Search Results

In celebrating and commemorating lofty historical moments and characters, one often meets the grandeur of their memory with a natural tendency to minimize or trivialize their more mundane and unbefitting elements. It is no different with the contemporary imagination as it pertains to the Council of Nicaea. For all of its import and renown, as the triumph of Orthodoxy over a most threatening and consequential heresy — which, with all probability, carried the potential of subverting the Church of God entirely — Nicaea was far from an immediate or conclusive terminus to the Arian heresy. Rather, the near-sixty years thereafter represent a most remarkable period of turmoil during which the believers were tossed about amidst a tempest of uncertainty, turmoil, factionalism, and ecclesial chaos at every level. Indeed, “[t]he whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian…[t]he ship of the Apostles was in peril, she was driven by the wind, her sides beaten with the waves: no hope was now left.” [1] It would be a disservice to the history and significance of Nicaea and the victory of Orthodoxy over the Arian invention if its history were summarily and deceivingly oversimplified to only capture its noble and inspiring qualities. It would be an affront to the faithful — both the known Fathers and unknown multitudes of Orthodox believers — who vigorously opposed the heresy and bore the consequences of their defense of the Lord if their witness, suffering, and even death for the sake of the Faith of Christ were glossed over and buried beneath a falsely beautified shrine to Nicaea. To do so, in truth, would divest Nicaea, and the upholding of Orthodoxy itself, from its necessarily human, and most inspiring, elements.  The story of Nicaea is undoubtedly one of God’s faithful preservation of His Church in the face of a most Satanic and subversive ideology. It is a testament to His unwavering love and persistent guidance of the Church in every generation. But it is equally one of the danger of human error, unsound spirituality, the politicization of the Church, and the great harm that can be caused to the Church by even one unsound, albeit well-intentioned, member. It is true that after a long and vehement doctrinal war, the Lord “awoke and bade the tempest cease; the beast died, and there was a calm once again” [2] as Jerome eloquently observed in hindsight concerning the Arian Controversy and its ultimate fate. But until that eventual conclusion, the Church was tossed to and fro in a storm that spanned over six tumultuous and unseemly decades rife with every sort of both the imaginable and unimaginable.  Having now, in the past two papers, discussed the makings and character of the chief defender of Nicaea — Abba Athanasius  — as well as the makings and precursors to Arianism and the Arian Controversy , let us proceed now to a brief exposition of the makings and proceedings of the Council of Nicaea and its aftermath until 381 A.D. In doing so, we hope to provide a window into this crucial period of the Church’s history, enabling our reader to develop an informed appreciation of the important events and tribulations of the subject years, the extent to which wickedness and error can consume even those who perceive themselves to be most zealous and true in the Christian life and with respect to the doctrine of the Church, and the resilience and faithfulness of those who, in embodying soundness of spirit and mind, and with the sort of virtuosity and integrity that stands in stark contrast against and exposes worldliness and misguidance, had received the true Faith of Christ, were well trained in it both intellectually and spiritually, and stood firm in defense of it even in the face of the greatest of personal costs, immense sufferings, and untold political, societal, and ecclesial pressures.  Arius and the Arian Controversy from its Outset until Nicaea The makings of the Council of Nicaea and the Arian Controversy are intimately connected with the heresy’s namesake, albeit neither its inventor nor even its chief proponent, Arius of Alexandria. We must therefore begin here with a historical account of this man, whose memory in Christian history is an unfortunate blemish upon the eminent Church of Alexandria.  The historical data that has survived until our time with respect to Arius prior to his doctrinal clash with Pope Alexander in Alexandria around or shortly after 318 A.D. is scant. It is likely that he was of Libyan origin [3] — of possible note in light of the fact that Sabellius, whose heresy, that God, Who is purportedly one and not trinity, merely manifests Himself in various modes, came to be termed Sabellianism, is called “the Libyan” possibly due to his own birth or operation in that region, in the early to mid-third century —, born sometime in the 250s A.D. or not long thereafter. History describes him as tall in stature, ascetical in appearance, eloquent in speech, logically astute, and possessed of a charming and charismatic personality. [4] In a word, a man “counterfeited like a guileful serpent [] well able to deceive any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance.” [5] At some unknown point, Arius is known to have relocated to Antioch, where he became discipled by Lucian the presbyter, of whom we have already spoken at some length in our prior paper in this series. In the School of Antioch, and in discipleship to Lucian, Arius’ natural intelligence and charisma become potentiated with formal philosophical training, equipping him with great skill in argumentation, eloquence in discourse, and the appearance of theological and spiritual credibility. Arius is therefore documented in history as donning a short cloak and sleeveless tunic “reminiscent of the exomis worn both by philosophers and by ascetics” which in the late third and early fourth centuries would have “identified him easily as a teacher of the way of salvation — a guru, we might almost say.” [6] Eventually, Arius is found, of course, in Alexandria. When, however, and how, we cannot tell. But on the authority of Sozomen, writing in the fifth century, he is recorded as having been involved in the Meletian Schism, in which Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis [7] , rent asunder the Church of Egypt, ordaining bishops and operating a significant rival sect there. [8] If Sozomen is to be believed, during the papacy of Pope Peter, the Seal of the Martyrs, as he is known, Arius, who had been ordained to the diaconate by the patriarch, aligned himself with Meletius and was excommunicated by the pope as a result. [9] Indeed, the tradition of the Coptic Church tells, following the Acts of Peter of Alexandria , that Pope Peter advised his disciples and future successors, Achillas and Alexander, to forbid Arius from readmission to the Church as a result of his vision of Christ, Who appeared to him with His tunic torn, informed him that it was Arius who had divided it, and instructed him to refuse Arius restoration to communion. [10] If the accounts noted above are factual, then Arius is found in Alexandria no later than 311 A.D., when Pope Peter was martyred in the Persecution. The historical validity of these claims, however, has been called into question. [11] Nevertheless, as we have noted, the proposition that Arius was involved in the Meletian Schism on the side of the schismatics certainly aligns with his penchant for involvement in ecclesial controversy, rather than peaceably aligning with the legitimate ecclesial authorities.  The obscurity of those years with regard to Arius is further amplified by the additional note that he — if again he is in fact the Arius found aligned with Meletius and excommunicated by Pope Peter — appears to have been readmitted to communion by Pope Achillas, in direct contravention of his teacher and predecessor’s direct orders and the authority of the divine vision underpinning their authority, who even ordained him to the priesthood. [12] And what is more, he may, perhaps somewhat puzzlingly, have even been a candidate for the bishopric of Alexandria shortly after the death of Peter’s successor, Pope Achillas, in 313 A.D., less than two years after Pope Peter’s martyrdom. [13] Beyond the obscure and somewhat contradictory historical details concerning Arius’ possible early tenure in Alexandria, the first certain fact is that he is found occupying the office of the presbytery in Alexandria in the years leading up to 318 A.D., and not only serving in this capacity, but also being entrusted to shepherd and teach at the urban church of the Baucalis [14] — among the largest, and certainly the most ancient, of the churches of Alexandria at the time —, home to the tomb of Saint Mark the Apostle himself. There, Arius draws crowds of congregants to hear his teaching, makes disciples of sincere believers eager to learn from a purported and eloquent theologian and renowned ascetic, and enjoys popular support as a spiritual guide and disciple of a martyr, Lucian of Antioch. Seventy women were known to have been under his tutelage and direction, [15] and he enjoyed marked influence as an elderly preacher and apparent sage.  Irrespective of whether Arius was embroiled in ecclesial strife in connection with Meletius — a possible harbinger of his ultimate fate —, his unenviable role as the catalyst of the controversy that cast his name to infamy stands on its own merit as his most lamentable legacy, and must now be examined.  The events that sparked the Arian Controversy can be narrowed down to a specific context, if not precisely to a particular setting. The accounts of the early historians agree that it is attributable to a dispute between Arius and his bishop, Pope Alexander, concerning the proper understanding of the Trinity, with Arius taking issue with his bishop’s Trinitarian theology. The clash may have arisen in the setting of a lecture delivered by the pope to the clergy of Alexandria, in which he was speaking of the oneness of God and at which Arius voiced open objections to what he perceived or feared to be a Sabellian — that is, modalistic — tendency betrayed by the patriarch’s explanation. [16] It may also have been occasioned by Arius openly teaching his heresy at the Baucalis, and thus being reported to the bishop by those who took issue with his teaching. [17] Or it could have arisen in the setting of the pope inquiring of the priests as to an explanation of a certain passage of the Scriptures. [18] In any case, a dispute did in fact arise between Arius and Pope Alexander regarding the proper understanding of the Holy Trinity. Arius, for his part, contended: “if…the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was [] when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance [i.e. essence, or nature] from nothing.” [19] Meanwhile, it appears he was already teaching, with his disciples and at the Baucalis, that “the Son of God was made out of that which had no prior existence,” that there was a “when” when He did not exist, that He was capable of both virtue and vice “as possessing free will…and that he was created and made…” [20] Initially, Pope Alexander exhibited courteous patience towards Arius, so much so that it seems Collothus, a presbyter in Alexandria, became so frustrated with his bishop’s perceived laxity and dilatoriness that he himself founded his own schismatic sect and ordained bishops. [21] He “deemed it more advisable to leave each party to the free discussion of doubtful topics, so that by persuasion rather than by force, they might cease from contention…” [22] Meanwhile, Arius’ teaching was quickly becoming quite influential, spreading “throughout all Egypt, Libya, and the upper Thebes, and at length diffused itself over the rest of the provinces and cities.” [23] Among his first partisans were “a number of lay people and virgins, five presbyters of Alexandria, six deacons, including Euzoius, afterwards Arian bishop at Antioch (A.D. 361), and the Libyan bishops Secundus of Ptolemais in Pentapolis…and Theonas of Marmarica…” [24] A letter was initially addressed by the bishop and clergy of Alexandria to Arius and his colleagues, to no avail. [25] Then, when patience and private exhortations would not yield the fruit of repentance, Pope Alexander convened a synod of the clergy of Alexandria and Libya, which deposed and excommunicated Arius and those who concurred with him. Of these, there were several priests and deacons as well as many lay believers, some of whom sided with Arius and his clerical supporters because “they imagined their doctrines to be of God; others, as frequently happens in similar cases, because they believed them to have been ill-treated and unjustly excommunicated.” [26] As expected, Arius was far from possessing a penitent and humble spirit. Rather than acknowledging his error, he grew all the more bold in obstinacy and vigor. He seems to have penned the Thalia  — a book of songs containing his teachings which he composed and set to popular music for purposes of indoctrination and propagation — during this period. [27] And what is more, he began to actively canvass for support, first in Alexandria and then abroad, including in Palestine and Nicomedia, while embarking on a campaign of correspondence to his fellow disciples of Lucian and clerical ideological adherents, seeking refuge, support, and assistance from them in his opposition to Pope Alexander. After finding security with Eusebius of Caesarea, Arius sought out the assistance of another Eusebius — initially bishop of Berytus, who had, for some reason, come to hold the office of bishop of Nicomedia, the site of the Emperor’s residence —, who was his fellow disciple of Lucian and would emerge as the chief proponent and champion of Arianism in the Controversy. To him, Arius writes:  “…[Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was ‘always a God, always a Son;’ ‘as soon as the Father, so soon the Son [existed];’ ‘with the Father co-exists the Son;’ God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;’ ‘always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself…But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach?  — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full of grace and truth, God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being…’” [28] Hence this Eusebius, along with certain others, proceeded to issue correspondences in defense of Arius and his teaching, and to petition Alexander to receive Arius again into communion in Alexandria; when Alexander refused, they convened councils in Bithynia and Palestine which declared in favor of Arius, demanded that Alexander readmit him, and issued correspondence for circulation to all bishops desiring that they hold communion with Arius. [29] Meanwhile, Alexander himself had reluctantly begun writing to counter Arius’ claims and propagandist efforts, seeking to enlighten his fellow bishops regarding the heresy of Arius and its central tenets, as well as the proceedings held in Alexandria which ruled against Arius and his companions. Thus, several bishops, including Philogonius of Antioch and Macarius of Jerusalem, promptly answered the call of Alexander and staunchly opposed Arius. [30] Nevertheless, the damage caused by Arius’ campaign had been done. “In Egypt and abroad confusion reigned: parties formed in every city, bishops, to adopt the simile of Eusebius, [31] collided like the fabled Symplegades, the most sacred of subjects were bandied about in the mouths of the populace, Christian and heathen.” [32] At this time, Arius, now equipped with formal support by not a few influential bishops, including Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, exhibited a more reassured and calm disposition than he initially embodied in his disputes with Pope Alexander. He and certain of his supporters therefore wrote to him, with flattering words and cunning speech, to attempt to regain entry to the Church of Alexandria, saying:  “We acknowledge One God, alone unbegotten, alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge of all, governor, and provider, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament; he begot an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages [Heb 1:2] and all that was made; who begot him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures…he was created at the will of God, before time and before the ages, and came to life and being from the Father, and the glories which coexist in him are from the Father…the Son [was] begotten apart from time by the Father, and created and founded before the ages, was not in existence before his generation, but was begotten apart from time before all things, and he alone came into existence from the Father. For he is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father…But God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son…” [33] Most likely through Eusebius of Nicomedia — who was the spiritual advisor to Constantine’s sister and had strong ties to the imperial family — Constantine, having just become sole ruler of the Empire following his defeat of Licinius in 324, now learned of the conflict between Arius and Alexander. Fearing that the unity of the Empire might become endangered by this strife — and also due to calendrical differences within the Empire with respect to the celebration of the Paschal Feast — and especially recalling the schism of the Donatists and the turbulence that unfortunate event brought about, Constantine wrote to Arius and Alexander to rebuke them for their actions and to encourage their reconciliation regarding what he considered a quarrel “of a truly insignificant character, and quite unworthy of such fierce contention.” [34] In connection with this correspondence, Constantine commissioned a venerable and pious bishop, Hosius of Cordoba, who was experienced in handling ecclesial concerns and disputes — having been involved in a central capacity in the proceedings of the Council of Elvira during the first decade of the fourth century, and in addressing the emergence of the Donatist Schism around 315 A.D. — to personally deliver the letter to Alexandria, and to intervene in the conflict there in an attempt to bring about its resolution.  Hosius’ arrival and delivery of Constantine’s letter failed, however, to accomplish the desired ends. Yet another council was held in Alexandria, with his participation, in 324 A.D., to attempt to address the issue, which still did not resolve the Arian problem. [35] Then, on his return journey, Hosius presided over a council in Antioch which, among other things, endorsed Pope Alexander and his teaching, anathematized Arius, and excommunicated others found to hold false doctrine. [36] Upon learning of Hosius’ inability to resolve the dispute, and perhaps at Hosius’ suggestion, Constantine proceeded to take a historic and unprecedented step, calling a general council of all the bishops of the Empire, initially contemplated to take place in Ancyra before being relocated to Nicaea by Constantine so that he could attend given its proximity to Nicomedia, to address the relevant concerns. Thus, in the summer of 325, the Council of Nicaea commenced — the first “universal” council in Christian history.  The Proceedings of the Council of Nicaea Conciliarity has since the beginning represented an important feature of the Church’s governance philosophy. The Apostles, when faced with the pressing question of the Judaizers, conferred together around 49 A.D. at the first council in Jerusalem, where they openly discussed the matter and issued a statement memorializing their decisions and directing the churches to implement and abide by them in every place. Since that initial synod, the Church has upheld the Apostles’ conciliar model and its attendant judicial and legislative features as central to ecclesial administration, routinely utilizing councils to resolve doctrinal disputes, address schisms and contentions, establish normative practices, and manage administrative affairs.  The notion of a universal council, however, with the heads of all Churches coming together “in free and brotherly deliberation” to “testify to all the world their agreement in the Faith handed down independently but harmoniously from the earliest times in Churches widely remote in situation, and separated by differences of language, race, and civilisation,” was “a grand and impressive idea, an idea approximately realised at Nicæa as in no other assembly that has ever met.” [37] In the spring and early summer of 325 A.D., over 318 bishops, along with their delegations of countless presbyters, deacons, and lay believers, made their way, by land and sea, to the lakeside city of Nicaea, at the invitation of the Emperor, to confer regarding the Arian innovation and other ritual and administrative issues. They were the Emperor’s guests, with all costs and expenses associated with the conference born by the Emperor himself — an unprecedented and starkly unfamiliar occurrence, particularly in light of the then-recent decade of vicious persecution that had been carried out by the Empire against those very bishops and their colleagues, many of whom had perished in that assault. Indeed, some among those in attendance were confessors who had suffered in that persecution, and who still bore in their bodies the marks of their witness.  Of the bishops in attendance, those who were or might be numbered as holding Arian convictions did not exceed 22, but were likely no less than 13. [38] Of these, the fiercest and most renowned was the aforementioned Eusebius of Nicomedia. Also present were the two bishops formerly excommunicated by the synod of Alexandria for their concurrence with Arius — Secundus of Ptolemais in Pentapolis and Theonas of Marmarica — and the central Arian circle was rounded out by Theognis, Bishop of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon, both of whom also belonged to the inner circle of Arians by conviction. [39] In fact, Eusebius, Theognis, and Maris were, like Arius, disciples of Lucian, and proudly so. [40] The Arian position was likewise held by a number of about twelve additional — albeit not as consequential with respect to the Council itself — bishops, who included, most notably, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Narcissus of Neronias, Aetius of Lydda, Paulinus of Tyre, Theodotus of Laodicea, Gregory of Berytus, and Menophantus of Ephesus. [41] Of particular note here is the conduct of the Arians in the days leading up to the Council — in a fashion typical of their penchant for public shows of disputation, they “engaged in preparatory logical contests before the multitudes,” causing many to be “attracted by the interest of their discourse.” [42] In one of these public debates, a layman who had suffered in the Persecution found himself present, and while being “a man of unsophisticated understanding, reproved these reasoners, telling them that Christ and his apostles did not teach us dialectics, art, nor vain subtilties, but simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works.” [43] As he spoke, God granted that the hearts of those who heard were moved, such that those present admired him and “assented to the justice of his remarks; and the disputants themselves, after hearing his plain statement of the truth, exercised a greater degree of moderation…” [44] The same, however, certainly cannot be said of their fellow Arians, who confronted and engaged in philosophical debates all manner of people in the streets — clergymen, lay men and women, and even pagans — such that they might win some to their cause. Indeed, so common was the occurrence that there seem to have even been pagan philosophers who attended certain proceedings of the Council, whether out of genuine curiosity as to the doctrines in discussion or in order to stir up controversy and influence those in attendance towards division and dispute. [45]   On the other side, those who clearly and capably perceived and held fast to the sound doctrine of the Church and firmly opposed the Arians were chiefly Alexander of Alexandria, and his deacon, Athanasius, who joined him in the delegation to the Council from Alexandria, as well as Hosius, who likely presided at the Council, and others who supported them. These, by virtue of the nuances of the subject debate and the eminence of intellect and clarity of theological vision required, constituted the numerical minority in the assembly — between 20 and 30 bishops of the hundreds convened. “To this compact and determined group the result of the council was due, and in their struggle they owed much—how much it is hard to determine—to the energy and eloquence of the deacon Athanasius, who had accompanied his bishop to the council as an indispensable companion…” [46] The majority, however, of those in attendance fell somewhere in the middle. Indeed, “[b]etween the convinced Arians and their reasoned opponents lay the great mass of the bishops, 200 and more, nearly all from Syria and Asia Minor…” [47] These were “composed of all those who, for whatever reason, while untainted with Arianism, yet either failed to feel its urgent danger to the Church, or else to hold steadily in view the necessity of an adequate test if it was to be banished.” [48] This class of attendees included the entire scope of possible personalities, intentions, and aptitudes — simple, faithful shepherds such as the bishop Spyridion of Cyprus (who was in fact a shepherd of sheep and known for immense piety and even certain miracles) who “wished for nothing more than that they might hand on to those who came after them the faith they had received at baptism, and had learned from their predecessors,” [49] worldly men who were not concerned in the slightest degree with the doctrinal issues in question, shoddy theologians lacking the intelligence or training to adequately comprehend the questions or nuances of the debate at hand, faithful clergymen who, while sincere in faith, “failed from lack of intellectual clearsightedness to grasp the question for themselves,” and “a few, possibly, who were inclined to think that Arius was hardly used and might be right after all…” [50] The Arians, calculated and manipulative as they were, could only hope that their charisma, evasiveness, and prowess in disputation might be effective in enticing some among this group to concur with their professions and support their cause, if only to oppose, out of staunch conservatism, the installment of a new formal creed or effective test that would expose the Arian impiety and universally apply to its rejection in the Churches of the Empire.  We come now to the proceedings of the Council.   “The real work of the council did not begin at once.” [51] Rather, as might in hindsight be considered unsurprising, the Emperor’s presence afforded those assembled an unrivaled opportunity to receive the Emperor’s attention with regard to personal complaints and concerns. “Commonplace men often fail to see the proportion of things, and to rise to the magnitude of the events in which they play their part.” [52] Thus, countless applications were made to Constantine by the bishops and clergy, which threatened to waste the resources allocated to the convocation so as to deal with the central matters of concern. The Emperor therefore appointed a day for the formal and final reception of all personal complaints, and burnt the papers in the presence of the assembled fathers, urging them on to the business of the Council by exhorting them to forget past offenses and recall God’s Judgment which will, on the Last Day, give to each his punishment or reward according to his deeds, while setting an appointed time “by which the bishops were to be ready for a formal decision of the matters in dispute.” [53] With this, the work of the Council could now begin.  Quasi-formal meetings commenced, with Arius and his fellows meeting and engaging in discussions with the assembled bishops, especially those who staunchly opposed them, especially the Alexandrians. In due course, the shiftiness of the Arians became quite exposed: when confronted by their opponents and the conservatives in attendance with the Scriptural verses and passages that countered their teaching and seemed to leave “no doubt as to the eternal Godhead of the Son,” they whispered and gestured among themselves before expressing total agreement with the passage in question, finding a way to evasively interpret it in harmony with their heretical ideas. For instance, when presented verses that spoke of the Lord as being eternal, the Arians pointed to verses like 2 Corinthians 4:11 — “We who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake…” And when confronted with passages concerning the Lord’s likeness to the Father and oneness with Him, as His image and so being of the same essence, the Arians explained that the Scriptures also speak of humans as being “the image and glory of God.” [54] And so with every biblical test, the Arians found a way to explain it away using other passages, reinterpreted and repurposed to fit their own agendas.  But this evasiveness proved counterproductive to the Arians in their cause. Having betrayed their dishonesty in that manner, and underestimated the strangeness of their teaching, they quickly discovered that they had overestimated the support they thought was theirs or could be elicited at the Council, and could only rely on a few of those assembled to concur with their position and defend their cause. Rather than winning those who fell among the undecided majority, the Arians instead began to lose these one by one to the clear and convicting Orthodoxy of the Alexandrians and their doctrinal supporters.  It was clear to the Orthodox in attendance that scriptural tests, which invariably left room for evasive interpretation, would be insufficient to clearly and conclusively condemn the Arian doctrine. But the proposition that a non-scriptural test, or an authoritative formula of the unanimous belief of the Church, be introduced was somewhat equally disconcerting, especially to those whose deep-seated conservatism gave rise to particular suspicion and concern in the face of such a stratagem. The only word, moreover, which could be found to categorically exclude any evasion by the Arians was homoousios , a Greek word not found in the Scriptures meaning “of one and the same essence” — a word with a somewhat significant negative theological history, having been denounced at the council of 269 A.D. which condemned and deposed Paul of Samosata in part due to his (perhaps unsound) use of it or agreement with those who used it improperly. Was the threat of Arianism in fact so serious that it warranted such measures, and could these measures themselves not also pose an equal if not greater threat to the Church? The answer to these questions unintentionally came through a single misstep by Eusebius of Nicomedia. “When the day for the decisive meeting arrived it was felt that the choice lay between the adoption of the word, cost what it might, and the admission of Arianism to a position of toleration and influence in the Church.” [55] Upon the commencement of the scheduled meeting and appointed discussion, Eusebius, perhaps frustrated by the failure of the Arians until that point to win support by their strategy of appearing cooperative and willing to compromise, and feeling that the only hope left was a direct attack, presented a clear statement of his belief, which was “an unambiguous assertion of the Arian formula,” thereby exposing the tenets of Arianism in clear and unavoidable terms. “An angry clamour silenced the innovator, and his document was publicly torn to shreds” [56] — an “almost unanimous horror of the Nicene Bishops at the novelty and profaneness of Arianism” which “condemns it irrevocably as alien to the immemorial belief of the Churches.” [57] “Even the majority of the Arians were cowed,” [58] and the support for Arius dwindled to the five central bishops noted above.  With Arianism exposed, what remained was to agree upon a test and formulation of Orthodoxy that precluded any misunderstanding or evasion. Here, the Council commenced its efforts to identify, prepare, and finalize such a document. Eusebius of Caesarea “produced a formula, not of his own devising…but consisting of the creed of his own Church with an addition intended to guard against Sabellianism.” [59] Although Eusebius himself, while not a disciple of Lucian, had supported Arius, and himself held certain questionable and unsound doctrinal views, the Creed he proposed was in fact sound with respect to the teaching of the Church, but did not contain the term homoousios  which, by Hosius, the Alexandrians, and their supporters, as well as Constantine himself, was felt necessary as a watchword against the Arian heresy. Hence those among the assembled Fathers who were duly qualified proceeded to carefully overhaul the formula proposed, engaging in an editorial process of discussion and reflection as they systematically edited the document using terms and phrases from other creeds in use and added homoousios  in discussing the relation of the Son with respect to the Father — “begotten, not created, homoousios  [i.e. of one and the same essence] with the Father…” [60] The draft Creed of Nicaea was thus prepared, and ready for execution by those in attendance. Here, “the council paused,” apparently with the majority still debating within their hearts whether to subscribe to this novel idea of a universal and authoritative Statement of Faith, especially one with a key term that is absent from the Scriptures and weighed down by a suspicious theological history. Indeed, the “history of the subsequent generation shews that the mind of Eastern Christendom was not wholly ripe for its adoption.” [61] But upon calling to mind what had transpired until that point at the Council, or else, as to the majority of the Arians, acknowledging their inevitable defeat and the impending victory of the Orthodox, one by one the bishops ratified the formulated Creed. In the end, all but two — the ever-stubborn Secundus and Theonas — refused to sign. Even those who supported Arius signed, although Eusebius of Nicomedia refused to ratify the documents memorializing Arius’ deposition and Eusebius of Caesarea signed with a “mental reservation” which prompted him to write to his Church to justify his signature.  In the end, Arius was left alone with the two bishops who had stood by him since the beginning of the dispute. His remaining supporters, who once wrote and labored tirelessly in support of him, abandoned him when the circumstances of supporting him were no longer favorable to them — “not the last time that an Arian leader was found to turn against a friend in the hour of trial.” [62] Besides Arianism, some additional issues were of concern to the Council. First, the question of the timing of the Paschal Feast was resolved, with those who celebrated with the Jews being formally compelled to adopt the mainstream practice — the outcome of not only the Emperor’s concern for imperial unity, but also, quite possibly, the intention of precluding, as far as was possible, the persistence of Jewish practices among the believers, especially in light of the influence that such practices had exerted on the Christians in Antioch and the ultimate emergence of the doctrine of Lucian and his disciples, as we have already discussed at length. Second, the problem of the Meletian Schism was addressed, with canons established to govern the administration of the Church in Egypt vis-à-vis the Meletians, and how to deal with those who had received a Meletian ordination. In all, twenty canons were promulgated, dealing with various administrative and ritual matters, including prohibiting kneeling or prostrating on Sundays and during the Holy Fifty Days — the days of Pentecost — while requiring all prayer to be made while standing.  After approximately three months of deliberations, the Council concluded with a banquet hosted by Constantine in honor of the twentieth anniversary of his rule. Arius and the bishops who rejected either the decisions of the Council or its Creed were exiled — a fate which soon thereafter would also meet, albeit quite temporarily, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis — and the 318 Fathers who ratified the Faith of Nicaea returned to their bishoprics having defended sound doctrine against the threat of Arianism. But all would not remain well for long.  In 328, Alexander dies and Athanasius becomes his successor to the See of Saint Mark; almost immediately thereafter, Eusebius of Nicomedia is found back in Constantine’s favor and once more acting as bishop, having convinced the Emperor that he and Arius “held substantially the Creed of Nicaea.” [63] In the six years that followed, while Athanasius was occupied with his duties as the new bishop and enjoying a deceptively peaceful start to his episcopacy, the Arians silently operated in the background, garnering support, inventing schemes, and engaging in political maneuverings in order to turn the tides. And this they ultimately succeeded to do, such that in the 56 years between the Council of Nicaea and that of Constantinople in 381 — where it may be said that Arianism met its somewhat final defeat —, we find “a large majority of the Eastern bishops, especially of Syria and Asia Minor, the very regions whence the numerical strength of the council was drawn, in full reaction against the council; first against the leaders of the victorious party, [and] eventually and for nearly a whole generation against the [Creed of Nicaea] itself…” [64] In this period, the Church was subjected to the most severe internal storm of opposing parties, personal vendettas, councils and counter-councils, and every artifice of Satan. A substantial number of those who at Nicaea represented the “convinced” majority are consequently found turning against the Council, forcefully opposing Athanasius, and siding time and again with the various Arian factions — as Jerome notes, at the height of the unfortunate turmoil, “the world groaned to find itself Arian.” [65] How then did the tide turn, and what was the history of these subsequent decades? The story of this time tracks most clearly with the life of Athanasius himself, and so it is in this manner that we shall set forth in brief the history of the period.  From the First Peace to the End of the First Exile (328-337) [66] Upon the death of Alexander and accession of Athanasius to the papacy of Alexandria, Athanasius was probably not yet thirty years of age. And yet, as it was with Paul’s disciple Timothy, age was not a hindrance to the spiritual and intellectual loftiness of Alexander’s disciple Athanasius. While the Arians indeed capitalized on his age to object to his ordination as uncanonical, Athanasius’ own people, the believers of Egypt, faithfully flocked to, defended, and supported their bishop, whose prodigiousness had long been of renown — and this not only in the initial years of his reign, when excitement and enthusiasm at the beginnings of a new papacy are most pronounced and untempered by the passage of time, but unwaveringly even until his death in 373, following his tenure of 45 years in the episcopacy. As we have seen thus far in passing, Athanasius’ involvement in ecclesial affairs and importance to the doctrinal conditions of his day did not commence with his episcopacy. Rather, by 328, he had been a faithful and instrumental disciple of his predecessor for at least a decade, if not longer. In addition, as we set forth in the first entry in our series, his upbringing at the hands of a pious family, lifelong immersion in the liturgical life of the Church, intimate association with Abba Antony and the monastic fathers of his day, educational experience as a student of the School of Alexandria, where he received the highest education available in his day, and firm grasp of the Scriptures and Patristic Tradition until his time rendered him not only prodigious, but also, and more importantly, well equipped to embody, clearly appreciate, effectively defend, and competently convey the Faith of Christ in all of its soundness, spirituality, and strength.  Thus, while still only about 18 or 20 years old, between 316 and 318 A.D. — that is, shortly before the Arian Controversy arose —, Athanasius had penned his instant Christian classic Against the Heathen  and On the Incarnation , exhibiting therein all the marks of exceptional intelligence, theological brilliance, and sound-spiritedness as he endeavored to demonstrate the reasonableness of the Christian Faith against contemporary religious and philosophical attacks against it. And what is more, while still only a young deacon, he was an instrumental and steady advisor and assistant to Pope Alexander in his opposition to Arius, and may have even assisted him in preparing the letters he penned in connection with the initial stage of the Controversy. And at the Council, we are told that he played a significant part in the debates against Arius and his supporters, and was an important contributor to the defense of Orthodoxy undertaken there.  It was therefore a natural development that Pope Alexander, while on his deathbed, selected Athanasius as his successor. Athanasius, however, was not present, being away from Alexandria either for personal or ministerial reasons or otherwise due to his knowledge or suspicion that Alexander would choose him, and so seeking to escape, as many before him had done, from the gravity of such a post. The dying patriarch’s own words, however, seem to indicate the latter — when another deacon of Alexandria also named Athanasius, whether due to blameless error or in an ambitious attempt at seizing an opportunity, came forward to answer his call, Alexander ignored him while repeating the name of Athanasius and saying: “You think to escape, but you will not escape.” [67] And so Alexander died on April 17, 328, and on June 8, Athanasius was chosen to succeed him in accordance with either his wishes or prophetic foretelling.  The first several years of Athanasius’ bishopric were, on the surface, as we have said, overwhelmingly peaceful. He embarked straightaway on a pastoral tour of the dioceses and churches within his episcopal purview, even reaching the south of Egypt, where he met with Pachomius and his monastic federation. When Pachomius, however, heard that Athanasius desired to ordain him, he disappeared into the crowd of thousands of monks gathered to welcome the pope and sent word to Athanasius that he would not see him again unless he promised to forego his intention, of which Athanasius then reassured him.  But while Athanasius was busy “[giving] comfort to the holy Churches,” [68] the Arians were beginning to make headway in their cause. Eusebius of Nicomedia was restored to Nicomedia after his brief exile, and with his network of associates began to regain influence with Constantine and the political powers. Arius and the other exiled Arians, moreover, continued their maneuverings to gain sympathy and propagate their ideology, such that two bishops from Illyricum, Valens and Ursacius, joined the Arian cause, having likely been converted to it through contact with Arius in exile. With these forces, and especially their acting upon both the imperial court, to win support and sponsorship from Constantine’s closest circle of confidants and associates, opportunistic and self-seeking as they also were, and Constantine’s overwhelmingly personal and political, rather than doctrinal, interests and priorities, Constantine began to soften the hardline stance he had taken regarding the Arians at and immediately after Nicaea, becoming more tolerant and accepting of both Eusebius personally and the Arians more generally.  Constantine’s growing support of the Arians was further bolstered by societal factors — the philosophers and pagans as well as many government officials came to align themselves with the Arians, whose ideas were of a baser and more easily accepted sort and thus more likely to attract the support of these cohorts. The support of these classes of people was often instrumental in empowering the Arians and assisting them in asserting dominance over local churches and even ousting pro-Nicene bishops from their churches and sees.  The first-fruits of these maneuverings by the Arians began to emerge in the early 330s. Initially, Eusebius succeeded to persuade Constantine to recall Arius from exile, and to exert pressure on Athanasius to readmit him to the Church of Alexandria. When Athanasius refused, rightly noting that Arius’ excommunication was effectuated by a conciliar decision such that it could not be undone by a personal one, the Arians resorted to another tactic, collaborating once again with their ever-willing allies, the Meletians, to concoct accusations and conspiratorial attacks against Athanasius.  The first of these assaults involved three Meletian bishops lodging a complaint against Athanasius to the Emperor, for allegedly imposing harsh taxes on the Egyptian Church. Unfortunately for them, however, two Alexandrian priests were present to disprove the claims, and Constantine dismissed the charges and rebuked their inventors. Two additional elaborate accusations emerged.   First, the case of Ischyras, who was ordained by Collothus during his schism and whose ordination had therefore been invalidated by the synod of Alexandria in 324. Despite his null ordination, he apparently continued to carry out the duties of the priesthood in his village. Upon hearing of this from the legitimate presbyter of the village in his visit to the diocese, Athanasius apparently sent Macarius, a clergyman accompanying him on the visitation, to summon Ischyras for an explanation. Macarius found him sick and bedridden, but requested of his father that he dissuade him from continuing to carry out the duties of the priesthood. Ischyras apparently responded by not only persisting in his practices, but also aligning with the Meletians and alleging, in connection with the Arian conspiracy at hand, that he had been celebrating the Eucharist when Macarius stormed in, broke the chalice, and desecrated the altar. The tale continued to change, however, and Ischyras eventually admitted, at the advice of his relatives, that he had been pressured by violence to lie, even preparing a formal written retraction. However, apparently in response to being placed under censure for his offense, he would later renew his accusations against Athanasius, modifying them yet further such that it was then Athanasius who broke the chalice and destroyed Ischyras’ “basilica,” when in reality Ischyras’ “church” was nothing more than a small cottage.  Second, a fantastical tale was invented involving a Meletian bishop, Arsenius, who was bribed into suddenly disappearing. The Arians and Meletians began to spread rumors that Athanasius had murdered Arsenius and was using one of his amputated hands for black magic — a severed hand was even circulated as proof of the alleged crime. This evolved into a substantial scandal, such that Constantine ordered an investigation by his half-brother Dalmatius and suggested a council at Caesarea under the presidency of Eusebius its bishop, to which Athanasius refused to agree given Eusebius’ far from impartial dispositions towards Athanasius, which refusal offended Eusebius. Thus, the contemplated council was agreed to take place in Tyre in 335, with Athanasius present and with a Count Dionysius being commissioned to represent Constantine in the proceeding.  Meanwhile, Athanasius’ supporters discovered Arsenius’ whereabouts, finding him alive and hiding in a Meletian monastery in Upper Egypt. Although the Meletians, upon learning that Arsenius was  known to be there, smuggled him to Tyre, Athanasius’ deacon succeeded to arrest the presbyter of the Meletian monastery and bring him to Alexandria, where he confessed before the Duke to the plot. Ultimately, Arsenius was discovered at an inn in Tyre, arrested, and positively identified by the bishop of Tyre, at which time he confessed to the ploy and eventually reconciled with Athanasius.  Despite these accusations against him proving unsuccessful, they nevertheless were the impetus for, and ultimately were renewed against Athanasius at, the Council of Tyre in 335, which was held on the bishops’ way to Jerusalem to celebrate Constantine’s thirtieth imperial anniversary by consecrating the Church of the Holy Sepulcher which he had built there on the site of Helen’s discovery of the Cross. At this unusual conference, Athanasius faced an assembly that was on its face hostile to him, intent on securing his elimination, in which he and his supporters were outnumbered two to one by the Arians, including Eusebius of Nicomedia and several others whom we have already encountered herein. There, the charges already refuted were reintroduced, with even the accusation of Athanasius’ murder of Arsenius being revived. But Athanasius, ever witty in humor and sharp in mind, was prepared — he defended himself against every accusation, and even staged a dramatic act when, upon being confronted with the allegation of murdering Arsenius and severing his hand for sorcery, with the Arians even producing a severed hand in the council as evidence, Athanasius brought Arsenius out into their midst with his hands covered, only to slowly uncover each of his hands and reveal that both were intact before quipping as to whether Arsenius had a third hand that he had cut off, prompting the leader of the Meletians himself to flee the gathering in shame. But Athanasius, along with his allies, perceived that the convocation was compromised and intent on ruling against them, and so he and four bishops secretly departed the council to Jerusalem, where they consecrated the Church of the Holy Sepulcher themselves, before the Arians could arrive to do so, and then made their way to Constantinople to secure a meeting with the Emperor. The bishops assembled at the Council, however, proceeded by deposing Athanasius in his absence and then making their way to Jerusalem, where they engaged in their intended activities while readmitting Arius and his allies to communion.  Meanwhile, in Constantinople, Athanasius had succeeded to intercept Constantine on a public road, as he was out on his horse, and present his case to him. Thus, Constantine wrote in dismay to the bishops of the Council, summoning them to Constantinople for an audience. They received the summons while in Jerusalem, at which time Arius departed for Alexandria and Eusebius and his associates determined that five of them, including Eusebius of Caesarea, would respond to the summons at Constantinople, while the rest departed to their homes. At Constantinople, the Eusebians abandoned the silly accusations that had been levied by them against Athanasius in Tyre, instead making a final deadly charge — Athanasius, they said, had committed treason by threatening to prevent Egypt’s grain from reaching the capital. Athanasius’ defenses and reasoning were here unavailing, for the seriousness of the charge struck Constantine in a squarely political area of great concern. Thus, he ordered Athanasius’ banishment to Teveri, beginning on February 5, 336, as a purported act of mercy in what otherwise would have been deserving of capital punishment.  As for Arius, he had attempted to regain access to the churches in Alexandria, but the clergy and lay faithful there, loyal as they ever were to their bishop and to the faith of Nicaea, would not permit him. He therefore relocated to Constantinople, where he appeared before the Emperor and apparently satisfied him by a sworn profession of Orthodoxy, leading to a day being fixed for his reception into communion. Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, a dedicated and renowned pro-Nicene, was understandably quite troubled by this development. He therefore prayed in a church in Constantinople that either he or Arius might be taken away before such an outrage to the Faith should be permitted. And so history tells us that Arius died suddenly in 336, the day before his intended reception — in a terrible manner, with his bowels bursting out of him as he relieved himself. [69] At this time, Athanasius remained in exile in Treveri, probably spending around a year and possibly celebrating two Feasts of the Resurrection there, perhaps in 336 and certainly in 337, in an unfinished church. Then, on May 22, 337, Constantine died at Nicomedia, having just received an Arian baptism at the hands of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Soon thereafter, on June 17, his eldest son wrote a letter to the people and clergy of Alexandria, announcing the restoration of their bishop. In light of this, Athanasius reached Alexandria on November 23, 337, amid great rejoicings, the clergy especially “esteeming that the happiest day of their lives.” And so Athanasius’ first exile came to end and the second peaceful period of his reign commenced, which would only last for one year, four months and twenty-four days. From the First Return to the Second Return (337-346) [70] After Constantine’s death in 337, the political and religious landscape in the Empire quickly shifted. The Eusebian faction found a powerful ally in the new Eastern Emperor, Constantius, while the Western Emperor, Constans, was favorable to the Nicene party. Thus, the Arians in the East began pushing the narrative that bishops like Athanasius, who had returned from exile with the support of the Emperor, had done so improperly — without being reinstated by a formal council. Athanasius had always insisted that the Council of Tyre, at which he was deposed, was a corrupt and illegal convocation devoid of legitimate authority. Nevertheless, the debate over the interplay between secular and ecclesial authority, particularly with respect to the jurisdictional affairs of the Church, was cause for great confusion and political abuse, such that even certain well-meaning Eastern bishops, among the conservatives we have already discussed, saw the return of Athanasius absent formal synodal approval as disorderly, and so opposed him in this regard.  