Part 32

_Anastasius_ ascribes to _Damasus_ the Custom of Singing, instead of Reading, the Psalms at Divine Service[1215]. But it is manifest from _Austin_, that this Practice was brought from the East, and first complied with by the Church of _Milan_[1216], in the Year 386. that is, Two Years after the Death of _Damasus_. So long as _Damasus_ lived, _Jerom_ continued at _Rome_; but as, by his Learning and exemplary Life, he was an Eye-sore to the lewd, ignorant, and haughty Clergy of _Rome_, or as he styles them, _the Senate of Pharisees_[1217], he thought it adviseable to abandon the City upon the Death of his great Friend and Protector, and retire to _Jerusalem_, hoping to find there that Quiet and Tranquillity which he despaired of being able to enjoy while he dwelt with _the Scarlet Whore_[1218], that is, while he lived at _Rome_. [Sidenote: _His Character._] As for the Character of _Damasus_; _Jerom_ styles him, _a Virgin Doctor of the Virgin Church_; and, in his Letter to _Eustochium_, _a Man of great Excellence_. _Theodoret_ commends him as a Man of a holy Life, as one who declined no Fatigue or Labour to support and maintain the Doctrine of the Apostles, and who struck the _Arians_ with Terror, though he attacked them at a Distance[1219]. Elsewhere he calls him the _famous Damasus_[1220], and places him at the Head of the most celebrated Teachers of Truth, who, till his Time, had appeared in the West[1221]. That _Greek_ Writer could not be biassed in his Favour, though _Jerom_ perhaps was. The Orientals declared, in 431. that they followed the Example of _Damasus_, and other Persons eminent for Learning[1222]; and the Council of _Chalcedon_, speaking of his Letter to _Paulinus_ of _Antioch_, styles him the Honour and Glory of _Rome_ for Piety and Justice[1223]. The Church of _Rome_ honours him as a Saint, and his Festival is kept in some Places on the 10th, in others on the 11th of _December_. But, after all, that he got the Pontificate by the most horrible Violence and Bloodshed; that he lived in great State; that he had frequent and grand Entertainments; that he kept a Table, which, in Sumptuousness, vied with the Tables of the Emperors themselves; and all this at the Expence of the _Roman_ Ladies, whose generous Contributions might have been applied to better Uses; is affirmed by contemporary and unexceptionable Writers. It is likewise manifest from the Letters of _Jerom_, that in his Time the Discipline of the Church was greatly relaxed; that the Observance of the primitive Canons was almost utterly neglected; and that Luxury, Ignorance, and Debauchery, universally prevailed among the Ecclesiastics at _Rome_. And this Charge against his Clergy in some degree recoils upon him, since he appears to have carried the Papal Authority farther than any of his Predecessors, and therefore might have restrained and corrected them. Whether his Sanctity may not from all this be justly questioned, notwithstanding the favourable Testimony of some antient Writers, I leave the Reader to judge.

Footnote 977:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 978:

Bar. 384. 16. in appar. ad annal.

Footnote 979:

Boll. 21 Feb. p. 244.

Footnote 980:

Marcell. & Faust. p. 3.

Footnote 981:

Id. p. 3-5.

Footnote 982:

Bar. ad ann. 357. n. 60. & ad ann. 367. n. 8.

Footnote 983:

Id. ad ann. 359. n. 48.

Footnote 984:

Marc. & Faust. p. 18. 100. 103. Gennad. c. 16.

Footnote 985:

Marc. & Faust. p. 5, 6.

Footnote 986:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 8.

Footnote 987:

Ibid. p. 68, 69. 71.

Footnote 988:

Amb. ep. 11. tom. 5.

Footnote 989:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 990:

Socr. l. 4. c. 24.

Footnote 991:

Ruff. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 992:

Marc. & Faust. p. 5, 6.

Footnote 993:

Id. p. 6, 7.

Footnote 994:

Ruff. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 995:

Ammian. Mar. l. 27. p. 337.

