BOOK II.

OF THE PERSECUTIONS UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPERORS.

If any person was to judge of the nature and spirit of the Christian religion, by the spirit and conduct only of too many who have professed to believe it in all nations, and almost throughout all ages of the Christian church, he could scarce fail to censure it as an institution unworthy the God of order and peace, subversive of the welfare and happiness of societies, and designed to enrich and aggrandize a few only, at the expence of the liberty, reason, consciences, substance, and lives of others. For what confusions and calamities, what ruins and desolations, what rapines and murders, have been introduced into the world, under the “pretended authority” of Jesus Christ, and supporting and propagating Christianity? What is the best part of our ecclesiastical history, better than an history of the pride and ambition, the avarice and tyranny, the treachery and cruelty of some, and of the persecutions and dreadful miseries of others? And what could an unprejudiced person, acquainted with this melancholy truth, and who had never seen the sacred records, nor informed himself from thence of the genuine nature of Christianity, think, but that it was one of the worst religions in the world, as tending to destroy all natural sentiments of humanity and compassion, and inspiring its votaries with that “wisdom which is from beneath,” and which is “earthly, sensual, and devilish!” If this charge could be justly fixed upon the religion of Christ, it would be unworthy the regard of every wise and good man, and render it both the interest and duty of every nation in the world to reject it.

SECT. I. _Of the dispute concerning Easter._

It must be allowed by all who know any thing of the progress of the Christian religion, that the first preachers and propagators of it, used none of the vile methods of persecution and cruelty to support and spread it. Both their doctrines and lives destroy every suspicion of this nature; and yet in their times the beginnings of this spirit appeared: “Diotrephes loved the pre-eminence,” and, therefore, would not own and receive the inspired apostle. We also read, that there were great divisions and schisms in the church of Corinth, and that many grievous disorders were caused therein, by their ranking themselves under different leaders and heads of parties, one being for Paul, another for Apollos, and others for Cephas. These animosities were with difficulty healed by the apostolic authority; but do not, however, appear to have broken out into mutual hatreds, to the open disgrace of the Christian name and profession. The primitive Christians seem for many years generally to have maintained the warmest affection for each other, and to have distinguished themselves by their mutual love, the great characteristic of the disciples of Christ. The gospels, and the epistles of the apostles, all breathe with this amiable spirit, and abound with exhortations to cultivate this God-like disposition. It is reported of St. John,[57] that in his extreme old age at Ephesus, being carried into the church by the disciples, upon account of his great weakness, he used to say nothing else, every time he was brought there, but this remarkable sentence, “Little children, love one another.” And when some of the brethren were tired with hearing so often the same thing, and asked him, “Sir, why do you always repeat this sentence?” he answered, with a spirit worthy an apostle, “It is the command of the Lord, and the fulfilling of the law.” Precepts of this kind so frequently inculcated, could not but have a very good influence in keeping alive the spirit of charity and mutual love. And, indeed, the primitive Christians were so very remarkable for this temper, that they were taken notice of on this very account, and recommended even by their enemies as patterns of beneficence and kindness.

Footnote 57:

Hieron. in Gal. c. 6.

But at length, in the second century, the spirit of pride and domination appeared publicly, and created great disorders and schisms amongst Christians. There had been a controversy of some standing, on what day Easter should be celebrated. The Asiatic churches thought that it ought to be kept on the same day on which the Jews held the passover, the fourteenth day of Nisan, their first month, on whatsoever day of the week it should fall out. The custom of other churches was different, who kept the festival of Easter only on that Lord’s day which was next after the fourteenth of the moon. This controversy appears at first view to be of no manner of importance, as there is no command in the sacred writings to keep this festival at all, much less specifying the particular day on which it should be celebrated. Eusebius tells us[58] from Irenæus, that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, came to Anicetus, bishop of Rome, on account of this very controversy; and that though they differed from one another in this and some other lesser things, yet they embraced one another with a kiss of peace; Polycarp neither persuading Anicetus to conform to his custom, nor Anicetus breaking off communion with Polycarp, for not complying with his. This was a spirit and conduct worthy these Christian bishops: but Victor, the Roman prelate, acted a more haughty and violent part; for after he had received the letters of the Asiatic bishops, giving their reasons for their own practice, he immediately excommunicated all the churches of Asia, and those of the neighbouring provinces, for heterodoxy; and by his letters declared all the brethren unworthy of communion. This conduct was greatly displeasing to some other of the bishops, who exhorted him to mind the things that made for peace, unity, and Christian love. [I]Irenæus especially, in the name of all his brethren, the bishops of France, blamed him for thus censuring whole churches of Christ, and puts him in mind of the peaceable spirit of several of his predecessors, who did not break off communion with their brethren upon account of such lesser differences as these. Indeed, this action of pope Victor was a very insolent abuse of excommunication; and is an abundant proof that the simplicity of the Christian faith was greatly departed from; in that, heterodoxy and orthodoxy were made to depend on conformity or non-conformity to the modes and circumstances of certain things, when there was no shadow of any order for the things themselves in the sacred writings; and that the lust of power, and the spirit of pride, had too much possessed some of the bishops of the Christian church. The same Victor also excommunicated one Theodosius, for being unsound in the doctrine of the Trinity.[59]

Footnote 58:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.

Footnote I:

See note [I] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 59:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.

However, it must be owned, in justice to some of the primitive fathers, that they were not of Victor’s violent and persecuting spirit. Tertullian, who flourished under Severus, in his book to Scapula, tells us, “Every one hath a natural right to worship according to his own persuasion; for no man’s religion can be hurtful or profitable to his neighbour; nor can it be a part of religion to compel men to religion, which ought to be voluntarily embraced, and not through constraint.” Cyprian, also, agrees with Tertullian his master. In his letter to Maximus[60] the presbyter, he says, “It is the sole prerogative of the Lord, to whom the iron rod is committed, to break the earthen vessels. The servant cannot be greater than his lord; nor should any one arrogate to himself, what the Father hath committed to the Son only, viz. to winnow and purge the floor, and separate, by any human judgment, the chaff from the wheat. This is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, and proceeds from wicked madness. And, whilst some are always assuming to themselves more dominion than is consistent with justice, they perish from the church; and whilst they insolently extol themselves, they lose the light of truth, being blinded by their own haughtiness.” To these I shall add Lactantius,[61] though forty years later than Cyprian. “They are convinced,” says he, “that there is nothing more excellent than religion, and therefore think that it ought to be defended with force. But they are mistaken, both in the nature of religion, and in the proper methods to support it: for religion is to be defended, not by murder, but persuasion; not by cruelty, but patience; not by wickedness, but faith. Those are the methods of bad men; these of good. If you attempt to defend religion by blood, and torments, and evil, this is not to defend, but to violate and pollute it: for there is nothing should be more free than the choice of our religion; in which, if the consent of the worshipper be wanting, it becomes entirely void and ineffectual. The true way, therefore, of defending religion, is by faith, a patient suffering and dying for it: this renders it acceptable to God, and strengthens its authority and influence.” This was the persuasion of some of the primitive fathers: but of how different a spirit were others!

Footnote 60:

Epist. 54. Ed. Fell.

Footnote 61:

Lib. 5. c. 20.

As the primitive Christians had any intervals from persecution, they became more profligate in their morals, and more quarrelsome in their tempers. As the revenues of the several bishops increased, they grew more ambitious, less capable of contradiction, more haughty and arrogant in their behaviour, more envious and revengeful in every part of their conduct, and more regardless of the simplicity and gravity of their profession and character. The accounts I have before given of them from Cyprian and Eusebius before the Dioclesian persecution, to which I might add the latter one of St. Jerom,[62] are very melancholy and affecting, and shew how vastly they were degenerated from the piety and peaceable spirit of many of their predecessors, and how ready they were to enter into the worst measures of persecution, could they but have got the opportunity and power.

Footnote 62:

Epist. 13.

SECT. II. _Of the persecutions begun by Constantine._

Under Constantine the emperor, when the Christians were restored to full liberty, their churches rebuilt, and the imperial edicts every where published in their favour, they immediately began to discover what spirit they were of; as soon as ever they had the temptations of honour and large revenues before them. Constantine’s letters are full proof of the jealousies and animosities that reigned amongst them.[63] In his letters to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, he tells him, that he had been informed that Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage, had been accused of many crimes by some of his colleagues, bishops of Africa; and that it was very grievous to him to see so great a number of people divided into parties, and the bishops disagreeing amongst themselves.[64] And though the emperor was willing to reconcile them by a friendly reference of the controversy to Miltiades and others; yet, in spite of all his endeavours, they maintained their quarrels and factious opposition to each other, and through secret grudges and hatred would not acquiesce in the sentence of those he had appointed to determine the affair. So that, as he complained to Chrestus bishop of Syracuse, those who ought to have maintained a brotherly affection and peaceable disposition towards each other, did in a scandalous and detestable manner separate from one another, and gave occasion to the common enemies of Christianity to deride and scoff at them. For this reason, he summoned a council to meet at Arles in France, that after an impartial hearing of the several parties, this controversy, which had been carried on for a long while in a very intemperate manner, might be brought to a friendly and Christian compromise. [J]Eusebius[65] farther adds, that he not only called together councils in the several provinces upon account of the quarrels that arose amongst the bishops, but that he himself was present in them, and did all he could to promote peace amongst them. However, all he could do had but little effect; and it must be owned that he himself greatly contributed to prevent it, by his large endowment of churches, by the riches and honours which he conferred on the bishops, and especially by his authorizing them to sit as judges upon the consciences and faith of others; by which he confirmed them in a worldly spirit, the spirit of domination, ambition, pride, and avarice, which hath in all ages proved fatal to the peace and true interest of the Christian church.

Footnote 63:

E. H. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 64:

Ibid.

Footnote J:

See note [J] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 65:

De Vit. Con. l. 1. c. 44.

In the first edict, given us at large by Eusebius,[66] published in favour of the Christians, he acted the part of a wise, good, and impartial governor; in which, without mentioning any particular sects, he gave full liberty to all Christians, and to all other persons whatsoever, of following that religion which they thought best. But this liberty was of no long duration, and soon abridged in reference both to the Christians and heathens. For although in this first mentioned edict he orders the churches and effects of the Christians in general to be restored to them, yet in one immediately following he confines this grant to the Catholic church. After this, in a letter to Miltiades bishop of Rome, complaining of the differences fomented by the African bishops, he lets him know, that he had so great a reverence for the Catholic church, that he would not have him suffer in any place any schism or difference whatsoever. In another to Cæcilianus bishop of Carthage,[67] after giving him to understand, that he had ordered Ursus to pay his reverence three thousand pieces, and Heraclides to disburse to him whatever other sums his reverence should have occasion for; he orders him to complain of all persons who should go on to corrupt the people of the most holy Catholic church by any evil and false doctrine, to Anulinus the pro-consul, and Patricius, to whom he had given instructions on this affair, that if they persevered in such madness they might be punished according to his orders. It is easy to guess what the Catholic faith and church meant, viz. that which was approved by the bishops, who had the greatest interest in his favour.

Footnote 66:

E. H. l. 10. c. 5.

Footnote 67:

E. H. l. 10. c. 6.

As to the Heathens,[68] soon after the settlement of the whole empire under his government, he sent into all the provinces Christian presidents, forbidding them, and all other officers of superior dignity, to sacrifice, and confining to such of them as were Christians the honours due to their characters and stations; hereby endeavouring to support the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, by motives purely worldly, viz. the prospects of temporal preferments and honours; and notwithstanding the excellent law he had before published, that every one should have free exercise of his own religion, and worship such gods as they thought proper, he soon after prohibited the old religion,[69] viz. the worship of idols in cities and country; commanding that no statues of the gods should be erected, nor any sacrifices offered upon their altars. And yet, notwithstanding this abridgment of the liberty of religion, he declares in his letters afterwards, written to all the several governors of his provinces,[70] that though he wished the ceremonies of the temples, and the power of darkness were wholly removed, he would force none, but that every one should have the liberty of acting in religion as he pleased.

Footnote 68:

De vit. Const. l. 2.

Footnote 69:

Ibid. c. 45.

Footnote 70:

Ibid. c. 56.

It is not to be wondered at, that the persons who advised these edicts to suppress the ancient religion of the heathens, should be against tolerating any other amongst themselves, who should presume to differ from them in any articles of the Christian religion they had espoused; because if erroneous and false opinions in religion, as such, are to be prohibited or punished by the civil power, there is equal reason for persecuting a Christian, whose belief is wrong, and whose practice is erroneous, as for persecuting persons of any other false religion whatsoever; and the same temper and principles that lead to the latter, will also lead to and justify the former. And as the civil magistrate, under the direction of his priests, must always judge for himself what is truth and error in religion, his laws for supporting the one, and punishing the other, must always be in consequence of this judgment. And therefore if Constantine and his bishops were right in prohibiting heathenism by civil laws, because they believed it erroneous and false, Dioclesian and Licinius, and their priests, were equally right in prohibiting Christianity by civil laws, because they believed it not only erroneous and false, but the highest impiety and blasphemy against their gods, and even a proof of atheism itself. And by the same rule every Christian, that hath power, is in the right to persecute his Christian brother, whenever he believes him to be in the wrong. And in truth, they seem generally to have acted upon this principle; for which party soever of them could get uppermost, was against all toleration and liberty for those who differed from them, and endeavoured by all methods to oppress and destroy them.

The sentiments of the primitive Christians, at least for near three centuries, in reference to the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, were, generally speaking, pretty uniform; nor do there appear to have been any public quarrels about this article of the Christian faith.[71] Some few persons, indeed, differed from the commonly received opinion. One Theodotus a tanner, under the reign of Commodus, asserted Christ was a mere man, and on this account was excommunicated, with other of his followers, by pope Victor, who appears to have been very liberal in his censures against others. Artemon propagated the same erroneous opinion under Severus. Beryllus[72] also, an Arabian bishop under Gordian, taught, “that our Saviour had no proper personal subsistence before his becoming man, nor any proper godhead of his own, but only the Father’s godhead residing in him;” but afterwards altered his opinion, being convinced of his error by the arguments of Origen. [K]Sabellius[73] also propagated much the same doctrine, denying also the real personality of the Holy Ghost. After him Paulus Samosatenus,[74] bishop of Antioch, and many of his clergy, publicly avowed the same principles concerning Christ, and were excommunicated by a large council of bishops. But though these excommunications, upon account of differences in opinion, prove that the bishops had set up for judges of the faith, and assumed a power and dominion over the consciences of others, yet as they had no civil effects, and were not enforced by any penal laws, they were not attended with any public confusions, to the open reproach of the Christian church.

Footnote 71:

Euseb. E. H. l. 5. c. 28.

Footnote 72:

Ibid. l. 6. c. 33.

Footnote K:

See note [K] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 73:

Ibid. l. 7. c. 27.

Footnote 74:

Ibid. l. 7. c. 28, 29.

But when once Christianity was settled by the laws of the empire, and the bishops free to act as they pleased, without any fear of public enemies to disturb and oppress them, they fell into more shameful and violent quarrels, upon account of their differences concerning the nature and dignity of Christ.[75] The controversy first began between Alexander bishop of Alexandria, and [L]Arius,[76] one of his presbyters, and soon spread itself into other churches, enflaming bishops against bishops, who out of a pretence to support divine truth excited tumults, and entertained irreconcileable hatreds towards one another. These divisions of the prelates set the Christian people together by the ears, as they happened to favour their different leaders and heads of parties; and the dispute was managed with such violence, that it soon reached the whole Christian world, and gave occasion to the heathens in several places to ridicule the Christian religion upon their public theatres.[77] How different were the tempers of the bishops and clergy of these times from the excellent spirit of Dionysius bishop of Alexandria, in the reign of Decius, who writing to Novatus upon account of the disturbance he had raised in the church of Rome, by the severity of his doctrine, in not admitting those who lapsed into idolatry in times of persecution ever more to communion, though they gave all the marks of a true repentance and conversion, tells him, “one ought to suffer any thing in the world rather than divide the church of God.”

Footnote 75:

De vit. Const. l. 2. c. 61.

Footnote L:

See note [L] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 76:

Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 77:

Euseb. l. 6. c. 45.

The occasion of the Arian controversy[78] was this.[79] Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, speaking in a very warm manner concerning the Trinity before the presbyters and clergy of his church, affirmed there was “an Unity in the Trinity,” and particularly that “the Son was co-eternal and consubstantial, and of the same dignity with the Father.” Arius, one of his presbyters, thought that the bishop, by this doctrine, was introducing the Sabellian heresy, and therefore opposed him, arguing in this manner: “If the Father begot the Son, he who was begotten must have a beginning of his existence; and from hence,” says he, “it is manifest, that there was a time when he was not; the necessary consequence of which” he affirmed was this,[80] “that he had his subsistence out of things not existing.” Sozomen adds farther, that he asserted, “that by virtue of his free-will the Son was capable of vice as well as virtue; and that he was the mere creature and work of God.” The bishop being greatly disturbed by these expressions of Arius, upon account of the novelty of them, and not able to bear such an opposition from one of his presbyters to his own principles, commanded (“admonished, as president of the council, to whom it belonged to enjoin silence, and put an end to the dispute”) Arius to forbear the use of them, and to embrace the doctrine of the consubstantiality and co-eternity of the Father and the Son. But Arius was not thus to be convinced, especially as a great number of the bishops and clergy were of his opinion, and supported him; and for this reason himself and the clergy of his party were excommunicated, and expelled the church, in a council of near an hundred of the Egyptian and Lybian bishops met together for that purpose, by the bishop, who in this case was both party and judge, the enemy and condemner of Arius. Upon this treatment Arius and his friends sent circular letters to the several bishops of the church, giving them an account of their faith, and desiring that if they found their sentiments orthodox, they would write to Alexander in their favour; if they judged them wrong, they would give them instructions how to believe. Thus was the dispute carried into the Christian church, and the bishops being divided in their opinions, some of them wrote to Alexander not to admit Arius and his party into communion without renouncing their principles, whilst others of them persuaded him to act a different part. The bishop not only followed the advice of the former, but wrote letters to the several bishops not to communicate with any of them, nor to receive them if they should come to them, nor to credit Eusebius,[81] nor any other person that should write to them in their behalf, but to avoid them as the enemies of God, and the corrupters of the souls of men; and not so much as to salute them, or to have any communion with them in their crimes. Eusebius,[82] who was bishop of Nicomedia, sent several letters to Alexander, exhorting him to let the controversy peaceably drop, and to receive Arius into communion; but finding him inflexible to all his repeated entreaties, he got a synod to meet in Bithynia, from whence they wrote letters to the other bishops, to engage them to receive the Arians to their communion, and to persuade Alexander to do the same. But all their endeavours proved ineffectual, and by these unfriendly dealings the parties grew more enraged against each other, and the quarrel became incurable.