In light of these factors, Athanasius’ stay in Alexandria following his first exile would inevitably endure only for a brief and troubled period. The city was still home to a number of Arians, who, importantly, had the sympathy of the Jews and Pagans, and it was even reported that the monks, and especially the renowned Abba Antony, were in agreement with them. This scandalous accusation, however, was immediately dissipated by the arrival of Antony himself to the city, at the urgent request of the Orthodox and in defense of the blamelessness of his doctrine. He spent two days in the city, during which throngs of Christians and heathen alike flocked to hear and see him. He denounced Arianism as the most lamentable of heresies, as he is repeatedly recorded as expressing in the account of his Life authored by Athanasius, before concluding his visit with a solemn escort out of the city by Athanasius and the rest of the clergy and faithful on July 27, 338. According to Athanasius himself, in those few days, more people became Christians than would have been converted in an entire year. But contentions grew in Alexandria. The Eusebians painted Athanasius as a source of chaos and accused him of everything from misconduct to embezzling food intended for the widows. A popular and respected prefect, Philagrius, was reappointed over the city, but instead of being a cause of calm, his return sparked added unrest. Meanwhile, the Eusebians attempted to install their own bishop in Alexandria — first Pistus, a known Arian, and then ultimately Gregory of Cappadocia, a more politically palatable choice. To justify their actions and challenge Athanasius’ legitimacy, the Eusebians sent a delegation to Rome to make their case. In response, Athanasius gathered the Egyptian bishops, issued a powerful defense, and sent his own envoys to Rome. The Roman bishop, Julius, proposed a council to address the contention, but the crafty Eusebians delayed and avoided the invitation, and instead held their own council at Antioch where they officially replaced Athanasius with Gregory. Tensions in Alexandria came to a head in Lent of 339. On Sunday, March 18, Athanasius was pursued by his persecutors in the night, and the next morning, after baptizing many, he fled from the Church of Theonas just as Gregory the Arian entered and usurped the bishopric in the city. Athanasius spent approximately four weeks hiding in the city among faithful believers before escaping. On or just after the Feast of the Resurrection, he penned a passionate appeal to the Church about the injustice of Gregory’s imposition and how he was unjustly treated. Then, on Resurrection Monday, he escaped to Rome. This second exile lasted over seven years, from April 339 to October 346 — it was the longest of his five banishments.  Athanasius’ second exile is split into two phases, the first of which lasted four years, with Athanasius taking refuge in Rome, arriving there in the middle of 339. Soon he was joined by other exiled bishops, such as Marcellus of Ancyra and Paul of Constantinople — fellow victims of the Eusebians’ anti-Nicene efforts. These exiled prelates were supported by Pope Julius I while in Rome, with Athanasius maintaining close ties with his flock in Egypt through correspondences carried to and from Rome through ecclesial channels of communication.  While Athanasius resided in Rome, Pope Julius responded to accusations from the Arians and their sympathizers, as well as the conservatives who objected to Athanasius’ return to Alexandria by imperial decree rather than synodal action, by convening a synod of Italian bishops which cleared Athanasius of all charges and reinstated him and the other Orthodox exiles to their respective sees. Pope Julius further authored a letter to the Eastern bishops, rebuking them not only for their accusations but also for their own blatant disregard of established ecclesial procedures. The Arians and Eastern bishops, however, were obstinate. Gathering at Antioch in 341 for the “Council of the Dedication” — of Constantine’s “Golden” Church at Antioch — they began circulating new creeds in a show of protest against the Nicene Creed. Of these, most notable was the so-called “Lucianic Creed,” which sought to affirm the Son’s “likeness” to the Father while carefully avoiding the Nicene term homoousios . While these alternative creeds were intended to appear balanced, they represented a calculated attempt to sideline Nicaea and its proponents, especially Athanasius, by introducing new statements of the Faith which would diminish the significance of Nicaea and represent competing convocations to undermine the authority of that council. The Arians, moreover, seized the opportunity to capitalize on the formulaic conservatism, ecclesial naïveté, and theological ineptitude of the majority of the Eastern bishops in question by hijacking and manipulating their reactionary efforts to permit Arian theology and impart to it the appearance of legitimacy through permissive or ambiguous creedal formulas.  Many of the conservative bishops in question, however, it must be said, were not Arian by conviction, but were instead members of the conservative class of attendees at Nicaea who, while holding in principle the Faith of Nicaea, took issue with the new term, homoousios , and had therefore subscribed to the Creed of Nicaea only insofar as it was the only option truly available to the Council to counteract the Arian machinations, or in order to garner favor with the Emperor, since the word had been suggested by him, or out of fear lest they be labeled Arians for their refusal to accept the Creed of Nicaea. Many of these would eventually be reconciled to the Church in Athanasius’ own lifetime, largely due to his efforts at overcoming terminological obstacles to reconciliation that did not additionally implicate substantive doctrinal differences. Meanwhile, political tensions continued to rise. The Western Emperor Constans, sympathetic to Athanasius and the Nicene cause and prompted by Julius, pressured his brother Constantius, Emperor in the East, to resolve the conflict, resulting in the Council of Sardica around 343 A.D. — a major attempt at reconciliation. But the Eastern delegation, unwilling to sit among Athanasius and his allies, whom they viewed as guilty, refused to attend, instead holding their own rival council in Philippopolis. There they issued a sweeping condemnation of the Nicene camp — excommunicating Athanasius, Pope Julius, and even Hosius of Cordoba. Unperturbed, the Western bishops at Sardica held their own council as planned, there reaffirming the Nicene Creed, rejecting any need for a new formula, and promulgating several significant canons. Athanasius, still in exile, then proceeded to Gaul and northern Italy, patiently awaiting his chance to return, which opportunity arose after Constans clearly expressed that any further persecution of Nicene bishops would bring about political consequences. In response, Constantius surprisingly relented — Gregory, the Arian bishop in Alexandria, died in 345, and Constantius himself wrote to Athanasius inviting him back. Following stops in Rome and Trier, Athanasius made a brief but symbolic visit to Antioch, where Constantius reportedly greeted him warmly — though not without some political requests, including that Athanasius share a church with the Arians in Alexandria, which proposition Athanasius declined unless the same privilege were afforded to the Nicenes in Antioch, which was of course refused. Then, after a brief stop in Jerusalem, Athanasius finally returned to Alexandria in October 346, where he was warmly welcomed by his people, who met him a hundred miles   away to process him to his see with immense joy.  So was Athanasius’ second return to Alexandria from exile. He remained there in relative peace   from   October 21, 346, to February 8, 356 — his longest undisturbed residence among his flock. From the Golden Decade to the Third Return (346-362) [71] With its pope back home after his prolonged absence, and conditions much improved when compared to the preceding years which the believers in Alexandria endured under Gregory the Arian usurper, the Church in Egypt underwent a distinct spiritual revival during the Golden Decade. This was in many respects the product of the same instincts that had contributed to a similar revival immediately following the last era of persecution. Large crowds of Christians flocked to the churches, the widows and orphans were no longer left destitute, and spiritual zeal and prayerfulness palpably increased, such that, according to Athanasius himself, every house became a church — “Increased strictness of life, the sanctification of home, renewed application to prayer, and practical charity, these were a worthy welcome to their long-lost pastor.” [72] Monasticism likewise flourished during these years, with Athanasius deepening his connection with the monks, especially with respect to the disciples of Pachomius and Antony, which connections would prove instrumental to him in his eventual third exile, when he was able to take refuge among them and communicate with his flock and fellow shepherds through the monastic systems of communication.  It was also during this period that Athanasius left a lasting impact on the administration of the Church — both across the region in his day and thereafter until today —, often ordaining bishops from among the monks, who were the most theologically learned of the believers, [73] to assist him in the defense of Orthodoxy against Arianism, and even ordaining a bishop, Frumentius, for the kingdom of Axum (Ethiopia). In time, Athanasius succeeded to unify the Egyptian Church, expelling most of the Arian influence from Egypt. Outside Egypt, however, the situation was more tumultuous. Tensions between the pro-Nicene and Arian/anti-Nicene camps continued to fester, [74] and Constantius reverted to supporting the Arians after his brother Constans was killed. A series of political and religious moves followed — councils, exiles, imperial pressure on the bishops to condemn Athanasius, and ultimately Constantius attempting to have Athanasius removed by force.  During the midnight praises on February 8, 356, at the time of the Second Canticle (Psalm 136), a large horde of soldiers seized upon the Church of Theonas while Athanasius was in attendance, in order to arrest him. He insisted, however, that he would not leave with them until they had permitted all the people to depart safely. But in the confusion, as the people rushed to exit, the monks and congregants rescued Athanasius, and he was made to disappear. From that moment, Athanasius was in exile for six years and fourteen days — until February of 362.  Athanasius’ third exile marked the highest point of his influence and impact. Throughout it, Athanasius never wavered in his service — writing, organizing, and strengthening the Church from hiding, especially among the monks. From his secret abode — typically in the Egyptian desert — Athanasius wrote prolifically to strengthen the Church, with over half of his surviving works having been authored during this exile.  By this time, Arianism had largely disappeared from Egypt, although it continued to spread and work its evil in other parts of the empire. But while Athanasius was in hiding, the initial signs of the end of Arianism had begun. Athanasius initially planned to appeal directly to Constantius. But as he journeyed toward Italy, he received disturbing news — prominent bishops were being exiled, churches were being violently taken over, and Constantius had appointed a new bishop named George to replace him. Even Hosius, who had presided over the Council of Nicaea, was severely tortured, despite being 100 years old, until he subscribed to an Arian statement of faith — yet even as he did so, he refused to condemn Athanasius. [75] Realizing it was too dangerous to continue, Athanasius turned back, retreating deeper into the desert. Back in Alexandria, chaos ensued. Soldiers attacked churches, worshippers were harassed, and officials — both pagan and Christian — were pressured to support George, the Emperor’s Arian appointee, who, arriving in early 357, came with military force and promptly launched a brutal crackdown: bishops and clergy were exiled, faithful Christians were persecuted, and even cemeteries were attacked. His rule in Alexandria lasted approximately 18 months before the people had enough — riots broke out and George was driven out of the city, and when he eventually returned after Constantius’ death, the angry population seized him, threw him in prison, and eventually lynched him. During this third exile, Athanasius was mostly among the monks, but he also seems to have stayed secretly in Alexandria during certain periods, maybe even in the home of a consecrated virgin. The monks especially sheltered him, kept him informed, and helped circulate his letters. It was likely during this time that he wrote the Life of Antony .  Meanwhile, theological shifts were taking place across the empire — in keeping with the wisdom of Gamaliel, [76] the Arians had begun to factionalize. The radicals, called Anomoeans, pushed the extreme Arian view that the Son was unlike  the Father, as Arius himself seems to have believed and taught in some fashion. [77] In contrast, the more moderate Arian party, in striving to maintain a more conservative tone, utilized vague language like homoios  (and thus were called Homoians), conceiving of Christ as being “like the Father” and thereby leaving the issue open to interpretation — a political strategy more than a theological one. On the other side, the conservatives, or so-called “Semi-Arians,” led by Basil of Ancyra, rejected full-blown Arianism but nevertheless hesitated over the Nicene term homoousios — “of one and the same essence” — in light of its past association with Sabellianism. This cohort instead preferred the use of homoiousios , meaning “of a similar nature,” as a compromise. The theological tensions at issue came to a head in 359 at two councils — one in Ariminum in the West and one in Seleucia in the East. Under imperial pressure, most bishops were pressured into accepting vague Homoian creeds, rejecting any discussion of substance, or essence, altogether. Athanasius, though still in hiding, was following all this closely and writing prolifically — refuting Arianism, defending Orthodoxy, and even reaching out to the moderates to plant the seeds of reconciliation. In the end, the Arian movement began to crumble beneath its own contradictions. The radicals broke off into their own sects, the moderates lost credibility, and the conservatives began inching back toward the Nicene party.  When Constantius died in 361, Julian, known to history as the Apostate, became Emperor, and soon thereafter restored the exiled bishops. Athanasius thus promptly returned to Alexandria, just twelve days after Julian’s edict was posted, marking the end of his third exile. His return to Alexandria, however, would be short lived, lasting only about eight months.  During this time, Athanasius held a council in Alexandria, in 362, gathering together some of the most faithful bishops, many of whom had suffered during the Arian Controversy, in an effort to heal the divisions in the Church, especially after the failure of earlier councils which had attempted to do so. Among the concerns apparently addressed at this council was the heresy of the Pneumatomachaeans, or Tropiki, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit — a natural outcome of the Arian heresy, for if the Son was created, then so was the Holy Spirit, and if the Son was not of the same essence as the Father, then neither was the Spirit. In a synodal letter from Alexandria to Antioch issued after the council, Athanasius and the other bishops demanded that all converts from Arianism issue a condemnation against “those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and separate from the essence of Christ. For those who while pretending to cite the faith confessed at Nicaea, venture to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, deny Arianism in words only, while in thought they return to it.” [78] And irrespective of this letter, Athanasius wrote against this heresy in certain of his writings, including his important letters to Serapion, the Bishop of Thmuis, [79] to whom Antony had bequeathed one of his two garments while gifting the other to Athanasius himself. [80] Athanasius led reconciliatory efforts with profound wisdom, encouraging peace and unity, albeit not at the expense of sound doctrine, while even assisting in the restoration of some who had previously been aligned with Arianism, without harshly condemning them — in the words of Jerome, this council “snatched the world from the jaws of Satan.” [81] The wisdom of Athanasius in seeking unity was, however, woefully uncommon. A pro-Nicene bishop named Lucifer, for instance, in blind zeal ordained a bishop in Antioch to replace a traveling bishop without the proper support, occasioning an enduring division both in Antioch and between the Eastern and Western churches, even those among them that were of the Nicene faith. Still, Athanasius remained resolute, expending every effort in striving towards legitimate reconciliation.  From the Fourth Exile to the End of Athanasius’ Life (362-373) [82] Emperor Julian had only just recalled the bishops when he took exception to Athanasius’ exercise of his episcopal functions as a result of that restoration, claiming that he had recalled the exiled bishops to their countries, but not to their sees. He therefore ordered, in several correspondences, that Athanasius leave Egypt at once, or risk severe punishment.  In time, Athanasius acquiesced to the Emperor’s orders, and prepared to leave the city in October of 362. At the sight of it, his associates and friends were deeply saddened to lose their shepherd yet again, but he encouraged them, saying: “Be of good heart! It is only a cloud, and will soon pass away.” [83] At this, Athanasius took a Nile boat and set off toward Upper Egypt, but finding that he was tracked by the government officers he directed the boat’s course to be reversed, leading them to cross paths with their pursuers on the water. The soldiers, unsuspectingly, called to them regarding whether they had seen Athanasius, and he himself, in his characteristic wittiness, replied “he is not a great way off!” [84] Thus Athanasius evaded his hunters, and returned to the first station on the road east of Alexandria before traveling to Upper Egypt as far as Upper Hermupolis [85] and Antinoupolis. As Athanasius approached Hermupolis, the bishops, clergy, and monks, about 100 in number, lined both banks of the Nile to welcome him, prompting him to wonder aloud: “Who are these that fly as a cloud and as doves with their young ones?” [86] Upon arriving, he greeted Abba Theodore before asking about the brethren and then being mounted on a donkey and escorted to the monastery with burning torches, [87] with Abba Theodore walking before him on foot. Athanasius’ visit to the monasteries was well pleasing to him, and he expressed approval of what he encountered there. And when Theodore, upon departing for his Easter visitation of the brethren, asked Athanasius to remember him in his prayers, his answer was characteristic of a man steeped in the Scriptures and possessed of a biblical tongue: “If I forget you, O Jerusalem…” [88] Thereafter, about midsummer in 363, Athanasius is found near Antinoupolis [89] , where loyal messengers warned him that his pursuers were again making progress. Thus, Theodore brought his covered boat to escort Athanasius up to Tabenne [90] and with an elder named Pammon they made their way slowly to their destination. Meanwhile, Athanasius became alarmed, praying quietly while Theodore’s monks towed the boat from the shore. In reply to an encouraging remark of Pammon, he spoke of the peace of mind he felt when under persecution, and of the consolation of suffering and even death for Christ’s sake. Hence Pammon glanced at Theodore, and they both smiled, barely restraining their laughter. Athanasius was confused — “do you think that I am a coward?,” he asked. “Tell him,” Theodore said to Pammon in response. “No, you tell him,” Pammon retorted. Theodore then informed Athanasius that at that very hour, Julian had been killed in Persia, and that he should lose no time in making his way to the new Christian Emperor, Jovian, who would restore him to the Church. Athanasius then briefly returned to Alexandria before traveling secretly to meet Emperor Jovian and returning with him to Antioch. With imperial support, he was officially restored to his see, ending his fourth exile. He acted quickly, knowing the Arians were contriving a plot to block his return and install their own bishop, Lucius, and won Jovian’s support with a strong letter affirming the Nicene Creed, especially the divinity of the Holy Spirit.  While in Antioch, it must be said, Athanasius strove to heal the divisions that were needlessly caused by the rashness of Lucifer, but the two groups, both doctrinally Orthodox, in opposition there secondary to that bishop’s interference were irreconcilable, and while certain bishops there subscribed to the Nicene Creed, Athanasius suspected not all were sincere, especially those suspected as evading any clear affirmation of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius returned to Alexandria in early 365, but soon faced a fifth, and final, expulsion, this time under Jovian’s successor, Valens, whose support was regrettably accorded to the Arians. This exile was short — Athanasius spent its duration in his own country home outside Alexandria, and popular support and political instability led to his recall within months.  For the final seven years of his life, Athanasius lived in peace in Alexandria. He continued building churches and administering the affairs of the Church with a firm but fair conviction. He supported Basil of Caesarea’s emerging opposition to Arianism in the East, saying of him that he was the kind of bishop every diocese would wish to have. As the end of Athanasius’ life drew near, new theological challenges continued to emerge — not only the denial of the godhead of the Holy Spirit by certain factions, but also the denial of the human soul of Christ. Even in old age, Athanasius responded forcefully to these notions in writing, defending the Church’s faith in Christ’s full humanity with his marked clarity of thought, firm grasp of the Scriptures, and intimate familiarity with the Tradition of the Church. And so, in May of 373, at the age of 75 and after 45 years in the papacy, Athanasius quietly passed away, but not before naming Peter, an able and pious priest in Alexandria, as his successor.  From the Death of Athanasius to the Council of Constantinople (373-381) [91] The Arians, ever cunning and opportunistic, seized the opportunity of Athanasius’ death by submitting a bribe to the governor and testifying that the new Pope Peter was accustomed to worshipping idols, among other false accusations. The governor’s soldiers were therefore commissioned to invade the churches, and proceeded to violate both them and the believers assembled in them in horrifying ways. The governor’s intention moreover having been to kill Pope Peter, he was left no recourse but to flee this new persecution, going into hiding for some time. From his place of refuge, he authored a public circular wherein he recorded the relevant events.  Meanwhile, Valens, the Arian emperor of the East, had returned Lucius the Arian, the intruder patriarch, to Alexandria. This Lucius carried out a campaign of severe persecution against the Orthodox, torturing all who refused to accept and adhere to Arianism, which assault even reached the monks of the wilderness. At this time, Pope Peter sought refuge in Rome, where Pope Damasus I received and hosted him. He remained in his hospitality five years, during which the people learned from him about the Egyptian monastic system and its fathers, until he returned to Alexandria in the Spring of 378.  Then, also in 378, the Western emperor Gratian removed the Arian bishop, Euzoius, from Antioch, and handed over the churches there to the Orthodox Meletius of Antioch — in whose absence Lucifer had unfortunately ordained a rival bishop for Antioch around 362 A.D., as we have seen above, and who had presided in October 379 over the great synod of Antioch in which dogmatic agreement between East and West was finally established.  At this time, Gregory of Nazianzus reluctantly acquiesced to being relocated from his small diocese of Sasima to the see of Constantinople in order to win over the city to Nicene Orthodoxy, after it had been so entirely overrun with Arianism that there did not remain one Orthodox church there at which Gregory could reside and from which he could preach and serve. Thus, he commenced his service in Constantinople in a villa lent to him by his cousin, which he called the Anastasis . Gregory’s homilies, extraordinarily eloquent and moving as they were, were well received by the Christians of Constantinople, and attracted ever-growing crowds to the Anastasis . Fearing his popularity, his opponents decided to strike — during the evening service for the Feast of the Resurrection in 379, an Arian mob descended upon his church, wounding Gregory and killing another bishop.  With the arrival of the emperor Theodosius in 380, however, the theological situation began to turn towards its final resolution, in favor of Nicaea. In view of the ongoing issues with the Arians, along with other pressing heresies, such as the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople in 381. 150 bishops attended, denouncing Arianism and several other heresies, including that of the Pneumatomachaeans.  At the Council, the Nicene Creed was expanded and revised to include several additional articles of faith, concerning the Holy Spirit, the Church, one baptism for the remission of sins, the resurrection of the dead and the eternal life, with its original anathemas removed. Four canons were also promulgated, dealing with several jurisdictional and doctrinal matters. Two additional canons arising from a second council in Constantinople, in 382, were at some later time appended to these, and a spurious additional canon was at some point added to the collection as a purported seventh canon of Constantinople.  From the Council of Constantinople on, Arianism gradually weakens until it becomes operative only on the fringes of the mainstream Church. In light of its consistent endorsement of the Nicene position and resistance to the Arians, the reign of Theodosius, between 379 and 395, provided the stability and political support required to effectively oust Arianism from the Empire, rendering it an enfeebled shell of its once dominant position. But Arianism, even while weakened to the utmost extent, still cannot be said to have died with the Council of Constantinople. Its influence persisted among several peoples outside the Roman Empire, including the Goths, Langobards and Vandals of Western Europe. Later, echoes of Arianism are found resounding in the heresy of the Ishmaelites — the Muslims — then among several factions in the Protestant Reformation, and finally down to our day with the Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Concluding Remarks The general understanding of the Arian Controversy, even in the minds of those who possess a higher than average measure of theological or historical familiarity, is most often reductive, simplistic, and lacking in the nuance necessary to engender either an accurate appreciation of the matter or the sorts of instructive principles one might garner from a more informed appreciation of it. But such a superficial narrative, whatever its motives or causes, is, as I hope we have conveyed in this series, a disservice both to the memory of the Fathers who withstood fierce opposition in defense of the Faith of Nicaea and to the reader’s potential edification at studying and coming to learn the subject history.  A few concluding comments, by way of elicited and hoped-for lessons, are now in order, so as to bring our series to an edifying and inspiring close.  In no uncertain terms, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the Arians more generally, were not intentional  heretics. That is, they did not purposefully choose to espouse heresy, or to cause the harm to the Church that arose as a result of their actions and doctrines. In this regard, the words of the Lord with respect to the Jews — “they know not what they do” [92] — apply with equal force to the Arians, and to all heretics in the Church’s history. “Professing to be wise, they became fools,” [93] with there being no greater testament to this foolishness than the Arian system’s ultimate illogicality and self-contradiction — “how, starting from the Sonship of Christ, it came round to a denial of His Sonship; how it started with an interest for Monotheism and landed in a vindication of polytheism; how it began from the incomprehensibility of God even to His Son, and ended (in its most pronounced form) with the assertion that the divine Nature is no mystery at all, even to us.” [94] The Arians, it must be said, were truly convinced of their dogmatic assertions. They had received their teaching in a manner of discipleship, however unsound, and were convinced of its veracity and sincere in their belief that the Orthodox, and not they themselves, were the innovators and proclaimers of a deviant and unfounded doctrine. As Antony precisely observed, their fatal failure was thus in their ignorance of the truth regarding themselves:  “As for Arius, who stood up in Alexandria, he spoke strange words about the Only-begotten: to him who has no beginning, he gave a beginning, to him who is ineffable among men he gave an end, and to the immovable he gave movement. ‘If one man sins against another man, one prays for him to God. But if someone sins against God, to whom should one pray for him?’ (1 Sam. 2:25). That man has begun a great task, an unhealable wound. If he had known himself, his tongue would not have spoken about what he did not know. It is, however, manifest, that he did not know himself.” [95] The problem of the heretics, after all, is invariably this: spiritual unsoundness, defective discipleship, and poverty of virtue.  Equally instructive in the story of the Arian Controversy is the danger to the Church of both spiritual immaturity and theological naïveté, especially among those entrusted by the Church to teach and shepherd the flock of Christ. The Arians themselves, as we have seen, having received elevated ecclesial positions and educational posts, were empowered and emboldened in their cause, with their reach and impact heightened and rendered potent by their membership in the clerical ranks. The Nicene Fathers, moreover, were heavily opposed and vehemently challenged in their defense of Nicaea and its faith not only by the Arians, but also by the conservative and intellectually unsophisticated bishops whom the politically savvy Arians manipulated and influenced to further their own cause. These caused great pain to the Church, perpetuating division and confusion in the wake of what they considered a defense of ecclesial order and traditional norms.  What is more, through the Controversy, the Church learned firsthand the cost of involving worldly powers and political authorities in ecclesial matters, and of putting its trust “in princes and the children of men, in whom is no salvation.” [96] It was Athanasius himself who “was the first to grasp this clearly,” and, curiously, it was the Donatists and Arian Anomoeans who in the fourth century were most unwavering in their opposition to “civil intervention in Church affairs.” [97] It took the turmoil of the fourth century to educate the believers in the fact that “the subjection of religion to the State is equally mischievous with that of the State to the Church,” and to teach them “that the civil sword might be drawn in support of heresy” as much as in opposition to it. [98] In an age where a Christian, or pro-Christian, emperor was a novelty, and before the consequences of ecclesial dependence upon and entwining with secular powers had been experienced and discerned, however, the bishops of the time find excuse for their inexperience. The same cannot be said today. And finally, for our purposes, the Controversy clearly witnesses in history to the threat of debilitated spirituality, and of divesting the things of God of the reverence and decorum due to them. The Arians, as we have discussed, carried theological debate and discourse on matters of doctrine well beyond the sanctity of the theological school or the reverence of the liturgical setting, engaging, and assaulting the minds of, the theologically untrained and doctrinally illiterate in public and irreverent disputations concerning matters too profound for them. [99] Gregory of Nyssa therefore laments, concerning the Arian Controversy and especially the time of the Council of Constantinople:  “For the entire city is filled with such people — the alleys, the markets, the streets, the wards, the clothing merchants, the bankers, those who sell us food. If you ask about the money, he gives you his philosophy on the begotten and the unbegotten. And if you inquire about the price of bread, ‘The Father is greater,’ he answers, ‘and the Son subordinate.’ And if you say, ‘Is the bath ready?’, he declares that the Son is from nothing.” [100] For this reason, Gregory of Nazianzus, in Constantinople, around 380 A.D., reminds his hearers: “Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.” [101] But despite these and the other disheartening aspects of the subject history, faithfulness, integrity, courage, and perseverance invariably shine through the gloom of ecclesial controversy. In the first place, the faithfulness of God, who “did not leave Himself without witness,” [102] but prepared in due season those who embodied the spirit, mind, and heart required to withstand the relentlessness of Satanic warfare against the Lord and His Church. And then, the virtue of the believers, whether clergy or laity, known or anonymous, who by God’s grace and their fidelity, sincerity, and determination did all that could be done to uphold the Faith of Christ defended and proclaimed at Nicaea — whether personally defending that Faith, as did Athanasius and his allies, or sheltering Athanasius and the other pro-Nicene leaders, as did the Egyptian monks and the believers of Alexandria and the other sees, even in the face of threats to their lives and livelihoods due to their sheltering imperial fugitives and men accused of treason, or, perhaps most significantly, persisting in supporting their Orthodox teachers and shepherds and passing on to their children and in their families the spirit and teaching of the sound Faith of Christ.  In every ecclesial controversy, and in every era of weakness or conflict in the Church, there are found those, however few, who stand firm in the Lord, remain faithful in their life with God, and possess the courage and determination, with wisdom and intellectual clarity, to defend the truth and proclaim it no matter the cost. Just as there is found a Judas in every generation, so also in every generation does God provide a John, or a Paul, or a Peter, or an Athanasius.  Summation In the fourth century, Arius and his colleagues proffered a teaching, concerning the Trinity, which claimed legitimacy as the authentic doctrine of the Church. But in the lead-up to and proceedings of Nicaea, “the doom of Arianism was uttered, and in the six decades which followed,” its falsity was confirmed. [103] “Every possible alternative formula of belief as to the Person of Christ was forced upon the mind of the early Church, was fully tried, and was found wanting. Arianism above all was fully tried and above all found lacking. The Nicene formula alone has been found to render possible the life, to satisfy the instincts of the Church of Christ.” [104] “The Nicene definition and the work of Athanasius which followed were a summons back to the simple first principles of the Gospel and the Rule of Faith. What then is their value to ourselves? Above all, this, that they have preserved to us what Arianism would have destroyed, that assurance of Knowledge of, and Reconciliation to, God in Christ of which the divinity of the Saviour is the indispensable condition; if we are now Christians in the sense of St. Paul we owe it under God to the work of the great synod.” [105] Thanks be to God.  — [1] Jerome, Dialogue with the Luciferians  19 [2] Ibid. [3] See Epiphanius, Against Heresies  69.1 [4] See  Epiphanius, Against Heresies  69.3 [5] Ibid . [6] Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition , 32 [7] Modern Assiut. [8] See  Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.15. [9] See Ibid. [10] See Acts of Peter of Alexandria  9 [11] For an overview of the scholarly opposition to this tradition, see  Williams, 32-41, but especially 36-41.  [12] See Sozomen 1.15, 33.1; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History  1.1; Acts of Peter of Alexandria  22 (positing that this was due to Achillas being deceived and having compassion on Arius). [13] See Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.2, 6.14-18 and Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History 1.3, 6.8-10; While this curious possibility is founded in part upon the history of Philostorgius, a known Arian and unreliable historian, it is recorded also by Theodoret of Cyrus — a Nestorian historian and theologian of the fifth century whose import lies in his opposition to Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the Nestorian Controversy — and cannot be dismissed offhand, especially as Arius’ immense popularity and popular significance in Alexandria in the years shortly after 313 render it not impossible that he would have been considered for that post even despite Pope Peter’s exhortations and warnings. [14] See Epiphanius, Against Heresies  69.1, 69.2 [15] See Epiphanius, Against Heresies  69.3 [16] See Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.5 [17] See Epiphanius, Against Heresies  68.4.1, who notes that it was Meletius himself who reported him. [18] See Constantine, Letter to Alexander and Arius  6 [19] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.5 [20] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  1.15 [21] While, as we set forth in the second paper of our series, Collothus would soon be rehabilitated, some of those he ordained caused significant issues thereafter. [22] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.15 [23] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  1.6 [24] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters ( Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers  II.IV), xvi [25] See Ibid. [26] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  1.15 [27] See Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies , 76; See Constantine, Letter to Arius  15 (stating: “Discard then this silly transgression of the law, you witty and sweet-voiced fellow, singing evil songs for the unbelief of senseless persons”). [28] Arius, Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia [29] See Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.15 [30] See  John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, 245 [31] See Eusebius of Caesarea, The Life of Constantine 4 [32] Schaff and Wace, xvi; see also  Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  1.15; Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  1.6 [33] Arius, Letter to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria [34] Constantine, Letter to Alexander and Arius  4 [35] Although it did restore Collothus to communion and remedy his schism to some extent. [36] See Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity  (Second Ed.), 810 [37] Schaff and Wace, xvii [38] See  Newman, 257 [39] See  Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  1.8 [40] See  Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15 [41] See  Schaff and Wace, xvii [42] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.8 [43] Ibid. [44] Ibid. [45] See Ibid. [46] Schaff and Wace, xviii [47] Ibid. [48] Ibid. [49] Ibid. [50] Ibid. [51] Ibid. [52] Ibid. [53] Schaff and Wace, xix. [54] 1 Corinthians 11:7 [55] Schaff and Wace, xix [56] Ibid. [57] Schaff and Wace, xvii [58] Schaff and Wace, xix [59] Ibid. [60] “The objections felt to the word [ homoousios ] at the council were (1) philosophical, based on the identification of [ ousia ] with either [ eîdos ] ( i.e.  as implying a ‘formal essence’ prior to Father and Son alike) or [ hylē ]; (2) dogmatic, based on the identification of [ ousia ] with [ tode ti ], and on the consequent Sabellian sense of the [ homoousion ]; (3) Scriptural, based on the non-occurrence of the word in the Bible; (4) Ecclesiastical, based on the condemnation of the word by the Synod which deposed Paul at Antioch in 269.” (Schaff and Wace, xxxi). [61] Schaff and Wace, xx [62] Ibid. [63] Ibid. [64] Schaff and Wace, xxi [65] Jerome, Dialogue with the Luciferians  19 [66] In the interest of brevity, we shall generally cite portions of certain relevant texts here, to which the reader may refer in considering the historical information set forth in this and all subsequent sections. Here, see  Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  1.15-2.3; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  2.17-3.2; Schaff and Wace, xxi, xxxvii-xli. [67] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  2.17 [68] The Bohairic Life of Pachomius 28; see also  Schaff and Wace, xxxvii [69] See Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  2.30; cf.  Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya  18, 19; cf . Athanasius, Letter to Serapion , which treats of the death of Arius. His death is potentially attributable to a massive lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage secondary to a colon cancer or other colonic pathology, which may perhaps explain his wasted and lifeless appearance as documented by Constantine in his correspondence to him ( see  Constantine, Letter to Arius  35). [70] See Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  2.4-25; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  3.3-22; Schaff and Wace, xlii-xlviii [71] See  Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  2:26-3.4; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  3.23-5.7; Schaff and Wace xlviii-lviii [72] Schaff and Wace, xlviii [73] This practice in fact commenced with Athanasius, for the purpose of combatting the Arians by empowering the most theologically trained believers of his day, who were predominantly from among the monks, with the influence and power of the episcopacy, and had not been the Church’s system prior to him. [74] There were many bishops who were Orthodox substantially, but rejected the Nicene formula: this was the case in the East generally ( e.g.  Cyril of Jerusalem), “except where the bishops were positively Arian” ( see  Schaff and Wace, xlix). [75] Hosius ultimately denounced the Arian heresy thereafter, shortly before his death, and it is clear that he only signed under torture. [76] See  Acts 5:38 [77] See Arius,  Thalia  6, 16: “He [the Son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God’s own being For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being as him…The Father in his essence is foreign to the Son…” [78] Athanasius, Tome to the Antiochians 3 [79] Thmuis is most likely a village in modern Sharqiyya, near Zagazig. [80] See Athanasius, Life of Antony 91 [81] Jerome, Dialogue with the Luciferians  20 [82] See Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  3.5-4.20; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  5.8-6.19; Schaff and Wace, lviii-lxiii [83] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  5.14 [84] Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 3.9; Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  3.14 [85] Al-Ashmunein, in modern Minya, near modern Mallawi. [86] Isaiah 55:8 (LXX) [87] See   The Bohairic Life of Pachomius 200-204 [88] Psalm 137:5a [89] On the other side of the Nile, opposite modern Mallawi. [90] Where Pachomius had founded his first monastic community, five kilometers east of modern Nag Hammadi. [91] See Socrates 4.21-5.8; Sozomen 6.20-7.7 [92] Luke 23:34 [93] Romans 1:22 [94] Schaff and Wace, xxx [95] Antony the Great, Letter 4 [96] Psalm 146:3 [97] Schaff and Wace, xlii [98] See Ibid. [99] See  Psalm 131:1 [100] Gregory of Nyssa, Concerning the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit and in Abraham,  in Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, Gregory of Nyssa’s Doctrinal Works: A Literary Study  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 221. [101] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration  27.3 [102] Acts 14:17 [103] Schaff and Wace, xxx [104] Ibid. [105] Schaff and Wace, xxxiii —

In the Wednesday Θεοτοκία ( Theotokia ), the Coptic Orthodox believers chant: “God who is at rest in his holies took flesh from the Virgin for our salvation.” [1] Translated from the Coptic ⲛⲏ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁϥ as “those which are holy and His ( i.e.  His holies),” this prayer references both God’s holy ones and His holy places, and allows for both definitions. While an emphasis can be placed on either definition, for our purposes, we will reflect on His holy ones in order to elaborate three points: the saints in the eyes of God, referencing a few Scriptural verses on God’s delight and pleasure in the saints and righteous ones; the saints in the eyes of the Church and the importance of their veneration in the Church by their placement within the liturgical services; and the saints in our personal eyes, including the importance of not only viewing the saints as models to imitate, but also recognizing that we are called to be saints and must freely accept this invitation from God. Thus, we will delve into how the saints are viewed in the Orthodox sense throughout the Scriptures and the Liturgy, and how we are to emulate them in our daily lives. While the resting of God in His saints applies to those whom the Church venerates and formally recognizes as saints, it very much also applies to the living believers: we find, in the New Testament, the term “saints” being used synonymously with “Christians.” We learn the same principle from Paul the Apostle, who emphasizes in his first letter to the Thessalonians: “ This is the will of God: your sanctification ” (1 Thess. 4.3). As Christians, being the New Israel and God’s chosen people ( cf.  Rom. 11), we foster the presence of the Lord God in our very being. This is a crucial message reiterated by St. Paul in both of his letters to the Corinthians: “ Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you ” (1 Cor. 3.16 RSV) and “ For we are the temple of the living God ” (2 Cor. 6.16 RSV). St. John the Theologian also states in the introduction of his Gospel that “ the Word became flesh and dwelt in us ” (Jn. 1:14) [2] , indicating that the dwelling or resting of God in and among His saints applies also to us, the living. This leads us to realize that the natural human condition is sainthood, as we recall the words of St. Irenæus of Lyons, in his treatise Adversus Hæreses , who best summarized this principle of our Christian life: “For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God.” [3] Abba Antony likewise teaches this, emphasizing that the soul in its natural state is holy: “For the Lord has told us before, the Kingdom of God is within you. All virtue needs, then, is our willing, since it is in us, and arises from us. For virtue exists when the soul maintains its intellectual part according to nature. It holds fast according to nature when it remains as it was made—and it was made beautiful and perfectly straight…As far as the soul is concerned, being straight consists in its intellectual part’s being according to nature, as it was created.” ( Vita Antonii  20). [4] “ But just as he who called you is holy, you yourselves should also be holy in every aspect of your life, because it is written, ‘Be holy, for I am holy’ ” (1 Pet. 1.15–16). St. Peter the Apostle urges Christians to manifest God’s holiness in every aspect of life by echoing the message of holiness and purity found throughout Leviticus: “ Because I am the Lord your God, and you will be sanctified, and you will be holy, for I myself, the Lord your God, am holy ” (Lev. 11.44). This was instructed by the Lord God Himself to Moses to convey to the children of Israel: “ Speak in the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You will be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ ” (Lev. 19.2), and again, “ Indeed, you will be holy because I myself, the Lord your God, am holy. And you will observe my commandments, and you will do them; I myself am the Lord who sanctifies you ” (Lev. 20.7–8). It is not that the commandments are the sources of sanctification and holiness, but they are rather the means that lead us to sanctification and holiness. Lastly, concerning the priests and their purity, the Lord God says, “ And he will keep himself holy. This person offers the gifts of the Lord your God; he will be holy because I, the Lord, the one who sanctifies them, am holy ” (Lev. 21.8). Though we may not all be priests in the sense of ordained ministry, this verse serves as a reminder that since we are a royal priesthood, as St. Peter later mentions (1 Pet. 2.9, cf.  Ex. 19.6), and because we offer the greatest among gifts that we can offer—our hearts, as instructed at the beginning of every Anaphora: “Ἄνω ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας! Lift up your hearts!”—we are called to sanctify our hearts and to consecrate ourselves entirely to the Lord, for He is holy. The Saints in the Eyes of God Of all the mentions of saints and references to righteous ones in the Scriptures, the majority are found in the book of Psalms. Contemplating on a few of these Psalms, one can evidently see that these saints and holy men of God are held in high esteem in the Kingdom of the heavens. The mention of saints in the Psalms provides a guide to understanding how the saints are pleasing in the eyes of the Lord. Aside from the virtuous lives which the saints lived, their mere death alone is “ Precious in the sight of the Lord ” (Ps. 115.6 RSV). [5] , [6] Reflecting on this, it is clear that death is not the end of the human experience, but rather the beginning of the even more abundant eternal life ( cf. Jn. 10.10). Not only is the death of the saints precious ( cf.  Ps. 115.6), but the company of saints in the heavens, surrounding the throne of God, also creates a dwelling place for the Lord Himself. In this dwelling place, the Lord is glorified, and this glory is comprised of the culmination of the saints gathered around His table in His Kingdom ( cf.  Lk. 22.28–34). We will later see that we also are called to be the dwellings of the Lord, like our fellow members in His Body—the saints who have preceded us. The saints called upon the Lord and He heard them: “ Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel also was among those who called on his name. They cried to the Lord, and he answered them ” (Ps. 98.6 RSV). This act of crying to the Lord allows for the Lord God to be glorified in His saints ( cf.  Ps. 88.8). This is clear in the Life of Antony  from the conversation Antony had with the Lord following his struggle and fight with the demons: “Antony entreated the vision that appeared, saying, ‘Where are you? Why didn’t you appear in the beginning, so that you could stop my distresses?’ And a voice came to him: ‘I was here, Antony, but I waited to watch your struggle. And now, since you persevered and were not defeated, I will be your helper forever, and I will make you famous everywhere’” ( Vita Antonii  10). [7] From this excerpt, we see the Lord’s pleasure in the adversity Antony endured, and how his cries were transformed into the means of his glorification and reward. While the Lord found Antony worthy of universal praise, Antony acknowledged in a practical, unspoken manner, that glory is due to God alone, preventing pride or vain-glory from entering his heart and mind by reflecting praise back to God who is alone worthy of glory. In doing so, Antony practically realized the meaning of “ God is glorified in the counsel of holy ones ” (Ps. 88.8a). Antony embodied the verse, “ He is great and awesome upon all those who are around him ” (Ps. 88.8b) in its full context, thereby presenting us with the opportunity to understand how God is surrounded by the saints when He is glorified in them. The Lord is not just surrounded by the saints, nor does He merely receive glory through them, but He also calls and elevates us to the condition of holiness. We are called to “ Praise God among his holy ones (ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ) ” (Ps. 150.1). In the Septuagint, ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ can simply be translated as “his holies” referring to both His holy ones and His holy places. This allows us to praise God in His holy places and to praise Him in His saints, emphasizing the dignity and honor that is bestowed to the saints by the Lord Himself ( cf.  