In 2019, we left off with a long series on the Historical Development of the Universal Church Theory. (You can get caught up with 9-part series on the Doctrinal Index Page) In that series we were looking at how the doctrine of the universal church began to develop by noting that the definition from the Westminster Confession of Faith, commonly used today, differed significantly from the meaning that it was given in the early centuries of Christianity. In our previous post, we concluded with a summary of the Council of Nicaea and some of its aftereffects (325 AD). There we saw how the first recorded reference to the universal church was made in the “Nicene Creed” as an anathema against those who did not hold that God the Father and Son were of the same essence. Those who disagreed were anathematized and excommunicated, as it were, from the universal church. We’ve seen how the historical progression up to this point conceived of the universal or catholic church as physical or what we might call visible organization. In other words, an outward manifestation as opposed to a living organism. The creed that was developed subsequent to the Council of Nicaea, or what many today call the Nicene Creed, with the phrase the “one, holy, catholic apostolic church” as an article of faith, was not produced in Nicaea, rather it was the product of the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, 381 AD.
The period between Nicaea and Constantinople is a remarkable one for our study and it pulls together several developmental streams that we have previously looked at, notably the concept of sacralism under the administration of Constantine and the application of it after his first ecumenical council. Recall that there were a number of councils, but an ecumenical was the highest order and simply meant, universal, that is it included all of Christendom. Phillip Schaff summarizes this period between the councils as “The Arian and Semi-Arian Reaction” to the Nicene Council and describes it as a period when Arianism enters “the stage of its political development and power.”1 As we know the decision to declare Arianism a heresy, as well as assigning an anathema against anyone who held the view opposite of the universal church, was enforced by the State. In our last post, we saw how this was the first example of civil punishment for heresy, which began a long and storied pattern of punishment of theological deviations from the Universal Church. This of course was nothing less than a departure from Scripture. While the doctrinal decision from Nicaea was correct, the power to exile Arius did not rest with the emperor nor his empire, nor in reality the whims of a so-called ecumenical council. The power and authority always rests in the Word of God.
While Arius, along with his followers, had previously been exiled by Egyptian and Libyan bishops at the smaller council of Alexandria in 321, his post-Nicene exile in 325 was ordered by the emperor himself. The time immediately after Nicaea was apparently one of concern for Constantine. Just three months later he issued an edict wanting to be informed about any secret plots against him. Shortly after, Licinius, who had previously attained the rank of Augustus and who was wed to Constantine’s half-sister, was executed. In 326, Constantine had his own son, Crispus, arrested and later executed likely under suspicion of having an affair with his wife Fausta, who he later had boiled alive. While speculation surrounds these events concerning motive, especially in light of the earlier issued edict, nevertheless this period kicking off the post-Nicene era was marked with violence near the heart of the empire. Later this same year, Constantine order the death of his nephew Licinanus, the son of the previously executed Licinus. While these issues may not be directly related to the development of the universal church, they do shed light on the man who had assumed himself her head. Likewise, it should give pause to those today who would champion Constantine as a great defender of the faith without understanding the rest of his story and the political/theological climate in which he ruled.
As for Arius, he was sent to Illyricum until 327-328 when he was recalled by Constantine in order to appear before the Imperial Court, essentially a collection of politicians, dignitaries, officials, and advisors who gave counsel to the emperor. For the Emperor to preside over the imperial council was an expression of his supreme power. That he called the hearing in order to preside over matters of theological doctrine tells us all we need to know about his perceived role over the church. Arius’ recall just three years after his original exile was for the purpose of giving testimony and clarification of his views, which were now beginning to gain widespread favor throughout the empire, especially in the east where it had originated. The reason for the sudden change of heart by the always politically ambitious Constantine, was due primarily to the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
As we’ll see in a future post, Nicomedia was a politically significant city for the Roman Empire at this time, but especially for Constantine who had unified the empire from its stronghold of tetrarchy. Nicomedia was located in the eastern part of the empire (Rome was situated in the west) and was the site of the Battle of Chrysopolis in 324 where Constantine had officially unified the empire. In other words, it was here he had unified political power and a year later sought to unify theological power at Nicaea. His desire to maintain a presence in Nicomedia was politically motivated, but the problem was at this location, and the east in general, was the source of Arianism and the reason given for its second rise. It’s not surprising then that the next leader of the movement would be from here and have arguably the greatest influence on Constantine. Ever desiring to maintain his presence in the east, and coming to hate Rome and her paganism, the emperor laid the first stone of ‘New Rome’ at Byzantium on November 4, 326 AD. Byzantium, located just 63 miles from Nicomedia, was far more strategic politically, economically, and militarily. The city was officially opened in May of AD 330 and renamed Constantinople, after the emperor. It remained the capitol of the Byzantine, Latin, and Ottoman Empires until it was renamed to its modern name of Istanbul in 1930.
Just prior to the completion of the city’s construction, the Arian feud was about to reignite. In 329, after the death of the bishop Alexander, who had championed the defense against Arianism, another young defender was appointed as bishop, Athanasius. We have already been introduced to him in the previous post, but now we want to continue our attention on this period between Nicaea and Constantinople as the rise of Arianism is renewed. Constantine called the bishops of Egypt and Libya (eastern empire) to Nicomedia for explanation of the revived heresy. Kousoulas reports that these bishops had befriended Eusebius of Nicomedia. 2 Constantine was then convinced that Athanasius should admit Arius back into the church and allow him to partake in the Lord’s Supper. Athanasius refused. Constantine then wrote to him effectively ordering him to admit Arius back into the church and not withhold communion from him. Athanasius again refused. Then, in 335 under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Constatine ordered Athanasius to be banished “for political reasons”. 3 Eusebius had come up with a clever accusation that Athanasius had organized a “dock strike in Alexandria (which would have cut off the grain supply to Constantinople), unless Arian influence at court was curbed.”4 This would be the first of 5 times that Athanasius would be exiled, a total of 17 of his 45 years as the Alexandrian bishop. Subsequent to his first banishment, Constantine changes his mind yet again and this time he banishes Eusebius labeling him, “a traitor to the all-embracing Church” and adding that he had previously cooperated with Licinius in “organizing his oppressive persecution.”5
Schaff notes that soon after the banishment of Athanasius, Arius “having been formally acquitted of the charge of heresy by a council at Jerusalem (335 A.D.) was to have been solemnly received back into the fellowship of the church at Constantinople.”6 On the night before his readmittance, which was to be full of pomp and circumstance with a procession from the imperial palace to the church, Arius was struck with a bout of cholera. In pain and searching for a place to relieve himself, he was found dead with his bloody insides spilled out. Explanations were varied with some explaining it as God’s divine judgement and others claiming he was poised by the opposition.
Constantine would die in 337 just after being baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Regarding the events of Arianism and Constantine’s handling of them, Schaff comments that he was the “first emperor who mingled in the in the religious affairs of Christendom, and who did this from a political, monarchical interest for the unity of the empire and of religion….”7 After his death, the once united empire was split between the emperor’s two sons, the Nicene sympathizer Constans (Constantine II) in the West and Arian sympathizer Constantius in the East. The former recalled Athanasius from exile and it appeared briefly that Nicene orthodoxy would triumph, but it was short lived. As Schaff notes, “In the East Arianism prevailed.”8 Here, Eusebius of Nicomedia was made bishop of Constantinople and the division between East and West was essentially sealed over the Arian doctrine with the West almost entirely embracing Nicene orthodoxy.
The convening of bishops to Nicaea at the behest of Emperor Constantine made the issue of Arianism political in nature, particularly in the midst of a hostile, pagan environment. If not for the development of the universal church concept, even in these infant stages, then there would have been no role for an emperor to assume to be her earthly head. Likewise, there would have been no role for an emperor to determine what was/wasn’t heresy and subsequently who would be exiled as a result. Local, independent ekklesiai are the remedy for unrestrained political power and pressure exerted on a so-called universal church. When Christianity is assumed to be monolithic, or what we have seen as universal, it allows itself to be watered down with the world, nominal in its confession, and able to be used as a political pawn. What may have been a noble attempt by Constantine to uphold the deity of Christ actually gave a denial of His deity inroads into the universal church by means of her relationship to the emperor/empire of Rome. It is towards these disastrous consequences of an unholy matrimony of church and state that we will look at next time in the historical era from Constans to Constantinople.
- Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church: Vol. 3 (5th ed). Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, 2006 (1867), p.632. ↩︎
- Kousoulas, D.G. The Life and Times of Constantine. D.G. Kousoulas 2007, p.436. ↩︎
- Needham, N.R. 2000 Years of Christ’s Power (3rd ed). London, Grace Publications Trust, 2011, p.211. ↩︎
- Needham, N.R. 2000 Years of Christ’s Power (3rd ed). London, Grace Publications Trust, 2011, p.211. ↩︎
- Kousoulas, D.G. The Life and Times of Constantine. D.G. Kousoulas 2007, p.437. ↩︎
- Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church: Vol. 3 (5th ed). Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, 2006 (1867), p.633. ↩︎
- Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church: Vol. 3 (5th ed). Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, 2006 (1867), p.621. ↩︎
- Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church: Vol. 3 (5th ed). Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, 2006 (1867), p.634. ↩︎
