Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 4 (Athanasius: Select Works and Letters)

from Alexandria itself, to Alexander (p. 137, "he handed these over to Alexander, who was present"), who was thus enabled to check the Brevium a short schedule or summary handed in by their chief 6. All this must have taken a long time after Alexander’s return, and the peace was soon broken by his death.

Five months after the conclusion of the negotiations, Alexander having now died, the flame of schism broke out afresh. On his death-bed, Alexander called for Athanasius. He was away from Alexandria, but the other deacon of that name stepped forward in answer to the call. Without noticing him, the Bishop repeated the name, adding, "You think to escape, but it cannot be" (Sozomen ii. 17). Alexander had already written his Easter Letter for the year 328. He died on April 17 of that year, and on the eighth of June, Athanasius was chosen bishop in his stead.

§ 3 (2). The situation after the Council of Nicæa.

The council (a) had testified, by its horrified and spontaneous rejection of it, that Arianism was a novelty subversive of the Christian faith as they had received it from their fathers. They had (b) banished it from the Church by an inexorable test, which even the leading supporters of Arius had been induced to subscribe. In the years immediately following, we find (c) a large majority of the Eastern bishops, especially of Syria and Asia Minor—the very regions whence the numerical strength of the council was drawn—in full reaction against the council; first against the leaders of the victorious party, and eventually, for nearly a whole generation, against the symbol itself. The final victory of the latter in the East was the result of the slow growth of conviction, a growth independent of the authority of the council which it eventually was led to recognize. To understand this paradox of history, which determines the whole story of the life of Athanasius as bishop, it is necessary to estimate at some length the theological and ecclesiastical situation at the close of the council. This will best be done by examining each point in turn: (a) the novelty of Arianism, (b) the ὁμοούσιον consubstantial as a theological formula, and (c) the materials for reaction.

(a) "Arianism was a new doctrine in the Church" (Harnack, p. 218); but it claimed to be no novelty. And it was successful for a long time in gaining "conservative" patronage. Its novelty, as observed above, is sufficiently shown by its reception at the Council of Nicæa. But no novelty springs into existence without antecedents. What were the antecedents of Arianism? How does it stand related to the history within the Church of the momentous question, "What think ye of Christ?"

In examining such a question, two methods are possible. We may take as our point of departure the formulated dogma of Nicæa and examine variations in theological statements in preceding periods in its light, to show that they do not warrant us in regarding the dogma as an innovation. That is the dogmatic method. Or, we may start from the beginning and trace the history of doctrine in the order of cause and effect, so as to detect the divergence and convergence of streams of influence and arrive at an answer to the question: How came men to think and speak as they did? That is the historical method. Both methods have their recommendations, and either has been ably applied to the problem before us. In electing the latter, I choose the more difficult road; but I do so with the conviction, firstly, that the former has tended (and especially in the ablest hands) to obscure our perception of the actual facts, and secondly, that the saving faith of Christ has everything to gain from a method which appeals directly to our sense of historical truth and satisfies, not merely overawes, the mind.

Let us then go back to "the beginning of the Gospel." Taking the synoptic gospels as our primary evidence, we ask, what did Christ our Lord teach about Himself? We do not find formal definitions of doctrine concerning His Person. Doubtless, it may seem that such a definition on His part would have saved infinite dispute and searchings of heart in the history of the Church. But recognizing in Him the unique and supreme Revealer of the Father, it is not for us to say what He should have taught; we must accept His method of teaching as that which Divine Wisdom chose as the best, and its sequel in history as the way in which God willed man to learn. We find then in the materials which we possess for the history of His Life and Teaching fully enough to explain the belief of His disciples in His Divinity. Firstly, there is no serious doubt as to His claim to be the Messiah. (The confession of Peter in all four Gospels: Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:27; John 6:69; "Son of Man," Daniel 7:13, 9:24, etc.) In this character, He is King in the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 25:31–36, cf. Mark 8:38), and revises the Law with full authority (Matthew 5:21–44, cf. Luke 5:24; Matthew 12:8). It may be added that whatever this claim conveyed to the Jews of His own time (see Stanton’s Jewish and Christian Messiah), it is impossible to combine in one idea the Old Testament traits of the Coming One if we stop short of the identification of the Messiah with the God of Israel (see Delitzsch, Psalms, vol. i. pp. 94, 95, last English ed.). Secondly, Christ enjoys and confers the full authority of God (Matthew 10:40; Luke 10:16; cf. also Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33), gives and promises the Holy Spirit ("the Spirit of the Father," see Matthew 10:17, etc.; Luke 12:12, and especially 21:15, "for I will give," etc.), and apparently sends the prophets and holy men of old (cf. Matthew 23:34, "I am sending," with Luke 11:49). Thirdly, the foundation of all this is laid in a passage preserved by the first and third gospels, in which He claims the unqualified possession of the mind of the Father (Luke 10:22).

6 It is worth noting that the Nicene arrangement was successful in some few cases. See Index to this vol. under "Theon" (of Nilopolis), etc.