Anastasiusseparateshimself from hisCommunion.

But this Confession, however orthodox, did not satisfyAnastasius, or ratherJeromand his Friends inRome. They continued, saysRuffinus, the Persecution which they had so successfully begun, and with their malicious Suggestions prevailed in the End onAnastasiusto comply with their unjust Demands[1363]; that is, I suppose, to separate himself from his Communion: forAnastasius, in his Answer to a Letter whichJohnBishop ofJerusalemhad writ in favour ofRuffinus, acquaints that Prelate, that he had cut him off from his Communion, and left him to be judged by God and his own Conscience.As toOrigen, says he in the same Letter,I knew not before who he was, nor what he had writ. Ruffinushas translated him into our Language; and, in so doing, what else could he have in view but to infect this Church with his pernicious Doctrines? He has expressed his own Sentiments in translating those of his Author; and is therefore no less guilty than Origen himself, whom we have all condemned[1364][N43].

N43. The same Charge lies againstJerom; nay, he was the more guilty of the Two. For he had not only translated many ofOrigen’s Works, containing Errors no less repugnant to the Catholic Truths than any in thePeriarchon, but had besides filled his Comments on the Scripture, especially on the Epistle to theEphesians, with the worst of Origen’s Errors,viz.with those relating to the Resurrection of the Body, to the Pre-existence of the Souls, and to the Duration of Hell-Torments, as is manifest from the many Passages quoted byRuffinusout of the Comments of that Father.Jeromfound great Fault withRuffinus, for not confuting the Errors which he translated; concluding from thence, that he held the same Doctrines: and yet he was himself so far from confuting in his Comments any ofOrigen’s erroneous Opinions, that on the contrary he often delivered them in such manner as made many, and St.Austinamong the rest, believe them to be his own[1]. Nay, in one Place he seems to own, that he held some ofOrigin’s Errors[2]: but ends what he there writes of him thus;If you believe me, I never was anOrigenist;but if you absolutely insist upon my having been one, I now tell you, that I am so no more; and it is to convince you of this, that I am become the Accuser ofOrigen.1. Hier. ep. 89.2. Hier. ep. 65.

1. Hier. ep. 89.

2. Hier. ep. 65.

In the same LetterAnastasiusmentions with great Joy a Decree of the Emperors, that is, ofArcadiusandHonorius, forbidding the Works ofOrigen, and imposing severe Penalties on such as should for the future read or peruse them[N44].

N44.Ruffinuspretended this Letter to be supposititious, and to have been forged by St.Jerom, alleging, that he could not believe the Bishop ofRomecapable of such a crying Piece of Injustice as to condemn an innocent Man, and condemn him in his Absence. He added, that ifAnastasiushad ever written such a Letter toJohnofJerusalem,John, with whom he lived in great Intimacy, would have acquainted him with it, which he had not done. In Answer to this Charge,Jeromrefers him to the Archives of theRomanChurch[1]; and toJeromI refer the JesuitHalloix, supposing the Letter to have been feigned, tho’ not by St.Jerom, on account of the following Words, that seem to wound the pretended Supremacy.I have intirely separated myself from him, meaningRuffinus:I will not even know where he is, or what he is doing: let him try, if he pleases, to be absolved elsewhere. So thatAnastasiusthought he might be absolved elsewhere, though condemned atRome. ThisHalloix, more jealous of the Papal Supremacy than the Pope himself, will not allow, and therefore pretends the Letter to be supposititious. But, since the Time ofRuffinus, none besides him ever questioned its Authenticity.1. Hier. in Ruff. l. 3. c. 5, & 6.

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

The Condemnation ofOrigenowing chieflyto the Bishop ofAlexandria.

