The History of the Popes: From the Foundation of the See of Rome, to the Present Time, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1 (part 3 of 3)
[Sidenote: Boniface free from Ambition.]
Boniface was naturally a Lover of Peace, and an Enemy to all Strife and Contention. He did not claim, nor attempt to usurp, any new Power over his Collegues; but yet he would not part with any his Predecessors enjoyed, by what means soever they had acquired it; and those who attempted to curtail the usurped Jurisdiction of the Apostolic See, met with as vigorous an Opposition from him as they could have done either from Innocent or Zosimus. In short, he had not Ambition enough to inlarge his Authority, but thought himself in Conscience obliged to maintain the just Rights, as he styled and believed them, of the See in which it had pleased Divine Providence to place him, though unworthy of so great an Honour. [Sidenote: Dispute between him and the Bishops of Illyricum.] His Steadiness in asserting these Claims appeared chiefly in the Dispute that arose between him and the Bishops of Illyricum, over whom Damasus had usurped, as I have related elsewhere[1583], and his Successors maintained a particular Power and Jurisdiction. The Transaction is thus related by the Writers of those Times. The See of Patræ in Achaia, one of the Provinces of Illyricum, being vacant, the Bishop of Corinth, Metropolitan of that Province, did all that lay in his Power to get Perigenes, a Presbyter of an unexceptionable Character, chosen in the room of their deceased Bishop. But his Endeavours proving unsuccessful, he returned to Corinth, and died soon after. Upon his Death the People and Clergy of Corinth, to honour his Memory, and shew the Regard they had for one whom he had favoured, unanimously named Perigenes to succeed him. But as they apprehended some Opposition from the Bishops of the same Province, they writ to Boniface, begging him to confirm their Election with his Authority. Boniface referred them to Rufus, then Bishop of Thessalonica, and his Vicar in those Parts, declaring that, as for himself, he had nothing to object either against their Election, or the Person elected. Rufus notified to the Bishops of the Province, and the Metropolitans of the Diocese, the Approbation of Boniface, and his own; but it was not received by all in the same manner. [Sidenote: Law of Theodosius concerning Disputes that should arise in Illyricum.] The greater Part indeed agreed to the Ordination of the new Bishop; but some opposed it with great Warmth, prompted, most probably, by the Jealousy they entertained of the growing Power of the See of Rome: for, at their Request, a Law was published by the Emperor Theodosius, dated the 14th of July 421. commanding all Disputes, that should arise in the Diocese of Illyricum, to be finally determined by the Bishops of that Diocese, after they had consulted the Bishop of Constantinople[1584]. This was taking those Provinces from the Bishop of Rome, and, in some Degree, subjecting them to the Bishop of Constantinople, or at least opening a Door for such a Subjection. The Power of the Bishops of Constantinople was already grown very considerable, and their Ambition keeping Pace with that of the Bishops of Rome, neither let any Opportunity slip of extending the Jurisdiction of their own See at the Expence of the other. In the present Case the Bishop of Constantinople, availing himself of the Favour of the Emperor, and the Disagreement that reigned among the Illyrican Bishops, summoned, without Loss of Time, a Council to meet at Corinth, and there to examine the Ordination of Perigenes, though he had been ordained, and his Ordination approved of both by Rufus and Boniface. [Sidenote: Three Letters of Boniface.] This Step, quite unexpected, alarmed Boniface; he divested himself at once of his pacific Disposition, and, assuming the Air and Style of Authority, he writ Three Letters, all dated the same Day, viz. 11th of March 422. encouraging the Friends of the Apostolic See to maintain its Rights, and threatening those who dared to invade them. [Sidenote: He maintains, with Authority, his pretended Rights.] The first was to Rufus of Thessalonica, whom he animates not to suffer any Innovations, but vigorously to withstand those, who assumed an Authority that did not become them, and to which they had no kind of Title or Claim, meaning, no doubt, the Bishop of Constantinople. The Second Letter he writ to the Bishops of Thessaly, exhorting them to acknowlege the Authority of Rufus, and no other. The Third was addressed to the Bishops of Macedon, Achaia, Thessaly, Epirus, and Dacia, who had been summoned by the Bishop of Constantinople to assemble at Corinth, and there deliver their Opinion concerning the Ordination of Perigenes. In this Letter he complains, in the strongest Terms, of so bold and daring an Attempt, asking, in the Style of a Sovereign, What Bishop shall presume to question an Ordination approved by us? What Bishop could take upon him to assemble a Council with that View and Intent? Read, he adds, read the Canons, and there you will find, that the See of Rome is the First, the See of Alexandria the Second, and that of Antioch the Third. These are the Three great Sees; these the Sees which the Fathers have distinguished above the rest, with ample Privileges, and extensive Jurisdiction. Since he refers them to the Canons to shew, that these Three Sees are superior to the See of Constantinople, both in Dignity and Jurisdiction, it were to be wished he had, at the same time, acquainted them by what Canons his Predecessors had exercised over the Provinces of Illyricum the Jurisdiction which he now so zealously asserts. But that is more than it was in his Power to do. However, in the present Letter, he threatens with Excommunication such of the Illyrican Bishops as shall, in Defiance of his Orders, comply with the Summons which they have received, or presume to question the Ordination of Perigenes. What was the Issue of this Dispute is not recorded by any of the Antients; but a modern Historian[1585] informs us, that the Emperor Honorius interposing, at the Request of Boniface, in Behalf of the See of Rome, prevailed upon Theodosius to revoke his former Law, and enact another in its room, confirming to the Apostolic See all its antient Privileges, and injoining the Præfectus Prætorio to see the latter Law put in Execution. The Historian quotes this Law from the Archives of the Roman Church. But as it is not to be found either in the Theodosian or the Justinian Code, its Authenticity may be justly suspected.
[Sidenote: He revokes the Privileges granted by Zosimus to the Church of Arles.]
The same Year 422. Boniface gave a signal Instance of his Equity and Love of Justice, which redounds greatly to his Honour, and therefore ought not to be omitted. He was sensible, that his Predecessor Zosimus, abusing his Authority, had acted in the Affair of the Gallican Bishops, in a most partial and arbitrary manner; that the See of Arles had no just Title to the many Privileges, which he had been induced, by his Partiality for Patroclus, to heap on it, at the Expence of Two other Sees; and, consequently, that it was incumbent upon himself, now that he had the Power in his Hands, to rectify by a better Use of it, what his Predecessor had done amiss. The Love of Justice therefore prevailing in him over all other Considerations, he annulled, by a Letter addressed to Hilarius of Narbonne, whatever had been done by Zosimus in favour of the See of Arles, restored and confirmed to the Sees of Narbonne and Vienne all the Rights and Privileges, which they had been so unjustly divested of, and declaring all the Grants and Concessions made to the See of Arles repugnant to the Canons, strictly injoined the Bishop of Narbonne not to suffer his Brother of Arles to exercise, in virtue of them, any kind of Authority within the Limits of his Jurisdiction[N68]. The Conduct of Boniface was afterwards approved, and that of Zosimus justly condemned, by Pope Leo the Great, declaring in a Letter which he writ to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne, that the Privileges, which the Apostolic See had granted to Patroclus, were afterwards revoked by a more equitable Sentence.
-----
Footnote N68:
This Letter is dated the 2d of February 422.
-----
[Sidenote: A remarkable Instance of his Moderation.]
One of the many Artifices, employed by the Popes to aggrandize their See, was to raise Divisions among their Collegues, or to foment underhand those that others had raised. For in such Divisions they never stood neuter, but, taking Part in the Quarrel, nay, and making themselves Principals, they warmly declared in favour of one Party against the other, that, by supporting them, they might be in their Turn supported by them in all their Pretensions. To this worldly Wisdom, this wicked Policy, Boniface was an utter Stranger: for he did not lay hold of a very favourable Opportunity, which the Division, that reigned at this time among the Bishops of Gaul, offered him, to improve his Authority, and extend his Jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Dignity was disputed there by the Bishops of Vienne, of Narbonne, and of Arles, as I have observed above. During that Contest the Clergy of Valence, quarreling with their Bishop Maximus, charged him with several Crimes; but not caring to accuse him at the Tribunal of any of the Three Competitors (for that had been acknowleging, in one of the Three, the Metropolitan Jurisdiction then in Dispute), they arraigned him at Rome, and summoned him to plead his Cause there before Boniface. Most other Popes would have eagerly embraced such an Opportunity of inlarging their Power; nay, and founded upon this particular Case the general Right of judging, and finally determining, all Causes of the like Nature. But Boniface declared, in his Letter to Patroclus, and the other Bishops of the Seven Provinces of Gaul, that though Maximus had been accused at his Tribunal, though he had not appeared to clear himself from the Crimes laid to his Charge, and might thereupon be thought guilty, and be justly condemned; yet he would not take upon him to pronounce such a Sentence, because that Bishop ought, according to the Canons, to be judged and condemned, or absolved, in his own Province. An Instance of Moderation that reflects no small Honour on the Memory of Boniface; the rather as he had before his Eyes the recent Examples of Innocent and Zosimus, the Two most ambitious and arrogant Popes the Church had yet seen. He closes his Letter with exhorting the Bishops of the Seven Provinces to assemble against the First of November, that Maximus may be cleared, if innocent, or condemned, if guilty.
[Sidenote: His Death.]
Boniface died on the 4th of November 422. having held the Chair 3 Years, 9 Months, and some Days. He was buried in the Cœmetery of the Martyr St. Felicitas, on the Salarian Way; where he is said to have built an Oratory. He is worshiped by the Church of Rome among her Saints, an Honour which few of his Predecessors better deserved. But it is a Wonder that the last Instance I have given of his Moderation, and Regard to the Canons against the Claims of his See, did not exclude him out of the Calendar. His Festival is kept on the 25th of October; and Bede quotes a Book of Miracles wrought by Pope Boniface[1586]; but whether by the First Pope of that Name, or the Second, he does not inform us, though he seems to give an intire Credit to every idle Tale that Legend contained. And here I cannot help observing, by the way, that the less necessary Miracles became, the more they were multiplied. In Bede’s Time, and the Three preceding Centuries, Men were rather inclined to believe too much than too little; and yet in no other Time was there a greater Profusion of Miracles. From an antient Epitaph quoted by Baronius[1587], it appears that Boniface died very old; that he had served the Church from his tender Years; that by his engaging Behaviour he put an End to the Schism, and that he relieved Rome in the time of a Famine.
-----
Footnote 1578:
Bar. ib. n. 37.
Footnote 1579:
Vid. Bar. ib. n. 34. & Baillet. vies de saints, 25 Oct.
Footnote 1580:
Platina in Bon.
Footnote 1581:
Apud Bar. ann. 419. n. 8.
Footnote 1582:
Pagi, crit. hist. in annal. Bar.
Footnote 1583:
See p. 226, 227.
Footnote 1584:
Cod. Theod. l. 45. de Episcop. l. 6.
Footnote 1585:
Fleury hist. eccles. l. 24. n. 31.
Footnote 1586:
Bed. in collectan. in fin.
Footnote 1587:
Bar. ad ann. 423. n. 8, 9.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HONORIUS, CELESTINE, THEODOSIUS II., Forty-second BISHOP of Rome. VALENTINIAN III.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 422. Celestine chosen without Opposition.]
Upon the Demise of Boniface, Celestine was chosen in his room, without the least Disturbance or Opposition. Eulalius indeed, who was still alive, and led a retired Life in the neighbouring Province of Campania, was tempted by his Friends in Rome to try his Fortune a Second time; but he did not chuse to quit his Solitude, and involve both himself and them in new Troubles. Celestine was a Native of Rome, the Son of one Priscus, and a Deacon, if not a Presbyter, at the Time of his Election[1588].
[Sidenote: Antony, one of St. Austin’s Disciples, appointed by his Interest Bishop of Fussala.]
He was scarce warm in the Chair, when he received a Letter from St. Austin on the following Occasion. As the small Town, or rather Village of Fussala, belonging to the Bishoprick of Hippo, the See of St. Austin, stood at a great Distance from that City, the good Bishop thought he could not better consult the spiritual Welfare of the Inhabitants, who had but very lately abandoned the Party of the Donatists, than by causing their Town to be erected into a separate Bishoprick, and letting them have a Bishop of their own. This was indeed abridging both his own Jurisdiction and Revenues; but as he had the Good of the People more at Heart than either, he pursued his Scheme with Success, and prevailed upon his Collegues in Numidia to ordain a young Man named Antony, whom he had brought up from his Infancy, the first Bishop of the Place, though at that time only a Reader. This Promotion, per saltum, as it is styled, was strictly forbidden by the Popes in their Decretals; but to their Orders St. Austin paid no greater Regard than the other Bishops did, though he always spoke of them, and to them, with all the Respect that was due to the first Bishop in the West.[Sidenote: Antony_’s scandalous Behaviour_.] St. Austin had soon Occasion to repent his transgressing those Regulations, which, it must be owned, are in themselves very wise: for Antony, who was but a Youth, and had been kept by St. Austin under great Restraint, no sooner found himself free from all Controul, than abandoning himself intirely to the Indulgence of his youthful Passions, he thereby scandalized the new Catholics to such a Degree, that they let St. Austin know the Conduct of their Bishop, unless he was quickly removed, would certainly drive them to the last Extremity; meaning, perhaps, that they should be forced either to put him to Death, or to join anew the Donatists, whom they had but lately forsaken. Such Menaces alarmed St. Austin no less than the Conduct of his favourite Disciple surprised him. A Council was immediately summoned at his Request by the Primate of Numidia; Antony was ordered to attend it, and the Inhabitants of Fussala invited to lay their Complaints before the Assembly. The Summons was complied with by all, and Antony, by a great Number of Witnesses, convicted of Rapine, Violence, and Extortion. But, because some capital Crimes laid to his Charge were not sufficiently proved, the Fathers of the Council, out of an unseasonable Compassion, contented themselves with only condemning him to restore to the Inhabitants of Fussala what he had with Violence taken from them. [Sidenote: He is deprived of the Administration, and all Jurisdiction, by a Council.] They were even inclined to leave him in the quiet Possession of his Church; but that being warmly opposed by the People, they deprived him of the Administration, and of all Jurisdiction; but as he still retained the Episcopal Dignity, they did not chuse to remove him to another City to live there even as a private Person, lest they should be thought to transgress the Rules of the Fathers forbidding Translations[1589]. None could think so who were the least acquainted with those Rules.
[Sidenote: He appeals to Rome.]
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
The system of footnotes is somewhat complicated. Notes on the main text are lettered ‘a’ to ‘z’ (skipping ‘j’ and ‘v’), and repeat that pattern from page to page, beginning anew on each section. These attributive notes nearly always serve simply to designate sources. There are 78 longer explanatory notes which are lettered with uppercase characters, always beginning with ‘A’ and only proceeding to ‘B’, etc., if they appear on the same page. These notes are themselves annotated with internally numbered subnotes.
[a] The lower-case lettered footnotes, used to refer to sources, have been moved to the end of each article, and have been resequenced for uniqueness.
[A] The uppercase lettered footnotes, used for supplementary comments, have been moved, when necessary, to follow the paragraph where they are referenced. A number of those notes had numbered footnotes of their own. These have been kept with the note itself. The supplementary notes have been resequenced as well, and prefixed with an ‘N’.
(1) The numbered subnotes have been renumbered sequentially within the note, including the note’s designation. For example ‘N47.1’ is the first subnote for the N47 supplemental note.
The word ‘acknowledge’ appears most regularly as ‘acknowlege’, but the two instances of the more modern spelling are retained.
On p. 66, the anchor for footnote 429 (‘o’ in the original) is missing. It has been placed based upon its appearance in other editions.
An italic font was used to denote emphasized terms, proper names, non-English words and phrases, Latin abbreviations, as well as the text of quotations and sidenotes. Within quoted (and italicized) text, proper names are given in the default font.
Spelling and punctuation has been retained, with only a few exceptions. Those errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original. Errors within footnotes include the page that the note appears on in the original, the original footnote designation, and the line within the note.
viii.26 _so pestilential, errone[e/o]us, heretical, Replaced. and blasphemous_
ix.8 paid[ ]dear for it Inserted.
34.10 Fugacius and Damia[n]us Restored.
38.11 Agreeab[l]y to this Resolution Restored.
67.25 in Answer to Jubaian[n/u]s Inverted.
121.26 as [s]he shall think fit Removed.
143.32 In order to [] this Missing verb.
172.35 extolled by Greg[o]ry Nazianzen Restored.
190.11 of the Roman Clergy[,] Added.
195.20 by the Advice of A[ub/th]anasius Replaced.
217.23 the See of Constan[stan]tinople Removed.
270.2 and united in Com[m]union Inserted.
281A.21 exp[ati/iat]e there the Sins Transposed.
310A.5 to exclude, a[t/s] Innocent does, Replaced.
323.26 a Divine Right of finally decid[e]ing Removed.
336.35 In his room was placed one Patroculus sic