Not a Church Decision
In the traditional account of the 4th-century Arian Controversy, the Council of Constantinople in the year 381 finally rejected Arianism and put an end to that controversy. However, the Controversy was brought to an end by an emperor, namely, by Emperor Theodosius. Show More
| “Several Emperors had attempted to bring an end to the Arian controversy. Constantine, Constans, Constantius … All had failed … Theodosius succeeded” (Hanson Lecture). |
Edit of Thessalonica
The Controversy was mainly between Nicenes and Arians. While Nicene theology dominated in the West, Arianism dominated in the East. Theodosius became the Eastern Emperor in 379 but was a strong Nicene supporter. Already in 380, the year before the Council, through a Roman Law (the Edict of Thessalonica), with the support of the Western emperor, he made the pro-Nicene version of the Christian faith the official and sole legal religion of the Roman Empire. In the edict, he named bishops Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria, the main defenders of Nicene theology after Athanasius died in 373. This was not a church decree but applied to all Roman citizens. Show More
| “Theodosius made known by law his intention of leading all his subjects to the reception of that faith which was professed by Damasus, bishop of Rome, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria” (Sozomen’s Church History VII.4). |
That edict outlawed Arianism and said of those who would contravene it that they would suffer the punishment which Roman authority shall decide to inflict (Bettenson, p.22).
Bishop of Constantinople
Having announced the State Religion of the Roman Empire, Theodosius assumed unilateral control of who the leading bishops would be:
At the time, the bishop of Constantinople was an Arian (a Homoian – Demophilus). On 24 November 380, still before the Council of Constantinople and two days after Theodosius had arrived in Constantinople for the first time, after giving Demophilus the opportunity to accept the Nicene faith, which he declined, Emperor Theodosius drove Demophilus out of the city (Hanson, pp. 804-5).
Theodosius then also unilaterally accepted Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian Fathers and the leader of the relatively small Nicene community in the city, as de facto bishop of Constantinople, the Empire’s capital city (Ayres, p. 253).
Theodosius also ordered the Arian Lucius, who was at that time the bishop of Alexandria, to be chased out of that city (Hanson, p. 805).
After Gregory Nazianzen had resigned during the Council, Theodosius replaced him with Nectarius, who was the equivalent of the major of the city, but who was still unbaptized. It was the Council that rubber-stamped it, but since Nectarius was still not baptized and a civil servant under the emperor’s control, it clearly was the emperor’s decision. Nectarius was hastily baptised and ordained (Hanson, p. 811).
Further Edicts
In the next year (381), Theodosius issued two more edicts, one before and one after the Council:
In a second edict in January 381, still before the council, Theodosius forbade non-Nicenes from settling in the cities (Boyd). That edict also determined that heretics are not allowed to meet for worship within the walls of any town (Hanson, p. 805; Ayres, 259).
In the third edict, immediately after the Council in 381, Theodosius confiscated all Arian churches and gave them to Nicene bishops (Ayres, 252; Hanson, pp. 820-1).
The Council
The Council was under the complete control of the Emperor. He did not attend personally but monitored the developments closely (Hanson, p. 806):
The first act of the Council was to affirm the appointment of Gregory of Nazianzus, whom the emperor already previously accepted as the de facto bishop of Constantinople (Hanson, p. 806).
His control over the Council is further confirmed by his appointment of Nectarius, the unbaptized ‘major’ of the city, as presiding officer after the first presiding officer (Meletius) died and after the second (Gregory) resigned (Hanson, p. 807; Ayres, p. 254-5).
