The last story in the Acts of the Apostles relates how Paul arrived in Rome and stayed under house arrest, awaiting his trial before the emperor. As far as we can tell…

(Much of our early information comes from Eusebius [?263-?339], born Palestine, on the run during the great persecution at the end of 3rd century, stayed in Egypt awhile and became Bishop of Caesarea ?313 and close friend of the Emperor Constantine. He wrote his Church History sometime between 303 and 324 – it had a number of supplements added – grand scale history. He was neither too incredulous nor too critical, accepting his sources at face value, but he gives us the best glimpse of early Christianity.)

Eusebius tells us that Paul was released from his house arrest, was free for a short period and then re-arrested in the great persecutions of Emperor Nero, following the great fire of Rome (AD64 – fiddling while Rome burned) and was executed. Peter, according to Eusebius, was also executed – crucified upside down, so as to be different from Jesus – in the same persecutions.

What about the other Apostles? We know about James, brother of John, died AD 44 Jerusalem (Acts 12:1-2) but we don’t know much and Eusebius only helps us a bit:-
1. Matthew – some refer to him preaching among the Jews only.
2. Simon the Zealot – unknown but some refer to his martyrdom in Persia with Thaddaeus.
3. Thomas – legend has it he reached India and South India Christians look to him as their founder.
4. Andrew – we don’t know – try Asia Minor or southern Greece. The legend that he died on an X shaped cross is known only from the middle ages.
5. Philip – another Asia Minor evangelist perhaps
6. Bartholomew – aka Nathaniel – legend has him in Armenia and India, martyred by being flayed alive.

Our knowledge is restricted. On the Apostle John, we know he was exiled to Patmos and that he lived his last years in Ephesus, dying there at a great age. One story of him has it that when he was too old to preach, they still brought him in on a stretcher and asked him for a message. All he would say was “Love one another. That is the Lord’s command; and if you keep it, that by itself is enough.”

If only we had done so down the ages, then church history would not be such a battleground of personalities and ideas.

It is impossible to cover everything in such a short amount of time, so I shall concentrate on key events only. More detail can be gained from good books on this subjects and I recommend …..

I start with AD 70 because it is roughly the end of the Acts of the Apostles and it is the end of Palestine as the Apostles would have known it. AD 70 was when the Romans finally crushed the Jewish revolt, destroyed Jerusalem and imposed direct rule. It led to the Christians being throw out or being keen to leave Jerusalem.

When the revolt started in AD 66, the Jews asked the Jewish Christians to join them and they refused. There was for the Christians no point in fighting against human, earthly powers, and the Jews were unhappy with their lack of support, closed the synagogues to Christians and added anti-Christians prayers to their public intercessions.

One result of this was that the whole centre of Christianity slipped westwards, as the Jewish holy land became closed to evangelism and the Jewish centres east of Jerusalem were closed, and this slippage was helped by the strength of the western churches in Gentile Asia Minor, North Africa, Greece and Rome – and not least by the strength of the church at Rome and its claims on historic Christianity. But we rush ahead.

Doctrine and sound doctrine
One thing that Jesus did not leave was a settled set of doctrines for us to learn and live by. He gave us teaching, stories and actions, all of which pointed to truths about him and the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The early church’s first problem was to work out what it believed, not that it sat down and said, What shall we believe? But it found itself over the ensuing centuries having to work out for itself, against strong and well argued heretical opposition, what it stood for and what God/Jesus had said about issues. And dovetailed into all of this is human pride and lust for power, which in a way bedevils (literally) the church today.

There is a legend that tells about the return of Jesus to heaven after his time on earth, bearing the marks of his earthly ministry with its cruel cross and shameful death. The angel Gabriel approaches him and says, "Master, with all your terrible sufferings down there, do the people now know all about how you loved them and what you did for them?"

"Oh no," says Jesus. "Not yet Right now only a handful of people in Israel know." Gabriel looks quizzically at Jesus. "Then what have you done to let all people know about your love for them?"

"Well, I have asked my disciples, Peter, James and John and the few others, to tell people about me. Those who are told will in turn tell others and the gospel will spread to the farthest reaches of the earth. Ultimately, everyone will hear about me and what I have done on their behalf."

