Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (15)

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

-----

Footnote 1350:

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

Footnote 1351:

Paul. ep. 16.

Footnote 1352:

Page 273.

Footnote 1353:

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

Footnote 1354:

Id. ap. 1. advers. Ruff.

Footnote 1355:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1356:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1357:

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

Footnote 1358:

Id. apol. 1. advers. Ruff.

Footnote 1359:

Soz. l. 8. c. 15.

Footnote 1360:

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

Footnote 1362:

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

Footnote 1363:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1364:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1194.

Footnote 1365:

Hier. ep. 78.

Footnote 1366:

Id. ep. 71.

Footnote 1367:

Id. ep. 6. 69, 70.

Footnote 1368:

Id. ep. 6.

Footnote 1369:

Id. ep. 73.

Footnote 1370:

Apol. l. 3. c. 1.

Footnote 1371:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1194.

Footnote 1372:

Præf. ad Periarch. p. 665.

Footnote 1373:

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

Footnote 1374:

Phot. c. 118.

Footnote 1375:

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

Footnote 1376:

Concil. t. 5. p. 653.

Footnote 1377:

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

Footnote 1378:

Naz. or. 31.

Footnote 1379:

Hier. de nom. Heb. p. 299.

Footnote 1380:

Hier. ep. 65.

Footnote 1381:

Hier. ep. 153.

Footnote 1382:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1642.

Footnote 1383:

Bar. ad ann. 401. n. 7.

Footnote 1384:

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

Footnote 1385:

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

Footnote 1386:

Aug. ep. 127.

Footnote 1387:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1642.

Footnote 1388:

Bar. ad ann. 401. n. 14.

Footnote 1389:

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

Footnote 1390:

Justin. in ep. ad Menan.

Footnote 1391:

Ad ann. 397. num. 21.

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

ARCADIUS, INNOCENT, THEODOSIUS HONORIUS, _Thirty-ninth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 402. _The Election of_ Innocent, _commended by the Antients_.]

On the Demise of _Anastasius_, _Innocent_ was immediately, and with one Consent, chosen by the Clergy, and the People[1392]. He was, according to _Anastasius_[1393], a Native of _Albano_, and the Son of another _Innocent_; but, according to _Jerom_, both the Son and Successor of _Anastasius_[1394]. _Theodoret_ styles him a Man of great Address, and a lively Genius[1395]; _Prosper_, a worthy Successor of St. _Peter_[1396]; and _Austin_ distinguishes him, after his Death, with the Title of the _Blessed_ Innocent[1397]. _Orosius_ says, that God withdrew that holy Bishop from _Rome_, when the City was taken, as he did _Lot_ from _Sodom_[1398]; and _Jerom_, in writing to _Demetrias_, exhorts her to adhere steadily to the Faith of _Innocent_[1399]. _Austin_, in the Letter he writ to him in the Name of the Council of _Milevum_, ascribes his Election to a particular Providence; and adds, that the Fathers of the Council thought it a Duty incumbent upon them to suggest to him what might be done for the Good of the Church, since they could not think him capable of hearing any thing of that Nature with Contempt or Indifference[1400].

[Sidenote: _He writes to_ Anysius _of_ Thessalonica.]

_Innocent_ was no sooner chosen and ordained, than he writ to _Anysius_ of _Thessalonica_, acquainting him with his Election, and charging him, as his Three immediate Predecessors had done, with the Care of the Churches of _East Illyricum_[1401]. In the End of the following Year 403. the Emperor _Honorius_ visited the City of _Rome_; and, during his Stay there, _Innocent_ went frequently to wait on him, in order to obtain, in Behalf of some Bishops, and other Ecclesiastics, an Exemption from executing certain Civil Offices hereditary in their Families. He succeeded in his Suit; but it cost him a great deal of Trouble and Uneasiness[1402]. [Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Victricius.] _Victricius_ Bishop of _Rouen_, who happened to be then at _Rome_, having applied to him for Information, with respect to the Practice and Discipline of the _Roman_ Church, _Innocent_, to gratify him, and _that he might not seem to approve, by_ _his Silence, the Abuses that prevailed in some Churches_, sent him a _Book of Rules_, as he styled it, containing several Regulations, which had been originally established, says he, by the Authority of the Apostles and Fathers, but were now, in many Places, either quite unknown, or utterly neglected. He therefore intreats _Victricius_ to communicate them to the neighbouring Churches and Bishops, that they might be acquainted with the Discipline of the _Roman_ Church, and conform to it in instructing the new-converted Christians[1403].

[Sidenote: _The Articles it contains._]

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

-----

Footnote N47:

In some Editions this Clause is wanting.

-----

[Sidenote: _The unchristian Severity of one of these Articles ill excused by_ Baronius.]

