Lucifer's
appearance
is a landmark.
Cambridge Medieval History - v1 - Christian Roman Empire and Teutonic Kingdoms
True, there
was little sign for centuries of any such influence. The Empire did not
grow less despotic, and such ideas of freedom as the Teutons brought in
did not come out of the Gospel: and if Islam and the Papacy lean to
despotism, the Unitarians have done honourable work in the cause of
liberty. But thoughts which colour the whole of life may have to work
for ages before they are clearly understood. The Latin Church of the
Middle Ages was not a mere apotheosis of power like Islam ; and when
Teutonic Europe broke away from Latin tutelage, the way was prepared
for the slow recognition of a higher ideal than power, and our own age
is beginning to see better the profound and far-reaching significance of
the Nicene decision, not for religion only, but for political, scientific,
and social thought.
The victory won at Nicaea was decisive. Arianism started vigorously,
and seemed for awhile the winning side; but the moment it faced the
council, it collapsed before the all but unanimous reprobation of the
Christian churches. Only two bishops from the edge of the African
desert ventured to deny that it contradicts essentials of the Gospel.
The decision was free, for Constantine would not risk another Donatist
controversy by putting pressure on the bishops before he could safely
crush the remnant; and it was permanent, for words deliberately put
into a creed cannot be removed without admitting that the objection to
them is valid on one ground or another. Thus Arianism was not only
condemned, but condemned in the most impressive way by the assembly
which comes nearer than any other in history to the stately dream of a
concrete catholic church speaking words of divine authority. No later
gathering could pretend to rival the august assembly where Christendom
had once for all pronounced the condemnation of Arianism, and no later
movements were able definitely to reverse its decision.
But if the conservatives (who were the mass of the Eastern bishops)
had signed the creed with a good conscience, they had no idea of making
it their working belief. They were not Arians—or they would not
have torn up the Arianizing creed at Nicaea ; but if they had been
hearty Nicenes, no influence of the Court could have kept up an Arianiz-
ing reaction for half a century. Christendom as a whole was neither
Arian nor Nicene, but conservative. If the East was not Nicene,
neither was it Arian, but conservative: and if the West was not Arian,
neither was it Nicene, but conservative also. But conservatism was not
## p. 125 (#155) ############################################
325–363]
Course of the Reaction
125
the same in East and West. Eastern conservatism inherited its doctrine
from the age of subordination theories, and dreaded the Nicene definition
as needless and dangerous. But the Westerns had no great interest in
the question and could scarcely even translate its technical terms into
Latin, and in any case their minds were much more legal than the
Greek; so they simply fell back on the authority of the Great Council.
Shortly, “East and West were alike conservative; but while conservatism
in the East went behind the council, in the West it was content to
start from it. "
The Eastern reaction was therefore mainly conservative. The Arians
were the tail of the party; they were not outcasts only because conservative
hesitation at the Nicene Creed kept open the back door of the Church
for them. For thirty years they had to shelter themselves behind the
conservatives. It was not till 357 that they ventured to have a policy
of their own; and then they broke up the anti-Nicene coalition at once.
The strength of Arianism was that while it claimed to be Christian, it
brought together and to their logical results all the elements of heathen-
ism in the current Christian thought. So the reaction rested not only
on conservative timidity, but on the heathen influences around. And
heathenism was still a living power in the world, strong in numbers, and
still stronger in the imposing memories of history. Christianity was still
an upstart on Caesar's throne, and no man could yet be sure that victory
would not sway back to the side of the immortal gods. So the Nicene
age was pre-eminently an age of waverers; and every waverer leaned to
Arianism as a via media between Christianity and heathenism. The
Court also leaned to Arianism. The genuine Arians indeed were not
more pliant than the Nicenes ; but conservatives are always open to
the influence of a Court, and the intriguers of the Court (and under
Constantius they were legion) found it their interest to unsettle the
Nicene decisions—in the name of conservatism forsooth. To put it
shortly, the Arians could have done nothing without a formidable mass
of conservative discontent behind them, and the conservatives would
have been equally helpless if the Court had not supplied them with the
means of action. The ultimate power lay with the majority, which was
at present conservative, while the initiative rested with the Court, which
leaned on Asia, so that the reaction went on as long as both were agreed
against the Nicene doctrine. It was suspended when Julian's policy
turned another way, became unreal when conservative alarm subsided,
and came to an end when Asia went over to the Nicenes.
The contest (325–381) falls into two main periods, separated by
the Council of Constantinople in 360, when the success of the reaction
seemed complete. We have also halts of importance at the return of
Athanasius in 346 and the death of Julian in 363.
The first period is a fight in the dark, as Socrates calls it, but upon
1 Studies of Arianism, p. 57.
CH. V.
## p. 126 (#156) ############################################
126
Course of the Reaction
[ 337-381
a
the whole the conservative coalition steadily gained ground till 357, in
spite of Nicene reactions after Constantine's death in 337 and the
detection of Stephen's plot in 344. First the Arianizing leaders had to
obtain their own restoration, then to depose the Nicene chiefs one after
another. By 341 the way was open for a series of attempts to replace
the Nicene Creed by something that would let in the Arians. But this
meant driving out the Nicenes, for they could not compromise without
complete surrender; and the West was with the Nicenes in refusing to
unsettle the creed. Western influence prevailed at Sardica in 343, and
Western intervention secured an uneasy truce which lasted till Constantius
became master of the West in 353. Meanwhile conservatism was
softening into a less hostile Semiarian form, while Arianism was growing
into a more offensive Anomoean doctrine. So the conservatives were
less interested when Constantius renewed the contest, and took alarm
at the open Arianism of the Sirmian manifesto in 357. This brought
things to a deadlock, and gave rise to a Homoean or professedly neutral
party supported by the Anomoeans and the Court. They were repulsed
at Seleucia by a new alliance of Semiarians and Nicenes, and at Arimi-
num by the conservative West; but their command of the Court enabled
them to exile the Semiarian leaders after the Council of Constantinople
in 360.
The second period of the reaction opens with a precarious Homoean
supremacy. It was grievously shaken at the outset by Julian's restora-
tion of the exiles. The Nicenes were making rapid progress, and might
have restored peace if Julian had lived longer. But Valens, with a
feebler character and a weaker position, returned to the policy of
Constantius. For the moment it may have been the best policy; but
the permanent forces were for the Nicenes, and their issue was only a
question of time. There were misunderstandings in abundance, but a
fairly united party hailed in Theodosius (379) an orthodox emperor from
the West. The Arians were first put out of the churches, then formally
condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 381. Henceforth
Arianism ceased to be a power except among its Teutonic converts. Now
we return to the morrow of the great council.
When the bishops returned home, they took up their controversies
just where the summons to the council had interrupted them. The
creed was signed and done with, and we hear no more of it. Yet both
sides had learned caution at Nicaea. Marcellus disavowed Sabellianism
and Eusebius avoided Arianism, and even directly controverted some of
its main positions. Before long however a party was formed against
the council. Its leader was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had returned
from exile and recovered his influence at Court. Round him gathered
the bishops of the school of Lucian, and round these again all sorts
of malcontents. The conservatives in particular gave extensive help.
Charges of heresy against the Nicene chiefs were sometimes more than
## p. 127 (#157) ############################################
297–335]
Marcellus and Athanasius
127
plausible. Marcellus was practically Sabellian, and Athanasius at least
refused to disavow him. Some even of the darker charges may have
had truth in them, or at least a semblance of truth.
So in the next few years we have a series of depositions of Nicene
leaders. By 335 the Church was fairly cleared of all but the two chief
of them, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria (since 328).
Marcellus was already in middle life when he refuted the Arians at
Nicaea ; and in a diocese full of the strife and debate of endless Gaulish
sects and superstitions he had learned that the Gospel is wider than
Greek philosophy, and that simpler forms may better suit a rude flock.
So his system is an appeal from Origen to St John. He begins with the
Logos as impersonal —as at once the thinking principle which is in God
and the active creating principle which comes forth from God, and yet
remains with God. Thus the Logos came forth from the Father for the
work of creation, and in the fulness of time descended into human flesh,
becoming the Son of God in becoming the Son of Man. Only in virtue
of this humiliating separation did the Logos acquire personality for a
time: but when the work is done, the human flesh will be thrown aside,
and the Logos will return to the Father and be immanent and imper-
sonal as before. Marcellus has got away from Arianism as far as he
can: but he is involved in much the same difficulties. If for example
the idea of an eternal Son is polytheistic, nothing is gained by trans-
ferring the eternity to an impersonal Logos ; and if the work of creation
is unworthy of God, it matters little whether it is delegated to a created
Son or to a transitory Logos. Marcellus misses as completely as Arius
the Christian conception of the Incarnation.
Then they turned to a greater than Marcellus. Athanasius was a
Greek by birth and education ; Greek also in subtle thought and philo-
sophic insight, in oratorical power and skilful statesmanship. Of Coptic
influence he scarcely shows a sign. His very style is clear and simple,
without a trace of Egyptian involution and obscurity. Athanasius was
born about 297, so that he must have well remembered the last years of
the Great Persecution, which lasted till 313. He may have been a
lawyer for a short time, and seems to have known Latin; but his main
training was Greek and scriptural. As a man of learning or a skilful
party-leader Athanasius was not beyond the reach of rivals. But he
was more than this. His whole spirit is lighted up with vivid faith in
the reality and eternal meaning of the Incarnation. His small work
de Incarnatione, written before the rise of Arianism, ranks with the
Epistle to Diognetus as the most brilliant pamphlet of early Christian
times. Even there he rises far above the level of Arianism and Sabel-
lianism; and throughout his long career we catch glimpses of a spiritual
depth which few of his contemporaries could reach. “And Athanasius
was before all things a man whose life was consecrated to a single purpose.