Footnote 996:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 997:

Ammian. ib.

Footnote 998:

Marc. & Faust. p. 9.

Footnote 999:

Hier. ep. 5. t. 2.

Footnote 1000:

Hier. ep. 49.

Footnote 1001:

Ruf. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 1002:

Ammian. l. 27. p. 337.

Footnote 1003:

Idem ib. p. 337, 338.

Footnote 1004:

Hier. ep. 61. t. 2.

Footnote 1005:

Aug. ep. 86. Bar. ann. 367. n. 10.

Footnote 1006:

Marc. & Faust. p. 6-9.

Footnote 1007:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 368. n. 4.

Footnote 1008:

Marc. & Faust. p. 9, 10.

Footnote 1009:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1010:

Ammian. l. 27. p. 349.

Footnote 1011:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 80.

Footnote 1012:

Id. p. 81.

Footnote 1013:

Blond. Prim. p. 165.

Footnote 1014:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 80.

Footnote 1015:

Marc. & Faust. p. 10 Bar. ad ann. 368.

Footnote 1016:

Id. p. 10, 11.

Footnote 1017:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 368. n. 3.

Footnote 1018:

Marc. & Faust. p. 11, 12.

Footnote 1019:

Ath. ad Afr. p. 931.

Footnote 1020:

Id. ib. p. 931-941.

Footnote 1021:

Cod. Theod. 16. t. 2 l. 20 p. 48.

Footnote 1022:

Hier. ep. 2. p. 13.

Footnote 1023:

Amb. ep. 12. t. 5. p. 200.

Footnote 1024:

Hier. ep. 22.

Footnote 1025:

Id. ep. 3.

Footnote 1026:

Id. ep. 2.

Footnote 1027:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1028:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1029:

Bar. ad ann. 370. n. 118.

Footnote 1030:

Vide Cod. Theod. t. 6. p. 50.

Footnote 1031:

Cod. Theod. nov. 16. t. 2. l. 22. p. 50.

Footnote 1032:

Socr. l. 4. c. 15. Soz. l. 6. c. 13. Theod. l. 4. c. 21. Naz. or. 20.

Footnote 1033:

Socr. l. 2. c. 45. Theod. l. 2. c. 27. ep. 73. c. 28. Hier. chron.

Footnote 1034:

Soz. l. 4. c. 28.

Footnote 1035:

Chrys. or. 45.

Footnote 1036:

Chrys. ib. Epiph. c. 38. Soz. l. 4. c. 28. Theod. l. 2. c. 27. Philost. l. 5. c. 5.

Footnote 1037:

Socr. l. 2. c. 44. Theod. l. 3. c. 12.

Footnote 1038:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 20. Socr. l. 3. c. 6.

Footnote 1039:

Bar. ad ann. 362. n. 180.

Footnote 1040:

Id. ib. n. 206.

Footnote 1041:

Athan. de Ant. p. 574-577.

Footnote 1042:

Hier. chron.

Footnote 1043:

Ath. ep. ad Solit. & de Antioch. Eccl. p. 580.

Footnote 1044:

Ruf. l. i. c. 27. Theod. l. 3. c. 2.

Footnote 1045:

Id. ib. c. 30.

Footnote 1046:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1047:

Id. ib. Theod. l. 3. c. 2.

Footnote 1048:

Basil. ep. 320.

Footnote 1049:

Id. ep. 2. 73.

Footnote 1050:

Id. ep. 250.

Footnote 1051:

Id. ep. 321.

Footnote 1052:

Id. ep. 8.

Footnote 1053:

Id. ep. 10.

Footnote 1054:

Hom. Il. 9. ver. 694.

Footnote 1055:

Basil. ep. 10.

Footnote 1056:

Cod. Theod. 9. t. 29. l. 1. p. 221.

Footnote 1057:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 91.

Footnote 1058:

Marc. & Faust. p. 65-69.

