Constantine, the eldest son of Constans, cut off his two younger brothers’ noses, that they might not share the empire with him; but, however, happened to be more orthodox than his predecessors; and by the persuasion of Agatho,[237] pope of Rome, convened the sixth general council at Constantinople, A. D. 680, in which were present 289 bishops. The fathers of this holy synod complimented the emperor with being “another David, raised up by Christ, their God, a man after his own heart; who had not given sleep to his eyes, nor slumber to his eye-lids, till he had gathered them together, to find out the perfect rule of faith.” After this they condemned the heresy of one will in Christ, and declared, “that they glorified two natural wills and operations, indivisibly, inconvertibly, without confusion, and inseparably in the same Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, i. e. the divine operation, and the human operation.” So that now the orthodox faith, in reference to Christ, was this; that “he had two natures, the divine and human; that these two natures were united, without confusion, into one single person; and that in this one single person, there were two distinct wills and operations, the human and divine.” Thus, at last, 680 years after Christ, was the orthodox faith, relating to his deity, humanity, nature and wills, decided and settled by this synod; who, after having pronounced anathemas against the living and dead, ordered the burning of heretical books, and deprived several bishops of their sees; procured an edict from the emperor, commanding all to receive their confession of faith, and denouncing not only eternal, but corporal punishments to all recusants; viz. if they were bishops, or clergymen, or monks, they were to be banished; if laymen, of any rank and figure, they were to forfeit their estates, and lose their honours; if of the common people, they were to be expelled the royal city. These their definitive sentences were concluded with the usual exclamation, of, “God save the emperor, long live the orthodox emperor; down with the heretics; cursed be Eutyches, Macarius, &c. The Trinity hath deposed them.”
The next controversy of importance was relating to the worship of images. The respect due to the memories of the apostles and martyrs of the Christian church, was gradually carried into great superstition, and at length degenerated into downright idolatry. Not only churches were dedicated to them, but their images placed in them, and religious adoration paid to them. Platina tells us, that amongst many other ceremonies introduced by pope Sixtus III. in the fifth century, he persuaded Valentinian the younger, emperor of the West, to beautify and adorn the churches, and to place upon the altar of St. Peter, a golden image of our Saviour, enriched with jewels. In the next century the images of the saints were brought in, and religious worship paid to them. This appears from a letter of pope Gregory’s, to the bishop of Marseilles, who broke in pieces certain images, because they had been superstitiously adored. Gregory tells him,[238] “I commend you, that through a pious zeal, you would not suffer that which is made with hands to be adored; but I blame you for breaking the images in pieces: for it is one thing to adore a picture, and another to learn by the history of the picture what is to be adored.” And elsewhere he declares,[239] that “images and pictures in churches, were very useful for the instruction of the ignorant, who could not read.” Sergius, after this, repaired the images of the apostles. John VII. adorned a great many churches with the pictures and images of the saints. And at length, in the reign of Philippicus, Constantine the pope, in a synod held at Rome, decreed, that images should be fixed up in the churches, and have great adoration paid them. He also condemned and excommunicated the emperor himself for heresy; because he erased the pictures of the fathers, which had been painted on the walls of the church of St. Sophia, at Constantinople; and commanded that his images should not be received into the church; that his name should not be used in any public or private writings, nor his effigies stamped upon any kind of money whatsoever.
This superstition of bringing images into churches was warmly opposed, and gave occasion to many disturbances and murders. The emperor Leo Isaurus greatly disapproved this practice, and published an edict, by which he commanded all the subjects of the Roman empire to deface all the pictures, and to take away all the statues of the martyrs and angels out of the churches, in order to prevent idolatry, threatening to punish those who did not, as public enemies. Pope Gregory II.[240] opposed this edict, and admonished all Catholics, in no manner to obey it. This occasioned such a tumult at Ravenna in Italy, between the partisans of the emperor and the pope, as ended in the murder of Paul, exarch of Italy, and his son; which enraged the emperor in an high degree; so that he ordered all persons to bring to him all their images of wood, brass, and marble, which he publicly burnt; punishing with death all such as were found to conceal them. He also convened a synod at Constantinople; where, after a careful and full examination, it was unanimously agreed, that the intercession of the saints was a mere fable; and the worship of images and relicts was downright idolatry, and contrary to the word of God. And as Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, favoured images, the emperor banished him, and substituted Anastasius, who was of his own sentiments, in his room. Gregory III.[241] in the beginning of his pontificate, assembled his clergy, and by their unanimous consent, deposed him on this account from the empire, and put him under excommunication; and was the first who withdrew the Italians from their obedience to the emperors of Constantinople, calling in the assistance of Charles king of France. After this, he placed the images of Christ and his apostles in a more sumptuous manner than they were before upon the altar of St. Peter, and at his own expence made a golden image of the Virgin Mary, holding Christ in her arms, for the church of St. Mary ad Præsepe.