Footnote 78:

Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 15.

Footnote 79:

Theodoret[79a] indeed gives another account of this matter, viz. That Arius was disappointed of the bishopric of Alexandria by the promotion of Alexander, and that this provoked him to oppose the doctrine of the bishop.[79b] But it should be considered that Theodoret lived an hundred years after Arius, and appears to have had the highest hatred of his name and memory. He tells us, “he was employed by the devil; that he was an impious wretch, and damned in the other world.” The accusations of such a one deserve but little credit, especially as there are no concurrent testimonies to support them. Bishop Alexander never mentions it amongst those other charges which he throws upon him, in his letter to the bishop of Constantinople. Constantine expressly ascribes the rise of the controversy to Alexander’s inquisitory temper, and to Arius’s speaking of things he ought never to have thought of. Socrates assures us it was owing to this, that Arius apprehended the bishop taught the doctrine of Sabellius. Sozomen[79c] imputes their quarrel only to their diversity of sentiments. Bishop Alexander says he opposed Arius, because he taught impious doctrines concerning the Son; and Arius affirms he opposed Alexander on the same account. Now whether Theodoret’s single unsupported testimony is to be preferred to these other accounts, I leave every one that is a judge of common sense to determine. Nay, I think it is evident it must be a slander, because the bishop himself had an esteem for Arius, after his advancement to the bishopric of Alexandria, and, as Gelasius Cyzicenus tells us,[79d] “made him the presbyter next in dignity to himself;” which it is not probable he would have done, if he had seen in him any tokens of enmity because of his promotion.

Footnote 79a:

Theod. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 79b:

c. 7, 14.

Footnote 79c:

Soz. p. 426.

Footnote 79d:

l. 2. c. 1.

Footnote 80:

E. H. l. 1. c. 15.

Footnote 81:

Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 6.

Footnote 82:

Soz. l. 1. c. 15.

It is, I confess, not a little surprising, that the whole Christian world should be put into such a flame upon account of a dispute of so very abstruse and metaphysical a nature, as this really was in the course and management of it. Alexander’s doctrine, as Arius represents it in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia,[83] was this: “God is always, and the Son always. The same time the Father, the same time the Son. The Son co-exists with God unbegottenly, being ever begotten, being unbegottenly begotten. That God was not before the Son, no not in conception, or the least point of time, he being ever God, ever a Son: for the Son is out of God himself.” Nothing could be more inexcusable, than the tearing the churches in pieces upon account of such high and subtle points as these, except the conduct of Arius, who on the other hand asserted, as Alexander, his bishop, in his letter to the bishop of Constantinople,[84] tells us, “that there was a time when there was no Son of God, and that he who before was not, afterwards existed; being made, whensoever he was made, just as any man whatsoever; and that therefore he was of a mutable nature, and equally receptive of vice and virtue,” and other things of the like kind. If these were the things taught, and publicly avowed by Alexander and Arius, as each represents the other’s principles, I persuade myself, that every sober man will think they both deserved censure, for thus leaving the plain account of scripture, introducing terms of their own invention into a doctrine of pure revelation, and at last censuring and writing one against another, and dividing the whole church of Christ upon account of them.

Footnote 83:

Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. 5.

Footnote 84:

Id. l. 1. c. 4.

But it is no uncommon thing for warm disputants to mistake and misrepresent each other; and that this was partly the case in the present controversy, is, I think, evident beyond dispute; Alexander describing the opinions of Arius, not as he held them himself, but according to the consequences he imagined to follow from them. Thus Arius asserted, “the Son hath a beginning, and is from none of the things that do exist;” not meaning that he was not from everlasting, before ever the creation, time, and ages had a being, or that he was created like other beings, or that like the rest of the creation he was mutable in his nature. Arius expressly declares the contrary, before his condemnation by the council of Nice, in his letter to Eusebius, his intimate friend, from whom he had no reason to conceal his most secret sentiments, and says,[85] “This is what we have and do profess, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any manner a part of the unbegotten God, nor from any part of the material world, but that by the will and council of the Father he existed before all times and ages, perfect God, the only begotten and unchangeable, and that therefore before he was begotten or formed he was not,” i. e. as he explains himself, “there never was a time when he was unbegotten.” His affirming therefore that the Son had a beginning, was only saying, that he was in the whole of his existence from the Father, as the origin and fountain of his being and deity, and not any denial of his being from before all times and ages; and his saying that he was no part of God, nor derived from things that do exist, was not denying his generation from God before all ages, or his being completely God himself, or his being produced after a more excellent manner than the creatures; but that as he was always from God, so he was different both from him, and all other beings, and a sort of middle nature between God and his creatures; whose beginning, as Eusebius of Nicomedia writes to Paulinus,[86] bishop of Tyre, was “not only inexplicable by words, but unconceivable by the understanding of men, and by all other beings superior to men, and who was formed after the most perfect likeness to the nature and power of God.” This is the strongest evidence that neither Arius nor his first friends put the Son upon a level with the creatures, but that they were in many respects of the same sentiments with those who condemned them. Thus Alexander declares the Son to be “before all ages.” Arius expressly says the same, that he was “before all times and ages.” Alexander, that “he was begotten, not out of nothing, but from the Father who was.” Arius, that “he was the begotten God, the Word from the Father.” Alexander says, “the Father, only, is unbegotten.” Arius, that “there never was a time when the Son was not begotten.” Alexander, that “the subsistence of the Son is inexplicable even by angels.” Eusebius, that “his beginning is inconceivable and inexplicable by men and angels.” Alexander, that “the Father was always a Father because of the Son.” Arius, that “the Son was not before he was begotten;” and, that “he was, from before all ages, the begotten Son of God.” Alexander, that “he was of an unchangeable nature.” Arius, that “he was unchangeable.” Alexander, that “he was the unchangeable image of his Father.” Eusebius, that “he was made after the perfect likeness of the disposition and power of him that made him.” Alexander, that “all things have received their essence from the Father through the Son.” Arius, that “God made by the Word all things in heaven and earth.” Alexander, that “the Word, who made all things, could not be of the same nature with the things he made.” Arius, that “he was the perfect creature or production of God, but not as one of the creatures.”[87] Arius, again, that “the Son was no part of God, nor from any thing that did exist.” Alexander, that “the only begotten nature was a middle nature, between the unbegotten Father, and the things created by him out of nothing.” And yet, notwithstanding all these things, when Alexander gives an account of the principles of Arius to the bishops, he represents them in all the consequences he thought fit to draw from them, and charges him with holding, that the Son was made like every other creature, absolutely out of nothing, and that therefore his nature was mutable, and susceptive equally of virtue and vice; with many other invidious and unscriptural doctrines, which Arius plainly appears not to have maintained or taught.

Footnote 85:

Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. 5.

Footnote 86:

Id. Ibid. c. 6.

Footnote 87:

Theod. E. H. l. i. c. 4.

I do not, however, imagine that Alexander and Arius were of one mind in all the parts of this controversy. They seemed to differ in the following things. Particularly about the strict eternity of the generation of the Son. Alexander affirmed, that it was “absolutely without beginning;” and, that there was no imaginary point of time in which the Father was prior to the Son; and, that the soul could not conceive or think of any distance between them. Arius, on the other hand, maintained, “The Son hath a beginning, there was a time when he was not;” by which he did not mean, that he was not before all times and ages, or the creation of the worlds visible and invisible; but that the very notion of begetting and begotten doth necessarily, in the very nature of things, imply, that the begetter must be some point of time, at least in our conception, prior to what is begotten. And this is agreeable to the ancient doctrine of the primitive fathers. They held, indeed, many of them,[88] such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Novatian, Lactantius, &c. that Logos, i. e. power, wisdom, and reason, existed in God the Father strictly from eternity, but without any proper hypostasis or personality of its own. But that before the creation of the worlds, God the Father did emit, or produce, or generate this Logos, reason or wisdom; whereby, what was before the internal Logos, or wisdom of the Father, existing eternally in and inseparably from him, had now its proper hypostasis, subsistence, or personality. Not that the Father hereby became “destitute of reason,” but that this production proceeded after an ineffable and inexplicable manner. And this production of the Word some of them never scrupled to affirm was posterior to the Father, and that the Father was prior to the Son as thus begotten. They considered the Son under a twofold character, as the reason, and as the word of God. As “the reason of God,” he was eternally in the Father, “unoriginated, unbegotten, underived.” As “the word of God,” he was Missus, Creatus, Genitus, Prolatus, and received his distinct subsistence and personality then, when God said, “Let there be light;” and on this account the Father was, as Novatian speaks, “as a Father prior to the Son.” And, as Tertullian says, “God is a Father and a Judge. But it doth not thence follow that he was always a Father and always a Judge, because always God: for he could not be a Father before the Son, nor a Judge before the offence. But there was a time when there was no offence, and when the Son was not, by which God became a Judge and Father.”

Footnote 88:

Dial. p. 112. 413. p. 20, &c. De Reg. fid. p. 240. De ver. Sap. p. 371.

Another thing in which Alexander and Arius differed, was in the use of certain words, describing the production and generation of the Son of God. Alexander denied that he was made or created, and would not apply to him any word by which the production of the creatures was denoted. Whereas Arius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, did not scruple to affirm that he was created, founded, and the like. And for this they quoted that passage, Prov. vii. 22, &c. as rendered by the LXX. “The Lord created me the beginning of his way, he founded me before the age, and begat me before all the hills.” They did not, however, hereby put him upon a level with the creatures. For though Arius says, he was the “perfect creature of God,” yet he immediately subjoins, “yet not as one of the creatures;” and affirms that he was “begotten not in time,” or “before all time,” which could not be affirmed of the creatures. And his friend Eusebius says, that he was “created, founded, and begotten with an unchangeable and ineffable nature.” Nor were the primitive fathers afraid to use such-like words. Justin Martyr says, he was “the first production of God,” Apol. I. c. 66. Tatian, that he was “the first born work of the Father.” Tertullian, that Sophia was “formed the second person.” And indeed most of the primitive fathers expounded the before-mentioned passage of the Proverbs of the eternal generation of the Son, and thereby allowed him to be “created and founded.”

Another thing in which Alexander and Arius seemed to differ, was about the voluntary generation of the Son of God. Alexander doth not, I think, expressly deny this, but seems to intimate, that the generation of the Son was necessary. Thus he says of the Son, “He is like to the Father, and inferior only in this, that he is not unbegotten,” or “that the Father only is unbegotten;” the consequence of which seems to be, that he apprehended his generation as necessary as the essence of the Father. Arius on the contrary, and his friends, affirmed, that “he was begotten by the will of the Father;” a doctrine not new nor strange in the primitive church. Justin Martyr, speaking of the Word, says,[89] “this virtue was begotten by the Father by his power and will.” And again, explaining the scripture Gen. xix. 24. “The Lord rained down fire from the Lord from heaven,” he says, “There was one Lord on earth, and another in heaven, who was the Lord of that Lord who appeared on earth;[90] as his Father and God, and the author or cause to him of being powerful, and Lord, and God,” Cont. Tryph. Pars secund. And again, he expressly affirms him “to be begotten by the will of his Father.” In like manner Tatian, “that he did come forth by the pure will of the Father.” And Tertullian, Cont. Prax. “He then first produced the Word, when it first pleased him.” I do not take upon me to defend any of these opinions, but only to represent them as I find them; and I think the three particulars I have mentioned were the most material differences between the contending parties.

Footnote 89:

Dialog. p. 413. Ed. Thirl.

Footnote 90:

Ibid. p. 413.

I know the enemies of Arius charged him with many other principles; but as it is the common fate of religious disputes to be managed with an intemperate heat, it is no wonder his opponents should either mistake or misrepresent him, and, in their warmth, charge him with consequences which either he did not see, or expressly denied. And as this appears to be the case, no wonder the controversy was never fairly managed, nor brought to a friendly and peaceable issue. Many methods were tried, but all in vain, to bring Alexander and Arius to a reconciliation, the emperor himself condescending to become a mediator between them.

The first step he took to heal this breach was right and prudent: he sent his letters to Alexandria,[91] exhorting Alexander and Arius to lay aside their differences, and become reconciled to each other. He tells them, that “after he had diligently examined the rise and foundation of this affair, he found the occasion of the difference to be very trifling, and not worthy such furious contentions; and that therefore he promised himself that his mediation between them for peace, would have the desired effect.” He tells Alexander, “that he required from his presbyter a declaration of their sentiments concerning a silly, empty question.” And Arius, “that he had imprudently uttered what he should not have even thought of, or what at least he ought to have kept secret in his own breast; and that therefore questions about such things should not have been asked; or if they had, should not have been answered; that they proceeded from an idle itch of disputation, and were in themselves of so high and difficult a nature, as that they could not be exactly comprehended, or suitably explained;” and that to insist on such points too much before the people, could produce no other effect, than to make some of them talk blasphemy, and others turn schismatics; and that therefore, “as they did not contend about any essential doctrine of the gospel, nor introduce any new heresy concerning the worship of God,” they should again communicate with each other; and finally, that notwithstanding their sentiments in these unnecessary and trifling matters were different from each other, they should acknowledge one another as brethren, and, laying aside their hatreds, return to a firmer friendship and affection than before.

Footnote 91:

Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 1, c. 63, &c.

But religious hatreds are not so easily removed, and the ecclesiastical combatants were too warmly engaged to follow this kind and wholesome advice. The bishops of each side had already interested the people in their quarrel,[92] and heated them into such a rage that they attacked and fought with, wounded and destroyed each other, and acted with such madness as to commit the greatest impieties for the sake of orthodoxy; and arrived to that pitch of insolence, as to offer great indignities to the imperial images. The old controversy about the time of celebrating Easter being now revived, added fuel to the flames, and rendered their animosities too furious to be appeased.

Footnote 92:

Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 4, 5. 325. Id. Ibid. c. 6. Soc. E. H. l. 1.

SECT. III. _The Nicene Council._

[M]Constantine being greatly disturbed upon this account, sent letters to the bishops of the several provinces of the empire to assemble together at Nice in Bithynia, and accordingly great numbers of them came, A. C. 325,[93] some through hopes of profit, and others out of curiosity to see such a miracle of an emperor, and many of them upon much worse accounts. The number of them was 318, besides vast numbers of presbyters, deacons, Acolythists, and others. The ecclesiastical historians tell us, that in this vast collection of bishops some “were remarkable for their gravity, patience under sufferings, modesty, integrity, eloquence, courteous behaviour,” and the like virtues; that “some were venerable for their age, and others excelled in their youthful vigour, both of body and mind.” They are called “an army of God, mustered against the devil: a great crown or garland of priests, composed and adorned with the fairest flowers; confessors: a crowd of martyrs; a divine and memorable assembly; a divine choir,” &c. But yet they all agree that there were others of very different characters. Eusebius tells us, that after the emperor had ended his speech, exhorting them to peace, “some of them began to accuse their neighbours, others to vindicate themselves, and recriminate; that many things of this nature were urged on both sides, and many quarrels or debates arose in the beginning;” and that some came to the council with worldly views of gain. Theodorit says,[94] that those of the Arian party “were subtle and crafty, and like shelves under water concealed their wickedness;” that amongst the orthodox some of them “were of a quarrelling malicious temper, and accused several of the bishops, and that they presented their accusatory libels to the emperor.” Socrates says that “very many of them, the major part of them, accused one another; and that many of them the day before the emperor came to the council, had delivered in to him libels of accusations, or petitions against their enemies.” Sozomen goes farther, and tells us, “that as it usually comes to pass, many of the priests came together, that they might contend earnestly about their own affairs, thinking they had now a fit opportunity to redress their grievances; and, that every one presented a libel to the emperor, of the matters of which he accused others, enumerating his particular grievances. And that this happened almost every day.” Gelasius Cyzicenus’s account of them is,[95] “that when all the bishops were gathered together, according to custom, there happened many debates and contentions amongst the bishops, each one having matters of accusation against the other. Upon this they gave in libels of accusation to the emperor, who received them; and when he saw the quarrels of such bishops with one another, he said, &c. and endeavoured to conceal the wicked attempts of such bishops from the knowledge of those without doors.” So that, notwithstanding the encomiums of this council, the evil spirit had plainly got amongst them; for after the emperor had exhorted them to lay aside all their differences, and to enter into measures of union and peace, instead of applying themselves to the work for which they were convened, they began shamefully to accuse each other, and raised great disturbances in the council by their mutual charges and reproaches. Sabinus also saith,[96] they were generally a set of very ignorant men, and destitute of knowledge and learning. But as Sabinus was an heretic of the Macedonian sect, probably his testimony may be thought exceptionable; and even supposing his charge to be true, yet [N]Socrates brings them off by telling us, that they were enlightened by God, and the grace of his holy spirit, and so could not possibly err from the truth. But as some men may possibly question the truth of their inspiration, so I think it appears but too plain, that an assembly of men, who met together with such different views, were so greatly prejudiced and inflamed against other, and are supposed, many of them, to be ignorant, till they received miraculous illuminations from God, did not seem very likely to heal the differences of the church, or to examine with that wisdom, care, and impartiality, or to enter into those measures of condescension and forbearance that were necessary to lay a solid foundation for peace and unity.

