THE EUSEBIAN REACTION.

[Sidenote:  The problem stated.]

At first sight the reaction which followed the Nicene council is one of the strangest scenes in history.  The decision was clear and all but unanimous.  Arianism seemed crushed for ever by the universal reprobation of the Christian world.  Yet it instantly renewed the contest, and fought its conquerors on equal terms for more than half a century.  A reaction like this is plainly more than a court intrigue.  Imperial favour could do a good deal in the Nicene age, but no emperor could long oppose any clear and definite belief of Christendom.  Nothing could be plainer than the issue of the council.  How then could Arianism venture to renew the contest?

[Sidenote:  The reaction rather conservative than Arian.]

The answer is, that though the belief of the churches was certainly not Arian, neither was it yet definitely Nicene.  The dominant feeling both in East and West was one of dislike to change, which we may conveniently call conservatism.  But here there was a difference.  Heresies in the East had always gathered round the person of the Lord, and more than one had already partly occupied the ground of Arianism.  Thus Eastern conservatism inherited a doctrine from the last generation, and was inclined to look on the Nicene decisions as questionable innovations.  The Westerns thought otherwise.  Leaning on authority as they habitually did, they cared little to discuss for themselves an unfamiliar question.  They could not even translate its technical terms into Latin without many misunderstandings.  Therefore Western conservatism simply fell back on the august decisions of Nicaea.  No later meeting could presume to rival ‘the great and holy council’ where Christendom had once for all pronounced the condemnation of Arianism.  In short, 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.

[Sidenote:  Supported by influence of:  (1.) Heathens.]

The Eastern reaction was therefore in its essence not Arian but conservative.  Its leaders might be conservatives like Eusebius of Caesarea, or court politicians like his successor, Acacius.  They were never open Arians till 357.  The front and strength of the party was conservative, and the Arians at its tail were in themselves only a source of weakness.  Yet they could enlist powerful allies in the cause of reaction.  Heathenism was still a living power in the world.  It was strong in numbers even in the East, and even stronger in the imposing memories of history.  Christianity was still an upstart on Caesar’s throne.  The favour of the gods had built up the Empire, and men’s hearts misgave them that their wrath might overthrow it.  Heathenism was still an established religion, the Emperor still its official head.  Old Rome was still devoted to her ancient deities, her nobles still recorded