Part 35

To convince the Reader of this double Forgery, I need not refer him to that judicious Writer. The many groundless, perplexed, and contradictory Arguments, or rather Conjectures, alleged by those who have taken most Pains to prove both the above-mentioned Pieces genuine, _viz._ by _Chifflerus_, _Papebrok_, and Cardinal _Noris_, are, perhaps, a more convincing Proof of their being forged, than any that can be alleged against them. There is so palpable a Difference, in point of Style, between this Letter, and that which _Syricius_ writ to _Himerius_, and which is on all Hands allowed to be genuine, that no one can possibly suppose both to have been penned by one and the same Person. Besides, in the former Letter _Syricius_ absolutely commands, and in this only advises, exhorts, and intreats the Priests and Deacons to live continent. Of those Two Difficulties none of the Writers I have just quoted have thought fit to take the least Notice, though they could hardly escape their Observation. The very first Canon or Article of this Letter, for the sake of which both the Letter itself, and the Acts of the Council, were most probably forged, sufficiently betrays the Forgery. For it is absolutely unintelligible, and therefore pointed, construed, altered, _&c._ in Twenty different Manners, by those who maintain it to be genuine. Some read it thus: _Ut sine conscientia sedis Apostolicæ Primatis nemo audeat ordinare_; _That no one should presume to ordain without the Knowlege of the Primate of the Apostolic See_. I do not find the Bishops of _Rome_ to have ever styled themselves, in their Letters, _Primates of the Apostolic See_; nay, the humble Title of _Primate of the Apostolic See_ (humble with respect to the Bishop of _Rome_, Primate, Prince, and Monarch of the whole Church), so soured _Labbé_, that he fairly owned the Truth, chusing rather to give up the Letter, than to admit a Title that seemed to detract from the _Supremacy_. Besides, it is very certain, that, in the Time of _Syricius_ the Bishops of _Rome_ were not yet so lost to all Modesty as to pretend, in open Defiance of the Canons, that no Bishop should be ordained without their Knowlege. Others read that Article thus: _Ut extra conscientiam sedis Apostolicæ, hoc est, Primatis_, &c. _That none should presume to ordain without the Knowlege of the Apostolic See, that is, of their Primate._ Now, is it probable, that the Bishop of _Rome_ would have given the Title of _Apostolic See_ to all the Metropolitan Churches; a Title which Pope _Leo the Great_ would not allow even to the Bishop of _Constantinople_[N28.1]? I might add, that the Author of this Letter writes, and I think very ridiculously, that the _African_ Bishops would have come to _Rome_ to assist at the Council, had they not been prevented by their Infirmities, or old Age; which is supposing them all to have been old or infirm; that the Subscription of this Letter is very singular, _Data Romæ in Concilio Episcoporum octoginta_, which in all other Synodal Letters is placed at the Beginning; that neither this Letter, nor the Council of _Tela_; by which it is supposed to have been quoted, are ever mentioned or taken notice of by any of the Councils, that were afterwards held in _Africa_; to establish the Celibacy of the Clergy. Some will have this Letter to have been written only for the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Rome_, of which _Syricius_ was Primate, and to have been sent by him to the Bishops of _Africa_, and perhaps to those of the other Provinces, with a Design to try whether they might not be prompted to receive the Canons it contained, as general Rules, though made for the Vicariate only. This had been attempting to establish at once, and in a manner by Surprize, an universal Jurisdiction. But I can hardly believe, that, in the Days of _Syricius_, when the Ambition of the Bishops of _Rome_ was yet in its Infancy, they should have aspired to, or entertained any Notion of, such a Jurisdiction. As to the Council, I shall only observe here, that it is said in all the printed Copies of the Councils, all the antient Manuscripts, but one, to have been held at _Tela_, in the Province of _Byzacene_, whereas _Tela_ is allowed, even by those who defend this Council as genuine, to have belonged to the _Proconsularis_. They have therefore nothing else to recur to but the Ignorance of the Transcribers, the usual Refuge in such Cases, whom they all agree to have been mistaken, though all equally at a Loss, and at Variance among themselves, how to correct the supposed Mistake. For, instead of _Tela_, some read _Zela_ or _Zella_, others _Tena_, _Teneptis_, _Teleptus_, &c. In short, there is not a single Town in the whole Province of _Byzacene_, bearing the least Resemblance in Name with _Tela_, that has not been substituted in its room; nay, some have bestowed that Honour on the smallest Villages, as if it were probable, that, in a Province, filled, as _Byzacene_ was, with considerable Cities, and Episcopal Sees, Bishops should chuse to assemble in a Village. To read _Proconsularis_ instead of _Byzacene_, as some have done, is contradicting, and consequently giving up, the Acts of that Council; for the Thirty-three Bishops named there, as composing it, were all of the latter Province, and _Vincentius_ and _Fortunatianus_ are said to have assisted as Deputies from the former[N28.2]. It would be needless to dwell any longer on this Subject, and point out the many Absurdities and Contradictions that occur in the supposed Acts of that Council, since the very Title must convince every impartial Reader, that no such Council was ever held. I cannot, however, help taking Notice of a very extraordinary Canon, quoted by _Ferrandus_, from the Letter of _Syricius_, and approved, as is said there, by the Council of _Tela_; _viz._ That _no Bishop should be ordained by a single Bishop, the Church of_ Rome _excepted_. This Exception is not to be found in the Letter ascribed to _Syricius_, from which they make _Ferrandus_ quote it; and, besides, the Bishops of _Rome_ were never ordained by a single Bishop, nor did they ever take upon them to ordain Bishops alone.

