Glass
8ook_^i
: .
(Si3
-xt^
f 13 0 Vtc 0
5-/ y^-A
Freeman, sculp.
SAMUKL CHANBXIEJR.iDJD^ILS^A.
FiibUshed by John Craj3,qs.SuU. Jan.i sFi8i3 .
THE
HISTORY
PERSECUTION,
from the
PATRIARCI11AL AGE, TO THE REIGN OF GEORGE II. By S. CHANDLER, D.D. F.R.S. S.A.
A New Edition.
To which are added,
The Rev. Dr. Buchanan's Notices of the present State of the Inquisition at Goa.
ALSO, AN .
APPENDIX,
containing
HINTS ON THE RECENT PERSECUTIONS IN THE BRITISH
EMPIRE.
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO
LORD FISCOUJVT SIDMOUTH's BILL;
A CIRCUMSTANTIAL DETAIL OF THE STEPS TAKEN TO OBTAIN
Cfte jseto Coleratf cm 3rt,
WITH THE
ACT ITSELF, AND OTHER IMPORTANT MATTER.
By CHARLES ATMORE.
- *-—
" Uniformity of religious helief is not to be expected, so variously coustituted are the minds of men, and consequently Religious Coercion is not only absurd and impolitic, but for all good pur- poses impracticable." Sutton, Archbishop of Canterbury.
HULL:
PRINTED FOR THE EDITOR, AND J. CRAGGS; AND SOLD BY LONGMAN.
HURST, REES, ORME AND BROWN, PATERNOSTER-ROW ;
BLANCHARD, N°« 14, CITY ROAD, LONDON j AND
WILSON AND SON, YORK.
1813.
PRINTED BY JOHN PBRKINS, BOWLALtET-LANE, HULL.
The EDITOR'S PREFACE.
IT is now upwards of seventy years since this excellent treatise was first presented to the public by the author, and, considering his celebrity as a writer, (especially among the Dissenters) it is presumed no apology is necessary for sending it again into the world : especially at the present inteiesting crisis, when the subject of Religious Toleration, is become the topic of general con- versation and discussion. This work comprises every thing of importance connected with the dreadful persecutions which have disgraced human nature, both in ancient and modern times, both at home and abroad ; and is designed to prove that the things for which christians have persecuted one another have generally been of Mnall importance ; that pride, ambition, andcovetousness, have been the grand sourses of persecution; and that the religion of Jesus Christ absolutely condemns all persecution for conscience sake.
In this Edition, I have wholly omitted Dr. Chandler's (i Pre- face," which contains " Remarks on Dr. Rogers' vindication of the civil establishment of religion," and have substituted Memoirs of Dr. Chandler in its room : which I thought would be more ge- nerally acceptable to the reader. I have also omitted all his mar- ginal notes of a controversial nature, being answers to Dr. Berri- man, who had written a pamphlet entitled, " Brief remarks on Mr. Chandler's Introduction to the History of the Inquisition." These I conceived would be at present of little use. And as the republication of this volume is intended chiefly for common readers, I have also left out all the Greek and Latin sentences interspersed in the work, judging that they would be of no real advantage to such persons. I have however retained Dr. Chandler's autho- rities, so that the learned reader may refer to them when he thinks proper. As to the body of the work, I have neither altered the stnse nor the language.
The additions I have made from that justly celebrated work? " Dr. Buchanan's Christian Researches in Asia," will, I hope, be deemed a valuable acquisition ; and I beg leave here to express my grateful acknowledgments to the Rev. Author of that work,
a2
IV PREFACE.
for the very polite manner in which he honoured my request, in permitting me to insert his " Notices of the Inquisition at Goa."
While this work was in the press, one of the most important events to Religious Liberty occurred, which has taken place since the glorious area of the Revolution, in 1688 : viz. the repeal of the Persecuting laws, and the passing of the New Toleration Act. This event is so closely connected with the subject matter of this work, and reflects so much honour on the British government and nation, that I feel highly gratified in affording the reader, a detail of the various steps which were taken to obtain that Act : which now effectually secures to every subject of the British Em- pire all the Religious Liberty he can expect or desire.
I willingly record this memorial, that we, and our children after us, may know how to appreciate our invaluable privileges ; and that the names of those nobleman and others who boldly stood forth in the defence and support of Religious Toleration, might be handed down to posterity, that u our children may tell their chil- dren, and their children another generation."
May that infinitely important and wished-for period soon arrive, " when every invidious distinction, and every hostile passion, shall be banished from religious society; and when all the blessings of christian liberty shall be diffused arid enjoyed throughout the whole world !"
" O catch its high import ye winds as ye blow,
" O bear it ye waves as ye roll,
" From the regions that feel the sun's vertical glow,
■' To the farthest extremes of the pole!',
Charles Atmore.
HULL, February 15th. 1813.
ADVERTISEMENT.
When the prospectus of this work was first published, the Editor had no design of adding the Appendix, but intended to give copious biographical notes of the most eminent persons re- corded in the work. The matter of the Appendix, however, of. terwards appeared to him of such superior importance, that he thought himself justified in changing his plan. And he hopes the subscribers will excuse his having omitted that part of his or?'- ?inal design, and accept of this apology for the notes, being $& few} and so short, at the end of the volume.
CONTENTS.
PREFACE Pageiii
The Life of Dr. Chandler 1—23
The Introduction ------- 27 — 31
BOOK I.
Of Persecution amongst the Heathens.
SECT. 1.
Abraham persecuted ------ 33 — 34
SECT. 2.
Socrates persecuted amongst the Greeks ... 34 — 38
SECT. 3.
Egyptian Persecutions ._-..- 39 — 40
SECT. 4.
Persecutions by Antiochus Epiphanes - 40 — 42
SECT. 5.
Persecutions under the Romans ----- 42 — 54
SECT. 6.
Persecutions by the Mahometans - 54 — 55
BOOK II.
Of the Persecutions under the Christian Emperors - 56
SECT. 1. Of the Dispute about Easter 67—61
SECT. 2. Of the Persecutions under Constantine - 61 — 76
SECT. 3.
The Nicene Council, or first general Council - - 76 — 103
SECT. 4. The first Council of Constantinople; or5 second gene- ral Council 103—112
SECT. 5. The Council of Ephcsus; or, third general Council 112 — 114
Yl CONTENTS.
SECT. 6. The Council of Calcedon ; or, fourth generalCouncil Page 114 — 128
SECT. 7. The second Council at Constantinople; or, fifth gene- ral Council 129—136
SECT. 8. The third Council of Constantinople; or, sixth gene- ral Council - 136—140
SECT. 9. The second Nicene Council; or, seventh general
Council 141—143
BOOK III.
Of Persecutions under the Papacy, and particularly
the Inquisition 144 — 145
SECT. 1.
Of the Progress of the Inquisition - 145 — 155
SECT. 2.
Of the Officers belonging to the Inquisition - - 155 — 181
SECT. 3.
Of the Crimes cognizable by the Inquisition, and the
Punishment annexed to them - 182 — 194
SECT. 4. Of the manner of proceeding before the Tribunal of
the Inquisition 194—203
Of the present state of the Inquisition at Goa, ex- tracted from Dr. Buchanans Christian Re- searches in Asia .... - 263 — 284
BOOK IV.
Of Persecutions amongst Protestants - - - 285
SECT. 1.
Luther's opinion concerning Persecution - - 286
SECT. 2.
Calvin's Doctrine and Practice concerning Persecution 288 — 300
SECT. 3.
Persecutions at Bern, Bazil, and Zurich - 300 — 303
SECT. 4. Persecutions in Holland, and by the Synod of Dort - 303 — 311
CONTENTS. Vii
SECT. 5. Persecutions in Great Britain ... Page 311 — 354
SECT. 6.
Of Persecutions in New England, in America - - 354 — 360
CONCLUSION.
SECT. 1.
Who have been the great promoters of Persecution - 360 — 363
SECT. 2. The things for which Christians have persecuted one another have generally been of small im- portance --.-.. 363 — 359
SECT. 3. Pride. Ambition, and Covetousness, the grand sources
of Persecution .... - 369 — 373
SECT. 4. The Decrees of Councils, and Synods of no Autho- rity in matters of Faith - 372 — 377
SECT. 5. The imposing Subscription to human Creeds, unrea- sonable and pernicious - 377 337
SECT. 6. Adherence to the sacred Scriptures, the best security
of Truth and Orthodoxy - 387 — 390
SECT. 7.
The Christian Religion absolutely condemns Persecu- tion for conscience sake - 390 — 413
APPENDIX.
I.
Hints on the recent persecutions in the British Empire 415 — 416
II. His Majesty's most gracious interference with respect to the Religious Liberties of his subjects, and
of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent's 416 — 419 III.
Some circumstances relating to Lord Sidmouth's Bill 422 — 427
IVr.
Lord Viscount Sidmouth's proposed Bill - - 427 — 433
Vlll CONTENTS.
V. Meeting of the Committee of Privileges of the Societies
of the late Rev. John Wesley - - Page 433 — 441 VI. Proceedings of other Committees .... 441 — 448
VII.
Further proceedings of the Committee of Privileges,
with general remarks - 448 — 453 VIII. The number of petitions presented in the House of
Lords against Lord Sidmouth's Bill - 453 — 457
IX. Lord Sidmouth's speech on the second reading of his
Bill, with those of other noble Lords - 457 — 472 X.
Remarks on the effects of Lord Sidmouth's Bill - 472 — 473
XI. Letter of the Right Honourable Spencer Percival,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, with remarks 473 — 475 XII.
Steps taken to obtain the new Toleration Act - 476 — 489
XIII.
The New Toleration Act itself .... 490—498
XIV.
Observations upon the aforesaid Act, with practical
directions - - 498 — 505
XV.
Remarks on the Edict recently issued by the Emperor of China against Christianity, with the hor- rible Edict itself ... - 505—508 XVI.
Biographical notes .... - 509 — 520
THE
LIFE
OF
DR. SAMUEL CHANDLER
The Rev. Dr. Samuel Chandler was descended from ancestors heartily engaged in the cause of Noncon- formity, and great sufferers for liberty of conscience. His paternal grandfather was a respectable trades- man at Taunton, in Somersetshire. He was much injured in his fortune by the persecutions under Charles the Second, but " he took joyfully the spoiling of his goods, knowing in himself that he had in heaven a better and an enduring substance." The father of Dr. Chandler was a dissenting mi- nister of considerable worth and abilities, who spent the greater part of his life in the city of Bath, where he maintained an honourable name.
Our author was born at Hungerford, in Berk- shire, in the year 1693; his father being at that time the pastor of a congregation of protestant dis- senters in that place. He early discovered a genius for literature, which was carefully cultivated ; and being placed under proper masters, he made a very uncommon progress in classical learning, and espe- cially in the Greek tongue. As it was intended by
B
2 LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
his friends to bring him up for the ministry, he was sent to an academy at Bridgewater, under the care of the Rev. Mr. Moore : hut he was soon removed from thence to Gloucester, that he might become a pupil to Mr. Samuel Jones, a dissenting minister of great erudition and abilities, who had opened an academy in that city. This academy was soon trans- ferred to Tewkesbury, at which place Mr. Jones presided over it for many ye,ars with very high and 'deserved reputation. Such was the attention of that gentleman to the morals of his pupils, and to their progress in literature, and such the skill and discernment with which he directed their studies, that it was a singular advantage to be placed under so able and accomplished a tutor. Mr. Chandler made the proper use of so happy a situation ; apply- ing himself to his studies with great assiduity, and particularly to critical, biblical, and oriental learn- ing. Among the pupils of Mr. Jones were Mr. Joseph Butler, afterwards Bishop of Durham, and Thomas Seeker, afterwards Archbishop of Canter- bury. With these eminent persons he contracted a friendship that continued to the end of their lives, notwithstanding the different views by which their conduct was afterwards directed, and the different situations in which they were placed.
Mr. Chandler, having finished his academical studies, began to preach about July, 1714; and being soon distinguished by his talents in the pulpit, he was chosen, in 1716, minister of the Presbyterian congregation at Peckham, near London, in which station he continued some years. Here he entered into the matrimonial state, and began to have an in-
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER. O
creasing family, when, by the fatal South-sea scheme of 1720, he unfortunately lost the whole fortune which he had received with his wife. His circum- stances being thereby embarrassed, and his income as a minister being inadequate to his expences, he engaged in the trade of a bookseller, and kept a shop in the Poultry, London, for about two or three years, still continuing to discharge the duties of the pastoral office. It may not be improper to observe, that in the earlier part of his life, Mr. Chandler was subject to frequent and dangerous fevers ; one of which confined him more than three months, and threatened by its effects to disable him for public service. He was therefore advised to confine him- self to a vegetable diet, which he accordingly did, and adhered to it for twelve years. This produced so happy an alteration in his constitution, that though he afterwards returned to the usual way of living, he enjoyed an uncommon share of spirits and vigour till seventy.
While Mr. Chandler was minister of the congre- gation at Peckham, some gentlemen, of the several denominations of dissenters in the city, came to a resolution to set up and support a weekly evening lecture at the Old Jewry, for the winter half year. The subjects to be treated in this lecture were the evidences of natural and revealed religion, and an- swers to the principal objections against them. Two of the most eminent young ministers among the dissenters were appointed for the execution of this design, of which Mr. Chandler was one, and Mr. afterwards Dr. Lardner, who is so justly celebrated for his learned writings, was another. But after
B 2
4 ' LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
some time this lecture was dropped, and another of the same kind set up, to be preached by one person only ; it being judged that it might be thereby con- ducted with more consistency of reasoning, and uniformity, of design ; and Mr. Chandler was ap- pointed for this service. In the course of this lecture, he preached some sermons on the confirm- ation which miracles gave to the divine mission of Christ, and the truth of his religion ; and vindicated the argument against the objections of Collins, in his " Discourse of the grounds and reasons of the Christian Religion." These sermons, by the advice of a friend, he enlarged and threw into the form of a continued treatise, and published, in 8vo. in 1725, under the following title : " A Vindication of the Christian Religion, in two parts : I. A Discourse of the nature and use of miracles. II. An Answer to a late book, entitled, A Discourse of the grounds and reasons of the Christian Religion.,, Dr. Le- land observes, that in this work our author " clearly vindicates the miracles of our Saviour, and shews, that, as they were circumstanced, they were con- vincing proofs of his divine mission." But though Mr. Chandler refuted the arguments of Collins against Christianity, he was not unwilling to do jus- tice to his merit, and therefore candidly said,* in the preface to his own book, " The preface to the Dis- course of the grounds and reasons is, in my judg- ment, an excellent defence of the liberty of every one's judging for himself, and of proposing his opi- nions to others, and of defending them with the best reasons he can, which every one hath a right to, as a man and a Christian." Our author also
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER. ->
zealously opposed any interference of the civil ma- gistrate in the defence of Christianity : " Though the magistrate's sword," says he, " may very fitly be employed to prevent libertinism, or the breach of the public peace by men's vices, yet the progress of infidelity must be controuled another way, viz. by convincing men's consciences of the truth of Christianity, and fairly answering their objections against it. Is it not surprising, that men, who take their religion upon trust, and who therefore can know but little of the intrinsic worth of Christianity, or of that strong evidence that there is to support it, should be in pain for it, when they find it at- tacked by any new objections, or old ones placed in a somewhat different view from what they were be- fore ; or that they should call out aloud to the ma- gistrate to prevent the making them, because they know not how otherwise to answer them ? But that men of learning and great abilities, whose proper office it is to defend Christianity, by giving the rea- sons for their faith, and who seem to have both ability and leisure thus to stand up in the behalf of it, should make their appeal to the civil power, and become humble suitors to the magistrate to controul the spirit of infidelity, is strangely surprising. It looks as if they suspected the strength of Christianity ; otherwise, one would think they would not invite such strange and foreign aids to their assistance, when they could have more friendly ones nearer at home, that would much more effectually support and protect it ; or at least, as though they had some other interest to maintain than the cause of common Christianity j though at the same time they would
t) LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
willingly be thought to have nothing else in view, but the service and honour of it. If the scheme of our modern deists be founded in truth, I cannot help wishing it all good success ; and it would be a crime in the civil magistrate, by any methods of violence, to prevent the progress of it : but if, as I believe, Christianity is the cause of God, it will pre- vail by its own native excellence, and of conse- quence needs not the assistance of the civil power." A second edition of this work was published in 1728. Having presented a copy of it to Archbishop Wake, his grace expressed his sense of the value of the favour in the following letter, which is too ho- nourable a testimony to Mr. Chandler's merit to be omitted. It appears from the letter, that the Arch- bishop did not then know that the author was any other than a bookseller.