The Council was not representative. Since all other views have already been outlawed, and only Nicene supporters were invited and admitted. Specifically, only people who supported Meletian, who followed the Cappadocians, and who was the first presiding officer, were invited (Hanson, p. 806). Show More
| “It seems unlikely that this meeting was intended as a universal council to rival Seleucia/Ariminum or Nicaea itself. … Those present at the council initially came from a fairly restricted area and the majority from areas known to be favourable to Meletius” (Ayres, p. 253). |
Gregory of Nazianzus, the leader of the Nicene party in the city, who presided after Meletius died, “had strongly opposed any compromise with the Homoiousians” (Ayres, p. 255). The Homoiousians were the ‘Arians’ closest to the Homoousians (the supporters of the Nicene Creed). Therefore, if Gregory vehemently opposed any compromise with them, he also opposed compromise with any of the other Arian views.
Summary
It was not the Council of Constantinople in the year 381 that finally rejected Arianism and put an end to the controversy but the emperors. Already in 380, the year before the Council, the emperors made the pro-Nicene version of Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, outlawed Arianism, and promised dissenters the punishment that Roman authority would decide to inflict.
The emperors also appointed the bishops. Emperor Theodosius drove the Arian bishop of Constantinople out of the city and replaced him with a pro-Nicene bishop. And, after that pro-Nicene bishop had resigned, Emperor Theodosius replaced him with one of his unbaptized government officials as bishop of the Empire’s capital.
Through further edicts, Emperor Theodosius forbade non-Nicenes from settling in any city or town, prohibited Arian worship meetings, and confiscated all Arian churches, giving them to Nicene bishops. The Arian Controversy began soon after persecution ceased and ended when persecution resumed.
The ‘Ecumenical’ Council was under the complete control of the Emperor. For example, it affirmed the emperor’s appointment of a pro-Nicene bishop and accepted the emperor’s unbaptized government official as chair. The Council was also not representative. Since all other views were already outlawed, and only Nicene supporters were invited and admitted.
What no other Emperor did
Theodosius succeeded where other emperors failed because he did what no other Emperor had done:
He unilaterally made Roman Law to define the sole legal religion of the empire. No other emperor did something similar. Other emperors called and manipulated church councils to force the church to comply with their wishes.
He unilaterally exiled the bishop of Constantinople (the Empire’s capital) and appointed a pro-Nicene as bishop. The other emperors merely influenced and manipulated synods and councils to achieve that purpose.
His persecution of ‘heretics’ was far worse than any other Christian emperor. No other emperor forbade ‘heretics’ from living and worshiping in the cities or towns. His persecution may be compared to Diocletian’s Great Persecution of AD 303-313, which was Rome’s final attempt to destroy Christianity. Show More
| “It is even possible to contrast Constantius’ relative mildness with the ferocious coercion more than twenty years later of the Emperor Theodosius” (Hanson, p. 322).
“A far more drastic policy toward heresy was pursued by Theodosius” (Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code, p. 44).
“Surviving legislation from later in 383 and 384 appears to show Theodosius coming down hard on dissenting groups” (Ayres, 259). |
Theodosius not only legislated the Empire’s official faith, but he also unilaterally decided who complied. He required all non-Nicene Christian factions to submit their theologies in writing to him, and he decided which complied. Show More
| “In 383, the Emperor ordered the various non-Nicene sects (Arians, Anomoeans, Macedonians, and Novatians) to submit written creeds to him, which he prayerfully reviewed and then burned, save for that of the Novatians. The other sects lost the right to meet, ordain priests, or spread their beliefs” (Boyd).
“In 383 Theodosius even summoned a council of all ‘sects’.” “Each party was asked to provide a statement of faith: only those provided by the pro-Nicenes and the Novatianists were found acceptable” (Ayres, 259). |
Backed by a Consensus?
Hanson believed that Theodosius was successful because he was backed by a consensus. Show More
| “Several Emperors had attempted to bring an end to the Arian controversy. Constantine, Constans, Constantius … All had failed because … they in fact were not supported by a consensus in the Church at large. Theodosius succeeded because … (he was) backed by a consensus in the Church” (Hanson Lecture). |
I am not sure that a “consensus” existed, as an overview of the history of the Controversy will confirm:
‘Arianism’ (the view that the Son is a distinct divine Person, subordinate to the Father) was the traditional teaching of the church during the first three centuries and into the fourth. This was the view in the East, where the church originated and where the bulk of the church resided during the first three centuries. Show More
| “There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father” (Hanson, p. 64).
