66 66 to withstand all his importunities; not only because he had A. D. 381. favoured the heretics, but because he endeavoured to disturb the Roman Church, which was the head of the whole Empire, § 4. and from which the right of communion extends to all the other Churches: these are the terms which they make use of. The third letter of the Council of Aquileia to the Emperors, Ap. Ambr. Ep. xii. is properly to Theodosius, as it relates to the East. What the Bishops wrote, was to this effect, "In all the West $§ 3. "there remained but two heretics, whom we have just condemned, and who only disturbed two corners of Dacia "and Moesia. Throughout all other parts, as far as the ocean, the Faithful are of one communion. But in the "East, though the heretics are suppressed, yet we hear that "there are frequent divisions amongst the Catholics: it is "reported that Timotheus of Alexandria, and Paulinus of "Antioch, who have ever continued in our communion, "are molested by those who have not always been steadfast "in the faith. These last we desire to conciliate, yet without "prejudice to the ancient communion, which we hold with "the others. We have long since received letters from both "parties, and chiefly from those who were divided at Antioch; "and we were resolved to send some persons thither from us, "in order to be the mediators of a peace; but we were pre"vented from doing it by the irruptions of the enemies, and "the disorders in our public affairs. Therefore we beg you "to give orders that a Council of all the Catholic Bishops "may be held again at Alexandria, in order to decide who "they are to whom we are to grant communion, and with "whom we are to hold it." This is what passed at the Council of Aquileia; and this last letter plainly shews that the Bishops who were there present, either did not acknowledge the Council which had lately been held at Constanti A. D. 341. nople, to be an Ecumenical Council, or that they were not yet informed of what had been transacted in it. XVII. Italian Soz. vii. 11. (86.)Bened. ap. Ambr. Ep. 13. It even appears that the Bishops of the West changed their petition, for we do not find that there was any Council held then at Alexandria; and it is certain that they desired that a St. Jerom. General Council should be held at Rome, and that the Ep. 27. Emperor Gratian gave orders accordingly. But before they ad Eustoch. met, there was a Council in Italy, in which St. Ambrose presided, and there remain two of their letters to the Emperor Theodosius. In the first they say: "We desired long since, "that the two Bishops of Antioch, Paulinus and Meletius, "whom we esteemed as Catholics, should come to an agree"ment with each other; or at least that, if one of them "should die before the other, no person should be put into "the place of the deceased. Yet we are now informed that "Meletius being dead, and Paulinus living, who was always "steadfast in our communion, there has been substituted or "rather added a Bishop in the place of Meletius, contrary to "all Ecclesiastical right and order. And it is said that this "was done by the consent and advice of Nectarius, the due formality of whose own ordination we cannot understand. For "the Bishop Maximus convinced us lately in a Council, that "he preserves the communion of the Church of Alexandria, "by reading to us certain letters from Peter' of blessed memory, "and plainly proved to us that he had been ordained in a private house by the direction of the Bishops, because the "Arians were then in possession of the churches, so that we "had no reason to doubt of his being Bishop; and so much "the less, because he protested that the greater part of the "people and Clergy had compelled him to be ordained. "Nevertheless, as we were unwilling to decide any thing "beforehand in the absence of the parties, we thought it our ['died A. D. 380.] 66 66 duty, Theodosius, to acquaint you with it; to the intent "that you might so settle that matter as may best serve for "the promotion of peace; for we have observed that Gregory "cannot claim to himself the See of Constantinople, according "to the tradition of the Fathers." They afterwards complain that those of the East, knowing of Maximus' coming into the West to plead his cause before a General Council, had declined assembling there, and refused to wait for the determination of the Western Bishops. "But," A. D. 381. continued they," though no Council had been called, he would "still have acted according to the laws and custom of our "ancestors, in appealing to the judgment of the Churches "of Rome, of Italy, and of all the West, as was done by "Athanasius of saintly memory, and after him by Peter, "who were both Bishops of Alexandria, and by the greatest "part of the Eastern Bishops. We do not assume to ourselves "the prerogative of examining such things, but we ought to "have a share in their determination." They conclude, that they could not refuse their communion to Maximus, nor grant it to Nectarius; and that the dispute cannot be made up, but by restoring to him who was first ordained the See of Constantinople, that is, to Maximus; or by holding a Council at Rome composed of themselves, and of the Eastern Bishops, to treat of the ordination of both of them: "For," they added, “the Eastern Bishops ought not to refuse the exami"nation of the Bishop of Rome, and of the other neighbouring Bishops of Italy, when they have waited for the judgment of "Ascholius alone, whom they had invited to Constantinople "from the West. As for ourselves, having received instruc"tions from the Prince your brother to write to you, we desire "that the judgment may be common where the communion is "one." The brother to whom they refer was the Emperor Gratian. 