-----
All the Bishops of _Illyricum_, upon the Death of _Paulinus_, admitted
_Flavianus_, and not _Evagrius_, to their Communion, if we may depend
upon _Theodoret_[1296]. As this new Election occasioned unheard-of
Disturbances in the Church of _Antioch_, as the Division still continued
between the East and the West, the Western Bishops had frequent Recourse
to the Emperor _Theodosius_, during the Three Years he passed in the
West, pressing him to oblige, by his Imperial Authority, both
_Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_ to submit their Cause to the Judgment of a
Council, that should be held in _Italy_. _Theodosius_ consented at last
to their Request, named _Capua_ for the Place where the Council should
meet, and took upon him to oblige _Flavianus_ to repair thither at the
Time appointed. Soon after, that is, about the 14th of _July_ 391. he
left _Italy_, where he had continued ever since the Year 388. settling
young _Valentinian_ on the Throne, and set out for _Constantinople_,
into which City he made his Entry on the 10th of _November_. Before his
Departure from _Italy_ he had writ to _Flavianus_, commanding him to
repair to _Constantinople_, and wait his Arrival there. _Flavianus_
readily complied with the Emperor’s Orders, and appeared at Court the
Day after his Arrival. But when the Prince acquainted him with the
Promise he had made to the Western Bishops, and desired him to prepare
for the Journey, which he did in a very obliging Manner, _Flavianus_
represented to him the Inconveniences, attending so long a Journey at
that Season of the Year, and begged he would give him Leave to put it
off to the Spring, when he would not fail to obey his Orders. The
Emperor, seeing him stricken in Years, thought the Excuse just and
reasonable; and therefore, out of Compassion and Good nature, allowed
him for the present to return to his See[1297]. Thus did _Flavianus_, by
the Indulgence of the Emperor, avoid the Judgment of the Western
Bishops, who wisely forbore meddling with so nice a Subject in his
Absence, though his Competitor was present.
[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Capua.]
The Council of _Capua_ met in the Latter-end of the Year 391. and was it
seems, a very numerous Assembly, since it is styled, in the Canons of
the Church of _Africa_, _a full Council_[1298]. But whether it was
composed of all the Western Bishops, or only of the Bishops of _Italy_,
is uncertain, and cannot be determined from the Words of _Ambrose_, _We
all met_[1299], which may be equally understood of both. As the Acts of
this Council have not reached our Times, we do not even know who
presided at it, some conferring that Honour on _Ambrose_[1300], some on
_Syricius_[1301], and some on both[1302]. That _Syricius_ presided, or
even assisted, in Person, is not at all probable; for in the Times I am
now writing of, the Bishops of _Rome_ had begun to affect Grandeur; and,
under Pretence that their Presence was necessary in the great Metropolis
of the Empire, to assist or preside in Councils held elsewhere by their
Deputies or Legates, as they are now styled. That _Syricius_ assisted,
by his Deputies, at the Council of _Capua_, I do not doubt, since the
Council was composed, at least, of all the Bishops of _Italy_, and
_Syricius_ owned himself bound by their Decrees[1303]. But that
_Ambrose_ presided, seems undeniable, since by him, and him alone, the
Whole was conducted and managed[N32].
-----
Footnote N32:
_Baronius_, without the least Foundation in History, supposes
_Ambrose_ to have acted as the Pope’s Legate. But it is the Custom of
that Writer to vest every eminent and distinguished Prelate with the
Legatine Dignity on such Occasions, and then pass upon his Readers the
Deference and Regard shewn to their Merit for a Tribute paid to the
Bishops of _Rome_.
-----
The Council avoided deciding, and even taking into Consideration, the
Affair of _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_, in the Absence of the former,
though they had chiefly met for that Purpose. However, to re-establish
the Tranquillity of the Church, they agreed to renew their
Correspondence with, and grant their Communion to, all the Catholic
Bishops of the East. [Sidenote: _The Difference between the Two
Competitors to the See of_ Antioch _refered, by the Council, to the
Bishops of_ Egypt.] As for the Difference between the Two Competitors
for the See of _Antioch_, they committed the discussing and deciding it
to _Theophylus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, and the other Bishops of
_Egypt_, as the most proper Judges, since they communicated with
neither, and therefore could not be suspected to favour the one more
than the other[1304]. The Bishop of _Alexandria_ immediately acquainted
_Flavianus_ with the Resolution of the Council, summoning him, at the
same time, to appear, in Compliance therewith, before the Bishops of
_Egypt_, who were soon to assemble, in order to put the Decree of that
venerable Assembly in Execution. [Sidenote: Flavianus _refuses to comply
with the Decree of the Council._] But _Flavianus_, instead of obeying
the Summons, and paying the Regard that was thought due to the Decree of
so numerous a Council, refused to stir from _Antioch_, pleading a
Rescript, which he had extorted from _Theodosius_, commanding the
Western Bishops to repair into the East, and there examine the Affair in
a new Council. This _Theophylus_ did not expect, and therefore being at
a Loss how to conduct himself on such an Emergency, he gave _Ambrose_
immediate Notice of the Summons he had sent, and the Answer he had
received. _Ambrose_ had nothing so much at Heart as to restore Peace and
Tranquillity to the Church of _Antioch_; and from the Regard which the
Council had shewn to _Flavianus_, as well as the Impartiality with which
they had acted with respect to both, he had promised himself Success in
so pious an Undertaking. It was therefore with the utmost Concern that
he saw his Endeavours thus unexpectedly defeated, and all Hopes of
accomplishing what he had undertaken, vanish at once. He had but too
much Reason to resent such an affronting Conduct, which did not so much
affect the Council in general, as him in particular, since it was at his
Motion, that the Council took the above-mentioned Resolution. That,
however, did not tempt him to depart from the Neutrality he had
embraced, and declare for _Evagrius_: he still maintained the same
Impartiality, and refused to communicate with either. [Sidenote:
Ambrose_’s Moderation and Impartiality_.] In his Answer to
_Theophylus_, he desires him, without betraying the least Emotion of
Anger or Resentment, to summon _Flavianus_ once more, directing him, at
the same time, to communicate with all the Catholic Bishops of the East,
pursuant to the Decree of the Council, whether he complied with this
Second Summons or no; and to acquaint the Bishop of _Rome_ with what he
had done, that, the Whole being approved by that Church, as he did not
question but it would, the whole Church might be happily of one Mind,
and reap the Fruit of his Labour[1305].
[Sidenote: Syricius _writes to the Emperor_.]
_Syricius_, and in all Likelihood _Ambrose_ too, wrote to _Theodosius_,
pressing him to send _Flavianus_ to _Rome_[N33], if he did not approve
of his being judged by the Bishop of _Alexandria_. _Syricius_, in his
Letter, tells the Emperor, that he well knew how to deal with Tyrants,
who revolted from him, and how to chastise them; but suffered those to
go unpunished, who despised the Laws of _Christ_[1306][N34].
-----
Footnote N33:
That is, into the West; for thus _Theodoret_ constantly expresses the
West.
Footnote N34:
_Theodoret_ tells us, that _Damasus_, _Syricius_, and _Anastasius_ the
Successor of _Syricius_, wrote to the Emperor _Theodosius_ about the
Dispute between _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_. A gross Mistake! since
_Damasus_ was dead long before the Election of _Evagrius_, and
_Theodosius_ before that of _Anastasius_.
