CHAPTER IV - THE THEOLOGICAL FAITH OF THE FOURTH CENTURY

I. of theological creeds

A THEOLOGICAL creed is the strong meat of Christian teaching, not the milk of the word. This is its primary use, and it is easy to see how the need for such instruction would arise in the ordinary course of catechising, particularly when the candidates for baptism were men of culture and ability. The Creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus (Hahn,³ iii. p. 253. Since Caspari has investigated the question, the authenticity of this creed has been generally accepted.) may be cited as showing a type that does not merely state the facts of Christian experience, but also attempts to supply the interpretation. Thus Gregory uses the word "Trinity," which is not found in Scripture. And some Churches had by this time introduced into their creeds the word "catholic." The explanations given of such terms were hardly as yet scientific. Theological science, like any other, has to make its way slowly and forge its definitions as best it can, hindered by the limited resources of human language. We can trace development in the dogmatic standards taught by individual teachers in their rules of faith from Ignatius to Irenaeus, and from Irenaeus to Origen. All subsequent Latin writers owe a debt to Tertullian, who gave a great impetus to the moulding of theological terms in a language far less delicate than Greek as an instrument of human thought. We must therefore remember that theological debates did not begin with the fourth century, and that the Creed of the Council of Nicaea was not the first theological creed used as the watchword of a Church militant against error. In Christ a new type of character had appeared in the world, and must be explained in relation to God and men. The very failures of speculation in regard to the Divine nature in Christ prepared men's minds to appreciate more fully the mystery of human nature in themselves, the mystery of personality, which is the gateway of all knowledge. (Illingworth, Personality, p.13.) 

The Council of Nicaea, indeed, marks the beginning of a new era. Christianity had become a permitted religion. 
So far the Church had triumphed over the world, only to find that in success temptations must be faced, more subtle than those which she had encountered in her recent humble and despised station. It was not heresy alone, but heresy arrayed in all the pomp of place and power, which she had now to combat. Foes in her own household tried to introduce heathen speculations under the cloak of Christian philosophy, or by a vehement reaction to stiffen distinctive Christian teaching into a series of barren dogmas, properly so called, rigid formularies, which would cramp the mind and leave no room for the exercise of loving faith. 
It is true to say that many formularies of this creed-making epoch added to the contents of the historic faith mere negations, closing misleading avenues of thought without aiding faith's advance. The first Nicene Creed, with its anathemas, is a typical instance. But this is not the form that has been finally adopted for liturgical use. 
There was a silver lining to the cloud of controversy that loomed so darkly over the horizon of Church life. 
In our Nicene Creed is set forth the positive result reached; we are shown how dogmatic definition was made subordinate to worship of Christ as the "Light of Light."

II. Arius and Arianism

Arius was a clever and influential priest in a district of Alexandria called Baucalis. He was also a teacher of exegesis, and sure enough of his opinions to criticise loudly a sermon preached by his bishop as favouring the Sabellian heresy. 
He had studied at Antioch in the school of Lucian the Martyr, and had brought away a theological method which, to say the least, minimised the Divine glory of Christ. He found in Alexandria a circle of admirers who dreaded Sabellianism, and were easily persuaded by a parade of argument that the idea of an eternal Sonship is unthinkable.

