Part 43

_Atticus_, however, allowed, in the End, _Chrysostom_’s Name to be inserted in the Diptychs; but whether he did it by Choice or Compulsion, is uncertain; for, in one of his Letters, he writes, that he could no longer withstand the Threats and Violence of the enraged Multitude[1446]; and in another, that he had done it to comply with the Will of the Emperors, and to conform to the Sentiments of his Brethren, both in the East and the West[1447]. However that be, it is certain, that he never changed his Sentiments with respect to _Chrysostom_, as is manifest from his declaring, after he had placed his Name in the Diptychs, that he thereby meant no more than to own, that he had been once Bishop of _Constantinople_; but that he still adhered to the Judgment that was given against him. With this, however, _Innocent_ was satisfied; and so is _Baronius_.

[Sidenote: _The Two Churches re-united at last._]

_Alexander_ maintained ever after a close Correspondence with _Innocent_, courting his Favour with the most servile Submissions, recurring to him in every momentous Affair relating to his Church, and suffering himself to be blindly guided by his Counsels. In one of his Letters he consulted him, it seems, concerning the Prerogatives of his See, and the Extent of his Jurisdiction; and nothing can be more subtle than _Innocent_’s Answer. [Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Alexander _of_ Antioch.] For after a long Preamble on the Dignity of the See of _Antioch_, he craftily insinuates all the Privileges and Prerogatives annexed to it to be owing not to the Dignity of the City, but to the Dignity of the See, as having been once the See of St. _Peter_. He adds, that on this Consideration it had been distinguished with an extensive Jurisdiction, and that it yielded to that of _Rome_ itself only because St. _Peter_ had accomplished there what he had begun at _Antioch_[1448]. [Sidenote: _The Prerogatives of the See of_ Rome _owing to the City, and not to St._ Peter.] What _Innocent_ proposed to himself by thus exalting the See of _Antioch_, by deriving the Privileges, Prerogatives, and Jurisdiction, of that See from St. _Peter_, is obvious. If they were owing not to the City, but to St. _Peter_, as _Innocent_ affirms, those enjoyed by the See of _Rome_ were, in like manner, owing to St. _Peter_, and not to the City. This Notion, now first started by _Innocent_, was not suffered to drop; but, being greedily embraced by his Successors, it was, in Process of Time, improved by them into a general Plea for all their exorbitant Claims. And thus _Innocent_ may be justly said to have pointed out the Ground on which the unwieldy Fabric of the Papal Power was afterwards built. But if it be true, as _Innocent_ pretends, that the See of _Antioch_ owed its Dignity to St. _Peter_, and not to the City, how will he account for its being ranked under that of _Alexandria_, which was neither founded, nor had ever been honoured, by that Apostle? But not to waste Time in combating such a groundless Notion, nothing is more certain, than that the Disposition and Division of the Church was founded upon, and intirely agreeable to, the Disposition and Division of the Empire[1449]; and consequently that as no Regard was had to St. _Peter_, or any other Apostle, in the Civil, none could be had in the Ecclesiastical, Polity. And hence it naturally follows, that as _Rome_ was the first City of the Empire, _Alexandria_ the Second, and _Antioch_ the Third, the Sees should be ranked in the same Order; and in the same Order they were ranked accordingly, though the See of _Alexandria_ was founded only by a Disciple of St. _Peter_, and that of _Antioch_ was supposed to have been founded by St. _Peter_ himself.

[Sidenote: _The Division of the Church founded on the Division of the Empire._]

This Division of the Church took place soon after the Division of the Empire made by _Constantine the Great_, on which it was founded. It was first introduced by Custom, but afterwards confirmed by several Councils; and in none of them is there a Word of St. _Peter_. As therefore the Bishop of _Alexandria_ preceded in Rank the Bishop of _Antioch_, for no other Reason but because the City of _Alexandria_ preceded in Dignity the City of _Antioch_, according to the secular Constitutions of the Empire; so the Bishop of _Rome_ preceded in Rank all other Bishops, for no other Reason but because the City of _Rome_, as the Seat of the Empire, preceded in Dignity all other Cities.

[Sidenote: Innocent _encourages the Bishop of_ Antioch _to invade the Rights of the Metropolitans_.]

