The Closing Of The Western Mind Part 3

One of the most important of Constantine's legacies was the creation of a relationship between Christianity and war. Constantine was a brilliant and effective soldier, and he a.s.sociated his continuing success with the support of the Christian G.o.d. Once he had used the victory at the Milvian Bridge as a platform for the granting of toleration to Christians, each new victory strengthened the link. Eusebius makes the point succinctly, describing him as: the only Conqueror among the Emperors of all time to remain Irresistible and Unconquered, Ever-conquering and always brilliant with triumphs over enemies, so great an Emperor . . . so G.o.d beloved and Thrice blessed . . . that with utter ease he governed more nations than those before him, and kept his dominion unimpaired to the very end.46 In his Ecclesiastical History, Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius refers to Constantine as "G.o.d's Commander-in-Chief." So a new element enters the Christian tradition. When the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church came under sustained attack for the first time in the Reformation, the Medici pope Leo X (pope 151321) ordered a great room to be built in the Vatican. Known as the Sala di Constantino, it had an unashamedly propagandist purpose. Its frescoes, by Raphael, show the early popes from Peter onwards and then, in four great scenes, the achievement of Constantine. One fresco shows the vision of the cross, another the battle of the Milvian Bridge itself. Leo a.s.sociated himself with the victory. The Eusebius refers to Constantine as "G.o.d's Commander-in-Chief." So a new element enters the Christian tradition. When the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church came under sustained attack for the first time in the Reformation, the Medici pope Leo X (pope 151321) ordered a great room to be built in the Vatican. Known as the Sala di Constantino, it had an unashamedly propagandist purpose. Its frescoes, by Raphael, show the early popes from Peter onwards and then, in four great scenes, the achievement of Constantine. One fresco shows the vision of the cross, another the battle of the Milvian Bridge itself. Leo a.s.sociated himself with the victory. The palle palle from the Medici coat of arms are on Constantine's tent, and lions, a reference to Leo's name, are also found on the tent, with another depicted on a standard. At a moment of crisis and confrontation, this was the event the pope chose to highlight. As late as 1956 Pope Pius XII refused the right of conscientious objection, acknowledging in effect the overriding power of the state. "A Catholic may not appeal to his conscience as grounds for refusing to serve and fulfill duties fixed by law." from the Medici coat of arms are on Constantine's tent, and lions, a reference to Leo's name, are also found on the tent, with another depicted on a standard. At a moment of crisis and confrontation, this was the event the pope chose to highlight. As late as 1956 Pope Pius XII refused the right of conscientious objection, acknowledging in effect the overriding power of the state. "A Catholic may not appeal to his conscience as grounds for refusing to serve and fulfill duties fixed by law."47 Constantine would have approved. Constantine would have approved.

However, the problem of how to present Jesus, the man of peace, in this new Christian world, persisted. The ultimate response was to transform him, quite explicitly, into a man of war. By the 370s Ambrose, bishop of Milan, is able to state in his De Fide De Fide that "the army is led not by military eagles or the flight of birds but by your name, Lord Jesus, and Your Worship." that "the army is led not by military eagles or the flight of birds but by your name, Lord Jesus, and Your Worship."48 In the Archiepiscopal Chapel in Ravenna (c. 500), Jesus is shown dressed as a Roman soldier trampling a lion and an adder beneath his feet. There is, of course, no New Testament source for the presentation of Christ as a soldier (other than one in the Book of Revelation, where a warrior for justice [often a.s.sumed to be Christ] appears from heaven on a white horse with "a sharp sword to strike the pagans with" [19:1116]), and, as has already been suggested, a military image was particularly inappropriate when it is remembered that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers as an enemy of the empire. The mosaicist had to draw on the more appropriate models offered in abundance by the Old Testament, as in Psalm 91:13, where the supplicant is promised that with the help of G.o.d he will survive battle and "tread on lion and adder, trample on savage lions and dragons." This extraordinary transformation of Jesus' role is a mark of the extent to which Constantine forced Christianity into new channels. (A step further is taken when, on the eleventh-century bronze doors of San Zeno Maggiore in Verona, Christ is shown being nailed to the cross by Jews rather than by soldiers.) In the Archiepiscopal Chapel in Ravenna (c. 500), Jesus is shown dressed as a Roman soldier trampling a lion and an adder beneath his feet. There is, of course, no New Testament source for the presentation of Christ as a soldier (other than one in the Book of Revelation, where a warrior for justice [often a.s.sumed to be Christ] appears from heaven on a white horse with "a sharp sword to strike the pagans with" [19:1116]), and, as has already been suggested, a military image was particularly inappropriate when it is remembered that Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers as an enemy of the empire. The mosaicist had to draw on the more appropriate models offered in abundance by the Old Testament, as in Psalm 91:13, where the supplicant is promised that with the help of G.o.d he will survive battle and "tread on lion and adder, trample on savage lions and dragons." This extraordinary transformation of Jesus' role is a mark of the extent to which Constantine forced Christianity into new channels. (A step further is taken when, on the eleventh-century bronze doors of San Zeno Maggiore in Verona, Christ is shown being nailed to the cross by Jews rather than by soldiers.) This chapter has viewed Constantine as an emperor who in traditional Roman terms was one of the most successful the empire had yet seen. The achievements of Diocletian in rallying and refocusing the empire after the catastrophes of the third century were remarkable enough, but under Constantine Diocletian's reforms had been consolidated and the empire had been reunited under a single emperor who had survived in power longer than any since Augustus. Moreover, the empire's borders had been successfully defended and even, in Dacia, extended. None of this could have been achieved if Constantine had not been supremely self-confident, able and brutal when he needed to be. This was not a man who felt any need to compromise or be diverted from his primary commitment to the maintenance of his own position as emperor and to the defence of the empire. Yet, remarkably, Constantine also sustained religious toleration to a degree unknown before him. The question was whether the newly enriched and privileged Christian communities would settle happily under state power or whether they would unsettle it by continued dissension.

12.