Ps. 149.9). “The fact that the saints become the reason why we glorify God’s all-holy name is the most welcome offering that can be given to them. When they were alive, they strove to do everything for the glory of Christ, and now they rejoice from heaven when God is glorified because of them.” [8] The Saints in the Eyes of the Church In reflecting on this commentary, we can venture into how the Church venerates the saints and applies their remembrance in the Divine Liturgy. Though the Divine Liturgy is Christocentric, we still find that, in both the Coptic (Alexandrian) and Byzantine traditions, the diptych is placed after the invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Epiclesis  (ἐπίκλησις). In the Coptic Anaphora, the commemoration of the saints is identified as a command of the Lord: “As this, O Lord, is the command of Your only-begotten Son, that we share in the commemoration of Your saints (ⲛⲏ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲕ), graciously accord, O Lord, to remember all the saints who have pleased You since the beginning: our holy fathers the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, the preachers, the evangelists, the martyrs, the confessors, and all the spirits of the righteous perfected in the faith.” [9] Though the initial statement—“As this, O Lord, is the command of Your only-begotten Son, that we share in the commemoration of Your saints”—is both textually and ritually linked to the preceding commemoration of the Holies ( cf. Lk. 22.19), [10] , [11]  rather than constituting the commencement of a new segment, the believers are nevertheless enabled, through the following remembrance, to participate in commemorating the saints as a means of veneration within the most central practice of the Christian Faith—the Eucharistic Liturgy. In a manner similar to the Coptic Alexandrian tradition, the Byzantine rite also lists the saints: “Again, we offer You this spiritual worship for those who have reposed in the faith: forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith.” [12] In this remembrance of the saints and their veneration within the Liturgy, we find a bridge that allows the believers to connect with the perfected saints to form a unity of heaven and earth that transcends death, [13]  and leads to life-everlasting through the Eucharist. We are reminded of this by St. Shenoute the Archimandrite, who, in his homily read at the Ninth Hour prayers of Holy Wednesday of Pascha, ventures deeper into this reality: “The saints are weeping with you for the salvation of your soul.” [14] The conclusion of the commemoration in the Cyrillian Liturgy beautifully highlights the harmony between the reposed believers and those who are still sojourning on the earth: “Not that we are worthy, O Master, to intercede for the blessedness of those who are there, but rather they are standing before the tribunal of Your only-begotten Son, that they may be interceding instead for our poverty and our frailty. May You be a forgiver of our iniquities, for the sake of their holy supplications and for the sake of Your blessed name which is called upon us.” [15] This illustrates the profound unity between the heavenly and the earthly in regards to our salvation and sanctification, which the Lord Christ established on the Cross, as we pray in the Gregorian Reconciliation Prayer: “You have reconciled the earthly with the heavenly and made the two into one, and fulfilled the economy in the flesh.” [16] Following along the Divine Liturgy, at the end of the Anaphora, the celebrant exclaims: “Τὰ Ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις! The Holy [things] are for the holy [ones]!” Through this movement from the Holy things (the Eucharist and the Epiclesis ) to the holy ones (the gathered members of the divine service) and the affirmation that the assembled believers are the ones who are called to be holy, asking for the worthiness to partake of that which is [the] Holy, we clearly see that the Divine Liturgy prepares us for the “liturgy” after the Liturgy—namely, how we conduct ourselves as Christians outside the institution of the Church ( i.e.  the “liturgy” of ordinary life). The Church uses this proclamation about the Holies as a reminder that the entire movement of the Divine Liturgy is “Holies for the holies.” Furthermore, this exclamation is an invitation to sanctity, which the Church provides through the Eucharist, and likewise by setting our forefathers as examples of Faith. To this point, it is noteworthy that in the prayer of the Epiclesis , the Holy Spirit is called to descend and transform not only the elements, but also the faithful in attendance so that they might be rendered worthy to receive the Eucharist: “We ask You…that Your Holy Spirit descend upon us and upon these gifts set forth, and purify them, change them, and manifest them as a sanctification of Your saints.” [17] Hearing that the Holies are for the holy should therefore not engender discouragement, but rather hope and conviction that our sanctification is through the Holies that we partake of at the culmination of the Eucharistic Liturgy: the Holies are for the holy, and it is only through the Holies that we are made holy. Moreover, we find that the Church further encourages her members by way of a synaxis of saints who have lived and embodied a variety of experiences, as was listed in the diptych, and we see the diversity of the paths our forefathers took towards their sanctification— ways within the Way. Some were martyrs and others confessors; some were ascetics and virgins and others married; some were priests, bishops, and patriarchs and many had no clerical or administrative position in the Church; some were professionals in various trades and other were farmers or shepherds; all, however, simply lived exemplary, holy, godly, authentically Christian lives. The Saints in the Eyes of our Lives As the Didache  instructs: “Every day seek out the company of the saints, that you may find comfort in their words” (4.2). [18] In recognizing this Apostolic teaching, we are to take the saints as our guides, models, and means of consolation and encouragement in the Christian life. For this reason, in every veneration service of the Coptic Church, the Antiphonarion is read, so that the hearers may ponder throughout the day how they are to conduct themselves, not only as being the image of the Lord Christ, but also as striving to have the same mind and likeness of our fathers and mothers the saints. Paul the Apostle thus instructs the Corinthians: “ Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ ” (1 Cor. 11.1 NKJV). In this light, there is profound beauty and wisdom in the Coptic Orthodox Church’s dedication of a whole component of her Lectionary system to the lives of the saints and their diverse experiences. Rendering the Weekday Lectionary readings dependent upon the Synaxarion commemoration(s) of the day, [19] the Coptic Church relates the saints to the Scriptures which they knew and embodied, and from these together presents to her members one message for edification. “The Weekday Lectionary’s focus on the saints is not a departure from the Coptic Church’s orientation to God, but rather, recognizing the human need for practical examples for emulation, presents the saints as examples for the sake of perfection and attaining to Christ ( cf.  Eph. 4.13) at the Last Day.” [20] St. Paul advises, “ Considering the results of their conduct, imitate their faith ” (Heb. 13.7), and St. John Chrysostom relays a similar message in his first homily on the Maccabees, “that by imitating the virtue of these saints here, we may be able to share their crowns too,” [21] reiterating the universal invitation to the call of sanctity and emphasizing the calling for all to be saints so as to have a share and inheritance with the rest of the choir of the saints: “As for us all, grant us our Christian perfection that would be pleasing to You, and give them and us a share and inheritance with all Your saints” (Coptic Litany of the Departed). [22]  After all, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church concisely captures: “‘What is the Church if not the assembly of the saints?’ The communion of saints is the Church.” [23] Conclusion The Scriptures holistically demonstrate the dignity and honor that the saints are given and the value that God grants them, calling them not only holy, but also godly . In complementing this, the Divine Liturgy presents to us the importance of the saints in our lives and shows us how we must mirror their lives, which the Scriptures and Church Fathers further highlight, for the sake of the heavenly reward in this temporary world and also for the eternal reward in the coming age, which is the everlasting Kingdom of the Holy Trinity. Through the guidance and sustenance of the Scriptures and the liturgical life—offered to us in a living way in the Orthodox Church—we are obliged to accept the call to sanctity, as did the saints who preceded us, following the words of the great Apostle Paul: “ Truly, God did not call us for impurity, but to sanctification! Therefore, whoever rejects this does not reject a human [command] but God, who has also given you his Holy Spirit, [for] this is the will of God: your sanctification ” (1 Thess. 4.7–8, 3). — [1] Coptic Orthodox Psalmody, Wednesday Theotokia , 7.2. [2] While most translations, if not all, say, “among us,” I found it best to use “in us” to reflect the Greek ἐν ἡμῖν and the Coptic ⲛ̀ϧⲣⲏⲓ ⲛ̀ϧⲏⲧⲉⲛ. Furthermore, the Greek ἐσκήνωσεν, from the root σκηνή, literally means “to make a tabernacle amongst,” providing a more beautiful imagery than just “dwelling,” and echoes the experience of the Old Testament Tabernacle which resembled the presence of God. [3] Irenæus, Against Heresies  IV.20.7 ( ANF  1:490). [4] Robert C. Gregg, trans., Athanasius: The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus  (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1980), 46. [5] Here, the Old Testament translation is from the Revised Standard Version  (RSV), while the numbering is Septuagint (LXX) based on the Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition (LES2). Unless otherwise indicated, all OT translations and numbering are from LES2. Unless otherwise indicated, all NT translations are from the Eastern Orthodox Bible: New Testament (EOB: NT). [6] The LXX in this verse uses the Greek root ὅσιος, as opposed to ἅγιος, and the MT uses the Hebrew root חָסִיד ( chasid ). Both roots rather mean godly, not just saintly or holy, “ in that the latter (ἅγιος) emphasizes separation, whereas the former (ὅσιος) emphasizes harmony ” (The New Testament Greek word: οσιος). “οσιος” Abarim Publications’ Biblical Dictionary . < https://www.abarim-publications.com/DictionaryG/o/o-s-i-o-sfin.html >, May 13, 2022. [7] Gregg, The Life of Antony , 39. [8] Hieromonk Gregorios, The Divine Liturgy: A Commentary in the Light of the Fathers  (Columbia, MO: Newrome Press, 2020), 239. [9] Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States, The Divine Liturgies Of Saints Basil, Gregory, and Cyril, 2nd ed.  (2004), 208–209. [10] Daniel Girgis, “Holies for the Holies” Living Tradition . < https://danielgirgis.com/2024/01/17/holies-for-the-holies/ >, January 17, 2024. [11] Similar to Gk ἁγίοις, Cop ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ can be translated both as “holy” and “saint.” For this reason, this simple mistranslation of the Coptic Anaphora shifts the attention from the Eucharist (the Holies) to the saints. Due to this inconvenience in translation, we have adapted a poor understanding (or interpretation) of this specific liturgical text. One can say that the difference in translation provides two different messages: one that contextual and relays what the Church wishes to convey while the other is merely contemplative due to liturgical illiteracy. [12] Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, The Divine Liturgy of our Father among the saints John Chrysostom: Clergy Edition (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2018), 34. [13] Rev. Michael Shanbour, Know the Faith: A Handbook for Orthodox Christians and Inquirers  (Chesterton: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2016), 298. [14] Fr. Abraham Azmy, ed., Book of the Holy Pascha, 5th ed.  (Hamden, CT: Virgin Mary and Archangel Michael Coptic Orthodox Church of Connecticut, 2010), 259. [15] Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern U.S., The Divine Liturgies , 354–355. [16] Ibid ., 258. [17] Ibid. , 196–197. [18] Bart D. Ehrman, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: I Clement, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 423. [19] Fr. Mikhail E. Mikhail, Focus on the Coptic Family: A Scriptural and Liturgical Guide Based on the Coptic Orthodox Lectionary  (Cleveland, OH: St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, 1993), 170–173. [20] Andrew A. Doss, The Coptic Orthodox Lectionary in Diagram  (Doss Press, 2024), 5. [21] John Chrysostom, The Cult of the Saints  (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006), 145. [22] Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern U.S., The Divine Liturgies , 22. [23] Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance with the Official Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John Paul II  (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 247. — Kyrillos Nashed is a tonsured Reader from the Coptic Orthodox Metropolis of the Southern United States, currently serving in St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Natick, MA. While deeply interested in all aspects of the Orthodox faith and the Coptic Orthodox tradition, Kyrillos is currently pursuing undergraduate studies at Hellenic College Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA, where his academic work focuses on canon law, liturgical studies, and ecumenical dialoguing. This article is an adaptation of a paper submitted for "Introduction to Orthodox Christianity," offered by Fr. Christopher Flesoras, PhD, in Spring 2024 at Hellenic College Holy Cross. Cover Art: The apse of the ancient church at St. Antony Monastery, Red Sea (circa 13th century). DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

[Scroll to the Original Arabic Letter — انتقل إلى الرسالة العربية الأصلية] A Letter of His Holiness Pope Kyrillos the Sixth On the Occasion of the Feast of Nayrouz To their eminences, our beloved brothers the metropolitans, the bishops, and our sons the blessed clergy and the congregation of the See of St. Mark. Grace, peace, and blessing from God our Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit the Comforter, to all of us and all our children — men, women, young men, and young women. On September 11 of this year, our new Coptic year begins, 1686 of the pure martyrs, which is the first day of the month of Tute, [so called] in reference to the first astronomer who established the ancient Egyptian calendar which was used only by the Copts for a long period of time before any other calendar was known to the world after it in both East and West. Out of their appreciation for this scholar, the ancient Egyptians elevated him to the ranks of the gods. {1}  So Thoth, or Tute, became the god of the pen, and the god of wisdom and knowledge, and his name was immortalized as the first month of the Egyptian, or Coptic, year. The origin of the Egyptian Coptic calendar was in 4241 B.C., that is, in the forty-third century B.C., when the ancient Egyptians observed the star Sirius, calculated the period between two of its appearances, and divided it into three major seasons (flooding, sowing, and harvesting), then into twelve months, each having thirty days. They added the remaining period, which was five days and a quarter, and made it a month which they called the Small Month. The Coptic year thus became 365 days in the common year and 366 days in the leap year. The Egyptian farmer observed this calendar because it corresponded to the agricultural seasons, and continues to observe it to this day. Towards the end of the third century A.D., the persecution of the Christians by the Roman emperor Diocletian began, and the emperor devised a meticulous plan to eradicate Christianity that was based on four points: (1) Killing the bishops and priests; (2) Destroying the churches; (3) Burning the holy books; (4) Expelling the Christians from governmental positions and permitting the shedding of their blood. The Copts in Egypt suffered the greatest severity of this persecution because Diocletian believed that the head of the serpent dwelt in Egypt. Therefore, he came personally and swore by his pagan gods that he would not cease from slaughtering the Christians by his own hand until the blood spilled by the Christians reached the knee of the horse. The emperor thus began to kill the Christians with his sword while riding on his horse, and it happened at sunset that the horse stumbled and fell to the ground, and the blood shed on the ground reached the knees of the horse.  The emperor had grown weary and fatigued from slaughtering the Christians, and the sword had left marks and wounds in his hand, so he considered himself to have fulfilled his vow to the gods, and so he ceased his slaughter of the Christians. The number of Christians killed was estimated to have reached approximately 840,000 martyrs. As a result of the severity   that the Christians in Egypt endured during the reign of this emperor, they decided to begin a new chapter in their history, dating it from the year 284 A.D., which was the year in which emperor Diocletian ascended the throne of the empire. On August 29 of that year, the first of Tute began for the first Coptic year. For this reason, the Coptic calendar is 284 years shorter than [the Gregorian calendar]. From this date onwards, the Coptic calendar became known as the calendar of the pure martyrs. Martyrdom for the sake of the Faith was and remains the glory of our people and a crown of pride for our Church such that she became known {2}  in all the centuries as the Church of the Martyrs, and her history as the history of the martyrs. It was said by some historians that the number of the martyrs who were martyred in Egypt exceeded the number of Christian martyrs in the whole world, and the famous proverb was invented which says that it is easier to relocate a mountain from its place than to covert a Copt from his beliefs. It was also said that every inch of Egyptian soil has been watered by the blood of the martyrs. The Copts of Egypt are the descendants of the martyrs who willingly accepted death over renouncing their faith and Church, and who did not accept to waver from their faith, whether to the right or to the left. And our Church remained, in her doctrine, rites, and tradition — as some foreign historians have said — a unique image of ancient Christianity and as an ancient artifact testifying to the Apostolic Faith in its most ancient form. It is therefore our responsibility to preserve the glorious heritage, the deposit of the Faith by the Holy Spirit Who dwells in us, as Saint Paul the Apostle says, to hold fast to our faith, doctrine, heritage, and traditions, to not waver from our ancient beliefs, and to remain steadfast in them until the last breath. So our Savior said: “[H]old fast what you have until I come” (Rev 2:[25]). And those — from among our congregation and children — who have left their country for a distant country should not forget their first love for God, their Church, and their homeland, and should fortify themselves against every foreign spirit, the spirit of sin and evil, and should behave in a manner befitting of Christ with all godliness and reverence, and should pray for the peace of their Church and their country for their victory over all enemies hidden and manifest, and for the sake of the spread of the kingdom of Christ. Remember that we are suffering a great difficulty in Israel’s seizure of the Holy Lands and its anticipated plan of demolishing the temples and places of worship in order to build its Temple on their ruins — a situation which will definitely lead to an intense war. Pray that the Lord may avert the calamity and prepare deliverance and victory for the homeland, through the intercession of the pure Virgin Lady, Mary, who has been appearing on the domes of her church in Zeitun since April 2, 1968 and to this day, grieving over what is happening now in the Holy Lands, and appearing to be kneeling in prayer to impede, by her prayers, the evil sought by the enemies of peace; and through the prayers of Saint Mark the Apostle, whose relics’ return from Rome we celebrated on June 24, 1968 — a blessing for our country and our congregation. May the God of heaven protect you and build you up in spirit, soul, and body; and to His Majesty is due thanksgiving forever. Amen. {3} — This letter was first published by the Higher Committee for Sunday School, Sunday School Magazine: September 1969 , pages 1-3. Translation Original. The original Arabic is presented below, with gratitude to Hanan Abdel-Malak and Iriny Doss for their assistance in digitizing the original letter. — رسالة صاحب القداسة البابا كيرلس السادس بمناسبة عيد النيروز إلى أصحاب النيافة إخوتنا الأحباء المطارنة والأساقفة وأبنائنا الإكليروس المبارك شعب الكرازة المرقسية.   نعمة وسلام وبركة من الله أبينا وربنا يسوع المسيح والروح القدس المعزى لجميعنا ولجميع أبنائنا رجالاً ونساء وشباناً وشابات.    فى الحادى عشر من سبتمبر هذا العام يبدأ عامنا القبطى الجديد لسنة ١٦٨٦ للشهداء الأطهار وهو اليوم الأول من شهر توت نسبة إلى العلامة الفلكى الأول ألذى وضع التقويم المصرى القديم الذى إنفرد به القبط فترة طويلة من الزمن قبل أى تقويم آخر عرفه العالم بعد ذلك شرقاً وغرباً. وتقديراً من المصريين القدماء لهذا العلامة رفعوه إلى مصاف الآله. {١}  وصار تحوت أو توت هو إله القلم وإله الحكمة والمعرفة وخلدا إسمه على أول شهور السنة المصرية أو القبطية. كانت نشأة التقويم المصرى القبطى فى سنة ٤٢٤١ قبل الميلاد أى فى القرن الثالث والأربعين قبل الميلاد عندما رصد المصريون القدماء نجم الشعرة اليمانية وحسبوا الفترة بين ظهوره مرتين وقسموها إلى ثلاثة فصول كبيرة (الفيضان والبذر والحصاد ) ثم إلى إثنى عشر شهراً، كل منها ثلاثون يوماً وأضافوا المدة الباقية وهى خمس وربع يوماً وجعلوها شهراً أسموه بالشهر الصغير. وسارت السنة القبطية ٣٦٥ يوماً فى السنة البسيطة و ٣٦٦ يوماً فى السنة الكبيسة. وقد احترم الفلاح المصرى هذا التقويم نظراً لمطابقته للمواسم الزراعية ولا يزال يتبعه إلى اليوم. وفى أواخر القرن الثالث للميلاد ثار إضطهاد الإمبراطور الرومانى ديوقلديانوس على المسيحيين، ووضع الإمبراطور تخطيطاً محكماً لإستئصال المسيحية يقوم على أربع نقاط:  (١) قتل الأساقفة والكهنة (٢) هدم الكنائس (٣)إحراق الكتب المقدسة (٤) طرد المسيحيين من الوظائف الحكومية وإباحة دمهم. وقد نال القبط فى مصر من هذا الإضطهاد أعنفه لأن ديوقلديانوس كان يرى أن رأس الحية كامن فى مصر ولذلك جاء بنفسه وأقسم بآلهته الوثنية أنه لن يكف عن ذبح المسيحيين بيده حتى يصل الدم المراق من المسيحيين إلى ركبة الحصان، وشرع الإمبراطور  يقتل بسيفه المسيحيين وهو ممتط صهوة حصانه بيده، وحدث عند غروب الشمس أن كبا الجواد فوقع على الأرض فلحقت الدماء المسفوكة على الأرض ركبتى الحصان. وكان الإمبراطور قد كل وتعب من ذبح المسيحيين وترك السيف فى يده آثاراً وجرحاً فاعتبر نفسه أنه قد وفى بنذره للآلهة فكف عن ذبح المسيحيين، وقد أحصى عدد القتلى من المسيحيين فقيل أنه بلغ ٨٤٠٫٠٠٠ شهيد.  ونظراً لفداحة ما تحمله المسيحيون فى مصر فى عهد هذا الإمبراطور فقد رأوا أن تبدأ فى تاريخهم حلقة جديدة، فأرخوا لسنة ٢٨٤ ميلادية وهى السنة التى اعتلى فيها الإمبراطور ديوقلديانوس عرش الإمبراطورية. ففى ٢٩ أغسطس من تلك السنة بدأ أول توت لسنة ١ قبطية ولذلك فإن التاريخ القبطى ينقص عن التاريخ الميلادى بمقدار ٢٨٤ سنة وصار التاريخ القبطى إبتداء من هذا التاريخ يسمى تاريخ الشهداء الأطهار.   إن الاستشهاد من أجل الإيمان كان ولا يزال مجد شعبنا وإكليل فخار لكنيستنا حتى عرفت {٢}  فى كل العصور بأنها كنيسة الشهداء، وصار تاريخها يعرف بتاريخ الشهداء. وقال بعض المؤرخين أن عدد الشهداء الذين استشهدوا فى مصر فاق عدد الشهداء المسيحيين فى كل العالم. وقد جرى المثل الشهير أن تحويل جبل من موضعه أسهل من تحويل قبطى عن معتقده. وقيل أيضاً أن كل شبر من تربة مصر قد روى بدماء الشهداء. فأقباط مصر هم نسل الشهداء الذين قبلوا الموت عن رضى زوّدا عن عقيدتهم وكنيستهم ولم يقبلوا أن يتزحزحوا عن إيمانهم يمنة أو يسرة وبقيت كنيستنا فى عقيدتها وطقوسها وتقاليدها - على قول بعض المؤرخين الأجانب - صورة فريدة للمسيحية الأولى وكأنها تحفة أثرية تتحدث عن الإيمان الرسولي فى أقدم صورة له.  لذلك كان علينا أن نحافظ على التراث  المجيد وديعة الإيمان بالروح القدس الساكن فينا على ما يقول مار بولس الرسول وأن نتمسك بإيماننا وعقيدتنا وتراثنا وتقاليدنا وأن لا نتزحزح عن مسلماتنا القديمة وأن نبقى عليها ثابتين إلى النفس الأخير. فقد قال مخلصنا ( الذى عندكم تمسكوا به إلى أن أجئ ) (رؤيا ٢-[٢٥]) وعلى الذين - من شعبنا وأبنائنا - ممن غادروا بلادهم إلى بلد بعيد أن لا ينسوا محبتهم الأولى لله ولكنيستهم ولوطنهم وأن يتحصنوا ضد كل روح غريب، روح الخطية والشر، وأن يسلكوا كما يحق للمسيح بكل تقوى ووقار وأن يصلوا من أجل سلام كنيستهم وبلادهم ونصرتها على كل الأعداء الخفيين والظاهرين ومن أجل إنتشار ملكوت المسيح واذكروا أننا نعانى محنة كبيرة باستيلاء إسرائيل على الأراضى المقدسة وبتخطيطها العتيد لتهدم المعابد ودور العبادة لتبنى هيكلها على أنقاضها الأمر الذى سيقود حتماً إلى حرب ضروس، فصلوا ليرفع الرب البلاء ويهيئ للوطن الخلاص والنصر بشفاعة السيدة العذراء الطاهرة مريم التى تتجلى على قباب كنيستها بالزيتون منذ الثانى من إبريل ١٩٦٨ وإلى اليوم حزينة على ما يجرى الآن فى البلاد المقدسة وتبدو راكعة مصلية لتدفع بصلواتها الشر الذى يريده أعداء السلام . وبصلوات القديس مرقس الرسول الذى احتفلنا فى الرابع والعشرين من يونيو سنة ١٩٦٨ برجوع رفاته المقدسة من روما بركة لبلادنا ولشعبنا.    إله السماء يحفظكم ويبنيكم فى الروح والنفس والجسد ولعظمته تعالى الشكر دائماً آمين. {٣}

A paper presented by His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Patriarch of Antioch (1980-2014), at a Pro Oriente conference, while he was still Archbishop Mor Severios Zakka Iwas. Introduction For a complete understanding of this subject, we must know the authority of the councils and the executive power of their decisions. Saint Athanasius (c. 296-373) said: “The council of Nicaea (325) [] pronounced the word of God, and it [stands] forever.” [1] The decisions of the councils according to the custom of the ecclesiastical Fathers were not merely a code or creed or a collection of educational orders, but are the decrees of God, [with] God Himself [being] the supreme law giver. The doctors of Canon Law [agree] that “if the right of [promulgating] a law was [conferred] to a lawmaker, then [what] is [also conferred] [regarding] the subordinates, or his subjects, [is] the right of obligation to obey these laws, because both rights are inseparable; and to trespass any true law, being compulsory [and] obligatory [on] the mind, is a sin. The power of such a legal law is known as the power of an administrative law.” [2] It is clear that God [has] granted the apostles and their successors authority in the Church [3] to teach the faithful; therefore they are the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [4] The Lord [] ordered them, saying: “Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you, and be assured, I am with you always, to the end of the time.” [5] Then He sent them the Holy Spirit to stay with them forever, [6] to teach them everything, and to remind them of everything which Christ had told them. [7] So the authority of the apostles is from God, to tend and to teach the people. Thus, if the right of making laws, teaching, binding, and loosing, was [conferred] to the apostles, it was [at the same time] [conferred] to the faithful to obey them; and as the authority of the apostles was granted to their successors as well, [8] the faithful have no right to refuse the decisions of these as well. Their decisions are of the Holy Spirit; he who refuses to listen to them must then be treated as a pagan or tax collector. [9] This is what the apostles themselves understood. Saint Paul the apostle himself wrote to the Galatians warning them of slipping into strange teachings, saying: “But if anyone, if we ourselves or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel at variance with the gospel we preached to you, he shall be held outcast.” [10] [He] who does not accept the teachings of the Church [is considered] a stranger to the Church of God. Our Lord said: “Whoever hears you hears Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” [11] Accordingly, it becomes clear that the legal Ecumenical Councils must be accepted [by the faithful]. The authority of these Councils and their decisions must be obeyed by the entire body of the Church. If these decisions concern matters of creed, then they must be adhered to by Christians very strongly, and those who reject them must be excommunicated. After the Council of Jerusalem [] declared its decisions in the year 51, it was announced through Barnabas, Paul, Judas (surnamed Barsabbas), and Silas: “So they were sent off on their journey and traveled down to Antioch, where they called the congregation together and delivered the letter. When it was read, they all rejoiced at the encouragement it brought.” [12] So the decisions were obligatory because they were issued by a supreme authority, which was the Council of the apostles; that is why the faithful accepted it joyfully, and it was a cause of encouragement for them. It is mentioned in the history of the Church that a group of the Jews who had become Christians rejected the decisions of this Council of Jerusalem; the Church cast them out. [13] The Reception of the New Testament and the Dogma is Based Upon the Testimony of the Apostles The evangelical circumstances at the [outset] of Christianity demanded that some of the servants of the Word be evangelists, pastors, prophets, apostles, and teachers, to equip God’s people for work in His service to build up the Body of Christ. [14] In practice, they did not limit their preaching to a certain region or a given nationality, though Peter was called the apostle of the Jews [15] and Paul the apostle of the Gentiles. [16] Their work was general, and the authority of each one of them extended to all the churches of the world without being confined to the regions in which each one had preached or the churches he had established. [17] The foundation of the Faith relied on the teaching of the apostles, which is the teaching of the Holy Spirit; and whenever some contradictory teaching appeared, the Church would return to the testimony of the apostles which was unanimously agreed upon by all the apostolic churches, [18] because the principal work of the apostles was to bear witness to the life of Christ, His death, His resurrection, and His teaching. [19] The testimony was orally delivered because Christ did not give His disciples any manuscript; but when the early Christians found it necessary to write down the Gospel, the four Gospels were written down. The Church examined them and all the Scriptures of the New Testament by returning to those who had seen Christ and heard Him, guided by the Holy Spirit. [20] The Church was assured that each of these Scriptural books was written down [either] by one of the disciples or under their supervision, so she declared their lawfulness, for they gained the testimony of the Church which was unanimously accepted, and it was a testimony of the truth, because this unanimity was decisive evidence for an apostolic testimony. Thus, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church examined and approved the twenty-seven Scriptural books of the New Testament. [21] It became an obligation for all the believers to receive them without adding or removing even a single letter. The reception of the [Church’s] dogma was in the same manner, including all of the traditional teachings received from the disciples, even though the disciples did not legislate them in an ecumenical council. The reception of any doctrine by the Church does not need to be imposed in an ecumenical council, because the Church has received her doctrines from the apostles; the councils were held to define the true faith and to refute any heresy by referring to the testimony of the apostles. This is why we observe how the Fathers of the Church, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 - c. 395) were content simply with any statement received by the Church, even though it was not issued by an official decision. [22] Such a decision is based upon the testimony of the universal Church. The Nicene Creed, for example, was included within the sacred writings of the Fathers in detail and was accepted by the Church since the early days of Christianity, but the Council molded it into a clear form and compelled the believers to receive it under penalty of excommunication. Holding the Councils The apostles held three councils, [23] and thus they established the principle of councils. But the Church, due to the evil persecutions, did not hold councils until the second half of the second century. Thereafter, when she began to introduce orders and laws, she became responsible to solve doctrinal problems and to organize the [affairs of the] church[es]. Thus, the local, general, and ecumenical councils were established. [24] The Reception of the Councils The decisions of the councils were consciously received [25] by the believers, and their judgements were carried out by their authorities immediately after they were issued without any disturbance, regardless of ecclesiastical rank or social class. The decisions of the local, general, and ecumenical councils were regarded to be of divine origin. The ecumenical council had the most supreme authority over the universal Church; [26] that is why its decisions had a decisive, obligatory power over the entire Church. The ancient official documents reveal that the early Christians regarded the doctrinal decisions issued by the Nicene Ecumenical Council in the year 325 as spontaneously infallible, and as having an obligatory and acceptable authority; that is to say: “They are incontestable in faith, and all Christians regarded them as an expression of a heavenly grace and divine order.” The reason for this is that the decisions taken by the Ecumenical Council pertained to the divine order, as was said in the Edict of Emperor Constantine, when it declared the decisions of the Nicene Council. [27] In any case, we must mention here with great sorrow that the official interference of the Roman Empire in the Church’s own religious affairs spoiled the spiritual quality of the councils. However virtuous the aim of the state might sometimes be in resolving religious problems by means of ecumenical councils, its influence created from the local problem an international one, thus facilitating the division of the Church.  The Reception of the Local and the General Councils within Their Area Is Easier than the Reception of the Ecumenical Council throughout the Entire Church As soon as a decision of a local or general council was issued, it was submitted to the local church or Apostolic See; for example, the decisions issued by the two general councils held against Origen (c. 185 - c. 254), who, in excess zeal, mutilated himself, misinterpreting Matthew 19:12 in a literal sense, and for accepting to be ordained a priest by bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem without his bishop’s consultation was deposed by Anba Demetrius from the priesthood and set into exile. Although Origen was a pious doctor of international influence, the Church immediately accepted the decision issued against him; if the case of Origen was discussed in an ecumenical council, he would have been supported by most of the churches in the world. [28] Here is another example of the decisions of the general and local councils that were carried out immediately after they were issued and were received by the Church without any uproar. This was the excommunication of Paul of Samosata, the patriarch of Antioch (third century). His teaching was that our Lord Jesus Christ was only a human being. Consequently, he was deposed from his See in the Council of Antioch in 268. Paul of Samosata obeyed the order of the Council without any resistance, and the Church satisfactorily received the [Council’s] decision. [29] Thus the problem was solved without interference from the government. It is not fair to compare Origen, the great scholar, international philosopher, and pious man, with Arius, the arrogant priest; neither is it fair to compare the supreme rank of Paul of Samosata, the patriarch, with the mentioned Arius. Nevertheless, the trial of Origen was held at a local council, and its decision was immediately received. Arius was condemned to be excommunicated in the time of Pope Peter in a local council held in Alexandria, without any disturbance at that time. Afterwards, however, Arius returned to the Church during the time of Anba Achillas and returned again to his heresy in the time of Alexander. His case became international and was examined in the Nicene Ecumenical Council in the year 325, which was held according to the call of Emperor Constantine. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present, among whom were two Arian bishops. After a long dispute, the Council condemned Arius and sentenced him to excommunication and exile. Consequently, the Nicene Creed was formed [30] and the bishops returned to their countries, but the disputes [continued] in the Church and the Arian party began to increase in strength after the Council. The disputes were more political and racial than religious, and while the Nicene Council’s decisions were accepted by one group, the other rejected it, and alas, the followers of Arius became one hundred million in number, [31] and in a very short time they caused severe harm to the Church. Their evil would have remained until today if it were not for their internal divisions. Eventually, the Arian party disappeared as many of its members rejoined the true Church. While we are studying the subject of the reception of councils, it is inevitable to mention two complicated questions. The first is the question of Easter, and the second is the baptism of heretics. These were the causes of disagreement in the Church in its early days, but the Church found the solution for them. The Examination and Reception of the Local and General Councils by the Ecumenical Council Before the Council of Nicaea in the year 325, many councils were held in the centers of the Holy Sees and dioceses; these councils issued many decisions about faith and order, and these decisions were received in their regions. The Council of Nicaea examined the decisions of these local and general councils concerning the question of faith and order, such as the question of Easter and the baptism of heretics, as we have mentioned before. The Council of Nicaea issued a decision which was taken to be heavenly and thus became strictly obligatory. The decisions of the local and general councils, which were agreeable with the testimony of the apostolic Church, were considered to be ecumenical. St. Julius, the Pope of Rome, said: “In ecclesiastical affairs, the apostolic canons are to be sought rather than eloquence…What did you find in my letter to legitimize such rage? Is it because I have invited you to the council? This invitation should have delighted you: those who have no doubt whatsoever [regarding] the justice of their acts cannot be discontented when their acts are subjected to examination.” [32] That is why we see that the great Council of Nicaea [] discussed the decisions of the local and general councils held before, and then gave those decisions an ecumenical quality. The traditions that were acknowledged by the Church were represented in councils and these traditions could not be abolished by individual influence, irrespective of how influential these individuals might have been. The old documents indicate that the Fathers of the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea and the whole of Christendom at that time considered the decisions concerning the doctrines that were issued by the Council of Nicaea spontaneously infallible and authoritative, that is to say, they were “indisputable in the faith, and all the Christians should consider them as expressions of heavenly grace and divine order.” [33] Emperor Constantine, in his letter to the church of Alexandria, said: “All of what the 318 Fathers of the Church have decided must be considered as divine judgement, and I am sure that there is no one amongst you bishops who suspects them or hesitates to fulfill them.” [34] That is why the Emperor took charge of issuing the Nicene decisions, announcing them throughout the Church [in order] to carry them out. Obstacles on the Way of the Council’s Reception The Council of Nicaea, in desiring to carry out its decisions, granted the apostolic Holy Sees certain privileges of authority derived from civil, and not from religious, considerations. But this same authority became the cause of severe conflict between the state and the Church. In the West, where the center of the government was transferred from Rome to Ravenna, the influence of the Pope of Rome increased, and he gained his independence to administer the church there. The same happened in Egypt, where the influence of the Pope of Alexandria was beyond the reach of the government. But in Constantinople, the patriarch was no more than a government official in comparison to the monarch’s power. In consequence, the church became one of the governmental offices and the Emperor became the actual head of the church there, as well as the judge of disagreements on the doctrine and the executor of the council’s decisions. [35] The interference of the authorities in solving the problems and their attempts to subject the church to their order brought innumerable misfortunes and pains to the Church.  Emperor Constantine, who once proclaimed in a letter that “the decisions pronounced by the Ecumenical Council are but divine ones,” [36] turned back from his ideas and ordered a council to be held in Jerusalem in the year 335, wherein those assembled decided to cancel the sentence of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea against Arius, and Arius was ordered to return from his exile to Alexandria. Constantine wrote to Athanasius to receive Arius back to communion, but the influence of Athanasius had so increased in Egypt at that time that his bishops obeyed him [instead of the Emperor], following the decision of the Council of Nicaea. He refused the orders of the Emperor, saying: “He who was excommunicated by an ecumenical council can be loosed only by another ecumenical council, because only he who has the power to bind has the power to loose.” [37] The enraged Emperor ordered a council to be held in Tyre to get rid of Athanasius. He accused him of a political charge, and Athanasius was sentenced to exile. In the year 336, the Emperor called Arius to Constantinople to pray in the church and ordered Patriarch Alexander [of Constantinople] to accept him in his company, but Alexander answered the Emperor saying: “None but an ecumenical council has the right to return one who was divested of his priestly office by an ecumenical council.” [38] The Reception of an Ecumenical Council by a Subsequent Ecumenical Council Socrates, the historian, in his speech about the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the year 381, said the following: “Theodosius, the Roman Emperor, called for the Orthodox bishops to hold a council to support the faith of the Council of Nicaea and to manage to ordain the bishop of Constantinople.” [39] Sozomen, the historian, said: “The Emperor gathered quickly a council of the bishops who were of his own faith, to agree with what was decided in Nicaea and judge that the faith of Nicaea would remain firm, reject all the heresies, and administer all the churches everywhere according to the old canons.” [40] There is no doubt that the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople received the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, confirmed its Creed, explained what concerned the question of the Incarnation, added the statement “And we believe in the Holy Spirit…”, excommunicated Macedonius and his two followers, and commanded to carry out what the Council arranged, and was received by the whole Christian Church, though the bishops of the West did not take part in it. [41] Then it happened that the Third Ecumenical Council was held in Ephesus in the year 431 to study the heresy of Nestorius, and it was decided in its seventh canon that it is not permissible for anyone to put forward, to write, or to compile another statement of faith [ i.e.,  a creed] besides that which was written by the Fathers assembled by the Holy Spirit in the city of Nicaea. [42] The Ecumenical Councils Received by the Syrian Church The Syrian Orthodox church and its sisters, the Oriental Orthodox churches, accept only three ecumenical councils, which are the Council of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Ephesus (431). The Syrian church included the acknowledgment of these Councils in the diptychs of the Fathers in the liturgy, and it recites the Nicene Creed that was put forward by these Councils, and obliges everyone who desires to accept the sacrament of Baptism to announce his acknowledgement of this Creed. The same applies in the case of confession and in the case of ordaining deacons, priests, and bishops. According to the Syrian church, the quality of the ecumenical council does not depend on the number of its members but on its representation of all the sectors of the apostolic churches bearing the testimony of the teaching of the apostles. Therefore, after the Council of Ephesus, which was the third ecumenical council (431), it became impossible to have ecumenical councils. The Reception of the Councils Today There is no doubt that local and general councils are accepted within their own territories, and these are not the subjects of our discussion. As for the Ecumenical Councils, the Oriental Orthodox churches recognize three of them, as mentioned earlier, whereas other Orthodox churches recognize seven, and the Roman Catholic churches recognize twenty-one. In our attempt to arrive at Christian unity, we see ourselves facing an immense obstacle which should be overcome before we can arrive at this supreme goal. The conditions of the Ecumenical Councils are not fulfilled in the councils that some of these churches recognize to be ecumenical; hence other churches do not find it easy to accept them. The three Ecumenical Councils recognized by the universal Church were held when Christendom felt the dangers threatening the true Christian doctrine. The aim of holding a council is to preserve the doctrine that was once delivered by the saints, and the judge of the truthfulness of the doctrines is the Apostolic Tradition, which is the unanimous apostolic testimony. Is not our acceptance of the New Testament based upon these testimonies, as mentioned above? The Fathers of the Church unanimously decided that the Scriptures of the New Testament which were delivered from hand to hand in the Church in those days, and which are in our own hands today, were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by or under command of the apostles who heard the teachings of our Lord and saw His miracles, His passion, His resurrection, and His Ascension. That is why we are consciously obliged to accept these true testimonies. We are again obliged to accept every teaching that the early Fathers of the Church unanimously accepted, although these teachings did not reach us through ecumenical councils. For a council to be ecumenical, it must be in harmony with the teachings of the apostles and the early Christian Fathers, and should be received by the apostolic churches who participate in it. [43] If the testimony is not unanimously accepted by the apostolic churches, then the council would not be ecumenical. Thus, we can understand the objection raised by John of Antioch against the Council of Ephesus (431), and his not considering it to be ecumenical, as the church of Antioch was not represented there. Cyril of Alexandria was blamed for his opening of the Council’s meeting without waiting for John of Antioch and for the bishops of the Orient. John then held a Council in which he excommunicated Cyril and Memnon, the bishop of Ephesus, with the charge of being unjust. [44] The Council of Ephesus did not become ecumenical until Cyril and John were reconciled in 433, when John received the Council and signed the excommunication of Nestorius; meanwhile Cyril signed the excommunication of Apollinarius. And thus, by the reconciliation of the two patriarchs, the third Council was considered to be ecumenical and its decisions were received by the entire Church and announced by the Emperor. [45] The approval of John of Antioch of the decisions of the Council of Ephesus does not mean that John was the head of the universal Church, but it represents the necessity of the Ecumenical Councils being accepted by the legal heads of the Holy Sees, among whom was John in those days. [46] The Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381, was attended by Oriental bishops, who relied on the apostolic testimony and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to preserve the true teaching. [47] Immediately after closing the meeting of the Council, its decisions were announced through all the heads of the churches, including Damasus, the Pope of Rome, who did not attend the Council or send a representative. [48] The council stated that “the statement of the faith was so arranged that the churches who enjoyed the same faith were always passionately attached to this faith.” [49] Thus, the Western church recognized the legality of the Council and received it as ecumenical. So the Christian churches today should together study all the councils, which should be examined according to the traditions of the apostles and the decisions of the three Ecumenical Councils which all the churches recognize, and the teaching of the forefathers which is the true testimony. History confirms that, sometimes, certain questions which had no connection with religion arose, and that human weakness clearly appeared in those councils. But we believe that the teachings of the legal councils were preserved by the Holy Spirit. We do not forget that the interference of the Roman Empire, as we have previously mentioned, increased the disagreements and encouraged dissensions; liberty and openness were limited, and the human horror of jail, exile, excommunication, and destitution kept the tongues of many Fathers silent or away from the truth. History was sometimes written by extremely cruel and unjust persons. Reading ecclesiastical history makes us feel ashamed of the long history of hatred of some people who were supposed to be trusted to guard the law of love, concord, pardon, and forgiveness. So it is in the spirit of love and understanding that our councils must be studied. Since the councils are held to confirm the doctrine, as we have mentioned above, let us study their decisions, without taking too much care of the minutes of their meetings. The review and study of the councils does not imply the lessening of their authority. For example, following the Addis Ababa conference in 1965, “Al-Keraza Review” (issued in Arabic in Egypt) [50] wrote the following: “The sacred synod of the Coptic church examined the decisions of the conference. In that synod some of the decisions were immediately received and the rest were postponed for further study, though the patriarchs of the Oriental Orthodox churches and bishops of these churches attended that conference.” I feel happy to state here that the Syrian Orthodox church, which rejects the Arian Council of Antioch (341 AD) and its creed, accepts the moral canons of that Council, for they match the apostolic canons. [51] The Syrian church rejects also the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), considering the Tome of Leo a renewal of Nestorianism; nevertheless the Syrian church has adopted some canons of the Council of Chalcedon. Mar Gregorius Bar ‘Ebroyo, Catholicos of the East (13th century), cited five of these canons and added them to his book of canon law, called “The Book of Guidance.” These canons are the following: 1. The Monasteries (1:2); 2. The Charity (1:3); 3. The Church’s Deputy and Manager (1:4); 4. The Order of the Diocese (7:1); and 5. The Monasticism (7:10). What an open-minded scholar Bar ‘Ebroyo was! And like him were most of the Fathers of the Syrian church. In spite of their rejecting the creed of the Council, which they did not recognize, they did not mind accepting the moral canons which were good for the institution of the Church, though they were introduced in a council rejected by the church. So let us look at all the councils and study their decisions in light of the Apostolic Tradition, which is the true testimony of the apostles and forefathers. Let us do this in the spirit of understanding and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that we may obtain good yield. Let us sincerely hope that we arrive at fruitful results, which will bring us closer together. — [1] Rev. Khalil Adda Al-Yasooae, The Church  (Arabic) (Beirut, 1935), 151. [2] Rev. Namat-Allah Abu Karam Al, Marooni Kustas Al Ahkam  (Arabic) (Beirut, 1901) vol. 2, 90. [3] Matthew 18:18. [4] 1 Timothy 3:15. [5] Matthew 28:20. [6] John 14:16. [7] John 14:26. [8] 1 Timothy 5:22, 6:2; Acts 1:24, 20:28; Bishop Alexandros Geeha, Christian Church History  (Arabic) (Homs, 1964), 127, 132, 140. [9] Matthew 18:17. [10] Galatians 1:8-9. [11] Luke 10:16. [12] Acts 15:30-31. [13] Rev. Isaa Asaad. Al-Tarpha, Church History  (Arabic) (Homs - Syria, 1924), 42-43. [14] Ephesians 4:11-12; Galatians 2:7-8. [15] Romans 15:16; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11. [16] [Ed.] See e.g., Romans 11:13. [17] Al-Tarpha 63. [18] H.B. Cyril Makkar, Roman Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Foundation of the Church (Arabic) (1925), vol. 2, 225-226, 334. [19] Acts 1:22. [20] 1 John 1:1-4. [21] Carhoun’s Scripture Help  (Arabic) (Beirut, 1937), 14; Al-Tarpha, 36-37. [22] Asad J. Rustum, Al-Neema Review  (Arabic) (Damascus, 1960) Nr. 2, 55. [23] H.H. Patriarch Jacob III, History of the Syrian Church of Antioch (Arabic) (Beirut, 1953), Vol. 1, 50-51. [24] History of the Eastern Church (in Arabic) (Aleppo, 1963), 47; Rev Jaraseemos Masarah, History of the Dissension (Arabic) (Alexandria, 1891), 24, 40, 53. [25] Rev. Khori Boulos Awees, The Local Council  (Arabic) (Beirut), 20. [26] Lettre Apostolique Donnce Motu Proprio Par Sa Saintete Le Pope Pie XII  — Les Rites Orientaux (Arabic) (Harissa-Lebanon, 1958) 173, 1. [27] Bishop Esodoros, Church History Al-Khreeda (Arabic) (Egypt, 1915), Vol. 1, 328-329. [28] Rev. Basilious Issac, The Church and Politics (Arabic) (Alexandria, 1965), 37; F.L. Cross, Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church  (1958), 992. [29] Mar Gregorius Bar ‘Ebroyo, Catholicos of the East (13th century), Church History  (Syriac). [Ed.] But see Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies , 1299 (noting that Paul resisted the decisions of the Council, improperly retaining possession of the cathedral in Antioch until 272 A.D., when the queen of Palmyra, who supported Paul, was defeated by Aurelian, who in turn assisted the Orthodox in their efforts to evict him). [30] Id. , History of the Kingdom  (Arabic) (Beirut, 1958), 80. [31] [Ed.] This passage appears to represent the use of poetic hyperbole, suggesting an intentional amplification for emphasis or emotive effect. [32] Iris Habib el Masri, The Story of the Coptic Church (Arabic) (Cairo, 1968), Vol. 1, 213-214. [33] Al-Khreeda, Church History (Arabic), Vol. 1, 328-329. [34] Id. , 330. [35] Church and Politics  (Arabic), 49-50. [36] Al-Khreeda, Church History ,   Vol. 1, 329. [37] F.L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church  (1958), 85; Iris Habib el Masri, 198-199. [38] Iris Habib el Masri, 204. [39] History of Socrates  8:5. [40] History of the Dissension  (Arabic), 152. [41] Al-Tarpha, 105-107. [42] Al-Khreeda , Vol. 1, 488; Al-Neema Review  (Arabic) (Damascus, 1960), Nr. 2, 53. [43] Al-Neema Review  (Arabic) (Damascus, 1960), Nr. 1-2, 94. [44] Bar ‘Ebroyo, Church History  (Syriac). [45] Patriarch Michael the Great, Church History  (Syriac), 170, 173, 175. [46] The History of Church Dissension  (Arabic), 154-190. [47] 1 Timothy 1:4. [48] The History of Church Dissension , 198; Encyclopedia Brittanica , Eleventh Edition, Volume. 7, 9. [49] The Foundation of the Church , 93. [50] Al-Keraza Review, 1965, 2-3, 21. [51] History of the Syrian Church of Antioch , Vol. 1, 219-223. — This paper was first published in 2005 in St. George Syrian Orthodox Church of Malankara, Festschrift in Honour of His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas , 128-135. It was republished in 2013 in Kuriakose Corepiscope Moolayil, A Collection of Articles by His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas , 67-79. It has been adapted with translational edits by the Doss Press team. His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas served as Patriarch of Antioch from 1980 until his repose in 2014. Throughout his patriarchate, His Holiness served as a president for the World Council of Churches, established the Mor Ephrem Seminary near Damascus, and authored numerous works on Syriac language, theology, and liturgy. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