Such is the Account the contemporary Writers, andJeromhimself, give us of the Condemnation ofOrigen, and his InterpreterRuffinus, very different from that which we read inBaronius, introducing hisHigh Pontiff Anastasiusas acting the First Part on that Occasion; thoughJeromtells us, in express Terms, thatAnastasiusfollowed the Example ofTheophilus; that he condemned in the West, what had before been condemned in the East[1365]; and thatRomeand allItalyowed their Deliverance to the Letters ofTheophilus[1366]; meaning the circular Letter, whichTheophiluswrit to all the Catholic Bishops, acquainting them that he had condemnedOrigen, and prohibited his Books, and exhorting them to follow his Example[1367]. It was by this Letter thatAnastasiuswas induced to condemnOrigen: For what else couldJerommean by saying, thatRomeandItalywere, by the Letters ofTheophilus, delivered from the Errors ofOrigen?Baroniuscould not but know, that the Letter ofTheophiluswas addressed to all the Catholic Bishops, since it is styled byTheophilushimself, in a Letter he writ toEpiphanius[1368], and byEpiphanius, in one of his Letters toJerom[1369],A general Letter to all Catholics; and yet the Annalist speaks of it as directed toAnastasiusalone, in order to impose by that means on his Readers, and persuade them,that the Bishop ofAlexandriasubmitted the Sentence he had pronouncedto the Judgment ofAnastasius,being well apprised, that itcould be of no Weight unless confirmed by the first See. Had he been well apprised of this, I cannot think he would have pronounced such a Sentence, as it is very certain he did, without the Authority, the Advice, or even the Knowlege, of thefirst See.

The Bishop ofAquileiacommunicates withRuffinus,though excommunicated byAnastasius.

As toRuffinus,Anastasius, it is true, separated himself from his Communion; but did not excommunicate him, that is, as the Word is now understood, did not cut him off from the Communion of the Catholic Church, asBaroniusinsinuates. The Power of excommunicating him in this Sense was by the Canons vested in his own Bishop; and it is manifest fromJerom, thatChromatius, then Bishop ofAquileia, continued to communicate with him afterAnastasiushad renounced his Communion; nay, afterChromatiushimself had condemnedOrigen, and theOrigenists[1370], that is, those who held the Errors ofOrigen. A plain Proof, that the Bishop ofAquileiadid not acquiesce in the Judgment ofAnastasiusin rankingRuffinusamong them. And truly the only Charge brought against him byAnastasius, in his Letter toJohnofJerusalem, was his having translatedOrigeninto theLatinTongue, without pointing out his Errors, or offering any Arguments to confute them. Thence he was byJerominduced to conclude, thatRuffinusheld the same Errors.|Ruffinusunjustlycondemned.|What couldRuffinuspropose, says he in his Letter,by translatingOrigeninto theRomanLanguage? Had he exposed the execrable Errors his Work contains, and raised in his Readers that Indignation which the Author deserves, I should rather have praised than blamed him. But he has in his Mind consented to those Errors, and in translating the Sentiments ofOrigenexpressed his own[1371]. ThisRuffinusdenied; declaring, with the Words ofOrigen, in his Preface to thePeriarchon[1372], that he embraced nothing as Truth, that any-ways differed from the received Doctrines of the Catholic Church: nay, he was so far from defending any ofOrigen’s Errors, which seemed to him repugnant to the Catholic Truths, that in the Apology he composed in Defence of that Writer, as well as in the Preface which he prefixed to his Translation, he undertook to prove, that those Errors were not his, but had been maliciously inserted into his Works, either by his Enemies to eclipse his Reputation, or by Heretics, who had fathered upon him their own Doctrines, with a View of recommending them to theWorld by the Authority of so great and so venerable a Name[1373]. He followed therein the Example of the most eminent Writers, and the greatest Lights of the Church, namely, of the MartyrPamphylus[1374], ofAthanasius[1375],Basil[1376], his BrotherGregoryofNyssa[1377],Gregory Nazianzen[1378], and many others, who, out of the great Regard they had for a Man ofOrigen’s Piety and Learning, either ascribed to others the Errors they found in his Works, or excused them, by putting on his Words the most charitable Construction they could bear.|Origenexcused bysome of the Fathers,and once byJeromhimself.|Jeromhimself had been formerly one ofOrigen’s greatest Admirers, had translated above Seventy of his Books, and thought he could not employ his Time better than in enriching theLatinTongue with the Works ofthe best Writer and first Doctor of the Church after the Apostles[1379], as he then styled him. AsRuffinus, in his Translation of thePeriarchon, endeavoured to excuse the Errors ofOrigen, so hadJeromdone before him in translating his other Works, chusing rather toveil and excuse, than expose the Faults of one whom in other respects he so much admired[1380]. But this Admiration being afterwards changed into an open and avowed Enmity,the first Doctor of the Church after the Apostlesbecame at once not only anheterodox, but animpious Writer; all who stood up in his Defence were arraigned of the samepestilential Doctrines; and what was found amiss in his Works was no longerveiledorexcused, but set out in the worst Light[N45].