« Sir,
a Though I have been hindered by business, and company extraordinary, the last week, from finishing your good book, yet I am come so near the end of it, that I may venture to pass my judgment upon it, that it is a very good one, and such as I hope will be of service to the end for which you designed it.
" I think you have set the notion of a miracle upon a clear and sure foundation; and by the true distinction of our blessed Saviour, in considering him as a Prophet sent from God, and as the Messiah promised to the Jews, have effec- tually proved him, by his doctrine and miracles, to be the one, and by his accomplishment of the prophecies of the Old Testament to be the other.
" I cannot but own myself to be surprised, to see so much good learning and just reasoning in a person of your profes- sion ; and do think it a pity you should not rather spend your
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER. 7
time in writing books, than in selling them. But I am glad, since your circumstances oblige you to the latter, yet you do not wholly omit the former. As we are all, who call ourselves Christians, obliged to you for this performance, in defence of our holy religion, so I must, in particular, re- turn you my thanks for tTie benefit I have received by it ; and own to you that I have, as to myself, been not only usefully entertained, but edified by it. I hope you will re- ceive your reward from God for it. It is the hearty wish of, " Sir, your obliged friend,
" William Cant."
" Lambeth House, Feb. 14, 1725."
Besides gaining the archbishop's approbation, Mr. Chandler's performance considerably advanced his reputation in general, and contributed to his re- ceiving an invitation, about the year 1726, to settle as a minister with the congregation in the Old Jewry, which was one of the most respectable in London. Here he continued, first as assistant, and afterwards as pastor, for the space of forty years, and discharged the duties of the ministerial office with great assiduity and ability, being much esteem- ed and regarded by his own congregation, and acquiring a distinguished reputation both as a preacher and a writer.
In 1727, Mr. Chandler published " Reflections on the conduct of the modern deists, in their late writings against Christianity: occasioned chiefly by two books, entitled, A Discourse of the grounds and reasons, &c. and the Scheme of literal pro- phecy considered : with a preface, containing some Remarks on Dr. Rogers's preface to his eight ser- mons." In this performance he exposed the unfair methods that were employed by the enemies of
8 LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
Christianity in their attack of it, and the disinge- nuity of their reasoning ; and in his preface, he combated some sentiments which had been advanced by Dr. Rogers, canon residentiary of Wells, and chaplain to the Prince of Wales, to the prejudice of free inquiry, and the right of private judgment. Mr. Chandler, who considered what had been ad- vanced by Dr. Rogers, " in favour of church power and authority, as strongly savouring of the spirit of persecution, could not refrain from examining the Doctor's scheme, which was to blend religion and politics together, or to make religion not a per- sonal but a state matter. Accordingly he has offered some very spirited and judicious remarks on this subject, with a design to shew that religion, as it implies a belief of certain principles, and a peculiar method of worshipping God, said to be contained in revelation, is a purely personal matter ; and that every man ought to be persuaded in his own mind, of the nature of its proofs, and doctrines, and prin- ciples, and to dissent from the public establishment, if he finds it erroneous in any, or every, article of its belief; since no man is to be saved or damned hereafter, for the faith or practice of his superiors in church or state, and because neither nature nor revelation hath given them, nor can give them, a right or power to judge or believe for others*
In 1728, he published, " A Vindication of the antiquity and authority of Daniel's prophecies, and their application to Jesus Christ ; in answer to the objections of the author of the Scheme of literal prophecy considered." " Among other prophecies of the Old Testament, which the author of the
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER. 9
4 Literal Scheme' would not allow to have any literal reference to the Messiah, he reckoned those of Da- niel ; and to make out this the more clearly, he began with endeavouring to prove, that they are no prophecies at all ; that the book of Daniel was not written by the famous Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel ; and that it contains a manifest reference to, or rather, an history of, things done several hundred years after that Daniel's time. This attempt' to depre- ciate the authority and antiquity of a book, which our author esteemed a noble testimony to the truth of Christianity, induced him to try whether the * Literal Schematisms' criticisms were just, and his arguments conclusive; with which view he enters into a particular examination of the Eleven Objec- tions, wherein Mr. Collins had comprised what he had to urge against the book ; and, upon the whole, he concludes, that these objections are of no weight, and therefore do not deserve any regard from the thinking and impartial part of mankind. He then produces some distinct arguments to prove the proper antiquity of Daniel's book ; and having so far established its authority, he proceeds to the con- sideration of the several prophecies contained in it, in order to obviate the exceptions of Mr. Collins against the Christian interpretation of them, and at the same time to shew, that the explications wThich this writer would substitute in their stead, are founded on palpable mistakes, and consequently false ; all which he has executed with great learning and acuteness."
Mr. Chandler had a strong conviction of the pernicious nature, and dangerous tendency, of the
c
10
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
Romish religion, and was desirous of exposing the persecuting spirit by which that church has been so much characterised : and it was with this view that he published, in 1731, in two volumes, 4to., a translation of " The history of the inquisition, by Philip a Limborch:" to which he prefixed, " A large introduction, concerning the rise and progress of persecution, and the real and pretended causes of it." In this introduction Mr. Chandler says, " I wdll not deny, but that the appointing persons, whose peculiar office it should be to minister in the exter- nal services of public and social worship, is, when under proper regulations, of advantage to the de- cency and order of divine service. But then I think it of the most pernicious consequence to the liberties of mankind, and absolutely inconsistent with the true prosperity of a nation, as well as with the interest and success of rational religion, to suffer such ministers to become the directors-general of the consciences and faith of others, or publicly to assume, and exercise such, a power, as shall oblige others to submit to their determinations, without being convinced of their being wise and reasonable, and never to dispute their spiritual decrees. The very claim of such a power is the highest insolence, and an affront to the common sense and reason of mankind ; and wherever it is usurped and allowed, the most abject slavery both of soul and body is almost the unavoidable consequence. For by such a submission to spiritual power, the mind and con- science is actually enslaved; and by being thus rendered passive to the priest, men are naturally prepared for a servile subjection to the prince, and
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
11
for becoming slaves to the most arbitrary and tyran- nical government. And I believe it hath been generally found true by experience, that the same persons who have asserted their own power over others, in matters of religion and conscience, have also asserted the absolute power of the civil magis- trate, and been the avowed patrons of those admirable doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance for the subject. " At the close of this piece our author observes, that the use of the view which he had given of the rise and progress of persecution, was, " to teach men to adhere close to the doctrines and words of Christ and his apostles, to argue for the doctrines of the gospel with meekness and charity, to introduce no new terms of salvation and Christian communion, not to trouble the Christian church with metaphysical subtilties and abstruse questions, that minister to quarrelling and strife, not to pro- nounce censures, judgments, and anathemas, upon such as may differ from us in speculative truths, not to exclude men from the rights of civil society, nor lay them under any negative or positive discourage- ments for conscience sake, or for their different usages and rites in the externals of Christian wor- ship ; but to remove those which are already laid, and which are as much a scandal to the authors and continuers of them, as they are a burden to those who labour under them.'9 This piece was written with great learning cuteness, but was attacked
by Dr. Berriman, in a pamphlet, entitled, " Brief remarks on Mr. Chandler's introduction to the history of the inquisition." Our author published, in the form of a letter, an answer to these Remarks,
c 2
12 LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
in which he defended himself with great spirit. This engaged Dr. Berriman to write " A Review of his remarks ;" to which Mr. Chandler replied, in " A second letter to William Berriman, D. D. &c. in which his Review of his remarks on the intro- duction to the history of the inquisition is consi- dered, and the characters of St. Athanasius, and Martyr Laud, are farther stated and supported." This publication was soon followed by another, en- titled, " A Vindication of a passage of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, in his second pastoral letter, against the misrepresentations of William Berriman, D. D. in a letter to his lord- ship ;" and here the controversy ended. As our author had the firmest persuasion, that there was nothing in the principles of protestant dissenters which rendered them unfit to hold offices in the state, or in corporations, and that it was a manifest injustice to deprive them of the common rights of citizens, he likewise published, in 1732, in 8vo., " The dispute better adjusted about the proper time of applying for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, by shewing that some time is pro- per ; in a letter to the author of the Dispute adjusted, viz. the Right Reverend Dr. Edmund Gibson, Lord Bishop of London."
Among other learned and useful designs which Mr. Chandler had formed, he began a Commentary on the Prophets ; and in 1735, he published, in 4to., " A Paraphrase and critical commentary on the prophecy of Joel ;" which he dedicated to the Right Honourable Arthur Onslow, Esq. Speaker of the House of Commons. He afterwards proceeded a
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
13
great way in the prophecy of Isaiah ; but before he had completed it, he met with the MS. lexicon and lectures of the famous Arabic professor Schultens, who much recommends explaining the difficult words and phrases of the Hebrew language, by comparing them with the Arabic. With this light before him, Mr. Chandler determined to study the Hebrew anew, and to drop his commentary till he should thus have satisfied himself, that he had attained the genuine sense of the sacred writings. But this suspension of his design prevented the completion of it ; for engagements of a different kind intervened, and he never finished any other commentary on the pro- phets. He continued, however, to publish a variety of learned works, and displayed a very laudable zeal in support of religious liberty, and of the truth of divine revelation.
In 1736, he published, in 8vo., " The History of Persecution, in four parts; viz. I. Amongst the hea- thens. II. Under the Christian emperors. III. Un- der the papacy and inquisition. IV. Amongst protestants. With a preface, containing remarks on Dr. Rogers's Vindication of the civil establish- ment of religion."* In 1741, appeared, in 8vo., " A Vindication of the history of the Old Testa- ment , in answer to the misrepresentations and calumnies of Thomas Morgan, M. D. and Moral Philosopher." Dr. Leland observes, that in this work of our author he has clearly proved, that Morgan " hath been guilty of manifest falsehoods, and of the most gross perversions of the scripture history, even in those very instances in which he assures his reader he has kept close to the ac-
14 LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER,
counts given by the Hebrew historians." He like- wise published, in opposition to the same writer, in 1742, "A Defence of the prime ministry and cha- racter of Joseph."
In 1744, Mr. Chandler published, in 8vo., " The witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ re- examined, and their testimony proved entirely con- sistent." This was a very important controversy, which was at that time much agitated ; and Dr. Le- land, who stiles our author's piece upon the subject " a valuable treatise," observes, that, in his last chapter, " he hath summed up the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus with great clearness and judg- ment." In 1748, he published, in 8vo., " The case of subscription to explanatory articles of faith, as a qualification for admission into the christian ministry, calmly and impartially reviewed; in answer to, 1. A late pamphlet, entitled, The Church of England vindicated, in requiring sub- scription from the clergy to the Thirty-nine Articles. 2. The Rev. Mr. John White's Appendix to his third letter to a dissenting gentleman. To which is added, The speech of the Rev. John Alphonso Turretine, previous to the abolition of all subscrip- tion at Geneva, translated from a manuscript in the French." His writings having procured him a high reputation for learning and abilities, he. might easily have obtained a doctor's degree in divinity, and offers of that kind were made him ; but for some time he declined the acceptance of a diploma, and, as he once said, in the pleasantness of conversation, because so many blockheads had been made doctors. However, upon making a visit to Scotland, in com-
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER. 15
pany with his friend, the Earl of Finlater and Seafield, he, with great propriety, accepted of this honour, which was conferred upon him without soli- citation, and with every mark of respect, by the two universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. He had, likewise, the honour of being afterwards elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and of the Society of Antiquaries.