"Arius started from the idea of God and the predicate 'Son.'
God is above all things uncreated, or unoriginate, ἀ γέν[ν]ητος. ... Everything else is created, γενητόν. The name 'Son' implies an act of procreation. Therefore before such act there was no Son, nor was God, properly speaking, a Father. The Son is not co-eternal with Him. 
He was originated by the Father's will, as indeed were all things. 
He is, then, τῶν γενητῶν, He came into being from non-existence (ἐξ οὐκ ὄ ντων), and before that did not exist (οὐκ ἦν πτὶν γένηται). But His relation to God differs from that of the universe generally. 
Created nature cannot bear the awful touch of bare Deity. 
God therefore created the Son that He in turn might be the agent in the creation of the universe - 'created Him as the beginning of His ways'(Prov.viii.22, LXX.). This being so, the nature of the Son was in the essential point of ἀ γεννησια unlike that of the Father; (ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ' οὐσίαν ὁ Πατὴρ ὅ τι ἄ ναρχος): their substances (ὑ ποστάσεις) are ἀνεπίμικτοι - have nothing in common. The Son therefore does not possess the fundamental property of Sonship, identity of nature with the Father. 
He is a Son by adoption, not by nature; He has advanced by moral probation to be Son, even to be μονογενὴς Θεός (John i.14). He is not the eternal Λόγος, reason, of God, but a Word (and God has spoken many): but yet He is the Word by grace; is no longer what He is by nature, subject to change. He cannot know the Father; much less make Him known to others. Lastly, He dwells in flesh, not in full human nature. The doctrine of Arius as to the Holy Spirit is not recorded; but probably He was placed between the Son and the other κτίσματα." 
(Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxviii.)

The worst of it was, that in his shortsightedness he insisted on translating his theories into verses, which were sung to the tunes of licentious and comic songs, "jesting on such matters as on a stage." (Athanasius, c. Ar. i. 2.) A tree is known by its fruits. It was this want of humility and reverence in dealing with sacred things, which throughout the subsequent controversy betrayed the defect of Arian theology. Gregory of Nyssa thus describes the pass to which idle gossip on deep subjects had brought men in his time:

"Men of yesterday and the day before, mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists in theology, servants, too, and slaves that have been flogged, runaways from servile work, are solemn with us, and philosophise about things incomprehensible. Ask about pence, and the tradesman will discuss the generate and the ingenerate; inquire the price of bread, and he will say, 'Greater is the Father, and the Son is subject'; say that a bath would suit you, and he defines that 'the Son is out of nothing.'" 

Synod was held of the bishops of Egypt and Libya. Arius and his allies were deposed. But he entered into correspondence with bishops abroad, Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. 
The latter, a fellow-Lucianist, consulted other bishops on his behalf. In Egypt the new movement spread rapidly, and news of the disturbance of religious peace reached the emperor's ears. He sent Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, with a letter to Alexandria, and, after receiving his report, determined to summon a Council of Bishops from the whole world to settle the doctrinal questions raised.

III. The council or Nicaea in 325

The place that Constantine selected for the Council was admirably adapted for such a gathering. It could be easily approached by sea or land. The posting arrangements of the empire were excellent, and the emperor ordered that the bishops and their attendants should travel at public expense. The magnificent gathering of some three hundred bishops, which met thus at the invitation of the first Christian emperor, has been often described. The imagination of their contemporaries was chiefly stirred by the marks of suffering which so many bore on their faces and limbs, endured during the time of persecution recently ended. It was this, which gave their decision so much weight. As a matter of fact, they were almost unanimous in condemning the new heresy, but wide divergences of opinion prevailed as to the reasons for their judgment. 

It seems to have been understood from the first that some formula should be drawn up to express the teaching of the Church. But the Arians, who suggested to each other methods of evasion, received all the scriptural arguments, which were brought up in the preliminary discussions, with suspicious readiness. Athanasius describes the scene vividly (de Decretis, 20);

"They were caught whispering to each other, and winking with their eyes, that 'like' and 'always' and 'power' and 'in Him' were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these. As to 'like,' they said, it is written of us, Man is the image and glory of God'; 'always,' that it was written, 'For we which live are alway'; 'in Him,'
'In Him we live and move and have our being'; ... as to 'power,' that the caterpillar and the locust are called 'power' and 'great power.'" The bishops were therefore "compelled, on their part, to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is 'one in essence' with the Father."

The term ὁ μοούσιος, "one in essence," had probably been suggested by Hosius on his visit to Alexandria, for it was a word which had been used by teachers of repute, especially in the West. 
But Arius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia had both disclaimed it. S. Ambrose (de Fid. iii. n. 125) quotes a letter in which Eusebius wrote:

"If we call Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting that He is 'one in essence.'" 