"BUT WHAT I WISH, THAT MUST BE THE CANON" Emperors and the Making of Christian Doctrine Emperors and the Making of Christian Doctrine On the death of Constantine I in 337, Constantine's three surviving sons, Constantine II, Constans and Constantius, eliminated other members of their family and divided the empire between them. Constantine II was killed in 340 when he tried to invade Constans' territory. Constans was a.s.sa.s.sinated in a palace coup in 350 led by one Magnentius, who was in his turn defeated by Constantius in a debilitating battle at Mursa in Gaul in 351. Constantius was now the sole ruler of the whole empire and remained so until his death in 361. He is known as Constantius II, with his grandfather becoming Constantius I.2 This was a particularly unsettled time for the church as it adapted itself to its new role as a religion sponsored by the empire. The immediate challenge for the new emperors, as it had been for Constantine, was to bring some form of order to the Christian communities, above all by establishing and, if necessary, imposing a doctrine that defined the natures of G.o.d and Jesus and the relationship between them. It was not only a matter of good order. Once Constantine had provided tax exemptions for Christian clergy, eventually including exemptions for church lands, it became imperative to tighten up the definition of "Christian." As Constantine had put it in a law of 326, "The benefits that have been granted in consideration of religion must benefit only the adherents of the Catholic [e.g., 'correct'] faith. It is our will, moreover, that heretics and schismatics shall not only be alien to those privileges but shall be bound and subjected to various compulsory public services." The definition of "Catholicism" and heresy took on a new urgency for the state. This explains why the emperors came to play such a large part in the determining of doctrine, although their roles varied: some had personal convictions to impose, others were more concerned to find formulations of doctrine around which consensus could be built. By the end of the century emperors were imposing doctrinal solutions that were backed by imperial edicts.

The issue was a live one because Nicaea had solved nothing. The "startling innovations"3 proclaimed by Constantine at the council, in particular the final declaration that Jesus was proclaimed by Constantine at the council, in particular the final declaration that Jesus was h.o.m.oousios h.o.m.oousios (of the same substance) as the Father, proved easy to attack on the grounds that they both offended the tradition of seeing Jesus in some way as subordinate to his Father and used terminology that was nowhere to be found in scripture. As we have seen, the council's formula was largely ignored. Yet how was an alternative to be found around which the churches could be gathered? Given the variety of sources and influences on the making of Christian doctrine-scripture, Greek philosophy, tradition, the Nicene Creed and the works of the Church Fathers-any coherent solutions seemed impossible, and the debates now entered a period of confusion. Personal rivalries became so hopelessly entangled with theological wranglings that it is hard to separate them. Accusations of heresy, deceit and fraud flew across the empire. (of the same substance) as the Father, proved easy to attack on the grounds that they both offended the tradition of seeing Jesus in some way as subordinate to his Father and used terminology that was nowhere to be found in scripture. As we have seen, the council's formula was largely ignored. Yet how was an alternative to be found around which the churches could be gathered? Given the variety of sources and influences on the making of Christian doctrine-scripture, Greek philosophy, tradition, the Nicene Creed and the works of the Church Fathers-any coherent solutions seemed impossible, and the debates now entered a period of confusion. Personal rivalries became so hopelessly entangled with theological wranglings that it is hard to separate them. Accusations of heresy, deceit and fraud flew across the empire.

The Gospels, especially those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, seemed to support a subordinationist interpretation, but none of them treated the issue unambiguously (because no one perceived it as an issue when they were written), and in the Latin-speaking west there were as yet no reliable texts of the scriptures in any case. For the Old Testament, western theologians relied on weak Latin translations, themselves taken from the uneven Greek translations of the original Hebrew and Aramaic on which the eastern churches relied. (Very few Christians could read Hebrew, rendering the original scriptures beyond their grasp.) There were also immense problems in making use of Greek philosophy, the only language sophisticated enough for such debates, as the key terms- such as ousia, h.o.m.oousios, hypostasis ousia, h.o.m.oousios, hypostasis and and logos- logos- had all been developed in non-Christian contexts (and even in them had unstable meanings). They could not easily be reformulated to deal with specific Christian issues such as the precise nature of Jesus and his relationship with G.o.d the Father. had all been developed in non-Christian contexts (and even in them had unstable meanings). They could not easily be reformulated to deal with specific Christian issues such as the precise nature of Jesus and his relationship with G.o.d the Father.4 Formulating these concepts in two languages, Latin and Greek, when there was no strict equivalence between them further complicated the situation. Latin theologians translated the Greek Formulating these concepts in two languages, Latin and Greek, when there was no strict equivalence between them further complicated the situation. Latin theologians translated the Greek ousia ousia as as substantia, substantia, but the Greeks translated but the Greeks translated substantia substantia as as hypostasis, hypostasis, "personality." So when the Latins talked of "personality." So when the Latins talked of una substantia, una substantia, in the sense of one divine substance (within which might be found the distinct personalities of the Trinity), it appeared in Greek as if they were affirming that there was only one in the sense of one divine substance (within which might be found the distinct personalities of the Trinity), it appeared in Greek as if they were affirming that there was only one hypostasis hypostasis for the three persons of the Trinity, in effect preaching what was to become heresy. for the three persons of the Trinity, in effect preaching what was to become heresy.5 Constantius was nevertheless determined to find a workable formula; he appreciated that it would need to include some element of subordinationism and thus implicitly a rejection of Nicaea. A number of meetings of small groups of eastern bishops who were sympathetic to this approach hammered out some possible creeds (most originated in the imperial city of Sirmium in the Balkans and are known as the Sirmium Creeds-there are four in all). They were prepared to accept Jesus the Son as divine (as was Arius himself), but they all agreed that there could be no mention of the Nicene h.o.m.oousios- h.o.m.oousios-given that the word was never found in scripture, it should be abandoned. One attack captures the flavour of the debate in describing the term h.o.m.oousios h.o.m.oousios as "hated and detestable, a distorted and perverse profession which is scorned and rejected as a diabolical instrument and doctrine of demons." as "hated and detestable, a distorted and perverse profession which is scorned and rejected as a diabolical instrument and doctrine of demons."6 The word subst.i.tuted for The word subst.i.tuted for h.o.m.oousios h.o.m.oousios was much less charged, was much less charged, h.o.m.oios, h.o.m.oios, "like." The Son was thus declared to be "G.o.d from G.o.d; like [ "like." The Son was thus declared to be "G.o.d from G.o.d; like [h.o.m.oios] the Father who begat him" and "like the Father in all things," to which was later added "just as the Holy Scriptures say and teach," thus reaffirming the importance of the scriptures, seemingly bypa.s.sed by Constantine at Nicaea, to the debate. The vexed question of how the Son came into being was sidestepped by a declaration of ignorance. "The Father alone knows how he begot his Son, and the Son how he was begotten by the Father," as the First Creed of Sirmium tactfully put it.7 The breadth of these "h.o.m.oean" creeds offered the hope that a wider spectrum of opinion could accept them so that the Constantinian policy of consensus could be sustained. Yet for many this breadth was also their weakness. The use of the word "like" was to many simply blurring the issue. "The kingdom of G.o.d is 'like' a grain of mustard seed," one witty bishop who knew his parables remarked, "but not much."8 "h.o.m.oios," said another, "was a . . . figure seeming to look in the direction of all who pa.s.sed by, a boot fitting either foot, a winnowing with every wind." "h.o.m.oios," said another, "was a . . . figure seeming to look in the direction of all who pa.s.sed by, a boot fitting either foot, a winnowing with every wind."9 A wide variety of alternative formulas were championed in these years. In 358 Bishop Basil of Ancyra and a small group of bishops proposed the formula A wide variety of alternative formulas were championed in these years. In 358 Bishop Basil of Ancyra and a small group of bishops proposed the formula h.o.m.oiousios, h.o.m.oiousios, "of similar substance," rather than the Nicene "of similar substance," rather than the Nicene h.o.m.oousios, h.o.m.oousios, "of identical substance." These shifts in terminology and the intense debates which they provoked earned ridicule from Edward Gibbon in his "of identical substance." These shifts in terminology and the intense debates which they provoked earned ridicule from Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Roman Empire, who wrote sarcastically of "furious contests over a single diphthong." Others, following Arius, believed that the "unlikeness" of Father and Son should be stressed-the Son was a separate creation and totally distinct from the Father. Constantius eventually accepted the Fourth Creed of Sirmium, the so-called Dated Creed, of 359, as a rallying ground for consensus. The creed was awkwardly phrased. Jesus was declared: who wrote sarcastically of "furious contests over a single diphthong." Others, following Arius, believed that the "unlikeness" of Father and Son should be stressed-the Son was a separate creation and totally distinct from the Father. Constantius eventually accepted the Fourth Creed of Sirmium, the so-called Dated Creed, of 359, as a rallying ground for consensus. The creed was awkwardly phrased. Jesus was declared: one only begotten Son of G.o.d who before all ages and before all beginning and before all conceivable time and before all comprehensible substance was begotten impa.s.sibly from G.o.d, through whom the ages were set up and all things came into existence, begotten as only begotten, sole from the sole father, like to the Father who begot him, according to the Scriptures, whose generation n.o.body understands except the Father who begot him.

