Emperor Theodosius made Nicene theology the State Religion.

Overview

Theodosius was a military commander. Western Emperor Gratian appointed him as Eastern Emperor in January 379.

In the Christian Roman Empire, the Emperor was the Head of the Church and the ultimate judge in doctrinal disputes. The emperors controlled the Church because they believed a divided Church could divide the Empire. Consequently, the Church and State became one. Bishops received judicial authority but functioned under the authority of the Empire.

When Theodosius came to power, in what is known as the Meletian Schism, the Nicenes were divided between the Western view that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and the Eastern (Cappadocian) view that the Son is a distinct hypostasis. (The view that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons) did not yet exist.)

In 380, the emperors issued the Edict of Thessalonica jointly, requiring all to accept Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology. The Edict made this the sole legal religion of the Empire. It was not a Church Creed but a Roman Law applicable to all Roman citizens.

The Edict outlawed all other factions of Christianity, with threats of punishment. In the subsequent years, Theodosius eliminated opposing views through severe persecution, beginning before the Second Ecumenical Council of 381. He prohibited “heretics” from settling in cities, from owning or using churches, and from meeting for worship in towns or cities. He seized churches that belonged to ‘heretics’ and gave the buildings to Nicene bishops.

Theodosius acted as the Head of the Church. For example, he himself appointed the Bishop of Constantinople and decided which factions complied with his law. 

Theodosius was the turning point after Arianism dominated most of the 4th century, not the Council of Constantinople of 381. Already in the year before that council, in February 380, Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the State Religion and outlawed Arianism. Therefore, only Nicene Christians were allowed to attend.

It was not even a Church meeting. It was a meeting of selected Church officials through which Theodosius ensured that his policies be implemented in the Church. 

All previous emperors attempted to ensure unity. Theodosius succeeded through ferocious coercion. The Arian Controversy began soon after Christianity was legalized, and Roman persecution was suspended. But the Controversy ended when non-Nicene Christianity was outlawed, leading to a resurgence of Roman persecution, now Christian-on-Christian persecution.

Emperor Theodosius

Theodosius was a military commander. [Show More]

In 378, in the war on the Eastern Front, the previous Eastern Emperor (Valens) was killed, and a large part of the Roman Army was destroyed. In this time of crisis, the young Western Emperor Gratian made Theodosius, aged 32 or 33, the Eastern Emperor in January 379. [Show More]

Christian Emperors

This section does not discuss Theodosius specifically but rather the role of the emperors in the Christian Roman Empire in general.

The Emperor was the Head of the Church and the ultimate judge in doctrinal disputes. 

In the Christian Roman Empire, the emperors determined what the Church must believe. [Show More]

Emperors controlled the Church because a divided Church could divide the Empire. 

The Roman Emperors viewed religious disagreements as a menace because disunity in the Church also threatened the unity of the Empire. On the other hand, a unified Church helps to unify the Empire. For that reason, the emperors attempted to resolve disagreements, not to protect some doctrine. [Show More]

Church and State became one, functioning under the authority of the Emperor. 

Believing that the church must contribute to the social and moral strength of the empire, the emperors gave bishops a powerful place in the judicial system, equal to and even exceeding that of civil judges. In this way, the State and Church blended, and the hierarchy of bishops functioned as part of the Roman system of government. [Show More]

Theodosius’ Religious Policy

The Nicenes were divided between ‘one Person’ and ‘three Persons’ views. 

In the period leading up to Theodosius, in what is known as the Meletian Schism, a dispute in the fourth century between two Pro-Nicene groups, the two most prominent Pro-Nicenes of that era found themselves in opposition. While Athanasius supported the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a single hypostasis (Person), Basil of Caesarea maintained three hypostases; three distinct Being:

The Western pro-Nicenes, led by Athanasius (died 373), Damasus of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria, believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person (hypostasis). See here for a discussion of Athanasius’ view. He presented himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy. In reality, if Sabellianism is defined as the belief that the Father and Son are one hypostasis (a single Person), he was a Sabellian because he believed that the Son is part of the Father. [Show More]

The Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) maintained that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons (three equal hypostases). See here for a discussion of Basil’s view. In the orthodox Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Being (one indivisible substance). However, Basil of Caesarea, a prominent pro-Nicene, taught that they are three distinct Beings (three substances).

It is called the Meletian Schism because it manifested particularly in a dispute over the rightful bishop of Antioch; Meletius, who believed the Son is a distinct Person, or Paulinus, who thought the Father and Son are a single Person. Therefore, the main issue was the number of divine hypostases. [Show More]

The view that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons) did not yet exist. 