-----
_Theodosius_, in Compliance with the Request of _Syricius_, made in the
Name of all the Western Bishops, sent anew for _Flavianus_, and told
him, that he must, by all means, either repair to _Rome_, or submit his
Cause to the Judgment of the Bishops of _Egypt_. [Sidenote: Flavianus
_ready to resign his Dignity, rather than to submit to the Judgment of
the_ Egyptian _or Western Bishops_.] But he was determined, says
_Theodoret_, to relinquish his Dignity rather than to suffer the Western
Bishops, or those of _Egypt_, to examine and decide whether he had a
Right to it or no; and, by that means, to hold it of them. He therefore
answered the Emperor, with great Calmness and Respect, in the following
Terms: _Sir, if my Faith is not thought Orthodox, or my Conduct not
worthy of a Catholic Bishop, I am willing to be judged by those who
accuse me, and ready to submit to the Sentence they shall pronounce.
But, if all this Noise is made merely for the sake of my Dignity, from
this Moment I resign every Preferment I enjoy in the Church, to those
whom nothing but Preferment can silence. You may therefore dispose of
the See of_ Antioch, _now vacant, to whom you please_. _Theodosius_,
pleased with this Answer, and thinking _Flavianus_, the more ready he
was to give up his Dignity, the more worthy to hold it, ordered him to
return to _Antioch_, and resume the Government of his Church; nor did he
ever afterwards give the least Attention to the pressing and repeated
Instances of _Syricius_, and his Collegues in the West[1307].
[Sidenote: Flavianus _did not acknowlege in_Syricius _the
Power claimed by his Successors_.]
From the whole Conduct of _Flavianus_ it is manifest, that he did not
acknowlege any extraordinary Power in _Syricius_, much less that Power,
which has been claimed by his Successors, of disposing, by Divine Right,
of all Bishopricks, of placing and displacing Bishops, at Pleasure,
throughout the Christian World. This Power, though evidently usurped,
and utterly unknown even in the End of the Fourth Century, Bishops are
now obliged to own in their very Titles, styling themselves Bishops of
such a Place, _by the Grace of God, and of the Apostolic See_.
_Flavianus_ was content with _the Grace of God_; and, as for the _Grace
of the Apostolic See_, he gave himself no Trouble about it. And yet
_Flavianus_ is honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint; and his
Festival kept on the 26th of _September_. And truly, if we may depend
upon the Testimony of the most authentic and unexceptionable Writers of
those Times, we shall hardly find one in the _Roman_ Calendar more
worthy of that Honour. The famous _John Chrysostom_, who was one of his
Presbyters before his Promotion to the See of _Constantinople_, has
filled his Homilies with the Praises of _the great Flavianus_, as he
styles him. His distinguished Merit, eminent Virtues, and extraordinary
Piety, seem to have been _Chrysostom_’s favourite Topic; and these
Encomiums he bestowed upon him, while he was still alive. After his
Death he was distinguished by the Council of _Chalcedon_, with the Title
of _the blessed Flavianus_[1308]; and by that of the East, held under
_John_ of _Antioch_, ranked among the brightest Luminaries, the most
illustrious Prelates, and the greatest Saints of the Church[1309].
_Theodoret_ never names him without adding to his Name some Epithet,
denoting his extraordinary Merit, such as _the great, the holy, the
admirable_ Flavianus. As therefore no room is left to doubt of his
extraordinary Piety and Merit, we may well conclude, from his absolutely
refusing to submit his Cause to the Judgment of _Syricius_, and the
other Bishops of the West, that he did not acknowlege either in him or
them a Power to judge him. This Refusal did not, in the Eyes of
_Chrysostom_, and other great Men, detract in the least from his Merit,
nor lessen the high Opinion they entertained of his Sanctity. A plain
Indication that they did not think his Conduct reprehensible, and
consequently did not acknowlege, more than he, that Power which is now
one main Article of the _Roman Catholic Creed_.
[Sidenote: _The Communion between the East and the West renewed._]
As _Flavianus_ declined the Judgment of the _Western_ as well as the
_Egyptian_ Bishops, and the Emperor gave no farther Ear to their
Remonstrances and Complaints, the Resolution taken by the Council of
_Capua_ was put in Execution; which was, to renew the Communion and good
Understanding between the East and the West, and abandon the Church of
_Antioch_ to its Schism, which, after so many promising Remedies applied
in vain, began now to be deemed an incurable Evil[1310].
[Sidenote: Bonosus _accused before the Council_.]
The Council of _Capua_, after the above-mentioned Resolution concerning
the Difference between _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_, heard a Charge
brought by some Bishops against _Bonosus_, Bishop of _Naissus_ in
_Dacia_, according to some, or, as others will have it, of _Sardica_,
the Metropolis of that Province. He was accused of a Crime against the
Canons of the Church and the Law of God[1311], and likewise of Heresy.
[Sidenote: _His Errors._] The Crime is not specified; but as for the
Heresy, I gather from _Austin_, that he held the Son to be inferior to
the Father[1312]; and from _Ambrose_, that he taught, the Virgin _Mary_
had had other Children after the Birth of _Christ_[1313]. [Sidenote:
_The judging of his Cause committed by the Council to the neighbouring
Bishops, who condemn him._] He had, it seems, been condemned by
_Damasus_, who died in 384[1314]. but still held his See, and was not
driven from it, even by the Council of _Capua_. For the Fathers of that
Assembly committed the hearing and judging of his Cause to the Bishops
in his Neighbourhood, chiefly to those of _Macedon_, under their
Metropolitan _Anysius_, Bishop of _Thessalonica_[1315]. The neighbouring
Bishops assembled, pursuant to the Order of the Council; and _Bonosus_,
as well as his Accusers, appearing before them, they found the Charge so
well supported, that they immediately forbid him to enter his Church;
which was suspending him from all Episcopal Functions. _Bonosus_
complained loudly of this Sentence, and even advised with the Bishop of
_Milan_, whether he might not, in Defiance of a Judgment so rash and
immature, still exercise the Functions of his Office, and, in case of
Opposition, repel Force with Force. _Ambrose_ exhorted him, in the
strongest Terms, to acquiesce to the Sentence, to conduct himself with
the Prudence, Temper, and Moderation, that became a Bishop; and, above
all, not to undertake any thing that might be interpreted as a Contempt
of the Authority of his Judges, since he could not contemn their
Authority, without contemning at the same time that of the Council,
which had appointed them[1316]. In the mean time the Bishops of
_Macedon_, having more leisurely examined the Cause of _Bonosus_, wrote
to _Syricius_, referring the Decision to him, and declaring their
_Abhorrence of the detestable Error, that the Virgin_ Mary _had other
Children besides Christ_. If this was an Error, which may well be
doubted, it was one that did no-way affect the Christian Faith, and
therefore did not deserve such a severe Condemnation: but as it thwarted
the favourable Opinions then entertained in the Church concerning
Virginity, it is no Wonder that it should meet with so rough a
Treatment[N35].
