On the mode of action of the Orthodox Greco-Roman sovereigns in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries in favor of the church against heretics and schismatics

Heresies and schisms, allowed by the Providence of God in the community of believers, so that those skilled in the faith may appear among them (1 Cor. 11:19.), were revealed early in the Church of Christ. She had to fight with them even at a time when all the forces of the pagan world, warring against the truth, were directed against her. But strengthened by the Lord, Who gave His Church the promise that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), she courageously endured this double warfare, internal and external. The pagan world submitted to the power of the cross. From this time on, the struggle against her internal enemies, the newly emerging false teachers and troublers of the Peace of her children, became easier for the Church. The owners of the world empire, who had hitherto been enemies of the faith of Christ and persecutors of the Church, themselves, having become her sons, became her defenders and patrons in the ongoing struggle against heresies and schisms. The proposed study will reveal this activity of the Orthodox sovereigns of the Greco-Roman Empire in the first two and a half centuries from the time of their conversion. During this time, all their relations to the Church were determined and expressed in legislation. In our presentation we will try to reveal: I. for what reasons did the Christian emperors act in favor of the Church against heretics and schismatics; II. how they acted, and III. what were the consequences of their actions for the Church. This subject, taken from the history of the ancient Church, seems worthy of the attention of an Orthodox Christian today. Here he will see how sublimely the first Christian sovereigns understood the relationship of the kingdom of earth to the kingdom of heaven and the royal power to the Church of God; here he will see with what zeal the Orthodox sovereigns fulfilled their duty in relation to the Church; here he will finally see how good the fruits were for the Church of Christ, in its struggle against heresies and schisms, from the assistance and assistance of pious sovereigns. What motives did Christian emperors have in mind when taking part in the struggle of the Church against heretics and schismatics? Resolution to this question should be sought in how the Orthodox Greco-Roman emperors generally looked at their attitude towards the Church of Christ. Their actions against heretics and schismatics were only one of the particular types of their general activity in favor of the Church, and therefore had their basis in how they generally understood their duties in relation to the Church. The Christian conscience inspires everyone to serve the salvation of his fellow men by all means provided to him by God's Providence. In addition to this general responsibility resting on every Christian, the mighty of the earth, whom Christ, the one eternal King of the renewed world, appoints to care for the peoples entrusted to them, hear in the word of God the immediate calling to assist the Church in achieving its heavenly goals. The essence of this requirement in relation to kings and judges of the earth is sufficiently expressed in the second psalm. In this psalm, the Son of God himself announces his reign over his spiritual son4: I am appointed King by Him (God the Father) over Zion by His holy mountain (v. 6). Based on this great word, the royal Psalmist extends his speech to all the kings of the earth: and now kings understand: be punished by the judges of the earth. Work for the Lord with fear, and rejoice in Him with trembling. Accept punishment (honor the Son), but not when the Lord is angry (vv. 10-12). In this demand: honor the Son lies the command to protect His divine institutions, to repel the enemies of His holy name and teaching, so that, using all His divine institutions, faithfully preserving His life-giving teaching, all who bear His holy name can freely achieve eternal salvation. Another Prophet, penetrating in spirit the mysteries of the New Testament World, for the consolation of the new Israel, which at the beginning was awaiting severe persecution in the world, foreshadowed the very fulfillment by the powers of the earth of the royal commands of Christ the Lord. And, he says to the new Israel, kings will be your feeders, and their princesses will be your nurses (Ps. 49:23). The Fathers of the Church, who were destined to live during the times when these comforting promises were fulfilled, tried to reveal and establish this teaching about the relationship of the earthly kingdom to the heavenly and the royal power to the Church. St. Isidore Pelusiot wrote: “although there is a great difference between the priesthood and the kingdom - for it is, as it were, a soul, this is, as it were, a body - but they strive for the same goal, namely the salvation of their subjects” 1 . St. Gregory Dvoeslov, addressing the Emperor Mauritius himself, said: “For this reason, God has given power over all people to the piety of kings, so that those striving for good will have help, so that the path to heaven will be opened wider, so that the earthly kingdom will serve the heavenly” 2. This is how the Orthodox Greco-Roman emperors themselves understood their relationship to the Church. In this sense, St. Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, called himself “a servant of God and a co-celebrant of bishops” 3; and, according to the testimony of his biography, “he ruled all his subjects with the care of a bishop, and in every way incited them to strive for true piety” 4 . Emperor Honorius spoke about himself in a similar way in one of his laws: “among the cares of our power, reverence for the Catholic law is either always the main thing, or the only thing; for both in the labors of the military and in the affairs of the world, we are most concerned about ensuring that the people of our state diligently maintain true reverence for God” 5 . Theodosius the Younger is also one of his laws against the Nestorians begins with the words: “We think that it is proper for our authority to remind our subjects about religion. For we hope that we will acquire the richest favor of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, when we ourselves, to the best of our ability, try to please Him, and instruct our subjects to do the same.”6 Other Orthodox sovereigns testified the same about themselves with their deeds and decisions regarding the Church. From what has been said, it is easy to explain why the Orthodox Greco-Roman emperors acted in favor of the Church against heretics and schismatics. They considered it the duty of the Orthodox sovereign to arouse his subjects to true piety, to ensure that their subjects diligently preserve true reverence for God. But how could they ensure that their subjects preserve true reverence for God, if at the same time they did not protect and defend with all zeal the only guardian of true reverence for God - the Orthodox Church? How could they arouse their subjects to true piety, if at the same time they did not act with all zeal against heretics and schismatics who were tearing their subjects away from true piety? In such action regarding the enemies of the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox Greco-Roman sovereigns not only saw their duty, but also a guarantee of God’s favor for all their labors for the public good. This gave them a new motivation to defend and preserve the Church from heresies and schisms. Yes, St. Constantine, in one of his letters to the churches sent out after the Council of Nicea, wrote: “knowing, from the successful course of state affairs, how great the grace of Divine power is, I considered it necessary, first of all, to keep in mind the goal that in the entire sanctified society of the universal Church one faith, sincere love and one piety in relation to the Almighty God should be observed.” 7 Another great ruler of the 4th century, Theodosius, thought and acted in the same way. While in the East he was zealously concerned about the overthrow of heretics; in the West, Valentinian II allowed his mother Justina to patronize the Arians and persecute the Orthodox. When after this Valentinian was forced to flee from his empire in order to escape from the thief of the throne, Maximus, who was going from Gaul to Italy, and to seek protection and help from the eastern emperor: then Theodosius, preparing for military action against his enemy, first of all, demanded from him that he issue a law against heretics, whom he had hitherto patronized to the humiliation and harm of the Orthodox Church. Encouraging Valentinian to do this, Theodosius speaks to his young co-ruler the following remarkable words: “the power of the sovereigns is firm not with weapons, but with the righteousness of the deed; pious sovereigns, without touching the troops, won victories; without going into danger, they conquered and made their enemies their tributaries. So Constantine V. defeated the tyrant Licinius in a naval battle. So Valentinian, your father, happily ruled the empire, keeping it, under the intercession of God, inviolable from enemies, and, having been victorious in many battles, he conquered various barbarians. On the contrary, when Valens, your uncle, rebelled against God, desecrated the Church by killing the saints and expelling the priests: he died in the flames, being surrounded, according to the Divine dispensation, by the Goths. Honor the right of Christ, who did not undeservedly expel you. Your infidelity to Him gave Maxim success. If we persecute Christ, Theodosius concluded, who will we call for help when we go to battle? Based on the actions and orders of other sovereigns of the Greco-Roman Empire, we have the right to conclude that they, too, were guided by the same principles as expressed in the words of their great predecessors. But did the Church need external assistance? Were the measures that the emperors took against heretics necessary? The Orthodox Church, first of all, protects itself and its children, both from all its enemies, and especially from heretics and schismatics. It has its own means to protect its children from the harmful false teachings invented and preached by heretics, and to attract into its depths the very perpetrators of false teachings and those who are carried away by them. The means of the Church for this are: the God-given power to knit and loosen, and the word and writings of its shepherds and teachers. With her spiritual power, she excludes those who are stubborn and stubborn in error from her society, and deprives them of those spiritual benefits that, by the goodness of God, her faithful children have the right to enjoy, and with the same power she again accepts them into her bosom when they come to the consciousness of their errors and desire union with her. Through the word and writings of pastors and teachers, the Orthodox Church clearly proves to everyone and before everyone victoriously defends the infallible truth of the contents and the revealed teaching it teaches, and the legality and necessity of the institutions existing in it. Through the word and writings of shepherds and teachers, she exposes before everyone the groundlessness and falsity of the teachings preached by heretics, confirms the faith of believers and calls those who are mistaken to it. Without the means that the Church itself uses against heretics, external, civil measures would never have been effective against them. As external, they would produce only an external effect, with which the Church cannot be satisfied; at the same time they would be violence and cruelty. But in conjunction with the