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

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

-----

Footnote N48:

And yet some have been induced by the Date it bears, to question its
Authenticity. For it is dated the 15th of _February_ 404. Now, it is
manifest, say they, from the Letter itself, that _Victricius_ was at
_Rome_ while the Emperor _Honorius_ was there; and it is no less
certain, that _Honorius_ did not arrive at _Rome_ till the Month of
_December_ 403. If therefore _Victricius_ was at _Rome_ in _December_
403. it is not at all probable, that _Innocent_ should have written to
him on the 15th of _February_ 404. To solve this Difficulty, some
suppose _Victricius_ to have applied to _Innocent_, while he was still
at _Rome_; and _Innocent_, instead of informing him, as he might, by
Word of Mouth, to have given him in Writing the desired Instructions,
that, having thus more Weight, they might the more readily be complied
with by other Bishops. But it is manifest, from _Innocent_’s Words,
that his Letter was an Answer to one from _Victricius_; and we cannot
well suppose _Victricius_, who was at _Rome_ in _December_, to have
returned to _Rouen_, to have written from thence to _Innocent_, and
_Innocent_ to have returned him so full an Answer by the 15th of the
following _January_. We may conclude the Year to have been, by some
Mistake, altered, and 404. inserted in the Date instead of 405. since
the Letter could not be written earlier, as I have just observed, than
the Month of _January_ (if _January_ was the true Month) of the latter
Year; and we have no Reason to think it was written later. The Mistake
as to the Year might have been occasioned by the Transcriber’s
omitting P. C. _Post Consulatum Honorii_, and thereby confounding the
Year of the Emperor’s Sixth Consulship 404. with the Year after it
405.--Such Omissions frequently occur, and have led Writers, not aware
of them, into great Mistakes, in point of Chronology, or made them
suspect, nay, and condemn, as spurious, the most authentic Pieces of
History. This Letter, in some Editions, bears no Date; and F. _Labbé_
assures us, that he has seen a manuscript Copy of it, in which the
Date was wanting. Some therefore suppose the Date to have been
afterwards added, nay, and the whole Conclusion of the Letter. For
_Innocent_ closes it by saying, that the Observance of the Rules it
contains will banish all Ambition among the Bishops, compose all
Differences, prevent all Schisms, and leave no room for the Devil to
insult the Flock of Christ. A Conclusion taken probably from some
other Piece, and not at all adapted or applicable, with Truth, to
this.

-----

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

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

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

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

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

_Chrysostom_, the celebrated Bishop of _Constantinople_, having been unjustly deposed in 403 and driven from his See by _Theophilus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, and the Council _ad Quercum_, or at _the Oak_, near _Chalcedon_, had, upon his Return to _Constantinople_, insisted upon a Council being summoned, to make his Innocence the more plainly appear to the World. This _Theophilus_, and the Bishops of his Party, not only strenuously opposed, but, by the great Interest they had at Court, prevailed upon the Emperor _Arcadius_ to drive him from _Constantinople_ a Second time, and banish him to _Cucusus_, an inhospitable Place in _Cilicia_. The News of these last Proceedings had not yet reached _Rome_, when _Theophilus_ sent one of his Lectors with a Letter to _Innocent_, acquainting him, that he had deposed _Chrysostom_. As, in this Letter, _Theophilus_ observed an intire Silence with respect to the Motives that had prompted him to take such a Step, _Innocent_ prudently forbore returning him an Answer. There happened to be then at _Rome_ a Deacon of the Church of _Constantinople_, who, hearing what _Theophilus_ had written, went immediately, and warned _Innocent_ to be upon his Guard, intreating him, at the same time, not to proceed but with the utmost Caution, in so nice and important an Affair, and assuring him, that the Truth could not remain long undiscovered. Accordingly, in Three Days, _Pansovius_, and Three other Bishops, arrived at _Rome_, with Three Letters for _Innocent_; _viz._ one from _Chrysostom_ himself, another from the Bishops of his Communion, and the Third from the whole Clergy of _Constantinople_. _Chrysostom_, in his Letter, which is still to be seen in his Works, and in those of _Palladius_, who writ the History of his Persecution, after giving _Innocent_ an Account of the Storm his Enemies had raised against him, intreats him to declare such wicked Proceedings void and null, to pronounce all who had any Share in them punishable, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws, and to continue to him the Marks of his Charity and Communion. In the Title and Close of the Letter, he addresses himself to one, but every-where else to more Persons, the Letter having been written, as appears from the Copy in _Palladius_[1413], not to _Innocent_ alone, but to him, to _Venerius_ of _Milan_, and _Chromatius_ of _Aquileia_, Bishops of the Three chief Sees in the West.

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

_Innocent_, acting with his usual Prudence and Circumspection, in his Answer to the above-mentioned Letters, declared, that he admitted the Bishops of both Parties to his Communion, from which he could exclude no Man till he was lawfully judged and condemned; and that therefore, to compose all Differences, and leave no room for Complaints on either Side, it was fit a Council should be assembled, consisting of the Western as well as the Eastern Bishops. The other Bishops of _Italy_, to whom _Chrysostom_ had written, returned much the same Answer[1414], following therein the Advice, which _Chrysostom_ himself had given to the Bishops of his Party; _viz._ that they should communicate with his Enemies, to prevent Divisions in the Church, but not sign his Condemnation, because he did not think himself guilty[1415]. _Innocent_’s Answer to _Theophilus_ was in Words to the same Effect. His Letter to _Chrysostom_ was carried into the East by _Demetrius_ Bishop of _Pessinus_, who took care to shew it every-where, to the end it might be every-where known, that the _Roman_ Church still communicated with that holy Bishop[1416].

