Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (21)

The Emperor, having taken this Resolution, dispatched Count _John_ to _Ephesus_, with Orders to drive the Three Incendiaries, _Nestorius_, _Cyril_, and _Memnon_, out of the City, and persuade the Bishops to assemble in One Council. Count _John_, soon after his Arrival, caused the Three Bishops to be arrested and confined; but could by no means bring about an Accommodation between the Two Parties; the Orientals obstinately refusing to communicate with the Friends of _Cyril_, till they had anathematized his Doctrine; and his Friends no less obstinately requiring the Orientals to anathematize the Doctrine of _Nestorius_, before they would communicate with them; so that _John_ was obliged in the End, notwithstanding all the Pains he took, to acquaint the Emperor, that he had found the Minds of the Bishops so soured and exasperated against one another, that it was impossible ever to reconcile them. [Sidenote: _He orders both Councils to send a certain Number of Deputies to_ Constantinople.] The Emperor, upon the Receipt of his Letter, dispatched an Order to both Councils, injoining them to send a certain Number of Deputies, both the same Number, to _Constantinople_, where he proposed to have the Points in Dispute impartially examined. In Compliance with this Order, the Two Councils sent each Eight Deputies, who immediately set out, with proper Instructions, for _Constantinople_; but, arriving at _Chalcedon_, on the opposite Side of the _Bosporus_, they were stopped there, by an Order from the Emperor, it not being thought safe for the Orientals to enter _Constantinople_, the Monks, who were very numerous in that City, having prejudiced the Populace against them. [Sidenote: _He hears them at_ Chalcedon.] They arrived at _Chalcedon_ in the latter End of _August_; and, on the 4th of _September_, the Emperor came to the Palace of _Ruffinus_, in that Neighbourhood, and there heard both Parties, with great Patience. [Sidenote: _Is, at first, favourable to the Orientals and_ Nestorius; _but afterwards declares against them_.] He was, at first, so favourable to the Orientals, that they thought themselves sure of Victory; and even writ to their Friends at _Ephesus_, desiring them to thank him for the Kindness he had shewn them. But, to their great Surprize, the Face of Affairs changed at once. They had been already admitted Four times to the Emperor’s Presence, and heard by him with much Kindness: but, in the Fifth Audience, which they thought would complete their Triumph, the Emperor, after receiving them with great Coolness, told them, abruptly, that they had better admit both _Memnon_ and _Cyril_ to their Communion, and abandon the Defence of _Nestorius_. They were thunderstruck with such a Proposal, and strongly remonstrated against it. But _Theodosius_, deaf to their Remonstrances, returned the next Day to _Constantinople_, carrying with him the Deputies of the adverse Party, in order to have a new Bishop ordained by them, in the room of _Nestorius_. Soon after his Return, he issued an Edict, declaring _Nestorius_ justly deposed, reinstating _Cyril_ and _Memnon_ in their Sees, and giving all the other Bishops Leave to return to their respective Churches, they being all alike Orthodox[1630]. This was declaring the Council dissolved; and it was dissolved accordingly; but the Disturbances which it occasioned, were not composed till many Years after.

[Sidenote: _To what this Change was owing_.]

The sudden Change in the Emperor, with respect to the Orientals, is ascribed by _Acacius_ Bishop of _Berœa_, to the Gold that _Cyril_ caused to be prodigally distributed, on this Occasion, among the Courtiers. For _Acacius_ writes, that one of the Eunuchs of the Court, by Name _Scholasticus_, dying possessed of great Wealth, the Emperor found a Note among his Papers, acknowleging the Receipt of large Sums remitted to him by _Paul_, _Cyril_’s Nephew, in _Cyril_’s Name[1631]. It is true, we are not bound to give Credit to _Acacius_, as _Du Pin_ observes. But in what other Manner can we account for so sudden a Change, for such an inconsistent Method of acting? The Emperor thinks both Parties equally Orthodox, and yet declares _Nestorius_ justly deposed, and restores _Cyril_ and _Memnon_ to their Sees; and that soon after he had appeared more favourable to the Friends of _Nestorius_ than to those of _Cyril_. To what else could this be owing, if it was not the Effect of Bribery?

The Pope’s Legates, _viz._ _Arcadius_, _Projectus_, and _Philippus_, the two former Bishops, and the latter a Presbyter, did not arrive at _Ephesus_ till some time after the Condemnation of _Nestorius_; but they signed the Judgment that had been given against him, being directed by _Celestine_ to _agree in all things with_ Cyril. [Sidenote: Cyril _did not preside as the Pope’s Legate_.] _Cyril_ presided as Bishop of _Alexandria_, the first See after that of _Rome_. While he was absent, _Juvenal_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_ supplied his room; a plain Proof, that he did not preside as the Pope’s Legate; for if he had, his room would not have been supplied by the Bishop of _Jerusalem_, but by Them. Besides, if _Cyril_ had been vested with the Character of the Pope’s Legate, what Occasion had there been to send Three more? [Sidenote: _The Council assembled without the Approbation of the Pope._] _Bellarmine_ and _Baronius_ both allow this Council to have been assembled by the Emperor; but with the previous Approbation, say they, and by the Advice of _Celestine_. That the Council was convened by the Emperor, is past all doubt, it being said, and repeated above twenty times in the Acts, that _they were assembled by the Will of the most religious Emperors_. But of _Celestine_ not the least mention is ever made by any of the Fathers, not even by _Cyril_. The above-mentioned Writers found their Assertion on a Letter of St. _Austin_, and on the Acts of St. _Petronius_. But both these Pieces are now universally rejected as supposititious.

