NICAEA TO CHALCEDON.

It was impossible for the non-reflective period concerning the Holy Spirit to continue in the light of the Christological controversies of the times, for when the Deity of the Son had been established, it was inevitable that thought would be turned in the direction of the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Even the heresy of Arius did not exclude the consideration of the Third Person, although the Nicene Council dealt only with the Deity of the Son, and ended its statement of belief with the simple words, ' And in the Holy Spirit.' But if the Son was not a Creator but ὁμοούσιος with the Father and therefore Divine, the Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit would naturally be inferred, even though not specifically stated.

' Either the Church did not realise that the Person of the Holy Spirit was virtually included in the Arian attack upon the Person of the Son, or she was not prepared to pronounce a decisive judgment upon the Godhead of the Spirit; or, as is more probable, she was not concerned to anticipate heresy, or to define the terms of Catholic communion more precisely than the occasion demanded. In any case the Council of 325 was content to assert the consubstantiality of the Son. Yet the sudden arrest of the Nicene Creed after the words " And in the Holy Spirit," gave warning that at some future time it might be found necessary to guard the Deity of the Spirit as the Deity of the Son had been guarded.'1

The question was not raised at once, although a controversy on subjects arising out of the Arian question was rife for thirty years after Nicaea. It is particularly interesting to notice that most of the later Arian Councils, up to 360, stated their belief concerning the work of the Holy Spirit in terms which were in thorough accord with the spiritual simplicity of Holy Scripture. So much is this the case, that Swete is able to write:

' The Church owes a debt, it may be freely admitted, to the Arian leaders who thus persistently called attention to the teaching and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, at a time when there was grave risk of Christian thought being turned too entirely to theological controversy.'2

But even this by itself did not prove satisfactory, for it would seem as though an exclusive emphasis on the work of the Spirit tended to a view of His inferiority in Person to the Son, and thus the Arian and semi-Arian statement of the mission and work of the Spirit, while admirable in itself, was in the outcome ' unsatisfactory and even misleading; professing to be scriptural, it represents only one side of the teaching of Scripture.'3 As a consequence, a new controversy soon arose, and individuals ' everywhere begun openly to assert their unbelief in the Deity of the Spirit.'4 The controversy thus commenced lasted nearly thirty years, and was not settled until the Council of Constantinople, 381.

Meanwhile it is important to call attention to the names of leading writers during the period between Nicaea and Constantinople. The first is that of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, who, as is well known, played a prominent part in the Nicene Council. His subordinationist view has tended to make modern writers think of him as unorthodox, but the verdict of Swete is probably correct:

' This is subordinationism in its most outspoken boldness, but it is the subordinationism of Origen rather than of Arius; only, in passing through the mind of Eusebius, Origen's conjectures have become dogmas.... It may be doubted whether, had Eusebius lived to be present at the Council of 381, he would not have submitted as he submitted at Nicaea; not going the whole way, perhaps, with the victorious party, but yet preferring conformity to separation from the Church. Certainly he would have hesitated to adopt the shibboleths of the Eunomians or the Pneumatomachi.... If this is far from the orthodoxy of an Athanasius or a Basil, it is certainly further from the irreverence of an Arius or a Eunomius.'5

Cyril of Jerusalem next calls for attention, and the importance of his testimony lies in the fact that he was a pastor and teacher rather than a theologian. His position has been well summed up:

' On the theology of the Holy Spirit, therefore, he is far from explicit; but of the work of the Spirit no writer of the fourth century has spoken more fully or convincingly. Yet if the Catecheses had not survived, Cyril might have been known to us merely as a Semiarian leader who after a troubled episcopate sought rest late in life among the victorious Nicenes. The lectures shew that his true interests were religious and not controversial, and that in all essential respects he was from the first a Nicene in heart. His case suggests the hope that not a few of the Semiarian clergy of his age were men of devout minds, whose piety and pastoral labours fell little short of those of the best champions of the Nicene faith.'6

One of the greatest names is that of Athanasius, whose work during this period shows that he was just as capable of dealing with the Godhead of the Spirit as he had been with the Godhead of the Son, and both by his personal influence as well as by his writings he did a work of supreme and vital moment.