Footnote N28.1:

Leo, ep. 78.

Footnote N28.2:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1577.

I find no farther Mention made of _Syricius_, in the antient Writers, till the Year 390. when he condemned the Doctrine of _Jovinian_; and cast him and his Followers out of the Church. _Jovinian_ was by Profession a Monk, by Birth a _Latin_, as _Jerom_ observes, and the first who infected that Language with Heresy; all, or rather almost all, the Heresies that, for the first Four hundred Years, had disturbed the Peace of the Church, having been broached by _Greeks_, _Chaldæans_, or _Syrians_[1273]. He had formerly practised great Austerities, going bare-footed, living upon Bread and Water, covered with a tattered black Garment, and earning his Livelihood with the Sweat of his Brow, his Hands being callous with long and hard Labour[1274]. The Doctrine he taught is, by _Jerom_, reduced to the Four following Heads: 1. That those, who, with a lively Faith, have been regenerated by Baptism, cannot afterwards be overcome by the Devil. 2. That for all those, who shall preserve their Baptism; an equal Reward is reserved in Heaven. 3. That there is no Difference of Merit between abstaining from some Meats, and using them with Thanksgiving. 4. and lastly, That Virgins, Widows, and married Women, are in a State of equal Merit; and, consequently, that all Difference in Merit can only arise from their different Actions. That the Two last were then counted Heresies, shews that the Church began, in this Century, to be tainted with Doctrines that border on Popery, and no-ways consist with the Liberty of the Gospel[1275]. Besides these Tenets, _Jovinian_ taught, as _Ambrose_ and _Austin_ inform us, that the Virgin _Mary_ preserved her Virginity in conceiving our _Saviour_, but lost it in bringing him forth, pretending to prove by Arguments, _false, but ingenious enough_, say they, that we should otherwise be obliged to own, with the _Manichees_, the Body of _Christ_ not to have been real, but aereal[1276]. He, besides, charged the Catholics with _Manicheism_, on account of their preferring the State of Virginity to that of Matrimony[1277]. Both _Jerom_ and _Ambrose_ tell us, that, together with his Doctrine, he changed his Manners, renouncing his former Austerities, and giving himself up to all manner of Debauchery, to redeem, as it were, the Time he had lost[1278]. But perhaps this Charge was not well founded, but rather supposed as a Consequence of his undervaluing Celibacy, and the Merit ascribed to it, there being too many Instances in Ecclesiastical History of such Inferences, drawn from Opinions which were not approved by the Fathers of the Church, as could no-way be justified. They often painted those, whom they styled Heretics, in the blackest Colours, to prejudice the People more effectually against their Doctrine. In this Art _Jerom_ excelled all the rest, and none ever disagreed with him, who did not at once forfeit those very Virtues, which he himself had admired and extolled in them before. He abstained, however, from Matrimony; but merely, say _Austin_ and _Jerom_, to avoid the Trouble and Anxiety attending it, and not because he apprehended there could be in this Life any Merit in Continency, or any Reward allotted for it in the next[1279]. This Doctrine he broached in _Rome_, and soon found there a great Number of Followers, among the rest several of both Sexes, who had embraced, and professed for many Years, the State of Virginity, being seduced and misled, says _Austin_, by the Cavils of that impious Wretch, asking them, whether they pretended to be more holy than _Abraham_ and _Sarah_, than many other Men and Women, who, though married, are commended in the _Old Testament_, for their eminent Sanctity[1280]. The first, who took Offence at this Doctrine, were Two Laymen, _viz._ _Pammachius_ and _Victorinus_. All we know of the latter is, that he was illustrious for his Birth, and, if we believe _Ambrose_, venerable for his Piety[1281]. As for _Pammachius_, he is well known in the History of the Church, and often mentioned by _Jerom_ with the