Thus it was a phrase, so to speak, held in reserve. 

The Arian party boldly presented a creed that stated their theories concisely. 
It was received with indignation and torn to pieces. 

Then Eusebius of Caesarea, venerable for age and learning, came forward with a creed as follows:-

"As we have received from the bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have learned from the Divine Scriptures, and as we have believed and taught in the presbytery and in the episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:-
'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, firstborn of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in one Holy Ghost: believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, 'Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematising every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and our preaching."

 Opinions are divided on the question whether Eusebius composed this document for the occasion,
(Harnack, art. "Apostolisches Symbolum," RE.³ ) or whether his second paragraph was a verbatim quotation of the creed of his native Church. (Robertson, Athanasius, p. xix., following Hort.) His words imply that it was a summary of teaching, of the kind usually given to catechumens, constructed on the lines of the creed, and explaining it. It is not likely that a baptismal creed of this date would have ended with mere mention of the Holy Spirit, and no reference to His work. The Creeds of Jerusalem and Antioch alone prove this. Nor is it likely that Eusebius, if he intended to quote the creed exactly, would stop short in it. We must conclude that he added to a free quotation of suitable phrases the warning against Sabellianism with which he leads up to the Baptismal Formula, thus ending the document that he wished the council to accept and endorse. 

The Creed of Eusebius was read. So far as it went it was above criticism. But it did not contain the term ὁ μοούσιος, which was felt to guard against all evasions of scriptural words. The emperor himself, prompted by Hosius, proposed its insertion. 
Finally, this was agreed on, and the creed was thoroughly revised under the direction of Hosius, Marcellus, Eustathius of Antioch, and perhaps Macarius of Jerusalem, for in its final shape it contains phrases that remind us of the Creed of Jerusalem as well as that of Antioch. (Hort.) For the anti-Sabellian phrases of Eusebius were substituted anti-Arian anathemas. 

The principal changes were as follows:-

1. The term "Word" (λόγος) was cut out, and "Son" (υἱος) was moved up into its place. This was an improvement on the vague Christology of the Creed of Eusebius. The central problem of Divine Sonship was set before the consideration of the Son's work in our creation and redemption,
2. "Only-begotten" (μονογενής) was explained by the words "of the essence of the Father" (ἐ κ τῆς οὀσίας τοῦ πατρός). Thus the argument used by Eusebius of Nicomedia in his letter to Paulinus of Tyre was contradicted. (Theodoret, i.5.)
3. Further, it was guarded by the emphatic assertion begotten, not made (γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα). In reply to Arius and Asterius, leading up to "of one essence with the Father" (ὁ μοούσιος τῷ πατρί).
4. The word "incarnate" (σαρκωθέντα) was explained by the addition "was made man" (ἐ νανθρωπήσαντα), in place of the less definite "lived as a citizen amongst men." That beautiful phrase was found in the Creed of Eusebius (Cf. the fourth Creed of Antioch.) and it is to be regretted that it was dropped. But it did not answer the fundamental question, "How is Christ the ideal citizen?" The fate of all Christian socialism depends on the answer.

We do not know how long the debates lasted, but when the final moment came for decision the defeat of the Arian party was crushing.
All signed except two, Eusebius of Nicomedia with a reservation exposing himself to the scorn of the stalwart Secundus and Theonas.

The explanation of his action which Eusebius of Caesarea thought fit to send to his flock, laid stress on the emperor's influence and denial of false ways in which the term "of one essence" could be interpreted. 
In the same strain he interpreted "of the essence" negatively, "of the Father, but not as a part," without attempting to say what it does mean. 

Thus the original Nicene Creed was the work of a minority, a form proposed and carried through by the sheer force of clearer conviction and foresight. Those who best understood Arianism were most active in opposing it. We do not know what influence Athanasius the deacon actually obtained at the Council. He is said to have spoken, (Apol, c. Ar. 6.) and was already Alexander's trusted adviser. But the identification of ὑ πόστασις and οὐσία in the fourth anathema was foreign to the prevailing tone of thought at Alexandria, where men spoke of τρεῖς ὑ ποστάσεις. Loofs says truly of Athanasius,

"He was moulded by the Nicene Creed; did not mould it himself."
(DG.² p.151.) 