[Sidenote: _The whole Dispute about Words._]

As to the Dispute, which occasioned the assembling of this Council, the contending Parties seem to have agreed in the Substance, and to have only quarreled about Words: at least the Emperor thought so, as I have observed above; and, what is more, _Nestorius_ himself. For in the Letter which he writ to _Celestine_, acquainting him with the Resolution _Theodosius_ had taken of assembling a Council, he only told him, that it was for some important Affairs of the Church; adding, that as to the Dispute between him and the Bishop of _Alexandria_, it was not a Matter of such mighty Moment, as to require the Decision of an Oecumenical Council. And truly both _Nestorius_ and _Cyril_, so far as we can judge from their own Words, acknowleged One Person in Christ, and Two Natures, the Natures distinct, but inseparably united; which was the Catholic Belief. Now the Subject of the Dispute was, whether, in virtue of that Union between the Human and Divine Nature, the Properties of the former might, or might not, be ascribed to God, and those of the latter to Man. The Negative was maintained by _Nestorius_, and the Affirmative by _Cyril_; the one rejecting as blasphemous, and the other admitting as orthodox, the following Expressions; _God was born_, _God suffered_, _God died_, Mary _was the Mother of God_; which was plainly disputing about Words only, or Expressions. It is true, _Cyril_ charged _Nestorius_ with the Doctrine of _Paul_ of _Samosata_, for rejecting them; and _Nestorius_, _Cyril_ with that of _Apollinaris_, for admitting them; but neither owned the Tenets, that were by the other ascribed to him: so that _Cyril_ was only a Heretic of _Nestorius_’s making, and _Nestorius_ of _Cyril_’s: _Nestorius_ acknowleged a real Union between the Two Natures in Christ, and _Cyril_ a real Distinction. But they did not, and, perhaps, when they were once warmed with disputing, would not, understand one another. [Sidenote: Nestorianism _an imaginary Heresy_.] _Nestorianism_, says a modern _Roman Catholic_ Writer[1632], _is but an imaginary Heresy. Had_ Nestorius _and St._ Cyril _understood one another, they had agreed, and prevented the Scandal which their quarreling brought on the Church. But the_ Greeks _have always been great Disputants; and it was by them that most of the first Heresies were broached. The Subject of their Disputes was, generally speaking, some metaphysical Speculation; and their Method of handling it arrant Chicanery. From equivocal Terms they drew false Inferences, and from Inferences passed to Injuries. Thus they became irreconcileable Enemies, and, forgetting Truth, sought only to hurt one another. Had they but coolly explained their Thoughts, they had found that in most Cases no room was left, on either Side, for the Imputation of Heresy._

[Sidenote: Nestorius _and_ Cyril _agree in the Substance_.]

In the present Dispute _Cyril_, the more to oppose, or rather to provoke, _Nestorius_, affected to use, on all Occasions, not only the Expressions, which I have mentioned above, but others that seem to involve a still more apparent Contradiction; _viz._ _The Eternal was born in Time, the Impassible suffered, the Immortal died, Life died._ At these Expressions the Orientals were no less shocked than _Nestorius_; and therefore separating themselves from the Communion of _Cyril_, whom they concluded to have fallen into the Errors of _Apollinaris_, they insisted upon his either condemning or explaining the Expressions he used, before they would admit him to their Communion, or any, who communicated with him. He chose the latter; and then it appeared, that they had been all fighting the whole time in the Dark; for by those Expressions _Cyril_ meant no more, than that Christ, who was God, was born, suffered, and died; that _Mary_ was the Mother of Christ, who was God; the very Doctrine and Expressions which _Nestorius_ had been all along contending for, and _Cyril_ had been combating with so much Warmth. But _Nestorius_ was already deposed by the Faction of _Cyril_, and _Maximus_ chosen and ordained Bishop of _Constantinople_ in his room.

[Sidenote: _What meant by the Communication of Idioms._]

The Expressions of _Cyril_ were approved by the Council of _Ephesus_, and have therefore been adopted by the Church of _Rome_. But her Schoolmen, well apprised of the Objections to which they are liable, to excuse them from Blasphemy, have been obliged to recur to what they call a _Communication of Idioms_, in virtue of which the Properties of both Natures, say they, may be ascribed to the _Hypostasis_ or Person, in whom both Natures were united. Thus we may say, according to them, _God was born_, _God suffered_, because the Person, who was God, _was born_, and _suffered_. Thus indeed they excuse the Expressions of _Cyril_ from Blasphemy: but still it must be owned, that the Expressions used by _Nestorius_, _Christ was born_, _Christ suffered_, _Christ died_, were at least far more proper. [Sidenote: _The Expressions of_ Nestorius _more proper than those of_ Cyril.] For, after all, this _Communication of Idioms_ is, in Fact, nothing else but a rhetorical Figure: so that _Cyril_ spoke like an Orator, and _Nestorius_ like a Philosopher: the Expressions of the former were, in a strict Sense, false and blasphemous; those of the latter, in the strictest Sense, true and orthodox. Tropes and Figures serve only to disguise the Truth, to lead Men into Errors, and therefore ought to be laid aside by all who seriously inquire after Truth, or explain it to others. I shall conclude with observing, that if by a _Communication of Idioms_ the Properties of the Human and Divine Nature may be ascribed to the Person, in whom those two Natures were united; the Properties of the Body and Soul might, by a like Communication, be ascribed to the Person, in whom the Body and Soul are united: so that it might be said, with as much Propriety, _Man is immortal_, _Man will never die_, because the Soul is immortal, and will never die, as _God was mortal_, _God died_, because the Humanity was mortal and died. The Case is parallel, and the _Communication of Idioms_ must justify both Expressions, or neither.

[Sidenote: _A particular Reason for rejecting the Title of_ Mother of God.]