[Sidenote: Theophilus _writes to_ Innocent.]

A few Days after _Innocent_ had answered _Chrysostom_’s Letter, _Petrus_, one of _Theophilus_’s Presbyters, and _Martyrius_ Deacon of the Church of _Constantinople_, arrived at _Rome_, with Letters from _Theophilus_, and the Acts of _Chrysostom_’s Deposition by the Council _ad Quercum_. From these it appeared, that the Council had consisted of Thirty-six Bishops, whereof Twenty-nine were _Egyptians_, and over these _Theophilus_ had, as their Metropolitan, too great an Influence; that _Chrysostom_ had been condemned without being heard, and that nothing had been laid to his Charge, deserving so severe and exemplary a Punishment. [Sidenote: Innocent_'s Answer to_ Theophilus.] _Innocent_ therefore, having read them, with the utmost Indignation, answered _Theophilus_ in a few Words; that he was determined, as he had notified to him by his former Letter, to communicate both with him and his Brother _John_; that he could by no means depart from the Communion of the latter, till he was lawfully judged and condemned; that a Council was to be soon held, before which it was incumbent upon _Theophilus_ to make good his Charge, and the Steps he had hitherto taken, by the Canons and Decrees of the Council of _Nice_, since the _Roman_ Church admitted no others[1417]. [Sidenote: _Letters from the Bishops of_ Chrysostom_’s Party to_ Innocent.] With this Letter _Petrus_ and _Martyrius_ returned to _Constantinople_, whence arrived at _Rome_, soon after their Departure from that City, _Theoctecnus_, a Presbyter of the Church of _Constantinople_, and one of _Chrysostom_’s Friends, with Letters from Twenty-five Bishops, informing _Innocent_, that _Chrysostom_ had been driven a Second time from his See; that he had been conducted by a Band of Soldiers to _Cucusus_, and confined to that Place; and that the great Church had been consumed by Fire, the very Day he was carried out of _Constantinople_. _Innocent_ was greatly affected with this Account, and shed many Tears in reading it. But as these Troubles and Disorders were fomented by some great Men at the Court either of _Arcadius_ or _Honorius_, and a Misunderstanding was then subsisting between the Two Brothers, or their Ministers, he concluded, that his Endeavours towards the restoring of Peace and Unity would prove unsuccessful, and might even blow the Fire, which already burnt with so much Violence, into a greater Flame. [Sidenote: _Who sends Letters of Communion to them._] On these Considerations he wisely forbore making any Application for the present to _Honorius_, and only sent Letters of Communion to _Chrysostom_, and the Bishops, who had espoused his Cause[1418]. [Sidenote: _Letters from_ Acacius _to_ Innocent.] These Letters were delivered to _Theoctecnus_, who was scarce gone, when one _Paternus_, who styled himself a Presbyter of the Church of _Constantinople_, arrived at _Rome_, with Letters from _Acacius_, who had been intruded into the See of _Constantinople_, and from some other Bishops of his Party, charging _Chrysostom_ with setting Fire to the _Basilic_ or Great Church. So barefaced a Calumny provoked _Innocent_ to such a Degree, that he would neither hear _Paternus_, nor return an Answer to the Letters he had brought.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom_’s Friends cruelly persecuted_.]

In the mean time a most cruel Persecution was railed at _Constantinople_, against _Chrysostom_’s Friends, refusing to communicate with _Acacius_, _Theophilus_, and _Porphyrius_, who had intruded himself into the vacant See of _Antioch_, and, in Defiance of the Canons, maintained, by Force of Arms, the Dignity he had usurped. This Persecution was carried on under a Christian Emperor, with as much Cruelty as any had ever been under the most inveterate Enemies of the Christian Name. The Pretence they made use of was to discover the Authors of the late Fire; and as the Imperial Officers chiefly suspected, or pretended to suspect, _Chrysostom_’s Friends, _Optatus_, who was then Prefect or Governor of _Constantinople_, and a Pagan, laid hold of that Opportunity to vent upon them the implacable Hatred he bore to the Religion they professed. Many therefore, without Distinction of Sex or Condition, were, by his Orders, dragged to the public Gaols, and confined there to Dungeons; others tormented with such Barbarity as to expire on the Rack; and great Numbers, after having undergone repeated Tortures, stript of all their Effects, and banished to the most remote and desolate Places of the Empire.

