THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY AFTER NICAEA#

From 325 to 361#

The first phase of the Arian controversy was the brief period from its outbreak until the Council of Nicaea in 325. The second phase lasted from Nicaea until the death of Constantius II and the accession of Julian the Apostate in 361.

Political events provided the background for the ecclesiastical developments. On Constantine’s death in 337, in spite of all his rhetoric about restoring unity to the empire, the rule was divided among his three sons. He may not have been consistent in his policy of unity, but he was constant in naming his children (Constantine also had a daughter, Constantina):

• Constantine II received Spain, the Gauls, and Britain

• Constans received Africa, Italy, and Illyricum

• Constantius II received the East

After 340 Constans took over all the west. Constantius overcame Constans in 350 and the usurper Magnentius in 353 so as to rule over the whole empire. He was an Arianizer.

The Nicene Creed was designed to comprehend all who wanted to be comprehended, but it was troublesome on both sides. Eustathius was distressed that Eusebius of Caesarea could sign it, and Eusebius returned the compliment. Many sought to supplement the Nicene Creed with other creeds and interpretations that would narrow the comprehension. The Nicenes tried to picture the Eusebian moderates as Arian, and the latter tried to depict the supporters of Nicaea as Sabellian.

Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, assumed the leadership of those whose sympathies were with Arius. Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria in 328. The two sides were now the Eusebians and the Athanasians, but the options were never this limited, and even these parties saw fractionalization under the attacks of opponents and the pressures of imperial politics.

Many of the champions of Nicaea (and others as well) experienced depositions by synods of bishops, whose decisions were now often enforced by the civil authorities’ power to send into exile. Constantine turned against Athanasius for the latter’s administrative acts, if not his theology, which in itself may have concerned Constantine little.

Although as long as Constantine lived the authority of the Nicene Creed was unchallenged, Arianism has the appearance of spreading rapidly. Why did this happen so soon after it had been officially condemned? This appearance was not simply due to the political skills of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Coalitions, after achieving their immediate purposes, often begin to fall apart.

Nicaea was more a triumph of an anti-Arian majority than of a pro-Alexandrian sentiment. The great majority of Christians had no clear views on the Trinity and did not understand what was at stake in the issues. The Arian sympathizers were able to exploit a long-standing “subordinationism” in the thinking about Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the new word homoousios had a suspect history:

1. it was not used in Scripture

2. it had been used by the Gnostics

3. it had been used by Paul of Samosata in some way not now clear

4. it sounded Sabellian (and some Nicenes were close to this position)

So the apparent resurgence of Arianism after Nicaea was more an anti-Nicene reaction exploited by Arian sympathizers than a pro-Arian development. Yet the word homoousios was not prominent in the discussions during the early years after Nicaea.

Attacks on individuals brought down some of the most disliked champions of the Nicene Creed.

• About 330 a council in Antioch removed Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, on moral charges: disregard for the royal family.

• About the same time in Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra was deposed, charge with Sabellianism, and he was close to it.

• The crowning achievement of the opponents of Nicaea was the banishment of Athanasius in 335 by a council at Tyre. Athanasius was condemned on moral grounds: acts of violence unworthy of a bishop.

Most of the Eastern clergy at this council favored the restoration of Arius. A synod at Jerusalem lifted the excommunication of Arius and asked the emperor to reinstate him as a presbyter. The news apparently so excited Arius’s weak heart that he died in 336 before it could be done. The symbol of the new ascendancy of pro-Arius thinkers was the translation of Eusebius from Nicomedia to become bishop of Constantinople in 339.

Through this time the bishop of Rome stood by Nicaea and Athanasius. Julius (bishop 337–52) convened a local synod in 341 that declared all the banishments illegal. Since the western emperor was not Arian, the bishop of Rome was more independent, and Julius offered his support to Athanasius. The West as a whole was largely unaffected by the conflict during its early stages. The alliance between Rome and Alexandria became an important factor in the eventual triumph of the Nicene cause.

As the Arian controversy unfolded during the fourth century, the following broad positions may be distinguished:

1. The Homoousians supported the wording adopted at Nicaea (the Son is of “the same substance” with the Father).

Their theological spokesmen were Athanasius in the East and Hilary of Poitiers in the West. The bishops of Rome stood by this position, although with some wavering, and it became the “catholic” position.

2. The Homoiousians (who said the Son is of “similar or like substance” to the Father) were concerned about possible Sabellian implications of homoousios and wanted to preserve the distinctness of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while rejecting the extreme Arians.

An early leader was Basil of Ancyra, who advocated the phrase “like the Father in ousia.” This was a position that commanded wide support in the eastern part of the empire.

3. The Homoeans (from homoios, “like” or “similar”) preferred to avoid the word ousia altogether.

This is the least clearly defined of the positions. Some were willing to say that Jesus Christ is like God “in all things,” as Eusebius encouraged his church members at Caesarea to understand homoousios and as Basil of Ancyra agreed to accept. Others used homoios as a vague cover term, for they wanted to preserve the distinction between the Father and the Son. Acacius, successor to Eusebius as bishop of Caesarea, an Arian at heart who wanted to be orthodox in language, represented the Homoean position. This view gained the most support for a time, both among those who agreed with Arius and those who did not like homoousios, and it had the support of Constantius II.