N45. Some of the Fathers would not allow even his Doctrine concerning the Trinity to be heterodox. For some Passages being quoted out of his Works by theAriansto confirm their Opinions,BasilandNazianzenundertook to prove, from other Passages, that his Sentiments with respect to the Trinity were quite orthodox; and that theArianshad either out of Malice misinterpreted, or out of Ignorance misunderstood his Meaning, not being capable of fathoming the Depth of his Thoughts[1]. It must be owned, thatOrigen, in several Places, speaks of the Trinity agreeably to the Sentiments of the Church, acknowlegingthe Son to have been from the Beginning in the Father; to be the Image of the Father; to have been begotten by him from all Eternity; to be the Wisdom of God; to be God, though not the Source and Origin of the Divinity, as the Father, whom on that Account he stylesAutotheos;to be above all Creatures; to have the same Power as the Father, and to deserve the same Honour and Worship. But elsewhere he uses Expressions that can no-way bear an orthodox Sense,viz.thattheWordis an Hypostasis different from the Father; meaning by the WordHypostasis, Nature and Substance;that the Father and Son are One by Concord and Union; that the Son is not properly God, but called God, because he is the Image of the Divinity; that the Word and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Son is inferior to the Father, though far above all Creatures, as the Ray of the Sun is inferior to the Sun; and lastly,that the Son is the Minister of the Father. In these Passages is contained a very different Doctrine from that which is laid down in those I have quoted above: and hence some of the Friends ofOrigen, and among the restRuffinus, concluded the latter Passages to have been foisted in by theArians, denying the Divinity of the Word; while others, allowing them to beOrigen’s, undertook to explain them in a Catholic Sense, in Opposition to theAriansconfirming their Doctrine with the Authority of so eminent a Writer. But his Enemies, attending only to the Passages where he seemed to establish an Inequality in the Trinity, not only condemned him as an Heretic, but all who stood up in his Defence, or attempted to interpret his Words in a Catholic Sense.1. Socr. l. 4. c. 26.

1. Socr. l. 4. c. 26.

But what seems most of all surprising, and quite unaccountable, in the Conduct of that Father, is, that though he had with so much Noise procuredOrigento be condemned as an Heretic, and his Books to be prohibited, particularly hisPeriarchon, or, as some will have it, thePeriarchonalone, as containing most of his heretical Tenets; yet, in a private Letter toPaulinus, he refers him to that very Piece for the Decision of some Questions of the greatest Importance[1381]. But to return toAnastasius:

The Bishops ofAfricaapply toAnastasiusandVeneriusofMilan.

The same Year 401. in whichOrigenwas condemned, the Churches ofAfricabeing greatly distressed for want of Ecclesiastics, the Bishops of the Province ofCarthage, assembling underAureliusBishop of that City, resolved to dispatch one of their Body intoItalyto acquaintAnastasius, andVeneriusBishop ofMilan, with the Condition of theAfricanChurches, and implore their Assistance[1382]. Which of the Bishops was charged with this Legation, or what Success attended it, we are no-where told. But asPaulinus, who afterwards writ the Life of St.Ambrose, and belonged to the Church ofMilan, was at this Time sent intoAfrica, and continued there, some have not improbably conjectured, thatVeneriusat least assisted his Collegues inAfricawith a Supply of as many Ecclesiastics as he could spare.BaroniussupposesAnastasiusto have relieved those Churches with the like Supply; but this Supposition he builds upon the paternal Care whichAnastasiushad, asuniversal Pastor, of all the Catholic Churches[1383], which is building on a false Foundation.

Anastasiusadvisesthe Bishops ofAfricanot to dissemble theCruelties of theDonatists.

