Chapter VIII: Book II (3)

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.

-----