As to the Title of _Mother of God_, to which _Nestorius_ had a more than ordinary Aversion, he seems to have rejected it on a particular Account; for the same Reason that induced _Clement_ XI. to suppress the Title of _Grandmother of God_, which, in his time, began to be commonly given to St. _Anne_; _viz._ because _it was offensive to pious Ears_; _piarum aurium offensiva_. If the Virgin _Mary_ was the Mother, St. _Anne_ was, as properly speaking, the Grandmother of God. Why then should the Mother be robbed of so glorious a Title, while the Daughter is suffered to enjoy it? Why should _Nestorius_ be deemed a Heretic for denying it to the Daughter, rather than _Clement_ for denying it to the Mother? The one was as offensive to the Ears of _Nestorius_, as the other could possibly be to the Ears of _Clement_. However, the former did not consult his Ears alone, but his Reason too, as has been shewn above; whereas the latter must have consulted his Ears only, there being no Shadow of Reason, why the one Title should be allowed, and not the other.

[Sidenote: _The Fate of_ Nestorius.]

As for _Nestorius_, he received an Order from the Emperor, while the Council was still sitting, commanding him to quit _Ephesus_, and retire to the Monastery of St. _Euprepius_ in the Suburbs of _Antioch_, where he had led a monastic Life before he was raised to the See of _Constantinople_. [Sidenote: _He is ordered to return to his Monastery._] This Order he received with great Joy, having often declared, that he wished for nothing so much as to spend his Life in Solitude and Retirement, far from the Troubles that threatened the Church[1633]. In the Letter, which he writ to _Antiochus_ the _Præfectus Prætorio_, by whom the Emperor’s Order was communicated to him, he told him, that to be thus deposed, for standing up in Defence of the Orthodox Faith, was a greater Honour than he had ever presumed to aspire to, or hoped to attain. The only Favour he begged of _Antiochus_ was, that he would employ his whole Interest at Court, in order to obtain public Letters of the Emperor, that might be read in all the Churches, condemning the Doctrine of _Cyril_[1634]. [Sidenote: _Is banished into_Arabia, _at the Request of_ Celestine, _and the Bishops of his Party_.] The following Year 432. _Celestine_ writ a very pressing Letter to _Theodosius_, dated the 15th of _March_, conjuring him, as he tendered the Purity of the Faith, to confine _Nestorius_ to some uninhabited Place, where it might not be in his Power to infect others with his pestilential Doctrine; which was begging the Emperor to drive him out, like a wild Beast, from human Society, to perish in a Desart. He writ, at the same time, a circular Letter to the Bishops in those Parts, exhorting them to second him with all their Power and Interest at Court[1635]. _Theodosius_, hearkening only to the Impulses of his own Good-nature, withstood all the Solicitations of _Nestorius_’s Enemies, for Four Years. But, in the End, being made to believe, that by shewing Mercy to such an obstinate Heretic, he rendered himself unworthy of Mercy; and that to treat him with Severity was the most effectual Means of drawing down the Blessings of Heaven upon himself, and the Empire; his Good-nature yielded, and he issued an Order, addressed to _Isidore_, then the _Præfectus Prætorio_, injoining him to cause _Nestorius_ to be conveyed to _Petra_ in _Arabia_, to end his Days there, by way of Atonement for the Mischief he had done. With him were banished, to the same Place, Count _Irenæus_, his great Friend and Protector, and _Photius_, a Presbyter of _Constantinople_, who had written in his Defence against _Cyril_[1636]. [Sidenote: _His Books forbidden, and ordered to be burnt._] The same Year the Emperor issued an Edict, dated the 30th of _July_, commanding the Disciples of _Nestorius_ to be called _Simonians_[N74]; his Books to be everywhere sought for, and publicly burnt; and all Persons, in whose Possession they were, to deliver them up to the Magistrates. By the same Edict the _Nestorians_ were forbidden to hold any Assemblies in the Cities, Villages, or in the Fields, and the Places were confiscated, where such Assemblies should be held, as well as the Estates of those who should frequent them[1637]. This Edict was published both in _Greek_ and in _Latin_, that it might be understood by the Subjects of both Empires.

-----

Footnote N74:

The Emperor ordered them to be so called, merely to render them
odious; for there was not the least Affinity between the Heresy of
_Simon_ the Magician, and the Doctrine that was ascribed to
_Nestorius_. In this _Theodosius_ followed the Example of his
Predecessor _Constantine_, who to disgrace the _Arians_, and prejudice
the Populace against them, ordered them to be called _Porphyrians_.
For when a Man was once declared a Heretic, all Means of rendering him
infamous were deemed just and lawful. But neither Edict ever took
place.

-----

[Sidenote: _Is frequently removed from one Place to another._]

