Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

to his sway should live in the profession of that religion, which has been preached from apostolic times until now, and which, according to its own tradition, was delivered to the Romans by the divine apostle, Peter, and which is obviously followed by Bishop Damasus (pontificem Damasum) and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria1 (Alexandriae episcopum), a man of apostolic holiness. The sum and substance of that religion is that, in accordance with apostolic teaching and evangelical doctrine, we should believe the one Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity." "We order," he says, "that those who follow this law should assume the name of Catholic Christians; but pronouncing all others to be mad and foolish, we require that they shall bear the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to bestow on their conventicles the title of churches. Such persons will be chastised, first by the divine vengeance, and secondarily by the punishment which the impulse, moving our will in accordance with the decision of heaven, shall inflict." 8

1 Similarly S. Jerome, some three or four years before, when he was in the desert of Chalcis, appealed to the usage of Damasus and Peter in support of his right to use the formula of the One Hypostasis (cf. S. Hieronym. Ep. xvii. ad Marcum, § 2, P. L., xxii. 360). A Western would naturally refer to those two great prelates as pillars of orthodoxy.

2 Some papalist writers have laid stress on the fact that Theodosius styles Damasus "pontifex" and Peter "episcopus." But, as Baronius in his Annals (s.a. 397, tom. v. p. 42, edit. 1658) points out, "Fuit olim vetus ille usus in Ecclesia, ut episcopi omnes non pontifices tantum dicerentur, sed summi pontifices vel summi sacerdotes, eo quod episcopatus summum sacerdotium diceretur." Compare Pope Zosimus' letter to Hesychius of Salona (P. L., xx. 671), and Pope Gelasius' letter to the bishops of Lucania (S. Gelas. Ep. ix. cap. 6, P. L., lix. 50). In Theodosius' edict the word is probably varied for the sake of euphony.

This edict bears on its forefront that Western tinge which was to be expected in a document emanating from men with the antecedents of Theodosius and S. Acholius. Theodosius had spent all his life within the limits of the Western empire; and S. Acholius, though born in the East, had come to the West in boyhood, and had remained there ever since. Theodosius was soon to come into contact with the Eastern Church, and the short experience of a few months in the East led him to give a very different complexion to his legislation about the tests of orthodoxy. On July 30, 381, he decreed (Cod. Theod., xvi. I, 3), on the advice of the second Ecumenical Council (cf. S. Greg. Nyss. Ep. i. ad Flavianum, P. G., xlvi. 1009), that the churches were to be handed over to the bishops who believed in the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who were manifestly associated in communion with Nectarius of Constantinople, and, if their sees were in Egypt, with Timothy of Alexandria; if they lived in the Oriens, with S. Pelagius of Laodicea and with Diodorus of Tarsus; if in Asia, with S. Amphilochius of Iconium and with Optimus of the Pisidian Antioch; if in Pontus, with Helladius of Caesarea, Otreius of Melitene, and S. Gregory of Nyssa. Two other bishops, whose dioceses were north of the Balkans, are also mentioned as centres of communion-Terentius of Scythia and Martyrius of Marcianopolis. It will be observed that Damasus is conspicuous by his absence, and that Nectarius of Constantinople is given a primatial position at the head of the list. The arrangement seems to have been well devised and suitable for the needs of the Eastern Church.

It will be observed that this law contains for the most part a programme of Theodosius' wishes and intentions, rather than an enactment which could of itself take effect. It obviously needed to be supplemented. The Emperor thought it well to interpose a delay of nearly nine months before he took any further action. But after his solemn entry into Constantinople on the 14th of November he sent for the bishop, Demophilus, who was an Arian, and asked him whether he was willing to assent to the Nicene creed. Demophilus honourably refused. Whereupon the Emperor gave orders that the Arians should give up the churches in the city, which had been in their possession for forty years. This order was carried into effect, and the churches were handed over to the Catholics. Thus the work of imperial coercion on behalf of Nicene orthodoxy was begun.

In a few weeks' time Theodosius extended to the whole of the Eastern empire the policy which he had inaugurated in the capital. On January 10, 381, he addressed to Eutropius, who was prefect of the praetorium, the law Nullus haereticis.1 In that law, speaking of those who repudiate the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as set forth at Nicaea, Theodosius says, "Let them be kept entirely away from even the thresholds of the churches, since we allow no heretics to hold their unlawful assemblies within the towns. If they attempt any outbreak, we order that their rage shall be quelled and that they shall be cast forth outside the walls of the cities, so that the Catholic churches throughout the whole world may be restored to the orthodox bishops who hold the Nicene faith." Here we have a really operative enactment, dealing not merely with words, but things. By the law of the previous year, the legal right to call themselves Catholics and their assemblies churches had been taken away from the heretics; but their church-buildings had been left in their hands. By the new law of January, 381, it was made obligatory on the representatives of the Emperor in the various cities to deprive the heretics of their houses of prayer, and to hand those buildings over to their Catholic rivals.

