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.]
As Priests and Deacons are commanded, by the Seventh Article of this
Letter, to abstain from Marriage, and this is the first Opportunity that
has offered of mentioning the Celibacy of the Clergy, a short Digression
on such a material Point of Discipline in the Church may not, perhaps,
be unacceptable to the Reader. The laying of this heavy Burdens on the
Shoulders of the Clergy, a Burden too heavy for most of them to bear, as
Experience has shewn, was first moved in the Council of _Elvira_, held
about the Year 300. according to the most probable Opinion; and, being
warmly promoted by the celebrated _Osius_ of _Cordoua_, and _Felix_ of
_Acci_, now _Guadix_ in _Andalusia_, who presided at that Assembly, it
passed into a Law; and all Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons,
were commanded, on Pain of Deposition; _to abstain from Wives; and the
begetting of Children_. These are the very Words of the 33d Canon of
that Council[1238]. That, till this time, the Clergy were allowed to
marry, even in _Spain_, is manifest from the 65th Canon of the same
Council, excluding from the Communion of the Church, even at the Point
of Death, such Ecclesiastics, as, knowing their Wives to be guilty of
Adultery, should not, upon the first Notice of their Crime, immediately
turn them out of Doors[1239]. How long the 33d Canon continued in
Vigour, is uncertain; nay, it may be questioned whether it ever took
place: if it ever did, it was out of Date, or at least not generally
observed by the _Spanish_ Clergy, in the Time of _Syricius_, as
evidently appears from the Words of his Letter, or Answer to _Himerius_
of _Tarragon_. I said, by the _Spanish_ Clergy, for no such Injunction
had yet been laid on the Ecclesiastics of any other Country or Nation.
About Fifteen Years after, was held the Council of _Ancyra_, in which it
was decreed, That _if any Deacon did not declare at his Ordination, that
he designed to marry, he ought not to be allowed to marry after but
might, if he made such a Declaration, because, in that Case, the Bishop
tacitly consented to it_. The Council of _Neocæfarea_, which assembled
soon after that of _Ancyra_, and consisted, in great Part, of the same
Bishops, commanded _such Presbyters as married after their Ordination to
be degraded_. In the Year 325. was held the Council of _Nice_; and, in
that great Assembly, it was moved, perhaps by _Osius_, who acted a chief
Part there, that Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, should be
debarred from all Commerce with the Wives they had married before their
Ordination. But this Motion was warmly opposed by _Paphnutius_, who had
himself ever led a chaste and single Life, and was one of the most
eminent and illustrious Prelates, at that time, in the Church. He
represented, that the Burden they proposed laying on the Clergy, was too
heavy; that few had sufficient Strength to bear it; that the Women, thus
abandoned by their Husbands, would be exposed to great Dangers; that
Marriage was no Pollution, but, according to St. _Paul_, commendable;
that those therefore, who were not married, when first admitted to the
Sacerdotal Functions, should continue in that State; and such as were,
should continue to live with their Wives. Thus _Sozomen_[1240],
_Socrates_[1241], and _Suidas_[1242][N22].
-----
Footnote N22:
I am not unapprised, that this Account is rejected by
_Baronius_[N22.1], and _Bellarmine_[N22.2], as fabulous; but,
notwithstanding the Pains they have both taken to make it appear
incredible, _F. Lupus_ allows it to be true[N22.3], though a no less
zealous Stickler for the Discipline of the Church of _Rome_ than
either of them. _Ruffinus_, I own, takes no Notice of this
Transaction, as _Valesius_ well observes. But has no true Transaction
been, either wilfully or ignorantly, omitted by that Writer?
_Valesius_ well knows, that many have; and had he perused that Author
with a little more Attention, he would not have so positively
affirmed, that no one ever named _Paphnutius_ among the Bishops of
_Egypt_, who assisted at the Council of _Nice_, since he is named
among them by _Ruffinus_, and with great Commendations[N22.4].
Footnote N22.1:
Bar. ad ann. 58. n. 21.
Footnote N22.2:
Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.
Footnote N22.3:
Lup. in can. p. 114.
