Church History: The Patristic Period
of all existing systems, the present communion of Rome is the nearest approximation in fact to the Church of the Fathers . . . Did St. Athanasius or St. Ambrose come suddenly to life, it cannot be doubted what communion he would take to be his own.
Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890)
The earliest period of the church’s life is referred to as the Apostolic Period – the time during which the apostles lived. This is considered as the time in which there was living memory of Jesus and therefore had a particular character and significance. Since we don’t know exactly when the Apostles and others who had known Jesus in person died, we don’t have an exact date for when this period ends, but we can take it as around 90AD, or roughly the end of the first century. The time following this is known as the Patristic Period, and has an even less clear end point. For our purposes, in considering the life of the Western church, we’ll take it as around the death of Saint Augustine (430AD). This coincides with the end of the Western Roman Empire.
The word Patristic is taken from the Latin for ‘father’. The Church Fathers are those people, following the Apostles, who developed the early understanding of the meaning of Christ’s life and death and how people could and should relate to that. Put another way, this is the period during which most Church doctrine and practice was established. Despite the many changes and controversies over the subsequent years the work of Church Fathers remains the foundation of Christianity as it is today. Their teaching and writing continues to have a major impact on our lives as Christians, even if we are not particularly aware of it (or them).
The impact of people from so long ago is not really as strange as it might first seem. Americans in particular are equally familiar with the impact of those known as the Fathers of the American Republic. The time difference is less but the significance for modern life is similar. We can also note some of the same difficulties of interpretation and arguments as to what exactly was meant by these people, and what the implications are for current conditions.
The end of the Patristic Period in the West was marked by the collapse of the Roman empire and its associated social and political structures. Following this, religion, specifically Christianity, was preserved rather than developed, until the late Middle Ages (c.1100). The spiritual leadership of the Church moved from Bishops (who became largely civil administrative figures filling a vacuum in the post-Empire times) to Monasteries.
Although it was a very different time, much of what we read about the Church and Church life in the Patristic period is familiar to us in the Catholic Church today. Cardinal Newman (a convert from Anglicanism) noted “The Church Fathers were Catholic”, a sentiment acknowledged by some protestants today who have studied the period[1]. This observation is not intended to argue right vs wrong in respect of later controversies, but should indicate that study of this time in the life of the Church is important, and is not as daunting as it might seem even though it is 1500 years ago.
Issues facing the early Church
As the life of Jesus faded from living memory, two major questions emerged for the followers of Jesus and the Church as it evolved:
- What did the Church believe?
- What was the basis of authority in the Church, i.e. who got to decide, and how?
The first of these was not new. Much of St Paul’s work was clearly concerned to address that issue. Now, however, there was no-one who could claim to have known Jesus directly, so any claims to an answer relied heavily on the response to the second question. Even with regard to the first issue the tone changed.
Paul[2] was, in the best possible sense, ‘making it up as he went along’ i.e. responding to specific issues in context, based on a deep understanding of his own Christian faith and relationship with God (just as Jesus did). He had no prior formal expression of the Church’s beliefs to call upon. Subsequently the growth of the Church, the variety of cultures it touched, and the character of the time (the late Classical Period), led to a more systematic approach than we find in the Apostolic Period.
The definition of beliefs ended up with the Creeds – systematic statements about the nature of God and Christ. We tend to think of “the Creed” (although there is more than one) as a starting point for our Catholic faith. But it is really a culmination of a lengthy and often contentious process of discernment. This discernment was often spurred by challenges from those who disagreed about the response to issues and questions that arose in discussion with non-Christians or Christians from different parts of the Roman Empire who had different philosophical backgrounds, assumptions and expectations.[3]
In the Apostolic period Christian belief was largely defined in contrast to Jewish beliefs. This was obviously true of Jesus himself as recounted in the Gospels; in Paul, although he also referenced Greek beliefs occasionally; and notably in the Letter to the Hebrews. In these early times Christians were typically considered as a sect within Judaism. That changed very quickly. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD and the dismantling of what remained of the Jewish state left Christians much more concerned with relationships with the Roman state and ‘pagan’ beliefs than with Judaism. This was not a clear break – even Jesus made occasional references to the Roman state, and Paul certainly addressed issues related to interactions with the Roman. However the removal of central Jewish authority and worship, together with the rapid growth of Christianity beyond traditionally Jewish areas led to the break between Christian and Jewish traditions.