Church’s own measures, external measures are often necessary. The Church's own efforts alone cannot always be effective against people who are guided in their activities by the impulses of enmity, ambition, lust for power and, in general, by the power of destructive passions, against people who are blinded to the point of stubbornness and bitterness and who turn their ears away from the truth. People who do not heed the instructive and denouncing voice of the Church and seduce others into their errors can only be stopped by external coercive measures; and of course, they must be stopped in this way if the state authorities recognize their duty to protect and defend the Orthodox Church. What do we see in the ancient Orthodox Church? The pastors and teachers of the Church with all their zeal tried to protect her children from false teachings and to attract into her bosom those who had separated from her; with all their might they defended the true and divine teaching contained by the Church, and defeated the false wisdom of the heretics. This is evidenced by the writings of the most famous fathers and teachers of the Church that have reached us. It can be said that there was not a single one of them who did not devote at least part of his work to exposing and refuting heresies and defending the teachings of the Church; and many devoted most of their labors to this matter. And at what other time did the Church have such heralds of the truth and its champions against heretical false teachings? Between the names of the defenders of the ancient Orthodox Church and the denouncers of heresies are the names of the saints: Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, blessed one. Augustine and all the famous fathers and teachers of the 4th and 5th centuries. But the voice of such shepherds did not always reach the ears of heretics. The word of truth, which they proclaimed, attracted unprejudiced minds, but often remained unsuccessful in the struggle against blind stubbornness and bitterness, and sometimes even aroused in the hearts of stubborn and bitter people only greater enmity against the witnesses of the truth. That is why, through the efforts of such great shepherds, the daring efforts of heretics to spread errors could not always be stopped. What could be done against all such people? Then the Orthodox pastors themselves found it necessary remind the emperors that power “is given to them by God not only to govern the world, but mainly to protect the Church.” So wrote St. Leo, Pope, to Emperor Leo 9. Then the shepherds themselves justified the use of civil power in the overthrow of rebellious heretics. Explaining the words of the long-suffering lord in the parable of the Gospel: lest ye take away the tares together with them, and take away the wheat along with them. Leave both to grow until the harvest (Matthew 13:29, 30), St. John Chrysostom says: “The Lord does not forbid stopping the successes of heretics, stopping their mouths, curbing their insolence, disrupting their gatherings and conspiracies” 10. The shepherds of the Church even directly appealed to the emperors with a request for assistance, to limit the insolence of heretics and to completely eradicate heresies. Thus, Saint Gregory the Theologian addressed his ideas to Emperor Theodosius the Great, through the mediation of Patriarch Nektarios of Constantinople. St. Gregory wanted to inspire the sovereign to turn his attention to the Arians, Eudoxians, Macedonians and Apollinarians, contrary to the sovereign’s own orders, who violated the rights of the Church in some places of the empire. They They openly preached their false teachings and held their prayer meetings in Cappadocia, where St. lived. Gryropius, upon his removal from Constantinople. In the same Cappadocia, Eunomius was in exile, who, as Gregory put it, tried to attract everyone to his blasphemous teaching. On this occasion, the great shepherd, who had recently restored Orthodoxy within the walls of the capital, wrote to Nektarios: “If those who think wickedly have the right to have their own assemblies, let your wisdom, tested in Christ, judge that when we do not agree with them in the way of thinking, giving them the right to have their own assemblies means nothing more than admitting that their teaching is truer than ours. For if they are allowed, as pious ones, to teach in accordance with their way of thinking and to freely preach the content of their teaching, then isn’t this clearly condemning the teaching of the Church, as if the truth is on their side? It is not natural for two contradictory teachings about the same thing to be true. How did your highly gifted and lofty mind suffer so as not to take advantage of your usual freedom to heal such evil? But if this was not done before, at least now let your perfection, impeccable in virtue, rise up and convince the most pious king that there will be no benefit from all his concern for the Church if such evil, striving to overthrow the sound faith, intensifies due to the freedom given to him” 11. In a similar way, a whole council of African Church Fathers turned to Emperor Honorius with a request for help against the Donatists. The fathers of the Council of Carthage in 404, sending an embassy to the emperor, ordered their envoys to ask him: a) against the fury of these renegades, to give divine help, not extraordinary, say the fathers, and not alien to the Holy Scriptures; b) renew and confirm against them some previously given laws 12; c) command that help be given (to the Orthodox heads of churches) from the authorities of each region 13. Finally, let us also point out the message of Pope Hormizda to Emperor Justin I, who restored Orthodoxy in Constantinople after Anastasius. Encouraging Justin to completely eradicate the Eutychian heresy, the pope wrote: “Make sure that the enemy does not have a refuge from which he could rise again; take away all protection from him, and even if any traces of him remain, blot it all out with gentle measures; let every seed of wickedness be consumed; Let the ungodly trunk be destroyed, so that the root of wickedness, infected with poison and not completely consumed, does not expand again and send forth offspring” 14. What measures did the Orthodox rulers of the Greco-Roman Empire take against heretics and schismatics? Here we mean to depict those actions of the government of the Greco-Roman Empire that it used in relation to heretics after the ecclesiastical trial had been carried out on them. Although their fierce stubbornness made them unworthy of leniency, the sovereigns did not cease to test measures of meekness over them, extending their admonitions to them even after condemnation, and opening up for them new ways to admonish them in council meetings. As for strict measures, they either fell on a whole society infected with one or another false teaching, or turned into personal punishment for those who persisted in their error. Thus, all the ways in which the Orthodox emperors tried to act against heretics and schismatics can be divided into four classes: the first includes persuasion and threats; for the second - conciliar meetings; to the third - the taking away from societies of heretical rights that belonged to Orthodox societies, and, finally, to the fourth - personal punishment of heretics. Guided by the spirit of Christian love, the Greek emperors, even after conciliar condemnations, tried to act on heretics and those carried away by them, through exhortations and threats. Some wanted to prevent the formation of heretical sects in this way. Others tried to attract heretics, who already existed as separate sects, to the Church. In general, not wanting to unnecessarily resort to strict and decisive measures, the Orthodox sovereigns extended a voice of meek conviction to the heretics, or tried to influence them with threats, in all those cases when one could still at least somewhat expect success from this. The first example of such admonishment of heretics is provided by St. Konstantin. He addressed his admonitions to Apius and his accomplices. Desiring at the very root to destroy the evil that threatened the Church through the false teaching and the apostasy of Apius, Constantine diligently tried to return the heresy leader himself to the bowels of the Church. For this purpose, he repeatedly wrote to Apius, urging the heretic to abandon the false teaching condemned by the universal Church and to bring repentance 15. Not content with this, Constantine summoned Apius from exile to Constantinople, and again, personally, exhorted him to be reconciled with the Church 16. But the efforts of the sovereign, who zealously cared about the pacification of the Church, were not crowned with the desired success. The stubborn heretic, on the advice of his friends and like-minded people, expressed repentance, but feigned, and deceived the sovereign. When Constantine demanded from him a written statement of faith, Arius composed and presented to him such a statement in which, without at all showing a direct renunciation of his heresy, he only tried to cover it up with words that could be interpreted in one direction or another, and which he himself understood in the sense of his false teaching 17. In addition to Apius, the complacent emperor also addressed his convictions to his accomplices. When the heresy and the heresy leader were condemned at the Council of Nicaea, Constantine tried to reason with those who were carried away by false teaching before the judgment of the Church was pronounced on him. Thus, informing the Alexandrian Church about the resolution of the Council of Nicaea, he wrote to like-minded people of Arius: “let us return to our beloved brethren, from whom the shameless servant of the devil (Arius) removed us, let us hasten to the common body and our sincere members; for it is fitting for your insight, and your faith, and your holiness, having learned about the exposed deception of him who turned out to be the enemy of the truth, to return to divine grace... All willingly enter the path of truth 18.” In all likelihood, Constantine also wrote to other churches where false teaching had managed to penetrate. We cannot say with certainty what the success of his efforts was; but in Alexandria his voice was not heard by everyone. Against some stubborn ones, he soon found himself forced to use strict measures 19. Theodosius the Younger acted like Constantine the Great after the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. When the heresy leader Nestorius was condemned at this council, the emperor first of all tried to influence like-minded people with his meek measures, and, as he himself testifies 20, made every effort to restore the broken peace of the Church. He wrote to the accomplices of Nestorius, urging them to return to the bowels of the Church; wrote to many of the Orthodox bishops and even to some desert dwellers and ascetics (for example, Simeon the Stylite), asking all of them for their assistance and help in restoring the broken world 21 . Of Nestorius' like-minded people, he especially wanted to return John the Patriarch of Antioch to the Orthodox Church 22 . In his efforts, he was somewhat happier than Konstantin. Although he did not have time to prevent the emergence of the Nestorian heresy; but John of Antioch, the strongest of the like-minded Nestorians, and some other of the most significant bishops soon left the heretic with repentance, returned to the Church and brought many back with them to it. In other cases, we see that Orthodox emperors addressed entire sects that had separated from the Church with admonitions and threats. This is what Theodosius the Great did upon his accession to the throne. Before him, in the eastern empire, for more than forty years, the