Part 42

_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.]

The same Year 407. the Emperor _Honorius_ visited the City of _Rome_, and continued there till the Month of _May_ of the Year 408. On the 23d of the following _August_, _Stilicho_ was killed; and _Alaric_ the _Goth_, entering _Italy_ soon after his Death, appeared before _Rome_, and laid close Siege to that City in the latter End of the same Year. As no Provisions could be conveyed into the Place, all the Avenues being shut up, and well guarded, a Famine soon ensued, and upon the Famine a Plague, which daily swept off great Numbers of the Inhabitants. In this Extremity, such of the Senators as still adhered to the Pagan Superstitions, promising themselves Relief from the Gods of their Ancestors, resolved to implore their Protection, by solemn Sacrifices offered up to them in the Capitol, and other public Places of the City. [Sidenote: _The_ Pagan _Superstitions connived at by_ Innocent.] This Resolution, says _Zosimus_[1434], they imparted to _Innocent_, then Bishop of _Rome_, who, sacrificing his private Opinion to the public Welfare, agreed to it, on Condition that the Ceremony should be privately performed. Of these Sacrifices _Sozomen_ too takes particular Notice[1435]; but makes no Mention of _Innocent_; which has induced some to suspect the Veracity of _Zosimus_, who was, as is well known, a sworn Enemy to the Christian Religion. But that those Sacrifices were performed, is affirmed both by him and _Sozomen_; and it is not at all probable, that _Pompeianus_, who was then Governor of _Rome_, and a Christian, would have suffered them, without the Consent and Approbation of _Innocent_. However that be, I see not why _Baronius_ should be so provoked against _Zosimus_, for making _Innocent_ thus connive at the superstitious Worship of the Gentiles, since his Successors have always allowed, and do still allow, even in _Rome_ itself, the free Exercise of the _Jewish_ Worship.

[Sidenote: Innocent _leaves_ Rome, _and repairs to the Emperor at_ Ravenna.]

_Rome_ being reduced to the last Extremity, Deputies were, in the End, sent out to treat with _Alaric_, who, hearkening to their Proposals, raised the Siege, upon their paying to him Five thousand Pounds Weight of Gold, Thirty thousand of Silver, Four thousand Silk Garments, Three thousand Skins of Purple Dye, and as many Pounds of Pepper. At the same time the _Romans_ engaged to mediate a Peace between him and _Honorius_: but the Emperor refusing to comply with the Terms that were proposed, though no-ways unreasonable, the _Roman_ Senate sent Two solemn Deputations to _Ravenna_, where _Honorius_ then resided, to lay before him the Danger to which he exposed the Empire, and persuade him to accept the Conditions offered him both by them and by _Alaric_. As the First Deputation proved unsuccessful, _Innocent_, thinking his Presence might give some Weight to the Negotiations, left _Rome_, and, together with the Deputies, repaired to _Ravenna_. Thus he escaped the Mortification of seeing the City of _Rome_ taken and plundered by the Barbarians[1436]. For, _Honorius_ still rejecting the Terms of Peace, _Alaric_ returned with his Army before _Rome_; and, having made himself Master of it on the 24th of _August_ of the Year 410. treated the great Metropolis of the Empire no better, if _Jerom_ may be credited, than the _Greeks_ are said to have treated antient _Troy_[1437].

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Marcianus, _Bishop of_ Naissus.]

While _Innocent_ continued at _Ravenna_, he writ to _Marcianus_ Bishop of _Naissus_, a City in _Mœsia_, concerning the Ecclesiastics of his Diocese, who had been ordained by _Bonosus_, of whom we have spoken above[1438]. In that Letter, _Innocent_ declares, that _Marcianus_ ought to admit to his Communion, and even restore to their Churches, those Ecclesiastics, who, having adhered to _Bonosus_ after his Condemnation, were willing to return, provided they had been ordained by him before his Condemnation. One of these, by Name _Rusticus_, to remove all Doubt concerning the Validity of his Ordination, had caused himself to be reordained by a Catholic Bishop; and this Reordination _Innocent_ condemns, in the same Letter, as highly criminal[1439].

