Church of the East

Normally a topic as broad as part of the history of Christianity is way to large for a Fist of History post, but having read a fascinating book titled The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins recently I had to at least put out a small bit of information on such a fascinating, and unusual chapter of Christian history.  In general the history of Christianity I'd learned could be broken up as follows:

• Originally the Papacy was one patriarch among many others in a Christianity that included the Byzantine Empire and Europe
• The Orthodox and Catholic traditions split over doctrinal issues and the Papacy ended up the head of European Christianity with the Orthodox heading up Christianity in North Africa and the Middle East
• Islamic conquests in the 7th and 8th centuries ended the Orthodox tradition, leaving the Papacy and European Christianity as the "winner" and the Orthodox church a smashed remnant of its former glory

Imagine my shock when I learned that there were actually three major divisions of Christianity, the Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Eastern Church.  The third was a fully fledged additional, and geographically massive, branch of Christianity with its own doctrines, specific traditions, and a rich array of writings on Christian thought and outlook.  This church rested upon, in crudely broad terms, the Nestorian tradition and came down strongly on the idea that Christ was divine and his divinity overwhelmed any mortal aspects of his existence.  Of particular fascination was that the Church of the East used Syriac as their language of choice for writing and Christian thought (versus Greek for the Orthodox and Latin for the Catholic faith.)

The map above shows how extensive the geographic sweep of the Church of the East was at its height in the 8th century, covering the Persian Empire, Central Asia, parts of lower India, all the way out to China and Japan.  At its height it was overseen by a Patriarch named Timothy I (727 to 823, Patriarch of the Church of the East from 780 to 823) considered himself on par with the heads of the Orthodox Church and the Pope based on the number of faithful, territory overseen, and influence wielded.

As a closing example of the odd loss of this history from our common story of Christianity, meet Rabban Bar Sauma, a Nestorian monk who was dispatched in 1287 by the Mongol overlord on a mission to recruit support for a combined Christian assault on Muslim Egypt.  Sauma originated from China and, along with another monk named Markos, undertook a journey of diplomacy and religious pilgrimage into the Middle East.  The two were able to travel safely through a network of monasteries and Christian communities that were part of the Church of the East for most of their journey.  Sauma on his mission was allowed to participate in holy rites in Rome and the King of England took communion from him.  This took place in the 13th century, when a "dream project" of a combined assault by Christian Mongols and Christian Europe on Islam was not only seen as possible but something that just needed to have the details worked out.

As you can probably guess though, things didn't work out and the Church of the East entered into decline and eventually all but vanished.  Which leads to the final surprise, it remained viable and with high numbers of faithful up till the modern century in many areas.  Small remnants of the faith remained hidden away throughout its former territory after prosecution, and within the Middle East sizable Christian communities remained in place until modern persecution finalized their destruction in the early to mid 20th century.  Although the Church of the East had a long period of decline, it remained tenacious and portions of it remain in place even today.

Sources:  Wikipedia entries on Timothy I, the Church of the East, Saint Thomas Christians, and Rabban Bar Sauma, It Happened Today entry on Rabban Bar Sauma, and The Lost History of Christianity, The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia - and How it Died by Philip Jenkins (ISBN 978-0-06-147280-0)

Ahab and Jezebel

Ahab and Jezebel

King Ahab and Queen Jezebel were the royal couple of Israel most vilified by later biblical writers, yet it is Ahab who made Israel and its army one of the strongest on the stage of Near Eastern nations and powers in the early ninth century b.c.e. He fortified and beautified the newly founded capital of Israel, Samaria.

Archaeological excavations show that during his reign cities in various regions of his kingdom were built up so that Israel could withstand attack from neighboring peoples. His reputation gained the attention of the Phoenicians to the north so that one of their priest-kings offered his daughter Jezebel to Ahab in an arranged political marriage.

The Bible records that Ahab fought three or four wars with the dreaded Aramaeans and won two of them. The genius of Ahab’s foreign policy seems to be his peacemaking with Judah to the south, the Philistine states to the west, and Phoenicia to the north. Conserving his resources and limiting his battles allowed him to gain concessions from the Arameans.


