THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR AND POLITICAL AUTHORITIES

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR AND POLITICAL AUTHORITIES

Dimitrios G. Porpatonelis THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR AND POLITICAL AUTHORITIES POURNARAS PUBLICATIONS THESSALONIKI

Publish editor: Dimitrios G. Porpatonelis Pournaras Publications Castritsiou 12, 54623 Thessaloniki Tel. 0030 2310.270.941 FAX 0030 2310228.922 e-mail: pournarasbooks@the.forthnet.gr ISBN: 978-960-242-511-4 2013, Dimitrios Porpatonelis - Panagiotis P. Pournaras All Rights Reserved.

This work is devoted to my parents and my teachers

Contents Abbreviations 13 Introduction 17 FIRST SECTION AN APPROACH ACCORDING TO MANUSCRIPTS. CHAPTER 1 The Roman background. 23 CHAPTER 2. Constantine the Great. The interaction s start. 29 2.1 The meeting between Athanasius and Constantine. 31 CHAPTER 3. Constantius. Some ambiguous attestations. 35 3.1 Athanasius stance toward Constantius. 36 3.1.1 The peaceful style of the Apology to Constantius. 36 3.1.2 Athanasius aggresiveness according to his epistle to monks. 38 3.2 The posterior evaluation of Constantius from Gregory the Theologian. 44 3.2.1 Gregory s references on his writing

Against Julian. 44 3.2.1.1 «Ὅτι τοῖς Χριστιανῶν πράγμασι τὰ Ρωμαίων συνηύξησε» 44 3.2.1.2 Constantius personality. 45 3.2.1.3 Constantius philanthropic attitude toward to Julian. 47 47 3.2.1.4 The transition of his attitude during his presence in Constantinople. 48 CHAPTER 4. Julian. 51 4.1 The Gregory s impeachment against Julian. 53 4.1.1 The Gregory s general views about the kingdom s institution and political authorities. 53 4.1.2 The intensity of the characterizations. 57 4.1.3 The writing s goal justifies its sharpness. 62 4.2. Cyril of Alexandria. His posterior aggression against Julian. 66 CHAPTER 5 Valens and his behaviour on behalf of the Arians doctrine. 71 5.1 Basil the Great and Valens. Dogma and church policy. 72 5.1.1 The Basil s collaboration with the political authorities. 72 5.1.1.1 «Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ» 73 5.1.1.2. The union of the two worlds (heaven and earth) revealed by Basil s letters to local authorities. 75 5.1.2 The Church s troublesome situation. 79 5.1.3. State s and priest s responsibility. 81 5.1.3.1 The negative participation of the

Emperor and the political authorities. 82 5.1.3.2 The accountability for the suffers to the ecclesiastic persons. 84 5.1.3.3 The Church s homogenization influences the political tactic. 86 5.2 Gregory the Theologian and Valens. A different approach. 91 5.2.1 St. Gregory s attitude toward to Valens through his letters. 91 5.2.2 References to Valens after his death. 94 CHAPTER 6 Theodosius the Great. 99 6.1 Gregory the Theologian and Theodosius. Their epical collaboration. 100 6.1.1 Gregory s attestations about Theodosius. 101 6.1.2 Gregory s stance regarding the interference of state on church issues. 102 6.2 John Chrysostom and Theodosius. Political and spiritual authority as a union. 106 CHAPTER 7 Arcadius. 115 7.1 John Chrysostom and Arcadius. Chrysostom s condemnation from Church. 116 CHAPTER 8. Theodosius the Young. 123 8.1 Cyril and Theodosius the Young. Their struggle against Nestorian s heresy. 125 8.1.1 The 3 rd Ecumenical Council through its records. 125