It ended: . . . the word ousia because it was naively inserted by the Fathers, though not familiar to the ma.s.ses, caused disturbance, and because the Scriptures do not contain it, we have decided that it should be removed and there should be absolutely no mention of ousia for the future . . . but we declare that the Son is like (h.o.m.oios) the Father, as also the Holy Scriptures declare and teach.10 Constantius' aim was to establish this c.u.mbersome creed at two councils, one meeting in the western empire at Ariminum (modern Rimini) in the spring of 360 and the other planned for the autumn of the same year at Seleucia in the east.11 Things did not go smoothly. The Ariminum council met and proved highly suspicious of this "eastern" creed. Even though there had been virtually no western representation at Nicaea, the western bishops seemed happier with the straightforward monotheism of the Nicene formula. It was close to the idea, always strong in the west even if not formulated with any precision, that Father and Son shared a divinity. Having revived the Nicene Creed, a delegation of ten bishops, together with a group representing the minority anti-Nicene view, set off to Thrace to put their views to Constantius. The emperor was away on campaign, but after discussions with eastern bishops the delegates changed their minds and persuaded a reconvened Ariminum council that they should accept the Dated Creed, possibly also arguing that they would be out of step with the eastern bishops if they did not. Things did not go smoothly. The Ariminum council met and proved highly suspicious of this "eastern" creed. Even though there had been virtually no western representation at Nicaea, the western bishops seemed happier with the straightforward monotheism of the Nicene formula. It was close to the idea, always strong in the west even if not formulated with any precision, that Father and Son shared a divinity. Having revived the Nicene Creed, a delegation of ten bishops, together with a group representing the minority anti-Nicene view, set off to Thrace to put their views to Constantius. The emperor was away on campaign, but after discussions with eastern bishops the delegates changed their minds and persuaded a reconvened Ariminum council that they should accept the Dated Creed, possibly also arguing that they would be out of step with the eastern bishops if they did not.12 There is some evidence that a consensus of the eastern bishops at Seleucia was then achieved by persuading them not to be out of step with what the western bishops had agreed! There is some evidence that a consensus of the eastern bishops at Seleucia was then achieved by persuading them not to be out of step with what the western bishops had agreed!

The consensus that was achieved was hardly a stable one, but it was real enough for Constantius to call a joint council in 360 at Constantinople with delegations from each of the two earlier councils, at which he pushed through the Dated Creed (with additions that also proscribed the word hypostasis hypostasis and declared all other earlier creeds heretical). It was promulgated through the empire in an imperial edict. Whatever the methods by which it had been achieved, the Dated Creed offered hope that the majority of Christian communities would accept it. and declared all other earlier creeds heretical). It was promulgated through the empire in an imperial edict. Whatever the methods by which it had been achieved, the Dated Creed offered hope that the majority of Christian communities would accept it.

This was, however, to prove far from the end of the story. The acceptance of the Dated Creed clearly depended on consistent support from the emperors, but this could be achieved only if they were Christian and ready to enforce the h.o.m.oean formula that the Council of Constantinople had endorsed. Constantius' successor was his cousin Julian, the son of one of his father's half-brothers, who was not even Christian. Julian's survival to manhood was in itself remarkable, in that most of his family had been eliminated by Constantine's three sons. His father and seven immediate members of his family were executed in 337, when Julian was only six. His teenage years had been spent with his half-brother Gallus on a remote estate in Asia Minor, but Gallus himself was executed by Constantius in 354. Then Constantius, isolated and desperate to strengthen his legitimacy, appointed Julian as a Caesar with responsibility for the imperial troops in northern Gaul. Julian proved to be a fine general and had soon restored order to the borders. In 360 his troops acclaimed him as Augustus, to the fury of Constantius, who hurried back from the Persian border to confront him. When Constantius died unexpectedly in 361, Julian found himself sole emperor.13 Julian knew Christianity well-he had been brought up as a Christian and served as a lector-but he had been dismayed by the vicious infighting he saw around him. "Experience had taught him that no wild beasts are so dangerous to man as Christians are to one another," wrote Ammia.n.u.s Marcellinus, who went on to suggest that Julian believed that the Christians left to themselves would simply tear each other apart.14 The roots of Julian's distaste for Christianity may well lie in the brutal treatment of his close relations by Christian emperors. In any case, once he had buried Constantius with suitable Christian piety, Julian adopted "paganism," proclaiming that the very fact that he had come to power showed that the traditional G.o.ds were on his side. The roots of Julian's distaste for Christianity may well lie in the brutal treatment of his close relations by Christian emperors. In any case, once he had buried Constantius with suitable Christian piety, Julian adopted "paganism," proclaiming that the very fact that he had come to power showed that the traditional G.o.ds were on his side. 15 15 Summoning the bishops, he ordered them "to allow every man to practise his belief boldly without hindrance." The clergy lost all their exemptions, and in 362 they were forbidden to teach rhetoric or grammar. It was absurd, declared Julian, for Christians to teach cla.s.sical culture while at the same time pouring scorn on cla.s.sical religion-if they wished to teach, they should confine themselves to teaching the Gospels in their churches. Summoning the bishops, he ordered them "to allow every man to practise his belief boldly without hindrance." The clergy lost all their exemptions, and in 362 they were forbidden to teach rhetoric or grammar. It was absurd, declared Julian, for Christians to teach cla.s.sical culture while at the same time pouring scorn on cla.s.sical religion-if they wished to teach, they should confine themselves to teaching the Gospels in their churches.

