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. |He orders both
Councils to send a
certain Number of
Deputies to Con-
stantinople.| 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. |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. |Is, at first, favourable
to the Orientals and
Nestorius; but after-
wards 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.
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. |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? |The Council as-
sembled 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.
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. |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.
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.
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. |The Expressions of
Nestorius more pro-
per 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.
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.
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. |He is ordered to re-
turn 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]. |Is banished intoAr-
abia, 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]. |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.
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.
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. |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.
|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].
N75. An anonymous Writer, quoted by Evagrius[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.
1. Evag. l. 1, c. 7.
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.
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.
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].
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[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[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[3].
3. Boll. ibid.
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[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[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.
1. Ush. Brit. eccl. ant. p. 781-794.
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].
N78. The Bishops of Alexandria had begun, says Socrates[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[[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[[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[[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[[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[[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[[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[[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[[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[[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.
1. Socr. 1. 7. c. 7.
2. Id. ibid.
3. Socr. l. 7. c. 13.
4. Socr. l. 7. c. 14.
5. Soc. ibid. Theophan. p. 70, 71. Suid. p. 976, 977.
6. Socr. et Suid. ibid.
7. Socr. l. 7. c. 14.
8. Suid. p. 977.
9. Suid. p. 977. Socr. ibid.
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.