4. The Anomoeans (the Son is “unlike” the Father) were a later development of the extreme Arian view, sometimes known as “Neoarians.”

For them, it is possible to define the essential nature of God as “ungenerated,” and since the Son is “generated,” he is unlike the Father in essence. The advocates of this view rejected the label anomoios given by their opponents, because they agreed the Son was like the Father in energy, power, and activity, but said he was unlike in substance, so they preferred as their watchword heterousios. Aetius and Eunomius were leaders of this position.

POSITIONS ON THE RELATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER

• Homoousians — the Son is of the same substance with the Father

• Homoiousians — the Son is of similar substance to the Father

• Homoeans — the Son is like the Father

• Anomoeans — the Son is unlike the Father

A long series of councils met in the fourth century to deal with the doctrinal problems. These showed the extent to which the Nicene Creed was a novelty, but initially were not explicitly Arian. Increasingly imperial pressure from Constantius II forced agreement to Homoean creeds, which he thought had the best chance of uniting the church.

The climax of imperial pressure came at the councils at Ariminum (Rimini) in Italy and Seleucia in Isauria, 359, which were intended to be joint parts of an ecumenical council. Although the westerners were Nicene in sentiment, they were worn down by imperial pressure to accept a Homoean creed, a victory for Valens and Ursacius. A similar scene at Seleucia resulted in the Homoiousians accepting the Homoean formula championed by Acacius and Eudoxius.

There was clearly now a need for a fresh statement of views. As sometimes happens in the course of events, the success of the anti-Nicene forces was their failure. It was their failure because they were more united in what they were against than in what they were for.

A local synod at Ancyra in 358 under the leadership of Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea, and another at Alexandria in 362 under Athanasius, laid the groundwork for new formulas. The former synod tried to take a position between homoousios and homoios, sometimes called “Semiarian” but better “Neonicene.” The latter synod acknowledged that those who spoke of homoiousios had the same intentions as those who used homoousios

The other creeds drawn up in the 340s and 350s, then, were an implicit criticism of Nicaea. Criticism made Nicaea’s adherents fight for it and see its value.

Among the arguments for the Nicene Creed were the following:

1. The emperor ratified the decisions. Victorinus in 359 was the first to declare that Constantine confirmed the creed of Nicaea.

2. The bishop of Rome ratified the decisions. Documents were forged to that effect, and Damasus of Rome said Nicaea was authoritative because the bishop of Rome had confirmed it.

3. The bishops at Nicaea were good men, many of whom were confessors in the persecution.

4. The most influential consideration, surprising to modern students, was number symbolism.

We know the names of 220 signatories to the Nicene Creed. Eusebius says over 250 bishops attended. Athanasius at one time said about 300. But Hilary in the year 359, and then Athanasius himself, gave the number as 318 who approved the creed. This became the accepted number. The significance of this number was its correspondence to the number 318 for the servants of Abraham (Genesis 14:14), which had already Barnabas been interpreted as a cipher for Jesus Christ and the cross (see on in chapter 3). Hence, “the 318” bishops at Nicaea had confessed the full deity of Jesus Christ, who was crucified for human salvation.

It was not obvious in the 330s to 360s that the Nicene Creed was the one universal creed of Christendom. That it became so was largely the achievement of Athanasius.

COUNCILS IN THE MID-FOURTH CENTURY#

Athanasius#

Athanasius, one of the giants of church history, was born in a Christian home in Alexandria about 300. He studied under Peter the Martyr and was influenced by those who emphasized Origen’s view of the common nature of Father and Son. As a deacon under bishop Alexander, he served as his secretary at the Council of Nicaea in 325. He succeeded Alexander as bishop of Alexandria in 328.

The vicissitudes of imperial and ecclesiastical politics are mirrored in Athanasius’s five exiles from Alexandria:

1. 335–37, deposed by the Council of Tyre, he was sent by Constantine to Trier.

2. 339–46, banished by Constantius as still canonically deposed, he went to Rome.

3. 356–61, outlawed again by Constantius, he went into hiding among the monks in the deserts of Egypt, from which he was able to direct the affairs of his church.

4. 363, exiled by Julian, he was concealed again in Egypt.

5. 365–66, forced to leave the city by Valens, he found refuge once again in the Egyptian desert.

Each time changing political fortunes brought Athanasius back to the enthusiastic welcome of his parishioners. Nearly sixteen of his forty-five years in the episcopate were spent in exile. He died in 373.

The bulk of Athanasius’s writings are polemical works dealing with the Arian controversy

• The largest of which are the Orations against the Arians (two of the four are certainly genuine and probably the third) and Apology against the Arians.

• A good introduction to the issues is his Defense of the Nicene Definition, which defends the language of the Nicene Creed against criticisms, arguing that the affirmations are scriptural although not using the words of Scripture (the Arians too, Athanasius points out, used unscriptural words in presenting their views) and were in accord with earlier teaching in the church.

The polemical works of Athanasius as well as those of other writers show how much the “Arian” controversy was a debate over the meaning of Scripture texts.

• On the Incarnation sets forth Athanasius’s basic theological position.

