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 โฆ All had failed โฆ Theodosius succeededโ (Hanson Lecture).ย
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.ย This was not a church decree but applied to all Roman citizens. Show More
โTheodosius 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 Alexandriaโ (Sozomen’s Church History VII.4).ย
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 he had arrived in Constantinople for the first time, after giving him 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 ordered the Arian Lucius, who was at that time the bishop of Alexandria, to be chased out of that cityย (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, 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
โIt seems unlikely that this meeting was intended as a universal council to rival Seleucia/Ariminum or Nicaea itself. โฆ Those present at the council initially came from a fairly restricted area and the majority from areas known to be favourable to Meletiusโ (Ayres, p. 253).ย
Gregory of Nazianzus, the leader of the Nicene party in the city, who presided after Meletius died, โhad strongly opposed any compromise with the Homoiousiansโ (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.ย
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.ย
The โEcumenicalโ Council was under the complete control of the Emperor. For example, it affirmed the emperorโs appointment of a pro-Nicene bishop and accepted the emperorโs unbaptized government official as chair.ย The Council was also not representative. Since all other views were already outlawed, and only Nicene supporters were invited and admitted.ย
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 Empireโs 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 โhereticsโ was far worse than any other Christian emperor. No other emperor forbade โhereticsโ from living and worshiping in the cities or towns. His persecution may be compared to Diocletianโs Great Persecution of AD 303-313, which was Romeโs 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 Theodosiusโ (Hanson, p. 322).
“A far more drastic policy toward heresy was pursued by Theodosius” (Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code, p. 44).
โSurviving legislation from later in 383 and 384 appears to show Theodosius coming down hard on dissenting groupsโ (Ayres, 259).ย
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
โIn 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 beliefsโ (Boyd).
โIn 383 Theodosius even summoned a council of all โsectsโ.โ โEach party was asked to provide a statement of faith: only those provided by the pro-Nicenes and the Novatianists were found acceptableโ (Ayres, 259).ย
Backed by a Consensus?
Hanson believed that Theodosius was successful because he was backed by a consensus.ย Show More
“Several Emperors had attempted to bring an end to the Arian controversy. Constantine, Constans, Constantius โฆ All had failed because โฆ they in fact were not supported by a consensus in the Church at large. Theodosius succeeded because โฆ (he was) backed by a consensus in the Churchโ (Hanson Lecture).ย
I am not sure that a โconsensusโ 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.ย 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).
โโSubordinationismโ, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxyโ (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239).
โFor 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. โฆ ย 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 Fatherโ (Lienhard).
โWith 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 orthodoxyโ (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
โDionysius of Rome โฆ found homoousios acceptable but could not tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostasesโ (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs).
โDionysius of Rome harshly condemned those who divided the Trinity into three distinct hypostasesโ (Beatrice).
โDionysius of Rome โฆ said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy ‘into three sorts of โฆ separated hypostases and three Godheads’; people who hold this in effect produce three godsโ (Hanson, p. 185).ย
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:
โArius saw the Son as a being distinct from and inferior to the Father.โ The Son was โcreated as a derivative copy of some of the Father’s attributesโ (Ayres, p. 16).
โArius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrianโ (Williams, 175).
โIn Alexandria he (Arius) represented โฆ a conservative theologyโ (Williams, 233).
Alexander:
โ[Rowan] Williamsโ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son โฆ is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. โฆ The statement then that the Son is idios to the Father is a Sabellian statementโ (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 hypostasisโ (Ayres, p. 69).
At Nicaea, Alexander’s ‘one Person’ view dominated because the emperor took his part. Show More
โTension among Eusebian bishops was caused by knowledge that Constantine had taken Alexander’s partโ (Ayres, p. 89). โThis imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful forceโ (Ayres, 89).
โConstantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought bestโ (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 – โArius and most of his supporters were, at Constantine’s request, readmitted to communion within two or three years of the councilโ (Ayres, p. 100).
Nicenes exiled – โWithin 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 thoughtโ (Hanson, p. 274).