The creed thus proposed to the whole Church by the Council, with the emperor's approval, was intended as a standard of doctrine, an authoritative exposition of the "one faith" contained in the varying baptismal creeds and the rules of faith held in reverence by the different Churches, which no one wished to disturb.
Page ^

IV. "The fight in the dark"

Truth conquers only when it stimulates conviction. Men constrained to believe or to act would fain rebel against the logic of their position or the commands laid upon them. Most of the bishops, when they returned from Nicaea to their homes, were agreed that Arius should be condemned, but were doubtful whether the new watchword of orthodoxy was a true interpretation of their faith in Christ. "A reaction was inevitable." Feelings were embittered by the harsh punishment dealt to the Arians by the will of the emperor, with the consent of the Nicene leaders. In this respect time brought revenge. 
During his exile in Illyria, Arius made good use of his opportunities to spread his opinions. 
Two of the ablest of the next generation of Arian leaders - Ursacius, Bishop of Singidunum (Belgrade), and Valens, Bishop of Mursa (Mitrowitz) - came under his personal influence. 

Within five years, Eusebius of Nicomedia, who soon followed into exile, was recalled. 
Constantine was loyal to the Council, but had missed his ready adviser, and was easily persuaded to pardon Arius also when assured that they accepted the Council's Creed. Thenceforward the Imperial Court became the headquarters from which a series of intrigues were planned against all orthodox bishops, especially Athanasius. The original strength of the Arian party consisted in the fact that they had a definite plan of dogmatic teaching as fellow-Lucianists. 
They were now reinforced by politicians, place-hunters, and found it easy to make an alliance with the schismatic Meletians in Egypt. 
Society also was on their side among the heathen, and the clever sophist Asterius roused much interest on their behalf by his lectures. 

In Asia Minor the Nicene party were outnumbered from the first. The traditional theology there was realistic, out of sympathy with Origen. Their hatred of the speculations of Paul of Samosata led them by a true instinct to condemn Arianism, but it was soon balanced by an equal hatred of the teaching of Marcellus. They were jealous of the triumph of Western theologians, and their discontent was kept alive by the intriguers at court, where the political importance of those provinces was highly esteemed. 

In Syria, Eusebius of Caesarea had a large following. He was "neither a great man nor a clear thinker," (Gwatkin.)
but signed the creed honestly, putting his own interpretation on it, and sympathising with Arius rather than with Arianism. His age and learning made him the leader of the conservatives, whose chief dread was Sabellianism. 

In 329 he joined with Arian and reactionary bishops in a Synod at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius on the double charge of Sabellianism and immorality. Other bishops were then attacked, and trouble was fomented in Egypt with the aim of deposing Athanasius and restoring Arius to communion in Alexandria. At Tyre in 335 the Arians met in force, and Athanasius had to escape to Constantinople. The emperor was annoyed by the continuance of strife, and when an entirely new charge of treason was fabricated, banished him to Treves. 

In 336 the storm broke which had been gathering over the head of Marcellus. His treatise against Asterius had laid him open to the charge of Sabellianism, and he was attacked by Eusebius of Caesarea. He taught that the Divine Unity, for the work of creation and redemption, extended itself into a Trinity (πλατυνομένη εἰς τριάδα). 
The incarnation was therefore the manifestation of supreme Divine energy (ἐ νεργεία δραστική) under conditions of time and space that would come to an end. 
Then the Divine Word, proceeding from the eternal silence, having delivered up the Kingdom to the Father "that God may be all in all" (1 Cor.xv.28), would relapse into repose. Thus he ascribed to the Divine Word only a potential personal existence. 

The Nicene party defended him. Athanasius, who met him again at Rome after the death of Constantine, to the end of his life refused to condemn him, though compelled to reject some of his speculations.

