Innocent I

ON ST. INNOCENT I, CONFESSOR

AND ROMAN PONTIFF,

IN THE YEAR 417.

HISTORICAL COLLECTION.

Innocent, Pope and confessor, at Rome (St.)

BY THE AUTHOR G. C.

§ I. The Saint's cult, eulogies, calumnies wrongly imputed to him, and his chief virtues.

Our elders at the 12th of March treated of a certain St. Innocent,

who on that day occurs, in the most ancient exemplars of the Hieronymian Martyrology, with Rasus the bishop. The Epternach codex, written about a thousand years ago, The question being proposed, whether this St. Innocent from a homonym, on that day has thus: "At Rome, of holy Innocent the bishop, of Rasus the bishop." Florentinius, page 373, from other Hieronymian copies reports him on the 4th of the Ides of March thus: "At Rome, the deposition of holy Innocent the bishop, of Rasius the bishop." But on the 21st of December in Florentinius, page 1039, the same things are read concerning Innocent, no mention being made of Rasius. The Hieronymian Martyrology, which is reprinted in the Dacherian Spicilegium of the second edition from page 1, on each day keeps a similar formula of announcing. Hence our Henschen, vol. 2 of March, page 106, on account of that conjunction with Rasus, and the double announcement of St. Innocent in certain codices, and other reasons there adduced, judged that this St. Innocent the bishop is diverse from today's St. Innocent. But he brought forth his judgment so timidly and cautiously that he concludes the Commentary in these words: "Whatever it be, we have shown a treasure, which we wish to be brought forth by others into greater light."

[2] Others are of opinion that in the Hieronymian copies St. Innocent I the Pope is indicated, who is venerated on the 12th of March, and that on the different days nothing but the death of that holy Pontiff, or his burial or translation, is commemorated. At least their opinion is favored by the old Roman Martyrology, which on the 12th of March in the edition of our Rosweyde has thus: "Of the holy Pontiffs Gregory and Innocent." More clearly favors Ado, when on the same day he reports them thus: "At Rome, of the blessed Pontiffs, Gregory the doctor and apostle of the English, who sat there 13 years, 6 months, 10 days; and of Innocent, who ruled the Church 15 years, 2 months, 21 days." Usuard abridged Ado thus: "At Rome, of the blessed Pontiffs Gregory the doctor and apostle of the English, and of Innocent." Rabanus on the 28th of July celebrates the memory of our St. Innocent in his Martyrology; but Notker on the 12th of March and the 28th of July announces the same holy Pontiff twice. Perhaps these two Martyrologists marked St. Innocent on the 28th of July, because on the 5th of the Kalends of August he is said to have been buried "at the hatted Bear" (ad Ursum pileatum). Hence too doubtless on this day he passed into the Usuardine supplements, which may be consulted in our Usuard illustrated.

[3] From what has been said, it seems that the collector of the old Roman Martyrology first furnished a foundation to Ado and others, is distinct, that concerning St. Innocent the Pope they should understand what in the Hieronymian Martyrology was obscurely and doubtfully said concerning St. Innocent the bishop. But whether this interpretation of the later ones is to be preferred to the most ancient codices of the Hieronymian collection, let the judgment be others'. Certainly concerning the distinction of the two St. Innocents it would be established, if the very autograph of St. Jerome, or at least genuine copies of it, could be found: for the holy Doctor would not have inserted Innocent the Pontiff, still living, into his Martyrology, if he collected it, or rendered into Latin that collected by Eusebius, as others think. But since such ancient and incorrupt monuments can scarcely be hoped for in our age, I here repeat those things which Henschen, vol. 2 of March, page 106, confesses in this manner: "All which things being discussed on every side, although we can conclude nothing certain, we are nevertheless led into this opinion, that these two bishops Innocent and Rasus lived in the time of persecution, and came to Rome from elsewhere, and there either holily rested in peace, or were even crowned with martyrdom, or at least their bodies, if they suffered elsewhere, were then carried to Rome and deposited. If more certain things be indicated from elsewhere, we advise that the reader embrace them." Meanwhile no more certain things have accrued, unless perhaps someone thinks that he can elicit something for one or the other opinion from an old Martyrology, which lately Edmond Martène published in the New Thesaurus of Anecdota, vol. 3, and which he is of opinion was written about a thousand years ago under the name of St. Jerome. In it, moreover, it is thus read: "On the 4th of the Ides of March, at Rome, of Innocent, and the deposition of St. Gregory the Pope." But on the 21st of December it is thus: "On the 12th of the Kalends of January, at Edessa, the birthday of St. Thomas the apostle. At Rome, of Innocent." Someone could hence suspect that the Innocent reported on the 12th of March differs from Innocent the Pontiff, because to him is not added the name of "Pope," which is there expressly joined to Gregory. Since, however, I do not see that the treasure shown by this instrument, which Henschen wished to be brought forth into greater light, is happily to be dug out by me, I proceed to other things.

[4] Whatever day of death is to be assigned to St. Innocent I, [on this day, with the Roman Martyrology, there is treatment of St. Innocent the Pope,] concerning which Tillemont, vol. 10 of Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 832, institutes an inextricable question, we today treat of that holy Pontiff, because the Roman Martyrology on the 5th of the Kalends of August announces him thus: "At Rome, of St. Innocent the Pope and confessor." Rightly here is added the name of confessor, although in certain Usuardine supplements he is given the title of martyr, and in the Catalogue of Peter de Natalibus, book 6, chapter 149, he is said to be "crowned with martyrdom in the time of the emperor Arcadius." Nor does the explanation of Galesinius suffice to vindicate this title to him, who in the notations to his Martyrology thus writes: "Of St. Innocent, pontiff and confessor, elsewhere MARTYR, as in the Roman Martyrology (he probably wished to designate the Martyrology of Bellino of Padua, which according to the custom of the Roman curia was edited at Venice in the year 1498) it is read: by which name he was perhaps called on account of his admirable virtue, and the utmost constancy comparable with the fortitude of the Martyrs, which in every contest for the defense of the faith and for the protection of the Church he exhibited, as his deeds indicate." This explanation of Galesinius, I say, does not suffice, unless you wish to ascribe all illustrious for holy constancy to the number of the martyrs. But although we disallow the title of martyr to our St. Innocent, we wish nevertheless nothing to be detracted from his true praise, as you will easily understand from the following.

[5] whose praises are recounted. Our Labbe, vol. 2 of the Councils, reports the epistle of the Council of Milevum, written to Innocent the Pontiff, which in the following column begins thus: "Because the Lord has placed you by the special gift of his grace in the Apostolic See, and has presented [you] such in our times, that it counts rather to us for a fault of negligence, if before your veneration we have been silent about the things which are to be suggested for the Church, than that you can receive them either fastidiously or negligently, we beseech that, amid the great dangers of the weak members of Christ, you deign to apply your pastoral diligence." Do you see how excellent an opinion the Fathers of the Council of Milevum had concerning the pastoral vigilance of our Saint? St. Augustine adorned Innocent, living and dead, with various praises. How great an esteem St. Jerome conceived of his pure faith is clear from epistle 8, otherwise 97, in which he thus exhorts Demetrias: "This I think you should be forewarned of by a pious affection of charity, that you hold the faith of holy Innocent, who is the successor and son of the Apostolic chair and of the aforesaid man (namely Anastasius, who had preceded him in the Pontificate, and had been his spiritual father)." Orosius, book 7 of the Histories against the pagans, chapter 39, about to narrate the destruction of the city of Rome by the Goths, prefaces these things concerning our Saint: "It happened too, that the invasion of the city might the more be proved to have been done by the indignation of God than by the strength of the enemy, that blessed Innocent, bishop of the Roman Church, like a just Lot withdrawn from Sodom, being then by the hidden providence of God placed at Ravenna, did not see the destruction of the sinful people." In the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, book 5, chapter 23, he is called "a man excellently furnished with the ornaments of genius and prudence," or according to the version of Henri de Valois, "a man endowed with signal skill and prudence." Finally St. Prosper of Aquitaine in his book against the Collator embraced an excellent eulogy of him in few words, when in the Paris edition of the year 1711, col. 319, he said that "Pope Innocent was most worthy of the see of Peter."

[6] The calumny imputed to him by Zosimus the pagan If it is honorable to be praised by praised men, certainly it is not ignominious to be vituperated or traduced by impious or malevolent detractors, among whom in the first place must be placed Zosimus the pagan writer, who, in book 5 of the Histories, narrating the siege of Rome, feigns that by this Pontiff the execrable sacrifices of the gentiles were secretly permitted: "Then indeed the Romans, persuaded," he says, "that it was Alaric who was harassing the city with war, and despairing of all things which regarded human strength, recalled to mind that help which the city had once experienced in seditions, and that, their ancestral rites being violated, they had lost it. While they weighed these things with themselves, Pompeianus, prefect of the city, chanced upon certain men who had come to Rome from Tuscany, and who said that a certain town, whose name was Neveia (Sigonius calls it Narnia), they had freed from present dangers, and by vows offered to the deity and their ancestral cult, immense thunders and lightnings being elicited, had driven off the threatening barbarians. Having conferred with these, he did whatever it was expedient to be done from the books of the pontiffs. But because that opinion which had then prevailed came to his mind, in order to accomplish more safely what he had in his vows, he communicates everything with the bishop of the city: it was Innocent; who indeed, preferring the safety of the city to his own opinion, secretly permitted them to do whatever they knew. When they said these things would not otherwise be advantageous to the city, unless the accustomed sacrifices were publicly performed, the senate ascending to the Capitol, and both there and anywhere in the whole city duly performing the due rites, no one dared to be present at the ceremonies to be celebrated by the ancestral rite; but, those men from Tuscany being bidden farewell, they turned themselves with all zeal to soothing the barbarian." Namely, Zosimus, blushing to confess the weakness of his gods, excuses them from this, that no one dared to be present at the sacrifices, and meanwhile lies that these impious ceremonies, at which no one dared publicly to assist, were secretly permitted by Innocent. But this slanderous writer, on the occasion of the siege of Rome made by Alaric, we shall again meet later. Meanwhile, however, let us hear the judgments of certain men concerning his narration.