During the Arian Controversy, while some claimed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons (three hypostases), others held that they are one Person (one hypostasis). The concept that God is both one and three resulted from later theological theorizing. [Show More]

The emperors issued the Edict of Thessalonica jointly. 

In 380, the year after he became emperor and the year before the Council of Constantinople, Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica jointly with the Western Emperor Gratian, implying that it applied throughout the Empire. [Show More]

The Edict required all to accept Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology. 

The Edict shows that the emperors adopted the Western ‘one hypostasis’ view:

(1) While the Cappadocians believed in three hypostases, the Edict describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “the single deity.” (Ayres, 251)  [Show More]

(2) The Edict identifies “Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor in Alexandria” (Ayres, p. 251) as norms of its theology. By then, Athanasius was dead, and Damasus and Peter were the leaders of Western ‘one Person’ theology.  [Show More]

(3) The Nicene term homoousios (same substance) can mean ‘one substance,’ which is how the Westerners understood it, or it can mean two distinct substances of the same type, which is how the Cappadocians understood it. (See Basil) Theodosius’ second decree a year later, in January 381, explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single undivided substance, which was the Western understanding. [Show More]

However, Ayres thinks Theodosius’ later decrees were more in tune with Cappadocian theology. [Show More]

The Edict made this the sole legal religion of the Empire. 

Theodosius did not unite Church and State. It was already united. However, there was a division between the Western and Eastern Churches, supported by the views of the Western and Eastern emperors. But Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor, became convinced of the Western view and made it the only legal religion, outlawing all other factions. It was not a Church Creed and was not addressed to Christians. It was an official Roman law, applicable to all Roman citizens. [Show More]

The Edict outlawed all other factions of Christianity, with threats of punishment. 

The Edict of Thessalonica determined that only Nicene Christians could call themselves “catholic” and call their places of worship “churches.” It described all other people as heretics, “foolish madmen,” and “out of their minds and insane.” [Show More]

That edict authorized imperial punishment for “heretics.” [Show More]

Theodosius eliminated opposing views through severe persecution. 

Through severe persecution, both before and after the Council of Constantinople, Theodosius eliminated ‘Arianism’ from among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire.

In subsequent years, Theodosius implemented the Edict of Thessalonica through further decrees. In January 381, still before the 381 Council, Theodosius prohibited “heretics” from settling in cities, from owning or using churches, and from meeting for worship in towns or cities. [Show More]

Theodosius’ third decree, issued in 382 (the year after the Council of Constantinople), seized churches that belonged to ‘heretics’ and gave the buildings to Nicene bishops. This caused great disturbances and riots. [Show More]

The Controversy began when persecution ended and ended when persecution resumed. 

The Arian Controversy began soon after Christianity was legalized, and Roman persecution of the Church was suspended. But the Controversy ended when non-Nicene Christianity was outlawed, leading to a resurgence of Roman persecution, now manifesting as Christian-on-Christian persecution.

Head of the Church.

Theodosius acted as Head of the Church.

He himself appointed the Bishop of Constantinople. 

Having announced the State Religion of the Roman Empire, Theodosius assumed complete and unilateral control of who the leading bishops would be: 

At the time, the incumbent bishop of Constantinople was an Arian (a Homoian – Demophilus). In the same year that the Edict was issued, two days after Theodosius had arrived in Constantinople, on 24 November 380, and still before the Council of Constantinople, he expelled Demophilus and also chased Lucius, who was at that time bishop of Alexandria, out of that city. [Show More]

Theodosius appointed Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian Fathers and the leader of the relatively small Nicene community in the city, as bishop of Constantinople. When Gregory resigned, Theodosius made an unbaptized government official both chair of the Council of Constantinople and the bishop of Constantinople. 

He himself decided which factions complied. 

Theodosius not only defined the Empire’s official faith, he required all Christian factions to submit their theologies in writing to him, and he decided which complied. [Show More]

He perfected the unity of Church and State. 

The Nicene Church, with its hierarchy of bishops, became part of the Empire; the religious arm of the Empire. [Show More]

Turning Point

Theodosius, not the Council, was the turning point after Arianism dominated most of the 4th century. 

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, at the Second Ecumenical Council (the Council of Constantinople of 381), the Church finally accepted Nicene theology and rejected Arianism, which dominated the Church for most of the 4th century.