The Enemies of _Nestorius_ were not yet satisfied; they thought his Confinement to _Petra_ too mild a Punishment; and therefore, before he had been long there, they prevailed upon the Emperor to remove him from _Petra_ to _Oasis_, in the Desarts between _Egypt_ and _Libya_, a Place to which the greatest Criminals were usually confined in those Days[1638]. He was still in _Oasis_, when _Socrates_ wrote, that is, in 439[1639]. but the Town being soon after surprised by the Barbarians, named _Blemmyes_, he was carried by them into Captivity, but set again at Liberty, and even informed by them, that the Town would, in a short time, be attacked anew by another Clan of Barbarians. Upon this Information he withdrew to the City of _Panopolis_, and immediately acquainted the Governor of _Thebais_ with the Motives that had induced him to quit the Place, which he had been confined to by the Imperial Edict, intreating _his Highness_ (_Celsitudinem tuam_) to notify them to the Emperor, and suffer him to continue there till his Pleasure was known. But the Governor happened to be a zealous Catholic, or rather a true Courtier; and therefore, without waiting for the Emperor’s Order, he sent a Band of Soldiers to convey, or rather to drag him to _Elephantine_, on the most distant Borders of his Government. This the Governor seems to have done on purpose to destroy him, and thereby ingratiate himself both with the Church, and the Court. For the Soldiers he employed on this Occasion, were not _Romans_, but _Barbarians_; and when they were got above half-way to _Elephantine_, they were injoined, by a Counter-order from him, to bring their Prisoner back to _Panopolis_ with all possible Expedition. [Sidenote: _Treated with great Barbarity._] As he was hurried on by the merciless Barbarians, notwithstanding his old Age, the Weakness attending it, and the Hurts he received from a Fall, he arrived at _Panopolis_, quite spent, and so worn out with the Fatigues of that painful Journey, that no one thought he could outlive it many Days. But the Governor was impatient to hear the News of his Death; and therefore, before he could recruit his Strength, quite exhausted by this Journey, he obliged him to undertake another, ordering him to repair, without Delay, to a certain Place within the Territory of _Panopolis_. As he outlived this Journey too, the Governor, bent on having the Merit and Glory of destroying the pretended Heresiarch, ordered him immediately to undertake a Fourth; and this put an End to all his Troubles. [Sidenote: _His Death._] For Nature sinking under the Fatigues he was forced to undergo, without Intermission or Respite, his Strength quite failed him, and he died[1640][N75].

-----

Footnote N75:

An anonymous Writer, quoted by _Evagrius_[N75.1], relates, that before
_Nestorius_ died, his Tongue was devoured by Vermin, which he
interprets as a Punishment justly inflicted on him for the Blasphemies
he supposes him to have uttered. This Account _Evagrius_ seems not to
have credited; but _Theodorus_ the Reader, _Theophanes_, and
_Theodoret_, have taken it upon the Word of the anonymous Writer, by
whom it was probably invented to render the Name of the pretended
_Heresiarch_ odious to Posterity.

Footnote N75.1:

Evag. l. 1, c. 7.

-----

[Sidenote: Nestorius _himself a cruel Persecutor_.]

Such were the Sufferings, such was the End, of the famous _Nestorius_; and both reflect no small Disgrace on the Ecclesiastics of those Times, especially on _Celestine_ and _Cyril_; for by them this cruel Persecution was raised, and by them it was carried on; the Laymen being only the Ministers of their Cruelty and Revenge. Such a Treatment was quite undeserved by _Nestorius_, with respect to his Doctrine, as I have shewn already, but was not so, it must be owned, in another respect: for he was himself a most furious Persecutor of all those, who had the Misfortune to be stigmatized with the Name of Heretics; and it is not to be doubted, but _Cyril_ would have met with the same Treatment at his Hands, had his Party prevailed, as he did at _Cyril_’s. In the Sermon, which he preached on the very Day of his Ordination, he thus addressed the Emperor, who was present: _Make the Orthodox Faith, O mighty Prince, reign alone on the Earth; and I will make you reign in Heaven. Lend me your Assistance to exterminate the Heretics, and I will lend you mine to exterminate the_ Persians[1641]. This was proclaiming War against all who dissented from him; and the War, thus proclaimed, he began without Loss of Time, and pursued with the utmost Fury, causing the Imperial Laws against Heretics to be vigorously executed, and stirring up the Mob, not only in _Constantinople_, but in the neighbouring Provinces, against Dissenters of all Denominations. This occasioned an universal Confusion, and, in some Places, a great deal of Bloodshed; insomuch that the Emperor was obliged to interpose his Authority, and protect, to a certain Degree, as Friends to the State, those whom the Bishop was for exterminating as Enemies to the Church. I will not presume to interpret the Severity that was practised upon him, as a Judgment from Heaven for the Severity which he had practised upon others; agreeably to those Words of our Saviour, _With what Measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you_[1642]; but I cannot help looking upon the Treatment he met with, however severe, as a just and well-deserved Retaliation; and upon him as a Man altogether unworthy of our Compassion.

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine of the_ Jansenists _approved by_ Celestine.]

But to return to _Celestine_: In the Year 431. he writ to the _Gallican_ Bishops, exhorting them to stand up in Defence of the Doctrine of St. _Austin_, and to silence, with their Authority, all who opposed it: for it was opposed by many, among the rest, by the famous _Cassian_, as utterly inconsistent with Merit and Freewill. To this Letter are commonly annexed Nine Articles concerning Grace and Freewill; and, in these Articles styled there, _The Authorities of the Bishops of the Holy Apostolic See_, is contained, in the most plain and express Terms, the Doctrine of the _Jansenists_, condemned in our Days by the famous Bull _Unigenitus_ of _Clement_ XI[1643]. It is true, some pretend those Articles to be falsly ascribed to _Celestine_. But they have passed for his, ever since the Sixth to the present Century: they have been placed among his Decrees, by _Dionysius Exiguus_; were quoted as his by _Petrus Diaconus_ in 519. by _Cresconius_ an _African_ Bishop towards the End of the Sixth Century, and by all, who have had Occasion to mention them since that time.

[Sidenote: Palladius _the First Bishop of_ Ireland.]

The same Year died St. _Palladius_, the First Bishop of _Ireland_. He belonged to the _Roman_ Church, and had been sent by _Celestine_ some Years before into _Britain_, to stop the Progress of the _Pelagian_ Heresy in this Island. From _Britain_ he had passed over into _Ireland_[N76]; and, having converted there some of the Inhabitants, he returned to _Rome_, to beg of _Celestine_, that a Bishop might be sent thither. _Celestine_ complied with his Request, ordained him First Bishop of _Ireland_, and sent him back into that Island. Thus _Prosper_, who lived at this very time[o]. The _Irish_ Writers tell us, that, finding their Countrymen, whose Conversion was reserved by Heaven for St. _Patric_, very obstinate, he abandoned the Island, and died in the Country of the _Picts_, that is, in _Scotland_, on his Return to _Rome_[1644]. His Body indeed was long worshiped in _Scotland_; but that is no Proof of his having been ever there[N77].