Introduction and Cursory Remarks Delineating with any clarity a linear and certain path resulting in the formulation of Arianism — as also with Arius himself — and engendering the theological controversy surrounding Arianism is in most respects, while a noble aspiration, simply impossible in light of the multitude of factors, whether societal, philosophical, religious, or ecclesial, supposed with varying degrees of certainty to have been contributive thereto. Of these factors, we will discuss but a few in this work, which, rather than being intended as an exhaustive analysis of the subjects considered, is meant rather to provide an introductory overview of the relevant history. In so doing, we hope to apprise the reader of some important historical information while occasioning, in highlighting the complexities of the subject heresies and heretics, along with their predisposing factors, and with these the sensitive nature of theological contemplation and discourse and the necessity of sound doctrinal transmission and the believers’ preparation for its defense in every generation, edification and a call to careful introspection and critical self-examination on the personal, parochial, and ecclesial levels.  To that end, in this paper, following these cursory remarks, we will provide an introduction to the various background contexts relevant to the ultimate formulation of Arianism and its namesake, most popular adherent, and the primary catalyst of its clash with mainstream Christianity, Arius of Alexandria, while, in the course of that discussion, elucidating certain of the many factors that together informed and resulted in the rejection of Arianism by the Orthodox believers of the fourth century.  While engaging in this endeavor, a few important elements must first be noted and carefully considered.  First, the entire work of researching, reconstituting, and retelling history is by its very nature subjective — that is, the reader must remain acutely aware of biases and presuppositions while reading any historical work. This is especially pertinent in dealing with Christian history, where the reader may encounter the work of historians of various theological traditions, denominational backgrounds, doctrinal views, and even religious affiliations unrelated or even opposed to Christianity altogether. Second, and this is most pertinent for the purposes of the current work, the sensitivity of engaging with historical data and academic literature for the religious reader is especially heightened when it concerns doctrinal and ecclesial subjects. That is, the believer must exhibit particular keenness, conservatism, and skepticism in handling scholarship that bears implications for religious understandings. This is true for the sources, whether ancient or modern, cited herein — citation to a source in no way implies either its blanket endorsement or alternatively wholesale disavowal, and indeed in each there is invariably that which is accepted as certainly true, considered potentially true, considered potentially false, and rejected as certainly false.  Third, the honest student of history, and especially of Christian history, must be well aware of human fallibility. Indeed, in every saint there is some element of weakness, and perhaps some example of inadequacy or error in teaching or understanding, and in every heretic or excommunicant there is some element of strength and truth. It would therefore be both lamentable and contrary to sound judgment to err towards considering either the Fathers entirely infallible or the heretics entirely fallible, and the sound Christian thinker ought not dispose of the writings of the heretics. In reading these, Christian readers must ensure that they are properly discipled — to a doctrinally and spiritually sound and experienced teacher —, duly cautious, possessed of a prayerful and humble heart, firmly established in the truth of Christ through active and longstanding scriptural and liturgical experience, and capable, through that experience as well as the necessary study and training, of discerning truth from falsity, lest their understandings be distorted and they be misled by the eloquence of the author or the nuances and complexities of the subject matter at hand. Fourth, the ever-present danger of anachronism must be well understood. It is both convenient and natural for the modern reader to consider matters of history through modern eyes, deeply influenced as they are by the realities and circumstances of modern life. Through that lens, the nuances and uncertainties of actively unfolding historical events, dynamic and unpredictable as they were in their time, are interpreted and reinterpreted to fit the reader’s own categories, paradigmatic views, and ideals, all of which are of course the product of subjective factors personal to that reader. But to read history in this manner is both intellectually dishonest and profoundly unfair to its subjects. The reader of history is therefore advised to possess a healthy dose of compassion, humility, and respect for those whose lives, thoughts, and stories, with all of their high and low points, are laid bare before our eyes in the annals of history. We would certainly hope that future readers of our own lives and contemporary history will afford us the same courtesy.  With these limited introductory remarks, let us proceed to the subject examination.  Backgrounds of Arianism and the Arian Controversy I. Certain Religious, Theological, and Philosophical Backgrounds and Contexts Relevant to and Influencing Arianism and the Arian Controversy In order to duly appreciate the doctrinal, ecclesial, and inevitably political situation that arose with the Arian Controversy, beginning in the second decade of the fourth century and remaining ablaze for over sixty years thereafter, it behooves us to first expound in introductory fashion some significant subjects in the history of theological expression, understanding, and terminology in the centuries that preceded our subject period, while, in so doing, highlighting certain contributory factors that most probably worked together with varying degrees of influence, whether directly or indirectly, to occasion the amalgam of theological views that later came under the collective term Arianism. In so doing, we will naturally also discuss various factors that contributed to the theological understandings of the Orthodox who opposed Arianism, and whose conviction, resoluteness, and intellectual prowess enabled the eventual defeat of that heresy, insofar as its general influence and popularity were dealt somewhat of a final blow at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. [1] I.A. Judaism Among the notable causal factors influencing the Arian innovation, or rather an important, if often overlooked, predisposing factor facilitating both its origination and the receptivity of its adherents and many among the believers to many of its central tenets is none other than Judaism. It is for this reason that the Nicene Fathers, and especially Alexander and Athanasius, exhibit no reservation in immediately and consistently referring to Judaism as the background impetus underlying, and closest theological position to, the Arian paradigm, labeling the Arians in no uncertain terms as Jews, new Judaizers, and friends of the Jews who rejected the Lord.  That Judaism upholds a god who is confessed and worshipped only as one and denies any distinction of persons within the godhead is perhaps the clearest reason for the immediate association of the Arians with it, in light of their teaching — in their efforts to defend and uphold the oneness of God without falling into the error of a modalistic understanding of the divine essence (that God is not Trinity, but only manifests Himself in different modes at different times) — that the Son was created and is of a foreign substance than that of the Father. Thus, immediately following the local excommunication of Arius in Alexandria in 319/320 A.D. — of which we will speak in the subsequent paper — Pope Alexander of Alexandria issues correspondence to Alexander of Constantinople, wherein he writes: “For since [Arius and Achilles, his follower] call in question all pious and apostolic doctrine, after the manner of the Jews, they have constructed a workshop for contending against Christ, denying the Godhead of our Saviour, and preaching that He is only the equal of all others.” [2] Athanasius himself consistently refers to the Arians in the same manner, as for instance:  “For if the Lord is God, Son, and Word — and yet he is none of these things prior to his becoming human — then either he was something else other than these things and later acquired participation in them on account of his virtue…or else (may this fall back upon their own heads!) they must say that he did not exist before becoming human, but is simply human by nature and nothing more. But this is not the mind of the Church, but of the Samosatene and of the present-day Jews.” [3] Thus, in light of the direct implications of Arianism and their identity with Judaic theology, and especially the iterations of that Judaism that had seeped into Christian circles in earlier times, especially among the Ebionites (who, under Judaic influence, held that the Lord Jesus was a man who became the Messiah, and whose teaching echoes in later Adoptionists such as Paul of Samosata, a direct forerunner of the Arians of whom we shall soon speak), the Nicene Fathers are keen to expose the Arians for their impiety by direct reference to the thoroughly Jewish nature of their doctrine. [4] Centrally, as the excerpt from Alexander above specifically describes, the Arian position was challenged as Jewish specifically due to its inherent denial of the true divinity of the Son, compromising thereby the entirety of the Christian doctrine of salvation. And so, in writing to Adelphius, Athanasius rightly posits: “who would be so impious as to join the Jews who did not understand and say to him, because of the body, ‘Why do you, a human being, make yourself to be God?’” [5] Thus, not only were the Arians perceived as concomitant with the Jews due to their failures with respect to true Trinitarian doctrine, but they were also so associated in their denial of the godhead of the Son and the resulting destruction of the entire doctrine of salvation.  The mode by which Judaism most probably came to influence the Arians of the fourth century is slightly less obvious. Here, it is essential to recognize the potency of theological, ritual, and moral factors.  The theological influence of Judaism upon the formulation of the Arian position is traceable to the Judaizing efforts of some documented in the New Testament scriptures, among whom, we learn from history, there arose the Ebionite sect, which persisted in the Church of Jerusalem and elsewhere before, as a distinct sect, gradually fading away. Ebionism held, under explicit Judaic influence, that Jesus was a man, naturally born, who became the Messiah at his baptism, by being imbued with divine power. It denied any preexistence or divinity with respect to Christ, and held fast to Jewish ritual practice and legalism, being “very little removed from Judaism.” [6] The Ebionite insistence upon a deified Christ, we shall find, survived the demise of that sect, albeit in diluted fashion, in the theology of the later Monarchian Adoptionists, who, in view of preserving the oneness of God while maintaining belief in a divine Christ, professed that Jesus was a mere man who had become  divine, and so “adopted” by, and into, God. Of these Adoptionists, perhaps the most influential was a third-century bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, whose direct ideological relationship with both Arianism and the School of Antioch, where Arius and many of his fellow Arians were educated, discipled, and imparted their erroneous doctrine, will hereafter be discussed. It was this Paul of Samosata whose teaching, influenced as it was by the Ebionite conception of the Lord, bequeathed to Arius and his fellows a doctrine tainted by Judaic psilanthropism — the denial of the true divinity of Christ.  In tandem with this theological influence, it is important to recognize ritual practice and moral life as similarly formative and informative with respect to theological belief. In relation to Arianism, “the existence of Judaism in the Church of Antioch” is suspected to have occasioned, through “an observance of the Jewish rites,” “a tendency to derogate from the honour due to Christ.” [7] Indeed, “in the obsolete furniture of the Jewish ceremonial, there was in fact retained the pestilence of Jewish unbelief, tending (whether directly or not, at least eventually) to introduce fundamental error respecting the Person of Christ.” [8] This was especially the case in Antioch, where “[Judaism] was perpetuating the obstinacy of its unbelief in a disparagement of Christ’s spiritual authority, a reliance on the externals of religious worship, and an indulgence in worldly and sensual pleasures.” [9] Especially there, worldliness, carnality, and self-indulgence prevailed among the Jews in the third century, and through them influenced the Christian School of Antioch, which, besides its insistence on a literalistic interpretation of the Scriptures, came to adopt “in its most odious form the doctrine of the Chiliasts or Millenarians, respecting the reign of the saints upon earth, a doctrine which Origen, and afterwards his pupil Dionysius, opposed on the basis of an allegorical interpretation of Scripture.” [10] This preoccupation with the world and sensual life among the Christians of Antioch, derived from contemporary Jewish societal influences, caused to be “formed around the Church a mixed multitude, who, without relinquishing their dependence on Christianity for the next world, sought in Judaism the promise of temporal blessings, and a more accommodating rule of life than the gospel revealed.” [11] And so, as Newman observed: “When the spirit and morals of a people are materially debased, varieties of doctrinal error spring up, as if self-sown, and are rapidly propagated. While Judaism inculcated a superstitious, or even idolatrous dependence on the mere casualties of daily life, and gave licence to the grosser tastes of human nature, it necessarily indisposed the mind for the severe and unexciting mysteries, the large indefinite promises, and the remote sanctions, of the Catholic faith; which fell as cold and uninviting on the depraved imagination, as the doctrines of the Divine Unity and of implicit trust in the unseen God, on the minds of the early Israelites.” [12] As is true in every generation, then, ritual and moral practice was the immediate mechanism by which non-Christian and anti-Christian principles and paradigms became internalized by Christian believers and entrenched within a Christian context in third-century Antioch, giving rise to a generation of believers whose theological understanding was distorted, unsound, and ultimately, a grave danger to the teaching of the Church as it had been received, practiced, and delivered until that time. Whether in its unwavering commitment to a strictly monotheistic god, or else its rejection of Christ as the incarnate God, or otherwise in the influence of Jewish ritual practice and contemporary morality upon the Antiochian Christians of the late third and early fourth centuries, Judaism and Arianism were viewed by the opponents of that heresy as at least affiliate positions and at most causally related. And in fact, it was not only the Orthodox who intimated such an association — the Jews themselves are found siding with the Arians in the popular demonstrations that arose in both Antioch and Alexandria in support of Arianism. [13] Judaism, then, was the first force tacitly contributive to the Arian position. I.B. Monarchianism and its Constituent Iterations  While the earliest Christian believers were to a great extent unconcerned, and had no pressing reason to be especially preoccupied, with the nuances and complexities of specific theological expression, the spread of Christianity and its resulting interaction with heretical and philosophical competitors brought about an urgent and consequential need for such considerations. The second-century controversies with Gnosticism and Montanism, for instance, forced the believers, and especially those among them who had received philosophical training, to clearly discern the primary spirit and tenets of the Apostolic Tradition and express doctrinal principles in more formal terms than had previously been necessary. In this process of formalization and its accompanying ecclesial expansion, the Church’s inevitable engagement with ancient and contemporary Greco-Roman philosophy provided language, terminology, definitions, and categories that were, to varying degrees of success and with some unfortunate and, to some extent, unforeseeable subsequent implications, adopted, incorporated, or modified as needed to express principles of Christian theology to a societal and philosophical audience in need of these translational methods.  Thus, in the second century, those who rose to the challenge of representing the Faith to inquirers, and defending it against political, religious, and philosophical opponents — the Apologists, as these defenders became collectively known —, utilizing the aforementioned borrowed philosophical terms, tended to present the Christian God — the Father — to their hearers and readers in light of the God of philosophy, as the transcendent, ineffable source of all being — unbegotten, uncreated, inexpressible, and ultimately, entirely inaccessible. In tempering this abstract conception of God, and in view of the incarnation, these Fathers appealed to the Logos: the “visible God,” [14] God from God, a necessarily subordinate being projected by the Father’s will, [15] who acts as the divine agent in creation [16] and who, in borrowing from Stoic philosophy, was envisioned as existing first as logos endiathetos  (immanent word) and then as logos prophorikos  (spoken word). [17] In this manner, while the Apologists’ methods were undoubtedly necessitated by the challenges and circumstances of their time, and indeed one perhaps cannot envision a viable alternative to their chosen course of action when considering the understandings and conditions of their day, and their intentions were entirely pious, borne out of a heartfelt desire to defend the truth of Christianity and translate that truth into terms comprehensible to their hearers, their approach nonetheless introduced unintended tensions. Thus, for instance, in adopting the cosmological categories to which they appealed, Christ’s mediatory role was emphasized at the expense of His full divinity, with the implications of their impassioned defense of the oneness of God being that Christ, while divine, is not the One God , but rather a subordinate being: a philosophical mediator.  As the Church ventured into the latter half of the second century, the principles formulated by the Apologists had begun to bear unintended fruit. For instance, and most pressingly for the purposes of tracing the roots of the Arian heresy, in conceiving of the divine Logos as a subordinate, intermediary being, the natural question arose: how can this Logos be God? And this — the need to reconcile the divinity of the Logos, especially the incarnate Logos, with Christian monotheism — marked a significant theological concern of the late second century that persisted throughout the entirety of the third.  In addressing this problem, various theological views arose, of which Monarchianism is for our purposes most relevant. The Monarchians, as they came to be called, stressed the absolute unity and singular personhood of God, and so denied the Trinity, rejecting any notion of hypostatic distinction or subordination within the Trinity. [18] Monarchianism developed in two distinct forms. Modalistic Monarchianism, or Sabellianism, identified the one God with Christ, treating the Incarnation as a mode  of divine manifestation. Dynamic Monarchianism, or Adoptionism, on the other hand, as we have said above, followed the Ebionite model in holding that Jesus was a man who had become divine by adoption, through the indwelling of a divine power. [19] Thus, while Sabellianism, also called Modalism, emphasized the divine identity of Christ, Adoptionism emphasized his humanity. In turn, two trends of Sabellianism developed: “the Patripassian denied that the Word was in any real respect distinct from [the Father],” to the end that, in this view, it was in fact the Father — rather, the one God devoid of distinct hypostases , or persons — who was incarnate, suffered, and died, while “the Emanatist, if he may so be called, denied that [the Word] was a Person, or more than an extraordinary manifestation of Divine Power.” [20] Significant efforts emerged in the subject period with the hope of providing some degree of clarity and reconciliation among these competing theological factions. For instance, Tertullian, in line with his predecessors Irenaeus and the Apologists, attempted to uphold the unity of God   while affirming the distinct roles of the persons of the Trinity. [21] Despite such attempts, including by Tertullian, Hippolytus, and several others, the factionalization that had occurred could not be remedied. Throughout the Christian world, proponents of all the foregoing schools, as well as offshoots thereof, could be found, and the influence of these ideas persisted throughout the ensuing centuries to varying degrees and in a multitude of iterations. However, over time, the Trinitarian theology upheld by Hippolytus and Tertullian was recognized as most in line with the Orthodox teaching of the Church, with Novatian — to his credit, despite his schismatic legacy — effectively synthesizing Tertullian’s theology in his work on the Trinity, maintaining a sort of shared divine substance, or essence, between the Father and the Son (and so anticipating the later Nicene Homoousion ). [22] For the purposes of our discourse, however, it is Sabellianism that ultimately came to facilitate to a great extent the formulation of the Arian position — not in that the Arians concurred with its modalistic position (to the contrary, Arius and his Arian colleagues rejected Sabellianism outright), but because the Arians seized upon expressions formulated by the opponents of Sabellianism to defend their own teaching and lend support to their own position, opposed as it was to what they perceived were Sabellian theological assertions.  As noted above, the Sabellians denied “any distinction of Persons in the Divine Nature.” [23] This principle was first maintained as a distinguishing characteristic by a school supposed to be an offshoot of the Gnostics, established in Proconsular Asia towards the end of the second century, of which Noetus was the most noted master. [24] About the middle of the third century, Sabellius, from whom the heresy thereafter took its name, a bishop or presbyter in Pentapolis, is found advocating that erroneous conception of the godhead. “Other bishops in his neighbourhood adopting his sentiments, his doctrine became so popular among a clergy already prepared for it, or hitherto unpractised in the necessity of a close adherence to the authorized formularies of faith, that in a short time (to use the words of Athanasius) ‘the Son of God was scarcely preached in the Churches.’” [25] In responding to the Sabellians of Pentapolis, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria formulated his judgment on the relevant issues, “insisting on the essential character of the Son as representing and revealing the Father” by arguing that “on the very face of Scripture, the Christ who is there set before us, (whatever might be the mystery of His nature) is certainly delineated as one absolute and real Person, complete in Himself, sent by the Father, doing His will, and mediating between Him and man; and that, this being the case, His Person could not be the same with that of the Father, who sent Him…” [26] However, his response was misunderstood by some as representing an assertion “that the Son of God is made and created, distinct in nature from the incommunicable essence of the Father, ‘as the vine is distinct from the vine-dresser’ and in consequence, not eternal.” [27] Thus, charges were brought against him to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and he was forced to explain the intended meaning of his expressions:  “he observes first, that his letter to the Sabellians, being directed against a particular error, of course contained only so much of the entire Catholic doctrine as was necessary for the refutation of that error; — that his use of the words ‘Father and Son,’ in itself implied his belief in a oneness of nature between Them; — that in speaking of the Son as ‘made,’ he had no intention of distinguishing ‘made’ from ‘begotten’ but, including all kinds of origination under the term, he used it to discriminate between the Son and His underived self-originating Father; — lastly, that in matter of fact he did confess the Catholic doctrine in its most unqualified and literal sense, and in its fullest and most accurate exposition.” [28] In his letter, Dionysius “even recognizes the celebrated Homoousion  ( consubstantial ) which was afterwards adopted at Nicaea.” [29] The misunderstanding between Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria arose from the ambiguous use of the terms “essence” and “person,” which each interpreted differently than the other. Dionysius of Rome saw hypostasis  as the divine essence itself, while Dionysius of Alexandria viewed it as the essence of each distinct divine person, leading one to fear tritheism and the other to insist on distinct persons in the Trinity. [30] Nonetheless, in light of Arian reliance upon certain of Dionysius’ expressions, later writers complain of Dionysius as having “sown the first seeds of Arianism,” if only accidentally, “occasioned by his vehement opposition to the Sabellian heresy.” [31] Athanasius, however, ever faithful to the teaching and memory of the Fathers who came before him, specifically takes up the defense of Dionysius in his work On the Opinion of Dionysius , where he provides a clear and detailed defense of Dionysius’ orthodoxy.  It was not only Pope Dionysius, however, to whom some blame may be ascribed in contributing, albeit unintentionally, to the formulation of Arianism. Gregory of Neocaesarea, venerated as the Wonder-Worker (Thaumaturgus), can likewise be said to have shared in that unfortunate outcome. In opposing Monarchianism in the East, Gregory occupied a central role in the first Council held against Paul of Samosata, who in his own right, in his Adoptionistic Monarchianism, is credited with contributing to the development of the Arian heresy to a considerable extent, as we shall discuss below. There, it is likely that a Synodal Letter was addressed by the assembled bishops to Paul (although some critics ascribe it to the second Council held against the same heretic, and others reject it as spurious), which illustrates the line of argument utilized there to refute the heresy. To counter the claim that the Son was merely an impersonal divine presence with no real pre-existence, it pointed to His active role in creation and His appearances in the Old Testament as the Living and Personal Word. It therefore affirmed the belief in the Son as the eternal Image and Power of God, “the living and intelligent Cause of creation,” while citing His pre-incarnate manifestations to figures like Abraham, Jacob, and Moses as descriptive of His “ministrative office.” [32] These arguments, however, could be, and ultimately were, weaponized “to favour the hypothesis that the Son is in all respects distinct from the Father, and by nature as well as in revealed office inferior to Him.” [33] And so, the Arians of the fourth century found in notable earlier ecclesial authorities support for their own theological innovations. In themselves disdaining the heresy of Modalism, the Arians tended rather to the other end of the theological spectrum, aligning more closely with the Adoptionists, of whom Paul of Samosata — who was, uncoincidentally, bishop of Antioch in the mid-third century — was especially influential.  I.C. Origen and Origenism Concurrently with the issues of Monarchianism summarized above, in the late second to mid-third centuries, Origen of Alexandria quickly establishes himself as an influential and revolutionary force in the world of Christian theology. With Origen emerge the earliest true attempts at expressing a comprehensive theological system, intended to find its foundation in the Church’s Rule of Faith while harmonizing contemporary philosophical concepts with Christian teaching. In this effort, Origen maintains at the center of his system the Lord Jesus Christ, approaching Him soteriologically — as the Savior — rather than metaphysically, as the earlier philosophers had done. Thus, he affirms the distinctiveness of the persons of the Trinity while maintaining the oneness of God, positing that God is known through the Incarnate Word — the divine and the human natures being hypostatically united in the person of the Lord. Regarding the Son, Origen expresses that He was eternally begotten  (not created) of the Father, sharing in the divine nature ( homoousios ), but subordinate in role and derivatively divine. [34] The unity between Father and Son is moral, not modalistic, and their coinherence ( i.e. , the mutual indwelling of the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity) underscores divine oneness while preserving personal distinctions. [35] While Origen’s theology was in many ways in line with, and terminologically facilitative of, Orthodoxy as understood and formalized at Nicaea, his system simultaneously incorporated various speculative components. [36] Thus, Origen proposes an eternal   creation  opposed to the perfect God — who was always creator — and arising from “the estrangement of Will” from God, and therefore conditioned by evil, with materiality being the penalty and measure of evil. [37] Souls, also being preexistent, suffer embodiment when they lose their original integrity, or purity, and so are subjected to materiality and become needful of redemption, occasioned when the Logos united with an uncorrupted soul in the incarnation. [38] The Word thus unites, hypostatically , the natures of God and Man in the person of Christ, and “deifies” Human Nature — “first His Own, then in others as well.” [39] For Origen, the redemption of the soul in this manner, which comes about through the redemptive sacrifice of the incarnate Word and a resulting right apprehension of the Logos by the redeemed person — that is, the reorienting of that person’s will to the true God — is a reality with a definite temporal end: the second coming of the Lord, when all of creation will be recapitulated in the person of Christ, and so “God shall be all in all” in eternity, having reconciled Will forever after its initial estrangement.  With these speculative, and in some ways purely hopeful and somewhat theoretical, ideas — many of which having likely been interposed for the sake of hypothetical exploration and examination rather than as affirmatively held beliefs and thereafter perhaps repurposed, magnified, or recontextualized by Origen’s adherents and opponents to serve their respective ends —, Origen unwittingly occasions in subsequent theological thought and discourse a wide spectrum of further philosophical inquiry and theological confusion. Indeed, “if the subtle presupposition [in Origen’s system] as to God and the Universe is withdrawn…alternative and inconsistent Christologies” emerge. [40] Nevertheless, Origen’s own framework, taken as it was, was internally consistent to an overwhelming extent, and in fact relied upon these speculative assertions not for the sake of novelty or mere speculation, but in order to preserve and maintain that harmony. Thus, for example, for Origen the immutability of God is preserved by asserting an eternal creation, which itself requires an eternal mediation by the Logos, who is therefore eternal with God and so uncreated, [41] being instead begotten of the Father (who Himself is also eternally Father, which itself necessitates the eternal Sonship of the Son) and of the same essence  ( homoousios ) [42] as the Father, “morally” united to the Father (and so truly existing in union with the Father, and not, as the Monarchians held, only apparently existing, as a mode of the one non-Trinitarian god’s self-revelation) and having no unlikeness  whatsoever with respect to the Father. [43] Origen carries this doctrine of the Logos further, insisting — in attempting to preserve the monotheism of the Christians, as the Apologists had done before in their own time — that the Logos is God, but derivatively and not absolutely: a “second God,” the Father alone being “the God” while the Word is “God from God” — of one essence with the Father, but still, when compared to the Father, who is ingenerate, the head of the series of generates, between the nature of the unbegotten and the nature of the generated. Thus, like the Apologists, Origen insists on the subordination of the Son to the Father, as also he does the subordination of the Spirit to the Son and the subordination of “created spirits” [44] to the Spirit. In this manner, Origen’s “doctrine of the Person of Christ hangs together with his philosophy of Religion and Nature.” [45] But it is, importantly, “the philosophy of his age, and must be judged relatively. His deeply religious, candid, piercing spirit embodies the highest effort of the Christian intellect conditioned by the categories of the best thought of his age.” [46] As noted above, the sheer magnitude and complexity of Origen’s system, along with its fundamental reliance upon speculative and essentially non-doctrinal tenets, produced in subsequent generations not only vehement opposition and rampant controversy, but also, in those among his students and admirers who either lacked his intellectual brilliance or sought to whittle away the speculative components to preserve only the doctrinally sound elements, a porous and easily misunderstood framework which was internally inconsistent and in the end quite different from that formulated by him. The fallout following Origen, if it may be so termed, is therefore quite varied. His disciples and intellectual students in subsequent generations, even those who modified or selectively adapted his framework, were instrumental in the extermination of Monarchianism in the East — for instance, Dionysius of Alexandria in his aforementioned refutation of the Sabellians of Libya, and Gregory Thaumaturgus in his aforementioned role in opposing Adoptionism and ousting Paul of Samosata from his position as bishop of Antioch. Further, even those who opposed his views, as for instance certain teachers of Asia Minor, “where the traditions of theological thought…were not in sympathy with Origen,” such as Methodius, who, like the adherents of the Antiochian School, including the Arians, held especially to the literal meaning of Scripture — as opposed to Origen and the Alexandrians’ incorporation of an allegorical interpretation —, were “not uninfluenced by him,” [47] especially in their doctrine of the Logos. In the end, what emerges from this period is a theological spectrum among Origen’s followers and sympathizers — an Origenist ‘right’ and an Origenist ‘left’ — which raises difficulties and challenges in, and proves instrumental to understanding and addressing, many subsequent theological controversies and questions. Thus, some Origenists, as they came to be called, are found to express some uncertainty, or lack of clarity, as to how to reconcile the eternality of the Son with a non-eternal universe, and so experiencing difficulties in soundly conceiving of the essential relation of the Son to the Father. Of this Dionysius of Alexandria, as we have noted above, has been accused, even despite his affirmations and clarifications as to his thoroughly Orthodox position. Others, including many of Origen’s own disciples, especially among the bishops, “started from the other side of Origen’s teaching, and held tenaciously to the coeternity of the Son, while they abandoned the Origenist ‘paradoxes’ with regard to the Universe, matter, pre-existence, and restitution.” [48] These included Gregory Thaumaturgus and later Pope Peter of Alexandria and Pope Alexander of Alexandria, who is found initially opposing Arius’s innovations.  “It was this ‘wing’ of the Origenist following that, in combination with the opposition represented by Methodius, bequeathed to the generation contemporary with Nicaea its average theological tone.” [49] Thus, at that time, while “the coeternity of the Son with the Father was not (as a rule) questioned…the essential relation of the Logos to the Creation involved a strong subordination of the Son to the Father…” [50] Sabellianism “was the heresy most dreaded,” including by Arius and his compatriots, and “the theology of the Church was based on the philosophical categories of Plato applied to the explanation and systematisation of the rule of faith.” [51] This theology essentially affirmed the true Sonship and coessentiality of the Son to the Father, while the later Arianism, while more logically definite (and that to its own detriment), held to an entirely different conception of God in its denial of that coessentiality and true Sonship. [52] Thus, the Orthodox in the time of Arius, believing, as the Church always did, that the Son was truly Son, of one and the same essence as the Father and begotten from eternity of, yet not created by, the Father, could not accept the Arian assertions that the Son was a creature, not coeternal with the Father, and alien to the Father’s nature. To them, this was a plain “novelty, and wholly abhorrent.” [53] In this manner, “[i]n theological and philosophical principles alike Arius was opposed even to the tempered Origenism of the Nicene age. The latter was at the furthest remove from Monarchianism, Arianism was in its essential core  Monarchian; the common theology borrowed its philosophical principles and method from the Platonists, Arius from Aristotle.” [54] This is despite the fact that Arius himself, along with his co-adherents, “undoubtedly derived some support from the dangerous language of Origen, who had ventured to represent the Logos as [a ‘second God’]…[and] made use of expressions which favoured Arius’s statement that the Logos was of a different substance to the Father, and that He owed His existence to the Father's will,” [55] as we have noted in brief above.  And so, on either side of the theological debates of the fourth century, Origen is found influencing in some capacity the various opposing interpretations and paradigms, and being invoked — often, especially by the Arians, selectively and unfaithfully — by each side in support of its views. Such, then, is the influence and import of Origen and the Origenists with respect to both the Arian controversy and the Orthodox opposition thereto.  I.D. Aristotelian and Sophist Philosophy  Yet further influence upon Arius and his fellow Arians can be found in the Aristotelian and Sophistic philosophical traditions. In the Sophist school and approach, the goal is to “baffle an adversary, or at most to detect error, rather than to establish truth.” [56] It was in that tradition, especially in its emphasis on dialectics, the art of argumentation, and the proclivity to debate — which, unlike the Aristotelian school (which employed similar strategies), did not consider as the aim of such dialectics the arrival at truth —, that Arius and his fellow Arians were educated [57] and to which they owed their penchant for disputation. While in the various Schools of the early Church, this approach was utilized by teachers in their educational curricula, invariably in a controlled setting, after the requisite preparation of mind and heart, for instructive purposes, and among a carefully selected group of students, and also by friends in intimate settings of private intellectual discussion and philosophical and theological dialogue, Arius and his fellow innovators capitalized on it in carrying it beyond the sanctity of either the classroom or private friendship and into the public sphere, intentionally disregarding setting, audience, and the spiritual or intellectual preparation of either the participants or the hearer in order to openly challenge and inquire into the received creed, having learned the strategy from their Antiochian predecessors, especially Paul of Samosata. [58] As we shall see, Arius is documented as openly and boldly challenging his diocesan bishop, Alexander, as he lectured on the mystery of the Trinity to the clergy of his diocese. [59] He further invites support for his theological formulations in the form of popular songs composed by him and collected in his work, the Thalia , [60] and openly teaches his doctrine to crowds of congregants, especially women, who flocked to hear him for his ascetical and elderly appearance, eloquence of speech, and charismatic personality. Arius’ co-heretics, whether his predecessors, or his contemporaries, or those subsequent to his lifetime, moreover, possessed the same disputatious and cunning qualities. [61] It was therefore not without reason that “[t]he two Gregories, Basil, Ambrose, and Cyril, protest with one voice against the dialectics of their opponents,” [62] and that Epiphanius, in the fourth century, calls the Arians the “disciples of Aristotle” while lamenting their abandonment of “the harmlessness and meekness of the Holy Spirit” by “taking up Aristotle and the other secular dialecticians” and seeking their fruits rather than having the “fruit of righteousness” or “the gift of the Holy Spirit within them.” [63] This Arian strategy of irreverent and unguarded public disputation, it must be said, was quite effective in not only garnering support from all ecclesial ranks to the Arian position, such that the majority of even the ecclesiastical hierarchy had at some point come to sympathize with and support the Arians — it was not without reason that Athanasius perceived himself as being “against the world” —, but also opening up even the most sacred and nuanced of theological subjects, which necessarily require preparation, carefulness, humility, and piety of spirit to properly appreciate and discuss, to public, and necessarily unqualified, consumption, amusement, and concern. Thus, Gregory of Nyssa records that at the time of the Council of Constantinople in 381, the whole city was stirring with theological argumentation:  “the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing…If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask ‘Is my bath ready?’ the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing.’” [64] And so, Gregory of Nazianzus warns, at the outset of his first Theological Oration: “Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.” [65] With this disputatious approach, the Arians succeeded, especially in the absence of any universally accepted formal statement of the Church’s belief, such as would be formulated at Nicaea — not that there was not before this time a creed, but that such creeds until that time were local, varied, and in any case not universally or authoritatively affirmed as applicable to the entire Church and setting forth the official position of the Church on the subjects therein discussed —, to baffle, amuse, and manipulate the believers at all levels, and that in a very short period of time, such that within a mere five or so years, the Arian issue became so widespread, rampant, and dangerous as to be perceived by the Emperor as a threat to the unity and stability of the Empire, and so necessitating a universal council officially convened by the Emperor himself and attended by representatives from throughout the Christian world. No prior heresy, regardless of its influence or specific threat, had ever, throughout the Church’s history until that point, occasioned such an urgent, political, and comprehensive response.  I.E. Paul of Samosata, Lucian, and the School of Antioch  We now come to the immediate local precursors that acted upon Arius and his ideological partners and sympathizers, of which we have already referenced several in passing, but which will now be expounded to a greater and more detailed extent, as perhaps the most closely influential and immediately predisposing factors giving rise to the Arian teaching.  I.E.i. Paul of Samosata The Church of Antioch in the third century, as we have seen, was ideologically afflicted by a strong Judaic influence. The Scriptures were, particularly in the School of Antioch, interpreted in a strictly literal sense, as opposed to the allegorical interpretation permitted in Alexandria; various Jewish rites were observed and upheld, and that on their own merit, and not rather as re-contextualized so as to have a Christian meaning, purpose, or point of reference; and the contagion of the moral laxity of the Jews of that locale exerted not an insignificant influence upon Christian spirituality. These influences acted upon the Church of Antioch perhaps no more directly than through its mid-third century bishop, Paul of Samosata.  Paul of Samosata was selected for the bishopric of Antioch in 260 A.D. By 272, he had been tried at three separate councils, found to espouse heretical views (representing an Adoptionistic Monarchianism), and successfully deposed. Within the short tenure of his episcopacy, however, he had caused immeasurable damage to the Church in Antioch, which would subsequently, in Arius and his contemporary Arians, spread to afflict the whole Church. Paul had in this period founded “a school rather than [] a sect,” [66] encouraging “in the Church the use of those disputations and sceptical inquiries which belonged to the Academy and other heathen philosophies, and as scattering up and down the seeds of errors, which sprang up and bore fruit in the generation after him.” [67] In his insistence upon Adoptionistic theology, open practice of ceremonial Judaism, including the Jewish rite of circumcision, and even the Quartodeciman observance of the Paschal Feast on the day of the Jewish Passover that persisted within his diocese even following his deposition, Paul exemplifies and proliferates in the Church of Antioch the Judaic beliefs and practices that so strongly influence the theology of the Arians in the subsequent generation. [68] What is more, Paul had embodied and brought about in the Church of Antioch a scandalous and spiritually detestable model of ecclesial administration and spirituality. He is described by the bishops who deposed him as: “haughty, ostentatious, vain-glorious, worldly-minded, a lover of pomp and parade, avaricious, rapacious, self-indulgent and luxurious; as one whose manner of life laid him open to grave suspicions of immorality; and as a person originally of humble birth, who had adopted the ecclesiastical career as a lucrative speculation, and, by the abuse of its opportunities and the secular office obtained by favour of the queen of Palmyra, had amassed a large fortune.” [69] He was notorious for conducting himself with “the pomp and parade of a secular magistrate rather than the grave and modest bearing of a Christian bishop” [70] including by engaging in elaborate processions wherein he was thronged by attendants who made way for him and by causing praises to himself to be sung in the Church by a choir of women instead of the psalms in praise of Christ as God that were until that time chanted in his Church. [71] His unabashed exploitation of secular and ecclesial power, combined with his use of flatteries and gifts, persuaded nearby bishops and presbyters to “adopt his form of teaching and other novelties,” [72] including at Paul’s explicit encouragement. His private life was further cause for scandal. He “indulged freely in the pleasures of the table, and enjoyed the society of two beautiful young women,” [73] such that many were caused to stumble. Yet, because of his flatteries and intimidation, including by threats and violence, almost no one would agree to witness against him. [74] In these ways, Paul was but symptomatic of “a corrupted state of the Church. The history of the times gives us sufficient evidence of the luxuriousness of Antioch; and it need scarcely be said, that coldness in faith is the sure consequence of relaxation of morals.” [75] Despite these spiritual ills, however, the cause of Paul’s ultimate excommunication was, in any case, as previously mentioned, his heretical views concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. In line with certain heretical predecessors, most especially Artemon, Paul professed Christ as being purely human, not preexistent in any sense except for in God’s foreknowledge and plan. He perceived no difference between “the indwelling of the Logos in Christ and in any human being,” except in “degree, the Logos having dwelt and operated in Him after a higher manner than in any other man.” [76] That indwelling in Christ, moreover, was only of a quality, and not of a person, or hypostasis . Although “he called Christ God, it was not as God by His nature, but by progressive development. The Deity of Christ grew by gradual progress out of the humanity. He was convicted, according to Eusebius, of asserting that Christ was mere man deemed specially worthy of divine grace [].” [77]   As we have previously noted, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria was personally and zealously concerned with opposing Monarchianism in his day. Secondary to these efforts, along with those of the other eminent anti-Monarchians, Paul was tried, due to his insistence upon an Adoptionistic theology, at a series of synods in Antioch: first in 265 A.D. (to which Dionysius was invited but could not attend due to his health, dying in the same year), then another sometime thereafter, and finally in 269. At the first two of these councils, Paul was able to escape condemnation through his manipulative and evasive use of disputation and argumentative cleverness — which tactics, as we have noted, he had adopted from the philosophical schools of Aristotle and the Sophists, and which he encouraged and popularized in Antioch. However, at the third synod, in 269, Paul found present Malchion, an Antiochian presbyter who had presided over the School of Antioch for a period of time. Malchion was himself a skilled dialectician, possessed of wisdom and great intelligence, and so those assembled selected him to conduct the proceedings. Malchion therefore proceeded to thoroughly refute Paul’s heretical views and to best him at his own method of persuasion, resulting in Paul’s excommunication and his deposition from the episcopacy. [78] In dealing with Paul’s theological views, the synods in Antioch involved one particular issue which bears much relevance to the proceedings and debates of the Council of Nicaea. Specifically, among the primary reasons for the deposition of Paul at the synod of 269 A.D. was his misuse of, or agreement with those who had used, the word homoousios  in expressing “the relation of the Father and the Son.” [79] As we have seen, in the controversy that had previously arisen in connection with Dionysius of Alexandria’s refutation of the Sabellians, homoousios  was in the subject period thought to have a Sabellian tendency, and to have in any sense been so ambiguous as to permit overly broad and unspecific interpretations. In light of Paul’s logical cunningness and deceitful argumentation, it is not unsurprising that the Fathers assembled to try Paul in 269 objected to the term and deposed him for either his misuse of it or his agreement with those who used it improperly in his time.  In view of Paul’s popularity and influence upon the Christians and secular authorities in Antioch, his deposition was frustrated by popular uprisings and the political support of the aforementioned Zenobia. Thus, Paul retained possession of the cathedral and of the bishop's residence attached to it for two years following the council, refusing to submit to the council’s decrees. It was not until 272 A.D., when Zenobia suffered defeat by Aurelian, that the Orthodox were finally able to successfully oust Paul from his post.  