Homoousios disappearsย – โAfter Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. โฆ It was not seen as that useful or importantโ (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:
โWe have received and have been taught this โฆ tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spiritโ (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:ย
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are โthree in hypostasis but one in agreement (ฯฯ ฮผฯฯฮฝฮฏฮฑ)โ (Ayres, p. 118), implying three minds.ย
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).ย Show More
โIn 359โ60 Constantius called two councils, which met and sent delegations to him. Under pressure from Constantius these meetings promulgated a creed which was Homoian. โฆ Many opponents of the creed (including prominent Homoiousians such as Basil of Ancyra himself) were exiled at this pointโ (Ayres, p. 433).ย
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.’ย Show More
โConstantius, 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 (364โ378) and Valentinian in the West (364โ375). 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 toleranceโ (Anatolios, p. 29-30).
โBy 379, when Theodosius I succeeded Valens, Arianism was widespread in the eastern half of the Empire, while the west had remained steadfastly Niceneโ (Williams, Stephen; Friell, Gerard (1994). Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. B.T. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-300-06173-0, pp. 46โ53).ย
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
โA council headed by Athanasius at Alexandria in 362 โฆ 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 hypostaseisโ (Anatolios, p. 26-27).
โIt was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus (bishop of Rome) โฆ to suspect them of heresyโ (Hanson, p. 798).
โThe 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 โฆ against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the Eastโ (Hanson Lecture). See here for a discussion of the Meletian Schism.)
Theodosiusโ 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
โThe 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-Niceneโ (Ayres, p. 251).
โIt is the interpretation of Son and Spirit as โwithinโ the one divine existence that actually constitutes the key marker of orthodox identity in all three of these textsโ (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’โ (Hanson, p. 402).ย
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.ย Show More
โIf 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 authorityโ (Hanson, p. 849).
โThroughout the controversy, everybody โฆ assumed that the final authority in bringing about a decision in matters doctrinal was not a council nor the Pope, but the Emperorโ (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
โIn the later Roman Empire, civil and ecclesiastical authority blended. One example of this blending is the ecclesiastical edicts of Constantine and his successorsโ (Boyd).
“Constantine established the precedent for imperial intervention in ecclesiastical affairs โฆ 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).ย
The Church decided, and communicated its decisions, through the official network of the empire. Show More
โBefore 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 empireโ (Williams, 90).ย
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
โEverybody recognised the right of an Emperor to call a council, or even to veto or quash its being calledโ (Hanson, pp. 849-50).
โEven Damasus would have admitted that he could not call a general council on his own authorityโ (Hanson, p. 855).ย
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.ย ย Show More
โThe political and social power acquired by bishops โฆ made their election in the days of the later Roman Empire โฆ a matter of public importance. โฆ 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 electionsโ (Boyd).ย
Theodosius did not succeed.
However, lastly. Theodosius was not the end of Arianism. The controversy continued into the fifth century. Show More
โSimilarly, older narratives in which a clear end is identified fly in the face of evidence that controversy continued into the fifth centuryโ (Ayres, p. 267).ย
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.ย Show More
โDuring the time of Arianism’s flowering in Constantinople, the Gothic convert and Arian bishop Ulfilas โฆ was sent as a missionary to the Gothic tribes across the Danube” (Wikipedia).
โThe version of the Christian faith that the missionaries spread was that favored by Eusebius and not by Athanasius. This is evidence of his zealโ (Hanson, p. 29).ย
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
โThe conversion of Goths led to a widespread diffusion of Arianism among other Germanic tribes as well, the Vandals, Langobards, Svevi, and Burgundians” (Wikipedia).ย
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).
โIn Western Europe, Arianism, which had been taught by Ulfilas, the Arian missionary to the Germanic tribes, was dominant among the Goths, Langobards and Vandalsโ (Wikipedia).
โThe 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. Theย Vandalsย ruled North Africa โฆ Theย Visigothsย ruled Spain โฆ theย Ostrogothย king Theodoric โฆ established a kingdom for his people in Italy โฆ Most of them were Christians, but โฆ They were rather Arians โฆ. Most of their subjects, however, were Catholicsโ (Libre).
โIn view of the fact that most Germanic peoplesโsuch as the eastern and western Goths, as also … the Lombards, the Suevi, and the Vandalsโwere 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 dominationโ ย (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.
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.ย
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.ย
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.
Authors Quoted
This article series is primarily based on the books and articles on the Arian Controversy of the last 50 years.
Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004
R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God โ The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code, 1905
His father had been one of the โkey military commanders in the west in the late 360s and early 370s. Theodosius himself had been in charge of military operations in Moesia at the age of only 28โ (Ayres, p. 241).