Antioch was by far the most important city in which the churches remained still in the hands of the Arians. The Emperor therefore sent thither one of his generals, named Sapor, with a copy of his edict, and commissioned him to

1 Cod. Theod., xvi. 5, 6.

2 We have seen that in Constantinople the churches were taken from the Arians soon after Theodosius' entry into the city on November 14, 380. At Alexandria the people had risen against Lucius, the Arian bishop, in the spring of 378, and had driven him from the city, the Catholics under Peter taking possession of the churches.

carry out its provisions in that capital.1 Sapor may very probably have started from Constantinople on his journey to Antioch immediately after the publication of the law which he had to administer. If so, he would probably reach Antioch not later than the beginning of February, and he might be there a week earlier.2

Sapor had a difficult question to decide. When the Arians had been expelled by him from the Antiochene churches, three sets of claimants presented themselves before him, namely, the great Church of Antioch which recognized S. Meletius as its bishop, the Eustathians whose bishop was Paulinus, and the Apollinarians whose bishop was Vitalis. All these three bodies through their representatives declared that they accepted the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as it was held by Damasus. The scene is described by Theodoret, who, as I have already mentioned, was unaware of the fact that during the interval between February 28, 380, and July 30, 381, the law professed to unite Peter of Alexandria with Damasus, and to regard those two as jointly the legally authorized representatives of orthodoxy. If Theodoret had had an opportunity of studying the edict Cunctos populos, he would no doubt have put into the mouths of the claimants a reference to Peter as well as to Damasus. There are other points in connexion with this scene before Sapor, in regard to which it is difficult to believe that Theodoret has preserved

1 Cf. Theodoret. H. E., v. 2, 3. Theodoret unfortunately confuses three different laws, namely, (1) Gratian's law of August, 378, allowing the bishops banished by Valens to return to their sees; (2) Theodosius' law, Cunctos populos, dated February 28, 380; and (3) Theodosius' second law, Nullus haereticis, dated January 10, 381. He appears also to be unaware (H. E., v. 2) that in the second of these three laws Peter of Alexandria was joined with Damasus, as a legal representative of orthodoxy. There can be no doubt that Sapor's visit to Antioch was subsequent to the law of January 10, 381, and that he was sent by Theodosius, and not by Gratian.

2 The distance from Constantinople to Antioch along the great Roman road was 716 English miles. An ordinary traveller, such as the Bordeaux pilgrim in 333 (cf. P. L., viii. 788, 789), took forty days to cover the distance. On the other hand, in 387 Caesarius, the magister officiorum, hurried from Antioch to Constantinople in six days (cf. Rauschen, Jahrbücher, p. 265). Sapor would, of course, use the cursus publicus, and would have no wish to dally on the road. If he travelled at the rate of fifty-one miles a day, he would get to Antioch in a fortnight. I do not understand why Merenda asserts (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xii. § 1, P. L., xiii. 181) that Sapor could scarcely have got to Antioch before March. I would here mention once for all that, whenever in this book I mention the distance from one place to another along the Roman roads, my statements are based on Colonel Lapie's measurements, as recorded in Fortia D'Urban's Recueil des Itinéraires Anciens.

3 See note I above.

Peter, however, died during the course of this interval, on February 14, 381. He may have been actually dead when Sapor was investigating the rival claims at Antioch; but the news of his death would hardly reach Antioch before the second week in March, and I think it probable that the investigation took place in February.

[ocr errors]

1

a perfectly accurate record; but we have no reason to doubt the main fact, which appears in his narrative, namely, that there was a contest between the three parties of claimants in the presence of Sapor, and that the Emperor's representative finally decided that the church-buildings in Antioch should be handed over to S. Meletius. The whole account presupposes that the three parties were out of communion with each other.

We have already seen that in the early part of the year 380 peace had not been made between the two rival sections of orthodox Christians at Antioch. The events connected with Sapor's execution of the commission confided to him, to which I have already referred, show that this state of division still continued in February, 381. And this conclusion is corroborated by an incident that took place before the close of Sapor's investigation, to which it will be well at this point

to turn our attention.

