Why did Theodosius succeed in ending the Arian Controversy?

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

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

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

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

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


Backed by a Consensus?

Hanson believed that Theodosius was successful because he was backed by a consensus. Show More

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

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

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

At Nicaea, Alexander’s ‘one Person’ view dominated because the emperor took his part. Show More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church decided, and communicated its decisions, through the official network of the empire. Show More

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

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

Theodosius did not succeed.

However, lastly. Theodosius was not the end of Arianism. The controversy continued into the fifth century. Show More

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

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

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

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

The East deposed Athanasius but the West vindicated him.

A previous article discusses the conflict between Athanasius and the Melitians in the first seven years after he was elected bishop of Alexandria and concludes that Athanasius was justly deposed for violence against the Melitians (see here). The current article discusses the period from the Council of Tyre in 335, where Athanasius was condemned by the Eastern Church, to the Council of Rome in 340, where he was vindicated by the Western Church under Julius, bishop of Rome.

Athanasius was condemned at Tyre. – AD 335

It was beyond doubt that Athanasius had behaved violently against the Melitians. He behaved in an authoritarian manner, exploiting his position as bishop of Alexandria. The Council of Tyre condemned him on a number of charges, deposed him from being archbishop of Alexandria, excommunicated him, and forbade him to return to his former see. This was a crushing blow for Athanasius. It took him a long time to recover. But Athanasius was an extremely talented and powerful individual. As this article will show, he was able to recover. Show More

Arius’ Death – AD 335-6

Emperor Constantine informed the bishops that Arius and his friends had made a profession of faith to him, which he accepted as orthodox, and commanded the bishops to admit Arius and his friends formally into the Church. The Eusebian bishops complied. Note the authority that the emperor had over the church. Separation of Church and State was unknown. The emperor was effectively the head of the church.

However, Arius suddenly died in 335 or 336. Athanasius wrote that Arius died as an answer to prayers, but Athanasius’ account of Arius’ death cannot be regarded as historically trustworthy. Show More

Athanasius returns from Exile. – AD 337

Everything changed when Constantine died in 337. All pro-Nicene bishops who had been exiled after Nicaea, including Athanasius, were permitted to return to their sees.

Athanasius took 6 months to reach Alexandria. He first visited and garnered the support of the other bishops who had returned from exile. Show More

Athanasius’ Polemical Strategy

The first time that Athanasius referred in his writings to ‘Arians’ was in 338. This is very important and discussed in much more detail by Lewis Ayres (see here). Athanasius coined the term ‘Arian’ to tar the bishops who exiled him as followers of Arius’ already rejected theology, claiming that he himself (Athanasius) was innocent of violence but was deposed by an Arian conspiracy for his opposition to Arianism. By using this strategy, Athanasius appealed successfully to bishop Julius of Rome in 339–40. Up to this time, the Western Church was on the periphery of the Controversy, but Julius’ acceptance of Athanasius’ polemics made it a main player. Show More

Renewed action against Athanasius – AD 338

In 338, the Eusebians, with Eusebius of Nicomedia at the lead, brought new charges against Athanasius. They believed that Athanasius had been formally deposed by a properly constituted synod on charges which could hardly be refuted. It was against all church order that he should be readmitted to his see on the bare word of an Emperor.

In the winter of 337-338, the leaders of the church of Antioch (the headquarters of the Eastern Church) met and sent a letter to the three emperors. They accused Athanasius of violence, challenged the regularity of his election, and recalled the verdict of the Council of Tyre. Show More

Athanasius sought support from the West.

In response to these accusations, Athanasius held a grand council of bishops in Alexandria in 338. That council sent a circular to all bishops, suggesting that his enemies were preparing to overturn the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. That was Athanasius’ polemical strategy: Whenever he was accused of violence, he claimed that he was being persecuted for his support for the Nicene Creed and his opposition to Arianism.

Athanasius also sent a deputation with this circular to Rome. In response, Julius, bishop of Rome, wrote to both parties (the Eastern Church with headquarters in Antioch and the bishops of Alexandria), summoning them to a synod in Rome. Show More

Athanasius became famous.

This was the beginning of a new era for the church. It was the beginning of the later fanatical attachment to the person of Athanasius. It was also the beginning of the association of a Sabellian interpretation of the Nicene Creed with the true faith. Show More

As discussed in other articles:

What we today call ‘Arianism’, namely, 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 and fifth centuries. Show More

Homoousios was a Sabellian term. Before Nicaea, it was preferred only by Sabellians. Show More

Like the Sabellians, Athanasius believed that the Son is in the Father and that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). Therefore, at Nicaea, Alexander allied with the Sabellians. Show More

The vast majority of the delegates to Nicaea were Eusebians (Arians). However, Emperor Constantine took Alexander’s part in his quarrel with Arius. This allowed the Sabellians to dominate. Constantine forced the council to accept a creed with which they were uncomfortable. Show More

The emperor also insisted that the controversial phrases (from the substance of the Father, same substance as the Father) must not be understood as if God has a body and that the Son was begotten bodily. He explained the terms as merely meaning that the Son is from the Father and not from anywhere else. The Eusebian (Arian) majority at Nicaea accepted the Creed with this explanation. Show More

However, Athanasius and the Sabellians had reason to accept that homoousios means ‘one substance.’ The Nicene Creed was a Sabellian victory. After all, the Creed explicitly states that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). Show More

Athanasius was driven out of Alexandria. – AD 338/9

During the winter of 338/339, the Eusebian party again declared Athanasius deposed from the see of Alexandria and chose Gregory as bishop of Alexandria. The Eastern Emperor Constantius issued an edict that he approved of Gregory. Roman soldiers then drove Athanasius out of his episcopal residence. This caused riots in which two large churches went up in flames and several people were killed. Show More

Athanasius appeals again to Rome.

After Gregory’s arrival, Athanasius wrote to Julius of Rome and went to Rome later that year. As a result of pressure put on him by Athanasius, Marcellus, and other pro-Nicene exiles in Rome, Julius now wrote to the Eusebian party, inviting them to a council in Rome in 340, to investigate the cases of Athanasius and Marcellus.

The Eusebians responded only a year later. They defended the validity of the Council of Tyre, stated that the Eastern Church respected the see of Rome, but did not feel inferior to it, repeated the charges against Athanasius and Marcellus, and threatened schism if Rome continued to communicate with these two. Show More

Rome vindicates Athanasius. – AD 341

Julius held his Council of Rome early in 341. The council pronounced Athanasius blameless and Marcellus orthodox. Show More

The West attacks the East. – AD 341

After the council, Julius wrote a letter to the Eusebian bishops whose centre was at Antioch. He called them ‘the party of Eusebius’ and claimed jurisdiction over them. He accused them of receiving Arians and of challenging the validity of the Nicene Creed. He claimed that Athanasius and Marcellus had been unjustly treated, and that Marcellus is perfectly orthodox and indeed a zealous opponent of Arianism.

Julius also accused the Eusebians of being ‘Arians’. This shows the acceptance of Athanasius’ polemical strategy.

The bishop of Rome had no secure precedent in seeking to oversee the Council of Tyre or hear appeals from it. He must have appeared to the Eastern bishops to be meddling. Show More

The West was Sabellian.

Initially, the West was not part of the Arian Controversy. For example, at Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).

The West was traditionally ‘Monarchian’. This refers to the second-century form of Sabellianism in which ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same being, also called Modalism. In the West’s traditional Monarchianism, Marcellus was orthodox. Two years later, at the Council of Serdica of 343 (see here), the Westerners formulated a manifesto that explicitly teaches that the Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Person). Show More

Division between East and West

These events caused a divide between the Eastern and Western Churches that would result in a series of heated interactions and creeds in the 340s. The East had condemned both Athanasius and Marcellus, but for different reasons. The West, which previously was on the fringes of the Controversy, had now not only vindicated both but also attacked the East through Julius’ letter. Later that same year (431), the East held a Council to discuss Julius’ letter and issued the Dedication Creed. Two years later, in 343, the emperors called the Council at Serdica to seek reconciliation, but that council never met as one. Show More


Other Articles

TABLE OF CONTENTS