Gabriel frowns and looks at Jesus sceptically. He knew people weren't dependable. "Yes," he said, "but what if Peter, James and John grow weary? What if the people who come after them forget? And what if, way down in the 21st century, people get too busy to bother telling others about you; haven't you made any other plans?"

"No, I've made no other plans, Gabriel," Jesus answered. "I'm counting on them."

The first problem was the Gnostic heresy and we get clear signs of this infecting the life of the later NT church. Just as Paul argued for many years that you didn’t need to become Jewish before becoming a Christian – so making Christianity a sub-sect of Judaism – so the early church in 2nd /3rd century fought against Gnosticism.

Definition
GNOSTICISM (Gr. gnosis, knowledge). Though sometimes used of false teaching within the period when the NT was written, the word more accurately describes systems of knowledge in opposition to orthodox Christianity in the second and third centuries. It linked aspects of traditional Christianity with attractive ideas taken from Greek philosophy and Eastern religion, magic, and astrology. Its main themes were as follows: The true God is pure spirit and dwells in the realm of pure light, totally separated from this dark world. This world is evil, for it is made of matter, and matter is evil. The true God will have nothing to do with it, for it was created by a lesser god and was a mistake. People in this world are normally made of body and mind, but in a few there is a spark of pure spirit. Such "spiritual" people need to be rescued from this evil world; thus there is need for a Saviour. Jesus, who is pure spirit even though he appears to be body and mind, is the Saviour who comes from the true God in light to bring knowledge (gnosis) of the spiritual realm of light. Therefore those who have the spark of spirit can receive the knowledge and be reunited with the true God.

The key idea was that certain Christians could have certain knowledge, more than other Christians, and that they were the true believers. But also there was tucked away in it the idea that Jesus was either not fully human or not fully divine and that God had not really got involved in the world but remained remote and worked through sub-agents. There is something there that reminds me of the Mormons, so heresies go round and round.

Gnostics had their own writings – the Gospel of Thomas being one (cp. The Da Vinci Code, which relies on it) and this work begins: “These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down ….”

In the church, the early upholders of orthodoxy included Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen and Tertullian. Their initial argument was to go back to the basics and remind people of what the Apostles had written down and spoken and which had been faithfully passed on, unchanged and unchanging, wherever the church found itself.

Irenaeus wrote to one Victor, Bishop of Rome, of how he knew Polycarp, who had been alive and had spoken at length:
Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus
For when I was still a boy I saw you in lower Asia in the company of Polycarp, faring brilliantly in the imperial court and endeavouring to secure his favour. For I distinctly recall the events of that time better than those of recent years (for what we learn in childhood keeps pace with the growing mind and becomes part of it), so that I can tell the very place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit as he discoursed, his goings out and his comings in, the character of his life, his bodily appearance, the discourses he would address to the people; how he told of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what the things were which he had heard from them concerning the Lord, His mighty works and His teaching, and how Polycarp as having received them from the eye-witness of the life of the Word, related everything in accordance with the Scriptures. To these things I used to listen diligently even then, by the mercy of God which was upon me, noting them down not on paper but in my heart. And by the grace of God I constantly ruminate upon them faithfully; and I can testify before God that if that blessed and apostolic elder had heard the like, he would have cried aloud and stopped his ears and said, as was his wont: “Good God, for what sort of times hast Thou kept me, that I should endure these things?” and he would have fled the very place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. And this can be shown from his letters too which he wrote, whether to the neighbouring churches, confirming them, or to some of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.
(The date of this letter is uncertain. Some place it c.180, others c.190. From a fragment of a letter from Irenaeus to Victor, Bishop of Rome (Harvey, Irenaeus, II p.457) it appears that Florinus was a presbyter at Rome)
A New Eusebius, ed. J Stevenson, p.125-6

Scripture and sound doctrine
Of course, if the early church fathers were to appeal to the Scriptures and to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, their first problem was what the Christian scriptures were. They quickly took on board the OT and showed it to be not only valid in its own right but also to be constantly pointing forward to Jesus as its fulfiller. But, what about the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles?

