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_.]