THE DEFENCE OF THE NICENE SYMBOL § I. The Post-Nicene period, 325–381. Reaction after the Council. Different stages of the struggle. (1) Eusebian reaction, 325-344; the different parties in the Church Eusebians and Catholics. The Christology of the various Eusebian Creeds of The Council of Sardica, 343-344. (2) From the Council of Sardica to the death of Constantius (344-361). The Eusebians, semi-Arians, and Arians: different symbols employed. Victory of the Homoion at the Council of Ariminum and Seleucia, 359. (3) To the Council of Constantinople, 381. The Council of Alexandria, 362; questions of phraseology. The Council of 381. History of the Constantinopolitan Creed. § II. Theology of Athanasius. The treatises contra Gentes and de Incarnatione. Anti-Arian polemic. § III. Final formulation of the Nicene theology: the Cappadocian writers, Basil, Gregory Nyssen, and Gregory Nazianzen. 2 THE INCARNATION § I. THE POST-NICENE PERIOD, 325-381 THE period intervening between the Council of Nicæa and that of Constantinople was one of doctrinal reaction, and consequent confusion. The minute study of historical details is unnecessary for our present purpose. Our task will be the more simple one of reviewing in general outline the different currents of thought and opinion which were set in motion by the momentous decision of Nicæa. The That decision, it may at once be stated, had been arrived at with a rapidity which took a large portion of the Church by surprise. The fact is that the celebrated watchword of catholic belief, the Homoousion, had been very reluctantly accepted by many members of the Council, to whom the use of an unscriptural term appeared to be at best an unwelcome necessity. term not merely excited the hostility of declared Arians, who at this time formed a comparatively insignificant group, but also offended the conservative instincts of theologians trained in the school of Origen, such as Eusebius of Cæsarea. These men still clung to the subordinatianist teaching of their master, and were deeply concerned for the interests of his theological system. The defenders of the Nicene formula thus found various reactionary forces ranged against them: the conservative theologians who deprecated any employment of non-scriptural terms; prelates of strong personal ambition like Eusebius of Nicomedia; declared Arians; besides the great body of indifferentist or unlearned bishops, who had been induced to accept the Homoousion, but still dreaded the spectre of Sabellianism. To these must be added the Meletian schismatics of Egypt, with whom the reactionary party eagerly made common cause, and the multitude of heathens and Jews who instinctively favoured the Arian, i.e. the semi-pagan conception of God. Finally, the Emperor Constantine himself after a short interval threw the weight of his influence into the anti-Nicene scale, perhaps suspecting that the symbol adopted by the Council did not represent the general sense of Eastern theologians, and being anxious accordingly to interpret the Homoousion in such a way as covertly to reintroduce, or at least make room for, the vague ideas of Christ's person which the symbol had displaced. That a liberal interpretation of the Nicene formula was admissible is made clear by the letter to the Church of Cæsarea in which Eusebius defends his subscription. He states that he had accepted the Homoousion in a qualified sense as declaring merely the truth that the Son was derived from the Father (ex Tоû TаTρòs eivaι Tòv vióv). The term, he says, implies that the Son of God "bears no resemblance to the creatures which have been made, but is in every way assimilated to the Father alone who begat Him,2 and is not of any other subsistence or substance, but from the Father." Finally, he explains the rejection of the Arian tenet πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν as intended merely to 1 Harnack, Dogmengesch. ii. p. 230. 2 Ep. Euseb. ap. Ath. de decr. Nic. μóvų dè тŷ Tаtpi tŵ yeyevvŋkóTL κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀφωμοιῶσθαι. assert the doctrine of the Son's pre-existence before the Incarnation. Thus the real controversy as to the Deity of the Son can only be said to have begun with the Nicene Council. For nearly sixty years the wearisome strife was prolonged; a strife ennobled indeed by instances of steadfast faith and endurance, but abounding also in miserable lapses and scandals, and specially disgraced by the relentless use of persecution. One figure alone can be said to stand out in heroic proportions, that of the great Athanasius, who on succeeding to the episcopal throne of Alexandria (326) rose at once to the position of leadership, with the significant result that the anti-Nicene movement became during a considerable period mainly a personal crusade against Athanasius. The actual struggle seems to fall naturally into three main divisions or stages: (1) the period from 325 to the Council of Sardica, 343; (2) from 344 to the death of Constantius, 361; (3) from 361 to the Council of Constantinople, 381. I. The first stage of the conflict may be described briefly as a period of Eusebian reaction and ascendency. By dexterous use of their influence at Constantine's court, the Arianising party succeeded in accomplishing to a large extent the objects they had in view, which were mainly two: the removal of the leading catholic prelates, especially their most formidable and powerful opponent, Athanasius, and the withdrawal of the Homoousion.1 Under the astute guidance of the unscrupulous Eusebius of Nicomedia they managed, partly by violence, but mainly by intrigue, to secure for themselves the leading 1 Ath. de Synod. xxxii. τὸ δὲ πλῆθος τῶν συνόδων, καὶ ἡ διαφορὰ τῶν γραφομένων δείκνυσι τοὺς ἐν αὐταῖς συνελθόντας μαχομένους μὲν πρὸς τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ σύνοδον, ἀσθενοῦντας δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. |