Church Foundations:The History of the Early Church

A 13-week Study Guide

ByColin D. Smith

1

INTRODUCTION

It is a sad fact that the study of church history is not taken seriously, if undertaken at all, in many churches these days. Not only is such a course of study beneficial for learning the mistakes of the past, but it is surely glorifying to the Chief Shepherd of the church to see the way He has providentially cared for His Bride, and how He has maintained doctrinal purity in her (if only, at times, through a small “remnant”). It is also of great encouragement to witness the trials and tribulations the church has undergone for the sake of Christ, and to see how the church has survived despite its oppressors. This gives us hope as the church today struggles against the many ways modern culture and society would seek to undermine God’s people.

The study presented here is designed for use in the context of a thirteen-week Sunday school class. It is, by necessity, a survey; one could, and many have, devote many years to the study of subjects that are here contained in just one lesson. There are topics that are important, yet have only been touched on briefly. There are also topics of great interest that have not been addressed at all. This is “par for the course” with this subject. The one presenting these lessons is encouraged to make use of the references in footnotes, as well as the bibliography, to read around the lessons, and even supplement them according to the needs of the local body.

There are a number of ways this survey can be used. Firstly, each lesson could be read each week as a lecture with little variation from the text given. Secondly, the lessons presented here could be used as the basis for the lecturer’s own presentation, making use of the outline and references in this survey. Thirdly, the study leader can assign each lesson as weekly reading to his class, and make use of the Study Questions in the Appendix to generate discussion on the contents of that week’s lesson.

All citations of the Early Church Fathers, as well as citations from Shaff’s History of the Christian Church contained in this work are taken from The Church History Collection CD-ROM, (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software) 1999.

It is my prayer that, whatever way this survey is used within the local, visible church, it is used primarily for the edification of the saints, and for the glory of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

I would briefly like to thank Dr. James White for his immense patience while I prepared these lessons, and my wife, family, and church, which have put up with me during its composition.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Colin SmithRaleigh, 2001

2

LESSON 1BACKGROUND: JEWS AND PAGANS

Many histories of the early church start with an analysis of the political and cultural situation in first century Palestine. The reason for this is quite simple: the Christian church did not develop in a vacuum. God, in His sovereign grace, established His church within a particular time period, in a particular historical context. If one is to understand fully the issues that dominated the life and thought of the church, especially in its first 450 years, one must understand the situation into which it was born.

Palestine in the first century was an occupied country, and the Jews were a conquered people. Pompey captured Jerusalem for the Romans in 63 BC and, for a while, the Jews were allowed a certain amount of autonomy. After the death of Herod the Great, during the formative years of the first century AD, however, the Jews appealed to Rome for direct Roman rule to be established. It appears there was dissatisfaction with the rule of their own kings, and there was a desire to be governed by Rome as a Roman province as opposed to a client kingdom. The respect and privilege granted to the Jews by the Romans was by no means normative. The Romans were very protective of their own religious festivals, and, while it is uncertain whether or not Roman society at large believed the myths of the gods, there was certainly a strong attachment to the tradition of their worship. There does seem to be the perception that the success or failure of the Roman Empire depended upon the gods being appeased. For these reasons, “foreign” religions were treated with suspicion, and many were outlawed. It is likely that Judaism was allowed to flourish unaffected because of the fact that it was not, on the whole, a proselytizing religion. There were a fair share of Gentile converts to Judaism (known as “God-fearers”), but generally speaking, the Jews practiced their religion, prayed for the Emperor, and paid their dues to Rome. For the Roman government, this was sufficient.As the first century progressed, the situation would change for Judaism, but the atmosphere of indulgence served the nascent church quite well. Christianity was treated, for the most part, with the same level of tolerance, largely because the Romans perceived it as a sect of Judaism. Granted, as a sect of Judaism, the church was not guaranteed such tolerance, and was open to localized persecution that would not have been true for the synagogue. However, for a season, the church was left alone, for the most part, by the Roman government, and had only to deal with attacks from the Jewish community as noted in Acts.

A change in Judeo-Roman relations can be perceived, according to Frend,1 as early as the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. In these accounts, Barabbas is accused of “insurrection,”2 and Jesus’ titulus reads “The King of the Jews,”3 perhaps demonstrating an underlying fear of revolution on the part of the Roman authorities. These fears were proven to be justified when, in 66 AD, the Jewish War broke out, culminating in the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD.

The Jewish community was, at this time, spread out across the Mediterranean, many having left Palestine many years previously for economic reasons. There was a large community in Alexandria, as well as in other important cities into which the gospel went.

1 Frend, W. H. C., The Early Church (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1982), p. 21.2 Mark 15:7.3 Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19.

3

It was largely for these “Dispersed” Jews that the Old Testament was translated into Greek. These communities provided important evangelistic opportunities for early missionaries, since, while these were, for the most part, Greek-speaking Jews (also known as “Hellenists”), they were still Jews.4 They would know the Old Testament and be familiar with Messianic prophecy, thus providing a platform upon which to speak of Jesus.

While Roman occupation was by no means advantageous for the Jews, the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean did provide many things that were advantageous for the spread of the gospel. In particular, the Romans provided a system of transportation that greatly facilitated land travel. They also maintained an unparalleled period of peace, both on land and at sea, which meant that not only was travel possible, but it was also relatively safe. The Romans had not yet, however, managed to destroy all that remained of those they had conquered. Greek was still the language of commerce, hence the New Testament was written and copied in koine, or “common” Greek. Greek philosophy was very much in vogue, so it is not surprising that the earliest church found themselves battling with those that sought to reduce the gospel message to abstract philosophical concepts, such as Gnosticism.

Probably the most influential Greek philosophical schools current at this time were Platonism and Stoicism, and of these two, Platonism probably had the most lasting impact. Plato is best known for his theory of knowledge, which, he said, is not possible by sense perception. He taught that knowledge is only possible by means of the intellect as the intellect apprehends the world of Forms. Plato envisioned an immaterial world in which human souls originally existed. This immaterial world contains the perfect forms of things that we only see as shadows in this world. Hence, we recognize these things in this world because our souls recognize them as replicas of the perfect they had seen in the world of forms. Later forms of Platonism, notably Neo-Platonism, structured these ideas into more of a theological hierarchy.

Particularly in Alexandria, Jewish theologians dabbled with interpreting Jewish theology in terms of Greek philosophy. Probably the most notable of such theologians was Philo (30 BC – 45 AD), who made much use of allegory to “get behind” the text of the Old Testament to seek out deeper meanings. Such an approach was popular with some later Greek Christian theologians. Philo also wrote about the concept of the Logos, which he related to a kind of manifestation of God’s mind. For Philo, the Logos is the agent of creation, and that by which the mind apprehends God. He drew many of his ideas from Plato, especially Plato’s concept of Forms, with which he identified the Logos.

This is the world into which the church was born. It is often suggested that the church just drank in these influences, and its theology is just the result of the most dominant intellectual pagan ideas of the time being imposed upon it. Hopefully, over the following studies, it will be clear that, while the church was open to being informed by external influences, the Scriptures were the defining documents of church doctrine. Even Origin, who was greatly influenced by Greek philosophy, spent the majority of his time in the text of Scripture. Patristic scholar, G. L. Prestige notes that pagan ideas were not

4 Some Hellenists adopted their culture in more ways than just language. There were those who refused circumcision so that they would not appear different from their pagan peers, especially should they choose to compete in the Greek games. Such activities were, of course, greatly frowned upon by the more orthodox.

4

simply imported wholesale into Christian theology, but they were trimmed to fit the faith, not vice-versa. Indeed, he says that “pagan ideas were radically altered in their Christian context, and not seldom utterly discarded after trial.”5

5 G. L. Prestige, God In Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1964), p. xiv.

5

LESSON TWOTHE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

As we have seen, the church was born into a hostile environment, both politically and socially. The earliest Christians were viewed with suspicion by the ruling authorities, and with contempt by the Jewish leaders. Despite this, though, the church grew and the gospel spread, finding converts among both the Jews and the Gentiles. The phenomenal growth of the church over such a short space of time is one of the great mysteries of history.6 While Jesus attracted large crowds during His time on earth, the number of those who followed Him faithfully was never large. Indeed, at one point all but the twelve left Him because of the difficulty of His teaching (John 6:66-67). After Jesus’ ascension, Luke reports that there were one hundred and twenty gathered in the upper room (Acts 1:15). Just one chapter later, over three thousand were added to the church (Acts 2:41). The rest of Acts bears testimony to the spread of the church within and beyond Palestine. It is notable that, while Paul did much to further the early church-planting efforts, he was not the only one doing missionary work into the Gentile world. The fact that he was greeted by Christian brethren in Rome on what was, as far as can be seen, his first post-conversion visit to the city (Acts 28:14-15) shows that missionary work was happening outside of Paul’s ministry. It is incredible to think that all this growth happened within the space of thirty-five years, from Christ’s ascension, around 30AD, to Paul’s death, around 65AD.

Prior to His ascension, Jesus told His disciples that after the Spirit had descended upon them, they would be His witnesses “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” The break away from Jerusalem came as a result of persecution when we are told that, after Stephen’s martyrdom, the church in Jerusalem, minus the apostles, was driven into Judea and Samaria. Then, with the conversion of Saul in Acts 9 and the conversion of the centurion in Acts 10, the mission to the Gentiles began. In his book, The Early Church, Henry Chadwick suggests that the church managed to impact the Jewish community by appealing to both the Pharisaical emphasis on the seriousness of God’s revealed will, and the feeling among ordinary Jews that the Pharisees’ insistence on the finer points of the law had missed the central truth of their faith.7 However, it appears that not all of the Jews who converted to Christianity wanted to let go of ceremonial observances. This was one of the first major controversies the church faced, and it was not truly resolved until into the second century when the Jewish church was a fading memory. In Acts 15, Luke records for us the reaction of those Pharisees amongst the believers in Jerusalem at the report of Paul, Barnabas, and others regarding the conversion of Gentiles to Christ. These Pharisees insisted that the Gentile converts be circumcised and directed to observe the Mosaic Law. Peter, having recently received instruction from God not to differentiate between Jew and Gentile, and having just witnessed first-hand the reception of Gentiles into the Kingdom,

6 The testimony of the New Testament affirms the existence of churches in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1); the region of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (Acts 9:31); Antioch (Acts 11:26); Phoenecia (Acts 15:3); Caesarea (Acts 18:22); Ephesus (Acts 20:17); Cenchrea (Romans 16:1); Rome (Romans 16:23); Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2); Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1); Galatia (Galatians 1:2); Philippi (Philippians 4:15); Colossae (Colossians 1:2); Laodicea (Col 4:16); Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:1); Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Philadelphia (Revelation 1:11).

7 Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Middlesex:Penguin Books, 1967), p. 15.

6

objected to such requirements. As far as Peter was concerned, the Gentile brethren were as much Christians as any of the Jewish believers, with or without circumcision. James’ decision, ratified by the apostles and elders, was that the Gentiles were to be instructed to abstain from fornication, from things contaminated by idols, eating blood, and eating that which has been strangled. It is interesting that the decision of the council was to issue what amounted to social injunctions upon the Gentile believers. It is almost as though they are saying that circumcision and adherence to the Mosaic Law are not what makes you Christian, but there does need to be a practical change in the lives of Gentiles. Observing the dietary restrictions would make it easier for Jewish believers to fellowship with them. Abstinence from fornication would set them apart from the rest of pagan society which, at least in the eyes of First Century Jews, was highly promiscuous.

It is clear from the Pauline epistles that this was by no means the end of the matter. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul responds at length to the issue of eating food that had been sacrificed to idols (chapters 8-10). More seriously, though, there were those among the Jewish believers who, apparently in defiance of the decision of the Jerusalem Council, wanted to merge Judaism and its legalistic regulations with Christianity. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians deals with this very issue which was to continue into the second century with groups like the Ebionites.

It is interesting to note that, even while on his missionary journeys through the Gentile world, Paul made a point of visiting synagogues to reason with both Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. He was also conversant enough with pagan literature to debate with the philosophers. But a series of events during the latter part of the first century would close this era of the church’s history, and change the course of missionary activity and church expansion.

For the most part, the Roman attitude toward the church had been largely indifferent. They considered it a Jewish sect and, while not officially sanctioned, mostly tolerated. However, from the 60s AD onward, Jewish-Roman relations began to decline. In July of 64, a massive fire broke out in Rome, and the Emperor Nero looked for a scapegoat. For reasons that are not altogether clear, the finger was pointed at the Christians. Frend8 suggests that the Jews may well have been accused initially, and they in turn blamed the Christians. It would have made little difference to Rome since they saw the Christians as nothing more than an offspring of Judaism, but without the privilege of Roman protection. Nero’s persecution of the Christians was local and lasted only a few years. After this time, Christians were not actively hunted down, but those who openly confessed to being a Christian were punished.

In 66 AD, after years of growing tension, conflict broke out between the Jews and the Romans. The so-called “Jewish War” lasted until 70 AD when Jerusalem fell to the Romans. There is no evidence to suggest that the church got involved in this conflict. In fact, Frend9 reports a strong tradition that says the Christians left Jerusalem while they could, and established themselves in the Greek city of Pella, across the Jordan. By this time, Peter and Paul were dead, and, within the next thirty years, the New Testament canon would be complete. With the destruction of Jerusalem, the attention of the church was now drawn outside of Palestine. While there would continue to be interaction with Jewish groups, the focus of the church would now be toward the Gentile

8 Friend, p. 33.9 ibid.

7

world.

8

LESSON THREETHE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

The term “Apostolic Fathers” is used to refer to a collection of writings dating from the late first century and early second century. Some of these were at one time considered by some churches to be part of the New Testament canon. While they were all later determined to be not of the same divine inspiration as the canonical texts, these writings were composed by people who could bear eye-witness testimony to the beliefs and practices of the earliest churches. It is for this reason that these works are valuable to the church historian.

First Clement was probably composed around 95-97 AD. The ascription of this letter to “Clement” is by tradition (testified to by the early church historian Eusebius10), since the letter itself is simply from “the church of God sojourning in Rome to the church of God sojourning in Corinth.”11 The epistle addresses strife within the Corinthian church and exhorts the Corinthian believers to resist jealousy and contentiousness, and be humble and obedient to God. Clement presents these exhortations with many references to Old Testament examples as well as direct quotes from the Old Testament. Interestingly, especially given the proximity in time of composition, there are also many allusions to New Testament texts, even direct quotations from Hebrews (see chapter 36 in particular). He even cites Peter and Paul as examples of faithful men.12 At one point, Clement makes direct reference to Paul’s Corinthian correspondence.13 The ultimate response to the dissention at Corinth is found in chapters 57 and 63 where Clement tells them to “… submit to the presbyters and accept discipline leading to repentance …” and “… to submit to those who are the leaders of our souls.” It is interesting to note that there is no appeal to a bishop or a central church figure, suggesting that such a figure did not exist at this time.

The document often referred to as “2 Clement” is generally considered to be a misnomer.14 The document is probably not written by Clement, nor is it an epistle. Rather, it appears to be an early Christian sermon, composed somewhere between 100-120 AD. If these two suggestions are correct, it would be the earliest surviving Christian sermon. It would also contain the earliest instance of a New Testament passage being quoted as Scripture.15 The sermon consists largely of an exhortation to repentance.16

While this may be a general sermon, it is possible that it reflects a situation where sin and disobedience to the leadership were a problem.

The Ignatian epistles were probably composed between 110 and 117 AD, toward the end of the author’s life. The author of these was Ignatius, bishop of Syrian Antioch. These seven letters are all we have of his writing, and they are important to us since they contribute greatly to our understanding of church structure in the early second century, and doctrinal issues that concerned the church. In particular, Ignatius frequently exhorts

10 Eusebius, Church History, 4.23.11 1 Clement 1:1.12 1 Clement 5.13 1 Clement 47.14 See, for example, Holmes’ comments in Holmes (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids,

Mi: Baker Books), p. 102.15 2 Clement 2:4, a quotation of Mark 2:17/Matt 9:13.16 See particularly 2 Clement 17.

9

his readers to be subject to their bishops and elders (Ephesians 1:3; 2:2; Magnesians 3:1; Traillians 2:1; 3:1; Philadelphians 7; Smyrnaeans 8:1). He also seems very concerned about the correct preaching of Christ, and especially speaks against Docetists17

(see Smyrnaeans 4, 5; Smyrnaeans 6:2; Traillians 9, 10). He also says that only a bishop, or overseer, is truly able to administer Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Smyrnaeans 8:2). Such emphases in his letters would lead us to conclude that the churches in this period were in turmoil internally. False teaching was threatening to divide them, and other were coming forward to usurp the leadership. It appears that Ignatius is concerned to keep the churches united, exhorting the members of the churches to rally around their leadership. By recognizing only bishop-led communion as legitimate, Ignatius is seeking to undermine the works of the counterfeit leaders. It is interesting that in some of the letters he names the bishop, and even deacons, drawing attention to their ministry among the people. Again, he wants to set them before the people as examples to follow, in the hope that they will look to them for leadership, and not to those who seek to be divisive.

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and a recipient of one of Ignatius’ epistles, is, himself, numbered among the Apostolic Fathers. His epistle to the Philippians gives exhortation to deacons and elders in their conduct (5:2; 6) and encouragement to pray for earthly rulers and persecutors (12:3). Once again, the context seems to be a concern for unity and sound doctrine (chapter 7 attacks Docetism), but there is also an emphasis on orthopraxy: living correctly. Polycarp makes mention of one elder, Valens, who, along with his wife, has clearly been disciplined for “the love of money.” His treatment of both the issue and the attitude the people must have is based largely on New Testament principle (11). Indeed, from this time (c. 110 AD) onwards, the New Testament is increasingly alluded to and directly quoted. Polycarp’s Martyrdom is included in the “canon” of Apostolic Fathers. Polycarp’s martyrdom is dated around 155 AD, and this letter, composed a short time after that event, is from his home church of Smyrna. The fact that Polycarp’s martyrdom is given such attention indicates the kind of respect he was afforded in his time. His death at age 86 was considered a noble death, one that is an example to all Christians. The writers say that his death was in accordance with the gospel (1:1), and that martyrdom occurred only according to the will of God (2:1). They take a dim view of those who would volunteer themselves for martyrdom, citing the case of Quintus the Phrygian, who came forward to be martyred, but changed his mind when he saw the beasts (4). Polycarp’s martyrdom was quite the opposite. He did not volunteer himself, but he did not try to fight it either. Miraculous events are told of, such as his body not being consumed by the flames of the stake, and the quantity of blood that came from him when stabbed being so great that it extinguished the fire. These things occurred, the writers say, to show the distinction between the unbelievers and the elect (14, 15).

Of great interest to the church is the document known as the Didache, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It was probably composed around 70-100 AD, and, while probably not Apostolic in authorship, it does contain early teachings and practices of the church.18 The document is divided into two sections: the first contains ethical

17 The Docetist heresy insisted that Jesus did not really take on human flesh, but only appeared to do so. That is, he seemed, or appeared, to be human when he was not. The name is from the Greek meaning “to seem” or “to appear.”

18 Of course, it is well to remember that, while the Didache is almost contemporary with the New

10

instruction (chapters 1-6:2), and the second contains a kind of church manual (chapters 6:3-16). The ethical teaching consists largely of expositions of sayings of Jesus, such as “Bless those who curse you,” “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not demand it back,” and “the humble shall inherit the earth” (see Didache 1:3, 5; 3:7). The ethical exhortations are largely in line with the admonitions of the New Testament authors. The second section, however, is of particular interest, since the New Testament does not give as much detail as the Didache does on issues of church practice. The section starts with a short injunction prohibiting the eating of meat that was sacrificed to idols for fear the practice will draw the person into idolatry (6:3). This is followed by a section on baptism where the writer lists the preferred modes of baptism,19 and then instructs the candidate and the baptizer to prepare by fasting (chapter 7). This leads to brief instruction on when to fast (8:1), and then to instruction on praying, based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 9 (8:2-3). The author then gives an outline for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, or the “Eucharist,”20 instructing his readers not to allow the unbaptized to participate (chapters 9-10). He then instructs on discernment, firstly of teaching, then of apostles and prophets, and then of people, generally, who come into the Christian community (chapters 11-13). It is interesting to note the basis for the discernment of people and their teaching, which appears to be established teaching. Whether it is the stated teaching on the Eucharist (11:1-2), or whether it is according to the “rule of the gospel” (11:3), it seems there were understood principles which made the Didache’s teaching correct and the imposter’s wrong. While much of what is stated as tests for the truth are not quotations of Scriptural tests, the observant reader can note the underlying Biblical tenor to the tests. For example, the Didache says, “… not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but only if he exhibits the Lord’s ways. By his conduct, therefore, will the false prophet and the prophet be recognized” (11:8). This passage clearly alludes to Matthew 7:15-24. Also, the Didache teaches that if a person comes into the midst of the Christian community and wants to stay, he must apply his trade to earn a living. Otherwise, the community must decide how that person is to live among them “yet without being idle” (chapter 12). The Scriptural foundation for this is in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. There follows a brief exhortation to come to the breaking of bread on the Lord’s Day having confessed sin and without any outstanding quarrel with a brother. This is in accord with Matthew 5:23-24. He exhorts the believers to appoint bishops and deacons (no mention of elders), and to act in accordance with “the gospel of our Lord” (chapter 15). The document finishes with an exhortation to holiness, with a brief description of things that will mark the coming of the Day of Judgment. For this last passage, the author draws heavily from Matthew 24.

The Didache shows for us a church that is rapidly organizing itself with established doctrine, a well-defined ethic, and a leadership structure. It is interesting also to see elements of liturgy already becoming a part of the church’s worship. It is important to

Testament, it is neither from the hand of an Apostle, nor is it canonical. Therefore its teaching must be understood as historically interesting, but not theologically or practically binding.

19 Preference is given to baptism . This phrase is commonly translated “running water” (e.g., Holmes (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers), suggesting an alternative method to immersion. The phrase, however, is literally “living water.”

20 The term used is literally , from the verb meaning “to be thankful” or “to give thanks.” Hence it was seen as a thanksgiving meal, as is plain from the liturgy offered by the author.

11

note, also, that there continues to be an internal struggle against false teachers and those who would lead the “flock” away. The internal purity of the church was a very real concern to the Apostolic Fathers, as we have observed.

The Epistle of Barnabas was most probably not written by Paul’s companion during his formative years of ministry. It was probably written at the earliest 70 AD, and at the latest around 130 AD. The primary concern of the epistle is to demonstrate the continuity between the Old Testament and the New. The author makes much use of allegorical interpretations of Old Testament passages to demonstrate his thesis. A good example of this is the interpretation provided of the passage in Genesis 14:1421 where Abraham takes his trained men to rescue Lot. Firstly, the author says these men were circumcised (see Genesis 17:23), and that this event was a foreshadowing of Jesus and the circumcision He gives. He says this is in accord with “teaching of the three letters,”22 which he discerns from the number of men mentioned in the text: three hundred and eighteen. In the Greek Old Testament, this figure was written “ten and eight and three hundred.” The author notes that in Greek letters, ten and eight are represented by and , the first two letters of the name , Jesus.23 So he conjectures that Jesus is in mind in the Genesis passage. The third number, three hundred, is represented by the Greek which the author notes is shaped like the cross. The author sees in this passage, therefore, not simply the Jewish story of Moses leading out three hundred and eighteen men to rescue Lot and their subsequent circumcision, but the grace of God in Christ being revealed.

Historically, Barnabas shows us that there were still those within the church struggling with the continuity of Christianity from Judaism. There were those who wanted to divorce the Old Testament from the New. As well as this, Barnabas demonstrates the influence of allegorical interpretation, something that the Alexandrian Jew, Philo, had popularized, though within the context of Judaism. The author uses 2 Peter 5:8 as a principle to conjecture that since God created the world in six days, the world will end in six thousand years (chapter 15). He also allegorizes the Jewish food laws, considering the unclean animals as certain types of unwholesome people to avoid imitating (chapter 10). The final chapters of the epistle form exhortations to Godly living, showing various New Testament influences.

The Shepherd of Hermas was a popular document among churches in the second and third centuries, and regarded as Scripture by some (see Eusebius’ Church History, 3:3). Jerome, however, while recognizing the popularity and usefulness of the work, did not share this high regard for it (see, for example, Jerome’s Commentary on the Apostles Creed, 38). It was certainly written no earlier than the 70’s AD, and it has been suggested that it may be, in part, as late as the 170’s. Those who adopt the later dating tend to view the work as a composite of an earlier work from around 100 AD with a later work appended. Either way, it provides us further insight into the issues being dealt with by the early church.

Hermas is divided into three sections. The first is a series of five “Visions,” followed by twelve “Mandates” (literally “Commandments,”), then ten “Similitudes” or “Parables” (). The visions have meanings that point to sin within the church and exhort repentance before the end times. Each vision also seems to have a strong

21 Barnabas 9:7.22 Greek: .23 was also a common abbreviation for the name Jesus in Christian documents of the time.

12

emphasis on things that are to happen at a future time, such as the casting aside of apostates. The twelve mandates are, again, mostly ethical commands: Believe that God is one; be sincere and innocent; love truth and speak only truth; guard purity; be patient and understanding; protect faith, fear, and self-control; fear the Lord and keep His commandments; be self controlled except in certain things (for example, doing good); do not be double-minded; get rid of grief; beware of false prophets; and replace evil desires for good desires. The similitudes seem to be concerned with identifying those that are righteous and those that are not. Similitude eight, for example, uses branches in various states of withering to denote different spiritual states in which people may be found. The green branches go to the tower (representing eternal life), and the rest are replanted (signifying repentance). Those that show improvement after a few days can go to the tower, indicating that there is the possibility of repentance for some, but not all. In particular, it notes that the hard-hearted, the deceitful, and false teachers are not granted repentance. It is from what we know of other historical sources that this, along with other similitudes, is intended to address very real issues within the life of the church at the time. Another example is in similitude nine, where no repentance is available for those who blaspheme the Lord or betray His servants (verse 96). Also, the fruit of those tortured under questioning is deemed superior to other fruit (verse 105). Clearly, the martyr is applauded and seen as the model for Christians. Hermas comes down hard on false teachers and those who apostatize.

Finally, included in the collection of writings of the Apostolic Fathers are the Epistle to Diognetus, and fragments of writings by and about Papias. Diognetus is of great interest due to the fact that it is an apology for the Christian faith written to an unbeliever. This is unusual given that the other writings were either composed for churches, or within the context of the church. The author starts by establishing the one true God over and against the idols of wood, stone, bronze, and gold used by pagans. He sets apart the Christians from the Jews, using various non-flattering descriptions of them to make his point that a Christian is not the same as a Jew. He explains that Christians are not some strange race of people, but are of the same flesh-and-blood as the pagan. They walk the same streets, work in the same workplaces, and so forth. However, the Christian is very different spiritually, and this is seen in the way he behaves; he has a high moral standard, above and beyond what is expected under normal pagan civil law. This is because the Christian’s true home is not here but in heaven: “Christians dwell as strangers among perishable things while looking forward to incorruptibility in heaven” (6:8).24 The writer goes on to explain that God established His truth among men by sending the Creator Himself (7-8). God, having allowed us to see our lawlessness and sinfulness, sent His Son as a ransom for us, “the guiltless for the guilty” (9:2). The author then instructs Diognetus in what he must do if he desires this faith, and that is, primarily, obtain knowledge of the Father (10:1). Once he has obtained that knowledge, he will be filled with joy and love for God.

Papias was a well-respected and often-quoted bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, flourishing around 130 AD. No complete work of Papias’ exists today, only fragments mainly preserved in the works of others (notably, Eusebius). Not only does Papias bear testimony to the traditions circulating regarding the authorship of the Gospels and the post-Acts events in the lives of the Apostles, but he also testifies to the extra-canonical

24 Greek:

13

stories that were circulating with regard to Jesus. For example, Papias informs us that John, after returning from exile on Patmos, lived in Ephesus as the sole-surviving Apostle, and was martyred by the Jews (Papias 6). He also says that Matthew “organized the sayings [of Christ] in the Hebrew language” (3:16).

From this overview of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, we can get a fairly good idea of the thoughts that were current, and the issues and challenges facing the church during the decades immediately after the New Testament had been written. In particular we note that persecution was a real threat for the church, but the church leaders seemed more troubled by the threat of false teachers and false doctrine within the church, particularly Judaizers and Gnostics. It is notable that nearly all of the writings in this collection address issues of heresy and apostasy; relatively few directly address persecution from outside the church.25 Those that were martyred under persecution were held up for example. It can be observed that there was already a basic church liturgy forming, including recognition of a weekly Lord’s Day meeting (Didache, 14.1), as well as church structure. Bishops and elders (in plurality) ruled the early churches, but clearly had to fight to keep their charge in order. It is also clear that the foundation for faith and practice of the early church was Scripture. The Old Testament was held to be part of the Christian canon, and the New Testament writings were also coming into prominence alongside them. Allusions to New Testament texts gradually came to be direct quotations. The Christological issues the church had to deal with were still some years away, but it is important to note that, at this time, it is clear that Christ was seen as God (see, for example, Ignatius to the Ephesians, Introduction, 18.2). It was up to later generations, however, to define exactly what that meant in light of the Jewish monotheism the church had inherited. It is also of interest to note references to the three Persons of the Trinity at this time, demonstrating that these concepts were not a product of Nicea (see, for example, 1 Clement, 46.6; Polycarp to the Philippians, 12.2-3).

25 Notable among the few are Hermas’ reference to martyrs, Polycarp’s Martyrdom, and perhaps the opening lines of 1 Clement, where the “… sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us…” might well refer to persecution from outside the church.

14

LESSON FOURTHE APOLOGISTS

In the previous lesson, the Epistle to Diognetus was noted as exceptional among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers due to its apologetic nature. As the second century wore on, this style of apologetic writing became prevalent, and there is extant today a body of work by a group of church leaders that are called the “Apologists” who were largely responsible for this work.

The terms “apologist” and “apology” are derived from the Greek word apologia (), which has a legal connotation of a defense, or a reply. The Apologists, therefore, were setting out to explain and defend the Christian faith in response to its detractors. At this time, those detractors were largely Jews, Gnostics, or pagans.

The Apologists are identified as Aristides (early second century), Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), Tatian (c. 110-172), Athenagoras (late second century), Theophilus (late second century), and Irenaeus. A brief summary of the life and work of each will give an insight into the themes that were current in early church apologetics.

Aristides was an Athenian philosopher who wrote around 125 A.D. He does not take on any particular heresies in his work, but seeks to present Christianity as a reasonable faith, giving a foundation and a drive for moral living. He does not appear to attack a particular group, so his approach could be described as a “positive defense,” merely asserting the virtues of his faith. Although Aristides was not writing offensively, it is clear that pagan philosophers looked down upon the Christian faith. To the pagan, Christianity was barbaric and simplistic. It was also intolerant of pagan deities, which did not go over very well. For this reason, as we shall see, the need was felt to show Christianity as a reasonable faith, one that competes in the marketplace of ideas. Aristides’ work would contribute to that end.

Justin Martyr was born in Samaria to a Roman father. Prior to his conversion to Christianity, he came to Christianity after searching out various philosophical systems and eventually becoming a student of Socrates and Plato. He was impressed with the fearlessness of the Christian martyrs, and with the teachings of Christianity. He believed Christianity provided that which was lacking in Platonism, and began preaching the gospel, mainly in Rome where he probably settled. Justin’s apologies are marked by Christian zeal, and his Dialog with Trypho is the first elaborate attempt by a Christian writer to argue the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, as well as arguing for the recognition of Christ as the Messiah. His first two apologies, though, deal with pagan philosophies with reference to the Scriptures.

Tatian was an Assyrian, and a student of Greek philosophy. He was attracted to Christianity because of its emphasis on deliverance from sin, and moral living. He became a critic of Greek philosophy, ridiculing the Greek philosophers for their vice especially in light of their own teaching. He became a Christian in Rome and made the acquaintance of Justin Martyr. However, soon after Justin’s death, he succumbed to the influence of Gnosticism and founded a sect called the “Encratites,” or, “self-controlled.” He gathered a number of disciples after establishing himself in Antioch, but died a few years after the sect’s founding. According to Irenaeus, among the sect’s teachings were

15

the rejection of marriage and abstinence from eating meat.26 Little of Tatian’s writings remain. His Address to the Greeks, which is a vigorous critique of heathenism, particularly Greek culture, is still extant. His celebrated Diatesseron, or harmony of the four Gospels, has also survived, albeit by means of a late Arabic translation. He is reputed to have written many other works now lost.

Athenagoras was another apologist who is reputed to have been quite prolific, despite the paucity of surviving works. The works of this former Athenian philosopher are regarded as among the most elegant and able apologetic works of the period. The only evidence we have of his ability are in copies of his Apology, which was presented to Emperors Aurelius and Commodus around 177, and his Treatise on the Resurrection. In his apology, Athenagoras begins with the charges that had commonly been leveled at the Christians: atheism, “Thyestean Feasts” – presumably cannibalism, and “Oedipean intercourse.” His initial response is that if the charges are true, those committing such acts should be appropriately punished. He then spends many chapters addressing the charge of atheism, and demonstrating that the Christians believe in God, even demonstrating that Greek philosophers supported the idea of the unity of God, though the Christian concept of God is the superior one. It is interesting to note that, at this early stage, Athenagoras provides, as part of his apology, the following Trinitarian formula: “Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?”27

Athenagoras goes on to explain other Christian practices that were commonly misunderstood. For example, the idea that Christians would engage in the kind of feasts they were accused of engaging in is countered by the fact that such feasts were considered sinful by them, and they would fear the judgment of God. Christians of the opposite sex were not to look lustfully at one another, and the titles “brother” and “sister” were meant as relational titles given to one another; they did not signify a blood relation. Indeed, they would not even kiss each other in greeting (a common practice of the time) if there was the possibility of such leading to defilement of thought28. He also notes that Christian marriages were strictly monogamous, and sexual relations with the marriage were purely for the purpose of procreation.29 As for cannibalism, Athenagoras makes the point that Christians cannot even bear the sight of men being put to death, so it is hardly likely that they would practice such a thing.30 In fact, he argues that those who are looking forward to the resurrection of their souls would not want to be found guilty of such sin.31

Theophilus was a pagan who converted to Christianity after studying the Scriptures. Eusebius says that he was the sixth bishop of Antioch.32 Eusebius also says that he was among those who contended against the heresies of the day, listing as among his works

26 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 28.1. Hippolytus, in his Refutation of all Heresies, Book 8, Chapter 9, affirms Irenaeus’ account. He also describes Tatian’s beliefs as being similar to the Gnostics Valentinus and Marcion.

27 Athenagoras, Apology, Chapter 10.28 Ibid., Chapter 32.29 Ibid., Chapter 33. 30 Ibid., Chapter 35.31 Ibid., Chapter 36.32 Eusebius, Church History, Book 4, Chapter 20.

16

extant at that time his work addressed to Autolycus, a work called Against the Heresy of Hermogenes, and a response to Marcion.33 Of these, only his work addressed to Autolycus has survived. Theophilus says that the work is based on a conversation he had with Autolycus, and it is intended to further expand upon comments that were made during the course of that dialog.34 His approach with his friend is to critique Greek philosophers and poets, giving over most of book two to an account of history from a Biblical perspective, from Creation to the Flood. Book three consists of the contradictions of the Greek philosophers, and then in chapter four of that book, he lists the accusations made against Christians. These are very much the same as has been noted before: they had wives in common, they commit incest with their sisters, they eat human flesh, and their doctrine is of recent origin. Theophilus responds to these accusations by demonstrating that the Greek philosophers inculcated the practice of cannibalism, that Plato legislated wives held in common in his Republic, and Epicurus taught atheism and incest.35 He then demonstrates the antiquity of the Christian faith through God’s law, and further corrects misconceptions people had of the faith.

Irenaeus was probably a native of Smyrna, or its surrounding area. He became bishop of Lyons in France around the latter part of the second century, and died soon into the third (c. 202). Of his writings, all we have is his work Against Heresies, and a number of fragments. While the emphasis of other Apologists was on refuting the arguments of pagan philosophy and popular misconceptions, Irenaeus’ major work focuses on the refutation of Gnosticism. The five books that make up Against Heresies form a very definitive explanation and response to the various beliefs of the Gnostic sects. It is clear that Irenaeus took time to understand the teachings of these groups thoroughly enough to be able to expound them in great detail (and hence critique them in great detail). It should not be thought that he did such extensive research out of respect for the doctrines. On the contrary, he himself comments, “I have deemed it my duty… to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries, which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged their brains.”36

He clearly has no respect at all for the teachings of the Gnostics, and his detailed analysis of their teachings is out of duty, to demonstrate how distant they are from the Biblical truth. Irenaeus seeks to undermine the Gnostic doctrines by various routes of argumentation. He lays great emphasis on Scriptural refutation, spending much time demonstrating the existence of one God, the creation of all things by that one God, Christ’s coming in the flesh, the fact that the body is integral to man’s being (e.g., Elijah and Enoch were taken to heaven while still in their mortal bodies), and even pointing to the rise of these heresies as a sign of the end times. He also seeks to show that these heretics are wrong since they are not part of the church, and it is to the church that Christ has entrusted the gospel message. Also, the Gnostics cannot appeal to a succession of bishops tracing their lineage back to the Apostles as the true church can.

From this brief survey of the writings of the Apologists, it is clear that, for the first couple of centuries of her existence, the church faced attack both from without and from within. There were those outside the church who, due, in part, to misunderstanding, despised the church because of practices they thought worthy of condemnation.

33 Ibid., Book 4, Chapter 24.34 Theophilus, To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 1.35 Ibid., Book 3, Chapters 5 and 6.36 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Preface, 2.

17

However, there were those inside the church too who were falling prey to the lure of pagan philosophy, and who sought to embrace very mythical and completely unbiblical expressions of supposedly Christian ideas. On both of these fronts, the church took its stand, and the Apologists give us an insight into the fact that, while there was still a certain amount of doctrinal naiveté among them, they were fiercely committed to defending the Scriptures, the church, and Christ Himself.

18

LESSON FIVETERTULLIAN AND HIPPOLYTUS

The primary concern of the Apologists was the defense and definition of the Christian faith in light of the attacks of both pagan religion and Gnostic heresy. The language they used was geared very much to this task, and as a by-product of their work, they made statements that caused concern within certain parts of the church. On the one hand, the Apologists had been very clear to assert the unity of God, especially against pagan polytheism, and Gnosticism with its demiurges and other divine beings. However, they could not avoid the language of the New Testament, which speaks of Christ in terms that exalts Him above a merely human level. In fact Justin Martyr, and others, used the language of John’s Gospel, also popular in Greek philosophy, of the “Logos” in reference to Christ. Justin clearly saw this Logos as Divine. Others among the Apologists were more careful in their language, being sure to express the unity of God while recognizing the distinctions. Irenaeus, for example, spoke of the Son and the Spirit in terms of the economy of God. That is, while there is only one God, the fact that the Son and the Spirit are in union with Him and distinct from Him is evident from their work in creation and redemption. Such distinctions were seen as a threat to monotheism by a number of people within the church.

In response to this apparent threat, theories regarding the nature of God appeared that attempted to address the exalted status of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while insisting upon God’s unity. The central concern of these theories was the safeguarding of the doctrine that there is only one unique God, who rules alone, and is solely sovereign in the universe. Because of this central concern, these views are often referred to as Monarchian, referring to God as sole ruler. There were two types of Monarchianism that became popular: Dynamic Monarchianism, and Modalistic Monarchianism.

Dynamic Monarchianism was chiefly expressed in Adoptionism, which essentially taught that Christ was merely a man who was filled with the Spirit and could perform miraculous deeds, yet without being divine. The earlier versions of this, as expressed by people such as, notably, Theodotus, assigned the quality of “God” to Christ only after His ascension. Prior to that, Christ was merely human. Theodotus probably brought this teaching to Rome around 190 AD, and he found himself excommunicated by Victor, bishop of Rome, for teaching this heresy. Adoptionism was never really popular, though it did experience a bit of a revival in the third century as a result of the teaching of Paul of Samosata. Paul’s Adoptionism was more consistent. He refused to allow the Son or the Spirit to be granted any kind of personality. Jesus, in his view, was a man inspired by God, and the Spirit merely represented God’s grace being poured out on His people. Jesus did not take on any God-qualities at his ascension, rather, such was his obedience to the divine inspiration that he was exalted to dwell with God. Despite this clear rejection of the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, Paul would still insist on using Trinitarian terminology. He was condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268 AD.

By contrast, Modalistic Monarchianism was very popular and quite widespread. At the heart of Modalistic thinking was the conviction that the Scriptures clearly teach the unity of God and the deity of Christ, but there can only be one God. Naturally, this conviction was shared by those supporting Trinitarian views, however, the Modalists viewed the Trinitarian concepts as a threat to God’s unity since they appeared to come

19

close to teaching polytheism. Noetus of Smyrna is the earliest person known of to present the Monarchian view, though his view was later refined by Sabellius. We know of Noetus by means of Hippolytus, his critic. According to Hippolytus’ work, we know that Noetus taught that, since there is only one God, and since Christ is divine, God the Father became God the Son, and was born, suffered, and died on the cross as the Son (a doctrine known as patripassianism). In teaching such things, it was recognized by early proponents of Monarchianism37 that there was a certain inconsistency with regard to God’s attributes: He is both visible and invisible, both passible (able to suffer), and impassible (unable to suffer). To overcome this, they recognized a kind of duality in God: Jesus was the Son, yet the Christ was the Father.38

It was Sabellius, however, who gave Monarchial Modalism both a systematic form, and his own name, since it has been known from that time on as Sabellianism. Sabellius taught the absolute unity of God, the Father being the essense, and the Son and the Spirit expressions of that essense, just as heat and light are expressions of the sun. Each expression was given for a period of time and then withdrawn (avoiding the charge of patripassianism).

Tertullian and Hippolytus are both our primary sources of information for the teachings of Noetus and Sabellius (and their followers), as well as their primary critics. Hippolytus (170-236) spent much of his life in the West, particularly in Rome, though he wrote in Greek, not Latin. Hippolytus was quite a prolific writer, however there is some debate over whether all the extant works of were actually by him. There is no doubt, however, that he challenged the current of Modalistic thought very strongly. There is a tradition which states that Hippolytus was bishop of a city called Portus, near Rome at the northern end of the Tiber. While it is certain that Hippolytus served as a bishop, it is probably best to agree with Eusebius who says that he “…presided over another church…” without naming its location.39

Hippolytus vigorously opposed Sabellius and his doctrine. He affirmed the unity and singularity of God, yet also affirmed that within that unity was God’s Wisdom and His Word. These he equated with the Spirit and the Son. They existed indivisibly with God, and God has always existed this way, as a threefold being. Hippolytus appeals to creation and redemption for evidence of this. However, he is quick to affirm that, while existing as a threefold being, God is one, and these other “persons” are not other “Gods” but “that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All.”40 Victor’s successor in Rome, Zephyrinus, did not lend Hippolytus much support, since he seemed to favor a view much more in line with patripassionism.41 There was a consensus that Sabellius’ teaching

37 In passing, it should be noted that some of the teaching of the early Modalists is ascribed to a certain “Praxias.” This may be a real person, or possibly a pseudonym for Noetus, Epigonus, his disciple, or even Pope Callistus. See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (London: A& C Black, 1977), p. 121.

38 As Kelly rightly notes, this understanding of God is very close to Theodotus’ Adoptionism (see ibid.).

39 Eusebius, Church History, Book 5, Chapter 20.40 Hippolytus, Against The Heresy of One Noetus, 11.41 It is possible that Zephyrinus was not setting out to support Sabellius, but, as Frend puts it, he

was “incapable of formulating an acceptable alternative” to Modalism. See Frend, p. 78. Hippolytus, too, does not speak highly of Zephyrinus’ theological skill, regarding him as “ignorant and illiterate…” and “… one unskilled in ecclesiastical definitions.” (The Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 6).

20

could not be tolerated, and Sabellius was excommunicated by Zephyrinus’ successor, a deacon named Callistus. However, Callistus, like his predecessor, was not satisfied with Hippolytus’ alternative to the Sabellian heresy. Callistus regarded Hippolytus as a “ditheist,” and proposed an alternative understanding of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. In Callistus’ view, the Father and the Son are certainly separate entities, however, he regarded the Spirit that indwelt Christ to be the Father, and the physical Jesus the Son. The Father, in his view, did not suffer as the Son, but along with the Son. Clearly, Callistus’ view was not far from the Sabellian heresy. Hippolytus’ dislike of Callistus is clear in his writings. He distrusted him, and considered him to be “cunning in wickedness, and subtle where deceit was concerned…” Hippolytus was surely very disappointed when Zephyrinus named Callistius his successor, and indeed took the view that Callistus had manipulated the bishop of Rome to his own ends, even with regard to the nomination to succeed him. It was not only Callistus’ view of the nature of God that set him at odds with Hippolytus. According to Hippolytus, Callistus employed Scriptures such as Romans 14:4, and the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-31), as a license for, in Hippolytus’ view, extreme liberalism with regard to sin. Callistus, apparently, did not think a bishop who sinned in any way should be removed. He also did not consider the number of times a man had been married to be an impediment to holding ecclesiastical office. Hippolytus also charged him with other lax moral allowances.42 In the end, Hippolytus could no longer recognize Callistus’ rule and, in 217, he separated from his communion. Hippolytus died a martyr’s death under the reign of Maximin the Thracian in 236.

Tertullian (c. 145-220) was, according to Jerome, from the city of Carthage in Africa, and was the son of either a proconsul, or a centurion.43 He is regarded as the father of Latin theology, and his work has held the praise and respect of writers from a time nearly contemporary to his own to the present. He wrote a large number of works in Greek which are now lost, but we do have thirty-one works in Latin from his hand, and these bear testimony to his sharp intellect. Prestige notes that, aside from being the father of Latin theology, his acquaintance with Greek philosophy, and the similarity of his thought with those of the Eastern Apologists, serve to classify him as the last of the Greek Apologists.44 Tertullian’s writings cover various aspects of theology and apologetics, but it is in his dealing with Monarchianism that we have, arguably, some of his most significant contributions to the theology of the church.

Tertullian dealt with Modalistic Monarchianism chiefly in his work Against Praxeas. In the opening chapter of this work, it is clear that it was written while Tertullian was at least sympathetic with Montanism, if not already a part of the sect. He accuses Praxeas, a person about whom we know very little, if anything outside of Tertullian’s critique, of having turned the bishop of Rome against Montanus and his prophetesses, having formerly issued a letter “acknowledging their prophetic gift.”45 He charges Praxeas with driving away prophecy and bringing in heresy. “He put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father.”46 Praxeas taught that the Father and the Son are the

42 Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 7.43 Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 53.44 Prestige, pp. 97-98.45 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 1.46 Ibid.

21

same person,47 and, in fact, the Father entered Mary’s womb to become the Son.48 Hence, for Praxeas, the Father, as the Son, was born, suffered, died, and rose again from the dead. Tertullian makes use of the term we noted previously to have come from Irenaeus, the “economy of God,” to denote the doctrine of the Trinity.49 He says that it is the majority of Christians who are “simple,” and by this he does not mean uneducated or stupid, just not given to deep theological or philosophical thought, believe those who promote Trinitarian language are threatening God’s monarchia, or sole-rule. Tertullian’s response is that sole-rule does not automatically mean rule by a single essence existing as a single person. Monarchia does not equal unitary being. He notes that a ruler may have a son that also rules with him, yet the ruler is still ruling as a sole ruler. He further notes that God himself is said to have ministering angels, and yet these do not seem to impact His monarchial rule. God is free to administer His rule as He so pleases. “The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it.”50 Tertullian sees the Trinity as the internal distribution, or oikonomia, “economy,” of God’s monarchial being. So the Trinity does not contradict God’s monarchial being, but seeks to describe it. The being, or essence, which is God’s Unity, is distributed by God’s economy to the three Persons which constitute that one being.

Tertullian equates God’s Wisdom with the Word, which became flesh as the Son. This Wisdom always existed as a distinct entity, though of the essence of the Father; the Wisdom, the Word, or the Son, is a distinct Person.51 As for the Spirit, Tertullian uses John 14:16ff do demonstrate the distinction, and yet unity, of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. “He is called ‘another Comforter,’ indeed; but in what way He is another we have already shown, ‘He shall receive of mine,’ says Christ, just as Christ Himself received of the Father’s. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another.”52

Tertullian sees in this passage the Spirit spoken of as a separate entity, though One with the Son and the Father.

It is interesting to note that, while more than one hundred years away from Nicea, in the writings of Tertullian we find the Trinitarian expressions that still, to this day, are part of the language of the church’s teaching on the subject. Indeed, chapter two of Tertullian’s work Against Praxeas contains the following section, which reads uncannily like the Apostles’ Creed, which is still used as a standard of orthodoxy in many churches today:

We believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her - being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the

47 Ibid., chapter 11.48 Ibid. chapter 10.49 Tertullian was the first to use the term “Trinity” to describe God as three Persons in one Being.50 Ibid.51 Ibid, chapters 6 and 11.52 Ibid. chapter 25.

22

Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.53

Hippolytus, and especially Tertullian, rose to the challenge of Monarchianism, and did so in such a way that the church had a foundation and a vocabulary to express the Trinitarian concepts that had been there from the very beginning. Their contribution did not end with the Monarchian controversy, however. Their work provided the foundation for the work of Athanasius and others that would follow.

53 Ibid, chapter 2.

23

LESSON SIXCLEMENT AND ORIGEN

The Egyptian city of Alexandria was named for its founder, Alexander the Great. Alexander had been responsible for the spread of Greek language and culture over much of the world, providing the impetus for the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and the language of the New Testament. As a result of his conquests and the spread of Greek culture, the city of Alexandria had a reputation as a center of learning and philosophy. This was the home of the first century Jewish philospher Philo, who sought to synchronize his faith with Hellenistic thought. It was also the home to one of the foremost libraries in the world. It was also here that a certain Pantaenus established a Christian Catechetical School. The purpose of this school, as the name suggests, was to train converts to Christianity in the doctrine and life of a follower of Christ.

Since Alexandria had such a reputation for the promotion and cultivating of Greek philosophical thought and the intellectual life, it is not surprising that it was also filled with Valentinian Gnostics. It is only natural that Valentinian Gnosticism, with its obvious appeal to those of a more philosophical bent, would thrive in a place such as Alexandria. Converts to Christianity in Alexandria often found themselves faced with the dilemma, as Chadwick puts it, of having to choose between “clever and eloquent heresy, and dim obscurantist orthodoxy.”54 The Gnostics’ appeal was that they made use of the language and thought-patterns of the Greek philosophers and employed these to teach their worldview. Many orthodox Christians were ignorant of Greek philosophy and, hence, were unable to respond adequately to the arguments of the heretics. For many, philosophy was not a path of enlightenment but a road to heresy. As Tertullian put it, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?”55 In Tertullian’s mind, once one has received Christ, there should be no “curious disputation.” After enjoying the gospel, there should be no “inquisition.” That is, he believed in the simplicity of the gospel, and to add to this the baggage of philosophical thought was to encumber the gospel with more than is necessary or profitable. This is, perhaps, the nature of the obscurantist orthodoxy that converts faced in Alexandria: a simple, unquestioning faith, existing in the midst of the probing minds of the Alexandrian philosophers.

Clement was of a different opinion. Possibly born in Athens (c. 150), Clement was a pagan philosopher who converted to Christianity, and, upon conversion, sought out a mentor to instruct him in the Christian faith. He traveled through Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Palestine, eventually finding himself at the feet of Pantaenus in Alexandria. Clement considered Pantaenus to be the best of all that he had encountered, and became a part of the Catechetical School, until the death of Pantaenus when Clement became his successor. Apart from a missionary journey that he may have undertaken around 189, he remained over the Catechetical School until forced to leave Alexandria under the persecution of Severus in 202. It is possible that he traveled to Jerusalem and to Antioch, dying some years later, perhaps around 215-220.

In his work, Clement strove to demonstrate that Biblical Christianity could be

54 Chadwick, p. 9555 Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 9.

24

expressed in terms of the Greek philosophers. But, as Shelley notes, Clement did not merely take Christian ideas and dress them in philosopher’s robes. He also tackled the issues that the philosophers tackled, showing that the deepest answers to their problems lay in Jesus Christ and Christian revelation.56 Shelley believes Clement desired to be “an apostle to the Hellenistic intellectual world.” He sees Clement’s primary purpose as being pastoral, aiming “to win not arguments, but men to Christ, and lead them to salvation.”57

Clement’s philosophical apologetic for Christianity starts with the premise that not all that comes from Greece is to be discarded. He viewed the works of the philosophers to be akin to the Law for the Jews; they acted as a schoolmaster to drive men to Christ.58

He saw the writings of Plato and others as having merit in that they contain elements of gospel truth. As such, they serve to prepare the philosophical mind for the full revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This argument finds its fullest expression in his Stromateis, or Miscellanies. This work is by no means meant to be a systematic argumentation, but a collection of thoughts or ideas. This literary form was not new at the time, having been used by people such as Plutarch, Aelian, and Athenaeus, but, as Chadwick59 points out, the reason for the form was probably more than simply because it was popular. It suited his purpose, which was not to provide a detailed systematic presentation of Christian doctrine – something he considered an ominous task given the reverence due to high theology. Rather, the form allowed him to suggest thoughts, as opposed to making dogmatic statements. He could throw out ideas to incite his readers to further contemplation, rather than laying bare the entire contents of his mind before a potentially unappreciative audience. Chadwick further suggests, though, that the form also corresponded to Clement’s view of theology, which was that it transcends verbal expression. Hence, to present ideas that would stimulate contemplation would be, for him, more honoring to the subject than to provide detailed exposition of the thought.

Among Clement’s writings, three works stand out as the most significant. His Exhortation to the Heathen compares the baseness of paganism with the truth of Scripture. The work draws from Clement’s extensive knowledge of pagan myth and belief to present the error and depravity of heathen thought and compare it with the Word of God. The apologetic and evangelistic nature of the work is clear, and it concludes with an appeal for the reader to set aside these ancient myths and traditions, and embrace the gospel. Clement’s Instructor, or Paedegogus, is almost like a training manual for converts to Christianity from paganism. In the first book, Clement describes the Instructor, who is, of course, Christ. In the remaining books, he describes the character of the Christian, how he is to live and behave, drawing his teaching from the Scriptures. In the second book, Clement gives instructions on particular aspects of life, such as eating, sleeping, clothing, footwear, and the wearing of jewelry. In these he exhorts the reader to

56 Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, (Dallas, Tx: Word Publishing, 1982, 1995), p. 80.

57 Ibid.58 “For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New

Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring ‘the Hellenic mind,’ as the law, the Hebrews, ‘to Christ.’ Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.” Clement, Miscellanies, 1.5.

59 Chadwick, pp. 94-95.

25

modesty and avoidance of indulgence. In book three, attention is turned more specifically to bodily adornment, in particular, embellishments such as the wearing of finery, earrings, and hair. In the last category, he discusses such things as the inappropriateness of men shaving bodily hair, and women adding to their own hair with locks of others’ hair. Not only does Clement give insight into his own thinking and interpretation of Scripture, but he also provides an interesting portrait of the kinds of things people in third century Egypt would do. The last of the three major works is the Miscellanies, in which, as has already been discussed, Clement sets forth Christianity as the true gnosis, over and against the Gnostic ideas of knowledge. In all these works, Clement draws freely not only from Scripture, but also from those whom he regarded as containing the veiled truth for the Greeks, the philosophers. Since he regards their words to contain truth, he is at ease setting them beside the Scriptures so that the veil may be lifted and their wisdom exposed in the light of the complete revelation of God.

While Clement presided over the Catechetical School in Alexandria, one of his more notable students was a young man by the name of Origen. Indeed, such was Origen’s talent, that, at the age of eighteen, when Clement fled Alexandria, he was appointed to succeed Clement at the Catechetical School by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria.

Origen was born in Alexandria in 184 to Christian parents. It was, in fact, the same persecution that drove Clement from Alexandria that also made a martyr of Origen’s father, Leonides, in 202. From his early years, Origen was passionate about his faith. While his father was imprisoned, Origen desired greatly to face martyrdom also, even though his mother protested with emotive appeals. Eventually the only way she could persuade the young man to remain home was to hide his clothes. Origen relented to his mother’s wishes, but still composed a note to his father insisting that he not change his mind “on our account.”60 From Eusebius’ account, it seems that Leonides strove to educate his eldest son primarily in the Scriptures, but also in the works of philosophy. Given that he was raising a family in a city such as Alexandria, this is perhaps understandable. After his father’s death, Origen pursued his studies further such that, within a few years, he was able to support himself through teaching, having proven himself in the Catechetical School.

While Origen, like Clement, was steeped in the works of the Greek philosophers, his view of them was not as optimistic as Clement’s. While Clement sought to use the philosophers to communicate Scriptural truth, Origen preferred to use the Word of God alone. If Plato agreed with Scripture, it was more despite Plato than because of any pre-Christian revelation given to him. Interestingly, though, it is clear that Origen was influenced greatly by Platonic ideas. Among the copious books he authored, one work was called De Principiis in which he sets forth a kind of systematic theology, which was highly unusual for theologians of his time. In this book, he transforms the creation account of Genesis into a neo-Platonic drama. He believed that when God created the heavens and the earth, he also created all individual souls. Each soul was equal and had the free-will to worship and imitate their Creator, or fall away from Him through neglect of His worship. These souls, apart from one, all fell to varying degrees. The worst was Satan, and then his angels and demons. The better ones were the angels. Those in the

60 Eusebius, Church History, 6.2.

26

middle were bound to bodies as punishment, and made this present world for them.61 The one soul that did not fall, but maintained devotion to God; this was chosen to be united with the Logos and born as the Christ, the Saviour. Christ gave himself as a ransom for the fallen souls and, provided they accept the redemption bought by Him. Prior to their being fully restored, the souls must go through a cleansing punishment so that they may be purged of the imperfections they have accumulated due to sin. After the passing of this world, the transformed souls will continue to grow, and continued opportunity will be given for the unrepentant souls to repent. Eventually all, even the devil himself, will be saved.62

Origen came under a lot of criticism for these views. One may wonder how one who so firmly believed in the use of Scripture alone could teach such obviously philosophical interpretations of the Word of God. The clue to understanding this lies in understanding Origen’s views on Biblical interpretation. For Origen, there were three levels to understanding Scripture: the corporal, the psychic (“soulish”), and the spiritual.63

The corporal is the plain historical meaning of the text, where “the simple man may be edified by the ‘flesh,’ as it were, of the Scripture.”64 The psychic meaning pertains to the moral sense, and the spiritual pertains to the underlying truths taught in that passage with regard to Christ and the church. It is clear, therefore, that, while Origen believed in the use of Scripture in its entirety, he was open to literal, typological, and allegorical interpretations of the text that left him with innumerable hermeneutical possibilities. For one who disdained the use of Greek philosophy, it is evident that Origen was heavily influenced by the work of Philo and others.

Origen’s view of the Trinity was not exactly united with the views being expressed by Tertullian and others. Origen rejected Modalism of both kinds. To Origen, while the Father and the Son are one in will and power, they are distinct entities. Yet, because there is only one God, the Son is in some way subordinate to the Father; he is in some way, a lesser being. As Prestige points out, Origen taught that “though the Son transcends all thrones and dominions, and every name that is named in this world or the world to come… yet He is not to be compared in any respect to the Father.”65 In one place, Origen comes dangerously close to regarding the Son as a created being, though a careful examination of the context saves him from charges of Arian sympathy.66

Origen eventually left Alexandria, ending up serving as a presbyter in Caesarea, where he eventually died from injuries sustained while imprisoned for his faith. The work of Clement and Origen helped to put the church in Egypt on the map. Indeed, the Eastern Church has much to credit these men for with regard to its theological heritage. As events progress over the coming years, the schism between the East and the West will become very apparent, and the philosophical and theological work of Clement and Origen, and their disciples had no little part to do with it.

61 Origen, De Principiis, 1.8; 2.9.62 Ibid., 1.6; 2.10.63 Ibid., 4.1.64 Ibid., 4.1.11.65 Prestige, p. 132.66 Ibid., p. 133.

27

LESSON SEVENPERSECUTION

In a previous lesson it was suggested that, to begin with, persecution of the church was very localized, and by no means official from an imperial perspective.67 By the middle of the third century, the church had come a long way. While not yet legalized, it was certainly tolerated. Around this time, as Eusebius phrases it, “the faith extended and our doctrine was proclaimed boldly before all.”68 This would seem to reflect a period of time where Christians were fairly free to conduct themselves in the proclamation of the gospel relatively unhindered.

At the time of Augustine, people liked to think in terms of ten persecutions against the church having thus far occurred, which mirrored the ten plagues that God sent against Egypt. The eleventh, they believed, would be the final great persecution brought about by the Antichrist. Augustine lists these ten (though he lists Antonius instead of Marcus Aurelius), and comments that he is unconvinced by the argumentation. His main objection is that the list ignores those who were killed for the faith prior to Nero, and those who have been killed for the faith in other countries. “But how unreasonable it is,” he says, “not to consider that the Church, which bears fruit and grows through the whole world, may suffer persecution from kings in some nations even when she does not suffer it in others!”69 Augustine’s words remind us that, during the first couple of centuries after Christ, while the church suffered only localized persecution, that fact should in no way undermine the severity of those localized persecutions, nor should it limit their extent to within the borders of a few well-known cities. On the one hand, the church was relatively free to meet and practice its faith; on the other hand, though, this freedom was not enjoyed by everyone, everywhere, at all times.

One of the main causes of anti-Christian feeling among the people of the Empire was the fact that Christians refused to participate in the Imperial cult sacrifices. It is important to remember that, for the Romans, the well being of the city depended upon their appeasing the gods who, supposedly, looked out for Rome. Rome’s success in battle, farming, and many other functions of civil life were seen as dependent upon the peoples’ faithfulness in paying due homage to their divine protectors. The Christians’ willful negligence on this point was seen by many of the pagans as a sure way of bringing the wrath of the gods upon them. As Tertullian put it, “If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence, straightway the cry is, ‘Away with the Christians to the lion!’”70 Nevertheless, in the providence of God, the fact that, until the middle of the third century, persecution was sporadic and dependent upon the attitudes of the local rulers and people enabled the church to grow and deal with some major doctrinal issues.

From the end of the persecution that broke out under Septimus Severus in 202 that claimed the life of Origen’s father, until 235, the church experienced a reprieve from such harassment. Alexander Serverus, who was Emperor from 222-235, is said to have

67 Lesson 2, page 12.68 Eusebius, Church History, 6.36.69 Augustine, The City of God, 18.52.70 Tertullian, Apology, chapter 40.

28

included statues of Abraham and Jesus in his chapel. Alexander’s mother is supposed to have requested tutoring from Origen.71 This atmosphere of tolerance was broken abruptly when Maximinus became Emperor in 235. Maximinus ordered Christian leaders to be put to death, since they were the ones responsible for teaching Christianity. Eusebius says that the reason for this was his hatred toward the household of Alexander “which contained many believers.”72 Maximinus’ reign only lasted three years, but the peace had been broken, and, for almost a century, the church was to experience some of the worst persecution she had yet known.

As the church grew in number and influence in the early years of the third century, Emperor worship intensified; the Roman religious practices by no means capitulated to Christianity. In fact, there were a couple of ways in which Roman religion had the upper hand. To begin with, Christianity was still, largely, an urban religion. People in rural areas still pretty much kept to their traditional pagan worship. Also, Christianity did not enjoy the official protection of the state. This meant that, while local authorities, as well as the Emperor himself, could institute and conduct pagan sacrifices and ceremonies, the Christians had to be content to be tolerated, especially since their practices were seen to incite the wrath of the gods. To make matters worse, the years of peace that the church had experienced had created a generation of believers, both laymen and clergy, who were losing sight of their calling and becoming conformed to the world around them. Cyprian of Carthage tells of bishops who forsook their responsibilities to their churches to extend their wealth by becoming merchants. He says that, with lying and slanderous tongues, Christians became lax in their discipline and worldly in their dealings with one another.73

When Decius became Emperor in 249, he struck out against church leaders. Frend suggests that his reason for this may have been like Maximinus’: a reaction to the tolerance they had enjoyed under previous administrations.74 Fabian of Rome, Babyllas of Antioch, and Alexander of Jerusalem all met with trial and execution at the hand of the new Emperor. Cyprian of Carthage managed to escape and go into hiding. But this was only the beginning. In the autumn of 250, Decius commanded an Empire-wide sacrifice to the gods. To ensure compliance, he required of those making sacrifice to sign a certificate, or libellus, that verified that they had indeed participated in the mandated worship. It is a sad testimony to the lapsed state of many in the church at this time that many who identified themselves as Christians came out and willingly complied to save their own lives. Some of these libelli have survived to this day, and it is evident that they were intended to catch Christians.

The question of what to do with those who lapsed, especially bishops, became an important issue at this time. There was not a single answer to the question; indeed, the Africans treated not only those who signed libelli as lapsed, but also those who bought them to avoid inquisition. Cyprian took the view that no person had the authority to forgive apostasy, and all apostates should be prayed for and left before the judgement seat of God. After Decius’ persecution subsided in 251, Cyprian modified his view to permit the possibility of a bishop admitting one who had apostasized back into the church. At a council he held in Carthage in 251, it was decided that those who had

71 Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity: Beginnings to 1500, (Peabody, Ma; Prince Press, 1997), p. 87.

72 Eusebius, Church History, 6.28.73 Cyprian, On The Lapsed, 6.74 Frend, p. 98.

29

merely purchased libelli were to be granted punishment according to their crime. Those who had actually participated in sacrificing to the Roman gods were denied re-admittance to the church except on their deathbed. In Rome, the presbyter Novatian advocated Cyprian’s earlier position, denying re-admission to adulterers, murderers, and apostates, and leaving them to cast themselves on the mercy of God on the Day of Judgement. Cyprian sided with Novatian’s chief opponent in Rome, Cornelius, who became bishop there in 251. In 254, Cyprian’s advice was sought from a couple of Spanish churches who wondered if sacraments served by bishops who had apostatized were valid. Stephen, who was then bishop of Rome, had restored such bishops to office. Cyprian dissented from Stephen’s view, asserting that such men could not be among Christ’s ministers. Drawing from Numbers, Hosea, and Acts, he argues that only those who are justly qualified, who are demonstrably worthy can hold the office of minister.75 As Friend points out, Tertullian expressed this same view: there may be tares among God’s people, but not among His ministers.76 So, when pressed with the question of whether those baptized by lapsed bishops needed re-baptism, Cyprian, and the African church spoke in the affirmative. In Rome, however, Stephen, again, took a dissenting position. His view was that as long as the baptism was in the name of the Trinity, the spiritual condition of the minister was irrelevant. Cyprian and Stephen’s disagreement was less than amicable, and Stephen denounced Cyprian as Antichrist.77 Stephen tried to posture himself as Peter’s successor in order to win the argument, but Cyprian refused to acknowledge that one bishop held more authority than another. Stephen would have succeeded in excommunicating Cyprian, were it not for Cyprian’s support from the African churches. In the end, the situation remained unresolved. Stephen died in 256, and Cyprian suffered a martyr’s death in the hands of the next Roman persecutor, Valerian, on September 14, 258.

The church had recovered since Decius’ persecution, and even gained in wealth and influence. It is perhaps in reaction to this that the Emperor Valerian issued an edict insisting that Christian leaders pay homage, or show some kind of recognition to the traditional Roman religion. One can, perhaps, see in this a fear of the growing power of the church, and a desire to check the loyalty of these people. When it was clear that the Christian leaders were not going to comply, Valerian became much more hostile. They were banned from holding services or entering their own cemeteries. In August of 258, Valerian decreed that Christian leaders should be executed, and those who served as Senators and civil servants should have property confiscated. Again, this can be seen as an attempt to impoverish the church, and render her impotent by relieving her of her leadership. Valerian’s reign of terror continued for another year, and then, due to wars being fought on other fronts, the policy was rescinded. Valerian was taken prisoner by the Persians, and his successor, Gallienus, restored to the church her possessions, and her freedom to worship.

The church enjoyed a period of peace for a season. Although refusal to participate in the Roman sacrifices was punishable by death, the church was growing in power and influence. In contrast, there was growing instability in the Roman Empire. The many battles fought were proving detrimental to the Roman economy, causing a deep

75 Cyprian, Epistle 67, 4.76 Frend, p. 102.77 Chadwick, p. 120.

30

depression to set in. The state religion was losing favor among the people, and even in rural areas, Christianity was gaining in adherents.78

For the first nineteen years of his reign as Emperor, Diocletian paid little attention to the growing church. For much of his term as Emperor, he set about trying to reverse the fortunes of his ailing Empire. One of his most important moves was to address what he considered one of the most critical problems. He believed that the Empire in its current administration was unmanageable, so he divided power between two Augusti, each with a subordinate Caesar. Not only would this help to maintain order within the Empire and further protect its borders, but it would also serve to curtail the vicious rivalries that often surrounded the Imperial office.

It is often wondered why, toward the end of his term, Diocletian turned his guns upon the church. He had appointed Maximian to govern the Western provinces as co-Augustus. Diocletian selected Galerius as his Caesar, and Maximian chose Constantius as his. Diocletian’s policies were revitalizing the Empire, and among his work was the rebuilding of temples, and the revival of the pagan cults. It is possibly here that we see the motivation for trying to rid the Empire of the Christian church. Diocletian was attempting to restore Rome to its former glory, and, it would seem that, for him, this included the traditional pagan festivities and sacrifices. The church was the biggest threat to the establishment of Roman religion. To accomplish his goal, Diocletian would have to deal with the church.

In 303, government officials went about confiscating Scriptures, burning churches, and arresting bishops and other leaders (this was later extended to the laity). Christian worship was banned, and Christians were forced to sacrifice to the Roman gods, often under great torture. To alleviate the prisons, those who recanted were set free. Those who refused, after much persuasion, were executed. When Diocletian fell ill in the winter of 303-4, his Caesar, Galarius took over. Galarius was much more zealous than his superior, and ordered an Empire-wide day of sacrifice. Non-compliance would not be tolerated, and death would result for those who refused to participate. Diocletian eventually recovered from his illness, but he decided to abdicate as Augustus, and his co-Augustus, Maximin, followed suit. The new Augusti, Galarius and Constantius, continued the persecution in very different ways. In the West, Constantius saw little need for his counterpart’s ferocity. The church was not as big of a problem for him, so, apart from the burning of churches, little else was done. In the East, however, Galerius, and his Caesar, Maximin, where the confiscation of Scriptures and the oppression of church leaders continued. Maximin, a strong advocate for pagan religion, sought to re-structure and re-establish pagan worship, and discredit the church. However, though he seemed to have some success,79 his efforts were to prove in vain.

Constantius’ son, Constantine had secured Galerius’ permission to visit his ailing father in Britain in 306. Galerius granted him permission, and while there, his father died and he was proclaimed Augustus. In 311, Galerius was taken ill, and, like Diocletian, found himself reconsidering his policy toward the church. Galerius issued an edict of toleration, permitting the Christians to resume meeting together as they had, provided they kept the peace and prayed for Rome. He died a week later, having passed power to Licinius. Constantine had already set his mind on a bid for Rome. He confronted

78 Frend, p.109.79 Eusebius, Church History, 9.5.

31

Maximian, who was positioned in Rome, having been directed in a dream to place the sign of a cross on the shields of his men.80 Constantine prevailed, and he met with Licinius in 313. Licinius dealt with Maximin, having also had a dream in the form of an angelic vision exhorting him to pray to the Supreme God. He had his men learn the prayer that he was told to pray, and he led them in it on the day of battle.81 That same year, Constantine and Licinius, as co-Emperors, issued the Edict of Milan, which granted both to Christians and non-Christians the authority to practice their faith. All property was restored to the Christians, and assurance given that they would not be further persecuted.

80 Lactantius, On the Manner In Which the Persecutors Died, chapter 44.81 Ibid., chapter 46.

32

LESSON EIGHTCONSTANTINE

Constantine’s rise to power has been sketched very briefly in the previous lesson. However, the intent with this lesson is to examine Constantine, his conversion, his beliefs, and his significance in a little more detail.

By way of biography,82 Flavius Valerius Constantius was born on February 27, 272 (or 274) at Naissus. He was the son of Constantius Chlorus, soon to be Emperor, and his wife Helena. He was sent to the court of Diocletian, ostensibly for his education, and remained there until 306. He witnessed first-hand the abdication of Diocletian and Galerius, and was expected to be named Caesar when his father was elevated from that position to that of Emperor. Diocletian was, indeed, in favor of it; but Galerius, possibly threatened by Constantine’s ability and popularity, passed over him. Constantine tried to escape the Imperial court to join with his father, but Galerius always prevented it. His father sent for him often, only to be refused. Eventually, when Galerius did grant Constantine leave, Constantine acted much quicker than Galerius anticipated, and he was beyond the clutches of the Emperor before he had a chance to rescind the ruling. Constantine remained with his father until his father’s death in York, England, where he named his son as his successor. Though he had much support for the position of Augustus, Galerius refused to grant him that title, instead offering him that of Caesar. Constantine bided his time and accepted the lesser title, busying himself for the next few years in successful military campaigns and works of domestic improvement in that portion of the Empire that was his domain at that time. In these, he proved himself to be a popular leader and a successful administrator, as well as being beloved by the Christians whom he treated with favor.

By 307, there were six Emperors or at least claimants to the title Augustus: Galerius, Licinius, Maxentius, Maximian, Maximin, and Constantine. Each ruled over his portion of the Empire, and most wanted a greater share. In 310, Maximian died, and Galerius followed him the next year. There remained Licinius and Maximin to rule in the East, and Maxentius and Constantine in the West. Maxentius eventually turned on Constantine. Recognizing the failure of the pagan gods to assist many of the Emperors who had gone before him, Constantine turned to the God of the Christians for aid. One day in the year 312, around noon, as he reported to Eusebius, he saw a vision of a cross83

in the sky bearing the inscription “By This Conquer.” That night, he had a dream wherein Christ instructed him to use that sign in battle. He had a banner made depicting this symbol, and with that went into battle against Maxentius.84 At the conclusion of their fighting, Maxentius ended up in the River Tiber, where his body was discovered and his head carried on the end of a spear into Rome. Constantine now ruled the West, and Christianity had made a powerful ally. In an effort to unite the two halves of the Emperor, Licinius married Constantine’s sister; however, Licinius’ Eastern partner had

82 The following biography draws heavily from that given by Ernest C. Richardson in part 2, vol. 1 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers in the Early Christian Fathers series.

83 The “cross” described by Eusebius (Life of Constantine, chapter 31) is actually a “Chi-Rho” symbol, where the Greek letter Chi is intersected down its middle by the Greek letter Rho. Chi and Rho are the first two letters in the word Christos, Greek for “Christ.”

84 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, chapters 27-31.

33

decided to make a bid for power. Licinius rose to the challenge and defeated Maximin, becoming sole ruler of the Eastern Empire.

Inevitably, Licinius and Constantine came to blows, possibly because of Licinius’ alleged involvement in a plot to assassinate Constantine. Constantine’s courage and skill was more than enough to secure him victory, and Licinius was forced to accept defeat and agree to a truce. The two Augusti re-divided their Empire and ruled together for a season in peace.

This peaceful co-ruling lasted for nine years. From Eusebius’ account of Constantine’s life, it is easy to see how anyone attempting to rule with Constantine would be ruling under the shadow of one who was clearly not one’s equal. Of course, Eusebius’ love for his Emperor is very much apparent, and that could easily account for the “larger-than-life” picture he paints. It could be the fact that Licinius was intimidated by Constantine, and had genuine fear that his fellow Augustus may try to extend his territory and assume sole rule. While campaigning against the Samaritans, Constantine had passed within Licinius’ territory, feeding, perhaps, Licinius’ insecurities. It is possible that this was the underlying fear that fueled Licinius’ hostilities. Eusebius tells of secret plots against Constantine that Licinius had a problem keeping secret. Also, while Licinius by no means exercised the same level of tolerance toward the church as Constantine did, it appears that his persecution of the church within his domain intensified. This was, perhaps, a reaction against Constantine’s favor of the church. Licinius drove out the Christians in his household, and stripped soldiers of rank who refused to worship pagan deities. Since it was known of the Christians that they showed compassion on the weak and suffering, Licinius punished such acts of mercy by inflicting upon the caregivers the afflictions of those to whom they ministered. He executed bishops, and, believing that the Christians were gathering in church to pray for his rival and not him, he burned and closed churches.85

Naturally, Constantine could not stand by and let these atrocities continue unchecked. Along with his son Crispus, he went to battle against his former ally in 323, and won the victory. At the pleading of his sister, Constantine spared Licinius’ life, and the former ruler of the East retired to Thessalonica, where he was put to death the succeeding year after trying to take up arms again.86 Constantine assumed Licinius’ territory and became the sole Augustus, ruling the entire Roman Empire.

Over the course of the rest of his life, apart from the many battles he fought, and the programs of urban development he instigated, Constantine took an active interest in church affairs. This is, perhaps, no more evident than in his presiding role at the Council of Nicea in 325. Constantine died at Ancyrona, near Nicomedia, in 337.

The question of Constantine’s faith is one that is often hotly disputed. Some believe that his faith was genuine and sincere. Others regard him as a shrewd politician who recognized the power of the church and realized that it would serve him better to have the church as his ally rather than his foe. In support of the latter one might suggest that, since worship of the Sun was popular, it is possible that Constantine was a follower of this particular pagan religion. Sun worship was monotheistic, and Christians were often confused as being worshipers of the Sun due to the fact that they met together on

85 These and other details of Licinius’ excesses can be found in Eusebius, Church History, 10.8 and 9.

86 Socrates, Church Histories, 1.4.

34

Sundays and prayed toward the East.87 Given these facts, it is supposed, it would be easy for a Sun worshiper to transition into Christian belief.88 However, one could look to the fervency with which Constantine upheld the cause of the church, and the loyalty he showed to her. At the very least, he put Christianity on the same footing that paganism had previously enjoyed with regard to Imperial benefits. Christian clergy were exempt from taxation, and Sunday was considered legally equivalent to the pagan feasts, with provincial governors being required to observe that day. Over and above this, Christians were not required to participate in pagan ceremonies, and he forbade Jews from punishing Jews who converted to Christianity. He even had his own children brought up in the Christian faith.89 Even the fact that he was not baptized until he was on his deathbed necessarily speaks to this issue since it was commonly believed at the time that baptism cleanses sins committed prior to being baptized; sins committed after the fact were considered cleansed. For this reason it was a common practice for Christians to leave baptism until they were drawing their last breaths and, hence, in theory, unable to commit any further sin.90

Whether Constantine was or was not truly a Christian is a question that cannot be answered to any degree of certainty, and, as with all men, only they and the Lord know for sure. The fact that Constantine seemed to have experienced conversion, and, moreover, the fact that he expressed favoritism toward Christianity in his practice and legislation was to have a huge impact on the church. This is truly the most significant aspect of Constantine’s faith, real or not, for the historian. Where Christianity had previously fought for attention in amongst the sea of paganism, now it held equal footing, if not prominence, if only because it was the faith of the Emperor. Constantine’s urban development programs included the construction and repair of churches. As noted earlier, he gave special privilege to Christian clergy. It must be noted, however, that, while Constantine gave the church Imperial legitimacy and sanction for the first time in her life, he did not abolish pagan religion. Many forms of religious practice were observed in Constantine’s Empire; Christianity merely had favored status.91

It is interesting to note that, from the letters preserved by Eusebius, it is evident that Constantine was quite well acquainted with Christian doctrine. After his vision, he summoned Christians to instruct him, and also undertook study of the Scriptures.92 From his Oration, it is evident that he learned from his study of God’s Word, and he employed that study in reasoning with Greek philosophy, of which it is clear he had at least some knowledge. He held to the deity of Christ,93 and also the Virgin Birth.94 However, it seems that his primary concern as Emperor was to maintain unity within the church. It was this that, perhaps, blinded him to the magnitude of the issue debated at Nicea.95

This new status of the church was to change the way the church conducted itself and the role the church played in both social and political life. The Christian community

87 Tertullian, Ad Nationes, 1.13.88 Chadwick, p. 126.89 Latourette, pp. 92-93.90 See both Chadwick, p. 127, and Kelly, p. 428.91 Latourette, p. 92; Chadwick, p.127.92 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 1.32.93 See, for example, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4.11, 18.94 Ibid., 4.19.95 Ibid., 3.12 and 3.17, for example.

35

became an important factor in policy, and position within the church also became a means for social advancement. As previously noted, when the church had a time of respite from persecution, this comfort gave rise to laxity and disregard for Christian behavior in the church. This happened in the period prior to the Decius’ persecution, and, now that the church enjoyed the protection of the Emperor, it would be a constant temptation. On the other hand, now that the shadow of persecution had passed, the church could feel at liberty to direct its attention to other important matters.

36

LESSON NINEARIUS, NICEA, AND ATHANASIUS

In 304, the persecution of the church begun under Diocletian, also known as the “Great Persecution,” was in full swing. In a prison in Alexandria, a number of Egyptian bishops who had been rounded up as a result of the Emperor’s edict sat awaiting their fate. During the course of their imprisonment, discussion arose among them with regard to their brethren who had maintained their lives and their freedom by apostatizing. Once this season of persecution passes, Lord willing, should these be received back into the church without question, or should they be punished?

This was a hot issue, especially in Africa. In 304, at the death of Paul, bishop of Numidia, a group of fanatical Christians put forward a man named Silvanus to be his replacement. While Silvanus had a certain amount of popular support, he had only eighteen months previously handed over church property to the persecutors. By aggressive persuasion, he was consecrated bishop in a private ceremony presided over by twelve bishops, at least four of whom had also lapsed under the pressure of persecution. The anger of those who objected to this could not be contained for long, and chief among the protestors was a man by the name of Donatus. There were reports of lapsed bishops being deposed and fallen priests being rebaptized as a result of the influence of Donatus and his followers. From this time on, there remained two very distinct factions in the African church: those who followed the thinking of Donatus (called “Donatists”), and the rest of the church who took a less restrictive view.

In the prison cell in Alexandria, Peter, bishop of Alexandria, thought that the lapsed should receive the mercy of the church, but Melitius, bishop of Lycopolis, disagreed, calling for more severe treatment. Their disagreement became so sharp that, eventually, Peter stretched a curtain across the room so that he would not have to even look at Melitius. Many of the bishops and monks joined Melitius on his side of the curtain. They remained at enmity until they were released in 305, during the brief period of peace between Diocletian’s abdication and Maximin’s fifth edict. At that time, Peter issued rulings with regard to the “lapsed,” punishing them with little more than fasting and penance. Melitius imposed his own penances, and also appointed his own priests in defiance of his superior. Both men had their supporters in Alexandria; most notably, on Melitius’ side, was an ascetic named Arius. However, during the persecution that followed, Peter suffered greatly, such that, prior to facing martyrdom, he and Arius made their peace. As a result, Melitius considered Arius to be a trator, and his followers never forgot this.96

Peter was succeeded by Achillas to the bishopric of Alexandria. However, Achillas’ season was short and in 312 he was succeeded by Alexander. Prior to his death, however, Achillas had appointed Arius to the position of presbyter of Boucolis in Alexandria.97

In lesson five we saw the beginnings of Trinitarian debate with the issues raised by Sabellius as responded to by Hippolytus and Tertullian. Arius was no Sabellian and rejected anything that seemed to be remotely Sabellian. This may account for the

96 Much of the foregoing account was drawn from Frend, p. 134. Frend, in turn, derived his information from Epiphanius of Salamis’ work Panarion, and M. J. Routh’s Reliquiae Sacrae.

97 Frend, The Early Church, p. 136.

37

position he took with regard to the nature of the Godhead. He agreed with Origen, and popular thinking in Alexandria at the time, that the Son was a lesser being than the Father was. However, he went further than Origen did. Origen stopped short of denying the Son’s deity, and, in fact, affirmed that the Son was divine, even if not of the same quality as the Father. For Arius, there was no other conclusion: the Son, though the creator of the world, was in fact a creature Himself, and was not really divine at all. Having studied under Lucian, presbyter of Antioch, Arius had come to believe that Christ was not only a creature, but also one who developed ethically.98

These views were not shared by Alexander, and it is very possible that, seeking his downfall, the Meletians either alerted Alexander to the errant presbyter in his midst, or perhaps went as far as to threaten Alexander with heresy charges if he did not deal with Arius. If they sought Arius’ demise, they would eventually succeed, though it would take a number of years.

The issue came to light one day during a gathering of the presbyters at Alexandria. Alexander went into a detailed discourse on the Trinity. Arius took exception to his words, equating them with those of Sabellius, and offering the following rebuttal: “‘If,’ said he, ‘the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing ().’”99

Arius’ teaching attracted not an insignificant following, as well as some important followers. Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian, was at least an Arian sympathizer, and Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, where Constantine had made his residence, was a full supporter of Arius. In 321, Alexander gathered a council of one hundred bishops from around Egypt and Libya. At this meeting of regional leaders, Arius and his followers were excommunicated. Since Arius continued to teach and have influence even after being censured by the church, Alexander took a further step of sending out a circular letter to all the bishops condemning Arius, his notable followers (whom he names in the epistle), as well as Eusebius of Nicomedia. In this letter, Alexander makes the case against Arius, which is of interest from the point of view that his argument demonstrates the fact that Trinitarian thought was quite normative, and very much along the lines of Nicea even before that creed was written. Alexander stated that Arius taught:

That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’ - the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was

98 Ibid., 135.99 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1:5.

38

made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.100

Bishops began to take sides against bishops, and there was great controversy within the church over this issue. Since one of Arius’ strongest supporters was bishop of the city that was also the Emperor’s new residence, the matter soon caught the Imperial attention. Such division within the church was not something that Constantine could tolerate, but his initial response was that the controversy was merely a semantic one that could be resolved with some compromise and negotiation. He sent his trusted friend Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain, with a letter that he hoped would put an end to the fighting. Constantine failed to understand, however, that this issue was not something that could be negotiated. As Shaff puts it: “Questions of theological and religious principal are not to be adjusted, like political matters, by compromise, but must be fought through to their last results, and the truth must conquer or (for the time) succumb.”101

Having failed in his attempt to intervene, Constantine called a council of the whole church, that the universal church might be represented in one place to settle this issue. In 325, Constantine summoned bishops from all over the Empire to Nicea, near Nicomedia, and many responded. About two hundred and fifty bishops made the journey to Nicea, along with presbyters and some lay people too. Unlike only a few decades before, they made their way at the expense of the Emperor, boldly, without fear for their lives. Most of the attendees at the council were from the eastern part of the Empire, only about four bishops being present from the West. Many of those attending still bore the scars of the persecutions of Constantine’s co-rulers and predecessors of recent history. This convening of church leaders was the first of it’s kind, and the moment was not lost on the Emperor. He conducted himself as one who felt privileged to host such a remarkable array of pastors from diverse areas of the Empire, from Libya, Asia, Palestine, Egypt, Thebes, Galatia, Persia, and Scythia.102 All the bishops were seated around the central room of the palace, with Constantine seated in the middle, hearing arguments, praising those who made their points well, and encouraging the assembled to come to agreement.

Agreement on the deity of Christ was reached fairly easily. Arius was called forward to present his case, and he found himself greatly in the minority. A creedal statement setting forth the view of the council was composed, and all were to sign it. Every one of the bishops present except for two gave their signatures to it. Arius, and the two dissenting bishops were excommunicated and banished. The creed they composed, known as the Nicean Creed, is still the basic standard of orthodoxy for many churches today:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible: - and substance of the Father; God of God and Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial103 with the Father: by whom all things

100 Ibid., 1.6.101 Shaff, History of the Christian Church, III.9.1.19.102 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.7-8.103 This term, “consubstantial,” is probably the most controversial term of the statement. It was

added possibly at the suggestion of Hosius of Cordova, and Constantine approved this addition. The term, which in Greek is , means, literally, “of the same substance” and is meant to denote the Son’s unity in nature with the Father. Those of Origenist leanings (which accounted for many of the bishops in

39

were made, both which are in heaven and on earth: who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended became incarnate, and was made man; suffered, arose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens and will come again to judge the living and the dead. [We] also [believe] in the Holy Spirit. But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say “There was a time when he was not,” and “He was not before he was begotten” and “He was made from that which did not exist,” and those who assert that he is of other substance or essence than the Father, or that he was created, or is susceptible of change.104

The Arian problem was not the only issue on the table at Nicea, though by far it was the most significant. Dispute had also arisen over the dating of Easter: should it be dated according to the Jewish Passover, or should an independent dating method be used to establish the day it is to be celebrated each year? This issue was decided in favor of an independent methodology, with Constantine issuing harsh words against the use of Jewish practices to establish the practice of the church.105 The council met for a month, and then they parted ways. Constantine felt he had performed his God-given duty to preserve the peace of the church. However, the battle against Arianism was far from over.

At Nicea, Alexander had been accompanied by a young deacon by the name of Athanasius. Athanasius was a bright, up-and-coming theologian at Alexandria, who had been recognized by the bishop at an early age. There is a story of how, as a child, Athanasius enjoyed playing “church” with his friends. Athanasius would always play the role of the bishop, while his friends would be presbyters and deacons. Alexander happened by them one day while they were playing and summoned the children to him. Suspecting that divine providence might be at work, he asked which roles the boys had played. He ordered them to be sent for instruction by the church, and that special attention be paid to the young lad who would be bishop. When Athanasius reached adulthood, he was ordained a deacon, and it was in this position that he accompanied his bishop to Nicea.106

In 328, Alexander died and Athanasius succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius was fiercly dedicated to the Nicene Creed and the defense of it in opposition to all heresies for the protection and purity of the church. His loyalty to the Nicene Creed is evident by the persecution he endured because of it. Arius and his followers were well aware that Athanasius had been a strong opponent of Arius’ beliefs, and now, as bishop of Alexandria, he was in a position to exert more influence. The ancient historians record stories of plots carried out in an attempt to put Athanasius at odds with the Emperor and get him exiled, or at least deposed. Socrates recounts how, on one occasion, a severed

the East, especially around Alexandria) took this term to mean that the Son was not a creature, but was the image of the Father, coming from Him, and not from any other source (see Kelly, p. 233). Frend notes that this term was used by the Sabellians to promote their concept of the Triune nature of God. Those present at Nicea who had battled Sabellianism felt obliged to accept the term, given it had the Emperor’s approval, but they also felt it necessary to write their constituents back home and explain why they accepted such language (see Frend, pp. 140-141).

104 Socrates, Church History, 1.8.105 Ibid., 3.18.106 Socrates, Church History, 1.15.

40

hand was produced supposedly having belonged to a murdered Meletian bishop named Arsinius. Athanasius was accused of having used this hand to perform magic. Athanasius was summoned before a Synod to answer the charge, and, in his defense, introduced Arsinius, alive and well, wearing a cloak. One by one Athanasius revealed Arsinius’ hands to the Synod, showing them to be still firmly attached to his arms. “Arsinius,” he supposedly said, “as you see, is found to have two hands: let my accusers show the place whence the third was cut off.”107

It was Eusebius of Nicomedia, now the leading Arian, who eventually secured Athanasius his first exile. He produced evidence that Athanasius had, at one time, attempted to divert the corn supply that was headed to Constantinople108 from Alexandria. Constantine had also been persuaded that Arius had come around to the Nicene position, and desired greatly that Athanasius receive him back into communion at Alexandria. Athanasius was very skeptical, and refused to welcome him back. Given Constantine’s understood calling to unite the church, Athanasius’ hard-line position was intolerable. In light of such actions and attitudes, Constantine banished him to Gaul.109

In 336, Arius died. Socrates recounts a rather gruesome story of the heretic’s demise. Chadwick points out that by this time, Arius had passed from the limelight. Certainly, the doctrine he had proposed was still alive and fighting, but the man who started it all had become a fading memory.110 The following year, Constantine received the ordinance of baptism, and shortly thereafter died. The Nicene Creed was the fruit of Constantine’s labors to bring unity to the church. While he lived, it was the unquestioned standard of orthodoxy, and no one dared touch it. After Constantine’s death, the Arians recognized their opportunity to come back.

Constantine was succeeded by his three sons, Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II.111 Of these, Constantius II was the lone Arian; his brothers were all baptized and Nicene in their theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia tried to make the most of this opportunity to spread Arian doctrine around the Imperial household; however, Constantine II recalled Athanasius from exile. This was a major setback for Eusebius who was having some success with his campaign.112 Athanasius’ return was short-lived, however. After receiving a hostile reception, he withdrew from Alexandria and went to Rome where he was welcomed by the bishop, Julius.

Bishop Julius’ acceptance of Athanasius into communion caused quite a stir. Not only had he also accepted Marcellus, who had been exiled with Athanasius and was considered a Sabellian, but he had also received these men when they had been excommunicated in the East. The question was raised: by what right does the church in Rome ignore the condemnation of the church in the East?

In 340, Constantine II launched an attack against Constans, but was defeated and killed. Constans now reigned over approximately two-thirds of the Roman Empire, and he called upon his brother to meet at Sardica, on the furthest Western edge of the Empire.

107 Ibid., 1.29.108 Constantinople was formerly Byzantium. Constantine moved the center of the Empire there in

330, modestly renaming the city after himself. His intention was for it to be the “New Rome.” 109 Ibid., 1.35110 Chadwick, p. 136.111 Constantine had not actually wanted them to succeed him, but after his death the army decided

otherwise. They killed all Constantine’s other relatives and advisors, and passed the title to these sons.112 Socrates, Church History, 2.2.

41

This meeting was intended to be a council to vindicate Athanasius, Marcellus, and to uphold the Nicene Creed. Eastern and Western bishops agreed to meet, but the Eastern bishops demanded the exclusion of Athanasius before they would begin discussions. The bishop of Sardica, along with Hosius of Cordova, insisted that Athanasius remain present. At that, the Eastern bishops withdrew to Philippopolis where, in their own council, they excommunicated Athanasius and condemned the phrase homoousios, or “of the same substance,” which was a key phrase in the Nicene definition of Christ’s unity with the Father. In turn, the Western bishops upheld Nicea and the homoousios definition, and they also reinstated Athanasius in Alexandria.113 Constans wrote to his brother to inform him of the decision of the council. He advised Constantius to receive Athanasius at Alexandria and Paul at Constantinople, or he would himself “come thither, and restore them to their own sees, in spite of your opposition.”114 Constantius, with the advice of the bishops in the East, relented and recalled Athanasius, more out of a fear of civil war than anything else.115 Athanasius returned to his see in October of 346, but, in the midst of this, the church had become divided between the East and the West: a division that would never heal.

Athanasius returned to Alexandria, and it seemed that Arianism was on the decline. He had a lot of popular support, but his victory was short-lived. In 350, there was an uprising in Gaul against Constans and the Emperor was assassinated. Magentius, the leader of the rebellion, took control of the Western Empire, but Constantius challenged him. Over the course of a couple of years, Constantius defeated Magentius, and by 353 was the sole Emperor. This situation did not bode well for the restored bishop of Alexandria. Constantius had many a score to settle with him, and this was his opportunity. There was a raid on Athanasius’ church in Alexandria in 356 to attempt to capture the bishop, but he had already gone. Athanasius spent six years with the monks in Mount Nitria, among whom he had made many friends in the past. From this location he sent out pamphlets denouncing his opposition and describing the sufferings being endured by people under them.116

In 357, a small synod convened in Sirmium, where a creed was devised asserting that the Son is subordinate to the Father. This represented the views of the so-called “Semi-Arians.” These were people who opposed Nicea, and the Nicene language of homoousios, but recognized the Father-Son distinction and even the divine quality of the Son. Their view was that the Son was like God in essence but without sharing the essence of God, as opposed to the strict Arian view of the Son as being totally of the created order. This split the anti-Nicene camp into two factions, but it was the homoiousios, or the Son’s similarity of essence with God, that won favor with the Emperor, at least for the time being.

In 359, Constantius convened two synods to try to bring the two Arian camps together. One synod was held at Ariminum for the Western bishops, the other in Seleucia for the Eastern bishops. The Western bishops upheld Nicea, but the Eastern bishops, who were predominantly Semi-Arian, favored that position. The Semi-Arians agreed that the most that could be said about the Son was that He was “like God,” rejecting both homoousios and homoiousios in favor of homoios (“like”). Seleucia, therefore, easily

113 Ibid., 2.20.114 Ibid., 2.22.115 Ibid., 2.23.116 Frend, p. 155; Chadwick, p.141.

42

declared the Son to be homoiousios with the Father. A small faction of Semi-Arians at Ariminum managed, either through pressure or trickery, to get the Western bishops to agree to the homoiousios formula.117 This turn in favor of semi-Arianism was declared in 360; according to Jerome, the creed of Nicea was “condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.”118 But the victory of Arianism did not last long, thanks to the miscalculations of a pagan Emperor.

117 Sozomen, 4.19.118 Jerome, The Dialog Against the Luciferians, 19.

43

LESSON TENJULIAN THE APOSTATE, AND THE VICTORY OF NICEA

Julian was one of two nephews of Constantine who were spared the sword after Constantine’s death. Julian’s brother Gallus’ life was spared because of illness, Julian’s because of age (he was only eight years old at the time).119 He was educated by Christians since the Emperor did not want him to be exposed to pagan influence, yet this did not prevent him from acquiring a great knowledge of pagan literature, as well as a taste for philosophy. This knowledge grew as he went from tutor to tutor, until he ended up under the care of Libanius “the Syrian sophist,”120 whose lectures he was not permitted to attend, though he managed to get copies of them. It is about this time, 347, that Julian dates his conversion from Christianity to paganism.121 His conversion was a secret one, however, at least for the time being. He continued to be a practicing Christian, but this was merely a mask he wore while it was convenient for him to do so.

In 355, after the death of his brother Gallus the previous year, Julian was made Caesar, and the following year proclaimed Augustus after having defeated German barbarians who were invading Roman territories. Whether or not Constantius sent Julian against the Germans to try to be rid of his potential rival is hard to determine. It is clear, though, that there was not a little tension between the two Augusi, and Julian even tried to arouse the people into a civil war against Constantius. Julian’s efforts to depose his co-Emperor were to prove unnecessary since Constantius died of a fever in 361. As sole Emperor, Julian discarded his Christian mask, and attempted to revive paganism throughout the Empire.

Julian set about re-opening pagan temples that had been closed and reviving pagan sacrifices that had been stopped by his predecessors. His attitude toward Christians was measured. He did not set about persecuting the church overtly, but firstly attacked Christians and Christianity by means of ridicule. He wished to prevent making martyrs of the Christians except where absolutely necessary.122 He barred Christians from high public office; if they wanted such positions, they would have to apostatize first, which some did. He also required that Christians were not allowed to teach to insure that paganism would be taught by its adherents.

For Julian, the title Pontifex Maximus was more than just a title, it was a duty. He set about reforming paganism, trying to raise it ethically to the standards of the Christian church. Priests were to refrain from visiting taverns and all kinds of morally questionable forms of entertainment. Pagans were expected to live up to the Christians’ standards of giving to the poor. Even the structure of the pagan clergy was adapted to be church-like. It is clear that Julian recognized the impact that the church had already had on Roman society; yet it was his underestimation of this that was to prove his undoing.

In 362, Julian recalled from exile all those Christian leaders that had been exiled under Constantius. This act, though ostensibly an attempt to demonstrate a kind and tolerant attitude toward the church, was clearly an attempt to create disunity within the church. After all, these people were dismissed for their supposedly errant views. If they

119 Socrates, 3.1.120 Ibid.121 Frend, p. 159.122 Chadwick, p. 155.

44

are returned to their previous positions, they will surely cause dissention, which is precisely what Julian wanted to see. However, the church felt threatened by the Emperor’s policies, and pulled together such that when Athanasius returned to Alexandria, he did so to a great welcome. The Donatists returned to Africa and reclaimed that region. In the East, Julian’s passion for paganism was not shared by the populus, which remained largely Christian. In Antioch, another Christian city, Julian was mocked for his beard and his shunning of entertainment.123 His reign eventually came to an end when he was mortally wounded while fighting against the Persians in 363. With him died any hope of restoring paganism to the Roman Empire; given the impact that Christianity had already had, it is possible that such a hope was in vain anyway.

The Arian party had been greatly weakened. As a result of Julian’s de-Christianizing of the Imperial Court, they no longer held positions of prominence, or the ear of the Emperor. With the return of Athanasius from exile, Julian had surely dealt the Arians a fatal blow. The act with which he intended to divide the church in fact led to the resolution of the Nicene issue. On his return to Alexandria, Athanasius met with bishop Eusebius of Vercelli in Italy in order to set ecclesiastical affairs in order, and to affirm the Nicene Creed.124 They were joined in Alexandria by bishops from other parts of the Empire, and together confirmed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all of one substance. The meeting was probably held in 362, and while there was agreement on Nicea, it was not without some compromise.

One of the problems that perpetuated confusion over the issue of the nature of the Godhead was that of terms. Not only was there a difference between the popular Greek Trinitarian phrases and their common Latin translations,125 but there was disagreement between different groups over the meaning of the Greek terms. For example, the term hypostasis was used by the supporters of Nicea to indicate the nature or essence, and they would speak of God having one hypostasis. For those who subscribed to Origen’s view of the nature of Christ, that he was a separate divine being, but subordinate to the Father, it was preferable to use the phrase in the context of God being three hypostaseis, that is three “persons,” or three personal entities. Clearly, the question was one of emphasis; the Nicenes placed emphasis on the consubstantiality of the Godhead, while the Origenists placed emphasis on the distinction between the Persons of the Godhead. At the meeting in Alexandria, it was decided to let the wording stand without qualification so both sides could take it to mean whatever they wanted. Chadwick regards this as a statesman-like handling of the issue by Athanasius. He says that Athanasius considered orthodoxy to be a “matter of intentions, not formulas.”126 Those insisting on three hypostaseis did so to protect against Sabellianism. Those who insisted on one hypostasis did so to protect against Arianism. It seemed they were all intent on affirming the same doctrine.

This “loophole,” however, was exploited by the Semi-Arians in 363 where, along with bishop Melitius, they formed a small synod of twenty-five bishops at Antioch. At this synod, they upheld Nicea, however they did so with the insertion of the phrase

123 Frend, p. 165.124 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 5.12.125 This language barrier is important in considering the ways in which Trinitarian terms were

understood between East and West. As Prestige points out, the Latin language and intellect were not as subtle as the Greek, and there was not the linguistic mindset in the West to be able to handle the nuances of the philosophical terms and concepts (see Prestige, p. 235).

126 Chadwick, p. 147.

45

declaring Christ to be “like the Father as to substance.”127 Athanasius, along with Alexandria, Rome, and the Western church, was opposed to the Semi-Arian version of the Nicene Creed, and met with Melitius in Antioch to discuss it. However, they could not come to an agreement.128 The East, on the whole, stood with Melitius.

At the death of Julian, Jovian was proclaimed Emperor. Unlike his predecessor, Jovian declared himself a Christian, and a supporter of the Nicene Creed. He directed people to convene for worship, and proclaimed Christianity as the only true religion. He also welcomed Athanasius to his court in Antioch, and highly favored him.129 However, Jovian’s reign was brief: he died only eight months into his reign, possibly due to charcoal poisoning as a result of the condition of his sleeping chamber.130 His successor was Valentinian, again a Christian who, while a military tribune under Julian was prepared to forgo his position rather than deny Christ. Julian did not deprive him of his rank since he needed Valentinian’s skill. When he became Emperor, Valentinian supported the Nicene cause, but did not show ill will to the Arians, though they never received the same level of favor. Valentinian appointed his brother, Valens, to be co-Emperor. Valens had also steadfastly refused to deny his Christian faith under Julian, and was also permitted to maintain his position in the Emperor’s guards. However, upon becoming Emperor, Valens showed a very different temperament. Valens had been baptized by Eudoxius, the Arian bishop of Constantinople. As a result, Valens favored the Arian position, and instead of showing respect for those with whom he disagreed, he caused trouble for the Nicenes.

On one occasion, a group of bishops in Thrace asked Valentinian if they may hold a council to discuss doctrinal matters pertaining to the consubstantiality of the Son. The Emperor’s response was that he is merely a layman and it was not his place to interfere in such things; they may meet as they saw fit. The bishops met at Lampsacus, and defended the Seleucian Semi-Arian statement over and against Eudoxius and the Arian formulation. Knowing that Eudoxius had special favor with Emperor Valens, the bishops tried to pre-empt any counter-attack he might make by sending a delegation to Valens to represent their case. It was in vain; Eudoxius’ hold on the Emperor was too strong, and Valens, meddling in a way that his brother would not, punished the delegation with banishment.131 Valens then decided to take up where Constantius had left off, and gave favor to candidates for bishoprics who agreed with the Ariminum and Seleucian decisions over against the Nicenes. Along with this, in 365, he banished to exile those who had been banished by Constantius and recalled by Justin. This meant another period of exile for Athanasius, though only for a year.132 The Origenists, who had previously held back from accepting the Nicene Creed out of a fear for Sabellianism, began to recognize the unorthodoxy of Semi-Arianism and started to re-evaluate their position with regard to Nicea. While the tide was turning in favor of Nicea, there were a couple of other issues developing that would have to be dealt with before the orthodox view could declare victory.

The Nicene Creed’s statement on the Holy Spirit was far less developed than its

127 Socrates, Church History, 3.25.128 Frend, p. 168.129 Sozomen, 6.4-5.130 Frend, p. 168; Sozomen, 6.6.131 Socrates, 4.6; Sozomen, 6.7.132 Frend, p. 170.

46

statement on the Son. The ambiguous phrase “And we believe in the Holy Spirit” really communicated nothing about His deity. Athanasius regarded the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son, but his was not the only view. There were those who were labeled “Pneumatomachi” or “fighters against the Spirit” who denied the deity of the Spirit, regarding Him as the pinnacle of the created order.133 They took their position largely based on a few passages of Scripture, and the fact that Nicea goes no further than acknowledging the Spirit’s existence.

Another important issue that came up around this time was that of the nature of Christ. Beyond the recognition of Christ’s deity, the church had yet to fully explore the implications of the Biblical statements, as well as the Nicene statements, with regard to the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was Apollinarius, a well-regarded bishop of Laodicea in Syria and a fervent supporter of Nicea, who really raised the issue. While Apollinarius was content to agree that Christ was consubstantial with God, he wanted to know what that meant with regard to Christ’s human nature. Did he have one? If so, how did it interact with His divine nature? He came to the conclusion that for Christ to be divine, He could only have had one nature, and that nature had to be divine.

Athanasius did not live to see the resolution of these issues. He died in 373, leaving it to a group of three remarkable men and some church councils finally to put these issues to rest.

Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus were the men who took on Athanasius’ role of the champion of orthodoxy. Gregory of Nyssa and Basil were brothers from a wealthy family, while Gregory of Nazianzus was a friend of Basil, though it is not certain that the feelings of friendship were mutual. Basil was made bishop of Caesarea in 370, and he set upon the task of trying to ensure that any sees that became vacant were filled with orthodox men. He frustrated his fellow Nicenes to begin with since he seemed hesitant to proclaim his Nicene beliefs, even to the point where he did not refuse communion to Valens on the occasion of his visit to Caesarea in 372. However, as he grew in confidence and security in his position, he became more outspoken.

In contrast to the Pneumatomachi and the Arians, Basil taught that the Spirit is one with the divine nature, and must be given the same glory, honor, and worship as the Father and the Son.134 While Basil does not directly assert homoousion with regard to the Spirit, and while he does not call Him “God,” he leaves little doubt that he is not far short of that position. The two Gregories were not so shy. Gregory of Nyssa affirmed that the three Persons of the Trinity share the same nature. Gregory of Nazianzus boldly declares the deity of the Spirit, “What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial? Yes, if He is God.”135 He is also very careful to deny Sabellianism, and to insist on the separateness of the three Persons. He does this by stating that the Father is not the Son since the Father was unbegotten and the Son begotten. The Spirit is distinct given that He proceeded. He is also careful to insist that even though the Son was begotten, that does not denote inferiority in essence, but simply designates Him as the Son.136 It is also evident that for Gregory, though he used the term “begotten” to differentiate the Son, this term was not to imply that the Son is not eternal. Indeed, he

133 Chadwick, p. 146.134 Kelly, p. 260.135 Gregory Nazianzen, Orations, 31.10.136 Ibid., 31.9.

47

states, “If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were so too.”137

The two Gregories and Basil (often known collectively as “The Cappadocian Fathers”) truly believed in one God existing in three co-equal, co-eternal, yet distinct Persons. They may have used limited vocabulary and analogy to describe their thinking, but their statements make clear the truths that they were trying to verbalize.

Valens was killed in battle in 378 leaving no Emperor in the East. Theodosius, a Spaniard and a Nicene, was summoned by Gratian, son of Western Emperor Valentinian I, to take over from Valens. On assuming rule over the Eastern Empire, Theodosius was determined to bring about doctrinal unity, and his standard of unity was Nicea. In 381, he issued an edict proclaiming the orthodoxy of the Nicene Creed, and he summoned a council in 381 in Constantinople to settle the issues surrounding Nicea.

The council of Constantinople marked the decisive end of Arianism in the Roman Empire. Arianism did not die out instantly; it continued to exist, though only in small pockets here and there. With the condemnation of Arianism and Semi-Arianism, along with the decree issued by Theodosius making heresy a capital offense, Arianism had been, effectively, eradicated.

It was noted earlier that Apollinarius had raised the question of Christ’s nature. Was he divine, human, or a mixture of both? This could only be raised within a Nicene framework. Arians regarded Christ as an exalted man, so he was essentially a human who did divine acts. For the orthodox, though, Christ was a divine being, He was and is God incarnate. Yet along with being eternal, creating the universe, and performing acts of divinity, He also took on flesh, ate, cried, and died. Having rejected Arianism, how were the Nicenes to understand the interplay of humanity and divinity in Christ? Apollinarius’ response was typical of the Alexandrian emphasis on the Christ’s divinity: Christ’s nature was solely divine.138 The Person of Jesus Christ, for Apollinarius, was a human being whose flesh was completely infused by the Word, or the divine Logos. The body of Christ and the Logos were in complete unity.139

Apollinarius was challenged on a number of points. Firstly, his teaching with regard to the divinity of Christ was very docetic, since it seemed they were saying that Christ’s humanity was not real, especially since He was not human in the way we are. Also, it seemed that Apollinarius was assuming that Christ could not have two co-existing natures, human and divine. It was also felt that this picture of Christ did not sufficiently explain His being hungry, His suffering, and other very human attributes.Gregory of Nazianzus sought to explain the two natures of Christ in terms of a mingling of the divine and human natures. Where Apollinarius spoke of a body infused with the divine, Gregory spoke of a body infused with a mixed divine-human nature. This enabled him to speak of “God incarnate” and describe Mary as theotokos, the God-bearer. However, this does not really take into account the humanity of Christ as demonstrated in His growth in wisdom, and His anguish in Gethsemane. Gregory of Nyssa, on the other hand, saw the two natures as distinguishable. Acts of humanity were exercised from His human nature, and acts of divinity were executed out of His divine nature. However,

137 Ibid., 31.4.138 The “Alexandrian” emphasis on the deity of Christ is often contrasted with the “Antiochene”

(i.e., coming from Antioch) emphasis on Christ’s humanity.139 Kelly, pp. 292-293.

48

while the Person of Christ contained two natures, He existed as one Person. Therefore it would not be wrong to think of the sufferings of His human nature as the suffering of God.

The teachings of Apollinarius had been condemned by a council held in Rome by bishop Damasus in 377. This condemnation was confirmed by synods in Alexandria (378) and Antioch (379). Constantinople agreed with the criticisms of Apollinarius’ views, and affirmed the condemnation of the earlier synods and councils. Although Apollinarianism was rejected at Constantinople, the Christological debate was far from over. Indeed, it would not be resolved for another seventy years. However, Constantinople did see the victory of Nicene orthodoxy. The Nicene Creed was amended to include a more full definition of the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son. It is this version of the Creed that is in use today.

49

LESSON ELEVENAUGUSTINE OF HIPPO

In 373, a man by the name of Ambrose became bishop of Milan. Not only did Ambrose share a common nationality with the Emperor, but also a common belief since he was also Nicene. Ambrose wanted to rid the West of all remaining vestiges of Arianism, something that the overly tolerant Western Emperor, Valentinian I, was not willing to do. Valentinian died in 375, but his successor, Gratian, seemed to be of the same mind as his predecessor. Eventually, however, Ambrose and Gratian met in Milan, and Ambrose persuaded Gratian to take a more firm policy with regard to heresy. Gratian passed an anti-heretical law, and sought Ambrose to instruct him in the faith. Ambrose’s war against Arianism was going well until Gratian was the victim of a plot against his life in 383.

The Empress Justina and her son, Valentinian II, moved their court to Milan. Justina was an advocate of toleration, and she was not friendly toward Ambrose. In 385, on the nomination of a pagan Prefect of Rome, and by the influence of some Manichean friends, a man by the name of Augustine was appointed to Justina’s court as a rhetorician. Augustine had just left the religious group called the Manicheans, a group extreme enough to be beyond even Valentinian I’s toleration, and was at that time a skeptic.

Augustine was born in the small Numidian town of Thagaste on November 13, 354 to a Christian mother, Monica. His father, Patricius, was a pagan for most of his life and only converted to Christianity a few years before his death. Augustine derived his love of Latin literature and inclination toward rhetoric from his father. His spiritual inclinations, however, were from his mother. Prior to his conversion, he was always very conscious of his personal failings and sins, and was inclined to look for spiritual answers to these issues. His spiritual leanings, along with his love of philosophy, disdain for the Old Testament (which he regarded as old wives’ tales140), and dislike for the church made him an easy target for the Manicheans. He joined this sect in 373.

Manicheanism was a Persian religion based on the teachings of Mani (216-276), which attempted to draw together Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Gnostic Christianity into a kind of universal religion. The Manicheans believed all life to be a struggle of good and evil, and man is fallen and lost by virtue of being in the material realm. Within man, however, is a spark of light, or goodness, which is actually of the divine essence. This spark can be freed by illumation that might come spontaneously, but usually comes about by being under the teaching of the Manicheans.141 Augustine had accepted the teaching of the Manicheans who, in Africa, passed as Christians. He had been a catechumen in the church, and did not abandon his position within the church, he simply considered Manicheanism as a higher form of Christianity. After about ten years, Augustine started to have his doubts about this group, especially when one of its foremost teachers could not give satisfactory responses to his questions with regard to their beliefs about the universe. Augustine had studied Astronomy, and found the Manichean fables hard to swallow.142 He left that group in 383, and left Carthage to take up teaching Rhetoric in Rome as a Neo-Platonist. He was soon appointed to the court of Valentinian

140 Chadwick, p. 217.141 Kelly, p. 14.142 Augustine, Confessions, 5.7.12.

50

II and Justina in Milan, and while there he came upon the teaching of Ambrose.Ambrose had a reputation for eloquence that Augustine was anxious to hear and

learn. He would listen to Ambrose, sermon after sermon, not so much for content, but for style. The young Rhetorician was impressed, but, as he says himself, “whilst I opened my heart to admit ‘how skillfully he spake,’ there also entered with it, but gradually, ‘and how truly he spake!’”143 Augustine found himself being persuaded that the gospel preached by Ambrose was both true and defensible. He longed to spend time with Ambrose to discuss the things he preached, but he found Ambrose to be very busy eating, or reading, or surrounded by people to whom he was ministering. Augustine says that Ambrose was always open to receive people into his study, and never required that they be formally announced. However, on entering his study, one would usually find him deep in the study of a text, eyes fixed intently on the pages, reading silently to himself. Augustine would always feel compelled to sit in silence while Ambrose read, “for who durst interrupt one so intent?”144 While he could not gain an audience with the bishop, he drank deeply of his teaching, even committing his words to memory. Yet Augustine was not yet a Christian; though impressed and heavily persuaded, he was still a Platonist. However, while a Platonist, he was very aware of his own failings as a person. He struggled greatly with sin, and longed for a way to be rid of the bonds of sin to which he felt ensnared. Yet his prayer had always been, “Grant me chastity and continency, but not yet.”145 He desired to be done with sin, but not until he had satisfied the lusts of his flesh.

One day, in August of 386, a man named Pontitianus, a fellow African, came to visit Augustine and his friend Alypius. While visiting, Pontitianus told of some friends of his who, having read a work about Antony, the fourth-century Egyptian monk, felt compelled to become Christians, turn from their worldly ways, and follow in Antony’s footsteps. This story had a profound impact on Augustine who longed for that kind of desire, and yet saw only his own depravity and shortcomings. After Pontitianus had left, Augustine went for a walk in the garden. He was greatly upset and frustrated with himself crying out to God that He may save him from his wretchedness. Suddenly, his ear caught the chant of a child, and it was a chant that he could not place within any of the children’s games he knew. The chant was simply, “Take up and read! Take up and read!” Augustine thought that this might be intended for him as a message from God, so he picked up his copy of the writings of the Apostles, and opened it. His eye fell immediately upon Romans 13:13-14, “Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.” He realized what he must do, and at that moment, his doubts disappeared.

Augustine resigned his position at the court, and on Easter Sunday of 387, was baptized in Milan Cathedral along with Alypus. In 388, after the death of his mother, who had traveled with him, Augustine returned to his hometown of Thagaste in Africa. He helped to establish a monastery there, and then in 391, he accepted ordination to the office of presbyter at Hippo on the coast of Numidia, under bishop Valerius. He accepted this post unwillingly, bowing to public pressure. Four years later, Valerius took the

143 Ibid., 5.14.24.144 Ibid., 6.3.3.145 Ibid., 8.7.17.

51

added step of appointing Augustine as his co-bishop, regardless of the fact that, according to Nicea, it was illegal to have more than one bishop in a city – an indication, perhaps, that the African church did not know of the decrees of Nicea.146 After his ordination, Augustine turned from writing works of philosophy and Christian apologetic to Biblical exegesis. He became concerned to know and be able to interpret correctly the Word of God.

At this time, the Donatists were in control of the church in North Africa. The Donatists had split with the rest of the church over the treatment of those who were lapsed, or had apostatized under persecution. They took a hard line, refusing to recognize the ministry of a bishop who had apostatized; churches that dissented from the Donatist opinion were, of course, apostate. Augustine found himself in sharp disagreement with the dominant opinion of his See. The separation between the Donatist churches and the other churches in Hippo was a cause of great distress for him. After all, as Chadwick points out, they affirmed the same creeds, and they read the same Latin Bible.147

Augustine insisted that the sacraments of the church were valid, not because of the one who gives the sacrament, but because of the One the sacrament represents. As he says in his response to the Donatist bishop of Cirta, Petilian, “You did not therefore put on us, but Christ; nor did I ask you whether you were converted unto me, but unto the living God; nor whether you believed in me, but in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”148

He goes on to argue that whatever is given by God is always holy, even if one cannot discern the state of the one by whom the gift of God is given. Indeed, it matters more the state of the recipient of the gift than the state of the one by whom the gift is communicated. There will be tares among the wheat, and it is at the Last Day that they shall be rooted out, at the Lord’s discernment, not the Donatists’.149

From 396 to 411, Augustine was consumed with the Donatist controversy. He held numerous councils of non-Donatist churches, rallying them together at Carthage so they might present a unified front to the Donatists. The Donatists could not be won over with argument. The schism was deeply entrenched, and they were not prepared to roll over without a fight. Reluctantly, Augustine took advantage of the many anti-heresy laws that had been issued in recent years. The purpose of calling on these laws was to persuade the Donatists to stop being schismatic and to see reason. Augustine was initially afraid that the application of governmental pressure would produce false conversions from the Donatists, akin to the renunciations made by Christians during the persecutions just to avoid the penalty of the law. However, this course of action appeared to be successful and so, as Chadwick puts it, he left the problem of sincerity and honesty to God.150

Finally, the two sides met at a council in Carthage in 411. On the one side there were the Donatists taking their separatist stand, refusing to sit with the “ungodly,”151 and insisting on their view of the purity of the church and the separation of church and state. On the other, there were the non-Donatists appealing for charity, toleration, and a view of the church in which the true believers and false believers dwell side-by-side to be separated by the Lord at the Last Day. In January of 412, the Emperor Honorius issued

146 Chadwick, 218.147 Ibid., 219-220.148 Augustine, In Answer to the Letters of Petilian, 3.8.9.149 Ibid., 3.9.10.150 Chadwick, p. 223.151 Ibid., p. 224.

52

an edict which outlawed Donatism. The Donatists were exiled and their property confiscated.

Over the years since his conversion, and during the Donatist controversy, Augustine had become more and more convinced of the thorough sinfulness of the natural man. He wrote to his friend Simplicianus, who had succeeded Ambrose as bishop of Milan, that it is impossible to resist sin without God’s grace, and that man was part of a massa peccati, or a “lump of sin,” of which only a certain number were elected to salvation.152 The fact of election was evident to Augustine, since salvation is completely the gift of God, and that man is unable to merit salvation.153

In 409, the Goths led by Alaric invaded Spain. The following year they sacked Rome and many fled the city for the Greek East and Africa for safety. Among those who fled was a British monk by the name of Pelagius, and his disciple Celestius. Pelagius had traveled to Rome early in his life where he taught, gaining a reputation as a moralist. He thought that Roman society was morally lax, and was shocked to hear a bishop quote Augustine’s words “And my whole hope is only in Thy exceeding great mercy. Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt.”154 To Pelagius, these words were an abdication of the moral responsibility of man. At the center of Pelagius’ thought was the ability of man to make free moral choices. He rejected the idea of man’s dependence upon God for every action. He argued that there are three parts to man’s ability to choose: posse, velle, and esse. The posse, or power, comes from God, but the velle (will), and the esse (realization) are from man, so man merits either praise or blame for his actions. Consequently, he did not consider man to be wicked at heart, but that he learns sin from his environment. He denied that the heart can be so corrupt as to be unable to obey God, and considered such a thought as being a concession to Manicheanism. From this he taught that it is possible for someone to be live without sin. For Pelagius, there is no Original Sin to deal with; Adam was responsible for his own sin. God’s sovereignty over mankind is still real for Pelagius in that, through the Scriptures, God reveals the divine law by which all must live.

For Pelagius, God’s grace is manifest in the fact that man is free and able to make moral choices apart from God’s intervention, and hence is able not to sin.155 Also, it is manifest in the giving of the Law.156 This grace is given freely to all men, and therefore all men are able to progress in sanctification, making themselves acceptable to God by virtue of merit. So, for Pelagius, holiness is not an inward conversion of the heart that occurs in certain men whom God chooses, but rather it is something all men can achieve as a result of the quality of their lives. God chooses people for salvation on the basis of his knowledge of the kind of life each person will lead. It is by exercise of the will that man achieves salvation, and man remains in that state only by continued exercise of his will in obedience to God.157

Augustine’s response to Pelagius and his followers was not entirely unique. The teaching that man was created in perfection, fell into sin, and infected the whole of humanity with that sin had already been presented by other Western theologians such as

152 Frend, p. 205.153 Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, ch. 11(vi).154 Augustine, Confessions, 10.29.40.155 Augustine, On The Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. 22.156 Kelly, p. 359.157 Ibid., pp. 360-361.

53

Hilary of Poitiers, “Ambrosiaster,”158 and, particularly, Ambrose. Also, since Augustine had been considering the condition of man from the time of his conversion, it is evident that Augustine himself did not simply formulate his position as a response to Pelagius.

From a brief letter Augustine wrote to Pelagius in 413 to thank him for a letter he recently received from him, it is evident that Augustine had some regard for Pelagius, at least at the beginning. The letter, though short, is very courteous and gracious. Yet it is also evident from his work discussing the council that met in Palestine in 415 to condemn Pelagius and put him on trial for heresy that he was not afraid to deal with the issues.159

At that council in Palestine, Pelagius was found not guilty of heresy. This verdict was reached after Pelagius insisted that a man could not be sinless without God’s help. While the council was convinced, Augustine was not. He believed that Pelagius had been deceitful in his presentation of his view. Pelagius had affirmed the need for God’s grace, but had not defined what he meant by “grace.” To Pelagius, grace was something taught and learned, not something given by God through the Holy Spirit.160 The church in Africa held their own synod in 417 to decide the matter, and they unanimously declared Pelagius a heretic. They submitted their findings to Rome where the bishop, Innocent, concurred, ordering the excommunication of the Pelagians.

Only three months later, however, Innocent died, and his successor, Zosimus opened himself to the appeals of Celestius, Pelagius’ disciple. After hearing Celestius affirm the necessity for infant baptism (which, at that time, might have been understood as an acknowledgement of the sinful condition of the infant), and appreciating their high regard for the authority of Rome, and being impressed by the Pelagians high moral standards, Zosimus reconsidered Rome’s stand. He told the African churches that their view of the Pelagians had come from prejudiced sources and that they should be declared orthodox on the essential elements of the faith. The Africans were horrified at this, and made appeal to the Emperor while Zosimus was still reconsidering. An imperial edict was issued in 418 that banished the Pelagians from Rome, and Zosimus buckled under this edict. Not wishing to cross the Emperor, Zosimus issued a condemnation of Pelagianism.

Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin, election, and predestination was refined over the following years until his death in 430. He received criticisms from various quarters, such as Julian of Eclanum who thought Augustine simply had a distorted view of sex which led him to his conclusions about the transmission of sin. There was also John Cassian who agreed that man needs God’s grace, but denied the idea that grace is something that cannot be resisted or lost. He regarded the heart of man like a flint that the Lord strikes, looking for a response in the form of a spark. If there should be a spark, the Lord then pours His grace into that heart.161 Cassian seemed to permit that man is not so corrupt that he cannot respond to God of his own accord. Indeed, he would be forced to admit that even though he taught that man is in need of God’s grace, in his system, that grace is only infused into man once man has responded to God. By contrast, Augustine recognised that man’s heart is so corrupt that God has to initiate salvation. It has to be

158 “Ambrosiaster” is the name ascribed to an anonymous fourth century writer originally, erroneously, thought to be Ambrose.

159 Augustine, On the Proceedings of Pelagius.160 Chadwick, p. 230.161 Chadwick, pp. 232-233.

54

the Lord that gives man the ability to believe and hence be saved.162

Augustine’s contribution to the church goes beyond his teaching with regard to predestination. He was the most influential thinker to come out of the Western church, helping to lift concepts such as the Trinity out of the realm of Eastern philosophical language and making them more accessible. His work, On the Holy Trinity is a fifteen-book presentation of the doctrine. In this work, he presents the doctrine firstly as it is in Scripture, and then explains and defends it in the light of heretical teaching. From book nine onwards, he provides further evidence of the Trinity in the being of man. His argument is that since man is made in the image of God, hence one should be able to perceive in man a reflection of God’s nature. For example, the mind of man consists of memory, understanding, and will, and thus can be seen to be a trinity, reflecting God’s triune nature.163

Another of his most notable works, The City of God, takes up the issue of Church and State. Augustine critiques the pagans who viewed the calamities that befell Rome as being due to the Christians. He points them to their own gods as the source of their problems, and teaches that all that has happened to Rome happened because of the will of God. He then traces the history of the City of God from the Fall to the last judgment, this city being not a physical city, but the gathering of God’s people for the purpose of serving Him. There is also an earthly city, whose citizens prefer to seek after their own gods.164 Both cities, however, accomplish the purposes of God for His people; in this regard they do not work against each other.

Augustine wrote many treatises, letters, and books that reflect the maturing of Christian thought in the West. The state of affairs in the East at this time, however, were a different matter.

162 Augustine, Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, ch. 36, for example.163 Augustine, On the Trinity, 10.12.164 Augustine, The City of God, 11.1.

55

LESSON TWELVECHRISTOLOGY: EPHESUS, AND CHALCEDON

There was still debate among the churches in the East regarding the nature of Christ at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries. The council of Nicea had established the divinity of Christ in contradiction to the assertions of the Arians, and the council of Constantinople had affirmed the humanity of Christ in contradiction to Apollinarius. The question of how these two truths could co-exist still needed to be addressed. How could Christ be both God and man? Was He a man who was somehow divine, or divinity that was somehow human? It was acknowledged that Christ had a very real divinity and a very real humanity, yet sides were drawn up over how the interplay between these co-existent natures should be understood.

Historians typically identify the two approaches to the question in terms of the place from which each approach originated, or was popularized. The first approach is called the Alexandrian approach, which argued for a “Word-flesh” Christology. This was a view of Christ that emphasized His divinity to the expense of His humanity by saying that Christ was the divine Word taking on flesh without regard for the human soul. Apollinarius was an extreme example of this tendency. The second approach is identified with Antioch, and is, therefore, known as the Antiochene approach. This approach argued for a “Word-man” Christology, that is, a view of Christ that placed emphasis on his humanity by saying that the Word did not merely take on flesh, but united with that humanity. The Alexandrian approach can be seen clearly in the teaching of Arius and his followers who taught that in the Incarnation, God did not take on a human soul, but rather God replaced the human soul. He was a man who possessed the Logos in place of a rational soul. Hence they could argue that He was the most supreme of men, but still fallible.165

Eustathius, bishop of Antioch from about 324 to 330, challenged the view of the Arians. He could not think in terms of God suffering, or the Logos being crucified, and so he argued that within Christ there were two natures, the divine and the human. Thus, Christ is seen speaking either out of His human nature, or His divine nature. Also, Christ acts out of his divinity, or out of his humanity. These two natures are co-existent, forming a unity by means of their “co-habitation.” Thus, Christ could be described as “a God-bearing man.”166

Diodore of Tarsus inherited this Antiochene way of thinking, and it brought him into direct conflict with Apollinarius. Diodore had been a presbyter in Antioch until he was appointed to the see of Tarsus in 378. He was a staunch supporter of Nicea, and even suffered the mockery of the Emperor Julian over the doctrine of Christ’s deity. He had no time for views of Christ that would make the Incarnation into some kind of mystical theophany. His intention was to re-emphasize the humanity of Christ. If Apollinarius wanted to speak of Mary as the “Mother of God,” Diodore insisted that he also speak of her as the “mother of man.”167 Essentially, Diodore was not seeking to protect Christ’s humanity, but rather to draw attention to the difference between the two

165 Kelly, pp. 281-282.166 Ibid., p. 284.167 Chadwick, p. 192-193.

56

natures that co-existed in Christ: Son of God, and Son of David.168 The Word and the flesh were not somehow fused together, but found their union in the indwelling of the Word in the flesh of humanity.169

Diodore’s views were fleshed out by one of his students, Theodore, who became bishop of Mopsuestia in 392. Theodore’s primary concern was to protect the humanity of Christ, especially since redemption depends upon Christ’s perfect obedience to the Father as a man.170 He critiqued the Word-flesh view by asserting that if Christ was a man whose rational soul had been replaced by the Logos, then it would have been impossible for Him to have exhibited the frailties that are common to human nature, such as growing tired, or needing nourishment. However, the Biblical account is quite clear that Christ certainly did exhibit these frailties, indicating the presence of a fully human soul, albeit protected from sin by the grace of God.171 This human soul and the divine nature in Christ unite in a single Person without obscuring the distinctness of the two natures. There are not “two Sons,” as Diodore postulated, but one Person with two united yet distinct natures, as if His body was a temple for the divine.172 It must be noted, however, that Theodore’s view of the “person,” or prosopon, was not necessarily that which was in view at Chalcedon. Theodore’s view of the prosopon was that of an outward appearance that might consist of a multiple reality, such as a body and a soul. For this reason, while he speaks of the unity of the two natures in one prosopon, he also tends to refer to the Word and the man as if they are separate persons.173 As Kelly notes, what was lacking in Theodore was a fully worked-out understanding of the difference between the “nature” and the “Person.” While Theodore was later branded a Nestorian heretic, Kelly suggests this might be anachronistic since Theodore was ultimately striving for the same ideas that eventually came forth from Chalcedon, just without the clarity and precision of expression that the later council would use.174 Nevertheless, Theodore’s views came under challenge by Cyril of Alexandria, who saw in them a dangerous distinction that seemed to suggest a duality of person in Christ.

Cyril took over the see of Alexandria from his uncle Theophilus in 412. He was an able theologian, but with a pugnacious bent that found it hard to resist an ecclesiastical or political fight. His zeal, however, was undoubtedly fuelled by his uncompromising attitude toward truth, and it was for this reason that he aimed his guns at Theodore. The events culminating in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, however, have less to do with Theodore, and more to do with one of the men he most influenced.

Nestorius was a native of Germannica living in Antioch when he received the call to the see of Constantinople. He was noted as a fine orator and seemed suitable for the position. He also seemed to share Cyril’s zeal for doctrinal purity. On the day he was ordained, he addressed the Emperor with the words, “Give me, my prince, the earth purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven as a recompense. Assist me in destroying heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing the Persians.”175 Within days of his

168 Kelly, p. 303.169 Ibid.170 Chadwick, p. 193.171 Kelly, p. 304.172 Ibid., p. 305.173 Ibid., p. 308.174 Ibid., pp. 308-309.175 Socrates, 7.29.

57

ordination, he launched an attack against Arians living in the area, thus giving action to his words. Socrates, the fifth century church historian, is not impressed by Nestorius. While lauded as a fine, upstanding, intellectual orator, Socrates portrays him as an unskilled, unlearned hot-head, jumping to conclusions without studying facts. As an example of this, he cites the controversy over the term theotokos, ascribed to Mary. The term literally means “God bearer,” and was used popularly in Alexandrian circles for a long time prior to Nestorius. His objection to the term was that it seemed to deny Christ’s humanity and ascribe to deity that which is normally only applicable to men (e.g., birth, suffering, and so forth). This objection caused great concern since it seemed that Nestorius was advancing the humanity of Christ over and against His divinity, and thus reverting to the heresy of Paul of Samosata. Socrates, however, regards Nestorius’ critique to be based on ignorance, not on theological aberration. He chides Nestorius for his lack of study that would, in his estimate, make it evident that one cannot regard Christ’s humanity as a Person apart from His deity. They are two natures united in one Person. Therefore it is appropriate to refer to the Person of Christ as God, and, hence to Mary as the “bearer of God.”176

Cyril could not imagine Christ being divided, but regarded Him as God incarnate, the Word of God enfleshed in the fullness of humanity, like the body and soul of man. The two natures were united, but not mixed or confused, in the one Person. Cyril regarded Nestorius’ teaching to be heresy, and the two debated the issue to no avail. To try to settle the matter, Cyril contacted Emperor Theodosius II and Celestine, bishop of Rome, writing treatises and sending extracts from Nestorius’ sermons. In 430, Celestine held a synod in Rome to decide the matter, and they sided with the term theotokos. Nestorius had to be informed of the decision and he had to respond in agreement with theotikos within ten days of receiving notification, or face excommunication. Celestius commissioned John Cassian to write a refutation of Nestorius’ teaching, and gave Cyril the task of delivering a letter from him to Nestorius notifiying him of his decision. Cyril, however, went above and beyond the call of duty, and included with Celestine’s letter twelve anathemas to which Nestorius had to assent. These anathemas were decidedly Alexandrian in their wording, such that not only was Nestorius uncomfortable with them, but many other Antiochenes considered them a little too Apollinarian for their taste. Cyril went above and beyond what he was asked to do, and it made matters worse.

At Cyril’s request, Theodosius summoned a council to be held in Ephesus at Pentecost of the following year, 431. Cyril, Nestorius, and other leading figures in the church arrived, and before long the sides began their war of words, led by the bishop of Alexandria. Many voiced the belief that Christ is God, but Nestorius declared that he could not call a three-month-old child “God,” and left to be with those who were like-minded.177 Claiming to be the representative of the bishop of Rome, Cyril held council with only twenty-four hours’ notice, to examine the writings of Nestorius; this council voted to depose him. When John of Antioch arrived at Ephesus, he too held council and deposed Cyril for his conduct. Cyril and his followers responded by deposing him too. Seeing the discord among these church leaders, Nestorius attempted to recant his position and declare that he would be willing to call Mary theotokos if it would keep the peace.

176 Ibid., 7.32. It is important to remember that term theotokos, while used of Mary, was actually intended to say more about Christ than it did about Mary. It is a Christological statement.

177 Socrates, 7:34.

58

He was already deposed, however, and when the delegation from Rome arrived, Nestorius’ fate was sealed, making his recant moot. John of Antioch’s decisions were set aside, and Cyril’s upheld. After the council, John and Cyril made peace and reinstated one another; but Nestorius went into exile where he died, around 451.178

In their reconciliation, John had agreed to accept the term theotokos, Nestorius’ deposing, and the concept of the unconfused union of Christ’s natures as opposed to two natures in “conjunction.” However, for his part, Cyril had to accept the concept of the two natures in Christ, as described in the formula of Union composed by John and agreed on by both parties:

… As for the evangelical and apostolic statements about the Lord, we recognize that theologians employ some indifferently in view of the unity of person but distinguish others in view of the duality of natures, applying the God-befitting ones to Christ’s divinity and the humble ones to His humanity.179

This made the more fervent Alexandrians a little uncomfortable, since it seemed too much of a concession to the Antiochene distinctions.

Among those fervant Alexandrians was a monk from Constantinople named Eutyches. He not only approved of Cyril’s twelve anathemas, but he also seems to have insisted on there being a difference between Christ’s humanity and our humanity. In essence, Eutyches wanted to move away from the Antiochene insistence on Christ’s full humanity such that he all but denied Christ that humanity. Theodosius II had been a supporter of Nestorius, and now gave his favor to Eutyches. Perhaps not quite as radical as the monk from Constantinople, but moving in the same direction, was Cyril’s successor in Alexandria, Dioscoros. He disliked Nestorius intensely, and was fiercly Alexandrian in his Christology.

In 448, Flavian became bishop of Constantinople and investigated the teachings of Eutyches. Flavian wanted to get to the heart of what Eutyches believed, and formally examined him on the matter before a court within which Eutyches had powerful supporters. Eutyches refused to renounce the Alexandrian position, and so he was deposed and excommunicated. At this point, Theodosius stepped in and, along with the court, determined that the matter was to be settled by a council to be held in the Cathedral Church of Ephesus on August 1, 449.

The bishopric of Rome had been passed into the hands of Leo I, an Italian who had been his predecessor’s theological advisor, and who was to play an important role in the defining of the Roman See. On receiving notification of the council, Leo set about composing what was to be called his Tome. In this work, which was actually a letter he wrote to Flavian, Leo affirmed the doctrine of Christ’s two natures, stating that these two natures coalesce into one Person such that the two natures were intact in their own right:

Without detriment therefore to the properties of either nature and substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition

178 For a more detailed account of the events surrounding the Counsel of Ephesus, see Kelly, pp. 323-330, and Frend, pp. 215-217.

179 The Formula of Union, quoted in Kelly, p. 329.

59

inviolable nature was united with possible nature, so that, as suited the needs of our case, one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and not die with the other. Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours.180

In Jesus Christ, he taught, there is a perfect union of complete divinity and complete humanity. The two had to co-exist – there could not be one without the other – but they were not confused. To the humanity could be ascribed those things common to men, such as hunger, thirst, and sleep. To the divinity could be ascribed those things that betray his divine nature, such as walking on water and feeding five thousand people with five loaves. Leo avoided both the Nestorian “two Sons” teaching, and also Eutyches’ over-emphasis on Christ’s divinity.

The gathering at Ephesus was dominated by Eutyches and his supporters. This council was not an orderly event by any means. Dioscoros, who presided over it, insisted on only reading letters that were favorable to his position, and denounced the doctrine of the “two natures” as contrary to Nicea, calling for Flavian’s deposition. This he was granted, and the doctrines espoused by the Alexandrians won the day.

On July 28, 450, Theodosius died, and the Empire fell into the hands of his sister Pulcheria and a statesman named Marcian, both of whom were more favorable to Leo’s position. A council was called for October of 451 to be held at Chalcedon to settle the matter finally. This was to be a council that would more accurately represent the views of the church as a whole, unlike the previous “Robber Council” in Ephesus.

Dioscoros sat in the midst of the council of church leaders as a man accused. Eusebius of Dorylaeum read an account of the Acts of the Latrocinium, or “den of Robbers,” as Leo called the previous council in Ephesus. He then read Flavian’s condemnation of Eutyches. One by one, bishops pronounced Flavian’s teaching to be the orthodox view; Dioscoros was unyielding, however, so it was decided that he should suffer the fate pronounced upon Flavian.181 Eutyches was condemned and excommunicated along with five others, and the Chalcedonian definition was written up. This definition incorporated language from Leo’s Tome, and clearly set forth the doctrine of Christ’s two natures co-existing without mixture, change, or division.

While the West adopted the Chalcedonian definition, in Palestine and Egypt there was widespread rejection of the definition, and there remained support there for the Monophysite182 teaching of Dioscoros.

The Council of Chalcedon marks a turning point in church history. After this Council, it can be said that all the major doctrines of the church were recognized and established. No new major, biblical doctrines that have been held by the church since the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 were left to be discussed. The doctrinal foundation had been laid and secured.

180 Leo the Great, Letter 28, III. 181 Extracts from the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Counsel, Session 1.182 i.e., “one-nature,” as opposed to dyophysite, “two-nature.”

60

LESSON THIRTEENCHURCH AUTHORITY, 30-451 AD

In little more than four hundred and twenty years, the church grew from a small gathering of frightened Jews in an upper room in Jerusalem to an international, organized body that dominated the civilized world. In the course of this phenomenal growth, the way the church operated on a day-to-day level underwent change, and not always in a Biblical way. After all, the church is the gathering of fallen people – redeemed, but still fallen.

From the earliest time, the foundational authority of the church was the Scriptures. It was recognized that the Lord gave authority to His disciples, and the teachings of these men were recorded, mostly in letters from which the rest of the church could learn. The “traditions” of the Apostles were, therefore, handed down to the church in the form of the written Word of God. Of course, for Jesus and the Apostles themselves, the Old Testament was their Scriptural norm. Even into the second century, the importance of the Old Testament was noted such that Justin Martyr insisted that it is for Christians and not for Jews any longer.183 This was not an uncommon viewpoint in his time.

It is evident, though, from Peter’s comment in 2 Peter 3:16 that the writings of Paul were beginning to be recognized as on a par with Old Testament revelation. From the testimony of the early church Fathers, it is clear that the New Testament writings were viewed as authoritative by many in the church, even prior to their official canonization. For example, Ignatius exhorted the Magnesians, “Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love…”184

It is true that during the latter half of the second century and the beginning of the third, we do see the idea circulating of the church as the guardian of the faith, through whom the Scriptures were handed down. It is within the church, it was said, that one can see the correct application of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. However, it is important to remember that these comments were made largely as an apologetic against Gnosticism. The Scriptures were also used by Gnostics to try to support their beliefs, and it became incumbent upon the church to demonstrate that the Gnostics, firstly, had no right to do so since the Gnostic churches were not part of the Apostolic tradition, and secondly, because their teachings contradict that which has been passed down. The church fathers could point to their own practices, and to their heritage, in defense of their assumed role as guardians of the gospel. By comparison, the Gnostics were a novelty without any lineage back to the Apostles.