[Sidenote: _Two Edicts enacted against them._]

At the same time the Emperor _Arcadius_, strangely prepossessed against _Chrysostom_, and those of his Communion, caused Two Edicts to be published; the one directed to the Governors of the Provinces, whom he strictly injoined not to suffer, in their respective Jurisdictions, any private Assemblies or Meetings of Persons, who, despising the Churches, worshiped elsewhere, lest they should seem to communicate with the _most Reverend Prelates of the holy Law_, _Arsacius_, _Theophilus_, and _Porphyrius_. The other commanded such Bishops as refused to communicate with them, to be driven from their Sees, and their Effects to be seized. The Persecution, which still raged, though it was soon after stopt at the Remonstrances of _Studius_ the _Præfectus Prætorio_, and the Severity, with which the Two Imperial Edicts were put in Execution, drove great Numbers, both of the Clergy and Laity, from _Constantinople_, and the Provinces subject to _Arcadius_. Among the former were _Cyriacus_ Bishop of _Synnada_, _Eulysius_ of _Apamea_ in _Bithynia_, _Palladius_ of _Helenopolis_, _Germanus_ a Presbyter, and _Cassianus_ a Deacon, who afterwards embraced the Monastic Life, and became famous for his Ascetic Writings. [Sidenote: _Several Bishops, and the whole Clergy of_ Constantinople, _write to_ Innocent.] _Eulysius_ brought Letters to _Innocent_ from Fifteen Bishops of _Chrysostom_’s Communion, acquainting him with the deplorable State of the _Constantinopolitan_ Church, and one from _Anysius_ of _Thessalonica_, declaring, that in the present unhappy Divisions he had resolved to conform intirely to the Sentiments of the _Roman_ Church. _Germanus_ and _Cassianus_ likewise delivered Letters to _Innocent_, written in the Name of the whole Clergy of _Constantinople_, and giving him an Account of the Persecution that still raged, and of the cruel Treatment their Bishop had met with[1419]. [Sidenote: _His Answer to the Clergy._] _Innocent_, in his Answer to this Letter, expresses, in the most pathetic Terms, his Concern for the unhappy State of that Church, and their Sufferings; he encourages them to bear, with Patience, their present Tribulation and Afflictions, nay, and with Joy, since it is for the sake of Justice they suffer, and are thus persecuted; he complains of the undue Deposition of his Collegue, and Installation of another in his Life-time, which he shows to be against the Canons of the Council of _Nice_, the only Canons admitted and obeyed by the _Roman_ Church: he concludes with informing them, that as he had always thought it necessary, that an Oecumenical Council should assemble, he had long considered, and was still considering, by what Means it might be assembled, _since a Council, and nothing else, could appease so violent a Storm_, and restore to the Church the so much wished for Tranquillity[1420].

Two Presbyters in the mean time came to _Rome_ from the East, _Domitianus_ of _Constantinople_, and _Vallagus_ of _Nisibis_ in _Mesopotamia_, and brought with them the original Acts, which they had purchased with a large Sum of the Imperial Officers, containing an authentic Detail of the Cruelties which some Women of Quality had been made to endure for not communicating with _Arsacius_, and the Bishops of his Faction. [Sidenote: Innocent _applies to_ Honorius;] With these the good Bishop was so deeply affected, that he could no longer forbear applying to _Honorius_, who, at his Request, writ immediately to _Arcadius_ a very pressing and friendly Letter in favour of _Chrysostom_, and those of his Communion. At the same time he issued an Order for convening a Council of the Western Bishops, who, meeting soon after at _Rome_, drew up an Address, which they sent to _Ravenna_, where the Emperor then was, earnestly intreating him to interpose anew his good Offices with his Brother _Arcadius_, that an Oecumenical Council might be allowed to assemble at _Thessalonica_, in order to compose the present Differences, which had already produced a Misunderstanding between the Eastern and Western Churches, and might in the End bring on an intire Separation. [Sidenote: _who writes to_ Arcadius.] _Honorius_, in Compliance with their Request, writ a Third Letter to _Arcadius_ (for he had, it seems, written already a Second), and at the same time one to _Innocent_, desiring him to appoint Five Bishops, Two Presbyters of the _Roman_ Church, and One Deacon, to carry his Letter into the East, thinking that such a Legation would add no small Weight to his Mediation. The Letter to _Arcadius_ was in the following Terms:

[Sidenote: _His Letter._]

“This is the Third time I write to your Meekness (_ad Mansuetudinem tuam_) intreating you to correct and rectify the iniquitous Proceedings that have been carried on against _John_ Bishop of _Constantinople_. But nothing, I find, has been hitherto done in his Behalf. Having therefore much at Heart the Peace of the Church, which will be attended with that of our Empire, I write to you anew by these holy Bishops and Presbyters, earnestly desiring you to command the Eastern Bishops to assemble at _Thessalonica_. The Western Bishops have sent Five of their Body, Two Presbyters of the _Roman_ Church, and One Deacon, all Men of the strictest Equity, and quite free from the Byass of Favour and Hatred. These I beg you would receive with that Regard which is due to their Rank and Merit: If they find _John_ to have been justly deposed, they may separate me from his Communion; and you from the Communion of the Orientals, if it appears that he has been unjustly deposed. The Western Bishops have very plainly expressed their Sentiments, in the many Letters they have written to me on the Subject of the present Dispute. Of these I send you Two, the one from the Bishop of _Rome_, the other from the Bishop of _Aquileia_; and with them the rest agree. One thing I must above all beg of your Meekness; that you oblige _Theophilus_ of _Alexandria_ to assist at the Council, how averse soever he may be to it; for he is said to be the first and chief Author of the present Calamities. Thus the Synod, meeting with no Delays or Obstructions, will restore Peace and Tranquillity in our Days[1421].”