Arians ruled, under the patronage of Constantius and Valens. The heretics managed to take possession of most of the episcopal thrones in the empire and expel Orthodox primates from everywhere. In the capital itself, the Orthodox not only did not have their own bishop, but not even a single church. Theodosius immediately upon accepting royal power decided to put an end to this unfortunate state of affairs. He vowed to be a zealous champion of the Church against heretics, to use every effort to disperse their societies, and in fulfillment of his vow, at the very beginning of his reign, in the form of an edict, he issued an admonishing appeal to all his subjects, in which, announcing his intention; to unswervingly follow the confession of the pure apostolic faith, he called on everyone to adhere to the same confession and believe in accordance with the primates of the Orthodox Church. He wrote; “We want all the nations under our merciful rule to abide in the faith that blessed Peter the Apostle delivered to the Romans and which is followed by the high priest Damasus and the bishop of Alexandria Peter.” At the same time, commanding that none of the heretics should dare to appropriate the name of Catholic Christians for themselves, and depriving them of some of the advantages granted to the Orthodox, he threatened those who persisted with God’s judgment and his wrath 23 . Unfortunately, however, it must be said that neither exhortation nor threat defeated people who were ossified in their bitter hostility against the truth. Subsequently, Theodosius tried with exhortations to persuade other stubborn heretics during his reign - the Macedonians - to return to the depths of Orthodoxy. During the reign of Valens, these heretics, as a result of persecution from the then dominant Arians 24, sought an alliance with the Orthodox. For this purpose, they turned to the Roman Bishop Liverius, presented him with a confession of faith, and were actually accepted by him into church communion 25 . But after the death of Valens, when the persecution ceased, the Macedonians again fell away from the Church, and even decided not to communicate under any circumstances with those who accepted the Nicene symbol 26. Bearing in mind this, albeit short-lived and insincere union of the Macedonians with the Orthodox Church, Theodosius cherished the hope of seeing them again in its bosom. Having convened an Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381, at which, among other things, it was necessary to pronounce a solemn judgment on the false teaching of Macedonia, the emperor, together with the fathers of the Council, used all means of persuasion to bring to reason those who persisted in this false teaching. He reminded them, among other things, about their embassy to Liverius, and that they themselves had recently sought an alliance with the Orthodox. But the sovereign’s hopes and all his efforts were in vain. The heretics, not paying attention to anything, declared that they would rather recognize the Arian confession than the belief in the consubstantial Holy Trinity 27 . The failure of meek admonitions in the present and in other cases we have indicated clearly shows that stronger measures were needed to curb the heretics and to admonish those carried away by them. When the convictions and threats of the civil government turned out to be insufficient to admonish the heretics, when strict measures 28 did not produce the proper effect on them, the sovereigns again turned to the Church and opened councils in it with the leaders of heretical societies on ways to reconcile. If even at the same time they did not always and completely achieve their goals, then at least they left those who persisted unrequited in their bitterness. Such conferences were established under the emperors: Theodosius the Great, Honorius and Justinian. Theodosius the Great was strengthened by this method to reconcile the Arians, Eunomians and Macedonians with the Church. This was after his edict on the Orthodox faith and the invitation to adhere to the pure apostolic faith were neglected by heretics. The emperor already intended to take strict and decisive measures against the blinded heretics; A decree was issued to take away their houses of worship, which they managed to build after all their churches were taken. But this order caused strong disturbances in many parts of the empire 29 . Then the sovereign, again putting aside severity, decided to once again show leniency to the stubbornness and blindness of the heretics. He invited Orthodox bishops to gather in Constantinople for the Council; He also ordered the leaders of the Arian, Eunomian and Macedonian heresies to appear. The good sovereign wanted the heretics, from the mouths of Orthodox shepherds, to hear the voice of the truth, which they bitterly reject, so that they would be convinced that they were wickedly mistaken, and would see that the Church, from which they separate and against which they stubbornly quarrel, is the true and only custodian of paternal and universal Orthodoxy. But, unfortunately, success could not be expected even at the very beginning of the Council. The heretics did not come with a desire to know the truth, but with the firm intention of defending their errors; they appeared surrounded by crowds of dialecticians who had been prepared for the competition 30 . The fathers of the Council, and with them the sovereign, knowing that the debate not only does not unite those who are divided, but even more irritates those arguing, they decided to choose a different method for admonishing those who think differently. In order to decide on whose side the truth is, the Orthodox pastors decided to elect ancient teachers of the Church as judges. Every truly Orthodox person, obviously, must agree with these teachers: this was recognized as fair by the heretics themselves. And so, first of all, the leaders of the heresies who appeared at the Council were asked the question: how do they think about the interpretations of the ancient fathers on St. Scripture, and are these teachers accepted? The heretics responded that they respected them very much as their leaders 31 and began to praise them 32. Of course, they could not answer otherwise. By answering in the negative, they would make it clear to themselves that they are apostates from the everlasting and unchangeable teaching of the Church. But immediately after this answer they showed that only in words, insincerely, they recognized the ancient fathers as their leaders, but in fact they were stubborn opponents of their teachings. When, after the first answer, they were again asked by the fathers of the Council: if they recognize the ancient fathers as reliable witnesses of the truth, then are they ready, on the basis of their sayings, to stop all disputes? “They did not rush to give an affirmative answer to this question; on the contrary, they began to refuse under various pretexts, and finally they really completely abandoned the proposed method for resolving the dispute. The Emperor finally demanded that each sect present to the Council its own statement of faith. But here, too, the heretics did not show the slightest desire for rapprochement with the Church, so the emperor had nothing left to do with these heretical confessions but to tear them apart 33. Theodosius' efforts were not, however, completely in vain. If the blind leaders stubbornly refused to accept the truth, then at least many of those who had hitherto shared their errors, now seeing that they could only respond to the proposal of the Orthodox shepherds with gross stubbornness and shameful contradiction of themselves, were indignant at them, left them and joined the Orthodox Church 34 . In similar circumstances, Emperor Honorius appointed a Council for a meeting of Orthodox pastors with the Donatists. The Donatists, who appeared in the African Church after the end of the Diocletian persecution, were initially schismatics, and separated from the Church as a result of various unjust accusations that the founders of the schism, to cover up their personal motives, leveled against the Bishop of Carthaginian Caecilian. The most important of these accusations was that Caecilian and the bishop who dedicated him were guilty of betraying the priest. books to police detectives during the persecution. Soon after falling away from the Church, the Donatists began to preach that the Church had perished everywhere on earth except their society, and at the same time to rebaptize the seduced Orthodox. Having begun their hostile actions by slandering the Church, the Donatists did not cease subsequently to bring false accusations against it. One of the reproaches that they tried to spread against Orthodox pastors was that in the fight against them, the Orthodox resort to the protection and help of the government. They seemed to forget that they themselves forced the Orthodox to do this with their furies. Reproach could sway foolish people; The schismatics called themselves persecuted and martyrs and compared themselves with the Christians of the primal Church. But while the Orthodox shepherds resorted to the legal help of the Orthodox sovereigns, the Donatists themselves sought help for themselves even from the apostate Julian, and, moreover, in the most dishonest way. Their bishops, exiled into captivity under Emperor Constantine, upon Julian’s accession to the throne turned to him with a request for the return of the churches taken from them. At the same time, they extended low flattery to the point that they told Julian that he, an apostate, had only justice! The reminder of this act, as if forgotten by them, should have blocked their lips. So, in order to open everyone’s eyes to the imaginary sufferers and dishonest reproaches, Honorius ordered to exhibit in the cities, in more open places, the rescript that the Donatists had asked from Julian, and the acts relating to this matter. “Let it be,” it was said in the command of Honorius, “let everyone know both the firm constancy of the Orthodox (who did not want to ask for any favors from the apostate) and the despair of the Donatists, decorated with treachery” 35. To resolve all disputes, the Orthodox pastors of the African Church themselves repeatedly challenged the Donatists to a public study and competition about the reasons for the division; but the Donatists always stubbornly refused such an invitation. Finally, Honorius, with his assistance, arranged the Council desired by the Orthodox (411). For this purpose, he sent his official Marcellinus to Africa. In the order given to him for guidance, the emperor wrote: “We command that this matter be arranged within four months; so that we can, as we wish, quickly learn about the return of the minds of the people to the truth. If, within the appointed time, the Donatist bishops deliberately do not appear, then let a deadline be set for the stubborn, with a threefold invitation; If, after this period, despite the challenge, they do not want to appear, then let the people, together with the churches, retreat from them, seeing their teachers silently defeated” 36. Arriving in Africa, Marcellinus began to act in accordance with the command given to him. Both Orthodox and Donatists, the latter, after various attempts to delay the date, finally gathered in Carthage. To prevent unrest, according to Marcellinus, eighteen bishops from each side were elected to attend the Council from among all those who appeared. Between them, seven bishops from each side were appointed to lead the debate, seven to advise the first, and finally, four bishops with four notaries to supervise the drawing up of acts of the conciliar. The Orthodox pastors paid special attention to this last circumstance in order to deprive the Donatists of any possibility of subsequently suspecting the acts of forgery, damage, or anything similar. Finally the day appointed for the opening of the council meetings arrived. With what dispositions the schismatics appeared, they immediately showed. Having been invited to sit down, they answered: I hate the church of the wicked and will not sit with the wicked (Ps. 25:5); a host of evil ones have held me back (Ps. 27:17.) 