Through five exiles and fifty years of controversy he stood in defence
а
CH. V.
## p. 128 (#158) ############################################
128
Death of Constantine
(335–340
of the great council. The care of many churches rested on him, the
pertinacity of many enemies wore out his life ; yet he is never soured
but for a moment by the atrocious treachery of 356. At the first gleam
of hope he is himself again, full of brotherly consideration and respectful
sympathy for old enemies returning to a better mind. Even Gibbon is
awed for once before “the immortal name of Athanasius. "
Marcellus had fairly exposed himself to a doctrinal attack, but
against Athanasius the most convenient charge was that of episcopal
tyranny. In 335 the Eastern bishops gathered to Jerusalem to dedicate
the splendid church which Constantine had built on Golgotha. First
however a synod was held at Tyre to restore peace in Egypt. The
Eusebians had the upper hand, and they used their power shamelessly.
Scandal succeeded scandal, till the iniquity culminated in the despatch
of an openly partizan commission (including two young Pannonian
bishops, Ursacius and Valens) to get up evidence in Egypt. Moderate
men protested, and Athanasius took ship for Constantinople. The
council condemned him by default and the condemnation was repeated at
Jerusalem, where also proceedings were commenced against Marcellus.
They also restored Arius; but his actual reception was prevented by his
sudden death the evening before the day appointed. Meanwhile Athana-
sius had appealed to Constantine in person, who summoned the bishops
at once to Constantinople. They dropped the charges of sacrilege
and tyranny, and brought forward a new charge of political intrigue.
Athanasius was allowed no reply, but sent into exile at Trier in Gaul,
where he was honourably received by the younger Constantine. The
emperor seems as usual to have been aiming at peace and unity.
Athanasius was evidently a centre of disturbance, and the Asiatic
bishops disliked him: he was therefore best kept out of the way
for
the present.
Constantine died 22 May 337, and his sons at once restored the
exiles. Presently things settled down in 340 with the second son Con-
stantius master of the East, and Constans the youngest holding the
three Western praefectures. So Eusebian intrigues were soon resumed.
Constantius was essentially a little man, weak and vain, easy-tempered
and suspicious. He had also a taste for church matters, and without
ever being a genuine Arian, he hated first the Nicene Council, and then
Athanasius personally. The intriguers could scarcely have desired a
better tool.
They began by raising troubles at Alexandria, and deposing Athana-
sius afresh (late in 338) for having allowed the civil power to restore
him. In Lent 339 Athanasius was expelled, and Gregory of Cappadocia
installed by military violence in his place. The ejected bishops-
Athanasius, Marcellus and others—fled to Rome. Bishop Julius at
once took up the high tone of impartiality which became an arbiter of
Christendom. He received the fugitives with a decent reserve, and
1
1
## p. 129 (#159) ############################################
340–343]
Council of the Dedication
129
a
a
invited the Easterns to the council they had asked him to hold. After
long delay, it was plain that they did not mean to come; so a council of
fifty bishops met at Rome in the autumn of 340, by which Athanasius
and Marcellus were acquitted. As Julius reported to the Easterns, the
charges against Athanasius were inconsistent with each other and con-
tradicted by evidence from Egypt, and the proceedings at Tyre were a
travesty of justice. It was unreasonable to insist on its condemnation
of Athanasius as final. Even the great council of Nicaea had decided
(and not without the will of God) that the acts of one council might be
revised by another: and in any case Nicaea was better than Tyre. As
for Marcellus, he had denied the charge of heresy and presented a sound
confession of his faith (our own Apostles' Creed, very nearly) and the
Roman legates at Nicaea had borne honourable witness to the part he
had taken in the council. If they had complaints against Athanasius,
they should not have neglected the old custom of writing first to Rome,
that a legitimate decision might issue from the apostolic see.
The Eusebians replied in the summer of 341, when some ninety
bishops met to consecrate the Golden Church of Constantine at Antioch.
Hence it is called the Council of the Dedication. Like the Nicene, it
seems to have been in the main conservative; but the active minority
was Arianizing, not Athanasian; and it was not quite so successful.
The bishops began as at Nicaea by rejecting an Arian creed. They next
approved a creed of a conservative sort, said to be the work of Lucian
of Antioch, the teacher of Arius. The decisive clause however was
rather Nicene than conservative. It declared the Son “morally un-
changeable, the unvarying image of the deity and essence of the Father. ”
The phrase declares that there is no change of essence in passing from
the Father to the Son, and is therefore equivalent to homoousion.
Athanasius might have accepted it at Nicaea, but he could not now;
and the conservatives did not mean óuoouo lov--only the illogical
óuocovolov, of like essence. So they were satisfied with the Lucianic
creed: but the Arianizers endeavoured to upset it with a third creed,
and the council seems to have broken up uncertainly, though without
revoking the Lucianic creed. A few months later, another council met
at Antioch and adopted a fourth creed, more to the mind of the
Arianizers. In substance it was less opposed to Arianism than the
Lucianic, its form is a close copy of the Nicene. In fact, it is the
Nicene down to the anathemas, but the Nicene with every sharp edge
taken off. So well did it suit the Arianizers that they reissued it (with
ever-growing anathemas) three times in the next ten years.
.
Western suspicion became a certainty, now that the intriguers were
openly tampering with the Nicene faith. Constans demanded a general
council, and Constantius was too busy with the Persian war to refuse
him. So it met at Sardica, the modern Sofia, in the summer of 343.
The Westerns were some 96 in number “with Hosius of Cordova for
C. MED. H. VOL. I. CH. V.
9
## p. 130 (#160) ############################################
130
Council of Sardica
[ 343–353
their father. ” The Easterns, under Stephen of Antioch, were about 76.
They demanded that the condemnation of Athanasius and Marcellus
should be taken as final, and retired across the Balkans to Philippopolis
when the Westerns insisted on reopening the case. So there were two
contending councils. At Sardica the accused were acquitted, while the
Easterns confirmed their condemnation, denounced Julius and Hosius,
and reissued the fourth creed of Antioch with some new anathemas.
The quarrel was worse than ever. But next year came a reaction.
When the Western envoy Euphrates of Cologne reached Antioch, a
harlot was let loose upon him; and the plot was traced up to bishop
Stephen. The scandal was too great: Stephen was deposed, and the
fourth creed of Antioch reissued, but this time with long conciliatory
explanations for the Westerns. The way was clearing for a cessation of
hostilities. Constans pressed the decrees of Sardica, Ursacius and Valens
recanted the charges against Athanasius, and at last Constantius con-
sented to his return. His entry into Alexandria (31 Oct. 346) was the
crowning triumph of his life.
The next few years were an interval of suspense, for nothing was
decided. Conservative suspicion was not dispelled, and the return of
Athanasius was a personal humiliation for Constantius. But the mere
cessation of hostilities was not without influence. The conservatives
were fundamentally agreed with the Nicenes on the reality of the Lord's
divinity; and minor jealousies abated when they were less busily
encouraged. The Eusebian phase of conservatism, which dreaded
Sabellianism and distrusted the Nicenes, was giving place to the
Semiarian, which was coming to see that Arianism was the more
pressing danger, and slowly moving towards an alliance with the
Nicenes. We see also the rise of a more defiant Arianism, less patient
.
of conservative supremacy, and less pliant to imperial dictation. The
Anomoean leaders emphasized the most offensive aspects of Arianism,
declaring that the Son is unlike the Father, and boldly maintaining that
there is no mystery at all in God. Their school was presumptuous and
shallow, quarrelsome and heathenizing, yet not without a directness and
a
firm conviction which compares well with the wavering and insincerity
of the conservative chiefs.
Meanwhile new troubles were gathering in the West. Constans was
deposed (Jan. 350) by Magnentius. After a couple of minor claimants
were disposed of, the struggle lay between Magnentius and Constantius.
The decisive battle was fought (28 Sept. 351) near Mursa in Pannonia,
but the destruction of Magnentius was not completed till 353. Con-
stantius remained the master of the world. The Eusebians now had
their opportunity. Already in 351-2 they had reissued the fourth
creed of Antioch from Sirmium, with its two anathemas grown into
twenty-seven. But as soon as Constantius was master of Gaul, he deter-
mined to force on the Westerns an indirect condemnation of the Nicene
## p. 131 (#161) ############################################
353–355]
Renewal of the Contest
131
a
faith in the person of Athanasius. A direct approval of Arianism was
out of the question, for Western conservatism was firmly set against it
by the Nicene and Sardican councils. The bishops were nearly al
resolute against it. Liberius of Rome followed in the steps of Julius,
Hosius of Cordova was still the patriarch of Christendom, and the
bishops of Trier, Toulouse and Milan proved their faith in exile. So
doctrine was kept in the background. Constantius came forward per-
sonally before a council at Arles (Oct. 353) as the accuser of Athanasius,
while all the time he was giving him solemn and repeated promises of
protection. The bishops were not unwilling to take the emperor's word,
if the Court party would clear itself of Arianism ; and at last they gave
1
way, the Roman legate with the rest. Only Paulinus of Trier had to be
exiled. For the next two years Constantius was busy with the bar-
barians, so that it was not till the autumn of 355 that he was able to
call another council at Milan, where Julian was made Caesar for Gaul.