The same Year another Council was held atCarthage, consisting of all the Bishops ofAfrica; andAurelius, who presided in this, as he had done in the former, opened it with reading a Letter fromAnastasius, exhorting the Bishops ofAfricano longer to dissemble theCruelties of theDonatists, who continued to use with great Barbarity the Catholic Bishops and Clergy[1384]. The Fathers of the Council returnedAnastasiusThanks for his Advice; but, not thinking it quite agreeable to the true Spirit of Christianity, they declined complying with it.|Who refuse to complywith his Advice.|They knew that their Persecutors, had they complained of their Cruelties to the Civil Magistrate, would have been punished with Death, pursuant to a Law enacted against them, Three Years before, by the EmperorsArcadiusandHonorius[1385]. They therefore chose, notwithstanding the Advice ofAnastasius, rather to suffer with Patience a most cruel Persecution, than redeem themselves from it at so dear a Rate[1386]. In the same Council it was decreed among other things, that such of theDonatistClergy, as should return to the Church, might be admitted, if the Bishop, who received them, thought it expedient, to the same Rank, which they had enjoyed before their Conversion. As a Decree had been lately enacted byAnastasius, and the otherItalianBishops, excluding converted Heretics from the Catholic Clergy[1387]; it was to acquaint them with the Motives which had prompted the Fathers assembled atCarthage, to admit theDonatists, thatAureliusand his Collegues writ toAnastasius; and not to beg of him a Dispensation in favour of the convertedDonatists, as is ridiculously supposed byBaronius[1388].

Anastasiusdies.

This is all I find recorded ofAnastasius, by the antient Writers. He died on the 27th ofApril402. after having held the See ofRomeFour Years, One Month, and Thirteen Days.|Is greatly commendedbyJerom.|Jerom, with whom he sided againstRuffinus, and the other Friends ofOrigen, distinguishes him with the Title of aneminent Man; and adds,thatRomedid not deserve to enjoy him long, lest the Head of the World should be cut off under such a Bishop; nay, he was snatched away, says he,lest he should strive to ward off, with his Prayers, the Execution of the Sentence that was already pronounced; the Lord saying toJeremiah,Pray not for this People for their Good: when they fast, I will not hear their Cry, &c[1389].Jeromspeaks there of the Calamities that befelRomeSeven Years after, when it was taken by theGoths, underAlaric.TheophilusBishop ofAlexandria, not only an avowed Enemy toOrigen, but a cruel Persecutor of all who stood up in his Defence, extolsAnastasiusfor hispastoral Care, and indefatigable Pains, in preserving and maintaining the Purity of the Catholic Faith[1390]; alluding, no doubt, to his acting in Concert with him, againstOrigen, and the pretendedOrigenists.|Is honoured as aSaint.|Be that as it will,Anastasiusis now honoured as a Saint by the Church ofRome; and the Honours paid him are chiefly owing to the Commendations ofJeromandTheophilus, whose Party he so warmly espoused. As to the Writings ofAnastasius, Mention is made, byJerom, of several Letters written by him on different Occasions; but that alone has reached our Times, which he writ toJohnBishop ofJerusalem, and some Fragments of another to oneUrsinus, on theIncarnation[N46].

N46. The Two Decretals that have been transmitted to us under his Name, are evidently supposititious, the one being dated Fourteen Years before his Election, and the other Fourteen years after his Death. One of these pretended Decretals is addressed to theGermanandBurgundianBishops, tho’ nothing is more certain, than that theBurgundianswere not converted to the Christian Religion till many Years after his Death, till the Year 436. ifSocratesis to be credited[1]. They are both made up of several Passages taken from the Letters ofInnocent,Leo,Gregory, and others; and were, in all Likelihood, forged, as many others have been, byIsidorus Mercator.1. Socr. l. 7. c. 30.

1. Socr. l. 7. c. 30.

An ill-timed Observ-ation ofBaronius.

Baroniusobserves, at the Death ofSyricius[1391], that such Popes as did not, through Sloth and Indolence, exert the due Zeal in extirpating the heterodox Opinions that sprung up in the Church, that is, such Popes as did not exterminate all, who differed in Opinion from them, have been quickly cut off, to make room for other more zealous Asserters of the Purity of the Faith. An ill-timed Observation! which I might retort here, were I inclined to indulge such a Humour, since theindolent Syriciusenjoyed his Dignity Thirteen Years (and not very many have enjoyed it longer), and thevery zealous Anastasiusonly Four.

Year of Christ 402.bracketThe Election ofInnocent,commended by theAntients.

