Chapter VII: Book II (2)

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.

-----