The real challenge came from the traditional hotbed of imperial ambition, Mesopotamia. Here the fierce Assyrians were mobilizing their forces to reestablish their empire in the western end of the Fertile Crescent. Only a makeshift alliance of all the kingdoms could stand in Assyria’s way.

The Assyrian records tell of a battlefield victory at Qarqar (853 b.c.e.) in the Orontes Valley in the coastal region of present-day Syria, but it was not decisive enough for the victors to push on toward their goal. Phoenicia was not even touched, much less Israel. Other minor losses for Israel during this time are reported in the Moabite Stone: A small region far to the southeast (present-day Jordan) seceded from the hegemony.

Ahab also knew how to run the internal affairs of a state. He relied on the new capital of Samaria to integrate the non-Israelite interest groups, chiefly the advocates of Baal and Asherah worship, while the older city of Jezreel served as residence to the traditional elements of Israelite culture. This balance suggests that Ahab allowed the building of foreign temples, though he showed some wavering attachment to the Israelite God.

The explanation for this double-mindedness, according to the Bible, was his increasing submission to his Phoenician wife, Jezebel. According to the geologies given in Josephus and other classical sources, she was the great-aunt of Dido, banished princess of Phoenicia and legendary founder of Carthage.

She was an ardent devotee to Baal, working behind the scenes to achieve dominance for her religion and dynasty. She tried to eliminate the all-traditional prophets in Israel and plotted against the famous prophet Elijah.


She outlived her husband by 10 years and only died when her personal staff turned against her in the face of a rebellious general. Her sons and daughter went on to rule: Ahaziah was king for two years after Ahab’s death; then her son Joram ruled for eight years; her daughter Athaliah married the king of Judah, then ruthlessly killed all offspring of her own son so that she could rule for six years after her son died.

In the biblical account Elijah, the prophet of Israel, is the unadulterated light that casts the reputation of Ahab and Jezebel into dark shadows. Ahab stands as a pragmatist who compromises his faith and coexists with idolatry, while Jezebel takes on the role of a self-willed and idolatrous shrew whose drive for power undermines divinely balanced government. In the New Testament, Jezebel becomes a type of seductive false prophetess who gives license to immorality and idolatry under the cloak of religion.

Ambrose - Bishop and Theologian

Ambrose - Bishop and Theologian

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, was born in Trier of the noble Aurelian family. His mother moved the family to Rome after the death of his father. Educated in rhetoric and law, Ambrose was first employed in Sirmium and then in c. 370 c.e. as governor of Milan.

After the death of the Arian bishop of Milan, a violent conflict broke out in the city over whether the next bishop would be a Catholic or an Arian. Ambrose intervened to restore peace and was so admired by all that both sides accepted him as a candidate for bishop, although he was not even baptized at the time. He was baptized and consecrated a bishop within a week.

He immediately gave his wealth to the poor and devoted himself to the study of scripture and the Greek fathers of the church. As a bishop, he was famous for his preaching, which was partly responsible for the conversion of the great theologian Augustine of Hippo, whom Ambrose baptized at Easter in 387.


Ambrose’s career was heavily involved with politics. He was continually defending the position of the Catholic Church against the power of the various Roman emperors during his episcopate: Gratian, Maximus, Justina (pro-Arian mother of Valentinian II), and Theodosius I.

He was able to maintain the independence of the church against the civil power in his conflicts with paganism and Arianism. Regarding the former, Ambrose battled with Symmachus, magistrate of Rome, over the Altar of Victory in the Senate: The emperor Gratian had removed the altar in 382, and after Gratian’s death Symmachus petitioned Valentinian II for its restoration. Under Ambrose’s influence, the request was denied.

Arianism received a blow when Ambrose refused to surrender a church for the use of the Arians. His decision was taken as sanctioned by heaven when—in the midst of the controversy—the bodies of the martyrs Gervasius and Protasius were discovered in the church. Ambrose further strengthened the church’s authority before the state in two incidents in which he took a firm stand against the emperor Theodosius I.

One incident involved the rebuilding of the synagogue at Callinicum in 388; the other had to do with the emperor’s rash order that resulted in the massacre of thousands of innocent people at Thessalonica in the summer of 390. Ambrose refused to allow Theodosius to receive the sacraments until he had performed public penance for this atrocity. The reconciliation took place at Christmas 390.