[7] The most eminent Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 409, number 7, thus dissolves this calumny of Zosimus: falsely imputed, "Further, Sozomen, describing the same history, equally a Greek writer with Zosimus, and himself having pursued the affairs of his time, although he was a Novatian in sect, and somewhat moved against Innocent, because he first of all (as Socrates hands down) had ejected the Novatians from the city, yet, while he exactly narrates the same siege, and makes mention of Innocent, reports that nothing of the kind which Zosimus objects happened." To these I add the words of the heterodox William Cave (he certainly cannot be at all suspect to us in the defense of the Roman Pontiffs) who in his Literary History of ecclesiastical writers, edited at Geneva in the year 1694, page 206, thus writes: "That Innocent permitted, when Alaric was now threatening Rome, the Gentiles to perform their ancient rites and sacrifices secretly, is a calumny fabricated by Zosimus." To Zosimus the pagan writer can be opposed Socrates and

Sozomen, who, narrating the siege of Rome and the machinations of the pagans, plainly are silent about the matter, which they would by no means have done, if Innocent had committed a crime of this kind, whom the hatred of the Novatian sect had rendered odious to them. But why do we wonder that the most holy Pontiff was affected by so atrocious an injury by the most hostile enemy of the Christian religion, who in his writings, on the testimony of the same Cave, page 269, as often as he treats of the affairs of the Christians, sharply censures their religion, and on that account rages strenuously against almost all Christian princes, especially against Constantine the Great and Theodosius the elder. For the rest, see, if it please you, Evagrius, book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 41, where he sharply refutes the revilings and lies of this pagan man.

[8] Nevertheless certain followers of Luther or Calvin, who wish also to seem erudite, and admitted by certain heterodox writers is refuted, are driven by such blind fury against Catholics or papists, that they prefer the lies of Zosimus alone to all the testimonies of the ancient writers, and would rather explode the most holy fathers of the Church, and injure the fame of Christian princes, than deny credit to that pagan calumniator. Let Cave be heard here again, a witness in this matter by no means suspect, who in the work just cited, page 269, thus confesses: "I am not unaware that Johann Löwenklau, indeed a most erudite man, published a prolix apology in favor of Zosimus, by which he vindicates him from the injuries and feigned calumnies against the Christians, from the stain of envy and malice with which he most burned, with all the acumen of genius he could. But while he cleanses a gentile man and a most hostile enemy of the Christian name, he washes a brick, and tries to whiten an Ethiopian: and, that he might plead the cause of a malevolent and, if ever any other, virulent writer, he manifestly betrays himself not only little fair, but even plainly bitter and shameless, against some, toward Eusebius, Chrysostom, Innocent, Theodoret, Photius, and other prelates of the Christian religion, but also toward Constantine the Great, and his sons, toward Jovian, Valentinian, Theodosius, and the whole lineage of the following emperors." Among those defenders of Zosimus seems to be numbered Johann Jacob Hofmann, public professor of the Greek language in the academy of Basel, who in his Universal Lexicon at the name of Innocent I, without any critical judgment, thus shamelessly pronounces: "Italy and Rome being wretchedly harassed by the barbarians, when so many evils were imputed to the faithful, imprudent, he permitted the deities of the gentiles to be propitiated." Thus, namely, certain heretical writers, so severe in admitting other histories, easily believe anything which can turn to the disgrace of the Roman Pontiffs.

[9] and the insipid fable, Equally calumnious is the fable which some Burgundians, too tenacious of popular traditions, imprudently impute to our St. Innocent, and which Sigebert of Gembloux, from his hatred against the Roman Pontiffs, at the year of Christ 411 narrates in his Chronicle in these words: "Concerning this Antidius (he was the holy prelate of Besançon in Burgundy, whose Acts we illustrated at the 25th of June) it is read that once on the third day after Palm Sunday, crossing the bridge of the river Doubs, he saw a troop of demons, reporting their deeds to their prince, and among them an Ethiopian, carrying a sandal in his hand, as an indication that he had at last drawn to a lapse the Roman prelate, whose this sandal was, having attacked him for seven years: who, calling the Ethiopian to him, and mounting upon him in the power of God and of the holy cross, he carrying him, came to Rome on the fifth day, at the hour of celebrating the office, and, the demon waiting before the doors, reported the matter to the Pope; and moved him, who denied [it], to penitence by the sandal, and Mass being celebrated in his stead, and part of the chrism consecrated by himself being taken, the demon carrying him back, he returned to his church on Holy Saturday, at the hour of celebrating the Office." We know that this schismatic monk was addicted to the Henrician party against the Roman Pontiffs, as our Labbe with other Catholics writes, even to madness and delirium. Perhaps from this Theodoric Engelhus, a writer of the 15th century, took his account, who in his Chronicle in Leibniz, vol. 2 of the Brunswick writers, page 1039, thus depicts the same little fable in other colors: "Antidius adjured the devil to lead him to Rome to the presence of Pope Innocent, which he also did within a day; where he forestalled the Pope, that he might not sin, as he had heard from the same devil." But I cannot sufficiently wonder that this insipid little fable is so sharply defended by Jean Jacques Chifflet, physician of Besançon, which in the Life of St. Antidius at the 25th of June we reported at greater length and exploded, as may be seen in vol. 5 of that month from page 39.

[10] and the rash judgments of certain men being exploded, Since Erasmus of Rotterdam found nothing to carp at in the morals of that holy Pontiff, he gnaws at his style of writing, and says that Innocent in his letters against the Pelagians appears in his manner rather savage than erudite, and that in them genius and erudition worthy of such a Prelate are wanting. But the most eminent Noris, book 1 of the Pelagian History, chapter 11, combed down this rigid censor as he deserved, as may be seen there, lest we here do what has been done. Further, it is no wonder that these things were written against St. Innocent by a man who with a bold pen indiscriminately censures the most erudite and most holy Fathers of the Church, and who is reckoned by the most eminent Bellarmine among the semi-Christians. I wonder more that by certain more recent Frenchmen, who wish to be called Catholics, the same most holy Pontiff is accused of a jurisdiction usurped against the canons. A recent writer among them, in Schelstrate, vol. 2 of the Antiquity of the Church, dissertation 5, page 316, thus comments on the epistle of St. Innocent to Alexander, patriarch of Antioch: "This jurisdiction Innocent claimed over the provinces subject to him, and judged that the same was usurped by the Antiochene, and from himself judges of others." Words indeed unworthy of a Catholic writer, on which Schelstrate suavely and strongly notes these things: "Thus, according to his singular modesty, that recent author writes concerning Innocent the first, whom great Augustine with the councils of Africa a thousand two hundred and fifty years ago proclaimed as a most holy Pontiff, and a lover of ancestral discipline and religion, to whose epistles the whole Church finally offers not only its vote, but also the obedience of its suffrage, and by the perpetual consent of so many centuries binds itself." I here pass over other writers of the same nation, who with ambiguous and softer words accuse St. Innocent of ambition. It is known from what sources, or rather sewers, similar gibes against the Roman Pontiffs are drawn. Now let us summarily report the chief ornaments of his morals.

[11] Among the very many virtues of St. Innocent eminent was an ardent zeal for the Catholic faith, his virtues are briefly enumerated. fired with which he everywhere persecuted the heretics. Witness is his epistle to Laurentius, bishop of Siena, which in Labbe, vol. 2 of the Councils, col. 1271, is read, and by which he strictly enjoins him to expel the Photinians from his diocese with all diligence. Nor with less ardor did he try to extirpate the Novatians, as Socrates himself testifies, book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 9, where in the Christophorson version these things are read: "When he (namely Anastasius the pontiff) died, Innocent, who first began to eject the Novatians from Rome, and to take many churches from them, undertook the administration of that church." Anastasius Bibliothecarius in the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, chapter 41, asserts that the Cataphrygians and others were driven into exile by him, in whom too his munificence toward the churches, and other works of piety, may be seen. The rest of his virtues will easily be gathered in the course of the treatment from his deeds, which now, in the order of time, as far as it can be done, we shall endeavor to illustrate.

§ II. His profession of life, fatherland, the beginning of his pontificate, and the unanimous elevation to it.

None of the ancients, as far as I know, has committed to writing what St. Innocent did before his Pontificate, It is examined whether St. Innocent was a monk, or what institute of life he professed. Petrus Ricordatus or Calzolarus, after several centuries, in an Italian work which was edited at Rome in the year 1575, all antiquity being silent, strives to persuade us, folio 39 verso, that St. Innocent was elevated to the chair of Peter from the order of monks. He alleges no witnesses to prove this, no records, as neither for the other things which he confidently affirms concerning him there. But he seems to have deduced this monkhood only by a marvelous consequence from the words of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who in the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, chapter 41, asserts that St. Innocent established some things concerning the rules of monasteries. Whence Ricordatus in the following folio concludes that he was a monk. But if from that antecedent that consequent be so clearly demonstrated, as that author there speaks, it will also doubtless follow that all the Roman Pontiffs who decreed some things concerning monastic rules are to be ascribed to the number of monks, which I judge no one of sound mind will admit.

