THE CAMBRIDGE MEDIEVAL HISTORY I 071
The Anti-Nicene Reactions
5-5. The Anti-Nicene Reactions
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 heathenism 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 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 Arianising 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 Ariminum 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 restoration 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 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.
To obtain a deluxe leatherbound edition of THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE, subscribe to Castalia History.
"Conservatives" appear to be of a similar stripe through the ages.