Julian was a throwback, a philosopher emperor. For Julian, philosophy did not involve a withdrawal from the world (though he had spent most of the 350s as a student in Athens and other cities) but provided the underpinning for wise and moderate rule. His inspiration was the emperor Marcus Aurelius. However, although Julian left more writings than any other emperor, untangling his religious and philosophical beliefs from them has proved enormously difficult. Like many educated pagans, he drew on a variety of beliefs and movements (although Neoplatonism was probably the most significant) and combined mysticism with rationalism, particularly in his defence of traditional Greek secular learning.16 In his Contra Galilaeos (Against the Galileans), written in 36263, Julian challenges what he sees as the irrational nature of Christian belief. The work draws heavily on conventional pagan criticisms of Christianity, but it is enhanced by Julian's own knowledge of the scriptures, which enabled him to highlight their apparent contradictions. Only John among the Gospel writers accepts the divinity of Jesus; why did not all do so if he was truly a G.o.d? The so-called prophecies of Christ's coming in the Old Testament are based on misinterpretations of the texts-there is, for instance, no unequivocal prophecy of the virgin birth. Christian teachings about G.o.d, especially those which draw on the all-too-"human" Old Testament G.o.d with his sole commitment to the Jews, lack the sophistication of pagan conceptions of the divine. Why did G.o.d create Eve if she was going to thwart his plans for creation? Why did he deprive Adam and Eve of the knowledge of good and evil? Turning to Paul, Julian questions why G.o.d neglected most of humanity for thousands of years but then arrived to preach to a small tribe in Galilee. Why were the Greeks not also favoured by his presence if he was, as Paul argues, a universal G.o.d? Do not the latest bitter arguments over Christian doctrine deprive Christians of their claim to have found the truth? In contrast, Julian argues, the Greeks have achieved superiority in every area of knowledge; in In his Contra Galilaeos (Against the Galileans), written in 36263, Julian challenges what he sees as the irrational nature of Christian belief. The work draws heavily on conventional pagan criticisms of Christianity, but it is enhanced by Julian's own knowledge of the scriptures, which enabled him to highlight their apparent contradictions. Only John among the Gospel writers accepts the divinity of Jesus; why did not all do so if he was truly a G.o.d? The so-called prophecies of Christ's coming in the Old Testament are based on misinterpretations of the texts-there is, for instance, no unequivocal prophecy of the virgin birth. Christian teachings about G.o.d, especially those which draw on the all-too-"human" Old Testament G.o.d with his sole commitment to the Jews, lack the sophistication of pagan conceptions of the divine. Why did G.o.d create Eve if she was going to thwart his plans for creation? Why did he deprive Adam and Eve of the knowledge of good and evil? Turning to Paul, Julian questions why G.o.d neglected most of humanity for thousands of years but then arrived to preach to a small tribe in Galilee. Why were the Greeks not also favoured by his presence if he was, as Paul argues, a universal G.o.d? Do not the latest bitter arguments over Christian doctrine deprive Christians of their claim to have found the truth? In contrast, Julian argues, the Greeks have achieved superiority in every area of knowledge; in Contra Galilaeos Contra Galilaeos he gives examples from law, mathematics, medicine, astronomy and philosophy as well as theology. he gives examples from law, mathematics, medicine, astronomy and philosophy as well as theology.

Contra Galilaeos also includes a sophisticated defence of the traditional deities. While Julian was happy to accept, along, as we have seen, with many pagans, that there was a supreme G.o.d, he saw no reason why that G.o.d should not preside over lesser deities. He proposed an argument, implicit in the nature of Roman government but rarely stated (note, however, Constantine's Edict of Toleration of 313), that an acceptance of different manifestations of G.o.d was essential to a flourishing empire. also includes a sophisticated defence of the traditional deities. While Julian was happy to accept, along, as we have seen, with many pagans, that there was a supreme G.o.d, he saw no reason why that G.o.d should not preside over lesser deities. He proposed an argument, implicit in the nature of Roman government but rarely stated (note, however, Constantine's Edict of Toleration of 313), that an acceptance of different manifestations of G.o.d was essential to a flourishing empire.

Since in the father all things are complete and all things are one, while in the separate deities one quality or another predominates, therefore Ares rules over the warlike nations, Athene over those that are wise as well as warlike, Hermes over those who are more shrewd than adventurous; and in short the nations over which the G.o.ds preside follow each the essential character of their proper G.o.d.17 Surely, Julian continues, a caring "supreme G.o.d" would want to encourage diversity and be happy to allow lesser G.o.ds to oversee a variety of nations and cultures. He even managed to find some biblical texts to support his argument. While Julian had no particular love of Judaism, being alienated by the exclusivity of its G.o.d, he accepted the logic of his position to put in hand the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. His motives, however, may primarily have been to reclaim Jerusalem from the Christians while contradicting Jesus' a.s.sertion that the destruction of the Temple would be permanent.

Julian's was a pointed challenge and is evidence of the extent to which Christians, despite their adoption of elements of Platonism, still failed to convince the pagan philosophers. However, Julian's own eclectic beliefs did not arouse enthusiasm either. In many ways he was traditional, a fervent believer in prophecy who regularly consulted oracles. He reintroduced blood sacrifices as part of his enthusiasm for the old G.o.ds but by doing so offended the more sophisticated pagans. He thus missed the opportunity to build an anti-Christian power base, although by this stage Christians had somehow to be accommodated. Naturally, the Christians themselves were furious with his policies, especially as these involved the withdrawal of their lucrative tax exemptions. There was great rejoicing when a fire brought the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem to a halt ("proving" to Christians that Jesus had indeed been right in saying the destruction of the Temple would be permanent).18 Nor did Julian's military success, so vital to the maintenance of imperial power, last. A campaign against Sa.s.sanid Persia ran into difficulties, and Julian himself was killed, by a spear throw by an unknown a.s.sailant, in 363. His reign had lasted only eighteen months. Nor did Julian's military success, so vital to the maintenance of imperial power, last. A campaign against Sa.s.sanid Persia ran into difficulties, and Julian himself was killed, by a spear throw by an unknown a.s.sailant, in 363. His reign had lasted only eighteen months.