In 90 AD the Jewish liturgy added an anathema against the “Nazarenes”. For Ignatius of Antioch (c.100), one of the earliest Church Fathers, Jews were already outside the Church and becoming irrelevant. The dialog of the Patristic period was therefore far more between Christians and ‘Pagans’, rather than between Christians and Jews as it had been for Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles. In that sense the Church Fathers were having to start from “first principles” since little that Jesus, Paul and others had said was directly applicable to these new circumstances.
With regard to authority, the key innovation of the Patristic period was the role of the bishop – which of course continues to be significant to this day. Paul summarizes for us the range of roles to be found in the church of his time: apostles, prophets, teachers, healers, etc…[4] But there is no mention of bishops. The role of bishop, and the notion of a single bishop in each community, emerged as the key mechanism to ensure conformity and some level of consistency, as the church spread in increasingly diverse places and came under more sustained criticism and sometime attack from outside. Ignatius of Antioch, who we already mentioned, was one of the key proponents of this role and exhorted the faithful to follow and support the bishop.
Every movement, religious of otherwise, faces the challenge of maintaining its coherence and identity after the death of its founder or founders. What made the role of bishop particularly significant for the Christian Church was the concept of ‘Apostolic Succession’. This was based on the idea[5] that truth was personified in Jesus,[6] was communicated by him to the apostles, and then passed on to successors via personal links. These links were provided by the bishops, who were responsible for passing what they had learned to those who followed after.[7] This model is clearly set out by Paul[8]. It was and still is an important counter-balance to the idea of ‘writing it all down’ – as happened with the Creeds.
The articulation of Christian beliefs
The central question for the Church Fathers was “who was Jesus” – not in a biographical sense but in the philosophical sense of “what was he”, and what was his relationship with the divine. The challenge in regard to Judaism was how did Jesus relate to the God of the Israelites. This was rapidly superseded by consideration of the nature of Jesus in the context of many different ideas in the Roman and Greek world about the divine and how God or gods related to humans.
The first stage of this debate was fairly straightforward in that conventional Roman belief identified the divine either with the Emperor or with the pagan Gods of Greek tradition (Jupiter/Zeus, Apollo, etc). Jesus and the Hebrew God were clearly distinct. However there were many other religious ideas around at the time. The most significant in regard of the early development of Christian thinking was Gnosticism. The name is derived from the Greek word for ‘knowledge’ and represents a range of beliefs and sects which were focused on the idea that special knowledge was required to free oneself from the material (evil) world. Classical thinking put a lot of emphasis on dualities, or contrasting states – between perfect and imperfect, good and evil, matter and spirit. When linked with an emphasis on (philosophical) knowledge as a key to a better life, and perhaps an afterlife, this easily merged with Christian ideas of Jesus as the bringer of divine knowledge, and salvation as a process of understanding truths not known to others.
The battle with Gnosticism, seen as a corruption of the Christian message, continued from about 100 to 200, and led to the establishment of key principles, perhaps most importantly that being a Christian was open to anyone and didn’t require special knowledge or insight. At a more philosophical level, the original Jewish foundation of a loving God who created people who were intrinsically good was reaffirmed, and notions of a divided creation in which good and evil domains coexisted were rejected. Although Gnosticism as a specific ‘movement’ gradually declined in the 4th Century, the ideas of esoteric knowledge (magic), special forms of ‘enlightenment’, and division of the world between good and evil powers continued to reappear in various forms through the medieval period and can still be found in some Christian thinking in modern times – particularly with regard to good and evil[9]. The conflict with Gnosticism also drove the processes of establishing centers of authority in the Church (bishops, as discussed above), and the definition of the ‘canon’ of Scripture (what writings were and weren’t accepted as reflecting the church’s beliefs).[10]
By the beginning of the 4th Century the basic shape of Christian belief in terms of the nature of God and way the divine related to the human was established. This was codified at the Council of Nicea in 325. The Council adopted the Nicene Creed which is still used today by all Christians as a summarization of their beliefs (and repeated at most Sunday masses).