Constantine Copronymus, Leo’s son and successor in the empire, inherited his father’s zeal against the worship of images, and called a synod at Constantinople to determine the controversy. The fathers being met together, to the number of 330, after considering the doctrine of scripture, and the opinions of the fathers, decreed, “that every image, of whatsoever materials made and formed by the artist, should be cast out of the Christian church as a strange and abominable thing; adding an anathema upon all who should make images or pictures, or representations of God, or of Christ, or of the Virgin Mary, or of any of the saints, condemning it as a vain and diabolical invention; deposing all bishops, and subjecting the monks and laity, who should set up any of them in public or private, to all the penalties of the imperial constitutions.” They also deposed Constantine, patriarch of Constantinople, for opposing this decree; and the emperor first banished him, and afterwards put him to death; and commanded, that this council should be esteemed and received as the seventh oecumenical, or universal one. Paul I.[242] pope of Rome, sent his legate to Constantinople, to admonish the emperor to restore the sacred images and statues which he had destroyed; and threatened him with excommunication upon his refusal. But Copronymus slighted the message, and treated the legates with great contempt, and used the image worshippers with a great deal of severity.
Constantine, bishop of Rome, the successor of Paul, seems also to have been an enemy to images, and was there tumultuously deposed; and Stephen III.[243] substituted in his room, who was a warm and furious defender of them. He immediately assembled a council in the Lateran church, where the holy fathers abrogated all Constantine’s decrees; deposed all who had been ordained by him bishops; made void all his baptisms and chrisms; and, as some historians relate, after having beat him, and used him with great indignity, made a fire in the church, and burnt him therein. After this, they annulled all the decrees of the synod of Constantinople, ordered the restoration of statues and images, and anathematized that execrable and pernicious synod, giving this excellent reason for the use of images; “that if it was lawful for emperors, and those who had deserved well of the commonwealth, to have their images erected, but not lawful to set up those of God, the condition of the immortal God would be worse than that of men.” After this the pope published the acts of the council, and pronounced an anathema against all those who should oppose it.
Thus the mystery of this iniquity worked, till at length, under the reign of Irene and Constantine her son, a synod was packed up of such bishops as were ready to make any decrees that should be agreeable to the Roman pontiff, and the empress. They met at Nice, An. 787, to the number of about 350. In this venerable assembly it was decreed, “that holy images of the cross should be consecrated, and put on the sacred vessels and vestments, and upon walls and boards, in private houses and public ways; and especially that there should be erected images of the Lord our God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, of our blessed Lady, the mother of God, of the venerable angels, and of all the saints. And that whosoever should presume to think or teach otherwise, or to throw away any painted books, or the figure of the cross, or any image or picture, or any genuine relicts of the martyrs, they should, if bishops or clergymen, be deposed; or if monks or laymen, be excommunicated.” Then they pronounced anathemas upon all who should not receive images, or who should call them idols, or who should wilfully communicate with those who rejected and despised them; adding, according to custom, “Long live Constantine and Irene his mother. Damnation to all heretics. Damnation on the council that roared against venerable images: the holy Trinity hath deposed them.”
Irene and Constantine approved and subscribed these decrees, and the consequence was, that idols and images were erected in all the churches; and those who were against them, treated with great severity. This council was held under the popedom of Hadrian I. and thus, by the intrigues of the popes of Rome, iniquity was established by a law, and the worship of idols authorized and established in the Christian church, though contrary to all the principles of natural religion, and the nature and design of the Christian revelation.
It is true, that this decision of the council did not put an entire end to the controversy. Platina tells us,[244] that Constantine himself, not long after, annulled their decrees, and removed his mother from all share in the government. The synod also of Francfort, held about six years after, decreed that the worship and adoration of images was impious; condemned the synod of Nice, which had established it, and ordered that it should not be called either the seventh, or an universal council. But as the Roman pontiffs had engrossed almost all power into their own hands, all opposition to image worship became ineffectual; especially as they supported their decrees by the civil power, and caused great cruelties to be exercised towards all those who should dare dispute or contradict them.
