Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T19:12:59.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imperial Law or Councils of the Church? Theodosius I and the Imposition of Doctrinal Uniformity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

E. D. Hunt
E. D. Hunt*
Affiliation:
Department of Classics and Ancient History, Durham University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 27 February 380, the emperor Theodosius – newly elevated the previous year to take control of the East amid the political and military turmoil unleashed by the debacle at Adrianople -addressed an edict from his current headquarters at Thessalonica to the people of Constantinople. The text famously proclaimed the religion to be followed by ‘all the peoples’ who fell under his rule as that handed down at Rome from the apostle Peter, now maintained by the pontifex Damasus and bishop Peter of Alexandria, ‘that is,… we should believe in the single godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and holy trinity’. Those who subscribed to this doctrine, Theodosius ordered, were to ‘embrace the name of Catholic Christians’, while all the rest were branded heretics, whose places of assembly were denied the name of churches, and who would be smitten ‘first by divine vengeance, and afterwards by the retribution of our own punishment, which we shall enact in accordance with the judgement of Heaven’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 43: Discipline and Diversity , 2007 , pp. 57 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Theodosian Code, 16.1.2 (ed. Mommsen, T., Theodosiani libri XVI [Berlin, 1905], 833 Google Scholar); cf.Sozomen, , Historia ecclesiastica, 7.4.5-6 (ed. Bidez, J. and Hansen, G. C. Google Scholar, Die grieschischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte NF 4 [Berlin 1995], 305) [hereafter: Sozomen, HE and GCS].

2 Williams, S. and Friell, G., Theodosius: the Empire at Bay (London, 1994), 53.Google Scholar

3 The view of Ensslin, W., Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Theodosius des Groβen (Munich, 1953), 23–8 Google Scholar, somewhat modified by Ritter, A. M., Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol (Göttingen, 1965), 221–8 Google Scholar; cf. also King, N. Q., The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity (London, 1961), 28–31 Google Scholar. For other discussions, e.g. Barceló, P. and Gottlieb, G., ‘Das Glaubensedikt des Kaisers Theodosius vom 27 Februar 380’, in Dietz, K., Hennig, D., and Kaletsch, H., eds, Klassisches Altertum, Spätantike una frühes Christentum (Würzburg, 1993), 409–23 Google Scholar; Gaudemet, J., ‘L’édit de Thessalonique: police locale ou déclaration de principe?’, in Pleket, H. W. and Verhoogt, A., eds, Aspects of the Fourth Century AD (Leiden, 1997), 43–51 Google Scholar; Errington, R. M., ‘Christian Accounts of the Religious Legislation of Theodosius I’, Klio 79 (1997), 398–443, at 411–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (offering a more restricted interpretation aimed specifically at Constantinople), with idem ‘Church and State in the First Years of Theodosius I’, Chiron 27 (1997), 21–72, at 36–7; H. Leppin, Theodosius der Groβe (Darmstadt, 2003), 71–3.

4 Harries, J., Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1999), 36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For procedures, see Matthews, J., Laying Down the Law (New Haven, CT, and London, 2000), 171–80 Google Scholar. Petitioners flocking to Theodosius at Thessalonica: Zosimus, New History, 4.25.1.

5 Principally Acholius of Thessalonica, whose influence (denied by Ensslin) has been reasserted by more recent studies, e.g. McLynn, N., Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital (Berkeley, CA, 1994), 107–8 Google Scholar; Errington, ‘Church and State’, 37. For the nature of the court, see the classic account of Matthews, J., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A.D. 364–425 (Oxford, 1975), 128–45 Google Scholar, and further Testa, R Lizzi, ‘La politica religiosa di Teodosio I’, Rendiconti dell’accademia nazionale dei Lincei (classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche), ser. 9, vol. 7 (1996), 323–61.Google Scholar

6 Greg. Naz. Poems 2.1.11 (Autobiography), 1293–4 (ed. André Tuilier, Guillaume Bady, and Jean Bernardi, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze: Oeuvres Poétiques, vol. 1.1 [Paris, 2004], 110); cf. 1304 ‘unwritten law of persuasion’. Gregory had been called to lead the Nicene community in Constantinople.

7 Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.7.3-11 [hereafter: Socrates, HE] (ed. G. C. Hansen, GCS NF 1 [Berlin, 1995], 278–9); cf. Sozomen, HE, 7.5.5-7 (GCS NF 4, 306–7).

8 Autobiography, 1325–41.

9 Theodosian Code, 16.5.6, with Errington, ‘Church and State’, 48–51 (who is concerned to limit the scope of the law to Illyricum).

10 As summarized by Barnes, T. D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, MA and London, 1993), 144–9.Google Scholar

11 With the possible exception of Valens’s summons of bishops to Nicomedia in 366 to force the deposition of Eleusius of Cyzicus: Socrates, HE, 4.6.4-5.

12 Greg. Naz. Autobiography, 1525–45, with Socrates, HE, 5.8.1, Sozomen, HE, 7.7.1 ‘to elect a bishop for Constantinople’; cf. Damasus, Letter 5 (to Acholius and other bishops in Macedonia), PL 13, 365–9. On the council of Constantinople Ritter, Konzil, remains standard, along with Theologische Realenzyclopädie 19(1990), 518–24; cf. also Errington, ‘Church and State’, 41–66, Leppin, Theodosius, 76–80.