This period of consolidation nevertheless left open major issues about the exact (metaphysical) nature of Jesus and his relationship to the Father. This was the ground for the second huge debate of the Patristic period, with the emergence of what became known as Arianism – often described (simplistically) as the belief that Jesus was only human and not divine.
Arius taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and possibly inferior to) the Father. Before this time the Son did not exist. Of all the various disagreements within the Christian Church, the Arian controversy has held the greatest force and power of theological and political conflict, with the possible exception of the Protestant Reformation. The idea of Jesus as a human intermediary between God and Man (however special) was in many regards much easier to accept than some form of identity between God and the human Jesus. It was very influential and widely adopted, including by “barbarian” tribes attacking Rome (e.g. the Vandals and the Visigoths)[11].
This however is not what Christians believe – or rather is not what orthodox Christians came to understand as a result of this trial of ideas. The original debate concluded (for the most part) at the Council of Chalcedon (451) which declared that Jesus was truly God and truly Man, two natures in one person. This formulation probably doesn’t provide much enlightenment to modern Christians but does summarize the essential point that Jesus was identified with the divine[12] – Jesus didn’t come into existence or become God at some point in time, He is God from the beginning of time, He is not some secondary deity, nor a special messenger or intermediary.
The time for such debates was nearly over. With the invasion of Rome by the Goths in 476 the period of the Church Fathers was definitively closed. In the West Christianity now became the foundation for retaining what could be rescued from Roman (and Greek) civilization, and was initially far more concerned with preservation than development of any new ideas or thinking about the nature of God and His incarnation.
It is perhaps worth noting that the story of Christianity and Roman civilization does not stop here. It continued for another 1000 years in the East. In 1054 the debates of Chalcedon and subsequent Councils eventually led to the final Schism between Eastern and Western Church (“Orthodox” vs “Catholic”). In 1453 the invasion of Constantinople by Turks, following many battles between Western (Christian) armies and Byzantine (Christian) forces, marked the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire. Roman civilization had existed for at least 2500 years.
Structure and Authority in the Church
Looking back to the earliest period of Christianity we have to remember that there was initially no such concept as “church”. There were individual local groups who met to support each other and share a common experience the power of Jesus in their lives. One writer provides the following description of this early period:
As we have noted, one key organizing principle which emerged early on was identification of bishops as local leaders with authority over their local community (probably similar to the position of Synagog leaders in the Jewish diaspora).
This left open the issue of the relationship between bishops and any wider church structure. This was addressed by the emergence of councils which gathered together bishops, either at a local or regional level. After the recognition of Christianity as the State religion, the Roman Emperor also became involved as a convener and occasionally even primary arbitrator of Ecumenical (worldwide) Councils. Given the challenges of travel, particularly as the Roman society and infrastructure started to collapse, there were relatively few Ecumenical Councils[13]. They do remain significant today as articulating principles which are still accepted by the majority of Christians, notwithstanding that there were just as many disputes within such councils as we might see today at the United Nations or any other global forum. Achieving and sustaining consensus within the church is no less challenging than in other other human society.
As far as authority within the church was concerned, this rested at a regional rather than global or universal level. This was true even during Roman times, when civil power structures were often centralized, and certainly after that when centralization collapsed. The Bishop of Rome was regarded as having some level of preeminence but the Eastern Patriarchs (of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople) also remained hugely important, and at times certainly overshadowed the feeble efforts of Roman authorities. Eastern (Roman/Byzantine) power was more significant on a global scale both in political and religious terms until the conquests of the Turks and the upheaval of emerging Islam[14].
Regarding relationships between the evolving Christian Church and the state, these varied enormously over this period. The most obvious difference is between the time prior to Constantine’s Edict of Toleration (313) and after that. Christianity went from being a marginal Jewish cult, sometimes persecuted, to being the state religion. But there were also major differences even within those periods.
In the second century there were intermittent persecutions (under Emperors Nero, Domitian, Marcus Aurelius). The cult of martyrdom became important, although the numbers killed were probably quite small (certainly in relation to the general level of slaughter within Roman society). Christians were regarded as peculiar and inferior in Roman society but for the most part the church evolved without massive disruption. However under the Emperor Diocletian there was a more systematic attempt to purge Christians and return to the traditional Roman cults and worship of Olympian gods. This led to the “Great Persecution” of 300-310. But this reflected not just pressure from Christianity but a generally reactionary movement attempting to reimpose older Roman societal models which had been eroded in many ways, particularly by the extension of the Empire and the incorporation of many non-Roman traditions and peoples within a centralized state. Perhaps most significant was that the Roman army, which had always been the foundation of state power, had become manned largely by non-Romans. Constantine’s “conversion” to Christianity was largely driven by his recognition of the power of Christian solders fighting for him. The complex relationship between Christianity and military power that subsequently evolved, right through to the fascist regimes of the 20th Century, would have been inconceivable to the first disciples – but was already a live issue for Augustine (c. 420).
After Constantine, life still remained uncertain for Christians and for the Church. Emperor Julian in 361 reverted to paganism and persecution of Christians. Valentinian (364-75) was nominally Christian but supported toleration for all religious groups. The final acceptance of Christianity, and specifically Christianity as defined by the Council of Nicea, as the State religion was by Emperor Theodosius in 380. This led to a period of suppression of traditional Roman (pagan) cults and polytheism. But by this time centralized Roman society was already collapsing and the transition of the structures of Middle Ages was starting.
After this time, civil and religious authority became intermingled. The bishop became the central figure of authority and teaching within the church. But beyond this, leaders in the church also became, by default, civic leaders as the state structures of the Roman Empire started to collapse[15]. Someone had to adjudicate over property disputes, marriage disputes, and many others. The bishop was typically the only person in town with any credibility in that regard. This amalgamation of religious and state roles became the source of massive problems in the Middle Ages, by which time bishops often became more invested in their state role with its power and wealth, than in their role as teachers and servants following the example of the Apostles.
The major figures
There is no definitive list of who the Church Fathers were. The following individuals were certainly significant in the development of the Church in this period, and would probably be included on any list. What is probably more significant is that any list would struggle to be complete – the development of Christianity was the work of many minds, and these varied enormously in their backgrounds, temperaments and interests.
100s: Period of Persecution. Gnosticism and Paganism are the threats. Church organization is in flux.
Clement of Rome
Bishop of Rome 88-99, would have known Peter and Paul. Our first major link in the post-apostolic church. Wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians.
Ignatius of Antioch
(ca. 35-107) 3rd Bishop of Antioch, student of the Apostle John. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters to various churches. Important topics addressed include ecclesiology,[16] the sacraments, and the role of bishops. The letters are an important record the development of Christian thinking, since writings from this early period are very limited. Ignatius is the first to use the Greek word “katholikos”, meaning “universal,” to describe the church. He is the first known Christian writer to put great stress on loyalty to a single bishop in each city, who is assisted by both presbyters (elders/priests) and deacons. Earlier writings only mention either bishops or presbyters (not in combination), and give the impression that there was usually more than one bishop per congregation.
Justin Martyr
(100–165) born at Flavia Neapolis (modern-day Nablus, on West Bank). Martyred at Rome under Marcus Aurelius. Calls himself a Samaritan, but his father and grandfather were probably Greek or Roman, and he was brought up as a highly educated Pagan. He studied philosophy, converted to Christianity, and devoted the rest of his life to teaching what he considered the true philosophy. He probably traveled widely and ultimately settled in Rome as a Christian teacher. He wrote many important works as an apologist for Christianity, directed at his philosopher peers. His significance lies less in any development of Christian ideas than his being the first major figure who emerged from a purely Roman background and aimed to create a bridge between Christian and pagan (Greek) thought.
Irenaeus of Lyon
(ca. 130-200) Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now Lyon, France), but a Greek from Smyrna in Asia Minor (now İzmir, Turkey) in a Christian family. A disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist. Wrote an extensive treatise against Gnosticism, which references much of the thinking and life of the early Church.
200s: Development of Trinitarian and Christological theology.
Origen
(ca. 185-254) Based in Alexandria, Egypt. Probably the greatest early Christian philosopher. He wrote textual criticism; exegesis; systematic, practical, and apologetic theology; and many letters! Made a major contribution to the formalization of Scripture and Hebrew translation, in which he was followed later by Jerome. His philosophical approach attempted a synthesis of Platonism and Christianity, which was a radical attempt to combine Jewish/Christian thought and Greek philosophy.[17] Some of his ideas were condemned in 6th Century, but he was a major influence on most later scripture scholars and theologians, particularly in the East.
300s: The transition towards a State religion, Councils, formalization of doctrine, internal polemics and threat of Arianism.
Athanasius
(ca. 297-373) Patriarch of Alexandria on and off for 45 years, including 5 periods of exile. His life illustrates the challenges as the church transitioned to becoming an accepted part of Roman life, with many different views on what it stood for. He was also in the middle of the ongoing Arian controversy – which was not some polite philosophical debate but much more like the political cauldron of the Reformation, with emperors and bishops forming alliances and often using or promoting violence against their opponents. Athanasius contributed to the development of the creed that was accepted by the Council of Nicea and remained a basis for violent dispute for the next 75 years. He was the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today.
Basil
(333-379) Although he became Bishop of Caesarea, his early and abiding interest was in the monastic life. Since he was born into an important family and had major political connections, including emperors, he became an important figure in the debates about the nature of Christ, with the Arians on one side (Jesus was only human) and the Appollinarians on the other (Jesus was only divine). He worked with Athanasius (and others) in the development and promotion of the Nicene creed. Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, and Basil’s brother Gregory of Nyssa are called the Cappadocian Fathers. Their Christological thinking led to the formula agreed at the Council of Chalcedon. In addition to his work as a theologian, Basil was known for his care of the poor and underprivileged.
Into the 400s: The beginning of the end of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern and Western Churches start to separate. Theological effort is in synthesis of earlier Fathers and of Christianity with Classical thought.
Ambrose
(c. 338-397) Was a member of the Roman upper class from a Christian family. The dispute between Arian and non-Arian factions in the church was preventing agreement on appointing a bishop in Milan and leading to the possibility of civil unrest (the Roman emperor was based in Milan at this time, not in Rome). Ambrose was the regional governor and was seen acceptable to all sides, although he had no desire to become a bishop and pointed out he was neither baptized nor formally trained in theology! Having been proclaimed bishop by acclamation (not unusual in those times of direct democracy in the church), he tried to hide in a colleague’s home. When the Emperor weighed in in support of the idea he had little choice than to accept. Within a week, Ambrose was baptized, ordained and duly installed as bishop of Milan!
On becoming bishop, he gave up the wealth and authority of a high-class Roman and adopted an ascetic lifestyle, giving his money to the poor, and donating all of his land, except for the support of his family which he passed to his brother.
Ambrose was primarily a preacher and renowned for exegesis. He did continue the battle again Arianism, even in opposition to the emperor of the time. Many of his concerns were more practical than theological, covering topics such as ethics and liturgy. He is also known as the person who influenced Augustine to become a Christian.
Jerome
(ca. 347-420) Best known as the translator of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. Born in Dalmatia (now Croatia). Studied rhetoric and philosophy in Rome and lived in Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria (sometimes as an ascetic). Died in Bethlehem. Alongside his translations are important scriptural commentaries, and a catalogue of Christian authors, and many letters. His theology was almost entirely polemical (often violently!). Jerome is the second most voluminous writer (after St. Augustine) in ancient Latin Christianity.
Augustine
(354-430) Philosopher and theologian, bishop of the North African city of Hippo Regius for the last third of his life. Born in present day Algeria, son of St. Monica but initially not a practicing Christian. Studied rhetoric in Carthage and Rome. At age thirty, Augustine had won the most visible academic chair in the Latin world (professor of rhetoric for the imperial court at Milan), at a time when such posts gave ready access to political careers.
In Milan his life changed, partly due to St Ambrose. He became the primary figure who combined Roman classical tradition with Christianity. He was, and still is, hugely influential amongst both Catholics and Protestants. His works—including The Confessions, which is often called the first Western autobiography—are still widely read today. His theory of “just war” was referenced in debates on the US invasion of Iraq. He is even referenced by Stephen Hawking (probably the best known modern cosmologist) for his theory of time![18]
Questions for Consideration
Footnotes (Click footnote number to return to text.)
[1] See Rod Bennett’s personal account in “Four Witnesses, The Early Church in Her Own Words” (pub Ignatius Press) – the author started life as an evangelical Protestant, came upon writings of the early Church Fathers by accident, and ended up a Catholic.
[2] The same applies to the other writers of the Apostolic period.
[3] Again, by analogy with the US, this is equivalent to the drafting of the Constitution. And in the same way it is important to note that the understanding came first and the documents are an expression of that understanding, not the other way round. The Creeds are an expression of faith not the basis of faith.
[4] 1 Cor 12:28, also Eph 4:11
[5] a key figure in the development of this concept was Irenaeus of Lyon 130-200
[6] I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)
[7] This model is not unique to Christianity. It is also found in other traditions, including some schools of Buddhism, notably Zen, where experiential understanding is passed from one leader (master) to the next generation.
[8] I pass on to you what I received. 1 Cor 11:23 and 1 Cor 15:3
[9] This duality remains a staple of popular culture, notably in movies. We have also seen a reemergence in recent times of popularization of Gnostic ‘gospels’ which reflected fantastical stories of Jesus, Mary, angels, secret codes and such like.
[10] See Studying Scripture: Texts and Interpretation
[11] Echos of this idea persist to current times, with many people prepared to accept that Jesus was an exceptional teacher with an unusually profound understanding of the divine – although in this case Jesus is assumed to be a human rather than divine.
[12] This idea is not new in the Patristic period. It can be found in Apostolic writings, most clearly in the Gospel of John. However this was the time when it was linked into mainstream philosophical thought and in a way that remained essentially unchanged until ‘modern’ theology emerged in the Enlightenment period of the 18th Century.
[13] After this period Councils became less frequent and the hierarchical authority of the Bishop of Rome became more fully established. This trend was in some degree disrupted by the only Council of modern times, held in Rome in 1960s. See Church History: The Second Vatican Council.
[14] Which impacted as far as what is now Spain. Islamic society also retained more of the scholarship and culture of the Classical world than the primitive European society. The Renaissance rediscovery of Classical learning came largely through Islamic intermediaries and their copies of Greek and Roman texts.
[15] Augustine is but one example of a religious leader who fought vehemently against becoming a bishop, and having failed often lamented the work it entailed in civic administration.
[16] The nature and structure of the Church
[17] Some early Fathers were vehemently opposed to linking Christian and pagan thought, notably Tertullian (ca 155-240) who summarized his opinion as “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem” – the clearly implied answer being, nothing!
[18] A Brief History of Time, 1988