Paul’s influence on the Church in Antioch cannot be said, however, to have ceased with his deposition. Rather, it persisted with some strength, not only among the Arians, but more generally, even until the time of the Council of Nicaea, necessitating the promulgation of certain canons at that convocation to address issues concerning the baptism and ordination of the “Paulianists,” or “Samosatenes.” [80] With respect to his particular import as to the Arians, however, we must proceed to examine another important figure of the third century, who may well be considered “the father of Arianism” — Lucian of Antioch.  I.E.ii. Lucian of Antioch Lucian of Antioch was born around 240 A.D. at Samosata, and was discipled in Edessa by an elder who was known to have been a knowledgable interpreter of the Scriptures. He subsequently relocated to Antioch, where he was likely associated, or at least possibly acquainted, with Paul of Samosata, and became the head of the theological school there. In that capacity, he instilled a method of scriptural interpretation that was thoroughly opposed to an allegorical sense, insisting instead on the literal meaning of the inspired texts.  After Paul’s excommunication, he himself was also — most probably due to his agreement with Paul’s theological views — separated from the Church, remaining so under the episcopacy of the three immediate successors of Paul. During the bishopric of the third of these successors, Lucian was, for unclear reasons, restored to the Church, and ultimately suffered martyrdom in 312 A.D. He was known to lead an ascetical life, which, along with his learnedness and eventual martyrdom, seems to have garnered for his memory a sense of honor, and for his disciples significant common-spiritedness, personal inspiration (Arius was himself known for his ascetical disposition), and a popularity to which several of them owed both their ordinations to the clerical ranks and appointments to several of the most influential dioceses and parishes in the period shortly after the Diocletianic persecution. [81] It was in any event in the School of Antioch under Lucian that “the leaders and supporters of the Arian heresy were trained.” [82] In light of this fact, Arius refers to his fellow Arians as “co-Lucianists,” and he, along with several leaders of the Arian cause, appeal to Lucian as their authority.  As to Arianism, Lucian’s ideas proved most influential, particularly in its characteristic “compromise between the Origenist doctrine of the Person of Christ and the pure Monarchian Adoptionism of Paul of Samosata,” which it accomplished by utilizing Paul’s Adoptionism as the foundation for the Origenist identification of Christ with the Logos, or “cosmic divine principle.” [83] However, Lucian “could not bring himself to admit that [Christ] was thus essentially identified with God the eternal,” [84] instead insisting upon the notion, also held by Paul of Samosata, that Christ attained to divinity through “progress.” [85] What is more, he “distinguished the Word or Son who was Christ from the immanent impersonal Reason or Wisdom of God, as an offspring of the Father’s  Will ,” [86] which he may have derived from Origen but interpreted in a different manner. [87] In fact, it was viewed as a violation of Lucian’s system if among his disciples one was found to hold that the Son was “the perfect Image of the Father’s Essence.” [88] Nonetheless, “Origen’s formula, ‘distinct in hypostasis, but one in will,’ was apparently exploited in a Samosatene sense to express the relation of the Son to the Father.” [89] In all, it appears most likely that Lucian largely maintained Paul of Samosata’s theological model, but for two distinct areas: firstly, while to Paul the Logos was some impersonal power from God, Lucian considered the Logos a hypostasis; secondly, while Paul considered Jesus to have been a mere man, Lucian believed that the Logos, or Wisdom, of God, was sent into the world “clothed in flesh” and replaced the soul in the person of the Lord. [90] From this point, Lucian regards the “lowly words” of the gospels as being applicable to the Logos, rather than any conception of the one incarnate Logos, such that “the inferiority and essential difference of the Son from the Father rigidly followed.” [91] This was in brief Lucian’s theological framework as to the points relevant to Nicaea, which arose from a process, whether intentional or accidental, of amalgamating between aspects of the Adoptionistic and Origenistic views. Both to it and to its namesake, Arius and his “Co-Lucianists” expressed adherence — an important point, insofar as the Arians were not, and expressly denied being, dependent upon or somehow followers of Arius himself, the term Arianism being rather utilized to capture in the broadest terms those who espoused these views, varied as they were even among themselves, by reference to the immediate catalyst behind the clash of this heresy with Orthodoxy that arose in 319 A.D. and occasioned the Council of Nicaea.  It must be said, moreover, that among the Arians and those who were sympathetic to them, or held views harmonious with them to some extent, in the fourth century, there were others who did not owe their theological positions to Lucian. Certain of these, such as Eusebius of Caesarea, while not themselves disciples of Lucian, held views that aligned to some extent with the Arians — for instance, “left wing Origenists” who held fast to a theology of the Son’s subordination to the Father, and who, in vacillating “as to the eternity of the Son, would find little to shock them in Arianism…” [92] Meanwhile, there were those who, while “essentially Arian,” such as Asterius, “made concessions to the ‘conservative’ position chiefly by emphasising the cosmic mediation of the Word and His ‘exact likeness’ to the Father.” [93] In this manner, even apart from Paul of Samosata and Lucian of Antioch, whose influences on the Arians were, as we have seen, immense, the shockwaves of Origenism persisted throughout the subject period and its characteristic debates, itself also coloring, informing, and in many ways both underpinning and contributing not a little confusion to the competing theological understandings.  II. Certain Societal Conditions Relevant to and Influencing the Arian Controversy  We have thus far discussed what may be considered spiritual and ideological influences which combined together, and undoubtedly with other factors beyond the scope of our discourse, to give rise to the Arian position. In so doing, we have also touched upon the theological challenges, concerns, and controversies that preceded the Arian Controversy, and which likewise contributed the language and methods used by the Orthodox in their response to the Arians, faithful as that response was to the teaching of Christ as it was handed down in the Church and to upholding and enunciating the principles of the Faith in the face of a new, and yet, as we have seen, neither entirely original nor truly novel, [94] theological threat. But ideological factors cannot logically be considered the sole progenitor of the relevant theological positions. Indeed, ideology never operates apart from its societal context, as we saw briefly in our discussion of Judaism and its influence upon Antiochian Christianity. What, then, was the societal context in which Arianism emerged and by which it was influenced, and what were some societal conditions relevant to the Arian Controversy?  Here, we must first consider the significance of the Diocletianic Persecution. Diocletian rose to the emperorship in 284 A.D., and, while committed to upholding the religion of the Empire, remained indifferent towards the Christians for the first twenty years of his reign. In 286, he divided the Empire in two, appointing Maximian to rule over the Western hemisphere while retaining the Eastern portion for himself. Then, in 293, Diocletian and Maximian appointed Caesars to serve as their respective assistants in the governance of the Empire, with Maximian selecting Constantius I, the father of Constantine, for the West, and Diocletian selecting Galerius for the East.  Maximian and Diocletian initially maintained the Empire’s official position as to Christianity, which, since 259 A.D., had remained a permitted religion in the Empire under the force of an Edict of Emperor Gallienus. The most trusted and influential eunuchs of Diocletian’s household were Christians, and were excused as a matter of course from attending the pagan sacrificial ceremonies. [95] Even the wife and daughter of Diocletian were suspected of having adopted the Christian faith, refraining from attending pagan religious ceremonies but not publicly declaring their conversion — engendering the circulation of rumors and public suspicion. [96] Over time, public propaganda against Christianity recommenced with the publication of new anti-Christian texts, and within the imperial court, especially with Galerius, Diocletian’s Caesar, frustrations arose due to what was perceived as an abundance of tolerance towards the Christians. And so, following a series of events not unreasonably considered attributable to direct Satanic influence — pagan oracles attributing their failures to the presence of Christian soldiers, the mother of Galerius forcefully advocating for persecution against the Christians, and even, reportedly, a pagan god himself declaring to his priestess, from the darkness of his cave at Branchidae, that the presence of the “just ones” on the earth “made it impossible for the oracles to speak the truth” [97] — Diocletian commenced, initially reluctantly, persecuting the Christians, including with the destruction of churches and religious books and art, stripping Christian officials of their ranks and civil rights, and demoting those who were not ranking officials to the rank of slaves, thereby subjecting the Christians to lawful torture and execution.  Not long thereafter, a fire at the imperial palace was blamed, notably by Galerius, upon the Christians, and another subsequent to it was interpreted in the same manner. Diocletian, compelled by his fears and encouraged by his Caesar, unleashed yet further fury upon the Christians — killing his once-trusted Christian servants, forcing his wife and daughter to offer public sacrifice to the gods in order to quell public suspicions, maintaining persecution of the Christians throughout the East, and issuing a second edict ordering all Christian clergy to be imprisoned, without even the opportunity to sacrifice to the gods. He further issued correspondence to his Western counterpart, Maximian, urging him to adopt like measures, which he appears to have been eager to do, while his Caesar, Constantius I, despite being more kindly disposed, nonetheless had no choice but to uphold the official policy.  That lamentable year, 303 A.D., did not end before Diocletian had fallen severely ill, and in 305 he and Maximian resigned their posts, with Galerius and Constantius I taking their places as Augusti. The persecution that he had commenced, however, would persist intermittently until 311, when Galerius issued an edict of toleration, admitting that his efforts to exterminate Christianity had been a failure, and subsequently died of a horrid illness. While his successor, Maximinus, briefly revived the persecution in the East, in which Pope Peter I of Alexandria was martyred, this would not persist, for in 312, a second edict of toleration was issued, and in 313, the Edict of Milan was promulgated by Constantine I, the son of Constantius I, and Licinius, legalizing all cults and religions, and among them Christianity, in the Empire. While certain persecutions subsequently arose, such as under Licinius until 323, when Constantine defeated Licinius and became sole emperor of the entire Roman Empire, these were local, limited in severity, and quite short-lived. It is obvious even to those largely unfamiliar with Christian history that the Diocletianic Persecution, as it came to be known despite Diocletian’s short-lived tenure during its span (303-313), wreaked havoc upon the Church. The believers were subjected to the most gruesome of tortures, churches were confiscated and destroyed, and large numbers of believers, including the populations of entire towns and villages, especially in Upper Egypt, were massacred. The Christians were rendered enemies of the empire, and forced to retreat to the tombs, catacombs, and secret meeting places in order to find refuge and gather to celebrate the Eucharist. Countless martyrs witnessed to Christ with their blood, and those who survived this gruesome period knew firsthand its immense tribulations, with some even suffering as confessors themselves. Of these martyrs, Athanasius knew some, from whom he had learned in his youth, and of the confessors some were in attendance at the Council of Nicaea, and participated there in defending the Faith.  The cessation of the persecution, however, brought about certain unintended consequences. The faithful, whose resilience was during those turbulent years so tested, and whose convictions led them to expose themselves to significant danger in order to carry out their Christian duties, suddenly found no need to maintain the same degree of intentionality in the practice of their Faith. There was now no perceptible opposition between Christianity and the world, and no personal cost to be paid in order to identify as a Christian. With this, the general morality of the Christians, which had in times of persecution been so distinctive of them — such that in the time of Tertullian, he was so bold as to declare to the Emperor that if he found any Christian in the prisons who was there for any reason besides being a Christian, he should kill not only that person, but the Christians altogether — declined, and the faithful, in beginning to indulge in the pleasures of the world that were now accessible to them once more, experienced a commensurate spiritual weakening. This was, indeed, among the initial motivators giving rise to monasticism, with those among the Christians who were alarmed at this general spiritual decline flocking to the deserts, to Antony first and then also to his fellow monastic elders at their respective locales, in order to rediscover the asceticism, seriousness, and consecration of heart which they once knew and which had deteriorated among their fellow believers following the persecution.  It was during the period immediately following the persecution, in the context of this general spiritual decline, that Arius is found being ordained to the priesthood by the immediate successor of Pope Peter, appointed to shepherd and teach the flock of one of the largest churches in Alexandria, the Baucalis — which was in fact the first public church established in Egypt, from which Saint Mark was forcibly removed during the Divine Liturgy on the Feast of the Resurrection and dragged in the streets of Alexandria until his death in 68 A.D., and where Pope Peter I was martyred — and attracting substantial excitement and interest in himself and his teaching by the Christians of Alexandria. With the cessation of the persecution, the believers were once again able to enjoy the pleasures of not only philosophical interest, but also worldly luxuries and leisurely entertainment, all of which, in similar fashion to the state of affairs in Antioch in the third century, of which we have already spoken, provided fertile ground for Arius to carry out his theological campaign, especially with the use of public disputation, liturgical instruction, and folk songs composed, taught, and published by him in written form to propagate the tenets of his doctrine — for which singing and melody, of course, the Christians now had both time and interest.  The persecution, therefore, proves to have been, along with the victory of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity, the most important societal condition influencing and in fact in many ways conducive to the Arian Controversy. Indeed, without these factors, there may well have never been an opportunity for the Christians of the time to engage in the sort of drawn out theological debate that ultimately took place secondary to Arius’ dissension. The issue perhaps would have fared no differently than the theological contentions of earlier centuries — local factions emerging, perhaps certain writings being formulated for and against each position, and at most one or more local synods to address the question at hand. Yet, after 313 A.D., conditions were ripe for a theological crisis as did ultimately arise: there was no longer mortal danger to the believers, the disciples of Lucian had been sponsored and promoted to influential ecclesial positions throughout the Empire, and the emperor, while not baptized — he would be baptized on his deathbed in 337 by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a confessed and explicit Arian and one of Arius’ chief sponsors — was sympathetic towards the Christians, attributing his political victories to their God. The stage was set for the various theological undercurrents extant throughout the Christian world, especially in central Christian episcopates such as Alexandria and Antioch, to clash, and Arius, brazen as he was in openly teaching his doctrine and opposing his bishop, provided the spark of ignition.  III. Certain Ecclesial Conditions Relevant to and Influencing the Arian Controversy Alongside the societal conditions discussed above, there were concurrent ecclesial circumstances to which we must now turn in order to traverse the final step in duly contextualizing for our purposes, in brief terms, the setting in which the Arian Controversy arose. Here, we must briefly discuss an unfortunate episode in the history of the Church — that of the Meletian and Donatist Schisms.  With the Decian Persecution in 250 A.D. — the first organized, formal, empire-wide persecution of Christians in history —, there arose a new sort of contention among the Christians, not theological, but rather administrative: the manner by which to deal with those who had denied Christ and sacrificed (or commissioned another to sacrifice in their name, or even purchased by bribery a receipt attesting to their having sacrificed without actually sacrificing) to the Roman gods, or else somehow betrayed the Church — the lapsed, as these were collectively called — during the persecution. A spectrum of policies emerged as to this matter, ranging from free and unreserved readmission (often, unfortunately, promised to the lapsed upon no ecclesial authority by confessors and eventual martyrs), to readmission following some period of penance, to outright refusal of readmission. While the Church generally came to apply the middle way, several of those who opposed this stance proceeded to establish their own schismatic sects — importantly, not on the basis of theological disagreement, but on purely administrative or disciplinary terms. The first such schismatic church was that of Novatian, in North Africa, which arose in the mid-third century as part of the ecclesial fallout of the Decian Persecution. Additional schismatic churches — namely, those of the Meletians and Donatists — were established during and immediately after the Diocletianic Persecution, and proved quite relevant to the Arian Controversy not only in the Meletians’ support of Arius and his compatriots, and in Arius’ possible association with them during the papacy of Pope Peter, but also to the Empire’s foray into involving itself with ecclesial affairs, beginning with the Donatist Controversy and setting a precedent that would directly lead to Constantine’s direct intervention in the dispute between Arius and the Church of Alexandria, and, thereafter, his convocation, attendance, and participation in the Council of Nicaea.  III.A. The Meletians and their Schism We shall first address the Meletians, in view of a chronological approach as to the establishment of the subject schismatic sects. History bequeaths to us two alternate renditions as to the origin of the Meletians, one sounding in a disagreement between Meletius, the bishop of Lycopolis, and Pope Peter of Alexandria during the Diocletianic Persecution regarding the means by which to deal with the lapsed, with Meletius objecting to Pope Peter’s canons on the matter as being too lenient, and the other account, the more likely of the two, portraying Meletius as a rogue bishop interfering in foreign dioceses, including Alexandria, and ordaining clergymen there without clearance during the Persecution, out of a purported concern for the pastoral needs of the believers in those dioceses, whose bishops had either fled or been imprisoned (with those imprisoned having in fact written to Meletius to object to his intrusions) and would eventually be martyred.  Irrespective of which origin account is accepted, or whether there may be some truth to both, it is beyond dispute that the Meletians ultimately arise in the early fourth century, perhaps around 306 A.D., as a distinct schismatic group, with Pope Peter writing a letter from his place of refuge during the Persecution to denounce Meletius’ conduct and warn against the Meletians’ activities, and subsequently convening a synod which convicted Meletius “of many crimes, and among the rest of offering sacrifice to idols” [98] — an interesting note if the account attributing rigorist views to Meletius as to the lapsed is to be believed (the evidence suggests it to have been a later invention — the letter of Pope Peter himself only mentions Meletius’ interference and illegal ordinations in Alexandria) — and deposed him and his followers.  Following Meletius’ deposition, he and his adherents continue to operate a schismatic church in Egypt, which they called the “Church of the Martyrs” and which was supported by 28 other bishops, at least some of whom he had ordained himself, as well as several presbyters and deacons, and are found siding with the Arians throughout the Arian Controversy. In fact, Sozomen, a fifth century historian, tells that Arius himself had sided with Meletius, leading to his own excommunication, and the Acts of the martyrdom of Pope Peter assert the same point before proceeding to discuss Peter’s vision regarding Arius having torn the robe of [presumably, although not explicitly stated] Christ and his advice to his disciples, Achillas and Alexander, against readmitting him to communion. If in fact these accounts represent accurate historical data regarding Arius’ alliance with Meletius, this would lend yet further credence to the historically troublesome and divisive character of Arius, although it would not explain how Arius is subsequently reconciled to the Church, ordained to the priesthood by Pope Peter’s successor (he had been ordained to the diaconate by Pope Peter sometime before being excommunicated by him), Pope Achillas, and even appointed to serve at one of the largest and most ancient parishes in Alexandria. [99] Nevertheless, the possibility that Arius was associated with the Meletians, challenged as it has come to be in modern scholarship, remains, and would not only correspond well to the character of Arius that emerges only a few years later at the outset of the public clash of his heresy with the Church, but also explain to some degree why the Meletians were so eager to side with his theological position despite their dispute with the Church having been one of an administrative rather than a theological nature.  So troubling were the Meletians, including in their support of the Arians, that Abba Antony warns repeatedly against any association with both groups, mentioning them together in his cautionings to his disciples. Athanasius, moreover, describes their base spirituality and insincerity, lamenting that the Meletian bishops had not even undergone ecclesial training and education before being taken from their prior positions and ordained to the episcopacy, and that they bore worldly dispositions, treated the episcopacy with loftiness and pride (“considering the Church as a civil senate, and like heathen being idolatrously minded”), and were ready to do all things, including frequently siding with the Arians, to win the favor of the people (“they are hirelings of any who will make use of them. They make not the truth their aim, but prefer before it their present pleasure”). [100] In any case, their spiritual insincerity, political motivations, and lack of conviction undoubtedly contributed to their alliance with the Arians, ultimately leading them to pile sin upon sin by not only harming the Church by their schism, but also contributing a great deal to the harm Athanasius and his fellow defenders of Nicaea suffered at the hands of the Arians and their allies and sympathizers.  III.B. The Donatist Schism and Imperial Interference in Ecclesial Affairs Of additional relevance to the Arian Controversy, albeit to a lesser extent, is the Donatist Schism, of which we will speak here only briefly. In about 311, at the election of Caecilian to the bishopric of Carthage, a cohort of dissenters arose to object to his ordination due to their qualms with his and his predecessor’s oppositions to the trend in their diocese of disproportionate and fanatical magnification of martyrdom. These protestors thus objected to Caecilian’s ordination, arguing that he had been ordained by a traditor (one who had handed over the Church books or Church property to the authorities during the Persecution) and proceeding to elect their own bishop of Carthage, establishing the schism that persisted long thereafter under the name of the Donatist Schism. Both sides appealed to Constantine, who convened a council in Rome in 313 to investigate the accusations, which found them baseless and affirmed Caecilian’s ordination. The dissenting cohort again sought review, which was provided to them at another council in Arles in 314, attended by 200 persons, which likewise cleared the accused bishop of having been a traditor and therefore affirmed Caecilian’s legitimacy. The following year, the bishop of the schismatic faction died, and another, Donatus, was appointed, with the schismatics thereafter bearing the name Donatists after him. Still adamant in their position, the Donatists once more appealed to Constantine, who heard the matter personally in Milan in 316, at which proceeding he “confirmed the previous decisions of Rome and Arles, and followed up his judgment by laws and edicts confiscating the goods of the party of Majorinus, depriving them of their churches, and threatening to punish their rebellion with death.” [101] In light of this ruling, the Donatists suffered even death at the hand of the Empire for their resistance, which, for its part, emboldened them further in light of their fanatical obsession with martyrdom and the martyrs. Upon learning of their suicidal resistance, Constantine halted the use of deadly force against them, in 317, and from thence largely ignored them, even as they increased in numbers, such that only a few years later, in 330, a synod of the Donatists was attended by 270 bishops. [102] For the purposes of contextualizing the Arian Controversy, however, the significance of the Donatist Schism is in its inauguration of formal imperial involvement in ecclesial affairs. Indeed, the appeal of the Donatists to Constantine brought him “directly into the heart of church controversies, and was the first occasion of his gradually growing interference.” [103] With this involvement, both helpful and quite harmful results accrued to the Church. The force of the Empire proved most useful, for instance, in the convocation of a universal council in 325, that of Nicaea, for the first time in history, to judge the theological contentions there relevant and, as it happened, to condemn Arius and his fellow heretics, lending authoritative and persuasive support to the Orthodox position in its decades-long opposition to Arianism. The same force, however, represented a double-edged sword, for later, the Empire’s license to interfere in ecclesial matters led to an ever-increasing worldliness in the Church and the use of imperial authority to persecute not only the Donatists, but also the Orthodox and the Arians, pursuant to the Emperor’s sympathies and the lobbying efforts of whatever parties or persons possessed influence over the Emperor at any particular time. [104] With the Donatist Schism in such recent memory, and its tensions still in many ways ongoing, when Arius initially interposed his objections in Alexandria, in 318 or 319, Constantine was understandably quite troubled, fearing lest this debate bring about yet another schism, thereby endangering the unity and peace of the Empire. Thus, as we shall see upon our future discussion of the beginnings of the Arian Controversy, Constantine sent correspondence to Alexander and Arius wherein he, citing the Donatist Schism and its divisive outcome, exhorted them to unity, believing the dispute between them to be of “a truly insignificant character, and quite unworthy of such fierce contention,” and to represent “an unprofitable question.”  III.C. Additional Notable Schismatic Efforts in Alexandria The foregoing is perhaps a sufficient outline of the ecclesial conditions bearing especial import upon the development and infancy of the Arian Controversy. In the interest of yet additional clarity, however, we will provide some further notes as to additional schismatic concerns in Alexandria at that time. Besides Meletius, another schismatic, Colluthus, had arisen in Alexandria in the early fourth century. While a presbyter, Colluthus claimed to himself episcopal authority and ordained bishops, apparently in opposition to Alexander’s initial patience in dealing with Arius, which he may have interpreted as weakness. [105] Despite his temporary schism, Colluthus is apparently readmitted to communion only shortly thereafter, and in fact is found first among the names of the presbyters who anathematized Arius in the council of Alexandria which deposed him in 324. While that council defrocked his ordained clergymen and restored them to the laity in light of the invalidity of their ordinations, certain of them proved problematic for the Church in subsequent years, including in the Church’s dealings with Arianism.  Finally for the purposes of this discussion, a brief dealing with Hierax (Hieracas) of Leontopolis must be set forth. Ascetical by reputation, [106] Hierax was learned, trained in Greek and Egyptian literature and science, and a prolific writer in both Greek and Coptic. His many gifts included art, poetry, astronomy, medical knowledge, and calligraphy. Among his dogmatic and scriptural errors, he denied the existence of a physical Paradise, disdained and forbade marriage, and denied the physical resurrection of the flesh at the last day. Arius contrasts his own doctrine with that of Hierax, and alleges that Hierax held faulty tenets with respect to his doctrine of the Trinity, especially in holding Melchizedek to have been the Holy Spirit and in viewing the Father and the Son as having being akin to “one torch from another, or a flame divided into two.” In any event, Hierax established a sect in Alexandria, which continued for a short time thereafter. His significance with respect to Arianism and its rise, however, is in further elucidating the tensions and factions existing in Alexandria in the early fourth century, and in evincing the very real possibility of various heretical and unorthodox beliefs to exist and persist in Alexandria under the authority of an ascetical and charismatic clergyman and without reference to the bishop of the diocese at that time. Concluding Remarks The foregoing, despite its length, remains in every respect an overview — a mere introduction into the complexities, tensions, and theological history of the first centuries of Christianity. In that context, as we have seen, Arianism arose in some manner as both a direct progeny and an unfortunate chimeric consequence of a tapestry of interwoven philosophical trends, intellectual and doctrinal influences, spiritual defects, and historical accidents coming together to constitute in Arius and his compatriots a defective belief system — if one might so, loosely, designate it — so centrally concerned with countering, in their own estimation, the Sabellian heresy as to compromise in the other direction the sound Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity. And so it is with countless examples throughout Christian history — the disease of heresy springs forth as much from unbridled ambition and deficiencies of wisdom and humility as it does from reactionary opposition to contrary, and yet, ultimately, equally heretical, positions.  In this light, as we have also seen, the threats of subtle theological innovation, the formative potential of societal morality upon ecclesial life, and the dangers of errant teaching and philosophical exploration, especially by those whose scriptural familiarity is lacking, discipleship is unsound, and beliefs deviant, real and destructive as they are in the Church, are all the more intensified and rendered significantly more potent when exhibited and carried out by those in positions of ecclesiastical authority. In contrast, the necessity of theological education, sound discipleship, and requisite preparation among those who teach, disciple, and shepherd the flock of Christ cannot be overstated, and the value of humility and submission to the pure teaching of Christ and the Scriptures cannot be overlooked. Doctrinal deviance, moreover, remains in every generation inextricably intertwined with vice, moral laxity, and spiritual weakness, and the believers must in that light take great caution regarding who is entrusted with teaching in the Church, the setting of discussion of theological matters, and the preparedness of the hearers to receive, appreciate, and comprehend sound doctrine.  Arius and his compatriots, destructive to the Church as they were in their time, were not by any means the last of those who have ailed the Church with their indecencies and deviance. Indeed, the student of history knows well that in every generation, even from the time of Christ Himself, there have arisen those who offend the flock, assail the Church, and devour those whose spiritual and doctrinal weaknesses, along with perhaps the confusion and inexperience of their shepherds, render them the most vulnerable of prey. Nevertheless, God remains faithful in every generation, working in the Church, through those who, with humility, love, wisdom, and conviction, strive to uphold the teaching of Christ and embody the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. It is therefore to the work of God, in and through these faithful disciples and Fathers in every generation, that the Church which has adhered to the Faith of Christ until today owes the purity of her teaching, spirit, and manner of life.  — [1] “Somewhat of a final blow” insofar as Arianism never truly died, remaining alive and being represented in history thereafter to varying extents and among various groups, including, most significantly, Islam, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and several other religious systems. [2] Alexander of Alexandria, Letter to Alexander of Constantinople , 1. [3] Athanasius of Alexandria, Orations Against the Arians  1.38. [4] See  Alexander of Alexandria, Letter to Alexander of Constantinople , 9. [5] Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter  60.3. [6] Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies , 458. [7] John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century , 18. [8] Ibid. , 20. [9] Ibid ., 114. [10] Ibid ., 114. [11] Ibid. , 11. [12] Ibid. , 18-19. [13] See   Ibid. , 23. [14] Tertullian, Against Praxeas  15. [15] See Justin, Dialogue with Trypho  128. [16] See   Ibid.  61, 129. [17] See  Theophilus, To Autolycus  ii. 10, 22. [18] See  Newman, 123. [19] See  Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters ( Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers  II.IV), xxiv. [20] Newman, 127-128. [21] Nonetheless, Tertullian himself advanced a form of subordinationism, describing the Son as an “emanation” from the Father yet sharing the same divine substance (e.g., “river and fountain”) ( Against Praxeas  8–9). [22] Novatian’s work is also notable for softening Tertullian’s subordinationist expressions. [23] Newman, 227. [24] See Ibid ., 120. [25] Ibid ., 121. [26] Ibid ., 128-129. [27] Ibid ., 130. [28] Ibid ., 130. [29] Ibid ., 130. [30] See  Wace, 426. [31] Newman, 131. [32] See   Ibid ., 131-132. [33] Ibid ., 132. [34] Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis  1.2.12; Contra Celsum  5.39. [35] See  Schaff and Wace, xxvi. [36] “[I]t is not sufficiently remembered that the speculations of Origen should be regarded as pioneer work in theology, and that they were often hazarded in order to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it” (Wace, 78). [37] See  Schaff and Wace, xxvi. [38] See  Charles Bigg, Bampton Lectures , 190-220; Schaff and Wace, xxv-xxvi. [39] Schaff and Wace, xxv (citing Origen, Contra Celsum  iii. 28). [40] Ibid ., xxvi. [41] cf . Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis  i. 2, iv. 28. [42] See  Schaff and Wace, xxvi. [43] Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis  i. 2, 12. [44] “[W]hose goodness is relative in comparison with God, and the fall of some of whom led to the creation of matter” (Schaff and Wace, xxvi). [45] Schaff and Wace, xxvi. [46] Ibid ., xxvi. [47] Ibid ., xxvii; see Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  6.13. [48] Schaff and Wace, xxvii. [49] Ibid. , xxvii. [50] Ibid. , xxvii. [51] Ibid. , xxvii. [52] See   Ibid. , xxvii. [53] Ibid. , xxvii. [54] Ibid. , xxvii. [55] Wace, 78. [56] Newman, 30. [57] See   Ibid. , 30. [58] Ibid. , 28-29; “[T]he argument by which Paulus of Samosata baffled the Antiochene Council, was drawn from a sophistical use of the very word substance , which the orthodox had employed in expressing the scriptural notion of the unity subsisting between the Father and the Son” ( Ibid. , 35). [59] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  1.5. [60] See  Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  1.5-6, 9; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History  1.5; Epiphanius, Against Heresies  69.7-8; Philostorgus, Ecclesiastical History  ii.2; Athanasius, de Decretis  16. [61] See  Newman, 31. [62] See Ibid. , 32. [63] Epiphanius, Against Heresies  71.1. [64] Gregory of Nyssa, On the Deity of the Son  [Patrologia Graeca xlvi, 557b]. [65] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration  27.3. [66] Newman, 6. [67] Ibid. , 6. [68] See   Ibid. , 22-23. [69] Wace, 1298. [70] Ibid. , 1298. [71] Ibid. , 1298. [72] Ibid. , 1298. [73] Ibid. , 1298. [74] See Ibid. , 1299; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History  vii.30. [75] Newman, 9. [76] Wace, 1299. [77] Ibid. , 1300. [78] For a helpful discussion, See   Ibid. , 299-300. [79] See   Ibid. , 76. [80] “For ye yourselves are taught of God, nor are ye ignorant that this doctrine, which hath lately raised its head against the piety of the Church, is that of Ebion and Artemas; nor is it aught else but an imitation of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who, by the judgment and counsel of all the bishops, and in every place, was separated from the Church. To whom Lucian succeeding, remained for many years separate from the communion of three bishops. And now lately having drained the dregs of their impiety, there have arisen amongst us those who teach this doctrine of a creation from things which are not, their hidden sprouts, Arius and Achilles, and the gathering of those who join in their wickedness. And three bishops in Syria, having been, in some manner, consecrated on account of their agreement with them, incite them to worse things. But let the judgment concerning these be reserved for your trial” (Alexander of Alexandria, Letter to Alexander of Constantinople , 9). [81] See  Schaff and Wace, xxviii. [82] Wace, 1068; See  Newman 7. [83] Schaff and Wace, xxvii-xxviii. [84] Ibid. , xxvii-xxviii. [85] Ibid. , xxvii-xxviii. [86] Ibid. , xxvii-xxviii. [87] “…to Origen Will was the very essence of God; Lucian fell back upon an arid philosophical Monotheism, upon an abstract God fenced about with negations (Harnack, 22, 195, note) and remote from the Universe” ( Ibid. , xxviii). [88] See  Philostorgus, Ecclesiastical History  ii. 15; Schaff and Wace, xxviii. [89] Schaff and Wace, xxviii. [90] Ibid. , xxviii. [91] Ibid. , xxviii. [92] Ibid. , xxviii. [93] Ibid. , xxviii. [94] “Arianism was a novelty. Yet it combines in an inconsistent whole elements of almost every previous attempt to formulate the doctrine of the Person of Christ. Its sharpest antithesis was Modalism: yet with the modalist Arius maintained the strict personal unity of the Godhead. With dynamic monarchianism it held the adoptionist principle in addition; but it personified the Word and sacrificed the entire humanity of Christ. In this latter respect it sided with the Docetæ, most Gnostics, and Manichæans, to all of whom it yet opposes a sharply-cut doctrine of creation and of the transcendence of God. With Origen and the Apologists before him it made much of the cosmic mediation of the Word in contrast to the redemptive work of Jesus; with the Apologists, though not with Origen, it enthroned in the highest place the God of the Philosophers: but against both alike it drew a sharp broad line between the Creator and the Universe, and drew it between the Father and the Son. Least of all is Arianism in sympathy with the theology of Asia,—that of Ignatius, Irenæus, Methodius, founded upon the Joannine tradition. The profound Ignatian idea of Christ as the Λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών is in impressive contrast with the shallow challenge of the  Thalia,  ‘Many words hath God spoken, which of these was manifested in the flesh?’” ( Ibid. , xxix). [95] See  Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History  viii.1. [96] See  Lactantius, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died , c.15. [97] Wace, 411. [98] Athanasius of Alexandria, Apologia Contra Arianos  59. [99] The Synaxarium of the Coptic Church narrates that Arius was excommunicated by Pope Peter for spreading his Arian teaching, while making no mention of the Meletians or his association with them. So too, the Antiphonarium praises Pope Peter for opposing the Arians, but does not mention the Meletians. [100] See  Athanasius of Alexandria, History of the Arians 8.78-79. [101] Wace, 229. [102] Ibid. , 444. [103] Ibid. , 340. [104] See   Ibid. , 340. [105] See  Schaff and Wace, xvi. [106] Epiphanius, Against Heresies 67.1. —

Series Introduction On an unassuming day in late May of the year 325 A.D., in the lakeside city of Nicaea, 318 [1] bishops from all across the Roman Empire came together at the invitation of the Emperor in what would become one of the most venerated and consequential events in Christian history. Their convocation, necessitated by novel — and yet, upon closer examination, not entirely original — doctrinal contentions maintained by a popular and elderly Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, along with his supporters and fellow heretics, carried the potential for either vindication of the Faith delivered by Christ “once for all to the saints,” [2] or formal acceptance by the Church of an entirely heretical doctrinal framework.  Despite the gravity of the Council of Nicaea, the first “ecumenical” [3] council in the Church’s history, and its central role in the eventual triumph of Orthodoxy over what amounted to a threatening and popularly attractive deviant dogmatic system, its historical background, doctrinal concerns, and subsequent legacy remain until today relatively obscure and unfamiliar to the average Christian. Indeed, besides perhaps limited superficial awareness of the occurrence of this council, and potentially also an association of the great Saint Athanasius with it, if even that, the ordinary believer is — and this is a disheartening and lamentable fact — woefully unaware of its monumental significance.  In our humble effort to contribute to remedying the foregoing, especially on this 1700th anniversary of the Council, by providing a serviceable introduction to its history, import, and legacy, we will begin by providing an overview of the “makings,” character, and life of Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, whose theological acumen and spiritual prodigiousness became renowned even from a young age and proved timely — even divinely-prepared — for the ecclesial contentions of his lifetime. Abba Athanasius emerges from the doctrinal battlegrounds of the Nicene era as the victorious defender of Orthodox Christianity, one may add at great personal cost [4] and not without the invaluable assistance and support of several other faithful, pious, and theologically adept believers from among both the clergy and the laity, and his unshakeable personality, deep piety, and heartfelt defense of his  Faith — rather than some theoretical set of impersonal dogmatic tenets — deserve careful attention, if only for the sake of spiritual edification and inspiration to piety and doctrinal concern. Having so introduced Athanasius, albeit in necessarily cursory fashion, we will proceed to highlight the theological, social, and ecclesial backgrounds and contexts that underpinned the subject theological dispute, along with a discussion of the catalyst behind it, Arius of Alexandria, his dogmatic ideas which later came to be collectively known as Arianism, along with its many variants, and his repeated clashes with the Alexandrian Church between 313 and 325 A.D. in the lead-up to the Council. Finally, we will dedicate the third entry of our series to a discussion of the aftermath of the Council, especially the chaotic and volatile period that lasted until approximately 381 A.D. and caused immense suffering to both the Church generally and Athanasius and his fellow supporters and defenders of Nicaea specifically.  It is our hope that by God’s grace, this limited series will serve as a helpful introductory foray into the contentious world of fourth-century Christianity, and an inspiring and convicting opportunity for readers to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation not only of Saint Athanasius and his defense of the Faith against Arianism, but also of the truly nuanced and consequential nature of theological debate and the immense sacrifice the Fathers of the Church offered, due to their unwavering faithfulness, in order to preserve and deliver the Faith they had received and which they were entrusted by the Lord to uphold, proclaim, and transmit in His Church.    The Makings and Character of Saint Athanasius the Apostolic It would doubtless be remiss, for our purposes, to commence our discussion of the Council of Nicaea and the Arian Controversy without first examining the makings and character of the man who emerged from that unenviable period as the Champion of Orthodoxy — Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. It would, without exaggeration, be impossible to either adequately capture the magnitude of the Church’s triumph over Arianism — which at one point had enamored and captivated almost the whole of Christendom — or elicit from this unfortunate period of the Church’s history perhaps any modicum of spiritual edification without properly understanding, inasmuch as we are able, the man who, against all odds and in opposition to, almost literally, the whole word, possessed the clarity of mind and soundness of understanding to be able to properly comprehend and synthesize what had been handed down in the Church from the beginning, had undergone the requisite education and training to be able to distinguish nuanced deviations from sound doctrine and respond to them clearly and forcefully, and stood firm, despite great personal loss, against a popular, attractive, and politically connected heresy. Indeed, to understand and appreciate the Nicene victory over Arianism, one must first understand and appreciate Athanasius.  Athanasius was born to a pious and wealthy Egyptian Christian family in or around 298 A.D. He was baptized in his infancy, and it was his family that planted within him the seed of truth, nourished him in the Christian life, and facilitated the earliest and most important years of his physical, spiritual, and intellectual development. While we know little about his parents from his writings, we are certain that they routinely attended the liturgical services of the Church, bringing with them little Athanasius. He routinely attended Divine Liturgies, baptisms, weddings, and all other services in the Church, and, as we will see shortly, he was incredibly attentive during these, soaking in the prayers, hymns, readings, and ecclesial atmosphere since his infancy. It was therefore his family that constituted the first formative force that influenced his life, character, and thought.  The liturgical experience, to which he was accustomed and in which he was raised, left an indelible mark on the life of our saint. It is clear from the historical data that Athanasius was quite familiar since a young age with the liturgical prayers of the Church. For instance, a famous story recorded about him by several early Christian historians tells that one day, Pope Alexander spotted young Athanasius playing with his friends by the seashore in Alexandria. As he watched them play, he recognized that they were acting out the liturgy of baptism, and so when he had called them over and investigated their play, he discovered that Athanasius, who fulfilled the role of the bishop in the act, conducted the rite precisely and with great enthusiasm and reverence. [5] But how could Athanasius do so without reference to the liturgical rubrics or texts unless he had memorized the prayer and rite of baptism, and how could he have done so if he had not already, despite his young age, attended many baptisms and paid close attention to and participated in the celebration? Athanasius did not abandon this liturgical mode of life as he grew; even after he became patriarch, he practiced the liturgical life faithfully, competently, and with great love and care. This is easily appreciated, for instance, in his recounting that, after he had already become the bishop of Alexandria, he was once in the church praying the Midnight Praises (Tasbeha), when at the time of the Second Canticle (Ϩⲱⲥ), more than five thousand guards seized upon the church to arrest him. As a faithful shepherd, Athanasius insisted that all those present first be permitted to depart unharmed; when all had departed, the guards entered the church to find it empty, with even Athanasius having managed to secretly flee. [6] All throughout his life, Athanasius was keen to observe the liturgical worship of his beloved Church, and the influence of that liturgical experience is clearly perceptible in the stories about him as well as his own writings. It suffices to read his beautiful Letter to Marcellinus  on the Psalms to see how deeply and lovingly Athanasius approached the life of prayer and what great familiarity and facility he had with the Psalter, which was, of course, a main liturgical book both in the practice of the Egyptian churches and among the monastics in his day.  Beyond liturgical worship, Athanasius was deeply influenced by the persecution that arose in his early youth. From the time that he was a young boy until his mid-teens, Athanasius lived through the so-called Diocletianic Persecution, which lasted from 303 A.D. until 313 A.D. Thus, Athanasius experienced the most severe era of early Christian persecution from when he was about five years old until he was about fifteen. He likely prayed in hiding along with his fellow believers during these years; perhaps he, like many other Christians, was forced to flee his home along with his family; and he saw at least some among his teachers, relatives, and friends martyred for the sake of Christ. [7] This experience, particularly during these formative years, left a profound mark on his spirituality, intellectual framework, and theological understanding, so much so that when writing his first great treatise, Against the Heathen  and On the Incarnation , only a few years after the persecution ended — that is, when he was only about 18 or 20 years old — Athanasius considers as among the most powerful witnesses to the truth of the resurrection of our Lord, besides the purity and chastity of young Christian men and women, which he undoubtedly practiced and saw among his friends and fellow believers in his young age, the courage and peace of the men and women who went with joy to their martyrdom. [8] Had he not seen such men and women with his own eyes, or been educated by, or perhaps even related to, some of them, he would not have been able to speak with such force and in so moving a way about them, and he might not have appreciated the convicting power of their witness or its implications when understood in light of the sound Faith of Christ. And so Athanasius, having seen martyrdom up close and personally, was able to hold fast to the truth of Christ when faced with a new form of persecution and personal suffering for His sake.  In addition to his upbringing by pious parents, liturgical practice, and experience of the Great Persecution, Athanasius was deeply influenced by his discipleship — to the renowned monastic elders of his day and to Pope Alexander himself — and especially the ascetical life with which he had through that discipleship been introduced and become quite accustomed.  