THE CAMBRIDGE MEDIEVAL HISTORY I 078
THE CAMBRIDGE MEDIEVAL HISTORY I 078
The Last Hope of Arianism
5-12. The Last Hope of Arianism
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 now. 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 municipalities to drive out from their cities the bishops who had been exiled by Constantius and restored by Julian. At Alexandria the populace 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 Sinnian 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. But it was a stronghold of Arianism; and here was formed the alliance which decided the fate of Arianism. Serious men like Meletius had only been attracted to the side of the Homoeans by their professions of reverence for the Person of the Lord, and began to look back to the Nicene council when it appeared that Eudoxius and his friends were practically Arians after all. Of the old conservatives also, there were many who felt that the Semiarian position was unsound, and yet could find no satisfaction in the indefinite doctrine professed at Court. Thus the Homoean domination was threatened with a double secession. If the two groups of malcontents could form a union with each other and with the older Nicenes of Egypt and the West, they would be much the strongest of the parties.
This was the policy of the man who was now coming to the front of the Nicene leaders. Basil of Caesarea — the Cappadocian Caesarea — was a disciple of the Athenian schools, and a master of heathen eloquence and learning, and man of the world enough to secure the friendly interest of men of all sorts. His connexions lay among the old conservatives, though he had been a decided opponent of Arianism since 360. He succeeded to the bishopric of Caesarea in 370. The crisis was near. Valens moved eastward in 371, reaching Caesarea in time for the great midwinter festival of Epiphany 372. Many of the lesser bishops yielded, but threats and blandishments were thrown away on their metropolitan, and when Valens himself and Basil met face to face, the emperor was overawed. More than once the order was prepared for his exile, but it was never issued. Valens went forward on his journey, leaving behind a princely gift for Basil's poorhouse. Thenceforth he fixed his quarters at Antioch till the disasters of the Gothic war called him back to Europe in 378.
Armed with spiritual power which in some sort extended over Galatia and Armenia, Basil was now free to labour at his plan. Homoean malcontents formed the nucleus of the league, but old conservatives came in, and Athanasius gave his patriarchal blessing to the scheme. But the difficulties were enormous. The league was full of jealousies. Athanasius might recognise the orthodoxy of Meletius, but others almost went the length of banning all who had ever been Arians. Others again were lukewarm or sunk in worldliness, while the West stood aloof. The confessors of 355 were mostly gathered to their rest, and the Church of Rome cared little for troubles that were not likely to reach herself. Nor was Basil quite the man for the work. His courage indeed was indomitable. He ruled Cappadocia from a sick-bed, and bore down opposition by sheer force of will; and to this he joined an ascetic fervour which secured the devotion of his friends, and often the respect of his enemies. But we miss the lofty self-respect of Athanasius. The ascetic is usually too full of his own purposes to feel sympathy with others, or even to feign it like a diplomatist. Basil had worldly prudence enough to dissemble his belief in the Holy Spirit, not enough to shield his nearest friends from his imperious temper. Small wonder if the great scheme met with many difficulties.
To obtain a deluxe leatherbound edition of THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE, subscribe to Castalia History.
