Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (13)

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

-----

Footnote N29:

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

Footnote N29.1:

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

-----

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

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

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

-----

Footnote N30:

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

Footnote N30.1:

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

Footnote N30.2:

Hier. ep. 51, 52.

-----

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

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

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

-----

Footnote N31:

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

Footnote N31.1:

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

-----

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

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Capua.]

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

-----

Footnote N32:

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

-----

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_.]