He emphasizes the incarnation as the means of salvation. The reverse side of the incarnation is the view of salvation as deification. By Jesus Christ’s presence in a body he is united with all, bringing truth and knowledge of the Father in place of ignorance and bringing immortal life in place of death.

It may be said by way of generalization that Eastern theology gave more attention to the incarnation and Western theology to the crucifixion as the means of atonement. Neither gave the same centrality the New Testament does to the resurrection, although the resurrection was by no means neglected.

Two different eschatologies were at work:

• In the East a more realized eschatology in which Jesus Christ brought salvation now.

• In the West a more futuristic eschatology in which the task now is to imitate the humble Jesus.

Athanasius’s steadfastness and his writings blocked the Arians’ progress and prepared for the eventual victory of the Nicene cause. In this respect his career is an illustration of the principle that issues are settled when someone convinces the majority. Of course, the majority are not necessarily right, and they may base their decisions on other reasons than the logical (or in Christian issues, the theological) merits of the respective positions.

Others besides Athanasius were important in the Nicene victory, and Athanasius’s career certainly shows the difficulties under which he labored, but it is difficult to imagine the Nicene cause triumphing as completely as it did without him.

From 361 to 381#

The accession of Julian the Apostate (361–63) to the imperial rule marked the turning point to the third phase of the Arian controversy. Although raised as a Christian, Julian reacted against the insincerity he saw around him. Keeping his sentiments private until he came to power, he became an earnest supporter of an enlightened pagan monotheism. His goal was a universal pagan monotheistic cultus.

In Julian’s efforts to revivify paganism, Gregory of Nazianzus charged that he imitated Christians by urging the pagan priests to preach morals and to organize benevolence programs. Julian did not attempt direct persecution (although there were a few martyrs in the military), but he did seek to remove Christians from positions of privilege.

Julian allowed banished bishops to return to their sees, interpreted by some as a cynical move to destroy Christianity from within by fostering theological conflict. (If that was the purpose, little did he realize that theological debate is an expression of deeply held convictions and that Christians thrive on such conflict.)

At any rate, the result was that Julian’s brief reign brought together the disparate elements favorable to Nicaea and opposed to the Homoean interpretation imposed by Constantius. Julian was killed in battle in Persia. Christian legend quoted his last words as, “O Galilean, Thou hast conquered.”

Valentinian I (364–75) was a Catholic, but he believed the government should not interfere in matters of dogma. Associated with him as ruler in the East was Valens (364–78), who revived the Arian persecution of bishops. Gratian succeeded to rule in the West (375–83) and Theodosius I (379–95) in the East. The latter became for the orthodox a “second Constantine,” whose decree of 380 declared the faith of bishop Damasus of Rome, and bishop Peter of Alexandria, the faith of the empire. Theodosius I also summoned the Council of Constantinople in 381.

During the third phase of the Arian conflict, four theological issues confronted church leaders:

1. The theological authority of the Council of Nicaea#

The Athanasians called themselves “Nicenes” and developed the arguments noted above regarding the authority of the Nicene Creed. Some who agreed with the anti-Arian thrust of Nicaea, however, would not accept the Council or its wording as sacrosanct and irreversible.

2. The semantic problem#

The terms ousia and hypostasis had been used interchangeably at Nicaea. The willingness of supporters of Nicaea to make semantic concessions was important to the resolution of the doctrinal uncertainties.

A compromise emerged to use ousia for the common nature of the Father and Son and to use hypostasis for the individual identity of each.

3. The core problem of unity and distinction in the Godhead#

The homoiousian party insisted that “like (or similar) substance” safeguarded the separateness of the three persons against Sabellianism, but went far enough in showing identity of substance. To say “same substance” meant for this group that there was no distinction and therefore encouraged Sabellianism.

4. The place of the Holy Spirit#

Some Homoiousians would not grant to the third person of the Trinity what they did to the second person. They considered the Holy Spirit the chief of the angels. The earliest sources call them “Pneumatomachians” (“Those who fight against the Holy Spirit”). Athanasius also called them “Tropicists” because they wanted to take literal passages about the “wind” metaphorically of the “Spirit.” They were also called “Macedonians” after Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, but his connection with this position is not proved. A leading figure was Eustathius of Sebaste.

Four men emerged as leaders in the settlement:

• Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers from the Homoousians

• The two Basils (of Ancyra and Caesarea in Cappadocia) from the Homoiousians.

Hilary and Athanasius knew both Greek and Latin and so could clear up the confusion in the Trinitarian terminology employed in the two languages.

Latin used substantia for the common “substance” or nature of the Godhead. The etymological equivalent in Greek was hypostasis, a word coming to be commonly used by the Homoiousians for the individual persons in the Godhead. Therefore, the impression was given to the Greeks that the Latins in saying “one substance” meant “one individual” and to the Latins that the Greeks were saying “three substances.” A clarification of the different senses in which the two words were being used facilitated mutual understanding.

In regard to the difference among the Greeks themselves over the use of ousia and hypostasis, Basil of Ancyra agreed to use the Nicene term homoousios in the Homoiousian sense to protect the distinctions of the persons. Athanasius, for his part, said the common faith, not the wording, was important. At a synod in Alexandria in 362 he made his contribution to doctrinal unity by distinguishing hypostasis and ousia. The synod also affirmed, over against the Pneumatomachians, that the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the ousia of the Father and the Son.