“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239).
“For centuries Christians had believed in one God, the Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. They had prayed to God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ, their Lord. … Christians of the early fourth century looked at the Christ of the Gospels and saw one who was so much more than a man, and yet not identical with God the Father” (Lienhard).
“With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix). |
However, in the middle of the third century, Rome, represented by its bishop Dionysius, taught the competing view, namely, that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person). Show More
|
“Dionysius of Rome … found homoousios acceptable but could not tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs).
“Dionysius of Rome harshly condemned those who divided the Trinity into three distinct hypostases” (Beatrice).
“Dionysius of Rome … said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy ‘into three sorts of … separated hypostases and three Godheads’; people who hold this in effect produce three gods” (Hanson, p. 185).
|
When the fourth century began, while Arius maintained the traditional Alexandrian view (the Son is distinct), Alexander by then had accepted the Roman view that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). Show More
| Arius:
“Arius saw the Son as a being distinct from and inferior to the Father.” The Son was “created as a derivative copy of some of the Father’s attributes” (Ayres, p. 16).
“Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, 175).
“In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology” (Williams, 233).
Alexander:
“[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is idios to the Father is a Sabellian statement” (Hanson, p. 92).
“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis“ (Ayres, p. 69).
|
At Nicaea, Alexander’s ‘one Person’ view dominated because the emperor took his part. Show More
| “Tension among Eusebian bishops was caused by knowledge that Constantine had taken Alexander’s part” (Ayres, p. 89). “This imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful force” (Ayres, 89).
“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850). |
However, in the decade after Nicaea, the decisions at Nicaea were effectively overturned. All exiled Arians were allowed to return, and all leading Nicenes were exiled. After that, the term homoousios disappeared. While Constantine remained alive, he ensured unity in the church. Show More
| Arians returned – “Arius and most of his supporters were, at Constantine’s request, readmitted to communion within two or three years of the council” (Ayres, p. 100).
Nicenes exiled – “Within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled – Athanasius, Eustathius and Marcellus, and with them a large number of other bishops who are presumed to have belonged to the same school of thought” (Hanson, p. 274).
Homoousios disappears – “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important” (Ayres, 96). |
However, after he had died in 337, the Empire divided into East and West. This allowed the Western Church to return to its Monarchian roots, teaching that the Father and Son are one hypostasis, meaning, one Person with a single mind. This can be seen in the Serdica Manifesto of 433, the only Western Creed that we have from the 4th century that was not emperor-manipulated. On the other hand, the Eastern Church remained ‘Arian,’ teaching that the Son is a distinct Person (a hypostasis) with a distinct mind. This can be seen in the Eastern Dedication Creed of 431. Show More
| Serdica:
“We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Hanson, p. 301).
The Western Church responded to the Eastern view of three minds that “differences and disputes could exist between God the Father Almighty and the Son, which is altogether absurd” (Hanson, p. 302).
Dedication:
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (Ayres, p. 118), implying three minds.
|
In the 350s, the Empire was once again under a single emperor (Constantius), who forced the West to accept an ‘Arian’ creed. Consequently, Jerome wrote in 360: “The whole world groaned and marveled that it was Arian” (Lienhard). Show More
| “In 359–60 Constantius called two councils, which met and sent delegations to him. Under pressure from Constantius these meetings promulgated a creed which was Homoian. … Many opponents of the creed (including prominent Homoiousians such as Basil of Ancyra himself) were exiled at this point” (Ayres, p. 433). |
For much of the next two decades, the Empire was again divided into East and West, again allowing the West to return to its Monarchian views. But the East remained ‘Arian.’ Show More
| “Constantius, who had lent forceful support to the Homoian position, died in 361. He was succeeded briefly by his cousin Julian, who had renounced Christianity and sought to purge the empire of Christian influences, and by Jovian, who showed signs of favoring pro-Nicenes during his brief reign. In 364, imperial authority was again divided, now between Valens in the East (364–378) and Valentinian in the West (364–375). Valens was an active promoter of the homoian [Arian] cause, while Valentinian followed a non-interventionist policy that was nevertheless sympathetic to the Nicene position. Upon his death in 375, Valentinian was succeeded by his son Gratian, who adopted a policy of general tolerance” (Anatolios, p. 29-30).
