Читать книгу The History of Persecution - Samuel Chandler - Страница 17

Table of Contents

Under Constantine the emperor, when the Christians were restored to full liberty, their churches rebuilt, and the imperial edicts every where published in their favour, they immediately began to discover what spirit they were of; as soon as ever they had the temptations of honour and large revenues before them. Constantine’s letters are full proof of the jealousies and animosities that reigned amongst them.63 In his letters to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, he tells him, that he had been informed that Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage, had been accused of many crimes by some of his colleagues, bishops of Africa; and that it was very grievous to him to see so great a number of people divided into parties, and the bishops disagreeing amongst themselves.64 And though the emperor was willing to reconcile them by a friendly reference of the controversy to Miltiades and others; yet, in spite of all his endeavours, they maintained their quarrels and factious opposition to each other, and through secret grudges and hatred would not acquiesce in the sentence of those he had appointed to determine the affair. So that, as he complained to Chrestus bishop of Syracuse, those who ought to have maintained a brotherly affection and peaceable disposition towards each other, did in a scandalous and detestable manner separate from one another, and gave occasion to the common enemies of Christianity to deride and scoff at them. For this reason, he summoned a council to meet at Arles in France, that after an impartial hearing of the several parties, this controversy, which had been carried on for a long while in a very intemperate manner, might be brought to a friendly and Christian compromise. JEusebius65 farther adds, that he not only called together councils in the several provinces upon account of the quarrels that arose amongst the bishops, but that he himself was present in them, and did all he could to promote peace amongst them. However, all he could do had but little effect; and it must be owned that he himself greatly contributed to prevent it, by his large endowment of churches, by the riches and honours which he conferred on the bishops, and especially by his authorizing them to sit as judges upon the consciences and faith of others; by which he confirmed them in a worldly spirit, the spirit of domination, ambition, pride, and avarice, which hath in all ages proved fatal to the peace and true interest of the Christian church.

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

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

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

The sentiments of the primitive Christians, at least for near three centuries, in reference to the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, were, generally speaking, pretty uniform; nor do there appear to have been any public quarrels about this article of the Christian faith.71 Some few persons, indeed, differed from the commonly received opinion. One Theodotus a tanner, under the reign of Commodus, asserted Christ was a mere man, and on this account was excommunicated, with other of his followers, by pope Victor, who appears to have been very liberal in his censures against others. Artemon propagated the same erroneous opinion under Severus. Beryllus72 also, an Arabian bishop under Gordian, taught, “that our Saviour had no proper personal subsistence before his becoming man, nor any proper godhead of his own, but only the Father’s godhead residing in him;” but afterwards altered his opinion, being convinced of his error by the arguments of Origen. KSabellius73 also propagated much the same doctrine, denying also the real personality of the Holy Ghost. After him Paulus Samosatenus,74 bishop of Antioch, and many of his clergy, publicly avowed the same principles concerning Christ, and were excommunicated by a large council of bishops. But though these excommunications, upon account of differences in opinion, prove that the bishops had set up for judges of the faith, and assumed a power and dominion over the consciences of others, yet as they had no civil effects, and were not enforced by any penal laws, they were not attended with any public confusions, to the open reproach of the Christian church.

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

The occasion of the Arian controversy78 was this.79 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, speaking in a very warm manner concerning the Trinity before the presbyters and clergy of his church, affirmed there was “an Unity in the Trinity,” and particularly that “the Son was co-eternal and consubstantial, and of the same dignity with the Father.” Arius, one of his presbyters, thought that the bishop, by this doctrine, was introducing the Sabellian heresy, and therefore opposed him, arguing in this manner: “If the Father begot the Son, he who was begotten must have a beginning of his existence; and from hence,” says he, “it is manifest, that there was a time when he was not; the necessary consequence of which” he affirmed was this,80 “that he had his subsistence out of things not existing.” Sozomen adds farther, that he asserted, “that by virtue of his free-will the Son was capable of vice as well as virtue; and that he was the mere creature and work of God.” The bishop being greatly disturbed by these expressions of Arius, upon account of the novelty of them, and not able to bear such an opposition from one of his presbyters to his own principles, commanded (“admonished, as president of the council, to whom it belonged to enjoin silence, and put an end to the dispute”) Arius to forbear the use of them, and to embrace the doctrine of the consubstantiality and co-eternity of the Father and the Son. But Arius was not thus to be convinced, especially as a great number of the bishops and clergy were of his opinion, and supported him; and for this reason himself and the clergy of his party were excommunicated, and expelled the church, in a council of near an hundred of the Egyptian and Lybian bishops met together for that purpose, by the bishop, who in this case was both party and judge, the enemy and condemner of Arius. Upon this treatment Arius and his friends sent circular letters to the several bishops of the church, giving them an account of their faith, and desiring that if they found their sentiments orthodox, they would write to Alexander in their favour; if they judged them wrong, they would give them instructions how to believe. Thus was the dispute carried into the Christian church, and the bishops being divided in their opinions, some of them wrote to Alexander not to admit Arius and his party into communion without renouncing their principles, whilst others of them persuaded him to act a different part. The bishop not only followed the advice of the former, but wrote letters to the several bishops not to communicate with any of them, nor to receive them if they should come to them, nor to credit Eusebius,81 nor any other person that should write to them in their behalf, but to avoid them as the enemies of God, and the corrupters of the souls of men; and not so much as to salute them, or to have any communion with them in their crimes. Eusebius,82 who was bishop of Nicomedia, sent several letters to Alexander, exhorting him to let the controversy peaceably drop, and to receive Arius into communion; but finding him inflexible to all his repeated entreaties, he got a synod to meet in Bithynia, from whence they wrote letters to the other bishops, to engage them to receive the Arians to their communion, and to persuade Alexander to do the same. But all their endeavours proved ineffectual, and by these unfriendly dealings the parties grew more enraged against each other, and the quarrel became incurable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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