' It was of no little importance for the cause of the Nicene faith that when the Deity of the Spirit was for the first time explicitly denied, and the denial came from men who professed to believe in the Deity of the Son, the veteran champion of the Homoousion was ready to expose the futility of the attempt to accept the Homoousion unless it were extended to the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. The new heresy received in fact its death blow from the same capable hands that had despatched the earlier form of Arianism; for though it struggled on for twenty years and more, the end was scarcely doubtful after the appearance of the Letters to Serapion.'7

Last of all, and in some respects greatest of all, are the three theologians popularly known as the Cappadocians; Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. It was due to them that the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity ultimately prevailed throughout the Eastern Church.8 Basil's important work is thus characterised:

' Others may have carried the doctrine of the Holy Spirit somewhat further, but no ancient writer either in East or West shews more sympathy with his subject, or treats it more worthily.'9

Gregory's sermon on the Holy Spirit is described as ' this greatest of all sermons on the doctrine.'10 Of Gregory of Nyssa, Swete says:

' It may be doubted whether any subsequent writer, in East or West, has approached nearer to a satisfactory statement of the relation which, according to the laws of human thought, the Divine Persons may be conceived to hold towards one another.'11

The main line of orthodox teaching was that the Holy Spirit was Divine, or else the Son was not Divine. Basil and the two Gregorys developed this idea, and thereby prepared the way for the decision of the Council of Constantinople, 381.

The post-Nicene controversy on this subject arose directly out of the Arian troubles, and those who were unable to accept the Deity of the Holy Spirit were described by Athanasius as ' enemies of the Spirit,' who were afterwards designated ' Spirit-fighters,' Pneumatomachi. They were led by Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and the controversy grew until at length it was found absolutely necessary for the Emperor Theodosius to deal with the subject, by calhng a Council at Constantinople consisting of 150 orthodox Bishops, representing the East only. The result was the promulgation of the Creed now known as the Nicene, but which was in reaUty a Creed already used in Jerusalem several years before. The additions to the Nicene formula were a declaration after belief in the Holy Spirit as

' The Lord, the life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, that with Father and Son is together worshipped and together glorified.'12

It has been pointed out that the Creed used remarkable moderation in avoiding the term ὁμοούσιος to express the Spirit's oneness with the Father and the Son. He is not even called God, though the terms in which His work is described cannot possibly be predicated of any created being.

' The words served their purpose as well as if the Homoousion had been extended to the Third Person, for while no Semiarian who was in substantial agreement with the Nicene faith could stumble at them, they were sufficiently explicit to debar from communion any who refused to the Holy Spirit the honour due to God.'13

On this point a note by Dr. Swete is at once suggestive and significant:

' The Constantinopolitan Creed adds to its confession of the Person of the Spirit a clause recognising His work in the Old Testament Prophets (τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν). It may be wished that the creed had proceeded, as most of the Arian creeds did, to speak of His office as Paraclete, and the Pentecostal effusion with its permanent results.'14

It is worthy of note that an orthodox modern scholar is able to argue in favour of the Catholic or orthodox party following the line taken earlier by the Arians and semi-Arians in emphasising the work of the Spirit.

The question of the Deity of the Holy Spirit was now finally settled, just as the Deity of the Son had been settled over fifty years before. Arianism, whether in relation to the Son or the Spirit, had no spiritual vitality. It was an illogical and impossible position, even from the intellectual point of view, while spiritually it had no basis at all. Whatever difficulties there may be in the orthodox view of the relations of the Son and the Spirit to the Father, it has one supreme advantage over every other theory; it is rooted in a personal experience which has always proved its perfect safeguard against all foes. ' A living faith thrives under the stress and storm which thin the numbers of its adherents.'15 But Arianism, ancient and modem, fails, simply because it is not ' a living faith.'

Although the subject of the Deity of the Holy Spirit was decided by the Eastern Council of Constantinople in 381, it was still discussed and developed between Constantinople and Chalcedon both in East and West. It is impossible to do more than mention the Eastern names of Theodore of Mopsuestia (392-428) and Theodoret (432-458).