Footnote M:

See note [M] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 93:

The first general council, A. C. c. 17.

Footnote 94:

Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. 7, 11.

Footnote 95:

l. 2. c. 8.

Footnote 96:

Soz. E.H. l. 1. c. 9.

Footnote N:

See note [N] at the end of the volume.

However, the emperor brought them at last to some temper, so that they fell in good earnest to creed-making, and drew up, and subscribed that, which, from the place where they were assembled, was called the Nicene. By the accounts of the transactions in this assembly, given by [O]Athanasius himself, in his letter to the African bishops,[97] it appears, that they were determined to insert into the creed such words as were most obnoxious to the Arians, and thus to force them to a public separation from the church. For when they resolved to condemn some expressions which the Arians were charged with making use of, such as, “the Son was a creature; there was a time when he was not,” and the like; and to establish the use of others in their room, such as, “the Son was the only begotten of God by nature, the Word, the Power, the only Wisdom of the Father, and true God;” the Arians immediately agreed to it: upon this the fathers made an alteration, and explained the words, “from God,” by the Son’s “being of the substance of God.” And when the Arians consented also to this, the bishops farther added, to render the creed more exceptionable, that “he was consubstantial, or of the same substance with the Father.” And when the Arians objected, that this expression was wholly unscriptural, the Orthodox urged, that though it was so, yet the bishops that lived an hundred and thirty years before them, made use of it. At last, however, all the council subscribed the creed thus altered and amended, except five bishops, who were displeased with the word “consubstantial,” and made many objections against it: and of these five, three, viz. Eusebius, Theognis, and Maris, seem afterwards to have complied with the rest, excepting only, that they refused to subscribe to the condemnation of Arius.

Footnote O:

See note [O] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 97:

Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. 3.

Eusebius,[98] bishop of Cæsarea, was also in doubt for a considerable time, whether he should set his hand to it, and refused to do it, till the exceptionable words had been fully debated amongst them, and he had obtained an explication of them suitable to his own sentiments. Thus when it was asserted by the creed, that “the Son was of the Father’s substance,” the negative explication agreed to by the bishops was exactly the same thing that was asserted by Arius, viz. that “he was not a part of the Father’s substance.” Again, as the words “begotten, not made,” were applied to the Son, they determined the meaning to be, that “the Son was produced after a different manner than the creatures which he made,” and was therefore of a more excellent nature than any of the creatures, and that the manner of his generation could not be understood. This was the very doctrine of Arius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who declared, that “as the Son was no part of God, so neither was he from any thing created, and that the manner of his generation was not to be described.” And as to the word “consubstantial” to the Father, it was agreed by the council to mean no more, than that “the Son had no likeness with any created Beings, but was in all things like to him that begot him, and that he was not from any other hypostasis, or substance, but the Father’s.” Of this sentiment also were Arius, and Eusebius his friend, who maintained not only his being of a more excellent original than the creatures, but that he was formed “of an immutable and ineffable substance and nature, and after the most perfect likeness of the nature and power of him that formed him.” These were the explications of these terms agreed to by the council, upon which Eusebius, of Cæsarea, subscribed them in the creed; and though some few of the Arian bishops refused to do it, yet it doth not appear to me, that it proceeded from their not agreeing in the sense of these explications, but because they apprehended that the words were very improper, and implied a great deal more than was pretended to be meant by them; and especially, because an anathema was added upon all who should presume not to believe in them and use them. Eusebius, of Cæsarea, gives a very extraordinary reason for his subscribing this anathema, viz. because “it forbids the use of unscriptural words, the introducing which he assigns as the occasion of all the differences and disturbances which had troubled the church.” But had he been consistent with himself, he ought never to have subscribed this creed, for the very reason he alledges why he did it; because the anathema forbids only the unscriptural words of Arius, such as, “He was made out of nothing; there was a time when he was not,” and the like; but allowed and made sacred the unscriptural expressions of the orthodox, viz. “Of the Father’s substance, and consubstantial,” and cut off from Christian communion those who would not agree to them, though they were highly exceptionable to the Arian party, and afterwards proved the occasions of many cruel persecutions and evils.

Footnote 98:

Theod. l. 1. c. 12.

In this public manner did the bishops assert a dominion over the faith and consciences of others, and assume a power, not only to dictate to them what they should believe, but even to anathematize, and expel from the Christian church, all who refused to submit to their decisions, and own their authority.[99] For after they had carried their creed, they proceeded to excommunicate Arius and his followers, and banished Arius from Alexandria. They also condemned his explication of his own doctrine, and a certain book, called Thalia, which he had written concerning it. After this they sent letters to Alexandria, and to the brethren in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, to acquaint them with their decrees, and to inform them, that the holy synod had condemned the opinions of Arius, and were so zealous in this affair, that they had not patience so much as to hear his ungodly doctrine and blasphemous words, and that they had fully determined the time for the celebration of Easter. Finally, they exhort them to rejoice, for the good deeds they had done, and for that they had cut off all manner of heresy, and to pray, that their right transactions might be established by Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ. When these things were over, Constantine[100] splendidly treated the bishops, filled their pockets, and sent them honourably home; advising them at parting to maintain peace amongst themselves, and that none of them should envy another who might excel the rest in wisdom and eloquence, and that such should not carry themselves haughtily towards their inferiors, but condescend to, and bear with their weakness. A plain demonstration that he saw into their tempers, and was no stranger to the pride and haughtiness that influenced some, and the envy and hatred that actuated others. After he had thus dismissed them he sent several letters, recommending and enjoining an universal conformity to the council’s decrees both in ceremony and doctrine, using, among other things, this argument for it,[101] “That what they had decreed was the will of God, and that the agreement of so great a number of such bishops, was by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”

Footnote 99:

Soc. l. 1. c. 9.

Footnote 100:

Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 20.

Footnote 101:

Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 9.

It is natural here to observe, that the anathemas and depositions agreed on by this council, and confirmed by the imperial authority, were the beginning of all those persecutions that afterwards raged against each party in their turns. As the civil power had now taken part in the controversies about religion, by authorising the dominion of the bishops over the consciences of others, enforcing their ecclesiastical constitutions, and commanding the universal reception of that faith they had decreed to be orthodox; it was easy to foresee, that those who opposed them would employ the same arts and authority to establish their own faith and power, and to oppress their enemies, the first favourable opportunity that presented: and this the event abundantly made good. And, indeed, how should it be otherwise? For doctrines that are determined merely by dint of numbers, and the awes of worldly power, carry no manner of conviction in them, and are not likely therefore to be believed on these accounts by those who have once opposed them. And as such methods of deciding controversies equally suit all principles, the introducing them by any party, gives but too plausible a pretence to every party, when uppermost, to use them in their turn; and though they may agree well enough with the views of spiritual ambition, yet they can be of no service in the world to the interest of true religion, because they are directly contrary to the nature and spirit of it; and because arguments, which equally prove the truth and excellency of all principles, cannot in the least prove the truth of any.

If one may form a judgment of the persons who composed this council, from the small accounts we have left of them, they do not, I think, appear to have met so much with a design impartially to debate on the subjects in controversy, as to establish their own authority and opinions, and oppress their enemies. For besides what hath been already observed concerning their temper and qualifications, [P]Theodorit informs us,[102] that when those of the Arian party proposed in writing, to the synod, the form of faith they had drawn up, the bishops of the orthodox side no sooner read it, but they gravely tore it in pieces, and called it a spurious and false confession; and after they had filled the place with noise and confusion, universally accused them of betraying the doctrine according to godliness. Doth such a method of proceeding suit very well with the character of a synod inspired, as the good emperor declared, by the Holy Ghost? Is truth and error to be decided by noise and tumult? Was this the way to convince gainsayers, and reconcile them to the unity of the faith? Or could it be imagined, that the dissatisfied part of this venerable assembly would acquiesce in the tyrannical determination of such a majority, and patiently submit to excommunication, deposition, and the condemnation of their opinions, almost unheard, and altogether unexamined? How just is the censure passed by [Q]Gregory Nazianzen[103] upon councils in general? “If,” says he, “I must speak the truth, this is my resolution, to avoid all councils of the bishops, for I have not seen any good end answered by any synod whatsoever; for their love of contention, and their lust of power, are too great even for words to express.” The emperor’s conduct to the bishops met at Nice[104] is full proof of the former; for when they were met in council, they immediately fell to wrangling and quarrelling, and were not to be appeased and brought to temper, till Constantine interposed, artfully persuading some, shaming others into silence, and heaping commendations on those fathers that spoke agreeable to his sentiments. The decisions they made concerning the faith, and their excommunications and depositions of those who differed from them, demonstrate also their affectation of power and dominion. But as they had great reason to believe, that their own decrees would be wholly insignificant, without the interposition of the imperial authority to enforce them, they soon obtained their desires; and prevailed with the emperor to confirm all they had determined, and to enjoin all Christians to submit themselves to their decisions.

Footnote P:

See note [P] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 102:

E. H. l. 1. c. 7.

Footnote Q:

See note [Q] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 103:

Vol. I. Epist. lv. Edict. Col.

Footnote 104:

Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 13.

His first letters to this purpose were mild and gentle,[105] but he was soon persuaded by his clergy into more violent measures; for out of his great zeal to extinguish heresy, he put forth public edicts, against the authors and maintainers of it; and particularly against the Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionists, and others, whom after reproaching “with being enemies of truth, destructive counsellors, and with holding opinions suitable to their crimes,” he deprives of the liberty of meeting together for worship, either in public or private places, and gives all their oratories to the orthodox church. And with respect to the Arians,[106] he banished Arius himself,[107] ordered all his followers, as absolute enemies of Christ, to be called Porphyrians, from [R]Porphyrius, an heathen, who wrote against Christianity; ordained that the books written by them should be burnt, that there might be no remains of their doctrine left to posterity; and most cruelly commanded, that if ever any one should dare to keep in his possession any book written by Arius, and should not immediately burn it, he should be no sooner convicted of the crime but he should suffer death. He afterwards put forth a fresh edict against the recusants, by which he took from them their places of worship, and prohibited not only their meeting in public, but even in any private houses whatsoever.

Footnote 105:

Ibid. c. 65.

Footnote 106:

Soz. l. 1. c. 21.

Footnote 107:

Soc. l. 1. c. 9.

Footnote R:

See note [R] at the end of the volume.

Thus the orthodox first brought in the punishment of heresy with death,[108] and persuaded the emperor to destroy those whom they could not easily convert. The scriptures were now no longer the rule and standard of the Christian faith. Orthodoxy and heresy were from henceforward to be determined by the decisions of councils and fathers, and religion to be propagated no longer by the apostolic methods of persuasion, forbearance, and the virtues of an holy life, but by imperial edicts and decrees; and heretical gainsayers not to be convinced, that they might be brought to the acknowledgment of the truth and be saved, but to be persecuted and destroyed. It is no wonder, that after this there should be a continual fluctuation of the public faith, just as the prevailing parties had the imperial authority to support them, or that we should meet with little else in ecclesiastical history but violence and cruelties committed by men who had left the simplicity of the Christian faith and profession, enslaved themselves to ambition and avarice, and had before them the ensnaring views of temporal grandeur, high preferments, and large revenues. “Since the time that avarice hath encreased in the churches,” says [S]St. Jerome,[109] “the law is perished from the priest, and the vision from the prophet. Whilst all contend for the episcopal power, which they unlawfully seize on without the church’s leave, they apply to their own uses all that belongs to the Levites. The miserable priest begs in the streets—they die with hunger who are commanded to bury others. They ask for mercy who are commanded to have mercy on others—the priests’ only care is to get money—hence hatreds arise through the avarice of the priests; hence the bishops are accused by their clergy; hence the quarrels of the prelates; hence the causes of desolations; hence the rise of their wickedness.” Religion and Christianity seem indeed to be the least thing that either the contending parties had at heart, by the infamous methods they took to establish themselves and ruin their adversaries.

Footnote 108:

_The Edict of Constantine to the bishops and people._

“Since Arius hath imitated wicked and ungodly men, it is just that he should undergo the same infamy with them. As therefore Porphyrius, an enemy of godliness, for his having composed wicked books against Christianity, hath found a suitable recompense, so as to be infamous for the time to come, and to be loaded with great reproach, and to have all his impious writings quite destroyed; so also it is now my pleasure, that Arius, and those of Arius’s sentiments, shall be called Porphyrians, so that they may have the appellation of those, whose manners they have imitated. Moreover, if any book composed by Arius shall be found, it shall be delivered to the fire; that “not only his evil doctrine may be destroyed, but that there may not be the least remembrance of it left.” This also I enjoin, that if any one shall be found to have concealed “any writing” composed by Arius, and shall not immediately bring it and consume it in the fire, death shall be his punishment; for as soon as ever he is taken in this crime, he shall suffer a capital punishment. God preserve you.”

Footnote S:

See note [S] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 109:

Epist. xiii.

If one reads the complaints of the orthodox writers against the Arians, one would think the Arians the most execrable set of men that ever lived, they being loaded with all the crimes that can possibly be committed, and represented as bad, or even worse, than the devil himself. But no wise man will easily credit these accounts, which the orthodox give of their enemies, because, as Socrates tells us,[110] “This was the practice of the bishops towards all they deposed, to accuse and pronounce them impious, but not to tell others the reasons why they accused them as such.” It was enough for their purpose to expose them to the public odium, and make them appear impious to the multitude, that so they might get them expelled from their rich sees, and be translated to them in their room. And this they did as frequently as they could, to the introducing infinite calamities and confusions into the Christian church. And if the writings of the Arians had not been prudently destroyed, I doubt not but we should have found as many charges laid by them, with equal justice, against the orthodox, as the orthodox have produced against them; their very suppression of the Arian writings being a very strong presumption against them, and the many imperial edicts of Constantine, Theodosius, Valentinian, Martian, and others, against heretics, being an abundant demonstration that they had a deep share in the guilt of persecution.

Footnote 110:

E. H. l. 1. c. 24.

Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his letter to the bishop of Constantinople,[111] complains that Arius and others, desirous of power and riches, did day and night invent calumnies, and were continually exciting seditions and persecutions against him; and Arius in his turn, in his letter to Eusebius, of Nicomedia, with too much justice charges pope Alexander with violently persecuting and oppressing him upon account of what he called the truth, and using every method to ruin him, driving him out of the city as an atheistical person, for not agreeing with him in his sentiments about the Trinity. Athanasius also bitterly exclaims against the cruelty of the Arians, in his Apology for his flight.[112] “Whom have they not,” says he, “used with the greatest indignity that they have been able to lay hold of? Who hath ever fallen into their hands, that they have had any spite against, whom they have not so cruelly treated, as either to murder or to maim him? What place is there where they have not left the monuments of their barbarity? What church is there which doth not lament their treachery against their bishops?” After this passionate exclamation he mentions several bishops they had banished or put to death, and the cruelties they made use of to force the orthodox to renounce the faith, and to subscribe to the truth of the Arian doctrines. But might it not have been asked, who was it that first brought in excommunications, depositions, banishments, and death, as the punishments of heresy? Could not the Arians recriminate with justice? Were they not reproached as atheists, anathematized, expelled their churches, exiled, and made liable to the punishment of death by the orthodox? Did not even they who complained of the cruelty of the Arians in the most moving terms, create numberless confusions and slaughters by their violent intrusions into the sees of their adversaries? Was not Athanasius himself also accused to the emperor, by many bishops and clergymen, who declared themselves orthodox, of being the author of all the seditions and disturbances in the church,[113] by excluding great multitudes from the public services of it; of murdering some, putting others in chains, punishing others with stripes and whippings, and of burning churches? And if the enemies of Athanasius[114] endeavoured to ruin him by suborned witnesses and false accusations, Athanasius himself used the same practices to destroy his adversaries; and particularly Eusebius of Nicomedia, by spiriting up a woman to charge Eusebius with illicit connections, the falsehood of which was detected at the council of Tyre. His very ordination also to the bishopric of Alexandria, was censured as clandestine and illegal. These things being reported to Constantine,[115] he ordered a synod to meet at Cæsarea in Palestine, of which place Eusebius Pamphilus was bishop, before whom Athanasius refused to appear. But after the council was removed to Tyre, he was obliged by force to come thither, and commanded to answer to the several crimes objected against him. Some of them he cleared himself of, and as to others he desired more time for his vindication. At length, after many sessions, both his accusers, and the multitude who were present in the council, demanded his deposition as an impostor, a violent man, and unworthy the priesthood. Upon this, Athanasius fled from the synod; after which they condemned him, and deprived him of his bishopric, and ordered he should never more enter Alexandria, to prevent his exciting tumults and seditions. They also wrote to all the bishops to have no communion with him, as one convicted of many crimes, and as having convicted himself by his flight of many others, to which he had not answered. And for this their procedure they assigned these reasons; that he despised the emperor’s orders, by not coming to Cæsarea; that he came with a great number of persons to Tyre, and excited tumults and disturbances in the council, sometimes refusing to answer to the crimes objected against him, at other times reviling all the bishops; sometimes not obeying their summons, and at others refusing to submit to their judgment; that he was fully and evidently convicted of breaking in pieces the sacred cup, by six bishops who had been sent into Egypt to inquire out the truth. Athanasius, however, appealed to Constantine,[116] and prayed him, that he might have the liberty of making his complaints in the presence of his judges. Accordingly Eusebius of Nicomedia, and other bishops came to Constantinople, where Athanasius was; and in an hearing before the emperor, they affirmed that the council of Tyre had done justly in the cause of Athanasius, produced their witnesses as to the breaking of the sacred cup, and laid many other crimes to his charge. And though Athanasius seems to have had the liberty he desired of confronting his accusers, yet he could not make his innocence appear: for notwithstanding he had endeavoured to prejudice the emperor against what they had done, yet he confirmed their transactions, commended them as a set of wise and good bishops, censured Athanasius as a seditious, insolent, injurious person, and banished him to Treves, in France. And when the people of Alexandria, of Athanasius’s party, tumultuously cried out for his return, Antony the Great, a monk, wrote often to the emperor in his favour. The emperor in return wrote to the Alexandrians, and charged them with madness and sedition, and commanded the clergy and nuns to be quiet; affirming he could not alter his opinion, nor recall Athanasius, “being condemned by an ecclesiastical judgment as an exciter of sedition.” He also wrote to the monk, telling him it was impossible “he should disregard the sentence of the council,” because that though a few might pass judgment through hatred or affection, yet it was not probable that such a large number of famous and good bishops should be of such a sentiment and disposition; for that Athanasius was an injurious and insolent man, and the cause of discord and sedition.