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

With these Letters the Legates set out from _Rome_, attended by the above-mentioned Prelates _Demetrius_, _Cyriacus_, _Eulysius_, and _Palladius_; and, sailing for _Greece_, put in at _Athens_, with a Design to pursue their Voyage to _Thessalonica_, having Letters from _Innocent_ to _Anysius_ Bishop of that City. But at _Athens_ they were, to their great Surprize, stopt and detained by a Military Tribune, who let them know, that they must not touch at _Thessalonica_; and at the same time appointed a Centurion as a Guard over them, strictly injoining him not to suffer them, under any Pretence whatsoever, to approach that City. Soon after the Tribune parted them, and, putting them on board Two Vessels, ordered the Mariners to convey them strait to _Constantinople_. _Anysius_ communicated with _Chrysostom_, as I have observed above; and it was, without all doubt, on this Consideration that the Legates were not allowed to set foot in his Diocese. [Sidenote: _The hard Usage they met with on their Journey_,] They arrived at _Constantinople_ the Third Day after they had left _Athens_, but starved with Hunger; for the Tribune had neither supplied them with Provisions when they embarked, nor allowed them Time to supply themselves; so that they had tasted no Kind of Victuals during the Three Days they were at Sea. [Sidenote: _and at_ Constantinople.] On their Arrival at _Constantinople_, they were not suffered to come ashore there, but ordered to a Castle on the _Thracian_ Coast called _Athyra_, where they were all closely confined, the Legates in one common Room, and the other Bishops in so many separate Cells. As the People of _Constantinople_ were most zealously attached to _Chrysostom_, the Emperor apprehended, and with a great deal of Reason, that their entering the City, and conversing publicly there, might be attended with uncommon Disturbances and Commotions; and therefore thought it adviseable to keep them at a Distance, and under Confinement. They had not been long thus confined, when they were ordered, they knew not by whom, to deliver the Letters they had brought. But neither by this Person, whoever he was, nor by several others, who were successively sent on the same Errand, could they be prevailed upon to part with them, alleging, that Letters from an Emperor ought to be delivered to none but an Emperor.

As they continued firm and unshaken in this Resolution, one _Valerian_, a Military Tribune, was at last called in, and ordered to employ the Rhetoric peculiar to his Profession, since no other could prevail. [Sidenote: _The Letters taken from them by Force._] _Valerian_ accordingly, after a short Preamble, proceeded to Violence; and, seizing them, took the Letters by Force, having in the Struggle wounded one of the Bishops in the Hand. The next Day they were visited by a Person, who, without acquainting them who he was, or by whom sent, offered them a very considerable Sum, on condition they would communicate with _Atticus_, who, upon the Death of _Arsacius_, had, by the Bishops of his Faction, been intruded in his room. [Sidenote: _They are put on board a leaky Vessel_;] Upon their rejecting, as they did, with the utmost Indignation, this Offer, _Valerian_, who was present, conducted them under a strong Guard to the Sea-side, and there put them on board an old leaky Vessel, having first, with a large Bribe, prevailed upon the Commander, as they were informed, to engage his Word, that they should not outlive that Voyage. [Sidenote: _but arrive safe in_ Italy.] They outlived it however, and, having reached _Lampsacus_, they embarked on board another Vessel, which landed them safe at _Otranto_. As for the Eastern Bishops who had attended them from _Rome_, viz. _Cyriacus_, _Eulysius_, _Palladius_, and _Demetrius_, after having been some time kept under close Confinement at _Athyra_, they were banished to the most remote and abandoned Places of the Empire. The other Bishops, who refused to communicate with _Atticus_, _Theophilus_, and _Porphyrius_, fared no better, being in like manner either driven into Banishment, or obliged to abscond, and, under the Disguise of Mechanics, earn their Livelihood by the meanest Professions. Many perished in the Places of their Exile for want of Necessaries; and others were so cruelly harassed, nay, and barbarously beaten, by the merciless Soldiery, appointed to conduct them, that they died on the Road[1422]. Such were the wretched Effects of that unchristian Principle of Persecution being lawful to punish Error in religious Disputes, which all Sects of Christians then held, and all suffered by in their Turns, as the different Parties among them got the Civil Magistrate and Force on their Side.

[Sidenote: Honorius _resolves to revenge the Affront offered to his Embassadors, but is diverted from it_.]