On the death of King George the Second, in 1760, Dr. Chandler published a sermon on that event, in which he compared that prince to King David. This gave rise to a pamphlet, which was printed in the year 1761, entitled, " The history of the man after God's own heart •," wherein the author ventured to exhibit King David as an exam- ple of perfidy, lust, and cruelty, fit only to be ranked with a Nero, or a Caligula ; and complained of the insult that had been offered to the memory of the late British monarch, by Dr. Chandler's parallel between him and the King of Israel. This attack occasioned Dr. Chandler to publish, in the following year, " A Review of the history of the man after God's own heart ; in which the falsehoods and misrepresentations of the historian are exposed and corrected." In this performance our author, though he could not defend the character of the Jewish prince from all the accusations that were brought against him, yet sufficiently cleared him from many of them. His learning and sagacity also appeared to great advantage in this piece; and his skill in the Hebrew language, and his extensive acquaintance with biblical learning, enabled him to correct a va- riety of mistakes into which his opponent had fallen,
16 LIFE OF DR. CHANDLEK.
from his taking many things as he found them in our common English translation, without paying any regard to criticisms, various readings of particular passages, or the opinions of expositors and commen- tators. It must, however, be confessed, that in this controversy Dr. Chandler expressed himself with too much warmth and asperity, which was indeed not unusual with him in his polemical writings. But this being a subject on which he was determined to enter into a full investigation, he prepared for the press a more elaborate work, which was after- wards published in two volumes, 8vo., under the following title : " A Critical history of the life of David : in which the principal events are ranged in order of time : the chief objections of Mr. Bayle, and others, against the character of this prince, and the scripture account of him, and the occur- rences of his reign, are examined and refuted ; and the psalms which refer to him explained." As this was the last, it was, likewise, one of the best of Dr. Chandler's productions. We may safely assert, that, in point of judgment, it is far superior to Dr. 'Delany's Life of King David, and that it is every way equal to it with respect to literature. The ex- planations of the psalms, which relate to the Jewish monarch, are admirable ; and the commentary, in particular, on the sixty-eighth psalm, is a master- piece of criticism. The greatest part of this work was printed off at the time of our author's death, which happened on the 8th of May, 1766, in his seventy-third year. During the last year of his life, he was visited with frequent returns of a very painful disorder, which he endured with great resignation
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER. 17
and Christian fortitude. He repeatedly declared, " that to secure the divine felicity promised by Christ, was the principal and almost the only thing that made life desirable : that to attain this he would gladly die, submitting himself entirely to God, as to the time and manner of death, whose will was most righteous and good ; and being persuaded, that all was well, which ended well for eternity." He was interred in the burying-ground at Bunhill-fields, on the 16th of the month, and his funeral was very honourably attended by ministers, and other gentle- men. He expressly desired by his last will, that no delineation of his character might be given in his funeral sermon, which was preached by Dr. Amory. In this sermon, Dr. Amory, after observing that he was restrained from delineating Dr. Chandler's cha- racter, by his desire expressed in his last will, says, " He had indeed himself made this unnecessary; as his masterly and animated defences of the great doctrines of natural and revealed religion, had abun- dantly manifested the uncommon greatness and strength of his genius, the large extent and rich variety of his learning, and the solid grounds on which his faith was founded: together with his hearty attachment to the cause of rational piety and Christian liberty, and his abilities for defending them. And after he had ministered for forty years in this place, with so great reputation, it might appear su- perfluous to inform any present, how full of exalted sentiments of the Deity, how judicious and how spirited his public prayers were, and how instructive and animating his discourses." He had several children ; two sons and a daughter who died before
D
18 tIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
him, and three daughters who survived him, and both married; one of them to the Rev. Dr. Harwood. Dr. Chandler was a man of very extensive learn- ing, and eminent abilities ; his apprehension was quick, and his judgment penetrating; he had a warm and vigorous imagination ; he was a very in- structive and animated preacher ; and his talents in the pulpit, and as a writer, procured him very great and general esteem, not only among the dissenters, but among large numbers of the established church. He was well known, and much respected by many persons of the highest rank, and was offered consi- derable preferment in the church ; Dr. Amory says, that " the high reputation which he had gained, by his defences of the Christian religion, procured him from some of the governors of the established church, the offers of considerable pre- ferment, which he nobly declined. He valued more than these the liberty and integrity of his conscience ; and scorned for any worldly consi- derations to profess as divine truths, doctrines which he did not really believe, and to practise in religion what he did not inwardly approve." But he steadily rejected every proposition of that kind. He was principally instrumental in the establish- ment of the fund for relieving the widows and orphans of poor protestant dissenting ministers : the plan of it was first formed by him ; and it was by his interest and application to his friends, that many of the subscriptions for its support were pro- cured.
In 1768, four volumes of our author's sermons were published by Dr. Amory, according to his
LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER. 19
own directions in his last will ; to which was pre- fixed a neat engraving of him, from an excellent portrait by Mr. Chamberlin. He also expressed a desire to have some of his principal pieces reprinted in four volumes, octavo : proposals were accord- ingly published for that purpose, but did not meet with sufficient encouragement. But in 1777, another work of our author was published, in one volume, 4to, under the following title : " A Para- phrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, with doctrinal and prac- tical observations : together with a critical and practical commentary on the two Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians." This work was pub- lished from the author's own manuscript, which was evidently intended for the press, by the Rev. Mr. Nathaniel White, who succeeded him as pastor of the congregation of protest ant dissenters in the Old Jewry. That gentleman observes, in the preface to this work, that " there seems to have been some- thing in Dr. Chandler's genius and strength of mind, as well as in the unremitted course of his studies, which eminently fitted him to comment upon the writings of St. Paul, and to follow that deep and accurate reasoner, through his continued chain of argument, so as to preserve the whole dis- tinct and clear ; though, from the peculiar vigour of the apostle's imagination, the fervour of his affection, the compass of his thought, and the un- common fulness of his matter, his epistles are re- markable for sudden digressions, long parentheses, remote connections, and unexpected returns to subjects already discussed. These, added to many
D 2
20 LIFE OF DR. CHANDLER.
other circumstances common to ancient writings, must necessarily occasion a considerable degree of obscurity and difficulty, which it is the business of the sacred expositor as much as possible to remove. In this view, the distinguishing excellence of Dr. Chandler's paraphrase seems to be, that the author adheres most closely and constantly to the spirit of the original, keeps the full idea of the inspired writer, and only that, as far as he could apprehend it, before him, and never steps aside to pick up any hints, however ornamented, which are not directly conveyed, or strongly implied by the apostle : so that, not merely in the text, but in the paraphrase, we find ourselves reading St. Paul himself, though in a language more accommodated to our own conception, and with an illustration which true learning, deep attention to the subject, and un- common critical sagacity enabled him to afford us."
" The notes will abundantly recommend the
work to the studious and judicious enquirer, who will find no difficulties artfully evaded, or slightly and superficially touched ; no unnecessary parade of reading, though many striking proofs of the most extensive and liberal erudition.'5 Dr. Chandler also left, in his interleaved Bible, a large number of critical notes, chiefly in Latin*
ACCOUNT OF DR. CHANDLER' S SISTER. 21
WE shall here add some particulars relative to Mrs. Mary Chandler, sister to Dr. Chandler. She was born at Malmsbury, in Wiltshire, in 1687, and was carefully trained up in the principles of religion and virtue. As her father's circumstances rendered it necessary that she should apply herself to some business, she was brought up to the trade of a milliner. But as she had a propensity to lite- rature, she employed her leisure hours in perusing the best modern writers, and as many as she could of the ancient ones, especially the poets, as far as the best translations could assist her. Among these Horace was her particular favourite, and she greatly regretted that she could not read him in the original. She was somewhat deformed in her person, in con- sequence of an accident in her childhood. This unfavourable circumstance she occasionally made a subject of her own pleasantry, and used to say, " that as her person would not recommend her, she must endeavour to cultivate her mind, to make herself agreeable." This she did with the greatest care, being an admirable ceconomist of her time : and it is said, that she had so many excellent qualities in her, that though her first appearance could create no prejudice in her favour, yet it was impossible to know her without valuing and esteeming her. She thought the disadvantage of her shape was such, as gave her no reasonable pros- pect of being happy in the married state, and there-
22 ACCOUNT* OF DR. CHANDLER'S SISTER.
fore chose to remain single. She had, however, an honourable offer from a worthy country gentleman, of considerable fortune, who, attracted merely by the goodness of her character, took a journey of an hundred miles to visit her at Bath, where she kept a milliner's shop, and where he paid her his addresses. But she declined his offers, and is said to have con- vinced him, that such a match could neither be for his happiness, nor her own. She published several poems, but that which she wrote upon Bath was the best received. It passed through several editions. She intended to have written a large poem upon the Wng and attributes of God, and did execute some parts of it, but did not live to finish it. It was irk- some to her to be so much confined to her business, and the bustle of Bath was sometimes disagreeable to her. She often languished for more leisure and soli- tude ; but the dictates of prudence, and a desire to be useful to her relations, whom she regarded with the warmest affection, brought her to submit to the fatigues of her business for thirty -five years. She did, however, sometimes enjoy occasional retirements to the country seats of some of her most respectable acquaintance ; and was then extremely delighted with the pleasures of solitude, and the contemplation of the works of nature. She was honoured with the esteem and regard of the Countess of Hertford, after- wards Duchess of Somerset, who -several times visited her. Mr. Pope also visited her at Bath, and complimented her for her poem on that place. The celebrated Mrs. Rowe was one of her particular friends. She had the misfortune of a very valetu- dinary constitution, which was supposed to be, in
ACCOUNT OF DR. CHANDLER'S SISTER. 23
some measure, owing to the irregularity of her form. By the advice of Dr. Cheyne, she entered into the vegetable diet, and adhered to it even to an ex- treme. She died on the 11th September, 1745, in the fifty-eighth year of her age, after about two days illness.
the e
HISTORY
OF
PERSECUTION.
THE
INTRODUCTION.
Religion is a matter of the highest importance to every man, and therefore there can be nothing which deserves a more impartial inquiry, or which should be examined into with a more disinterested freedom ; because as far as our acceptance with the Deity depends on the knowledge and practice of it, so far religion is, and must be, to us a purely personal thing ; in which therefore we ought to be deter- mined by nothing but the evidence of truth, and the rational convictions of our mind and conscience. Without such an examination and conviction, we shall be in danger of being; imposed on by crafty and designing men, who will not fail to make their gain of the ignorance and credulity of those they can deceive, nor scruple to recommend to them the worst principles and superstitions, if they find them con- ducive or necessary to support their pride, ambition and avarice. The history of almost all ages and nations is an abundant proof of this assertion.
God himself, who is the object of all religious worship, to whom we owe the most absolute subjection, and whose actions are all guided by the discerned reason and fitness of things, cannot, as I apprehend, consistent with his own most perfect wisdom, require of his reasonable creatures the explicit belief of, or actual assent to any proposition which they do not, or cannot either wholly or partly understand ; because it is requiring of them a real impossibility, no man being able to stretch his faith beyond his understanding, i. e. to see an object that was never present to his eyes, or to discern the agreement or disagreement of the difFerent parts of a proposition, the terms of which he hath ne\er
E 2
28 THE INTRODUCTION.
heard of, or cannot possibly understand. Neither can it be supposed that God can demand from us a method of wor- ship, of which we cannot discern some reason and fitness ; because it would be to demand from us worship without understanding and judgment, and without the concurrence of the heart and conscience, i. e. a kind of worship different from, and exclusive of that, which, in the nature of things, is the most excellent and best, viz. the exercise of those pure and rational affections, and that imitation of God by purity of heart, and the practice of the virtues of a good life, in which the power, substance, and efficacy of true religion doth consist. If therefore nothing can or ought to be believ- ed, but under the direction of the understanding, nor any scheme of religion and worship to be received but what appears reasonable in itself, and worthy of God ; the neces- sary consequence is, that every man is bound in interest and duty to make the best use he can of his reasonable powers, and to examine, without fear, all principles before he re- ceives them, and all rites and means of religion and worship before he submits to and complies with them. This is the common privilege of human nature, which no man ought ever to part with himself, and of which he cannot be deprived by others, without the greatest injustice and wickedness.
It will, I doubt not, appear evident beyond contradiction, to all who impartially consider the history of past ages and nations, that where and whenever men have been abridged, or wholly deprived of this liberty, or have neglected to make the due and proper use of it, or sacrificed their own private judgments to the public conscience, or complimented the licensed spiritual guides with the direction of them, ignorance and superstition have proportionably prevailed ; and that to these causes have been owing those great corruptions of religion, which have done so much dishonour to God, and, wherever they have prevailed, been destructive to the in- terests of true piety and virtue. So that instead of serving God with their reason and understanding, men have served their spiritual leaders without either, and have been so far
THE INTRODUCTION. 29
from rendering themselves acceptable to their Maker, that they have the more deeply, it is to be feared, incurred his displeasure ; because God cannot but dislike the " sacrifice of fools," and therefore of such who either neglect to improve the reasonable powers he hath given them, or part with them in compliance to the proud, ambitious, and ungodly claims of others ; which is one of the highest instances of folly that can possibly be mentioned.
I will not indeed deny, but that the appointing persons, whose peculiar office it should be to minister in the external services of public and social worship, is, when under proper regulations, of advantage to the decency and order of divine service. But then I think it of the most pernicious conse- quence to the liberties of mankind, and absolutely incon- sistent with the true prosperity of a nation, as well as with the interest and success of rational religion, to suffer such ministers to become the directors general of the consciences and faith of others ; or publicly to assume and exercise such a power, as shall oblige others to submit to their deter- minations, without being convinced of their being wise and reasonable, and never to dispute their spiritual decrees. The very claim of such a power is the highest insolence, and an affront to the common sense and reason of mankind ; and wherever it is usurped and allowed, the most abject slavery, both of soul and body, is almost the unavoidable conse- quence. For by such a submission to spiritual power, the mind and conscience is actually enslaved ; and, by being thus rendered passive to the priest, men are naturally pre- pared for a servile subjection to the prince, and for be- coming slaves to the most arbitrary and tyrannical govern- ment. And I believe it hath been generally found true by experience, that the same persons who have asserted their own power over others in matters of religion and conscience, have also asserted the absolute power of the civil magistrate, and been the avowed patrons of those admirable doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance for the subject. Our own nation is sufficiently witness to the truth of this.
It is therefore but too natural to suspect, that the secret
30 THE INTRODUCTION.
intention of all ghostly and spiritual directors and guides in decrying reason, the noblest gift of God, and without which even the Being of a God, and the method of our redemption by Jesus Christ, would be of no more significancy to us, than to the brutes that perish, is in reality the advancement of their own power and authority over the faith and con- sciences of others, to which sound reason is, and ever will be an enemy : for though I readily allow the great expediency and need of divine revelation to assist us in our inquiries into the nature of religion, and to give us a full view of the principles and practices of it ; yet a very small share of reason will suffice, if attended to, to let me know that my soul is my own, and that I ought not to put my conscience out to keeping to any person whatsoever, because no man can be an- swerable for it to the great God but myself; and that there- fore the claim of dominion, whoever makes it, either over mine or any other's conscience, is mere imposture and cheat, that hath nothing but impudence or folly to support it ; and as truly visionary and romantic as the imaginary power of per- sons disordered in their senses, and which would be of no more significancy, and influence amongst mankind than theirs, did not either the views of ambitious men, or the superstition and foil)' of bigots encourage and support it.
On these accounts, it is highly incumbent on all nations, who enjoy the blessings of a limited government, who would preserve their constitution, and transmit it safe to posterity, to be jealous of every claim of spiritual power, and not to enlarge the authority and jurisdiction of spiritual men, beyond the bounds of reason and revelation. Let them have the freest indulgence to do good, and spread the knowledge and practice of true religion, and promote peace and good will amongst mankind. Let them be applauded and encouraged, and even rewarded, when they are patterns of virtue, and ex-» amples of real piety to their flocks. Such powers as these, God and man would readily allow them ; and as to any other, I ap- prehend they have little right to them, and am sure they have seldom made a wise or rational use of them. On the contrary, numberless have been the confusions and mischiefs intro-
THE INTRODUCTION 31
duced into the world, and occasioned by the usurpers of spiritual authority. In the Christian church they have ever used it with insolence, and generally abused it to oppression, and the worst of cruelties. And though the history of such transactions can never be a very pleasing and grateful task, yet, I think, on many accounts, it may be useful and instruc- tive ; especially as it may tend to give men an abhorrence of all the methods of persecution, and put them upon their guard against all those ungodly pretensions, by which per- secution hath been introduced and supported.
But how much soever the persecuting spirit hath pre- vailed amongst those who have called themselves Christians, yet certainly it is a great mistake to confine it wholly to them. We have instances of persons, who were left to the light of nature and reason, and never suspected of being perverted by any revelation, murdering and destroying each other on the account of religion ; and of some judicially con- demned to death for differing from the orthodox, i. c. the established idolatry of their country. And I doubt not, but that if we had as full and particular an account of the trans- actions of the different religious sects and parties amongst the Heathens, as we have of those amongst Christians, we should find a great many more instances of this kind, than it is easy or possible now to produce. However, there are some very remarkable ones, which I shall not wholly omit.
THE
HISTORY OF PERSECUTION*
BOOK I.