Footnote 111:

Theod. l. 1. c. 4, 5.

Footnote 112:

Vol. I, p. 702.

Footnote 113:

The whole account, as given by Sozomen, is this: Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis accused Athanasius to Constantine, as the author of seditions and disturbances in the church, and as excluding many who were willing to enter into it; whereas all would agree, if this one thing was granted. Many bishops and clergymen affirmed these accusations against him were true; and going frequently to the emperor, and affirming themselves to be orthodox, accused Athanasius and the bishops of his party of being guilty of murders, of putting some in chains, of whipping others, and burning of churches. Upon this Athanasius wrote to Constantine, and signified to him that his accusers were illegally ordained, made innovations upon the decrees of the council of Nice, and were guilty of seditions and injuries towards the orthodox. Upon this Constantine was at a loss which to believe; but as they thus accused one another, and the number of the accusers on each side grew troublesome to him; out of his love of peace, he wrote to Athanasius that he should hinder nobody from the communion of the church; and that if he should have any future complaints of this nature against him, he would immediately drive him out of Alexandria. The reader will observe, that the charge against Athanasius brought by Eusebius and Theognis, was confirmed by many orthodox bishops, in the very presence of the emperor; and that Athanasius, instead of denying it, objects to the ordination and orthodoxy of his accusers, and charges them with a bad treatment of the orthodox; and that the evidence on both sides appeared so strong, that the emperor knew not which to believe; but that, however, he was at last so far convinced of the factious, turbulent spirit of Athanasius, that he ordered him to open the doors of the church, under pain of banishment.

Footnote 114:

Philostorg. Compen. E. H. l. 8. c. 11.

Footnote 115:

Soz. l. 2. c. 25, 28.

Footnote 116:

Soz. E. H. p. 488, 491, 492.

Indeed Athanasius, notwithstanding his sad complaints under persecution, and his expressly calling it a diabolical invention,[117] yet seems to be against it only when he and his own party were persecuted, but not against persecuting the enemies of orthodoxy. In his letter to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, he saith,[118] “I wonder that your piety hath suffered these things,” (viz. the heresies he had before mentioned) “and that you did not immediately put those heretics under restraint, and propose the true faith to them; that if they would not forbear to contradict they might be declared heretics; for it is not to be endured that these things should be either said or heard amongst Christians.” And in another place[119] he says “that they ought to be had in universal hatred for opposing the truth;” and comforts himself, that the emperor, upon due information, would put a stop to their wickedness, and that they would not be long lived. And to mention no more, “I therefore exhort you,” says he,[120] “let no one be deceived; but as though the Jewish impiety was prevailing over the faith of Christ, be ye all zealous in the Lord. [121]And let every one hold fast the faith he hath received from the fathers, which also the fathers met together at Nice declared in writing, and endure none of those who may attempt to make any innovations therein.” It is needless to produce more instances of this kind; whosoever gives himself the trouble of looking over any of the writings of this father, will find in them the most furious invectives against the Arians, and that he studiously endeavours to represent them in such colours, as might render them the abhorrence of mankind, and excite the world to their utter extirpation.

Footnote 117:

Ad Imp. I. Const. Apol. p. 716.

Footnote 118:

Vol. I. p. 584.

Footnote 119:

Orat. 1. cont. Ar. p. 304.

Footnote 120:

Vol. I. p. 291.

Footnote 121:

p. 292.

I write not these things out of any aversion to the memory, or peculiar principles of Athanasius. Whether I agree with him, or differ from him in opinion, I think myself equally obliged to give impartially the true account of him. And as this which I have given of him is drawn partly from history, and partly from his own writings, I think I cannot be justly charged with misrepresenting him. To speak plainly, I think that Athanasius was a man of a haughty and inflexible temper, and more concerned for victory and power, than for truth, religion, or peace. The word “consubstantial,” that was inserted into the Nicene creed,[122] and the anathema denounced against all who would or could not believe in it, furnished matter for endless debates. Those who were against it, censured as blasphemers those who used it; and as denying the proper subsistence of the Son, and as falling into the Sabellian heresy. The consubstantialists, on the other side, reproached their adversaries as heathens, and with bringing in the polytheism of the Gentiles. And though they equally denied the consequences which their respective principles were charged with, yet as the orthodox would not part with the word “consubstantial,” and the Arians could not agree to the use of it, they continued their unchristian reproaches and accusations of each other. Athanasius would yield to no terms of peace, nor receive any into communion, who would not absolutely submit to the decisions of the fathers of Nice. In his letter to Johannes and Antiochus[123] he exhorts them to hold fast the confession of those fathers, and “to reject all who should speak more or less than was contained in it.” And in his first oration against the Arians he declares in plain terms,[124] “That the expressing a person’s sentiments in the words of scripture was no sufficient proof of orthodoxy, because the devil himself used scripture words to cover his wicked designs upon our Saviour; and even farther, that heretics were not to be received, though they made use of the very expressions of orthodoxy itself.” With one of so suspicious and jealous a nature there could scarce be any possible terms of peace; it being extremely unlikely, that without some kind allowances, and mutual abatements, so wide a breach could ever be compromised. Even the attempts of Constantine himself to soften Athanasius, and reconcile him to his brethren, had no other influence upon him, than to render him more imperious and obstinate; for after Arius had given in such a confession of his faith as satisfied the emperor,[125] and expressly denied many of the principles he had been charged with, and thereupon humbly desired the emperor’s interposition, that he might be restored to the communion of the church; Athanasius, out of hatred to his enemy, flatly denied the emperor’s request, and told him, that it was impossible for those who had once rejected the faith, and were anathematized, ever to be wholly restored. This so provoked the emperor that he threatened to depose and banish him, unless he submitted to his order;[126] which he shortly after did, by sending him into France, upon an accusation of several bishops, who, as Socrates intimates, were worthy of credit, that he had said he would stop the corn that was yearly sent to Constantinople from the city of Alexandria. To such an height of pride was this bishop now arrived, as even to threaten the sequestration of the revenues of the empire. Constantine also apprehended, that this step was necessary to the peace of the church, because Athanasius absolutely refused to communicate with Arius and his followers.

Footnote 122:

Soz. l. 2. c. 18.

Footnote 123:

Vol. I. p. 951.

Footnote 124:

p. 291.

Footnote 125:

Soc. l. 1. c. 27.

Footnote 126:

Id. ibid. c. 35.

Soon after these transactions Arius died,[127] and the manner of his death, as it was reported by the orthodox, Athanasius thinks of itself sufficient fully to condemn the Arian heresy, and an evident proof that it was hateful to God. Nor did Constantine himself long survive him; he was succeeded by his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans. Constantine the eldest recalled Athanasius from banishment,[128] and restored him to his bishopric; upon which account[129] there arose most grievous quarrels and seditions, many being killed, and many publicly whipped by Athanasius’s order, according to the accusations of his enemies. Constantius, after his elder brother’s death, convened a synod at Antioch in Syria, where Athanasius was again deposed for these crimes, and Gregory put into the see of Alexandria. In this council a new creed was drawn up,[130] in which the word “consubstantial” was wholly omitted,[131] and the expressions made use of so general, as that they might have been equally agreed to by the orthodox and Arians. In the close of it several anathemas were added, and particularly upon all who should teach or preach otherwise than what this council had received, because, as they themselves say, “they did really believe and follow all things delivered by the holy scriptures, both prophets and apostles.” So that now the whole Christian world was under a synodical curse, the opposite councils having damned one another, and all that differed from them. And if councils, as such, have any authority to anathematize all who will not submit to them, this authority equally belongs to every council; and therefore it was but a natural piece of revenge, that as the council of Nice had sent all the Arians to the devil, the Arians, in their turn, should take the orthodox along with them for company, and thus repay one anathema with another.

Footnote 127:

Ad Solit. Vit. Agen. Epist. p. 809, 810.

Footnote 128:

Soc. l. 2. c. 8.

Footnote 129:

Soz. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 130:

Soz. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 131:

Soc. l. 2. c. 10.

Constantius himself was warmly on the Arian side, and favoured the bishops of that party only, and ejected Paul the orthodox bishop from the see of Constantinople, as a person altogether unworthy of it, Macedonius being substituted in his room.[132] Macedonius was in a different scheme, or at least expressed himself in different words both from the orthodox and Arians,[133] and asserted, that the Son was not consubstantial, but ὁμοιουσιος, not of the same, but a like substance with the Father; and openly propagated his opinion, after he had thrust himself into the bishopric of Paul.[134] This the orthodox party highly resented, opposing Hermogenes, whom Constantius had sent to introduce him; and in their rage burnt down his house, and drew him round the streets by his feet till they had murdered him. But notwithstanding the emperor’s orders were thus opposed, and his officers killed by the orthodox party, he treated them with great lenity, and in this instance punished them much less than their insolence and fury deserved. Soon after this, Athanasius and Paul[135] were restored again to their respective sees; and upon Athanasius’s entering Alexandria great disturbances arose, which were attended with the destruction of many persons, and Athanasius accused of being the author of all those evils. Soon after Paul’s return to Constantinople he was banished from thence again by the emperor’s order, and Macedonius re-entered into possession of that see, upon which occasion 3150 persons were murdered, some by the soldiers, and others by being pressed to death by the croud. Athanasius,[136] also, soon followed him into banishment, being accused of selling the corn which Constantine the Great had given for the support of the poor of the church of Alexandria, and putting the money in his own pocket; and being therefore threatened by Constantius with death. But they were both, a little while after, recalled by Constans, then banished again by Constantius; and Paul, as some say, murdered by his enemies the Arians, as he was carrying into exile; though, as Athanasius himself owns,[137] the Arians expressly denied it, and said that he died of some distemper. Macedonius having thus gotten quiet possession of the see of Constantinople, prevailed with the emperor to publish a law,[138] by which those of the consubstantial, or orthodox party, were driven, not only out of the churches but cities too, and many of them compelled to communicate with the Arians by stripes and torments, by proscriptions and banishments, and other violent methods of severity. Upon the banishment of Athanasius,[139] whom Constantius, in his letter to the citizens of Alexandria, calls “an impostor, a corrupter of men’s souls, a disturber of the city, a pernicious fellow, one convicted of the worst crimes, not to be expiated by his suffering death ten times;” George was put into the see of Alexandria, whom the emperor, in the same letter, stiles “a most venerable person,[140] and the most capable of all men to instruct them in heavenly things;” though Athanasius, in his usual style, calls him “an idolater and hangman, and one capable of all violences, rapines, and murders;” and whom he actually charges with committing the most impious actions and outrageous cruelties. Thus, as Socrates observes,[141] was the church torn in pieces by a civil war for the sake of Athanasius and the word “consubstantial.”

Footnote 132:

Soc. l. 3. c. 4.

Footnote 133:

Athanas. de Sanct. Trin. V. 2. p. 210.

Footnote 134:

Soc. l. 2. c. 18.

Footnote 135:

Soc. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 136:

c. 17.

Footnote 137:

Ad Sol. Vit. Ag. p. 813.

Footnote 138:

Soc. l. 2. c. 27.

Footnote 139:

Ad Const. Apol. p. 695.

Footnote 140:

Cont. Ar. Orat. 1. p. 290.

Footnote 141:

l. 2. c. 25.

The truth is, that the Christian clergy were now become the chief incendiaries and disturbers of the empire, and the pride of the bishops, and the fury of the people on each side were grown to such an height, as that there scarce ever was an election or restoration of a bishop in the larger cities, but it was attended with slaughter and blood. Athanasius was several times banished and restored, at the expense of blood; the orthodox were deposed, and the Arians substituted in their room, with the murder of thousands; and as the controversy was now no longer about the plain doctrines of uncorrupted Christianity, but about power and dominion, high preferments, large revenues, and secular honours; agreeably hereto, the bishops were introduced into their churches,[142] and placed on their thrones, by armed soldiers, and paid no regard to the ecclesiastical rules, or the lives of their flocks, so they could get possession, and keep out their adversaries: and when once they were in, they treated those who differed from them without moderation or mercy, turning them out of their churches, denying them the liberty of worship, putting them under an anathema, and persecuting them with innumerable methods of cruelty; as is evident from the accounts given by the ecclesiastical historians, of Athanasius, Macedonius, George, and others, which may be read at large, in the forementioned places. In a word, they seemed to treat one another with the same implacable bitterness and severity, as ever their common enemies, the heathens, treated them; as though they thought that persecution for conscience sake had been the distinguishing precept of the Christian religion; and that they could not more effectually recommend and distinguish themselves as the disciples of Christ, than by tearing and devouring one another. This made Julian,[143] the emperor, say of them, “that he found by experience, that even beasts are not so cruel to men, as the generality of Christians were to one another.”

Footnote 142:

Soc. l. 2. c. 15, 16.

Footnote 143:

Am. Mar. l. 22. c. 5.

This was the unhappy state of the church in the reign of Constantius, which affords us little more than the history of councils and creeds, differing from, and contrary to each other; bishops deposing, censuring, and anathematizing their adversaries, and the Christian people divided into factions under their respective leaders, for the sake of words they understood nothing of the sense of, and striving for victory even to bloodshed and death. Upon the succession of Julian to the empire, though the contending-parties could not unite against the common enemy, yet they were by the emperor’s clemency and wisdom kept in tolerable peace and order.[144] The bishops, which had been banished by Constantius his predecessor, he immediately recalled, ordered their effects, which had been confiscated, to be restored to them, and commanded that no one should injure or hurt any Christian whatsoever. And as Ammianus Marcellinus,[145] an heathen writer of those times, tells us, he caused the Christian bishops and people, who were at variance with each other, to come into his palace, and there admonished them, that they should every one profess their own religion, without hindrance or fear, provided they did not disturb the public peace by their divisions. This was an instance of great moderation and generosity, and a pattern worthy the imitation of all his successors.

Footnote 144:

Soc. l. 3. c. 1.

Footnote 145:

l. 22. c. 5.

In the beginning of Julian’s reign[146] some of the inhabitants of Alexandria, and, as was reported, the friends of Athanasius, by his advice, raised a great tumult in the city, and murdered George, the bishop of the place, by tearing him in pieces, and burning his body; upon which Athanasius returned immediately from his banishment, and took possession of his see, turning out the Arians from their churches, and forcing them to hold their assemblies in private and mean places. [T]Julian, with great equity, severely reproved the Alexandrians for this their violence and cruelty, telling them, that though George might have greatly injured them, yet they ought not to have revenged themselves on him, but to have left him to the justice of the laws. Athanasius, upon his restoration, immediately convened a synod at Alexandria, in which was first asserted the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and his consubstantiality with the Father and the Son.[147] But his power there was but short; for being accused to Julian as the destroyer of that city, and all Egypt, he saved himself by flight,[148] but soon after secretly returned to Alexandria, where he lived in great privacy till the storm blown over by Julian’s death, and the succession of Jovian to the empire, who restored him to his see, in which he continued undisturbed to his death.

Footnote 146:

Soc. l. 3. c. 2, 3, 4. Philost. l. 7. c. 2.

Footnote T:

See note [T] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 147:

Philost. l. 7. c. 13.

Footnote 148:

Theod. l. 4. c. 2.

