Emperor Theodosius eliminated Arianism from the Roman Empire.

Summary

The emperor Theodosius put an end to the Arian Controversy.

Constantine ensured that the Nicene Council made the decision he thought best (Read More) but later supported the anti-Nicenes. The emperors after Constantine mostly supported the anti-Nicenes. When Emperor Valens died in 378, the imperial capital was solidly Arian.

Theodosius I succeeded Valens. He was a passionate supporter of Homoousion Christology. Commentators often describe the Council of Constantinople of 381 as the turning point where Nicene Christology replaced Arianism. However, that council was a mere formality. Already prior to the council, Theodosius hadf outlawed all non-Trinitarian Christianity and exiled Arian bishops.1Theodosian Code 16:2, 1 Friell, G., Williams, S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, London, 1994 – See, Homoousion – Wikipedia Consequently, ‘Arians’ were not allowed to attend the Council of 381.

Since the 381 Council was simply a formality, the real decisions were taken by the emperor. Theodosius, with the strong arm of the empire, effectively wiped out ‘Arianism’ among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire. This supports again the main thesis of this article series, namely that it was the emperors – not the church itself – who decided that the church must adopt the Trinity doctrine.

The 381 Creed does not clearly state the Trinity doctrine, namely, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind existing in three modes. (See here) That creed still identifies the ‘one God’ as the Father. But Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica of 380 is clearly Trinitarian. It refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a single divinity. In other words, while the State laws were Trinitarian, the church lagged behind. This is further evidence that the emperors determined the chruch’s Christology.

In the centuries after Theodosius, the church formulated the doctrines that Christ had two separate natures, namely that He had both a divine and a human nature, and that Mary is the Mother of God.

– END OF SUMMARY –


Overview of History

In the second century, after the church became Gentile-dominated, all sorts of abominations entered. Concerning Christology, the church adopted Logos-theology which explained the Son of God as the Logos of Greek philosophy which always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct Person) when God decided to create. (Read More.)

In opposition to Logos-theology, Monarchainism also developed in the second century and explained Father and Son as two names for the same single Being. This was refined by the Sabellius in the third century, which explained Father and Son as two faces of one single Being. However, the church formally rejected Sabellianism and entered the fourth century with the traditional Logos-theology, but as refined by Origen, with the Son as the distinct and subordinated agent of the Father.

Before the fourth century, the church, as a persecuted entity, had no way of making and enforcing empire-wide decisions. But, after Christianity was legalized in 313, the Controversy that had been seething underground burst into the open. The spark that ignited the fire was the dispute between Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, one of his presbyters (priests).

Alexander, like the Sabellians before him, taught that Father and Son are one single Person with a single mind. (See here) Arius, like most bishops before him, taught that they are two distinct Beings with two distinct minds. (See here)

However, Arius also has some extreme views. For example, while the Eusebians* said that the Son was born from the Being of the Father, Arius said that He was made out of nothing. And while Origen said that the Son always existed, Arius said that ‘there was’ when the Son ‘was not’. These views the Eusebians rejected.

*The anti-Nicene are traditionally called ‘Arians’, as if they followed Arius, which they did not. In his book, Ayres refers to the anti-Nicenes as Eusebians, meaning followers of the two Eusebians. Arius was a follower of Eusebius.

This dispute spread to most of Egypt. Many bishops supported Arius; not because they supported his views but because they regarded Alexander’s as even more dangerous.

Emperor Constantine, seeking unity in the church to support the unity of the empire, wrote to Arius and Alexander to end their quarrel, but to no avail. His religious advisor (Ossius) advised him to take Alexander’s side in the dispute. Ossius then chaired a meeting in Antioch early in 325 where Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and the most respected theologian of the time, and Arius’ most famous supporter, was provisionally excommunicated.

Constantine then called the Nicene Council and installed his religious advisor Ossius as the presiding officer. Alexander allied with the Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus and, through his intimidating presence, the emperor forced that meeting to accept the word homoousios which, in the previous century, was only preferred by Sabellians.

However, in the decade after Nicaea, Constantine allowed the church to remove the main drivers of the Nicene Creed, the Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus, from their positions. After this, the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios were not mentioned for about 20-30 years.

Alexander died a few years after Nicaea and was replaced by Athanasius as bishop of Alexandria, but he was also exiled; not for theology but for “tyrannical behaviour.” (Ayres, p. 124) Constantine also allowed the exiled ‘Arian’ bishops to return. And, shortly before his death, he was baptized by an ‘Arian’ bishop. So, it seemed as if all decisions at Nicaea were made null and void.

But trouble was brewing in the West. At first, the West was not part of the Controversy.2“The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church. … The Westerners at the Council (of Nicaea) represented a tiny minority.” (Hanson, p. 170) However, both Athanasius and Marcellus were exiled to Rome, where they joined forces against the Eastern Church.

At that time, Athanasius developed his polemical strategy, in which he claimed himself to be innocent of tyranny, put the blame for his exile on an ‘Arian Conspiracy’, claimed that he was really exiled for his opposition to Arianism, and labeled the Eastern Church followers of Arius (from which we got the term ‘Arian’). Athanasius was able to convince the pope (the bishop of Rome) of his version of reality, causing friction and division between the Eastern and Western Churches.

This happened in the period after Constantine died in 337, while the empire was divided into East and West. While Emperor Constants in the West supported the Western Church, Emperor Constantius in the East supported the Eastern Church

However, by the year 353, after both his brothers had been killed, Constantius ruled the entire empire. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, which is the account of the party that eventually was victorious, Constantius was a brutal persecutor of the orthodox (the pro-Nicene). In reality, Constantius was mild. As this article will show, the most brutal ruler of the fourth century was the pro-Nicene Theodosius.3“Constantius has frequently been seen as a ruthless and brutal ruler and was painted by later pro-Nicene writers as a persecuter of supporters of Nicaea. The true picture is more complex: within the fourth-century context Constantius was a fairly mild ruler.” (Ayres, p. 133) “As his control over the west grew Constantius increased his attempts to get bishops to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.” (Ayres, p. 135) “He was not beyond subterfuge and force to achieve public agreement between factions.” (Ayres, p. 134)

The next emperor (Julian) did not choose sides, but ruled only for three years.4“When Constantius died in 361 his immediate successor was his cousin Julian.” (Ayres, p. 168) “As Emperor, Julian soon became an active non-Christian, repudiating the Christianity that he had earlier professed. In his attempt to undermine the Church Julian tried to foment dissension between groups in the Church—initially by recalling all bishops who had been banished under Constantius.” (Ayres, p. 168-9)

Valens (364–378) succeeded Julian and revived Constantius’ anti-Nicene policy. He also exiled Nicene bishops to the other ends of the empire and often used force against them. Consequently, when Valens died in the year 378, the imperial capital of the empire (Constantinople) was solidly ‘Arian’.

Theodosius wiped Arianism out.

Theodosius I succeeded Valens. He and his wife Flacilla were passionate supporters of the Nicene Creed. Flacilla was instrumental in Theodosius’ campaign to end Arianism. Sozomen reports an incident where she prevented a meeting between Theodosius and Eunomius of Cyzicus, who served as figurehead of the most radical sect of Arians. Ambrose and Gregory of Nyssa praised her Christian virtues (Roman Catholic Encyclopedia (1909), article “Ælia Flaccilla” by J.P. Kirsch).

Commentators often describe the First Council of Constantinople, which Theodosius convened in 381, as the turning point where Nicene Christology replaced Arianism, but that council was a mere formality:

Firstly, Theodosius already on 27 February 380, with the Edict of Thessalonica, decreed that Trinitarian Christianity would be the state religion of the Roman Empire and that other Christians would be punished. His edict outlawed all other versions of Christianity.

Secondly, the incumbent bishop of Constantinople was an Arian (a Homoian). Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, on 24 November 380, and therefore also before the First Council of Constantinople in 381, he exiled this bishop and appointed Gregory of Nazianzus, the leader of the rather small Nicene community in the city, as bishop over the churches of that city.

Thirdly, only Nicene supporters were allowed into the Council of 381. The previous Eusebian bishop was already banished and non-Trinitarians arriving to attend the council were shown the door.

The 381 Council, therefore, was simply a formality. Theodosius, with the strong arm of the empire, effectively wiped out Arianism from the Roman Empire.

Edict of Thessalonica

The Edict states:

According to the apostolic teaching
and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in
the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.

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. 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. — Edict of Thessalonica (Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22)

The term “Catholic” in this quote means ‘universal’. The word “Catholic” only became part of the name of the Catholic Church in 1054, at the East-West schism.

Summarized, Church historian Sozomen reports as follows on the Edict of Thessalonica:

Gratian bestowed the government of Illyria and of the Eastern provinces upon Theodosius. The parents of Theodosius were Christians and were attached to the Nicene doctrines. Theodosius made known by law his intention of leading all his subjects to the reception of that faith which was professed by Damasus, bishop of ROME, and by Peter, bishop of ALEXANDRIA. He enacted that the title of “Catholic Church” should be exclusively confined to those who rendered EQUAL HOMAGE to the Three Persons of the Trinity and that those individuals who entertained opposite opinions should be treated as heretics, regarded with contempt, and delivered over to PUNISHMENT. (Sozomen’s Church History VII.4)

Damasus and Peter were with Athanasius on the ‘One Person’-side of the Meletian Schism against the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians). (Read More) What Theodosius implemented was the Western ‘One Person’ theology, as is also indicated by the phrase in the Edict, “the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

The First Council of Constantinople was a mere formality.

It was customary, in the fourth century, for emperors, as the real heads of the church, to appoint church leaders and convene church councils. Similarly, Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople in the spring of 381. It is also known as the Second Ecumenical Council. ‘Ecumenical’ means it represents all Christian Churches and perspectives, but that was certainly not the case in this instance:

Theodosius already outlawed ‘Arianism’ in the previous year, with the threat of punishment for people who teach anything different.

Gregory of Nazianzus—the leader of the Nicene party in the city—presided over part of the Council and vehemently opposed any compromise with the Homoiousians (those who believed that the Son’s substance is “similar” to the Father’s) and who, therefore, were the ‘Arian’ group that was the closest to the homoousios (same substance) view. 5Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its legacy – Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875505-0. Retrieved 21 October 2011

Arians were not admitted into the council. Theodosius already banished the previous Homoian bishop and leaders. And 36 Pneumatomachians arrived to attend the council but were denied entrance when they refused to accept the Nicene Creed.

Gregory resigned from his office and Teadosius chose Nectarius, an unbaptized civil official, to succeed Gregory as president of the council. As a civil servant, Nectarius was fully under Theodosius’ control.

The Council, not surprisingly, confirmed Theodosius’ installation of Gregory Nazianzus as Bishop of Constantinople, accepted the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, and dogmatically condemned all shades of Arianism as heresy. 

Contents of the Creed of 381

The Holy Spirit

The 325 Creed merely mentions the Holy Spirit in connection with the Father and Son. It does not refer to the Holy Spirit as theos (“god” or “God”) or that the Spirit is of the same substance as the Father. 

The 381 Creed goes much further. The 5 words about the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed of 325 became 33 words in the 381-creed, saying that:

      • The Holy Ghost is “the Lord and Giver of life,”
      • He proceeds from the Father and
      • He is worshiped together with the Father and the Son.

The 381 Creed, therefore, describes the Holy Spirit much clearer as a separate Person and as God.

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568, states that the teaching of the three Cappadocian Fathers “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture.”

Note: Catholics are not concerned if their doctrines are not found in the Bible because they believe in continued revelation through the church.

The Trinity

As discussed in the article on the Nicene Creed, the present writer does not find the Trinity concept, namely that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Being with one single Mind, in the Nicene Creed. It is also absent from the creed of 381.

However, the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, quoted above, which was an act of law by the emperor, made Trinitarian theology law. Compare the following:

The opening phrases of the Edict of Thessalonica of 380:
“Let us believe in
the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

The opening phrase of the Creed of 381:
“We believe in
one God, the Father Almighty …
And in one Lord Jesus Christ …
And in the Holy Ghost”

An edict that Theodosius issued after the Council of 381 is also clearly Trinitarian:

“We 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 splendour” 6Quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223.

In other words, the State laws were Trinitarian while the church creeds lagged behind. The first clear Trinitarian church statement is the Athanasian Creed which was not formulated by a Church Council and originated perhaps 100 years later. The contents of Theodosius’s decrees, when compared to the church decrees, support the main thesis of these articles, namely that the decisions, with respect to which Christology the church will adopt, was made by the emperors; not by ecumenical councils.

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Theodosian Code 16:2, 1 Friell, G., Williams, S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, London, 1994 – See, Homoousion – Wikipedia
  • 2
    “The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church. … The Westerners at the Council (of Nicaea) represented a tiny minority.” (Hanson, p. 170)
  • 3
    “Constantius has frequently been seen as a ruthless and brutal ruler and was painted by later pro-Nicene writers as a persecuter of supporters of Nicaea. The true picture is more complex: within the fourth-century context Constantius was a fairly mild ruler.” (Ayres, p. 133) “As his control over the west grew Constantius increased his attempts to get bishops to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.” (Ayres, p. 135) “He was not beyond subterfuge and force to achieve public agreement between factions.” (Ayres, p. 134)
  • 4
    “When Constantius died in 361 his immediate successor was his cousin Julian.” (Ayres, p. 168) “As Emperor, Julian soon became an active non-Christian, repudiating the Christianity that he had earlier professed. In his attempt to undermine the Church Julian tried to foment dissension between groups in the Church—initially by recalling all bishops who had been banished under Constantius.” (Ayres, p. 168-9)
  • 5
    Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its legacy – Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875505-0. Retrieved 21 October 2011
  • 6
    Quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223