Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

had not conformed to the judgement delivered by the Lateran Council. Constantine
deplored the behaviour of both sides and complained that both parties of clerics, who
should have been in fraternal concord, were rather “separate from each other in a
disgraceful, nay rather in an abominable fashion.” 55
The final issue of complaint for Constantine in this letter was that it was
detrimental to the Church in terms of its ‘Public Relations’ with the wider, non
Christian members of the empire. The divisions between the clerics “give to those
men whose souls are strangers to this most holy religion to scoff” and it was necessary
for Constantine himself to arrange a peaceful end to the dispute: “wherefore it has
become incumbent upon me to provide that that which ought to have ceased by
voluntary agreement, after the judgement already passed may even now, if possible be
ended by the presence of many persons.” 56 Constantine does not expand upon this
theme, unfortunately, but it would seem likely that any perceived damage done to an
institution upon which Constantine had lavished such attention and finances would
also be damaging to his government.
Constantine evidently believed he had a duty (that is more than just an interest)
to facilitate agreement amongst the clergy, but not, at this stage, to actually impose it.
Therefore, and in order to facilitate such agreements, it would have been necessary for
him not to have been overtly partisan. As such, and with an acknowledgement
towards the grievance of the Donatists against the Lateran council, Constantine
announced the Arles council for August 314 with the presence of “very many Bishops
from various and numberless places.” 57 He finished his letter by indicating that
Chrestus should approach the local governor for transport to Arles, where,
55
Eus. HE. 10.5.22: ojfeivlonta~ e[cein oJmoyucivan aijscrw`~, ma`llon de; muserw`~
ajllhvlwn ajpodiesta`nai.
56
Eus. HE. 10.5.22: o{qen pronohtevon moi ejgevneto, o{pw~ tou`to o{per ejcrh`n
meta; th;n ejxenecqei`san h[dh krivsin aujqairevtw/ sugkataqevsei pepau`sqai,
ka]n nu`n pote dunhqh/` pollw`n parovntwn tevlou~ tucei`n.
57
Eus. HE. 10.5.23: ejpeidh; toivnun pleivstou~ ejk diafovrwn kai; ajmuqhvtwn tovpwn
ejpiskovpou~
66