_Honorius_, being informed of the base Treatment the Legates had met with, though vested with the sacred Character of Embassadors, was so provoked at such a notorious Violation of the Right of Nations, that he resolved to make War on his Brother, and revenge it by Force of Arms. But from this Resolution he was diverted by a threatened Invasion of the _Barbarians_, and the seasonable Discovery of the famous _Stilicho_’s Treachery, which obliged him to keep all his Troops in _Italy_, or the adjoining Provinces. As for _Innocent_, finding the Mediation of _Honorius_, which he had procured, prove unsuccessful, and no other Means left of affording the least Relief to _Chrysostom_ and the other persecuted Bishops, he resolved to make known to the World his Abhorrence of the Evils, which it was not in his Power to redress; and accordingly separated himself from the Communion of _Atticus_, _Theophilus_, and _Porphyrius_, as the chief Authors of the present Calamities[1423].

[Sidenote: Arcadius _and_ Eudoxia _not excommunicated by_ Innocent.]

_Baronius_, thinking it inconsistent with the Dignity of his High Pontiff thus tamely to bear with the insulting Conduct of _Arcadius_, would fain persuade us, that, after he had tried in vain all other Methods of bringing the Emperor, and the Empress _Eudoxia_, to a Sense of their Duty, he at last thought himself obliged to thunder against both the tremendous Sentence of Excommunication, cutting them off as rotten Members from the Body of the Faithful committed to his Care and Direction. To prove this, he produces several Letters from _Innocent_ to _Arcadius_, and from _Arcadius_ to _Innocent_, transcribed partly from _Gennadius_, _Glycas_, and _Nicephorus_, and partly from the _Vatican_ Manuscripts[1424]. To enter into a critical Examination of those Pieces, would be wasting Time, and tiring the Reader to no Purpose. I shall therefore content myself with Three Observations, each of them sufficient, in my Opinion, to make the World reject them all as mere Forgeries. In the first place, the Silence of the Historians, who writ at that Time, touching so remarkable and unprecedented an Event as the Excommunication of an Emperor and an Empress, is an unanswerable Confutation of every Proof that can be alleged to support the Authenticity of the pretended Letters. For who can imagine, that the Writers, who flourished then, and have transmitted to us most minute Accounts of far less important Transactions both Civil and Ecclesiastical, would have passed this over in Silence? In the Second place, _Eudoxia_ is supposed, in all those Letters, to have outlived _Chrysostom_; whereas it is certain, that she died in 404, four Years before him. Lastly, In the above-mentioned Letter, _Arcadius_ is all along supposed to have repented, and changed his Conduct towards _Chrysostom_, to have persecuted his Enemies as he had formerly done his Friends, and to have chiefly vented his Resentment on the first Author of all the Disturbances, the Empress, who thereupon, out of Grief, Rage, and Despair, fell into a dangerous Malady[1425]. But of all this not the least Hint is to be met with in _Palladius_, who writ in the last Days of the Life and Reign of _Arcadius_; nay, that Historian speaks of the Friends of _Chrysostom_ as Men still under the Emperor’s Displeasure, and feeling the dreadful Effects of it in the inhospitable Places, to which they had been formerly confined.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom _did not appeal to the See of_ Rome.]

From the Conduct of _Chrysostom_ on this Occasion, the _Roman-Catholic_ Divines have taken a great deal of Pains to prove, that the Custom of appealing to the See of _Rome_ obtained in his Time; that he actually appealed to that See; and consequently, that the Prerogative of receiving Appeals from all Parts, and finally deciding all Controversies, claimed by the Bishops of _Rome_, was then acknowleged even in the East. Nothing surely but the utmost Distress for want of other Instances to prove their Assertion, could have tempted them to make use of this; since, from the Conduct of _Chrysostom_ on this very Occasion, nay, and from that of _Innocent_ too, if set in their true Light, it may be undeniably made out, that this pretended Prerogative was utterly unknown to both. The Fact stand thus, and thus it is related by the Historians, who have transmitted it to us: _Chrysostom_ is unjustly accused; the Bishop of _Alexandria_ takes upon him to inquire into his Conduct; assembles a Council, consisting chiefly of _Egyptian_ Bishops, and summons _Chrysostom_ to appear before them: _Chrysostom_ pays no Regard to the Summons, protests against it, and will not allow the Bishops assembled to have any Power or Authority over him, _since it had been ordained by the Canons of the Church, that the Affairs of the Provinces should be regulated by the Bishops of the Provinces; and it was consequently very incongruous, that the Bishops of_ Thrace _should be judged by those of_ Egypt[1426]. No Regard is had to his Protest, none to the Canons upon which it was grounded: he is summoned anew; and, not appearing within the limited Time, is judged, condemned, and deposed. From this Sentence he appeals to a lawful Council; but, being, notwithstanding his Appeal, driven from his See, he recurs at last to the Western Bishops, namely, to _Innocent_ of _Rome_, _Venerius_ of _Milan_, and _Chromatius_ of _Aquileia_, intreating them not to abandon him in his Distress, nor exclude him from their Communion[1427], but to procure by all means the assembling of a General Council, in order to restore the Church to her former Tranquillity.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom _an utter Stranger to the Power of receiving Appeals in the Bishops of_ Rome.]