greatest Commendations. He was descended, says that Writer, from the antient Family of the _Camilli_, and yet less distinguished by the Nobility of his Descent than his Piety[1282]. Having heard, by Chance, some of the Propositions advanced by _Jovinian_, he made it his Business to inquire more narrowly into his Doctrine, being assisted therein by _Victorinus_, who had taken the Alarm upon hearing, in _Rome_, this _shocking Doctrine_, says _Jerom_[1283], that _a Virgin was no better than a married Woman_. These Two having, by a diligent Inquiry, discovered at length the whole Doctrine of _Jovinian_, as well as the Author and Promoters of it, they presented a Request to _Syricius_, acquainting him therewith, and desiring, that the Doctrine of _Jovinian_ might be condemned by the Episcopal Authority, and the Sentence of the _Holy Ghost_, as contrary to the Law of God[1284]. These are _Ambrose_’s Words, as the Text now is; but it is generally thought to have been altered and corrupted. [Sidenote: _The Doctrine of_ Jovinian _condemned by a Council at_ Rome.] Be that as it will, _Syricius_ did not take upon him to act on this Occasion by his private Authority; but, assembling the Priests, Deacons, and other Ecclesiastics of _Rome_, he read to them the Request of _Pammachius_ and _Victorinus_, and, having, together with them, maturely examined the Doctrine of _Jovinian_, he declared it, with the unanimous Consent of the whole Assembly, contrary to Scripture; and at the same time cut off, for ever, from the Communion of the Church, not only _Jovinian_, who had first broached such a Doctrine, but those among his Followers, who were found to have been the most sanguine in promoting it; _viz._ _Auxentius_, _Genialis_, _Germinator_, _Felix_, _Frontinus_, _Martianus_, _Januarius_, and _Ingenius_[1285]. _Jovinian_, instead of submitting to the Judgment of _Syricius_, and his Clergy, immediately left _Rome_, and repaired with all Speed to _Milan_, not despairing of being able to engage _Ambrose_ in his Favour, and likewise the Emperor _Theodosius_, who was then in that City, before _Syricius_ could prejudice them against him. Of this _Syricius_ was aware, and therefore, without Loss of Time, dispatched Three of his Presbyters to _Milan_, _Crescentius_, _Leopardus_, and _Alexander_, with a Letter to that Church, which has been transmitted to us among _Ambrose_’s Works[1286], acquainting them with what had passed at _Rome_. In virtue of this Letter he was rejected by _Ambrose_; and, at the Request of the Three _Roman_ Presbyters, driven our of the Town by the Emperor[N29].

Footnote N29:

_Baronius_ pretends it was on this Occasion that _Theodosius_ enacted the Law, dated from _Verona_ the 3d of _September_ of the present Year 390. commanding all, who professed a monastic Life, to quit the Cities, and retire, pursuant to their Profession, into the Deserts[N29.1]. But that it was made on a very different Occasion, it will fall in my way to shew hereafter.

Footnote N29.1:

Bar. ad ann. 390. n. 47, 48.

The Letter of _Syricius_ was answered by _Ambrose_, and signed by him, and several other Bishops, who were still at _Milan_, where they had met to condemn _Ithacius_, and his Adherents, for having been accessary to the Death of _Priscillian_. In their Answer they commend the Pastoral Vigilance of _Syricius_, and, having briefly declared their Opinion against the other Tenets of _Jovinian_, dwell on what he had advanced against the Virginity of the Virgin _Mary_. But they seem to have mistaken his Meaning, in charging him with _Manicheism_, and supposing him to have held, that our Saviour did not assume a real Body: for he held no such Doctrine, but only charged the Catholics with it, as _Austin_ tells us in express Terms[1287]. It is surprising, that such a Question should have thus employed the Thoughts and Attention of so many venerable Prelates, and created such Feuds and Animosities in the Church. Both Parties agreed, that the Virgin _Mary_ had brought forth her Son without the Co-operation or Intercourse of Man; and in that Sense alone she is styled a Virgin.

