Part 44

The last Article of _Innocent_’s Letter relates to the Ceremony of anointing the Sick with Oil, agreeably to that of St. _James_, _Is any sick among you_, &c.[1463]? As the Apostle directs the Faithful to _call for the Elders of the Church_; some took from thence Occasion to question whether Bishops were impowered to perform that Ceremony. Innocent therefore answers _Decentius_, who had proposed the Question, that there can be no room to doubt whether or no the Bishops have such a Power, since the Priests can have none, which the Bishops have not, of whom they receive all their Power. It is true, says _Innocent_, that St. _James_ ordered the Faithful to call for the Elders, and not for the Bishops; but that was because he knew that the Bishops could not have so much Leisure from other important Duties as the Priests. He adds, that this Unction must not be applied to Penitents; that the Oil used in it must be blessed by the Bishop; and when it is thus blessed, not the Presbyters only, but all the Faithful, may anoint with it both themselves and others. The Power of anointing, St. _James_ confined to the Elders or Priests, and that is the present Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, though _Innocent_ extended such a Power to all the Faithful. This Ceremony, now known by the Name of _Extreme Unction_, was, in _Innocent_’s Time, _a kind of Sacrament_; for so he styles it[1464]. But it is now a true _Sacrament_, and such it was declared by the Council of _Trent_[1465].

[Sidenote: _Letters from the Councils of_ Carthage _and_ Milevum _to_ Innocent.]

In the Year 416. _Innocent_ received Three Letters from the _African_ Bishops; _viz._ one from the Bishops of _Africa_, properly so called, assembled at _Carthage_; another from those of _Numidia_, assembled at _Milevum_; and a Third from St. _Austin_, signed by him and Four other Bishops. The Two Councils writ to acquaint _Innocent_, that they had condemned _Pelagius_ and his Disciple _Cælestius_, of whose Opinions I shall speak hereafter, and desire him to add the Authority of the Apostolic See to their Decrees. The Letter from St. _Austin_, and the Four other Bishops, was to inform _Innocent_, in a friendly manner, that he was suspected of countenancing those Heretics, and favouring their Doctrine. This Suspicion they themselves seem not to have thought quite groundless: for _Possidius_, one of the Bishops who subscribed the Letter, writes, that the _African_ Bishops took a great deal of Pains to convince _Innocent_, and his Successor _Zosimus_, that the Doctrine of _Pelagius_ was erroneous and heretical, knowing that his Followers were striving to infect the Apostolic See itself with their poisonous Tenets[1466]. They strove in vain, says _Baronius_; and perhaps they did; but the _African_ Bishops had never taken so much Pains to guard the Apostolic See against that Infection, had they not thought it capable of being infected. The Five Bishops sent to _Innocent_, together with their Letter, St. _Austin_’s Answer to a Letter which he had received from _Pelagius_, his Confutation of a Book composed by that Heretic, and the Book itself, with the Passages marked in it that gave most Offence, and claimed a particular Attention, lest he should overlook them[1467]. This was not treating him as an infallible Judge[N58].

Footnote N58:

_Baronius_ observes here, that their informing him by a private Letter, and not by a public one from the Council, of the Suspicions that some entertained of him, was a Mark of the great Respect and Veneration, they had for the Bishop of _Rome_, whose Nakedness they were unwilling, as it became dutiful Children, to expose to the Eyes of the World[N58.1]. And who told _Baronius_, that, in the like Circumstances, they would not have shewn the same Respect for any other Bishop? He had better have observed, and the Observation is more obvious, that his being suspected at all evidently proves the _Infallibility_ of the Apostolic See not to have been, in those Days, an Article of the Catholic Faith.

Footnote N58.1:

Bar. ad ann. 416. n. 11.

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Answer to the Councils_.]

The Letters from the Council of _Carthage_, from that of _Milevum_, and from the Five Bishops, were brought to _Rome_ by _Julius_, Bishop of some City in _Africa_; and, by the same _Julius_, _Innocent_ answered them with Three Letters, all dated the 27th of _January_ of the Year 417. The First, which is addressed to _Aurelius_, probably Bishop of _Carthage_, and to the other Bishops of that Assembly, he begins with commending them for their Zeal, their Pastoral Vigilance, and the Regard they had shewn for the _Apostolic See_. [Sidenote: _He claims the first a Divine Right of finally deciding all Controversies._] He thence takes an Opportunity to resume his usual and favourite Subject, the Dignity, Pre-eminence, and Authority of that See; roundly asserting, that _all Ecclesiastical Matters throughout the World are, by Divine Right, to be referred to the Apostolic See, before they are finally decided in the Provinces_. This was indeed a very bold Claim, and a direct asserting to himself the Universal Supremacy attained by his Successors. But it was yet too early for such a Claim to be granted; and it is plain the _African_ Bishops had no Idea of this Divine Right. For, had they entertained any such Notion, they surely would never have presumed finally to condemn and anathematize, as they did, _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, without consulting at least the Apostolic See: neither would they have written to _Innocent_ in the Style they did, after they had condemned them: for, in their Letter, they did not leave him at Liberty to approve or disapprove of what they had done; but only desire him to join his Authority to theirs, which they well knew he could not refuse to do, without confirming the Suspicion of his countenancing the _Pelagians_, and their Doctrine. [Sidenote: _Which is not acknowledged by the_ African _nor the_ Numidian _Bishops_.] _We have anathematized_ Pelagius _and Cælestius_, say the Fathers of the Council of _Carthage_, _and thought fit to acquaint you with it, that to the Decrees of our Mediocrity might be added the Authority of the Apostolic See_. This is a modest Style, and respectful to the See of _Rome_; but it is that of Men who plainly thought they had a Right to act in this Matter, by their own Judgment and Power, without waiting for the Award of that See, as they ought to have done, is they had allowed of _Innocent_’s Claim. In like manner the Council of _Milevum_, after informing _Innocent_ of the Sentence, which they had pronounced against the Two above-mentioned Heretics, adds; _And this Error and Impiety, which has every-where so many Followers and Abetters, ought also to be anathematized and condemned by the Apostolic See_[1468]; which was putting _Innocent_ in mind of what he ought to do, and not consulting him what they should do. [Sidenote: _An Instance of_ Innocent_’s great Subtlety and Address_.] This Conduct of the _African_ Bishops gave _Innocent_ no small Uneasiness. He was at a Loss what to do at so critical a Juncture. For to approve of a Conduct, so derogatory to the pretended Dignity of his See, was giving up his Claim to the _Divine Right_ of finally deciding all Ecclesiastical Controversies. To disapprove it, was confirming the Suspicion of his countenancing the Doctrine which they had condemned. But _Innocent_ was a Man of great Subtlety and Address; and he found out, at last, an Expedient to extricate himself out of that Perplexity, and gratify the Fathers of both Councils, without either approving or condemning their past Conduct. The only thing they required of him was to join his Authority with theirs, in condemning the _Pelagian_ Heresy; and that he readily did. But, lest in so doing he should seem to approve of their having condemned it without first consulting him, in his Answer to their Letters, he supposes them to have actually consulted him; nay, to have referred to him the final Decision of that Controversy; and, agreeably to that Supposition, he commends them for the Deference they had thereby shewn to the Apostolic See. _You have well observed_, says he, _the Ordinances of the antient Fathers, and not trampled under-foot what they, not in human Wisdom, but by Divine Order, have established_; viz. _That whatever is done in Places, however remote, should, for a final Conclusion, be referred to the Apostolic See_. And again, _You have had due Regard to the Honour of the Apostolic See, I mean of him who has the Charge and Care of all Churches, in consulting him in these Perplexities, and intricate Cases_[1469]. Thus did _Innocent_ maintain his Claim, and, at the same time, avoid quarrelling, at an improper Season, with those who had acted in direct Opposition to it. A necessary Policy in the first setting up of such extravagant and groundless Pretensions.

[Sidenote: _He excommunicates_ Cælestius _and_ Pelagius.]

In the present Letter he not only approves of the Judgment given against _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ by the _African_ Bishops, but alleges several Reasons in Confutation of the Doctrines they taught; and concludes, by declaring them cut off from the Communion of the Church, agreeably to the Sentence of the _African_ Bishops, as Men not only unworthy of that Communion, but of human Society, and even of Life[1470]. The same things he repeats in his Answer to the Bishops of _Numidia_; but he seems there to have been sensible, upon a more cool Consideration, that, in his Letter to the Council of _Carthage_, he had strained his Prerogative too high; and therefore in this he confines to Matters of _Faith_ the general Maxim, which he had laid down, concerning the Obligation of referring all Ecclesiastical Matters, for a final Decision, to the Apostolic See. In the same Letter he endeavours to confute, in particular, the Doctrine of _Pelagius_, allowing Children, who die without Baptism, to partake of eternal Life[1471]. In his Answer to the Five Bishops, he refers them for his real Sentiments, concerning the Doctrine of _Pelagius_, to the other Two Letters, adding, that he had read the Book of _Pelagius_, which they had sent him, and found nothing in it that he liked, or rather that he did not dislike[1472][N59].

Footnote N59:

That the _Pelagian_ Heresy was first condemned by the _African_ Bishops, is a Fact so well attested, that one would think it impossible it should ever have come into any Man’s Thoughts to call it in question. And yet _Baronius_, upon the Authority of a very doubtful Passage out of St. _Prosper_, a contemporary Writer, roundly asserts that Heresy to have been first condemned, not by the _African_ Bishops, but by _Innocent_[N59.1]. The Words of _Prosper_ are:--_Pestem subeuntem prima recidit sedes Roma Petri_[N59.2]. These Words are variously interpreted by the Learned; but all agree in rejecting the Interpretation of _Baronius_, as making[N59.3] _Prosper_ contradict a known Truth.

Footnote N59.1:

Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 26.

Footnote N59.2:

Prosp. de Ingratis, l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote N59.3:

Vide Jansenium de Hær. Pelag. p. 16. Merc. t. 1. p. 9.

[Sidenote: Cælestius _condemned by the_ African _Bishops, notwithstanding his Appeal to_ Rome.]

_Cælestius_ had been condemned by a Council held at _Carthage_ in the Year 412. and probably consisting of the same Bishops who composed that of the Year 416. From their Sentence he appealed, as _Baronius_ observes[1473], to the See of _Rome_, summoning his Accuser _Paulinus_ to appear at the same Tribunal. But all we can infer from thence is, that either _Innocent_ did not receive the Appeal, or, if he did, that the _African_ Bishops made no Account of it, since they condemned him anew, without waiting for the Judgment of _Innocent_, to whom he had appealed.

[Sidenote: Innocent_’s Letter to_ Jerom.]

_Innocent_ writ Two Letters more, a little before his Death, one of which was to St. _Jerom_, comforting him in his Distress. For some who favoured _Pelagius_, provoked at _Jerom_’s repeated Invectives against him, had set Fire to his Monastery at _Bethlehem_, and burnt it down to the Ground, agreeably to the Spirit and Methods in which religious Controversies were now carried on. Their Design was to have burnt _Jerom_ himself; but he had the good Luck to escape out of the Flames, and save himself in a strong Tower. The Two noble Virgins, _Eustochium_ and her Niece _Paula_, who led a retired Life under the Direction of _Jerom_, met with no better Treatment. For those Fanatics, breaking into the House where they lived, beat some of their Attendants in their Presence, killed others, and threatened them with Fire and Destruction. With this they acquainted _Innocent_, who thereupon writ to _Jerom_, offering to exert _the whole Authority of the Apostolic See_ against the Authors of such Excesses, provided he knew who they were: for the Two Virgins had concealed their Names, probably to prevent his exerting that Authority, which they had Reason to apprehend would be attended with greater Evils.

_Innocent_ adds, that so long as the Authors and Promoters of those unheard of Barbarities are unknown, he can only condole with those who have suffered by them; but, if they were accused in due Form, at his Tribunal, he would not fail to appoint proper Judges to try them; which, by the way, he had no Right to do.

[Sidenote: _His Letter to_ John _of_ Jerusalem.]

_Innocent_’s other Letter is to _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, who hated _Jerom_ on account of his Inveteracy against _Origen_, and was suspected to connive at the cruel Treatment he and his Followers had met with. Him therefore _Innocent_ reprimands very severely, for suffering such enormous Abuses within the Limits of his Jurisdiction. In his Letter he gives him the Title of _well-beloved Brother_; but, at the same time, treats him with more Haughtiness than was becoming even in a Superior, though he neither had, nor could claim by the Canons, any kind of Jurisdiction or Authority over him.

[Sidenote: Innocent _dies_.]

These Letters _Innocent_ writ in the Latter-end of _January_, and died on the 12th of _March_ of the same Year 417. having governed the _Roman_ Church near Fifteen Years; for his Predecessor _Anastasius_ died on the 27th of _April_ 402. and he was chosen soon after his Decease, as I have observed above. He was generally esteemed a Man of good Parts, and well acquainted with the Laws and Traditions of the Church. [Sidenote: _The See of_ Rome _greatly indebted to him for its Grandeur_.] Hence he was frequently consulted by the Western, and sometimes by the Eastern Bishops, in Points both of Faith and Discipline. Of this general Esteem, and the Deference that was thereupon paid to his Decisions, he took Advantage to lay down, with an Air of Authority, and as undoubted Truths, many false, groundless, and dangerous Maxims, all tending to the Diminution of the Episcopal Power, and the Advancement of the Papal. _The Dignity of the Apostolic See_ was, as we have seen, the Burden of almost all his Letters; he even improved it into a Claim of Supremacy; and we may say, with great Truth, that to him the See of _Rome_ was more indebted for the Grandeur it afterwards gained, than to all his Predecessors together. He formed the Plan of that Spiritual Monarchy, which they, by constant Application, established at last, in spite of the many almost insurmountable Difficulties, which they had to contend with. He was the first who, changing the antient Foundation of the Primacy, claimed it as the Successor of St. _Peter_, _the Prince of the Apostles_, as he is styled, and not as the Bishop of the first City, though on that Consideration alone it had been granted by the Councils. I said _Primacy_, because the Word _Supremacy_ was utterly unknown in those Days. The Council of _Sardica_, held in the Year 347. had allowed, in some Cases, and under several Restrictions, Appeals to be made to the See of _Rome_, as has been observed elsewhere[1474]. But _Innocent_, scorning to owe any Branch of his Authority to that, or any other Council, claimed, by _Divine Right_, the Power of finally deciding all Ecclesiastical Controversies and Disputes; which was claiming, by Divine Right, an unlimited Jurisdiction. It is true, no Regard was had to such Claims; nor indeed did _Innocent_ dare to pursue them, being well apprised of the Opposition he would meet with, if he should then have made such an Attempt. He therefore wisely contented himself with laying Foundations, and thought it a great Advance, as it certainly was, to have openly asserted such Notions, and brought the Ears of Men to endure them, if not their Minds. Had he gone farther, he would have been stopped in his Career, and it might have proved fatal to the Power of _Rome_ before it was come to an Age of Maturity; but that he went thus far was of great Benefit to it, because it made a Beginning, and furnished his Successors with a Pretence to plead some Antiquity for the Opinions and Principles upon which they proceeded.

[Sidenote: _His Decretals often quoted by the Popish Divines._]

Accordingly the Decretals of _Innocent_ are frequently quoted by the Advocates for the See of _Rome_, to shew how early the Popes claimed, by Divine Right, and as Successors of St. _Peter_, an universal Authority and Jurisdiction. But if the Principles, on which they founded their Claims, were false in _Innocent_’s Time, they are still so in ours; if no Account was then made of such Claims (and that none was made, I have sufficiently shewn), no Account ought to be made of them now; no more than if they were dated but Yesterday. Nor, indeed, ought the Beginning of the Fifth Century to be esteemed an early Time in the Christian Church. Great Corruptions were then crept into it; and, with regard to the Point in Question, it was very late. For had the Bishop of _Rome_ been supreme Head of the Church, in Right of St. _Peter_, how came that Supremacy to be unknown, and unheard of, for above Four hundred Years? If the Four first Centuries could not discover it, on what new Light was it revealed to the Fifth?

[Sidenote: _Is sainted._]

_Innocent_ has been inrolled, by his Successors, in the Catalogue of Saints; and he is now adored in the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint of the first Rate; an Honour which, it must be confessed, he better deserved at their Hands, in their Estimation of Merit, than any of his Predecessors, or any of his Successors, except _Gregory_ the VIIth.

Footnote N50.4:

Idem ep. 410, 411.

Footnote 1392:

Collect. Rem. ab Holsten. p. 45.

Footnote 1393:

Anast. c. 41.

Footnote 1394:

Hier. ep. 8.

Footnote 1395:

Theod. l. 5. c. 35.

Footnote 1396:

Prosp. in Col. c. 10.

Footnote 1397:

Pec. orig. c. 9.

Footnote 1398:

Oros. l. 7. c. 39.

Footnote 1399:

Hier. ubi supra.

Footnote 1400:

Aug. ep. 92.

Footnote 1401:

Coll. Rom. p. 46, 47.

Footnote 1402:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1252.

Footnote 1403:

Ibid. p. 1249.

Footnote 1404:

See above, p. 120, 121.

Footnote 1405:

Bar. ad ann. 404. num. 130.

Footnote 1406:

See Natal. Alex. hist. eccles. t. 10. p. 14.

Footnote 1407:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1249-1252.

Footnote 1408:

Concil. t. 5. p. 858. & 866.

Footnote 1409:

See Blond. Decr. p. 55.

Footnote 1410:

Aug. cp. 50.

Footnote 1411:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1412:

See above, p. 247.

Footnote 1413:

Pall. Dial. c. 2.

Footnote 1414:

Idem ib. c. 8.

Footnote 1415:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1416:

Idem ib. c. 3.

Footnote 1417:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1418:

Pallad. ibid. c. 2.

Footnote 1419:

Pall. ubi supra. Soz. l. 8. c. 26. Hist. Lausiac, c. 121.