[13] or a Scot by nation, In the place just cited in Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and in the more ancient catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs, Innocent is said to be "an Alban by nation, born of his father Innocent." Hence all have hitherto believed that he had his origin at Alba or Albano in Italy, until it came into the mind of certain Scots to claim him for their fatherland, because it was once called Albion or Albania. Nay, Dempster, book 9 of the Ecclesiastical History of the Scottish nation, number 703, complains that almost all the Italians envy the Scots this glory, and cites some more recent ones of his countrymen, who for the honor of their fatherland handed down the same opinion. Genebrard and Pontac, what is more to be wondered at, in their chronology thus write of him: "St. Innocent, an Alban or a Scot." These two Frenchmen seem to have given credit to the Scots too lightly. More cautious was our Alford, an Englishman by nation, when in the Ecclesiastical Annals of Britain at the year of Christ 402, number 3, he thus rejects this opinion: "To Anastasius succeeded Innocent, an Alban by fatherland, not a Scot, as Dempster wishes." Certainly the Scots seem to have no other foundation for their assertion than a certain similarity of name, by which we do not deny their fatherland was once called. But if this homonymy suffice, the people of Albano in Spain, in Macedonia, and other regions will by the same right claim St. Innocent for themselves.

[14] and in what year A more intricate question is, in what year St. Innocent ascended the pontifical chair. Baronius, Noris, Tillemont, and several other learned men mark the beginning of his pontificate in the year 402. Nevertheless to this epoch Antonius Pagi contradicts, and thinks it should be anticipated by one year, when in his Historical-Chronological Critique on the Annals of Baronius at the year of Christ 417, number 4, he thus discourses concerning the beginning of the Innocentian Pontificate: "That he undertook the supreme government of the Church in the year 401, and indeed on the 21st of December, we have asserted against the common opinion. It remains that, by arguments drawn from the duration of his see, the day of death, and the ordination of his successor, we place this beyond all doubt. Anastasius, both in the common codices, and in several manuscripts, teaches that he sat FIFTEEN YEARS, TWO MONTHS, TWENTY DAYS; which is confirmed by Marianus Scotus, Regino, Ordericus book 2, Honorius of Autun, Ado, and Bede, not indeed the genuine,

but the common Bede, each in the Martyrologies, the Palatine-Vatican catalogue, another edited by Papebroch, and another by Mabillon, and various catalogues subjoined to this work, in all of which to Innocent are attributed 15 years, 2 months, 20 days, except that some of the same authors and catalogues have 21 days. Besides, Prosper according to the Scaligerian edition writes that Innocent sat 15 years, 2 months, 21 days. In the chronicle indeed of Prosper of the Colbertine library, which is about five hundred years old, at number 1286 Innocent is said to have governed the Roman church 15 years, 2 months, 22 days; but by the error of the copyist one day and another is there reckoned as more. Wherefore, since Innocent migrated to God on the twelfth day of the month of March of the current year (namely 417), he had been ordained in the year 401, on the 21st of December: for thus he sat 15 years, 2 months, 20 days, and was buried on the 13th of March. The chronicle of Prosper and some catalogues, in which the duration of Innocent's see is augmented or diminished, the copyists corrupted." Not so far is it certain, what Pagi here asserts concerning the corrupted chronicle of Prosper: for in three codices of that chronicle St. Innocent is said to have sat by round number only 14 years, as we shall shortly observe.

[15] Pagi at the same year, in the following number, strives to prove from the Martyrologies and on what day that St. Innocent died on the 12th of March, which above at the beginning of § I we examined, and concerning which discourse will recur toward the end of this collection. Then, number 6, for establishing his opinion he thus reasons: "Baronius, who understands the day of burial or translation described by Anastasius, according to custom, as the day of death, defers the death of Innocent up to the 28th of the month of July, and the beginning of Zosimus his successor up to the 19th of the month of August; but from a rescript of the same Zosimus, of which a little later we shall treat, it will be certainly established that he already ruled the Roman Church on the twenty-fifth of March of the present year." Papebroch in his Chronological-historical Endeavor at the catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs judged Innocent to have died on the 21st of December of the previous year, noted in the Hieronymian Martyrology. But besides that it is established that he prolonged his life to the beginning of this year, since in the month of January he condemned the Pelagians, in that way he would have sat only 14 years, 11 months, 21 days, which the cited authors and catalogues, as we judge, do not allow, although that most learned man holds it persuaded without the authority of any Anastasian codex, or of any catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs. Thus far Pagi.

[16] I do not deny that the opinion of Pagi, on account of the arguments adduced, is plainly probable; according to various but I deny that the year 401, in which he places the beginning of the Innocentian Pontificate, is placed beyond all doubt, as he promised above he would show: for he must confess that he contradicts Prosper and Marcellinus, and other most ancient chronicles, which constantly assert that St. Innocent was elected Pontiff in the consulate of Arcadius V and Honorius V, whose consulate according to the most exact chronologers corresponds to the year of Christ 402. He also cannot deny that the manuscript codices often differ among themselves concerning the duration of that Pontificate. Prosper of Aquitaine in our Labbe, vol. 1 of the Library of manuscript books, page 48, thus expressly has: "Arcadius V and Honorius V being consuls… the 38th bishop presides over the Roman Church, Innocent, for 14 years." The Colbertine and Augsburg codex expressly ascribe to St. Innocent just so many years of government, as he testifies who prepared the most recent edition of Prosper at Paris in the year 1711. Nay, Pagi himself confesses that by the error of copyists in certain codices one day and another was added. But by the same error one year and another, or a month, could be added. Perhaps the most ancient writer computed by round number fourteen years, which then later copyists changed to fifteen, and to which by conjecture they added some months and days. This our conjecture is confirmed by the anonymous writer of Zwettl, who is believed to have lived in the 12th century, and whom Bernhard Pez, vol. 1 of the Thesaurus of anecdota, part 3, published from col. 325, where in the History of the Roman Pontiffs, col. 345, he thus writes: "Innocent, an Alban by nation, from his father Innocent, 15 years, nearly 4 months; in the Chronicles of Prosper, 14 years." In this manner the time of the Innocentian Pontificate could be reconciled with the three exemplars of Prosper, if to the round number of fourteen years some months be added.

[17] opinions of writers Nevertheless, let us grant that in most chronicles and catalogues fifteen years is better marked. Is that also to be admitted concerning the months and days, among which in the ancient codices there is such variety? Is it not to be judged to have proceeded from some ancient manuscript, that every year at this day in the Roman Breviary we thus recite concerning that Saint: "He sat fifteen years, one month, ten days"? Why, I beseech, is the catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs to be rejected, which our Henschen prefixed to vol. 1 of April, and whose second part was most probably written before the middle of the 6th century, as there, page 36, Henschen shows? In it, however, concerning Innocent it is thus read: "He sat fifteen years, one month, 21 days." Just so many years, month, and days another catalogue expresses, which Mabillon, vol. 4 of the ancient Analecta, page 429, edited from a Corbie manuscript. Not here the multitude of codices, but antiquity makes the value: for from one corrupt exemplar many faulty copies could proceed. There are also other things which can be opposed to the Pagian opinion, concerning which see Tillemont in the Ecclesiastical Monuments, note 69 on St. Jerome, among us, vol. 12, from page 650.

[18] Meanwhile I profess that I do not swear by the words of Papebroch, whom I judge to have erred, when he bound the death of St. Innocent to the year 416. ascended the Roman chair, But I see nothing hitherto that compels me to desert the opinion of Henschen, which before vol. 1 of April, page 32, he concludes in these words: "We gather, secondly, either that Innocent did not sit full fifteen years, since his predecessor Anastasius was buried on the 27th of April (this is the day of translation according to Pagi), and on that day is venerated; or it must be said that this one too was some time before deceased, and Innocent created on the 22nd of January, and thus sat the fifteen years, one month, twenty-one days here indicated." Nay, to the latter part of this disjunctive proposition Pagi himself favors, when with Papebroch against Baronius he contends that Anastasius, the predecessor of Innocent, died in the year 401, on the 14th of December, because on that day in the Hieronymian Martyrology in Florentinius a certain St. Anastasius is reported. In this system it is plainly probable that St. Innocent was elected Pontiff in the month of January of the year 402, and governed the Church up to the month of March of the year 417. Nor need his death necessarily be deferred to the 12th of March, that we may defend the catalogue proposed by Henschen, as will be plain to one considering and willing to enter upon the reckoning. Being somewhat freed from these chronological entanglements, let us proceed to other things.

[19] to which by unanimous consent he was elevated. With how great concord of clergy and people our Saint was assumed to the supreme Pontificate, he himself signifies in the letters which not long after his election he wrote to Anysius, bishop of Thessalonica, and which, after Lukas Holstenius in the Roman collection, part 1, page 45, are reported by Pierre Coustant the Benedictine among the epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, edited at Paris in the year 1721, vol. 1, col. 739, to this tenor: "Since our God Christ deigned to call to himself, though quickly, Anastasius the bishop, of holy memory, reckoning his merits to be so great and such that they now exceeded the fellowship of human conversation, and that age, on account of the purity of his life and the abundance of doctrine by which he ruled the people of God with all the rigor of ecclesiastical authority: lest his Church remain a little while without the helm of a ruler, at once by his mercy, the holy priests and all the clergy and people consenting, with the peace which God, returning to heaven, deigned to grant his Church, it was fitting to acknowledge me * ordained in his place, dearest brother, and to announce my first-fruits quickly to none but the best man and one always faithfully laboring in God: to whom also the earlier bishops, my predecessors, men so great and such, that is, of holy memory Damasus, Siricius, and the above-mentioned man, so deferred, that all things which were transacted in those parts they handed over to your holiness, which is full of justice, to be examined." Then he confirms to Anysius the same power over the churches of Illyricum which his predecessors had before granted him.

§ III. Deeds and writings in the first years of his pontificate.