Footnote N22.4:
Ruf. l. 1. c. 4.
-----
_The Advice of_ Paphnutius _was applauded by the whole Assembly_, add
the above-mentioned Historians, _and the Point in Dispute was left
undecided_. In the Year 340. it was decreed, in the Council of _Arles_,
that, _no Man, incumbered with a Wife, should be admitted to Holy
Orders, unless he promised, with his Wife’s Approbation and Consent, to
abstain for ever from the conjugal Duty_.
This is all I can find in the antient Records concerning the Continence
or Celibacy of the Clergy, before the Time of _Syricius_. And hence it
is manifest, that both _Crichtonæus_ and _Melanchthon_ were greatly
mistaken; the former in affirming, which many have done after him, that
Celibacy was first imposed upon the Clergy by _Syricius_[1243]; and the
latter by confidently asserting, that Celibacy was not required of the
Ministers of the Gospel by any Council, but by the Popes, in Opposition
to all Councils and Synods[1244]. It must be owned, however, that this
Law was not so generally observed before the Time of _Syricius_, as it
was after. For it was not long after his Time before it became an
established Point of Discipline in most of the Western Churches, not in
virtue of his Letter, or of those which his Successors writ to the same
Purpose, but because it was injoined by the Synods of each particular
Nation. Thus it was established in _Africa_ by the Council of _Carthage_
in 390. in _Gaul_ by one held at _Orleans_, by Two at _Tours_, and one
at _Agde_; in _Spain_, by Three held at _Toledo_; in _Germany_, by the
Councils of _Aquisgranum_, or _Aix la Chapelle_, of _Worms_, and of
_Mentz_. We know of none in _Britain_: and that it did not even begin to
take place here till the Arrival of _Austin_, in the Sixth Century, may
be sufficiently proved from the Letters of that Monk to _Gregory_, and
_Gregory_’s Answer to him; but of that more hereafter[N23].
-----
Footnote N23:
I cannot forbear taking notice here of an inexcusable Mistake in the
_Ecclesiastical History of_ England, _by_ Nicolas Harpsfeld,
_Archdeacon of_ Canterbury, a Work in great Request abroad. That
Writer tells us, that _Restitutus_ Bishop of _London_ assisted at the
Council of _Arles_, and signed the above-mentioned Canon, forbidding a
Man incumbered with a Wife to be admitted to Orders, unless he
promised, with her Consent, to refrain from all Commerce with her
after his Ordination. He leaves us to infer from thence, that this
Canon was received in _Britain_[N23.1]. But surely _Harpsfeld_ must
never have seen either the Subscriptions, or the Acts of that Council.
Had he seen the Subscriptions, he had hardly omitted Two _British_
Bishops out of Three. For, besides the Name of _Restitutus_, I find
among the Subscriptions, the Names of _Adelphus de colonia
Londinensium_, that is, as is commonly believed, of _Colchester_, and
of _Hibernus_ of _Eboracum_, or _York_. Had he seen the Acts, he had
never been guilty of such a gross Mistake as to ascribe the
above-mentioned Canon to the Council of _Arles_, at which _Restitutus_
assisted, since that Council was held against the _Donatists_ of
_Africa_, in the Year 314. and not the least Mention was made there of
the Celibacy of the Clergy[N23.2]. The Second Council of _Arles_ was
held about Twenty-six Years after, and of that Council the said Canon
is the Second.
Footnote N23.1:
Harp. Hist. Eccles. Anglican. p. 26.
Footnote N23.2:
Concil. t. 1. p. 1426-1429.
-----
[Sidenote: _The present Practice of the Church of_ Rome, _with respect
to this Point_.]
As to the present Practice and Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, with
respect to this, in their Opinion, most essential Point of
Ecclesiastical Discipline, no Man is allowed, after his Ordination, to
marry, or to cohabit with the Wife he had married before: nay, in order
to prevent all possible means even of any clandestine Commerce between
them, the Woman must, by a solemn Vow of Chastity, renounce all Claims
on her Husband, and, retiring into a Monastery, bind herself by a second
Vow to continue there, without ever once going out, on any Pretence
whatsoever, so long as her Husband lives, who cannot be admitted so much
as to the Rank of a Subdeacon, till she is secured by these TWO VOWS.