Footnote 1059:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1060:

Basil. ep. 293. Epiph. 77. c. 24. Hier. vir. ill. c. 104.

Footnote 1061:

Suidas, p. 273.

Footnote 1062:

Soz. l. 6. c. 25.

Footnote 1063:

Nil. l. 1. ep. 257.

Footnote 1064:

Basil. ep. 82.

Footnote 1065:

Hier. ep. 65.

Footnote 1066:

Soz. l. 5. c. 18.

Footnote 1067:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1068:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1069:

Voss. poet. Græc. c. 9. p. 76. Baillet. t. 6. p. 453. 455.

Footnote 1070:

Soz. l. 6. c. 25.

Footnote 1071:

Naz. or. 52. p. 745.

Footnote 1072:

Epiph. 77. c. 23. Theod. hær. 4. c. 8. Ath. de incar. p. 615. Nem. l. 1. p. 710. Naz. orat. 46. p. 722.

Footnote 1073:

Aug. in Jo. hom. 47.

Footnote 1074:

Naz. or. 52. p. 749.

Footnote 1075:

Nys. in Apol. l. 2. p. 47. Naz. car. 146.

Footnote 1076:

Athan. ad Epiph. 582. Aug. pers. c. 24. & hær. 55. Theod. l. 5. c. 3. Naz. or. 51.

Footnote 1077:

Ath. ib. p. 583. Naz. or. 46. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257. Theod. l. 5. c. 3.

Footnote 1078:

Leont. p. 1031.

Footnote 1079:

Id. p. 1032.

Footnote 1080:

Id. p. 1035.

Footnote 1081:

Id. p. 1042.

Footnote 1082:

Ep. 77. c. 20. Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Soz. l. 6. c. 25. Chron. Alex. p. 688.

Footnote 1083:

Epiph. 77. c. 20. Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Naz. or. 52.

Footnote 1084:

Vet. Rom. eccles. mon. collect. p. 181.

Footnote 1085:

Ib. p. 180. & Theod. l. 5. c. 10.

Footnote 1086:

Conc. t. 4. p. 826.

Footnote 1087:

Naz. or. 51.

Footnote 1088:

Theod. l. 5. c. 4. Facund. l. 4. c. 2.

Footnote 1089:

Nil. ep. 257.

Footnote 1090:

Basil. ep. 293. Epiph. 77. c. 34.

Footnote 1091:

Epiph. 66. c. 20. 77. c. 2.

Footnote 1092:

Basil. ep. 293. Soz. l. 6. c. 25.

Footnote 1093:

Basil. ib.

Footnote 1094:

Naz. or. 46, & 5. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257.

Footnote 1095:

Basil. ep. 74.

Footnote 1096:

Id. ep. 74.

Footnote 1097:

Ruff. l. 2. c. 20. Soz. l. 6. c. 25.

Footnote 1098:

Ruff. ib. Theod. p. 719. Concil. t. 5. p. 741. Leon. Sulp. p. 1042. Phot. p. 231.

Footnote 1099:

Greg. Naz. or. 52.

Footnote 1100:

Ruff. ib.

Footnote 1101:

Martyrol. Rom. 22 Feb.

Footnote 1102:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 33.

Footnote 1103:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1104:

Revel. c. xx.

Footnote 1105:

Bar. ad ann. 118. n. 2. & 373. n. 14.

Footnote 1106:

Ruf. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 1107:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 99. Prædestinat. de hæres. c. 55.

Footnote 1108:

Naz. ep. 77.

Footnote 1109:

Cod. Theod. 16. t. 5. l. 14. p. 130.

Footnote 1110:

Soz. l. 6. c. 26.

Footnote 1111:

Theod. l. 5. c. 3.

Footnote 1112:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1113:

Leo, ep. 134. c. 2. Pet. dog. t. 4. p. 24.

Footnote 1114:

Conc. t. 4. p. 886, 887.