-----

Footnote N76:

_Prosper_ writes, that he was sent _ad Scotos_; whence the _Scotch_
Writers conclude him to have been sent into _Scotland_, and the
_Scots_ have long looked upon him as the Apostle of their Nation. But
that he was sent into _Ireland_, and not into _Scotland_, is manifest
from _Prosper_’s own Words. For speaking of _Celestine_, by whom
_Palladius_ was sent into _Britain_ to make head against the
_Pelagians_; _while he endeavoured_, says he, _to maintain the_ Roman
_Island Catholic, he made a barbarous Island Christian_[N76.1]. The
Island therefore, which he _made Christian_, was a different Island
from that of _Britain_; and consequently could not be _Scotland_. The
Inhabitants of _Ireland_ began, as early as the Fourth Century, to be
known by the Name of _Scoti_ or _Scots_; so that _Scoti_ and _Hiberni_
were but different Names of one and the same People. It is true, that
St. _Patric_, in such of his Writings, as have been judged by the
Critics the most authentic, seems to distinguish the _Scoti_ from the
_Hiberni_: but that Distinction is only with respect to Merit and
Rank; for he speaks constantly of the former as Men of a superior Rank
to the latter. And indeed the Name _Hibernus_, tho’ more antient by
many Ages than that of _Scotus_, appears to have been in great
Contempt among the neighbouring Nations in St. _Patric_’s Time[N76.2].
The _Hiberni_ were perhaps the Mechanics, and the _Scoti_ the Gentry,
or Men who followed more noble Professions. By the latter was
afterwards founded the Kingdom of _Scotland_. _Bollandus_ is of
Opinion, that the _Hiberni_ came originally from _Britain_, and were
the first Inhabitants of _Ireland_; and that the _Scoti_, a more
warlike Race, come from some other Country, subdued the _Hiberni_, as
the _Saxons_ did the _Britons_[N76.3].

Footnote N76.1:

Prosp. in Col. p. 410.

Footnote N76.2:

Boll. 17. Martii.

Footnote N76.3:

Boll. ibid.

Footnote N77:

The learned Archbishop _Usher_ will not allow _Palladius_ to have been
the First Bishop of _Ireland_; alleging against that Opinion several
Fragments out of the Lives of _Irish_ Saints, some of whom are said to
have been Bishops, and to have converted many of their own Countrymen,
as early as the Middle of the Fourth Century[N77.1]. From the
Fragments he produces I cannot judge of the Pieces themselves. But
_Bollandus_, who seems to have perused them, maintains them to be of
no earlier a Date than the Twelfth Century; and most of them to be
fabulous, which indeed he proves undeniably by several Passages quoted
from them[N77.2]. And can the Authority of such Pieces invalidate, or
indeed any-ways affect the Authority of _Prosper_, who tells us in
express Terms, that _Palladius_ was ordained by _Celestine_, _the
First Bishop of_ Ireland? As for what the Primate offers to elude the
Authority of _Prosper_, it is scarce worthy of Notice; _viz._ that the
Word _Primus_ is not to be found in the Edition of that Writer by _Du
Chesne_. For it is to be found, as _Usher_ himself owns, in all the
other Editions, and even in _Bede_, as well as in every other Author,
who has copied _Prosper_’s Chronicle.

Footnote N77.1:

Ush. Brit. eccl. ant. p. 781-794.

Footnote N77.2:

Boll. 17. Martii.

-----

The same Writers tell us, that St. _Patric_ was at _Rome_, when _Celestine_ received the News of the Death of _Palladius_; and that thereupon he ordained him Bishop, on the 30th of _July_ 432. about a Year after the Ordination of _Palladius_, whose room he was sent over to supply[1645]. But that they are therein mistaken, and that St. _Patric_ was not ordained till many Years after the Death of _Celestine_, I shall shew hereafter.

_Celestine_ did not long outlive _Palladius_; for he died the following Year 432. on the 26th of _July_, having governed the _Roman_ Church Nine Years, Ten Months, and Seventeen Days[1646]. Both he and _Cyril_ have been sainted, merely in Consideration of their extraordinary Feats against _Nestorius_, and those who adhered to him; for Cruelty to Heretics was now a cardinal Virtue, capable of atoning for the greatest Crimes. As for _Cyril_, he had no better Title to that Honour, than the Monk _Ammonius_, whom he sainted, and publicly commended as a holy Martyr, because he died on the Rack for having attempted, at the Head of Five hundred riotous Monks, to assassinate, and dangerously wounded, _Orestes_ the Governor of _Alexandria_, in a Quarrel between him and _Cyril_[N78]. _Celestine_ was buried in the Cœmetery of _Priscilla_, where he is said to have caused the History of the Council of _Ephesus_ to be painted[1647]. In the Year 820. Pope _Pascal_ I. caused his Body to be translated to the Church of St. _Praxedes_. And it is still worshiped both there and in the Cathedral of _Mantua_[1648].