For many years the world groaned under this antichristian yoke; nor were any methods of fraud, imposture and barbarity, left unpractised to support and perpetuate it. As the clergy rid lords of the universe, they grew wanton and insolent in their power; and as they drained the nations of their wealth to support their own grandeur and luxury, they degenerated into the worst and vilest set of men that ever burdened the earth. They were shamefully ignorant, and scandalously vicious; well versed in the most exquisite arts of torture and cruelty, and absolutely divested of all bowels of mercy and compassion towards those, who even in the smallest matters differed from the dictates of their superstition and impiety. The infamous practices of that accursed tribunal, the inquisition, the wars against heretics in the earldom of Tholouse, the massacres of Paris and Ireland, the many sacrifices they have made in Great Britain, the fires they have kindled, and the flames they have lighted up in all nations, where their power hath been acknowledged, witness against them, and demonstrate them to be very monsters of mankind. So that one would really wonder, that the whole world hath not entered into a combination, and risen in arms against so execrable a set of men, and extirpated them as savage beasts, from the face of the whole earth; who, out of a pretence of religion, have defiled it with the blood of innumerable saints and martyrs, and made use of the name of the most holy Jesus, to countenance and sanctify the most abominable impieties.
But as the inquisition is their master piece of hellish policy and cruelty, I shall give a more particular account of it in the following book.
57. Hieron. in Gal. c. 6.
58. Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.
59. Euseb. l. 5. c. 28.
60. Epist. 54. Ed. Fell.
61. Lib. 5. c. 20.
62. Epist. 13.
63. E. H. l. 10. c. 5.
64. Ibid.
65. De Vit. Con. l. 1. c. 44.
66. E. H. l. 10. c. 5.
67. E. H. l. 10. c. 6.
68. De vit. Const. l. 2.
69. Ibid. c. 45.
70. Ibid. c. 56.
71. Euseb. E. H. l. 5. c. 28.
72. Ibid. l. 6. c. 33.
73. Ibid. l. 7. c. 27.
74. Ibid. l. 7. c. 28, 29.
75. De vit. Const. l. 2. c. 61.
76. Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 6.
77. Euseb. l. 6. c. 45.
78. Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 15.
79. Theodoret[79a] indeed gives another account of this matter, viz. That Arius was disappointed of the bishopric of Alexandria by the promotion of Alexander, and that this provoked him to oppose the doctrine of the bishop.[79b] 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[79c] imputes their quarrel 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 Theodoret’s single unsupported testimony is to be preferred to these other accounts, I leave every one that is a judge of common sense to determine. 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,[79d] “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 promotion.
79a. Theod. l. 1. c. 2.
79b. c. 7, 14.
79c. Soz. p. 426.
79d. l. 2. c. 1.
80. E. H. l. 1. c. 15.
81. Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 6.
82. Soz. l. 1. c. 15.
83. Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. 5.
84. Id. l. 1. c. 4.
85. Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. 5.
86. Id. Ibid. c. 6.
87. Theod. E. H. l. i. c. 4.
88. Dial. p. 112. 413. p. 20, &c. De Reg. fid. p. 240. De ver. Sap. p. 371.
89. Dialog. p. 413. Ed. Thirl.
90. Ibid. p. 413.
91. Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 1, c. 63, &c.
92. Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 4, 5. 325. Id. Ibid. c. 6. Soc. E. H. l. 1.
93. The first general council, A. C. c. 17.
94. Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. 7, 11.
95. l. 2. c. 8.
96. Soz. E.H. l. 1. c. 9.
98. Theod. l. 1. c. 12.
99. Soc. l. 1. c. 9.
100. Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 20.
101. Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 9.
102. E. H. l. 1. c. 7.
103. Vol. I. Epist. lv. Edict. Col.
104. Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 13.
105. Ibid. c. 65.
106. Soz. l. 1. c. 21.
107. Soc. l. 1. c. 9.
108.