So many and so diverse laws had been passed by the emperors concerning the curials taken into the clergy, that the judges never lacked an occasion by which they might importunately demand them back, and thence create trouble for the prelates of the churches. Wherefore Innocent labored much before the emperor Honorius himself, who about the end of the year 403 had come to Rome, The Saint, after certain difficulties had arisen, that difficulties of this kind might be removed, and afterward established that the bishops should not take among the clergy those who discharged such offices. This I gather from the epistle which the holy Pontiff in the following year gave to Victricius, bishop of Rouen, in which, after other things, in our Labbe, vol. 2 of the Councils, he thus speaks: "Moreover, frequently some of our brethren strive to make clerics of curials, or those occupied with any public functions: to whom afterward greater sadness, when something concerning recalling them is enjoined by the emperor, arises than the favor from the one taken. For it is established that they even in those very offices exhibit pleasures, which there is no doubt were invented by the devil, and either preside over or are present at the apparatus of games or shows. Let there be certainly for an example the solicitude and sadness of the brethren, which we often endured, the emperor being present, when we more often begged for these, as you, placed with us, have known, on whom not only the lower clerics from the curials, but even those already established in the priesthood, a great trouble threatened, that they should be given back." These were the first labors of St. Innocent for the Church, which at least we know, and which Victricius witnessed, who stayed at Rome for some time, as Paulinus of Nola, epistle 37, testifies.

[21] I said that this epistle to Victricius of Rouen was written in the following year, that is 404, not in the year 405, as Tillemont thinks, although Tillemont, vol. 10 of Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 828, moved some scruples against this year, which Pierre Coustant, vol. 1 of the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, in the preliminary notice to this epistle, number 2, seems to have sufficiently plucked out by this response: "In all these collections," he says, "(if you except the Dionysian, in which the consular note is omitted) the end of the epistle is altogether the same, and by the highest consent it is marked: 'Honorius Augustus VI and Aristaenetus being consuls.' Hence no place is left for the conjecture of the erudite man, by which he suspects that that consular note to this epistle of Innocent was added by another, or at least

that AFTER THE CONSULATE of Honorius etc. should be read. For, to grant him that the words AFTER THE CONSULATE, which by the first letters PC. are wont to be expressed by antiquaries, could easily have fallen out; in that case certainly in at least some old codex 'of Honorius AND Aristaenetus,' not 'to Honorius AND Aristaenetus' would have been retained, nor in any ought the word 'CONSS.' (consuls) to have been added."

[22] but he seems to have written in 404 Nor are we more compelled to concede to that conjecture, if we weigh what the cause is, why he thinks this epistle written in the year 405 rather than 404. Namely, he is moved solely by the words at number 5, by which Innocent commemorates what, on account of the curials, the emperor being present, and Victricius placed with him, he endured. Whence he also judges it follows that not only after the emperor had come to the City, but also after Victricius had returned from Rome to Rouen, this epistle was written. "But," he says, "the emperor Honorius came to Rome only in the year 403, in the month of December, nor had he come thither before, as is gathered from the poem of Claudian: but Victricius could not, in so small an interval, which runs from the emperor's arrival at the City to the 15th of February of the year 404, return from Rome to Rouen, and thence send letters to Innocent, so that they were delivered to him before." From which he concludes that those letters were given not in the consulate of Honorius Augustus, but after the consulate of Honorius Augustus, that is in the year 405, not 404.

[23] to Victricius, bishop of Rouen; But if on account of a fact of which no certain notice is had, it be permitted to deny credit to so many and so diverse and so ancient titles, what will there be certain in history? Be it so, then, that Honorius came to Rome at the end of the year 403, and that Victricius was then at that time in the City. To grant at the same time that the same bishop returned to Rouen before he received these letters of Innocent, what compels [us]? Innocent records no one sent to him in the name of Victricius, no letters of his delivered to him. "But," says the erudite man, "the word 'MISI' (I have sent), which Innocent uses in the exordium, hints at one absent." But if absent, it certainly does not sound as returned to Rouen, nor departed from Rome. For what forbids, but that Victricius, about to depart from Rome, while he was bidding Innocent farewell, requested from him a book of ecclesiastical rules, and he, not then having the book at hand, took care that it be composed as soon as possible and handed to Victricius before his departure from the City? Nor indeed is it necessary that those be far from us, to whom we are said to send something. Daily friends send to one another, even contained within the walls of the same city, little gifts, books, letters, and the rest: of which matter let Damasus and Jerome be an example, above, page 579 and following. To these I add, that perhaps Innocent, a little after the departure of Victricius, while he, in returning, halted at some uncertain place, sent these letters to Rouen, and there ordered them to be kept until his arrival.

[24] which epistle the heterodox wrongly carp at, Certain things in this epistle the heretics carp at, whom Binius in his notes in our Labbe, vol. 2 of the Councils, thus refutes: "The innovators of this time censure this epistle of Innocent, because he decrees that a fallen consecrated virgin is not to be received to penance before the man to whom she had joined herself under the title of marriage is dead: for they judged that it was iniquitously established to defer the penance of the fallen woman to the death of the adulterer. But nothing more equitable and more holy could be defined by the decree of the Roman Pontiff than that the pretended penance of a fallen virgin be rejected, who under the title of marriage with the adulterer, as with a legitimate husband, chose to cohabit until death, and who wished not to be separated from him before the death of the adulterer. Since therefore it is most just that those be not absolved in the Church who wish to persevere in sin, the heretics of our time undeservedly reprehend this constitution of the Pontiff concerning repudiating her penance." Concerning this matter Baronius too can be seen, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 404, number 131, where after proving the equity of this decree he thus concludes: "There are very many other things which the same innovators disparage as blemishes in the epistles of the same Pope Innocent: which, since they claim authority for themselves from the Apostolic traditions, the doctrine of the holy Fathers, the usage of the Church, they could have sufficiently understood and clearly known to be gems rather than blemishes, had they not looked at them with squinting eyes."

[25] Others of the same bran of writers disallow that whole epistle to Innocent. or disallow it to St. Innocent, Among these hear Robert Coke, a heterodox Englishman, who in his Censure of certain writers, edited at London in the year 1623, thus wretchedly reasons, page 111: "The epistle of Innocent I to Victricius is cited by Bellarmine, to prove that celibacy is by apostolic right most rightly annexed to sacred Orders, and that marriage, after a solemn vow, is null. This epistle is almost word for word the same as the epistle of Siricius to the bishops of Africa, and therefore does not seem to be Innocent's." A strawy argument indeed, which Franciscus Pagi in the Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs, vol. 1, page 126, blows away in these words: "It is not hidden from me that the heterodox censure the said epistle of Innocent to Victricius of Rouen, or even utterly reject it, because in it are certain decrees which are contained word for word in the epistle of Siricius. But since decrees 12 and 13 of the same epistle of Innocent, of which the heterodox speak, are cited from the epistle of Innocent in the Third Council of Tours *, celebrated in the year 566 or 567, and there approved, and Innocent could do no better than hand down the institutions of his elders, no one would with right have doubted concerning that decretal epistle of Innocent, which Dionysius Exiguus inserted whole in the codex of the Roman Church, just as no one would have doubted concerning the epistle of Siricius, praised by the Council of Zella and by Ferrandus."

[26] The praised Pierre Coustant in the just-cited preliminary notice, number 1, thus confirms this response at greater length: as is shown from the consent of ancient monuments. "From epistle 4 of Siricius many things are copied in this one. But, as Tillemont observed, this ought to seem by no means wonderful, since Innocent, asked by Victricius to hand him the rules wont to be kept in the Roman Church, could not accomplish it more happily than by copying the decree of his predecessors. Hence therefore there is had no suitable reason why either the aforesaid epistle should be taken from Siricius, or this from Innocent. Nor are the moments lighter which adjudge this to Innocent than were those which adjudge that to Siricius. By the Second Council of Tours, chapter 20, by Cresconius in his Breviary, canon PASSIM; by Pope Zacharias in Sirmond, vol. 1 of the Gallican councils, epistle 9, chapters 14 and 20, under his name it is praised. Besides, of the ancient collections, of which we have examined a good many, in none is it wanting, in none is it not exhibited as inscribed to Innocent. This to him ascribe the Corbie exemplar, written in the times of Pope Vigilius, the Colbertine written in large Lombardic letters, the old codex of canons published by Quesnel, the exemplars of the Dionysian and Hadrian collection, and also the Spanish, Isidorian, and several other collections." To this is added that St. Innocent in the exordium of that epistle, in Labbe in the whole cited place, forewarned that "he prescribes these things, not that any new precepts be commanded, but that those things which through the sloth of some have been neglected, he desires to be observed by all, which nevertheless are established by Apostolic and the Fathers' tradition." Behold with what frivolous cavils the heretics assail the Roman Church!

[27] In the cause of St. Chrysostom, which this year was referred to Innocent, In this same year 404 were referred to St. Innocent the letters of St. John Chrysostom, in which he most justly complained of the violent injury inflicted on him by Theophilus of Alexandria and other adversaries. Theophilus too had sent a lector of the Alexandrian church to Rome, to hand to the Roman Pontiff an epistle in which the deposition of Chrysostom, made by himself, was announced. It is not for us here to commemorate the several things which in this cause were written and done back and forth, concerning which Palladius can be seen in his Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom, whose Acts will have to be illustrated at the 14th of September. It now suffices for us to know that St. Innocent in that dispute, which was discussed through several years, conducted himself prudently and piously, as Palladius in the cited Dialogue, chapter 2, testifies in these words: "These Acts being read through, Pope Innocent, when he had ascertained that no accusations were grave, and that John had not been present, nor reprehended face to face, persisted in hissing off the fury of Theophilus, because against an absent man he had poured out so precipitate and abrupt a sentence. Having therefore dismissed them with reproachful letters, he prayed God, supplicating with fasting, that the discord of the church might be calmed, and fraternal love be joined together." If anyone meanwhile desires to read these and other letters regarding this controversy, let him go to Palladius, Baronius, Labbe, and the rest, who collected the councils or the epistles of the Pontiffs.