37. And during the first two sessions, they made every effort to evade the discussions for which they were called. For this purpose, they proposed various, almost irrelevant, questions, demanding that they be discussed first of all. The goal of the schismatics was, if not to completely evade the above-mentioned reasoning, then at least to leave as little time as possible for them, to obscure the matter with extraneous questions, and thus at least somehow cover up their defeat, which, of course, they clearly foresaw 38 . The case itself finally got underway at the third meeting. The main accusation of the Donatists against the Church was that, since the time of their separation, it had ceased to be the true and holy Church, because it accepted the fallen and tolerated sinners in its bosom. This accusation was immediately and decisively refuted by Orthodox pastors. The Donatists were completely exposed by the testimony of St. Scriptures, behavior and rules of St. Cyprian, who was not only respected on an equal basis with the Orthodox, but also wanted to see on their side, was also an example of action and definitions of other fathers. Finally, it was proven to them that their teachings contradicted their own actions 39 . Thus, the Donatists were forced to admit that the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ, that the vicious life of some of its individual members does not harm its integrity and does not violate its purity and holiness, and that finally those who separate from its communion expose themselves to the danger of eternal destruction 40. After this, despite the deviation of the Donatists, the fathers of the Council moved on to discuss the cause of the schism. When various acts related to this case were read, it became clear that 1) the Orthodox pastors, whom they accused of betraying the priests. books and under this pretext those who are exposed by them as the culprits of the schism that have occurred are completely innocent of the accusation leveled at them, and that 2) the founders of the schism themselves are mostly guilty of this betrayal. This ended the conciliar research and debate; all that remained was to sign the acts. The Donatists, in order to later be able to accuse the Orthodox of damaging these acts, at first refused to sign them, and only then fulfilled what was required when the Orthodox reminded them of the condition set at the beginning. So, the consequence of the Council was that the Donatists were completely defeated and shamed. They themselves had to admit their guilt, and together the complete innocence of their opponents; they had to recognize themselves as the sole cause of the division, and at the same time its complete illegality. True, the shamed leaders of the schism remained as stubborn after the Council as they had been before; after the defeat they only intensified their enmity against the Church and Orthodox pastors. But those whom until now they managed to keep separated from the Church with their slander and in whom they managed to support hatred and bitterness against it with the same slander, seeing the defeat of the false shepherds and being convinced that the Church did not perish everywhere except in their society, as they had heard before, but on the contrary, that their society was a schism, hastened to join the Church. In general, this Council dealt a decisive blow to the schism 41 . Emperor Justinian, through a conciliar meeting, tried to persuade the followers of the Eutychean heresy to make peace with the Church. In 532, he gathered some Orthodox bishops to Constantinople, namely: Hypatius of Ephesus, Stephen of Seleucia, Anonymus of Trebizond and others; He also summoned six bishops from the heretics. The emperor wanted the Orthodox bishops to present the heretics with proof of their wrongness and convince them to renounce their unfair prejudice against the Council of Chalcedon and reject the false teaching condemned by the Council. Over the course of three sessions, the Orthodox pastors actually presented the heretics with all the evidence of their wrongdoing. Since the heretics, in defense of their false teaching and against the Council of Chalcedon, wanted to especially refer to the teaching and writings of some fathers, such as Saints Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria and others, the Orthodox pastors showed them that the scriptures and passages from the writings of the fathers cited by them were either maliciously distorted or deliberately reinterpreted by them. What were the consequences of the Council, we can learn about this from the description of its actions, compiled by one of the Orthodox bishops present at it, namely, Innocent of Maronius. At the conclusion of his narrative about the conciliar debate, he says: “despite all our arguments and convictions, offered with all meekness and patience, only the venerable Bishop Philoxenus (Dulichia) was admonished by them. As for the rest, God, seeing the corruption of their hearts, bound their mouths so that they could neither present an excuse on their part, nor express their submission to the truth. But,” the narrator continues, “if not the bishops, who are still in their heterodoxy, then at least many of the clergy and monks who came with them (to the Council) joyfully returned to the holy communion of Orthodoxy in their churches and monasteries” 42. Strict measures taken by the government of the Greco-Roman Empire against heretics were partly directed against entire heretical societies, partly against famous individuals who had fallen away from Orthodoxy. Heretical societies could not enjoy the rights of religious societies permitted in the empire. 1) Societies of heretics did not have the right to spread their false teachings and acquire new followers from the Orthodox, or seduce them. Emperor Gratian, in one of his laws against all heretics in general, wrote: “every wicked person who perverts the teaching about God in a manner worthy of punishment, let him only contain this destruction within himself, and not teach it to others, for their destruction” 43 . This general principle is also expressed in the laws of other emperors against one or another heresy, such as in the laws of Theodosius the Great 44, Arcadius 45 and others. Slaves subordinate to masters who were in heresy could be in particular danger. To prevent violent seduction, the emperors gave slaves the right of refuge in the Orthodox Church, combined with freedom from slavery 46, and forbade heretics to buy Orthodox slaves 47. 2) Heretics were forbidden to gather crowds of listeners, openly in the squares and secretly in houses, and reason with them, or involve them in debates about objects of faith. In the east, Theodosius the Great and Arcadius forbade this to the Arians and Eunomians 48, and to all heretics in general 49; Emperor Theodosius the Younger and Marcian to the Nestorians and Eutychians 50; in the west, Emperor Honorius to the Donatists 51. Emperor Theodosius the Great even ordered that the houses in which they, in cities or villages, gather to teach their false teachings be taken away from heretics 52 . 3) Under the threat of severe punishment, it was forbidden for all Orthodox Christians, as well as heretics, to copy, possess and read heretical books, since, with the help of these books, heretical errors, and without oral teaching, could themselves be constantly maintained in sects and pass from generation to generation. The emperors ordered to take them away from everyone and exterminate them. The first to order the destruction of heretical books was Constantine the Great. After the Council of Nicea, he ordered that all the works of Ariev that could be found 53 be immediately put to fire, “so that in this way the wicked teaching of this heretic would not only disappear, but would not be remembered” 54 . Subsequently, Constantine ordered to find and destroy books and other heretics that then existed in the empire 55. Arkady ordered that the books of the Eunomians and Montanists be searched with all care and set on fire. Theodosius the Younger, after the Council of Ephesus, wrote: “let no one dare to have, or read, or copy the wicked books of Hestorius, written against the Orthodox faith and the definitions of the primates of the most holy council that was in Ephesus” 57. Emperor Marcian forbade writing anything, or having, copying or distributing books written by anyone against the Council of Chalcedon 58. Justinian the Great ordered that the writings of Severus of Antioch, who was the head of the Eutychean heresy in his time 59, and all the books of the Manichaeans 60 be put to fire. 4) The emperors ordered to take away from all heretics and schismatics the places of prayer meetings that they had ever and in any way appropriated from the Orthodox Church, such as: during the first apostasy from the Church, or subsequently by deception, bribery, or violence. or by the command of sovereigns who favored them, etc. Constantine the Great returned to the Orthodox Church the churches that were illegally owned by the Donatists 61 and Novatians 62 . Subsequent emperors began their actions against heretics with this very measure; Emperor Theodosius the Younger confirmed it finally 63. 5) The government prohibited heretics and schismatics from holding liturgical meetings and activities; but not against all heretics, and even against the same heretics not at all times, it acted with the same severity. “Not all heretics,” Emperor Theodosius the Younger directly says in one of his laws, “should be persecuted with the same severity” 64. The basis for this course of action was that 1) not all heretical false teachings were equally evil; 2) the fact that not all heretics, and not the same ones at all times, were equally strong and dangerous for the Church. Thus, the schismatic Novatians and Savvatians 65 at first were not even prohibited from performing liturgical activities, but only certain restrictions were established regarding the places of their religious meetings. Constantine the Great allowed the Novatians to own without fear the churches that they themselves had founded after the apostasy from the Orthodox Church: but at the same time he ordered to carefully observe that the schismatics did not dare to appropriate for themselves those churches that they owned even before their apostasy and which should have remained in the possession of the Orthodox 66. Subsequently, Theodosius the Younger forbade the Novatians and Savvatians to build new churches and restore those that had fallen into disrepair 67 . -The government acted much more strictly against the Donatists. It looked at them in the same way as at the heretics: because they taught that the Church had perished everywhere on earth, except for their sect, and on this basis they rebaptized the Orthodox they had seduced, rejecting church baptism as invalid. Constantine the Great ordered that all places of their prayer meetings be taken away from the Donatists 68 . Gratian and Honorius also ordered, strictly forbidding schismatics anywhere to organize their church meetings. Honorius, who acted against them with tireless zeal, confirmed this prohibition many times during his reign 69. As for heretics, in relation to freedom of worship, Arians, Macedonians and Apolinarists must be distinguished from others. Theodosius the Great and