With Julian's death the house of Constantine came to an end. The army in the east acclaimed a staff officer, Jovian, as emperor, but he died eight months later, shortly after ceding large areas of the eastern empire to the Sa.s.sanids. The next emperor, Valentinian (36475), a tough if tempestuous army officer, was more successful.19 Indeed, Valentinian has been seen as the last of the great Roman emperors; it was during his reign that the northern borders were effectively defended for the last time. He attempted to establish a dynasty. His brother Valens was appointed co-emperor in the east and his son Gratian, only eight at the time, became a co-emperor in 367. When Valentinian died in 375, Valens and Gratian remained as co-emperors, but the army also proclaimed Valentinian II, Valentinian's son by his second marriage, as Augustus. Indeed, Valentinian has been seen as the last of the great Roman emperors; it was during his reign that the northern borders were effectively defended for the last time. He attempted to establish a dynasty. His brother Valens was appointed co-emperor in the east and his son Gratian, only eight at the time, became a co-emperor in 367. When Valentinian died in 375, Valens and Gratian remained as co-emperors, but the army also proclaimed Valentinian II, Valentinian's son by his second marriage, as Augustus.

Then, in 378, came disaster. The pressures on Rome's borders had been unremitting for decades, but following the reconstruction of the armies under Diocletian and Constantine they had been contained. Now a new people, the Huns, were on the move westwards. The Goths were driven before them, and in 378 a ma.s.s of refugees poured across the Danube. Valens hoped to recruit them as mercenaries for the over-stretched Roman armies, but the situation was hopelessly mishandled by unscrupulous Roman officers, and the Goths began rampaging across Thrace.20 Confronted by Valens and the elite of the Roman army at Adrianople in August, the Goths stunned the empire by achieving a crushing victory. Valens and some 10,000 of his men were killed. The battle of Adrianople has often been seen as the moment when the Roman empire finally lost the initiative against the "barbarians." Gratian hastily called on an experienced general, Theodosius, to become his fellow Augustus, but Theodosius was unable to avoid permitting the Goths to settle within the empire, ostensibly as allies to the Romans, but in reality, as it turned out, as a very substantial body of armed men with no real allegiance to Rome. In 383 the young Gratian was murdered by his own troops, forcing Valentinian II, aged twelve and still in the shadow of his formidable mother, Justina, to emerge as emperor in the west in his own right. Confronted by Valens and the elite of the Roman army at Adrianople in August, the Goths stunned the empire by achieving a crushing victory. Valens and some 10,000 of his men were killed. The battle of Adrianople has often been seen as the moment when the Roman empire finally lost the initiative against the "barbarians." Gratian hastily called on an experienced general, Theodosius, to become his fellow Augustus, but Theodosius was unable to avoid permitting the Goths to settle within the empire, ostensibly as allies to the Romans, but in reality, as it turned out, as a very substantial body of armed men with no real allegiance to Rome. In 383 the young Gratian was murdered by his own troops, forcing Valentinian II, aged twelve and still in the shadow of his formidable mother, Justina, to emerge as emperor in the west in his own right.

All these emperors were Christian, but their policies towards the churches differed. In the west Valentinian I chose to stand back from the debates. What mattered above all in a troubled empire was good order, and, following Constantine's lead, Valentinian was tolerant of diversity, both within Christianity and of paganism. "He took a neutral position between opposing faiths, and never troubled anyone by ordering him to adopt this or that mode of 'worship,' " according to Ammia.n.u.s Marcellinus. 21 21 It was within this atmosphere of tolerance that the debate over Father and Son revived. As we have seen, the west had always been more sympathetic to a monotheistic formula in which they were of equal divinity, and there remained considerable resentment of Constantius' tactics at Ariminum. In the east, by contrast, there had been much less sympathy for Nicaea, but in the 350s for the first time an eastern bishop, Athanasius of Alexandria, attempted to provide a defence of the Nicene formula. It was within this atmosphere of tolerance that the debate over Father and Son revived. As we have seen, the west had always been more sympathetic to a monotheistic formula in which they were of equal divinity, and there remained considerable resentment of Constantius' tactics at Ariminum. In the east, by contrast, there had been much less sympathy for Nicaea, but in the 350s for the first time an eastern bishop, Athanasius of Alexandria, attempted to provide a defence of the Nicene formula.

We have already met Athanasius as a determined anti-Arian. "He could," writes John Rist, "scent Arianism like a police dog sniffing out drugs."22 His professional career was one of some turmoil. Appointed bishop in 428, he is known, from Egyptian papyri, to have enforced his authority with violence and to have been challenged on his right to hold his see. His professional career was one of some turmoil. Appointed bishop in 428, he is known, from Egyptian papyri, to have enforced his authority with violence and to have been challenged on his right to hold his see.23 On no less than five occasions, and for a total of fifteen of the forty-five years he was bishop, he was in exile, sent there by emperors (including, as we have seen, Constantine, who took exception to his anti-Arian intransigence) and his fellow bishops. It is impossible to establish the extent to which, in such troubled times, he was personally responsible, but the sources do suggest that his tendency towards violence and intimidation of opponents was partly to blame for his troubled career. On the other hand, it is hard to deny the courage and resolution with which he faced his ordeals. On no less than five occasions, and for a total of fifteen of the forty-five years he was bishop, he was in exile, sent there by emperors (including, as we have seen, Constantine, who took exception to his anti-Arian intransigence) and his fellow bishops. It is impossible to establish the extent to which, in such troubled times, he was personally responsible, but the sources do suggest that his tendency towards violence and intimidation of opponents was partly to blame for his troubled career. On the other hand, it is hard to deny the courage and resolution with which he faced his ordeals.