OF PERSECUTION AMONGST THE HEATHENS UPON ACCOUNT OF RELIGION.
SECT. I.
Abraham persecuted.
Ihere is a passage in the book of Judith1 which intimates to us, that the ancestors of the Jews themselves were perse- cuted upon account of their religion. Achior, captain of the sons of Ammon, gives Holofernes this account of the origin of that nation. " This people are descended of the Chaldeans ; and they sojourned heretofore in Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, which were in the land of Chaldea ; for they left the way of their ancestors, and worshipped the God of heaven, the God whom they knew. So they cast them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia, and sojourned there many days." St. Austin* and Marsham*
(1) Cap. 5. v. €, &c. (3) March. Cron. § 5.
(2) De civit. Dei, 1. 16. c. IS.
34 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
both take notice of this tradition ; which is farther con- firmed by all the oriental historians, who, as the learned Dr. Hyde1 tells us, unanimously affirm, that Abraham suf- fered many persecutions upon the account of his opposition to the idolatry of his country ; and that he was particularly imprisoned for it by Nimrod in Ur. Some of the eastern writers also tell us, that he was thrown into the fire, but that lie was miraculously preserved from being- consumed in it by God. This tradition also the Jews believed, and is particularly mentioned by Jonathan3 in his Targum upon Gen. xi. 28. " Nimrod threw Abraham into a furnace of lire, because he would not worship his idol ; but the lire had no power to burn him." So early doth persecution seem to have begun against the worshippers of the true God.
SECT. II.
Socrates persecuted amongst the Greeks, and others.
*Socrates,3 who, in the judgment of an oracle, was the wisest man living, was persecuted by the Athenians 'on the account of his religion, and, when past seventy years of age, brought to a public trial, and condemned. His accusation was principally this : " That he did unrighteously and curiously search into the great mysteries of heaven and earth ; that he corrupted the youth, and did not esteem the gods worshipped by the city to be really gods, and that he introduced new deities." This last part of his accusation was undoubtedly owing to his inculcating upon them more
* See note [A] at the end of the volume.
(1) De Relig. Pers. c. 2.
(2) Hotting. Sraeg. Orient, p. 290, &c.
(s) Plat, in Apolog. pro Socrate. Diog. Laert. in vit. Soc,
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 35
rational and excellent conceptions of the Deity, than were allowed by the established creeds of his country, and to his arguing against the corruptions and superstitions which he saw universally practised by the Greeks. This was called corrupting the youth who were his scholars, and what, together with his superior wisdom, raised him many enemies amongst all sorts of people, who loaded him with reproaches, and spread reports concerning him greatly to his disadvan- tage, endeavouring thereby to prejudice the minds of his very judges against him. When he was brought to his trial, several of his accusers were never so much as named or discovered to him; so that, as he himself complained, he was, as it were, fighting with a shadow, when he was defending himself against his adversaries, because he knew not whom he opposed, and had no one to answer him. However, he maintained his own innocence with the noblest resolution and courage ; shewed he was far from corrupting the youth, and openly declared that he believed the Being of a God. And, as the proof of this his belief, he bravely said to his judges ; " that though he was very sensible of his danger from the hatred and malice of the people, yet that, as he apprehended, God himself had appointed him to teach his philosophy, so he should grievously offend him should he forsake his station through fear of death, or any other evil ; and that for such a disobedience to the Deity, they might more justly accuse him, as not believing- there were any gods :" adding, as though he had somewhat of the same blessed spirit that afterwards rested on the apostles of Christ, " that if they would dismiss him upon the condition of not teaching his philosophy any more, 6 I will obey God rather than you, and teach my philosophy as long as I live'." However, notwithstanding the goodness of his cause and defence, he was condemned for impiety and atheism, and ended his life with a draught of poison, dying a real martyr for God, and the purity of his worship. Thus we see that in the ages of natural reason and light, not to be orthodox, or to differ from the established religion, was the same thing
f2
36 THE HISTORY C-F PERSECUTION.
as to be impious and atheistical ; and that one of the wisest and best men that ever lived in the heathen world was put to death merely on account of his religion. The Athenians, indeed, afterwards repented of what they had done, and condemned one of his accusers, Melitus, to death, and the others to banishment.
I must add, in justice to the laity, that the judges and accusers of Socrates were not priests. Melitus was a poet, Anytus an artificer, and Lycon an orator ; so that the pro- secution was truly laic, and the priests do not appear to have had any share in his accusation, condemnation, and death. Nor, indeed, was there any need of the assistance of priestcraft in this affair, the prosecution of this excellent man being- perfectly agreeable to the constitution and maxims of the Athenian government ; which had, to use the words of a late reverend author,1 " incorporated or made religion a part of the laws of the civil community." One of the Attic laws was to this effect : " Let it be a perpetual law, and binding at all times, to worship our national gods and heroes publicly, according to the laws of our ancestors." So that no new gods, nor new doctrines about old gods, nor any new rites of worship, could be introduced by any person whatso- ever, without incurring the penalty of this law, which was death. Thus Josephus tells us,z that it was prohibited by law to teach new gods, and that the punishment ordained against those who should introduce any such, was death. Agreeably to this, the orator Isocrates,3 pleading in the grand council of Athens, puts them in mind of the custom and practice of their ancestors : u This was their principal care to abolish nothing they had received from their fathers in matters of religion, nor to make any addition to what they had established." And therefore, in his advice to Nicocles, he exhorts him to be " of the same religion with his ancestors."
(1) Dr. Rogers's Vindication of the Civil Establishment, &c.
(2) Cont. Apion. 1. 2. c. 37. Edit. Haverc.
(3) Isoc. Areop.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 37
So that the civil establishment of religion in Athens was entirely exclusive, and no toleration whatsoever allowed to those who differed from it. On this account, the philoso- phers1 in general were, by a public decree, banished from Athens, as teaching heterodox opinions, and " corrupting the youth" in matters of religion ; and, by a law, very much resembling the famous modern Schism Bill, prohibited from being masters and teachers of schools, without leave of the senate and people, even under pain of death. This law, indeed, like the other, was but very short-lived, and Sopho- cles, the author of it, punished in a fine of five talents. Lysimachus* also banished them from his kingdom. It is evident from these things, that, according to the Athenian constitution, Socrates was legally condemned for not believ- ing in the gods of his country, and presuming to have better notions of the Deity than his superiors. In like manner, a certain woman,3 a priestess, was put to death, upon an accusation of her introducing new deities.
Diogenes Laertius4 tells us, that Anaxagoras, the philoso- pher, was accused of impiety, because he affirmed, that " the sun was a globe of red-hot iron ;" which was certainly great heresy, because his country worshipped him as a god. Stilpos was also banished his country, as the same writer tells us, because he denied "Minerva to be a god, allowing her only to be a goddess." A very deep and curious controversy this, and worthy the cognizance of the civil magistrate. Diagoras6 was also condemned to death, and a talent de- creed to him that should kill him upon his escape, being ac- cused of " deriding the mysteries of the gods." Protagoras also would have suffered death, had he not fled his country, because he had written something about the gods, that differed from the orthodox opinions of the Athenians. Upon
(1) Athen. p. 610. Edit. Casaub. (4) In vit. Anax. Diog. Laert. I. 5. Segm. 38. (5) 1. 5. c. 38.
(2) Athen. p. 610., ' (6) Joseph, ibid. Athen. p. 611.
(3) Jos. ibid.
38 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
the same account, Theodorus, called Athens, and Theoti- mus,1 who wrote against Epicurus, being accused by Zeno, an Epicurean, were both put to death.
The Lacedemonians2 constantly expelled foreigners, and would not suffer their own citizens to dwell in foreign parts, because they imagined that both the one and the other tended to corrupt and weaken their own laws ; nor would they suffer the teaching of rhetoric or philosophy, because of the quarrels and disputes that attended it. The Scythians, who delighted in human blood, and were, as Josephus says,* little different from beasts, yet were zealously tenacious of their own rites, and put Anacharsis, a very wise person, to death, because he seemed to be very fond of the Grecian rites and ceremonies. *Herodotus4 says, that he was shot through the heart with an arrow, by Saulius their king, for sacrificing to the mother of the gods after the manner of the Grecians ; and that Scyles, another of their kings, was deposed by them, for sacrificing to Bacchus, and using the Grecian ceremonies of religion, and his head afterwards cut off by Octamasades, who was chosen king in his room. "So rigid were they," says the historian,5 " in maintaining their own customs, and so severe in punishing the introducers of foreign rites." Many also amongst the Persians6 were put to death, on the same account. And, indeed, it was almost the practice of all nations to punish those who disbelieved or derided their national gods ; as appears from Timocles, who, speaking of the gods of the Egyptians,7 says, " How shall the ibis, or the dog, preserve me ?" And then adds, " Where is the place that doth not immediately punish those who behave impiously towards the gods, such as are con- fessed to be gods ?"
* See note [B] at the end of the volume. - (l) Athen. ibid. (5) Id. p. 248.
(2) Joseph, ibid. § 36. Athen. ibid. (6) Joseph, ibid.. (8) Joseph. § 37. (7) Athen. p. 300.,
(4) Herodot. Melpom. p. 246. Edit. Gronov.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 39
SECT. III.
Egyptian persecutions.
Juvenal1 gives us a very tragical account of some dis- putes and quarrels about religion amongst the Egyptians, who entertained an eternal hatred and enmity against each other, and eat and devoured one another, because they did not all worship the same god.
"aOmbos and Tentyr, neighbouring towns, of late, Broke into outrage of deep fester'd hate. Religious spite and pious spleen bred first This quarrel, winch so long the bigots nurst. Each calls the other's god a senseless stock, His own, divine, tho* from the self-same block. At first both parties in reproaches jar, And make their tongues the trumpets of the war. Words serve but to inflame the warlike lists, Who wanting weapons clutch their horny fists. Yet thus make shift t* exchange such furious blows, Scarce one escapes with more than half a nose. Some stand their ground with half their visage gone, But with the remnant of a face fight on. Such transformed spectacles of horror grow, That not a mother her own son would know, One eye remaining for the other spies, Which now on earth a trampled gelly lies.'*
All this religious zeal hitherto is but mere sport and childish play, and therefore they piously proceed to farther violences ; to hurling of stones, and throwing of arrows, till
(1) Satyr. 15. See also Joseph, cont. Ap. 1. 2. § 6.
(2) Englished by Mr. Dry den, &c.
40 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION,
one party routs the other, and the conquerors feast them- selves on the mangled bodies of their divided captives.
c* Yet hitherto both parties think the fray- But mockery of war, mere children's play.
This whets their rage, to search for stones
An Ombite wretch (by headlong strait betray'd, And falling down i'th' rout) is prisoner made. Whose flesh torn off by lumps the ravenous foe In morsels cut, to make it farther go. His bones clean pick'd, his very bones they gnaw ; No stomach's balk'd, because the corps is raw. T* had been lost time to dress him : keen desire Supplies the want of kettle, spit, and fire."
Plutarch1 also relates, that in his time some of the Egyp- tians who worshipped a dog, eat one of the fishes, which others of the Egyptians adored as their deity ; and that upon this, the fish eaters laid hold on the other Ts dogs, and sacrificed and eat them ; and that this gave occasion to a bloody battle, in which a great number were destroyed on both sides.
SECT. IV.
Persecutions by Antiochus Ephiphanes.
Antiochus Epiphanes, though a very wicked prince, yet was a great zealot for his religion, and endeavoured to propagate it by all the methods of the most bloody persecu- tion. Josephus* tells us, that after he had taken Jerusalem,
(1) De Isid. et Osir. p. 380. Edit. Franc.
(2) Antiq. Jud. 1. 12. c. 5,
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION: 41
and plundered the temple, he caused an altar to be built in it, upon which he sacrificed swine, which were an abomina- tion to the Jews, and forbidden by their laws. Not content with this, he compelled them to forsake the worship of the true God, and to worship such as he accounted deities ; building altars and temples to them in all the towns and streets, and offering swine upon them every day. He com- manded them to forbear circumcising- their children, griev- ously threatening such as should disobey his orders. He also appointed overseers, or bishops, to compel the Jews to come in, and do as he had ordered them. Such as rejected it, were continually persecuted, and put to death, with the most grievous tortures. He ordered them to be cruelly scourged, and their bodies to be tore, and, before they expired under their tortures, to be crucified. The women, and the children which they circumcised, were, by his com- mand, hanged ; the children hanging from the necks of their crucified parents. Wherever he found any of the sacred books, or of the law, he destroyed them, undoubtedly to prevent the propagation of heretical opinions, and punished with death such as kept them. The same author tells us also, in his History of the Maccabees, that Antiochus put forth an edict, whereby he made it death for any to observe the Jewish religion, and compelled them, by tortures, to abjure it. The inhuman barbarities he exercised upon Eleazar and the Maccabees, because they wrould not re- nounce their religion, and sacrifice to his Grecian gods, are not, in some circumstances, to be paralleled by any histories of persecution extant ; and will ever render the name and memory of that illustrious tyrant execrable and infamous. It was on the same religious account that he banished the philosophers1 from all parts of his kingdom ; the charge against them being, u their corrupting the youth," i. e. teach- ing them notions of the gods, different from the common
(l) Athen. 1. 12. c. 12.
42 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
orthodox opinions which were established by law ; and com- manded Phanias, that such youths as conversed with them should be hanged.
SECT. V.
Persecutions under the Romans,
The very civil constitution of Rome was founded upon persecuting* principles. ^Tertullian1 tells us, " that it was an ancient decree that no emperor should consecrate a new god, unless he was approved by the senate ;•" and one of the standing* laws of the republic was to this effect, as Cicero 2 gives it : u that no one should have separately new gods, no nor worship privately foreign gods, unless admitted by the commonwealth." This law he endeavours to vindi- cate by reason and the light of nature, by adding,3 "that for persons to worship their own, or new, or foreign gods, would be to introduce confusion and strange ceremonies in religion." So true a friend was this eminent Roman, and great master of reason, to uniformity of worship ; and so little did he see the equity, and indeed necessity of an uni- versal toleration in matters of religion. Upon this princi- ple, after he had reasoned well against the false notions of God that had obtained amongst his countrymen, and the public superstitions of religion, he concludes with what was enough to destroy the force of all his arguments :4 " It is the part of a wise man to defend the customs of his ancestors, by retaining their sacred rites and ceremonies." Thus narrow was the foundation of the Roman religion, and thus incon-
* See note [C] at the end of the volume.
(1) Apol. c. 2. (s) De Leg. 1. 2. c. 10.
(2) De Leg. 1. 2. (4) De Divin. 1. 2. fin.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 4tf
.sistent the sentiments of the wisest heathens with all the principles of toleration and universal liberty.
And agreeable to this settlement they constantly acted. A remarkable instance of which w c have in Livy, the Roman historian ; he teils ns,1 " that such a foreign religion spread itself over the city, that either men or the gods seemed entirely changed ; that the Roman rites were not only for- saken in private, and within the houses, but that even pub- licly, in the forum and capitol, great numbers of women flocked together, who neither sacrificed nor prayed to the
gods, according to the manner of their ancestors. This
first excited the private indignation of good men, till at length it reached the fathers, and became a public com- plaint. The senate greatly blamed the iEdiles and capital Triumvirs, that they did not prohibit them ; and when they endeavoured to drive away the multitude from the forum, and to throw down the things they had provided for per- forming their sacred rites, they were like to be torn in pieces. And when the evil grew too great to be cured by inferior magistrates, the senate ordered M. Atilius, the praetor of the city, to prevent the people's using these reli- gions." He accordingly published this decree of the senate, that u whoever had any fortune -telling books, or prayers, or ceremonies about sacrifices written down, they should bring all such books and writings to him, before the calends of April ; and that no one should use any new or foreign rite of sacrificing in any public or sacred place."
Mecenas,* in his Advice to Augustus, says to him: "Per- form divine worship in all things exactly according to the custom of your ancestors, and compel others to do so also ; and as to those who make any innovations in religion, hate and punish them; and that not only for the sake of the gods, but because those who introduce new deities, excite others to make changes in civil affairs. Hence conspiracies, sedi-
(i) Lib. 25 c. l (2) Apud Dion. Cassiiim, 1. 52,
G 2
44 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
tions, and riots, things very dangerous to government." Accordingly Suetonius, in his life of this prince,1 gives hinv this character: " that though he religiously observed the ancient prescribed ceremonies, yet he contemned all other foreign ones ; and commended Caius, for that passing by Judea, he would not pay his devotions at Jerusalem." He also, as the same author tells us,z made a law, \ery much resembling our test act, by which he commanded, u that before any of the senators should take their places in council, they should offer frankincense and wine upon the altar of that god in whose temple they met." It was no wonder therefore that Christianity, which was so perfectly contrary to the whole system of pagan theology, should be looked upon with an evil eye ; or that when the number of Christians increased, they should incur the displeasure of the civil magistrate, and the censure of the penal laws that were in force against them.
The first public persecution of them by the Romans was begun by that monster of mankind, Nero ; who to clear him- self of the charge of burning Rome, endeavoured to fix the crime on the Christians ; and having thus falsely and tyran- nically made them guilty, he put them to death by various methods of exquisite cruelty. But though this was the pretence for this barbarity towards them, yet it evidently appears from undoubted testimonies, that they were before hated upon account of their religion, and were therefore fitter objects to fall a sacrifice to the resentment and fury of the tyrant. For *Tacitus tells us,3 " that they were hated for their crimes." And what these were, he elsewhere suffi- ciently informs us, by calling their religion u an execrable superstition." In like manner Suetonius, in his life of Nero, speaking of the Christians, says, " they were a set of men who had embraced a new and accursed superstition." And
* See note [D] at the end of the volume.
(1) Vit. Aug. c. 93. (3) Annal. 1. 1 5. c. 44. Ibid. cap. 16.
(2) Ibid, c. 85.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 45
therefore Tacitus farther informs us,1 that those who confes- sed themselves Christians, " were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their being hated by all mankind." So that it is evident from these accounts, that it was through popular hatred of them for their religion, that they were thus sacrificed to the malice and fury of Nero. Many of them he dressed up in the skins of wild beasts, that they might be devoured by dogs. Others he crucified. Some he cloathed in garments of pitch and burnt them, that by their flames he might supply the absence of the day-light.
The persecution begun by Nero was revived, and carried on by Domitian, who put some to death, and banished others upon account of their religion. Eusebius mentions Flavia Domitilla,2 neice to Flavius Clemens, then consul, as banished for this reason to the island Pontia. Dion the liistorian's account of this affair is somewhat different. He tell us,3 "ihat Fabius Clemens, the consul, Domitian's cousin, who had married Flavia Domitilla, a near relation of Domi- tian, was put to death by him, and Domitilla banished to Pandataria, being both accused of atheism ; and that on the same account many who had embraced the Jewish rites were likewise condemned, some of whom were put to death, and others had their estates confiscated." I think this account can belong to no other but the Christians, whom Dion seems to have confounded with the Jews ; a mistake into which he and others might naturally fall, because the first Christians were Jews, and came from the land of Judea. The crime, with which these persons were charged, was atheism ; the crime commonly imputed to Christians, be- cause they refused to worship the Roman deities. And as there are no proofs, that Domitian ever persecuted the Jews upon account of their religion, nor any intimation of this nature in Josephus, who finished his Antiquities towards the latter end of Domitian's reign ; I think the account of
(l) Annal. 1. 15. c. 44. (3) 1. 67, 111 Domit.
(2)E. H.l. 3. c. 17,18.
46 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
Eusebius, which he declares he took from writers, who were far from being friends to Christianity, is preferable to that of Dion's; and that therefore these persecutions by Domi- tian were upon account of Christianity. However,' they did not last long ; for as Eusebius tells us,* he put p. stop to them hj an edict in their favour. Tertullian* also affirms the same ; and adds, that he recalled those whom he had banished. So that though this is reckoned by ecclesiastical writers as the second persecution, it doth not appear to have been general, or very severe. Domitian3 also ex- pelled all the philosophers from Rome and Italy.
Under Trajan, otherwise a most excellent prince, began the third persecution, in the 14th year of his reign. In answer to a letter of Pliny, he ordered : " that the Chris- tians should not be sought after, but that if they were accused and convicted of being Christians they should be punished ; such only excepted as should deny themselves to be Christians, and give an evident proof of it by wor- shipping his gods." These were to receive pardon upon this their repentance, how much soever they might have been suspected before. From this imperial rescript it is abundantly evident, that this persecution of the Christians by Trajan was purely on the score of their religion, because he orders, that whosoever was accused and convicted of being a Christian should be punished with death, unless he renounced his profession, and sacrificed to the gods. All that was required, says Tertullian,4 was <* merely to confess the name, without any cognizance being taken of any crime." Pliny himself, in his letter to the emperor, ac- quits them of every thing of this nature, and tells him, " that all they acknowledged was, that their whole crime or error consisted in this, that at stated times they were used to meet before day-light, and to sing an hymn to Christ as God ; and that they bound themselves by an
(1) E. H. I. 3. c. 20. (3) Suet, in vit. Domit. c. 10.
(2) Apol, c. 5. (4) Apol. c. 2.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 47
oath not to commit any wickedness, such as thefts, rob- beries, adulteries, and the like." And to be assured of the truth of this, he put two maids to the torture, and after examining- them, found them guilty of nothing- but "a wicked and unreasonable superstition." This is the noblest vindi- cation of the purity and innocency of the Christian assemblies, and abundantly justifies the account of Eusebius,1 from Hegesippus : " that the church continued until these times as a virgin pure and uncorrupted ;" and proves beyond all contradiction, that the persecution raised against them was purely on a religious account, and not for any immoralities and crimes against the laws, that could be proved against the Christians ; though their enemies slandered them with the vilest, and hereby endeavoured to render them hateful to the whole world. "Why," says Tertullian,2 " doth a Christian suffer, but for being of their number ? Hath any- one proved incest, or cruelty upon us, during this long space of time ? No ; it is for our innocence, probity, justice, chastity, faith, veracity, and for the living God that we are burnt alive." Pliny was forced to acquit them from every- thing but " an unreasonable superstition," L e. their resolute adherence to the faith of Christ. And yet, though innocent in all other respects, when they were brought before his tribunal, he treated them in this unrighteous manner : he only asked them, whether they were Christians ? If they con- fessed it, he asked them the same question again and again, adding threatenings to his questions. If they persevered in their confession, he condemned them to death, because what- ever their confession might be, he was very sure, " that their stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy deserved punish- ment." So that without being convicted of any crime, but that of constancy in their religion, this equitable heathen, this rational philosopher, this righteous judge, condemns them to a cruel death. And for this conduct the emperor, his master, commends him. For "in answer to Pliny's ques-
(l) E. H. 1. 3. c. 32. (2) Ad Scapul.
48 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION
tion, " Whether he should go on to punish the name itself,, though chargeable with no crimes, or the crimes only which attended the name ?" Trajan in his rescript, after commend- ing Pliny, orders, a that if they were accused and convicted of being Christians, they should be put to death, unless they renounced that name, and sacrificed to his gods." Tertuliian and Athenagoras, in their Apologies, very justly inveigh with great warmth against this imperial rescript ; and indeed, a more shameful piece of iniquity was never practised in the darkest times of popery. I hope also my reader will observe, that this was lay-persecution, and owed its rise to the religious zeal of one of the best of the Roman emperors, and not only to the contrivances of cruel and designing priests ; that it was justified and carried on by a very famous and learned philosopher, whose reason taught him, that what he accounted superstition, if incurable, was to be punished with death ; and that it was managed with great fury and barbarity, multitudes of persons in the several provinces being destroyed merely on account of the Chris- tian name, by various and exquisite methods of cruelty.
The rescript of Adrian, his successor, to Minutius Funda- nus, pro-consul of Asia, seems to have somewhat abated the fury of this persecution, though not wholly to have put an end to it. Tertuliian tells us1 that Arrius Antoninus, after- wards emperor, then pro-consul of Asia, when the Christians came in a body before his tribunal, ordered some of them to be put to death ; and said to others : " You wretches ! If you will die, ye have precipices and halters." He also says, that several other governors of provinces punished some few Christians, and dismissed the rest ; so that the perse- cution was not so general, nor severe as under Trajan.
Under Antoninus Pius the Christians were very cruelly treated in some of the provinces of Asia, which occasioned Justin Martyr to write his first Apology. It doth not, how- ever, appear to have been done, either by the order or
(l) Ad Scap.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 4J)
consent of this emperor. On the contrary, he wrote letters to the cities of Asia, and particularly to those of Larissa, Thessalonica, Athens, and all the Greeks, that they should create no new troubles to them. It is probable, that the Asiatic cities persecuted them by virtue of some former imperial edicts, which do not appear ever to have been recalled j and, perhaps, with the connivance of Antoninus Philosophus, the colleague and successor of Pius in the empire.
Under him began, as it is generally accounted, the fourth persecution, upon which Justin Martyr wrote his second Apology, Meiiton his, and Athenagoras his Legation or Embassy -for the Christians. Meiiton, as Eusebius relates it,1 complains of it as " an almost unheard of thing, that pious men were now persecuted, and greatly distressed by new decrees throughout Asia ; that most impudent in- formers, who were greedy of other persons' substance, took occasion from the imperial edicts, to plunder others who were entirely innocent." After this he humbly beseeches the emperor, that he would not suffer the Christians to be any longer used in so cruel and unrighteous a manner. *Jtistin Martyr,2 in the account he gives of the martyrdom of Ptolemaeus, assures us, that the only question asked him was, " whether he was a Christian ?" And upon his con- fession that he was, he was immediately ordered to the slaughter. Lucius was also put to death for making the same confession, and asking Urbicus the prefect, why he condemned Ptolemy, who was neither convicted of adultery, rape, murder, theft, robbery, nor of any other crime, but only for owning himself to be a Christian. From these accounts it is abundantly evident, that it was still the very name of a Christian that was made capital ; and that these cruelties were committed by an emperor who was a great master of reason and philosophy ; not as punishments upon
* See note [Ej at the end of the volume. t
(1) E. H. 1. 4. e. 2$. (2) Apol 2**- c, 42. Edit. Thirlb.
H
50 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
offenders against the laws and public peace, but purely for the sake of religion and conscience ; committed, to main- tain and propagate idolatry, which is contrary to all the principles of reason and philosophy, and upon persons of great integrity and virtue in heart and life, for their adhe- rence to the worship of one God, which is the foundation of all true religion, and one of the plainest and most im- portant articles of it. The tortures which the persecutors of the Christians applied, and the cruelties they exercised on them, enough, one would think, to have overcome the firmest human resolution and patience, could never extort from them a confession of that guilt their enemies would gladly have fixed on them. And yet innocent as they were in all respects, they were treated with the utmost indignity, and destroyed by such inventions of cruelty, as were abhor- rent to all the principles of humanity and goodness. They were, indeed, accused of atheism, i* e. for not believing in, and worshipping the fictitious gods of the heathens. This was the cry of the multitude against *Polycarp :x " This is the doctor of Asia, the father of the Christians, the sub- verter of our gods, who teaches many that they must not perform the sacred rites, nor worship our deities." This was the reason of the tumultuous cry against him, a away with these atheists." But would not one have imagined that reason and philosophy should have informed the em- peror, that this kind of atheism was a real virtue, and deserved to be encouraged and propagated amongst man- kind ? No : reason and philosophy here failed him, and his blind attachment to his country's gods caused him to shed much innocent blood, and to become the destroyer of " the saints of the living God."2 At last, indeed, the emperor seems to have been sensible of the great injustice of this persecution, and by an edict ordered they should be no longer punished for being Christians.
* See note [F] at the end of the volume, (l) Euseb. E. H. 1. 4.-c. 15. (2) Id. I 4. c. IS.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 51
I i hail not trouble my reader with an account of this persecution as carried on by Severus, Decius, Gallus, Valerianus, Dioclesian, and others of the Roman emperors ; but only observe in general, that the most excessive an 1 outrageous barbarities were made use of upon all who would not blaspheme Christ, and offer incense to the im- perial gods : they were publicly whipped : drawn by the heels through the streets of cities ; racked till every bone of their bodies was disjointed ; had their teeth beat out ; their noses, hands and ears cut off; sharp pointed spears ran under their nails ; were tortured with melted lead thrown on their naked bodies ; had their eyes dug out ; their limbs cut off; were condemned to the mines ; ground between stones ; stoned to death ; burnt alive ; thrown headlong from high buildings ; beheaded ; smothered in burning lime-kilns ; ran through the body with sharp spears ; destroyed with hunger, thirst, and cold ; thrown to the wild beasts ; broiled on gridirons with slow fires ; cast by heaps into the sea ; crucified ; scraped to death with sharp shells ; torn in pieces by the boughs of trees ; and, in a word, destroyed by all the various methods that the most diabolical subtlety and malice could devise.
It must indeed be confessed, that under the latter em- perors who persecuted the Christians, the simplicity and purity of the Christian religion were greatly corrupted, and that ambition, pride and luxury, had too generally pre- vailed both amongst the pastors and people. *Cyprian, who lived under the Decian persecution, writing concerning it to the presbyters and deacons,1 says : " It must be owned and confessed, that this outrageous and heavy calamity, which hath almost devoured our flock, and continues to devour it to this day, hath happened to us because of our sins, since we keep not the way of the Lord, nor observe his heavenly commands given to us for our salvation. Though
* See note [G] at the end of the volume.
(1) Epist. xi. Ed. Fell.
H 2
52 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION
our Lord did the will of his Father, yet we do not the will of the Lord. Our principal study is to get money and estates ; we follow after pride : we are at leisure for no- thing but emulation and quarrelling ; and have neglected the simplicity of the faith. We have renounced this world in words only, and not in deed. Every one studies to please himself, and to displease others.'' After Cyprian, Eusebius the historian gives a sad account of the de- generacy of Christians, about the time of the Dioclesian persecution : he tells us,1 u That through too much liberty they grew negligent and slothful, envying and reproaching one another ; waging, as it were, crvil wars between them- selves, bishops quarrelling with bishop, and the people divided into parties :" that hypocr leeeit were grown
to the highest pitch of wickedness ; that they were become so insensible, as not so much as to think of appeasing the divine anger, but that, like atheists, they thought the world destitute of any providential government and care, and added one crime to another : that the bi had thrown off all care of religion, were perpetually con- tending with one another, and did nothing but quarrel with, and threaten, and envy, and hate one another : were full of ambition, and tyrannically used their power."' This was the deplorable state of the Christian church, which God, as Eusebius well observes, first punished with a gentle hand ; but when they grew hardened and incurable in their vices, he was pleased to let in the most grievous persecution upon them, under Dioclesian, which exceeded in severity and length all that had been before.
From these accounts it evidently appears, that the Chris- tian world alone is not chargeable with the guilt of perse- cution on the score of religion. It wa> practised long before Christianity was in being, and first taught the -tians by the persecuting heathens. The most emi- nent philosophers espoused and vindicated persecuting
(l) E. H. I. 8. c. 1.
■
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. ->3
principles ; and emperors, otherwise excellent and jrood, made no scruple of destroying multitude^ on a religious account, such a< Trajan, andAurelius Vena, And I think I may farther add, that the method of propagating rei: by cruelty and death, ones its invention to lay policy and craft ; and that how servilely soever the priesthood hath thought fit to imitate them, yet that they have never ex- ceeded them in rigour and severity. I can trace out the foot-teps but of very few priests in the foregoing account- : nor have I ever heard of more excessive crueltie- than those practi-ed by Antiochus, the Egyptian heretic eaters, and the Roman emperors. I may farther add on this important article, that it is the laity who have put it in the power of the priests to persecute, and rendered it worth their while to do it : they have done it by the authority of the civil well as employed lay hands to execute the drud- gery of it. The emoluments of honours and riches that have been annexed to the favourite religion and priesthood is the establishment of civil society, whereby religion hath been made extremely profitable, and the -gains of godli- ness1' worth contending for. Had the laity been more sparing in their grants, and their civil constitutions formed upon the generous and equitable principle of an universal toleration, persecution had never been heard of amongst men. The priests would have wanted not only the power, but the inclination to persecute ; since few persons have such an attachment either to what they account religion or truth, as to torment and destroy others for the sake of it, unless tempted with the views of worldly ambition, power and grandeur. These views will have the same influence upon all bad minds, whether of the priesthood or laity, who, when they are determined at all hazards to pursue them, will use all methods, right or wrona:, to accomplish and secure them.
As, therefore, the truth of history obliges me to compli- ment the laity with the honour of this excellent invention, for the support and propagation of religion: and as its con-
',
54 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
tinuance in the world to this day is owing to the protection and authority of their laws, and to certain political ends and purposes ihey have to serve thereby ; the loading the priest- hood only, or principally, with the infamy and guilt of it, is a mean and groundless scandal ; and to be perpetually ob- jecting the cruelties that have been practised by some who have called themselves Christians, on others for conscience- sake, as an argument against the excellency of the Christian religion, or with a view to prejudice others against it, is an artifice unworthy a person of common understanding and honesty. Let all equally share the guilt, who are equally chargeable with it; and let principles be judged of by what they are in themselves, and not by the abuses which bad men may make of them. If any argument can be drawn from these, we may as well argue against the truth and excellency of philosophy, because Cicero espoused the principles of persecution, and Antoninus the philosopher authorized all the cruelties attending it. But the question in these cases is not, what one who calls himself a philosopher or a Christian doth, but what true philosophy and genuine Christianity lead to and teach ; and if persecution be the natural effect of either of them, it is neither in my inclination or intention to defend them.
SECT. VI.
Persecutions by the Mahometans.
It may be thought needless to bring the Mahometans into this reckoning, it being well known that their avowed method of propagating religion is by the sword ; and that it was a maxim of Mahomet, " not to suffer two religions to be in Arabia.'1 But this is not all; as they are enemies to all other religions but their own, so they are against tolera-
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 55
tion of heretics amongst themselves, and have oftentimes punished them with death. *HottingerT gives us an account of a famous dispute amongst them concerning the Coran, whether it was " the created" or" uncreated word of God?" Many of their califfs were of opinion that it was created, and issued their orders that the Musselmen should be compelled to believe it.2 And as for those who denied it, many were whipped ; others put in chains; and others murdered. Many, also, were slain, for not praying in a right posture towards the temple at Mecca.3 The same author farther tells us, that there are some heretics, who, whenever they are found, are burnt to death. The enmity between the Persians and Turks,4 upon account of their religious difference, is irre- concileable and mortal; so that they would, each of them, rather tolerate a Christian than one another. But I pass from these things to the history of Christian persecution.
* See note [H] at the end of the volume.
(1) Histor. Orient, p. 252. (3) Pag. 366.
(2) Pag. 362. (4) Ibid.
56 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
BOOK II.
OF THE PEItSECUTIONS UNDER THE CHRISTIAN
EMPERORS.
If any person was to judge of the nature and spirit of the Christian religion, by the spirit and conduct only of too many who have professed to believe it in all nations, and almost throughout all ages of the Christian church, he could scarce fail to censure it as an institution unworthy the God of order and fleace, subversive of the welfare and happiness of societies, and designed to enrich and aggrandize a few only, at the expence of the liberty, reason, consciences, substance, and lives of others. For what confusions and calamities, what ruins and desolations, what rapines and murders, have been introduced into the world, under the " pretended authority" of Jesus Christ, and supporting- and propagating Christianity ? What is the best part of our ecclesiastical history, better than an history of the pride and ambition, the avarice and tyranny, the treachery and cruelty of some, and of the persecutions and dreadful miseries of others ? And what could an unprejudiced per- son, acquainted with this melancholy truth, and who had never seen the sacred records, nor informed himself from thence of the genuine nature of Christianity, think, but that it was one of the worst religions in the world, as tending to destroy all natural sentiments of humanity and compassion, and inspiring its votaries with that " wisdom which is from beneath," and which is " earthly, sensual, and devilish!" If this charge could be justly fixed upon the religion of Christ, it would be unworthy the regard of every wise and good man, and render it both the interest and duty of every nation in the world to reject it.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION, 07
SECT. I.
Of the dispute concerning Easter.
It must be allowed by all who know any thing of the progress of the Christian religion, that the first preachers and propagators of it, used none of the vile methods of per- secution and cruelty to support and spread it. Both their doctrines and lives destroy every suspicion of this nature ; and yet in their times the beginnings of this spirit appeared : " Diotrephes loved the pre-eminence,7' and, therefore, would not own and receive the inspired apostle. We also read, that there were great divisions and schisms in the church of Corinth, and that many grievous disorders were caused therein, by their ranking themselves under different leaders and heads of parties, one being for Paul, another for Apol- los, and others for Cephas. These animosities were with difficulty healed by the apostolic authority; but do not, how- ever, appear to have broken out into mutual hatreds, to the open disgrace of the Christian name and profession. The primitive Christians seem for many years generally to have maintained the warmest affection for each other, and to have distinguished themselves by their mutual love, the great characteristic of the disciples of Christ. The gospels, and the epistles of the apostles, all breathe with this amiable spirit, and abound with exhortations to cultivate this God- like disposition. It is reported of St. John,1 that in his ex- treme old age at Ephesus, being carried into the church by the disciples, upon account of his great weakness, he used to say nothing else, every time he was brought there, but this remarkable sentence, " Little children, love one another." And when some of the brethren were tired with hearing so often the same thing, and asked him, " Sir, why do you always repeat this sentence?" he answered, with a spirit
(l) Hieron. in Gal. c. 6.
I
58 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
worthy an apostle, " It is the command of the Lord, and the fulfilling of the law." Precepts of this kind so frequently inculcated, could not but have a very good influence in keep- ing alive the spirit of charity and mutual love. And, indeed, the primitive Christians were so very remarkable for this temper, that they were taken notice of on this very account, and recommended even by their enemies as patterns of bene- ficence and kindness.
But at length, in the second century, the spirit of pride and domination appeared publicly, and created great dis- orders and schisms amongst Christians. There had, been a controversy of some standing, on what day Easter should be celebrated. The Asiatic churches thought that it ought to be kept 011 the' same day on which the Jews held the pass- over, the fourteenth day of Nisan, their first month, on what- soever day of the week it should fall out. The custom of other churches was different, who kept the festival of Easter only on that Lord's day which was next after the fourteenth of the moon. This controversy appears at first view to be of no manner of importance, as there is no command in the sacred writings to keep this festival at all, much less speci- fying the particular day on which it should be celebrated. Eusebius tells us1 from Irenaeus, that Poly carp, bishop of Smyrna, came to Anicetus, bishop of Rome, on account of this very controversy ; and that though they differed from one another in this and some other lesser things, yet they embraced one another with a kiss of peace ; Poly carp neither persuading Anicetus to conform to his custom, nor Anicetus breaking off communion with Polycarp, for not complying with his. This was a spirit and conduct worthy these Christian bishops : but Victor, the Roman prelate, acted a more haughty and violent part; for after he had received the letters of the Asiatic bishops, giving their reasons for their own practice, he immediately excommunicated all the churches of Asia, and those of the neighbouring provinces, for heterodoxy ; and by his letters declared all the brethren
(l) Euseb, 1. 5, c. 24,
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 59
unworthy of communion. This conduct was greatly dis- pleasing to some other of the bishops, who exhorted him to mind the things that made for peace, unity, and Christian love. *Irenaeus especially, in the name of all his brethren, the bishops of France, blamed him for thus censuring whole churches of Christ, and puts him in mind of the peaceable spirit of several of his predecessors, who did not break off communion with their brethren upon account of such lesser differences as these. Indeed, this action of pope Victor was a very insolent abuse of excommunication ; and is an abun- dant proof that the simplicity of the Christian faith was greatly departed from ; in that, heterodoxy and orthodoxy were made to depend on conformity or non-conformity to the modes and circumstances of certain things, when there was no shadow of any order for the things themselves in the sacred writings; and that the lust of power, and the spirit of pride, had too much possessed some of the bishops of the Christian church. The same Victor also excommunicated one Theodosius, for being unsound in the doctrine of the Trinity.1
However, it must be owned, in justice to some of the primitive fathers, that they were not of Victor's violent and persecuting spirit. Tertullian, who flourished under Se- verus, in his book to Scapula, tells us, " Every one hath a natural right to worship according to his own persuasion; for no man's religion can be hurtful or profitable to his neighbour: nor can it be a part of religion to compel men to religion, which ought to be voluntarily embraced, and not through constraint." Cyprian, also, agrees with Tertullian his master. In his letter to Maximus2 the presbyter, he says, " It is the sole prerogative of the Lord, to whom the iron rod is committed, to break the earthen vessels. The servant cannot be greater than his lord ; nor should any one arrogate to himself, what the Father hath committed to the Son only,
* See note [I] at the end of the volume. (l) Euseb, 1. 5. c. 28. (2) Epist. 54. Ed. Fell,
i 2
60 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
viz. to winnow and purge the floor, and separate, by any human judgment, the chaff from the wheat. This is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, and proceeds from wicked madness. And, whilst some are always assuming to themselves more dominion than is consistent with justice, they perish from the church ; and whilst they insolently ex- tol themselves, they lose the light of truth, being blinded by their own haughtiness." To these I shall add Lactantius,1 though forty years later than Cyprian. " They are con- vinced," says he, " that there is nothing more excellent than religion, and therefore think that it ought to be defended with force. But they are mistaken, both in the nature of religion, and in the proper methods to support it : for re- ligion is to be defended, not by murder, but persuasion ; not by cruelty, but patience ; not by wickedness, but faithr Those are the methods of bad men; these of good. If you attempt to defend religion by blood, and torments, and evil, this is not to defend, but to violate and pollute it : for there is nothing should be more free than the choice of our re- ligion ; in which, if the consent of the worshipper be wanting, it becomes entirely void and ineffectual. The true way, therefore, of defending religion, is by faith, a patient suffer- ing and dying for it : this renders it acceptable to God, and strengthens its authority and influence." This was the persuasion of some of the primitive fathers : but of how dif- ferent a spirit were others !
As the primitive Christians had any intervals from per- secution, they became more profligate in their morals, and more quarrelsome in their tempers. As the revenues of the several bishops increased, they grew more ambitious, less capable of contradiction, more haughty and arrogant in their behaviour, more envious and revengeful in every part of their conduct, and more regardless of the simplicity and gravity of their profession and character. The accounts I have before given of them from Cyprian and Eusebius before
(l)Lib. 5. c. 20.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 61
the Pioclesian persecution, to which I might add the latter one of St. Jeroni," are very melancholy and affecting, and shew how vastly they were degenerated from the piety and peaceable spirit of many of their predecessors, and how ready they were to enter into the worst measures of persecu- tion, could they but have got the opportunity and power*
SECT. II.
Of the persecutions begun by Constantine.
Under Constantine the emperor, when the Christians were restored to full liberty, their churches rebuilt, and the imperial edicts every where published in their favour, they immediately began to discover what spirit they were of; as soon as ever they had the temptations of honour and large revenues before them. Constantine's letters are full proof of the jealousies and animosities that reigned amongst them.* In his letters to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, he tells him, that he had been informed that Caecilianus, 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.3 And though the emperor was willing to reconcile them by a friendly refer- ence 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 peace-
(l) Epist. 13. (2) E. H. 1. 10. c. 5. (3) Ibid.
62 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
able disposition towards each other, did in a scandalous and detestable manner separate from one another, and gave oc- casion to the common enemies of Christianity to deride and scoff* at them. For this reason, he summoned a council to meet at Aries 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. *Eusebius" 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. How- ever, 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 an* thorizing 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,* pub- lished in favour of the Christians, he acted the part of a wise, good, and impartial governor ; in which, without mention- ing any particular sects, he gave full liberty to all Chris- tians, 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 jn 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 Catho- lic church. After this, in a letter to Miltiades bishop of Rome, complaining of the differences fomented by the
* See note [K] at the end of the volume. (!) De Vit. Con. 1. l. c. 44. (2) E. H. 1. 10. c. 5.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 63
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 Caecilianus bishop of Carthage,1 after giving him to understand, that he had ordered Ursus to pay his reverence three thousand pieces, and Ileraclides to disburse to him whatever other sums his reverence should have occa- sion for ; he orders him to complain of all persons who should go on to corrupt the people of the most holy Catho- lic 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,5 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,3 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,4 that though he wished the ceremonies of the
(1) E.H.I. 10. c. 6. (3) Ibid. c. 45.
(fi) De vit. Const. I. % (4) Ibid. c. 56.
64 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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 erro- neous and false opinions in religion, as such, are to be pro- hibited 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 conse- quence 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, Diocle- sian 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 prin- ciple ; for which party soever of them could get uppermost, was against all toleration and liberty for those who differed fiom 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
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 65
article of the Christian faith.* Some few persons, indeed, differed from the commonly received opinion. One Theo- dotus a tanner, under the reign of Commodus, asserted Christ was a mere man, and on this account was excommu- nicated, with other of his followers, by pope Victor, who appears to have been very liberal in his censures against others. Artemon propagated the same erroneous opinion under Severus. Beryllus* also, an Arabian bishop under Gordian, taught, " that our Saviour had no proper personal subsistence before his becoming man, nor any proper god- head 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. *Sabellius3 also propagated much the same doctrine, denying also the real personality of the Holy Ghost. After him Paulus Samo- satenus,4 bishop of Antioch, and many of his clergy, pub- licly 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 forjudges of the faith, and assumed a power arid dominion over the con- sciences 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 Chris- tian 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.5 The controversy first began between Alexander bishop of Alexandria, and tArius,6 one of his
* See note [L] at the end of the volume, f See note [M] at the end of the volume.
