To convince the Reader of this double Forgery, I need not refer him to that judicious Writer. The many groundless, perplexed, and contradictory Arguments, or rather Conjectures, alleged by those who have taken most Pains to prove both the above-mentioned Pieces genuine, _viz._ by _Chifflerus_, _Papebrok_, and Cardinal _Noris_, are, perhaps, a more convincing Proof of their being forged, than any that can be alleged against them. There is so palpable a Difference, in point of Style, between this Letter, and that which _Syricius_ writ to _Himerius_, and which is on all Hands allowed to be genuine, that no one can possibly suppose both to have been penned by one and the same Person. Besides, in the former Letter _Syricius_ absolutely commands, and in this only advises, exhorts, and intreats the Priests and Deacons to live continent. Of those Two Difficulties none of the Writers I have just quoted have thought fit to take the least Notice, though they could hardly escape their Observation. The very first Canon or Article of this Letter, for the sake of which both the Letter itself, and the Acts of the Council, were most probably forged, sufficiently betrays the Forgery. For it is absolutely unintelligible, and therefore pointed, construed, altered, _&c._ in Twenty different Manners, by those who maintain it to be genuine. Some read it thus: _Ut sine conscientia sedis Apostolicæ Primatis nemo audeat ordinare_; _That no one should presume to ordain without the Knowlege of the Primate of the Apostolic See_. I do not find the Bishops of _Rome_ to have ever styled themselves, in their Letters, _Primates of the Apostolic See_; nay, the humble Title of _Primate of the Apostolic See_ (humble with respect to the Bishop of _Rome_, Primate, Prince, and Monarch of the whole Church), so soured _Labbé_, that he fairly owned the Truth, chusing rather to give up the Letter, than to admit a Title that seemed to detract from the _Supremacy_. Besides, it is very certain, that, in the Time of _Syricius_ the Bishops of _Rome_ were not yet so lost to all Modesty as to pretend, in open Defiance of the Canons, that no Bishop should be ordained without their Knowlege. Others read that Article thus: _Ut extra conscientiam sedis Apostolicæ, hoc est, Primatis_, &c. _That none should presume to ordain without the Knowlege of the Apostolic See, that is, of their Primate._ Now, is it probable, that the Bishop of _Rome_ would have given the Title of _Apostolic See_ to all the Metropolitan Churches; a Title which Pope _Leo the Great_ would not allow even to the Bishop of _Constantinople_[N28.1]? I might add, that the Author of this Letter writes, and I think very ridiculously, that the _African_ Bishops would have come to _Rome_ to assist at the Council, had they not been prevented by their Infirmities, or old Age; which is supposing them