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. Theodosius later became emperor of the entire Empire and ruled until he died in 395. He was the last emperor to rule the entire Roman Empire. At his death, the empire became permanently divided between the West and the East. Show More
โGratian called him (Theodosius) to share the burden of imperial rule with him. He was declared Emperor and Augustus (i.e., equal with, not subordinate to, Gratian) on January 19th 379โ (Hanson, p. 804).
Theodosius was “declared Augustus in January 379 at the age of 32 or 33โ (Ayres, p. 241).
Christian Emperors
With respect to 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.ย
In the Christian Roman Empire, the emperors determined what the Church must believe. Show More
โThe truth is that in the Christian church of the fourth century there was no alternative authority comparable to that of the Emperor. The century did indeed see an increase in the power of the bishop of Rome, but he still could not be regarded as a figure even remotely as powerful as that of the Emperorโ (Hanson, p. 854).
โIf 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 authorityโ (Hanson, p. 849).ย
Emperors controlled the Church because a divided Church could divide the Empire.ย
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
Divisions are a danger to the State.
โConstantine โฆ seems to have promoted Christianity as a unifying religion for the empireโ (Ayres, p. 87).
“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” (Boyd, p. 34).
“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, p. 37).
“Believing ‘disunion in the church’ a danger to the state ‘more grievous than any kind of war’, Constantine …” (Boyd, p37).ย
Church and State became one, functioning under the authority of the Emperor.ย
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.ย Show More
Civil and Church authority blended.
โIn the later Roman Empire, civil and ecclesiastical authority blended. One example of this blending is the ecclesiastical edicts of Constantine and his successorsโ (Boyd).ย
Bishops were Civil Judges.
“Constantine gave the episcopal (papal) courts a place in the judicial system of the empire . … The place given him (the bishop) 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 … 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, pp. 91-92).
Bishops had political power.
“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).
Theodosius’ Religious Policy
The Nicenes were divided between ‘one Person’ and ‘three Persons’ views.ย
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 hereย 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 โclear inference from his (Athanasius’) usageโ is that โthere is only one hypostasis in Godโ (Ayres, p. 48).
โAthanasius’ gut reaction is that there can be only one eternal reality and source, and that proposing more than one hypostasis would imply a dualismโ (Ayres, p. 48).
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 there 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
Hypostasis (plural hypostases) is translated here as “Person” but means a unique existence.
Old and New Catholic Parties
โThe schism at Antioch, between the Eustathians, or old Catholic party [the Western pro-Nicenes], under their Bishop Paulinus, ordained by Lucifer before his return to the West, and the new Catholic party [the Cappadocians] under S. Meletius, had troubled both the East and West. The holiest Bishops in the East, such as S. Basil and S. Eusebius of Samosata, sided with Meletius. S. Damasus and the Western Bishops communicated with Paulinus. Meletius asserted Three Hypostases in the HOLY TRINITY, Paulinus One: S. Damasus would not allow the former, for fear of being considered an Arian, nor S. Basil the latter, lest he should be imagined a Sabellianโ [A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Volume 1, by John Mason Neale, page 204].
The view that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons) did not yet exist.ย
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
We can see that the Nicenes did not believe that God is both one and three in how they used the terms ousia and hypostases. In the orthodox Trinity doctrine, God is one ousia (one Being) but three hypostases (Persons). However, Athanasius and other Nicenes used these terms as synonyms. In other words, for Athanasius, God is one Being (ousia) and one Person (hypostasis). (See here)
This is confirmed by the fact that Athanasius, the foremost defender of Nicene theology, did not say that God is one Being but three Persons; he said that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis).
The emperors issued the Edict of Thessalonica jointly.ย
In 380, the year after he became emperor and the year before the Council of Constantinople, Theodosiusย issued the Edict of Thessalonicaย jointly with the Western Emperor Gratian, implying that it applied throughout the Empire.ย Show More
โThe Edict of Thessalonica was jointly issued by Theodosius I, emperor of the East, Gratian, emperor of the West, and Gratian’s junior co-ruler Valentinian II, on 27 February 380โ (Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. pp. 6-7.).
The Edict required all to accept Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology.ย
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 โthe single deityโ (Ayres, 251).ย Show More
“His subjects were ordered to believe ‘the single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within an equal majesty and an orthodox Trinity’โ (Hanson, p. 402).
โWe shall believe in the single deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinityโ (Ayres, p. 251).ย
โIt is the interpretation of Son and Spirit as โwithinโ the one divine existence that actually constitutes the key marker of orthodox identity in all three of these textsโ (Ayres, 251). (Ayres refers here to three decrees Theodosius issued.)
Note that while the Nicene Creed of 325 and the Creed of Constantinople of 381 still identified the โone Godโ as the Father alone, Theodosius’ edict identified the one God as the Trinity. In other words, Theodosius’ decree was much closer to the Trinity doctrine as we know it today than the Creeds were at the time. The Creed of Constantinople 381 reads:
โWe believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of Godโ.
(2) The Edict identifies โDamasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor in Alexandriaโ (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.ย Show More
โIn February 380 Theodosius issued an edict insisting on the profession of โNiceneโ faith, defined as that taught by Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor in Alexandriaโ (Ayres, 251).
โThe 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-Niceneโ (Ayres, 251).
โIn February 380, when he was residing in Thessalonica, he issued an edict โฆ which declared the pro-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity to be the official doctrine of the Roman Empire, and named Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria as the two episcopal norms of doctrineโ (Hanson, p. 402).ย
(3) The Nicene term homoousios (same substance) can mean โone substance,โ 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). Theodosiusโ 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.ย Show More
The Edict of January 381 refers to the โAlmighty God and Christ the Son of God … the Holy Spirit โฆ the undivided substance of the incorrupt Trinityโ (Ayres, p. 252).ย
โIt is noteworthy that the texts do not invoke the language of homoousios” (Ayres, p. 252), probably because it could be understood in two ways.
However, Theodosius’ later decrees were more aligned with Cappadocian theology. Show More
โIn his later decrees the citation of Rome and Alexandria ceases and Theodosius adopts a mode of definition more in tune with the traditions of the Meletian/Basilian pro-Nicenesโ (Ayres, 251).
โTheodosius had now adopted the Eastern rather than the Latin point of viewโ (Hanson, pp. 821).
The Edict made this the sole legal religion of the Empire.ย
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.ย Show More
All citizens
The Edict said: โIt is our will that the peoples who are ruled by the administration of our clemency shall practise that religion which โฆโ (Ayres, 251).
Church historian Sozomen wrote: โTheodosius 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 ALEXANDRIAโ (Sozomen’s Church History VII.4).
Theodosius’ subsequent decrees confirmed that the first edict also applied to the entire Empire, at least to the whole Eastern Empire. The specific mention of Constantinople in the first edict may be explained as follows:
At this time, Nicene ‘one Person’ theology dominated in the West. By enforcing ‘one Person’ theology also in Constantinople, the governing center of the Eastern Empire, the emperors ensured compliance throughout the empire.
State Religion
It made Christianity โthe state religion of the Roman Empire.โ (Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B. (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. pp. 6-7.)ย
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, โfoolish madmen,โ and “out of their minds and insane.” Show More
The Edict says: “We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles (places of worship) the name of churches” (Henry Bettenson, editor, Documents of the Christian Church, 1967, p. 22).
Note the un-Christian nature of this language. Like the Beast from the Land, it resembles a lamb (Jesus) but speaks like a dragon (Rev 13:11).
That edict authorized imperial punishment for the “heretics:”
It said of those who contravene the Edict: “They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict” (Henry Bettenson, editor, Documents of the Christian Church, 1967, p. 22).
โHeretics would be punishedโ (Hanson, p. 402).
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
“Heretics” were not allowed to settle in cities.
โIn January of the following year (381) [still before the Council of Constantinople], another edict forbade the heretics to settle in the citiesโ (Boyd, William Kenneth (1905). The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. Columbia University Press. P45-46).
No Arian worship meetings in towns:
โOn January 10 (381), Theodosius issued an edict โฆ No church was to be occupied for worship by any heretics, no heretics were to gather together for worship within the walls of any townโ (Hanson, p. 805).ย
โSurviving legislation from later in 383 and 384 appears to show Theodosius coming down hard on dissenting groups.โ He tolerated โdissenting groups as long as they built their churches outside the walls of citiesโ (Ayres, 259).ย
โHe issued an edict โฆ in January 381 (Nullis haereticis) that expressly forbade anti-Nicene factions to congregate in churchesโ (Anatolios, pP. 29-30).ย
โThe decree issued by Theodosius in January 381 in Constantinople forbidding โhereticsโ the right to assemble for worshipโ (Ayres, 252).
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
Confiscated Arian Churches
Theodosius instructed that โall churches shall immediately be surrendered to those bishops who confess that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one majesty and powerโ (Ayres, 252).ย
โWe now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendourโ (Quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).
“In the same year (381), after the reformulation of the Nicene doctrine by the Council of Constantinople … 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'” (Boyd, pages 45-46) (cf. Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).
Riots
โThe expulsion of bishops of unorthodox views which followed the decisions of the Council of Constantinople of 381 provoked riots in many parts of the Empireโ (Hanson, p. 852).ย
“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, p. 46).ย
The Controversy began when persecution ended and ended when persecution resumed.ย
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 appointed the senior bishops.
Having announced the State Religion of the Roman Empire, Theodosius assumed complete and unilateral control of who the leading bishops would be:ย
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.ย Show More
Exiled the bishop of Constantinople
โOn November 24th 380 he entered Constantinople and instantly faced the Arian bishop of that city with the choice of either accepting the Nicene faith or being ejected from his see. Demophilus chose exile โฆ and was driven out of the cityโ (Hanson, p. 804-5).
Exiled the bishop of Alexandria
โAt about the same time the Arian Lucius was chased out of Alexandriaโ (Hanson, p. 805). [Lucas was twice installed as Patriarch of Alexandria, first in 363, during the reign of Athanasius, and the second between 373 and 380, competing with Peter II of Alexandria. (Wikipedia)]ย
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.ย
He himself decided which factions complied.
Theodosius not only defined the Empire’s official faith, but he also required all Christian factions to submit their theologies in writing to him, and he decided which complied. Show More
โIn 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 beliefsโ (Boyd, page 47).
โIn 383 Theodosius even summoned a council of all โsectsโ.โ โEach party was asked to provide a statement of faith: only those provided by the pro-Nicenes and the Novatianists were found acceptableโ (Ayres, 259).ย
He perfected the unity of Church and State.ย
The Nicene Church, with its hierarchy of bishops, became part of the Empire; the religious arm of the Empire. Show More
“Constantine established the precedent for imperial intervention in ecclesiastical affairs โฆ 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).ย
Turning Point
Theodosius, not the Council, was the turning point after Arianism dominated most of the 4th century.ย
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.ย
The Second Ecumenical Council was not ecumenical.ย
‘Ecumenicalโ 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.ย Show More
Gregory of Nazianzus was the presiding officer when the meeting began and โhad strongly opposed any compromise with the Homoiousiansโ (Ayres, p. 255), those who believed that the Son’s substance is ‘similar’ to the Father’s.
โThirty-six Pneumatomachians arrived but were denied admission to the council when they refused to accept the Nicene creedโ (Wikipedia Retrieved 25 Nov 2021).ย
Furthermore, Theodosius summoned the so-called โecumenicalโ Council of Constantinople of the year 381, not the church. It was not a Church meeting. It was the emperor’s meeting by which he ensured that the Church implement his religious policy. It can only be regarded as a church meeting if one accepts that the emperor was the head of 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
โHis part in choosing an unbaptised layman, Nectarius, as bishop of Constantinople, an act to which the pro-Nicene party raised no objectionโ (Hanson, p. 322).ย
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
Contrary to the traditional account, this article series shows that ‘Arianism’ was the Church’s traditional view during the first three centuries. Nicene theology was, in fact, Sabellianism, and Arius was a conservative, protesting against creeping Sabellianism in Alexandria. But this history is carefully hidden beneath a blanket of misinformation because it would reveal that the orthodox Trinity doctrine of today is, in fact, a continuation of ancient Sabellianism, denying the distinct existence of the Son of God.
All previous emperors attempted to ensure unity. Theodosius succeeded through ferocious coercion.ย
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,ย
Appointed bishops unilaterally.
Furthermore, Theodosius’s persecution far exceeds that of the previous emperors in ferocity. Show More
In the traditional account, the Arian Emperor Constantius was a cruel tyrant. In reality, Theodosius was far worse.
“It is even possible to contrast Constantius’ relative mildness with the ferocious coercion more than twenty years later of the Emperor Theodosiusโ (Hanson, p. 322).ย
“A far more drastic policy toward heresy was pursued by Theodosius” (Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code, p. 44).ย
Other Articles
Next: The Council of Constantinople in AD 381 (Read)
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
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.