all to have been old or infirm; that the Subscription of this Letter is very singular, _Data Romæ in Concilio Episcoporum octoginta_, which in all other Synodal Letters is placed at the Beginning; that neither this Letter, nor the Council of _Tela_; by which it is supposed to have been quoted, are ever mentioned or taken notice of by any of the Councils, that were afterwards held in _Africa_; to establish the Celibacy of the Clergy. Some will have this Letter to have been written only for the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Rome_, of which _Syricius_ was Primate, and to have been sent by him to the Bishops of _Africa_, and perhaps to those of the other Provinces, with a Design to try whether they might not be prompted to receive the Canons it contained, as general Rules, though made for the Vicariate only. This had been attempting to establish at once, and in a manner by Surprize, an universal Jurisdiction. But I can hardly believe, that, in the Days of _Syricius_, when the Ambition of the Bishops of _Rome_ was yet in its Infancy, they should have aspired to, or entertained any Notion of, such a Jurisdiction. As to the Council, I shall only observe here, that it is said in all the printed Copies of the Councils, all the antient Manuscripts, but one, to have been held at _Tela_, in the Province of _Byzacene_, whereas _Tela_ is allowed, even by those who defend this Council as genuine, to have belonged to the _Proconsularis_. They have therefore nothing else to recur to but the Ignorance of the Transcribers, the usual Refuge in such Cases, whom they all agree to have been mistaken, though all equally at a Loss, and at Variance among themselves, how to correct the supposed Mistake. For, instead of _Tela_, some read _Zela_ or _Zella_, others _Tena_, _Teneptis_, _Teleptus_, &c. In short, there is not a single Town in the whole Province of _Byzacene_, bearing the least Resemblance in Name with _Tela_, that has not been substituted in its room; nay, some have bestowed that Honour on the smallest Villages, as if it were probable, that, in a Province, filled, as _Byzacene_ was, with considerable Cities, and Episcopal Sees, Bishops should chuse to assemble in a Village. To read _Proconsularis_ instead of _Byzacene_, as some have done, is contradicting, and consequently giving up, the Acts of that Council; for the Thirty-three Bishops named there, as composing it, were all of the latter Province, and _Vincentius_ and _Fortunatianus_ are said to have assisted as Deputies from the former[N28.2]. It would be needless to dwell any longer on this Subject, and point out the many Absurdities and Contradictions that occur in the supposed Acts of that Council, since the very Title must convince every impartial Reader, that no such Council was ever held. I cannot, however, help taking Notice of a very extraordinary Canon,