-----
Footnote N35:
That the Virgin _Mary_ had other Children besides Christ, was not a
new Opinion. It was taught by _Helvidius_ in 383. and long before him
by _Tertullian_, as _Jerom_ himself is forced to own in the Treatise
which he wrote against _Helvidius_: nay, in the Time of _Epiphanius_,
who flourished from the Year 366. to 403. that Opinion universally
prevailed in _Arabia_, as appears from the Letter which he wrote in
Confutation of it, and addressed to all the Christians dwelling in
_Arabia_, from the Presbyters down to the Catechumens. In that Letter
he styles those who denied the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin
_Mary_, _Antidicomarianites_; and ranks them, though their Opinion had
not yet been condemned by the Church, sometimes among the Heretics,
and sometimes among the Schismatics. But in the same Letter he
censures, with no less Severity, those who adored her, styling the
Worship that was paid her _an idolatrous Heresy_; which was taxing
those who paid it both with Heresy and Idolatry; and from neither will
the unmeaning Terms of _Latria_, _Dulia_, _Hyperdulia_, &c. invented
and used by the Schoolmen to express different Degrees of Worship,
excuse the present Practice of the Church of _Rome_. _Epiphanius_ was
unacquainted with such Terms, as well as with the different Degrees of
Worship answering them; and therefore called the Meeting of certain
Women, on a stated Day, to offer a Cake to the Virgin _Mary_, and eat
it together in her Honour (whence they had the Name of
_Collyridians_), _a Folly repugnant to Religion, an Illusion of the
Devil, a robbing God of the Honour that was due to him, an idolatrous
Heresy_[N35.1]. These Women came from the Northern Provinces of
_Scythia_ into _Thrace_, probably about the Year 372. when _Athanaric_
King of the _Goths_ drove all the Christians out of his Dominions.
From _Thrace_ they wandered into _Arabia_; and there, in Opposition to
the _Antidicomarianites_, introduced the above-mentioned idolatrous
Practice. This is the first Instance of any Worship paid to the Virgin
_Mary_; and to those Women the extravagant Worship that is still paid
her by the Church of _Rome_, owes its Rise. Some of these Women took
upon them to act, at their Meetings, as Priestesses. This _Epiphanius_
styles an abominable Abuse, Women being so utterly incapable, says he,
of performing any Ecclesiastical Functions, that our Saviour did not
grant even to his Mother the Power of baptizing[N35.2].
Footnote N35.1:
Epiph. hær. 78, 79.
Footnote N35.2:
Idem ibid.
-----
_Syricius_, in his Answer to the Bishops of _Macedon_, approves their
Sentiments; and employs almost his whole Letter to shew, that the Virgin
_Mary_ was always a Virgin: but as for the Cause of _Bonosus_, he tells
them, that _it was not lawful for him to judge it, since that Province
had been committed to them by the Council of_ Capua[1317]. And was not
this disclaiming, in the most plain and explicit Terms he possibly
could, that Power which his Successors challenge, and have almost
overturned the Christian Religion to maintain[N36]?
-----
Footnote N36:
Such a Letter, we may be sure, has not been tamely received by the
Partisans of _Rome_. Some of them have rejected it as forged and
surreptitious, for no other Reason, but because _Syricius_ is there
made to disclaim a Power which he undoubtedly had. But this is
evidently begging the Question[N36.1]. Others, finding it conveyed to
us amongst _Ambrose_’s Letters, have ascribed it to him, by prefixing
his Name to it. But _Ambrose_ is unluckily named, and spoken of, in
the Body of the Letter: whence _Baronius_ himself allows it not to be
his[N36.2]. The Style afforded great Matter of Dispute, some thinking
it like, and others unlike, to the Style of _Syricius_: but more than
the Style, the Title; _To_ Theophilus _and_ Anysius. The former was
Bishop of _Alexandria_: And how came he to be any-ways concerned in
the Cause of _Bonosus_? If that Name was common to him with some
Bishops of _Macedon_, how came that Bishop to be named before
_Anysius_ his Metropolitan[N36.3]? In the Height of these Disputes,
_Holstenius_ published the above-mentioned Letter at _Rome_, under the
Name of _Syricius_, from a very antient and authentic Manuscript, with
the following Title, _To_ Anysius _and the other Bishops of_
Illyricum[N36.4]. This turned the Controversy into another Chanel; for
the Dispute was no more concerning the Authenticit, but the Sense, of
the Letter, which the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_ began to think
very different from the Sense that the Words of _Syricius_ had
conveyed to them before; nay, those who had rejected the Letter as
spurious, for no other Reason but because _Syricius_ was there made to
disown a Power which he undoubtedly had, were not ashamed now to
maintain, that he disowned no such Power. Some of them have a
particular Faculty or Talent at making Authors say what they never
thought or dreamt of; nay, at making them affirm what they flatly
deny, and deny what they positively affirm. But they have not been so
successful on this as on several other Occasions. The Words of
_Syricius_ are too plain and precise to admit of any plausible, or
even probable, Misinterpretation. To avoid therefore the tiresome and
unnecessary Task of confuting the forced Interpretations they have put
on the Words of _Syricius_, I refer the Reader to his Letter, which is
the Fifth amongst _Ambrose_’s Letters; and leave him to judge, whether
it was possible for him to disclaim, in Terms less liable to
Misinterpretations, the Power of judging a Cause committed by a
Council to the Judgment of others, which was disclaiming, in other
Words, that universal Jurisdiction, which his Successors have usurped,
and pretend to exercise by Divine Right.
Footnote N36.1:
David. p. 562, 563.
Footnote N36.2:
Bar. ad ann. 389. n. 76.
Footnote N36.3:
Vid. Blond. primau. p. 236.
Footnote N36.4:
Holst. coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 189.
-----
[Sidenote: Bonosus _exercises the Episcopal Functions after his
Condemnation_.]
As _Syricius_ declined the judging of _Bonosus_, his Cause was in the
End decided, and he condemned by _Anysius_ and the other Bishops, to
whom that Judgment had been committed by the Council of _Capua_. It was
at the same time decreed, that those who had been ordained by him after
the first Sentence, that is, after his Suspension, should retain the
Degrees to which he had raised them. This Indulgence was shewn, as is
declared in the Decree, contrary to the common Rule, _on account of the
present Necessity_; that is, lest they should adhere to _Bonosus_, and
form a Schism[1318]. [Sidenote: _He ordains some by force._] _Bonosus_,
though thus condemned, continued to exercise the Episcopal Functions,
and, holding separate Assemblies, to ordain, without Examination or
Distinction, all who presented themselves to him: nay, he is even
charged with dragging some by open Force to his Conventicle, and
ordaining them there against their Will[1319]: a kind of Rape never
heard of before. What Advantage he could propose to himself or others in
so doing, we are not told, and it is not easy to guess. The Bishops of
_Macedon_ allowed even those, who were thus ordained, to keep their
respective Degrees in the Catholic Church, upon their only receiving the
Benediction of a lawful Bishop. Hence those, who found themselves
excluded by the Church from holy Orders, on account of their scandalous
Lives, applied to _Bonosus_, pretending to espouse his Party, but left
him as soon as they had obtained the Degree they wanted[1320]. _Bonosus_
died about the Year 410. but his Doctrine did not die with him, being
maintained by some Two hundred Years after his Death[N37].
-----
Footnote N37:
His Followers were known by the Name of _Bonosiacs_ or _Bonosians_;
and Mention is made of them by Pope _Gregory_, towards the Latter-end
of the Sixth Century[N37.1]. That Pope writes, as does likewise
_Gennadius_[N37.2], that the Church rejected their Baptism, because
they did not baptize in the Name of the Three Divine Persons. But the
Council of _Arles_, held in 452. by the Seventeenth Canon, commands
the _Bonosians_ to be received into the Church by the holy Unction,
the Imposition of Hands, and a Confession of Faith, _it being certain,
that they baptize in the Name of the Trinity_[N37.3]. It is to be
observed, that several Writers have confounded the _Bonosians_ with
the _Photinians_, who did not baptize in the Name of the Three
Persons; and by them both _Gregory_ and _Gennadius_ were
misled[N37.4].