Footnote 1115:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 104. Nil. l. 1. ep. 257. Greg. Nyss. in Eph. t. 3. p. 609.

Footnote 1116:

Amb. ep. 4.

Footnote 1117:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 82. 92.

Footnote 1118:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 84-92.

Footnote 1119:

Ib. p. 82-93.

Footnote 1120:

Opt. l. 2. p. 49. Aug. de Unit. c. 3. t. 7. & ep. Hier. 165. chron.

Footnote 1121:

Opt. l. 2. p. 49.

Footnote 1122:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 83, 84.

Footnote 1123:

Ibid. p. 85-87.

Footnote 1124:

Ibid. p. 87-89.

Footnote 1125:

Ibid. p. 90, 91.

Footnote 1126:

Bellar. de summ. Pont. l. 4. c. 24. Aug. Triumph. de potest. Eccles. in præf. ad Joh. XXII. Concil. Later. sub Leone X.

Footnote 1127:

Grat. dist. 40. c. 6.

Footnote 1128:

Bonif. VIII. in ap. ad Mart. Polon. & Conc. Vienn. p. 909.

Footnote 1129:

Pius V. in Bull. apud Cam. ad ann. 1570.

Footnote 1130:

Sixt. V. in Bull. contr. Hen. Navar.

Footnote 1131:

Bonif. VIII. extrav. com. l. 1. tit. 8. c. 1.

Footnote 1132:

Bellar. ap. p. 202.

Footnote 1133:

Amb. ep. 4.

Footnote 1134:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 1135:

Cod. Theod. ch. p. 104.

Footnote 1136:

Amb. ib.

Footnote 1137:

Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 9. Concil. t. 2. p. 947.

Footnote 1138:

Concil. ib.

Footnote 1139:

Zon. in can. p. 70. 72.

Footnote 1140:

Concil. t. 4. p. 795-798.

Footnote 1141:

Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 37, 38.

Footnote 1142:

Concil. t. 4. p. 826.

Footnote 1143:

Leo, ep. 53. c. 5.

Footnote 1144:

Greg. 5. ep. 31.

Footnote 1145:

Theod. l. 5. c. 9.

Footnote 1146:

Conc. t. 4. p. 945.

Footnote 1147:

Conc. t. 4. p. 809. Marca de concord. sacerd. & imp. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 1148:

Lup. ep. 53. c. 5.

Footnote 1149:

Greg. l. 6. ep. 31.

Footnote 1150:

Id. l. 1. ep. 24.

Footnote 1151:

Theod. l. 5. c. 6. Naz. or. 14. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 1152:

Ep. syn. conc. t. 1. p. 872.

Footnote 1153:

Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 20.

Footnote 1154:

Id. ib. n. 19.

Footnote 1155:

Lup. notæ in can. 1, 2. p. 74.

Footnote 1156:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 281. n. 37.

Footnote 1157:

Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Soz. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 1158:

Theod. l. 5. c. 2. 6, & 7.

Footnote 1159:

Nyss. de Mel. p. 587.

Footnote 1160:

Id. ib. p. 589. & Naz. car. 1. p. 27.

Footnote 1161:

Vide Lup. t. 1. p. 275.

Footnote 1162:

Theod. l. 5. c. 6.

Footnote 1163:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 76, 77.

Footnote 1164:

Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3.

Footnote 1165:

Naz. car. 1. p. 24-26.

Footnote 1166:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1167:

Id. ib. p. 27.

Footnote 1168:

Vide Theod. l. 5. c. 9. & Cod. Theod. ap. p. 164.

Footnote 1169:

Naz. ep. 15.

Footnote 1170:

Id. or. 32.

Footnote 1171:

Theod. l. 5. c. 8. Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Ruff. l. 2. c. 21. Soz. l. 7. c. 8, & 10.

Footnote 1172:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 75-78. Theodor. l. 5. c. 9.

Footnote 1173:

Theodor. l. 5. c. 9.