Arkady completely forbade them to conduct their worship and arrange for this, anywhere 70 and any places 71; and to provide their bishops with new bishops and clergy, and even bear these names 72 . The reason why Theodosius the Great acted with such severity against these heretics was that upon his accession to the throne they were extremely dangerous for the Church. But Theodosius the Younger moderated the severity of his predecessors. He only forbade the mentioned heretics to have their churches in any cities 73. The reasons for such a weakening of severity should be sought in the fact that during the reign of Theodosius the Younger the Yarian, Macedonian and Apollinarian heresies, which were then close to a complete fall, ceased to threaten the Orthodox Church. All other heretics, without any relief, were deprived of the freedom to conduct their worship anywhere. a) Valentinians, Marconites, Worvorians, Montanists, Paulians, Manichaeans, Photinians, Messalians and Audianes. Constantine the Great issued such a command against those of the heretics listed here who existed in his time 74 at the end of his reign. He wrote to the heretics: “since your disastrous wickedness cannot be tolerated any longer, we command by law that henceforth none of you dare hold meetings. Therefore, all your houses in which you hold your meetings were ordered to be destroyed; for our concern regarding this subject requires that not only in public, but also in private houses there should be no accumulations of your superstitious madness. Much better,” the sovereign continues, “will be done by those who turn to the right and pure faith, enter the Catholic Church, partake of its holiness, and through this will be able to achieve the truth. So, in our prosperous time, may this deception of your corrupted mind be destroyed - I mean the wicked and disastrous dissent of heretics and schismatics; for the prosperity that we, by the grace of God, enjoy, requires that those who live in good hopes turn from all disorderly error to the right path, from darkness to light, from vanity to truth, from death to salvation. And since this requires a strong means, we, as has been said, ordered all the refuges of your superstition, that is, the prayer houses of all heretics, if you can call them prayer houses, to be taken away without resistance and immediately transferred to the Catholic Church, while other places were to be transferred to the state treasury, so that for the next time there would be no opportunity for you to gather. So,” the sovereign concludes, “from now on, let your lawless communities not dare to hold meetings in any place, either public or private.” 75 The rest of the heretics listed above were also subject to the ban extended by the emperors Gratian and Theodosius the Great 76 . b) Eunomians. The Eunomians were a branch of the Arians; but they differed from the Arians in their special wickedness, so that, according to the testimony of St. Ambrose 77, the Arians themselves abhorred them. The jealousy of the Orthodox sovereigns against them was especially aroused by the fact that they dared to desecrate the Orthodox Christians they seduced by rebaptism 78 . For such reasons, they were forbidden to have their own liturgical meetings by Theodosius the Great, Arkady 79 and Theodosius the Younger 80. c) Nestorians and Eutychians. Theodosius the Younger forbade the Nestorians from all prayer meetings after the condemnation of Nestorius at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 81; Eutychians Emperor Marcian after the condemnation of Eutyches at the Council of Chalcedon 82. Emperors confirmed this prohibition against both heretics: Leo 1st 83 and especially Justinian the Great 84. We turn to the last resort that Orthodox emperors used against heretics who were persistent in their wickedness and their enmity against the Church, i.e., various punishments. First of all, it should be noted that the same punishments were not imposed against all heretical sects and not against all persons belonging to them. Sects that are more wicked than others and more dangerous to the Church due to the tenacity and fanaticism of their leaders and followers were persecuted with greater severity than others. These were: the Manichaean sect, the most wicked of all 85, then the sects of the Montanists, Eunomians and Donatists. Of the persons who belonged to one or another sect, after the heresy leaders and their accomplices, those who intensified to spread heretical errors or support the sect were persecuted with particular severity. Here we mean, first of all, bishops, clergy and heretical teachers, then all seducers in general, and finally the owners and distributors of heretical books. Secondly, it should be noted that punishments were not always carried out with the severity with which they were prescribed. Thus, Sozomen directly says about Theodosius the Great: “to the laws (given against heretics, after the Council of Constantinople in 383), he added grave punishments, without however carrying them out, because he did not want to punish his subjects, but only to bring them into fear, so that they would think the same way about God with him” 86. We can assume that other emperors acted in the same way when it was possible without prejudice to the rights and benefits of the Church. The actual purpose for which they imposed civil penalties on heretics, and for which sovereigns and Orthodox pastors sometimes asked for this 87, was not to subject the heretics to the severity of these punishments, but through fear to deter them from various prohibited actions and to encourage them to reunite with the Church. The punishments which the civil government inflicted on various individuals and entire sects may be stated in the following order: 1) Removal from capitals, and sometimes from other cities of the empire. Bishops, clergy and heretical teachers were primarily subjected to this punishment. Theodosius the Great, at the beginning of his reign, having issued a command by which all heretics were forbidden to organize prayer and any other meetings, when he learned that heretics had violated such a command, he decided to expel all bishops, clergy and heretical teachers from the capital and all cities of the empire and converted everyone to the place of his birth, with a ban on moving from one place to another 88. But the expelled heretics returned again, or managed to take refuge secretly even in the capital itself. After Theodosius, Arcadius, his successor in the east, repeatedly ordered the expulsion of bishops and clergy of all heretical sects from the capital 89, and he repeatedly ordered the expulsion of bishops, clergy and teachers of the most stubborn sects, namely Eunomius and Montanova, from all cities of the empire 90. Of the subsequent sovereigns, Justinian the Great forbade the Eutychian bishops 91 to appear in the capital and other significant cities, whom he expelled from the episcopal thrones occupied by them during the reign of the sovereigns who patronized their heresies. Some emperors expelled secular followers of heretical sects from cities. Theodosius the Great, having ordered that the places of their prayer meetings be taken away from all heretics, added that if the heretics attempted a rebellious attack, then, upon punishment for the rebellion, they should be expelled from the cities themselves 92, and subsequently actually carried out his threat 93. Marcion ordered that all followers of the Eutychievs be expelled from Constantinople 94 . The Manichaeans were constantly expelled from the capitals and all cities in both empires 95. 2) Removal from honorable service. Theodosius the Great, Arcadius and Honorius removed all heretics from the court service and from the administration of the regions (in scriniis, inter agentes in rebus, inter palatinos et in provinciae gubernatione) 96. “Whoever does not agree with us in faith cannot be close to us in any respect,” wrote Honorius 97. Emperor Justin I directly declared regarding all heretics: “we do not want to tolerate any of the heretics wearing any dignity, or possessing a military or civilian belt” 98 . But, being deprived of honorary positions, heretics at the same time were certainly obliged to perform such a service, which, while not enjoying honor, was associated with special difficulties, or with burdensome duties on property. These were: military service in the legions located on the borders of the empire, for protection from enemy raids, and curial civil service 99. Orthodox emperors acted similarly, and in particular regarding heretical clergy. While the Orthodox clergy was freed from all heavy, or incompatible with this title, state duties and endowed with various advantages: the emperors deprived heretical clergy of these advantages and deliberately obliged them to perform all duties without exception. Constantine the Great gave the following law regarding this: “advantages that are given out of respect for religion should benefit only the adherents of the Catholic law. As for heretics and schismatics, we want them not only to be alien to these advantages, but also to bear various duties” 100. Theodosius the Great ordered the collection of ten pounds of gold from each of those who dared to supply clergy to heretics, or who would accept this ministry, or, having been appointed before, would perform any actions related to this ministry 101. Theodosius the Younger added to this that if the perpetrators claim poverty, then collect the specified fine from the entire society of clerics of the sect to which they belong 102, and extended this law to all seducers in general and those who allowed themselves to be seduced 103. Emperor Justin I ordered that heretics who in any way achieved government positions that were not permitted by them should be fined thirty pounds of gold 104 . Honorius repeatedly fined all followers of Donatov's schism. One time it was at the request of the Orthodox pastors of the African Church. They, among other things, asked the sovereign to restore the law of Theodosius the Great on the collection of ten pounds of gold from heretics who ordain and those who are ordained 105 . Having now imposed the mentioned monetary penalty on the followers of the Donatov schism, belonging to the class of free citizens, Honorius ordered the peasants to be diverted from the wicked teaching with frequent blows 106 . 