A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

P. INNOCENT I.

POpe Innocent succeeded to Pope Anastasius in the Year 402. and governed the Church of Rome till 417. This Pope being consulted from all parts, upon divers Questions, both of * 1.1 Doctrine and of Discipline, was put upon writing of Letters, which conte•…•… very useful Rules and most judicious Decisions.

The first Letter, which should have been one of the last, since it was not written before 416. is an Answer to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium a City of Umbria in Italy, upon several Questions put to him by that Bishop.

The Preface of that Epistle, setteth forth the advantage of the City of Rome. He pretends that if all Churches had held the Practices which they received from the Apostles, they had all agreed in the same Discipline, and that all the difference, which so much scandalizeth the People, is caused by the Deviation from the Apostles Tradition. Upon this Principle he concludes, That they ought every where to observe the Discipline which Rome received of S. Peter, and which it hath always kept.

Especially, saith he, because it is evident, that the Churches of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and other Islands that are between Italy and Africa, have been setled by the Bishops whom S. Peter or his Successors sent thither.

Tho' this Pope lays down these Maxims as indubitable, yet are they not without Difficulty; and it would have been hard for him to have proved them well: for what Evidence is there to justifie, that the Apostles setled all Points of Discipline themselves? and how can we know that they established them all after the same manner? On the contrary is it not certain, that S. John cele∣brated the Feast of Easter in the East, upon other days than Sundays, tho' probably both S. Peter and S. Paul did the contrary at Rome? And had the Apostles setled the same Usages, and Ceremonies in all the Churches which they founded, would it therefore follow, that there is a necessity of observing them? Do not all Men know, that Discipline may and is to alter accord∣ing to the various Circumstances of time? And what Proof is there, that the Church of Rome hath preserved the Discipline setled by S. Peter, better than other Churches have kept that which was given them by other Apostles their Founders. Is there any certainty that the Churches of France, Spain, and Africa, were all founded by those whom S. Peter, or his Successors sent thi∣ther? And Lastly, where is the necessity to oblige them all to change their Rites and Customs, to embrace those of the Church of Rome? Many such Queries may be made upon this Principle of Pope Innocent, which could not easily be resolved. But an Italian Bishop his Suffragan, could not in reason propose such Difficulties; he ought to conform to the Discipline of his Metropolis. He had often been at Rome, and present at the publick Service, and so might well be acquainted with the Ceremonies practised there. That was sufficient to instruct, and oblige him to reform the Abuses of his own Church: Yet he advised with Pope Innocent; and the Pope thought fit to make him an Answer, not so much to instruct him, as to teach, advise, and reprove with the greater Authority those that receded from the Customs of the Church of Rome, and even to im∣pose them if they would not yield to his Admonitions.

In the first Canon he declares, That the Blessing is not to be given before the Consecration of the Holy Mysteries; That so it may be as a Sign and Token, that the People approve of the Consecration of the Mysteries.

The Second enjoyns that those who are to be recommended in the Service of the Eucharist be not named, before Their offering be presented.

The Third forbids Priests to confirm Children, because they have not the Soveraignty of the Priesthood: That they may Baptize, and Anoint the baptized with the Oyl that is con∣secrated by the Bishop, but not lay it upon their Foreheads; because this is allowed to none but Bishops, when they conferr the Holy Ghost: He declares that he cannot recite the words, for fear of discovering the Mysteries, if he would answer the advice that was required of him.

In the Fourth Canon he pretends to give an evident Reason of the Saturday's Fast, by saying, that as all Sundays are kept with joy in remembrance of the Resurrection, and as they fast every Friday, because of the Passion of Jesus Christ. So they should fast likewise upon Saturday, as being between the day of sorrow and that of rejoycing, and the rather because the Apostles mourned all that day. In a word, that since holy Saturday is a Fasting day, all other Sa∣turdays should be such in remembrance of that Day. He observeth that in his time the Divine Mysteries were not celebrated either upon Fridays or Saturdays.