[Sidenote: _His Letter to_ Aurelius _of_ Carthage.]

In the Year 412. _Innocent_ writ to _Aurelius_ Bishop of _Carthage_, whom he seems to have greatly honoured and esteemed, concerning the Day on which _Easter_ was to be kept in the Year 414. He acquaints _Aurelius_, that the 16th Day of the Moon of _March_ would fall that Year on the 22d of the Month, and the 23d of the Moon on the 29th of the Month; and consequently that, in his Opinion, _Easter_ ought to be kept on the 22d of _March_. However, he desires _Aurelius_ to discuss that Point in the Council of the _African_ Bishops, that was in a short time to be held at _Carthage_; and to let him know, whether they approved of such a Regulation, or what they objected against it, that he might solemnly notify by his Letters, according to Custom, the Day, on which _Easter_ was to be celebrated[1440]. Their thus notifying to the other Bishops the Day on which _Easter_ was to be kept, was no Argument of Power; but it gave them an Air of Pre-eminence, which they dextrously improved into Power.

[Sidenote: _The Letter of the Bishops of_ Macedon _to_ Innocent.]

In the Year 414. _Vitalis_, Archdeacon probably of _Thessalonica_, arrived at _Rome_, with Letters for _Innocent_, from the Bishops of _Macedon_, touching certain Points of Discipline which, it seems, they had referred to him, and he had decided before. In this Letter they represent to him, in the first Place, that, according to the Custom and Practice of their Churches, the marrying a Widow was no Bar or Impediment to Orders, or even to the Episcopal Dignity; and that to marry one Wife before, and a Second after, Baptism, was not, with them, deemed Bigamy. Then passing to those, who had been ordained by _Bonosus_, they declare it as their Opinion, that nothing more could be required than the Blessing of a lawful Bishop to re-admit them to the Functions of their Office. They conclude with begging Leave to raise to the Episcopal Dignity one _Photinus_, who had been condemned by the Predecessors of _Innocent_, and to depose a Deacon, by Name _Eustatius_[1441].

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Answer_.]

This Letter _Innocent_ answered, almost in the Style and Language of a modern Pope. He begins with expressing his Surprize at the Affront they offered to the Apostolic See, by calling in Doubt what he had already decided. He then answers, one by one, the Heads of their Letter, with all the Authority of an unerring Judge, though neither he, nor any of his Predecessors, had ever yet claimed, or thought of claiming, such a Prerogative. He absolutely condemns the Practice of admitting to Orders such as had married Widows, because that was forbidden, says he, by _Moses_ to the High Priest of the _Jews_; which was tacitly declaring the _Levitical_ Laws to be still, in some Degree, binding with respect to the Christian Clergy. He adds, that if any such had been ordained, it was the general Practice of all the Churches, both in the East and West, to depose them[N53]. [Sidenote: Innocent _declares Orders conferred by Heretics to be null_.] As for those who had married but one of their Two Wives after Baptism, _Innocent_ declares them equally incapable of being ordained as if they had married both[N54]. As to the Ecclesiastics ordained by _Bonosus_, _Innocent_ not only excludes them from the Ministry, but endeavours to prove in general, that Orders, when conferred by Heretics, are null, borrowing, for that Purpose, of St. _Cyprian_, all the Arguments which that Father had made use of to prove a no less erroneous Opinion; _viz._ the Nullity of Baptism, when conferred by Heretics[N55].

Footnote N53:

Such a Practice, however general, could have no other Foundation but the same unwarrantable Notion: I say, unwarrantable; for what can be more so than to exclude, as _Innocent_ does, even from the lowest Degrees in the Church, a Man who had married a Widow, because the High-Priest of the _Jews_ was not allowed to marry one, though all other Priests were, under that Law, free from such a Restraint?