The three great Cappadocian church fathers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, sometimes called “Neonicenes,” by building on the foundation laid by the Homoiousians, became the great theologians of the new synthesis. For them, the Father is the fount and cause of the other two co-equal Persons. They helped establish the terminology of hypostasis for the threeness and ousia for the oneness of the Trinity. Their theological expositions were the basis for the position endorsed by the second ecumenical council, Constantinople 381.

The Council of Constantinople, 381#

The biblical data, not logical or theoretical considerations, determined that three entities were described as God, not two or four.

The Council of Constantinople, called by the emperor Theodosius in 381, was not immediately considered ecumenical. The council affirmed that its creed was the same as Nicaea’s, but the creed that has been handed down as approved by this council is fuller than the creed adopted at Nicaea and omits its anathemas. This is the creed recited in many churches as the “Nicene Creed”; more accurately, it is the “Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed.”

A problem occurs because the text of the creed is quoted in a work of Epiphanius dated before the council. Either the council approved an already existing creed, or a scribe substituted the form of the creed with which he was more familiar for the text in Epiphanius.

The council’s creed reaffirmed that the Son was consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father and confirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The council anathematized the Eunomians (Neoarians), Pneumatomachians, Sabellians, the followers of Marcellus and Photinus, and the Apollinarians.

Among other decisions was a canon that gave to the bishop of Constantinople the prerogative of honor after that of the bishop of Rome, “because Constantinople is New Rome,” a decision that foreshadowed later controversy between Rome and Constantinople over the basis of their prerogatives.

Theodosius’s edicts after the council made the pro-Nicene version of the Christian faith the official religion of the empire.

NICAENO-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED

We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end;

and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, who with Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets;

in one holy catholic and apostolic church;

we acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins;

we look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.

Gregory of Nazianzus, for instance, considered the small synod assembled at Alexandria in 362 as Athanasius’s finest achievement. Nicaea is a paradigm of the problem of the authority of councils. Its supporters succeeded because the majority decided this was the right way to express the consensus fidelium (“agreement of the faithful”).

In practical terms, other creeds did not win because they did not have Athanasius and Rome for them. That does not mean, however, that Athanasius and Rome got all they wanted. They supported Pauli-nus’s claims as bishop of Antioch, for instance, but the majority of Eastern churches backed Meletius as bishop of Antioch.

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH#

The fourth century saw an increasing institutionalizing and intellectualizing of the church. The processes had begun before, but the organizational developments and the literature produced made the fourth century a significant period for the church and its culture.

The fourth-century Trinitarian debates were marked by a large number of church councils, many of which were called for specific purposes and did not fit the regular pattern of councils that came to prevail. Synods of bishops had been meeting since the latter part of the second century to deal with common problems (like Montanism) or to settle disputes (like the observance of Easter).

Before the fourth century the bishop of a city and his presbyters would have been together often, but with the growth of the church the bishop was expected to call together his clergy several times a year—a diocesan or parochial council. During the third century councils on a regional level became a common feature of organized church life.

The Council of Nicaea required bishops of a province to come together twice a year under the presidency of the bishop of the metropolitan or mother church—a provincial synod. Rome for Italy, Carthage for North Africa, Alexandria for Egypt, and Antioch for Syria already in the third century were seen as having a jurisdiction larger than a province, and Nicaea recognized such expanded jurisdictions.

A special kind of council developed at Constantinople, the synodos endemousa, the permanent holy synod of Constantinople. After Constantinople became the capital of the empire, several bishops from other places would be in the capital at any given time. The emperor would convene a council of the local clergy and whatever visiting bishops were available in order to advance his concerns.

When councils dealt with matters of faith, their statements were known as “symbols” or “dogmas.” Decisions in regard to organizational, disciplinary, or procedural matters were known as “canons.”

The fourth century saw greater refinement in the differentiation of clergy beyond the three-fold ministry of the second century. Already in the mid-third century the church at Rome boasted of having forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers, and about 1,500 widows on the roll. Few other churches were so large, but most cities required the development of a parish system. The bishop became more of an administrator, and the local pastoral care and liturgical leadership passed to presbyters.

Rural areas near a city were served by a presbyter, a deacon, or a “rural bishop” (chorepiscopus)—a functionary known mainly in the East in the fourth century, who was dependent on the city bishop and limited in his right to ordain.

The ranking of bishops was determined by two factors:

1. The mission methods of the early church, by which the gospel spread from cities on major trade routes to surrounding regions

2. The meeting of synods for dealing with common problems

The metropolitan was usually the bishop in the capital of the political province, where the emperor had his official representative, but in some cases the bishop of another city had seniority as the first church in the province. The metropolitan could also be called archbishop, which became the normal term in the West from the tenth century.

Nicaea recognized four bishops with an authority greater than that of a metropolitan—the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Caesarea. From these special jurisdictions emerged the patriarchs, not fully in place until the fifth century, and not usually called patriarchs until the sixth.

The influence of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine made celibacy virtually obligatory in the West on all clerics in major orders. Increasingly in the fourth and fifth centuries bishops were chosen from among the monks, in both East and West, and under Justinian celibacy was imposed on bishops in the East. The privileges granted by the state from the fourth century on tended to make the clergy even more a class apart, a feature enhanced by drawing bishops from the higher social classes.

From the fourth and fifth centuries the clergy began to wear special clothes, at first in the liturgy only. The change in clerical garments was especially the result of failure to keep up with changing fashions in secular life, as the clergy continued to wear long Greco-Roman tunics and cloaks and laymen adopted Germanic trousers. Toward the fifth century clergy took over the tonsure of monks. Celibacy and distinctive attire were a part of an increasing “monasticizing” of the clergy, at least in the ideal.

THE FATHERS OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE CHURCH#

The century and a quarter from Nicaea (325) to Chalcedon (451) is the “Golden Age of Patristic Literature”. In quantity and quality of literature this was the flowering period of the ancient church. There is nothing comparable again until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Hence the fourth and early fifth centuries form one of the better known periods in church history. This “great patristic century” provides a fixed point in the discussion of almost any topic, for we enter a period of full light.

On many matters the formulations reached during this time dominated the Christian approach for the succeeding centuries. The thinkers and writers of this period—especially Augustine in the Latin West and the three Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa) in the Greek East—laid the intellectual foundations for the Christianization of classical culture.

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes eight great doctors of the church from the patristic period:

Four Latin writers

1. Ambrose

2. Jerome

3. Augustine

4. Gregory the Great

Four Greek writers

1. Athanasius

2. Gregory of Nazianzus

3. Basil the Great

4. John Chrysostom

All but Gregory the Great fall in the period under consideration. Some of these receive fuller treatment elsewhere (Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory the Great). The remainder, plus a few other important writers, receive some biographical treatment here.

GREEK PATRISTIC WRITERS, 4TH-5TH CENTURIES#

LATIN PATRISTIC WRITERS, 4TH-5TH CENTURIES#

Basil the Great of Caesarea#

The three great Cappadocians—Basil and the two Gregories—represent the height of Christian culture in the fourth century, a uniting of Greek literary and rhetorical education with a deep Christian faith and loyalty to the church.

Born around 330, Basil came from one of the outstanding Christian families of the region. His father, a rhetorician at Neocaesara in Pontus, was the son of Macrina the elder, a convert of Gregory Thaumaturgus. His mother, Emmelia, was the daughter of a martyr in the Diocletian persecution. These parents had ten children, of whom three sons became bishops (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Peter of Sebaste) and their eldest daughter (Macrina) became a model of the ascetic life. Besides his father’s instruction, Basil studied at Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he became a friend of Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as at Constantinople and Athens.

Back home, Basil’s career as a rhetorician was short, for a spiritual awakening and a journey to Egypt and Palestine to meet ascetics led to his baptism. He divided his fortune among the poor and went into solitude at Annesi near Neocaesarea. He was soon surrounded by companions and a monastery began, for which he drew up his monastic rules. In 364 he was ordained a presbyter at Cappadocian Caesarea and in 370 became its bishop.

As bishop, Basil became a pioneer in establishing Christian benevolent institutions—homes for the poor, hospices for travelers, and hospitals. The last was anticipated by Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste (356–80). These three Christian benevolent institutions became common in the fifth and sixth centuries.

Basil stood his ground in the Arian controversy, successfully resisting efforts at his banishment, and began the literary refutation of the Neoarian Eunomius. He worked for unity among the opponents of Arianism and for better understanding between the Eastern and Western churches. His doctrinal treatises, letters, and sermons laid the basis for the theological accomplishments of the two Gregories.

Gregory of Nazianzus#

Gregory was born at Arianzum, near Nazianzus, where his father was later bishop. His mother, Nonna, was the daughter of Christian parents and was responsible for the conversion of her husband and the early religious training of her son, as we learn from Gregory’s tribute to her many abilities.

Gregory studied at Cappadocian Caesarea, Caesarea in Palestine, Alexandria, and Athens. After his studies, he returned to Cappadocia and was baptized. He joined Basil in his retirement in 358–59, where together they worked on the Philocalia, excerpts from Origen’s writings (preserving the Greek of many passages otherwise known only from Latin translation), and on Basil’s monastic rules.

Very much against his will, Gregory’s father ordained him a presbyter in 361. In 371 Basil ordained him bishop of the small town of Sasima, as part of his program of appointing supporters throughout the province in order to strengthen his eccesiastical influence, but Gregory never obtained possession of the see. In 374 he took over the see of Nazianzus but a year later he retired to the region of Isauria. A call came in 379 to become preacher for the small orthodox congregation in Constantinople.

At the Council of Constantinople in 381 Gregory was appointed bishop of the capital, but he resigned during the council because of opposition claiming it was uncanonical for a bishop to transfer to another see. He took charge of the church at Nazianzus until 384, when he again went into retirement until his death.

Gregory is best known for his Orations, especially the five theological orations, in which he clearly and persuasively set forth the Cappadocians’ understanding of the Trinity. Within the one God three individuations can be distinguished according to their modes of existence. These distinctions are derived from biblical language: the Father is ungenerate, the Son is generated, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Gregory of Nyssa#

Born in Pontus in the early 330s, Gregory was named for Gregory Thaumaturgus, whose life he was later to write. His grandmother Macrina, mother Emmelia, and sister Macrina were formative home influences, and his education came primarily from his older brother Basil. He was appointed a reader in the church, became a teacher of rhetoric, and was probably married. Basil’s example as a bishop and his mother’s death may have turned Gregory to a more committed church life.

Basil appointed Gregory bishop of the small town of Nyssa in 372. Gregory reluctantly accepted the position, and appropriately so, for he showed a lack of firmness in dealing with people and an unfitness for church politics. His carelessness with financial affairs gave Arians occasion to charge misappropriation of church funds, and he was deposed by a synod in 376 and banished by the emperor Valens.

Recalled along with other banished bishops by Gratian in 378, Gregory returned to a triumphant welcome by his church. His main period of literary activity came after Basil’s death in 379. Gregory attended the Council of Constantinople in 381, and the emperor Theodosius named him among those bishops with whose doctrine on the Trinity all should agree.

In addition to his contributions to Trinitarian thought, Gregory of Nyssa is important for making the distinction between the Creator and the created the basis of his metaphysics, for his distinction between what humanity is by nature and what it may become by participation in the divine life, for his clear affirmation of the infinity of God (his most distinctive contribution to Christian thought), and for his development of the ransom theory of the atonement.

According to Gregory’s explanation of the atonement, the devil, after seeing the miracles of Jesus Christ, chose him as the ransom price for humanity. The veil of humanity prevented the devil from recognizing Christ’s deity, so the devil was not able to keep him in his power. The deceiver was thus deceived and God’s justice was strictly served.

Gregory of Nyssa influenced greatly the moral and spiritual theology of the Eastern church. He defined perfection in the spiritual life as always making progress in virtue. Perpetual progress in perfection is the human corollary of the divine infinity. Perfection cannot be attained by human free will and effort alone. Instead, divine grace comes in to help and complete human moral efforts.

The relationship between patristic Christianity and Greek culture, usually phrased as the question of the Hellenization of Christianity, is typified in the interpretations of Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory knew directly the Platonic tradition through acquaintance with the writings of Plato and Plotinus and perhaps even more through influence from Porphyry, and he knew Stoicism from Posidonius and those elements of Stoicism that had been absorbed in Neoplatonism. This circumstance led to the view that Gregory was a Hellenizer of Christianity. The growing consensus of contemporary scholarship, however, is that Gregory’s theology makes him one of the most successful Christianizers of Hellenism. Few Christian thinkers knew Greek philosophy as well as he did. Even fewer transcended it as completely as he did. Like other Cappadocian thinkers, Gregory thought Greek philosophy could contribute positively to the exposition of Christian doctrine.

John Chrysostom#

John was born about 347 at Antioch. His mother, Anthusa, lost her husband when she was twenty and John was an infant. She renounced another marriage and devoted herself to her son. She provided him with the best education possible, both in Scripture and in the classics. For the latter, John studied under the most famous pagan rhetorician of the time, Libanius, who paid Anthusa the compliment, “God, what women these Christians have!”

Baptized at the age of eighteen, John became a reader in the church. He was drawn to the ascetic life and spent two years in a mountain cave, an experience that ruined his health. Back in Antioch, he was ordained a deacon in 381 and a presbyter in 386. In the latter capacity he served as the preacher in the principal church in the city until 397.

Over time, John established his fame as the greatest of Christian pulpit orators and expositors. His designation Chrysostom (“Golden Mouth”) has been current since the sixth century.

His typical method was to preach through a biblical book, a passage at a time, first giving an exposition of the main points in the text, and then going back through it with application to his hearers. He had a gift for seeing the meaning of the text and how to make an immediate and practical application of it.

Constantinople often looked to Antioch to find its theological and ecclesiastical leaders, and in 397 John was chosen bishop of Constantinople and consecrated to that office in 398. It proved to be a great personal misfortune.

His efforts to raise the moral tone of the capital met with strong opposition. After he had six bishops deposed, his enemies joined forces: the empress Eudoxia and local clergy, who resented his preaching against luxury, and Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, who was jealous of an Antiochian at the capital.

When Theophilus was summoned to answer charges by some monks and Chrysostom presided over the court, Theophilus resolved to destroy him. Thirty-six bishops met at the “Synod of the Oak” outside Chalcedon. Chrysostom refused three times to answer its summons to appear, and the synod declared him deposed in 403. The emperor accepted the decision and exiled John. The people of Constantinople rioted, and the emperor, frightened by the people’s response, recalled John the next day.

Chrysostom’s preaching angered Eudoxia again. The Gospel text on the beheading of John the Baptist occasioned Chrysostom’s undiplomatic remark, “Once more Herodias demands the head of John on a platter.”

Chrysostom’s enemies sought his banishment for unlawfully resuming the duties of a see from which he had been canonically deposed. Their argument: a synod of bishops could depose a bishop from office; the emperor could exile or recall from exile, but could not put a person back into office. Chrysostom, however, did not recognize the bishops’ jurisdiction.

The emperor then ordered Chrysostom to cease performing ecclesiastical functions, but he refused to do so. While he was gathering cat echumens for baptism, soldiers showed up and drove him from the church. The soldiers’ violence ended up staining the baptismal waters with blood.

Chrysostom remained in exile from 404 until his death in 407. In 438 his remains were brought back to Constantinople and interred in the Church of the Apostles.

Ephraem the Syrian#

The classic writer of the Syriac-speaking church is Ephraem (c. 306–73), from Nisibis and later Edessa, where he established a school and formed a women’s choir. His prose works include commentaries on biblical books, notably on Tatian’s Diatessaron, sermons, and refutations of heretics, but he is especially honored for his metrical homilies and hymns, for which he is called the “Harp of the Holy Spirit.”

Ephraem represents a basically pre-Nicene (but anti-Arian) Semitic Christianity, so much so that all branches of later Syriac Christianity looked back to him as a spiritual teacher. Drawing his imagery from both nature and the Bible, Ephraem’s rich and suggestive language finds all reality as providing symbols of spiritual truth. He integrated theological commitment with spirituality, orthodox faith with worshipful humility. His hymnody influenced Byzantine hymnody through Romanus Melodus (sixth century).

In an age when Greek theologians split churches over terminology to describe the Godhead, Ephraem defended the essential mystery of God. Rather than use philosophy, he found poetry (as deeper if less precise) to be a more suitable vehicle for expressing theological discourse.

Ambrose#

Ambrose is a doctor of the church in special reference to his teaching on the proper relationship of church and state.

A Greek in education, Ambrose also contributed to the Western exposition of the Trinity and to moral theology.

Born in Trier, Ambrose was the son of the praetorian prefect of Gaul. He studied law and was appointed governor of Aemilia-Liguria at Milan. In 374 he was elected bishop of Milan, although an unbaptized catechumen, through an unprecedented set of circumstances.

At the time there was a sharp dispute between the Arian and Catholic factions over the election of a new bishop. The story goes that when Ambrose stepped into the pulpit to restore order, a young child, seeing him in the position usually occupied by the bishop, called out, “Ambrose, bishop!” The congregation, remembering that “A little child shall lead them,” took the voice as the will of God. Ambrose took some persuading, but finally he too acknowledged the call of God, received baptism from the Catholic clergy, and a week later ordination as bishop.

Ambrose was involved in four conflicts with the Roman government.

1. In 384 the senate requested restoration of the altar dedicated to the goddess Victory that the emperor Gratian had removed two years before. Ambrose influenced the emperor Valentinian II to reject the restoration of this symbol of paganism to the traditional seat of Roman government.

2. In 385–86 Ambrose successfully maintained orthodox possession of a basilica in Milan that the Arians, at the instigation of Valentinian II’s mother Justina, requested for their use. Ambrose organized a “sit-in” by the orthodox, whose spirits he maintained by hymn singing, until the emperor’s troops withdrew.

3. In 388 a Jewish synagogue was destroyed by rioting Christians and the emperor Theodosius demanded that Christians rebuild it. Ambrose successfully opposed this order on the grounds that Christian money could not be used to build a Jewish synagogue.

4. In 390 Theodosius ordered the massacre of 6,000 to 7,000 citizens of Thessalonica for sedition after a riot resulted in the murder of several imperial officials. When Theodosius appeared at church in Milan, Ambrose refused him communion until he did penance for the executions. Theodosius, unlike his predecessors, was already baptized and thus subject to the discipline of the church.

Ambrose achieved the success he did because he had the Christian populace behind him and the emperors themselves were devoted Christians (moreover, Gratian and Valentinian II were young). It was through the emperors’ personal faith that Ambrose influenced state policy. He had a spiritual view of the church and did not aim at a state church, but that was virtually the result.

Ambrose formulated a theory of two powers—civil and ecclesiastical—but in his actions he represented an authority of the church over the state, and that became the significance of his precedent in the Middle Ages. Yet Ambrose had a different conception of the church from those in the Middle Ages who looked to his example, for he was not seeking political power for the church.

There are other notable things in Ambrose’s career.

• His treatise On the Duties of the Clergy was an influential work on the pastoral role of priests.

  • The title (De officiis) was borrowed from a work on ethics by Cicero, but Ambrose makes clear the Christian differences.

  • The sacerdos (priest, still usually the bishop) was also a prophetes (prophet) who must rebuke while guiding the people in moral conduct.

• His De Fide was an important contribution to the Latin doctrine of the Trinity.

Ambrose was an able preacher whose expositions of Scripture had a part in the conversion of Augustine, something that in itself would have earned him a place in church history. He promoted the cult of the relics and was one of the first to transfer relics to a place beneath the altar of a church. He also promoted the ascetic ideal for virgins and clergy. His liturgical activity included the writing of hymns and the introduction of Greek antiphonal singing to the West.

His On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments are important in liturgical history for the rites of Christian initiation. He is an early witness to the metabolic theory of the eucharist in which the bread and wine are changed by consecration into the body and blood of Christ.