“By 379, when Theodosius I succeeded Valens, Arianism was widespread in the eastern half of the Empire, while the west had remained steadfastly Nicene” (Williams, Stephen; Friell, Gerard (1994). Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. B.T. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-300-06173-0, pp. 46–53). |
During these decades, a severe conflict developed within the pro-Nicene camp. While the Cappadocians taught, like the Arians, that the Son is a distinct Person, Athanasius and the Western Nicenes continued to teach that the Son is part of the Father. Show More
| “A council headed by Athanasius at Alexandria in 362 … met to address a schism between followers of two pro-Nicene bishops at Antioch: Paulinus, who confessed the one hypostasis, and Melitius, who confessed three hypostaseis” (Anatolios, p. 26-27).
“It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus (bishop of Rome) … to suspect them of heresy” (Hanson, p. 798).
“The opening of the year 375 saw the ironical situation in which the Pope, Damasus, and the archbishop of Alexandria, Peter, were supporting Paulinus of Antioch, a Sabellian heretic … against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the East” (Hanson Lecture). See here for a discussion of the Meletian Schism.) |
Theodosius’ edict reveals that he was a Western Nicene. He took the Western Nicene view that the Father and Son are a single Person. Show More
| “The decree names Peter of Alexandria and Damasus of Rome as the two standards of orthodoxy. This probably reflects both Theodosius’ own status as a western pro-Nicene” (Ayres, p. 251).
“It is the interpretation of Son and Spirit as ‘within’ the one divine existence that actually constitutes the key marker of orthodox identity in all three of these texts” (Ayres, 251). (Ayres refers here to all three decrees Theodosius issued.)
“His subjects were ordered to believe ‘the single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within an equal majesty and an orthodox Trinity’” (Hanson, p. 402). |
So, when Theodosius became emperor in the East, outlawed Arianism, prohibited Arians from living and worshiping in the cities and towns, and confiscated their churches, there was no consensus, as Hanson claimed. If there was such a consensus, why did he have to issue a Roman Law, exile the homoian bishop of the capital, and severely persecute the Arians?
Consensus was not the Issue.
To some extent, the question of a consensus is irrelevant because the decision of what the church must believe was always the decision of the emperor, irrespective of a consensus. Show More
| “If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority” (Hanson, p. 849).
“Throughout the controversy, everybody … assumed that the final authority in bringing about a decision in matters doctrinal was not a council nor the Pope, but the Emperor” (Hanson). |
Church and State blended. Constantine established the precedent for imperial intervention in ecclesiastical affairs. Theodosius and Gratian finally and decisively fixed the alliance of Church and State. Show More
| “In the later Roman Empire, civil and ecclesiastical authority blended. One example of this blending is the ecclesiastical edicts of Constantine and his successors” (Boyd).
“Constantine established the precedent for imperial intervention in ecclesiastical affairs … while Gratian and Theodosius finally and decisively fixed the alliance of the state with ecclesial creed and persecution” (Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code, p. 33). |
The Church decided, and communicated its decisions, through the official network of the empire. Show More
| “Before Constantine, the Church was simply not in a position to make universally binding and enforceable decisions. From Nicaea onwards the Church decided, and communicated its decisions, through the official network of the empire” (Williams, 90). |
For example, only emperors could call church councils. Everybody recognised the right of an Emperor to call a council, or even to veto or quash its being called. Even the bishop of Rome was not able to call a general council on his own authority. Show More
| “Everybody recognised the right of an Emperor to call a council, or even to veto or quash its being called” (Hanson, pp. 849-50).