The Fifth Canon is obscure enough. S. Innocent saith there, that it was to no purpose for De∣centius to consult him concerning the leavened Bread, which the Bishop of Rome sent every Sun∣day to the Parish-Priests in the City of Rome, after he had consecrated it, because his Custom could not concern the Countrey Parishes, for as much as the Sacraments ought not to be carried far, quia non longe portanda sunt Sacramenta: Wherefore, addeth he, we do not send them to Priests in distant Parishes, because they have Power to consecrate.

The Sixth declares, that a Priest may not lay hands upon an Energumen, without leave from the Bishop, but that he may if the Bishop gives him Commission to doe it.

In the Seventh it is enjoyned, that those who have done Penance should be reconciled upon Holy Thursday, whether they were Guilty of great Crimes, or of lesser Offences, except some * 1.2 Distemper requireth another time: And to judge of Repentance, regard must be had to the Pains, mourning and tears of the Penitent, and his Sin must be remitted, if it appears that he hath made a proportionable satisfaction.

The Eighth is about the Anointing of the Sick, spoken of in the Epistle of S. James. Innocent saith, that the words of the Apostle are without Question to be understood of the Sick that are faithful, that these may be Anointed with the Oyl that is consecrated by the Bishop, and the use of this is not peculiar to Priests only, but all Christians may anoint themselves, and those that belong to them in Case of necessity: that it is not necessary that the Bishop should make this Unction; that it should not be administred to Penitents, because it is a kind of Sacrament, and since other Sacra∣ments are denied, they have no right to this.

He concludeth with an Exhortation to Decentius, that he should cause the Discipline of the Church of Rome to be observed in his Church, and to instruct the Priests and Clerks under his Care well, that so they might discharge their Ministry worthily.

The Second Letter was written in 404. to Victricius Bishop of Rouen, who likewise asked Questions about points of Discipline. It begins also with the Praises of the Roman Discipline; he exhorts him to send this Letter to his Brethren, that they might learn what Rules they were to follow.

This Preface is followed by Thirteen Canons.

The First agreeable to the Decision of the Council of Nice, forbids a Bishop to be ordained without the Consent of the Metropolitan of the Province: declaring farther, that one Bishop a∣lone cannot Ordain.

The Second prohibits the admitting of those into the Clergy, that have been Soldiers after they were baptized.

The Third allows a Synod of the provincial Bishops to take Cognizance of all Causes relating to the Persons of Clerks and Bishops, according to the Decree of the Nicene Council; but he addeth, Yet without prejudice to the Rights of the Roman Church, to which great regard is to be had in all Causes. And if they be Causae Majores, devolved to the Holy See, they are not to be brought hither nor judged; before Judgment is given by the Bishops of the Province.

The Fourth forbids to admit into Orders, a Person that has married a Widow, or a Woman that is divorced from her Husband.

The Fifth extends this Prohibition, even to those that have married such a Woman before Baptism.

He confirmeth the same Law in the Sixth, with respect to those that have been twice married.

The Seventh forbids Bishops to ordain Clerks of the faithful of another Church, except the Bishop of that Church permits it.

The Eighth ordaineth, that the Novatians and Donatists be received by the sole Imposition of hands; because that tho' they were baptized by Hereticks, yet were they baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. He addeth, That if any Catholicks being entred into their Sect, were baptized, and are willing to return to the Bosom of the Chuch, they must be put to a long Penance, be∣fore they be admitted.

The Ninth is concerning the Celibacy of Priests and Deacons.

The Tenth forbids the Monks that were ordained Clerks, to leave their way of living.

In the Eleventh, the Officers of the Emperor, and such as are in publick Employments, are not to be admitted into Orders.

The Twelfth prohibits the admitting of those Virgins that being solemnly consecrated to God, Married, or were corrupted, to Penance, before the Death of the person with whom they have committed the Crime, For, saith he, if a Woman, who during the Life of her Husband marrieth another is an Adulteress, and is not admitted to do Penance before the Death of one of them, with how much more reason should the same rigour be observed towards her, who being united to an im∣mortal Husband, went over to an humane Marriage?

The Thirteenth enjoyns a Penance of some time to the Virgins that Marry, after promising Vir∣ginity, tho' they had not solemnly been veiled by the Bishop.

