_Antony_ satisfied, pursuant to his Sentence, the Inhabitants of

_Fussala_, whom he had wronged. But pretending that he had been unjustly

deprived of his Bishoprick, he resolved to appeal to _Rome_. He was

sensible that his appealing at this Juncture, when the Point of Appeals

was warmly disputed, as I shall relate hereafter, was Merit enough to

recommend him to the Favour of that See. However, not trusting to that

alone, as _Boniface_ was still alive, he first engaged in his Favour his

own Primate, the Primate of _Numidia_, who, having been excused on

account of his great Age from assisting at the Council, was not well

acquainted with what had passed there. [Sidenote: _Prevails upon the

Primate to write in his Behalf to_ Rome.] Him therefore he easily

persuaded, that he had been very ill used by the Council: _For had they

thought me guilty_, said he, _of the Rapine and Extortions, that were

laid to my Charge, they ought, and, without all doubt, would have

deposed me: they have not deposed me; and therefore did not, as is

manifest, think me guilty. If I did not deserve to be degraded from my

Dignity, I did not deserve to be driven from my See._ Thus he artfully

turned the Mercy that had been shewn him against those who had shewn it;

and, having by that means imposed upon the Primate, persuaded him to

write a Letter in his Behalf to _Boniface_. [Sidenote: _How received by_

Boniface.] With this Letter he repaired to _Rome_, but did not meet

there with the Reception he expected: for all he could obtain of

_Boniface_ was a Letter to the Bishops of _Numidia_, requiring them to

reinstate him in his See, _provided he had represented Matters as they

truly were_. This conditional Request _Antony_, on his Return to

_Africa_, improved, it seems, into an absolute Command: for he

threatened the People of _Fussala_ with a Visit from the Imperial Troops

and Commissaries, if they did not receive him as their lawful Bishop, in

Compliance with the Orders of the Apostolic See[1590]. [Sidenote: _The

People of_ Fussala _write against him to_ Celestine.] In the mean time

_Boniface_ dying, and _Celestine_ being chosen in his room, the People

of _Fussala_ apprehending, as St. _Austin_ writes, greater Evils from a

Catholic Bishop, after their Return to the Church, than they had done

from a Catholic Emperor during their Separation, writ a most pathetic

Letter to the new Pope, intreating him to pity their Condition, to curb

_Antony_ in his unchristian Attempts, and to redeem them, by his

Authority, from the Calamities which they had Reason to apprehend from

that Prelate’s Cruelty and Ambition. In the same Letter they imputed all

their Misfortunes to _Austin_, who had set over them such a Bishop.

[Sidenote: _Are seconded by St._ Austin.] And this _Austin_ was so far

from taking amiss, that he owned the Charge, and even backed their

Request with a Letter of his own, conjuring _Celestine_, by the Memory

of St. _Peter_, _who abhorred all Violence and Tyranny_, not to use

either with the People of _Fussala_, who, he said, had but too much

Reason not to submit tamely to the galling Yoke from which they had been

so lately delivered. He adds, that if, in spite of all his Endeavours

and Remonstrances, he should still have the Mortification to see the

Church of _Fussala_ plundered and tyrannically oppressed by one whom he

had raised to that See, he should think himself obliged to atone for the

Share which he had in his Crimes, by resigning his own[1591]. [Sidenote:

Celestine _acquiesces in the Sentence of the Council of_ Numidia.]

_Celestine_ was so affected with these Letters, that he immediately

acquiesced in the Sentence of the Council of _Numidia_; and the new

Bishoprick of _Fussala_ being suppressed, that Town, with its District,

was again subjected to the See of _Hippo_. From these Letters, that were

written by the _Africans_ on this Occasion, it appears, that the Bishops

of _Rome_ used, in those Days, to send some of their Ecclesiastics into

_Africa_, to see the Sentences, which they had given, executed there;

and that those Ecclesiastics came with Orders from the Court for the

Civil Magistrates to assist them, where their Assistance should be

required, or thought necessary.

[Sidenote: _An End put to the Schism formed by_ Eulalius.]

The Schism formed by _Eulalius_ was not, it seems, yet quite extinct in

_Rome_ in the Year 425. for I find a Law of that Year, dated the 17th of

_July_, and addressed to _Faustus_ Prefect of the City, commanding all

_Manichees_, Heretics, Schismatics, and Sects of every Denomination, to

be driven out of _Rome_; but more especially those, who, separating

themselves from the Communion of the _Venerable Pope_, kept alive a

dangerous Schism. Over these _Faustus_ is injoined to keep a watchful

Eye, to summon them to communicate with _Celestine_, and, if they did

not comply with the Summons in Twenty Days, to banish them an Hundred

Miles from _Rome_[1592]. This Law was issued by _Placidia_, who, upon

the Death of her Brother _Honorius_, which happened in the Month of

_August_ 423. and that of the Usurper _John_, killed in 425, governed

the Western Empire, as Guardian to her Son _Valentinian_ III. The Law

she issued, probably put an End to the Schism; for no further Mention is

made of it by any Historian.

It was in the Time of _Celestine_, and the following Year 426. the

Fourth of his Pontificate, that the Bishops of _Africa_, quite tired out

with the daily Encroachments of the Bishops of _Rome_, and not able to

brook the despotic and arbitrary Power which they had begun to exercise

over them, took the no less laudable than necessary Resolution of

breaking their Chains before they were thoroughly riveted, and asserting

their antient Liberty, by effectually removing what had endangered it,

the pernicious Abuse of appealing to _Rome_. [Sidenote: Apiarius, _a

Presbyter of_ Sicca, _appeals to_ Rome.] The Incident, which gave

Occasion to that Resolution, was the Appeal of a Presbyter of _Sicca_,

named _Apiarius_, who, being convicted of many Crimes, and thereupon

degraded and excommunicated by his own Bishop _Urbanus_, appealed to

_Zosimus_ then Bishop of _Rome_. [Sidenote: Zosimus _restores him to the

Rank from which he had been degraded_.] _Zosimus_, who missed no

Opportunity of acquiring new Power, or improving the Power which he had

acquired, not only received the Appeal, but, without ever hearing the

other Side, restored _Apiarius_ both to his Rank, and the Communion of

the Church. This was the boldest Attempt that had yet been made upon the

Rights and Liberties of the _African_ Churches; and therefore the

Bishops in those Parts, all uniting in a Cause that was common to all,

loudly complained of such an arbitrary Act, as an open Violation of the

Canons of the Church, forbidding those, who had been excluded from the

Communion by their own Bishop, to be admitted to it by any other[1593].

_Zosimus_, finding the _African_ Bishops had taken the Alarm, and were

determined to restrain his Power within the Limits prescribed to it by

the Canons, and, on the other hand, being well apprised, that he could

allege no Canons, that had ever been received by them, to countenance

the Power which he claimed, and had exercised, thought it would be no

great Crime to recur to Fraud on so urgent an Occasion. [Sidenote: _To

support his Pretensions, endeavours to impose upon the_ African _Bishops

the Canons of_ Sardica _for the Canons of_ Nice.] Agreeably to this

Scheme, he caused Two Canons to be transcribed from the Council of

_Sardica_; the one allowing Presbyters and Deacons, when rashly

excommunicated by their own Bishops, to appeal to the neighbouring

Bishops; and the other, authorizing the Appeal of all Bishops to the

Bishop of _Rome_. Had the _Africans_ received these Canons, he intended

to have justified, by the former, his judging and absolving _Apiarius_,

notwithstanding the Distance between _Rome_ and _Numidia_; and, in

virtue of the latter, to get the Canon revoked, which the _African_

Bishops had lately made, forbidding, on Pain of Excommunication, Appeals

_beyond Sea_; that is, to _Rome_. Nothing less than an intire Subjection

of the _African_ Churches to the See of _Rome_ would satisfy the

boundless Ambition of _Zosimus_; and such a Subjection would infallibly

have ensued, had the Two above-mentioned Canons been received by the

_African_ Bishops in the Sense which _Zosimus_ did, and seemed

determined to make others, put upon them. But the main Point was, to

persuade the Bishops of _Africa_ to admit such Canons, especially at so

critical a Juncture. The Council of _Sardica_ had never been received

there: nay, they were, it seems, at this very Time, utter Strangers both

to that Council and its Canons; so that it was useless to quote them as

such. Of this _Zosimus_ was aware; and therefore, as he stuck at nothing

that stood in the way of his Ambition, he resolved, by one of the most

impudent and barefaced Impostures recorded in History, to try whether he

could not impose upon the Bishops of _Africa_ the Canons of _Sardica_

for the Canons of _Nice_. [Sidenote: _With this View he sends a Solemn

Embassy into_ Africa.] With this knavish View, and to render the

Imposture more solemn, and less suspected, he dispatched into _Africa_

Three Legates, _viz._ _Faustinus_ Bishop of _Potentia_ in _Picenum_, and

Two _Roman_ Presbyters, _Philippus_ and _Asellus_. Their Instructions,

contained in a Letter addressed to themselves, were, to require of the

_African_ Bishops a strict Observance of the Two above-mentioned Canons

of _Nice_; to complain of their repairing so often to Court; and to

desire them not to communicate with _Urbanus_ of _Sicca_, who had

deposed _Apiarius_, or even to send him to _Rome_, if he refused to

correct what he had done amiss[1594]; that is, we may suppose, if he did

not restore _Apiarius_ to his Rank, and the Communion of the Church.

With these Instructions the Legates set out for _Africa_, where they no

sooner arrived, than a Council was convened, at which assisted, among

the rest, _Alypius_ Bishop of _Tagaste_, St. _Austin_’s great Friend,

and _Aurelius_ Bishop of _Carthage_. When the Legates first appeared

before the Council, the Bishops desired them to lay their Instructions

before the Assembly; which they were at first unwilling to do,

contenting themselves with declaring their Commission by Word of Mouth.

