_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