Pope Innocent finishes his Letter, saying, that if these Canons were observed by the Bishops, there would be no more Ambition among them, Divisions would cease, Schisms, and Heresies would be stifled, and the Devil would have no occasion to assault the Flock of Jesus Christ, &c.

The Third Epistle of the same Nature with the two former, is written in 405. to Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse.

In the First Canon of this Letter, he confirms Siricius his Law concerning the Celibacy Priests and Deacons; yet he forgiveth those who thro' Ignorance observed it not, upon condition that they shall continue in that Order, and not be admitted to an higher. But he ordains that those should be degraded who violated it knowingly.

The Second Canon relates to Sinners, who stay till the hour of Death to desire Penance: Pope Innocent saith, that they were dealt withal after two different manners. That the ancient Disci∣pline was more severe, because Penance was granted them without allowing them the Commu∣nion: but in his time, it was administred to dying Men, that they might not imitate the hard∣ness

of Novatian. These last words with several others that are in the Text of that Canon, ma∣nifest that by the word Communion, is not to be understood the Administration of the Eucharist: but Absolution.

The Third Canon exempts those from Penance, that condemned any Persons to Death, who put any to the Rack, or were obliged by their Office to condemn the guilty to any Punishment, because the civil Powers, saith this Pope, are established by God for the Punishment of Criminals.

The Fourth Canon gives a Reason why more Women do Penance for Adultery than Men. Pope Innocent saith, That the Christian Religion punisheth this Sin equally both in Men and Wo∣men, but Wives not being able to accuse their Husbands of this Crime, the Bishop cannot pass Judgment upon secret Sins, whereas Husbands do more freely accuse their Wives, and discover them to the Priests.

The Fifth excuses those who by their Office are obliged to demand the Death of a Criminal, or to condemn him.

The Sixth ordaineth, that those should be put out of the Church, both Men and Women, that Marry again after a Divorce; but this penalty is not to extend to their Kindred and Allies, except they contributed to that forbidden Marriage.

The last Canon contains a Catalogue of the Sacred Books, comprehending all the Books both of the Old and of the New Testament, which we now own for Canonical: He rejects the Acts pub∣lished under the Names of S. Matthias, S. James the Less, S. Peter and S. John, S. Andrew, S. Tho∣mas, and such-like.

The Fourth Letter, without Date, is directed to Felix, Bishop of Nuceria. Having com∣mended that Bishop for asking his advice about some Doubts; he tells him in the First Canon, That those are not to be admitted into Orders, who voluntarily have dismembred themselves. In the Second, That it is forbidden to Ordain such as have been married twice, or have married Widows. In the Third, That those must not be Ordained that have been Soldiers; that have pleaded at the Bar, or have born Offices at Court. In the Fourth, That those of the Laity are to be chosen, who are Baptized, of approved Morals, who have spent their Time with Clerks, or in Monasteries, and who have kept no Concubines. Lastly, in the Sixth, he commands the Ob∣servation of the Interstitia; [i. e. the Times between every Ordination, upon any promotion from lesser to higher Orders,] that they Ordain no Man a Reader, an Acolyth, a Deacon or a Priest of a sudden; that so having been long in the inferiour Degrees, his Behaviour and Conduct may be tried.

In the Fifth Letter, directed to Two Bishops of Abruzzo, he bids them depose the Priests that were accused of having had Children since their Ordination, if they be convicted of that crime: He observes in the beginning, that a Bishop ought not to be ignorant of the Canons.

The Sixth is to some Bishops of Apulia: He enjoyns One Bishop to be deposed, though he had done publick Penance: He reproacheth them with allowing many things to be done in their Province contrary to the Canons, which might easily have been corrected, if Bishops themselves were not Authors of such Disorders.

The Seventh is directed to the Bishops of Macedonia about Two Bishops, Bubalius and Tauria∣nus, who had caused the Judgment that was given against them to be re-viewed again, and falsely boasted of having a Letter from P. Innocent, written in their behalf.

In the Eighth he exhorteth Florentius, Bishop of Tivoli, to restore to his Brother Bishop a Pa∣rish which he had taken from him.