In reality, already in the year before that council, in February 380, the Roman Emperor Theodosius, through Roman Law – the Edict of Thessalonica – made Nicene Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed and criminalized Arianism. 

The Second Ecumenical Council was not ecumenical. 

‘Ecumenical’ means it represents all Christian Churches and views, but this meeting was certainly not ecumenical. Since Theodosius had already made Nicene Christianity the State Religion of the Empire, banished the previous Homoian bishop of the capital, replaced him with a pro-Nicene theologian, and outlawed all non-Nicene views, with the threats of punishment, only Nicene Christians were allowed to attend. Not even Homoiousians, the Arian faction most similar to the Nicenes, were allowed. [Show More]

Furthermore, Theodosius summoned the so-called ‘ecumenical’ Council of Constantinople of the year 381, not the church. It was not a Church meeting. It was a meeting of selected Church officials through which Theodosius ensured that his policies be implemented in the Church. 

Gregory resigned during the council. To ensure complete control of the Council, Theodosius then took the unprecedented step of appointing an unbaptized government official (Nectarius) as chairperson and as bishop of Constantinople, the capital of the Empire. (Hanson, p. 322) [Show More]

The fact that this Council is classified as the Second Ecumenical Council exemplifies how the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is distorted. [Show More]

All previous emperors attempted to ensure unity. Theodosius succeeded through ferocious coercion

All or most emperors sought unity in the church because division would threaten the unity of the Empire as well. However, all previous emperors failed to achieve lasting unity. We may ask why Theodosius succeeded where others failed. All emperors manipulated councils and exiled bishops, but only Theodosius:

      • Made a law to define the only legal theology,
      • Formally outlawed other views with threats of punishment, 
      • Appointed bishops unilaterally.

Furthermore, Theodosius’s persecution far exceeds that of the previous emperors in ferocity. [Show More]


Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004
  • 2
    Bishop R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
  • 3
    (Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. p. 6-7.)
  • 4
    (Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. p. 6-7.)
  • 5
    (Boyd, William Kenneth (1905). The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. Columbia University Press. P45-46)
  • 6
    Quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223

Who was Arius? Why do many regard him as an Antichrist?

Overview

The Great Persecution of AD 303-313 was Rome’s final attempt to destroy Christianity. The Empire razed churches to the ground, burned sacred articles, and jailed believers.

The fourth-century Arian Controversy was the Church’s most dramatic internal struggle to date. It began in 318, only 5 years after persecution ended, with a dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander.

Arius had many supporters, not because they accepted his views, but because they regarded Alexander as more dangerous. Alexander believed that the Son is part of the Father, not a distinct Person.

Contrary to what is often said, Arius was a Conservative. He did not develop a new theology. His views have always been described as hopelessly defective but he was not worse than most theologians. Arius is often accused of teaching subordination but all theologians at the time described the Son as subordinate.

Constantine intervened in the dispute, rebuked both parties for quarreling about trivial matters, and commanded them to be reconciled.

In the traditional account, Arius was important. In reality, he was insignificant. He was not the founder of Arianism nor the leader of a movement. He did not leave a school of disciples. He only seems important because Athanasius accused his opponents of being ‘Arians’ (followers of Arius) and quoted extensively from Arius to attack his enemies. However, Athanasius’ opponents did not follow Arius.


Introduction

The Great Persecution of AD 303-313 was Rome’s final attempt to destroy Christianity.

The Roman Empire persecuted Christianity during the first three centuries. Beginning around 303, Diocletian’s first edict commanded churches and holy sites razed to the ground, sacred articles burned, and believers jailed. [Show More]

An end was made to this persecution by Galerius’ Edict of Toleration in 311, followed by Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313, after Emperor Constantine himself became a Christian.

The fourth-century Arian Controversy was the Church’s most dramatic internal struggle to date.

The Controversy began only 5 years later, in 318, with a dispute between presbyter Arius and his bishop Alexander. [Show More]

It came to an end 62 years later when emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, through the edict of Thessalonica, made Nicene Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other views. [Show More]

That entire period of 62 years, from 318 to 380, is known as “the Arian Controversy” and is described as “the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced” (Williams, 1). [Show More]

The Controversy began when Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, opposed his bishop Alexander. 

He publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for “carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation” 1Lyman, J. Rebecca (2010). “The Invention of ‘Heresy’ and ‘Schism'”. The Cambridge History of Christianity. and of Sabellianism (Legal History Sources).  [Show More]

Arius might have been a student of Lucius. 

Hanson says that “Arius very probably had at some time studied with Lucian of Antioch” because he refers to somebody else as “truly a fellow-disciple of Lucian.” (Hanson, 5, cf. 29) But Williams questions whether “we should assume from the one word in Arius’ letter that he had actually been Lucian’s student.” (Williams, 30)

Arius was not involved in the Melitian Schism. 

In the past, many writers have assumed that our Arius is the same as the Arius who was involved in the Melitian schism, “who had an outward appearance of piety, and … was eager to be a teacher.” (Williams, 34, 32-40) However, after several pages of detailed analysis, Williams concludes that “the Melitian Arius … melt(s) away under close investigation.” (Williams, 40) [Show More]

The purpose of this article is to explain who Arius was and why many regard him as an Antichrist. 

In the traditional account, Arius was an Antichrist, attacking the core of the Christian faith.

‘Arianism’ “has often been regarded as … aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession.” (Williams, 1)

Athanasius implied that Arius is the devil’s pupil (Williams, 101). Consequently, after Emperor Theodosius in 380 had made Nicene Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire, Arius “came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist.” [Show More]

This article is part of the series on the Origin of the Trinity doctrine, focusing on the Arian Controversy. 

The traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. 

The fourth-century Arian Controversy resulted in the Church accepting the Trinity doctrine. However, during the 20th century, scholars have discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy, of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine, is history according to the winner and a complete travesty.

“The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900), can today be completely ignored.” (Hanson, p. 95-96) [Show More]

In many respects, the reality of the Arian Controversy is the opposite of the traditional account. 

For example, in the traditional account, while Alexander and Athanasius represented the orthodox view, Arius developed a novel heresy in which the Son is subordinate to the Father. The reality is the opposite. While Arius was a traditionalist, and while subordination was the orthodox view when the Controversy began, Alexander and Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, believed that the Father and Son are a single Person. [Show More]

This article series is based mostly on the writings of scholars of the last 50 years

Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published.Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. The writings of the last 50 years reflect the revised account of the Controversy. Although most quotes are hidden in ‘Show More’ sections, these quotes form a crucial part of this article. [Show More]

Arius

Arius had many supporters, not because they accepted his views, but because they regarded Alexander as more dangerous. 

Arius’ following was small and limited to Africa. However, many in the Eastern Church supported him, not because they agreed with everything he said, but because they were on the same side on the core issue in the Controversy, while Alexander was on the opposite side. Consequently, they regarded Alexander’s theology as much more dangerous than Arius’ sometimes extreme views. [Show More]

The core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person or a part of the Father. 

Like Arius, many Easterners believed that the Son is a distinct Person. [Show More]

In opposition to them, Alexander believed that the Son is part of the Father. Specifically, he believed that the Son is the Father’s Word and Wisdom. For example, “Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father.” (Ayres, p. 16) Consequently, like the Sabellians, Alexander believed that the Father and Son are one single Person (hypostasis). [Show More]

The two most important church leaders at the day supported Arius. 

Arius’ most prominent supporters were the two Eusebii. They were perhaps the two most important church leaders at the time. [Show More]

Eusebius of Nicomedia “virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death.” (Hanson, 29) Athanasius presents Eusebius of Nicomedia as “an unscrupulous intrigue” but that is, of course, because Eusebius organized the council where Athanasius was exiled. Hanson lists several examples where Eusebius displayed integrity and courage (Hanson, 28) and then concludes that he “certainly was a man of strong character and great ability” (Hanson, 29), motivated to spread the Christian faith beyond the frontiers of the Roman Empire. [Show More]

Eusebius of Caesarea was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day” (Hanson, 46; cf. 153) and “one of the most influential authors of the fourth century.” (Hanson, 860) [Show More]

Contrary to what is often said, Arius was a Conservative. He did not develop a new theology. 

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius was a deliberate radical who broke away from the ‘orthodoxy’ of the church fathers to create a novel heresy. However, scholars of the Arian Controversy now assess Arius as “a conservative Alexandrian.” Although he varied in some respects, he broadly followed the tradition of the great Alexandrian theologian Origen. His theology was similar to that of Dionysius, who was bishop of Alexandria when Arius was born. [Show More]

Alexander also did not develop a new theology. His view was similar to Sabellianism. 

If Arius was a “conservative Alexandrian,” then it is implied that Arius’ opponent Alexander was not. As stated, in Alexander’s theology, the Son is not a distinct Person but part of the Father. He believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). In other words, he deviated from Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria before him. Alexander’s theology was similar to that of the third-century Sabellians and another Dionysius, who was bishop of Rome when Arius was born. [Show More]

Arius’ views have always been described as hopelessly defective but he was not worse than most theologians.