Such is the present Practice of the Church of _Rome_, though Subdeacons
were allowed to marry long after the Time of _Syricius_, who, in his
Letter, mentions only Deacons and Presbyters, and does not even oblige
them to part with their Wives, but only excludes them from rising to a
higher Degree in the Church. Pope _Leo the Great_, chosen in 440. was
the first who extended the Law of Celibacy to the Subdeacons, commanding
them, in a Letter, which he writ about the Year 442. to _Rusticus_
Bishop of _Narbonne_, to abstain, as well as the Deacons, Presbyters,
and Bishops, from all Commerce with their Wives. But this Law was
observed by very few Churches. In the Time of Pope _Gregory the Great_,
that is, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, it had not yet taken
place, even in _Sicily_, though reckoned among the _Suburbicarian_
Provinces: it was first introduced into that Island by him; but he
allowed those to cohabit with their Wives, who had been ordained without
a previous Promise to live continent, though he would not suffer them to
be raised to a higher Degree without such a Promise. _Bellarmine_[1245],
and the other Divines of the Church of _Rome_, to soften the Odium,
which the hard, and commonly impracticable Command she lays on her
Clergy, must reflect on her, represent Continency as a Virtue to be
easily acquired. Their Ascetics seem better acquainted with the
Difficulties and Struggles attending the Practice of that Virtue, than
their Divines; for they prescribe, as the sole Means of attaining it,
constant Prayer, frequent Fasting, macerating the rebelling Flesh with
all kinds of Austerities, and principally the avoiding of all Female
Company. And, if these be the sole Means of attaining it, I leave the
Reader to judge how few of their Clergy do attain it.
[Sidenote: _In the primitive Church, married and unmarried Men raised
indiscriminately to Ecclesiastical Dignities._]
No one is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know,
that in the Three first Centuries of the Christian Religion, married and
unmarried Men were indiscriminately raised to the Episcopal, and every
other Ecclesiastical Dignity; nay, _Jerom_ writes, that in his Time,
that is, in the Fourth Century, the former were, the most part,
preferred to the latter, not in regard of their greater Merit, but
because, in such Elections, the unmarried Men were outnumbered by the
married, who chose to be governed by one in their own Station of
Life[1246]. It is hence manifest, that Marriage was not thought, in
_Jerom_’s Time, inconsistent with, or any Bar to, the Episcopal Dignity.
And why should it? since, excepting St. _John_, the Apostles themselves
were all married, as we are told, in express Terms, by _Ignatius_ the
Martyr[1247], who was their Contemporary and Disciple, and whose
Authority ought, on that Consideration, to be of greater Weight than
that of all the other Fathers together. _But such of the primitive
Clergy_, says _Bellarmine_[1248], _as were married before their
Ordination, abstained ever after from the Use of Matrimony: let our
Adversaries produce, if they can, but a single Evidence of a Presbyter
or Bishop’s having any Commerce with their Wives_. It lies upon him to
shew they had not. We know nothing to the contrary, and therefore may
well suppose, that, pursuant to the Advice given by the Apostle to all
Husbands and Wives, _they came together_ after Ordination as they did
before, _lest Satan should tempt them for their Incontinency_.
[Sidenote: _Celibacy recommended by the Fathers_:]
The Fathers, it is true, out of a mistaken Notion of an extraordinary
Merit attending Celibacy in this Life, and an extraordinary Reward
reserved for it in the other, began very early to recommend it to
Persons of all Ranks and Stations, but more especially to the Clergy, as
the principal Excellence and Perfection of a Christian. By their
Exhortations, and the Praises they were constantly bestowing on
Virginity, Celibacy, and Continence, many among the Clergy, and even
some of the Laity, were wrought up to such a Pitch of Enthusiasm, as to
mutilate themselves, thinking they could by no other means be
sufficiently qualified for the unnatural, but meritorious, State of
Celibacy. And, what is very surprising, this Practice became so common
in the End of the Third, and the Beginning of the Fourth, Century, that
the Fathers of _Nice_ were obliged to restrain it by a particular Canon.