-----

Footnote N78:

_The Bishops of_ Alexandria _had begun_, says _Socrates_[N78.1], _to
exceed the Limits of the Ecclesiastical Power, and intermeddle in
Civil Affairs, imitating therein the Bishop of_ Rome, _whose sacred
Authority had long_ _since been changed into Dominion and Empire_. The
Governors of _Alexandria_, looking upon the Increase of the Episcopal
Power, as a Diminution of the Civil, watched all Opportunities of
mortifying the Bishops, in order to restrain them within the Limits of
the spiritual, and prevent their encroaching on the temporal
Jurisdiction. But _Cyril_, from the very Beginning of his Episcopacy,
bid Defiance to the civil Power, acting in such Manner as shewed but
too plainly, that he would be kept within no Bounds. For soon after
his Installation, he caused, by his own Authority, the Churches, which
the _Novatians_ were allowed to have in _Alexandria_, to be shut up,
seized on the sacred Utensils, and plundering the House of their
Bishop _Theopemptus_, drove him out of the City, stript of every thing
he possessed[[N78.2]. Not long after, the _Jews_, who were very
numerous in _Alexandria_, having one Night treacherously murdered
several Christians there, _Cyril_ next Morning, by Break of Day, put
himself at the Head of the Christian Mob, and without the Knowlege of
the Governor took Possession of the Synagogue, drove the _Jews_ out of
_Alexandria_, pillaged their Houses, and allowed the Christians, who
were concerned with him in the Riot, to appropriate to themselves all
their Effects. This the Governor highly resented, and not only rebuked
_Cyril_ very severely for thus entrenching on his Jurisdiction, and
usurping a Power that did not become him; but writ to the Emperor,
complaining of him for snatching the Sword of Justice from him to put
it into the Hands of the undiscerning Multitude. This occasioned a
Misunderstanding, or rather an avowed Enmity, between _Cyril_ and
_Orestes_. With the former sided the Clergy, the greater Part of the
Mob, and the Monks; with the latter the Soldiery, and the better Sort
of the Citizens. As the two Parties were strangely animated against
each other, there happened daily Skirmishes in the Streets of
_Alexandria_. For the _Alexandrians_, as _Socrates_ observes[[N78.3],
and is well known, were of all People the most seditious and
ungovernable. The Friends of the Governor, generally speaking, made
their Party good, having the Soldiery on their Side. But one Day as
_Orestes_ was going out in his Chariot, attended by his Guards, he
found himself very unexpectedly surrounded by no fewer than Five
hundred Monks come from the Mountains of _Nitria_. The Monks were, in
those Days, the standing Army of the Bishops; but are now of the Popes
alone, who being sensible how serviceable such a formidable Corps
might prove to the Apostolic See, not only against the Laity, but the
Bishops themselves, exempted them from their Jurisdiction, and made
them immediately dependent on themselves. But of the monkish Orders,
their Founders and Institutions, I shall speak at Length on occasion
of their being first taken by the Popes into their Service. The
_Nitrian_ Monks in the Service of _Cyril_, having surrounded the
Governor’s Chariot, first dispersed, with several Vollies of Stones,
the small Guard that attended it, then falling upon him, dangerously
wounded him, and seemed determined to put an End to the Quarrel
between him and _Cyril_, by putting an End to his Life. But the
Citizens, alarmed at his Danger, flew to his Rescue, put the cowardly
Monks to flight at their first Appearance, and having seized on the
Monk _Ammonius_, by whom _Orestes_ had been wounded, delivered him
into his Hands. The Governor, to deter others from the like Attempts,
and to mortify _Cyril_, whom he well knew to be at the Bottom of the
Plot, caused the Monk to be tortured with so much Severity, that he
expired on the Rack. But _Cyril_, partly out of Spite to the Governor,
and partly to reward the Zeal, which the Monk had exerted in
attempting to assassinate his Antagonist, caused him to be honoured as
a holy Martyr, under the Name of _Thaumasius_, being himself ashamed
to pay him that Honour under the Name of _Ammonius_[[N78.4]. The
Partisans of _Cyril_, alike mortified and enraged at the Death of
_Ammonius_, resolved, at all Events, to revenge it; and the Person
they singled out among the Friends of _Orestes_ to wreak their Rage
and Revenge on, was one, who, of all the Inhabitants of that populous
City, deserved it the least. This was the famous, and so much
celebrated, _Hypatia_, the Wonder of her Age for Beauty, Virtue, and
Knowlege. She kept a public School of Philosophy in _Alexandria_,
where she was born; and her Reputation was so great, that not only
Disciples flocked from all Parts to hear her; but the greatest
Philosophers used to consult her, as an Oracle, with respect to the
most intricate and abstruse Points of Astronomy, Geometry, and the
_Platonic_ Philosophy, which she was particularly well versed
in[[N78.5]. Tho' she was very beautiful, and freely conversed with Men
of all Ranks, yet those she conversed with were so awed by her known
Virtue and Modesty, that none, but one of her own Disciples, ever
presumed to shew in her Presence the least Symptom of Passion or
Tenderness; and him she soon cured[[N78.6]. _Orestes_ entertained the
highest Opinion of her Abilities, often consulted her, as the other
Governors had done before him, and in all perplexed Cases governed
himself by her Advice. As she was the Person in _Alexandria_, whom he
most valued, and in whose Company he took the greatest Delight, the
Friends of _Cyril_, to wound him in the most tender and sensible Part,
entered into a Conspiracy to destroy the innocent Lady, and by her
Death deprive him of that Comfort. This barbarous Resolution being
taken, as she was one Day returning Home in her Chariot, a Band of the
Dregs of the People, encouraged and headed by one of _Cyril_’s
Ecclesiastics named _Peter_, attacked her in her Chariot, pulled her
violently out of it, and throwing her on the Ground, dragged her to
the great Church called _Cæsareum_. There they stript her naked, and
with sharp Tiles, either brought with them, or found there, continued
cutting, mangling, and tearing her Flesh, she bearing it with the
greatest Firmness and Constancy, till Nature yielding to Pain, she
expired under their Hands. Her Death did not satisfy their Rage and
Fury. They tore her Body in Pieces, dragged her mangled Limbs, with a
thousand Outrages, through all the Streets of _Alexandria_, and then,
gathering them together, burnt them in a Place called
_Cineron_[[N78.7]. Such was the End of the famous _Hypatia_, the most
learned Person of the Age she lived in, and one of the best, tho’ not
a Christian. Who could believe Christians, nay, Ecclesiastics, not to
say Bishops, capable in those early Times of such Barbarities? The
Account which I have given from _Socrates_ of the tragical End of
_Hypatia_, is confirmed by _Damascius_ in his Life of _Isidorus_ the
Philosopher, written towards the End of the present Century[[N78.8].
He makes _Cyril_ the Author of that barbarous Murder. But _Damascius_,
say _Du Pin_ and _Tillemont_, was a Pagan, and therefore deserves no
Credit. I wish it could not be made out so easily as it may, that,
tho’ a Pagan, he deserves to be credited on this Occasion. The Mob was
headed, in perpetrating that horrid Murder, by one of _Cyril_’s
Ecclesiastics; and I do not find, that he was ever punished, or even
reprimanded, by his Bishop, on that Score. When the Emperor was first
acquainted by _Orestes_, with what had happened, he expressed the
greatest Indignation and a firm Resolution to punish the Offenders
with the utmost Severity. But _Edesius_, a Deacon of the Church of
_Alexandria_, who resided at _Constantinople_, with the Character of
_Cyril_’s Nuncio, having gained over the Ministers, with the large
Sums that were remitted to him (not by the Mob, or the Ecclesiastic
who headed them; for he was only a Reader), the Emperor was not only
appeased, but prevailed upon to grant a general Pardon to all, who
were concerned in that Riot[[N78.9]. But, by pardoning them, he drew
down Vengeance from Heaven upon himself, says the Historian, and was
deservedly punished in the Persons of those, who were most dear to
him[[N78.10]. He alludes perhaps to the unhappy End of _Valentinian_
III. his Cousin and Son-in-law, who was murdered on the 17th of
_March_ 455. and to the Misfortunes, which the whole Imperial Family
was involved in after his Death.