Footnote 1174:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 103-107.

Footnote 1175:

Naz. or. 23. & car. 148.

Footnote 1176:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1177:

Id. car. 1. p. 14, 15. & or. 28.

Footnote 1178:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 104-107.

Footnote 1179:

Vide Holsten. coll. vet. Rom. eccles. monument. p. 37-40.

Footnote 1180:

Cod. Theod. ap. p. 99-101.

Footnote 1181:

Hier. ep. 27. Theod. l. 5. c. 9.

Footnote 1182:

Hier. ep. 16. Theodor. l. 5. c. 9. Ambr. ep. 22.

Footnote 1183:

Soz. l. 7. c. 11. Holst. coll. t. 2. p. 37. Ruf. de orig. lib. adulter. p. 197.

Footnote 1184:

Theodor. l. 5. c. 23. Socr. l. 5. c. 10.

Footnote 1185:

Mercat. opera, t. 2. p. 86. n. 5.

Footnote 1186:

Soz. l. 7. c. 11. Theodor. l. 5. c. 23.

Footnote 1187:

Theodor. l. 5. c. 8.

Footnote 1188:

Vide Christ. Lup. de Rom. Apell. p. 627, 628.

Footnote 1189:

Coll. Rom. Holsten. p. 43.

Footnote 1190:

Ibid. p. 48, 49.

Footnote 1191:

De Marc. concord. sacerd. & imp. l. 6. c. 5.

Footnote 1192:

Leo, ep. 48.

Footnote 1193:

Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 1194:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1195:

Coll. Rom. Holsten. p. 145.

Footnote 1196:

Ibid. p. 46-49.

Footnote 1197:

Bell. ib.

Footnote 1198:

Sym. l. 10 ep. 34.

Footnote 1199:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 103.

Footnote 1200:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 1201:

Aring. l. 3. c. 12. n. 16.

Footnote 1202:

Vide Bar. in app. ann. 384. n. 25.

Footnote 1203:

Front. cal. p. 50. Bar. ad ann. 384. n. 16.

Footnote 1204:

Aring. l. 3. c. 12.

Footnote 1205:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 103.

Footnote 1206:

Bar. ad ann. 584. n. 21.

Footnote 1207:

Bolland. propyl. p. 59.

Footnote 1208:

Id. ib. & Du Pin. Biblioth. p. 459.

Footnote 1209:

Holsten coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 37, & 180.

Footnote 1210:

Hier. ep. 124, & 144.

Footnote 1211:

Id. ep. 11. Ruff. de Orig. p. 197.

Footnote 1212:

Hier. ep. 144.

Footnote 1213:

Id. ep. 146.

Footnote 1214:

Id. ep. 144.

Footnote 1215:

Anast. c. 38.

Footnote 1216:

Aug. confess. l. 9. c. 7.

Footnote 1217:

Hier. in præf. version. Did. de Spir. Sanct.

Footnote 1218:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1219:

Theod. l. 5. c. 2. & l. 4. c. 27.

Footnote 1220:

Id. ep. 144.

Footnote 1221:

Id. ep. 145.

Footnote 1222:

Concil. t. 3. p. 740.

Footnote 1223:

Concil. t. 4. p. 82.

VALENTINIAN, SYRICIUS, ARCADIUS, THEODOSIUS, _Thirty-seventh_ BISHOP _of_ HONORIUS. Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 384. ]

_Syricius_, the Successor of _Damasus_, according to the Pontificals, and some antient Monuments quoted and received by _Baronius_[1224], was a Native of _Rome_, the Son of one _Tiburtius_, had been first Reader, and afterwards Deacon, under _Liberius_, and, upon his Death, had zealously espoused the Cause of _Damasus_ against _Ursinus_ and his Party. _Damasus_ being dead, he was chosen in his room by the unanimous Acclamations of the whole _Roman_ People, being at that time Presbyter of the Church known by the Title of _the Pastor_, perhaps the most antient Church in _Rome_[1225]. _Ursinus_, who was still alive, did not fail, upon the Vacancy of the See, to revive his former Claim; but he was rejected with Scorn and Indignation. _Valentinian_ the younger, who then reigned in _Italy_ under the Direction of his Mother _Justina_, received the News of this Election with great Joy; and, concluding from the Unanimity of the Electors, the Worth and Merit of the Person elected, confirmed _Syricius_ in his new Dignity, by a Rescript dated the 23d of _February_, and directed to _Piaianus_, at that Time either Prefect or Vicar of _Rome_[1226][N20].

Footnote N20:

_Damasus_ died on the 10th or 11th of _December_ 384. as I have related above; and _Syricius_ was chosen the same Year, as we read in the Chronicle of _Prosper_. _Anastasius_ therefore, and the Author of the Pontifical published by _Bollandus_, as well as _Baronius_, were certainly mistaken in affirming, upon what Grounds I know not, that, upon the Death of _Damasus_, the See remained vacant for the Space of 31 or 36 Days[N20.1].

Footnote N20.1:

Anast. p. 21. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32. Bar. ib. n. 5.

[Sidenote: _His Answer to_ Himerius _Bishop of_ Tarragon.]

The first Thing I read of _Syricius_ is his answering a Letter or Relation which _Himerius_, Bishop of _Tarragon_ in _Spain_, had sent to _Damasus_ by _Bassianus_, a Presbyter of that Church, requiring the Advice of the Church of _Rome_ concerning some Points of Discipline, and certain Abuses that prevailed in _Spain_. _Damasus_ being dead before the Arrival of _Bassianus_, _Syricius_, who had succeeded him, caused this Relation or Letter to be read, and carefully examined, in an Assembly of his Brethren, that is, perhaps, of the Bishops who had assisted at his Ordination; and, having maturely weighed and considered every Article, he first acquainted _Himerius_ with his Promotion, and then returned to each the following Answers[1227]. The First was concerning the Sacrament of Baptism, which was by some Bishops of _Spain_ rejected as null and invalid, when conferred by an _Arian_ Minister. In Opposition to them, _Syricius_ alleges the Authority of _Liberius_, and of the Council of _Nice_, the Practice of the Church of _Rome_, and that of all other Churches both in the East and West[1228]. _Isidorus_ of _Seville_ takes particular notice of this Point of Discipline, which he says was established by the Letter of _Syricius_[1229]. By the Second Article he forbids the Sacrament of Baptism to be administred at _Christmas_, or the _Epiphany_, on the Feasts of the Apostles or Martyrs, or at any other Time but _Easter_, and during the _Pentecost_ of that Festival, meaning, in all Likelihood, all _Easter_ time, or the Fifty Days between _Easter_ and _Pentecost_, or _Whitsuntide_; for such, adds he, is the Practice of the Church of _Rome_, and of all other Churches. From this Rule, however, he excepts Children, and all Persons, who are any-ways in Danger[1230]. By the Third Article, he forbids granting the Grace of Reconciliation to Apostates, that is, forgiving and readmitting them to the Communion of the Church, except at the Point of Death[1231]. By the Fourth, a Woman, who, being betrothed to one Man, has received the Priest’s Blessing to marry him, is debarred from marrying another. The Fifth Article commands all Persons, who, being guilty of a Crime, have performed Penance for it, to be treated as the Apostates, if they relapse into the same Crime; and the Sixth, all religious Persons, whether Men or Women, guilty of Fornication, to be dealt with in the same Manner, and, moreover, to be excluded from partaking of the sacred Mysteries, that is, of the Eucharist, except at the Point of Death[1232]. How different is the present Practice of the Church of _Rome_ from that of the same Church in the Fourth Century! which was perhaps even too severe.