V. The council of the dedication (second & fourth creeds of Antioch)

When the Council of the Dedication of Constantine's golden church at Antioch met in 341, the controversy passed into a new phase. Its members were mostly conservatives who were prepared to go some way in the direction of reconciliation with the Nicene leaders. Hilary calls it a "Synod of Saints," and its canons have passed into the general body of Church law. 
But the Arians present formed a compact party under the leadership of the veteran Eusebius, who had been translated from Nicomedia to Constantinople, and the unprincipled Acacius now held the See of Caesarea.

 The first business was to frame a reply to a letter received from Julius, Bishop of Rome - a masterly summary of matters in dispute, which rather irritated them. Then the Arians began the work of creed making. 
While professing to accept the Nicene Creed, they brought forward a formulary suspiciously like the deceptive profession of Arius, though it began with an absurd protest that they should not be considered his followers, because bishops would not follow a priest. This was rejected, and the second Creed of Antioch, often called the Lucianic Creed, was proposed and passed. 

SECOND CREED OF ANTIOCH

 Athanasius (De Synod. 23.) says sarcastically that they wanted something newer and fuller, but, after all, it represents some extent of concession on the Arian side.  In it are heaped up all the scriptural phrases by which disciples of Origen thought to defend the Lord's divinity. 
It is catholic in the assertion of "the exact likeness of the Son to the "Father's essence." The word "essence" honestly accepted would confute any attempt to explain it away by the mental reservation that this had not always been true. Catholic also is the phrase "mediator between God and men." But it marks the beginning of a doctrinal reaction. The term ὁ μοούσιος is omitted. The phrases that Eusebius of Caesarea had proposed against Sabellianism reappear. A further declaration follows against Marcellus, ending with the phrase, τῇ μὲν ὑ ποστάσει τρία δὲ συμφωνίᾳ ἕ ν, which is "an artfully chosen point of contact between Origen on the one hand, and Asterius, Lucian, and Paul of Samosata on the other." (Robertson, Athanasius, p. xliv.) In the anathemas the phrases condemned at Nicaea are proscribed, but in a way which might admit of an Arian interpretation. Athanasius points out that they condemn every heretical heterodoxy, not naming the Arian. The mention of Scripture is dubious, because each party fancied themselves the best interpreters.

Thus completed, the creed was not much use against Marcellus, who admitted both the pretemporal generation and the true Sonship. But it was often quoted, and became at a later time a stepping-stone by which semi-Arians were able to climb to a more orthodox standpoint. According to Sozomen, (Hist. iii.5.)  the bishops declared that they had found the entire form in the writing of Lucian. But he adds that he cannot say whether they spoke truly or desired to obtain respect for their own writing. He also says that the Synod, which met in Caria in 367, acknowledged it as Lucianic, supposing that it had been so called at Seleucia in 357. Kattenbusch (i.p.257.) points out that Sozomen is here dependent on Socrates, (Hist. ii.39.) who says nothing about any such declaration of semi-Arians or Homoeans at Seleucia. If anything of the kind was said in 357, we must remember that eighteen years had passed, giving time for such a fable to grow up. Possibly Sozomen confused the second with the fourth Creed of Antioch, which is more probably Lucianic. (Kattenbusch, i.pp.261ff.)

There may be in the second a kernel of Lucianic teaching, but if so it is strange that Athanasius and Hilary are silent about it. Athanasius remarks that the Nicene party have no monopoly of unbiblical phrases:

"In the so-called Dedication, Acacius and Eusebius and their fellows used expressions not in Scripture, and said that 'the first-born of the creation' was the exact image of the essence and power and will and glory." (De Synod. 36.) 

From Epiphanius we learn that Acacius, in his book against Marcellus, quoted the sophist Asterius as the author of the whole of this set of phrases in the creed, from ἄ λλος μεν ... εἰκόνα. (Haer. 72.6.) Now, Asterius, who had died some ten years before, was a pupil of Lucian, and might of course have simply quoted his master. 
On the other hand, Philostorgius (ii.14, 15, quoted by Photius.) says that Asterius had changed Lucian's teaching, implying that he had come nearer to the Nicene position. 
Since this was the attitude of the majority at this Council, it seems reasonable to accept Kattenbusch's argument, and assume that they quoted Asterius rather than Lucian.

The third Creed of Antioch was a personal profession of faith presented by Theophronius, Bishop of Tyana. 
It was rabidly anti-Marcellian.

The fourth Creed was the work of a few bishops who reassembled in Antioch a few months later, Constans had requested Constantius to send him a deputation on the affairs of Athanasius, and this creed was constructed for the deputies to take. 
It is based on the creed found in the sixth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which is a revised form of the creed found in the Didascalia. (See Appendix F.)

FOURTH CREED OF ANTIOCH

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator and Maker of all things; from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named (Eph.iii.15).

And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, and True Light; who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin; who was crucified, and dead, and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father; and is coming at the consummation of the age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to everyone according to his works; whose kingdom endures indissolubly into the infinite ages; for He shall be seated on the right hand of the Father, not only in this age but in that which is to come.
And in the Holy Ghost; that is the Paraclete; which having promised to the apostles, He sent forth after His ascension into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things; through whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.
But those who say that the Son was from nothing, or from some other substance and not from God, and there was time when He was not, the Catholic Church regards as aliens.

FOURTH CREED OF ANTIOCH

Professor Kattenbusch (i.p.394) rounds off his theory that this was the true Lucianic Creed, which Sozomen confused with the second Creed, by suggesting that Lucian was possibly the compiler of the Didascalia. But he has not proved it, nor are the Lucianic characteristics which he finds in the Creed of the Apostolic Constitutions very definite. 
There is no reference to the Logos-teaching, which Lucian introduced in his Christology. The creed must therefore belong to the earlier period of his life. 
The simple biblical phrase "Father of Christ" comes naturally from the lips of an exegetist. The unique phrase "begotten by the goodwill of the Father" (Matt.iii.17, xvii.5; Eph.i.5), if Lucianic, shows that he approached Christology from the point of view of redemption. The phrase "took flesh" indeed fits in with the statement of Epiphanius, (Ancorat. 33.) that Lucian taught that the Son of God had flesh, not a soul. And the expression "lived as a citizen holily" might be taken to express Lucian's teaching of the patience of Christ and progress by moral effort. 
But all this reasoning is inconclusive.

It only remains to say that the assertion of the eternal kingdom, originally anti-Sabellian, is expanded in the fourth Creed against Marcellus, though he is not named. The Nicene anathemas are skilfully altered to discredit him, and in favour of Arian teaching. The creed thus substituted for the second Creed (the true creed of the Council) by the deputation which went to wait on Constans, became the pattern of later Arian confessions at Philippopolis in 343, at Antioch in 344 (the so-called Machrostich), and Sirmium in 351.

The deputation found that Constans had left Milan. They followed him to Treves, but he would not receive them. He admired the character of Athanasius, whom he had admitted to an audience, and was determined to call another General Council to end the strife. So a Council was called at Sardica (now Sophia, in Bulgaria) in the year 344. After some preliminaries had been discussed, the Eastern bishops, finding themselves in a minority, decamped by night. At Philippopolis they stopped to draw up a long angry statement. They proposed that all their opponents should be deposed, and professed the fourth Creed of Antioch, with a new anathema against Marcellus. All hope of a true peace was now lost, but the Western bishops considered at length all the charges brought against the exiled Nicene leaders and acquitted them. 
Athanasius returned in triumph to his diocese amid public rejoicings, and began what has been called in a picturesque phrase "the golden decade" of his episcopate, his longest period of uninterrupted ministry.

The armed truce preserved by the might of Constans came to an end at his death. 
When Constantius obtained sole power, he was false to his pledges, and ordered the arrest of Athanasius, who, however, escaped into the desert.
Page ^

VI. Arianism supreme

At court Arianism was supreme under the new leaders, Valens, a pupil of Arius, and an Arian by conviction, and Acacius, a politician without convictions. 
They were determined to substitute an Arian Creed for the Nicene, and the emperor was willing to impose it on all his subjects. But "the coalition fell to pieces the moment Arianism ventured to have a policy of its own." (Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p.158.) We must distinguish three groups, ultra-Arians, political Arians, and conservatives. The political Arians were willing to unite with the conservatives in confession of " the Essential Likeness" (ὁ μοιούσια) of the Son. This was a word with a good history, which had been freely used by Athanasius. 
But the ultra-Arians, arguing from the point of view that likeness is a relative term, and may imply some degree of unlikeness, were ready to twist it into conformity with their tenets, and by their cunning over-reached themselves. Valens, by astute diplomacy, united these Anomoeans (i.e. those confessing the Essential Unlikeness) with the political Arians. 
A small Synod met at Sirmium in 357, and drew up a Latin Creed which asserted the unique Godhead of the Father, the subjection of the Son, and proscribed the terms ὁμοούσιος and ὁμοιούσιος, with all discussion of the term "being," οὐσια, as applied to God.

This was a trumpet-blast of defiance, which defeated its own end. A new party was formed among the conservatives, who have received through Epiphanius the misleading nickname semi-Arians. They were men who held at heart the Nicene doctrine, though the scandal caused by the speculations of Marcellus and the defection of his pupil Photinus led them to look with suspicion at the term ὁ μοούσιος. Basil of Ancyra was their leader, and communications were opened with the orthodox bishops in Gaul through Hilary, who was in exile. The emperor had some regard for Basil, and was willing to listen to him till a deputation in favour of Anomoean tenets arrived from Syria. 
Valens seized the opportunity to suggest that a double Council should be held. He proposed to preside himself over a meeting of the Western leaders at Ariminum, while Acacius presided over the Eastern leaders at Seleucia. 
To secure agreement, he began to negotiate with Basil of Ancyra and others. On Whitsun Eve a creed was drawn up by Mark of Arethusa, which is known as the Dated Creed. 
We only know it in a Greek text and a late Latin translation, though originally written in Latin.

THE DATED CREED OF SIRMIUM 

 Basil must have felt that in signing this he was sacrificing principles, for he added a memorandum in which he defended the use of the term "essence," asserted the "Essential Likeness," and denied that "unoriginate" (ἀγεννησία) is the primary idea of God.

 At Ariminum it was rejected with scorn. The feeling of the Synod may be illustrated from a sentence in the treatise of Athanasius "On the Synods" (c.3) :

"After putting into writing what it pleased them to believe, they prefix to it the Consulate, and the month and the day of the current year; thereby to show all sensible men that their faith dates, not from of old, but now from the reign of Constantius."

 At Seleucia, Acacius proposed an altered form, but was defeated. Getting angry, his friends declared openly against the Nicene formula. It was, however, defended by a majority, though they complained (so Athanasius tells us) of the word "of one essence" as being obscure, and therefore open to suspicion. 
They then proceeded to confirm the second Creed of Antioch, and rejected a rival formulary drawn up by the Acacians. Having excommunicated the Arians, their delegates proceeded to Constantinople. Then they were persuaded to accept the Arian Creed of Nike, which was also thrust upon the Council at Ariminum. 
It is not to our purpose to pursue their history further.

VII. Victory in sight

In the year 359, Athanasius wrote his "noble work" de Synodis, with a double object - to expose all these pitiable intrigues, and to win the confidence of the semi-Arians. He wrote hopefully, and his hopeful tone was justified by the event. 
In fact, after the fiasco of "the Dated Creed," the victory was really won. The ill-treatment which the bishops received at Ariminum and Nike widened the breach between the Anomoeans and the semi-Arians, who in less than three years were reconciled to the Nicene party. 
The rise of the Anomaean leaders to supremacy at court, through the accession of another Arian Emperor Valens (AD 363), could not break this alliance. 
A new generation of young theologians was growing up, who were full of a genuine admiration for Athanasius, and responded readily to his appeal. The foremost among them - Basil of Caesarea, in Cappadocia - had accompanied his bishop, Basil of Ancyra, to Constantinople, and recoiled from the spirit of intrigue which was manifested there. A short time later he adopted the words of Athanasius (Ep. viii.9):