[28] some epistles But among the number of the genuine epistles we do not admit those three which the most eminent Baronius, vol. 5 of the Ecclesiastical Annals, at the year of Christ 407, exhibits, and concerning the first of which he there, number 20, thus prefaces: "But as concerns Innocent the Roman Pontiff: having himself heard of the death of Chrysostom, he was affected with great grief, and he who hitherto had, at the request of John Chrysostom himself, restrained himself from inflicting on the emperor Arcadius and Eudoxia the augusta, whom they had provoked, that supreme ecclesiastical animadversion, when someone is separated from the communication of the Sacraments and the assembly of the faithful, provoked against the same, and driven by a certain violence, inflicted it: for they seemed to have extorted from the hands of Innocent, judging justly, the vengeance which hitherto he had contained within himself by long patience." Then, number 22, he indicates in which writers that epistle is found, among whom he numbers Gennadius; but it must be that this Gennadius is diverse from Gennadius of Marseilles: for the Marseilles one in his Catalogue of illustrious writers, treating of Innocent, makes no word of an epistle of this kind.

[29] Antonius Pagi, vol. 2 of the Historical-Chronological Critique on the Annals of Baronius, at the same year of Christ, number 5, thus renders these letters suspect of forgery: seem spurious. "The thirtieth epistle of Pope Innocent (by that number in the Labbean edition of the Councils it is read in Greek-Latin) to the emperor Arcadius, by which the persecutors of St. Chrysostom are excommunicated, is spurious, since in it there is discourse of Eudoxia as living, who nevertheless had already in the year 404 reached her last day. Wherefore of that epistle neither Palladius, nor Socrates, nor Theodoret, nor Sozomen, nor Zonaras, nor any of the Latins made mention, and the first, George of Alexandria, who lived in the seventh century of the Church, from whom Nicephorus and Glycas drew it, mentioned it." The same judgment learned men pronounce concerning two epistles of the same Arcadius to Pope Innocent, which Baronius drew from Glycas and a manuscript of the Vatican library, who also exhibits the epistle to Arcadius. Pierre Coustant placed the same epistles in the Appendix of vol. 1 of the Epistles of the Roman

Pontiffs, from col. 105, among the adulterated writings, and by several arguments proves that they are spurious, as may be seen there in the notice prefixed to them.

§ IV. Writings and deeds up to the sack of the city of Rome by Alaric, king of the Goths.

Even though the discord arisen in the East overwhelmed St. Innocent with cares and occupations, yet with indefatigable zeal and labor he extended his paternal solicitude also to the ecclesiastical affairs of the West, The Saint wrote an epistle to Exuperius of Toulouse, and did not suffer his labor to be wanting in other churches. Hence, in the office of a most vigilant pastor, as Franciscus Pagi hands down in the Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs, vol. 1, pages 126 and 127, the second decretal epistle of Innocent was given in the year 405 to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, and contains seven decrees or canons. In the first he decrees that incontinent clerics, namely priests and deacons, are to be deprived of all ecclesiastical honor, and confirms the most holy law of celibacy imposed on them by Siricius his predecessor. In the seventh he describes the index of the canonical books, and testifies and pronounces them received by the Church as sacred and divine: which index when the Calvinists and Lutherans read, let them acknowledge themselves alien from the sense and faith of the ancient Church, as to the number of the canonical books: for Innocent expounds not only his own opinion, but the doctrine and tradition of the Church derived from the Apostles to his times, and preserved in the Roman Church. That this epistle was written to Exuperius in the year 405 is clear from the clause, which has thus: "Given on the 10th of the Kalends of March, Stilicho for the second time and Anthemius, most illustrious men, being consuls."

[31] This epistle does not please Robert Coke, and certain other heretics, which by no foundation is accused of forgery, who at their pleasure, on the lightest suspicions of no moment, accuse it of forgery. But those blind men deserve commiseration rather than refutation: for according to the testimony of Pierre Coustant in his notes to that epistle, vol. 1 of the oft-cited work, col. 789, "it exists in all the ancient collections of all kinds, say those of Isidore, the Spanish, that of Hadrian I, of Dionysius Exiguus, of the codex published by Quesnel. The same is exhibited by the Corbie codex written in the 6th century, the Colbertine written in large Lombardic letters," etc. Besides, in the year 506 by the Council of Agde, canon 9, it is read as praised. Wherefore the erudite man deservedly laughs, and judges not worthy of refutation a certain heterodox one who would have that epistle disallowed to Innocent by this one reason, that Siricius is cited in it. As if forsooth it were unworthy of a Pontiff to confirm what he defines by the decrees of his predecessors. But to Innocent too there was proposed that question which necessarily demanded that the constitution of Siricius be recorded by him, that he might moderate his opinion, with a fair distinction, against those who had sinned either knowingly or unknowingly. David Blondel, a French Calvinist, doubtless knew these solid arguments of the Catholics, and therefore in his Pseudo-Isidore, page 562, where he examines other letters of Innocent, he did not dare to call this epistle into doubt.

[32] and besides various labors From the above-praised Dialogue of Palladius, chapters 3 and 4, it is plain how much at this time St. Innocent labored to calm the tumults of the Church of Constantinople. The same can easily be gathered from the letters of St. Chrysostom, who afterward thus writes to the same Pontiff in the Labbean edition of the Councils, vol. 2: "Our body indeed is held and fixed in one and the same place; but the mind on the wing of charity flies around in the whole world. Accordingly, although we are separated by so great an interval of journey, yet from your piety we are not absent, but daily are present with you: for with the eyes of the mind we see that fortitude of yours, and your sincere affection, and constancy not mutable, and that you desire to console us greatly and perpetually. For the more loftily the waves are raised, and the more rocks lie hidden, and the winds and tempests are more vehement, so much the more is your vigilance increased; nor has so great a length of the way, nor so great an interval of time, nor the difficulty of the causes made you more sluggish: but you perseveringly imitate the best pilots, who are most watchful then, when they see the waves raised and the sea swell, and many waters flood into the ship, and a most grievous night fall in daytime. Therefore we both give you many thanks, and desire indeed to send you frequent letters, which would be to us the greatest solace."

[33] in the cause of St. Chrysostom Then, after adducing the reasons why, from the solitude in which he was in exile, he could not write more often, he thus proceeds to praise and implore the pastoral care of St. Innocent: "For we give you perpetual thanks, because you have declared your paternal benevolence toward us: for as much as lay in your piety, all matters would already have been calmed and amended, and all scandals removed, and the churches would rejoice in tranquil and sincere peace, and all things would be plainly prosperous, neither the laws despised, nor the constitutions of the fathers violated. But those men proceed in their impious works, and, as if they had attempted nothing, so they strive to surpass their former misdeeds with recent ones… The churches have been humbled to the knees, the peoples dispersed, the clergy vexed, the bishops exiled, the constitutions of the fathers violated. And therefore again and again and more often I beg your diligence, that the greater the tempest is, the greater zeal be applied. I expect indeed that things will be somewhat more corrected. But if it be not done, you will have your crown prepared with the merciful God; and these who are afflicted with injury will receive no less consolation from the increase of your charity: for we too are now in the third year in exile, exposed to plague, hunger, war, continual sieges, an indescribable solitude, daily death, and the Isaurian swords, and we are not moderately consoled by your solid faith and charity, which delight themselves in me, so slight and simple." From these judge of the apostolic labors of St. Innocent, and at the same time note with how great praises St. Chrysostom adorns him.

[34] Besides ecclesiastical affairs, the mind for the city of Rome of St. Innocent was chiefly occupied by the common destruction which the barbarian nations threatened to the empire and the city of Rome, as Sozomen, book 9 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 6, narrates in these words: "When Alaric, the leader of the Goths, envoys having been sent to Honorius concerning peace, had suffered a repulse, he undertook to besiege Rome, a huge column of barbarians being placed at the banks of the Tiber, that provisions might not be brought to the citizens from the Port: for thus they call the naval station of the city of Rome. Further, when the siege was protracted longer, and hunger together with plague pressed the city, and several of the slaves, and especially those who were barbarians by nation, deserted to Alaric, those who were pagans in the senate said it was necessary that sacrifice be made in the Capitol and in the other temples. For certain Etruscans, called for this by the prefect of the city, promised that they would drive off the barbarian enemy by lightnings and thunders: and they boasted that this had been done by them at Narnia, which is a city of Tuscany; which Alaric, passing by then, when he was making for Rome, had by no means taken. But that those would profit the City nothing, the very outcome declared."

[35] Certainly those who were sound in mind perceived that these things had happened to the Romans from the indignation of God for the vengeance of those things which by luxury and intemperance they had unjustly done toward citizens and strangers alike. to whom Alaric threatened destruction, And so they say that a certain upright monk of those who were in Italy persuaded Alaric, hastening to Rome, to spare the City, and not to be the author of so great evils: to whom Alaric is said to have answered that he did not attempt these things of his own accord; but that a certain one was assiduously troublesome to him, who urged him, and ordered him to storm Rome: which too he at last did. Further, when he besieged the City, very many gifts being received, he loosed the siege for some space of time, since the Romans had agreed that they would persuade the emperor to receive him into friendship. Here there is deep silence concerning the idolatry secretly permitted by Innocent, as above at number 7 we observed, and which calumny of Zosimus a little later we shall refute by another argument. For the rest, Pagi in his Historical-Chronological Critique, vol. 2, from page 87, rightly proves that this siege of the city of Rome is to be referred to the end of the year 408, and that St. Innocent then was at Rome.

[36] Not here is to be confused the double embassy which after the first siege of the City was instituted to Honorius. he undertook the embassy, Zosimus, book 5 of the Histories, page 818, thus makes mention of the first: "But peace with Alaric not yet being confirmed, because the emperor had neither given hostages, nor satisfied all the demands, from the senate envoys are sent to Ravenna, Caecilianus, Attalus, and Maximian, who, the adverse circumstances which had happened to the City being deplored, and the multitude of those who had perished being amplified in a tragic manner, accomplished nothing by these things." Then in the following page he indicates the other in these words: "For when the emperor deferred peace, and did not satisfy the agreed compacts; it was no longer free for the Romans to go forth outside the City. The senate indeed for the sake of peace sends envoys again to the emperor, with whom the Roman Bishop too sets out." In this matter Zosimus can be safely believed, because here for his gods there is neither sowing nor reaping, and Sozomen, book 9, chapter 7, also distinguishes each of those embassies.