(1) Euseb. E. H. 1. 5. c. 28. (4) Ibid. 1. 7. c. 28, 29.
(2) Ibid. 1. 6. c. 33. (5) De vit. Const. 1. 2. c 61.
(3) Ibid. 1. 7. c, 27. (6) Soc. E. H. 1. i, c. 6.
K
66 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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.1 How dif- ferent were the tempers of the bishops and clergy of these times from the excellent spirit of Dionysius bishop of Alex- andria, 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, thougli they gave all the marks of a true repentance and conversion, tells him, u one ought to suffer any thing in the world rather than divide the church of God."
The occasi6n of the Arian controversy2 was this.3 Alex- ander, bishop of Alexandria, speaking in a very warm manner
(l) Euseb. 1. 6. c. 45. (2) Soc. E. H* 1. 1. c. 15.
(3) Theodoret* indeed gives another account of this matter, viz. That Arius was disappointed of the bishopric of Alexandria by the promotion of Alex- ander, and that this provoked him to oppose the doctrine of the bishop.f But it should be considered that Theodoret lived an hundred years after Arius, and appears to have had the highest hatred of his name and memory. He tells us, " he was employed by the devil ; that he was an impious wretch, and damned in the other world." The accusations of such a one deserve but little credit, especially as there are no concurrent testimonies to support them. Bishop Alexander never mentions it amongst those other charges which he throws upon him, in his letter to the bishop of Constantinople. Constantine expressly ascribes the rise of the controversy to Alexander's inquisitory temper, and to Arius' s speaking of things he ought never to have thought of. Socrates assures us it was owing to this, that Arius apprehended the bishop taught the doctrine of Sabellius. Sozomen J imputes their quarrel
* Theod. 1. l. c. 2. t c- 7> 14-. % Soz. p. 426.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION (>T
concerning the Trinity before the presbyters and clergy of his church, affirmed there was "an Unity in the Trinity,'1 and particularly that " the Sou was co-eternal and consub- stantial, and of the same dignity with the Father." vYrius, one of his presbyters, thought that the bishop, by this doc- trine, 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 con- sequence of which" he affirmed was this,1 " that he had his subsistence out of things not existing.*1 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 net able to bear such an opposition from one of his presbyters to his own prin- ciples, commanded (" admonished, as president of the coun- cil, 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
only to their diversity of sentiments. Bishop Alexander says he opposed Arius, because he taught impious doctrines concerning the Son ; and Arius affirms he opposed Alexander on the same account. Now whether Theo- doret's single unsupported testimony is to be preferred to these other accounts, I leave every one that is a judge of common sense to deter- mine. Nay, I think it is evident it must be a slander, because the bishop himself had an esteem for Arius, after his advancement to the bishopric of Alexandria, and, as Gelasius Cyzicenus tells us,4- "made him the presbyter next in dignity to himself;" which it is not probable he would have done, if he had seen in him any tokens of enmity because of his pro« motion.
(1) E.II. 1. 1. c. 15.
* 1. 2. c i.
68 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTIONS
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 Alex- ander 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,1 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 commu- nion with them in their crimes. Eusebius,2 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 endea- vours proved ineffectual, and by these unfriendly dealings the parties grew more enraged against each other, and the quarrel became incurable.
(l) Soc. E. H. 1. 1. c. 6. (2) Soz. 1. 1. c. 15.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. ()9
It is, I confess, not a little surprising, that the whole Christian world should be put into such a flame upon ac- count 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 Alius represents it in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia,* 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 inexcus- able, 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,* tells us, u 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 pub- licly 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. v
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
(l) Theod. E. H. 1. 1. c. 5. (2) Id. 1. l. c. 4.
70 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
Arius asserted,-" the Son hatha 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 Euse- bius, his intimate friend, from whom he had no reason to conceal his most secret sentiments, and says,1 " 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 there- fore before he was begotten or formed he was not," i. e. as lie 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,* bishop of Tyre, was " not only inexplicable by words, but unconceivable by the under- standing 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 re-
(l) Theod. E. H. 1. 1. c. 5. (2) Id. Ibid. c. 6,
THE IT1ST0FV OF PERSECUTION. 71
spects of the same sentiments with those who condemned them. Thus Alexander declares the Son to be " before all ages." Alius 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." Alius, that " he was the begotten God, the Word from the Father." Alexander says, " the Father, only, is unbegotten." Arius, that u there never was a time when the Son was not begot- ten." Alexander, that " the subsistence of the Son is in- explicable even by angels." Eusebius, that " his beginning is inconceivable and inexplicable by men and angels." Alex- ander, that " the Father was always a Father because of the Son." Arius, that " the Son was not before he was begot- ten;" and, that u 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." Euse- bius, 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 maae." Arius, that " he was the perfect creature or production oi God, but not as one of the crea- tures."1 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 un- begotten 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 hold- ing, that the Son was made like every other creature, abso- lutely out of nothing, and that therefore his nature was
(l) Theod. E.H.I, l. c. 4.
72 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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,1 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 (i desti- tute 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
(i) Dial. p. 112, 4i3. p. 20, &c. De Reg. fid, p. 240. De ver. Sap. p. 371.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
73
character, as the reason, and as the word of God. As " the reason of God," he was eternally in the Father, " unorigi- nated, unbegotten, nnderived." As " the word of God," lie 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 tiling- 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 ren- dered by the LXX. " The Lord created me the beginning of his way, he founded me before the age, and begat me be- fore 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 sub- joins, " vet 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 lie was " the first born work of the Father." Tertullian, that Sophia was " formed the second person." And indeed most of the primitive fathers ex- pounded the before-mentioned passage of the Proverbs of
74 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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 in- ferior 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,1 " this virtue was begotten by the Father by his power and will." And again, explaining the scripture Gen. xix. 24. " The Lord rained down lire 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 ;2 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, lie 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
( 1 ) Dialog, p. 4 1 3. Ed. Thirl. (2) Ibfd. p. 4 1 3,
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION 7->
ilii- appears to be the case, no wonder the controversy was never fairly managed, nor brought to a friendly and peace- able 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,1 exhorting Alex- ander 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." lie tells Alexander, " that he required from his presbyter a declaration of their sentiments concerning a silly, empty question." And Arius, u that he had imprudently uttered what he should not have vxan 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 com- prehended, 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 trilling matters were different from each other, they should acknowledge one another as brethren, and, laying aside their hatreds, return to a firmer friendship and affec- tion than before.
(l) Euseb. Vit. Const. I. I. c. 63, &c. 1,2
76 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
But religious hatreds are not so easily removed, and the ecclesiastical combatants were too warmly engaged to fol- low this kind and wholesome advice. The bishops of each side had already interested the people in their quarrel,1 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.
SECT. III.
The Nicene Council. '
*Constantine being greatly disturbed upon this ac- count, 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/ 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 col- lection of bishops some " were remarkable for their gra- vity, patience under sufferings, modesty, integrity, eloquence*, courteous behaviour," and the like virtues ; that " some were venerable for their age, and others excelled in their
* See note [N] at the end of the volume.
(1) Euseb. Vit. Const. 1. 3. c. 4, 5. 325. Id. Ibid. c. 6. Soc. E. H. 1. I-
[2) The first general council, A. C. c. 1 7,
1HE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
77
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 be- ginning ;" and that some came to the council with worldly views of gain. Theodorit says,1 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 u 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,3 " 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 re- ceived them ; and when he saw the quarrels of such bishops
(l) Theod. E. H. I. I, c. 7, 11. (2) 1. 2. c. 8.
78 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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 enco- miums 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,1 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 *Socrates brings them off' by telling us, that they were en- lightened by God, and the grace of his holy spirit, and so qould not possibly err from the truth, But as some men may pos- sibly 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 pre- judiced 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 mea- sures 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 f Athanasius himself, in his letter to the African bishops,2 it
* See note [0] at the end of the volume.
f See note [P] at the end of the volume.
(l) Soz, E. H. k 1. c. 9. (2) Theod, E. K. I. 1. c. s.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. Vi*
appears, that they were determined to insert into the creed such words as were niott 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 ?i ith making use of, such as, u 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, u from God," by the Son's " being of the substance of God." And when the Arians consented also to this, the bishops further added, to render the creed more exceptionable, that u he was consubstantial, or of the same substance with the Father." And when the Arians objected, that this expres- sion 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 ;i consubstantial," and made many objections against it ; and of these live, 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 Alius.
Eusebius,1 bishop of Ca?sarea, 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 sub-
(l) Theod. 1. 1. c 12
80 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
stance." 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 man- ner 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 coun- cil to mean no more, than that u 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 hypos- tasis, 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 Caesarea, 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 be- cause 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 Caesarea, gives a very extra- ordinary reason for his subscribing this anathema, viz. because " it forbids the use of unscriptural words, the intro- ducing which he assigns as the occasion of all the differ- ences 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 un-
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 81
scriptural 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 con- substantial," 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.1 For after they had carried their creed, they proceeded to excommunicate Arius and his followers, and banished Arius from Alexandria. They also condemned his explication of his own doctrine, and a certain book, called Thalia, which he had written concerning it. After this they sent letters to Alexandria, and to the brethren in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, to acquaint them with their decrees, and to inform them, that the holy synod had condemned the opinions of Arius, and were so zealous in this affair, that they had not patience so much as to hear his ungodly doctrine and blasphemous words, and that they had fully determined the time for the celebration of Easter. Finally, they exhort them to rejoice, for the good deeds they had done, and for that they had cut off all manner of heresy, and to pray, that their right transactions might be established by Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ. When these things were over, Constantine 2 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 elo- quence, and that such should not carry themselves haughtily
(\) Soc. 1.1. c. 9. (2) Euseb. de Vit. Const. 1. S, c. 20
>i
82 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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 haughti- ness 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,1 " 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 persecu- tions 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 opportu- nity that presented : and this the event abundantly made good. And, indeed, how should it be otherwise ? For doc- trines 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 \_ . ______
-■ " — ..»— . -. „ .. n.,i i. I . | ■■ ill I IH I ■!— I -"—
(i) Soc, Eo ti 1. 1. c. 9.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 83
they are directly contrary to the nature and spirit of it ; and because arguments, which equally prove the truth and ex- cellency of all principles, cannot in the least prove the truth ofanv.
If one may form a judgment of the persons who com- posed 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, ps to establish their own authority and opinions, and oppress their enemies. For besides what hath been already observed concerning their temper and qualifications, *Theodorit in- forms us,r 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 t)\e 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 alto- gether unexamined ? How just is the censure passed by + Gregory Nazianzen2 upon councils in general ? u 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 con- tention, and their lust of power, are too great even for words
* See note [Q] at the end of the volume.
f See note [R] at the end of the volume.
(l) E. H. 1. 1. c. 7, (2) Vol. I. Epist. 1\\ Edict. Col,
M 2
84 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
to express." The emperor's conduct to the bishops met at Nicex 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 Con- stantine 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 im- perial 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 them- selves to their decisions.
His first letters to this purpose were mild and gentle/ 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,3 he banished Arius himself,4 ordered all his followers, as absolute enemies of Christ, to be called Porphyrians, from *Porphyrius, an hea- then, 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
* See note [S] at the end of the volume.
(1) Euseb. de Vit. Const. 1. 3. c. 13. (s) Soz. 1. 1. c. 21.
(2) Ibid. c.65. (4) Soc. 1. l. c. 9.
HIE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION 9>')
in his possession any book written by Anus, and should not immediately burn it. he should be no sooner convicted of the crime but he should suffer death. lie 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,1 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 reli- gion 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 gainsay ers not to be convinced, that they might be brought to the acknowledg- ment of the truth and be saved, but to be persecuted and de- stroyed. 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
( 1 ) The Edict of Constant hie to the bishops and people.
" Since Anus hath imitated wicked and ungodly men, it is just that he should undergo the same infamy with them. As therefore Porphyrius, an enemy of godliness, for his having composed wicked hooks against Chris- tianity, hath found a suitable recompense, so as to be infamous for the time to come, and to be loaded with great reproach, and to have all his impious writings quite destroyed ; so also it is now my pleasure, that Arius, and those of Anus's sentiments, shall be called Porphyrians, so that they may have the appellation of those, whose manners they have imitated. Moreover, if any book composed by Arius shall be found, it shall be delivered to the fire ; that " not only his evil doctrine may be destroyed, but that there may not be the least remembrance of it left." This also I enjoin, that if any one shall be found to have concealed " any writing" composed by Arius, and shall not immediately bring it and consume it in the fire, death shall be his punish- ment; for as soon as ever he is taken in this crime, he shall suffer a capital punishment. God preserve you."
86 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION
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 *St. Jerom,1 u the law is perished from the priest, and the vision from the prophet. Whilst all contend for the episcopal power,' which they un- lawfully seize on without the church's leave, they apply to their own uses all that belongs to the Levites. The mise- rable 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 ava- rice 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 repre- sented 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,2 u 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,
* See note [T] at the end of the volume, (l) Epist. xiii. (2) E. H. .1. 1. c. 24,
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. S7
and be translated to them in their room. And this they did as frequently as they could, to the introducing infinite cala- mities 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 ortho- dox have produced against them ; their very suppression of the Arian writings being a very strong presuhiption against them, and the many imperial edicts of Constantine, Theo- dosius, 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,1 complains that Arius and others, desirous of power and riches, did day and night invent calumnies, and were continually exciting seditions and per- secutions against him ; and Arius in his turn, in his letter to Kusebius, 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 atheis- tical person, for not agreeing with him in his sentiments about the Trinity. Athauasius also bitterly exclaims against the cruelty of the Arians, in his Apology for his flight.2 "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 u^e of to force the ortho- dox to renounce the faith, and to subscribe to the truth of
(l) Theod. 1. I.e. 4, 5. (2) Vol. I. p. 70'J.