It proved quite unmanageable, and only yielded at last to open violence.
Three bishops were exiled, including Lucifer of Calaris in Sardinia.
Lucifer's appearance is a landmark. The lawless despotism of Con-
stantius had roused an aggressive fanaticism. Lucifer had all the
courage of Athanasius, but nothing of his wary self-respect and
moderation. He scarcely condescends to reason, but revels in the
pleasanter work of denouncing the fires of damnation against the dis-
obedient emperor. A worthier champion was Hilary of Poitiers, the
noblest
representative of Western literature in the Nicene age. Hilary
was by birth a heathen, coming before us in 355 as an old convert and
a bishop of some standing. In massive power of thought he was a match
for Athanasius; but he was rather student and thinker than orator and
statesman. He had not studied the Nicene Creed till lately ; but when
he found it true, he could not refuse to defend it. He was not at the
council, but was exiled to Asia a few months later, apparently on the
charge of immorality, which the Eusebians usually brought against
obnoxious bishops.
When Hosius of Cordova had been imprisoned, there remained but
one power in the West which could not be summarily dealt with. The
grandeur of Hosius was personal, but Liberius claimed the universal
reverence due to the apostolic and imperial see of Rome. Such a bishop
was a power of the first importance, when Arianism was dividing the
Empire round the hostile camps of Gaul and Asia. Liberius was a
staunch Nicene. When his legates yielded at Arles, he disavowed their
action. The emperor's threats he disregarded, the emperor's gifts
he cast out of the Church. It was not long before the world was
scandalized by the news that Constantius had arrested and exiled the
bishop of Rome.
Attempts had already been made to dislodge Athanasius from
Alexandria, but he refused to obey anything but written orders from the
a
a
CH, V.
9-2
## p. 132 (#162) ############################################
132
Third Exile of Athanasius
( 356–358
emperor. As Constantius had given his solemn promise to protect him
in 346, and three times written to repeat it since his brother's death,
duty as well as policy forbade him to credit officials. The most pious
emperor could not be supposed to mean treachery; but he must say so
himself if he did. The message was plain enough when it came. A
force of 5000 men surrounded the church of Theonas on a night of
vigil (8 Feb. 356). The congregation was caught as in a net. Athana-
sius fainted in the tumult : yet when the soldiers reached the bishop's
throne, its occupant had somehow been conveyed away.
For six years Athanasius disappeared from the eyes of men, while
Alexandria was given over to military outrage. The new bishop George
of Cappadocia (formerly a pork-contractor) arrived in Lent 357, and
soon provoked the fierce populace of Alexandria. He escaped with
difficulty from one riot in 358, and was fairly driven from the city by
another in October. Constantius had his revenge, but it shook the
Empire to its base. The flight of Athanasius revealed the power of
religion to stir up a national rising, none the less real for not breaking
out in open war. In the next century the councils of the Church became
the battlefield of nations, and the victory of Hellenic orthodoxy at
Chalcedon implied sooner or later the separation of Monophysite Egypt
and Nestorian Syria.
Arianism seemed to have won its victory when the last Nicene
champion was driven into the desert. But the West was only terrorized,
Egypt was devoted to its patriarch, Nicenes were fairly strong in the
East, and the conservatives who had won the battle would never accept
Arianism. However, this was the time chosen for an open declaration
of Arianism, by a small council of Western bishops at Sirmium, headed
by Ursacius and Valens. They emphasize the unity of God, condemn
the words ουσία (essence), ομοούσιον and όμοιούσιον, lay stress on the
inferiority of the Son, limit the Incarnation to the assumption of a body,
and more than half say that he is only a creature. This was clear Anomoean
doctrine, and made a stir even in the West, where it was promptly con-
demned by the Gaulish bishops, now partly shielded from Constantius
by the Caesarship of Julian. But the Sirmian manifesto spread dismay
through the ranks of the Eastern conservatives. They had not put down
Sabellianism only in order to set up the Anomoeans; and the danger was
brought home to them when Eudoxius of Antioch and Acacius of
Caesarea convened a Syrian synod to approve the manifesto. The
conservative counterblow was struck at Ancyra in Lent 358. The
synodical letter is long and clumsy, but we see in it conservatism
changing from its Eusebian to a Semiarian phase—from fear of Sabel-
lianism to fear of Arianism. They won a complete victory at the Court,
and sent Eudoxius and the rest into exile. This however was too much.
The exiles were soon recalled, and the strife began again more bitterly
than ever.
## p. 133 (#163) ############################################
359–360]
The Homoean domination
133
Here was a deadlock. All parties had failed. The Anomoeans were
active enough, but pure Arianism was hopelessly discredited throughout
the Empire. The Nicenes had Egypt and the West, but they could
not overcome the Court and Asia. The Eastern Semiarians were the
strongest party, but such men of violence could not close the strife. In
this deadlock nothing was left but specious charity and colourless in-
definiteness ; and this was the plan of the new Homoean party, formed
by Acacius and Eudoxius in the East, Ursacius and Valens in the West.
A general council was decided on; but it was divided into two-the
Westerns to meet at Ariminum, the Easterns at Seleucia in Cilicia, the
headquarters of the army then operating against the Isaurians. Mean-
while parties began to group themselves afresh. The Anomoeans went
with the Homoeans, from whom alone they could expect any favour,
while the Semiarians drew closer to the Nicenes, and were welcomed by
Hilary of Poitiers in his conciliatory de Synodis. The next step was a
small meeting of Homoean and Semiarian leaders, held in the emperor's
presence on Pentecost Eve (22 May 359) to draw up a creed to be laid
before the councils. The dated creed (or fourth of Sirmium) is conser-
vative in its appeals to Scripture, in its solemn reverence for the Lord,
in its rejection of essence (ouoia) as not found in Scripture, and in its insist-
ence on the mystery of the eternal generation. But its central clause gave
a decisive advantage to the Homoeans. “We say that the Son is like
the Father in all things as the Scriptures say and teach. ” Even the
Anomoeans could sign this. “Like the Father as the Scriptures say--
and no further; and we find very little likeness taught in Scripture. Like
the Father if you will, but not like God, for no creature can be. Like the
Father certainly, but not in essence, for likeness which is not identity
implies difference-or in other words, likeness is a question of degree. "
Of these three replies, the first is fair, the third perfectly sound.
The reception of the creed was hostile in both councils. The
Westerns at Ariminum rejected it, deposed the Homoean leaders,
and ratified the Nicene Creed. In the end however they accepted the
Sirmian, but with the addition of a stringent series of anathemas against
Arianism, which Valens accepted for the moment. The Easterns at
—.
Seleucia rejected it likewise, deposed the Homoean leaders, and ratified
the Lucianic creed. Both sides sent deputies to the emperor, as had
been arranged; and after much pressure, these deputies signed a revision
of the dated creed on the night of 31 Dec. 359. The Homoeans now
saw their way to final victory.
By throwing over the Anomoeans and condemning their leader
Aëtius, they were able to enforce the prohibition of the Semiarian
ópolotolov: and then it only remained to revise the dated creed again
for a council held at Constantinople in Feb. 360, and send the Semiarian
leaders into exile.
The Homoean domination never extended beyond the Alps. Gaul
a
cH. Y.
## p. 134 (#164) ############################################
134
Julian
[ 356–361
was firmly Nicene, and Constantius could do nothing there after the
mutiny at Paris in Jan. 360 had made Julian independent of him. The
few Western Arians soon died out. But in the East, the Homoean
power lasted nearly twenty years. Its strength lay in its appeal to the
moderate men who were tired of strife, and to the confused thinkers who
did not see that a vital question was at issue. The dated creed seemed
reverent and safe; and its defects would not have been easy to see if the
Anomoeans had not made them plain. But the position of parties was
greatly changed since 356. First Hilary of Poitiers had done something
to bring together conservatives and Nicenes ; then Athanasius took up
the work in his own de Synodis. It is a noble overture of friendship to
his old conservative enemies. The Semiarians, or many of them, accepted
of the essence (ex tîus oủolas) and the Nicene anathemas, and doubted only
of the ówooúolov. Such men, says he, are not to be treated as enemies,
but reasoned with as brethren who differ from us only in the use of a
word which sums up their own teaching as well as ours.
When they
confess that the Lord is a true Son of God and not a creature, they
grant all that we are contending for. Their own homoiousion without
of the essence does not shut out Arianism, but the two together amount
to homoousion. Moreover, homoiousion is illogical, for likeness is of
properties and qualities, whereas the essence must be the same or
different, so that the word rather suggests Arianism, whereas homoousion
shuts it out effectually. If they accept our doctrine, sooner or later
they will find that they cannot refuse its necessary safeguard. But if
Nicenes and Semiarians drew together, so did Homoeans and Anomoeans.
Any ideas of conciliating Nicene support were destroyed by the exile of
Meletius, the new bishop of Antioch, for preaching a sermon carefully
modelled on the dated creed, but substantially Nicene in doctrine. A
schism arose at Antioch ; and henceforth the leaders of the Homoeans
were practically Arians.