8.1.2 Unto Theodosius. 129 8.1.2.1 Personal letters. 129 8.1.2.3 The other references. 134 8.1.2.3.1 Homilies. 134 8.1.2.3.2 Epistles. 136 CHAPTER 9 Church and Emperor according to the church historians. 139 9.1 The Emperor s decision related to council s function. 140 9.1.1 Pious Emperor and orthodox council. 144 9.1.2 Pious Emperor and heretical council. 146 9.1.3 Heretic Emperor and pious minority. 148 9.1.4 Heretic Emperor and heretic council. 148 9.2 The union in Empire s life. The theocratic and hierarchical character of an Emperor. 152 SECOND SECTION. SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL APPROACH OF THE SUBJECT CHAPTER 1 King and priest in Byzantium. 163 The problematical character of the subject. 163 1.1 Historical and theological perspectives. 164 1.1.1 The two influential streams. 164 1.1.1.1 Hellenistic influence. 164 1.1.1.2 Jewish influence. 167 1.1.2 Polarity and union 168 1.1.2.1 The disruption of the powers in West and the degradation of the Eastern despotism. 168 1.1.2.2 Union in the East. 171

1.2 Hellenic bibliography. 179 1.3 The model of the fathers. 183 1.3.1 The evaluation of the previous research. 184 1.3.2 Constructing the father s model. 186 Βibliography 193

Abbreviations PG SC ΠΙΠΜ Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, v. 161, Parisis 1857-1866, J.P.Migne. Sources Chrétiennes, H.de Lubac-Daniélou, Les Editions du Cerf, Paris 1942. Πατριαρχικόν Ίδρυμα Πατερικών Μελετών, Ανάλεκτα Βλατάδων, Θεσσαλονίκη

«Αὐγούστου μοναρχήσαντος ἐπί τῆς γῆς, ἡ πολυαρχία τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπαύσατο, καὶ σοῦ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος ἐκ τῆς ἀγνῆς, ἡ πολυθεΐα τῶν εἰδώλων κατήργηται. Ὑπό μίαν βασιλείαν ἐγκόσμιον αἱ πόλεις γεγένηνται καὶ εἰς μίαν δεσποτείαν θεότητος τὰ ἔθνη ἐπίστευσαν». Hymn of Christmas Vesper

Introduction T he issue regarding the relationship between State and Church constitutes a very significant and determinate factor affecting the formation of the Orthodox self-consciousness. Various approaches have been pronounced from time to time and the contemporary theological research has dealt with this subject extensively. My occupation with the literature-grammatology of the church Fathers leaded to the ascertainment that there is not a macroscopic research of the patristic writings, referred to the particular issue regarding the Greek Theology. There are corresponding researches in the foreign bibliography, nevertheless are old and represent different theological directions. Thus, I considered purposive to approach the issue of relations between state and Church through the research of the great Eastern Fathers of the 4 th and 5 th centuries. The current work is a theological-historic research and its goal is to study this relationship according to the historic, theological and social conditions of the searched period. Thus, I take under consideration all the creases of this season and I intend to present the patristic approach of this subject. The 4 th and 5 th centuries are an epoch in which

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR Church crosses from a persecution s period to its protection, happened by political authorities and especially by the imperial principle. During this season, the Christianity s foundations were set by the action of the ecumenical church teachers. Nevertheless, Byzantine Empire also formed its function s principles. These two realities were joined, interacted and created the Byzantine culture. I am going to search this period historically, theologically and socially drawing conclusion from the vivid scriptures of great Fathers. I consider helpful to begin with a synoptic survey regarding the operation of the Roman s Empire during the primary three centuries. The first Chapter is introducing in order for the reader to be normally introduced in the issue and reveals the continuation of the classic Roman Empire to Byzantine. In the main part the research of particular writings follows. The classification was according to Emperors figures and after according to writing texts of church Fathers. In some cases it regards summoning of texts due to they were written the same period or present a united comprehension of the researched issue. The chosen methodology had as inviolable basis the research of scriptures and the conclusion, drawn by their studying. Before studying the particular writings the consideration of the supportable bibliography was necessary aiming for me to approach those writings according to conditions of this epoch and the particular features of each Father. Then, the research pursued and an effort to record all the relevant references was attended regarding the searched theme. In that way, the relevant writings of saint Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria were researched. The material s classification pursued according to Em- 18