Such was the Conduct of _Chrysostom_: and, from this Conduct, does it not manifestly appear, that _Chrysostom_ was an utter Stranger to the pretended Power in the Bishops of _Rome_ of receiving Appeals from all other Tribunals, and finally determining all Controversies? Who can think, that, had he been acquainted with such a Prerogative, he would, when so unjustly oppressed, have appealed to a Council, which, he was well apprised, would meet with great Obstructions, when he had, ready at hand, a more certain and easy Method of finding Relief? Had he been satisfied, that _Innocent_ had such a Privilege, is it likely he would have written to him on so urgent an Occasion, without taking the least Notice of it; that he would have contented himself with only intreating him to procure the assembling of a General Council? Should a Bishop now, apprehending himself injured by a National or Provincial Synod, appeal, not to the Pope, but, as _Chrysostom_ did, to a General Council, he would, by such an Appeal, draw upon himself the Indignation of the _Roman_ See: for it would be thence concluded, and no Conclusion can be more natural, that he did not acknowlege the Power of receiving _Appeals_ claimed by that See.

[Sidenote: Chrysostom _never acknowleged such a Power_.]

But _Chrysostom_, say they, did acknowledge such a Power; for, in his Letter to _Innocent_, he intreats him _to declare such wicked Proceedings void and null, and to pronounce all, who had any Share in them, punishable, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws_. But _Chrysostom_ addresses himself here, not to _Innocent_ alone, as I have already observed, but to him, in Conjunction with _Venerius_ of _Milan_, and _Chromatius_ of _Aquileia_[1428]; nay, he addresses himself, throughout the whole Letter, to more Persons than one; and yet _Baronius_ has the Assurance to style the Letter an _Appeal_ to _Innocent_[1429]. And why to him, and not to the other Two, since he writ nothing to him but what he writ to them? [Sidenote: _The Disingenuity of_ Bellarmine.] _Bellarmine_, finding some Expressions in the above-mentioned Letter, which he thought might be so interpreted as to favour and countenance the Pretensions of the See of _Rome_, had _Chrysostom_ addressed himself to _Innocent_ alone, makes him accordingly, by altering the Number in the Passage he quotes, address himself to _Innocent_ alone[N49]; and then concludes, that even the _Greeks_ acknowleged the Bishop of _Rome_ for their Supreme Judge[1430]. What must every impartial Man think of a Cause, that wants to be thus defended? What of those, who thus defend it?

-----

Footnote N49:

He changes _obsecro ut scribatis_ into _obsecro ut scribas_.

-----

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Exuperius _Bishop of_ Toulouse.]

About this time, that is, in the Year 405. _Innocent_, being consulted by _Exuperius_[N50] Bishop of _Toulouse_, concerning some Points of Discipline, answered him by a Decretal, containing the following Decisions: 1. That the Priests and Deacons, who were daily employed in sacrificing or baptizing, were not to be allowed the Use of Matrimony; that those, who were ignorant of the Decretal issued by _Syricius_, might be forgiven, upon their promising thenceforth to live continent; but, as to the rest, they should, as unworthy of Indulgence, be deposed. The Second Article relates to those, who, after Baptism, had led a wicked or sinful Life, and at the Point of Death desired the Communion. _Innocent_ declares, that to such, according to the antient Discipline of the Church, which was more severe, Repentance was granted, and not the Communion; but, according to the present Practice, both were granted. By Repentance is here meant, according to the most probable Opinion, a Reconciliation with the Church; and, by the Communion, the Eucharist, which the Thirteenth Canon of the Council of _Nice_ commands to be given to all dying Persons who desire it. Some doubted whether it was lawful for a Christian to discharge the Office of a Judge, in criminal Cases. _Innocent_ therefore declares, in the Third Article, that no Penance ought to be imposed upon those who had condemned Criminals to the Rack, or even to Death, the Civil Power having been established by God for the Punishment of Criminals. As Women were, it seems, more frequently punished for Adultery than Men, some imagined that Crime not to be alike punishable in both. This Notion _Innocent_ confutes in the Fourth Article; adding, that Women were more frequently punished, merely because the Husbands were more forward in accusing their Wives, than Wives were in accusing their Husbands. The Fifth Article is a Confirmation of the Third; for it only absolves from all Sins such as are obliged, by their Office, to prosecute or condemn Criminals. The Sixth Article excludes from the Communion of the Church all Men, who, after they have been parted from their Wives, marry other Women; and all Women, who, after they have been parted from their Husbands, marry other Men[N51]. The same Punishment is, by this Article, inflicted on those who marry them, but not on their Parents or Relations, provided they have been no-way accessory to that unlawful Contract. The last Article contains a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of Scripture, the same as are still acknowleged by the Church of _Rome_ as Canonical. In the same Article, some Books are pointed out, that ought to be absolutely condemned and rejected[1431][N52]. These Directions, or Instructions, _Innocent_ pretends to have drawn partly from Scripture, and partly from Tradition; and thanks _Exuperius_, because he had, by applying to him for a Solution to his Difficulties, engaged him to examine them with Attention, and thereby given him an Opportunity of learning what he had not known before. It is surprising he should have mentioned the Scripture, since the very first Article, debarring for ever married Men from the Use of Matrimony, is an open Contradiction to the Directions given by St. _Paul_ to all married Persons, without Restraint or Distinction; _Defraud you not one the other, except it be with_ _Consent for a time_, &c. _and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your Incontinency_[1432].