One reason for Ambrose’s influence over Theodosius was that, unlike most Christian emperors who delayed their reception into the church until their deathbed, he had been baptized and so fell under the authority of the church in his private life.

Ambrose’s knowledge of Greek enabled him to introduce much Eastern theology into the West. His works include hymns, letters, sermons, treatises on the moral life, and commentaries on scripture and on the sacraments. He was also a strong supporter of the monastic life in northern Italy.

Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism

The scholarly use and understanding of the word apocalypticism has varied much in the history of research on these topics. The different words associated with apocalypticism each possess their own subtle connotations.

The specific term, apocalypticism, and the many forms associated with it are derived from the first Greek word in the book of Revelation, apokalypsis (revelation). The noun apocalypse refers to the revelatory text itself. The particular worldview found within an apocalypse and the assumptions that it holds about matters concerning the “end times” is referred to as “apocalyptic eschatology.”

The noun apocalypticism refers broadly to the historical and social context of that worldview. When scholars use the word apocalyptic, they typically assume a distinction between the ancient worldview and the body of literature associated with it.


Apocalypticism refers to a worldview that gave rise to a diverse body of literature generally dating from the time of the Babylonian exile down to the Roman persecutions. Characteristic elements of this literature include a revelation of heavenly secrets to a privileged intermediary and the periodization of history.

In these texts the eschatological perspective of the text reinforces the expectation that the era of the author will reach its end very soon. This apocalyptic eschatology suggests that the historical setting of these writings is one of crisis and extreme suffering.

Scholars who work in the area of ancient Jewish and Christian apocalypticism are aware that Jewish apocalyptic literature survived due to ancient Christian appropriation and interest in it. This is because Jewish apocalypticism and the literature associated with it were generally viewed unfavorably by later forms of rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple.

The lack of a developed Jewish interpretive framework for these texts accounts for part of the scholarly problem in determining the precise origins and influences of this phenomenon.

Many historical questions about the social context and the use of these Jewish apocalyptic writings in ancient Jewish communities remain unclear and largely theoretical. What is certain is that Christian communities were responsible for the preservation and transmission of these writings, and they appropriated the worldview and the literary forms of Jewish apocalypticism.

Scholars have long sought to identify the origins of Jewish apocalypticism with little consensus. Many have presumed that Jewish apocalyptic eschatology grew out of earlier biblical forms of prophetic eschatology. Other scholars have proposed a Near Eastern Mesopotamian influence on Jewish apocalypticism.

While there is no clear trajectory from Mesopotamian traditions to Jewish apocalyptic, and admittedly no Mesopotamian apocalypses exist, there exist some striking resemblances between the two. Some shared characteristics include an emphasis on the interpretation of mysterious signs and on predestination. The motifs of otherworldly journeys and dreams are also prominent in both Mesopotamian traditions and Jewish apocalypticism.

Other scholars have observed a Persian influence upon Jewish apocalypticism. Present in both is the struggle between light and darkness (good and evil) and the periodization of history.

Identifying the relationship between Jewish apocalypticism and other traditions has been complex because some of these elements (e.g., otherworldly journeys and revelatory visions) become common to the Greco-Roman world as well. While early Jewish apocalyptic was rooted in biblical prophecy, later forms of apocalypticism from the Greek period have more in common with wisdom literature.

Literary Genre

Scholars often make a distinction between the general phenomenon of apocalypticism and the literary genre of “apocalypse.” A group of scholars led by J. J. Collins formulated the following frequently cited definition of the literary genre of apocalypse in 1979: “‘Apocalypse’ is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.”

Texts associated with apocalypticism are characterized by an understanding that salvation from a hostile world depends on the disclosure of divine secrets.

The only example of an apocalypse from the Hebrew Bible is the book of Daniel. Other well-known examples of apocalypses include the writings of Enoch and Jubilees and the traditions associated with them, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, and Apocalypse of Abraham.

Some texts from Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls present a worldview that is properly described as apocalyptic but do not qualify as examples of the literary genre (e.g., “Instruction on the Two Spirits” from the Community Rule text and the War Scroll).

The last book in the New Testament, known as the Apocalypse of John, is an example of a Christian apocalypse. The canonicity of this book was not accepted at first in the East. The book is a record of the visions of John while he was exiled on the island of Patmos and possesses a prophetic authority among Christian communities throughout history.

Highly symbolic language, the presumption of a cataclysmic battle, and the disclosure of heavenly secrets to a privileged intermediary make this text a classic example of the genre. Other examples of Christian apocalypse outside the Bible include the Ascension of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Paul.

Twelve Apostles

Twelve Apostles

The word disciple is used most often in Greek philosophical circles to describe a committed follower of a master (such as Socrates). Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth had many such disciples, besides the 12 who became the apostles of the church.

For example, Luke 6:13 hints at the existence of a larger circle of disciples: “And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them 12, whom he named apostles.” Among the disciples who were not chosen as the 12 were women. This is noteworthy because few masters in the time of Jesus had female disciples.

Beyond these disciples, many men and women were drawn to Jesus and followed him casually. The Gospels call them “crowds.” Jesus shared with the disciples thoughts that were kept from the crowds.


For example, according to Mark, after Jesus had finished telling parables to the crowds, the disciples came to Jesus to learn their hidden meanings. The reason for this private tutoring was that the disciples were expected to develop ears and eyes to discern the true and deeper meaning of Jesus’ teachings.

The 12 who were chosen, however, followed Jesus even more fully than the other disciples by leaving behind everything they had, including their jobs and families. The 12 were allowed to witness private details of Jesus’ life not available to the other disciples.

For example, only the 12 were with Jesus on the night of his arrest. According to the synoptic Gospels and Acts, the names of the 12 were Simon Peter; James, son of Zebedee; John; Andrew; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James, son of Alphaeus; Thaddaeus (Judas); Simon the Cananaean; and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus.

Unlike the other names, Simon Peter, Philip, and James, son of Alphaeus, consistently occupy the same positions (first, fifth, and ninth, respectively) on the list. Based on this observation, it has been suggested that the 12 were organized into groups of four and that Peter, Philip, and James, son of Alphaeus, were their group leaders. This intriguing suggestion, however, has no hard evidence for support.

As far as we know, the 12 were all from Galilee. Peter, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen, who, except perhaps Andrew, constituted the innermost circle of Jesus’ apostles. Simon Peter was the undisputed leader of the 12. Andrew was his brother and introduced him to Jesus.

According to tradition, Andrew preached in Greece, Asia Minor (Turkey), and the areas north and northwest of the Black Sea. Tradition claims that he was martyred in Patras. A late tradition claims him to be the founder of the church of Constantinople, the seat of the Greek Church.

James and John, sons of Zebedee, were also brothers. Possessors of a fiery temper and ambition, they asked Jesus to appoint them to sit at his left and right hand when his kingdom came. James (known also as James the Greater to distinguish him from James, son of Alphaeus) became the first of the apostles to be martyred under Herod Agrippa I.

According to tradition, James had preached in Spain before meeting his untimely death in Jerusalem. As for John, tradition claims that he was the beloved disciple who wrote the Gospel of John, the three Epistles of John, and possibly also the book of Revelation.

Tradition also claims that John, having survived a boiling cauldron of oil and banishment to Patmos under Emperor Domitian for preaching the Gospel in Asia Minor, died a natural death in Ephesus in the company of Mary, mother of Jesus. Modern critical scholarship rejects most of these claims.

Philip is best remembered in the New Testament for introducing Nathaniel to Jesus and for asking Jesus to show him the Father. According to tradition, Philip’s ministry and martyrdom took place in Asia Minor. Not much is known about Bartholomew in the New Testament.

According to tradition, he is the same person as Nathaniel in John 1:43–51, the man whom Jesus said was without guile. Tradition claims Bartholomew preached in Armenia and India, among other places.

Thomas, known also as Didymus (Twin), is best remembered as the cynical doubter who wanted to touch the scars on the hands and the body of the resurrected Jesus. Thomas is a prominent figure in the Syriac culture and church, and according to tradition, he preached in India, where he was martyred.

He is also credited with the Gospel of Thomas (reportedly of the Gnostics), which some scholars date to the middle of the first century c.e. Matthew was a tax collector who, according to ancient tradition, was the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. Many scholars reject this tradition, largely because of Matthew’s apparent literary dependence on Mark.