The Ninth declareth, That a Man who married another Woman, while his Wife was in cap∣tivity, ought to return to the former; because a Second Marriage cannot be lawfull, except the former Wife be dead, or separated by Divorce.

The Tenth is a Letter of Complement to Aurelius and S. Augustin.

The Eleventh to Aurelius is touching the determining of Easter-Day the following Year.

The Twelfth directed to the same, is upon the choice which they should make of Bishops; he will have them to be chosen from the Clergy, and not from the Laity.

The Thirteenth is to Juliana, a Lady, whose Devotion he commendeth.

The Fourteenth to Bonifacius, and those that follow, were written Anno 413, after Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, had inserted again the Name of S. Chrysostom into the Diptychs. Innocent writeth to Bonifacius, that he had admitted that Bishop to his Communion, upon condition that he should not disturb those that were Ordained by Evagrius, and that he should put S. Chry∣sostom's Name among those Bishops whose Memory was celebrated.

The Fifteenth is directed to Alexander, Bishop of Antioch; wherein he congratulates their Reconciliation.

In the Sixteenth to Maximianus, he saith, that he had not yet communicated with Atticus of Constantinople, because he had not performed the Conditions, without which there could be no peace.

The Seventeenth subscribed by Twenty Italian Bishops, is directed to the same Evagrius, whom he commendeth for re-uniting the remainders of Paulinus and Evagrius's Party.

The Eighteenth to the same, consists of Three Canons; in the first, he extolleth the Dignity of the Church of Antioch, that he may magnifie that of Rome the more; saying, That according to the Authority of the Council of Nice, which gives the Sense of all the Bishops in the World,

the Church of Antioch had Jurisdiction over a whole Diocess; That this Authority was not granted to it, because of the greatness of the City of Antioch, but because it had been the first Seat of S. Peter; And that it deserved that the most solemn Assembly of the Apostles should be made there: So that it had not given place to the Church of Rome; but only for this reason, That the latter had the End and Consummation of that which the former had but an occasional enjoy∣ment of: And by reason of this Dignity, he tells the Bishop of Antioch, That as he Ordaineth the Metropolitans by an Authority peculiar to him, he ought not to suffer that other Bishops should be Ordained without his leave and consent, by writing to the Bishops that are afar off, and causing them that are near to come to him for Ordination.

In the second Canon he saith, That two Bishops are not to be made Metropolitans, when Towns are newly erected into Metropoles at the same time, upon the dividing of a Province into Two by the Emperour. He speaketh afterwards against the Custom of the Bishops of the Isle of Cyprus, who ordained Bishops without consulting with the Bishop of Antioch.

In the Last he affirms, That the Arians returning to the Church, are to be admitted with im∣position of hands; but their Clergy are not permitted to continue in the Ministry of the Church.

The Nineteenth, directed to Acacius of Beraea, is upon the Reconciliation with Alexander of Antioch.

In the Twentieth, he writes to Lucianus, Bishop of Signi, to stop some Meetings of the Photi∣nians in his Diocess.

The Twenty-first, directed to Martinianus, a Bishop in Macedonia, is written from Ravenna. He writeth to that Bishop, that he should not refuse his Communion to some Clerks, who were Ordained by Bonosus, but had abjured his Error. He saith, that he had already written a Letter to Rufus, and other Bishops of Macedonia; wherein he gave his judgment, That they were to be received to the Communion, and left in possession of their Churches.

This Letter is probably the Two and Twentieth, which consequently ought to be set before the foregoing; it beareth date from the Year 414, and is directed to Rufus and other Bishops of Ma∣cedonia. He tells them in the beginning, that he was much surprized by a Letter directed to the See of Rome, as the chiefest of all Churches, because they consulted him about things that had no difficulty; and concerning which, he had plainly declared his Opinion. One of those things is the Ordination of such as had married Widows. P. Innocent saith, That there is no dispute that they should not be Ordained; and affirms, that it was the practice of all, both Eastern and We∣stern Churches; Nay, he would have those to be degraded, who are found to be in Orders. The Second is concerning those, who having lost a former Wife, being yet unbaptized, had mar∣ried a Second after Baptism. Some were of opinion, that this kind of Bigamy did not hinder them from being admitted into Sacred Orders. P. Innocent alledgeth several Reasons to prove that such a practice is not to be followed.

