Chapter 20

Another Letter ofSyricius.

Another Letter, universally ascribed toSyricius, has reached our Times. It is written in a very perplexed and obscure Style; bears no Date; is not to be found either inDionysius Exiguus, or any antient Code; and is addressed toall the Orthodox dwelling in different Provinces[1253]: which is manifestly a Mistake, sinceSyriciusdesires those, to whom it is addressed, to confirm it with their Subscriptions, which cannot be understood but ofBishops. However, as it is received by all as genuine, I shall not take upon me to reject it as spurious. The Subject of this Letter is the Ordination of the Ministers of the Church; and the First Article is against those who pretend to pass from the Vanities of the World to the Episcopal Dignity.Syriciuswrites, that they came often to him, attended with numerous Retinues, begging him to ordain them; but that they had never been able to prevail upon him to grant them their Request. In the Second Article he complains of the Monks, who were constantly wandering about the Country, and on whom the Bishops chose rather to confer holy Orders, and the Episcopal Dignity itself, than to relieve them with Alms. The Third and last Article forbids a Layman or Neophyte to be ordained either Deacon or Presbyter. If this Letter be genuine,Syriciuswas the first Bishop ofRomewho styled himselfPope, asPapebrokwell observes[1254]; for the Title of his Letter, as transmitted to us, runs thus;Pope Syricius to the Orthodox, &c. The Word imports no more than Father, and it was antiently given, out of Respect, to all Bishops, as I have observed elsewhere; but I have found none beforeSyriciuswho distinguished themselves with that Title.

Jeromretires fromRome.

Jeromcontinued atRomesome Months after the Death of his great PatronDamasus. But, finding himself obnoxious to theRomanClergy, for the Liberty he had taken in some of his Writings to censure their effeminate and licentious Lives, and, on the other hand, not being countenanced and supported bySyricius, as he had been by his Predecessor, he thought it adviseable to abandon that City, and return toPalæstine. Some pretend, but without sufficient Authority, thatSyriciusjoined the rest in reviling and persecuting him.

The UsurperMaximuswrits toSyricius.

Baroniushas inserted, in his Annals[1255], a Letter from the UsurperMaximus, who reigned inGaul; from which we learn, thatSyriciushad writ first to him, exhorting him to continue steady in the Catholic Faith, being, perhaps, apprehensive lest he should suffer himself to be imposed upon by thePriscillianists, who were very numerous inGaul; and complaining to him of the undue Ordination of a Presbyter namedAgricius.Maximus, in his Answer, pretends great Zeal for the true Faith, and promises to assemble the Bishops ofGaul, and of the Five Provinces, meaningGallia Narbonensis, to examine the Affair ofAgricius. He assuresSyricius, that he has nothing so much at Heart as to maintain the Catholic Faith pure and uncorrupted; to see a perfect Harmony established among the Prelates of the Church, and to suppress the many Disorders which had prevailed at the Time of his Accession to the Empire, and would have soon proved incurable, had they been neglected. He adds, that many shocking Abominations of theManichees, meaning no doubt thePriscillianists, had been discovered, not by groundless Conjectures and Surmises, but by their own Confession before the Magistrates, asSyriciusmight learn from the Acts. ForMaximuscaused the Ringleaders of that Sect to be put to Death this very Year, convicted before the Magistrates of the grossest Immoralities[N24]. These werePriscillianhimself,Felicissimus,andArmenus, Two Ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his Doctrine;AsarinusandAurelius, Two Deacons;Latronianus, or, asJeromcalls him,Matronianus, a Layman; andEnchrocia, the Widow of the OratorDelphidius, who had professed Eloquence in the City ofBourdeauxa few Years before. These were, by the Order ofMaximus, all beheaded this Year atTreves. The rest ofPriscillian’s Followers, whom they could discover and apprehend, were either banished or confined.

N24. The first Author of this Sect was oneMark, a Native ofMemphisinEgypt, a famous Magician, and once a Follower of the Doctrine of theManichees[1]. FromEgypthe travelled intoSpain, where he had for his Disciples a Woman of Quality namedAgapa,Elpidiusthe Rhetorician, andAgagius[2].Priscillian, of whom I shall speak hereafter, was the Disciple and Successor of the Two latter.Jeromtells us, upon the Authority ofIrenæus, whom he quotes, thatMarkpassed from the Banks of theRhoneintoAquitaine,and from thence intoSpain[3]; which madeBaroniuswrite, that he first infectedGaul[4]. But no such thing was ever affirmed byIrenæus; and besides,Jeromconfounds the Sect of theMarcosianswith that of thePriscillianists, and the Author of the former, who was contemporary withIrenæus, with the Author of the latter, who lived in the Fourth Century.ThePriscillianistsbroached no new Doctrine, but formed a new Sect, by adopting every impious Opinion that had been broached by others; whence their Sect is styled byAustin, the common Sink of all other Heresies[5]. By their external Behaviour, which was extremely modest and composed, they gained many Followers, whom, by degrees, they let into the Abominations of their Sect; for there was no Lewdness which they did not encourage and practise, rejecting Matrimony for no other Reason, but because it confined a Man to one Woman, and a Woman to one Man[6]. They held it no Crime to speak contrary to what they thought and believed, and to confirm with an Oath what they said when they were talking to People of a different Persuasion. This was one of their favourite Maxims, which above all others they took care to inculcate to their Proselytes, often repeating to them, and among themselves, the famous Verse;Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli.Swear, forswear, but never betray a Secret[7].Hence it was no easy Matter to discover them; for they mixed with the Orthodox at Divine Service, received the Sacraments of the Church, and disowned, with the most solemn Oaths, the Doctrine which they had been heard by many to utter and teach[8]. To this SectPriscillian, who gave Name to it, was gained by the above-mentionedElpidiusandAgagius. He was a Man of Birth and Fortune, being descended of an antient and illustrious Family inSpain, and is said to have been endowed with extraordinary Parts, and well versed in every Branch of Learning; so that many were induced by his Example to embrace the new Sect, and more by his Eloquence; for he had a particular Gift of speaking well, and gaining the Affections of all who heard him[9]. Among his Followers were several Persons of the first Rank, both Men and Women, and even some Bishops, namely,Vegetinus,Symphosius,Instantius, andSalvianus, of whom the Two latter entered into an indissoluble League and Alliance with him[10].1. Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Isid. Hisp. de Scrip. Eccles. c. 2.2. Id. ib.3. Hier. ep. 29.4. Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 113, 114.5. Aug. hær. 70. p. 13.6. Id. ib. & Leo, ep. 93.7. Aug. ib. ep. 253. & ad Con. c. 2.8. Id. ib.9. Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Hier. in Isai. 64. p. 240.10. Sulp. ib. p. 171. Concil. t. 1. p. 741.

ThePriscillianistsbroached no new Doctrine, but formed a new Sect, by adopting every impious Opinion that had been broached by others; whence their Sect is styled byAustin, the common Sink of all other Heresies[5]. By their external Behaviour, which was extremely modest and composed, they gained many Followers, whom, by degrees, they let into the Abominations of their Sect; for there was no Lewdness which they did not encourage and practise, rejecting Matrimony for no other Reason, but because it confined a Man to one Woman, and a Woman to one Man[6]. They held it no Crime to speak contrary to what they thought and believed, and to confirm with an Oath what they said when they were talking to People of a different Persuasion. This was one of their favourite Maxims, which above all others they took care to inculcate to their Proselytes, often repeating to them, and among themselves, the famous Verse;

Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli.

Swear, forswear, but never betray a Secret[7].

Hence it was no easy Matter to discover them; for they mixed with the Orthodox at Divine Service, received the Sacraments of the Church, and disowned, with the most solemn Oaths, the Doctrine which they had been heard by many to utter and teach[8]. To this SectPriscillian, who gave Name to it, was gained by the above-mentionedElpidiusandAgagius. He was a Man of Birth and Fortune, being descended of an antient and illustrious Family inSpain, and is said to have been endowed with extraordinary Parts, and well versed in every Branch of Learning; so that many were induced by his Example to embrace the new Sect, and more by his Eloquence; for he had a particular Gift of speaking well, and gaining the Affections of all who heard him[9]. Among his Followers were several Persons of the first Rank, both Men and Women, and even some Bishops, namely,Vegetinus,Symphosius,Instantius, andSalvianus, of whom the Two latter entered into an indissoluble League and Alliance with him[10].

1. Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Isid. Hisp. de Scrip. Eccles. c. 2.2. Id. ib.3. Hier. ep. 29.4. Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 113, 114.5. Aug. hær. 70. p. 13.

1. Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Isid. Hisp. de Scrip. Eccles. c. 2.

2. Id. ib.

3. Hier. ep. 29.

4. Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 113, 114.

5. Aug. hær. 70. p. 13.

6. Id. ib. & Leo, ep. 93.7. Aug. ib. ep. 253. & ad Con. c. 2.8. Id. ib.9. Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Hier. in Isai. 64. p. 240.10. Sulp. ib. p. 171. Concil. t. 1. p. 741.

6. Id. ib. & Leo, ep. 93.

7. Aug. ib. ep. 253. & ad Con. c. 2.

8. Id. ib.

9. Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Hier. in Isai. 64. p. 240.

10. Sulp. ib. p. 171. Concil. t. 1. p. 741.

They are honoured by their Followers as Saints and Martyrs.

But these Severities served only to increase the Evil which they were employed to cure. The Bodies ofPriscillianand of those who had suffered with him, were conveyed by their Friends and Adherents intoSpain, and there interred with great Pomp and Solemnity;|Many embrace theirDoctrine.|their Names were added to those of other Saints and Martyrs, their Firmness and Constancy extolled, and their Doctrine embraced by such Numbers of Proselytes, that it spread in a short time over all the Provinces between thePyreneesand the Ocean[1256].Symphosius, Metropolitan ofGalicia, whom, after the Death ofPriscillian, they looked upon as the chief Man and Head of their Sect, took care to fill all the vacant Sees in that Province with Bishops of his own Communion.Dictinius, whom he raised among the rest to that Dignity,is supposed by St.Austin[1257]to have been the Author of a Book, famous in those Times, styledLibra, or, thePound[N25].|Two of their leadingMen renounce theirErrors;|However, both he andSymphosiuswere afterwards convinced of their Errors; and, desiring thereupon to be reconciled with the Church, they undertook a Journey toMilan, in order to engage St.Ambrose, Bishop of that City, in their Favour. He received them with the greatest Marks of Kindness and Affection; and being satisfied with the Terms of Reconciliation, which they themselves proposed, and promised to observe, he writ in their Behalf to the Bishops ofSpain, who, at his Request, admitted them to their Communion[1258][N26].

N25. It was so called because it contained Twelve Questions, as theRomanPound did Twelve Ounces. In that Piece the Author endeavoured to prove, from the Practice of the Patriarchs, of the Prophets, Apostles, Angels, and ofChristhimself, that a Lye could be no Crime, when uttered to conceal our Religion[1].1. Id. ib. c. 2, & 18.N26. That these two Bishops should have applied to St.Ambrose, and not toSyricius, is whatBaroniuscannot brook; and therefore to bring in, right or wrong, the Bishop ofRome, he quotes a Passage of the Council ofToledo, where the Fathers of that Assembly, speaking of the Letter which St.Ambrosehad written in favour ofSymphosiusandDictinius, adds the following Words in a Parenthesis;Which Things were likewise suggested by Pope Syricius, of holy Memory[1]. But as these Words have no manner of Connection with the rest, it is manifest they have been foisted in on Purpose to bringSyriciusupon the Stage; and were we to admit them as genuine, we could only conclude from thence, thatSyriciustoo had written to the Bishops ofSpainin behalf ofSymphosiusandDictinius.Baroniusindeed goes a great way farther; for he infers from the above-mentioned Words, that St.Ambroseacted by the Advice and Direction ofSyricius; and from thence by a second Inference, which could occur to none but himself, that bothAmbrose, andSimplicius, who succeeded him in the See ofMilan, were the Pope’s Legates[2]. It is by such far-fetched Inferences and Deductions that he endeavours, throughout his voluminous Performance, to mislead his unwary Readers into a Belief of the Pope’s Supremacy.1. Concil. t. 2. p. 1230.2. Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 54.