The Church of _Rome_, which has sainted this Man, may think herself
concerned in Honour to justify all his Proceedings; but surely the
Church of _England_ is not. I shall not therefore attempt such a
Vindication; but having truly and faithfully related the Facts from a
contemporary Historian, shall leave the Character of _Cyril_ to be
judged of from them, and content myself with wishing, that one, whose
Zeal for the Christian Religion was sometimes meritorious, had better
understood the true Bounds of that Zeal, and the true Spirit of that
Religion, than he appears to have done upon many Occasions.

Footnote N78.1:

Socr. 1. 7. c. 7.

Footnote N78.2:

Id. ibid.

Footnote N78.3:

Socr. l. 7. c. 13.

Footnote N78.4:

Socr. l. 7. c. 14.

Footnote N78.5:

Soc. ibid. Theophan. p. 70, 71. Suid. p. 976, 977.

Footnote N78.6:

Socr. et Suid. ibid.

Footnote N78.7:

Socr. l. 7. c. 14.

Footnote N78.8:

Suid. p. 977.

Footnote N78.9:

Suid. p. 977. Socr. ibid.

Footnote N78.10:

Socr. ibid.

-----

Thus far the History of the Popes has been merely Ecclesiastical, and therefore less entertaining: but, in the next Volume, the Affairs of the Church will begin very soon to be so interwoven with those of the State, as to render the History both Ecclesiastic and Civil. The Popes will soon make a very different Figure from that which they have hitherto made; no longer mere Bishops, but Bishops and Princes; and the Bishop almost intirely lost in the Prince; no longer contending only with their Collegues for Spiritual Power and Jurisdiction, but, at the same time, with the greatest Monarchs for Dominion and Empire; nay, employing the Sword as well as the Keys, and heading, as directed by their Ambition or Interest, both Councils and Armies. We shall see the Western Empire utterly extinct, and _Italy_ successively invaded, and partly held by the _Heruli_, by the _Goths_, by the _Greeks_, the _Lombards_, the _French_, the _Italians_, the _Germans_, and the _Normans_; and the Popes managing their Affairs, in all these Revolutions, with so much Art and Address, as to reap, from most of them, some considerable Advantage for themselves. Events more interesting, though, in reality, not more important, than those which the present Volume relates; and which, to the very End of this History, will be succeeded by others, equally proper to excite the Attention even of such Readers as seek for Amusement alone.

-----

Footnote 1588:

Vid. Noris hist. Pel. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 1589:

Aug. ep. 261. de civ. Dei, l. 22. c. 8.

Footnote 1590:

Aug. ep. 261.

Footnote 1591:

Aug. ibid.

Footnote 1592:

Cod. Theod. t. 6, p. 184.

Footnote 1593:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1048. Bar. ad ann. 419. n. 60.

Footnote 1594:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1137-1144.

Footnote 1595:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1144-1148.

Footnote 1596:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1145-1149.

Footnote 1597:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1137-1145.

Footnote 1598:

Ibid. p. 1137-1141.

Footnote 1599:

Ibid. t. 2. p. 1144.

Footnote 1600:

See p. 342.

Footnote 1601:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1145-1148.

Footnote 1602:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1148, 1149.

Footnote 1603:

Socr. l. 7. c. 29.

Footnote 1604:

Coll. Rom. per Holsten. p. 85-87.

Footnote 1605:

Luke xii. 25.

Footnote 1606:

Prosp. chr.

Footnote 1607:

Constant. l. 1. c. 19. apud Surium, l. 4.