Footnote N54:

_Jerom_ held the contrary Opinion, and maintained it in one of his Letters[N54.1], with Reasons, that appeared to _Baronius almost unanswerable_[N54.2], that is, no otherwise answerable than by the _Ipse dixit_ of _Innocent_, which, with him, stood in the room of Reason.

Footnote N54.1:

Hier. ep. 83.

Footnote N54.2:

Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 60.

Footnote N55:

He was, it seems, no Logician; else, to prove his Opinion, he had never made use of Arguments, that equally proved, and had been calculated to prove, an erroneous Opinion, an Opinion long before condemned by all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, and very lately by himself, in a Letter to _Alexander_ Bishop of _Antioch_, where he maintains the Validity of Baptism conferred by an _Arian_[N55.1].

Footnote N55.1:

Inn. ep. 18.

[Sidenote: _Which Opinion has been since declared heretical._]

The Opinion, which he endeavours to establish here, has been since condemned as heretical, by several of his Successors, and is now held as such by the whole Church; which has cut out a great deal of Work for the Champions of Infallibility. They plainly see (and who can read _Innocent_’s Letter without seeing?), that the Reasons which he made use of were all calculated to prove the Nullity of Ordination by the Hands of an Heretic; but nevertheless pretend, that whatever their seeming Purport may be, _Innocent_ employed them only to prove, that an heretical Bishop had not the Power of conferring Grace, and with it the Right of exercising lawfully the Functions of his Office[1442]. But who can believe any Man, endowed with the least Share of common Sense, capable of arguing so absurdly? If his Meaning may be thus wrested, in spite of his Words, to a Catholic Sense, whose Meaning may not?

[Sidenote: Innocent _owns the Holy See to have been imposed upon_.]

With respect to _Photinus_, _Innocent_ declares himself very unwilling to blame, or give Occasion to the World to think that he blamed, the Conduct of his Predecessors, who had condemned _Photinus_; but nevertheless, since so many Prelates had made it appear by their joint Testimonies, that the Holy See had been imposed upon by false and groundless Reports, he agrees to his Promotion. As to the Deacon _Eustatius_, he lets them know, that, whatever Reports may have been spread to his Prejudice, he is well assured both of his Probity, and the Purity of his Faith, and therefore cannot consent to his Deposition. In the End of his Letter, he complains of the Bishops of _Macedon_ for not paying due Regard to the Testimony of the _Roman_ Church, in behalf of the Two Subdeacons _Dizonianus_ and _Cyriacus_.

[Sidenote: _The Misunderstanding between the Eastern and Western Churches continues after the Death of_ Chrysostom.]

We have observed above, that _Chrysostom_ being driven from the See of _Constantinople_ into Exile, _Innocent_, and with him most of the Western Bishops, had espoused his Cause with great Warmth; but, finding that all their Endeavours in his Behalf proved unsuccessful, they at last separated themselves from the Communion of _Atticus_ of _Constantinople_, _Porphyrius_ of _Antioch_, and _Theophilus_ of _Alexandria_. In the Year 407. _Chrysostom_ died at _Cumana_ in _Pontus_; but with him did not die the Animosities, which his Deposition had occasioned between the Churches of the East and the West. _Atticus_ indeed thought nothing could now obstruct the wished-for Union; and therefore, as soon as _Chrysostom_’s Death was known, he applied to _Rome_, desiring the Communion of that Church. But he was greatly surprised, when he understood, that _Innocent_, instead of readily granting him his Request, insisted upon his first acknowleging _Chrysostom_ to have been, and to have died, lawful Bishop of _Constantinople_, by inrolling his Name in the Diptychs[N56], with the Names of other Bishops of that City. This Demand seemed to _Atticus_ highly unreasonable; for it was obliging him to acknowlege his own Election to have been null. He therefore peremptorily refused to comply with it; but nevertheless continued soliciting, by means of his Friends at _Rome_, a Reconciliation with that Church[1443]. But _Innocent_ was inflexible; he was determined at all Events to carry his Point, and therefore would hearken to no other Terms till that was complied with. The Eastern Bishops followed the Example of _Atticus_; the Western that of _Innocent_. And thus were the Separation, and the Animosities attending it, continued Seven Years longer, each Party bitterly inveighing, in the mean time, against the Authors of the Divisions, and each expressing a most earnest Desire of a Reconciliation.

