not thought fit to adopt all the Ceremonies used on this Occasion, and recommended by the Fathers. For, inInnocent’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 fromCyrilBishop ofJerusalem[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.1. Tert. de resur. carnis.2. Cypr. ep. 72, 73.3. Ambr. de sacram. l. 3. c. 2.4. Aug. contra Petil. l. 1. c. 104. de baptis. l. 3. c. 16. In ep. 1. Joan. tract. 3. & de diver. ser. 33.5. Hier. contra Luciferian.6. Act. viii. 15-17.7. Cyp. ep. 70. & de oper. card. & unct. Chris.8. Optat. Milev. contra Parm. l. 2.9. Cyril. Catech. mystag. 3.
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[1]. St.Cyprian[2], who flourished Fifty Years after, St.Ambrose[3], St.Austin[4], St.Jerom[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[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[7]. This gave Rise, in the following Century, to many superstitious Practices, and Miracles were said to have been wrought by theholy 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 byOptatus Milevitanus[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 ofOil, ofChrism, ofUnction, ofsigning with Oil on the Foreheadin the Form of aCross, and much less of aBlowgiven by the Bishop on the Cheek to the Person that is confirmed, though these are now all deemed, in the Church ofRome, 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 theRoman Catholicsthemselves have not thought fit to adopt all the Ceremonies used on this Occasion, and recommended by the Fathers. For, inInnocent’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 fromCyrilBishop ofJerusalem[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.
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[1]. St.Cyprian[2], who flourished Fifty Years after, St.Ambrose[3], St.Austin[4], St.Jerom[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[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[7]. This gave Rise, in the following Century, to many superstitious Practices, and Miracles were said to have been wrought by theholy 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 byOptatus Milevitanus[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 ofOil, ofChrism, ofUnction, ofsigning with Oil on the Foreheadin the Form of aCross, and much less of aBlowgiven by the Bishop on the Cheek to the Person that is confirmed, though these are now all deemed, in the Church ofRome, 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 theRoman Catholicsthemselves have not thought fit to adopt all the Ceremonies used on this Occasion, and recommended by the Fathers. For, inInnocent’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 fromCyrilBishop ofJerusalem[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.
1. Tert. de resur. carnis.2. Cypr. ep. 72, 73.3. Ambr. de sacram. l. 3. c. 2.4. Aug. contra Petil. l. 1. c. 104. de baptis. l. 3. c. 16. In ep. 1. Joan. tract. 3. & de diver. ser. 33.5. Hier. contra Luciferian.
1. Tert. de resur. carnis.
1. Tert. de resur. carnis.
2. Cypr. ep. 72, 73.
2. Cypr. ep. 72, 73.
3. Ambr. de sacram. l. 3. c. 2.
3. Ambr. de sacram. l. 3. c. 2.
4. Aug. contra Petil. l. 1. c. 104. de baptis. l. 3. c. 16. In ep. 1. Joan. tract. 3. & de diver. ser. 33.
4. Aug. contra Petil. l. 1. c. 104. de baptis. l. 3. c. 16. In ep. 1. Joan. tract. 3. & de diver. ser. 33.
5. Hier. contra Luciferian.
5. Hier. contra Luciferian.
6. Act. viii. 15-17.7. Cyp. ep. 70. & de oper. card. & unct. Chris.8. Optat. Milev. contra Parm. l. 2.9. Cyril. Catech. mystag. 3.
6. Act. viii. 15-17.
6. Act. viii. 15-17.
7. Cyp. ep. 70. & de oper. card. & unct. Chris.
7. Cyp. ep. 70. & de oper. card. & unct. Chris.
8. Optat. Milev. contra Parm. l. 2.
8. Optat. Milev. contra Parm. l. 2.
9. Cyril. Catech. mystag. 3.
9. Cyril. Catech. mystag. 3.
Confirmationnot aSacrament.
TheRoman Catholics, finding this Ceremony, now known by the Name ofConfirmation, styled aSacramentby 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 asacred Ceremony, or Mystery. And truly were they to reckon among theirSacramentsall the Ceremonies which the Fathers and other Christian Writers have distinguished with that Title, their Number would amount to Seventy rather than to Seven.
Why deemed formerlyunlawful to fast onSundayorSaturday.
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 aChristian to fast onSundayorSaturday; onSunday, because those Heretics, who denied the Resurrection of our Saviour, fasted on that Day, in Opposition to the Orthodox, who, believing it, solemnized theSunday, the Day on which it happened, with Feasting and Rejoicings; onSaturday, because other Heretics holding the God of theJews, 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 theJewsas much as theJewshonoured him by feasting[1460]. Among the antient Canons, known by the Name of theApostolic Constitutions, we read the following Ordinance:If a Clerk shall be found to have fasted on aSundayor aSaturday,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 theRomanin particular, observed bothFridaysandSaturdaysas Fast-days.|Fridayfrom theearliest Times aFast-day.|TheFridaywas, from the earliest Times, a Fast-day with all Churches, both in the East and the West; theSaturdaywas only in the West, and even there with very few Churches, which had borrowed that Custom of theRomanChurch, as we are informed by St.Austin[1462].Innocenttherefore, 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 observeSaturdayas a Fast.|Saturdaya Fast-dayin theRomanChurch.|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 theSaturdayas well as theFriday,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 aFriday, 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 allRoman Catholicsare bound to obey on Pain of Damnation. However, the Severity of it is so far relaxed, that, as they are only requiredto 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.