The Third Rule is touching the Ordinations by Hereticks. P. Innocent scruples not to alledge the same passages, and the same expressions, used by S. Cyprian, to prove the invalidity of their Baptism, to show the nullity of their Ordination: For he saith, That as many as are thus Or∣dained, having their Heads wounded with the Imposition of Heretical Hands, had need of Pe∣nance for their remedy; and that such as need Penance, ought not to be Ordained: That Here∣ticks having not true Orders, cannot conferr Orders: That they cannot make those on whom they lay their Hands, partakers of any thing but of the Condemnation that themselves are sub∣ject to. After this Observation, he refutes the false Principle of such as believed, that a lawfull Bishop's Ordination remitted all Sins. He saith, that the custom of his Church was, to grant Lay-communion, after a single Imposition of Hands, to those who, having been baptized by He∣reticks, desired to enter into the Church; but that those were obliged to doe Penance, who re∣turned to the bosom of the Church, after they had quitted it, to enter into a Sect of Hereticks. He blameth those who not only doe not put them under Penance, but also suffer them to con∣tinue in their Ministery.

Afterwards he frames some Objections against this Rule. The First is the Law made by Any∣sius, concerning those whom Bonosus Ordained; whereby he permitted, that they should be re∣ceived into the Church with their Orders. P. Innocent answers, That this example is of no con∣sequence, because they made use of this Condescension in favour of those that were Ordained by Bonosus, to prevent several Bishops from persisting to follow his Party. That this particular Exi∣gency of the Church obliged them to transgress the Rules; but when the Necessity ceaseth, they ought to return to the Law.

The Second Objection is grounded upon the Canon of the Council of Nice, which permits the receiving of the Novatians. P. Innocent saith, That this Canon relates to Novatians only, and is not to be extended to other Hereticks. He adds, That in this Canon the business is about Baptism; and that the Council ordains that the Paulianists should be re-baptized, because they baptized not in the Name of the Holy Trinity; whereas the Novatians baptized as the Catholicks did, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And Lastly, He declareth that this Rule concerneth those that were baptized by Hereticks; but as to those who were bapti∣zed in the Church, and embraced an Heretical Sect, if they recover from their Apostasie, they ought undoubtedly to be put to publick Penance; and having done Penance, they can never

come into the Clergy. Whence he concludes, That those who left the Church after Bonosus was condemned, to joyn with him, and received Orders from Hereticks, are not to keep their Digni∣ty, nor to be Ordained, when they return again to the Church. Wherefore he exhorteth the Macedonian Bishops to reform that abuse; telling them, That they ought not to allow that in time of Peace, which Necessity commanded to be done in time of Trouble; That it often hap∣pens that a fault remains unpunished, because a whole People is guilty of it. Upon such occasi∣ons, what is past must be left to God's Judgment, and care must be taken to prevent the like disorders for the time to come. All this is the consequence of the same Third Canon, though it be divided into Four.

The Last Canon is concerning a Bishop, one Photinus, who had been condemned by the See of Rome with too much rigour. P. Innocent approves of the Admonition of the Macedonian Bi∣shops; but saith, That the See of Rome was mis-informed and deceived by the Calumnies of his Enemies. He owns him for a Bishop, and commends the others for informing him better, and desireth them to shew kindness to a Deacon called Eustathius.

The Twenty-third Letter is directed to the Spanish Bishops that were assembled in Council at Toledo. It is about particular affairs of the Churches in that Kingdom. The First Canon takes notice of a kind of Schism among the Bishops of Boetica, and of other Spanish Provinces, who had given the Communion to those of Gallicia. P. Innocent proves that Lucifer's Severity was not to be imitated, in refusing to admit converted Hereticks; but, on the contrary, that all possi∣ble means should be used to cause them to return into the bosom of the Church.

The Second Canon is against two Bishops who ventur'd to Ordain out of their Diocesses.