He enjoyed a close personal relationship with the great Abba Antony, even being within his inner circle and “pouring water on his hands,” [9] a sign of personal trust and close discipleship. He spent so much time with Antony, in fact, that when he was asked to write the account of that saint’s life, he was able to prepare his great work, The Life of Antony , predominantly from memory, but for supportive reliance on other disciples of Antony who had perhaps spent more time with him or had been present for events in his life for which Athanasius had been absent. [10] And Abba Antony, of course, deeply respected and loved his disciple Athanasius, to the point of leaving the inner mountain and traveling to Alexandria at the request of Athanasius and the other “bishops and all the brethren” to assist them in their opposition to Arianism [11] — one of only two or three times that Antony left the desert to visit the city after undertaking the monastic life — and bequeathing to him one of the only two garments he owned at the time of his departure. [12] Besides Antony, Athanasius was also well acquainted with Abba Pachomius, seeking even to ordain him to the presbytery, which ordination Pachomius famously refused by going into hiding until Athanasius agreed not to move forward with it. [13] And certainly Athanasius was closely acquainted and associated with many great monastics in his day, visiting the monasteries in a pastoral capacity, ordaining bishops from among the monks — for the first time in Christian history — in order to assist him, given their renowned theological training and intellectual prowess, in opposing Arianism and defending the Faith of Nicaea, and even being able to take refuge among the monks of the Egyptian desert during his third and fourth (of five) exiles, receiving during those exiles news of ongoing events and communicating with his flock through loyal and skilled messengers acting within an established and effective system of monastic communication. Of course, his discipleship to the great Pope Alexander, his predecessor in the papacy, is also well known. It was that patriarch who first “discovered” Athanasius, as mentioned above, and who facilitated his theological education in the School of Alexandria, ordained him when he was still in his early twenties to the diaconate due to his rare brilliance, spiritual and academic excellence, piety of life, and sincerity in discipleship, and granted him to accompany him to the great Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., and to participate there in defending the Faith against the Arians.  In this manner, Athanasius was well-discipled — to spiritually faithful and theologically competent teachers and elders — and embodied the spirit of sound discipleship, and was therefore able to deliver the true faith and spirit of Christ to his own disciples and to the following generation of believers, both due to his personal receipt of that doctrine and spirit from those who held fast to, properly understood, and lived according to it and, as we will now see, also through his formal education and theological training.  Beyond the aforementioned factors, and in tandem with them, Athanasius was influenced by his academic and theological training and study. As previously noted, Pope Alexander ensured that the young Athanasius obtained the highest caliber of education in his day, and in the information known of Athanasius’ life prior to his encountering Pope Alexander, it is likewise clear that his own parents emphasized his education in their own right when he was a young boy. Athanasius therefore benefitted greatly from a sound, well-rounded education, and was thus well trained in Greek philosophy, rhetoric, logic, grammar, literature, Greco-Roman religion, and other disciplines. It was this training, along with his mastery of the Scriptures, that ultimately proved most useful to him, enabling him to recognize, understand, and refute Arius’ doctrinal framework and theological misunderstandings, and persuade the believers of the truth and reasonableness of Orthodoxy, with not only scriptural arguments, but also by using philosophy, reason, and other pertinent disciplines. [14] The foregoing influences, great and impactful as they were in the life of the great defender of Orthodoxy, were, it must be said, insufficient on their own to produce the spiritually, intellectually, and doctrinally imposing, albeit physically unimpressive, Athanasius. Indeed, what bound these together and produced in Athanasius the unique, inspiring, and indefatigable heart, mind and spirit he possessed throughout his life were none other than, first, a profound knowledge and mastery of the Scriptures, and, second, an extraordinary and inextinguishable love for Christ.  Athanasius was renowned for and deeply influenced by an encyclopedic knowledge of the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers who preceded him. He memorized the Scriptures, like many of the saints from the early Church until today, and this mastery of the Scriptures was key to his ability to correct and refute the Arians, since they relied on many verses and passages from the Scriptures, but taken out of context, interpreted inconsistently and disharmoniously with the patristic tradition, and used manipulatively — eisegetically  — to further their arguments and agendas. Athanasius’ scriptural knowledge and understanding of the work of the saints and biblical interpreters who came before him — along with his faithful spirit — enabled him to properly understand the verses utilized by the Arians, correct, expose, and masterfully counter their manipulative and unfaithful usage of them, and thereby safeguard the believers from his time until today from the error of that ignominious heresy.  Meanwhile, an illimitable and deeply personal love of Christ and the Church — a palpable piety and sincere theological   humility  — was perhaps the central driving force behind Athanasius’ impassioned, lifelong commitment to and defense of the Nicene cause and the extermination of Arianism. As one scholar summarized, “[i]t was not as a theologian, but as a believing soul in need of a Saviour, that Athanasius approached the mystery of Christ.” [15] And as another beautifully expressed: “Athanasius was on fire with the love of Christ . . . His love of Christ is the key to his whole life and also to his writings.” [16] Athanasius was therefore not, as some have come to conceive of theology, an academic or speculative theologian to whom matters of doctrine were objects of mere intellectual interest and theoretical contemplation. Rather, he was, in every respect, a “great Christian pastor” [17] to whom “Christianity is not a dead system of doctrine and statements of faith, but living faith in Jesus Christ.” [18] And so, despite the great difficulties he suffered at the hands of the Arians and their political and religious supporters, “[t]he glory of God and the welfare of the Church absorbed him fully at all times.” [19] The influences in the life, understanding, and character of this great saint — of which we have here spoken in cursory fashion and with words that of necessity fall short of conveying the full sense of his nobility and splendor — must be understood collectively. They worked together in him both to render him the saint that he became, by God’s grace and his own uncompromising conviction to the life with God until the last breath, and to enable him to defend the Faith of Christ and to overcome the monstrous threat of Arianism — one that could have eliminated sound Orthodoxy from the world entirely. As one considers Abba Athanasius, the insufficiency of words in adequately conveying to the reader even a glimpse of his greatness becomes obvious. And yet, despite that inadequacy, through them one immediately recognizes in him an awe-inspiring and decisive resoluteness worthy of wholehearted imitation. [20] He was in every respect human — having his share of flaws, weaknesses, and biases, as with any other person, but with a dynamic, enthusiastic, and active personality distinguished by deep piety, singularity of purpose, clarity of thought, unmistakable loyalty, uncompromisable dignity, infectious joy, and a lighthearted sense of humor. It was this Athanasius who, by God’s grace, would rise to the occasion of refuting and resisting Arius and his fellow heretics — from whom, as will be seen, there emerged in Athanasius’ lifetime several groups divided along various theological lines — and to whom Orthodox Christianity would forever be indebted as perhaps its greatest defender.  — [1] Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History  3.31; Athanasius, Epistle to the African Bishops ; Hilarius, Contra Constantium ; Jerome, Chronicon ; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History 10.1. [2] Jude 3. [3] That is, universal, or having representation from, and applicability to, the entire [Christian] world ( oikoumene ).  [4] See , e.g. , Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History  10.15: “But he had such struggles to undergo in the church for the integrity of the faith that the following passage seems to have been written about him too: ‘I will show him how much he will have to suffer for my name.’ For the whole world conspired to persecute him and the princes of the earth were moved, nations, kingdoms, and armies gathered against him. But he guarded that divine utterance which runs: ‘If camps are set up against me, my heart will not fear, if battle is waged against me, in him will I hope.’ But because his deeds are so outstanding that their greatness does not allow me to omit any of them, yet their number compels me to pass over very many, and thus my mind is troubled by uncertainty, unable to decide which to keep and which to pass over. We shall therefore relate a few of the pertinent matters, leaving the rest to be told by his fame, which will, however, doubtless find itself recounting the lesser things. For it will discover nothing that it could add.” [5] For the complete telling of this account, see  Socrates, Ecclesiastical History  1.15; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History  2.17; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History  10.15. [6] For the full account in Athanasius’ own words, see Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga 24.  [7] See   On the Incarnation  56.  [8] Id. at 28, 48, 52.  [9] See   Life of Antony , Prologue. [10] Ibid. [11] Id.  at 69-71.  [12] Id.  at 91. [13] The Bohairic Life of Pachomius  28.  [14] It suffices to read his Against the Arians  to see how well Athanasius comprehends these disciplines and capitalizes on his knowledge of them to pick apart Arius’ belief system and theological assertions. [15] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters ( Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II.IV), xv. [16] Dominic Unger, A Special Aspect of Athanasian Soteriology,” Franciscan Studies  6 (1946), 30. [17] W. Emery Barnes, “Athanasius” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics , James Hastings, gen. ed. Volume 3, 170-171. [18] Friedrich Lauchert, Die Lehre Des Heiligen Athanasius des Grossen  (Leipzig: Gustav Fock Verlag, 1895), 12. [19] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters ( Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II.IV), lxvii. [20] It was this sublime character of Athanasius that led St. Gregory of Nazianzus to declare: “In praising Athanasius, I shall be praising virtue. To speak of him and to praise virtue are identical, because he had, or, to speak more truly, has embraced virtue in its entirety.” ( Oration  21.1). —

The Apocalypse of John, whom Tradition names the “Liturgist,” [1] is inherently a book of worship, outlining for the believers the expectations and outcomes of the life of Faith. Through the various revelations recorded by John in this divinely-inspired book, the Lord Jesus Christ conveys, both to John himself and to the readers of the book more generally, a central message of exhortation to faithfulness. He, the Just Judge, is shown throughout the Apocalypse to be working patiently for the salvation of all souls, so that none would be lost except the son of perdition. [2] Indeed, divine violence in the Apocalypse is best understood as the patient enactment of God’s justice: “The One seated on the throne is the God of justice; but the justice of our God is spelt mercy.” [3] The Apocalypse begins with a message to each of the churches from the Lord who exhorts them to complete perfection: “Repent” and “be faithful unto death.” [4] The believers are encouraged to remain faithful to God and not forsake the Faith which they have accepted and received, being steadfast despite the threat of persecution and hardship [5] so as not to become conformed to the world which will soon reap the fitting results of her deeds and stance against God. By virtue of their acceptance of the Faith and abidance according to it, the believers are prepared for the impending judgment. [6] As for those who are not members of the Church — who belong to the world and submit to its influences — God is found in the Revelation providing these every opportunity for repentance and seeking their salvation through a variety of means. By exhorting the believers to remain steadfast, He intends for them to become His witnesses in the world, as the Lord often taught in His sermons. [7] Another method seen in the Apocalypse by which God seeks the repentance of those who are of the world is through unleashing plagues upon the earth. Evidently, these plagues, being permitted by God, [8] are intended for the repentance of the people — meant to cause them to realize the fleeting nature of the world as well as the power and authority of God as its Creator, and thereby compel them to seek refuge in Him. Thus: “when people cry out in terror, the movement toward judgment is interrupted and readers are shown the scale of divine redemption (6:16-17; 7:1-17). The trumpet visions continue depicting divine wrath against the ungodly, but when the plagues fail to bring repentance, judgment is again interrupted so that the faithful can bear witness (9:20-21; 10:1-11:12). Only when many have been brought to glorify God does the final trumpet sound (11:13-15).” [9] As the wrath of God unfolds through violence on the earth, this enactment of divine violence results in the peaceful scene of heavenly worship, the beautiful liturgy in which humanity is invited to participate. [10] While the strength of the victorious God is displayed throughout the Apocalypse, another power is also found exerting its strength over the world — that of the dragon, identified as “that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” [11] The antithesis of the patient and long-suffering mercy of God in seeking the repentance of all people is the cruelty, deceit, impurity, and violence of the beast and dragon. They, unlike God, utilize violence to inflict fear so as to impose their authority upon humanity. While the violence of God does not directly harm humanity, [12] the beast and dragon find their satisfaction in the persecution and torment of mankind. This dragon, representative of Satan and his evil powers, is found pursuing a woman “clothed with the sun” in Revelation 12: “And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God…And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished…The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.” [13] Much speculation is found regarding the symbolism of the woman. Since John amalgamates a variety of Scriptural features and contexts into the Apocalypse, thereby creating new imagery out of the old, a multifaceted consideration of the various revelations uncovers a deeper understanding that may be gleaned from the text. In presenting this imagery through a diversity of lenses, such as the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament Church, and Greco-Roman culture, the Apocalypse succeeds to convey an especially rich message — of the victorious Christ and the victory enjoyed by those who faithfully endure in the Faith in Him — to a wide array of diverse readers.  Utilizing Old Testament language, John presents the woman clothed with the sun as representative of the people of God, who is Himself the “Sun of righteousness.” [14] The twelve tribes of Israel, encompassing the entirety of God’s people in the Old Testament, are represented on the crown adorning the head of the woman, reminiscent of the twelve stones adorning the clothing of the Levitical priests. [15] The pursuit of the woman likewise recalls Israel’s most formative experience — the Exodus, in which, having been led out of Egypt, they crossed the sea and emerged from it into the wilderness, with the waters gathering together behind them to drown their pursuers: “Pharaoh’s chariots and his host He cast into the sea.” [16] Having reached Mount Sinai, the Israelites were reminded by God through Moses: “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will obey My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My own possession among all peoples.” [17] The Apocalypse hearkens to this covenant with God, as the woman clothed with the sun is given “two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness.” [18] The synthesis of Israelite imagery in the Apocalypse is not divorced from the experience of the New Testament, but rather reveals the profound christological and ecclesiological understanding of the Christian Church: the followers of Christ, constituting the Church, are the true Israel [19] — the perpetuation of the covenant established by God with His people [20] most perfectly realized in light of His economy of salvation. Thus, for early Christian commentators on the Apocalypse, the woman clothed with the sun is not understood as being representative of the Israelites exclusively, but through them, also the Church. [21] The understanding of the woman clothed with the sun as representative of the Christian Church further finds its foundation in the Virgin Mary: being the Mother of God, she becomes also the mother of all who put on Christ in baptism. [22] Thus, Augustine writes: “His Mother [Mary] is the [mother of the] whole Church, because she herself assuredly gives birth to His members, that is His faithful ones.” [23] Likewise, Origen identifies that if Christ is to be formed in the believers, they must not only become His beloved disciples, but also take His mother as their own. [24] In light of this Mariological understanding, the woman clothed with the sun emerges as an icon of the Virgin Mary, and through her, the Church. This imagery and interpretation is presented in the weekday Psalmody of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which contemplates: “I saw a sign shown in the sky: a woman clothed with the sun, she also had the moon abiding under her feet and twelve stars forming a crown on her head; being pregnant in labor, crying out to give birth — she is Mary, the new heaven on earth, from whom shines on us the Sun of Righteousness. For the Sun with which she is clothed is our Lord Jesus Christ, the moon below her feet is John the Baptist, and the twelve stars forming a crown on her head are the twelve apostles surrounding her, bestowing honor!” [25] In a similar manner, the pursuit of the woman by the dragon was interpreted by Oecumenius in the sixth century in relation to the Virgin Mary and the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt. [26] The situation of the woman in the wilderness can also be understood within the context of the Church’s vocation: to be in  the world but not of the world. [27] The Christians — the offspring of the Virgin Mary by virtue of their putting on Christ, her Son, through baptism — are “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.” [28] As a result, they continually face the spiritual warfare waged by the evil powers. The fluidity of the imagery presented in the Apocalypse enables such a diversity of interpretation. Being concerned with the conversion of the world to the Faith in Christ, the Apocalypse has for its audience all people, and not exclusively those deeply acquainted with the Holy Scriptures. As such, the Apocalypse also appropriates certain elements of Greco-Roman literature, embedding them within the same discourse in relation to the Faith in Christ. [29] Wilfred Harrington pertinently notes: “The closest parallel, however, to the narrative of the woman and the dragon is a Graeco-Roman version of the legend of Apollo’s birth. Leto had become pregnant by Zeus. The dragon Python foresaw that this child, a son, would replace him as ruler over the oracle at Delphi. He sought to kill the child at birth. Zeus commissioned the North wind and the sea-god Poseidon to aid Leto. She gave birth to Apollo and Artemis; Apollo slew the dragon Python. John adapted the story to describe the birth of the Messiah. But it is not his only source.” [30] In the Apocalypse narrative, the victor is Christ, rather than Apollo, who defeats the dragon by His own death. Craig Koester explains: “…the imagery would have engaged the interest of a wide spectrum of readers…The characters and plotline in John’s vision take on a distinctive form that is designed to shape his readers’ perspectives on the situation of Jesus’ followers in the world.” [31] In an innovative manner, the Apocalypse “baptizes” the mythological story, painting it in a Christian light in connection to the Scriptural narrative, thereby granting Gentile readers an effective means to understanding the reality and significance of Christ’s salvific act. The scenes of violence in the Apocalypse serve as catalysts for humanity’s return to God and pursuit of Him and powerfully depict the results of one’s allegiances. The dragon slays “those who would not worship the image of the beast,” [32] and despite this, humanity continues to submit to the authority of the dragon and the beast although they are actively killing them. The Lord, on the other hand, is “He who offers Himself as an acceptable sacrifice upon the Cross for the salvation of our race.” [33] Whereas God ultimately sheds His blood for the sake of humanity, the woman seated on the beast — becoming herself a distorted parody of the Incarnate Son of God seated on the throne with His Father [34] — rather feasts on the blood of the people. [35] For this reason, while God patiently endures the evil of the world and seeks to inspire repentance among mankind — being Himself merciful — the time comes when the final judgment is to be carried out — for He is also just. Those who experience all of the plagues and wrath of God and do not repent, [36] but rather flee to seek refuge within the earth, [37] submitting themselves to the beast and dragon who seek their destruction, have ultimately rejected God. He has conquered, and while the evil one is “loosed for a little while,” [38] deceiving humanity for a time with his cunningly attractive façade, the final and eternal triumph belongs to God. Sin deserves its consequence. [39] Thus, those who have aligned themselves with the earth and its ruler will be met with torment at the time of the final judgment: “if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” [40] The theme of repentance echoes consistently throughout John’s Apocalypse, wherein the people of God — namely, all who adhere to the Faith in Christ — reap the benefits of their allegiance to the victorious slain Lamb. In conformity to Christ, [41] the believers are to expect rejection and aggressive opposition from the world and its powers. Despite this immediate state of persecution, even being cast outside the city and chased into the wilderness, the people of God are reminded of the victory of Christ which is enjoyed by those who endure the tribulation and remain faithful until the end. The endurance of such hardship becomes for them the opportunity to grow in conformity to Him who conquered, conquers, and will conquer, so that they too may emerge victorious over the powers of the evil one. For this reason, the people of the One whose voice “was like the sound of many waters” [42] are themselves heard crying with a voice “like the sound of many waters” [43] by the end of the Apocalypse. Utilizing a diverse array of imagery, drawing from both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the ritual expressions of the Church’s worship, [44] as well as contemporary Greco-Roman literary features, John presents this message of a reality that transcends sociocultural boundaries — that of the heavenly worship and eternal citizenship in the new heaven and earth with God to which all are called, both Jews and Gentiles alike. A nuanced reading of the Apocalypse as a whole, and especially as exemplified in the account of Revelation 12, therefore reveals the vocation of Christianity in the world, and through it the call of Christ to all of humanity — the same exhortation by which He began His earthly ministry: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” [45] — [1] See e.g. , José Granados, Introduction to Sacramental Theology: Signs of Christ in the Flesh , 64 [2] See  John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; “Son of perdition is a Hebraism in which the genitive is ambiguous. It can denote the person’s character, as in Ps 57:4, where ‘children of unrighteousness’ is rendered in the LXX τέκνα άπωλείας ; or the person’s destiny, as in Isa 34:5, where ‘the people I have doomed’ appears in the LXX as τόν λαόν τής άπωλείας . The same expression, ‘the son of perdition,’ ό νίός τής άπωλείας , is applied to the Antichrist in 2 Thess 2:3 in parallelism with ‘the man of lawlessness,’ presumably to denote his evil nature, but it may also include the thought of his sure destruction, which is mentioned in 2 Thess 2:8” (George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 36: John , 299). [3] Wilfrid J. Harrington, Sacra Pagina: Revelation , 32 [4] See  Revelation 2:5, 10, 16, 22; 3:3, 10-11, 19 [5] “The goal of each message [to the Churches, in chapters 2 and 3] is to evoke enduring faithfulness, and the interplay between encouragement and rebuke is designed to achieve this end. … Christ, the Lion of Judah, conquered as a Lamb whose self-sacrifice brings people into God’s kingdom. Christ’s followers are to conquer in a similar way through faithful self-sacrifice” (Craig R. Koester, The Anchor Yale Bible: Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary , 237). [6] Notably, this expectation of the eschaton was incorporated into many early Christian creeds of Faith. In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as one example, the believers chant: “We look for the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the coming age. Amen.” [7] For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount: “You are the salt of the earth…You are the light of the world…Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16). [8] “…the Lamb, by breaking the first seal, unleashes the plagues…The second horseman has been given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slaughter one another: the complementary sides of warfare. Given  power — even destructive war serves a divine purpose! It is a forceful way of stressing that nothing, not even the most awful things that humans can do to one another, and to our world, can ever frustrate God’s saving purpose” (Harrington, 91). [9] Koester, 307 [10] See  Revelation 8:1-5; 10:15-19 [11] Revelation 12:9 [12] In the plagues which God permits, the only harm that comes to humanity is inflicted by humanity against itself: when the horsemen of Revelation 6 act, it is men who slay one another; likewise the death which results after the fourth trumpet is blown in Revelation 8 comes from the actions of men who drink of the water which had become wormwood ( see  Revelation 8:10-11); the locusts which emerge from the earth, moreover, are specifically instructed not to kill those who are not sealed (Revelation 9:4-5). God directly gives the initiative, in Revelation 7, that the creation should not be harmed until the servants of God are sealed (Revelation 7:3). [13] See  Revelation 12 [14] Malachi 4:2 [15] Exodus 28:21 [16] Exodus 15:4 [17] Exodus 19:4-5 [18] Revelation 12:14 [19] Robert Mounce finds the woman clothed with the sun as representative of “the messianic community, the ideal Israel,” although he excludes the possibility of understanding this imagery through the Virgin Mary, a stance that this paper seeks to assert as being insufficient ( See  Robert H. Mounce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Revelation , 230). [20] See  Genesis 12:1-3 [21] “For Victorinus, the woman encompassed both ancient Israel and the followers of Jesus. She groans as the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles groaned for the coming of the Messiah. Her twelve stars relate to Israel’s early history, since they symbolize the sons of Jacob. The dragon’s threat against the child corresponds to the time of Jesus, when the devil tempted him in the wilderness. Finally, the dragon’s horns are ten kings who will reign at the end of the age” (Koester, 525-526); Harrington likewise understands the woman to be “the people of God of the Old Testament who, having given Christ to the world, thereby became the Christian Church” (Harrington, 130). [22] Galatians 3:27 [23] Augustine, On Holy Virginity , 5 [24] See  Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on John  1.23 [25] The Thursday θεοτοκια, 9 [26] Koester summarizes Oecumenius’ view, writing: “The devil’s attempt to devour the child occurred when Herod the Great ordered all the children in Bethlehem to be slain, and the woman’s escape to the wilderness was the holy family’s escape to Egypt, as reported in Matt 2:1-18” (Koester, 526). [27] See e.g. , John 17:11-19; 1 John 2:15-17; Commenting on the condition of the Church in the wilderness, John Chrysostom profoundly writes: “And now, should you come unto the desert of Egypt, you will see this desert become better than any paradise, and ten thousand choirs of angels in human forms, and nations of martyrs, and companies of virgins, and all the devil’s tyranny put down, while Christ’s kingdom shines forth in its brightness.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew  8.5-6). [28] Revelation 12:17 [29] “Recent studies have noted, however, that Rev 12 has affinities with both Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions and does not follow any one tradition exactly…writers point out that myths are characterized by variety rather than uniformity. Mythic patters share certain typical elements while exhibiting variations in detail. Sometimes, ancient plotlines were combined” (Koester, 528). [30] Harrington, 129 [31] Koester, 530 [32] Revelation 13:15 [33] See  the Hymn Ⲫⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲁϥ ⲉⲛϥ. [34] See  Revelation 3:21 [35] Revelation 17:6 [36] See e.g. , Revelation 6:15-17; 9:20-21; 16:9, 11, 21 [37] See  Revelation 6:15-17 [38] Revelation 20:3 [39] See  Revelation 16:4-7 [40] See  Revelation 20 [41] Conformity to Christ is a prominent theme found in the writings of John the Evangelist. The characters represented in the Gospel, as also its reader, grow step by step into deeper belief and relation with God and conformity to Him as the Gospel’s narrative progresses. The first-called disciples, for instance, are found echoing the call of the Lord Jesus Christ: as He says to them “Come and see,” Philip implores Nathaniel with the same words ( See  John 1:39, 46). Similarly, in his Epistles, John exhorts the believers towards conformity to Christ: “he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked” (1 John 2:6). [42] Revelation 1:15 [43] Revelation 19:6 [44] For instance, the use of incense and the chanting of hymns to God appear often in the Apocalypse ( See e.g. , Revelation 8:3-4; 4:8). [45] Matthew 4:17 —

“Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”   St. Augustine’s beautiful exhortation has achieved immortality not because it speaks to the presence of human desire, but because it exposes the true nature of that desire: our inborn purpose as created beings to remain in a state of eternal communion with God and with others. This divine purpose, or telos , is more than an attribute of our humanity. It is a fundamental and inescapable human reality. We can ignore it, we can resist it, but we cannot escape that eternal end   God has instilled so deeply within us. If eternal communion is our end, sacramental communication  is the means to achieve it. Such communication binds the Church together, in heaven as on earth. Indeed, the Holy Sacraments represent both a medium of divine communication and a model for Christocentric communication. This is because we were created by a Triune God, who exists in a state of perpetual communication, who created a sacramental cosmos by speaking it into existence — a God who shaped humanity into His likeness, and who left us with the Holy Sacraments, so that we may not only desire but also reach the true end of all communication — communion with God and with others. We should communicate sacramentally because we were created to live sacramentally. We are sacramental beings. Sacramentality is embedded in our reality. This shows us why we must communicate sacramentally to a world starving for wonder. When viewed through a sacramental lens, the universe — reality itself — becomes a blueprint for Christian communication, a multilayered mystery that reveals itself both broadly through the Church and acutely through the administration of her Sacraments. By living out the sacramental life, we begin to realize the fullness of our human potential for God-centered communication, marching ever closer to that ultimate reality we long for, the culmination of our relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ, that blessed eternal feast — the beatific vision. Outlining the form of sacramental communication in turn shows us the path to Christocentric communication. Thus, we see that communication not only binds the Church together, but also connects the faithful to God and to one another. In the Holy Sacraments, communication and ritual combine to remind us of, and conform us to, the divine order. Indeed, we were created for festivity, and that creative design demands to be lived out in properly ordered actions. The Church teaches that the Sacraments are the normative means to such fulfillment on earth. Even those outside the visible bounds of the Church, however, display an innate penchant for sacramental festivity and ritual, even if it is not always practiced in a proper or purified form. Whether replete with the pure or profane, sacramental rituals define the human experience, shaping, and not merely punctuating, our existence. Our innate festivity coaxes us toward the Sacraments by compelling us to embrace the “small-S” sacramental life: morning and evening routines, graduation celebrations and anniversary dinners, birthdays and funerals. The inclination to treat these as sacred naturally flows from our innate sacramentality, fueled by our festivity, pointing us toward the divine Source of all, whether we realize it or not. Identifying this sacramental common-ground affords the evangelist a solid foundation for further discussion. To reach those outside of, or on the margins of, the Church, we must first identify and celebrate that which we already share in common, using our shared sacramental orientation to redirect our gaze upward. This shows us how we can communicate these sacramental truths to an unbelieving world. When properly ordered, sacramental desire leads us straight to God. But if God is not at the helm, our human inclination toward festivity will be hindered by concupiscence, distorting the sacred good we desire into something profane. Godlessness will not remove the sacramental desire that defines our humanity, but it will corrupt it, presenting a decayed alternative to the Incorruptible Bread and Wine we crave by nature. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) was right to warn us of the dangers we would face as a result of our self-inflicted desacralization — a uniquely dangerous sacramental unraveling of our own making. In wide swaths of society, we have lost — no, abandoned  — all appreciation and respect for the sacred. This neglect no doubt stems from a related rejection of the sacramental worldview. But since the world is fundamentally sacramental, insofar as it exists in and for God, who is not only holy but also the Source of Holiness, then we must  view the world through a sacramental lens or risk obscuring reality. Both divine revelation and personal experience support this conclusion. It is for this reason that our human experience comes into focus only when presented in its sacramental context. For this context extends beyond abstraction to absolute reality: the existential framework underlying the sacraments is as real as the tangible elements we taste and feel in them — realer , in the sense that the metaphysical reality precedes the physical. The two realities are inseparable, at once parallel and interwoven. Christ, the glorious Sacrament of all Sacraments, perfects and harmonizes this multilayered reality in the Incarnation. And now, by receiving Him in the Eucharist, we mystically enter the reality of the Incarnation. By receiving Christ sacramentally, we not only become like Christ but become “little christs,” empowering us to give the gift of self to the world. This is both the object and the fruit of sacramental communication.   This shows us what we should communicate to those who doubt the sacramental.   Returning to St. Augustine, we observe an outline of this sacramentality in his description of human desire: “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.” The sacramental life reminds us that we were made for more than this world; the sacramental life also leads us into the next. For we were designed in anticipation of a merging of the divine and the human, the visible and the invisible. We were created sacramentally . These observations highlight how sacramental communication is ingrained into existence itself, a reality we endeavor to emulate in our speech and actions. That is the sacramental communication the Church needs to effectively convey Christ’s message of hope to an unbelieving world. So, how can we use this knowledge to conform our lives to Christ? How do we elevate our natural festivity, accentuating the good while suppressing the bad? The Holy Sacraments are the answer to both. When we participate in the sacramental life of the Church, we actively reorient ourselves to Christ, encouraging festivity as it was intended. In its highest form, channeled through the Church’s Holy Sacraments, this transcendent communication represents a real participation in the divine. Just as heaven meets earth in the Mass at the moment of consecration, so too does God share something in common with us, his people, when he communicates grace through the Sacraments. In those moments, we truly “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). What a beautiful glimpse of heaven that is! This shows us Whom we sacramentally communicate when we share the truth in love. We have seen how, in the Sacraments, our need to communicate and our yearning for festivity are both ordered toward and sanctified by divine decree. The sacred is made tangible and the tangible, sanctified. It is a Holy Mystery that speaks to the heart of our relationship with God and fuels our pursuit of the Heavenly Banquet that awaits us. In English, the meaning of “communication” is rather reductive, so I want to turn our attention to the Latin it borrows from, communicatio , to reinforce this point. In Latin, the term evokes an active participation in, partaking of, and communing with something, with someone . This highlights the relationship that motivates our own communication — eternal communion with God. Only when understood in that context does the proper sacramental order fall into place, inspired by the Word of God made flesh. Communication incarnate. Christ Himself. This divine communicatio  is on full display in the Holy Mysteries, as they are known in the East (for indeed they are both holy and mysterious!), when God unites heaven and earth, the invisible and the visible, the symbolic and the real. The depth and power of sacramental communication are most profoundly revealed in the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith — the ideal representation of sacramental communication. For when we consume the living flesh of Christ, we proudly remember, proclaim, and participate in the reality of the Incarnation, remembering that “the Son of God became man that we might become [like] God” (St. Athanasius). Thus, we see that “Holy Communion” represents not only the particular Sacrament but the telos  instilled in each one of us: that insatiable desire to be in eternal communion with God and humanity which St. Augustine so famously described. The cosmos’s sacramentality nudges us in the right direction; the Blessed Sacrament shows us the way home. Until that time, our task is to convert our lives into living sacraments — ensuring everyone gets their invitation to the eternal feast. — Noah Bradon is the director of marketing and executive producer at the University of Notre Dame's McGrath Institute for Church Life . Noah earned his Master of Arts in Theology from the University of Notre Dame and a Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Central Florida. His graduate research explored the intersection of theology and communication, which remains a focal point of his work at McGrath. Notre Dame Bio : mcgrath.nd.edu/NoahBradon YouTube Channel : youtube.com/@NoahBradon (@NoahBradon across social) Portfolio / Personal Blog : noahbradon.com DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

A Homily on the First Sunday of Great Lent His Eminence Metropolitan Mina of Girga, Egypt, delivered at the Church of the Virgin Mary in Girga. Year unknown. The gospel reading of today’s Liturgy, in which the Lord of Glory reveals and clarifies the manner in which the life of the believer must be on earth. The Church has well chosen to present to us, on the first Sunday of the Holy Fast, the selection that was read aloud in our hearing: this selection, in which the Lord Jesus says at its beginning: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” “but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:19-20), as we have heard. And at the end of the selection, the Lord says: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).  “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”  The Lord Jesus, to whom be glory, teaches us in the gospel of today’s Liturgy, that we should not care about anything in this life more than we should, or more than our care about eternal life, because He taught us, saying: “What would it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? Or what would man give in exchange for his soul” (Matthew 16:26)? The Lord explains that the treasures that we lay up on earth are exposed to dangers. The first danger is theft and robbery, and the second danger is moths. The third danger is rust, [which] takes hold of the [substance] and corrodes it. And the grains that we lay up are eaten by moths. And gold is exposed to theft by thieves and robbers.  So these treasures, in which we place our trust, cannot save us from anything in this life, for they do not last forever. For man cannot take anything with him from the wealth of this world. Alexander the Great did well when he commanded, at his departure from this world, that his hands be exposed open outside his coffin, saying: “Let the whole world know that Alexander, who conquered the world, came out of the world empty-handed.” This is the life for which we fight — we cannot take anything from it.  So the Lord warns us that the treasures in which we trust in this life, we must leave behind, either willingly or unwillingly. This is what the Divine Revelation says on the mouth of Job the Righteous, when he says: “We know that we entered the world without anything, and we will leave it also without anything.” “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there” (Job 1:21a). And our teacher Paul the Apostle says: “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out” (1 Timothy 6:7). We have not heard, and we will not hear, that a person can take with him money, or palaces, or gold, or silver. Rather, all he takes with him is a piece of cloth, in which he is wrapped and shrouded and placed in his final resting place.  But there is another work that he must take with him, because the life of man does not end with his death. The life of the body ends with death, while another life begins that differs from this life, for which we must lay up [treasures], as Christ, to whom be glory, says: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” “but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,” and as our teacher Paul the Apostle says: “Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7b).  We do not take anything from the treasures we lay up, but what we offer here in this life on earth for the sake of the salvation of our souls is what we will find on the Last Day, as the Book taught us — the Revelator: “Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me, to give to every one according to his works” (Revelation 22:12), and as the Church says and repeats in every Liturgy: “[He will] give each one according to his deeds.” []  So here, life ends, but we begin a new life that differs [from it] in every respect. Here there is weeping, wailing, and worry, but there is eternal joy — the Lord “will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 21:4).  So the Lord teaches us not to lay up treasures on this earth, but that we must lay up treasures for the kingdom of heaven. “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).  The Lord teaches us not to live lazily, or as we say in the fallah ’s expression, [“good-for-nothing”], but the Lord teaches us not to depend on anything in this life, because the worldly life does not benefit man at all, but what benefits him is dependence on God. So the Lord teaches us, saying: “Consider the birds of the air, they neither sow nor reap, nor gather into barns” (Matthew 6:26).  In the Coptic translation, it does not say “birds,” but “crows.” And the wisdom in this text is stronger in the Coptic translation, because all birds are able to gather grains from the earth, and they strive to provide for themselves and their children, but only the crow does not give to its children []. Perhaps you see this in your homes! But the crow is the only one that is unable to feed its children! How do its children live? As soon as the chick comes out of the egg, the little crow opens its beak, a thread comes out of its beak, it opens its beak and eats from it, until our Lord provides for it, without its father or mother feeding it, our Lord provides for it until it is able to fly, roam, and seek its own provision.  So God says: “Consider the crows of the air, they do not sow” — it does not even say “crows,” but “chicks.” The Coptic translation says: “Look at the chicks of the crows,” meaning the little chick, unable to provide for itself, and after it comes out of the egg, its father and mother leave it, and our Lord provides for it. “Look at the chicks of the crows, they do not sow or reap or gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (Matthew 6:26). He gives them their due!  God, as we say in the general saying, provides for the birds in the nests, and provides for the fish in the sea, and it is impossible for Him to create a mouth and leave it without provision. But the fault — all the fault — is in us, that we depend on our wealth and desire to be rich without the will of God. “The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it” (Proverbs 22:10).  “Seek first the kingdom of God,” and all these matters our Lord arranges in a particular way. God cannot abandon you or neglect you! History provides us good examples of those who cared for God, so God cared for them.  [In] one of these [examples], our Lord dried up the sea, and he [Elijah] stood in front of our Lord and said to Him, people were hungry - - and He dried up the land, and there was no bread or food; and the rich, the Book says, “the rich grow poor and go hungry, but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing” (Psalm 34:11). And then he found no food, and he found no sustenance, and the land was dry, and God withheld the rain from the land, and then he shouted to Him and said to Him: “O Lord, there is no rain on the land. You commanded me to pray, and to stop the rain, and so the rain stopped, but what should I do?” He said to him: “Do not worry about it, Elijah.” “What will You do, O Lord?” He said to him: “I have commanded a poor, needy widow to support you.” “A poor, needy widow will support me? The rich ‘grow in hunger’ and pain from the severity of their hunger, and a widow will support me?” He said to him: “Just go to a small village called Zarephath, Sidon, and you will find a woman there gathering sticks” ( see  1 Kings 17:7-16). So the man of God went there and found her gathering some sticks, so he told her: “What are you doing?” [] She told him: “I am gathering sticks.” “For what?” She said: “I have a little bit of flour, I will make them into a cake for myself and a cake for” - - two small handfuls [of flour] - - “I will make them into a cake for myself and for my son and we will eat them and die.” Meaning there is no more [flour], and this is the last breath of life — a handful of flour. A handful.  He said to her: “Let me tell you, go make me a [cake] first.” “O man of God! I am telling you, a handful of flour, I will make it [into cakes] for myself and my boy and we will eat them and die. And you want me to make you one first?” He told her: “Just go! Depart and make for me a cake first, for thus says the Lord: ‘The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day [the Lord] sends rain on the land’ (1 Kings 17:14).” And so the woman, the poor widow, became very rich by the life of faith when she hosted the man of God.  God, who says “consider the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap,” or “the chicks of the crows of the air, for they neither sow nor reap,” He is the one who sustains us. He sustains completely! A story in the history of the Church, which I recall telling previously: Anba Paula and his brother had a falling-out. While he was walking out, he saw a great, honorable man who had died and was being processed on their shoulders. So he asked: “What was this man?” [They] told him: “This was one of the noblemen of the city, an exceedingly great man.” “Then what happened?” “Then he died and you see the great scene of this funeral procession to his final resting place.” So he looked and said: “Oh! I am begrudging my brother over transient matters, while this rich man left this world empty-handed, not being able to hold onto anything from this life, of worldly wealth, with him, and he went to the hereafter while I do not know whether he offered or did not offer anything good.” So he went out without hesitation, and there he entered an abandoned tomb and began to worship God, saying to Him: “O Lord, guide me to the path in which I can be pleasing to You.” And the result was that the angel of God carried away the saint Anba Paula and took him to a spring of water that had a palm tree, and the great saint Anba Paula lived from the fruit of the palm tree all year long, and then every day the crow brought him half a loaf [of bread]. Every day it brought him half a loaf [of bread]. And when Anba Antonios visited him, and the time of dinner came, the crow brought down a full loaf [of bread], and they shared it together. Can you believe that until this time, in the monastery of Anba Paula, only a crow and its wife live. When they give birth, they leave the monastery and go to the monastery of Anba Antonios, because there are many palm trees there, and [the chicks] remain. And when a guest comes, ten or fifteen minutes before he arrives, the crow begins to make noise so the monks know that a visitor is coming. And this is so that God might uphold the continuous remembrance - - “the remembrance of the righteous shall abide forever” (Psalm 112:6) - - the remembrance of the crow that brought the bread to the saint Anba Paula.  So we can say that all these things - - the Book says: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” What is it that will be added to me? He says, “seek first the kingdom of God,” and then “all these things will be added to you.” The things of the world will be added. What is it that will be added?  Long ago, when we were young, a person’s mother at home used to tell him — those days were not as they are now [] — “go, son, get a [bar of] soap from the shop [or] go get a measure of sugar.” The shopkeeper would be clever: after he would give him the measure of the product, whether he wanted a [bar of] soap or some tea or some sugar, he would give him a piece of candy or a couple of beans “on the house.” A snare cast by the shopkeeper so the boy, whenever he wanted anything, would come to him to buy it for the sake of those beans! But are the two beans, or the piece of candy that he gave to the boy, the original sale? Or are they “on the house?” On the house! He has already gotten the sale!  So the whole world — the world and all that is in it — seek first the original sale, which is the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and this whole world, which does not equal even two beans or some candy, He will give you! This whole world, in the eyes of God, is nothing!  “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”  I remember long ago, in the year [19]41, there was a man, God rest his soul, named Khay Habib Estafanous, in Samalot, and I suppose his wife may still be alive until this day. And I mentioned this in the book about Abouna Abdelmassih. See, it was myself and someone named Fr. Abdel-Salus al-Habashy, and the man invited us, saying: “Come.” “Why?” He said: “[My wife] is sick; pray for her so that God might heal her.” “Sure, alright.” And then he said: “This basket of bread here is our only one, and the baker refuses to come, and [my wife] is sick and cannot bake.” “What have we to do with the bread basket?” - - you know those from al-Minya bake wide bread that lasts one or two months, and when they come to eat of it, they pour a little water over it and eat it - - “what have we to do with [it]?” He said: “Pray! It is the blessing of Christ in the five loaves! Did not Christ bless the five loaves and the two fish?” “Yes he blessed!” He said: “Is not the Christ of the past the same as the one of today?” We said to him: “Yes, yesterday, today, and forever.” He said: “So pray for me that God will bless these loaves.”  