A.D. 381 heretics, pagans, and the dawn of the monotheistic state ( PDFDrive )

of the imposed theological formula.
But there remained the problem of how a law such as this was to be
administered. Theodosius must have been aware that the imposition of a specific
text would arouse dissension from one faction or another and so lead to further
theological wrangling that would upset his whole settlement. He thus hit on a
different strategy, which was a good indication of his developing political skills.
Instead of having to adhere to a creed, applicants for bishoprics simply had to be
acceptable to a bishop named for the purpose by the emperor. The historian
Sozomen says that the emperor had become personally acquainted with all his
nominees before they left Constantinople. Nectarius was listed first, as befitted
the new status of Constantinople, followed by Timothy as the arbiter of
orthodoxy in Egypt. No name was given for Antioch as the dispute over Paulinus
rumbled on. 9 In general the listing of the accepted bishops must have made the
administration of the law much easier, in that any proconsul or prefect not sure
whether an appointment was theologically acceptable could have it confirmed by
the bishop named for that area and without further argument over the wording of
correct belief. It even appears that an ambitious cleric could obtain a certificate
of orthodoxy to show the secular officials. In the case of Ausonius’ provinces in
Asia, for example, there was no accredited Nicene bishop and he would have
had to appoint outsiders to replace those bishops who were now declared
heretical.
The imposition of such a wide-ranging and restrictive law was bound to be
unpopular. All the contemporary historians of the period, even those supportive
of Nicaea, speak of ‘great disturbances as the Arians were ejected from the
churches’. 10 Theodoret quotes a letter sent to Rome by the eastern bishops in
which the Arians are described as ‘wolves harrying the flocks up and down the
glades, daring to hold rival assemblies, stirring sedition among the people and
shrinking from nothing which can do damage to the churches’. 11 Things got so
bad that Theodosius was forced to backtrack. In 383 he called a further council
in Constantinople, and this time he invited the leaders of all the ‘heretical’ sects,
including Demophilus and Eunomius. His hope, says Sozomen, was that ‘they
might either bring others to their own state of conviction or be convinced
themselves; for he imagined that all would be brought to oneness of opinion if a
free discussion was entered into concerning ambiguous points of doctrine’. 12
This was a remarkable volte-face. It suggested that Theodosius now realised the
importance of getting a compromise even if this meant overthrowing the creed of