INTRODUCTION perors figure in order to be avoid the repetitions and retrogression. For more total enlightenment of the church contemporary conditions I add a chapter examining the approach of the church historians Theodorete of Cyrus, Sozomenus and Socrates, who wrote works, related to this period. The next part attempts to present aspects of the investigation so far regarding king s role as priest. I limited to bibliography aiming to present the patristic approach of the current issue and I passed over the innumerous books referring to this issue historically through other paths of investigation and figures. Finally, concluding my research I attempt to form a model basing to the conclusion of this writing s research exclusively and I criticize the model, suggested by previous bibliography. I owe warm thanksgiving to my advisor Mr. Arabatzis Christos, professor of Grammatology and Church History of the Theology s department of A.U.TH (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) who is the inspirer and instructor of this work. His indications and exhortations lead me to an exciting path investigating the Fathers writings. Moreover, I would like to express my appreciation to Foundation of State Scholarships (I.K.Y) in Greece about the scholarship to Holy Cross School in U.S.A in order to attend the second year of my master studies; during this period the investigation of the foreign bibliography was realized. Thessaloniki, February 2013 D.P. 19

FIRST SECTION AN APPROACH ACCORDING TO MANUSCRIPTS.

CHAPTER 1 The Roman background. The three first centuries constitute the historical period in which the new message of Gospel diffused in the universe. This conveyance of message affected on the political, religious and philosophical contexts of this period. The life and the special characteristics of the Roman Empire created the appropriate circumstances in order for the Christian Faith to be propagated, developed and founded. 1 The three first centuries is usually named as a period of persecutions. Nevertheless, except for persecutions taken place occasionally, in this period Church was born. The political situation in Rome is closely connected with the cultural one. The monarchic model, formed during the three initial centuries, is directly connected with the appliance of Imperium Romanum. State, religion, philosophy are interacted during this period and they normally set the foundations of the afterwards monarchic instruction of Roman Empire, Christianized after the 3 rd century. This Chapter constitutes an introduction focusing on how the political system of the 4 th century was formed when Constantine set Christianity as the of- 1 Regarding the Christianity s development during this season from a sociologic point of view see also Stark, Εξάπλωση.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR ficial state religion. The huge area of the Empire created many problems regarding the Empire s administration. The governance of this chaotic state, performed by the well-known Roman Council (Singlet) could not correctly manage the new conditions. There was a natural weakness of the institutions leading to political, financial and ethical decline. With Octavian s enthronement in the half of the 1 st century there happened a radical differentiation of the Empire s life. It formed a new shape to the political authorities giving them a monarchic orientation. In that way, Emperor acquires the absolute power. This new monarchic governance was maintained after many adventures. The reorganization, occurred by Diocletian, constituted the culmination of the Rome s monarchic functioning. 2 Simultaneously, a unified ideal conviction was cultivated which quickly constituted the flag of the Roman culture, Imperium Romanum 3. Its prevalence founded on the unity of the structure, the pilgrimage of the Emperor as God, the expanded possibility of communications. Moreover, the religious freedom was developed by the propulsion of the religious independence (anexithriskeia). The mosaic of the nation, belong to Rome, brought its own religious ideals, which could not be supplanted; there always was the presupposition for the nations to consider the Roman Emperor as God. The imposed state worship essentially was the respect s demonstration and 2 About the institutional changes and the authorities concentration to the Emperor s figure see also Χρήστου, Πατρολογία, vol. Α. p. 42-43. 3 The evidences about how the Imperium Romanum was applying after unifying the world and its interaction with Christianity are derived from Σκουτέρης, Ιστορία Δογμάτων, p. 64-68 24