By the end of the 1st century, Paul’s Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels (M, M, L) were brought together. Throughout the 2nd century, the battle raged over what was in and what was out. All too often what was out was what appealed to heretics – Marcion, a Gnostic, developed his own list of approved books (a re-written Luke and Paul’s letters minus the pastoral ones). Also there appeared a number of romantic, creative works offering legendary accounts of Jesus’ childhood, the Life of Pilate and more ‘Acts’ of the Apostles.

By the end of the 2nd century, things were settling down with the Muratorian Canon of the church in Rome – missing Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, 3 John and had some additions. By the mid 3rd century, doubts existed over Hebrews and Revelation, due to their use by Gnostic heretics, but by 300, Eusebius has the definitive list but still disputes over James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Jude. The ground shifted.

The Eastern Church had consensus by 367 when Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, listed the 27 books of the NT in his Easter pastoral letter as authoritative. The Western Church agreed the same list at the Councils of Hippo (393) and of Carthage (397).

To be accepted as part of the Canon (from the Greek for measuring rod) of Scripture the rules were quite complex. The book had to be written or at least sponsored by an Apostle, and to be recognizably orthodox in content. It also had to have a track record of being read in a prominent church or a majority of churches. The eventual shape of the Canon shows us that the early church was keen to base itself on and to submit to the teachings of the Apostles – these had informed its preaching and created its foundation.

The Creeds and sound doctrine
Just as the Canon of Scripture had been argued over for many years, so the basic doctrines of the Church doctrines we take for granted, were argued over and great scholarly battles raged. Each main doctrine on the person of Jesus – human, divine, or both and then how – on the Spirit, on the Trinity – 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 or how – were really responses to heretical teachings. If you think about it, this is no less than what Paul and the Apostles in their letters were contending about: as a heresy arose, so they showed its error.

The next problem after Gnosticism – secret knowledge – was that Jesus was not human, but somehow only appeared as such. This heresy is called Docetism (from the Greek verb to seem or appear). Basically they believed that a transcendent God could not sully himself with the physical world, neither by physical involvement nor by physical change. In other words, there was no incarnation, no word become flesh, which the Gospel of John mentions (John 1:14).

Christian writers thus stressed the goodness of creation (the physical world was ok for God to be involved in) and that Jesus truly was flesh and blood. Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch, d. 115) wrote: “Jesus Christ was of the race of David, the child of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died.”

To support their arguments, Christians writers developed a theology based on the word ‘logos’, which is the Greek for Word in John’s Gospel, but which in Greek also means ‘reason, purpose, wisdom’. Justin Martyr gave us the understanding that the ‘logos’ of God went forth in creation – God spoke and it came to be – in revelation – God spoke and it was written – and in incarnation – God spoke in and through Jesus.

But next, if Jesus was so human, how could he be divine. Was Christ really God? The pendulum swings from side to side. Early Christians were quite definite in that The Lord our God is One God – basic Jewish prayer and theology. So they worshipped Jesus as God.

But pagans and others accused Christians of having two Gods – Muslims accuse us of three Gods today. What was needed was a doctrine of the Trinity, not that those early Christians then realised that – Trinity was a later Latin term, because Greek wasn’t so helpful in describing the issue.

Heretics marked Jesus down as only a temporary appearance of God (Docetism) or as an ordinary man indwelt by God’s power at his baptism (Ebionites [or JWs?]). It was Tertullian, the first Latin theologian, who lived most of his 2nd century life in Carthage, who gave us the term Trinity, because he majored on the salvation orientated relationship between Father, Son and Spirit, rather than just their internal eternal life.

The debate in the west was subdued because of Tertullian’s work, with the Son and Spirit not being divisions of the Father, but rather extensions, like rays from the sun. In the east, the Greek language was not so helpful and it went down the road of seeing the Son subordinate or inferior to the Father – not good enough!

This is how we began to get the Creeds, those statements of faith which explain and proclaim what Christians and the universal Church believed, believed through long debate and discussion within itself and with pagans/heretics.

Early creeds exist in the NT: 1 Cor. 12:3 ‘Jesus is Lord’ or 1 Tim 3:16 ‘Christ appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.’