We prayed for him — I myself was a young, novice monk, and I thought in my mind that this man was [deeply imaginative]. But the father who was with me was an elder and an ascetic, a man who had experience in life, who was praying deeply, but while I was praying with the father, in my mind the man was [deeply imaginative]. See what happened! We prayed and left. And those [loaves] in the basket were just enough to last a day, or a day and a half at most. We were absent for two months and then I and Abouna Abdel-Salus passed by again []. He said: “Come eat of the loaves you prayed over!” “What loaves? Do they still remain?” He said: “They remain and can last for even longer and longer []!”  “The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it” (Proverbs 22:10).  I was in a monastery named the Monastery of al-Fakhoury, near Esna, and I was spending the night there. And we had at most two or three measures of flour. And we had to celebrate Liturgy in the morning. And I found a group of visitors came to me, and we did not have but some lentils. They did not bring with them a sacrifice [i.e. a lamb or sheep] and they did not bring bread. So there was there with me Abouna Ghattas, who is now in Edfu [], and there was [a man] also named Ghattas with us, so I told him: “Ghattas, where will we get bread for these people? Will they eat without bread?” [] We said: “Let us cook the lentils, since there is water. But after we cook the lentils, then what? Will they drink the lentils [] without bread?” [] So I told him: “Listen, split the two measures of flour in half. Make half into three or four korbanat  [offertory loaves] — enough for the morning’s offering — and the other half make into some thin, small pieces [of bread], put them in the oven, and we will break them and say: ‘We don’t have bread, just eat of these.’”  Believe me, perhaps three or four small pieces, each of which might equal a fourth of a korbana - - even less, not even a fifth! - - we flattened them like paper and put them in the oven and then pulled them out and I broke them and said: “May the blessing of the Lord which dwelt in the five loaves and the two fish bless these.” That day, we were six people, and we sat and ate until we were full and there were even leftovers!  “The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it” (Proverbs 22:10).  Christ says in the gospel of today’s Liturgy: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” The fallahi  expression is: “The foot steps where it wills.” [الرجل تدب محل ما تحب]. He who loves corruption chases after corruption. He who loves work chases after work. He who loves profit chases after profit. He who loves the Lord chases after the Lord. And every one’s foot goes, or steps, to where he loves.  As for you, what do you love? “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be.” If your treasure [] is the earth, God is not present in your life. Christ says as much: “No one can serve God and mammon” ( see Matthew 6:24b), in the gospel of today’s Liturgy. God and mammon. God and mammon cannot both occupy one’s heart. What? Does this mean that the Lord desires that we become beggars, poor, and needy? No! But the Lord wants us to depend on Him firstly! Not on money! Dependence on Him firstly!  The young rich man, when He told him, “go, sell all that you have” (Mark 10:21), the disciples told Him: “These are difficult words.” He told them: “Children, how hard it is for those who depend [on riches] to enter” (Mark 10:24) — how difficult it is for those who depend — those who depend on riches! Not the rich, but those who depend on their wealth!  He who depends on his wealth is a pagan. He who relies on his money worships idols. Wealth is not vice, but it is goodness and a blessing from God on the condition that it is according to God’s will.  Sometimes, when the love of money takes hold of one’s mind and heart, it makes him forget the Lord. How? The love of money, not wealth! Wealth is one thing, and the love of money is another. The wealth granted to me by God, of which I offer to the churches and the Lord and the poor and needy, is a blessing. Job was wealthy, and Abraham was wealthy. But the love of money is all evil. The Apostle says: “The love of money is a root of all evils, which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Timothy 6:10).  “Have been led astray from the faith.” How were they led astray from the faith? The love of money teaches lying, teaches greed, teaches grasping, [] and teaches one to take what is not rightfully his, and to forget the Lord and place all of his concern in money, such that he is converted from a worshiper of God to a worshiper of money. Not on the condition that I prostrate to money — placing it in front of me and prostrating before it. But placing in my heart the love of money, and thinking to myself: is God or money in my heart? The saying goes: “The heart cannot accommodate two.” God and money do not agree. Light and darkness cannot coexist in one place.  If the love of money has dominion over you more than the love of God, then you are a worshiper of idols. But if the love of God predominates your feelings more than the love of money, if God gave you some portion of money, then it is a great blessing that you give and tell Him: “Of your own we have given you” (1 Chronicles 29:14b). “What you have given us, we have given you.”  Do you really grasp for the world and believe that the money you have is yours? Do you think it is yours? It is a blessing from God. “He makes poor and makes rich” (1 Samuel 2:7a). He “kills and gives life” (1 Samuel 2:6a). He sickens and heals ( see Job 5:18). This is a gift offered to you by God! He has made you a steward over this entrustment. Are you a traitor or are you faithful? Determine your position. Are you a traitor or faithful to God in the entrustment He has given you?  A traitor does not give our Lord anything. Our Lord has given him, but he refuses to give our Lord of the gift He has given him. This is a traitor. But from the money God gave you, you give Him and say to Him: “From your money, we have given You.” So you will be found faithful in what God has given you. “There is no gift without increase save that which is [received] without thanksgiving” (Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies  2).  A gift that does not increase is devoid of thanksgiving. A gift that decreases is devoid of thanksgiving. A gift that increases has thanksgiving. What is thanksgiving? Does it mean eating, filling my stomach, and saying: “Thank You, Lord?” No. No! “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 7:21). But we offer thanks to God in deed. In deed. In good deeds! In kindness towards the poor and needy. Give God what is rightful[ly His], “give what is Caesar’s to Caesar, and what is God’s to God” (Matthew 22:21).  The Lord teaches us “seek first the kingdom of God.” Why? [] Firstly, one must seek the kingdom of God for a reason: he is a stranger on earth — a guest — and must inevitably leave the world. Has anyone taken anything with him? Has anyone taken a house? Has anyone taken a mansion? Has anyone taken money? So [he is] a stranger, and the stranger must leave. It is inevitable that he travels. Whether he wants to or not, he will leave. So he offers here what will profit him there, in the hereafter! He offers here what will benefit him in the afterlife. He will be surprised by the other life. If a man offers here, he will find there all that he offers here.  God says that He does not forget a cup of cold water ( see Matthew 10:42). Meaning if you offer a cup of cold water to a thirsty man, it is counted for you with God. It is counted. What more if you offer more than a cup of water? So God teaches us to seek first His kingdom. This kingdom is inevitable. And the kingdom of heaven is an eternal kingdom that has no end.  We will be confronted with a truth in the end. There is no way around it. What is it? We will be confronted either with an eternal life or a miserable life. Either a life crowned with glory or a life full of torment. “Fire that cannot be quenched and worm that does not sleep” ( see  Mark 9:48).  When Paul the Apostle thought about and contemplated the eternal life — the life of eternal bliss — and saw and perceived, he said: “I counted everything as rubbish.” Why? “To gain Christ” (Philippians 3:8). This whole world is rubbish, to gain Christ. Why are you saying this, Paul? He said: “I saw with my own eyes. I heard with my own ears.” What did you see with your own eyes? He said: “I know a man who was in the body, I do not know, or out of the body, I do not know.” What about him? He said: “He ascended to the third heaven.” What did he see? He said: “He saw what eyes did not see and what ears did not hear and what did not enter the heart of man what God has prepared for” whom? “For those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9). For those who have taken eternity into account. For those who took the kingdom of God into account. What these planted here, they will reap there. What they offered here, they will [receive] there. So when Paul the Apostle felt and saw the glories and the thrones on which the saints were seated, and the spiritual, luminous, heavenly bliss in the eternal life, he said: “I counted all things as rubbish so that I might gain Christ.”  Christ teaches us in the gospel of today’s Liturgy to lay up for ourselves firstly treasures in heaven, where no corrupting agent can reach them, and He taught us that where our treasure is, there our heart will be also. And He said: “If your eye is simple, your whole body will be full of light. And if your eye is evil, your whole body will be evil, dark” ( see Matthew 6:22). Meaning if your heart is evil, then you have no goodness towards God. The evil heart cannot do good! It is entirely evil, from its beginning to its end. Because God says on the mouth of Isaiah: “There is no peace, says my God, for the wicked” (Isaiah 57:21).  By the “good heart” He does not mean the eye. He means perception. There is sight and there is perception. Sight is [through] the eye, but perception is [through] the heart that God gave to man. “My son, give me your heart, and let your eyes observe my ways” (Proverbs 23:26), and “above all, guard your heart, for from it flow all the springs of life” (Proverbs 4:23).  So the Lord teaches us that our gaze and our direction and our thinking and all our feelings must be towards the eternal life, knowing that we are strangers and will travel, and will inevitably reap what we offer here, because “God is not unjust to forget [your work and] labor of love” (Hebrews 6:10).  [Here, His Eminence congratulates his congregation on the beginning of Great Lent, urges them to arrive early to the Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and prays for them to receive blessings, good health, comfort, and healing, and to experience a holy and blessed Fast.] — Original Arabic Recording: https://app.box.com/s/c7rdw3lxvsxmudmzkxjv9u619apiway4 His Eminence Metropolitan Mina of Girga, a contemporary Coptic Orthodox saint, was born in Nag-Hammadi, Egypt in May 1919, and entered the monastic life on April 30, 1939 at the monastery of St. Macarius in Wadi al-Natrun. On November 18, 1939, he was ordained to the priesthood and named Fr. Luka, and in 1943, he was elevated to the rank of hegumen and appointed the monastery's secretary. After completing his theological studies at the Clerical College, Fr. Luka was appointed the personal secretary of His Holiness Pope Kyrillos VI. Shortly thereafter, his father of confession, Fr. Abdel-Messih al-Maqari — another modern Coptic Orthodox saint — predicted that Fr. Luka would be ordained to the episcopacy, and on August 7, 1960, this came to pass. His Holiness Pope Kyrillos VI ordained Fr. Luka as Bishop Mina to oversee the diocese of Girga, Bahjoura, and Farshut; he would later receive the rank of Metropolitan. Metropolitan Mina was renowned for his great piety, deep love, consecration to the service of the Church, innumerable virtues, miracle-working, and life of incessant prayer and prolonged fasting. He received the eskeem — the highest honor in the monastic life, which required increased fasting, prostrations, and spiritual canons — and was said by those who knew him to have been among those who are spirit-borne. On November 7, 2003, Metropolitan Mina departed after a long struggle with illness, and was buried in the church of his teacher, Fr. Abdel-Messih al-Maqari, in Girga. Cover Image: Metropolitan Mina of Girga, pictured on February 28, 1969 (Image Original).

It happened in the Old Testament, after the fall of Adam and Eve and God’s destruction of mankind in the flood at the time of Noah, that the inhabitants of Babel set out to construct a tower that would reach the heavens. [1] This endeavor, which through modern eyes might be thought an inspiring example of innovation, ambition, and human industriousness, was, as is clearly perceptible upon a close reading of the Scriptural text, instead marked by a profoundly materialistic, earthly mode of life and distinctly blameworthy aspirations. Indeed, in accordance with squarely human, rather than godly, wisdom, the people of Babel sought to build the Tower in order to ascend to the place of God apart from Him [2] — as Eve had herself done in the Garden —, to pridefully and self-seekingly establish worldly renown for themselves and their city (“let us make a name for ourselves” [3] ), to undermine God’s command for humanity to populate the earth (“lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” [4] ), to secure the Tower’s builders from another destructive flood that might one day come upon them as a result of their sinful dispositions, [5] and ultimately to fortify them against God in order to empower them to persist in their desired sinfulness without fear of His wrath or any need for repentance. [6] To thwart this impious attempt, God “came down to see the city and the tower” — the unmistakable physical indicators of a humanity that had become earthly in mind, heart, and will, turned entirely to human wisdom at the expense of discerning and abiding in accordance with God’s will and purpose, and diverted its gaze away from God and the things of God so as to set its mind on the things of the world [7] — “which the children of men,” and no longer the children of God, “had built.” [8] And so, to prevent the people from reaching the heavens by their own means — for humanity could not reach God of its own accord — God confused the tongues of the people of Babel such that they began to communicate in different languages. And so, no longer being able to understand one another, they abandoned their quest and dispersed throughout the earth, the confusion of their tongues abolishing the unity that once enabled their cause while compelling them to actualize the command of God to populate the earth.  In the New Testament, our Lord Jesus Christ calls all people to Himself, and, in stretching out His arms on the Cross, gathers all to Himself. [9] Further, with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the believers on the day of Pentecost, [10] the disunity and dispersion that occurred in Babel is undone [11] — a testament to the unity of the Church in Christ by and through the work of the Holy Spirit, and the resulting ability of humanity to now reach the heavens through Christ, who is Himself the Tower by Whom we are now able to enjoy what the inhabitants of Babel foolishly hoped to independently accomplish. At Pentecost, the Spirit empowers the disciples to utilize the many languages of the world, which once caused division and separation in Babel, to gather again humanity to the Lord, in order to speak once more the same spiritual language of sound belief in and abidance with the only true God. At Pentecost, the Spirit imparts upon the Church tongues as a gift rather than a curse, to be used in accordance with the will of God for the purpose of the edification of the Church. [12] As St. Cyril of Jerusalem wisely discerned:  “The multitude of the hearers was confounded — it was a second confusion, instead of that first evil one at [Babel]. For in that confusion of tongues there was division of purpose, because their thought was at enmity with God; but here minds were restored and united, because the object of interest was godly. The means of falling were the means of recovery.” [13] Beginning at Pentecost, and continuing on in the Church throughout human history, God offers humanity the opportunity to enjoy in Christ “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” [14] — with God, oneself, others, and all of creation — regardless of age, race, nationality, social status, human language, or any other distinguishing characteristic. In the Church, the believers are united together in the one Body of Christ by the Spirit, through death and resurrection with Him in baptism, receiving and being sealed by His Spirit in chrismation, and partaking together in His body and blood at the one Eucharistic table. In the Church, and so as to properly be called Christians, they are called to, and must, submit to and know His word, believe and abide by His teaching (i.e. sound doctrine), emulate His example, seek to discern and abide by His will, have a living, personal relationship with Him, maintain a pious life marked by robust personal discipleship, repentance, and virtuosity, participate wholeheartedly and with intentionality and understanding in the liturgical, sacramental life, and, importantly, submit to and uphold at all times and in every age, with humility and steadfast obedience, the system of teaching, governance, and pastoral care delivered by the Head of the one Body, that is, Christ, preached and implemented by the Apostles, and preserved and practiced by the Fathers.  Teaching in the New Testament Scriptures In the teaching of Christ and His Apostles, and throughout the Church’s history, indispensable safeguards were delivered and consistently upheld in order to ensure the continued purity and propagation of unblemished Christian teaching, spirit, and life in the Church, and to prevent the Church from suffering the disunity, confusion, and disharmony that characterize deviation from God’s will and purpose, whether by each individual member of the flock or the community of believers collectively. These safeguards included, most significantly, an untainted, legal, and traceable Apostolic Succession, a robust Apostolic Tradition — including the universally accepted canon of the Scriptures, the Rule of Faith and sound doctrine in every respect, liturgical practice and tradition, and the Patristic witness —, and a system of ecclesial governance founded upon sound discipleship and authoritative Canon Law. In this original model of ecclesial operations, teaching represented a matter of central concern, being accorded specific consideration as perhaps the most consequential of the Church’s activities. When practiced properly, it carried most especially the potential of protecting the sheep while fortifying the pasture against the ever-present onslaughts of the enemies of Truth. On the other hand, if laxity in quality control or deviation in practice or understanding succeeded to afflict and manipulate ecclesial life and administration in this area most especially, the damage to the Church was, and would be, quite severe.  In teaching, as well as more generally in pastoral care and all other matters of ecclesial import, the example and teaching of the Lord, as received, lived, and delivered by His Apostles and the Fathers who shepherded the Church after them, was and invariably must continue to be accorded the most deference. It is the Lord, after all, who is the Teacher and Good Shepherd, and who is therefore the perfect archetype of the Christian teacher and shepherd. In studying Christ’s example and method in teaching and shepherding, the faithful disciple finds that His ministry was characterized by doing before  teaching [15] — a manner of life and behavior that came before, and witnessed to, His words and teaching. He taught His disciples to pray after  He prayed. He taught His disciples to learn from Him because  He is “gentle and lowly in heart.” [16] And in summing up this core tenet, our Lord instructs those who hear Him: “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them ,  he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [17] It is perhaps for this reason that, in her Lectionary system — the framework of liturgical readings — the Coptic Orthodox Church highlights and reflects the same principle, presenting a concise account of the work of Christ in the Sunday readings of the month of Ⲡⲁⲟⲡⲓ (“Babah”) — the second month of the Church’s liturgical year — immediately before she presents an overview of His teaching in the Sunday readings of the following month, Ϩⲁⲑⲱⲣ (“Hatour”).  Recognizing the centrality and consequentiality of the ministry of teaching in the Church, and its inextricable connection with both piety of life and soundness in shepherding the flock, our fathers the Apostles, in obedience to the Divine Commission that they “go, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you,” [18] dealt with and spoke and wrote about this important ecclesial function with the utmost seriousness and concern. Thus, when faced with pressing social concerns among the believers, they decisively and wisely discerned that they could not in good conscience leave the ministry of teaching that had been entrusted to them by Christ in order to “serve tables,” and so ordained seven deacons to carry out this ministry in the Church, having first ensured that they were “men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” [19] Further, St. Paul, in writing to his disciple Timothy, specifically directs that the presbyters “that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.” [20] And in delineating for Timothy the qualities he must consider when selecting bishops to shepherd the flock of Christ, he emphasizes moral character, doctrinal fitness, and qualification in teaching, directing that a bishop “must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach . . . Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” [21] Moreover, he charges Timothy strongly: “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” [22] And finally, to sum up the unenviable seriousness and grave responsibility of the task of teaching in the Church, St. James directs the believers: “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment . . . Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom.” [23] The Apostles thus uncompromisingly considered with painstaking care the function of teaching in the Church, according the greatest attention to ensuring that those entrusted with that task — in the Apostolic period, the apostles and bishops and those among the presbyters who were entrusted by them to teach — were well prepared and appropriately qualified in every respect to undertake it in a manner that edifies the Church and does not compromise their own salvation and the wellbeing of the flock, instead of appointing to the episcopacy or any other position of teaching in the Church those who, being untested, unfit to teach, compromised in doctrine, or impious in manner of life, would severely undermine the integrity of the Church while endangering their own salvation and that of the flock. Thus, St. Paul succinctly advises Timothy: “Do not lay hands on anyone hastily.” [24] Besides such prophylactic means, the Apostles also recognized and warned their disciples and those they had ordained to the episcopacy and presbytery regarding common pitfalls, threats, and dangers they would inevitably face in the ministry of Christ, and advised them regarding how to diagnose, overcome, and save themselves and the Church from these. Thus, St. Paul exhorts Timothy that he must withdraw himself from anyone whose teaching contradicted what Timothy had received, and who did “not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness.” [25] Such a person, St. Paul says to Timothy, is “proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.” [26] He also instructs Timothy to “shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness,” [27] and to “avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.” [28] He similarly advises Titus: “avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.” [29] In the same spirit, he says most movingly to the elders of the Church in Ephesus:  “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men .  For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you [bishops], to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.   For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.   Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” [30] St. John the beloved, the disciple of love, who, in his last days, is said to have only repeated the words “love one another,” in his own inspired writings similarly advises the churches to whom he writes, and all who read his letters: “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.   If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;   for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” [31] And because the dangers to the flock are not only doctrinal, but also ethical, the biblical teaching similarly instructs the believers, whether clergy or laity, to avoid those who lead immoral, sinful lives. St. Paul therefore writes to the Corinthians:  “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.   But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person . . . put away from yourselves the evil person.” [32] He likewise says to the Thessalonians: “if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” [33] Further, to Titus he says: “Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.” [34] Importantly with respect to the foregoing, the Apostles did not only instruct their disciples and those they ordained to avoid those whose doctrine and piety was not in accordance with the teaching and spirit of Christ, and to excommunicate them when appropriate, after following the requisite procedure, but also did so themselves. St. Paul, for instance, writes to Timothy that some have rejected “faith and a good conscience,” and have therefore suffered shipwreck concerning the faith, among whom were Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom St. Paul himself had “delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” [35] And perhaps less well known but equally powerful is the testimony regarding St. John the Evangelist, who, upon entering the public baths in Ephesus and finding there Cerinthus, a known Gnostic heretic, fled without bathing while exclaiming: “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” [36] And St. Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna and disciple of St. John, having learned this uncompromising doctrinal concern from his teacher, likewise strongly denounces Marcion, another famous Gnostic, as “the first-born of Satan.” [37] Finally, St. Paul warns Timothy, and the Church generally: “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” [38] And in order to encourage their disciples, whether fellow Apostles, bishops, or presbyters, regarding the great responsibility of teaching and shepherding the flock of Christ to which they had been called and ordained, the inspired writers took great care to encourage and embolden these ministers in the service with which they had been entrusted. Thus, St. Paul implores Timothy to “be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus,” and to “commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” the things that Timothy had heard from St. Paul “among many witnesses.” [39] He also tells him to “[b]e diligent to present [himself] approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,” [40] and to “be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” [41] And in many other ways, the Apostles, in imitation of the Lord, equipped those who, after being properly discipled, receiving the doctrine and spirit of Christ, and being well examined, and with due regard to the diversity of gifts in the service of the Church, were entrusted with teaching and shepherding the Church of God, with the requisite guidance, instruction, and encouragement to undertake and succeed in their respective ministries, by the grace and power of God.  Necessarily framing the above, and any biblically sound comprehension of teaching as it is understood within the Christian framework, is the New Testament emphasis on teaching as one of many gifts of the Holy Spirit allocated to members of the Church as He wills for the benefit of the Church and the glory of God. Thus, St. Paul writes to the Ephesians:  “But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift . . . He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,   for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,   till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,   but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head — Christ —   from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” [42] In the same manner he writes to the Corinthians:  “Now concerning spiritual gifts , brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant . . . There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.   There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.   And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.   But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:   for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit,   to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.   But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills . . . God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.   Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?   Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.” [43]   To the Romans, he repeats the same teaching:  “For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.   Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith;   or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching;   he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.” [44] And lest anyone contend that this was a “Pauline” teaching constrained to the culture and time in which it was written, rather than a generally-applicable Christian  teaching, as though the words of St. Paul, like those of the remaining inspired writers, were not breathed by God, see St. Peter in his own letters echoing the very same teaching: “As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.   If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” [45] Teaching was thus considered by the Apostles both a matter of qualification and a gift of the Holy Spirit, imparted by God as He wills and on whom He wills, with absolute impartiality, for the benefit of the flock of Christ and not for the sake of any selfish end or ambitious motive or due to any consideration of status or appearance. So St. Paul exhorts Timothy to “observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality,” [46] for “there is no partiality with God.” [47] Indeed, for this reason, godly wisdom dictates that all things in the Church be done in accordance with the system and philosophy delivered by Christ, and not in accordance with personal opinion or partiality secondary to popular or private preference, outward appearances, or social motives. [48] For this reason, the Apostles and all faithful teachers in the Church since their time consistently maintained always in their hearts and before their eyes the teaching of the Lord that He is the ultimate Teacher, [49] and that all who teach or serve in any other capacity in the Church are but servants entrusted by Him to His ministry: “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?   I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.   So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.   Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.   For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.” [50] Teaching in the Early Church In faithful submission to the example and teaching of Christ and the system delivered by Him to the Apostles, and through their faithfulness, to the Church, the Fathers who were entrusted with shepherding the flock of Christ in the first centuries of Christianity upheld what they had received in all respects, whether in teaching, or discipleship, or ecclesial governance, or dealing with novel questions and concerns. Not only this, but they also did so with wholehearted conviction and courage, taking great pride and comfort in knowing that they had done so, and thus were fulfilling their ministry in a manner acceptable to God and in accordance with His will.  St. Irenaeus, for instance, a personal disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna and ultimately bishop of Lyons in the second century, emphasizes in his writing, in dealing with the Gnostic heresy, that legality of ordination and doctrinal and spiritual soundness of discipleship are necessary prerequisites to legitimacy of teaching, such that the churches whose faith would be considered sound, in contrast to those so-called Christian groups whose faith was heretical, are only those that maintain traceable, legal Apostolic Succession in their clerical ranks as well as adherence, without innovation, to the Apostolic Tradition that was once for all delivered by Christ and preached by the Apostles. [51] To Irenaeus, the heretics and schismatic sects were illegitimate and worthy of outright rejection precisely because they had departed from the pure teaching of Christ and the model of ecclesial administration delivered by Him. [52] Later, in the third century, Origen of Alexandria, echoing the same teaching, writes:  “Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” [53] Soon thereafter, in the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the theologian, proudly declares: “My sheep hear my voice, which I have heard from the oracles of God, which I have been taught by the Holy Fathers, which I have taught alike on all occasions, not conforming myself to the fortune, and which I will never cease to teach; in which I was born, and in which I will depart.” [54] St. Athanasius also teaches: “What the apostles received, they passed on without change, so that the doctrine of the mysteries (the sacraments) and Christ would remain correct. The divine Word — the Son of God — wants us to be their (the apostles’) disciples. It is appropriate for them to be our teachers, and it is necessary for us to submit to their teaching alone. Only from them and those who have faithfully taught their doctrine do we get, as Paul writes, faithful words, worthy of full acceptance.” [55] And in writing to Serapion, bishop of Thmuis, he says: “But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called.” [56] St. John Chrysostom too speaks strongly regarding those who teach, and seek the clerical ranks that are specifically entrusted with preserving and delivering the teaching, in the Church: “if anyone should cling to a position for which he is not fit, he deprives himself of all pardon and provokes God‘s anger the more by adding a second and more serious offense,” [57] and again “if even before [one] has proved himself as a disciple he is made a teacher, he will soon be lifted up into insolence.” [58] It was no different even in the fifth century, as St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Pillar of the Faith, is found then also repeatedly confirming his adherence to the Teaching of Christ as it had been received, preserved, defended, and handed down by the Fathers before him, and as he had received it in discipleship in and through the Church. Thus he writes: “Let Your Holiness be assured that we follow the opinions of the holy Fathers in all things, especially our blessed and all-renowned Father Athanasius. We refuse to differ from them in any respect. Let no one doubt this.” [59] And again he says in another place: “For I adhere to the faith of the sainted Fathers who assembled at Nicaea in all my discourses. No other path do I know but the orthodox faith, for I was nurtured, as were your holinesses, in the faith of the Gospel and the words of the apostles. It is this faith which I shall do my best to teach the churches.” [60] It was not only among the bishops and public teachers, but also among the monastic teachers, both fathers and mothers, that the same teaching was upheld. Thus, Amma Theodora is quoted as saying that “a teacher ought to be a stranger to the desire for domination, vain-glory, and pride; one should not be able to fool him by flattery, nor blind him by gifts, nor conquer him by the stomach, nor dominate him by anger, but he should be patient, gentle and humble as far as possible; he must be tested and without partisanship, full of concern, and a lover of souls.” [61] Amma Syncletica also says, beautifully: “it is dangerous for anyone to teach who has not first been trained in the ‘practical’ life.” [62] And in the words of another ancient elder: “woe to those who sit in the seat of teaching, without having first sat in the seat of humility.” It suffices to read the account of the life of Abba Antony written by St. Athanasius to see this teaching lived most beautifully in the example of that great ascetic and founder of Christian monasticism — the man who, after 55 years of deep experience in the Christian life, said to those who came to learn from him: “The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words. Wherefore you, as children, carry that which you know to your father; and I as the elder share my knowledge and what experience has taught me with you.” [63] In this manner, and with this spirit, the Fathers altogether were keen to teach, live, and administer the affairs of the Church in complete harmony with the teaching of Christ and His model of ecclesial governance, knowing themselves as His servants, striving in good conscience to carry out His will, not seeking anything for themselves, and taking no liberties to modify or alter the foundational principles and core operating philosophy the Lord had delivered to His Church. They were interested in building up people rather than buildings, and in filling their flocks with the wealth of sound teaching and rich piety rather than filling their parishes with adornments of gold and silver. They were keen to feed their people the best of solid spiritual food, rather than filling their stomachs with worthless physical food while leaving their minds and hearts hungry for the word of God. And so they and their people succeeded by God’s grace to develop and mature in a sound spiritual manner, avoiding the fate of those whom St. Paul describes as being “gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” [64] Teaching in the Church Today Throughout history and even until the most recent age, the Church has found faithful servants who embody and possess the same spirit and understanding summarized above, and which is expressed most beautifully in the words of Bishop Gregorios, the twentieth-century bishop of Higher Theological Studies, Coptic Culture and Scientific Research: “the fire of persecution is to me more tolerable than the fire of the pulpit.” These fathers and teachers, whether Bishop Gregorios, or Pope Kyrillos VI, [65] or Pope Shenouda III, [66] or St. Habib Girgis, [67] or the multitude of other faithful teachers and shepherds by whom the Church was edified and blessed in the most recent period of her history, lived by this spirit, being keen to receive and live in complete accordance with sound doctrine and spirituality, to deliver the teaching of Christ fully and competently, and to serve God, rather than men, in accordance with their respective gifts, with complete humility and consecration of heart, not out of selfish ambition or self-seeking motives, but knowing themselves, upon being called by God to the service of His Church, they spoke, lived, and taught “not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, . . . in the sight of God in Christ.” [68] Nevertheless, in recent years, there has emerged ample evidence of a fundamental departure from the spirit and model of authentic Christian education and ecclesial governance described in summary above, and thus once again an implicit preference of human wisdom to divine and unconscious deviation from the teaching, spirit, and system of Christ occasioning an already perceptible newfound confusion of tongues among the believers, which in turn results in a compromised unity akin to that suffered by the citizens of Babel.  Specifically, in the absence of universal, mandatory prerequisites to teaching in the Church or a generally applicable and enforced standard of practice for Christian education, such as are enjoined by the Scriptures, most especially the New Testament, and found in practice in the early Church, the believers are subjected to innumerable voices, ideas, spiritualities, and beliefs, both doctrinal and otherwise, not only in their personal lives, but also, and all the more dangerously, in the most vulnerable and sacred setting of ecclesial instruction. Further, as Christians continue to receive their doctrinal understandings and spiritual frameworks from a myriad of sources, both intra- and extra-ecclesially — a stark departure from the pedagogical system delivered by Christ and implemented and employed by the Apostles and the Fathers in the first centuries of Christianity —, they sacrifice in so doing the receipt of the consistent spirit, doctrine, and paradigm embodied and delivered by Christ and by which they must as believers understand and engage in pastoral care, prayer, service, worship, and all other aspects of personal and interpersonal Christian existence, and which is a necessary prerequisite to oneness, unity, and harmony both among the believers and between them and God. Today, it is almost universally the case that countless believers in every diocese and parish are entrusted to teach, irrespective of their manner of life, soundness of doctrine, familiarity with the Scriptures, or whether they are able to teach, as the Scriptures require, and often several priests are ordained upon and found routinely teaching in one parish, all with varying degrees of preparation, if any, and without regard to the gifts, talents, and abilities of each — in direct contradiction to the Scriptural teaching that not many among the believers should become teachers, and that those who teach in the Church should be able, due to both divine gift and personal discipleship and training, to do so. Educational parish meetings are frequently administered such that each week, a new speaker is invited to lecture — often based upon considerations of popularity, or self-promotion, or convenience, or interest, or necessity — or worse, attendees are tasked with teaching themselves and one another in order to engender in them a sense of ownership and “encourage them to participate” in the service of their parish.  Further, in seeking to receive spiritual teaching or hear a spiritual message, Christians routinely turn to online platforms where sermons and lectures from various speakers are housed, categorized, and easily accessible, undertaking thereby self-directed learning in Christian matters, most often indiscriminately and without the requisite training, formation, and practice that enables one to distinguish sound doctrine from unsound, or Orthodox Christian spirituality from non-Orthodox. What is more, social media provides a platform for innumerable accounts actively engaging in self-directed teaching with feigned authority on matters of doctrine and faith, whose words and messages the believers read, view, and passively consume as a matter of course as they scroll through their social media feeds.  And finally, given the philosophy of pastoral care that has come to be commonly practiced today — one that is fundamentally consumeristic in its nature —, parish meetings, liturgical homilies, and other settings of ecclesial instruction are becoming increasingly devoid of doctrinal subjects, shortened to account for other, invariably more entertaining and exciting, parish activities, and unwelcoming of theologically trained and spiritually robust teachers who, besides frustrating today’s widespread desire for maximum inclusivity in parish and diocesan service, even that of teaching, challenge intellectually and hold accountable attendees and deliver the teaching on topics and in ways that are perceived or purported as being more traditional, demanding, and complex than people would like. In all of these and other ways, teaching and learning among the believers has taken on a character and model that is neither consistent with that of the early Church nor conducive to a sound discipleship or a consistent transmission of faith. As it was in Babel centuries ago, the dangers posed by the present model as previously described are far-reaching and represent a grave threat to both the unity of the believers and the soundness of their doctrine. The pastoral epistles of St. Paul clearly emphasize that a bishop — the rank among the clergy entrusted with teaching and ensuring soundness of instruction in the Church — was to possess the gift and ability to teach and to have lived with conviction in sound doctrine and a Christian manner of life even prior to ordination. [69] The bishop must also have received the faith from a trusted source, [70] and those who were entrusted to teach were to be disciples, tested and known to be faithful, and capable of teaching others. [71] In applying this divinely-inspired system, the early Church was able to ensure that the spirit, teaching, and life delivered by Christ to the Apostles continued to be preserved and transmitted from generation to generation by and among the believers, being safeguarded from both heresy and external influence.  Moreover, any deviation from the spirit and doctrine of the Church in a parish or diocese could be identified, remedied, or addressed directly at its source, as it was clearly known who was teaching there, and who had delivered that strange doctrine or spirit to the believers. For instance, St. Paul, in writing to Timothy, mentions several divisive individuals who, having entered into and mingled with the flock of God, had led some away with their strange teaching. [72] Having left him behind as the legitimate teacher and administrator of Ephesus during his time there, St. Paul also advises Timothy to admonish those who espoused strange teaching, and to correct, exhort, and guide the flock while protecting it from those strange teachers. [73] St. Paul also instructs his disciple Titus, whom he left in Crete to also oversee the service there, in the same way. [74] Thus, St. Paul, as an apostle and as the teacher of Timothy and Titus, faithfully delivered to those churches specifically, and to the Church generally, the manner by which teaching and instruction ought to be carried out therein.  As described briefly above, the Church in the age after the Apostles upheld and enjoyed this same system. As was recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea, for instance, at the time of Pope Dionysius, it became known that in the churches of Arsinoe, the heresy of millenarianism had spread among the believers. The pope therefore visited that diocese and spent three days with the teachers and presbyters who had learned and taught this heresy, after which the primary teacher, Coracion, having happily received correction, proclaimed that he would no longer teach or mention that strange doctrine. [75] Thereafter, when in the fourth century Arius began to spread in his church in Alexandria the misunderstandings and heresies that were later collectively termed “Arianism,” the bishops, knowing from whom those teachings arose, were able to target Arius directly in their efforts to rehabilitate and correct him. When he refused correction, they were likewise able to excommunicate him, both to lead him to repentance and to officially declare to all who may have been misled or influenced by him that his teaching was not accepted by the Church.  In all of these and many other examples, it is clear that the Church was able to preserve the doctrine and spirit she received from Christ particularly by governing and administering her service as He Himself delivered — that is, by entrusting teaching and the transmission of the doctrine and spirit of the Faith to the bishop and/or priests and teachers who had first received that doctrine and spirit from a trusted source in discipleship and through intentional, consistent, and longstanding participation in the ecclesial life, possessed a sound ecclesial spirit, preserved, studied, and practiced the doctrine of Christ with integrity and competence, and were endowed by God with the gift and ability to understand and deliver them appropriately. The Christians, likewise, were faithful in receiving that doctrine and spirit from the one who was entrusted by God through the Church to deliver them, and when they were misled as a result of a compromised bishop, priest, or teacher, they could easily be corrected and returned to the truth given the known teacher of the heresy or misunderstanding they had been led to adopt. In that context, the model of teaching often found today in the Church and among the believers is both practically dangerous and conceptually a fundamental departure from that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles and kept and practiced by the early Church. Indeed, to find many people teaching in one church, whether priests or congregants, is to endanger the flock by facilitating an environment in which multiple heresies, misunderstandings, and strange teachings can be taught, received, and delivered within the same community, either innocently by an unknowing carrier or cunningly by a disingenuous or deviant progenitor. Also arising from this model of teaching and learning is the less obvious but equally dangerous possibility of engendering a variety of opinions, frameworks, and approaches which, while not themselves necessarily heretical, may nonetheless create disunity and division among the community of believers and even unknowingly be founded upon a heretical paradigm. These “schools” in the service, as they are often called, most frequently mask the existence of ideas, teachings, and systems that do not necessarily find their roots within the Scriptural and Patristic framework, but instead represent collections of personal preferences, cultural or individual practices, and popular teachings and understandings that have become internalized, normalized, and idealized by those who subscribe to such “schools.”  Moreover, alongside the adoption of this model of teaching, the believers’ consumption of readily-accessible sermons and lectures online, and of posts, blog entries, and articles by various authors, without regard to the speaker’s spirit, doctrine, or qualifications, whether spiritual, intellectual, or otherwise, likewise represents a departure from the system of learning and teaching that was delivered by Christ and practiced by the early Church. Simply, such an approach to learning, rather than being informed by sound personal discipleship and firmly rooted in the Holy Tradition, is instead built upon and facilitated by modern underpinnings of consumerism, convenience, and the ideal of choice.  The believer who, in seeking to hear an edifying word or learn a principle of doctrine or faith, elects to visit a platform like OrthodoxSermons.org or YouTube to receive his teaching or guidance, is in reality no different than a customer walking into a Starbucks and ordering his drink of choice. The believer who, while scrolling through social media, encounters, reads, and accepts as true a post or video by some Christian “influencer” or purported teacher — whether sound in faith or not — is no different than a commuter reading and accepting as true a message proclaimed by a billboard advertisement on the roadside. What is more, even absent acceptance, the mere exposure to such content incrementally and insidiously alters, reshapes, and modifies our spiritual and doctrinal frameworks and spiritual integrity. No consistent system, spirit, or doctrine can be received through such a method of learning. Instead, what is received, and what ultimately defines the believer’s mindset, thoughts, frameworks, and understandings — both in terms of the service in the Church and in terms of that believer’s life in the world and in relation to society and others — is an amalgamation of incoherent and inconsistent teachings, opinions, and ideas that have been encountered, internalized, and reconciled together into one disjointed framework by that believer within himself or herself.  In reality, then, being that the community of believers is made up of members who ought to grow together in piety and deliver the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith of Christ from one generation to the next, the Church community itself becomes, through this self-reinforcing, independent model of learning (whether active or passive), a cocktail of the incoherent and inconsistent teachings that are internalized, practiced, and propagated by those who constitute it from one generation to the next. In this milieu, the homily becomes an unnecessary addition to a saturated market of Christian content, the substance of which being either accepted or rejected based upon the eloquence of the speaker, the attractiveness by which it is delivered, and whether it evokes positive feelings in the hearers, rather than upon the spirit, experience, and wisdom of the teacher, the soundness of the teaching delivered, and the need of the congregation to hear the teaching proclaimed. Church meetings and settings of instruction in the parishes further become avenues for socialization, opportunities for the promotion of certain persons based upon various illegitimate considerations — egoism, popularity, and other such factors —, and community-building activities, rather than settings of sound, rich education, discipleship, and spiritual edification. In these ways, the believers and parishes gradually become almost entirely unconcerned in practice with the quality of teaching delivered or the piety and spiritual exemplariness of the teacher, such that the very people they would, in time past, having been properly formed in accordance with sound Christian principles, have revered, lauded, and empowered in the service of teaching become to them unfavorable and unwelcome frustraters of their desired ends.  