THE ROMAN BACKGROUND the devotion to Rome s Gods, especially to Emperor. It was a sample that nations abided to laws and its purpose was to function as a unified factor of this cultural mosaic. State union and religious life had one center, the Emperor. The union between state and religion was the tenacious power joining the multiple cultural-religious trends. Thus, it was imposed with a sense of obligation and law punished its violation. Simultaneously, the religious independence was cultivated. Some religious trends were persecuted by state only when they conflicted to the Emperor s worship. Thus, Christianity s remarkable attitude developed regarding to the Emperor s worship. From one side Christianity accepted the Emperor s eminent role offering him honors as the highest political factor, but from the other side it did not acknowledge him as God. Christians desired the good relations with Empire, they respected the Emperor but not as God. Their behavior regarding social life reinforced the Empire s unified orientation but it confronted to Emperors worship as God. Every admission of Emperor as an incarnated God stimulated the Christian s religious consciousness who demonstrated conviction leading them to martyrdom. They served its purpose but they rejected the concept of its deification. Thus, someone could observe many variety attitudes during the primary three centuries regarding the Christianity s persecution or its tolerant confrontation from Emperors. In Rome, the sense of the Emperor-God was cultivated as the master of the universe, as superior of every man, as someone who had dressed the divine glory and acting as world s savior. All this conception purposed to union and the nation s inmost desire for peace. Its keystone was the Emperor s figure. 25

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR In this union, Christianity developed and expanded. The increased ecumenical culture gave to Christians all the appropriate conditions to evangelize the message of salvation, a message naturally ecumenical. The nation s union was the forerunner of the Church s united body. Thus, Christianity did not fight it. In contrary, it adopted it and reformed it by replacing the unified power from the Emperor s worship to Christ s worship, the King of kings. This replacement happened using as a tool the Hellenistic culture. Both Roman Empire and Judaism were Hellenized. Christianity took advantage of the Greek-Roman culture and transformed them radically. Its astounding assimilating power included everything. It rejected nothing. It introduced everything. But it reformed them and fermented them creating the Greek-Christian culture. The start happened during the Hellenistic period due to the union of the known world. It continued during Roman years due to the stability sourcing from the political power through the Emperor s worship and ended to the Christian state, inaugurated by Constantine the Great and continued by his successors. Eusebius created a portrait of king-priest by describing Constantine s personality and differentiated Emperor s conception from incarnated God (Roman perception) to priest- Emperor, as a delegate of the incarnated Logos. 4 Emperor was not the Word himself but he was a notable figure having a particular relationship with Him. In the new Christian state, 4 About the new model, created by Eusebius, and generally the king s perception as God s icon on the earth see also Runciman, Theocracy, p. 5-25. This comprehension remained alive during the whole period of Byzantine Empire despite the observed differentiations. Furthermore, regarding the fall in 1453 this theory prevailed in the sense that God punished the Emperor due to his unfaithfulness. 26

THE ROMAN BACKGROUND king keeps on to perform a mediate role between state and religion, a role, which had inherited from the three previous season of Ιmperium Romanum. His authority sprung from God, he was His delegate on the earth and he was assigned to protect people. His goal was to create and maintain an earthly kingdom, imitation of the heavenly one. The theocratic comprehensive of Byzantine polity was a simple conception. Nevertheless, many various situations appeared during its actualization. The factors below were contradicted: A. the Hellenic culture and its philosophical view, B. the Roman law, C. the perceptions sprung from the Emperor s worship as God D. the church hierarchy which was responsible to manage the church issues, the limit and the way of king s interference. 5 There was not a distinction regarding the function of Church and state; this factor resulted to a dynamic interaction. The description about how Emperor acted in the Eastern Empire after Constantine the Great and how it was adapted in relation with the ecumenical and apostolic ordering of Church, constitutes the main concern of the current research. 5 See also Runciman, Theocracy, p. 3-4. 27

