31.12.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

of God was such that even at this late stage <strong>the</strong>y could still avail <strong>the</strong>mselves of God’s<br />

benevolence, as he hoped. However, and immediately <strong>the</strong>reafter, Constant<strong>in</strong>e<br />

returned to his <strong>in</strong>itial condemnatory <strong>the</strong>me and <strong>in</strong>dicated that <strong>the</strong> Donatists were<br />

utterly divorced from God. He says that <strong>the</strong>ir rejection of <strong>the</strong> Arles decision, which<br />

was of no use to <strong>the</strong>m, showed that “<strong>the</strong> mercy of Christ withdrew from <strong>the</strong>se<br />

[Donatists]” 78 and <strong>the</strong>y were “abhorrent even to <strong>the</strong> heavenly dispensation.” 79 After<br />

deal<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong>ir rejection of Arles, Constant<strong>in</strong>e devoted a greater part of <strong>the</strong> letter to<br />

condemn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Donatists’ attitude. They were of “so great a madness… with<br />

<strong>in</strong>credible arrogance” 80 and possessed “strong wickedness;” 81 moreover, <strong>the</strong>se “wicked<br />

men, who as I have truly said, are officers of <strong>the</strong> devil.” 82 Therefore <strong>the</strong> Donatists were<br />

unmasked 83 and Constant<strong>in</strong>e asked what <strong>the</strong>ir op<strong>in</strong>ion of humanity would be as <strong>the</strong>y<br />

had already “ruthlessly assaulted God himself.” 84<br />

For Constant<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>the</strong> separation of <strong>the</strong> Donatists from <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e is l<strong>in</strong>ked to<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir obst<strong>in</strong>acy and arrogance; <strong>in</strong>deed, s<strong>in</strong>ce Constant<strong>in</strong>e made no mention of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

<strong>the</strong>ological positions, nor <strong>the</strong>ir different views of ecclesiastical hierarchy and discipl<strong>in</strong>e,<br />

it would appear that <strong>the</strong>ir apparent rejection of authority and <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>sistence on<br />

cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g appeals is more <strong>in</strong>dicative of <strong>the</strong>ir “abhorrent” and damned status than<br />

anyth<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong>y might have to say on religious affairs. The Donatist dispute had<br />

become concerned with authority <strong>in</strong> more than just one way; Constant<strong>in</strong>e's own<br />

authority (which he had from God) and prestige, was be<strong>in</strong>g damaged by <strong>the</strong>se<br />

troublesome clerics and <strong>the</strong>ir endless appeals to him. Constant<strong>in</strong>e (follow<strong>in</strong>g 1<br />

Cor<strong>in</strong>thians 6.1) l<strong>in</strong>ked <strong>the</strong> Donatists’ appeals to those of <strong>the</strong> “hea<strong>the</strong>n” and <strong>in</strong>dicated<br />

that his judgement was <strong>in</strong>sufficient, s<strong>in</strong>ce he would be judged by God; thus his actions<br />

were merely follow<strong>in</strong>g those prescribed by God <strong>in</strong> scripture. Moreover, <strong>the</strong><br />

78<br />

Opt. App. 5 Ziwsa 209; Edwards 190; ab his procul adscesserit Christi clem entia<br />

79<br />

Opt. App. 5 Ziwsa 209; Edwards 190; ut eos etiam a caelesti prov isione exosos cernam us<br />

80<br />

Opt. App. 5 Ziwas 209; Edwards 190; <strong>in</strong> ipsos tanta v esania perseuerat, cum <strong>in</strong>credibili arrogantia<br />

persuadent sibi<br />

81<br />

Opt. App. 5 Ziwsa 209; Edwards 190; quae v is m alignitatis <strong>in</strong> eorundem pecrotibus perseuerat<br />

82<br />

Opt. App. 5 Ziwsa 209; Edwards 190; quid igitur sentiunt m aligni hom <strong>in</strong>es officia, ut v ere dixi, diaboli<br />

83 Opt. App. 5 Ziwsa 209; proditores<br />

72

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!