5) Deprivation of inheritance rights and confiscation of property in favor of the treasury. The Manichaeans and Eunomians were the first to undergo this punishment under the Emperor Theodosius the Great. Having deprived these and other heretics of the right to legally receive or leave an inheritance, with the exception of persons belonging to the Orthodox Church, or at least joining it voluntarily, and decreeing that all such estates as escheats should be taken to the treasury upon the death of the owners, the emperor also decreed regarding the Manichaeans that they should be deprived of all rights in general that belong to other subjects of the empire 107, such as the right to sell, buy, enter into contracts 108. Emperor Honorius extended the aforementioned punishment to the Montanists and Donatists, 109 having been forced by the stubbornness of some and the outrageous outrages against the Orthodox Church of others. By the way, the emperor and the African bishops, namely the fathers of the Council of Carthage, which took place in 404, asked the emperor and the African bishops to curb the insolence of the Donatists by the fear of such punishment, “so that,” they wrote, “at least by this fear those who put off their purification and correction while thinking about eternal punishment would be kept from causing schisms and from heretical madness” 110 . Finally, Theodosius the Younger, wishing to complete the extermination of heresies, begun and successfully carried out by his predecessors, Theodosius the Great and Arcadius, subjected to a law the deprivation of inheritance rights to all heretics in general who had survived even before the time of his reign 111. Depriving heretics of the right to leave and receive an inheritance, emperors in some cases ordered that their property be taken away from them, or threatened to do so, while the owners were still alive. Thus, the estates and houses of heretical owners, who gave shelter to heretical bishops and clergy and allowed prayer meetings to be held, were taken away in favor of the treasury, or Orthodox churches, or city societies, immediately upon inquiry about this 112. Emperor Honorius threatened to confiscate the estates of all Donatists. Theodosius the Younger, having enacted various measures to eradicate the Nehistorian heresy, ordered that all its followers be punished with confiscation of the property if they persisted 113. Primarily the leaders of the heresies with their main accomplices, and the leaders of the heresies, that is, heretical bishops and clergy, were subjected to this punishment. First of all, the leaders of the Donatov schism were condemned to imprisonment by Emperor Constantine the Great. This sovereign, wanting to reunite the schismatics with the Church, from which they had fallen away shortly before him, convened several Councils (in Rome 313, in Arles 314), and used other measures for reconciliation: but all was in vain. Then, in order to punish the guilty and stubborn leaders of the schism and to save the African Church from new unrest that they could cause, Constantine decided on the indicated strict measure 114. Subsequently, they were subjected to the same punishment by the emperors Constant and Honorius. Returned from exile by Constantine himself, the Donatists began to seduce the Orthodox not only by seduction, but also by direct violence, and extended their furies to the point that they filled all of Africa with horror. To keep them, Constantine's successor, Constant, first tried meek measures, sending two of his dignitaries to Africa. But when the Donatists opposed the peaceful proposals of these commissioners with open rebellion, then Constant, following the example of his father, ordered that the perpetrators of all the disasters of the Church - the leaders of the schism - be sent into exile. From this exile they returned again under Julian, and again began to continue their previous affairs. Obstinacy in evil made them even more stubborn enemies of the world, as they showed by their behavior at the Council of Carthage and after it. Having been exposed and put to shame, they did not rush to repent, but only intensified their bitterness against the Church. Therefore, the Emperor Honorius ordered: “let the clerics, deacons and the most evil presbyters of the Donatists be removed from the land of Africa, which they desecrated with the sacrilegious rite (rebaptism), and sent into captivity one by one, each to his own country” 115. After the leaders of the Donatov schism, Constantine the Great exiled Arius and his accomplices. The emperor, even at the Council of Nicaea, declared that anyone who opposes the dogmas of faith, as a violator of divine decrees, will be punished by exile 116. When Arius and his like-minded people really opposed accepting the dogmas of faith set forth by the Council, Constantine carried out his threat. The exiles were: Apius himself, the deposed bishops - Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicea, Theopas of Marmaric and Secundus of Ptolemais; Deacon of Alexandria Euzous, and some of Apius’s friends in Alexandria 117. Theodosius the Great ordered Eunomius to be sent into exile when he learned that this heresy leader was establishing church meetings with his followers, and, attracting crowds to himself, seduced the gullible by reading his writings 118 . Emperor Arcadius, having ordered the expulsion of Eunomian and Montanist bishops and clergy from all cities, added that if after that they attract people to themselves in the villages and establish unauthorized assemblies, they will be subjected to imprisonment forever 119. This law was given by Arcadius a few days after St. Chrysostom - and, as one might guess, 120, on the advice of this archpastor. Theodosius the Younger sent Nestorius and his main accomplices into captivity after the ecumenical council of Ephesus 121. The same emperor threatened with exile all the leaders of the Sabbatian schism if they did not stop celebrating Easter with the Jews 122. Emperor Marcion exiled the leaders of the Eutychian heresy, such as: Dioscorus of Alexandria, known for his violence at the Council of Ephesus, Timothy Elur, who carried out open disturbances in Alexandria after Dioscorus, and with them some others 123, and threatened with deprivation of property and exile to all bishops and clergy of the mentioned heresy who would allow themselves to ordain other bishops and clergy from their sect, as well as those newly ordained by them. Marcion threatened with the same punishment anyone who dared to write anything against the Council of Chalcedon, or to possess, read and copy works published against it 124 . Finally, those heretics who, publicly or secretly gathering crowds of people and daring to debate the dogmas of faith, were exiled. This punishment was decreed by Theodosius the Great, and confirmed by Honorius 125 and Marcian 126. Such severity was necessary due to the unrest that occurred not only in the Church, but also in the state from these debates. St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory of Nyssa testify that the passion for theological debate was one of the prevailing diseases of that time in all classes of society, and even among the common people 127. In addition to individuals of a well-known sect, all the followers of certain false teachings, at first still small in number, were sometimes subjected to exile. This is what Emperor Honorius did with the followers of the false teaching of Jovinian, wanting to put an end to this sect at its very appearance. Having exiled the heresy leader to one of the islands of the Adriatic Sea (Boa in Dalmatia), the emperor at the same time ordered all his followers to be taken one by one to other islands, “so that, as stated in the decree, through such a scattering of persons their superstitious complicity would cease” 128. The same emperor ordered that all like-minded Pelagius 129 be deprived of their estates and sent into exile. Finally, 7) Expulsion from the empire and threat of death. Theodosius the Great and Justin I, under threat of death, ordered the expulsion of the Manichaeans from the empire 130, and even directly threatened them with death 131. Theodosius the Great was forced to such severity by the extreme stubbornness of the heretics and the wickedness of their teaching. Justin renewed the law of Theodosius because shortly before him the Manichaeans again multiplied in the eastern empire; they came here from Italy as a result of the persecution instituted against them there by Pope Leo the Great and Emperor Valentinian III. Other emperors threatened with the death penalty those persons who, having turned to the Church from Manichaeism, again fell into this heresy, or, having converted only feignedly and outwardly, did not cease to be its admirers 132. In addition to the Manichaeans, the government also armed itself with the threat of the death penalty against the Eunomian and Montanist clergy, for spreading their heresy in exile 133, and also against the Eutychians 134. In the Code of Justinian, the death penalty was declared in general for all heretics for violating the laws decreed against them 135. These were the measures that the Greco-Roman emperors used in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries against heretics, to protect the Orthodox Church from heresies. By enacting such measures to protect Orthodoxy and eradicate heresies and schisms, the Greco-Roman government also made sure that its commands were observed. For this purpose, - 1) The emperors entrusted Orthodox pastors with deliberate supervision of heretics and executors of laws against them. Thus, Emperor Justin, at the conclusion of one of his laws against heretics, wrote: “we entrust to the care of the most blessed apxbishop and patriarch of this glorious city (Constantinople) and the most holy bishops of other cities occupying the sees of both patriarchs and metropolitans, and all the lower ones (minoribus) to supervise whether what we have decreed is observed inviolably, and to report to us, so that we can, if necessary, persecute with greater severity those who neglect these decrees about the Orthodox faith" 136. 2) The emperors granted the right to the entire Orthodox community to stop the illegal actions of heretics, and even made it a duty, under threat of punishment, to expel or bring to trial heretics hiding from the prosecution of the laws 137. Thus, Theodosius the Great, having forbidden all heretics to organize meetings, allowed all Orthodox Christians to expel violators of this decree 138. Honorius, in his law against the Pelagian followers, threatened the same punishment as heretics to those persons who, knowing their secret hiding places, did not expel them from there, or did not report them to the judges 139. 3) They appointed special detectives (inquisitores), who would find heretics guilty of violating the laws, or hiding from their severity, and present them to the court 140. Finally, 4) they subjected to various punishments those guilty of patronizing and indulging heretics; exactly - a) government officials. They were punished when they allowed heretics to perform any prohibited actions, or concealed these actions; when they illegally accepted heretics, or assisted them in entering public service; when they were given any help. The laws threatened senior government officials with financial fines 141 and deprivation of their jobs 142 ; lower (officiales) also a fine 143, corporal punishment and exile 144, and finally, even the death penalty 145; city ​​curials, in addition to a fine 146, were threatened with deprivation of their estate and exile 147. b) Private individuals. They were punished when they sheltered heretics and allowed them to establish any meetings in their place. Householders and landowners, upon discovery of their guilt, were deprived of their houses and estates 148, and in addition were sometimes subjected to exile 149, tenants and managers of private and public houses and estates, if they came from slaves, were subjected to corporal punishment 150 and exile 151 to the mines 152, and free-born people were fined 153, or, similarly slaves, corporal punishment and exile 154. The efforts of the pious rulers of the Greco-Roman Empire, who acted with such zeal in favor of the Church against heretics, did not remain fruitless. We would be unfair if we attributed all the successes of Orthodoxy in the fight against heretics to the patronage of the powerful of the earth alone. First of all and most of all, the Church owes her triumph over the enemies of the truth to the very truth of her teaching and the zeal of the great shepherds and teachers, who, with a victorious word and tireless zeal, rose up in her defense, as soon as danger was revealed from anywhere. But nevertheless, it must be admitted that Orthodox emperors also contributed to the successes of Orthodoxy. The evidence of modern narrators and history itself assures us of this. Eusebius, citing the law given by Constantine the Great at the end of his reign against all heretics and schismatics remaining from previous times 155, notes about the effect of this law: “thus, by the