The Third Canon is concerning one Bishop John, who by his Deputies had approved the Con∣demnation of Symphosius and Dictinius. P. Innocent's Opinion is, That his Case ought to be ex∣amined, as well as that of the others, to know whether he had acted with Sincerity.

In the Fourth he speaks of irregular Ordinations practised in Spain, contrary to the Canons: He says, That they are so many, that it were impossible to apply a Remedy; and so he thinks it convenient to leave what is past to God's Judgment: But for the future to establish a Rule, That whosoever shall Ordain contrary to the Canons, shall be deprived of the Sacerdotal Dignity, to∣gether with those that received Orders.

The Fifth is concerning a business of Patruinus, Bishop of Merida, which, he saith, ought to be examined, and those punished that complain of his Ordination, if they had unjustly accu∣sed him.

The Sixth containeth Rules to be observed in the choice of fit persons to be Ordained.

To understand well the Three following Letters of Pope Innocent; it is to be noted, That the Bishops of Africa and Numidia having condemned both Pelagius and Coelestius in the Councils of Carthage and Numidia, assembled in the Year 416, wrote to Pope Innocent, to give him an Ac∣count of the Sentence which they pronounced against both those Hereticks, and their Doctrine, that so they might add to their judgment the Authority of the See of Rome; and so much the rather, because Coelestius had thought fit to appeal, and it was reported that P. Innocent counte∣nanced them. And for this reason Aurelius and Four more of the principal Bishops wrote ano∣ther familiar Letter to him concerning some disadvantageous Reports that had been raised against him about that business.

In the Three following Letters, P. Innocent answereth the other Three that were brought to Rome by Bishop Julian; these are dated the 27th. of January, 417.

The First is directed to Aurelius and the Bishops in the Council of Carthage. He commends them at first for their Courage in condemning Error, and for their respect to the See of Rome, in consulting with it about what they had decided. From which he takes occasion to exalt the Authority of the See of Rome; affirming, That it is of Divine Right to have its Opinion in Ec∣clesiastical Matters, before any thing be determined in the Provinces concerning them. It is pro∣bable that the African Bishops did not own that Right, since they had definitively judged the Case of Pelagius and Coelestius, before they acquainted him with it; and they did not write to him as to a Judge, that might disanull what they had done, but only to get his Approbation of their Decisions, as a thing which he could not refuse to doe without being suspected of Heresie. And indeed this Pope who was supposed to favour Coelestius, having known his Errors could not forbear declaring against them; and commending the African Bishops, who had condemned their Authors. He subscribes to their Judgment, and proves by several Reasons the Necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ. The First is taken from Prayer, which supposeth that we owe to God's Help, and not to our Free-will, the good that we doe. He says, That Man being fallen by the Abuse of his Free-will, must be raised again by the Grace of Jesus Christ. That our Saviour not only delivered him from Sins past, but that knowing his weakness, he also prepared him Helps and Remedies to preserve him for the future; and that we must of necessity be overcome, if we be not succoured by him, who alone can make us Conquerors. Necesse est, ut quo auxiliante vincimus, eo iterum non adjuvante, vincamur. By which Principles he condemneth all those who affirm that there is no need of God's Grace to doe good, and judgeth them unworthy of the Church's Communion: He saith, that refusing to others God's Succour, they are bereaved of it themselves, and ought to be cut off from the Church as rotten Members. He saith further, That if they acknowledge their Error, and admit of God's Grace, being sincerely converted, it

is the Bishop's Duty to help them, and not to deny them the Grace which the Church grants to those that are fallen, by admitting them to the Communion of the Church.

He speaks much to the same purpose in that Letter which follows, directed to Silvanus Valen∣tinus, and other Bishops, who had been present at the Council of Milevis. He seems to restrain that Maxim which he established, of referring all Church-affairs to the See of Rome only to Mat∣ters of Faith: Praesertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur. He refutes particularly the Pelagian Er∣ror concerning Children dying before Baptism, whom they pretended to have a share of Eternal life.