But to return to _Innocent_: In the same Letter to _Alexander_ he observes, that the Bishop of _Antioch_ did not preside over a single Province, but a whole Diocese; and therefore advises him not only to maintain the Right he had of ordaining the Metropolitans, but not to suffer other Bishops in the Provinces under his Jurisdiction, however distant, to be ordained without his Consent and Approbation. He adds, that, with respect to the Bishops of the less remote Provinces, he might reserve to himself the Right of ordaining them[1450]. This was encouraging the Bishop of _Antioch_ to invade and usurp the undoubted Rights of the Metropolitans, in open Defiance of the Fourth and Sixth Canons of the Council of _Nice_, which were afterwards confirmed by almost innumerable other Councils, all granting to the Metropolitans the Power of ordaining the Bishops of their respective Provinces jointly with the Bishops of the same Province, without ever once mentioning the Patriarch or Head of the Diocese[1451]. But of this Right the Bishops of _Rome_ had deprived the Metropolitans under their Jurisdiction as early at least as the Time of _Syricius_; for that Pope, in the Letter which he writ to _Anysius_ Bishop of _Thessalonica_, appointing him his Vicar for _East-Illyricum_, charges him not to suffer any Bishops to be ordained in those Provinces without his Consent and Approbation. _Innocent_ maintained what his Predecessors had usurped; and, to countenance their Usurpation and his own, he encourages, by this Letter, the Bishop of _Antioch_ to pursue the same Conduct with respect to the Metropolitans of his Diocese. The Example of the Bishops of _Rome_ was, in Process of Time, followed by those of _Constantinople_, who, rivaling them in Pride and Ambition, not only usurped the Power of ordaining all the Bishops of their Diocese, but, by the Interest they had at Court, obtained an Imperial Rescript, confirming to them the Power which they had usurped. But they were soon obliged to part with it, though thus guaranteed, by the Fathers of the Council of _Chalcedon_ impowering, by their Twenty-eighth Canon, the Bishops of _Constantinople_ to ordain the Metropolitans in the Dioceses of _Pontus_, _Asia_, and _Thrace_; but at the same time ascertaining to the Metropolitans the Right of ordaining the Bishops of their respective Provinces. But the Bishops of _Rome_, ever determined to part with no Power, however acquired, found means not only to elude the Decrees of this and several other Councils, ascertaining the Rights of the Metropolitans in the plainest Terms, but to improve, by daily Incroachments, their usurped Jurisdiction, as I shall have frequent Occasion to observe in the Sequel of this History.

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter occasions great Disputes between the Bishops of_Antioch _and those of_ Cyprus.]

_Innocent_ complains, in the next Article of his Letter, of a Custom that obtained in the Island of _Cyprus_. It was one of the chief Privileges of the Patriarch, or Bishop, who presided over a whole Diocese, to ordain the Metropolitans of the Provinces comprised under his Diocese. But the Metropolitan of _Cyprus_ was ordained by the Bishops of that Island without the Consent, or even the Privity, of the Bishop of _Antioch_, though _Cyprus_ belonged to his Province, according to the Civil Division of the Empire. This Custom _Innocent_ condemns, as repugnant to the Canons of the Council of _Nice_; adding, that it was first introduced in the unhappy Times when _Arianism_ prevailed all over _Syria_, the Bishops of _Cyprus_ refusing then to acknowlege those of _Antioch_, who were infected with that Heresy. This Article proved the Source of endless Disputes between the Bishops of _Antioch_ and those of _Cyprus_; the former pretending, that the Power of ordaining the Metropolitan of _Cyprus_ was lodged in them, and the latter opposing with great Warmth such a Pretension. [Sidenote: _Which are in the End decided in favour of the latter._] The Controversy was at length referred to the Council of _Ephesus_; and the Fathers of that numerous Assembly, having heard and examined with great Attention the Pleas of both Parties, condemned in the strongest Terms the Pretension of the Bishops of _Antioch_, as repugnant to the antient Canons, that is, to those very Canons, on which, at the Suggestion of _Innocent_, they had founded it. And here I cannot help observing, by the way, that the Bishops of _Antioch_ never thought of alleging, in support of their Claim, the Authority of _Innocent_, which they would certainly have done, had they not been well apprised, that no Regard would have been paid to it by the Fathers of the Council. As for what _Innocent_ adds concerning the Time and Manner in which the Custom he complains of was introduced, he must certainly have been no less mistaken in those Particulars, than he was in the Sense and Meaning of the Canons of _Nice_. For who can imagine, that the _Arian_ Bishops, at the Time _Arianism_ prevailed, that is, when they had the greatest Interest at Court, and the Orthodox had none, would have suffered the Bishops of _Cyprus_ to withdraw themselves, contrary to the established Laws of the Church, from their Jurisdiction, for no other Reason, but because the Bishops of _Antioch_ professed the Doctrine of _Arius_?