[Sidenote: _Priests and Deacons obliged to observe Celibacy._]

_Syricius_, by the Seventh Article of his Letter, obliges all Priests and Deacons to observe Celibacy; and as some had not paid due Obedience to that Command of the Church, he allows those who should acknowlege their Fault, and plead Ignorance, to continue in their Rank, though without Hopes of rising: but as for those who should presume to defend this Abuse as lawful, he declares them deposed and degraded from the Rank they held in the Church[1233]: Pope _Innocent_ I. writing to _Exuperius_ Bishop of _Toulouse_, quotes and transcribes great Part of this Article[1234]. The Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Articles describe at length the Life which those ought to have led, who are raised by the Clergy and People to the Episcopal Dignity, and the Steps or Degrees by which they should ascend to it. They ought first to have been Readers; at the Age of Thirty, Acolytes, Subdeacons, and Deacons; Five Years after, Presbyters; and in that Degree they were to continue Ten Years before they could be chosen Bishops. Those who had been married to Two Wives, or to a Widow, are absolutely excluded from ever sitting in the Episcopal See. Even the Lectors are forbidden, on pain of Deposition, to marry twice, or to marry a Widow[1235]. These, and several other less important Regulations, _Syricius_ delivers as general Rules to be inviolably observed by all Churches, often declaring, that those who do not readily comply with them shall be separated from his Communion by the Sentence of a Synod, and strictly injoining the chief Prelates of each Province to take care they be punctually observed within the Bounds of their respective Jurisdictions, on Pain of being deposed, and treated as they deserve. He therefore desires _Himerius_ to notify his Letter, not only to all the Bishops of his Diocese or Province, but likewise to those of _Carthagena_, _Bætica_, _Lusitania_, _Galicia_, and to all the neighbouring Bishops, meaning perhaps those of _Gaul_; for _Innocent_ I. supposes the Decrees of his Predecessor _Syricius_ to be known to _Exuperius_ of _Toulouse_[1236]; and in all Likelihood they were so to others in that Country.

This Letter is the First of all the Decretals acknowleged, by the Learned, to be genuine, and likewise the First in all the antient Collections of the Canons of the _Latin_ Church. It is quoted by _Innocent_ I. and _Isidore_ of _Seville_, and is the only Letter of the many ascribed to _Syricius_, that _Dionysius Exiguus_ has inserted in his Collection. It is to be found in Father _Quesnel_’s _Roman Code_[1237]; and _Cresconius_ quotes no other Decrees of _Syricius_ but what are taken from this Letter. It is dated the Third of the Ides of _February_, that is, the Eleventh of that Month 385. _Arcadius_ and _Bauto_ being Consuls[N21].

Footnote N21:

The Jesuit _Papebrok_ highly extols this Letter[N21.1], but, at the same time, does not think it quite pure and genuine, because the Date, says he, has been added to it; for the other Letters of _Syricius_, and likewise those of his Predecessors, bear no Date. But can we conclude from thence, that they never had any? Some of the Letters of _Innocent_ I. are dated, and some without a Date, and he admits both. The Transcribers contented themselves, for the most part, with copying the Body of the Letter, and neglected the rest. _Papebrok_ adds, that the Date ought to have been expressed thus: _Arcadio Aug. et Bautone viro clar. Conss._ and not _Arcadio et Bautone viris clarissimis_, as it is in that Letter. But might not this Mistake be owing to the Ignorance of the Transcribers, who, finding, in the Original, only the Two Letters, _V. C._ which are to be met with in many antient Writings, set down _viris clarissimis_, instead of _viro clarissimo_? _Papebrok_ must have observed the same Mistake in the Letter, which Pope _Innocent_ I. writ to the Council of _Milevum_[N21.2], and which he allows to be altogether genuine. For Slips or Oversights of this Nature, hardly avoidable, no Piece ought to be condemned, or even suspected.

Footnote N21.1:

Bolland. prop. p. 58.

Footnote N21.2:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1289.

[Sidenote: _The Celibacy of the Clergy first proposed in the Council of_ Elvira.]