A 2nd century creed was the Rule of Faith, which was described by Origen (Egyptian theologian, got a bit lost on Jesus being subordinate/separate to the Father, so never made a saint – also took the Bible too literally in that his problem with lust over women was solved by a sharp and painful cut!)

Irenaeus gives us one version of this (we believe a number of similar versions existed) and its main content was:
‘…this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all things that are in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race…’
(see Lion Handbook, p.114).

Most creeds were developed as confessional at baptisms, in other words the candidate would recite them to confirm his agreement to the truths held by the Church. We keep them to this day in using a responsive formula creed:
Do you believe and trust in God the Father?
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
Do you believe and trust in his Son Jesus Christ?
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
Do you believe and trust in the Holy Spirit?
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
– Common Worship, p.356.

But with the increasing arguments over theology, the basis for creeds changed, from being required of a baptism candidate to confirm their faith, to being statements of orthodox faith for the church leaders and church members. In a sense this had begun as a way of defending the faith against Gnostic heresy and it was the Apostles Creed – actually not written by the Apostles at all, but reflecting their faith, that the Roman church introduced and used, and which gained wider acceptance:
I believe in God Almighty
And in Christ Jesus, his only Son our Lord
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried
And the third day rose from the dead
Who ascended into heaven
And sits on the right hand of the Father
Whence he comes to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost
The holy church
The remission of sins
The resurrection of the flesh
The life everlasting.
(see Church History, p.54).

Further developments on this front took place in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, more of which later, and the various 4th century world-wide church councils.

Church leaders and sound doctrine
Seeing as we have got to Church leaders or Bishops, let’s just see how this developed. Obviously as the Apostles died out, so they appointed – literally laid hands on – a successor: Timothy, Titus, etc. Leaders were appointed from within the local church, which met in small house-based gatherings – no church buildings in those days.

By 200, the Church seemed to have developed a three-fold order of bishops (local community-wide leader), presbyters (modelled on the apostles teaching role) and deacons (modelled on the service role of Acts 6). The Bishop gradually emerged as the leader really for simple organisational reasons. Rome gradually emerged as the centre of Christianity just because it was Rome, and it stood out over all western churches, whereas the east was much more divided between Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and later Constantinople.

The Spread of Sound Doctrine
The maps show clearly how much the Church spread, as far as we know. It also spread eastwards to Persia and India but we have little known detail. It was rapid and all pervasive and happened despite persecution.

Now it is important to remember that persecution did happen but we mustn’t get all excited by it. It was more often than not localised and intermittent. In other words, it may have been peaceful for several decades before a rather bloody burst of persecution broke out, dependent less on the Roman Emperor or his commands and more on the actions and concerns of the local regional Governor.

Thus, the main persecutions were those as recorded in Acts, then the Neronian persecution of the 60s – mostly Rome based. Then the late 1st century, there was a severe persecution under Emperor Domitian in Asia Minor (perhaps Revelation was written to encourage the Christians there?), in which we see from letters written by Pliny the Younger to the later Emperor Trajan that Christianity was a capital offence.

The Empire saw in Christianity a threat to its good order, an internal fifth column who seemed to owe allegiance to another King rather than the Emperor. Christians refused to worship the Emperor as pagans were happy to do and for this they suffered.

The more severe and widespread persecutions occurred in the 3rd century, first under Emperor Decius (249-251) and then by far the worse under Emperor Diocletian (284-305), but even in these times, as Tertullian had described it earlier, ‘The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church’.

So it is true that Christians suffered horribly but not all the time and not everywhere. In fact, throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the church steadily and effectively spread and increased – quietly becoming a major force in the Empire. But these last violent persecutions were the storm before the calm. Life for Christians was going to change immensely, to the extent that everyone who was anyone would seriously think about becoming a Christian.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

AD 325 - 600

Here is a period of history in which we see the Roman Empire collapse and the Church become the de facto ruler of what was left. That’s a bit of a broad brush stroke actually, so let’s look at the detail a bit more.

325 is a key date because it was the year the Council of Nicaea met, called together by a Christian Emperor, to settle a (yet another) doctrinal dispute. But firstly, we need to go back a bit to 306 and the City of York.

I mentioned earlier that the Roman Empire had been divided into the Western and Eastern branches for administrative reasons, with the main Emperor being in the East and the subsidiary emperor being in the west. It was a bit difficult because both emperors sought to influence the other so actually it was quite destabilising.

The western emperor, Constantius, died in 306 and his son, Constantine, was proclaimed Emperor Caesar by his legions in York, but for many years he was just one of several claimants, so most of his 30 year reign was spent eliminating rivals.

In 312, he had reached Italy to face down his last major rival, Maxentius, who was holed up safely in Rome. In military terms, Constantine should lose. Maxentius had the stronger position and had been emperor for 5 years, but, according to Eusebius (you remember him?) who heard the story directly from Constantine, Constantine knew he needed help and decided to call upon the god he felt could most help him.

That god was the Christian God, following it seems his father’s preference. And so, as Eusebius writes:
“Accordingly he besought his father’s god in prayer, beseeching and imploring him to tell him who he was and to stretch out his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most incredible sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honoured with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of aftertime has established its truth?
He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and an inscription, CONQUER BY THIS attached to it. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on an expedition, and witnessed the miracle.
He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this portent could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night overtook him; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
(see A New Eusebius, p.299-300)

Constantine won the battle of Milvian Bridge with his army’s shields emblazoned with the cross of Christ. Now exactly when Constantine converted is much disputed. He was baptised only shortly before his death, as was the custom then (not wishing to be baptised earlier for fear of sinning again). He still killed his second wife and oldest son, but on the other hand, official policy towards Christianity was transformed.

In 313, the Edict of Milan was published, giving Christians freedom of worship and restitution of the church’s property after the Diocletian persecutions of 10 years earlier. Christian symbols appeared on coinage from 315. Sunday became a public holiday in 321, there began a church building boom and it was now all right to become a Christian and hold high office. The flavour of the top infects the rest of the tree of life and power – just like today.

Acceptance and asceticism
Now that the church and being a Christian was acceptable, life changed for the church. In fact over time, it became almost de rigueur to be a Christian if you wanted public office and at one point, you had to be a Christian to be in the army!

Of course, what happened was that laxity and nominalism entered into the church’s life – nothing like a bit of persecution to sift the wheat from the chaff and nothing like a bit of acceptability to bring in laxity and nominalism. Over time, there was a blending of pagan thinking, the overtaking of a pagan festival of the Sun for Christmas, the growth of the doctrine of Mary and the veneration of Relics of the saints. Often, these were felt to be unhelpful by the more serious minded Christians.

The reaction to all this was the growth of what became the Desert Fathers – asceticism and hermits. It all started in Egypt as a desire to get away from society and to take up a life of denial and prayer, modelled on Elijah and John the Baptist’s own wilderness experiences.

These desert hermits were amazing men (and later women) because the desert was a dreadful place, a place of sterility and soullessness, quite unlike the places they came from. But there they developed a life of prayer, solitude and spiritual depth and insight. Those who in the 5th century lived on pillars and so forth were the extreme end – and may be a little extreme in the head as well.

The first well-known one was Anthony of Egypt, born about 250 in Memphis, Egypt. Much admired he was often sought out for spiritual advice and guidance, such that he sought greater seclusion of the real desert in 310 – NW of the Red Sea. Antony only ever vaguely oversaw a loose grouping of hermits.

Pachomius (290-346) was the founder of several monasteries for men in Egypt and provided them with a written rule. He made it clear, not unreasonably, that community life was likely to be more holy and more stable than life as a solitary hermit and so monasteries were born, and he also established monasteries for women.

The idea of monasticism first came to the west with Martin of Tours (d. 397), who lived a hermit’s life after military service and against his will was persuaded to become Bishop of Tours, though still lived in his hermit cell. It grew more under John Cassian (360-435), who after seeking the counsel of the Desert Fathers in Egypt, set up two monasteries (one for men and one for women) near Marseilles and from there monasticism spread across Western Europe. His writings covered subjects such as monastic clothing, services, temptations and organisation.