power of the royal decree, the dark gorges of the Gentiles were destroyed, and the animals, that is, the leaders of their wickedness, took flight. And of those who were deceived by them, some, fearing the royal threat, pretended for a time and penetrated the Church with false feelings... Others. on the contrary, as if with sincere disposition, they moved on to hope for the best. The heads of the churches carefully distinguished the latter, and those who tried to penetrate the Church under the guise of pretense were driven far away, while others who did this with pure intention were tested for a long time and, having become sufficiently confident, were added to the number of Christians admitted to sacred meetings. This is what they did with dishonest Gentiles. Those who themselves did not introduce any impiety into the teaching of the faith, but were only separated from the community of believers through the efforts of other schismatics, were immediately accepted into the Church. The latter, as if returning from a foreign land to their fatherland in droves, recognized the Church as their mother, and the longer they were separated from her, the more cheerfully and joyfully they entered into it. Thus, the members of the common body, coming into unity, were combined into a harmonious whole, and the universal Church of God, gathered in itself, walked alone: ​​there were no heretical or schismatic societies anywhere else on earth” 156. The success of activities against heretics on the part of the Orthodox emperors following Constantine the Great is confirmed by history. The first after him to resume strict measures against heretics in the east was Theodosius the Great. At his accession to the throne, the Arians dominated the empire; their rule lasted for almost half a century, the heresy of Apius managed to give rise to new branches, that is, the heresies of Eunomius and Macedonius; In addition, the false teachings of Photino and Apollinaris appeared. Finally, the Montanists and Manichaeans still remained from among the ancient heretics. Theodosius decided to use all his efforts to ensure that there was one Church in the empire - the Orthodox Church, and one consistent teaching about reverence for God: and he succeeded so much in his efforts that, if he did not see it himself, then he prepared the opportunity for his closest successors to see their subjects truly professing a single consistent teaching. At the end of his reign, most of the heresies represented only weak remnants of their former strength, and among them the Arian heresy was especially brought to such a state. The stubbornness of the heretics was great, but it was crushed by the unshakable firmness of the sovereign, who promoted the Church with unflagging zeal. Theodosius's successors to the east, Arcadius and Theodosius the Younger, acting against the heretics with the same zeal and firmness as he, managed to complete his work and achieved that all the heresies we mentioned fell completely. After them, all the false teachings of the fourth century became barely noticeable and completely ceased to be dangerous for the world of the Church; by their insignificance They ceased to violate the unity of the Church. The efforts of the emperors and the Western Church brought great benefit. The measures of Gratian and Theodosius the Great in the west put a limit on the success of Arianism; with the assistance of Emperor Honorius, a decisive blow was dealt to the Donatist split; By his measures the heresy of the Montanists was shaken and finally weakened and the heresy of Jovinian was eradicated; and by the measures of him and Valentinian III the followers of the Pelagians and Manichaeans were scattered. Let us present here another contemporary testimony of how useful the activity of Orthodox sovereigns against heretics was for the Church. This evidence is borrowed from Bl. Augustine. In his letter 157 to one bishop of the Donatov schism (Vincent), on the one hand, he shows those obstacles to success in the struggle, against which the spiritual means that the shepherds of the Church may have were either insufficient or completely ineffective, and on the other hand, he also mentions the fruits that accompanied the measures of the sovereigns against heretics. It is very important for us to hear the opinion of such a shepherd, who devoted so much time to the fight against various false teachers, and had quite a bit of experience in matters of this kind. At the Council of Carthage 404 discussed the need to turn to the emperor for help in order to facilitate the transition to the Church for converting Donatists, who were still kept from converting by fear on the part of their former like-minded people (circumcellions) 158; it was necessary to ask the emperors for strict orders against stubborn heretics, for the unhindered attraction into the depths of the Church of those inclined towards peace. “My opinion,” says the blessed one. Augustine, initially were such that no one should be forced to unite with Christ, that it should act with words, refute with reasoning, and defeat with the power of conviction, so that, otherwise, open heretics would not be converted into Orthodox only in appearance” 159. But at the Council, Augustine's opinion met with strong contradiction. The oldest and most experienced bishops convinced him to think differently. “This opinion of mine,” he writes, “was refuted not by words, but by examples. First of all, they pointed me to my native city (Tagast), whose inhabitants previously all belonged to the schism, but then turned to Catholic unity, precisely out of fear of imperial decrees, and now they so abhor your destructive insolence (he writes to the Donatist) that it was as if they had never been involved in it. Then they pointed out many more cities by name, in which the same change followed, so that I could see how justly what is written can be applied to this: “Give wine to the wise, and he will be the wisest” (Prov. 9:9.). The first consequence of this conviction was that Augustine himself changed his previous opinion, and, joining the other bishops, together with them he asked the emperors to promote Orthodoxy against heretics. After this, he tried to prove to others the benefits of such action for the Church. “We ourselves know,” he wrote in the same letter to Vincent, “how many there are who were already convinced by the evidence of the truth and wanted to be Orthodox, but, fearing insult from their former co-religionists, postponed the fulfillment of their intention from day to day! How many are there who were not held back by the truth, which you could never gain the upper hand, but were bound by the heavy bonds of an old custom, so that this divine word was justified on them: a cruel servant will not be punished for his words, even if he understands, he will not listen (Proverbs 29:19). How many are there who considered the Donatian schism to be the true Church because security made them lazy and careless in learning the truth? How many have been blocked from entering the Church by the speeches of slanderers. How many, believing that there was no difference in what society one was a Christian, remained in the Donatist schism because they were born there, and no one forced them to leave it and convert to the Orthodox Church! - For all these people, the fear of laws, by issuing which kings serve God with fear, was so useful that now some say: we ourselves already wanted to do this (i.e., convert), but thanks be to him who gave us the opportunity to do this immediately, and stopped our delay. Others say: we already knew that the truth was on the side of the Church, but we were held back by some habit: thanksgiving to God, who broke our bonds and brought us into the bonds of peace. Others say: we did not know that the truth was here, that is, in the Church, and did not want to know it, but fear aroused us to know it: thanks be to God, who shook our laziness with the power of fear” 160. “Oh, if I could show you,” exclaims Bl. Augustine, how many have become sincere Orthodox from the very circumcellions; how they condemn their former life and the pitiful delusion by which they thought that everything they did in stubborn audacity was done for the Church of God, and yet,” he adds, “these people would never have been brought to repentance and correction if they had not been bound by the bonds of the mentioned laws, like those who are possessed 161 . “But suppose,” he continues, “that the laws of sovereigns are of no benefit to some: is it really because healing should be neglected because there are those possessed by an incurable disease?” About such it is written: I have smitten your children in vain; the punishment is not np iya cme (Jer. 2:30). But we must take into account how numerous are those whose salvation we rejoice at. For,” concludes the bl. Augustine, - if they acted against them only through fear and did not teach at the same time: this would seem to be unjust oppression. On the other hand, if they admonished, but did not act through fear, then those who had become coarse in outdated habits would not be willing to move on the path of salvation. When salutary instruction is added to useful fear, so that not only the light of truth drives away the darkness of error, but also the power of fear breaks the bonds of bad custom, then, as I said, we rejoice over the salvation of many.”162 In the 5th century, two new false teachings arose: Nestorian and Eutychian. The emperors also acted against them with their own measures, but not with the same success. The reason for this was, on the one hand, that after two Orthodox sovereigns who acted against these heretics, namely after Theodosius the Younger and Marcian, three sovereigns ascended to the throne of the empire (Zeno, Basilisk, Anastasius), who not only destroyed all the fruits of their efforts, but also used all their efforts to make the evil incorrigible, who gave the heretics either complete freedom, or even direct dominion over Orthodoxy. On the other hand, the reason for the lack of success should be sought in the fact that some of these heretics, namely the Nestorians, managed to find refuge for themselves from the severity of the Orthodox sovereigns in Persia, which was at war with the empire; and the provinces in which others were especially numerous, that is, the Eutychians, were soon taken away by the Arab caliphs. Finally, we should not forget that in the Orthodox Church itself there were no such invincible defenders of Orthodoxy as Saints Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, whose efforts, preceding the measures of the sovereigns, could have crowned the latter with success. This concludes our review of the activities of the Orthodox Greco-Roman emperors against heretics. From all that has been said, it is clear: a) that these sovereigns considered assisting the Church in the fight against heretics and schismatics to be one of their main and essential duties; b) that they assisted the Church in this struggle in every way and with unflagging zeal, and c) that with their assistance they brought significant benefit to the Church. Evseb. De vita Constantini. Lib. IV, p. 24. Cod. Theod. XVI. XI., mandatum 3 (integrum). Suidae Lexicon, sub voce: Ουαλεντενιανος. Ed. Bernhard. Vol. 11 par. 1, pag. 1192. Epist. 