The mutiny at Paris implied a civil war : but just as it was be-
ginning, Constantius died at Mopsucrenae beneath Mount Taurus
(3 Nov. 361) and Julian remained sole emperor. We are not here
concerned with the general history of his reign, or even with his policy
towards the Christians—only with its bearing on Arianism. In general,
he held to the toleration of the Edict of Milan. The Christians are not
to be persecuted-only deprived of special privileges—but the emperor's
favour must be reserved for the worshippers of the gods. So the ad-
ministration was unfriendly to the Christians, and left occasional outrages
unpunished, or dismissed them with a thin reproof. But these were no
great matters, for the Christians were now too strong to be lynched at
pleasure. Julian's chief endeavour was to put new life into heathenism:
and in this the heathens themselves hardly took him seriously. His
only act of definite persecution was the edict near the end of his reign,
which forbade the Christians to teach the classics ; and this is dis-
approved by “the cool and impartial heathen” Ammianus.
## p. 135 (#165) ############################################
362]
Apollinarius of Laodicea
135
Every blow struck by Julian against the Christians fell first on the
Homoeans whom Constantius had left in power; and the reaction he
provoked against Greek culture threatened the philosophical postulates
of Arianism. But Julian cared little for the internal quarrels of the
Christians, and only broke his rule of contemptuous impartiality when
he recognised one greater than himself in “ the detestable Athanasius. ”
Before long an edict recalled the exiled bishops, though it did not replace
them in their churches. If others were in possession, it was not Julian's
business to turn them out. This was toleration, but Julian had a
malicious hope of still further embroiling the confusion. If the
Christians were left to themselves, they would “quarrel like beasts. "
He got a few scandalous wranglings, but in the main he was mistaken.
The Christians only closed their ranks against the common enemy: the
Arians also were sound Christians in this matter-blind old Maris of
Chalcedon came and cursed him to his face.
Back to their cities came the survivors of the exiled bishops, no
longer travelling in pomp and circumstance to their noisy councils, but
bound on the nobler errand of seeking out their lost or scattered flocks.
It was time to resume Hilary's interrupted work of conciliation.
Semiarian violence had discredited in advance the new conservatism
at Seleucia : but Athanasius had things more in his favour, for Julian's
reign had not only sobered partizanship, but left a clear field for the
strongest moral force in Christendom to assert itself. And this force was
with the Nicenes. Athanasius reappeared at Alexandria 22 Feb. 362,
and held a small council there before Julian drove him out again. It
was decided first that Arians who came over to the Nicene side were to
retain their rank on condition of accepting the Nicene council, none but
the chiefs and active defenders of Arianism being reduced to lay com-
munion. Then, after clearing up some misunderstandings of East and
West, and trying to settle the schism at Antioch by inducing the old
Nicenes, who at present had no bishop, to accept Meletius, they took in
hand two new questions of doctrine. One was the divinity of the Holy
Spirit. Its reality was acknowledged, except by the Arians; but did it
amount to co-essential deity ? That was still an open question. But
now that attention was fully directed to the subject, it appeared from
Scripture that the theory of eternal distinctions in the divine nature
must either be extended to the Holy Spirit or abandoned. Athanasius
took one course, the Anomoeans the other, while the Semiarians tried
to make a difference between the Lord's deity and that of the Holy
Spirit: and this gradually became the chief obstacle to their union with
the Nicenes. The other subject of debate was the new system of Apol-
linarius of Laodicea--the most suggestive of all the ancient heresies.
Apollinarius was the first who fairly faced the difficulty, that if all men
are sinners, and the Lord was not a sinner, he cannot have been truly
Apollinarius replied that sin lies in the weakness of the human
man,
CH. V.
## p. 136 (#166) ############################################
136
Movements under Julian
[362–363
spirit, and accounted for the sinlessness of Christ by putting in its place
the divine Logos, and adding the important statement that if the human
spirit was created in the image of the Logos (Gen. i. 28) Christ would
not be the less human but the more so for the difference. The spirit in
Christ was human spirit, although divine. Further, the Logos which in
Christ was human spirit was eternal. Apart then from the Incarnation,
the Logos was archetypal man as well as God, so that the Incarnation
was not simply an expedient to get rid of sin, but the historic revelation
of that which was latent in the Logos from eternity. The Logos and
man are not alien beings, but joined in their inmost nature, and in a
real sense each is incomplete without the other. Suggestive as this is,
Apollinarius reaches no true incarnation. Against him it was decided
that the Incarnation implied a human soul as well as a human body—a
decision which struck straight enough at the Arians, but quite missed
the triple division of body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. v. 23) on which
Apollinarius based his system.
Athanasius was exiled again almost at once: Julian's anger was
kindled by the news that he had baptized some heathen ladies at
Alexandria. But his work remained. At Antioch indeed it was
marred by Lucifer of Calaris, who would have nothing to do with
Meletius, and consecrated Paulinus as bishop for the old Nicenes. So
the schism continued, and henceforth the rising Nicene party of Pontus
and Asia was divided by this personal question from the older Nicenes
of Egypt and the West. But upon the whole the lenient policy of the
council was a great success. Bishop after bishop gave in his adhesion
to the Nicene faith. Friendly Semiarians came in like Cyril of Jeru-
salem, old conservatives followed, and at last (in Jovian's time) the
arch-enemy Acacius himself gave in his signature. Even creeds were re-
modelled in all directions in a Nicene sense, as at Jerusalem and Antioch,
and in Cappadocia and Mesopotamia. True, the other parties were not
idle. The Homoean coalition was even more unstable than the Eusebian,
and broke up of itself as soon as opinion was free. One party favoured
the Anomoeans, another drew nearer to the Nicenes, while the Semiarians
completed the confusion by confirming the Seleucian decisions and re-
issuing the Lucianic creed. But the main current set in a Nicene
direction, and the Nicene faith was rapidly winning its way to victory
when the process was thrown back for nearly twenty years by Julian's
death in Persia (26 June 363).
Julian's death seemed to leave the Empire in the gift of four bar-
barian generals : but while they were debating, a few of the soldiers
outside hailed a favourite named Jovian as emperor. The cry was taken
up, and in a few minutes the young officer found himself the successor
of Augustus. Jovian was a decided Christian, though his personal
character did no credit to the Gospel. But his religious policy was one
of genuine toleration. If Athanasius was graciously received at Antioch,
a
с
## p. 137 (#167) ############################################
364–365]
Insecurity of Homoean domination
137
the Arians were told with scant courtesy that they could hold meetings
as they pleased at Alexandria. So all parties went on consolidating
themselves. The Anomoeans had been restive since the condemnation
of Aëtius at Constantinople, but it was not till now that they lost hope
of the Homoeans, and formed an organised sect. But all these move-
ments came to an end with the sudden death of Jovian (16-17 Feb. 364).
This time the generals chose ; and they chose the Pannonian Valentinian
for emperor. A month later he assigned the East from Thrace to his
brother Valens.
Valentinian was a good soldier and little more, though he could
honour learning and carry forward the reforming work of Constantine.
His religious policy was toleration. If he refused to displace the few
.
Arian bishops he found in possession, he left the churches free to choose
Nicene successors. So the West soon recovered from the strife which
Constantius had introduced. It was otherwise in the East. Valens was
a weaker character-timid and inert, but not inferior to his brother in
scrupulous care for the interests of his subjects. No soldier, but more
or less good at finance. For awhile events continued to develop
naturally. The Homoean bishops held their sees, but their influence
was fast declining. The Anomoeans were forming a schism on one side,
the Nicenes were recovering power on the other. On both sides the
simpler doctrines were driving out the compromises. It was time for
even the Semiarians to bestir themselves. A few years before they were
beyond question the majority in the East; but this was not so certain
The Nicenes had made a great advance since the Council of
Ancyra, and were now less conciliatory. Lucifer had compromised them
in one direction, Apollinarius in another, and even Marcellus had never
been disavowed; but the chief cause of suspicion to the Semiarians was
now the advance of the Nicenes to a belief in the deity of the Holy Spirit.
It was some time before Valens had a policy to declare. He was only
a catechumen, perhaps cared little for the questions before his elevation,
and inherited no assured position like Constantius. It was some time
before he fell into the hands of the Homoean Eudoxius of Constantinople, a
man of experience and learning, whose mild prudence gave him just the
help he needed. In fact, a Homoean policy was really the easiest for the
moment. Heathenism had failed in Julian's hands, and an Anomoean
.
course was even more hopeless, while the Nicenes were still a minority
outside Egypt. The only alternative was to favour the Semiarians; and
this too was full of difficulties. Upon the whole, the Homoeans were
still the strongest party in 365. They were in possession of the churches
and had astute leaders, and their doctrine had not yet lost its attraction
for the quiet men who were tired of controversy.
In the spring of 365 an imperial rescript commanded the munici-
palities to drive out from their cities the bishops who had been exiled
by Constantius and restored by Julian. At Alexandria the populace
а
CH. V.
## p. 138 (#168) ############################################
138
Basil of Caesarea
[360–378
declared that the rescript did not apply to Athanasius, whom Julian
had not restored, and raised such dangerous riots that the matter had
to be referred back to Valens. Then came the revolt of Procopius, who
seized Constantinople and very nearly displaced Valens. Athanasius was
restored, and could not safely be disturbed again. Then after the
Procopian revolt came the Gothic war, which kept Valens occupied till
369: and before he could return to church affairs, he had lost his best
adviser, for Eudoxius of Constantinople was ill replaced by the rash
Demophilus.