_Alexander_, in his Letter to _Innocent_, had asked him, Whether Two Metropolitan Sees should be erected in one Province, which had been divided by the Emperors into Two? _Innocent_ replies, That the Concerns of the Church being different from those of the State, the Church ought to adhere to the antient Rule. [Sidenote: _Alterations in the State generally attended with the like Alterations in the Church._] However, it is plain from History, that such Alterations in the State were, generally speaking, attended with the like Alterations in the Church; insomuch that when the Bishop of any considerable City wanted to be raised to the Dignity of a Metropolitan, the most expeditious Way of gratifying his Ambition was, to apply to the Emperor for a Division of the Province; that his City being advanced, by such a Division, to the Rank of a Metropolis, he might, by the same Means, be preferred to that of a Metropolitan. Of mere Bishops, thus raised to the Dignity of Metropolitans, without any Regard to _Innocent_’s Letter, or, as it is styled, Decretal, several Instances occur in History.

_Innocent_, in the End of his Letter, declares it as his Opinion, that such Ecclesiastics as had renounced _Arianism_, or any other Heresy, with a Desire of being received into the Church, ought not to be admitted as Ecclesiastics, but only as Laymen. [Sidenote: _Ecclesiastics ordained by Heretics to be admitted into the Church only as Laymen._] This Doctrine is intirely agreeable to the erroneous Doctrine concerning the Invalidity of Ordination by the Hands of an Heretic, which we have heard him labour to establish in his Letter to the Bishops of _Macedon_[1452]. He concludes this Letter with intreating the Bishop of _Antioch_ to cause it to be read in a Council, or to see that Copies of it be transmitted to all the Bishops of his Diocese, that all may agree in observing the Instructions which it contains[1453].

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to the Bishop of_ Eugubium.]

But of all _Innocent_’s Letters, that which he writ to _Decentius_ Bishop of _Eugubium_ (a City still known by the same Name in the Duchy of _Urbino_) is by far the most worthy of Notice, whether we consider the Doctrine which he there lays down, or the Principles on which he founds it. As to the Doctrine, it may be reduced to the Two following Heads; _viz._ That all the Churches in the West are bound to adopt, and strictly to observe, every Practice and Custom observed by the _Roman_ Church; and that the Customs of all other Churches, differing from those of the _Roman_ Church, are but Corruptions of the antient Tradition, Deviations from the Practice of the Primitive Times, and insufferable Abuses. As for the Principles on which he founds this Doctrine, they are, to say no more, of a Piece with the Doctrine itself. For he pretends, 1. That no Apostle, besides St. _Peter_, ever preached in the West. He ought, with St. _Peter_, to have at least excepted St. _Paul_; and, no doubt, would, had not his Memory failed him, as well as his Infallibility. [Sidenote: _All Churches ought, according to him, to conform to the Customs of the_ Roman _Church_.] He supposes, in the Second place, That all the Churches in the West were founded by St. _Peter_, or by some of his Successors; and consequently, that they ought to conform to the Customs of the _Roman_ Church, since to that Church they owe their Origin. But that the Church of _Lyons_, not to mention others, was founded by Preachers sent thither out of _Asia_ by St. _Polycarp_, and not by St. _Peter_, or any of his Successors, is affirmed by all the Antients, and allowed by the most learned among the Moderns; though some of them pretend, without the least Foundation, the Whole to have been done by the Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_[1454]. _Innocent_ pretends, in the Third place, every Point of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Polity to have been settled by the Apostles, and whatever was settled at _Rome_ by St. _Peter_ to have been there strictly observed ever since his Time, without the least Addition or Diminution. He concludes this Part of his Letter with laying it down as a general Maxim, That it is unlawful for any Bishop to make the least Alterations in the Discipline of his Church, or even to introduce into one Church a Custom or Practice observed by another[1455]. This nevertheless is what all Bishops have done, and even those of _Rome_, both before and after _Innocent_’s Time, and consequently what they thought it lawful to do. [Sidenote: _Some Customs of the_ Roman _Church borrowed of other Churches_.] The Psalmody, for Instance (and innumerable other Instances might be alleged), or the singing of Psalms in the Churches, was not instituted by any of the Apostles but first introduced by St. _Ignatius_ into the Church of _Antioch_[1456], whence it spread in a very short time to all the Churches in the East, those Bishops no more scrupling to adopt, than _Ignatius_ had scrupled to introduce, so laudable a Practice. Of the Eastern Churches it was borrowed by the Church of _Milan_, and of the Church of _Milan_ by that of _Rome_, long before _Innocent_’s Time; which plainly shews, that his Predecessors held not that Doctrine, no more than one of the best of his Successors, St. _Gregory the Great_, who openly approves of some Customs, that were first unknown to, but afterwards adopted by his Church[1457]. Upon the Whole, it is evident, that _Innocent_ was grosly mistaken, not only with respect to this Point, but likewise in asserting, that whatever had been settled at _Rome_ by St. _Peter_, was still observed there without the least _Addition or Diminution_.