CHAPTER 2. Constantine the Great. The interaction s start. Constantine, after his victory toward Likinius in 324, remained the single governor of the vast Roman Empire. He had to face both external and internal enemies. Regarding the intrinsic ones, the Christianity s predomination as the official religion of the Empire did not only constitute a cohesive tie but simultaneously some factions were appeared threating its peace and concord. Due to reasons above, Constantine took specific measures, he transported the Empire s center from the Rome to Byzantium erecting a new capital, Constantinople. This city was founded as the new capital of the Christian Empire and was adorned according to the Christian ideal. He decided the assemblance of the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 aiming for the Church s internal division due to the Arian heresy to be restored. 1 Constantine mili- 1 Tower has drawn the conclusion that church had absolutely compliant under the Emperor s will. Commenting Constantine s statement that he owns the jurisdiction for those outside the Church, he asserts Constantine performed the protagonist role for all issues. Every Emperor would not logically let self-governed such a large faction of his citizens, the Christians, without controlling the clergy s decisions. The priest s aspirations for Church power, the need

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR tary reinforced the borders and after great victories he achieved to strengthen his prevail toward the external enemies. Furthermore, he reorganized the imperial establishment introducing new dignities and institutions and setting the base of the monarchic administration, lasted for the next centuries. He took social measures trying to limit the outspread of the large agricultural properties and other measures reducing the urban occupation s abandonment. Constantine corroborated the Church financially and granted it judicial qualifications. 2 His church policy concerned more about concord and not dogmatic rightness. Thus, although he had applied the decrees of the First Ecumenical Council deciding the Arius banishment, he brought back Arius in his position two years later in 327. He did not acquire competent dogmatic knowledge in order to comprehend the dogmatic differentiations and understand the complicated issues; thus, he took care of the peace and harmony. The Arian influences were increased during his kingship until his death in 337. Constantine baptized Christian, foreboding his death, and died in Nicomedia in 22 May of the Church s guidance according to state s advantages and the Christian s fear about returning in the persecutions previous situation lead to absolute compliance of the Church under the Emperor. Church charged with political jurisdictions (i.e, judicial operation) and this evolvement resulted its secularization and the reduce of its clearly spiritual character. Tozer, Church and empire, p. 52-71. 2 Constantine visioned a universal Empire embracing all humanity. He wanted to set as groundwork of his vision the Christian Faith. According to these reasons, he took those measures and created a model, which never disappeared; only after 11 centuries when Constantinople was conquered by Ottomans. All these measures, applied by him, created a theocratic system. For an extended analysis about this theocratic system see also Runciman, Theocracy. 30

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT of 337. The capital s transportation to Constantinople was a determined point of the Roman s history. Constantine endeavored to set the principles of the new Empire s life attempting to change all its sections; Eusebius, the church historian, created the theoretical bases of this grandiose edifice through his historiography. There are many interesting researches examining this versatile subject and presenting their aspects about this great transition, happened in Constantine s kingdom. The present research, dealing with the Father s attitude toward Emperors, is limited to the Athanasius writings. It is not expanded to this versatile and important issue because it constitutes a different search area. 2.1 The meeting between Athanasius and Constantine. Athanasius was blamed many times unjustly. These accusations mostly were personal attacks of Arian bishops. These bishops remarkably influenced Constantine through his sister Constantia and Eusebius. Athanasius knew the Constantine s piety and frame up of his enemies. Due to these reasons, he addresses him an apology apologizing for the mendacious accusations; he pronounces his appreciation to the king s figure and his respect to the kingdom s institution; 3 3 I quote the Athanasius view from his work Περί Συνόδων regarding the kingship s establishment. His attitude toward the Emperor is not occasional but it is an extension of King s verified role, 31