Rufinus#

A native of Aquileia, Rufinus studied in Rome and traveled in the east visiting monks. He joined with Melania in setting up a double monastery for men and women at Jerusalem. Returning to Aquileia, he became a presbyter there in 399.

Rufinus’s principal contribution was as a translator of Greek works Recognitions, into Latin: Origen’s On First Principles, the Pseudo-Clementine Eusebius’s Church History, and other works. An important original work is his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed.

Rufinus was involved in a bitter controversy with Jerome over the orthodoxy of Origen, whom Rufinus defended. He had the effrontery to point out Jerome’s earlier dependence on Origen, a fact that irritated Jerome’s thin skin.

Jerome#

Jerome was born in Dalmatia to Christian parents, who gave him a good education. He was baptized in Rome toward the end of his student days. About 370 he was part of an ascetic group in Aquileia, but it broke up and he went East.

During an illness at Antioch Jerome had a dream in which he was rebuked as “a Ciceronian, not a Christian.” He resolved to give up his classical studies and devote himself to Christian writing, but the renunciation of pagan learning was not as absolute as he professed, for his work continued to show the influence of classical authors.

Withdrawing to the desert as a hermit (Epistle 22.7), Jerome learned Hebrew. His fellow hermits disliked his company, however, so Jerome went back to Antioch, where the bishop of the Nicene community, Paulinus, ordained him a presbyter.

Back in Rome in 382, Jerome was set to work by Damasus on a new Latin translation of the Psalms and the New Testament. The literal and unliterary character of the Old Latin versions of the Bible offended many educated persons, and Damasus wanted the best for the church.

Jerome promoted asceticism, declaring that “all who are afraid to sleep alone should have wives” (Epistle 50.5).

Among Jerome’s supporters was a circle around the wealthy Paula and her three daughters. Jerome’s attacks on luxury and on a less than ascetic lifestyle provoked opposition from the clergy, and his disappointment over the election of Siricius as bishop led him to leave Rome in 385. With Paula he toured Palestine, and they settled at Bethlehem, establishing dual monasteries for men and women. Thus began his most fruitful period of studying and writing.

Jerome was drawn into a series of controversies involving asceticism and the ecclesiastical issues of the day, writing against:

1. Helvidius, who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary

2. Jovinian, who denied that monasticism was a superior form of the Christian life

3. Vigilantius, who denied the cult of the martyrs

4. Rufinus, who supported Origen’s orthodoxy

5. Pelagius, who supported the possibility of human sinlessness.

In each case the positions Jerome championed, albeit with exaggeration and bitter invective, ended up prevailing in the Catholic church.

It is as a literary man that Jerome is remembered. His outstanding contribution to the future of Western Christendom was the Latin translation of the Bible. Although not immediately winning general acceptance, it became the common version and hence is known now as the Vulgate.

Unlike the Old Latin versions, which translated the Old Testament from the Greek Septuagint, Jerome translated from the Hebrew, giving his translation a value as an independent witness to the Hebrew text of his day. His knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures led him to reject the Apocrypha from the canon. Under pressure from his friends, he did translate (although hurriedly) some of the Apocryphal books, all of which books came to be included in the Vulgate.

Jerome made other translations of Greek Christian authors, and wrote a number of commentaries on biblical books. These drew heavily on earlier Greek commentators, including Origen. As time went on, the “mystical” interpretation was increasingly crowded out by historical and philological exposition. He did employ typology in interpreting the Old Testament. He affirmed that Scripture contained no contradictions and was infallible, but he did not develop a hermeneutic of his own.

Although Jerome was committed to the original languages in which the Bible was written, he recognized the pastoral responsibility of the interpreter: “We have the obligation to expound the Scripture as it is read in church, and yet we must not, on the other hand, abandon the truth of the Hebrew” (Commentary on Micah 1.16).

The extensive correspondence of Jerome is a window into his personality and into the life and controversies of the time.

• Epistle 15 to Damasus illustrates the semantic problem between Greek and Latin in the Trinitarian discussions

• Epistle 146, written against the presumptions of the Roman deacons, testifies to the original identity of presbyters and bishops in the New Testament

• Epistles 107 and 128 give instruction on education

• Epistles 22 and 130 promote virginity.

Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men is the first history of Christian literature. His lives of the monks Paul, Hilarion, and Malchus are his most polished works from a stylistic point of view, but their historical core is minimal.

Despite his personality—described as bitter, vindictive, vain, and inconsistent—Jerome’s scholarship left future centuries in his debt.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BIBLE#

For nearly all these leaders the major part of their surviving writings are commentaries on biblical books or homilies preached on them. Their doctrinal controversies were argued in terms of biblical interpretation. The Bible was important in all expressions of spirituality—inspiring martyrdom, guiding prayer and meditation, supplying a source of wisdom for ascetics, and providing themes for art.

The Scriptures were especially the focal point of the liturgical assemblies, where large segments were read. The earliest lectionary that we know was developed in Jerusalem at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, but in the following centuries lectionary texts were produced in profusion and are now one of the sources for the textual criticism of the Bible.

Moreover, all the Church Fathers of the fourth century promoted the ascetic lifestyle as the highest and most authentic form of the Christian life, even if they themselves were presbyters and bishops instead of monks. To that development we now turn.