“Even Damasus would have admitted that he could not call a general council on his own authority” (Hanson, p. 855). |
The emperors allowed the bishops political and social power. But that means that their election was more than a church matter. Consequently, the emperors exercised a direct influence on the election of bishops. Show More
| “The political and social power acquired by bishops … made their election in the days of the later Roman Empire … a matter of public importance. … Consequently, the election of patriarchs was often the occasion of an ecclesiastical synod and the emperors, through their relation to the synods, which they often convened and attended, might exercise a direct influence on elections” (Boyd). |
Theodosius did not succeed.
However, lastly. Theodosius was not the end of Arianism. The controversy continued into the fifth century. Show More
| “Similarly, older narratives in which a clear end is identified fly in the face of evidence that controversy continued into the fifth century” (Ayres, p. 267). |
During the time during the 4th century when ‘Arianism’ dominated, the church sent missionaries to the Gothic nations. The Goth Ulfilas translated part of the Bible into the Gothic language and had success in converting the Goths to Arian Christianity. Show More
| “During the time of Arianism’s flowering in Constantinople, the Gothic convert and Arian bishop Ulfilas … was sent as a missionary to the Gothic tribes across the Danube” (Wikipedia).
“The version of the Christian faith that the missionaries spread was that favored by Eusebius and not by Athanasius. This is evidence of his zeal” (Hanson, p. 29). |
The conversion of the Goths led to the conversion of other Germanic nations, such as the Vandals, Langobards, Svevi, and Burgundians, to Arian Christianity. Show More
| “The conversion of Goths led to a widespread diffusion of Arianism among other Germanic tribes as well, the Vandals, Langobards, Svevi, and Burgundians” (Wikipedia). |
So, when Theodosius in 380 made Nicene Christianity the sole religion of the Romans, the Germanic nations remained Arian. Consequently, after the fall of Rome in the fifth century, Europe was ruled by Arian nations. In the map, red reflect Arian areas and Green Nicene areas. Show More
| “When the Germanic peoples entered the provinces of the Western Roman Empire and began founding their own kingdoms there, most of them were Arian Christians” (Wikipedia).
“In Western Europe, Arianism, which had been taught by Ulfilas, the Arian missionary to the Germanic tribes, was dominant among the Goths, Langobards and Vandals” (Wikipedia).
“The Germanic peoples who had invaded the Roman Empire over the course of the fifth century had, by the early 500s, established a set of kingdoms in what had been the Western Empire. The Vandals ruled North Africa … The Visigoths ruled Spain … the Ostrogoth king Theodoric … established a kingdom for his people in Italy … Most of them were Christians, but … They were rather Arians …. Most of their subjects, however, were Catholics” (Libre).
“In view of the fact that most Germanic peoples—such as the eastern and western Goths, as also … the Lombards, the Suevi, and the Vandals—were baptized into Arian Christianity, and that these tribes settled in widely spread districts of the old Roman empire, a large number of Jews, already resident in those lands, fell under Arian domination” (Jewish Encyclopedia) |
It was only after the Roman Empire again regained control of the Western Empire in the sixth century that Arianism was finally brought to its knees (see here).
Conclusion
Emperor Theodosius succeeded where others failed because he did what no other emperor had done. He determined the sole religion of the Roman Empire through Roman Law, without consulting a church council, forbade heretics from living in the cities and towns, and from meeting for worship, and confiscated the churches of dissenting groups.
However, Theodosius did not succeed. His laws applied only to the Romans. In the next century, Germanic took control of the Western Empire, and they were Arians. By the end of the fifth century, Europe was Arian again.
Other Articles