13 Socrates, HE, 5.8.1 (GCS NF 1, 279).

14 ‘homonoia’: on this document, see below, 63–4.

15 On hints of conciliation in dealings with the Goths at the time of Athanaric’s reception in Constantinople, i.e. January 381, see R. M. Errington, ‘Theodosius and the Goths’, Chiron 26 (1996), 1–27, at 9–13 (on the basis of Themistius, Oration 15, 190c-191a); by then plans for the council were under way, idem ‘Church and State’, 42–4.

16 Socrates, HE, 5.8.5-10, Sozomen, HE, 7.7.2-5, identifying them now as ‘Macedonianists’, followers of a previous bishop of Constantinople. The sticking-point was their objection to the full inclusion of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, hence also ‘Pneumatomachians’: see further Ritter, Konzil, 68–85 (who links the episode with Greg. Naz.’s complaints about theological divisions among the bishops, Autobiography, 1703–44).

17 Socrates, HE, 5.8.1 ‘bishops of his own faith’; cf. Errington, ‘Church and State’, 54 (‘select group of guaranteed orthodox bishops’).

18 For the palace reception, see Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.7.3 (ed. L. Parmentier and G. C. Hansen, GCS NF 5 [Berlin, 1998], 286–7) [hereafter: Theodoret, HE] (for later divergent traditions on the location of the council’s sessions: R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, t.3: Les églises et les monastères [Paris, 1953], 108–9, 396). On Theodosius’s (non-) involvement, see Ritter, Konzil, 42–3, 230–5.

19 The council ended, according to tradition, on 9 July: J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova etamplissima collectio, 55 vols (Florence, 1728–33) [hereafter: Mansi, Concilia], 3: 557.

20 Constantinople Canon 1, cf. logos prosphōnēetikos (below, n. 22) and Theodoret, HE, 5.9.10-12 (GCS NF 5, 292–3).

21 Canons 2 and 3, cf. my discussion in Cameron, A. and Garnsey, P., eds, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425 (Cambridge, 1998), 246–8.Google Scholar

22 For the bishops’ logos prosphōnētikos (preserved with the canons), see Mansi, Concilia, 3: 557, and Ritter, Konzil, 124–5.

23 So Errington, ‘Church and State’, 62–4 (contra Ritter, who argued that canons and signatures were published directly by the emperor).

24 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4.27.2 (ed. F. Winkelmann, GCS Eusebius Werke 1.1 [Berlin, 1975], 130). T. D. Barnes (e.g. Athanasius and Constantius, 172) argues on the basis of this that Constantine gave conciliar decisions the force of law, but this may read too much into Eusebius. For Constantine’s letters after Nicaea, see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA and London, 1981), 219.

25 Theodosian Code, 16.1.3 (30 July 381, addressed to proconsul of Asia), cf. Sozomen, HE, 7.9.5-7.

26 For example Ensslin, Religionspolitik, 36–7; King, Emperor Theodosius, 44–6; Ritter, Ronzii, 127–30. Errington, ‘Church and State’, 64–6, while not denying direct connection with the council, sees the law as specifically addressing the circumstances of Asia. Sozomen, HE, 7.9.5 juxtaposes his report of the law with Theodosius’ endorsement (epepsēphisato) of the council’s decisions (cf. Socrates, HE, 5.8.20, Theodosius ‘sumpsēphos’ with the bishops).

27 The fact that no bishop of Antioch is named reflects the continuing division of the Nicene congregation in the city after the death of Meletius.

28 Theodosian Code, 16.5.11 (25 July 383), 12 (3 Dec. 383).

29 Theodoret, HE 5.8.10-9.18. On the circumstances surrounding the invitation to Rome in 382, see e.g. McLynn, Ambrose, 141–5.

30 Socrates, HE, 5.10, largely followed by Sozomen, HE, 7.12.

31 Wallraff, M., Der kirchenhistoriker Sokrates (Göttingen, 1997), 78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. idem, ‘Il “sinodo di tutti le eresie” a Costantinopoli (383)’, in Vescovi e pastori in epoca teodosiana (Atti del XXV Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma 8–11 maggio 1996), Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 58, 2 vols (Rome, 1997), 2: 271–9.

32 Greg. Naz. Letters, 173.6 (ed. P. Gallay, vol. 2 [Paris, 1967], 62–3).

33 See Vaggione, R. P., Eunomius: Extant Works (Oxford, 1987), 150–1 Google Scholar, and for full discussion of Theodosian context, idem, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford, 2000), 312–29.

34 Sozomen, HE, 7.6.2, cf. Socrates, HE, 5.20.4 (with Sozomen, HE, 7.17.1).

35 As in Themistius’s sixteenth oration (January 383): Heather, P. and Moncur, D., Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century: Select Orations of Themistius (Liverpool, 2001), 259–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Potter, David S., The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180–395 (London, 2004), 556, 560.Google Scholar