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR «ἀρεστὸν ἐφάνη τὴν πίστιν τὴν ἐκ παλαιοῦ διαμένουσαν ἣν καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὰ εὐαγγέλια καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκήρυξαν τοῦ καὶ τῆς σῆς βασιλείας φρουροῦ καὶ τῆς σῆς ῥώσεως προστάτου ἵνα ταύτην κατασχόντες φυλάξωμεν καὶ φυλάττοντες μέχρι τέλους διατηρήσωμεν» Furthermore, he asks a council s summon in order to be judged about the attributed charges. According to his apology, Athanasius appears resorting to Constantine and asking him his right to apologize in a council. In his work Απολογητικός Β, Athanasius suddenly came forward mounted Constantine in the middle of the road, after he had repeatedly attempted to meet him unsuccessfully in his imperial courtyard. 4 Moreover, he recourse to him, accompanied with a bishops team, aiming to refute the decisions of the Tyro s synod. 5 Knowing Constantine s piety and his devotional disposal, Athanasius endeavored to reduce the effect, which his Arian surrounding had on him. Thus, he communicates with him and enlightens him about church issues. 6 Constantine s ignorance regarding dogmatic issues raised many problems to Athanasius and was an obstacle against the right Faith s prevalence. Constantine admitted and instituted the decrees of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea and he exiled Arius. Nevertheless, the performed in order to defense the Orthodox Faith. Athanasius the Great, Περί Συνόδων, 10.2.3-3.1. 4 Athanasius the Great, Απολογητικός Β, 86.6.1-9.1 5 Athanasius the Great, Απολογητικός Β, 86.1.1-2.1. 6 The Arian s influence to Constantius finally caused the Athanasius banishment by the charge that he intercepted the weat s transportation from Alexandria to Constantinople. 32

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT unawareness of the Arianism s danger and his surrounding s influence resulted his revulsion; he accepted Arius entrance in the Church again after he had signed a Faith confession. Constantine mainly cared of the concord of the church corps and he could not realize the importance the meaning of the dogmatic variances; consequently, he allowed the florescence of the Arian heresy, which became especially obvious after his death. The Emperor s potentiality to interfere in church issues is characteristic in Arius case. Although Constantine had stated that leave Church to decide about its internal questions through its councils, he did not hesitate to restore Arius and impose his communion with the rest Church again. This interference happened in cognizant of his action; according to the church historian Socrates, Constantine knowingly interfered and overlooked the council s decision because he thought his action would have contributed to the church harmony. Constantine had the self-consciousness he was the God s instrument and tried to correspond in this role interfering to church subject. 33

CHAPTER 3. Constantius. Some ambiguous attestations. I n 335, Constantine the Great had already decided his three successors; his sons Konstas, Constantine and Constantius. After his death, those three figures agreed to distribute the Empire s soil and defined the provinces of each government. In addition, they killed all the male relatives of their father, except for Julian and Gallus. In 340 Constantine died; Constas and Constantius co-governed for 10 years the West and East. Both of them were excellent militaries and stick at the effacement of the external enemies participating themselves into warfare. Regarding the internal issues, they took decisions promoting the Christianity s role granting privileges to clergy and publishing decrees against idolatry. They cared about the moral life instituting laws against pederasty and death penalty for the serious crimes. Furthermore, they reinforced despotism and autocracy. However, there was only a section in which they disagreed, the dogmatic one. Constas incline to Orthodoxy while Constantius to Arianism. Athanasius circumstance is a representative example that had been exiled by Constantius and resort

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR to Constas. The same happened in Paul s occasion, bishop of Constantinople. Constas mediation to Constantius guided to Athanasius restoration. A tug of war was formed between the two dispositions (Orthodoxy and Arianism), which included Emperors, bishops and councils. After Constas death, Constantius remained the single Emperor. Nevertheless, he had to absolve from Magnentius, a usurper of the West s throne. After warfare, he achieved to prevail. During the years later, the tug of war between Orthodox and Arians continued to exist; many councils took place but now Constantius promoted the Arians. In 360, Constantius turned against Persians. Earlier, Julian managed to secure the north boarders battling successfully. Notwithstanding, Julian s successfulness finally leads to breach in his relation with Constantius, which guided to a military conflict. Constantius abandoned his warfare against Persians and moved against Julian s threat. At 3 November in 361, he sickened seriously from fever and finally died leaving Julian as the single pretender of the kingdom. 3.1 Athanasius stance toward Constantius. 3.1.1 The peaceful style of the Apology to Constantius. Generally, Athanasius demonstrated a positive attitude to Constantius acknowledging his devoutness and recourse to him for church subjects. Furthermore, the same happened to his apology toward Constantius, even if he was informed about Constantius heretical views; the Holy Father addressed to him with complimentary words; 36