They enacted one accordingly, excluding for ever from the Priesthood,
such _as should make themselves Eunuchs, the Preservation of their Life
or Health not requiring such a Mutilation_. By the same Canon they
deposed and degraded all, who should thus maim themselves after their
Ordination[1249]. But tho’ the Fathers warmly recommended Celibacy to
the unmarried Clergy, and Continence to the Married, neither was looked
upon as an Obligation, till late in the Fourth Century, and not even
then in all Places; for _Epiphanius_, who lived till the Beginning of
the Fifth, writes, that though _Men still begetting Children_ were
excluded by the Ecclesiastical Canons from every Dignity and Degree in
the Church, yet they were in some Places admitted as Subdeacons,
Deacons, and Presbyters, because those Canons were not yet universally
observed[1250]; so that, according to _Epiphanius_, it was not by the
Apostles [Sidenote: _never injoined by the Apostles_:] (as the Divines
of the Church of _Rome_ pretend), but by the Ecclesiastical Canons, that
this Obligation was laid on the Clergy; and, in his Time, those Canons
were not yet universally complied with, nor indeed many Ages after: nay,
in the _Greek_ Church, the Clergy are to this Day allowed to cohabit
with the Wives they married before their Ordination; and, in this
Kingdom, Celibacy was not universally established till after the
Conquest, as I shall have Occasion to shew in the Sequel of the present
History.
[Sidenote: _deemed by Pagans the highest Degree of Sanctity_.]
The abstaining from lawful, as well as unlawful Pleasures, was deemed,
by the antient Pagans, especially in the East, the highest Degree of
Sanctity and Perfection. Hence some of their Priests, in Compliance with
this Notion, and to recommend themselves to the Esteem of the People,
did not only profess, promise, and vow an eternal Abstinence from all
Pleasures of that Nature, as those of the Church of _Rome_ do, but put
it out of their Power ever to enjoy them. Thus the Priests of _Cybele by
becoming Priests ceased to be Men_, to borrow the Expression of _Jerom_;
and the _Hierophantes_, who were the first Ministers of Religion among
the _Athenians_, rendered themselves equally incapable of transgressing
the Vows they had made, by constantly drinking the cold Juice of
Hemlock[1251]. A _Stoic_, called _Cheremon_, introduced by _Jerom_ to
describe the Lives of the _Egyptian_ Priests, tells us, among other
things, that, from the time they addicted themselves to the Service of
the Gods, they renounced all Intercourse and Commerce with Women; and,
the better to conquer their natural Inclinations, abstained altogether
from Meat and Wine. Several other Instances might be alleged to shew,
that Celibacy was embraced and practised by the Pagan Priests, long
before the Birth of the Christian Religion; and, consequently, that it
was not Religion, but Superstition, that first laid the Priesthood under
such an Obligation. The Church of _Rome_ has borrowed, as is notorious,
several Ceremonies, Customs, and Practices of the Pagans, and perhaps
the Celibacy of the Priesthood among the rest: I say, _perhaps_, because
it might have been suggested to her by the same Spirit of Superstition
that suggested it to them: for where-ever the same Spirit prevails, it
will ever operate in the same manner, and be attended with the same, or
the like Effects. Thus we find the same Austerities practised by the
Pagans in the _East-Indies_, and other idolatrous Nations, that are
practised and recommended by the Church of _Rome_; and yet no Man can
imagine those Austerities to have been by either borrowed of the other.
There is almost an intire Conformity between the Laws, Discipline, and
Hierarchy of the antient _Druids_, and the present _Roman-Catholic_
Clergy; nay, the latter claim the very same Privileges, Prerogatives,
and Exemptions, as were claimed and enjoyed by the former[1252]: and yet
we cannot well suppose them to have been guided therein by their
Example. Celibacy was discountenanced by the _Romans_, who nevertheless
had their _Vestals_, instituted by their Second King at a time when, the
new City being yet thinly inhabited, Marriage ought in both Sexes to
have been most encouraged: and the same Spirit, which suggested to that
superstitious Prince the Institution of the _Vestals_, suggested the
like Institutions to other Pagan Nations, and to the Church of _Rome_
that of so many different Orders of Nuns.