On the Demise ofAnastasius,Innocentwas immediately, and with one Consent, chosen by the Clergy, and the People[1392]. He was, according toAnastasius[1393], a Native ofAlbano, and the Son of anotherInnocent; but, according toJerom, both the Son and Successor ofAnastasius[1394].Theodoretstyles him a Man of great Address, and a lively Genius[1395];Prosper, a worthy Successor of St.Peter[1396]; andAustindistinguishes him, after his Death, with the Title of theBlessedInnocent[1397].Orosiussays, that God withdrew that holy Bishop fromRome, when the City was taken, as he didLotfromSodom[1398]; andJerom, in writing toDemetrias, exhorts her to adhere steadily to the Faith ofInnocent[1399].Austin, in the Letter he writ to him in the Name of the Council ofMilevum, ascribes his Election to a particular Providence; and adds, that the Fathers of the Council thought it a Duty incumbent upon them to suggest to him what might be done for the Good of the Church, since they could not think him capable of hearing any thing of that Nature with Contempt or Indifference[1400].

He writes toAnysiusofThessalonica.

Innocentwas no sooner chosen and ordained, than he writ toAnysiusofThessalonica, acquainting him with his Election, and charging him, as his Three immediate Predecessors had done, with the Care of the Churches ofEast Illyricum[1401]. In the End of the following Year 403. the EmperorHonoriusvisited the City ofRome; and, during his Stay there,Innocentwent frequently to wait on him, in order to obtain, in Behalf of some Bishops, and other Ecclesiastics, an Exemption from executing certain Civil Offices hereditary in their Families. He succeeded in his Suit; but it cost him a great deal of Trouble and Uneasiness[1402].|Innocent’s Letter toVictricius.|VictriciusBishop ofRouen, who happened to be then atRome, having applied to him for Information, with respect to the Practice and Discipline of theRomanChurch,Innocent, to gratify him, andthat he might not seem to approve, byhis Silence, the Abuses that prevailed in some Churches, sent him aBook of Rules, as he styled it, containing several Regulations, which had been originally established, says he, by the Authority of the Apostles and Fathers, but were now, in many Places, either quite unknown, or utterly neglected. He therefore intreatsVictriciusto communicate them to the neighbouring Churches and Bishops, that they might be acquainted with the Discipline of theRomanChurch, and conform to it in instructing the new-converted Christians[1403].

The Articles it con-tains.

ThisBook of Rulescontains Thirteen Regulations relating to different Points of Discipline, whereof the First forbids, and declares uncanonical, the Ordination of Bishops without the Knowlege and Approbation of their Metropolitans. The Second excludes from the Clerical Order such as have served, or shall continue to serve, in War after Baptism. The Third orders all Differences and Disputes, arising among the Ecclesiastics, to be decided by the Bishops of the Provinces,saving the Rights of theRomanChurch[N47]; and commands those to be deposed who shall recur to other Tribunals, except in Causes of the greatest Importance, when, after the Bishops have given Sentence, Recourse may be had to the Apostolical See, pursuant to the Order of the Council, meaning, no doubt, the Council ofSardica[1404]. The Three next relate to those who shall have married a Widow, a Woman that has been divorced, or a second Wife, either before or after Baptism; and they are all alike declared incapable of being ever admitted among the Clergy. The Seventh forbids Bishops to ordain Clerks of another Church, without the Permission of their own Bishops, or to admit those to serve one Church, who have been deposed in another. The Eighth allows theNovatiansandDonatists, who return to the Church, to be readmitted by the bare Imposition of Hands; but subjects those to a long Penance, who had quitted the Church to be rebaptized by them. The Ninth relates to the Celibacy of the Priests and Deacons, who are debarred by it from all Commerce with their Wives, after Ordination. The inferior Clergy were allowed to marry; butInnocent, by the Tenth Article of the present Letter, excepts those who, before they were admitted among the Clergy, had lived in Monasteries, and professed Continence there; it being fit, says he, they should observe in ahigher Rank what they had observed when only Monks. In the same Article he observes, that those, who had lost their Virginity before Marriage, did not receive the Blessing of the Church when they afterwards married; and that it was the antient Practice of the Church, that such as had lost it before Baptism, should promise, before they were admitted to the Clerical Order, never to marry. The Eleventh forbids those to be ordained, who were not exempted from all Civil Offices and Employments, such Offices diverting them from the Functions of the Priesthood, and sometimes obliging them to exhibit Shews and public Sports, of which the Devil was, without all Doubt, the Author and Promoter.|Innocentthinks theMarriage of a Womanwith another Manvalid, while her Hus-band is still alive.|The Twelfth forbids Women, who have married a Second Husband, their First being still alive, to be admitted to Repentance, or allowed to do Penance, till one of the Two dies. The same Discipline is to be observed, according to this Article, with respect to the Virgins, who, after consecrating their Virginity toJesus Christ, shall, either by a public Marriage, or by private Fornication, violate the Faith they had pledged to their immortal Spouse.