[37] which some have not rightly interpreted from the Greek idiom. But I wonder that men most learned in Greek so interpreted the sense of Sozomen, as if that writer affirmed that envoys were sent by Innocent to the emperor, whereas the Greek text allows, and the history requires, that Innocent himself discharged that embassy. Sozomen, book 9, chapter 7, thus writes in Greek: Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πρεσβευσαμήνου Ἰνοκεντίου τοῦ Ῥωμαίων ἐπισκόπου, μετακληθεὶς Ἀλάριχος γράμμασι τοῦ βασιλέως, ἧκεν εἰς Ἀρίμηνον πόλιν. Jean Christophorson thus renders these into Latin: "Afterward, when Innocent the Roman bishop had sent an embassy in his own name, Alaric, recalled by the emperor's letters, came to Ariminum." Henri de Valois in almost the same words thus renders: "But afterward, when Innocent, bishop of the city of Rome, had sent envoys, Alaric, called out by the emperor's letters, came to Ariminum." I think that each most erudite translator hallucinated in that version. Doubtless the equivocal word πρεσβεύομαι deceived them, which means both "I send envoys" and "I undertake an embassy," as among the lexicographers is everywhere proved by examples. Jacques Godefroy in his Commentaries on the Theodosian Codex, vol. 3, page 135, observed this hallucination, where, treating of the same text of Sozomen, he thus notes: "Then he records an embassy undertaken by Innocent, where the translator most badly renders 'an embassy sent by Innocent.'" The translator of Nicephorus Callistus probably had seen the same error, when in the Ecclesiastical History, book 13, chapter 35, the almost same Greek words occurring, Ἰνοκεντίου δὲ πρεσβευσαμένου, πεισθεὶς Αλλαρίχος βασιλέως γράμμασιν, εἰς Αρίμηνον ἧκε πόλιν, he thus better renders into Latin: "And Innocent undertaking the embassy, Alaric, persuaded by the emperor's letters,

withdrew to the city of Ariminum." Finally, clear is the Greek expression of Zosimus, which in the preceding number we exhibited in Latin from the common version.

[38] The Saint seems to have procured a law against soothsayers, Pagi, vol. 2 of the Historical-Chronological Critique, from page 92, contends by many arguments that Rome was taken by Alaric not in the year 410, as Baronius and others wish, but 409. Whatever it be, St. Innocent seems to have remained at Ravenna from the time of this embassy up to the second siege of the city of Rome. Perhaps the holy Pontiff on that occasion complained before the emperor of the impious sacrifices which the Roman prefect had wished to perform through the Etruscan soothsayers in the first siege of the city, as we saw above. Certainly Honorius at Ravenna in the year 409 passed a law against the superstitious mathematicians or soothsayers, which in the Godefroy edition, vol. 3 of the Theodosian Codex, page 134, thus sounds: "The mathematicians, unless they are prepared, the codices of their own error being consumed by fire under the eyes of the bishops, to give their pledge to the cult of the Catholic religion, never to return to their past error, we decree to be driven not only from the city of Rome, but also from all cities: but if they do not do this, and be caught in the cities against the salutary constitution of our clemency, or insinuate the secrets of their error and profession, let them undergo the penalty of deportation. Given on the 8th of the Kalends of February at Ravenna, Honorius VIII and Theodosius III Augusti being consuls."

[39] It helps to hear Jacques Godefroy discoursing on this matter, from which fact the calumny of Zosimus is again refuted. however heterodox, who explodes the above-mentioned lie of Zosimus, and judges that this law was issued at the persuasion of the Pontiff, when in his Commentary on it, in the volume just cited, page 135, he thus writes: "Nor is it doubtful to me that by the later embassy, this constitution against the mathematicians was obtained from Honorius, established at Ravenna, addressed to Caecilianus now Praetorian Prefect, by which the mathematicians are ordered to be driven not only from the city of Rome, but also from all cities, and their error is atrociously censured: so that Honorius might make it testified how greatly he disapproved that deed, as most alien from the Christian religion, or as the law speaks, from the cult of the Catholic RELIGION; which on the contrary the pagans clamored had been neglected, and reproached to the Christians: so that therefore from this law we can now easily gather that this stain was falsely and by calumny imposed on Innocent by Zosimus. Nay, I do not doubt that Innocent himself was the very author of this law to Honorius then at Ravenna, both to propitiate the divine Deity, and to wash away the odium of this deed, and lest anything of the kind further happen, and the mathematicians thereafter insinuate the secrets of their error and profession, as this law speaks, and return to their past error. And certainly Orosius, book 7, chapter 39, reports that Innocent, at the time of the imminent Gothic irruption into the city of Rome, like a just Lot withdrawn from Sodom, was placed at Ravenna." The very words of Orosius we gave above at number 5.

* perhaps "to know you"

* others "II"

§ V. His remaining labors for the Church up to his death.

Tillemont, vol. 10 of Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 829, contends that the letters of Innocent to Rufus, bishop of Thessalonica, which are read in the Roman collection of Holstenius, part 1, page 47, Against Tillemont it is shown, were written in the year 407. The oft-praised Pierre Coustant, who inserted the same epistle in vol. 1 of the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs from col. 815, there in his notes thus proposes the conjectures of Tillemont: "The time in which it was written is indicated by the consular note. But that in this note there is a fault, and that for 'Honorius IX AND Theodosius V' should be restored 'Honorius VII AND Theodosius II,' the illustrious man Tillemont, vol. 10, page 829, is of opinion. Whence it would follow that this epistle was written in the year 407. But this opinion he strives to prove by this induction. First indeed he determines that, of the epistles which Innocent wrote to Rufus, this is the first, and was given by him as soon as he was made more certain of Rufus's ordination: which is not to be denied. Then he adds that that Rufus, to whom Innocent now writes, does not seem other than the one to whom the same Pope records, epistle 17 to Marcianus, that he had already given letters concerning the clerics of Naissus. Which being likewise granted, he subjoins: But this epistle to Marcianus Innocent wrote while established at Ravenna, whither he came at the beginning of the year 404, and where in the month of August of the year 410 he still was; nor is there any vestige in history whence we might conjecture that he besides returned to the same city. From which he thinks it follows that neither the ordination of Rufus nor that epistle are to be deferred later than the year 408."

[41] Then he at once thus responds to this negative argument; at what time the epistle to Rufus of Thessalonica was written, "But since by no means all things which happened have been written, and one who once came to Ravenna could also go thither a second and a third time; and since of this matter, the illustrious man himself confessing, in the year 413, in which Heraclian prohibited grain from being carried to Rome, cause and occasion were not wanting: it seems by no means safe to change a certain epoch by an uncertain conjecture. Certainly quite unusual would that slip of the copyists be; that when they had erred in expressing the years of two consuls, who had held the same dignity several times, yet their error in designating their consulates should so aptly cohere, that with the ninth consulate of Honorius they should compose the fifth of Theodosius, not the fourth or third; and vice versa with the fifth of Theodosius the ninth of Honorius, not the seventh or any other whatever." This response so satisfies us that we think the consular note is altogether to be retained, which is thus distinctly subscribed to the epistle: "Given on the 15th of the Kalends of July, Honorius IX and Theodosius V, Augusti, being consuls," that is on the 17th of June, in the year of Christ 412: for Innocent could in the year 413, on account of the grain denied to the Romans, stay some time at Ravenna, and then, though the epistle has no note of time, thus write to Marcianus: "In a former time, if however I rightly remember, I recall that I transmitted such letters concerning the clerics of Naissus both to your dilection and to our brethren and fellow-bishops Rufus and the rest… But now, established for me in the city of Ravenna, on account of the most frequent necessities of the Roman people," etc. Easily too could St. Innocent, amid so many and so various affairs, doubt whether he rightly remembered all those to whom in the past year he had given letters. Concerning certain other epistles of St. Innocent, given about these times, it is disputed whether they were written one or another year later or earlier; but these are not of such moment that they should detain us here longer.

[42] and from the letters of Innocent to the bishops of Macedonia In the year of Christ 414 St. Innocent wrote back to the bishops of Macedonia, and reprehended them somewhat, because they had not acquiesced in his first response: for thus at the beginning of that epistle in Labbe, vol. 2 of the Councils, he speaks: "I noticed that some injury was being done to the Apostolic See, to which the report, as to the head of the churches, ran when sent, whose opinion was still drawn into ambiguity. Whence, concerning those things which I recall having long ago written, now a doubled inquiry of your report compels me to repeat the form with more evident arguments." From these words of the holy Pontiff Baronius, at the year of Christ 414, number 19, thus rightly concludes: "You see from these with how great authority the majesty in the Apostolic See shone forth, that it should be counted in place of an injury, if it were necessary to repeat the same commands once imparted." In the following year that peace, long desired by Innocent, coalesced between the Antiochene and Roman church, concerning which the letters written back and forth everywhere occur among the collectors of councils and of the Pontifical epistles.

[43] and Decentius, bishop of Gubbio, some things are noted. On the 19th of March in the year 416 Innocent gave letters to Decentius, bishop of Gubbio, in whose exordium he says that by the other churches, concerning rites and ceremonies, that is to be kept which by Peter the prince of the Apostles was handed to the Roman Church, since the churches in Gaul, Spain, and other regions were instituted by Peter. In what manner that institution is to be understood, we explained in the Acts of St. James the Greater at the 25th of July. In the same epistle mention is made of the "fermentum," by which name some Catholics understand blessed bread, others, more numerous, the very sacrament of the Eucharist. The opinion of the latter seems to us far more probable, since a little below St. Innocent himself gives such a reason of this matter: "Because the Sacraments are not to be carried far." But that this reason does not hold in the eulogia or blessed bread, is established from the epistles of Augustine and Paulinus of Nola, in which we read that those holy men, from Italy to Africa, and vice versa, sent blessed loaves to one another as an indication of mutual unity or communion. But that by so obscure a word the most august Sacrament is expressed, arises from the discipline of the secret (disciplina arcani), concerning which, after Schelstrate, see Franciscus Pagi in the Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs, vol. 1, from page 130.