The Homoean party was the last hope of Arianism. The original
doctrine of Arius had been decisively rejected at Nicaea, the Eusebian
coalition was broken up by the Sirmian manifesto, and if the Homoean
union also failed, its failure meant the fall of Arianism. Now the
weakness of the Homoean power is shewn by the growth of a new
Nicene party in the most Arian province of the Empire. Cappadocia
was a country district : yet Julian found it incorrigibly Christian, and
we hear very little of heathenism from Basil.
was little sign for centuries of any such influence. The Empire did not
grow less despotic, and such ideas of freedom as the Teutons brought in
did not come out of the Gospel: and if Islam and the Papacy lean to
despotism, the Unitarians have done honourable work in the cause of
liberty. But thoughts which colour the whole of life may have to work
for ages before they are clearly understood. The Latin Church of the
Middle Ages was not a mere apotheosis of power like Islam ; and when
Teutonic Europe broke away from Latin tutelage, the way was prepared
for the slow recognition of a higher ideal than power, and our own age
is beginning to see better the profound and far-reaching significance of
the Nicene decision, not for religion only, but for political, scientific,
and social thought.
The victory won at Nicaea was decisive. Arianism started vigorously,
and seemed for awhile the winning side; but the moment it faced the
council, it collapsed before the all but unanimous reprobation of the
Christian churches. Only two bishops from the edge of the African
desert ventured to deny that it contradicts essentials of the Gospel.
The decision was free, for Constantine would not risk another Donatist
controversy by putting pressure on the bishops before he could safely
crush the remnant; and it was permanent, for words deliberately put
into a creed cannot be removed without admitting that the objection to
them is valid on one ground or another. Thus Arianism was not only
condemned, but condemned in the most impressive way by the assembly
which comes nearer than any other in history to the stately dream of a
concrete catholic church speaking words of divine authority. No later
gathering could pretend to rival the august assembly where Christendom
had once for all pronounced the condemnation of Arianism, and no later
movements were able definitely to reverse its decision.
But if the conservatives (who were the mass of the Eastern bishops)
had signed the creed with a good conscience, they had no idea of making
it their working belief. They were not Arians—or they would not
have torn up the Arianizing creed at Nicaea ; but if they had been
hearty Nicenes, no influence of the Court could have kept up an Arianiz-
ing reaction for half a century. Christendom as a whole was neither
Arian nor Nicene, but conservative. If the East was not Nicene,
neither was it Arian, but conservative: and if the West was not Arian,
neither was it Nicene, but conservative also. But conservatism was not
## p. 125 (#155) ############################################
325–363]
Course of the Reaction
125
the same in East and West. Eastern conservatism inherited its doctrine
from the age of subordination theories, and dreaded the Nicene definition
as needless and dangerous. But the Westerns had no great interest in
the question and could scarcely even translate its technical terms into
Latin, and in any case their minds were much more legal than the
Greek; so they simply fell back on the authority of the Great Council.
Shortly, “East and West were alike conservative; but while conservatism
in the East went behind the council, in the West it was content to
start from it. "
The Eastern reaction was therefore mainly conservative. The Arians
were the tail of the party; they were not outcasts only because conservative
hesitation at the Nicene Creed kept open the back door of the Church
for them. For thirty years they had to shelter themselves behind the
conservatives. It was not till 357 that they ventured to have a policy
of their own; and then they broke up the anti-Nicene coalition at once.
The strength of Arianism was that while it claimed to be Christian, it
brought together and to their logical results all the elements of heathen-
ism in the current Christian thought. So the reaction rested not only
on conservative timidity, but on the heathen influences around. And
heathenism was still a living power in the world, strong in numbers, and
still stronger in the imposing memories of history. Christianity was still
an upstart on Caesar's throne, and no man could yet be sure that victory
would not sway back to the side of the immortal gods. So the Nicene
age was pre-eminently an age of waverers; and every waverer leaned to
Arianism as a via media between Christianity and heathenism. The
Court also leaned to Arianism. The genuine Arians indeed were not
more pliant than the Nicenes ; but conservatives are always open to
the influence of a Court, and the intriguers of the Court (and under
Constantius they were legion) found it their interest to unsettle the
Nicene decisions—in the name of conservatism forsooth. To put it
shortly, the Arians could have done nothing without a formidable mass
of conservative discontent behind them, and the conservatives would
have been equally helpless if the Court had not supplied them with the
means of action. The ultimate power lay with the majority, which was
at present conservative, while the initiative rested with the Court, which
leaned on Asia, so that the reaction went on as long as both were agreed
against the Nicene doctrine. It was suspended when Julian's policy
turned another way, became unreal when conservative alarm subsided,
and came to an end when Asia went over to the Nicenes.
The contest (325–381) falls into two main periods, separated by
the Council of Constantinople in 360, when the success of the reaction
seemed complete. We have also halts of importance at the return of
Athanasius in 346 and the death of Julian in 363.
The first period is a fight in the dark, as Socrates calls it, but upon
1 Studies of Arianism, p. 57.
CH. V.
## p. 126 (#156) ############################################
126
Course of the Reaction
[ 337-381
a
the whole the conservative coalition steadily gained ground till 357, in
spite of Nicene reactions after Constantine's death in 337 and the
detection of Stephen's plot in 344. First the Arianizing leaders had to
obtain their own restoration, then to depose the Nicene chiefs one after
another. By 341 the way was open for a series of attempts to replace
the Nicene Creed by something that would let in the Arians. But this
meant driving out the Nicenes, for they could not compromise without
complete surrender; and the West was with the Nicenes in refusing to
unsettle the creed. Western influence prevailed at Sardica in 343, and
Western intervention secured an uneasy truce which lasted till Constantius
became master of the West in 353. Meanwhile conservatism was
softening into a less hostile Semiarian form, while Arianism was growing
into a more offensive Anomoean doctrine. So the conservatives were
less interested when Constantius renewed the contest, and took alarm
at the open Arianism of the Sirmian manifesto in 357. This brought
things to a deadlock, and gave rise to a Homoean or professedly neutral
party supported by the Anomoeans and the Court. They were repulsed
at Seleucia by a new alliance of Semiarians and Nicenes, and at Arimi-
num by the conservative West; but their command of the Court enabled
them to exile the Semiarian leaders after the Council of Constantinople
in 360.
The second period of the reaction opens with a precarious Homoean
supremacy. It was grievously shaken at the outset by Julian's restora-
tion of the exiles. The Nicenes were making rapid progress, and might
have restored peace if Julian had lived longer. But Valens, with a
feebler character and a weaker position, returned to the policy of
Constantius. For the moment it may have been the best policy; but
the permanent forces were for the Nicenes, and their issue was only a
question of time. There were misunderstandings in abundance, but a
fairly united party hailed in Theodosius (379) an orthodox emperor from
the West. The Arians were first put out of the churches, then formally
condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 381. Henceforth
Arianism ceased to be a power except among its Teutonic converts. Now
we return to the morrow of the great council.
When the bishops returned home, they took up their controversies
just where the summons to the council had interrupted them. The
creed was signed and done with, and we hear no more of it. Yet both
sides had learned caution at Nicaea. Marcellus disavowed Sabellianism
and Eusebius avoided Arianism, and even directly controverted some of
its main positions. Before long however a party was formed against
the council. Its leader was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had returned
from exile and recovered his influence at Court. Round him gathered
the bishops of the school of Lucian, and round these again all sorts
of malcontents. The conservatives in particular gave extensive help.
Charges of heresy against the Nicene chiefs were sometimes more than
## p. 127 (#157) ############################################
297–335]
Marcellus and Athanasius
127
plausible. Marcellus was practically Sabellian, and Athanasius at least
refused to disavow him. Some even of the darker charges may have
had truth in them, or at least a semblance of truth.
So in the next few years we have a series of depositions of Nicene
leaders. By 335 the Church was fairly cleared of all but the two chief
of them, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria (since 328).
Marcellus was already in middle life when he refuted the Arians at
Nicaea ; and in a diocese full of the strife and debate of endless Gaulish
sects and superstitions he had learned that the Gospel is wider than
Greek philosophy, and that simpler forms may better suit a rude flock.
So his system is an appeal from Origen to St John. He begins with the
Logos as impersonal —as at once the thinking principle which is in God
and the active creating principle which comes forth from God, and yet
remains with God. Thus the Logos came forth from the Father for the
work of creation, and in the fulness of time descended into human flesh,
becoming the Son of God in becoming the Son of Man. Only in virtue
of this humiliating separation did the Logos acquire personality for a
time: but when the work is done, the human flesh will be thrown aside,
and the Logos will return to the Father and be immanent and imper-
sonal as before. Marcellus has got away from Arianism as far as he
can: but he is involved in much the same difficulties. If for example
the idea of an eternal Son is polytheistic, nothing is gained by trans-
ferring the eternity to an impersonal Logos ; and if the work of creation
is unworthy of God, it matters little whether it is delegated to a created
Son or to a transitory Logos. Marcellus misses as completely as Arius
the Christian conception of the Incarnation.
Then they turned to a greater than Marcellus. Athanasius was a
Greek by birth and education ; Greek also in subtle thought and philo-
sophic insight, in oratorical power and skilful statesmanship. Of Coptic
influence he scarcely shows a sign. His very style is clear and simple,
without a trace of Egyptian involution and obscurity. Athanasius was
born about 297, so that he must have well remembered the last years of
the Great Persecution, which lasted till 313. He may have been a
lawyer for a short time, and seems to have known Latin; but his main
training was Greek and scriptural. As a man of learning or a skilful
party-leader Athanasius was not beyond the reach of rivals. But he
was more than this. His whole spirit is lighted up with vivid faith in
the reality and eternal meaning of the Incarnation. His small work
de Incarnatione, written before the rise of Arianism, ranks with the
Epistle to Diognetus as the most brilliant pamphlet of early Christian
times. Even there he rises far above the level of Arianism and Sabel-
lianism; and throughout his long career we catch glimpses of a spiritual
depth which few of his contemporaries could reach. “And Athanasius
was before all things a man whose life was consecrated to a single purpose.
