Selected quad for the lemma: church_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A49896
|
An historical vindication of The naked Gospel recommended to the University of Oxford.
|
Le Clerc, Jean, 1657-1736.
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing L816; ESTC R21019
|
43,004
|
72
|
and threatnings to permit Arius to return to Alexandria However they could not then accomplish their purpose and we shall see in the sequel the bickerings which they had with this Bishop Since the Council of Nice had been distmist and that they had been banisht This usage and the decisions of Nice had but only outwardly allai'd the disputes which lasts still when they were recalled Eusebius assures us that the Bishops of Egypt had been ever since over Head and Ears in quarrels and Socrates says (a) lib. 1. c. 23. that he found from the Letters of the Bishops of those times that some were scandaliz'd at the word Consubstantial examining says he this term with too great application they fell foul on one another and their quarrels did not ill resemble a combat in the dark It appears they sufficiently bespattered one another with calumnies without knowing wherefore Those who rejected the word Consubstantial thought the others hereby introduced the opinions of Sabellius and Montanus and treated them as impious as denying the existence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Son of God On the contrary those who stuck to the word Consubstantial imagining the others would introduce a plurality of Gods had as great aversion as if they would have reestablisht Paganism Eustathius Bishop of Antioch accused Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea for the Nicene Creed Eusebius denied it and charged on the other side Eustathius of Sabellianism thus the Bishops wrote one against another They all accorded in saying the Son has a particular Existence and that there is only one God in three Hypostases yet they could not agree nor remain quiet This is the effect of equivocal terms which were introduced into Christianity without well defining them and the bad custom of most of the Ancients who never speak calmly of these matters who have thought of nothing less than the expressing themselves clearly and who seem to prove they spake sincerely when they testified to believe that the mistery about which they disputed was incomprehensible by expressing themselves thereon in an unintelligible manner Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (a) Socr. lib. 1. cap. 24. accusing of Arianism Eusebius of Cesarea Paulinus of Tyre and Patrophilus of Scythopolis and these Bishops accusing him in their turns of Sabellianism to know who had reason on their side a Synod was assembled at Antioch in 329. the conclusions of which were disadvantagious to Eustathius It consisted of Bishops who had sign'd the Nicene Creed only by force among whom were the two Eusebius's Theognis of Nice Theodotus of Laodicea in Syria Narcissus of Neroniada Aetius of Lydiae Alphaeus of Apamea and Theodorus of Sidon Assoon as ever they arriv'd at Antioch a Woman of ill fame presented her self to 'em with a little Child which she said to have had by Eustathius and desired them to do her right against him as refusing to receive his Child Eustathius made great protestations of his innocency but this Woman having been believed upon her Oath he was deposed (a) Theod. Sozom. some Authors affirmed that the Arian Bishops had suborn'd her to have an occasion for the deposing of Eustathius and that the true cause of his deposal was his adherence to the Nicene Creed Others say it was the pretended Sabellianism of which he was accused and some have contented themselves with saying there were other accusations for which he had been deposed whereupon Socrates (b) loco cit makes this remarkable reflection The Bishops are wont to deal thus with all those whom they depose accusing and declaring them impious without shewing wherein A Bishop was afterwards to be substituted in Eustathius his place and the Arian Bishops cast their eyes on Eusebius of Cesarea But there arose a violent sedition hereupon some willing to retain Eustathius and others accepting Eusebius They had come to Fisticuffs had not the Emperor taken care by sending one of his Officers who appeased the People and made them understand how Eustathius deserv'd to be sent into Exile and in effect he was sent into Thrace However Eusebius did a thing which made him receive very honourable Letters from the Emperor which he has inserted in the life of this Prince which is that according to the Canons he refused to pass from one Church to another Constantin heapt up Praises on him by reason of this refusal and wrote to the Council and the Church of Antioch to let him remain where he was So that instead of Eusebius there was elected Euphronius Priest of Cappadocia whom the Emperor had named with George of Arethusa to the end the Council might choose which they pleased (a) Soc. 1.27 Seq Soz. Theod. Having deposed Eustathius the Arian Bishops labored to procure the return of Arius to Alexandria where Athanasius would not permit him to enter as has been already said They engaged the Emperor to write to this Bishop but Athanasius still defended himself in that he could not receive into the Church those who had forsook the Faith and been excommunicated so that Constantin wrote to him an angry Letter that he should receive into the Church those he ordered him under pain of banishment The obstinacy of this Bishop who would part with none of the advantages which the Council of Nice had granted to his Predecessor against the Meletians had also drawn on him the enmity of these Schismaticks The Council had ordained that Melece should only retain the name of Bishop without exercising any function of his Office and without ordaining any Successor and that those whom he had ordained should have no part in Elections However Melece at his death had ordained one John for his Successor and the Meletian Priests would have the same priviledges as others Athanasius could not consent to any thing of this and equally ill treated the Meletians and Arians This conduct reunited the two parties who had been till that time opposite The Meletians were of the Nicene opinion but by conversing with the Arians they soon entred into their Sentiments and joyn'd together to induce Constantin to accept of several Accusations against Athanasius as having imposed a kind of Tribute on Egypt in ordering it to furnish the Church of Alexandria with a certain number of Linnen Garments in having supplied a certain seditious Person with Mony named Philumenus in having caused a Chalice to be broken overthrown the Table of a Church and burnt the Holy Books for having mis-used several Priests and committed divers Violences in having cut off the Arm of a Meletian Bishop named Arsenius and keeping it to use in Magical Operations Constantin acknowledg'd the Innocency of Athanasius in regard of the two first Accusations and for the rest he refer'd it to an Assembly of divers Bishops which was at Cesarea in Palestine where Athanasius not appearing he was cited to a Synod at Tyre in the year 334 and which consisted of Bishops of Egypt Lybia Asia and Europe Athanasius was in Suspence whether he