"One God we confess - one in nature, not in number, for number belongs to the category of quantity, ... neither like nor unlike, for these terms belong to the category of quality. ... He that is essentially God is co-essential with Him, that is, essentially God. ... If I am to state my own opinion, I accept "like in essence," with the addition of "exactly," as identical in sense with "co-essential," ... but "exactly like" [without "essence"] I suspect. ... Accordingly, since "co-essential" is the term less open to abuse on this ground, I too adopt it." 

"Basil the Great is not, indeed, the only, but the conspicuous and abundant justification of the insight of Athanasius in the de Synodis." (Robertson, Athanasius, p. 449.) 
This personal triumph of Athanasius was not valued by him as a triumph of policy so much as of principle. 
When Sulpicius Severus speaks of him as Episcopus iurisconsultus, we are not to think of a mere special pleader. 
He was a statesmen with large ideas, and he was persuaded that truth would prevail. 
Not dismayed, like lesser men, by frequent failures, he held that "we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better." Through the long turmoil he never lost heart, praying, as at the end of the de Synodis he begs others to do, that now at length

"all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned, and all logomachy; and the guilty and murderous heresy of the Arians may disappear, and the truth may shine again in the hearts of all."

VIII. conclusion

The Arian heresy represents a mode of thought which will always prove attractive to some minds. Its appeal is to the present, to pressing intellectual difficulties in justification of a compromise, an illogical compromise, between faith and reason. It permits a worship of Christ which on its own showing is little better than idolatry. 

Dr. Bright (Waymarks in Church History, p.70.) recalls an incident of its revival in the last century.

"An Arian teacher, Clarke, was maintaining his case in a royal drawing-room against an orthodox divine, who condensed the whole matter into one tremendous crucial question, 'Can the Father, on your hypothesis, annihilate the Son?' There was silence, and then Clarke helplessly muttered that it was a point which he had never considered. It was a point on which all might be said to turn."

The case breaks down. 
From the position, we will call Christ good though we cannot call him God, extremists are led on to deny that He is like the Father, to deny His goodness, to denounce worship of Him as hypocrisy. History repeats itself: the Arian becomes the Anomaean. And the warning which history gives is this - that to cut a knot, which he cannot untie, is for every man a confession of failure. Worshippers of Christ are not all hypocrites, and the main object of Nicene opposition to Arianism was religious rather than theological, to ensure that prayers might be offered to Christ not with hope only, but with certainty.

In the writings of Athanasius the primary interest is certainly religious. Even Gibbon lays aside, as someone has said, "his solemn sneer" to do honour to the memory of this champion of the faith, who never lost heart, but could make of failure "a triumph's evidence for the fulness of the days." It has been suggested that he left the people out of account, that his appeal is always to theologians and the professionally religious. (Harnack, D. G. ii.275.) But a very different impression may be derived from the references to the faith and hope of all Christian people in his Festal Letters. And in the famous letter to Dracontius, (Ep. 49.) on the duty of a bishop, he says plainly:

"The laity expect you to bring them food, namely, instruction from the Scriptures. When, then, they expect and suffer hunger, and you are feeding yourself only, (I.e. by shutting himself up in a monastery, and caring only for his own spiritual life.) and our Lord Jesus Christ comes, and we stand before Him, what defence will you offer when He sees His own sheep hungering?"

Such a passage - and many more might be quoted - proves also that theological learning and the demands of controversy did not make the idea of the historical Christ unintelligible to Athanasius. It rather grew clearer before his imagination. About AD 371 he wrote to the philosopher Maximus in the simplest scriptural words, teaching worship of the Crucified, and with this aim urges,

"Let what was confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea prevail." (Ep. 61.)

| << | >> | top |