N47. In some Editions this Clause is wanting.

The unchristian Sever-ity of one of theseArticles ill excusedbyBaronius.

Baronius[1405], to answer the Objections which someInnovators, as he is pleased to style them, have offered against the unchristian Severity of this Article, tells us, that the Repentance of such a Virgin can by no means be sincere, so long as she continues with the Man she married; which is quite foreign to the Purpose, sinceInnocentexcludes her from Repentance, not only so long as she lives with him, but so long as he lives.Innocentknew whatBaroniusseems not to have known;viz.that the Marriage of Virgins, however solemnly consecrated, held good, even according to the Practice of theRomanChurch[1406]; and, consequently, that they could not abandon their Husbands; and hence he would not admit them to Repentance, or the Participation of the Sacred Mysteries, till the Death of their Husbands; which was keeping them, as it were, in a State of Excommunication, without any possible Means of redeeming themselves from it. And it is this uncharitable Severity, which some Divines of theReformed Churcheshave deservedly blamed.Baroniusstigmatizes such Marriages with the Name ofAdultery; but he confounds the Time ofInnocentwith his own; for, in his Time, the Vow of Chastity was declared a true Marriage; and, consequently,every subsequent Marriage void and null; but, inInnocent’s Time, the Marriage of a sacred Virgin was held valid, though commonly deemed sinful. Whether it be sinful or no, or whether a Vow of that kind can be lawfully made, I shall not take upon me to determine here; but I am very confident, that of most Persons, who debar themselves by a solemn Vow from ever marrying, we may say, with the Fathers of the Eighth Council ofToledo, thatthey had better break a Vow, which they had rashly made, than fill up, by observing it, the Measure of their Sins.

But to return to the Letter: The Thirteenth and last Article will have those Virgins to do Penance for some time, who shall marry after having promised to live Virgins, though they had not yet received the Sacred Veil[1407]. This Letter has been inserted byDionysius Exiguus, in his Code of theRomanChurch, and is quoted by the Second Council ofTours, held in 567[1408]. and by several other Councils[1409][N48].

N48. And yet some have been induced by the Date it bears, to question its Authenticity. For it is dated the 15th ofFebruary404. Now, it is manifest, say they, from the Letter itself, thatVictriciuswas atRomewhile the EmperorHonoriuswas there; and it is no less certain, thatHonoriusdid not arrive atRometill the Month ofDecember403. If thereforeVictriciuswas atRomeinDecember403. it is not at all probable, thatInnocentshould have written to him on the 15th ofFebruary404. To solve this Difficulty, some supposeVictriciusto have applied toInnocent, while he was still atRome; andInnocent, instead of informing him, as he might, by Word of Mouth, to have given him in Writing the desired Instructions, that, having thus more Weight, they might the more readily be complied with by other Bishops. But it is manifest, fromInnocent’s Words, that his Letter was an Answer to one fromVictricius; and we cannot well supposeVictricius, who was atRomeinDecember, to have returned toRouen, to have written from thence toInnocent, andInnocentto have returned him so full an Answer by the 15th of the followingJanuary. We may conclude the Year to have been, by some Mistake, altered, and 404. inserted in the Date instead of 405. since the Letter could not be written earlier, as I have just observed, than the Month ofJanuary(ifJanuarywas the true Month) of the latter Year; and we have no Reason to think it was written later. The Mistake as to the Year might have been occasioned by the Transcriber’s omitting P. C.Post Consulatum Honorii, and thereby confounding the Year of the Emperor’s Sixth Consulship 404. with the Year after it 405.--Such Omissions frequently occur, and have led Writers, not aware of them, into great Mistakes, in point of Chronology, or made them suspect, nay, and condemn, as spurious, the most authentic Pieces of History. This Letter, in some Editions, bears no Date; and F.Labbéassures us, that he has seen a manuscript Copy of it, in which the Date was wanting. Some therefore suppose the Date to have been afterwards added, nay, and the whole Conclusion of the Letter. ForInnocentcloses it by saying, that the Observance of the Rules it contains will banish all Ambition among the Bishops, compose all Differences, prevent all Schisms, and leave no room for the Devil to insult the Flock of Christ. A Conclusion taken probably from some other Piece, and not at all adapted or applicable, with Truth, to this.

