The History of Persecution, from the Patriarchal Age, to the Reign of George IIChandler, Samuel
History
The History of Persecution, from the Patriarchal Age, to the Reign of George II
Chandler, Samuel
Persecution -- Great Britain; Persecution -- History
that he threatened to depose and banish him, unless he submitted to his
order;[126] which he shortly after did, by sending him into France, upon
an accusation of several bishops, who, as Socrates intimates, were
worthy of credit, that he had said he would stop the corn that was
yearly sent to Constantinople from the city of Alexandria. To such an
height of pride was this bishop now arrived, as even to threaten the
sequestration of the revenues of the empire. Constantine also
apprehended, that this step was necessary to the peace of the church,
because Athanasius absolutely refused to communicate with Arius and his
followers.
-----
Footnote 122:
Soz. l. 2. c. 18.
Footnote 123:
Vol. I. p. 951.
Footnote 124:
p. 291.
Footnote 125:
Soc. l. 1. c. 27.
Footnote 126:
Id. ibid. c. 35.
-----
Soon after these transactions Arius died,[127] and the manner of his
death, as it was reported by the orthodox, Athanasius thinks of itself
sufficient fully to condemn the Arian heresy, and an evident proof that
it was hateful to God. Nor did Constantine himself long survive him; he
was succeeded by his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans.
Constantine the eldest recalled Athanasius from banishment,[128] and
restored him to his bishopric; upon which account[129] there arose most
grievous quarrels and seditions, many being killed, and many publicly
whipped by Athanasius’s order, according to the accusations of his
enemies. Constantius, after his elder brother’s death, convened a synod
at Antioch in Syria, where Athanasius was again deposed for these
crimes, and Gregory put into the see of Alexandria. In this council a
new creed was drawn up,[130] in which the word “consubstantial” was
wholly omitted,[131] and the expressions made use of so general, as that
they might have been equally agreed to by the orthodox and Arians. In
the close of it several anathemas were added, and particularly upon all
who should teach or preach otherwise than what this council had
received, because, as they themselves say, “they did really believe and
follow all things delivered by the holy scriptures, both prophets and
apostles.” So that now the whole Christian world was under a synodical
curse, the opposite councils having damned one another, and all that
differed from them. And if councils, as such, have any authority to
anathematize all who will not submit to them, this authority equally
belongs to every council; and therefore it was but a natural piece of
revenge, that as the council of Nice had sent all the Arians to the
devil, the Arians, in their turn, should take the orthodox along with
them for company, and thus repay one anathema with another.
-----
Footnote 127:
Ad Solit. Vit. Agen. Epist. p. 809, 810.
Footnote 128:
Soc. l. 2. c. 8.
Footnote 129:
Soz. l. 3. c. 5.
Footnote 130:
Soz. l. 3. c. 5.
Footnote 131:
Soc. l. 2. c. 10.
-----
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account