How much better had the Church of _Rome_ consulted her own Reputation,
had she either, in Opposition to the Pagan Priesthood, allowed her
Clergy the Use of Matrimony, or, by a more perfect Imitation of their
Discipline, with the Law of Celibacy, prescribed the like Methods of
observing it! How many Enormities had been prevented by either of these
Means, the World knows. But none of her Clergy have the Observance of
their Vows so much at Heart as to imitate either the _Athenian_ or the
_Egyptian_ Priests: and as for those of _Cybele_, they are so far from
conforming to their Practice, that a Law subjecting them to it has kept
them out of Protestant Kingdoms, when the Fear of Death could not.
[Sidenote: _The Celibacy of the Clergy a bad Institution._]
If every Law or Institution is to be judged good or evil, according to
the Good and Evil attending them, it is by daily Experience but too
manifest, that the forced Celibacy of the Clergy ought to be deemed of
all Institutions the very worst. Indeed all sensible Men of that Church
know and lament the innumerable Evils which the Celibacy of her Clergy
occasions, and must always occasion, in spite of all Remedies that can
be applied to it. But she finds one Advantage in it, which, in her Eyes,
makes more than sufficient Amends for all those Evils, _viz._ her
ingrossing by that means to herself all the Thoughts and Attention of
her Clergy, which, were they allowed to marry, would be divided between
her and their Families, and each of them would have a separate Interest
from that of the Church. Several Customs and Practices, once warmly
espoused by that Church, have, in Process of Time, been abrogated, and
quite laid aside, on account of the Inconveniences attending them; and
this, which long Experience has shewn to be attended with more
pernicious Consequences than any other, had, but for that political
View, been likewise abolished.
[Sidenote: _Another Letter of_ Syricius.]
Another Letter, universally ascribed to _Syricius_, has reached our
Times. It is written in a very perplexed and obscure Style; bears no
Date; is not to be found either in _Dionysius Exiguus_, or any antient
Code; and is addressed to _all the Orthodox dwelling in different
Provinces_[1253]: which is manifestly a Mistake, since _Syricius_
desires those, to whom it is addressed, to confirm it with their
Subscriptions, which cannot be understood but of _Bishops_. 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.
_Syricius_ writes, 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, _Syricius_ was the first
Bishop of _Rome_ who styled himself _Pope_, as _Papebrok_ well
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 before _Syricius_ who
distinguished themselves with that Title.
[Sidenote: Jerom _retires from_ Rome.]
_Jerom_ continued at _Rome_ some Months after the Death of his great
Patron _Damasus_. But, finding himself obnoxious to the _Roman_ Clergy,
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 by _Syricius_, as he had been by his
Predecessor, he thought it adviseable to abandon that City, and return
to _Palæstine_. Some pretend, but without sufficient Authority, that
_Syricius_ joined the rest in reviling and persecuting him.
[Sidenote: _The Usurper_ Maximus _writs to_ Syricius.]
_Baronius_ has inserted, in his Annals[1255], a Letter from the Usurper
_Maximus_, who reigned in _Gaul_; from which we learn, that _Syricius_
had 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 the _Priscillianists_, who were very numerous in _Gaul_;
and complaining to him of the undue Ordination of a Presbyter named
_Agricius_. _Maximus_, in his Answer, pretends great Zeal for the true
Faith, and promises to assemble the Bishops of _Gaul_, and of the Five
Provinces, meaning _Gallia Narbonensis_, to examine the Affair of
_Agricius_. He assures _Syricius_, 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 the _Manichees_,
meaning no doubt the _Priscillianists_, had been discovered, not by
groundless Conjectures and Surmises, but by their own Confession before
the Magistrates, as _Syricius_ might learn from the Acts. For _Maximus_
caused the Ringleaders of that Sect to be put to Death this very Year,
convicted before the Magistrates of the grossest Immoralities[N24].