Although Julian behaved himself with great moderation, upon his first accession to the imperial dignity, towards the Christians, as well as others, yet his hatred to Christianity soon appeared in many instances.[149] For though he did not, like the rest of the heathen emperors, proceed to sanguinary laws, yet he commanded, that the children of Christians should not be instructed in the Grecian language and learning. By another edict he ordained, that no Christian should bear any office in the army, nor have any concern in the distribution and management of the public revenues.[150] He taxed very heavily, and demanded contributions from all who would not sacrifice, to support the vast expences he was at, in his eastern expeditions. And when the governors of the provinces took occasion from hence to oppress and plunder them, he dismissed those who complained with this scornful answer, “your God hath commanded you to suffer persecution!” He also deprived the clergy of all their immunities, honours, and revenues, granted them by Constantine; abrogated the laws made in their favour, and ordered they should be listed amongst the number of soldiers. He destroyed several of their churches, and stripped them of their treasure and sacred vessels. Some he punished with banishment, and others with death, under pretence of their having pulled down some of the pagan temples, and insulted himself.

Footnote 149:

Soc. l. 3. c. 14, &c.

Footnote 150:

Theod. l. 3. c. 6, &c.

The truth is, that the Christian bishops and people shewed such a turbulent and seditious spirit, that it was no wonder that Julian should keep a jealous eye over them; and, though otherwise a man of great moderation, connive at the severities his officers sometimes practised on them. Whether he would have proceeded to any farther extremities against them, had he returned victorious from his Persian expedition, as Theodorit[151] affirms he would, cannot, I think, be determined. He was certainly a person of great humanity in his natural temper; but how far his own superstition, and the imprudencies of the Christians, might have altered this disposition, it is impossible to say. Thus much is certain, that the behaviour of the Christians towards him, was, in many instances, very blameable, and such as tended to irritate his spirit, and awaken his resentment. But whatever his intentions were, he did not live to execute them, being slain in his Persian expedition.

Footnote 151:

Ibid. l. 3. c. 21.

He was succeeded by Jovian,[152] who was a Christian by principle and profession. Upon his return from Persia the troubles of the church immediately revived, the bishops and heads of parties crowding about him, each hoping that he would list on their side, and grant them authority to oppress their adversaries. Athanasius,[153] amongst others, writes to him in favour of the Nicene creed, and warns him against the blasphemies of the Arians; and though he doth not directly urge him to persecute them, yet he tells him, that it is necessary to adhere to the decisions of that council concerning the faith, and that their creed was divine and apostolical; and that no man ought to reason or dispute against it, as the Arians did. A synod also of certain bishops met at Antioch in Syria; and though several of them had been opposers of the Nicene doctrine before, yet finding that this was the faith espoused by Jovian, they with great obsequiousness readily confirmed it, and subscribed it, and in a flattering letter sent it to him, representing that this true and orthodox faith was the great centre of unity. The followers also of Macedonius, who rejected the word “consubstantial,” and held the Son to be only “like to the Father,” most humbly besought him, that such who asserted the Son to be unlike the Father might be driven from their churches, and that they themselves might be put into them in their room; with the bishops names subscribed to the petition. But Jovian, though himself in the orthodox doctrine, did not suffer himself to be drawn into measures of persecution by the arts of these temporizing prelates, but dismissed them civilly with this answer: “I hate contention, and love those only that study peace;” declaring, that “he would trouble none upon account of their faith, whatever it was; and that he would favour and esteem such only, who should shew themselves leaders in restoring the peace of the church.” Themistius the philosopher, in his oration upon Jovian’s consulate, commends him very justly on this account, that he gave free liberty to every one to worship God as he would, and despised the flattering insinuations of those who would have persuaded him to the use of violent methods; concerning whom he pleasantly, but with too much truth, said, “that he found, by experience, that they worship not God, but the purple.”

Footnote 152:

Soc. l. 3. c. 24, 25.

Footnote 153:

Theod. l. 4. c. 4.

The two emperors, Valentinianus and Valens, who succeeded Jovian, were of very different tempers, and embraced different parties in religion. The former was of the orthodox side;[154] and though he favoured those most who were of his own sentiments, yet he gave no disturbance to the Arians. On the contrary, Valens, his brother, was of a rigid and sanguinary disposition, and severely persecuted all who differed from him. In the beginning of their reign[155] a synod met in Illyricum, who again decreed the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.[156] This the two emperors declared in a letter their assent to, and ordered that this doctrine should be preached. However, they both published laws for the toleration of all religions, even the heathen and Arian.[157] But Valens was soon prevailed on by the arts of Eudoxius,[158] bishop of Constantinople, to forsake both his principles of religion and moderation, and embracing the Arian opinions, he cruelly persecuted all those who were of the orthodox party. The conduct of the orthodox synod met at Lampsacus was the first thing that enraged him; for having obtained of him leave to meet, for the amendment and settlement of the faith, after two months consultation they decreed the doctrine of the Son’s being like the Father as to his essence, to be orthodox, and deposed all the bishops of the Arian party. This highly exasperated Valens, who, thereupon, called a council of Arian bishops, and commanded the bishops that composed the council at Lampsacus to embrace the opinions of Eudoxius the Arian; and upon their refusal immediately sent them into banishment, and gave their churches to their enemies, sparing only Paulinus, for the remarkable sanctity of his life. After this he entered into more violent measures, and caused the orthodox, some of them to be whipped, others to be disgraced, others to be imprisoned, and others to be fined.[159] He also put great numbers to death, and particularly caused eighty of them at once to be put on board a ship, and the ship to be fired when it was sailed out of the harbour, where they miserably perished by the water and the flames. These persecutions he continued to the end of his reign, and was greatly assisted in them by the bishops of the Arian party.

Footnote 154:

Soc. l. 4. c. 1.

Footnote 155:

Theod. l. 4. c. 8.

Footnote 156:

Cod. Theod. tit. 16. l. 9.

Footnote 157:

Soc. l. 4. c. 6.

Footnote 158:

Soz. l. 6. c. 7.

Footnote 159:

Soc. ibid. c. 15, 16. Theod. l. 4. c. 22.

In the mean time great disturbances happened at Rome.[160] Liberius, bishop of that city, being dead, Ursinus, a deacon of that church, and Damasus, were both nominated to succeed him. The party of Damasus prevailed, and got him chosen and ordained. Ursinus being enraged that Damasus was preferred before him, set up separate meetings, and at last procured himself to be privately ordained by certain obscure bishops. This occasioned great disputes amongst the citizens, which should obtain the episcopal dignity; and the matter was carried to such an height, that great numbers were murdered in the quarrel on both sides, no less than one hundred and thirty-seven persons being destroyed in the church itself, according to Ammianus,[161] who adds, “that it was no wonder to see those who were ambitious of human greatness, contending with so much heat and animosity for that dignity, because, when they had obtained it, they were sure to be enriched by the offerings of the matrons, of appearing abroad in great splendor, of being admired for their costly coaches, sumptuous in their feasts, out-doing sovereign princes in the expenses of their tables.” For which reason Prætextatus, an heathen, who was prefect of the city the following year, said, “Make me bishop of Rome, and I’ll be a Christian too.”

Footnote 160:

Soc. l. 4. c. 29.

Footnote 161:

Soc. l. 27. c. 3.

Gratian, the son of Valentinian, his partner and successor in the empire, was of the orthodox party, and after the death of his uncle Valens recalled those whom he had banished, and restored them to their sees. But as to the Arians,[162] he sent Sapores, one of his captains, to drive them, as wild beasts, out of all their churches. Socrates and Sozomen tell us, however, that by a law he ordained, that persons of all religions should meet, without fear, in their several churches, and worship according to their own way, the Eunomians, Photinians, and Manichees excepted.

Footnote 162:

Theod. l. 5. c. 2.

SECT. IV. _The first council of Constantinople; or second general council._

Theodosius, soon after his advancement by Gratian to the empire, discovered a very warm zeal for the orthodox opinions;[163] for observing that the city of Constantinople was divided into different sects, he wrote a letter to them from Thessalonica, wherein he tells them, “that it was his pleasure, that all his subjects should be of the same religion with Damasus bishop of Rome, and Peter bishop of Alexandria; and that their church, only, should be called catholic, who worshipped the divine Trinity as equal in honour; and that those who were of another opinion should be called heretics, become infamous, and be subject to other punishments.” He also forbid assemblies and disputations in the Forum, and made a law for the punishment of those that should presume to argue about the essence and nature of God. Upon his first coming to Constantinople,[164] being very solicitous for the peace and increase of the church, he sent for Demophilus the Arian bishop, and asked him whether he would consent to the Nicene faith, and thus accept the peace he offered him: adding this strong argument, “if you refuse to do it, I will drive you from your churches.” And upon Demophilus’s refusal, the emperor was as good as his word; and turned him and all the Arians out of the city, after they had been in possession of the churches there for forty years.[165] But being willing more effectually to extinguish heresy, he summoned a council of bishops of his own persuasion, A. C. 381, to meet together at Constantinople, in order to confirm the Nicene faith: the number of them were one hundred and fifty; to these, for form’s sake, were added thirty-six of the Macedonian party. And accordingly this council,[166] which is reckoned the second oecumenical or general one, all of them, except the Macedonians, did decree that the Nicene faith should be the standard of orthodoxy; and that all heresies should be condemned. They also made an addition to that creed, explaining the orthodox doctrine of the Spirit against Macedonius, viz. after the words Holy Ghost, they inserted, “the Lord, the Quickner, proceeding from the Father, whom with the Father and the Son we worship and glorify, and who spake by the prophets.” When the council was ended,[167] the emperor put forth two edicts against heretics; by the first prohibiting them from holding any assemblies; and by the second, forbidding them to meet in fields or villages, ordering the houses where they met to be confiscated, and commanding that such who went to other places to teach their opinions, or perform their religious worship, should be forced to return to the places where they dwelt, condemning all those officers and magistrates of cities who should not prevent such assemblies. A little while after the conclusion of this council,[168] finding that many disorders were still occasioned through the opposition of the several parties to one another, he convened the principal persons of each, and ordered them to deliver into his hand a written form of their belief; which after he had received, he retired by himself, and earnestly prayed to God, that he would enable him to make choice of the truth. And when after this he had perused the several papers delivered to him, he tore them all in pieces, except that which contained the doctrine of the indivisible Trinity, to which he intirely adhered. After this he published a law, by which he forbid heretics to worship or preach, or to ordain bishops or others, commanding some to be banished, others to be rendered infamous, and to be deprived of the common privileges of citizens, with other grievous penalties of the like nature. [U]Sozomen, however, tells us, that he did not put these laws in execution, because his intention was not to punish his subjects, but to terrify them into the same opinions of God with himself, praising at the same time those who voluntarily embraced them. Socrates also confirms the same, telling us,[169] that he only banished Eunomius from Constantinople for holding private assemblies, and reading his books to them, and thereby corrupting many with his doctrine. But that as to others he gave them no disturbance, nor forced them to communicate with him, but allowed them all their several meetings, and to enjoy their own opinions as to the Christian faith. Some he permitted to build churches without the cities, and the Novatians to retain their churches within, because they held the same doctrines with himself.

Footnote 163:

Soz. l. 7. c. 4, 6.

Footnote 164:

Soc. l. 5. c. 7.

Footnote 165:

c. 8.

Footnote 166:

The second general council, A. C. 381.

Footnote 167:

Cod. Theod. l. 11, 12.

Footnote 168:

Soz. l. 7. c. 12.

Footnote U:

See note [U] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 169:

l. 5. c. 20.

Arcadius and Honorius,[170] the sons and successors of Theodosius, embraced the orthodox religion and party, and confirmed all the decrees of the foregoing emperors in their favour. Soon after their accession to the imperial dignity, Nectarius bishop of Constantinople died, and John, called for his eloquence Chrysostom, was ordained in his room: he was a person of a very rigid and severe temper, an enemy to heretics, and against allowing them any toleration. Gaina, one of the principal officers of Arcadius, and who was a Christian of the Arian persuasion, desired of the emperor one church for himself, and those of his opinion, within the city. Chrysostom being informed of it, immediately went to the palace, taking with him all the bishops he could find at Constantinople; and in the presence of the emperor bitterly inveighed against Gaina, who was himself at the audience, and reproached him for his former poverty, as also with insolence and ingratitude. Then he produced the law that was made by Theodosius, by which heretics were forbidden to hold assemblies within the walls of the city; and turning to the emperor, persuaded him to keep in force all the laws against heretics; adding, that it was better voluntarily to quit the empire, than to be guilty of the impiety of betraying the house of God. Chrysostom carried his point, and the consequence of it was an insurrection of the Goths, in the city of Constantinople; which had like to have ended in the burning the imperial palace, and the murder of the emperor, and did actually end in the cutting off all the Gothic soldiers, and the burning of their church, with great numbers of persons in it, who fled thither, for safety, and were locked in to prevent their escape. His violent treatment of several bishops,[171] and. the arbitrary manner of his deposing them, and substituting others in their room, contrary to the desires and prayers of the people, is but too full a proof of his imperious temper, and love of power. Not content with this, he turned his eloquence against the empress Eudoxia, and in a set oration inveighing against bad women, he expressed himself in such a manner, as that both his friends and enemies believed that the invective was chiefly levelled against her. This so enraged her that she soon procured his deposition and banishment. Being soon after restored, he added new provocations to the former, by rebuking the people for certain diversions they took at a place where the statue of the empress was erected. This she took for an insult on her person, and when Chrysostom knew her displeasure on this account, he used more severe expressions against her than before, saying, “Herodias is enraged again; she raises fresh disturbances, and again desires the head of John in a charger.” On this and other accounts he was deposed and banished by a synod convened for that purpose, bishops being always to be had in those days easily, to do what was desired or demanded of them by the emperors. [V]Chrysostom died in his banishment, according to the Christian wish of Epiphanius,[172] “I hope you will not die bishop of Constantinople;” which Chrysostom returned with a wish of the same good temper, “I hope you will not live to return to your own city;” so deadly was the hatred of these saints and fathers against each other. After Chrysostom’s death, his favourers and friends were treated with great severity, not indeed on the account of religion, but for other crimes of sedition they were charged with; and particularly, for burning down one of the churches in the city,[173] the flames of which spread themselves to the senate house, and entirely consumed it.

Footnote 170:

Soz. l. 8. c. 1, 2, 4.

Footnote 171:

Soz. l. 8. c. 6.

Footnote V:

See note [V] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 172:

Soz. l. 8. c. 16.

Footnote 173:

Soc. l. 6. c. 18.

Under the same emperors the Donatists[174] gave sad specimens of their cruelty in Africa towards the orthodox, as St. Austin informs us. They seized on Maximianus, one of the African bishops, as he was standing at the altar, beat him unmercifully, and ran a sword into his body, leaving him for dead. And a little after he adds, that it would be tedious to recount the many horrible things they made the bishops and clergy suffer; some had their eyes put out; one bishop had his hands and tongue cut off, and others were cruelly destroyed. I forbear, says Austin, to mention their barbarous murders, and demolishing of houses, not private ones only, but the very churches themselves. Honorius[175] published very severe edicts against them, ordaining, that if they did not, both clergy and laity, return to the catholics by such a day, they should be heavily fined, their estates should be confiscated, the clergy banished, and their churches all given to the catholics. These laws Austin commends as rightly and piously ordained, maintaining the lawfulness of persecuting heretics by all manner of ways, death only excepted.

Footnote 174:

Epist. 50. ad Bon. & Epist. 68. ad Januar.

Footnote 175:

Cod. Theod. l. 52.

Under the reign of Theodosius, Arcadius’s son, those who were called heretics were grievously persecuted by the orthodox. Theodosius,[176] bishop of Synnada in Phrygia, expelled great numbers of the followers of Macedonius from the city and country round about, “not from any zeal for the true faith,” as Socrates says, “but through covetousness, and a design to extort money from them.” On this account he used all his endeavours to oppress them, and particularly Agapetus, their bishop; armed his clergy against them, and accused them before the tribunal of the judges. And because he did not think the governors of the provinces sufficient to carry on this good work of persecution, he went to Constantinople to procure fresh edicts against them; but by this means he lost his bishopric, the people refusing him admission into the church upon his return, and choosing Agapetus, whom he had persecuted, in his room.

Footnote 176:

Soc. l. 7. c. S

Theophilus,[177] bishop of Alexandria, the great enemy of Chrysostom, being dead, Cyrill was enthroned in his room, not without great disturbance and opposition from the people, and used his power for the oppression of heretics; for immediately upon his advancement he shut up all the churches of the Novatians in that city, took away all their sacred treasures, and stripped Theopemptus their bishop of every thing that he had. Nor was this much to be wondered at, since, as Socrates observes,[178] from the time of Theophilus, Cyrill’s predecessor, “the bishop of Alexandria began to assume an authority and power above what belonged to the sacerdotal order.” On this account the great men hated the bishops, because they usurped to themselves a good part of that power which belonged to the imperial governors of provinces; and particularly Cyrill was hated by Orestes, prefect of Alexandria, not only for this reason, but because he was a continual spy upon his actions. At length their hatred to each other publicly appeared. Cyrill took on him, without acquainting the governor, or contrary to his leave, to deprive the Jews of all their synagogues, and banished them from the city, and encouraged the mob to plunder them of their effects. This the prefect highly resented, and refused the bishop’s offers of peace and friendship. Upon this, about fifty monks came into the city for Cyrill’s defence, and meeting the prefect in his chariot, publicly insulted him, calling him sacrificer and pagan; adding many other injurious reproaches. One of them, called Ammonius, wounded him in the head with a stone, which he flung at him with great violence, and covered him all over with blood; and being, according to the laws, put by Orestes publicly to the torture, he died through the severity of it. St. Cyrill honourably received the body into the church, gave him the new name of Thaumasius, or, the Wonderful; ordered him to be looked on as a martyr, and lavishly extolled him in the church, as a person murdered for his religion. This scandalous procedure of Cyrill’s the Christians themselves were ashamed of, because it was publicly known that the monk was punished for his insolence; and even St. Cyrill himself had the modesty at last to use his endeavours that the whole affair might be entirely forgotten. The murder also of Hypatia,[179] by Cyrill’s friends and clergy, merely out of envy to her superior skill in philosophy, brought him and his church of Alexandria under great infamy; for as she was returning home from a visit, one Peter, a clergyman, with some other murderers, seized on her, dragged her out of her chariot, carried her to one of the churches, stripped her naked, scraped her to death with shells, then tore her in pieces, and burnt her body to ashes.

Footnote 177:

Soc. l. 7. c. 7.

Footnote 178:

l. 7. c. 13, 14.

Footnote 179:

Soc. l. 7. c. 15.

Innocent[180] also, bishop of Rome, grievously persecuted the Novatians, and took from them many churches; and, as Socrates observes, was the first bishop of that see who disturbed them. Celestine also, one of his successors, imitated this injustice, and took from the Novatians the remainder of their churches, and forced them to hold their assemblies in private;[181] “for the bishops of Rome, as well as those of Alexandria, had usurped a tyrannical power, which, as priests, they had no right to;” and would not suffer those who agreed with them in the faith, as the Novatians did, to hold public assemblies, but drove them out of their oratories, and plundered them of all their substance.

Footnote 180:

Id. ibid. c. 9.

Footnote 181:

Soc. l. 7. c. 11.

Nestorius bishop of Constantinople, immediately upon his advancement, shewed himself a valiant persecutor; for as soon as ever he was ordained, he addressed himself to the emperor before the whole congregation,[182] and said, “Purge me, O emperor, the earth from heretics, and I will give thee in recompence the kingdom of heaven. Conquer with me the heretics, and I with thee will subdue the Persians.” And, agreeable to his bloody wishes, the fifth day after his consecration, he endeavoured to demolish the church of the Arians, in which they were privately assembled for prayer. The Arians, in their rage, seeing the destruction of it determined, set fire to it themselves, and occasioned the burning down the neighbouring houses; and for this reason, not only the heretics, but those of his own persuasion, distinguished him by the name of Incendiary. But he did not rest here, but tried all tricks and methods to destroy heretics; and, by these means, endangered the subversion of Constantinople itself. He persecuted the Novatians, through hatred of Paul their bishop for his eminent piety. He grievously oppressed those who were not orthodox, as to the day of keeping Easter, in Asia, Lydia, and Caria, and occasioned the murders of great numbers on this account at Miletus and Sardis.

Footnote 182:

c. 29.

Few indeed of the bishops were free from this wicked spirit. Socrates, however, tells us,[183] that Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, was a person of great piety and prudence, and that he did not offer violence to any of the heretics, but, that after he had once attempted to terrify them, he behaved more mildly and gently to them afterwards. Proclus[184] also, bishop of the same city, who had been brought up under Atticus, was a careful imitator of his piety and virtue, and exercised rather greater moderation than his master, being gentle towards all men, from a persuasion that this was a much more proper method than violence, to reduce heretics to the true faith, and therefore he never made use of the imperial power for this purpose. And in this he imitated Theodosius the emperor, who was not at all concerned or displeased that any should think differently of God from himself. However, the number of bishops of this temper was but small. Nothing pleased the generality of them but methods of severity, and the utter ruin and extirpation of their adversaries.

Footnote 183:

Soz. l. 7. c. 2.

Footnote 184:

Soc. l. 7. c. 41.

Under the reign of this emperor, the Arians also, in their turn, used the orthodox with no greater moderation than the orthodox had used them. The Vandals, who were partly pagans, and partly Arians, had seized on Spain and Africa, and exercised innumerable cruelties on those who were not of the same religion with themselves. Trasimond, their general in Spain, and Genseric, in Africa, used all possible endeavours to propagate Arianism throughout all their provinces. And, the more effectually to accomplish this design, they filled all places with slaughter and blood; by the advice of the bishops of their party, burning down churches, and putting the orthodox clergy to the most grievous and unheard of tortures, to make them discover the gold and silver of their churches, repeating these kind of tortures several times, so that many actually died under them. Genseric seized on all the sacred books he could find, that they might be deprived of the means of defending their opinions. By the counsel of his bishops, he ordered that none but Arians should be admitted to court, or employed in any offices about his children, or so much as enjoy the benefit of a toleration. Armogestes, Masculon, and Saturus, three officers of his court, were inhumanly tortured to make them embrace Arianism; and, upon their refusal, they were stripped of their honours and estates, and forced to protract a miserable life in the utmost poverty and want. These and many more instances of Genseric’s cruelty towards the orthodox, during a long reign of thirty-eight years, are related by Victor, l. 1. _in fine_.

SECT. V. _The council of Ephesus; or third general council._

During these transactions, a new controversy, of a very extraordinary and important nature, arose in the church, which, as the other had done before, occasioned many disorders and murders, and gave birth to the third general council. Nestorius,[185] the persecuting bishop of Constantinople, although tolerably sound in the doctrine of the real deity of the Logos, yet excepted against the Virgin Mary’s being called “mother of God,” because, as he argued, “Mary was a woman, and that, therefore, God could not be born of her;” adding, “I cannot call him God, who once was not above two or three months old;” and, therefore, he substituted another word in the room of it, calling her “mother of Christ.” By this means he seemed to maintain not only the distinction of the two natures of Christ, for he allowed the proper personality and subsistence of the Logos, but that there were also two distinct persons in Christ; the one a mere man, absolutely distinct from the word, and the other God, as absolutely distinct from the human nature. This caused great disturbances in the city of Constantinople, and the dispute was thought of such consequence, as to need a council to settle it. Accordingly, Theodosius convened one at Ephesus,[186] A. C. 431. of which Cyrill was president; and as he hated Nestorius, he persuaded the bishops of his own party to decree, that the Virgin was, and should be, the mother of God, and to anathematize all who should not confess her in this character, nor own that the word of God the Father was united substantially to the flesh, making one Christ of two natures, both God and man together; or who should ascribe what the scriptures say of Christ to two persons or subsistences, interpreting some of the man, exclusive of the word; and others of the word, exclusive of the human nature; or who should presume to call the man Christ, “the bearer, or the receptacle of God,” instead of God; and hastily to depose Nestorius five days before the coming of John, bishop of Antioch, with his suffragan bishops. John, upon his arrival at Ephesus, deposed Cyrill, in a council of bishops held for that purpose, and accused him of being the author of all the disorders occasioned by this affair, and of having rashly proceeded to the desposition of Nestorius. Cyrill was soon absolved by his own council, and, in revenge, deposed John of Antioch, and all the bishops of his party. But they were both reconciled by the emperor, and restored each other to their respective sees, and, as the effect of their reconciliation, both subscribed to the condemnation of Nestorius, who was sent into banishment, where, after suffering great hardships, he died miserably; being thus made to taste those sweets of persecution he had so liberally given to others, in the time of his power and prosperity. The emperor himself,[187] though at first he disapproved of this council’s conduct, yet afterwards was persuaded to ratify their decrees, and published a law, by which all who embraced the opinions of Nestorius, were, if bishops or clergymen, ordered to be expelled the churches; or, if laymen, to be anathematized. This occasioned irreconcilable hatreds amongst the bishops and people,[188] who were so enraged against each other, that there was no passing with any safety from one province or city to another, because every one pursued his neighbour as his enemy, and, without any fear of God, revenged themselves on one another, under a pretence of ecclesiastical zeal.

Footnote 185:

Evag. E. H. l. 1. c. 2. Soc. l. 7. c. 32, 34.

Footnote 186:

Soc. ibid. Evag. l. 1. c. 5.

Footnote 187:

Evag. l. 1. c. 12.

Footnote 188:

Chal. Concil. Act. 10. Frag. Epist. Edes. Epic.

SECT. VI _The council of Chalcedon; or fourth general council._

Marcian,[189] the successor of Theodosius in the empire, embraced the orthodox party and opinions, and was very desirous to bring about an entire uniformity in the worship of God, and to establish the same form of doxologies amongst all Christians whatsoever.[190] Agreeably to this his temper, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, addressed him soon after his promotion, in these words: “God hath justly given you the empire, that you should govern all for the universal welfare, and for the peace of his holy church: and, therefore, before and in all things, take care of the principles of the orthodox and most holy faith, and extinguish the roarings of the heretics, and bring to light the doctrines of piety.” The legates also of Leo, bishop of Rome, presented him their accusations against Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria; as did also Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum, beseeching the emperor that these things might be judged and determined by a synod. Marcian consented, and ordered the bishops to meet first at Nice, and afterwards at Chalcedon, 451. This was the fourth oecumenical or general council, consisting of near six hundred prelates. The principal cause of their assembling was the Eutychian heresy. Eutyches, a presbyter of Constantinople, had asserted, in the reign of Theodosius, jun.[191] that “Jesus Christ consisted of two natures before his union or incarnation, but that after this he had one nature only.” He also denied that “the body of Christ was of the same substance with ours.” On this account, he was deposed in a particular council at Constantinople, by Flavian, bishop of that place; but, upon his complaining to the emperor that the acts of that council were falsified by his enemies, a second synod of the neighbouring bishops met in the same city, who, after examining those acts, found them to be genuine, and confirmed the sentence against Eutyches. But Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, who was at enmity with Flavian of Constantinople, obtained, from Theodosius, that a third council should be held on this affair; which accordingly met at Ephesus, which the orthodox stigmatized by the name of the thieving council, or Council of Thieves. Dioscorus was president of it, and, after an examination of the affair of Eutyches, his sentence of excommunication and deposition was taken off, and himself restored to his office and dignity; the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and others, being deposed in his stead. But the condemned bishops, and the legates from Rome, appealed from this sentence to another council, and prevailed with Theodosius to issue his letters for the assembling one: but as he died before they could meet,[192] the honour of determining this affair was reserved for his successor, Marcian; and when the fathers, in obedience to his summons, were convened at Chalcedon, the emperor favoured them with his presence; and, in a speech to them, told them, “that he had nothing more at heart than to preserve the true and orthodox Christian faith, safe and uncorrupted, and that, therefore, he proposed to them a law, that no one should dare to dispute of the person of Christ, otherwise than as it had been determined by the council of Nice.” After this address of the emperor, the fathers proceeded to their synodical business, and, notwithstanding the synod was divided, some of the fathers piously crying out, “Damn Dioscorus, banish Dioscorus, banish the Egyptian, banish the heretic, Christ hath deposed Dioscorus;” others, on the contrary, “Restore Dioscorus to the council, restore Dioscorus to his churches;” yet, through the authority of the legates of Rome, Dioscorus was deposed for his contempt of the sacred canons, and for his contumacy towards the holy universal synod. After this, they proceeded to settle the faith according to the Nicene creed, the opinions of the fathers, and the doctrine of Athanasius, Cyrill, Cælestine, Hilarius, Basil, Gregory, and Leo; and decreed, that “Christ was truly God, and truly man, consubstantial to the Father as to his deity, and consubstantial to us as to his humanity; and that he was to be confessed as consisting of two natures without mixture, conversion of one into the other, and without division or separation; and that it should not be lawful for any person to utter, or write, or compose, or think, or teach any other faith whatsoever;” and that if any should presume to do it, they should, if bishops or clergymen, be deposed; and if monks or laicks, be anathematized. This procured a loud acclamation: “God bless the emperor, God bless the empress. We believe as pope Leo doth. Damn the dividers and the confounders. We believe as Cyrill did: immortal be the name of Cyrill. Thus the orthodox believe; and cursed be every one that doth not believe so too.” Marcian ratified their decrees,[193] and banished Dioscorus, and put forth an edict, containing very severe penalties against the Eutychians and Apollinarists. By this law the emperor ordained, “that they should not have power of disposing their estates, and making a will, nor of inheriting what others should leave them by will. Neither let them receive advantage by any deed of gift, but let whatsoever is given them, either by the bounty of the living, or the will of the dead, be immediately forfeited to our treasury; nor let them have the power, by any title or deed of gift, to transfer any part of their own estates to others. Neither shall it be lawful for them to have or ordain bishops or presbyters, or any other of the clergy whatsoever; as knowing that the Eutychians and Apollinarists, who shall presume to confer the names of bishop or presbyter, or any other sacred office upon any one, as well as those who shall dare to retain them, shall be condemned to banishment, and the forfeiture of their goods. And as to those who have been formerly ministers in the Catholic church, or monks of the orthodox faith, and forsaking the true and orthodox worship of the Almighty God, have or shall embrace the heresies and abominable opinions of Apollinarius or Eutyches, let them be subject to all the penalties ordained by this, or any foregoing laws whatsoever, against heretics, and banished from the Roman dominions, according as former laws have decreed against the Manicheans. Farther, let not any of the Apollinarists, or Eutychians, build churches or monasteries, or have assemblies and conventicles either by day or night; nor let the followers of this accursed sect meet in any one’s house or tenement, or in a monastery, nor in any other place whatsoever: but if they do, and it shall appear to be with the consent of the owners of such places, after a due examination, let such place or tenement in which they meet be immediately forfeited to us; or if it be a monastery, let it be given to the orthodox church of that city in whose territory it is. But if so be they hold these unlawful assemblies and conventicles without the knowledge of the owner, but with the privity of him who receives the rents of it, the tenant, agent, or steward of the estate, let such tenant, agent, or steward, or whoever shall receive them into any house or tenement, or monastery, and suffer them to hold such unlawful assemblies and conventicles, if he be of low and mean condition, be publicly bastinadoed as a punishment to himself, and as a warning to others; but if they are persons of repute, let them forfeit ten pounds of gold to our treasury. Farther, let no Apollinarist or Eutychian ever hope for any military preferment, except to be listed in the foot soldiers, or garrisons: but if any of them shall be found in any other military service, let them be immediately broke, and forbid all access to the palace, and not suffered to dwell in any other city, town or country, but that wherein they were born.”

Footnote 189:

Evag. l. 2. c. 1.

Footnote 190:

Concil. Chalced. Act. 13.

Footnote 191:

Evag. l. 1. c. 9, 10.

Footnote 192:

Evag. l. 2. c. 4, 18.

Footnote 193:

Evag, l. 2. c. 5.

“But if any of them are born in this august city, let them be banished from this most sacred society, and from every metropolitan city of our provinces. Farther, let no Apollinarist or Eutychian have the power of calling assemblies, public or private, or gathering together any companies, or disputing in any heretical manner; or of defending their perverse and wicked opinions; nor let it be lawful for any one to speak or write, or publish any thing of their own, or the writings of any others, contrary to the decrees of the venerable synod of Chalcedon. Let no one have any such books, nor dare to keep any of the impious performances of such writers. And if any are found guilty of these crimes, let them be condemned to perpetual banishment; and, as for those, who through a desire of learning shall hear others disputing of this wretched heresy, it is our pleasure that they forfeit ten pounds of gold to our treasury, and let the teacher of these unlawful tenets be punished with death. Let all such books and papers as contain any of the damnable opinions of Eutyches or Apollinarius be burnt, that all the remains of their impious perverseness may perish with the flames; for it is but just that there should be a proportionable punishment to deter men from these most outrageous impieties. And let all the governors of our provinces, and their deputies, and the magistrates of our cities, know, that if, through neglect or presumption, they shall suffer any part of this most religious edict to be violated, they shall be condemned to a fine of ten pounds of gold, to be paid into our treasury; and shall incur the farther penalty of being declared infamous.” For this law, pope Leo returns him thanks,[194] and exhorts him farther, that he would reform the see of Alexandria, and not only depose the heretical clergy of Constantinople from their clerical orders, but expel them from the city itself.

Footnote 194:

August. Epist. 75.

At the same time that they published these cruel laws, the authors of them, as Mr. Limborch[195] well observes, would willingly be thought to offer no violence to conscience. Marcian himself, in a letter to the Archimandrites of Jerusalem, says, Such is our clemency, that we use no force with any, to compel him to subscribe, or agree with us, if he be unwilling; for we would not by terrors and violence drive men into the paths of truth. Who would not wonder at this hypocrisy, and at such attempts to cover over their cruelties? They forbid men to learn or teach, under the severest penalties, doctrines which they who teach them are fully persuaded of the truth of, and think themselves obliged to propagate; and yet the author of such penalties would fain be thought to offer no violence to conscience. But for what end are all these penalties against heretics ordained? For no other, unquestionably, but that men may be deterred, by the fear of them, from openly professing themselves, or teaching others, principles they think themselves bound in conscience to believe and teach; that being at length quite tired out by these hardships, they may join themselves to the established churches, and at least profess to believe their opinions. But this is offering violence to conscience, and persecution in the highest degree. But to proceed:

Footnote 195:

Hist. Inqu. l. 1. c. 4.

Proterius[196] was substituted by this council bishop of Alexandria, in the room of Dioscorus; and upon his taking possession of his bishopric, the whole city was put into the utmost confusion, being divided, some for Dioscorus, some for Proterius. The mob assaulted with great violence their magistrates,[197] and being opposed by the soldiers, they put them to flight by a shower of stones; and as they betook themselves to one of the churches for sanctuary, the mob besieged it, and burnt it to the ground, with the soldiers in it. The emperor sent two thousand other soldiers to quell this disturbance, who increased the miseries of the poor citizens, by offering the highest indignities to their wives and daughters. And though they were for some time kept in awe,[198] yet, upon Marcian’s death, they broke out into greater fury, ordained Timotheus bishop of the city, and murdered Proterius, by running him through with a sword. After this, they hung him by a rope, in a public place, by way of derision, and then, after they had ignominiously drawn him round the whole city, they burnt him to ashes, and even fed on his very bowels in the fury of their revenge. The orthodox charged these outrages upon the Eutychians; but Zacharias, the historian, mentioned by Evagrius, says, Proterius himself was the cause of them, and that he raised the greatest disturbances in the city: and, indeed, the clergy of Alexandria, in their letter to Leo, the emperor, concerning this affair, acknowledge, that Proterius had deposed Timotheus, with four or five bishops, and several monks, for heresy, and obtained of the emperor their actual banishment. Great disturbances happened also in Palestine[199] on the same account; the monks who opposed the council forcing Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, to quit his see, and getting one Theodosius ordained in his room. But the emperor soon restored Juvenal, after whose arrival the tumults and miseries of the city greatly increased, the different parties acting by one another just as their fury and revenge inspired them.

Footnote 196:

Evag. l. 2. c. 5.

Footnote 197:

Niceph. l. 15. c. 8.

Footnote 198:

Evag. l. 2. c. 8.

Footnote 199:

Evag. l. 2. c. 5.

Leo succeeded Marcian,[200] and sent circular letters to the several bishops, to make inquiries concerning the affairs of Alexandria, and the council of Chalcedon. Most of the bishops adhered to the decrees of those fathers, and agreed to depose Timotheus, who was sent to bear Dioscorus company in banishment.

Footnote 200:

c. 9, 10.

Under Zeno, the son-in-law and successor of Leo, Hunnerick the Vandal grievously persecuted the orthodox in Africa. In the beginning of his reign he made a very equitable proposal, that he would allow them the liberty of choosing a bishop, and worshipping according to their own way, provided the emperor would grant the Arians the same liberty in Constantinople, and other places. This the orthodox would not agree to, choosing rather to have their own brethren persecuted, than to allow toleration to such as differed from them. Hunnerick was greatly enraged by this refusal, and exercised great severity towards all who would not profess the Arian faith, being excited hereto by Cyrill, one of his bishops, who was perpetually suggesting to him, that the peace and safety of his kingdom could not be maintained, unless he extirpated all who differed from him as public nuisances. This cruel ecclesiastical advice was agreeable to the king’s temper, who immediately put forth the most severe edicts against those who held the doctrine of the consubstantiality, and turned all those laws which had been made against the Arians, and other heretics, against the orthodox themselves; it being, as Hunnerick observes in his edict, “an instance of virtue in a king, to turn evil counsels against those who were the authors of them.” But though the persecution carried on by the orthodox was no vindication of Hunnerick’s cruelty towards them, yet I think they ought to have observed the justice of divine Providence, in suffering a wicked prince to turn all those unrighteous laws upon themselves, which, when they had power on their side, they had procured for the punishment and destruction of others. A particular account of the cruelties exercised by this prince may be read at large in Victor de Vandal. Persec. l. 3.

Zeno, though perfectly orthodox in his principles, yet was a very wicked and profligate prince, and rendered himself so extremely hateful to his own family, by his vices and debaucheries, that Basiliscus, brother of Verina, mother of Zeno’s empress, expelled him the empire, and reigned in his stead;[201] and having found by experience, that the decrees of the council of Chalcedon had occasioned many disturbances, he by an edict ordained, that the Nicene creed alone should be used in all churches, as being the only rule of the pure faith, and sufficient to remove every heresy, and perfectly to unite all the churches; confirming at the same time the decrees of the councils of Constantinople and Ephesus. But as to those of the council of Chalcedon, he ordered, that as they had destroyed the unity and good order of the churches, and the peace of the whole world, they should be anathematized by all the bishops; and that wherever any copies of those articles should be found they should be immediately burnt. And that whosoever after this should attempt, either by dispute or writing, or teaching, at any time, manner or place, to utter, or so much as name the novelties that had been agreed on at Chalcedon contrary to the faith, should, as the authors of tumults and seditions in the churches of God, and as enemies to God and himself, be subject to all the penalties of the laws, and be deposed, if bishops or clergymen; and if monks or laicks, be punished with banishment, and confiscation of their effects, and even with death itself.[202] Most of the eastern bishops subscribed these letters of Basiliscus; and being afterwards met in council at Ephesus, they deposed Acacius, the orthodox bishop of Constantinople, and many other bishops that agreed with him. They also wrote to the emperor to inform him, that “they had voluntarily subscribed his letters,” and to persuade him to adhere to them, or that otherwise “the whole world would be subverted, if the decrees of the synod of Chalcedon should be re-established, which had already produced innumerable slaughters, and occasioned the shedding of the blood of the orthodox Christians.” But Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, soon forced Basiliscus to alter his measures, by raising up the monks and mob of the city against him; so that he recalled his former letters, and ordered Nestorius and Eutyches, with all their followers, to be anathematized, and soon after he quitted the empire to Zeno.[203] Upon his restoration he immediately rescinded the acts of Basiliscus, and expelled those bishops from their sees, which had been ordained during his abdication. In the mean time the Asiatic bishops, who in their letter to Basiliscus had declared, that the report of their “subscribing involuntarily, and by force, was a slander and a lie;” yet, upon this turn of affairs, in order to excuse themselves to Acacius, and to ingratiate themselves with Zeno, affirm, “that they did it not voluntarily, but by force, swearing that they had always, and did now believe the faith of the synod of Chalcedon.” Evagrius leaves it in doubt, whether Zacharias defamed them, or whether the bishops lied, when they affirmed that they subscribed involuntarily, and against their consciences.

Footnote 201:

Evag. l. 3. c. 4.

Footnote 202:

Evag. l. 3. c. 5.

Footnote 203:

l. 3. c. 8, 9.

Zeno[204] observing the disputes that had arisen through the decrees of the last council, published his Henoticon, or his “uniting and pacific edict,”[205] in which he confirmed the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, and Ephesine councils, ordained that the Nicene creed should be the standard of orthodoxy, declared that neither himself nor the churches have, or had, or would have any other symbol or doctrine but that, condemned Nestorius and Eutyches, and their followers; and ordered, that whosoever had, or did think otherwise, either now or formerly, whether at Chalcedon or any other synod, should be anathematized. The intention of the emperor by this edict, was plainly to reconcile the friends and opposers of the synod of Chalcedon; for he condemned Nestorius and Eutyches, as that council had done, but did not anathematize those who would not receive their decrees, nor submit to them as of equal authority with those of the three former councils: but this compromise was far from having the desired effect.

Footnote 204:

Evag. c. 13.

Footnote 205:

c. 14.

During these things several changes happened in the bishopric of Alexandria.[206] Timothy, bishop of that place, being dead, one Peter Mongus was elected by the bishops suffragans of that see, which so enraged Zeno, that he intended to have put him to death; but changed it for banishment, and Timothy, successor of Proterius, was substituted in his room. Upon Timothy’s death, John, a presbyter of that church, obtained the bishopric by simony, and in defiance of an oath he had taken to Zeno, that he would never procure himself to be elected into that see. Upon this he was expelled, and Mongus restored by the emperor’s order. Mongus immediately consented, and subscribed to the pacific edict, and received into communion those who had formerly been of a different party. Soon after this he was accused by Calendio,[207] bishop of Antioch, for adultery, and for having publicly anathematized the synod of Chalcedon at Alexandria; and though this latter charge was true, yet he solemnly denied it in a letter to Acacius,[208] bishop of Constantinople, turning with the time, condemning and receiving it, just as it suited his views, and served his interest. But being at last accused before Felix,[209] bishop of Rome, he was pronounced an heretic, excommunicated, and anathematized.

Footnote 206:

Evag. l. 3. c. 11, 12.

Footnote 207:

c. 16.

Footnote 208:

Evag. c. 17.

Footnote 209:

c. 20, 21.

Anastasius,[210] who succeeded Zeno, was himself a great lover of peace, and endeavoured to promote it, both amongst the clergy and laity, and therefore ordered, that there should be no innovations in the church whatsoever. But this moderation was by no means pleasing to the monks and bishops. Some of them were great sticklers for the council of Chalcedon, and would not allow so much as a syllable or a letter of their decrees to be altered, nor communicate with those who did not receive them. Others were so far from submitting to this synod, and their determinations, that they anathematized it; whilst others adhered to Zeno’s Henoticon, and maintained peace with one another, even though they were of different judgments concerning the nature of Christ. Hence the church was divided into factions, so that the bishops would not communicate with each other. Not only the eastern bishops separated from the western, but those of the same provinces had schisms amongst themselves. The emperor, to prevent as much as possible these quarrels, banished those who were most remarkably troublesome from their sees, and particularly the bishops of Constantinople and Antioch, forbidding all persons to preach either for or against the council of Chalcedon, in any places where it had not been usual to do it before; that by allowing all churches their several customs, he might prevent any disturbances upon account of innovations.[211] But the monks and bishops prevented all these attempts for peace, by forcing one another to make new confessions and subscriptions, and by anathematizing all who differed from them as heretics; so that by their seditious and obstinate behaviour they occasioned innumerable quarrels and murders in the empire. They also treated the emperor himself with great insolence, and excommunicated him as an enemy to the synod of Chalcedon. Macedonius,[212] bishop of Constantinople, and his clergy raised the mob of that city against him, only for adding to one of their hymns these words, “who was crucified for us.” And when for this reason Macedonius was expelled his bishopric, they urged on the people to such an height of fury as endangered the utter destruction of the city; for in their rage they set fire to several places in it, cut off the head of a monk, crying out, he was “an enemy of the Trinity;” and were not to be appeased till the emperor himself went amongst them without his imperial diadem, and brought them to temper by proper submissions and persuasions.[213] And though he had great reason to be offended with the bishops for such usage, yet he was of so humane and tender a disposition, that though he ordered several of them to be deposed for various offences, yet apprehending that it could not be effected without bloodshed, he wrote to the prefect of Asia, “not to do any thing in the affair, if it would occasion the shedding a single drop of blood.”

Footnote 210:

Evag. l. 3. c. 30.

Footnote 211:

l. 3. c. 31, 32.

Footnote 212:

Evag. l. 3. c. 44.

Footnote 213:

c. 34.

Under this emperor, Symmachus,[214] bishop of Rome, expelled the Manichees from the city, and ordered their books to be publicly burnt before the doors of the church.

Footnote 214:

Platin.

Justin[215] was more zealous for orthodoxy than his predecessor Anastasias, and in the first year of his reign gave a very signal proof of it. Severus, bishop of Antioch, was warm against the council of Chalcedon, and continually anathematizing it in the letters he wrote to several bishops; and because the people quarrelled on this account, and divided into several parties, Justin ordered the bishop to be apprehended, and his tongue to be cut out; and commanded that the synod of Chalcedon should be preached up through all the churches of the empire. Platina also tells us,[216] that he banished the Arians, and gave their churches to the orthodox. Hormisda also, bishop of Rome, in imitation of his predecessor Symmachus, banished the remainder of the Manichees, and caused their writings to be burnt.

Footnote 215:

Evag. l. 3. c. 4, 9.

Footnote 216:

In vit. Johan. 1. Platin.

Justinian,[217] his successor in the empire, succeeded him also in his zeal for the council of Chalcedon, and banished the bishops of Constantinople and Antioch, because they would not obey his orders, and receive the decrees of that synod. He also published a constitution, by which he anathematized them and all their followers; and ordered, that whosoever should preach their opinions should be subject to the most grievous punishments. By this means nothing was openly preached in any of the churches but this council; nor did any one dare to anathematize it. And whosoever were of a contrary opinion, they were compelled by innumerable methods to come into the orthodox faith. In the third year of his reign[218] he published a law, ordering that there should be no pagans, nor heretics, but orthodox Christians only, allowing to heretics three months only for their conversion. By another he deprived heretics of the right of succession.[219] By another he rendered them incapable of being witnesses in any trial against Christians. He prohibited them also from baptizing any persons, and from transcribing heretical books, under the penalty of having the hand cut off. These laws were principally owing to the persuasions of the bishops. Thus Agapetus, bishop of Rome, who had condemned Anthimus, and deposed him from his see of Constantinople, persuaded Justinian to banish all those whom he had condemned for heresy. Pelagius also desired,[220] that heretics and schismatics might be punished by the secular power, if they would not be converted. The emperor was too ready to comply with this advice. But notwithstanding all this zeal for orthodoxy, and the cruel edicts published by him for the extirpation of heresy, he was infamously covetous,[221] sold the provinces of the empire to plunderers and oppressors, stripped the wealthy of their estates upon false accusations and forged crimes, and went partners with common whores in their gains of prostitution; and what is worse, in the estates of those whom those wretches falsely accused of rapes and adulteries. And yet, that he might appear as pious as he was orthodox, he built out of these rapines and plunders many stately and magnificent churches; many religious houses for monks and nuns, and hospitals for the relief of the aged and infirm. Evagrius[222] also charges him with more than bestial cruelty in the case of the Venetians, whom lie not only allowed, but even by rewards encouraged to murder their enemies at noon-day, in the very heart of the city, to break open houses, and plunder the possessors of their riches, forcing them to redeem their lives at the expence of all they had. And if any of his officers punished them for these violences, they were sure to be punished themselves with infamy or death. And that each side might taste of his severities, he afterwards turned his laws against the Venetians, putting great numbers of them to death, for those very murders and violences he had before encouraged and supported.

Footnote 217:

Evag. l. 3. c. 11.

Footnote 218:

Paul. Diacon. c. 16.

Footnote 219:

Cod. de Hæret. Novel. 42. c. 1.

Footnote 220:

Platin.

Footnote 221:

Evag. l. 4. c. 30.

Footnote 222:

c. 32.

SECT. VII. _The second council at Constantinople; or fifth general council._

During his reign, in the 24th year of it, was held the fifth general council at Constantinople, A. C. 553, consisting of about 165 fathers. The occasion of their meeting was the opposition that was made to the four former general councils, and particularly the writings of Origen, which Eustachius, bishop of Jerusalem, accused, as full of many dangerous errors.[223] In the first sessions it was debated, whether “those who were dead were to be anathematized?” One Eutychius looked with contempt on the fathers for their hesitation in so plain a matter, and told them, that there needed no deliberation about it; for that king Josias formerly did not only destroy the idolatrous priests who were living, but dug also those who had been dead long before out of their graves. So clear a determination of the point, who could resist? The fathers immediately were convinced, and Justinian caused him to be consecrated bishop of Constantinople, in the room of Menas, just deceased, for this his skill in scripture and casuistry. The consequence was, that the decrees of the four preceding councils were all confirmed; those who were condemned by them re-condemned and anathematized, particularly Theodorus bishop of Mopsuestia, and Ibas, with their writings, as favouring the impieties of Nestorius: and finally, Origen, with all his detestable and execrable principles, and all persons whatsoever who should think, or speak of them, or dare to defend them. After these transactions the synod sent an account of them to Justinian,[224] whom they complimented with the title of “the most Christian king, and with having a soul partaker of the heavenly nobility.” And yet soon after these flatteries his most Christian majesty turned heretic himself, and endeavoured with as much zeal to propagate heresy, as he had done orthodoxy before; he published an edict, by which he ordained, that “the body of Christ was incorruptible, and incapable even of natural and innocent passions; that before his death he eat in the same manner as he did after his resurrection, receiving no conversion or change from his very formation in the womb, neither in his voluntary or natural affections, nor after his resurrection.” But as he was endeavouring to force the bishops to receive his creed, God was pleased, as Evagrius observes,[225] to cut him off; and notwithstanding “the heavenly nobility of his soul, he went,” as the same author charitably supposes,[226] “to the devil.”

Footnote 223:

Evag. l. 4. c. 38.

Footnote 224:

l. 4. c. 39.

Footnote 225:

Evag. l. 4. c. 41.

Footnote 226:

l. 5. c. 1.

Hunnerick,[227] the Arian king of the Vandals, treated the orthodox in this emperor’s reign with great cruelty in Africa, because they would not embrace the principles of Arius; some he burnt, and others he destroyed by different kinds of death; he ordered the tongues of several of them to be cut out, who afterwards made their escape to Constantinople; where Procopius, if you will believe him, affirms he heard them speak as distinctly as if their tongues had remained in their heads. Justinian himself mentions them in one of his constitutions. Two of them, however, who happened to be whore-masters, lost afterwards the use of their speech for this reason, and the honour and grace of martyrdom.

Footnote 227:

Evag. l. 4. c. 14.

Justin the younger,[228] who succeeded Justinian, published an edict soon after his advancement, by which he sent all bishops to their respective sees, and to perform divine worship according to the usual manner of their churches, without making any innovations concerning the faith. As to his personal character, he was extremely dissolute and debauched, and addicted to the most vile and criminal pleasures. He was also sordidly covetous, and sold the very bishoprics to the best bidders, putting them up to public auction. Nor was he less remarkable for his cruelty;[229] he had a near relation of his own name, whom he treacherously murdered; and of whom he was so jealous, that he could not be content till he and his empress had trampled his head under their feet.[230] However, he was very orthodox, and published a new explication of the faith, which for clearness and subtlety exceeded all that went before it. In this he professes, that “he believed in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the consubstantial Trinity, one deity, or nature, or essence, and one virtue, power and energy, in three hypostases or persons; and that he adored the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, having a most admirable division and union; the Unity according to the essence or deity; the Trinity according to the properties, hypostases or persons; for they are divided indivisibly; or, if I may so speak, they are joined together separately. The godhead in the three is one, and the three are one, the deity being in them; or to speak more accurately, which three are the deity. It is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, when each person is considered by itself, the mind thus separating things inseparable; but the three are God, when considered together, being one in operation and nature. We believe also in one only begotten Son of God, God the Word—for the holy Trinity received no addition of a fourth person, even after the incarnation of God the Word, one of the holy Trinity. But our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same, consubstantial to God, even the Father, according to his deity, and consubstantial to us according to his manhood; liable to suffering in the flesh, but impassible in the deity. For we do not own that God the Word, who wrought the miracles, was one, and he that suffered another; but we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, was one and the same, who was made flesh and became perfect man; and that the miracles and sufferings were of one and the same: for it was not any man that gave himself for us, but God the Word himself, being made man without change; so that when we confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be one and the same, compounded of each nature, of the godhead and manhood, we do not introduce any confusion or mixture by the union—for as God remains in the manhood, so also nevertheless doth the man, being in the excellency of the deity, Emanuel being both in one and the same, even one God and also man. And when we confess him to be perfect in the godhead, and perfect in the manhood, of which he is compounded, we do not introduce a division in part, or section to his one compounded person, but only signify the difference of the natures, which is not taken away by the union; for the divine nature is not converted into the human, nor the human nature changed into the divine. But we say, that each being considered, or rather actually existing in the very definition or reason of its proper nature, constitutes the oneness in person. Now this oneness as to person signifies that God the Word, i. e. one person of the three persons of the godhead, was not united to a pre-existent man, but that he formed to himself in the womb of our holy Lady Mary, glorious mother of God, and ever a virgin, and out of her, in his own person, flesh consubstantial to us, and liable to all the same passions, without sin, animated with a reasonable and intellectual soul.—For considering his inexplicable oneness, we orthodoxly confess one nature of God the Word made flesh, and yet conceiving in our minds the difference of the natures, we say they are two, not introducing any manner of division. For each nature is in him; so that we confess him to be one and the same Christ, one Son, one person, one hypostasis, God and man together. Moreover, we anathematize all who have, or do think otherwise, and judge them as cut off from the holy Catholic, and apostolic church of God.” To this extraordinary edict, all, says the historian, gave their consent, esteeming it to be very orthodox, though they were not more united amongst themselves than before.

Footnote 228:

l. 5. c. 1.

Footnote 229:

Evag. l. 5. c. 2.

Footnote 230:

Evag. l. 5. c. 3.

Under Mauritius,[231] John bishop of Constantinople, in a council held at that city, stiled himself oecumenical bishop, by the consent of the fathers there assembled; and the emperor himself ordered Gregory to acknowledge him in that character. Gregory absolutely refused it, and replied, that the power of binding and loosing was delivered to Peter and his successors, and not to the bishops of Constantinople; admonishing him to take care, that he did not provoke the anger of God against himself, by raising tumults in his church. This pope was the first who stiled himself, Servus Servorum Dei,[232] servant of the servants of God; and had such an abhorrence of the title of universal bishop, that he said, “I confidently affirm, that whosoever calls himself universal priest is the forerunner of Antichrist, by thus proudly exalting himself above others.”

Footnote 231:

Platin in vit. Greg. I.

Footnote 232:

l. 6. Epist. 194.

But, how ever modest Gregory was in refusing and condemning this arrogant title, Boniface III.[233] thought better of the matter, and after great struggles, prevailed with Phocas, who murdered Mauritius the emperor, to declare that the see of the blessed apostle Peter, which is the head of all churches, should be so called and accounted by all, and the bishop of it oecumenical or universal bishop. The church of Constantinople had claimed this precedence and dignity, and was sometimes favoured herein by the emperors, who declared, that the first see ought to be in that place which was the head of the empire. The Roman pontiffs, on the other hand, affirmed, that Rome, of which Constantinople was but a colony, ought to be esteemed the head of the empire, because the Greeks themselves, in their writings, stile the emperor Roman emperor, and the inhabitants of Constantinople are called Romans, and not Greeks; not to mention that Peter, the prince of the apostles, gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to his successors, the popes of Rome. On this foundation was the superiority of the church of Rome to that of all other churches built; and Phocas, who was guilty of all villanies, was one of the fittest persons that could be found to gratify Boniface in this request. Boniface, also, called a council at Rome, where this supremacy was confirmed, and by whom it was decreed, that bishops should be chosen by the clergy and people, approved by the prince of the city, and ratified by the pope with these words, “Volumus & jubemus,” for this is our will and command. To reward Phocas for the grant of the primacy, he approved the murder of Mauritius, and very honourably received his images, which he sent to Rome. And having thus wickedly possessed themselves of this unrighteous power, the popes as wickedly used it, soon brought almost the whole Christian world into subjection to them, and became the persecutors general of the church of God; proceeding from one usurpation to another, till at last they brought emperors, kings and princes into subjection, forcing them to ratify their unrighteous decrees, and to punish, in the severest manner, all that should presume to oppose and contradict them, till she became “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth.”

Footnote 233:

Platin in vit. Bonif. III.

The inquisition is the master-piece of their policy and cruelty; and such an invention for the suppression of religion and truth, liberty and knowledge, innocence and virtue, as could proceed from no other wisdom but that which is “earthly, sensual, and devilish.” And as the history of it, which I now present my reader with a faithful abstract of, gives the most perfect account of the laws and practices of this accursed tribunal, I shall not enter into the detail of popish persecutions, especially as we have a full account of those practised amongst ourselves in Fox and other writers, who have done justice to this subject. I shall only add a few things relating to the two other general councils, as they are stiled by ecclesiastical historians.

Under Heraclius,[234] the successor of Phocas, great disturbances were raised upon account of what they called the heresy of the Monothelites, i. e. those who held there were not two wills, the divine and human, in Christ, but only one single will or operation. The emperor himself was of this opinion, being persuaded into it by Pyrrhus patriarch of Constantinople, and Cyrus bishop of Alexandria. And though he afterwards seems to have changed his mind in this point, yet in order to promote peace, he put forth an edict, forbidding disputes or quarrels, on either side the question. Constans, his grandson, was of the same sentiment, and at the instigation of Paul bishop of Constantinople, grievously persecuted those who would not agree with him. Martyn,[235] pope of Rome, sent his legates to the emperor and patriarch to forsake their errors, and embrace the truth; but his holiness was but little regarded, and after his legates were imprisoned and whipped, they were sent into banishment. This greatly enraged Martyn, who convened a synod at Rome of 150 bishops, who decreed, that whosoever should “not confess two wills, and two operations united, the divine and the human, in one and the same Christ, should be anathema,” and that Paul bishop of Constantinople should be condemned and deposed. The emperor highly resented this conduct, and sent Olympius hexarch into Italy to propagate the Monothelite doctrine; and either to kill Martyn, or send him prisoner to Constantinople. Olympius not being able to execute either design, Theodorus was sent in his room, who apprehended the pope, put him in chains, and got him conveyed to the emperor, who after ignominiously treating him, banished him to Pontus, where he died in great misery and want. The bishops of Constans’s party[236] were greatly assistant to him in this work of persecution, and shewed more rage against their fellow-Christians, than they did against the very barbarians themselves.

Footnote 234:

Plat. in vit. Honorii I.

Footnote 235:

Plat. in vit. Mart.

Footnote 236:

Act. 15, 6. Constant. Tom. Concil. 2.

SECT. VIII. _The third council at Constantinople; or sixth general council._

Constantine, the eldest son of Constans, cut off his two younger brothers’ noses, that they might not share the empire with him; but, however, happened to be more orthodox than his predecessors; and by the persuasion of Agatho,[237] pope of Rome, convened the sixth general council at Constantinople, A. D. 680, in which were present 289 bishops. The fathers of this holy synod complimented the emperor with being “another David, raised up by Christ, their God, a man after his own heart; who had not given sleep to his eyes, nor slumber to his eye-lids, till he had gathered them together, to find out the perfect rule of faith.” After this they condemned the heresy of one will in Christ, and declared, “that they glorified two natural wills and operations, indivisibly, inconvertibly, without confusion, and inseparably in the same Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, i. e. the divine operation, and the human operation.” So that now the orthodox faith, in reference to Christ, was this; that “he had two natures, the divine and human; that these two natures were united, without confusion, into one single person; and that in this one single person, there were two distinct wills and operations, the human and divine.” Thus, at last, 680 years after Christ, was the orthodox faith, relating to his deity, humanity, nature and wills, decided and settled by this synod; who, after having pronounced anathemas against the living and dead, ordered the burning of heretical books, and deprived several bishops of their sees; procured an edict from the emperor, commanding all to receive their confession of faith, and denouncing not only eternal, but corporal punishments to all recusants; viz. if they were bishops, or clergymen, or monks, they were to be banished; if laymen, of any rank and figure, they were to forfeit their estates, and lose their honours; if of the common people, they were to be expelled the royal city. These their definitive sentences were concluded with the usual exclamation, of, “God save the emperor, long live the orthodox emperor; down with the heretics; cursed be Eutyches, Macarius, &c. The Trinity hath deposed them.”

Footnote 237:

Plat. in vit. Agath.

The next controversy of importance was relating to the worship of images. The respect due to the memories of the apostles and martyrs of the Christian church, was gradually carried into great superstition, and at length degenerated into downright idolatry. Not only churches were dedicated to them, but their images placed in them, and religious adoration paid to them. Platina tells us, that amongst many other ceremonies introduced by pope Sixtus III. in the fifth century, he persuaded Valentinian the younger, emperor of the West, to beautify and adorn the churches, and to place upon the altar of St. Peter, a golden image of our Saviour, enriched with jewels. In the next century the images of the saints were brought in, and religious worship paid to them. This appears from a letter of pope Gregory’s, to the bishop of Marseilles, who broke in pieces certain images, because they had been superstitiously adored. Gregory tells him,[238] “I commend you, that through a pious zeal, you would not suffer that which is made with hands to be adored; but I blame you for breaking the images in pieces: for it is one thing to adore a picture, and another to learn by the history of the picture what is to be adored.” And elsewhere he declares,[239] that “images and pictures in churches, were very useful for the instruction of the ignorant, who could not read.” Sergius, after this, repaired the images of the apostles. John VII. adorned a great many churches with the pictures and images of the saints. And at length, in the reign of Philippicus, Constantine the pope, in a synod held at Rome, decreed, that images should be fixed up in the churches, and have great adoration paid them. He also condemned and excommunicated the emperor himself for heresy; because he erased the pictures of the fathers, which had been painted on the walls of the church of St. Sophia, at Constantinople; and commanded that his images should not be received into the church; that his name should not be used in any public or private writings, nor his effigies stamped upon any kind of money whatsoever.

Footnote 238:

l. 9. Ind. 2. Ep. 2.

Footnote 239:

l. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 109. Platin.

This superstition of bringing images into churches was warmly opposed, and gave occasion to many disturbances and murders. The emperor Leo Isaurus greatly disapproved this practice, and published an edict, by which he commanded all the subjects of the Roman empire to deface all the pictures, and to take away all the statues of the martyrs and angels out of the churches, in order to prevent idolatry, threatening to punish those who did not, as public enemies. Pope Gregory II.[240] opposed this edict, and admonished all Catholics, in no manner to obey it. This occasioned such a tumult at Ravenna in Italy, between the partisans of the emperor and the pope, as ended in the murder of Paul, exarch of Italy, and his son; which enraged the emperor in an high degree; so that he ordered all persons to bring to him all their images of wood, brass, and marble, which he publicly burnt; punishing with death all such as were found to conceal them. He also convened a synod at Constantinople; where, after a careful and full examination, it was unanimously agreed, that the intercession of the saints was a mere fable; and the worship of images and relicts was downright idolatry, and contrary to the word of God. And as Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, favoured images, the emperor banished him, and substituted Anastasius, who was of his own sentiments, in his room. Gregory III.[241] in the beginning of his pontificate, assembled his clergy, and by their unanimous consent, deposed him on this account from the empire, and put him under excommunication; and was the first who withdrew the Italians from their obedience to the emperors of Constantinople, calling in the assistance of Charles king of France. After this, he placed the images of Christ and his apostles in a more sumptuous manner than they were before upon the altar of St. Peter, and at his own expence made a golden image of the Virgin Mary, holding Christ in her arms, for the church of St. Mary ad Præsepe.

Footnote 240:

Plat. in vit. Gregor. II.

Footnote 241:

Platin.

Constantine Copronymus, Leo’s son and successor in the empire, inherited his father’s zeal against the worship of images, and called a synod at Constantinople to determine the controversy. The fathers being met together, to the number of 330, after considering the doctrine of scripture, and the opinions of the fathers, decreed, “that every image, of whatsoever materials made and formed by the artist, should be cast out of the Christian church as a strange and abominable thing; adding an anathema upon all who should make images or pictures, or representations of God, or of Christ, or of the Virgin Mary, or of any of the saints, condemning it as a vain and diabolical invention; deposing all bishops, and subjecting the monks and laity, who should set up any of them in public or private, to all the penalties of the imperial constitutions.” They also deposed Constantine, patriarch of Constantinople, for opposing this decree; and the emperor first banished him, and afterwards put him to death; and commanded, that this council should be esteemed and received as the seventh oecumenical, or universal one. Paul I.[242] pope of Rome, sent his legate to Constantinople, to admonish the emperor to restore the sacred images and statues which he had destroyed; and threatened him with excommunication upon his refusal. But Copronymus slighted the message, and treated the legates with great contempt, and used the image worshippers with a great deal of severity.

Footnote 242:

Platin. in vit. Paul. I.

Constantine, bishop of Rome, the successor of Paul, seems also to have been an enemy to images, and was there tumultuously deposed; and Stephen III.[243] substituted in his room, who was a warm and furious defender of them. He immediately assembled a council in the Lateran church, where the holy fathers abrogated all Constantine’s decrees; deposed all who had been ordained by him bishops; made void all his baptisms and chrisms; and, as some historians relate, after having beat him, and used him with great indignity, made a fire in the church, and burnt him therein. After this, they annulled all the decrees of the synod of Constantinople, ordered the restoration of statues and images, and anathematized that execrable and pernicious synod, giving this excellent reason for the use of images; “that if it was lawful for emperors, and those who had deserved well of the commonwealth, to have their images erected, but not lawful to set up those of God, the condition of the immortal God would be worse than that of men.” After this the pope published the acts of the council, and pronounced an anathema against all those who should oppose it.

Footnote 243:

Id. in vit. Stephani.

SECT. IX. _The second Nicene council; or seventh general council._

Thus the mystery of this iniquity worked, till at length, under the reign of Irene and Constantine her son, a synod was packed up of such bishops as were ready to make any decrees that should be agreeable to the Roman pontiff, and the empress. They met at Nice, An. 787, to the number of about 350. In this venerable assembly it was decreed, “that holy images of the cross should be consecrated, and put on the sacred vessels and vestments, and upon walls and boards, in private houses and public ways; and especially that there should be erected images of the Lord our God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, of our blessed Lady, the mother of God, of the venerable angels, and of all the saints. And that whosoever should presume to think or teach otherwise, or to throw away any painted books, or the figure of the cross, or any image or picture, or any genuine relicts of the martyrs, they should, if bishops or clergymen, be deposed; or if monks or laymen, be excommunicated.” Then they pronounced anathemas upon all who should not receive images, or who should call them idols, or who should wilfully communicate with those who rejected and despised them; adding, according to custom, “Long live Constantine and Irene his mother. Damnation to all heretics. Damnation on the council that roared against venerable images: the holy Trinity hath deposed them.”

Irene and Constantine approved and subscribed these decrees, and the consequence was, that idols and images were erected in all the churches; and those who were against them, treated with great severity. This council was held under the popedom of Hadrian I. and thus, by the intrigues of the popes of Rome, iniquity was established by a law, and the worship of idols authorized and established in the Christian church, though contrary to all the principles of natural religion, and the nature and design of the Christian revelation.

It is true, that this decision of the council did not put an entire end to the controversy. Platina tells us,[244] that Constantine himself, not long after, annulled their decrees, and removed his mother from all share in the government. The synod also of Francfort, held about six years after, decreed that the worship and adoration of images was impious; condemned the synod of Nice, which had established it, and ordered that it should not be called either the seventh, or an universal council. But as the Roman pontiffs had engrossed almost all power into their own hands, all opposition to image worship became ineffectual; especially as they supported their decrees by the civil power, and caused great cruelties to be exercised towards all those who should dare dispute or contradict them.

Footnote 244:

In vit. Hadrian I.

For many years the world groaned under this antichristian yoke; nor were any methods of fraud, imposture and barbarity, left unpractised to support and perpetuate it. As the clergy rid lords of the universe, they grew wanton and insolent in their power; and as they drained the nations of their wealth to support their own grandeur and luxury, they degenerated into the worst and vilest set of men that ever burdened the earth. They were shamefully ignorant, and scandalously vicious; well versed in the most exquisite arts of torture and cruelty, and absolutely divested of all bowels of mercy and compassion towards those, who even in the smallest matters differed from the dictates of their superstition and impiety. The infamous practices of that accursed tribunal, the inquisition, the wars against heretics in the earldom of Tholouse, the massacres of Paris and Ireland, the many sacrifices they have made in Great Britain, the fires they have kindled, and the flames they have lighted up in all nations, where their power hath been acknowledged, witness against them, and demonstrate them to be very monsters of mankind. So that one would really wonder, that the whole world hath not entered into a combination, and risen in arms against so execrable a set of men, and extirpated them as savage beasts, from the face of the whole earth; who, out of a pretence of religion, have defiled it with the blood of innumerable saints and martyrs, and made use of the name of the most holy Jesus, to countenance and sanctify the most abominable impieties.

But as the inquisition is their master piece of hellish policy and cruelty, I shall give a more particular account of it in the following book.