CONSTANTIUS words which recognize his piety 1 ; «μάρτυς ὁ Κύριος ὅπως ἐμνημόνευον ἐγὼ τῆς σῆς θεοσεβείας Καί γε ἐν συνειδήσει σου βασιλέα μὴ καταράσῃ καὶ ἐν ταμείοις κοιτῶνός σου μὴ καταράσῃ πλούσιον ὅτι πετεινὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀποίσει σου τὴν φωνὴν καὶ ὁ τὰς πτέρυγας ἔχων ἀπαγγελεῖ λόγον σου» He asserts the Church s obligation to honor him, descending from the biblical implications. When he apologizes for the Temple s function, which had not earlier been inaugurated from the King, he admits his sacerdotal role, performed in church issues 2. «Καί μοι συγχώρησον εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἐγκαινίων ἡμέραν ἐπετελέσαμεν θεοσεβέστατε Αὔγουστε τοῦτο γὰρ ἀθέμιτον ἦν ἀληθῶς πρὸ τῆς σῆς προστάξεως ποιῆσαι» The dependence of the church issues from the political decisions is obvious when Athanasius did not agree to abandon his metropolis of Alexandria without receiving a relative letter from the Emperor. 3 In addition, he acknowledges that the imperial authority restored him to the patriarchal throne of Alexandria; this reinstatement took place after Athanasius had received a corresponded epistle from Constantius. 4 Moreover according to the same apology, he does not blame the Emperor person- 1 Athanasius the Great, Απολογία προς Κωνστάντιο, 3.20-33 2 The acknowledgement of Emperor s role in the Temple s inauguration. Athanasius the Great, Απολογία προς Κωνστάντιο, 14.8-10. 3 Athanasius the Great, Απολογία προς Κωνστάντιο, 26.20-22 4 Athanasius the Great, Απολογία προς Κωνστάντιο, 26.33-36 37

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREAT FATHERS OF 4TH AND 5TH CENTURIES TOWARD EMPEROR ally for the bloody incidents, happened in Alexandria; in contrary, he claims that all these events took place without his permission and knowledge; he continues his letter asking him to care about their restoration. 5 «θαρρῶν ὅτι παρὰ γνώμην μὲν τῆς σῆς εὐσεβείας ἐπράττετο ταῦτα εἰ μάθοι δὲ ἡ σὴ φιλανθρωπία τὰ γενόμενα κωλύσει τοῦ λοιποῦ γενέσθαι μὴ γὰρ εἶναι θεοσεβοῦς βασιλέως θέλειν ἐξορίζεσθαι ἐπισκόπους καὶ γυμνοῦσθαι παρθένους ἢ ὅλως τὰς ἐκκλησίας ταράττεσθαι» These positive references about Constantius are motivated by his effort to maintain the peaceful relation with him. 3.1.2 Athanasius aggresiveness according to his epistle to monks. The plurality of his characterizations about Constantius figure and his participation in the Church s issues and councils are negative, even hostile according to Athanasius writing History of Arians. In this occasion, Athanasius realizes that he has to face an Arian Emperor acting according to Arians profit; he changes his attitude toward to the imperial authority and asserts the independent authority of the Church. Athanasius views defined the way that the Ecumenical Councils ordered and constituted its ecumenical theology. Nevertheless, Athanasius aspects have not been written as a treatise in which the Holy Father exhibits his perspective regarding this issue. They descend from the effacement of the historical 5 Athanasius the Great, Απολογία προς Κωνστάντιο, 29.5-10. 38