It is as the champion of the shared and equal divinity of the Father and Son that Athanasius' theological reputation rests. In other words, he denied any separate creation of the Son: Jesus was part of the G.o.dhead from all eternity. However, for many years Athanasius, like his fellow theologians, avoided using the charged word h.o.m.oousios h.o.m.oousios to describe the relationship, and it does not appear in his work until about 356 (in what appears to have been the first favourable use of the term for two decades). to describe the relationship, and it does not appear in his work until about 356 (in what appears to have been the first favourable use of the term for two decades).24 Given the term's a.s.sociation with Nicaea, its very use was enough to connect Athanasius with the Nicene Creed and thus to elevate his status into that of a revered theologian when the creed was eventually declared orthodox. (He also wrote the first full treatise on the Holy Spirit.) Christ as logos logos is incarnated because the human race is sunk in sin and cannot be left to suffer without redemption. So the is incarnated because the human race is sunk in sin and cannot be left to suffer without redemption. So the logos logos becomes actively interventionist, appearing on earth as Jesus. becomes actively interventionist, appearing on earth as Jesus.25 However, Athanasius got into enormous difficulties (as, it should be stressed, did most theologians) when he tried to make sense of a Jesus who is divine yet human. He created an elaborate distinction between the human body of Jesus, which appears to suffer, as when on the cross, and the divine However, Athanasius got into enormous difficulties (as, it should be stressed, did most theologians) when he tried to make sense of a Jesus who is divine yet human. He created an elaborate distinction between the human body of Jesus, which appears to suffer, as when on the cross, and the divine logos, logos, which is somehow inside the human body but does not suffer. So, for instance, the mind of Jesus, which he allocated to the which is somehow inside the human body but does not suffer. So, for instance, the mind of Jesus, which he allocated to the logos logos rather than to his body, could not feel anything and was not even subject to moral dilemmas. "He was not subject to moral law, he did not weigh two choices, preferring one, rejecting another," as Athanasius put it. This goes as far as suggesting that Jesus lacked free will. rather than to his body, could not feel anything and was not even subject to moral dilemmas. "He was not subject to moral law, he did not weigh two choices, preferring one, rejecting another," as Athanasius put it. This goes as far as suggesting that Jesus lacked free will.26 Secure in his own beliefs, Athanasius let loose his invective on the Arians. His tactics were unscrupulous, and he brought a new level of intolerance into church politics. It is, Athanasius argued, the devil who inspires the "Arian" use of scripture in their cause, while any attempt by "Arians" to quote earlier theologians in their support is a slander on those theologians. Sometimes the Arians are described as no better than Jews; at others they are indistinguishable from pagans. This was clearly caricature, but unfortunately it was caricature that became embedded in the Christian tradition when the anti-Arian Nicene Creed became orthodox. Athanasius' elevation as a champion of orthodoxy had the unfortunate effect of legitimizing such intolerant invective.

Furthermore, in order to justify the incarnation, Athanasius provided a definition of man as inherently sinful. While a hundred years before Origen had looked optimistically at the human condition-"the universe is cared for by G.o.d in accordance with the conditions of the free will of each man, and . . . as far as possible it is always being led on to be better"; in other words, man is free to improve himself in a world which is itself getting "better," with, as we have seen, a final state of forgiveness of all-Athanasius was much more pessimistic. Men were inherently disobedient and "the cause of their own corruption in death." Things were not getting better but worse. Not satisfied with the sin of Adam, men "again filled themselves with other evils, progressing still further in shamefulness and outdoing themselves in impiety." These were important and enduring shifts in perspective, and they contrast strongly with the earlier optimism of Greek thinking.27 In the west the Nicene cause was furthered by a number of formidable protagonists, of whom Hilary of Poitiers was the most celebrated.28 In 355 Hilary had been deprived of his see in Gaul by Constantius for his pro-Nicene views, but he had refused to be silenced and even demanded of Constantius that he be allowed to attend the Council of Constantinople in 360 to expound the Nicene cause. Rebuffed, he returned to Gaul and took advantage of the emergence of Julian to denounce Constantius as anti-Christ. He developed his ideas in In 355 Hilary had been deprived of his see in Gaul by Constantius for his pro-Nicene views, but he had refused to be silenced and even demanded of Constantius that he be allowed to attend the Council of Constantinople in 360 to expound the Nicene cause. Rebuffed, he returned to Gaul and took advantage of the emergence of Julian to denounce Constantius as anti-Christ. He developed his ideas in De Trinitate, De Trinitate, probably the first full defence in Latin (Athanasius wrote only in Greek) of the doctrine of G.o.d the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit as a single G.o.dhead. Together with an Italian bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli, and with the support of the bishops of Rome, he recruited a large party of pro-Nicene bishops. Their cause was later to be energetically endorsed by the formidable Ambrose in Milan, whose own work (in Latin) in support of the Nicene Creed, probably the first full defence in Latin (Athanasius wrote only in Greek) of the doctrine of G.o.d the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit as a single G.o.dhead. Together with an Italian bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli, and with the support of the bishops of Rome, he recruited a large party of pro-Nicene bishops. Their cause was later to be energetically endorsed by the formidable Ambrose in Milan, whose own work (in Latin) in support of the Nicene Creed, De De Fide, Fide, was written between 379 and 381. was written between 379 and 381.