These were _Priscillian_ himself, _Felicissimus_, and _Armenus_, Two
Ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his Doctrine; _Asarinus_
and _Aurelius_, Two Deacons; _Latronianus_, or, as _Jerom_ calls him,
_Matronianus_, a Layman; and _Enchrocia_, the Widow of the Orator
_Delphidius_, who had professed Eloquence in the City of _Bourdeaux_ a
few Years before. These were, by the Order of _Maximus_, all beheaded
this Year at _Treves_. The rest of _Priscillian_’s Followers, whom they
could discover and apprehend, were either banished or confined.
-----
Footnote N24:
The first Author of this Sect was one _Mark_, a Native of _Memphis_ in
_Egypt_, a famous Magician, and once a Follower of the Doctrine of the
_Manichees_[N24.1]. From _Egypt_ he travelled into _Spain_, where he
had for his Disciples a Woman of Quality named _Agapa_, _Elpidius_ the
Rhetorician, and _Agagius_[N24.2]. _Priscillian_, of whom I shall
speak hereafter, was the Disciple and Successor of the Two latter.
_Jerom_ tells us, upon the Authority of _Irenæus_, whom he quotes,
that _Mark_ passed from the Banks of the _Rhone_ into _Aquitaine_,and
from thence into _Spain_[N24.3]; which made _Baronius_ write, that he
first infected _Gaul_[N24.4]. But no such thing was ever affirmed by
_Irenæus_; and besides, _Jerom_ confounds the Sect of the _Marcosians_
with that of the _Priscillianists_, and the Author of the former, who
was contemporary with _Irenæus_, with the Author of the latter, who
lived in the Fourth Century.
The _Priscillianists_ broached no new Doctrine, but formed a new Sect,
by adopting every impious Opinion that had been broached by others;
whence their Sect is styled by _Austin_, the common Sink of all other
Heresies[N24.5]. 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[N24.6]. 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[N24.7]._
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[N24.8]. To this Sect _Priscillian_,
who gave Name to it, was gained by the above-mentioned _Elpidius_ and
_Agagius_. He was a Man of Birth and Fortune, being descended of an
antient and illustrious Family in _Spain_, 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[N24.9].
Among his Followers were several Persons of the first Rank, both Men
and Women, and even some Bishops, namely, _Vegetinus_, _Symphosius_,
_Instantius_, and _Salvianus_, of whom the Two latter entered into an
indissoluble League and Alliance with him[N24.10].
Footnote N24.1:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Isid. Hisp. de Scrip. Eccles. c. 2.
Footnote N24.2:
Id. ib.
Footnote N24.3:
Hier. ep. 29.
Footnote N24.4:
Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 113, 114.
Footnote N24.5:
Aug. hær. 70. p. 13.
Footnote N24.6:
Id. ib. & Leo, ep. 93.
Footnote N24.7:
Aug. ib. ep. 253. & ad Con. c. 2.
Footnote N24.8:
Id. ib.
Footnote N24.9:
Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Hier. in Isai. 64. p. 240.
Footnote N24.10:
Sulp. ib. p. 171. Concil. t. 1. p. 741.
-----
[Sidenote: _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 of _Priscillian_ and of those who had
suffered with him, were conveyed by their Friends and Adherents into
_Spain_, and there interred with great Pomp and Solemnity;[Sidenote:
_Many embrace their Doctrine._] 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 the _Pyrenees_ and the
Ocean[1256]. _Symphosius_, Metropolitan of _Galicia_, whom, after the
Death of _Priscillian_, 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, styled _Libra_, or, the
_Pound_[N25]. [Sidenote: _Two of their leading Men renounce
their Errors_;] However, both he and _Symphosius_ were afterwards
convinced of their Errors; and, desiring thereupon to be reconciled with
the Church, they undertook a Journey to _Milan_, 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 of _Spain_,
who, at his Request, admitted them to their Communion[1258][N26].
-----
Footnote N25:
It was so called because it contained Twelve Questions, as the _Roman_
Pound did Twelve Ounces. In that Piece the Author endeavoured to
prove, from the Practice of the Patriarchs, of the Prophets, Apostles,
Angels, and of _Christ_ himself, that a Lye could be no Crime, when
uttered to conceal our Religion[N25.1].
Footnote N25.1:
Id. ib. c. 2, & 18.
Footnote N26:
That these two Bishops should have applied to St. _Ambrose_, and not
to _Syricius_, is what _Baronius_ cannot brook; and therefore to bring
in, right or wrong, the Bishop of _Rome_, he quotes a Passage of the
Council of _Toledo_, where the Fathers of that Assembly, speaking of
the Letter which St. _Ambrose_ had written in favour of _Symphosius_
and _Dictinius_, adds the following Words in a Parenthesis; _Which
Things were likewise suggested by Pope Syricius, of holy
Memory_[N26.1]. But as these Words have no manner of Connection with
the rest, it is manifest they have been foisted in on Purpose to bring
_Syricius_ upon the Stage; and were we to admit them as genuine, we
could only conclude from thence, that _Syricius_ too had written to
the Bishops of _Spain_ in behalf of _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_.
_Baronius_ indeed goes a great way farther; for he infers from the
above-mentioned Words, that St. _Ambrose_ acted by the Advice and
Direction of _Syricius_; and from thence by a second Inference, which
could occur to none but himself, that both _Ambrose_, and
_Simplicius_, who succeeded him in the See of _Milan_, were the Pope’s
Legates[N26.2]. 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.
Footnote N26.1:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1230.
Footnote N26.2:
Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 54.
-----
[Sidenote: _and are admitted to the Communion of the Church by the
Council of_ Toledo.]
In the Year 438. of the _Spanish_, and 400. of the common Æra, a Council
was held at _Toledo_; and, in the Presence of that Assembly,
_Symphosius_, _Dictinius_, and _Comasus_, one of _Symphosius_’s
Presbyters, solemnly abjured the Errors of _Priscillian_, 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_, and
_Vegetinus_, who were all admitted to the Communion of the Church, and
even allowed to keep their Sees, though unduly preferred, _on Condition
the Bishops of_ Rome _and_ Milan _should consent thereto, and restore
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 of _Rome_’s
universal Jurisdiction; and, secondly, that the Bishop of _Milan_ did
not act, as _Baronius_ pretends, on that Occasion as the Pope’s Legate.
Their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop of _Milan_, besides that
of the Bishop of _Rome_, sufficiently proves the one; and their
requiring the Approbation of the Bishop of _Rome_, besides that of the
Bishop of _Milan_, the other.
Four other Bishops, _viz._ _Herenius_, _Donatus_, _Acurius_, and
_Æmilius_, could by no means be induced to follow the Example of
_Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_; and were thereupon deposed by the Council,
and cut off from the Communion of the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: _The
Acts of that Council confirmed by St._ Ambrose _and_ Syricius.] The
Bishops of _Rome_ and _Milan_ not only confirmed the Acts of the Council
with respect to _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_, but separated themselves
from the Communion of the Bishops of _Bætica_ and the _Carthagenese_,
who, thinking the Council had dealt too favourably with them, refused to
admit them to their Communion[1260]. [Sidenote: Dictinius _honoured as a
Saint_.] _Dictinius_ died in 420. and is now honoured in _Spain_ as a
Saint, though it may be justly questioned whether he deserves that
Honour. _Idatius_ the Chronologist who was a Native of _Spain_, 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. _Austin_ speaks doubtfully even
of his Conversion[1261], and at the same time tells us, that his Book
was highly esteemed by the _Priscillianists_, and his Memory no less
revered; which, notwithstanding the eminent Sanctity ascribed to him by
_Baronius_[1262], gives us room to suspect, that the Honour now paid him
is owing to a Tradition handed down by the _Priscillianists_. [Sidenote:
Priscillian _honoured as a Saint and a Martyr_.] For thus was
_Priscillian_ himself once revered both as a Saint and a Martyr. Nay,
the Author of the Notes on _Sulpitius Severus_ assures us, that he has
seen his Name in some, not very antient, Martyrologies; and _Petrus de
Natalibus_ has allowed, both to him, and to _Latronianus_, who suffered
with him, a Place among the Martyrs of the Church, pretending to be
countenanced therein by the Authority of _Jerom_[1263]. And truly it
must be owned, that _Jerom_, in the Year 392. writ very favourably of
_Priscillian_. _He was executed_, says he, _by the Faction of_ Ithacius,
_being accused by some as if he had embraced the Heresy of the_
Gnostics; _but others maintained, that he held not the Doctrine and
Tenets with which he was charged_[1264]. But being afterwards better
informed, he styles him _an execrable Man_[1265], and condemns his
Doctrine as an _infamous Heresy_, as a _Plague_ and _Contagion_, that
cruelly ravaged most of the _Spanish_ Provinces[1266]. It is not
therefore without Reason that the Church of _Rome_ now anathematizes, as
an Heretic, the Man she once revered as a Saint. Such has been the Fate
of many others, judged by _Baronius_ himself unworthy of the Worship
that was paid them, and therefore set aside, when, by the Command of
_Gregory_ XIII. he revised and corrected the _Roman Martyrology_. As for
_Dictinius_, he has not yet been driven out of Heaven, though nobody can
well tell how he came in. 'Tis true, both he and _Symphosius_ are styled
_Bishops of holy Memory_, in the Abstract of the Council of _Toledo_,
which is supposed to have been done about the Year 447. This is all
_Baronius_ can plead in favour of his _eminent 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 alike _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_, 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, _Dictinius_
can have no more Right to keep the Place he has, than _Symphosius_ to
claim the Place he has not. Nay, the latter would have a far better
Right, were it true, that _Dictinius_ relapsed 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._ of _Idatius_ the
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 deprive _Dictinius_ of, or disturb him in, the
Possession of his Saintship upon such an Evidence.
[Sidenote: _The Doctrine of the_ Priscillianists _takes deep Root in_
Spain.]
_Syricius_ and _Ambrose_, in Conjunction with the Catholic Bishops of
_Spain_, alarmed at the wonderful Progress the Doctrine of _Priscillian_
had 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 severe Laws, that were
enacted against them, especially by the Emperors _Honorius_, and
_Theodosius_ the 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 of _defending Truth by destroying it, and opposing Lyes by
Lying_, was fully and unanswerably confuted by _Austin_, in his Answer
to _Consentius_, who had writ to him at Length upon that
Subject[1268][N27].
-----
Footnote N27:
The Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, 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 the
_Priscillianists_. 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
his _History of_ England, or rather of the _Jesuits_ in _England_,
endeavours to justify the Conduct of the _Jesuit Garnet_, in not
discovering the _Gun-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[N27.1]. 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.
Footnote N27.1:
Bar. hist. d'Inghilterra.
-----
The indefatigable Pains _Syricius_ took, together with the other
Catholic Bishops, in suppressing the Heresy of the _Priscillianists_,
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. _Syricius_
was not so intent, as we are told, upon maintaining the Doctrine of the
Church, as to neglect the Discipline. [Sidenote: _Council assembled
by_ Syricius _at_ Rome.] In order to correct several Abuses, that had
begun to prevail, and revive some antient Constitutions, that were grown
out of Use, he convened a Council at _Rome_, 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 the _Apostolic 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
the _Novatians_ and _Montanists_, 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, which _Syricius_ writ
to the Bishops of _Africa_, and which was read, and received as a Law,
by a Council held some Years after at _Tela_, in the Province of
_Byzacene_, as appears from the Acts of that Council[1270]. _Ferrandus_,
Deacon of _Carthage_, in his Abridgment of the Canons, done in the Sixth
Century, often quotes the Letter of _Syricius_, and takes particular
Notice of the Canons that were copied from it by the Council of _Tela_.
The same Letter, together with the Acts of that Council, are to be
found, Word for Word, in the antient Code of the Church of _Rome_. So
that, upon the Whole, we cannot question, says _Baronius_, 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
of _Rome_. 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 to _Syricius_, 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 of _Tela_, to
have been forged, and inserted, in latter Times, into the Collection of
_Ferrandus_, and the _Roman_ Code[1272][N28].
-----
Footnote 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._ 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: