Search Results

Much like the Church’s rites, iconography presents a unique and powerful avenue for depicting and expressing the spiritual and divine components of religious experience through physical means. The simple admiration of the artistic forms and expression of icons is therefore itself a formative experience. In learning to read an icon, one gleans a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the meaning and significance which icons portray, especially because icons are not merely artistic depictions but also expressions of theology and spirituality. Through a multifaceted reading of iconography — including narrative-based, cultural, and theological approaches — one begins to uncover the unique, compelling, and significant meanings of icons without demeaning, devaluing, or misinterpreting them. Indeed, a sound reading of icons requires an approach that considers the complex interplay between visual art, storytelling, cultural symbolism, and religious tradition. The Narrative-Based Approach Icons are most commonly interpreted through the textual and oral narratives which they depict. The illustration of a particular story enables readers to utilize their imaginative faculties, envision the story more concretely, and therefore cultivate a deeper comprehension of and resonation with the narrative. Both the cognitive and aesthetic characteristics of icons are important. The use of colors and beautifully designed artwork conveys the significance of the narrative and inspires a more immersive experience of the text itself. By recalling the story which an icon presents, one can breathe life into an otherwise two-dimensional canvas. In early Coptic manuscripts, icons were commonly used to depict scenes found in the Gospels, inviting readers to imagine and place themselves within the story and thereby gain a deeper understanding and experience of it.  Figure 1: A Coptic manuscript of the Gospels dating to 1250 A.D., including icons of Jesus’ arrest and trial (left: folio 56v) and His baptism in the Jordan River (right: folio 66r) (Bibliothèque de Fels (Fels Library), Institut Catholique de Paris, Ms. Copte-Arabe 1 ). Figure 2: An icon of the Holy Family on its journey to Egypt. The Arabic text reads “Out of Egypt I called My Son (Matthew 2:15)” As one example, in Figure 1, the depiction of the baptism of Christ in the Jordan River moves the manuscript’s reader to visually imagine the unfolding scene — to feel the water splash against his skin, hear the rumblings of the gathered crowd, and even smell the fish. By engaging these senses, the icon translates a static narrative into an experienceable event. This exercise primarily carries an educational purpose. For this reason, instructive details were not uncommon; they further facilitated the educational emphases of the narrative-based approach. For instance, in Figure 2, the related prophecy of Hosea 11:1 which is referenced in Matthew 2:15 is directly incorporated into an icon of the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt. The interrelation of the narrative and the icon is inextricable. Just as an icon informs a deeper experience of a written or orally-delivered narrative, apart from the narrative, an icon falls short in delivering its experiential intentions. Remaining with the example of Figure 2, unless one connects the image with the narrative of the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt, he fails to uncover the deep symbolism and spiritually-applicable lessons which the icon depicts. Ascertaining these characters to be the Holy Family, and understanding the environment and contexts which the Gospel narratives express in relation to this specific experience in the incarnate life of Christ, opens up the icon to become an illustration of sacrificial fatherhood, in the person of Joseph who walks on foot and leads his family away from the comfort of home into uncertainty in Egypt, and endearing motherhood, in the person of Mary who swaddles Jesus and holds Him in her arms. In considering an icon through its narrative, and especially those that are widely known, iconography becomes a powerful medium for deeper reflection and education. Further, the experiential nature of iconography, and the narrative-based approach, is not bound by culture or theological mastery. While many individuals may feel ill-equipped or unable to relate to the cultural and theological roots of an icon, the narrative-based approach bridges the gap between readers and the narrative’s author, enabling readers to enter palpably and with all their senses into the narrative itself. However, icons are written within a particular cultural context and are naturally expressive of theology, and thus, a holistic approach to reading icons is necessary. While the narrative-based outlook carries important benefits, it should not be divorced from other approaches. The Cultural Approach Reading icons through the lens of their writers’ cultures, societal contexts, and artistic traditions facilitates a deeper experience of the icons’ depictions and a more refined appreciation for their message. Cultural considerations uncover the complexity behind the composition of an icon. To illustrate the importance of this approach, Pharaonic art was often adapted for use by Coptic iconographers in third-century Egypt. They found in the artwork of Isis nursing Horus inspiration for portraying the Virgin nursing the Christ Child, and associated Horus’ slaying Apophis with St. George’s slaying the dragon. [1] Figure 3: Isis nursing Horus (top left); the Virgin nursing Christ (top right); Horus slaying Apep (Apophis) (bottom left); Saint George slaying the dragon (bottom right). The visual similarities between Pharaonic art and Coptic iconography, especially in the above example, are fascinating: the Virgin holds Christ in the same manner that Isis holds Horus, both infants sit on the left side of their mothers, and both mothers are depicted with large eyes and as smiling. Given these strong resemblances, it is believed that the Egyptians were familiar with the pagan gods well into the fourth century A.D. and that such iconographic connections sought to assimilate former pagans. Rather than deny the background and certain cultural components of the Egyptian pagans, iconographers provided them with the means by which to incorporate their cultural identity into the experience of worship within the framework of their newly-accepted Christian beliefs. Since the Christian Faith is holistic and cannot be confined or compartmentalized into a mere aspect of the believer’s life, the acceptance of the Christian Faith by the Egyptians quickly affected their cultural expression. They yearned to use their culture to honor God, even in the artwork which they produced. Within this same context, the appropriation of pagan themes and narratives in Coptic art was not only an instrument of assimilation, but also emphasized the superiority of the Christian Faith to the pagan beliefs. In keeping with the earlier example of Horus, Horus’ royal assent to avenge his father gives way to the Lord’s superior salvific act for all mankind. The interrelation and inseparability of both the cultural and narrative approaches to reading icons are therefore evident. Further, the cultural approach enhances the understanding of artistic traditions. The influence of ancient Egyptian art on early Coptic art is perceived in Coptic iconographers’ use of gold leaf. Similarly, the use of intricate patterns and shapes in later icons testifies to the influence of Islamic art. As Egypt experienced a variety of artistic traditions over several millennia, such as Pharaonic art, Islamic art, and Western art, the cultural connection situates the icon within its appropriate place in the larger scheme of history. At the same time, because icons carry religious and spiritual foundations, they are not meant to be relegated to a historical setting. The narrative and cultural methods must therefore be united to a theological approach. The Theological Approach The reading of icons requires discernment of what they are depicting — not only the narratives they are expressing in visual form, but also the dogmatic, doctrinal, and spiritual underpinnings and implications of that narrative. For this reason, icons are referred to as being written  rather than drawn . In the Coptic tradition, the most significant aspect of iconography is the religious teaching which icons uphold and express. In a profound way, iconographers use symbolism and imagery to convey and deliver a deep teaching apprehensible even to an illiterate and uneducated viewer. A common feature of icons of the Virgin Mary, such as Figure 4, is the placement of three stars on her veil — one above her forehead, and one at each shoulder. This detail serves a deeper purpose than adornment: it may be understood as expressive of the Church’s understanding of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God — before, during, and after her pregnancy with the Lord Jesus Christ. Figure 4: A medieval Coptic icon of the Nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true richness of an icon is found in its spiritual depth. Ultimately, a theological reading of icons is an invitation into their most central purpose. By vivifying the most minuscule details of an icon, such as the stars on the Virgin’s veil, the theological approach transcends the narrative and cultural considerations. The disproportionately large eyes, ears, and heads of figures in Coptic iconography reflect the spiritual qualities of vigilance and contemplation; the smaller mouths and noses may similarly emphasize the spiritual dangers of an idle tongue and sensual pleasures. The diligent search for the theological significances of all aspects of icons is vital to their fullest experience and comprehension. Icons serve as spiritual windows and are a medium for veneration, meditation, and divine presence, enabling one to enter into the spiritual encounter of God Himself. Personal devotion is therefore an integral component in engaging with iconography. In one story of St. Mary of Egypt, the saint venerates the Virgin Mary through her icon, out of which she had heard a voice directing her to the life of asceticism. [2] Personal devotion, rooted in a multifaceted approach to and reading of the icon, enabled Mary of Egypt to encounter the blessed Virgin intimately and venture into the life of asceticism in the worship of Christ. Importantly, veneration and personal devotion must be distinguished from worship. Neither the icons nor their depicted stories are the subject of worship, though they are important facilitators for the worship of God. The theological reading, alongside the narrative-based and cultural approaches, allows for icons to unveil the profound depths of their depicted experiences and invite viewers into those very experiences to obtain the virtues and spiritual fruits they offer. Conclusion As expressions of art, icons move the spirit and inspire devotion in a myriad of ways. Iconography, therefore, cannot be confined to a specific methodological or systematic evaluation. A rich and holistic reading of icons, then, requires the incorporation of a variety of perspectives and a multifaceted approach. By weaving together consideration for icons’ narratives, cultural contexts, and theological significances, viewers and readers of icons become able to better understand and truly appreciate the complex interplays at work in iconography. At all times, at the heart of iconography is the invitation to personally encounter the Lord of the Church, and, having gazed at the beauty and reverberations of the life with Him, take up the journey towards perfection and virtue in the company of His saints. — [1] See  George Makary, “History,” George Makary Coptic Icons . [2] See  Wallis Budge, “ID 107: Story of and Homily on Saint Mary of Egypt, the Desert Mother previously driven by lust, who promises the Icon of the Virgin Mary that she will become a nun (sometimes in two parts),” Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh (ed.), Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project ). — Mark Dawod serves as a Reader at St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church in Jersey City, New Jersey. He is a graduate of Princeton University and a current student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, pursuing a career in medicine. This paper is an adaptation of course work submitted for "Healing & Justice: The Virgin Mary in African Literature & Art," offered by Dr. Wendy Belcher in Spring 2023 at Princeton University. 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.

“Of the several paths that lead to virtue, the broadest and the most promising is the way of imitation.” [1] In a short article on the pursuit of virtue, the renowned theologian Robert Louis Wilken rightly emphasizes the importance of imitation to the human experience and its bearings on spiritual life: “without examples, without imitation, there can be no human life or civilization, no art or culture, no virtue or holiness.” [2] In every aspect of human life, imitation and apprenticeship are integral. Children receive their most powerful formation through relation — namely, interacting with and observing and emulating their parents — such that the atmosphere in which they are reared as infants plays a significant role in their formation into adults. Likewise, self-expression and the creation of art draw inspiration from experience: by observation and emulation, a person forms their own unique personality and an artist develops their own style. Similarly, the development of thought progresses by way of discipleship and apprenticeship.  The transmission of the experience of God was primarily accomplished, in the history of humanity and particularly among the Israelites, through imitation. As the Creator of all things, God made Himself known to Adam and Eve, [3] so that by abiding in His presence and interacting with Him, they would remain in the Image after which they were made. Even after their sin and consequent expulsion from the Garden, [4] Adam and Eve were not abandoned to the end [5] by God, but continued in a then-altered relation with Him. In this way, by relation and experience — albeit in a limited and “veiled” [6] manner — the experience of God would be delivered from person to person. By narrating their own personal experience of God and that of their ancestors to their children, [7] the Israelites handed down faith in God to each generation. This same system of discipleship is observed in the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ: by taking flesh and becoming Man, God enabled humanity to abide once more in His presence and to observe Him, know Him, interact with Him, and experience Him deeply and most intimately. Thus, as Wilken remarks in a later article: “Christian faith lives by the simple act of handing down what others have passed on to us.” [8] This experiential nature of Christian life provides a most integral foundation to the pastoral dimension of liturgical administration, especially as it relates to the place, role, and function of children in the Church’s liturgical celebrations. The Christian life necessarily flows from observation and experience guided, informed, and contextualized by the necessary component of understanding. It requires holistic involvement and cannot be relegated merely to the intellectual dimension of the human experience. Christian education is life  delivered and received through an incarnate experience, requiring the whole Church. In his work Foundations for Christian Education,  John Boojamra notes:  “The whole Church educates. Not only is every person the object of the Church’s educational efforts, but every member of the Church is the subject of the Church’s educational effort. The whole Church educates in all of her life. The greatest error we can make is to identify education with children and school.” [9] As such, the worshipping community fulfills a central function in the upbringing and education of the Church’s members: “…people, both children and adults, become Christians not by learning about Christianity but by being integrated into an existing Church through experiencing the rites, symbols, and stories of the community.” [10] This systematic approach to Christian education comes to life beautifully in the experience of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who has deservedly garnered the world’s attention in 2025 as a result of the 1700th anniversary of the convening of the Church in 325 A.D. for the Council of Nicaea. Approximately 27 years before this Council, Athanasius was born into a faithful Christian family amidst a time of turmoil in the Empire. Despite the severe hardship and persecution of the Christians, Michael Molloy describes: “While just a ‘babe in arms’ [Athanasius] accompanied his parents to the services of the Church. And as everyone there prayed and worshipped, so he prayed and worshipped, too — as babies do. Before he was old enough to walk, the life of faith and worship were familiar to him: the music of the Psalter, the chiming of the bells, the fragrance of the incense, the glimmer of the candles, the chanting of the prayers, the sprinkling of the holy water, the gaze of the icons, [and] the taste of the Eucharist.” [11] This liturgical environment became deeply formative to the young Athanasius: “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.” [12] Through a liturgically-integrated formation, paired with a living discipleship to his family, Alexander, Antony, and others, Athanasius grew up into the pillar of Orthodoxy we know and are greatly indebted to today.  While the importance of liturgy to faith formation cannot be understated, pastoral philosophies lead to a variety of approaches to liturgical participation with regard to children. These must be considered thoughtfully, if we hope through them to deliver the life of Faith to our children. As the great liturgical scholar, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, observed:  “Whether we want it or not, we are challenged today with the tremendously difficult task of rethinking Church tradition as a whole, of applying it in a situation radically different from that of the past. It will take more than one generation to solve this problem, but we must at least face it and also become aware of its meaning.” [13] The Cognitive Approach For some, the Divine Liturgy is approached from a cognitive, or intellectualistic, perspective. This position argues that the efficacy of the liturgical service hinges upon the worshippers’ mental comprehension of the liturgy and its prayers, readings, and rites. If young children and infants are incapable of understanding the liturgy, it follows that these should not participate in the liturgy. In a disheartening article, Roman Catholic priest Fr. Michael White writes: “There is something in Catholic Church culture that insists kids belong in the sanctuary for Mass. I must say I don’t totally understand it, but it is definitely a Catholic thing. Part of the thinking is that sheer exposure to the service imbues them with grace and other good things in some kind of effortless and mindless sort of way. But if they can’t understand the readings and they cannot take Communion, it is unclear what they are ‘receiving’ Sacramentally.” [14] Further, infants are critiqued for disrupting the services and preventing their parents and other worshipers from devoting their full attention to the service — liturgical “crimes” which justify their seclusion in isolated crying rooms or exclusion entirely from the liturgical gathering. [15] While a wise pastor would not advise parents to leave their children at home when they come for the liturgical services, he explores alternatives. Fr. White concludes: “This is why we invest in our children’s programs. We love the children of this parish so much we want them to have a great time and learn to love the Lord too, through age appropriate messages and worship. Meanwhile their parents can devote their full attention to worship.” [16] However, in elevating the intellect to a place of primary importance, a presumption is introduced in which the liturgy is understood as communicating theology and the Faith of the Church merely through information. As a result, liturgy comes to be understood as being “intended for adults.” [17] Consequently, it becomes subjected to an eisegetical approach: rather than allowing liturgy to itself nurture and instruct the faithful as it is intended and perfectly equipped to do, an imposition is introduced. For instance, “children’s liturgies” are established where young children are gathered apart from adults to attend a distilled version of the liturgical service violated with interruptive comments and educative lessons. This fission of the family enables the adults to participate in a different service without the “distractions” of their children, as the “children’s liturgy” is rendered a makeshift classroom, equipped with human instructors and students, so as to deliver an intellectually apprehensible experience of the sacrament. However, as Timothy O’Malley brilliantly responds to Fr. White’s article, “[i]f participation in the Eucharistic liturgy requires the same degree of intellectual capacity as a scholarly lecture, the fruits of the Eucharistic life are reserved only for those with the appropriate intellectual understanding.” [18] While understanding certainly comprises an important component to benefiting from the liturgy, “when one reduces the liturgical act to ‘understanding,’ then there is an erasure of the contemplative, aesthetic, and thus embodied formation that is integral to a worshipful existence.” [19] Beholding  is as integral as comprehending  the liturgy. This is especially relevant for infants and young children. [20] In a fascinating study, Mark Johnson reveals how the human person generates meaning through embodied movement, even before self-consciousness has fully developed: “[Babies and children] must learn to understand what is happening to them — what they are experiencing and what they are doing…We thus grow into a meaningful world by learning how to ‘take the measure’ of our ongoing, flowing, continuous experience. We grow into the ability to experience meaning, and we grow into shared, interpersonal meanings and experiences.” [21] Without immersion into the worshipping community, children are deprived of its formative experience. In returning to Wilken’s opening article, “before we can become doers we first must be spectators.” [22] This underlies the destructive dangers of dividing the worshipping community, especially by age. [23] Separated from their parents, children are robbed of the opportunity to observe and imitate them, and the natural progression of their growth from babes in arms to reverent adults is thereby stunted. While children may not be able to comprehend the sermon and other components of the liturgy, they are “discovering in the act of Eucharistic worship according to [their] capacity that this act really matters…They are learning the very meaning of what it means to be a liturgical creature even as they sleep in their mother’s or father’s arms during the Eucharistic liturgy.” [24] Hand-in-hand with their children, parents and adults likewise cultivate for themselves an atmosphere of edification, being invited to return again to the act of beholding  liturgy. O’Malley beautifully shares: “My toddler daughter does get bored at Mass. And my act of worship is not to whisk her away to some room where she can encounter God without me. Instead, it is to perform an act of worship where I slowly take her around the church…She is learning a worshipful mode of existence not through speech, not through some alternative liturgy appropriate to her toddlerhood. And as she learns, so do I. I learn once more to delight in genuflecting, in chanting, in singing, in beholding.” [25] As beholders of liturgy, children require the stimulation of all their senses. The liturgy itself facilitates the satisfaction of this need: the smell of the incense, the gaze of the iconography, the beauty of the architecture, and the symphony of the hymns and prayers altogether  deliver and make possible the transformative experience of the liturgy for the entire worshipping community — children and adults alike.  Therefore, as Fr. Schmemann asserts: “[T]he first duty of parents and educators is to ‘Let the children come…and do not hinder them’ (Matt. 19:14) from attending Church. It is in church that children must hear the word ‘God’ for the first time. In a classroom it is difficult to understand, it remains abstract; but in church it is ‘in its own element.’ In our childhood we have the capacity to understand, not intellectually, but with our whole being, that there is no greater joy on earth than to be in church, to participate in church services, to breathe the fragrance of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is ‘joy and peace in the Holy Spirit’ (Rom. 14:17).” [26] This consideration uncovers a different approach to the involvement of children in the liturgical setting. The Sensory Approach While some approach the liturgy from a perspective of cognitive primacy, others prefer a sensory approach. Proponents of this position maintain that by involving children in the liturgical service directly, such as through the ranks of Chanter [27] and Reader, this participation will correlate to their edification and their liturgical responsibilities will root them within the ecclesial community. This approach, however, falls short on various fronts.  At the ecclesial level, the sensory-driven approach is not without infringement. The bestowal of ecclesial ranks upon children carries no Scriptural foundation, and in fact violates the teaching of the Scriptures regarding ordination. Ordination into the ranks of the Church was exclusively for the sake of the benefit of the service: the ranks were not means of establishing personal edification. The seven deacons selected by the Apostles in Acts 6 were ordained for the sake of the community, and not necessarily for their own upbuilding. [28] The servant is expected, in imitation of the Lord Jesus Christ, to pour himself out for the sake of those whom he serves. [29] For this reason, the criteria for election and ordination were exacting. In his advice to his disciple Timothy, the apostle Paul writes: “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands;” [30] “Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain; they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.” [31] The ecclesial ranks, being central to the administration of the liturgical services, impart a grave accountability to God which requires understanding, a blameless manner of life, a wealth of spiritual experience, a certain mastery of the Church’s hymnology and ritual orders, and an ability to read and rightly interpret the Church’s liturgical texts and Scriptural readings. Thus, at the personal level, the ordination of children fails to account for sound human development and age-appropriate capabilities. People learn developmentally and “differently at different ages; they learn more efficiently, effectively, and meaningfully as they mature, because all learning is relational and contextual.” [32] The Lord Jesus Christ, being Himself the creator of man, understood and illustrated a proper approach to social ministry that takes into account such developmental considerations. In her book Our Church and Our Children , Sophie Koulomzin remarks: “Another aspect of the method of teaching of Jesus Christ is that He approaches each person at that person’s own particular level of development.” [33] The ordination of children into the ranks of the Church constitutes a failure to recognize their learning stages and abilities. It prematurely places upon them significant responsibilities which they are unable to adequately fulfill. Before infants can receive solid foods, they are nurtured and receive all that is necessary for their growth through their mother’s milk; circumventing this stage of their growth and feeding them with solid, nutrient-rich foods would place the infant at risk of death. Similarly, the premature conferral of ecclesial responsibility to children without their adequate preparation and before they are appropriately nurtured and formed to effectively fulfill the duties proper to the ranks to which they are ordained directly accrues to their detriment. Meanwhile, the sensory approach engenders interpersonal conflicts within the worshipping community, particularly by inventing an occasion for stumbling for those upon whom the Church does not confer her ecclesial orders. For instance, the adolescent girl who does not yet understand the different gender-designated entrustments given to both men and women in God’s design for the human and in His arrangement for the Church will certainly feel unfairly treated when she finds her infant brother struggling at the service of the altar — a service which, due to her more advanced age, experience, and understanding, apart from her gender, she would be entirely justified in believing herself more adequately prepared to fulfill. In response, some seek to remedy this artificial contention through advocating for the conferral of new ecclesial ranks and the invention of orders for female chanters to vest and participate in novel ways in the administration of the liturgical service. [34] These, however, only give rise to further divisions and distinctions within the communal body, such as by relegating the service of chanting only to the vested choruses, thereby relegating the rest of the assembled believers to the position of spectators, whereas the liturgical hymns and congregational responses are not the responsibility or purview of a select few, but of all the faithful together, so that, as St. Ignatius of Antioch says, “with one voice and one mind, taking the key-note of God, you may sing in unison with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father, and He may hear you and recognize you, in your good works, as members of His Son.” [35] These interpersonal hindrances likewise uncover further issues related to the ordination of children. At the communal level, the direct involvement of children in administering the liturgical service creates barriers to offering a well-ordered and aesthetically pleasing prayer, since children are neither capable nor trained to deliver the deeply profound and transformative beauty of the liturgical experience in its requisite fullness. “The liturgy is art, translated into terms of life,” writes Romano Guardini. [36] The aesthetic dimensions of the liturgical services are important: the content and form of the liturgy cannot be divorced of each other. Beauty befits the house of God. As the Psalmist proclaims: “One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord , and to inquire in His temple.” [37] Liturgy “should be celebrated with the utmost perfection,” [38] because “liturgical celebration ideally should provide access to an experience of beauty, an encounter with beauty and an opportunity to become co-creators of beauty in God’s presence.” [39] Clare Johnson further elaborates: “What is less-than-beautiful in the manner of celebrating the liturgy thus must be avoided at all costs. If what is at stake is the faith-life of believers, which poor celebrations risk weakening or destroying, then good celebrations, beautiful celebrations, are vital because the encounter with Christ’s beauty in the liturgy is that which changes us/opens us up to desire the promotion of what we have experienced: exposure to God’s beauty prompts us both to promote and emulate that beauty beyond the realm of the liturgical.” [40] Through the aesthetic components of liturgy, worshippers are granted to enter into the essential act of beholding liturgy, and through it, to encounter most perfectly — that is, with all of their faculties — the beauty and presence of God. Through liturgical beauty, then, “the Church evangelizes and is herself evangelized.” [41] Dom Gérard Calvet expounds: “…one enters the Church by two doors: the door of the intelligence and the door of beauty…[The beauty of the liturgy] deserves to be called the splendour of the truth . It opens to the small and the great alike the treasures of its magnificence: the beauty of psalmody, sacred chants and texts, candles, harmony of movement and dignity of bearing. With sovereign art the liturgy exercises a truly seductive influence on souls, whom it touches directly, even before the spirit perceives its influence.” [42] The poorly administered service therefore fails to communicate this profound depth and beauty of the Church’s life. [43] Accordingly, children struggle to enter into the act of beholding, for either the beauty which they ought to behold is masked behind cacophony or their allocated responsibilities in the administration and celebration of the services overburden them, discourage them, and take them away from the act of beholding altogether, with the adults also themselves consequently experiencing often insurmountable barriers to both beholding and comprehending liturgy. An Integrated Approach The integration of both the experiential and intellectual components is therefore essential to the work of liturgy. Shawn Tribe, the founder of the Liturgical Arts Journal , explains: “That our experiences, actions and other external dimensions of life generally have a profound influence upon us, forming us, moving us and so forth, is really a matter of common sense and experience. We are creatures founded in both of these aspects and we live and respond accordingly. What is true of life in general is also true of the liturgical and ecclesiastical life.” [44] When each is considered in isolation or as more important than the other, an imbalance is introduced. A haphazardly-implemented model of pastoral care, as it pertains to the liturgical experience, therefore carries the potential of disturbing and distorting the efficacious work of the liturgy. The administration of the Church’s liturgical services must be carefully and thoughtfully assessed, especially as the believers of every generation are guarantors of the Church’s liturgical tradition. The Church has safeguarded and delivered to the believers a holistic model of formation, attending to both their physical and metaphysical needs. Thus, the apostle Paul, providing a paradigm for ministers, prays: “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [45] At the heart of this work of nurturing and raising healthy members of the Body of Christ is the life of liturgy, and “indeed, in a very real sense liturgy is not only at the heart of the Church’s life; liturgy is the Church’s life.” [46] From the altar, every other aspect of the Church’s life and service flows. [47] Fr. Schmemann therefore asserts: “What then should Christian education be, if not the introduction into this life of the Church, an unfolding of its meaning, its contents and its purpose? And how can it introduce anyone into this life, if not by participation in the liturgical services on the one hand, and their explanation on the other hand? ‘O taste and see how good is the Lord’: first taste, then see — i.e. understand. The method of liturgical catechesis is truly the Orthodox method of religious education because it proceeds from the Church and because the Church is its goal.” [48] Similarly, Boojamra notes: “Roots in the Church can be built only by a step-by-step participation in the life of the Church as well as by an increasing understanding of what the Church is.” [49] Accordingly, the pastoral model which excludes children from the liturgical gathering deprives them of the intimate experience of the Church’s life. The creation of special liturgies for children likewise inflicts damage upon their sound formation, separating them from parents and equating the act of worship with an academic endeavor. What is needed, then, is to administer the liturgical service with careful attention to both its intellectual and contemplative details. As important as the sermon and theological exposition of the day’s Scriptural readings is the ritual itself, as well as the hymnology, iconography, architecture, and every other physical component of the ecclesial experience. By fostering an atmosphere of aesthetic and intellectual beauty together, all the faithful, each according to their unique capabilities, gifts, personality, and character, are enabled to fully enjoy and benefit from the divine gift which God has freely offered to man in and through liturgy. Within such an atmosphere, we must allow children to be  children, and as their caregivers, nourish them by the presence of the Lord, who said: “Let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” [50] — [1] Robert Louis Wilken, “The Lives of the Saints and the Pursuit of Virtue,” First Things  (December 1990) [2] Ibid. [3] See  Genesis 3:8 [4] See  Genesis 3:23-24 [5] See  The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil: The Anaphora [6] See e.g. , 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 [7] See e.g. , Deuteronomy 4 [8] Robert Louis Wilken, “Hand On What You Have Received,” First Things  (June 2014) [9] John Boojamra, Foundations for Christian Education , 21-22 [10] Ibid ., 30-31 [11] Michael E. Molloy, Champion of Truth: The Life of Saint Athanasius , 3 [12] Anthony A. Doss, “Athanasius, Arianism, and the Council of Nicaea — Part One: The Makings and Character of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria,” Doss Press  (May 2025) [13] Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Liturgy and Life: Christian Development Through Liturgical Experience , 14 [14] Fr. Michael White, “Why We Don’t Encourage (little) Kids In Church,” Make Church Matter  (January 2019) [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Timothy O’Malley, “The Liturgy Is for (Little) Kids,” Church Life Journal  (January 2019) [19] Ibid . [20] “We do not have special children’s services, because we realize that our experience of the services of the Church is not merely rational. Even if a child cannot yet understand all that is happening, he can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch for himself, and experience the presence of the Holy Spirit. We must not deprive our children of this experience; we must prepare them to appreciate it, to look forward to it, and to participate in it by prayer and in as many other ways as possible” (Sister Magdalen, Children in the Church Today: An Orthodox Perspective , 59). [21] Mark Johnson, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding , 35 [22] Robert Louis Wilken, “The Lives of the Saints and the Pursuit of Virtue,” First Things  (December 1990) [23] The division of the ecclesial community by any means is addressed in the second century by Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote to the Philadelphians: “Be zealous, then, in the observance of one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one chalice that brings union in His blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop with the priests and deacons, who are my fellow workers. And so, whatever you do, let it be done in the name of God” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians  § 4).  [24] Timothy O’Malley, “The Liturgy Is for (Little) Kids,” Church Life Journal  (January 2019) [25] Ibid. [26] Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Liturgy and Life: Christian Development Through Liturgical Experience , 16 [27] For a helpful discussion regarding the role and order of the Chanter, see  Daniel N. Girgis, “On the Order of Chanter in the Coptic Tradition,” Living Tradition — Daniel Girgis’ Blog (November 2025). [28] See  Acts 6:1-6 [29] See  Hegumen Antonios Ragheb, Ten Commandments For Sunday School Servants , 8-9 [30] 1 Timothy 5:22 [31] 1 Timothy 3:8-10 [32] John Boojamra, Foundations for Christian Education , 10 [33] Sophie Koulomzin, Our Church and Our Children , 25 [34] The subject of deaconesses remains outside the purview of this paper. However, for a nuanced historical presentation regarding deaconesses, see  Aimé Georges Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study . In it, Martimort pertinently writes: “…the Byzantine tradition, to the extent that it was a living tradition, did not assign any liturgical role to deaconesses at all, as we have had occasion to verify” (Aimé Georges Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study , 246). He concludes: “For the fact is that the ancient institution of deaconesses, even in its own time, was encumbered with not a few ambiguities, as we have seen. In my opinion, if the restoration of the institution of deaconesses were indeed to be sought after so many centuries, such a restoration itself could only be fraught with ambiguity. The real importance and efficaciousness of the role of women in the Church has always been vividly perceived in the consciousness of the hierarchy and of the faithful as much more broad than the historical role that deaconesses in fact played. And perhaps a proposal based on an ‘archaeological’ institution might even obscure the fact that the call to serve the Church is urgently addressed today to all  women, especially in the area of the transmission of Faith and works of charity” ( Ibid. , 250). [35] Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians  § 4. Importantly, this does not negate the specific role of the Chanter in preserving, delivering, and leading the congregation in the responses, praises, and hymns of the Church, according to their respective structures. [36] Romano Guardini, The Spirit of the Liturgy , 73 [37] Psalm 27:4; As it relates to our earlier point, before  the Psalmist inquires, he beholds. [38] See  Inter Oecumenici, Instruction on Implementing the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy  § 13 [39] Clare V. Johnson, “Portals to Transcendence,” Maxwell E. Johnson, Timothy O’Malley, and Demetrio S. Yocum, At the Heart of the Liturgy: Conversations with Nathan D. Mitchell’s ‘Amen Corners,’ 1991-2012 , 94 [40] Ibid ., 96-97 [41] Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium § 24 [42] Dom Gérard Calvet OSB, Four Benefits of the Liturgy , 19-20 [43] “Adults who sing, or read, or serve, or share in the prayer of the congregation, must take care to do their part in a manner worthy of God, so as to inspire those present, and especially so as not to put off the children and others present who are not committed church members” (Sister Magdalen, Children in the Church Today: An Orthodox Perspective , 62). [44] Shawn Tribe, “The Importance of Liturgical Beauty,” Liturgical Arts Journal (March 2018) [45] 1 Thessalonians 5:23 [46] Robert F. Taft, “The Liturgy in the Life of the Church,” Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Volume 40 (1999) Nos. 104 , 188 [47] “In the Orthodox experience, Christian catechesis is comprehensible and truly possible only within the context of worship, i.e., within the living experience and expression of the faith. Worship encompasses the whole of Christian life, for worship is ‘liturgy’ in the widest possible sense, meaning both liturgical celebration in the gathered community and witness and service to Christ in the world” (Constance J. Tarasar, “The Orthodox Experience,” John H. Westerhoff III and O.C. Edwards Jr. (ed.), A Faithful Church: Issues in the History of Catechesis , 236). [48] Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Liturgy and Life: Christian Development Through Liturgical Experience , 13 [49] John Boojamra, Foundations for Christian Education , 21 [50] Matthew 19:14 — Cover Art: Adam van Noort, Christ Among Children (c. 16th/17th century).

“[Y]ou see in yourself word and understanding, an imitation of the very Mind and Word. Again, God is love…the Fashioner of our nature has made this to be our feature too.” —  St. Gregory of Nyssa,  On the Making of Man 5.2 These words of St. Gregory wonderfully and concisely capture the human condition as being made in the Image and Likeness of God. Often, despite striving to reach the measure of God’s love and to cultivate pure, selfless hearts in accordance with His example, we find ourselves unable to love as He loves, and may even realize that we can go so far as to hurt those whom we love the most. “Why is this the case,” we may wonder. In his Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul provides an insightful response: “ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” [1] As a result of sin and the corruption which it caused to human nature, humanity is unable to offer a perfect love apart from God who is Himself love. In its very essence, sin — the corruption that marred God’s “very good” [2]  creation – is separation . [3]  After Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the fruit of the tree, the results of their sin were realized: they perceived their nakedness and their differences, and suddenly, the unity and harmony which they previously enjoyed was replaced with separation both from one another, and, as they would quickly discover, from God as well. [4]  In their response to God, the mark of selfishness likewise becomes evident: “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” [5]  Indeed, selfishness and self-interest become those characteristics which divide and separate us from others, and, ultimately, from God. I. The Body of Christ: “As it is, there are many parts, but one body.” [6] In contrast with the separation and division which entered into the human condition through sin is the oneness of the Body of the sinless One — the Church. St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, exhorts them towards unity: “[b]ut God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.” [7] A failure to cultivate this oneness on the part of the believers, which requires the selfless carrying of one another’s burdens and sufferings, keeps the walls of separation strong. St. Basil the Great echoes this teaching of St. Paul, explaining that it is selfishness that leads to the destruction of community and the loss of true love; to seek one’s own advantage is to deny the command to love one another as Christ has loved us. [8] Self-interest, as St. Basil reveals, becomes the foundation of failure within relations. For instance, a spouse who demands to be treated according to their own “love language” and disregards that of their partner practices an imperfect, selfish love; likewise, a child who expresses frustration in their parents’ failure to understand them while denying them the opportunity to understand them, or even a parent who exerts their own preferences on their child without attempting to understand their child and their differences from them, similarly practice an imperfect love. The expectations of what another “should do” in a relationship, or what one “deserves” from a relationship, ought not be divorced from the kind of love which God both instructs us to establish and exemplifies in His relation with us. Regarding selfish love and its faults, the Scriptures speak at length. In the Song of Songs, we observe the separation that results from self-interested expectations and selfishness. There, King Solomon tells of the Shulamite’s troubled night which begins when he seeks her and receives no answer. Upon hearing his voice, the Shulamite says: “I sleep, but my heart is awake; It is the voice of my beloved! He knocks, saying, ‘Open for me, my sister, my love, my dove, my perfect one; For my head is covered with dew, my locks with the drops of the night.’ I have taken off my robe; how can I put it on again? I have washed my feet; how can I defile them? My beloved put his hand by the latch of the door, and my heart yearned for him. I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, My fingers with liquid myrrh, on the handles of the lock. I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had turned away and was gone. My heart leaped up when he spoke. I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer. The watchmen who went about the city found me. They struck me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took my veil away from me. I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my beloved, that you tell him I am lovesick!” [9] While the Shulamite hears her beloved’s voice and is overjoyed at the opportunity to see him, her self-concern delays her and causes her to just miss her bridegroom who was waiting for her at the door. Her self-awareness and hesitancy in putting her robe back on and defiling her feet again to open the door for her bridegroom directly cause her to miss him — he leaves before she reaches him. Suddenly, what was once a door separating them became much more, and the Shulamite found herself struck, wounded, and lovesick for her beloved who was just behind the door waiting for her. [10]  Augustine writes of selfishness in love, that “two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; and the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self.” [11] Despite the presence of deep love, one’s self-centered orientation causes harm both to himself and to those whom he strives to love, sometimes even unknowingly and alongside good intentions. This inclination and weakness thus make something as simple (though crucial to the spiritual life) as love feel almost impossible. St. Paul describes this spiritual struggle, stating: “For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” [12] It is then evident that absent God’s hand and guidance, humanity alone cannot truly love perfectly. Its love remains imperfect because humanity fell from the Image after which it was created — that of Him who is Himself perfect love. The effects of this selfish love are innumerable, as discussed, and appear most clearly in one’s blindness to the needs of others in preference to their own desires. As St. Basil writes “[y]es, while the glitter of gold so allures you, you fail to notice how great are the groans of the needy that follow you wherever you go.” [13] The route to true, Christ-like, holy love is kenosis , or self-emptying. [14] From the life of His Holiness Pope Kyrillos VI, and most prominently his self-denial, we may extrapolate a framework and blueprint for the self-emptying love that Christ models for us and towards which He exhorts us. We are told by Fr. Daniel Fanous in his biographical work on Pope Kyrillos VI that “Kyrillos was utterly convinced that…unity must in a very real sense be kenotic, that is, self-emptying . [He believed that] [e]ach competing voice of reform…must, without compromise, ‘disappear’ that Christ might appear and heal his despondent Church.” [15] It is His Holiness’ conscious emptying of his own desires, thoughts, and preferences that laid the groundwork for the positive Church reforms of his papacy. What allowed His Holiness Pope Kyrillos VI to lead the Church towards edification and flourishing was this deep faith and conviction that God, and not himself or any man, is the beneficent Pantocrator  who cares and provides for His Bride, the Church. Modeling ourselves after this saint’s example requires us to acknowledge and recognize Christ’s hand in our lives. Despite our weaknesses and shortcomings, He assures us, saying, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.” [16] It is He who helps carry the crosses of His children each day, and it is likewise He who ultimately died on the Cross for them. This sacrificial, kenotic act is precisely what He exhorts His children to emulate and exemplify in their dealings with each person. In order to take up this journey of conformity to Christ, and of walking with Him towards perfection, we must first discern the condition of imperfect love. St. Paul writes to the Ephesians: “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” [17] By looking to Him who is Love, we can see most clearly the perfect love which beckons us to walk according to His steps. This perspective enables us to trust in His love and care for those whom we seek to love. Augustine, in his Expositions on the Psalms , instructs us to entrust those whom we love — and even our enemies — to Him, for His love is perfect. [18] In submitting ourselves to Him, we fulfill the advice of the Apostle Peter, “casting all [our] cares upon Him,” including also those whom we love, and their wellbeing, “for He cares for [us].” [19] This is the ultimate and perfect act of love — giving our whole being to Him who loves us most perfectly, even to the point of death on our behalf. [20] II. Christ: Meeting our Bridegroom As Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden as a result of their sin, God was already working the ultimate plan of their restoration to and reunification with Him. While humanity would experience many highs and lows in its journey to its Beloved, He patiently watched, guided, and prepared His bride — the Church, His chosen People — in anticipation of the wedding feast ahead. Much like the Shulamite bride on her troubled night, humanity’s selfish and self-centered tendencies often led it to miss its Bridegroom, even when He was to be found just behind the door. While Christ “stand[s] at the door and knock[s]” [21] we may frequently find ourselves still occupied with putting on our robes or worried about soiling our feet. In contrast, the Lord’s selfless love leads Him to the road to Golgotha, to His betrothal to His Church, not with the finest of robes, but rather with a striped back and crown of thorns. Through this dichotomy, human love is assuredly differentiated from divine love. Many fathers of the Church therefore caution against this self-seeking approach to one’s relationship with God. For example, St. Basil writes: “[A] beginning is made by detaching oneself from all external goods: property, vainglory, life in society, [and] useless desires, after the example of the Lord’s holy disciples. James and John left their father Zebedee and the very boat upon which their whole livelihood depended. Matthew left his counting house and followed the Lord, not merely leaving behind the profits of his occupation but also paying no attention to the dangers which were sure to befall both himself and his family at the hands of the magistrates because he had left the tax accounts unfinished. To Paul, finally, the whole world was crucified, and he to the world.” [22] By cultivating this selfless love for God and all His creation, we come to learn the truth of the Lord’s saying, “My yoke is easy, and My burden is light,” [23] for when one loves God for Who He is, and not merely on account of the blessings He provides, he realizes the profound joy and gladness that ensue from walking with the Lord. The Scriptures warn against seeking Christ merely for material purposes. When the Lord was sought by the multitudes after they were miraculously fed by Him, He emphasizes this perspective to them: “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” [24] Correcting their improper approach, He continues: “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” [25] Apart from the Lord’s direct teaching in the Gospels, the Old Testament likewise carries this message. In the experience of Job, it is evident that if Job’s love for God was founded in the material wealth and many blessings he enjoyed, he would have surely turned away from Him when those things were abruptly taken from him in his trial by the devil. Rather, Job’s love for God Himself allowed him to remain steadfast and faithful, even when his own wife and close friends goaded him to “curse God and die.” [26] The pursuit of ease and personal gain in this life prevents one from enjoying the presence of God and blinds his eyes from seeing Christ because it rather fixes his attention on himself. Thus, St. Augustine plainly reflects: “he loves You too little who loves anything with You, which he loves not for You.” [27] St. John Chrysostom similarly exhorts his hearers: “He came to do away with the old things, to call us to a greater country. Therefore He does all, to deliver us from things unnecessary, and from our affection for the earth. For this cause He mentioned the heathens also, saying that the Gentiles seek after these things; they whose whole labor is for the present life, who have no regard for the things to come, nor any thought of Heaven. But to you not these present are chief things, but other than these. For we were not born for this end, that we should eat and drink and be clothed, but that we might please God, and attain unto the good things to come. Therefore as things here are secondary in our labor, so also in our prayers let them be secondary.” [28] By seeking God for His own sake, we receive the means by which to obtain perfect love. When one finds God, he finds love, for God is just that — love . It is only with and through God that we can learn to love perfectly. For this reason, St. Macarius the Great writes that “[t]he lamp is always burning and shining, but when it is specially trimmed, it kindles up with intoxication of the love of God; and then again by God’s dispensation it gives in, and though the light is always there, it is comparatively dull.” [29] Indeed, as the Scriptures reveal: “without Me you can do nothing,” [30] and “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” [31] From the spiritual journey of the Apostle Peter, this worldview comes to life. The Gospels do not shy away from displaying the shortcomings of even the closest disciples of Christ, for the edification of His followers thereafter. Shortly before the Pascha of our Lord, St. Peter exclaims, “[e]ven if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble.” [32] When Christ tells him that he will deny Him, he responds emphatically, “[e]ven if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” [33] Shortly thereafter, as the rooster crows, we find St. Peter struck deeply by Christ’s words to him and weeping bitterly. [34] It is only after the Resurrection of Christ that St. Peter is shown how to love Him. Christ reveals to him the sacrificial nature of perfect love, calling him to feed His lambs, tend His sheep, and feed His sheep. [35] The love which the Lord embodies, teaches, and shows His disciples is palpably self-emptying. It is centered around serving others: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” [36] In its foundation, the quintessential ingredient for knowing and experiencing this love is therefore service   — looking away from one’s personal gain for the sake of others. While venturing into this love is as treading into uncharted waters, when we fix our gaze on Him who is Himself love, who is able not only to walk on water, but also to enable St. Peter to do the same, we find ourselves capable of walking confidently towards Him. [37] And like St. Peter, only when we begin to fear for ourselves and our own good, happiness, and gain do we consequently find ourselves sinking quickly. [38] In spite of our own shortcomings, God is faithful to extend His hand and pull us out of the depths and into His secure, nurturing, and loving embrace. [39] St. Macarius the Great neatly summarizes this teaching, writing that “faithful souls receive that divine and heavenly fire…and that fire forms a heavenly image upon their humanity.” [40] By seeking to be reconciled once again to the Image of God after which we were created, through the grace of God, we are able to perfect our otherwise imperfect love, for “we love Him because He first loved us.” [41] — [1] Romans 3:23 NKJV (Hereinafter, all Scriptural references are taken from the New King James Version). [2]  See Genesis 1:31. [3] “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2). [4] "For if sin sunders and dissevers man from God, surely righteousness will be a bond of union, and will somehow set us by the side of God Himself, with nothing to part us." (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John ); See generally Genesis. [5] Genesis 3:12. [6] 1 Corinthians 12:20. [7] 1 Corinthians 12: 24-26. [8]  See generally St. Basil of Caesarea, On Social Justice , Homily 2, To the Rich . [9] Song of Songs 5:2-8. [10] It is pertinent to note that this does not only apply to human relationships, but also one’s relationship with God. As the Song of Songs is a representation of Christ’s love of His Church, one cannot discuss this Scriptural book without noting that it is this same selfishness that separates us from Christ, even when He knocks at the door. [11] St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIV, Chapter 13 . [12] Romans 7:15-20. [13]  See C. Paul Schroeder, On Social Justice: St. Basil the Great , 64   (SVS Press, 2009). [14]  See Philippians 2:5-7. [15] Fr. Daniel Fanous, A Silent Patriarch: Kyrillos VI: Life and Legacy , 226. [16] 2 Corinthians 12:9. [17] Ephesians 5:1-2. [18]  See Augustine,  Expositions on the Psalms  (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, vol. 8, pg. 210). [19] 1 Peter 5:7. [20] It would be regretful to not note that in Christ’s unceasing and immense mercy, even our mere acknowledgement that we have hurt those we love, and our repentance and will to place them into His perfect hands despite what it may mean for us, not only results in what is best for them but also provides us immense spiritual blessing. [21]  See Revelation 3:20. [22] St. Basil of Caesarea, Long Rules  8. [23] Matthew 11:30. [24] John 6:26. [25] John 6:27. [26] Job 2:9; see generally Job. [27] St. Augustine, Confessions, X.29. [28] St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 22.4. [29] Macarius, Homily 8.2 (A.J. Mason, The Fifty Spiritual Homilies of St. Macarius the Egyptian , 66). [30] John 15:5. [31] Philippians 4:13. [32] Matthew 26:33. [33] Matthew 26:35. [34] Matthew 26:75. [35] John 21:15-17. [36] Mark 10:45. [37] Matthew 14. [38]  Ibid. [39]  Ibid. [40] Macarius , Homily 11.2 (Mason, 80). [41] 1 John 4:19. — 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. Cover Image by Johann Sadeler. 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 commemoration of the fourth anniversary of the departure of Fr. Moussa El-Gohary, hegumen of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, Natick, Massachusetts USA, the following is a translation of a homily on the Fourth Sunday of Ⲑⲱⲟⲩⲧ, delivered on October 8, 2000 by Fr. Moussa El-Gohary. May his prayers be with us. —  [In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit], one God, Amen. May His grace, mercy, and blessings be upon us, now and forever. Amen.  Our teacher, Luke the Evangelist, in chapter 7, recites for us this event, or occasion — the Lord Jesus Christ’s encounter with a sinful soul in the house of Simon the Pharisee.  [] God is concerned about the state of our homes, what it is like. He likes to enter our houses. We understand that God is in heaven and we are on earth, and the relationship between us and Him is only letters going, petitions rising to heaven and answers descending. But the truth is that God is quite concerned and ready to visit our homes. He loves to be present in our homes.  He knocks at the door of the house, saying, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If no one invites me in, I will not enter.” [1] He accepts the invitation of every person, regardless of his state, and loves to enter any home without prior arrangements or preparation or readying or decor or appearances.  The one who pages through the Scriptures finds that the Lord Jesus Christ loved to enter the homes. Most recently, last week’s reading, where it says: “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house” [Luke 19:5]. Perhaps this may be absent from our minds — that while we establish the home or arrange the home or tidy the home, we do not call to mind that Jesus may enter the home, may live with us, may stay with us, may come visit us.  Today, a Pharisee — irrespective of, for instance, the others, Zacchaeus, He knew that Zacchaeus would repent and become a disciple, or [] Matthew would be a saint or would be a servant — but today, a Pharisee, a fanatic Jew, said to Him “would you come over, Teacher?” And He said “I will come.” Because He loves to enter the homes and to reside with us in our homes.  And the evidence for this is, when He sent His apostles and disciples, He said to them: “whatever house you enter” — meaning every house — “every house you enter, say peace, and sit, eat and drink, give them peace, and bless that place with My name.” He advised the disciples to go to the homes. And not only this — He told them to pray and ask peace for them. And the confirmation that there will be an encounter between ourselves and the Lord Jesus is not only with the entrance of the disciples, not only with our opening of our hearts, [but] because there dwells the son of peace. “If the son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon it” [Luke 10:6]. So then if Jesus resides in the home, the disciples go to visit [it] but Christ also resides in the home.  And He said to them “Lo! I am with you always, even to the end of the ages” [Matthew 28:20]. Whatever the disciples did, the Church does also. Whenever the servant of the Church enters a home, he proclaims the name of the Lord Jesus such that he opens the door for Christ to enter with him, and peace rests in that home.  In summary, the Lord has a share in our homes. How wonderful is the home when it is arranged, and the rooms are arranged, and we rejoice greatly that there are people who have furniture made and renovate the rooms, and go from a cramped home to a spacious home, or go from an apartment to a house []. It is beautiful that a person desires to elevate [his circumstances] and expand and reside in a comfortable home, because his whole life is lived in the home. And he is concerned that he has a bedroom for the boys, and a bedroom for the girls, and a master bedroom, and a guest room or two rooms, or anything else, as he wills, and a large table and a small table — as much as God gives him, many things, of course, and a reception [room] and many things. But where does the Lord lay His head in this house? Did it not concern us, as we were arranging and preparing our homes, where the Lord would lay His head in this house? Is there a place for the Lord in this house? Is He the unseen guest in every house? Is He the One seated with us at the table, when we eat and when we drink? And is He suitable for every conversation — while we speak, do we know that Jesus is there?  Today, many high scientific institutions and bodies are undertaking the study of new disciplines in preserving the family entity, offering family counseling, Christian family counseling, and many things — social workers — to examine the disputes in the home. The conflict between children and parents, and the conflict between spouses, and the conflict between the children, and the conflict between the family and its neighbors and relatives. Because there is not found a place for Christ in that home.  If the person is raised in a Christian home knowing that the Lord has a place, [] before his eye at all times, and in his inner feeling sensing that the Lord is present with us, our manner of conduct and behavior and thinking and life and purpose in this life will change.  When the person sits to eat, and if a good, dignified guest is there, he would behave differently than he would if no one was with him. Or at least we might say that he would select the sorts of foods that befit the honor of the guest. He may say, “this guest does not like,” for instance, “these things, and likes these things.” Sometimes, we ask, when we have bishops [visiting], [whether] one bishop eats fish and one bishop eats meat [].  But when Christ comes to the home, what does He eat? He eats all things. But He does not eat unrighteous mammon. He drinks all things. But He does not drink alcohol.  Is the food in our home [lawful], and is the livelihood in it [lawful]? Does our home not have the impermissible things which He forbade by His blessed voice in the Bible?  He loves to walk through the home and to bless every home. Can He enter a home and [find us] telling him: “no, no, no, do not enter this home because it is unkempt. This room is cluttered.” Why! “All things are mine, and I am yours and you are mine. Why would you close a door? Leave the door open.” “No, but there are things we do not want You to see.”  God is concerned for our homes. Let us revisit the readiness of our homes, for He is the beloved guest who delights to always enter our home.  Simply, once a person prays, the Holy Spirit is present in the prayer and the Lord Jesus Christ comes and is found in the place, so He is present in the home. But He is saddened when He is present in a home that has enmity, judgment, evil, hostility, hatred, warfare, [and] selfishness. He enters the home, but all of those in the home do not see the Lord Jesus Christ or sense Him.  An example of this: this Pharisee invited the Lord Jesus to the home, and the Lord came and accepted this invitation and responded. But his eyes were not on Christ. Sadly. He was preoccupied with other things — the table, the food and drink, the showiness, the guests. And he wanted to see what compliments and thanks and praise and appreciation Christ would give him. But he did not spiritually enjoy the presence of Christ or His attendance. And in his emptiness, his eye began to wander left and right, so that it met the eye of the sinful woman in his home, whom he did not invite, and he became angry: “how can this sinful woman be in the house?”  Whoever of us studies the traditions of those days knows that the Pharisees were distinguished to a great degree, meaning that even the entrance of a woman [] — the wife of the Pharisee — was not permitted. Until today, in the culture of religious Jews, a woman does not sit with men when they sit with people, and when they walk in the street, she walks behind [her husband] — the religious among them, as were these Pharisees. How much more [then] if the woman present was not invited and had a bad reputation?  And Christ was in this house — I would have loved to read in the end of this reading and see how this visit concluded, but the Gospel was silent. The reading of the Gospel concluded with verse 50, when He told her “go in peace.” But it did not mention how the Lord left this home, which He entered as a guest but where He was cast into a place of judgment and condemnation. The master judged Him. This Simon judged the Lord — “if He were truly a prophet, He would have known who this woman was. They say He can perform miracles and can know the hidden things and [so on]. And see, He is letting this woman touch Him.” When he said: “this woman who is touching Him” [Luke 7:39]. [] I would have loved to know what He said to Simon as He was leaving. Can we contemplate this? Can any of you picture the Lord Jesus, as He was leaving the house of Simon, what He said to him? Did He make rude gestures towards his face and yell, telling him “let your house remain desolate, see I am leaving the house?” I do not suppose Jesus would ever do this. I suppose, in my own weak and sinful imagination, that He would look to the face of Simon, and smile towards him, and look away from him. I suppose that He could not say “peace” to him. We say “alright, peace [to you]” to one another. Jesus cannot be a hypocrite. He cannot leave peace in that house. Peace from where? He granted the portion of peace He had in His bosom to the sinful woman, saying to her “go in peace” [Luke 7:50]. But as for this man, where would He grant peace? Where is the place of peace in the heart of this person? He cannot say “peace [to you], Simon,” because he judged the Lord and judged the woman. And he fell, while supposing himself to be religious, in the simplest principles and precepts of religion.  An eye that differs from an eye. The eye of Simon — a judgmental and cruel eye. A harsh, oppressive eye. And in the cruelty of this eye, it fiercely attacked the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and reproached the Lord. [What boldness!] How can man reproach the Lord? And you, do you not reproach our Lord? How often do we reproach the Lord for His doings, and in our ignorance and stupidity we say to our Lord: “What are You doing? Why are You doing this to me? Why? What did I do to You?” Some people say this to our Lord sometimes.  Some people accuse our Lord of being the source of evils and disasters and temptations. And some people accuse God — among us, the believers — that “our Lord does not hear me” or “does not love me” or “does not want to give me what I desire.” Many do not understand the love of God for us, and reproach and criticize Him. How many of us are those who look to one another and say “why not me? [] You gave to this person and that person [] and You gave success to this one or that one and You did this or that, and why not me, and everyone is happy but not me, and I lack this or that.” It is reproach, it is a critical eye by which we criticize the Lord Jesus Christ in His good works which He performs with us.  This is the eye of this man named Simon. [] He nitpicked the Lord from top to bottom, saying to him “are You a prophet?” and the Lord cast His gaze downward, not wanting to say to him “Yes, I am a prophet, Simon. And greater than a prophet. I am the One who sent to you the prophets and Moses the arch-prophet.” He did not speak of Himself in this manner, but He was silent.  “If this man were a prophet?” “That is alright, let us let this one slide. It concerns me, [and] I forgive. I forgive. Forgive them, for they do not know what they say.” And then he turned to the woman and said “Who is this woman,” and “what is her condition,” and “she is a sinner.” Three statements he said concerning the woman. “If He knew who this woman is, and what the condition is of this woman who touched Him, that she is a sinner.” He said to him “no. See, wrong Me and I will forgive you. But wrong your brother, judge your brother or judge your sister, I will judge you.” A difficult thing. Difficult on one side, but great on the other side.  God relinquishes His personal rights to any extent, even to the Cross. He ascended the Cross for our sake, and said “I forgive all sinners, even those who crucified Me. Even those who spat on Me and flogged Me. I forgive all, because within Me is love that wipes away every sin.” But for us to judge one another? No. This cannot be. Judgment is for the Just God and not for us to begin to judge one another and blame one another.  “For she is a sinner.”  He said to him “no, wait, Simon. I have something to say to you.” “Master, say it” [Luke 7:40]. So the Lord exposed the closed book, the secret within. He may say “did I say anything? It is in my thought, in my heart.” And here we learn that we will give an account for sinful thoughts. Lest some say “I swear, but within my heart,” or “there are things in my mind, of which I do not speak. Will He judge me for these?” Yes, see? He judges the man for these. It was confined to his mind — he was sitting there quietly and respectfully and with dignity, but [in his heart] he was saying “this woman is a sinner. I do not know what brought her here. And this man sitting there who acts as though He is a prophet, should He not pay attention?” So He says “Listen! Open your heart. I see what is in your heart. One word I say to you: you will be judged as to what is in your heart.”  What is in my heart and what is in your heart, and what is in my mind, what the people do not know, God knows, and He will judge us for it if it is evil.  He said to him: “as to prophet, leave this aside, but as to her being a sinner, come, you have placed yourself in the balance. [] See, with one word, how many trials and evils you have brought upon yourself. You continued on saying ‘she is this’ and ‘she is that,’ come now, tell Me, what about [yourself]? You did not do what she did.” And He counted for him many things — it is not the time now for me to enumerate the negative things he fell into in this judgment. But in this good work [to which Christ pointed in rebuking Simon], the sinful woman had surpassed him.  Then He gave him a lesson he could not forget. He told him: “look, my beloved Simon. Two were debtors to a man, one [owed] so much and the other so much, and they could not repay the debt” [Luke 7:41]. And He translated the story for him and led him to understand that it is a story of love. [] “You have walked into a power line.” Do you know, for instance, one who enters an area with very high voltage, and it [has a sign that] says “3,000 Kilowatt Volts,” and there is a fallen power line that lands on a car [there] and burns it? The highest voltage in the Divine love is found in the heart of God towards sinners. Let not any one of us dare interfere with this area — the area of God’s relationship with sinners.  Let us not dare judge anyone and say “she is a sinner. She is evil and wicked, I do not like her. She cannot enter my home. I do not want to speak with her because she walks in unrighteousness.” Or “I do not want to speak with him because he has an unbelieving and unchristian manner of life [].” See? You have walked into an area with the [power] wire, from which a great judgment might burst forth towards us.  Here, He told him “do not dare!” Because the love of God with all of its capabilities pours forth towards sinners, such as this woman. This man erred by interfering with this line, so he received what he received in rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ.  The love of God is unexplainable. The love of God towards the fallen is unfathomable. And this reveals the personality of the Lord Jesus Christ, what He desires when He meets a person and encounters a human soul.  There was a great joy in this house, of course. An exceedingly large feast. When the patriarch or dignitaries visit us, we spend time arranging things. When he comes to inaugurate a church or any place, we place a ribbon and he cuts the ribbon and the deacons vest and there is joy, and once the women see the patriarch enter, they ululate. What do these ululations symbolize? Joy!  Where the Lord is, there is joy. When the Lord is present, joy is present. And this joy, in its origin and foundation, is not intended to complete the picture or [for the sake of] appearances, or as a show befitting the occasion, but the joy that accompanies the presence of the Lord is the portion of the sinners coming to the Lord Jesus Christ. Meaning, as soon as He enters through the door, He says: “where are the sinners? Where are those who intend to repent? Where are the weary? Where are those who have lost hope? Where are those who cannot overcome sin? Where are the lost? Where are the prodigal? Where are the irretrievable?” “Come to Me, all you who are weary, and I will give you rest.” [2] So joy and love are intertwined with the sinner.  Often, many sorrows prevail in our lives, and sorrows enter our homes, and then, [as] psychologists call it, “complexes.” One says “when I enter the house, I have a complex (بتعقد). I become depressed.” “Why, sir?” He says “grumpiness (نكد) all day long! Nagging and discussion and debate. One cannot stand it, and stays out [of the house instead].” “My son, stay at home.” He says “I left it for her and the kids.” And she says “once I enter the house, I distract myself with anything, I don’t want to talk.” “Why?” She says “I am fed up.” And the issues become complexes. Although it is written for this house that it is for the Lord, and it must have ever-present joy and contentment with the presence of the Lord. What happened? Why is it lacking love and joy?  If your home is devoid of joy and peace, it is because you do not sense the presence of the Lord Jesus. “But I am a sinner, will Christ come to me?” Where else will He go but to sinners? As you can see — He went to Simon, and even in Simon’s house, Simon considered himself well — “I am perfect, I am great, I am not a sinner, thank God all is well.” A sinner entered and stole the blessing. A sinner entered who could not lift her gaze. She looked to the ground and wept bitterly [], rivers of water, until she washed the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ with tears [Luke 7:38]. She received the blessing. So, blessing is in your homes. Joy is in your homes.  Do you know that the Church and this altar, on which the Sacrifice is present, are the center of all joy in the world, on earth []? Because for whom does the Lord come? For whom was the Lord sacrificed on the Cross? Sinners! And the Sacrifice is offered — He told them “do this mystery which I delivered to you. My Body and My Blood are present with you every day on the altar.” For whom does the Body and Blood come, of which we partake? Why do we partake of It? Because we are sinners!  The moment of the sinner’s encounter with the Lord is a moment of joy. And the place of the sinner’s encounter with the Lord is a place of contentment and delight. For this reason, in this place, and in the church before the Lord, and in the holy Church, and before the holy Sacrifice, the fullness of contentment and joy and delight is present. Heaven rejoices when one sinner repents! Heaven rejoices!  Sometimes, we enter the church and leave downcast. Why is there not the anointing of joy? Why is there no peace? We have come to the holiest place in the entire world — the place where the Lord is present. People pay great sums of money to go and see where Christ rose, and was born, and the Jordan, and the Cross and the place of the Resurrection. And He is with us here every day!  How can we depart from this banquet — as the saints say — without being filled with joy! Is it because we are not sinners? The one who does not rejoice [in meeting the Lord] is not a sinner! Do you know who rejoices? The sinner. The sinner rejoices, as you were saying in the songs. He is the one who rejoices, because he is the one who feels “Christ is coming for my sake. He is coming for me. He is coming for me because I am a sinner. I am the worst sinner, so He is coming for my sake.” Perpetual joy, and immeasurable and inexplicable contentment, are in the Lord’s encounter with sinners.  He promised us of this. “[Come to me], all you who are weary, and I will give you rest.” Rest and peace and joy.  My beloved, we sometimes imagine that we are serving our Lord, and we divide the service into committees, and teams and individuals, activities, and many things — and this one serves in relations and this one serves in the magazines and this one serves in interviews and this one serves in conventions and serves in publications, and [so on] — but how far are we in our services as Christians from the moment of encounter between ourselves and our Lord?  Does any one of us serve with joy? Does any one of us serve while having met the Lord Jesus Christ? The look in the eye is enough. Or do we serve the Lord Jesus Christ with ninety-nine percent of our energy, and not leave Him a moment of love [equalling] one percent? Where is prayer? Where is sitting [] at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ? All we do for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ is a bland, unsalted, and tasteless dish if it is not seasoned and salted with the tears of love.  Do not now go cook and pour your tears into the pot and say “from the extent of frustration and heartache and problems I will cook your food with my tears.” No! He desires the tears of love. And these tears are not offered to anyone but the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a matter of appearances or externalities. But let every work be girded with tears at the feet of the Lord Jesus.  Silence and tears. These are the things that express: “for the sake of this love, I, Lord, am offering to You this service. I am not offering to You this service at the beginning, so that You love me.” He loved us as sinners.  This woman is wondrous. This woman is wondrous and moves the souls of many. So much so that this particular Gospel [pericope] is read in the Midnight Prayer in the Agpeya every day, so that we might remember God’s tenderness and His immense love towards sinners, and how God deals with sinners, is generous towards them, honors them, defends them, and embraces them.  I wish that I could know this woman’s name. They did not mention her name, because in the nature of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit does not mention the names of sinners, because He promised covering. He does not mention their names. In Heaven we will see them as saints because they usurped Heaven by their tears.  This woman, this great saint, who deserved the praise of the Lord, did not do much besides looking within herself and seeing her sin. In simplicity. She did not [beat around the bush] or evade or defend or philosophize or say “but…” or “I am…” or “we are…” Some people say “no, ask about us. We are good people. We are from so and so’s family, and from this village, from this city,” and “I am from this church, and I am a servant in this place, ask about me. These evil things are not found among us.” This woman did not say “we” or “I.”  There was a sinner who said to Him “have mercy on me, I the sinner,” so he “went away justified.” [3] But as for this woman, we did not hear a sound from her. She might even have found it difficult to make a sound in the presence of the respectable people present. She poured out all of her emotions and her expressions with a closed eye and tears pouring forth ceaselessly.  Rather than looking to ourselves and measuring ourselves up and giving ourselves credit, cross out all of your credit and say “I am nothing.” “But I, who am I,” said Paul the Apostle. I am nothing. All I have is useless. All I have learned is useless. All I have gathered or inherited or was born into or came into is useless to me. What is useful to me is one thing: who is Christ to me? Is He the Savior? Or is He merely a visiting guest passing by us and leaving?  For this reason, this woman received forgiveness. He said to her “your sins are forgiven you,” and the Lord praised her because she loved the Lord much. And here the Gospel proclaims a mystery: the love of God, the open avenue between the heart of the sinners and the heart of our Lord.  By the way, the people who know the love of God most are the repentant sinners. And the  people who were deepened in holiness the most were those who dealt with God when they were sinners. And the people to whom God revealed the mysteries of the eternal life and the Kingdom most are those who felt within themselves that they are sinners. God reveals Himself to the humble, not the haughty.  “Your sins are forgiven,” “for she loved much.”  I truly love discussion in these topics — consoling words as to which a person cannot restrain himself. But I leave to you this passage, to read it and contemplate it and pray. And do not forget that we often cry — we all weep. We sometimes weep over things we lose or people we lose, or disrespect, or oppression. Many things. But we never weep before our Lord over our sins.  I trust that anyone whose feelings are hurt — any one of us, we who are present, and I have full faith in what I am saying — if someone, God forbid, hurts his feelings in a significant [manner], perhaps from the severity of his bitterness he might say “tears fell from my eyes.” We are able to weep over our loss of dignity.   Often, people weep for years because she lost her husband or her son, or he lost his mother or sister or wife. And he cries and says “oh the lost days,” and “I am deprived.” But from these tears no profit may accrue.  How many tears gush due to our sins? We weep over ourselves, over our dignity, over oppression, over worthless things, we weep over things that do not deserve tears. But we do not weep whatsoever over our sins. Our Lord can use tears properly when they are let down for the sake of our sins.  I would like to tell you regarding this woman who wept, that she has a hidden honor in the Gospel that is quite wondrous. Go back and read the events of Covenant Thursday, when the Lord rose up from the supper and took a cloth and girded Himself, and brought a plate and poured water into it, and bent down and washed the feet of the disciples. [] In our rite today, the priest, when he washes the feet of the congregation on Covenant Thursday, brings a small deacon and bends down and says “my son, sign the Cross over my legs.” So we even sign the Cross over the legs of the priest, or wash his feet. If there is a metropolitan [present], I must go and wash his legs. If there is a patriarch [present], the metropolitan washes his legs, and the patriarch washes the legs of the people. “So also you must wash one another’s feet” [John 13:14]. Where are your feet, O Jesus, on the night of Covenant Thursday? Who from among the disciples rose so as to wash your feet? Nobody. See what this sinful woman received by her tears? She was elevated over this level — what the twelve or eleven disciples did not offer, she received. Peter could have said to Him “now would You please sit so that we might wash Your feet as You washed our feet? You said to wash one another’s feet. Who has washed Your feet?”  The feet of the Lord Jesus Christ were not washed by apostles or disciples or servants, but were washed by sinners. Of course, if the sinners are disciples, or servants, or priests, so be it. The feet of the Lord remain extended to receive the tears of sinners. And when we wash the feet of the Lord by our tears, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the grace of forgiveness and joy and peace are poured into our hearts, and He witnesses to us in Heaven that we have “loved much,” and so were deserving of this great grace.  To our God is due glory in His Church from now and forever. Amen.  [Here, Fr. Moussa delivers the week’s announcements.] — [1] See Revelation 3:20 [2] See Matthew 11:28 [3] See Luke 18:14 — The sermon, in its original Arabic, is available here . Fr. Moussa El-Gohary was born on March 5, 1935, in el-Minya, Egypt, and was ordained to the priesthood on May 23, 1980 at the hands of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory. He served as a parish priest at St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in el-Manial, Cairo, Egypt, before being sent by Pope Shenouda III, in December 1990, to St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Natick, Massachusetts, USA, to serve as that parish's first permanent priest. Following over three decades of faithful ministry to that community, and many others in the United States and abroad, Fr. Moussa reposed in the Lord on November 5, 2021. This homily was translated by Beshoy Armanios, a member of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Natick, MA, and a lifelong disciple of Fr. Moussa El-Gohary. He is currently completing a Ph.D. in Pharmacology at the University of Connecticut. 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 commemoration of the third anniversary of the departure of Fr. Moussa El-Gohary, hegumen of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, Natick, Massachusetts USA, the following is a translation of a homily delivered on August 11, 2002 by Fr. Moussa El-Gohary. May his prayers be with us. —  In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — One God. Amen. May His grace, mercy, and blessing be with us all, now and forever, and unto the age of all ages. Amen. []   Today, our subject is from the Gospel of our teacher St. Luke the Evangelist, chapter 20. The Lord Jesus Christ, during the last week [of His earthly ministry], would go to the Temple and return to Bethany. In those final days, He entered the Temple and found in it sellers of doves, sheep, and cattle, and so He was deeply grieved that the house of prayer was converted into a place of trade and profit. This reflects also on the sellers, the thieves, the priests, the scribes, the elders, and the leaders of the people. They were all giving one another. And so He was grieved that the house of holiness and prayer was converted into a place of business. Using a whip, he drove out the sellers of doves and overturned their tables, and said to those who were buying and selling, and those who kept the money, “My house is a house of prayer” (Luke 19:46) which is a prophecy from the Old Testament in which the Lord said: “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” ( see Jeremiah 7:11).   As a result of this event, the people gathered to hear Him, as it was their custom, because they enjoyed hearing His words. He gave them a similar parable, which is the parable of the vineyard and the vinedressers:   “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away shamefully treated. And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him...’ But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’ So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others” (Luke 20:9-16).   The Lord said these words as a parable, “and when they heard it they said, ‘Certainly not!’” (Luke 20:16), meaning that they understood the analogy and that it applied to them, and that the vinedressers were those thieves and robbers. It is as if they understood what they were doing, and so they said “certainly not!” But as for Him, “He looked at them and said, ‘What then is this that is written: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone’? Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.’ And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people — for they knew He had spoken this parable against them” (Luke 20:17-19).   How does this parable apply to the scribes and pharisees? The vineyard is the Church of the New Testament: the Lord has chosen His people, set them apart, taught them, trained them, and granted them all the commandments and teachings and promises and oaths so that they would be the chosen people of God. So this is the vineyard. He showed them the way, the path of blessing, and the cursed path [which is] the path of sin. He gave them many examples, worked goodness for them, and freed them from lowliness and slavery by the hand of Moses the Arch-prophet. When He went with them to the wilderness, God would speak with them and they would hear Him, to the extent that they would be afraid ( see Exodus 20:18-20). And every day, they would see God in the figure of the pillar of cloud going before them by day and a pillar of fire guiding them by night (Exodus 13:21-22). They saw Moses when he descended from the mountain with his face full of light such that no one was able to look at him [after] he had spent forty days and nights speaking to the Lord (Exodus 34:29-35). They also experienced how all of the commandments which the Lord sent to them were all helpful and greatly beneficial to them. This is the vineyard which He planted.   The subject of the vineyard is found in the Old Testament: the Lord also spoke of the vineyard which is the house of Israel. Of course, what is meant by this is not that the vineyard is the house of Israel, and that since Israel did not obey and became divided and scattered, and that the story of Israel ended, that the vineyard has also ended. No. The vineyard is the people of God, or the Church of God. In the Old Testament it was handed over to the vinedressers who were the Levites, the priests, the scribes, the leaders of the faith, and the elders. So these vinedressers received the vineyard, and it is known that when someone goes to rent a field, garden, or vineyard, they are supposed to look after it and work in it for the sake of its owner, and to give an account for this work that was stewarded to him — an income or wage. He receives the vineyard, cultivates it and eats bread from it, but he must also offer from the vineyard, to the owner of the vineyard, from its fruits and the income of the vineyard in which he works. It was an obligation for them to offer fruit to the owner of the vineyard. The fruit, of course, is holiness and good works, or the works that conform to the Law, rules, [and] teachings [] which the Lord gave to them.   The one who toiled in the planting and work of the vineyard is the Lord. Of course, it says here “a certain man planted a vineyard” in symbolism — the man who planted the vineyard is God the Father; “planted a vineyard” is the Church of the Old Testament; “leased it to vinedressers” who are the scribes, priests, elders and Levites. Then, it says he traveled “for a long time” and waited many eons for this vineyard, every now and then sending a prophet — and it was known that they killed the prophets in the Old Testament, such that even Elijah himself said before the Lord: “[they have] torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets” ( see  1 Kings 19:10). They killed, sawed, and stoned many people: Zechariah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and many from the Old Testament. These are they about whom He spoke here when He said, “he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed.” When the prophets came and began to ask and exhort the people, saying to them “where have you gone,” they began to speak also to the priests. When we read in the prophecies of the Old Testament, such as that of Joel which says “lament, you priests; wail over the sacrifice that has been cut off and over the captivity in which you have entered” (Joel 1:13) — Israel was in captivity many times because of sin and because of their straying from the Lord; and they lost wars although they were sometimes victorious without a weapon. [For instance,] in the days of Joshua, once Joshua became the leader after Moses, they walked around a village and destroyed it, or a city and destroyed it, knocking down Jericho by their shouting — saying that the war is for the Lord — and as they went around the city, they were just shouting, screaming, and praising the Lord, and so the walls were destroyed ( see  Joshua 6). But then when they stood in great wars against small villages, they lost because they had forsaken the Lord. When they held fast to the Lord, He would always deliver them. The prophets would always reproach them, saying to them “Why are you forsaking the Lord?” So when the prophets would reproach them, they would persecute the prophets. He sent to them one prophet and a second and a third from the men of the Old Testament — the men of God — but they “beat him and sent him away empty-handed.” And here it says “Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also,” and more than this, they “treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed” or “shamefully treated.” “And again he sent a third,” and alongside the beating and humiliation, they “wounded him also and cast him out” and expelled him also.   What does this mean? If we stop here for a moment, we find that the owner of the vineyard is insistent that there be fruit in the vineyard. He would not relent until this vineyard, which He intended to bear fruits, must bring forth fruits. He forgave them several times with the messengers whom he sent, and he forgave them with the hope that they would awaken and realize that his will is that all “are saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” ( see  1 Timothy 2:4). The will of God is that there must be spiritual fruit: there must be godliness, holiness, righteousness, obedience to the commandment, adherence to the Law, and behavior according to the Lord’s charges. This is the insistence of the Lord, that there must be fruit in the vineyard.   []   [recording skips]   []   He sowed the seeds and he will return to look for the fruit of the seeds. Here, it is not saying that he sowed seeds, but the parable is that he planted a vineyard, which is a very different stage than merely planting seeds: he has thrown and planted the seeds, grown them, watered them, and is now waiting for the fruits. He has done everything himself and has merely entrusted it to the oversight of the vinedressers to care for it and collect its fruits for the sake of the owner of the vineyard.   [Now] see the persistence of God for the salvation of mankind. So “the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do?’” He is not worried about those who were killed and humiliated, or that they have dishonored him personally, or that they have prevented the fruits that he wants for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He is rather concerned that this vineyard not be ruined — it must bring forth fruit. He said, “‘What shall I do?’ I will send my beloved son.” “They have disrespected those whom I have sent, and I have to solve this problem, so I will send my beloved son, because when they see my beloved son, they will be embarrassed in knowing that he is the owner of profit and the owner of the vineyard.” “But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’” This reveals the ingratitude of the Church of the Old Testament, or the ingratitude of the Jews, Hebrews, scribes, and elders whom Christ came and rebuked in Matthew saying “woe to you, scribes and pharisees” ( see Matthew 23); [] all of these woes applied to them because their hearts did not move at all, but they rather dared to seize the owner of the vineyard to kill him.   We realize here that insolence has reached an extensive degree in those evil people. According to the parable, they saw the only son and said “This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” Has anyone ever seen a servant brought to serve in a house to work and receive a wage at the end of the day, go on to kill the master of the house in order to inherit his house? Does any servant inherit from his master? Does any servant get rid of the owner of the house, considering himself entitled — see the evil that they are living in: “let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” By what law? Neither a secular law, nor a moral law, nor a spiritual law gives them the right to inherit this inheritance. But this shows that avarice and greed [] usurp this stewarded property, the vineyard, and made this vineyard their own property. So because of the extent to which they took possession of these fruits and harvested them and took them to themselves, they put in their minds, because of the extent of the evil in which they lived, that this was rightfully theirs and no one else’s. So [because of] their darkened minds and their thoughts that were full of evil and selfishness, when they saw the son, they said “behold this is the heir, come let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours.” So they “took him outside the vineyard and killed him” and this of course is the Lord Jesus Christ alluding to Himself in this parable. That this is the Son!   And when He speaks and says “when the vinedressers saw him, they said ‘this is the heir, let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours,’” [this is] because they saw that when Christ spoke and preached the people and spoke to the people, all the people began to follow Him. So they became scared about themselves and their authority. So much so that the high priest said “You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!” (John 12:19). [] And in the end, the high priest, with foolishness and ignorance, said “let him die!” “…it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50). He did not understand that he was uttering a prophecy, but he was expressing the hate that was within him and the hate that was in the shepherds and judges of the Old Testament who led the people — the evil Levites.   And truly “they took him outside the vineyard,” and at this time Christ had not been killed [and] had not been crucified. “They took him outside the vineyard and killed him.” He was warning them regarding what was in their hearts. And here, in this parable, the Lord was uncovering the past and the present and what would occur in the future also. So He said “what will the owner of the vineyard do with them?” The owner of the vineyard is still insistent, because He desires fruit from this vineyard. So He said, “he will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.”   If this parable was a general parable given for warning or teaching or preaching, they would have merely heard it and said “what is He saying?,” “how do we understand [it]?,” [] “what does He mean?,” and one would say “He means this or that.” But because they understood every word, because the Old Testament is full of parables in which God addresses the vineyard and says, “What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it?” (Isaiah 5:4). “I planted a vineyard of a choice sort and built for it a fence and built a winepress in it and built for it a tower and set guards over it, and asked of it that it would produce good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes” ( see Isaiah 5:2) . [1]  These words are often found in the Old Testament, so when He speaks of the vineyard, their ears are open. So they understand everything [He is saying] but are acting ignorant.   So when He said “what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others,” they understood that He was saying this about them, so they said “certainly not!” [That is,] “far be it from us.” They were saying “far be it from us.” “Far be it from us” that He would come and destroy them and take the vineyard and bestow it to ones who are faithful.   But what about what you are doing, is it evil or not? The fact that you have stolen the vineyard from the owner of the vineyard, is this not evil? You have considered what you were doing to be good. The standards of measurement in your minds have become darkened, O priests or trustees or Levites of the Old Testament, and you considered the vineyard to be your own personal property, and that when it is taken from you and given to its [rightful] owners, this is evil, so you say, “far be it from us.” And when you kill the son of the owner of the vineyard, is this not evil? And when you kill his servants, is this not evil? And when you take possession of the vineyard and do not give its fruit to its owner, is this not evil? They did not see any of this to be evil, but they considered it evil for this authority to be taken from them and given to others.   Of course, when they said “certainly not!,” they did not say “certainly not!” as in “far be it from us to kill someone” [or] “far be it from us to participate in a crime” [or] “perhaps they were thieves and wicked but let them not be criminals and murderers.” But they did not say these things. They said “certainly not for the vineyard to be taken from us for the sake of our portion and that of our children.”   This shows [] those priests and those laborers or servants, who served the Church of the Old Testament, that their eyes saw the benefit of the service to be an earthly benefit. And this is among the most fearful things, my beloved, in the service over all the ages and eras — that the service is transformed into a trade or the service is transformed into a personal interest in which the servant, or the trustee, thinks that this is a post for him or a position for him to live by, not understanding that in the first instance, he is coming to labor and to offer fruit to the kingdom of heaven or to the owner of the vineyard who is God. So once the vision strays, or the vision of the servant or slave or vinedresser or laborer deviates from this truth, he begins to fear lest this parable apply to him such that instead of being in the vineyard of the Lord laboring for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, he instead labors in his own stolen vineyard which will inevitably be restored to the owner of the vineyard and for which he will give a difficult account.   So their hearts were occupied with personal interests, and here Ezekiel and Jeremiah and the Old Testament prophets spoke of the shepherds who cared for themselves and left the sheep and slaughtered the fattened calf and ate and drank from the produce of the sheep and destroyed it, and did not offer to its owner the account of the stewardship. This shows the outcome of those who prefer their own personal interests to that of God.   This is with respect to the service and with respect to shepherding and with respect to the vineyard.   Of course, as we continue in the parable, He said “he will destroy the vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.” The Church does not die due to the corruption of those who are set upon her, but the Church is transferred — or the service of God or the kingdom of God on earth is transferred — from hand to hand while God watches over His Church. It cannot perish and cannot be ended or stopped because of a minority that is corrupt or domineering or authoritarian. But God is able, at the proper time, to transfer it into the hands of the faithful about whom the Holy Bible says: “shepherds after my own heart” (Jeremiah 3:15). To shepherd the sheep and shepherd the flock with honesty, watchfulness, nurturing, and care.   So He has transferred this shepherding and this Church in the New Testament to the Church of Christ — the Christian Church — and delivered it to the Apostles and the Disciples. And from that time, He truly transferred it to those vinedressers. And of course, the shepherding of the New Testament differs entirely from the shepherding of the Old Testament, because He considered that all who came to follow Him must follow [His example] or imitate Him. If the owner of the vineyard did not have compassion on his only-begotten son, but gave his only-begotten son so that the vineyard might be rooted and fruitful and bear good fruit, then all the servants and laborers who follow Him in the Church of the New Testament have before their eyes Christ as the example of the manner by which the shepherds must live in the New Testament.   For this reason, we hear in most of the eras and most of the times and ages that have passed over the leadership of the Church, how much the shepherd, in all ranks and levels of responsibility in the Church, watches over the sheep and watches over the flock and serves the flock with honesty and uprightness and also if it comes to him giving his life, many were martyred because they were entrusted with the service of the flock and the service of the Church. Many examples — Peter, the twelve, Paul, the martyrs of the first and second and third centuries. Many examples of the Christian leaders who were subjected — and until this day and until yesterday and this morning continue to be subjected — to humiliation and harshness and wounding for no reason besides their watchfulness over the Church and her vitality. And all of us read and hear how much the newspapers are libeling and defaming the Church. Because this age is considered among the ages of revitalization in our Church in this generation and in this modern era. How many churches have opened and how many people have come to know God and how many services are being undertaken and how many activities are being undertaken and how much God’s glory is spreading over the face of the earth. May God continue His work and bless it and cause it to grow, and how many souls know God today, and are gathered and congregated around Christ and around His Body and Blood. For this reason, when the world becomes envious over this, you find a kind of wounding and humiliation and this shows us that in the Church of the New Testament, no one is searching for his own selfish ends or his own honor but puts his honor under the Cross, and shuts his mouth as Christ about whom it is said “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). So also are all faithful servants — in the time of wounding and harshness and humiliation, they do not open their mouths and are content with looking to the Example and saying “it is enough for us to be like Christ our true shepherd, the Good Shepherd, who said about Himself: ‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep’ (John 10:11).”   Until here, what has been said applies to the parable. Perhaps the hearer might say, or you may be seated here saying: “We are not shepherds, and these words are consoling and sweet and good and we have understood them, but what does it have to do with us?” Do you know that you are laborers in this vineyard? Awaken and revive! This vineyard is not only with respect to the priest and bishop and patriarch and the servants, but it is the responsibility of the flock understood from the parable. The vineyard is your life also. It is the vineyard which Christ has planted. Your life and your home — your personal life — is your vineyard. So do not forget or think that this parable does not apply to you. It applies to you and to me personally and applies to us as a community and a church and applies to us as servants and as trustees and shepherds.   So when we look at it from the perspective of applying this parable to our lives, see: “the Lord planted a vineyard.” He has given us this grace and planted His knowledge in our hearts. We who were first sinners and who did not know anything and who were far from our Lord, He has made us sons. We were evil. He has made us sons by baptism. And He has delivered to us the Holy Spirit and made us a vessel for the Holy Spirit and granted the Holy Spirit to dwell in us such that He calls us “temples of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit dwells in us” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). And we read in Galatians that the Holy Spirit has fruits. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are known and many, and include love, joy, peace, faith, gentleness, chastity, longsuffering, kindness, goodness — many fruits for the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). He who has the Holy Spirit has in him a vineyard — the vineyard of the Lord, or the kingdom of God dwelling within you ( see  Luke 17:21). So this kingdom is the vineyard.   The vineyard within you, when Jesus sends one, two, and three messengers — what are the messengers He sends? The word that is read, the word that is heard, the sermon that you hear or the tape that you hear. The word that reaches you by any means or in any way is a servant of the servants of God or one means which God sends to you to tell you “I want fruit. Where is the fruit of the Holy Spirit that is in you? You shut your ear, you toss aside the word, you neglect the sermon, you neglect the Bible, you neglect to read the word of God.” We “don’t feel like reading the Holy Bible.” None of us cares [for it], we read it for knowledge while not knowing that when we read the Holy Bible, it is a real source of blessing and consolation, [] a source of spiritual nourishment, a source of the Holy Spirit, but also a messenger from the Spirit of God — from God speaking to us to alert and bring to our recognition that we will offer an account of our stewardship and offer an account of the field we have been given or the vineyard which has been entrusted to us.   God has granted us talents and gifts, and the word of God we read in the Holy Bible is a word of warning and notice and caution that we will inevitably give [an account]. And many times we read the Holy Bible without caring, and many times it is read in our hearing while we are sleepy, and many times we hear sermons that go in one ear and out the other. While we do not know that these are all counted for us, my beloved, just as the Lord counted on those servants whom He sent and who returned empty-handed. For this reason, the Lord speaks straightforwardly in the Holy Bible, saying: “my word does not return void” (Isaiah 55:11). He has set it with a certain measure and a certain efficacy. The word of our Lord, when He utters it, the word we hear, the word our Lord grants us from the Bible or from any sermon or from any word, must not return void. Not “not return void” as in for example a hundred hear, at least two or three or five repent and return to God and confess and become good and commit to living with God. No! The meaning of “does not return void” [is] hold onto the word of God in your heart and do not permit it to return void! If you have nothing, offer even a small cake ( see  1 Kings 17:13-15). Even five loaves ( see  Matthew 14:17-18). Even the crumbs [you have]. It must “not return void” from your home, as a person. Do not look to those around you. Look to yourself. The word of God “ must  not return void.” When you hear the word of God — it says, “when you hear His voice,” the Holy Bible, “do not harden your hearts!” (Hebrews 3:15). So every word you hear is counted. You must offer something for it. It does not return void.   Tell Him, “Lord, I heard the word of today, and I offer you from today’s word that I will be awake and watchful over this vineyard.” You hear a word about purity and righteousness, you say “Lord, I heard this word and help me to try to begin to purify my senses and pay attention to my [fleshly] life so that I may live in purity.” When you hear any word, as much as you can, as much as you are able, as much as your means permit, the word of God must not return void. The Lord says “my word does not return void” and “I am watchful over my word to perform it” (Jeremiah 1:12 DARBY).   My beloved, when the Lord transmits to us His words, sometimes we forget our own vineyard and look to the vineyard of the neighbors and say “how sad, they do not have fruits” or “this one does not have fruit” or “this one is bad” or “this one has spoiled” or “this one has thorns” or “this one has sour grapes” or “the foxes or crows have eaten this one.” What have you done with your vineyard? Some are even far-sighted and say “what about those who are not Christians, what is their fault?” [] Do not waste your time over [such matters]! Pay attention to what our Lord has granted you! You were born in Christianity, you are immersed in grace and you are entirely full of blessings and gifts! Do not waste your time! The vineyard entrusted to you comes with a responsibility! What have you to do with who has received and who has not? Our Lord will search for the non-Christian and knows how to deal with him and knows how to judge him and knows how to send him the word. This is His way — it is His work and His specialty. But you take heed to your own vineyard.   So you as a person are responsible for this vineyard. The Lord sends to you laborers, or the Lord sends to you servants once, twice, and thrice. And then, the Lord also, out of His tenderness, kindness, patience, and compassion on us, sends us His Only-Begotten Son. How many times does the Lord Jesus Christ Himself personally stand at your door and say “open to me! Enough! Wake up! Return from the path you are on! Enough hardness of heart! Enough sin! Enough ingratitude! Enough love of the world! Enough running after the blessings and gifts I have given you — life and health and money and talents — for the sake of your earthly life!”   The Hebrews were of this sort. They took the blessings God had granted them, over which He had made them stewards, and lived in them so as to fill and satisfy and enrich and fatten themselves, but did not trade with them for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. So they used this vineyard in a carnal, earthly way, and were therefore deprived of the kingdom of heaven. So also we, my beloved, often become preoccupied with our daily lives and are concerned with the kingdom our Lord has granted us, or the vineyard our Lord has granted us, in a carnal way. And care for the flesh is “enmity against God” (Romans 8:7). Care for the flesh is death, but care for the spirit is life, because we work for the good of the kingdom of heaven.   So the Lord sends to us Himself when we hear His voice in the word, when He offers Himself on the altar, when we hear His warnings and directions and exhortations that we turn away from sin and return and become reconciled to Him and cast away sin from our hearts and transform our hearts and transform our thoughts and transform our emotions and become reconciled and live in peace and live in love and become transformed for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is incredibly precious and incredibly sweet! So we may attain it!   Believe me, because of grudges, we miss out on the kingdom of heaven. This is not my own [teaching]. It is from the Bible! Grudges prevent us from the kingdom of heaven. The Lord said: if you come to receive communion, “and there remember that your brother has something against you” (Matthew 5:23-24), do not partake of communion! You are not entitled to communion. Meaning you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven! Meaning if I die while holding a grudge against someone, I will not enter the kingdom of heaven! If I die while I am fighting [with someone], I will not enter the kingdom of heaven! If I die while there is something between me and someone else, I will not enter [the kingdom of heaven]. If I die while judging people, I will not enter the kingdom of heaven. My beloved, awaken! Because this is not cruelty, or difficulty in entering the kingdom of heaven, because the kingdom of heaven is very precious and very costly and very great! It deserves some labor from us — not to lie, not to swear, not to curse, not to hold grudges, not to judge, not to become upset with another, not to commit daily sins or impurity or evil or negligence or postpone the word of God and repentance.   For this reason, when the Lord speaks to us, let us not harden our hearts. But let us know that He is warning us because He will come one day and ask for the fruit of this vineyard. So when we hear this parable, my beloved, let us awaken, because this parable is very precious. It was uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ before His crucifixion on the Cross, and He says, as did John the Baptist, “even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. [Therefore] every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 3:10). When He cuts down and throws into the fire, my beloved, He will not be cruel. Because what preceded this was the [offering] of love and tenderness and patience. He was patient. He sent one messenger in a season and another in another season and yet another in another season, and at the end He sent His beloved Son, and despite sending His beloved Son, He was not occupied with the fact that His beloved Son died as much as He is concerned with the fact that the vineyard must bear fruit. God insists that your life and my life have fruit.   And if it does not bear fruit, He will confront us in the last day and say “What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?” (Isaiah 5:4). What could there be that I have fallen short in? If our Lord stood with us today in a sort of mock trial. [] If He stands with you and me one by one today before we walk out of the door of the church, and says: “what did I fall short in doing with you? Why do you not bear fruit for the kingdom of God? What do you lack? Tell me, what did I fall short in doing with you? Did I fall short with you in sending you My word? In sending to you the Holy Spirit? In granting you the Mysteries? In granting you warnings? In granting you life and health and willpower and a mind and all means by which you could say ‘have mercy on me, Lord’ as did the sinner and the tax-collector and the right-hand thief and the adulteress. Why have you not repented?” “What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?” (Isaiah 5:4).   So the one who hears the voice of the Lord and the one who hears the word of God and the one who hears the warnings and threats and promises must know and awaken not because our Lord is cruel, but because our Lord persists and insists and demands that we go to the kingdom of heaven. Look at it in this way, my beloved. He does not want us to be deprived of the kingdom. He wants us to enter the kingdom of heaven. So He requires us to be watchful and pass our daily, difficult lives in which we live, in which we find excuses and [] find ourselves unable to awaken or become invigorated or rise or pray or worship or fast or cry out to God or repent, because the kingdom is easy.   With some simple labor, we will spend eternity in glory and a kingdom indescribable! Which cannot be compared to any bodily enjoyment or pleasure! Because all bodily pleasures are petty and despicable and end with the end of the bodily life. But godly enjoyment and the pleasure of the kingdom of heaven is incomparable and inexhaustible. The human on earth — nothing satisfies him. But there, we will feel satiation, gratification, peace, reassurance, and we will feel that we are truly at rest. Here, even while someone is enjoying anything, he feels at the very least [] fearful lest he become deprived of this pleasure, because he cannot guarantee its persistence. Here, nothing is certain. But there, at the very least, there is certainty. There is no thief or anyone to take it from me or anyone to deprive me of it or anyone to remove me from the kingdom. For this reason, my beloved, the Lord persists and insists that we all have a share in the kingdom of heaven.   When we read this parable, let us pray for one another, for the sake of our souls and for the sake of the Church, so that God may always grant in every generation fruit in His vineyard, and that He might support and strengthen the shepherds or the servants or the vinedressers, that they may be faithful until the last breath.   To our God be glory in His Church now and forever. Amen.   — [1] Fr. Moussa is reciting this verse from memory. — The sermon, in its original Arabic, is available here . Fr. Moussa El-Gohary was born on March 5, 1935, in el-Minya, Egypt, and was ordained to the priesthood on May 23, 1980 at the hands of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory. He served as a parish priest at St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in el-Manial, Cairo, Egypt, before being sent by Pope Shenouda III, in December 1990, to St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Natick, Massachusetts, USA, to serve as that parish's first permanent priest. Following over three decades of faithful ministry to that community, and many others in the United States and abroad, Fr. Moussa reposed in the Lord on November 5, 2021. This homily was translated by Beshoy Armanios, a member of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Natick, MA, and a lifelong disciple of Fr. Moussa El-Gohary. He is currently completing a Ph.D. in Pharmacology at the University of Connecticut. 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 sermon of His Eminence Metropolitan Arsenius of Minya and Abu Qurqas, delivered at a general meeting on July 4, 2014. In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — One God. Amen.  Today, by the grace of Christ, we will approach a subject that is very important in the life of every person. And if we place our Lord first in our hearts always, we will find comfort. But if every person feels within himself that he has his place, position, and circumstance, a time will come when he will have difficulty, and at the end, he will not be able to reach the goal he desires to reach.  So we must put our Lord first always, as He Himself said: “I am the first and the last,” in Isaiah 44:6. The Lord also said these very words in Revelation 1:8 and 17: “I am the first and the last. The Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end.” And yet again He repeated it in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13.  He is not [the first] temporally, but He is before all ages; He is the first, and He is the beginning, and He is the Alpha, meaning the eternal and not the temporal.  In the birth of the Lord Christ, He was the first, the firstborn, and only-begotten, as was mentioned in Luke 2:7, and Paul called him the firstborn: “He [is] the firstborn among many brethren” [Romans 8:29]. And in His Resurrection, He was the first, “the firstborn from the dead,” as is found in Colossians 1:18. He is the beginning, He is the first-fruits [] of those who have slept. He is the first to rise a resurrection in His glory — there is no death after this resurrection. As God was the first, He was concerned for the first things, and requested them. For this reason, he set for us a law, the Law of the Firstborn, in its offering and blessing. He said: “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb…it is Mine” as is found in Exodus [13:2]. “Sanctify for Me all the first-fruits, whatever opens the womb…it is Mine.” He also sought the firstborn of the cattle and sheep, as is found in Exodus 13:12 and 15, and also the first-fruits of the crops and fruits. And the first sheaf of the harvest was offered to God, and in addition, the first fruits of the year were offered to the Lord. But even the first-fruits of the shearing also, “when you shear the wool of the flock,” and so on with all the first-fruits.  God does not seek the firstborn only, but he blessed them as well. Everything for him is blessed, because he is holy. This is why He said: “Consecrate to me all the firstborn.” God would bless the firstborn — to him is the blessing and to him is the [preeminence] and to him is the portion of two of his siblings, and to him is the leadership of the family after his father, and to him is the priesthood also before the system of the Aaronic priesthood.  The feeling of every person offering the first-fruits was that God is the first — all the good things on earth, the yield of the sheep and the cattle. The first-fruit, all of it, is for God. It is not for him. He was happy that God is the first to receive these things. For this reason, if we consider the first commandment, we find that it is for the Lord. And not only the first commandment, but all of the commandments on the first tablet were regarding the Lord. As for the laws of the second tablet, they were concerned with human affairs, for God is first.  Thus, love is directed to God first, then to the people afterwards. The first and most important commandment is this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment,” as is mentioned [also] in the Gospel of Matthew 10:37. [1] “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” This was the first commandment.  Even the self should not be first, but God must be first. This is why it is said that for the sake of God, you should deny your own self and follow Him. And more than this, He said: “whoever saves his life shall lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it” [Matthew 16:25]. I wish that all of us, my beloved ones, would memorize this verse: “Whoever saves his life shall lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it.”  Even in the days, the New Testament blessed the beginning of the week. In the Old Testament, it was the day of the Sabbath — that was the last day — on which man would rest after all his efforts throughout the week, as God rested on the seventh day after he had finished His creative work. As for the New Testament, my beloved, God blessed the beginning of the week, which is the day of Sunday, because He rose at dawn of the beginning of the first week, as our teacher, Matthew the Evangelist, mentioned in chapter 28, verse 1, and this became a symbol for the first new covenant between God and the people. This became a symbol for the first new covenant between God and the people. Perhaps one of the beautiful symbols in the blessing of the first-fruits — there are two stories. One is the story of the healing of the sick man who was paralyzed for 38 years, awaiting the one who would cast him into the water of the Pool of Bethesda — healing was the lot of the first person who would be cast into the water after its moving.  Likewise we find another concern as to the first-fruits in the story of the crossing of the Red Sea, where the Lord said: “This month will be to you the beginning of the months. It will be for you the first of the months” [Exodus 12:2]. “It will be the first month for you.” It will be the first month of the year, because it was the month in which they crossed the Red Sea — they crossed from slavery to freedom in which they would live under the leadership of God.  After all this discussion about the importance of the beginning, I wish to ask: is God first in your life? You also, ask yourself this question: is God first in your life?  In order to understand this question, let us place before us the story of our father Abraham, who was granted by God a son in his old age, and when he rejoiced in him, He said to him: “Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and offer him to me as a burnt offering” [ See  Genesis 22:2]. What a wonder! When will each one put in his heart that God must be the first in our lives?  [] What did our father Abraham do? He did not think at all, but he placed God first, and his own feelings, as a father to Isaac, last. So also were the feelings of Sarah, the mother of the child — God is the first, we love and obey Him, and then the love of Isaac comes after this. No one comes before God whatsoever. God desires him to be a burnt offering. So, let the command of God be fulfilled, and let us fulfill it speedily for Him and with acceptance from within the heart. Another story, my beloved ones, is the story of Hannah, the mother of Samuel, who was granted him after her judgment of many years and after prayers and weeping. But she placed God first and offered this child, Samuel, to the service of the Lord in the Temple. This is a lesson for every mother who is stingy with God in offering her son to serve Him, whether he is sought by God for monasticism or for the priesthood. God is first, and the feelings of motherhood are second or third. But it is obligatory to offer this son in joy. And this is also a lesson for every wife whose husband is sought for the priesthood. It is not right for her to say that the service will distract him from me and the house. But she ought to offer him to the Lord and say “God first.”  I wish, my beloved, that each one of you would place this principle before himself, in his life and in his relationship with God: God first.  It is obligatory to place God first in obedience, and to say with the apostle: “We ought to obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” The commandments of God are first, and after that whatever the people desire, and after that all of our longings and all of our special requests.   All of our obedience to the people should be within  our obedience to God. We should all remember this principle. All of our obedience to the people should be within  our obedience to God. But if it is opposed to it, God should be obeyed first.  And in making God first, we make the self last. Look, for example, at the story of John the Baptist, who, when the Lord Christ appeared, John gave up all of his services and his glory and his preaching, and his disciples as well, and presented the bride to the groom, and stood far away rejoicing as a friend of the groom, saying: “He must increase and I must decrease” [John 3:30]. Let us all remember this principle: “He must increase, and I must decrease.” And he said: “He who comes after me…for He was before me,” and “I am not worthy to stoop down and loose the strap of His sandal” [ See  Mark 1:7; John 1:27]. See, my beloved ones, this great humility: “I am not worthy to stoop down and loose the strap of His sandal.” So also is each of us when he places God before himself in all things.  In rest, for example, do not prefer your bodily rest to your spiritual work with God, whether in prayer or in service. Do not surrender to sleep or carelessness, but you should sacrifice your comfort for the sake of God.  Likewise, in fasting, do not say: “my health cannot tolerate [it].” Do not say: “I need proteins and primary amino acids.” But say: “God first.”  Likewise, my beloved ones, let God be first in the subject of giving and the subject of tithing. Do not care about all of your agreements with others and place God last in priority, [so that] if there is anything left for Him, so be it, and if nothing is left, we apologize or neglect what is rightfully His, for God is not the first.  Let God be first in every deed, and first in every day — the first person you speak to every day is God, and in every deed you do, place God first. Pray within yourself, in your comings in and goings out, and in your eating and drinking and work, speak to God first. Let the first person you speak to every day be God. In every deed you do, place God first, and pray in your comings in and goings out, and in your eating and drinking and work, speak to God first.  If you place God in the first place, you will not sin against the Lord. This is because you [thereby] place Him above your worldly desires and above every earthly pleasure, and God will be before you at all times and the whole  world behind you. My beloved, man sins because he does not place God before him, and does not remember Him before every fall, and does not consider His feelings.  Place God first with respect to time, and with respect to importance, and with respect to desires, and with respect to love, and with respect to longings, and with respect to obedience also, let God in all things be first.  When the Lord says “My son, give me your heart” [Proverbs 23:26], He means to have this priority in your life and in your feelings and in your concerns, so that even if another thing contradicts Him, you say within yourself: “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?” [Mark 8:36]. What is the loss of one’s soul but its deprivation of God?  At the beginning of the new year, I do not wish to place before you many pieces of advice, but it is one piece of advice which I say to you, and it is: place God first  in everything. Place God first in everything. And if you accomplish this, you will accomplish everything.  Beware lest you forget God or place Him at the end of everything. Do not live your life independent of God or estranged from Him, and do not forget God in any work, but remember Him before every work.  [] May our Lord bless our lives and strengthen us and confirm us in Himself and grant us all to truly recognize this grave responsibility, that God must be first in the life of every person, and after [Him] the other cares with which all people are concerned.  To our God is due all glory and honor, from now and forever. Amen.  — [1] “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:37). — To hear the sermon by His Eminence in its original Arabic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQdVDXYbQ8w His Eminence Metropolitan Arsenius of Minya and Abu Qurqas was born on August 21, 1928. He obtained a bachelor's degree in Engineering in 1951 and completed his theological studies at the Clerical College in 1954, before entering the monastic life on April 14, 1958 at Deir al-Souryan (the Syrian Monastery), where he received the name Fr. Daniel. He spent approximately 15 years serving in Minya, Egypt, where he established pastoral and educational services and used his training and background in Engineering to build 12 churches in the region, participating in their construction personally. On June 13, 1976, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III ordained Fr. Daniel as Bishop Arsenius to oversee the diocese of Minya and Abu Qurqas; he would later receive the rank of Metropolitan on November 14, 2006. His Eminence authored a number of books in Arabic and was involved in the Holy Synod's Faith and Teaching Committee, Rites Committee, and Monasticism and Monasteries Committee. Metropolitan Arsenius was characterized by a remarkable spirituality, concern for the poor, and deep love for the Church's hymnology and liturgical prayers. On August 11, 2018, His Eminence departed after a long struggle with illness, and was succeeded by his faithful disciple, His Grace Bishop Macarius. Cover Image: Metropolitan Arsenius (left) celebrating the Divine Liturgy with Metropolitan Kyrillos of Milan (right).

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). —