But some of the Western names call for more attention. Ambrose of Milan is the first of these, and to him

' belongs the merit of being the first Western writer who devoted a separate work of any magnitude to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It has no claim to originality; the student who has read Athanasius, Basil, and Didymus on the same subject, will find little that is new in Ambrose.'16

Far greater is the name of Augustine of Hippo, whose treatment of the subject in his work, On the Trinity, is one of the profoundest in theological literature. Both as a theologian and as a deeply religious man his discussion of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit is of supreme importance. His interest in the doctrine of grace would naturally lead to a consideration of this doctrine, for his own personal experiences tended to show him how at every point from the beginning to the end the Holy Spirit is needed by the believing soul. The way in which Pelagianism minimised the need of grace only led to the still stronger emphasis by Augustine on the need and power of the Holy Spirit of God. There are those who think that he went to extremes in his insistence on the sovereignty of God, but in the days in which he lived it is not surprising that he should have been led to concentrate attention on the Divine action in the revelation and bestowal of grace, and in spite of everything that may be said concerning Augustine, few will be found to disagree with Dr. Swete's conclusion:

' The whole Church owes a deep debt to Augustine for his insistence on the inability of the human will to choose that which is good without the co-operating power of the Spirit of God and of Christ.'17

In 451 the Council of Chalcedon, representing the Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, confirmed the decisions of Nicaea and Constantinople in regard to Christian belief. This Council took care to say that the Nicene Creed was sufficient as a statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, and that the clauses added in 381 were only intended to make the Nicene doctrine more explicit as against those who, like the Macedonians, had endeavoured to deny the Deity of the Spirit. In harmony with this view, the Council endorsed both Creeds, and incorporated them in what is now known as the ' Definitio ' of Chalcedon.

In reviewing the history of the period ending with Chalcedon, it is of course impossible to avoid the feeling of regret that such sacred subjects as the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit and their relation to the Father should have been the cause of bitter controversy. But in spite of much that saddens us as we read the story of personal and synodical antipathies, we must not lose sight of the fact that all through there was a deep underlying spiritual experience of the realities of Divine redemption in the Person of Jesus Christ mediated by the Holy Spirit. Church History reveals to us intellectual controversy, but it is sometimes forgotten that spiritual experience was a reality throughout these times of storm and stress, and it is pretty certain that the experience did more than the definitions of theologians to keep the doctrine undiluted and undefiled.

' It is satisfactory to know that in those troubled years Eastern Christendom was not divided upon any great question connected with the office and work of the Paraclete. Arians who refused to call Him God, with a happy absence of logic recognised His function of sanctifying all the elect people of God. Catholics who differed among themselves on the subject of the Procession of the Spirit, were in full agreement as to His presence in the Church and His gracious workings in the Sacraments and on individual souls. A common experience accounts for this harmony, witnessing to the vital unity which in all sincere believers " underlies even serious differences of thought or creed." '18

Literature. — Orr, The Progress of Dogma, p. 126; For Athanasius; Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, pp. 172-273; Article ' Holy Ghost,' Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. III. p. 124; for the Cappadocians, Gregory, Nazianzen, Orat. 31 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Library, Vol. VII. p. 319).

1 Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 165.

2 Swete, op. cit. p. 169.

3 Swete, op. cit. p. 169.

4 Swete, Article ' Holy Ghost,' Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. III. p. 121.

5 Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, pp. 197, 198, 199.

6 Swete, op. cit. p. 210.

7 Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 220.

8 Swete, op. cit. p. 230.

9 Swete, op. cit. p 240

10 Swete, op. cit. p. 240.

11 Swete, op. cit. p. 252.

12 Swete, op. cit. p. 186.

13 Swete, op. cit. p. 187; Orr, Progress of Dogma, p. 127.

14 Op. cit. p. 187, note 3.

15 Swete, op. cit. p. 190.

16 Swete, op. cit. p. 317.

17 Swete, op. cit. p. 338.

18 Swete, op. cit. p. 273.