Footnote N56:

The Diptychs were Tables, in which were inrolled the Names of all those who died in the Communion of the Church. The Bishops were placed there by themselves; and of all Commemoration was made by the Deacon in the Time of the Service.

[Sidenote: _The Churches of_ Antioch _and_ Rome _reconciled_.]

At length _Porphyrius_ of _Antioch_, one of _Chrysostom_’s most inveterate Enemies, dying in the Year 413. or 414. _Alexander_, who till then had led a monastic Life, was chosen in his room by the unanimous Consent of the People and Clergy. As he was fully convinced of _Chrysostom_’s Innocence, and the Malice of his Enemies, he no sooner found himself vested with that Dignity, than he caused the deceased Prelate’s Name to be inserted in the Diptychs of his Church, and the Two Bishops _Helpidius_ and _Pappus_ to be restored to their Sees, from which they had been driven for refusing to renounce his Communion, and to communicate with his Enemies. After this _Alexander_ sent a solemn Deputation to _Rome_, at the Head of which was, it seems, the famous _Cassian_, to acquaint _Innocent_ with his Promotion, to inform him of what he had done, and thereupon to renew the Union between the Two Churches. _Alexander_, who entertained a sincere Desire of seeing Peace and Concord restored between the East and the West, did not doubt but the Example of his Church would be followed by many others, and a Way, by that Means, be paved to a general Pacification. _Innocent_ received the Deputation with the greatest Marks of Joy, admitted _Alexander_ to his Communion, and, with the Consent and Approbation of Twenty-Four other Bishops, declared the Church of _Antioch_ again united to that of _Rome_.

[Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Antioch _strives to reconcile the Churches of_ Rome _and_ Constantinople.]

Several other Bishops, moved partly by the Example, and partly by the Letters and Exhortations of the Bishop of _Antioch_, yielded to _Innocent_, and submitted to the Terms he required. But _Atticus_ still adhered to his former Resolution, and, to gain him, _Alexander_, who spared no Pains to complete the Work he had begun, repaired in Person to _Constantinople_. But he acted there with such Indiscretion as rendered that haughty Prelate more averse, than he had ever yet been, to an Accommodation on the Terms proposed by _Innocent_. For all other Means he could think of, to compass his Design, proving unsuccessful, he resolved in the End to apply to the Populace, who, as he well knew, had been most zealously attached to _Chrysostom_ during his Life, and revered him as a Saint after his Death. [Sidenote: _His imprudent Conduct._] Suffering therefore his Zeal to get the better of his Prudence, and of every Consideration Prudence could suggest, he began to harangue the Multitude, and inflame them with seditious Speeches against _Atticus_, as carrying, even beyond the Grave, his Hatred and Malice against their holy Bishop. The Populace heard him with Attention, applauded his Zeal, and, full of Rage against _Atticus_, demanded, in a tumultuous manner, that the Name of so holy, so great and deserving a Prelate, might be inrolled, without further Delay, in the Diptychs. But their Clamours and Threats made no more Impression on the Mind of _Atticus_ than the Reasons of _Alexander_; he withstood both; and the Bishop of _Antioch_, finding all his Attempts thus shamefully baffled, returned to his See, with the Mortification of having only widened the Breach, which he intended to close, between the Churches of _Rome_ and _Constantinople_[1444]. _Baronius_ supposes _Alexander_ to have acted on this Occasion as _Innocent_’s Legate[1445]. But I find nothing in the Antients to countenance such a Supposition, besides his haughty Behaviour, and his pursuing, by the most unwarrantable Methods, what he had in View.

[Sidenote: _The Name of_ Chrysostom _inrolled in the Diptychs by the Bishop of_ Constantinople.]