So the struggle between the opposing factions raged on. The view that the G.o.dhead was essentially unitary, that Jesus as the Son was simply a way in which G.o.d could show himself (during the Incarnation, for instance), a view a.s.sociated with the Roman Sabellius in the early third century and endorsed in the fourth century by Marcellus of Ancyra, gained little support. The challenge for those who wished to revive the Nicene formula was to find a means of differentiating the Father and the Son that did not compromise their sharing of the same substance. It was the so-called Cappadocian Fathers, Basil of Caesarea (d. 379) and his brother Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 395), together with another Gregory, of n.a.z.ianzus (d. 390), who came up with a solution that eventually was to be accepted. There is one G.o.dhead, of uniform substance, ousia ousia (in other words, the Cappadocians accepted the (in other words, the Cappadocians accepted the h.o.m.oousios h.o.m.oousios), but the G.o.dhead has three distinct hypostaseis, or personalities.29 The Cappadocian Fathers are an attractive trio. All were steeped in cla.s.sical philosophy, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus declaring that Athens, where he and Basil had studied, was "a city truly of gold and the patroness of all that is good."30 Despite some disputes between themselves over doctrine, they had a mutual affection, and they drew into their circle Basil's sister Macrina, whom they revered for her saintliness and her own intellectual qualities. Basil, a fine administrator, is remembered for his monastic and charitable foundations, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus for his impressive oratory (his funeral oration for Basil is often seen as one of the great speeches of late antiquity, fully equal to those of the fourth-century B.C. Athenian orator Demosthenes), and Gregory of Nyssa for his fertile mind. Their works, orations and letters present a fascinating example of the way in which cla.s.sical philosophy could be yoked to Christian theology to formulate doctrine. In his important study Despite some disputes between themselves over doctrine, they had a mutual affection, and they drew into their circle Basil's sister Macrina, whom they revered for her saintliness and her own intellectual qualities. Basil, a fine administrator, is remembered for his monastic and charitable foundations, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus for his impressive oratory (his funeral oration for Basil is often seen as one of the great speeches of late antiquity, fully equal to those of the fourth-century B.C. Athenian orator Demosthenes), and Gregory of Nyssa for his fertile mind. Their works, orations and letters present a fascinating example of the way in which cla.s.sical philosophy could be yoked to Christian theology to formulate doctrine. In his important study Christianity and Cla.s.sical Culture, Christianity and Cla.s.sical Culture, Jaroslav Pelikan shows how they used a variety of arguments from both Christian and Greek culture to support and develop what was to become the Nicene orthodoxy. Jaroslav Pelikan shows how they used a variety of arguments from both Christian and Greek culture to support and develop what was to become the Nicene orthodoxy. 31 31 Although this remains a matter of scholarly dispute, Basil's inspiration for the terminology of the Trinity appears to have been the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus. As we have seen, Plotinus had proposed three ent.i.ties in his metaphysical system: "the One"; nous, nous, or Intellect, which presents the Platonic Forms to the material world; and the World-Soul. In his or Intellect, which presents the Platonic Forms to the material world; and the World-Soul. In his Enneads, Enneads, published early in the fourth century, parts of which Basil of Caesarea is known to have studied in detail, Plotinus had argued that each one of these three ent.i.ties had a distinct published early in the fourth century, parts of which Basil of Caesarea is known to have studied in detail, Plotinus had argued that each one of these three ent.i.ties had a distinct hypostasis, hypostasis, or personality, although they also shared a likeness, "as light is from the sun" ("the or personality, although they also shared a likeness, "as light is from the sun" ("the ousia ousia of the divine extends to the [three] of the divine extends to the [three] hypostaseis, hypostaseis, [namely] the supreme G.o.d, the [namely] the supreme G.o.d, the nous, nous, the world soul"). As we have noted, Plotinus even used the word the world soul"). As we have noted, Plotinus even used the word h.o.m.oousios h.o.m.oousios to describe the relationship of ident.i.ty between the three. Here was "a vocabulary and a framework of ideas," as Henry Chadwick puts it, that was used by the Cappadocians to describe Jesus the Son as an integral part of a single G.o.dhead but with a distinct personality, hypostasis, within it. to describe the relationship of ident.i.ty between the three. Here was "a vocabulary and a framework of ideas," as Henry Chadwick puts it, that was used by the Cappadocians to describe Jesus the Son as an integral part of a single G.o.dhead but with a distinct personality, hypostasis, within it.32 The Cappadocians went further, incorporating the Holy Spirit as a third person of a Trinity, as part of the single G.o.dhead but with a distinct hypostasis. hypostasis. The earliest treatise that presents the Spirit as a distinct personality is that by Athanasius dating from 350. The inclusion of the Holy Spirit satisfied those who wished to believe that G.o.d was, in some form, still actively involved in the world. The three are, it was argued, equal in status but differ in their origins. G.o.d always was, the Son was "begotten" from G.o.d the Father, and the Spirit "proceeded" in some way from the Father. The earliest treatise that presents the Spirit as a distinct personality is that by Athanasius dating from 350. The inclusion of the Holy Spirit satisfied those who wished to believe that G.o.d was, in some form, still actively involved in the world. The three are, it was argued, equal in status but differ in their origins. G.o.d always was, the Son was "begotten" from G.o.d the Father, and the Spirit "proceeded" in some way from the Father.33 Thus Greek philosophical terms, in themselves complex, were adapted and adopted to produce a solution that allowed the Nicene formula to be rea.s.serted and the Holy Spirit integrated into the Trinity without reverting to Sabellianism. The doctrine of the Trinity is embedded so deeply in the Christian tradition that it is easy to forget how precarious was its birth. To the Cappadocians, in fact, it seems to have been a compromise formula. Within Christianity they had to find a middle path between the condemned Arianism and Sabellianism. In a wider world, the doctrine of the Trinity stood between the Jewish conception of a monotheistic G.o.d, in whose worship Jesus and the Holy Spirit had no place, and Greek polytheism that had no difficulty in accepting Jesus and the Spirit as lesser divinities. Gregory of Nyssa suggested: "It is as if the number of the Three were remedy in the case of those who are in error as to the One [i.e., the Jews], and the a.s.sertion of the unity for those whose belief are dispersed among a number of divinities [i.e., Greek polytheists]."34 One can understand why the concept of the Trinity was so difficult for many to accept. There is comparatively little in scripture that can be used to support the idea in its final form. The terminology of Father and Son used in the Synoptic Gospels, in fact, suggests a Jesus who saw himself as genuinely distinct from his "Father." This terminology could hardly be disregarded, and it needed some clever linguistic a.n.a.lysis by the Cappadocians to suggest that Father and Son could be equal and of the same substance as each other. It had, of course, to be accepted that Mary had carried the infant Jesus without providing any "substance" of her own. Although there was some scriptural backing for the concept of the Holy Spirit, it is not portrayed as enjoying a relationship with G.o.d the Father as powerful as that experienced by Jesus (as would have to be the case if the Spirit were to be accepted as an equal part of the G.o.dhead). Basil had to fall back on "the unwritten tradition of the fathers" and "reason" to make his case. One particular challenge was that the only use in scripture of the term hypostasis hypostasis in a context in which the Father was related to the Son refers to the Son as "a perfect copy of his [G.o.d the Father's] in a context in which the Father was related to the Son refers to the Son as "a perfect copy of his [G.o.d the Father's] hypostasis hypostasis" (Hebrews 1:3), in other words denying denying the distinction between them which the Cappadocians had so painstakingly formulated. the distinction between them which the Cappadocians had so painstakingly formulated.35 Then there was the issue of the eternal existence of the Son. The Nicenes had to deny that G.o.d could have "created" Jesus as his Son. Yet the only aspect of Jesus which gave him a distinct hypostasis hypostasis from G.o.d the Father was the fact that he had been begotten as Son. Even if the terminology of "begetting" could be used instead of that of "creating," "begetting" still involved some kind of action that had to be fitted in without undermining the "eternal" status of the one begotten. As Gregory of Nyssa admitted, the concept of time could not be allowed to enter the process at all. So what did "begetting" mean in this context if there could not be a time when Jesus was not begotten? Athanasius too had got himself tangled up in this one. Then again, if the Spirit proceeded from the Father