The New Testament gives virtually no information about James, son of Alphaeus (known also as James the Lesser). James and Matthew would be brothers if Matthew is Levi who is also called son of Alphaeus in Mark 2:14. Tradition makes the questionable claim that James the Lesser was a cousin of Jesus.

According to one tradition, he preached in Palestine and Egypt, but according to another, he preached in Persia. Thaddaeus (of Mark 3) is probably the same figure as Judas, son of James (of Luke 6 and Acts 1). Not much is known in the New Testament about this man. According to tradition, he preached in Armenia, Syria, and Persia. In some manuscripts, his name appears as Labbaeus.

Simon the Cananaean is also called Simon the Zealot. It is unclear whether he was a militant type. According to some tradition, his missionary zeal took him to North Africa, Armenia, and possibly even Britain.

Judas Iscariot, the treasurer for the 12, betrayed Jesus to the Jewish authorities who were seeking to kill him. According to Matthew, Judas hanged himself afterward from guilt. After the death of Jesus, Matthias, a man about whom nothing is known in the New Testament except the name, replaced Judas.

According to Armenian tradition, however, Matthias evangelized Armenia alongside Andrew, Bartholomew, Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean. The fact that the disciples of Jesus felt compelled to replace Judas Iscariot with Matthias to complete the number 12 seems to indicate that the 12 were believed to be the heads of a newly constituted Israel.

Simon Peter is also referred to as Cephas in Paul and John. It is perhaps his unaffected humanity, accompanied by unrefined manners, that endeared him to Jesus and the rest of the group. He appears to have been the spokesman for the 12. For example, on the night Jesus was transfigured, he offered to build huts for Jesus as well as Elijah and Moses, who had come to visit Jesus.

The leadership of the church, however, eventually appears to have gone to James, the brother of Jesus. According to ancient tradition, Peter went to Rome, which eventually became the seat of the Latin Church, and preached there and died a martyr, crucified upside down.

Arianism

Arianism

Arianism receives its name from Arius, a Christian priest of Alexandria who taught that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, is not God in the same sense as the Father. He believed that the Son of God did exist before time, but that the Father created him and therefore the Son of God is not eternal like the Father. Arius was accustomed to say of the Son of God: “There was a time when he was not.”

When the bishop Alexander opposed Arius, he took his case to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who had the ear of Emperor Constantine the Great. In order to put an end to the disputes that arose because of Arius’s teaching, Constantine called for a general council that met at Nicaea in 325 c.e. Arius and his followers were condemned by 318 bishops at Nicaea who also drew up a creed laying down the orthodox view of the Trinity.

Known as the Nicene Creed, it states that the Son of God is “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father ...” The term used to express the idea that the Son of God is consubstantial, or of the “same substance,” as the Father, homoousios, became a rallying cry for the orthodox side, expressing the unity of nature between the Father and the Son of God.


The years following the Council of Nicaea were turbulent, in which many groups opposed the teaching of the council. The reason Arianism continued to exert influence after its condemnation was due in large part to the emperors of this period. Some were openly sympathetic to this heresy, while others—wanting political peace and unity in the empire—tried to force compromises that were unacceptable to those fighting for the Son of God’s equality with the Father.

Some bishops were orthodox in their understanding of the Son of God as truly God, but they were opposed to the word homoousios because they could not find it in scripture. Others feared that the word smacked of Sabellianism—an earlier heresy that had made no ultimate distinction between the Father and the Son of God, holding that the divine persons were merely different modes of being God.

The defender of the orthodox position was Athanasius, the successor to Alexander in the diocese of Alexandria. Athanasius vigorously opposed all forms of Arianism, teaching that the Son must be God in the fullest sense since he reunites us to God through his death on the cross.

One who is not truly God, he argued, cannot bring us a share in the divine life. Athanasius went into exile five times for his indefatigable defense of Nicaea. A synod held under his presidency in Alexandria in 362 rallied together the orthodox side after clearing up misunderstandings due to terminology.

This synod, along with the efforts of the Cappadocians, theologians who took up the banner of orthodoxy after Athanasius’s death, paved the way for the Council of Constantinople in 381, which reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and its condemnation of Arianism.

