But the Council of Nicaea barely slowed down the theological dispute. Many bishops had their doubts about the word homoousious, since it was found nowhere in the Bible, and felt they had been pressured by the emperor into signing a flawed document. A party determined to revise the Nicene Creed sprang up, and ran a vigourous campaign to gain the emperor's ear. Constantine listened, and had recalled Arius from exile at the time of his own death in 337. A pro-Nicene party led by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria was equally determined to allow no changes in the Creed. Despite the best efforts of emperors to impose unity, the dispute continued for over fifty years.
What is most important about the Arian controversy is that it was the first of many theological disputes that split the imperially-sponsored churches over the next 400 years. Some features of these disputes should be pointed out here. All of them originated in the Greek-speaking centers. Greek bishops were influenced by the sophisticated philosophy of Plato, which made possible many subtle distinctions in theology. Different opinions about the nature of God, especially about Jesus's relationship to the Father and the humanity he had come to save, had grown up in different centers (especially Antioch and Alexandria, both apostolically-founded churches). Disagreements about such matters involved people's deepest religious feelings, not just words. The belief that unity of belief was vital made it impossible to paper over the differences.
More mundane considerations complicated matters. Victory or defeat reflected on a bishop's personal legitimacy, the dignity of his city and its traditions, and his relationship to the vastly powerful emperor. Dirty politics was the natural result, as bishops used any tactic to discredit opponents and convince the emperor to depose and exile them. Athanasius, for instance, was accused of murdering a bishop named Arsenius and keeping his hand to use for sorcerous purpoese. Athanasius foiled this attack by producing Arsenius alive; other accusations against him may have had a basis in fact.
Divisions in the east continued as long as the three major bishoprics of Alexandria, Antioch and the emperor's special church at Constantinople were all under imperial rule, and somewhat beyond that time. The same divisions aggravated relations between the western churches and those of the east. At the simplest level, the two groups spoke different languages. Few westerners knew Greek well; most Greeks scorned Latin unless they wanted a career in the army or in law. Western bishops did not understand the philosophical debates, and thought that they were hardly worth understanding. The simple Nicene Creed, which was congenial to the western tradition, should suffice for any reasonable man. Easterners found it impossible to take this country-bumpkin attitude seriously. Yet these two solitudes were constantly embroiled. Not only was unity at stake: there was also the unique position of Rome to consider. The bishop of Rome was seen, as the apostle Peter's direct successor, as a theological authority - not only by his fellow Latins, but also by any group in the east that seemed to be losing and might find a sympathetic ear in the west. The resulting intrigues tended to drive two quite different religious cultures further apart.
The heritage of Constantine is a complicated one. His patronage and that of his sons advanced the position of the churches in the empire, and created a special relationship between the emperor and the faith. Yet the very victory of the church set it against itself, as variant traditions based in different regional centers tried to establish themselves as the one true faith that everyone knew existed.
By the year 300, Diocletian and the other Tetrarchs had succeeded, through extraordinary measures, in restoring the Roman empire to approximately the same boundaries it had possessed in A.D. 100. Yet, as we have seen, it was not the same empire. The Roman identity was now diffuse, and not a firm basis for imperial dominion. During the fourth century unity constantly had to be renewed by force. Even so, there neither was nor could be a single imperial court or capital. The empire had become an alliance of emperors, usually related by descent or marriage, who held essentially independent power. "Imperial unity" was their recognition of each others' legitimacy.
In 395 AD, the former Roman world was divided into an Empire of the East (Byzantine) and an Empire of the West. The eastern empire survived until the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 AD. In the west, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, and Huns burst over the frontiers and the Jutes, Angols, and Saxons planted themselves in Britain. In 410 AD Alaric and his Goths sacked Rome. Then, in 476 AD, the last of the Caesars, Romulus Augustulus, was dethroned. The Germanic kingdoms took the place of the Imperium Romanum.
Copyright (C) 1996, Steven Muhlberger. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including this copyright notice, remain intact.