Arius’ views have always been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief.” (Williams, 2) However, after writing a recent book specifically about Arius, Rowan Williams concluded that Arius had already early on produced a consistent position on almost all points under debate (Williams, 2). In his view, Arius is “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality.” (Williams, 116) [Show More]

Arius is often accused of teaching subordination. However, all theologians described the Son as subordinate. 

Arius is often accused of introducing a ‘new’ teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father. That accusation results from a lack of understanding of his context. When Arius wrote, all Christians regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. Even Athanasius thought of the Son as in a sense subordinate because, in his view, the Son is part of the Father. The subordination of the Son to the Father, therefore, was an idea that Arius shared with his opponents; not a new idea proposed by Arius. [Show More]

Events before Nicaea

Constantine intervened, rebuked both parties for quarreling about trivial matters, and commanded them to be reconciled. 

In 321, Alexander removed Arius from office and also excommunicated him [i.e.; banned him from the communion table]. [Show More]

Constantine sent a letter to both parties rebuking them for quarreling about ‘minute distinctions’, as he believed them to be doing, commanding them to be reconciled. [Show More]

Arius was Insignificant.

In the traditional account, Arius was important. In reality, he was insignificant. 

At Nicaea, Arius’s peculiar theology was soon rejected. The Nicene Creed anathematizes all of Arius’ extreme statements.

Since the Arian Controversy is named after him, it may seem as if Arius was important, as if he was the leader of the Arians and the cause of the Arian Controversy. 

But Arius was not important. The so-called ‘Arians’ did not regard his writings as worth copying. Very little of Arius’ writings have survived. Therefore, we have to reconstruct what Arius taught mostly from the writings of his enemies, which are not always a reliable source. [Show More]

He was not the founder of Arianism nor the leader of a movement and he did not leave behind a school of disciples:

“He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, xvii)

“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century (after Nicaea).” (Ayres, 56-57)

Athanasius coined the misleading term ‘Arian’ as a part of his polemical strategy. 

Many people today still refer to the fourth-century crisis today as the ‘Arian’ Controversy and to the anti-Nicenes as “Arians” because Athanasius coined the term ‘Arian’ to describe his opponents as ‘Arians’ (followers of Arius) and because, in previous centuries, scholars have relied excessively on Athanasius. Athanasius’ goal was to tar his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected. Pretending to attack his enemies, he quoted or paraphrased Arius extensively. But Athanasius’ opponents did not follow Arius. [Show More]

Arius is still misrepresented today because the Church uses the traditional account to defend the Trinity doctrine. 

For the following reasons, many people still regard Arius and his theology as “crude and contradictory:” [Show More]

Firstly, little of his writings have survived. Arius’ letters that we have today only provide summary conclusions. There are no explanations of how he came to those conclusions. [Show More]

Secondly, most of what we know about Arius are critiques of his theology in the writings of his enemies – particularly Athanasius, and “Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius, certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he said.” (Hanson, 10) [Show More]

Thirdly, “Nicaea’s traditional and liturgical importance” (Williams): Criticism of Athanasius and the traditional account of the Arian Controversy creates doubt about the legitimacy of Nicene theology and the Trinity doctrine, which the Church does not accept.

Fourthly, “the long history of what I have called the ‘demonizing’ of Arius is extraordinarily powerful” (Williams, 2).


Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Lyman, J. Rebecca (2010). “The Invention of ‘Heresy’ and ‘Schism'”. The Cambridge History of Christianity.
  • 2
    For example, Britannica defines: “Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being.”
  • 3
    Trevor Hart wrote about this book: “While contributions have not been wanting, nothing comparable in either scale or erudition exists in the English language … treating in considerable detail … the so-called ‘Arian controversy’ which dominated the fourth century theological agenda.”
  • 4
    Kermit Zarley described Hanson as “the preeminent authority on the development of the church doctrine of God in the 4th century.”
  • 5
    Lewis Ayres, Emory University, wrote that this book “has been the standard English scholarly treatment of the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century and the triumph of Nicene theology.
  • 6
    Lewis Ayres wrote that Williams’ book “offers one of the best recent discussions of the way scholarship on this controversy has developed. (Ayres, 12)
  • 7
    W.K. Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code (1905)
  • 8
    Drake, 4. Constantine and Consensus
  • 9
    Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Vol. 21. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990. 55