One of the other problems the church faced with the Gnostics was with the question of what actually constituted the Scriptures. While the church had the Old Testament, and, by this time, the New Testament, the Gnostics would pick and choose which books they believed to be authoritative. Marcion, for example, rejected the Old Testament wholesale, as well as any gospels and letters that seemed to be addressed to, or favor, the

183 Justin Martyr, Dialog With Trypho, chapter 29, “For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them.”.

184 Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 13.

61

Jews. In the end, he kept Luke and most of Paul’s epistles, though even these were edited for content. So the question was, if the Scriptures are authoritative, whose Scriptures? The question was already largely answered by the church in the fact that many of the New Testament writings were, early on, circulated and adopted as authoritative. But there was no agreed-upon canon of Scripture, which the Gnostics seemed to have. In response, the church set about to establish a canon based on a number of criteria. Chief among the criteria were: Apostolic authority, that is, the work being considered for inclusion in the canon had to be authored by an Apostle, or at least someone closely associated with an Apostle; antiquity – it must belong to the Apostolic era; orthodoxy – the work needs to conform to correct doctrine as contained in already-accepted canonical books; catholicity – the work should be popular in the church as a whole; tradition – the work must be part of the tradition of the church as a whole; inspiration – it should be clear to those who read the work that it is different from other writings, and that difference being it’s inspired nature.185

Up until the end of the fourth century, different variations of a canonical list of books circulated around churches. It is interesting to note that the majority of our New Testament was at the core of this list, with other works, primarily works among the Apostolic Fathers, included. Eventually, at the Council of Hippo in 393, a list of books was compiled that was further ratified by the Council of Carthage in 397. This list contains the Old Testament, most of the Old Testament Apocrypha, and the New Testament in the form we know it today.186 Again, this was not to establish a canon that was unknown to the church, but to set forth the canon that was already recognized by the church in view of it’s practice. No books were granted an authority that they did not already possess by virtue of their perceived inspiration and clear Apostolic authority.

From the third century and onwards, liturgy, creeds, councils, and the writings of the earlier Fathers took on more prominent, authoritative roles. However, the Scriptures always were the pre-eminent rule of faith, and at the core of all the major controversies in church history was the correct interpretation of the Word of God.

While the Scriptures provided the doctrinal basis for belief and practice in the church, in its earliest days, the authority structure of the church consisted of elders and deacons. It is evident from the New Testament that there were no other church officers. There is mention made of the pastor and the overseer, or bishop (), but these are clearly synonyms for the office of the elder. In Titus 1:5-7, Paul speaks of how he left Titus in Crete to appoint elders in every city. He goes on to speak of the qualifications of the overseer, without indicating that he is referring to a different person. When Paul wrote to the Philippians, he wrote to them “with the bishops and deacons,” and it is for these two offices that the qualifications are given in 1 Timothy 3:1-13. In 1 Peter 5:1-2, Peter exhorts the elders of the churches in Asia Minor to “tend the flock of God.” The verb “tend” is the verbal form of the noun that is translated “pastor” in Ephesians 4:11. This passage of Ephesians lists “pastors” as a category of gifting from God to certain people. He does not list elders or overseers. Given this, and the fact that elders are to “pastor” the flock, it is to be understood that the terms pastor and elder are synonymous for the same office.

It is also evident that the New Testament practice was to establish elders in all the

185 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downer’s Grove, Il; IVP Press, 1988), 255-269.186 See The Canons of the Council of Carthage, canon 24.

62

churches. Elders are frequently mentioned both in the epistles and in Acts, indicating that they were a mainstay of the churches of the first century.187 This practice continued late in the first century, but soon after this time it appears that the office of bishop began to play a more prominent role in the life of the church. The bishop was seen as the overseer of a number of churches in an area, with the authority to appoint people to offices within churches within their jurisdiction, or “See.”

There were, in particular, four Sees that came to be regarded as important Sees, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria. Rome was an important See because this was the final resting-place of both Peter and Paul. Constantinople became an important See after Constantine moved his Imperial capital there. Antioch was where believers were first called Christians, and it was the third city in the Roman Empire, and Alexandria was an intellectual and cultural center, home to people like Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

The bishop of each See was not allowed to issue rules that would bind other Sees, however, the bishops of the four Sees noted above could, because of the importance given to their Sees, exert a lot of influence. Moreover, one See could have an increased influence depending upon the character of the bishop. It is interesting to note that, while the Roman See’s history gave it a natural place of importance, it really did not make any claims to pre-eminence before the middle to late fourth century. The bishop of Rome was absent from the Council of Nicea. And, when in 390, the Emperor, Theodosius I, ordered the massacre of seven thousand Thessalonians, it was Ambrose of Milan who stepped up to condemn the Emperor’s actions and deny him communion until he repented – a boldness that was unheard of prior to this time.188

During the Donatist controversy of the mid-third century, Stephen of Rome had attempted to exert authority over Cyprian of Carthage by means of quoting Matthew 16:18: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” This passage was supposed to indicate the supremacy of Rome, since, it was argued, Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and hence Stephen is his successor. Cyprian did not agree, holding to the view that all bishops are equal, just as the Apostles were all equal.189

Since the start of his term as bishop of Rome in 366, Damasus had been plagued by charges of murder as a result of riots over a successor to bishop Liberius in which one hundred and thirty-seven people lost their lives. In 378, he was finally tried and found guiltless by a council of bishops and Roman elders. This council then petitioned Emperor Gratian to exempt the bishop of Rome from civil jurisdiction to prevent this kind of thing happening again, among other disciplinary powers above and beyond what was usual for a bishop. At a council in 382, Damasus also claimed primacy for Rome over the other Sees by quoting Matthew 16:18. To further solidify Rome’s position in the West, just prior to his death in 384, he commissioned Jerome with the work of translating the Scriptures into Latin. This translation, the Vulgate, was to be the Scripture of the Western church for over one thousand years.

In Africa, the attitude toward the bishop of Rome was always one of respect for the 187 For example, Acts 14:23 speaks of Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in every church. In

Acts 20, Paul summons the elders of the church in Ephesus. Also, Paul told Titus to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5).

188 Shelley, pp. 96-98 contains a concise summary of this event.189 Chadwick, p. 120.

63

See, but not necessarily the bishop himself, and this respect was more out of respect for Peter and Paul. The Africans certainly did not believe that Rome had any jurisdictional authority over any other See than its own.190

It was Leo I, however, that first took the step of laying out plainly the doctrine of the succession to the bishop of Rome from Peter, and the bishop of Rome’s primacy. In a sermon he preached on the occasion of his succession to the Roman See in 440, he clearly states that, while the care of the “sheep” has been delegated to many “shepherds,” Peter is the “rock,” the “foundation,” the one who is at the “helm” of the church. He proclaims that Peter’s role in the church continues, and implies that happens through those who come after him.191

According to Chadwick,192 Leo firmly believed himself to be the mouthpiece of Peter, not merely his successor. When Leo presented his Tome at the Council of Chalcedon, he expected it to be received, not because it agreed with orthodox belief, but because it carried the authority of Peter’s successor in Rome. Of course, that would not and could not be the case; it was accepted on the merit of its orthodoxy. But in Leo can be seen the foundation of what would become the Papacy.

190 Frend, pp. 221-222.191 Leo I, Sermon 3, II-III.192 Chadwick, 243-244.

64

APPENDIXSTUDY QUESTIONS

Lesson 11) Why is it important to examine the historical, social, and political background to the

church? Do you agree with the author’s reasons? If not, why not?2) Describe the relationship between Rome and Judaism. Why did Rome tolerate the

Judaism, at least initially? Consider this in the light of the tolerance of Western governments today to the church. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a situation?

3) How did Rome treat the church initially? Why?4) What were some indications of a possible tension in Jewish-Roman relations?5) Why was the Old Testament translated into Greek?6) How did the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world help the spread of the

gospel?7) Which of the most popular Greek philosophical systems in the first century had the

most lasting impact? Briefly describe its ideas.8) What was the “Logos” according to Philo?9) How would you respond to someone who says that the church just drank in the

popular ideas of secular culture to form its theological views? To what extent might this assessment be true of the church today?

Lesson 21) How did Judaism view the church from the beginning?2) Describe the growth of the church. Could the nature of this growth have been

predicted, humanly, from Jesus’ life and teaching?3) Was the Apostle Paul the only person taking the gospel to the Gentiles in New

Testament times? What evidence is there from the New Testament for your answer?4) What prompted the spread of the gospel outside of Jerusalem? 5) Discuss Chadwick’s assessment of the success of the gospel among the Jews. Would

you agree?6) How did the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 resolve to deal with Gentile converts?

What were the implications of that Council’s decision? Did that resolve the issue once and for all?

7) What events finally pushed the church to concentrate on a Gentile mission?

Lesson 31) To whom does the term “Apostolic Fathers” apply? Why are their writings valuable

to the church historian?2) What is the main theme of 1 Clement? How can we tell from this epistle that many

writings in the New Testament canon were already in circulation? From his letter, what can we discern regarding the leadership of the church at that time?

3) Is the “Clement’s Second Epistle” an accurate term for that document? Why, or why not? What does it contain that indicates the level of authority enjoyed by New Testament writings?

65

4) How are the Ignatian epistles helpful to the church historian? What can we discern about the state of the church at this time from what these epistles say? How did Ignatius deal with this situation?

5) What does the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom tell us a) about Polycarp, and b) about the way martyrdom was viewed?

6) What is of particular interest to the church historian in the Didache? What is the basis for its teaching? What is the overall concern of the authors, and how does this coincide with the other writings mentioned so far?

7) What is the chief concern of the Epistle of Barnabas? What method of interpretation does the author use to make his point?

8) What are the three sections of The Shepherd of Hermas called? Give examples of what each section contains. What can be discerned of the historical situation that may be behind the last section?

9) What sets The Epistle of Diognetus apart from the other works cited in this lesson? Who is his audience? What is his approach? Do you think this is an effective way to accomplish his goal, or would a different approach be better, in your estimation?

10) Summarize what we learn about the situation of the church from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. What things are of particular interest?

Lesson 41) Where does the term “apologist” come from? What does it mean?2) Who were the Apologists, and what groups did they address, mainly?3) How did pagan philosophers regard Christianity? How did Aristides attempt to

correct their perspective? What is notable about his approach?4) What drew Tatian to Christianity? How far did he take this aspect of Christianity?

What is his Diatesseron?5) What misunderstandings about Christianity did Athenagoras attempt to address?

How did he address them? What is notable about his apology?6) What accusations against Christians did Theophilus address? What does this tell us

about those accusations? How did he respond to them?7) How is Irenaeus’ work different from the others listed in this lesson? How well did

he know the system he was critiquing? What was his approach?8) What can we learn about the church and its situation from reading the Apologists?

Lesson 51) What was the unfortunate effect of the emphasis of the Apologists on the unity of

God, while trying to maintain a Biblical view of the nature of Christ?2) What did Irenaeus mean by the “economy of God”?3) What was the main concern with Monarchian ideas of God?4) What is “Dynamic Monarchianism”? Who was one of its earliest proponents? Who

was Paul of Samosata? How was he more consistent in his views?5) What is “Modalistic Monarchianism”? Who is its earliest known proponent? What is

patripassianism? What inconsistencies in the nature of God did this view have to deal with, and how did they deal with them?

6) How did Sabellius “improve” upon the Modalists who preceded him?

66

7) Summarize Hippolytus’ response to Sabellius. What was Callistus’ response to Hippolytus? Was Callistus’ view any better than Sabellius’?

8) Summarize Praxeus’ view and Tertullian’s response. What term did Tertullian first use? How does Tertullian’s response to Modalistic Monarchianism contribute to our understanding of Trinitarian thought?

9) How did the work of Hippolytus and Tertullian lay a foundation for future theological debate?

Lesson 61) What was Alexandria’s reputation, and how had it earned that reputation?2) What was the dilemma faced by Christians in Alexandria? Explain.3) What was Tertullian’s attitude toward Greek philosophy?4) Who was Clement? From what you have learned about him, do you see him as “an

apostle to the Hellenistic intellectual world?” Defend your answer.5) What was the purpose of Clement’s Stromateis? How did it accomplish this?6) To whom was Clement’s Paedagogus aimed? What kinds of things does this work

teach? What kinds of historical insights does this give us?7) What was Origen’s background? What episode in Origen’s life illustrates how

passionate he was about his faith?8) How did Origen’s view of Greek philosophy differ from Clement’s? How might

Origen’s approach to interpreting the Fall betray his view of Scripture? How does Origen’s view of Biblical interpretation help us understand the approach he took?

9) How was Origen’s view of the Trinity different to Tertullian’s?

Lesson 71) What was the position of the church in relationship to government and society in the

middle of the third century?2) What does Augustine remind us about the localized persecution the church suffered in

its first couple of centuries?3) What was one of the major issues that the Romans had with the Christians? Why was

this issue a concern for the Romans?4) How did the sporadic nature of persecution in the first few centuries help the church?5) What factors were there during the time of relative peace that weakened the church’s

position and left it wide open for attack?6) How and why did Decius conduct his persecution of the church?7) What controversy did the Decian persecution spawn within the church? Was it

resolved at this time?8) What were some of the negative consequences to the Empire in its attack of the

church, especially after Valerian’s persecution?9) Why might Diocletian have turned his guns upon the church nineteen years into his

reign?10) How did Galerius and Constantius differ in their approach to continuing Diocletian’s

policy of persecution?11) What turn of events brought to an end the Galerian persecution?

67

Lesson 81) Give a brief biographical sketch of Constantine’s early life.2) What caused Constantine to call upon the God of the Christians for help against

Maxentius?3) Describe the event that is normally pointed to as Constantine’s conversion

experience. What are your thoughts about this event?4) Why did Licinius and Constantine eventually come to blows? What part might

Licinius’ attitude toward Christians might have played?5) What arguments are there in favor of the reality of Constantine’s conversion?6) What arguments are there against the reality of Constantine’s conversion?7) From a historical point of view, does it matter whether or not Constantine really

became a Christian? Why or why not?8) What was Constantine’s policy toward the church in comparison with other religious

expressions within the Empire? How did this affect the church?9) What did Constantine consider as his main work within the church? Do you think

this might have blinded him to the significance of Nicea?

Lesson 91) What was Donatism? What is the connection between the Donatists and Arius?2) Who was Arius? How were his views similar to Origen? How were they dissimilar?3) How were Arius’ views made public? What happened to him as a result?4) What was Arius’ response? What was bishop Alexander’s next move? What does

this tell us about Trinitarian thought in the early fourth century?5) What was Constantine’s initial response to the controversy? Why did this fail?6) The gathering of bishops at Nicea evidenced a distinct change in church-state

relations. What strikes you about the event that best signifies this change?7) What was the decision reached with regard to Arius? What important statement was

used as the standard of orthodoxy?8) What other issues were discussed at Nicea?9) Briefly describe Athanasius’ rise to becoming bishop of Alexandria. What

indications do we have that there was a high level of animosity between him and the Arians?

10) What gave impetus for Arius’ followers to renew their fight to vindicate Arius? Why did this encourage them?

11) Why did Julius of Rome’s reception of Athanasius from exile cause a major stir? How did subsequent events serve to strengthen the East-West divide?

12) What does homoiousios mean? How is it different from homoousios? Why is this distinction so important?

13) What happened to make “the whole world… astonished to find itself Arian”?

Lesson 101) Briefly describe Julian the Apostate’s early life and his conversion to paganism. At

what point in his life did he make his paganism a matter of public record?2) How was Julian’s attack of the church different from previous persecutions? Why do

you think he took this approach?

68

3) How did Julian try to reform the pagan priesthood? Why did he do this? What does this tell us about the position of the church in society at that time?

4) How was Julian’s recalling of all exiled Christians supposed to harm the church? Why did it backfire?

5) Why do you think Julian ultimately failed in his attempt to re-paganize the Empire?6) How did the events of the latter part of Julian’s reign adversely affect the Arians?7) In what way did language hinder communication regarding the nature of the

Godhead? Was Athanasius’ decision at the meeting in Alexandria to let the wording stand without qualification a “statesman-like handling of the issue,” or was it foolish?

8) Who were Valentinian and Valens? Why did they take the positions they did?9) What happened at Lampsacus, and how did the tide turn in favor of Nicea?10) How was the Nicene statement on the Holy Spirit inadequate? Who were the

Pneumatomachoi?11) How did Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus respond to the

Pneumatomachoi?12) Why was the Council of Constantinople called? What was the outcome of this

Council?13) What did Apollinarius teach? Why could the questions he raised only be raised

within a Nicene framework? How did the Cappadocian Fathers respond?14) Did Apollinarius’ condemnation at Constantinope end the Christological debate?

Lesson 111) Describe Augustine’s character in his early years. What about his character might

shape his later theological direction?2) Who were the Manicheans? Why did Augustine join them?3) Why did he eventually leave the sect?4) Describe the relationship Augustine had with Ambrose.5) What was Augustine’s struggle, and how did it find resolution?6) What position did Augustine take on the Donatist controversy? How did he defend

it? What does his position indicate about his character? How was this issue dealt with?

7) Who was Pelagius? What caused him to flee for Africa?8) What was Pelagius’ opinion of Augustine’s teaching on the sovereignty of God?

How did he defend his viewpoint?9) What did Pelagius teach about Original Sin? Was Augustine’s response unique?10) How did Africa and Rome clash on this issue? Who won the day, and how?11) What was John Cassian’s view of man? How did Augustine respond?12) Discuss the importance of Augustine’s teaching for the church. Can we see the

influence of his theology in the writings of theologians since his time? If so, where?

Lesson 121) After Nicea and Constantinople, what issues regarding the nature of Christ still

needed to be resolved?2) What is the difference between “Alexandrian” Christology, and “Antiochene”

Christology? Who could be said to best exemplify each approach? Why?

69

3) What was Diodore’s reaction to Apollinarius’ teaching that Mary should be regarded as the “bearer of God”? Why did he think this way?

4) How did Theodore of Mopsuestia continue Diodore’s thinking? Where did he differ?5) Why might it be wrong to consider Theodore’s views heretical? Do you think he was

misunderstood?6) Who was Nestorius? Why was Socrates not impressed with him?7) What did Nestorius teach? How did Cyril of Alexandria respond to Nestorius?8) What was Celestine of Rome’s response to Nestorius? How did he communicate his

response to Nestorius? In your estimation, did this make matters worse?9) How did the Council of Ephesus decide the issue? Does the level of bickering in the

account of Ephesus reveal more about the nature of the issue or more about the people debating it?

10) What were the terms of the Formula of Union between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria? Who made the most surprising compromises?

11) Why is the “Robber Council” of Ephesus so called? Did it accomplish anything?12) What happened at Chalcedon? What was the outcome? Why, in hindsight, can we

say that this council marked a turning point in church history?

Lesson 131) Is it evident from the earliest times that the Old Testament was important to the

church? If so, how?2) What was meant by speaking of the church as the “guardian of the faith”? Explain

the context of the term.3) What was the main problem with speaking about “the Scriptures” in light of second

century Gnosticism?4) What criteria did the church use to recognize canonical books?5) When was the final canon of the New Testament ratified? Were these books

considered authoritative and inspired prior to this time?6) Do the terms “pastor,” “elder,” and “bishop” refer to different offices, or the same

office? Support your answer with Scripture.7) Given the history attached to the See of Rome, what is surprising about its claims up

to the mid to late fourth century?8) How did Stephen and Damasus make claim to the primacy of the Roman See?9) How did Leo view himself?

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary SourcesThe Early Church Fathers: This 38-volume set is available in book format published by

Hendrickson. It is also available online at www.ccel.org, as well as on various CD-ROM collection, such as The Church History Collection from Galaxie Software.

Secondary SourcesChadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1967.Frend, W. H. C. The Early Church. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965. Reprint,

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian: Volume Two: The Roman Period.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992.

Updated, 1999.Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. London: A & C Black, 1977.Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity: Volume 1: to A.D. 1500.

HarperSanFransisco, 1975. Reprint, Peabody: Prince Press, 1997.Prestige, G. L. God In Patristic Thought. William Heinemann Ltd., 1936. 4th Reprint,

London: S.P.C.K., 1977.Shelley, Bruce L. Church History In Plain Language. 2nd ed. Dallas: Word Publishing,

1995.

71