Footnote N37.1:
Greg. l. 9. ep. 61.
Footnote N37.2:
Id. ib. Genn. dog. c. 52.
Footnote N37.3:
Avit. frag. p. 188.
Footnote N37.4:
Vide Concil. t. 2. p. 1270. & t. 3 p. 663. & t. 4. p. 1013.
-----
[Sidenote: _An End put to the Schism of_ Antioch.]
_Syricius_ had, in the last Year of his Life, the Satisfaction of seeing
an End put at length to the Schism of _Antioch_, which I have had so
frequent Occasion to speak of; and the East and West, after so long a
Misunderstanding, or rather Separation, happily reunited. This great
Work was accomplished in the following Manner: _Evagrius_, the Successor
of _Paulinus_, dying not long after his Promotion, _Flavianus_ employed
all the Credit and Interest he had at Court, and with the Clergy of
_Antioch_, to prevent the Election of a new Bishop in the room of the
deceased: and so far his Endeavours proved successful. But he could by
no means gain the _Eustathians_, who continued to assemble apart, or
prevail either upon the Bishops of _Egypt_, or _Syricius_, and the other
Western Bishops, to admit him to their Communion, though he had no
Competitor, whose Cause they could espouse against him. Thus, through
the inflexible Obstinacy of the _Egyptian_ and Western Bishops, was
Discord kept alive, and a kind of Schism fomented among the Prelates and
Members of the Catholic Church, says _Sozomen_[1321]. In this Situation
Affairs continued from the Year 392. in which _Evagrius_ died, to the
Year 398. when the famous _John Chrysostom_, Presbyter of the Church of
_Antioch_, was, in regard of his extraordinary Merit, preferred to the
See of _Constantinople_. No sooner was he placed in that high Station,
than his generous Disposition, above all little Piques and Jealousies,
his Zeal for the Welfare of the Church in general, and the tender Regard
he had for that of _Antioch_ in particular, prompted him to employ all
the Credit and Authority, which his new Dignity gave him, in bringing
about an intire Reconciliation between the East and the West, and
restoring the Church of _Antioch_ to the Communion of those Churches,
from which it had been so long separated[1322]. [Sidenote: Chrysostom
_studies to reconcile the Eastern and Western Bishops_.] _Chrysostom_
had been consecrated by _Theophilus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, whom the
Council of _Capua_ had appointed to decide, with the other Bishops of
_Egypt_, the Difference between _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_, as I have
related above. To him therefore, before he left _Constantinople_ to
return to _Egypt_, the new Bishop of that City, impatient to see so
great a Work brought to a happy Issue, imparted his Intention of
attempting a Reconciliation between _Flavianus_ and _Syricius_ Bishop of
_Rome_, earnestly intreating him to second and promote with his
Endeavours an Undertaking truly worthy of the Two first Bishops of the
East.
[Sidenote: Flavianus _and_ Theophilus _reconciled_.]
There had subsisted a Misunderstanding between _Theophilus_ and
_Flavianus_ ever since the Year 391. when the Council of _Capua_ was
held. _Flavianus_ had refused to submit his Cause to the Judgment of
_Theophilus_, pursuant to the Resolution of that Council; which he had
highly resented; and, in the Height of his Resentment, as he was a Man
of a fiery and choleric Temper, he had written to _Flavianus_ in a
very haughty and imperious Style. To these Letters _Nestorius_, no
doubt, alludes, where he tells us, that _Egypt_ could not, by her
menacing Letters, though written in the Style, and with all the
Haughtiness, of an imperious Tyrant, move or terrify the blessed
_Flavianus_[1323]. It was necessary, in the first place, to remove the
Misunderstanding which had so long subsisted between these Two
Prelates; and in this _Chrysostom_ met with no Difficulty or
Obstruction, _Theophilus_ readily agreeing to the Terms he proposed in
the Name of _Flavianus_, and _Flavianus_ ratifying them, upon the
first Notice, without the least Exception or Limitation. [Sidenote:
Chrysostom _attempts a Reconciliation between_ Flavianus _and_
Syricius.] What these Terms were, we are no-where told; but it is
certain, that, all Disputes being thereby composed, the Bishops of
_Alexandria_ and _Antioch_ were intirely reconciled, and the Communion
between them renewed, to the great Satisfaction of both[1324]. The
next Thing to be attempted, and, as was apprehended, the most
difficult to be accomplished, was the reconciling of _Syricius_ with
the Bishop of _Antioch_, who had now held that See Seventeen Years,
but had not been able, notwithstanding the great Character he bore, to
obtain the Communion of _Syricius_, or any of his Predecessors, on
account of their strong Prejudice against him, as well as his
Predecessor _Meletius_, and their obstinate Attachment to the contrary
Party, in Opposition to the far greater Part of the Eastern Bishops.
[Sidenote: _His prudent Conduct._] But the Zeal of _Chrysostom_ was
Proof against all Difficulties. Not despairing therefore of Success,
he took the most effectual Means a consummate Prudence could dictate,
to obtain it, advising the Bishops of _Antioch_ and _Alexandria_ to
acquaint the Bishop of _Rome_, by a solemn Embassy, with their
Reconciliation, and at the same time to beg, in the Name of
_Flavianus_, the Communion of that See. This he knew would flatter the
Vanity of _Syricius_, and be of more Weight than any Remonstrances
they could make. They readily fell in with the Proposal, and Deputies
were immediately chosen to put it in Execution. These were _Acacius_
Bishop of _Berœa_, _Demetrius_ of _Pessinus_, and several other
Bishops, with _Isidorus_ Presbyter and Hospitaler of the Church of
_Alexandria_, and a great Number of Presbyters and Deacons of the
Church of _Antioch_. _Acacius_, who was at the Head of this
Deputation, was charged by _Chrysostom_ to present to _Syricius_ the
Decree of his Election to the See of _Constantinople_[1325]. That so
great an Honour might not be conferred in vain on the See of _Rome_,
it was thought adviseable to acquaint _Syricius_ with their Design,
before they set out, and to be well assured of a kind Reception on
their Arrival in the West. [Sidenote: Syricius _and_ Flavianus
_reconciled_.] They gave him accordingly early Notice of their
Intention, and he, taken with the Bait, readily promised to settle
every thing to their Satisfaction[1326]; which he did accordingly,
receiving them, on their Arrival at _Rome_, with the greatest Marks of
Respect and Esteem, and admitting _Flavianus_ to his Communion. From
_Rome_ the Deputies repaired into _Egypt_, where all the Bishops,
following the Example of _Theophilus_ and _Syricius_, acknowleged
_Flavianus_ for lawful Bishop of _Antioch_, and, assembling in
Council, with great Solemnity, embraced his Communion. [Sidenote: _The
Misunderstanding between the East and the West intirely removed._]
From _Egypt_ the Deputies set out for _Antioch_, and there, by
delivering to _Flavianus_ Letters of Communion from the Western and
_Egyptian_ Bishops, completed the great Work, and with it their
Deputation[1327]. Thus was an End put, at last, to the Schism of
_Antioch_; and, after so many Years of Strife and Contention, a
perfect Harmony and good Understanding were settled anew between the
East and the West[N38].
-----
Footnote N38:
If _Syricius_ is to blame (and who, but _Baronius_, can excuse him?)
for not acknowleging _Flavianus_, at least after the Death of
_Paulinus_, the Election of his Successor _Evagrius_ being
unquestionably uncanonical and illegal; how much more is he to blame
for not acknowleging him even after the Death of _Evagrius_, when he
had no Pretence whatsoever for denying him his Communion, and by
granting it he might have put an End to the Schism? _Baronius_, to
conceal the Truth, and mislead his Readers, takes a great deal of
Pains, in his Account of this Schism, to place in a false Light all
the Transactions relating to it. But, in spite of all the Art he has
been able to use, to varnish over the Conduct of _Syricius_, and
impose on the Public, it must appear undeniable to every impartial, I
may say, to every rational, Man, that the Schism, and the many Evils
attending it, which are pathetically described by _Chrysostom_, who
was then at _Antioch_[N38.1], were intirely owing to the Pride and
Obstinacy of the Bishop of _Rome_, at least during the last Six Years,
that is, from the Year 382. when _Evagrius_ died, to 388. when he
yielded, at last, upon his being courted to it by a solemn Embassy. He
had nothing then to object against the Election, and much less against
the Conduct of _Flavianus_; and, if he had nothing then, he could have
nothing before; so that it was merely from a haughty and obstinate
Spirit that he refused to communicate with him, and, by such a
Refusal, kept up and fomented a Division so pernicious to the Church.
_Baronius_ represents him as labouring with indefatigable Pains to
restore the Tranquillity of the Church, and leaving nothing
unattempted that could any-ways contribute to the promoting of so
pious an Undertaking, an Undertaking which he had so much at Heart.
But that he had nothing at Heart besides the Glory of his See, is but
too manifest from his Conduct; for the Minute that was saved, as it
was by the above-mentioned Deputation, all the Difficulties vanished
at once, which till then had obstructed the Work. As for the Conduct
of _Flavianus_, in refusing to submit his Cause to the Judgment of the
Council of _Capua_, or of the _Egyptian_ Bishops, appointed to judge
it by that Council, it must appear, if impartially considered, more
worthy of Commendation than Blame, tho’ condemned, in very unbecoming
Terms, by the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_. He had been chosen in
the Oecumenical Council of _Constantinople_, in the Year 381. by the
unanimous Voice of all the Bishops of the Diocese of the East, or the
Patriarchate of _Antioch_, and soon after ordained in their Presence,
at _Antioch_, with the Approbation of _Nestorius_, then Bishop of
_Constantinople_, and the loud Acclamations of the far greater Part of
the People of _Antioch_, promising themselves, in him, a second
_Meletius_, in whose room he was chosen[N38.2]. Being thus chosen and
ordained, he was acknowleged by all the Bishops of the East, except
those of _Egypt_, of the Island of _Cyprus_, and _Arabia_. Could he
therefore, without shamefully betraying _the undoubted Right, which
the Bishops of each Diocese had of chusing their Metropolitan_, suffer
his Election to be questioned and canvassed by the Western Bishops,
who had no Concern in it; and, besides, had openly espoused the Cause
of his Competitor _Paulinus_, and supported him, so long as he lived,
with the most open and avowed Partiality? Could he, without foregoing,
in a manner still more shameful, both his own Right, and that of his
Electors, out of Compliance to the Bishops assembled at _Capua_, put
himself upon the Level with _Evagrius_, whose Election and Ordination
were undoubtedly illegal? Besides, _Flavianus_ was sensible, that the
Eastern Bishops would have paid no manner of Regard to the Sentence of
the Council; that, had the Council adjudged the See of _Antioch_ to
_Evagrius_, such a Judgment, instead of closing, would have widened
the Breach between the East and the West; and consequently, that his
complying with their Summons, far from answering the End they proposed
to themselves, would more probably have had a quite contrary Effect,
since he had but too much room to suppose, that the strong Prejudice,
which they had on all Occasions betrayed against him, would incline
them to favour his Competitor, notwithstanding the known Illegality
both of his Election and Ordination. It was therefore, upon the Whole,
very prudent in him to decline putting the Affair upon that Issue.
Footnote N38.1:
Chrys. in Eph. hom. 11.
Footnote N38.2:
Socr. l. 5 c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3. Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Cod. Theod. ap.
p. 104.
-----
[Sidenote: Flavianus _endeavours in vain to gain over the_ Eustathians.]
_Flavianus_, being thus at last, in the Seventeenth Year of his
Episcopacy, acknowleged by, and united in Communion with, all the
Bishops of the Catholic Church, spared no Pains to gain over the
_Eustathians_, that, by reuniting them to the rest of his Flock, he
might have the Merit and Glory of establishing an intire and lasting
Tranquillity in the Church committed to his Care. But his Zeal was not
therein attended with the wished for Success. The Glory of completing so
great and desirable a Work was, by Providence, reserved for _Alexander_,
one of his Successors, who had the Satisfaction of seeing all
Party-Names laid aside, and the whole People of _Antioch_ united in one
Flock, under one and the same Shepherd. This Union was made with great
Solemnity, in the Year 415. Eleven Years after the Death of _Flavianus_,
and Eighty-five after the Beginning of the Schism. Thus _Theodoret_, in
his Ecclesiastical History[1328]. But _Theodorus_ the Lector assures us,
that there still remained some Seeds of that unhappy Division till the
Year 482. when the Body of _Eustathius_ being brought back to _Antioch_,
the few _Eustathians_, who still continued to assemble apart, joined the
rest of the Catholics, and the Name of _Eustathian_ was never more heard
of[1329]. [Sidenote: Flavianus _honoured by the Church of_ Rome _as a
Saint, tho’ ill used in his Life-time by the Popes_.] _Flavianus_ died
in the Year 404. the Ninety-fifth of his Age, and Twenty-third of his
Episcopacy, and is now honoured as a Saint; a Distinction which none of
his Competitors have deserved, though as much caressed and favoured by
the Two Bishops of _Rome_, _Damasus_ and _Syricius_, as he was opposed
and ill used. How fallible have the Bishops of that See shewed
themselves, from the earliest Times, in their Judgment of things! How
rash in taking Parties, and fomenting Discords! How obstinate and
inflexible in maintaining the Cause, which they had once undertaken, let
it be ever so bad! The only thing that can be alleged against the
Character of _Flavianus_, is his having accepted the Bishoprick of
_Antioch_, contrary to the Oath he had taken, on Occasion of the
Agreement between _Meletius_ and _Paulinus_, as I have related
above[1330]. That he took such an Oath, is vouched both by _Socrates_
and _Sozomen_[1331]. But as he was looked upon by all the East, and
extolled by _Chrysostom_, even in his Life-time, as a Prelate of an
unblemished Character, and never reproached, even by his greater
Enemies, with such an Oath, in the many Disputes that arose about his
Election, I had rather charge those Two Writers with one Mistake more
(for they are guilty of many others), than a Man of _Flavianus_’s
Probity with such a scandalous Prevarication.
[Sidenote: Syricius _dies_.]
_Syricius_ did not long enjoy the Satisfaction he had, to see the Schism
of _Antioch_ ended in his Days, and a good Understanding settled anew
between the East and the West. He died the same Year 398. and, according
to the most probable Opinion, on the 26th of _November_[1332]. He is
said, in his Epitaph, quoted by _Baronius_[1333], to have been a Man of
a tender, compassionate, and generous Temper; to have studied the
Happiness of the People committed to his Care; to have spared no Pains
in procuring them the Blessings that flow from Peace and Tranquillity;
and to have screened several Persons from the Wrath of the Emperor, to
maintain the Rights of the Church[1334]. [Sidenote: _Was once honoured
as a Saint._] He is commended by _Ambrose_, and the whole Council of
_Milan_, as _a vigilant Pastor_[1335], by _Isidore_ of _Seville_ as _an
illustrious Pontiff_[1336]; and he has even a Place among the other
Saints, in most of the antient Martyrologies[1337]. However _Baronius_
has not thought him worthy of a Place in the _Roman_ Martyrology. It is
well known, that the Charge of revising and correcting the _Roman_
Martyrology was committed, by Pope _Gregory_ XIII. to _Baronius_, with
full Power to reject such as he should judge unworthy, and admit others
in their room, whom he should declare worthy of the public Worship, and
a Place there[N39]. [Sidenote: _Why expunged by_ Baronius _out of
the Calendar of Saints_.] _The Keys of Heaven_, says a modern Writer,
speaking of that Charge, _were taken from_ Peter, _and given to_
Baronius; _for it was not by_ Peter, _but by_ Baronius, _that some were
excluded from, and others admitted into, Heaven_[1338]. He then shews,
that by this _Second Minos_, as he styles him, several were driven from
the Seats they had long held in Heaven, and to which they had a just
Claim, to make room for others, who had no Claim. Among the former he
names _Syricius_, whom he thinks _Baronius_ ought to have treated in a
more friendly manner, upon the Recommendation of _Ambrose_, of the
Council of _Milan_, and of _Isidore_. What thus prejudiced _Baronius_
against him, and outweighed, in his Scales, all the Recommendations that
could be produced in his Favour, was his Indifference for _Jerom_ and
_Paulinus_, and the Kindness he shewed to _Ruffinus_, _Jerom_’s
Antagonist. _Syricius_, instead of protecting _Jerom_, as his
Predecessor _Damasus_ had done, against the _Roman_ Clergy, whom he had
provoked with his Writings, gave him, in a manner, up to their
Resentment; which obliged him to abandon _Rome_, and return into the
East, as I have related above. The Name of _Paulinus_, afterwards Bishop
of _Nola_, is famous in the History of the Church, and celebrated by
_Jerom_, _Ambrose_, _Austin_, and all the Writers of those Times. He had
abandoned the World, and the immense Wealth he possessed, to lead a
retired Life; and, in the Year 395. he passed through _Rome_, in his Way
to _Nola_, which he had chosen for the Place of his Retirement. The
Treatment he met with at _Rome_, from that Clergy, and _Syricius_
himself, must have been very unworthy of a Man of his Character, since
it obliged him, as he himself writes[1339], to quit the City in great
Haste, and pursue his Journey to _Nola_. Two Years afterwards _Ruffinus_
came to _Rome_, and there met with a very different Reception. For
_Syricius_ received him, tho’ violently suspected of _Origenism_, with
the greatest Marks of Esteem and Affection; and, after having
entertained him a whole Year, gave him Letters of Communion at his
Departure. Of this _Jerom_ complains, as if Advantage had been taken of
the Bishop of _Rome_’s Simplicity, to impose upon him[1340]. I will not
pretend, as some have done, to justify _Ruffinus_; but cannot help
observing, that such a Charge ought not to be admitted against him, upon
the bare Authority of _Jerom_, or of those, who have only copied what he
writ.
-----
Footnote N39:
The _Roman_ Martyrology contains the Names of such Saints as may be
publicly worshiped, and of the Places where they died, with a succinct
Account of the most remarkable Feats which they are supposed to have
performed. I said, _who are publicly worshiped_; for in private every
one is allowed to honour, worship, and invoke whom they please,
provided they have sufficient Grounds to believe them in _a State of
Happiness_, or _in the Way to it_, that is, in Heaven, or in
Purgatory; for the Souls in Purgatory may be privately worshiped and
invoked; nay, most of the Popish Divines are now of Opinion, that even
a canonized Saint may be still in Purgatory. When Learning began to
revive, many gross Mistakes were discovered in the _Roman_, as well as
in the other Martyrologies, some being placed among the Saints, and
consequently worshiped as Saints, who had been notorious Sinners; and
others daily invoked, who had never existed. That the Church therefore
might be no longer misled in her Worship, _Gregory_ XIII. thought it
necessary to interpose his _infallible Authority_; and, having
accordingly, ordered _Baronius_ to revise and correct the _Roman_
Martyrology, he confirmed, by a special Bull, dated the 14th of
_January_ 1584. all the Emendations, Additions, Corrections, _&c._
which _Baronius_ had been pleased to make, threatening with _the
Indignation of the Almighty God, and of his Apostles St._ Peter _and
St._ Paul, all who should presume to make any further Alterations. And
yet many Alterations have been made since _Gregory_’s Time; and that
many more might and ought to be made, has been sufficiently shewn by
many Protestant, and some Roman Catholic, Divines.
-----
[Sidenote: Jerom _and_ Ruffinus _quarrel_.]
_Jerom_ and _Ruffinus_ had lived several Years in close Friendship, and
great Intimacy; but, falling out in the Year 393. their former
Friendship was turned at once into an open and avowed Enmity. What gave
Occasion to this Breach I shall relate hereafter, and only observe here,
that _Jerom_ not only quarreled with _Ruffinus_, but with all the
Friends of _Ruffinus_; nay, and with those too, who, professing an equal
Friendship for both, would not break with either, or any-ways interfere
in the Quarrel. Among these was the celebrated _Roman_ Matron _Melania_,
so frequently spoken of, and so highly commended, by _Austin_, by
_Paulinus_, and, above all, by _Jerom_ himself, who has filled his
Letters with her Praises, proposing her as a true Pattern of every
Virtue becoming her Sex.
[Sidenote: Jerom _quarrels with all the Friends of_ Ruffinus,
_especially with_ Melania.]
_Melania_ had retired with _Ruffinus_ to _Jerusalem_, Twenty-seven Years
before, and continued there practising, under his Direction, those Works
of Charity, which _Jerom_ so often admires and extols. It could not
therefore be expected that she should discard the _Partner of her holy
Life, and all her good Works_, as _Paulinus_ styles him[1341], the
Minute the other was pleased to dislike him, or, indeed, that she should
take any Part at all in the Quarrel. And yet, because she prudently
declined taking Part, but continued to shew the same Affection and
Esteem for _Ruffinus_, which she had done before; _Jerom_, forgetful of
the Regard that was due to a Matron of her Birth and Piety, and of the
high Encomiums which he had himself bestowed on her, began to inveigh
with no less Bitterness against her, than against _Ruffinus_ himself.
[Sidenote: _His Conduct towards her._] In one of his Letters, still
extant[1342], after finding Fault with one of _Ruffinus_’s Friends,
thought to be _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, he adds; “But, after all, he
is not so much to blame as his Instructors _Ruffinus_ and _Melania_,
who, with a great deal of Trouble and Pains, have taught him to know
nothing.” _Ruffinus_ tells us, that _Jerom_, finding that _Melania_, who
was a Matron of great Judgment and Penetration, did not approve of his
Actions and Conduct, thereupon spitefully erased out of his Chronicle,
what he had there written in her Praise[1343]. But he did not, nor was
it, perhaps, in his Power to make such an Alteration in all the Copies;
for what he is said to have cancelled, is still remaining in all the
printed, as well as manuscript Copies of that Work, which have reached
our Times. _Melania_ lived Eighteen Years after, steadily pursuing the
same Course of Life, for which _Jerom_ had once proposed her as a
Pattern to her whole Sex[1344]. She died at _Jerusalem_ in the Year 411.
and died poor, having spent an immense Estate in relieving the Needy and
Indigent, not only of the Countries where she lived, and through which
she passed, but those too of the most distant Provinces of the Empire.
For Persons in Poverty and Distress, whether in _Persia_ or _Britain_,
says the Author of her Life[1345], were alike the Objects of her
Charity, and felt alike the Effects of her Generosity and Good-nature.
She died, but with her did not die the Rancour and Spleen which _Jerom_
had for so many Years harboured in his Breast against her. For, carrying
his Resentment even beyond the Grave, while the Poor were every-where
bemoaning, with Tears, the Loss of so generous a Benefactress, while the
Writers were paying the deserved Tribute of Praise to the Virtues of so
pious a Matron, _Jerom_, instead of joining the rest in the common
Grief, strove to dry up their Tears, to drown their Praises, by throwing
out several peevish and ill-natured Reflections on the Memory of the
Deceased. As the famous _Pelagius_ had inscribed a Book to her before he
broached his Opinions, _Jerom_, in the Letter which he writ to
_Ctesiphon_ against the _Pelagians_, could not forbear bringing her in,
and observing on that Occasion, with a malignant Quibble, that the very
Name of _Melania_ bespoke (in the _Greek_ Tongue), and sufficiently
declared, the _Blackness_ of her Treachery and Perfidiousness[1346].
[Sidenote: Syricius _not to be condemned on the bare Authority of_
Jerom.]
Such was the Conduct of _Jerom_ towards that illustrious Matron, in her
Life-time, and after her Death. From this Conduct I leave the Reader to
judge, whether the Authority of so prejudiced a Writer ought to have
been of such Weight with _Baronius_ as to make him exclude her, as well
as _Syricius_, from the _Roman_ Martyrology, or the Calendar of Saints.
Should we grant _Ruffinus_ to have really held the Errors which _Jerom_
charged him with, it must still be owned, that _Melania_ acted, as
became a Person of her Wisdom, Piety, and Experience, in suspending her
Judgment, and not breaking with _Ruffinus_, till she was otherwise
convinced, than by the Invectives of his Antagonist, equally levelled
against herself, that he was no longer worthy of her Friendship and
Regard. As for _Syricius_, _Jerom_ rather commends than blames him, even
where he complains of his Kindness to _Ruffinus_. For he only says, that
_Ruffinus_ abused the Simplicity of _Syricius_, who judged of the Spirit
of others from his own[1347]; which was saying, in other Words, that he
was a good Man, but mistaken in his Judgment, or not infallible: so that
his only Crime, according to _Jerom_, was want of Infallibility.
However, upon the Authority of that Father, _Baronius_ not only condemns
the Conduct of _Syricius_, but, rashly prying into the inscrutable
Secrets of Providence, pretends his Days to have been shortened for the
Countenance he gave to _Ruffinus_, and the Remissness he shewed in
suppressing the Errors, with which he was charged. It is certain, that
_Ruffinus_ was well received, and entertained, in a very hospitable
manner, by _Syricius_, during his Stay at _Rome_; and that, upon his
leaving that City, he received from him Letters of Communion. Now, if
_Syricius_ did not know, or did not believe, that _Ruffinus_ held those
Errors, how unjust is it to blame him for the Kindness he shewed to a
Man of _Ruffinus_’s Character! If he did know, and yet gave him Letters
of Communion, how will _Baronius_ be able to clear _Syricius_ from the
Imputation of holding the same Errors[N40]?
-----
Footnote N40:
A modern Writer[N40.1], taking the Part of _Syricius_ against
_Baronius_, has composed a whole Dissertation, and not a short one, to
shew _how undeservedly_ Syricius _has been cashiered in this Review of
the Church triumphant, while many others passed Muster for great
Saints, whose Virtues_, he might have said, whose very Existence, _may
be justly disputed_. I shall not enter into the tedious Detail of his
Arguments and Reasons, but only observe, that the Name of _Syricius_
ought not to have been struck out of the Calendar, while the Names of
the _Arian_ Pope _Liberius_, and the Antipope _Felix_, his Antagonist,
were kept in; though, upon other Accounts, I think him myself very
unworthy of the Name of a Saint.
Footnote N40.1:
Florentinus, in vetus Martyrol. Hieronymi, p. 1001-1010.
-----
[Sidenote: _The Misunderstanding between_ Syricius _and_ Paulinus
_no Charge against_ Syricius.]
As for the Treatment _Paulinus_ of _Nola_ met with from _Syricius_,
there was, no doubt, a Misunderstanding between them; but, as I am quite
in the Dark as to the Cause of it, I will not take upon me to condemn
the one rather than the other. Perhaps they were both to blame; perhaps
they both meant well, and neither was to blame. However that be, the
Misunderstanding between them was soon removed; for, during the
remaining Part of _Syricius_’s Life, _Paulinus_ went constantly to
_Rome_ once a Year, as he himself declares, in one of his Letters[1348].
_Syricius_, it is true, did not take _Jerom_ into his Protection, as his
Predecessor had done, nor shew him the same Kindness; which is the Third
Charge brought by _Baronius_ against him, but of no more Weight than the
other Two, that is, of none at all. _Jerom_, prompted by his Zeal, and
censorious Temper, could not help inveighing, with great Bitterness, in
all his Writings, against the Looseness and Debauchery, which
universally prevailed, in his Time, among the _Roman_ Clergy, and the
pious Frauds they made use of to extort Legacies and Presents from old
Men, from Widows, and from Orphans. _Syricius_ might have been as much
offended at the Vices of his Libertine Clergy, as _Jerom_ was, and even
studied to reform them; but, at the same time, be glad, without
deserving the least Reproach on that score, to get rid of so troublesome
a Censor, who thus exposed their Irregularities to the Eyes, and them to
the Contempt, of the World[N41].
-----
Footnote N41:
The Festival of _Syricius_ was never kept, it seems, by public
Authority; but is marked in some antient Martyrologies, on the 22d of
_February_, and in others on the 26th of _November_. The last was more
probably the Day of his Death, since he is said, both by _Prosper_ and
_Isidore_, to have governed 14 Years, to complete which one Month only
will be wanting, if we place his Death on that Day; and several, if
with _Baronius_ we suppose him to have died on the 22d of
_February_[N41.1]; for, as to the Year of his Death, there is no
Disagreement among Authors. _Baronius_ mentions an antient Picture,
Part whereof, says he, is still to be seen in the Title of Pope
_Syricius_[N41.2]. But that Picture is no more to be seen, and he
explains himself no farther.
Footnote N41.1:
Vid. Boll. 22 Feb. p. 282.
Footnote N41.2:
Bar. ad ann. 395. n. 6.
-----
_Syricius_ was interred in the Cœmetery of _Priscilla_, but his Body
was translated, about the Latter-end of the Eighth Century, to the
Church of St. _Praxedes_[1349], where his Remains (for _Baronius_ will
not allow us to call them Relics) still lie unregarded.
-----
Footnote 1224:
Bar. ad ann. 385. n. 5. Anast. c. 29. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32.
Footnote 1225:
Vide Bar. ad ann. 385. n. 5.
Footnote 1226:
Id. ib. n. 6.
Footnote 1227:
Concil. t. 1. p. 69. 689-691.
Footnote 1228:
Ib. p. 689.
Footnote 1229:
Isid. ser. c. 3.
Footnote 1230:
Con. ib.
Footnote 1231:
Ib. p. 690.
Footnote 1232:
Ibid.
Footnote 1233:
Ib. p. 689, 690.
Footnote 1234:
Inn. ep. 3. c. 1. t. 1. p. 755, 756.
Footnote 1235:
Ib. & p. 691.
Footnote 1236:
Inn. ep. 3. c. 1. t. 1. p. 755, 756.
Footnote 1237:
Cod. Rom. a Ques. cum Leone edit. c. 29.
Footnote 1238:
Conc. t. 1. p. 1210.
Footnote 1239:
Ib. p. 1329.
Footnote 1240:
Soz. l. 1. c. 23.
Footnote 1241:
Socr. l. 1. c. 11.
Footnote 1242:
Suid. in vit. Paph.
Footnote 1243:
Chricht. de contin. sacerd. c. 4.
Footnote 1244:
Melanch. in Apol. p. 13.
Footnote 1245:
Bellar. de cler. l. 1. c. 21.
Footnote 1246:
Hier. in Jovin. l. 1.
Footnote 1247:
Ign. ep. ad Philadelp.
Footnote 1248:
Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.
Footnote 1249:
Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Concil. l. 2. p. 28, 29. Ambr. ep. 25.
Footnote 1250:
Epiph. hæres. 59.
Footnote 1251:
Hier. l. 2. in Jov.
Footnote 1252:
Vide Cæs. comm. de bell. Gall. l. 6. Cic. div. l. 1.
Footnote 1253:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1028.
Footnote 1254:
Bolland. prop. p. 213.
Footnote 1255:
Bar. ad ann. 387. n. 65, 66. ex t. 1. ep. Rom. Pont. p. 48.
Footnote 1256:
Hier. ep. 29.
Footnote 1257:
Aug. ad Con. c. 3.
Footnote 1258:
Concil. t. 1. p. 742. ed. Binian.
Footnote 1259:
Concil. t. 1. p. 742.
Footnote 1260:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1279.
Footnote 1261:
Aug. ad Conc. c. 3.
Footnote 1262:
Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 56.
Footnote 1263:
Pet. de Natal. l. 11. c. 89.
Footnote 1264:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 121.
Footnote 1265:
Ad Cte. t. 2. p. 152.
Footnote 1266:
Id. ep. 82. 29. in Isai. c. 60.
Footnote 1267:
Leo, t. p. 831.
Footnote 1268:
Aug. ad Con. contra mendac. per totum.
Footnote 1269:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1028-1030.
Footnote 1270:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1578.
Footnote 1271:
Vide Blond. censur. in decretal. epist. p. 550.
Footnote 1272:
Quesn. dissert. 5. sur S. Leon.
Footnote 1273:
Hier. in Jovin. l. 2. t. 2. p. 94.
Footnote 1274:
Id. ib. l. 1. c. 25. Aug. hæres. 82. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1275:
Hier. ib. c. 1.
Footnote 1276:
Aug. op. imp. l. 4. c. 121. & hær. 82. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1277:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 2. & ad. Bon. l. 2. c. 2.
Footnote 1278:
Hier. ib. c. 25. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1279:
Amb. ibid.
Footnote 1280:
Aug. hæres. 82. Hier. in Jovin. l. 2. c. 23.
Footnote 1281:
Amb. ep. 6.
Footnote 1282:
Hier. ep. 26.
Footnote 1283:
Id. ep. 50.
Footnote 1284:
Amb. ep. 6.
Footnote 1285:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1286:
Id. ep. 7.
Footnote 1287:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 2.
Footnote 1288:
Cod. Theod. 16. t. 5. l. 53.
Footnote 1289:
Hier. in Vigil. c. 1.
Footnote 1290:
Hier. in Vigil. c. 1.
Footnote 1291:
Vide p. 220.
Footnote 1292:
Soz. l. 5. c. 15. & l. 7. c. 15. Hier. vir. ill. c. 125.
Footnote 1293:
Theodor. l. 5. c. 25.
Footnote 1294:
Theod. ib.
Footnote 1295:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1296:
Theod. ib.
Footnote 1297:
Id. ib. & Amb. 9.
Footnote 1298:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1072.
Footnote 1299:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1300:
Laun. ep. 7. p. 10.
Footnote 1301:
Bar. ad ann. 391.
Footnote 1302:
Blond. primaut. p. 237.
Footnote 1303:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1304:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1305:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1306:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23.
Footnote 1307:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1308:
Concil. t. 4. p. 830.
Footnote 1309:
Facund. Hermian. l. 8. c. 1.
Footnote 1310:
Ruff. l. 11. c. 22.
Footnote 1311:
Mercat. t. 2. p. 128.
Footnote 1312:
Aug. ep. 150.
Footnote 1313:
Amb. ep. 5. & Instit. Virg. p. 5.
Footnote 1314:
Merc. ib.
Footnote 1315:
Amb. ib.
Footnote 1316:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1317:
Amb. ibid.
Footnote 1318:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1274.
Footnote 1319:
Ib. p. 1275.
Footnote 1320:
Ib.
Footnote 1321:
Soz. l. 8. c. 3.
Footnote 1322:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23. Soz. l. 8. c. 3.
Footnote 1323:
Marc. t. 2. p. 86.
Footnote 1324:
Socr. l. 5. c. 15.
Footnote 1325:
Soz. l. 8. c. 3. Socr. l. 6. c. 9. Pallad. dial. c. 4.
Footnote 1326:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23.
Footnote 1327:
Soz. l. 5. c. 15. Theod. ib. Pallad. dial. p. 10.
Footnote 1328:
Theod. l. 5. c. 35.
Footnote 1329:
Theodor. Lect. l. 2.
Footnote 1330:
Vid. p. 221.
Footnote 1331:
Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3.
Footnote 1332:
Vid. Bolland. 22 Feb. p. 282.
Footnote 1333:
Bar. ad an. 398. in app.
Footnote 1334:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1335:
Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1336:
Isid. vir. ill. c. 3.
Footnote 1337:
Florent. p. 999. Bolland. Feb. 22. p. 282.
Footnote 1338:
Aguilera santi di Palermo.
Footnote 1339:
Paul. ep. 1.
Footnote 1340:
Hier. ep. 16. & in Ruf. l. 3. c. 6, & 7.
Footnote 1341:
Paul. ep. 9.
Footnote 1342:
Hier. ep. 101.
Footnote 1343:
Ex Ruf. l. 2.
Footnote 1344:
Vid. Hier. ep. 99.
Footnote 1345:
Pallad. hist. Lausiac. in Bibl. Patr. c. 118.
Footnote 1346:
Hier. ad Ctes. l. 2.
Footnote 1347:
Hier. in Ruf. l. 3. c. 6, 7.
Footnote 1348:
Paul. ep. 16.
Footnote 1349:
Vid. Boll. prop. p. 59.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCADIUS, ANASTASIUS, HONORIUS.
_Thirty-eighth_ BISHOP _of_
Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 398. Anastasius _writes to_ Paulinus.]
_Syricius_ was succeeded by _Anastasius_[1350], after a Vacancy of
Twenty Days, according to some; and, according to others, of near Two
Months. He was no sooner chosen, than he writ a kind and obliging Letter
to _Paulinus_, then at _Nola_ in _Campania_, and an other in his
Commendation to the Bishops of that Province[1351]. This he is supposed
to have done, in order to efface the bad Impression, which the Treatment
_Paulinus_ had met with in the Time of _Syricius_, might have given him
against that See, and the _Roman_ Clergy.
[Sidenote: _What occasioned the Quarrel between_ Jerom _and_ Ruffinus.]