But this Confession, however orthodox, did not satisfy Anastasius, or rather Jerom and his Friends in Rome. They continued, says Ruffinus, the Persecution which they had so successfully begun, and with their malicious Suggestions prevailed in the End on Anastasius to comply with their unjust Demands[1363]; that is, I suppose, to separate himself from his Communion: for Anastasius, in his Answer to a Letter which John Bishop of Jerusalem had writ in favour of Ruffinus, acquaints that Prelate, that he had cut him off from his Communion, and left him to be judged by God and his own Conscience. As to Origen, says he in the same Letter, I knew not before who he was, nor what he had writ. Ruffinus has translated him into our Language; and, in so doing, what else could he have in view but to infect this Church with his pernicious Doctrines? He has expressed his own Sentiments in translating those of his Author; and is therefore no less guilty than Origen himself, whom we have all condemned[1364][N43].
N43. The same Charge lies against Jerom; nay, he was the more guilty of the Two. For he had not only translated many of Origen’s Works, containing Errors no less repugnant to the Catholic Truths than any in the Periarchon, but had besides filled his Comments on the Scripture, especially on the Epistle to the Ephesians, with the worst of Origen’s Errors, viz. with those relating to the Resurrection of the Body, to the Pre-existence of the Souls, and to the Duration of Hell-Torments, as is manifest from the many Passages quoted by Ruffinus out of the Comments of that Father. Jerom found great Fault with Ruffinus, for not confuting the Errors which he translated; concluding from thence, that he held the same Doctrines: and yet he was himself so far from confuting in his Comments any of Origen’s erroneous Opinions, that on the contrary he often delivered them in such manner as made many, and St. Austin among the rest, believe them to be his own[1]. Nay, in one Place he seems to own, that he held some of Origin’s Errors[2]: but ends what he there writes of him thus; If you believe me, I never was an Origenist; but if you absolutely insist upon my having been one, I now tell you, that I am so no more; and it is to convince you of this, that I am become the Accuser of Origen.
1. Hier. ep. 89.
2. Hier. ep. 65.
In the same Letter Anastasius mentions with great Joy a Decree of the Emperors, that is, of Arcadius and Honorius, forbidding the Works of Origen, and imposing severe Penalties on such as should for the future read or peruse them[N44].
N44. Ruffinus pretended this Letter to be supposititious, and to have been forged by St. Jerom, alleging, that he could not believe the Bishop of Rome capable of such a crying Piece of Injustice as to condemn an innocent Man, and condemn him in his Absence. He added, that if Anastasius had ever written such a Letter to John of Jerusalem, John, with whom he lived in great Intimacy, would have acquainted him with it, which he had not done. In Answer to this Charge, Jerom refers him to the Archives of the Roman Church[1]; and to Jerom I refer the Jesuit Halloix, supposing the Letter to have been feigned, tho’ not by St. Jerom, on account of the following Words, that seem to wound the pretended Supremacy. I have intirely separated myself from him, meaning Ruffinus: I will not even know where he is, or what he is doing: let him try, if he pleases, to be absolved elsewhere. So that Anastasius thought he might be absolved elsewhere, though condemned at Rome. This Halloix, more jealous of the Papal Supremacy than the Pope himself, will not allow, and therefore pretends the Letter to be supposititious. But, since the Time of Ruffinus, none besides him ever questioned its Authenticity.
1. Hier. in Ruff. l. 3. c. 5, & 6.
Such is the Account the contemporary Writers, and Jerom himself, give us of the Condemnation of Origen, and his Interpreter Ruffinus, very different from that which we read in Baronius, introducing his High Pontiff Anastasius as acting the First Part on that Occasion; though Jerom tells us, in express Terms, that Anastasius followed the Example of Theophilus; that he condemned in the West, what had before been condemned in the East[1365]; and that Rome and all Italy owed their Deliverance to the Letters of Theophilus[1366]; meaning the circular Letter, which Theophilus writ to all the Catholic Bishops, acquainting them that he had condemned Origen, and prohibited his Books, and exhorting them to follow his Example[1367]. It was by this Letter that Anastasius was induced to condemn Origen: For what else could Jerom mean by saying, that Rome and Italy were, by the Letters of Theophilus, delivered from the Errors of Origen? Baronius could not but know, that the Letter of Theophilus was addressed to all the Catholic Bishops, since it is styled by Theophilus himself, in a Letter he writ to Epiphanius[1368], and by Epiphanius, in one of his Letters to Jerom[1369], A general Letter to all Catholics; and yet the Annalist speaks of it as directed to Anastasius alone, in order to impose by that means on his Readers, and persuade them, that the Bishop of Alexandria submitted the Sentence he had pronounced to the Judgment of Anastasius, being well apprised, that it could be of no Weight unless confirmed by the first See. Had he been well apprised of this, I cannot think he would have pronounced such a Sentence, as it is very certain he did, without the Authority, the Advice, or even the Knowlege, of the first See.
As to Ruffinus, Anastasius, it is true, separated himself from his
Communion; but did not excommunicate him, that is, as the Word
is now understood, did not cut him off from the Communion of the
Catholic Church, as Baronius insinuates. The Power of excommunicating
him in this Sense was by the Canons vested in his own Bishop;
and it is manifest from Jerom, that Chromatius, then Bishop of Aquileia,
continued to communicate with him after Anastasius had renounced
his Communion; nay, after Chromatius himself had condemned
Origen, and the Origenists[1370], that is, those who held the
Errors of Origen. A plain Proof, that the Bishop of Aquileia did not
acquiesce in the Judgment of Anastasius in ranking Ruffinus among
them. And truly the only Charge brought against him by Anastasius,
in his Letter to John of Jerusalem, was his having translated Origen
into the Latin Tongue, without pointing out his Errors, or offering
any Arguments to confute them. Thence he was by Jerom induced
to conclude, that Ruffinus held the same Errors. |Ruffinus unjustly
condemned.| What could Ruffinus
propose, says he in his Letter, by translating Origen into the Roman
Language? Had he exposed the execrable Errors his Work
contains, and raised in his Readers that Indignation which the Author
deserves, I should rather have praised than blamed him. But
he has in his Mind consented to those Errors, and in translating the
Sentiments of Origen expressed his own[1371]. This Ruffinus denied;
declaring, with the Words of Origen, in his Preface to the Periarchon[1372],
that he embraced nothing as Truth, that any-ways differed
from the received Doctrines of the Catholic Church: nay, he was so
far from defending any of Origen’s Errors, which seemed to him repugnant
to the Catholic Truths, that in the Apology he composed in
Defence of that Writer, as well as in the Preface which he prefixed to
his Translation, he undertook to prove, that those Errors were not his,
but had been maliciously inserted into his Works, either by his Enemies
to eclipse his Reputation, or by Heretics, who had fathered upon
him their own Doctrines, with a View of recommending them to the
World by the Authority of so great and so venerable a Name[1373]. He
followed therein the Example of the most eminent Writers, and the
greatest Lights of the Church, namely, of the Martyr Pamphylus[1374],
of Athanasius[1375], Basil[1376], his Brother Gregory of Nyssa[1377], Gregory
Nazianzen[1378], and many others, who, out of the great Regard they
had for a Man of Origen’s Piety and Learning, either ascribed to others
the Errors they found in his Works, or excused them, by putting on
his Words the most charitable Construction they could bear. |Origen excused by
some of the Fathers,
and once by Jerom
himself.| Jerom
himself had been formerly one of Origen’s greatest Admirers, had
translated above Seventy of his Books, and thought he could not employ
his Time better than in enriching the Latin Tongue with the
Works of the best Writer and first Doctor of the Church after the
Apostles[1379], as he then styled him. As Ruffinus, in his Translation
of the Periarchon, endeavoured to excuse the Errors of Origen, so had
Jerom done before him in translating his other Works, chusing rather
to veil and excuse, than expose the Faults of one whom in other respects
he so much admired[1380]. But this Admiration being afterwards
changed into an open and avowed Enmity, the first Doctor of the
Church after the Apostles became at once not only an heterodox,
but an impious Writer; all who stood up in his Defence were arraigned
of the same pestilential Doctrines; and what was found amiss in his
Works was no longer veiled or excused, but set out in the worst
Light[N45].
N45. Some of the Fathers would not allow even his Doctrine concerning the Trinity to be heterodox. For some Passages being quoted out of his Works by the Arians to confirm their Opinions, Basil and Nazianzen undertook to prove, from other Passages, that his Sentiments with respect to the Trinity were quite orthodox; and that the Arians had either out of Malice misinterpreted, or out of Ignorance misunderstood his Meaning, not being capable of fathoming the Depth of his Thoughts[1]. It must be owned, that Origen, in several Places, speaks of the Trinity agreeably to the Sentiments of the Church, acknowleging the Son to have been from the Beginning in the Father; to be the Image of the Father; to have been begotten by him from all Eternity; to be the Wisdom of God; to be God, though not the Source and Origin of the Divinity, as the Father, whom on that Account he styles Autotheos; to be above all Creatures; to have the same Power as the Father, and to deserve the same Honour and Worship. But elsewhere he uses Expressions that can no-way bear an orthodox Sense, viz. that the Word is an Hypostasis different from the Father; meaning by the Word Hypostasis, Nature and Substance; that the Father and Son are One by Concord and Union; that the Son is not properly God, but called God, because he is the Image of the Divinity; that the Word and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Son is inferior to the Father, though far above all Creatures, as the Ray of the Sun is inferior to the Sun; and lastly, that the Son is the Minister of the Father. In these Passages is contained a very different Doctrine from that which is laid down in those I have quoted above: and hence some of the Friends of Origen, and among the rest Ruffinus, concluded the latter Passages to have been foisted in by the Arians, denying the Divinity of the Word; while others, allowing them to be Origen’s, undertook to explain them in a Catholic Sense, in Opposition to the Arians confirming their Doctrine with the Authority of so eminent a Writer. But his Enemies, attending only to the Passages where he seemed to establish an Inequality in the Trinity, not only condemned him as an Heretic, but all who stood up in his Defence, or attempted to interpret his Words in a Catholic Sense.
1. Socr. l. 4. c. 26.
But what seems most of all surprising, and quite unaccountable, in the Conduct of that Father, is, that though he had with so much Noise procured Origen to be condemned as an Heretic, and his Books to be prohibited, particularly his Periarchon, or, as some will have it, the Periarchon alone, as containing most of his heretical Tenets; yet, in a private Letter to Paulinus, he refers him to that very Piece for the Decision of some Questions of the greatest Importance[1381]. But to return to Anastasius:
The same Year 401. in which Origen was condemned, the Churches of Africa being greatly distressed for want of Ecclesiastics, the Bishops of the Province of Carthage, assembling under Aurelius Bishop of that City, resolved to dispatch one of their Body into Italy to acquaint Anastasius, and Venerius Bishop of Milan, with the Condition of the African Churches, and implore their Assistance[1382]. Which of the Bishops was charged with this Legation, or what Success attended it, we are no-where told. But as Paulinus, who afterwards writ the Life of St. Ambrose, and belonged to the Church of Milan, was at this Time sent into Africa, and continued there, some have not improbably conjectured, that Venerius at least assisted his Collegues in Africa with a Supply of as many Ecclesiastics as he could spare. Baronius supposes Anastasius to have relieved those Churches with the like Supply; but this Supposition he builds upon the paternal Care which Anastasius had, as universal Pastor, of all the Catholic Churches[1383], which is building on a false Foundation.
The same Year another Council was held at Carthage, consisting of
all the Bishops of Africa; and Aurelius, who presided in this, as he
had done in the former, opened it with reading a Letter from Anastasius,
exhorting the Bishops of Africa no longer to dissemble the
Cruelties of the Donatists, who continued to use with great Barbarity
the Catholic Bishops and Clergy[1384]. The Fathers of the Council
returned Anastasius Thanks for his Advice; but, not thinking it quite
agreeable to the true Spirit of Christianity, they declined complying
with it. |Who refuse to comply
with his Advice.| They knew that their Persecutors, had they complained of
their Cruelties to the Civil Magistrate, would have been punished
with Death, pursuant to a Law enacted against them, Three Years
before, by the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius[1385]. They therefore
chose, notwithstanding the Advice of Anastasius, rather to suffer with
Patience a most cruel Persecution, than redeem themselves from it
at so dear a Rate[1386]. In the same Council it was decreed among other
things, that such of the Donatist Clergy, as should return to the
Church, might be admitted, if the Bishop, who received them,
thought it expedient, to the same Rank, which they had enjoyed before
their Conversion. As a Decree had been lately enacted by Anastasius,
and the other Italian Bishops, excluding converted Heretics
from the Catholic Clergy[1387]; it was to acquaint them with the Motives
which had prompted the Fathers assembled at Carthage, to admit
the Donatists, that Aurelius and his Collegues writ to Anastasius;
and not to beg of him a Dispensation in favour of the converted
Donatists, as is ridiculously supposed by Baronius[1388].
This is all I find recorded of Anastasius, by the antient Writers.
He died on the 27th of April 402. after having held the See of
Rome Four Years, One Month, and Thirteen Days. |Is greatly commended
by Jerom.| Jerom, with
whom he sided against Ruffinus, and the other Friends of Origen,
distinguishes him with the Title of an eminent Man; and adds, that
Rome did not deserve to enjoy him long, lest the Head of the
World should be cut off under such a Bishop; nay, he was snatched
away, says he, lest he should strive to ward off, with his Prayers,
the Execution of the Sentence that was already pronounced; the
Lord saying to Jeremiah, Pray not for this People for their Good:
when they fast, I will not hear their Cry, &c[1389]. Jerom speaks
there of the Calamities that befel Rome Seven Years after, when it
was taken by the Goths, under Alaric. Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria,
not only an avowed Enemy to Origen, but a cruel Persecutor
of all who stood up in his Defence, extols Anastasius for his
pastoral Care, and indefatigable Pains, in preserving and maintaining
the Purity of the Catholic Faith[1390]; alluding, no doubt, to his acting
in Concert with him, against Origen, and the pretended Origenists.
|Is honoured as a
Saint.| Be that as it will, Anastasius is now honoured as a Saint by the
Church of Rome; and the Honours paid him are chiefly owing to
the Commendations of Jerom and Theophilus, whose Party he so
warmly espoused. As to the Writings of Anastasius, Mention is
made, by Jerom, of several Letters written by him on different Occasions;
but that alone has reached our Times, which he writ to
John Bishop of Jerusalem, and some Fragments of another to one
Ursinus, on the Incarnation[N46].
N46. The Two Decretals that have been transmitted to us under his Name, are evidently supposititious, the one being dated Fourteen Years before his Election, and the other Fourteen years after his Death. One of these pretended Decretals is addressed to the German and Burgundian Bishops, tho’ nothing is more certain, than that the Burgundians were not converted to the Christian Religion till many Years after his Death, till the Year 436. if Socrates is to be credited[1]. They are both made up of several Passages taken from the Letters of Innocent, Leo, Gregory, and others; and were, in all Likelihood, forged, as many others have been, by Isidorus Mercator.
1. Socr. l. 7. c. 30.
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.
| Arcadius, Honorius, |
INNOCENT, Thirty-ninth Bishop of Rome. |
Theodosius the younger. |
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].
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]. |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].
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. |Innocent thinks the
Marriage of a Woman
with another Man
valid, while her Hus-
band is still alive.| The Twelfth forbids Women, who have
married a Second Husband, their First being still alive, to be admitted
to Repentance, or allowed to do Penance, till one of the Two
dies. The same Discipline is to be observed, according to this Article,
with respect to the Virgins, who, after consecrating their Virginity
to Jesus Christ, shall, either by a public Marriage, or by private
Fornication, violate the Faith they had pledged to their immortal
Spouse.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.