only, did that not a.s.sume some pre-eminence of the Father that the Son did not share with him? If so, could they then be said to be equal parts of the G.o.dhead? In due course this problem was to lead Augustine to suggest that the Holy Spirit must process from both Father and Son, the so-called double procession, although this idea never travelled to the east. Further problems arose over reconciling the One of the G.o.dhead with the Three of the Trinity. The Cappadocians drew on complex arguments based on the natural world. If there is one world made up of many different natures, fire, water, air and earth, as Basil put it, then the Trinity is the opposite, a oneness of nature but not of number. from G.o.d the Father was the fact that he had been begotten as Son. Even if the terminology of "begetting" could be used instead of that of "creating," "begetting" still involved some kind of action that had to be fitted in without undermining the "eternal" status of the one begotten. As Gregory of Nyssa admitted, the concept of time could not be allowed to enter the process at all. So what did "begetting" mean in this context if there could not be a time when Jesus was not begotten? Athanasius too had got himself tangled up in this one. Then again, if the Spirit proceeded from the Father only, did that not a.s.sume some pre-eminence of the Father that the Son did not share with him? If so, could they then be said to be equal parts of the G.o.dhead? In due course this problem was to lead Augustine to suggest that the Holy Spirit must process from both Father and Son, the so-called double procession, although this idea never travelled to the east. Further problems arose over reconciling the One of the G.o.dhead with the Three of the Trinity. The Cappadocians drew on complex arguments based on the natural world. If there is one world made up of many different natures, fire, water, air and earth, as Basil put it, then the Trinity is the opposite, a oneness of nature but not of number.36 Was it acceptable, however, simply to manipulate pagan philosophical concepts in this way to create Christian truth?37 Even Thomas Aquinas-himself highly ingenious in finding reasoned support for Christian doctrine-admitted that "it is impossible to arrive at a cognition of the Trinity of the Divine Persons by means of natural reason." It must, Thomas continues, be taken as a revelation from G.o.d. Even Thomas Aquinas-himself highly ingenious in finding reasoned support for Christian doctrine-admitted that "it is impossible to arrive at a cognition of the Trinity of the Divine Persons by means of natural reason." It must, Thomas continues, be taken as a revelation from G.o.d.38 When challenged themselves, the Cappadocians fell back on claims of the ultimate mystery of these things. As Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus retorted to one critic who had asked him to explain "proceeding": "You explain how it was impossible for the Father to be generated and I will give you a biological account of the Son's begetting and the Spirit's proceeding-and let us go mad the pair of us for prying into G.o.d's secrets!" When challenged themselves, the Cappadocians fell back on claims of the ultimate mystery of these things. As Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus retorted to one critic who had asked him to explain "proceeding": "You explain how it was impossible for the Father to be generated and I will give you a biological account of the Son's begetting and the Spirit's proceeding-and let us go mad the pair of us for prying into G.o.d's secrets!"39 Basil argued that ultimately faith must be given primacy. Just because the Basil argued that ultimately faith must be given primacy. Just because the hypostaseis hypostaseis could be counted singly, it did not mean that "an ignorant arithmetic could carry us away to the idea of a plurality of G.o.ds . . . Count if you must, but you must not by counting do damage to the faith!" could be counted singly, it did not mean that "an ignorant arithmetic could carry us away to the idea of a plurality of G.o.ds . . . Count if you must, but you must not by counting do damage to the faith!"40 As Pelikan shrewdly remarks, the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity did not lead to any greater knowledge of G.o.d. It just increased the extent to which he was unknowable! As Pelikan shrewdly remarks, the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity did not lead to any greater knowledge of G.o.d. It just increased the extent to which he was unknowable!41 The formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity did not mean, of course, that it was adopted as orthodoxy. Imperial support for the doctrine was essential, which made it necessary for the emperor to enforce the Nicene Creed. The Cappadocian Fathers developed their ideas in an imperial context that was still h.o.m.oean. Valens, emperor from 364 until his humiliating death at Adrianople in 378, was a keen supporter of Constantius' settlement of 360, and he actively promoted bishops in the h.o.m.oean cause. It was in this climate that large numbers of Goths were converted to Christianity. Although "a bishop of Gotha" had attended the Council of Nicaea, the first widespread conversion of the Goths came at the hands of the missionary Ulfila, a descendant of a Roman taken prisoner by the Goths. Ulfila was a remarkable man, fluent in Latin, Greek and Gothic and clearly an inspired missionary. He was consecrated bishop in 341 and worked with the Goths beyond the borders through the 340s. However, persecution drove him back into the empire with many of his flock, and Constantius gave him shelter. Ulfila supported the h.o.m.oean creed and in particular had great reverence for the scriptures, which he himself translated into Gothic (probably creating "the Gothic alphabet" in the process). The Goths' adherence to h.o.m.oean Christianity was consolidated when Valens insisted that Goths who entered the empire convert to his favoured formulation of Christianity; soon h.o.m.oean Christianity became inextricably a.s.sociated with the ethnic ident.i.ty of all the Gothic groups. They were to take it with them on their later migrations into the disintegrating empire.42 When Valens died, however, h.o.m.oean Christianity lost its main supporter. His successor, Theodosius, was pro-Nicene. Why is not clear. The traditional view is that his beliefs derived from his aristocratic Spanish background. In February 380, while in Thessalonika, which he was using as a base for his campaigns, he announced that the Nicene faith as supported by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria would be the orthodoxy and the alternatives would be punished as heresies. He was still not a baptized Christian, but his views and his determination to impose them appear to have been consolidated when he suffered a severe illness and was baptized by the staunchly pro-Nicene bishop of Thessalonika, Acholius.43 Theodosius then made for Constantinople. His arrival in late 380 was greeted with anger in a city where, in so far as tax exemption would be linked to the new orthodoxy, the majority of Christian communities stood to lose heavily through the imposition of a Nicene solution. Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus, who accompanied him, described his entry into Constantinople as being like that of a conqueror into a defeated city. In January 381 Theodosius issued an imperial decree declaring the doctrine of the Trinity orthodox and expelling h.o.m.oeans and Arians from their churches: "We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendour, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the G.o.dhead."44 The h.o.m.oean bishop Demophilus was removed, and the emperor then called a council of pro-Nicene bishops (there were some 150 of them, "prelates of his own faith," as the fifthcentury church historian Socrates put it, all of them from the east), whose first act was to install Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus as the new bishop of the city. The council appears to have been chaotic-at least according to Gregory, who spoke at one of its later sessions. However, it appears to have proceeded to affirm a creed based on Nicene principles. This affirmation remains one of the mysteries of the period. No record of it survives, and the first reference to a creed from this council comes only in 451, when it was read out twice at the Council of Chalcedon. It emerged then as an expanded form of the Nicene Creed, with the The h.o.m.oean bishop Demophilus was removed, and the emperor then called a council of pro-Nicene bishops (there were some 150 of them, "prelates of his own faith," as the fifthcentury church historian Socrates put it, all of them from the east), whose first act was to install Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus as the new bishop of the city. The council appears to have been chaotic-at least according to Gregory, who spoke at one of its later sessions. However, it appears to have proceeded to affirm a creed based on Nicene principles. This affirmation remains one of the mysteries of the period. No record of it survives, and the first reference to a creed from this council comes only in 451, when it was read out twice at the Council of Chalcedon. It emerged then as an expanded form of the Nicene Creed, with the h.o.m.oousios h.o.m.oousios intact and the Holy Spirit referred to as "Lord and Life-giver who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified together." At Nicaea the Holy Spirit had been mentioned, but with no elaboration of "his" status. This is, of course, consistent with the Trinitarian formulation that had already been decreed by Theodosius in his edict, and in this sense the Council of Constantinople must have bowed to his influence, although the details of t