Newspapers / The Christian Sun (Elon … / Sept. 15, 1852, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Christian Sun (Elon College, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
. I ., A Religious and Miscellaneous ■H aper, devoted to Religion, Morality, Litcrhturf, G&ieral Intelligence, and the support of the Principles of the Christian Church„ .--a— NORTH CAROLINA, SEPTEMBER 15, 1852. 'jaw $1:50 PER ANNUM, IN ADVANCE. “THE LORD GOD IS A SUN AND SHIELD.” NUMBER 37. CHURCH HISTORY, BY N. SUMMERBELL. {Continued.) The Inquisition first Invented under the bloody tyrant and heretic Theodosiulpif the fourth century, was perfected by a fiend inJ-rul&'n form called St. Dominic, Oh Lord what saints! VJIlirbt company with Bishop Osma, said to the inhabitants con cerning the Christians: « “Why do you not drive them out!" ->» “ Why do yon not exterminate them?” • The reply was, we cannot, we have been brought up with them, and are spectators of their exemplary conduct.”—Jones, 279. p ‘ " Their friends. The most formidable of the friends of the Christians, were Count Raymond of Thoulouse and Raymond .Roger his nephew, Earl of Beziers. Count Raymond was time serving, vacilating, uncertain, and weak in his measures—con fiding tbo much in the thrice perjured heretics of Rome, his efforts were crippled and his defences weakened. Count Roger was decided, firm, not to be so soon deceived—yet too weak to be successful. Count Raymond in the early part of the con flict, gave himself up in the hope of saving the people. He was excommunicated A. D. 1207, and in a letter from the Pope, he was commanded to joiu the army against the Albigcnscs, weak of heart, he engaged in the cause of the Pope, so as to eave his own cities, (Jones, 2: 280.) But Roger, his nephew, prepared to defend his territories. At the siege of Carcassone, they offered to let Roger leave with twelve others, if he would give up the city, this he refused; but he was not proof against their hypocrisy. Ho with three hundred knights, while treat ing with the Legate under a guarantee of safety, were basely made prisoners. The rest of the citizens, principally, made their escape by a secret cavern, some were caught in attempt ing to escape, who with the Knights, altogether four hundred j\ were burned alive, and fifty hanged.—Jones, 2: 818. . siers was also taken, and the inhabitants to the number of . thousand, butchered in oold blood. How shall we dis &h between Catholics and heretics ? that is Christians— A.\ “Kill them all,” replied Arnold the Abbot, “God i own,” (Wad. 298,) his advice was followed. It 1 the crusading army-now amounted to three hundred . the war was continued by succeeding Popes, and Ion permanently established. They took the castle and offered the inhabitants quarter on condition j the new religion. On their refusing, the Earl, his us, daughter and domestics were all shut up in Paxant^hg-ugbich was then burnt to ashes.—Jones, 2: 121. ftch demon called Montfert, had accepted the task of ceafaHKr the Christians, for the possession of their dominions. The Earldom of Thoulouse was held out to him, but in the year 1228, he had fallen before the walls of the city; but when the city was taken, they enacted laws ordering all houses, cellars, forests &c. &c., guarded agaiiist fugitives; to take all means to detect them; children of the age of twelve were to take a hor rid, oath, binding them to the dragon’s interest; and all laymen were prohibited possessing any copies of the scriptures.—Wad dington, 294. (Japtives were one a uurnt, amia me must iiemi reuuiug uict froni tlie sufferers; but affording the most rapturous joy to the Catholics.—Jir. Hit. Alb. 2. b. 8 eh. At th$ taking of the castle of Bron, one hundred of the in t, habitants had their eyes plucked out, and were sent under guide of a comrade with one eye, to warn other cities. When Miner va was takev tile Christians were at prayer, both men and sing to become Romans, one hundred and forty won were burned'on one pile of wood. The taking of Lavaur, is thus described by a Catholic monk: “Very soon they dragged out eighty Knights, these the noble Count Monfert ordered to j but the gallows falling with the first, they were or be massacred on the spot. A lady was thrown into a was then filled up with stones, afterwards our pil collected innumerable, heretics and burned them alive with the utmost joy." (Bern. Guid. riti Inocent III. 482.) The army finally swelled to five' hundred thousand, (Jones, 2 : 286.) City after city was taken. “ The war continued about twenty years ifljhyhieh time it was computed that about a million and a half of puts008 bearing the name of Albigenses were* put to death, (Ben. His. Bap. p. 29.) “Thus the Albigeois were con signed, without hope or mercy to the eager hand of the inquisi tors,” consumed and anibllated A. D. 1268, and -the thirteenth century closes the "history of the QJiristians in France, where they had existed from Apostolic times. Arrived at the darkest period in the histo which we we pause, and look back over the dark wjlderm have passed. We have seen the Christian Church with life and power from God, meeting in fierce encounter the sj^tesmnn and philosophers of the world; we have seen her boldly plant the wild domain of heathen heart and mind,t;witK4Gospel faith and Christian graces, and successfully cultivate it, until the wilder ness became a beautiful vineyard of the Lord. But Rome again ag devastated those fields, and enveloped the world in a night, darker than heathenism. As the good roan turns aside, nor crushes the yotjng reptile in his path—So was the infant heresy spared, till its monster heads became united In one body, and its beastly horns centered in one head, and its dragon mass' rolled itself into form. Then, in tiro cities was heard a wail of sor row, in the towns, a loud cry of anguish; and throughout the land from nation to nation, sorrow and wo. The dragon was making war upon the saints, and crushing nations, smothered in its folds; until over nature’s last barrier, in (Europe, it rolled its snaky'form, a horrid mass. The raging fires of unnumbered cities, told of the destroyer’s presence, and the agonizing groans of expiring saints, said: “Rome jf come.’’ The'feir feoe of heaven was for centuries blackened by smoke from the martyrs funeral pile; and the loveliest provinces of earth despoiled, and drenched with the blood of saints. Rising prayers ascended to heaven, ant the martyrs entered paradise. Loud shrieks filled the earth, and Rome triumphed. . In tracing the history of these dark periods, I have refhsed - ■ .P-.—----== to follow the sectarian historians, in calling the great body of the' Church in the fourth century Arians; as there is not tbo least authentic history that they ever recognized the name, or believed the doctrine of Arius; but history shows that the name was a libel of very injurious tendency, deceiving the un informed as to the real principles of the Christians of that age, and as such, to be deprecated by all lovers of truth. The following summary, attested by the best authors, will show the real nutnbcr of Arians; and.to display the disposition * of the relative parties, as to prove to all lovers of truth the deep wrong inflicted on the followers of Bible truth by calling them Arians. The Christians who are confounded with the Arians by the uninformed or bigoted historians, were the “nu merous party.” “Dominant Church party,” and “middle par ty,” who held to the “older system of subordination,” Nean der, 2; 424, and wished to settle the divinity of Christ in scrip ture phraseology—p. 374, who “ adhered tenaciously to simple Bible doctrine,” “and were for teaching nothing that they could not prove with the exactness of verbal testimony from the Bible—p. 424. They are denominated “ peace-loving”—p. 376, “ mediators,” and “ authors of peace,” who held the “ domin ia.pt Church doctrine,” (p. 378:) Those authors of peace erred through charity when prefering Bible language for themselves; they proposed for the contending'factions who did not, the various Ilomoonsion compromises, approved by Hilary.—Gib bon, 2: 250. Ak i ne more numerous aommanr, or nnaaie parry,, in vain strove for peace. Eusebius “ laid before the council a confession of the doctrine of Christ’s di faith,” which distinct] vinity,” “ composed fc gy, which was consider/ st part, of scriptural pliraseolo e party of Eusebius as being a peculiar merit in .tlio'dreed 6f Arius, as in the formula of the Homoousion, tliSy especially censured the use of expressions not conformed to the language of the scripture.”—Neander, 2: 874—6. And in volJI: 573, Neander says, “ the Trinity con stituted from the beginning the fundamental consciousness of tholic Church,” and on page 572, that the Trinity strictly belong to the fundamental articles of the aud is expressed in “ no one particular pas sage of the Now Testament,” but is the result of other princi ples. Yet his Trinity is a “ threefold gradation,” page 578, and not equality; and he calls the subordination system of the semi Arians, the “ older in opposition to the new Nicene form,” vol. 1: 607, and vol. 2 : 861, 863, 364, 365, 424, etc. While Hawies 1:292, thinks it “contemptible evasion,” “to vindicate from the charge of Arianism,” those who hold to this subordination view. But Neander calls it the anti-Nicene “mode” of appre hending the doctrine of the Trinity,”—p. 424. So that the Christians, now called “Arians” were then the only true defend ers of what is now called the anti-Nicene Trinity; and as such, Neander actually presents Auxentius. Compare page 428 with 424. They ♦ere the more numerous party at the council (p. 872) out of 318 Bishops—p. 876, and although they rejected Arianism, yet they were called Arians by the creed makers—p. 390, 891. In the middle of the fourth century they were still called tho “majority,” and “dominant party,” in opposition to the “smaller number” of “ Arians properwhen it Is said, that “the Aran*party (meaning the Christians,) had obtained the victory throughout the whole Roman Empire,” p. 399. At the Antioch assemblies in 841 and 845, they condemned the Arian formulas, by which the Son of God was made a creature, asserting in the strongest terms the similarity of essence; but objecting to Homoousion, because it was a badge of strife, cho sen to offend; and they were lovers of peace,—Nean. 2,: 873, 376. and prefered Bibl^ language; so thought Dionysius tho Great, and afterwards Eusebius the historian, two men in whom truth mid love, faith^iftd charity, greatness aud gentleness seem ed met id heavenly tSoiicord, and blended with every Christian grace, in strange contrast with their opposers.—See Neander, 1: 107. 2: 374—376. To the Christian ranks df the primitive ages, also belong llegessipus and Eusebius, the only primitive historians; also Philestorgins of the 5th century if Neander’s conclusions (from Etftgoousion 2: 217 and Ousion, p. 40§^a|^ correct. While all the fathers were of this more numejroys party. Their Bishops, Basil and Georgius—Nean. 2: 40S, were celebrated in the 4th century for their opposition to the Arians proper—p. 116, 405. In the majority at Rimini A. D. 360, they refered the question back to the Scriptures, condemning both Arianism and Athanasianism—p. 408—-9. But they were per seented by the Arian Emperor, V alens, and his Bishop Eudoxus; 60 that some are sa|d to have sided with the Homoousions—p. 418. Then Theodosius established the Trinity, A. D. 3&); he encountered them eyery where—near , a score of nationsyvere .. (It bat there was no Trinitarian na ■ Christians, nme calls jr~r • —'mrJMt.— T-''iamnL~ tion 1 and more; there waano.Trinitarian fomylin any of those nations, except as imported thither from Rome. • All the nations, with a]l their Kings, Noblds, Bishops,!Priests hnd laymen, all re jected the Trinity; but tfsey were not Arians. Such a charge needs proof, but the proof is to the contrary, as already shown. Besides, how could Arianism without friends or means, in spite of Emperors, Bishops, Bibles, and preconceived faith; spread in the midst of opposition and persecution, from the centre of the Empire tothe remotest Rations, con verting, universally kings md subjects, Patrician and Plebian Priests,and laymen to con demn heterdoxy ill the short space of 881 years? It did nothin speaking of the Christian bishop Auxentius, Neander positive ly calls “semi-Ariahismj” the Anti-Nicene doctrine,” and says that those nations Were “first instructed by teachers who were attached to those principles; and held fast to the form in which they had once received Christianity "—this “ mode of appre hending the doctrine of the Trinity,” being, “better suited to them than the completely developed Nicene view”—it being a “peculiarity of their Semi-Arian teachers,” that “the^ad hered most tenaciously to the simple Bible doctrine;” “cach ing nothing which they could not prove with the exactness of verbal testimony from the Bible."—Nean. 2: 4S8. Which they had in their own tongue, (p. 128,) and studied in the dead lan guages—p. 129, and were renegrned for their knowledge of; even urging the establishment of Bible Schools among the Romans, (p. 150.) They believed that thq.j3on was subordi nate, but “not created.”—Wad. 115—llX- . The story that those numerous nations ware converted by the refugee, Arians, of the fourth century, is tgo monstrous for thB Philosopher, and too contrary to facts for the historian; while the ides that they were converted before, but proselyted by those Arians then, is not only contrary to all known facts in history: but, it * is too monstrously absurd, to suppose that a party of seventeen condemned Bishops, could proselyte as many nations from the Trinity to Arianism in thirty-five years, so as not to leave in the most of them, a tingle true believer to tell the wofhl tale of the universal Apostacy, or make a single note of the great revo lutions. Where were the orthodox shepherds? Where the Trinitarian Kings? to defend with fire and sword? Shame, to5 protestants, who relate such Catholic tales. These nations as far as converted were all Christians of the Anti-Nicene School^ (See note, Nean. 2:117.) It is them, and not the Arians, that Jerome means, when he says—“ The whole world wandered to find itself Arian.”—Wad. 99. Gib. 2 252. Nean. 2, 899.\ Too easily pleased, or too highly offended the various Trinitarian historians, from their dizzy mount of orthodoxy; are puzzled to distinguish between friends and enemies; but bless and curse, with their varying fancy; the same men, as Orthodoxy and Ari ans; and so moulded by their plastic hands; the evidence “honored as a God.”—(Neander 2,51,) which makes Christ su i preme, leaves Mark an Arian, and makes the Arian ‘■'■full God," heresy, and the Constantine’s worship of Christ and Pagan Gods, orthodoxy. So. also the Christians who hold the Son of God before the council of Nice; are doubtfully, or dogmatically appealed to as Trinitarians; while those living after that period are grudgingly, or pettishly consigned over to Arianism; and Sabellius, is now, a heretic while Dr. Adam Clarke with the same views, is an oracle.—Nean. 1: 598.—Clarke Com. Luke 1 : 30. Again, the early fathers, Clement, A. Ircneus &c., who only saw in Christ the Logos, and Sarx, that is the divine soul, and flesh—for “ Tertullian was the first to express distinctly, and clearly the doetrine, that Christ possessed a proper human soul.”—Nean. 1: 634,635. These fathers, who denied the hu man soul, up to the council held against Beryll, (p. 693,) which first settled that doctrine, are considered orthodox; and those who had no knowledge of the equality of the Holy Spirit, Trin itarians. w nen me louncianon oi me liouiua varnouc vmurcu, was laid by Constantine in the beginning of the 4th century, those Christians whose religion was dictated by the Roman Govern ment, came into an entire new Church organization, of which the emperor was “bishop,” “supreme head,” and “sovereign Pontiff;” who “ extended its powers,” (Grey & Rut. 92.) Or ganized for it the Episcopal government, by •conforming the Church to the state of government, and bishops to magistrates,” —p. 94. “ He secured its revenues,” making “ allotments of land ” and “ instituting tythes,” (p. 95,) and made it the “ State Religion.”—Nean. 2: 230. The decisions of the bishops, he made legally binding, (p. 139,) with “ privileges and penalties,” for the obedient and the refractory,—p. 133, and dictated the Nicene Creed,—p. 37, as the test of*temporal and eternal sal vation. The first elements of the creel originated in the platonism of the Alexandrian School.—(Nean. 2: 349.) The Bishop, Alex ander (Mosh. T: 125,) maintained that the Son was of the same eminence, dignity, and essence of the Father. (Wad. 93.) Ari us a presbyter, entertaining entirely different views from those of Plato, (ibid Mosh.) disputed this. “The Church had fre quently decided that there was a real difference between the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost was distinct from both,” but the relative dignity had not been defined by “ any particular set of ideas,”—“ The Christian Doctors entertained different sentiments upon the subject without giving the least offence.”—Mosh. 1: 124. “The prevailing view in the Western Chure.h came to this; one divine essence in the Father and the Son; but at the same time, a subordination in the relation of the Son to the Father.”—Ifeander 1: 605, thus agreeing with the Eastern Church,” Ilaw.. 2 : 272^ “ Where the subor dination Theory long maintained its place.”—Mean. 1 : 716. So that all the Fathers—Justin, Origin, Tertullian, Pantaneus, and many others,” long before Arius was born; are now con demned for “Ariauism.”