This gradual process gives rise to a compounding confusion of tongues such that the Church community, in falling prey to the same vice and tendency of thought and behavior that characterized the people of Babel so many centuries ago, gradually begins to resemble Babel much more than it does the Church on the day of Pentecost. And so the transmission of sound teaching in the Church — and thereby, the reception and transmission of sound doctrine and the one spirit of Christ by the believers in the Church — faces significant danger. As believers are increasingly shaped, and, disastrously, shaping themselves, by a consumeristic, self-directed approach to Christian learning, this danger of disunity of heart and internalization of strange doctrine is exponentially magnified. It is, after all, those very same believers who are entrusted to teach in their respective churches, often without any prior examination of doctrine and manner of life, requirement of prior training or study, or other quality control elements being in place to ensure that those who teach and those who learn from them are adequately protected. This process engenders a perpetual state of spiritual and doctrinal immaturity, as diluted, and often spoiled, milk is continually fed to the believers by those who, while well-intentioned, are simply unequipped with the gifts and qualifications necessary to impart anything more, and thus incapable of occasioning the requisite maturation to solid food which the believers ontologically need but, due to their malnourished and developmentally stunted state, do not realize that they need, and so do not want. For this reason, the believers — whether clergy or laity, student or teacher — are in many ways unknowing victims of a vicious cycle that perpetuates itself with increasing intensity while reinforcing its hold by preventing the means required to break it. In this light, it is imperative to recognize two foundational truths: first, the baseline presumption that those who teach and learn in the ways we have discussed are sincere and well-intentioned is unchallenged, and second, the very recognition of the problem is in many ways dependent upon its solution.  What, then, is that solution? Only an intentional return to the Scriptural and Patristic model of teaching and learning. Such a reversal of course, while perhaps appearing simplistic and quite challenging, is urgently necessary in order to safeguard the sound doctrine and spirit the Church has received. This return necessarily requires that all “schools” and systems that have been adopted by the believers — and not only today’s methods of teaching and learning — be critiqued in light of the sources of Christian authority, and all elements of such models that fail under the scrutiny of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Canons, and the Holy Tradition generally be promptly abandoned, irrespective of who might have adopted them from among the flock — clergy or laity — and when they may have been adopted. Only in returning to the original ecclesial understanding of teaching, doctrine, discipleship, worship, canon, and all other fundamental aspects of the Faith can the Church today hope to ensure the transmission of sound doctrine and the realization of true unity among her members. That unity cannot be accomplished except by such a purposeful return to the original system that Christ entrusted to the Church. Only in this way can the Church thwart a return to Babel. — [1] Genesis 11:1-9 [2] “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven,  that is,  the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13). [3] Genesis 11:4 [4] Ibid . [5] See  Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John  6.10.2: “After the flood, as if striving to fortify themselves against God, as if there could be anything high for God or anything secure for pride, certain proud men built a tower, ostensibly so that they might not be destroyed by a flood if one came later. For they had heard and recalled that all iniquity had been destroyed by the flood. They were unwilling to abstain from iniquity. They sought the height of a tower against a flood; they built a lofty tower. God saw their pride, and he caused this disorder to be sent upon them, that they might speak but not understand one another, and tongues became different through pride.” [6] Ibid . [7] C.f.  Colossians 3:2 [8] Genesis 11:5 [9] See  John 12:32: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”; See also St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation  25.3-4: “For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. And so it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to spread out his hands, that with the one he might draw the ancient people and with the other those from the Gentiles and unite both in himself. For this is what he himself has said, signifying by what manner of death he was to ransom all: ‘I, when I am lifted up,’ he says, ‘shall draw all unto me.’” [10] Acts 2:1-4 [11] See  St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures  17.17 [12] See  1 Corinthians 14; Romans 12:3-8 [13] St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures  17.17 [14] Ephesians 4:3 [15] See  Acts 1:1 [16] Matthew 11:29 [17] Matthew 5:19; See   also  Matthew 7:24, 26: “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock… But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.” [18] Matthew 28:19-20a [19] Acts 6:3 [20] 1 Timothy 5:17 [21] 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 7; Similarly, to Titus St. Paul writes: “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:7-9).  [22] 2 Timothy 4:1-2 [23] James 3:1, 13 [24] 1 Timothy 5:22a [25] 1 Timothy 6:3 [26] 1 Timothy 6:4-5 [27] 2 Timothy 2:16 [28] 2 Timothy 2:23 [29] Titus 3:9-11 [30] Acts 20:18-31 [31] 2 John 9-11 [32] 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 [33] 2 Thessalonians 3:14 [34] Titus 3:10-11 [35] 1 Timothy 1:20 [36] Irenaeus, Against Heresies  3.3.4 [37] Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians  7; Irenaeus, Against Heresies  3.3.4 [38] 2 Timothy 4:3-4 [39] 2 Timothy 2:1-2 [40] 2 Timothy 2:15 [41] 2 Timothy 4:5 [42] Ephesians 4:7-16 [43] 1 Corinthians 12:1, 4-11, 28-31 [44] Romans 12:3-8 [45] 1 Peter 4:10-11 [46] 1 Timothy 5:21 [47] Romans 2:11 [48] See  James 3:17: “the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.” [49] See  Matthew 23:10 [50] 1 Corinthians 3:5-10 [51] See , generally , Against Heresies  3 ( esp.  3.1-5). [52] Ibid . [53] Origen, De Principiis  1.2 [54] Gregory, Oration 33.15 [55] Athanasius, Festal Letters  2.7 [56] Athanasius, Letter to Serapion  1.28 [57] John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 3.10-11 [58] John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Timothy  10.2 [59] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to John of Antioch [60] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to the Monks at Constantinople [61] Sayings of the Desert Fathers , Amma Theodora 5 [62] Sayings of the Desert Fathers , Amma Syncletica 12 [63] Athanasius, Life of Antony 16 [64] 2 Timothy 3:6-7 [65] This sound Christian spirit and understanding is also clearly and sincerely expressed by Pope Kyrillos VI in his First Papal Sermon: “I thank my good God, the Lord of Glory, who has called me and chosen my weakness for this holy service, not worthily, but out of the abundance of His grace, for the purpose of shepherding His blessed people and for the service, that the sign of His glory may be exalted, and for the preparation of individuals as well as nations for the inheritance of eternal life. Beloved, I feel in myself the responsibility that has been placed on my shoulder, and the holy deposit that has been tied around my neck, and these talents that have been delivered to me from the Lord of the Church – these talents in which I must invest to bear fruit and multiply. But who am I? It is the grace of God that works in us and with us. Certainly, He who has called me will assist me in the apostolic service. . . . I ask the Lord that He may grant us all oneness of spirit and heart and thought, that we may work together with one mind and one will, that is the will of the Holy Spirit, Who has guided the Church throughout her long glorious history. And we have one holy goal: the glory of God and the service of Truth and the highest aspirations. I do not aspire to anything and 'neither is my soul haughtily raised within me' (Ps. 131:1), except that I may complete my struggle joyfully and the service that I have taken from the Lord Jesus, knowing that you are my joy and pleasure and crown of boasting (cf. 1 Thess. 2:19).” [66] See , e.g. , Pope Shenouda III, Priesthood , 90: “[Christ] is our true Teacher, and from Him emanates all knowledge[,] [w]hile the priest relays God’s teachings to the flock. . . His Glory is made manifest through the correct teaching [delivered] by His appointed teachers.” It is well beyond the scope of this work to speak of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III as a teacher. Indeed, his faithfulness, concern, and example in the area of ecclesial education require no introduction, having rightfully earned him the title “Teacher of Generations.” It is my hope that in the near future, scholarly work of a high caliber that adequately and honestly represents this modern saint and his innumerable contributions to Christianity generally, and Coptic Orthodoxy specifically, might be published, in order to pay due respect and accord due recognition to him while reintroducing him to a new generation of believers who may not be familiar with his importance and refuting the revisionary, disdainful efforts actively exerted by some in recent years to scandalize his name, defame his teaching, and undermine his legacy.  [67] St. Habib Girgis is quoted as saying that “education is the first need of the community after bread” ( see  Bishop Suriel, Habib Girgis: Coptic Orthodox Educator and a Light in the Darkness , 12). Further, his appointment as Dean of the Theological Seminary by His Holiness Pope Cyril V was, in the words of Pope Cyril, “due to our certainty of your virtue, enthusiasm and ceaseless efforts for the betterment of the college, and also due to our total trust in your zeal and faithfulness to our beloved church, having served as a teacher in the above mentioned college for a long time,” witnessing to his piety and experience in teaching while evidencing Pope Cyril V’s own clarity of understanding and conviction, thoroughly in line with the biblical and patristic teaching, with respect to the necessary criteria to be considered when appointing one to teach in the Church. St. Habib Girgis is himself well documented in his conviction that proper, systematic training — particularly seminary training — is a necessary prerequisite to ordination to the priesthood and to teaching in the Church, and that for this reason, the Church must be centrally occupied with the quality of the education she provides her clergymen and teachers, especially in and through her official Seminary. For instance, he quotes Butrus Pasha Ghali in writing: “Be concerned with the Clerical School before any other institution . . . if you do not have the Clerical School, where will you train your pastors?” (Habib Girgis, The Coptic Orthodox Seminary  23, as quoted in Bishop Suriel’s aforementioned work, at 89-90). He writes elsewhere: “the Church cannot present to us true leaders, counselors, and reformers unless her leaders and pastors are specially trained to practice their lofty and critical roles. Who can be compared to them except those with similar critical positions in life? An engineer cannot take on this role without proper training in the faculty of engineering. The physician cannot be trusted over people's bodies and souls unless he receives both theoretical and practical education in his faculty. The situation is similar also for a judge, lawyer, teacher, farmer, and mechanic, as well as others who are comparable . . . Hence, a religious pastor is not exempt from this, since a pastor worthy of this title and worthy to be responsible for souls needs to be educated in religious and secular subjects. But it is more important that the priest perfect the sacraments and characteristics of his profession than any of those other professions, so that he may fulfill his obligations and carry out his burdens.” (Habib Girgis, The Clerical School: Its Past, Present, and Future , in al-Karmah 9.9, as quoted by Bishop Suriel in his aforementioned work, at 91-92).  [68] 2 Corinthians 2:17 [69] 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9, 2:7-8 [70] 2 Timothy 1:5, 2:2, 3:10-15 [71] 1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:2 [72] 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 2 Timothy 2:17-18 [73] 1 Timothy 1:3-4, 8-20, 4:11-16, 6:1-2, 11-16, 20-21; 2 Timothy 2:14-16, 23-26, 4:1-5 [74] Titus 1:5, 10-14, 2:1-15, 3:1-2, 10-11 [75] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.24

“What did I do to deserve this?” is a sentence commonly heard when someone experiences a particularly bad event in their life. These thoughts stem from some concept of “Godly wrath come upon us” or the incorrect idea of some sort of “karmic” retribution. In pondering suffering and why one must suffer, a consensus seems to emerge from many Church fathers which outlines suffering as an excellent example of experiencing, or learning, the higher ways of God. St. Athanasius of Alexandria writes “Let us then be comforted in our afflictions and rejoice in our sufferings, for the Lord did not come to free us from suffering, but to teach us to bear it with faith, hope, and love, and thus attain eternal life.” [1] Sergius of Radonezh, a medieval Russian Orthodox ascetic, is also commonly quoted as saying: “If you want to serve God, prepare your heart not for food, not for drink, not for rest, not for ease, but for suffering, so that you may endure all temptations, trouble and sorrow. Prepare for severities, fasts, spiritual struggles and many afflictions, for ‘by many afflictions is it appointed to us to enter the Kingdom of Heaven’ [2] ; ‘The Heavenly Kingdom is taken by force, and those who use force seize it.’ [3] ”   In the Old Testament, suffering was often viewed as evidence of the wrath of God. Job, being the operative example, endured the scrutiny of his friends who wrongly attributed his loss of all things to his unrighteousness, due to a simplistic understanding of chastisement and prosperity. Eliphaz, one of Job’s friends, therefore says to Job in one instance: “Is not your wickedness great, and your iniquity without end?” [4] The tension of struggle and faithfulness in the character of Job profoundly draws out a beautiful perspective on the love of God, who would in the fullness of time take flesh and suffer unto death out of His love for mankind, freely and without compulsion. Just as Job was led into a deeper relation of love with God through suffering, so also does God invite us to a deeper relation with Himself through His own suffering on our behalf. In this, then, it is evident that the fullness of love — the Trinitarian Love — is that which accepts suffering even when it is unjust, transforming the experience of suffering into an expression of perfect love: “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” [5]   Through the trial of Job, suffering is understood as a means by which the elect may draw nearer to God and grow in conformity to Him. Another aspect of suffering likewise emerges in the Scriptures: often, the Israelites are permitted to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles as chastisement for their going astray from God’s commandments, “for whom the Lord loves He chastens.” [6] However, the chastisement of the elect, being for the sake of their repentance, ought not be conflated with the idea that God simply ascribes punishment on the ungodly. This was the misunderstanding of Job’s friends, which the Lord Jesus Christ corrects both by His words and living example — He, the sinless Lord, who endures suffering and tastes death on behalf of mankind.   When the Lord and His disciples encounter the man born blind, the disciples ask Him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” [7] Christ’s response is, put simply, unexpected: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.” [8] This idea, that this man’s suffering — his sickness — did not result from sinful activity, challenged their flawed assumption and ushered in a redeemed apprehension of the mercy and justice of God. In addition to preaching that “the last shall be first” [9] and that the poor shall inherit the Kingdom, [10] this encounter with the born-blind man became one of many instances where Christ confronted the contemporary Jewish misinterpretations of the ways of God and further uncovered the understanding of how the Lord blesses His children with suffering as a means by which they can take up a role in His salvific work, a teaching which He would Himself embody through His journey to the Cross and Resurrection. This conversation with the disciples was therefore a planting of a seed — an assertion that by way of suffering, one may share the Gospel and grow in conformity to the Lord Jesus Christ.   The practicality of this message which the Lord exemplified is perhaps most evident in the experience and mission of the Apostle Paul. St. Paul speaks of suffering often and chooses to suffer in order to be counted a minister in the service of God. He describes his many sufferings: “From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.” [11]   Despite these unimaginable sufferings, directly resulting from his preaching of the Gospel, we nevertheless hear his assuring words: “Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” [12]   St. Paul furthers this understanding of suffering elsewhere, writing: “[W]e are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building,” [13] and so “ the sufferings of this present time are not worthy  to be compared  with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” [14]  Evidently, then, this glory that God should reveal in us is realized through the sufferings which the believers endure, as a catalyst. [15]  St. John Chrysostom muses in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 4 that the uniqueness of the suffering of the Apostles is that “they are suffering without despair or anger. On the contrary they are full of rejoicing, and they prove it by returning good for the evil they receive.” [16]   The Coptic Orthodox Church is no stranger to the concept of suffering as a means of witnessing to the glory of God. She is heralded as being “the Church of the martyrs” and arranges her days according to the calendrical system anno martyrum (“year of the martyrs”). From the martyrdom of the Church’s first Patriarch, St. Mark the Evangelist, until today, martyrdom has become characteristic of the tradition, spirituality, and identity of the Coptic Orthodox Church, being delivered intergenerationally. Moreover, the powerful witness of the suffering Christians is made abundantly clear in the hagiographical account, in the Coptic Synaxarium, of Arianus the governor of Ansina, who was the likely cause of an innumerable number of the martyrdoms recorded in the Synaxarium, and who was led to conversion through seeing the joyful suffering of God’s people. [17] Martyrdom, in the Orthodox understanding, is understood as a high calling and honor, constituting a powerful conformity to Christ: as the Lord died for our sake, the martyr, in turn, offers his life to Christ and, in like manner, dies for His sake. St. Athanasius the Apostolic therefore speaks highly of martyrdom, considering the martyrs as being among the most powerful testimonies to the truth of the Christian message. [18]  The great Abba Antony, likewise, is described as pursuing martyrdom, finding it even sufficient, if he were not called to martyrdom, to “look on the contestants.” [19] It is further described: “. . . he was praying that he, too, might be martyred. Therefore, he also appeared grieved that he did not suffer martyrdom. . . . When the persecution finally ceased and Bishop Peter of blessed memory had suffered martyrdom, [Antony] left and went back to his solitary cell; and there he was a daily martyr to his conscience, even fighting the battles of the Faith.” [20]  The consideration of suffering for the sake of Christ as being an honor remains ever-present in the Church and is palpably felt even in the experiences of modern-day saints. One cannot forget the powerful and unwavering testimony of the 21 martyrs of Libya. It was also narrated regarding the saintly Tamav Irene that she, like Antony the Great, longed to suffer for the sake of God, and having not been called to martyrdom by Him, continued steadfastly in the life of daily martyrdom through asceticism. [21]  Indeed, a definitive mark of properly internalized spirituality is to approach suffering as an honor and glory to God, offering thanks to God in return for any suffering endured for His sake. [22]   A most profound aspect of suffering is its facilitation of an opportunity to become a fellow sharer in the sufferings of the Lord Christ. In suffering, the believer realizes a profound solidarity with the Lord and is able to incorporate that experience of suffering into their Christian experience. Russian Orthodox theologian Theophan the Recluse captures this perspective well, writing: “Remember that each of us has his own cross. The Golgotha of this cross is our heart: it is being lifted or implanted through a zealous determination to live according to the Spirit of God. Just as salvation of the world is by the Cross of God, so our salvation is by our crucifixion on our own cross.” [23]   While Christ challenged the misunderstanding that a person’s suffering is necessarily due to particular sins, it is nevertheless clear that suffering was introduced  into the human condition through the sin and fall of Adam and Eve. [24]  On the holy wood of the Cross, through His suffering and ultimate death, the Lord transformed this condition into one of blessing, recapitulating man and offering to him the remission of sin(s) and renewal of nature through baptism, which is the putting on of Christ. [25] The ultimate goal of life on earth, then, becomes growth and perfection in Christ: “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” [26]  This timeless truth of Christianity is embodied in the ritual theology of the Coptic Orthodox Church. For instance, in the prayers which immediately precede the communion in the Eucharist, the priest proclaims: “the Holies are for the holies!” Truly, it is only through Him who is Holy that the believers can approach the Eucharist worthily. The believers become the people of God through unity with Him and in Him: “And we ask You, O Lord our God . . . that Your Holy Spirit descend upon us and upon these gifts set forth [the Eucharist], and purify them, change them, and manifest them as a sanctification of Your saints.” [27]  In the sense that the Eucharist is understood as the fruits of the sufferings of Christ, it follows that to have a share in Him and in His sufferings is to enjoy unity with Him.   Moreover, it is common for believers, when they are faced with trials and hardships, to feel as though they are undeserving of such misfortunes. In his Letters to Olympias , St. John Chrysostom offers a new outlook: “Nothing, Olympias, redounds so much to the credit of any one as patient endurance in suffering. For this is indeed the queen of virtues, and the perfection of crowns; and as it excels all other forms of righteousness, so this particular species of it is more glorious than the rest.” [28]  Through suffering, we have the opportunity to cultivate many virtues, and the despair that may be engendered in us through hardship can rather become a means for glorification. This paradoxical perspective — of the opportunities and growth which suffering may occasion — may seem, at first glance, to be illogical. Rather, we are assured by the Apostle Paul that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men,” [29]  and that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” [30]   Such a perspective regarding suffering warrants deep reflection. While humanity is not sinless, spotless, or a perfect Lamb to be offered as a sacrifice, can it nevertheless approximate God through suffering? Despite being marred by sin, can humanity, through suffering unjustly, return to the Image of God — He who was falsely accused for our sake, who prayed for the cup to be taken from Him, [31]  and who did not lose all, but chose  to come down from His throne as King of Kings and had no place to lay His head? [32] Can suffering in this world, no matter how minute, amount to a share in His suffering? Can one’s suffering be likened to Simone of Cyrene carrying the Lord’s Cross with Him [33]   — an unimaginable blessing? Can one not think of each of our hardships as likewise carrying the cross of the Lord one step closer to Golgotha, knowing that ultimately, it is still He who suffers death on our behalf? Can one not know joy in His resurrection? For this reason, let us bear in mind — to be blessed is to suffer. — [1] St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Letter to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms  (4th Century). [2] Acts 14:22 NKJV (Hereinafter, all Scriptural references are taken from the New King James Version). [3] Matthew 11:12. [4] Job 22:5. [5] John 15:13. [6] Hebrews 12:6-11; see also  Revelation 3:19. [7] John 9:1-2. [8] John 9:3. [9] Matthew 20:16. [10] Matthew 5:3, Luke 6:20. [11]  2 Corinthians 11:24-28. [12] 2 Corinthians 12:9-10. [13] 1 Corinthians 3:9. [14] Romans 8:18. [15]  See e.g., Romans 8:18-31. [16] St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4  . [17]  I hope the pun of Arianus and seeing was not lost on you. [18]  See  St. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation , para. 28. [19] St. Athanasius of Alexandria, The Life of Antony , para. 46. [20]  Ibid ., 46-47. [21]  See Saint Mary & Anba Bishoy Coptic Orthodox Church, Tamav Ireni  (November 17, 2012). [22] “If you bear your sufferings with thankfulness, this is greater than performing miracles” (St. Isaac the Syrian, The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian , Homily 5). [23] Theophan the Recluse, Thoughts for Each Day of the Year According to the Daily Church Readings from the Word of God . [24]  See Genesis 3. [25]  S ee e.g. , Romans 13:14. [26]  Colossians 1:28. [27]  The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil of Caesarea: The Epiclesis. [28] St. John Chrysostom, Letters to Olympias , Letter II. [29] 1 Corinthians 1:25. [30]  1 Corinthians 1:18. [31] Matthew 26:39. [32] Revelation 17:14; Matthew 8:20 . [33] Luke 23:26 . — Hilana Said is a Coptic Orthodox Christian and a licensed attorney. She graduated from Albany Law School in 2023. Hilana developed a love for academic reading and writing during her time on the Executive Board of the Albany Law Review. Her deep faith and Coptic Orthodox heritage play an integral role in her personal and professional life and serve as constant inspiration for her academic pursuits. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

In engaging with the political process, especially around election season, people are often drawn into and held captive by partisan politics and issue-based voting. Beneath the loud noises of specific policies and candidates’ personalities are worldviews and philosophies that animate not just the candidates, but also political movements and historical trends. This article aims to provide the reader with a conceptual framework by which to engage more thoughtfully with, and look more deeply into, the whys that underpin the political process and their implications, to the end of understanding in a nuanced manner the interplay between the Church, politics, and civic duty. Two Visions: Constrained and Unconstrained One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues. [1]  One explanation may be tribalism and that the same people fall in line once a view is declared from the upper echelons of political party leadership. But even tribalism does not explain why political platforms and their leadership also stay consistent on the same issues. It is more plausible that the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues because they have different visions of the world. A vision is the map by which we navigate the world and perceive reality. Facts do not speak for themselves; rather it is facts interpreted through a vision that allows us to understand the world. “Visions set the agenda for both thought and action. Visions fill in the necessarily large gaps in individual knowledge.” [2] Two competing visions of the human condition will necessarily dictate different moral judgments and, consequently, public policies. Thomas Sowell categorizes visions in two broad categories: constrained and unconstrained. [3] The constrained vision is articulated in the writings of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and American founding fathers such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, while the unconstrained vision is expressed in the writings of William Godwin, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, and the Marquis de Condorcet. A. Views on the Human Condition In the constrained vision, the moral limitations of humanity are treated as inherent facts of life, and the fundamental moral and social challenge is to make the best of the possibilities that exist within these limitations. [4] People are naturally motivated by self-interest and the interest(s) of their immediate social circles. Instead of regarding man’s nature as something that could or should be changed, proponents of the constrained vision attempt to determine how the desired moral and social benefits might be realized most efficiently within that constraint. [5] For instance, those who subscribe to the constrained vision would harness man’s self-interest and desire for prosperity by establishing a marketplace characterized by competition to induce economic growth in society at large. They would not encourage people to be more charitable or impose taxes for the general benefit of the poor in an attempt to reduce inequality because they view such efforts as improper and futile. [6] The constrained vision is in the business of pragmatic trade-offs as opposed to moral sentiments or spiritual motivations. Instead of teaching people to be virtuous, proponents of the constrained vision, such as Adam Smith, get the job done by persuading individuals to do the right thing because self-image is improved by good deeds. In contrast, proponents of the unconstrained vision believe that man, at his core, is intrinsically good and capable of acting selflessly, but the fundamental problem is that social institutions corrupt human nature. Near the end of his life, Rousseau authored Emile and stated that “[t]his book…is simply a treatise on the natural goodness of man, intended to show how vice and error are foreign to his constitution, invade it from outside, and imperceptibly alter it.” [7] By way of example, Rousseau writes in his Confessions  that his master treated him badly, so he started lying and became lazy; his father punished him rather too harshly, and this made him both manipulative and covetous. [8] Rousseau saw that his intrinsic goodness was corrupted by his circumstances and thus blamed society for his delinquency. [9] The unconstrained vision further holds that despite corrupting institutions, man has the potential of feeling other people’s needs as more important than his own, and therefore of consistently acting impartially, even when his own interests or those of his family are implicated. [10] Thus, institution-made corruption can simply be undone by reformed institutions as envisioned by a narrow segment of the population with cultivated minds who use rationality and reason as the proper and sufficient instrument for regulating the actions of mankind. [11] As such, man can be wildly transformed: Man is, in short, ‘perfectible’ – meaning continually improvable rather than capable of actually reaching absolute perfection. ‘We can come nearer and nearer,’ according to Godwin, though one ‘cannot prescribe limits’ to this process … Efforts must be made to ‘wake the sleeping virtues of mankind.’ [12] B. Knowledge and Reason The two visions also diverge on knowledge and reason: “In the constrained vision, any individual’s own knowledge alone is grossly inadequate for social decision-making, and often even for his own personal decisions.” [13] Knowledge in the constrained vision is predominantly experiential – transmitted socially in largely inarticulate forms. As Adam Smith stated, “man has certainly more often learnt to do the right thing without comprehending why it was the right thing, and he still is better served by custom than understanding.” [14] Burke expressed a similar sentiment, stating: I give you opinions which have been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a continued and general approbation, and which indeed are so worked into my mind, that I am unable to distinguish what I have learned from others from the results of my own meditations. [15] The constrained vision thereby places a high premium on experience learned over time across wide populations encompassed in previous generations – in sum, tradition. However, these views do not preclude interference when severe corruption enters the system: “We should attend to the defects of the social order, according to Burke, with the same trepidation with which we would tend the wounds of our father. They are not to be ignored, but neither are they a mandate for experiment or hasty inspiration.” [16]   The unconstrained vision, on the other hand, values reason over experience and individual rationality over collective pragmatism: “According to Godwin, experience was greatly overrated – ‘unreasonably magnified,’ in his words – compared to reason or to ‘the general power of a cultivated mind.’” [17] Condorcet similarly stated that “everything that bears the imprint of time must inspire distrust more than respect” and “only by meditation that we can arrive at any general truths in the science of man.” [18] As such, the unconstrained vision implies a profound inequality between the conclusions of “persons of narrow views” and those of “cultivated minds.” [19] The influence of those with “cultivated minds” ought to be magnified: “What is needed is to infuse ‘just views of society’ into ‘the liberally educated and reflecting members’ of society, who in turn will be ‘to the people guides and instructors,’ according to Godwin.” [20] There is a special leadership role to be played by those of “superior intellects” who can lead society and serve as agents of transformation within institutions in order to discover or invent a solution for the human condition and bring about the process of “perfectibility” described by Condorcet and Godwin. [21] To be clear, no political movement or philosophical view is 100% constrained or unconstrained. But the general disposition of the two categories depends on premises and presuppositions about the human condition and knowledge from which perceptions of reality and decision-making proceed. For instance, a “constrained” politician may propose legislation to incentivize entrepreneurship even though incentivizing action through law is a feature of the unconstrained vision. Similarly, a politician with an unconstrained vision marries and has children without contemplating the essence of marriage or rationalizing his decisions, a clear deviation from the unconstrained school of thought. Is Christianity Constrained or Unconstrained? Christianity does not fall squarely into one of these categories. For instance, the Christian view of knowledge aligns well with the constrained vision. A hallmark of Christianity is respect and reverence for tradition and wisdom learned and transmitted by past generations. As expressed in Proverbs, “Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.” [22] A core premise underlying large segments of the Bible is precisely the need to transmit lessons across the ages. [23] “My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother; For they  will be  a graceful ornament on your head, And chains about your neck.” [24] The Gospel according to St. Luke begins with a similar message: Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,   that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. [25] Burke’s statement “I give you opinions which have been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a continued and general approbation…” rings very familiar to finely tuned Christian ears. Ignoring the wisdom of past generations in favor of personal meditations and rationalizing well-established practices is, according to Proverbs, the definition of foolishness: “A fool despises his father’s instruction, but he who receives correction is prudent.” [26] While Christianity aligns with the constrained vision on knowledge, it takes aspects of both visions when dealing with the human condition. On one hand, like the constrained vision, Christianity views the human condition as fundamentally flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. As St. Athanasius states in On the Incarnation , the fall of man was separation from God that resulted in physical, spiritual, and moral death. [27] The moral death is what proponents of the constrained vision view as the flaw in human nature. On the other hand, similar to the unconstrained vision, Christianity views the human condition as “perfectible,” but with a significant caveat. While the unconstrained vision aims to improve the nature of the masses through reformed institutions, public policy, and social pressures, Christianity changes individuals through divine means. Christ’s incarnation and crucifixion – indeed, His entire “salvific work” – reconciled heaven and earth and provided Christians, through Baptism, the forgiveness of sin and renewal of nature by the Holy Spirit, enabling them to walk in accordance with “the calling by which [they] were called.” [28]  Thus the commandment to “be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect” [29] cannot come about through mere human efforts, reform, or public policy, but through the grace of God, a sound sacramental life, discipleship, prayer, fasting, and the life of virtue and other good works. In short, the quest for perfection without Christ is futile. Therefore, while Christianity has more in common with the constrained model, it does not align perfectly with either vision. Christianity, specifically Orthodoxy, values tradition and is generally apprehensive of unwarranted change. However, the Christian view of the human condition does not entirely align with the constrained vision because there is potential to change human nature through Christ’s salvific work. Neither does Christianity fully align with the unconstrained vision because human nature is fundamentally flawed post-fall and because the quest for perfection cannot be achieved solely through worldly institutions, policies, or compulsion. Caesar v. God According to Sowell, progressive politics are aligned with the unconstrained vision, while conservative/libertarian frameworks are more aligned with the constrained vision. [30] This essay does not specifically identify political parties with either vision. Political parties are vehicles for ideologies that aim to implement public policy and law in line with their members’ and leadership’s worldviews. So, political parties are prone to seismic shifts, which have arguably seen a significant uptick in recent times. Also, similar to individuals, political parties may be constrained on one political issue but unconstrained on another. [31] Christians are generally viewed as conservatives because of their respect for tradition – a feature Christianity shares with the constrained vision.  However, as explained above, neither political philosophy – and no political party – possesses a complete understanding of the human condition and life’s most perplexing questions. They are simply incapable of addressing existential issues such as suffering, purpose, justice, human flourishing, or any of life’s other central questions. These types of issues are unanswerable by mere political philosophies because they belong in the realm of theology, not politics or secular philosophy. The solution to this quandary is to “[r]ender therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” [32] Christians ought to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s by being good, law-abiding citizens and productive members of society. And here it is essential to note that the call to “render unto Caesar” does not mean that Christians are to adopt a morally libertarian stance when making personal (or even electoral) decisions; nor does it mean that secularism and immorality should be acceptable to Christians as long as they are handed down from governing bodies in the form of legal mandates. To the contrary, Christians are supposed, on an individual level, to vote, live, and believe in accordance with their moral compass, in good conscience – the same right to which everyone else in a religiously diverse society is entitled. Additionally, because neither vision (and by extension no political party) fits squarely within a proper Christian framework, the Church cannot, and must not, endorse wholesale political parties or candidates. The Church, however, finds itself in an understandably difficult position in the current political climate because morality has come to be seriously intertwined with politics and Caesar has reached into the domain of God. In recent years, debate stages and newsrooms have become forums for moral issues masquerading as administrative matters and public policy considerations. Mundane tax policies and subsidies inevitably have become discussions on the importance of equality, charity, and fairness. Border policy and immigration reform have turned into debates about the intrinsic worth of human beings and alleviating suffering for the persecuted. Godwin’s vision of man’s perfectibility through continuous improvement so “we can come nearer and nearer…” has become conflated with Gregory of Nyssa’s view that “no limit would interrupt growth in the ascent to God, since no limit to the Good can be found nor is the increasing of desire for the Good brought to an end because it is satisfied.” [33] And so Caesar added a cassock to his royal regalia, and mass confusion reigned. Perhaps the foray of politics into morality came about due to the decreased religiosity of the American public: “Americans’ membership in houses of worship continued to decline [in 2020], dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup’s eight-decade trend.” [34] Additionally, over the past two decades, “the percentage of Americans who do not identify with any religion has grown from 8% in 1998-2000 to 13% in 2008-2010 and 21% [from 2018 to 2021].” [35] Furthermore, Americans’ confidence in the Church and organized religious institutions declined to 46% among republicans, 25% among independents, and 26% among democrats. [36] This is a significant decline in confidence across the board from previous years. [37] Traditionally, religion provided people with community, a sense of purpose, and an arena to practice and grow in virtue. When religion disappears, people attempt to fill the spiritual void with the crumbs they can find. In 1840, Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw that material wealth, safety, and prosperity – all of which are abundant today – are not enough to satisfy humanity: The soul has needs that must be satisfied. Whatever pains are taken to distract it from itself, it soon grows bored, restless, and anxious amid the pleasures of the senses. If ever the thoughts of the great majority of mankind came to be concentrated solely on the search for material blessings, one can anticipate that there would be a colossal reaction in the souls of men… [38] Of course, before Tocqueville, Christ Himself declared that “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” [39] The Coptic Church expresses this beautifully in the Liturgy of St. Gregory saying: “You had no need of my servitude, but rather I had need of Your Lordship.” The void left by the lack of religiosity is currently being filled through politics animated by the unconstrained vision (sometimes on both sides of the aisle) that aims to alleviate suffering and inequality through legislation and political rhetoric, as opposed to inner transformation through spiritual means. [40] Christians should distinguish the proper role of government from the proper domain of the Church and be faithful in their duty to both. The Church is responsible for transforming the believers from within and harnessing moral virtue and charity within its members. It does so through God’s grace and the sacramental life, thereby allowing the believers to have true love, joy, peace, and all the other fruits of the Spirit. [41] The Church must therefore reclaim its role as moral teacher by providing proper theological education to its leaders and members. Most crucially, Christian families must reclaim their role in raising their children, because the Church’s mission to educate each generation is bound to fail without sound education and discipline, beginning in the family. St. Habib Girgis, the founder of the Sunday School movement in Egypt, had especially harsh words for parents who ignore raising their children or attempt to outsource their education to others: “How stupid are the parents who overwork to build wealth but ignore raising their own children. St. John Chrysostom likened them to a stupid gardener who pays attention to accumulating money and hiring laborers and does not care for his trees and gardens.” [42] To be clear, the Church should not involve itself in endorsing political parties or political candidates. Rather, it should pay close attention to fulfilling its duties by praying for the country’s political leaders, [43] providing discipleship, and educating believers on the true meaning of being human, the meaning of life, and connecting them to the awe-inspiring sacramental life. Once a Christian experiences proper discipleship and lives and understands his faith, proper decisions will follow in every aspect of his life. An educational and spiritual renaissance such as the one brought on by St. Habib Girgis, St. Pope Kyrillos VI, and Pope Shenouda III is desperately needed. [44] On the other hand, the government is responsible for maintaining societal order and stewarding the economic system. As such, a government subscribing to the constrained vision may prove ideal because minimal interference with human nature is advisable in a heterogenous and multireligious society due to the complexity of its social landscape. A solution to one emerging issue may well cause two other unintended and more significant problems, which in turn engenders skepticism towards hasty social intervention. Indeed, Adam Smith warned of a man who is “wise in his own conceit” who “seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.” [45] That being said, social reform is not prohibited under the constrained vision, but it is to be undertaken with the utmost caution as one would tend to a father’s wounds, as articulated by Burke. At the same time, the constrained vision offers valuable insight on practical issues due to its reliance on experience and wisdom derived from past generations. Because of that reliance and other self-imposed limitations, the constrained vision has traditionally outsourced social and spiritual concerns to the family and mediating institutions such as the Church. Irrespective of what political philosophy is employed, however, politicians across the aisle must recognize that their duty is to the Constitution and their constituents within the limitations set forth by the Constitution. Anything outside these boundaries belongs to and falls squarely within the mission of mediating institutions, such as local communities or the Church. In a word, government, and politicians of all affiliations, cannot provide people with the hope, love, joy, and flourishing they so frequently promise, no matter how much they might strive or desire to do so. — [1] Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles , (Basic Books, N.Y. 2007), 1. [2] Sowell, 7. [3] The two visions encompass views on many aspects of life including justice, power, social processes, and equality; however, for the purposes of this article, I only choose the most abstract and consequential aspects: human nature and knowledge/reason. [4] Sowell, 12. [5] Sowell, 12-13. [6] For instance, Alexander Hamilton considered “all men” to be “entitled to a parity of privileges,” though he expected that economic inequality “would exist as long as liberty existed.” See Sowell, 133. [7] Alan Jacobs, Original Sin: A Cultural History , (Harper Collins Publishers N.Y. 2008), 149. [8] Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self , (Crossway 2020), 109. [9] Trueman, 109-110. [10] Sowell, 16. [11] Sowell, 43-44. [12] Sowell, 18. [13] Sowell, 36. [14] Sowell, 38. [15] Sowell, 42. [16] Sowell, 38. Further to that point, Adam Smith urged the freeing of the American colonies prior to the revolutionary war in addition to suggesting a number of domestic reforms and being opposed to slavery. Similarly, authors of the Federalist Papers such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay – certainly proponents of the constrained vision – came first to public notice as leaders in the revolt against the British rule. See Sowell, 39. [17] Sowell, 40. [18] Sowell, 40. [19] Sowell, 40-41. [20] Sowell, 43. [21] Sowell, 44. [22] Proverbs 22:28 NKJV (Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptural quotations are taken from the New King James translation). [23] This, of course, falls under the overarching fact that Scripture is inspired by God for the sake of human salvation. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV). [24] Proverbs 1:8-9. [25] Luke 1:1-4. [26] Proverbs 15:5. [27] St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation , paragraph 4 (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press N.Y. 2011). [28] Ephesians 4:1-6. [29] Matthew 5:48. [30]  Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions , Hoover Institution, November 4, 2008 (accessed October 25, 2024). In interviews discussing his book, Sowell makes clear that he is a proponent of the constrained vision. Yet, he does not adhere to a political party: “When people ask me why am I going to vote for McCain rather than Obama it’s because I prefer disaster to catastrophe.” [31] Federalism can also potentially play an interesting role in this discussion. What should be the role of local, state, and federal government in making regulations and enforcing the law? This can be explored in a later essay. [32] Matthew 22:21. [33] Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses , paragraph 239 (Paulist Press N.J. 1978). To be clear, Godwin did not view virtues such as generosity as political duties to be imposed by the state, but as moral duties to be harvested in the context of social duty, thereby making it unnecessary for the government to get involved. However, Godwin’s ideological progenies appear to think that government has a role to play in inspiring, and sometimes forcing, such virtues by law. Sowell, 213-214. [34] Jeffrey M. Jones, U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time , March 29, 2021. [35]  Ibid . [36] Jeffrey M. Jones, Confidence in U.S. Institutions Down; Average at New Low , July 5, 2022. [37]  Ibid . [38] Alexis de Tocqueville, pt. 2, chap. 12 in Democracy in America , vol. 2, ed. J.P. Mayer (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 535. [39] Matthew 4:4. [40] This point may be discussed in a future essay. Interestingly, Tom Holland, author of Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade The World , states that prior to today’s increasingly secular post-World War II era, “people, even if they were not Christian, they would accept Christ as the kind of the moral exemplar and say ‘what would Jesus do?’ I think, by and large, people now say ‘what would Hitler do?’ and do the opposite.” There is no Christ-like figure of ultimate good in real world secular morality; only the incarnate devil that is Hitler. I say “real world secular morality” because fictitious redemptive figures such as Superman are plenty in modern secular mythology. See   Does God Exist? A Conversation with Tom Holland, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Murray , Hoover Institution, November 4, 2008 (accessed October 25, 2024). [41] Galatians 5:22-23. [42] Habib Girgis, الوسائل العمليه للاصلاحات القبطيه امال و احلام يمكن تحقيقها في عشرة اعوام, Sunday School Press (1942) at 68. [43] In the Liturgy of St. Cyril, the Coptic Orthodox Church prays for “[t]he leader (king) of our land, Your servant” and asks God to “[k]eep him in peace, truth, and strength. Subject under him all the barbarians, the nations that desire war against all our fertile lands. Speak to his heart concerning the peace of Your one, only, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Grant to him that he may think peaceably towards us and towards Your holy name.” See also the Paschal Litanies: “Pray and ask that God may grant us mercy and compassion before the sovereign rulers, and incline their hearts with goodness towards us at all times, and forgive us our sins.” [44] I restrict my analysis to the Coptic Orthodox Church because this is the Church to which I belong. Pluralism, the First Amendment, and similar issues are outside the scope of this essay but may be addressed in a later essay. [45] Sowell, 45. — Amir Botros is a practicing attorney in New Jersey and holds an undergraduate degree in jurisprudence and political science. He is also currently a student at Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, and is an ordained Reader in the Coptic Orthodox Church. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.