Theodoret tells us that, after much disputing had taken place in the presence of Sapor, "Meletius, who of all men was most meek, thus kindly and gently addressed Paulinus: 'The Lord of the sheep has put the care of these sheep in my hands: you have taken upon yourself (avadédɛğaı) the charge of the rest; but the sheep themselves agree in a common orthodoxy 3 (κοινωνεῖ δὲ ἀλλήλοις τῆς εὐσεβείας τὰ θρέμματα). Therefore, dear friend, let us unite our flocks, and bring to an end our struggle for the place of chief command (tǹv tεpì tâs ἡγεμονίας . . . διαμάχην); and, tending our sheep in concert, let us apply to them a common care. But if the middle seat

1 For example, he makes S. Flavian say that Damasus, in contrast with Paulinus, "openly proclaims the Three Hypostases," whereas we know from S. Jerome's testimony (Ep. xvii. ad Marcum, § 2, P. L., xxii. 360) that both Damasus and Peter of Alexandria used the formula of the One Hypostasis. Compare Merenda (De S. Damasi Opuscc. et Gestt., cap. xii. § 2, P. L., xiii. 183, 184).

2 Tillemont, in his Histoire des Empereurs (note vii. on Theodosius I., tom. v. pp. 728, 729, edit. 1701), shows by very convincing reasons that Sapor's visit to Antioch must be placed after the promulgation of the law of January 10, 381. Güldenpenning and Ifland (Der Kaiser Theodosius der Grosse, p. 102, n. 27) agree with Tillemont.

3 Newman, in the Oxford translation of S. Athanasius' Orations against the Arians (p. 364, note b), says, "The technical sense of evσéßeia àσéßela, pietas, impietas, for orthodoxy, heterodoxy, has been noticed" above. Compare a similar note in his Arians of the Fourth Century (3rd edit., 1871, p. 286), and also a note by Dr. Bright in the Oxford translation of the Later Treatises of S. Athanasius (p. 12). The word evoéßeia specially connoted the right belief in God. S. Meletius' flock and the Eustathians substantially agreed in their belief in the One God in Three Persons. The natural corollary seemed to be that they should coalesce so as to form one flock, and thus communicate together in sacris. For an instance of a similar use of the word evoéßeia by Theodoret, see his Hist. Eccl., v. 6 ad fin., where, giving a reason for the freedom of the West from the contamination of Arianism, he refers to the "pure orthodoxy” (акpai‡vñ тǹy evσéßelav) of Valentinian.

is the cause of the strife, that strife I will endeavour to get rid of. For I shall place the divine Gospel on that seat, and shall then recommend that we sit on either side. Should I be the first to pass away, you, my friend, will hold the leadership of the flock alone. Should this be your lot before it is mine, I in my turn, so far as I am able, will take care of the sheep.' These things gently and kindly spoke the divine Meletius. But Paulinus did not acquiesce. Then the general, having given judgement on what had been said, delivered the churches to the great Meletius. But Paulinus continued at the head of the sheep who originally seceded." So writes the Blessed Theodoret.

Nothing could be clearer than this. Hitherto the two sections had been disunited, and a struggle had been going on between the two claimants of the episcopal throne of Antioch. Now the peace-loving S. Meletius proposes that, since there was no real doctrinal difference between the two sections, they should unite to form one flock, which should be ruled by the two bishops acting together; and further that, when either bishop died, the survivor should become sole bishop. Considering that the enormous majority of the orthodox in Antioch adhered to S. Meletius, and that he was recognized as the sole bishop by almost all the bishops of the Eastern Church outside of Egypt, the proposal was an exceedingly magnanimous one. However, Paulinus, relying on his recognition by the West and by Egypt, refused for the present Meletius' Christian offer. But he did not maintain this rigid attitude for long. Perhaps, when he heard Sapor's decision, and found that all the churches of Antioch were being handed over to his rival, he began already to regret that he had not come to terms. Soon afterwards there must have arrived from Constantinople the imperial letters convoking the second Ecumenical Council. S. Meletius, as the recognized Bishop of Antioch, would receive a summons, but Paulinus would be left out in the cold. Anyhow, whatever Paulinus' motives may have been, it is certain that, before S. Meletius started on his journey to Constantinople, a compact of some sort was agreed upon between the two bishops. The council was to meet in May, and S. Meletius may be supposed to have left Antioch near the beginning of April, that is to say, very soon after Easter, which fell that year on the 28th of March. I regard it as practically certain that the compact was made at some time during February or March, 381.4

1 Theodoret. H. E., v. 3.

Cf. Acta S.S., tom. ii. Mai., p. 412.

3 Cf. Socrat. H. E., v. 8.

The Bollandists take a similar view. In a marginal note (Acta SS., tom. iv.

« ZurückWeiter »