Through five exiles and fifty years of controversy he stood in defence
а
CH. V.
## p. 128 (#158) ############################################
128
Death of Constantine
(335–340
of the great council. The care of many churches rested on him, the
pertinacity of many enemies wore out his life ; yet he is never soured
but for a moment by the atrocious treachery of 356. At the first gleam
of hope he is himself again, full of brotherly consideration and respectful
sympathy for old enemies returning to a better mind. Even Gibbon is
awed for once before “the immortal name of Athanasius. "
Marcellus had fairly exposed himself to a doctrinal attack, but
against Athanasius the most convenient charge was that of episcopal
tyranny. In 335 the Eastern bishops gathered to Jerusalem to dedicate
the splendid church which Constantine had built on Golgotha. First
however a synod was held at Tyre to restore peace in Egypt. The
Eusebians had the upper hand, and they used their power shamelessly.
Scandal succeeded scandal, till the iniquity culminated in the despatch
of an openly partizan commission (including two young Pannonian
bishops, Ursacius and Valens) to get up evidence in Egypt. Moderate
men protested, and Athanasius took ship for Constantinople. The
council condemned him by default and the condemnation was repeated at
Jerusalem, where also proceedings were commenced against Marcellus.
They also restored Arius; but his actual reception was prevented by his
sudden death the evening before the day appointed. Meanwhile Athana-
sius had appealed to Constantine in person, who summoned the bishops
at once to Constantinople. They dropped the charges of sacrilege
and tyranny, and brought forward a new charge of political intrigue.
Athanasius was allowed no reply, but sent into exile at Trier in Gaul,
where he was honourably received by the younger Constantine. The
emperor seems as usual to have been aiming at peace and unity.
Athanasius was evidently a centre of disturbance, and the Asiatic
bishops disliked him: he was therefore best kept out of the way
for
the present.
Constantine died 22 May 337, and his sons at once restored the
exiles. Presently things settled down in 340 with the second son Con-
stantius master of the East, and Constans the youngest holding the
three Western praefectures. So Eusebian intrigues were soon resumed.
Constantius was essentially a little man, weak and vain, easy-tempered
and suspicious. He had also a taste for church matters, and without
ever being a genuine Arian, he hated first the Nicene Council, and then
Athanasius personally. The intriguers could scarcely have desired a
better tool.
They began by raising troubles at Alexandria, and deposing Athana-
sius afresh (late in 338) for having allowed the civil power to restore
him. In Lent 339 Athanasius was expelled, and Gregory of Cappadocia
installed by military violence in his place. The ejected bishops-
Athanasius, Marcellus and others—fled to Rome. Bishop Julius at
once took up the high tone of impartiality which became an arbiter of
Christendom. He received the fugitives with a decent reserve, and
1
1
## p. 129 (#159) ############################################
340–343]
Council of the Dedication
129
a
a
invited the Easterns to the council they had asked him to hold. After
long delay, it was plain that they did not mean to come; so a council of
fifty bishops met at Rome in the autumn of 340, by which Athanasius
and Marcellus were acquitted. As Julius reported to the Easterns, the
charges against Athanasius were inconsistent with each other and con-
tradicted by evidence from Egypt, and the proceedings at Tyre were a
travesty of justice. It was unreasonable to insist on its condemnation
of Athanasius as final. Even the great council of Nicaea had decided
(and not without the will of God) that the acts of one council might be
revised by another: and in any case Nicaea was better than Tyre. As
for Marcellus, he had denied the charge of heresy and presented a sound
confession of his faith (our own Apostles' Creed, very nearly) and the
Roman legates at Nicaea had borne honourable witness to the part he
had taken in the council. If they had complaints against Athanasius,
they should not have neglected the old custom of writing first to Rome,
that a legitimate decision might issue from the apostolic see.
The Eusebians replied in the summer of 341, when some ninety
bishops met to consecrate the Golden Church of Constantine at Antioch.
Hence it is called the Council of the Dedication. Like the Nicene, it
seems to have been in the main conservative; but the active minority
was Arianizing, not Athanasian; and it was not quite so successful.
The bishops began as at Nicaea by rejecting an Arian creed. They next
approved a creed of a conservative sort, said to be the work of Lucian
of Antioch, the teacher of Arius. The decisive clause however was
rather Nicene than conservative. It declared the Son “morally un-
changeable, the unvarying image of the deity and essence of the Father. ”
The phrase declares that there is no change of essence in passing from
the Father to the Son, and is therefore equivalent to homoousion.
Athanasius might have accepted it at Nicaea, but he could not now;
and the conservatives did not mean óuoouo lov--only the illogical
óuocovolov, of like essence. So they were satisfied with the Lucianic
creed: but the Arianizers endeavoured to upset it with a third creed,
and the council seems to have broken up uncertainly, though without
revoking the Lucianic creed. A few months later, another council met
at Antioch and adopted a fourth creed, more to the mind of the
Arianizers. In substance it was less opposed to Arianism than the
Lucianic, its form is a close copy of the Nicene. In fact, it is the
Nicene down to the anathemas, but the Nicene with every sharp edge
taken off. So well did it suit the Arianizers that they reissued it (with
ever-growing anathemas) three times in the next ten years.
.
Western suspicion became a certainty, now that the intriguers were
openly tampering with the Nicene faith. Constans demanded a general
council, and Constantius was too busy with the Persian war to refuse
him. So it met at Sardica, the modern Sofia, in the summer of 343.
The Westerns were some 96 in number “with Hosius of Cordova for
C. MED. H. VOL. I. CH. V.
9
## p. 130 (#160) ############################################
130
Council of Sardica
[ 343–353
their father. ” The Easterns, under Stephen of Antioch, were about 76.
They demanded that the condemnation of Athanasius and Marcellus
should be taken as final, and retired across the Balkans to Philippopolis
when the Westerns insisted on reopening the case. So there were two
contending councils. At Sardica the accused were acquitted, while the
Easterns confirmed their condemnation, denounced Julius and Hosius,
and reissued the fourth creed of Antioch with some new anathemas.
The quarrel was worse than ever. But next year came a reaction.
When the Western envoy Euphrates of Cologne reached Antioch, a
harlot was let loose upon him; and the plot was traced up to bishop
Stephen. The scandal was too great: Stephen was deposed, and the
fourth creed of Antioch reissued, but this time with long conciliatory
explanations for the Westerns. The way was clearing for a cessation of
hostilities. Constans pressed the decrees of Sardica, Ursacius and Valens
recanted the charges against Athanasius, and at last Constantius con-
sented to his return. His entry into Alexandria (31 Oct. 346) was the
crowning triumph of his life.
The next few years were an interval of suspense, for nothing was
decided. Conservative suspicion was not dispelled, and the return of
Athanasius was a personal humiliation for Constantius. But the mere
cessation of hostilities was not without influence. The conservatives
were fundamentally agreed with the Nicenes on the reality of the Lord's
divinity; and minor jealousies abated when they were less busily
encouraged. The Eusebian phase of conservatism, which dreaded
Sabellianism and distrusted the Nicenes, was giving place to the
Semiarian, which was coming to see that Arianism was the more
pressing danger, and slowly moving towards an alliance with the
Nicenes. We see also the rise of a more defiant Arianism, less patient
.
of conservative supremacy, and less pliant to imperial dictation. The
Anomoean leaders emphasized the most offensive aspects of Arianism,
declaring that the Son is unlike the Father, and boldly maintaining that
there is no mystery at all in God. Their school was presumptuous and
shallow, quarrelsome and heathenizing, yet not without a directness and
a
firm conviction which compares well with the wavering and insincerity
of the conservative chiefs.
Meanwhile new troubles were gathering in the West. Constans was
deposed (Jan. 350) by Magnentius. After a couple of minor claimants
were disposed of, the struggle lay between Magnentius and Constantius.
The decisive battle was fought (28 Sept. 351) near Mursa in Pannonia,
but the destruction of Magnentius was not completed till 353. Con-
stantius remained the master of the world. The Eusebians now had
their opportunity. Already in 351-2 they had reissued the fourth
creed of Antioch from Sirmium, with its two anathemas grown into
twenty-seven. But as soon as Constantius was master of Gaul, he deter-
mined to force on the Westerns an indirect condemnation of the Nicene
## p. 131 (#161) ############################################
353–355]
Renewal of the Contest
131
a
faith in the person of Athanasius. A direct approval of Arianism was
out of the question, for Western conservatism was firmly set against it
by the Nicene and Sardican councils. The bishops were nearly al
resolute against it. Liberius of Rome followed in the steps of Julius,
Hosius of Cordova was still the patriarch of Christendom, and the
bishops of Trier, Toulouse and Milan proved their faith in exile. So
doctrine was kept in the background. Constantius came forward per-
sonally before a council at Arles (Oct. 353) as the accuser of Athanasius,
while all the time he was giving him solemn and repeated promises of
protection. The bishops were not unwilling to take the emperor's word,
if the Court party would clear itself of Arianism ; and at last they gave
1
way, the Roman legate with the rest. Only Paulinus of Trier had to be
exiled. For the next two years Constantius was busy with the bar-
barians, so that it was not till the autumn of 355 that he was able to
call another council at Milan, where Julian was made Caesar for Gaul.
It proved quite unmanageable, and only yielded at last to open violence.
