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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

which were not entirely favoured by <strong>the</strong> Catholic party, but which were potentially<br />

favourable to <strong>the</strong> Donatists, but this, obviously, is pure speculation.<br />

Conclusion<br />

But any <strong>in</strong>dications of conciliation from Constant<strong>in</strong>e would not necessarily be<br />

out of <strong>the</strong> question even at this late stage. Constant<strong>in</strong>e's <strong>in</strong>itial <strong>in</strong>volvement shown <strong>in</strong><br />

his letters to Caecilian and <strong>the</strong>n to Anull<strong>in</strong>us display no evidence of any anti-Donatist<br />

sentiment and <strong>in</strong>deed it is quite possible that not only did <strong>the</strong> emperor know noth<strong>in</strong>g<br />

of <strong>the</strong> dispute, but that he may not even know of Caecilian himself. Even when it is<br />

clear that he did know of a problem <strong>in</strong> his letter to Miltiades announc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>Later</strong>an<br />

council of October 313, he must still be regarded as fair and conciliatory <strong>in</strong> order to<br />

achieve his overrid<strong>in</strong>g policy of a united Church conduct<strong>in</strong>g correct worship. Possibly<br />

<strong>the</strong> ‘pack<strong>in</strong>g’ of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Later</strong>an council by Miltiades with his supporters was one reason<br />

why Constant<strong>in</strong>e agreed to <strong>the</strong> Donatist <strong>request</strong> for a fur<strong>the</strong>r council; and it is only<br />

after <strong>the</strong> council of Arles <strong>in</strong> August 314 that Constant<strong>in</strong>e's tolerance of <strong>the</strong> situation<br />

began to come under pressure. Even <strong>the</strong>n, however, <strong>in</strong> his letter to <strong>the</strong> Donatist<br />

bishops Constant<strong>in</strong>e still showed hopes of a settlement and <strong>in</strong>dicated that he was not<br />

implacably opposed to <strong>the</strong> Donatists. This is also evidenced <strong>in</strong> his apparent support<br />

for, or acquiescence <strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> plan to appo<strong>in</strong>t a third, compromise bishop to replace both<br />

Caecilian and Donatus. Any suggestion that Constant<strong>in</strong>e was <strong>in</strong>st<strong>in</strong>ctively pro-<br />

Caecilianist should be dispelled by his letter to Celsus <strong>in</strong> which he treats both parties<br />

equally. Even <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> Donatists had <strong>the</strong> opportunity to sw<strong>in</strong>g matters <strong>the</strong>ir way<br />

through ano<strong>the</strong>r enquiry. Constant<strong>in</strong>e consistently regarded it as be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>terests<br />

to secure ‘right worship’ and that he had a duty to create an atmosphere <strong>in</strong> which that<br />

might be achieved. The failure of <strong>the</strong> clerics to achieve this enabled him to move <strong>in</strong>to<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir affairs and to do so with an ideology which demanded that he end his benign<br />

policy of tolerance towards <strong>the</strong> Donatists and enforce unity; not just for <strong>the</strong> sake of<br />

<strong>the</strong> empire, but for his own personal salvation. By <strong>the</strong> end of this stage, Constant<strong>in</strong>e<br />

83

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!