But the _Africans_ knowing whom they had to deal with, and thereupon

pressing them to communicate their Instructions is Writing, they

complied at last, and produced the Letter I have mentioned above, which

was immediately registred. [Sidenote: _The Surprize of the_ African

_Bishops on this Occasion_.] When it was publicly read, it is impossible

to conceive the Surprize and Astonishment that appeared in the whole

Assembly. They had never heard of those Canons; and to find them thus

confidently ascribed to the Council of _Nice_, was what appeared to them

strange beyond Expression. Warm Disputes arose, of which, however, we

know no Particulars. Several different _Greek_ Copies, several _Latin_

Copies, were sent for, and carefully examined and compared; but no such

Canons could be found there. However, as the Legates continued to

maintain, with an unparalleled Impudence, the disputed Canons of _Nice_,

the Council agreed to observe them, till they had, by a more diligent

Inquiry, discovered the Truth[1595].

They continued their Sessions; but as they were few in Number, as the

Point in Dispute was of the utmost Consequence, and nearly affected all

the Bishops of _Africa_, they thought it should be communicated to all;

and that, without the Concurrence of all, no Resolution should be taken.

[Sidenote: _A General Council assembled at_ Carthage.] A General Council

was accordingly assembled at _Carthage_, consisting of Two hundred and

Seventeen Bishops, from the different Provinces of _Africa_. They met,

for the first time, on the 25th of _May_ 419. _Faustinus_ being placed

next after _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_, and _Valentine_ Primate of

_Numidia_, and the Two Presbyters _Philippus_ and _Asellus_ after the

other Bishops. Being all seated, _Aurelius_ moved, that the Canons of

_Nice_ might be read, from the Copies which they had of that Council in

_Africa_. [Sidenote: _The Conduct of_ Faustinus, _the Pope’s Legate, on

this Occasion_.] But this was warmly opposed by _Faustinus_, insisting

upon their reading, in the first place, his Instructions, and coming to

some Resolution concerning the Observance of the Canons of _Nice_, which

he was charged by the Apostolic See to require of them. _It matters

not_, said he, _whether or no those Canons are to be found in your

Copies, or, indeed, in any other. You must know, that the Canons and

Ordinances of_ Nice, _which have been handed down to us by Tradition,

and established by Custom, are no less binding than those that have been

conveyed to us in Writing_. To this Speech the Bishops returned no

Answer; without doubt, because they thought it deserved none. However,

at his Request, his Instructions were read, and warm Debates ensued.

[Sidenote: _The Resolution taken by the Council._] _Alypius_ was of

Opinion, that since the disputed Canons were not to be found in any of

their Copies, Messengers and Letters should be immediately dispatched to

the Bishops of _Constantinople_, _Alexandria_, and _Antioch_, for

authentic Copies of the Acts and Canons of _Nice_. This Proposal

_Faustinus_ highly resented, as an Outrage offered to the Apostolic See,

which, he said, was thereby arraigned of Fraud and Forgery. He therefore

advised them to write to _Boniface_, who, by this time, had succeeded

_Zosimus_, and, leaving to him the Care of examining the Authority of

those Canons, submit the Whole to his Judgment, to his known Prudence

and Discretion. He added, that by acting otherwise they might give

Occasion to great Divisions and Disturbances in the Church. _Aurelius_,

not to exasperate the Legate, whom he found to be a Man of a haughty,

imperious, and intractable Temper, made no other Reply, but _that they

would write to_ Boniface. St. _Austin_ promised to observe those Canons

so long as it could be reasonably supposed that they were the Canons of

_Nice_. The other Bishops made the same Promise; which was confirming

the Resolution the Council had taken the Year before. Here the Legate

exaggerated anew the Affront they offered to the _Roman_ Church; adding,

that the only Reparation they could make, for questioning the

Authenticity of Canons proposed by her, was to leave the deciding of

that Point to her, and acquiesce in her Judgment. But the Warmth, the

Earnestness, the Passion which he betrayed in his Speech, and in his

whole Conduct, served only to heighten the Jealousy, and confirm the

Suspicions, of the _African_ Bishops. It was therefore universally

agreed, in spite of the Remonstrances, Intreaties, and Menaces of the

Legate, that _Aurelius_ should write to the Bishops of _Constantinople_,

_Alexandria_, and _Antioch_, for authentic Copies of the Canons of

_Nice_: that if the Canons, quoted by _Faustinus_, were found in those

Copies, they should be punctually observed; if not, that a new Council

should be convened, and such Resolutions taken, as the Fathers, who

composed it, should think proper[1596].

[Sidenote: _The Affair of_ Apiarius, _how settled by the Council._]

Matters being thus settled, with respect to the pretended Canons of

_Nice_, concerning Appeals, the Council took next into Consideration the

Case of _Apiarius_ which had given Occasion to the present Dispute

between _Rome_ and _Africa_; and it was agreed, that _Apiarius_ should

make the due Submission to his Bishop, and there upon be re-admitted to

his Communion, and restored to his Rank. However, as he had given great

Offence to the People of _Sicca_, by his scandalous Life, he was

ordered, by the Council, to quit that City; but, at the same time,

allowed to exercise the Functions of his Office in any other

Place[1597]. This Medium the Council wisely chose between the Two

opposite Sentences; that of _Urbanus_ excommunicating and deposing him,

and that of _Zosimus_ restoring him to the Communion and the Priesthood.

Such was the Issue of the Appeal of _Apiarius_: and I leave the Reader

to judge, whether _Baronius_ should boast of it as he does. And now

nothing remained, but to acquaint _Boniface_ with the Acts and

Resolutions of the Council; and this was done accordingly by a Letter,

which they all signed, and delivered to the Legates. In that Letter they

begged _Boniface_ to procure, from the East, authentic Copies of the

Canons of _Nice_, promising to observe the Canons in Dispute, till such

Copies were procured; but this upon Condition, that if those Canons were

not found to be genuine, they should recover their antient Privileges,

and not be forced to _submit to a Yoke, which Ambition alone could

impose_[1598].

[Sidenote: _The_ African _Bishops write into the East for authentic

Copies of the Council of_ Nice.]

With this Letter the Three Legates set out from _Africa_, on their

Return to _Rome_. Upon their Departure, the _African_ Bishops writ,

agreeably to the Resolution they had taken, to _Atticus_ of

_Constantinople_, and _Cyril_ of _Alexandria_, begging they would cause

to be transcribed, and sent into _Africa_, the most authentic Copies

they had of the Canons of _Nice_. With this Request the Two Bishops

readily complied; and the same Year 419. the Messengers sent to

_Alexandria_ and _Constantinople_ returned with the wished-for Copies,

and very friendly and obliging Answers, which are still extant[1599],

from _Cyril_ and _Atticus_, addressed _to_ Aurelius, _to_ Valentine,

_and to all the Bishops of_ Africa _assembled at_ Carthage. As for the

Bisop of _Antioch_, the _Africans_ probably did not write to him; at

least, they had no Answer from him[N69]. [Sidenote: _The pretended

Canons not found in those Copies, and the Dispute dropt by_ Boniface.]

They immediately compared the Two Copies, sent them from the East, with

their own, especially with that which _Cæcilianus_ of _Carthage_ had

brought with him from _Nice_, where he had assisted at the Council; and

found them agree in every Particular, without any Trace of the Canons

that _Zosimus_ had produced: upon which they dispatched the same

Ecclesiastics with them to _Rome_, whom they had sent into the East.

_Boniface_, who was an Enemy to all Fraud and Imposition, acquiesced;

the Dispute was dropped; so that the Canon, which the _African_ Bishops

had lately made, forbidding Appeals to _Rome_, and _Zosimus_ had thus

fraudulently attempted to defeat, remained in its full Vigour; and the

Churches of _Africa_ were suffered quietly to enjoy their antient Rights

and Privileges, so long as _Boniface_ lived. But in the Pontificate of

his Successor _Celestine_, the Storm broke out anew.

-----

Footnote N69:

It is very observable, that the _Alexandrian_ Copy was originally sent

from _Rome_ by _Marcus_ Bishop of that City, upon a Complaint made by

the _Egyptian_ Bishops, that the _Arians_ had burnt all the Copies of

the Council of _Nice_ that were then found in _Alexandria_.

-----

[Sidenote: _The Power of receiving Appeals claimed by the Popes only

as granted by the Canons._]

It may not be improper here to observe, that _Zosimus_, though wholly

bent on exalting his See, and straining every Prerogative to the highest

Pitch, yet did not presume to exalt it above the Canons; did not claim

the disputed Power of receiving Appeals, of judging, deciding, _&c._

independently of the Canons. And was not this owning himself, but for

the Canons, to be upon the Level with the other Bishops his Collegues;

at least in respect to this Point? Is not the scandalous Method, which

he took on this Occasion to extend his own Power, and curtail that of

the _African_ Bishops, a Demonstration of his deriving his Claim from

the Canons alone? Could there ever offer a better Opportunity, could

there ever occur a more urgent Necessity, of asserting a _Divine Right_?

As _Zosimus_ therefore never asserted, nor even mentioned, such a Right,

we may well conclude, that he either had no Notion of it, or did not

think it sufficiently grounded to be of any Use in the present Dispute.

And yet this _Divine Right_ of receiving Appeals from all Parts of the

World, of constituting, confirming, judging, censuring, suspending,

deposing, removing, restoring Bishops, and all other Ecclesiastics, is

now held, as an Article of Faith, by all true _Roman_ Catholics;

insomuch that to dispute such an Article, would be no less dangerous, in

Countries where the Inquisition prevails, than to dispute any Article of

the _Apostolic_ or _Nicene_ Creed. It is true, _Innocent_ the First, as

the Advocates for the See of _Rome_ observe, had claimed, by _Divine

Right_, the Power of finally deciding all Controversies. But he himself

seems to have been sensible, that he had gone too far, For what else

could have induced him to restrain that Claim, as soon as he had set it

up, to _Matters of Faith alone_[1600]? Had _Zosimus_ thought the general

Claim capable of being maintained, he need not have recurred, as he did,

to Fraud and Imposture. The Pretensions of _Innocent_, in their utmost

Extent, were indeed renewed, in Process of Time, by his Successors; but

not till the intolerable Abuse, which they made of the Power granted

them by the Canons of _Sardica_, on which they founded all their

Usurpations, obliged other Councils to revoke those Canons; and then it

was, that, no other Means being left of maintaining their ill-gotten

Power, they revived the Claim of _Innocent_, and, challenging no longer

by the Canons, but by _Divine Right_, the Prerogative of receiving

Appeals, they put it out of the Power of all future Councils to abridge

or restrain it.

[Sidenote: _Whether_ Zosimus _ignorantly mistook the Canons of_

Sardica _for those of_ Nice.]

The Three Cardinals _Baronius_, _Bellarmine_, and _Noris_, thinking the

Imputation of Ignorance less injurious to the Memory of _Zosimus_, less

derogatory to the Dignity of the Apostolic See, than that of Fraud and

Imposture, suppose him to have ignorantly mistaken the Canons of

_Sardica_ for the Canons of _Nice_; which is supposing, that in the

whole Archives of the _Roman_ Church there was not a single genuine Copy

of the Council of _Nice_, or that _Zosimus_ had never perused it; and to

suppose either is highly absurd. Besides, the whole Conduct of the

Legate, the Pains he took to divert the _African_ Bishops from

consulting other Copies, and, when he could not prevail, his recurring

to _unwritten_ Canons; and, as that too proved ineffectual, his striving

by all possible means to persuade the _Africans_ to leave to the Pope

the Care of examining other Copies, and to acquiesce, without any

further Inquiry, in what should thereupon be determined by him; plainly

shews, that the Legate was privy to the Fraud, and apprehended a

Detection.

[Sidenote: Apiarius _excommunicated anew. He appeals again to_

Rome, _and is restored by_ Celestine, _and sent back attended by the

Legate_ Faustinus.]

_Apiarius_, being obliged to quit _Sicca_, as I have related above,

retired to _Tabraca_, another City of _Numidia_, and led there so

scandalous a Life, that he was excommunicated anew. Hereupon he appealed

again to _Rome_, and _Celestine_, which is very surprising,

notwithstanding the vigorous Opposition which his Predecessors had, but

very lately, met with from the _African_ Bishops, in attempting to

restore this very Presbyter, not only declared him innocent, and

admitted him to his Communion, but sent him back into _Africa_, attended

by the Legate _Faustinus_, who was ordered to see him reinstated. The

_Africans_ were but too well acquainted already with the Presumption and

Arrogance of the Bishops of _Rome_; and yet such an insolent Act quite

surprised them. For _Celestine_ had neither examined the Crimes, which

_Apiarius_ was charged with, nor heard the Witnesses, nor even

condescended to let them know, that he intended to judge him anew. He

writ, indeed, Two Letters to them on this Occasion, but which seemed

merely designed to insult them: for, by the First, he gave them Notice

of the Arrival of _Apiarius_ at _Rome_, which, he said, had given him

great Joy; and by the Second, which was brought by _Faustinus_, he

acquainted them, that he was overjoyed to have found him innocent. From

this despotic and extraordinary way of acting, the _African_ Bishops

concluded, that _Celestine_ was determined to keep no Measures with

them, and that nothing less than an intire Subjection of the _African_

Churches to the See of _Rome_ would satisfy his Ambition. But they were

resolved to maintain, at all Events, the Liberty wherewith Christ had

made them free. [Sidenote: _A General Council assembled._ Apiarius

_appears before it, with_ Faustinus.] A General Council was therefore

assembled, and _Apiarius_ summoned to attend. He obeyed the Summons, and

appeared before the Council at the Time appointed, but in Company with

_Faustinus_, shewing thereby, that he placed greater Confidence in him

than in his own Innocence. _Faustinus_ spoke first, and pressed, with

great Warmth, the Fathers of the Assembly to re-admit _Apiarius_ to

their Communion, since he had been declared innocent by the Apostolic

See, and admitted by _Celestine_ to the Communion of the _Roman_ Church.

The Bishops replied, that in _Africa_ _Apiarius_ had been found guilty,

and that in _Africa_ his Innocence must be made to appear, before they

could receive him again to their Communion. [Sidenote: _The Legate’s

insolent Conduct._] As they stuck to this Point, _Faustinus_ undertook

his Cause; but, instead of proving, as he had promised to do, or even

attempting to prove his Innocence, he inveighed, from the Beginning of

his Speech to the End, and in very harsh and opprobrious Language,

against the Council, and all the Members, who composed it. [Sidenote:

Apiarius _pleads his own Cause_.] _Apiarius_ was sensible, that the

Speech of _Faustinus_, instead of reconciling the _African_ Bishops to

him, had incensed them more than ever against him; and therefore

thinking it adviseable to take the Cause into his own Hands, he stood up

as soon as the other had done; and, with a Modesty capable, as he

thought, of atoning for the Insolence of _Faustinus_, endeavoured to

clear himself from the Crimes that had been laid to his Charge.

[Sidenote: Faustinus _assists him_.] When he had spoken, the Witnesses

against him were heard; and the Tryal lasted Three whole Days,

_Apiarius_ striving, with great Art and Subtilty, to invalidate the

Depositions, and _Faustinus_ prompting him when he was at a Stand. He

might, perhaps, have escaped Condemnation, partly by his own Craft and

Address, partly by the powerful Protection of the Bishop of _Rome_, had

he been able to withstand the Stings of his own Conscience. [Sidenote:

Apiarius, _struck with sudden Remorse, owns the Crimes laid to his

Charge_.] But, on the Fourth Day, when _Faustinus_ began to triumph as

sure of Victory, _Apiarius_, struck with sudden Remorse, damped at once

all his Joy, by voluntarily owning, to the great Surprize of all

present, and the unspeakable Confusion of _Faustinus_, every Crime with

which he had been charged. Those Crimes the Fathers have thought fit to

wrap in Oblivion; and indeed it was not proper, that Posterity should

know them; since they were _heinous, incredible, such as ought not to be

mentioned, and drew Sighs and Tears from the whole Assembly_[1601]. And

this is the Man whom Two Popes, both now worshiped as Saints in the

Church of _Rome_, absolved as innocent; and, as innocent, would have

supported with Force and Violence, had not Providence almost

miraculously interposed, to prevent the Evils that would have ensued.

They could not but know, that _Apiarius_ was guilty; at least they did

not know, that he was innocent. But as he had been declared guilty in

_Africa_, their declaring him innocent, whether he was so or not, gave

them an Opportunity of renewing the Attempts of the Apostolic See on the

Liberties of the _African_ Churches; and it was, no doubt, with this

View that they absolved and restored him. But, as he was not hardened

enough in Iniquity for their Purpose, he owned himself guilty, in spite

of their Judgment declaring him innocent, and thereby defeated their

Schemes for the present. For the _Africans_, now sensible that there was

no Wickedness which the Bishops of _Rome_ would not countenance, in

order to establish their Power in _Africa_, to the utter Subversion of

all Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline there, thought themselves bound,

as they tendered the Welfare, Peace, and Tranquillity of the Churches

committed to their Care, to act with that Vigour and Steadiness, which

so urgent an Occasion seemed to require. [Sidenote: _The_ African

_Bishops renew the Canon forbidding Appeals to_ Rome.] Accordingly they

first absolutely cut off _Apiarius_ from the Communion of the Church;

then renewed, in stronger Terms than ever, the Canon, which had given so

great Offence at _Rome_, prohibiting, on Pain of Excommunication,

Appeals _beyond Sea_, under any Pretence whatsoever; and this

Prohibition they extended to Ecclesiastics of all Conditions and Ranks.

_Faustinus_ blustered, vapoured, threatened; but all in vain. The

Bishops not only signed, all to a Man, the above-mentioned Canon, but

writ a Synodal Letter to _Celestine_, acquainting him with what had

passed in the Case of _Apiarius_, and earnestly intreating him not to

give Ear for the future to those, who should have recourse to him from

_Africa_, nor receive to his Communion such as they had excluded from

theirs: [Sidenote: _Their Letter to_ Celestine.] _For we must let your

Venerableness_ (Venerabilitas tua) _know_, say they, _that it has been

so established by the Council of_ Nice. _And though Mention is there

made of Clerks only, and Laymen; yet there is no room to doubt but it

was their Intention, that such a Regulation should extend to Bishops

too; and it would be a great Irregularity, should your Holiness_ (a

Title then common to all Bishops) _over-hastily and unduly admit to your

Communion Bishops, who have been excommunicated in their own Provinces.

Your Holiness therefore must not receive the Presbyters, and other

Clerks, who, to avoid the Punishment, which they deserve, recur to you;

the rather as we know of no Constitutions thus derogatory to the

Authority of our Churches; and the Council of_ Nice _has subjected the

Bishops themselves to the judgment of their Metropolitan. The Fathers of

that Council have decreed, with great Wisdom and Equity, that all

Disputes should be finally determined in the Places where they began,

being sensible, that the Grace of the Holy Spirit, necessary for judging

rightly, would not be wanting in any Province; especially as every Man,

who thinks himself injured, may apply for Redress, if he pleases, to the

Synod of his own Province, or to a national Council. Would it not be

Presumption in any of us to suppose or imagine, that God will inspire a

particular Person with the Spirit of Justice, and refuse it to many

Bishops assembled in Council? And how can a Judgment, given out of the

Country, and beyond Sea, be right, where the necessary Witnesses cannot

be present, by reason of their Sex, of their Age, or of some other

Impediment? As for your sending Legates, we find no such Ordinance in

any Council, nor in the Writings of the Fathers. As for what you have

sent us by our Collegue_ Faustinus, _as a Canon of the Council of_ Nice,

_we must let you know, that no such Canon is to be found in the genuine

and uncorrupt Copies of that Council, which have been transcribed and

sent us by our Fellow-Bishop_ Cyril _of_ Alexandria, _and the Reverend_

Atticus _of_ Constantinople. _Those Copies we sent to_ Boniface, _your

Predecessor of worthy Memory. We therefore earnestly beg you would send

no more Legates, nor Ecclesiastics, to execute your Judgments here, lest

you should seem to introduce worldly Pride and Arrogance_ (typhum

sæculi) _into the Church of Christ._ They conclude with intreating him

not to suffer _Faustinus_ to continue any longer among them[1602].

_Celestine_, finding the Spirit with which they acted, and sensible that

it would be useless to employ Force at this Juncture, thought it

advisable to acquiesce for the present, and wait till a more favourable

Opportunity should offer for him, or his Successors, to renew the

Attempt[N70].

-----

Footnote N70:

_Schelstrate_ would make us believe, that _Gregory the Great_

prevailed upon the _African_ Bishops to revoke the Canon forbidding

the Presbyters and inferior Clergy to appeal to _Rome_[N70.1]; and

_Davidius_, That the _Africans_ changed their Minds with respect to

the Appeals of Bishops, as soon as they were informed, that such

Appeals had been allowed, and approved of, by the Council of

_Sardica_[N70.2]. But neither alleges any solid Reason, or even

Conjecture, to prove Facts of such Importance; nay, what _Davidius_

advances is certainly false, since the Canons forbidding all Appeals

to _Rome_, made at this time, were still quoted among the other Canons

of the _African Collection_ in 825. and confirmed by a Council held at

_Carthage_ that Year[N70.3]. Some pretend that _Celestine_ separated

himself on this Occasion from the _African_ Bishops, and that this

Separation continued between their Churches, and that of _Rome_, till

the Beginning of the VIIth Century, when _Eulalius_ of _Carthage_, and

his Collegues, desirous of putting an End to the Schism, revoked all

the Canons that had been made in 426. derogatory to the Rights of the

_Roman_ See[N70.4]. This they advance upon the Authority of a Piece

commonly ascribed to Pope _Boniface_ II. But that Piece is so

evidently supposititious, that _Baronius_ himself is forced to give it

up.

Footnote N70.1:

Schel. Eccles. Afric. p. 50.

Footnote N70.2:

Dav. jugemens Canoniques des Evesques, p. 663, 664.

Footnote N70.3:

Concil. t. 4. p. 1636.

Footnote N70.4:

Van. Espen. in Can. p. 216.

-----

[Sidenote: Celestine _declares Translations lawful_.]

The following Year 427. _Sisinius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_ being

dead, the Bishops in those Parts were for appointing _Proculus_ in his

room. But, as _Proculus_ had been ordained before, though never

installed Bishop of _Cyzicus_, they were under some Apprehension, lest

his Promotion to the See of _Constantinople_ should be deemed a Breach

of the Canons forbidding Translations. But _Celestine_, whom they

consulted on this Occasion, delivered them from that Apprehension,

declaring, in a Letter, which he writ at this time to _Cyril_ of

_Alexandria_, _John_ of _Antioch_, and _Rufus_ of _Thessalonica_, that

they might safely place on one See a Bishop named to another, nay, and a

Bishop who actually governed another[1603]; that is, he declared

Translations lawful[N71].

-----

Footnote N71:

Against Translations there may be Reasons in Policy; but there can be

none in Conscience; and none that are at all to the Purpose, have been

alleged either by the Councils, or Fathers, though the former have

exerted all their Authority to prevent them, and the latter all their

Oratory to make them appear criminal. The Councils of _Arles_, of

_Nice_, of _Alexandria_, of _Sardica_, of _Chalcedon_, of _Antioch_,

forbid them on the severest Penalties the Church could inflict. The

Council of _Sardica_, by its First Canon deprived such Bishops, as

should change their Churches, even of the Lay-Communion: and because

some pleaded, or at least the Council apprehended they might plead,

the Desire and Request of the People; to leave no room for such an

Excuse, the Council by its Second Canon deprived those, who should

allege it, of the Lay-Communion, even at the Point of Death[N71.1].

The Council of _Alexandria_, under St. _Athanasius_, in their Epistle

to all the Catholic Bishops, speak thus of _Eusebius_, who had been

translated from _Berytus_ to _Nicomedia_: Eusebius _did not reflect on

the Admonition of the Apostle, Art thou bound to a Wife? Do not seek

to be loosed. For if it be said of a Woman, how much more of a Church?

To which if one is tied, he ought not to seek another; that he may not

be likewise found an Adulterer, according to the Scripture_[N71.2].

What Analogy between a Wife, and a Bishoprick? The Bishops of that

Assembly were even of Opinion, that _Eusebius_, by abandoning his

former Church had annulled his Episcopacy. In the Synod under _Mennas_

it was laid to the Charge of _Anthimus_, that being Bishop of

_Trebisond_, he had _adulterously_ seized on the See of

_Constantinople_[N71.3]. In the same Strain have the Fathers declaimed

against Translations, whenever an Opportunity offered of bringing in

that favourite Topic; for the Canons and Decisions of the Councils

were only the private Opinions of the major Part of the Bishops, who

composed them. They generally inveigh against that _adulterous

Traffick_, as if they supposed a Bishop to be married to the Church,

which he was ordained to serve, or tied to it by Bonds no less

indissoluble than a Husband to his Wife: And it was upon that

Supposition, that they charged with Adultery those, who passed from

one Church to another. But that Supposition none of them have been

able to make good either from Scripture or Reason. As for the Command

of the Apostle in his Letter to _Timothy_, _A Bishop must be the

Husband of one Wife_, which some of them have interpreted as levelled

against Translations; the far greater Part both of the Fathers and

Councils have in that Passage understood the Word _Wife_, not in a

metaphorical, but a natural Sense, and thereupon excluded from the

Episcopal Dignity such as had been twice married. But allowing St.

_Paul_ to have meant a _Church_ by the Word _Wife_, the most obvious

and natural Interpretation we can give to his Words, is, that he there

forbids Pluralities of Bishopricks, which were once very common in the

Church of _Rome_.

But whatever Reasons the Fathers and Councils may have alleged, or

could allege, against Translations, they have themselves defeated them

all by the contrary Practice. For some of the greatest Saints, and

Lights of the Church, have been either translated, or approved and

promoted the Translations of others. The famous _Methodius_, who

suffered under _Diocletian_ in the Year 311. or 312. passed from the

See of _Olympus_ in _Lycia_ to that of _Tyre_[N71.4]. _Eustathius_,

who is supposed to have presided at the Council of _Nice_, was

translated from _Berœa_ to _Antioch_, that is, from a small See to

the second in the East[N71.5]; nay, _Sozomen_ ascribes this

Translation to the Council of _Nice_ itself[N71.6]. _Syderius_, Bishop

of _Erythra_ in _Libya_, was translated by _Athanasius_ to

_Ptolemais_, the Metropolis of the whole _Pentapolis_[N71.7].

_Euphronius_ Bishop of _Colonia_, a small Town on the Borders of

_Armenia_, was by a Synod, consisting of all the Orthodox Bishops of

that Province, translated to the Metropolitan See of _Nicopolis_; that

Translation was highly applauded by St. _Basil_, who thought it owing

not to human Prudence, but to a particular Inspiration of the Holy

Ghost[N71.8]; the _Arians_ being very powerful in that City, and no

Man more fit to make head against them than _Euphronius_. The

Inhabitants of _Colonia_ were very unwilling to part with their

Bishop; and the Ecclesiastics there even threatened to join the

_Arian_ Party, if _Euphronius_ was taken from them[N71.9]. But they

were in the End prevailed upon by St. _Basil_ to acquiesce in the Will

of God, who, said he, had inspired the Prelates with such a

Resolution[N71.10]. From these (and many other Instances might be

alleged) it is manifest, that the Fathers spoke like mere Declaimers,

when they compared a Bishop, who left one Church, and took another, to

a Husband, who abandoned his Wife, and married another Woman. But

indeed they only inveighed thus, generally speaking, against

Translations, when the Persons translated were of the Party, which

they opposed; it was then Adultery, it was forfeiting the Episcopal

Dignity, to pass from one Church to another. But when they

apprehended, that such Changes could any-ways promote the Cause which

they had espoused and maintained, those Changes were thereby

sanctified, and owing to a particular Inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Pope _Gelasius_ II. excused Translations by the Example of St.

_Peter_. _Who dares to maintain_, says he, _that St._ Peter, _the

Prince of the Apostles, was to blame, for changing the See of_ Antioch

_for that of_ Rome[N71.11]? And who dares to maintain, that any Bishop

is to blame for doing what the Prince of the Apostles had done before

him? But were there no other Instances, besides that of St. _Peter_,

to give a Sanction to Translations, I should readily grant them never

to have been allowed in the Church. For St. _Peter_ never was Bishop

of _Rome_, as I have shewn already[N71.12]; and some of the Reasons,

proving him never to have been Bishop of _Rome_, make equally against

his pretended Episcopacy of _Antioch_. Most of the Ecclesiastical

Writers indeed suppose him to have been Bishop of _Antioch_; but St.

_Luke_ is quite silent on that Head, though within the Compass of his

History, as _Jerom_ observed[N71.13]; and his Silence ought to be of

more Weight, than the Authority of Writers, who lived some Ages after.

_Origen_, who flourished in the Third Century, was the first who

mentioned St. _Peter_’s See of _Antioch_, saying, It was held by

_Ignatius_ after him[N71.14]. _Origen_ was copied by _Eusebius_, and

_Eusebius_ by those, who came after him.

On Translations a modern Writer of the Court of _Rome_ reasons thus:

“Translations have been severely censured by the Fathers, and often

condemned both by the Popes and the Councils. But neither can the

Councils tie the Hands of the Popes, nor can one Pope tie the Hands of

another. The Power of dispensing with all canonical Impediments the

Popes hold by Divine Right; which therefore can only be restrained by

divine Authority. However, Translations ought not to be allowed, but

on most urgent Occasions; and it is in order to prevent them, that the

Popes have adopted the wise Regulations of some well-governed

Republics, where certain Goods are not prohibited, but loaded with

such Customs as are next to a Prohibition[N71.15].” The Canons were

made for the Good of the Church, and the People; and therefore cannot

be binding when they oppose either. Hence it follows, that there being

in such Cases no Room left for a Dispensation, nothing ought in

Justice to be exacted for it. And yet, let the Occasion be ever so

urgent, a very considerable Sum must be paid into the Apostolic

Chamber for the pretended Dispensation. If the Occasion is not urgent,

they allow the Canons to be binding; and what can induce the Popes to

dispense with them, but that, which one of them taxed those Bishops

with, who seek Translations, _Avarice, filthy Lucre, and an ungodly

Desire of greater Wealth_[N71.16]? as if the Canons had been made with

no other View but to give the Popes an Opportunity of filling their

Coffers by granting Leave to transgress them.

Footnote N71.1:

Concil. t. 2. p. 628.

Footnote N71.2:

Syn. Alex. apud Athan. apol. 2.

Footnote N71.3:

Concil. sub Menn. p. 9.

Footnote N71.4:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 83. Socr. l. 6. c. 13.

Footnote N71.5:

Theod. l. 1. c. 6. Theoph. Eutych. & alii.

Footnote N71.6:

Soz. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote N71.7:

Synes. ep. 67.

Footnote N71.8:

Basil. ep. 292.

Footnote N71.9:

Id. ibid.

Footnote N71.10:

Id. ibid. & ep. 290. 293.

Footnote N71.11:

Gelas. II. ep. 1.

Footnote N71.12:

See above, p. 5.

Footnote N71.13:

Hier. in Gal. ii.

Footnote N71.14:

Orig. in Luc. hom. 6.

Footnote N71.15:

Contius de Curia Romana.

Footnote N71.16:

Anast. ep. 2.

-----

[Sidenote: _His Letter to the Metropolitans of_ Illyricum.]

The same Year _Celestine_ writ to _Perigenes_ of _Corinth_, _Donatus_ of

_Nicopolis_ in _Epirus_, and _Basil_ of _Larissa_ in _Thessaly_, all

Three Metropolitans of _Illyricum_, recommending to them an intire

Submission to the See of _Rome_, and to that of _Thessalonica_; _Rufus_,

who presided there, having been appointed by him to determine, in his

Name, all Disputes that might arise among them. He lets them know, that,

in virtue of the Submission, which they owed to the See of

_Thessalonica_, and he required of them, they were to ordain no Bishops,

assemble no Councils, without the Knowledge and Consent of _Rufus_;

which was restraining to the See of _Thessalonica_, that is, engrossing

to himself (for the Bishop of _Thessalonica_ acted only as his Vicar),

the Privileges, which the Council of _Nice_ had granted to all

Metropolitans. It is observable, that in this very Letter _Celestine_

affects an intire Obedience to the Canons of the Church. _We ought_,

says he, _to subject our Will to the Rules, and not the Rules to our

Will; we ought to conform to the Canons, and strictly observe what they

prescribe_[1604]. But he did not govern himself by this Maxim upon other

Occasions.

[Sidenote: _He complains of several Abuses that prevailed in

some Churches of_ Gaul.]

The following Year 428, he wrote a long Letter to the Bishops of the

Provinces of _Vienne_ and _Narbonne_, against several Abuses that

prevailed in those Parts. This Letter he begins quite in the Style of a

modern Pope: _As I am_, says he, _appointed by God to watch over his

Church, it is incumbent upon me every-where to root out evil Practices,

and introduce good ones in their room; for my Pastoral Vigilance is

restrained by no Bounds, but extends to all Places, where Christ is

known and adored_. Thus, under the Name of _Pastoral Vigilance_ he

extends, at once, his Authority and Jurisdiction over all the Churches

of the Christian World. The first Abuse he complains of was a particular

Dress assumed by some Bishops, wearing, in Imitation of the Monks, a

Cloke and Girdle. [Sidenote: _Bishops not distinguished formerly by

their Dress from the Laity._] With this Novelty _Celestine_ finds great

Fault, and exhorts the Bishops to distinguish themselves from the People

by their Doctrine, and not by their Garments, by the Sanctity of their

Manners, and not by the Mode of their Dress, by the internal Purity of

their Souls, and not by the external Attire of their Bodies. What a

large Field would the so many different and ridiculous Habits of the

Monks and Friers, the costly Attire of Bishops and Cardinals, and, above

all, the gorgeous and stately Apparel of _Celestine_’s own Successors,

have opened for his Zeal, had he lived in our Days! He pleasantly adds,

that if they understood, in a literal Sense, the Words of our Saviour,

_Let your Loins be girded about_[1605], they ought to interpret other

Passages after the same manner, and never appear without Lamps and

Staves in their Hands. And was not this condemning, at least ridiculing,

the Monkish Habits, an essential Part of which is the Girdle[N72]? The

other Abuses, which _Celestine_ wanted to have redressed, have nothing

new in them, or that has not been mentioned before in this History; and

therefore I omit repeating them here.

-----

Footnote N72:

From this Passage it is manifest, that in those Days the Bishops, and

other Ecclesiastics, were not yet distinguished by their Dress from

the Laity, at least when they were not actually discharging the

Functions of their Office. Whether they used even then any particular

Dress or Attire, may be justly questioned. _Dionysius Exiguus_ thinks

they did not[N72.1]; and F. _Sirmond_ is of the same Opinion. For,

according to _Sirmond_, the Ecclesiastics used no other Dress in the

Church, but that which they wore daily out of the Church. However, as

they reserved the best Habits they had for the Sacred Functions, and

used them on no other Occasion, when Modes in Dress began to alter,

the Fashion changed before they were worn out. Thus, by Degrees, the

Dress, which they used in the Church, varied from their common Dress,

as well as from that of the People; the new Habits for the Service of

the Church being made after the Mode of the antient, in which they

were accustomed to perform their Functions. _Anastasius_, _Platina_,

and _Baronius_, give us particular Accounts, I may say, the History of

every Part of the Mass-Priest’s Dress, instituted, according to them,

and used long before this time.

Footnote N72.1:

Biblioth. Jur. Can. per Justel. t. 1. p. 210.

-----

[Sidenote: _The_ Pelagian _Doctrine prevails in_ Britain.]

About this time the _Pelagian_ Doctrine began to prevail, almost

universally, in _Britain_, being preached here either by the Natives,

who had adhered to their Countryman _Pelagius_ abroad, and were returned

home, or by others, who, finding themselves, in virtue of the Imperial

Laws, every-where persecuted on the Continent, had fled to this Island

for Shelter. The leading Man of the Party here was one _Agricola_, the

Son of a _British_ Bishop named _Severianus_[1606]. But that

_Severianus_ himself, or any of his Collegues, countenanced their

Doctrine, is not touched by any of the Antients. _Fastidius_ indeed, a

_British_ Writer, who flourished at this time, betrays, in his Writings,

a strong Byas to the _Pelagian_ Tenets. But it may be justly questioned

whether he was a Bishop. For in the Treatise which he wrote on the

Duties of a Christian Life, he makes Excuses for taking upon him to

instruct others; which a Bishop would hardly have done, that being his

Province and Duty[N73]. However, if the _British_ Bishops did not

countenance the _Pelagian_ Doctrine, neither did they oppose it, at

least with the Vigour they might; else it had never made, in so short a

time, the Progress it did. [Sidenote: _The_ Britons _recur to the_

Gallican _Bishops, who send_ Germanus _and_ Lupus _into_ Britain.] The

Catholics, having no Prospect of Relief from their own Pastors, had

recourse to those of _Gaul_; who, being affected with their Complaints,

immediately summoned a great Council, and chose, with one Voice, St.

_Germanus_ Bishop of _Auxerre_, and St. _Lupus_ Bishop of _Troyes_, to

pass over into _Britain_, and there maintain the Catholic Cause[1607].

Thus _Constantius_, a Presbyter of _Lyons_, who lived in this Century,

and after him _Bede_. But _Prosper_, who flourished likewise in this

Century, writes, that the Two Prelates were sent into _Britain_ by

_Celestine_[1608]. The _Gallican_ Bishops, perhaps, acquainted the Pope

with the Choice they had made, and he approved it; which was enough for

_Prosper_, a notorious Flatterer of the Popes, to ascribe the Whole to

_Celestine_. [Sidenote: _Their Journey._] The Two Missionaries set out

for _Britain_ in the Latter-end of the Year 429. and, passing through

_Paris_, had an Interview there with the famous St. _Genevieve_, who, at

the Persuasion of St. _Germanus_, to whom her future Sanctity was

revealed, promised to consecrate her Virginity to _Jesus Christ_. From

_Paris_ they pursued their Journey to the Sea-side, and embarqued; but

were very near being cast away by a Storm, before they reached the

_British_ Coast. This Storm the Author supposes to have been raised by

the Devil; but we may more reasonably suppose it to have been raised by

himself, that he might have an Opportunity of displaying the Power of

his Imagination in describing it, and make room for the Miracle by which

it was laid. [Sidenote: _Miracles wrought by them on the Sea, and after

their Landing._] For St. _Germanus_, who had slept the whole time, being

awaked by the Mariners just as the Vessel was on the point of sinking,

first reprimanded the Sea, as _Neptune_ did of old the Winds, for

attempting to defeat their pious Undertaking; and then pouring into it a

few Drops of Oil, asswaged at once the Fury of the Waves, and

miraculously restored the wished for Calm. Upon their Landing, the

People flocked to them from all Parts; and, being convinced of the Truth

which they preached, by the Miracles which they wrought, abjured daily

by Thousands the _Pelagian_ Doctrine, which they had so rashly embraced.

But their Teachers and Leaders kept out of the Way: they were unwilling

to enter the Lists with Men, whom Heaven had endowed with such

miraculous Powers. However, as the Whole of their Cause was now at

stake, they agreed, at last, to meet the Two Prelates, and met them

accordingly. But this Meeting proved fatal to the _Pelagian_ Cause; for

the _Pelagians_ declining to undertake the Cure of a blind Girl that was

presented to them, St. _Germanus_, by applying to her Eyes some

Reliques, which he always carried about with him, cured her at once of

her Blindness, and with her the whole Island[1609]. [Sidenote: _The

whole Island reclaimed._] But these Miracles were soon forgotten:

according to the same Author, the _Pelagian_ Heresy took root again, and

new Miracles were wanted to check its Growth. [Sidenote: Germanus

_returns anew, and utterly roots out the_ Pelagian _Heresy_.] _Germanus_

therefore, in the Year 447. returned to _Britain_; exerted here anew his

wonder-working Power, confounded his Antagonists, and, not leaving

behind him the least Shoot of so poisonous a Weed, returned in Triumph

to _Gaul_[1610]. In his second Journey into _Britain_ he is said to have

been attended by St. _Severus_, Bishop of _Treves_.

-----

Footnote N73:

Besides, the _Benedictines_, in their Edition of the Works of St.

_Austin_, assure us, that, in a very antient Manuscript Copy of

_Gennadius_, _Fastidius_ is not styled Bishop, the Word _Bishop_ being

added to the original Copy in a much fresher Hand. And yet most of our

modern Writers not only suppose him to have been Bishop, but Bishop of

_London_[N73.1].

Footnote N73.1:

Vid. Miræum in not. ad Gennad.

-----

[Sidenote: _Beginning of the Dispute between_ Nestorius _and St._

Cyril.]

The following Year, 430. is one of the most remarkable Years in the

Annals of the Church. For it was in that Year that the famous Dispute

began between _Nestorius_ Bishop of _Constantinople_, and St. _Cyril_

Bishop of _Alexandria_, which rent the whole Church into Two opposite

and irreconcileable Factions. [Sidenote: _What occasioned this

Dispute._] What gave Occasion to that Dispute was, the Title of _Mother

of God_, which began at this time to be commonly given to the Virgin

_Mary_. Such a Title _Nestorius_ thought very improper, derogatory to

the Majesty of the Eternal Creator, and only calculated to lead the

Unwary into gross Mistakes concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation,

and the Nature of Christ. For he argued, that it could not be said,

without a kind of Blasphemy, that _God was born of a Woman_, that _God

had suffered_, that _God had died_, nor, consequently, that _the Virgin_

Mary _was the Mother of God. We must not imagine_, said he, _that God,

or the Word, was born of the Virgin_ Mary; _but we ought to believe,

that God, or the Word, was united to him, who was born of the Virgin_

Mary[1611]. The Title of _Mother of Christ_ was that which he thought

should be given to the Virgin, as containing all that was meant by the

other, without the Impropriety and Offence of the Expression, and

without Danger of confounding the Divine Nature of Christ with the

Human. This Doctrine was received, and maintained with great Warmth by

some, both Ecclesiastics and Laymen, and with no less Warmth opposed by

others. The latter thought it was calling in question the Divinity of

Christ, and degrading the Virgin _Mary_, to rob her of the glorious

Title of the _Mother of God_; and her Glory was now become one of their

highest Concerns. [Sidenote: _The Characters of_ Cyril _and_ Nestorius.]

At the Head of these was St. _Cyril_, a Man of a most haughty and

imperious Temper, impatient of Contradiction, obstinately wedded to his

own Opinion, passionate, revengeful, and more eagerly bent, at least in

the present Dispute, upon conquering his Adversary, than discovering the

Truth. In some of there Qualities he was well matched by _Nestorius_;

but the latter was not so eager for Victory, so tenacious of his own

Opinion, or rather of his own Terms (for the whole Dispute was about

Terms), as not to be ready to explain them; which had he been allowed to

do, an End had been put at once to the Quarrel. But _Cyril_ would

hearken to no Explanations. [Sidenote: Cyril _will not allow_ Nestorius

_to explain his Meaning. He defames him, and writes against him to the

Emperor._] He peremptorily required _Nestorius_ to acknowlege and

confess the Virgin _Mary_ to be the _Mother of God_, without any

Distinction or Explanation; and because he would not comply, he defamed

him all over the East, as a Reviver of the Heresy of _Paul_ of

_Samosata_, denying the real Union between the Human and the Divine

Nature in the Person of Christ; stirred up the People of

_Constantinople_, his own Flock, against him; and spared no Pains to

discredit him with the Emperor, and other great Persons at Court. For he

writ Three Letters to Court; one to the Emperor _Theodosius_, to his

Wife _Eudoxia_, and to his Sister _Pulcheria_; another _to the Queen’s

Virgins, and Brides of Christ_, that is, to _Pulcheria_ and her Sisters;

and a third _to the Empresses_, that is, to _Eudoxia_ and _Pulcheria_.

The Purport of these Letters was to prove, that the Virgin _Mary_ was,

and ought to be styled, the _Mother of God_; that to dispute such a

Title was rank Heresy; and that whoever disputed it was unworthy of the

Protection of the Imperial Family.

_Nestorius_, being now sensible, that _Cyril_ was determined to keep no

Measures with him, resolved, in his Turn, to keep none with one, who had

given him so great Provocation. [Sidenote: Nestorius _excommunicates and

deposes those who side with_ Cyril. _Causes some of them to be

imprisoned and whipt._] He therefore assembled a Council at

_Constantinople_, and there, with the unanimous Consent of the Bishops,

who composed it, he solemnly excommunicated the Laymen, and deposed the

Ecclesiastics, who rejected his Doctrine[1612]. He did not stop here;

but caused several Ecclesiastics, Monks, and Laymen, the Friends of

_Cyril_, to be apprehended, to be dragged to the public Prison, and to

be there whipt very severely, as Disturbers of the public Peace, and

Sowers of Heresy and Sedition. What chiefly provoked him, was a Paper

posted up in a public Place of the City, declaring him a Heretic, and

guilty of the Heresy formerly held by _Paul_ of _Samosata_, denying a

true Union between the Word and the Humanity in the Person of Christ;

which was one of the many Calumnies broached against him by _Cyril_ to

blacken his Reputation.

Thus were the Christians in the East divided into two opposite Parties,

irreconcileably incensed against each other, and reviling each other

with all the opprobrious Names Malice and Rage could suggest. [Sidenote:

Nestorius _strives to gain_ Celestine _and the Western Bishops_.] But

_Cyril_’s Party was by far the most numerous and powerful. _Nestorius_

therefore, having strove in vain to strengthen his Party in the East,

resolved in the End to try the West, being well apprised, that the

Authority of the Bishop of _Rome_, and the other Western Bishops, would

be abundantly sufficient to turn the Scale. He therefore writ a long

Letter to _Celestine_, acquainting him with what had passed in the East,

and explaining, without the least Disguise or Equivocation, the Doctrine

he held; nay, he sent him all the Homilies, which he had preached on

that Subject. In this Letter he owns his irreconcileable Aversion to the

Words _Mother of God_, as raising Ideas, especially in the Minds of the

Vulgar, inconsistent with the Majesty of the Supreme Being. He adds,

that by disputing the Title of _Mother of God_, he only meant, that the

Word was not born of the Virgin _Mary_[1613].

[Sidenote: Cyril _writes to_ Celestine, _and sends him the Homilies

of_ Nestorius, _with his own Comments upon them_.]

St. _Cyril_, being informed that _Nestorius_ had written to _Celestine_,

summoned a Council at _Alexandria_; and, by their Advice, writ the

famous Letter to _Celestine_, which has reached our Times. In that

Letter he acquaints him with the State of Affairs in the East, and the

Disturbances raised there by _Nestorius_, as if himself had been no-ways

concerned in them; tells him that it is absolutely necessary, that all

the Bishops of the Church should unite as one Man against that Prelate;

that the Bishops in the East are well disposed to join in the common

Cause; and that they only waited to know from him, whether they were to

communicate with _Nestorius_, or openly renounce his Communion. At the

same time _Cyril_ sent to _Rome_ the Homilies of _Nestorius_, the

Letters which he had written to him, his Answers, and with them a

Writing containing the Sentiments of the Fathers concerning the Mystery

of the Incarnation. For the Gospel, the _Testimony of Christ_, was

already laid aside, and the Testimony of Men taken, in most Disputes,

for the Rule and Standard of the Christian Belief. [Sidenote: _The

Popish Writers have no Occasion to boast of the Recourse had by_ Cyril

_to_ Celestine.] The _Roman Catholics_ have no Reason to boast, as they

do, of the Recourse had by St. _Cyril_ on this Occasion to the Pope. For

_Posidonius_, one of _Cyril_’s Deacons, who was dispatched with the

above-mentioned Papers to _Rome_, was directed, in his private

Instructions, not to deliver them, but to bring them back to

_Alexandria_, if he found that _Nestorius_ had not applied to

_Celestine_[1614]; so that if _Nestorius_ had not recurred to the Pope,

_Cyril_ never would. _Posidonius_ found, upon Inquiry, that _Nestorius_

had written to _Celestine_; and therefore delivered to him, pursuant to

his Instructions, all the Papers with which he was charged. _Cyril_ writ

in _Latin_, and even caused the Homilies of _Nestorius_ to be translated

into that Language, with his own Comments upon them; whereas _Nestorius_

had sent them in the original _Greek_, and writ his Letters in the same

Tongue; which had obliged _Celestine_ to send them into _Gaul_, to be

translated there by the famous _Cassian_, who was a Native of _Thrace_,

and lived then at _Marseilles_, there being none, it seems, in _Rome_ or

_Italy_, sufficiently qualified for that Task. _Cyril_ having thus got

the Start of his Antagonist, though he writ the last, _Celestine_ was,

by his Writings, prejudiced to such a Degree against _Nestorius_, before

he had heard what he had to offer in his Defence, that all he did or

could offer afterwards availed him nothing. _Celestine_ indeed perused

all his Papers as soon as they were translated and sent back from

_Gaul_, but perused them with the strong Prejudices which he had imbibed

from the Writings of _Cyril_; so that he discovered in each Homily, nay,

in every Line, _Heresies_, _Impieties_, and _Blasphemies_, not to be

uttered or heard.

[Sidenote: Nestorius _condemned by a Council held at_ Rome.]

A Council was therefore assembled at _Rome_, to condemn, rather than to

examine, the _new Doctrine_. At this Council assisted most of the

Western Bishops[1615]; _Celestine_ presided; the Homilies were read, and

with them the Letters both of _Cyril_ and _Nestorius_. _Celestine_ made

a long Speech, to prove not only by the Passages which _Cyril_ had

suggested to him out of the Fathers, but by others from St. _Hilarius_,

from Pope _Damasus_, and from a Hymn which St. _Ambrose_ had caused to

be yearly sung by his People on _Christmas-Day_, that _the Virgin_ Mary

_was truly the Mother of God_[1616]. When he had done, _Nestorius_ was

declared the Author of a _new and very dangerous Heresy_, _Cyril_ was

highly extolled for opposing it, his Doctrine was applauded by all as

strictly orthodox, and Sentence of Deposition pronounced against such

Ecclesiastics as should refuse to sign it.

[Sidenote: Celestine _acquaints_ Nestorius _with the Judgment of

the Western Bishops_.]

Before the Council broke up, _Celestine_ writ to _Nestorius_,

acquainting him with the judgment of the Western Bishops upon this

Dispute; and at the same time warning him, that if, in the Term of Ten

Days after the Receipt of that Letter, he did not publicly condemn the

Doctrine which he had hitherto taught, and teach the Doctrine which he

had hitherto condemned, he should be deposed without any further Delay,

and cut off from the Communion of the Church[1617]. This Letter is dated

the 11th of _August_ of this Year 430. He writ several other Letters,

all bearing the same Date, _viz._ one to _Cyril_; one to the Clergy,

Monks, and People of _Constantinople_; one to each of the Bishops of the

chief Sees; and one to the Church of _Antioch_. All these Letters were

to the same Effect, _viz._ to acquaint those, to whom they were

addressed, with the Sentence pronounced by the Council of _Rome_ against

_Nestorius_, and encourage them to be assisting in the Execution of it.

[Sidenote: Celestine _appoints_ Cyril _his Vicegerent_.] His Letter to

_Cyril_ deserves particular Notice: for he there appoints him to act in

the present Affair, that is, in excommunicating and deposing

_Nestorius_, as _his Vicegerent, in the Name, and with the Authority, of

his See_[1618]. It must be observed here, that the Bishops of _Rome_,

neither alone, nor jointly with the whole Body of the Western Bishops,

had, or even claimed at this time, the Power of deposing the Bishop of

_Constantinople_, or indeed any other Bishop in the East, without the

Consent and Concurrence of the Eastern Bishops. This _Cyril_ well knew;

and therefore, lest _Celestine_ should, on that Consideration, decline

giving Judgment against _Nestorius_, he made him believe, that the

Eastern Bishops were all disposed to join against the pretended

Heresiarch; that they waited only his Determination, and were ready to

concur, to a Man, in executing the Judgment which he should give. This

was making _Celestine_ believe, that the Eastern Bishops had chosen him

for their Judge in the present Dispute, and agreed to acquiesce in his

Decision. It was upon this Presumption that _Celestine_ pronounced the

above-mentioned Sentence against _Nestorius_, and appointed _Cyril_ to

act in his room, with the Authority which he falsely supposed to have

been granted him on this Occasion. [Sidenote: _He is imposed upon by_

Cyril.] I say, _falsely_; for what _Cyril_ writ to him was absolutely

false, _viz._ that all the Bishops in the East were ready to join him

against _Nestorius_, and concur in executing the Sentence which he

should pronounce. Several Bishops had declared for _Nestorius_, and not

one, that we know of, against him, at the time _Cyril_ writ, besides

_Cyril_ himself, and the other _Egyptian_ Bishops, who were intirely

governed by him; nay, the Sentence pronounced at _Rome_ was Matter of

great Surprize to all, but more especially to _John_ of _Antioch_, and

_Juvenal_ of _Jerusalem_, who could not help censuring, with some

Sharpness, the Western Bishops, as acting rashly in an Affair that

required the most mature Deliberation. But _Cyril_ was chiefly to blame,

who, to engage the Western Bishops on his Side, and by their means

compass the Ruin of his Antagonist, had represented the State of Affairs

very differently from what it really was.

It was doubtless a very extraordinary Thing for a Bishop of _Alexandria_

to accept the Commission of Vicegerent or Deputy to the Bishop of

_Rome_; and _Celestine_ would hardly have thought of offering him such a

Commission, if he had not been sensible that, from the Heat of his

Passion upon this Occasion, he would be willing to act in any Capacity,

that would impower him to hurt his Antagonist. So ably did the Popes,

from the earliest times, avail themselves of every Circumstance that

could give them the Means to promote and extend their Jurisdiction!

[Sidenote: Cyril _sends_ Celestine_’s Letter to_ Nestorius;]

The above-mentioned Letters from _Celestine_ were all sent to _Cyril_,

who was to convey them to those they were addressed to; which he did

accordingly, accompanying them with Letters of his own, all calculated

to inflame his Collegues and the rest of the Clergy, as well as the

Laity, against _Nestorius_, as an Enemy to _the Mother of God_ and the

Catholic Church. As for the Letter to _Nestorius_ himself, he dispatched

Four Bishops with it to _Constantinople_, who chose to deliver it to him

while he was assisting at Divine Service, in the great Church, with his

Clergy, and many Persons of Distinction belonging to the Court. His View

in this was to render their Legation the more solemn, and thereby alarm

the Populace, who hitherto had taken no Part in the Quarrel. [Sidenote:

_and requires him to retract his pretended Errors, on pain of being

deposed._] With _Celestine_’s Letter they delivered to him one from

_Cyril_, peremptorily requiring him to retract his Errors, to confirm

his Retractation with a solemn Oath, and publicly to anathematize Twelve

Propositions contained in the Letter. and extracted out of his Works.

_Cyril_ let him know, that if he did not comply with his Demand, before

the time prefixed by _Celestine_ was expired, he would take care to have

the Sentence of the Western Bishops executed with the utmost Rigour and

Severity. _Nestorius_ received the Letters, and desired the Legates to

meet him the next Day at his own House; but when they came, he did not

admit them; nor did he return any Answer either to _Celestine_ or

_Cyril_. [Sidenote: Nestorius _inclined to yield for the sake of

Peace_.] However, in a Sermon which he preached Six Days after, that is,

on _Saturday_ the 13th of _December_, he declared, that, to maintain the

Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, to put an End to the present

Dispute, which might be attended with greater Evils than his Enemies

seemed to be aware of, he was ready to grant the Title of _Mother of

God_ to the Virgin _Mary_, _provided nothing else was thereby meant_;

but that _the Man born of her was united to the Divinity_[1619]. This

Sermon, and another which he preached the next Day, the 14th of

_December_, on the same Subject, he sent to _John_ Bishop of _Antioch_,

one of the most eminent Prelates both for Piety and Learning at that

time in the Church. _John_ perused them with great Attention, and

finding nothing in them that was not, in his Opinion, intirely agreeable

to the Catholic Doctrine, he concluded the present Dispute to be happily

ended. But _Cyril_ was not yet satisfied; he peremptorily required

_Nestorius_ to anathematize the Twelve Propositions which I have

mentioned above; and to anathematize them was, in the Opinion of the

Bishop of _Antioch_, and of almost all the Bishops of his Patriarchate,

anathematizing the Doctrine of the Church, and approving that of the

_Apollinarists_, which had been condemned by the Church. [Sidenote: _The

Doctrine of_ Cyril _judged impious by the Orientals_.] For _Cyril_, in

combating the Distinction maintained by _Nestorius_ between the Two

Natures in Christ, seemed to have run headlong into the opposite

Doctrine confounding the Two Natures; insomuch that _John_ of _Antioch_

thought himself not only obliged to warn his Collegues in the East, by a

circular Letter, against such _impious Doctrines_, but to cause them to

be confuted in Writing, by Two of the most learned Prelates of his

Patriarchate[1620]. They were answered by _Cyril_, incapable of

yielding, or ever giving up a Cause, which he had once undertaken to

defend. Thus a new Quarrel broke out between _Cyril_ and the Bishops of

the Patriarchate of _Antioch_, of which it is foreign to my Purpose to

give here an Account.

[Sidenote: _An Oecumenical Council summoned by the Emperor to meet at_

Ephesus.]

_Nestorius_, foreseeing the Storm that the Dispute between him and

_Cyril_ was likely to raise in the Church, had, in order to prevent it,

applied to the Emperor _Theodosius_ for the assembling an Oecumenical

Council, even before he received the Letters of _Celestine_ and _Cyril_,

which I have mentioned above; and, upon his Application, the Emperor had

summoned a Council to meet at _Ephesus_ by _Whitsuntide_ of the

following Year 431. The Letter, which _Theodosius_ writ on that

Occasion, was dated the 19th of _November_ 430. and addressed to all the

Metropolitans, who were thereby injoined to attend at the Place and Time

appointed, and bring with them such of their Suffragans as might be well

spared from the Service of the Churches in their respective Provinces.

[Sidenote: _His Letter to_ Cyril.] Besides the circular Letter to all

Metropolitans in common, _Theodosius_ writ to _Cyril_ in particular, to

let him know that he looked upon him as the sole Author of the present

Disturbances, and therefore expected that he would not fail to attend

the Council at the time appointed; that from him he would admit of no

Excuse; that his punctual Compliance with the present Order was the only

means of regaining his Favour, and inclining him to think that it was

not any private Pique, or Animosity, but a Persuasion that he was

defending the Truth, which had prompted him to act, as he had hitherto

done, so contrary to all the Rules of Modesty and Discretion. In the

same Letter he reproaches _Cyril_, and in the sharpest Terms, with

Pride, Arrogance, and Presumption; and even charges him with having

attempted to sow Divisions in the Imperial Family. But this Charge was

groundless, having no other Foundation, but _Cyril_’s having written

apart to _Pulcheria_ and her Sisters, which the Emperor supposed to have

been done with a Design to raise a Misunderstanding between him and

them[1621].

[Sidenote: _Irregular Proceedings of the Council._]

The Council met at the Time and Place appointed, pursuant to the

Emperor’s Orders. But every thing was transacted in that Assembly so

contrary to all the Rules of Justice, and even of Decency, with so much

Prejudice and Animosity, that they seemed to be all actuated by the

Spirit of _Cyril_, and to have met with no other View than to gratify

his private Passion and Revenge. _Cyril_ presided, who was the Party

concerned, and the avowed Enemy of _Nestorius_. They began their

Sessions before the Arrival of _John_ of _Antioch_, and the Bishops of

that Patriarchate, who were supposed to favour _Nestorius_, though they

had certain Intelligence of their being within a sew Days Journey of

_Ephesus_; nay, they would not even wait for the Pope’s Legates, and a

good Number of Bishops who were coming from _Italy_, and the Island of

_Sicily_. _Nestorius_, and Count _Candidianus_, whom the Emperor had

sent to assist at the Council in his Name, earnestly begged them to put

off the Sessions only for Four Days longer, assuring them that _John_

and his Suffragans would reach _Ephesus_ within that Time. But all in

vain: they were determined to condemn _Nestorius_, right or wrong; and

therefore could by no means be prevailed upon to wait the Arrival of

those who, they apprehended, would oppose, and perhaps might intirely

defeat the End for which alone they seemed to believe they had been

assembled. _Nestorius_ was summoned to appear the very next Day, and

clear himself before the Council of the impious Doctrine with which he

was charged. He refused to comply till the Orientals, that is, those of

the Patriarchate of _Antioch_, were arrived; and, upon that Refusal, the

Council met very early next Morning, read all his Letters and Homilies,

condemned the Doctrine they contained, approved the Doctrine of _Cyril_,

whose Letters were likewise read; and closed this very remarkable

Session with pronouncing Sentence of Deposition and Excommunication

against _Nestorius_, in the following Terms; [Sidenote: _The Sentence

they pronounced against_ Nestorius.] _Our Lord Jesus Christ, against

whom the most wicked_ Nestorius _has leveled his Blasphemies, declares

him, by the Mouth of this Council, deprived of the Episcopal Dignity,

and cut off from the Communion of the Episcopal Order_[1622]. This

Sentence was signed by all the Bishops who were present, pasted up in

the most public Places of _Ephesus_, and notified to all the Inhabitants

by the Criers of the City. It was no sooner known than the whole City

resounded with loud Shouts of Joy, the Streets were illuminated, and the

People, crouding to the Church where the Council was held, attended the

Bishops, with lighted Torches in their Hands, and great Acclamations, to

their respective Habitations, the Women walking before them, and burning

Perfumes[1623]. It had been as dangerous for _Nestorius_ to shew himself

in _Ephesus_, at this Juncture, as it was formerly for St. _Paul_, the

_Ephesians_ being no less devoted now to the Virgin _Mary_ than they

were in the Apostle’s Time to their great _Diana_, and their

Superstition no less mischievous, though the Object was changed. The

Virgin _Mary_ was the Patroness of _Ephesus_, the _Ephesians_ believing

then that they possessed her Body. But it is now believed by the Church

of _Rome_, that she was taken up Soul and Body into Heaven, and the

Festival of her _Assumption_ is kept with great Solemnity on the 15th of

_August_, being preceded by a Vigil or Fast. [Sidenote: _In what terms

they acquainted_ Nestorius _with the Sentence pronounced against him_.]

The Council took care to acquaint _Nestorius_ with the Sentence which

they had pronounced against him; and the Note, which they writ to him on

that Occasion, shews but too plainly, that they were swayed in all they

did by Passion alone. For the Note was thus directed; _To_ Nestorius _a

second_ Judas[1624].

Such is the Account which the Antients give us of the First Oecumenical

Council of _Ephesus_, one of the Four, which _Gregory the Great_

received with as much Veneration as the Four Gospels[1625]. [Sidenote:

_The Council of_ Ephesus _unworthy of that Name_.] But notwithstanding

his Authority, we may, perhaps, with more Truth, apply to this Council

than to any other what _Nazianzen_ writ of the Councils of his Time;

_viz._ that _he had never seen an Assembly of Bishops that ended well_;

that, _by assembling, they had always heightened rather than cured the

Evil_; that _in such Assemblies, Passion, Jealousy, Prejudice, Envy, the

Desire of Victory generally prevailed_; and that _those who took upon

them to judge others, were, generally speaking, swayed by some private

Grudge, their Zeal being owing more to the Ill-will which they bore to

the Criminals, than the Aversion which they had to their Crimes_[1626].

As to the present Assembly, it may be justly questioned whether it

deserves the Name of a Council, or ought not rather to be styled a

seditious and tumultuary Conventicle of Men, assembled with no other

View but to revenge the private Quarrel of their Head and Leader. For

they met against the Will of the Imperial Commissioner Count

_Candidianus_, who represented the Person of the Emperor; nay, upon his

acquainting them, that it was the Will of the Emperor they should wait

the Arrival of the Oriental and Western Bishops, they drove him by Force

out of the Assembly. [Sidenote: _Is protested against by the Imperial

Commissioner and Seventy-six Bishops._] _Candidianus_, seeing the

Emperor’s Orders thus trampled under foot by the riotous Bishops,

entered a Protest against their Proceedings, and declared them null.

This Protest was addressed, _To_ Cyril, _and the Bishops assembled with

him_[1627]. _Nestorius_ likewise, Seven Bishops who were assembled with

him, and Sixty-eight more, all protested against the Meeting of the

Council till the Arrival of the Orientals: so that Seventy-six Bishops,

who were then actually in _Ephesus_, protested against, and absented

themselves from the Council. [Sidenote: _They act contrary to all Rules

of Justice and Religion._] As therefore neither the Orientals, nor the

Western Bishops, were yet come, the Assembly was composed only of

_Egyptians_ and _Asiatics_, who were intirely devoted to _Cyril_. But

how irregular soever their Meeting was, their Method of acting, after

they met, was no less irregular. _Cyril_, who was the Party concerned,

and the avowed Enemy of _Nestorius_, received the Depositions against

him, examined the Witnesses, gave what Explication he pleased to his

Words, and delivered his Opinion the first; which was acting in open

Contradiction to the known Laws of Justice and Religion. In the first

Session several Things were transacted, that might have given full

Employment for several Sessions. How could they examine, in so short a

time, the Twelve Propositions which _Cyril_ required _Nestorius_ to

anathematize, Propositions that were capable of so many different

Interpretations, that were afterwards so differently interpreted, and

occasioned endless Quarrels and Disputes, some admitting them as

Catholic, and rejecting the opposite Propositions as heretical; others

admitting the opposite Propositions as Catholic, and rejecting them as

heretical, without being able to agree in any thing else but in

anathematizing and cursing each other? How could they compare the many

Passages out of the Homilies of _Nestorius_, with the different

Contexts, in order to find out his true Meaning? To examine so many

different Propositions, all relating to a Subject above our

Comprehension, and in Terms hardly intelligible to the most speculative

Understanding, to declare which were Heterodox, and which Orthodox,

which were agreeable, and which disagreeable, to the Doctrine of the

Fathers (for the Scripture was out of the Question), and all this in a

few Hours, was, it must be owned, a most wondrous Performance. But the

Orientals were at hand: _John_ of _Antioch_ was a Man of great Credit:

it was apprehended, that the many Bishops, who were then in _Ephesus_,

and had absented themselves from the Council, might join him, and he

_Nestorius_. Dispatch was therefore to be used, and the Business of many

Sessions transacted in one, that _Cyril_ might have his full Revenge

before their Arrival.

[Sidenote: _The Conduct of_ Cyril _sharply censured by his greatest

Friends_.]

It was in this Light that the Conduct of _Cyril_ and the other Bishops

appeared to St. _Isidore_ of _Pelusium_, a Prelate of great Learning and

Sagacity, and one who professed a particular Friendship for _Cyril_.

For, being informed of what had passed at _Ephesus_, he was so shocked

at the Conduct of his Friend, that he could not help censuring it with

great Severity. _Your Conduct_, said he, in a private Letter to him,

_and the Tragedy which you have lately acted at_ Ephesus, _are Matter of

great Surprise to some, and Diversion to others. It is publicly said,

that you sought only to be revenged on your Enemies, and that you have

therein imitated your Uncle_ Theophilus; _and, indeed, though the

Persons accused may be different, the Conduct of the Accusers is the

same. You had better have continued quiet, than revenged your private

Injuries at the Expence of the public Peace, and Tranquillity of the

Church, by sowing Dissensions among her Members, under the Colour of

Piety and Religion_[1628]. _Theophilus_, whom _Isidore_ mentions in his

Letter, was Bishop of _Alexandria_, Uncle to _Cyril_, and at the Head of

the Faction that deposed _Chrysostom_[1629].

[Sidenote: _The Orientals arrive._]

Five Days after the Deposition of _Nestorius_, _John_ of _Antioch_ and

the Orientals arrived; and great was their Surprize, when they were

informed by Count _Candidianus_, who came to wait on them, of what had

passed. _John_ had always advised _Nestorius_ to allow the Title of

_Mother of God_ to the Virgin _Mary_, for the sake of Peace; but could

not think him an Heretic for disputing it. But, as to the Doctrine of

_Cyril_, he looked upon it as rank _Apollinarism_; and, as such, had

caused it to be confuted. [Sidenote: _They insist upon the Points that

had been so hastily decided, to be examined anew. Which being refused

by_ Cyril, _they assemble apart_.] No wonder, therefore, if, upon

hearing that the Doctrine of _Cyril_ had been declared Catholic, that

the Doctrine of _Nestorius_ had been condemned as Heretical, and he

excommunicated and deposed for holding it, he insisted, as he did, upon

their agreeing to have those Points examined anew, and more maturely,

before he would assist at the Council. This Demand he thought the more

reasonable, as _Cyril_ had assured him, by a Letter dated but Two Days

before the Meeting of the Council, that they should not meet till his

Arrival. But _Cyril_, as we may well imagine, would by no means consent

to it; which so provoked _John_, that, after several expostulatory

Letters between him and _Cyril_, he assembled, at last, his Orientals

apart, and, with them, such as adhered to him, about Fifty in all. In

this new Council, the Proceedings of the other were examined; and, being

found repugnant to the Canons, and owing merely to Rancour and Passion,

they were, by the whole Assembly, with one Voice, declared null.

[Sidenote: _The Two Councils anathematize and excommunicate

one another._] The Orientals did not stop here; but, after a strict

Examination of the Doctrine of _Cyril_, they declared it Heretical; and,

in virtue of that Declaration, pronounced Sentence of Excommunication

and Deposition against him, against _Memnon_ Bishop of _Ephesus_, a

zealous Stickler for his Doctrine, and against all the Bishops who

should communicate with either, till they had publicly retracted their

Errors. The Blow was soon returned by _Cyril_, and those who sided with

him; the Orientals were all declared _Nestorians_, and, with

_Nestorius_, deposed, excommunicated, anathematized. [Sidenote: _Both

recur to the Emperor._] War being thus declared between the Two

Councils, Expresses were immediately dispatched, by both, to the

Emperor, and their Friends at Court; for they were both sensible, that

the Doctrine of those, who had most Friends there, would, in the End,

prove the most Orthodox. The Emperor read, with great Attention, the

Accounts transmitted to him by both Parties, and would have approved and

confirmed the Proceedings of the Orientals, had he not been diverted

from it, first by his Physician named _John_, and afterwards by

_Acacius_ Bishop of _Berœa_, who happened to be then at Court.

[Sidenote: _He approves the Deposition of_ Nestorius, Cyril,

_and_ Memnon.] For the present _Theodosius_ contented himself with

approving the Deposition of _Nestorius_, of _Cyril_, and of _Memnon_,

who, he said, well deserved such a Punishment, as being the chief

Authors of the present Disturbances; _for, as to their Faith_, he added,

_I believe they are all Three alike Orthodox_. Which was true; and more

than both Councils had been able to find out.

[Sidenote: _All three arrested by the Emperor’s Order, who endeavours,

in vain, to reconcile the Bishops_.]

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.

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