[Sidenote: _Law enacted against_ Jovinian, _and his Followers_.]

From _Milan Jovinian_ returned to the Neighbourhood of _Rome_, where his Followers continued to assemble, under his Direction, till the Year 398. when the Emperor _Honorius_, giving Ear to the Complaints of the neighbouring Bishops, enacted a Law, commanding him and his Accomplices to be beaten with Whips armed with Lead, and transported into different Islands[1288]. _Jovinian_ himself was confined to the Isle of _Boas_, on the Coast of _Dalmatia_[1289], where he gave up the Ghost, about the Year 406. in the Midst of the Mirth and Jollity of a Banquet, says _Jerom_, adding that he was revived in _Vigilantius_, as _Euphorbus_ was formerly in _Pythagoras_[1290]. Some of _Jerom_’s Friends in _Rome_ sent him the Book, which _Jovinian_ had composed to explain and defend his Doctrine, begging him to confute it. He readily complied with their Request, and ended his Work in the Year 392. It consisted of Two Books, but met with a very indifferent Reception at _Rome_. For though he declared from the Beginning, that it was not his Intention to condemn Marriage, and that he had an utter Abhorrence to the Errors of _Marcion_, of _Tatian_, and the _Manichees_, holding Marriage to be sinful; yet the disparaging Terms he made use of in speaking of Marriage, gave great Offence, even to those who professed Continency[N30].

Footnote N30:

This induced _Pammachius_ to purchase all the Copies of it he could get, and send them back to the Author, acquainting him in a friendly manner with what had chiefly given Offence[N30.1]. This _Jerom_ took as a Token of the most sincere Friendship; and therefore, not satisfied with acknowleging the Obligation he had laid on him, and commending his Conduct as worthy of his great Prudence, and answerable to the Affection which it was owing to, he immediately set about the Apology which _Pammachius_ had advised him to write, and inscribed it to him[N30.2].

Footnote N30.1:

Ex Ruff. p. 231. & ep. 52.

Footnote N30.2:

Hier. ep. 51, 52.

Notwithstanding the Severity of the Law I have mentioned above, some still continued to hold, and privately to propagate, the Doctrine of _Jovinian_, which induced _Austin_ to compose his Treatise on the Advantages of Marriage and Virginity; a Performance far more judicious than that of _Jerom_, who has taken great Pains to disparage and cry down Marriage, the better to extol Virginity, as if he could not commend the one without condemning the other. _Austin_, on the contrary, begins his Work with great Encomiums on Matrimony, to which, however commendable, in the End he prefers Virginity. But after all, the Reasons alleged by the one as well as the other, are, if duly weighed, but empty and unconclusive Speculations.

[Sidenote: _New Disturbances in the Church of_ Antioch.]

The following Year, 391. a great Council was convened at _Capua_, chiefly with a View to restore Peace to the Church of _Antioch_, and put an End to the Schism, which had long prevailed there, and had occasioned almost an intire Separation between the East and the West, as I have related elsewhere[1291]. _Paulinus_, who was acknowleged for lawful Bishop of that City by Part of the Catholics there, by the Bishops of _Egypt_, _Arabia_, _Cyprus_, by the Bishop of _Rome_, and all the Western Bishops, died about the Year 388[1292]. But the unhappy Division, which had reigned during his Life, continued to reign even after his Death. For _Paulinus_, by a most unaccountable Conduct, and a most notorious and open Violation of the Canons, took upon him not only to appoint himself a Successor before he died, but to ordain him alone. The Person whom he thus both named and ordained, was one _Evagrius_, a Presbyter, with whom he had always lived in close Friendship[1293]; and who on that Account was, notwithstanding his illegal Election and Ordination, acknowleged by _Paulinus_’s Party for Bishop of _Antioch_. _Theodoret_ writes, that the Bishop of _Rome_, with the other Western Bishops, and those of _Egypt_, embraced his Communion[1294]. But _Ambrose_ assures us, that the Bishops of _Egypt_ stood neuter, suspending all Communication both with _Evagrius_, and his Competitor _Flavianus_; and speaks in such manner of both, as gives us room to suppose that he himself communicated with neither. _Both rely more on the Invalidity of their Competitor’s Ordination_, says he, _than on the Validity of their own. It is therefore with Reason that_ Flavianus _declines a fair Tryal, and not without Reason that_ Evagrius _does not demand one_[1295]. The Example of _Ambrose_ was, in all Likelihood, followed by the Bishop of _Rome_, and the other Western Bishops; or _Ambrose_, perhaps, conformed to theirs[N31].

Footnote N31:

A modern Writer will have it by all means, that _Syricius_ communicated with _Evagrius_[N31.1], because he had always opposed _Flavianus_, as his Predecessors had done. But surely from his espousing the Cause of _Paulinus_, who was legally chosen, against _Flavianus_, whose Election was contested, we cannot well conclude, that, in Opposition to him, he likewise took the Part of one whose Election was indisputably illegal. It is far more probable, that he communicated with neither.

Footnote N31.1:

M. Launoy, ep. 7. p. 10.

All the Bishops of _Illyricum_, upon the Death of _Paulinus_, admitted _Flavianus_, and not _Evagrius_, to their Communion, if we may depend upon _Theodoret_[1296]. As this new Election occasioned unheard-of Disturbances in the Church of _Antioch_, as the Division still continued between the East and the West, the Western Bishops had frequent Recourse to the Emperor _Theodosius_, during the Three Years he passed in the West, pressing him to oblige, by his Imperial Authority, both _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_ to submit their Cause to the Judgment of a Council, that should be held in _Italy_. _Theodosius_ consented at last to their Request, named _Capua_ for the Place where the Council should meet, and took upon him to oblige _Flavianus_ to repair thither at the Time appointed. Soon after, that is, about the 14th of _July_ 391. he left _Italy_, where he had continued ever since the Year 388. settling young _Valentinian_ on the Throne, and set out for _Constantinople_, into which City he made his Entry on the 10th of _November_. Before his Departure from _Italy_ he had writ to _Flavianus_, commanding him to repair to _Constantinople_, and wait his Arrival there. _Flavianus_ readily complied with the Emperor’s Orders, and appeared at Court the Day after his Arrival. But when the Prince acquainted him with the Promise he had made to the Western Bishops, and desired him to prepare for the Journey, which he did in a very obliging Manner, _Flavianus_ represented to him the Inconveniences, attending so long a Journey at that Season of the Year, and begged he would give him Leave to put it off to the Spring, when he would not fail to obey his Orders. The Emperor, seeing him stricken in Years, thought the Excuse just and reasonable; and therefore, out of Compassion and Good nature, allowed him for the present to return to his See[1297]. Thus did _Flavianus_, by the Indulgence of the Emperor, avoid the Judgment of the Western Bishops, who wisely forbore meddling with so nice a Subject in his Absence, though his Competitor was present.

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Capua.]

The Council of _Capua_ met in the Latter-end of the Year 391. and was it seems, a very numerous Assembly, since it is styled, in the Canons of the Church of _Africa_, _a full Council_[1298]. But whether it was composed of all the Western Bishops, or only of the Bishops of _Italy_, is uncertain, and cannot be determined from the Words of _Ambrose_, _We all met_[1299], which may be equally understood of both. As the Acts of this Council have not reached our Times, we do not even know who presided at it, some conferring that Honour on _Ambrose_[1300], some on _Syricius_[1301], and some on both[1302]. That _Syricius_ presided, or even assisted, in Person, is not at all probable; for in the Times I am now writing of, the Bishops of _Rome_ had begun to affect Grandeur; and, under Pretence that their Presence was necessary in the great Metropolis of the Empire, to assist or preside in Councils held elsewhere by their Deputies or Legates, as they are now styled. That _Syricius_ assisted, by his Deputies, at the Council of _Capua_, I do not doubt, since the Council was composed, at least, of all the Bishops of _Italy_, and _Syricius_ owned himself bound by their Decrees[1303]. But that _Ambrose_ presided, seems undeniable, since by him, and him alone, the Whole was conducted and managed[N32].

Footnote N32:

_Baronius_, without the least Foundation in History, supposes _Ambrose_ to have acted as the Pope’s Legate. But it is the Custom of that Writer to vest every eminent and distinguished Prelate with the Legatine Dignity on such Occasions, and then pass upon his Readers the Deference and Regard shewn to their Merit for a Tribute paid to the Bishops of _Rome_.