In our study of the universal church theory, which we resumed last week, we’ve been especially highlighting the fourth century, specifically the period after Nicaea from Emperor Constantine heading towards the Council of Constantinople. We’ve had to take our time in this period, more so than our overview of other significant factors in order to trace the historical details that have led to the belief in the universal church. History never happens in a vacuum; there are political intricacies and historical figures that all collectively shape it. Because of this, the fourth century is without a doubt the most critically important period in the development of the universal church theory. The details of this period that we’ve been examining revolve around Constantine and the marriage of church and state, or what is often called sacralism. After the death of the emperor, and the split of the empire under the leadership of his two sons, Constans and Constantius, Arianism would rise to such a level that Jerome’s famous quote summarizes the period well, “The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.” Over the next several decades, the battle of Arianism would rage on. The disagreement was split between three parties, the Nicene’s or orthodox, the Eusebians or Arians, and the Origenists or semi-Arians, named after Origen.
Multiple smaller councils were called from East to West seeking to rectify each other’s positions, but a common ground was rarely found. Athanasius would continue being recalled and exiled depending on the prevailing beliefs at the time, including a mixed bag of beliefs from Pope Julius I of Rome. The two emperors sought to unify the empire in the face of an ever-widening chasm between East and West. However, this period was also marked with political upheavals and overturns which made resolving theological conflicts all the more difficult. Constans, in the west, was murdered by General Magnentius in 350. Three years later, Constantius would defeat him in battle and unify the empire once again. But because he represented the East and was an Arian sympathizer, this spelled disaster for those who did not hold the same beliefs and marked a period of Nicene persecution by the sword-wielding state. This further highlights the dangers of a state-church mixture as the state’s beliefs can vary with the wind but their power to persecute with the sword remains. Surely the saying of our Lord is especially relevant here, “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”1
Commenting on the new emperor Constantius, Needham writes he was, “a vain and cruel man who liked to think he was both a great emperor and a great theologian. He was neither.”2 His personal influence was weak relying on others heavily, including his inner circle of Arian bishops. It was under this cruel rule of Constantius that push back against the encroachment of the state into matters of the church reached a climax of sorts. Leading the charge against him was the venerable Athanasius who regarded Constantius as an antichrist. As emperor, he tried to pressure the Western church to embrace Arianism and exiled any bishops or presbyters that refused. In 355, Emperor Constantius “ordered Hosius of Cordova to accept Arians to the Lord’s table”.3 Hosius’ response describes well the issues that were taking place in the relationship between the universal (catholic) church and the state:
“Do not intrude yourself into ecclesiastical matters, and do not give commands concerning them, but learn from us. God has put into your hands the kingdom; to us He has entrusted the affairs of His Church. If anyone stole the Empire from you, he would be resisting what God has ordained; in the same way, you should be afraid of becoming guilty of a serious sin if you take upon yourself to govern the Church. ‘Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s (Matthew 22:21). We are not allowed to exercise earthly rule, and you, your majesty, are not allowed to burn incence.”4
By citing this passage in support of his statements, Hosius is outlining the doctrine of two kingdoms, that is, the state has its role, and the church has its role and neither should interfere with the direction of the other. This is a significant doctrinal development that will wax and wane over the next 1000 years. Needham points out that this view of church and state became, “widespread in the West. The East, however, continued to accept the emperor’s authority in Church affairs.”5 For his efforts, Constantius imprisoned and tortured Hosius of Cordova, who by the way was his father’s former counselor, banished Athanasius (again), and “committed brutal outrages against the orthodox Christians of Alexandria” which included forcing a group of women to convert to Arianism or be burned by fire.6 Also among the exiled was Hilary of Poitiers and pope Liberius. Constantius had effectively reigned down terror against those who held to Nicene orthodoxy or even those who held to the Origenists position in both the East and West. What had appeared to be a positive development during the reign of Constantine had developed into a nightmare scenario under the reign of Constantius. By allowing intermingling of the State with the Church it opens up the latter to benefit externally, but it is often short-lived. Simply a change in administration or doctrinal beliefs handcuffed the church to follow the lead of the her overlords rather than the lead of the Holy Spirit through the divinely inspired Scriptures.
Constantius died in 361 and was replaced by Julian the Apostate, so named because he had been raised as a Christian but had come to abandon it upon his ascendency to emperor. His father was half-brother to Constantine which made Constans and Constantius his cousins. He, along with his own brother Gallus (beheaded by Constantius), were of the few family members that had survived the massacres of Constatine.7 His position was neither pro-Arian nor pro-Nicene, rather he was equally opposed to all forms of Christianity and wanted to sow chaos. Therefore, he allowed all exiles to return, including Athanasius (again). Athanasius perceived Julian to be, “only a little cloud; it will pass” but also recognized the battle before him had somewhat changed. The former bishop sought an alliance against the Arians with Origenists. As a result, Athanisius was exiled (again). Houghton summarizes Julian’s reign as a period in which he replaced Christians in leadership with pagans, outlawed Christian instruction of the youth, and robbed churches of their possessions.8 While Julian didn’t necessarily persecute Christians, he “followed a two-pronged policy of hindering their progress and ridiculing them.”9
Largely, Julian’s anti-Christian reign was a reaction against what he had experienced at the hands of so-called Christian rulers. His attempts to restore paganism to its previous ascendency in the empire ultimately failed. At the age of 32, Julian died in battle in 363 and was subsequently replaced by Valentinian, who assigned the eastern part of the empire to his brother, the pro-Arian Valens. Athanasius returned from exile only to be sent away again by Valens. This eastern ruler was ruthless against both the Nicenes and Origenists, but hostility eventually calmed, and he allowed Athanasius to return where he lived until his death. Schaff notes the significance of his death, “After the death of Athanasius in 373, Arianism regained dominion for a time in Alexandria, and practiced all kinds of violence upon the orthodox.”10
As we are progressing towards our immediate goal of Constantinople, we must briefly mention the rise of the “next generation of Nicene theologians”, the Cappadocian fathers – Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Needham writes, “The Cappadocian fathers ran alongside Athanasius as the outstanding Easter theologians of the 4th Century. Their writings and personal influence brought about a final union between the Nicene and Origenist parties. Through their efforts, they help clarify a robust doctrine of the Trinity.”11 Basil was close friends with Gregory of Nazianzus and is largely considered the “father of Eastern monasticism”.12 Basil along with his friend Gregory both championed the monastic life. In short, monasticism “refers to a life apart from the world, a life almost exclusively devoted to meditation and prayer in accordance with certain rules and regulations prescribed by the founders of the various ‘Orders’ of monks.”13 It largely gained appeal because of the worldliness that had engulfed the church and the various forms of persecution from within and without. Gregory of Nyssa was Basil’s younger brother but chose not to join the previous two in the monastic journey. Each of these men would have a significant role in the years leading up to, if not in the assembly of, the Council of Constantinople.
The reign of Constantius to Julian was a disaster for the infant, so-called universal church who had wed herself to the State under Constantine. The perceived positive developments under his reign were in reality a mixed bag. As Houghton notes, “It had its evil as well as its good aspects. If peace came to the Church, so too did worldliness.”14 The fruit of this mixed bag of worldliness manifested itself in the period we’ve just considered. Out of this, however, would arise those who recognized this unscriptural alliance and began to further push back against it, as Hosius did above. Chief among them was Ambrose, who we will lead off discussing in our next post.
- Matthew 26:52b ESV ↩︎
- Needham, N.R. 2000 Years of Christ’s Power (3rd ed). London, Grace Publications Trust, 2011, p. 213 ↩︎
- ibid p. 170 ↩︎
- ibid ↩︎
- ibid ↩︎
- ibid p. 213 ↩︎
- Gonzalez, Justus p. 168 ↩︎
- Houghton p 22 ↩︎
- Gonzalez p 172 ↩︎
- Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church: Vol. 3 (5th ed). Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, 2006 (1867), p. 638 ↩︎
- Needham, N.R. 2000 Years of Christ’s Power (3rd ed). London, Grace Publications Trust, 2011, p. 215 ↩︎
- Gonzalez p. 183 ↩︎
- Houghton p. 27 ↩︎
- ibid, p. 21 ↩︎