hoc quod Ariana haeresis magis cum sapientia seculi facit et argumentationum rivos de Aristotelis fontibus matuaetur Thus the Orthodox and Hereticks equally approved the sentiments of Plato each of them apparently explaining them according to his Hypothesis Constantin further ordered in the fame Letter to burn all Arius his Books to the end that not only his perniâ—ions Doctrin be destroyed but that there remain no monument of it to posterity He likewise declared that if any one concealed any of his Books and did not bring them to be burnt he should be put to death after it had been proved upon him There is moreover another Letter of this Emperor wherein he enjoyns all Churches to celebrate Easter according to the Canons of the Council Eusebius and Theognis either effectually believing that the Creed of the Council might admit an Arian sense (a) Soctat lib. 1. cap. 14. or affrighted by the Emperors severity offered to sign the Creed but refused to anathematize Arius affirming that opinions were attributed to him which he never did one Eusebius so ordered by the means of his Friends about the Emperor (b) ex Epist Const ad Nicomed ap Theal lib. 1. cap. 20. that what he desired was granted him which is to say that they were contented with his subscription to the Creed Theognis and Maris did as much and the Letter of the Council to the Churches of Egypt mentions only Theonas and Secondus who had absolutely stood out Phylostorgus likewise acknowledges (a) lib. 1. cap. 8. 9. that all the Arian Bishops subscribed except two and reproaches the rest with their insincerity in that they had explain'd after the Arian fashion the terms of the Council by the advice of Constantia the Emperors Sister He adds that Secondus setting out to go into his Exile said to Eusebius you have subscribed Eusebius that you might not be banisht but for my part I believe what God has revealed to me which is that you shall be carried into Exile before the year comes about Arius if we believe the Orthodox had not the Courage to resolve on Banishment with Secondus and Theonas He pretended a desire to be better instructed and sought an occasion of conferring with Athanasius Deacon of Alexandria (b) Athan. T. 1. p. 111. whose Acts are still extant If this Relation be true one may conjecture That Arius designedly defended himself but ill the better to yield to his Adversaries Reasons as he did to obtain his Grace He acknowledges at the end of this Conference the Equality and Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father after which he shews himself entirely reclaim'd from his Error The Fathers of the Council receiv'd him as a Penitent without setling him in his Employ and the Emperor only forbad him to go to Alexandria Euzoius and Achillas collegues of Arius were also pardoned and St. Jerome adds (a) In Lucifer p. 145. T. 2. to them eight Bishops of which he names but three and one Priest Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis of Nice Saras Priest of Lybia and Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea It appears from the sequel of the Dialogue that the Arians denied that the Bishops of their Party were reconciled at Nice but St. Jerom grounds himself on the Acts and Subscriptions of this Council which yet he had not then at hand excusing himself from naming the four other reconciled Bishops by a Rhetorical Figure reliqui quos enumerare longumest There needed not so much time for to set down four names but without doubt he did not remember them The first who sign'd the Council among the Orthodox was Hosius Bishop of Cordova afterwards Vitonius and Vincent Roman Priests sent by Sylvester after them the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem and in fine the other Bishops Those who favour the Pretensions of the Church of Rome say That Hosius sign'd in Quality of Legat from the Bishop of that City but the most ancient Historians have not a Word of it The Council ending the 25th of August Constantin took his farewel of them in a very fine Harangue (a) Euseb in vit ejus wherein he exhorted the Fathers to thoughts of Peace and to a mutual Forbearance but which was of little Effect as will appear by the Sequel Thus ended this famous Council the Circumstances of which would be better known to us if the fear of offending great Persons the Zeal of some the Passion of others and the Respect which Posterity has had for the Decisions of so famous an Assembly had not hindred contemporary Authors from writing the History with exactness and the Disengagement remarkable in good Historians and retain'd those who have liv'd since from saying what they knew perhaps that was disadvantagious St. Athanasius in a little Treatise already cited and where he seems at first to be willing to enter on this History transported by the Zeal of which he was full falls on Controversie and Invectives when one might expect him ready to relate Circumstances Sozomen says That he did not dare to relate the Creed of Nice (a) Lib. 1. c. 20. because some of his pious and learned Friends in this matter advised him to suppress the things which the Initiates and the Priests alone should understand and that according to their Council he had conceal'd what was to be kept silent A while after the Emperor (b) Sozom. lib. 1. c. 25. being to celebrate the Feast of his Vicennales which is to say of the twentieth Year of his Empire invited the Bishops to Byzantia which he thought of re-establishing in giving it the new Name of Constantinople where he magnificently treated them and made each of 'em a-part a Present after which they return'd to their Bishopricks It seems that it was about this time that he wrote very obliging Letters to Eusebius of Cesarea (c) Socr. lib 1. cap. 9. in giving him order to procure him fifty Copies fairly written of the Holy Scripture As to Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis his Friend they were no sooner return'd into their Bishopricks but they began again to Preach publickly Arianism (d) Ex. Epi. Const ad Nicom l. and receiv'd into their Communion some Persons of Alexandria who had been thence expelled for this Opinion Constantin advertised of this sent them into Exile three Months after the Council and establish'd at Nicomedia one Amphion for Bishop and Chrestus at Nice Thus was Secondus's Prediction accomplish'd and Insincerity punished Two Months after Alexander Bishop of Alexandria died which occasion'd great Disturbances in that City The Orthodox (a) Sozom. II. 17. Philost III. 11. say that Athanasius Deacon of this Church whom Alexander had brought along with him to Nice by reason of his Knowledge had been denoted several times by this Bishop for his Successor but that he had hid himself a little before his Death for fear of being Elected and that having been found he was chosen by a