Boyd, W.K. - Union of Church and State in the Late Roman Empire

Below are selected extracts from W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code, which discusses the union of church and state in the late Roman Empire, including the role of the emperors in church affairs. The complete book may be obtained from Archive.org or Internet Archive.

Table of Contents

The Theodosian Code

Boyd’s source was “the Theodosian code,” a compilation of the imperial decrees and edicts since Constantine; published in the year 438 (Boyd, p10-12).

“The source for our knowledge of the subject is the Theodosian code.” (p10) [Show More]

Union of Church and State

“The blending of civil and ecclesiastical authority in the later Roman Empire is a subject of vast and permanent historic interest. There is one phase of this union of secular and religious forces, the position of the church in the later Roman law, which has never received comprehensive or judicious treatment.” (Boyd, p9)

The Roman Ecclesiastical Edicts

“The ecclesiastical edicts of Constantine and his successors show that the church, while a philanthropic institution, was also a disintegrating factor in Roman civilization.” (Boyd, p9)

The Church’s Privileges

“Moreover the imperial legislation discloses the origin of those political and social privileges that characterized the church in the middle ages.” (Boyd, p9)

“The legislation which severed the alliance that, for ages, had united the Roman government and the ancient pagan religious system, has been noted. … It was, however, only one phase of the ever-increasing influence of the church.” (Boyd, p33)

Emperors intervened election of bishops.

“Constantine established the precedent for imperial intervention in ecclesiastical affairs; Valentinian I held aloof from the religious conflict; while Gratian and Theodosius finally and decisively fixed the alliance of the state with ecclesiastical creed and persecution.” (Boyd, p33)

“The political and social power acquired by the bishops, as well as the enforced conformity to standards of faith, made their election in the days of the later Roman Empire, as in the Middle Ages, a matter of public importance.” (Boyd, p64)

“The emperors, through their relation to synods, which they often convened and attended, might exercise a direct influence on elections.” (Boyd, p64) For example:

“Constantine wrote to the council and people of Antioch not to choose Eusebius of Caesarea as bishop of that city” (Boyd, p64).

Constantine’s son “Constantius convened ‘an assembly of bishops of Arian sentiment’ and deposed Paul of Constantinople” (Boyd, p64).

The Church’s Judicial Role

“Constantine gave the episcopal (papal) courts a place in the judicial system of the empire.” (Boyd, p90)

“Since the execution of the bishop’s decision was through the regular courts and his opinion was given the sanction of the emperor as an interpretation of law, the place given him in the system of justice was similar to that of the judges of the public law courts.’ Moreover, the conception of his office as arbitrator was that of an authority transcending the regular civil courts, for the justice he administered arose from his individual conception of right and wrong; and as not even minors could appeal from his decision, he enjoyed a wider range of action than the civil judge; indeed, in this respect his jurisdiction was equal to that of the pretorian prefect.” (Boyd, p91-92).

“The episcopal arbitration was transformed into a legal mode of procedure. Unfortunate men involved in long and almost perpetual actions at law were given the privilege of removing their litigation at any stage of a civil process to the bishop, even against the will of their opponents.” (Boyd, p91)

Emperors’ Attitude toward Divisions in the Church

“Since Constantine desired that the church should contribute to the social and moral strength of the empire, religious dissension was a menace to the public welfare, and if necessary, secular authority might be exercised for its suppression.” (Boyd, p34)

“The same desire to preserve unity within the church, rather than the protection of any creed or interpretation of Christian doctrine, led Constantine to intercede for the settlement of the Arian controversy.” (Boyd, p37)

“Believing ‘disunion in the church’ a danger to the state ‘more grievous than any kind of war’, Constantine sent Hosius of Cordova to Alexander and Arius to exhort them to cease contending about ‘small and inconsiderable questions’, for as ‘philosophers may belong to one system and take issue on certain points’, yet ‘are recalled to harmony of sentiment by the untiring power of their common doctrines’, why should not ‘the ministers of the Supreme God’ be ‘of one mind respecting the profession of the same religion?'” (Boyd, p37)

The Nicene Creed

“The weakness of the Nicene creed lay in the fact that it was in advance of the conservative doctrine of the east and west. However, the west, which habitually looked to authority for guidance, finally accepted the decision of the ‘great and holy council’, while the tendency of the east was to look behind the work of the council to those inherited doctrines which were the predecessors of Arianism.” (Boyd, p38)

Post-Nicaea

“When Constantine took up his permanent residence in the east, he was influenced by its attitude toward religious problems. Therefore, while he did not repeal the legislation which confirmed the work of Nicea, he permitted the return of the exiled Arians, countenanced the deposition of Athanasian bishops on various charges, and was finally baptized by an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia.” (Boyd, p38)

“Both of the efforts he made to restore unity in the church failed. The creed of Nicea, sanctioned by imperial decree, like the legislation against the Donatists, only added increased confusion and complication to the problem it was intended to solve.” (Boyd, p38).

Theodosius

“A far more drastic policy toward heresy was pursued by Theodosius (than by the Western Emperor Gracian). In 380 he was seized with a serious illness at Thessalonica and was baptized by Acholeus, a Nicene bishop. After his recovery he issued an edict to the people of Constantinople that ‘all who are under the sway of our clemency shall adhere to that religion which, according to his own testimony, coming down to our own day the blessed Peter delivered to the Romans, namely, that doctrine which the Pontiff Damasus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria.” (Boyd, p44)

“In January of the following year another edict forbade the heretics to assemble within the cities.” (Boyd, p45)

“In the same year, after the reformulation of the Nicene doctrine by the Council of Constantinople, which was convoked by the emperor to adjust problems of doctrine, the procouncil of Asia was ordered to deliver all churches to these bishops ‘who profess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one majesty and virtue, the same glory, one light making no confusion by profane division’.” (Boyd, p45-46)

“The Arians did not surrender without protesting their right to exist. In the east, ‘great disturbances arose as they were ejected from the churches'” (Boyd, p46).

“The case frequently cited as typical of the conditions and opinions of the age regarding the treatment of heretics is the execution of Priscillian and … of his followers. In 384 Priscillian was condemned by the synod of Bordeaux for teachings tainted with Manichaeism. … Maximum, the usurping Augustus of the West … appointed the Prefect Ennodius to conduct the trial (in a secular court) … Priscillian was found guilty of magic … (and) put to death by the sword, and a number of his followers were executed or exiled. Not till the fifth century … was the death penalty for heresy justified by ecclesiastical theory” (Boyd, p60-61).¹

FOOTNOTES

1
Boyd cites Sulpicius Severus Chronicon, ii, 46, 5 as the source for the persecution of Priscillian.

Boyd, W.K. – Union of Church and State in the Late Roman Empire