Читать книгу The History of Persecution - Samuel Chandler - Страница 18

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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, Constantine100 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.”

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, PTheodorit 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 QGregory Nazianzen103 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 Nice104 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.

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 RPorphyrius, 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.

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 SSt. 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.

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.

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 Athanasius114 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.

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 place119 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. 121And 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.

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 Antiochus123 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.

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 account129 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.

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 Paul135 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.”

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.”

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.

In the beginning of Julian’s reign146 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. TJulian, 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.

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.

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 Theodorit151 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.

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.”

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 reign155 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.

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.”

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.