1. Id. ib. c. 2, & 18.

N26. That these two Bishops should have applied to St.Ambrose, and not toSyricius, is whatBaroniuscannot brook; and therefore to bring in, right or wrong, the Bishop ofRome, he quotes a Passage of the Council ofToledo, where the Fathers of that Assembly, speaking of the Letter which St.Ambrosehad written in favour ofSymphosiusandDictinius, adds the following Words in a Parenthesis;Which Things were likewise suggested by Pope Syricius, of holy Memory[1]. But as these Words have no manner of Connection with the rest, it is manifest they have been foisted in on Purpose to bringSyriciusupon the Stage; and were we to admit them as genuine, we could only conclude from thence, thatSyriciustoo had written to the Bishops ofSpainin behalf ofSymphosiusandDictinius.Baroniusindeed goes a great way farther; for he infers from the above-mentioned Words, that St.Ambroseacted by the Advice and Direction ofSyricius; and from thence by a second Inference, which could occur to none but himself, that bothAmbrose, andSimplicius, who succeeded him in the See ofMilan, were the Pope’s Legates[2]. It is by such far-fetched Inferences and Deductions that he endeavours, throughout his voluminous Performance, to mislead his unwary Readers into a Belief of the Pope’s Supremacy.

1. Concil. t. 2. p. 1230.

2. Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 54.

and are admitted to the Communion of the Church by the Council ofToledo.

In the Year 438. of theSpanish, and 400. of the common Æra, a Council was held atToledo; and, in the Presence of that Assembly,Symphosius,Dictinius, andComasus, one ofSymphosius’s Presbyters, solemnly abjured the Errors ofPriscillian, anathematized the Doctrine, Sect, and Books of that Heretic, and readily signed the Confession of Faith which the Council had drawn up. Their Example was followed by Three other Bishops,viz.Paternus,Isonius, andVegetinus, who were all admitted to the Communion of the Church, and even allowed to keep their Sees, though unduly preferred,on Condition the Bishops ofRomeandMilanshould consent thereto, andrestore them to the Peace of the Church[1259]. From these Words, which are the very Words of the Council, it is manifest, first, that the Fathers, who composed that Assembly, were Strangers to the Bishop ofRome’s universal Jurisdiction; and, secondly, that the Bishop ofMilandid not act, asBaroniuspretends, on that Occasion as the Pope’s Legate. Their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop ofMilan, besides that of the Bishop ofRome, sufficiently proves the one; and their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop ofRome, besides that of the Bishop ofMilan, the other.

Four other Bishops,viz.Herenius,Donatus,Acurius, andÆmilius, could by no means be induced to follow the Example ofSymphosiusandDictinius; and were thereupon deposed by the Council, and cut off from the Communion of the Catholic Church.|The Acts of thatCouncil confirmed bySt.AmbroseandSyricius.|The Bishops ofRomeandMilannot only confirmed the Acts of the Council with respect toSymphosiusandDictinius, but separated themselves from the Communion of the Bishops ofBæticaand theCarthagenese, who, thinking the Council had dealt too favourably with them, refused to admit them to their Communion[1260].|Dictiniushonoured asa Saint.|Dictiniusdied in 420. and is now honoured inSpainas a Saint, though it may be justly questioned whether he deserves that Honour.Idatiusthe Chronologist who was a Native ofSpain, and raised there to the Episcopal Dignity about the Year 428. mentions him without saying any thing in his Praise, or taking the least Notice of his being honoured then as a Saint. St.Austinspeaks doubtfully even of his Conversion[1261], and at the same time tells us, that his Book was highly esteemed by thePriscillianists, and his Memory no less revered; which, notwithstanding the eminent Sanctity ascribed to him byBaronius[1262], gives us room to suspect, that the Honour now paid him is owing to a Tradition handed down by thePriscillianists.|Priscillianhonouredas a Saint and aMartyr.|For thus wasPriscillianhimself once revered both as a Saint and a Martyr. Nay, the Author of the Notes onSulpitius Severusassures us, that he has seen his Name in some, not very antient, Martyrologies; andPetrus de Natalibushas allowed, both to him, and toLatronianus, who suffered with him, a Place among the Martyrs of the Church, pretending to be countenanced therein by the Authority ofJerom[1263]. And truly it must be owned, thatJerom, in the Year 392. writ very favourably ofPriscillian.He was executed, says he,by the Faction ofIthacius,being accused by some as if he had embraced the Heresy of theGnostics;but others maintained, that he held not the Doctrine and Tenets with which he was charged[1264]. But being afterwards better informed, he styles himan execrable Man[1265], and condemns his Doctrine as aninfamous Heresy, as aPlagueandContagion, that cruelly ravaged most of theSpanishProvinces[1266]. It is not therefore without Reason that the Church ofRomenow anathematizes, as an Heretic, the Man she once revered as a Saint. Such has been the Fate of many others, judged byBaroniushimself unworthy of the Worship that was paid them, and therefore set aside, when, by the Command ofGregoryXIII. he revised and corrected theRoman Martyrology. As forDictinius, he has not yet been driven out of Heaven, though nobody can well tell how he came in. 'Tis true, both he andSymphosiusare styledBishops of holy Memory, in the Abstract of the Council ofToledo, which is supposed to have been done about the Year 447. This is allBaroniuscan plead in favour of hiseminent Sanctity. A poor Charter indeed to hold a Place in Heaven by, and claim the Worship and Honours attending it! For the Author of that Abstract is utterly unknown; and, besides, he canonizes alikeSymphosiusandDictinius, styling them both Bishops of holy Memory. Why then should his Authority have so much Weight with respect to the one, and none at all in regard of the other? If we bar Prescription, which surely can have no room here,Dictiniuscan have no more Right to keep the Place he has, thanSymphosiusto claim the Place he has not. Nay, the latter would have a far better Right, were it true, thatDictiniusrelapsed into the Errors he had abjured, and was on that Account deposed with several other Bishops of his Sect. This I read in an Author of great Note[1267]; but as he advances it upon the Authority of another,viz.ofIdatiusthe Chronologist, and the Passage he quotes is not to be found in that Writer, at least in the Editions I have perused, it would be both unjust and ungenerous to depriveDictiniusof, or disturb him in, the Possession of his Saintship upon such an Evidence.