-----

Footnote N50:

_Exuperius_ was, as we gather from _Ausonius_, a Native of
_Bourdeaux_, one of the greatest Orators of his Time, and had governed
_Spain_ in Quality of Prefect. He afterwards withdrew from the World;
embraced the Ecclesiastical State in the Place of his Nativity[N50.1];
and was, for his eminent Virtues, raised to the See of _Toulouse_. He
was chiefly commendable for his Charity to the Poor; though he
bestowed the greater Part of it on Objects, perhaps, of all, the least
worthy of his Compassion: for, by the Monk _Sisennius_, he sent
considerable Sums into the East, to be distributed there among the
Monks of _Egypt_ and _Palæstine_[N50.2]; which might have been better
employed at home, _Gaul_ being then threatened with an Invasion of the
_Vandals_, _Alans_, and other barbarous Nations; who, accordingly,
broke into that Province on the last Day of the Year 406. and made
themselves Masters of _Toulouse_ itself. It was, however, this
Kindness of _Exuperius_ to the Monks, that chiefly recommended him to
_Jerom_[N50.3], who often mentions him with the greatest
Commendations[N50.4], and even inscribed to him his Comment on
_Zechariah_.

Footnote N50.1:

Paulin. ep. 20.

Footnote N50.2:

Hier. præf. in lib. 1, 2, & 3. Zech. & ep. 152.

Footnote N50.3:

Idem ibid.

Footnote N51:

The matrimonial Bond is held, by the Church of _Rome_, indissoluble,
and a Separation only allowed as to Bed and Board, even in Cases of
Adultery; whence it follows, that so long as they both live, neither
can marry, without being guilty of Adultery. There are, however, some
_annulling Impediments_, as the Canonists style them, that is,
Circumstances rendering the Marriage-contract null; and if any of
these intervene, and is made to appear, the Parties are then declared
not to have been married; and, consequently, free to marry whom they
please. Till _Innocent_’s Time, Men, who had been parted from their
Wives convicted of Adultery, were allowed to marry again. This
_Epiphanius_ tells us in express Terms; adding, that, agreeably to
Scripture (no doubt to _Matt._ v. 32.), it could be no Crime to marry
again; that those who married again were not excluded, on that score,
from Life everlasting; and consequently ought not to be excluded from
the Communion of the Church[N51.1]. The Scope and Design of
_Epiphanius_, throughout his Work, was to acquaint us with the several
Heresies that sprung up in the Church, and to explain, in Opposition
to them, the Catholic Doctrines. It must therefore have been deemed a
Heresy in his Time, that is, towards the latter End of the Fourth
Century, to think the matrimonial Bond indissoluble, even in Cases of
Adultery, or to hold it unlawful for a Man to marry again, who had put
away his Wife _for the Cause of Fornication_. But the Heresy became
afterwards a Catholic Truth, and the Catholic Truth a Heresy. This
Change, however, was not so much owing to _Innocent_’s Decretal, as to
the Two Books, which St. _Austin_ writ about the Year 419. to prove,
that it is unlawful for a Husband, who has put away his Wife, even for
Adultery, or for a Wife who has been thus put away, to marry again,
while both are living. He founds his Opinion on that of St. _Paul_,
_The Wife is bound by the Law, as long as her Husband liveth_[N51.2].
But, instead of understanding that Passage with the Exception made by
our Saviour himself, _Whosoever shall put away his Wife, saving for
the Cause of Fornication_, &c. he endeavours, by many logical
Distinctions, and unnatural Interpretations, to remove that Exception,
though expressed by the Evangelist in the plainest Terms. He was
therein, no doubt, misled, by the groundless, but then reigning,
Notion, of an extraordinary Merit annexed to Celibacy; and therefore
ends his Word with exhorting the Husbands, who have put away their
Wives, to observe Continency, in Imitation of the Ecclesiastics, who
observe it (says he) with the greatest Exactness, though it was not by
their own Choice that some of them went into Orders. It may be
questioned, whether, even then, the Continence of the unmarried Clergy
was such as he represents it.

Footnote N51.1:

Epiph. hæref. 59.

Footnote N51.2:

1 Corinth. vii. 39.

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.]