In the east, one of the main drivers of monasticism was Basil the Great (330-379), who set up his own community with Gregory of Nazianzus, both of whom were influential writers of the time. Basil was the one who, as a later Bishop, realised the importance of bringing the monasteries under the authority of the local bishop, and sought to make them more outward looking in providing medical treatment for the sick, relief for the poor and work in education. Basil also disapproved of individualistic piety and laid out set times of community prayer – 8 times a day! His influence is still felt in eastern monasticism.

Celtic monasticism was later and its origins are unknown. It seems to date from early 6th century. There is no evidence that Patrick started it though he encouraged a hermit lifestyle. Their great contribution was in learning and scholarship. As the light went out over our islands with the pagan invasions of the Anglo-Saxons, it was the Celtic monks who kept alive the faith and its learning.

One interesting thought from all this monasticism, following on as it did from official recognition of the church, was that holiness became less dependent on martyrdom and more on asceticism. It was difficult to get martyred when it was ok to be Christian so holiness was expressed and seen in other ways.

Acceptance and emperors
But it wasn’t all plain sailing after Constantine the Great. He died in 337 and the empire divided up between his three sons: Constantine II and Constans got the West and Constantius got the East. The former two fell out, and by 340 Constantine II was killed and then in 350 Constans was murdered by a usurper, Magnentius, who in turn was defeated and killed by Constantius in 353.

One effect of the emperor was that whatever he supported or at least leaned towards or was advised about by his advisors, was most likely to be official policy. And that was true in the Church as well, such was the power of these secular rulers. But I will return to that soon.

The sons of Constantine were bolder in their attacks on paganism than their father had been. In 341, a law was passed suppressing pagan cults. In 356, Constantius (the winner by the way) closed pagan temples and prohibited pagan sacrifices (though actually the law was not rigorously enforced). What Constantius was doing was seeking to unite the empire by providing with one religion, so in a sense he was no different to Roman emperors across the centuries.

Constantius was followed by a nephew of Constantine the Great, Julian – known as the apostate because he had secretly always been a pagan and becoming emperor enabled him to show his true colours. He sought to set up a new imperial religion, Hellenism, taking a syncretism of various bits of paganism mixed with a bit of Christianity. He restored pagan worship all over the empire and removed the special privileges of the Christians and their clergy, yet he proclaimed tolerance as well.

He didn’t last long and was succeeded by a number of emperors, who ruled sometimes over the whole empire and sometimes only in the east or in the west, but principally in these years, despite the political confusion, paganism’s zeal was over and Christianity was triumphant. By 400, under the influence of Bishop Ambrose of Milan (the city of the emperor’s residence rather than Rome) Christianity was promoted and paganism suppressed – well, sort of and without total zeal.

Ambrose became Bishop of Milan in 373, aged 34. He had gathered with the crowd in Milan cathedral to elect a new Bishop and had spoken a few words to calm the crowd. Suddenly, a voice was heard from the crowd, “Ambrose, Bishop.” The congregation took up the cry and Ambrose found himself elected, much to his surprise: he was not baptised, ordained or trained. He was most influential because he had the ear of the emperor, resident in Milan.

Acceptance and influence
With Christianity being accepted over against paganism, it would seem its triumph was complete. The emperors sympathetic to the church often listened to their local bishop for advice and guidance, both on political matters and on spiritual matters. Whoever had the ear of the emperor was able to influence the life of the empire and of the church.

At the same time, the emperor remained a very powerful person and his views influenced the life of the church. Throughout this period (4th and 5th centuries), the church was split over doctrine. As I said, whoever had the ear of the emperor was able to influence the life of the church. And the emperors had their own views on theology and doctrine, so if you hoped we had moved away from debates on Christology, Ecclesiology or Pneumatology, you are going to be disappointed.

Emperors were keen on unity and peace, so disunity and fighting (literally at times) among clergy and bishops was seen as unhelpful. Constantine the Great was the first to see this and called the Council of Nicaea to bring the bishops together and to get them to agree and be united.

The origins of the Council of Nicaea go back to a dispute between Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and his presbyter, Arius. Arius was trying to solve the difficult problem of the relationship of the Son to the Father. He suggested that the Son, though Creator, was himself created and therefore could not be truly divine like his Father. Bishop Alexander and his fellow bishops judged this heretical and excommunicated Arius, but he found support elsewhere in the east.

Constantine the Great didn’t see an immediate settlement happening so called the Council of Nicaea in 325 and presided over its deliberations himself. In the end, tradition has it that Constantine proposed the solution of calling the Son homoousios (of one essence) to describe Christ’s relationship to the Father. The Council was a triumph for orthodoxy, since Arius could not agree with the word, and a triumph for unity, since only 2 bishops stood with Arius.

The creed that this Council produced became one of the great statements of the Western Church. It was a hollow victory. Alexander’s successor as Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, refused to receive back into the church repentant Arians and so the dispute continued.

Now basically speaking, whether the emperor was pro-Arius or anti-Arius depended on his advisors. Mostly, the emperors were pro-Arius and frankly Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and strongly anti-Arius, performed the most remarkable feat (perhaps God was behind it) of being right when just about everyone else was wrong. His stand against Arianism cost him greatly – he was exiled 5 times and restored 5 times to his Bishopric, depending on who had the ear of the emperor.

The nub of the debate was the same: were the Father and the Son of the same essence or substance or was the Son merely similar but not the same. In Greek the difference in the positions was of one letter: homoousion versus homoiousion. Yes, the Christians were mocked for quibbling over one letter, but one letter makes a difference: rats are not cats.

The whole matter was finally sorted in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. In the intervening years, the emperors had ben mostly pro-Arian and anti-Nicaea, with only Athanasius standing up for orthodoxy. Numerous creeds were proposed over these years but none contained the important word homoousion. The emperors tried to begin peace and unity but the church leaders were not willing to acquiesce in a political settlement if it had not won their own agreement first.

In the west, there was not much debate. Arianism was really an eastern thing. As the debate wore on, so it focussed on both the sameness of the father and the Son and the distinctive though oneness of the Trinity. Part of the debate was actually about words. Greek and Latin were not the same language and finding the right way of expressing Latin thoughts in Greek and Greek thoughts in Latin was a big difficulty.

It was Theodosius, who became total Emperor in 379, a westerner and supporter of Nicaea, who called the Council of Constantinople. This Council reaffirmed the Council of Nicaea and published the Nicene Creed which we still proclaim today. The Council marked the end of Arianism so the empire settled into doctrinal peace, though church order remained a problem. The competing senior Bishops – Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria – were divided up into provinces of jurisdiction and primacy seems to have been given to Rome, followed by Constantinople. Naturally, neither Antioch nor Alexandria was happy about this.

Acceptance and doctrine
One thing leads to another. The Council of Constantinople was for a while settled doctrinal position. The next major debate was whether Christ’s divine and human nature were 2 natures in one body or 1 nature in one body. The Church in Antioch began to talk of Christ’s natures being associated or even juxtaposed rather than personally united.

The greatest proponent of this was Nestorius, a famous preacher in Antioch before being made Bishop of Constantinople in 428. The opposition to Nestorius was led by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, a distinguished expositor of Scripture, but a violent and unscrupulous controversionalist. Some of his anger at Nestorius was due to the latter listening to some grumbling clergy from Alexandria, so life wasn’t all about doctrine but also Episcopal authority. (Some of this sounds uncannily like debates in the C of E today!)

Cyril called Nestorius an adoptionist, in that his theology meant that a divine Christ adopted a human nature and became Jesus. Cyril slandered Nestorius to Pope Celestine in Rome, who also disliked Nestorius because he had listened to some heretics from Rome.

In 431, Theodosius II called the Council of Ephesus. The emperor had upto now supported Nestorius, but Cyril managed to get Nestorius deposed before his Syrian supporters arrived. They in turn, under John of Antioch, condemned Cyril and reinstated Nestorius. When the Roman legation arrived, they approved Cyril’s original actions and excommunicated all the Syrian bishops.

Cyril was able to count on the backing of the big city bishops, like Ephesus, which resented Constantinople’s authority, and like Jerusalem, which resented Antioch’s influence. Nothing much about doctrine here: just power.

Nestorius was sent off to exile and died 450 in Egypt. The emperor pushed Cyril and the Syrians to talk to each other and some sense of compromise was agreed, neither agreeing to each others’ demands, but peace broke out for a while.

When a new generation of Bishops came forward in the 440s, dispute soon started again, especially over the writings of Eutyches, an aged Constantinople monk, who attacked the doctrine of 2 natures in 1 union, saying that Christ’s divinity absorbed his humanity like a drop of wine in the sea.

Theodosius II called another Council of Ephesus in 449, but it was a disaster. Pope Leo sent his version of doctrine based on the Latin worded understanding (actually very good), but it was ignored and Eutyches’ doctrine – drop of wine absorbed by the sea (Monophysitism) – was accepted and he rehabilitated.

No redress to this error could be done until Theodosius II died – falling from his horse in 450 (God doesn’t delay sometimes) and a new Council was called in 451 at Chalcedon by his successor, his daughter Pulcheria and her husband Marcian. It put out a composite definition of the relationship of Christ’s divinity and humanity, basically consisting of the creeds from 325 (Nicaea) and 381 (Constantinople) together with Cyril’s two letters refuting Nestorius and Pope Leo’s doctrinal statement.

Two things came out of this Council. One was ecclesiological – church order. Rome objected to the authority given to Constantinople allowing it to decide matters for the Eastern Church, as this reduced the primacy of Rome which had been agreed 100 years before. Also, Nestorianism continued. Although the work of these 4 Council mentioned became Imperial law, there was a group of eastern clergy who could not accept the slight departure from Cyril’s strong position. They established themselves and are seen today in the Coptic Church of Egypt, and some of the orthodox churches of Syria and Armenia.

Acceptance and growth
Two more matters to touch on, both of which influenced the later church, even upto this day.

Augustine of Hippo was born in 354 in modern day Algeria. He was bought up a Christian by his mother, Monica, but delayed his baptism due to a lengthy philosophical diversion. He excelled in learning and lectured in rhetoric in Carthage. Aged 19, he came across a work by Cicero which converted him to the love of divine wisdom. He was repelled by the Bible’s apparent barbarity.

Disillusioned after a time with heretical Christianity (Manichaeism), he went to Rome to learn more there from various academics and philosophers. In 384, he was appointed imperial rhetorician at Milan and came under the influence of Bishop Ambrose, who not only influenced emperors but also this great theologian.

He warmed to Ambrose, who led him on a journey of understanding such that Christianity could be seen as both eloquent and intelligent. A spiritual war for his soul took place (if I may describe it thus) and he wavered between faith in God and the pleasures of the world. He turned to Christ whilst reading Romans 13:13-14 in a garden in Milan:
“Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”

He was baptised and returned to North Africa where he formed a community for study and contemplation. In 391, he was press-ganged into being ordained and in 396, he was made Bishop of Hippo. For the rest of his life he was a preacher and pastor, minister of the sacraments, judge and intercessor, trustee and organiser of charity, as well as tireless defender of catholic orthodoxy (we were all catholics then) and voluminous writer.

His writings contained characteristic themes: the Fall and humankind’s ability to sin, the Atonement and Jesus’ reconciliation of humankind, Grace and the love of God for individuals, and Predestination and God’s foreknowledge of people’s response to his grace.

He is without rival in his theology of the Church, or as Adolf von Harnack, 19th century theologian wrote, “In the 5th century, at the hour that the church inherited the Roman Empire, she had within her a man of extraordinarily deep and powerful genius: from him she took her ideas, and to this present hour she has been unable to break away from them.”

Just so. In 410, Rome was sacked by the Goths, who had been banging on the door of the western empire for many years. Christianity looked as if it were to be swept back to its eastern roots, the west lost to pagans.

Bu the church continued as the western empire went, continued such as to take over the mantle of the empire in many ways with the spiritual leadership of Rome to remain unchallenged for nearly 1000 years.

In this period upto 600, we see the church settling its doctrine, surviving the upheavals of the Roman Empire, showing its care for the poor and the underprivileged. The Goths were seen as punishment on the church by the pagans, but the church just got on with converting them and Christianity grew.

As it grew, so did its influence and its wealth. On the ground, dioceses created parishes and all looked to Rome, which saw itself as the father of the western peoples, reaching out to the pagans and bringing more and more peoples under Christ’s rule.