The Doctrine of thePriscillianiststakesdeep Root inSpain.

SyriciusandAmbrose, in Conjunction with the Catholic Bishops ofSpain, alarmed at the wonderful Progress the Doctrine ofPriscillianhad made in so short a Time, left nothing unattempted they could think of to put a Stop to the growing Evil. But all to no Purpose; in spite of their utmost Efforts, in defiance of the most severeLaws, that were enacted against them, especially by the EmperorsHonorius, andTheodosiusthe younger, their Numbers increased daily, and their Doctrine grew daily more popular; the Severities that were practised against them, serving only to recommend those to the Esteem and Veneration of the Multitude, who suffered them, as many did, with Patience and Constancy. As they held it lawful to conceal their real Sentiments from the Catholics, by disowning them with the most solemn Oaths; the Catholics suffered themselves to be led by a mistaken Zeal into the same Error, disowning, in like manner, their Sentiments, the better to discover those of their Adversaries. But this pernicious Practice ofdefending Truth by destroying it, and opposing Lyes by Lying, was fully and unanswerably confuted byAustin, in his Answer toConsentius, who had writ to him at Length upon that Subject[1268][N27].

N27. The Doctrine of the Church ofRome, concerning Equivocations, mental Reservations, and the Lawfulness, or rather Obligation, of concealing, with the most solemn Oaths, what has been revealed under the Seal of Confession, has perhaps some Affinity with the Doctrine of thePriscillianists. What is only known under the Seal of Confession, say their Divines, is not known to Man, but to God alone, since it was not discovered to a Man, but to God represented by a Man, that is, to the Priest or Confessor; and therefore the Priest may, with a safe Conscience, affirm, even upon Oath, that he knows not what he thus knew. 'Tis by recurring to this Doctrine, that F.Daniel Bartoli, in hisHistory ofEngland, or rather of theJesuitsinEngland, endeavours to justify the Conduct of theJesuit Garnet, in not discovering theGun-powder Plot, to which he supposes him to have been privy: but as it was disclosed to him in Confession, or at least under the Seal of Confession, he had sinned grievously by discovering it, though by such a Discovery he might have saved a whole Nation from Destruction[1]. So that the violating such a Seal is a far greater Evil than the Loss of so many Lives, than the utter Ruin of an intire Nation. A Doctrine evidently repugnant to the Dictates both of Reason and Humanity.1. Bar. hist. d'Inghilterra.

1. Bar. hist. d'Inghilterra.

The indefatigable PainsSyriciustook, together with the other Catholic Bishops, in suppressing the Heresy of thePriscillianists, proved quite unsuccessful, though seconded by the Secular Power, and the severest Laws that had yet been enacted against Heretics. Their Doctrine rather gained, than lost Ground; and we shall find them in the Sixth Century, that is, Two hundred Years hence, still a numerous Sect, and Councils assembling, to very little Purpose, against them.Syriciuswas not so intent, as we are told, upon maintaining the Doctrine of the Church, as to neglect the Discipline.|Council assembled bySyriciusatRome.|In order to correct several Abuses, that had begun to prevail, and revivesome antient Constitutions, that were grown out of Use, he convened a Council atRome, which is said to have consisted of Eighty Bishops; and, with their Consent and Approbation, established the following Canons: 1. That no one should presume to ordain a Bishop, without the Knowlege of theApostolic See. 2. That no Man should be admitted to the Ecclesiastical Order, who, after the Remission of his Sins, that is, perhaps, after his Baptism, had worn the Sword of worldly Warfare. 3. That no Clerk should marry a Widow. 4. That theNovatiansandMontanists, that is,Donatists, should be received into the Church by the Imposition of Hands; but that such as, abandoning the Catholic Faith, had been rebaptized by them, should not be re-admitted without performing a long Penance. 5. That the Priests and Deacons should live continent, being, by their Office, daily employed in the Divine Ministry[1269]. These Canons or Decrees, say the Roman Catholic Divines, are contained in a Letter, whichSyriciuswrit to the Bishops ofAfrica, and which was read, and received as a Law, by a Council held some Years after atTela, in the Province ofByzacene, as appears from the Acts of that Council[1270].Ferrandus, Deacon ofCarthage, in his Abridgment of the Canons, done in the Sixth Century, often quotes the Letter ofSyricius, and takes particular Notice of the Canons that were copied from it by the Council ofTela. The same Letter, together with the Acts of that Council, are to be found, Word for Word, in the antient Code of the Church ofRome. So that, upon the Whole, we cannot question, saysBaronius, the Authenticity of that Piece, without rendering the Authority of every other Monument of Antiquity quite precarious, and leaving Men to their own wild and groundless Conjectures. But Men of Learning have, of late Years, been too much upon their Guard to admit, without the strictest Examination, any Piece, however authentic in Appearance, that seemed to countenance the extraordinary Power and Authority claimed by the Bishop ofRome. And not without Reason, since they well knew what Pains had been taken to banish Truth, by suppressing or adulterating the most authentic Records, and to establish Falshood, by substituting in their room fabulous Legends, spurious Letters, and Acts of Councils that never were held. As for the Letter ascribed toSyricius, it has been suspected ever since Criticism took place[1271], and lately rejected,as unquestionably supposititious, by F.Quesnel, who, in a learned Dissertation on that Subject, proves, in my Opinion, unanswerably, not only the Letter; but the Acts of the pretended Council ofTela, to have been forged, and inserted, in latter Times, into the Collection ofFerrandus, and theRomanCode[1272][N28].

N28. 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.byChifflerus,Papebrok, and CardinalNoris, 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 whichSyriciuswrit toHimerius, 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 LetterSyriciusabsolutely 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 ofRometo have ever styled themselves, in their Letters,Primates of the Apostolic See; nay, the humble Title ofPrimate of the Apostolic See(humble with respect to the Bishop ofRome, Primate, Prince, and Monarch of the whole Church), so souredLabbé, that he fairly owned the Truth, chusing rather to give up the Letter, than to admit a Title that seemed to detract from theSupremacy. Besides, it is very certain, that, in the Time ofSyriciusthe Bishops ofRomewere 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 ofRomewould have given the Title ofApostolic Seeto all the Metropolitan Churches; a Title which PopeLeo the Greatwould not allow even to the Bishop ofConstantinople[1]? I might add, that the Author of this Letter writes, and I think very ridiculously, that theAfricanBishops would have come toRometo 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 ofTela; 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 inAfrica; to establish the Celibacy of the Clergy. Some will have this Letter to have been written only for the Bishops of the Vicariate ofRome, of whichSyriciuswas Primate, and to have been sent by him to the Bishops ofAfrica, 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 ofSyricius, when the Ambition of the Bishops ofRomewas 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 atTela, in the Province ofByzacene, whereasTelais allowed, even by those who defend this Council as genuine, to have belonged to theProconsularis. 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 ofTela, some readZelaorZella, othersTena,Teneptis,Teleptus, &c. In short, there is not a single Town in the whole Province ofByzacene, bearing the least Resemblance in Name withTela, 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, asByzacenewas, with considerable Cities, and Episcopal Sees, Bishops should chuse to assemble in a Village. To readProconsularisinstead ofByzacene, 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, andVincentiusandFortunatianusare said to have assisted as Deputies from the former[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 byFerrandus, from the Letter ofSyricius, and approved, as is said there, by the Council ofTela;viz.Thatno Bishop should be ordained by a single Bishop, the Church ofRomeexcepted. This Exception is not to be found in the Letter ascribed toSyricius, from which they makeFerrandusquote it; and, besides, the Bishops ofRomewere never ordained by a single Bishop, nor did they ever take upon them to ordain Bishops alone.1. Leo, ep. 78.2. Concil. t. 1. p. 1577.

1. Leo, ep. 78.

2. Concil. t. 1. p. 1577.

I find no farther Mention made ofSyricius, in the antient Writers, till the Year 390. when he condemned the Doctrine ofJovinian; and cast him and his Followers out of the Church.Jovinianwas by Profession a Monk, by Birth aLatin, asJeromobserves, 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 byGreeks,Chaldæans, orSyrians[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, byJerom, 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,Joviniantaught, asAmbroseandAustininform us, that the VirginMarypreserved her Virginity in conceiving ourSaviour, 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 theManichees, the Body ofChristnot to have been real, but aereal[1276]. He, besides, charged the Catholics withManicheism, on account of their preferring the State of Virginity to that of Matrimony[1277]. BothJeromandAmbrosetell 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 ArtJeromexcelled 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, sayAustinandJerom, 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 inRome, 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, saysAustin, by the Cavils of that impious Wretch, asking them, whetherthey pretended to be more holy thanAbrahamandSarah, than many other Men and Women, who, though married, are commended in theOld Testament, for their eminent Sanctity[1280]. The first, who took Offence at this Doctrine, were Two Laymen,viz.PammachiusandVictorinus. All we know of the latter is, that he was illustrious for his Birth, and, if we believeAmbrose, venerable for his Piety[1281]. As forPammachius, he is well known in the History of the Church, and often mentioned byJeromwith the greatest Commendations. He was descended, says that Writer, from the antient Family of theCamilli, and yet less distinguished by the Nobility of his Descent than his Piety[1282]. Having heard, by Chance, some of the Propositions advanced byJovinian, he made it his Business to inquire more narrowly into his Doctrine, being assisted therein byVictorinus, who had taken the Alarm upon hearing, inRome, thisshocking Doctrine, saysJerom[1283], thata Virgin was no better than a married Woman. These Two having, by a diligent Inquiry, discovered at length the whole Doctrine ofJovinian, as well as the Author and Promoters of it, they presented a Request toSyricius, acquainting him therewith, and desiring, that the Doctrine ofJovinianmight be condemned by the Episcopal Authority, and the Sentence of theHoly Ghost, as contrary to the Law of God[1284]. These areAmbrose’s Words, as the Text now is; but it is generally thought to have been altered and corrupted.|The Doctrine ofJoviniancondemnedby a Council atRome.|Be that as it will,Syriciusdid not take upon him to act on this Occasion by his private Authority; but, assembling the Priests, Deacons, and other Ecclesiastics ofRome, he read to them the Request ofPammachiusandVictorinus, and, having, together with them, maturely examined the Doctrine ofJovinian, 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 onlyJovinian, 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, andIngenius[1285].Jovinian, instead of submitting to the Judgment ofSyricius, and his Clergy, immediately leftRome, and repaired with all Speed toMilan, not despairing of being able to engageAmbrosein his Favour, and likewise the EmperorTheodosius, who was then in that City, beforeSyriciuscould prejudice them against him. Of thisSyriciuswas aware, and therefore, without Loss of Time, dispatched Three of his Presbyters toMilan,Crescentius,Leopardus, andAlexander, with a Letter to that Church, which has been transmitted to us amongAmbrose’s Works[1286], acquainting them with what had passed atRome. In virtue of this Letter he was rejected byAmbrose; and, at the Request of the ThreeRomanPresbyters, driven our of the Town by the Emperor[N29].

Back to Index Next