CHAP. XX.
Cyril the main Instigator of Hypatia’s Murder, being envious of the Fame she had acquired by her Learning and Philosophy.
Be it so that the Clergy of Alexandria were the Murderers (some may say) and that their Affection for Cyril transported them beyond what can be justified; how does it appear that he himself had any Hand in this black Deed, which perhaps he neither knew nor could prevent? For the Sake of our common Humanity (since true Christiany is not at all concerned) I wish it were so; but there is such Evidence as will not let any Man, if not wilfully shutting his Eyes against Truth, to believe it. Damascius, who is the other contemporary Witness of her Murder, I meant besides Socrates, positively affirms, that “Cyril vow’d Hypatia’s Destruction, whom he bitterly envied;” and Suidas, who writes the same Thing, says, that this Envy was caused by her extraordinary Wisdom and Skill in Astronomy; as Hesychius, when he mentions her Limbs being carried all over the City in Triumph, writes, that this befel her on the Score of her extraordinary Wisdom, and especially her Skill in Astronomy. For Cyril was a mighty Pretender to Letters, and one of those Clergymen who will neither acknowledge nor bear the Superiority of any Laymen in this Respect, be it ever so incontestable to others. But some Circumstances of Hypatia’s Death, not mention’d in Socrates, are preserved in the Abridgment of Isidorus’s Life in Photius, such as Valesius had it; and which I here give you, Reader, though it should cost you the Tribute of one Tear more to her Memory. “Upon a Time (says Damascius) Cyril, passing by the House of Hypatia, saw a great Multitude before the Door both of Men on Foot and on Horseback; whereof some were coming, some going, and others staid. When he inquir’d what that Croud was, and what occasioned so great a Concourse? he was answered by such as accompanied him, that this was Hypatia the Philosopher’s House, and that these came to pay their Respects to her. Which when Cyril understood, he was moved with so great Envy, that he immediately vow’d her Destruction, which he accomplish’d in the most detestable Manner. For when Hypatia, as was her Custom, went abroad, several Men, neither fearing divine Vengeance nor human Punishment, suddenly rush’d upon her and kill’d her: Thus laying their Country both under the highest Infamy, and under the Guilt of innocent Blood. And indeed the Emperor was grievously offended at this Matter, and the Murderers had been certainly punished, but that Edefius did corrupt the Emperor’s Friends; so that his Majesty it’s true remitted the Punishment, but drew Vengeance on himself and his Posterity, his Nephew paying dear for this Action.” This Nephew Valetius believes to have been Valentinian, whose Mother Placidia was Aunt to Theodosius.
CHAP. XXI.
The Death of Hypatia brought an Infamy on Cyril and the Christian Church: She was no Catholick, but a Heathen.
Thus ended the Life of Hypatia, whose Memory will ever last, and whose Murder happen’d in the fourth Year of Cyril’s Episcopate, Honorius being the tenth Time and Theodosius the sixth Time Consuls, in the Month of March, in the Time of Lent, and in the Year 415. “That Action (says Socrates) brought no small Infamy not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Church of Alexandria; for Slaughters, and Fightings, and such like Things, are quite foreign to the Christian Institution.” There’s nothing surer, there’s nothing truer; but of genuine Christianity there remain’d very little at that Time, unless Christianity be made to consist in the bare Name and Profession; for, were I disposed to take this Trouble upon me, I should think it no difficult Task to shew, that neither the Doctrines nor Distinctions then in Vogue were ever taught by Christ or his Apostles; and that the Ceremonies injoined or practised were all utterly unknown to them. No, no, they were no Christians that kill’d Hypatia; nor are any Christian Clergymen now to be attack’d through the Sides of her Murderers, but those that resemble them; by substituting precarious Traditions, scholastick Fictions, and an usurped Dominion, to the salutiferous Institution of the holy Jesus. Photius is very angry with Philostorgius, whom he stigmatizes as an impious Man, for saying that the Homoousians, or the Athanasian Trinitarians, tore her to Pieces; but is he not an impudent Man, or something worse, that dares to deny this? when none were more remarkable Sticklers for the Homoousian, than Cyril and his Adherents. This only the Truth of History requires to be specially noted; for with me the Homoiousion and the Homoousion are of no Account, in Comparison of the Bible, where neither of them are to be found. In the mean Time ’twill not be amiss to hear Gothofred on this Occasion. “Observe here (says he) the Arian Poison of Philostorgius against the Homoousians, or Catholicks; as if the Murder of Hypatia were the Crime of the Catholicks, and not of the indiscrete Populace. Thus much however may be gathered from this Passage, that this same Hypatia was no Catholick.” Admirable Gothofred! Not to say any thing to your Arian Poison, for which I am not a whit concern’d neither of the People’s Guilt, whom I have sufficiently clear’d before; nor yet of the nice Distinction between the Populace and the Catholicks, as if the Bulk of the Catholicks were not the Populace: Your Conclusion that Hypatia was not a Catholick is unspeakably acute, when in Reality she was not as much as a Christian; her Father having been a Heathen Philosopher, and herself the Wife of one, without the least Appearance that she was ever any other with regard to her own Persuasion. As for a ridiculous Letter, pretended to be written by her to Cyril, about the Paschal Cycle, ’tis a manifest Forgery; for she was murdered the sixth Year of Theodosius, and therefore one and twenty Years before the Exile of Nestorius, who yet is mention’d in that Letter under the Epithet of impious.
CHAP. XXII.
The making Cyril a Saint a Dishonour to Religion. Three Sorts of Persons canonized for Saints.
And now that Cyril’s Name puts me once more in mind of him, how insufferable a burlesquing of God and Man is it to revere so ambitious, so turbulent, so perfidious, and so cruel a Man, as a Saint? since History shows that this was his just Character. But in good Earnest this same Title of Saint has not seldom been most wretchedly conferred; for the greatest Part of the Saints after Constantine’s Reign, and especially since Canonization came in Fashion, are made up of three Sorts of Persons, the least of all others meriting Veneration. First, Men have been dubbed Saints, for promoting the Grandeur of the Church by all their Endeavours, especially by their Writings; which, instead of employing for the Happiness or Instruction of their Fellow Citizens, they prostituted to magnify spiritual Authority, to the debasing and enslaving of their Spirits. The second Sort that have been honoured with Saintship, were Princes and other powerful or rich Men, however vicious or tyrannical, who gave large Possessions and Legacies to the Church; or that with Incapacity, Faggot, Gibbet, Sword, and Proscription, chastised the Temerity of such as dared to question her Decrees. The third Sort, were poor groveling Visionaries, boasting of their delirious Enthusiasms and Extasies; or imposing on the ignorant by formal Mortifications, falsely reputed Devotion, and were recompensed with this imaginary Reward, by those that despised their Austerity, at the same Time that they mainly thrived by the Credit of it. It is no Wonder then, that when the Epithet Saint, which peculiarly belonged to Piety and Innocence, was thus pompously bestowed on Vice and Impiety, there should prevail that Deluge of Ignorance, Superstition, and Tyranny, which overwhelmed almost the whole Christian World. All the Persecutions that ensued, were so many forcible Means, employed to suppress any Efforts that might be used for the restoring of Virtue and Learning. By that Antichristian Spirit fell Hypatia, to whom the Clergy of her Time could never forgive, that she was beautiful yet chaste, far more learned than themselves, not to be endured in the Laity; and in greater Credit with the civil Magistrate, whom the Clergy of that Time would needs drive or lead as their Pack-ass.
FINIS.