Footnote 1420:

Soz. ubi supra, & ep. Rom. Pont. Inn. 15.

Footnote 1421:

Pall. ibid.

Footnote 1422:

Pall. in dial. ubi supra.

Footnote 1423:

Idem ibidem.

Footnote 1424:

Bar. ann. 407. n. 19-22.

Footnote 1425:

Vid. Bar. ubi sup. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. & Glyc. l. 4. p. 259, 260.

Footnote 1426:

Chrysos. ep. 122.

Footnote 1427:

Pall. dial. 2.

Footnote 1428:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1429:

Bar. ad ann. 404. n. 20.

Footnote 1430:

Bell. Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 1431:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1254-1256.

Footnote 1432:

1 Corinth. vii. 5.

Footnote 1433:

Holsten. Coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 49-51.

Footnote 1434:

Zos. l. 5. c. 40.

Footnote 1435:

Soz. l. 9. c. 6.

Footnote 1436:

Zos. l. 5. p. 819, 820. Soz. l. 9. c. 7.

Footnote 1437:

Hier. ep. 16.

Footnote 1438:

Vid. sup. p. 263-266.

Footnote 1439:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1271.

Footnote 1440:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1441:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1272-1276.

Footnote 1442:

Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.

Footnote 1443:

Theodoret. l. 5. c. 34.

Footnote 1444:

Niceph. l. 14. c. 27.

Footnote 1445:

Bar. ad ann. 48. n. 32.

Footnote 1446:

Niceph. c. 26.

Footnote 1447:

Idem, c. 27.

Footnote 1448:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1449:

See above, p. 105, & seq.

Footnote 1450:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1451:

Vid. Ell. Du Pin de antiq. eccles. disciplin. differt. prim. n. 12.

Footnote 1452:

Vide supra, p. 310.

Footnote 1453:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1265-1269.

Footnote 1454:

Vide Petr. de Marc. dissert. de primat. p. 227.

Footnote 1455:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1245. Ugh. t. 1. p. 676.

Footnote 1456:

Socrat. l. 6. c. 8.

Footnote 1457:

Greg. l. 7. ep. 64.

Footnote 1458:

Cypr. ep. 72.

Footnote 1459:

Aug. de diver. serm. 33.

Footnote 1460:

Vide Iren. l. 1. c. 21-24. & Epiph. hæres. 21-28. & 41, 42.

Footnote 1461:

Apost. const. can. 55.

Footnote 1462:

Aug. ep. 86.

Footnote 1463:

James v. 14, 15.

Footnote 1464:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1248.

Footnote 1465:

Conc. Trid. sess. 14. can. 1.

Footnote 1466:

Possid. Aug. vit. c. 18.

Footnote 1467:

Aug. ep. 95.

Footnote 1468:

Aug. ep. 90-95.

Footnote 1469:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1470:

Aug. ep. 93.

Footnote 1471:

Idem ep. 91. 93.

Footnote 1472:

Idem ep. 96.

Footnote 1473:

Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 25.

Footnote 1474:

Vide p. 121.

HONORIUS, ZOSIMUS, THEODOSIUS _Fortieth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 417. ]

_Zosimus_, the Successor of _Innocent_, was, according to the _Bibliothecarian_, a _Greek_ by Nation, and the Son of one _Abraham_[1475]; which is all we know of him before his Election. He was elected and ordained Six Days after the Death of his Predecessor, that is, on the 18th of _March_ 417[N60].

Footnote N60:

_Paschasinus_, Bishop of _Lilybæum_, observes, at the Year 443. that in 417. when _Zosimus_ was Bishop of _Rome_, _Easter_, which ought to have been kept on the 22d of _April_, was, by a Mistake, kept on the 25th of _March_[N60.1]; so that on the 25th of _March_, _Zosimus_ was in Possession of the See; and consequently must have been chosen and ordained on the 18th of that Month, the only _Sunday_ in 417. between the 12th of _March_, when _Innocent_ died, and the 25th. For in those Days Bishops were commonly ordained on _Sundays_, and it is very certain, that _Zosimus_ was ordained on that Day, since he pretended the Ordination of Two Bishops, whom he deposed, to be null, because they had been ordained on another Day[N60.2]. _Theodoret_ makes _Boniface_ the immediate Successor of _Innocent_[N60.3]. But all the other Writers, without Exception, place _Zosimus_ between _Innocent_ and _Boniface_.

Footnote N60.1:

Leo, t. 1. p. 413.

Footnote N60.2:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1569.

Footnote N60.3:

Theod. l. 5. p. 751.

[Sidenote: Pelagius, _his Country_, _Profession_, _Parts_, &c.]