“Since Arius hath imitated wicked and ungodly men, it is just that he should undergo the same infamy with them. As therefore Porphyrius, an enemy of godliness, for his having composed wicked books against Christianity, hath found a suitable recompense, so as to be infamous for the time to come, and to be loaded with great reproach, and to have all his impious writings quite destroyed; so also it is now my pleasure, that Arius, and those of Arius’s sentiments, shall be called Porphyrians, so that they may have the appellation of those, whose manners they have imitated. Moreover, if any book composed by Arius shall be found, it shall be delivered to the fire; that “not only his evil doctrine may be destroyed, but that there may not be the least remembrance of it left.” This also I enjoin, that if any one shall be found to have concealed “any writing” composed by Arius, and shall not immediately bring it and consume it in the fire, death shall be his punishment; for as soon as ever he is taken in this crime, he shall suffer a capital punishment. God preserve you.”
109. Epist. xiii.
110. E. H. l. 1. c. 24.
111. Theod. l. 1. c. 4, 5.
112. Vol. I, p. 702.
113. The whole account, as given by Sozomen, is this: Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis accused Athanasius to Constantine, as the author of seditions and disturbances in the church, and as excluding many who were willing to enter into it; whereas all would agree, if this one thing was granted. Many bishops and clergymen affirmed these accusations against him were true; and going frequently to the emperor, and affirming themselves to be orthodox, accused Athanasius and the bishops of his party of being guilty of murders, of putting some in chains, of whipping others, and burning of churches. Upon this Athanasius wrote to Constantine, and signified to him that his accusers were illegally ordained, made innovations upon the decrees of the council of Nice, and were guilty of seditions and injuries towards the orthodox. Upon this Constantine was at a loss which to believe; but as they thus accused one another, and the number of the accusers on each side grew troublesome to him; out of his love of peace, he wrote to Athanasius that he should hinder nobody from the communion of the church; and that if he should have any future complaints of this nature against him, he would immediately drive him out of Alexandria. The reader will observe, that the charge against Athanasius brought by Eusebius and Theognis, was confirmed by many orthodox bishops, in the very presence of the emperor; and that Athanasius, instead of denying it, objects to the ordination and orthodoxy of his accusers, and charges them with a bad treatment of the orthodox; and that the evidence on both sides appeared so strong, that the emperor knew not which to believe; but that, however, he was at last so far convinced of the factious, turbulent spirit of Athanasius, that he ordered him to open the doors of the church, under pain of banishment.
114. Philostorg. Compen. E. H. l. 8. c. 11.
115. Soz. l. 2. c. 25, 28.
116. Soz. E. H. p. 488, 491, 492.
117. Ad Imp. I. Const. Apol. p. 716.
118. Vol. I. p. 584.
119. Orat. 1. cont. Ar. p. 304.
120. Vol. I. p. 291.
121. p. 292.
122. Soz. l. 2. c. 18.
123. Vol. I. p. 951.
124. p. 291.
125. Soc. l. 1. c. 27.
126. Id. ibid. c. 35.
127. Ad Solit. Vit. Agen. Epist. p. 809, 810.
128. Soc. l. 2. c. 8.
129. Soz. l. 3. c. 5.
130. Soz. l. 3. c. 5.
131. Soc. l. 2. c. 10.
132. Soc. l. 3. c. 4.
133. Athanas. de Sanct. Trin. V. 2. p. 210.
134. Soc. l. 2. c. 18.
135. Soc. l. 2. c. 15.
136. c. 17.
137. Ad Sol. Vit. Ag. p. 813.
138. Soc. l. 2. c. 27.
139. Ad Const. Apol. p. 695.
140. Cont. Ar. Orat. 1. p. 290.
141. l. 2. c. 25.
142. Soc. l. 2. c. 15, 16.
143. Am. Mar. l. 22. c. 5.
144. Soc. l. 3. c. 1.
145. l. 22. c. 5.
146. Soc. l. 3. c. 2, 3, 4. Philost. l. 7. c. 2.
147. Philost. l. 7. c. 13.
148. Theod. l. 4. c. 2.
149. Soc. l. 3. c. 14, &c.
150. Theod. l. 3. c. 6, &c.
151. Ibid. l. 3. c. 21.
152. Soc. l. 3. c. 24, 25.
153. Theod. l. 4. c. 4.
154. Soc. l. 4. c. 1.
155. Theod. l. 4. c. 8.
156. Cod. Theod. tit. 16. l. 9.
157. Soc. l. 4. c. 6.
158. Soz. l. 6. c. 7.
159. Soc. ibid. c. 15, 16. Theod. l. 4. c. 22.
160. Soc. l. 4. c. 29.
161. Soc. l. 27. c. 3.
162. Theod. l. 5. c. 2.