156, p. 3. Ed. Ballerin. Conversation XLVI on Ev. Matthew. Epistle to Nectarius 2. Creation. Gr. God., in Russian. lane, part. IV, p. 193. Namely: 1) “let the law issued by Theodosius be observed regarding the collection of ten pounds of gold from heretics who ordain and are ordained, as well as from the owners from whom their collection will be determined.” At the same time, the fathers ask that the power of this law be extended to those “against whose slander those who have taken care of the Catholic Church have presented evidence, so that at least by this fear from causing schisms and heretical madness, those who put off their purification and correction while thinking about eternal punishment will be kept; ordinations, or according to wills, and, simply speaking, among the Donatists who are blinded by their madness and want to remain in error. let the power be taken away either to leave something or to take one’s own.” Book of Rules, Carthage. cathedral, right 104. Episl. XL1V, ad lustinum. Vid. apud. Baron. 432.XLVII. Epist. Theodos. ad Acaciuinm Berveensem. Vid. apud Baron. 432. XLVII, XLIX. They will be discussed below. Abbr. V. 10., Soz. VII. 12. Augustin. Brevicul. Collat. Lib. 3. p. 4. Augustin. Brevicul. Collat. Lib. I p. 1. Contrary to their teaching, they accepted their schismatics, the Maximianists, into fellowship. Augustin. Epist. 152. Contra Gaudent. 2. in fin. August, s, Gaudent. I. I, p. 29. Orosius. I. VII. With. 24. Epistola lnnocentii Episcopi Maroniae ad Thoman presbyterum-Vid. apud Baron. 532 XXXI–LVI. Honorius writes against the Donatists: his, qui forsitan ad rebaplisandum cogentur, refugiendi ad Ecclesiam Catholicam sit facultas, ut ejus præsidio adversus hujus criminis et sociétatis auctores atributæ libertatis praesidio defendantur. Cod. Theod. XVI. VI. 4. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 20. Cod. Theod. XV., IV. 3. V. 11. 34. 36. Cod. Justinian. I. 1. 3. 4 According to Philostorgius (II. 2.), Arius, in order to easily spread his false teaching among the common people, expounded it in songs adapted to the taste and understanding of the people. The Council of Nicea condemned his book, which was called Thalia (Abbr. I. 9., Coz. I. 21.). Euseb. de vita Constant. III. 66. The original decree of Constantine about this has not survived. Blessed One mentions him. Augustine. Epist. 88. 105. Ed. Bened. Ante omnia, quas ab orthodoxis abreptas tenent (hæretici) ubicumque ecclcsias, statim Catholicæ Ecclcsiæ tradendas esse non ambigant: quia ferri non potest, ut qui ncc proprias habere debnerant, ab orthodoxis possessas, aut conditas, suaque temeritale invasas, ultra detineant (Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 65). The Novatians separated from the Church as a result of unreasonable severity towards those who fell into grave sins: the Novatians irrevocably excommunicated them from their fellowship. The Sabbatians were a branch of the Novatians: their peculiarity was the celebration of Easter together with the Jews. Novatianis et Sabbatianis omnis innovationis adimatur licentia, si quam forte temptaverint. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 65. Constantine's decree has not reached us. He is mentioned by bl. Augustine (Contra litt. Petil. II. 92. Contra Parmen. I. 8. Epist. 88. n. 3. 105. n. 9. Ed. Bened.), and Emperor Gratian (Cod. Theod. XVI. VI. 2.). Augustine says in a letter to a schismatic, (Epist 88): (Constantinus) legem constituit, ut loca congregationum vestrarum vindicarentur. Cod. Theod. XVI. V 38. 43. 44. 51. Vitiorum institutio, ariana scilicet et caet... neque publicis neque privatis ditionibus, intra urbium atque agrorum ac villarum loca, aut colligendarum congregationum, aut constitutiendarum ecclesiarum copiam praæsumat nec ceritatem perfidiae suae vel solemnitatem dirae communionis exercise. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 12. Colligendarum congregationum vel in publicis vel in privatis ecclesiis careant facultate. Cod. Theod. V. 14. Nec ad imaginem ecclesiarum parietes privatos ostendant. Ibid. V. 11. Episcoporum faciendorum, clericorum instituendorum non habeant potestatem; nomine destituti appellationem hujus dignitatis amittant. Ibid. V. 14. Arianis, Macedonianis et Apollinarianis intra nullam civitatem ecclesiam habere Iiceat. Cod. Theod. XVII. V. 65. Mention is made of the Valentinians, Marconites, Paulians, and Catathrygians (Montanists). Evsev. about the life of Constant. III. 65. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 6. 11. De Fide ad Gratian. I. 4. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 34. 36. VI. 8. Ibid. V. 49. 50. VI. 6. 7. Ouos (gregalos Nestorii) omnis conventus celebrandi licensenlia privari statuimus. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 66. Apollinaristas, hoc est Evtychianistas, sive in hac alma urbe (Constantinop.) diversisque provinsiis, sive in Alexandrina civitate, sive intra Aegyptiacam diæcesin sunt, episcopos et presbyteros aliosque clericos creare et habere prohibemus, non ecclesias, non monasteria sibi construant, parasynaxes vel conventicula tam diurna quam nocturna non contrahant, neque ad domum vel possessiones cujusque, neque ad monasterium vel quemcunque alterum locum operaturi sectae funestissimae cogregentur. Cod. Justin. I. 5. 8. Vid. ibid. I. 1. 4. Pope Leo the Great, who made a deliberate study of the false teaching and religious practices of the Manichaeans, speaks of their heresy in the following way: “documentis gestorum plenissime aperitur, nullam in hac secta pudititiam, nullam honestatem, nullam penitus reperiri castitatem, in qua lex est mendacium, diabolus religio sacrificium turpitude" Serm V. de jejunio decimi mensis. See book. Right Cathedral. Carthage Ave. 104. Hi, qui vel doctrinam vel mysteria conventionum talium (haereticorum) exercere consveverunt, perquisiti, ab omnibus urbibus ac locis propositae legis vigore constricti, expellantur a coetibus, et ad proprias, unde oriundi sunt, terras redire jubeantur: nequis eorum aut commeandi ad quaelibet alia loca aut evagandi ad urbes babeal dotestatem. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 12. Cod. Theod. V. 31. 32. 34. Apollinarianos ceterosque diversarum haeresium sectatores ab omnibus locis jubemus inhiberi, a moenibus urbium, a congressu honestorum, a communione sanctorum. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 14. Sozom. VII. 12. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 8. 18. 65. Valent. III. Nevell. 2. Philostorg. X.6.Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 29. 58. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 12. Theodosius the Younger writes regarding this, supplementing one of the previously given laws: Iex, quae super Evnomianis militare prohibits ceterisque execrabilium religionum et professionum ritibus, promulgata cognoscitur, nihil ad eos, qui cohortalini sunt, pertinet (Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 61), and in another law: si quos (ex Montanistis et Aliis hujuscemodi generibus nefariae superstilionis) curialis origo, vel ordinum nexus, aut cohortalinae militiae inligat obsequiis et functionibus, his adstringi praecipimus: ne sub colore damnatae religionis eliicant vacationis cupitae sibi suffragia. Ibid V. 48 Vid. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 7., which also speaks of all heretics in general. In haeheticis erroribus, quoscunque constiterit vel ordinasse clericos, vel suscepisse officium clericorum, denis libris avri viritim multandos esse censemus. Cod. XVI. V.21. Si pauperiatem praetendant, de communi clericorum ejusdem superstitionis corpore extorta nostro inferatur aerario. Ibid. V. 65. Book of Laws Cathedral, Carthage. pr. 104. In the law given in response to the request of the Fathers, Honopius writes: Donatistae superstitionis haereticos, quocumque loci, vel fatentes, vel convictos, poenam debitam absque dilatione persolvere decernimus. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 39. Colonos verberum crebrior ictus a prava religione revocabit. Ibid. XV. V.52. Evnomiani pes façiendi, pes adipiscendi habeant licentiam testamenti. Quod circa omnes, quos vivos lex invenerit, volumus custodiri nec quemquam præteritae cujuspiam voluntatis privilegio defensari: cum, seu facta prius testamenta seu infecta doceantur, post hanc nostri oraculi sanctionem non habeant possidendi licentiam, non potendi, non etiam relinquendi haeredem, nomine principali, non fideicommissario, non legatario, non tacito fideicommisso, vel quamcunque in hujuscemodi negotiis nuncupationem juris ordo constituit: sed omnia, quae talium esse, vel futura esse constiterit, ut caduca, fisci nostri viribus vindicentur. Nihil ad summum habeant commune cum reliquis. Cod. Theod XVI. V. 17,–Manichaeis, sub perpetua justae infamiae nota, testandi ac vivendi jure Romano omnem protinus eripimus facultatem, etc. Ibid. XVI. V.7. Cfr. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 40. Ibid. XVI, V. 40. 48. 54. VI. 4. Book Right Sob. carthage pr. 104. Evseb. de vita Constant. III. 65. Theodosius the Great decreed: omnia loca fiscalia statim fiant, quae sacrilegi dogmatis vel sedem receperint, vel ministros. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 8. Vid. ibid. V. 12. 21. 25 45. 65. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 8. The original decree has not survived. We know about its existence and content from the mention of it by the blessed one. Augustine. Epist. 88. 9. Ed. Bened. Abbr. I. 8. Soz. II. 21.27. Vid. Baron. Annal. 398. LXXVII. Gothofredi Annott. ad. h. leg. The emperor ordered the property of the heresy leaders to be given to the Church of Constantinople. Evagre. I. 7. Vid. Baron. annal. 436. II. III. Rescript. Theodos. Cfr. Pagium. 435. II. Proscriptos eos in exilium detrudi censemus, qui audent disputare ea, et adserere, quae institutio divina condemnat. Cod Theod. XVI. V 45. See Grieg. Theologian a word about the Theologian. 1st, p. 6.; word 32 about maintaining good order in interviews, etc., pp. 155–156. 159–162. Russian translation in Creation St. father S. Gregorii Nyssen. Orat. de Deitale Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Opp. t. 3. Ed Morrelli. p. 466. Vid. Baron. Annal. 418.XX. sq. Quicumque sub nomine Manichaeorum mundum sollicitant, ex omni quidem orbe terrarum, sed quam maxime de hac urbe (Roma) pellantur sub interminatione judicii (capitalis scilicet). Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 18 cfr. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 11. 12. Theodosius the Great directly threatened the Encratites and Saccophori, or hydroparastati, of the Manichean society with the death penalty. Quos encratitas prodigiali appellatione cognominant, cum saccoforis sive hydroparastatis, refutatos judicio, proditos crimine, vel in mediocri vestigio facinoris hujus inventos, summo supplicio et inexpiabili poena jubemus affiligi. Cod. Theod. XVI. V.9. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 16. Ultimo supplicio coerceantur, qui illicita docere tentaveriat. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 8. Haeretici coetus habere non possunt, aut conventus illicitos, aut ordinationes, aut baptismata, aut exarchos habere, aut officia patrum, aut defensiones instituere, aut curare, aut administrare villas per se ipsos aut per interpositas personas, aut quid prohibitorum lacere. Qui transgressus haec fuerit, ultimum supplicium luit. Cod. Justinian. I.5. 14. Ac si qui extiterit, qui tam evidenter vetita transcedat, permissa omnibus facultate, quos rectae observantiae cultus et pulchritudo delectat, communi omnimu bonorum conspiratione, pellatur. Ibid. XVI. V. 11. Vid. Baron. 418.XX. Leg. Honorii Palladio. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 9. 15. From 8 to 30 pounds of gold. Cod. Tbeod. XVI. V. 21. VI. 4. X. 13. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 12. Cop. Theod. XVI. V. 46. Cod. Justinian. I. 5. 8. Cod. Theod. XVI. V. 30. 44. 54. VI. 4. 20 pounds of gold. Ibid. V. 65. Novatian, Valentinian, Marcionite, Paulian, Montanist. About the life of Constantine, book. III. 66. Epist. 93. Ed. Benedictine. The Circumcellions were the most bitter enemies of the Church among the Donatists. You might be interested in: