Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Finally, they drew up a synodical epistle,1 addressed "to the Catholic bishops established throughout the East." In this epistle a summary account was given of the council's decisions, and a hope was expressed that it would not be long before those Eastern bishops who refused to accept the Nicene Creed, and who had now been separated from the communion of the West by the sentence of the council,2 would also be deprived of the very name of bishop. In conclusion, the Orientals were invited to send a reply, and to make it clear that they agreed with what had been decided. A duplicate copy of this letter was also made, and was addressed to the bishops of Illyricum.

Sabinus, a deacon of the Church of Milan, would seem to have been commissioned to convey a copy of this synodical epistle to the Illyrian bishops, and he was certainly commissioned to convey copies of it to S. Athanasius and to S. Basil. Sabinus also carried with him private letters to S. Basil from some of the Western bishops, and specially one from S. Valerian of Aquileia, who, if we except Damasus, was the most important bishop present at the Roman council. The deacon Dorotheus travelled back to the East with Sabinus. They went first to Illyricum, and would seem to have attended a council in that region, for they appear to have been charged with a letter addressed to S. Basil by some of the Illyrian bishops. We do not know for certain whether these Illyrian bishops belonged to Eastern or to Western Illyricum. On the whole, it seems to me that the latter alternative is the more probable. The two deacons may have perhaps gone to Salona in Dalmatia, and from thence have sailed to Alexandria. Having delivered the letters, with which they had been entrusted, to S. Athanasius, they were sent on by him to the Cappadocian Caesarea, in order to convey to S. Basil a copy of the Roman synodical epistle, together with the other letters from the West which had been addressed to him. The envoys must have reached Caesarea towards the middle of March, 372, or very soon

1 P. L., xiii. 347-349.

The West had synodically withdrawn its communion from eight of the Arian ringleaders in 343 at Sardica; and the Church of Rome had withdrawn its communion from the whole East, probably in 345 (see p. 234), certainly some considerable time before 354 (see p. 233). But I hardly think that the West had ever in synod made the acceptance of the Nicene Creed compulsory on those who wished to enjoy its communion, until this Roman Council of 371. Even if it had done so, its rule in regard to this point needed to be reasserted in view of the disastrous proceedings at Ariminum.

I give what appears to me to be the true sense; but the passage is corrupt both in the original Latin and in the Greek version preserved by Theodoret and

Sozomen.

* Cf. Dom Maran's Vit. S. Basil., cap. xxii. § 3, S. Basil. Opp., tom. iii. p. cx.

after.1 It must have been a joy to S. Basil to welcome a representative of the West, bringing with him a synodical epistle from a great council of the West, for now intercommunion was restored between the Churches of Rome and Caesarea. However, the joy was by no means undiluted. S. Basil calls it "a certain moderate consolation." 2 The Westerns had only sent a Milanese deacon, instead of sending several Western bishops who would be able to sit in synod with their Eastern brethren, and would, by the weight of their numbers, be able to draw the whole East together into one communion. That was what the East needed; and it was necessary that fresh efforts should be made to induce the West to send an adequate embassy, so as to enable the divided and prostrate East to recover its health and unity.

3

A letter was therefore drafted, probably by S. Meletius himself, and was addressed to "the most God-beloved and most holy brethren, our fellow-ministers in Italy and Gaul, bishops of like mind with us." The pope was of course understood to be included, as being one among these "fellowministers in Italy and Gaul." 5 In a salutation addressed to the whole episcopate of two great countries, it was not thought necessary to specify particularly the primate's name. The lesser was comprehended in the greater. The letter was signed by thirty-two Eastern bishops. S. Meletius' name naturally occupied the first place. Then came in due order the names of S. Eusebius of Samosata, S. Basil, S. Barses of Edessa, S. Gregory the elder of Nazianzus, S. Pelagius of Laodicea, and the rest. In the course of their letter, without naming Paulinus and his followers, they implore the Westerns to help them in their efforts to bring the Eustathians into line with the rest of the Eastern Church. They say, "The churches are reduced to utter helplessness by the war raging among those who are reputed to be orthodox. For these reasons we most certainly need your assistance, so that all who confess the apostolic faith may put an end to the schisms which they have devised for themselves, and may for the future be subjected to the authority (rŷ avlevτía) of the Church." 6 That was the Eastern view of the Eustathian position. To the Eastern saints it appeared that Paulinus

1 Cf. S. Basil. Ep. lxxxix. ad Meletium, § 2, Opp., iii. 181. In 372 Easter fell on April 8 (cf. Tillemont, ix. 171).

S. Basil. Ep. xc. ad Episcopos Occidentales, § 1, Opp., iii. 181.

Cf. Ep. ad Italos et Gallos, inter Basilianas xcii. § 3, S. Basil. Opp., iii. 185. Cardinal Baronius (Annall. Eccl., ad ann. 371, § xiv.) says, "Extant ipsae litterae a Meletio quidem scriptae, utpote primario totius Orientis antistite." • Compare note 3 on p. 164.

Ep. ad Italos et Gallos, inter Basilianas xcii. § 3, S. Basil. Opp., iii. 186.

and his followers had devised for themselves a schism, and were in rebellion against the authority of the Church.

Besides signing this general letter, S. Basil also wrote a personal letter of his own, addressed to "the most holy brethren, the bishops of the West," in which he gives thanks for the letters received from them, and describes to them the woes of the East. Both in the general letter and in this personal letter of S. Basil's, a clause is appended at the end, in which the Eastern bishops generally and S. Basil personally express their assent to all that had been canonically decreed by the Council of Rome, as set forth in the synodical letter brought to the East by Sabinus.

Besides this letter to all the bishops of the West, S. Basil wrote a reply to the bishops of Illyricum, and also replies addressed to S. Valerian of Aquileia" and other Western bishops who had sent him letters by Sabinus.3

All these letters were committed to Sabinus to carry back with him to the West. Probably he did not leave Caesarea on his homeward journey until a few weeks after Easter, because it would take some time to collect the signatures of the thirty-two bishops who signed the general letter addressed to the bishops of Italy and Gaul. In the mean while the Emperor Valens had entered Antioch, either in Holy Week or in Easter week, and one of his first acts was to banish S. Meletius from Antioch for the third time, on account of his vigorous opposition to Arianism and his heroic maintenance of the Catholic faith. The glorious confessor remained this time in exile for nearly seven years. He spent these years in Armenia.

It may be presumed that Sabinus reached Rome before the end of the summer, and delivered to Damasus the two principal letters which had been entrusted to him. But for

1 S. Basil. Ep. xc., Opp., iii. 181.

2 S. Basil. Ep. xci. The heading of this letter runs thus: "To Valerian, bishop of the Illyrians," or, according to another reading, " Bishop of Illyricum. As a matter of fact, Aquileia was in Italy and not in Illyricum, though it was near the border which divided the two countries. Some critics have supposed that S. Basil's letter to the Illyrians and his letter to S. Valerian were one and the same. While admitting the bare possibility of the truth of this hypothesis, I think that the view expressed in the text is far more probable. It is the view taken by Tillemont and Maran.

S. Basil did not on this occasion write any private letter to Damasus, because Damasus had not written privately to him. But of course the general letter addressed to the bishops of Italy and Gaul, and also S. Basil's personal letter to the bishops of the West, would be taken by the bearer in the first place to Damasus, with the intention that copies should be forwarded from Rome to the other Western bishops. As we shall see further on, on this occasion the intention of the Easterns was frustrated, and their letters got no further than Rome.

Valens had banished S. Meletius for the second time in the spring of 365; but before the end of twelve months the saint had been allowed to return to Antioch (see Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 236, 239).

some reason or other the letters displeased Damasus and the more precise among his clergy; and it was determined that, when a fitting opportunity should offer, the letters should be sent back to the East, and that the draft of a new letter should be drawn up in Rome, petitioning the West to send envoys to the East, which draft should be taken to the East, that it might be signed by the Eastern bishops, and then be brought back to Rome by an embassy consisting of persons of note.1

Apparently some months elapsed before a fitting opportunity presented itself for the carrying out of this somewhat harsh and discourteous plan. At last it was determined to send back the letters of the Easterns by Evagrius of Antioch. He had been born and brought up in Antioch, and had belonged to the Eustathian party in its earlier days, before Lucifer had committed the great wrong of consecrating Paulinus to the episcopate. Very soon after that unfortunate event, Evagrius, glad, no doubt, to get away from the ecclesiastical confusion of Antioch, had accompanied S. Eusebius of Vercellae to the West. Here he had done good work in the struggle with the Arians, and he had rendered a very great service to Damasus. S. Jerome, speaking of him, says, "Who can sufficiently extol the discretion with which he rescued the Roman Bishop from the toils of the net in which he had been almost entangled by his factious opponents, and enabled him to overcome them, yet to spare them in their discomfiture?” 2

1 Cf. S. Basil. Ep. cxxxviii. ad Eusebium Samosatens. § 2, Opp., iii. 230. S. Hieron. Ep. i. ad Innocentium, § 15, P. L., xxii. 331. In the next sentence S. Jerome speaks of a visit which Evagrius paid to the Emperor Valentinian, to plead for the life of a poor woman at Vercellae. Tillemont suggests (viii. 392) that Evagrius took the opportunity of his being received in audience by the Emperor to help Damasus in his struggle with Ursinus and his followers. S. Jerome implies, in the passage quoted in the text, that at the time of Evagrius' intervention Damasus' cause was in a critical condition, from which, however, it was extricated, and yet harsh treatment was not meted out to Damasus' adversaries. This seems to me to point to the action which Valentinian took with regard to the Ursinians at a date not clearly defined, but which occurred during the time when Ampelius was prefect of Rome. Now, Ampelius was prefect from January, 371, to July or August, 372. We know that at some time during that period Ursinus was by the orders of the Emperor set free from his confinement to one place in Gaul, and was allowed to wander wheresoever he willed, so only he did not set foot within the sphere of Damasus' episcopal and metropolitical jurisdiction (see pp. 517, 518). It may have been that Valentinian was on the point of setting Ursinus free altogether, and that it was Evagrius who suggested the limitation, which must have been such a boon to Damasus. Evagrius may have also discussed with the Emperor the case of Auxentius, the Arian Bishop of Milan, and may have persuaded him to convoke the bishops of Italy and Gaul to a council at Rome. Somebody must have induced Valentinian to issue that summons. If my supposition is correct, Evagrius must have seen Valentinian at Trier in the early part of 371. This note is already too long, otherwise it would be possible to corroborate my proposed date by other considerations.

Evagrius must have left Rome not later than June, 373. He seems to have reached Caesarea in Cappadocia in August. Here he had an interview with S. Basil, who, in a letter to S. Eusebius of Samosata, thus describes what passed: "The presbyter Evagrius, son of Pompeianus of Antioch, who some years ago started in company with the blessed Eusebius to visit the West, has now returned from Rome. He demands from us a letter couched in the exact terms dictated by the Westerns. Our own letters he has brought back to us, and reports that they did not give satisfaction. to the more precise persons at Rome. He also demands that an embassy, consisting of distinguished men, should be promptly sent, that they of the West may have a reasonable pretext for visiting us." S. Basil goes on to ask S. Eusebius to advise him as to what attitude of mind he should adopt in reference to Evagrius' proposals.

Evagrius, before he left Caesarea, had given S. Basil to understand that he intended, when he reached his home in Antioch, to communicate with the great church in that city, that is to say, with the church which acknowledged S. Meletius as its chief pastor, and which, during S. Meletius' banishment, had for one of its leaders, Dorotheus, who was still only a deacon, but was soon to be ordained to the priesthood. However, Evagrius did not keep his promise, if it was a promise, but either joined the Eustathians at once, or refrained for the present from communicating with either party. Perhaps the second suggestion is the more probable of the two. The fact that Evagrius spoke in such a way as to lead S. Basil to think that he intended to communicate with S. Meletius and not with Paulinus is a very clear proof that Damasus had not yet admitted Paulinus to his communion. Evagrius had been intimately bound up with Damasus during his sojourn in the West, and was now acting as his agent in the East, so that it would be out of the question to suppose that he would speak as if he proposed to communicate with S. Meletius, if Damasus had already given the preference to the Eustathians, and had begun to communicate with Paulinus.

4

It is possible that, before Evagrius left Caesarea, he was joined by S. Jerome, who was travelling during the summer months of 373 from Aquileia to Antioch with a party of friends. If S. Jerome's party did not join Evagrius at

1 S. Basil. Ep. cxxxviii. ad Eusebium Samosatens. § 2, Opp., iii. 229, 230. 2 Cf. S. Basil. Ep. clvi. ad Evagrium Presbyterum, § 3, Opp. iii. 246. 3 Compare p. 310.

See the Vita S. Hieronym., by Vallarsi, cap. vi. § 2, P. L., xxii. 23. Evagrius had spent some little time at Aquileia, when S. Jerome was there, and had become intimate with him. He may also have met him in 371 at Trier.

« ZurückWeiter »