[44] The remaining time of his life the holy Pontiff spent in discussing and condemning the errors of Pelagius, as the letters given in this cause by the Africans to Innocent and by Innocent in turn to the Africans sufficiently show. From the letters in the cause of Pelagius But how great was the reverence of the Africans toward the Roman Pontiff, the epistle of the Council of Milevum teaches us, in which to St. Innocent, among other things, in Labbe, vol. 2, they thus write: "But we judge (by the help of the mercy of our Lord God Jesus Christ, which deigns both to guide you consulting and to hear you praying) that by the authority of your holiness, drawn from the clear light of the Scriptures, those who hold such perverse and pernicious opinions will more easily yield, so that we may rather rejoice at their correction than be saddened by their ruin, most blessed Lord. But whatever they choose, your venerability sees that provision must be made instantly and quickly, lest, if it be dissembled by them, they entangle others too, as many as they can, in their snares. These things to your Holiness, written from the council of Numidia, we have directed, imitating the Carthaginian church and our fellow-bishops of the Carthaginian province, whom we have ascertained to have written to the Apostolic See, which you, blessed one, illustrate, concerning this cause." Similar things the epistle of the Council of Carthage has, and another of five bishops, which may be read among the collectors of councils or of the Pontifical epistles.

[45] This authority of the Roman See St. Innocent confirms, when in the praised Labbe, col. 1287, to the synod of Milevum, after other things, he thus writes back: written back and forth "Diligently, therefore, and congruously do you consult the secrets of the Apostolic honor (of that honor, I say, to which, besides those things that are external, there remains the solicitude of all the churches) concerning the anxious matters, what opinion is to be held: namely, following the form of the ancient rule, which you know with me to have been always kept throughout the whole world. But these things I pass over: for I do not believe this hidden from your prudence, who also confirm it by action, knowing that through

all the provinces responses always emanate from the Apostolic font to those seeking. Especially as often as the matter of the faith is ventilated, I judge that all our brethren and fellow-bishops ought to refer to none but Peter, that is, the author of their name and honor, as now your dilection has referred, what can profit all the churches in common throughout the whole world." In almost the same manner he responds to the Council of Carthage, as will be found there.

[46] Certain men envious of the Pontifical authority accuse St. Innocent, the authority of the Roman See is gathered as if in extolling the power of the Roman Church he had exceeded measure. But let those hear St. Augustine, who in epistle 186, number 2, in the most recent edition, vol. 2, col. 506, thus pronounces concerning the responses of St. Innocent: "There were therefore sent concerning this matter, from two councils, the Carthaginian and the Milevitan, reports to the Apostolic See… We wrote also to Pope Innocent of blessed memory, besides the reports of the councils, familiar letters, where concerning the very cause we treated somewhat longer. To all these he wrote back to us in the same manner in which it was right and fitting for a Prelate of the Apostolic See." Would Augustine have written these things, if he had judged that Innocent arrogated to his See an undue power? Was it fitting for the Prelate of the Apostolic See to exact from other churches what did not belong to him? It is not therefore to be doubted but that the prelate of Hippo also approved and praised those things which in the responses of St. Innocent were contained concerning the prerogative of the Roman See.

[47] which from St. Augustine, The mind of that holy Doctor is sufficiently plain from what he brings, book 1 against Julian the Pelagian, chapter 4, in the same edition, vol. 10, col. 331, thus: "I think that that part of the world ought to suffice you, in which the Lord first willed to crown the first of his Apostles with a most glorious martyrdom: whose Church presiding blessed Innocent, if you had wished to hear him, you would already then have stripped your dangerous youth of the Pelagian snares: for what could that holy Man answer to the African councils, but what anciently the Apostolic See, and the Roman with the rest, holds perseveringly?" Do you hear that the judgment of the Roman See ought to suffice to condemn a heresy? Besides, the same holy Doctor, sermon 131, vol. 5 of the same edition, col. 449, judges that after the opinion of the Roman Church concerning doctrine has been pronounced, nothing remains but that recalcitrant men of this kind be made manifest and punished: "Where you shall find such," he says, "do not wish to hide them; let there not be in you a perverse mercy; utterly, where you shall find such, do not wish to hide them. Refute the gainsayers, and bring those resisting to us: for now concerning this cause two councils have been sent to the Apostolic See; thence too rescripts have come. The cause is finished: would that at some time the error may be finished." These things let the innovators of our time attentively weigh.

[48] and is confirmed by the African councils, But if to certain cavillers the authority of St. Augustine does not suffice, and perhaps even to them the testimony of St. Innocent, speaking in his own cause, is suspect, let them at least hear how three councils of Africa acknowledge the same prerogative of the Roman See: for thus in Labbe, vol. 6 of the Councils, col. 128, all the bishops from three synods of the African province in the year 649 write to Pope Theodore: "That a great and unfailing font, overflowing to all Christians with streams, stands at the Apostolic See, no one can doubt, from which flow abundant rivulets, most largely irrigating the whole world of Christians, to which also, in honor of the most blessed Peter, the decrees of the Fathers have decreed all special reverence in inquiring into the things of God, which altogether and solicitously ought, but most of all justly, to be examined by that very Apostolic summit of prelates, whose ancient solicitude it is both to condemn evil things and to approve things to be praised: for by the ancient rules it is sanctioned that whatever be transacted even in remote or far-distant provinces, is not first to be treated or accepted, unless it had been brought to the notice of your nurturing See, that by its authority whatever the just pronouncement had been might be confirmed, and thence the other churches might take, as from their native font, the beginning of preaching, and through the diverse regions of the whole world the sacraments of incorrupt purity of faith of salvation may remain *." The whole epistle, which here for the sake of brevity I do not transcribe, deserves to be read with attentive mind. From it certainly anyone, not addicted to party-zeal, will easily understand that the African bishops acknowledged in the Roman Pontiff the same power which St. Innocent attributed to himself.

[49] Erasmus of Rotterdam, as above in §1 I advised, in these letters of St. Innocent requires greater elegance and erudition, and the sincerity of these letters is proved. while meanwhile St. Augustine concerning these very writings of Innocent thus speaks: "To all these he wrote back to us in the same manner in which it was right and fitting for a Prelate of the Apostolic See." Was the holy Pontiff perhaps obliged to employ the Erasmian style of writing, that he might please that semi-Christian Aristarchus? But perhaps he wished by this censure to render those epistles of St. Innocent suspect of forgery. However it is, more valid with us is the grave judgment of the one St. Augustine than the rash critique of many censors of that kind, although that critique is with some heterodox of such weight that on account of it Robert Coke in the Censure of certain writers, page 112, does not fear to call these letters of Innocent into doubt. At least in this matter more prudent among the non-Catholics was David Blondel, who in his Pseudo-Isidore, page 562, concerning these three epistles of Innocent thus writes: "Although Erasmus is compelled to desire in these epistles a diction, genius, and erudition worthy of such a Prelate, yet that they are genuine is most certain." Then he cites ancient monuments in which they are recorded, and thus concludes: "There is not, therefore, reason why anyone should indulge suspicions, relying on the judgment of Erasmus."

* perhaps "remain" (manent)

§ VI. The year and day of death, the place of burial, and relics.

The holy Pontiff not long after the condemnation of the Pelagians, from which he obtained so great glory, The year of death is assigned, that no addition could seem able to be made to him thereafter, in the year 417 migrated to the heavens. Panvinio and Papebroch wrongly marked his death in the year 416, as the most eminent Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 417, number 4, proves in these words: "But that in truth Innocent himself died in this year, against the assertion of those who wish him to have died in the previous year, this indeed evidently demonstrate his letters given in this year under the said consuls Honorius and Constantius to the Council of Milevum on the sixth of the Kalends of February, which we mentioned before. There is added besides the authority of Marcellinus Comes, who under the consuls of this year places Zosimus substituted for Innocent. Further, that Innocent by no means passed beyond this year, the letters of Pope Zosimus given in this year manifestly declare." Noris, book 1 of the Pelagian History, chapter 11, thus assigns the same time: "Certainly the opinion of Panvinio is evidently refuted by the subscription of the letters of St. Innocent to the synod of Milevum, among the epistles of Augustine, 93: for they are said to be given on the SIXTH of the Kalends of February, Honorius and Constantius, most illustrious men, being consuls. Plainly the present year 417 is designated, in which Honorius held the 11th, and Constantius the second consulate: for the first time he was consul here with Constans in the year 414; the third time with Theodosius Augustus in the year 420." Our Henschen, Pagi, and others everywhere adhere to Baronius concerning this year of the Innocentian death.

[51] But not so easily do they agree with him concerning the day of death, and diverse which Baronius in the Annals, in the place just cited, thus determines: "In this year, therefore," he says, "on the fifth of the Kalends of August, the same Pope Innocent died, when he had sat fifteen years, one month, and ten days: for that on that day he put an end to the present life, not only the book on the Roman Pontiffs hands down, but also the Roman Martyrology makes credible, when on that very day it celebrates his passage to God." Pierre Coustant, vol. 1 of the Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, col. 737, assails this opinion, thus writing of St. Innocent: "But he obtained singular glory by the constant defense of John Chrysostom. This he then increased not moderately by the reconciliation and peace of the Antiochene and other Eastern churches, and lastly crowned by the solemn condemnation of the Pelagians: which that he accomplished in the year 417, at the end of January, since it is established by the authority of his own letters, and since that Zosimus administered the Roman church before the month of April of the same year 417 is from the letters of this Pope no less undoubted, it remains that the death of Innocent is to be marked in the year 417, and indeed in that interval which is interposed between the month of January and April. Neither therefore can these be composed either with the 28th of July, as Baronius, following the ancient Pontifical books, judged, or with the 21st of December, as it pleased Bolland (that is, Papebroch), on the credit of some Martyrologies… But nothing can be desired more evident or more certain against the opinions of Baronius and Bolland than the testimony of Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum in Sicily, who indeed, writing to Pope Leo in epistle 3, expressly teaches that Zosimus in the year 417, while Easter was being celebrated, held the pontificate of the Roman church."