[Sidenote: _The Ceremony of anointing those who are confirmed._]

The remaining Part of _Innocent_’s Letter relates to some particular Ceremonies and Customs, especially to the Ceremony of confirming those who were baptized, and the Custom of fasting on _Saturdays_. With respect to the former, he informs _Decentius_, that, according to the Custom of the Church, founded on the Practice of the Apostles, the Bishop alone can anoint on the Forehead those who have been baptized, and give them the Holy Ghost; and that the Priests can only anoint other Parts, the Episcopal Power not having been granted to them, though they partake of the Priesthood[N57].

Footnote N57:

The Ceremony of anointing with Oil the Forehead, and likewise the Organs of the Five Senses, in those who had been baptized, is undoubtedly very antient. _Tertullian_, who lived in the Latter-end of the Second Century, speaks of it as a Ceremony universally practised and established[N57.1]. St. _Cyprian_[N57.2], who flourished Fifty Years after, St. _Ambrose_[N57.3], St. _Austin_[N57.4], St. _Jerom_[N57.5], and the other Fathers, describe it as a Ceremony, by which the Holy Ghost was given to those who had been baptized, and consequently which none but Bishops could administer, they being the Successors of the Apostles, to whom alone that Power was granted. For the Fathers, generally speaking, and other antient Writers, suppose this, and the Imposition of Hands, by which the Holy Ghost was given by the Apostles to those who were baptized[N57.6], to be one and the same Ceremony. The Oil employed on this Occasion was, as early as the Third Century, solemnly consecrated, kept in the Churches or Places where the Faithful met, and held by them in great Veneration[N57.7]. This gave Rise, in the following Century, to many superstitious Practices, and Miracles were said to have been wrought by the _holy Oil_, to warrant such Practices, and confound those who thought it unlawful to comply with them. A very remarkable Miracle of this Nature is gravely related by _Optatus Milevitanus_[N57.8], who writ about the middle of the Fourth Century. But, in the Time of the Apostles, the Whole of this Ceremony consisted in the Imposition of Hands: _Then laid they their Hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost_. Not a Word of _Oil_, of _Chrism_, of _Unction_, of _signing with Oil on the Forehead_ in the Form of a _Cross_, and much less of a _Blow_ given by the Bishop on the Cheek to the Person that is confirmed, though these are now all deemed, in the Church of _Rome_, material Parts of this Ceremony. As such Rites were unknown to, and unpractised by, the Apostles, it matters little how early they were introduced after their Time. And here I cannot help observing, that the _Roman Catholics_ themselves have not thought fit to adopt all the Ceremonies used on this Occasion, and recommended by the Fathers. For, in _Innocent_’s Time, the Person confirmed was not only anointed on the Forehead, but on other Parts; on the Forehead by the Bishop, on other Parts by the Priests. The other Parts were, as we gather from _Cyril_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_[N57.9], the Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Hands, and Feet. The anointing of these Parts was, in the Opinion of that Father, no less fraught with Mysteries than the anointing of the Forehead; and yet the former Unction, notwithstanding its Antiquity, and all the Mysteries it symbolized, has been long since omitted, as altogether unnecessary. They might in like manner have omitted all the rest, and contented themselves, as the Apostles did, with the bare Imposition of Hands.