Three bishops were exiled, including Lucifer of Calaris in Sardinia.
Lucifer's appearance is a landmark. The lawless despotism of Con-
stantius had roused an aggressive fanaticism. Lucifer had all the
courage of Athanasius, but nothing of his wary self-respect and
moderation. He scarcely condescends to reason, but revels in the
pleasanter work of denouncing the fires of damnation against the dis-
obedient emperor. A worthier champion was Hilary of Poitiers, the
noblest
representative of Western literature in the Nicene age. Hilary
was by birth a heathen, coming before us in 355 as an old convert and
a bishop of some standing. In massive power of thought he was a match
for Athanasius; but he was rather student and thinker than orator and
statesman. He had not studied the Nicene Creed till lately ; but when
he found it true, he could not refuse to defend it. He was not at the
council, but was exiled to Asia a few months later, apparently on the
charge of immorality, which the Eusebians usually brought against
obnoxious bishops.
When Hosius of Cordova had been imprisoned, there remained but
one power in the West which could not be summarily dealt with. The
grandeur of Hosius was personal, but Liberius claimed the universal
reverence due to the apostolic and imperial see of Rome. Such a bishop
was a power of the first importance, when Arianism was dividing the
Empire round the hostile camps of Gaul and Asia. Liberius was a
staunch Nicene. When his legates yielded at Arles, he disavowed their
action. The emperor's threats he disregarded, the emperor's gifts
he cast out of the Church. It was not long before the world was
scandalized by the news that Constantius had arrested and exiled the
bishop of Rome.
Attempts had already been made to dislodge Athanasius from
Alexandria, but he refused to obey anything but written orders from the
a
a
CH, V.
9-2
## p. 132 (#162) ############################################
132
Third Exile of Athanasius
( 356–358
emperor. As Constantius had given his solemn promise to protect him
in 346, and three times written to repeat it since his brother's death,
duty as well as policy forbade him to credit officials. The most pious
emperor could not be supposed to mean treachery; but he must say so
himself if he did. The message was plain enough when it came. A
force of 5000 men surrounded the church of Theonas on a night of
vigil (8 Feb. 356). The congregation was caught as in a net. Athana-
sius fainted in the tumult : yet when the soldiers reached the bishop's
throne, its occupant had somehow been conveyed away.
For six years Athanasius disappeared from the eyes of men, while
Alexandria was given over to military outrage. The new bishop George
of Cappadocia (formerly a pork-contractor) arrived in Lent 357, and
soon provoked the fierce populace of Alexandria. He escaped with
difficulty from one riot in 358, and was fairly driven from the city by
another in October. Constantius had his revenge, but it shook the
Empire to its base. The flight of Athanasius revealed the power of
religion to stir up a national rising, none the less real for not breaking
out in open war. In the next century the councils of the Church became
the battlefield of nations, and the victory of Hellenic orthodoxy at
Chalcedon implied sooner or later the separation of Monophysite Egypt
and Nestorian Syria.
Arianism seemed to have won its victory when the last Nicene
champion was driven into the desert. But the West was only terrorized,
Egypt was devoted to its patriarch, Nicenes were fairly strong in the
East, and the conservatives who had won the battle would never accept
Arianism. However, this was the time chosen for an open declaration
of Arianism, by a small council of Western bishops at Sirmium, headed
by Ursacius and Valens. They emphasize the unity of God, condemn
the words ουσία (essence), ομοούσιον and όμοιούσιον, lay stress on the
inferiority of the Son, limit the Incarnation to the assumption of a body,
and more than half say that he is only a creature. This was clear Anomoean
doctrine, and made a stir even in the West, where it was promptly con-
demned by the Gaulish bishops, now partly shielded from Constantius
by the Caesarship of Julian. But the Sirmian manifesto spread dismay
through the ranks of the Eastern conservatives. They had not put down
Sabellianism only in order to set up the Anomoeans; and the danger was
brought home to them when Eudoxius of Antioch and Acacius of
Caesarea convened a Syrian synod to approve the manifesto. The
conservative counterblow was struck at Ancyra in Lent 358. The
synodical letter is long and clumsy, but we see in it conservatism
changing from its Eusebian to a Semiarian phase—from fear of Sabel-
lianism to fear of Arianism. They won a complete victory at the Court,
and sent Eudoxius and the rest into exile. This however was too much.
The exiles were soon recalled, and the strife began again more bitterly
than ever.
## p. 133 (#163) ############################################
359–360]
The Homoean domination
133
Here was a deadlock. All parties had failed. The Anomoeans were
active enough, but pure Arianism was hopelessly discredited throughout
the Empire. The Nicenes had Egypt and the West, but they could
not overcome the Court and Asia. The Eastern Semiarians were the
strongest party, but such men of violence could not close the strife. In
this deadlock nothing was left but specious charity and colourless in-
definiteness ; and this was the plan of the new Homoean party, formed
by Acacius and Eudoxius in the East, Ursacius and Valens in the West.
A general council was decided on; but it was divided into two-the
Westerns to meet at Ariminum, the Easterns at Seleucia in Cilicia, the
headquarters of the army then operating against the Isaurians. Mean-
while parties began to group themselves afresh. The Anomoeans went
with the Homoeans, from whom alone they could expect any favour,
while the Semiarians drew closer to the Nicenes, and were welcomed by
Hilary of Poitiers in his conciliatory de Synodis. The next step was a
small meeting of Homoean and Semiarian leaders, held in the emperor's
presence on Pentecost Eve (22 May 359) to draw up a creed to be laid
before the councils. The dated creed (or fourth of Sirmium) is conser-
vative in its appeals to Scripture, in its solemn reverence for the Lord,
in its rejection of essence (ouoia) as not found in Scripture, and in its insist-
ence on the mystery of the eternal generation. But its central clause gave
a decisive advantage to the Homoeans. “We say that the Son is like
the Father in all things as the Scriptures say and teach. ” Even the
Anomoeans could sign this. “Like the Father as the Scriptures say--
and no further; and we find very little likeness taught in Scripture. Like
the Father if you will, but not like God, for no creature can be. Like the
Father certainly, but not in essence, for likeness which is not identity
implies difference-or in other words, likeness is a question of degree. "
Of these three replies, the first is fair, the third perfectly sound.
The reception of the creed was hostile in both councils. The
Westerns at Ariminum rejected it, deposed the Homoean leaders,
and ratified the Nicene Creed. In the end however they accepted the
Sirmian, but with the addition of a stringent series of anathemas against
Arianism, which Valens accepted for the moment. The Easterns at
—.
Seleucia rejected it likewise, deposed the Homoean leaders, and ratified
the Lucianic creed. Both sides sent deputies to the emperor, as had
been arranged; and after much pressure, these deputies signed a revision
of the dated creed on the night of 31 Dec. 359. The Homoeans now
saw their way to final victory.
By throwing over the Anomoeans and condemning their leader
Aëtius, they were able to enforce the prohibition of the Semiarian
ópolotolov: and then it only remained to revise the dated creed again
for a council held at Constantinople in Feb. 360, and send the Semiarian
leaders into exile.
The Homoean domination never extended beyond the Alps. Gaul
a
cH. Y.
## p. 134 (#164) ############################################
134
Julian
[ 356–361
was firmly Nicene, and Constantius could do nothing there after the
mutiny at Paris in Jan. 360 had made Julian independent of him. The
few Western Arians soon died out. But in the East, the Homoean
power lasted nearly twenty years. Its strength lay in its appeal to the
moderate men who were tired of strife, and to the confused thinkers who
did not see that a vital question was at issue. The dated creed seemed
reverent and safe; and its defects would not have been easy to see if the
Anomoeans had not made them plain. But the position of parties was
greatly changed since 356. First Hilary of Poitiers had done something
to bring together conservatives and Nicenes ; then Athanasius took up
the work in his own de Synodis. It is a noble overture of friendship to
his old conservative enemies. The Semiarians, or many of them, accepted
of the essence (ex tîus oủolas) and the Nicene anathemas, and doubted only
of the ówooúolov. Such men, says he, are not to be treated as enemies,
but reasoned with as brethren who differ from us only in the use of a
word which sums up their own teaching as well as ours.
When they
confess that the Lord is a true Son of God and not a creature, they
grant all that we are contending for. Their own homoiousion without
of the essence does not shut out Arianism, but the two together amount
to homoousion. Moreover, homoiousion is illogical, for likeness is of
properties and qualities, whereas the essence must be the same or
different, so that the word rather suggests Arianism, whereas homoousion
shuts it out effectually. If they accept our doctrine, sooner or later
they will find that they cannot refuse its necessary safeguard. But if
Nicenes and Semiarians drew together, so did Homoeans and Anomoeans.
Any ideas of conciliating Nicene support were destroyed by the exile of
Meletius, the new bishop of Antioch, for preaching a sermon carefully
modelled on the dated creed, but substantially Nicene in doctrine. A
schism arose at Antioch ; and henceforth the leaders of the Homoeans
were practically Arians.
The mutiny at Paris implied a civil war : but just as it was be-
ginning, Constantius died at Mopsucrenae beneath Mount Taurus
(3 Nov. 361) and Julian remained sole emperor. We are not here
concerned with the general history of his reign, or even with his policy
towards the Christians—only with its bearing on Arianism. In general,
he held to the toleration of the Edict of Milan. The Christians are not
to be persecuted-only deprived of special privileges—but the emperor's
favour must be reserved for the worshippers of the gods. So the ad-
ministration was unfriendly to the Christians, and left occasional outrages
unpunished, or dismissed them with a thin reproof. But these were no
great matters, for the Christians were now too strong to be lynched at
pleasure. Julian's chief endeavour was to put new life into heathenism:
and in this the heathens themselves hardly took him seriously. His
only act of definite persecution was the edict near the end of his reign,
which forbade the Christians to teach the classics ; and this is dis-
approved by “the cool and impartial heathen” Ammianus.
## p. 135 (#165) ############################################
362]
Apollinarius of Laodicea
135
Every blow struck by Julian against the Christians fell first on the
Homoeans whom Constantius had left in power; and the reaction he
provoked against Greek culture threatened the philosophical postulates
of Arianism. But Julian cared little for the internal quarrels of the
Christians, and only broke his rule of contemptuous impartiality when
he recognised one greater than himself in “ the detestable Athanasius. ”
Before long an edict recalled the exiled bishops, though it did not replace
them in their churches. If others were in possession, it was not Julian's
business to turn them out. This was toleration, but Julian had a
malicious hope of still further embroiling the confusion. If the
Christians were left to themselves, they would “quarrel like beasts. "
He got a few scandalous wranglings, but in the main he was mistaken.
The Christians only closed their ranks against the common enemy: the
Arians also were sound Christians in this matter-blind old Maris of
Chalcedon came and cursed him to his face.
Back to their cities came the survivors of the exiled bishops, no
longer travelling in pomp and circumstance to their noisy councils, but
bound on the nobler errand of seeking out their lost or scattered flocks.
It was time to resume Hilary's interrupted work of conciliation.
Semiarian violence had discredited in advance the new conservatism
at Seleucia : but Athanasius had things more in his favour, for Julian's
reign had not only sobered partizanship, but left a clear field for the
strongest moral force in Christendom to assert itself. And this force was
with the Nicenes. Athanasius reappeared at Alexandria 22 Feb. 362,
and held a small council there before Julian drove him out again. It
was decided first that Arians who came over to the Nicene side were to
retain their rank on condition of accepting the Nicene council, none but
the chiefs and active defenders of Arianism being reduced to lay com-
munion. Then, after clearing up some misunderstandings of East and
West, and trying to settle the schism at Antioch by inducing the old
Nicenes, who at present had no bishop, to accept Meletius, they took in
hand two new questions of doctrine. One was the divinity of the Holy
Spirit. Its reality was acknowledged, except by the Arians; but did it
amount to co-essential deity ? That was still an open question. But
now that attention was fully directed to the subject, it appeared from
Scripture that the theory of eternal distinctions in the divine nature
must either be extended to the Holy Spirit or abandoned. Athanasius
took one course, the Anomoeans the other, while the Semiarians tried
to make a difference between the Lord's deity and that of the Holy
Spirit: and this gradually became the chief obstacle to their union with
the Nicenes. The other subject of debate was the new system of Apol-
linarius of Laodicea--the most suggestive of all the ancient heresies.
Apollinarius was the first who fairly faced the difficulty, that if all men
are sinners, and the Lord was not a sinner, he cannot have been truly
Apollinarius replied that sin lies in the weakness of the human
man,
CH. V.
## p. 136 (#166) ############################################
136
Movements under Julian
[362–363
spirit, and accounted for the sinlessness of Christ by putting in its place
the divine Logos, and adding the important statement that if the human
spirit was created in the image of the Logos (Gen. i. 28) Christ would
not be the less human but the more so for the difference. The spirit in
Christ was human spirit, although divine. Further, the Logos which in
Christ was human spirit was eternal. Apart then from the Incarnation,
the Logos was archetypal man as well as God, so that the Incarnation
was not simply an expedient to get rid of sin, but the historic revelation
of that which was latent in the Logos from eternity. The Logos and
man are not alien beings, but joined in their inmost nature, and in a
real sense each is incomplete without the other. Suggestive as this is,
Apollinarius reaches no true incarnation. Against him it was decided
that the Incarnation implied a human soul as well as a human body—a
decision which struck straight enough at the Arians, but quite missed
the triple division of body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. v. 23) on which
Apollinarius based his system.
Athanasius was exiled again almost at once: Julian's anger was
kindled by the news that he had baptized some heathen ladies at
Alexandria. But his work remained. At Antioch indeed it was
marred by Lucifer of Calaris, who would have nothing to do with
Meletius, and consecrated Paulinus as bishop for the old Nicenes. So
the schism continued, and henceforth the rising Nicene party of Pontus
and Asia was divided by this personal question from the older Nicenes
of Egypt and the West. But upon the whole the lenient policy of the
council was a great success. Bishop after bishop gave in his adhesion
to the Nicene faith. Friendly Semiarians came in like Cyril of Jeru-
salem, old conservatives followed, and at last (in Jovian's time) the
arch-enemy Acacius himself gave in his signature. Even creeds were re-
modelled in all directions in a Nicene sense, as at Jerusalem and Antioch,
and in Cappadocia and Mesopotamia. True, the other parties were not
idle. The Homoean coalition was even more unstable than the Eusebian,
and broke up of itself as soon as opinion was free. One party favoured
the Anomoeans, another drew nearer to the Nicenes, while the Semiarians
completed the confusion by confirming the Seleucian decisions and re-
issuing the Lucianic creed. But the main current set in a Nicene
direction, and the Nicene faith was rapidly winning its way to victory
when the process was thrown back for nearly twenty years by Julian's
death in Persia (26 June 363).
Julian's death seemed to leave the Empire in the gift of four bar-
barian generals : but while they were debating, a few of the soldiers
outside hailed a favourite named Jovian as emperor. The cry was taken
up, and in a few minutes the young officer found himself the successor
of Augustus. Jovian was a decided Christian, though his personal
character did no credit to the Gospel. But his religious policy was one
of genuine toleration. If Athanasius was graciously received at Antioch,
a
с
## p. 137 (#167) ############################################
364–365]
Insecurity of Homoean domination
137
the Arians were told with scant courtesy that they could hold meetings
as they pleased at Alexandria. So all parties went on consolidating
themselves. The Anomoeans had been restive since the condemnation
of Aëtius at Constantinople, but it was not till now that they lost hope
of the Homoeans, and formed an organised sect. But all these move-
ments came to an end with the sudden death of Jovian (16-17 Feb. 364).
This time the generals chose ; and they chose the Pannonian Valentinian
for emperor. A month later he assigned the East from Thrace to his
brother Valens.
Valentinian was a good soldier and little more, though he could
honour learning and carry forward the reforming work of Constantine.
His religious policy was toleration. If he refused to displace the few
.
Arian bishops he found in possession, he left the churches free to choose
Nicene successors. So the West soon recovered from the strife which
Constantius had introduced. It was otherwise in the East. Valens was
a weaker character-timid and inert, but not inferior to his brother in
scrupulous care for the interests of his subjects. No soldier, but more
or less good at finance. For awhile events continued to develop
naturally. The Homoean bishops held their sees, but their influence
was fast declining. The Anomoeans were forming a schism on one side,
the Nicenes were recovering power on the other. On both sides the
simpler doctrines were driving out the compromises. It was time for
even the Semiarians to bestir themselves. A few years before they were
beyond question the majority in the East; but this was not so certain
The Nicenes had made a great advance since the Council of
Ancyra, and were now less conciliatory. Lucifer had compromised them
in one direction, Apollinarius in another, and even Marcellus had never
been disavowed; but the chief cause of suspicion to the Semiarians was
now the advance of the Nicenes to a belief in the deity of the Holy Spirit.
It was some time before Valens had a policy to declare. He was only
a catechumen, perhaps cared little for the questions before his elevation,
and inherited no assured position like Constantius. It was some time
before he fell into the hands of the Homoean Eudoxius of Constantinople, a
man of experience and learning, whose mild prudence gave him just the
help he needed. In fact, a Homoean policy was really the easiest for the
moment. Heathenism had failed in Julian's hands, and an Anomoean
.
course was even more hopeless, while the Nicenes were still a minority
outside Egypt. The only alternative was to favour the Semiarians; and
this too was full of difficulties. Upon the whole, the Homoeans were
still the strongest party in 365. They were in possession of the churches
and had astute leaders, and their doctrine had not yet lost its attraction
for the quiet men who were tired of controversy.
In the spring of 365 an imperial rescript commanded the munici-
palities to drive out from their cities the bishops who had been exiled
by Constantius and restored by Julian. At Alexandria the populace
а
CH. V.
## p. 138 (#168) ############################################
138
Basil of Caesarea
[360–378
declared that the rescript did not apply to Athanasius, whom Julian
had not restored, and raised such dangerous riots that the matter had
to be referred back to Valens. Then came the revolt of Procopius, who
seized Constantinople and very nearly displaced Valens. Athanasius was
restored, and could not safely be disturbed again. Then after the
Procopian revolt came the Gothic war, which kept Valens occupied till
369: and before he could return to church affairs, he had lost his best
adviser, for Eudoxius of Constantinople was ill replaced by the rash
Demophilus.
The Homoean party was the last hope of Arianism. The original
doctrine of Arius had been decisively rejected at Nicaea, the Eusebian
coalition was broken up by the Sirmian manifesto, and if the Homoean
union also failed, its failure meant the fall of Arianism. Now the
weakness of the Homoean power is shewn by the growth of a new
Nicene party in the most Arian province of the Empire. Cappadocia
was a country district : yet Julian found it incorrigibly Christian, and
we hear very little of heathenism from Basil.