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine of Hippo

Born in 354 c.e. to a pagan father and a Christian mother, (St.) Monica, in Tagaste in North Africa, Augustine received a classical education in rhetoric on the path to a career in law. During his studies at Carthage in his 19th year, he read Cicero’s Hortensius and was immediately converted to the pursuit of wisdom and truth for its own sake.

In this early period at Carthage he also became involved with the ideas of Mani and Manichaeanism, which taught that good and evil are primarily ontological realities, responsible for the unequal, tension-filled cosmos in which we live.

However, the inability of their leaders to solve Augustine’s problems eventually led the young teacher to distance himself from the group. Leaving the unruly students of Carthage in 383, Augustine attempted to teach at Rome only to abandon the capital in favor of a court position in Milan the following year.


This step brought him into contact with the bishop of Milan, Ambrose, whose preaching was instrumental—along with the writings of the philosophers of Neoplatonism—in convincing Augustine of the truth of Christianity. He could not commit himself to the moral obligations of baptism, however, because of his inability to live a life of continence.

His struggle for chastity is movingly told in his autobiographical work Confessions: Hearing of the heroic virtue of some contemporaries who abandoned everything to become monks, Augustine felt the same high call to absolute surrender to God but was held back by his attachment to the flesh. However, in a moment of powerful grace which came from reading Romans 13:12–14, he was able to reject his sinful life and to choose a permanent life of chastity as a servant of God.

This decision led him first to receive baptism at Ambrose’s hands (Easter 387 c.e.) and then to return to North Africa to establish a monastery in his native town of Tagaste. In 391 he was ordained a priest for the town of Hippo, followed by his consecration as bishop in 395.

In his 35 years as bishop Augustine wrote numerous sermons, letters, and treatises that exhibit his penetrating grasp of the doctrines of the Catholic faith, his clear articulation of difficult problems, his charitable defense of the truth before adversaries and heretics, and his saintly life.

Augustine’s theology was largely shaped by three heresies that he combated during his episcopacy: Manicheanism, Donatism, and Pelagianism. As a former Manichee himself, he was intent on challenging their dualistic notion of god: He argued that there is only one God, who is good and who created a good world. Evil is not a being opposed to God but a privation of the good, and therefore has no existence of itself.

Physical evil is a physical imperfection whose causes are to be found in the material world. Moral evil is the result of a wrong use of free will. In fighting Donatism, Augustine dealt with an ingrained church division that held that the clerics of the church had themselves to be holy in order to perform validly the sacraments through which holiness was passed to the congregation.

In rebutting the Donatists, Augustine laid the foundation for sacramental theology for centuries to come. He insisted that the church on earth is made up of saints and sinners who struggle in the midst of temptations and trials to live a more perfect life. The church’s holiness comes not from the holiness of her members but from Christ who is the head of the church.

Christ imparts his holiness to the church through the sacraments, which are performed by the bishops and priests as ministers of Christ. In the sacraments Christ is the main agent, and the ministers are his hands and feet on earth, bringing the graces of the head to the members.

Augustine’s last battle was in defense of grace. Pelagius, a British monk, believed that the vast majority of people were spiritually lazy. What they needed was to exert more willpower to overcome their vices and evil habits and to do good works.

Pelagius denied that humans inherit original sin of their ancestor Adam, the legal guilt inherent in the sin, or its effects on the soul, namely a weakening of the will with an inclination toward sin. He believed that human nature, essentially good, is capable of good and holy acts on its own. In his thought grace is only given by God as an aid to enlighten the mind in its discernment of good and evil.

For Augustine, whose own conversion was due to an immense grace of God, the attribution of goodness to the human will was tantamount to blasphemy. God and only God was holy. If humanity could accomplish any good at all, it was because God’s grace—won through the merits of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth—was freely given to aid the will in choosing good.

Grace strengthens the will by attracting it through innate love to what is truly good. Thus Christ’s redemption not only remits the sins of one’s past but continually graces the life of the believer in all his or her moral choices. In the midst of this long controversy (c. 415–430) Augustine also developed a theology of the fall of Adam, of original sin, and of predestination.

Augustine is probably best known for his Confessions, his autobiography up to the time of his return to North Africa, and for the City of God, undertaken as his response to both the pagans and the Christians after the sacking of Rome in 410, the former because they attributed it wrongly to divine retribution and the latter because their faith was shaken by the horrific event.