The Attitude of the Pro-Arian Bishops Towards the Emperor in the Period of Reception of the Nicene Christology (325-381)

У статті розглядається історико-богословський контекст формування відносин між державою і Церквою в Римській імперії IV століття.The Nicene Council did not put an end to the Arian polemic. After the Council there came a long period of the struggle for reception of the Nicene Christology. The controversy became a subject of an interest for the Emperor since it was perceived as a threat for the imperial unity. For this reason, the custom of the Emperor to intervene in the ecclesiastical affairs began to increase even in the field of doctrine. Such situation evoked a reaction of bishops and became an opportunity for defining the role of the Emperor in the Church. There are two main standpoints in this regard in the fourth century: one of the pro-Arian bishops and the other of the anti-Arian bishops. The chief purpose of this paper was to illustrate the pro-Arian bishops’ standpoint concerning the Emperor in the Church. The analysis of historical sources and literature proved that the attitude of the pro-Arian bishops towards the Emperor was the position neither of an absolute submission nor the whole independence. Their model of relations between the Church and state was influenced primarily by Eusebius of Caesarea, who transformed to the Christianity the ancient Hellenistic political theory and Hebrew view of authority. In the context of these ideas the Emperor as the alive law had a special role in the Church. It was manifested especially on the synods. The pro-Arians allowed the Emperor to intervene even in the sphere of Church doctrine. Their attitude towards the Emperor differed greatly from the model elaborated during the ante-Nicene period. On the other hand, the pro-Arians tried to remain faithful to the teaching of Church Tradition. In this perspective they could not consider the Emperor as the head of the Church. The end of the Arian controversy did not discharge the Church of intervention of the Emperor, but underscored the role of the Emperor in the Church. The Eastern Church in the period of reception of the Nicene Christology was programmed to be dependent on the Emperor. Thus, the pro-Arian attitude towards the Emperor sowed the seeds of future Byzantine Caesaropapism