—Haw. 1:164, 169, 199, 203. Give we up all whom they condemn; and what have the Orthodox leftll t For Neander says that “ Arius did not believe that he was preaching anew doctrine, but only bringing out and estab lishing the Old Church subordination system.”—Nean. 2: 361. For “ the older, more simple form of Church doctrine—before it, had undergone any further change—would have satisfied the Arians” who thought it “needed no correction—as they had preserved unaltered from the beginning,—p. 117, so “fol lowing the older mode of apprehension, he considered the in carnation of the Logos, to consist simply in its union with ahu- - man body,”—“ and was intending simply to defend the old doc trine of theChurch coucerning MS. A popular error is constantly confirmed; by the duplicity of most modern historians, who compromise the truth, for the creed by recognizing a fictitious Trinitarian, and a fractional Arian, as the only religious parties of the 4th century, while they know that the Arians could muster but seventeen bishops at Nice, and passing the Heterdoxy of such Orthodox heroes, as Am brose, who, held to partial, and Gregory Nazianzan to the uni- ^ versal restoration; as taught by Origin,—Grey & Rut. 99. The Tritheism of Hosins and 8a1>ellianism of Alexander;—the “ prevailing subordination of the Son view,” as expressed by ■$, Hillary Daetan. Inst. 459, and his denial of the haman nature of Christ with Clemens Alexandras, Nean. 2; 427. Their views of the Holy Ghost were “vague,” some holding with Jus tin, that it “ stood in some relation to the Angels.”—Nean. 1: 609, most of the Eastern Church that it was “subordinate to the Son,”—p. 716. While Nazianzan confessed in- 880, that their “Theologians were divided,” as to whether it was a “mode,” “creature of God," or “God.” Hilary knowing it only as the spirit of Grod.—Neander 2: 419. So that there mm no Trinitarian party. Gibbon makes three parties, all heretics, viz: Arians, Sabellians, and TYitheuts. With the Arians he confounds the Christians. The Sabellii®B, were strict Unitarian Christians. The Sabellians, Mosh, 1: 95. The Tritbeista, believed in three Gods. He says that the Tritheists and Sabellians united, against the Arians, which is true; See Note.—Neander 2: 875, and the elements of Trithefera and the Humanitarian—Unitarianism are distinctly seen in the Trinity to this day. Neander presents three parties, viz: “ Ariansr Homoousions, and the more numerous party,” vol. 2, contents xxi. Neander’s “ Arians” comprise but seventeen bishop*, out of Gibbons Arian party, (Nean. 2 : 377,) and his w more nu merous party,” of no Sectarian name, make up the rest of Gib bon's Arums; and were the Christians who stood aloof from all parties,—p. 872. His Homoousions are Gibbon’s combination of Sabellians and Tritheists,—p. 375. Ngrfnder’s words are page 872. “Those who agreed entirely with the doctrine of Arms, which was but a small party; then the advocates of Homoon sion, who likewise in the Eastern Church, (also, Western Church see proceeding page) composed but a comparatively small party: and finally those who occupied the middle ground between the two parties, and entertained similar views with i those of Eusebius of Ceasarea—(that is, tne true Son of God doctrine.) From these last sprang up afterwards the party call ed Semi-Arians.” “ Many of the decided expressions of Arias, concerning the nature of the Son of God mnst, beyond question, have appeared offensive even to the dominant middle party,” —p. 378. This “ more numerous party ” afterwards called Ari ■ ans—p. 390, censured both the Arian and Niceno creeds, as unscriptnral—p. 374, contended for “ Christ’s divinity,” strove to “establish peace,” and are called the “authors of peace.” Early infected with the monarchian heresy.—Nean. 1: 579. Rome was the natural enemy of the personal divine existence of the Son of God. And when Dionysius the great, found it necessary to stem the Sabellian current in A. Dv 255 by oppos ing to it the true'Son of God, doctrine; Dionysius of Rome, not only attacked the Son of God, doctrine, falsely accusing him of holding tho Sop to be a creature; but also vigorously assaulted the Tritheistic heresy,—p. 606, 608. But now, when Constan tine, who—regarding the bishop, as the reprsentatives of God.” Nean. 2: 371, would have willingly acquiesced in tho con demnation of Arms, but for the general dissatisfaction, dis patched Hosius his favorite—p. 371 to Alexander, to procure a reconciliation between him and Arius. Alexander, under the Tritheistitf influence of Athanasius—Gib. 2:247, having com bined with Hosius to support Homoousion—Nean. 2: 375, against the Son of God doctrine, thus uniting the whole strength of the court, Tritheists and Sabellians, rejected all overtures; and the “ violent measures of the laity ” forced the Emperor to call a council—p. 371, when “a condemnation of the Arian propositions might have been easily carried through—if the party defending the Homoousions had not also raised an oppo sition to the dominant Church doctrine of the East”—p. 373. Thus the four parties were arrayed. Eusebius representing the Christians, i. e. dominant Church party, urged Bible language, charity and peace. Eusebius of Nicomedia, with Arius, con tended for his peculiar theory. While Hosius and Alexander led on the nnited strength of the Sabellians and Tritheists to support Homoousion. Thus by imperial authority—p. 375, ter ror of banishment, and the compromise of heretics; the Ho moousion condemned at Antioch in A. D. 269, was established at Nice in A. D. 325, contrary to tho wishes of the majority of the Council—Nean. 1: 606, and explained by each party to suit their own theory—Nean. 2 : 378. Gib. 2: 247. Each objected to the others—that the Son of God doctrine, presented the Son between God and creatures, in a medium, which does not exist; or that the Arian full God created out of nothing, was not the Son, but a creature; Or that the Tritheist lost the suffering Son, for two useless Gods which was idolatry; or that the Sabellian Homoousion held to an eternal infant and mortal God; or de nied the Sonship of the divinity, and the divinity of the sacri fice ; thus ending the theological flight of orthodoxy, with but one God and a human Savior, fer below Arianism. The various heresies now called orthodox, arose in the follow u mg cnronoiogicai oraer: 1. Trinity" of anciept date among the heathens, the word was introduced among Christians by Theophilns of Antioch, after the middle of the 2d centnry.—Gib. 2: 239. 2. A human soul in Chfist, originally held by some Gnostics and Ebionites, was first taught among those now called ortho dox, by Tertullian, in the beginning of the 8d century.—Mean der, 1: 634. 3. According to Trinitarian authors, the Trinity received its “finishing touch” at the council of Constantinople A. D. 3S1.— Moshiem, 1 128. 4. But the procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son, settled in Spain first at Toledo, A. D. 653.—Moshiem, 1: 226. But neter adopted by the Greeks.—Gibbon, 3 : 450. 6. The Athanasian creed and John—5: 7. (See Clarke, Barnes and others,) were forged in Africa, probably after the 5th centnry.—Gerard Yosius, tom. 6: 616—522. When Gcn nadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, first saw the Athanasian creed, he pronounced it to be “ the work of a drunken man." Gibbon, 8 : 445. 6. The doctrine of two natures, or two wills in Christ, after three centuries of contention and war, and the loss of very many lives; was settled by law at Constantinople in what is felsely called the VI General Council A. D. 680 to 681.—Gib bon, 4: 422. 7. A. D. 380, Theodosius the tyrant, the tenth professedly Christian Emperor of Rome, was the first baptized m the faith the Trinity; and Clovis the robber, King of France, is called e eldest son of the Church, because that although many Kings had been long before, and also at that time were Chris tians; yet he was the first Trinitarian King.—Waddington, 98, Gibbon, 4: 71—461. Moshiem, 1: 183. I have had six children, and 1 bless God that they are eithtr with Christ, or in Christ, and my mind is now at rest concern ing them. My desire was, that they should have served Christ on earth; bat if God win rather choose to have them serve him in heaven, I hate nothing to object to it.—Elliot. The water that Sows from a spring does not congeal in the winter. And those sentiments of friendship whieh flow from the heart cannot be frozen in adversity. Qnce give your mind up to suspicion and fear, and there will be sore to be food enough for it. In the stillest night the air la filled with sounds tor the wakeful ear that is resolved to listen.
The Christian Sun (Elon College, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 15, 1852, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75