Letter of the Coun-cil ofCarthagetoInnocent.

In the Year 404.Austinwrit toInnocent, in the Name of the Bishops assembled in Council atCarthage, intreating him to apply toHonoriusfor new Laws against theDonatists; whose Cruelties towards the Orthodox, if not magnified byAustin[1410], are scarce to be matched in History. The Emperor hearkened toInnocent’s Remonstrances, and severe Laws being issued against them, they began by that means to be convinced of their Errors, and to return daily in great Numbers to the Unity of the Church. This is what we read in one ofAustin’s Letters[1411]; for theDonatists, as he would make us believe, finding themselves persecuted, began to inquire, which they had never done before, into the Grounds of the Religion, for which they suffered. This Inquiry had the desired Effect; their Eyes were opened; they discovered the Errors of their Sect; and, being sensible of their Folly in foregoing any temporal Advantage, or exposing themselves to the least Inconvenience, for the sake of such a Religion, they sincerely abjured it, and zealously embraced the Catholic Faith. An ingenious Term, I must own, to excuse, nay, and to authorize and sanctify, the greatest Barbarities! But daily Experience teaches us, that Persecution has a contrary Effect, and that the more Men are persecuted, the more obstinately they adhere to the Opinions, however absurd, for which they suffer; witness the great Number of Martyrs which almost every Church, as well as the Catholic, can boast of. And, where it has not that Effect, the most it can do is to make Men become Hypocrites, and profess a Religion they do not believe; but scarce ever changes their Hearts, or brings any to a sincere and efficacious Assent to a Faith which is thus violently forced on their Minds.

Innocentwrites tothe Bishops ofSpain.

About the same time, or not long after,Innocentwrit to the Bishops ofSpain, and the chief Articles of his Letter were: 1. That they ought to cut off from their Communion such of their Brethren as refused to communicate withSymphosius,Dictinius, and other Bishops, who, having renounced the Errors ofPriscillian, had been readmitted to the Communion of the Church by the Council held atToledo, in the Year 400[1412]. 2. That those Bishops should be deposed who had been ordained without the Knowlege or Consent of their Metropolitan. 3. That such as presumed to ordain against the Canons should be likewise deposed, and all who had been thus ordained by them.

ChrysostomBishopofConstantinoplerecurs toInnocent.

Chrysostom, the celebrated Bishop ofConstantinople, having been unjustly deposed in 403 and driven from his See byTheophilusBishop ofAlexandria, and the Councilad Quercum, or atthe Oak, nearChalcedon, had, upon his Return toConstantinople, insisted upon a Council being summoned, to make his Innocence the more plainly appear to the World. ThisTheophilus, and the Bishops of his Party, not only strenuously opposed, but, by the great Interest they had at Court, prevailed upon the EmperorArcadiusto drive him fromConstantinoplea Second time, and banish him toCucusus, an inhospitable Place inCilicia. The News of these last Proceedings had not yet reachedRome, whenTheophilussent one of his Lectors with a Letter toInnocent, acquainting him, that he had deposedChrysostom. As, in this Letter,Theophilusobserved an intire Silence with respect to the Motives that had prompted him to take such a Step,Innocentprudently forbore returning him an Answer. There happened to be then atRomea Deacon of the Church ofConstantinople, who, hearing whatTheophilushad written, went immediately, and warnedInnocentto be upon his Guard, intreating him, at the same time, not to proceed but with the utmost Caution, in so nice and important an Affair, and assuring him, that the Truth could not remain long undiscovered. Accordingly, in Three Days,Pansovius, and Three other Bishops, arrived atRome, with Three Letters forInnocent;viz.one fromChrysostomhimself, another from the Bishops of his Communion, and the Third from the whole Clergy ofConstantinople.Chrysostom, in his Letter, which is still to be seen in his Works, and in those ofPalladius, who writ the History of his Persecution, after givingInnocentan Account of the Storm his Enemies had raised against him, intreats him to declare such wicked Proceedings void and null, to pronounce all who had any Share in them punishable, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws, and to continue to him the Marks of his Charity and Communion. In the Title and Close of the Letter, he addresses himself to one, but every-where else to more Persons, the Letter having been written, as appears from the Copy inPalladius[1413], not toInnocentalone, but to him, toVeneriusofMilan, andChromatiusofAquileia, Bishops of the Three chief Sees in the West.

Back to Index Next