Footnote 1608:

Prosp. chron.

Footnote 1609:

Constant. ubi supra.

Footnote 1610:

Constant. vit. S. Ger. l. 2. c. 1. apud Sur. t. 3. 30. Julii.

Footnote 1611:

Concil. t. 3. p. 1124. Cyr. ep. 38. Petav. dog. theolog. t. 4. l. 1.
c. 7.

Footnote 1612:

Concil. t. 3. p. 327.

Footnote 1613:

Conc. t. 3. p. 349-356.

Footnote 1614:

Concil. t. 3. p. 346. & concil. app. per Balus. p. 45.

Footnote 1615:

Mercat. t. 1. p. 71.

Footnote 1616:

Concil. t. 3. p. 379. Arnobii Junioris cum Serap. conflict. p. 548.

Footnote 1617:

Concil. t. 3. p. 374-376.

Footnote 1618:

Ibid. p. 349.

Footnote 1619:

Concil. t. 3. p. 395-410. Socr. l. 7. c. 34.

Footnote 1620:

Concil. t. 3. p. 1150. Liberat. c. 4.

Footnote 1621:

Liberat. c. 4. Concil. t. 3. p. 434.

Footnote 1622:

Concil. ibid. p. 534.

Footnote 1623:

Concil. ibid. p.534-547.

Footnote 1624:

Concil. t. 1. p. 560.

Footnote 1625:

Greg. l. 1. ep. 24.

Footnote 1626:

Naz. ep. 55.

Footnote 1627:

Concil. ibid. p. 702.

Footnote 1628:

Ibid. Pel. l. 2. ep. 110.

Footnote 1629:

See above, p. 294.

Footnote 1630:

Concil. t. 3. p. 727-730. Cotel. Monum. Eccl. Græc. p. 41.

Footnote 1631:

Lup. divers. ep. c. 41.

Footnote 1632:

M. Simon. hist. crit. de la creance et des coutûmes des Nations du
Levant.

Footnote 1633:

Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Concil. t. 3. p. 744.

Footnote 1634:

Concil. app. p. 108.

Footnote 1635:

Concil. l. 3. p. 1070, 1071.

Footnote 1636:

Concil. ib. p. 1058, 1059. & ap. p. 884.

Footnote 1637:

Cod. Theod. t. 6. p. 190. Concil. t. 3. p. 1200.

Footnote 1638:

Socr. l. 7. c. 34.

Footnote 1639:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1640:

Evagr. l. 1, c. 7.

Footnote 1641:

Socr. l. 7. c. 29.

Footnote 1642:

Mark iv. 24.

Footnote 1643:

See the Works of St. Leo, by F. Quesnel, and Du Pin, Biblioth. eccl.
t. 3. part 2.

Footnote 1644:

Vid. Boll. 17. Martii.

Footnote 1645:

Id. ibid.

Footnote 1646:

Prosper, ann. 432.

Footnote 1647:

Anast. p. 547.

Footnote 1648:

Boll. Apr. 6.

_The_ END _of the_ FIRST VOLUME.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note

The system of footnotes is somewhat complicated. Notes on the main text are lettered ‘a’ to ‘z’ (skipping ‘j’ and ‘v’), and repeat that pattern from page to page, beginning anew on each section. These attributive notes nearly always serve simply to designate sources. There are 78 longer explanatory notes which are lettered with uppercase characters, always beginning with ‘A’ and only proceeding to ‘B’, etc., if they appear on the same page. These notes are themselves annotated with internally numbered subnotes.

[a] The lower-case lettered footnotes, used to refer to sources,
have been moved to the end of each article, and have been
resequenced for uniqueness.

[A] The uppercase lettered footnotes, used for supplementary
comments, have been moved, when necessary, to follow the
paragraph where they are referenced. A number of those
notes had numbered footnotes of their own. These have been
kept with the note itself. The supplementary notes have
been resequenced as well, and prefixed with an ‘N’.

(1) The numbered subnotes have been renumbered sequentially
within the note, including the note’s designation. For
example ‘N47.1’ is the first subnote for the N47
supplemental note.

The word ‘acknowledge’ appears most regularly as ‘acknowlege’, but the two instances of the more modern spelling are retained.

On p. 66, the anchor for footnote 429 (‘o’ in the original) is missing. It has been placed based upon its appearance in other editions.

An italic font was used to denote emphasized terms, proper names, non-English words and phrases, Latin abbreviations, as well as the text of quotations and sidenotes. Within quoted (and italicized) text, proper names are given in the default font.

Spelling and punctuation has been retained, with only a few exceptions. Those errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original. Errors within footnotes include the page that the note appears on in the original, the original footnote designation, and the line within the note.

viii.26 _so pestilential, errone[e/o]us, heretical, Replaced.
and blasphemous_

ix.8 paid[ ]dear for it Inserted.

34.10 _Fugacius_ and _Damia[n]us_ Restored.

38.11 Agreeab[l]y to this Resolution Restored.

67.25 in Answer to _Jubaian[n/u]s_ Inverted.

121.26 as [s]he shall think fit Removed.

143.32 In order to [] this Missing
verb.

172.35 extolled by _Greg[o]ry Nazianzen_ Restored.

190.11 of the _Roman_ Clergy[,] Added.

195.20 by the Advice of _A[ub/th]anasius_ Replaced.

217.23 the See of _Constan[stan]tinople_ Removed.

270.2 and united in Com[m]union Inserted.

281A.21 exp[ati/iat]e there the Sins Transposed.

310A.5 to exclude, a[t/s] _Innocent_ does, Replaced.

323.26 a Divine Right of finally decid[e]ing Removed.

336.35 In his room was placed one _Patroculus_ _sic_