Footnote N57.1:

Tert. de resur. carnis.

Footnote N57.2:

Cypr. ep. 72, 73.

Footnote N57.3:

Ambr. de sacram. l. 3. c. 2.

Footnote N57.4:

Aug. contra Petil. l. 1. c. 104. de baptis. l. 3. c. 16. In ep. 1. Joan. tract. 3. & de diver. ser. 33.

Footnote N57.5:

Hier. contra Luciferian.

Footnote N57.6:

Act. viii. 15-17.

Footnote N57.7:

Cyp. ep. 70. & de oper. card. & unct. Chris.

Footnote N57.8:

Optat. Milev. contra Parm. l. 2.

Footnote N57.9:

Cyril. Catech. mystag. 3.

[Sidenote: Confirmation _not a Sacrament_.]

The _Roman Catholics_, finding this Ceremony, now known by the Name of _Confirmation_, styled a _Sacrament_ by St. _Cyprian_[1458], and St. _Austin_[1459], have thereupon raised it to that Rank, not reflecting that the antient Writers frequently make use of that Word to express no more than a _sacred Ceremony_, or Mystery. And truly were they to reckon among their _Sacraments_ all the Ceremonies which the Fathers and other Christian Writers have distinguished with that Title, their Number would amount to Seventy rather than to Seven.

[Sidenote: _Why deemed formerly unlawful to fast on_ Sunday _or_ Saturday.]

With respect to the other Point, those who are ever so little versed in the Writings of the Fathers, must know, that from the earliest Times it was deemed unlawful, nay, and highly criminal, for a Christian to fast on _Sunday_ or _Saturday_; on _Sunday_, because those Heretics, who denied the Resurrection of our Saviour, fasted on that Day, in Opposition to the Orthodox, who, believing it, solemnized the _Sunday_, the Day on which it happened, with Feasting and Rejoicings; on _Saturday_, because other Heretics holding the God of the _Jews_, and the Author of their Law, to be an evil Spirit, whom Christ came to destroy, fasted on the Seventh Day, thinking that by fasting they vilified the God of the _Jews_ as much as the _Jews_ honoured him by feasting[1460]. Among the antient Canons, known by the Name of the _Apostolic Constitutions_, we read the following Ordinance: _If a Clerk shall be found to have fasted on a_ Sunday _or a_ Saturday, _let him be deposed; if a Layman, let him be cut off from the Communion of the Faithful_[1461]. But that Canon must be understood only with respect to the East; for there was broached, and there chiefly prevailed, the Heresy that first introduced such a Practice. But in the West, where that Heresy was scarce known, some Churches, and the _Roman_ in particular, observed both _Fridays_ and _Saturdays_ as Fast-days. [Sidenote: Friday _from the earliest Times a Fast-day_.] The _Friday_ was, from the earliest Times, a Fast-day with all Churches, both in the East and the West; the _Saturday_ was only in the West, and even there with very few Churches, which had borrowed that Custom of the _Roman_ Church, as we are informed by St. _Austin_[1462]. _Innocent_ therefore, desirous of establishing in all other Churches the Custom that obtained in his own, undertakes to prove, first, That all may, and, secondly, That all ought to observe _Saturday_ as a Fast. [Sidenote: Saturday _a Fast-day in the_ Roman _Church_.] That all may, he proves well enough; but the Reasons he offers to shew that they all ought, _viz._ _Because Christ lay in the Sepulchre the_ Saturday _as well as the_ Friday, _and the Apostles fasted_, as he supposes, _on both Days_, are manifestly unconclusive as to any Obligation. Besides, it was not because Christ lay in the Sepulchre, or because the Apostles fasted, but because Christ was crucified on a _Friday_, that a Fast was appointed to be observed on that Day. In Process of Time, the Custom of sanctifying both Days with a Fast took place in most of the Western Churches; and this Custom has been made in latter times a general Law, and one of the Commandments of the Church, which all _Roman Catholics_ are bound to obey on Pain of Damnation. However, the Severity of it is so far relaxed, that, as they are only required to abstain from Meat, the utmost Riot and Epicurism in other Kinds of Food, and in Wine, may be, and are indulged on their Fast-days.

[Sidenote: _The Ceremony of anointing the Sick with Oil._]