88 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
the Arian doctrines. But might it not have been asked, who was it that first brought in excommunications, depo- sitions, banishments, and death, as the punishments of he- resy ? 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 num- berless confusions and slaughters by their violent intrusions into the sees of their adversaries ? Was not Athanasius him- self 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,1 by excluding great multitudes from the public services of it ;
(l) The whole account, as given by Sozomen, is this : Eusebius of Nico- media and Theognis accused Athanasius to Constantine, as the author of seditions and disturbances in the church, and as excluding many who were willing to enter into it ; whereas all would agree, if this one thing was granted. Many bishops and clergymen affirmed these accusations against him were true; and going frequently to the emperor, and affirming themselves to be orthodox, accused Athanasius and the bishops of his party of being guilty of murders, of putting some in chains, of whipping others, and burning of churches. Upon this Athanasius wrote to Constantine, and signified to him that his accusers were illegally ordained, made innovations upon the decrees of the council of Nice, and were guilty of seditions and injuries-towards the orthodox. Upon this Constantine was at a loss which to believe; but as they thus accused one another, and the number of the accusers on each sida grew troublesome to him ; out of his love of peace, he wrote to Athanasius that he should hinder nobody from the communion of the church; and that if he should have any future complaints of this nature against him, he would immediately drive him out of Alexandria. The reader will observe, that the charge against Athaqasius brought by Eusebius and Theognis, was confirmed by many orthodox bishops, in the very presence of the emperor ; and that Athanasius, instead of denying it, objects to the ordination and orthodoxy of his accusers, and charges them with a bad treatment of the orthodox ; and that the evidence on both sides appeared so strong, that the emperor knew not which to believe ; but that, however, he was at last so far convinced of the factious, turbulent spirit of Athanasius, that he ordered him to open the - doors of the church, under pain of banishment.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 89
of murdering some, putting- others in chains, punishing others with stripes and whippings, and of burning churches? And if the enemies of Athanasius1 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 al-o to the bishopric of Alexandria, was censured as clandestine and illegal. These things being- reported to Constantine,1 he ordered a synod to meet at Caesarea 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 tied 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 Caesarea ; 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
'i) Philosterg. Cornpcn. E. H. L 8. c. 11. (2) Soz, 1. 2. c. 25, 28.
90 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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,1 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 con- fronting his accusers, yet he could not make his innocence appear : for notwithstanding he had endeavoured to preju- dice the emperor against what they had done, yet he con- firmed their transactions, commended them as a set of wise and good bishops, censured Athanasius as a seditious, inso- lent, injurious person, and banished' him to Treves, in France. And when the people of Alexandria, of Atha- nasius's party, tumult uously 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 Alex- andrians, 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.7' He also wrote to the monk, telling him it was im- possible " 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
(1) Soz. E. H. p. 488, 491, 492.
THE HISTORY OF PERSFXUTION. 91
under persecution, and his expressly calling- it a diabolical invention/ jet 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,2 u I wonder that your piety hath suffered these tilings,1' (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 de- clared heretics ; for it is not to be endured that these things should be either said or heard amongst Christians." Aud in another place3 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,4 " 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. s And let every one hold fast the faith he hath received from the fathers, which also the fathers met together at Nice declared in writing-, and endure none of those who may attempt to make any inno- vations therein." It is needless to produce more instances of this kind ; whosoever gives himself the trouble of look- ing 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 me- mory, 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
(1) Ad Imp. I. Const. Apol. p. 716. (4) Vol. I. p. 291.
(2) Vol. I. p. 584. (.5) p. 292.
(3) Orat. 1. cont. Ar. p. 304.
N 2
92
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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,1 and the anathema denounced against all who would or could not believe in it, furnished matter for endless de- bates. 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 adver- saries as heathens, and with bringing in the polytheism of the Gentiles. And though they equally denied the conse- quences 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 Antiochus2 he exhorts them to hold fast the confession of those fathers, and u 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,3 " That the expressing a person's sentiments in the words of scripture was no sufficient proof of ortho- doxy, 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
(l) Soz. 1. 2. c. 18. (2) Vol. I. p. 951. „ (3) p. 291.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. ,03
abatements, so wide a breach could ever be compromised. Even the attempts of Constantine himself to soften Athana- sius, and reconcile him to his brethren, had no other in- fluence 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,1 and expressly denied manv of the principles he had been charged with, and there- upon humbly desired the emperor's interposition, that he might be restored to the communion of the church ; Atha- nasius, out of hatred to his enemy, flatly denied the empe- ror'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 sub- mitted to his order ;z 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 lie would stop the corn that was yearly sent to Con- stantinople 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. Constan- tine 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,3 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. Con- stantine the eldest recalled Athanasius from banishment,4 and restored him to his bishopric; upon which account5 there
(1) Soc. 1. I.e. 27. . (4) SOC. 1. 2. C. 8.
(2) Id. ibid. c. 35. (5) SOZ. 1. 3. C. 5.
(3) Ad Solit. Vit. Agen. Epist. p. 809, 810.
94 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION
arose most grievous quarrels and seditions, many being kil- led, 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,1 in which the word "consubstantial" was wholly omitted,"1 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 coun- cil 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 there- fore 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 sub- stituted in his room.3 Macedonius was in a different scheme, or at least expressed himself in different words both from the orthodox and Arians,4 and asserted, that the Son was not consubstantial, but o^oma-i®-, not of the same, but a like sub- stance with the Father ; and openly propagated his opinion,
(1) Soz. 1. 3. c. 5. (4) Athanas. de Sanct. Trin. V. 2.
(2) Soc. 1. 2. c. 10. p. 210.
(3) Soc. 1. 3. c. 4.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION 95
after he had thrust himself into the bishopric of Paul.1 Thw the orthodox party highly resented, opposing Hermogeftes, 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 tjiev had murdered him. But not- withstanding 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 kttfi than their insolence and fury deserved. Soon after this, Athana^ius and Paul2 were restored again to their respective sees; and upon Athanasius's entering Alexandria great dis- turbances 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 Constan- tinople he was banished from thence again by the emperor's order, and Macedonius re-entered into possession of that Bee, upon which occasion 3150 persons were murdered, some by the soldiers, and others by being pressed to death by the croud. Athanasius,3 also, soon followed him into banish- ment, being accused of selling the corn which Constantine the Great had given tor the support of the poor of the church of Alexandria, and putting the money in his own pocket ; and being therefore threatened by Constantiu- with death. But they were both, a little while after, re- called by Constans, then banished again by Constantius ; and Paul, as some say, murdered by his enemies the Allans, as he wa< carrying into exile; though, as Athanasius him- self owns,4 the Allans 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,5 by which tho>e of the con- -ubstantial, or orthodox party, were driven, not only out of the churches but cities too, and many of them compelled to
(1) Soc. 1. 2. c. 13. (4) Ad Sol. Vit. Ag. p. glS.
(2) Soc. 1. 2. c. 15. SOC. 1. % C 27
(3) C. 17,
96 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
communicate with the Arians by stripes and torments, by proscriptions and banishments, and other violent methods of severity. Upon the banishment of Athanasius,* whom Constantius, in his letter to the citizens of Alexandria, calls iC 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 em- peror, in the same letter, stiles " a most venerable person,8 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 cruel- ties. Thus, as Socrates observes,3 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. Atha- nasius 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 reve- nues, and secular honours ; agreeably hereto, the bishops were introduced into their churches,4 and placed on their thrones, by armed soldiers, and paid no regard to the eccle- siastical rules, or the lives of their flocks, so they could get possession, and keep out their adversaries : and when once
(1) Ad Const. Apol. p. 695. (3) 1. 2. C. 25.
(2) Cont. Ar. Orat. 1. p. 290, (4) Soc. 1. 2. c. 15, Iff,
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 97
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, Macedonia, George, and others, which may be read at large, in the fore- mentioned 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 reli- gion ; 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,1 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.* The bishops, which had been banished by Constan- tius 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,3 an heathen writer of those times, tells us, he caused the
(l) Am. Mar. I. 22. c. 5. (2) Soc, 1. 3. c. 1, (3) 1. 22, c. $,
o
98 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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 reign1 some of the inhabi- tants 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 Athana- sius 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 pri- vate and mean places. * Julian, with great equity, severely reproved the Alexandrians for this their violence and cruelty, telling them, that though George might have greatly in- jured 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 divi- nity of the Holy Spirit, and his consubstantiality with the Father and the Son . x 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,3 but soon after secretly returned to Alexandria, where he lived in great privacy till the storm was blown over by Julian's death, and the suc- cession 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
* See note [U] at the end of the volume.
(1) Soc. 1. s. c. 2, 3, 4. Phjlost* 1. 7. c 2. (3) Theod. I. 4. c. %
(2) Philost.1.7. c. 13.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 99
soon appeared in many instances.1 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 learn- ing. 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.* 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 I" He also deprived the clergy of all their im- munities, honours, and revenues, granted them by Constan- tine; 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 extremi- ties against them, had he returned victorious from his Per- sian expedition, as Theodorit* 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 super- stition, 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,
(l) Soc. 1. 3. c. 14, &c. (2) Theod. 1. 3. c. 6, &c. (3) Ibid. 1. 3. c. 21,
o2
100 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
was, in many instances, very blameable, and such as tended to irritate his spirit, and awaken his resentment. But what- ever his intentions were, he did not live to execute them, being slain in his Persian expedition.
He was succeeded by Jovian,* 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,2 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 di- rectly urge him to persecute them, yet he tells him, that it is necessary to adhere to the decisions of that council concern- ing 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 ortho- dox 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 : " 1 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
(i) Soc. 1. 3. C. 24, 25. (2) Theod. 1. 4. C. 4=
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 101
lie would favour and esteem such only, who should shew themselves leaders in restoring the peace of the church.1' Themistius the philosopher, in his oration upon Joviau'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, Valentin ianus and Valens, who suc- ceeded Jovian, were of very different tempers, and embraced different parties in religion. The former was of the ortho- dox side ;* 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 san- guinary disposition, and severely persecuted all who differed from him. In the beginning of their reign5 a synod met in Illyricum, who again decreed the consubstantiality of Father^ Son, and Holy Ghost.3 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.4 But Valens was soon prevailed on by the arts of Eudoxius^ 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 Lamp- sacus was the first thing that enraged him ; for having ob- tained of him leave to meet, for the amendment and settle- ment 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
(1) Soc. I. 4. c. I. (4) Soc. I. 4. c. 6.
(2) Theod. 1. 4. c. 8. (5) Soz. I. 6. c. 7.
(3) Cod. Theod. tit. 16. L 9,
102 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
Arian party. This highly exasperated Yalens, who, there- upon, called a council of Arian bishops, and commanded the bishops that composed the council at Lampsacus to em- brace 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 theiri to be whipped, others to be disgraced, others to be imprisoned, and others to be fined.1 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.* Liberius, bishop of that city, being dead, Ursinus, a deacon of that church, and Damasus, were both nominated to suc- ceed 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 hun- dred and thirty-seven persons being destroyed in the church itself, according to Ammianus,3 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,
(l) Soc. ibid, c, 15, 16. Theod. (2) Soc. 1. 4. c. 29.
i 4> C. 22t (5) Soc. 1. 27. C. 3.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 103
sumptuous in their feasts, out-doing sovereign princes in the expenses of their tables." For which reason Prates- tatus, 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 suc- cessor 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,1 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.
SECT. IV.
The first council of Constantinople ; or second general council.
Thkodosius, soon after his advancement by Gratian to the empire, discovered a very warm zeal for the orthodox opinions ;a for observing that the city of Constantinople wafl divided into dilFerent sects, he wrote a letter to them from Tlicssalonica, wherein he tells them, " that it was his plea- sure, that all his subjects should be of the same religion with Damasus bishop of Rome, and Peter bishop of Alex- andria; and that their church, only, should be called catho- lic, who worshipped the divine Trinity as equal in honour: and that those who were of another opinion should be called heretics, become infamous, and be subject to other
(l) Theod, I. i. c. 2. (2) Soz, 1. 7. c. i, S-
104 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
punishments. He also forbid assemblies and disputations in the Forum, and made a law for the punishment of those that should presume to argue about the essence and nature of God. Upon his first coming to Constantinople,* being very solicitous for the peace and increase of the church, he sent for Demophilus the Arian bishop, and asked him whe- ther he would consent to the Nicene faith, and thus accept the peace he offered him; adding this strong argument, u if jou refuse to do it, I will drive you from your churches." And upon Demophilus's refusal, the emperor was as good as his word; and turned him and all the Arians out of the city, after they had been in possession of the churches there for forty years.2 But being willing more effectually to ex- tinguish heresy, he summoned a council of bishops of his own persuasion, A. C. 381, to meet together at Constantinople, in order to confirm the Nicene faith ; the number of them were one hundred and fifty ; to these, for form's sake, were added thirty-six of the Macedonian party. And accordingly this coun- cil,3 which is reckoned the second oecumenical or general one, all of them, except the Macedonians, did decree that the Ni- cene faith should be the standard of orthodoxy ; and that all heresies should be condemned. They also made an addition to that creed, explaining the orthodox doctrine of the Spirit against Macedonius, viz. after the words Holy Ghost, they inserted, " the Lord, the Quickner,, proceeding from the Father, whom with the Father and the Son we worship and glorify, and who spake by the prophets." When the council was ended,4 the emperor put forth two edicts against heretics ; by the first prohibiting them from holding any assemblies ; and by the second, forbidding them to meet in fields or vil- lages, ordering the houses where they met to be confiscated, and commanding that such who went to other places to teach their opinions, or perform their religious worship,
(1) Soc. 1. 5. c 7. (3) The second general council,
(2) c. 8. A. C. 381.
(4) Cod.Theod.lll, 12.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 105
should be forced to return to the places where they dwelt, condemning all those officers and magistrates of cities who should not prevent such assemblies. A little while after the conclusion of this council,1 finding that many disorders were still occasioned through the opposition of the several parties to one another, he convened the principal persons of each, and ordered them to deliver into his hand a written form of their belief; which after he had received, he retired by himself, and earnestly prayed to God, that he would enable him to make choice of the truth. And when after this he had perused the several papers delivered to him, he tore them all in pieces, except that which contained the doc- trine of the indivisible Trinity, to which he intirely adhered. After this he published a law, by which he forbid heretics to worship or preach, or to ordain bishops or others, com- manding some to be banished, others to be rendered in- famous, and to be deprived of the common privileges of citizens, with other grievous penalties of the like nature. "Sozomen, however, tells us, that he did not put these laws in execution, because his intention was not to punish his subjects, but to terrify them into the same opinions of God with himself, praising at the same time those who volun- tarily embraced them. Socrates also confirms the same, telling us,a that he only banished Eunomius from Con- stantinople for holding private assemblies, and reading his books to them, and thereby corrupting many with his doc- trine. But that as to others he gave them no disturbance, nor forced them to communicate with hhn, but allowed them all their several meetings, and to enjoy their own opinions as to the Christian faith. Some he permitted to build churches without the cities, and the Novatians to retain their churches within, because they held the same doctrines with himself.
Arcadius and Honorius,3 the sons and successors of
* See note [X] at the end of the volume. (1) Soz, 1. 7. C. 12. (2) 1. 5. C. 20. (3) Soz. 1. 8. c. 1, 2, 4.
F
106 THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION.
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 em- peror one church for himself, and those of his opinion, within the city. Chrysostom being informed of it, imme- diately 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 im- piety 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,1 and the arbitrary man- ner 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
(1) SOZ. 1. 8. C, 6.
THE HISTORY OF PERSECUTION. 107
against bad women, he expressed himself in such a manner, as that both his friends and enemies believed that the invec- tive 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 Chry- sostom knew her displeasure on this account, he used more severe expressions against her than before, saying, " Ilero- dias 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 con- vened 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. * Chrysostom died in his banish- ment, according to the Christian wish of Epiphanius,1 " I hope you will not die bishop of Constantinople ;" which Chry- sostom returned with a wish of the same good temper, iC I hope you will not live to return to jour 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