66 Theodosius answered this letter; and undeceived the Bishops of Italy, by informing them what Maximus was, and how different his ordination was from that of Nectarius. He represented to them, that these affairs, and that of Flavian, ought to be judged in the East where all the parties were present, and that there was no reason to oblige those of the East to come into the West. This appears by the second Ap. Ambr. letter of St. Ambrose, and of the Bishops of Italy, in which Ep. xiv. they return thanks to the Emperor, for having re-united the Churches of the East and West, and removed the misunderstanding which had divided them. They excuse themselves for their writing to him, by pleading the desire which they had for a re-union, and of putting an end to the complaints of the Eastern Bishops, who thought themselves neglected [i.e. by the Western Church]." For," said they, "we did not A. D. 381. require a Council for our own interest, since all the West is § 4. "at peace." They give another reason for the Council, which, as they said, concerned those "who were for intro'ducing into the Church certain opinions ascribed to Apolli"naris:" which matter was to be examined in presence of the parties, to the intent that if Apollinaris were convicted of teaching a new doctrine, he might no longer be concealed under the general name of The Faith, and might be deprived of the Priesthood. We may see by this that Apollinaris was still in office', and that his heresy was not universally known, Bishop of Laodicea.] at least, not in the West". [He was XVIII. A. D. 382. Council of Constantinople. However at the request of the Council of Aquileia, the The Second Emperor Theodosius called a Council, in order to pacify the divisions of the East, chiefly those of Antioch; they did not however meet at Alexandria, as the Western Bishops had desired, but at Constantinople, and the greatest part of the Bishops who had been present at the General Council, repaired thither again in the following year 382, under the consulship of Antonius and Syagrius, at the beginning of the summer. Theod. v.8. St. Gregory Nazianzen was invited to it, but he excused himself, and wrote to Procopius, who was an officer of distinction, Epist. 55. in the following terms: " My inclination, to speak the truth, [130. Ben.] "is to avoid all assemblies of Bishops; because I never knew a Council, that had a happy conclusion, and that did not "rather increase our distempers than provide a remedy for "them. The fondness which men have for disputing and the "love of ambition, (be not offended that I speak thus,) have "a greater influence among them, that can well be expressed; "and he who exposes the misconduct of others, is himself "exposed to be accused without correcting them. Therefore "I confine myself to my own reflections, knowing no safety "for the soul, but in retirement. I have, even at this time, "a distemper upon me, which confirms my resolution, as it "disables me from acting, and reduces me almost to the last "extremity. Therefore I beseech you to accept my excuse, Apollinaris' heresy (see note r, p. 14.) first appeared in Á. D. 362, but he was not recognized as its author before the death of St. Athanasius in 371 or 373. His opinions had certainly reached Corinth at this time, and in 377 he was condemned by name at Rome. His absence however still raised some scruples in the Western Church as to his personal guilt, and these were increased by the conduct of his adherent Vitalis, concerning whom see ch. 22. "and assure the Emperor, that I am not guilty of idleness; A. D. 382. "but desire him to consider my infirmity, on account of "which, he knows, that he gave me permission to retire, as "the only favour I desired." It was thought that his sickness was only a pretence, for which reason he was summoned a second time, by Icarius, an officer of distinction, and Olympius, governor of Cappadocia. However, the dislike to Councils, Epist. 76. which is observed here and in some other writings of St. gory Nazianzen, is no prejudice to the respect which is in general to those holy assemblies, nor to the necessity of Carm. xi. [lib. ii. § 1. holding them; which necessity is elsewhere so well esta- 17. p. 855.] blished". We may easily perceive that the disappointment of his good intentions, in the General Council of Constantinople, had made a strong impression on a man of so lively feelings, and that his displeasure was confirmed by his old age, and his continual infirmities. [131.] Ep. Gre- 83. [157] 84. [124.] 135. [136.] due The Eastern Bishops while at Constantinople received a Theod. v.8. synodical letter from those of the West, giving them an invitation to the General Council which was held at Rome; but they excused themselves from it, as involving a needless jour- Ibid. 9. ney. Their answer was directed to Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, Ascholius, Anemimius, Basil, and to the rest of the Bishops assembled at Rome. They began their letter with an account of the persecution which they had just suffered, the disorders of which would take some time to repair; for although the heretics were expelled from the Churches, yet their false teachers assembled them in other places, promoted sedition, and used their utmost endeavours to prejudice the Church. "Therefore," continue they, "what"ever inclination we may have to correspond with your loving "invitation, we cannot thus wholly abandon our Churches "which now begin to revive; and the journey would even “be impracticable by most of us. For we came to Constan"tinople according to the letters which you wrote last year to "the most pious Emperor Theodosius after the Council of "Aquileia; and were prepared for this voyage and this "Council only, with the consent of the Bishops who remained "in the provinces; we did not purpose to go farther, nor did St. Gregory says, "The Holy "Council in Nicæa and that band of "chosen men whom the HOLY GHOST 66 'brought together." Orat. 21. ch. 14. |