Part 55
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_