[52] opinions of writers This testimony of Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, which Noris in the Pelagian History, book 1, chapter 11, exhibits, would rightly be urged against Bolland, or rather Papebroch, if he had with Baronius assigned the year 417 to the Innocentian death. But Papebroch in his Chronological-historical Endeavor at the catalogue of the Pontiffs, with Panvinio, binds the death of St. Innocent to the year 416; and indeed he judges that he died on the 21st of December of that year, because on that day in some ancient Martyrologies a certain St. Innocent is announced at Rome, as in §1 of this collection we saw. This argument therefore makes nothing against the opinion of Papebroch, who admits that Zosimus in the year 417 before Easter succeeded St. Innocent. More do the Innocentian epistles press him, which in the cause of Pelagius are said to be given to the Africans at the beginning of the year 417. But Papebroch thinks that from them nothing certain can be determined for chronology, since the subscriptions of those letters in certain exemplars are read changed and corrupted. But if you say that in his system the fifteen years of the Innocentian Pontificate are not found; he will answer that they are computed by round number thus, because little was wanting, or in certain chronicles of Prosper only fourteen are numbered, as above at number 16 we said. Hence I conclude that the conjecture of Papebroch was not so greatly to be despised by Tillemont, although I judge the opinion of our Henschen and others much more probable.

[53] are reported concerning the day of death, Pagi in the Critique at the year of Christ 417, number 5, thus assigns a determined day to the Innocentian death: "But that Innocent died on the 12th of March, is deduced from the Martyrologies, the Roman published by Rosweyde, the most ancient of all that have come to us, the Hieronymian dug out of darkness by Florentinius, another old one attributed to St. Jerome, which is read in vol. 4 of the Dacherian Spicilegium, another most ancient one edited by Holstenius with the Acts of the holy martyrs Felicitas and Perpetua, from the Martyrology of Ado, Notker, Bede, not

indeed the genuine, but the common one, from the appendix of Ado, from ancient manuscripts in Galesinius, and the manuscript Martyrology of the queen of Sweden, and several other manuscripts recited by Bolland at the 12th of March in the Life of SS. Innocent and Rasus, bishops. Wherefore Anastasius, who says that Innocent was buried at the hatted Bear on the 5th of the Kalends of August, is to be understood of some translation of him. The author of the Hieronymian Martyrology, who makes mention of his deposition at the 12th of March and at the 21st of December, records both his day of death and the day of some other translation." Rightly would Pagi reason, if it were certainly established that in the Hieronymian Martyrologies St. Innocent the Pope is recorded. But what if on the 12th of March and the 21st of December some other St. Innocent is treated in them? What if our Innocent is nowhere inserted in the most ancient Hieronymian Martyrologies? What if the first to mark the name of the Saint and the day of the 12th of March was the author of the Rosweydian Martyrology, which Pagi wrongly calls the most ancient of all that have come to us? Yet I would not with difficulty admit that our St. Innocent died at the beginning of March or perhaps on the 12th day of that month, since these things do not conflict with the ancient catalogue of our Henschen, as above at number 18 we showed. Only I contend that this day of death is not so certain as Pagi and Noris judged.

[54] Certainly my conjecture concerning some other St. Innocent ought not to seem altogether improbable, which is not so far certain. since Claude Castellan indicated to our Papebroch that there exists at Paris the noble house of the Brancas, commonly the Hôtel de Brancas, in whose chapel is held a holy body, sent from Rome by the gift of Cardinal Brancati, together with a sepulchral marble, on which is inscribed "of St. Innocent the bishop," and found in the tomb with twelve earthenware lamps by which it is now surrounded. But so is that St. Innocent honored at Paris, that his cult is bound to no fixed day of the year. That saint seems diverse from St. Innocent the Roman Pontiff, because it is not probable that the Romans would so easily permit that the body of their holy Pontiff be translated to another region, whose burial they knew at Rome, and which they think to possess hitherto, as will be plain from the following.

[55] Anastasius Bibliothecarius, after the eulogy of St. Innocent the Pontiff, at the end asserts concerning him The opinion of Aringhi is proposed that he was buried "at the hatted Bear." Concerning this place of burial Aringhi, vol. 1 of Subterranean Rome, book 2, chapter 19, thus discourses: "From all which it manifestly indeed appears that a cemetery once existed on the Portuensian way at the hatted Bear, far diverse however from the other of the same name, which was on the Esquiline at the church of St. Bibiana. Here meanwhile the reader is to be advised that where in Bibliothecarius concerning Anastasius the first it is read: 'Who indeed was buried in his cemetery at the hatted Bear'; and concerning Innocent the first: 'Who also was buried at the hatted Bear'; that is by no means to be understood of the cemetery on the Esquiline, but of that situated on the Portuensian way, without doubt: for in a very ancient manuscript codex of the Vatican library, once of the monastery of Cava, is held a little index of the places where the supreme Pontiffs of old were laid, and these two indeed are read to have been deposited together at once in the mentioned cemetery of the Portuensian way at the hatted Bear. And there are there expressed these notes:

AT THE HATTED BEAR, PORT

ANASTASIUS

INNOCENTIUS

[56] Then, after the translation of St. Anastasius the Pontiff, made by Pope Paschal the first, concerning the ancient place of Innocent's burial, he thus proceeds: "The very same thing plainly must be affirmed by us concerning the body of Pope St. Innocent, which by Sergius the second (as the same Bibliothecarius testifies) was translated into the title of Equitius, and together with it afterward (as in the stone there inscribed is read) the body of the same St. Anastasius was laid away, so that those which had lain in the same cemetery on the Portuensian way should here alike, both entombed together, rest." The argument which Aringhi afterward brings forward from the testimony of William of Malmesbury, book 4 On the Deeds of the English, chapter 2, presses little, since in our edition it is not read "Candida and Innocentius," as Aringhi cites, but "Candida and Innocentia," who seem to be martyrs of the female sex.

[57] and it is reported where today the sacred body rests, Whatever it be concerning the former place of burial, Antonio Filippini the Carmelite, in an Italian booklet on the church of Saints Silvester and Martin in the mountains, page 77, exhibits the words there carved on a stone, which thus sound: "In the times of the lord Pope Sergius the Younger, there were laid away in this sacred altar the bodies of blessed Silvester and Martin, Pontiffs… Likewise the bodies of Sisinnius, Anastasius, and Innocent, pontiffs," etc. The most eminent Baronius in the Annals at the year of Christ 847, number 4, sets forth almost the same inscription, which he judges to have been written a little above at that very time (namely of Sergius II the Pontiff). We do not deny that this inscription is somewhat ancient; but we shall not easily believe that these characters were carved on that marble tablet in the time of Pope Sergius II: for Schelstrate and other erudite men, who had curiously examined it, answered from Rome to Papebroch that that inscription did not seem more ancient than three hundred years. Nay, our Janning, having also imitated the characters, described that same tablet at Rome, which Papebroch in the Paralipomena to the Endeavor at the catalogues of the Pontiffs, page 68, exhibited with the abbreviations and the form of the letters, as far as could be done by print. But whether this inscription be more ancient or more recent, we think that the body of St. Innocent rests there hitherto, although some sacred bones were communicated to others, as will now be seen.

[58] some parts of which, however, were translated elsewhere. Besides the sacred remains of St. Innocent, which Masini in his Bologna Surveyed assigns today, I learned from the Life of St. Godehard, bishop of Hildesheim, which in our work we illustrated at the 4th of May, that some bones of the same holy Pontiff were once carried into Saxony: for in vol. 1 of that month, page 508, it is thus read: "A certain Saxon duke, Ludolph by name, with his wife Oda, by the counsel and license of St. Altfrid, the fourth bishop of our church, made for Rome, and brought back the relics of the holy prelates Anastasius and Innocent obtained from blessed Pope Sergius: in whose honor he constructed a monastery and convent of virgins first at Brunshausen, then four years later at Gandersheim." That here there is treatment of the relics of our St. Innocent is clear from Alberic, monk of Trois-Fontaines, who in his chronicle of the Leibniz edition at the year of Christ 859, page 189, thus expressly writes: "At this time Leuthulph, duke of the Saxons, father of the dukes Bruno and Otto, grandfather of Henry the first king of the Romans, translated the body of Innocent the first Pope from Rome into Saxony." By "body" here, in a manner sufficiently usual, understand a part of the body, as clearly indicates Roswitha, the ancient poetess of Saxony, who in her poem on the foundation of the convent of Gandersheim, in Leibniz, vol. 2 of the Brunswick writers, page 322, introduces Sergius the Pontiff thus answering the duke of Saxony:

Here were once two powerful rulers, Anastasius, most holy prelate of this see, And his fellow-apostolic sacred Innocent, Who, after the shepherd Peter and Paul the master, Shone famous by the supreme merits of the Church; Whose bodies are kept with such great care Hitherto by all the rulers of this city, That no one has ever withdrawn even a particle, The full number of the sacred members remaining. But because by right I ought to concede to pious prayers, I will freely give you pledges of both, CUT off openly from the sacred bodies themselves.

Several German chronicles have made mention of the same translation of relics. And these are the things which concerning that most holy Pontiff I could gather.