The Third Letter of Innocent upon that Subject is his Answer to the Five Bishops, who writ to him, upon the suspicion of his Siding with Pelagius. He tells them, that by his Two former Letters he sufficiently discovered his Opinion concerning the Doctrine of that Heretick; That as to his Person, he had received certain Acts, by which it appeared, that he had been heard and absolved since the Council; but that he did not believe them, because it was plain from the Acts themselves, that he had not clearly abjured his Errors: He concludes with assuring them, That he had read Pelagius his Book which they sent him, and that he had found it to be full of Blas∣phemies; that he met with nothing in it that pleased him, or rather that he met with nothing there that did not displease him.

With this Letter there was a short Letter directed to Aurelius, but there is nothing remarkable in it.

These Letters should be put last, being written but a little before the Death of P. Innocent, which was upon the 12th. of March of the same Year, and long after those that follow about the business of S. Chrysostom, written in 404.

The Twenty-eighth is a Letter of Consolation to S. Chrysostom, soon after his Banishment.

The Twenty-ninth is directed both to his Clergy and People upon the same Subject. The Thirty-first to Theophilus, which is in Greek in Palladius, is the first of the Three. In the same Author there is another directed likewise to Theophilus.

The Thirtieth Letter to the Emperor Arcadius, as well as the pretended Answers of that Em∣peror to Innocent, and to his Brother Honorius, are spurious, grounded upon the Fable of Arca∣dius and Eudoxia's Excommunication. He that forged them, supposeth, That this Empress out-lived S. Chrysostom; but it is certain from Eunapius, who is quoted by Photius, Vol. 77. of his Bi∣bliotheca, that she died soon after S. Chrysostom's Banishment, and three Years before his Death.

The 32d. 33d. and 34th. Letters of P. Innocent, are written about the Persecutions exercised by John of Jerusalem against S. Jerom.

This Pope was skilfull in the Ecclesiastical Laws: He often speaketh in commendation of the Nicene Canons: He was very zealous for the Grandeur of the Roman Church, and insisted much upon her Rights and Privileges. He writes indifferently well, and he giveth such an Air to his Notions and Reasonings as recommends them, though they have not always that solidity and ex∣actness that might be expected. The Chronological Order of his Letters, which ought to have been observed in the Printing of them, is as follows:

In the Year 404.

• A Letter to Victricius, Bishop of Rouën, Febru∣ary 15. which is the II.
• A Letter to Theophilus XXXI.
• A Letter to S. John Chrysostom XXVIII.
• A Letter to the People of Constantinople XXIX.

In the Year 405.

• A Letter to Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, Fe∣bruary 20. III.

In the Year 413.

• A Letter to Boniface XIV.
• A Letter to Alexander XV.
• A Letter to Maximian XVI.
• A Letter to Alexander XVII.
• A Letter to Acacius of Beraea XIX.
• A Letter to Alexander XVIII.

In the Year 414.

• A Letter to the Bishops of Macedonia, Decem∣ber 13. XXII.
• A Letter to Marcian XXI.

In the Year 416.

• A Letter to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium, March 17. I.
• A Letter to Aurelius, June 1. XII.
• A Letter to John of Jerusalem XXXII.
• A Letter to S. Jerom XXXIII.
• A Letter to Aurelius XXXIV.
• A Letter to a Council at Toledo XXIII.

In the Year 417. Jan. 27.

• A Letter to the Council of Carthage XXIV.
• A Letter to the Council of Milevis XXV.
• A Letter to Five Bishops XXVI.
• A Letter to Aurelius XXVII.

LETTERS without Date, the Time where∣of is not known.

• A Letter to the Bishop of Nuceria IV.
• A Letter to Maximus and Severus, Bishops of Abruzzo V.
• A Letter to Innocent, Agapetus, Macedonius and Marianus, Bishops of Apuleia VI.
• ...

• ... A Letter to Rufus, Gerontius, &c. Bishops of Macedonia VII.
• A Letter to Florentius, Bishop of Tivoli VIII.
• A Letter to Probus IX.
• A Letter to Aurelius and to S. Austin X.
• A Letter to Juliana XIII.
• A Letter to Laurentius XX.
• A Suppositious Letter to Arcadius XXX.

Notes

• * 1.1

  P. Innocent.
• * 1.2

  P. Innoc. I.